Printable Version of Topic

-Antievolution.org Discussion Board
+--Forum: After the Bar Closes...
+---Topic: FL "Debate Thread" started by deadman_932


Posted by: deadman_932 on Sep. 12 2009,22:15

This is the  "FL DEBATE" Thread


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

     

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
FL Wrote  ( < From PT thread HERE > )

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

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

[snip]

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

(my emphases & other changes  -- DM_932)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



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

NOTE TO AtBC USERS:

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

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

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

Thanks for your cooperation. Cheers.
Posted by: FloydLee on Sep. 14 2009,02:44

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

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

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

FL  (Floyd Lee, aka Mellotron)
Posted by: FloydLee on Sep. 14 2009,02:49

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

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

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

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

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

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

       

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

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



       

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

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

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

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



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

       

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

 

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

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

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

         

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

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

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



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

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

******

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

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

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

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

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

My next post will offer a short list of the primary reasons why evolution is not compatible with Christianity.
Posted by: deadman_932 on Sep. 14 2009,05:07

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

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
" I’m not an atheist...I have called myself a provisional deist. That is to say I’m willing to consider the possibility of an ultimate cause. But we haven’t really come close to grasping what that might be."
< From interview here >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Wilson -- like Darwin did -- merely discarded those bits of dogma and Biblical literalism that were incompatible with reality. Pity you can't manage that.
See, Darwin wrote in his autobiography that a man can undoubtedly be an "ardent Theist & an evolutionist" (he mentions Kingsley and Asa Gray as examples of such).
     

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
"It seems to me absurd to doubt that a man may be an ardent Theist & an evolutionist. — You are right about Kingsley. Asa Gray, the eminent botanist, is another case in point— What my own views may be is a question of no consequence to any one except myself.— But as you ask, I may state that my judgment often fluctuates. Moreover whether a man deserves to be called a theist depends on the definition of the term: which is much too large a subject for a note. In my most extreme fluctuations I have never been an atheist in the sense of denying the existence of a God ." < Darwin Project Letter 12041 — to John Fordyce, 7 May 1879 >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

     

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



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


EPISCOPAL CHURCH, General Convention (2006)
     

---------------------QUOTE-------------------

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



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

PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH (1967) General Assembly-approved theological statement on the subject:
     

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
"Neither Scripture, our Confession of Faith, nor our Catechisms, teach the Creation of man by the direct and immediate acts of God so as to exclude the possibility of evolution as a scientific theory...Our responsibility as Christians is to deal seriously with the theories and findings of all scientific endeavors, evolution included...We conclude that the true relation between the evolutionary theory and the Bible is that of non-contradiction ." < http://www.pcusa.org/theologyandworship/science/evolution.htm >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH (2002) General Assembly statement:

     

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



-----------------------------------
THE UNITED METHODIST CHURCH (2008)
Amendment to "The Book of Discipline of The United Methodist Church."
     

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


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

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

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

1. The Pope is a Christian.

2. The Pope holds that evolution happens.

3. Therefore, Evolution is compatible with Christianity.

A simple three-line proof.

FL now has only five options:

A -- Contend that statement 1 is false.

B -- Contend that statement 2 is false.

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

D -- Accept that statement 3 is true.

OR

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

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

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

My money is that you'll merely try to use a combination of "A" and "E" then launch into a Gish Gallop while ignoring actually facing the reality of your instant loss.
Posted by: Dale_Husband on Sep. 14 2009,17:23

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

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

Facts do not lie, but people, including those who write what they claim are sacred scriptures, often do.
Posted by: Dan on Sep. 14 2009,17:51

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

In this thread, FL says he will "focus on civility," yet he calls this gentle and thoughtful man "Big Daddy Chuck Darwin".  FL, is this your idea of civility?  Do you really think you're giving a good name to Christianity by behaving this way?
Posted by: Reed on Sep. 14 2009,20:20

FloydLee, you have attributed various effects "evolution" but you have not specified what you mean by the term. Evolution is commonly defined as (< ref >)
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
... any change in the frequency of alleles within a gene pool from one generation to the next.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


If you are actually talking about something else, such as universal common descent, abiogenesis or speciation you should say so.
Posted by: Peter Henderson on Sep. 15 2009,16:02

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

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

 

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



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

However, this is in direct conflict with AiG and CMI, who appear to have infiltrated the denomination.
Posted by: Dan on Sep. 15 2009,18:23

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

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

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

Howard Van Till: The article

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

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

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

Let's be clear about the point of logic: Even if all of FL's examples were valid, that still wouldn't show that "evolution is incompatible with Christianity".  But it's still noteworthy that only one of FL's four examples is valid.
Posted by: FloydLee on Sep. 15 2009,23:30

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

 

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



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

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

 

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

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

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



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

 

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

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

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

--Slate.com, May 21, 2006
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



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

 

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

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

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



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

******

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

FloydLee
Posted by: FloydLee on Sep. 16 2009,00:30

Let us continue with Deadman:

 

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



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

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

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

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

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

******

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

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
The view that evolution is inherently antireligious is simply false.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



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

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

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

******

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

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

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

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



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

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

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



 

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

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

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



******

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

FloydLee
Posted by: deadman_932 on Sep. 16 2009,00:37

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

What the hell does this mean?;

"And yet, Darwin unfortunately couldn't cite himself in support of that claim, could he?  Oh, no no.  He dropped out of Christianity AND theism and wound up, AFAIK, dying as an agnostic.  "
Posted by: Dale_Husband on Sep. 16 2009,01:01

Did you notice that FL completely ignored my comment?
:D
Posted by: FloydLee on Sep. 16 2009,01:08

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

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

******

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

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

 

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

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

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



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

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

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

 

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

The process cannot have a goal, any more than than erosion has the goal of forming canyons, for the future cannot cause material events in the past."  ---EB3, pg 342.  
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



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

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

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

 

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

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



Can you hear what you guys are actually SAYING here?

FloydLee
Posted by: Stanton on Sep. 16 2009,01:18

I want to point out some things concerning the situation

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

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

3) And notice how FL never advocates abandoning the use of the numerous products made possible through evolution or through any sciences that utilize evolutionary biology and or its offshoots, products like antibiotics, vaccines, petroleum products, dinosaur-themed products, food made from domesticated plants and animals, or the keeping, raising and breeding of domesticated plants and animals.  The last time I brought this to FL's attention, he had the moronic, hypocritical gall to claim that because these things were actually the products of microevolution, it was perfectly okay to reject evolution while still using such products without fearing for their immortal souls.
Posted by: FloydLee on Sep. 16 2009,01:26



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



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

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

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

******



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



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

FloydLee
Posted by: Stanton on Sep. 16 2009,01:33

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


That is because the sole purpose of FL being here is to preach at us, not to discuss anything, not to debate anything, and most definitely not to speak the truth about anything.
Posted by: FloydLee on Sep. 16 2009,01:42



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



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

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

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

FloydLee
Posted by: FloydLee on Sep. 16 2009,01:52



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Did you notice that FL completely ignored my comment?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



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

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

Okay, let's first lay down the final two incompatibilites Dale,
then I'll do your question there.    :)
Posted by: FloydLee on Sep. 16 2009,03:02

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

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

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

******

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

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

         

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

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



 

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

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



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

******

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Here, check out this evolutionist example---this guy knows the score:
         

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
"Destroy Adam and Eve and the original sin, and in the rubble you will find the sorry remains of the son of god.

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


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

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



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

******

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

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

FloydLee
Posted by: FloydLee on 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.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



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.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



FloydLee
Posted by: FloydLee on Sep. 16 2009,03:37



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



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
Posted by: deadman_932 on Sep. 16 2009,03:50

Okay, to recap:

-----------------------------------------
Floyd Lee: False on each and every belief!!! Yay
Posted by: deadman_932 on Sep. 16 2009,03:57

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

Hundreds of millions agree with you.
Posted by: dheddle on Sep. 16 2009,04:25

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

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

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



---------------------CODE SAMPLE-------------------

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

---------------------CODE SAMPLE-------------------



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

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------

12Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all men, because all sinned— 13for before the law was given, sin was in the world. But sin is not taken into account when there is no law. 14Nevertheless, death reigned from the time of Adam to the time of Moses, even over those who did not sin by breaking a command, as did Adam, who was a pattern of the one to come.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


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

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

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

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

 

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I understand how many of my fellow Christians are YECs. While I disagree with the YEC position it doesn’t bother me nor prevent fellowship.  But this particular extension of the argument—i.e., that “we have studied this problem have concluded that death before the fall would render the gospel impotent and the creator of the universe powerless to redeem his people” is so arrogant (and also intractable —a bad combination—like the basketball player who is small but slow) that it makes my blood boil. But as I said—F.L. is too liberal for my tastes.
Posted by: deadman_932 on Sep. 16 2009,04:35

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


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


Excuse me for saying you guys are weird
Posted by: Dan on Sep. 16 2009,05:52

Quote (FloydLee @ Sep. 16 2009,01:42)
 

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



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

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

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

FloydLee
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



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

We are asking only for civility.
Posted by: Pompous Bore on Sep. 16 2009,07:33

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

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

or more specifically that

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

I would have thought that Deadman's example of the Pope, among others, is enough to refute (1) - clearly, some (in fact many) people who consider themselves to be Christians find Evolution to be compatible with their Christianity. So I suspect that you are arguing for (2) - with the implication that those who call themselves Christian but accept evolution are, in your view, not truly Christians (or are at least mistaken about the true nature of Christianity and its compatibility with evolution). Have I interpreted you correctly?
Posted by: SLP on Sep. 16 2009,08:02

Quote (FloydLee @ Sep. 16 2009,01:52)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Did you notice that FL completely ignored my comment?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



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

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

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


Unless you are a 14 year old with dreams of living like the bling-dripping talentless "musicians" you see on MTV reality shows, stop writing and acting as if you are, Floyd.
Posted by: Robin on Sep. 16 2009,08:36

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

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

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

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

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



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.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



FloydLee
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


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

KC


Posted by: Dr.GH on 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-------------------





---------------------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.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------




(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.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------




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.


Posted by: FloydLee on 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
Posted by: dheddle on 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
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Fair enough.
Posted by: someotherguy on 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?
Posted by: Dale_Husband on 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-------------------

 
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
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


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?
Posted by: Dale_Husband on 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-------------------



 

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

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: csadams on 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.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



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.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



FloydLee
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Have any of you checked FL's quotes for accuracy?  Not that FL has a history of, um, < needing checking on > or anything . . .
Posted by: Stephen Elliott on 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-------------------



     

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

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


---------------------QUOTE-------------------


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!   :(
Posted by: nmgirl on 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?
Posted by: nmgirl on 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?
Posted by: Dr.GH on 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?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I'll ask FL if he would even grant they are Christian? He has the direct line to Heaven.
Posted by: Reciprocating Bill on 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.
Posted by: Stanton on 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?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


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?
Posted by: The Wayward Hammer on 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.
Posted by: Dan on 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.
Posted by: Stanton on 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.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


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.
Posted by: Keelyn on 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?
Posted by: Reed on 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?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


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.
Posted by: Keelyn on 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?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


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.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



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.
Posted by: FloydLee on 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.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


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
Posted by: k.e.. on 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-------------------



       

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

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


---------------------QUOTE-------------------


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!   :(
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


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.
Posted by: FloydLee on 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?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



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
Posted by: FloydLee on 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?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


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
Posted by: FloydLee on 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?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


See my response to Someotherguy's question,

(It's just a couple posts previously, see "Posted on Sep. 17 2009, 10:07".)
Posted by: FloydLee on Sep. 17 2009,10:53



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


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
Posted by: Richardthughes on 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?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


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

*snip*
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Are they Christians?
Posted by: Stanton on 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.
Posted by: FloydLee on 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?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Nope, the schools should NOT stop teaching those science subjects, not even stop teaching biology, not even stop using the canned Darwin Dogma Dogfood textbooks that they're using right now.

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
Posted by: Stanton on 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?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


See my response to Someotherguy's question,

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


The words "hypocritical" and "inconsistent" come to mind to describe your response to Someotherguy's question, actually.
Posted by: Richardthughes on Sep. 17 2009,11:11

Floyd,
If reality is at odds with your interpretation of a book, then at least one of these is true:

Reality is wrong
Your interpretation is wrong
Your book is wrong
Posted by: Stanton on Sep. 17 2009,11:12

Quote (FloydLee @ Sep. 17 2009,11:07)
(1) start educating themselves (and their fellow Christians, and their clergy and teachers and choir memebers and Sunday School and CCIA groups) with the specific details of how evolution is incompatible with Christianity and is eroding and corroding Christian faith.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Like how the Pope really isn't a Christian?



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
(2) start supporting positive Science Education Reform by initiating and supporting positive, critical-thinking-oriented changes in State Science Standards such as what Louisiana and Texas have successfully accomplished.   THAT's the way to do things right!

FloydLee
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Then explain why Texas and Louisiana are "successful" if their science education programs rank the very worst in the nation.
Posted by: Occam's Toothbrush on Sep. 17 2009,11:27



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
You won't see public claims of:

"Meteorology does not admit conscious anticipation of the future (ie consious forethought)..."

"Physics is a completely mindless process..."

"(Chemistry and the Brain) -- With all deference to religious people, the notion that humans were created in the image of God can be set aside."

"Astronomy rejects all supernatural phenomena and causations."

No.  No sir.   These kinds of public pronouncements are found only within--and are inherently part of-- EVOLUTION.  Evolution is incompatible with Christianity
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Non-involvement of supernatural causation isn't an entailment of evolutionary theory any more than it is an entailment of theories of meterology or chemistry.  None of these theories include supernatural causation, because no evidence for such has been found, and because each discipline continues to advance and expand without it (and in the case of biology, repeatedly explaining many that-which-science-cannot-explain questions your intellectual predecessors used in their anti-evolution arguments).  

What you're arguing against is statements by individuals about what they think or believe--statements which I doubt you could find many examples of, had religious activists not spent the last 150 years insisting there must be supernatural involvement in biology (as they generally do not with the other disciplines), and accusing biologists of culpability for everything from bad breath to Hitler for their crime of following wherever the evidence leads.  

You may wish to believe evolution is wrong, or that it is partially correct but your god was involved at some point--go ahead; just admit you're doing so without the kind of evidence you require of any other branch of science.  But either way there's nothing about the science of evolution that says a god couldn't have been involved, so you're really just arguing with the opinions of individuals, not the scientific framework of evolution.  Once you come up with real, verifiable evidence of supernatural involvement, I promise you'll win a Nobel prize and your evidence will be integrated into the theory.  Deal?
Posted by: FloydLee on Sep. 17 2009,12:47



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
What you're arguing against is statements by individuals about what they think or believe...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Actually, Futuyma's statement of NT-NCF in his evolutionary biology textbook was directly ascribed to "evolutionary theory" itself, NOT to Futuyma's individual or personal opinion:
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
"Evolutionary theory does not admit...."
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Furthermore, there are so many evolutionists saying and teaching "Evolution has no goal"  (for example, Futuyma, Mayr, Coyne's Why Evolution is True, and Biology 391 Online at Univ. of Tenn. at Martin),
that at this point you'd need to show that such a statement was merely a matter of individual opinion instead of the clear solid no-waffling position of evolutionary theory itself.
Posted by: FloydLee on Sep. 17 2009,12:48



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Reality is wrong
Your interpretation is wrong
Your book is wrong
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


....Or perhaps somebody's naturalistic interpretation of reality is wrong?
Posted by: Richardthughes on Sep. 17 2009,12:58

Quote (FloydLee @ Sep. 17 2009,12:48)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Reality is wrong
Your interpretation is wrong
Your book is wrong
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


....Or perhaps somebody's naturalistic interpretation of reality is wrong?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Hate to break this to you floyd, but if you doubt naturalism, cause and effect, the uniformity of nature etc. then your book is also up for grabs. Infact, better not read it again incase it eats you, which could happen in 'your world'.
Posted by: Keelyn on Sep. 17 2009,13:03

Quote (FloydLee @ Sep. 17 2009,13:48)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Reality is wrong
Your interpretation is wrong
Your book is wrong
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


....Or perhaps somebody's naturalistic interpretation of reality is wrong?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



It is just so typical of a YEC to make a ridiculous statement like that.
Posted by: FloydLee on Sep. 17 2009,13:34



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
To phrase a coin, that's not even halibut.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You sure about that, Amadan?  Stop by the main debate board and supply some actual reasons (preferably specific reasons) for your assertion there.  Thanks!
Posted by: Occam's Toothbrush on Sep. 17 2009,14:03

Quote (FloydLee @ Sep. 17 2009,13:47)
     

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
What you're arguing against is statements by individuals about what they think or believe...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Actually, Futuyma's statement of NT-NCF in his evolutionary biology textbook was directly ascribed to "evolutionary theory" itself, NOT to Futuyma's individual or personal opinion:
         

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
"Evolutionary theory does not admit...."
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Furthermore, there are so many evolutionists saying and teaching "Evolution has no goal"  (for example, Futuyma, Mayr, Coyne's Why Evolution is True, and Biology 391 Online at Univ. of Tenn. at Martin),
that at this point you'd need to show that such a statement was merely a matter of individual opinion instead of the clear solid no-waffling position of evolutionary theory itself.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


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.
Posted by: J-Dog on Sep. 17 2009,14:07

Quote (FloydLee @ Sep. 17 2009,13:34)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
To phrase a coin, that's not even halibut.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You sure about that, Amadan?  Stop by the main debate board and supply some actual reasons (preferably specific reasons) for your assertion there.  Thanks!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


My money's on the Irish fella.  I think we know a little something about religious wars troubles.
Posted by: someotherguy on Sep. 17 2009,14:16

Quote (FloydLee @ Sep. 17 2009,10:07)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
doesn't the Bible at times refer to natural weather phenomenon as being under the control of God, yet modern meteorology does not make room for the kinds of teleological processes written about in the Bible.  In what real sense then is meteorology more compatible with Christianity than evolutionary biology?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



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
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Your comment has already been addressed by others, but I have a question.  

If all the Evolutionary Biology textbooks take out any overt statements about teleology like the ones you listed below (note:  this would not include taking out explanations for how natural selection and mutation work), which would then make the textbooks just as "silent" on the issue of teleology as the other sciences, would you then concede that evolution is compatible with Christianity?  If not, why not?
Posted by: SLP on Sep. 17 2009,14:35

never mind
Posted by: SLP on Sep. 17 2009,14:38

Quote (FloydLee @ Sep. 17 2009,11:07)

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Floyd wrotes:


---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Nope, the schools should NOT stop teaching those science subjects, not even stop teaching biology, not even stop using the canned Darwin Dogma Dogfood textbooks that they're using right now.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------




I say to that:

S'mo fo butter layin' to the bone. Jackin' me up. Tightly.
What it is big mamma, my mamma didn't raise no dummy, I dug her rap.
Posted by: Dale_Husband on Sep. 17 2009,14:45

Quote (FloydLee @ Sep. 17 2009,10:07)
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
doesn't the Bible at times refer to natural weather phenomenon as being under the control of God, yet modern meteorology does not make room for the kinds of teleological processes written about in the Bible.  In what real sense then is meteorology more compatible with Christianity than evolutionary biology?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



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
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Actually, ALL parts of science rely on methological naturalism, not just evolution. It's just that religious fanatics like you keep asserting, without any real evidence, that life could not have arisen without supernatural intervention. In science, the proper answer to that question is, "We do not know yet."  You no longer assert that God controls the weather for two reasons:

1. It makes you look totally rediculous to do so, since the causes of changing weather patterns ARE well known and have been for decades.

2. When storms, droughts, heat waves and floods occur, it makes God look evil to say He is responsible for them.

Posted by: Dale_Husband on Sep. 17 2009,14:55

When you read the Sermon on the Mount, does it say anything against evolution? Not that I've ever seen. Isn't following its teachings and other statements by Jesus what being a Christian is all about? Isn't being a Christian about following Jesus, not following some particular interpretation that assumes the Genesis creation myths are literally true?
Posted by: Occam's Toothbrush on Sep. 17 2009,14:56



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
at this point you'd need to show that such a statement was merely a matter of individual opinion instead of the clear solid no-waffling position of evolutionary theory itself
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Evolutionary theory doesn't entail the conclusions you claim those scientists ascribe to it, and I don't need to explain why individual people said specific things in order to state that there's nothing about the theory that precludes teleology.  The fact that the theory does not currently contain teleology is a different issue.  

There are an endless number of things one could complain are not included in a given theory, but every single one of those is excluded not by dogma and orthodoxy but because of the lack of evidence for them.  Provide the evidence for teleology, for ID, for whatever you can support with evidence and a falsifiable hyopthesis that withstands vigorous testing, and it will have to be included.  You aren't even trying, and neither are any of your IDC betters.  What's the hypothesis?  You don't have one and I predict you never will.  

I think you can't accept this because you can only think in terms of dogma and orthodoxy (your obsession here with defining who is and is not a True Christian is exhibit #1), and so can only conceive of evolution in those terms.  Your sad Jebus-vs-whatever culture war is the only thing you know, and the only thing you care about, when it comes to your thinking about science and evolution.
Posted by: Reed on Sep. 17 2009,15:33

I know others have already addressed this, but I feel the need to pile on.
   
Quote (FloydLee @ Sep. 17 2009,08:07)
The big difference is that if you will go to a meteorology textbook, or a physics textbook, or a chemistry science journal article, you will see that they are SILENT on the issue of teleology.  
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Any theory invoking supernatural explanations in any of these fields would be immediately be rejected as unscientific. If you are in a meteorology class, and on your quiz is a question that asks "Describe how thunderstorms form" answering "the wrath of Thor" will get you an F. So will "an unspecified, intelligent and possibly supernatural entity causes them."

IMO, you have completely misunderstood (to be charitable) the point of the comments you've quoted excluding teleology in evolution. They are not about creationism or id. Supernatural causes are already excluded from all science. The point of these statements is to explicitly rule out common misconceptions of how evolution works. Evolution is frequently perceived in the popular consciousness as having direction and foresight. People think of evolution as progressing along some path from "lower" organisms to "higher" ones, generally with humans at the peak. They also tend to think of specific features having evolved due to some kind of foresight (i.e. "whales evolved flippers so they could swim", rather than "the proto whales with the less flipper like appendages were less likely to reproduce"), or a sort of Lamarckism where the need for a particular feature in the ancestors causes it to appear in the descendants.

These are serious misconceptions which need to be addressed for students properly understand how evolution actually works, but they are not specifically related to the supernatural.
Posted by: creeky belly on Sep. 17 2009,15:53

Moved to peanut gallery. -cb
Posted by: Wolfhound on Sep. 17 2009,17:30

Quote (FloydLee @ Sep. 17 2009,12:07)
(2) start supporting positive Science Education Reform by initiating and supporting positive, critical-thinking-oriented changes in State Science Standards such as what Louisiana and Texas have successfully accomplished.   THAT's the way to do things right!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I always giggle a little bit when religious whackaloons like Floyd bandy about terms like "critical thinking" in conjunction with their belief in a magic man in the sky and his zombie son who is also himself.
Posted by: nmgirl on Sep. 17 2009,18:50

To FL, your allegation that Christianity and evolution are incompatible is patently wrong.  Why? Because I am a christian who believes in evolution.  

Therefore Christianity and evolution are compatible, in me and in millions of other Christians.

God did not give you the right to define what beliefs make a Christian and it is incredibly arrogant to assume you have that right. ("pride goeth before a fall"?)

Ok, i'm done!
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Sep. 17 2009,22:18

some kinda semantic pseudo-ontological silly buggers
Posted by: k.e.. on Sep. 17 2009,23:42

I wonder if we can resurect the AFDave flood meme in FL.

He's almost ready to go from drive by insanity to permanent steady state insanity.

FL what's your timeline for the Earths history and what is your scientific explanation for the Flood?

Any comments on chimpanzees are welcome, I need a good laugh.
Posted by: Dr.GH on Sep. 18 2009,01:07

Quote (Wolfhound @ Sep. 17 2009,15:30)
Quote (FloydLee @ Sep. 17 2009,12:07)
(2) start supporting positive Science Education Reform by initiating and supporting positive, critical-thinking-oriented changes in State Science Standards such as what Louisiana and Texas have successfully accomplished.   THAT's the way to do things right!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I found it very ironic that this year's NAEP Science Achievement Meeting is being held in San Antoniao, Texas. I should take a set of quotes from the creationist whacknuts on the Texas SBE.
Posted by: Quack on Sep. 18 2009,04:55

Quote (Dale_Husband @ Sep. 17 2009,14:55)
When you read the Sermon on the Mount, does it say anything against evolution? Not that I've ever seen. Isn't following its teachings and other statements by Jesus what being a Christian is all about? Isn't being a Christian about following Jesus, not following some particular interpretation that assumes the Genesis creation myths are literally true?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Even better than that; not even Jesus or evolution stand between us and heaven:
     

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
And, behold, a certain lawyer stood up, and tempted him, saying, Master, what shall I do to inherit eternal life?
He said unto him, What is written in the law? how readest thou?
And he answering said, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy strength, and with all thy mind; and thy neighbour as thyself.
And he said unto him, Thou hast answered right: this do, and thou shalt live.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


That's all there is to it, the only problem is identifying the right god; scripture is littered with all kinds of gods.

I am presently reading “Om Gud” by Jonas Gardell. (“About God”) – in Swedish, I wish it would be translated into English.

He is of the right stuff and the kind of person Jesus might have enjoyed mingling with. Gay, standup comedian. After “Om Gud”, he was elected honorary PhD at the theological faculty at Lunds University. He is living in partnership with < Mark Levengood >

His thorough and intelligent analysis of the OT leaves one with little doubt that you haven’t understood a thing if you believe the literal version touted by the literalists.

An unavoidable stumbling stone for literalists are the fact that the only exhibit they have to present to defend their beliefs is the bible; nothing else!

Which is full of gems like Isaia 37:10  to 37:36  where you will find:      

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Then the angel of the LORD went forth, and smote in the camp of the Assyrians a hundred and fourscore and five thousand: and when they arose early in the morning, behold, they were all dead corpses.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


185.000 killed in one night, by an angel of the LORD?

Let this be a warning; don’t keep your nose too close to the bible!

I think the inerrancy of the bible needs to be firmly established by an independent court before we may declare the end of science as we know it.

(Won't mind if moved to peanut gallery.)
Posted by: Dan on Sep. 18 2009,05:04

There are many reasons one might be a Christian -- here are a few I thought of right off hand:  to insure the immortality of one's soul, for social interactions, for the purity of one's soul, to support good works, to expand the good part of one's own personality, to attend confession, to make friends, to make business connections, to insure that you will meet your deceased spouse in the afterlife, in expectation of answered prayer, to provide a moor of stability during difficult times, to make sure you have a place for a nice church wedding, to explain the laws of physics, to explain the origin of life, to explain the diversity of living things, to find a sanctuary of calm in a turbulent world, to support great art and architecture, to immerse oneself -- once a week -- in great art and architecture, to feed one's feeling of the spiritual, to support environmental stewardship, to oppose war, to support social justice, to connect with one's personal history, to connect with one's national heritage, to connect with a world heritage, to be part of a group supporting something larger than one's self.  If you think for a minute or two you can come up with dozens more reasons.

A knowledge of evolution might or might not remove a single one of those reasons: "to explain the diversity of living things".

I imagine that for most people this is a non-reason or very minor reason for being a Christian.  Suppose you handed out a survey to Christians listing all these reasons and more.  How many do you think would check: "I am a Christian because I want to explain the diversity of living things"?

I have not done this, but I can't imagine that more than 0.2% of all Christians hold their faith because they want their faith to explain the diversity of living things.  If my hunch is correct, then only 0.2% of all Christians are at risk of losing their faith due to knowledge of evolution.  Perhaps that's why, even with all his distortions, FL could find only four examples of "loss of faith due to evolution".  (Three of which turned out not to be loss of faith at all.)
Posted by: FloydLee on 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?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


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
Posted by: FloydLee on Sep. 18 2009,08:48



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
FL what's your timeline for the Earths history and what is your scientific explanation for the Flood?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


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.)
Posted by: FloydLee on Sep. 18 2009,08:54



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
God did not give you the right to define what beliefs make a Christian and it is incredibly arrogant to assume you have that right. ("pride goeth before a fall"?)

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Do you believe that certain claims of the Bible define what makes a Christian?  Or do you believe that a Christian is anybody who labels themselves a Christian no matter what they believe or don't believe?
Posted by: Richardthughes on Sep. 18 2009,09:13

Quote (FloydLee @ Sep. 18 2009,08:54)
Do you believe that certain claims of the Bible define what makes a Christian?  
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Which ones, Floyd? How does one know?
Posted by: FloydLee on Sep. 18 2009,09:23

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

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

 

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



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
Posted by: Richardthughes on 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.
Posted by: Reciprocating Bill on 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.
---------------------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?
Posted by: nmgirl on 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?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


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.)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


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?
Posted by: George on 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."
---------------------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.
Posted by: Amadan on 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
Posted by: k.e.. on 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."
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



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
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


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.
Posted by: FloydLee on 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.
Posted by: Richardthughes on Sep. 18 2009,10:14

Do you know what "arguing to (perceived) consequences" is, Floyd?
Posted by: FloydLee on 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?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


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
Posted by: nmgirl on 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.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


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.
Posted by: Stanton on Sep. 18 2009,10:34

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

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


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?
Posted by: FloydLee on 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.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


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
Posted by: Robin on Sep. 18 2009,10:48



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



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.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



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.
Posted by: Stanton on Sep. 18 2009,10:54

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

---------------------QUOTE-------------------

The only rational answer is nope.   Don't stop teaching 'em.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

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.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

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.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


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.
Posted by: k.e.. on 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.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


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.
Posted by: Dan on 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.
Posted by: creeky belly on 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?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


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
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


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)

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: Robin on 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-------------------




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



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.
Posted by: sledgehammer on 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)

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


---------------------QUOTE-------------------


An apt description of Floyd's forays into these fora.
Posted by: sledgehammer on Sep. 18 2009,12:28

(deleted double post)
Posted by: deadman_932 on 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.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


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
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


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 >
Posted by: FloydLee on 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.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


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
Posted by: deadman_932 on 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.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: deadman_932 on 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.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


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
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Notice that my summary above, Floyd Lee thus far has no argument at all.
Posted by: Stanton on 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.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


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
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


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?
Posted by: Stanton on Sep. 18 2009,13:09

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


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.
Posted by: deadman_932 on 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.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


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
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


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

Try to keep up.
Posted by: deadman_932 on 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?
Posted by: JohnW on 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.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


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
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


(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.
Posted by: Sealawr on 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.
Posted by: Louis on Sep. 18 2009,14:17

I said it < before. >



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I'd ask for definitions of three of the five words in the proposition "evolution is incompatible with christianity" before I even ventured an answer.

Possible answers include:

1) Yes

2) Some individuals seem to manage the cognitive dissonance just fine.

3) No

All depends on what you mean by "evolution", or "incompatible", or "christianity". I've yet to see many serious attempts at resolving this (or the large question of science being incompatible with religion) which don't equivocate on terms. In fact most of them equivocate so horrendously as to be vomit worthy.

Louis
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



And I'll say it again. I'll even modify 2) with an addendum that some people formulate their personal theology in such a way that no discernible dissonance exists.

If FL is not pinned down on what he means, he'll hide behind equivocation as he is trying to do now.

Louis
Posted by: Amadan on Sep. 18 2009,14:26

Floyd,

Is it premature to suggest that this discussion will not move beyond the position that "evolution" (however defined) is indeed incompatible with Christianity as you understand it, but that your understanding of Christianity is not shared by (a) theists who loiter in this forum* and (b) the large number of sects and religious leaders who have been cited and referred to by all and sundry?

Your four "incompatibilities" involve questions of theology and exegetics that are of no interest to many here who prefer to focus on science and mutual defamation. (They also raise issues of logic and rationality but frankly, mah deah, I don't give a damn, it's your religion, not mine). The emerging pattern in which someone points out that x is a Christian who does not reject evolutionary theory, simply leads to you sniping at their assertion or ignoring it. This will go nowhere unless all agree on a meaning of "Christianity". History suggests that may be difficult.

If you agree, we can then address your second point, namely, whether ID is science. That too, of course, involves questions of definitions, but I think there's rather more solid ground to go on there.

Do you agree?


* Mugging grannies, mostly
Posted by: FloydLee on Sep. 18 2009,14:37



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


Hey, you can afford to be patient.  I remind you that you have not yet chosen to directly deal with each of the Big Four Incompatibilities.  I was honestly expecting more from you, but you're not making the effort.  Meanwhile:


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Argument from Consequences.....
Arguing that a proposition is true because belief in it has good consequences, or that it is false because belief in it has bad consequences is ***often*** an irrelevancy.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



"Often"---but not always, according to the writer of the piece.  That is really important.

You've been presented with a total of five self-testimonies in which a former Christian has clearly suffered "bad consequences" to their Christian faith (erosion, corrosion, even to the point of dropping their Christian faith and/or continuing in that decision) as a self-confessed partial or indirect result of their belief in evolution.  

I've already suggested that in isolation, none of these cases constitute "proof" that evolution is incompatible with Christianity.  However, they DO show that the incompatibility problem is real and relevant, not hypothetical, not imaginary, and that real people are affected.  

Furthermore, the five examples have been combined with four very clear and documented rational incompatibilities.  These further reinforce the relevancy, and show that the erosion of Christian faith, as demonstrated in the examples, could rationally be based on a very real set of incompatibilities between evolution and Christianity.
Posted by: Richardthughes on Sep. 18 2009,14:42

Floyd, you fail or refuse to understand: Arguments to consequences are based on the fact that reality is not contingent on our approval. It's what *is*, not what we'd *like*.

'If X then my version christianity can't be true' does not let you reject x because you really want your version of Christianity to be true. I like donuts. But they make me fat. I can't say 'donuts wont me make fat because they're so nice'.

How about this flip flop:

"Religion causes man to kill man so religion isn't true, because I don't like the concequences."

Why isn't that true?
Posted by: Robin on Sep. 18 2009,14:53

[quote=FloydLee,Sep. 18 2009,12:58][/quote]


---------------------QUOTE-------------------


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
1. The Pope is a Christian.

2. The Pope holds that evolution happens.

3. Therefore, Evolution is compatible with Christianity.

A simple three-line proof.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


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
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



It would appear, Floyd, that your claim needs to be reworded since clearly you aren't claiming that evolution is incompatible with Christianity. Evolution is, according to the proof above, absolutely compatible with Christianity (even your conservative take on it). What you have now indicated is that evolution doesn't incorporate a conclusion of literal-based Christianity. That strikes me as a rather different issue.
Posted by: Robin on Sep. 18 2009,15:06



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
You've been presented with a total of five self-testimonies in which a former Christian has clearly suffered "bad consequences" to their Christian faith (erosion, corrosion, even to the point of dropping their Christian faith and/or continuing in that decision) as a self-confessed partial or indirect result of their belief in evolution.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Hold the phone - you haven't yet provided any evidence that the erosion of one's Christian faith is somehow "bad" in any relative sense. As I noted earlier, the data seems to indicate otherwise. That people leaving the Christian Church is bad for the Church might be true, but there's no evidence of which I'm aware that suggests that a diminishing of the Christian Church is bad in any kind of general sense. Until you establish such, the 5 examples remain just an appeal to consequence that has no value to the argument. Even combined with your question begging doesn't raise them to a level of providing correlative implications of an incompatibility between Christianity and evolution. All they indicate is that the 5 people's experiences provided a foundation of understanding about the world such that they no longer needed Christianity to find comfort in the world or their lives.

Seems to me that if anything, your issue should be that Christianity is clearly incompatible with peace of mind with the knowledge of the world the way it is. Feel free to argue that point
Posted by: Occam's Toothbrush on Sep. 18 2009,15:20

Quote (Dan @ Sep. 18 2009,13:03)
FL claims that evolution is unteleological and Christianity is teleological, hence evolution is incompatible with Christianity.

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


If this argument were correct, reality would be incompatible with Christianity. But FL's basic issue is that he thinks reality is wrong, and is annoyed that anyone is allowed to disagree with him.
Posted by: FloydLee on Sep. 18 2009,15:35



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I'd ask for definitions of three of the five words in the proposition "evolution is incompatible with christianity" before I even ventured an answer.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Well, we've already defined evolution.  I'm using Campbell-Reece's 2005 textbook definition of macroevolution and microevolution, (previously posted earlier), if anybody here has a question about what's being used when.  

(As you know, many evolutionists often use the word "evolution" without even defining the term.)

You already know what compatible/incompatible means, because some of you are tryin' real hard not to accept that evolution is incompatible with Christianity.

And honestly?  You have a pretty good idea already of the beliefs that are involved with biblical Christianity and I've been careful to relate EACH of the four incompatibilities to a specific and important biblical Christian belief (God-as-required-explanation-for-origins, the Image-Of-God, etc.)

A basic definition of Christianity, indeed becoming a Christian, is as easy to do as reading and understanding John 3:16.  So it's no problem doing a basic definition, just look up one of the online dictionaries.

But like I said, I've already shown where each incompatibility corresponds to a foundational biblical Christian belief.
Posted by: FloydLee on Sep. 18 2009,15:46



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
....some people formulate their personal theology in such a way that no discernible dissonance exists.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Who are these people, specifically?  Are there any in this forum that would be willing to offer such a theology?  (And does the non-discernable dissonance suddenly show up when a Bible is brought to the table?)
Posted by: ppb on Sep. 18 2009,15:47

Quote (FloydLee @ Sep. 18 2009,16:35)
A basic definition of Christianity, indeed becoming a Christian, is as easy to do as reading and understanding John 3:16.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


If becoming a Christian is as easy as reading and understanding John 3:16, then where is the conflict with Evolution?  There is nothing in that passage that mentions anything about origins.
Posted by: Reed on Sep. 18 2009,15:56

Quote (FloydLee @ Sep. 18 2009,12:37)
You've been presented with a total of five self-testimonies in which a former Christian has clearly suffered "bad consequences" to their Christian faith (erosion, corrosion, even to the point of dropping their Christian faith and/or continuing in that decision) as a self-confessed partial or indirect result of their belief in evolution.  
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


So what ? You can find people who will testify that to many different things eroded their faith. A few examples
- Careful reading of the bible.
- Witnessing suffering and loss of life.
- Witnessing hypocrisy in their church.
- Noticing contradiction between various doctrines and the real world.

Are all these things "incompatible" with Christianity ?

Yes, some people have found evolution to be incompatible with their particular brand of christian faith. This does not provide evidence that evolution is inherently incompatible with any form of Christianity.
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------

You already know what compatible/incompatible means, because some of you are tryin' real hard not to accept that evolution is incompatible with Christianity.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


No, we don't know what you mean by incompatible. It's clear that you aren't using the definition most of us would expect (outlined by dan in < http://www.antievolution.org/cgi-bin....t=6313; > st=30#entry153334 ), because if you were, the simple existence of Christians who accept evolution would disprove your point. Since you say this is not so, we can only assume you are using some different definition.

So go ahead, tell us exactly what you mean by "incompatible"
Posted by: FloydLee on Sep. 18 2009,16:10



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
What you have now indicated is that evolution doesn't incorporate a conclusion of literal-based Christianity. That strikes me as a rather different issue.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



That's not what was said in the 3-point set-up.  There was no qualifier of "literal-based" given in the alleged "proof."

The problem with that set-up that breaks down the claim of "a proof" is that just because the Pope says "evolution happened", there is no automatic rational linkage there with the statement "the Pope is a Christian."  THAT line, is maybe what should have been worded differently if the idea was to "prove" compatibility.
Posted by: Sealawr on Sep. 18 2009,16:33

Floyd Lee equivocates as prophesied:

"...biblical Christianity..."

As opposed to other kinds of Christianity?  [See e.g., Catholic position above]

Can we just define "Biblical Christianity" as "Floyd's personal beliefs?"  and "Non- biblical christianity" as Catholic, Methodist, Episcopalian, Lutheran and Orthodox?"

Unless you restrict yourself to "typical" "orthodox" Christianity as distinguished from yoru uh-"unique" beliefs, you have simply invoked the "No True Scotsman" fallacy and meaningful conversation must end.
Posted by: Reciprocating Bill on Sep. 18 2009,16:42

A persistent source of confusion arises from the conflation of the question of whether "Christianity is consistent with evolution" with the question of whether "belief in Christianity is consistent with belief in evolution."

It is beyond dispute that some persons who have thought very deeply about the issues believe both the main assertions of Christianity and the main facts of evolution. The assertion "belief in Christianity is not consistent with belief in evolution," which is primarily a question of contingent individual psychology, is therefore refuted. That discussion is over.

What remains is the question, one level down, of whether the main assertions of Christianity are compatible with the main facts of natural history.

FL: Given your commitment to the fundamental incompatibility of these two viewpoints, your only remaining moves are to dispute the scientific consensus regarding natural history, or revise or jettison your construal of Christianity. You choose the former.

That makes you yet one more tiresome science denier.
Posted by: Occam's Toothbrush on Sep. 18 2009,16:46

Quote (Sealawr @ Sep. 18 2009,17:33)
Floyd Lee equivocates as prophesied:

"...biblical Christianity..."

As opposed to other kinds of Christianity?  [See e.g., Catholic position above]

Can we just define "Biblical Christianity" as "Floyd's personal beliefs?"  and "Non- biblical christianity" as Catholic, Methodist, Episcopalian, Lutheran and Orthodox?"

Unless you restrict yourself to "typical" "orthodox" Christianity as distinguished from yoru uh-"unique" beliefs, you have simply invoked the "No True Scotsman" fallacy and meaningful conversation must end.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Can you point me to where it started?  I'm lost.
Posted by: Occam's Toothbrush on Sep. 18 2009,16:51

Quote (FloydLee @ Sep. 18 2009,16:46)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
....some people formulate their personal theology in such a way that no discernible dissonance exists.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Who are these people, specifically?  Are there any in this forum that would be willing to offer such a theology?  (And does the non-discernable dissonance suddenly show up when a Bible is brought to the table?)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Floyd's throwing down the gauntlet.  He's 100% sure that you can't give an example of a Christian who accepts evolution, whom he cannot dismiss as being not-a-True FL-Approved Christian™*

---

*All rights reserved, the Floyd Lee Boring Fundy Apologetics Co. Inc.
Posted by: Dan on Sep. 18 2009,17:13

Quote (JohnW @ Sep. 18 2009,13:28)
   
Quote (FloydLee @ Sep. 18 2009,10:58)
     

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
1. The Pope is a Christian.

2. The Pope holds that evolution happens.

3. Therefore, Evolution is compatible with Christianity.

A simple three-line proof.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


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
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


(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.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Thanks, JohnW.  That's very similar to what I would have said, but you said it better than I would have.

The counterfactual that FL casually mentions doesn't "kinda wreck the proof".  In fact, would be kind of irrelevant even if it were true.  (It's not.)

I repeat:  FL has said a lot of things about his opinions, but he has not yet addressed the topic of this debate, which concerns the fact that evolution is compatible with Christianity.
Posted by: FloydLee on Sep. 18 2009,17:41



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
If becoming a Christian is as easy as reading and understanding John 3:16, then where is the conflict with Evolution?  There is nothing in that passage that mentions anything about origins.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I suspected somebody might try to respond in that manner.  Here is the issue:  there are Christian beliefs that are foundational even to John 3:16, even.  They're quite important and can't be blown off.

For example, you know that John 3:16 presumes theism.  There's no way an ATHEIST can do John 3:16 without first giving up atheism.  Theism is foundational to John 3:16, even if a person doesn't even know how to spell the word theism.  Theism is foundational to Christianity.  

Well, there's some OTHER biblical beliefs that are foundational to Christianity too.  Deny these other biblical beliefs--and as we've seen already in four areas, evolution DOES deny them--and you are effectively eroding, corroding, undercutting Christian belief.  

Doesn't mean necessarily that you're not a Christian, but goodness, look at that danger and damage, that potential to erode and corrode important beliefs---and look at the people who are no longer holding on to the Christian faith you're holding on to, people for whom the damage is already done.

And that's happening right now.
Posted by: Stanton on Sep. 18 2009,17:53

Quote (FloydLee @ Sep. 18 2009,17:41)
Well, there's some OTHER biblical beliefs that are foundational to Christianity too.  Deny these other biblical beliefs--and as we've seen already in four areas, evolution DOES deny them--and you are effectively eroding, corroding, undercutting Christian belief.  

Doesn't mean necessarily that you're not a Christian, but goodness, look at that danger and damage, that potential to erode and corrode important beliefs---and look at the people who are no longer holding on to the Christian faith you're holding on to, people for whom the damage is already done.

And that's happening right now.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Please explain to us how acceptance of evolution has eroded and corroded Pope Benedict and Pope John Paul.
Posted by: FloydLee on Sep. 18 2009,17:56



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
(prior statement)
"....some people formulate their personal theology in such a way that no discernible dissonance exists."

(my response)
"Who are these people, specifically?  Are there any in this forum that would be willing to offer such a theology?"
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I'm repeating this snippet for you, Occam.  Notice:  a specific claim was made by a poster.  Very clear.

I'm just asking who are those "some people" the poster had in mind, that happens to fit that very specific wording.  

I'm ALSO asking if there are any Christians in THIS forum who fit that specific wording and would like to demonstrate it by sharing their own personal theology.  

How about you, Nmgirl?  I think you said that you were a Christian.   Would you be willing to share your personal theology so we can examine and see if there's "no discernable dissonance" between evolution and Christianity within your chosen theology?  

(Btw, any other Christians in this forum want to join her in that effort?)

FloydLee
Posted by: Occam's Toothbrush on Sep. 18 2009,18:06

Quote (FloydLee @ Sep. 18 2009,18:56)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
(prior statement)
"....some people formulate their personal theology in such a way that no discernible dissonance exists."

(my response)
"Who are these people, specifically?  Are there any in this forum that would be willing to offer such a theology?"
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I'm repeating this snippet for you, Occam.  Notice:  a specific claim was made by a poster.  Very clear.

I'm just asking who are those "some people" the poster had in mind, that happens to fit that very specific wording.  

I'm ALSO asking if there are any Christians in THIS forum who fit that specific wording and would like to demonstrate it by sharing their own personal theology.  

How about you, Nmgirl?  I think you said that you were a Christian.   Would you be willing to share your personal theology so we can examine and see if there's "no discernable dissonance" between evolution and Christianity within your chosen theology?  

(Btw, any other Christians in this forum want to join her in that effort?)

FloydLee
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Once again, Floyd is confident that there's no Christian he cannot dismiss from that faith if it suits him, since in his mind Christianity consists of exactly what he says it consists of, nothing more, nothing less, nothing else. He's challenging people to claim they're Christians, but he'll be the judge of that.
Posted by: ppb on Sep. 18 2009,18:06

Quote (FloydLee @ Sep. 18 2009,18:41)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
If becoming a Christian is as easy as reading and understanding John 3:16, then where is the conflict with Evolution?  There is nothing in that passage that mentions anything about origins.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I suspected somebody might try to respond in that manner.  Here is the issue:  there are Christian beliefs that are foundational even to John 3:16, even.  They're quite important and can't be blown off.

For example, you know that John 3:16 presumes theism.  There's no way an ATHEIST can do John 3:16 without first giving up atheism.  Theism is foundational to John 3:16, even if a person doesn't even know how to spell the word theism.  Theism is foundational to Christianity.  

Well, there's some OTHER biblical beliefs that are foundational to Christianity too.  Deny these other biblical beliefs--and as we've seen already in four areas, evolution DOES deny them--and you are effectively eroding, corroding, undercutting Christian belief.  

Doesn't mean necessarily that you're not a Christian, but goodness, look at that danger and damage, that potential to erode and corrode important beliefs---and look at the people who are no longer holding on to the Christian faith you're holding on to, people for whom the damage is already done.

And that's happening right now.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


OK, so now you're saying it's not quite so simple.  I agree with what Louis said, that without defining the terms "Christian" and "Evolution" there is not much point in debating.  I think any definition you come up with is going to be open to dispute.  As I stated early on, I have no interest in getting into a discussion of theology.  I'll wait around for the science, should it ever come up.
Posted by: nmgirl on Sep. 18 2009,19:01

FL. here is my belief.  I think your YEC literalist beliefs limit God to what I call a "poof moment": God got bored and made the universe.  

I believe that 12 + billion years ago God made the universe and all the processes in it.  When the earth cooled and was conducive to life, life appeared in microbes and then continued to expand and change.  God created this marvelous process so that no matter the conditions, life has survived all the changes in the planet.  Whether snowball earth in the pre cambrian, the swamps of the carboniferous or the red deserts of the permian and triassic, there was always life.  Despite meteorites, earthquakes, volcanoes, floods (not THE flood you believe in)there is always life.  We have ecosystems that don't even depend on oxygen and sunlight to survive.

Why God decided to bless our species with a soul, I don't know. Maybe it's the opposable thumbs that mean we can write.  Maybe its our ability to communicate with each other.   I believe he sent his son to us and that Jesus died for us.  that belief has nothing to do with how our bodies came to be.

I'm not a theologian and no debater.  I can't quote scripture by the page.  I just believe in God . . . and evolution.
Posted by: Doc Bill on Sep. 18 2009,21:21

Hey, FL!

Long time, no mock!

How about that Noah's Flood water?  Figured out where it came from and where it went?

I'm dying to know!

(Not getting any younger, if you get my continental drift.)
Posted by: csadams on Sep. 18 2009,22:29

Quote (FloydLee @ Sep. 18 2009,17:56)
(Btw, any other Christians in this forum want to join her in that effort?)

FloydLee
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


F*** off, FL.  You know damn good and well there are Christians who're 'here' and who accept evolution.  And, as you're not my husband, my minister, or a close friend, I don't intend to discuss this with you, even more so since you're so prone to deliberately misrepresenting the words and actions of others.
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Sep. 18 2009,22:58

Quote (k.e.. @ Sep. 18 2009,11:54)
Quote (FloydLee @ Sep. 18 2009,18:13)
Actually, another way of looking at Ricky Gervais' story (in a more chronological fashion) is that (if he received no exposure at all to evolution prior to losing his faith) is that he made an immature (8 years old), irrational decision.
(After all, exactly how does one's brother asking 'why do you believe in God' followed by Mom's shushing up said brother, rationally add up to a warrant for believing in atheism?)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You, Sir, are no Al Bundy.
Posted by: k.e.. on Sep. 19 2009,01:20

Quote (Erasmus, FCD @ Sep. 19 2009,06:58)
Quote (k.e.. @ Sep. 18 2009,11:54)
Quote (FloydLee @ Sep. 18 2009,18:13)
Actually, another way of looking at Ricky Gervais' story (in a more chronological fashion) is that (if he received no exposure at all to evolution prior to losing his faith) is that he made an immature (8 years old), irrational decision.
(After all, exactly how does one's brother asking 'why do you believe in God' followed by Mom's shushing up said brother, rationally add up to a warrant for believing in atheism?)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You, Sir, are no Al Bundy.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


No?

I think I'll wait for Heddles report after his next phone call to god.


BTW WTF is Heddle?

He was just getting warmed up to goose FL and just fizzed out.

Bloddy Calvanists they just can't be relied on for a good roasting after their last outing.
Posted by: Louis on Sep. 19 2009,07:09

< Reciprocating Bill gets it. >

< FL doesn't. >

Colour me shocked.

Louis
Posted by: heddle on Sep. 19 2009,07:31

Quote (k.e.. @ Sep. 19 2009,01:20)

BTW WTF is Heddle?

He was just getting warmed up to goose FL and just fizzed out.

Bloddy Calvanists they just can't be relied on for a good roasting after their last outing.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


He hasn't yet responded to my criticism, unless I missed it. Geez, k.e., before you expressed a "yawn" at the prospect of a theological debate, and now you are accusing me of a Dembski-like Sir Robining. Make up that drug-addled, alcohol-saturated, tropical-disease infected  organ that you call a mind! POMO!
Posted by: k.e.. on Sep. 19 2009,07:57

Quote (heddle @ Sep. 19 2009,15:31)
Quote (k.e.. @ Sep. 19 2009,01:20)

BTW WTF is Heddle?

He was just getting warmed up to goose FL and just fizzed out.

Bloddy Calvanists they just can't be relied on for a good roasting after their last outing.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


He hasn't yet responded to my criticism, unless I missed it. Geez, k.e., before you expressed a "yawn" at the prospect of a theological debate, and now you are accusing me of a Dembski-like Sir Robining. Make up that drug-addled, alcohol-saturated, tropical-disease infected  organ that you call a mind! POMO!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


THAT'S MORE LIKE IT!

I'LL EVEN OFFER A NOTPOLOGY. I'D GIVE YOU BOOK ODDS ON FAVORITE TO WIN AGAINST FL ANY DAY CONSIDERING THE BIG CHEESE HIMSELF IS ON YOUR SIDE.

AS FAR AS THE ADDLED BRAIN IS CONCERNED ....NOTHING DRUGS CAN'T CURE.
AND LEAVE MY ORGAN OUT OF IT, IT'S PINING FOR AFRICA.
Posted by: Dale_Husband on 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-------------------





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





---------------------QUOTE-------------------
< http://www.antievolution.org/cgi-bin....y153310 >  
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Did he ever address my arguments there? Appearantly not!
Posted by: Stanton on Sep. 19 2009,21:19

Quote (Dale_Husband @ Sep. 19 2009,17:05)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
< http://www.antievolution.org/cgi-bin....y153310 >  
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Did he ever address my arguments there? Appearantly not!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


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.
Posted by: Keelyn on 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.
Posted by: Chayanov on 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.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


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?
Posted by: Dan on 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!"
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on 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/ >
Posted by: Doc Bill on 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.
Posted by: Chayanov on 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/ >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


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.)
Posted by: Amadan on 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.
Posted by: Keelyn on 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?
Posted by: k.e.. on 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.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


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.
Posted by: midwifetoad on 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

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



The slacker should get started on at least one of these.
Posted by: Dan on 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.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


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.
Posted by: FloydLee on 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
Posted by: FloydLee on 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.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



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!
Posted by: Stanton on 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.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



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!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


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?
Posted by: midwifetoad on 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?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Don't leave out most mainstream protestant denominations.
Posted by: Stanton on 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?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Don't leave out most mainstream protestant denominations.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


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).
Posted by: midwifetoad on 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.
Posted by: Stanton on 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.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


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.
Posted by: FloydLee on 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)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


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.
Posted by: Stanton on Sep. 21 2009,16:04

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


What "science" has Intelligent Design put out in the past couple of decades?
Posted by: FloydLee on 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)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


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.
Posted by: khan on 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)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


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.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


If evolution is incompatible with FL, maybe the problem is not with evolution.
Posted by: Stanton on 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)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


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.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


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?
Posted by: FloydLee on Sep. 21 2009,16:45



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


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."
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


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

:)
Posted by: Richardthughes on Sep. 21 2009,17:07

If God is timeless, then it all unfolds to the majesty of his great plan, surely?
Posted by: Stanton on Sep. 21 2009,17:09

Quote (FloydLee @ Sep. 21 2009,16:45)


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


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."
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


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

:)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


It appears that your definition of Christianity is incompatible with the Pope's definition of Christianity.
Posted by: deadman_932 on Sep. 21 2009,17:17

Quote (FloydLee @ Sep. 21 2009,16:45)


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


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."
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


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

:)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


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.
Posted by: deadman_932 on 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."
Posted by: Stanton on Sep. 21 2009,17:27

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

And that's pretty bad. Even for YEC apologetics

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


You want we should start moving on to discussing how and why FL's insistence that Intelligent Design is epic fail?
Posted by: Dan on Sep. 21 2009,18:39

Quote (FloydLee @ Sep. 21 2009,16:45)
 

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


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

...

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

:)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Note the quote mine.  I showed why Dawkins was wrong, but FL, bless his heart, left that part out!  (If he left it in, people reading it might have to think, so he saved you all the trouble.)
Posted by: deadman_932 on Sep. 21 2009,18:53

Why Floyd Lee's Claims are Destructive To Christianity

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ignorance and the advocacy of ignorance a la Floyd Lee isn't conducive to anything but the most virulent, primitive and violent forms of religion.
Posted by: Dale_Husband on Sep. 21 2009,19:09

Quote (FloydLee @ Sep. 21 2009,14:37)


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


---------------------QUOTE-------------------


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

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

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

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

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

But you can still beleive in God and Jesus without beleiving blasphemous absurdities about the Bible, FL.
Posted by: deadman_932 on Sep. 21 2009,20:31

Floyd Lee's "Big Four Foundational Claims"

 

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



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

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

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

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

 

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



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

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

 

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



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

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

 

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


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

Forget that Adam is a metaphor, a symbol. Forget reason and logic and deny the thinking abilities that lead to metaphors and symbols in general. Contribute to the destruction of the religion you pretend to thoughtfully embrace. Be a Floyd Fool.
Posted by: Quack on Sep. 22 2009,02:25



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


If that's the case, < this > ought to be of scientific interest to you.
Posted by: FloydLee on Sep. 22 2009,08:43



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Note the quote mine.  I showed why Dawkins was wrong, but FL, bless his heart, left that part out!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



No quote mine there, Dan.  Dawkins said exactly what HE meant, and your attempt to escape his statement demonstrates that indeed it was a statement of incompatilibility.  It simply reminded me of somebody else's similar statement and all I wanted to do was mention it (and of course, to thank you for bringing up Dawkins' line in the first place! )
Posted by: Stanton on Sep. 22 2009,09:28

Quote (FloydLee @ Sep. 22 2009,08:43)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Note the quote mine.  I showed why Dawkins was wrong, but FL, bless his heart, left that part out!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



No quote mine there, Dan.  Dawkins said exactly what HE meant, and your attempt to escape his statement demonstrates that indeed it was a statement of incompatilibility.  It simply reminded me of somebody else's similar statement and all I wanted to do was mention it (and of course, to thank you for bringing up Dawkins' line in the first place! )
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You must be a sad person, FL.  I mean, you wail and moan about how your faith is threatened by biological reality, and now you tell us that you follow the dictations of an atheist you've quotemined over what you can and can't believe.  I mean, why can't your faith be as robust as, say, the Pope?

And yes, we automatically assume that you're quotemining because we know you long enough to have learned that if you're not lying, you're either quotemining or you're purposefully misrepresenting whoever or whatever it is you're mentioning, be it a science textbook or the Bible, or whatever.
Posted by: FloydLee on Sep. 22 2009,09:28



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



Very interesting you should word it that way, because the existence of "the majesty of His great plan" WRT biological origins is exactly what evolution denies.  

By claiming that there's a God whose majestic great plan includes evolution, you've just said that God is the required explanation for origins.  Which evolutionists Mayr and Olford already told you evolutionary theory means that God is NOT required as a explanation for origins.

By saying "the majesty of His great plan", you're also directly invoking Teleology and conscious forethought---which again, evolutionary theory itself DOES NOT admit. No-Teleology-No-Conscious-Forethought, remember?

And there's a third major problem with what you said, which multiple evolutionists have brought up already, everybody from Monod to Dawkins to Rosenhouse.  It goes something like this:

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
"(Natural) selection is the blindest and most cruel way of evolving new species, and more and more complex and refined organisms..."---Jacques Monod
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
"Evolution by natural selection, you see, is an awful process. It is bloody, sadistic, and cruel. It flouts every moral precept we humans hold dear.

It recognizes only survival and gene propagation, and even on those rare occasions where you find altruism and non-selfishness you can be certain that blind self-interest is lurking somewhere behind the scenes. All of this suffering, pain and misery, mind you, to reach a foreordained moment when self-aware creature finally appeared.

What theological purpose was served by all this bloodsport? If humans were inevitable why didn't God simply fast-forward the tape himself, thereby sparing all of those animals that died horrible deaths in the preceding hundreds of millions of years?

....Reconciling evolution and Christianity is not as simple as theistic evolutionists often try to pretend."

---Jason Rosenhouse's Evolutionblog, "My Review of Only A Theory", June 21, 2008
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Notice how, under critical examination by evolutionists, evolution does NOT make God's plan look "majestic" at all, but instead cruel and sadistic.

ANOTHER incompatibility.

******

So here's the real deal:  by suggesting that evolution is part of "the majesty of (God's) great plan", you have not only run afoul of evolution's clear teachings (Incompatibility #1 and #2), but you have actually introduced a FIFTH huge incompatibility, longstanding and intractable just like the others, between evolution and Christianity.

From now on I will be saying "The Big Five" instead of "The Big Four."

FloydLee
Posted by: FloydLee on Sep. 22 2009,09:35



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
And yes, we automatically assume that you're quotemining...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Saves you from having to factually check it out and do the actual homework for yourself, doesn't it?  How very convenient.    :)
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Sep. 22 2009,09:37

and bashing the heads of the little ones against the stones makes the OT god a veritable saint.

you equivocate and obfuscate

for one who believes in eternal paradise, you know that no amount of worldly suffering matters.  yet you lie about this to slander your opponents, rather than deal with the merits of the argument

if the way your gods work is that their actions are indistinguishable from their lack of action, yet your gods have omniscience and omnipotence, then what are you even complaining about?

your gods are petty and small indeed, if they cannot use natural selection to accomplish their ends.  even smaller, still, if they limit their moral scope to the workings of this world to the detriment of the great ecosystem in the sky where nothing ever dies and everyone has fitness of 1.0
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Sep. 22 2009,09:38

Quote (FloydLee @ Sep. 22 2009,10:35)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
And yes, we automatically assume that you're quotemining...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Saves you from having to factually check it out and do the actual homework for yourself, doesn't it?  How very convenient.    :)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


just like when the pavement is wet, we assume it's raining, those of us who have laughed at you read your junk on PT for years are well aware of your ahem inadequacies
Posted by: Richardthughes on Sep. 22 2009,09:40



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Very interesting you should word it that way, because the existence of "the majesty of His great plan" WRT biological origins is exactly what evolution denies.  

---------------------QUOTE-------------------




Except I said "If...", so it's conjecture, a possibility, to which science and even Dawkins himself is open:

"A serious case could be made for a deistic God." RD.

Next, who are we to judge God? Don't you guys throw that around a lot? What with our relative morals and such. My tiny mind can't grasp his awesomeness! plus we already have 'the problem of evil', so get over yourself already.

You're a bad hypocrite if you special plead on the problem of evil but can't take evolution.


So:

"Notice how, under critical examination by evolutionists everyone, evolution life does NOT make God's plan God look "majestic" at all, but instead cruel and sadistic."

Edited.
Posted by: deadman_932 on Sep. 22 2009,09:55

Fundamentalist-Inerrantist-Literalists are a detriment to the human race -- They retard the advance of knowledge and human understanding.

For Christians, they represent additional concerns -

(1) the further destruction of Christianity's reputation
(2) the disdain of non-believers that are threatened with "damnation" and the like.
(3) The conflict created with other (non-literalist) Christians when literalists try to pretend that analogies, symbols and metaphor *must be* taken literally by a "True Christian."

Literalists are anti-intellectual, dishonest, hypocritical, manipulative, cult-like, and repulsive.
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Sep. 22 2009,09:56

Quote (deadman_932 @ Sep. 22 2009,10:55)
Fundamentalist-Inerrantist-Literalists are a detriment to the human race -- They retard the advance of knowledge and human understanding.

For Christians, they represent additional concerns -

(1) the further destruction of Christianity's reputation
(2) the disdain of non-believers that are threatened with "damnation" and the like.
(3) The conflict created with other (non-literalist) Christians when literalists try to pretend that analogies, symbols and metaphor *must be* taken literally by a "True Christian."

Literalists (like Floyd Lee represents) are anti-intellectual, dishonest, hypocritical, manipulative, cult-like, and repulsive.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


so, full circle, why don't all the rational believers (sic) stomp out the t.a.r.d.'s?

bad politics, i reckon
Posted by: Stanton on Sep. 22 2009,09:59

Quote (FloydLee @ Sep. 22 2009,09:28)
Notice how, under critical examination by evolutionists, evolution does NOT make God's plan look "majestic" at all, but instead cruel and sadistic.

ANOTHER incompatibility.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


So, tell us of God's majesty when He annihilated all life on Earth that could not be stuffed into Noah's Ark simply because humans were too noisy and too naughty.

Or, tell us of God's kindness when He sent those she-bears to kill children.
Posted by: Stanton on Sep. 22 2009,10:01

Anyone else notice how FL is too cowardly to acknowledge that the Pope continues to contradicts FL's so-called points?
Posted by: deadman_932 on Sep. 22 2009,10:02

Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Sep. 22 2009,09:56)
so, full circle, why don't all the rational believers (sic) stomp out the t.a.r.d.'s?

bad politics, i reckon
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I can't speak for believers, I can only say what I think -- and my view is that I don't think it's possible to stomp them all out:

"Against stupidity, the Gods themselves contend in vain." -- (Schiller, I think)
Posted by: FloydLee on Sep. 22 2009,10:09



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
cherry-pick
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


So far, none of the evolutionist statements I've quoted WRT the Big Five, have been cherry-picked or quote- mined.  

Each person quoted has meant exactly what he or she said on each point for which they were quoted WRT the Big Five.  

Nobody in this forum has come up with an extended quotation that contradicted the point expressed in the original quotation that I supplied.  Your felow evolutionists, authors, professors, are quite serious about what they are saying here.  They're not backing down one bit.
Posted by: Stanton on Sep. 22 2009,10:16

Quote (FloydLee @ Sep. 22 2009,10:09)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
cherry-pick
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


So far, none of the evolutionist statements I've quoted WRT the Big Five, have been cherry-picked or quote- mined.  

Each person quoted has meant exactly what he or she said on each point for which they were quoted WRT the Big Five.  

Nobody in this forum has come up with an extended quotation that contradicted the point expressed in the original quotation that I supplied.  Your felow evolutionists, authors, professors, are quite serious about what they are saying here.  They're not backing down one bit.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Then how come numerous Christians, SUCH AS POPE BENEDICT, don't listen to these people whom you're misrepresenting into saying that Christianity and Evolution are incompatible?

Unless you can explain how the Pope can get away with ignoring your pathetic points, you have to realize that you're nothing but a bag of mean spirited hot air.
Posted by: FloydLee on Sep. 22 2009,10:16



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
"A serious case could be made for a deistic God." RD.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Yeah, except that a deistic god doesn't fit biblical Christianity at all.   The religion of deism fits evolution fine, but deism is not compatible with Christianity.
Posted by: Richardthughes on Sep. 22 2009,10:20

Quote (FloydLee @ Sep. 22 2009,10:16)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
"A serious case could be made for a deistic God." RD.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Yeah, except that a deistic god doesn't fit biblical Christianity at all.   The religion of deism fits evolution fine, but deism is not compatible with Christianity.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Hey Floyd. Is the Pope Christian? Yes or No.
Posted by: deadman_932 on Sep. 22 2009,10:20

Quote (FloydLee @ Sep. 22 2009,10:09)
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
cherry-pick
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


So far, none of the evolutionist statements I've quoted WRT the Big Five, have been cherry-picked or quote- mined.  

Each person quoted has meant exactly what he or she said on each point for which they were quoted WRT the Big Five.  

Nobody in this forum has come up with an extended quotation that contradicted the point expressed in the original quotation that I supplied.  Your felow evolutionists, authors, professors, are quite serious about what they are saying here.  They're not backing down one bit.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Dawkins can say what he pleases regarding Dawkin's beliefs about the limits of Gods, as can others. They are not "spokesmen" for all science, and it's a fallacy to claim they are, as you've done.

Their words on that matter hold no weight in regard to how science is conducted, and it's science which you have a problem with...all of science, not just evolution. Remember what I wrote just above?


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

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

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



So...howsabout that Pope Benedict? Christian or not?

Another thing, are you a literalist on all the commandments in the bible?

When's the last time you had a crab or shrimp dinner?
Posted by: FloydLee on Sep. 22 2009,10:30



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Reject Physics, if it claims that Genesis isn't LITERALLY "true" n all aspects. Reject Genetics if it says sheep don't change colors because of sticks placed near them, or reject Chemistry if it says that water cannot be *literally* turned into wine by instantaneous miraculous transmutation.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


So, find me a high school or university-level Physics, Genetics, or Chemistry textbook that SAYS these particular things.  

How about Halliday Resnick Walker's physics textbook, for example?  That's the one they teach from at my hometown university.  Do they talk about Genesis being literal or non-literal in that book?

Me, I can't seem to find any such statements.  Those textbooks are SILENT on such topics as you mention.  

But when we turn to evolution, THEN we get into books, college courses, and articles where everybody just lets it all hang out, don't we???
Posted by: Richardthughes on Sep. 22 2009,10:30

Erm, is the Pope Christian? Yes or no. Thanks.
Posted by: deadman_932 on Sep. 22 2009,10:38

Quote (FloydLee @ Sep. 22 2009,10:30)
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Reject Physics, if it claims that Genesis isn't LITERALLY "true" n all aspects. Reject Genetics if it says sheep don't change colors because of sticks placed near them, or reject Chemistry if it says that water cannot be *literally* turned into wine by instantaneous miraculous transmutation.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


So, find me a high school or university-level Physics, Genetics, or Chemistry textbook that SAYS these particular things.  

How about Halliday Resnick Walker's physics textbook, for example?  That's the one they teach from at my hometown university.  Do they talk about Genesis being literal or non-literal in that book?

Me, I can't seem to find any such statements.  Those textbooks are SILENT on such topics as you mention.  

But when we turn to evolution, THEN we get into books, college courses, and articles where everybody just lets it all hang out, don't we???
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Halliday, Resnick and Walker, "Fundamentals of Physics" (8th Ed.)  page 1239:
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
"It is as certain that the Universe started with a Big bang about 15 Billion years ago as it is that the Earth goes around the sun."
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Contradicts your Biblical literalism regarding Genesis, don't it?
Posted by: SLP on Sep. 22 2009,10:40

Quote (FloydLee @ Sep. 22 2009,09:35)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
And yes, we automatically assume that you're quotemining...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Saves you from having to factually check it out and do the actual homework for yourself, doesn't it?  How very convenient.    :)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


How ironic...
Posted by: SLP on Sep. 22 2009,10:41

Quote (FloydLee @ Sep. 22 2009,10:30)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Reject Physics, if it claims that Genesis isn't LITERALLY "true" n all aspects. Reject Genetics if it says sheep don't change colors because of sticks placed near them, or reject Chemistry if it says that water cannot be *literally* turned into wine by instantaneous miraculous transmutation.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


So, find me a high school or university-level Physics, Genetics, or Chemistry textbook that SAYS these particular things.  
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


So if it is assumed, it is OK?
Posted by: FloydLee on Sep. 22 2009,10:43



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Hey Floyd. Is the Pope Christian? Yes or No.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Yes.  He is.

So is Francis Collins, according to Collins book.

Both are good examples of Theistic Evolution, probably the best TE has got right now.

Neither One has come up with any solution for the Big Five Incompatibillities.   Simply not able to, so far.  

The End.
Posted by: deadman_932 on Sep. 22 2009,10:45

Heh, I love the irony of me having that very Physics text right next to me -- and Floyd Lee claiming that Halliday, Resnick and Walker "were silent" on matters contradicting his literalism.

Better start rejecting all of Cosmology and Physics, Floyd...it's anti-teleological, too!!

And chemistry, and geology and zoology and ....on and on, and on....you better start rejecting all of it, Floyd.
Posted by: Richardthughes on Sep. 22 2009,10:51

Quote (FloydLee @ Sep. 22 2009,10:43)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Hey Floyd. Is the Pope Christian? Yes or No.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Yes.  He is.

So is Francis Collins, according to Collins book.

Both are good examples of Theistic Evolution, probably the best TE has got right now.

Neither One has come up with any solution for the Big Five Incompatibillities.   Simply not able to, so far.  

The End.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Floyd, you don't get to pick 'the end'.

So, Christianity is compatible with evolution, then?
Posted by: FloydLee on Sep. 22 2009,10:53



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
So if it is assumed, it is OK?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Nope, not okay.   I just want somebody to find those physics, genetics and chemistry textbooks.  If those textbooks DON'T say those things deadman said, then let's be honest and admit that those other disciplines are SILENT on these issues but that evolution is not silent on its incompatibility issues.
Posted by: FloydLee on Sep. 22 2009,10:54



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Neither one (Pope Benedict, Francis Collins) has come up with any solution for the Big Five Incompatibillities.   Simply not able to, so far.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

 
Anybody able to refute this particular statement?
Posted by: Quack on Sep. 22 2009,10:55



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Notice how, under critical examination by evolutionists, evolution does NOT make God's plan look "majestic" at all, but instead cruel and sadistic.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


That too. Maybe not majestic according to your wish, and yet what Darwin wrote: "There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being, evolved."

It also means that the terrain doesn't fit your map.
Posted by: deadman_932 on Sep. 22 2009,10:59

Quote (FloydLee @ Sep. 22 2009,10:54)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Neither one (Pope Benedict, Francis Collins) has come up with any solution for the Big Five Incompatibillities.   Simply not able to, so far.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

 
Anybody able to refute this particular statement?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I don't care if they have or haven't.

What counts is that your claims have been refuted here, in this thread.
Posted by: deadman_932 on Sep. 22 2009,11:01

Quote (deadman_932 @ Sep. 22 2009,10:38)
Quote (FloydLee @ Sep. 22 2009,10:30)
   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Reject Physics, if it claims that Genesis isn't LITERALLY "true" n all aspects. Reject Genetics if it says sheep don't change colors because of sticks placed near them, or reject Chemistry if it says that water cannot be *literally* turned into wine by instantaneous miraculous transmutation.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


So, find me a high school or university-level Physics, Genetics, or Chemistry textbook that SAYS these particular things.  

How about Halliday Resnick Walker's physics textbook, for example?  That's the one they teach from at my hometown university.  Do they talk about Genesis being literal or non-literal in that book?

Me, I can't seem to find any such statements.  Those textbooks are SILENT on such topics as you mention.  

But when we turn to evolution, THEN we get into books, college courses, and articles where everybody just lets it all hang out, don't we???


---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Halliday, Resnick and Walker, "Fundamentals of Physics" (8th Ed.)  page 1239:
   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
"It is as certain that the Universe started with a Big bang about 15 Billion years ago as it is that the Earth goes around the sun."
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Contradicts your Biblical literalism regarding Genesis, don't it?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


[my emphases]
Just because this tickles the heck out of me
Posted by: deadman_932 on Sep. 22 2009,11:10

Quote (FloydLee @ Sep. 22 2009,10:53)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
So if it is assumed, it is OK?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Nope, not okay.   I just want somebody to find those physics, genetics and chemistry textbooks.  If those textbooks DON'T say those things deadman said, then let's be honest and admit that those other disciplines are SILENT on these issues but that evolution is not silent on its incompatibility issues.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Which ones? You cherry-picked your quotes, I can cherry-pick mine as I see fit. At least *I* recognize it as bogus argumentation and fallacy (as you use such quotes).

Your main problem is that you don't recognize the myriad fallacies you have set forward in making your argument.

But, hey, I didn't expect much else.
Posted by: FloydLee on Sep. 22 2009,11:19



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
"It is as certain that the Universe started with a Big bang about 15 Billion years ago as it is that the Earth goes around the sun."
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



It's a okay catch, Deadman.  I'd savor it if I were you, because you already know you've got nothing on the genetics and chemistry textbooks, and that one snip is  likely to be the only statement you find from that HRW text that can relate (by inference, for even here they don't mention Genesis) to the issue of "literally true in all aspects."

But as the OEC's Ross and Rana and Deem and Archer and Etc would tell you, the age of the universe or the earth is not necessarily incompatible with Christianity.  As has been pointed out already, the incompatibility of evolution with Christianity is completely independent of the age of the earth and the age of the universe.

So nope, you've not done a thing to refute the topic at hand.

So there would be no reason to reject physics merely because of your one quotation there---(but that doesn't mean that you have to blindly swallow HRW's quotation as infallible without doing your own science homework and critical examination of the issue.)
Posted by: deadman_932 on Sep. 22 2009,11:25

Quote (FloydLee @ Sep. 22 2009,11:19)
     

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
"It is as certain that the Universe started with a Big bang about 15 Billion years ago as it is that the Earth goes around the sun."
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



It's a okay catch, Deadman.  I'd savor it if I were you, because you already know you've got nothing on the genetics and chemistry textbooks, and that one snip is  likely to be the only statement you find from that HRW text that can relate (by inference, for even here they don't mention Genesis) to the issue of "literally true in all aspects."

But as the OEC's Ross and Rana and Deem and Archer and Etc would tell you, the age of the universe or the earth is not necessarily incompatible with Christianity.  As has been pointed out already, the incompatibility of evolution with Christianity is completely independent of the age of the earth and the age of the universe.

So nope, you've not done a thing to refute the topic at hand.

So there would be no reason to reject physics merely because of your one quotation there---(but that doesn't mean that you have to blindly swallow HRW's quotation as infallible without doing your own science homework and critical examination of the issue.)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


That quote on the age of the Universe is incompatible with YOUR YEC-LIERALIST VERSION of Christianity, which is all this discussion is about.

The point being that all the Christian sects previously mentioned in this very thread (and millions upon millions of believers therein) DO NOT find evolution contradictory to THEIR faith and Christian beliefs. But YOU say it is, based on YOUR literalist readings (when it suits you, apparently)

All YOU can say is that it's contradictory to YOUR bizarre (and mighty selective) literalism.

I do love how you are "literalist" when it suits you and abandon it when it doesn't suit you, though.

When's the last time you had a shrimp dinner, heretic?

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

Regarding Genesis 30:37-40 (Jacob changes of color of the fur of his sheep with sticks)

A. Langenauer (1969). Genetic Investigation of a Biblical Myth. Journal of Heredity. 60:192. < http://jhered.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/pdf_extract/60/4/192 >

J. Litwins. (1972) Genetics in the Bible. N.Y. State Journal of Medicine. Apr 15;72(8):972 < http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/4502339 >
----------------------------------------
Want to bet I can find that myth mentioned negatively (i.e. as nothing more than a myth) at least once, in at least one high-school-or-above genetics text?

What would you like to wager on that?
Posted by: Richardthughes on Sep. 22 2009,11:26



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
because you already know you've got nothing on the genetics and chemistry textbooks
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



< http://www.amazon.com/gp....4884815 >

Textbook of Genetics by H.S. Bhamrah and C.M. Chaturvedi (Paperback - Oct 2002)

< http://books.google.com/books?i....f=false]Click for quote >

So that's a two claims torn down in about 10 minutes, Floyd.

Edited.
Posted by: Stanton on Sep. 22 2009,11:36

Quote (FloydLee @ Sep. 22 2009,10:54)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Neither one (Pope Benedict, Francis Collins) has come up with any solution for the Big Five Incompatibillities.   Simply not able to, so far.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

 
Anybody able to refute this particular statement?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


So, in other words, you're claiming that you know Christianity better than the Pope?

Why haven't you excommunicated the Pope yet, then?
Posted by: dheddle on Sep. 22 2009,12:23

FloydLee,
   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
But as the OEC's Ross and Rana and Deem and Archer and Etc would tell you, the age of the universe or the earth is not necessarily incompatible with Christianity.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


They don’t say that, but you do. Your point 4, I’ll remind you, was:      

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


(Emphasis in original.)

As I said earlier, death before the fall is not a “problem” unique to evolution; it is a problem for any old-earth view. So an OEC like Ross, even though he denies evolution, is not compatible with Christianity, according to your point 4, for the same reason you claim evolution is not compatible. If death before Adam is the issue, then Ross and Heddle* are just as heretical as Dawkins and Darwin. (Indeed, in their debate, YEC Kent Hovind labeled Ross a heretic.  < See here >, and there are YouTubes of the debate where Hovind makes the charge.)

Every introductory physics book and every Astronomy book will make mention of the age of the universe and the earth, either in reference to cosmology or to radioactive dating—or probably both. None will even give lip service to lunatic fringe theories that suggest multiple radioisotopes have conspired to adjust their half-lives to give the same wrong answer.  So those books are adamant that the universe is billions, not thousands of years old. And therefore, by implication, there was much death, red tooth and claw, and gnashing of teeth prior to the fall of man. Therefore, by your definition, the teachings of these texts are incompatible with Christianity.

-----------------
* I'm dheddle, dammit.

-----------------
EDIT verb subject matches, dropped letters, etc.
Posted by: FloydLee on Sep. 22 2009,12:43



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
That quote on the age of the Universe is incompatible with YOUR YEC-LIERALIST VERSION of Christianity, which is all this discussion is about.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Nope.  Won't make it that way.

You have NOT produced a physics-chemistry-etc-etc textbook (not even our mutual favorite, Halliday-Resnick-Walker!) in which any of the Big Five Incompatibilities with Christianity are mentioned.

The very BEST you could come up with, was to produce a single HRW "Big Bang" quote that would interfere (via inference) with the YEC claim that the earth is young.  However, the topic under defense is "Evolution is Incompatible with Christianity."  (Not YEC, but Christianity.)

(a)  Your HRW quotation is NOT the same as producing a physics-chemistry-etc-etc textbook quote in which any of the Big Five Incoms are suggested, inferred, or claimed, and

(b) it was already established that NONE of the Big Five involve the age of the earth or the age of the universe.
(And please notice:  Nobody in this forum has been able to demonstrate that any of the specific Big Five Incompatibililtes is dependent upon any given age of the earth/ any given age of the universe, whether old or young.)

FloydLee
Posted by: deadman_932 on Sep. 22 2009,12:52

Quote (FloydLee @ Sep. 22 2009,12:43)
   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
That quote on the age of the Universe is incompatible with YOUR YEC-LIERALIST VERSION of Christianity, which is all this discussion is about.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Nope.  Won't make it that way.

You have NOT produced a physics-chemistry-etc-etc textbook (not even our mutual favorite, Halliday-Resnick-Walker!) in which any of the Big Five Incompatibilities with Christianity are mentioned.

The very BEST you could come up with, was to produce a single HRW "Big Bang" quote that would interfere (via inference) with the YEC claim that the earth is young.  However, the topic under defense is "Evolution is Incompatible with Christianity."  (Not YEC, but Christianity.)

(a)  Your HRW quotation is NOT the same as producing a physics-chemistry-etc-etc textbook quote in which any of the Big Five Incoms are suggested, inferred, or claimed, and

(b) it was already established that NONE of the Big Five involve the age of the earth or the age of the universe.
(And please notice:  Nobody in this forum has been able to demonstrate that any of the specific Big Five Incompatibililtes is dependent upon any given age of the earth/ any given age of the universe, whether old or young.)

FloydLee
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


So? Your "Big Five" were already dealt with.

It was YOU that decided to challenge me on "show me any physics text that says these things " -- Remember what you posted? Here's the quote you tried to challenge me on, Floyd:

Quote (FloydLee @ Sep. 22 2009,10:30)
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Deadman_932 wrote
"Reject Physics, if it claims that Genesis isn't LITERALLY "true" in all aspects. Reject Genetics if it says sheep don't change colors because of sticks placed near them, or reject Chemistry if it says that water cannot be *literally* turned into wine by instantaneous miraculous transmutation."
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



So, find me a high school or university-level Physics, Genetics, or Chemistry textbook that SAYS these particular things.   

How about Halliday Resnick Walker's physics textbook, for example?  That's the one they teach from at my hometown university.  Do they talk about Genesis being literal or non-literal in that book?


Me, I can't seem to find any such statements.  Those textbooks are SILENT on such topics as you mention.  

But when we turn to evolution, THEN we get into books, college courses, and articles where everybody just lets it all hang out, don't we???
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


[again, my emphases]

All I did was smack you around with that. Kind of the icing on the cake.

Love how you tried to shift fake goalposts, though. Mark up another fallacy for yourself, Floyd.
Posted by: FloydLee on Sep. 22 2009,12:54



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
So an OEC like Ross, even though he denies evolution, is not compatible with Christianity, according to your point 4, for the same reason you claim evolution is not compatible.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Nope. If I am going to say that the Pope and Francis Collins are Christians, (and they're TE's of all things), what makes you think I am going to claim that OEC Hugh Ross, on whom I agree with so many more things, is not a Christian?
Posted by: deadman_932 on Sep. 22 2009,12:59

Quote (FloydLee @ Sep. 22 2009,12:54)
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
So an OEC like Ross, even though he denies evolution, is not compatible with Christianity, according to your point 4, for the same reason you claim evolution is not compatible.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Nope. If I am going to say that the Pope and Francis Collins are Christians, (and they're TE's of all things), what makes you think I am going to claim that OEC Hugh Ross, on whom I agree with so many more things, is not a Christian?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


All you have done so far to support your claim that "Evolution is incompatible with Christianity" is try to pretend that YOUR literalist version is the "correct" view...and that Christians who don't agree with your literalist claims are "wrong."

What I found hilarious, though, was your willingness to abandon literalism when it suited you.

I hope you won't take offense when I say it looks mighty hypocritical and self-serving.
Posted by: olegt on Sep. 22 2009,13:07

I lovez this new chewing toy:


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
So there would be no reason to reject physics merely because of your one quotation there---(but that doesn't mean that you have to blindly swallow HRW's quotation as infallible without doing your own science homework and critical examination of the issue.)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Floyd, I have more physics textbooks in my office than you can count to.  

My copy of Serway's Physics for Scientists and Engineers (3rd Edition) lists the age of the Universe as 15-20 billion years.  That was the knowledge back in 1992.  We now have it with a much better accuracy.

How about < Relativity > by Rindler?  It discusses the age of the Universe and mentions some experiments from which it was determined: 13.5 to 13.9 billion years according to the data from the Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe.

Incidentally, the < WMAP > team has improved the precision even further: the latest figure is 13.73 plus or minus 0.12 billion years.  

Kind regards!
Posted by: deadman_932 on Sep. 22 2009,13:21

Nom, nom nom nom.

Notice that in my post (which floyd challenged) I qualified my point:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
"Reject Physics, if it claims that Genesis isn't LITERALLY "true" in all aspects. Reject Genetics if it says sheep don't change colors because of sticks placed near them, or reject Chemistry if it says that water cannot be *literally* turned into wine by instantaneous miraculous transmutation."
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



By "literally" I am referring to Floyd's YEC-literalist views. But Floyd ABANDONS that suddenly?

To make the irrelevant claim that a non-literalist view can be compatible with deep time?

Who cares? the issue was YOUR literalist brand of thinking, Floyd. If you are NOT a YEC, then say so. If you are, then my point is perfectly apropos to YOUR YECist literalism.

But you tried to shift the goalposts?

FOR SHAME !!!111Shift!!1

HOW CAN YOU BE TRUSTED NOW IN ANYTHING YOU SAY?
Posted by: FloydLee on Sep. 22 2009,13:27



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
death before the fall is not a “problem” unique to evolution; it is a problem for any old-earth view.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Yes it is.  OEC's really got their hands full trying to deal with it, because it's a killer incompatibility, even larger than the monstrous NT-NCF gig.  

However, it is NOT necesarily true that:


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
If death before Adam is the issue, then Ross and Heddle* are just as heretical as Dawkins and Darwin.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

 
One only needs to compare what D and D have written to what Ross and Heddle has written, and that much becomes absolutely clear.   Also I believe that you are NOT atheist nor agnostic.

But having said that, it IS true that the biblical Christianity only supports death AFTER The Fall -- not before.  

You can believe in wrong doctrines (to an extent, and yes we all got areas like that, nobody's perfect) and still be a Christian---but there aren't any positives to believing what the Bible opposes, and potential negatives could always result from such moves, even with God's ongoing grace on you and I.
Posted by: dheddle on Sep. 22 2009,13:27

FloydLee,



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
(b) it was already established that NONE of the Big Five involve the age of the earth or the age of the universe.
(And please notice:  Nobody in this forum has been able to demonstrate that any of the specific Big Five Incompatibililtes is dependent upon any given age of the earth/ any given age of the universe, whether old or young.)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Established by whom?

Come on now, that makes no sense. “Death before Adam” is your biggie number 4. That absolutely demands that the earth is young. It is absolutely incompatible with an old earth. There is no such animal as an OEC view that does not have death before Adam. Ross certainly believes there was death and mass extinctions prior to the arrival of Adam. For you to deny that your #4 does not demand a young earth is beyond the pale. It’s looking at white, and confidently saying it was established to be black.

Hovind called Ross a heretic. In this you can at least say that he was consistent. If you actually believe that death before Adam destroys the gospel, as you wrote concerning number 4:


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
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.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


(Boldface in original.)

then you should be calling all those who claim there was untold death prior to the fall—e.g., both the pope and Hugh Ross, heretics—for what makes one an apostate is to preach an incorrect gospel. You are supposed to, as Hovind did, and as Paul instructed, let them be anathema.
Posted by: Richardthughes on Sep. 22 2009,13:32

Quote (deadman_932 @ Sep. 22 2009,13:21)
HOW CAN YOU BE TRUSTED NOW IN ANYTHING YOU SAY?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Floyd has broken one of my big five doohickeys.
Posted by: Albatrossity2 on Sep. 22 2009,13:35

Quote (FloydLee @ Sep. 22 2009,10:53)
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
So if it is assumed, it is OK?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Nope, not okay.   I just want somebody to find those physics, genetics and chemistry textbooks.  If those textbooks DON'T say those things deadman said, then let's be honest and admit that those other disciplines are SILENT on these issues but that evolution is not silent on its incompatibility issues.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


No problem. It goes without saying that every genetics textbook assumes common descent (not compatible with a literal reading of Genesis) and an age of the earth that is also not compatible with Genesis. So it doesn't have to be explicitly stated. I suspect many chemistry textbooks don't specifically repudiate phlogiston theory, but it's still wrong.

Here are a few choice quotes and a figure for you to ponder, and then admit you are wrong.

From King and Cummings, Concepts of Genetics, 7th edition, Prentice-Hall (2003)

p. 663 - "The Isthmus of Panama, which created a land bridge connecting North and South America and simultaneously separated the Caribbean Sea from the Pacific Ocean, formed roughly 3 million years ago."

p. 664 - "Researchers estimate that Drosophila heteroneura and D. silvestris, found only on the island of Hawaii, diverged from a common ancestral species only about 300,000 years ago."

p. 671 - Figure 26-21 shows a phylogenetic tree for hominoid primates, based on DNA hybridization. It is reproduced below.



p. 672 - "Paleontological evidence indicates that the Neanderthals, Homo neanderthalensis, lived in Europe and western Asia from some 300,000 to 30,000 years ago. For at least 30,000 years, Neanderthals coexisted with anatomically modern humans (H. sapiens) in several areas."

So even at this level of semantic quibbling, floyd, you are wrong. Not that it matters a bit what a textbook says, but nevertheless this textbook (one of many) shows your ignorance to be profound. Genesis was shown to be an incorrect version of science a couple of hundred years ago, floyd. What is the basis for your expectation that it would still need to be refuted in modern textbooks?

We'll be waiting for you to say that you were wrong. And waiting, and waiting, and waiting, I suspect.
Posted by: deadman_932 on Sep. 22 2009,13:36

Quote (dheddle @ Sep. 22 2009,12:23)
-----------------
* I'm dheddle, dammit.

-----------------
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I'm sorry, Mr. Heddle, but I can't ...help...this...

I'M SPARTACUS!!!

P.S.: Louis? Do you like gladiator movies?
Posted by: Richardthughes on Sep. 22 2009,13:40

Quote (deadman_932 @ Sep. 22 2009,13:36)
Quote (dheddle @ Sep. 22 2009,12:23)
-----------------
* I'm dheddle, dammit.

-----------------
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I'm sorry, Mr. Heddle, but I can't ...help...this...

I'M SPARTACUS!!!

P.S.: Louis? Do you like gladiator movies?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Posted by: Robin on Sep. 22 2009,13:44

Quote (FloydLee @ Sep. 21 2009,16:10)

---------------------QUOTE-------------------




---------------------QUOTE-------------------
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)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


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.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Umm...who in their right mind cares if Christianity is incompatible with evolutionary theory if evolution theory is scientifically 100% accurate? Wouldn't you just abandon such a obviously irrational institutional belief system that you felt didn't mesh with an absolutely accurate scientific theory?
Posted by: Stanton on Sep. 22 2009,13:51

Quote (Robin @ Sep. 22 2009,13:44)
[quote=FloydLee,Sep. 21 2009,16:10][/quote]


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
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)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


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.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Umm...who in their right mind cares if Christianity is incompatible with evolutionary theory if evolution theory is scientifically 100% accurate? Wouldn't you just abandon such a obviously irrational institutional belief system that you felt didn't mesh with an absolutely accurate scientific theory?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


But the problem is, my dear, that the fear that one is unable to frighten and or bully others into thinking exactly the way that one wants them to think, for whatever logical or illogical reason, drives many people to do odd, and sometimes repugnant things.
Posted by: FloydLee on Sep. 22 2009,13:56



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
It was YOU that decided to challenge me on "show me any physics text that says these things " -- Remember what you posted? It's DIRECTLY above on THIS page:
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Hey, I acknowledged that you made an okay HRW physics textbook catch relative to the item you specifically mentioned--whether Genesis was literally true "in every aspect.  Your Big Bang quote, via inference, would indeed challenge the claim of a young earth.  I let you know you got a catch there, didn't I?

I'm just reminding you that the usefulness of your one Big Bang quotation IS limited.  You yourself made clear that the quotation's applicability extends ONLY to it's contradicting of the YEC claim of a young earth.

So (although I commend you again for astutely finding that physics textbook quotation), please don't try to pretend that you came up with a physics textbook (or any other science's textbook) quotation that actually applies to any of the Big Five Incompatibilities.
You most certainly did not.  

So you have not yet defeated the thread topic of Incompatibility---not even close, Deadman.

(Furthermore, Your particular belief in the Big Bang clearly does NOT resolve any of the Big Five at all.)

FloydLee
Posted by: Richardthughes on Sep. 22 2009,13:57

I think we've show, short of a trickster God who plants false evidence, The YEC position is not compatible with reality.
Posted by: deadman_932 on Sep. 22 2009,14:05

Quote (FloydLee @ Sep. 22 2009,13:56)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
It was YOU that decided to challenge me on "show me any physics text that says these things " -- Remember what you posted? It's DIRECTLY above on THIS page:
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Hey, I acknowledged that you made an okay HRW physics textbook catch relative to the item you specifically mentioned--whether Genesis was literally true "in every aspect.  Your Big Bang quote, via inference, would indeed challenge the claim of a young earth.  I let you know you got a catch there, didn't I?

I'm just reminding you that the usefulness of your one Big Bang quotation IS limited.  You yourself made clear that the quotation's applicability extends ONLY to it's contradicting of the YEC claim of a young earth.

So (although I commend you again for astutely finding that physics textbook quotation), please don't try to pretend that you came up with a physics textbook (or any other science's textbook) quotation that actually applies to any of the Big Five Incompatibilities.
You most certainly did not.  

So you have not yet defeated the thread topic of Incompatibility---not even close, Deadman.

(Furthermore, Your particular belief in the Big Bang clearly does NOT resolve any of the Big Five at all.)

FloydLee
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I never said that that particular quote was applicable to any of your "Big Five" anything. Period.

I simply made a point that you tried to challenge, unsuccessfully.

When you got smacked in the gob with it, THEN you tried to shift goalposts in a shameful display.

I weep for humanity now.

How, oh, HOW can I trust anything you say anymore, Floyd?

P.S. Floyd: Are you a YEC or not? Literalist about Genesis in that? Don't be afraid to confess.
Posted by: Robin on Sep. 22 2009,14:06

[quote=FloydLee,Sep. 22 2009,09:28][/quote]


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
By claiming that there's a God whose majestic great plan includes evolution, you've just said that God is the required explanation for origins.  Which evolutionists Mayr and Olford already told you evolutionary theory means that God is NOT required as a explanation for origins.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Floyd, your equivocating here by way of a poor generalization - you're trying to make not required = dismisses. Whether Evolutionary Theory (and the actual process of evolution) require God is irrelevant to whether the theory and process are compatible. As science (and you've already demonstrated that this is not a problem for your theology for the likes of astronomy or chemistry, so you're also creating a double standard in your equivocation) Evolutionary Theory can't say whether God (or gods for that matter) are required for such a process to occur, but that isn't the same thing as insisting God can't be involved. There is nothing about the theory that dismisses your God or any gods outright however and the Theory is perfectly capable of incorporating a discovery that some god (or your God) used the process to arrive at humans. There's nothing prohibiting such as far as the Theory goes.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
By saying "the majesty of His great plan", you're also directly invoking Teleology and conscious forethought---which again, evolutionary theory itself DOES NOT admit. No-Teleology-No-Conscious-Forethought, remember?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



See above. Once again your are confusing not required with dismisses. Evolutionary Theory does not require teleology to work - in fact it can work just fine if there are no gods at all - but that isn't the same thing as dismissing gods outright. Evolution may well be unfolding according to "the majesty of His great plan" - there's nothing in the Theory itself that prohibits such. As science, however, it can't speak to such a concept because there is no way to test such, so Evolutionary Theory just doesn't include teleology. But it doesn't prohibit teleology either.

Now, whether you think that under Evolution, God's plan no longer looks "majestic" is a fascinating opinion, but highly irrelevant regarding whether the Theory and process are compatible with a belief in Christianity. Your opinion about what constitutes "majestic" may well just be in error. Personally, I happen to think that evolution is quite majestic. So naaaaah...
Posted by: Robin on Sep. 22 2009,14:11

Quote (FloydLee @ Sep. 22 2009,10:54)

---------------------QUOTE-------------------




---------------------QUOTE-------------------


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Neither one (Pope Benedict, Francis Collins) has come up with any solution for the Big Five Incompatibillities.   Simply not able to, so far.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

 
Anybody able to refute this particular statement?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



I'll go one better; neither one thinks there are Big Five Incompatibilities.
Posted by: deadman_932 on Sep. 22 2009,14:13

As you can see  (maybe, since I can't really trust that now, Floyd),  your "Big Five" have been successfully rebuked by various posters several times in this thread, Floyd.

Why pretend they haven't been? Why pretend you haven't employed shocking tactics and fallacies and shameful illogic, Floyd?

Whyyyyyy?
Posted by: FloydLee on Sep. 22 2009,14:36



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Umm...who in their right mind cares if Christianity is incompatible with evolutionary theory if evolution theory is scientifically 100% accurate?

Wouldn't you just abandon such a obviously irrational institutional belief system that you felt didn't mesh with an absolutely accurate scientific theory?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



VERY perceptive question there Robin.  Combine it with those evolutionist self-testimonies and the Big Five issues that you read earlier in the thread, and you will see for yourself that

(1) evolution is VERY capable of eroding and corroding Christian faith and therefore
(2) there is a good warrant to seriously consider (and in light of all the reasons taken together, to accept) the claim that Evolutin is Incompatible with Christianity.
Posted by: Richardthughes on Sep. 22 2009,14:39

Quote (FloydLee @ Sep. 22 2009,14:36)
(1) evolution reality is VERY capable of eroding and corroding Christian faith and therefore
(2) there is a good warrant to seriously consider (and in light of all the reasons taken together, to accept) the claim that evolution reality is Incompatible with Christianity.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Fixed that for you.

And you argue to consequences, again. Floyd, have a seat. Listen, hunnybunny, its a cruel world out there. There's  stuff that you don't approve of that is real. Wishful thinking or self delusion wont change that.

Edited.
Posted by: Stanton on Sep. 22 2009,14:40

So we have FL boasting about how his points 1 through 4 about how evolution is allegedly incompatible with Christianity, are some sort of sacrosanct, divinely inspired holy laws, yet, can not be bothered to explain why literally millions of Christians, including Pope Benedict, ignore these 4 points.

And as for FL's so-called 5th point, well, he has a very warped definition of "cruel," if it includes tigers eating sambar deer, internal parasites and tongue isopods, yet, not includes cursing all life to suffer and die as a direct result of the first pair of humans' disobedience, the utter annihilation of all life that couldn't be fit into Noah's Ark simply because the humans were naughty, or divine commandments to slaughter the enemies of Israel, their families, neighbors and livestock, save for their enemies' underage, virgin daughters, who were to be made into the Israelite soldiers' sex slaves.
Posted by: deadman_932 on Sep. 22 2009,14:44

Quote (FloydLee @ Sep. 22 2009,14:36)
[snip]

(1) evolution is VERY capable of eroding and corroding Christian faith and therefore
(2) there is a good warrant to seriously consider (and in light of all the reasons taken together, to accept) the claim that Evolutin is Incompatible with Christianity.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Reality is very capable of corroding YECliteralist pseudo-christianity, sure. But your claim was that Evolution was Incompatible (no qualifiers whatsoever) with Christianity (no qualifiers there, either).

What you've been shown is that your claim is false. Evolution enhances, glorifies...and I dare say embiggens the Christianity of hundreds of millions.

You simply seem incapable of admitting that. But we've seen some shameful tactics out of you so far, too, Floyd.

I just don't know how I can ever trust *anything* you say anymore.
Posted by: Stanton on Sep. 22 2009,14:45

Quote (FloydLee @ Sep. 22 2009,14:36)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Umm...who in their right mind cares if Christianity is incompatible with evolutionary theory if evolution theory is scientifically 100% accurate?

Wouldn't you just abandon such a obviously irrational institutional belief system that you felt didn't mesh with an absolutely accurate scientific theory?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



VERY perceptive question there Robin.  Combine it with those evolutionist self-testimonies and the Big Five issues that you read earlier in the thread, and you will see for yourself that

(1) evolution is VERY capable of eroding and corroding Christian faith and therefore
(2) there is a good warrant to seriously consider (and in light of all the reasons taken together, to accept) the claim that Evolutin is Incompatible with Christianity.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


So explain to us why the Pope still hasn't gotten your memo about the insidiously pernicious effects of accepting the fact of evolution.
Posted by: FloydLee on Sep. 22 2009,14:45



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I'll go one better; neither one (Pope Benedict, Francis Collins) thinks there are Big Five Incompatibilities.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


And specifically how does this prove that the Big Five do not exist (especially at a time when evolutionists are clearly saying that they do exist?)

FloydLee
Posted by: deadman_932 on Sep. 22 2009,14:49

Cherry-picking who to respond to -- despite initially agreeing to act in good faith , Floyd? And actual responses to interlocutors was part of that "good faith" deal.

For shame, sir. For shame.
Posted by: Robin on Sep. 22 2009,15:00

[quote=FloydLee,Sep. 22 2009,14:36][/quote]
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Umm...who in their right mind cares if Christianity is incompatible with evolutionary theory if evolution theory is scientifically 100% accurate?

Wouldn't you just abandon such a obviously irrational institutional belief system that you felt didn't mesh with an absolutely accurate scientific theory?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



VERY perceptive question there Robin.  Combine it with those evolutionist self-testimonies and the Big Five issues that you read earlier in the thread, and you will see for yourself that

(1) evolution is VERY capable of eroding and corroding Christian faith and therefore
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



This suffers from the same type of equivocation as I earlier noted. While Evolutionary Theory may well be capable of "eroding and corroding Christian Faith", this isn't the same thing as actually demonstrating that it causes "erosion and corrosion of the Christian Faith". The latter would indicate incompatibility; the former does not.  

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
(2) there is a good warrant to seriously consider (and in light of all the reasons taken together, to accept) the claim that Evolutin is Incompatible with Christianity.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Umm...no, there isn't. Thus far you've provided a lot of equivocation and opinions and quotes indicating atheistic opinions, but separately or taken together NONE actually demonstrate that the science of the mechanism (Evolutionary Theory) or the actual process (biological evolution) is incompatible with Christianity.

Of course, your response completely side stepped my question. Why are you even arguing this topic if you think that Evolutionary Theory is true or can be true? If it is, it doesn't matter if ET and and your take on Christianity are compatible or not because it would be a moot point - logically your take on Christianity - your Big Five issues -  would be false concepts.

So clearly for you, Evolutionary Theory must be false. And yet, you have provided nothing to support such a position.
Posted by: Stanton on Sep. 22 2009,15:02

Quote (FloydLee @ Sep. 22 2009,14:45)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I'll go one better; neither one (Pope Benedict, Francis Collins) thinks there are Big Five Incompatibilities.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


And specifically how does this prove that the Big Five do not exist (especially at a time when evolutionists are clearly saying that they do exist?)

FloydLee
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


The fact remains, FL, that there are millions of Christians who have no trouble reconciling the acceptance of evolution with Christianity, including the Pope.  Then there is also the fact that none of the "evolutionists" (sic) you've cherrypicked are the official spokespeople of evolutionary biology or science, and you are a conniving, lying fool to suggest otherwise.

Or, can you explain why, according to your logic, the Pope isn't a Christian because he heeds neither your proclamations, nor the proclamations of the atheists and scientists you've quotemined?
Posted by: Robin on Sep. 22 2009,15:09

[quote=FloydLee,Sep. 22 2009,14:45][/quote]


---------------------QUOTE-------------------


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I'll go one better; neither one (Pope Benedict, Francis Collins) thinks there are Big Five Incompatibilities.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


And specifically how does this prove that the Big Five do not exist (especially at a time when evolutionists are clearly saying that they do exist?)

FloydLee
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



It raises the question of why you think those Big Five Incompatibilities are valid - my point demonstrates you have an internal conflict (a logical fallacy) in your claims. Here's the logic

A) Collins and Pope Benedict don't think there are Big Five Incompatibilities between Christianity and Evolutionary Theory

B) Collins and Pope Benedict are Christian

Conclusion 1: the concept of the Big Five Incompatibilities are not universally held by True Christians™.

Corollary: the Big Five Incompatibilities are questionable as there is no universal concensus on them.

Conclusion 2: FL is wrong; Evolutionary Theory is not incompatible with Christianity.
Posted by: deadman_932 on Sep. 22 2009,15:22

Floyd Lee: Beyond your shameful display of fallacy-weilding recently, I'd like to remind you of your "good faith" obligations here:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Deadman_932 wrote:
"Remember my caveats – start preaching, witnessing or fail to adhere to good-faith discussion/debate standards and all “rules” go out the window. Your choices determine that." < http://pandasthumb.org/archive....-193695 >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------






---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Deadman_932 wrote:
"Added comments to FL: If you’d like to discuss terms, such as what might constitute preaching/witnessing or failure to adhere to good-faith standards, feel free to post your points at AtBC. I can lay out my views in detail. Generalized good-faith agreements lay bare individual ethics and morals. Obviously, it’s up to you to determine how you present yourself. " < http://pandasthumb.org/archive....-193696 >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



and from my second post in this very thread:

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Deadman_932 wrote:
"Keep in mind that debate is dialogue, not monologue, and that civility (well, to a decent, ethical person) would require *directly* addressing the points of your opponent (as I have with you). " < http://www.antievolution.org/cgi-bin....y153036 >

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



I'm hopeful for you, Floyd -- I'm hopeful that you'll find the personal ethics to live up to what you'd agreed to in terms of "good faith" behavior.

I'm hopeful that your own agreement would be something you live up to, Floyd.

Surprise me.
Posted by: Robin on Sep. 22 2009,15:23

Quote (Robin @ Sep. 22 2009,15:09)
Quote (FloydLee @ Sep. 22 2009,14:45)

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I'll go one better; neither one (Pope Benedict, Francis Collins) thinks there are Big Five Incompatibilities.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


And specifically how does this prove that the Big Five do not exist (especially at a time when evolutionists are clearly saying that they do exist?)

FloydLee
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



It raises the question of why you think those Big Five Incompatibilities are valid -  Here's the logic

A) Collins and Pope Benedict don't think there are Big Five Incompatibilities between Christianity and Evolutionary Theory

B) Collins and Pope Benedict are Christian

Conclusion 1: the concept of the Big Five Incompatibilities are not universally held by True Christians™.

Corollary: the Big Five Incompatibilities are questionable as there is no universal concensus on them.

Conclusion 2: FL is wrong; Evolutionary Theory is not incompatible with Christianity.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------




---------------------QUOTE-------------------
my point demonstrates you have an internal conflict (a logical fallacy) in your claims. Here's the logic
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



My bad - I provided the logic demonstrating that your conclusion is false, not how your claim demonstrates internal conflict. In a nutshell you claim that there are these Big Five Inconsistencies between Evolutionary Theory and Christianity that are brought about by the doctrine that establishes the parameters that define Christianity. Yet you've also said that you accept that both Collins and the Pope are Christians. Yet these two do not hold that there are any such Big Five Incompatibilities between Evolutionary Theory and Christianity. So clearly your claims are inconsistant - either the Big Five Incompatibilities reflect THE absolute parameters of Christianity that Collins and the Pope subscribe to as Christians (as you agree they are) and they DO hold the Big Five as valid, OR Collins and the Pope can't be Christians, or the Big Five aren't valid. Which is it?
Posted by: FloydLee on Sep. 22 2009,15:25



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Evolution enhances, glorifies...and I dare say embiggens the Christianity of hundreds of millions.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Hmmm.   "Embiggens."  Don't know about all that "hundreds of millions" stuff (what, did you do a scientific poll or something?), but that's okay.  Here's what I really want to ask:  

Just take a couple minutes, and tell me specifically how evolution "embiggens" biblical Christianity?
Posted by: Lou FCD on Sep. 22 2009,15:28

Quote (FloydLee @ Sep. 22 2009,16:25)
biblical Christianity?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Define it, TARD.
Posted by: deadman_932 on Sep. 22 2009,15:29

Quote (FloydLee @ Sep. 22 2009,15:25)
   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Evolution enhances, glorifies...and I dare say embiggens the Christianity of hundreds of millions.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Hmmm.   "Embiggens."  Don't know about all that "hundreds of millions" stuff (what, did you do a scientific poll or something?), but that's okay.  Here's what I really want to ask:  

Just take a couple minutes, and tell me specifically how evolution "embiggens" biblical Christianity?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Start answering the many questions you've already failed to answer despite your agreement to act in good faith, Floyd. THEN I will answer your questions.

Do you have ethics and morals, Floyd?

If not, you can consider yourself in violation of your own agreement to act in good faith. Your choice, Floyd.

I can't say I have a LOT of hope for you, given your ploys and avoidance and multiple fallacies, today alone.

ETA: Remember what your reply was at PT, Floyd:


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
FL  September 10, 2009 8:32 AM  Wrote
Hoary: I’m sticking with Deadman’s short guidelines on AtBC. Thanks. See you at AtBC on Sunday if that is your intention.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I had VERY short guidelines, Floyd. Part of that was acting in good faith, which I emphasized in my second post in this thread.

What will it be, Floyd?
Posted by: FloydLee on Sep. 22 2009,16:51

There is absolutely NO chance the Noahic Flood can be local....unless, as the late OEC professor of Old Testament Gleason Archer suggested in his book Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties, the Bible is just flat-out in error about the Flood, period.

First, the Bible itself only points in ONE direction:  Global Noahic Flood.  Not local.  Accept it or reject it, take it or leave it.  Global Flood or No Flood.  That's the only choice the Biblical data offers to you.

< http://www.grisda.org/origins/22058.htm >

IOW, if the Bible is wrong about the Global Noahic Flood, you actually CANNOT salvage that situation by claiming it was just a local flood.  Simply doesn't work that way.  
And even the skeptics know the score on that situation.  Notice what the Secular Blasphemy blog at Salon.com says.
   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Why the Ark?

One obvious question, often asked by global flood proponents, is: If the flood was only local, why should Noah and family have to build an ark to survive?
It would have been much easier to just relocate. Given the long warning, they could have relocated practically anywhere on the planet.

Also, why all the work to save the animals? Animal species would easily survive elsewhere.

Also, why birds? If the water started to rise, the birds would be better off flying away than staying inside a ship. This is certainly a strong argument against a local flood scenario. The internal logic of the Genesis story strongly implies a global flood.

Even if we leave this question aside, the Ark story is not much easier to defend from the perspective of a local flood than a global one.

It is the obvious fact that whoever wrote the Genesis flood legend was not a member of a sea-faring nation. Ancient Israel was not famous for its ships, and the description of the Ark shows that the author hadn't the faintest clue about how to make a seaworthy vessel. It is safe to say that the story would look very different had it been written in Phoenicia, Britain or, for that matter, Norway.

Anyone growing up by the sea in Norway, as I have, would learn the sad truth about wooden vessels: they leak. Always. A lot. Even a small wooden rowboat will accumulate so much water during a few hours in the water that you get very familiar with a scoop and, if you're not used to it, painful blisters in your hands.

A wooden sea vessel 140 meters (450 ft) long is simply impossible.

First, it would leak so much and so heavily that even a battery of modern engine pumps would be hard pressed to save it from a watery grave.

Second, the structure would not be strong enough to carry its own weight in calm water, and much less during a violent flood. Large wooden vessels have hardly been possible even in the industrial age, and then they needed to be reinforced with iron and of course they required constant pumping.

To the landlubber who wrote Genesis, pitch may sound like it's sufficient to make a boat watertight. It is not. Obviously, extrapolating experience with pitch on roofs that only had to sustain rain to what is needed for a boat is very inadequate. Wooden vessels must also be allowed to swell for a period in water before they are sea worthy. The Ark in Genesis didn't even go through this process. No wonder the Hebrews stayed on dry land....
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Where was the Flood?

....The arguments against the flood outlined above are really just included for completeness, because there is one topic where the local flood scenario breaks down completely and proves to be almost equally absurd as the global flood: the geographic location of the flood.

In debating flood proponents, I have had serious problems making them understand this very simple fact: a local flood requires a totally enclosed area, where all of the mountains or hills making up the enclosing rim around the flooded area must be higher than the flood itself.

A simple kitchen experiment will confirm this. You can try from here to eternity to fill up only half of the area of your kitchen sink with water, while allowing the other half to remain dry. Without making some sort of wall, it is simply not possible. Given a chance to escape, water will run out of the enclosure. That is why we have rivers, and that's why the few land areas in the world lower than the sea level are not connected to the ocean by a channel or river.

Where was the local flood? Most casual Bible readers will assume this to be a silly question. Everybody knows that the Ark landed on Mt. Ararat. This is the reason fundamentalist Christians from time to time are engaged in the silly exercise of trying to find the Ark somewhere on this mountain.

Obviously, if the Ark landed on Mt Ararat, the local flood scenario is physically impossible.
This mountain is actually by far the highest in the whole region, with the highest peak 5,137 meters (16,854 ft) above sea level. If the water stood higher than the top of Mt Ararat, then only a small handful of peaks, like a few mountains in the Himalayas, were visible above the water. The flood would have to be global. End of story.

However, the Bible does not actually say that the Ark landed on Mt Ararat. It says:

Genesis 8:3,4 "The water receded steadily from the earth. At the end of the hundred and fifty days the water had gone down, and on the seventeenth day of the seventh month the ark came to rest on the mountains of Ararat."

Ararat, in this text, does not describe a mountain, but a region:

"The name Ararat, as it appears in the Bible, is the Hebrew equivalent of Urardhu, or Urartu, the Assyro-Babylonian name of a kingdom that flourished between the Aras and the Upper Tigris rivers from the 9th to the 7th century BC." Encyclopćdia Britannica, "Mount Ararat" (article no longer freely available online)

We actually find the region, or kingdom, mentioned in four different verses of the Bible (two of which reads the same):

Genesis 8:4 "and on the seventeenth day of the seventh month the ark came to rest on the mountains of Ararat."

2 Kings 19:37 and Isaiah 37:38 "One day, while he was worshiping in the temple of his god Nisroch, his sons Adrammelech and Sharezer cut him down with the sword, and they escaped to the land of Ararat. And Esarhaddon his son succeeded him as king." (These two scriptures are the same)

Jeremiah 51:27 "Lift up a banner in the land! Blow the trumpet among the nations! Prepare the nations for battle against her; summon against her these kingdoms: Ararat, Minni and Ashkenaz. Appoint a commander against her; send up horses like a swarm of locusts."

The Ararat area thus was a remote, but known, area to the Hebrew authors of Old Testament books. It corresponds, actually, to the region where we find Mt Ararat, so the tradition of placing the Ark on this mountain is not contrary to the Bible, but it must be noted that the quoted verse, in isolation, allows the Ark to land on any of the mountains in this area.

According to Black's Bible Dictionary, the Ararat area is

"A section of E[ast] Armenia E[ast] of the Araxes River, somewhat N[orth] of Lakes Van and Urmia, today belonging to Turkey. Ararat provides part of Euphrates' source." (M. S. Miller and J. L. Miller. 1973. Black's Bible Dictionary. London: A. and C. Black Limited. Page 31.)

If the reader is to take the Bible's word as fact, and accept that the Ark landed on some mountain in the Ararat area in East Armenia, then obviously the whole discussion about how to translate the Hebrew word 'har' (discussed later) is totally moot.

To adapt the old joke saying there is no such a thing as 'half a mile' in Australia, it is obvious that the Ararat area has no hills, only mountains. When the Bible says that the water rouse above the 'highest mountains' in this area - which actually is Mt Ararat itself - this makes a local flood scenario absolutely impossible. Look up this area on a map. Lake Van is 1,662 meters (5,452 ft) above sea level. The area is, as far as it's possible to see on a good map, more than 200 kilometers from any area as low as 500 meters above sea level, and twice as long to any area below 200 meters.

Naturally, any flood rising to such levels would have been a global disaster. The local flood proponents still face an impossible scenario.

The local flood believers thus have to relocate the flood to some other region.
Disregarding the exact geographic designation found of the Bible - the whereabouts of the Ararat area is known both from Babylonian and Bible sources - they go searching for some area where they can find room for a local flood and an ark. Somewhere, presumably, with hills but without mountains.

One favorite location for many local flood proponents is the Euphrates-Tigris valley, also known as Mesopotamia. This, they say, is an area without many tall mountains (at least in the southern part), and it is also not too far away from the Biblical lands. Presumably, not moving the Ararat area too far away from where it historically was is also a concern with these apologists, even though their thinking here seems a bit hard to understand.

Again, local flood proponents demonstrate a total lack of understanding of topology and geography.
If you look at a map of an area, and a river runs through it, you can know quite a bit about elevation even without further investigation. If a river runs from the north to the south, as the Euphrates and Tigris rivers generally do, you can be certain about one thing: the land will consistently tilt southwards. Following the river, at no part of the run will the land rise notably. If the land flattens, or especially rises, the river will have to run around it or form a lake that rises to the edge, and then allows the water to run on. This is pretty self-evident.

So, since the Mesopotamian valley contains two rivers, it necessarily cannot contain any mountains or other formations that can form an enclosure for a large flooded area. If it should rain so heavily that it makes the water rise temporarily in some area, the water will quickly escape through any opening. The Biblical flood lasted for many months, which is physically impossible without a totally enclosed area.

We also have to ask how large the flooded area would have to be.
While local flood proponents will have to demonstrate imaginative exegesis generally, it can't be seriously denied that the Genesis text insists that Noah and the other people on the Ark did not see land during many months when they sailed around on the water:

Genesis 8:3-5: "The water receded steadily from the earth. At the end of the hundred and fifty days the water had gone down, and on the seventeenth day of the seventh month the ark came to rest on the mountains of Ararat. The waters continued to recede until the tenth month, and on the first day of the tenth month the tops of the mountains became visible."

As we can see, only some time after the Ark had landed on a mountain did other tops become visible. From this we can easily conclude that this mountain was the tallest in the region, except, presumably, the enclosing mountains that were too distant from the Ark to be visible.

A rule of thumb, well known to sea men, is that the distance to the horizon in nautical miles is 1.17 times the square root of your height of eye in feet. So, since the Ark was 45 feet high (and the window was at the top), we find that an observer would be able to see the horizon 7.85 nautical miles (14.5 km, 9 miles) away. What we are looking for, of course, is how far away an observer could see the enclosing mountains, and since there is no totally smooth crater top of comparative size anywhere in the world, the edge can't be expected to be totally smooth.

Also, since the water resided over a number of months, the relative height of these mountains must steadily have raised. (Gen 8:3 says: "The water receded steadily from the earth.") Yet, nobody on the Ark could see them, so it had to be outside the area that could be seen from the Ark.

Even if we assume the height of the flood enclosure to be no more than 45 feet (same as height of Ark), we would need a circular area with a radius of around 20 km (12.4 miles). That would mean 40 km either way. And this, of course, assumes that the Ark was totally immovable, standing in the exact middle of the flooded area. Is that possible in a turbulent, violent flood? It goes without saying that such a scenario is impossible. And it gets worse. Anyone who has forgotten to moor a small boat, or done it badly, will know that even in smooth waters, only a few hours later the boat will be a speck on the horizon. If it is windy, the situation will be even worse. And the Bible says:

Genesis 8:1 "But God remembered Noah and all the wild animals and the livestock that were with him in the ark, and he sent a wind over the earth, and the waters receded."

This wind blew for 150 days, and a big, rectangular vessel like the Ark would be strongly influenced by this wind (large boats are not allowed to enter narrow channels in strong wind, because they can easily be pushed off course). Even if we assume that the Ark only held a speed of one knot (unrealistically slow), this could take the ark more than 6500 km (4000 miles). That would actually allow the Ark to cross the Atlantic Ocean in 150 days. With a more realistic speed, the strong wind God sent would send the Ark around the Earth many times.

Of course, this presumes a global, not a local, flood, which is exactly what the Genesis text describes.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


There's a lot more anti-local-Flood arguments offered in that article, but this will do for now.

< http://blogs.salon.com/0001561/ >

******

So, for Christians, a key decision must be made.  Will you choose to believe the Bible and believe in the Global Noahic Flood?  Or will you disbelieve the Bible and abandon the entire Flood story period?  

Those are your only two choices, and whichever choice you make will influence future choices, when the skeptics come a-callin' again WRT other Bible issues.
Posted by: Richardthughes on Sep. 22 2009,16:56

Arkists impression:


Posted by: khan on Sep. 22 2009,17:06

Reality or FL?

Made my choice long ago.
Posted by: FloydLee on Sep. 22 2009,17:13



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
THEN I will answer your questions.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


In other words, you really haven't given much thought to specifically how evolution supposedly "embiggens" biblical Christianity.  You suggest it does, yeah yeah, but you've not critically thought it through at all.

You haven't yet worked through that claim for yourself, and you honestly haven't checked whatever it is you have in mind there against the Scriptural data, to make sure you've got actual Bible Compatibility and Consistency with which to support this new "embiggens" claim.

And therefore you're not yet able to tell me how this "evolution embiggens Christianity" claim is actually supposed to work.

(Especially in light of the Big Five Butcher Knives that evolution clearly continues to aim in the direction of biblical Christianity!)

:)
Posted by: deadman_932 on Sep. 22 2009,17:23

Quote (FloydLee @ Sep. 22 2009,17:13)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
THEN I will answer your questions.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


In other words, you really haven't given much thought to specifically how evolution supposedly "embiggens" biblical Christianity.  You suggest it does, yeah yeah, but you've not critically thought it through at all.

You haven't yet worked through that claim for yourself, and you honestly haven't checked whatever it is you have in mind there against the Scriptural data, to make sure you've got actual Bible Compatibility and Consistency with which to support this new "embiggens" claim.

And therefore you're not yet able to tell me how this "evolution embiggens Christianity" claim is actually supposed to work.

(Especially in light of the Big Five Butcher Knives that evolution clearly continues to aim in the direction of biblical Christianity!)

:)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


So, you're not a man of your word, are you, Floyd?
Posted by: FloydLee on Sep. 22 2009,17:24

Stanton speaks of:
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
....the fact that the Pope is a walking, talking, benedicting refutation of all four of FL's points.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


So, Stanton, sounds like you've worked your way through this.  Please do me a favor, then?  Please locate exactly (online, print, any way you can) where Pope Benedict has stated a specific refutation for each of the Big Four (actually, now it's the Big Five, so please include each of the Big Five.)  

Then show 'em to me so I can examine and consider them.

Thanks in advance!     :)
Posted by: deadman_932 on Sep. 22 2009,17:24

Quote (deadman_932 @ Sep. 22 2009,15:22)
Floyd Lee: Beyond your shameful display of fallacy-weilding recently, I'd like to remind you of your "good faith" obligations here:

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Deadman_932 wrote:
"Remember my caveats – start preaching, witnessing or fail to adhere to good-faith discussion/debate standards and all “rules” go out the window. Your choices determine that." < http://pandasthumb.org/archive....-193695 >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------




 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Deadman_932 wrote:
"Added comments to FL: If you’d like to discuss terms, such as what might constitute preaching/witnessing or failure to adhere to good-faith standards, feel free to post your points at AtBC. I can lay out my views in detail. Generalized good-faith agreements lay bare individual ethics and morals. Obviously, it’s up to you to determine how you present yourself. " < http://pandasthumb.org/archive....-193696 >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



and from my second post in this very thread:

   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Deadman_932 wrote:
"Keep in mind that debate is dialogue, not monologue, and that civility (well, to a decent, ethical person) would require *directly* addressing the points of your opponent (as I have with you). " < http://www.antievolution.org/cgi-bin....y153036 >

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



I'm hopeful for you, Floyd -- I'm hopeful that you'll find the personal ethics to live up to what you'd agreed to in terms of "good faith" behavior.

I'm hopeful that your own agreement would be something you live up to, Floyd.

Surprise me.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------





---------------------QUOTE-------------------
FL Wrote:
Hoary: I’m sticking with Deadman’s short guidelines on AtBC. Thanks. See you at AtBC on Sunday if that is your intention.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Read these posts again, Floyd. Do you have *any* honor or ethics?
Posted by: Richardthughes on Sep. 22 2009,17:25

Quote (deadman_932 @ Sep. 22 2009,17:23)
So, you're not a man of your word, are you, Floyd?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


It's okay, i believe the bible gives that one a pass.
Posted by: Chayanov on Sep. 22 2009,17:27

So FL really does believe in God the Magic Hominid.

Why is this "debate" going on, again?
Posted by: Stanton on Sep. 22 2009,17:29

So, tell us, FL, if there was a global flood 4000 years ago as described in the Bible, why is there no evidence of it?  How were the Pyramids built if they were constructed at a time where the population was 8?  Why do all of the ancient cities of Mesopotamia, or any other civilization from 4000 years ago, show no sign of being obliterated by a global flood?

Tell us, why doesn't the Pope care about your moronic points?

Why do you think that a tiger eating a deer is cruel and horrible, but not divinely mandated genocide and child rape?
Posted by: olegt on Sep. 22 2009,17:30

Teh global flood?  Haven't seen that one in a while.  Boy, this is fun!

Floyd, do you have any idea how much water is needed so that all of the mountain ranges on Earth would be covered?  

Even with the assumption of < extreme rain > (precipitation rate of 100 mm an hour) deluging the Earth 24/7 for forty days, the waters will only rise by 96 meters.  That's just 2 per cent of Mt. Ararat's height.  It makes no sense to use rain for that purpose.  

So where did the flood water come from?  Where did it go?  Did it leave any traces?
Posted by: khan on Sep. 22 2009,17:32

The Flood and The Rapture both assume a flat Earth.
Posted by: Stanton on Sep. 22 2009,17:35

Quote (FloydLee @ Sep. 22 2009,17:24)
Stanton speaks of:
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
....the fact that the Pope is a walking, talking, benedicting refutation of all four of FL's points.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


So, Stanton, sounds like you've worked your way through this.  Please do me a favor, then?  Please locate exactly (online, print, any way you can) where Pope Benedict has stated a specific refutation for each of the Big Four (actually, now it's the Big Five, so please include each of the Big Five.)  

Then show 'em to me so I can examine and consider them.

Thanks in advance!     :)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I provided a URL mentioning the Pope saying that it was nonsense to believe in Young Earth Creationism and a literal reading of the Bible earlier in this thread.

It's not my fault you're too tangled up in your smarm and stupidity to have noticed it, and that you're too busy being an arrogant jerk to admit that the Pope accepts both evolution and faith in Jesus Christ.
Posted by: Chayanov on Sep. 22 2009,17:40

Quote (Stanton @ Sep. 22 2009,17:29)
So, tell us, FL, if there was a global flood 4000 years ago as described in the Bible, why is there no evidence of it?  How were the Pyramids built if they were constructed at a time where the population was 8?  Why do all of the ancient cities of Mesopotamia, or any other civilization from 4000 years ago, show no sign of being obliterated by a global flood?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Maybe that was the first insurance claim, and the reason why most homeowners' policies don't cover flood insurance.
Posted by: deadman_932 on Sep. 22 2009,17:45

I'm curious as to why Floyd Lee posted up that last bit concering a "Global  V. Local Flood."

Rather than behaving honorably and adhering to his "good faith" agreement and dealing with the many unanswered direct questions put to him today alone, he chose to post up that bit.  

I went back and looked a few pages in this thread, and I can't find any reason for it -- certainly nothing today that I saw.

ETA: Interesting. I don't see anything from the beginning of this thread onwards that would lead him to post that ; it's not a response to anyone that I can see on this thread at all.
Posted by: Stanton on Sep. 22 2009,18:03

Quote (deadman_932 @ Sep. 22 2009,17:45)
I'm curious as to why Floyd Lee posted up that last bit concering a "Global  V. Local Flood."
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


That's because FL's goal here is not to debate, but to preach at us.


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Rather than behaving honorably and adhering to his "good faith" agreement and dealing with the many unanswered direct questions put to him today alone, he chose to post up that bit.  

I went back and looked a few pages in this thread, and I can't find any reason for it -- certainly nothing today that I saw.

ETA: Interesting. I don't see anything from the beginning of this thread onwards that would lead him to post that ; it's not a response to anyone that I can see on this thread at all.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Only a total, utter fool would possess the fatally naivity required to trust FL to "act honorably" or, laughably, "act in good faith."
Posted by: deadman_932 on Sep. 22 2009,18:21

I have to admit that I didn't really expect Floyd Lee to act *completely * honorably or with any real ethics.

BUT I also have to admit that I scarcely expected Floyd Lee to just completely ignore his own agreement to act in good faith...which I stipulated meant responding directly to direct questions. He just acts as if his word means nothing at all, blatantly.

Not shocking by any means, but still revealing in terms of how YECs operate.

There's a familiar adage about YECs that "they can't NOT lie" about what they beleve versus what the evidence can show. I've seen this in action many times, of course -- but seldom so clearly and without any concern about the obvious duplicity/dishonesty so easily apparent.

However, combine his recent actions (like the "Local v. Global Fludde " post to no one) and I think what I see is a desperate YEC trying to get martyred.

"Death by cop" kinda thing.
Posted by: Dan on Sep. 22 2009,20:13

Quote (deadman_932 @ Sep. 22 2009,14:49)
Cherry-picking who to respond to -- despite initially agreeing to act in good faith , Floyd? And actual responses to interlocutors was part of that "good faith" deal.

For shame, sir. For shame.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



FL said he was here to debate.  But his actions show that he's here to debase.
Posted by: Dan on Sep. 22 2009,20:21

Quote (FloydLee @ Sep. 22 2009,09:28)
 

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



Very interesting you should word it that way, because the existence of "the majesty of His great plan" WRT biological origins is exactly what evolution denies.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Evolution does not deny anything.  Evolution does not affirm anything.  Evolution is a fact.

I once put the fact that the Earth is (approximately) spherical on a chair and interrogated it for an hour and a half.  It neither affirmed nor denied anything!

I'm certain that evolution would be equally reticent.
Posted by: Stanton on Sep. 22 2009,20:34

Quote (Dan @ Sep. 22 2009,20:13)
Quote (deadman_932 @ Sep. 22 2009,14:49)
Cherry-picking who to respond to -- despite initially agreeing to act in good faith , Floyd? And actual responses to interlocutors was part of that "good faith" deal.

For shame, sir. For shame.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



FL said he was here to debate.  But his actions show that he's here to debase.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


And preach.
Posted by: Keelyn on Sep. 22 2009,20:40

So far, this has been a classic example of the futility of trying to reason (arguably, there seems to be very little debate going on) with a close-minded, irrational, fanatic. The frightening thing is that, contrary to Floyd's imaginary fears that millions are in peril of going straight to f'ing hell, fanatical and irrational literalist fundamentalism (such as YEC) seems to be growing, not dwindling - at least here in the U.S. (Ham's Creation "Museum" and the mega-churches seem to be thriving and expanding businesses) Of course, Floyd will totally deny that he is close-minded, irrational, or fanatical. Close-minded, irrational fanatics always do.
Posted by: Stanton on Sep. 22 2009,20:42

Quote (Keelyn @ Sep. 22 2009,20:40)
Of course, Floyd will totally deny that he is close-minded, irrational, or fanatical. Close-minded, irrational fanatics always do.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Hence the term "invincible ignorance"
Posted by: Dale_Husband on Sep. 22 2009,23:20

FL seems to have totally ignored my damning point I made looooooooooooooooong ago here. So I'll repeat it and spell it out for him and the rest of you:

< http://circleh.wordpress.com/2009....genesis >


It’s not just evolution that discredits Genesis!

It’s modern astronomy as well, as this one verse makes painfully clear:

Genesis 1:16 – “God made two great lights – the greater light to rule the day and the lesser light to rule the night. He made the stars also.”

Of course, one looking at the night sky with no knowledge of modern astronomy would assume that  the stars are nothing more than a decoration  to add to the light provided by the Sun and the Moon. But in fact, many stars are far bigger and brighter than the Sun and ALL stars are also suns, greater lights in their own star systems.

< http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z8BncJ7XMLk >

Had that Bible verse been inspired by the true Creator of the universe, it might have been written: “God made billions of great lights, one of which we call the Sun that rules our days, and also made a lesser light to rule the night.”

Ironically,  in another part of the Bible, we read:

Psalms 19:1-2: “The heavens declare the glory of God; the skies proclaim the work of his hands. Day after day they pour forth speech; night after night they display knowledge.”

If that is true, then clearly we need to toss out the references to the Sun, the Moon, and the stars in Genesis, since they fail to “declare the glory of God” and also fail to “display knowledge” like the heavens are supposed to do according to the 19th Psalm.
Posted by: Dale_Husband on Sep. 22 2009,23:40


The important point to remember is that Christianity is not based on the literal truth of the Book of Genesis. It is based on whether you beleive that Jesus was the Messiah predicted to come and save the world.




---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Matthew 16:15-19 (King James Version)

15 [Jesus] saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am?

16 And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.

17 And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.

18 And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

19 And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.


---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Nothing there about believeing in Creationism. Especially not the Young Earth kind.
Posted by: Stanton on Sep. 23 2009,00:52

Quote (Dale_Husband @ Sep. 22 2009,23:40)

The important point to remember is that Christianity is not based on the literal truth of the Book of Genesis. It is based on whether you beleive that Jesus was the Messiah predicted to come and save the world.


 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Matthew 16:15-19 (King James Version)

15 [Jesus] saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am?

16 And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.

17 And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.

18 And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

19 And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.


---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Nothing there about believeing in Creationism. Especially not the Young Earth kind.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Unfortunately, FL demonstrates that he does not give a flying fig tree about what Jesus said if Jesus contradicts what FL is preaching.
Posted by: Keelyn on Sep. 23 2009,01:20

As I stated earlier - Floyd is well equiped for a comfortable life of mind ...provided he had lived before the middle of the 19th century - I guess he missed out by about 150 years or so. What worries me more are all the others who think like him and are in positions of making education policies at state and local levels.
Posted by: Quack on Sep. 23 2009,02:20

I consider it a well documented fact that people like FL create their own religion of faith based on their personal understanding of scripture. Nothing can make them waver.

An integral part of that package is the urge to proselytize.

The agenda is FL's, the flood was not included in that.

People like FL ignore all bible scholarship, be it Albert Schweitzer or all the rest over 2000 years.

What characterize Christian apologetics and creationists is that they do not seek truth, they only seek confirmation of their faith.

What more is there to say? I won't bother with "casting pearls before swine."
Posted by: Robin on Sep. 23 2009,08:37

Quote (FloydLee @ Sep. 22 2009,17:24)

---------------------QUOTE-------------------




---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Stanton speaks of:
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
....the fact that the Pope is a walking, talking, benedicting refutation of all four of FL's points.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


So, Stanton, sounds like you've worked your way through this.  Please do me a favor, then?  Please locate exactly (online, print, any way you can) where Pope Benedict has stated a specific refutation for each of the Big Four (actually, now it's the Big Five, so please include each of the Big Five.)  

Then show 'em to me so I can examine and consider them.

Thanks in advance!     :)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Burden of proof fallacy, Floyd. No no...YOU have to demonstrate (as I noted) that the Pope even thinks that the Big Five are valid since his statements clearly indicate a contradiction to such. So unless you can establish that he, as a Christian, accepts your Big Five, the only logical conclusion is that they are not valid. LOL!
Posted by: FloydLee on Sep. 23 2009,08:46



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I provided a URL mentioning the Pope saying that it was nonsense to believe in Young Earth Creationism and a literal reading of the Bible earlier in this thread.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Yes, I did read it.  So in fact, the Pope has NOT actually addressed the specific Big Five Incompatibilities at all, let alone provided a solution for them.  
Would you agree Stanton?
Posted by: FloydLee on Sep. 23 2009,08:58



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I'm curious as to why Floyd Lee posted up that last bit concering a "Global  V. Local Flood."
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


That actually belonged in the peanut thread (I'll paste a copy there today) because some folks mentioned the issue there.

It's an honest mistake, no big deal, but I can understand your hand-wringing about it though.  Much easier for you to do that than to deal with those Big Five, much easier.

FloydLee
Posted by: k.e.. on Sep. 23 2009,09:15

Quote (FloydLee @ Sep. 23 2009,16:58)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I'm curious as to why Floyd Lee posted up that last bit concering a "Global  V. Local Flood."
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


That actually belonged in the peanut thread (I'll paste a copy there today) because some folks mentioned the issue there.

It's an honest mistake, no big deal, but I can understand your hand-wringing about it though.  Much easier for you to do that than to deal with those Big Five, much easier.

FloydLee
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Bwhahahahahahahaha

THE BIG FIVE?

.....From a little pissant.

Come on FL tell us all about ghosts, demons, satan, ufos, global warming, when jesus returns (gaffaw), hell (snikker)
the monetary system, Obama's birth, granny killing for Deomcrats, the injustice done to Ken Ham

be a sport.

I'll tell you what. You conceed polygamy for Christian whack jobs and I'll conceed Evolution didn't happen on the sun.
Posted by: FloydLee on Sep. 23 2009,09:52

In fact, this Pope angle has been really weak, coming from you guys.  

The Pope hasn't addressed the Big Five, hasn't provided ANY kind of reconcilations, the Pope hasn't addressed the self-testimonies of evolutionists who say that evolution was part of their loss of faith.

And of course, in all your attempts you consistently fail to mention that in fact, the Pope has in fact AFFIRMED the first and second of the Big Five.
   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
"With the sacred Scripture, the Lord awakens the reason that sleeps and tells us: In the beginning, there was the creative word. In the beginning, the creative word -- this word that created everything and created this intelligent project that is the cosmos -- is also love."

<a href="http://kdka.com/national/Vatican.Pope.Benedict.2.259662.html" target="_blank"></a>  
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Take note:

1.  God is the Required Explanation for origins, according to the Pope.  And note the scope of the claim:  "c.r.e.a.t.e.d  e.v.e.r.y.t.h.i.n.g".   That's the first of the Big Five, you'll remember.  And it's a big one.

2.  Teleology again.  That 'creative word' and 'creative reason' is STRAIGHT teleology, not a penny less. Conscious forethought.  Purpose.  Goal-directedness.
Oh sure sure, the Pope still supports evolution.  BUT....only on condition that teleology is admitted in the evolutionary process.  For e.v.e.r.y.t.h.i.n.g.  The pope used a notable phrase, btw---"Intelligent Project".  

Doesn't mean he's an ID guy, (he's a TE guy, not ID), but it DOES mean a solid endorsement of teleology.  God's teleology, even.  He's saying it's NOT optional.  That's the huge second gig of the Big Five.

In fact, the Pope quotes St. Basil, in case you don't git the message.
   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
He quoted St. Basil the Great, a fourth century saint, as saying some people, "fooled by the atheism that they carry inside of them, imagine a universe free of direction and order, as if at the mercy of chance."

"How many of these people are there today? These people, fooled by atheism, believe and try to demonstrate that it's scientific to think that everything is free of direction and order," he said.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


And remember, the Pope has NEVER retracted these particular statements of his.  Not even once.  (Any atheists out there?  He's in your face there.)

But hey, by him insisting on God-Is-Required-Explanation and God-Teleology-in-Evolution, doesn't that directly contradict evolutionary theory's non-negotialte NT-NCF, doesn't that negate Futuyma EB-3rd Mayr Coyne Biology-391?  "Evolutionary theory DOES NOT ADMIT...", right?
 
Right.  Absolutely.  So how does the Pope rationally resolve this discrepancy?  He never says how.  The giant incompatibility remains unresolved to this day.)

******

So, would you guys mind ramping it up a bit on this Pope thing?  Right now your attempts to exploit him are looking mighteh weak.
Posted by: FloydLee on Sep. 23 2009,10:05

Hey, let me offer something extra here.  
If you are Catholic and interested in evolution, you may be especially interested in Thomas Centrella's excellent article, "Is Theistic Evolution Truly Plausible?"  

(He makes a very good papal-based case that it is NOT.)  

Give it a try:

< http://www.kolbecenter.org/centrella_te_plausible.htm >
Posted by: FloydLee on Sep. 23 2009,10:16

On page 12, the possibility of a local Flood was raised.  In response to that, I would point out:

There is absolutely NO chance the Noahic Flood can be local....unless, as the late OEC professor of Old Testament Gleason Archer suggested in his book Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties, the Bible is just flat-out in error about the Flood, period.

First, the Bible itself only points in ONE direction:  Global Noahic Flood.  Not local.  Accept it or reject it, take it or leave it.  Global Flood or No Flood.  That's the only choice the Biblical data offers to you.

< http://www.grisda.org/origins/22058.htm >

IOW, if the Bible is wrong about the Global Noahic Flood, you actually CANNOT salvage that situation by claiming it was just a local flood.  Simply doesn't work that way.

And even the skeptics know the score on that situation.  Notice what the Secular Blasphemy blog at Salon.com says.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Why the Ark?

One obvious question, often asked by global flood proponents, is: If the flood was only local, why should Noah and family have to build an ark to survive?

It would have been much easier to just relocate. Given the long warning, they could have relocated practically anywhere on the planet.

Also, why all the work to save the animals? Animal species would easily survive elsewhere.

Also, why birds? If the water started to rise, the birds would be better off flying away than staying inside a ship. This is certainly a strong argument against a local flood scenario. The internal logic of the Genesis story strongly implies a global flood.

Even if we leave this question aside, the Ark story is not much easier to defend from the perspective of a local flood than a global one.

It is the obvious fact that whoever wrote the Genesis flood legend was not a member of a sea-faring nation. Ancient Israel was not famous for its ships, and the description of the Ark shows that the author hadn't the faintest clue about how to make a seaworthy vessel. It is safe to say that the story would look very different had it been written in Phoenicia, Britain or, for that matter, Norway.

Anyone growing up by the sea in Norway, as I have, would learn the sad truth about wooden vessels: they leak. Always. A lot. Even a small wooden rowboat will accumulate so much water during a few hours in the water that you get very familiar with a scoop and, if you're not used to it, painful blisters in your hands.

A wooden sea vessel 140 meters (450 ft) long is simply impossible.

First, it would leak so much and so heavily that even a battery of modern engine pumps would be hard pressed to save it from a watery grave.

Second, the structure would not be strong enough to carry its own weight in calm water, and much less during a violent flood. Large wooden vessels have hardly been possible even in the industrial age, and then they needed to be reinforced with iron and of course they required constant pumping.

To the landlubber who wrote Genesis, pitch may sound like it's sufficient to make a boat watertight. It is not. Obviously, extrapolating experience with pitch on roofs that only had to sustain rain to what is needed for a boat is very inadequate. Wooden vessels must also be allowed to swell for a period in water before they are sea worthy. The Ark in Genesis didn't even go through this process. No wonder the Hebrews stayed on dry land....
---------------------QUOTE-------------------





---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Where was the Flood?

....The arguments against the flood outlined above are really just included for completeness, because there is one topic where the local flood scenario breaks down completely and proves to be almost equally absurd as the global flood:
the geographic location of the flood.

In debating flood proponents, I have had serious problems making them understand this very simple fact: a local flood requires a totally enclosed area, where all of the mountains or hills making up the enclosing rim around the flooded area must be higher than the flood itself.

A simple kitchen experiment will confirm this. You can try from here to eternity to fill up only half of the area of your kitchen sink with water, while allowing the other half to remain dry.

Without making some sort of wall, it is simply not possible. Given a chance to escape, water will run out of the enclosure. That is why we have rivers, and that's why the few land areas in the world lower than the sea level are not connected to the ocean by a channel or river.

Where was the local flood? Most casual Bible readers will assume this to be a silly question. Everybody knows that the Ark landed on Mt. Ararat. This is the reason fundamentalist Christians from time to time are engaged in the silly exercise of trying to find the Ark somewhere on this mountain.

Obviously, if the Ark landed on Mt Ararat, the local flood scenario is physically impossible.
This mountain is actually by far the highest in the whole region, with the highest peak 5,137 meters (16,854 ft) above sea level. If the water stood higher than the top of Mt Ararat, then only a small handful of peaks, like a few mountains in the Himalayas, were visible above the water. The flood would have to be global. End of story.

However, the Bible does not actually say that the Ark landed on Mt Ararat. It says:

Genesis 8:3,4 "The water receded steadily from the earth. At the end of the hundred and fifty days the water had gone down, and on the seventeenth day of the seventh month the ark came to rest on the mountains of Ararat."

Ararat, in this text, does not describe a mountain, but a region:

"The name Ararat, as it appears in the Bible, is the Hebrew equivalent of Urardhu, or Urartu, the Assyro-Babylonian name of a kingdom that flourished between the Aras and the Upper Tigris rivers from the 9th to the 7th century BC." Encyclopćdia Britannica, "Mount Ararat" (article no longer freely available online)

We actually find the region, or kingdom, mentioned in four different verses of the Bible (two of which reads the same):

Genesis 8:4 "and on the seventeenth day of the seventh month the ark came to rest on the mountains of Ararat."

2 Kings 19:37 and Isaiah 37:38 "One day, while he was worshiping in the temple of his god Nisroch, his sons Adrammelech and Sharezer cut him down with the sword, and they escaped to the land of Ararat. And Esarhaddon his son succeeded him as king." (These two scriptures are the same)

Jeremiah 51:27 "Lift up a banner in the land! Blow the trumpet among the nations! Prepare the nations for battle against her; summon against her these kingdoms: Ararat, Minni and Ashkenaz. Appoint a commander against her; send up horses like a swarm of locusts."

The Ararat area thus was a remote, but known, area to the Hebrew authors of Old Testament books. It corresponds, actually, to the region where we find Mt Ararat, so the tradition of placing the Ark on this mountain is not contrary to the Bible, but it must be noted that the quoted verse, in isolation, allows the Ark to land on any of the mountains in this area.

According to Black's Bible Dictionary, the Ararat area is

"A section of E[ast] Armenia E[ast] of the Araxes River, somewhat N[orth] of Lakes Van and Urmia, today belonging to Turkey. Ararat provides part of Euphrates' source." (M. S. Miller and J. L. Miller. 1973. Black's Bible Dictionary. London: A. and C. Black Limited. Page 31.)

If the reader is to take the Bible's word as fact, and accept that the Ark landed on some mountain in the Ararat area in East Armenia, then obviously the whole discussion about how to translate the Hebrew word 'har' (discussed later) is totally moot.

To adapt the old joke saying there is no such a thing as 'half a mile' in Australia, it is obvious that the Ararat area has no hills, only mountains. When the Bible says that the water rouse above the 'highest mountains' in this area - which actually is Mt Ararat itself - this makes a local flood scenario absolutely impossible. Look up this area on a map. Lake Van is 1,662 meters (5,452 ft) above sea level. The area is, as far as it's possible to see on a good map, more than 200 kilometers from any area as low as 500 meters above sea level, and twice as long to any area below 200 meters.

Naturally, any flood rising to such levels would have been a global disaster.
The local flood proponents still face an impossible scenario.The local flood believers thus have to relocate the flood to some other region.

Disregarding the exact geographic designation found of the Bible - the whereabouts of the Ararat area is known both from Babylonian and Bible sources - they go searching for some area where they can find room for a local flood and an ark. Somewhere, presumably, with hills but without mountains.

One favorite location for many local flood proponents is the Euphrates-Tigris valley, also known as Mesopotamia. This, they say, is an area without many tall mountains (at least in the southern part), and it is also not too far away from the Biblical lands. Presumably, not moving the Ararat area too far away from where it historically was is also a concern with these apologists, even though their thinking here seems a bit hard to understand.

Again, local flood proponents demonstrate a total lack of understanding of topology and geography.
If you look at a map of an area, and a river runs through it, you can know quite a bit about elevation even without further investigation. If a river runs from the north to the south, as the Euphrates and Tigris rivers generally do, you can be certain about one thing: the land will consistently tilt southwards. Following the river, at no part of the run will the land rise notably. If the land flattens, or especially rises, the river will have to run around it or form a lake that rises to the edge, and then allows the water to run on. This is pretty self-evident.

So, since the Mesopotamian valley contains two rivers, it necessarily cannot contain any mountains or other formations that can form an enclosure for a large flooded area. If it should rain so heavily that it makes the water rise temporarily in some area, the water will quickly escape through any opening. The Biblical flood lasted for many months, which is physically impossible without a totally enclosed area.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------





---------------------QUOTE-------------------
We also have to ask how large the flooded area would have to be.
While local flood proponents will have to demonstrate imaginative exegesis generally, it can't be seriously denied that the Genesis text insists that Noah and the other people on the Ark did not see land during many months when they sailed around on the water:

Genesis 8:3-5: "The water receded steadily from the earth. At the end of the hundred and fifty days the water had gone down, and on the seventeenth day of the seventh month the ark came to rest on the mountains of Ararat. The waters continued to recede until the tenth month, and on the first day of the tenth month the tops of the mountains became visible."

As we can see, only some time after the Ark had landed on a mountain did other tops become visible. From this we can easily conclude that this mountain was the tallest in the region, except, presumably, the enclosing mountains that were too distant from the Ark to be visible.

A rule of thumb, well known to sea men, is that the distance to the horizon in nautical miles is 1.17 times the square root of your height of eye in feet. So, since the Ark was 45 feet high (and the window was at the top), we find that an observer would be able to see the horizon 7.85 nautical miles (14.5 km, 9 miles) away. What we are looking for, of course, is how far away an observer could see the enclosing mountains, and since there is no totally smooth crater top of comparative size anywhere in the world, the edge can't be expected to be totally smooth.

Also, since the water resided over a number of months, the relative height of these mountains must steadily have raised. (Gen 8:3 says: "The water receded steadily from the earth.") Yet, nobody on the Ark could see them, so it had to be outside the area that could be seen from the Ark.

Even if we assume the height of the flood enclosure to be no more than 45 feet (same as height of Ark), we would need a circular area with a radius of around 20 km (12.4 miles). That would mean 40 km either way. And this, of course, assumes that the Ark was totally immovable, standing in the exact middle of the flooded area. Is that possible in a turbulent, violent flood? It goes without saying that such a scenario is impossible. And it gets worse. Anyone who has forgotten to moor a small boat, or done it badly, will know that even in smooth waters, only a few hours later the boat will be a speck on the horizon. If it is windy, the situation will be even worse. And the Bible says:

Genesis 8:1 "But God remembered Noah and all the wild animals and the livestock that were with him in the ark, and he sent a wind over the earth, and the waters receded."

This wind blew for 150 days, and a big, rectangular vessel like the Ark would be strongly influenced by this wind (large boats are not allowed to enter narrow channels in strong wind, because they can easily be pushed off course). Even if we assume that the Ark only held a speed of one knot (unrealistically slow), this could take the ark more than 6500 km (4000 miles). That would actually allow the Ark to cross the Atlantic Ocean in 150 days. With a more realistic speed, the strong wind God sent would send the Ark around the Earth many times.

Of course, this presumes a global, not a local, flood, which is exactly what the Genesis text describes.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

 

There's a lot more anti-local-Flood arguments offered in that article, but this will do for now.

< http://blogs.salon.com/0001561/ >

******

So, for Christians, a key decision must be made.  Will you choose to believe the Bible and believe in the Global Noahic Flood?  Or will you disbelieve the Bible and abandon the entire Flood story period?  

Those are your only two choices, and whichever choice you make will influence future choices, when the skeptics come a-callin' again WRT other Bible issues.
Posted by: FloydLee on Sep. 23 2009,10:21

test message
Posted by: FloydLee on Sep. 23 2009,10:22

Okay, now I see what's happening.  Apparently, anything I post on the peanut thread is automatically being redirected to the main debate thread.

Well, no problem.  But that explains why the post about the Flood appeared here.
Posted by: Stanton on Sep. 23 2009,10:24

Firstly, you fail to point out specifically where the Pope was demanding that evolution must be denied in order to be a Christian, and you fail to point out specifically where the Pope was demanding that the Book of Genesis must be read literally, and you also fail to point out where the Pope was demanding that a True Christian must follow the five points you pulled out of your arse in order to be a True Christian.

We bring up the Pope to counter your pathetic and ridiculous points, FL, because he is an example of a Christian who finds no need to deny evolution to maintain his faith in God.

In fact, FL, you haven't produced a single example of a Christian who is a better Christian because he holds the Bible to be the ultimate authority on literally everything to the point of denying reality and accusing other Christians who don't hold to sola scriptura to be wrong and broken.  That, and if being a True Christian means not only denying reality, but to also be like you, a smug, gossiping liar who apparently takes arrogant pride that his word has less value than soiled toilet paper, millions of Christians would sooner become soulless apostates than to be like you.
Posted by: Amadan on Sep. 23 2009,10:40

Floyd, can you clarify something for me?

Your first incompatibility of "evolution"* and what you call Christianity claims that God is the required explanation for the origin of, well, everything. You cite Colossians 1:16, which suggests to me that in your view, God is the originator of all things seen and unseen, not just the earth, animals, plants, stars etc (Genesis) or Jesus (John).

Does this mean, in your view, that "Biblical Christianity" states that God creates all things even now? For example, I am looking at patterns created on a computer screen as I type this. Did God create those patterns? They weren't there a moment ago (gosh! there's another one!). And I had the distinct impression that some combination of me, Bill Gates, Michael Dell and the Electricity Supply Board were doing the creating. Am I wrong? If not, the reason you find incompatibility between "evolution" and your "Biblical Christianity" is because your "Biblical Christianity" is so ludicrously and selectively literal that no rational person would accept it.

Perhaps you'll say that, no, what God did was create all the matter and energy and the rest is down to Nature and human agency. If so, how does that make theistic evolution incompatible with the theory of evolution (as understood in non-YEC circles)? Is your God so small that he cannot direct evolution as he sees fit? Having created the universe, is he bound by laws of probability and the likes?

I have to say, Floyd, it truly looks like everyone is out of step but you. But maybe you'll set us right.


* Which for some reason known only to Floyd, takes in cosmology, geology, biochemistry, genetics, abiogenesis, and, quite possibly, bicycle maintenance

Edit: fixed footnote failure
Posted by: Robin on Sep. 23 2009,12:06

Quote (FloydLee @ Sep. 23 2009,09:52)
 
---------------------QUOTE-------------------




---------------------QUOTE-------------------
In fact, this Pope angle has been really weak, coming from you guys.  

The Pope hasn't addressed the Big Five, hasn't provided ANY kind of reconcilations, the Pope hasn't addressed the self-testimonies of evolutionists who say that evolution was part of their loss of faith.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Now you're just trying to make an Argument from Silence. Unfortunately by your own claim it becomes apparent that the Pope has indeed addressed your Big Five. The Pope has said in no uncertain terms that evolution does not conflict with Christianity - a direct addressing (by way of dismissing) of your Big Five and, as I noted earlier, an address that creates an internal conflict for your argument. You've not addressed that conflict yet, so all we can conclude is that your argument is invalid. Feel free to point out how your claims do not conflict however.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Doesn't mean he's an ID guy, (he's a TE guy, not ID), but it DOES mean a solid endorsement of teleology.  God's teleology, even.  He's saying it's NOT optional.  That's the huge second gig of the Big Five.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



And, as I noted previously, that's fine. Evolutionary Theory doesn't conclude or incorporate the notion that teleology doesn't exist - it merely notes that evolution require teleology. If you want to hold teleology as a necessity - fine - evolution still works the same way regardless.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
But hey, by him insisting on God-Is-Required-Explanation and God-Teleology-in-Evolution, doesn't that directly contradict evolutionary theory's non-negotialte NT-NCF, doesn't that negate Futuyma EB-3rd Mayr Coyne Biology-391?  "Evolutionary theory DOES NOT ADMIT...", right?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Nope. Not one bit. You're just looking really silly.
Posted by: FloydLee on Sep. 23 2009,12:29

Just a reminder for Quack:  whatever I type in the peanut thread seems to be redirecting to the main debate board.
Posted by: FloydLee on Sep. 23 2009,12:34

Having said that,  let's look at one Quack statement.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
That’s only the beginning, the whole bible stinks – and it reeks of symbolic language too.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Just curious, a sort of side inquiry:  how many of you readers agree with that specific statement?
Posted by: Robin on Sep. 23 2009,12:46

Quote (FloydLee @ Sep. 23 2009,12:34)

---------------------QUOTE-------------------




---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Having said that,  let's look at one Quack statement.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
That’s only the beginning, the whole bible stinks – and it reeks of symbolic language too.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Just curious, a sort of side inquiry:  how many of you readers agree with that specific statement?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



I personally don't think it stinks. I find it holds the same type of inspirational thinking, guidance, and morale teaching as can be found in Aesop's Fables, Mark Twain's letters, Homer's Odyssey, and the Lord of the Rings as well as other great works. It is a set of fables that one can find some truly admirable and life rewarding concepts in. It can be fun collection of stories to read if one can get past the Old English, harshly translated Koine, and humorous Hebrew.
Posted by: deadman_932 on Sep. 23 2009,12:50

Just as a point of information:

Floyd Lee's current tactic is to pretend his "Big Five " have not been addressed.

This is coupled with his avoiding answering those points raised against his claims (so he can pretend those responses don't exist).

In doing so, Floyd Lee has abandoned his own agreement to engage in good-faith debate.

As I stated to Floyd Lee prior to starting this thread;

" debate is dialogue, not monologue, and that civility (well, to a decent, ethical person) would require *directly* addressing the points of your opponent ...
fail to adhere to good-faith discussion/debate standards and all “rules” go out the window. Your choices determine that.

Floyd Lee's own choices have determined that other posters are no longer obliged to treat Floyd Lee as anything more than a fraud willing to go back on his word -- a fanatic without ethics or honor.

It appears that's exactly what he wants to be able to claim "persecution" and "victory" based on emotional appeal rather than the strength of his argument and logic (since he has none of the latter).

Myself, I find mockery of his stupidity, dishonesty, childlike views and blatantly false claims is enough. Others can do as they wish, of course. There are no longer any special rules to this thread. Floyd Lee has seen to that.
Posted by: FloydLee on Sep. 23 2009,13:02



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Floyd Lee's current tactic is to pretend his "Big Five " have not been addressed.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Certainly not by Pope Benedict, as we have seen.

Furthermore, where his speeches may  impact on our discussion of the Big Five, we have seen that his words actually REINFORCE the first two incompatibilites, creating clear clashes with evolutionary theory as currently taught by evolutionist scientists.  Nor has he offered any reconciliations for ANY of the Big Five.

Y'all gotta do a much much better job of hiding behind his skirts, if that is your intention.

Incidentally, nobody has yet shown how evolution supposedly "embiggens" (love that word!) Christianity.

FloydLee
Posted by: Lou FCD on Sep. 23 2009,13:08

Quote (FloydLee @ Sep. 23 2009,11:22)
Okay, now I see what's happening.  Apparently, anything I post on the peanut thread is automatically being redirected to the main debate thread.

Well, no problem.  But that explains why the post about the Flood appeared here.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------






---------------------QUOTE-------------------
< Bugs painted on a car >, by turtlemom4bacon
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: deadman_932 on Sep. 23 2009,13:11

Quote (deadman_932 @ Sep. 23 2009,12:50)
Just as a point of information:

Floyd Lee's current tactic is to pretend his "Big Five " have not been addressed.

This is coupled with his avoiding answering those points raised against his claims (so he can pretend those responses don't exist).

In doing so, Floyd Lee has abandoned his own agreement to engage in good-faith debate.

As I stated to Floyd Lee prior to starting this thread;

" debate is dialogue, not monologue, and that civility (well, to a decent, ethical person) would require *directly* addressing the points of your opponent ...
fail to adhere to good-faith discussion/debate standards and all “rules” go out the window. Your choices determine that.

Floyd Lee's own choices have determined that other posters are no longer obliged to treat Floyd Lee as anything more than a fraud willing to go back on his word -- a fanatic without ethics or honor.

It appears that's exactly what he wants to be able to claim "persecution" and "victory" based on emotional appeal rather than the strength of his argument and logic (since he has none of the latter).

Myself, I find mockery of his stupidity, dishonesty, childlike views and blatantly false claims is enough. Others can do as they wish, of course. There are no longer any special rules to this thread. Floyd Lee has seen to that.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Just to repeat this , for convenience
Posted by: deadman_932 on Sep. 23 2009,13:16

Quote (FloydLee @ Sep. 23 2009,13:02)
   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Floyd Lee's current tactic is to pretend his "Big Five " have not been addressed.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Certainly not by Pope Benedict, as we have seen.

Furthermore, where his speeches may  impact on our discussion of the Big Five, we have seen that his words actually REINFORCE the first two incompatibilites, creating clear clashes with evolutionary theory as currently taught by evolutionist scientists.  Nor has he offered any reconciliations for ANY of the Big Five.

Y'all gotta do a much much better job of hiding behind his skirts, if that is your intention.

Incidentally, nobody has yet shown how evolution supposedly "embiggens" (love that word!) Christianity.

FloydLee
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


The term "embiggens" is -- much like yourself, Floyd Lee -- a joke.

It's a term lifted from an episode of "The Simpsons," ...  a fact suited to your cartoonishly childlike refusal to answer/respond to questions and points put directly to you in the past pages of this thread -- where your "Big Five" have already been refuted.

Edit: While I'm sure your childlike mind considers hiding from the facts to be a "winning" strategy, Floyd Lee, it's amusing that any reader can simply glance through any given page of this thread and notice that you have been answered to each and every point you have raised.

This stands in stark contrast to you also leaving every page strewn with points and questions against your claims--  that you refuse to deal with in any way except to pretend they don't exist.

Interested readers may wish to glance at Glenn Morton's (a former creationist) useful "explanation" of this weird "pretend it doesn't exist" phenomena seen in fundamentalist fanatics: < "Morton's Demon >
Posted by: FloydLee on Sep. 23 2009,13:31



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
It appears that's exactly what he wants to be able to claim "persecution" and "victory"....
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I haven't suggested anything about claiming either "persecution" or "victory" in this debate.  At all.  Not even thinking in those terms.

Perhaps slow down a little Deadman?  Cool off?  Take a break, eat some Little Debbies with the oatmeal cream inside, knock out a couple PlayStation football games?  Would that help?
Posted by: deadman_932 on Sep. 23 2009,13:36

No "cooling off" is needed here, Floyd. Typing is easy and simple, much like yourself. You pretending to know my emotions or my work schedule or anything at all about me is indicative of your willingness to delude yourself, FloydLee.

Since you post more than me, by my count -- you might want to take the time to actually address the questions  that you deliberately blind yourself to in previous pages.  

Rather than trying to play "internet mind reader."
Posted by: Robin on Sep. 23 2009,13:37

Quote (FloydLee @ Sep. 23 2009,13:02)

---------------------QUOTE-------------------




---------------------QUOTE-------------------


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Floyd Lee's current tactic is to pretend his "Big Five " have not been addressed.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Certainly not by Pope Benedict, as we have seen.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



False, as I pointed out. Furthermore it demonstrates an internal contradiction with your claims that you still have not addressed. I suppose I should not care about the latter however...
Posted by: deadman_932 on Sep. 23 2009,13:42

Robin reiterates my point about you failing to address issues that refute your claims , Floyd.

You'll ignore that, too?

Even when ANY reader can simply click back and see that?
Posted by: FloydLee on Sep. 23 2009,14:42



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Since you post more than me, by my count....
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Hmm.  I wonder if your honest concession that I post more than you do, might possibly undercut your claim that I am ignoring the issues/points.

After all, unlike you, I am responding to multiple posters within this debate.   :)

(At least you're not doing any more hand-wringing over the Flood post.  I should be thankful, I suppose.)

FloydLee
Posted by: deadman_932 on Sep. 23 2009,14:54

Quote (FloydLee @ Sep. 23 2009,14:42)
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Since you post more than me, by my count....
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Hmm.  I wonder if your honest concession that I post more than you do, might possibly undercut your claim that I am ignoring the issues/points.

After all, unlike you, I am responding to multiple posters within this debate.   :)

FloydLee
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Putting up contentless "response" posts is easy.

Sure, you can post up hundreds of such posts. Numbers alone won't show that you addressed relevant issues, though.

As an example, your last one again simply ignores Robin's clear and direct point that you avoided the internal contradictions of your claims.

Your response? To avoid it...pretend it doesn't exist... while making another irrelevant post.
Posted by: Dale_Husband on Sep. 23 2009,15:37

On what basis does FL, or anyone else, have to claim that the Bible is inerrant? Or that the inerrancy of the Bible is the only reason to beleive in Christianity? Or that we must believe every part of the Bible from Genesis to Revelation?

If we threw out the first eleven chapters of Genesis and just kept the Gospels, we would still have the foundation of Christianity. So FL's claim that evolution and Christianity are incompatable are not based on any definite proof at all. The claim that the Bible is the Word of God, and that we know God is real from the Bible, is circular reasoning that has no value whatsoever. You can have faith in the Bible, but not to the point of stupidity. God gave us minds to seek truth and expose and reject falsehoods. We insult God by not using those minds.

< http://www.care2.com/c2c....pg.html >
Posted by: Albatrossity2 on Sep. 23 2009,15:42

Quote (FloydLee @ Sep. 23 2009,14:42)
After all, unlike you, I am responding to multiple posters within this debate.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


No, your typings here are not in the category of "responding".

For example, I gave you pretty clear evidence of something you said didn't exist in a high-school or university genetics textbook. It does exist. Your response is what does not exist.

Carry on.
Posted by: Robin on Sep. 23 2009,15:47

Quote (FloydLee @ Sep. 23 2009,14:42)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Since you post more than me, by my count....
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Hmm.  I wonder if your honest concession that I post more than you do, might possibly undercut your claim that I am ignoring the issues/points.

After all, unlike you, I am responding to multiple posters within this debate.   :)

(At least you're not doing any more hand-wringing over the Flood post.  I should be thankful, I suppose.)

FloydLee
---------------------QUOTE-------------------




---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Hmm.  I wonder if your honest concession that I post more than you do, might possibly undercut your claim that I am ignoring the issues/points.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Umm...no, it really doesn't, because as has been shown, a number of your posts are non-sequiturs. But let's be frank...even if they weren't non-sequiturs, the fact that you keep repeating claims demonstrated invalid or questionable several posts (if not pages) earlier indicates that you are indeed ignoring the issues/points addressed.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
After all, unlike you, I am responding to multiple posters within this debate.   :)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



While this is true Floyd, you could be intellectually honest and stop pretending that your Big Five haven't been addressed even if you aren't going to respond directly to the posters. But when you say things like "certainly not by the Pope as we have seen" when there have been several posts noting this is inaccurate, you are demonstrating that you are ignoring the issues/points addressed and being intellectually dishonest.
Posted by: FloydLee on Sep. 23 2009,16:24

I think we can simpify this discussion regarding the Pope.  We won't agree on it, but it can be simplified.
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
So in fact, the Pope has NOT actually addressed the specific Big Five Incompatibilities at all, let alone provided a solution for them.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


This statement is specifically true, (otherwise refuting that statement would be as easy as directly quoting the Pope on it and that's that.)

Robin ducks the point.  Stanton ducks the point.  Deadman ducks the point.  Because, after all, the Pope honestly has NOTeven addressed or reconciled the specific Big Five items.  

All he has said (and you are challenged to prove me wrong) is that evolution is compatible with Christianity, and even then---and this is the part that you guys clearly ignored until I pointed it out---the Pope makes that statement only under specific conditions, conditions that not only re-introduce the first two incompatibilities, but actually REINFORCE those first two.

(And yes, I provided the quotations to back that up.  And no, the Pople hasn't yet issued additional statements to resolve the clash (for example) between his own teleological "intelligent project" statements and evolutionary theory's NT-NCF position, quoted earlier.)

So, we might as well be laid back like a Pop Tart about everything, because clearly we can do mutual accusations of avoiding points/issues all day long if that's what you want, but that kind of thing won't resolve anything.

Instead, why not admit the possibility that the Pope, even though he's a TE for sure, is clearly NOT the best guy to use as a defense against the Big Five at this time?  Find me a TE that reconciles the otherwise irrconcilable Big Five.  Gotta be one somewhere in the Virgo Galactic Cluster, I'm sure.

FloydLee
Posted by: deadman_932 on Sep. 23 2009,16:31

And once again, in an inflated, content-less post that nonetheless implies that Floyd has addressed the already-present responses to his "big five" ....Floyd avoids the direct, clear point that Robin made.

Floyd's posts seem to consist of nothing but that -- avoid, misdirect, pretend, ignore, issue contentless post....repeat.

The fact is that the pope is undeniably a christian who believes evolution to be well within God's "plan" .

For Floyd to say, as the irrelevant person that he is, that the pope has to address *Floyd's* PERSONAL points...is beyond stupid.

It's merely a tactic to pretend that the pope (and by extension, any  like-minded christian) "need" to address "Floyd" at all.

As others have mentioned, one can easily throw out all of Floyd's "big Five" and  still claim to be a Christian, validly.

Floyd is not arbiter of who is or is not Christian, nor are the "foundational issues" in his "Big Five" necessary and sufficient to declare someone "Not a Christian" if they fail to address them at all.  

It's a large, elaborate red herring, based on false authority...a pile of fallacy upon fallacy, with only Floyd "agreeing" on the validity of his pile of fallacies

And for Floyd to contnue with this pretense,  he MUST continue to ignore all the facts, points, and issues raised against him in all preceding pages.

It's a tour-de-force of Morton's Demon and Floyd's own lack of ethics and duplicity. But that was also demonstrated in Floyd ALSO simply abandoning his "word" in agreeing to rules here.

At any rate, Floyd will continue to ignore all the objections to his claims already raised by a dozen posters in this thread already.

ETA: Floyd, I have never personally dealt with an honest YEC. Your willingness to use *any* low, dishonorable, fallacious, dishonest tactic...is evidence of the evil that fanatic religion can lead to. But the fact is also that you, personally, are intellectually incapable of fooling anyone but yourself, here.

And that's funny as hell.
Posted by: Chayanov on Sep. 23 2009,16:56



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
For Floyd to say, as the irrelevant person that he is, that the pope has to address *Floyd's* PERSONAL points...is beyond stupid.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


That's really the part that baffles me. At least two Popes, in the past, have asserted that evolution is not incompatible with Christianity. Because these Popes have not specifically addressed, point by point, a completely arbitrary list FL made a few days ago, that means they're wrong. Their own reasons FL dismisses (without even knowing what they are) as irrelevant.

FL likewise dismisses all Christians who accept evolution, again because none of them have, at any time in the past, addressed his completely arbitrary list that he made up a few days ago.*

I'd be shocked, except that this is completely typical behavior from him.


*Edited to add: Except for those here who are Christians and have addressed his points, who FL has also dismissed out of hand.
Posted by: Lou FCD on Sep. 23 2009,16:59

For the record, Southern Methodist University also thinks Floyd is full of shit.

Lauri Lebo is heading there to talk about KvD for SMU's Year of Darwin celebrations.
Posted by: JohnW on Sep. 23 2009,17:30

Quote (deadman_932 @ Sep. 14 2009,03:07)
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."

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

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


Just for the record, this was posted on page 1.  

Nine days ago.  

Floyd still hasn't addressed this directly, except to imply that while the Pope may be a Christian, he isn't as good a Christian as Floyd.

I think we're done here.  Floyd's wasting his time and ours.  Floyd, may I suggest you take this up with the Pope?
Posted by: FloydLee on Sep. 23 2009,17:47



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Floyd still hasn't addressed this directly, except to imply that while the Pope may be a Christian, he isn't as good a Christian as Floyd.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



You may want to go back and check the pages on this one.  AND when you find my response to the "simple three-line proof", you may want to read for comprehension, and quote what I said in an accurate fashion (you don't need to risk incorrect paraphrasing anymore, just use the quote button instead), and THEN offer your assessment.

I trust that's not beyond your current abilities John.
(But please let me know if you need help on it!)
Posted by: FloydLee on Sep. 23 2009,17:50

In fact, just in case, let's go ahead and offer at least a hint for you.  My response to the "simple three-line proof" (the response you're going to carefully read again for comprehension) would fall under option "C".
Posted by: deadman_932 on Sep. 23 2009,17:55

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.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


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
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Note Floyd's "response"  from < page 4 > of this thread. Note that Floyd fails to deal with the refutations/points made regarding this on that page, or in the following pages.

Floyd's "point" seems to be that just because the Pope is a Christian who holds that evolution is *not* in conflict with Christianity...that....well, something.
Posted by: FloydLee on Sep. 23 2009,18:06



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
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."
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Notice that my paragraph--whether it's 100 percent right or 100 percent wrong--clearly places my response under your Option "C".

You remember what you said your Option "C" was, don't you Deadman?
   

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


So in fact, your post received a straight-up, direct response.  I actually gave you the type of response that you specifically asked for in your post:  

   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
....*directly* addressing the points of your opponent
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



NOW wha'cha got to say dude?  
No escaping that you at least got the sort of response that you asked for, even though you didn't (and don't) agree with the response itself.  

Can you at least acknowledge that much, or is that too much for you to handle right now?     :)
Posted by: khan on Sep. 23 2009,18:14

Quote (FloydLee @ Sep. 23 2009,19:06)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
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."
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Notice that my paragraph--whether it's 100 percent right or 100 percent wrong--clearly places my response under your Option "C".

You remember what you said your Option "C" was, don't you Deadman?
   

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


So in fact, your post received a straight-up, direct response.  I actually gave you the type of response that you specifically asked for in your post:  

   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
....*directly* addressing the points of your opponent
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



NOW wha'cha got to say dude?  
No escaping that you at least got the sort of response that you asked for, even though you didn't (and don't) agree with the response itself.  

Can you at least acknowledge that much, or is that too much for you to handle right now?     :)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Do you think you're making sense?
Posted by: Stanton on Sep. 23 2009,18:15

So then how come you refuse to address the problem of how you appear to consider the concepts of predation, old age, and internal parasites to be worse than divinely mandated genocide, divinely commanded murder, and using child slaves as a reward for either behaviors?
Posted by: deadman_932 on Sep. 23 2009,18:15

Floyd...seriously, do you imagine that you're making a valid point here?

If the Pope
(1) Is a Christian that
(2) Holds evolution to be compatible with Christianity, then
(3) Christianity is held compatible with Evolution by a Christian.

That's all the "proof" consists of. (1) and (2) are simply facts, as we have seen, FloydLee.
Deriving (3) from facts one and two is ...well, axiomatic.

Now, what IS your point?

Note: I'm sorely tempted to simply bring in the Lolcats after this display of stupid on the part of FloydLee.
Posted by: Stanton on Sep. 23 2009,18:16

Quote (khan @ Sep. 23 2009,18:14)
Do you think you're making sense?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


FL does, but, he's the only person to think so.
Posted by: Stanton on Sep. 23 2009,18:31

Quote (deadman_932 @ Sep. 23 2009,18:15)
Floyd...seriously, do you imagine that you're making a valid point here?

If the Pope
(1) Is a Christian that
(2) Holds evolution to be compatible with Christianity, then
(3) Christianity is held compatible with Evolution by a Christian.
That's all the "proof" consists of. Deriving (3) from facts one and two is ...well, axiomatic.

Note: I'm sorely tempted to simply bring in the Lolcats after this display of stupid on the part of FloydLee.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


According to FL's logic, because FL was taught to hate, fear and despise evolution, the Pope doesn't believe in evolution, despite statements to the direct contrary.
Posted by: deadman_932 on Sep. 23 2009,18:37

Earlier today on this page, FloydLee made a comment about me "needing" to "cool off" -- as if FloydLee *knew* (and better than me) what my "actual" emotional state was.

That would fit a hypothetical pattern of FloydLee "thinking" that FloydLee knows (better than the Pope) what the Pope "really" thinks...

Which is pretty fuckin' nuts.
Posted by: carlsonjok on Sep. 23 2009,18:40

Quote (deadman_932 @ Sep. 23 2009,18:15)
Note: I'm sorely tempted to simply bring in the Lolcats after this display of stupid on the part of FloydLee.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


HA HA THIS IS YOU


Posted by: deadman_932 on Sep. 23 2009,18:46

Oh, well now you JUST HAD to go ahead and do that, didn't you, Carlsonjok, you big flaming oklahomo, you.

The gates are burst asunder, the walls breached and the barbarians are pouring in the citadel, THANKS TO YOU.

edit: TeeHee.
Posted by: deadman_932 on Sep. 23 2009,18:47


Posted by: deadman_932 on Sep. 23 2009,18:48

Whoopsie.
Posted by: FloydLee on Sep. 23 2009,18:50



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
For Floyd to say, as the irrelevant person that he is, that the pope has to address *Floyd's* PERSONAL points
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You forget...(rather conveniently)...that those are NOT *my* "personal" points, but instead these are the published teachings and assessments of evolution and evolutionists.  

You were supplied with evolutionist statements, in direct quotation, for EACH of the Big Five Incompatibilities.   You were told exactly which evolutionist wrote it so there would be no mistake.  
Shoot, one of the extra evolutionist quotes didn't even come from me but from one of your own comrades in this forum!  

And, if I may say so, I think that's what is bothering you.   You've got a solid wall of major incompatibilites that come from YOUR OWN side of the fence, stuff that your own side agrees with and has been arguing for a long time.  

For example, has anybody in this forum come up yet with, say, any refutation of Jason Rosenhouse's knockout punch (the fifth incompatibility)?  Anybody at all?  

Nobody has?  At all?  Period?  No quickie quotations from the Pope to help you beat Rosenhouse's Rap?  

Well, I submit that this inability is determining the responses you're offering.  These are five bloody long nails in the coffin of "Evolution and Christianity are compatible."  

These Big Five make clear that a lot of Christians are in fact being asked to accept a totally discredited, refuted claim of compatibility that only hurts their own claimed religious beliefs and even fails to move secular evolutionists in the direction of TE.  The secular evolutionists know what evolution means.  They know the score.
   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
"Whatever the God implied by evolutionary theory  and the data of natural history may be like, He is not the Protestant God of waste not, want not.  He is also not a loving God who cares about his productions.  He is not even the awful God portrayed in the book of Job.  

The God of the Galapagos is careless, wasteful, indifferent, and almost diabolical. He is certainly not the sort of God to whom anyone would want to pray."

---evolutionist David Hull, "The God of the Galapagos", Nature science journal, Aug. 8, 1991.  
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


See there?  And to be REALLY honest, some of you evolutionists in this forum are apparently trying to argue that evolution and Christianity are somehow compatible for "millions of Christians" while YOU YOURSELF personally reject Christianity and accept evolution!  You know THAT is a hot mess, don't you?     

Anyway, I'm looking for ANY evolutionist---be they as religious as the Pope or as atheist as Dawkins---to step up to the plate and specifically reconcile or resolve these specific Big Five Incompatibilities between evolution and Christianity.
Posted by: someotherguy on Sep. 23 2009,18:54

Let's go back a bit and look at FloydLee's first point about why evolution is incompatible with Christianity:



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



Note that God is the "required" explanation.  FL's problem isn't with evolution, per se.  His problem is actually with people using science to examine biological origins.  Science, as it has been practiced for quite some time now, does not rely upon the supernatural (which I hope most of us can agree would include God) as an explanation for a given phenomenon.  Therefore, whatever scientific explanation we might come up with for biological origins--whether that is Darwinian evolution, inheritance of aquired characteristics, spontaneous generation, etc.--must necessarily be incompatible with Christianity, according to FL's rules.  

In effect, FL is saying that it is fundamentally unchristian to examine biological origins in a scientific manner.  As his entire argument rests on this premise, and since he is probably the only person here who agrees with it, this entire conversation is destined for futility.  Of course, you all knew that already.
Posted by: deadman_932 on Sep. 23 2009,18:59

What's interesting is that the Pope simply says "God  --the author of evolution itself -- by Will and Idea allows evolution to unfold."

But FloydLee says "heresy" as if FloydLee has Divine Insight and "knows better" than The Pope, and perhaps God itself.
Posted by: deadman_932 on Sep. 23 2009,19:04

Quote (FloydLee @ Sep. 23 2009,18:50)
I'm looking for ANY evolutionist---be they as religious as the Pope or as atheist as Dawkins---to step up to the plate and specifically reconcile or resolve these specific Big Five Incompatibilities between evolution and Christianity.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


It's already been done, in this thread. All that you can do is pretend (as you did with that "3-Line Proof") that you've somehow answered your critics, when you haven't.

And you still continue to avoid even basic things from the previous page, like Robin pointing out your internal illogical inconsistency

Add on top of that your acknowledged willingness to dishonestly (let's be straightforward and call it "lyingly") break your agreement on thread rules...

AND your displays of near-gut-busting removal from reality...

Well, yeah, you're a joke now, son.
Posted by: Dan on Sep. 23 2009,20:12

FL has gotten it into his head that there is a "big fifth" incompatibility between evolution and Christianity, namely that evolution is "cruel and sadistic".

The reason this is not an incompatibility is simple: Christianity is totally compatible with cruel and sadistic behavior.  For example:

============================================

Leviticus 1: 14-17:

"If the offering to the LORD is a burnt offering of birds, he is to offer a dove or a young pigeon. The priest shall bring it to the altar, wring off the head and burn it on the altar; its blood shall be drained out on the side of the altar. He is to remove the crop with its contents and throw it to the east side of the altar, where the ashes are. He shall tear it open by the wings, not severing it completely, and then the priest shall burn it on the wood that is on the fire on the altar. It is a burnt offering, an offering made by fire, an aroma pleasing to the LORD."

Joshua 6:21:

They devoted the city to the LORD and destroyed with the sword every living thing in it—men and women, young and old, cattle, sheep and donkeys.

Mark 11:

Jesus was hungry.  Seeing in the distance a fig tree in leaf, he went to find out if it had any fruit.  When he reached it, he found nothing but leaves, because it was not the season for figs.  Then he said to the tree, "May no one ever eat fruit from you again."  And his disciples heard him say it. ... In the [next] morning, as they went along, they saw the fig tree withered from the roots.  Peter remembered and said to Jesus, "Rabbi, look! The fig tree you cursed has withered!"  "Have faith in God," Jesus answered.


Matthew 21:19:

As he was on his way back to the city, he was hungry. Seeing a fig tree by the road, he went up to it but found nothing on it except leaves. Then he said to it, "May you never bear fruit again!" Immediately the tree withered.

Acts 5:

Now a man named Ananias, together with his wife Sapphira, also sold a piece of property.  With his wife's full knowledge he kept back part of the money for himself, but brought the rest and put it at the apostles' feet.

[Peter tells Ananias that he has not donated the whole of his proceeds to the apostles.]  When Ananias heard this, he fell down and died.

[Peter tells Sapphira that she has not donated the whole of the proceeds to the apostles.]  At that moment she fell down at his feet and died.

========================================

And then, if you want to look post-Biblically, Christian churches have sponsored inquisitions, have burned at the stake, have wiped out the native populations in parts of America, have invited pogroms against Jews, have invited crusades against Muslims, etc.

Please don't get me wrong: Christianity is consistent with kindness and healing as well cruelty and massacre.  It is consistent with good scholarship as well as stupidity, it is consistent with great spirituality as well as conniving greed.

But the facts are plain: Christianity is totally compatible with cruel and sadistic behavior.  As FL demonstrates, it's also compatible with the inability to learn.
Posted by: k.e.. on Sep. 23 2009,21:21

Quote (FloydLee @ Sep. 23 2009,21:31)
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
It appears that's exactly what he wants to be able to claim "persecution" and "victory"....
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I haven't suggested anything about claiming either "persecution" or "victory" in this debate.  At all.  Not even thinking in those terms.

Perhaps slow down a little Deadman?  Cool off?  Take a break, eat some Little Debbies with the oatmeal cream inside, knock out a couple PlayStation football games?  Would that help?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


FL, knock off the used car salesman's patter.

Apart from making you look like a homo it's a little distracting when I'm trying to figure out which snakeskin boot to aim for.

Also the collective 'we','lets' and 'our' has a slightly ridiculous regal connotation when it is plain you represent no one but your own delusions here.

Your shorthand endless loop internal dialog "(I am) Not even thinking in those terms" whilst a revealing Freudian slip is completely redundant, it's not a thought. Your concept of 'thinking' would fail to excite most intelligence tests above mediocre if that. Thinking FL is not repeating the same tired uneducated save the rapture for those who lost out when 'Le grand fromage' was dishing out brains, it's sales talk.

What you meant to say was "That is not part of FL's strategy since the whole purpose is not to acquire new knowledge but repeat misinformation in the hope that FL's opponents will tire and FL can retire to pushing shit to the stupid with the added bonus that no one here succeeded in educating FL "

And why just 5 reasons when one would do ?

And why 'big'?

FL, do you have a numeracy or size issue ?

FL how tall are you and are you in realty?
Posted by: Henry J on Sep. 23 2009,21:48



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Dan, posted 9/22/09 7:13 PM


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
(deadman_932 @ Sep. 22 2009,14:49)
Cherry-picking who to respond to -- despite initially agreeing to act in good faith , Floyd? And actual responses to interlocutors was part of that "good faith" deal.

For shame, sir. For shame.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



FL said he was here to debate.  But his actions show that he's here to debase.  
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



All your debase belong to us.
Posted by: Henry J on Sep. 23 2009,21:51



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
deadman_932, posted 9/22/09 4:45 PM
I'm curious as to why Floyd Lee posted up that last bit concering a "Global  V. Local Flood."
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Yeah, why did he post (1) an article that proved the Flood couldn't be local, and (2) an article that proved the Flood couldn't be global. Take those together, what's left?

Of course, the story itself, if taken literally, proves that the Flood couldn't be global, since it says a bird went out near the end of the event and came back with a fresh leaf. But global Flood = no fresh leaves would be out there.

Henry
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Sep. 23 2009,22:07

so because some biologists and advocates of evolutionary biology are atheists, evolutionary biology is incompatible with christianity.

good god this one is dumber than hell.  i for one am very glad of it too.
Posted by: Dale_Husband on Sep. 23 2009,23:42

And, of course, FL ignored the point I made earlier once more. Here it is again.
 
Quote (Dale_Husband @ Sep. 23 2009,15:37)
On what basis does FL, or anyone else, have to claim that the Bible is inerrant? Or that the inerrancy of the Bible is the only reason to beleive in Christianity? Or that we must believe every part of the Bible from Genesis to Revelation?

If we threw out the first eleven chapters of Genesis and just kept the Gospels, we would still have the foundation of Christianity. So FL's claim that evolution and Christianity are incompatable are not based on any definite proof at all. The claim that the Bible is the Word of God, and that we know God is real from the Bible, is circular reasoning that has no value whatsoever. You can have faith in the Bible, but not to the point of stupidity. God gave us minds to seek truth and expose and reject falsehoods. We insult God by not using those minds.

< http://www.care2.com/c2c....pg.html >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: Stanton on Sep. 23 2009,23:53

Quote (k.e.. @ Sep. 23 2009,21:21)
FL, knock off the used car salesman's patter.

Apart from making you look like a homo it's a little distracting when I'm trying to figure out which snakeskin boot to aim for.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


It's rather ironic, then, given as how the primary reason FL gave for despising President Obama was that the President had no intention of outlawing homosexuality.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Your shorthand endless loop internal dialog "(I am) Not even thinking in those terms" whilst a revealing Freudian slip is completely redundant, it's not a thought. Your concept of 'thinking' would fail to excite most intelligence tests above mediocre if that. Thinking FL is not repeating the same tired uneducated save the rapture for those who lost out when 'Le grand fromage' was dishing out brains, it's sales talk.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Of course FL's unctuous babbling is supposed to be sales talk.  He's trying to guilt-trip and pulpit-bully us all into swallowing his narrow, nonsensically bigoted version of Christianity.


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
What you meant to say was "That is not part of FL's strategy since the whole purpose is not to acquire new knowledge but repeat misinformation in the hope that FL's opponents will tire and FL can retire to pushing shit to the stupid with the added bonus that no one here succeeded in educating FL
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


One would have better luck convincing stones to weep tears than try and educate someone who takes enormous pride in being invincibly ignorant as a creationist.
Posted by: Stanton on Sep. 23 2009,23:55

Quote (Dan @ Sep. 23 2009,20:12)
FL has gotten it into his head that there is a "big fifth" incompatibility between evolution and Christianity, namely that evolution is "cruel and sadistic".

The reason this is not an incompatibility is simple: Christianity is totally compatible with cruel and sadistic behavior.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


And apparently, FL finds examples of nature not being nice to be horrific abominations, while, all of the various unpleasant things documented in the Bible, from murder, genocide, rape, etc, etc, are apparently hunky dory.
Posted by: FloydLee on Sep. 24 2009,04:54



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Yeah, why did he post (1) an article that proved the Flood couldn't be local, and (2) an article that proved the Flood couldn't be global. Take those together, what's left?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


What's left, Henry J?  Nothing's left, of course, if the skeptics are correct.   (The operative term being "if.")

But there are some TE's (and OEC's) out there who think they can escape the anti-Flood skeptics merely by claiming that the Noahic Flood was somehow "local."  

So the purpose of the Secular Blasphemy article was to show that those TE's (and OEC's) are quite mistaken on that point, and that they have as much work cut out for them WRT the skeptics, as those who believe in the Global Noahic Flood.

FloydLee
Posted by: rhmc on Sep. 24 2009,05:10

Quote (FloydLee @ Sep. 24 2009,05:54)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Yeah, why did he post (1) an article that proved the Flood couldn't be local, and (2) an article that proved the Flood couldn't be global. Take those together, what's left?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


What's left, Henry J?  Nothing's left, of course, if the skeptics are correct.   (The operative term being "if.")

But there are some TE's (and OEC's) out there who think they can escape the anti-Flood skeptics merely by claiming that the Noahic Flood was somehow "local."  

So the purpose of the Secular Blasphemy article was to show that those TE's (and OEC's) are quite mistaken on that point, and that they have as much work cut out for them WRT the skeptics, as those who believe in the Global Noahic Flood.

FloydLee
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


other than an ancient tale, you've yet to provide any proof of a world wide flood.

i'd settle for an explanation of where all the water came from and where it is now.
Posted by: FloydLee on Sep. 24 2009,05:14



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Mark 11:
Jesus was hungry.  Seeing in the distance a fig tree in leaf, he went to find out if it had any fruit.  When he reached it, he found nothing but leaves, because it was not the season for figs.  Then he said to the tree, "May no one ever eat fruit from you again."  And his disciples heard him say it. ... In the [next] morning, as they went along, they saw the fig tree withered from the roots.  Peter remembered and said to Jesus, "Rabbi, look! The fig tree you cursed has withered!"  "Have faith in God," Jesus answered.

Matthew 21:19:  
As he was on his way back to the city, he was hungry. Seeing a fig tree by the road, he went up to it but found nothing on it except leaves. Then he said to it, "May you never bear fruit again!" Immediately the tree withered.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Dan, I'm a little surprised to see you directly accusing Jesus Christ of "cruel and sadistic" behavior.  Permit me to briefly ask a side question, out of my own curiosity:  Are you yourself a Christian?
Posted by: FloydLee on Sep. 24 2009,05:17



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
so because some biologists and advocates of evolutionary biology are atheists, evolutionary biology is incompatible with christianity.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Would you mind going back and reviewing the specific reasons I have given for why evolution is incompatible with Christianity, Erasmus?   And maybe take another look at the actual words of those evolutionists who are no longer Christians?
Posted by: FloydLee on Sep. 24 2009,05:35



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
other than an ancient tale, you've yet to provide any proof of a world wide flood.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Nor has Henry provided you any proof of a merely local flood.  As for me, I will not be attempting to prove the global Noahic Flood in this thread.  

******

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
i'd settle for an explanation of where all the water came from and where it is now.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Where it came from:
< http://www.christiananswers.net/q-aig/aig-c010.html >

Where did it go:
< http://www.christiananswers.net/q-aig/aig-floodwater.html >

FloydLee
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on Sep. 24 2009,05:37

Quote (FloydLee @ Sep. 24 2009,05:35)
Where it came from:
< http://www.christiananswers.net/q-aig/aig-c010.html >

Where did it go:
< http://www.christiananswers.net/q-aig/aig-floodwater.html >

FloydLee
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Do you believe those explanations?
Posted by: rhmc on Sep. 24 2009,05:45

Quote (FloydLee @ Sep. 24 2009,06:35)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
other than an ancient tale, you've yet to provide any proof of a world wide flood.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Nor has Henry provided you any proof of a merely local flood.  As for me, I will not be attempting to prove the global Noahic Flood in this thread.  

******

   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
i'd settle for an explanation of where all the water came from and where it is now.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Where it came from:
< http://www.christiananswers.net/q-aig/aig-c010.html >

Where did it go:
< http://www.christiananswers.net/q-aig/aig-floodwater.html >

FloydLee
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


ell oh ell.  nice links.

that's certainly 10lbs of stupid in a 5lb bag.

so, no evidence of a flood, just some wild ass guesses.

when you resort to magic, all things are "possible".

ha!

ETA:  you're the one who claims that the flud was world wide and if one does not believe it, one is not a christian yet you offer no proof of said world wide event.  at least nothing more that those highly amusing "theories" you linked to.
Posted by: Dan on Sep. 24 2009,06:08

Quote (FloydLee @ Sep. 24 2009,05:14)
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Mark 11:
Jesus was hungry.  Seeing in the distance a fig tree in leaf, he went to find out if it had any fruit.  When he reached it, he found nothing but leaves, because it was not the season for figs.  Then he said to the tree, "May no one ever eat fruit from you again."  And his disciples heard him say it. ... In the [next] morning, as they went along, they saw the fig tree withered from the roots.  Peter remembered and said to Jesus, "Rabbi, look! The fig tree you cursed has withered!"  "Have faith in God," Jesus answered.

Matthew 21:19:  
As he was on his way back to the city, he was hungry. Seeing a fig tree by the road, he went up to it but found nothing on it except leaves. Then he said to it, "May you never bear fruit again!" Immediately the tree withered.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Dan, I'm a little surprised to see you directly accusing Jesus Christ of "cruel and sadistic" behavior.  Permit me to briefly ask a side question, out of my own curiosity:  Are you yourself a Christian?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Certainly you may ask, and I'd even answer, if it had any bearing upon the topic of this thread.  However, as you yourself admit, it's nothing but a diversion from the topic of this discussion, namely the compatibility of Christianity and knowledge of evolution.

As for Christ's cruelty, Matthew 10:34-35: "Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. For I have come to turn a man against his father, a daughter against her mother, a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law."

If anyone comes trying to get my son to turn a sword against me, or trying to get me to turn a sword against my father, I'd call that person cruel and sadistic.  Even al Qaeda encourages people to turn a sword against the "infidels", not against their own family members.

Now, as I've said, not everything Christ said was cruel and sadistic.  (For example, he said "blessed are the peacemakers" before saying that he wasn't a peacemaker.)  But certainly some of what Christ said was cruel and sadistic.

The question FL raised in his "fifth biggie" is whether Christianity is compatible with cruel and sadistic behavior, and it unfortunately is.
Posted by: deadman_932 on Sep. 24 2009,07:08

In all exorcisms except one, Jesus casts out the demon[s] straightaway.

But, in one instance, "In the country of the Gadarenes" Jesus sent the demons into a herd of pigs.

See Matt. 8:28-32 :

"28 When He came to the other side into the country of the Gadarenes, two men who were demon-possessed met Him as they were coming out of the tombs. They were so extremely violent that no one could pass by that way.
29 And they cried out, saying, “What business do we have with each other, Son of God? Have You come here to torment us before the time?”
30 Now there was a herd of many swine feeding at a distance from them.
31 The demons began to entreat Him, saying, “If You are going to cast us out, send us into the herd of swine.”
32 And He said to them, “Go!” And they came out and went into the swine, and the whole herd rushed down the steep bank into the sea and perished in the waters."

Okay, so maybe the "demons" asked to go into the pigs. This doesn't mean (in the context of the overall story of Jesus' miraculous abilities) that Jesus *had* to oblige them. Nevertheless, Jesus *sends* the demons to go into the pigs and the poor little innocent piggies rush off to the sea, to drown.

Even though Jesus didn't *have* to do it that way.

If I were to take the story literally that sounds pretty cruel to me. I might be arrested for animal cruelty for allowing or encouraging a person under MY direct control -- to drown a herd of pigs today, right?
-----------------------
Hint to FloydLee: Taking all bits of Bible-tales *literally* is probably a bad idea, eh?

Also, yeah, that fig tree isn't "concious" and so had no "free will" about bearing fruit or not. Withering it up was not very nice. AND, you might want to check on the < Infancy Gospel of Thomas > wherein the youthful Jesus is said to kill a boy, etc. Of course,that's not part of the accepted canon, but nonetheless, revealing of the kinds of writings that were floating around the 2nd Century.
Posted by: Robin on Sep. 24 2009,08:08

[quote=FloydLee,Sep. 23 2009,16:24][/quote]
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I think we can simpify this discussion regarding the Pope.  We won't agree on it, but it can be simplified.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



LOL! Not if you're going to be disingenuous we can't...

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
So in fact, the Pope has NOT actually addressed the specific Big Five Incompatibilities at all, let alone provided a solution for them.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


This statement is specifically true, (otherwise refuting that statement would be as easy as directly quoting the Pope on it and that's that.)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



...and THAT would be an example of being disingenous, Floyd. The Pope has most certainly specifically addressed your Big Five by specifically stating that in no uncertain terms does Evolution conflict with Christianity. By saying that, he is most definitely addressing your Big Five by noting that for him there are no Big Five. Which brings us back to you have an internal conflict in your argument.

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Robin ducks the point.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



False. You are being dishonest. Let me ask you Floyd, is it possible to agree with your Big Five Inconsistencies AND hold that Evolution is compatible with Christianity? Yes or no would be sufficient. Answer that specifically please. Silence on this point will be taken as an admission that your claims are invalid.

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
after all, the Pope honestly has NOTeven addressed or reconciled the specific Big Five items.  
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



False. Repeating a false claim does not make it true.

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
All he has said (and you are challenged to prove me wrong) is that evolution is compatible with Christianity, and even then---and this is the part that you guys clearly ignored until I pointed it out---the Pope makes that statement only under specific conditions, conditions that not only re-introduce the first two incompatibilities, but actually REINFORCE those first two.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



False as I demonstrated. You've yet to address how my explanation of the teleolgical reconciliation is a problem. But even beyond your silly verbal gynastics on the Pope statement about teleology (which in and of itself is no problem for evolution being true), the fact that he said (as you admit) that evolution is compatible with Christianity means that your Big Five Incompatibilities are a) not Big, b) not Five, and c) NOT Incompatibilities.

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
(And yes, I provided the quotations to back that up.  And no, the Pople hasn't yet issued additional statements to resolve the clash (for example) between his own teleological "intelligent project" statements and evolutionary theory's NT-NCF position, quoted earlier.)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



I demonstrated those quotes as a non-issue. You are welcome to go back an address my points. Merely handwaving them away by saying I "ducked" the issue is laughable.

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
So, we might as well be laid back like a Pop Tart about everything, because clearly we can do mutual accusations of avoiding points/issues all day long if that's what you want, but that kind of thing won't resolve anything.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



ROTFL! The only one avoiding anything is the person who insists he's the true servant of biblical Christianity. Nice example you set there, Floyd! LOL!

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Instead, why not admit the possibility that the Pope, even though he's a TE for sure, is clearly NOT the best guy to use as a defense against the Big Five at this time?  Find me a TE that reconciles the otherwise irrconcilable Big Five.  Gotta be one somewhere in the Virgo Galactic Cluster, I'm sure.

FloydLee
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



The only thing to admit is that the Pope provides a great example of how non-credible your claims are because you can't seem to reconcile the three contradictions your claims create.
Posted by: Albatrossity2 on Sep. 24 2009,08:13

Quote (deadman_932 @ Sep. 24 2009,07:08)
If I were to take the story literally that sounds pretty cruel to me. I might be arrested for animal cruelty for allowing or encouraging a person under MY direct control -- to drown a herd of pigs today, right?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


But the swine were kept there "against the Law". So it was win-win for Jesus to kill them and cast out the demon at the same time.

It was just another inkling of the law-and-order Jesus that the right-wingers invoke today.
Posted by: Robin on Sep. 24 2009,08:14

Quote (FloydLee @ Sep. 23 2009,18:06)

---------------------QUOTE-------------------




---------------------QUOTE-------------------


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
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."
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Notice that my paragraph--whether it's 100 percent right or 100 percent wrong--clearly places my response under your Option "C".
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Floyd, this doesn't make any sense. How can someone be a "Christian" and affirm that evolution is compatible with Christianity when you've insisted that isn't possible? Are you suggesting that the Pope is lying?
Posted by: Robin on Sep. 24 2009,08:21

Quote (FloydLee @ Sep. 23 2009,18:50)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
For Floyd to say, as the irrelevant person that he is, that the pope has to address *Floyd's* PERSONAL points
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You forget...(rather conveniently)...that those are NOT *my* "personal" points, but instead these are the published teachings and assessments of evolution and evolutionists.  

You were supplied with evolutionist statements, in direct quotation, for EACH of the Big Five Incompatibilities.   You were told exactly which evolutionist wrote it so there would be no mistake.  
Shoot, one of the extra evolutionist quotes didn't even come from me but from one of your own comrades in this forum!  

And, if I may say so, I think that's what is bothering you.   You've got a solid wall of major incompatibilites that come from YOUR OWN side of the fence, stuff that your own side agrees with and has been arguing for a long time.  

For example, has anybody in this forum come up yet with, say, any refutation of Jason Rosenhouse's knockout punch (the fifth incompatibility)?  Anybody at all?  

Nobody has?  At all?  Period?  No quickie quotations from the Pope to help you beat Rosenhouse's Rap?  

Well, I submit that this inability is determining the responses you're offering.  These are five bloody long nails in the coffin of "Evolution and Christianity are compatible."  

These Big Five make clear that a lot of Christians are in fact being asked to accept a totally discredited, refuted claim of compatibility that only hurts their own claimed religious beliefs and even fails to move secular evolutionists in the direction of TE.  The secular evolutionists know what evolution means.  They know the score.
 
---------------------QUOTE-------------------




---------------------QUOTE-------------------


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
"Whatever the God implied by evolutionary theory  and the data of natural history may be like, He is not the Protestant God of waste not, want not.  He is also not a loving God who cares about his productions.  He is not even the awful God portrayed in the book of Job.  

The God of the Galapagos is careless, wasteful, indifferent, and almost diabolical. He is certainly not the sort of God to whom anyone would want to pray."

---evolutionist David Hull, "The God of the Galapagos", Nature science journal, Aug. 8, 1991.  
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


See there?  And to be REALLY honest, some of you evolutionists in this forum are apparently trying to argue that evolution and Christianity are somehow compatible for "millions of Christians" while YOU YOURSELF personally reject Christianity and accept evolution!  You know THAT is a hot mess, don't you?  
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Sorry Floyd, but as has been pointed out to you several times now, quoting someone's opinion about what evolution indicates about some aspect of your religion is NOT the equivolent to what Evolutionary Theory holds regarding your religion. Do try to avoid the fallacious arguments please. They make you look rather desperate and silly. Thank you.  



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Anyway, I'm looking for ANY evolutionist---be they as religious as the Pope or as atheist as Dawkins---to step up to the plate and specifically reconcile or resolve these specific Big Five Incompatibilities between evolution and Christianity.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



No problem - I already did. They don't exist as far as the actual scientfic theory is concerned.
Posted by: Robin on Sep. 24 2009,08:28

Quote (someotherguy @ Sep. 23 2009,18:54)

---------------------QUOTE-------------------




---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Let's go back a bit and look at FloydLee's first point about why evolution is incompatible with Christianity:

 

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



Note that God is the "required" explanation.  FL's problem isn't with evolution, per se.  His problem is actually with people using science to examine biological origins.  Science, as it has been practiced for quite some time now, does not rely upon the supernatural (which I hope most of us can agree would include God) as an explanation for a given phenomenon.  Therefore, whatever scientific explanation we might come up with for biological origins--whether that is Darwinian evolution, inheritance of aquired characteristics, spontaneous generation, etc.--must necessarily be incompatible with Christianity, according to FL's rules.  

In effect, FL is saying that it is fundamentally unchristian to examine biological origins in a scientific manner.  As his entire argument rests on this premise, and since he is probably the only person here who agrees with it, this entire conversation is destined for futility.  Of course, you all knew that already.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------




From what I can tell, Floyd's argument is slightly different. He's insisting on equivocation - that Evolutionary Theory providing a naturalistic explanation for how evolution works (thus not requiring intervention by a god) is the same thing as denying his god. The problem is Floyd's definition, as I noted previously: not required is NOT the same thing as denied. Floyd refuses to address this fallacy of his claims.
Posted by: FloydLee on Sep. 24 2009,09:09



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Floyd, this doesn't make any sense. How can someone be a "Christian" and affirm that evolution is compatible with Christianity when you've insisted that isn't possible? Are you suggesting that the Pope is lying?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Nope, just saying that he's wrong about that claim of compatibility (to the extent that he's claiming it.)
Didn't say that he was lying about it; didn't say that he's not a Christian.
Posted by: Dale_Husband on Sep. 24 2009,09:14

Quote (FloydLee @ Sep. 24 2009,09:09)
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Floyd, this doesn't make any sense. How can someone be a "Christian" and affirm that evolution is compatible with Christianity when you've insisted that isn't possible? Are you suggesting that the Pope is lying?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Nope, just saying that he's wrong about that claim of compatibility (to the extent that he's claiming it.)
Didn't say that he was lying about it; didn't say that he's not a Christian.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Then your views on the supposed incompatibility of Christianity with evolution are strictly your own extremist perpective, which most other Christians are free to reject as irrational.

People lose faith in Christianity because of loons like you, FL, not because of evolution.
Posted by: Robin on Sep. 24 2009,09:28

Quote (FloydLee @ Sep. 24 2009,09:09)

---------------------QUOTE-------------------




---------------------QUOTE-------------------


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Floyd, this doesn't make any sense. How can someone be a "Christian" and affirm that evolution is compatible with Christianity when you've insisted that isn't possible? Are you suggesting that the Pope is lying?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Nope, just saying that he's wrong about that claim of compatibility (to the extent that he's claiming it.)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Pardon me if I don't find *your* opinion on the Pope being wrong very credible, nevermind relevant.  



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Didn't say that he was lying about it; didn't say that he's not a Christian.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Good to know. Apparently a multitude of people you consider Christians are just plain wrong about their assessment of evolution. But then we are right back to noting that your claims are internally inconsistent - namely that you keep insisting that Evolution is incompatible with Christianity, yet all these Christians (who you agree are indeed Christians) say otherwise. You insist they are wrong, but that's just your opinion. So...ummm...hhmmm...gee...seems that it would be just as reasonable (actually more so) to conclude you are wrong, particularly since your Big Five are erroneous.
Posted by: k.e.. on Sep. 24 2009,09:43

Quote (FloydLee @ Sep. 24 2009,17:09)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Floyd, this doesn't make any sense. How can someone be a "Christian" and affirm that evolution is compatible with Christianity when you've insisted that isn't possible? Are you suggesting that the Pope is lying?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Nope, just saying that he's wrong about that claim of compatibility (to the extent that he's claiming it.)
Didn't say that he was lying about it; didn't say that he's not a Christian.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


BWHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Fuck FL you're on a roll.

Give us your opinion on what Jesus would say about peak oil and global warming.

You know the Pope might just be onto something if he knows that if all the ice on earth melted and oceans rose around 200 meters you can tell him he's wrong again and insist he build an ark.

Tell us when to expect the next visit from Jesus while your at it.

Got any swamps for sale?
Posted by: Robin on Sep. 24 2009,10:05

Quote (FloydLee @ Sep. 16 2009,03:02)
Okay, to recap, you've seen the existence of two killer incompatibilities between evolution and Christianity that are taking place right here and right now.

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

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

******

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

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

           

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

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



   

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

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



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

******


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

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

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

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

Here, check out this evolutionist example---this guy knows the score:
           

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
"Destroy Adam and Eve and the original sin, and in the rubble you will find the sorry remains of the son of god.

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


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

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



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

******

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

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

FloydLee
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Here's the problem with your thesis, Floyd:



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



Actually, the TOE says nothing about biological origins or cosmological origins. Philosophers and physicists might have opinions on how things got started that don't include your god, but that isn't the same thing as the TOE.  Your god could very well have created the basis for everything and the TOE would be just fine.

So really, your Big First Point is that Some People's Opinions are incompatible with Christianity. Wow...that's some revelation there, but really it has nothing to do with evolution or the TOE.



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



This is the same argument as #1 above, but now you are just equivocating "does not include" with "denies". The TOE does NOT deny teleology, it just doesn't require such. Evolution can be explained without invoking some god, but that isn't the same thing as saying that some god didn't have a purpose in mind and used evolution to reach that goal.



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



Once again, philosophers and armchair quarterbacks may well have opinions about what "image of god" means, whether it is true, and whether evolution allows for such, but the fact is the actual science - again, the TOE - has no impact on whether we were created in your god's image or not and whether your god used evolution to create us in his image. The TOE need not include such as part of its verbiage either; it just can't conflict with such a condition. And it doesn't - there is absolutely nothing about the TOE that DENIES the possibility that humans are the image of your god.



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

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



This one is a reasonable argument, Floyd...if you believe that the story of Adam and Eve is literally true and not allogorical and metaphorical. I would be very interested if you could actually point to a specific "Adam", where this "Adam" existed, nevermind when this "Adam" existed. The problem of course is that there is no mainstream Christian denomination that holds Adam to be a real figure and death before Adam having any meaning. In fact, considering that all biblical scholars and just about all Christian authorities agree that the story of Adam and Eve are allogorical, noting that the word "Adam" is hebrew for "Mankind", such is a very weak argument for the TOE being incompatible with Christianity. Seems to me that in this case you've just claimed that the TOE is incompatible with your fringe belief, which really isn't something that any other Christian will care about.

I can't seem to find the 5th point of the "Big Five", but I doubt that matters much.
Posted by: Dan on Sep. 24 2009,10:38

FL claims that the Pope has not addressed his claimed "big four incompatibilities" or "big five incompatibilities".  In fact, Pope Benedict has.  Here's what the Pope said:

Pope Benedict XVI, remarks at Auronzo di Cadore, 24 July 2007:

"Presently I see in Germany, and also in the United States, a fairly bitter debate between so-called creationism and evolutionism, presented as if they were mutually exclusive alternatives: whoever believes in a Creator cannot believe in evolution, and likewise whoever believes in evolution has to exclude God.  This opposition is an absurdity, because on the one hand, there are many scientific proofs in favor of an evolution that seems to be a reality that we have to see, and that enriches our understanding of life and of existence as such.  But the doctrine of evolution does not respond to all questions, above all to the great philosophical questions:  Where does everything come from?  How did everything start on the path that finally arrived at humanity?"

< http://www.vatican.va/holy_fa....en.html >

Paraphrasing, the Pope says that knowledge of evolution and belief in Christianity are compatible because they are about different things.  Science is about what happens, religion is about what ought to happen.  Evolution and Christianity can't be incompatible just as chocolate and broccoli can't be incompatible -- the concept just doesn't make sense.  The fact that FL holds them to be incompatible means only that FL doesn't understand the difference between knowledge and belief.

Galileo put it this way, quoting Cardinal Baronius: "The Bible was written to show us how to go to heaven, not how the heavens go."

In short, the Pope has not only refuted FL's "big four", but he's refuted FL's "big five".  And when FL comes up with some other supposed argument, the Pope has already refuted that one, as well.  He has shown that whatever supposed incompatibilities FL finds, they are irrelevant.

Now, FL might or might not agree with the Pope.  But he should stop claiming that "The Pope hasn't addressed my objection #3a" because the Pope has in fact addressed all possible objections.
Posted by: JohnW on Sep. 24 2009,11:07

Quote (FloydLee @ Sep. 23 2009,15:47)
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Floyd still hasn't addressed this directly, except to imply that while the Pope may be a Christian, he isn't as good a Christian as Floyd.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



You may want to go back and check the pages on this one.  AND when you find my response to the "simple three-line proof", you may want to read for comprehension, and quote what I said in an accurate fashion (you don't need to risk incorrect paraphrasing anymore, just use the quote button instead), and THEN offer your assessment.

I trust that's not beyond your current abilities John.
(But please let me know if you need help on it!)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


No problem, preacher boy.  Here you go:
Quote (FloydLee @ Sep 24 2009,07:09)



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Floyd, this doesn't make any sense. How can someone be a "Christian" and affirm that evolution is compatible with Christianity when you've insisted that isn't possible? Are you suggesting that the Pope is lying?

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Nope, just saying that he's wrong about that claim of compatibility (to the extent that he's claiming it.)
Didn't say that he was lying about it; didn't say that he's not a Christian.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


It's like I said, Mr Humility.  You think you're a better Christian than the Pope, because he's wrong and you're right.  Why don't you take it up with him?
Posted by: Dan on Sep. 24 2009,12:34

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.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


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)?

....

FloydLee
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


FL thinks that he's found a deep error in the simple three-line proof, by pointing out that (1) and (2) are unrelated.  In fact, he's found a deep error in his own understanding of logic.

Here's a similar three-line proof:

1. The variable x is equal to five.

2. The variable y is equal to seven.

3. Therefore, the product x times y is equal to thirty-five.

It is true that statement (1) has nothing to do with statement (2) -- they even concern different variables!  But that's irrelevant to the correctness of the conclusion.

FL has talked and talked, he has brought up many irrelevant points, he has called people names.  But he has not found any flaw in the simple, three-line proof that evolution and Christianity are compatible.
Posted by: SLP on Sep. 24 2009,12:41

I'm still concerned about the Christian cult's fixation on the penis.  
Nowadays, of course, we have 'family values' Christian conservatives either obsessing over - and strangely knowing all about - homesexual sex acts or being closet homesexuals themselves.

But in Yahweh's day, boy, foreskins were king:

Habakkuk 2:16 - Thou art filled with shame for glory: drink thou also, and let thy foreskin be uncovered: the cup of the LORD'S right hand shall be turned unto thee, and shameful spewing [shall be] on thy glory.


Genesis 17:14 - And the uncircumcised man child whose flesh of his foreskin is not circumcised, that soul shall be cut off from his people; he hath broken my covenant.


Genesis 17:11 - And ye shall circumcise the flesh of your foreskin; and it shall be a token of the covenant betwixt me and you.


1 Samuel 18:25 - And Saul said, Thus shall ye say to David, The king desireth not any dowry, but an hundred foreskins of the Philistines, to be avenged of the king's enemies. But Saul thought to make David fall by the hand of the Philistines.

1 Samuel 18:27 - Wherefore David arose and went, he and his men, and slew of the Philistines two hundred men; and David brought their foreskins, and they gave them in full tale to the king, that he might be the king's son in law. And Saul gave him Michal his daughter to wife.

Joshua 5:3 - And Joshua made him sharp knives, and circumcised the children of Israel at the hill of the foreskins.


It was a regular wienerfest!

Let me guess - all metaphotical?
Posted by: dheddle on Sep. 24 2009,13:04

Quote (SLP @ Sep. 24 2009,12:41)
I'm still concerned about the Christian cult's fixation on the penis.  
Nowadays, of course, we have 'family values' Christian conservatives either obsessing over - and strangely knowing all about - homesexual sex acts or being closet homesexuals themselves.

But in Yahweh's day, boy, foreskins were king:

Habakkuk 2:16 - Thou art filled with shame for glory: drink thou also, and let thy foreskin be uncovered: the cup of the LORD'S right hand shall be turned unto thee, and shameful spewing [shall be] on thy glory.


Genesis 17:14 - And the uncircumcised man child whose flesh of his foreskin is not circumcised, that soul shall be cut off from his people; he hath broken my covenant.


Genesis 17:11 - And ye shall circumcise the flesh of your foreskin; and it shall be a token of the covenant betwixt me and you.


1 Samuel 18:25 - And Saul said, Thus shall ye say to David, The king desireth not any dowry, but an hundred foreskins of the Philistines, to be avenged of the king's enemies. But Saul thought to make David fall by the hand of the Philistines.

1 Samuel 18:27 - Wherefore David arose and went, he and his men, and slew of the Philistines two hundred men; and David brought their foreskins, and they gave them in full tale to the king, that he might be the king's son in law. And Saul gave him Michal his daughter to wife.

Joshua 5:3 - And Joshua made him sharp knives, and circumcised the children of Israel at the hill of the foreskins.


It was a regular wienerfest!

Let me guess - all metaphotical?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Not metaphorical. There was good reason why there were more female converts to Judaism than men.

The men often chose the lesser commitment of the so-called  God-fearers. These men were loosely attached to the synagogue and enjoyed a subset of the privileges of full membership. In return, they agreed to obey some of the law (for example, to keep the Sabbath) and to live in a morally acceptable way. They didn't have to be circumcised. They were the low hanging fruit (bad metaphor?) and were among the first converts to Christianity.
Posted by: someotherguy on Sep. 24 2009,13:52

As an atheist who believes that Christianity can certainly be reconciled with evolution, I think I'm going to convert to Christianity.  Just to spite* FloydLee.  


*I figure that with all the Republican politicians around the country embracing him, Jesus must  be getting used to self-serving confessions of faith made with a total lack of sincerity by now.
Posted by: Dale_Husband on Sep. 24 2009,13:59

This debate was rediculous from the beginning. Why not end it now?

< http://talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA622.html >

Claim CA622:
Without a literal Fall, there is no need for redemption and thus no need for Jesus or Christianity.
Source:
Grant, Heber J., Anthony W. Ivins, and Charles W. Nibley. n.d. Mormon view of evolution. < http://www.lightplanet.com/mormons....eom.htm >
Morris, Henry M. 1998. The fall, the curse, and evolution. Back to Genesis 112 (Apr.). < http://www.icr.org/index.p....&ID=837 >
Response:
1. It is sin in general, and not merely one particular instance of sin, that makes redemption necessary. If you can find any sin in the world, then the claim is baseless. Proof of this is given by the fact that many Christians feel the need for redemption but do not believe in a literal Fall.


2. This claim implies that sin and redemption are about things that happened thousands of years ago, not about anything happening to us today. It makes religion less relevant to people's lives.


3. Origins are not determined by our personal decisions of what religion to follow.
Posted by: deadman_932 on Sep. 24 2009,16:14

So...'F' for Floyd in part 1 of his assault on reality.

Not an auspicious sign, Floyd.

You expose your lack of ethics & morals by (1) abandoning your agreement on debate conduct, and in (2) the low, fallacy-strewn tactics you employed ...

But you still got roundly spanked.

Let's hope you can "defend" your claims on Intelligent Design better than this first farcical flailing, Floyd. I figure you'll be facing floods of future "F's".
Posted by: Lou FCD on Sep. 24 2009,16:24

Quote (SLP @ Sep. 24 2009,13:41)
Nowadays, of course, we have 'family values' Christian conservatives either obsessing over - and strangely knowing all about - homesexual sex acts or being closet homesexuals themselves.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


The two are not mutually exclusive, and in my experience are actually positively correlated.

IOW, the bigger the homophobe, the deeper the closet.
Posted by: Richardthughes on Sep. 24 2009,16:30

Quote (Lou FCD @ Sep. 24 2009,16:24)
Quote (SLP @ Sep. 24 2009,13:41)
Nowadays, of course, we have 'family values' Christian conservatives either obsessing over - and strangely knowing all about - homesexual sex acts or being closet homesexuals themselves.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


The two are not mutually exclusive, and in my experience are actually positively correlated.

IOW, the bigger the homophobe, the deeper the closet.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I HATE THEM GAYERS. THEY MAKE ME SO MAD I GET A STIFFY.  :angry:
Posted by: Stanton on Sep. 24 2009,18:20

Quote (deadman_932 @ Sep. 24 2009,16:14)
Let's hope you can "defend" your claims on Intelligent Design better than this first farcical flailing, Floyd. I figure you'll be facing floods of future "F's".
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Unlikely: FL's defense of his claim that Intelligent Design is supposedly a-okay to teach in a science classroom is going to be even more pathetic than the idiocy he's regurgitated now.  Or, to reword it: a snowball tossed into the flaming fords of the Phlegethon in Hades has better survival odds.  I mean, FL harped on and on and on about how he had this "three plank theory" that explained how Intelligent Design was scientific and nonreligious for years, but, he never seemed to be able to get around to explaining what it was.

Among other things, Intelligent Design was determined in court to be nothing but dressed up religious propaganda, and has no legitimate or legal place in a science classroom.

There was one time when FL made an impassioned plea that evolution was a religion, and that science classrooms were apparently the churches of "evolutionists" (sic).  Even if such a ridiculous claim was true, you still couldn't teach Intelligent Design in a science classroom, as last I heard, in the US, it's illegal to demand that the religious propaganda of one religion be taught in the church of a different and or rival religion.

And then there's the problem how the founders of the Intelligent Design freely admit that Intelligent Design was never intended to be a science, or even be an attempt at providing alternative explanations beyond the token GODDESIGNERDIDIT.
Posted by: Henry J on Sep. 24 2009,22:11



---------------------QUOTE-------------------



---------------------QUOTE-------------------

other than an ancient tale, you've yet to provide any proof of a world wide flood.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Nor has Henry provided you any proof of a merely local flood.  As for me, I will not be attempting to prove the global Noahic Flood in this thread.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



What the heck does me providing something about a local flood have to do with wether you talk about a global one?

A global Flood would have left a distinct world wide layer of evidence in the geologic record, with discontinuity between what's below it and what's above it. If such a layer had actually been detected, the people that believe the Flood happened would be sharing that information all over the place.

Henry
Posted by: Dale_Husband on Sep. 24 2009,23:15

Quote (Henry J @ Sep. 24 2009,22:11)
What the heck does me providing something about a local flood have to do with wether you talk about a global one?

A global Flood would have left a distinct world wide layer of evidence in the geologic record, with discontinuity between what's below it and what's above it. If such a layer had actually been detected, the people that believe the Flood happened would be sharing that information all over the place.

Henry


---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Uh, that's exactly what Creationists claim, that all those dinosaurs and other creatures buried in the rocks ARE proof of the Great Flood.

NO, THEY ARE NOT! The only way that could be halfway plausible is if the creatures buried were simular to those living today. In fact, the overwhelming majority of them are NOT! Indeed, one of the fundamental assumptions of early Creationists was that extinction was not supposed to happen because that would spoil God's perfect plan for the universe.

So today's Creationists get around that difficulty by asserting that dinosaurs DID exist, but they died out after the Flood. Which makes one wonder why God would have had them preserved on the Ark in the first place.

Face it: The Bible was written by and for people who lived on a FLAT Earth that was STATIONARY and only a FEW THOUSAND YEARS OLD. Anyone who asserts that the Bible is consistent with modern science is a liar, including FL.

And that is why I assert that anyone who claims the Bible is the Word of God is a BLASPHEMER! No real Creator God would EVER have inspired such a shoddy work!
Posted by: sledgehammer on Sep. 25 2009,01:08

Well, there's always the Kent Hovind fallback theory, that the debill planted all dem fossels to test the faith of the Tru Beeleebers
Posted by: SLP on Sep. 25 2009,07:26

Quote (dheddle @ Sep. 24 2009,13:04)
Quote (SLP @ Sep. 24 2009,12:41)
I'm still concerned about the Christian cult's fixation on the penis.  
Nowadays, of course, we have 'family values' Christian conservatives either obsessing over - and strangely knowing all about - homesexual sex acts or being closet homesexuals themselves.

But in Yahweh's day, boy, foreskins were king:

Habakkuk 2:16 - Thou art filled with shame for glory: drink thou also, and let thy foreskin be uncovered: the cup of the LORD'S right hand shall be turned unto thee, and shameful spewing [shall be] on thy glory.


Genesis 17:14 - And the uncircumcised man child whose flesh of his foreskin is not circumcised, that soul shall be cut off from his people; he hath broken my covenant.


Genesis 17:11 - And ye shall circumcise the flesh of your foreskin; and it shall be a token of the covenant betwixt me and you.


1 Samuel 18:25 - And Saul said, Thus shall ye say to David, The king desireth not any dowry, but an hundred foreskins of the Philistines, to be avenged of the king's enemies. But Saul thought to make David fall by the hand of the Philistines.

1 Samuel 18:27 - Wherefore David arose and went, he and his men, and slew of the Philistines two hundred men; and David brought their foreskins, and they gave them in full tale to the king, that he might be the king's son in law. And Saul gave him Michal his daughter to wife.

Joshua 5:3 - And Joshua made him sharp knives, and circumcised the children of Israel at the hill of the foreskins.


It was a regular wienerfest!

Let me guess - all metaphotical?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Not metaphorical. There was good reason why there were more female converts to Judaism than men.

The men often chose the lesser commitment of the so-called  God-fearers. These men were loosely attached to the synagogue and enjoyed a subset of the privileges of full membership. In return, they agreed to obey some of the law (for example, to keep the Sabbath) and to live in a morally acceptable way. They didn't have to be circumcised. They were the low hanging fruit (bad metaphor?) and were among the first converts to Christianity.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Well, maybe, but I plan to act Yahweh-like and ask my daughter's suitor for 100 foreskins as a dowry...
Posted by: SLP on Sep. 25 2009,07:27

Quote (Lou FCD @ Sep. 24 2009,16:24)
Quote (SLP @ Sep. 24 2009,13:41)
Nowadays, of course, we have 'family values' Christian conservatives either obsessing over - and strangely knowing all about - homesexual sex acts or being closet homesexuals themselves.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


The two are not mutually exclusive, and in my experience are actually positively correlated.

IOW, the bigger the homophobe, the deeper the closet.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I think there is certainly truth in that, we've certainly seen it publicly in the last few years.
But mentioning that is enough to get you suspended from Christian-run forums.  Those folk never were that good at facing the truth.
Posted by: SLP on Sep. 25 2009,07:28

Quote (Richardthughes @ Sep. 24 2009,16:30)
Quote (Lou FCD @ Sep. 24 2009,16:24)
Quote (SLP @ Sep. 24 2009,13:41)
Nowadays, of course, we have 'family values' Christian conservatives either obsessing over - and strangely knowing all about - homesexual sex acts or being closet homesexuals themselves.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


The two are not mutually exclusive, and in my experience are actually positively correlated.

IOW, the bigger the homophobe, the deeper the closet.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I HATE THEM GAYERS. THEY MAKE ME SO MAD I GET A STIFFY.  :angry:
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Stiffy?

I have not heard or used that term since about 1986 - thanks for the mammaries! :D
Posted by: Louis on Sep. 25 2009,07:41

Quote (Lou FCD @ Sep. 24 2009,22:24)
Quote (SLP @ Sep. 24 2009,13:41)
Nowadays, of course, we have 'family values' Christian conservatives either obsessing over - and strangely knowing all about - homesexual sex acts or being closet homesexuals themselves.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


The two are not mutually exclusive, and in my experience are actually positively correlated.

IOW, the bigger the homophobe, the deeper the closet.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I don't know why your comment made me think of this, but it did:

< Funny cartoon filth. Extremely Not Safe For Work. Very rude, may offend, do not click if you think you might even be a teeensy bit squeamish or prudish in any way. Very naughty, I mean it. >

I'm not joking, even Deadman might have an episode.*

(May need to reload it a time or two, the site's server appears hamster powered)

Louis

* RTH on the other hand will love it.

ETA: I would feel bad about even further derailerisation, but, well, this is a farce. FL can't parse a sentence nor find his arse using a map, a set of written instructions enforced by a butch bloke using a stick, a team of huskies, a sherpa guide, a 1 gigacandle torch and a compass. Wrestling the metaphorical pig is more productive. Ooops my cynicism is back. Port the comment to the relevant thread/hole as necessary.
Posted by: FloydLee on Sep. 25 2009,09:49



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
What the heck does me providing something about a local flood have to do with wether you talk about a global one?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


All I'm saying (and as the secular article I provided clearly showed), is that those who try to advocate a local flood face as many or more challenges from the skeptical side as do those  who advocate a global flood.  

As you know, there are some TE's out there who suggest that the Noahic Flood was a merely local flood, so I just provided the article (on the peanut thread which redirected everything to this thread) for the information it gave.

Other than that, I offer no further discussion froabout the Flood, because that's not the thread topic.
Posted by: FloydLee on Sep. 25 2009,09:52



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Actually, the TOE says nothing about biological origins or cosmological origins.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


The ToE doesn't even say anything about biological origins, Robin?
Posted by: Dr.GH on Sep. 25 2009,10:04

Quote (Louis @ Sep. 25 2009,05:41)

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Louis, that was my first laugh-out-loud today. Thanks.
Posted by: Dr.GH on Sep. 25 2009,10:06

Quote (FloydLee @ Sep. 25 2009,07:52)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Actually, the TOE says nothing about biological origins or cosmological origins.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


The ToE doesn't even say anything about biological origins, Robin?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Read, "biological origins" as "origin of life." Scheech Floyd!
Posted by: Henry J on Sep. 25 2009,10:31



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Face it: The Bible was written by and for people who lived on a FLAT Earth that was STATIONARY and only a FEW THOUSAND YEARS OLD. Anyone who asserts that the Bible is consistent with modern science is a liar, including FL.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Well, FL is saying that the Bible is inconsistent with science (at least for his interpretation of the Bible).
Posted by: Henry J on Sep. 25 2009,10:36

Quote (FloydLee @ Sep. 25 2009,08:52)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Actually, the TOE says nothing about biological origins or cosmological origins.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


The ToE doesn't even say anything about biological origins, Robin?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


The ToE doesn't depend on having a confirmed explanation for how life arose in the first place. It does require that first life did arise at least once, and it concludes that known current life descended from only one or a few original types.
Posted by: deadman_932 on Sep. 25 2009,10:45

Quote (Louis @ Sep. 25 2009,07:41)
I don't know why your comment made me think of this, but it did:

< Funny cartoon filth. Extremely Not Safe For Work. Very rude, may offend, do not click if you think you might even be a teeensy bit squeamish or prudish in any way. Very naughty, I mean it. >

I'm not joking, even Deadman might have an episode.*

(May need to reload it a time or two, the site's server appears hamster powered)

Louis

* RTH on the other hand will love it.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I was shocked. SHOCKED and APPALLED. At least now we all know what *someone's* been spending their "baby-sitting" time doing, you filthy miscreant.

On the other hand, I have a great opening line when I see you in Ye Olde Sod: "Show me your HONOR!" Passers-by will be mystified, your missus will roll her eyes and I'll fall down laughing. A good time will be had by all.  

I noticed TaHugs is oddly silent on the topic however. I suspect he's closely evaluating the artwork, in a private room somewhere.
Posted by: SLP on Sep. 25 2009,10:48

Quote (FloydLee @ Sep. 25 2009,09:52)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Actually, the TOE says nothing about biological origins or cosmological origins.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


The ToE doesn't even say anything about biological origins, Robin?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Cue out of context and wildly extrapolated and misinterpreted John Oro quote in 3...2...1...

Because after all, one guy's misinterpreted, misrepresentedopinion TRUMPS ALL!
Posted by: deadman_932 on Sep. 25 2009,10:50

Quote (FloydLee @ Sep. 25 2009,09:49)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
What the heck does me providing something about a local flood have to do with wether you talk about a global one?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


All I'm saying (and as the secular article I provided clearly showed), is that those who try to advocate a local flood face as many or more challenges from the skeptical side as do those  who advocate a global flood.  

As you know, there are some TE's out there who suggest that the Noahic Flood was a merely local flood, so I just provided the article (on the peanut thread which redirected everything to this thread) for the information it gave.

Other than that, I offer no further discussion froabout the Flood, because that's not the thread topic.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


How about a more rational alternative to your false-dichotomy "Local or global fludde?"

How about "no Noachic fludde at all, merely a borrowing of Mesopotamian mythos for power-structure legitimizing purposes and group identity?" (See the LDS [Mormon] Church for a more modern representative of this historically common cultural phenomenon)

I know this would require both complex thought and a willingness to forego your usual literalism, but I promise that if you actually consider it, the Earth will not open up and send you plunging into a fiery pit.
Posted by: SLP on Sep. 25 2009,10:52

Allow me to head Floyd off at the pass:


Please read the following passage and answer the question that follows:

In the mid-1800s, Darwin showed how the concept of evolution by natural selection applies to living systems. But evolution also operates in the inanimate world, not only Earth but the universe as a whole, including all cosmic bodies (galaxies, stars, circumstellar and interstellar clouds, interstellar molecules, planetary systems, planets, comets, asteroids, meteorites) and all chemical elements. Comets transported organic molecules and water to the primitive Earth early in the planet's history, presumably over a period of several hundred million years. In the oceans that then formed, both cometary and terrestrial (those synthesized directly in the environment) organic molecules evolved by natural selection, ultimately giving rise to life - possibly in the "warm little pond" that Darwin envisioned in his famous letter to Joseph Hooker (see chapter 3). The linkage from cosmic elements to cometary molecules to primitive Earth to biological evolution ties cosmochemical evolution to the origin of life.

Does the above passage indicate to you that:

1. The author sees evolution by natural selection as a 'basic' phenomenon/concept that has applications to biology, cosmology; both animate/living and inanimate/non-living things and thus as a concept, 'evolution' ties all all these areas together



2. The author is indicating that abiogenesis/cosmochemical evolution are part of the Theory of Evolution as put forth by Darwin

Note that it is quite likley that FL will only quote this part:
"...organic molecules evolved by natural selection, ultimately giving rise to life - possibly in the "warm little pond"
because he is dishonest.
Posted by: k.e.. on Sep. 25 2009,11:32

Quote (SLP @ Sep. 25 2009,15:28)
Quote (Richardthughes @ Sep. 24 2009,16:30)
Quote (Lou FCD @ Sep. 24 2009,16:24)
 
Quote (SLP @ Sep. 24 2009,13:41)
Nowadays, of course, we have 'family values' Christian conservatives either obsessing over - and strangely knowing all about - homesexual sex acts or being closet homesexuals themselves.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


The two are not mutually exclusive, and in my experience are actually positively correlated.

IOW, the bigger the homophobe, the deeper the closet.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I HATE THEM GAYERS. THEY MAKE ME SO MAD I GET A STIFFY.  :angry:
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Stiffy?

I have not heard or used that term since about 1986 - thanks for the mammaries! :D
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


REPENT NOW BEFORE THEY RUN OUT! HOMO.
Posted by: k.e.. on Sep. 25 2009,11:42

Quote (FloydLee @ Sep. 25 2009,17:49)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
What the heck does me providing something about a local flood have to do with wether you talk about a global one?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


All I'm saying (and as the secular article I provided clearly showed), is that those who try to advocate a local flood face as many or more challenges from the skeptical side as do those  who advocate a global flood.  

As you know, there are some TE's out there who suggest that the Noahic Flood was a merely local flood, so I just provided the article (on the peanut thread which redirected everything to this thread) for the information it gave.

Other than that, I offer no further discussion froabout the Flood, because that's not the thread topic.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Congratulations FL

You have passed the AtBC Lenny Frank Pizza Delivery Boy "Your Opininion Is No Better Or Worse Than His Other Delivery Boys Test".

He's on some googlable® trotsky-ite site and I'm sure will thrilled to know you have his pizza.

If you are quick and deliver it before it gets cold I'm sure you will get a tip.

As far as quality & taste is concerned I suggest you keep your motor running and a bullit proof vest might be in order if you think he will listen for longer than it takes to pass said pizza.

Good luck on the shit shoving I hear handing out pamphlest outside schools attracts more than a glance from the law these days, especially for the pronoun challenged.
Posted by: Stanton on Sep. 25 2009,12:09

Quote (FloydLee @ Sep. 25 2009,09:52)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Actually, the TOE says nothing about biological origins or cosmological origins.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


The ToE doesn't even say anything about biological origins, Robin?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


No, FL, the Theory of Evolution describes how life changes with each successive generation, and describes the mechanisms that cause these changes, as well as describes the results of these changes.

Only perfidious, forked tongued piety shysters, like yourself, FL, would imply that a definitive understanding of abiogenesis is vital to understanding and explaining observed examples of evolution, from fruit flies and antibiotic resistant bacteria to wild flowers and fossil lineages.
Posted by: Robin on Sep. 25 2009,12:10

Quote (FloydLee @ Sep. 25 2009,09:52)

---------------------QUOTE-------------------




---------------------QUOTE-------------------


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Actually, the TOE says nothing about biological origins or cosmological origins.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


The ToE doesn't even say anything about biological origins, Robin?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Nope. Not at all. It is about the process of speciation, nothing more.
Posted by: Robin on Sep. 25 2009,12:36

Quote (Henry J @ Sep. 25 2009,10:36)
.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------




---------------------QUOTE-------------------


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Actually, the TOE says nothing about biological origins or cosmological origins.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


The ToE doesn't even say anything about biological origins, Robin?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


The ToE doesn't depend on having a confirmed explanation for how life arose in the first place. It does require that first life did arise at least once, and it concludes that known current life descended from only one or a few original types[/quote]

Well, I'd go a step further and say that the ToE doesn't address origins in anyway. Book titles to get peoples' attention aside, evolution doesn't even address the origin of species if one sits and thinks about it - rather it explains that "species" are modified configurations of population groups that all relate to one another and that in many ways the term "species" doesn't mean much. All species developed from a single group of similar organisms; none of the species after that first group ever originated on this planet - they were all modifications of some related group.

I personally dislike the use of the phrase 'origin of species' because in my mind it gives the wrong impression. It implies distinct parameters and boundaries - distinct edges - that define species, thus implying a point in time when that specifically demarcated group "originated". But as anyone who's spent any time studying biological groups and systems can relate, such distinct edges don't actually exist. Sure, you can say that there's a distinction between cats and dogs or birds and fish - at THOSE levels distinctions are easy - but it becomes much more difficult when you are talking Spotted owls and Barred owls or Yellow-bellied Sapsuckers and Red-naped Sapsuckers. And while creationists routinely point to this sort of issue and try to use it to defend the concept of "macro" vs "micro" evolution, such misses the point that the relatedness these organisms is the same type of relatedness we can see between cats and dogs.
Posted by: FloydLee on Sep. 25 2009,13:15



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Read, "biological origins" as "origin of life."
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Hmm.  Is that the sound of a goalpost moving?  You guys are rather surprising sometimes.

Darwin's book "Origin of Species", is 100 percent talking about biological origins.    But here you are, trying to do the bayou bougaloo on the spot, trying not to acknowledge the obvious.

Honestly, are you trying to tell me that the evolutionist claim that all living organisms originated (via evolution) from one or a few common ancestors is NOT a claim concerning biological origins?  

Now y'all know better 'n' that, don't ye?
Posted by: Richardthughes on Sep. 25 2009,13:17

Think of the origin of life vs. the diversity of life, if this helps you, FloydLee.
Posted by: deadman_932 on Sep. 25 2009,13:27

Quote (FloydLee @ Sep. 25 2009,13:15)
   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Read, "biological origins" as "origin of life."
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Hmm.  Is that the sound of a goalpost moving?  You guys are rather surprising sometimes.

Darwin's book "Origin of Species", is 100 percent talking about biological origins.    But here you are, trying to do the bayou bougaloo on the spot, trying not to acknowledge the obvious.

Honestly, are you trying to tell me that the evolutionist claim that all living organisms originated (via evolution) from one or a few common ancestors is NOT a claim concerning biological origins?  

Now y'all know better 'n' that, don't ye?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Tell you what, then, Floyd Lee. If you say the Origin of SPECIES is really about the origin of life, then surely you can find lots of quotes from that book -- paragraph after paragraph, in fact -- to support that. Hell, if it's *really* about what you claim, then entire chapters should be about nothing but that, yes? Let's find out. I could help you, but I won't, because I doubt you've ever even read the damn thing.

The Origin of Species is all about abiogenesis, right?

The full text of < On The Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection : or The Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle For Life > (1st Ed.) is found at that link.

Start reading and reporting the facts, son.
Posted by: Chayanov on Sep. 25 2009,13:47

I'm especially fond of the chapter entitled "Life Comes from Nothing and the Bible is Stupid." Maybe FL could provide us all with a summary of a book he's obviously never read.
Posted by: Dan on Sep. 25 2009,14:02

Quote (FloydLee @ Sep. 25 2009,13:15)
You guys are rather surprising sometimes.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Unlike you.  I thought that you wouldn't address the topic of this debate, namely "Is knowledge of evolution consistent with faith in Christianity?", and indeed you haven't.

Instead you've devoted countless words to your opinion, not to the fact under debate.  You have not yet addressed the topic under discussion.

Realizing that you're failing, you're trying to change the subject to "Is Origin of Species the most appropriate name for Darwin's masterwork?" which, quite obviously, has nothing to do with knowledge of evolution, faith in Christianity, or their compatibility.
Posted by: someotherguy on Sep. 25 2009,14:07

Quote (FloydLee @ Sep. 25 2009,13:15)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Read, "biological origins" as "origin of life."
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Hmm.  Is that the sound of a goalpost moving?  You guys are rather surprising sometimes.

Darwin's book "Origin of Species", is 100 percent talking about biological origins.    But here you are, trying to do the bayou bougaloo on the spot, trying not to acknowledge the obvious.

Honestly, are you trying to tell me that the evolutionist claim that all living organisms originated (via evolution) from one or a few common ancestors is NOT a claim concerning biological origins?  

Now y'all know better 'n' that, don't ye?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


When many of us hear a phrase like "biological origins" we tend to think that it's referring to the origin of biology--ie. the origin of life.  Hence the confusion.
Posted by: FloydLee on Sep. 25 2009,14:21



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Yet another major US evangelical has now declared himself a YEC. Mega church Pastor Charles Stanley has invided Ken Ham to  speak at his church in October.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Now THAT's powerful.  (They say theologian RC Sproul has also become convinced of YEC as well and now identifies with YEC.  That's good too.)

Okay, I know that this announcement is bad news from your perspective, but I cannot help my feelings here:  that's very good news, a welcome surprise.
   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I strongly feel that unless a mainstream evangelical comes out in support of it, evolution Sunday is really dead in the water.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I honestly don't think Evolution Sunday is dead in the water--not even close!--if the various media articles are any indication.  

(Btw, Evolution Sunday was NOT created by Christians, but instead by an Atheist---Michael Zimmerman.   Go figure!!)

However, evangelical refusal to play along with the Evolution Sunday gig, has at least slowed down the problem, and bought American Christianity some badly needed time to regroup and take a stand against ES.  

FloydLee
Posted by: FloydLee on Sep. 25 2009,14:24

Interesting.  I just posted on Peter Henderson's thread and it automatically redirected my post here.  Well, so be it.  

Besides, given that evolution is incompatible with Christianity, it would be in the best interest of American Christians to boycott Evolution Sunday anyway!!

FloydLee
Posted by: Richardthughes on Sep. 25 2009,14:25

Just to point out again, though. Evolution is true. So to the extent it doesn't reconcile with your personal beliefs, they are not true.
Posted by: Robin on Sep. 25 2009,14:28

Quote (FloydLee @ Sep. 25 2009,13:15)

---------------------QUOTE-------------------




---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Hmm.  Is that the sound of a goalpost moving?  You guys are rather surprising sometimes.

Darwin's book "Origin of Species", is 100 percent talking about biological origins.    But here you are, trying to do the bayou bougaloo on the spot, trying not to acknowledge the obvious.

Honestly, are you trying to tell me that the evolutionist claim that all living organisms originated (via evolution) from one or a few common ancestors is NOT a claim concerning biological origins?  

Now y'all know better 'n' that, don't ye?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Unlike you, Floyd, we keep up with the latest developments on theories in science. You might want to do a little reading because the last time I checked Modern Synthesis and the ToE as taught today is a bit advanced from what Darwin proposed. But you're more than welcome to keep attacking that strawman.

In any event, all modern life forms did not "originate from" any common ancestor - once again you demonstrate the problem with that term and the particularly inaccurate implications when combined with the term "species" - but rather evolved from a common ancestor, hence the reason we call the process "evolution" and not "origination" or "creation". You might want to take note of that.
Posted by: deadman_932 on Sep. 25 2009,14:33

Quote (FloydLee @ Sep. 25 2009,14:21)
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Yet another major US evangelical has now declared himself a YEC. Mega church Pastor Charles Stanley has invided Ken Ham to  speak at his church in October.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Now THAT's powerful.  (They say theologian RC Sproul has also become convinced of YEC as well and now identifies with YEC.  That's good too.)

Okay, I know that this announcement is bad news from your perspective, but I cannot help my feelings here:  that's very good news, a welcome surprise.
     

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I strongly feel that unless a mainstream evangelical comes out in support of it, evolution Sunday is really dead in the water.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I honestly don't think Evolution Sunday is dead in the water--not even close!--if the various media articles are any indication.  

(Btw, Evolution Sunday was NOT created by Christians, but instead by an Atheist---Michael Zimmerman.   Go figure!!)

However, evangelical refusal to play along with the Evolution Sunday gig, has at least slowed down the problem, and bought American Christianity some badly needed time to regroup and take a stand against ES.  

FloydLee
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You might want to check on the < recent poll data > from the American Religious Identification Survey.

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
"Twenty-two percent of the youngest cohort of adults self-identify as nones [meaning "None" as a response to the question about religion] and they will become tomorrow's parents," according to the report.

"If current trends continue and cohorts of non-religious young people replace older religious people, the likely outcome is that in two decades the nones could account for around one-quarter of the American population."

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Just to bring you back down to Earth, Floyd
Posted by: FloydLee on Sep. 25 2009,14:35



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
If you say the Origin of SPECIES is really about the origin of life,
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


That's not what I said.  That wasn't even suggested in the post.  
(Where did you even get that idea from?)

Read my post again, Deadman.   It's quite clear.  Take another look.
Posted by: deadman_932 on Sep. 25 2009,14:39

Quote (FloydLee @ Sep. 25 2009,09:52)
   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Actually, the TOE says nothing about biological origins or cosmological origins.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


The ToE doesn't even say anything about biological origins, Robin?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Right. "Biological Origins" meaning Origin of species, Floyd?

So -- you decided to post up about the ToE being about the origin of species via common ancestry? Something everyone here (save you, I suspect) already knows?

You really, really, reaallly  didn't mean "origins of life?"

Uh-huh.
Posted by: Stanton on Sep. 25 2009,16:00

Quote (FloydLee @ Sep. 25 2009,14:35)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
If you say the Origin of SPECIES is really about the origin of life,
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


That's not what I said.  That wasn't even suggested in the post.  
(Where did you even get that idea from?)

Read my post again, Deadman.   It's quite clear.  Take another look.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


The fact of the matter remains that On the Origin of Species is about how speciation occurs as according to Charles Darwin's notes and observations.  Yes, Darwin touches upon the subject of abiogenesis, but, the problems are that a) it's quite obvious to the honest reader that he's simply speculating, b) the honest observer will also note that scientists studying abiogenesis have come a long, long, long, long way since Darwin's mental meanderings about a "warm pond," c) Darwin's speculation on abiogenesis have little bearing on the rest of his book, and served only as a suggestion or idea of the origin of the common ancestor to all life, d) On the Origin of Species is not some sort of magical holy book that is supposed to be worshiped by biologists.

Even so, it's quite clear, FL, that you have absolutely no intention of reading even a single word from On the Origin of Species or any other book on any topic remotely to do with biology without the intent to quotemine for Jesus for the utterly irrational fear that God will punish you for your visual blasphemy by sending a pair of irate eagles to peck out your eyes.
Posted by: Louis on Sep. 25 2009,16:01

Quote (Dr.GH @ Sep. 25 2009,16:04)
[quote=Louis,Sep. 25 2009,05:41][/quote]
Louis, that was my first laugh-out-loud today. Thanks.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


{Tips hat}

Glad to be of service, sir.

Louis
Posted by: Lou FCD on Sep. 25 2009,16:12

Quote (Richardthughes @ Sep. 25 2009,14:17)
Think
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Already doomed to failure.




Posted by: Quack on Sep. 25 2009,16:13

Nothing here, even this is too much. Sorry.
Posted by: Louis on Sep. 25 2009,16:14

Quote (Lou FCD @ Sep. 25 2009,22:12)
Quote (Richardthughes @ Sep. 25 2009,14:17)
Think
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Already doomed to failure.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Award yourself Post of the Week for at least 24 hours. That comment was made of win.

Louis
Posted by: Lou FCD on Sep. 25 2009,16:26

Quote (Louis @ Sep. 25 2009,17:14)
Quote (Lou FCD @ Sep. 25 2009,22:12)
 
Quote (Richardthughes @ Sep. 25 2009,14:17)
Think
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Already doomed to failure.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Award yourself Post of the Week for at least 24 hours. That comment was made of win.

Louis
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


There's something vaguely unseemly about awarding myself the PoTW, which is why I've always declined to do it in the past.

But because it was your nomination, my homo-nymous friend, I'll take a moment for a bit of self aggrandizement.

Plus, The Flying Spaghetti Monster recently smiled on my home personally, which I take to be a sign of mondo special chosenoneness.

< >



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
< Under the Rainbow >, by me on Flickr
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: deadman_932 on Sep. 25 2009,18:28

Quote (Lou FCD @ Sep. 25 2009,16:26)
[snip Loose's blatant mod-kissery]

my homo-nymous friend, I'll take a moment for a bit of self aggrandizement...

The Flying Spaghetti Monster recently smiled on my home personally, which I take to be a sign of mondo special chosenoneness.

< >

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
< Under the Rainbow >, by me on Flickr
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


---------------------QUOTE-------------------


TAKE COVER! He's about to bust out in Judy Garland show tunes again!

One can only hope that -- besides the gingham dress and ruby slippers -- this time he has underwear on.
Posted by: Dale_Husband on Sep. 25 2009,20:59



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
(Btw, Evolution Sunday was NOT created by Christians, but instead by an Atheist---Michael Zimmerman.   Go figure!!)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



What that proves is that Zimmerman is more tolerant of Christianity than you are of atheism, FL.

You really don't get it, do you? Your obsession with proving that evolution is incompatible with Christianity is bound to result in the total downfall of the religion. People don't like being lied to about something as fundamental as their origins or ancestry and you cannot fool people who know all the facts and live up to them. You makes God look like a liar, which is the ultimate blasphemy. Of course, if you WANT to beleive in a God who is a liar and an idiot, be my guest. Don't expect me and others who know better to accept that.

You need to grow up, and find a God that is real, not the childish one you know. He is dead and must be buried to save humanity.
Posted by: tsig on Sep. 27 2009,10:16

Quote (FloydLee @ Sep. 22 2009,10:43)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Hey Floyd. Is the Pope Christian? Yes or No.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Yes.  He is.

So is Francis Collins, according to Collins book.

Both are good examples of Theistic Evolution, probably the best TE has got right now.

Neither One has come up with any solution for the Big Five Incompatibillities.   Simply not able to, so far.  

The End.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You need to take your Five Incompatibles, wrap them firmly around the thick shaft of your belief then jerk vigorously.

After a while you will be ejaculating the prayer. OMG! OMG!
Posted by: tsig on Sep. 27 2009,10:20

Quote (Stanton @ Sep. 22 2009,11:36)
Quote (FloydLee @ Sep. 22 2009,10:54)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Neither one (Pope Benedict, Francis Collins) has come up with any solution for the Big Five Incompatibillities.   Simply not able to, so far.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

 
Anybody able to refute this particular statement?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


So, in other words, you're claiming that you know Christianity better than the Pope?

Why haven't you excommunicated the Pope yet, then?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


NOMA?
Posted by: Stanton on Sep. 27 2009,10:38

Quote (tsig @ Sep. 27 2009,10:20)
Quote (Stanton @ Sep. 22 2009,11:36)
Quote (FloydLee @ Sep. 22 2009,10:54)
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Neither one (Pope Benedict, Francis Collins) has come up with any solution for the Big Five Incompatibillities.   Simply not able to, so far.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

 
Anybody able to refute this particular statement?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


So, in other words, you're claiming that you know Christianity better than the Pope?

Why haven't you excommunicated the Pope yet, then?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


NOMA?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


It's not a matter of overlapping magisteria, FL was brainwashed a long time ago to think that evolution was of the devil, and was taught to denounce it no matter what, even if it means lying, slandering, misrepresenting, or putting words into the mouths of other people, including the Pope and corpses.

Then there's the problem of how FL is a hypocrite, in that he thinks it's okay to denounce something and imply it's some sort of soul-eating monster, and yet, still think it's peachy keen to continue using any and all of its products.

I mean, even if we put aside the fact that Creationism, as a "science" is so barren so as to make the fig tree Jesus withered out of spite look like a cornucopia with a trunk, for FL to denounce evolution with his stupid, catty innuendo, and his idiotic points, and yet, not advocate the ban of its products is hypocrisy, pure and simple.

It's akin to a fire and brimstone rabbi who preaches and screeches at his flock about how even thinking of straying from kosher laws will turn one into a super-whore, complete with flashing neon genitals and exploding breasts, while, the rabbi, himself, spends most of his time screaming and shouting in restaurants about how the cook didn't put enough cheese on his lobster-stuffed pork chops.
Posted by: tsig on Sep. 27 2009,11:20

Quote (deadman_932 @ Sep. 22 2009,17:23)
Quote (FloydLee @ Sep. 22 2009,17:13)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
THEN I will answer your questions.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


In other words, you really haven't given much thought to specifically how evolution supposedly "embiggens" biblical Christianity.  You suggest it does, yeah yeah, but you've not critically thought it through at all.

You haven't yet worked through that claim for yourself, and you honestly haven't checked whatever it is you have in mind there against the Scriptural data, to make sure you've got actual Bible Compatibility and Consistency with which to support this new "embiggens" claim.

And therefore you're not yet able to tell me how this "evolution embiggens Christianity" claim is actually supposed to work.

(Especially in light of the Big Five Butcher Knives that evolution clearly continues to aim in the direction of biblical Christianity!)

:)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


So, you're not a man of your word, are you, Floyd?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


He's a man of god's word. As spoken by Floyd.
Posted by: Quack on Sep. 27 2009,11:28

I believe a question like this is more in line with FL's agenda than evolution, therefore:

How does your Christianity make you better than the next guy, be he an atheist, scientist, Darwinist or evolutionist?

(Not to mention Baha'i, Gnostic, Sikh, Parsi, Catholic, Mormon et cetera ad infinitum.)
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Sep. 27 2009,12:19

pssst

He's YEC

say no more, say no more.  

if you think you're going to get an intelligent conversation out of one of THOSE, well, you haven't been paying attention

on the other hand it's fun to punt the tard around but christ let's not expect  such a beast to be rational or to even value intellectual honesty.  

"good faith"  never done done it.  he started from tard-zero and he'll end there.

yawn
Posted by: Stanton on Sep. 27 2009,14:32

Quote (Erasmus, FCD @ Sep. 27 2009,12:19)
pssst

He's YEC

say no more, say no more.  

if you think you're going to get an intelligent conversation out of one of THOSE, well, you haven't been paying attention

on the other hand it's fun to punt the tard around but christ let's not expect  such a beast to be rational or to even value intellectual honesty.  

"good faith"  never done done it.  he started from tard-zero and he'll end there.

yawn
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


He stared at "tard-zero," and has been able to work his way down to "jerk-negative sixty."  At his current rate, FL will probably hit the bottom of the Russian oil reserves by next month.
Posted by: rhmc on Sep. 27 2009,14:53

it's surely been amusing to watch the stupidity flow by...the links to the "answers" to the flud were highly amusing.  

another science FL doesn't quite grasp is physics.  

but i suspect ya'll have done broke another toy...it won't be back...
Posted by: Stanton on Sep. 27 2009,15:24

Quote (rhmc @ Sep. 27 2009,14:53)
it's surely been amusing to watch the stupidity flow by...the links to the "answers" to the flud were highly amusing.  

another science FL doesn't quite grasp is physics.  

but i suspect ya'll have done broke another toy...it won't be back...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


He'll be back, and he's gonna pretend that no one was able to out-argue him, acting like a smug jerk in the process.
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Sep. 27 2009,15:27

so who is the real loser in this whole process?

deadman, of course!!!!

hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha

actually, i am very grateful to him for providing another toy.  it's been a while since we had a genuine bona fide ignoramus like FL around.  

mebbe stanton's right, he'll be back like nothing happened.  i hope he doesn't drop the B-boy stance.  that shit is rich.
Posted by: tsig on Sep. 27 2009,16:13

Quote (Stanton @ Sep. 27 2009,10:38)
Quote (tsig @ Sep. 27 2009,10:20)
Quote (Stanton @ Sep. 22 2009,11:36)
 
Quote (FloydLee @ Sep. 22 2009,10:54)
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Neither one (Pope Benedict, Francis Collins) has come up with any solution for the Big Five Incompatibillities.   Simply not able to, so far.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

 
Anybody able to refute this particular statement?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


So, in other words, you're claiming that you know Christianity better than the Pope?

Why haven't you excommunicated the Pope yet, then?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


NOMA?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


It's not a matter of overlapping magisteria, FL was brainwashed a long time ago to think that evolution was of the devil, and was taught to denounce it no matter what, even if it means lying, slandering, misrepresenting, or putting words into the mouths of other people, including the Pope and corpses.

Then there's the problem of how FL is a hypocrite, in that he thinks it's okay to denounce something and imply it's some sort of soul-eating monster, and yet, still think it's peachy keen to continue using any and all of its products.

I mean, even if we put aside the fact that Creationism, as a "science" is so barren so as to make the fig tree Jesus withered out of spite look like a cornucopia with a trunk, for FL to denounce evolution with his stupid, catty innuendo, and his idiotic points, and yet, not advocate the ban of its products is hypocrisy, pure and simple.

It's akin to a fire and brimstone rabbi who preaches and screeches at his flock about how even thinking of straying from kosher laws will turn one into a super-whore, complete with flashing neon genitals and exploding breasts, while, the rabbi, himself, spends most of his time screaming and shouting in restaurants about how the cook didn't put enough cheese on his lobster-stuffed pork chops.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


The magesteria were Floyd's and the pope's.
Posted by: Lou FCD on Sep. 27 2009,16:43

Quote (tsig @ Sep. 27 2009,17:13)
The magesteria were Floyd's and the pope's.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Oh. I thought they were Floyd's and reality.
Posted by: Stanton on Sep. 27 2009,17:12

Quote (tsig @ Sep. 27 2009,16:13)
The magesteria were Floyd's and the pope's.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I know, but Lou says it better.
Posted by: nmgirl on Sep. 28 2009,19:00

I've been gone for a while, but its nice to know the posts have continued to deteriorate.  As I got caught up, I realized that FL hadn't answered a couple of my questions:
1.  What is biblical Christianity?
2.  If the world is only a few thousand years old, why did God fake the ages of the rocks?
good to be back!
Posted by: Lou FCD on Sep. 28 2009,19:02

Quote (nmgirl @ Sep. 28 2009,20:00)
2.  If the world is only a few thousand years old, why did God fake the ages of the rocks?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


When you're a genocidal maniac, what's a little deception?
Posted by: nmgirl on Sep. 28 2009,19:30

Another question, doesn't FL have any friends that would post here and back him up?
Posted by: deadman_932 on Sep. 28 2009,20:50

Quote (nmgirl @ Sep. 28 2009,19:30)
Another question, doesn't FL have any friends that would post here and back him up?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I like to think Floyd and me are fast becoming BFF's. I mean, who wouldn't want to party with that guy?

A couple'a bowls, some good Jamesons, maybe a few handfuls of 'shrooms...oh, yeah, he's a wildman.

Like having Ezekiel as your road dog.  ;)
Posted by: Jasper on Sep. 28 2009,21:35

Quote (nmgirl @ Sep. 28 2009,20:30)
Another question, doesn't FL have any friends that would post here and back him up?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


IIRC, FL and FtK are friends.

That would be interesting...
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Sep. 28 2009,21:39

Quote (Jasper @ Sep. 28 2009,22:35)
Quote (nmgirl @ Sep. 28 2009,20:30)
Another question, doesn't FL have any friends that would post here and back him up?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


IIRC, FL and FtK are friends.

That would be interesting...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


yeah deadman

get us a new toy!  the last one broke too quickly.

maybe.... Barb-tard?  be like FtK that had read a book, once.
Posted by: Henry J on Sep. 28 2009,22:23



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Another question, doesn't FL have any friends that would post here and back him up?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Back him up? A real friend would try to educate the guy.

Henry
Posted by: Stanton on Sep. 29 2009,00:11

Quote (Henry J @ Sep. 28 2009,22:23)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Another question, doesn't FL have any friends that would post here and back him up?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Back him up? A real friend would try to educate the guy.

Henry
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Who on earth would want to remain friends with an invincibly stupid, holier than thou snob who thinks he knows better than the Pope and has no compunctions about lying and misrepresenting other people, and is quick to accuse others of lying and or misrepresenting in order to cover his own ass?
Posted by: FloydLee on Sep. 29 2009,09:48



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Another question, doesn't FL have any friends that would post here and back him up?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Well, I was the only person invited here.  So I accepted the invitation.  Very few YECs regularly participate at PandasThumb, it seems.

It is true that I like FtK's blog.  It's a very good blog, full of color and life.  Interesting articles and videos.  

< http://reasonablekansans.blogspot.com/ >

******

Meanwhile, while continuing to reply to various posts, what I am doing this week is collecting and organizing the specific responses that you've provided--or not provided--to each of the Big Five Incompatibilities.  I'm one of those people who need to see everything in summary form once in a while.  

(Also that will help me do needed replies to anybody that I've missed.)

******

Also Nmgirl, I wanted to really thank you for at least being willing to tell me about your personal Christians beliefs, in response to my sincere request for pro-evolution Christians on this thread to offer their own personal theology so that we could see if there was "no discernable dissonance" between it and evolution.

I know about three people in this thread who have identified themselves in the past as "Christians" on PandasThumb, but they have seemingly all punted on this one.  
(Again, I'm reviewing the pages to see if I missed explanations of other personal theologies from any other professing Christians.  If so, let me know folks.)  

So far, Nmgirl, you are the only professing Christian with enough faith and/or courage to even say what you believed & not believed.

You know what I really believe, Nmgirl?  With the exception of some headliners like Francis Collins, Pope Benedict, etc., the great majority of Christian evolutionists are honestly SCARED to discuss and debate the Incompatibility issue within evolution forums that are clearly dominated by secular evolutionists, such as PT and AtBC and FRDB.
Perhaps these Christians are afraid that in a secular pro-evolution environment, they could possibly wind up "getting it from both sides" or something, so they avoid putting their actual beliefs on the table where a few of the seculars might suddenly decide to analyze and critique those Christian beliefs themselves, on top of a YEC like me offering an "discernable dissonance" analysis on the opposite end.

(Hmmm.  "Getting it from both sides" has actually happened on PandasThumb before, come to think of it.  I suppose that could make many a Christian evolutionist quite skittish and nervous.)

FloydLee
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on Sep. 29 2009,09:59



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
YEC like me  
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Who build the Pyramids FL?
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
As if these fatal flaws were not enough, Morris's calculation has ridiculous implications. For example, if we assume for the moment that human numbers really did grow exponentially at a per capita rate of r = 0.0033, starting with two people in 4300 BC, then we can calculate the world population of year 2500 BC. By Morris's calculation, that number is 750 individuals. If Egypt, with about 1% of the Earth's land surface area, also had 1% of its population, then about eight people must have lived in Egypt at that time. However, the Great Pyramid of the Egyptian king Cheops was built in about 2500 BC.13 If the creationists are right, then the Pyramid was built by eight people. In fact, suppose that the entire population of the Earth lived in Egypt at that time. Half of the 750 souls were women (who I don't think worked on the Pyramid); half of the males were children (ditto) and a few exalted characters (Cheops himself and his assorted advisors) undoubtedly convinced the others that nobility should not have to haul heavy limestone blocks. That leaves about 150 able-bodied men to quarry 2,300,000 blocks (ranging from 2.5 to 50 tons in weight), haul them to the construction site and raise the 480-foot Pyramid. Does anyone who has seen this colossal monument believe that 150 men could have built it? Yet that is what Morris, through the magic of his calculation, must boldly assert.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



< http://ncseweb.org/cej....pyramid >

If you are a YEC then answer me this: In 2500 BC how many people existed in the world? In total?

As a YEC you must have already thought about these issues. So, what's your answer?
Posted by: Stanton on Sep. 29 2009,10:20

So the best explanation FL can provide to explain why so many Christians, including the last two Popes, have absolutely no conflict with accepting the facts of evolution is a big whiny fit about how they're some how afraid to discuss their faith with secular people?  Obviously, it didn't occur to FL that some people don't feel it necessary to find faith and salvation in ancient absurdities.
Posted by: JohnW on Sep. 29 2009,11:37

Quote (FloydLee @ Sep. 29 2009,07:48)
You know what I really believe, Nmgirl?  With the exception of some headliners like Francis Collins, Pope Benedict, etc., the great majority of Christian evolutionists are honestly SCARED to discuss and debate the Incompatibility issue within evolution forums that are clearly dominated by secular evolutionists, such as PT and AtBC and FRDB.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Pope Benedict has debated Floyd's incompatibilities on evolution forums?  Anyone have a link?
Posted by: deadman_932 on Sep. 29 2009,11:50

"Tell me about your Theistic Evolutionist beliefs -- and I will tell you how you are wrong."

I can do the same with your beliefs, too, Floyd. Amazing, huh?

Your task was to demonstrate how evolution and Christianity are incompatible on the whole, not just in the case of anyone in particular, Floyd.

Of course, you can argue that you want instances of TE to point out what you already see as common flaws, but that would also mean that you could bypass the whole "I want people to tell me their views first" bit ... if you *already* could point to actual incompatibilities at all.

And here's the kicker, Floyd... you already HAVE the well-known catholic stance as an example to deal with, to point out verifiable incompatibilities. But you haven't managed to do that, despite having that well-known example available, immediately.

No one here is obliged to spoon-feed you their detailed theology, Floyd. Personally, I've never bothered -- in the many years since usenet days -- to divulge my views on deities. I don't care if other people believe in gods so long as they aren't trying to force views on me. I have no issue with "prime mover" concepts in particular, so long as they are not forcing absolutist socio-political notions.

What I DO have a problem with is pushing a socio-political agenda with an anti-science faith.

It's not required of me to say anything at all about my views on god or gods in order to deal with the antiscience of YEC or ID. And you're the one making claims as to what is and is not the "correct" Christian position on evolution, Floyd.

The burden is on you, baby, all by yourself. Do it.
Posted by: nmgirl on Sep. 29 2009,12:23

Quote (FloydLee @ Sep. 29 2009,09:48)
Also Nmgirl, I wanted to really thank you for at least being willing to tell me about your personal Christians beliefs, in response to my sincere request for pro-evolution Christians on this thread to offer their own personal theology so that we could see if there was "no discernable dissonance" between it and evolution.

I know about three people in this thread who have identified themselves in the past as "Christians" on PandasThumb, but they have seemingly all punted on this one.  
(Again, I'm reviewing the pages to see if I missed explanations of other personal theologies from any other professing Christians.  If so, let me know folks.)  

So far, Nmgirl, you are the only professing Christian with enough faith and/or courage to even say what you believed & not believed.

You know what I really believe, Nmgirl?  With the exception of some headliners like Francis Collins, Pope Benedict, etc., the great majority of Christian evolutionists are honestly SCARED to discuss and debate the Incompatibility issue within evolution forums that are clearly dominated by secular evolutionists, such as PT and AtBC and FRDB.
Perhaps these Christians are afraid that in a secular pro-evolution environment, they could possibly wind up "getting it from both sides" or something, so they avoid putting their actual beliefs on the table where a few of the seculars might suddenly decide to analyze and critique those Christian beliefs themselves, on top of a YEC like me offering an "discernable dissonance" analysis on the opposite end.

(Hmmm.  "Getting it from both sides" has actually happened on PandasThumb before, come to think of it.  I suppose that could make many a Christian evolutionist quite skittish and nervous.)

FloydLee
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


flattery will get you no where.  answer the bloody questions.
Posted by: Dale_Husband on Sep. 29 2009,12:46

Quote (Stanton @ Sep. 29 2009,10:20)
So the best explanation FL can provide to explain why so many Christians, including the last two Popes, have absolutely no conflict with accepting the facts of evolution is a big whiny fit about how they're some how afraid to discuss their faith with secular people?  Obviously, it didn't occur to FL that some people don't feel it necessary to find faith and salvation in ancient absurdities.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------




---------------------QUOTE-------------------
So the best explanation FL can provide to explain why so many Christians, including the last two Popes, have absolutely no conflict with accepting the facts of evolution is a big whiny fit about how they're some how afraid to discuss their faith with secular people?  Obviously, it didn't occur to FL that some people don't feel it necessary to find faith and salvation in ancient absurdities.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



If the Pope is not afraid of denouncing abortion and birth control, which cause many secular people to laugh at or scorn him, why would he be afraid to be a YEC and say so openly?

FL needs to realize that a lie is a lie, no matter where it is found, even in the Bible itself. Science can find truth about the universe we live in and we can use that science to test the validity of any theology.

So with science we can throw out the first eleven chapters of Genesis, but keep the ethical teachings of Jesus. The assumption that we must accept the literal teachings of Genesis is nonsense. Jesus is not even mentioned there!




---------------------QUOTE-------------------

< http://talkorigins.org/indexcc/CH/CH050.html >
Claim CH050:
True science and true religion are founded on Genesis. All Biblical doctrines have their foundations laid there, and the book of Genesis itself is founded on the events of its first chapter.
Source:
Morris, Henry M. 1983. Creation is the foundation. Impact 126 (Dec.). < http://www.icr.org/index.p....&ID=218 >
Response:
1. This claim is an instance of religious bigotry. Lots of religions, including Buddhism, Hinduism, Druidism, and many more, have no connection with Genesis at all. For a person to say that these are not true religions is
A. a gross insult to the people who practice the religions. Many of these people are highly devout, with a spiritual relationship at least as great as any creationist.
B. a gross insult to God. The person is saying that God's revelation must coincide with his own opinion to be valid, that God cannot reveal himself differently to different people. Anyone making this claim places themself above God.
C. a disservice to oneself. Bigotry is hateful and will prevent good relationships with good people.


2. If Genesis is so all-important, why do creationists reject serious study of it? Modern (and even not-so-modern) scholarship has revealed much about the authors of Genesis (called J, E, P, and R) and other books of the Old Testament, including their motivations and places in history. For example, the Flood account is an interleaving of two different flood stories by J and P (Friedman 1987). Creationists studiously avoid any such knowledge. (Creationists are not alone in this; most Christians generally are woefully ignorant of biblical scholarship.)


3. Ideas in other parts of the Bible stand on their own. Creationists themselves frequently quote them out of context. The Old Testament itself refers to documents that no longer exist; the Book of the Wars of the Lord (Num. 21:14); the Book of Jasher (Josh. 10:13, 2 Sam. 1:18); and others (1 Kings 11:41; 14:29, 19, 16:5; 1 Chron. 29:29; 2 Chron. 20:34, 13:22). Knowledge of earlier scriptures is helpful but not critical. Jesus sometimes rejected the letter of some Old Testament laws, so the letter of the Old Testament cannot be too important, and Jesus exemplified the spirit. The reason creationists find Genesis so important is because they depend on it, not because other parts of the Bible depend on it.


4. If one believes that God created the earth and heavens, then surely the earth and heavens are God's primary work. Study of the earth and heavens should be foundational. Placing an object such as the Bible before them is idolatry.


5. No accepted science has ever been based on the Bible. That is not for lack of trying. Up to the nineteenth century, serious scientists tried to accomodate literal readings of the Bible to what they saw in nature. Young-earth creationism failed early on, so scientists tried gap creationism, day-age creationism, and other attempted reconciliations. But purely Bible-based science has always failed. True science is based on reality as expressed in the world (Young 1988).

---------------------QUOTE-------------------





---------------------QUOTE-------------------

< http://talkorigins.org/indexcc/CH/CH101_1.html >
Claim CH101.1:
If the Bible cannot be trusted on scientific and historical matters, then it cannot be trusted on matters of salvation and spirituality.
Source:
Morris, Henry M., 2000. The vital importance of believing in recent creation. Back to Genesis 138 (June). < http://www.icr.org/index.p....&ID=874 >
Response:
1. The Bible was not intended to teach matters of science and history. Therefore, those areas should not be held to standards of literal accuracy.


2. The general ideas in the Bible, such as salvation and God's majesty, do not rely on literalism for their communication. An error or contradiction in detail does not affect the overall message.


3. The claim is a non sequitur. That something is wrong in one area does not prevent it from being perfectly accurate in another.


4. Theologians through the ages have considered parts of the Bible suspect but accepted the rest as canon. In fact, it was exactly such a process by which canon was determined. Even Martin Luther considered some Old Testament passages suspect (Armstrong 1996; Engwer n.d.; Shea 1997).


5. A logical consequence of this claim is that the Bible cannot, in fact, be trusted, because parts of it (not only Genesis) are known to be wrong if interpreted literally.

6. Creationists themselves sometimes make claims that contradict the Bible. For example, Whitcomb and Morris (1961, 69) claimed, contrary to Genesis 7:21-23, that some land animals not aboard Noah's ark survived.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------





---------------------QUOTE-------------------

< http://talkorigins.org/indexcc/CH/CH102_2_1.html >
Claim CH102.2.1:
Jesus refers to creation and flood as though they were literal, which shows that those stories were, in fact, literal.
Source:
Morris, Henry M. 1985. Scientific Creationism. Green Forest, AR: Master Books, p. 204,246,253-254.
Response:
Jesus's referring to traditional stories does not mean those stories were literal. People today refer to "the boy who cried wolf" and "blind men examining an elephant" and other stories the same way. Yet they do not consider those stories to be literally true. Their value, and the value of the stories Jesus refers to, is as stories, not as historical record.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------





---------------------QUOTE-------------------

< http://talkorigins.org/indexcc/CH/CH102.html >
Claim CH102:
The Bible should be read literally.
Source:
Morris, Henry M. 1985. Scientific Creationism. Green Forest, AR: Master Books, p. 204.
Response:
1. A literal reading of the Bible misses the meaning behind the details (Hyers 1983). It is like reading Aesop's Fables without trying to see the moral of the stories. Finding the meaning in a figurative reading requires more thought, but is thinking about the Bible a bad thing?


2. There are many inconsistencies and inaccuracies in the Bible that cannot be resolved without excessive pseudological contortions unless one does not take them literally. Augustine said,


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
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 (Augustine 1982, 42-43).
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Augustine's warning has merit. The invalid "proofs" necessary to support antievolution, a global flood, and a young earth, and the contradictions implied by literalism have pushed people away from Christianity (Hildeman 2004; Morton n.d.).


3. There are several passages of the Bible itself that indicate that it should not be taken literally:
2 Corinthians 3:6 says of the new covenant, "the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life."
1 Corinthians 9:9-12 says that one of the laws of Moses is figurative, not literal.
Galatians 4:24 says that the story of Abraham is an allegory.
Jesus frequently taught in parables, with the obvious intention that the lesson from the story, not the details of the story, was what was important.


4. There is extensive tradition in Christianity, including Catholicism and Protestantism, of accepting nonliteral interpretations (Rogerson 1992). Biblical literalism is not a requirement; it is a fashion.


5. Reading the Bible requires consideration of the society in which and for which it was written. The pressing issue in Israel when Genesis 1 was written was monotheism versus polytheism. Genesis 1 is written to show that different aspects of nature -- light and dark, earth and sky, sun, moon, and stars, plants and animals -- do not have their separate gods but all fall under one God (Hyers 1983).


6. Nobody reads the Bible entirely literally anyway. For example, when God says, "into your hands they [all wild animals] are delivered" (Gen. 9:2), the phrase is obviously meant metaphorically.


7. Even reading the Bible literally requires interpretation. For example, what does "fountains of the deep" (Prov. 8:28) mean?

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: Jasper on Sep. 29 2009,13:01



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
With the exception of some headliners like Francis Collins, Pope Benedict, etc., the great majority of Christian evolutionists are honestly SCARED to discuss and debate the Incompatibility issue within evolution forums that are clearly dominated by secular evolutionists, such as PT and AtBC and FRDB.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Or maybe they're just too busy giving to the poor, feeding the hungry, clothing the naked, and speaking out against injustice.

You know, the stuff Jesus really cared about.
Posted by: FloydLee on Sep. 29 2009,13:20



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
....the last two Popes, have absolutely no conflict with accepting the facts of evolution
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


And yet, we've already seen that Pope Benedict DOES have a conflict with accepting evolution, the evolution that you believe in, the evolution that is textbook-taught this very day.

We've seen (you saw it too!) how Pope Benedict accepts evolution ONLY under the conditions that:

(1) God is the required explanation for the evolutionary process

(2) God's teleology is included in the evolutionary process

....which means that the current Pope has himself REINFORCED the first two of the Big Five Incompatibilities.

******

But guess what?  You mentioned the late John Paul II, didn't you....?

Well, turns out that HE only accepted evolution if God was the required explanation for the evolutionary origin of humans.
     

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
"It is by virtue of his spiritual soul that the whole person possesses such a dignity even in his body. Pius XII stressed this essential point: If the human body take its origin from pre-existent living matter, the spiritual soul is immediately created by God[ ("animas enim a Deo immediate creari catholica fides nos retinere iubei"; "Humani Generis," 36).

Consequently, theories of evolution which, in accordance with the philosophies inspiring them, consider the spirit as emerging from the forces of living matter or as a mere epiphenomenon of this matter, are incompatible with the truth about man. Nor are they able to ground the dignity of the person."

"Truth Cannot Contradict Truth" (1996)  
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Are you willing to accept that evolution cannot account for the origin of humans on Earth and that at least one direct immediate supernatural act by God was ALSO required, Stanton?  

If not, then you clearly see the existence of the First Incompatibility clearly manifested in Pope John Paul II's own words.  

See, it's not enough to say "the Pope accepts evolution" these days and think .  Gotta deal with their actual statements, for they're NOT conceding exactly what evolutionists would like for them to concede.

And speaking of not conceding things....

     

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
"For I confess that all men from Adam, even to the consummation of the world, having been born and having died with Adam himself and his wife, who were not born of other parents, but were created, the one from the earth, the other [al.: altera], however, from the rib of man.”

---Pope Pelagius I (557 AD)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


     

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
"....We record what is to all known, and cannot be doubted by any, that God, on the sixth day of creation, having made man from the slime of the earth, and having breathed into his face the breath of life, gave him a companion, whom He miraculously took from the side of Adam when he was locked in sleep."

---Pope Leo XII (1880)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Now THAT's how you do papal pronouncements!

FloydLee
Posted by: Richardthughes on Sep. 29 2009,13:24

But Floyd, evolution is true. shouldn't your 'worldview' be compatible with the truth?
Posted by: FloydLee on Sep. 29 2009,13:24

Typo correction:  incomplete sentence in previous post.  The sentence should read:

"See, it's not enough to say 'the Pope accepts evolution"these days and think that you've got it all covered."
Posted by: FloydLee on Sep. 29 2009,13:43



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
flattery will get you no where.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


What flattery?  I never said you offered any reconciliation -- not even remotely -- of any of the five large incompatibilities on the table, ohh no.

I simply gave you credit for that which you did offer.  You offered it in sincerity, it did shed a bit of light on how you view the situation, it was helpful.
So I gave an honest "thank you" for your effort, as was due.
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on Sep. 29 2009,13:56

Quote (FloydLee @ Sep. 29 2009,13:43)
So I gave an honest "thank you" for your effort, as was due.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


How many people do you suppose the Pope thinks were alive in 2500 BC? How many do you think were alive FL? Does your shutter not even allow you to consider that number?
Posted by: deadman_932 on Sep. 29 2009,14:00

Quote (FloydLee @ Sep. 29 2009,13:20)
And yet, we've already seen that Pope Benedict DOES have a conflict with accepting evolution, the evolution that you believe in, the evolution that is textbook-taught this very day.

We've seen (you saw it too!) how Pope Benedict accepts evolution ONLY under the conditions that:

(1) God is the required explanation for the evolutionary process

(2) God's teleology is included in the evolutionary process

....which means that the current Pope has himself REINFORCED the first two of the Big Five Incompatibilities.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


The Popes (or anyone else) are free to speculate (add, append, tack on their faith-based belief)  regarding what can be said (in their belief) about established evolutionary science.

What it doesn't mean is that you have somehow shown an inherent, incontrovertible incompatiblity between Christianity and evolutionary science.

Science itself simply says "science can't investigate some things, or pretend to "...but anyone is free to have an opinion, like the pope, about what science "means" in light of their faith.



     
Quote (FloydLee @ Sep. 29 2009,13:20)
But guess what?  You mentioned the late John Paul II, didn't you....?

Well, turns out that HE only accepted evolution if God was the required explanation for the evolutionary origin of humans.
               

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
"It is by virtue of his spiritual soul that the whole person possesses such a dignity even in his body. Pius XII stressed this essential point: If the human body take its origin from pre-existent living matter, the spiritual soul is immediately created by God[ ("animas enim a Deo immediate creari catholica fides nos retinere iubei"; "Humani Generis," 36).

Consequently, theories of evolution which, in accordance with the philosophies inspiring them, consider the spirit as emerging from the forces of living matter or as a mere epiphenomenon of this matter, are incompatible with the truth about man. Nor are they able to ground the dignity of the person."

"Truth Cannot Contradict Truth" (1996)  
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Are you willing to accept that evolution cannot account for the origin of humans on Earth and that at least one direct immediate supernatural act by God was ALSO required, Stanton?  

If not, then you clearly see the existence of the First Incompatibility clearly manifested in Pope John Paul II's own words.  
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


See above.  

     
Quote (FloydLee @ Sep. 29 2009,13:20)
See, it's not enough to say "the Pope accepts evolution" these days and think .  Gotta deal with their actual statements, for they're NOT conceding exactly what evolutionists would like for them to concede.

And speaking of not conceding things....

               

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
"For I confess that all men from Adam, even to the consummation of the world, having been born and having died with Adam himself and his wife, who were not born of other parents, but were created, the one from the earth, the other [al.: altera], however, from the rib of man.”

---Pope Pelagius I (557 AD)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


               

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
"....We record what is to all known, and cannot be doubted by any, that God, on the sixth day of creation, having made man from the slime of the earth, and having breathed into his face the breath of life, gave him a companion, whom He miraculously took from the side of Adam when he was locked in sleep."

---Pope Leo XII (1880)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Now THAT's how you do papal pronouncements!

FloydLee
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Is this supposed to demonstrate current incompatibilities? Inherent ones? Eternal irrefutable ones? What?
Posted by: Stanton on Sep. 29 2009,14:53

Lying and quotemining what the Popes have said.

How unoriginal FL.
Posted by: Dale_Husband on Sep. 29 2009,20:21

Quote (FloydLee @ Sep. 29 2009,13:43)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
flattery will get you no where.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


What flattery?  I never said you offered any reconciliation -- not even remotely -- of any of the five large incompatibilities on the table, ohh no.

I simply gave you credit for that which you did offer.  You offered it in sincerity, it did shed a bit of light on how you view the situation, it was helpful.
So I gave an honest "thank you" for your effort, as was due.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Note that FL never even bothered to address the vital points I made about the Bible earlier.
< http://www.antievolution.org/cgi-bin....y154539 >
No wonder nmgirl
was not impressed with him.

Posted by: Dale_Husband on Sep. 29 2009,20:33

Quote (nmgirl @ Sep. 28 2009,19:00)
1.  What is biblical Christianity?

As opposed to non-Biblical Christianity? I do not think there is such a thing.

2.  If the world is only a few thousand years old, why did God fake the ages of the rocks?

This illustrates the blasphemy of Young Earth Creationism (YEC). There is no evidence that God actually inspired the Bible, but it stands to reason that if any sort of God created the universe, we can learn about Him by studying His Creation. YECs claiming that we can learn more about God by studing some man-made book rather than something, the universe itself, that man could not have made is an absurdity, quite simply. Science depends on the physical and chemical laws being consistent over time and space, without exception. If that is not so, then reality itself becomes meaningless.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I'm not FL, but I'd like a shot at answering those earlier questions by nmgirl:
Posted by: Keelyn on Sep. 30 2009,01:58

Well, this seems to be going nowhere really slow. No wonder Floyd wanted to drag this out until November 1st (2009 I assume). I hate to do it, but while Floyd is resting his mind (or whatever he said he was doing) let’s recap one more time (mundane as it is).

Floyd’s “Four Original Grand, Stupendous, Extraordinary (and totally false) Incompatibilities of Evolution with Christianity …blab, blab, blab …and more blab.”

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

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

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.

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


Floyd then appropriates and misrepresents a quote by Richardthughes (“If God is timeless, then it all unfolds to the majesty of his great plan, surely?”) and invents a fifth incompatibility.

5. Notice how, under critical examination by evolutionists, evolution does NOT make God's plan look "majestic" at all, but instead cruel and sadistic.

ANOTHER incompatibility.


Number 5 first – A quick review of the Old Testament would easily convince anyone with an IQ higher than flat tire that the supernatural entity in question is as cruel, sadistic, vile, hateful, vindictive, murderous, and all around creepy as anything that could possibly be observed in nature. If Floyd thinks that nature is cruel and sadistic, then it couldn’t be more compatible with Christianity. (throw in crusades, inquisitions, witch burnings, etc – all human constructs dedicated to and in the name of the entity in question)


As for One through Four – It doesn’t matter what the Pope (any of them), or anyone else for that matter, has said or hasn’t said, implied or not implied, thinks or doesn’t think, whether orally or in writing; Floyd’s arguments fail from a major flaw in his basic premise. I, and others (notably Robin – and she has done so quite eloquently in my opinion), that evolutionary theory (nor any other scientific theory) makes NONE of the DENIALS or REQUIREMENTS that Floyd insists that it does. Not addressing something is not indicative of a denial or requirement …and THAT is the END of THAT. Floyd, you are totally within your right to introduce any supernatural explanations you want into biology theory or into any scientific theory. All you have to do is provide a hypothesis that can be scientifically tested and verified. Personally, I’m not going to hold my breath waiting for that, so I think you must concede, Floyd, that any impartial jury would conclude at this point that you have failed miserably to prove any of your arguments. With that, let’s move on to part 2 – “The Biblical Perspective on Biology” – I can’t wait (hardly).
Posted by: Quack on Sep. 30 2009,04:45

Quote (FloydLee @ Sep. 29 2009,13:20)

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
"[snip] Adam himself and his wife, who were not born of other parents, but were created, the one from the earth, the other [al.: altera], however, from the rib of man.”

---Pope Pelagius I (557 AD)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
"....[snip]gave him a companion, whom He miraculously took from the side of Adam when he was locked in sleep."

---Pope Leo XII (1880)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Now THAT's how you do papal pronouncements!

FloydLee
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Ought not a (presumably) thinking, even rational person stop and wonder WTF is this all about? A god, presumably with unlimited magical powers, and he has perform such meaningless, absurd tricks - when he just have to snap his fingers to achieve whatever he wants? Make a woman? Snap, there she is!

Extracting a rib, then miraculously converting that to a woman?

Come on, if reason were ruling in this world nobody would even dream of taking that literally.

Whatever it is, it is not reporting of facts. I don't have to spell out the consequences of applying reason to this and all the other instances of similarly mythological utterances found in scripture?
Posted by: Robin on Sep. 30 2009,08:39

Quote (Keelyn @ Sep. 30 2009,01:58)

---------------------QUOTE-------------------




---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I, and others (notably Robin – and she has done so quite eloquently in my opinion),
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



While I truly appreciate the compliment, I do wish to correct one misunderstanding - this "she" is actually a "he". I realize that gender isn't obvious on the Internet (which is actually a good thing in many ways) particularly when folks like me have a double-barreled name (to use a phrase from an Elton John song I always thought creative) and that in many ways it's a trivial detail. still it's the identity I'm more confortable with. Nicely summarized btw.
Posted by: FloydLee on Sep. 30 2009,09:13



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
".... evolutionary theory (nor any other scientific theory) makes NONE of the DENIALS or REQUIREMENTS that Floyd insists that it does."
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Well, let's look again.
   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------

(1st Incompatibility)

"Darwinism rejects all supernatural phenomena and causations.

The theory of evolution by natural selection explains the adaptedness and diversity of the world solely materialistically.

It no longer requires God as creator or designer..."


---Ernst Mayr, SciAm July 2000
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
(2nd Incompatibility)

"Evolutionary theory does not admit conscious anticipation of the future, i.e. conscious forethought."

---Futuyma, Evolutionary Biology 3ed.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Let's be honest here.  So far, Robin's response (and your response) to these very clear statements is simply to talk as if these statements were never made at all.    

Futuyma, for example, gives you a very specific reason why evolution does not admit teleology:
   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
"The process cannot have a goal, any more than than erosion has the goal of forming canyons, for the future cannot cause material events in the past."
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Exactly how did Robin neutralize this specific statement?  And how did you neutralize it?  
Answer:  She didn't.  You didn't.

So you gotta do more than just say, "Evolution doesn't deny these things."  Obviously it DOES deny these things.  

FloydLee
Posted by: FloydLee on Sep. 30 2009,09:17



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
"she" is actually a "he".
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


So noted, my apologies Robin.
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Sep. 30 2009,09:24

lolol why apologize Floyd?  you clearly don't care about making sense.  might as well refer to robin as "that chair over there", it would be consistent with the rest of your rambling refusals to use your brain.

you have pointed out that Mayr's conception of the evolutionary process is inconsistent with your belief in Think-Poof.

your consistent goalpost shifting wrt OOL not withstanding  

nope.

if you think otherwise, look at your quote.  
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
explains the adaptedness and diversity
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



if you want to play quote games, bully for you.  i expect nothing less because you are too shallow and intellectually dishonest to address the fact that there is no conflict between belief in any number of immaterial gods and the first principles of the fact of biological evolution.

attacking personal interpretations and views held by individuals is all you can go for.  as such, your views are stupid and you are an idiot.  

as rich keeps asking you, biological evolution is a fact.  reality doesn't conform with your pathological interpretation of the babble.  grownups, when confronted with evidence that they are wrong, rectify their errors.  you, on the other hand, troll the internet in an attempt to get everyone else to piss on you.  Ok i'll piss on you.
Posted by: FloydLee on Sep. 30 2009,09:28



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Number 5 first – A quick review of the Old Testament would easily convince anyone with an IQ higher than flat tire that the supernatural entity in question is as cruel, sadistic, vile, hateful, vindictive, murderous, and all around creepy as anything that could possibly be observed in nature. )
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I'm not ignoring you Keelyn, yours is an interesting post too.

Here's how your paragraph comes across to me (and some other posters have sounded the same way, btw):

"Evolution is cruel and sadistic, but that's okay, it's still compatible with Christianity because God and Jesus are cruel and sadistic too."

An interesting argument, but how many Christians do you think are going to buy into it??

FloydLee
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on Sep. 30 2009,09:34

Hi FL,
How many people were alive in 2500BC?

Is that something you've ever thought about?

Is it something that you'll just continue to ignore so you can continue (pretend) to be a "honest" YEC?

Thanks in advance

OM
Posted by: FloydLee on Sep. 30 2009,09:44



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Mayr's conception of the evolutionary process...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


...is the same NT-NCF position as Futuyma's, Coyne's, Olroyd's, Myers', Dawkin's, Rachel's, and Biology 391 Online at U-Tenn at Martin.   In short, it's the consensus position, period.

And, as both Mayr and Futuyma independently pointed out----it's the actual position of the theory of evolution itself, (not a matter of anybody's personal opinions).
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Sep. 30 2009,09:52

Quote (FloydLee @ Sep. 30 2009,10:44)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Mayr's conception of the evolutionary process...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


...is the same NT-NCF position as Futuyma's, Coyne's, Olroyd's, Myers', Dawkin's, Rachel's, and Biology 391 Online at U-Tenn at Martin.   In short, it's the consensus position, period.

And, as both Mayr and Futuyma independently pointed out----it's the actual position of the theory of evolution itself, (not a matter of anybody's personal opinions).
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


no, you babbling fool, it's not the consensus.  

it's the parsimonoius position from MN.

you are free to add as many adhoc jesus particles (that can't be detected) as you so desire.  Just like tons and tons and tons of theistic evolutionists who don't deny your particular gods (or who advocate other gods).

This moron thinks every scientific theory should start out with "Our Father Who Art In Heaven"

Mayr and Futuyma didn't point any such thing out.  Another lie from Floyd's corner.  Well to be fair, I don't think you even understand your subject matter so it might not be reasonable to assign your action to malevolence when sheer stupidity would suffice.

*  answer old man's question.  chickenshit
Posted by: FloydLee on Sep. 30 2009,09:56



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
How many people were alive in 2500BC?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Hi OM!  Gotta ask......would you be trying to ask me a question about the Flood after I stated that I wouldn't try to do a Flood discussion (because of the need to stay with thread topic).  

That one poster asked for an explanation of "where did the water come from" and "where did the water go" and I simply supplied the links, but that's all for that.
Posted by: FloydLee on Sep. 30 2009,10:03



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Mayr and Futuyma didn't point any such thing out.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


What?  Did I fail to provide their clear statements a couple minutes ago?  
Let me check----yep, their clear statements are sitting right there on your computer monitor.  Ain't goin' away anytime soon.
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Sep. 30 2009,10:07

Quote (FloydLee @ Sep. 30 2009,10:56)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
How many people were alive in 2500BC?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Hi OM!  Gotta ask......would you be trying to ask me a question about the Flood after I stated that I wouldn't try to do a Flood discussion (because of the need to stay with thread topic).  

That one poster asked for an explanation of "where did the water come from" and "where did the water go" and I simply supplied the links, but that's all for that.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


hahahahahahahahahahaaha

right.  

what does the number of people in 2500 BC have to do with Duh Flud?

(hint:  nothing)

it doesn't have anything to do with the great buzzard whose wings created the appalachian mountains, either.

it doesn't have anything to do with reptilians seeding life on earth from outer space either.

tard
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Sep. 30 2009,10:14

Quote (FloydLee @ Sep. 30 2009,11:03)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Mayr and Futuyma didn't point any such thing out.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


What?  Did I fail to provide their clear statements a couple minutes ago?  
Let me check----yep, their clear statements are sitting right there on your computer monitor.  Ain't goin' away anytime soon.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


futuyma thinks that evolutionary theories can't provide explanations wherein biological agents can manifest evolutionary changes as a function of the prediction of the future.  

floydlee thinks that means evolution denies god

the mayr statement is a complete non-sequitor to the point Floyd is trying to make.  

as others have said, time and time again (what, floyd, you too proud to read, son?) The theory of the rotation of the earth does not admit any teleology or knowledge of the future.  

yet plants somehow know that there will be a sun tomorrow so they maintain their photosynthesizing apparati anyway.  amazing, isn't it?  clearly this proves that the israelites shit in the desert for 40 years.

your quote mining exercise is boring.  why don't you explain how many people were on earth in 2500 BC
Posted by: Stanton on Sep. 30 2009,11:00

Quote (Erasmus, FCD @ Sep. 30 2009,10:14)
your quote mining exercise is boring.  why don't you explain how many people were on earth in 2500 BC
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Perhaps if FL is too cowardly to explain how many people were on Earth during 2500 BC, and how they were able to build the Pyramids and all other structures dating from that time, perhaps FL would like to explain why, if Creationism is so superior to Evolutionary Biology, then how come a) Louisiana, Texas, and Florida, states that mandate the teaching of Creationism in science classes, have education systems that rank the very worst in the entire system, b) why is Intelligent Design worth teaching in a science classroom, instead of actual science, even though all Intelligent Design proponents have no desire to do actual science, and c) where is all the evidence that points to a Young Earth and Intelligent Design?
Posted by: Stanton on Sep. 30 2009,11:02

I also noticed that FL is too cowardly to explain why all the bad things in nature, i.e., predation, internal parasites and old age, are supposed to be worse than the various bad things mentioned in the Bible, including divinely ordained murder, genocide, and rewarding soldiers with child-slaves.
Posted by: deadman_932 on Sep. 30 2009,12:45

Quote (deadman_932 @ Sep. 29 2009,14:00)
The Popes (or anyone else) are free to speculate (add, append, tack on their faith-based belief)  regarding what can be said (in their belief) about established evolutionary science.

What it doesn't mean is that you have somehow shown an inherent, incontrovertible incompatiblity between Christianity and evolutionary science.

Science itself simply says "science can't investigate some things, or pretend to "...but anyone is free to have an opinion, like the pope, about what science "means" in light of their faith.



     
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Read for comprehension, Floyd. Science doesn't  deal with some things -- like supernatural creators or "ultimate purposes" -- that fall outside of the investigative/evidential purview of science.

But anyone, and I mean anyone (including Popes or paupers) is free to speculate on what actual science might mean in light of their faith.

No incompatibilities there, Floyd. Science proper is limited, sure.

But as you amply demonstrate, even you are free to believe or disbelieve what you wish about what science can and does say.

You being able to DEFEND your views appears to be quite another thing, though, eh?

At this point in this discussion, all you're doing is squeezing your eyes shut, clapping your hands over your ears and saying "Nuh-UH!" in between spouting a few well-worn fallacies, Floyd. Perhaps you'll fare better at  showing how Intelligent Design is "really" science, despite it having all the hallmarks of Creationist pseudoscience.

Be a good cdesignproponentists and do try to manage something other than fallacies there, would you?
Posted by: Robin on Sep. 30 2009,13:03

[quote=FloydLee,Sep. 30 2009,09:13][/quote]
[quote]  

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
".... evolutionary theory (nor any other scientific theory) makes NONE of the DENIALS or REQUIREMENTS that Floyd insists that it does."
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Well, let's look again.
     

---------------------QUOTE-------------------

(1st Incompatibility)

"Darwinism rejects all supernatural phenomena and causations.

The theory of evolution by natural selection explains the adaptedness and diversity of the world solely materialistically.

It no longer requires God as creator or designer..."


---Ernst Mayr, SciAm July 2000
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


     

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
(2nd Incompatibility)

"Evolutionary theory does not admit conscious anticipation of the future, i.e. conscious forethought."

---Futuyma, Evolutionary Biology 3ed.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Let's be honest here.  So far, Robin's response (and your response) to these very clear statements is simply to talk as if these statements were never made at all.  
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Sorry Floyd, but you're in error again. I do not deny these types of statements - I merely pointed out that there is a distinct difference between what the Theory of Evolution (your "Darwinism") actually states and some folks' opinions about the world based on the theory or an understanding of the process. Posting a quote by Ernst Myer that indicates he rejects a need for any god based on his understanding of evolution is not the same thing as demonstrating that the ToE is incompatible with Christianity. That's the problem with your argument - you've only demonstrated you can engage in equivocation.  



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Futuyma, for example, gives you a very specific reason why evolution does not admit teleology:
     

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
"The process cannot have a goal, any more than than erosion has the goal of forming canyons, for the future cannot cause material events in the past."
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Exactly how did Robin neutralize this specific statement?  And how did you neutralize it?  
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Quite effectively - by pointing out that while the process itself cannot have a goal, that doesn't mean that the process can't have been used to achieve a specific goal. You can attempt to conflate the two, but they are quite separate concepts.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Answer:  She didn't.  You didn't.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



"She" may not have; "he" (that is me) just did again however.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
So you gotta do more than just say, "Evolution doesn't deny these things."  Obviously it DOES deny these things.  

FloydLee
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Guess what...Evolution doesn't deny these things. You're insistance on substituting peoples' opinions for "Darwinism" is just plain old nonsense.
Posted by: Robin on Sep. 30 2009,13:04

Quote (Erasmus, FCD @ Sep. 30 2009,09:24)

---------------------QUOTE-------------------




---------------------QUOTE-------------------
might as well refer to robin as "that chair over there"
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Hmmm...depending on who wanted to do the sitting...Oops...wrong forum...nevermind...;-P
Posted by: Robin on Sep. 30 2009,13:12

Quote (FloydLee @ Sep. 30 2009,09:44)

---------------------QUOTE-------------------




---------------------QUOTE-------------------
And, as both Mayr and Futuyma independently pointed out----it's the actual position of the theory of evolution itself, (not a matter of anybody's personal opinions).
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Outright false - neither one said that the position that God can't use the process of evolution is part of the Theory. You're being dishonest Floyd.
Posted by: Robin on Sep. 30 2009,13:26

Quote (FloydLee @ Sep. 30 2009,09:44)

---------------------QUOTE-------------------




---------------------QUOTE-------------------


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Mayr's conception of the evolutionary process...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


...is the same NT-NCF position as Futuyma's, Coyne's, Olroyd's, Myers', Dawkin's, Rachel's, and Biology 391 Online at U-Tenn at Martin.   In short, it's the consensus position, period.

And, as both Mayr and Futuyma independently pointed out----it's the actual position of the theory of evolution itself, (not a matter of anybody's personal opinions).
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



It would be so nice if creationists would for once check a source and honestly represent it. Here's what Mayr actually said:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
First, Darwinism rejects all supernatural phenomena
and causations. The theory of evolution by natural
selection explains the adaptedness and diversity of the
world solely materialistically. It no longer requires God as
creator or designer (although one is certainly still free to
believe in God even if one accepts evolution).
- Darwin’s Influence on Modern Thought, Ernst Mayr, SciAm, July, 2000.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Why do you insist on leaving out his parenthesis that note that his assessment is based on his opinion of what Darwinism presented historically? Why go through this elaborate argument without checking your sources, most importantly citing the context of your sources when they are so easily checked, Floyd? You really aren't setting much of an example for Christianity there...
Posted by: Richardthughes on Sep. 30 2009,13:31

Quote (Robin @ Sep. 30 2009,13:26)
[quote=FloydLee,Sep. 30 2009,09:44][/quote]


---------------------QUOTE-------------------


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Mayr's conception of the evolutionary process...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


...is the same NT-NCF position as Futuyma's, Coyne's, Olroyd's, Myers', Dawkin's, Rachel's, and Biology 391 Online at U-Tenn at Martin.   In short, it's the consensus position, period.

And, as both Mayr and Futuyma independently pointed out----it's the actual position of the theory of evolution itself, (not a matter of anybody's personal opinions).
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



It would be so nice if creationists would for once check a source and honestly represent it. Here's what Mayr actually said:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
First, Darwinism rejects all supernatural phenomena
and causations. The theory of evolution by natural
selection explains the adaptedness and diversity of the
world solely materialistically. It no longer requires God as
creator or designer (although one is certainly still free to
believe in God even if one accepts evolution).
- Darwin’s Influence on Modern Thought, Ernst Mayr, SciAm, July, 2000.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Why do you insist on leaving out his parenthesis that note that his assessment is based on his opinion of what Darwinism presented historically? Why go through this elaborate argument without checking your sources, most importantly citing the context of your sources when they are so easily checked, Floyd? You really aren't setting much of an example for Christianity there...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


If you have to lie and distort to make your point, what does that say about your point (and you)?


Exodus 20:16
Posted by: FloydLee on Sep. 30 2009,13:41



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
.... while the process itself cannot have a goal, that doesn't mean that the process can't have been used to achieve a specific goal.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Understand carefully what you just said, Deadman.  You have just stated that somebody can direct an undirected process.  That's not a rational statement.

Also, consider this:  you are attempting to "reconcile" the NT-NCF issue (the 2nd Incompatibility), by making a statement that actually contradicts what you said about "the process itself cannot have a goal."  

The fact is that you are claiming that the evolutionary process is goal-directed (teleological) ANYWAY-----your statement only pushes back the teleology by one level!

FloydLee
Posted by: deadman_932 on Sep. 30 2009,13:45

Quote (FloydLee @ Sep. 30 2009,13:41)
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
.... while the process itself cannot have a goal, that doesn't mean that the process can't have been used to achieve a specific goal.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Understand carefully what you just said, Deadman.  You have just stated that somebody can direct an undirected process.  That's not a rational statement.

Also, consider this:  you are attempting to "reconcile" the NT-NCF issue (the 2nd Incompatibility), by making a statement that actually contradicts what you said about "the process itself cannot have a goal."  

The fact is that you are claiming that the evolutionary process is goal-directed (teleological) ANYWAY-----your statement only pushes back the teleology by one level!

FloydLee
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Understand carefully that I didn't write that, ____ ... *Insert denigrating insult of choice here.

Are you sober, Floyd?

And by the way, what the phrase does say is "used" not "directed"

Wow, it sure does look as if you're quote-mining and misrepresenting Mayr, too, Floyd...especially when Mayr actually says    

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
The theory of evolution by natural
selection explains the adaptedness and diversity of the
world solely materialistically. It no longer requires God as
creator or designer (although one is certainly still free to believe in God even if one accepts evolution).
- Darwin’s Influence on Modern Thought, Ernst Mayr
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


And you were attempting to use this as evidence that notions of Gods are absolutely forbidden (by one guy that you are also dishonestly misrepresenting as spokesperson for all of science, too).

That's like a triple-dipper fallacy for you, Floyd. Congratulations
Posted by: Henry J on Sep. 30 2009,13:56



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
ANYWAY-----your statement only pushes back the teleology by one level!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Sure, but that one level that it got pushed out of was biological evolution.
Posted by: Robin on Sep. 30 2009,14:06

[quote=FloydLee,Sep. 30 2009,13:41][/quote]


---------------------QUOTE-------------------


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
.... while the process itself cannot have a goal, that doesn't mean that the process can't have been used to achieve a specific goal.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Understand carefully what you just said, Deadman.  You have just stated that somebody can direct an undirected process.  That's not a rational statement.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



First, the quote is mine. Second, you are incorrect. I did not say that somebody can direct an undirected process. I wrote that someone could use an undirected process to achieve a goal. Subtly different, but different nonetheless.

The thing is Floyd, you don't know how your god does anything or what "he" is supposedly capable of, so to say that "he" can't use an undirected process to achieve something is purely inane.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Also, consider this:  you are attempting to "reconcile" the NT-NCF issue (the 2nd Incompatibility), by making a statement that actually contradicts what you said about "the process itself cannot have a goal."  

The fact is that you are claiming that the evolutionary process is goal-directed (teleological) ANYWAY-----your statement only pushes back the teleology by one level!

FloydLee
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



???? Methinks you need to reread what I wrote. I did not claim that the evolutionary process is goal-directed (as I note above); quite the opposite actually. I DID note that a non-goal-oriented process can still be used to accomplish a goal. For example, a hurricane in and of itsef is most definitely not a goal-oriented process, but that doesn't mean that someone crafty enough couldn't devise a way channel a hurricane to a specific location and use it to destroy a city. Same with evolution -  the process itself has no particular goal, but that doesn't mean that crafty humans can't come along and use the process to select for traits we like in given organisms or change environments to put selective pressure on given organisms. Similarly, there is no reason that a god couldn't come up with really subtle ways to place specific selective pressures into the world that would ultimately select for humans. Certainly nothing in the theory prohibits such. Apparently you just don't understand evolution, or the idea that natural, undirected processes can be used to solve problems by really creative folks.
Posted by: Henry J on Sep. 30 2009,14:21



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Similarly, there is no reason that a god couldn't come up with really subtle ways to place specific selective pressures into the world that would ultimately select for humans.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


And even that presupposes that God's purpose requires that the intelligent creatures thus produced be bipedal, mostly hairless, have oppose-able thumbs and four other fingers on each forelimb, live on a particular planet, etc.
Posted by: deadman_932 on Sep. 30 2009,14:29

I have to admit that with the evidence available in this thread (even just over the last few days) of Floyd using:

quotemines, equivocation, misattribution, arguments from authority, avoidance, misdirection, complete and utter miscomprehension of simple syllogistic arguments, and a plethora of fallacies beyond the usual creationist bag o' tricks...

Floyd, you look rather desperate.
Posted by: Robin on Sep. 30 2009,14:44

Quote (Henry J @ Sep. 30 2009,14:21)

---------------------QUOTE-------------------




---------------------QUOTE-------------------


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Similarly, there is no reason that a god couldn't come up with really subtle ways to place specific selective pressures into the world that would ultimately select for humans.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


And even that presupposes that God's purpose requires that the intelligent creatures thus produced be bipedal, mostly hairless, have oppose-able thumbs and four other fingers on each forelimb, live on a particular planet, etc.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Oh no question. I'm humoring Floyd's vision of biblically literal utopia where god is some grandfatherly old man of pearly white locks and beard, keen eye, worldly wisdom, etc...and whom we are a direct physical image of. That there is no actual reason to come away from a reading of Genesis with that understanding is not the point - Floyd is arguing that evolution is incompatible with that kind of erroneous reading. The fact is, evolution isn't incompatible with just about any understanding one gets from the bible, Floyd's included.
Posted by: FloydLee on Sep. 30 2009,14:55



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Why do you insist on leaving out his parenthesis that note that his assessment is based on his opinion of what Darwinism presented historically?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Mayr is not just talking about how things went in the dim dark historical past, as if somehow y'all evolutionists got it straightened out since then.  No, Mayr's clearly talking about the present-day too.

Indeed, notice how Mayr repeatedly uses PRESENT TENSE in his statements:
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
First, Darwinism rejects
all supernatural phenomena and causations.

The theory of evolution by natural selection explains
the adaptedness and diversity of the world solely materialistically.

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


Present tense, not past tense.  And you'll notice that NOWHERE in the SciAm article (please check!) does Mayr take back any of these specific statements, nor relegates them back to any historical dustbins.

Present tense, Robin.

FloydLee
Posted by: Stanton on Sep. 30 2009,15:03

Who uses "Darwinism" as a synonym for Modern Evolutionary Biology besides Creationists and other reality denying anti-science proponents?
Posted by: rhmc on Sep. 30 2009,15:09

Quote (FloydLee @ Sep. 30 2009,10:56)
That one poster asked for an explanation of "where did the water come from" and "where did the water go" and I simply supplied the links, but that's all for that.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


links.  har.

you might as well said "it's majick" as the links were a joke.

care to estimate how much energy would be released in the period of time those links referred to?
Posted by: Robin on Sep. 30 2009,15:20

Quote (FloydLee @ Sep. 30 2009,14:55)

---------------------QUOTE-------------------




---------------------QUOTE-------------------


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Why do you insist on leaving out his parenthesis that note that his assessment is based on his opinion of what Darwinism presented historically?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Mayr is not just talking about how things went in the dim dark historical past, as if somehow y'all evolutionists got it straightened out since then.  No, Mayr's clearly talking about the present-day too.

Indeed, notice how Mayr repeatedly uses PRESENT TENSE in his statements:
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
First, Darwinism rejects
all supernatural phenomena and causations.

The theory of evolution by natural selection explains
the adaptedness and diversity of the world solely materialistically.

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


Present tense, not past tense.  And you'll notice that NOWHERE in the SciAm article (please check!) does Mayr take back any of these specific statements, nor relegates them back to any historical dustbins.

Present tense, Robin.

FloydLee[
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Read the whole article Floyd, not a quotemine. The title of the article and the note in SciAm reveals that it is indeed Mayr's opinion on how Darwin's thinking influenced the modern world. Here's the title:


Darwin’s Influence on Modern Thought
Ernst Mayr
Great minds shape the thinking of successive historical periods. Luther and Calvin inspired the
Reformation; Locke, Leibniz, Voltaire and Rousseau, the Enlightenment. Modern thought is most
dependent on the influence of Charles Darwin.

So no, the quote is not a reflection of what the ToE actually states, but rather the thinking it can lead to. There's nothing in the ToE that includes or insists on that thinking and nothing that prohibits placing God somewhere above the process.

Further, the fact that evolution doesn't require a god (any god, not just your god, as Mayr notes) is not equivalent to being incompatible with a religion that worships said god or even equivalent to prohibiting said god.  You keep trying to insist that for evolution to be compatible with evolution, evolution has to adopt the standards and beliefs of Christianity, but that isn't the case. The only issue is whether evolution (the process) and/or the ToE (the Theory about how evolution works) include specific aspects that outright prohibit the conditions you set forth about what you think "Christianity" is, but as I've shown nothing about evolution prohibits or even raises the Big Five issues you claim exist.
Posted by: FloydLee on Sep. 30 2009,15:23



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
First, the quote is mine.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Okay.  My apologies to Deadman for the error.
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Second, you are incorrect. I did not say that somebody can direct an undirected process. I wrote that someone could use an undirected process to achieve a goal. Subtly different, but different nonetheless.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Take a minute (you may need more than one!) and show me exactly how it's different.
 
But right now, I gotta tell you upfront:  the sentence "Someone could USE an undirected process to acheive" sounds just as seriously not-rational as "Someone can direct an undirected process."

And like I said, you only pushed back the teleology one level anyway.
Posted by: FloydLee on Sep. 30 2009,15:25

Typo correction:  "The sentence 'Someone could USE an undirected process to acheive a goal'
sounds just as seriously not-rational as 'Someone can direct an undirected process.'"
Posted by: Robin on Sep. 30 2009,15:31

Quote (FloydLee @ Sep. 30 2009,14:55)

---------------------QUOTE-------------------




---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Mayr is not just talking about how things went in the dim dark historical past, as if somehow y'all evolutionists got it straightened out since then.  No, Mayr's clearly talking about the present-day too.

Indeed, notice how Mayr repeatedly uses PRESENT TENSE in his statements:
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
First, Darwinism rejects
all supernatural phenomena and causations.

The theory of evolution by natural selection explains
the adaptedness and diversity of the world solely materialistically.

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


Present tense, not past tense.  And you'll notice that NOWHERE in the SciAm article (please check!) does Mayr take back any of these specific statements, nor relegates them back to any historical dustbins.

Present tense, Robin.

FloydLee
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



After consideration, it dawned on me that asking Floyd to accurately reflect the whole article, assuming he bothered to actually read the whole thing, wasn't going to accomplish anything. Here you go Floyd:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Darwin’s accomplishments were so many and so diverse that it is useful to distinguish three fields to which he
made major contributions: evolutionary biology; the
philosophy of science; and the modern zeitgeist. Although
I will be focusing on this last domain, for the sake of
completeness I will put forth a short overview of his
contributions - particularly as they inform his later ideas -
to the first two areas.

-Ernst Mayr, Scientific American July 2000
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



There you go Floyd, the opening paragraph to Mayr's article. Gee...sounds like he was doing an historic analysis to me.
Posted by: Henry J on Sep. 30 2009,15:34

Windmills use wind to achieve a goal (power). Wind is not a directed process.

Sails also use wind to achieve a goal (movement).
Posted by: Robin on Sep. 30 2009,15:42

[quote=FloydLee,Sep. 30 2009,15:23][/quote]


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Second, you are incorrect. I did not say that somebody can direct an undirected process. I wrote that someone could use an undirected process to achieve a goal. Subtly different, but different nonetheless.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Take a minute (you may need more than one!) and show me exactly how it's different.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Directing would outright interferring with the process itself; changing the parameters of the process from time to time and forcing it to be teleological. That would be inconsistent with the Theory. Using it as an intact, undirected process, however, doesn't change the Theory at all.
 


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
But right now, I gotta tell you upfront:  the sentence "Someone could USE an undirected process to acheive" sounds just as seriously not-rational as "Someone can direct an undirected process."
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Can't help you there.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
And like I said, you only pushed back the teleology one level anyway.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Sure. The issue is evolution being incompatible with Christianity, not meterology or the Kennel Club being incompatible with Christianity. My concern is only demonstrating the fallacy of the former; I don't care where teleology gets moved so long as it isn't in evolution.
Posted by: Robin on Sep. 30 2009,15:46

Quote (Henry J @ Sep. 30 2009,15:34)

---------------------QUOTE-------------------




---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Windmills use wind to achieve a goal (power). Wind is not a directed process.

Sails also use wind to achieve a goal (movement).
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Excellent examples. Given Floyd's questions above though, I have to wonder if Floyd doesn't understand the difference between windmills and sails using wind vs directing the wind...
Posted by: Louis on Sep. 30 2009,16:14

Quote (rhmc @ Sep. 30 2009,21:09)
Quote (FloydLee @ Sep. 30 2009,10:56)
That one poster asked for an explanation of "where did the water come from" and "where did the water go" and I simply supplied the links, but that's all for that.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


links.  har.

you might as well said "it's majick" as the links were a joke.

care to estimate how much energy would be released in the period of time those links referred to?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Ooooh are we having super-steamed fauna for brunch again?

Shades of GoP/AFD/Every creationist rube the world over.

Yawn. Wake me for the third reel.

Louis
Posted by: Dr.GH on Sep. 30 2009,16:21

Quote (Robin @ Sep. 30 2009,13:31)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Darwin’s accomplishments were so many and so diverse that it is useful to distinguish three fields to which he made major contributions: evolutionary biology; the philosophy of science; and the modern zeitgeist. Although I will be focusing on this last domain, for the sake of completeness I will put forth a short overview of his contributions - particularly as they inform his later ideas - to the first two areas.

-Ernst Mayr, Scientific American July 2000
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



There you go Floyd, the opening paragraph to Mayr's article. Gee...sounds like he was doing an historic analysis to me.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I have not read the SiAm article, but I find it interesting that in the quote provided Mayr did not mention that Darwin's first major recognition was as a geologist, although his first publication was an undergraduate student project in marine biology.


Posted by: csadams on Sep. 30 2009,17:12



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
First, Darwinism rejects
all supernatural phenomena and causations.

The theory of evolution by natural selection explains
the adaptedness and diversity of the world solely materialistically.

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



First, (Newton's Gravitational Theory, Einstein's General Theory of Relativity, Atomic Theory, Germ Theory) reject all supernatural phenomena and causations.

Newton's Gravitational Theory, Einstein's General Theory of Relativity, Atomic Theory, Germ Theory explain
interactions between masses, interactions of space-time, interactions of matter and energy, and disease spread solely materialistically.

These theories no longer require God as creator or designer (although one is certainly still free to believe in God even if one accepts these theories).

It's called science.  Deal with it.
Posted by: rhmc on Sep. 30 2009,17:36

Quote (Louis @ Sep. 30 2009,17:14)
Ooooh are we having super-steamed fauna for brunch again?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


niet.  down south here, one steams the flora and fries the fauna.
Posted by: FloydLee on Sep. 30 2009,18:02

So, according to Robin, this particular paragraph --
   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Darwin’s accomplishments were so many and so diverse that it is useful to distinguish three fields to which he made major contributions: evolutionary biology; the philosophy of science; and the modern zeitgeist. Although I will be focusing on this last domain, for the sake of completeness I will put forth a short overview of his contributions - particularly as they inform his later ideas - to the first two areas.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


---somehow negates and neutralizes these three specific present-tense statements also made by Mayr:
   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
First, Darwinism rejects
all supernatural phenomena and causations.

The theory of evolution by natural selection explains
the adaptedness and diversity of the world solely materialistically.

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


But where is the specific explanation of how that top quotation supposedly neutralizes that bottom quotation?  Robin doesn't offer any.  

And in fact, no such explanation is rationally sustainable anyway, given the actual text of Mayr's article.  As you'll see, Robin has no escape-hatches on this one.  His argument is shot clean through.

(1)  We've already seen that Mayr is directly speaking in PRESENT TENSE (not past tense) in each of those three statements.

(2)  Mayr is careful to offer "Then And Now" corrective statements whenever needed.  Here's a good example:
   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
The widespread thesis of social Darwinism, promoted at the end of the 19th century by Spencer, was that evolutionary explanations were at odds with the development of ethics.

We now know, however, that in a social species not only the individual must be considered - an entire social group can be the target of selection. Darwin applied this reasoning to the human species in 1871 in The Descent of Man.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


But now, go back to those earlier three present-tense statements and look at the full context---does Mayr offer any "we now know" adjustments to any of those three present-tense statements?  

No, he doesn't.  Nowhere in his article does Mayr retract or even water down those three specific present-tense statements.  Check it yourself please.  Do it now.  Mayr does not retract nor modify any of it.

(3)  Finally, just to MAKE SURE you understand that he's talking about right here and now instead of the dim dark historical past, Mayr actually REPEATS the Incompatibilities in his concluding wind-up:
[quote]I hope I have successfully illustrated the wide reach of Darwin's ideas. Yes, he established a philosophy of biology by introducing the time factor, by demonstrating the importance of chance and contingency, and by showing that theories in evolutionary biology are based on concepts rather than laws.

   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
But furthermore - and this is perhaps Darwin's greatest contribution - he developed a set of new principles that influence the thinking of every person: the living world, through evolution, can be explained without recourse to supernaturalism; essentialism or typology is invalid, and we must adopt population thinking, in which all individuals are unique (vital for education and the refutation of racism); natural selection, applied to social groups, is indeed sufficient to account for the origin and maintenance of altruistic ethical systems; cosmic teleology, an intrinsic process leading life automatically to ever greater perfection, is fallacious, with all seemingly teleological phenomena explicable by purely material processes; and determinism is thus repudiated, which places our fate squarely in our own evolved hands.  
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



That paragraph simply destroys Robin's line of argument.  It's clear now that Mayr meant exactly what he said earlier, and most importantly, he WASN'T limiting those statements to the 19th century but was talking about modern times as well.  Read the article yourself, folks.  Mayr wrote it.  No escape baby.

Mayr's own concluding summary actually RE-AFFIRMS both the First Incompatibility (denial of God as the Required-Explanation) and the Second Incompatibility (No-Teleology-No-Conscious Forethought.).  

The first highlighted statement clearly would eliminate God (since God is supernatural not natural) as the required explantion, and the second highlighted statement (btw, did you see that word "all"?) clearly denies teleology---it's solid NT-NCF all the way.

So, now you see the real deal.  The paragraph Robin offered, he offered with sincerity, but it clearly doesn't negate the three specific statements Mayr made.  PLUS Mayr was careful to re-affirm those statements and make sure that you knew those three specific statements belonged to "Right Now" in the theory of evolution, not just "Way Back When".

So, that's that, baby!!!

Floyd Lee
Posted by: Stanton on Sep. 30 2009,18:09

So FL is saying that because Darwin's explanation of how life changes over generations no longer requires GODDIDITACCORDINGTOTHEBIBLE, it's evil, as according to FL's quotemine of Mayr.
Posted by: deadman_932 on Sep. 30 2009,18:09

Quote (FloydLee @ Sep. 30 2009,18:02)
So, [snip irrelevant rant]
So, that's that, baby!!!

Floyd Lee
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


It is a fallacy to suggest that Mayr speaks for "all science." It is dishonorable and unethical to twist a man's words to fit your sociopolitical agenda. It is typical of you to ignore everyone else's points except Robin's -- and then only to play word games with what Robin and Mayr actually say.

The only truly relevant bit of what Mayr said was what you initially DELIBERATELY left out (quotemined, dishonestly) , Floyd Lee:


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
"one is certainly still free to believe in God even if one accepts evolution"
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



And that's that, baby.
Posted by: FloydLee on Sep. 30 2009,18:10



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
(Newton's Gravitational Theory, Einstein's General Theory of Relativity, Atomic Theory, Germ Theory) reject all supernatural phenomena and causations.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Yes, yes, y'all have already tried that line of argument (of course, you can't find that specific statement in the physics articles and textbooks, but that hasn't stopped you from falsely subscribing to it anyway. )

However, Robin's line of argument is different from the line of argument that you offer here.  Mayr's article clearly shoots down Robin's line of argument.
Posted by: deadman_932 on Sep. 30 2009,18:24

Quote (FloydLee @ Sep. 30 2009,18:10)
   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
(Newton's Gravitational Theory, Einstein's General Theory of Relativity, Atomic Theory, Germ Theory) reject all supernatural phenomena and causations.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Yes, yes, y'all have already tried that line of argument (of course, you can't find that specific statement in the physics articles and textbooks, but that hasn't stopped you from falsely subscribing to it anyway. )

However, Robin's line of argument is different from the line of argument that you offer here.  Mayr's article clearly shoots down Robin's line of argument.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


It's irrelevant to show precise statments in those specific fields that state specifically what you want to hear, Floyd, yes. The point being that all sciences -- let's repeat that, Floyd... all sciences -- do not deal with supernatural deities or ultimate purposeful causes, yes.

They don't do so because of the nature of scientific inquiry and the scientific method, that's all.

But one is always free to interpret scientific claims in light of one's faith. Always -- just as Mayr implies.

Your use of fallacies, deception, dishonesty, etc. are all pitted against that simple fact. You're desperate, and that's tragicomic.
Posted by: Amadan on Sep. 30 2009,18:27

Floyd, if I was to produce a statement by a biologist to the effect that evolution was compatible with Christianity, how would you evaluate it against Mayr? Is Mayr correct because of his understanding of the nature of God (or Christianity, or any other religion, come to think of it)? Or is it because of his qualifications etc as an evolutionary biologist?

Is it relevant whether the 'pro-Christianity' statement is made in a textbook? If so, should it be in a school-level one, which gives only a broad description of evolution? An undergraduate one, which is typically more detailed, and likely to be much more clearly referenced? Or a specialist one, which is likely to be very detailed but focused on a narrow aspect of evolutionary biology?

Are web pages acceptable? There are lots of web pages that discuss the compatibility of Christianity and evolution. Many are written by biologists who are Christian, and some at least are written by Christian theologians who have studied biology.

In short, why is Mayr's opinion so privileged? Note that your answer has to address Mayr's special qualification, it can't just be a diatribe against evolution generally.

No, I didn't really think you'd answer.
Posted by: Stanton on Sep. 30 2009,18:41

Quote (FloydLee @ Sep. 30 2009,18:10)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
(Newton's Gravitational Theory, Einstein's General Theory of Relativity, Atomic Theory, Germ Theory) reject all supernatural phenomena and causations.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Yes, yes, y'all have already tried that line of argument (of course, you can't find that specific statement in the physics articles and textbooks, but that hasn't stopped you from falsely subscribing to it anyway. )

However, Robin's line of argument is different from the line of argument that you offer here.  Mayr's article clearly shoots down Robin's line of argument.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Your denial does not excuse the fact that people have provided quotes and references that contradict every single one of your fallacious claims.

To say of nothing of pointing out your grotesque, smarm infested hypocrisy or your blatant quotemining..
Posted by: Stanton on Sep. 30 2009,18:42

Quote (Amadan @ Sep. 30 2009,18:27)
Floyd, if I was to produce a statement by a biologist to the effect that evolution was compatible with Christianity, how would you evaluate it against Mayr? Is Mayr correct because of his understanding of the nature of God (or Christianity, or any other religion, come to think of it)? Or is it because of his qualifications etc as an evolutionary biologist?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


FL would either ignore you, claim that the quote doesn't matter because it contradicts his claims, or accuse you of lying.
Posted by: Dan on Sep. 30 2009,21:28

Quote (FloydLee @ Sep. 30 2009,14:55)
....

Indeed, notice how Mayr repeatedly uses PRESENT TENSE in his statements:
   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
....

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


---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Note that FL has just quoted approvingly a statement that knowledge of evolution is compatible with faith in Christianity, that is, a statement that FL is dead wrong.

Finding flaws in FL's logic is as sporting as ... how does it go ... shooting fish in a barrel.
Posted by: Dan on Sep. 30 2009,21:32

Quote (FloydLee @ Sep. 30 2009,18:10)
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
(Newton's Gravitational Theory, Einstein's General Theory of Relativity, Atomic Theory, Germ Theory) reject all supernatural phenomena and causations.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Yes, yes, y'all have already tried that line of argument (of course, you can't find that specific statement in the physics articles and textbooks, but that hasn't stopped you from falsely subscribing to it anyway. )

However, Robin's line of argument is different from the line of argument that you offer here.  Mayr's article clearly shoots down Robin's line of argument.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


It is amazing to see FL pat himself on the back for using imbecilic false argumentation.
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Sep. 30 2009,21:45

it's kinda like going to the ward to make yourself feel better.

c'mon floyd tell us about duh flud.  and all that.  we all concede that reality is incompatible with your magick beliefs.
Posted by: Stanton on Sep. 30 2009,22:28

Quote (Erasmus, FCD @ Sep. 30 2009,21:45)
it's kinda like going to the ward to make yourself feel better.

c'mon floyd tell us about duh flud.  and all that.  we all concede that reality is incompatible with your magick beliefs.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


What sort of nitwit would bully us into thinking that descent with modification is both impossible and evil, while simultaneously expect us to assume that all terrestrial animals originated from survivors at Mt Ararat 4 thousand years ago?
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Sep. 30 2009,22:32

Quote (Stanton @ Sep. 30 2009,23:28)
Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Sep. 30 2009,21:45)
it's kinda like going to the ward to make yourself feel better.

c'mon floyd tell us about duh flud.  and all that.  we all concede that reality is incompatible with your magick beliefs.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


What sort of nitwit would bully us into thinking that descent with modification is both impossible and evil, while simultaneously expect us to assume that all terrestrial animals originated from survivors at Mt Ararat 4 thousand years ago?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


one who doesn't care about truth and hates reality.

and is at once both too stupid and too dishonest to admit the vacuity of his arguments.  fight the good fight for jesus, right, floyd?  you and ray martinez need to get a room.
Posted by: Henry J on Sep. 30 2009,22:52

1. Christianity is made up of many churches with no central authority, each deciding its own beliefs.

2. Therefore, members of one sect are under no obligation to accept beliefs claimed by somebody in a different sect.

3. Floyd belongs to one of those sects.

4. Therefore, members of the other sects are under no obligation to accept his pronouncements.

Case closed.

Next case.

Henry
Posted by: Henry J on Sep. 30 2009,22:56

Quote (Stanton @ Sep. 30 2009,21:28)
Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Sep. 30 2009,21:45)
it's kinda like going to the ward to make yourself feel better.

c'mon floyd tell us about duh flud.  and all that.  we all concede that reality is incompatible with your magick beliefs.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


What sort of nitwit would bully us into thinking that descent with modification is both impossible and evil, while simultaneously expect us to assume that all terrestrial animals originated from survivors at Mt Ararat 4 thousand years ago?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


HA!
Posted by: Stanton on Sep. 30 2009,23:13

Quote (Henry J @ Sep. 30 2009,22:56)
Quote (Stanton @ Sep. 30 2009,21:28)
Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Sep. 30 2009,21:45)
it's kinda like going to the ward to make yourself feel better.

c'mon floyd tell us about duh flud.  and all that.  we all concede that reality is incompatible with your magick beliefs.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


What sort of nitwit would bully us into thinking that descent with modification is both impossible and evil, while simultaneously expect us to assume that all terrestrial animals originated from survivors at Mt Ararat 4 thousand years ago?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


HA!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I mean, does FL honestly believe that koalas and wombats were able to make it to Australia before gazelles and tigers could, or that one of the very first things Noah and his family did after the Flood was to trek to Egypt and build the Pyramids and the Sphinx?

Or, are these little absurdities the sort of "pathetic levels of detail" FL ignores while demanding that we swallow his religious claptrap?
Posted by: Keelyn on Oct. 01 2009,00:05

Well, this is the first opportunity I have had to get on since my last post. I have reviewed all the succeeding posts. Oh, first, my apologies to Robin ( sir :) ) - I just made an assumption ...I appreciate the correction. Second, I see that in my absence everyone else has already spoken for me - there is nothing substantive that I could add. It is clear to me that Floyd is totally unresponsive to in-your-face reality, logic, or common sense, i.e. rationalism. This could continue for ...? Therefore, I doubt I will bother to add any further to this part of the "debate." (I'll be reading though, Floyd :) )

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

Floyd, since I only anticipate living a typical lifespan (80 years?), and since this could exceed that by several thousand years, is there any chance you could set a date and time for ending this phase of your inane nonsense and moving on to phase II - "more silly gibberish" ...oh, I mean "Biblical Perspectives on Biology," and then we can get to the really juicy hogwash of "Why ID is Real Science and Should be Taught in Public School Science Classes?" Just Wondering. (I'm not eternal you know)
Posted by: Dale_Husband on Oct. 01 2009,00:07

Once again, FL ignored what I posted while playing games with others. That's all he's ever done since he came here, play games.
Posted by: Quack on Oct. 01 2009,05:55

It has been pointed out before in this thread but I feel it may need an encore. The fact is, and I can't see how even FL (or his brother of faith, Ray Martinez) can ignore it, that any particular version of the Christian may lay claim on being the one and only true religion. I believe FL's only force is apologetism; outside of that he is quite uninformed both with respect to science and religion(s).

In his introduction to the Norwegian edition of Elaine Pagels’ ”The Gnostic Gospels”, Prof. Dr. Theol. Jacob Jervell writes (translated):
   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
... The fiftytwo papers found at Nag Hammadi, nevertheless only provide a glimpse into the diversity of the early Christian movement. Today we are beginning to see that what we call Christianity – and what we know as the Christian tradition – only represents a small subset of sources chosen among a dozen others. Who made this selection, and for what reasons? Why were some papers left out and for what reasons? Why were certain other papers left out and condemned as heresy? What made them so dangerous? Today for the first time we have the opportunity to investigate the first Christian heresy, for the first time the heretics may speak for themselves.

Gnostic Christians obviously expressed ideas that were abhorred by the orthodox. For example, some of these texts express doubt about the idea that all suffering, pain and death are resulting from man’s sin, that – according to the orthodox version – has violated an originally perfect creation. Others speaks of a female element in the divine, and worships God as Father and mother. Others maintain that the resurrection of Christ is to be understood as a symbol, not literally. Some few radical texts condemns even the catholic Christians themselves as heretics, who, even if they “do not understand the mysteries … pride themselves of being the sole possessors of the mystery of truth.” (Apocalypse of Peter) Such Gnostic ideas fascinated C.G. Jung; he meant that they expressed the ‘night side of consciousness’ – the spontaneous, subconscious thoughts any orthodox movement bids its followers to suppress.

But orthodox Christianity, as delimited by the apostolic creed, contain ideas that many today maybe finds even stranger. It demands for example that the Christian must believe that God is unflawed good and yet have created a world containing suffering, injustice and death, that Jesus of Nazareth was born of a virgin mother and that he, after being executed by the order of the Roman governor Pontius Pilate, arose from the grave ‘on the third day’.

How could it come about that the Christian churches achieved not only consensus about these
spectacular beliefs, but determined them to be only true Christian teaching? Historians traditionally have told us that the orthodox opposed the Gnostic views on religious and philosophical grounds. They doubtless were. But investigating the newfound Gnostic sources one gets a clue that the struggle also had another dimension. The sources seem to indicate that these religious subjects of dispute – about the nature of God and Christ – at the same time had social and political implications that would have a decisive impact on the development of Christianity as an institutional religion In other words: Ideas with implications in opposition to that development, were branded “heresy”; ideas that implicitly supported it, became ‘orthodoxy’.

When we study the texts from Nag Hammadi and compare them with the sources we know from the orthodox tradition for well over a thousand years, we can see how politics and religion come together in the development of Christianity. We may for example understand the political implications of the orthodox teaching of Christ’s resurrection  - and we understand why the Gnostic view of the resurrection had opposing implications. En tour we encounter a surprisingly new perspective on the roots of Christianity.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Further study recommended.
Posted by: csadams on Oct. 01 2009,06:39

Quote (FloydLee @ Sep. 30 2009,18:10)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
(Newton's Gravitational Theory, Einstein's General Theory of Relativity, Atomic Theory, Germ Theory) reject all supernatural phenomena and causations.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Yes, yes, y'all have already tried that line of argument (of course, you can't find that specific statement in the physics articles and textbooks, but that hasn't stopped you from falsely subscribing to it anyway. )
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Does FL seriously claim that he can't find proponents of these scientific theories rejecting supernatural phenomena and causations, just as Mayer does?  

Not sure how many include Mayer's caveat which FL left out - quote-mining again? shame! - that one is still free to believe in God regardless of the science. (Not an exact quote, but no caffeine yet either.)

All FL has to do is to find high-school level science textbooks which admit supernatural causation/phenomena as part of science.  Find us one such high school text approved for use by a public school district in the state of Kansas.  (Good luck - seems to be you, Against the World!)

I suspect you'll find that such texts don't address the issue.  So if kids' learning is congruent with the Kansas texts, they're not learning in school that science and religion are incompatible.  

Of course this won't prevent FL from making up statements about those texts from whole cloth as he's done in the past.  

For shame, BABY.
Posted by: Robin on Oct. 01 2009,08:14

[quote=FloydLee,Sep. 30 2009,18:02][/quote]
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
So, according to Robin, this particular paragraph --
       

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Darwin’s accomplishments were so many and so diverse that it is useful to distinguish three fields to which he made major contributions: evolutionary biology; the philosophy of science; and the modern zeitgeist. Although I will be focusing on this last domain, for the sake of completeness I will put forth a short overview of his contributions - particularly as they inform his later ideas - to the first two areas.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


---somehow negates and neutralizes these three specific present-tense statements also made by Mayr:
       

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
First, Darwinism rejects
all supernatural phenomena and causations.

The theory of evolution by natural selection explains
the adaptedness and diversity of the world solely materialistically.

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


But where is the specific explanation of how that top quotation supposedly neutralizes that bottom quotation?  Robin doesn't offer any.  

And in fact, no such explanation is rationally sustainable anyway, given the actual text of Mayr's article.  As you'll see, Robin has no escape-hatches on this one.  His argument is shot clean through.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Oh good grief Floyd...nowhere did I say anything about any statements being negated. Man...would you just respond to what was written instead of responding to what you think was written or what you want someone to have written?

What I DID note was that Mayr makes it quite plain that the whole article is an historic analysis, NOT a treatise on what the ToE is or says. That you keep insisting his use of present tense in a paragraph that somehow indicates the latter just makes you plain old dishonest and/or idiotic. But that really doesn't much matter since even if the ToE did fully reject supernatural intervention (in general) that STILL wouldn't make it incompatible with Christianity (as Mayr also notes, but that you keep denying) because such DOES NOT preclude supernatural intervention OUTSIDE of the evolutionary process. So once again, there's nothing in that article that implies that your god is prohibited from using the evolutionary process for some goal. You can keep denying this is what I said, but it just continues to make you look foolish.

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
(1)  We've already seen that Mayr is directly speaking in PRESENT TENSE (not past tense) in each of those three statements.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Which, as noted, is irrelevant.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
(2)  Mayr is careful to offer "Then And Now" corrective statements whenever needed.  Here's a good example:
       

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
The widespread thesis of social Darwinism, promoted at the end of the 19th century by Spencer, was that evolutionary explanations were at odds with the development of ethics.

We now know, however, that in a social species not only the individual must be considered - an entire social group can be the target of selection. Darwin applied this reasoning to the human species in 1871 in The Descent of Man.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



But now, go back to those earlier three present-tense statements and look at the full context---does Mayr offer any "we now know" adjustments to any of those three present-tense statements?  

No, he doesn't.  Nowhere in his article does Mayr retract or even water down those three specific present-tense statements.  Check it yourself please.  Do it now.  Mayr does not retract nor modify any of it.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



He doesn't have to retract or water-down those statements - as he doesn't retract or water-down any of the other statements. He puts those statements into context:

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
First, Darwinism rejects all supernatural phenomena
and causations. The theory of evolution by natural
selection explains the adaptedness and diversity of the
world solely materialistically. It no longer requires God as
creator or designer (although one is certainly still free to
believe in God even if one accepts evolution). Darwin
pointed out that creation, as described in the Bible and the
origin accounts of other cultures, was contradicted by
almost any aspect of the natural world. Every aspect of the
“wonderful design” so admired by the natural theologians
could be explained by natural selection. (A closer look
also reveals that design is often not so wonderful - see
“Evolution and the Qrigins of Disease,” by Randolph M.
Nesse and George C. Williams; SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN,
November 1998.) Eliminating God from science made room
for strictly scientific explanations of all natural phenomena;
it gave rise to positivism; it produced a powerful intellectual
and spiritual revolution, the effects of which have lasted
to this day
.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

(bold emphasis mine)

What's this? Did Mayr really end the paragraph noting that the effects of...Darwinism rejecting supernatural causation..."have lasted to this day"? Gee...why did he put that in? Perhaps to continue the actual thread of this article - that Darwinism had profound impact on modern thinking? Odd you left that out Floyd...

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
(3)  Finally, just to MAKE SURE you understand that he's talking about right here and now instead of the dim dark historical past, Mayr actually REPEATS the Incompatibilities in his concluding wind-up:

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I hope I have successfully illustrated the wide reach of Darwin's ideas. Yes, he established a philosophy of biology by introducing the time factor, by demonstrating the importance of chance and contingency, and by showing that theories in evolutionary biology are based on concepts rather than laws.

 But furthermore - and this is perhaps Darwin's greatest contribution - he developed a set of new principles that influence the thinking of every person: the living world, through evolution, can be explained without recourse to supernaturalism; essentialism or typology is invalid, and we must adopt population thinking, in which all individuals are unique (vital for education and the refutation of racism); natural selection, applied to social groups, is indeed sufficient to account for the origin and maintenance of altruistic ethical systems; cosmic teleology, an intrinsic process leading life automatically to ever greater perfection, is fallacious, with all seemingly teleological phenomena explicable by purely material processes; and determinism is thus repudiated, which places our fate squarely in our own evolved hands.  
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Quite so Mayr! The world can now be explained without referring to any god - there is no need for any supernatural mumbo jumbo to explain how organisms arose. And yet, just because Darwinism can explain the living world without resorting to any gods doesn't mean it can't be used to explain the living world with godly intervention. You keep insisting the former means the latter, Floyd. Sorry, but it doesn't.

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
That paragraph simply destroys Robin's line of argument.  It's clear now that Mayr meant exactly what he said earlier, and most importantly, he WASN'T limiting those statements to the 19th century but was talking about modern times as well.  Read the article yourself, folks.  Mayr wrote it.  No escape baby.

Mayr's own concluding summary actually RE-AFFIRMS both the First Incompatibility (denial of God as the Required-Explanation) and the Second Incompatibility (No-Teleology-No-Conscious Forethought.).
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



No Floyd...the only argument that paragraph destroys is yours. Did Mayr mean exactly what he said? Yep. Does he mean what you keep insisting? Nope. He didn't say that evolution disproved God or gods nor did he say that evolution prohibits them from being involved in this world. He only said that Darwinism presented a way of understanding how life got here that doesn't rely on gods. You keep wanting to conflate that to removing teleology from every facet of the world and as I've already demonstrated, this just doesn't wash.

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
The first highlighted statement clearly would eliminate God (since God is supernatural not natural) as the required explantion, and the second highlighted statement (btw, did you see that word "all"?) clearly denies teleology---it's solid NT-NCF all the way.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



ZZzzzzzz....

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
So, now you see the real deal.  The paragraph Robin offered, he offered with sincerity, but it clearly doesn't negate the three specific statements Mayr made.  PLUS Mayr was careful to re-affirm those statements and make sure that you knew those three specific statements belonged to "Right Now" in the theory of evolution, not just "Way Back When".

So, that's that, baby!!!

Floyd Lee
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Yes Floyd...we see the real deal...that you can't seem to follow simple logic.
Posted by: FloydLee on Oct. 01 2009,09:10



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Floyd, if I was to produce a statement by a biologist to the effect that evolution was compatible with Christianity, how would you evaluate it against Mayr? Is Mayr correct because of his understanding of the nature of God (or Christianity, or any other religion, come to think of it)? Or is it because of his qualifications etc as an evolutionary biologist?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Okay, those are good questions there.  First and foremost, I would evaluate his statement to see how that biologist answered Mayr's statements that reinforced the 1st and 2nd Incompatibilities.  

Mayr's article does show some understanding of Christianity vis-a-vis evolution.  Ffor example, he gave a very perceptive commentary on how "the application of common descent to man deprived man of his former status" (as being made in the image of God, "above and apart from" the animals.)

Actually, I would ask readers to carefully look at that specific paragraph.  So far we've just been talking about Mayr WRT the first two incompatibilities, but Mayr just reinforced the thirdincompatibility with those comments.  

However, Mayr is an evolutionary biologst by profession, not a theologian.  He knows his business primarily on the topic of evolution.  So yes, if Mayr is saying that these incompatibilities exist, then yes, one has to take him seriouslyl
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on Oct. 01 2009,09:31

If the earth was created ~6000 years ago FL what's the maximum number of people that could be alive 2500BC?
Posted by: Stanton on Oct. 01 2009,09:37

Actually, I would ask readers to carefully look at that specific paragraph.  So far we've just been talking about Mayr WRT the first two incompatibilities, but Mayr just reinforced the thirdincompatibility with those comments. [/quote]
If depriving "Man" of his status as "being made in the image of God" is such a terrible thing done by Evolution, FL, then please explain why, historically, Christians have not cared about this particular tenet when Christians have promoted slavery, murder, torture, horrifying racial, religious and sexual inequalities against other people, even other Christians?  So, why weren't Christians remembering that the Jews, Muslims, gays, lesbians, asians, africans and other Christians that they bullied, murdered, tortured, raped, stole from, disenfranchised, sold into slavery, and or cannibalized were also "made in the image of God"?

For you to whine about how evolution deprives humans of their special status due to a special technicality that Christians have historically either ignored or found loopholes to avoid makes you a sanctimonious hypocrite.  But, I doubt that you'd have the courage or backbone to address this, FL.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
However, Mayr is an evolutionary biologst by profession, not a theologian.  He knows his business primarily on the topic of evolution.  So yes, if Mayr is saying that these incompatibilities exist, then yes, one has to take him seriouslyl
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


And yet you still refuse to understand that Mayr is not saying people can not accept evolution and be Christians, not matter how much you quotemine and deny.

Or can you tell us who invested Mayr with the power to meddle with other people's faith and spirituality without permission?
Posted by: Stanton on Oct. 01 2009,09:39

Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Oct. 01 2009,09:31)
If the earth was created ~6000 years ago FL what's the maximum number of people that could be alive 2500BC?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


8 to 16
Posted by: deadman_932 on Oct. 01 2009,09:52

From The National Academy of Sciences:

"Science is a way of knowing about the natural world. It is limited to explaining the natural world through natural causes... Whether God exists or not is a question about which science is neutral." < http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=5787&page=58 >

According to Floyd's thinking, therefore, all science is incompatible with one or more of his "Big Five" and should be discarded. I urge FloydLee to do so immediately -- abandon all science, since it as a whole rejects the notion of being able to say anything at all about supernatural creator deities except "there's no apparent verifiable, testible, falsifiable evidence of such" (which is as it should be if one accepts concepts of "faith").

I do enjoy watching Floyd Lee cherry-pick his way through 20 comments to find the one bit that he thinks he *can* respond to
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Oct. 01 2009,10:08

if reptilians created koala bears out of thin air 30 minutes ago, science can provide no explanation.

is that really so hard to explain floyd?

what evidence do you have that reptilians created koala bears out of thin air 30 minutes ago?

Oh, a dusty old book?

Hey, I got a dusty old book that says that they didn't.  Is this a stalemate?

What makes your dusty old book the arbiter and mine a pretender?  

floyd do you also go by Daniel Smith?
Posted by: Schroedinger's Dog on Oct. 01 2009,10:09

This "debate" has become quite a sad thing. We used to have funnier chew toys once (ahhh!!! FTK, were art thou?*).

I think every and all sanctimonious ignoramus fanatics such as FL should take a look at Augustin's work, just for the sake of it...

Now, if the pope is not enough to disprove FL's claims that ET and Christianity are incompatible, my dad is a doctor, MD, the real one, not the "won in a box of chocolate" kind, learned in history, science and theology, and he's also a quite devout Christian. yet, he totally accepts the theory of Evolution.

This alone should prove the guy wrong, since my dad is probably a better Christian than FL is. And he's a karate black belt and could take FL's dad anytime!

Ooops, sorry, I think I just raised the debate's level by at least 5 Phlogiston points!





*Not that there's anything wrong with it.......er......ok, my bad...
Posted by: FloydLee on Oct. 01 2009,10:26



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Is it relevant whether the 'pro-Christianity' statement is made in a textbook? If so, should it be in a school-level one, which gives only a broad description of evolution?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



If you get an evolutionist stating one of the Incompatibilities in a public high school textbook, that's a pretty serious deal.  It can make it sound like he's trying to indoctrinate instead of educate.  In the past, evolutionist Dr. Ken Miller was guilty of this in the first two editions of his high school textbook.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
"Darwin knew that accepting his theory required believing in philosophical materialism, the conviction that matter is the stuff of all existence and that all mental and spiritual phenomena are its byproducts...
"Suddenly, humanity was reduced to just one more species in a world that cared nothing for us... Worst of all, there was no divine plan to guide us."

---from the FTE Amicus Brief (Kitzmiller)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Interesting!  Ken Miller affirming NT-NCF right in front of the kiddies.  (And btw, if you read his book "Finding Darwin's God", he also reinforces the NT-NCF for human origins too.  Good job baby!!)

Of course, Ken Miller removed his statements from his later textbooks.  (However, the FTE pointed out the directly applicability of the situation to the Pandas trial in Dover:
"(If) unpublished drafts—never seen by the school board or students—evidence the “real meaning” of Pandas, what should be the significance of language that Dr. Miller actually published?"

*****

At any rate, I honestly don't expect to see "pro-Christian" statements in high school biology textbooks, (and they shouldn't be affirming the Big Five Incompatibilities either!  Parents need to monitor their child's biology books to make sure evolutionists don't overstep themselves).

Undergraduate and specialist textbooks, well, they are what they are.  (But they can sometimes be useful for finding money quotes in various debates!)

FloydLee
Posted by: FloydLee on Oct. 01 2009,10:32



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I think every and all sanctimonious ignoramus fanatics such as FL should take a look at Augustin's work, just for the sake of it...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I have, actually.   Augustine wrote that the earth was less than 6000 years old, he believed that God created everything instantly, (yes, literally), and he believed that the global Noahic Flood was literally true.

A very good YEC, to be sure!

FloydLee
Posted by: deadman_932 on Oct. 01 2009,10:34

Considering that *I* am the one you agreed to "debate" with, Floyd Lee, I find it especially humorous that you seem to avoid addressing my posts at all now.

According to your "thinking" all of science is incompatible with at least two of your "Big Five," if not the total of them.

Yet there you sit, lovingly caressing that heathen physics-created computer whose science stands in stark incompatibility with your professed views. Hypocrite much?
Posted by: Schroedinger's Dog on Oct. 01 2009,10:45

Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 01 2009,17:32)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I think every and all sanctimonious ignoramus fanatics such as FL should take a look at Augustin's work, just for the sake of it...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I have, actually.   Augustine wrote that the earth was less than 6000 years old, he believed that God created everything instantly, (yes, literally), and he believed that the global Noahic Flood was literally true.

A very good YEC, to be sure!

FloydLee
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


...who lived in the 5th century. Quite a nice period for you to live in, as your standards are outmoded at best, and primitive at worst...




---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Deadman: Considering that *I* am the one you agreed to "debate" with, Floyd Lee, I find it especially humorous that you seem to avoid addressing my posts at all now.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Yes, astonishing. It took the guy 23 minutes to answer my second message on this thread. but not one single start of a debut of an ignition of an answer to the real deep questions you guys asked...

Stupid puppet, I say
Posted by: Stanton on Oct. 01 2009,10:46

Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 01 2009,10:32)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I think every and all sanctimonious ignoramus fanatics such as FL should take a look at Augustin's work, just for the sake of it...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I have, actually.   Augustine wrote that the earth was less than 6000 years old, he believed that God created everything instantly, (yes, literally), and he believed that the global Noahic Flood was literally true.

A very good YEC, to be sure!

FloydLee
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


It was Bishop James Ussher who, in 1650, came up with the idea that the world was 6000 years old.

Can you provide a source of St Augustine saying that the world was 6000 years old?
Posted by: Stanton on Oct. 01 2009,10:48

Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 01 2009,10:32)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I think every and all sanctimonious ignoramus fanatics such as FL should take a look at Augustin's work, just for the sake of it...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I have, actually.   Augustine wrote that the earth was less than 6000 years old, he believed that God created everything instantly, (yes, literally), and he believed that the global Noahic Flood was literally true.

A very good YEC, to be sure!

FloydLee
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Or, perhaps you should revise the relevant Wikipedia articles to mention how Bishop Ussher stole St Augustine's idea?
Posted by: FloydLee on Oct. 01 2009,11:08



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Considering that *I* am the one you agreed to "debate" with, Floyd Lee, I find it especially humorous that you seem to avoid addressing my posts at all now.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Patience, amigo.  I like responding to you (but I never promised that you'd be the only poster that I responded to.)

Got quite a few customers in this restaurant, and it's good to try to serve as many as possible.
Posted by: Occam's Toothbrush on Oct. 01 2009,11:12

Quote (Stanton @ Oct. 01 2009,11:46)
     
Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 01 2009,10:32)
     

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I think every and all sanctimonious ignoramus fanatics such as FL should take a look at Augustin's work, just for the sake of it...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I have, actually.   Augustine wrote that the earth was less than 6000 years old, he believed that God created everything instantly, (yes, literally), and he believed that the global Noahic Flood was literally true.

A very good YEC, to be sure!

FloydLee
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


It was Bishop James Ussher who, in 1650, came up with the idea that the world was 6000 years old.

Can you provide a source of St Augustine saying that the world was 6000 years old?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


< Here >.

Unfortunately for FL, by FL's stated standards Augustine was not a "good YEC" at all.  Since Augustine didn't believe exactly the same thing FL does (because Augustine said the world was created instantly, not in 6 days like the Bible says), Augustine wasn't a Christian at all.
Posted by: deadman_932 on Oct. 01 2009,11:13

Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 01 2009,11:08)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Considering that *I* am the one you agreed to "debate" with, Floyd Lee, I find it especially humorous that you seem to avoid addressing my posts at all now.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Patience, amigo.  I like responding to you (but I never promised that you'd be the only poster that I responded to.)

Got quite a few customers in this restaurant, and it's good to try to serve as many as possible.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You agreed to ground rules being applied, and have ignored that agreement consistently, yes, I know.
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on Oct. 01 2009,11:30

Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 01 2009,11:08)
Got quite a few customers in this restaurant, and it's good to try to serve as many as possible.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


My serving is a simple numerical answer.

You either know it or you don't.

If you know it, say it.

If you don't then you've obviously never given your YEC position any serious critical consideration.

As you like.
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Oct. 01 2009,11:33

and i'm just here for the garnish.
Posted by: Schroedinger's Dog on Oct. 01 2009,11:55

And the hot waitress...
Posted by: Stanton on Oct. 01 2009,12:07

Let me rescind my previous comment and replace it with this:

Why does FL think that St Augustine supports his argument that faith in Jesus Christ is only possible if one adheres to a literal interpretation of Genesis in grotesque contrast to the current evidence, AND that Jesus Christ never said He would reject anyone who didn't read Genesis literally?  I mean, FL is aware that St Augustine did argue about how inherently pernicious it is to use faith in God to protect ridiculous ideas?

I mean, that's like arguing that Jesus wants us to steal from, cheat, lie to and murder anyone who disagrees with us.
Posted by: dheddle on Oct. 01 2009,13:50

FL,

Augustine did not take Genesis literally.  Instantaneous does not mean six days. Instantaneous creation is an infinite number of orders of magnitude different from six days. A 14 bya universe only differs by a mere 12 OOM. In that sense, Augustine is the most radical non-literalist of all time. He would say to you: "My god don't need no six days to create a universe!"
Posted by: Stanton on Oct. 01 2009,14:43

Quote (dheddle @ Oct. 01 2009,13:50)
FL,

Augustine did not take Genesis literally.  Instantaneous does not mean six days. Instantaneous creation is an infinite number of orders of magnitude different from six days. A 14 bya universe only differs by a mere 12 OOM. In that sense, Augustine is the most radical non-literalist of all time. He would say to you: "My god don't need no six days to create a universe!"
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


FL does not care one wit that St Augustine was a biblical literalist or not, all he cares about is quotemining and distorting what others have said in order to support his own ridiculous, fallacious claims.
Posted by: FloydLee on Oct. 01 2009,15:23



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


Ummm, Dan.....Please notice Mayr does not offer you any rational reason to continue "believing in God" after pointing out that evolution no longer requires God as creator or designer.

Mayr is NOT removing the Incompatibility, ohhhh no he's not.  He just says that, given the situation at hand, you're at least personally free to believe whatever you want about God's existence (but he's not supplying you any rational reasons for it).  

You're free to believe whatever you want about God, he says, as long as you understand that,  because of evolution), God is NO LONGER the required explanation for biological origins, including the origin of humans.  Period.
Posted by: Stanton on Oct. 01 2009,15:34

Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 01 2009,15:23)


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


Ummm, Dan.....Please notice Mayr does not offer you any rational reason to continue "believing in God" after pointing out that evolution no longer requires God as creator or designer.

Mayr is NOT removing the Incompatibility, ohhhh no he's not.  He just says that, given the situation at hand, you're at least personally free to believe whatever you want about God's existence (but he's not supplying you any rational reasons for it).  

You're free to believe whatever you want about God, he says, as long as you understand that,  because of evolution), God is NO LONGER the required explanation for biological origins, including the origin of humans.  Period.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


So, FL is saying that either we have to believe that God magically and mysteriously poofed everything, including people, plants and fake evidence, into existence 6,000 years ago, or we're automatically godless heathens who automatically reject Jesus.

And yet, FL thinks the Christians against him here have weak faith.
Posted by: midwifetoad on Oct. 01 2009,15:36



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
He just says that, given the situation at hand, you're at least personally free to believe whatever you want about God's existence (but he's not supplying you any rational reasons for it).  

---------------------QUOTE-------------------

If there were rational reasons for believing there wouldn't be any need for this messy faith thing.
Posted by: Jasper on Oct. 01 2009,15:41

It seems to me that FL's main issue is that he lacks faith and instead requires "rational reasons to believe in God."

Jesus didn't think that people needed "rational reasons to believe" in him. Check out < John 20:29 >.
Posted by: FloydLee on Oct. 01 2009,15:47



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Augustine did not take Genesis literally.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


But some Genesis things, Augustine DID take literally.  We know this from his own writings.

Like, the earth being less than 6000 years old.  He wrote that.  He meant that.  Literally.  

Another example:  The Genesis account of a global Noahic Flood.  He took that one literally.  Not allegorical.  Literal history, period.

   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Instantaneous does not mean six days.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


But it does mean YEC.  It only rationally fits in with YEC beliefs (a less than 6000-yr-old Earth).  

It's not ever gonna fit the OEC category, nope.  And it sure will never ever qualify Augie for TE. 

     

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Instantaneous creation is an infinite number of orders of magnitude different from six days.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Yes it is.  Also infinitely different from 14 billion years (universe) or 4.6 billion years (earth).



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
In that sense, Augustine is the most radical non-literalist of all time. He would say to you: "My god don't need no six days to create a universe!"
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



And he would say to you, "And He don't need to wait around for any 14 billion years (nor 4.6 billion years) either.  He can do it instantly, and He did."
Posted by: Robin on Oct. 01 2009,15:47

Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 01 2009,15:23)

---------------------QUOTE-------------------




---------------------QUOTE-------------------


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


Ummm, Dan.....Please notice Mayr does not offer you any rational reason to continue "believing in God" after pointing out that evolution no longer requires God as creator or designer.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Well sure...he isn't obligated to come up with reasons why someone ought to continue believing in any god, nevermind the Christian one. All he is noting there is that evolution isn't incompatible with such a belief. That evolution doesn't require a god doesn't mean that a god can't exist, so people are perfectly free to believe in whatever god they like since evolution and the Theory of it doesn't impact such.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Mayr is NOT removing the Incompatibility, ohhhh no he's not.  
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Oh oh...oh yes yes, my dear...he is.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
He just says that, given the situation at hand, you're at least personally free to believe whatever you want about God's existence (but he's not supplying you any rational reasons for it).
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



See above. If you need a rational reason to believe in your god, Floyd, then your faith is even more tenuous than I originally thought. The fact is, believing in any god is not rational, so once again, there is no reason why Mayr would even consider offering an obviously erroneous comment on such. Why you choose to believe in a god is your business, not Mayr's. Mayr need only note that whatever god you believe in and whatever religion you follow regarding that god, such is need no longer needed as an explanation for how life diversified on this planet.  



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
You're free to believe whatever you want about God, he says, as long as you understand that,  because of evolution), God is NO LONGER the required explanation for biological origins, including the origin of humans.  Period.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Sure...god is no longer required. Funny how you keep ignoring that this isn't the same thing as god is prohibited and that the former is perfectly compatible with Christianity. If you want to invoke a god as having a hand in biological origins, have at it. Doesn't contradict evolution.
Posted by: FloydLee on Oct. 01 2009,15:59



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
So, FL is saying that either we have to believe that God magically and mysteriously poofed everything, including people, plants and fake evidence, into existence 6,000 years ago, or we're automatically godless heathens who automatically reject Jesus.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Hmmm.  You wouldn't be mis-representing my position a little, would you, Stanton?
Posted by: rhmc on Oct. 01 2009,16:04

Quote (Erasmus, FCD @ Oct. 01 2009,11:08)
floyd do you also go by Daniel Smith?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


>snort, snort<
Posted by: nmgirl on Oct. 01 2009,16:26

Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 01 2009,15:59)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
So, FL is saying that either we have to believe that God magically and mysteriously poofed everything, including people, plants and fake evidence, into existence 6,000 years ago, or we're automatically godless heathens who automatically reject Jesus.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Hmmm.  You wouldn't be mis-representing my position a little, would you, Stanton?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I think this nicely summarizes your position, FL
Posted by: Stanton on Oct. 01 2009,16:53

Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 01 2009,15:59)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
So, FL is saying that either we have to believe that God magically and mysteriously poofed everything, including people, plants and fake evidence, into existence 6,000 years ago, or we're automatically godless heathens who automatically reject Jesus.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Hmmm.  You wouldn't be mis-representing my position a little, would you, Stanton?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


No.

Isn't the whole point of your ridiculous "five points of incompatibility between Evolution and Christianity" about how the only way to be a Christian is to believe in a God who magically and mysteriously poofed the whole world and everything in it into existence as according to a literal reading of the mistranslation of the Book of Genesis or else, even though Jesus gave very different reasons for denying people Salvation?
Posted by: FloydLee on Oct. 01 2009,17:11



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
The fact is, believing in any god is not rational....
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Hmmm.   Just gotta comment on that one.
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse.

----Rom. 1:20
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Believing in God is a VERY rational act because you would be basing that decision on observational evidence, as Romans 1:20 makes clear.

In fact, it's so rational that anybody who chooses to adopt atheism or agnosticism is WITHOUT EXCUSE for doing so.  Something to think about, for sure.

Hope you're not an atheist or agnostic, Robin.....!
Posted by: rhmc on Oct. 01 2009,17:26

Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 01 2009,18:11)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
The fact is, believing in any god is not rational....
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Hmmm.   Just gotta comment on that one.
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse.

----Rom. 1:20
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Believing in God is a VERY rational act because you would be basing that decision on observational evidence, as Romans 1:20 makes clear.

In fact, it's so rational that anybody who chooses to adopt atheism or agnosticism is WITHOUT EXCUSE for doing so.  Something to think about, for sure.

Hope you're not an atheist or agnostic, Robin.....!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


i have seen no god, clearly or otherwise, nor any proof of one.  

so if you gots it, trots it on out.
Posted by: Stanton on Oct. 01 2009,17:29

Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 01 2009,17:11)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
The fact is, believing in any god is not rational....
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Hmmm.   Just gotta comment on that one.
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse.

----Rom. 1:20
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Believing in God is a VERY rational act because you would be basing that decision on observational evidence, as Romans 1:20 makes clear.

In fact, it's so rational that anybody who chooses to adopt atheism or agnosticism is WITHOUT EXCUSE for doing so.  Something to think about, for sure.

Hope you're not an atheist or agnostic, Robin.....!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Why do you care if Robin was an atheist or not, FL?

Is your own faith in God and Jesus so frail that it's threatened by other people's beliefs or lack thereof?

That is, besides the fact that (biological) reality also threatens your frail faith?
Posted by: Occam's Toothbrush on Oct. 01 2009,18:04

OK, Christianity is incompatible with evolution because Floyd is the Only True Christian and evolution is a theory scientists made up when they got together and voted to fabricate 150 years of scientific work that falsely showed God doesn't exist.  Am I missing anything?
Posted by: khan on Oct. 01 2009,18:10

Quote (Occam's Toothbrush @ Oct. 01 2009,19:04)
OK, Christianity is incompatible with evolution because Floyd is the Only True Christian and evolution is a theory scientists made up when they got together and voted to fabricate 150 years of scientific work that falsely showed God doesn't exist.  Am I missing anything?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Not really
Posted by: deadman_932 on Oct. 01 2009,19:03

Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 01 2009,17:11)
   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
The fact is, believing in any god is not rational....
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Hmmm.   Just gotta comment on that one.
       

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse.

----Rom. 1:20
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Believing in God is a VERY rational act because you would be basing that decision on observational evidence, as Romans 1:20 makes clear.

In fact, it's so rational that anybody who chooses to adopt atheism or agnosticism is WITHOUT EXCUSE for doing so.  Something to think about, for sure.

Hope you're not an atheist or agnostic, Robin.....!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You should be more concerned about your lack of understanding, per Romans 1:20:

" God's invisible qualities...being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse"

Being a YEC, you don't "understand," don't want to understand and instead avoid understanding so that you can play minor prophet. With that avoidance -- and willingness to parrot YEC claims without question --  also comes an eagerness to abandon ethics or honesty. That puts you in conflict with that passage, Floyd. Along with reality.

The fact is that you pick and choose what bits of the Bible you will and will not take literally, Floyd. And out of deep ignorance and fear, you choose to avoid what the rocks themselves say in favor of bibliolatry ;  worshipping your chosen bits of the Bible, with you as head priest.  

I'll "pass" on your brand of "understanding," Floyd.
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Oct. 01 2009,19:43

gods are no longer the required explanation for why water runs downhill.

that doesn't mean it's not part of the plumbing plan for my house.

"part of god's plan" has no explanatory power.  it carries no water.  does no explanatory work.  what else is there to say about it?

floyd are you really this dense or is this extra credit for some class at southwestern jesus tech?

ETA I removed "stupid" and replaced it with "dense".  I am not sure which has more explanatory power, but I hold out that Floyd just might be capable of self-reflection and consider that scientific explanations don't start with the beginning of the universe and what God had for breakfast that day.
Posted by: Schroedinger's Dog on Oct. 01 2009,20:37

hey Floyd! Do you frown upon shrimps or lobster? Would you stone your child to death if he/she is disobedient? Do you hate your daddy or your mommy?

if the answer to any of these questions is "no", then you are not a True Litteral Christian©

Christian litteralism is not a fuckin' buffet where you can pick whatever you like and leave aside the horse-radish!

Be true to yourself, if that's even possible at all...
Posted by: Stanton on Oct. 01 2009,22:51

Quote (Schroedinger's Dog @ Oct. 01 2009,20:37)
hey Floyd! Do you frown upon shrimps or lobster? Would you stone your child to death if he/she is disobedient? Do you hate your daddy or your mommy?

if the answer to any of these questions is "no", then you are not a True Litteral Christian©

Christian litteralism is not a fuckin' buffet where you can pick whatever you like and leave aside the horse-radish!

Be true to yourself, if that's even possible at all...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Once when the topic of the laws of Deuteronomy were brought up, FL said he prefers excommunication over execution.  That is, when he could be bothered to be reminded that the Book of Deuteronomy existed, that is.
Posted by: Chayanov on Oct. 02 2009,00:03

So, is FL supposed to be an example of that sophisticated theology that theists keep claiming atheists are never able to address?
Posted by: Stanton on Oct. 02 2009,00:21

Quote (Chayanov @ Oct. 02 2009,00:03)
So, is FL supposed to be an example of that sophisticated theology that theists keep claiming atheists are never able to address?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I don't think so, given as how FL apparently gives more weight to the opinions of atheists than theists concerning matters of his faith, which he then foists onto other theists in order to browbeat them into thinking exactly like he does.
Posted by: Chayanov on Oct. 02 2009,02:25

Quote (Stanton @ Oct. 02 2009,00:21)
     
Quote (Chayanov @ Oct. 02 2009,00:03)
So, is FL supposed to be an example of that sophisticated theology that theists keep claiming atheists are never able to address?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I don't think so, given as how FL apparently gives more weight to the opinions of atheists than theists concerning matters of his faith, which he then foists onto other theists in order to browbeat them into thinking exactly like he does.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


After all, theists like FL do more to advance atheism than any number of atheists could do by themselves.
Posted by: Quack on Oct. 02 2009,02:25

My sermon today:
   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I would not believe the Gospel if the authority of the Catholic Church did not compel me.
-St. Augustine
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on Oct. 02 2009,02:57

Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 01 2009,15:47)
But it does mean YEC.  It only rationally fits in with YEC beliefs (a less than 6000-yr-old Earth).  

It's not ever gonna fit the OEC category, nope.  And it sure will never ever qualify Augie for TE.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Do these "YEC beliefs" have an opinion on the population growth of humanity?

I.E.
Time Zero - 2 People
Time 2500BC - ? People
Today - 6.788 billion

Do you know how to graph numbers FL?

Why are you ignoring this question FL?

You go on about incompatibilities but don't seem to want to address this incompatibility. Why is that?
Posted by: Keelyn on Oct. 02 2009,06:47

Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Oct. 02 2009,03:57)
Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 01 2009,15:47)
But it does mean YEC.  It only rationally fits in with YEC beliefs (a less than 6000-yr-old Earth).  

It's not ever gonna fit the OEC category, nope.  And it sure will never ever qualify Augie for TE.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Do these "YEC beliefs" have an opinion on the population growth of humanity?

I.E.
Time Zero - 2 People
Time 2500BC - ? People
Today - 6.788 billion

Do you know how to graph numbers FL?

Why are you ignoring this question FL?

You go on about incompatibilities but don't seem to want to address this incompatibility. Why is that?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I don't see why this is such a big deal. All Floyd needs to do is claim that the Pyramids were formed by the Flud rather than by humans. Humans simply added some hieroglyphics and a few dead kings afterwards. There - problem solved. Seems perfectly consistent with the rest of YEC mythology.
Posted by: csadams on Oct. 02 2009,07:05

Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 01 2009,10:26)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Is it relevant whether the 'pro-Christianity' statement is made in a textbook? If so, should it be in a school-level one, which gives only a broad description of evolution?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



If you get an evolutionist stating one of the Incompatibilities in a public high school textbook, that's a pretty serious deal.  It can make it sound like he's trying to indoctrinate instead of educate.  In the past, evolutionist Dr. Ken Miller was guilty of this in the first two editions of his high school textbook.

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
"Darwin knew that accepting his theory required believing in philosophical materialism, the conviction that matter is the stuff of all existence and that all mental and spiritual phenomena are its byproducts...
"Suddenly, humanity was reduced to just one more species in a world that cared nothing for us... Worst of all, there was no divine plan to guide us."

---from the FTE Amicus Brief (Kitzmiller)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


---------------------QUOTE-------------------


And < we wonder why FL doesn't provide cites > for those textbooks . . . no page scans, no evidence presented that Miller actually used that terminology in those first two editions.

Likewise, no evidence that those particular editions are used in any public school district in Kansas.  No evidence that such a statement appears in current editions of Miller's textbook.  FL seems to expect us to believe there existed/exists a deliberate attempt by Miller to deceive school boards and to evade court scrutiny.  Does it really surprise anyone that FL has no evidence?  

He should stop blowing smoke and start doing some research, a la the painstaking work of Matzke & Forrest in discovering the transitional species Cdesign proponensests lying in OP&P.

(Not that blowing smoke and refusing to do science research isn't common among anti-science activists . . . . )

Parents certainly *do* need to keep an eye on their kids' texts and classwork - < Freshwater, anyone >?  (Oh, yeah, don't forget to check the kiddies' forearms for burned-in crosses . . . and let the kids know that if a strange handout is studied in class but the teacher won't allow kids to take it home, well, something fishy is up . . . )

*sorry for spelling goofs lately, crunched for time
Posted by: FloydLee on Oct. 02 2009,09:29



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Likewise, no evidence that those particular editions are used in any public school district in Kansas.  No evidence that such a statement appears in current editions of Miller's textbook.  FL seems to expect us to believe there existed/exists a deliberate attempt by Miller to deceive school boards and to evade court scrutiny.  Does it really surprise anyone that FL has no evidence?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


(1) No claim was made that those two particular editions were used in Kansas.  Strawman, Csadams?

(2) I made it clear that Miller's wording was not in current editions.  I said, "the first two editions".

(3) The FTE brief makes absolutely clear what the point of the Miller example was, relative to their textbook issue.  (Which of course poked a hole right into "Matzke and Forrest's" stuff.)  

I also pointed out, relative to OUR thread topic here, that Miller's statement actually reinforced one of the Incompatibilities.

Curiously, Csadams has nothing to say to refute those actual points themselves.  Cat got your tongue Cs?  

(4) You asked about a cite.  The FTE amicus brief itself directly cited, "Joseph S. Levine and Kenneth R. Miller, Biology: Discovering Life 152 (D.C. Heath and Co., 1st ed. 1992; this language was not removed for the 2nd ed. in 1994)."  

Clear enough.  

(5) You try to link to an earlier PT discussion not related to the FTE quotation or to an Incompatibility, but that's a two way street you're walking.  Let's walk together for a minute.
   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
"One of the biology textbooks currently used in my hometown school district, for example, introduces students to the “RNA World” hypothesis but does NOT mention any of the problems with it. Doesn’t give the student ANY indication of any troubles with it. "
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Using an older edition of the same textbook, you were able to show that the last sentence needed to be retracted, which I did do precisely that.  

The first sentence remained clear and affirmed however, and there was nothing you could do about it except fall silent on the point.  Here's what I said back then:
[quote]I did not read carefully enough, it seems, especially on the back page or so, and so I admit I am mistaken on that part, since I did say the above statements.

***

On the other hand.…since you have CsAdam’s scans in front of you, you CAN confirm for yourself that my following statement IS in fact correct:

   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
One of the biology textbooks currently used in my hometown school district, for example, introduces students to the “RNA World” hypothesis but does NOT mention any of the problems with it.

Go back and look at those scanned pages again before you respond.
None of the actual problems associated with the RNA World are actually mentioned in Holt 2004. Nor are the **magnitude** of the problems indicated.

(In contrast, Orgel’s article cited earlier, does BOTH imo.)  
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



That was that.  There was nothing you could do about it.  Holt 2004 "Biology" had the last word.

******

See, that's what I like about an extended debate like this.  We can take our time and hash out a little more stuff, at least to some degree.

******

But, again we're kinda wandering a bit.   Let's bring it back a little.  
Csadams, you say you are a Christian.  Can you tell me your specific reasons, based on your own professed Christian beliefs, why you believe that evolution is somehow compatible with Christianity?

FloydLee
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Oct. 02 2009,09:52



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Csadams, you say you are a Christian.  Can you tell me your specific reasons, based on your own professed Christian beliefs, why you believe that evolution is somehow compatible with Christianity?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



says the fella who claimed he would conclusively demonstrate that this incompatibility was impossible.

He couldn't do that, now he is just going to attack christians who disagree.  SHOW ME YOUR SALVATION


CLASSY
Posted by: FloydLee on Oct. 02 2009,09:58

(While responding to various people today, I'm going to try to get in a few more responses for Deadman.  I'm starting from a few pages back and trying to catch up.)
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
(....From page 11)

The Popes (or anyone else) are free to speculate (add, append, tack on their faith-based belief)  regarding what can be said (in their belief) about established evolutionary science.

What it doesn't mean is that you have somehow shown an inherent, incontrovertible incompatiblity between Christianity and evolutionary science.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


But it sure does mean that merely saying "the Pope accepts evolution and he's a Christian" (as some of you have done) does NOT eliminate the Big Five Incompatibilities that are currently sitting on your table.
Posted by: FloydLee on Oct. 02 2009,10:03

Again, from Deadman:


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
What's interesting is that the Pope simply says "God  --the author of evolution itself -- by Will and Idea allows evolution to unfold."
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


(1)  "the author of evolution itself" -- God As Required Explanation  (1st Incompatibility).

(2)  "by Will and Idea allows evolution to unfold" -- God's Teleology (2nd Incompatibility).
Posted by: Schroedinger's Dog on Oct. 02 2009,10:13

FL: your five big incompatibilities are basicaly non-valid. They are to a lesser extent an expression of either your personal views, or your ministry's views. They are nothing more than opinions.

The first part of this debate was to conclude wether evolution and Christianity were compatible or not. If at least 1 (one) Christian is able to reconcile his faith with evolution, then both are compatible, and this even if YOU don't agree! A basic course in logic would be a good starting point for you.

You have NO right to decide that this particular Christian is not a "real" or "good" Christian. Faith is a personal matter and every believer is free to embrace it in his/her own way. To say otherwise makes you a sanctimonious ass indulging in heavy proselytism.

Up yours!
Posted by: FloydLee on Oct. 02 2009,10:23



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
And here's the kicker, Floyd... you already HAVE the well-known catholic stance as an example to deal with, to point out verifiable incompatibilities. But you haven't managed to do that, despite having that well-known example available, immediately.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


But as you can see, I indeed have.  Not just with Pope Benedict, but even with Pope John Paul II, Pope Leo, and Pope Pelagius too.
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
No one here is obliged to spoon-feed you their detailed theology, Floyd. Personally, I've never bothered -- in the many years since usenet days -- to divulge my views on deities. I don't care if other people believe in gods so long as they aren't trying to force views on me.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


And indeed nobody here is forcing their views on you, and you're right that nobody is obligated to tell me what they really believe or don't believe WRT personal belief system.  Agreed.

But, why should I stop thinking that evolution is incompatible with Christianity when both the Christian evolutionists and the non-Christian evolutionists are so very SCARED to tell me what they believe in the first place?

You know, I've been upfront about what I believe.  I offer you and everybody a clear target to shoot at, and some of y'all haven't hesitated to shoot at will, aye?  

So obviously I ain't scared of my beliefs being critically examined in secular company---so why should you (and especially the Christian theistic evolutionists) be afraid to do so?  

FloydLee
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Oct. 02 2009,10:38

Floyd

Is "God" part of the required explanation for why water runs downhill?

Yes or no.
Posted by: FloydLee on Oct. 02 2009,10:46



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
If at least 1 (one) Christian is able to reconcile his faith with evolution, then both are compatible, and this even if YOU don't agree!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



That Christian you speak of, should therefore be able to specifically state HOW he or she has reconciled evolution with their Christianity, (what specific supportable reasons they subscribe to for claiming a reconcilation).

And also sort of speak about HOW the clear published statements by evolutionists that constitute the Big Five Incompatiblities have been neutralized or reconciled by their stated reasons.  (Or if not, then he or she should honestly admit they've not been reconciled after all.)

At a minimum, they should simply be able to say what they believe or don't believe like Nmgirl did and just leave it at that.  That's honorable, even if it doesn't reconcile anything.
Posted by: Schroedinger's Dog on Oct. 02 2009,10:49

Quote (Erasmus, FCD @ Oct. 02 2009,17:38)
Floyd

Is "God" part of the required explanation for why water runs downhill?

Yes or no.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I personaly believe in Intelligent Falling...
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Oct. 02 2009,10:53

Floyd

please address

Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Oct. 02 2009,11:38)
Floyd

Is "God" part of the required explanation for why water runs downhill?

Yes or no.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: Schroedinger's Dog on Oct. 02 2009,10:55

Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 02 2009,17:46)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
If at least 1 (one) Christian is able to reconcile his faith with evolution, then both are compatible, and this even if YOU don't agree!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



That Christian you speak of, should therefore be able to specifically state HOW he or she has reconciled evolution with their Christianity, (what specific supportable reasons they subscribe to for claiming a reconcilation).

And also sort of speak about HOW the clear published statements by evolutionists that constitute the Big Five Incompatiblities have been neutralized or reconciled by their stated reasons.  (Or if not, then he or she should honestly admit they've not been reconciled after all.)

At a minimum, they should simply be able to say what they believe or don't believe like Nmgirl did and just leave it at that.  That's honorable, even if it doesn't reconcile anything.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


In this case, YOU are the one making the claim that evolution and Christianity are incompatible.

The burden of proof is on you. And just like for every and all trials/experiments/tests... if your claim is demonstrably false (at least one Christian, but actually a lot more than that, can reconcile his/her faith with evolution) then your claim can't be accepted as valid.

this is pure and simple logic!

There is no need for anyone here to justify themselves or elaborate on their faith, which once again is something PERSONAL!

EDIT: Answer Ras' damn question!
Posted by: FloydLee on Oct. 02 2009,11:03



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Is "God" part of the required explanation for why water runs downhill?

Yes or no.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Nope.  He's not.  Furthermore, hydrologists (unlike evolutionists) are silent on the issue of God as a required explantion.

(Please note, however:  In the Bible, God IS the required explanation for the origin of water itself.)

And also He is the Required Explanation for the origin of plants, animals, and (this is where you come in) humans too.

Of course, evolution and evolutionists deny that.  Which is why there's an Incompatiblity there.
Posted by: Jasper on Oct. 02 2009,11:13

Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 02 2009,12:03)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Is "God" part of the required explanation for why water runs downhill?

Yes or no.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Nope.  He's not.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


So, Floyd, are you arguing that God has had no role in creating and sustaining the laws of nature?
Posted by: Schroedinger's Dog on Oct. 02 2009,11:14

Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 02 2009,18:03)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Is "God" part of the required explanation for why water runs downhill?

Yes or no.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Nope.  He's not.  Furthermore, hydrologists (unlike evolutionists) are silent on the issue of God as a required explantion.

(Please note, however:  In the Bible, God IS the required explanation for the origin of water itself.)

And also He is the Required Explanation for the origin of plants, animals, and (this is where you come in) humans too.

Of course, evolution and evolutionists deny that.  Which is why there's an Incompatiblity there.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I'd really like to see a Hydrologist invoque god(s) on a paper about water circulation. That would be funny.

if evolution theory has to deal with god's business, it is mostly and before all because religous zealots object. Let's see a religious movement attack Hydrology and I can bet you my car, girlfriend and my house on the French Riviera that you will start hearing about your god in hydrology papers, and not to his/her/its/their advantage.

Science is one thing, spirituality is another. they are not incompatible, just not part of the same field of studies. that's the beginning and the end of it.

By the way, do you deny heliocentrism? Because you must be aware that it is correct, yet the buyble, the inherent word of your god, says otherwise. So will you admit that your book can be wrong sometimes?
Posted by: Schroedinger's Dog on Oct. 02 2009,11:27

By the way, "evolutionists" do not deny god(s)' part in the origin of life, species, even humans. They just don't adress the subject at all (since it is not the purpose of this particular branch of science), which is something you find really hard to drill into your little closed pea-sized brain!
Posted by: Quack on Oct. 02 2009,11:37

Before we can determine whether Christianity is compatible with evolution we have to determine which version of Christianity we are up against. FL's version may be compatible only with YEC creationism, while other versions have no problems with science whatsoever. I believe religion and God are matters of spirit and not about the material world, and I suggest the problem is FL, not science or Christianity.

Before we can get any further with this we have to see FL's evidence that his version is the only true version of Christianity.
Posted by: Stanton on Oct. 02 2009,12:03

Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 02 2009,09:58)
(While responding to various people today, I'm going to try to get in a few more responses for Deadman.  I'm starting from a few pages back and trying to catch up.)
   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
(....From page 11)

The Popes (or anyone else) are free to speculate (add, append, tack on their faith-based belief)  regarding what can be said (in their belief) about established evolutionary science.

What it doesn't mean is that you have somehow shown an inherent, incontrovertible incompatiblity between Christianity and evolutionary science.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


But it sure does mean that merely saying "the Pope accepts evolution and he's a Christian" (as some of you have done) does NOT eliminate the Big Five Incompatibilities that are currently sitting on your table.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Yet, you refuse to explain how the Pope is able to accept both evolution, and his faith in Jesus Christ in direct spite of your five inane points.

That is, refuse to explain beyond lying about what he's said, as well as quotemining and misrepresenting him.
Posted by: nmgirl on Oct. 02 2009,12:04

Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 02 2009,10:46)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
If at least 1 (one) Christian is able to reconcile his faith with evolution, then both are compatible, and this even if YOU don't agree!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



That Christian you speak of, should therefore be able to specifically state HOW he or she has reconciled evolution with their Christianity, (what specific supportable reasons they subscribe to for claiming a reconcilation).

And also sort of speak about HOW the clear published statements by evolutionists that constitute the Big Five Incompatiblities have been neutralized or reconciled by their stated reasons.  (Or if not, then he or she should honestly admit they've not been reconciled after all.)

At a minimum, they should simply be able to say what they believe or don't believe like Nmgirl did and just leave it at that.  That's honorable, even if it doesn't reconcile anything.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Why?  I don't owe you jackshit.  My faith is in God, not some IDiot hopeing to score points with the home team.
Posted by: Chayanov on Oct. 02 2009,12:12

Quit saying "Big Five Incompatibilities" over and over as if you've made some kind of slam-dunk argument.

#3 has already been demonstrated to be a complete loser argument unless you believe that God is literally a magical hominid. Which then raises all sorts of other problems.
Posted by: Schroedinger's Dog on Oct. 02 2009,12:18

Quote (Chayanov @ Oct. 02 2009,19:12)
Quit saying "Big Five Incompatibilities" over and over as if you've made some kind of slam-dunk argument.

#3 has already been demonstrated to be a complete loser argument unless you believe that God is literally a magical hominid. Which then raises all sorts of other problems.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Like, does god magicaly scratch his balls* when he wakes up in the morning?










*That's probably what thunders are...
Posted by: Doc Bill on Oct. 02 2009,12:23

So, what FL is saying is that there must have been a LUCA in the dim past, Last Universal Christian Ancestor, which changed over time forming branches, some of which survived, others didn't;  sort of like a bush (burning or otherwise).

Furthermore, the thin Christian twig upon which FL sits is the Right Twig and all the other twigs are the Wrong Twig.

Makes perfect sense to me.  Carry on.
Posted by: deadman_932 on Oct. 02 2009,12:24

Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 02 2009,10:23)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
And here's the kicker, Floyd... you already HAVE the well-known catholic stance as an example to deal with, to point out verifiable incompatibilities. But you haven't managed to do that, despite having that well-known example available, immediately.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


But as you can see, I indeed have.  Not just with Pope Benedict, but even with Pope John Paul II, Pope Leo, and Pope Pelagius too.
   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
No one here is obliged to spoon-feed you their detailed theology, Floyd. Personally, I've never bothered -- in the many years since usenet days -- to divulge my views on deities. I don't care if other people believe in gods so long as they aren't trying to force views on me.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


And indeed nobody here is forcing their views on you, and you're right that nobody is obligated to tell me what they really believe or don't believe WRT personal belief system.  Agreed.

But, why should I stop thinking that evolution is incompatible with Christianity when both the Christian evolutionists and the non-Christian evolutionists are so very SCARED to tell me what they believe in the first place?

You know, I've been upfront about what I believe.  I offer you and everybody a clear target to shoot at, and some of y'all haven't hesitated to shoot at will, aye?  

So obviously I ain't scared of my beliefs being critically examined in secular company---so why should you (and especially the Christian theistic evolutionists) be afraid to do so?  

FloydLee
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Three posts to me and all you deal with is this? It's your place to support your claim that evolution is incompatible with Christianity as a whole, FloydLee. You haven't managed that at all, except to ignore responses and points that sink your "five incompatibilities " absolutely.  

And you still have no answers to the many questions I and others posed to you, despite your agreement to act in good faith during this little discussion. You still feel this deep need to avoid and deflect from your task -- why is that, Floyd?
Posted by: FloydLee on Oct. 02 2009,12:29



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
FL's version may be compatible only with YEC creationism, while other versions have no problems with science whatsoever.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Well, there are five huge incompatibilities on the table.  If those "Other Versions" can actually resolve and reconcilate them, I'm definitely listening.

Of course, somebody would have to actually PRESENT their "Other Version(s) Of Christianity" (preferably a version that they personally believe and live out) so we can see if said version is supportable and actually reconciles any of the Big Five or not.  

Any takers?
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Oct. 02 2009,12:37

Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 02 2009,12:03)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Is "God" part of the required explanation for why water runs downhill?

Yes or no.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Nope.  He's not.  Furthermore, hydrologists (unlike evolutionists) are silent on the issue of God as a required explantion.

(Please note, however:  In the Bible, God IS the required explanation for the origin of water itself.)

And also He is the Required Explanation for the origin of plants, animals, and (this is where you come in) humans too.

Of course, evolution and evolutionists deny that.  Which is why there's an Incompatiblity there.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


why is god not part of the required explanation for why water runs downhill, when he is part of the required explanation for the EXISTENCE OF WATER?

Here is your problem*.  

You misunderstand scientific explanation.

hells bells I ALREADY KNOW THAT FOR YOU GOD IS THE REQUIRED EXPLANATION FOR EVERY SINGLE THING YOU COULD POSSIBLY IMAGINE.

that's an ontological issue, not an issue with scientific explanation.

nothing makes sense, TO YOU, without your god as the starting point.  Fine.  

THAT'S

* the proximate problem.
Posted by: Stanton on Oct. 02 2009,12:37

Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 02 2009,12:29)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
FL's version may be compatible only with YEC creationism, while other versions have no problems with science whatsoever.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Well, there are five huge incompatibilities on the table.  If those "Other Versions" can actually resolve and reconcilate them, I'm definitely listening.

Of course, somebody would have to actually PRESENT their "Other Version(s) Of Christianity" (preferably a version that they personally believe and live out) so we can see if said version is supportable and actually reconciles any of the Big Five or not.  

Any takers?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


For your fifth alleged incompatibility, why do you think that things like predation, internal parasites or old age are terrible, horrible things that conflict with the Love of God, when the Bible mentions numerous terrible, horrible things done either by God, or done as per the commands of God, including total annihilation of life on Earth simply for the sin of humans, numerous murders, and genocide of entire nations, save for the virgin daughters who were taken as child slaves to reward the Jewish army?

Your continued silence suggests that you are either too cowardly to discuss this, or perhaps that you think things like genocide, murder or child slavery are good things when done on God's behalf.
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Oct. 02 2009,12:38

Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 02 2009,12:03)
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Is "God" part of the required explanation for why water runs downhill?

Yes or no.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Nope.  He's not.  Furthermore, hydrologists (unlike evolutionists) are silent on the issue of God as a required explantion.

(Please note, however:  In the Bible, God IS the required explanation for the origin of water itself.)

And also He is the Required Explanation for the origin of plants, animals, and (this is where you come in) humans too.

Of course, evolution and evolutionists deny that.  Which is why there's an Incompatiblity there.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


why is god not part of the required explanation for why water runs downhill, when he is part of the required explanation for the EXISTENCE OF WATER?
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Oct. 02 2009,12:38

Here is your problem*.  

You misunderstand scientific explanation.

hells bells I ALREADY KNOW THAT FOR YOU GOD IS THE REQUIRED EXPLANATION FOR EVERY SINGLE THING YOU COULD POSSIBLY IMAGINE.

that's an ontological issue, not an issue with scientific explanation.

nothing makes sense, TO YOU, without your god as the starting point.  Fine.  

THAT'S NOT THE SAME AS BEING INCOMPATIBLE.

* the proximate problem.  the more general problem is that you are either too dishonest or too mentally incompetent to understand that you are equivocating and obfuscating.  I'll go with the former, but I can be convinced.
Posted by: Schroedinger's Dog on Oct. 02 2009,12:39

Quote (Quack @ Oct. 02 2009,18:37)
Before we can determine whether Christianity is compatible with evolution we have to determine which version of Christianity we are up against. FL's version may be compatible only with YEC creationism, while other versions have no problems with science whatsoever. I believe religion and God are matters of spirit and not about the material world, and I suggest the problem is FL, not science or Christianity.

Before we can get any further with this we have to see FL's evidence that his version is the only true version of Christianity.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Not to be redundant, but Quack is fuckin' right!

Let's stop everything until FL gives us some evidence!
Posted by: Stanton on Oct. 02 2009,12:40

Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 02 2009,11:03)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Is "God" part of the required explanation for why water runs downhill?

Yes or no.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Nope.  He's not.  Furthermore, hydrologists (unlike evolutionists) are silent on the issue of God as a required explantion.

(Please note, however:  In the Bible, God IS the required explanation for the origin of water itself.)

And also He is the Required Explanation for the origin of plants, animals, and (this is where you come in) humans too.

Of course, evolution and evolutionists deny that.  Which is why there's an Incompatiblity there.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Explain to us why you don't think that God is a necessary requirement for explaining the science of how water flows downhill, yet, think that God, or more precisely, GODPOOFEDIT is the only explanation necessary, under pain of eternal torment at the hands of God, for explaining the origin and diversity of life?
Posted by: Stanton on Oct. 02 2009,12:43

Quote (Schroedinger's Dog @ Oct. 02 2009,12:39)
Quote (Quack @ Oct. 02 2009,18:37)
Before we can determine whether Christianity is compatible with evolution we have to determine which version of Christianity we are up against. FL's version may be compatible only with YEC creationism, while other versions have no problems with science whatsoever. I believe religion and God are matters of spirit and not about the material world, and I suggest the problem is FL, not science or Christianity.

Before we can get any further with this we have to see FL's evidence that his version is the only true version of Christianity.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Not to be redundant, but Quack is fuckin' right!

Let's stop everything until FL gives us some evidence!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You mean like how FL claimed to know the exact location where the Garden of Eden was, then tried to imply that I was insane when I asked why no one has ever found anything at that location to suggest that it was the Garden of Eden in the first place?
Posted by: deadman_932 on Oct. 02 2009,12:44

Quote (deadman_932 @ Oct. 01 2009,09:52)
From The National Academy of Sciences:

"Science is a way of knowing about the natural world. It is limited to explaining the natural world through natural causes... Whether God exists or not is a question about which science is neutral." < http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=5787&page=58 >

According to Floyd's thinking, therefore, all science is incompatible with one or more of his "Big Five" and should be discarded. I urge FloydLee to do so immediately -- abandon all science, since it as a whole rejects the notion of being able to say anything at all about supernatural creator deities except "there's no apparent verifiable, testible, falsifiable evidence of such" (which is as it should be if one accepts concepts of "faith").

I do enjoy watching Floyd Lee cherry-pick his way through 20 comments to find the one bit that he thinks he *can* respond to
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Why didn't you "answer" my post here, Floyd? It's from yesterday, I believe. You cherry-picked your way through the dozens of previous questions you left unanswered ...just to respond to bits and pieces that you found acceptable? Why is that?

Why would you do that, Floyd? Why would you make an agreement to act in good faith (which I stipulated in my second post meant good-faith responses to ALL points and counter-points) and then break that agreement, Floyd?. Add that on top of the quote-mining, outright dishonesty and many fallacies you've been caught at so far, in a mere 20 "pages" -- and you look less christian than those you accuse.

By the way, Floyd, you'll notice a theme emerging here, from your opposition, including me. See, I'm contending that all of science runs counter to your "Big Five" absolutes and your implication that breaking any of those big five = anti-christian heresy.

Others are pointing out that by your view, the search for any knowledge that doesn't IMMEDIATELY say "goddidit" --- is also anti-christian heresy.

But you will ignore that as long as you can...because your inherently dishonest tactics require it.
Posted by: Schroedinger's Dog on Oct. 02 2009,12:47

Quote (Stanton @ Oct. 02 2009,19:43)
Quote (Schroedinger's Dog @ Oct. 02 2009,12:39)
Quote (Quack @ Oct. 02 2009,18:37)
Before we can determine whether Christianity is compatible with evolution we have to determine which version of Christianity we are up against. FL's version may be compatible only with YEC creationism, while other versions have no problems with science whatsoever. I believe religion and God are matters of spirit and not about the material world, and I suggest the problem is FL, not science or Christianity.

Before we can get any further with this we have to see FL's evidence that his version is the only true version of Christianity.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Not to be redundant, but Quack is fuckin' right!

Let's stop everything until FL gives us some evidence!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You mean like how FL claimed to know the exact location where the Garden of Eden was, then tried to imply that I was insane when I asked why no one has ever found anything at that location to suggest that it was the Garden of Eden in the first place?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I think this one is the least of his problems...
Posted by: Schroedinger's Dog on Oct. 02 2009,12:49

Sorry to post-a-lot, but maybe at this point we should just stop everything, let Deadman (instigator of the thread) ask ONE single question to Floyd and not post until he's answered it?
Posted by: deadman_932 on Oct. 02 2009,12:54

Eh, he'll just pull a disappearing act to avoid specific questions anyway. He's got a track record of that in the last few pages alone -- not to mention the whole thread.
Posted by: Stanton on Oct. 02 2009,13:03

Quote (Schroedinger's Dog @ Oct. 02 2009,12:49)
Sorry to post-a-lot, but maybe at this point we should just stop everything, let Deadman (instigator of the thread) ask ONE single question to Floyd and not post until he's answered it?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


If that were the case, then we might as well lock the thread.
Posted by: Louis on Oct. 02 2009,13:03

Quote (Schroedinger's Dog @ Oct. 02 2009,18:49)
Sorry to post-a-lot, but maybe at this point we should just stop everything, let Deadman (instigator of the thread) ask ONE single question to Floyd and not post until he's answered it?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


How can I support this without posting?

Damn!

Louis
Posted by: Schroedinger's Dog on Oct. 02 2009,13:05

Quote (Louis @ Oct. 02 2009,20:03)
Quote (Schroedinger's Dog @ Oct. 02 2009,18:49)
Sorry to post-a-lot, but maybe at this point we should just stop everything, let Deadman (instigator of the thread) ask ONE single question to Floyd and not post until he's answered it?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


How can I support this without posting?

Damn!

Louis
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Well, ok, that's a conundrum. But a boy can dream...
Posted by: deadman_932 on Oct. 02 2009,13:08

HAHA, LOOSE RUENED TEH TREAD.


I have no problem with having any one or two of the posters with longer antagonistic dealings with Floyd take over -- per the early request to limit the participants to a couple of folks.

This obviously lessens Floyd Lee's ability to cherry-pick and fling fallacies.
Posted by: FloydLee on Oct. 02 2009,14:11



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
#3 has already been demonstrated to be a complete loser argument unless you believe that God is literally a magical hominid.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Really?  Let's do #3.  #3 says that Evolution denies that human beings are created in the image of God.  The two evolutionist sources cited for this one were Nature science journal June 2007 and evolutionist James Rachels.  (And also Ernst Mayr, remember.)

Your answer?  That the biblical image-of-God claim must mean that God is literally a hominid.

But that is false.  That is not what the Bible's image-of-God claim entails.  The image-of-God thing is NOT talking about God having a belly button or a double chin or an Adam's apple or some ovaries.  "God is Spirit", the bible says.  

Instead, the image-of-God changes everything for US, for us humans.  WE are fundamentally & permanently different from ALL animals and all other Earth life because WE are created in the Image of God.  The Image Of God affects every part of us:  spirit, mind, AND body.  

WE have rationality, asthetics, abstract thought, superior intelligence, we're capable of conceptualizing way past three dimensions, capable of actual union and communion with God, and so many many other things, because every human is created in the Image of God.

But evolution denies all that.  Incompatibility #3.

******

In fact, pretend for a moment that the Image-of-God thing really DOES mean that Christians mistakenly think "God is a magical hominid," just like you said.

Would your being (presumably) correct, actually RECONCILE evolution with Christianity on point #3?
The actual answer turns out to be "NO."  

For regardless of how God is viewed by Christians (a "magical hominid", a cosmic muffin, or the biblical Creator God of the Entire Universe) it doesn't change the actual nature of the evolutionist denial.  

Why is that?  Because like evolutionist Rachels said, the only theism in which you can sustain the Image-Of-God thesis in the first place, is a creationist theism that pictures God as designing the humans and also designing the world as a home for those humans. Therefore the sort of God you have in mind---hominid, muffin, or Lord of All---doesn't even matter as long as you subscribe to that particular theism.

And with that, the Incompatibility #3 remains.

FloydLee
Posted by: FloydLee on Oct. 02 2009,14:20



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I have no problem with having any one or two of the posters with longer antagonistic dealings with Floyd take over -- per the early request to limit the participants to a couple of folks.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Interesting how your evo-comrades failed to honor that particular request, Deadman.   But that won't change my plans for today.  Several of today's posts will be aimed at previous posts of yours.  You are welcome to deal with them as best you can.
Posted by: deadman_932 on Oct. 02 2009,14:34

Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 02 2009,14:20)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I have no problem with having any one or two of the posters with longer antagonistic dealings with Floyd take over -- per the early request to limit the participants to a couple of folks.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Interesting how your evo-comrades failed to honor that particular request, Deadman.   But that won't change my plans for today.  Several of today's posts will be aimed at previous posts of yours.  You are welcome to deal with them as best you can.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


It was a request, FloydLee. No one *had* to agree.

This is quite unlike your AGREEMENT based on my stipulations of "good faith participation" -- an agreement that you chose to unethically and dishonestly disregard.
Posted by: deadman_932 on Oct. 02 2009,14:39

Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 02 2009,14:11)
#3 says that Evolution denies that human beings are created in the image of God.  The two evolutionist sources cited for this one were Nature science journal June 2007 and evolutionist James Rachels.  (And also Ernst Mayr, remember.)

Your answer?  That the biblical image-of-God claim must mean that God is literally a hominid.

But that is false.  That is not what the Bible's image-of-God claim entails.  The image-of-God thing is NOT talking about God having a belly button or a double chin or an Adam's apple or some ovaries.  "God is Spirit", the bible says.  

Instead, the image-of-God changes everything for US, for us humans.  WE are fundamentally & permanently different from ALL animals and all other Earth life because WE are created in the Image of God.  The Image Of God affects every part of us:  spirit, mind, AND body.  

WE have rationality, asthetics, abstract thought, superior intelligence, we're capable of conceptualizing way past three dimensions, capable of actual union and communion with God, and so many many other things, because every human is created in the Image of God.

But evolution denies all that.  Incompatibility #3.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


And to support this -- other than your opinion on the matter -- all you offer is the opinions of a couple of people that you have wrenched out of context and quote-mined. twisting them in a typical fanatic-apologist manner to suit your purposes, as if they were addressing your points.

Search long and hard enough and yes, you can find quotemines to display as if they are representative of an entire branch of science or science itself. Then you put up your claims PRETENDING as if they were intellectually related.


ETA: And notice that when I put up my cherry-picked quote showing the NAS statement that runs counter to  your  "must-have 'Big Five' " ---why, then you chose to selectively ignore that, along with so many other points against you.

You're merely running a low-level con game, in short.

And you believe this to be logically persuasive?
Posted by: Chayanov on Oct. 02 2009,14:49



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
WE have rationality, asthetics, abstract thought, superior intelligence, we're capable of conceptualizing way past three dimensions, capable of actual union and communion with God, and so many many other things, because every human is created in the Image of God.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


So, since you're not arguing rationally or intelligently at all, does that make it God's fault for screwing up his image in you?
Posted by: Schroedinger's Dog on Oct. 02 2009,14:50



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Instead, the image-of-God changes everything for US, for us humans.  WE are fundamentally & permanently different from ALL animals and all other Earth life because WE are created in the Image of God.  The Image Of God affects every part of us:  spirit, mind, AND body.  

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Then why the hell do we have to piss or crap? not so godly, IMO...

Another result of the fall? Before the fall there was no crap?

EDIT: sorry if I broke the protocol. This is just so tardalicious, I just needed another bite.

Quel grosse buse!*





*pardon my french
Posted by: Chayanov on Oct. 02 2009,14:57



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
But that is false.  That is not what the Bible's image-of-God claim entails.  The image-of-God thing is NOT talking about God having a belly button or a double chin or an Adam's apple or some ovaries.  "God is Spirit", the bible says.  

Instead, the image-of-God changes everything for US, for us humans.  WE are fundamentally & permanently different from ALL animals and all other Earth life because WE are created in the Image of God.  The Image Of God affects every part of us:  spirit, mind, AND body.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



So first you say God isn't a physical being, but "spirit".

Then you say that being created in God's image means both "spirit" and body.

Which brings us back to "God the Magical Hominid".
Posted by: Schroedinger's Dog on Oct. 02 2009,15:01

Quote (Chayanov @ Oct. 02 2009,21:57)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
But that is false.  That is not what the Bible's image-of-God claim entails.  The image-of-God thing is NOT talking about God having a belly button or a double chin or an Adam's apple or some ovaries.  "God is Spirit", the bible says.  

Instead, the image-of-God changes everything for US, for us humans.  WE are fundamentally & permanently different from ALL animals and all other Earth life because WE are created in the Image of God.  The Image Of God affects every part of us:  spirit, mind, AND body.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



So first you say God isn't a physical being, but "spirit".

Then you say that being created in God's image means both "spirit" and body.

Which brings us back to "God the Magical Hominid".
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I'm starting to see in FL's posts the desperate cry of someone trully wishing he was special.
Posted by: Chayanov on Oct. 02 2009,15:07

Quote (Schroedinger's Dog @ Oct. 02 2009,15:01)
Quote (Chayanov @ Oct. 02 2009,21:57)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
But that is false.  That is not what the Bible's image-of-God claim entails.  The image-of-God thing is NOT talking about God having a belly button or a double chin or an Adam's apple or some ovaries.  "God is Spirit", the bible says.  

Instead, the image-of-God changes everything for US, for us humans.  WE are fundamentally & permanently different from ALL animals and all other Earth life because WE are created in the Image of God.  The Image Of God affects every part of us:  spirit, mind, AND body.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



So first you say God isn't a physical being, but "spirit".

Then you say that being created in God's image means both "spirit" and body.

Which brings us back to "God the Magical Hominid".
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I'm starting to see in FL's posts the desperate cry of someone trully wishing he was special.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


His last few posts do kind of have that he's-trying-more-to-convince-himself-than-us vibe to them.
Posted by: Schroedinger's Dog on Oct. 02 2009,15:11

Quote (Chayanov @ Oct. 02 2009,22:07)
Quote (Schroedinger's Dog @ Oct. 02 2009,15:01)
Quote (Chayanov @ Oct. 02 2009,21:57)
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
But that is false.  That is not what the Bible's image-of-God claim entails.  The image-of-God thing is NOT talking about God having a belly button or a double chin or an Adam's apple or some ovaries.  "God is Spirit", the bible says.  

Instead, the image-of-God changes everything for US, for us humans.  WE are fundamentally & permanently different from ALL animals and all other Earth life because WE are created in the Image of God.  The Image Of God affects every part of us:  spirit, mind, AND body.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



So first you say God isn't a physical being, but "spirit".

Then you say that being created in God's image means both "spirit" and body.

Which brings us back to "God the Magical Hominid".
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I'm starting to see in FL's posts the desperate cry of someone trully wishing he was special.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


His last few posts do kind of have that he's-trying-more-to-convince-himself-than-us vibe to them.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


yep!


BTW, 300th post, so here comes:


THIS IS SPARTA!!!!!
Posted by: deadman_932 on Oct. 02 2009,15:11

To support his claim that evolution expressly denies the notion of "man created in god's image" which Floyd Lee says is absolutely essential to "TRUE CHRISTIAN" faith...he cites this Nature editorial (by definition, an opinion piece) :

Nature 447, 753  Published online 13 June 2007< Nature 447, 753 . Published online 13 June 2007 >
       

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Evolution and the brain
Abstract
With all deference to the sensibilities of religious people, the idea that man was created in the image of God can surely be put aside.

The vast majority of scientists, and the majority of religious people, see little potential for pleasure or progress in the conflicts between religion and science that are regularly fanned into flame by a relatively small number on both sides of the debate. Many scientists are religious, and perceive no conflict between the values of their science — values that insist on disinterested, objective inquiry into the nature of the Universe — and those of their faith.

But there are lines that should not be crossed, and in a recent defence of his beliefs and disbeliefs in the matter of evolution, US Senator Sam Brownback (Republican, Kansas) crosses at least one. Senator Brownback was one of three Republican presidential candidates who, in a recent debate, described himself as not believing in evolution. He sought to explain his position with greater nuance in a 31 May article in The New York Times, in which he wrote: "Man was not an accident and reflects an image and likeness unique in the created order. Those aspects of evolutionary theory compatible with this truth are a welcome addition to human knowledge. Aspects of these theories that undermine this truth, however, should be firmly rejected as atheistic theology posing as science."

Humans evolved, body and mind, from earlier primates. The ways in which humans think reflect this heritage as surely as the ways in which their limbs are articulated, their immune systems attack viruses and the cones in their eyes process coloured light. This applies not just to the way in which our neurons fire, but also to various aspects of our moral thought, as we report this week in a News Feature on the moral connotations of disgust (see page 768). The way that disgust functions in our lives and shapes our moral decisions reflects not just cultural training, but also biological evolution. Current theorizing on this topic, although fascinating, may be wide of the mark. But its basis in the idea that human minds are the product of evolution is not atheistic theology. It is unassailable fact.

This does not utterly invalidate the idea that the human mind is, as Senator Brownback would have it, a reflection of the mind of God. But the suggestion that any entity capable of creating the Universe has a mind encumbered with the same emotional structures and perceptual framework as that of an upright ape adapted to living in small, intensely social peer-groups on the African savannah seems a priori unlikely.

In Brownback's defence, it should be acknowledged that these are deep waters. It is fairly easy to accept the truth of evolution when it applies to the external world — the adaptation of the orchid to wasps, for example, or the speed of the cheetah. It is much harder to accept it internally — to accept that our feelings, intuitions, the ways in which we love and loathe, are the product of experience, evolution and culture alone. And such acceptance has challenges for the unbeliever, too. Moral philosophers often put great store by their rejection of the 'naturalistic fallacy', the belief that because something is a particular way, it ought to be that way. Now we learn that untutored beliefs about 'what ought to be' do, in fact, reflect an 'is': the state of the human mind as an evolved entity. Accepting this represents a challenge that few as yet have really grappled with.

It remains uncertain how the new sciences of human behaviour emerging at the intersections of anthropology, evolutionary biology and neuropsychology can best be navigated. But that does not justify their denunciation on the basis of religious faith alone. Scientific theories of human nature may be discomforting or unsatisfying, but they are not illegitimate. And serious attempts to frame them will reflect the origins of the human mind in biological and cultural evolution, without reference to a divine creation.


---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Then he grasps at this opinion quote from a philosopher (not a scientist) named James Rachels:          

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
"The image-of-God thesis does NOT go along with just any theistic view. It requires a theism that sees God as actively designing man and the world as a home for man." from "Created From Animals", c1990.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



No page given, and even the date is uncertain ("c" = "circa" meaning "about the date of 1990" ) What page of that book is that from, Floyd Lee? I'd like to check on the CONTEXT of that quote. I'd like to make sure that the author is not in fact arguing AGAINST the notion that God is a "big hominid in the sky" -- Have you actually read it?

---------------------  

That's it. Two opinions, one from a philosopher and one an editorial opinion piece that really doesn't support Floyd Lee's claims at all.
Posted by: deadman_932 on Oct. 02 2009,15:19

So, how many bogus quotes is that out of your total, Floyd ?

As I posted above, Floyd:

"Search long and hard enough and yes, you can find quotemines to display as if they are representative of an entire branch of science or science itself. Then you put up your claims PRETENDING as if they were intellectually related...

You're merely running a low-level con game, in short.

And you believe this to be logically persuasive? "
Posted by: FloydLee on Oct. 02 2009,15:30



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Posting a quote by Ernst Myer that indicates he rejects a need for any god based on his understanding of evolution is not the same thing as demonstrating that the ToE is incompatible with Christianity.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



First of all, you're directly misrepresenting Mayr's position, Deadman.  Let's read what he said again:
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Darwinism rejects all supernatural phenomena and causations. The theory of evolution by natural selection explains the adaptedness and diversity of the world solely materialistically.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Please note:  Mayr is not saying that MAYR rejects all supernatural phenomena and causation.  Mayr is not saying that MAYR explains the adaptiveness and diversity solely materialistically.

Mayr is saying that the theory of evolution is specifically what does those two things.  The incompatibility lies with theory of evolution, not with Mayr's personal belief system preferences.

Btw, this is a 100 percent matchup with Futuyma's evolutionary biology textbook page 342, which describes the evolutionary process specifically as "purely materialistic" and "a completely mindless process."  This stuff is straight Incomp #1 and Incomp #2 from both guys.

And remember, that is NOT merely Futuyma's personal opinion.  He supplied a specific rational reason for NT-NCF, previously quoted, and you guys (including Deadman) have been totally unable to address it let alone rebut it.

Therefore the clear Incompatibilities shown herein are clearly attributed to the ToE, not anybody's personal opinion.
Posted by: deadman_932 on Oct. 02 2009,15:38

Why don't you link to my actual post, Floyd Lee? At this point, I'm not even sure you're linking to something I wrote recently or weeks ago. Or at all, since you've misattributed things to me before in this thread.

In regard to Mayr's claims: sure, he can say that evolution, JUST AS WITH ALL SCIENCE, simply cannot address "supernaturalism" It doesn't deal with it at all, because it can't. This doesn't mean that Mayr says "God is not allowable as a prime mover that sets evolution into existence and motion"  

Oh, and you might want to address my posts immediately above your most recent.
Posted by: Schroedinger's Dog on Oct. 02 2009,15:40

May I?


Injecting supernatural causation in ANY scientific theory would end up destroying the theory itself. Not because it would make it invalid, but because it would make it untestable, unfalsifiable!

GODDIDIT is a very old, very worn out and very wrong way of trying to understand our world. With ideas or theories such as GODDIDIT, there would be no advancement in medicine, biology, technology, cosmology...

if you, FL are satisfied with the GODDIDIT explanation, good for you. But please don't try to convince others that their views are wrong. Try first to convince yourself that you still have a bit of faith left. And if you can't, join us on the dark side where every question begs a different answer and where the brain is actually more than a device made for cooling blood*.

Up yours! Again...



*thanks to those who got the reference...


Edited for bad stuff...
Posted by: Chayanov on Oct. 02 2009,15:41



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
But that is false.  That is not what the Bible's image-of-God claim entails.  The image-of-God thing is NOT talking about God having a belly button or a double chin or an Adam's apple or some ovaries.  "God is Spirit", the bible says.  

Instead, the image-of-God changes everything for US, for us humans.  WE are fundamentally & permanently different from ALL animals and all other Earth life because WE are created in the Image of God.  The Image Of God affects every part of us:  spirit, mind, AND body.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Thinking about this some more (yes, I know I've already put more thought into it than FL has).

If God is not a literal physical being, but "spirit" (whatever that is), and the image of God is a "spiritual" image, then there is no incompatibility because ToE has absolutely nothing whatsoever to say about "spirit".

That's why FL has to equivocate at the last minute and stick "body" back in there, in a desperate attempt to hold on to his #3. So the "God the Magical Hominid" counter still holds true.
Posted by: deadman_932 on Oct. 02 2009,15:45



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
FL has to equivocate at the last minute and stick "body" back in there, in a desperate attempt to hold on to his #3. So the "God the Magical Hominid" counter still holds true.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


And oddly, the Nature Editorial quote that he tried to use falsely, was also arguing against this "god as giant majick hominid" stupidity...yet Floyd Lee says it's counter to HIS view....which by default must be...

Yeah, readers get the idea -- Floyd Lee is confused at the least and dishonest to the extreme in all likelihood -- given the evidence in this thread.
Posted by: Chayanov on Oct. 02 2009,15:48

Quote (deadman_932 @ Oct. 02 2009,15:45)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
FL has to equivocate at the last minute and stick "body" back in there, in a desperate attempt to hold on to his #3. So the "God the Magical Hominid" counter still holds true.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


And oddly, the Nature quote that he tried to use falsely, was also arguing against this "god as hominid" stupidity...yet Floyd Lee says it's counter to HIS view....

I think Floyd Lee is confused at the least and dishonest to the extreme in all likelihood -- given the evidence in this thread.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Holding on to his "Big Five" at all costs seems to be more important to him than his actual beliefs.
Posted by: nmgirl on Oct. 02 2009,16:03

I think I have finally figured out the principal characteristic of ID:  the ability to cut and paste selected quotes from unsubstantiated sources.  God must be so proud of his creation.
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Oct. 02 2009,16:34

Quote (Erasmus, FCD @ Oct. 02 2009,13:38)
Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 02 2009,12:03)
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Is "God" part of the required explanation for why water runs downhill?

Yes or no.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Nope.  He's not.  Furthermore, hydrologists (unlike evolutionists) are silent on the issue of God as a required explantion.

(Please note, however:  In the Bible, God IS the required explanation for the origin of water itself.)

And also He is the Required Explanation for the origin of plants, animals, and (this is where you come in) humans too.

Of course, evolution and evolutionists deny that.  Which is why there's an Incompatiblity there.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


why is god not part of the required explanation for why water runs downhill, when he is part of the required explanation for the EXISTENCE OF WATER?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Floyd please address this.
Posted by: Quack on Oct. 02 2009,16:54



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
*pardon my french
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


No reason to apologize, we love the scent of french perfume, didn't the court of Louis seize rely on that to neutralize the stench too?
Posted by: FloydLee on Oct. 02 2009,18:14

Okay, Deadman, let's repeat the very clear abstract statement, the opening statement, of the Nature science journal June 2007 article "Evolution and the Brain."

 

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



First and foremost, that statement is very clear.   Can't skip over it, can't ignore it, can't pretend they didn't write it.

It's a clear denial statement.  They are saying, "Surely Put It Aside."  Nothing less.

Why are they saying that?  Because of evolution.  And also because of the Image-of-God thesis.  These evolutionists ARE directly saying that the two items are incompatible, specifically incompatible to the point where even religious people must abandon the Image-of-God thesis.

******

Check the article again Deadman.  First, their statement on the image of God.  You highlighted it in red (and thanks for doing so!).
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
But the suggestion that any entity capable of creating the Universe has a mind encumbered with the same emotional structures and perceptual framework as that of an upright ape adapted to living in small, intensely social peer-groups on the African savannah seems a priori unlikely.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


This is a variant of the error I addressed just previously, the "Image-Of-God Means God Has Belly-Button" error.

Those evolutionists are thinking that the biblical Image-of-God thesis somehow means God's mind must be "a mind encumbered with the same emotional structures and perceptual framework as that of an upright ape."

And given that way of thinking, their rational response is perfectly understandable:   "A priori unlikely."

But notice the force of what they said.  "A PRIORI." Don't even have to search for disconfirming evidences.  Don't even have to run any experiments.  Unlikely on the very face of it, meaning no further rational or scientific searching is needed, you can go ahead and make a perfectly rational choice to abandon it aside here and now.

THAT, is what they are saying in that Nature article.
No wonder that clear opening statement is never retracted nor neutralized.  

******

Oh sure sure, the evolutionists kindly say the words, "....does not utterly invalidate (Brownback's image-of-God) idea", but notice how they worded it.  
Not "utterly", nope.   Not abbbbsolute zero, nope.

But they ARE genuinely saying that the Image-Of-God thesis is so close to zero-likelihood that it is not even worth rationally or scientifically searching for any likelihood of it being true.  They are therefore NOT watering down their denial of the image of God, not retracting it at all.

******

Now, once again, the Nature evolutionists' notion of what the Image-of-God means is incorrect.  The image of God thesis is NOT "God has a belly button", it's NOT "God's mind is like an upright ape."   See Isa. 55:8, 9.
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
"For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways," declares the LORD.

"As the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways and my thoughts than your thoughts.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


So it's quite obvious that the Nature evolutionists have the wrong concept of the Image-Of-God.  It's not about God having a hominid mind or an upright-ape mind (the Bible clearly disproves that!), it's instead about US HUMANS being fundamentally and permanently different from and separate from and above the animals, even in our minds, because we humans are created in the image and likeness of God.  The image of God impacts every part of us---body, mind and spirit.  

The evolutionists' view of what is meant by "the image of God" in that article is flawed.  Very Badly.

******

But again, having said all that, the same key issue pops up as in the earlier discussion.  The linchpin of the Nature journal's opening statement is NOT their biblically illiterate view of what the Image-Of-God means, though that is important.  

Instead, you are told to abandon your belief of humans being created in the image of God simply because EVOLUTION simply precludes that particular belief.   They make this totally clear.  Evolution "without reference to a divine creation" originated your mind and any aspects of it that you might be tempted to ascribe to having the Image Of God in you, they say.  

You already read it, but read it again.  Don't try to duck this Deadman.
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Current theorizing on this topic, although fascinating, may be wide of the mark. But its basis in the idea that human minds are the product of evolution is not atheistic theology. It is unassailable fact....

Now we learn that untutored beliefs about 'what ought to be' do, in fact, reflect an 'is': the state of the human mind as an evolved entity. Accepting this represents a challenge that few as yet have really grappled with....

.....Scientific theories of human nature may be discomforting or unsatisfying, but they are not illegitimate. And serious attempts to frame them will reflect the origins of the human mind in biological and cultural evolution, without reference to a divine creation.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Now look at that.   How much clearer does it get folks?  These guys are NOT allowing you some kind of theistic evolution wiggle room on this one. Read it again.  They don't even try to string you along with any more "not utterly" crap.  
Whatever you think the Image of God may have done for you (WRT the origins of the human mind), the real deal is that Evolution DID it, divine creation specifically DIDN'T do it, and that's unassailable fact, they directly wrote.

Directly reinforcing their opening statement.  Not even TRYING to water down that clear, sharp abstract statement.

Can't ramp up an Incompatibility higher than that, can you Deadman?  Now you see that Incompatibility #3 is really a tough one.  We haven't even talked about what James Rachels said (btw, the exact year is 1990.  Will have the page number shortly.  That should make you happy.)

******

I suppose I should thank you for bringing up the entire Nature article so we can all see all those extra statements that clearly PROVE that they actually meant what they said in their clear and precise abstract statement.  They (and you) have done a fantastic job of proving the existence of Incompatibility #3.

FloydLee
Posted by: FloydLee on Oct. 02 2009,18:19



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Eh, he'll just pull a disappearing act to avoid specific questions anyway.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You wish, baby!  You got a full plate right there, (and ummm, you'll need to address it NOT duck it, okay?), and I got more comin' out the oven for you!
Posted by: Reciprocating Bill on Oct. 02 2009,19:04

I continue to agree with FloydLee on aspects of his argument. To the extent that "man was created in the image of God" refers to a representational process - to the notion that the form of human beings at any level (physical, affective, spiritual) was derived by means of a representation of any kind - we know that notion to be false. It is not the content of the putative representation that is the problem (spiritual versus physical, say), but rather the assertion of a role for representation of any kind in human origins. Selectionist causation has no need of representations of any kind, representation is absent from biological evolutionary mechanisms, and representation certainly had no role in human evolution.

To the extent that you insist upon a literalist interpretation of "image of God" as describing design by means of a representational process, so much the worst for Christianity, FloydLee. Variation and selection coupled with contingent history have been established beyond rational doubt as the author of the fundamental differences between human beings and other organisms with which we share a profound heritage. To argue otherwise places you squarely at odds with reality, and renders you yet one more dreary science denier.
Posted by: Stanton on Oct. 02 2009,19:59

Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 02 2009,18:19)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Eh, he'll just pull a disappearing act to avoid specific questions anyway.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You wish, baby!  You got a full plate right there, (and ummm, you'll need to address it NOT duck it, okay?), and I got more comin' out the oven for you!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


So then, why don't you cut out the smarm and explain why evolution allegedly denies that humans are made in the image of God is a problem when Christians, themselves, have historically either ignored the fact that humans are made in the image of God, or have denied that particular groups of humans are made in the image of God in order to visit all manner of atrocities on their fellow humans, including disenfranchisement, pogroms, racism, slavery and genocide?
Posted by: deadman_932 on Oct. 02 2009,20:20

Damn. Floyd Lee puts up that whole convoluted last post just to... what? Hide the fact that he got busted quote-mining again.

I think it's hilarious that when you get caught using your tricks you either pretend it doesn't exist or launch a full-scale denialist broadside, Floyd -- hoping to bury the facts in mounds of self-refuting or meaningless blather.

There is nothing in that Nature opinion editorial piece that precludes any Christian from simply believing that their God brought evolution into existence and action. Nothing.

Period, Floyd.

Your bizarre twisted meanderings will not change that.
Posted by: deadman_932 on Oct. 02 2009,20:25

Quote (George @ 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."
---------------------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.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


The last time you were asked to address this , you wound up making a complete fool of yourself and slinking away without actually addressing it, Floyd.

You've been asked to address it many times, Floyd -- say, nearly a dozen or so times. It was in my very first post to YOU here, Floyd -- WEEKS ago.  

Yet, you've never managed to respond directly to this, Floyd (save the aformentioned debacle when you crawled away).

So...Why is that, Floyd?
Posted by: Stanton on Oct. 02 2009,20:53

Quote (deadman_932 @ Oct. 02 2009,20:25)
The last time you were asked to address {the problem of the Pope}, you wound up making a complete fool of yourself and slinking away without actually addressing it, Floyd.

You've been asked to address it many times, Floyd -- say, nearly a dozen or so times. It was in my very first post to YOU here, Floyd -- WEEKS ago.  

Yet, you've never managed to respond directly to this, Floyd (save the aformentioned debacle when you crawled away).

So...Why is that, Floyd?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


That's because FL is here solely to preach at us with lies and distortions about how the only path to God is through believing that God magically and mysteriously poof everything and everyone on Earth into existence in grotesque contrast to the evidence, not to discuss anything, let alone discuss anything in a truthful manner.
Posted by: nmgirl on Oct. 02 2009,21:07

Quote (Stanton @ Oct. 02 2009,20:53)
Quote (deadman_932 @ Oct. 02 2009,20:25)
The last time you were asked to address {the problem of the Pope}, you wound up making a complete fool of yourself and slinking away without actually addressing it, Floyd.

You've been asked to address it many times, Floyd -- say, nearly a dozen or so times. It was in my very first post to YOU here, Floyd -- WEEKS ago.  

Yet, you've never managed to respond directly to this, Floyd (save the aformentioned debacle when you crawled away).

So...Why is that, Floyd?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


That's because FL is here solely to preach at us with lies and distortions about how the only path to God is through believing that God magically and mysteriously poof everything and everyone on Earth into existence in grotesque contrast to the evidence, not to discuss anything, let alone discuss anything in a truthful manner.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Stanton, I hate to tell you you're wrong. FL is here to tell us that he is the only person on this planet who speaks for God.  And until everyone accepts him as the second coming of Christ, he will just keep on blathering.
Posted by: Stanton on Oct. 02 2009,22:43

Quote (nmgirl @ Oct. 02 2009,21:07)
Quote (Stanton @ Oct. 02 2009,20:53)

That's because FL is here solely to preach at us with lies and distortions about how the only path to God is through believing that God magically and mysteriously poof everything and everyone on Earth into existence in grotesque contrast to the evidence, not to discuss anything, let alone discuss anything in a truthful manner.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Stanton, I hate to tell you you're wrong. FL is here to tell preach at us that he is the only person on this planet who speaks for God.  And until everyone accepts him as the second coming of Christ, he will just keep on blathering.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


There, fixed for you, sweetie.
Posted by: dheddle on Oct. 03 2009,05:04

I'm done with this thread. If FL ever addresses my critcism of point four of his manifesto, which I < posted on page one of this travesty >, maybe someome would be kind enough to notify me by PM.
Posted by: Quack on Oct. 03 2009,05:45

My sermon today:
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
The Jesus of Nazareth who came forward publicly as the Messiah, who preached the ethic of the Kingdom of God, who founded the Kingdom of Heaven upon earth, and died to give His work its final consecration, never had any existence. He is a figure designed by rationalism, endowed with life by liberalism, and clothed by modern theology in an historical garb
- Albert Schweitzer
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: Stanton on Oct. 03 2009,09:16

If Heddle honestly thought that FL was going to respond to his criticisms of FL's inane points in a thoughtful (and we're not even going to pretend that FL can respond honestly) manner, I own some Nevada beachfront property he'd be dying to acquire.
Posted by: Wesley R. Elsberry on Oct. 03 2009,09:27

Quote (dheddle @ Oct. 03 2009,05:04)
I'm done with this thread. If FL ever addresses my critcism of point four of his manifesto, which I < posted on page one of this travesty >, maybe someome would be kind enough to notify me by PM.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Have a good rest, David. Maybe a PM when FL concedes (as he should) or moves on to his next topic (as he probably will do) will suffice.
Posted by: Dale_Husband on Oct. 03 2009,13:07

I never expected this "debate" to be productive. So for my final posts on this thread, I'll bring all my earlier points together:

 

---------------------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, see here:
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------

< http://circleh.wordpress.com/2009....genesis >

It’s not just evolution that discredits Genesis!

It’s modern astronomy as well, as this one verse makes painfully clear:

Genesis 1:16 – “God made two great lights – the greater light to rule the day and the lesser light to rule the night. He made the stars also.”

Of course, one looking at the night sky with no knowledge of modern astronomy would assume that  the stars are nothing more than a decoration  to add to the light provided by the Sun and the Moon. But in fact, many stars are far bigger and brighter than the Sun and ALL stars are also suns, greater lights in their own star systems.

< http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z8BncJ7XMLk >

Had that Bible verse been inspired by the true Creator of the universe, it might have been written: “God made billions of great lights, one of which we call the Sun that rules our days, and also made a lesser light to rule the night.”

Ironically,  in another part of the Bible, we read:

Psalms 19:1-2: “The heavens declare the glory of God; the skies proclaim the work of his hands. Day after day they pour forth speech; night after night they display knowledge.”

If that is true, then clearly we need to toss out the references to the Sun, the Moon, and the stars in Genesis, since they fail to “declare the glory of God” and also fail to “display knowledge” like the heavens are supposed to do according to the 19th Psalm.


---------------------QUOTE-------------------



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


---------------------QUOTE-------------------


 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------

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




 

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


---------------------QUOTE-------------------



---------------------QUOTE-------------------



 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------

ALL parts of science rely on methological naturalism, not just evolution. It's just that religious fanatics like FL keep asserting, without any real evidence, that life could not have arisen without supernatural intervention. In science, the proper answer to that question is, "We do not know yet."  You no longer assert that God controls the weather for two reasons:

1. It makes you look totally rediculous to do so, since the causes of changing weather patterns ARE well known and have been for decades.

2. When storms, droughts, heat waves and floods occur, it makes God look evil to say He is responsible for them.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------

When you read the Sermon on the Mount, does it say anything against evolution? Not that I've ever seen. Isn't following its teachings and other statements by Jesus what being a Christian is all about? Isn't being a Christian about following Jesus, not following some particular interpretation that assumes the Genesis creation myths are literally true?

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.  FL, on the other hand, seems to have a lower opinion of most religious  people than I do. Ironic, isn't it?

The important point to remember is that Christianity is not based on the literal truth of the Book of Genesis. It is based on whether you beleive that Jesus was the Messiah predicted to come and save the world.

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Matthew 16:15-19 (King James Version)

15 [Jesus] saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am?

16 And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.

17 And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.

18 And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

19 And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Nothing there about believeing in Creationism. Especially not the Young Earth kind.


---------------------QUOTE-------------------





---------------------QUOTE-------------------


On what basis does FL, or anyone else, have to claim that the Bible is inerrant? Or that the inerrancy of the Bible is the only reason to beleive in Christianity? Or that we must believe every part of the Bible from Genesis to Revelation?

If we threw out the first eleven chapters of Genesis and just kept the Gospels, we would still have the foundation of Christianity. So FL's claim that evolution and Christianity are incompatable are not based on any definite proof at all. The claim that the Bible is the Word of God, and that we know God is real from the Bible, is circular reasoning that has no value whatsoever. You can have faith in the Bible, but not to the point of stupidity. God gave us minds to seek truth and expose and reject falsehoods. We insult God by not using those minds.

< http://www.care2.com/c2c....pg.html >


---------------------QUOTE-------------------



 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


< http://talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA622.html >

Claim CA622:
Without a literal Fall, there is no need for redemption and thus no need for Jesus or Christianity.
Source:
Grant, Heber J., Anthony W. Ivins, and Charles W. Nibley. n.d. Mormon view of evolution. < http://www.lightplanet.com/mormons....eom.htm >
Morris, Henry M. 1998. The fall, the curse, and evolution. Back to Genesis 112 (Apr.). < http://www.icr.org/index.p....&ID=837 >
Response:
1. It is sin in general, and not merely one particular instance of sin, that makes redemption necessary. If you can find any sin in the world, then the claim is baseless. Proof of this is given by the fact that many Christians feel the need for redemption but do not believe in a literal Fall.

2. This claim implies that sin and redemption are about things that happened thousands of years ago, not about anything happening to us today. It makes religion less relevant to people's lives.

3. Origins are not determined by our personal decisions of what religion to follow.


---------------------QUOTE-------------------



 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


What Young Earth Creationists claim is that all those dinosaurs and other creatures buried in the rocks ARE proof of the Great Flood.

NO, THEY ARE NOT! The only way that could be halfway plausible is if the creatures buried were simular to those living today. In fact, the overwhelming majority of them are NOT! Indeed, one of the fundamental assumptions of early Creationists was that extinction was not supposed to happen because that would spoil God's perfect plan for the universe.

So today's Creationists get around that difficulty by asserting that dinosaurs DID exist, but they died out after the Flood. Which makes one wonder why God would have had them preserved on the Ark in the first place.

Face it: The Bible was written by and for people who lived on a FLAT Earth that was STATIONARY and only a FEW THOUSAND YEARS OLD. Anyone who asserts that the Bible is consistent with modern science is a liar, including FL.

And that is why I assert that anyone who claims the Bible is the Word of God is a BLASPHEMER! No real Creator God would EVER have inspired such a shoddy work!

FL really doesn't get it, does he? His obsession with proving that evolution is incompatible with Christianity is bound to result in the total downfall of the religion. People don't like being lied to about something as fundamental as their origins or ancestry and he cannot fool people who know all the facts and live up to them. He makes God look like a liar, which is the ultimate blasphemy. Of course, if he WANTS to beleive in a God who is a liar and an idiot, be my guest. Don't expect me and others who know better to accept that.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: Dale_Husband on Oct. 03 2009,13:20

Here's more from my earlier posts:
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------

If the Pope is not afraid of denouncing abortion and birth control, which cause many secular people to laugh at or scorn him, why would he be afraid to be a YEC and say so openly?

FL needs to realize that a lie is a lie, no matter where it is found, even in the Bible itself. Science can find truth about the universe we live in and we can use that science to test the validity of any theology.

So with science we can throw out the first eleven chapters of Genesis, but keep the ethical teachings of Jesus. The assumption that we must accept the literal teachings of Genesis is nonsense. Jesus is not even mentioned there!

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
 

< http://talkorigins.org/indexcc/CH/CH050.html >
Claim CH050:
True science and true religion are founded on Genesis. All Biblical doctrines have their foundations laid there, and the book of Genesis itself is founded on the events of its first chapter.
Source:
Morris, Henry M. 1983. Creation is the foundation. Impact 126 (Dec.). < http://www.icr.org/index.p....&ID=218 >
Response:
1. This claim is an instance of religious bigotry. Lots of religions, including Buddhism, Hinduism, Druidism, and many more, have no connection with Genesis at all. For a person to say that these are not true religions is
A. a gross insult to the people who practice the religions. Many of these people are highly devout, with a spiritual relationship at least as great as any creationist.
B. a gross insult to God. The person is saying that God's revelation must coincide with his own opinion to be valid, that God cannot reveal himself differently to different people. Anyone making this claim places themself above God.
C. a disservice to oneself. Bigotry is hateful and will prevent good relationships with good people.


2. If Genesis is so all-important, why do creationists reject serious study of it? Modern (and even not-so-modern) scholarship has revealed much about the authors of Genesis (called J, E, P, and R) and other books of the Old Testament, including their motivations and places in history. For example, the Flood account is an interleaving of two different flood stories by J and P (Friedman 1987). Creationists studiously avoid any such knowledge. (Creationists are not alone in this; most Christians generally are woefully ignorant of biblical scholarship.)


3. Ideas in other parts of the Bible stand on their own. Creationists themselves frequently quote them out of context. The Old Testament itself refers to documents that no longer exist; the Book of the Wars of the Lord (Num. 21:14); the Book of Jasher (Josh. 10:13, 2 Sam. 1:18); and others (1 Kings 11:41; 14:29, 19, 16:5; 1 Chron. 29:29; 2 Chron. 20:34, 13:22). Knowledge of earlier scriptures is helpful but not critical. Jesus sometimes rejected the letter of some Old Testament laws, so the letter of the Old Testament cannot be too important, and Jesus exemplified the spirit. The reason creationists find Genesis so important is because they depend on it, not because other parts of the Bible depend on it.


4. If one believes that God created the earth and heavens, then surely the earth and heavens are God's primary work. Study of the earth and heavens should be foundational. Placing an object such as the Bible before them is idolatry.


5. No accepted science has ever been based on the Bible. That is not for lack of trying. Up to the nineteenth century, serious scientists tried to accomodate literal readings of the Bible to what they saw in nature. Young-earth creationism failed early on, so scientists tried gap creationism, day-age creationism, and other attempted reconciliations. But purely Bible-based science has always failed. True science is based on reality as expressed in the world (Young 1988).

---------------------QUOTE-------------------




 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


< http://talkorigins.org/indexcc/CH/CH101_1.html >
Claim CH101.1:
If the Bible cannot be trusted on scientific and historical matters, then it cannot be trusted on matters of salvation and spirituality.
Source:
Morris, Henry M., 2000. The vital importance of believing in recent creation. Back to Genesis 138 (June). < http://www.icr.org/index.p....&ID=874 >
Response:
1. The Bible was not intended to teach matters of science and history. Therefore, those areas should not be held to standards of literal accuracy.


2. The general ideas in the Bible, such as salvation and God's majesty, do not rely on literalism for their communication. An error or contradiction in detail does not affect the overall message.


3. The claim is a non sequitur. That something is wrong in one area does not prevent it from being perfectly accurate in another.


4. Theologians through the ages have considered parts of the Bible suspect but accepted the rest as canon. In fact, it was exactly such a process by which canon was determined. Even Martin Luther considered some Old Testament passages suspect (Armstrong 1996; Engwer n.d.; Shea 1997).


5. A logical consequence of this claim is that the Bible cannot, in fact, be trusted, because parts of it (not only Genesis) are known to be wrong if interpreted literally.

6. Creationists themselves sometimes make claims that contradict the Bible. For example, Whitcomb and Morris (1961, 69) claimed, contrary to Genesis 7:21-23, that some land animals not aboard Noah's ark survived.


---------------------QUOTE-------------------



 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


< http://talkorigins.org/indexcc/CH/CH102_2_1.html >
Claim CH102.2.1:
Jesus refers to creation and flood as though they were literal, which shows that those stories were, in fact, literal.
Source:
Morris, Henry M. 1985. Scientific Creationism. Green Forest, AR: Master Books, p. 204,246,253-254.
Response:
Jesus's referring to traditional stories does not mean those stories were literal. People today refer to "the boy who cried wolf" and "blind men examining an elephant" and other stories the same way. Yet they do not consider those stories to be literally true. Their value, and the value of the stories Jesus refers to, is as stories, not as historical record.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------




 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


< http://talkorigins.org/indexcc/CH/CH102.html >
Claim CH102:
The Bible should be read literally.
Source:
Morris, Henry M. 1985. Scientific Creationism. Green Forest, AR: Master Books, p. 204.
Response:
1. A literal reading of the Bible misses the meaning behind the details (Hyers 1983). It is like reading Aesop's Fables without trying to see the moral of the stories. Finding the meaning in a figurative reading requires more thought, but is thinking about the Bible a bad thing?


2. There are many inconsistencies and inaccuracies in the Bible that cannot be resolved without excessive pseudological contortions unless one does not take them literally. Augustine said,
Quote  
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 (Augustine 1982, 42-43).  

Augustine's warning has merit. The invalid "proofs" necessary to support antievolution, a global flood, and a young earth, and the contradictions implied by literalism have pushed people away from Christianity (Hildeman 2004; Morton n.d.).


3. There are several passages of the Bible itself that indicate that it should not be taken literally:
2 Corinthians 3:6 says of the new covenant, "the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life."
1 Corinthians 9:9-12 says that one of the laws of Moses is figurative, not literal.
Galatians 4:24 says that the story of Abraham is an allegory.
Jesus frequently taught in parables, with the obvious intention that the lesson from the story, not the details of the story, was what was important.


4. There is extensive tradition in Christianity, including Catholicism and Protestantism, of accepting nonliteral interpretations (Rogerson 1992). Biblical literalism is not a requirement; it is a fashion.


5. Reading the Bible requires consideration of the society in which and for which it was written. The pressing issue in Israel when Genesis 1 was written was monotheism versus polytheism. Genesis 1 is written to show that different aspects of nature -- light and dark, earth and sky, sun, moon, and stars, plants and animals -- do not have their separate gods but all fall under one God (Hyers 1983).


6. Nobody reads the Bible entirely literally anyway. For example, when God says, "into your hands they [all wild animals] are delivered" (Gen. 9:2), the phrase is obviously meant metaphorically.


7. Even reading the Bible literally requires interpretation. For example, what does "fountains of the deep" (Prov. 8:28) mean?

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



---------------------QUOTE-------------------


 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
If the world is only a few thousand years old, why did God fake the ages of the rocks?

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


This illustrates the blasphemy of Young Earth Creationism (YEC). There is no evidence that God actually inspired the Bible, but it stands to reason that if any sort of God created the universe, we can learn about Him by studying His Creation. YECs claiming that we can learn more about God by studing some man-made book rather than something, the universe itself, that man could not have made is an absurdity, quite simply. Science depends on the physical and chemical laws being consistent over time and space, without exception. If that is not so, then reality itself becomes meaningless.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



And that's the last of it. In truth, the only way you can prove evolution is incompatible with Christianity is to show where Jesus himself (not Paul, not Moses, not anyone else) denied that evolution ever happened and that the Earth MUST be only a few thousand years old. Why? Because the teachings of JESUS are supposed to be the foundation of Christianity, not the Book of Genesis or the writings of Paul!
Posted by: Badger3k on Oct. 03 2009,13:32

Quote (Stanton @ Oct. 02 2009,12:40)
Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 02 2009,11:03)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Is "God" part of the required explanation for why water runs downhill?

Yes or no.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Nope.  He's not.  Furthermore, hydrologists (unlike evolutionists) are silent on the issue of God as a required explantion.

(Please note, however:  In the Bible, God IS the required explanation for the origin of water itself.)

And also He is the Required Explanation for the origin of plants, animals, and (this is where you come in) humans too.

Of course, evolution and evolutionists deny that.  Which is why there's an Incompatiblity there.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Explain to us why you don't think that God is a necessary requirement for explaining the science of how water flows downhill, yet, think that God, or more precisely, GODPOOFEDIT is the only explanation necessary, under pain of eternal torment at the hands of God, for explaining the origin and diversity of life?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I think a better analogy might be that since evolution is an ongoing process, a comparable non-biological function might be the weather.  I know YHVH was supposed to have been a sky or mountain god, but is He behind every cloud that forms, every breeze that blows, etc...
Posted by: Stanton on Oct. 03 2009,14:38

Quote (Badger3k @ Oct. 03 2009,13:32)
Quote (Stanton @ Oct. 02 2009,12:40)
Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 02 2009,11:03)
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Is "God" part of the required explanation for why water runs downhill?

Yes or no.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Nope.  He's not.  Furthermore, hydrologists (unlike evolutionists) are silent on the issue of God as a required explantion.

(Please note, however:  In the Bible, God IS the required explanation for the origin of water itself.)

And also He is the Required Explanation for the origin of plants, animals, and (this is where you come in) humans too.

Of course, evolution and evolutionists deny that.  Which is why there's an Incompatiblity there.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Explain to us why you don't think that God is a necessary requirement for explaining the science of how water flows downhill, yet, think that God, or more precisely, GODPOOFEDIT is the only explanation necessary, under pain of eternal torment at the hands of God, for explaining the origin and diversity of life?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I think a better analogy might be that since evolution is an ongoing process, a comparable non-biological function might be the weather.  I know YHVH was supposed to have been a sky or mountain god, but is He behind every cloud that forms, every breeze that blows, etc...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Hypocritically, FL sees no conflict between Christianity and Meteorology, even though Meteorology does not posit God as an explanation for any weather-related phenomena, let alone positing God as the penultimate explanation for all weather-related phenomena, and that FL apparently sees nothing horrible and conflicting about the fact that millions upon millions of people suffer horrifying hardships and or death directly due to weather-related phenomena every year (i.e., drought, tornadoes, floods, storms, hurricanes).
Posted by: deadman_932 on Oct. 03 2009,14:59

Quote (Badger3k @ Oct. 03 2009,13:32)
 I know YHVH was supposed to have been a sky or mountain god, but is He behind every cloud that forms, every breeze that blows, etc...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Maybe FloydLee has a point, then.
His arguments sure blow.

Ba-dum-bum.
Posted by: csadams on Oct. 03 2009,18:55

Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 02 2009,09:29)

   
Quote (csadams]Likewise @ no evidence that those particular editions are used in any public school district in Kansas.  No evidence that such a statement appears in current editions of Miller's textbook.  FL seems to expect us to believe there existed/exists a deliberate attempt by Miller to deceive school boards and to evade court scrutiny.  Does it really surprise anyone that FL has no evidence? [/quote)

(1) No claim was made that those two particular editions were used in Kansas.  Strawman, Csadams?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Thank you for making it clear that high school kids in Kansas aren't faced with science textbooks which detail any supposed conflict between faith and evolution.  Yes, given my profession, I tend to focus on the applications - how will all of this affect what I teach in the classroom each and every single day?

   
Quote (FloydLee](2) I made it clear that Miller's wording was not in current editions.  I said @ "the first two editions".

(3) The FTE brief makes absolutely clear what the point of the Miller example was, relative to their textbook issue.  (Which of course poked a hole right into "Matzke and Forrest's" stuff.)  

I also pointed out, relative to OUR thread topic here, that Miller's statement actually reinforced one of the Incompatibilities.

Curiously, Csadams has nothing to say to refute those actual points themselves.  Cat got your tongue Cs?  

(4) You asked about a cite.  The FTE amicus brief itself directly cited, [i)
"Joseph S. Levine and Kenneth R. Miller, Biology: Discovering Life 152 (D.C. Heath and Co., 1st ed. 1992; this language was not removed for the 2nd ed. in 1994)."[/i]  

Clear enough.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Sorry, Floyd, I just can't trust you to provide accurate information about textbooks.  That's why I'm asking for you to provide a page scan rather than an FTE cite.  It takes a hell of a faith in a person to trust them after it's been betrayed, and right now I trust you less than I could throw your car.  I know, I know, you don't really give a rat's ass whether I trust you or your sources.  (You and I have been interacting for a few years on the 'tubes, and you know that until the past couple of weeks I'd always been civil to you.  Which means that when I start cussin' at you, you've messed up, big time.)

Anyway.

Matzke & Forrest were able to show how the definition of "intelligent design" = that of "creationism" using the OPaP drafts.  If you can show where Miller simply used a search/replace to substitute in one phrase for another within the supposed incompatibility text, leaving the meaning intact, please, by all means do so.

   
Quote (FL](5) You try to link to an earlier PT discussion not related to the FTE quotation or to an Incompatibility @ [b)
but that's a two way street you're walking.[/b]  Let's walk together for a minute.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



It was pointed out to you by many commenters that a high-school level textbook is not the appropriate place for upper-undergrad/grad level concepts.

And the fact remains that your goof went beyond "not reading carefully enough."  You relied on a creationist website to provide you with accurate quotes from the book as well as with supposed errors found within it, yet you presented the argument as your own.  You led us to believe that you had actually *seen* a copy of the Holt text, that you even had access to a copy, that you'd actually done this research.  And you hadn't.

[quote=FloydLee]But, again we're kinda wandering a bit.   Let's bring it back a little.  
Csadams, you say you are a Christian.  Can you tell me your specific reasons, based on your own professed Christian beliefs, why you believe that evolution is somehow compatible with Christianity?[/quote]

< Asked and answered. >  You've been shown a multitude of examples of Christians who've no problems with evolution.  That your sect has those problems isn't my problem, isn't evolution's problem, it's your problem.  Besides, < Jasper summed it up pretty well earlier. >

(BTW, Dr. Heddle, your site has some interesting reading - thanks!)

Hey y'all, I'm sorry the formatting's so screwed up and that I'm in too big of a hurry to fix it.
Posted by: Stanton on Oct. 03 2009,20:21



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
csadams said


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
FloydLee saidBut,again we're kinda wandering a bit.   Let's bring it back a little.  
Csadams, you say you are a Christian.  Can you tell me your specific reasons, based on your own professed Christian beliefs, why you believe that evolution is somehow compatible with Christianity?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



< Asked and answered. >  You've been shown a multitude of examples of Christians who've no problems with evolution.  That your sect has those problems isn't my problem, isn't evolution's problem, it's your problem.  Besides, < Jasper summed it up pretty well earlier. >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


FL's response to all of the examples of Christians who have no conflict between their faith and accepting the reality of evolution has been to either pretend that such Christians never existed, or lie and quotemine them as claiming that they do have conflict between their faith and accepting the reality of evolution.

Says alot about FL's own faith if he has to resort to such underhanded and despicable tactics to support his own claims.
Posted by: Dan on Oct. 04 2009,19:09

Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 02 2009,15:30)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Posting a quote by Ernst Myer that indicates he rejects a need for any god based on his understanding of evolution is not the same thing as demonstrating that the ToE is incompatible with Christianity.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



First of all, you're directly misrepresenting Mayr's position, Deadman.  Let's read what he said again:
   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Darwinism rejects all supernatural phenomena and causations. The theory of evolution by natural selection explains the adaptedness and diversity of the world solely materialistically.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Please note:  Mayr is not saying that MAYR rejects all supernatural phenomena and causation.  Mayr is not saying that MAYR explains the adaptiveness and diversity solely materialistically.

Mayr is saying that the theory of evolution is specifically what does those two things.  The incompatibility lies with theory of evolution, not with Mayr's personal belief system preferences.

...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


The theory of evolution does reject supernatural phenomena.  In fact, all science rejects supernatural phenomena.

This does not mean that supernatural phenomena don't exist, it means that science is not equipped to study them.

Here's an analogy:  Plumbing rejects supernatural phenomena, too.  Plumbers don't pray over their pipes, to make sure they don't leak.  Plumbers don't read the Bible searching for clues as to where the hidden pipes within the house at 141 Lake Street are located.

Yet plumbing is certainly compatible with Christianity ... My own plumber is a born-again Christian, for example.  A fine plumber, too.

Once again, FL's own arguments prove that FL's claim is false.
Posted by: FloydLee on Oct. 04 2009,21:51



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
For your fifth alleged incompatibility, why do you think that things like predation, internal parasites or old age are terrible, horrible things that conflict with the Love of God, when the Bible mentions numerous terrible, horrible things done either by God, or done as per the commands of God, including total annihilation of life on Earth simply for the sin of humans, numerous murders, and genocide of entire nations, save for the virgin daughters who were taken as child slaves to reward the Jewish army?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Okay, back again.  Sort of starting with page 20 but will go back and forth, try to respond to as many as possible.

The above quotation is Stanton's, and it simply echoes what another poster or two already tried to argue in response to the Fifth Incompatibility.   The general idea seems to be:

"Evolution is cruel and sadistic, but hey that's okay, evolution is still compatible with Christianity because God is cruel and sadistic too."

To which I once again reply, "How many Christians do you honestly think will buy into that line of argument?"

FloydLee
Posted by: FloydLee on Oct. 04 2009,21:58



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
The theory of evolution does reject supernatural phenomena.  In fact, all science rejects supernatural phenomena.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



This is one of two responses that I particularly want to focus on tonight.  It's been echoed in various posts in this thread  (I think by Reed, Deadman, Csadams, and maybe a couple others too; the above quote is Dan's version.)

That's one that I haven't yet gotten to, so I particularly want to go there today.

The other claim to reply to, would be Deadman's claim that I am somehow quotemining.  One of the things I love to do is critically examining people's accusations of quotemining, (especially when I know they're wrong!), and that's where I'll start.  

After that, we can look at the line of argument summarized in Dan's quote above and see how well it fares.

FloydLee
Posted by: FloydLee on Oct. 04 2009,22:16

So, regarding the accusation of quote-mining by Deadman, let's review:
   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
(First Incompatiblity)

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

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


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


Unchallenged (AFAIK, please correct me if a previous post claimed "quote-mining" on this specific quote.)

******
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
(First Incompatibility)

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

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


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

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Challenged; but the challenged was defeated by showing that (1) Mayr spoke in present tense not past tense, (2) nowhere in the article does Mayr take anything back or alter it; and (3)  Mayr brings up and re-affirms the first two Incompatibilities again in his concluding summary paragraph.   (And as we saw, he even finds a way to re-affirm the Third Incompatibillity in his article as well.)

These facts clearly overcome the challenge that was presented.

Hence, no quotemining, no misunderstanding, no ducking.  Mayr was very very clear.  No quote-mine accusation can be sustained here.
Posted by: FloydLee on Oct. 04 2009,22:25

Okay, continuing on with Deadman's claim of "quote-mining."
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
(Second Imcompatibility)

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

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


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


Unchallenged, AFAIK. (But please correct me if a previous post has claimed "quote-mining" on this specific quote.)

***
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
(Second Incompatibility)

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

The process cannot have a goal, any more than than erosion has the goal of forming canyons, for the future cannot cause material events in the past."
 ---EB3, pg 342.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Unchallenged, AFAIK.  (Again, if you saw a previous post that did claim this quote was specifically a quotemine, let me know.)

***
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
(Second Incompatiblity)

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

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



Unchallenged, AFAIK.  Let me know if these were accused of being quotemines.

FloydLee
Posted by: Henry J on Oct. 04 2009,22:49

Mayr is one person. His opinion on theological matters is only his opinion; it is not part of the science.

Evolution theory doesn't use any "supernatural" factors, but that's because nobody has found patterns of evidence that could be explained by such. As long as no such patterns are found, there's no way such could be incorporated into science.

The alleged incompatability between "created by God" and "evolved" is based on the assumption that God's intent required that the resulting creatures have particular anatomical and biochemical traits, and appear at a particular time and location in the universe. I don't see any reason why a theist would make such assumptions central to their beliefs.

But that aside, why would somebody who claims to be defending Christianity put a lot of effort into producing arguments that would drive educated people away from it if those people were to actually pay attention to those arguments?

Henry
Posted by: FloydLee on Oct. 04 2009,22:51

Okay, let's check on the Third Incompatibility.  Trying to find "quote-mines" as was claimed by Deadman.
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------

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

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

 
Challenged, like the Mayr article was, very sincerely and seriously.  

However, upon closer examination of the entire article (see previous page or two), it turned out that this opening statement of the Nature article was NEVER recanted, never taken back, throughout the article.

In fact, the opening quoted statement was re-affirmed from multiple additional quotations in the article itself, even to the point of setting up a DIRECT contrast/conflict between evolution and "divine creation" at the end of the article.  

Challenge defeated.

***
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
(Third Incompatibility)

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

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



Unchallenged, AFAIK.  No claim of quotemining.
Posted by: FloydLee on Oct. 04 2009,22:56

Almost done.  Fourth Incompatibility.  Checking on Deadman's claim that I'm quotemining.
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
"Destroy Adam and Eve and the original sin, and in the rubble you will find the sorry remains of the son of god.

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


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


Unchallenged, AFAIK.  Nobody has claimed that this is a quotemine.
Posted by: Jasper on Oct. 04 2009,23:00

Quote (Henry J @ Oct. 04 2009,23:49)
But that aside, why would somebody who claims to be defending Christianity put a lot of effort into producing arguments that would drive educated people away from it if those people were to actually pay attention to those arguments?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I've always thought that FL specializes in a sort of "evangelism-in-reverse."

He seeks out places on the Internet where there are likely to a high percentage of non-Christians, and then he does his best to increase that percentage.
Posted by: Stanton on Oct. 04 2009,23:00

Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 04 2009,21:51)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
For your fifth alleged incompatibility, why do you think that things like predation, internal parasites or old age are terrible, horrible things that conflict with the Love of God, when the Bible mentions numerous terrible, horrible things done either by God, or done as per the commands of God, including total annihilation of life on Earth simply for the sin of humans, numerous murders, and genocide of entire nations, save for the virgin daughters who were taken as child slaves to reward the Jewish army?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Okay, back again.  Sort of starting with page 20 but will go back and forth, try to respond to as many as possible.

The above quotation is Stanton's, and it simply echoes what another poster or two already tried to argue in response to the Fifth Incompatibility.   The general idea seems to be:

"Evolution is cruel and sadistic, but hey that's okay, evolution is still compatible with Christianity because God is cruel and sadistic too."
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Actually, the line of reason is why do you consider evolution to be cruel and evil when God is depicted in the Bible doing cruel and evil acts, or commanding people to be cruel and evil?

You refuse to realize that evolutionary biology is descriptive, not proscriptive or prescriptive.  If Creationism is true, and evolution false because it's horrible to conceive that predation, internal parasites and old age are a part of the natural world, you're still going to explain why we have such things occurring.  As for Creationism's explanation for everything not nice in the world...  You suppose you could explain why God loves all of us if He's also punishing every single living thing with pain and death for the actions of the first two humans?



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
To which I once again reply, "How many Christians do you honestly think will buy into that line of argument?"
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


So please explain to us why the current Pope does not buy your line of argument.
Posted by: FloydLee on Oct. 04 2009,23:11

And finally, the Fifth Incompatibility.  Check to see if I've quote-mined anybody as claimed by Deadman.

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
"Evolution by natural selection, you see, is an awful process. It is bloody, sadistic, and cruel. It flouts every moral precept we humans hold dear.

It recognizes only survival and gene propagation, and even on those rare occasions where you find altruism and non-selfishness you can be certain that blind self-interest is lurking somewhere behind the scenes.

All of this suffering, pain and misery, mind you, to reach a foreordained moment when self-aware creature finally appeared.

What theological purpose was served by all this bloodsport? If humans were inevitable why didn't God simply fast-forward the tape himself, thereby sparing all of those animals that died horrible deaths in the preceding hundreds of millions of years?

....Reconciling evolution and Christianity is not as simple as theistic evolutionists often try to pretend."


---Jason Rosenhouse's Evolutionblog, "My Review of Only A Theory", June 21, 2008.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Unchallenged.  Nobody's claimed that it's a quotemine.  (The article is online if you wanna check for yourself.)

******

Okay, that's that, Deadman.  All five.  Your move.   Support your accusation of quote-mining.
Posted by: Stanton on Oct. 04 2009,23:33

Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 04 2009,23:11)
And finally, the Fifth Incompatibility.  Check to see if I've quote-mined anybody as claimed by Deadman.

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
"Evolution by natural selection, you see, is an awful process. It is bloody, sadistic, and cruel. It flouts every moral precept we humans hold dear.

It recognizes only survival and gene propagation, and even on those rare occasions where you find altruism and non-selfishness you can be certain that blind self-interest is lurking somewhere behind the scenes.

All of this suffering, pain and misery, mind you, to reach a foreordained moment when self-aware creature finally appeared.

What theological purpose was served by all this bloodsport? If humans were inevitable why didn't God simply fast-forward the tape himself, thereby sparing all of those animals that died horrible deaths in the preceding hundreds of millions of years?

....Reconciling evolution and Christianity is not as simple as theistic evolutionists often try to pretend."


---Jason Rosenhouse's Evolutionblog, "My Review of Only A Theory", June 21, 2008.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Unchallenged.  Nobody's claimed that it's a quotemine.  (The article is online if you wanna check for yourself.)

******

Okay, that's that, Deadman.  All five.  Your move.   Support your accusation of quote-mining.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Are you a vegan, FL?  I mean, with the way you eagerly bring up your alleged fifth point of incompatibility like an old war scar, one would get the idea that you find the idea of eating meat to be incompatible with Christianity, or at least, makes you nauseous with anxiety.
Posted by: Henry J on Oct. 04 2009,23:34

Animals have been eating other animals for food for as long as there have been animals, regardless of whether they evolved or not. So if Christianity is incompatible with that fact, then inserting evolution as a scapegoat is invalid logic.

Henry
Posted by: FloydLee on Oct. 04 2009,23:46



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Mayr is one person. His opinion on theological matters is only his opinion; it is not part of the science.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


But as we've seen with a little help from his evolutionist colleagues, Mayr's position IS actually part of the science.  Textbook-taught.  Multiple affirmations; it's very clear now that Mayr is NOT JUST "one person".

For example, evolutionary theory ITSELF gives us the NT-NCF position (as Futuyma so succintly documented).  It's not about Mayr's private personal theological beliefs.

Btw, have you noticed something here?  Where are the professional evolutionist quotations that specifically REFUTE the professional evolutionist quotations that I'm offering on each of the specific Big Five Incompatibilities?

For example, where are the evolutionary biology textbooks that say "Evolution DOES admit conscious anticipation of the future, ie conscious forethought."
Got any?

******
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Evolution theory doesn't use any "supernatural" factors....
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


It's far worse than that, I'm afraid.   Evolution theory doesn't merely "doesn't use", oh no no no.  Evolution specifically REJECTS any supernatural factors at all points of the evolutionary process, as Mayr, Futuyma, Olroyd (and Nature journal June 14, 2007 as well!) so clearly pointed out.  

Remember, how does the theory of evolution explain the adaptiveness and diversity of life?

"Solely materialistically." --- Mayr, SciAm
"Purely materialistically." --- Futuyma, EB3

That's where evolution is at, folks.
Posted by: Stanton on Oct. 04 2009,23:49

Quote (Henry J @ Oct. 04 2009,23:34)
Animals have been eating other animals for food for as long as there have been animals, regardless of whether they evolved or not. So if Christianity is incompatible with that fact, then inserting evolution as a scapegoat is invalid logic.

Henry
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Likewise, if Christianity is incompatible with the idea that there is cruelty in nature, then inserting evolution as a scapegoat is invalid logic, as well.
Posted by: FloydLee on Oct. 04 2009,23:53



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Before we can determine whether Christianity is compatible with evolution we have to determine which version of Christianity we are up against. FL's version may be compatible only with YEC creationism, while other versions have no problems with science whatsoever.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


This is just a reminder for Quack.  Nobody's presenting those "Other Versions of Christianity", (the ones that are presumably Bible-supportable and demonstrably compatible with evolution), in this forum as of yet.  Nobody.

Perhaps those "Other Versions" don't even exist at all, aye?
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Oct. 05 2009,00:15

Quote (Erasmus, FCD @ Oct. 02 2009,17:34)
Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Oct. 02 2009,13:38)
Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 02 2009,12:03)
   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Is "God" part of the required explanation for why water runs downhill?

Yes or no.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Nope.  He's not.  Furthermore, hydrologists (unlike evolutionists) are silent on the issue of God as a required explantion.

(Please note, however:  In the Bible, God IS the required explanation for the origin of water itself.)

And also He is the Required Explanation for the origin of plants, animals, and (this is where you come in) humans too.

Of course, evolution and evolutionists deny that.  Which is why there's an Incompatiblity there.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


why is god not part of the required explanation for why water runs downhill, when he is part of the required explanation for the EXISTENCE OF WATER?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Floyd please address this.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


floyd?
Posted by: FloydLee on Oct. 05 2009,00:17

Another brief ditty from Stanton:


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
You refuse to realize that evolutionary biology is descriptive, not proscriptive or prescriptive.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Honestly?  Both EB3 and Nature 6-27-07 have refuted that one statement, for example.

Sure, evolution can be descriptive.  But it doesn't always limit itself to that.
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Oct. 05 2009,00:22

it's not just evolution.

all scientific explanation proceeds solely materialistically.

you don't like that, tough shit.
Posted by: FloydLee on Oct. 05 2009,00:26



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Animals have been eating other animals for food for as long as there have been animals, regardless of whether they evolved or not.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Your statement is directly contradicted by Scripture, Henry.  Let's take a look.
   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Then God said, "I give you every seed-bearing plant on the face of the whole earth and every tree that has fruit with seed in it. They will be yours for food.

And to all the beasts of the earth and all the birds of the air and all the creatures that move on the ground—everything that has the breath of life in it—I give every green plant for food." And it was so.
 

----Gen. 1:29-30
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Well......that's that!  Seems clear enough.
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Oct. 05 2009,00:35

Quote (Erasmus, FCD @ Oct. 05 2009,01:15)
Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Oct. 02 2009,17:34)
Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Oct. 02 2009,13:38)
 
Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 02 2009,12:03)
   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Is "God" part of the required explanation for why water runs downhill?

Yes or no.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Nope.  He's not.  Furthermore, hydrologists (unlike evolutionists) are silent on the issue of God as a required explantion.

(Please note, however:  In the Bible, God IS the required explanation for the origin of water itself.)

And also He is the Required Explanation for the origin of plants, animals, and (this is where you come in) humans too.

Of course, evolution and evolutionists deny that.  Which is why there's an Incompatiblity there.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


why is god not part of the required explanation for why water runs downhill, when he is part of the required explanation for the EXISTENCE OF WATER?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Floyd please address this.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


floyd?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


scared of it ?
Posted by: FloydLee on Oct. 05 2009,00:48

Well, it looks like Dheddle is ready to take his marbles and go home, so I do want to at least give him one good reply regarding his page 1 post.

Of course, Dheddle only responded to ONE of the Big Five Incompatibilities, leaving the other four completely unchallenged and untouched.  

And when I directly replied to Dheddle's comments concerning St. Augustine (my response appears on Page 19, Posted Oct. 01 2009, 15:47),
Dheddle fell silent and dropped back, unable to offer any kind of reply to my one response.

But that's okay, I had in fact wanted to take time to reply on his comments about the Fourth Incompatibility.  Definitely interesting post

So before hitting Reed's-Deadman's-Cs's-Occam's-Dan's-Erasmus'-and-a-couple-others' main issue, I'll slow down here and look at Dheddle's post about Death-Before-Adam---the Fourth Incompatibility.

(Someone else will have to PM him and tell him about it, though.  I'm not impressed by his post about taking his marbles home, especially since I did give him a timely and considered response on Augustine and he had flat nothing to say on that one.)

FloydLee
Posted by: Keelyn on Oct. 05 2009,01:06

Quote (Jasper @ Oct. 05 2009,00:00)
Quote (Henry J @ Oct. 04 2009,23:49)
But that aside, why would somebody who claims to be defending Christianity put a lot of effort into producing arguments that would drive educated people away from it if those people were to actually pay attention to those arguments?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I've always thought that FL specializes in a sort of "evangelism-in-reverse."

He seeks out places on the Internet where there are likely to a high percentage of non-Christians, and then he does his best to increase that percentage.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Although I agree with Henry J and Jasper’s remarks, they are really irrelevant to the central argument – Evolution is Incompatible with Christianity. It doesn’t matter whether the arguments that Floyd presents drives people away from Christianity (or evolution) or not. Whether it drives people away, or perhaps even attracts, isn’t the point. Floyd’s arguments are what matter.

Now, he’s on a binge about being accused of quote mining. Granted, the accusations are legitimate and granted, Floyd has a legitimate right to respond to the accusations. But, it seems like such another waste of time. It really doesn’t matter whether he has taken quotes out of context or not (other than to demonstrate that like all creationists, Floyd has no qualms at all lying out his teeth), because either way it hasn’t helped his cause AT ALL.

Throughout this entire “debate,” so far, the only thing Floyd has managed to clearly establish is that his personal perspective of evolution is incompatible with his personal perspective of Christianity. Since Floyd is entitled to his personal opinions and perspectives (right or wrong – and no one could possibly convince Floyd that he is wrong on anything …a sort of “Rush Limbaugh Syndrome”), I will concede that Floyd’s perspective of evolution is incompatible with Floyd’s perspective of Christianity.

Now, all Floyd has to do is to state, conclusively and invariably, that anyone (all the many millions of people) who disagrees with his perspective of evolution and his perspective of Christianity does not understand evolutionary theory and\or is not a Christian. Will you make that statement, Floyd? Yes or No.
Posted by: FloydLee on Oct. 05 2009,02:20

So, in case you decide to stop by again, Dheddle, here is that particular response you want (albeit belatedly, my apologies to you) on the issue of the very real Fourth Incompatibility.

Start here:  Romans chapter 5.  Dheddle quoted:
     

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
12Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all men, because all sinned—

13for before the law was given, sin was in the world. But sin is not taken into account when there is no law.

14Nevertheless, death reigned from the time of Adam to the time of Moses, even over those who did not sin by breaking a command, as did Adam, who was a pattern of the one to come.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Now, let's take it point by point.  
     

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


Dhelddle's statement directly ignores what verse 12 said--
     

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
...sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Death follows from sin.  Death entered this world AFTER sin entered this world.  Sin entering this world could only have come about via living humans committing sin, since there is NO indication from the Bible that animals commit sin.  That means that neither sin--nor that which followed it, death--could appear in this world UNLESS living humans opened the door for it by committing sin.  

God gave the command not to eat from a certain Edenic tree to HUMANS---nobody else.   Only humans could therefore violate that specific command.

So, given the Bible's own information, there's no way  that you can argue here that animals were already subject to death prior to humans being subject to death.   And there was ONLY ONE way humans could bring death to this planet---via the choice to commit sin.  Death could NOT enter this world otherwise.

******

Besides, if you do argue that death has always been present and that animal death took place prior to the Fall, then you've got THIS situation to contend with:
     

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
We are told in Hebrews 9:22, "without the shedding of blood there is no remission of sin." So a blood sacrifice is only necessary if there is sin. The rest of the Old Testament has similar treatment of sacrifice for atonement.

If there was animal death before the fall of man, then God and all those who followed His pattern did useless acts. One must observe that in the atonement the animal loses its life in the place of the human. If animal death existed before the fall, then the object lesson represented by the atoning sacrifice is in reality a cruel joke.

---"Death Before Sin?", James Stambaugh, ICR
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Now, try to resolve THAT one, yes?

(Continued next post.)
Posted by: Quack on Oct. 05 2009,03:41

My sermon today:

Lord, it hurts! Please save us from stupidity. That's your job, isn't it, to save us from all evil?

Amen
Posted by: Schroedinger's Dog on Oct. 05 2009,03:50

A rational, logical free-thinker will say:
-"I don't understand this, what's wrong with me?"

A blindfolded, bigoted religious zealot will say:
-"I don't understand this, what's wrong with it? Oh, nevermind, it's wrong ayway 'cos the bible says so!"
Posted by: deadman_932 on Oct. 05 2009,04:01

Quote (deadman_932 @ Oct. 02 2009,20:25)
Quote (George @ 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."
---------------------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.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


The last time you were asked to address this , you wound up making a complete fool of yourself and slinking away without actually addressing it, Floyd.

You've been asked to address it many times, Floyd -- say, nearly a dozen or so times. It was in my very first post to YOU here, Floyd -- WEEKS ago.  

Yet, you've never managed to respond directly to this, Floyd (save the aformentioned debacle when you crawled away).

So...Why is that, Floyd?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Still unanswered, from page one of this thread
Posted by: FloydLee on Oct. 05 2009,04:03

Hey wait Keelyn, don't concede anything just yet.  After all, I think you specifically deferred to Dheddle in one of your posts (correct me if I'm wrong.)  

Therefore you would have a particular interest in checking out my response to Dheddle WRT the Fourth Incompatibility (Death-Before-Adam.)

******

So Dheddle continues by saying,
 

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

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



The answer to this objection is pretty clear:  The term "death" in Romans 5:12-14 is referring to BOTH physical and spiritual death.  Not "Either-Or", but "Both-And."  

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
(Verse 14) "Death" refers to physical death, but not to physical death alone.  As in verse 12, spiritual death, condemnation, is also involved.

---Douglas Moo, Romans, (NICNT), 1996 Eerdmans, pg 333.  
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



There's no doubt on this one.  And so it's not difficult, not "tortuous", to explain from Scripture what happened after the Fall.  It's quite straightforward, in fact.

God had clearly warned Adam and Eve that death would take place if His commandment not to eat from the forbidden tree was violated.  The first humans chose to disobey, to commit sin; they violated God's specific commandment.  So death was the result, just like God warned previously.
Like Romans 6:23 says, "the wages of sin is death."  

Adam and Eve died spiritually that very day--just like God said--but the spiritual death that hit them that day took a while to overcome their physical bodies.  Oh, they died that same day--death was already operating both spiritually and physically--but it took a while for them to complete the process of physical death and decay.

Given the perfect bodies they'd been given from God, it took a while---hundreds of years, in fact--for their bodies to finally succumb to the effects of spiritual death---physical death.  But succumb they eventually did, all the same.  Spiritual death AND physical death.  Not either-or.  Both and.  Both operative, both inescapable, from the very day of the Fall.  For the wages of sin IS death.  God wasn't--and isn't--lying.

And so that's why, in the Romans passage (5:12, 14), the term "death" means BOTH physical death and spiritual death.  There's no such thing as excluding physical death from that situation, unlike what Dheddle seems to believe.

***

Btw, when Paul says "death reigned from Adam to Moses", he's not trying to say that somehow things changed WRT death after Moses came on the scene.

If you read that entire section in context, you'll see that Paul is saying that death reigned over everybody regardless of whether people had access to the Mosaic Law or (like those living after Adam but before Moses), people did NOT have such access at all.   It didn't matter, all eventually died, for death reigned because of the Fall.

(And obviously, there's no way to exclude physical death from THAT situation either.)

***

Finally, let's examine one more Dheddle statement:
 

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

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

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

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


And yet again, Dheddle's position is incorrect.  He clearly leaves out the correct fourth choice:  to see the term "death" as meaning BOTH physical and spiritual death, the way the Bible views that term.  

If you'll just accept the Bible's view of the term "death", Dheddle, you won't have to "say goodbye to literality" on the Romans 5 situation, and more importantly, you won't have to stop believing in the clear and vital testimony of Scripture on an important issue that affects the Gospel of Jesus Christ itself.

Remember, spiritual death is NOT a "non-literal" death -- it is very very literal, just like physical death, otherwise Jesus Christ would NEVER have had to go to the Cross to pay the price of both spiritual death and physical death on your behalf and my behalf.  

This is what the great historical parallel of Romans 5:12-19 is all about, Dheddle.  Christ's Solution HAD TO MATCH UP WITH Adam's Problem.  Adam's problem involved sin and death --- both spiritual and physical death.  

Christ's own Solution was to take our sins on Himself, right there on the Cross, and then voluntarily pay the price for our sins--to die for us all, and specifically to die both a spiritual death AND a physical death.
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures. -- 1 Cor. 15:4
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
"But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels, now crowned with glory and honor because he suffered death, so that by the grace of God he might taste death for everyone."

---Heb. 2:9
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Christ carried our sins in his body on the cross so that freed from our sins, we could live a life that has God's approval. His wounds have healed you.

-- 1 Pet. 2:24, GWT
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


This is why you cannot rewrite the Bible to make Romans 5:12-14 only refer to "spiritual death", Heddle.  You cannot exclude physical death from that situation.  It's gotta be both physical death and spiritual death.  THAT, is the meaning of the term "death" in Romans 5:12-14 and as you can see, it's really important that you accept the Bible's view of it.

Besides, while we know that trusting Christ as Lord and Savior will immediately pass you from spiritual death to spiritual life, (John 5:24), you also know from the New Testament that one day even PHYSICAL DEATH will be overcome as well.

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Listen, I tell you a mystery: We will not all sleep, but we will all be changed— in a flash, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet. For the trumpet will sound, the dead will be raised imperishable, and we will be changed.
For the perishable must clothe itself with the imperishable, and the mortal with immortality.When the perishable has been clothed with the imperishable, and the mortal with immortality, then the saying that is written will come true: "Death has been swallowed up in victory."   1 Cor. 15
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



What does all this mean?  It means THIS:  
that in Romans 5:12-14, the term "death" means BOTH spiritual death and physical death.  So God was NOT lying when he warned Adam that he would die on the same day if he ate the fruit from the forbidden tree.
Both aspects of death were present and operating.  Spiritual death was immediate, physical death was active and operative that same day, merely a matter of time to overtake a perfect body given by God Himself.

IOW, you don't have to "abandon the literality", you don't have to disbelieve what Genesis is telling you there, you don't have to let the skeptics rob you of believing what Genesis is literally telling you there. on that point.


******

Okay.  I apologize for the lengthiness, but I promised Dheddle a point-by-point response and now he's got one.  

My guess is that somehow Dheddle will get wind of this reply.  So it's your move Dheddle, and I'll be watching.....  You can also reply to what I replied to you about Augustine too, at your convenience of course.
Posted by: deadman_932 on Oct. 05 2009,04:03

Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 04 2009,23:11)
Okay, that's that, Deadman.  All five.  Your move.   Support your accusation of quote-mining.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


It's already been done, Floyd. The fact that you don't agree is irrelevant.

And still unanswered, from page one of this thread:

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."
Posted by: FloydLee on Oct. 05 2009,04:58



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



And no, that doesn't solve any problems at all, Dheddle.  Cmon, walk with me on this one.

First of all, evolutionists say that the Earth is 4.6 billion years old and that Homo Sapiens by itself is around 250,000 years old.  
If you start claiming that "each Genesis day was a 1000 years" in length, that's STILL nowhere near long enough to match up with the numbers given by the evolutionists.  You haven't solved anything!

Secondly, that's not even what the Bible is claiming, period.  Dr. Robert McCabe explains:

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Psalm 90:4 is a passage that has often been used to suggest that “day” may refer to an extended period of  time: “For a thousand years in Your sight are like  yesterday when it passes by, or as a watch in the night.” The argument is that Moses interprets his use of day in Genesis 1 in Psalm 90, the only psalm ascribed to him. Psalm 90:4, as the argument goes, indicates  that “God’s days are not our days”; that is, God’s days are not 24-hour days but long periods of time.

Can this argument be sustained from Psalm 90:4? In comparing the use of “day” in this verse with its use in Genesis 1, three observations will be helpful. First, in Psalm 90:4 the comparison between “a thousand years” and “yesterday” involves a simile, “like” (Hebrew term). However, in Genesis 1, God describes his actual activities on each creation day. He is not making comparative statements, as is the case in Psalm 90:4.

The simile in v. 4 compares “a thousand years” to two brief periods of time, “yesterday when it passes by” and “a watch in the night.”

This is to say, the author is not using “a thousand years” in comparison with a solar day, but with a short period of time. The point of this verse is that God
does not evaluate time the way man does.

Second, though “day,” (Hebrew term) is used in Genesis 1 and Psalm 90:4, is consistently used in Genesis 1 as a singular noun. However, in Psalm 90:4, (Hebrew term) is part of a compound grammatical construction, “like-a-day-already-past” (i.e., “like yesterday,” (Hebrew phrase). As such, this  comparison is grammatically deficient.

Third, Psalm 90 is not a creation hymn, and the stanza in which v. 4 is located does not focus on any items from creation. Therefore, if any attention is given to exegetical detail, Psalm 90:4 cannot be used to support a figurative interpretation of the days of Genesis 1.

***

The second text used to support a figurative interpretation of the creation days is 2 Peter 3:8: “But do not let this one fact escape your notice, beloved, that with the Lord one day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years like one day.”

It has been suggested that if we take this passage at face value along with Psalm 90:4, it explicitly rules out a literal interpretation of the days of Genesis 1. In contrast to this type of naďve interpretation, we should notice that the immediate context of 2 Peter 3:8 is not a creation context.

Furthermore, as in Psalm 90:4, a simile is used to make a comparison.  For those using this text to suggest that a “day” in Genesis 1 is a thousand years, or however many years, Whitcomb’s response is apropos:

The latter verse [2 Pet 3:8], for example, does not say that God’s days last a thousand years, but that “one day is with the Lord as a thousand years.” In other words, God is above the limitations of time in the sense that he can accomplish in one literal day what nature or man could not accomplish in a vast period of time, if ever.
Note that one day is “as a thousand years,” not “is a thousand years,” with God. If “one day” in this verse means a long period of time, then we would end up with the following absurdity: “a long period of time is with the Lord as a thousand years.” Instead of this, the verse reveals how much God can actually accomplish in a literal day of twenty-four hours.


< http://www.dbts.edu/journals/2000/McCabe.pdf >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



So now we see that in fact, claiming that "a day is like a thousand years" does not resolve either the Romans 5 situation nor the Genesis 1 situation.  They're not even referring to the length of the days in the Genesis creation week at all.   Nor would such Bible texts even begin to cover the extreme "deep time" ages that evolutionists accept.  

So it's not a "problem solved" at all, Dheddle.

******

FloydLee
Posted by: FloydLee on Oct. 05 2009,05:02

You know, I think I will give Heddle that PM myself after all.  I don't think he'll be able to refute what I've written here--not even close--but I would like to see if he's got the whatevers to respond on the Augustine thing, at least.
Posted by: Schroedinger's Dog on Oct. 05 2009,05:07

Floyd, your discussion/debate with Heddle belongs to Phylosophy and Theology. Would you please mind adressing OldMan and Deadman's points.

It would greatly enrich this thread, IMO.
Posted by: FloydLee on Oct. 05 2009,05:22

Hey, maybe a little something for Dale Husband (if he's lurking despite taking his marbles home.)  He quoted:

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
The important point to remember is that Christianity is not based on the literal truth of the Book of Genesis. It is based on whether you beleive that Jesus was the Messiah predicted to come and save the world.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Most interesting.  In the Bible, that latter claim is always expressed as literal truth, not a penny less.  So exactly on what basis does Dale reject the literal truth of Genesis but simultaenously accept the literal truth of the Gospels?

Oh, wait a minute:  Dale DOESN'T accept the literal truth of the Gospels.  Jesus is NOT Dale's Messiah.  Dale effectively rejects BOTH Genesis and Gospel.  That's his solution to the problem.

Hmmm.
Posted by: FloydLee on Oct. 05 2009,05:26



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Would you please mind adressing OldMan and Deadman's points.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Ask them to start addressing MY points for a change.  (There's plenty for them to chew on, that's for sure!).

FloydLee
Posted by: Dan on Oct. 05 2009,05:31

Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 04 2009,23:53)
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Before we can determine whether Christianity is compatible with evolution we have to determine which version of Christianity we are up against. FL's version may be compatible only with YEC creationism, while other versions have no problems with science whatsoever.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


This is just a reminder for Quack.  Nobody's presenting those "Other Versions of Christianity", (the ones that are presumably Bible-supportable and demonstrably compatible with evolution), in this forum as of yet.  Nobody.

Perhaps those "Other Versions" don't even exist at all, aye?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


The pope has.
Posted by: Schroedinger's Dog on Oct. 05 2009,05:44

Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 05 2009,12:26)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Would you please mind adressing OldMan and Deadman's points.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Ask them to start addressing MY points for a change.  (There's plenty for them to chew on, that's for sure!).

FloydLee
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Well Floyd, once again I'd say that you made the initial claims, so the burden of proof's on you.

This is the way debates, scientific inquiries, trials work. With intellectual honesty...

I am but a mere bystander who enjoys a good debate, and so far this hasn't been a great exemple.
Posted by: FloydLee on Oct. 05 2009,05:56



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
The pope has....
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


No he hasn't, Dan.  C'mon already.

Given the Big Five Incompatibilities, we've seen that Pope Benedict has in fact made public statements that actually RE-AFFIRM the first two of them.  Those re-affirmations remain unrefuted, of course, and I'm still waiting for anybody here to try takin' them on.

In fact Dan, let's make it the first THREE incompatibilites:

       

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
"God created humankind in his image, but this image is covered with so much dirt from sin that it is almost impossible to see," the pope said.

---Cindy Wooden, Catholic News Service, April 20, 2009.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Most interesting, aye?   Pope Benedict has directly reaffirmed the Third Incompatibility.  Not even mincing any words about it.
He has FAILED to set aside a foundational Christian belief that the Nature science journal has publicly called on everybody to set aside (because of evolution).  
He has thus re-affirmed yet another conflict area.  

That makes three out of five huge Incompatibilities that Benedict has publicly affirmed, and there's been absolutely NO papal attempts to reconcile and resolve the final two Incompatibilities.....Go figure!!

(Meanwhile, all the posters here remain totally unable to provide their own "Other Versions of Christianity" that are Bible-supportable and which also resolves and reconciles the Big Five Incompatibilities between evolution and Christianity.  But I'm still watching, waiting, hoping somebody will step up and provide it, if only for Quack's sake!)

FloydLee
Posted by: deadman_932 on Oct. 05 2009,06:01

Still unanswered from page one of the thread:


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

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."
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: Schroedinger's Dog on Oct. 05 2009,06:02

Floyd; I am going to copy and translate your five incompatibilities in French.

This afternoon (it's 1 pm here right now) , I will go to the St Helene Parish, 100 meters from my place. It is a Catholic parish, where I was baptized, and the priest there is really nice (not much kiddy-fundling, plus he did my grand-aunt's funeral admirably). I will try to get his views on the subject and get back to you...

This should be interesting, at least.
Posted by: deadman_932 on Oct. 05 2009,06:03

Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 05 2009,05:56)
(Meanwhile, all the posters here remain totally unable to provide their own "Other Versions of Christianity" that are Bible-supportable and which also resolves and reconciles the Big Five Incompatibilities between evolution and Christianity.  But I'm still watching, waiting, hoping somebody will step up and provide it, if only for Quack's sake!)

FloydLee
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Noone has to provide you with anything, Floyd.

Your claim was that Christianity and evolution were incompatible --  yet you still dishonestly avoid questions from the very first page of this thread
Posted by: deadman_932 on Oct. 05 2009,06:07

Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 05 2009,05:26)
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Would you please mind adressing OldMan and Deadman's points.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Ask them to start addressing MY points for a change.  (There's plenty for them to chew on, that's for sure!).

FloydLee
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Anyone reading this thread would know that I entered into this discussion on good-faith terms, answering each and every question you put to me, FloydLee. See page one of this thread.

It was you that dishonestly decided that your word meant nothing, that you could break any good-faith agreements,  and that you could refuse to answer my questions with impunity, Floyd

Your statement that I need to answer you "for a change" is consistent with your complete dishonesty, Floyd.
Posted by: FloydLee on Oct. 05 2009,06:10



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Well Floyd, once again I'd say that you made the initial claims, so the burden of proof's on you.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Well, let's narrow things down a bit.  Deadman accused me of quotemining.  I went through the quotes used in support of each of the Five Incompatibilities, noting which ones had not been accused of quotemining at all by anybody, (and I was careful to say "correct me if I'm wrong" on that),
and also directly responding in detail on the two articles which had been challenged in detail, carefully overturning each accusation on a point by point basis as much as possible.  

Can you at least ask Deadman to respond in detail on THAT stuff, eh?   I think that's an extremely fair request.  

I've gone down the line and responded for all five incompatibilities WRT this quotemining issue.  Deadman now apparently wants to duck it, declare victory and git out of Dodge, but you DID say something about "intellectual honesty".   And so I would call on you to ask Deadman to step up to the plate.
Posted by: deadman_932 on Oct. 05 2009,06:14

Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 05 2009,06:10)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Well Floyd, once again I'd say that you made the initial claims, so the burden of proof's on you.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Well, let's narrow things down a bit.  Deadman accused me of quotemining.  I went through the quotes used in support of each of the Five Incompatibilities, noting which ones had not been accused of quotemining at all by anybody, (and I was careful to say "correct me if I'm wrong" on that),
and also directly responding in detail on the two articles which had been challenged in detail, carefully overturning each accusation on a point by point basis as much as possible.  

Can you at least ask Deadman to respond in detail on THAT stuff, eh?   I think that's an extremely fair request.  

I've gone down the line and responded for all five incompatibilities WRT this quotemining issue.  Deadman now apparently wants to duck it, declare victory and git out of Dodge, but you DID say something about "intellectual honesty".   And so I would call on you to ask Deadman to step up to the plate.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Speak to me, directly, floyd. You're quite aware that I'm on this site at the same time you are right now.

Are you that incapable of honesty?
Posted by: FloydLee on Oct. 05 2009,06:18



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
This afternoon (it's 1 pm here right now) , I will go to the St Helene Parish, 100 meters from my place. It is a Catholic parish, where I was baptized, and the priest there is really nice (not much kiddy-fundling, plus he did my grand-aunt's funeral admirably). I will try to get his views on the subject and get back to you...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Sincere thanks.  You'd think the professing Christians in this forum would come up with their OWN personal compatibility/incompatibility theology for examination and consideration, but since that's obviously not the case, I'm grateful for your plans to import somebody who can actually step up to that plate.......  
Posted by: Schroedinger's Dog on Oct. 05 2009,06:23

Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 05 2009,13:18)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
This afternoon (it's 1 pm here right now) , I will go to the St Helene Parish, 100 meters from my place. It is a Catholic parish, where I was baptized, and the priest there is really nice (not much kiddy-fundling, plus he did my grand-aunt's funeral admirably). I will try to get his views on the subject and get back to you...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Sincere thanks.  You'd think the professing Christians in this forum would come up with their OWN personal compatibility/incompatibility theology for examination and consideration, but since that's obviously not the case, I'm grateful for your plans to import somebody who can actually step up to that plate.......  
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Well, it's not actually any of the Christians present here's job to provide anything regarding their personal faith. But at least a minister is entitled to respond to theological questions, so i think it might settle this issue a bit...
Posted by: deadman_932 on Oct. 05 2009,06:27

Just to remind you of your dishonesty, Floyd.

Quote (deadman_932 @ Sep. 22 2009,15:22)
Floyd Lee: Beyond your shameful display of fallacy-weilding recently, I'd like to remind you of your "good faith" obligations here:

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Deadman_932 wrote:
"Remember my caveats – start preaching, witnessing or fail to adhere to good-faith discussion/debate standards and all “rules” go out the window. Your choices determine that." < http://pandasthumb.org/archive....-193695 >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------




 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Deadman_932 wrote:
"Added comments to FL: If you’d like to discuss terms, such as what might constitute preaching/witnessing or failure to adhere to good-faith standards, feel free to post your points at AtBC. I can lay out my views in detail. Generalized good-faith agreements lay bare individual ethics and morals. Obviously, it’s up to you to determine how you present yourself. " < http://pandasthumb.org/archive....-193696 >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



and from my second post in this very thread:

   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Deadman_932 wrote:
"Keep in mind that debate is dialogue, not monologue, and that civility (well, to a decent, ethical person) would require *directly* addressing the points of your opponent (as I have with you). " < http://www.antievolution.org/cgi-bin....y153036 >

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



I'm hopeful for you, Floyd -- I'm hopeful that you'll find the personal ethics to live up to what you'd agreed to in terms of "good faith" behavior.

I'm hopeful that your own agreement would be something you live up to, Floyd.

Surprise me.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Couple that with your refusal to directly deal with the syllogism Dan first offered and I posted up on page one of this thread, and you're a truly ...well, dishonest kinda guy, Floyd.
Posted by: FloydLee on Oct. 05 2009,06:27



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Speak to me, directly, floyd. You're quite aware that I'm on this site at the same time you are right now.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Hey, the man tried to defend you (or at least tried to shift "the burden" back on to me on your behalf, which was sorta kinda indirectly defending you.).  
I did have to respond to him on that part first.

But, since you're here, I surely don't mind speaking to you directly.  You've been given quite a bit of response -- detailed, considered response -- on your quotemining accusation.  You need to deal with that now.  You honestly do.

******

Also, it wouldn't hurt you to acknowledge that your "simple 3-line proof" did receive at least one considered reply already from me.  
Statements like "Still unanswered from page one of the thread" simply aren't accurate in this case.  You did get an answer, though you disagreed with it.

You want to preach about honesty Deadman?  Then start modeling the desired behavior.
Posted by: deadman_932 on Oct. 05 2009,06:28

Still unanswered from page one of the thread:


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

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."
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: deadman_932 on Oct. 05 2009,06:30

Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 05 2009,06:27)
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Speak to me, directly, floyd. You're quite aware that I'm on this site at the same time you are right now.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Hey, the man tried to defend you (or at least tried to shift "the burden" back on to me on your behalf, which was sorta kinda indirectly defending you.).  
I did have to respond to him on that part first.

But, since you're here, I surely don't mind speaking to you directly.  You've been given quite a bit of response -- detailed, considered response -- on your quotemining accusation.  You need to deal with that now.  You honestly do.

******

Also, it wouldn't hurt you to acknowledge that your "simple 3-line proof" did receive at least one considered reply already from me.  
Statements like "Still unanswered from page one of the thread" simply aren't accurate in this case.  You did get an answer, though you disagreed with it.


You want to preach about honesty Deadman?  Then start modeling the desired behavior.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Read the bolded parts above, Floyd. I'd like you to back that claim. Let's see how honest you are, k?

Post that "answer" Floyd... the only "response: you gave  was you ASKING what fact one had to do with fact two.. that is a QUESTION, not an answer, Floyd. Then you simply disappeared off the board, presumably in shame, and never dealt with it at all, Floyd

Let's see you post up your ANSWER that you claimed to have given, FLOYD
Posted by: deadman_932 on Oct. 05 2009,06:49

And, to no rational person's surprise...Floyd's name no longer appears on the user list.
Posted by: Stanton on Oct. 05 2009,08:09

Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 05 2009,06:18)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
This afternoon (it's 1 pm here right now) , I will go to the St Helene Parish, 100 meters from my place. It is a Catholic parish, where I was baptized, and the priest there is really nice (not much kiddy-fundling, plus he did my grand-aunt's funeral admirably). I will try to get his views on the subject and get back to you...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Sincere thanks.  You'd think the professing Christians in this forum would come up with their OWN personal compatibility/incompatibility theology for examination and consideration, but since that's obviously not the case, I'm grateful for your plans to import somebody who can actually step up to that plate.......  
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


As was stated to you earlier, repeatedly, the Christians on this site do not want or need your approval of their current state of faith and or spirituality, especially since you've done nothing to earn such a right, and the only thing you'll do is ridicule them for not being like you.
Posted by: Stanton on Oct. 05 2009,08:11

Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 05 2009,06:27)
Also, it wouldn't hurt you to acknowledge that your "simple 3-line proof" did receive at least one considered reply already from me.  
Statements like "Still unanswered from page one of the thread" simply aren't accurate in this case.  You did get an answer, though you disagreed with it.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Yet you've never answered it.  In fact, you've repeatedly lied that Pope Benedict issued contradictory statements.


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
You want to preach about honesty Deadman?  Then start modeling the desired behavior.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


a) Deadman is being honest, b) you first.
Posted by: Schroedinger's Dog on Oct. 05 2009,08:16

Well, there was a funeral this afternoon, so I couldn't talk to the priest.

For the sake of clarity and honesty, here are some pics of the church, the coffin-cars (whatever the name is), me holding the 5 incompatibilities in front of the church, and me with the Five incompatibilities. It was 2:53 PM

i'll try again tomorrow, if nobody kicks it in the meantime...

:












edit: tyhe old lady in blue wasn't even part of the familly, but she just kept looking at me like i was satan incarnated. prejudices about long hair and goatees...?
Posted by: Robin on Oct. 05 2009,08:33

Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 01 2009,17:11)

---------------------QUOTE-------------------




---------------------QUOTE-------------------


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
The fact is, believing in any god is not rational....
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Hmmm.   Just gotta comment on that one.
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse.

----Rom. 1:20
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Believing in God is a VERY rational act because you would be basing that decision on observational evidence, as Romans 1:20 makes clear.

In fact, it's so rational that anybody who chooses to adopt atheism or agnosticism is WITHOUT EXCUSE for doing so.  Something to think about, for sure.

Hope you're not an atheist or agnostic, Robin.....!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



LOL! Hate to break it to you Floyd, but a) Paul is not an authority on or even a credible source for what is or is not rational (that's called an appeal to false authority) and b) using a biblical quote to try and validate the validity of the bible is...heh!...question begging and c) given that there is no substantiation for Paul's claim that the world reflects your god's invisible hands, you're left with begging the question there too.  You go Floyd! LMAO!
Posted by: Dan on Oct. 05 2009,08:56

Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 05 2009,05:56)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
The pope has....
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


No he hasn't, Dan.  C'mon already.

Given the Big Five Incompatibilities, we've seen that Pope Benedict has in fact made public statements that actually RE-AFFIRM the first two of them.  Those re-affirmations remain unrefuted, of course, and I'm still waiting for anybody here to try takin' them on.

In fact Dan, let's make it the first THREE incompatibilites:

         

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
"God created humankind in his image, but this image is covered with so much dirt from sin that it is almost impossible to see," the pope said.

---Cindy Wooden, Catholic News Service, April 20, 2009.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Most interesting, aye?   Pope Benedict has directly reaffirmed the Third Incompatibility.  Not even mincing any words about it.
He has FAILED to set aside a foundational Christian belief that the Nature science journal has publicly called on everybody to set aside (because of evolution).  
He has thus re-affirmed yet another conflict area.  

That makes three out of five huge Incompatibilities that Benedict has publicly affirmed, and there's been absolutely NO papal attempts to reconcile and resolve the final two Incompatibilities.....Go figure!!

(Meanwhile, all the posters here remain totally unable to provide their own "Other Versions of Christianity" that are Bible-supportable and which also resolves and reconciles the Big Five Incompatibilities between evolution and Christianity.  But I'm still watching, waiting, hoping somebody will step up and provide it, if only for Quack's sake!)

FloydLee
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You missed the point, Floyd.

The pope has affirmed that he believes that man was created in God's image.  The pope has most certainly NOT affirmed that there is any "incompatibility" between this belief and the fact of evolution.

In fact the pope has made it very clear that there's a difference between faith and fact, a difference which makes your entire idea of "incompatibility" absurd -- one might as well say that the pitch of middle C is incompatible with the color purple.  Pitch and purple are different things, they can't be incompatible.  Faith and fact are different things, they can't be incompatible.

You might disagree with the pope, and I would support your right to disagree.  But that's not what you're saying.  You're saying that the pope has not addressed the issue, which he has.  You're lying, Floyd.

You loose again.
Posted by: Louis on Oct. 05 2009,09:01

Quote (Schroedinger's Dog @ Oct. 05 2009,14:16)
Well, there was a funeral this afternoon, so I couldn't talk to the priest.

For the sake of clarity and honesty, here are some pics of the church, the coffin-cars (whatever the name is), me holding the 5 incompatibilities in front of the church, and me with the Five incompatibilities. It was 2:53 PM

i'll try again tomorrow, if nobody kicks it in the meantime...


[SNIP IMAGES]


edit: tyhe old lady in blue wasn't even part of the familly, but she just kept looking at me like i was satan incarnated. prejudices about long hair and goatees...?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


LOL This goes above and beyond what is required to deal with the likes of FL. Hilarious. You deserve some sort of award.

Louis

P.S. You do know that any priest you find will be the wrong kind of priest for FL don't you?

P.P.S. Coffin car = hearse in English.

P.P.P.S. Turning up to a church when there's a funeral on to badger the priest about some idiot creationist Yank's utterly inane twattery about evolutionary biology....Priceless!
Posted by: Schroedinger's Dog on Oct. 05 2009,09:11



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
P.P.P.S. Turning up to a church when there's a funeral on to badger the priest about some idiot creationist Yank's utterly inane twattery about evolutionary biology....Priceless!

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



That's what i do baby! :D
Posted by: deadman_932 on Oct. 05 2009,10:04

Quote (Louis @ Oct. 05 2009,09:01)
P.P.P.S. Turning up to a church when there's a funeral on to badger the priest about some idiot creationist Yank's utterly inane twattery about evolutionary biology....Priceless!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


My goodness. Above and beyond the call of duty, indeed. Shroedinger's Perro, I salute you! Trying, at least, to annoy both Floyd and some poor baffled priest is like two birds with one stone: Boink! boink!
Posted by: Schroedinger's Dog on Oct. 05 2009,10:10

Quote (deadman_932 @ Oct. 05 2009,17:04)
Quote (Louis @ Oct. 05 2009,09:01)
P.P.P.S. Turning up to a church when there's a funeral on to badger the priest about some idiot creationist Yank's utterly inane twattery about evolutionary biology....Priceless!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


My goodness. Above and beyond the call of duty, indeed. Shroedinger's Perro, I salute you! Trying, at least, to annoy both Floyd and some poor baffled priest is like two birds with one stone: Boink! boink!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Nah! that's just commitment*







*to honesty, promise-keeping and all that stuff so undertaken by religious fanatics...
Posted by: Schroedinger's Dog on Oct. 05 2009,10:14

And yes, the tree on pics 1,2,3 and 4 is a a common Eucalyptus. We have a lot of them here!
Posted by: dheddle on Oct. 05 2009,11:16

FL,

Let’s start with your "response" to my claims about Augustine.

There was no claim by me that Augustine did not take any part of Genesis literally. That goes without saying. The most ardent non-literalist conservative Christian will still take much if not most of Genesis literally. They will agree, for example, that God made a covenant with Abraham.

I made the specific claim that Augustine did not take the creation days literally, and he didn't. (Nor, by the way, did many revered church fathers, such as Justin, Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria, Origen, … most of whom who argued one creation day = 1000 years ( a la 2 Pet 3:8) to solve the very same "in that day you will surely die" problem.)

Your response to me was not to the point and it was disingenuous. To any reader it would be clear that I gave an example (an important one, the creation days) where Augustine flatly denied that a creation day from Genesis One was a literal 24 hour day, and you answered as if I had stated "Augustine did not take anything in Genesis literally."  You wrote
         

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
(FL) But some Genesis things, Augustine DID take literally.  We know this from his own writings.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Which nobody disputed. Changing someone's argument (in my case: Augustine did not take the creation days literally) into a trivially dismissible claim (Augustine didn't take anything in Genesis literally) is dishonest. But that never stopped you.

You also wrote, irrelevantly:
         

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
(FL) But [Augustine’s view] does mean YEC.  It only rationally fits in with YEC beliefs (a less than 6000-yr-old Earth).
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Which is logically false.  Yes, Augustine was a YEC—to first order everyone was a YEC prior to there being any reason not to be a YEC, but your logic that instantaneous creation "only rationally fits" with a YEC view is fatally flawed. There is no reason why an old universe or earth could not have been created instantly. Augustine's YEC belief came from his matching historic events in the OT to known dates. It was not a necessary consequence of his view of instantaneous creation. In some sense OECs like Hugh Ross believe in both the instantaneous creation of the universe (the Big Bang) and an old earth. (Hugh Ross, by the way, claims to take Genesis as literally as you do—but that the Hebrew yöm should have been translated as age, not [24-hour] day—so there are even OECs who are biblical literalists.)

Now to the "in that day you shall surely die" conundrum.

I wrote:
       

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


This is more of a nitpick. It makes the point that YECs use this verse to “prove” that there was no animal death before the fall, but the verse in question:  
       

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all men, because all sinned (Rom 5:12)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


states absolutely nothing, with certainty, about animal death. There is no logic by which Romans 5:12 absolutely precludes the possibility that, prior to Adam's sin, an elephant crushed an ant. The verse is at least arguably, if not most likely, by its construction, concerned only with humans. Even when taking about sin, it is talking about man's sin, not about sin first appearing on the earth. Why? Because Christian theology would state that Satan was already on the earth, sinning, before man’s fall.

You response, in a nutshell: "No this verse is about animal death. It must be read this way:  Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death [to man and animals] through sin, and in this way death came to all men, because all sinned.  I win. Game over. Next?"

Then you present this "unanswerable" conundrum from an ICR yahoo (Stambaugh):
         

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
(ICR Yahoo) We are told in Hebrews 9:22, "without the shedding of blood there is no remission of sin." So a blood sacrifice is only necessary if there is sin. The rest of the Old Testament has similar treatment of sacrifice for atonement.

If there was animal death before the fall of man, then God and all those who followed His pattern did useless acts. One must observe that in the atonement the animal loses its life in the place of the human. If animal death existed before the fall, then the object lesson represented by the atoning sacrifice is in reality a cruel joke.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



It doesn't really have to be resolved, because it  simply the ICR’s (and your, you have learned well, Obi Won) most sacred method: the because we say so argument. There is no logic presented here—the argument is that if there was animal death before the fall then "the acts [of Temple sacrifice] are useless." Why are they useless? Stambaugh  (or Henry Morris, whom he is parroting) doesn't say.  I believe there was death before the fall. I believe the animal sacrifice before the fall was a type of Jesus’ Atonement. I don't think it was useless. What makes it useless? No reason is given. Henry Morris (here through a mouth piece) sez so. That is enough.

Regarding Gen. 2:17, “but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die."  You took exactly the approach I said you would take.
         

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
(FL) Adam and Eve died spiritually that very day--just like God said--but the spiritual death that hit them that day took a while to overcome their physical bodies.  Oh, they died that same day--death was already operating both spiritually and physically--but it took a while for them to complete the process of physical death and decay.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You concede, as you must, that 'die' refers to spiritual death. (You write it now as if it were obvious, but before I pointed out the reasons for it to mean spiritual death you never mentioned the fact.) Then you simply tack on, as an unnecessary complication that perhaps cannot be ruled out but most definitely cannot be demonstrated, that it also refers to physical death. So the "plain and literal reading of the text" you are so proud of becomes:

"but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die a spiritual death instantly, and you will begin the process of a physical death, which will take some time."

Never mind that in all other cases that I'm aware of, when God spoke of a penalty of physical death he meant: right then and there. He did not give the inhabitants of Sodom cancer so that they would "start the process of dying"—he killed them. When Uzzah touched the ark he did not get radiation poisoning and die a few weeks later, he dropped dead. For Adam the penalty was to be death on that day, and your "literal" solution is that he started to die but lingered for another nine centuries.

It is mildly annoying that you argue poorly. Many people do. But it is repulsive that you argue poorly and then declare victory. Smugness and competence are an unseemly but bearable combination. Smugness and incompetence is just hideous. And since we are nominally on the same side, believers bearing witness to the AtBC heathen hordes, it's an embarrassment.
Posted by: sledgehammer on Oct. 05 2009,11:38

Quote (deadman_932 @ Oct. 05 2009,08:04)
   
Quote (Louis @ Oct. 05 2009,09:01)
P.P.P.S. Turning up to a church when there's a funeral on to badger the priest about some idiot creationist Yank's utterly inane twattery about evolutionary biology....Priceless!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


My goodness. Above and beyond the call of duty, indeed. Shroedinger's Perro, I salute you! Trying, at least, to annoy both Floyd and some poor baffled priest is like two birds with one stone: Boink! boink!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Not to mention, annoying the "Lady In Blue".  I'll bet it was the earring, SD.  Doesn't Satan wear an earring, or am I thinking of Mr. Clean?  Anyway, Thanks for the pics!  Above and beyond the call, fer sure, fer sure.

As for Floyd, hasta la vista, baby.  It's apparent that all of your "Big 5" incompats rely on biblical literalism, an unsustainable position w/ respect to reality.  I'm getting the  distinct impression that you and your "Biblical Christians" (literalists) are a dying breed. So much the better for Christianity, and a necessity for it's survival in the modern world, IMHO.
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Oct. 05 2009,11:43

HAHA

heddle = FloydLee













(i don't really think so, but.... he said it!)  give me 2 million Heddles on the National Mall to one FloydLee flagellating himself in a wood paneling 12 seat church house.
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Oct. 05 2009,11:44

Quote (Erasmus, FCD @ Oct. 05 2009,01:15)
Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Oct. 02 2009,13:38)
 
Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 02 2009,12:03)
   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Is "God" part of the required explanation for why water runs downhill?

Yes or no.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Nope.  He's not.  Furthermore, hydrologists (unlike evolutionists) are silent on the issue of God as a required explantion.

(Please note, however:  In the Bible, God IS the required explanation for the origin of water itself.)

And also He is the Required Explanation for the origin of plants, animals, and (this is where you come in) humans too.

snip
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


why is god not part of the required explanation for why water runs downhill, when he is part of the required explanation for the EXISTENCE OF WATER?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Floyd, baby?  any day now you are going to address this instead of flirting with deadman and playing coy with heddle.
Posted by: JLT on Oct. 05 2009,13:10

Quote (csadams @ Oct. 04 2009,00:55)
Sorry, Floyd, I just can't trust you to provide accurate information about textbooks.  That's why I'm asking for you to provide a page scan rather than an FTE cite.  
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I found a quote of the relevant passage < here > (quoted by Nick Matzke):
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
   Joe Levine and Ken Miller, 1991 college textbook Wrote:

   [begin p. 152]

   SUMMMARY OF NATURAL SELECTION AS PRESENTED BY DARWIN

   The evolutionary process as Darwin envisioned it can be summarized as follows:

   1. Organisms alive today were not specifically created as we see them but have descended from species that lived before them. This concept of common descent links plants and animals together into groups descended from ancestors they share.

   2. More organisms are produced than can possibly survive, most die before reaching sexual maturity, and many that do survive fail to reproduce. Individual organisms are constantly struggling against each other, and often against hostile environmental conditions, for the necessities of life.

   3. The physical characteristics of individual members of each species vary a great deal, and much of this variation can be inherited.

   4. Some variants in each generation are better suited to life in their environment – that is, better adapted – than others.

   5. Better-adapted inviduals are more likely than others to survive and reproduce; hence the phrase “survival of the fittest.”

   6. Over time, natural selection can both produce changes in existing species and create new species from pre-existing ones.

   Scientific and Philosophical Significance

   Evolutionary theory has profound practical and philosophical repercussions that make it essential for all educated people to understand the essentials of Darwinian thought.

   Philosophical ramifications Darwin knew that accepting his theory required believing in philosophical materialism, the conviction that matter is the stuff of all existence and that all mental and spiritual phenomena are its by-products. Darwinian evolution was not only purposeless but also heartless – a process in which the rigors of nature ruthlessly eliminate the unfit.

   Suddenly, humanity was reduced to just one more species in a world that cared nothing for us. The great human mind was no more than a mass of evolving neurons. Worst of all, there was no divine plan to guide us. These realizations troubled Darwin deeply, for in his day, materialism was even more outrageous than evolution (Figure 8.14). Some scholars speculate that fear of being branded a heretic for his materialism contributed to Darwin’s 21-year delay in publishing his theory. The same antimaterialistic reasoning also drives much modern-day opposition to evolutionary thought.

   Yet as pointed out by evolutionary scholar Douglas Futuyma, seldom do the detractors of the Darwinian world view take note of its positive implications. In Darwin’s world we are not helpless prisoners of a static world order, but rather masters of our own fate in a universe where human action can change the future. And from a strictly scientific point of view, rejecting evolution is no different from rejecting other natural phenomena such as electricity and gravity.

   Darwin remained to the end a devout, if somewhat unorthodox, Christian. “I see no good reason why the views given in this volume should shock the religious feelings of anyone,” he wrote. Like religious scientists of many faiths today, he found no less wonder in a god that directed the laws of nature than in one that circumvented them.

   Darwin and politics Political theorists have always had a field day with Darwin’s materialistic world view, although different individuals have interpreted and extended its message in diametrically opposite directions. Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, for example, saw in evolution both justification for the overthrow of the aristocratic order and proof of the inevitability of the class struggle. Yet Henry Ford, American’s preeminent capitalist, found in Darwinism the perfect rationale for the free-enterpriser system.

   Herbert Spencer championed the twisted logic of social Darwinism, which had nothing to do with Darwin himself.

   [end p. 152]

   [bolds and italics original]

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: Rrr on Oct. 05 2009,14:23

Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 05 2009,00:48)
Well, it looks like Dheddle is ready to take his marbles and go home, so I do want to at least give him one good reply regarding his page 1 post.

8<--- disingenious nonresponse snippedated ---

FloydLee
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Why don't you collect some marbles, Floyd? You seem to be in short supply.

For two dozen pages now you have been going back on your word about committing to an honest debate and dodging Deadman's very direct questions posed right at the start. IIRC, you are here on his invitation, yet you avoid responding to your sponsor for as long as you think you can.

Think you're being clever, do you? Well think again. Boring, that's what. So pick up your broken marble, go back home and do your best to get born yet again, equipped with a new set. New handle too? An ounce of honesty even?

Maybe Jesus loves you better next time. Good luck.
Posted by: Quack on Oct. 05 2009,14:31

Archived for posterity, a PM will get you a copy if you need it...

OK?

__
Edit: To archive.
Posted by: Dan on Oct. 05 2009,15:26

I remember that this whole thing started when FL talked about how great debate was, how he loved the give and take of ideas, that those who DON'T debate give the impression that they CAN'T respond to questions.

So what happened?  FL has refused to debate.  Deadman started off with a long list of official church statements concerning the compatibility of evolution and Christianity.  FL didn't respond at all.  No give and take of ideas.  FL did respond, once, to the three point argument concerning the pope.  He responded with a transparent logical fallacy.  That fallacy was pointed out to him on several occasions, and he has never even attempted to defend his analysis.

FL repeats to the point of nausia his "four or five incompatibilities that no one could possibly overcome" and ignores the fact that they have been overcome by Christians from Augustine to Benedict.  When someone points out why his 4 or 5 are not incompatibilities at all, he changes the subject.

In this case FL doesn't merely give the impression that he can't answer questions, he PROVES that he can't answer questions.
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on Oct. 05 2009,15:36

Quote (Dan @ Oct. 05 2009,15:26)
In this case FL doesn't merely give the impression that he can't answer questions, he PROVES that he can't answer questions.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


The least he could do is spin some crazy tale, a la AFDave.

FL, do some reading:

< AFDave >

You've some way to go yet!
Posted by: Henry J on Oct. 05 2009,15:36

Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 04 2009,22:46)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Mayr is one person. His opinion on theological matters is only his opinion; it is not part of the science.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


But as we've seen with a little help from his evolutionist colleagues, Mayr's position IS actually part of the science.  Textbook-taught.  Multiple affirmations; it's very clear now that Mayr is NOT JUST "one person".

For example, evolutionary theory ITSELF gives us the NT-NCF position (as Futuyma so succintly documented).  It's not about Mayr's private personal theological beliefs.

Btw, have you noticed something here?  Where are the professional evolutionist quotations that specifically REFUTE the professional evolutionist quotations that I'm offering on each of the specific Big Five Incompatibilities?

For example, where are the evolutionary biology textbooks that say "Evolution DOES admit conscious anticipation of the future, ie conscious forethought."
Got any?

******
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Evolution theory doesn't use any "supernatural" factors....
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


It's far worse than that, I'm afraid.   Evolution theory doesn't merely "doesn't use", oh no no no.  Evolution specifically REJECTS any supernatural factors at all points of the evolutionary process, as Mayr, Futuyma, Olroyd (and Nature journal June 14, 2007 as well!) so clearly pointed out.  

Remember, how does the theory of evolution explain the adaptiveness and diversity of life?

"Solely materialistically." --- Mayr, SciAm
"Purely materialistically." --- Futuyma, EB3

That's where evolution is at, folks.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


The conclusions of science are not determined by battling quotations.
Posted by: Schroedinger's Dog on Oct. 05 2009,15:46

Quote (sledgehammer @ Oct. 05 2009,18:38)
Quote (deadman_932 @ Oct. 05 2009,08:04)
   
Quote (Louis @ Oct. 05 2009,09:01)
P.P.P.S. Turning up to a church when there's a funeral on to badger the priest about some idiot creationist Yank's utterly inane twattery about evolutionary biology....Priceless!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


My goodness. Above and beyond the call of duty, indeed. Shroedinger's Perro, I salute you! Trying, at least, to annoy both Floyd and some poor baffled priest is like two birds with one stone: Boink! boink!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Not to mention, annoying the "Lady In Blue".  I'll bet it was the earring, SD.  Doesn't Satan wear an earring, or am I thinking of Mr. Clean?  Anyway, Thanks for the pics!  Above and beyond the call, fer sure, fer sure.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


As my army instructor used to say:

"earrings are for gays* and pirates, and so far I haven't seen any pirate ship parked around here!"










*Not that there is anything wrong with that...
Posted by: snorkild on Oct. 05 2009,16:03

Quote (Schroedinger's Dog @ Oct. 05 2009,15:46)
*Not that there is anything wrong with that...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Your army instructor really said that?
Posted by: FloydLee on Oct. 05 2009,16:19

Okay, back again for a bit.  A few notes:

(1)  I could be wrong, but I think CsAdams will start falling silent about the cite thing now.  She had said, "And we wonder why FL doesn't provide cites for those textbooks", so I provided her the cite for the Miller textbook straight out of the FTE amicus brief itself.

But then instead of simply checking out the provided cite, she starts insisting on a page scan.  However, the poster JLT went ahead and did the checking and (even without offering any page scans himself), offered the appropriate Miller text, which confirmed that the FTE cite I provided was the real deal.  

And that, as they say, is that.  (Btw, on an earlier page, CsAdams tried to cast doubt on the definitions of macroevolution and microevolution that I provided from Campbell-Reece "Biology" 7th edition, but that likewise fell into silence very very quickly.  Didn't even bother asking for page scans on that one.)

***

(2)  I agree with some of you -- the "Above and Beyond" award definitely goes to the Schroedinger K-9 poster for a most entertaining post, AND for making some real honest efforts at seeking to have a Christian address the Five Incompatibilities from their own personal Christian theology which they profess to believe in and live out.  

It amazes me that a non-Christian who allegedly "looks like Satan" (at least to French ladies in blue dresses) is stepping off-line and making/documenting all these efforts, simply to bring in a Christian voice, a clergyman from halfway across the planet, who's apparently wiling to step right up to the plate on this thing.  Kudos SD.

***

(3)  Give the "Very Honorable Mention" award to the 79-(or more)-year-old poster Quack, for speaking in detail and from the heart about his own religious and philsophical background and how it has shaped his views.  Again, that honestly sheds light on things, that increases the understanding, that is helpful.  

***

(4)  I see DHeddle returned, and this time he replied on Augustine as well as the Fourth Incompatibility.  Thanks much, and yes I will get a response in on yours.

***

(5)  And we still gotta get on with this other main argument which many of you have offered...the attempt to water-down the force of the Big Five Incompatibilities by suggesting that all the sciences go there, not just evolution.

***

(6)  And of course I gotta go back to Deadman's "simple three-line proof" which Deadman claimed had gone unanswered from page one (but thanks for Dan --Oct 5 post, 15:26 -- for at least agreeing that I did answer Deadman once, even though Dan didn't agree with my answer either.)

***

Okay......still quite a bit on the plate, but the issues here should be at least discussed to some degree by the end of this week and weekend.  That would set the stage for starting the process of wrapping up this issue (with two or three extra days for focussing on "Biblical Perspective On Biology") and then switching over to "ID is science" debate.
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Oct. 05 2009,16:24

Quote (Erasmus, FCD @ Oct. 05 2009,12:44)
Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Oct. 05 2009,01:15)
Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Oct. 02 2009,13:38)
 
Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 02 2009,12:03)
     

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Is "God" part of the required explanation for why water runs downhill?

Yes or no.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Nope.  He's not.  Furthermore, hydrologists (unlike evolutionists) are silent on the issue of God as a required explantion.

(Please note, however:  In the Bible, God IS the required explanation for the origin of water itself.)

And also He is the Required Explanation for the origin of plants, animals, and (this is where you come in) humans too.

snip
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


why is god not part of the required explanation for why water runs downhill, when he is part of the required explanation for the EXISTENCE OF WATER?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Floyd, baby?  any day now you are going to address this instead of flirting with deadman and playing coy with heddle.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


while you are changing the subject....
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Oct. 05 2009,16:24

please explain why

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
why is god not part of the required explanation for why water runs downhill, when he is part of the required explanation for the EXISTENCE OF WATER?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: Chayanov on Oct. 05 2009,17:32

Quote (Dan @ Oct. 05 2009,15:26)
I remember that this whole thing started when FL talked about how great debate was, how he loved the give and take of ideas, that those who DON'T debate give the impression that they CAN'T respond to questions.

So what happened?  FL has refused to debate.  Deadman started off with a long list of official church statements concerning the compatibility of evolution and Christianity.  FL didn't respond at all.  No give and take of ideas.  FL did respond, once, to the three point argument concerning the pope.  He responded with a transparent logical fallacy.  That fallacy was pointed out to him on several occasions, and he has never even attempted to defend his analysis.

FL repeats to the point of nausia his "four or five incompatibilities that no one could possibly overcome" and ignores the fact that they have been overcome by Christians from Augustine to Benedict.  When someone points out why his 4 or 5 are not incompatibilities at all, he changes the subject.

In this case FL doesn't merely give the impression that he can't answer questions, he PROVES that he can't answer questions.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I think this has been a good illustration of the futility in attempting to engage with creationists. We don't have a debate here. It's not even a dialogue. Instead it's pages of the evasions, lies, willful ignorance, and smug, condescending proselytizing of someone whose own faith is clearly very shallow and insecure.
Posted by: deadman_932 on Oct. 05 2009,17:38

Strictly for entertainment purposes:

Here's your question and commentary on your question, Floyd.
 
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.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


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


< http://www.antievolution.org/cgi-bin....y153510 >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Later, you tried to pretend that it constituted an "answer" < http://www.antievolution.org/cgi-bin....y154140 > here, Floyd

 
Quote (FloydLee @ Sep. 23 2009,18:06)
   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
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."
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Notice that my paragraph--whether it's 100 percent right or 100 percent wrong--clearly places my response under your Option "C".

You remember what you said your Option "C" was, don't you Deadman?
       

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


So in fact, your post received a straight-up, direct response.  I actually gave you the type of response that you specifically asked for in your post:  

       

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
....*directly* addressing the points of your opponent
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



NOW wha'cha got to say dude?  
No escaping that you at least got the sort of response that you asked for, even though you didn't (and don't) agree with the response itself.  

Can you at least acknowledge that much, or is that too much for you to handle right now?     :)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Then you were told on page 11 of this thread  that points one and two were "related" by being what rational humans call "facts" Floyd, thus making your "question" and claimed "answer" utterly nonsensical, Floyd. So you vanished off the board, only to return  later and pretend nothing had happened.

You toss a word salad and try to convince others it's "really" steak. You "answered" a question WITH a question and everything you babbled after that is commentary on your alleged "answer."

When I asked you earlier today to repost your "answer" --you once again vanished, then reappear as if nothing had happened.

Frankly, I'm very glad not to have to live in your little world, Floyd. If all Christians were like you and in control, I would surely declare a private war, since your views are as toxic as the Taliban. As it is, I'm grateful that your brand of fanaticism is slowly dying -- and good riddance.

and by the way, Floyd, you still need to "answer" Erasmus' point:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
"why is god not part of the required explanation for why water runs downhill, when he is part of the required explanation for the EXISTENCE OF WATER?"
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



The view of fanatics like you, taken to their logical conclusions, would deny all of science. The National Academy of Sciences rejects at least one and arguably more of your "Big Five," and by your logic, it's incompatible with your Christianity.
Posted by: Lou FCD on Oct. 05 2009,17:49

Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 05 2009,17:19)
But then instead of simply checking out the provided cite, she starts insisting on a page scan.  
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


That's what happens when you are a known liar and a demonstrable fraud.

I wouldn't believe you if you said the sky was blue, unless you provided a photograph notarized in triplicate and witnessed by six of my closest friends.
Posted by: JohnW on Oct. 05 2009,18:18

Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 04 2009,21:46)
Remember, how does the theory of evolution explain the adaptiveness and diversity of life?

"Solely materialistically." --- Mayr, SciAm
"Purely materialistically." --- Futuyma, EB3

That's where evolution is at, folks.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


How does the theory of gravitation explain the orbital motion of the Moon, Floyd?  Purely and solely materialistically?  Or can you cite a theoretical requirement* for angels with billhooks?




* Newtonian or relativistic.  Either will do.
Posted by: khan on Oct. 05 2009,18:19

Quote (Lou FCD @ Oct. 05 2009,18:49)
Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 05 2009,17:19)
But then instead of simply checking out the provided cite, she starts insisting on a page scan.  
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


That's what happens when you are a known liar and a demonstrable fraud.

I wouldn't believe you if you said the sky was blue, unless you provided a photograph notarized in triplicate and witnessed by six of my closest friends.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Isn't there some sort of legal principle: that if someone is a known liar, their testimony can be considered in that light?
Posted by: Jim_Wynne on Oct. 05 2009,18:45

Quote (Chayanov @ Oct. 05 2009,17:32)
I think this has been a good illustration of the futility in attempting to engage with creationists. We don't have a debate here. It's not even a dialogue. Instead it's pages of the evasions, lies, willful ignorance, and smug, condescending proselytizing of someone whose own faith is clearly very shallow and insecure.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


And that's just Heddle.
Posted by: Chayanov on Oct. 05 2009,22:01

Quote (Jim_Wynne @ Oct. 05 2009,18:45)
Quote (Chayanov @ Oct. 05 2009,17:32)
I think this has been a good illustration of the futility in attempting to engage with creationists. We don't have a debate here. It's not even a dialogue. Instead it's pages of the evasions, lies, willful ignorance, and smug, condescending proselytizing of someone whose own faith is clearly very shallow and insecure.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


And that's just Heddle.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Hey, you said it, not me.
Posted by: Henry J on Oct. 05 2009,22:29



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
This is just a reminder for Quack.  Nobody's presenting those "Other Versions of Christianity", (the ones that are presumably Bible-supportable and demonstrably compatible with evolution), in this forum as of yet.  Nobody.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Funny, I could have sworn that the pope had been mentioned several times on this thread.

Henry
Posted by: Chayanov on Oct. 05 2009,23:09

Quote (Henry J @ Oct. 05 2009,22:29)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
This is just a reminder for Quack.  Nobody's presenting those "Other Versions of Christianity", (the ones that are presumably Bible-supportable and demonstrably compatible with evolution), in this forum as of yet.  Nobody.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Funny, I could have sworn that the pope had been mentioned several times on this thread.

Henry
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Yes, but see, the Pope didn't come here and post a point-by-point rebuttal of FL's assertions. Therefore, in FL's mind, the Pope hasn't actually addressed any of them, regardless of anything he's already said on these topics.
Posted by: Louis on Oct. 06 2009,02:32

Well to be fair to FL the pope has been mentioned but he's off in the woods somewhere relieving himself so he doesn't count.

You find a christian not making doodoo in a forest and FL will surely accept them as examples....unless they're not real true christians who put sugar on their porridge.

Hmmmm I may have mixed my metaphors, well it's all good. Clarity is a bad thing, right FL?

Louis
Posted by: Quack on Oct. 06 2009,04:14

I've been thinking, FL is asking for compatibility between  Christianity and science. (ToE is science!)

While his version never will be, our version is.
Christianity compatible with evolution is what we have here in Scandinavia; indeed in most of Western Europe.

As someone recently commented: Our churches are empty, but that’s because Christianity has won. We may not know the Ten Commandments, but we know when we violate them.

Evolution is not an issue, except of course in the insignificant enclaves of anti-abortionist, anti-homosexuality, anti-female-clergy fundamentalist cranks. Crackpottery like ID is practically unknown outside those circles.

People just don’t bother although you sometimes may be hear a question like “Just what is this thing about human descent?”

A magazine like “Science Illustrated” print articles about OOL research, Dinosaur extinction, and all kinds of stuff; age of Earth, evolution and much more, it is all taken for granted. Kids prefer such read instead of the Bible…

I understand what must have been going on during the development of man’s consciousness, the psychological and cultural development from ‘animal-animal ’ to conscious human-animal, and the consequent development of religions. It is beyond my capability to write about it; I am just referring to what I have learned in my life, lots of books and attempts at making order out of the mess.

The bottom line might be like we have advanced to a stage where the primitive religions have lost most of their meaning for people. It is hard to tell whether we should view the creation of literalist Christianity as a good or bad thing. Where would we have been today without it? I’ll leave that question to people better qualified than me.

I have to say though that I believe the codification of the 7th century culture of the Arabian Desert into a religion is something the world might have been better off without.

I’ve heard it said “the Americans brought only the Old Testament with them to America.”
I believe that is a general trend with migration; people tend to preserve the culture they left behind, while the culture left behind may continue developing.
Posted by: Dan on Oct. 06 2009,06:16

Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 05 2009,16:19)
(6)  And of course I gotta go back to Deadman's "simple three-line proof" which Deadman claimed had gone unanswered from page one (but thanks for Dan --Oct 5 post, 15:26 -- for at least agreeing that I did answer Deadman once, even though Dan didn't agree with my answer either.)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


It is false to say that I "did not agree with [FL's] argument".  What I (and others) said is that FL's purported claim is not an argument at all, because it has no basis in any sort of logic.

Many have noted this.  FL is not debating, he's not engaging the arguments presented to him.  He's just saying "I win, I win!"
Posted by: csadams on Oct. 06 2009,06:25

Quote (JLT @ Oct. 05 2009,13:10)
Quote (csadams @ Oct. 04 2009,00:55)
Sorry, Floyd, I just can't trust you to provide accurate information about textbooks.  That's why I'm asking for you to provide a page scan rather than an FTE cite.  
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I found a quote of the relevant passage < here > (quoted by Nick Matzke):
   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
   Joe Levine and Ken Miller, 1991 college textbook Wrote: [snipped]


---------------------QUOTE-------------------


---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Thanks, JLT, for showing a < highly relevant portion of Miller's deposition >, one which FL has ignored:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
But as soon as a number of people pointed out the existence of these statements, I [Miller] told my coauthor [Levine] under no uncertain terms I was not happy with philosophical statements of this sort being in our textbook, and I know that no such statements appears in any of the books that we’ve published for the past four or five years, and I can’t remember exactly when we managed – which printing we managed to get this removed from this book, but I know it’s no longer in the latest version of this particular book. And again, this is a different book from the one that is being used in Dover.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Matzke notes this about the Miller deposition, with bolding by me:


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
The larger problem is that Luskin’s two quotes, from the early 1990’s college textbook and the early 1990’s “elephant” book are both badly out of context. I won’t say either passage is exactly scintillating in context – you can’t be an expert on everything in biology and history of science at once – but the idea that either is some kind of active attempt by Ken Miller to push an atheistic religious view is silly. Even if it were, it wouldn’t justify the constitutionality of ID, only the removal of the atheistic religious view from the classroom. And even that would assume that these books were being used in Dover, which they weren’t.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: csadams on Oct. 06 2009,06:43

Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 05 2009,16:19)
Okay, back again for a bit.  A few notes:

(1)  I could be wrong, but I think CsAdams will start falling silent about the cite thing now.  She had said, "And we wonder why FL doesn't provide cites for those textbooks", so I provided her the cite for the Miller textbook straight out of the FTE amicus brief itself.

But then instead of simply checking out the provided cite, she starts insisting on a page scan.  However, the poster JLT went ahead and did the checking and (even without offering any page scans himself), offered the appropriate Miller text, which confirmed that the FTE cite I provided was the real deal.  

And that, as they say, is that.  (Btw, on an earlier page, CsAdams tried to cast doubt on the definitions of macroevolution and microevolution that I provided from Campbell-Reece "Biology" 7th edition, but that likewise fell into silence very very quickly.  Didn't even bother asking for page scans on that one.)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You thought wrong.  Again.

Do I trust you to provide a cite to an accurate website?  No, as shown by your multiple references to creationist websites for "science" resources.

Should we trust you for an accurate, contextual reference to published works?  No, because of your unfortunate habit of misquoting and taking quotes out of context.

And yes, I ask you - and only you - for page scans habitually now.  Just because you don't provide those scans (hie thee to the TSCPL) doesn't mean *I've* gone silent.

Love to stick around and discuss this some more today but as always, I have scores of teenagers today who are looking forward(!!) to learning more about the 14.6-billion-year-old history of the universe, about the nature of science, and about the difference between debating and doing actual science.

[ed.]
Posted by: SLP on Oct. 06 2009,09:34

Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 05 2009,16:19)
Okay, back again for a bit.  A few notes:

(1)  I could be wrong, but I think CsAdams will start falling silent about the cite thing now.  She had said, "And we wonder why FL doesn't provide cites for those textbooks", so I provided her the cite for the Miller textbook straight out of the FTE amicus brief itself.

But then instead of simply checking out the provided cite, she starts insisting on a page scan.  However, the poster JLT went ahead and did the checking and (even without offering any page scans himself), offered the appropriate Miller text, which confirmed that the FTE cite I provided was the real deal.  
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


"Real deal" just like your doctored Oro quote that you've been bandying about the nets for a few years now?
Posted by: FloydLee on Oct. 06 2009,10:30

Okay, another day, another debate.  Interesting comments as always.

(I won't lie to you---I think some of you are not enjoying this debate very much.  But me, I am.  Completely worth it.  I'm learning some things, and I hope you are too.)

Let's begin with Deadman again. (This will be more than one post). Remember, he's got the handy-dandy three-line proof:



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

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.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



I chose Option "C", of course, thereby causing Deadman to lose his rather overconfident bet:



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



So, let's go back over that "C" argument.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
....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.)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Okay.  Seems clear enough.

Here's the deal:  this syllogism was claimed to be a proof.  It's not.  Why not?  Because a rational reason (in fact, more 'n' one) exists why (3) does not NECESSARILY follow (1) and (2).

(a)  The Pope may simply be unaware of the existence of particular Incompatibilities.

(b)  The pope may acknowledge that "evolution happens" but only under certain conditions, which means that under different conditions, he is NOT in agreement that evolution is compatible with Christianity.

©  By "evolution happens", does the Pope mean "microevolution happens", "macroevolution happens", or both?  Without specifiying things further, you can't be sure what Pope means there, and therefore your (3) may not necessarily follow from your (1) and (2)

Seems clear enough.  There are visible holes in this proof.  Items where (3) just MIGHT NOT necessarily follow from (1) and (2).  That's the deal.

(Again, please note that this all falls under Option C.)

So, Deadman, how do you plug those three specific holes and get your "proof" back up to the status of an actual "proof"?
Posted by: Occam's Toothbrush on Oct. 06 2009,10:34

Quote (Dan @ Oct. 06 2009,07:16)
   
Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 05 2009,16:19)
(6)  And of course I gotta go back to Deadman's "simple three-line proof" which Deadman claimed had gone unanswered from page one (but thanks for Dan --Oct 5 post, 15:26 -- for at least agreeing that I did answer Deadman once, even though Dan didn't agree with my answer either.)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


It is false to say that I "did not agree with [FL's] argument".  What I (and others) said is that FL's purported claim is not an argument at all, because it has no basis in any sort of logic.

Many have noted this.  FL is not debating, he's not engaging the arguments presented to him.  He's just saying "I win, I win!"
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


It's pretty easy to "win" (in your own mind) the argument "evolution is incompatible with christianity" when you believe you are the only legitimate arbiter of what christianity is, and you're fully willing to lie about evolution consists of.
Posted by: FloydLee on Oct. 06 2009,10:43



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
He's just saying "I win, I win!"
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Please notice that I have not claimed any victory in this debate so far, nor do I intend to.  The quoted statement is a misrepresentation.  

I hope the poster involved will do less misrepresentation and actually engage in detail the responses that I am offering.  At one's convenience, of course.
Posted by: FloydLee on Oct. 06 2009,11:02



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
As someone recently commented: Our churches are empty, but that’s because Christianity has won.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Another good anc considered post Quack, but I gotta say from my perspective:  THAT line is eerie to the max.  That's Halloween-level irony there.

Over here, empty churches, lost members scattered to the winds, no-longer-existing churches, mean great tragedy for Christianity.  Complete Defeat!!
Posted by: Sealawr on Oct. 06 2009,11:06



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
By "evolution happens", does the Pope mean "microevolution happens", "macroevolution happens", or both?  Without specifying things further, you can't be sure what Pope means there, and therefore your (3) may not necessarily follow from your (1) and (2)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Well, he accepts common descent and common ancestry that would include micro and macro evolution. He rejects YEC.  That pretty much covers it, don't you think?

Here it is YET AGAIN;

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.    

< http://www.vatican.va/roman_c....en.html >

So the pope is pretty clear there's no conflict.

But wait there's more.

The Pope holds a doctorate in Theology.  He had been a professor  of theology for over twenty years and held the position of chair of the Department of Theology at the university of Tubingen, probably one of the most prestigious positions it its possible to hold as a professor of theology.

I say this because I think the Pope knows quite a bit about Christian theology and has the credentials to back up his opinions.  The Pope, as been repeatedly noted, rejects your so-called conflict.  The previous Pope, also a bit of theologian in his own right, rejected the so-called conflict succinctly, "Truth cannot contradict Truth."

You, Floyd  I don't see similar credentials at all.  You don't' appear to have the academic qualifications to discuss the fine points of Christian theology at all.

In fact, it's pretty clear to me your knowledge and understanding of Christian theology is weaker than your understanding of evolution, if that's possible.  You seem to be very unclear regarding Christian theology. I don't think you even have a clear or accurate definition of "Christian."

Let's start over:

Define the essential core beliefs of Christianity for us.

Might I suggest the Nicene Creed?

< http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicene_Creed >
Posted by: Robin on Oct. 06 2009,11:22

Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 06 2009,10:30)

---------------------QUOTE-------------------




---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I won't lie to you---I think some of you are not enjoying this debate very much.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Well, I can certainly confirm that I'm having a great time. Heck, I laughed at one of your silly claims twice in one post yesterday! Heh!
Posted by: Quack on Oct. 06 2009,11:31

Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 06 2009,11:02)
   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
As someone recently commented: Our churches are empty, but that’s because Christianity has won.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Another good anc considered post Quack, but I gotta say from my perspective:  THAT line is eerie to the max.  That's Halloween-level irony there.

Over here, empty churches, lost members scattered to the winds, no-longer-existing churches, mean great tragedy for Christianity.  Complete Defeat!!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


How come that is such a tragedy for you, when here, we are better off than ever before? And I mean as a society - shouldn't a religion be judged by it's fruits? We use the churches when we need them: Baptism, weddings, funerals, Christmas... Who knows, maybe there's a small chapel in everybody's heart. If he just knocks on the door...

Hierarchical religion? Hierarchical psychotherapy? Hierarchical counseling?

The time is over-ripe to abandon dubious, antique scriptures and realize that

Religion is in a man's heart, not in scriptures, the church, the cathedrals or the clergy. The saved needs no salvation.
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
If Christ were born in Bethlehem a thousand times and not in thee thyself; then art thou lost eternally.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


C'est tout.
Posted by: Robin on Oct. 06 2009,11:33

Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 06 2009,10:30)

---------------------QUOTE-------------------




---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Here's the deal:  this syllogism was claimed to be a proof.  It's not.  Why not?  Because a rational reason (in fact, more 'n' one) exists why (3) does not NECESSARILY follow (1) and (2).
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



LMAO!



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
(a)  The Pope may simply be unaware of the existence of particular Incompatibilities.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Illogical argument, Floyd. You said that your Big Five were directly derived conditions of biblical Christianity. If the Pope is unaware of them, then either a) he isn't a Christian or b) they don't actually exist. There is no alternative.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
(b)  The pope may acknowledge that "evolution happens" but only under certain conditions, which means that under different conditions, he is NOT in agreement that evolution is compatible with Christianity.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



The Pope may say that wearing pink frilly underwear on one's head under certain conditions feels sexy, but unless you can established he did say such and actually [/i]established certain conditions[/i] that specifically conflict with the TOE, your speculation amounts to a hand wave. As of this moment, however, all we can go on is what the Pope has presented, which so far only conflicts with your claims
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Oct. 06 2009,11:46

Quote (Erasmus, FCD @ Oct. 05 2009,17:24)
please explain why  

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
why is god not part of the required explanation for why water runs downhill, when he is part of the required explanation for the EXISTENCE OF WATER?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Floyd, please address.  Coward.
Posted by: deadman_932 on Oct. 06 2009,11:50

Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 06 2009,10:30)
Okay, another day, another debate.  Interesting comments as always.

(I won't lie to you---I think some of you are not enjoying this debate very much.  But me, I am.  Completely worth it.  I'm learning some things, and I hope you are too.)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



(1) This is not a "debate," Floyd. You saw to that by abandoning your agreement to abide by "debate"-level rules.
(2) Those who may not "enjoy" this thread have expressed their reasons why, Floyd -- such as your dishonest tactics, as in (1)

 
Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 06 2009,10:30)
I chose Option "C", of course, thereby causing Deadman to lose his rather overconfident bet:

       

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


---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You'll notice that you have engaged in a Gish Gallop, ignored/avoiding questions and that you have indeed implied that the Pope is not a proper christian with proper christian views, and that you've changed the subject(s) many times while casting aspersions on the religious views of people here. Was I wrong? Well, you say I was, but that's hardly convincing, given your track record.  

   
Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 06 2009,10:30)
So, let's go back over that "C" argument.

       

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
....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.)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Okay.  Seems clear enough.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Yes, your question was about what facts (1) and (2) had to do with each other. The rest of your quibbles are irrelevant since they are dependent on that question. It doesn't support your claim that you "really" meant  C -- (Contend that the reasoning deriving statement 3 from statements 1 and 2 is wrong) When points (1) and (2) are what we in the sane world call facts.

Everything you write following your  initial question "What exactly does (1) have to do with (2)? " will be dealt with below.

   
Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 06 2009,10:30)
Here's the deal:  this syllogism was claimed to be a proof.  It's not.  Why not?  Because a rational reason (in fact, more 'n' one) exists why (3) does not NECESSARILY follow (1) and (2).
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You calling them "rational reasons" does not make that so. I view your claims as completely irrational. You have not DEMONSTRATED them as anything other than irrational.  

   
Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 06 2009,10:30)
(a)  The Pope may simply be unaware of the existence of particular Incompatibilities.

(b)  The pope may acknowledge that "evolution happens" but only under certain conditions, which means that under different conditions, he is NOT in agreement that evolution is compatible with Christianity.

©  By "evolution happens", does the Pope mean "microevolution happens", "macroevolution happens", or both?  Without specifiying things further, you can't be sure what Pope means there, and therefore your (3) may not necessarily follow from your (1) and (2)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


If you are stating these things to be true, the burden falls on you to show they are true. The fact is that (1) the pope is a Christian who (2) holds that evolution happens and that given (1) and (2), the Pope is a Christian who holds evolution compatible with Christianity, as he has expressly stated

It is up to YOU to show the validity of your "objections." I hold your objections to be as unsupported as "perhaps the Pope is really possessed by a demon who is doing the talking -- not the Pope himself"

It would be neccessary to show that the Pope was in fact possessed by a demon in such a claim -- just as it is necessary for you to offer positive evidence for any other objections.

Your alleged "refutations" are based on "what ifs?" and are as insubstantial and illogical as "what if Ratzinger is really a space alien?" or "What if he really secretly thinks evolution means 'Swiss cheese is great' ?"

In all such cases, the burden of proof falls on you to demonstrate the validity of your claimed refutations, not merely offer up any fantasy that pops in your addled brain.

   
Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 06 2009,10:30)
Seems clear enough.  There are visible holes in this proof.  Items where (3) just MIGHT NOT necessarily follow from (1) and (2).  That's the deal.
(Again, please note that this all falls under Option C.)



So, Deadman, how do you plug those three specific holes and get your "proof" back up to the status of an actual "proof"?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Done
Posted by: nmgirl on Oct. 06 2009,11:58

Since FL still has doubts about the Catholic Church and evolution, here is the latest, as posted on the NCSE website:

The latest on evolution from the Vatican
October 5th, 2009 International General 2009
A recently published statement on current scientific knowledge on cosmic evolution and biological evolution from the Pontifical Academy of Sciences concludes: "The extraordinary progress in our understanding of evolution and the place of man in nature should be shared with everyone. ... Furthermore, scientists have a clear responsibility to contribute to the quality of education, especially as regards the subject of evolution." The statement appears in the proceedings of "Scientific Insights into the Evolution of the Universe and of Life," a plenary session of the Pontifical Academy of Sciences held from October 31 to November 4, 2008.

Nobel laureate Christian de Duve summarized the plenary session: "The participants unanimously accepted as indisputable the affirmation that the Universe, as well as life within it, are the products of long evolutionary histories," noting that there was also wide agreement among the participants on the common ancestry of life on earth. "Evolution," he added, "has acquired the status of established fact. In the words of His Holiness John Paul II, it is 'more than a hypothesis'." The centrality of natural selection to evolution was also recognized, although de Duve acknowledged "the need to refine some of the conceptual bases" of natural selection "in the light of recent findings."

"On the other hand," De Duve added, "no one, at least among the scientists, defended the recently advocated theory of 'intelligent design' ... Several of the arguments cited in support of this theory were shown to ignore recent findings. In particular, the theory was rejected as intrinsically non-disprovable, resting, as it does, on the a priori contention, neither provable nor disprovable, that certain events cannot be naturally explained. These views did not satisfy some theologians who stressed the role of design in creation, an affirmation which, in turn, raised the questions of where and how design is manifested. The issue was not settled during the meeting."

"Intelligent design" was also the topic of Maxine Singer's contribution to the plenary session. Singer traced the history of the antievolution movement in the United States, from Scopes-era attempts to ban the teaching of evolution, through the McLean, Edwards, and Kitzmiller cases, to the present spate of "academic freedom" bills such as Louisiana's, which "permits teachers to speak of evolution as 'controversial' and is an invitation to teachers to present alternative, nonscientific explanations." She added, "The young governor of Louisiana, Bobby Jindal, signed the bill, making it law although he had been a biology major at Brown University."

"Intelligent design is one of the more recent subterfuges used to try to get creationist idea into school science curricula," Singer explained. Its proponents "say their methods are scientific. But they do not describe experiments or systematic observations and do not publish in recognized, peer-reviewed journals." In the face of resistance to evolution exemplified by "creation science" and "intelligent design," Singer concluded, "we are unlikely to convince those who view their religious faith as in fundamental conflict with scientific evolution. ... The most important task for scientists and the only one that has a chance to succeed is assuring that science and evolution are taught properly in school science classes."
Posted by: Dan on Oct. 06 2009,12:17

Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 06 2009,10:30)
 

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

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.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



...

Here's the deal:  this syllogism was claimed to be a proof.  It's not.  Why not?  Because a rational reason (in fact, more 'n' one) exists why (3) does not NECESSARILY follow (1) and (2).

(a)  The Pope may simply be unaware of the existence of particular Incompatibilities.

(b)  The pope may acknowledge that "evolution happens" but only under certain conditions, which means that under different conditions, he is NOT in agreement that evolution is compatible with Christianity.

©  By "evolution happens", does the Pope mean "microevolution happens", "macroevolution happens", or both?  Without specifiying things further, you can't be sure what Pope means there, and therefore your (3) may not necessarily follow from your (1) and (2)

Seems clear enough.  There are visible holes in this proof.  Items where (3) just MIGHT NOT necessarily follow from (1) and (2).  That's the deal.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


(It's paragraphs like the last one that I characterize as FL saying "I win! I win!")

And let's see why FL doesn't win:

(a) The fact is that the pope holds to evolution and is a Christian.  FL points out that maybe in the future the pope will change his mind, when he hears more arguments.  But that's irrelevant to the fact that at on 6 October 2009 the pope holds to evolution and is a Christian.  So it is possible to hold to evolution and be a Christian.  That's the point we're debating.

(b) Is irrelevant.  There are many conditions under which evolution doesn't happen.  For example, evolution is not currently happening on Earth's Moon.  The relevant point is that there exist conditions under which evolution does happen.  There are such conditions, and the pope knows it, and the pope's a Christian.

© Is also irrelevant.  The pope holds that FL's position is "an absurdity" (I'm not providing a link because I've done so many times before.)  If the pope holds that any amount of evolution happens, if he holds that any facet of evolution is true, then evolution and Christianity are compatible.

Note the position that FL has put himself into.  He claims that knowledge of evolution is incompatible with belief in Christianity.  This is a claim about facts, not about desires or wishes.  To support his claim, FL has to show that no Christian has ever held to evolution, that none does now, and that none ever will in the future.  FL has given himself a huge job.

In contrast, to prove FL wrong, I need only point to one Christian who holds evolution.  Even if that Christian holds evolution for only five seconds, even if FL wishes that person were not a Christian, even if that Christian holds to only part of the generally accepted theory of evolution, then knowledge of evolution is consistent with faith in Christianity.  I have done so.
Posted by: FloydLee on Oct. 06 2009,12:44



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
"Real deal" just like your doctored Oro quote that you've been bandying about the nets for a few years now?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Hardly doctored, SLP.  In fact, did you see what Nmgirl posted?
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Nobel laureate Christian de Duve summarized the plenary session: "The participants unanimously accepted as indisputable the affirmation that the Universe, as well as life within it, are the products of long evolutionary histories,"
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


That's a direct echo of what Oro wrote in Schopf 2002 which I have quoted over the past few years.  

Needless to say, the next time you guys try to suddently pretend that abiogenesis is separate from evolution, I'll be quoting not only Oro but De Duve as well!!
Posted by: FloydLee on Oct. 06 2009,12:52



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
The rest of your quibbles are irrelevant
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Funny how if you see something you don't like in my responses, it's always "irrelevant" whether or not it really is.  Will look at your post further.
Posted by: Stanton on Oct. 06 2009,12:58

Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 06 2009,12:44)
Needless to say, the next time you guys try to suddently pretend that abiogenesis is separate from evolution, I'll be quoting not only Oro but De Duve as well!!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Please explain why it is necessary to have a definitive understanding of abiogenesis before one can understand examples of evolution.

In other words, FL, tell us why we have to know exactly how life began before we can study bacteria, fruitflies, fossils, or understand how to breed orchids, dogs, cats, fish, sunflowers or vegetables.

Oh, wait, you can't because you're lying through your orifices yet again.
Posted by: deadman_932 on Oct. 06 2009,12:59

Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 06 2009,12:52)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
The rest of your quibbles are irrelevant
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Funny how if you see something you don't like in my responses, it's always "irrelevant" whether or not it really is.  Will look at your post further.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Don't quote-mine me as you have so many others, Floyd.

I stated why they were irrelevant -- THEN demonstrated them to be illogical and unsupported by fact as well.

I'm not surprised that you chose that tiny bit to pick out and skew, in light of all the valid objections to your fights-of-fantasy scenarios.
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Oct. 06 2009,12:59

Quote (Erasmus, FCD @ Oct. 06 2009,12:46)
Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Oct. 05 2009,17:24)
please explain why  

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
why is god not part of the required explanation for why water runs downhill, when he is part of the required explanation for the EXISTENCE OF WATER?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Floyd, please address.  Coward.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Floyd while you are playing pocket pool might want to address this.
Posted by: Stanton on Oct. 06 2009,13:03

Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 06 2009,12:52)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
The rest of your quibbles are irrelevant
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Funny how if you see something you don't like in my responses, it's always "irrelevant" whether or not it really is.  Will look at your post further.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Maybe we think your points are irrelevant because your so-called attempts to explain why you think the Pope lied about accepting evolution is to make up lies and become unbearably smug while wandering off topic, or that you've supported all of your other claims with lies, quote-mines, or nonsensical logic, like how for your fifth inane point of how it's an abomination for tigers to eat deer, or for tapeworms to exist, though humans have been given divine licence to do whatever they please with plants and animals, including eating, torturing, or simply pleasure-killing them as necessary.
Posted by: FloydLee on Oct. 06 2009,13:05



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
You calling them "rational reasons" does not make that so. I view your claims as completely irrational.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Hey, I view YOUR claims as completely irrational.  Which means if we're gonna get anywhere, we both must provide rational reasons for whatever we claim, as best we can.

If you need a model, look at Dan's post.  He's at least trying to be specific.

***
Posted by: Stanton on Oct. 06 2009,13:06

Quote (deadman_932 @ Oct. 06 2009,12:59)
Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 06 2009,12:52)
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
The rest of your quibbles are irrelevant
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Funny how if you see something you don't like in my responses, it's always "irrelevant" whether or not it really is.  Will look at your post further.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Don't quote-mine me as you have so many others, Floyd.

I stated why they were irrelevant -- THEN demonstrated them to be illogical and unsupported by fact as well.

I'm not surprised that you chose that tiny bit to pick out and skew, in light of all the valid objections to your fights-of-fantasy scenarios.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You honestly, honest to goodness, thought that FL would be above quotemining you?

Hahahahahaha, if that's so, I have some Nevada beach property to sell you.

Plus, I think you mean "fight-for-fantasy."  (I was going to "I think you mean "flight-of-fantasy," but....)
Posted by: deadman_932 on Oct. 06 2009,13:07

Yep, Erasmus, I'd like to see Floyd honestly address that, too.

The only real way to deal with dishonest people like Floyd is to to doggedly stick to relevant issues and not allow them to avoid particular points.

Nothing that Floyd has ever asked in this thread has gone unadressed, not that he has shown. Contrast that to the topics that Floyd runs from and refuses to deal with honestly.
Posted by: Stanton on Oct. 06 2009,13:08

Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 06 2009,13:05)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
You calling them "rational reasons" does not make that so. I view your claims as completely irrational.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Hey, I view YOUR claims as completely irrational.  Which means if we're gonna get anywhere, we both must provide rational reasons for whatever we claim, as best we can.

If you need a model, look at Dan's post.  He's at least trying to be specific.

***
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


And yet, you haven't actually tried to address them beyond saying that the Pope agrees with you, while ignoring that the Pope has made numerous statements repeatedly contradicting your claim of incompatibility.
Posted by: Stanton on Oct. 06 2009,13:09

Quote (Erasmus, FCD @ Oct. 06 2009,12:59)
Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Oct. 06 2009,12:46)
Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Oct. 05 2009,17:24)
please explain why    

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
why is god not part of the required explanation for why water runs downhill, when he is part of the required explanation for the EXISTENCE OF WATER?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Floyd, please address.  Coward.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Floyd while you are playing pocket pool might want to address this.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


While you're waiting for FL to address this, I recommend you take up a hobby: like knitting afghans for Clydesdales or piano cozies.
Posted by: deadman_932 on Oct. 06 2009,13:10

Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 06 2009,13:05)
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
You calling them "rational reasons" does not make that so. I view your claims as completely irrational.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Hey, I view YOUR claims as completely irrational.  Which means if we're gonna get anywhere, we both must provide rational reasons for whatever we claim, as best we can.

If you need a model, look at Dan's post.  He's at least trying to be specific.

***
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


When you offered objections to the syllogism, they were directly addressed, by noting that (1) the pope is a christian who (2) accepts evolution (as he himself has written) and that he has also written that evolution is not in conflict with christianity.  Each "leg" of that syllogism was exhaustively supported, by actual quotes and supporting data.

When people note your irrational claims about that same syllogism, you ...can't seem to address them directly.

Odd, eh?

Oh, and I was quite specific, Floyd. Your objections require actual evidential support for you to claim them as valid. Hard to get more specific than that.
Posted by: Stanton on Oct. 06 2009,13:16

Quote (deadman_932 @ Oct. 06 2009,13:10)
Oh, and I was quite specific, Floyd. Your objections require actual evidential support for you to claim them as valid. Hard to get more specific than that.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Go easy on FL: it's not his fault that he neither knows or cares that his Lies for Jesus are not the same as actual evidence.
Posted by: FloydLee on Oct. 06 2009,13:19



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
The Pope, as been repeatedly noted, rejects your so-called conflict.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


But the Pope has not rejected the Big Five Incompatibilities, and in fact has affirmed the first Three of them in comments that were quoted in this thread.
Posted by: FloydLee on Oct. 06 2009,13:22

Probably need to ask something else, too.  Have you ever taken a course in ancient or modern philosophy, Deadman?  They usually discuss when something can be said to be "proof" or not.
Posted by: deadman_932 on Oct. 06 2009,13:27

Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 06 2009,13:19)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
The Pope, as been repeatedly noted, rejects your so-called conflict.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


But the Pope has not rejected the Big Five Incompatibilities, and in fact has affirmed the first Three of them in comments that were quoted in this thread.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You simply claiming that doesn't make it so, Floyd.
Posted by: deadman_932 on Oct. 06 2009,13:30

Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 06 2009,13:22)
Probably need to ask something else, too.  Have you ever taken a course in ancient or modern philosophy, Deadman?  They usually discuss when something can be said to be "proof" or not.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


A syllogism is a particular form of a proof, Floyd.
1 All people are mortal. Premise
2 Socrates is a person. Premise
3 Therefore, Socrates is mortal. Conclusion

This is called what by Aristotle, Floyd? Hint: it starts with an "E"

The "Pope accepts evolution as compatible with christianity" syllogism takes the same form

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

Your claims are tantamount to stating something akin to "Socrates isn't really mortal, because  his words live forever and he may not have been a person, anyway, but a space alien."

Both of the above objections would have to be supported by evidence relevant to the issues, just as your objections must be supported by evidence, Floyd.
Posted by: Stanton on Oct. 06 2009,13:40

Quote (deadman_932 @ Oct. 06 2009,13:30)
Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 06 2009,13:22)
Probably need to ask something else, too.  Have you ever taken a course in ancient or modern philosophy, Deadman?  They usually discuss when something can be said to be "proof" or not.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


A syllogism is a particular form of a proof, Floyd.
1 All people are mortal. Premise
2 Socrates is a person. Premise
3 Therefore, Socrates is mortal. Conclusion

This is called what by Aristotle, Floyd? Hint: it starts with an "E"

The "Pope accepts evolution as compatible with christianity" syllogism takes the same form

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

Your claims are tantamount to stating something akin to "Socrates isn't really mortal, because  his words live forever and he may not have been a person, anyway, but a space alien."

Both of the above objections would have to be supported by evidence relevant to the issues, just as your objections must be supported by evidence, Floyd.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


The Pope will out himself as a reptilian space alien before FL will provide actual evidence to support himself.
Posted by: someotherguy on Oct. 06 2009,14:26

Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 06 2009,13:19)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
The Pope, as been repeatedly noted, rejects your so-called conflict.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


But the Pope has not rejected the Big Five Incompatibilities, and in fact has affirmed the first Three of them in comments that were quoted in this thread.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


If the Pope believes in Evolution and also believes that evolution is incompatible with Christianity, he must regularly experience a painful amount of cognitive dissonance.  Poor guy.
Posted by: FloydLee on Oct. 06 2009,14:30



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
This is just a reminder for Quack.  Nobody's presenting those "Other Versions of Christianity", (the ones that are presumably Bible-supportable and demonstrably compatible with evolution), in this forum as of yet.  Nobody.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

 

Funny, I could have sworn that the pope had been mentioned several times on this thread.

Henry
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



I've highlighted the phrase you may have missed, Henry.
Posted by: deadman_932 on Oct. 06 2009,14:42

Stop trying to avoid the real issue of you supporting your objections, Floyd.

In order to invalidate the logical proof, you must show one or more of the premises invalid. You haven't shown either invalid. The conclusion follows from those premises.
Posted by: JohnW on Oct. 06 2009,15:53



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

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.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 06 2009,12:30)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
This is just a reminder for Quack.  Nobody's presenting those "Other Versions of Christianity", (the ones that are presumably Bible-supportable and demonstrably compatible with evolution), in this forum as of yet.  Nobody.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

 

Funny, I could have sworn that the pope had been mentioned several times on this thread.

Henry
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



I've highlighted the phrase you may have missed, Henry.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Looks like an abandonment of option C, and a switch to option A.
Posted by: FloydLee on Oct. 06 2009,16:07



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
If the Pope believes in Evolution and also believes that evolution is incompatible with Christianity, he must regularly experience a painful amount of cognitive dissonance.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Maybe yes, maybe no, I don't know.
But you can tell from the previous Pope quotations I offered in this thread that he's really, thoughtfully struggled with the issue.  

He has never retracted his own Required Explanation/Teleology/Intelligent-Project statements, and he did allow Cardinal Schoenborn to offer his own pro-ID challenge in the media some years ago.  That's courageous and thoughtful of him.

But, there IS a very serious dissonance involved with Christianity and Evolution.   You've already read the personal statements of five former Christians for whom that dissonance helped erode and corrode their Christian faith past the breaking point.  

It's no accident -- none at all -- that Jason Rosenhouse wrote at Evolutionblog that
     

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
"Reconciling evolution and Christianity is not as simple as theistic evolutionists often try to pretend."

---June 21, 2008
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


He's right.  That situation has to be taken mondo seriously.

Btw, Rosenhouse wrote something else too.  Consider well:
       

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
But you cannot reconcile evolution with Christianity simply by declaring that many people see no conflict.

The issue is whether they have a sound basis for their opinions.


----Rosenhouse, eSkeptic website, Oct 10, 2007
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Dissonance.  Conflict.  Erosion.  Damage.  Think about it.  Even this generalized "the Pope accepts evolution" statement that some posters are advocating, doesn't take into account certain other serious items that he's said publicly.  

I think it's clear that there's a certain amount of cognitive dissonance taking place (although I don't know to what extent) taking place among the Christian TE's.  

FloydLee
Posted by: Quack on Oct. 06 2009,16:14



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
This is just a reminder for Quack.  Nobody's presenting those "Other Versions of Christianity", (the ones that are presumably Bible-supportable and demonstrably compatible with evolution), in this forum as of yet.  Nobody.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Why should anyone? We have yet to determine beyond reasonable doubt that your interpretation of the bible is or ought to be considered the one and only true version of the bible, nor have we agreed that there should be any reason to base our understanding of the universe and everything in it on interpretation of what ignorant sheep herders wrote 2000 years ago.

You are way off target, except you are blind to the possibility.
Posted by: Schroedinger's Dog on Oct. 06 2009,16:19

You know, I'm starting to wonder if we wouldn't be better off telling FL he's right and leave it at that. He's made it quite obvious that he won't submit his "opinions" to critical analyses.

It is not, after all, so hard to admit that evolution is incompatible with his own particular looney brand of Christianism. Let's leave him to his own interpretation of faith, and let the other millions of interpretations that accept evolution laugh at him with scorn (or scones. I love scones...).

Else he will have, as prompted before, to prove an demonstrate why his particular brand of christianism is the right one.

BTW, Floyd, what are your thoughts regarding the Conservapedia Bible project?
Posted by: nmgirl on Oct. 06 2009,16:32

Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 06 2009,16:07)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
If the Pope believes in Evolution and also believes that evolution is incompatible with Christianity, he must regularly experience a painful amount of cognitive dissonance.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Maybe yes, maybe no, I don't know.
But you can tell from the previous Pope quotations I offered in this thread that he's really, thoughtfully struggled with the issue.  

He has never retracted his own Required Explanation/Teleology/Intelligent-Project statements, and he did allow Cardinal Schoenborn to offer his own pro-ID challenge in the media some years ago.  That's courageous and thoughtful of him.

But, there IS a very serious dissonance involved with Christianity and Evolution.   You've already read the personal statements of five former Christians for whom that dissonance helped erode and corrode their Christian faith past the breaking point.  

It's no accident -- none at all -- that Jason Rosenhouse wrote at Evolutionblog that
       

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
"Reconciling evolution and Christianity is not as simple as theistic evolutionists often try to pretend."

---June 21, 2008
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


He's right.  That situation has to be taken mondo seriously.

Btw, Rosenhouse wrote something else too.  Consider well:
       

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
But you cannot reconcile evolution with Christianity simply by declaring that many people see no conflict.

The issue is whether they have a sound basis for their opinions.


----Rosenhouse, eSkeptic website, Oct 10, 2007
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Dissonance.  Conflict.  Erosion.  Damage.  Think about it.  Even this generalized "the Pope accepts evolution" statement that some posters are advocating, doesn't take into account certain other serious items that he's said publicly.  

I think it's clear that there's a certain amount of cognitive dissonance taking place (although I don't know to what extent) taking place among the Christian TE's.  

FloydLee
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Floyd the dissonance is all in your head.  A literal interpretation of genesis is not a requirement of being a christian. some of your cult members may believe it, but a large number of other christians beg to differ with you and don't suffer any cognitive dissonance. We have a pita from trying to talk to you, however.

And in response to your continuing attempts to prove the Catholic church does not support evolution, here is the latest from the NCSE website:

The latest on evolution from the Vatican
October 5th, 2009 International General 2009
A recently published statement on current scientific knowledge on cosmic evolution and biological evolution from the Pontifical Academy of Sciences concludes: "The extraordinary progress in our understanding of evolution and the place of man in nature should be shared with everyone. ... Furthermore, scientists have a clear responsibility to contribute to the quality of education, especially as regards the subject of evolution." The statement appears in the proceedings of "Scientific Insights into the Evolution of the Universe and of Life," a plenary session of the Pontifical Academy of Sciences held from October 31 to November 4, 2008.

Nobel laureate Christian de Duve summarized the plenary session: "The participants unanimously accepted as indisputable the affirmation that the Universe, as well as life within it, are the products of long evolutionary histories," noting that there was also wide agreement among the participants on the common ancestry of life on earth. "Evolution," he added, "has acquired the status of established fact. In the words of His Holiness John Paul II, it is 'more than a hypothesis'." The centrality of natural selection to evolution was also recognized, although de Duve acknowledged "the need to refine some of the conceptual bases" of natural selection "in the light of recent findings."

"On the other hand," De Duve added, "no one, at least among the scientists, defended the recently advocated theory of 'intelligent design' ... Several of the arguments cited in support of this theory were shown to ignore recent findings. In particular, the theory was rejected as intrinsically non-disprovable, resting, as it does, on the a priori contention, neither provable nor disprovable, that certain events cannot be naturally explained. These views did not satisfy some theologians who stressed the role of design in creation, an affirmation which, in turn, raised the questions of where and how design is manifested. The issue was not settled during the meeting."

"Intelligent design" was also the topic of Maxine Singer's contribution to the plenary session. Singer traced the history of the antievolution movement in the United States, from Scopes-era attempts to ban the teaching of evolution, through the McLean, Edwards, and Kitzmiller cases, to the present spate of "academic freedom" bills such as Louisiana's, which "permits teachers to speak of evolution as 'controversial' and is an invitation to teachers to present alternative, nonscientific explanations." She added, "The young governor of Louisiana, Bobby Jindal, signed the bill, making it law although he had been a biology major at Brown University."

"Intelligent design is one of the more recent subterfuges used to try to get creationist idea into school science curricula," Singer explained. Its proponents "say their methods are scientific. But they do not describe experiments or systematic observations and do not publish in recognized, peer-reviewed journals." In the face of resistance to evolution exemplified by "creation science" and "intelligent design," Singer concluded, "we are unlikely to convince those who view their religious faith as in fundamental conflict with scientific evolution. ... The most important task for scientists and the only one that has a chance to succeed is assuring that science and evolution are taught properly in school science classes."
Posted by: FloydLee on Oct. 06 2009,16:37



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Let's leave him to his own interpretation of faith, and let the other millions of interpretations that accept evolution laugh at him with scorn (or scones. I love scones...)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Hey, speaking of those other millions of interpretations, how are your efforts going with bringing in that Christian clergyman to provide his interpretation?  I was very impressed with that post, quite honestly.
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Oct. 06 2009,17:12

Floyd?  You there, sweetie?



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
why is god not part of the required explanation for why water runs downhill, when he is part of the required explanation for the EXISTENCE OF WATER?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: FloydLee on Oct. 06 2009,17:56



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
In order to invalidate the logical proof, you must show one or more of the premises invalid. You haven't shown either invalid. The conclusion follows from those premises.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



OR....one can invalidate the logical proof by showing that the conclusion doesn't necessarily follow from the premises given.  That's where your "simple 3-line proof" is at, Deadman.  You got yourself a non-sequiter in there, as I've shown.  Messes up your game.

(a)  The Pope may simply be unaware of the existence of particular Incompatibilities.

You can eliminate (a) by bringing in some Pope Benedict quotations that specifically address one or more of the Incompatibilities and specifically refutes (NOT re-affirms!!) one or more of them.

So, with that in mind, let's check out Robin's comments briefly.  He commented on (a) and (b).

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
You said that your Big Five were directly derived conditions of biblical Christianity.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


True.  Nobody here has even attempted a refutation of that.
   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
If the Pope is unaware of them, then either a) he isn't a Christian or b) they don't actually exist. There is no alternative.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


And that's where Robin is wrong.  Remember, Robin's fellow evolutionists (the professionals, anyway) have stated ALL FIVE, in writing.

Therefore the Big Five "actually exist", quite honestly, whether the Pope is aware of their existence or not.  

For example, I have not found any Papal responses to Jason Rosenhouse (the Fifth Incompatibility.)  Does that mean that Rosenhouse's argument doesn't even exist?  HARDLY.`

But it could possibly mean that the Pope (a very busy man, to be sure) might not unaware of Rosenhouse's argument.  As you can see, that's not ruled out.

Regarding (b), which was:  "The pope may acknowledge that "evolution happens" but only under certain conditions, which means that under different conditions, he is NOT in agreement that evolution is compatible with Christianity."  Robin responded:
   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
The Pope may say that wearing pink frilly underwear on one's head under certain conditions feels sexy, but unless you can established he did say such and actually [/i]established certain conditions[/i] that specifically conflict with the TOE, your speculation amounts to a hand wave. As of this moment, however, all we can go on is what the Pope has presented, which so far only conflicts with your claims.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


But that is clearly wrong all by itself.  The Pope's statements that re-affirm the first three incompatibilities have already been directly quoted in this thread.  Clear as glass.  

For example, exactly how much more explanation is required to show that "God's teleology" conflicts with "No Teleology At All"?  Didn't Nature science journal flat-out say that the Image-Of-God thesis (which was directly concisely stated by the Pope) must be "set aside"?  The pope is putting out re-affirmations of Incompatibility here.  His own words.  Up Front.

The point is that, if you could find some Papal quotes that eliminate (b), then once again you'd make progress towards establishing that your conclusion--your (3) did in fact follow from your premises (1) and (2).   But as we've seen, the Pope's quotes do the exact OPPOSITE.

Thereby messing up your syllogism as any kind of "proof" here.
Posted by: FloydLee on Oct. 06 2009,17:58

typo correction:  the sentence should read  "the Pope might not be aware of Rosenhouse's argument...."
Posted by: Schroedinger's Dog on Oct. 06 2009,18:45

Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 06 2009,23:37)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Let's leave him to his own interpretation of faith, and let the other millions of interpretations that accept evolution laugh at him with scorn (or scones. I love scones...)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Hey, speaking of those other millions of interpretations, how are your efforts going with bringing in that Christian clergyman to provide his interpretation?  I was very impressed with that post, quite honestly.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Working on it. I didn't have that much free time today to engage in a discussion with the guy. I'll probably have to call the church to get an appointment, just to be sure the priest knows I'm coming...


In the meantime, I'd like to invite you to watch "Flock of Dodos", an almost unbalanced documentary about evo/ID issues. It will help you grasp some views about christian/evo compatibility.

I would have invited you to watch "Religulous", since there are a few instances of priests (of different denominations) giving their opinions and that of the church(es) about evo/christian issues, but even I find this movie a bit over the top at times...

Anywho, Flock of Dodos is at least balanced and entertaining.
Posted by: deadman_932 on Oct. 06 2009,18:46

I'll just repost what I've already stated previously:

     

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
"If you are stating these things to be true, the burden falls on you to show they are true. The fact is that (1) the pope is a Christian who (2) holds that evolution happens and that given (1) and (2), the Pope is a Christian who holds evolution compatible with Christianity, as he has expressly stated

It is up to YOU to show the validity of your objections. I hold your objections to be as unsupported as; "perhaps the Pope is really possessed by a demon who is doing the talking -- not the Pope himself." It would be neccessary to show that the Pope was in fact possessed by a demon in such a claim -- just as it is necessary for you to offer positive evidence for any other objections.

Your alleged "refutations" are based on "what ifs?" and are as insubstantial and illogical as "what if Ratzinger is really a space alien?" or "What if he really secretly thinks evolution means 'Swiss cheese is great' ?"

In all such cases, the burden of proof falls on you to demonstrate the validity of your claimed refutations, not merely offer up any fantasy that pops in your addled brain."
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



You've offered nothing to show your objections have any validity.

Even more amusingly, when you are saying " maybe the pope isn't aware of my made-up list of incompatibilities" you are merely saying "the Pope isn't really a Christian until he agrees with me" in a slightly different way. You haven't established the validity of any of your objections at all, FloydLee.

The conclusion follows like day from night. The conclusion is what the Pope has already said ; "evolution is not in conflict with Christian faith"

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
on  July  24,  2007, Pope Benedict XVI again addressed the topic of evolution. Referring to debates over creationism in Germany and the United States, he observed that evolution and belief in God the  creator  are presented  “as  if  they were alternatives  that are  exclusive —whoever  believes  in  the  creator  could  not believe in evolution, and whoever asserts belief in evolution would  have  to  disbelieve  in God,”  as  the New York Post’s article  (July  26,  2007)  translated  it.  “This  contrast is  an absurdity” ..."
< http://www.nypost.com/p....Xm2pWKL >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


To deny that Pope Benedict has said this (the conclusion, remember?) is kind of like denying gravity and instead arguing for tiny force faeries pushing  things around.

Then you ask "has EINSTEIN CONSIDERED THAT?!?!" NO!!11!!shift!!!"...as if it's a valid argument.

It's not valid, it's just nuts.
--------------------------------------------

ETA: And you still haven't addressed the fact that all of science denies being capable of investigating/supporting Supernaturalist Deities as a knowable "cause" and that Ultimate Deistic Teleology is disavowed as well, in all of science. By your ridiculous "logic" that would (logically) mean that you reject all of science. 

And of course, you still haven't answered Erasmus' simple question "If God is the cause of water, does God cause water to flow downhill?" that you keep avoiding among so many other things.
Posted by: Stanton on Oct. 06 2009,21:39

Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 06 2009,17:58)
typo correction:  the sentence should read  "the Pope might not be aware of Rosenhouse's argument...."
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Why should the Pope care about Rosenhouse's opinions?

Why would you expect that the Pope's faith was as weak and shallow as your faith that you have to take the otherwise unwanted advice of meddling atheists to figure out your relationship with God?
Posted by: Stanton on Oct. 06 2009,21:42

Quote (deadman_932 @ Oct. 06 2009,18:46)
Even more amusingly, when you are saying " maybe the pope isn't aware of my made-up list of incompatibilities" you are merely saying "the Pope isn't really a Christian until he agrees with me" in a slightly different way. You haven't established the validity of any of your objections at all, FloydLee.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Weren't the Pharisees doing something very, very similar that got Jesus so pissed off that Our Savior threw a temper tantrum in the Temple?
Posted by: Henry J on Oct. 06 2009,22:05



---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Nobel laureate Christian de Duve summarized the plenary session: "The participants unanimously accepted as indisputable the affirmation that the Universe, as well as life within it, are the products of long evolutionary histories,"

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Somebody should point out that the meaning of "evolution" in cosmology is very different from its meaning in biology, and this makes the quoted statement very easy to misread.

Henry
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Oct. 06 2009,22:57

Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Oct. 06 2009,18:12)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
< why is god not part of the required explanation for why water runs downhill, when he is part of the required explanation for the EXISTENCE OF WATER? >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


---------------------QUOTE-------------------


psssst, Floyd.  You forgot something AGAIN.
Posted by: Henry J on Oct. 06 2009,23:10

Christianity is made up of several branches.

There is no central authority over all of them.

The beliefs held in any one branch are decided by the leaders of that branch.

The leaders of one branch do not have authority over the other branches.

Therefore the beliefs held in one branch are not compulsory in another branch unless the leaders of that branch also assert them.

Henry
Posted by: Quack on Oct. 07 2009,02:11

Quote (Henry J @ Oct. 06 2009,23:10)
Christianity is made up of several branches.

There is no central authority over all of them.

The beliefs held in any one branch are decided by the leaders of that branch.

The leaders of one branch do not have authority over the other branches.

Therefore the beliefs held in one branch are not compulsory in another branch unless the leaders of that branch also assert them.

Henry
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Isn't the history of Christianity even to this day also the history of how the leaders of each branch are having a hell of a time making all the members of the branch subscribe to the beliefs supposedly being the beliefs of the branch?
Posted by: FloydLee on Oct. 07 2009,06:54



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Even more amusingly, when you are saying " maybe the pope isn't aware of my made-up list of incompatibilities" you are merely saying "the Pope isn't really a Christian until he agrees with me" in a slightly different way.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Now THAT's a pretty good stretch, Deadman. Please go ahead and provide supporting reason(s) for that one.  And be sure they're rational reasons too!
Posted by: FloydLee on Oct. 07 2009,07:40

Okay, let's also bring up another major topic today.

Back on page 2, Someotherguy asked,

     

---------------------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?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



To which I replied,

     

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
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.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



And of course, that remains true. Nobody was able to find a meteorology/physics/chemistry/astronomy/etc textbook that denies teleology.  Such textbooks are silent on the issue.  Only evolution publicly preaches NT-NCF.  All the time, too.

So the rationale then offered, were various statements to the effect of:

     

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Supernatural causes are already excluded from all science. --- Reed
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



     

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
.....(All) of science denies being capable of investigating/supporting Supernaturalist Deities as a knowable "cause". --- Deadman
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Now, notice what is happening here.  This particular line of argument does NOT deny---(check it out for yourself baby)---this particular line of argument does NOT deny that the Big Five Incompatibilities are true regarding evolution.

Instead, the idea is to water down the force of the Big Five by claiming that "all of science" does the Big Five as well.  

Now, as we've seen, that claim can NOT be established by going straight to science textbooks and searching for Big Five pronouncements therein, so the only other move left to make is to try to establish the claim via methodological naturalism, as summarized by (for example)Reed's and Deadman's statements above.

******

But there's a problem.  Do you really KNOW that "supernatural causes" are "automatically excluded" from "all of science"?

The answer is: Nope, you do NOT know that.  At all.  

     

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
"In fact, if the preceding investigations are correct, there is no compelling conceptual basis for any blanket prohibition on exploring applications or implications of the idea of supernatural design within the scientific context.

"Some design theories may be inappropriate in some instances, but that is perfectly consistent with others being in principle legitimate.

"It is, of course, perfectly possible that such attempts could end up wholly empty, but since every scientific research program faces at least that possibility, that hardly constitutes grounds for pre-emptive prohibitions."


--- Dr. Del Ratzsch, Nature, Design and Science, c2001, p.149,
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



******

And there's something else.  Reed's and Deadman's statements absolutely depend on using the philosophy of methodological naturalism to define what science is.  

The next post shows why that dependence is wrong.

FloydLee
Posted by: Schroedinger's Dog on Oct. 07 2009,07:43

Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 07 2009,13:54)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Even more amusingly, when you are saying " maybe the pope isn't aware of my made-up list of incompatibilities" you are merely saying "the Pope isn't really a Christian until he agrees with me" in a slightly different way.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Now THAT's a pretty good stretch, Deadman. Please go ahead and provide supporting reason(s) for that one.  And be sure they're rational reasons too!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


If I may:

From the moment you assume the pope MUST have the same faith as yours, in every possible way, to be a christian, you basicaly shut down the debate.

I'm willing to bet a lot that the pope doesn't share your own particular kind of faith. Neither are millions other christians worlwide. Those millions of christians don't give a crap about your 5 big stuff, and yet they happily live their faith. Do you think they're all doomed to New-Jersey because they don't believe the same way you do?

Could you maybe try to humble yourself and admit that in this debate you are only refering to your own personal view of christianity (or that of your particular sect)? Could you admit that the largest christian sects, such as Roman Chatholics for exemple, do not adhere to a 100% litteral reading of the bible, but instead put their minds and logic to the test by accepting parts of it as allegorical, and incidently acceptinf evolution as well without feeling at risk of eternal flames? or are they all wrong and you are the only right one?
Posted by: Schroedinger's Dog on Oct. 07 2009,07:52

And instead of changing the subject and moving the goalposts, why don't you answer to Erasmus?

You look more and more like a pathetic fool flinging poo at people while screaming "I'M NOT A MONKEY!"*




*This metaphore was brought to you by the I-Am-Tired-And-Couldn't-Find-Anything-Else Foundation...
Posted by: Stanton on Oct. 07 2009,07:58

Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 07 2009,07:40)
{snip} Reed's and Deadman's statements absolutely depend on using the philosophy of methodological naturalism to define what science is.  

The next post shows why that dependence is wrong.

FloydLee
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Define how one can do tests, rely on observations or even make logical explanations in a science that uses appeals to the supernatural as explanations.

Oh, wait, you can't, and that's why the Intelligent Design movement has both done absolutely nothing in the last 2 to 3 decades since it was conceived, and why the higher-ups in the Intelligent Design movement have confessed that Intelligent Design was intended to be nothing more than a Trojan Horse for Creationism and Jesus, and was never to be an alternative to Evolution(ary Biology) in the first place.
Posted by: Robin on Oct. 07 2009,07:59

Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 06 2009,12:44)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
"Real deal" just like your doctored Oro quote that you've been bandying about the nets for a few years now?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Hardly doctored, SLP.  In fact, did you see what Nmgirl posted?
 
---------------------QUOTE-------------------




---------------------QUOTE-------------------


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Nobel laureate Christian de Duve summarized the plenary session: "The participants unanimously accepted as indisputable the affirmation that the Universe, as well as life within it, are the products of long evolutionary histories,"
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


That's a direct echo of what Oro wrote in Schopf 2002 which I have quoted over the past few years.  

Needless to say, the next time you guys try to suddently pretend that abiogenesis is separate from evolution, I'll be quoting not only Oro but De Duve as well!!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Needless to say you'd be demonstrating your usual misunderstanding if you did, because there is no mention of abiogenesis in De Duve's quote - he is talking about "long evolutionary histories" of both organic life and the universe as a whole. Nothing about abiogenesis being a part of that. In fact, De Duve's quote doesn't even rule out your cartoon god from being the starter of those "long evolutionary histories". You really just continue to look sillier and sillier by the second Floyd.  LOL!
Posted by: Robin on Oct. 07 2009,08:03

Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 06 2009,13:19)

---------------------QUOTE-------------------




---------------------QUOTE-------------------


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
The Pope, as been repeatedly noted, rejects your so-called conflict.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


But the Pope has not rejected the Big Five Incompatibilities, and in fact has affirmed the first Three of them in comments that were quoted in this thread.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Nope...sorry Floyd. Already demonstrated this to be nonsense. You can either address my point or accept that you are making an illogical claim here with regard to your Big Five. So far as we can tell, they can't possibly exist since your support for them is illogical.
Posted by: Robin on Oct. 07 2009,08:30

Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 06 2009,17:56)

---------------------QUOTE-------------------




---------------------QUOTE-------------------


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
In order to invalidate the logical proof, you must show one or more of the premises invalid. You haven't shown either invalid. The conclusion follows from those premises.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



OR....one can invalidate the logical proof by showing that the conclusion doesn't necessarily follow from the premises given.  That's where your "simple 3-line proof" is at, Deadman.  You got yourself a non-sequiter in there, as I've shown.  Messes up your game.

(a)  The Pope may simply be unaware of the existence of particular Incompatibilities.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



False, as I previously demonstrated based on your claim of the basis for those Big Five. Sorry Floyd, but this is just nonsense.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
So, with that in mind, let's check out Robin's comments briefly.  He commented on (a) and (b).

   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
You said that your Big Five were directly derived conditions of biblical Christianity.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


True.  Nobody here has even attempted a refutation of that.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



We don't need to or care - they're yourbig five claims, not ours. And so far, you've demonstrated that those big five are merely products of your off-kilter imagination.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
If the Pope is unaware of them, then either a) he isn't a Christian or b) they don't actually exist. There is no alternative.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


And that's where Robin is wrong.  Remember, Robin's fellow evolutionists (the professionals, anyway) have stated ALL FIVE, in writing.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



False again Floyd. I already demonstrated they were yourbig five incompatibilities based on your misuse of other's opinions. You've yet to show that your big five are actually derived from the TOE. Further, even if we were to accept such opinions as valid implications of the science, then as several people have demonstrated this would just mean that your version of Christianity is incompatible with philosophical materialism. Whoopee...no one cares.  



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Therefore the Big Five "actually exist", quite honestly, whether the Pope is aware of their existence or not.  
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



False again Floyd. As you noted, since your little five are "based on biblical Christianity", either the Pope is a biblical Christian (as you've affirmed) and, ipso facto, understands them the moment he claims that evolution is not incompatible with Christianity, or he isn't a biblical Christian and merely ignores them. To claim he doesn't recognize them erodes your claim that that are based on valid biblical understanding.

In fact, all you've really done is admit that you could be wrong about your understanding of Christianity and the quotes by Mayr, Dawkins, Rosehouse, et al. How did you do this? Simple - it is more reasonable to apply option C to *YOU* (not understanding the big five) than to the Pope. Way to go Floyd!!!



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
For example, exactly how much more explanation is required to show that "God's teleology" conflicts with "No Teleology At All"?  Didn't Nature science journal flat-out say that the Image-Of-God thesis (which was directly concisely stated by the Pope) must be "set aside"?  The pope is putting out re-affirmations of Incompatibility here.  His own words.  Up Front.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



I already demonstrated why this isn't an issue and further that the Teleological argument isn't. That you keep ignoring such is not my problem.

So, we are no back to the fact that you have no argument since you've failed to address the points that have been brought up innumerable times on this board that have demolished your claims, Floyd. Have a nice day!
Posted by: Occam's Toothbrush on Oct. 07 2009,08:46

Quote (Schroedinger's Dog @ Oct. 07 2009,08:43)
     
Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 07 2009,13:54)
     

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Even more amusingly, when you are saying " maybe the pope isn't aware of my made-up list of incompatibilities" you are merely saying "the Pope isn't really a Christian until he agrees with me" in a slightly different way.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Now THAT's a pretty good stretch, Deadman. Please go ahead and provide supporting reason(s) for that one.  And be sure they're rational reasons too!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


If I may:

From the moment you assume the pope MUST have the same faith as yours, in every possible way, to be a christian, you basicaly shut down the debate.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


That happens as soon as Floyd subjects the beliefs of anyone who honestly believes themself to be Christian, to his narrow fundie interpretations.  Floyd has only two tactics in the "Christianity is incompatible with evolution" debate, both fundamentally dishonest: 1)  He reserves the exclusive right to define one of the two relevant terms, Christianity.  2)  He reserves the right to lie unashamedly about the definition of the other term, Evolution.  There is no real debate here, Floyd's just wallowing in being a mental masterdebater.
Posted by: FloydLee on Oct. 07 2009,08:49



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
From the moment you assume the pope MUST have the same faith as yours, in every possible way, to be a christian, you basicaly shut down the debate.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You may want to go back to the first line of Deadman's "simple three line proof."
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
1.  The Pope is a Christian.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Now show me where I have disputed that specific premise at any time in this thread.  Good luck.
Posted by: rhmc on Oct. 07 2009,09:08

Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 07 2009,09:49)
You may want to go back to the first line of Deadman's "simple three line proof."
   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
1.  The Pope is a Christian.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Now show me where I have disputed that specific premise at any time in this thread.  Good luck.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


you don't dispute the pope's christianity and since we know the pope says evolution is not
incompatible with christianity, you have just scored an "own goal".

thanks.  it's been amusing.
Posted by: FloydLee on Oct. 07 2009,09:12



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I already demonstrated they were your big five incompatibilities based on your misuse of other's opinions.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


What "misuse"?  Deadman's allegations of quotemining have already been specifically refuted for ALL FIVE imcompatibilities and each quotation therein, one by one.  

At this point, you'll need to come up with some kind of rational support for a claim of "misuse."  Don't just assert it, show some proof.  So far, nothing sustainable has been offered at all.
Posted by: Schroedinger's Dog on Oct. 07 2009,09:22

Ok guys, I'm giving up. This guy is a complete tool!

Edit: < Floyd's tactics >
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Oct. 07 2009,09:26

Quote (Erasmus, FCD @ Oct. 06 2009,23:57)
Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Oct. 06 2009,18:12)
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
< why is god not part of the required explanation for why water runs downhill, when he is part of the required explanation for the EXISTENCE OF WATER? >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


---------------------QUOTE-------------------


psssst, Floyd.  You forgot something AGAIN.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


siiiiiiiillllllly liiiiiiiiiittttttlllllllle maaaaaaaan!!!!!!

answer!
Posted by: deadman_932 on Oct. 07 2009,09:32

Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 07 2009,08:49)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
From the moment you assume the pope MUST have the same faith as yours, in every possible way, to be a christian, you basicaly shut down the debate.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You may want to go back to the first line of Deadman's "simple three line proof."
   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
1.  The Pope is a Christian.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Now show me where I have disputed that specific premise at any time in this thread.  Good luck.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You do that everytime you demand/require that the Pope address your Big Five Fantasies (BFF). The implication there is quite clear that if the Pope does NOT accept your BFF, then he is not a Christian.

IF that is not the case, then answer this question directly: If the Pope denies your BFF as being essential to Christian faith, would you agree with him?

Answer fully and completely, recognizing that the Pope already accepts evolution as compatible with faith. If he rejects your claim, is he still Christian in your definition? If yes, say why, if no, say why.
Posted by: Robin on Oct. 07 2009,09:36

Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 07 2009,08:49)

---------------------QUOTE-------------------




---------------------QUOTE-------------------


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
From the moment you assume the pope MUST have the same faith as yours, in every possible way, to be a christian, you basicaly shut down the debate.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You may want to go back to the first line of Deadman's "simple three line proof."
   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
1.  The Pope is a Christian.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Now show me where I have disputed that specific premise at any time in this thread.  Good luck.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Non-sequitur Floyd. Whether you disputed or affirmed that the Pope is Christian doesn't have anything to do with Schroedinger's point - that your definition of "Christian" is so narrow as to make any discussion regarding such absurd. And he's absolutely correct - if (not the word "assuming" that Schroedinger uses) you are holding the Pope to the exact elements and parameters of your beliefs, then any discussion with you about anything is pretty much pointless. You have ruled out every possible point as valid through question begging.
Posted by: FloydLee on Oct. 07 2009,09:40



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
you don't dispute the pope's christianity and since we know the pope says evolution is not incompatible with christianity, you have just scored an "own goal".
thanks.  it's been amusing.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Not good enough, Rhmc.  Not sufficient.
   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
(You) cannot reconcile evolution with Christianity simply by declaring that many people see no conflict.

The issue is whether they have a sound basis for their opinions.


----evolutionist J. Rosenhouse, eSkeptic website, Oct 10, 2007
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: Robin on Oct. 07 2009,09:42

Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 07 2009,09:12)

---------------------QUOTE-------------------




---------------------QUOTE-------------------


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I already demonstrated they were your big five incompatibilities based on your misuse of other's opinions.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


What "misuse"?  Deadman's allegations of quotemining have already been specifically refuted for ALL FIVE imcompatibilities and each quotation therein, one by one.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Odd...I didn't use the word "quotemine" nor did I reference Deadman's points, so I can't image why you think that's what I'm addressing here. Might want to actually read and respond to what I wrote rather than presuming and responding to what you think I wrote. Makes you look silly.

The issue is that opinions about what evolutionary theory implies are just that - opinions. Even opinions from the likes of Mayr are just opinions and are not actual summations of the actual ToE. So all you've done (as I repeat myself again) is demonstrate that the opinions about philosophical materialism are incompatible with your beliefs. Whoopee.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
At this point, you'll need to come up with some kind of rational support for a claim of "misuse."  Don't just assert it, show some proof.  So far, nothing sustainable has been offered at all.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Done and done.
Posted by: Robin on Oct. 07 2009,09:53

Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 07 2009,09:40)

---------------------QUOTE-------------------




---------------------QUOTE-------------------


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
you don't dispute the pope's christianity and since we know the pope says evolution is not incompatible with christianity, you have just scored an "own goal".
thanks.  it's been amusing.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Not good enough, Rhmc.  Not sufficient.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Of course it is. It proves you wrong and ends the debate right there. The ONLY issue you've presented here is that evolution is incompatible with Christianity. The Pope, an authority on what Christianity is, says evolution is not incompatible with Christianity. The only question is which opinion to accept, yours or the Pope's. And that, as you've demonstrated, is a no-brainer.

You can insist all you want that the Pope could be mistaken about your big five, but then that merely leaves open the possibility that *YOU* are mistaken about them. Again it just comes down to which of you to accept and again that's a non-brainer. You have yet to provide any reason for any rational (or even irrational) person to take your opinions and assessments over the Pope's.

And since I've demonstrated that your big five aren't, that leaves folks with no alternative BUT to dismiss your claims. They are free to dismiss the Pope's as well - nothing about what I've provided bolster's the Pope's statements in anyway, but of course that's irrelevant since there was no need for me to do so.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
(You) cannot reconcile evolution with Christianity simply by declaring that many people see no conflict.

The issue is whether they have a sound basis for their opinions.


----evolutionist J. Rosenhouse, eSkeptic website, Oct 10, 2007
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Absolutely. No one's disputing Jason's point, not even the Pope. But even those with the most rudimentary grasp of english can see that Pope provided a sound basis for that assessment. So Jason's point is answered with regard to the Pope. Done and done.
Posted by: FloydLee on Oct. 07 2009,10:02



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Even opinions from the likes of Mayr are just opinions and are not actual summations of the actual ToE.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


So please provide me with these (ahem) "actual summations" that would negate and neutralize the published evolutionist statements that were specifically given for each of the Big Five Incompatibilities.  Thanks again!
Posted by: deadman_932 on Oct. 07 2009,10:12

Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 07 2009,10:02)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Even opinions from the likes of Mayr are just opinions and are not actual summations of the actual ToE.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


So please provide me with these (ahem) "actual summations" that would negate and neutralize the published evolutionist statements that were specifically given for each of the Big Five Incompatibilities.  Thanks again!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


That was already done. Just as you refuse to do any work, so do I. Look back in the thread.
Posted by: deadman_932 on Oct. 07 2009,10:15

Quote (deadman_932 @ Oct. 07 2009,09:32)
Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 07 2009,08:49)
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
From the moment you assume the pope MUST have the same faith as yours, in every possible way, to be a christian, you basicaly shut down the debate.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You may want to go back to the first line of Deadman's "simple three line proof."
     

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
1.  The Pope is a Christian.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Now show me where I have disputed that specific premise at any time in this thread.  Good luck.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You do that everytime you demand/require that the Pope address your Big Five Fantasies (BFF). The implication there is quite clear that if the Pope does NOT accept your BFF, then he is not a Christian.

IF that is not the case, then answer this question directly: If the Pope denies your BFF as being essential to Christian faith, would you agree with him?

Answer fully and completely, recognizing that the Pope already accepts evolution as compatible with faith. If he rejects your claim, is he still Christian in your definition? If yes, say why, if no, say why.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You forgot to address this, Floyd....

There's a reason you're running away from that syllogism that you failed to deal with.

There's a reason you suddenly want to change subjects.


I want to finish dealing with that syllogism Floyd. It kills all the other red herrings you dredge up
Posted by: deadman_932 on Oct. 07 2009,10:25

This is where we left off yesterday Floyd, which you tried so desperately to avoid dealing with today, glossing it over and furiously throwing out a boatload of red herrings as cover:

Quote (deadman_932 @ Oct. 06 2009,18:46)
I'll just repost what I've already stated previously:

       

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
"If you are stating these things to be true, the burden falls on you to show they are true. The fact is that (1) the pope is a Christian who (2) holds that evolution happens and that given (1) and (2), the Pope is a Christian who holds evolution compatible with Christianity, as he has expressly stated

It is up to YOU to show the validity of your objections. I hold your objections to be as unsupported as; "perhaps the Pope is really possessed by a demon who is doing the talking -- not the Pope himself." It would be neccessary to show that the Pope was in fact possessed by a demon in such a claim -- just as it is necessary for you to offer positive evidence for any other objections.

Your alleged "refutations" are based on "what ifs?" and are as insubstantial and illogical as "what if Ratzinger is really a space alien?" or "What if he really secretly thinks evolution means 'Swiss cheese is great' ?"

In all such cases, the burden of proof falls on you to demonstrate the validity of your claimed refutations, not merely offer up any fantasy that pops in your addled brain."
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



You've offered nothing to show your objections have any validity.

Even more amusingly, when you are saying " maybe the pope isn't aware of my made-up list of incompatibilities" you are merely saying "the Pope isn't really a Christian until he agrees with me" in a slightly different way. You haven't established the validity of any of your objections at all, FloydLee.

The conclusion follows like day from night. The conclusion is what the Pope has already said ; "evolution is not in conflict with Christian faith"

   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
on  July  24,  2007, Pope Benedict XVI again addressed the topic of evolution. Referring to debates over creationism in Germany and the United States, he observed that evolution and belief in God the  creator  are presented  “as  if  they were alternatives  that are  exclusive —whoever  believes  in  the  creator  could  not believe in evolution, and whoever asserts belief in evolution would  have  to  disbelieve  in God,”  as  the New York Post’s article  (July  26,  2007)  translated  it.  “This  contrast is  an absurdity” ..."
< http://www.nypost.com/p....Xm2pWKL >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


To deny that Pope Benedict has said this (the conclusion, remember?) is kind of like denying gravity and instead arguing for tiny force faeries pushing  things around.

Then you ask "has EINSTEIN CONSIDERED THAT?!?!" NO!!11!!shift!!!"...as if it's a valid argument.

It's not valid, it's just nuts.
--------------------------------------------

ETA: And you still haven't addressed the fact that all of science denies being capable of investigating/supporting Supernaturalist Deities as a knowable "cause" and that Ultimate Deistic Teleology is disavowed as well, in all of science. By your ridiculous "logic" that would (logically) mean that you reject all of science. 

And of course, you still haven't answered Erasmus' simple question "If God is the cause of water, does God cause water to flow downhill?" that you keep avoiding among so many other things.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: FloydLee on Oct. 07 2009,10:33



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
That was already done.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Then please copy and paste 'em.  Remember, these are supposed to be "actual summations" (of what ToE says), presumably from a published source and not just your own opinion.  Can you provide 'em?
Posted by: deadman_932 on Oct. 07 2009,10:35

Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 07 2009,10:33)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
That was already done.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Then please copy and paste 'em.  Remember, these are supposed to be "actual summations" (of what ToE says), presumably from a published source and not just your own opinion.  Can you provide 'em?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Address the syllogism, Floyd, or concede defeat.
Posted by: FloydLee on Oct. 07 2009,10:37

And btw, since I DID quote the Pope directly where his own comments happen to affirm the first three specific Incompatibilities, could you maybe come up with some other Papal quotes that specifically negate or neutralize 'em?
Posted by: deadman_932 on Oct. 07 2009,10:46

Sure, his statement that there is no conflict, Floyd. You were already given that.
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
LORENZAGO DI CADORE, Italy - Pope Benedict XVI said the debate raging in some countries — particularly the United States and his native Germany — between creationism and evolution was an “absurdity,” saying that evolution can coexist with faith.

The pontiff, speaking as he was concluding his holiday in northern Italy, also said that while there is much scientific proof to support evolution, the theory could not exclude a role by God.

“They are presented as alternatives that exclude each other,” the pope said. “This clash is an absurdity because on one hand there is much scientific proof in favor of evolution, which appears as a reality that we must see and which enriches our understanding of life and being as such.” < http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19956961/ >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I realize that you'll just try to repost the opinions of various scientists or philosophers or ice-cream vendors who you will fallaciously imply "speak for science" when in fact science (as per the NAS statement) simply cannot address Ultimate Deistic teleological/ontological claims at all.

Yet you'll falsely and dishonestly offer up their personal opinions as if they DID speak for all of science. You've done it before, you'll likely do it again.
-----------------------------


How's about answering my question that I've already posted:

"If the Pope denies your BFF [Big Five Fantasies] as being essential to Christian faith, would you agree with him?

Answer fully and completely, recognizing that the Pope already accepts evolution as compatible with faith. If he rejects your claim, is he still Christian in your definition? If yes, say why, if no, say why."
Posted by: rhmc on Oct. 07 2009,10:57

Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 07 2009,10:40)
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
you don't dispute the pope's christianity and since we know the pope says evolution is not incompatible with christianity, you have just scored an "own goal".
thanks.  it's been amusing.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Not good enough, Rhmc.  Not sufficient.
       

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
(You) cannot reconcile evolution with Christianity simply by declaring that many people see no conflict.

The issue is whether they have a sound basis for their opinions.


----evolutionist J. Rosenhouse, eSkeptic website, Oct 10, 2007
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


---------------------QUOTE-------------------


yes it is.  you've shot yourself in both feet.  

again, thanks, it's been amusing.  :)

ETA:  as has been pointed out repeatedly, you've not provided a sound basis for your opinions either.  

and what about that water question, eh?
Posted by: FloydLee on Oct. 07 2009,12:08

Hey, where are those actual summations?  Who's in charge of that?
Posted by: Robin on Oct. 07 2009,12:09

[quote=FloydLee,Oct. 07 2009,10:02][/quote]


---------------------QUOTE-------------------


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Even opinions from the likes of Mayr are just opinions and are not actual summations of the actual ToE.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


So please provide me with these (ahem) "actual summations" that would negate and neutralize the published evolutionist statements that were specifically given for each of the Big Five Incompatibilities.  Thanks again!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Easy:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
The definition
Biological evolution, simply put, is descent with modification. This definition encompasses small-scale evolution (changes in gene frequency in a population from one generation to the next) and large-scale evolution (the descent of different species from a common ancestor over many generations). Evolution helps us to understand the history of life.

The explanation
Biological evolution is not simply a matter of change over time. Lots of things change over time: trees lose their leaves, mountain ranges rise and erode, but they aren't examples of biological evolution because they don't involve descent through genetic inheritance.

The central idea of biological evolution is that all life on Earth shares a common ancestor, just as you and your cousins share a common grandmother.

Through the process of descent with modification, the common ancestor of life on Earth gave rise to the fantastic diversity that we see documented in the fossil record and around us today. Evolution means that we're all distant cousins: humans and oak trees, hummingbirds and whales.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



< http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/0_0_0/evo_02 >

Viola! Nothing about denying gods, divine human origins, teleology, god's or gods' images, or any of your other nonsensical issues. Nothing about philosphical materialism or philosophical naturalism or anything implied by the quotes you provided. Nothing about philosophy or religion in general and nothing denying either.

The fact is, your issue isn't with the actual scientific theory or even the actual, factual process, but rather with what you think (correction - what you assume) it implies based on your misunderstandings of science and Christianity. You try to rationalize those misunderstandings by pointing to selective quotes by folks you feel support your contentions, but the fact is you've either misunderstood those quotes, or mischaracterized them by taking them out of context. In either case, the quotes are shown NOT to support your erroneous conclusions and the fact that actual theological authorities have come to an opposite understanding completely demolishes your claim to begin with.
Posted by: deadman_932 on Oct. 07 2009,12:10

Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 07 2009,12:08)
Hey, where are those actual summations?  Who's in charge of that?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Here you go, Floyd:

"If the Pope denies your BFF [Big Five Fantasies] as being essential to Christian faith, would you agree with him?

Answer fully and completely, recognizing that the Pope already accepts evolution as compatible with faith. If he rejects your claim, is he still Christian in your definition? If yes, say why, if no, say why."

Posted by: Robin on Oct. 07 2009,12:13

Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 07 2009,10:33)

---------------------QUOTE-------------------




---------------------QUOTE-------------------


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
That was already done.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Then please copy and paste 'em.  Remember, these are supposed to be "actual summations" (of what ToE says), presumably from a published source and not just your own opinion.  Can you provide 'em?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Moving the goal posts, Floyd as well as providing a burden of proof fallacy. As I noted, the quotes you provided are opinions, not science. I provided the actual Theory, which of course includes nothing that implies the big five issues you claim exist. Sorry.
Posted by: Robin on Oct. 07 2009,12:17

Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 07 2009,10:37)
, could you maybe come up with some other Papal quotes that specifically negate or neutralize 'em?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------




---------------------QUOTE-------------------
And btw, since I DID quote the Pope directly where his own comments happen to affirm the first three specific Incompatibilities...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Now you are just being dishonest Floyd. None of the quotes you provided demonstrated the Pope affirmed your silly incompatibilities, and folks here even addressed the specifics for why they fail on that count. So much for you being a credible reference for what Christianity is...
Posted by: deadman_932 on Oct. 07 2009,12:18

Heh. Floyd is trying any underhanded trick he can think of to avoid that syllogism.

How dishonest the most fanatical "believers" are. There's reasons for that, eh, Floyd?
Posted by: JonF on Oct. 07 2009,12:39

Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 07 2009,13:08)
Hey, where are those actual summations?  Who's in charge of that?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You. Look 'em up yourself.
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Oct. 07 2009,13:24

Quote (Erasmus, FCD @ Oct. 06 2009,23:57)
Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Oct. 06 2009,18:12)
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
< why is god not part of the required explanation for why water runs downhill, when he is part of the required explanation for the EXISTENCE OF WATER? >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


---------------------QUOTE-------------------


---------------------QUOTE-------------------


flooooooooooooyyyyyyyyyd

whatsamatter?  

chickenshit?
Posted by: OgreMkV on Oct. 07 2009,14:53

I hate to say it, there is a conflict between evolution and (Floyd's) 'Christianity'.  Because his version of (Floyd's) 'Christianity' is fundamentally flawed.

I also agree science and mathematics, not just evolution, causes major crisises of faith for those with (Floyd's) 'Christianity'.  I know, I was one.

That's one reason I'm an aethist now.  It because (Floyd's) 'Christianity' is so fundamentally wrong about everything that it is totally incompatible with reality.  Now, anyone with a functioning mind (as I happen to have), must look at the evidence and determine a course of action.  That course of action is to reject (Floyd's) 'Christianity'.  Unfortunately, for some, that requires rejecting all religion.

Of course, had the religion I grew up in, been a little more tolerant, rational, or... well...  Christian, then perhaps, I would be able to experience the wonder that is religion.

Please keep in mind that the supposed 'inerrency' of the bible is only one reason.  The other reason is... well... you Floyd... or people just like you.

People that are so arrogant that they will always be right no matter what evidence is presented.  People that are so righteous that they will tell some of the finest men and women I have ever know that they are doomed to hell because they do not believe that the Earth is 6000 years old.  People, like you, who have no moral obligation to tell the truth, because they speak for God.  People who continue to hold to ideas that have been debunked for years, if not decades, if not centuries, because it offends their personal belief.  People like Floyd who pick and choose their concepts to support whatever insane fantasy world they inhabit.  People who willfully destroy young minds because they want the glory that it is rightfully god's.  People who are so ignorant that they are incable of recognizing their own ignorance.

On second thought, it has nothing to do with science or evolution.  It has totally to due with people just like you Floyd.  

In my opinion, you are a very poor Christian.  You are so concerned with the bible that you forget to minister to those around you.  You are so concerned with being right that you forget the commandments to not bear false witness.  I've spent my life (37 plus years) with some amazing Christians and you aren't even worthy to clean their boots.

I choose to reject God and heaven, because if heaven is full of people like you, I'd rather spend eternity in hell.

So thank you Floyd, if I go to hell, then it's because of you and (Floyd's) 'Christianity'.  You have only yourself to blame for my 'fall'.

Sorry if I got off topic a bit.  

However, I think it's important that everyone and Floyd recognize that the entire argument is silly because everyone is using different definitions of Christianity.  

Of course, floyd is right... in HIS view of Chrisitianity, which, I think most everyone agrees, is not the common view held by the majority of people on the planet.  This is also, the point I was trying to make above...

(Floyd's) 'Christianity' is nuts.
Posted by: Schroedinger's Dog on Oct. 07 2009,15:07

Welcome to you OgreMkV in these here heaten lands.

And thanks for sharing, good points there!
Posted by: Henry J on Oct. 07 2009,15:26

Quote (Quack @ Oct. 07 2009,01:11)
Quote (Henry J @ Oct. 06 2009,23:10)
Christianity is made up of several branches.

There is no central authority over all of them.

The beliefs held in any one branch are decided by the leaders of that branch.

The leaders of one branch do not have authority over the other branches.

Therefore the beliefs held in one branch are not compulsory in another branch unless the leaders of that branch also assert them.

Henry
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Isn't the history of Christianity even to this day also the history of how the leaders of each branch are having a hell of a time making all the members of the branch subscribe to the beliefs supposedly being the beliefs of the branch?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Yeah, that's why there are so many branches. They multiply by dividing.
Posted by: FloydLee on Oct. 07 2009,15:51



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
The pontiff, speaking as he was concluding his holiday in northern Italy, also said that while there is much scientific proof to support evolution, the theory could not exclude a role by God.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I can appreciate this quotation, Deadman.  It directly and irreconcilably opposes the published statements from these two professional evolutionist scientists:
 

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

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

---David Olroyd
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


 

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

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



But let me ask you this, Deadman.   For certain, the Pope's statement and the evolutionist scientists' statements CANNOT be true at the same time.  

So please tell me which party you agree with and which party you disagree with.  Thanks!
Posted by: Schroedinger's Dog on Oct. 07 2009,16:07

Oh, Floyd, just shut up already! you are becoming really tiresome. I'm not even entering the debate anymore, except to comment on your stupidity and hypocrisy.


Well done, buddy!
Posted by: Henry J on Oct. 07 2009,16:35

So, it's now established that some evolutionists have opinions about theology and teleology. So what?

That doesn't mean their opinions are logical deductions from the premises behind evolution theory.

Henry
Posted by: Reed on Oct. 07 2009,17:05

Quote (Henry J @ Oct. 07 2009,14:35)
So, it's now established that some evolutionists have opinions about theology and teleology. So what?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


FL seems to be under the strange delusion that statements from individual scientists form some kind scripture that all "evolutionists" must subscribe to.

Even more amusing to me however, is the fact that FL goes on and on about his "Big 5" which are basically theological quibbles based on a particular interpretation of the bible, and his "incompatibility" appears to mean "requires some dissonance to hold these views". All this while his own preferred interpretation (which he appears to believe is the only reasonable/correct interpretation) seems to require:
- All current animals (including humans) and all those in the fossil record living at the same time.
- A time when none of these animals were carnivores.
- A time when these animals existed, but there was no death.
- A global flood in historic times.

Incompatibility with evolution is the least of the problems with this FL. It's incompatible with reality. You don't just have to throw out evolution, you have to throw out basically all of geology, paleontology, cosmology,  and a large parts of biology, archeology, physics, chemistry, astronomy and even written history. For all these things to be wrong, you pretty much have to give up on the idea that rational evaluation of evidence is a valid way of learning about the universe. At that point, there is really no reason to argue against any specific scientific theory... you've thrown out entire concept of science. One might wonder how you square that with the spectacular success of the scientific method, but you've already given up on reason so I guess anything goes.
Posted by: OgreMkV on Oct. 07 2009,17:26

Quote (FloydLee @ Sep. 22 2009,14:36)
VERY perceptive question there Robin.  Combine it with those evolutionist self-testimonies and the Big Five issues that you read earlier in the thread, and you will see for yourself that

(1) evolution is VERY capable of eroding and corroding Christian faith and therefore
(2) there is a good warrant to seriously consider (and in light of all the reasons taken together, to accept) the claim that Evolutin is Incompatible with Christianity.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Floyd, here's two questions for you

1) what do you mean by eroded and corroded?

2) What do you care if evolution is incompatible with (Flyod's) Chrisitanity?
Posted by: FloydLee on Oct. 07 2009,18:24



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
So thank you Floyd, if I go to hell, then it's because of you and (Floyd's) 'Christianity'.  You have only yourself to blame for my 'fall'.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Wow!   Me doing Ye Olde Divell's dirty work again, it seems.  (Force of habit, some would say.)

But let me say this for you, Ogre.  Like Quack, and like Nmgirl, you're speaking straight from your heart about where you're at and how you got there.  That's huge.  That's honest.  And I appreciate it.

However, there were one or two candid questions that came to mind while reading your personal testimony.  For example:
       

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I've spent my life (37 plus years) with some amazing Christians and you aren't even worthy to clean their boots.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Hey, I'd be the first to agree with you, even though I don't even know who these people are that you're referring to.   No joke.

But the fact is that, by your own admission, you have REJECTED their faith in Jesus Christ just as much as you've rejected mine, despite their stellar example which (you claim) impressed you so much.  The obvious question, is, um, whyyyyy.

See, here's the deal Ogre.  My guess is that, come Judgment Day, if you try to hide behind MY skirts and plead, "Hey God, That Rotten Fundie Floyd Is The Real Reason Why I Spat In Christ's Face", God might just say to you, "Yeah bro, I'm on your side, that Rotten Fundie Floyd is nothing but a Wackadoodle Mess with a Backwards Clergy Collar.  I feel your pain dude."

But see, God already knows that you met some "Amazing" Christians who apparently showed you all the good stuff I failed to show you here.  

So what lame-bunny excuse are you gonna hand God on J-Day when He replays the video of how THEY impressed you with their example and their faith?   You gonna blame THEM as well, for your rejection of Jesus Christ?

Nope.  You'll just stand there, full of guilt, unable even to look God in the eye, knowing that you blew it all the way, standing there watching the "DOWN" button flashing on your personal Elevator.

Now, please please don't misunderstand, I'm not jumping on you.   This is NO attack on you, for like I suggested, I rather liked the way you spoke.  It was helpful and helped me to better understand where you're comin' from.  

But.....your own words have rationally left you WITHOUT any rational (let alone religious) excuse as to why you've "rejected all religion", including your rejection of the religion of the non-Floydish Christians that you claim you were impressed by.  

(And please note:  our lives are short as Hell, according to the rock band "Shooting Star."  You and I ain't got time for incorrect spiritual choices, aye?)

So you may want to think things over a bit.  If you choose to respond to this assessment, I'm listening.

Floyd Lee    :)
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Oct. 07 2009,18:31

Quote (Henry J @ Oct. 07 2009,17:35)
So, it's now established that some evolutionists have opinions about theology and teleology. So what?

That doesn't mean their opinions are logical deductions from the premises behind evolution theory.

Henry
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


that is of course the point.

and it's the one that Floyd is either too stupid or too dishonest to grasp.
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Oct. 07 2009,18:33

well that one and this one



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
< why is god not part of the required explanation for why water runs downhill, when he is part of the required explanation for the EXISTENCE OF WATER? >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: deadman_932 on Oct. 07 2009,18:36

Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 07 2009,15:51)
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
The pontiff, speaking as he was concluding his holiday in northern Italy, also said that while there is much scientific proof to support evolution, the theory could not exclude a role by God.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I can appreciate this quotation, Deadman.  It directly and irreconcilably opposes the published statements from these two professional evolutionist scientists:
     

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

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

---David Olroyd
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


     

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

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



But let me ask you this, Deadman.   For certain, the Pope's statement and the evolutionist scientists' statements CANNOT be true at the same time.  

So please tell me which party you agree with and which party you disagree with.  Thanks!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I'll preface my comment by saying this, Floyd Lee: I can and would answer you fully, completely and with detail and honesty ABOVE that which is required. I CAN do that,Floyd, but I won't. The reason why is quite simple, Floyd: This is not a "debate" Floyd. It's not a discussion, and it's not even a dialogue. It's not that because of your actions and behavior, your willingness to engage in the kind of cheap propaganda and tactics typical of YECs.

It's not even a dialogue because you chose, deliberately, to abandon any pretense of honesty or civility by abandoning your agreement to act in good faith and (per my second post in this thread) to "Keep in mind that debate is dialogue, not monologue, and that civility (well, to a decent, ethical person) would require *directly* addressing the points of your opponent (as I have with you). "

Read the thread from the beginning and we see you having your questions answered directly -- AND we see you continually avoiding that same basic decency throughout this entire thread.

Answer my question regarding the syllogism that you have avoided from page one of this thread. Answer my question regarding the Pope's Christianity, Floyd.  



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
If the Pope disagrees with your insistence that your "interpretation" of each of your Big Five Fantasies (BFF) is the "correct" interpretation, IF the Pope in fact rejects your claims and your willingness to use fallacies AND your conclusions drawn from your BFF --  If the Pope denies your BFF [Big Five Fantasies] as being essential to Christian faith, would you agree with him?

Answer fully and completely, recognizing that the Pope already accepts evolution as compatible with faith. If he rejects your claim, is he still Christian in your definition? If yes, say why, if no, say why.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Answer me completely and fully when I ask questions, and I will continue to answer you completely and fully, to the full extent of my abilities and time, when YOU ask me questions.

Fail to do this and I will simply ignore any questions you put to me, as YOU are continuously doing. Take it further and I will shut down the thread entirely. This would deny you the propaganda platform that you so dearly want -- so dearly that you abandon honor, honesty and basic decency. You want a purely one-sided  interrogation so that you can simply monologue, Floyd Lee.

You want that because of the weakness of your claims and to avoid any meaningful discussions of even simple things that refute your claims, like that three-point syllogism. I don't have to agree to that level of sheer disgusting weaseling, Floyd. I don't have to agree with you.

Answer what I asked FIRST, Floyd. Then I will answer you.
Posted by: OgreMkV on Oct. 07 2009,18:39

Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 07 2009,18:24)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
So thank you Floyd, if I go to hell, then it's because of you and (Floyd's) 'Christianity'.  You have only yourself to blame for my 'fall'.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Wow!   Me doing Ye Olde Divell's dirty work again, it seems.  (Force of habit, some would say.)

But let me say this for you, Ogre.  Like Quack, and like Nmgirl, you're speaking straight from your heart about where you're at and how you got there.  That's huge.  That's honest.  And I appreciate it.

However, there were one or two candid questions that came to mind while reading your personal testimony.  For example:
         

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I've spent my life (37 plus years) with some amazing Christians and you aren't even worthy to clean their boots.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Hey, I'd be the first to agree with you, even though I don't even know who these people are that you're referring to.   No joke.

But the fact is that, by your own admission, you have REJECTED their faith in Jesus Christ just as much as you've rejected mine, despite their stellar example which (you claim) impressed you so much.  The obvious question, is, um, whyyyyy.

See, here's the deal Ogre.  My guess is that, come Judgment Day, if you try to hide behind MY skirts and plead, "Hey God, That Rotten Fundie Floyd Is The Real Reason Why I Spat In Christ's Face", God might just say to you, "Yeah bro, I'm on your side, that Rotten Fundie Floyd is nothing but a Wackadoodle Mess with a Backwards Clergy Collar.  I feel your pain dude."

But see, God already knows that you met some "Amazing" Christians who apparently showed you all the good stuff I failed to show you here.  

So what lame-bunny excuse are you gonna hand God on J-Day when He replays the video of how THEY impressed you with their example and their faith?   You gonna blame THEM as well, for your rejection of Jesus Christ?

Nope.  You'll just stand there, full of guilt, unable even to look God in the eye, knowing that you blew it all the way, standing there watching the "DOWN" button flashing on your personal Elevator.

Now, please please don't misunderstand, I'm not jumping on you.   This is NO attack on you, for like I suggested, I rather liked the way you spoke.  It was helpful and helped me to better understand where you're comin' from.  

But.....your own words have rationally left you WITHOUT any rational (let alone religious) excuse as to why you've "rejected all religion", including your rejection of the religion of the non-Floydish Christians that you claim you were impressed by.  

(And please note:  our lives are short as Hell, according to the rock band "Shooting Star."  You and I ain't got time for incorrect spiritual choices, aye?)

So you may want to think things over a bit.  If you choose to respond to this assessment, I'm listening.

Floyd Lee    :)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Thank you.  Yes I have rejected their beliefs, but not their faith and that's a huge difference.  See, in my mind, people like you have no faith.  You have to be right.  The people that I mentioned didn't have to be right, they had faith that everything was OK, regardless of the truth.

Now let me say, I've faced death and wasn't 100% pleased with my response.  However, if you ask me now what I would do if everything in the Bible is literally true and I stand before the throne of God...

then I've got to say, "You, sir, are a total jerk! Why did you lie to us?  Why did you allow religous wars in your name?  Why?"

Those aren't for you to answer floyd.
Posted by: deadman_932 on Oct. 07 2009,18:47

Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 07 2009,18:24)
See, here's the deal Ogre.  My guess is that, come Judgment Day, [snip preaching/witnessing] 
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I also stipulated quite clearly that if you began preaching, proselytizing or "witnessing" you have broken the agreement we had, Floyd Lee.
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Deadman_932 wrote:
"Remember my caveats – start preaching, witnessing or fail to adhere to good-faith discussion/debate standards and all “rules” go out the window. Your choices determine that."http://pandasthumb.org/archives/2009/09/bloggingheads-b.html#comment-193695
---------------------QUOTE-------------------




YOU AGREED TO my stipulations at Panda's Thumb,. Floyd. You agreed to honor them, then simply ignore that, both (1) your responsibilities to directly address the points of your opposition and (2) your responsibility not to pull what you just did.

ETA: You really don't have ANY honor or real ethics, do you?
Posted by: Louis on Oct. 07 2009,18:54

So if I accept evolutionary biology as the best explanation we have of for the diversity of life I'm going to hell (or at least heck)?

Marvellous! All my friends will be there and hell has all the best bands. Plus, red hot poker up the jacksie, S and M-tastic my friends. I've been meaning to expand my kinks. Win win all round. Do we get beer?

This "debate" with FL degraded into farce even faster than I predicted. I am sorry to have been so wrong, oh woe is me etc.

Louis
Posted by: deadman_932 on Oct. 07 2009,18:57

Quote (Louis @ Oct. 07 2009,18:54)
So if I accept evolutionary biology as the best explanation we have of for the diversity of life I'm going to hell (or at least heck)?

Marvellous! All my friends will be there and hell has all the best bands. Plus, red hot poker up the jacksie, S and M-tastic my friends. I've been meaning to expand my kinks. Win win all round. Do we get beer?

This "debate" with FL degraded into farce even faster than I predicted. I am sorry to have been so wrong, oh woe is me etc.

Louis
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Beer volcano!

Eh, we knew this was headed for the dumpster as soon as Floyd refused to deal with things from page one. It's just been a lingering deterioration since then. In short, you were right. Bastard.
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Oct. 07 2009,19:03

THIS IS LOUIS

floyd when you get a chance old buddy I'd sure like you to explain something to me.

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
< why is god not part of the required explanation for why water runs downhill, when he is part of the required explanation for the EXISTENCE OF WATER? >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: OgreMkV on Oct. 07 2009,19:08

< http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin....840.DTL >

I can't find the original article, but it's on Panda's thumb.

It's about how incompetant people can't even understand their own incompetance.  It's real science too.

I've just finished the entire thread.  Sigh...
Posted by: deadman_932 on Oct. 07 2009,19:16

Quote (OgreMkV @ Oct. 07 2009,19:08)
< http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin....840.DTL >

I can't find the original article, but it's on Panda's thumb.

It's about how incompetant people can't even understand their own incompetance.  It's real science too.

I've just finished the entire thread.  Sigh...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Oh, that's < http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect >
Posted by: FloydLee on Oct. 07 2009,19:31



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I also stipulated quite clearly that if you began preaching, proselytizing or "witnessing" you have broken the agreement we had, Floyd Lee.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Give it a rest, Deadman.  Ogre posted to me from his heart, and I posted to him from mine.  Show some flexibility there.    :)
Posted by: deadman_932 on Oct. 07 2009,19:40

Address the syllogism. Answer what I asked about the Pope.

Do something to show you have any kind of ethics and morals, let alone Christian ones.

Otherwise, take your transparent ploys, fold them into sharp corners and stick them in the orifice where your head resides.
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Oct. 07 2009,20:02

floyd just answer the question



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
< why is god not part of the required explanation for why water runs downhill, when he is part of the required explanation for the EXISTENCE OF WATER? >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: Stanton on Oct. 07 2009,21:01

Quote (deadman_932 @ Oct. 07 2009,18:47)
You really don't have ANY honor or real ethics, do you?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You're new around these parts, aren't you kid?
Posted by: Stanton on Oct. 07 2009,21:04

Quote (Erasmus, FCD @ Oct. 07 2009,20:02)
floyd just answer the question
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


He never will.
Posted by: FloydLee on Oct. 07 2009,21:23



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
If the Pope disagrees with your insistence that your "interpretation" of each of your Big Five Fantasies (BFF) is the "correct" interpretation, IF the Pope in fact rejects your claims and your willingness to use fallacies AND your conclusions drawn from your BFF --  If the Pope denies your BFF [Big Five Fantasies] as being essential to Christian faith, would you agree with him?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I count three separate "IF's" there.  And (this is important) you DID say "each" of the Big Five.  You are held to what you have specified.

To answer your question, no I wouldn't necessarily agree with him.  

First, there's no need for me to agree to items I've not been shown yet, and I think you understand that THOSE three "if's" that you've specified (repeat: specified), have yet to be offered by the Pope himself.  Or at least you have yet to show them to me.

Think about it:  in the process of establishing your three "IF's", you'd even have to locate NEW statements by Benedict that negate Benedict's own previous God-As-Required-Explanation/God's Teleology/God's Image statements.  Good luck on that one.  
(And if those topics aren't foundational to Christian belief, why did HE bother bringing them up and affirming them?)

Secondly, I don't see how the Pope is going to eliminate the specific evolutionist statements supporting the Big Five Incompatibilities, that have already been given.   He's been silent so far,  except for the three Incompatibilities he's already affirmed (instead of rejected).

So, for now, the only rational answer from me to your question would have to be a "No."  I'm very willing to see what you can offer, though.  

(You must have SOME sort of new papal information that meets the three "IF's" that you specified in the quoted paragraph, right....?)

FloydLee
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Oct. 07 2009,21:29

Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 07 2009,22:23)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
If the Pope disagrees with your insistence that your "interpretation" of each of your Big Five Fantasies (BFF) is the "correct" interpretation, IF the Pope in fact rejects your claims and your willingness to use fallacies AND your conclusions drawn from your BFF --  If the Pope denies your BFF [Big Five Fantasies] as being essential to Christian faith, would you agree with him?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I count three separate "IF's" there.  And (this is important) you DID say "each" of the Big Five.  You are held to what you have specified.

To answer your question, no I wouldn't necessarily agree with him.  

First, there's no need for me to agree to items I've not been shown yet, and I think you understand that THOSE three "if's" that you've specified (repeat: specified), have yet to be offered by the Pope himself.  Or at least you have yet to show them to me.

Think about it:  in the process of establishing your three "IF's", you'd even have to locate NEW statements by Benedict that negate Benedict's own previous God-As-Required-Explanation/God's Teleology/God's Image statements.  Good luck on that one.  
(And if those topics aren't foundational to Christian belief, why did HE bother bringing them up and affirming them?)

Secondly, I don't see how the Pope is going to eliminate the specific evolutionist statements supporting the Big Five Incompatibilities, that have already been given.   He's been silent so far,  except for the three Incompatibilities he's already affirmed (instead of rejected).

So, for now, the only rational answer from me to your question would have to be a "No."  I'm very willing to see what you can offer, though.  

(You must have SOME sort of new papal information that meets the three "IF's" that you specified in the quoted paragraph, right....?)

FloydLee
---------------------QUOTE-------------------




---------------------QUOTE-------------------
< why is god not part of the required explanation for why water runs downhill, when he is part of the required explanation for the EXISTENCE OF WATER? >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: FloydLee on Oct. 07 2009,21:44



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
(Robin)

Even opinions from the likes of Mayr are just opinions and are not actual summations of the actual ToE.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
(Floyd)

So please provide me with these (ahem) "actual summations" that would negate and neutralize the published evolutionist statements that were specifically given for each of the Big Five Incompatibilities.  Thanks again!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
(Robin)

Easy:
   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
The definition
Biological evolution, simply put, is descent with modification. This definition encompasses small-scale evolution (changes in gene frequency in a population from one generation to the next) and large-scale evolution (the descent of different species from a common ancestor over many generations). Evolution helps us to understand the history of life.

The explanation
Biological evolution is not simply a matter of change over time. Lots of things change over time: trees lose their leaves, mountain ranges rise and erode, but they aren't examples of biological evolution because they don't involve descent through genetic inheritance.

The central idea of biological evolution is that all life on Earth shares a common ancestor, just as you and your cousins share a common grandmother.

Through the process of descent with modification, the common ancestor of life on Earth gave rise to the fantastic diversity that we see documented in the fossil record and around us today. Evolution means that we're all distant cousins: humans and oak trees, hummingbirds and whales.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



(berkeley.edu)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Okay.  Robin, what you've provided is merely a general, short, popular-level explanation of evolution.   Nothing more.  

It clearly does not even address, let alone "negate and neutralize" as I previously asked for, the published evolutionist statements that were specifically given in support of the Big Five Incompatibilities.  It doesn't say anything one way or the other.  

You mentioned Mayr, for example:  How does that little googly shpiel eliminate what Mayr specifically wrote in SciAm?  Answer:  it doesn't.  At all.

Yes, it IS a summation.  No, it doesn't do ANYTHING to resolve negate eliminate or neutralize any of the Big Five Incompatibillities.  IOW, given what was clearly asked for, you've got nothing there.

(You'd have far better luck with the Pope argument, skimpy as that is!!)

FloydLee
Posted by: deadman_932 on Oct. 07 2009,21:56

Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 07 2009,21:23)
   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
If the Pope disagrees with your insistence that your "interpretation" of each of your Big Five Fantasies (BFF) is the "correct" interpretation, IF the Pope in fact rejects your claims and your willingness to use fallacies AND your conclusions drawn from your BFF --  If the Pope denies your BFF [Big Five Fantasies] as being essential to Christian faith, would you agree with him?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I count three separate "IF's" there.  And (this is important) you DID say "each" of the Big Five.  You are held to what you have specified.

To answer your question, no I wouldn't necessarily agree with him.  

First, there's no need for me to agree to items I've not been shown yet, and I think you understand that THOSE three "if's" that you've specified (repeat: specified), have yet to be offered by the Pope himself.  Or at least you have yet to show them to me.

Think about it:  in the process of establishing your three "IF's", you'd even have to locate NEW statements by Benedict that negate Benedict's own previous God-As-Required-Explanation/God's Teleology/God's Image statements.  Good luck on that one.  
(And if those topics aren't foundational to Christian belief, why did HE bother bringing them up and affirming them?)

Secondly, I don't see how the Pope is going to eliminate the specific evolutionist statements supporting the Big Five Incompatibilities, that have already been given.   He's been silent so far,  except for the three Incompatibilities he's already affirmed (instead of rejected).

So, for now, the only rational answer from me to your question would have to be a "No."  I'm very willing to see what you can offer, though.  

(You must have SOME sort of new papal information that meets the three "IF's" that you specified in the quoted paragraph, right....?)

FloydLee
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


By "each" I meant "any one or more" of your BFF, Floyd...and you still have not answered the most relevant part of my question, Floyd:

"Answer fully and completely, recognizing that the Pope already accepts evolution as compatible with faith. If he rejects your claim, is he still Christian in your definition? If yes, say why, if no, say why."


WHY did you just happen to leave that out? It was the core of my question from the beginning, Floyd. Here is the first time I posted it, and repeated it several times:

 
Quote (deadman_932 @ Oct. 07 2009,09:32)
The implication there is quite clear that if the Pope does NOT accept your BFF, then he is not a Christian.

IF that is not the case, then answer this question directly: If the Pope denies your BFF as being essential to Christian faith, would you agree with him?

Answer fully and completely, recognizing that the Pope already accepts evolution as compatible with faith. If he rejects your claim, is he still Christian in your definition? If yes, say why, if no, say why.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Don't worry, I already know the answer to that "why did you leave that out?" bit, Floyd. So do you, Dishonesty Boy.

BUT YOU DIDN'T ANSWER ME, FLOYD -- TRY AGAIN
Posted by: Dale_Husband on Oct. 08 2009,04:39

Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 07 2009,18:24)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Hey, I'd be the first to agree with you, even though I don't even know who these people are that you're referring to.   No joke.

But the fact is that, by your own admission, you have REJECTED their faith in Jesus Christ just as much as you've rejected mine, despite their stellar example which (you claim) impressed you so much.  The obvious question, is, um, whyyyyy.

See, here's the deal Ogre.  My guess is that, come Judgment Day, if you try to hide behind MY skirts and plead, "Hey God, That Rotten Fundie Floyd Is The Real Reason Why I Spat In Christ's Face", God might just say to you, "Yeah bro, I'm on your side, that Rotten Fundie Floyd is nothing but a Wackadoodle Mess with a Backwards Clergy Collar.  I feel your pain dude."

But see, God already knows that you met some "Amazing" Christians who apparently showed you all the good stuff I failed to show you here.  

So what lame-bunny excuse are you gonna hand God on J-Day when He replays the video of how THEY impressed you with their example and their faith?   You gonna blame THEM as well, for your rejection of Jesus Christ?

Nope.  You'll just stand there, full of guilt, unable even to look God in the eye, knowing that you blew it all the way, standing there watching the "DOWN" button flashing on your personal Elevator.

Now, please please don't misunderstand, I'm not jumping on you.   This is NO attack on you, for like I suggested, I rather liked the way you spoke.  It was helpful and helped me to better understand where you're comin' from.  

But.....your own words have rationally left you WITHOUT any rational (let alone religious) excuse as to why you've "rejected all religion", including your rejection of the religion of the non-Floydish Christians that you claim you were impressed by.  

(And please note:  our lives are short as Hell, according to the rock band "Shooting Star."  You and I ain't got time for incorrect spiritual choices, aye?)

So you may want to think things over a bit.  If you choose to respond to this assessment, I'm listening.

Floyd Lee    :)

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I wonder how FloydLee would feel if he stood before God and He told FL that ISLAM was the only true religion. Or Judaism. Or Hinduism. Or any other faith than the Christian one.

My guess is that he would fall apart under the shock of having been lied to by, and lying to, others.

Whatever faith you profess, or even if you have none at all, you are taking a gamble.

Me, I have better things to do with my life than blindly assume that my faith makes me superior to anyone else's.
Posted by: Louis on Oct. 08 2009,05:04

Quote (OgreMkV @ Oct. 08 2009,01:08)
< http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin....840.DTL >

I can't find the original article, but it's on Panda's thumb.

It's about how incompetant people can't even understand their own incompetance.  It's real science too.

I've just finished the entire thread.  Sigh...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


It's called the < Dunning-Kruger effect >. The original reference is < here >.

I think it should be inserted into every conversation about anything controversial or academic. In fact scratch that, it should be inserted into every conversation period.

Large brick like versions of it should be carved into granite tablets and beaten around the head of everyone, myself very much included, at every given opportunity. Always and forever.

Maybe I'm just a liiiiiiiiittle too keen on this intellectual honesty and realising our limitations thing.

Louis

ETA: This quote from the Wiki article is too good to not add:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
The strongest effect has been found when people rate themselves on abilities at which they are totally incompetent. These subjects have the greatest disparity between their actual performance (at the low end of the distribution) and their self-rating (placing themselves above average). This Dunning-Kruger effect is interpreted as a lack of metacognitive ability to recognise their own incompetence.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Yet Again ETA: I Deadman has beaten me to the punch as usual. Damn you Deadman and your timezone enhanced posting appropriateness! Your mother smells of lilacs and wee and your father has a mild intolerance for bananas!
Posted by: Robin on Oct. 08 2009,08:08

Quote (Louis @ Oct. 07 2009,18:54)

---------------------QUOTE-------------------




---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Marvellous! All my friends will be there and hell has all the best bands. Plus, red hot poker up the jacksie, S and M-tastic my friends. I've been meaning to expand my kinks. Win win all round. Do we get beer?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Sorry Louis...hate to break it to you, but the reason you can donate your kidneys is that there is no beer in heaven (or heck).
Posted by: Schroedinger's Dog on Oct. 08 2009,08:10

Quote (Robin @ Oct. 08 2009,15:08)
[quote=Louis,Oct. 07 2009,18:54][/quote]


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Marvellous! All my friends will be there and hell has all the best bands. Plus, red hot poker up the jacksie, S and M-tastic my friends. I've been meaning to expand my kinks. Win win all round. Do we get beer?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Sorry Louis...hate to break it to you, but the reason you can donate your kidneys is that there is no beer in heaven (or heck).
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


That's no gonna fly for me. Do we get Scotch, at least?
Posted by: ppb on Oct. 08 2009,08:21

Quote (Louis @ Oct. 07 2009,18:54)

Do we get beer?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Of course!  It's the Devil's brew, straight from hell, or so I'm told.
Posted by: Robin on Oct. 08 2009,08:30

[quote=FloydLee,Oct. 07 2009,21:44]


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
So please provide me with these (ahem) "actual summations" that would negate and neutralize the published evolutionist statements that were specifically given for each of the Big Five Incompatibilities.  Thanks again!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


       

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
(Robin)

Easy:
       

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
The definition
Biological evolution, simply put, is descent with modification.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



(berkeley.edu)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Okay.  Robin, what you've provided is merely a general, short, popular-level explanation of evolution.   Nothing more.  
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Nothing more required. You have claimed from the beginning that the issue is evolution is incompatible with Christianity. what I provided *IS* evolution. Alas, your "five" don't apply - in fact CAN'T apply here. Give it a shot though - go ahead and try to demonstrate that your "five" can be derived from the actual definition. I won't hold my breath...


My reference, simply stated, demonstrates that your problem isn't with the actual science or the process itself (as I and others have noted repeatedly), but rather with the opinions and philosophies some people have adopted that happen to oppose your opinions. Once again all I can say is...wooohooo...

Why should anyone care?

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
It clearly does not even address, let alone "negate and neutralize" as I previously asked for, the published evolutionist statements that were specifically given in support of the Big Five Incompatibilities.  It doesn't say anything one way or the other.

You mentioned Mayr, for example:  How does that little googly shpiel eliminate what Mayr specifically wrote in SciAm? Answer:  it doesn't.  At all.

Yes, it IS a summation.  No, it doesn't do ANYTHING to resolve negate eliminate or neutralize any of the Big Five Incompatibillities.  IOW, given what was clearly asked for, you've got nothing there.

(You'd have far better luck with the Pope argument, skimpy as that is!!)

FloydLee



---------------------QUOTE-------------------



You got that slightly wrong there, Floyd. It most definitely does not address those people's statements - and THAT is precisely my point. Those folks made those statements from their own feelings and philosophies, not from the science of evolution. So thank you for proving my point here Floyd. I didn't provide the definition to negate or neutralize their statements; I provided the definition to neutralize your bogus claims about those statements. Bottom line - your claims are only relevant to some people's opinions and actually have nothing to do with evolution. Yet again...woo...hoo...
Posted by: FloydLee on Oct. 08 2009,08:40



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Those folks made those statements from their own feelings and philosophies, not from the science of evolution.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Hmm ......why did the evolutionists ascribe their claims to the theory of evolution itself, instead of to "their own feelings and philosophies"?  Are you saying that these evolutionists are lying, Robin?
Posted by: FloydLee on Oct. 08 2009,08:48



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
You have claimed from the beginning that the issue is evolution is incompatible with Christianity. what I provided *IS* evolution.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Does this mean that what Futuyma provided in Evolutionary Biology 3rd ed.  is NOT evolution?  Does this mean that Mayr's denial of teleology in his book What Evolution Is, (the same kind of denial as in his SciAm article) is NOT evolution?
Posted by: deadman_932 on Oct. 08 2009,08:49

Odd that you have so much time to devote to questions other than the one I asked. Wait, I take that back. Not odd, just typical of your dishonesty.
Posted by: FloydLee on Oct. 08 2009,08:55



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
If he rejects your claim, is (the Pope) still Christian in your definition?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Go back to page 7, on Sept. 22.  (You did not see this post?)

***
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
 Hey Floyd. Is the Pope Christian? Yes or No.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Yes.  He is.

So is Francis Collins, according to Collins book.

Both are good examples of Theistic Evolution, probably the best TE has got right now.

Neither One has come up with any solution for the Big Five Incompatibillities.   Simply not able to, so far.  

The End.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: deadman_932 on Oct. 08 2009,08:59

If he's still a Christian -- though he rejects your Big Five Frauds -- then he remains a Christian now, regardless of whether he addresses your BFF to your satisfaction or not. And he accepts evolution as valid, as he has said, so evolution and Christianity are compatible.

The pope nor any other Christian doesn't have to accept the blatherings of what any individual interprets evolution to "mean." The core of biological evolution is simply change through time through variation, selection and differential reproduction. What it might mean to others philosophically ('oh, this eliminates God", for instance) is dependent upon their concepts of God. If one's concept of God is frail, then too bad. If it is robust, then there is nothing that others can say that would deny god the power to create and accomodate the natural laws that govern the universe.

For the Pope, my understanding is that he and others have formulated a view of God that merely allows evolution to come into existence and effect, like other natural phenomena -- like water flowing downhill.

What people interpret it to mean philosophically is irrelevant.
Posted by: Schroedinger's Dog on Oct. 08 2009,09:07



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Simply not able to, so far.  
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Yep, you've single-handedly beaten the pope and any other christians to pulp with your cunning arguments.

congrats!




Go be the next messiah. there's a whole new world of possibilities for you!
Posted by: FloydLee on Oct. 08 2009,09:12



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I wonder how FloydLee would feel if he stood before God and He told FL that ISLAM was the only true religion. Or Judaism. Or Hinduism. Or any other faith than the Christian one.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Sure, Dale, I'd be shocked if that kind of thing took place.  I think anyone with a working knowledge of John 3:16 would be visibly surprised.

But that's the deal.  The entire New Testament points in only ONE direction.  Period.  Jesus himself explains it.
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Jesus said to him, "I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me."

---John 14:6
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


FloydLee
Posted by: deadman_932 on Oct. 08 2009,09:18

As we have just seen with quotes from many people...humans say lots of things, or have them altered long after their deaths to mean unintended or contradictory things. What you believe Jesus to mean may not be the interpretation others ascribe to that alleged utterance.

The difference is that they don't need to threaten you with notions of hell to force you to accept their view. But you?
Posted by: Schroedinger's Dog on Oct. 08 2009,09:27

Quote (deadman_932 @ Oct. 08 2009,16:18)
As we have just seen with quotes from many people...humans say lots of things, or have them altered long after their deaths to mean unintended or contradictory things. What you believe Jesus to mean may not be the interpretation others ascribe to that alleged utterance.

The difference is that they don't need to threaten you with notions of hell to force you to accept their view. But you?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Cue: Yodel Elf's head explodes...
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Oct. 08 2009,09:27

Quote (Erasmus, FCD @ Oct. 07 2009,21:02)
floyd just answer the question



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
< why is god not part of the required explanation for why water runs downhill, when he is part of the required explanation for the EXISTENCE OF WATER? >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


---------------------QUOTE-------------------


floyd are you chickenshit?
Posted by: deadman_932 on Oct. 08 2009,09:30

I'll try to explain this as simply as possible, Floyd.

Your argument, like so many other bad arguments, was a composite. It had at least two legs that allowed you to equivocate as much as possible, running back and forth.

The first part of it was your insistence that your Big Five Fantasies had to be addressed by any Christian. it was then admitted by you that the Pope could be free to reject any or all of them and remain a Christian. Thus he never has to address them at all. He can accept any or all and remain a Christian, he could reject any or all and remain a Christian.

The second part is you tossing out quoted opinions by "evolutionists" that you claim run counter to belief in God. Upon examination, what the quotes primarily were saying was that science simply can't examine such notions. They are not amenable to scientific investigation for a large number of well-known reasons (falsifiability, reproducibility, changing concepts of God, etc.) Most importantly, they simply remain OPINIONS about what evolution means.

Believers are free to reject such interpretations. End of story.
Posted by: Louis on Oct. 08 2009,09:40

Quote (Erasmus, FCD @ Oct. 08 2009,15:27)
Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Oct. 07 2009,21:02)
floyd just answer the question

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
< why is god not part of the required explanation for why water runs downhill, when he is part of the required explanation for the EXISTENCE OF WATER? >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


---------------------QUOTE-------------------


floyd are you chickenshit?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Well clearly, yes.

Haven't we established that by now at least? FL's so chicken shit he's afraid of a made up place that he's never even been to. That's pretty chicken shit. Even easy questions are terrifying when you run away from something that doesn't even exist.

When the fairies at the bottom of the garden scare you, a slightly irritated poodle is pant wettingly terrifying.

Louis
Posted by: FloydLee on Oct. 08 2009,10:00



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
What you believe Jesus to mean may not be the interpretation others ascribe to that alleged utterance.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Hmmm. there's always these alleged "other interpretations" that you allude to, but you guys can't seem to provide any of them in detail when asked.
Posted by: deadman_932 on Oct. 08 2009,10:04

Quote (Louis @ Oct. 08 2009,09:40)
[Snip] a slightly irritated poodle is pant wettingly terrifying.

Louis
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



I agree, Looose. Look at that little freak. They ARE scary. How to properly cook it? White wine or Madeira sauce? Fricassee or roast? Eeee!!11!

*Note: no animals were actually harmed by this mild humor. Well, maybe you, but you don't count, whoever you are.
Posted by: Robin on Oct. 08 2009,10:14

Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 08 2009,08:40)

---------------------QUOTE-------------------




---------------------QUOTE-------------------


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Those folks made those statements from their own feelings and philosophies, not from the science of evolution.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Hmm ......why did the evolutionists ascribe their claims to the theory of evolution itself, instead of to "their own feelings and philosophies"?  Are you saying that these evolutionists are lying, Robin?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



You're either being disingenuous or obtuse here, Floyd. They didn't ascribe their claims to the ToE - they presented opinions about the ToE, either in the form of impressions of the theory itself, or (in Mayr's case) about impressions of the impact of the theory on modern thinking. If you want to wail against the impressions of those folks, have at it, but to assume that these statements somehow represent evolution itself and present the foundation that the science is somehow incompatible with Christianity in general is just plain silly. But hey, if you feel the need to erect that strawman just so you can having something to feel good about knocking down, be my guest. Just realize that only the lunatic fringe will nod in agreement with you; the rest of us rational folk will just shake our heads and roll our eyes at the utter absurdity of your claims.
Posted by: Robin on Oct. 08 2009,10:24

Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 08 2009,08:48)

---------------------QUOTE-------------------




---------------------QUOTE-------------------


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
You have claimed from the beginning that the issue is evolution is incompatible with Christianity. what I provided *IS* evolution.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Does this mean that what Futuyma provided in Evolutionary Biology 3rd ed.  is NOT evolution?  Does this mean that Mayr's denial of teleology in his book What Evolution Is, (the same kind of denial as in his SciAm article) is NOT evolution?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Once again you're trying to knock down a strawman instead of evolution. Nothing about what Futuyma provided in Evolutionary Biology creates any inconsistency as has been demonstrated over a half dozen times on this board alone. And as I already noted, whether evolution (the process) incorporates teleology is irrelevant to whether the process is part of some teleological plan. From a scientific standpoint, [i]no natural process on this planet incorporates telelogy; by definition they cannot. Which means that the process such as hurricane creation, El Nino, entropy, enthalpy, doppler effects, and sun spots - all occur without incorporating teleology. If reality is incompatible with your beliefs, Floyd, it isn't my problem.
Posted by: Robin on Oct. 08 2009,10:28

Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 08 2009,09:12)

---------------------QUOTE-------------------




---------------------QUOTE-------------------


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I wonder how FloydLee would feel if he stood before God and He told FL that ISLAM was the only true religion. Or Judaism. Or Hinduism. Or any other faith than the Christian one.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Sure, Dale, I'd be shocked if that kind of thing took place.  I think anyone with a working knowledge of John 3:16 would be visibly surprised.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Hmmmm...not really. Anyone with a real working knowledge of John 3:16 would realize they are just words on a page of paper that have no more or less significance that what one can find in any newspaper, paperback, encyclopedia, and comic book.
Posted by: OgreMkV on Oct. 08 2009,10:31

Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 08 2009,10:00)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
What you believe Jesus to mean may not be the interpretation others ascribe to that alleged utterance.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Hmmm. there's always these alleged "other interpretations" that you allude to, but you guys can't seem to provide any of them in detail when asked.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I think we've already established that evolution is incompatible with (Floyd) Christianity.

We (meaning others) have established that the majority of Christians are not (Floyd) Christians.  

[I'd like to point out that Christianity* while the largest single religion in numbers, is still only about 1/3 of the entire population of the planet.  And by Christianity here, everything from Catholic to Quakers is included.  So it is very likely that Floyd will be very surprised when he meets Allah, or Buddah, or the greys.  http://www.adherents.com/Religions_By_Adherents.html]

Back to the original point.  The burden is on you, as a minority opinion, to provide evidence that the pope (as leader of the largest single cult with a reasonably similar belief system to you) is wrong.  The burden is on you to explain why 13,000 clerics (that was the figure right?) are wrong.  The burden is on you... and you're going to need a lot more than 5 single sentences that have been shown to not be problems to anyone, except you.

So, I guess the question is, why are your statements problems for you and not for the pope (whom, as you stated, is Christian)/
Posted by: FloydLee on Oct. 08 2009,10:32



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
For the Pope, my understanding is that he and others have formulated a view of God that merely allows evolution to come into existence and effect, like other natural phenomena -- like water flowing downhill.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


And yet, for some strange reason, nobody here can explain the specifics of that alleged "view of God" --- or even quote those specifics.

I have in fact provided a few quotes from the Pope about his "view of God"---but they all directly affirm the first three Incompatibilities.  Imagine that.
Posted by: deadman_932 on Oct. 08 2009,10:38

Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 08 2009,10:32)
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
For the Pope, my understanding is that he and others have formulated a view of God that merely allows evolution to come into existence and effect, like other natural phenomena -- like water flowing downhill.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


And yet, for some strange reason, nobody here can explain the specifics of that alleged "view of God" --- or even quote those specifics.

I have in fact provided a few quotes from the Pope about his "view of God"---but they all directly affirm the first three Incompatibilities.  Imagine that.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


And you've already acknowledged that whether the pope accepts or rejects any or all of your Big Five Fantasies -- the Pope remains a Christian.

Your objection is meaningless.

I've already explained this, Floyd. He accepts evolution as compatible with Christianity. He remains Christian irrespective of addressing your BFF. He is free to reject the opinions of other regarding "philosophical meanings" of evolution.

Your argument that evo and Christianity are incompatible due to either
(a) your BFF or
(b) the opinions you cite
is simply done. Over. Deceased. No longer among the viable. A dead parrot.
Posted by: FloydLee on Oct. 08 2009,11:05



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Big Five Fantasies
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


btw Deadman.....what was your proof (I prefer published statements but I know you're not ready to go there) that the Big Five Incompatibilites are "fantasies"?  Please show me again.
Posted by: Badger3k on Oct. 08 2009,11:14

Quote (Robin @ Oct. 08 2009,10:28)
[quote=FloydLee,Oct. 08 2009,09:12][/quote]


---------------------QUOTE-------------------


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I wonder how FloydLee would feel if he stood before God and He told FL that ISLAM was the only true religion. Or Judaism. Or Hinduism. Or any other faith than the Christian one.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Sure, Dale, I'd be shocked if that kind of thing took place.  I think anyone with a working knowledge of John 3:16 would be visibly surprised.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Hmmmm...not really. Anyone with a real working knowledge of John 3:16 would realize they are just words on a page of paper that have no more or less significance that what one can find in any newspaper, paperback, encyclopedia, and comic book.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


By the same token, we can point to the Koran, which contradicts John 3:16.  Or the Book of Mormon, the Rig Veda, etc, etc - why should we give any one credence over any other?  They all seem to have the same "evidence" for being true as each other, so they each seem to have the same probability of being true (I'd personally rate it as a fraction of a percent, but hey...).  Floyd pointing to his texts as reason to believe he is right is laughable to someone who does not already believe.
Posted by: deadman_932 on Oct. 08 2009,11:18

Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 08 2009,11:05)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Big Five Fantasies
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


btw Deadman.....what was your proof (I prefer published statements but I know you're not ready to go there) that the Big Five Incompatibilites are "fantasies"?  Please show me again.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


The "Fantasy" aspect lies in your previous insistence that dealing with them represents something meaningful regarding Christian faith, Floyd. You kept rambling on about how the Pope hadn't addressed them, or had and affirmed them, (which you just brought up again).

Then you admitted they don't make a damn bit of difference as to whether or not (in addressing them or not) a believer remains a Christian. Your statements render them meaningless, hence fantasies in terms of relevancy in regard to your claim that "evolution is incompatible with Christianity"

All that was required was you to affirm that.

You are back to a dead parrot, Floyd. You can keep insisting that he's merely "pinin' for the fjords" as long as you wish, though.
Posted by: Robin on Oct. 08 2009,11:36

Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 08 2009,10:32)

---------------------QUOTE-------------------




---------------------QUOTE-------------------


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
For the Pope, my understanding is that he and others have formulated a view of God that merely allows evolution to come into existence and effect, like other natural phenomena -- like water flowing downhill.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


And yet, for some strange reason, nobody here can explain the specifics of that alleged "view of God" --- or even quote those specifics.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Why should we care about those specifics so long as they are compatible with reality?



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I have in fact provided a few quotes from the Pope about his "view of God"---but they all directly affirm the first three Incompatibilities.  Imagine that.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



False statement. You have claimed (begged, insisted, wished...) that quotes you provided affirm some incompatibilities you claim exist, however others have demonstrated that they don't actually affirm your claims at all. Oddly, what you can't seem to digest is that since the Pope definitely affirms that evolution is compatible with Christianity without question, he automatically denies your silly inconsistencies regardless of the illogical mental gymnastics you think rationalize the situation otherwise. LOL!
Posted by: Robin on Oct. 08 2009,11:40

Quote (Badger3k @ Oct. 08 2009,11:14)

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


[quote]
Quote (Robin @ Oct. 08 2009,10:28)
Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 08 2009,09:12)

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I wonder how FloydLee would feel if he stood before God and He told FL that ISLAM was the only true religion. Or Judaism. Or Hinduism. Or any other faith than the Christian one.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Sure, Dale, I'd be shocked if that kind of thing took place.  I think anyone with a working knowledge of John 3:16 would be visibly surprised.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Hmmmm...not really. Anyone with a real working knowledge of John 3:16 would realize they are just words on a page of paper that have no more or less significance that what one can find in any newspaper, paperback, encyclopedia, and comic book.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


By the same token, we can point to the Koran, which contradicts John 3:16.  Or the Book of Mormon, the Rig Veda, etc, etc - why should we give any one credence over any other?  They all seem to have the same "evidence" for being true as each other, so they each seem to have the same probability of being true (I'd personally rate it as a fraction of a percent, but hey...).  Floyd pointing to his texts as reason to believe he is right is laughable to someone who does not already believe.[quote]

Quite so. The whole basis of religion (and this is pointed out quite often in the bible) is that such statements can only be taken faith as they have no objective basis that can be verified except that they "feel" right in one's heart. That there are those folks who insist that such claims can be checked objectively are merely demonstrating weakness of faith and a need for some support for their beliefs. Seems that Floyd has no faith at all if he's so concerned that his religion is eroded by science.
Posted by: Chayanov on Oct. 08 2009,11:54

FL: "The Bible is the only true word of God."

AtBC: "How do you know that?"

FL: "The Bible says so."

Stick a fork in FL. He's done.
Posted by: FloydLee on Oct. 08 2009,12:34



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
You kept rambling on about how the Pope hadn't addressed them,
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


....Because you and others kept rambling on about how the Pope, as a Christian who accepts evolution under certain conditions (but not others), has somehow negated and neutralized each of the Big Five Incompatibilities as pointed out by professional scientist evolutionists.  

So I've been asking -- repeatedly & specifically --  how the Pope did that, and you seem to have no specific answers other than "the Pope accepts evolution."
Posted by: deadman_932 on Oct. 08 2009,12:36

Doesn't matter, Floyd. The parrot is dead. Learn to accept that and move on, working through your stages of loss and grief.

Be quick about it, though, and try to show better skillzors with your "ID IZ SCIEMCE!!!11!!" argument. Try diagramming it out this time -- before you post.
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on Oct. 08 2009,12:37

Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 08 2009,12:34)
as pointed out by professional scientist evolutionists.  
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

The google seyz:< No results found for "professional scientist evolutionists". >

So, please define what "professional scientist evolutionists" means.
Posted by: FloydLee on Oct. 08 2009,12:44



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Nothing about what Futuyma provided in Evolutionary Biology creates any inconsistency as has been demonstrated over a half dozen times on this board alone.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I take it you don't have access to Evolutionary Biology 3rd ed (not even for free at your local library), right?
Posted by: FloydLee on Oct. 08 2009,12:50



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
So, please define what "professional scientist evolutionists" means.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

`
Here's 5 examples just to get started.

Futuyma
Mayr
Bozarth
Coyne
Whoever's currently teaching Biology 391 at the Univ. of Tenn. at Martin

So, would you agree?  Are those professional evolutionist scientists there?
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Oct. 08 2009,12:52

Quote (Erasmus, FCD @ Oct. 07 2009,21:02)
< why is god not part of the required explanation for why water runs downhill, when he is part of the required explanation for the EXISTENCE OF WATER? >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Heeeeeeeeere, pussy pussy pussy pussy pussy pussy
Posted by: deadman_932 on Oct. 08 2009,12:57


Posted by: nmgirl on Oct. 08 2009,13:15

Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 08 2009,12:50)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
So, please define what "professional scientist evolutionists" means.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

`
Here's 5 examples just to get started.

Futuyma
Mayr
Bozarth
Coyne
Whoever's currently teaching Biology 391 at the Univ. of Tenn. at Martin

So, would you agree?  Are those professional evolutionist scientists there?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Floyd, you are the one who claimed to be able to prove that evolution is incompatible with Christianity.  You have not been able to do that so GIVE IT UP!

No matter how many red herrings or strawmen you throw out there, no matter how many BFF you think up, no matter if you think the Pope is not a Christian, you have lost this debate.

We all know Christians, both famous and anonymous, who have no problem believing in evolution and Christianity.  Just because YOU have a problem with reality, it is not proof of a problem.
Posted by: FloydLee on Oct. 08 2009,13:22



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I'm not even entering the debate anymore, except to comment on your stupidity and hypocrisy.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Understood, but can you at least let me know if you have any success getting that Christian clergyman on board with his perspective?  
He would be the only Christian in this forum, in all the pages of this thread, to actually step up to the plate in terms of offering specific reconciliations with which to negate the Big Five.  

(If he chooses to offer them, that is.)

FloydLee
Posted by: deadman_932 on Oct. 08 2009,13:28

I believe Erasmus has a question that you've yet to address directly, Floyd.
Posted by: OgreMkV on Oct. 08 2009,13:43

Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 08 2009,12:34)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
You kept rambling on about how the Pope hadn't addressed them,
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


....Because you and others kept rambling on about how the Pope, as a Christian who accepts evolution under certain conditions (but not others), has somehow negated and neutralized each of the Big Five Incompatibilities as pointed out by professional scientist evolutionists.  

So I've been asking -- repeatedly & specifically --  how the Pope did that, and you seem to have no specific answers other than "the Pope accepts evolution."
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Floyd, as a point to debating.  It's actually up to you to prove that your big 5 are required by the pope.  

This debate is about the incompatability of evolution with Christianity not about scienctists or about personal opinions or about anything else.

How's this for starters
Christiantity
1) the Bible is the only perfect rule for faith, doctrine, and conduct
2) the necessity of the new birth in Jesus Christ
3) the Church as a fellowship of believers.
4) a conscious dependence on the Holy Spirit.

Evolution
"In the broadest sense, evolution is merely change, and so is all-pervasive; galaxies, languages, and political systems all evolve. Biological evolution ... is change in the properties of populations of organisms that transcend the lifetime of a single individual. The ontogeny of an individual is not considered evolution; individual organisms do not evolve. The changes in populations that are considered evolutionary are those that are inheritable via the genetic material from one generation to the next. Biological evolution may be slight or substantial; it embraces everything from slight changes in the proportion of different alleles within a population (such as those determining blood types) to the successive alterations that led from the earliest protoorganism to snails, bees, giraffes, and dandelions."


Please point out where these two definitions are incompatible.
If these are not the definitions you use for Christianity, then post your definition of Christianity.

There are three requests for you in this post Floyd, please be so good as to answer them.
Posted by: Schroedinger's Dog on Oct. 08 2009,13:54



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Doesn't matter, Floyd. The parrot is dead. Learn to accept that and move on, working through your stages of loss and grief.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------




According to the Kübler-Ross model, the five stages of grief are:

1-Denial
2-Anger
3-Bargaining
4-Depression
5-Acceptance

So far, Yodel Elf has only shown signs of (1), with a hypocritical form of (3). He surely* needs to move on...

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Understood, but can you at least let me know if you have any success getting that Christian clergyman on board with his perspective?  
He would be the only Christian in this forum, in all the pages of this thread, to actually step up to the plate in terms of offering specific reconciliations with which to negate the Big Five.  

(If he chooses to offer them, that is.)

FloydLee
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



I've come to the conclusion that losing my and this poor priest's time to answer your blatant sillyness is beyond the scope of logic. Sorry there Yodel Elf, but it would be useless. As for christians on this forum, they have adressed your main claim "evolution and christianism are incompatible" with compelling clarity. If YOU are not able to assimilate their views and answers, it is entirely YOUR problem...







*My name is NOT Shirley!
Posted by: Louis on Oct. 08 2009,14:15

Quote (Schroedinger's Dog @ Oct. 08 2009,19:54)
[SNIP]

*My name is NOT Shirley!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


It is now!

Louis

P.S. That'll teach you to quote mine ME for a sig you evil Foreign Devil you!
Posted by: FloydLee on Oct. 08 2009,15:16



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
It's actually up to you to prove that your big 5 are required by the pope.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

 
Even more basic than that, Ogre:  I need merely prove that the Big Five Incompatibilities EXIST.  

That task, I have carefully executed, one at a time.  Comparing published evolutionist statements one by one with the position given by the Bible texts.  (Remember, the Bible is my authority, not the Pope).  Supplying reasons why each incompatibility really IS an incomptability with Christianity.  There's five in all.

***
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
This debate is about the incompatability of evolution with Christianity not about scienctists or about personal opinions or about anything else.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Normally we all rely on scientists to tell us about evolution and what evolution actually entails or doesn't entail.  As you can see, your comrades in this forum have severely fallen away from that reliance, to the point of actually ignoring clear statements that actual working evolutionary scientists have published.  
But that's the wrong way to go.  One does not eliminate the incompatibilities by pretending that the evolutionists didn't say what they said.

And I've already shown that the incompatibilities are actually tied to evolution theory itself, not just somebody's "personal opinion."  For example, the Fourth Incompatibility (Death-Before-Adam) is based on the fact that evolution REQUIRES death to have been present at all times on this planet.  Period.  That's not even debatable.  
What you said about "successive alterations that led from the earliest protoorganism to snails, bees, giraffes, and dandelions" absolutely *requires* that death appear in this world BEFORE the time the Bible said it appeared (exclusively after The Fall, not before).
That's how evolution, that's how natural selection, works.

Yet you have people around here talking like the Fourth incompatibility, the reality of the situation, doesn't even exist.  As if ignoring the problem makes it magically go away.

That's not rational, Ogre.  Not even slightly.

FloydLee
Posted by: OgreMkV on Oct. 08 2009,15:24

Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 08 2009,15:16)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
It's actually up to you to prove that your big 5 are required by the pope.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

 
Even more basic than that, Ogre:  I need merely prove that the Big Five Incompatibilities EXIST.  

That task, I have carefully executed, one at a time.  Comparing published evolutionist statements one by one with the position given by the Bible texts.  (Remember, the Bible is my authority, not the Pope).  Supplying reasons why each incompatibility really IS an incomptability with Christianity.  There's five in all.

***
   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
This debate is about the incompatability of evolution with Christianity not about scienctists or about personal opinions or about anything else.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Normally we all rely on scientists to tell us about evolution and what evolution actually entails or doesn't entail.  As you can see, your comrades in this forum have severely fallen away from that reliance, to the point of actually ignoring clear statements that actual working evolutionary scientists have published.  
But that's the wrong way to go.  One does not eliminate the incompatibilities by pretending that the evolutionists didn't say what they said.

And I've already shown that the incompatibilities are actually tied to evolution theory itself, not just somebody's "personal opinion."  For example, the Fourth Incompatibility (Death-Before-Adam) is based on the fact that evolution REQUIRES death to have been present at all times on this planet.  Period.  That's not even debatable.  
What you said about "successive alterations that led from the earliest protoorganism to snails, bees, giraffes, and dandelions" absolutely *requires* that death appear in this world BEFORE the time the Bible said it appeared (exclusively after The Fall, not before).
That's how evolution, that's how natural selection, works.

Yet you have people around here talking like the Fourth incompatibility, the reality of the situation, doesn't even exist.  As if ignoring the problem makes it magically go away.

That's not rational, Ogre.  Not even slightly.

FloydLee
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I didn't ask you to provide your big 5.  The question is why are they required by the pope.  Remember your the one instisting that this is important.  To quote the greatest scientist of our time "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof".  

You are the only one I've ever seen with this big 5.  I've done a bit of reading on the subject.  So you are promoting it, it's up to you to provide the evidence.  Yelling louder is not evidence.

Finally.  In an attempt to actually keep the debate running, I've asked you two questions regarding the tennants of evolution and chrisitanity.  I would think that this would be your place to shine, but you fixated on a small part of my request and ignored anything like  an attempt at explanation.

Please, do answer my questions so we can actually get to the meat of this matter, instead of all this dancing around the edges.
Posted by: Schroedinger's Dog on Oct. 08 2009,15:26



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Yet you have people around here talking like the Fourth incompatibility, the reality of the situation, doesn't even exist.  As if ignoring the problem makes it magically go away.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Yodel Elf talking about reality is like a goldfish talking about space travel...*







*i DID say that I wasn't debating anymore, didn't I?
Posted by: Robin on Oct. 08 2009,15:29

Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 08 2009,12:34)

---------------------QUOTE-------------------




---------------------QUOTE-------------------


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
You kept rambling on about how the Pope hadn't addressed them,
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


....Because you and others kept rambling on about how the Pope, as a Christian who accepts evolution under certain conditions (but not others), has somehow negated and neutralized each of the Big Five Incompatibilities as pointed out by professional scientist evolutionists.  
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Two problems with this statement - 1) The Pope accepts evolution under all conditions as he states and 2) since your five issues don't actually exist visa-vis the ToE, but rather with people's particular opinions and claims as demonstrated, there is no reason why the Pope's statements need be shown to address these in any way.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
So I've been asking -- repeatedly & specifically --  how the Pope did that, and you seem to have no specific answers other than "the Pope accepts evolution."
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Well this would go hand-in-hand with your errors above. Firstly, we aren't going to bother demonstrating that Pope negated something that doesn't exist and second the only relevant point in all of this is that the Pope (a Christian and an authority on Christianity at that) affirms that evolution is most definitely NOT in conflict with Christianity. Once again it boils down to which statements to accept - his or yours - and as noted, that's a no brainer given his credentials on the subject and your lack thereof.
Posted by: Robin on Oct. 08 2009,15:33

Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 08 2009,12:44)

---------------------QUOTE-------------------




---------------------QUOTE-------------------


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Nothing about what Futuyma provided in Evolutionary Biology creates any inconsistency as has been demonstrated over a half dozen times on this board alone.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I take it you don't have access to Evolutionary Biology 3rd ed (not even for free at your local library), right?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------




LOL! Sorry Floyd, but I'm intimately familiar with the textbook. Of course, given your errors wrt reading of textbooks as has been demonstrated on multiple occasions, even if I didn't know the text, your claims about anything in them is invalid from the get go without a scanned reference of the entire section showing the context of the subject you wish to submit for evidence.
Posted by: OgreMkV on Oct. 08 2009,15:36

After some consideration, let me expound upon my question.

Why do you and seemingly no other Christian (including all of the ones I have ever had the privilege of having a real debate with) REQUIRE that they accept your big 5?

So you accept the bible as literal truth 100%?
Posted by: FloydLee on Oct. 08 2009,15:43



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I've come to the conclusion that losing my and this poor priest's time to answer your blatant sillyness is beyond the scope of logic.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Genuinely sorry to hear that.  I would have enjoyed listening and thinking about your clergy friend's perspective on this issue.

So, the evolutionist Christians have effectively taken a pass on this debate.   At this point, the only Christian-evolutionist response to the Big Five Incompatibilities is merely, "the Pope believes in Evolution" (under certain specific conditions which nobody around here wants to discuss).

I think I can live with that situation; it helps me to evaluate the strength of each incompatibility WRT the evolutionist Christians.  

But my guess is that your Christian clergy friend, being an experienced clergyman, probably might would have put up a serious, considered response.  An actual challenge, even.

Tis a mondo shame that he'll not be participating.

Floyd Lee   :)
Posted by: Robin on Oct. 08 2009,16:00

Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 08 2009,15:16)

---------------------QUOTE-------------------




---------------------QUOTE-------------------


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
It's actually up to you to prove that your big 5 are required by the pope.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

 
Even more basic than that, Ogre:  I need merely prove that the Big Five Incompatibilities EXIST.  

That task, I have carefully executed, one at a time.  Comparing published evolutionist statements one by one with the position given by the Bible texts.  (Remember, the Bible is my authority, not the Pope).  Supplying reasons why each incompatibility really IS an incomptability with Christianity.  There's five in all.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Once again because you are clearly a slow learner and hard of hearing (err...reading...): conflating people's opinions about a given subject with the definition of the subject only demonstrates a fundamental misunderstanding with the subject or a genuine attempt at intellectual dishonesty (or perhaps both). Your call on which one describes the path you're on.

Perhaps an illustration of the point will drive it home:

"People gave ear to an upstart astrologer who strove to show that the earth revolves, not the heavens or the firmament, the sun and the moon....This fool wishes to reverse the entire science of astronomy; but sacred scripture tells us [Joshua 10:13]that Joshua commanded the sun to stand still, and not the earth."

[Martin Luther in one of his "Table Talks" in 1539]

"What shall we Christians do now with this depraved and damned people of the Jews? ... I will give my faithful advice: First, that one should set fire to their synagogues. . . . Then that one should also break down and destroy their houses. . . . That one should drive them out the country."

[Martin Luther]
"The word and works of God is quite clear, that women were made either to be wives or prostitutes."

[Martin Luther, Works 12.94]

"My feelings as a Christian points me to my Lord and Savior as a fighter. It points me to the man who once in loneliness, surrounded by a few followers, recognized these Jews for what they were and summoned men to fight against them and who, God's truth! was greatest not as a sufferer but as a fighter. In boundless love as a Christian and as a man I read through the passage which tells us how the Lord at last rose in His might and seized the scourge to drive out of the Temple the brood of vipers and adders. How terrific was His fight for the world against the Jewish poison. To-day, after two thousand years, with deepest emotion I recognize more profoundly than ever before the fact that it was for this that He had to shed His blood upon the Cross. As a Christian I have no duty to allow myself to be cheated, but I have the duty to be a fighter for truth and justice... And if there is anything which could demonstrate that we are acting rightly it is the distress that daily grows. For as a Christian I have also a duty to my own people."

-Adolf Hitler, in a speech on 12 April 1922 (Norman H. Baynes, ed. The Speeches of Adolf Hitler, April 1922-August 1939, Vol. 1 of 2, pp. 19-20, Oxford University Press, 1942) Martin Phipps, October 18th, 2004

David Chilton:
The god of Judaism is the devil. The Jew will not be recognized by God as one of His chosen people until he abandons his demonic religion and returns to the faith of his fathers - the faith which embraces Jesus Christ and His Gospel.


The Days of Vengeance: An Exposition of the Book of Revelation (1984)

Jerry Falwell:
I think Mohammed was a terrorist.  He - I read enough of the history of his life written by both Muslims and – and - non-Muslims, that he was a - a violent man, a man of war.  And I do believe that - Jesus set the example for love, as did Moses.  And I think that Mohammed set an opposite example.


60 Minutes, October 6, 2002

Jeff Fugate:
If you don't want a Christian nation, then go to one of the many nations that are heathen already, rather than perverting ours.

You're welcome to come, but leave your religions, your bibles, all your other things back where you came from.

Islam and America are opposites. They hate us. They want to kill us.  I'm not anti-Jewish or anti-Catholic. I'm anti-Islam because that religion right there is anti-American.


Jeff Fugate, pastor of Clays Mill Road Baptist Church, Lexington, KY, July 3, 2002.

Francis J. Lally:
The Church has through the centuries, understood that ideas are really more dangerous than other weapons. Their use should be restricted.


Francis J. Lally, American Roman Catholic Monsignor. Interview with Mike Wallace, 1958.

Joseph Morecraft:
Nobody has the right to worship on this planet any other God than Jehovah. And therefore the state does not have the responsibility to defend anybody's pseudo-right to worship an idol.


Rev. Joseph Morecraft, Chalcedon Presbyterian Church, "Biblical Role of Civil Government" speech delivered on August 21, 1993 at the Biblical Worldview and Christian Education Conference.

Gary North:
The long-term goal of Christians in politics should be to gain exclusive control over the franchise. Those who refuse to submit publicly to the eternal sanctions of God by submitting to His Church's public marks of the covenant - baptism and holy communion - must be denied citizenship, just as they were in ancient Israel.


Political Polytheism: The Myth of Pluralism (1989)

Randall Terry:
When I, or people like me, are running the country, you'd better flee, because we will find you, we will try you, and we'll execute you. I mean every word of it. I will make it part of my mission to see to it that they are tried and executed.


Randall Terry, founder of Operation Rescue. Speech before the U.S. Taxpayers Alliance on doctors who perform abortions. August 8, 1995

James Watt:
My responsibility is to follow the Scriptures which call upon us to occupy the land until Jesus returns.


James Watt, Secretary of the Interior under Rondald Reagan. Washington Post, May 24, 1981.

James Watt:
We don't have to protect the environment, the Second Coming is at hand.


James Watt, Secretary of the Interior under Rondald Reagan. Washington Post, May 24, 1981.

Wow! Seems the Constitution of the United States is incompatible with Christianity according to your logic there Floyd. Or should I not take these quotes about Christianity to be the definition of Christianity?
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Oct. 08 2009,16:03

Quote (Erasmus, FCD @ Oct. 08 2009,13:52)
Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Oct. 07 2009,21:02)
< why is god not part of the required explanation for why water runs downhill, when he is part of the required explanation for the EXISTENCE OF WATER? >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Heeeeeeeeere, pussy pussy pussy pussy pussy pussy
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


heeeeeeere pussy pussy pussy pussy pussy
Posted by: FloydLee on Oct. 08 2009,16:07

Here's a quotation from Deadman:


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
The pontiff, speaking as he was concluding his holiday in northern Italy, also said that while there is much scientific proof to support evolution, the theory could not exclude a role by God.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Here's a quotation from Robin:


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
The Pope accepts evolution under all conditions as he states...."
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


And then you guys wanna declare victory despite all that contradiction?
Posted by: Schroedinger's Dog on Oct. 08 2009,16:17

Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 08 2009,23:07)
Here's a quotation from Deadman:
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
The pontiff, speaking as he was concluding his holiday in northern Italy, also said that while there is much scientific proof to support evolution, the theory could not exclude a role by God.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Here's a quotation from Robin:
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
The Pope accepts evolution under all conditions as he states...."
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


And then you guys wanna declare victory despite all that contradiction?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You dumbfuck! the existence of a god is NOT ADRESSED by the ToE. A handful of opinions from some scientists is NOT the ToE!

The opinions of the pope, on the other hand, ARE part of catholicism, christianity and the whole shebang.

so if the pope says evolution is compatible with christianism, then IT IS SO!


Arrrggh! Damn, I said I wouldn't debate with Yodel Elf!
Posted by: Constant Mews on Oct. 08 2009,17:09

Floyd, I am a Christian and well-versed in evolutionary theory which I accept as truth.

My very existence demonstrates conclusively that you are wrong about your five "incompatibles".

You can conceded now.
Posted by: Constant Mews on Oct. 08 2009,17:11

My apologies: a poor spell-checker.

Floyd, you may now concede.  My existence as a Christian, a scientist, and one who accepts evolution conclusively proves you are wrong.

You're welcome.
Posted by: George on Oct. 08 2009,17:18

Quote (Constant Mews @ Oct. 08 2009,17:11)
My apologies: a poor spell-checker.

Floyd, you may now concede.  My existence as a Christian, a scientist, and one who accepts evolution conclusively proves you are wrong.

You're welcome.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Me too.  Floyd, go home or change the subject.

At least AFDave had the sense of theatre (and slightly more dignity) to change his arguments before they became old, stale and beaten.
Posted by: nmgirl on Oct. 08 2009,18:45

Floyd, here's my thought on #2, the teleology bit.  You don't give a rat's ass what the purpose of a grapefruit or meerkat is.  You have to think that human's were created for a special purpose so you can feel special.  You don't want a God to worship, you want god to worship you.
Posted by: JonF on Oct. 08 2009,18:54

Quote (Constant Mews @ Oct. 08 2009,18:09)
Floyd, I am a Christian and well-versed in evolutionary theory which I accept as truth.

My very existence demonstrates conclusively that you are wrong about your five "incompatibles".

You can concede now.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Hey, CM, nice to see you! Long time no type!
Posted by: Dan on Oct. 08 2009,20:33

Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 08 2009,09:12)
The entire New Testament points in only ONE direction.  Period.  Jesus himself explains it.
     

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Jesus said to him, "I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me."

---John 14:6
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


FloydLee
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Notice that FL himself admits that the entire thrust of the New Testament has nothing to do with evolution, or in fact anything to do with science at all.  Why is he so insistent that evolution and Christianity are incompatible?

Evolution is about explaining the diversity of living things.

Christianity is about getting to the Father.

As FL himself has just pointed out, evolution and Christianity are about different things.  That's what the Pope thinks too.
Posted by: deadman_932 on Oct. 08 2009,20:47

Quote (JonF @ Oct. 08 2009,18:54)
Quote (Constant Mews @ Oct. 08 2009,18:09)
Floyd, I am a Christian and well-versed in evolutionary theory which I accept as truth.

My very existence demonstrates conclusively that you are wrong about your five "incompatibles".

You can concede now.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Hey, CM, nice to see you! Long time no type!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Good to see your posts again, CM. Cheers!
Posted by: Dan on Oct. 08 2009,21:02

Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 06 2009,10:30)
     

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


---------------------QUOTE-------------------




Here's the deal:  this syllogism was claimed to be a proof.  It's not.  Why not?  Because a rational reason (in fact, more 'n' one) exists why (3) does not NECESSARILY follow (1) and (2).

(a)  The Pope may simply be unaware of the existence of particular Incompatibilities.

(b)  The pope may acknowledge that "evolution happens" but only under certain conditions, which means that under different conditions, he is NOT in agreement that evolution is compatible with Christianity.

©  By "evolution happens", does the Pope mean "microevolution happens", "macroevolution happens", or both?  Without specifiying things further, you can't be sure what Pope means there, and therefore your (3) may not necessarily follow from your (1) and (2)

Seems clear enough.  There are visible holes in this proof.  Items where (3) just MIGHT NOT necessarily follow from (1) and (2).  That's the deal.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Let's look at the "logic" of FL's three objections.  I'll use them in a different circumstance so that we can be sure to focus on the rational content and not on what we wish to be true.

I make this argument:

1. My computer uses the operating system Windows XP.

2. My computer runs the Lizard Tech MrSID viewer.

3. Therefore Lizard Tech MrSID viewer is compatible with Windows XP.

A simple three line proof.

FL now objects:

(a) The computer may simply be unaware of the existence of particular incompatibilities.

(b) The Lizard Tech MrSID viewer might run only under certain conditions, such as only if it's been installed.

© By "Lizard Tech MrSID viewer runs on my computer" does this mean "the program runs" or "the program runs optimally" or "the program uses typical Windows input/output conventions"?

All these so-called "objections" are in fact nothing but silly, irrelevant points.  None of them change the conclusion of the argument -- that Lizard Tech MrSID viewer is compatible with Windows XP.  The silliest "objection" is (a) -- my computer is not aware of anything!  Yet that doesn't change the fact that Lizard Tech MrSID viewer is compatible with Windows XP.

FL's three "objections" are really just diversions, to try to divert attention away from the fact -- proven above -- that evolution is compatible with Christianity.

It is clear that FL doesn't want this fact to be true, but that is equally irrelevant to the truth or falsity of the fact.
Posted by: Reed on Oct. 08 2009,22:00

Quote (Dan @ Oct. 08 2009,19:02)
FL's three "objections" are really just diversions, to try to divert attention away from the fact -- proven above -- that evolution is compatible with Christianity.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


My impression is that FLs definition of "incompatible" means "requires dissonance". IMO, that by itself falls within one of several reasonable interpretations of the phrase.

However, < FL refused to define what he meant way back on page 5 >, and ignored my < suggestion that he clarify >, which doesn't say much for his interest in engaging in an honest discussion. Huge surprise  :p
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Oct. 08 2009,22:13

FL isn't even a creative tard.  AFDAve would have bullshitted an answer to the water thing a long time ago.  

Floyd is too much of a pussy to do anything outside of quote mines, tu quoques, false equivalencies and conflating opinions with logical deductions.  

Floyd you are a chickenshit sissy little turd that ain't got the balls to back up your own bullshit talking.  

why do you even bother?  you drag your pathetic arguments from web site to web site and get them crammed up your ass every where you open your mouth.  i bet you push back too.
Posted by: OgreMkV on Oct. 08 2009,22:56

Quote (Reed @ Oct. 08 2009,22:00)
Quote (Dan @ Oct. 08 2009,19:02)
FL's three "objections" are really just diversions, to try to divert attention away from the fact -- proven above -- that evolution is compatible with Christianity.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


My impression is that FLs definition of "incompatible" means "requires dissonance". IMO, that by itself falls within one of several reasonable interpretations of the phrase.

However, < FL refused to define what he meant way back on page 5 >, and ignored my < suggestion that he clarify >, which doesn't say much for his interest in engaging in an honest discussion. Huge surprise  :p
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Agreed, he's ignored any attempt to actually define what he's talking about.

I can't wait until he decides to do the next half.
Posted by: Badger3k on Oct. 08 2009,23:13

Quote (Schroedinger's Dog @ Oct. 08 2009,13:54)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Doesn't matter, Floyd. The parrot is dead. Learn to accept that and move on, working through your stages of loss and grief.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------




According to the Kübler-Ross model, the five stages of grief are:

1-Denial
2-Anger
3-Bargaining
4-Depression
5-Acceptance

So far, Yodel Elf has only shown signs of (1), with a hypocritical form of (3). He surely* needs to move on...

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Understood, but can you at least let me know if you have any success getting that Christian clergyman on board with his perspective?  
He would be the only Christian in this forum, in all the pages of this thread, to actually step up to the plate in terms of offering specific reconciliations with which to negate the Big Five.  

(If he chooses to offer them, that is.)

FloydLee
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



I've come to the conclusion that losing my and this poor priest's time to answer your blatant sillyness is beyond the scope of logic. Sorry there Yodel Elf, but it would be useless. As for christians on this forum, they have adressed your main claim "evolution and christianism are incompatible" with compelling clarity. If YOU are not able to assimilate their views and answers, it is entirely YOUR problem...







*My name is NOT Shirley!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Aargh!  From what I have heard, and this is apparently from Kubler-Ross herself, is that not every individual will go through all the stages, or even perhaps in that order.  I heard that from a lecture somewhere, and even wikipedia has it


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Kübler-Ross claimed these steps do not necessarily come in the order noted above, nor are all steps experienced by all patients, though she stated a person will always experience at least two. Often, people will experience several stages in a "roller coaster" effect - switching between two or more stages, returning to one or more several times before working through it.[1]

^ a b c d e f g h i j k l Santrock, J.W. (2007). A Topical Approach to Life-Span Development. New York: McGraw-Hill
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



I don't have her book so I can't verify this, but it fits what I heard.  So we may not even see all the stages.  This may be it.

...

Shirley :)
Posted by: Badger3k on Oct. 08 2009,23:17

Damn - the Aargh! was in response to the idea that Kubler-Ross was a set pattern, which was not what you said (I don't think you even implied it), nor was it an attempt to sound like a pirate to prevent global warming.

...

yarr!
Posted by: FloydLee on Oct. 09 2009,03:04



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Floyd, I am a Christian and well-versed in evolutionary theory which I accept as truth.  My very existence demonstrates conclusively that you are wrong about your five "incompatibles".
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Hi Constant.  You say that your "very existence demonstrates conclusively that..."?  Ummm, okay.  But would you take a few minutes and specify precisely HOW it does, for each incompatibility?
     

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
(You) cannot reconcile evolution with Christianity simply by declaring that many people see no conflict.

The issue is whether they have a sound basis for their opinions.


----evolutionist J. Rosenhouse, eSkeptic website, Oct 10, 2007
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: FloydLee on Oct. 09 2009,03:07



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Agreed, he's ignored any attempt to actually define what he's talking about.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


We've already discussed what was meant by "evolution" and "Christianity", Ogre.   Please review the previous pages if need be.
Posted by: FloydLee on Oct. 09 2009,03:16

Hey Deadman, you promised that if I answered your "Three If's" papal question, you'd answer the following question.
     

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
     

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
The pontiff, speaking as he was concluding his holiday in northern Italy, also said that while there is much scientific proof to support evolution, the theory could not exclude a role by God.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I can appreciate this quotation, Deadman.  It directly and irreconcilably opposes the published statements from these two professional evolutionist scientists:
     

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

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

---David Olroyd
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


     

---------------------QUOTE-------------------

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

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


But let me ask you this, Deadman.   For certain, the Pope's statement and the evolutionist scientists' statements CANNOT be true at the same time.  

So please tell me which party you agree with and which party you disagree with.  Thanks!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Did you answer that question already?
Posted by: deadman_932 on Oct. 09 2009,03:37

Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 09 2009,03:16)
Hey Deadman, you promised that if I answered your "Three If's" papal question, you'd answer the following question.
           

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
           

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
The pontiff, speaking as he was concluding his holiday in northern Italy, also said that while there is much scientific proof to support evolution, the theory could not exclude a role by God.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I can appreciate this quotation, Deadman.  It directly and irreconcilably opposes the published statements from these two professional evolutionist scientists:
           

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

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

---David Olroyd
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


           

---------------------QUOTE-------------------

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

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


But let me ask you this, Deadman.   For certain, the Pope's statement and the evolutionist scientists' statements CANNOT be true at the same time.  

So please tell me which party you agree with and which party you disagree with.  Thanks!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Did you answer that question already?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Before I answer you fully , I'd like to see the article by "Olroyd" (sic) in order to see two things (1) Context and (2) Whether or not AIG is being accurate in their quote, since they HAVE been known to fabricate quotes entirely.

If you can't provide that full article, or at least the surrounding paragraphs, then I'm simply not going to give an opinion on it, because I don't trust AIG in the least.

They DO quotemine and fabricate, I know this.

On my own time, I've looked for that article online and I've looked for the publication they cite. ( " David Oldroyd, The (Australian) Weekend Review, 20–21 March 1993, p. 5." )

I haven't found it at all. Perhaps you can do better.
Posted by: FloydLee on Oct. 09 2009,04:46



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
So, it's now established that some evolutionists have opinions about theology and teleology. So what?
That doesn't mean their opinions are logical deductions from the premises behind evolution theory.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Well, let's check that out Henry.  Let's do the Second Incompatibility.
     

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
"Teleological statements are those that invoke goals, or ends (Greek teleos, "end"), as causes (eg, "He went to the store in order to get milk.")
But evolutionary theory does not admit anticipation of the future (i.e. conscious forethought),
either in the process of evolution of an adaptive characteristic or in the development of or behavior of an individual organism."

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


     

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
"(Darwin's) alternative to intelligent design was natural selection, according to which organisms possessing variations that enhance survival or reproduction replace those less suitably endowed, which therefore survive or reproduce in lesser degree.  Thus the adaptations of organisms have indeed been 'designed', but by a completely mindless process.  

"The process cannot have a goal, any more than than erosion has the goal of forming canyons, for the future cannot cause material events in the past."  ---EB3, pg 342.  
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


     

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

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


Okay.  From this, we can see that Futuyma, and others, are clearly talking about evolutionary theory itself.

He -- and they -- are not offering you his personal opinions about theology here.  EB# directly points out that evolutionary theory itself does not admit a certain something.  

Furthermore, you are given an exact, rational reason in EB3 -- already quoted -- why evolutionary theory itself does NOT (in this case) admit that certain something.  In fact, page 342 of EB3 contains a second reason why evolution doesn't admit teleology:
     

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
"Supernatural processes cannot be the subject of science; and so when Darwin offered a purely naturalistic alternative to the argument from design, he not only shook the foundations of theology and philosophy, but brought every aspect of the study of life into the realm of science.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


This is important, Henry.  Not only does evolutionary theory itself NOT admit teleology and conscious forethought because of that first reason Futuyma gave, but it turns out that if you reject what Futuyma says, if you DO admit teleology and conscious forethought into the evolutionary process,
you ARE actually opening the rational door to allowing supernatural processes to become the subject of science.  You can no longer quarantine 'em out if you admit teleology at any point of the evolutionary process.

And you and your evolutionist pals don't want THAT kind of situation, do you?

******

Now, at this point I have to mention something.  Back on page 27, I pointed out that this particular claim of "Supernatural causes are already excluded from all science" (stated by Reed and echoed by Deadman and several others) is in fact UNSUPPORTED.  
     

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
"In fact, if the preceding investigations are correct, there is no compelling conceptual basis for any blanket prohibition on exploring applications or implications of the idea of supernatural design within the scientific context.

"Some design theories may be inappropriate in some instances, but that is perfectly consistent with others being in principle legitimate.

"It is, of course, perfectly possible that such attempts could end up wholly empty, but since every scientific research program faces at least that possibility, that hardly constitutes grounds for pre-emptive prohibitions."

--- Dr. Del Ratzsch, Nature, Design and Science, c2001, p.149.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


     

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
"There is nothing inherent in the scientific enterprise that requires restricting it to natural causes only.  Science is about what is testable, not necessarily what is naturalistic." --- chemist Dr. John Millam, 2005 Kansas State Science Standards Hearings
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


So, as you see, I disagree with Futuyma, Reed, Deadman and others.  
However......., although I agree with Ratzsch and Millam, you might (as an evolutionist) still agree with Futuyma, Reed, Deadman, etc. and continue to believe that "Supernatural causes are already excluded from all science."

That's fine, but the kicker is this:  as you've seen from Futuyma's EB3, you now have a choice to make.  Admit the reality of the Second Incompatibility, or else destroy a favorite pro-evolution belief right here and now.

EITHER "evolutionary theory does NOT admit conscious anticipation of the future, ie conscious forethought", as EB3 states,
OR it is no longer true that supernatural causes cannot be the subject of science.  Admission of teleology and conscious forethought into the evolutionary process at any point, necessarily creates a situation in which you can no longer rationally rule out or dismiss supernatural-causes-within-science at that particular point.


Bottom line:  You can't have it both ways Henry.  Which option you wanna choose?  Choose only one please.

******

FloydLee
Posted by: FloydLee on Oct. 09 2009,04:57

Okay, there's just one more thing on my reply to Henry.  Earlier, I quoted philosopher of science Del Ratzsch and chemist John Millam to show that Futuyma's claim of "Supernatural processes cannot be the subject of science" is, at minimum, UNSUPPORTED.

Along with that, I wanted to offer additional commentary by Stephen C. Meyer, which helps to illuminate some of the issues involved.  

I may or may not refer to this commentary again, along with Ratzsch and Millam, when discussing whether ID is science.  I just wanted to put it on the table now, since it's a helpful discussion.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Naturalism: the only game in town?

G. K. Chesterton once said that "behind every double standard lies a single hidden agenda." Advocates of descent have used demarcation arguments to erect double standards against design, suggesting that the real methodological criterion they have in mind is naturalism.
Of course for many the equation of science with the strictly materialistic or naturalistic is not at all a hidden agenda. Scientists generally treat "naturalistic" as perhaps the most important feature of their enterprise. Clearly, if naturalism is regarded as a necessary feature of all scientific hypotheses, then design will not be considered a scientific hypothesis.

But must all scientific hypotheses be entirely naturalistic? Must scientific origins theories, in particular, limit themselves to materialistic causes? Thus far none of the arguments advanced in support of a naturalistic definition of science has provided a noncircular justification for such a limitation.

Nevertheless, perhaps such arguments are irrelevant. Perhaps scientists should just accept the definition of science that has come down to them. After all, the search for natural causes has served science well.
What harm can come from continuing with the status quo?

What compelling reasons can be offered for overturning the prohibition against nonnaturalistic explanation in science?

In fact, there are several.


First, with respect to origins, defining science as a strictly naturalistic enterprise is metaphysically gratuitous. Consider: It is at least logically possible that a personal agent existed before the appearance of the first life on earth. Further, as Bill Dembski argues in the next chapter, we do live in the sort of world where knowledge of such an agent could possibly be known or inferred from empirical data.

This suggests that it is logically and empirically possible that such an agent (whether divine or otherwise) designed or influenced the origin of life on earth.
To insist that postulations of past agency are inherently unscientific in the historical sciences (where the express purpose of such inquiry is to determine what happened in the past) suggests we know that no personal agent could have existed prior to humans.

Not only is such an assumption intrinsically unverifiable, it seems entirely gratuitous in the absence of some noncircular account of why science should presuppose metaphysical naturalism.

Second, to exclude by assumption a logically and empirically possible answer to the question motivating historical science seems intellectually and theoretically limiting, especially since no equivalent prohibition exists on the possible nomological relationships that scientists may postulate in nonhistorical sciences.

The (historical) question that must be asked about biological origins is not "Which materialistic scenario will prove most adequate?" but "How did life as we know it actually arise on earth?" Since one of the logically and syntactically appropriate answers to this later question is "Life was designed by an intelligent agent that existed before the advent of humans," it seems rationally stultifying to exclude the design hypothesis without a consideration of all the evidence, including the most current evidence, that might support it.

The a priori exclusion of design diminishes the rationality or origins research in another way. Recent nonpositivistic accounts of scientific rationality suggest that scientific theory evaluation is an inherently comparative enterprise.
Notions such as consilience and Peter Lipton's inference to the best explanation discussed above imply the need to compare the explanatory power of competing hypotheses or theories.

If this process is subverted by philosophical gerrymandering, the rationality of scientific practise is vitiated. Theories that gain acceptance in artificially constrained competitions can claim to be neither "most probably true" nor "most empirically adequate." Instead such theories can only be considered "most probable or adequate among an artificially limited set of options."

Moreover, where origins are concerned only a limited number of basic research programs are logically possible. (Either brute matter has the capability to arrange itself into higher levels of complexity or it does not. If it does not, then either some external agency has assisted the arrangement of matter or matter has always possessed its present arrangement.) The exclusion of one of the logically possible programs of origins research by assumption, therefore, seriously diminishes the significance of any claim to theoretical superiority by advocates of a remaining program.

As Phillip Johnson has argued, the use of "methodological rules" to protect Darwinism from theoretical challenge has produced a situation in which Darwinist claims must be regarded as little more than tautologies expressing the deductive consequences of methodological naturalism.

An openness to empirical arguments for design is therefore a necessary condition of a fully rational historical biology.
A rational historical biology must not only address the question "Which materialistic or naturalistic evolutionary scenario provides the most adequate explanation of biological complexity?" but also the question "Does a strictly materialistic evolutionary scenario or one involving intelligent agency or some other theory best explain the origin of biological complexity, given all relevant evidence?"

To insist otherwise is to insist that materialism holds a metaphysically privileged position. Since there seems no reason to concede that assumption, I see no reason to concede that origins theories must be strictly naturalistic.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: Schroedinger's Dog on Oct. 09 2009,05:00

Yodel Elf: The first thing that strikes me in this text is the blatant presence of the name "Philip Johnson". Any reference to that sucker automaticaly ruins any of your arguments. Thanks for playing, go read the fuckin' Wedge Document...

Wimp!
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on Oct. 09 2009,05:09

FL
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
You can no longer quarantine 'em out if you admit teleology at any point of the evolutionary process.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



For the sake of argument lets say that you are right.

At what point was telology involved with evolution?

At the start?

In the middle?

When was evolution prodded with the telic stick?

Do you know? How can you tell? What evidence do you have?
Posted by: Schroedinger's Dog on Oct. 09 2009,05:19

Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Oct. 09 2009,12:09)
FL
   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
You can no longer quarantine 'em out if you admit teleology at any point of the evolutionary process.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



For the sake of argument lets say that you are right.

At what point was telology involved with evolution?

At the start?

In the middle?

When was evolution prodded with the telic stick?

Do you know? How can you tell? What evidence do you have?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


He can't answer to that, because for him the evolution process doesn't exist. remember? 6000 years old earth, Adam and Eve, the talking snake...
Posted by: deadman_932 on Oct. 09 2009,06:27

Del Ratzsch, John Millam and Stephen Neyer can't provide any means by which to show that they are correct.

Show me any research program that they have to detect supernatural deities. Their opinions are worthless otherwise -- simply empty words.
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Oct. 09 2009,07:21

hey pussy

No theory, ever, has "admitted" any fucking thing.

You are too dishonest and/or too stupid to realize that your argument is loaded.

Is it a logical deduction from the premises?  No?  Ok then fuck off.
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Oct. 09 2009,07:21

Quote (Erasmus, FCD @ Oct. 08 2009,17:03)
Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Oct. 08 2009,13:52)
Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Oct. 07 2009,21:02)
< why is god not part of the required explanation for why water runs downhill, when he is part of the required explanation for the EXISTENCE OF WATER? >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Heeeeeeeeere, pussy pussy pussy pussy pussy pussy
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


heeeeeeere pussy pussy pussy pussy pussy
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


heeeeeeeere pussy pussy pussy pussy pussy pussy
Posted by: Robin on Oct. 09 2009,08:22

Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 08 2009,16:07)

---------------------QUOTE-------------------




---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Here's a quotation from Deadman:
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
The pontiff, speaking as he was concluding his holiday in northern Italy, also said that while there is much scientific proof to support evolution, the theory could not exclude a role by God.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Here's a quotation from Robin:
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
The Pope accepts evolution under all conditions as he states...."
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


And then you guys wanna declare victory despite all that contradiction?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



The only contradiction is in your statements and head. The theory does not exclude a role by any god, yours or any other. So yeah...victory. Or at least, your claims are still inane.
Posted by: Constant Mews on Oct. 09 2009,08:36

Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 09 2009,03:04)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Floyd, I am a Christian and well-versed in evolutionary theory which I accept as truth.  My very existence demonstrates conclusively that you are wrong about your five "incompatibles".
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Hi Constant.  You say that your "very existence demonstrates conclusively that..."?  Ummm, okay.  But would you take a few minutes and specify precisely HOW it does, for each incompatibility?
       

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
(You) cannot reconcile evolution with Christianity simply by declaring that many people see no conflict.

The issue is whether they have a sound basis for their opinions.


----evolutionist J. Rosenhouse, eSkeptic website, Oct 10, 2007
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I'm curious, Floyd: why does it matter?  Your initial contention is that Christianity and evolution are incompatible.  The fact that there exists a person who finds them completely compatible proves without further emendation that you are wrong in your claim.  But certainly, since I realize I am dealing with a theological innocent, we can discuss your "points".
Posted by: Constant Mews on Oct. 09 2009,08:39

Oh, and Floyd, since you've let yourself get a little tangled up and confused in this thread, could you please post a simple summary of what your five point are?  The first two pages of the thread don't even present them in a coherent fashion.

Thanks.
Posted by: Constant Mews on Oct. 09 2009,08:48

I will begin with what appears to be your first "incompatible" (I will continue to refer to your contentions in quotes, since you have yet to demonstrate that they are, in fact, genuine incompatibilities.  Clearly your unsupported opinion is of no value here).



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

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

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



Actually, evolutionary theory says nothing of the sort.  Evolutionary theory is, like all scientific theories, silent on the question of divine intervention.  Please note that the opinions expressed by scientists on the question are not germane to the issue: the theory itself takes no position on the topic of God.

And since you have already admitted that the flow of water down a slope doesn't directly require the intervention of God, even if God is responsible for the actual existence of the water molecules involved, you've already conceded this point.

I suspect that one thing tripping you up is your rather simplistic understanding of the nature of the divine.  You seem to be operating off a "Sunday-school" image of the deus which envisions God operating in the same timeframe that humans understand.  By limiting yourself to this cartoon version of God, you miss the actual nature of the Logos.

The compatibility of free-will and divine omniscience - a point I suspect you will concede - is analogous.
Posted by: OgreMkV on Oct. 09 2009,08:59

Quote (FloydLee @ Sep. 18 2009,15:35)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I'd ask for definitions of three of the five words in the proposition "evolution is incompatible with christianity" before I even ventured an answer.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Well, we've already defined evolution.  I'm using Campbell-Reece's 2005 textbook definition of macroevolution and microevolution, (previously posted earlier), if anybody here has a question about what's being used when.  

(As you know, many evolutionists often use the word "evolution" without even defining the term.)

You already know what compatible/incompatible means, because some of you are tryin' real hard not to accept that evolution is incompatible with Christianity.

And honestly?  You have a pretty good idea already of the beliefs that are involved with biblical Christianity and I've been careful to relate EACH of the four incompatibilities to a specific and important biblical Christian belief (God-as-required-explanation-for-origins, the Image-Of-God, etc.)

A basic definition of Christianity, indeed becoming a Christian, is as easy to do as reading and understanding John 3:16.  So it's no problem doing a basic definition, just look up one of the online dictionaries.

But like I said, I've already shown where each incompatibility corresponds to a foundational biblical Christian belief.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Here's the only statement I found where you even attemp to define anything.

You say Christianity is defined as reading and understanding John 3:16.  So please explain how John 3:16 incorporates your big 5 whatever they are.

Also, I read carefully the defintion of evolution that you provided and I see no mention of denying any god or gods.  Please provided and definition of evolution that “denies God”.  No, an interpretation of the definition to deny god is not enough, you’re a literalist remember.  The statement must use the words “denies that God is required”.

BTW: If you think science education in Texas is succesful, then you know nothing about education in Texas at all.
Posted by: Constant Mews on Oct. 09 2009,09:03

Let's see if we can't Floyd a bit more this morning while I wait for my next client.



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

As we have seen, evolutionary theory does not deny this: it is silent on this point, though various scientists and theologians have their own opinions.



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

As above.  And you're a theological moron if you're contending that everything in the universe is conscious, etc.

All evolutionary theory (the theory itself, not the opinions of its practitioners) states is that variation is random with respect to utility.

God doesn't work the way you do Floyd - in the limited, interventionist here and now.  As measurable by humans, variation is random.  That doesn't particularly mean it is unguided by God.




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

I thought you claimed there were five?



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

Not in the slightest.  Show us, precisely, page and verse, the part of the theory that states "humans did not evolve in God's image"

Show us, Floyd; because that's what you've claimed.  That the theory itself specifically denies that humans were evolved in the image of God.



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

The Bible is not referring to physical, but to spiritual death.

Very simple, Floyd.

In closing, may I point out a couple of things?  I note that your argument consists entirely of offering snippets of opinion from various folks about evolution, but never actually uses any part of the theory itself.  Why is that?  Are you so completely unfamiliar with or unable to understand the theory that you can't refer to it?

Second, your theology is remarkably simplistic: roughly on par with Seventh Day Adventist tracks.  If you'd like to actually deal with this interesting compatibility problem, I would suggest you begin by learning something about religion and Christianity in general.
Posted by: FloydLee on Oct. 09 2009,09:05



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
The fact that there exists a person who finds them completely compatible proves without further emendation that you are wrong in your claim.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Well, evolutionist Rosenhouse said it best:"The issue is whether they have a sound basis for their opinions."  
Merely stating that somebody exists who happens to believe they are compatible, is not rationally sufficient.  The question to be answered is always "why do they believe that."
Posted by: Constant Mews on Oct. 09 2009,09:06

Quote (OgreMkV @ Oct. 09 2009,08:59)
Quote (FloydLee @ Sep. 18 2009,15:35)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I'd ask for definitions of three of the five words in the proposition "evolution is incompatible with christianity" before I even ventured an answer.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Well, we've already defined evolution.  I'm using Campbell-Reece's 2005 textbook definition of macroevolution and microevolution, (previously posted earlier), if anybody here has a question about what's being used when.  

(As you know, many evolutionists often use the word "evolution" without even defining the term.)

You already know what compatible/incompatible means, because some of you are tryin' real hard not to accept that evolution is incompatible with Christianity.

And honestly?  You have a pretty good idea already of the beliefs that are involved with biblical Christianity and I've been careful to relate EACH of the four incompatibilities to a specific and important biblical Christian belief (God-as-required-explanation-for-origins, the Image-Of-God, etc.)

A basic definition of Christianity, indeed becoming a Christian, is as easy to do as reading and understanding John 3:16.  So it's no problem doing a basic definition, just look up one of the online dictionaries.

But like I said, I've already shown where each incompatibility corresponds to a foundational biblical Christian belief.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Here's the only statement I found where you even attemp to define anything.

You say Christianity is defined as reading and understanding John 3:16.  So please explain how John 3:16 incorporates your big 5 whatever they are.

Also, I read carefully the defintion of evolution that you provided and I see no mention of denying any god or gods.  Please provided and definition of evolution that “denies God”.  No, an interpretation of the definition to deny god is not enough, you’re a literalist remember.  The statement must use the words “denies that God is required”.

BTW: If you think science education in Texas is succesful, then you know nothing about education in Texas at all.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I agree with Ogre here, Floyd:

Based on the definitions you, yourself have provided for both evolution and Christianity, there is no incompatibility.

Let me repeat that, since I see from other posts you have some reading problems.

You provided two "definitions" (poor ones, I confess, but they are all you've given us); one for Christianity and one for evolution.

The definitions you provided show no, I repeat, no incompatibility.

Case closed.
Posted by: Constant Mews on Oct. 09 2009,09:08

Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 09 2009,09:05)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
The fact that there exists a person who finds them completely compatible proves without further emendation that you are wrong in your claim.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Well, evolutionist Rosenhouse said it best:"The issue is whether they have a sound basis for their opinions."  
Merely stating that somebody exists who happens to believe they are compatible, is not rationally sufficient.  The question to be answered is always "why do they believe that."
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Actually, it's not.  I accept Christianity and evolution.  You are incapable of judging whether or not my reasoning is sound.

I suspect that your usual solution to this problem is the trite, rather boring one often put forward by "fundies": the No True Scotsman defense.

How dull.  And how invalid.
Posted by: Robin on Oct. 09 2009,09:16

Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 09 2009,04:46)

---------------------QUOTE-------------------




---------------------QUOTE-------------------


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
So, it's now established that some evolutionists have opinions about theology and teleology. So what?
That doesn't mean their opinions are logical deductions from the premises behind evolution theory.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Well, let's check that out Henry.  Let's do the Second Incompatibility.
       

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
"Teleological statements are those that invoke goals, or ends (Greek teleos, "end"), as causes (eg, "He went to the store in order to get milk.")
But evolutionary theory does not admit anticipation of the future (i.e. conscious forethought),
either in the process of evolution of an adaptive characteristic or in the development of or behavior of an individual organism."

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


       

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
"(Darwin's) alternative to intelligent design was natural selection, according to which organisms possessing variations that enhance survival or reproduction replace those less suitably endowed, which therefore survive or reproduce in lesser degree.  Thus the adaptations of organisms have indeed been 'designed', but by a completely mindless process.  

"The process cannot have a goal, any more than than erosion has the goal of forming canyons, for the future cannot cause material events in the past."  ---EB3, pg 342.  
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


       

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

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


Okay.  From this, we can see that Futuyma, and others, are clearly talking about evolutionary theory itself.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



...and we see that you are conflating the process with [/i] outcome of the process[/i] and thus we demostrate (again) that your issue is that  philosophical naturalism (and thus all natural processes) is incompatible with your particular take on the bible. And once again I say wooooo...hooooo. Nobody cares Floyd because you've demonstrated that your particular take on the bible is incompatible with reality.

Bottom line, as I noted previously, whether the process of evolution includes teleology (or whether the process of gravity, speed of light, entropy, etc includes teleology) is irrelevant to whether any natural process "in the grand scheme of things" has a purpose or has been used for a purpose. You can keep ignoring this all you wish, but actual Christians recognize the distinction and realize there's no conflict there.
Posted by: Robin on Oct. 09 2009,09:21

Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 09 2009,04:46)

---------------------QUOTE-------------------




---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Now, at this point I have to mention something.  Back on page 27, I pointed out that this particular claim of "Supernatural causes are already excluded from all science" (stated by Reed and echoed by Deadman and several others) is in fact UNSUPPORTED.  
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



False Floyd. Reed and Deadman are quite correct and you are just handwaving on this. The very basis of the scientific method requires that teleology be denied in regards to ALL natural processes. Once again you are conflating statements about outcomes with the scientific study of processes and you are just looking stupid for doing so.
Posted by: Robin on Oct. 09 2009,09:24

Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 09 2009,09:05)

---------------------QUOTE-------------------




---------------------QUOTE-------------------


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
The fact that there exists a person who finds them completely compatible proves without further emendation that you are wrong in your claim.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Well, evolutionist Rosenhouse said it best:"The issue is whether they have a sound basis for their opinions."
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Quite true and as pointed out, the Pope does and you don't. End of discussion.
Posted by: OgreMkV on Oct. 09 2009,09:25

Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 09 2009,09:05)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
The fact that there exists a person who finds them completely compatible proves without further emendation that you are wrong in your claim.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Well, evolutionist Rosenhouse said it best:"The issue is whether they have a sound basis for their opinions."  
Merely stating that somebody exists who happens to believe they are compatible, is not rationally sufficient.  The question to be answered is always "why do they believe that."
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Again Floyd, based on some pretty extensive research over the last decade... you are the only one promoting this meme.  It is up to you to provide the evidence.

It's not a question of do they have a sound basis for their opinions, it's the question of do you have a sound basis for your argument.

BTW: Kinda the point of America (and as you prove to anyone with a functioning brain), you don't have to have a sound basis for you opinions.  You do however have to have a lot of evidence to do what you are trying to do.
Posted by: ppb on Oct. 09 2009,10:16

Quote (OgreMkV @ Oct. 09 2009,09:59)
You say Christianity is defined as reading and understanding John 3:16.  So please explain how John 3:16 incorporates your big 5 whatever they are.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Yeah, I called him on that one.  It seems there's a bit more to it than that after all.

Quote (FloydLee @ Sep. 18 2009,18:41)
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
If becoming a Christian is as easy as reading and understanding John 3:16, then where is the conflict with Evolution?  There is nothing in that passage that mentions anything about origins.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I suspected somebody might try to respond in that manner.  Here is the issue:  there are Christian beliefs that are foundational even to John 3:16, even.  They're quite important and can't be blown off.

For example, you know that John 3:16 presumes theism.  There's no way an ATHEIST can do John 3:16 without first giving up atheism.  Theism is foundational to John 3:16, even if a person doesn't even know how to spell the word theism.  Theism is foundational to Christianity.  

Well, there's some OTHER biblical beliefs that are foundational to Christianity too.  Deny these other biblical beliefs--and as we've seen already in four areas, evolution DOES deny them--and you are effectively eroding, corroding, undercutting Christian belief.  

Doesn't mean necessarily that you're not a Christian, but goodness, look at that danger and damage, that potential to erode and corrode important beliefs---and look at the people who are no longer holding on to the Christian faith you're holding on to, people for whom the damage is already done.

And that's happening right now.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: SLP on Oct. 09 2009,10:17

"Evolution is not a theory in crisis. It is not teetering on the verge of collapse. It has not failed as a scientific explanation. There is evidence for evolution, gobs and gobs of it. It is not just speculation or a faith choice or an assumption or a religion. It is a productive framework for lots of biological research, and it has amazing explanatory power. There is no conspiracy to hide the truth about the failure of evolution. There has really been no failure of evolution as a scientific theory. It works, and it works well.

I say these things not because I'm crazy or because I've "converted" to evolution. I say these things because they are true. I'm motivated this morning by reading yet another clueless, well-meaning person pompously declaring that evolution is a failure..."

-Todd Wood, YEC, PhD.


Not exactly on topic, but I do wonder Floyd - what do you know that he does not?
Posted by: FloydLee on Oct. 09 2009,10:18



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
could you please post a simple summary of what your five point are?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Sure.  Evolution and Christianity are incompatible because:

1.  In biblical Christianity, God clearly is the Required Explanation for biological origins (including the evolutionary process.)  No exceptions. But with Evolution, God is clearly NOT a required explanation at all.

*** 

2.  In biblical Christianity, everything in the universe is originated via God's teleology, and especially humans.  (See Genesis chap 1, also see Col. 1:16).
In evolution, you have a total denial of that, at ALL points of the evolutionary process:  No Teleology No Conscious Forethought.  At least two rational reasons for this is given by EB3, who also (like Mayr) directly ascribes this to evolutionary theory.

***

3.  In biblical Christianity, humans are created and designed in the image of God.  Again, evolution denies that, most recently the Nature June 14 2007 article in which evolution of the brain is the reason for denying the Image-of-God thesis.

Evolutionist James Rachels also pointed out, in the book Created From Animals, that "the image-of-god thesis does NOT just go with any kind of theism."  It requires a creationist theism, Rachel said, in which God is viewed as "actively designing man and the world as a home for man."

***

4.  Evolution's clear position is that death was present on this planet before humans arrived.  In fact, it's not even possible for natural selection and evolution to work as claimed UNLESS death was present on this planet prior to humans being originated.  (Totally beyond debate, btw.)

The New Testament's clear postion (Romans 5:12-17) is that death entered this world only AFTER Adam and Eve sinned.  Romans 5:12-17 draws a very huge, very tight historical linkage between Adam and what Adam did (the problem) and Christ and what Christ did (the solution).  

Therefore evolution's Death-Before-Adam historical claim not only negates the historical claim of biblical Christianity about Adam and the Fall, but ALSO negates what biblical Christianity's historical claim about Christ and the Atonement.

Needless to say, THAT incompatibility goes all the way to the meaning of the Cross, goes all the way to the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

***

5.  The Fifth Incompatibility was eloquently stated via evolutionist Jason Rosenhouse at Evolutionblog.
   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Evolution by natural selection, you see, is an awful process. It is bloody, sadistic, and cruel. It flouts every moral precept we humans hold dear.

It recognizes only survival and gene propagation, and even on those rare occasions where you find altruism and non-selfishness you can be certain that blind self-interest is lurking somewhere behind the scenes.

All of this suffering, pain and misery, mind you, to reach a foreordained moment when self-aware creature finally appeared.

What theological purpose was served by all this bloodsport? If humans were inevitable why didn't God simply fast-forward the tape himself, thereby sparing all of those animals that died horrible deaths in the preceding hundreds of millions of years?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


And please notice:  once again, there's no way to blow off #5 as "somebody's opinion."  What Rosenhouse is describing there is EXACTLY the way evolution works in the animal world.  That's evolutionary theory, period.

***
Okay, there's the summary of the Big Five Incompatibilities.

FloydLee
Posted by: Constant Mews on Oct. 09 2009,10:24

Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 09 2009,10:18)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
could you please post a simple summary of what your five point are?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Sure.  Evolution and Christianity are incompatible because:

1.  In biblical Christianity, God clearly is the Required Explanation for biological origins (including the evolutionary process.)  No exceptions. But with Evolution, God is clearly NOT a required explanation at all.

*** 

2.  In biblical Christianity, everything in the universe is originated via God's teleology, and especially humans.  (See Genesis chap 1, also see Col. 1:16).
In evolution, you have a total denial of that, at ALL points of the evolutionary process:  No Teleology No Conscious Forethought.  At least two rational reasons for this is given by EB3, who also (like Mayr) directly ascribes this to evolutionary theory.

***

3.  In biblical Christianity, humans are created and designed in the image of God.  Again, evolution denies that, most recently the Nature June 14 2007 article in which evolution of the brain is the reason for denying the Image-of-God thesis.

Evolutionist James Rachels also pointed out, in the book Created From Animals, that "the image-of-god thesis does NOT just go with any kind of theism."  It requires a creationist theism, Rachel said, in which God is viewed as "actively designing man and the world as a home for man."

***

4.  Evolution's clear position is that death was present on this planet before humans arrived.  In fact, it's not even possible for natural selection and evolution to work as claimed UNLESS death was present on this planet prior to humans being originated.  (Totally beyond debate, btw.)

The New Testament's clear postion (Romans 5:12-17) is that death entered this world only AFTER Adam and Eve sinned.  Romans 5:12-17 draws a very huge, very tight historical linkage between Adam and what Adam did (the problem) and Christ and what Christ did (the solution).  

Therefore evolution's Death-Before-Adam historical claim not only negates the historical claim of biblical Christianity about Adam and the Fall, but ALSO negates what biblical Christianity's historical claim about Christ and the Atonement.

Needless to say, THAT incompatibility goes all the way to the meaning of the Cross, goes all the way to the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

***

5.  The Fifth Incompatibility was eloquently stated via evolutionist Jason Rosenhouse at Evolutionblog.
     

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Evolution by natural selection, you see, is an awful process. It is bloody, sadistic, and cruel. It flouts every moral precept we humans hold dear.

It recognizes only survival and gene propagation, and even on those rare occasions where you find altruism and non-selfishness you can be certain that blind self-interest is lurking somewhere behind the scenes.

All of this suffering, pain and misery, mind you, to reach a foreordained moment when self-aware creature finally appeared.

What theological purpose was served by all this bloodsport? If humans were inevitable why didn't God simply fast-forward the tape himself, thereby sparing all of those animals that died horrible deaths in the preceding hundreds of millions of years?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


And please notice:  once again, there's no way to blow off #5 as "somebody's opinion."  What Rosenhouse is describing there is EXACTLY the way evolution works in the animal world.  That's evolutionary theory, period.

***
Okay, there's the summary of the Big Five Incompatibilities.

FloydLee
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Thank you.  I'll deal with these in a bit, but may I point out that your "incompatibility 5" is not in the least in conflict with Christianity's vision of a fallen world?

You seem to be mixing theodicy up with evolution.  I begin to see the basis for your confusion on these points, and I hope to be able to help you understand your errors.
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on Oct. 09 2009,10:25



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
The New Testament's clear postion (Romans 5:12-17) is that death entered this world only AFTER Adam and Eve sinned.  Romans 5:12-17 draws a very huge, very tight historical linkage between Adam and what Adam did (the problem) and Christ and what Christ did (the solution).  
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



So, Dinosaurs had sharp teeth to open coconuts.

Discuss.
Posted by: ppb on Oct. 09 2009,10:40

Quote (Constant Mews @ Oct. 09 2009,11:24)
... and I hope to be able to help you understand your errors.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Good luck with that CM.
Posted by: OgreMkV on Oct. 09 2009,10:51

I'll chime in after CM.

BTW: Floyd, you also seem to not understand logic.

If p, then q does not automatically imply if not p, then not q.

because inverse positions can be false.

For example, statement #1: In biblical Christianity, God clearly is the Required Explanation for biological origins (including the evolutionary process.)  No exceptions. But with Evolution, God is clearly NOT a required explanation at all.

Let's shorten that to if god, then biology.  Is that reasonable?

The inverse is therefore not true.  If not god, then not biology.  Because there exists a sufficient explanation for biology without god.

The converse is also not true.  If biology, then god.  By your own admission, god does not require biology to exist.

So, by using a little logic on your own statement, #1 is proven (by logic) to be untrue.
Posted by: FloydLee on Oct. 09 2009,10:53



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Evolution is not a theory in crisis. It is not teetering on the verge of collapse. It has not failed as a scientific explanation. There is evidence for evolution, gobs and gobs of it.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


AFAIK, I have not attempted to claim in this forum that the theory of evolution is collapsing, or in crisis, or a failure, or lacking of evidence.  The Big Five Incompatibilities are completely independent of Todd Wood's statement.  

My stated goal, the only goal in this forum, is to establish that "Evolution is Incompatible with Christianity", regardless of whatever level of confirmation/disconfirmation you happen to subscribe to regarding the theory itself.

Btw, on Oct. 8th (yesterday), Todd Wood also wrote the following items at his blog:
   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I believe that God created everything that you see in six consecutive days around 6000 years ago.

I believe that Adam and Eve were the very first humans and were directly created by God.

I believe Adam and Eve sinned, and that sin brought death, carnivory, disease, and suffering into the world.

I believe that people really lived to be 900+ years back then.

I believe that there was a truly global Flood that inundated the entire planet.

I believe that humans and land animals were preserved on an Ark (approximately 450 feet long for those keeping score).

I believe that the humans after the Flood gradually stopped living to be 900+.

I believe that the humans after the Flood tried to build a tower in Babel to prevent their dispersal across the globe, in direct contradiction to God's command.

I believe that God punished the builders of Babel by miraculously confusing their languages.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Would you be willing to agree, SLP, that what Todd Wood stated there is INCOMPATIBLE with the theory of evolution?

FloydLee
Posted by: OgreMkV on Oct. 09 2009,11:08

So if this Todd person is YEC who believes in the literal interpretation of Genesis AND believes that evolution "works and works well"...

doesn't that kind of negate the whole conversation?
Posted by: Henry J on Oct. 09 2009,11:18

Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 09 2009,03:46)
EITHER "evolutionary theory does NOT admit conscious anticipation of the future, ie conscious forethought", as EB3 states,
OR it is no longer true that supernatural causes cannot be the subject of science.  Admission of teleology and conscious forethought into the evolutionary process at any point, necessarily creates a situation in which you can no longer rationally rule out or dismiss supernatural-causes-within-science at that particular point.


Bottom line:  You can't have it both ways Henry.  Which option you wanna choose?  Choose only one please.

******

FloydLee
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I believe the proper term here is "false dichotomy".

The processes described by evolutionary theory don't involve conscious anticipation.

If there were actual evidence* of conscious anticipation in how species developed (outside of man's involvement, that is), that could indeed be studied.

*Evidence for a premise would mean consistently observed patterns that would be logical consequences of the stated premise if it was correct, and unlikely to occur by accident if it was wrong.

But, it's up to those claiming such things to present that evidence, not merely accuse others of ignoring it or suppressing it.

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
And you and your evolutionist pals don't want THAT kind of situation, do you?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


What people want does not control what already is.

Henry
Posted by: Henry J on Oct. 09 2009,11:30

Quote (Constant Mews @ Oct. 09 2009,08:03)


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

I thought you claimed there were five?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


He started with four, and invented a fifth one along the way.
Posted by: FloydLee on Oct. 09 2009,12:18



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I suspected somebody might try to respond in that manner.  Here is the issue:  there are Christian beliefs that are foundational even to John 3:16, even.  They're quite important and can't be blown off.

For example, you know that John 3:16 presumes theism.  There's no way an ATHEIST can do John 3:16 without first giving up atheism.  Theism is foundational to John 3:16, even if a person doesn't even know how to spell the word theism.  Theism is foundational to Christianity.  

Well, there's some OTHER biblical beliefs that are foundational to Christianity too.  Deny these other biblical beliefs--and as we've seen already in four areas, evolution DOES deny them--and you are effectively eroding, corroding, undercutting Christian belief.  

Doesn't mean necessarily that you're not a Christian, but goodness, look at that danger and damage, that potential to erode and corrode important beliefs---and look at the people who are no longer holding on to the Christian faith you're holding on to, people for whom the damage is already done.

And that's happening right now.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Ppb, what was your refutation of this explanation?  You don't seem to have supplied one.
Posted by: FloydLee on Oct. 09 2009,12:24



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
(Ogre asked)
....doesn't that kind of negate the whole conversation?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Nope.  The already-proffered suggestion of "Such-and-such-a-Christian accepts evolution even though he says specific things that clearly are NOT compatible with a belief in evolution," simply doesn't rationally establish that evolution is compatible with Christianity.
Posted by: OgreMkV on Oct. 09 2009,12:28

Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 09 2009,12:18)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I suspected somebody might try to respond in that manner.  Here is the issue:  there are Christian beliefs that are foundational even to John 3:16, even.  They're quite important and can't be blown off.

For example, you know that John 3:16 presumes theism.  There's no way an ATHEIST can do John 3:16 without first giving up atheism.  Theism is foundational to John 3:16, even if a person doesn't even know how to spell the word theism.  Theism is foundational to Christianity.  

Well, there's some OTHER biblical beliefs that are foundational to Christianity too.  Deny these other biblical beliefs--and as we've seen already in four areas, evolution DOES deny them--and you are effectively eroding, corroding, undercutting Christian belief.  

Doesn't mean necessarily that you're not a Christian, but goodness, look at that danger and damage, that potential to erode and corrode important beliefs---and look at the people who are no longer holding on to the Christian faith you're holding on to, people for whom the damage is already done.

And that's happening right now.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Ppb, what was your refutation of this explanation?  You don't seem to have supplied one.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


John 3:16 "For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son,[a] that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life."

Your right Floys, there are some foundational beliefs that are required.

1) God must exist
2) he had a son
3) believe in god/son will give you everlasting life

That's it.  I don't see evolution anywhere in here.  I also don't see that god must have created the world in here either.
Posted by: OgreMkV on Oct. 09 2009,12:29

Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 09 2009,12:24)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
(Ogre asked)
....doesn't that kind of negate the whole conversation?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Nope.  The already-proffered suggestion of "Such-and-such-a-Christian accepts evolution even though he says specific things that clearly are NOT compatible with a belief in evolution," simply doesn't rationally establish that evolution is compatible with Christianity.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You have yet to explain why it rationally doesn't.

Remember this is all on you.  You have to convince us.
Posted by: ppb on Oct. 09 2009,12:34

Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 09 2009,13:18)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I suspected somebody might try to respond in that manner.  Here is the issue:  there are Christian beliefs that are foundational even to John 3:16, even.  They're quite important and can't be blown off.

For example, you know that John 3:16 presumes theism.  There's no way an ATHEIST can do John 3:16 without first giving up atheism.  Theism is foundational to John 3:16, even if a person doesn't even know how to spell the word theism.  Theism is foundational to Christianity.  

Well, there's some OTHER biblical beliefs that are foundational to Christianity too.  Deny these other biblical beliefs--and as we've seen already in four areas, evolution DOES deny them--and you are effectively eroding, corroding, undercutting Christian belief.  

Doesn't mean necessarily that you're not a Christian, but goodness, look at that danger and damage, that potential to erode and corrode important beliefs---and look at the people who are no longer holding on to the Christian faith you're holding on to, people for whom the damage is already done.

And that's happening right now.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Ppb, what was your refutation of this explanation?  You don't seem to have supplied one.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


My point was that you really didn't mean what you said.  You said it was as easy as reading and understanding John 3:16, and then you said it's not.  So it's not really the definition of Christianity that you are operating under.

I have no interest in discussing your 4 or 5 points.  You're the only one who seems to think they are relevant.
Posted by: Robin on Oct. 09 2009,12:38

Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Oct. 09 2009,10:25)

---------------------QUOTE-------------------




---------------------QUOTE-------------------


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
The New Testament's clear postion (Romans 5:12-17) is that death entered this world only AFTER Adam and Eve sinned.  Romans 5:12-17 draws a very huge, very tight historical linkage between Adam and what Adam did (the problem) and Christ and what Christ did (the solution).  
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



So, Dinosaurs had sharp teeth to open coconuts.

Discuss.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



The problem I have the silly thinking that goes into thinking Paul meant NO DEATH before the fall is that such a situation requires the absence of any form of energy transfer whatsoever. Think about it - no death as Paul describes creates a world where even grass didn't die. No eating of any kind because such consumption for nutrition requires death of the source of energy. Unless all life was solar powered prior to the fall (which then would beg a number of logistical issues in and of itself) a literal interpretation of Paul automatically leads to a world without any life at all.
Posted by: FloydLee on Oct. 09 2009,12:41



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I'll deal with these in a bit, but may I point out that your "incompatibility 5" is not in the least in conflict with Christianity's vision of a fallen world?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You appear to severely misunderstand what evolutionist Rosenhouse was saying there.  Perhaps misunderstand Christianity's vision a bit as well.

In Christianity's vision, God is not cruel and sadistic.  However, we know for a fact that, as Rosenhouse points out, evolution honestly IS cruel and sadistic.  Nature red in tooth and claw, you know.  Wasps laying their eggs in their still-living victims so the eggs can hatch and the wasps-in-training slowly eat up their living victims from the inside out.

Rosenhouse is asking what sort of God would do a gazillion years of bloody sadistic evolution just to come up with a couple of human beings.  What kind of theological justification can a theistic evolutionist provide for THAT? Wouldn't a loving ethical God "fast forward" the tape and spare all those gazillion years of animal suffering a death, Rosenhouse is asking you.

Biblical Christianity already has an answer.  The Fall is the reason for nature red in tooth and claw.  Everybody, every animal, was a herbivore until Adam and Eve sinned.  That's the testimony of the Bible.  God did NOT engage in bloodsport, God did NOT use a gazillion years of sadistic cruel evolution and natural selection to originate human beings.  We humans brought down all that "nature red in tooth and claw."  Not God.

But notice:  Biblical Christianity's answer NECESSARILY denies the evolutionist claim that humans originated via evolution/common descent/etc.  Now you rationally have a irrconcilable Either-Or situation to deal with.

You either must say that God is sadistic and cruel (and amazingly, some of the posters have actually tried to pull that stunt!) or else you must say that humans didn't evolve from a non-human "common ancestor" animal as the evolutionists claim.)
Posted by: Dan on Oct. 09 2009,12:43

Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 09 2009,10:53)
Btw, on Oct. 8th (yesterday), Todd Wood also wrote the following items at his blog:
       

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I believe that God created everything that you see in six consecutive days around 6000 years ago.

I believe that Adam and Eve were the very first humans and were directly created by God.

I believe Adam and Eve sinned, and that sin brought death, carnivory, disease, and suffering into the world.

I believe that people really lived to be 900+ years back then.

I believe that there was a truly global Flood that inundated the entire planet.

I believe that humans and land animals were preserved on an Ark (approximately 450 feet long for those keeping score).

I believe that the humans after the Flood gradually stopped living to be 900+.

I believe that the humans after the Flood tried to build a tower in Babel to prevent their dispersal across the globe, in direct contradiction to God's command.

I believe that God punished the builders of Babel by miraculously confusing their languages.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Would you be willing to agree, SLP, that what Todd Wood stated there is INCOMPATIBLE with the theory of evolution?

FloydLee
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


What Todd Wood states is incompatible with the facts, but it's not incompatible with the theory of evolution.

There are a lot of facts that are outside the theory of evolution.

Wikipedia: "In biology, evolution is change in the genetic material of a population of organisms from one generation to the next."

If Adam and Eve were created by God about 6000 years ago, there would still be changes in the genetic material of a population of organisms from one generation to the next.
Posted by: FloydLee on Oct. 09 2009,12:44



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I have no interest in discussing your 4 or 5 points.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Then that's that, at least for now.  If you change your mind, just jump right in!
Posted by: OgreMkV on Oct. 09 2009,12:46

Your god is sadistic and cruel.  

There are more examples in the bible than I care to type up.

I guess that takes care of that... and don't give me that "master plan" garbage.
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on Oct. 09 2009,12:47

Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 09 2009,12:41)
We humans brought down all that "nature red in tooth and claw."  Not God.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Logically your god would have known all that in advance, omnipotence and all that. So at the moment of initial creation, before Adam and Eve existed all that would happen was already known. The Fall was inevitable before humans even existed.

So, er, no. In your version of things "we humans" are in fact on fixed tracks with every choice as good as made already.

So shift the blame if you like, the fact remains that your god enabled, caused, planned "nature red in tooth and claw."

You might not like it, but there it is.

Of course, "Adam and Eve" is a story only suitable for children, but I guess that suits you well enough.
Posted by: khan on Oct. 09 2009,12:47

Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 09 2009,13:41)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I'll deal with these in a bit, but may I point out that your "incompatibility 5" is not in the least in conflict with Christianity's vision of a fallen world?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You appear to severely misunderstand what evolutionist Rosenhouse was saying there.  Perhaps misunderstand Christianity's vision a bit as well.

In Christianity's vision, God is not cruel and sadistic.  However, we know for a fact that, as Rosenhouse points out, evolution honestly IS cruel and sadistic.  Nature red in tooth and claw, you know.  Wasps laying their eggs in their still-living victims so the eggs can hatch and the wasps-in-training slowly eat up their living victims from the inside out.

Rosenhouse is asking what sort of God would do a gazillion years of bloody sadistic evolution just to come up with a couple of human beings.  What kind of theological justification can a theistic evolutionist provide for THAT? Wouldn't a loving ethical God "fast forward" the tape and spare all those gazillion years of animal suffering a death, Rosenhouse is asking you.

Biblical Christianity already has an answer.  The Fall is the reason for nature red in tooth and claw.  Everybody, every animal, was a herbivore until Adam and Eve sinned.  That's the testimony of the Bible.  God did NOT engage in bloodsport, God did NOT use a gazillion years of sadistic cruel evolution and natural selection to originate human beings.  We humans brought down all that "nature red in tooth and claw."  Not God.

But notice:  Biblical Christianity's answer NECESSARILY denies the evolutionist claim that humans originated via evolution/common descent/etc.  Now you rationally have a irrconcilable Either-Or situation to deal with.

You either must say that God is sadistic and cruel (and amazingly, some of the posters have actually tried to pull that stunt!) or else you must say that humans didn't evolve from a non-human "common ancestor" animal as the evolutionists claim.)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Argumentum ad coconutum?
Posted by: OgreMkV on Oct. 09 2009,12:51

Quote (OgreMkV @ Oct. 09 2009,12:46)
Your god is sadistic and cruel.  

There are more examples in the bible than I care to type up.

I guess that takes care of that... and don't give me that "master plan" garbage.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Now that I think about it

Humans are made in God's image.
Humans are sadistic and cruel.

therefore...
Posted by: Dan on Oct. 09 2009,12:55

Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 09 2009,10:18)
5.  The Fifth Incompatibility was eloquently stated via evolutionist Jason Rosenhouse at Evolutionblog.
     

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Evolution by natural selection, you see, is an awful process. It is bloody, sadistic, and cruel. It flouts every moral precept we humans hold dear.

It recognizes only survival and gene propagation, and even on those rare occasions where you find altruism and non-selfishness you can be certain that blind self-interest is lurking somewhere behind the scenes.

All of this suffering, pain and misery, mind you, to reach a foreordained moment when self-aware creature finally appeared.

What theological purpose was served by all this bloodsport? If humans were inevitable why didn't God simply fast-forward the tape himself, thereby sparing all of those animals that died horrible deaths in the preceding hundreds of millions of years?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


And please notice:  once again, there's no way to blow off #5 as "somebody's opinion."  What Rosenhouse is describing there is EXACTLY the way evolution works in the animal world.  That's evolutionary theory, period.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


If the theory of evolution is inconsistent with Christianity because it involves processes that might be "bloody, sadistic, and cruel," then we must also hold that:

Parasitology is inconsistent with Christianity because parasites might be bloody, sadistic, and cruel.

Animal ecology is inconsistent with Christianity because predation might be bloody, sadistic, and cruel.

Infectious disease is inconsistent with Christianity because diseases might be bloody, sadistic, and cruel.

Cancer is certainly inconsistent with Christianity.

History is inconsistent with Christianity because history is often bloody, sadistic, and cruel.

War is inconsistent with Christianity because war is usually bloody, sadistic, and cruel.

The Crusades were inconsistent with Christianity because the Crusades were bloody, sadistic, and cruel.

The Spanish Inquisition was inconsistent with Christianity because it was bloody, sadistic, and cruel.

Martin Luther was inconsistent with Christianity because he advocated treating Jews in ways that were bloody, sadistic, and cruel.
Posted by: FloydLee on Oct. 09 2009,13:06



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
So, Dinosaurs had sharp teeth to open coconuts.
Discuss.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Biblically, that's correct Ogre.  You may disagree with the claim itself, but you will not be able to deny that the Bible is making that specific claim.


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Also, to every beast of the earth, to every bird of the air, and to everything that creeps on the earth, in which there is life, I have given every green herb for food”; and it was so. --  Gen. 1:30
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: Robin on Oct. 09 2009,13:06

Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 09 2009,12:41)

---------------------QUOTE-------------------




---------------------QUOTE-------------------


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I'll deal with these in a bit, but may I point out that your "incompatibility 5" is not in the least in conflict with Christianity's vision of a fallen world?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You appear to severely misunderstand what evolutionist Rosenhouse was saying there.  Perhaps misunderstand Christianity's vision a bit as well.

In Christianity's vision, God is not cruel and sadistic.  However, we know for a fact that, as Rosenhouse points out, evolution honestly IS cruel and sadistic.  Nature red in tooth and claw, you know.  Wasps laying their eggs in their still-living victims so the eggs can hatch and the wasps-in-training slowly eat up their living victims from the inside out.

Rosenhouse is asking what sort of God would do a gazillion years of bloody sadistic evolution just to come up with a couple of human beings.  What kind of theological justification can a theistic evolutionist provide for THAT? Wouldn't a loving ethical God "fast forward" the tape and spare all those gazillion years of animal suffering a death, Rosenhouse is asking you.

Biblical Christianity already has an answer.  The Fall is the reason for nature red in tooth and claw.  Everybody, every animal, was a herbivore until Adam and Eve sinned.  That's the testimony of the Bible.  God did NOT engage in bloodsport, God did NOT use a gazillion years of sadistic cruel evolution and natural selection to originate human beings.  We humans brought down all that "nature red in tooth and claw."  Not God.

But notice:  Biblical Christianity's answer NECESSARILY denies the evolutionist claim that humans originated via evolution/common descent/etc.  Now you rationally have a irrconcilable Either-Or situation to deal with.

You either must say that God is sadistic and cruel (and amazingly, some of the posters have actually tried to pull that stunt!) or else you must say that humans didn't evolve from a non-human "common ancestor" animal as the evolutionists claim.)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



LOL! You really don't understand Rosenhouse's point at all Floyd. It is quite evident from reality that if your god exists, he is a sadistic, horrid monster because he would have designed a world with death and misery in mind. OTOH, if your god doesn't exist (and I am positive it doesn't) then the world as it is just is - there's nothing cruel and sadistic about a non-intelligent process and nothing to even hold to human standards of "goodness" or "badness".

Oh...and further, you clearly don't understand Genesis either apparently. The Hebrews are were quite clear that animals could not sin in any way, shape, or form. The only one responsible for the fall was Adam ("man") and thus the only redemption (according to some twisted logic) could be attained by a man (god's son or god himself, depending on your interpretation of YHWY). It is no wonder you can't reconcile evolution with your version of "Christianity"; your version isn't remotely accurate based on the fundamental stories.

In any event, given that you don't understand Rosenhouse's point or even Genesis, it is moot to point out that Rosenhouse's point doesn't conflict with actual Christianity. If you believe that a god created everything as it is, with evolution a teleological process, then that god is definitely a cruel and sadistic creature. OTOH, if you believe in a Christianity wherein God created a universe of unfolding, unintelligent processes, knowing that such processes would eventually lead to a creature capable of witnessing the vast creation and who, in the image of the Creator, would eventually be able to understand those processes and harness them to create things of his own, that Christianity is perfectly compatible with any science.
Posted by: OgreMkV on Oct. 09 2009,13:09

Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 09 2009,13:06)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
So, Dinosaurs had sharp teeth to open coconuts.
Discuss.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Biblically, that's correct Ogre.  You may disagree with the claim itself, but you will not be able to deny that the Bible is making that specific claim.
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Also, to every beast of the earth, to every bird of the air, and to everything that creeps on the earth, in which there is life, I have given every green herb for food”; and it was so. --  Gen. 1:30
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


---------------------QUOTE-------------------


1)  That comment isn't from me.

2) I find it painful that you would rather answer a rhetorical question from some time ago, than respond to critics of your latest comments.  

I think you volunteered for this.  It's up to you to keep up.
Posted by: Robin on Oct. 09 2009,13:11

Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 09 2009,12:41)

---------------------QUOTE-------------------




---------------------QUOTE-------------------
God did NOT engage in bloodsport, God did NOT use a gazillion years of sadistic cruel evolution and natural selection to originate human beings.  We humans brought down all that "nature red in tooth and claw."  Not God.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



False. If you believe in an omnipotent and omniscient god, then everything that has ever unfolded is directly his responsibility. There's no way around it, for an omniscient AND omnipotent god would both know the outcome of the creation of humans *before* they existed AND would require no resources for either the creation of said humans (and all other things) and/or changing any condition that led to evil and sin. In other words, if you believe in an omnicient and omnipotent god, he would have had to specifically create a mankind that would rebel against him. That's a cruel and sadistic monster in my book.
Posted by: Robin on Oct. 09 2009,13:13

Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 09 2009,13:06)

---------------------QUOTE-------------------




---------------------QUOTE-------------------


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
So, Dinosaurs had sharp teeth to open coconuts.
Discuss.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Biblically, that's correct Ogre.  You may disagree with the claim itself, but you will not be able to deny that the Bible is making that specific claim.
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Also, to every beast of the earth, to every bird of the air, and to everything that creeps on the earth, in which there is life, I have given every green herb for food”; and it was so. --  Gen. 1:30
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Ummm...having coconuts and herbs for food means death before the fall. Ooops...
Posted by: nmgirl on Oct. 09 2009,13:21

Floyd, the first step in getting out a hole is to stop digging.
Posted by: FloydLee on Oct. 09 2009,13:22



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Ummm...having coconuts and herbs for food means death before the fall.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Nope, nope.  Coconuts and herbs do not have a "Nephesh."  Only animals and humans.   You are not killing the kiwifruit when you eat it.
Posted by: Constant Mews on Oct. 09 2009,13:35

Quote (JonF @ Oct. 08 2009,18:54)
Quote (Constant Mews @ Oct. 08 2009,18:09)
Floyd, I am a Christian and well-versed in evolutionary theory which I accept as truth.

My very existence demonstrates conclusively that you are wrong about your five "incompatibles".

You can concede now.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Hey, CM, nice to see you! Long time no type!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


True enough.  Working on a book takes time; and I've gotten some research monies to do a little project in Germany.  It should be an interesting Autumn.
Posted by: OgreMkV on Oct. 09 2009,13:36

Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 09 2009,13:22)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Ummm...having coconuts and herbs for food means death before the fall.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Nope, nope.  Coconuts and herbs do not have a "Nephesh."  Only animals and humans.   You are not killing the kiwifruit when you eat it.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


It's actually worse than that.  When you eat fruit your basically performing an abortion on all the possible plants that could have come from the seeds in the fruit!
Posted by: SLP on Oct. 09 2009,13:41

Quote (OgreMkV @ Oct. 09 2009,11:08)
So if this Todd person is YEC who believes in the literal interpretation of Genesis AND believes that evolution "works and works well"...

doesn't that kind of negate the whole conversation?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Well, he says that he accepts YEC because it is a 'faith' decision - he accept sthe word of the bible over what he sees and experiences.  

It is nutty, and I feel sorry for the guy - the mental anguish that he must have to live with.  But I mentioned it because he is a smart guy, an earned PhD, engages in scientific * research, is a YEC, yet sees that evolution is, in essence,
'true.'


* so-called
Posted by: FloydLee on Oct. 09 2009,13:45



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
That comment isn't from me.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


That's fine Ogre.  My apologies.


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
It's actually worse than that.  When you eat fruit your basically performing an abortion on all the possible plants that could have come from the seeds in the fruit!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I appreciate your attempt at humor.   :)
Posted by: Constant Mews on Oct. 09 2009,13:46

Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 09 2009,12:41)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I'll deal with these in a bit, but may I point out that your "incompatibility 5" is not in the least in conflict with Christianity's vision of a fallen world?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You appear to severely misunderstand what evolutionist Rosenhouse was saying there.  Perhaps misunderstand Christianity's vision a bit as well.[/quote]

In Christianity's vision, God is not cruel and sadistic.  However, we know for a fact that, as Rosenhouse points out, evolution honestly IS cruel and sadistic.  Nature red in tooth and claw, you know.  Wasps laying their eggs in their still-living victims so the eggs can hatch and the wasps-in-training slowly eat up their living victims from the inside out.

Rosenhouse is asking what sort of God would do a gazillion years of bloody sadistic evolution just to come up with a couple of human beings.  What kind of theological justification can a theistic evolutionist provide for THAT? Wouldn't a loving ethical God "fast forward" the tape and spare all those gazillion years of animal suffering a death, Rosenhouse is asking you.

Biblical Christianity already has an answer.  The Fall is the reason for nature red in tooth and claw.  Everybody, every animal, was a herbivore until Adam and Eve sinned.  That's the testimony of the Bible.  God did NOT engage in bloodsport, God did NOT use a gazillion years of sadistic cruel evolution and natural selection to originate human beings.  We humans brought down all that "nature red in tooth and claw."  Not God.

But notice:  Biblical Christianity's answer NECESSARILY denies the evolutionist claim that humans originated via evolution/common descent/etc.  Now you rationally have a irrconcilable Either-Or situation to deal with.

You either must say that God is sadistic and cruel (and amazingly, some of the posters have actually tried to pull that stunt!) or else you must say that humans didn't evolve from a non-human "common ancestor" animal as the evolutionists claim.)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


We have Rosenhouse's opinion of what constitutes cruel and sadistic behavior.  More important, your argument has nothing to do with evolution, it has to do with nature - you object that nature is cruel.  But you've put yourself in an untenable position here: if evolution is responsible for the cruelty you mention (e.g. wasps), then God isn't.  But you've rejected that: you now claim that God is the author, the direct author of horrific and unmentionable cruelty.

You really need to think this through before you post on it again, I notice a certain incoherence in your logic.

As for this point:

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
But notice:  Biblical Christianity's answer NECESSARILY denies the evolutionist claim that humans originated via evolution/common descent/etc.  Now you rationally have a irrconcilable Either-Or situation to deal with.

You either must say that God is sadistic and cruel (and amazingly, some of the posters have actually tried to pull that stunt!) or else you must say that humans didn't evolve from a non-human "common ancestor" animal as the evolutionists claim.)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

You are again, completely incorrect.  You have adopted a simplistic, literal reading of the Bible which is rejected by virtually all scientifically-literate sects.  Are you, in fact, a YEC?
Posted by: Constant Mews on Oct. 09 2009,13:48

Quote (Dan @ Oct. 09 2009,12:55)
Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 09 2009,10:18)
5.  The Fifth Incompatibility was eloquently stated via evolutionist Jason Rosenhouse at Evolutionblog.
     

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Evolution by natural selection, you see, is an awful process. It is bloody, sadistic, and cruel. It flouts every moral precept we humans hold dear.

It recognizes only survival and gene propagation, and even on those rare occasions where you find altruism and non-selfishness you can be certain that blind self-interest is lurking somewhere behind the scenes.

All of this suffering, pain and misery, mind you, to reach a foreordained moment when self-aware creature finally appeared.

What theological purpose was served by all this bloodsport? If humans were inevitable why didn't God simply fast-forward the tape himself, thereby sparing all of those animals that died horrible deaths in the preceding hundreds of millions of years?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


And please notice:  once again, there's no way to blow off #5 as "somebody's opinion."  What Rosenhouse is describing there is EXACTLY the way evolution works in the animal world.  That's evolutionary theory, period.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


If the theory of evolution is inconsistent with Christianity because it involves processes that might be "bloody, sadistic, and cruel," then we must also hold that:

Parasitology is inconsistent with Christianity because parasites might be bloody, sadistic, and cruel.

Animal ecology is inconsistent with Christianity because predation might be bloody, sadistic, and cruel.

Infectious disease is inconsistent with Christianity because diseases might be bloody, sadistic, and cruel.

Cancer is certainly inconsistent with Christianity.

History is inconsistent with Christianity because history is often bloody, sadistic, and cruel.

War is inconsistent with Christianity because war is usually bloody, sadistic, and cruel.

The Crusades were inconsistent with Christianity because the Crusades were bloody, sadistic, and cruel.

The Spanish Inquisition was inconsistent with Christianity because it was bloody, sadistic, and cruel.

Martin Luther was inconsistent with Christianity because he advocated treating Jews in ways that were bloody, sadistic, and cruel.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Exactly.  Floyd has gotten his anti-evolution argument mixed up with theodicy - which has a far more complex tradition behind it.

Evil exists.  That is fundamentally incompatible with an omniscient, omnipotent deity.  Nothing in there about evolution.
Posted by: Constant Mews on Oct. 09 2009,13:59

Quote (nmgirl @ Oct. 09 2009,13:21)
Floyd, the first step in getting out a hole is to stop digging.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I doubt he has realized the extent of his problems.  Clearly he is confusing a number of disparate arguments into a single, unharmonious whole and failing to support any one of them.  This speaks to, as Claudius commented, "A will most incorrect to heaven.  A heart unfortified, a mind impatient, an understanding simple and unschooled." (Emphasis added).
Posted by: Constant Mews on Oct. 09 2009,14:01

Quote (Henry J @ Oct. 09 2009,11:30)
Quote (Constant Mews @ Oct. 09 2009,08:03)


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

I thought you claimed there were five?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


He started with four, and invented a fifth one along the way.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


His fifth "incompatible" is nothing more than a simplistic rendering of the Problem of Evil, historically confused.
Posted by: OgreMkV on Oct. 09 2009,14:03

Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 09 2009,13:45)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
That comment isn't from me.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


That's fine Ogre.  My apologies.
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
It's actually worse than that.  When you eat fruit your basically performing an abortion on all the possible plants that could have come from the seeds in the fruit!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I appreciate your attempt at humor.   :)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Out of all the things asked of you... these are the two you choose to bring up.

I don't know whether to laugh or cry.  However, we have people just like this sitting on the state board of education.  Sigh...
Posted by: Constant Mews on Oct. 09 2009,14:05

Quote (ppb @ Oct. 09 2009,10:40)
Quote (Constant Mews @ Oct. 09 2009,11:24)
... and I hope to be able to help you understand your errors.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Good luck with that CM.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I see Floyd much the same way I saw AFDave - a child of God lost in his own ignorance and foolishness.  But every child of God is redeemable; every soul can be brought to abandon its idols (in Dave and Floyd's case this is clearly the Bible, or rather their childish reading of the Bible).

I pray for them both.
Posted by: OgreMkV on Oct. 09 2009,14:07

Quote (Constant Mews @ Oct. 09 2009,14:05)
Quote (ppb @ Oct. 09 2009,10:40)
Quote (Constant Mews @ Oct. 09 2009,11:24)
... and I hope to be able to help you understand your errors.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Good luck with that CM.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I see Floyd much the same way I saw AFDave - a child of God lost in his own ignorance and foolishness.  But every child of God is redeemable; every soul can be brought to abandon its idols (in Dave and Floyd's case this is clearly the Bible, or rather their childish reading of the Bible).

I pray for them both.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I find it interested that this supposed Christian is more interested in being right than trying to save our souls... of course, I think he was asked not to...

But I've noticed that with a lot of creationists and similar fundamentalist groups.
Posted by: Constant Mews on Oct. 09 2009,14:15

Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 09 2009,10:53)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Btw, on Oct. 8th (yesterday), Todd Wood also wrote the following items at his blog:

I believe that God created everything that you see in six consecutive days around 6000 years ago.

I believe that Adam and Eve were the very first humans and were directly created by God.

I believe Adam and Eve sinned, and that sin brought death, carnivory, disease, and suffering into the world.

I believe that people really lived to be 900+ years back then.

I believe that there was a truly global Flood that inundated the entire planet.

I believe that humans and land animals were preserved on an Ark (approximately 450 feet long for those keeping score).

I believe that the humans after the Flood gradually stopped living to be 900+.

I believe that the humans after the Flood tried to build a tower in Babel to prevent their dispersal across the globe, in direct contradiction to God's command.

I believe that God punished the builders of Babel by miraculously confusing their languages.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Why is this relevant?  Do you claim that these are foundational beliefs of Christianity?
Posted by: Constant Mews on Oct. 09 2009,14:16

Quote (OgreMkV @ Oct. 09 2009,14:07)
Quote (Constant Mews @ Oct. 09 2009,14:05)
Quote (ppb @ Oct. 09 2009,10:40)
 
Quote (Constant Mews @ Oct. 09 2009,11:24)
... and I hope to be able to help you understand your errors.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Good luck with that CM.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I see Floyd much the same way I saw AFDave - a child of God lost in his own ignorance and foolishness.  But every child of God is redeemable; every soul can be brought to abandon its idols (in Dave and Floyd's case this is clearly the Bible, or rather their childish reading of the Bible).

I pray for them both.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I find it interested that this supposed Christian is more interested in being right than trying to save our souls... of course, I think he was asked not to...

But I've noticed that with a lot of creationists and similar fundamentalist groups.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Floyd's understanding of his faith is a child's understanding.  He needs to grow up.
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on Oct. 09 2009,14:16

Could somebody clarify something?

If there was no "death" before "the fall" does that mean FL thinks plants are not alive?

Plants were eaten before the fall. There was no death before the fall. Therefore plants are not alive?

Hmm.
Posted by: Constant Mews on Oct. 09 2009,14:55

Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 09 2009,13:06)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
So, Dinosaurs had sharp teeth to open coconuts.
Discuss.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Biblically, that's correct Ogre.  You may disagree with the claim itself, but you will not be able to deny that the Bible is making that specific claim.
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Also, to every beast of the earth, to every bird of the air, and to everything that creeps on the earth, in which there is life, I have given every green herb for food”; and it was so. --  Gen. 1:30
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I'm sorry, Floyd, but the Bible does not make that specific claim.

You are either lying, or you are unfamiliar with the Bible. If you believe I am wrong, you may feel free to cite the specific chapter and verse which discusses the purpose of the sharp teeth of dinosaurs.

I'm waiting.
Posted by: Constant Mews on Oct. 09 2009,14:57

Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Oct. 09 2009,14:16)
Could somebody clarify something?

If there was no "death" before "the fall" does that mean FL thinks plants are not alive?

Plants were eaten before the fall. There was no death before the fall. Therefore plants are not alive?

Hmm.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Plants do not possess the "breath" of life; in fundie circles, that means that they are not, in fact, considered living things.
Posted by: ppb on Oct. 09 2009,14:59

Quote (Constant Mews @ Oct. 09 2009,15:57)
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Oct. 09 2009,14:16)
Could somebody clarify something?

If there was no "death" before "the fall" does that mean FL thinks plants are not alive?

Plants were eaten before the fall. There was no death before the fall. Therefore plants are not alive?

Hmm.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Plants do not possess the "breath" of life; in fundie circles, that means that they are not, in fact, considered living things.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Well, plants do breath.  If they didn't, we wouldn't either!
Posted by: FloydLee on Oct. 09 2009,15:03



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I find it interested that this supposed Christian is more interested in being right than trying to save our souls
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Yeah, you're right, my participation here is NOT an evangelistic tour.  God does exist, He loves you, you hate Him (for whatever reasons, some of which you've alluded to), but that's not what is on the table right now.   I'm just here for the opportunity to explain and defend the thread topic.
 
Now, if for some reason you DO want to accept and trust Jesus Christ as your personal Lord and Savior, if you want to pray a prayer of repentence and ask God to forgive you of your sins and save you through the atoning blood of Christ on the Cross, I can honestly be of assistance on that matter.  Been there done that.  I'm available on PM if need be.

But that's not why I'm here, and I've never claimed that such was my reason for being here.  
Posted by: Constant Mews on Oct. 09 2009,15:08

Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 09 2009,12:24)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
(Ogre asked)
....doesn't that kind of negate the whole conversation?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Nope.  The already-proffered suggestion of "Such-and-such-a-Christian accepts evolution even though he says specific things that clearly are NOT compatible with a belief in evolution," simply doesn't rationally establish that evolution is compatible with Christianity.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


But that is not what any of us have offered.  You have invented a strawman to fight with.  All well and good, if the level of intelligent discourse you'd like to have is hay
Posted by: Constant Mews on Oct. 09 2009,15:08

Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 09 2009,15:03)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I find it interested that this supposed Christian is more interested in being right than trying to save our souls
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Yeah, you're right, my participation here is NOT an evangelistic tour.  God does exist, He loves you, you hate Him (for whatever reasons, some of which you've alluded to), but that's not what is on the table right now.   I'm just here for the opportunity to explain and defend the thread topic.
 
Now, if for some reason you DO want to accept and trust Jesus Christ as your personal Lord and Savior, if you want to pray a prayer of repentence and ask God to forgive you of your sins and save you through the atoning blood of Christ on the Cross, I can honestly be of assistance on that matter.  Been there done that.  I'm available on PM if need be.

But that's not why I'm here, and I've never claimed that such was my reason for being here.  
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Nor have I ever claime
Posted by: Schroedinger's Dog on Oct. 09 2009,15:10

Quote (Robin @ Oct. 09 2009,19:38)
[quote=oldmanintheskydidntdoit,Oct. 09 2009,10:25][/quote]


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
The New Testament's clear postion (Romans 5:12-17) is that death entered this world only AFTER Adam and Eve sinned.  Romans 5:12-17 draws a very huge, very tight historical linkage between Adam and what Adam did (the problem) and Christ and what Christ did (the solution).  
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



So, Dinosaurs had sharp teeth to open coconuts.

Discuss.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



The problem I have the silly thinking that goes into thinking Paul meant NO DEATH before the fall is that such a situation requires the absence of any form of energy transfer whatsoever. Think about it - no death as Paul describes creates a world where even grass didn't die. No eating of any kind because such consumption for nutrition requires death of the source of energy. Unless all life was solar powered prior to the fall (which then would beg a number of logistical issues in and of itself) a literal interpretation of Paul automatically leads to a world without any life at all.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


This is bloody brilliant, short of a masterpiece!


Congrats robin!
Posted by: Constant Mews on Oct. 09 2009,15:11

Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 09 2009,15:03)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I find it interested that this supposed Christian is more interested in being right than trying to save our souls
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Yeah, you're right, my participation here is NOT an evangelistic tour.  God does exist, He loves you, you hate Him (for whatever reasons, some of which you've alluded to), but that's not what is on the table right now.   I'm just here for the opportunity to explain and defend the thread topic.
 
Now, if for some reason you DO want to accept and trust Jesus Christ as your personal Lord and Savior, if you want to pray a prayer of repentence and ask God to forgive you of your sins and save you through the atoning blood of Christ on the Cross, I can honestly be of assistance on that matter.  Been there done that.  I'm available on PM if need be.

But that's not why I'm here, and I've never claimed that such was my reason for being here.  
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Floyd, I'd caution you about something: most, if not all of the folks on this board don't hate God.  It's impossible to hate something you don't believe exists.  You're projecting again.
Posted by: Constant Mews on Oct. 09 2009,15:13

Quote (ppb @ Oct. 09 2009,14:59)
Quote (Constant Mews @ Oct. 09 2009,15:57)
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Oct. 09 2009,14:16)
Could somebody clarify something?

If there was no "death" before "the fall" does that mean FL thinks plants are not alive?

Plants were eaten before the fall. There was no death before the fall. Therefore plants are not alive?

Hmm.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Plants do not possess the "breath" of life; in fundie circles, that means that they are not, in fact, considered living things.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Well, plants do breath.  If they didn't, we wouldn't either!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


The ancient Hebrews didn't know that.  It's one of those interesting points which shows so clearly why one cannot take Genesis 1-11 as literal truth.  If the Word of God - a product of fallible men - contradicts the Work of God - an infallible source of wisdom - then obviously the products of man must be presumed to be in error.
Posted by: FloydLee on Oct. 09 2009,15:13



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Plants were eaten before the fall. There was no death before the fall. Therefore plants are not alive?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Michael Todhunter from AIG offers this explanation:


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
We commonly use the word die to describe when plants, animals, or humans no longer function biologically. However, this is not the definition of the word die or death in the Old Testament. The Hebrew word for die (or death), műt (or mavet), is used only in relation to the death of man or animals with the breath of life, not regarding plants. This usage indicates that plants are viewed differently from animals and humans.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: ppb on Oct. 09 2009,15:15

Quote (Constant Mews @ Oct. 09 2009,16:13)
Quote (ppb @ Oct. 09 2009,14:59)
Quote (Constant Mews @ Oct. 09 2009,15:57)
 
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Oct. 09 2009,14:16)
Could somebody clarify something?

If there was no "death" before "the fall" does that mean FL thinks plants are not alive?

Plants were eaten before the fall. There was no death before the fall. Therefore plants are not alive?

Hmm.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Plants do not possess the "breath" of life; in fundie circles, that means that they are not, in fact, considered living things.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Well, plants do breath.  If they didn't, we wouldn't either!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


The ancient Hebrews didn't know that.  It's one of those interesting points which shows so clearly why one cannot take Genesis 1-11 as literal truth.  If the Word of God - a product of fallible men - contradicts the Work of God - an infallible source of wisdom - then obviously the products of man must be presumed to be in error.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I know.  I just think it's ironic that we wouldn't even have the "breath of life" were it not for plants.
Posted by: Constant Mews on Oct. 09 2009,15:16

Quote (OgreMkV @ Oct. 09 2009,11:08)
So if this Todd person is YEC who believes in the literal interpretation of Genesis AND believes that evolution "works and works well"...

doesn't that kind of negate the whole conversation?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


It shows that Todd is gifted with compartmentalization of a very high order.
Posted by: Constant Mews on Oct. 09 2009,15:17

Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 09 2009,15:13)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Plants were eaten before the fall. There was no death before the fall. Therefore plants are not alive?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Michael Todhunter from AIG offers this explanation:
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
We commonly use the word die to describe when plants, animals, or humans no longer function biologically. However, this is not the definition of the word die or death in the Old Testament. The Hebrew word for die (or death), műt (or mavet), is used only in relation to the death of man or animals with the breath of life, not regarding plants. This usage indicates that plants are viewed differently from animals and humans.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Already addressed Floyd.  Do try to keep up.
Posted by: FloydLee on Oct. 09 2009,15:20



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
But that is not what any of us have offered.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Oh, but some of your pals have indeed offere that one.  Please review the previous pages.  Look for the key words "The Pope."
Posted by: FloydLee on Oct. 09 2009,15:24



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Floyd, I'd caution you about something: most, if not all of the folks on this board don't hate God.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Didn't say they did.  
   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
It's impossible to hate something you don't believe exists.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

 
You just gave yourself away.  Looks like Ogre ain't the only one hating on God around here!
Posted by: Constant Mews on Oct. 09 2009,15:25



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
1.  In biblical Christianity, God clearly is the Required Explanation for biological origins (including the evolutionary process.)  No exceptions. But with Evolution, God is clearly NOT a required explanation at all.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Evolution is a testable explanation of current biodiversity.  God is not testable, and cannot, therefore, comprise any part of such an explanation.  That doesn't mean that God is not directly involved at every moment of the universe, supporting, sustaining, and creating.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
2.  In biblical Christianity, everything in the universe is originated via God's teleology, and especially humans.  (See Genesis chap 1, also see Col. 1:16).
In evolution, you have a total denial of that, at ALL points of the evolutionary process:  No Teleology No Conscious Forethought.  At least two rational reasons for this is given by EB3, who also (like Mayr) directly ascribes this to evolutionary theory.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Nothing whatsoever in the theory of evolution precludes the idea that the process was designed and implemented by God.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
3.  In biblical Christianity, humans are created and designed in the image of God.  Again, evolution denies that, most recently the Nature June 14 2007 article in which evolution of the brain is the reason for denying the Image-of-God thesis.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Only if you presume "image of God" involves a specific biological form.  Since God is clearly not physical, a physical shape is irrelevant: we must be made in the spiritual image of God.  Since evolution takes no position on the evolution or development of our souls, this is not an incompatible.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Evolutionist James Rachels also pointed out, in the book Created From Animals, that "the image-of-god thesis does NOT just go with any kind of theism."  It requires a creationist theism, Rachel said, in which God is viewed as "actively designing man and the world as a home for man."
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Rachels is, I'm sorry to say, unfamiliar with the actual theology involved - as are you, apparently.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
4.  Evolution's clear position is that death was present on this planet before humans arrived.  In fact, it's not even possible for natural selection and evolution to work as claimed UNLESS death was present on this planet prior to humans being originated.  (Totally beyond debate, btw.)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Well, yes.  Why is this a problem?



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
The New Testament's clear postion (Romans 5:12-17) is that death entered this world only AFTER Adam and Eve sinned.  Romans 5:12-17 draws a very huge, very tight historical linkage between Adam and what Adam did (the problem) and Christ and what Christ did (the solution).  
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

This is quite simple: the death referred to is not physical death, but rather spiritual death.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Therefore evolution's Death-Before-Adam historical claim not only negates the historical claim of biblical Christianity about Adam and the Fall, but ALSO negates what biblical Christianity's historical claim about Christ and the Atonement.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Point me to the precise statements in the theory of evolution that deny the historical claims of Adam and Christ.  Be very specific; we know you have access to various evolution textbooks.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
5.  The Fifth Incompatibility was eloquently stated via evolutionist Jason Rosenhouse at Evolutionblog.
 
Quote
Evolution by natural selection, you see, is an awful process. It is bloody, sadistic, and cruel. It flouts every moral precept we humans hold dear.

It recognizes only survival and gene propagation, and even on those rare occasions where you find altruism and non-selfishness you can be certain that blind self-interest is lurking somewhere behind the scenes.

All of this suffering, pain and misery, mind you, to reach a foreordained moment when self-aware creature finally appeared.

What theological purpose was served by all this bloodsport? If humans were inevitable why didn't God simply fast-forward the tape himself, thereby sparing all of those animals that died horrible deaths in the preceding hundreds of millions of years?

And please notice:  once again, there's no way to blow off #5 as "somebody's opinion."  What Rosenhouse is describing there is EXACTLY the way evolution works in the animal world.  That's evolutionary theory, period.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Theodicy.  Why does a loving God permit evil and gratuitous suffering.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Okay, there's the summary of the Big Five Incompatibilities.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Thank you.  These continue to remain assertions on your part.  Where should be begin in clarifying your understanding?
Posted by: Constant Mews on Oct. 09 2009,15:28

Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 09 2009,15:24)

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I said:

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Floyd, I'd caution you about something: most, if not all of the folks on this board don't hate God.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Floyd answered:

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Didn't say they did.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Regrettably, Floyd, that is a deliberate lie.  Shall I quote you?  Sure, I should:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
God does exist, He loves you, you hate Him (for whatever reasons, some of which you've alluded to), but that's not what is on the table right now.   I'm just here for the opportunity to explain and defend the thread topic.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

What part of "you hate Him" did you fail to understand?  You wrote it, did you not?  You were responding to a comment about the generic "us", were you not?

Floyd, I understand that this kind of clear thinking is difficult for you - but to blatantly lie when you can so easily be checked is disturbing.

And of course I don't hate God.  Your reading comprehension needs some sharpening.
Posted by: Louis on Oct. 09 2009,15:29

Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 09 2009,21:13)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Plants were eaten before the fall. There was no death before the fall. Therefore plants are not alive?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Michael Todhunter from AIG offers this explanation:
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
We commonly use the word die to describe when plants, animals, or humans no longer function biologically. However, this is not the definition of the word die or death in the Old Testament. The Hebrew word for die (or death), műt (or mavet), is used only in relation to the death of man or animals with the breath of life, not regarding plants. This usage indicates that plants are viewed differently from animals and humans.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


---------------------QUOTE-------------------


This "breath of life" smacks of vitalism to me. Friedrich Wohler stuck the last nail in the vitalist coffin in the 1800s. Find me this "breath of life". Bottle me some for analysis.

What do you mean you can't?

Oh so you mean "breath of life" in the sense of "made up nonsense that I shall conveniently pull out of the appropriate orifice to attempt to remain plausible whilst actually looking like a hand waving, bullshit merchant who might as well be discussing pixies at the end of the garden".

Now I understand. Sorry, but why should anyone take this unevidenced, nonsensical claim seriously? Oh right. They shouldn't. Thanks for playing, you score a zero.

Louis
Posted by: Constant Mews on Oct. 09 2009,15:31

Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 09 2009,15:20)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
But that is not what any of us have offered.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Oh, but some of your pals have indeed offere that one.  Please review the previous pages.  Look for the key words "The Pope."
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I reviewed the posts.  Nothing that has been quoted from the Bishop of Rome is incompatible with the theory of evolution.

What is becoming quite clear is that you don't understand what the theory actually says.  You keep trying to utilize the opinions of scientists and other folk about the implications of the theory as it pertains to them.
Posted by: FloydLee on Oct. 09 2009,15:31



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Nothing whatsoever in the theory of evolution precludes the idea that the process was designed and implemented by God.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Did you even read what Futuyma wrote in EB3?   Or Mayr in SciAm? Sincere question.  I know I discussed it in extensive detail already.  Ignoring the problems don't make 'em go away.
Posted by: Constant Mews on Oct. 09 2009,15:37

Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 09 2009,15:31)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Nothing whatsoever in the theory of evolution precludes the idea that the process was designed and implemented by God.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Did you even read what Futuyma wrote in EB3?   Or Mayr in SciAm? Sincere question.  I know I discussed it in extensive detail already.  Ignoring the problems don't make 'em go away.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Floyd, I have pointed something out numerous times, perhaps you missed it:

In order to show that the theory of evolution is incompatible with Christian tenets, you need to actually offer as evidence the details of the theory - not the opinions of men about the implications of the theory.

Try again, please.  This is equivalent to your citing an atheist's opinions on the validity of the Bible as actually being statements by the Bible.  Surely you wouldn't do anything that stupid, would you?
Posted by: Constant Mews on Oct. 09 2009,15:39

Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 09 2009,15:31)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Nothing whatsoever in the theory of evolution precludes the idea that the process was designed and implemented by God.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Did you even read what Futuyma wrote in EB3?   Or Mayr in SciAm? Sincere question.  I know I discussed it in extensive detail already.  Ignoring the problems don't make 'em go away.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


And I have discussed evolutionary theory with Futuyma; he would be the first to agree that the perceived implications of a theory and the theory itself are radically different beasts.

It is easy enough to find opposite opinions on this point, but arguing opinions is meaningless.  Discuss the details of the theory, not what people think about the theory.  Discuss the actual tenets of the Christian faith, rather than people's opinions of the those tenets.

THEN you might be able to show some incompatibility exists.
Posted by: deadman_932 on Oct. 09 2009,15:40

Quote (Constant Mews @ Oct. 09 2009,15:37)
 This is equivalent to your citing an atheist's opinions on the validity of the Bible as actually being statements by the Bible.  Surely you wouldn't do anything that stupid, would you?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


There's very little that's truly stupid which Floyd hasn't tried, I'm afraid.
Posted by: Constant Mews on Oct. 09 2009,15:41

Tell me, Floyd, do you believe that God operates in the same timeframe we do?  That actual intervention of a measurable nature would be required for God to direct evolution?

Do you believe in a literal reading of the first eleven chapters of Genesis as necessary for Christianity?

Do you understand that the physical characteristics of man are irrelevant to the concept of being created "in God's image?"
Posted by: Constant Mews on Oct. 09 2009,15:42

Quote (deadman_932 @ Oct. 09 2009,15:40)
Quote (Constant Mews @ Oct. 09 2009,15:37)
 This is equivalent to your citing an atheist's opinions on the validity of the Bible as actually being statements by the Bible.  Surely you wouldn't do anything that stupid, would you?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


There's very little that's truly stupid which Floyd hasn't tried, I'm afraid.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Do you think he recognizes, intellectually, that citing opinions about the implications of a theory is not the same as citing the theory itself?
Posted by: deadman_932 on Oct. 09 2009,15:49

Floyd's problems run the gamut.
(1) Thinking that opinions on the implications of a theory = the theory itself.
(2) Believing that individual opinions = scientific consensus
(3) Believing the inapplicability of divine intervention, teleology, ontology mystically only applies to one branch of science and not all science

ETA: I think that intellectually he does recognize that opinions on what science don't equate to statements about actual scientific theory/methodology . The evidence for that is in his avoidance, attempts to deflect, distract, change topics, offer up fallacies such as false dichotomies... all ploys he's tried so far
Posted by: Constant Mews on Oct. 09 2009,15:49

Quote (deadman_932 @ Oct. 09 2009,15:49)
Floyd's problems run the gamut.
(1) Thinking that opinions on the implications of a theory = the theory itself.
(2) Believing that individual opinions = scientific consensus
(3) Believing the inapplicability of divine intervention, teleology, ontology mystically only applies to one branch of science and not all science
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


That's quite a list.  Floyd, would you care to comment?
Posted by: someotherguy on Oct. 09 2009,15:55

I've noticed (and I'm sure I'm not the only one) that Floyd Lee tends to take the opinions of certain atheistic scientists on the topic of compatibility between religion and science as the final word on the subject.  But then he ignores them when they talk about all the evidence there is for evolution.  I wonder why that is?
Posted by: deadman_932 on Oct. 09 2009,15:55

Quote (Constant Mews @ Oct. 09 2009,15:49)
Quote (deadman_932 @ Oct. 09 2009,15:49)
Floyd's problems run the gamut.
(1) Thinking that opinions on the implications of a theory = the theory itself.
(2) Believing that individual opinions = scientific consensus
(3) Believing the inapplicability of divine intervention, teleology, ontology mystically only applies to one branch of science and not all science
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


That's quite a list.  Floyd, would you care to comment?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Take # 3 in that list. Floyd would then reply "yes, but ONLY evolutionary biologists say these things... evolutionists alone deny divine teleology and ontology. PHYSICISTS don't say these things, we don't see it expressed in THEIR textbooks. "

Which is, of course, utter bullshit.
Posted by: Constant Mews on Oct. 09 2009,15:59

Quote (deadman_932 @ Oct. 09 2009,15:55)
Quote (Constant Mews @ Oct. 09 2009,15:49)
 
Quote (deadman_932 @ Oct. 09 2009,15:49)
Floyd's problems run the gamut.
(1) Thinking that opinions on the implications of a theory = the theory itself.
(2) Believing that individual opinions = scientific consensus
(3) Believing the inapplicability of divine intervention, teleology, ontology mystically only applies to one branch of science and not all science
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


That's quite a list.  Floyd, would you care to comment?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Take # 3 in that list. Floyd would then reply "yes, but ONLY evolutionary biologists say these things... evolutionists alone deny divine teleology and ontology. PHYSICISTS don't say these things, we don't see it expressed in THEIR textbooks. "

Which is, of course, utter bullshit.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


More interestingly, Floyd refuses to accept the mirror-image condition: that theists frequently point out the limitations of the Bible in the context of science.  Calvin, as I recall, once said, "The whole point of scripture is to bring us to a knowledge of Christ --- and having come to know him (and all that this implies), we should come to a halt and not expect to learn more. Scripture provides us with spectacles through which we may view the world as God’s creation and self-expression; it does not, and was never intended, to provide us with an infallible repository of astronomical and medical information."
Posted by: ppb on Oct. 09 2009,16:08

Quote (someotherguy @ Oct. 09 2009,16:55)
I've noticed (and I'm sure I'm not the only one) that Floyd Lee tends to take the opinions of certain atheistic scientists on the topic of compatibility between religion and science as the final word on the subject.  But then he ignores them when they talk about all the evidence there is for evolution.  I wonder why that is?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


He also will talk about Christianity in a generic sense, as in whether or not the Pope is a Christian.  Then he will go on to defend his 4 or 5 points as being essential to "biblical Christianity".  No definition for what biblical Christianity is, or why it is different from (superior to?) plain old Christianity.
Posted by: FloydLee on Oct. 09 2009,16:11



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
It is easy enough to find opposite opinions on this point[?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Then do it, CM.   Don't say it, just do it, quote 'em to me.  Quote those evolutionist scientists who offer "opposite opinions" that refute the Big Five Incompatibilities.  Substantive, considered opinions, reconciliations of the Big Five, from fellow evolutionists.  Please quote 'em.  I've been waiting for somebody to do that, all thread long.
Posted by: deadman_932 on Oct. 09 2009,16:17

A while back, I posted up a statement from the NAS on science and religious concepts of God that basically invoked the NOMA.

I did that for a couple of reasons:
(1) To show a consensus (rather than individual opinion) that science itself can't deal with the untestable, unrepeatable, unfalsifiable aspects that relevant theistic beliefs point to.
(2) To show that this is in accord with the statements of various religious leaders on the limits of science regarding religious faith.
(3) To show that Floyd Lee singling out Bioevolutionary science is fraudulent.

None of those things make any difference to Floyd, as he is on a fanatic's crusade against only one aspect of science which he finds threatening to his weird brand of "convenient" literalism. He takes those things to be literal which are also convenient to his ego-driven interpretations of the Bible.

He also percieves that condemning all of science would be a bad propaganda move (although all of science has limits in regard to supernatural deities), so he refuses to go where his logic points to...the destruction of all of science.    

So he avoids, misdirects, tries to create smokescreens of vapid words and flings fallacies with the frantic screeching of a prosimian up a tree.
Posted by: JonF on Oct. 09 2009,16:19

Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Oct. 09 2009,15:16)
Could somebody clarify something?

If there was no "death" before "the fall" does that mean FL thinks plants are not alive?

Plants were eaten before the fall. There was no death before the fall. Therefore plants are not alive?

Hmm.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Plant aren't alive enough to matter, according to Floyd.

The Biblical basis for this claim was not provided.

Hmmm.
Posted by: someotherguy on Oct. 09 2009,16:21

Quote (deadman_932 @ Oct. 09 2009,16:17)
So he avoids, misdirects, tries to create smokescreens of vapid words and flings fallacies with the frantic screeching of a prosimian up a tree.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


No fair!  Screeching prosimians have many warm and endearing traits*!

*Especially if you, like Louis, enjoy having feces hurled at your head.   :p
Posted by: FloydLee on Oct. 09 2009,16:23



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
He also will talk about Christianity in a generic sense, as in whether or not the Pope is a Christian.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


That was the question you guys kept asking ME, remember?  I didn't initiate question, AND I'd answered it as far back as Sept 22----but somebody failed to remember (and failed to check the back pages), and kept trying to harp on it until I re-posted my response which he missed in the first place.  

So, please try to tell it right.  Or maybe, just stay on the sidelines, hmm?
Posted by: deadman_932 on Oct. 09 2009,16:25

Oh, I should add a couple of things: when the limits of science re supernatural deities are pointed out, Floyd Lee has then said "Yes, but Del Ratzsche and Steven Meyer have said otherwise" . When asked to show their actual scientific research model that would overcome the limits of science...he can't. But he believes he's made a point, somewhere.

Similarly, when it is pointed out that any science textbook says "Physics (or Astronomy, Zoology, etc) employs the scientific method," that this is a de facto statement of inability to deal with supernatural deities, Floyd Lee ignores that, too.

He has to do a lot of mental and verbal gymnastics, and usually falls flat on his face, but like AFDave, he'll vanish off the board or ignore points long enough to say "Tah DAH! Thus I have refuted you!!" -- and  go tumbling and stumbling off again.
Posted by: FloydLee on Oct. 09 2009,16:26



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
The Biblical basis for this claim was not provided.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Here you go.  

< http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/am/v1/n2/do-leaves-die >
Posted by: FloydLee on Oct. 09 2009,16:33



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
A while back, I posted up a statement from the NAS on science and religious concepts of God that basically invoked the NOMA.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


And pray tell, what is the first commandment of all versions of NOMA?


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
"The first commandment for all versions of NOMA might be summarized by stating: ‘Thou shalt not mix the magisteria by claiming that God directly ordains important events in the history of nature by special interference knowable only through revelation and not accessible to science.’…

“In common parlance, we refer to such special interference as ‘miracle’ – operationally defined as a unique and temporary suspension of natural law to reorder the facts of nature by divine fiat….

“NOMA does impose this ‘limitation’ on concepts of God ….”

--- Stephen J. Gould, Rocks Of Ages
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


So if your intention is to pretend that evolution is compatible with Christianity, you better abandon that NOMA, and pronto!!
Posted by: OgreMkV on Oct. 09 2009,16:34

Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 09 2009,16:26)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
The Biblical basis for this claim was not provided.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Here you go.  

< http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/am/v1/n2/do-leaves-die >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Tell me Floyd... what is value of Pi to a reasonable number of significant digits?
Posted by: someotherguy on Oct. 09 2009,16:36

Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 09 2009,16:26)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
The Biblical basis for this claim was not provided.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Here you go.  

< http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/am/v1/n2/do-leaves-die >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


That article is a perfect demonstration of the absurdities that result when you take something that is fundamentally not about science and try to wring some sort of scientifically useful "truths" from it.  Thanks for the laugh!
Posted by: deadman_932 on Oct. 09 2009,16:38

It's not my fault you don't know how to read, Floyd.




---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Science and religion are based on different aspects of human experience. In science, explanations must be based on evidence drawn from examining the natural world. Scientifically based observations or experiments that conflict with an explanation eventually must lead to modification or even abandonment of that explanation.

Religious faith, in contrast, does not depend only on empirical evidence, is not necessarily modified in the face of conflicting evidence, and typically involves supernatural forces or entities. Because they are not a part of nature, supernatural entities cannot be investigated by science. In this sense, science and religion are separate and address aspects of human understanding in different ways. Attempts to pit science and religion against each other create controversy where none needs to exist. < http://www.nationalacademies.org/evolution/Compatibility.html >

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Science's lack of ability to investigate supernatural deities doesn't equal "conflict"...as the Pope has endorsed, it means that believers can easily continue to believe in a Prime Mover that is not in conflict with science, who sets evolution into existence and action and allows it to unfold at a level of teleological and ontological mystery that science cannot, by it's own limitations, penetrate.
Posted by: deadman_932 on Oct. 09 2009,16:43

Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 09 2009,16:33)
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
A while back, I posted up a statement from the NAS on science and religious concepts of God that basically invoked the NOMA.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


And pray tell, what is the first commandment of all versions of NOMA?
   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
"The first commandment for all versions of NOMA might be summarized by stating: ‘Thou shalt not mix the magisteria by claiming that God directly ordains important events in the history of nature by special interference knowable only through revelation and not accessible to science.’…

“In common parlance, we refer to such special interference as ‘miracle’ – operationally defined as a unique and temporary suspension of natural law to reorder the facts of nature by divine fiat….

“NOMA does impose this ‘limitation’ on concepts of God ….”

--- Stephen J. Gould, Rocks Of Ages
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


So if your intention is to pretend that evolution is compatible with Christianity, you better abandon that NOMA, and pronto!!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


That's a lot of ellipses, Floyd. It takes a special kind of willful desire to engage in falsehood to quotemine and misinterpret so blatantly, Floyd. Your true colors are showing.

Give me page numbers for each of those statements, Floyd. Let's see what context you've excised.
Posted by: OgreMkV on Oct. 09 2009,16:51

Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 09 2009,16:26)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
The Biblical basis for this claim was not provided.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Here you go.  

< http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/am/v1/n2/do-leaves-die >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


< http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/161 >

Interesting, this article refers to Nephesh chayyah as "living soul" not "living thing".

So, our version is correct, that things souls did not die before the Fall, but things did indeed die before the fall.

You can't have it both ways, Floyd.  If you insist on using the Hebrew, then all references are "living soul", not the physical being.  If you insist on these things meaning "physical living thing", then your arguments totally fall apart.
Posted by: ppb on Oct. 09 2009,17:05

Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 09 2009,17:23)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
He also will talk about Christianity in a generic sense, as in whether or not the Pope is a Christian.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


That was the question you guys kept asking ME, remember?  I didn't initiate question, AND I'd answered it as far back as Sept 22----but somebody failed to remember (and failed to check the back pages), and kept trying to harp on it until I re-posted my response which he missed in the first place.  

So, please try to tell it right.  Or maybe, just stay on the sidelines, hmm?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


My point wasn't whether or not you consider the Pope a Christian.  I was pointing out that, although the supposed debate is whether or not Christianity and Evolution are compatible, you keep referring to "biblical Christianity" in your discussion of your 5 points of incompatibility.  I find the distinction "interesting", and thought I would point it out.

I really should have posted this to the peanut gallery thread, but that thread isn't getting much use lately.
Posted by: FloydLee on Oct. 09 2009,17:06



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
when the limits of science re supernatural deities are pointed out, Floyd Lee has then said "Yes, but Del Ratzsche and Steven Meyer have said otherwise" . When asked to show their actual scientific research model that would overcome the limits of science...he can't. But he believes he's made a point, somewhere.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Yes, in fact, I absolutely made a point there.  When we later discuss "ID as science", your question will indeed be askable, and I imagine you will ask it.  (And yes, I have a response waiting for that time when it comes.)

HOWEVER, while we're on THIS topic, your question doesn't do anything for you.  

The reason is that you rationally DON'T have to offer an alternative "actual scientific research model" merely to point out what Meyer beautifully pointed out:  that the current claim of "supernatural causes are excluded from science" contains mulitple huge unresolved rational problems all by itself (including the problem of circularity.)

Did you provide any refutations to Meyer's specific points?  Nope, none.

***

Another reason is that "Science is about what is testable, not necesarily what is naturalistic."  (Chemist Dr. John Millam.)  

Did you provide any refutations for Millam?  Nope, you didn't.  
(Remember, we're not yet discussing "Is ID science".  Instead, we're just dealing with the fact that "what is testable" trumps "what is naturalistic" when it comes to deciding what is science and what is not, for testability is written right into the scientific method itself.

***

And then, yet ANOTHER reason is simply that throughout the history of science, at the conceptual level, there just hasn't been ANY sustainable rational BLANKET prohibitions against supernatural causes within the realm of science, which was what Ratzsch pointed out.  

So, did you provide a refutation for Dr. Ratzsch?  Nope, nope.  

So, as far as your question goes, ask it when we're discussing ID as science.  Asking it now, when an alternative model is NOT required merely to demonstrate the rational faults with your specific claim, doesn't work at all.
Posted by: FloydLee on Oct. 09 2009,17:15



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
If you insist on these things meaning "physical living thing", then your arguments totally fall apart.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


The point is simply that plants don't have the "breath of life" in them like animals and humans do.  Therefore they don't die in the sense of the Hebrew word "mut".
End of 25-cent plant controversy.  You can't establish death-before-Adam by claiming veggies died.

Bottom line:  you're not committing Murder One against a celery stick.  The Bible never said you were doing so.  Put some mayo on it and eat it up.  Tastes good.  Lotsa antioxidant.  You'll love it.
Posted by: deadman_932 on Oct. 09 2009,17:18

Where's the page numbers on those Gould quotes?
Where's the full context of the Oldroyd quote you used?
Posted by: deadman_932 on Oct. 09 2009,17:20

Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 09 2009,17:06)
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
when the limits of science re supernatural deities are pointed out, Floyd Lee has then said "Yes, but Del Ratzsche and Steven Meyer have said otherwise" . When asked to show their actual scientific research model that would overcome the limits of science...he can't. But he believes he's made a point, somewhere.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Yes, in fact, I absolutely made a point there.  When we later discuss "ID as science", your question will indeed be askable, and I imagine you will ask it.  (And yes, I have a response waiting for that time when it comes.)

HOWEVER, while we're on THIS topic, your question doesn't do anything for you.  

The reason is that you rationally DON'T have to offer an alternative "actual scientific research model" merely to point out what Meyer beautifully pointed out:  that the current claim of "supernatural causes are excluded from science" contains mulitple huge unresolved rational problems all by itself (including the problem of circularity.)

Did you provide any refutations to Meyer's specific points?  Nope, none.

***

Another reason is that "Science is about what is testable, not necesarily what is naturalistic."  (Chemist Dr. John Millam.)  

Did you provide any refutations for Millam?  Nope, you didn't.  
(Remember, we're not yet discussing "Is ID science".  Instead, we're just dealing with the fact that "what is testable" trumps "what is naturalistic" when it comes to deciding what is science and what is not, for testability is written right into the scientific method itself.

***

And then, yet ANOTHER reason is simply that throughout the history of science, at the conceptual level, there just hasn't been ANY sustainable rational BLANKET prohibitions against supernatural causes within the realm of science, which was what Ratzsch pointed out.  

So, did you provide a refutation for Dr. Ratzsch?  Nope, nope.  

So, as far as your question goes, ask it when we're discussing ID as science.  Asking it now, when an alternative model is NOT required merely to demonstrate the rational faults with your specific claim, doesn't work at all.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


My question is askable whenever I damn well please, Floyd.

That you can't ever answer directly is your problem.

Del Ratzschit can't provide a viable scientific research model to investigate supernatural deities--and neither can Meyers, nor can Millam or any other apologist you care to name.

Millam says science is about what is testable. That's part of it, yes. It's also about what is reproducible and falsifiable. So if Millam says supernatural deities are testable, I expect you to show how.

But you can't. You just want to have Millam, Myers and Del Ratzshit accepted at face value without ever anyone questioning their claims?

That's not how science works. It IS how religions often work, though
Posted by: Doc Bill on Oct. 09 2009,17:21

Nobody has to refute Meyer's points.  He has to present a case that can be  verified independently.  So far, he hasn't done that.

Furthermore, FL, nobody has to refute anything conjured up in that tiny rat's nest you use as a pitiful excuse for a brain.  You have to present your case with supporting evidence, which you haven't.

Now, if you were EF Hutton it would be another story.
Posted by: FloydLee on Oct. 09 2009,17:30



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Nobody has to refute Meyer's points.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Ohhhhh, yes you do.  Those specific Meyer assessments have been standing unrefuted and effective for YEARS (I've posted them on Pandasthumb, CARM, and most everywhere else) and not a one of you evolutionists have been able to say so mucha as 'Boo' against those specific points.

Same thing for Ratzsch's statement, and same thing for Millam (since 2005 when he made his presentation at the Kansas hearings.)  No refutations at all.  You evolutionists just keep on parroting the same old mantra and hope that nobody's noticed the inherent intractable problems with it.

You evolutionists are weak as yellow tissue paper on some issues, and THIS is surely one of them.
Posted by: deadman_932 on Oct. 09 2009,17:35

Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 09 2009,17:30)
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Nobody has to refute Meyer's points.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Ohhhhh, yes you do.  Those specific Meyer assessments have been standing unrefuted and effective for YEARS (I've posted them on Pandasthumb, CARM, and most everywhere else) and not a one of you evolutionists have been able to say so mucha as 'Boo' against those specific points.

Same thing for Ratzsch's statement, and same thing for Millam (since 2005 when he made his presentation at the Kansas hearings.)  No refutations at all.  You evolutionists just keep on parroting the same old mantra and hope that nobody's noticed the inherent intractable problems with it.

You evolutionists are weak as yellow tissue paper on some issues, and THIS is surely one of them.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Post up a research model for supernatural deities and then we can talk science. Point out Meyers cogent points and line of logic and argue it, then we can dissect his claims.

Posting up reams of B-S from anyone in support of your claims means you have to be capable of defending it point by point.

Select out what you think are Meyers strongest points and present and defend them, by yourself. Let's see you do that.

Do that with Del Ratzsch and millam.

I asked you to start with Millam and show how supernatural deities can be tested. He says that's what science is all about, and in a very brief way. Let's see if he can support that load of shit.

When will you be doing that?
Posted by: FloydLee on Oct. 09 2009,17:39



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
So if Millam says supernatural deities are testable, I expect you to show how.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You can expect a discussion of that when we're talking about ID.  Not before.  Go home and cry in your pillow if that frustrates you.  Science--the scientific method is about what is testable, not what is naturalistic.  You can't even find an evolutionist quotation to refute Millam's exact statement, can you?  Heh.  

(Btw, did Millam's quotation say "deities"?  Nope, he did not.  You kinda have this way of getting stuff a little garbled sometimes, or maybe you refuse to read stuff the way it's actually written if you don't like it.  Go figure.)
Posted by: deadman_932 on Oct. 09 2009,17:47

Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 09 2009,17:39)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
So if Millam says supernatural deities are testable, I expect you to show how.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You can expect a discussion of that when we're talking about ID.  Not before.  Go home and cry in your pillow if that frustrates you.  Science--the scientific method is about what is testable, not what is naturalistic.  You can't even find an evolutionist quotation to refute Millam's exact statement, can you?  Heh.  

(Btw, did Millam's quotation say "deities"?  Nope, he did not.  You kinda have this way of getting stuff a little garbled sometimes, or maybe you refuse to read stuff the way it's actually written if you don't like it.  Go figure.)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


But your point of using Millam and the others is to make the point that some "scientists" say supernaturalist concepts (and in particular, the focus of this discussions, deities) can be investigated.

When you are asked to show HOW they can be investigated, according to your sources, you can't show it.

In short, it's just a VERY cheap con. You want to offer up "authoritative" quotes and never have them questioned in regard to the claims you say they support.

That's more than ridiculous, it's blatant con-artistry. But. hey, that's you. And them, for that matter. Con artists.
Posted by: Reed on Oct. 09 2009,17:49

Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 09 2009,15:06)
Another reason is that "Science is about what is testable, not necesarily what is naturalistic."  (Chemist Dr. John Millam.)  
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Even if you accept that, it should be clear the supernatural meddling of omnipotent entities is not testable by definition. Omnipotent means they can do anything, so there is no test that can distinguish between an infinite number of supernatural hypotheses.

Nothing in what you quoted from Meyers blather addresses this problem. Instead he constructs the straw man that "naturalism" excludes the possibility that life on earth was created or influenced by an intelligent agent. This is simply not true. There is currently no good evidence for such an influence, but if we started finding bits of biochem labs and space ships in pre-Cambrian strata, science would have no problem with that. No serious scientists are working on this kind of thing, not because it isn't allowed, but because 1) The current theory appears sufficient. 2) There is no evidence for such intervention.

Supernatural intervention is discarded only the purely pragmatic grounds that it can't be tested. If you want to claim otherwise, you need to come up with a method of making testable predictions about supernatural actions (which is probably impossible without redefining supernatural, but hey, that's your problem not ours)
Posted by: deadman_932 on Oct. 09 2009,17:50

So let's be very specific, then, Floyd.

(1) You say that ultimate God-driven teleology and ontology are part of your BIG FIVE FANTASIES that neither the Pope or "evolution" can answer.

(2) I state that science itself (which includes evolutionary theory, Floyd) can't deal with concepts like ultimate deistic teleology and ontology or supernatural deities. I posted up quotes from the NAS and religious figures that agree with that view

(3) You post up quotes from apologist "scientists" purported to show that such things CAN be tested, etc. That they ARE part of a broader scientific view.

(4) I ask you to show HOW they can be investigated, via any possible scientific program...and you can't answer, but you think I should accept their word on it?

LOL

Show Me The Money, Baby!
Posted by: Schroedinger's Dog on Oct. 09 2009,17:52



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Con artists
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



funny tidbit: in French, "con" or "connard" can either mean a pussy (or twat) or an asshole.

In regard to this wonderful analogy, I duely insist on calling Yodel Elf a con artist...
Posted by: Occam's Toothbrush on Oct. 09 2009,18:10

Day 27, FL's No-True-Scotsman definition of Christianity continues to be incompatible with his Strawman definition of Evolution.  All fallacy, all the time, folks, step right up!

Yawn.
Posted by: OgreMkV on Oct. 09 2009,18:36

Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 09 2009,17:15)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
If you insist on these things meaning "physical living thing", then your arguments totally fall apart.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


The point is simply that plants don't have the "breath of life" in them like animals and humans do.  Therefore they don't die in the sense of the Hebrew word "mut".
End of 25-cent plant controversy.  You can't establish death-before-Adam by claiming veggies died.

Bottom line:  you're not committing Murder One against a celery stick.  The Bible never said you were doing so.  Put some mayo on it and eat it up.  Tastes good.  Lotsa antioxidant.  You'll love it.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Once again (that's what five or six today), you totally miss the point.

You can't have it both ways.  If Nephesh chayyah means "living soul" not "living thing", then the death of "the living soul" does not apply to things dying before the fall.  However, if you say that it does apply to things dying before the fall, then you are not taking the bible literally.

So which is it?


BTW:
Hebrew mut means "to kill" or "cause to die".  I can very easily mut a plant by pouring poison on the roots, just as I can mut a person. Mut is indeed a physical death.
Posted by: Doc Bill on Oct. 09 2009,18:41



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
FL farted:  "Ohhhhh, yes you do."
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Hey, FL, I'm rubber and you're glue.  Whatever you say bounces off of me and sticks to you!

So, here we go!  Ohhhhhh, no I don't.

Ya, see, FL old bean, I could make any outrageous, made-up, bullshit claim, as you well know since you obviously operate a World Class factory producing one crapola claim burger after another.

For example, I claim that Tinkerbell wrote the signature in the cell.  She's got little fingers, a magic wand and she can fly.  Prove me wrong.

Come on, FL, prove me wrong!  Come on, moron, refute me!!!

Don't believe me?  Then why does this amino sequence appear in EVERY protein of EVERY living thing?

aspartic acid - isoleucine - serine - asparagine - glutamic acid - tyrosine

Check and mate.
Posted by: deadman_932 on Oct. 09 2009,18:45

Just because I want to keep this on the front burner, Floyd:

Quote (deadman_932 @ Oct. 09 2009,17:50)
So let's be very specific, then, Floyd.

(1) You say that ultimate God-driven teleology and ontology are part of your BIG FIVE FANTASIES that neither the Pope or "evolution" can answer.

(2) I state that science itself (which includes evolutionary theory, Floyd) can't deal with concepts like ultimate deistic teleology and ontology or supernatural deities. I posted up quotes from the NAS and religious figures that agree with that view

(3) You post up quotes from apologist "scientists" purported to show that such things CAN be tested, etc. That they ARE part of a broader scientific view.

(4) I ask you to show HOW they can be investigated, via any possible scientific program...and you can't answer, but you think I should accept their word on it?

LOL

Show Me The Money, Baby!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: OgreMkV on Oct. 09 2009,19:40

Quote (Doc Bill @ Oct. 09 2009,18:41)
[quote]
Check and mate.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I think this only works if you're both playing chess.

You're playing chess.  He's playing go fish.
Posted by: Dan on Oct. 09 2009,20:45

Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 09 2009,15:03)
God does exist, He loves you, you hate Him (for whatever reasons, some of which you've alluded to), but that's not what is on the table right now.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Add to the long list of FL's errors:  He thinks he can read minds, but he can't.

I certainly don't hate God, and I haven't seen any evidence that any commentator here hates God.  (Except possibly FL, who thinks that anything bloody is incompatible with Christianity.  Thus God, who commanded the Israelites to commit genocide against the occupants of Canaan, is incompatible with Christianity.)
Posted by: Henry J on Oct. 10 2009,00:09

If "incompatability" is intended to mean logical contradiction, that can't be supported by battling quotations.

Support for that kind of claim has to be by means of logical deduction from the premises that are being claimed to be incompatable.

Of course, before that can be done, the premises have to be clearly stated and agreed upon.

-------



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Plants do not possess the "breath" of life; in fundie circles, that means that they are not, in fact, considered living things.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Well, if "breath" is taken to mean exchange of gases via lungs, then plants don't qualify. Then again, insects and fish don't use lungs for their breathing, either. (Well, most fish, anyway.)

-------



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
If you believe I am wrong, you may feel free to cite the specific chapter and verse which discusses the purpose of the sharp teeth of dinosaurs.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Another point: if a creature was given the anatomical equipment for hunting, then there's two choices: either it (or its ancestors) used to hunt, or the one giving that equipment knew it (or its descendants) was going to have to in the future.

Henry
Posted by: FloydLee on Oct. 10 2009,00:10

Just need to ask Dan one question before going further.

Given the following:
     

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
On Oct. 8th (yesterday), Todd Wood also wrote the following items at his blog:
     

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I believe that God created everything that you see in six consecutive days around 6000 years ago.

I believe that Adam and Eve were the very first humans and were directly created by God.

I believe Adam and Eve sinned, and that sin brought death, carnivory, disease, and suffering into the world.

I believe that people really lived to be 900+ years back then.

I believe that there was a truly global Flood that inundated the entire planet.

I believe that humans and land animals were preserved on an Ark (approximately 450 feet long for those keeping score).

I believe that the humans after the Flood gradually stopped living to be 900+.

I believe that the humans after the Flood tried to build a tower in Babel to prevent their dispersal across the globe, in direct contradiction to God's command.

I believe that God punished the builders of Babel by miraculously confusing their languages.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Dan, you responded by saying,
     

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
What Todd Wood states is incompatible with the facts, but it's not incompatible with the theory of evolution.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


So let me ask again.  Given that Todd Wood said THIS:
     

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I believe that Adam and Eve were the very first humans and were directly created by God.

I believe Adam and Eve sinned, and that sin brought death, carnivory, disease, and suffering into the world.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Is it still your position that Todd Wood's statements are not incompatible with the theory of evolution?
Posted by: FloydLee on Oct. 10 2009,00:15

Noticed something else (this is for CM)
 

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


 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
(CM)
The Bible is not referring to physical, but to spiritual death.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


This particular response was given by another poster CM, and was already responded to in detail. (In Gen 1 and Romans 5, the term "death" refers to both physical and spiritual death.)  
Posted by: deadman_932 on Oct. 10 2009,00:15

Quote (deadman_932 @ Oct. 08 2009,09:30)
I'll try to explain this as simply as possible, Floyd.

Your argument, like so many other bad arguments, was a composite. It had at least two legs that allowed you to equivocate as much as possible, running back and forth.

The first part of it was your insistence that your Big Five Fantasies had to be addressed by any Christian. it was then admitted by you that the Pope could be free to reject any or all of them and remain a Christian. Thus he never has to address them at all. He can accept any or all and remain a Christian, he could reject any or all and remain a Christian.

The second part is you tossing out quoted opinions by "evolutionists" that you claim run counter to belief in God. Upon examination, what the quotes primarily were saying was that science simply can't examine such notions. They are not amenable to scientific investigation for a large number of well-known reasons (falsifiability, reproducibility, changing concepts of God, etc.) Most importantly, they simply remain OPINIONS about what evolution means.

Believers are free to reject such interpretations. End of story.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



   
Quote (deadman_932 @ Oct. 09 2009,17:50)
So let's be very specific, then, Floyd.

(1) You say that ultimate God-driven teleology and ontology are part of your BIG FIVE FANTASIES that neither the Pope or "evolution" can answer.

(2) I state that science itself (which includes evolutionary theory, Floyd) can't deal with concepts like ultimate deistic teleology and ontology or supernatural deities. I posted up quotes from the NAS and religious figures that agree with that view

(3) You post up quotes from apologist "scientists" purported to show that such things CAN be tested, etc. That they ARE part of a broader scientific view.

(4) I ask you to show HOW they can be investigated, via any possible scientific program...and you can't answer, but you think I should accept their word on it?

LOL

Show Me The Money, Baby!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Couple these together and you have no argument left, Floyd. As I said before, the parrot is dead. You can keep trying to pretend " 'e's just pinin' for the fjords" but that will not resurrect your parrot. He's dead, deceased, joined the choir invisible.

Your Big Five Fantasies ony really had two legs, Floyd. Both of them have been cut off.

(1) From the Opposing Christian View, and by your own admission, the pope ( whose name is merely a place-holder for any Christian that accepts evolution) remains a christian whether he ever addresses your BFF at all

(2) From the Opposing  Scientific View

[a.] Your quotes from scientists don't have the weight of scientific consensus, they are opinion and as such, can be ignored.

[b.] You post up quotes claiming that they CANNOT be ignored because your apologist-scientists say that Divine Supernatural Teleology and Ontology (part of your BFF) somehow apply in science.

[b.1] You are asked to back that claim up by demonstrating HOW such questions can be addressed scientifically. You can't or won't reply, because your "scientists" have no such research program, and never will.


You can wave your hands like Monty Python's Black Knight, claim that you have legs to fight on when they're chopped off at the thigh.

In that same Pythonesque vein, your parrot is dead.

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

You're done, Floyd.


ETA: FloydLee Viewing Board index Oct. 10 2009, 00:38

Compare to the time stamp on this post. Floyd Lee was "active" (clicking links) long after I posted, but vanished from the board at 00:58.

You tend to do this a lot, don't you, Floyd? Of course, your excuse will be that you're a busy, busy fellow, right? Sure, Floyd -- you're Mr. Honesty. BWAHAHAHA.
Posted by: FloydLee on Oct. 10 2009,01:40

For Deadman, a couple notes:

(1)  Pages 84 and 85, you'll find it all in Chapter Two, Rocks of Ages, Stephen J. Gould.  Period.  He doesn't take any of it back and he doesn't water any of it down.  That quotation is exactly what he meant, not a penny less.

(2)  The only online reference or cite I have to Oldroyd's statement in the The Weekend Review (Australian) is the one provided by AIG:  
< http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v15/i4/compatible.asp >

Nevertheless, the reference is very specific.  Perhaps the people at your local library can track down that copy of the newspaper further.  In the meantime, nobody--including yourself--is able to dispute that Oldroyd's statement appears in that particular newspaper at that particular citation.

So you have Oldroyd's and Mayr's statements (and you already had access to the full Mayr article anyway), in direct contrast to what the Pope said.

At this point, it's time for you to stop stalling and fulfill the earlier promise you made.

(And btw, if you'll check back, your original promise was to answer my question if I answered your papal "Three If's" question.  Period. You didn't mention anything about having to look up any further references to the Weekend Review in addition to answering your question.)

So, I look forward to your answer now.  Tell me whether you agree with the Pope's specific statement that was given earlier, or with Oldroyd's and Mayr's specific statements instead.  One party or the other, period.

******

Hey, while searching around on Deadman's request, I found a couple of golden oldies online.  These will help readers understand why evolution is NOT compatible with Christianity.  Consider:
         

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Theologians, if they want to remain honest, should make a choice. You can claim your own magisterium, separate from science’s but still deserving of respect. But in that case you have to renounce miracles.

– evolutionist Richard Dawkins
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


         

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Those evolutionists who see no conflict between evolution and their religious beliefs have been careful not to look as closely as we have been looking, or else hold a religious view that gives God what we might call a merely ceremonial role to play.

–evolutionist Daniel Dennett
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



******

For Saturday, I will be checking on Deadman's answer, and probably responding briefly to it, but my primary focus will be on working on my promise to respond to  Dheddle one more time.  

(After Heddle, I might do some low-octane gig like tossing a one-liner Erasmus's way or something, maybe on Sunday).
Posted by: deadman_932 on Oct. 10 2009,01:41

It doesn't matter what you do, Floyd.

You have no valid arguments left.
Posted by: FloydLee on Oct. 10 2009,02:09

But you will keep your earlier promise, won't you Deadman?
Posted by: deadman_932 on Oct. 10 2009,02:30

Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 10 2009,02:09)
But you will keep your earlier promise, won't you Deadman?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Unlike you, I keep my word, Floyd. This is what you asked me to respond to: < http://www.antievolution.org/cgi-bin....y155497 >

I'll start by saying I don't have to agree with any theistic opinions of any scientist. Period. Fuck Dawkins, Gould, Mayr, or  whoever...IF they tried to dictate all forms of belief. But they don't. What they do say is that the scientific evidence doesn't support YOUR brand of reality-denying fundamentalist YEC literalism. Tough shit for you, eh, Floyd? Because I agree with them there. Your insane "the earth is 6000 years old, the fludde wuz REAL!!11!" bullshit is a joke.      

Christians who have genuine faith -- meaning that they don't run around like YECS trying to "prove" that which cannot (by definition ) be proven -- are free to place their faith in a prime mover god which created all things, including evolutionary forces. I have absolutely no problem with that.

In such cases and others, science has limits that preclude it from investigating or saying anything at all about that concept of God. I would agree with Mayr who says this leaves believers free to believe.

I won't comment on your "Oldroyd" quote because I don't know that AIG didn't just forge it, and neither do you. What I DO KNOW, and what I CAN demonstrate is that AIG has a typically disgusting YEC track record of quotemines and fake quotes.  

And I will remind you that none of your quotes from "evolutionists" carry any weight in scientific consensus. They are opinions based on their own conclusions as to the philosophical implications. I and anyone else remain free to reject such opinions.

Further, since all you have from the "evolutionist" science camp is quotes of opinions, or statements of fact concerning the limits of all of science...you have no valid arguments at all.  

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

Your only arguments for the incompatibility of evolution and Christianity was that you had your "Big Five Fantasies."

To try to pretend that those BFF's were valid, you tried to juggle three lines of fraudulent "evidence" :

1. You claimed that Christians had to address your BFF's (which you later admitted not to be true, they don't)

2. You used quotes from evolutionists that are shown invalidly applied to support your claim

3. You used quotes from apologist-"scientists" with you claiming that your BFF's Divine Teleology and Ontology DID apply to science. Unfortunately, you couldn't back that up either, other than by vapid empty words that show NO VIABLE SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH METHODOLOGY AT ALL.

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

As I said, you have no valid arguments -- no support for any of your BFF claims is left. I kept MY word by answering you in regard to those quotes that I can trust to be genuine. It's too bad that you didn't keep your word about various topics in this thread, Floyd, but I expect that from you.

In these sorts of interactions, YOU can act as dishonestly as you want, but because you ARE dishonest, using dishonest ploys...the truth will out, as it has already. If nothing else, Floyd, you lost because of that alone.
Posted by: Dan on Oct. 10 2009,06:52

Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 10 2009,00:10)
Just need to ask Dan one question before going further.

Given the following:
       

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
On Oct. 8th (yesterday), Todd Wood also wrote the following items at his blog:
       

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I believe that God created everything that you see in six consecutive days around 6000 years ago.

I believe that Adam and Eve were the very first humans and were directly created by God.

I believe Adam and Eve sinned, and that sin brought death, carnivory, disease, and suffering into the world.

I believe that people really lived to be 900+ years back then.

I believe that there was a truly global Flood that inundated the entire planet.

I believe that humans and land animals were preserved on an Ark (approximately 450 feet long for those keeping score).

I believe that the humans after the Flood gradually stopped living to be 900+.

I believe that the humans after the Flood tried to build a tower in Babel to prevent their dispersal across the globe, in direct contradiction to God's command.

I believe that God punished the builders of Babel by miraculously confusing their languages.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Dan, you responded by saying,
       

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
What Todd Wood states is incompatible with the facts, but it's not incompatible with the theory of evolution.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


So let me ask again.  Given that Todd Wood said THIS:
       

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I believe that Adam and Eve were the very first humans and were directly created by God.

I believe Adam and Eve sinned, and that sin brought death, carnivory, disease, and suffering into the world.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Is it still your position that Todd Wood's statements are not incompatible with the theory of evolution?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I've already answered that question here:

< http://www.antievolution.org/cgi-bin....y155865 >
Posted by: Dan on Oct. 10 2009,07:10

One of FL's "great incompatibilities" is that Christians hold that man was created by God in the image of God whereas evolution holds that the process of variation and natural selection that produced man had no particular outcome in mind.

The illogic of this is argument is easy to find: Christians hold that evolution is the tool that God used to produce man.  Of course the tools we use -- wrenches, hammers, screwdrivers -- have no particular outcome in mind.  They have nothing in mind -- they don't have minds!  They don't need to.

Not only is there no contradiction, but in fact the Bible provides a guide.  Some hold that God's creation ended at the end of creation week, but in II Maccabees, the Bible makes it clear that God creates every child before it goes into the womb.  Does this mean that the facts of sperm and egg fertilization are inconsistent with Christianity?  No.  Christians hold that sperm and egg are the tools God used to create us.
Posted by: Constant Mews on Oct. 10 2009,13:10

Quote (Henry J @ Oct. 10 2009,00:09)
If "incompatability" is intended to mean logical contradiction, that can't be supported by battling quotations.

Support for that kind of claim has to be by means of logical deduction from the premises that are being claimed to be incompatable.

Of course, before that can be done, the premises have to be clearly stated and agreed upon.

-------



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Plants do not possess the "breath" of life; in fundie circles, that means that they are not, in fact, considered living things.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Well, if "breath" is taken to mean exchange of gases via lungs, then plants don't qualify. Then again, insects and fish don't use lungs for their breathing, either. (Well, most fish, anyway.)

-------



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
If you believe I am wrong, you may feel free to cite the specific chapter and verse which discusses the purpose of the sharp teeth of dinosaurs.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Another point: if a creature was given the anatomical equipment for hunting, then there's two choices: either it (or its ancestors) used to hunt, or the one giving that equipment knew it (or its descendants) was going to have to in the future.

Henry
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I believe and must commend Henry for correctly identifying the key issue at stake here:

We must argue from the actual tenets of evolutionary theory and the actual tenets of Christianity to determine if any conflict exists.

Since FL seems comfortable with Futuyma, I will post the 20 tenets of evolutionary theory he identifies; I will also post the Nicene creed, the primal statement of Christian beliefs.  If no logical contradiction can be found between these two sets of definitions, then FL is provably wrong about any conflict.

FL, do you understand what needs to be done here?  Do you understand that argument by quotation of opinions is meaningless?

Oh, and have you withdrawn your lies about the posters here hating God?
Posted by: Constant Mews on Oct. 10 2009,13:24

We will begin with the Nicene Creed (of which, alas, many slightly variant forms exist).  Nonetheless it remains a cornerstone of the Christian faith, and the clearest definition of what it means to be a Christian.

As follows:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
   We believe in one God,

       the Father, the Almighty
       maker of heaven and earth,
       of all that is, seen and unseen.

   We believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ,

       the only Son of God,
       eternally begotten of the Father,
       God from God, Light from Light,
       true God from true God,
       begotten, not made,
       of one Being with the Father.
       Through him all things were made.
       For us men and for our salvation

           he came down from heaven:

       by the power of the Holy Spirit

           he became incarnate from the Virgin Mary, and was made man.

       For our sake he was crucified under Pontius Pilate;

           he suffered death and was buried.

       On the third day he rose again

           in accordance with the Scriptures;

       he ascended into heaven

           and is seated at the right hand of the Father.

       He will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead,

           and his kingdom will have no end

   We believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of Life,

       who proceeds from the Father and the Son.
       With the Father and the Son he is worshipped and glorified.
       He has spoken through the Prophets.
       We believe in one holy catholic and apostolic Church.
       We acknowledge one baptism for the forgiveness of sins.
       We look for the resurrection of the dead,

           and the life of the world to come. Amen.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: OgreMkV on Oct. 10 2009,13:27

Quote (OgreMkV @ Oct. 08 2009,13:43)
Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 08 2009,12:34)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
You kept rambling on about how the Pope hadn't addressed them,
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


....Because you and others kept rambling on about how the Pope, as a Christian who accepts evolution under certain conditions (but not others), has somehow negated and neutralized each of the Big Five Incompatibilities as pointed out by professional scientist evolutionists.  

So I've been asking -- repeatedly & specifically --  how the Pope did that, and you seem to have no specific answers other than "the Pope accepts evolution."
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Floyd, as a point to debating.  It's actually up to you to prove that your big 5 are required by the pope.  

This debate is about the incompatability of evolution with Christianity not about scienctists or about personal opinions or about anything else.

How's this for starters
Christiantity
1) the Bible is the only perfect rule for faith, doctrine, and conduct
2) the necessity of the new birth in Jesus Christ
3) the Church as a fellowship of believers.
4) a conscious dependence on the Holy Spirit.

Evolution
"In the broadest sense, evolution is merely change, and so is all-pervasive; galaxies, languages, and political systems all evolve. Biological evolution ... is change in the properties of populations of organisms that transcend the lifetime of a single individual. The ontogeny of an individual is not considered evolution; individual organisms do not evolve. The changes in populations that are considered evolutionary are those that are inheritable via the genetic material from one generation to the next. Biological evolution may be slight or substantial; it embraces everything from slight changes in the proportion of different alleles within a population (such as those determining blood types) to the successive alterations that led from the earliest protoorganism to snails, bees, giraffes, and dandelions."


Please point out where these two definitions are incompatible.
If these are not the definitions you use for Christianity, then post your definition of Christianity.

There are three requests for you in this post Floyd, please be so good as to answer them.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I tried this several days ago.  Good luck in getting an answer.
Posted by: Constant Mews on Oct. 10 2009,13:28

Again, for FL's benefit, I point out that by moving to actual doctrinal statements, we are leaving behind the world of opinion and counter-opinion which is meaningless.

FL demanded to know that my acceptance of evolutionary theory and Christianity was a reasonable one.  I see no other way to establish this for him.
Posted by: Constant Mews on Oct. 10 2009,13:31

Quote (OgreMkV @ Oct. 10 2009,13:27)
Quote (OgreMkV @ Oct. 08 2009,13:43)
Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 08 2009,12:34)
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
You kept rambling on about how the Pope hadn't addressed them,
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


....Because you and others kept rambling on about how the Pope, as a Christian who accepts evolution under certain conditions (but not others), has somehow negated and neutralized each of the Big Five Incompatibilities as pointed out by professional scientist evolutionists.  

So I've been asking -- repeatedly & specifically --  how the Pope did that, and you seem to have no specific answers other than "the Pope accepts evolution."
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Floyd, as a point to debating.  It's actually up to you to prove that your big 5 are required by the pope.  

This debate is about the incompatability of evolution with Christianity not about scienctists or about personal opinions or about anything else.

How's this for starters
Christiantity
1) the Bible is the only perfect rule for faith, doctrine, and conduct
2) the necessity of the new birth in Jesus Christ
3) the Church as a fellowship of believers.
4) a conscious dependence on the Holy Spirit.

Evolution
"In the broadest sense, evolution is merely change, and so is all-pervasive; galaxies, languages, and political systems all evolve. Biological evolution ... is change in the properties of populations of organisms that transcend the lifetime of a single individual. The ontogeny of an individual is not considered evolution; individual organisms do not evolve. The changes in populations that are considered evolutionary are those that are inheritable via the genetic material from one generation to the next. Biological evolution may be slight or substantial; it embraces everything from slight changes in the proportion of different alleles within a population (such as those determining blood types) to the successive alterations that led from the earliest protoorganism to snails, bees, giraffes, and dandelions."


Please point out where these two definitions are incompatible.
If these are not the definitions you use for Christianity, then post your definition of Christianity.

There are three requests for you in this post Floyd, please be so good as to answer them.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I tried this several days ago.  Good luck in getting an answer.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


The comforting part is the recognition that unless FL actually makes some attempt to address these points, his argument is meaningless.  It is quite possible that FL himself is unable to profit from this - that he is, in the end, not amenable to reason and logic.

But I suspect that part of his strong avoidance at this juncture is simple fear: he realizes that a serious attempt to address the problem will result in the destruction of his shibboleths.  That's hard for the young to deal with.
Posted by: OgreMkV on Oct. 10 2009,14:07

I agree totally, which does bring us to the whole doctrinal crisis thing.  The more fundamentalist positions one takes, the more problematic they are, especially when they realize that none of the things they believe make sense.

Most rational Christians have no problems with science or evolution because they realize the difference between the time the bible was written and now and that the new testament basically allows worship however one pleases regardless of belief in everything else.

It's very unfortunate that the rest of us have to deal with the problems caused by many of these fundamentalists when they get into positions of power and try to force their insanity on us.
Posted by: Constant Mews on Oct. 10 2009,14:45

Quote (OgreMkV @ Oct. 10 2009,14:07)
I agree totally, which does bring us to the whole doctrinal crisis thing.  The more fundamentalist positions one takes, the more problematic they are, especially when they realize that none of the things they believe make sense.

Most rational Christians have no problems with science or evolution because they realize the difference between the time the bible was written and now and that the new testament basically allows worship however one pleases regardless of belief in everything else.

It's very unfortunate that the rest of us have to deal with the problems caused by many of these fundamentalists when they get into positions of power and try to force their insanity on us.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Civilisation changes or advances according to the drives and motives of a small handful of individuals; those forceful enough to impose their ideas on the populace.  Sometimes those motives are good (the elimination of slavery or interracial marriage), sometimes they are bad (ID and other forms of creationism that destroy the educational system).  As a collective, we need to police these drivers.  How?
Posted by: OgreMkV on Oct. 10 2009,14:59

That's the big problem with democracy.  The majority of the people really don't have a clue about what's going on, don't do any research, and that includes the people in power.

Personally, I think we about to bring back the concept of 'the citizen'... those people that have somehow contributed to society or have met some minimum requirements (degree, job, not on welfare, etc).  But that's just me...

Sorry for the thread jack.

Since we've beaten down the evolution is incompatible with Christianity argument, can we go to the teach ID thing... I've got some really good questions for FLoyd.
Posted by: Constant Mews on Oct. 10 2009,15:07

Quote (OgreMkV @ Oct. 10 2009,14:59)
That's the big problem with democracy.  The majority of the people really don't have a clue about what's going on, don't do any research, and that includes the people in power.

Personally, I think we about to bring back the concept of 'the citizen'... those people that have somehow contributed to society or have met some minimum requirements (degree, job, not on welfare, etc).  But that's just me...

Sorry for the thread jack.

Since we've beaten down the evolution is incompatible with Christianity argument, can we go to the teach ID thing... I've got some really good questions for FLoyd.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I'd like to see if Floyd has any capacity to understand the key flaw in his attempts to argue the current point:

to wit, that he is not arguing that the basic tenets of evolutionary theory and Christianity conflict, but rather than the opinions of a small group of individuals about those tenets are in conflict.

Only a child would argue this way.  Let's see if Floyd can behave like an adult.
Posted by: Constant Mews on Oct. 10 2009,15:11

Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 10 2009,00:15)
Noticed something else (this is for CM)
 

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


 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
(CM)
The Bible is not referring to physical, but to spiritual death.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


This particular response was given by another poster CM, and was already responded to in detail. (In Gen 1 and Romans 5, the term "death" refers to both physical and spiritual death.)  
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I'm sorry, Floyd, but this is false.  Certainly evolutionary theory requires physical death (both of plants and animals, I must point out), but Romans does not actually require or demand physical death for anything but humans.

In addition, Genesis in this context much clearly be interpreted as spiritual death, or Genesis is demanding that God be a liar, since Adam certainly did not die on the day that he ate of the Tree.

I have studied theology in Paris and Rome, Floyd.  Your understanding of theology and exegesis is trivial and simplistic.  You can't win on these points.
Posted by: khan on Oct. 10 2009,15:11

Quote (Constant Mews @ Oct. 10 2009,16:07)
Quote (OgreMkV @ Oct. 10 2009,14:59)
That's the big problem with democracy.  The majority of the people really don't have a clue about what's going on, don't do any research, and that includes the people in power.

Personally, I think we about to bring back the concept of 'the citizen'... those people that have somehow contributed to society or have met some minimum requirements (degree, job, not on welfare, etc).  But that's just me...

Sorry for the thread jack.

Since we've beaten down the evolution is incompatible with Christianity argument, can we go to the teach ID thing... I've got some really good questions for FLoyd.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I'd like to see if Floyd has any capacity to understand the key flaw in his attempts to argue the current point:

to wit, that he is not arguing that the basic tenets of evolutionary theory and Christianity conflict, but rather than the opinions of a small group of individuals about those tenets are in conflict.

Only a child would argue this way.  Let's see if Floyd can behave like an adult.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Don't hold your breath.
Posted by: Constant Mews on Oct. 10 2009,15:15

Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 10 2009,00:15)
Noticed something else (this is for CM)
 

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


 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
(CM)
The Bible is not referring to physical, but to spiritual death.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


This particular response was given by another poster CM, and was already responded to in detail. (In Gen 1 and Romans 5, the term "death" refers to both physical and spiritual death.)  
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Actually, Floyd, looking back on the thread, I must point out that you have NOT dealt with this issue.  No "detailed" response was ever made by you to resolve it.

Please, Floyd, it is important not to bear false witness about those points you yourself have raised - it's too easy to verify that you are telling falsehoods.
Posted by: Constant Mews on Oct. 10 2009,15:19

Floyd, you demanded that I show my acceptance of evolution reasonable in the light of my Christian faith.  I have done so.

Now it's your turn: you need to show that the actual tenets of evolutionary theory are in conflict with the actual tenets of Christianity.

You can't.
Posted by: Constant Mews on Oct. 10 2009,17:21

In order to help Floyd understand the profoundly fallacious reasoning he is using, I will provide an example:

Floyd said:

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
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.

"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:

"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."
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Note that Floyd has helpfully provided what he accepts as a definition of evolution.

But in addition, Floyd provides something else: an opinion about evolutionary theory from Futuyma:


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

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

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



Note the basic problem: the theory of evolution as defined by Floyd does not, in fact, accord with the opinion of Futuyma that Floyd provided.

How do you reconcile that, Floyd?
Posted by: Cubist on Oct. 10 2009,17:40

One point nobody has raised yet: According to our boy Floyd, the 'death' we are saved from by Christ's sacrifice is physical death. Not spiritual death, not the death of the soul; but, rather, physical death, the death of the body. But Christians' bodies die all the time -- heck, there are entire cemetaries filled with the dead bodies of Christians! So... if our boy Floyd is right about how Christ's sacrifice was intended to save us from physical death... if that's true, Christ's sacrifice is a sham regardless of how valid evolution is or is not!

Creationism in action, folks: Lousy science, and worse theology.
Posted by: Amadan on Oct. 10 2009,19:02

No, I don't think that's a fair comment. As far as I recall, Floyd's opinion is that the Fall introduced death of both the body and soul.

Which does nothing to account for Jesus' Y chromosome, but then again it's late. Oíche mhaith agus codladh sámh ó mBaile Átha Cliath
Posted by: Keelyn on Oct. 10 2009,23:00

Just a reminder, Floyd - it is October 10th. You only have until November 1st to prove your points and you have yet to really touch on the "Biblical Perspective of Biology" let alone "How ID is Real Science (and belongs in public school science classes)." Your clock is running down. But, I'm sure you know what you're doing, yes?
Posted by: Keelyn on Oct. 11 2009,01:44

It says I made a post - damned if I can see it. So anyway - just a reminder, Floyd. It's October 11th. You only have until November 1st to prove your points. And you have yet to really touch on "The Biblical Perspective of Biology" let alone "ID is Real Science (and sgould be included in the public school science class." Clock is running down. But, you know what you're doing, yes?
Posted by: Keelyn on Oct. 11 2009,01:46

Stupid thing. Now it shows up - after a second post. Oh well - anyway ...get on with it, Floyd. You have lost this round - maybe you can do better. One down, two to go. :)
Posted by: Constant Mews on Oct. 11 2009,01:48

Since Futuyma is frequently mentioned, I will add one more quote that might be of interest to Floyd, since it clarifies Futuyma's position:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
The philosopher Daniel Dennett called natural selection “Darwin’s dangerous idea” for a good reason: it is a very simple natural mechanism that explains the appearance of design in living things. Before Darwin, the adaptations and exquisite complexity of organisms were ascribed to creation by an omnipotent, beneficent designer, namely God, and indeed were among the major arguments for the existence of such a designer. Darwin’s (and Wallace’s) concept of natural selection made this “argument from design” completely superfluous. It accomplished for biology what Newton and his successors had accomplished in physics: it provided a purely natural explanation for order and the appearance of design. It made the features of organisms explicable by processes that can be studied by science instead of ascribing them to miracles. The contemporary “intelligent design” movement is simply a repetition of the predarwinian argument, and of course it cannot be taken seriously as a scientific explanation of the properties of living things.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: Constant Mews on Oct. 11 2009,01:52

Quote (Amadan @ Oct. 10 2009,19:02)
No, I don't think that's a fair comment. As far as I recall, Floyd's opinion is that the Fall introduced death of both the body and soul.

Which does nothing to account for Jesus' Y chromosome, but then again it's late. Oíche mhaith agus codladh sámh ó mBaile Átha Cliath
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I think he's actually correct; it's not a question of whether Adam's sin introduced physical and spiritual death (it's clear from the context that it's only spiritual death), but the fact that if Floyd is claiming that the reference is to physical and spiritual death, then Christ's sacrifice must logically have redeemed us from physical death.  Which it hasn't.
Posted by: Cubist on Oct. 11 2009,02:52

Quote (Constant Mews @ Oct. 11 2009,01:52)
 
Quote (Amadan @ Oct. 10 2009,19:02)
No, I don't think that's a fair comment. As far as I recall, Floyd's opinion is that the Fall introduced death of both the body and soul.

Which does nothing to account for Jesus' Y chromosome, but then again it's late. Oíche mhaith agus codladh sámh ó mBaile Átha Cliath
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I think he's actually correct; it's not a question of whether Adam's sin introduced physical and spiritual death (it's clear from the context that it's only spiritual death), but the fact that if Floyd is claiming that the reference is to physical and spiritual death, then Christ's sacrifice must logically have redeemed us from physical death.  Which it hasn't.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


What CM said. Whatever we're supposed to have been saved from by Christ's sacrifice, the fact that Christians' bodies drop dead all over the place means that one of two things must be true: Either (a) Christ's sacrifice wasn't supposed to save us from mere brute physical death, or else (b) Christ's sacrifice was a total failure. Or, if you like, either (a) no-death-before-the-Fall is not even a theologically-valid argument against evolution, or else (b) Christ was a totally lame loser. We leave it as an exercise for the reader to figure out why a sincere, devout Christian like Floyd is okay with declaring Christ to be a totally lame loser...
Posted by: Dale_Husband on Oct. 11 2009,06:44

I can't beleive this is still going on!

I thought I established that Christianity is based on JESUS and his teachings, NOT on some absurd assumptions about the literal meaning of the Genesis creation myths.

The Pope, head of the largest branch of Christianity, has affirmed that Catholics can beleive in evolution. Many members of other Christian denominations also affirm evolution. The only thing FL has established here is that evolution is not compatible with HIS extremist form of Christianity. That is all.
Posted by: Dan on Oct. 11 2009,07:34

Quote (Constant Mews @ Oct. 10 2009,13:10)
We must argue from the actual tenets of evolutionary theory and the actual tenets of Christianity to determine if any conflict exists.

Since FL seems comfortable with Futuyma, I will post the 20 tenets of evolutionary theory he identifies; I will also post the Nicene creed, the primal statement of Christian beliefs.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Constant Mews:

I see and I appreciate your posting of the Nicene Creed.

I can't find your posting of the 20 tenets concerning evolution from Futuyma.

Perhaps you got distracted, or perhaps it got lost in the ether[net], but either way, I'd appreciate seeing them.

Thanks,
Dan
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Oct. 11 2009,22:13

Quote (Erasmus, FCD @ Oct. 05 2009,12:44)
Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Oct. 05 2009,01:15)
Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Oct. 02 2009,13:38)
 
Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 02 2009,12:03)
     

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Is "God" part of the required explanation for why water runs downhill?

Yes or no.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Nope.  He's not.  Furthermore, hydrologists (unlike evolutionists) are silent on the issue of God as a required explantion.

(Please note, however:  In the Bible, God IS the required explanation for the origin of water itself.)

And also He is the Required Explanation for the origin of plants, animals, and (this is where you come in) humans too.

snip
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


why is god not part of the required explanation for why water runs downhill, when he is part of the required explanation for the EXISTENCE OF WATER?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


---------------------QUOTE-------------------


---------------------QUOTE-------------------


wow he posts four pages of drivel and still can't address this.

Floyd, you need more than a one liner, you need to see if Regis will let you call Jesus on the mainline and tell him what you want.
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Oct. 11 2009,22:16

Quote (Erasmus, FCD @ Oct. 02 2009,13:38)
Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 02 2009,12:03)
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Is "God" part of the required explanation for why water runs downhill?

Yes or no.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Nope.  He's not.  Furthermore, hydrologists (unlike evolutionists) are silent on the issue of God as a required explantion.

(Please note, however:  In the Bible, God IS the required explanation for the origin of water itself.)

And also He is the Required Explanation for the origin of plants, animals, and (this is where you come in) humans too.

Of course, evolution and evolutionists deny that.  Which is why there's an Incompatiblity there.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


why is god not part of the required explanation for why water runs downhill, when he is part of the required explanation for the EXISTENCE OF WATER?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


you've had 9 days, pussy.

you got nothing.
Posted by: Constant Mews on Oct. 11 2009,22:30

Quote (Dan @ Oct. 11 2009,07:34)
Quote (Constant Mews @ Oct. 10 2009,13:10)
We must argue from the actual tenets of evolutionary theory and the actual tenets of Christianity to determine if any conflict exists.

Since FL seems comfortable with Futuyma, I will post the 20 tenets of evolutionary theory he identifies; I will also post the Nicene creed, the primal statement of Christian beliefs.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Constant Mews:

I see and I appreciate your posting of the Nicene Creed.

I can't find your posting of the 20 tenets concerning evolution from Futuyma.

Perhaps you got distracted, or perhaps it got lost in the ether[net], but either way, I'd appreciate seeing them.

Thanks,
Dan
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I will be posting it tomorrow; it has been a busy weekend.
Posted by: FloydLee on Oct. 11 2009,22:40

Okay, back again.  Brief responses for Deadman and Dan, then response to Heddle, a one-or-two liner for Erasmus, then go from there, (Nicene Creed looks good for a reply or two).

******

A note for Keelyn:  you wrote---
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
You only have until November 1st to prove your points
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


And the same for you, of course.  (And no you haven't done so yet.)

But a bit of realism may be helpful here:  Nobody here is going to admit that anything was "proven" to them.

When is the last time you attended or participated in a public debate where either side said, "Golly gee, you're right I'm wrong, you proved yours I didn't prove mine, therefore I surrender"?

No, that doesn't happen in the real world.  What happens in the real world is that both sides walk away believing they've won--(and if they're smart, they'll retain a copy of the debate transcript for further study and spin control.)  

You've got some people around here already declaring victory, even though they have had to ignore (not to mention misrepresent) certain things in order to make the declaration.  

I'm sure that's likely to happen wholesale on Nov. 1 and 2, but I honestly don't care.  The fact is that the things for which I was listening and learning, I'm pretty much there now.  This upcoming week is, AFAIK, wrapup-phase for me.  

(Won't take long to do the "Biblical Perspective on Biology part", btw, then go on to "ID as science", which is a claim you're likely not going to accept anyway.)  

To answer your question though, yes I do know what I'm doing, and I will be quite ready to apply the discussion and learning experiences from this forum to new endeavors.  

For that, I am sincerely grateful to you and your fellow evolutionists.  For now, however, it's time to do those aforementioned responses.
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Oct. 11 2009,22:51

Quote (Erasmus, FCD @ Oct. 11 2009,23:13)
Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Oct. 05 2009,12:44)
Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Oct. 05 2009,01:15)
 
Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Oct. 02 2009,13:38)
   
Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 02 2009,12:03)
      Is "God" part of the required explanation for why water runs downhill?

Yes or no.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Nope.  He's not.  Furthermore, hydrologists (unlike evolutionists) are silent on the issue of God as a required explantion.

(Please note, however:  In the Bible, God IS the required explanation for the origin of water itself.)

And also He is the Required Explanation for the origin of plants, animals, and (this is where you come in) humans too.

snip
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


why is god not part of the required explanation for why water runs downhill, when he is part of the required explanation for the EXISTENCE OF WATER?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


---------------------QUOTE-------------------


---------------------QUOTE-------------------


???
Posted by: deadman_932 on Oct. 11 2009,22:53

Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 11 2009,22:40)
When is the last time you attended or participated in a public debate
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


This isn't a "debate."

Your dishonesty ensured that.
Posted by: FloydLee on Oct. 11 2009,22:54



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Quote those evolutionist scientists who offer "opposite opinions" that refute the Big Five Incompatibilities.  Substantive, considered opinions, reconciliations of the Big Five, from fellow evolutionists.  Please quote 'em.  I've been waiting for somebody to do that, all thread long.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Hmmm.  This sincere (and important) request was not answered.  Must be a very difficult gig for the homies to accomplish, aye.....

:)
Posted by: Constant Mews on Oct. 11 2009,22:56

Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 11 2009,22:54)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Quote those evolutionist scientists who offer "opposite opinions" that refute the Big Five Incompatibilities.  Substantive, considered opinions, reconciliations of the Big Five, from fellow evolutionists.  Please quote 'em.  I've been waiting for somebody to do that, all thread long.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Hmmm.  This sincere (and important) request was not answered.  Must be a very difficult gig for the homies to accomplish, aye.....

:)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Floyd, you have failed to address a number of my posts which deal with this very issue: I have pointed out that such 'opinions' are valueless in establishing whether or not evolutionary theory conflicts with Christianity.

You have to look at the actual specific tenets of the theory.  And the actual definition of Christianity.

Based on what you have provided for each of these, there is NO conflict at all.

Do you understand this?  You, yourself, have established that there is no conflict between Christianity and evolution.
Posted by: Constant Mews on Oct. 11 2009,22:57

Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 11 2009,22:54)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Quote those evolutionist scientists who offer "opposite opinions" that refute the Big Five Incompatibilities.  Substantive, considered opinions, reconciliations of the Big Five, from fellow evolutionists.  Please quote 'em.  I've been waiting for somebody to do that, all thread long.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Hmmm.  This sincere (and important) request was not answered.  Must be a very difficult gig for the homies to accomplish, aye.....

:)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


"homies"?  What are you referring to?
Posted by: Constant Mews on Oct. 11 2009,22:58

Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 11 2009,22:40)
Okay, back again.  Brief responses for Deadman and Dan, then response to Heddle, a one-or-two liner for Erasmus, then go from there, (Nicene Creed looks good for a reply or two).

******

A note for Keelyn:  you wrote---
   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
You only have until November 1st to prove your points
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


And the same for you, of course.  (And no you haven't done so yet.)

But a bit of realism may be helpful here:  Nobody here is going to admit that anything was "proven" to them.

When is the last time you attended or participated in a public debate where either side said, "Golly gee, you're right I'm wrong, you proved yours I didn't prove mine, therefore I surrender"?

No, that doesn't happen in the real world.  What happens in the real world is that both sides walk away believing they've won--(and if they're smart, they'll retain a copy of the debate transcript for further study and spin control.)  

You've got some people around here already declaring victory, even though they have had to ignore (not to mention misrepresent) certain things in order to make the declaration.  

I'm sure that's likely to happen wholesale on Nov. 1 and 2, but I honestly don't care.  The fact is that the things for which I was listening and learning, I'm pretty much there now.  This upcoming week is, AFAIK, wrapup-phase for me.  

(Won't take long to do the "Biblical Perspective on Biology part", btw, then go on to "ID as science", which is a claim you're likely not going to accept anyway.)  

To answer your question though, yes I do know what I'm doing, and I will be quite ready to apply the discussion and learning experiences from this forum to new endeavors.  

For that, I am sincerely grateful to you and your fellow evolutionists.  For now, however, it's time to do those aforementioned responses.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


But Floyd, you have yet to begin the debate.  Do you actually understand how a debate works?  Apparently not.
Posted by: deadman_932 on Oct. 11 2009,22:58

Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 11 2009,22:54)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Quote those evolutionist scientists who offer "opposite opinions" that refute the Big Five Incompatibilities.  Substantive, considered opinions, reconciliations of the Big Five, from fellow evolutionists.  Please quote 'em.  I've been waiting for somebody to do that, all thread long.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Hmmm.  This sincere (and important) request was not answered.  Must be a very difficult gig for the homies to accomplish, aye.....

:)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


No one needed to do all you claim to "need" Floyd. Logically, all that one had to do was post recognized statements about what science can and cannot do.

Your Big Five Fantasies simply aren't applicable and/or susceptible to the scientific method.

You haven't demonstrated otherwise. You were asked to back your "apologist scientist" claims and you simply ran away from that.
Posted by: OgreMkV on Oct. 11 2009,22:59

Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 11 2009,22:54)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Quote those evolutionist scientists who offer "opposite opinions" that refute the Big Five Incompatibilities.  Substantive, considered opinions, reconciliations of the Big Five, from fellow evolutionists.  Please quote 'em.  I've been waiting for somebody to do that, all thread long.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Hmmm.  This sincere (and important) request was not answered.  Must be a very difficult gig for the homies to accomplish, aye.....

:)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


This is just like the "Why not teach the controversy" plees.  To anyone who knows what they're talking about, there are no Big 5 incompatibilities, so why try to refute something that doesn't exist.

You're right Floyd, the pope has never considered your Big 5.  As I said earlier. you are the only person I have ever heard even mention these.  Hundreds of theologians who are way smarter than you don't see a problem, so why should they bother answering them?

Ohh, yeah.  I forgot, you're right and every rational christian is wrong.
Posted by: Constant Mews on Oct. 11 2009,23:00

And of course I have not declared victory; you have not yet begun to have a rational discussion.

Again: you have established, based on the definitions for Christianity and evolution that you provided, that there is no conflict between Christianity and evolution.

Your definitions, Floyd.  How do you reconcile that problem?
Posted by: FloydLee on Oct. 11 2009,23:02

Deadman said:
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
And I will remind you that none of your quotes from "evolutionists" carry any weight in scientific consensus.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


But how do you **know** this, Deadman?  You have not offered a single published evolutionist scientist quotation to negate any of the specific professional evolutionist statements that were offered in support of the Big Five.  I did ask, you know.

Surely you could have done so by now, given the length of this debate.  Yet you haven't.  No published evolutionary scientist refutations coming from you.  

May I suggest to you that the professional evolutionist statements I've offered to you come closest to being the consensus?
Posted by: deadman_932 on Oct. 11 2009,23:03

Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 11 2009,23:02)
Deadman said:
     

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
And I will remind you that none of your quotes from "evolutionists" carry any weight in scientific consensus.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


But how do you **know** this, Deadman?  You have not offered a single published evolutionist scientist quotation to negate any of the specific professional evolutionist statements that were offered in support of the Big Five.  I did ask, you know.

Surely you could have done so by now, given the length of this debate.  Yet you haven't.  No published evolutionary scientist refutations coming from you.  

May I suggest to you that the professional evolutionist statements I've offered to you come closest to being the consensus?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I gave you the NAS statement which is respresentative of the consensus of an entire group of scientists. There are similar statements from other representative GROUPS (not mere individuals).


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

Here's where you stand again, Floyd:

Your only argument for the incompatibility of evolution and Christianity was that you had your "Big Five Fantasies."

To try to pretend that those BFF's were valid, you tried to juggle three lines of fraudulent "evidence" :

1. You claimed that Christians (like the Pope) had to address your BFF's. Then you later later admit this not to be true, they don't have to address your Fantasies at all, and they can still remain Christians in your OWN VIEW....while accepting evolution!!!

2. You used quotes from evolutionists that are shown invalidly applied to support your claim

3. You used quotes from apologist-"scientists" with you claiming that your BFF's Divine Teleology and Ontology DID apply to science. Unfortunately, you couldn't back that up either, other than by vapid empty words that show NO VIABLE SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH METHODOLOGY AT ALL.
Posted by: FloydLee on Oct. 11 2009,23:06

(Musical side note: it is very cool to listen to Emerson Lake and Palmer's "Hoedown" while participating in this debate.  Also Paul Speer's "Prelude Oculus", and "Matrix Gate" by Planet X.)
Posted by: Constant Mews on Oct. 11 2009,23:08

Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 11 2009,23:02)
Deadman said:
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
And I will remind you that none of your quotes from "evolutionists" carry any weight in scientific consensus.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


But how do you **know** this, Deadman?  You have not offered a single published evolutionist scientist quotation to negate any of the specific professional evolutionist statements that were offered in support of the Big Five.  I did ask, you know.

Surely you could have done so by now, given the length of this debate.  Yet you haven't.  No published evolutionary scientist refutations coming from you.  

May I suggest to you that the professional evolutionist statements I've offered to you come closest to being the consensus?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


We could, but we don't actually have to: you have to see what the theory itself says, and not what various scientists claim the theory says.

Do you actually understand the difference, Floyd?  I realize that the theory can be quite difficult for the uneducated to deal with, but the basics are quite simple.

Indeed, the very definition of evolution that you provided contradicts the quotes and opinions of scientists that you provided.
Posted by: deadman_932 on Oct. 11 2009,23:10

What would be more impressive is you actually dealing with your lack of viable arguments, Floyd. See my post above, and those of others.
Posted by: FloydLee on Oct. 11 2009,23:15



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I gave you the NAS statement which is respresentative of the consensus of an entire group of scientists
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Oh yes, I remember your NAS quotation.  Not only did it NOT specifically address (let alone offer any reconcilation) of the Big Five Incompatibilities as I requested, it actually brought up and reinforced the infamous NOMA surrender-demand that was popularized by SJ Gould in Rocks Of Ages.

Next time you do a debate on incompatibility, Deadman, you may just wanna leave off the NAS quotation.  That little evo-sales-pitch is a STANDOUT example of incompatibility, all by itself.

FloydLee
Posted by: OgreMkV on Oct. 11 2009,23:17

Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 11 2009,23:15)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I gave you the NAS statement which is respresentative of the consensus of an entire group of scientists
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Oh yes, I remember your NAS quotation.  Not only did it NOT specifically address (let alone offer any reconcilation) of the Big Five Incompatibilities as I requested, it actually brought up and reinforced the infamous NOMA surrender-demand that was popularized by SJ Gould in Rocks Of Ages.

Next time you do a debate on incompatibility, Deadman, you may just wanna leave off the NAS quotation.  That little evo-sales-pitch is a STANDOUT example of incompatibility, all by itself.

FloydLee
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Geez, it wasn't supposed to.  Do you even remember what you wrote 20 minutes or so ago?
Posted by: Constant Mews on Oct. 11 2009,23:17

Floyd, I note that you have failed to address any of the last dozen or so of my posts.  Is this due to incapacity?  Or am I not being clear enough?

The definition of evolution you provided contradicts the opinions you have presented from various scientists.

What matters is the theory, not the opinions.  Do you understand this?
Posted by: deadman_932 on Oct. 11 2009,23:21

Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 11 2009,23:15)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I gave you the NAS statement which is respresentative of the consensus of an entire group of scientists
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Oh yes, I remember your NAS quotation.  Not only did it NOT specifically address (let alone offer any reconcilation) of the Big Five Incompatibilities as I requested, it actually brought up and reinforced the infamous NOMA surrender-demand that was popularized by SJ Gould in Rocks Of Ages.

Next time you do a debate on incompatibility, Deadman, you may just wanna leave off the NAS quotation.  That little evo-sales-pitch is a STANDOUT example of incompatibility, all by itself.

FloydLee
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


It stated things quite clearly, Floyd.

Science cannot address questions of supernatural deities and ultimate deistic teleology and ontology. I realize you don't like that, but science has limits.

When you are asked to show any examples of research methods to demonstrate otherwise, you flail and fail
Posted by: FloydLee on Oct. 11 2009,23:24



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Floyd, I note that you have failed to address any of the last dozen or so of my posts.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


This is incorrect.  Did you not see the reference to the "Nicene Creed" in my response to Keelyn?  However, I intend to follow the order I stated; please keep that in mind.
Posted by: deadman_932 on Oct. 11 2009,23:27

Here's where you stand again, Floyd:

Your only argument for the incompatibility of evolution and Christianity was that you had your "Big Five Fantasies."

To try to pretend that those BFF's were valid, you tried to juggle three lines of fraudulent "evidence" :

1. You claimed that Christians (like the Pope) had to address your BFF's. Then you later later admit this not to be true, they don't have to address your Fantasies at all, and they can still remain Christians in your OWN VIEW....while accepting evolution!!!

2. You used quotes from evolutionists that are shown invalidly applied to support your claim

3. You used quotes from apologist-"scientists" with you claiming that your BFF's Divine Teleology and Ontology DID apply to science.

Unfortunately, you couldn't back that up either, other than by vapid empty words that show NO VIABLE SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH METHODOLOGY AT ALL.
Posted by: Dan on Oct. 12 2009,03:11

Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 11 2009,23:02)
Deadman said:
     

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
And I will remind you that none of your quotes from "evolutionists" carry any weight in scientific consensus.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


But how do you **know** this, Deadman?  You have not offered a single published evolutionist scientist quotation to negate any of the specific professional evolutionist statements that were offered in support of the Big Five.  I did ask, you know.

Surely you could have done so by now, given the length of this debate.  Yet you haven't.  No published evolutionary scientist refutations coming from you.  

May I suggest to you that the professional evolutionist statements I've offered to you come closest to being the consensus?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I find this incredible.  FL claims not only that quote-mining is a legitimate tool of science and reason, but that it is the only legitimate tool of science and reason.

Floyd, check out any of the millions of pages of scientific articles available for free downloading at PLoS.  The authors of these articles often disagree, but they argue by dueling data, not by dueling quotes.
Posted by: Schroedinger's Dog on Oct. 12 2009,04:34

Yodel Elf: < Very interesting point of view... >
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Oct. 12 2009,06:54

Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Oct. 11 2009,23:13)
 
Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Oct. 05 2009,12:44)
 
Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Oct. 05 2009,01:15)
   
Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Oct. 02 2009,13:38)
     
Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 02 2009,12:03)
      Is "God" part of the required explanation for why water runs downhill?

Yes or no.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Nope.  He's not.  Furthermore, hydrologists (unlike evolutionists) are silent on the issue of God as a required explantion.

(Please note, however:  In the Bible, God IS the required explanation for the origin of water itself.)

And also He is the Required Explanation for the origin of plants, animals, and (this is where you come in) humans too.

snip
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


why is god not part of the required explanation for why water runs downhill, when he is part of the required explanation for the EXISTENCE OF WATER?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


---------------------QUOTE-------------------


---------------------QUOTE-------------------



meow?
Posted by: Schroedinger's Dog on Oct. 12 2009,07:33


Posted by: OgreMkV on Oct. 12 2009,08:03

Thinking about Floyd and Erasmus' water question.  It seems to me that there are likely 3 possibilities:

1) Floyd can't read
2) Floyd can't answer
3) Floyd won't answer

1 is pretty obviously incorrect, but it must be tested just to be sure.  Floyd can read, though comprehension appears to be low.

2 is definitely a possible.  However, there are many questions that Floyd has answered since the first iteration of the question.  So floyd can/could answer if he chooses to.  Which leaves...

3, based on some observations, is most likely.  So with that in mind, let's look at the reasons why.

a) Floyd doesn't understand the question
b) Floyd doesn't have an answer
c) Floyd knows that the answer to the question would invalidate most everything that he's said to this point

a, while this seems related to 'Floyd can't read' it is actually more about the parsing out of the question rather than the simple ability to read the words.  However, Floyd has rather continuously shown that he answers questions without understanding the question being asked, so a) is not really valid.

b, this is probably most likely.  It's pretty obvious that he only answers questions when he develops an (or reads someone else's) answer.

c, is actually my favorite of the choices.  It would mean that Floyd knows that he's incorrect and just blindly stumbling about to find some hope that his faith can survive the crisis his mind is creating.  Alas, I have little hope that this is the correct answer.  

Based on everything I have observed so far, 3b is most likely the correct hypothesis.  The test for this hypothesis will be continued monitoring of this thread.  I predict that either 1) Floyd will continue to ignore the question indefinitely or 2) Floyd will stumble upon an answer that he thinks will answer the question and slam it out at some point in the future.

The null hypothesis is, of course, the light dawns on Floyd and he understands that he is hopelessly confused.  There are probably at least one or two here who would be happy to take FLoyd on an expidition of learning.

Anyway... on with the experiment.
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Oct. 12 2009,08:07

Ogre I'd take the more parsimonious position, consistent with years of observation of this creature, that Floyd is intellectually dishonest and will lie about anything in order to provide rhetorical cover.

you're right, he hasn't figured out a way to get past this question which is indisputably fatal to the rest of his soul winning programme, so he will continue to ignore it until it goes away.  to be sure, it is a trap.  but one that he laid out himself, it's not a gotcha trap, except that it cleaves very cleanly the error he has been compounding with each keystroke.

floyd is too much of a pussy to respond.
Posted by: FloydLee on Oct. 12 2009,09:30

Okay.  Let us now see if Deadman answered the question he promised to answer.  I originally posted:
     

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
     

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
The pontiff, speaking as he was concluding his holiday in northern Italy, also said that while there is much scientific proof to support evolution, the theory could not exclude a role by God.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I can appreciate this quotation, Deadman.  It directly and irreconcilably opposes the published statements from these two professional evolutionist scientists:
     

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

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

---David Oldroyd
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


     

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

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



But let me ask you this, Deadman.   For certain, the Pope's statement and the evolutionist scientists' statements CANNOT be true at the same time.  

So please tell me which party you agree with and which party you disagree with.  Thanks!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Okay, so here was your answer:
     

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Christians who have genuine faith -- meaning that they don't run around like YECS trying to "prove" that which cannot (by definition ) be proven -- are free to place their faith in a prime mover god which created all things, including evolutionary forces. I have absolutely no problem with that.

In such cases and others, science has limits that preclude it from investigating or saying anything at all about that concept of God. I would agree with Mayr who says this leaves believers free to believe.

I won't comment on your "Oldroyd" quote because I don't know that AIG didn't just forge it, and neither do you. What I DO KNOW, and what I CAN demonstrate is that AIG has a typically disgusting YEC track record of quotemines and fake quotes.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



******

The honest truth is this, Deadman:  You promised to answer the question, but you did so much hemming and hawing that you mostly failed to answer the question.

You were specifically asked to name which party you agreed with and ALSO which party you disagreed with.  You barely got in the first part, and you failed the second part.

Nevertheless, here is the statement you have agreed with:
     

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

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


And therefore here is the statement that you necessarily disagree with:
   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
"The pontiff, speaking as he was concluding his holiday in northern Italy, also said that while there is much scientific proof to support evolution, the theory could not exclude a role by God."
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


As I said before, these two statements cannot both be true at the same time.

Therefore what you have done here, is to re-affirm the existence of the First Incompatibility.

******

(Side note:  you were -- and are -- completely unable to establish that the citation AIG provided for Oldroyd's statement was false in any manner.)

FloydLee
Posted by: FloydLee on Oct. 12 2009,09:32



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
aims not only that quote-mining is a legitimate tool of science and reason
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Hey Dan, we've already went line-by-line and quote-by-quote on Deadman's accusation of quotemining and completely disconfirmed it.  You want to go down that same road too?
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Oct. 12 2009,09:33

Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Oct. 12 2009,07:54)
Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Oct. 11 2009,23:13)
   
Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Oct. 05 2009,12:44)
   
Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Oct. 05 2009,01:15)
     
Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Oct. 02 2009,13:38)
       
Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 02 2009,12:03)
      Is "God" part of the required explanation for why water runs downhill?

Yes or no.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Nope.  He's not.  Furthermore, hydrologists (unlike evolutionists) are silent on the issue of God as a required explantion.

(Please note, however:  In the Bible, God IS the required explanation for the origin of water itself.)

And also He is the Required Explanation for the origin of plants, animals, and (this is where you come in) humans too.

snip
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


why is god not part of the required explanation for why water runs downhill, when he is part of the required explanation for the EXISTENCE OF WATER?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


---------------------QUOTE-------------------


---------------------QUOTE-------------------



meow?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


heeeeeeere pussy pussy pussy pussy

I know you're here, whassa mattah?  chickenshit?
Posted by: Schroedinger's Dog on Oct. 12 2009,09:36

dear Numbnuts.

Do you remotely understand the difference between "excluding" and "not requiring"?

Damn! English is not even my language, and I know better than this joke!

Numbnuts (again)*







*Sorry, but verbal abuse is all Yodel Elf deserves right now, since moderate, logical, honnest debate doesn't move him in the least...

EDIT: 'cause I forgot a "*" somewhere.
Posted by: deadman_932 on Oct. 12 2009,09:37

Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 11 2009,22:40)
Okay, back again.  Brief responses for Deadman and Dan, then response to Heddle, a one-or-two liner for Erasmus, then go from there, (Nicene Creed looks good for a reply or two).

[snip]  This upcoming week is, AFAIK, wrapup-phase for me.  

(Won't take long to do the "Biblical Perspective on Biology part", btw, then go on to "ID as science", which is a claim you're likely not going to accept anyway.)...
I will be quite ready to apply the discussion and learning experiences from this forum to new endeavors.  

For that, I am sincerely grateful to you and your fellow evolutionists.  For now, however, it's time to do those aforementioned responses.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


"Won't take long to do the 'Biblical Perspective on Biology part,' " indeed. Not much there at all, so I'll guess it'll consist of "the Bible says God majicked it up in some mighty poofs." I do hope you'll be taking up talking donkeys and snakes, though. That'll be good for some laughs.

I'm sure your take on ID as science  will be just as tragicomic and fact-challenged.

Try not to conveniently forget Erasmus' question, now.
Posted by: Constant Mews on Oct. 12 2009,09:42

Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 11 2009,23:24)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Floyd, I note that you have failed to address any of the last dozen or so of my posts.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


This is incorrect.  Did you not see the reference to the "Nicene Creed" in my response to Keelyn?  However, I intend to follow the order I stated; please keep that in mind.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


That is false; you did not address any of my points.  Please do not lie so blatantly, Floyd, it will make our discussion more difficult.  You merely mentioned one of my posts; that does not address it in any way.
Posted by: FloydLee on Oct. 12 2009,09:43

And while I'm at it, let's go ahead and examine this item:
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
So let me ask again.  Given that Todd Wood said THIS:
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I believe that Adam and Eve were the very first humans and were directly created by God.

I believe Adam and Eve sinned, and that sin brought death, carnivory, disease, and suffering into the world.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Is it still your position that Todd Wood's statements are not incompatible with the theory of evolution?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Dan, your answer was worse than Deadman's.  Deadman at least gave me Mayr's name to work with.  You completely failed or ducked YOUR question altogether.

And it was a simple Yes or No question too!

******

But understand this:  you earlier post, which you referred do, DOES NOT DENY your claim that Todd Wood's two quoted statements are not incompatible with the theory of evolution.

So, from here on out (unless you decide to contribute an honest Yes or No on the issue), my publicly expressed position is that Dan believes that the two quoted Wood statemens ARE compatible with the theory of evolution.

I believe I can have some fun with that one.  A keeper.

FloydLee
Posted by: deadman_932 on Oct. 12 2009,09:47

Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 12 2009,09:30)
Okay.  Let us now see if Deadman answered the question he promised to answer. [snip]

The honest truth is this, Deadman:  You promised to answer the question, but you did so much hemming and hawing that you mostly failed to answer the question.

You were specifically asked to name which party you agreed with and ALSO which party you disagreed with.  You barely got in the first part, and you failed the second part.

Nevertheless, here is the statement you have agreed with:
     

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

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


And therefore here is the statement that you necessarily disagree with:
   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
"The pontiff, speaking as he was concluding his holiday in northern Italy, also said that while there is much scientific proof to support evolution, the theory could not exclude a role by God."
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


As I said before, these two statements cannot both be true at the same time.

Therefore what you have done here, is to re-affirm the existence of the First Incompatibility.

******

(Side note:  you were -- and are -- completely unable to establish that the citation AIG provided for Oldroyd's statement was false in any manner.)

FloydLee
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Sorry, floyd. Apparently english is also a mystery to you.

Mayr says that one is free to accept God, but is not required to do so. The Pope says one is free to accept a role for god, too. I said clearly that I had no problem with that stance regarding a prime-mover belief.

P.S. Floyd: Of course I can't "prove" that the citation AIG provided for Oldroyd's statement was false in any manner. It's that you can't show the full article at all. Period. It may or may not have even existed at all, so far as YOU have shown. It's not up to ME to provide context, Floyd...honest people (as opposed to AIG)  citing such a quote would have it available.
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Oct. 12 2009,10:10

Quote (Erasmus, FCD @ Oct. 12 2009,10:33)
Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Oct. 12 2009,07:54)
 
Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Oct. 11 2009,23:13)
   
Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Oct. 05 2009,12:44)
     
Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Oct. 05 2009,01:15)
     
Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Oct. 02 2009,13:38)
       
Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 02 2009,12:03)
      Is "God" part of the required explanation for why water runs downhill?

Yes or no.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Nope.  He's not.  Furthermore, hydrologists (unlike evolutionists) are silent on the issue of God as a required explantion.

(Please note, however:  In the Bible, God IS the required explanation for the origin of water itself.)

And also He is the Required Explanation for the origin of plants, animals, and (this is where you come in) humans too.

snip
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


why is god not part of the required explanation for why water runs downhill, when he is part of the required explanation for the EXISTENCE OF WATER?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


---------------------QUOTE-------------------


---------------------QUOTE-------------------



meow?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


heeeeeeere pussy pussy pussy pussy

I know you're here, whassa mattah?  chickenshit?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


scared?
Posted by: Constant Mews on Oct. 12 2009,10:17

Since Floyd has become confused and unable to respond to requests for clarification on his points, I think it's best to provide a summary of what I believe his position to be.

Floyd believes that evolutionary theory and Christian doctrine are incompatible because:

1. Christian doctrine specifies that God is the necessary and sufficient explanation for biological organisms.  Evolutionary theory does not require God as the necessary and sufficient explanation.

2. Christian doctrine specifies that God chose to create the universe and mankind.  Evolutionary theory denies that God chose to create the universe and mankind.

3. Christian doctrine specifies that God created man in His own image.  Evolutionary theory denies that God created man in His own image.

4. Christian doctrine specifies that death did not occur before man.  Evolutionary theory requires that death existed before man.

5. Christian doctrine specifies that God is a loving, and all-powerful God.  Evolutionary theory implies otherwise, since the evolutionary process involves gratuitous pain and suffering.


Floyd has supplied no definition of Christian doctrine except John 3:16.  Although he later amended this by specifying that certain other beliefs were required or implied by John 3:16, he has never clarified what these beliefs are.

He has supplied a definition of evolutionary theory:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Evolution comes in two flavors, micro-evolution and macro-evolution.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------





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





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





---------------------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.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Finally, Floyd has offered a number of opinions and personal beliefs of scientists who accept evolution regarding the implications of evolutionary theory.  I must point out that these opinions and personal beliefs are not supported by the definitions Floyd has provided.

And that is all that Floyd has actually supplied.

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

What can we see from this?  Several points emerge immediately.  

First, that using the definitions Floyd provided, his point 1 is logically meaningless; God is not mentioned by evolutionary theory, and being thus silent, evolutionary theory has nothing whatever to say about God's necessity.

Second, that using the definitions that Floyd provided, his points 2 and 3 are completely false: nothing in Floyd's definitions specifies that God did not CHOOSE to create the universe and man; nothing in Floyd's definitions specifies that God did not make man in His own image.

Third, Floyd's point 4 is predicated on two things: a literal reading of Genesis and an unsupported reading of Romans 5:12.  Since a literal reading of Genesis is precluded by all available evidence of the world - a direct creation of God, we may reasonably discount Genesis 1:1-11 as being literally correct.  A contextual reading of Romans 5:12 indicates that "sin" and "death" are inextricably linked, and hence the reasonable reading of Romans 5:12 refers to spiritual death, not physical death.  This is supported by the clear logical problem of reading God's threat to Adam that on the day he ate of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil that he would die.  Since Adam did NOT die on that die, we cannot read that threat as implying physical death.

This leaves only his point 5.  Point 5 is simply the ancient Problem of Evil; the ultimate thorn in the side of Christianity.  Christianity provides the twin primary defenses of Free Will and the Fall to account for this.

Thus we see that it is quite logical for a True Christian, a devout and passionate Christian, to simultaneously accept both Christian Doctrine and evolutionary theory.

Since I am such a Christian, we have shown Floyd to be wrong in his assertions.

Floyd, please indicate precisely and clearly, with yes/no answers supported by accurate Biblical exegesis and citations of actual evolutionary theory where you dispute this analysis, otherwise I shall accept your concession.

Thanks.
Posted by: SLP on Oct. 12 2009,14:05

Floyd the creationist?  Doctor quotes to make it seem as though the 'evo scientist' is claiming something he/she is not?  NEVER!


< Oh, wait.... >



---------------------QUOTE-------------------


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
“Organic molecules evolved by natural selection, ultimately giving rise to life—possibly in the “warm little pond” that Darwin envisioned in his famous letter to Joseph Hooker.”

–evolutionist John Oro, from Life’s Origins, ed. Wm. Schopf, c2002, p 26.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Notice that evolutionists posit the very same driving force for both prebiotic evolution and postbiotic evolution–natural selection. Hence prebiotic evolution is part and parcel of the overall theory of evolution.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Mellotron/FL uses the Oro quote top PROVE that abiogenesis is the foundation of evolution, and nobody can tell him anything different.. Except...

Actual Oro quote:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
In the mid-1800s, Darwin showed how the concept of evolution by natural selection applies to living systems. But evolution also operates in the inanimate world, not only Earth but the universe as a whole, including all cosmic bodies (galaxies, stars, circumstellar and interstellar clouds, interstellar molecules, planetary systems, planets, comets, asteroids, meteorites) and all chemical elements. Comets transported organic molecules and water to the primitive Earth early in the planet's history, presumably over a period of several hundred million years. In the oceans that then formed, both cometary and terrestrial (those synthesized directly in the environment) organic molecules evolved by natural selection, ultimately giving rise to life - possibly in the "warm little pond" that Darwin envisioned in his famous letter to Joseph Hooker (see chapter 3). The linkage from cosmic elements to cometary molecules to primitive Earth to biological evolution ties cosmochemical evolution to the origin of life.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Context - and un-doctored quotes - are amazing.
Note that Floyd - who claims a journalism background - sees no problem in failing to indicate that he omitted the first half of the sentence.  In fact, he appears to TRY to cover this up by capitalizing the O in organic.
Posted by: Dan on Oct. 12 2009,15:11

Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 12 2009,09:43)
And while I'm at it, let's go ahead and examine this item:
   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
So let me ask again.  Given that Todd Wood said THIS:
   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I believe that Adam and Eve were the very first humans and were directly created by God.

I believe Adam and Eve sinned, and that sin brought death, carnivory, disease, and suffering into the world.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Is it still your position that Todd Wood's statements are not incompatible with the theory of evolution?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Dan, your answer was worse than Deadman's.  Deadman at least gave me Mayr's name to work with.  You completely failed or ducked YOUR question altogether.

And it was a simple Yes or No question too!

******

But understand this:  you earlier post, which you referred do, DOES NOT DENY your claim that Todd Wood's two quoted statements are not incompatible with the theory of evolution.

So, from here on out (unless you decide to contribute an honest Yes or No on the issue), my publicly expressed position is that Dan believes that the two quoted Wood statemens ARE compatible with the theory of evolution.

I believe I can have some fun with that one.  A keeper.

FloydLee
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I've already answered this question twice, but if you need it a third time, sure the Adam and Eve story is compatible with evolution.

For example, humans could have evolved, then God created two more.

This is not what happened, but it's proof that you can have both evolution and the Adam and Eve story.

Since I've now answered the same question three times, perhaps FL will stop saying I've "ducked it".  Don't hold your breath.
Posted by: Henry J on Oct. 12 2009,15:15



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
This is supported by the clear logical problem of reading God's threat to Adam that on the day he ate of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil that he would die
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Ah, but remember, to Him a day is like a thousand years. ;)
Posted by: Dan on Oct. 12 2009,15:27

Oops, let me correct my previous post.  The way to make the Adam and Eve story (in Todd Wood's malignant version) consistent with evolution is to say that God created Adam, then Eve.  Three seconds later the a different Homo sapiens evolved from Homo erectus.

This story is, of course, absurd.  But it's less absurd than believing both Genesis 1 (in which animals came first, then humans) AND Genesis 2 (in which Adam came first, then animals, then Eve).

(My version, after all, gives a way for Cain to get a wife without marrying a sister.)

But the whole thing shows that even Todd Wood's nonsensical version of Christianity is compatible with evolution.
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Oct. 12 2009,15:57

Quote (Dan @ Oct. 12 2009,16:27)
Oops, let me correct my previous post.  The way to make the Adam and Eve story (in Todd Wood's malignant version) consistent with evolution is to say that God created Adam, then Eve.  Three seconds later the a different Homo sapiens evolved from Homo erectus.

This story is, of course, absurd.  But it's less absurd than believing both Genesis 1 (in which animals came first, then humans) AND Genesis 2 (in which Adam came first, then animals, then Eve).

(My version, after all, gives a way for Cain to get a wife without marrying a sister.)

But the whole thing shows that even Todd Wood's nonsensical version of Christianity is compatible with evolution.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


the problem is Floyd is playing silly buggers with "explanation".

Todd Wood's statements are compatible with ToE, either as darwin proposed or as reconstructed by the modern synthesis.  Or post-margulis.  Whatever.  

Todd Wood's statements aren't compatible with reality, but you can interpret a dusty old book any way you want to.  Floyd interprets it one way, but it could be any old damn way.

another way to put that that will make his little face-pudenda quiver:

Todd Wood's statements aren't compatible with historical narratives devised using the best available scientific explanations and the full spectrum of discovered facts and synthesized knowledge.  

Expect FL to toss a hundred salads before addressing that.
Posted by: rhmc on Oct. 12 2009,16:19

Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 12 2009,00:06)
(Emerson Lake and Palmer's "Hoedown" )
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


i would have thought that "brain salad surgery" would have been a better choice for this thread.
Posted by: Schroedinger's Dog on Oct. 12 2009,16:27

Well, the guy may be a ravening maniac frothing at the lips while bashing his bible, but at least I concede he has good musical tastes. ELP rules!
Posted by: Cubist on Oct. 12 2009,16:30

Quote (Dan @ Oct. 12 2009,15:27)
Oops, let me correct my previous post.  The way to make the Adam and Eve story (in Todd Wood's malignant version) consistent with evolution is to say that God created Adam, then Eve.  Three seconds later the a different Homo sapiens evolved from Homo erectus.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Given the fact that the Bible is real short on the details of exactly how God went about doing the Creation thing, reconciling Christianity with evolution is even easier than that: All you need to do is say that God used evolution as His tool for creating all the different lifeforms on Earth.
I'm sure that Yodel Elf rejects that possibility, but it might... or might not... be amusing to see the mental gymnastics he has to go thru in order to do so.
Posted by: Constant Mews on Oct. 12 2009,18:04

The key point being, as I have demonstrated above, that using only the definitions of Christian doctrine and evolutionary theory that Floyd himself has provided, there are no incompatibilities.

This interests me: that Floyd, who seems to wish to argue his five points has provided only information which either refutes or fails to support them.

Floyd, please address my post above.  It should clarify your various errors.
Posted by: FloydLee on Oct. 12 2009,18:35



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Mayr says that one is free to accept God, but is not required to do so. The Pope says one is free to accept a role for god, too.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


No, Deadman.  That's why I was careful to supply the quote AND highlight the parts that needed to be read.

First, (check the quotes again) you'll notice that both Mayr and the Pope were referring directly to the theory of evolution within their respective quotations.  Upfront, even.

Mayr said that the theory of evolution "no longer requires God as creator or designer."

Pope said that the theory of evolution "could not exclude a role by God."

That's the First Incompatibility in a nutshell, quite honestly.  Evolution denies that God is a Required Explanation for biological origins, Christianity affirms that God is a Required Explanation for biological origins.

FloydLee
Posted by: FloydLee on Oct. 12 2009,18:42



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Do you remotely understand the difference between "excluding" and "not requiring"?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Yes.  Something that is said to be "not required" (i.e. God as creator or designer), is considered excludable.   You can drop God out of the biological origins situation altogether if you want to, and that's that.
 
But when you say something "could not exclude a role for God", then suddenly God becomes required for that particular something.  You don't get to drop Him.

Add the two positions together and you get an incompatibility.  The First Incompatibility, to be exact.
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Oct. 12 2009,18:44

Floyd Lee

speaking of things that are required



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
why is god not part of the required explanation for why water runs downhill, when he is part of the required explanation for the EXISTENCE OF WATER?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: Dan on Oct. 12 2009,18:50

Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 12 2009,18:35)
Mayr said that the theory of evolution "no longer requires God as creator or designer."

Pope said that the theory of evolution "could not exclude a role by God."

That's the First Incompatibility in a nutshell, quite honestly.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


And, quite honestly, it shows why the first alleged incompatibility is no incompatibility at all.

The theory of evolution neither requires nor excludes a role played by God.

Just as plumbing neither requires nor excludes a role played by God.  Maybe God makes the water flow.  Maybe God doesn't.  This is irrelevant to plumbing: I'll use quarter-inch pipes in either case.
Posted by: didymos on Oct. 12 2009,18:57

Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 12 2009,16:42)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Do you remotely understand the difference between "excluding" and "not requiring"?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Yes.  Something that is said to be "not required" (i.e. God as creator or designer), is considered excludable.   You can drop God out of the biological origins situation altogether if you want to, and that's that.
 
But when you say something "could not exclude a role for God", then suddenly God becomes required for that particular something.  You don't get to drop Him.

Add the two positions together and you get an incompatibility.  The First Incompatibility, to be exact.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


OK, I don't get this at all.  One guy (Mayr) said science can't rule God in.  The other guy (Pope) said it can't rule him out.  And this is incompatible how exactly?  I'm ignoring the Oldroyd thing since it's unsourced, but it doesn't really matter since ultimately, we have just have three guys dispensing personal opinions, all slightly different as opinions ever and always tend to be.
Posted by: FloydLee on Oct. 12 2009,19:02

Gotta hurry on to DHeddle, but let's also do SLP as well.  

Here's your question:  Exactly how does this extended quote by the late evolutionist John Oro (Schopf 2002, "Life's Origins")....
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
In the mid-1800s, Darwin showed how the concept of evolution by natural selection applies to living systems. But evolution also operates in the inanimate world, not only Earth but the universe as a whole, including all cosmic bodies (galaxies, stars, circumstellar and interstellar clouds, interstellar molecules, planetary systems, planets, comets, asteroids, meteorites) and all chemical elements. Comets transported organic molecules and water to the primitive Earth early in the planet's history, presumably over a period of several hundred million years. In the oceans that then formed, both cometary and terrestrial (those synthesized directly in the environment) organic molecules evolved by natural selection, ultimately giving rise to life - possibly in the "warm little pond" that Darwin envisioned in his famous letter to Joseph Hooker (see chapter 3). The linkage from cosmic elements to cometary molecules to primitive Earth to biological evolution ties cosmochemical evolution to the origin of life.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


....disprove or even disagree what I said earlier about the short version of Oro's quote?
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Notice that evolutionists posit the very same driving force for both prebiotic evolution and postbiotic evolution–natural selection. Hence prebiotic evolution is part and parcel of the overall theory of evolution.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


******
Good luck answering that one, SLP.  But honestly, you can't answer it, and you know it.  Oro simply made clear that abiogenesis is part and parcel of evolution.

Furthermore, one of your comrades came up with a very recent De Duve quotation, which only serves to reinforce what Oro said.
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Nobel laureate Christian de Duve summarized the plenary session: "The participants unanimously accepted as indisputable the affirmation that the Universe, as well as life within it, are the products of long evolutionary histories...."

---Nmgirl's post, Oct 6th, 11:58, "International General 2009 (Conference)"
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: FloydLee on Oct. 12 2009,19:07



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I'm ignoring the Oldroyd thing since it's unsourced....
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Ohhhh no no, a very specific and direct source citation was given for Oldroyd's statement by AIG.  Here it is, right down to the page number, in case you missed it.
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
David Oldroyd, The (Australian) Weekend Review, 20–21 March 1993, p. 5.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


If a person doesn't have time to visit their local library and track down the Weekend Review article, then that's understandable, but please don't make the mistake of saying or suggesting it's unsourced.  That would be a falsehood.
Posted by: OgreMkV on Oct. 12 2009,19:16

Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 12 2009,19:07)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I'm ignoring the Oldroyd thing since it's unsourced....
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Ohhhh no no, a very specific and direct source citation was given for Oldroyd's statement by AIG.  Here it is, right down to the page number, in case you missed it.
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
David Oldroyd, The (Australian) Weekend Review, 20–21 March 1993, p. 5.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


If a person doesn't have time to visit their local library and track down the Weekend Review article, then that's understandable, but please don't make the mistake of saying or suggesting it's unsourced.  That would be a falsehood.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


LOL

"Kettle, thou art black," sayeth the pot.
Posted by: didymos on Oct. 12 2009,19:16

Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 12 2009,17:07)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I'm ignoring the Oldroyd thing since it's unsourced....
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Ohhhh no no, a very specific and direct source citation was given for Oldroyd's statement by AIG.  Here it is, right down to the page number, in case you missed it.
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
David Oldroyd, The (Australian) Weekend Review, 20–21 March 1993, p. 5.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


If a person doesn't have time to visit their local library and track down the Weekend Review article, then that's understandable, but please don't make the mistake of saying or suggesting it's unsourced.  That would be a falsehood.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Quite right.  I amend that to "I'm ignoring the Oldroyd thing since it's not reliably sourced." In any case, one quote by one guy still doesn't matter.
Posted by: rhmc on Oct. 12 2009,19:17

Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 12 2009,19:42)
 
But when you say something "could not exclude a role for God", then suddenly God becomes required for that particular something.  You don't get to drop Him.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


wrong.  again.
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Oct. 12 2009,19:19

Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 12 2009,20:07)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I'm ignoring the Oldroyd thing since it's unsourced....
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Ohhhh no no, a very specific and direct source citation was given for Oldroyd's statement by AIG.  Here it is, right down to the page number, in case you missed it.
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
David Oldroyd, The (Australian) Weekend Review, 20–21 March 1993, p. 5.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


If a person doesn't have time to visit their local library and track down the Weekend Review article, then that's understandable, but please don't make the mistake of saying or suggesting it's unsourced.  That would be a falsehood.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


where is the source for this?



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
why is god not part of the required explanation for why water runs downhill, when he is part of the required explanation for the EXISTENCE OF WATER?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Oh, that's right, 10 DAYS AGO.

you just chickenshit, or something else too?
Posted by: FloydLee on Oct. 12 2009,20:18

Mayr said that the theory of evolution "no longer requires God as creator or designer."

And yet, according to both the Old and New Testaments, God is absolutely required as creator and designer.  (Already cited examples in the Bible text.)

And the Pope agrees.
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
"How many people are there today who, fooled by atheism, think and try to demonstrate that it would be scientific to think that everything is without direction and order.

"Through sacred Scripture, the Lord reawakens the reason that sleeps and tells us that in the beginning is the creative word, the creative reason, the reason that has created everything, that has created this intelligent project."  --- Pope Benedict (CNS, Nov. 9 2005
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


So, we have the First  Incompatibility there.  No way to escape it.
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Oct. 12 2009,20:37

oh yeah speaking of your required explanations



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
why is god not part of the required explanation for why water runs downhill, when he is part of the required explanation for the EXISTENCE OF WATER?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



seems like you are a bit confused about what is required of explanation.
Posted by: deadman_932 on Oct. 12 2009,20:38

Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 12 2009,20:18)
Mayr said that the theory of evolution "no longer requires God as creator or designer."

And yet, according to both the Old and New Testaments, God is absolutely required as creator and designer.  (Already cited examples in the Bible text.)

And the Pope agrees.
     

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
"How many people are there today who, fooled by atheism, think and try to demonstrate that it would be scientific to think that everything is without direction and order.

"Through sacred Scripture, the Lord reawakens the reason that sleeps and tells us that in the beginning is the creative word, the creative reason, the reason that has created everything, that has created this intelligent project."  --- Pope Benedict (CNS, Nov. 9 2005
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


So, we have the First  Incompatibility there.  No way to escape it.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------




This is the relevant part you keep ignoring, immediately preceding the sentence you keep trying to isolate (i.e. quotemine by removing context):
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
"The theory of evolution by natural selection explains the adaptedness and diversity of the world solely materialistically"
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


THEN Mayr says "IT [meaning the evolution of diversity] no longer requires God as creator or designer (although one is certainly still free to believe in God even if one accepts evolution)." < http://sciphilos.info/docs_pages/docs_Mayr_Dawin_css.html >

1) No one is obliged to agree with Mayr on any theological claims.
2) However, Mayr's statement, in context refers to the diversity of the world's organisms by the mechanisms of adaptation and speciation. He is quite clear about that. What he is NOT speaking about is the Ultimate Origins of all things.  
3) No Science can address sophisticated (meaning Prime Mover) claims of Ultimate Deistic Creation/Purpose. None. That's why Mayr is specifically talking about DIVERSIFICATION via adaptation speciation

4.) And lastly,even if Mayr was to make such a claim about some Ultimate Deistic Creation of all living things, so what? As you said, anyone is free to also ignore your "Big Five" accept evolution and remain a Christian, by your own admission.

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

There's four reasons why you're wrong. Any one of them is good enough to negate your attempt at "battling quotes." These things were pointed out to you many times so far, but you're too dishonest to acknowledge them anyway, so ...who cares what you claim now?

More importantly, you already failed in your overall task of showing that evolution and Christianity are inherently incompatible. You have no arguments left.
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Oct. 12 2009,20:53



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
You have no arguments left.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



sooooo

you might as well address the question
Posted by: deadman_932 on Oct. 12 2009,20:55

Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 12 2009,19:07)
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I'm ignoring the Oldroyd thing since it's unsourced....
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Ohhhh no no, a very specific and direct source citation was given for Oldroyd's statement by AIG.  Here it is, right down to the page number, in case you missed it.
     

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
David Oldroyd, The (Australian) Weekend Review, 20–21 March 1993, p. 5.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


If a person doesn't have time to visit their local library and track down the Weekend Review article, then that's understandable, but please don't make the mistake of saying or suggesting it's unsourced.  That would be a falsehood.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


YOU were asked to provide it, and you didn't. It's not up to me to look for some obscure magazine article (it's NOT a "journal" and it doesn't appear as a scientific journal at all).

I went to Caltech to look there. It's not available in any form I could find. Period. My guess is it's an ALLEGED interview in a failed newspaper "Weekend" magazine.

As I said, I have no evidence that the claimed "source" even exists at all, so I have no reason to address it, especially when the alleged quote is lacking any context. YOU cited it, it's your job to provide it, not ask me to go to australia and dig through old newspaper files. But you can't even do that, because AIG doesn't even have a copy of the alleged interview.  

AiG has a bad habit of using bogus quotes, this is provable to any reasonable person (which surely leaves you out).
Posted by: nmgirl on Oct. 12 2009,20:57

Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 12 2009,20:18)
Mayr said that the theory of evolution "no longer requires God as creator or designer."

And yet, according to both the Old and New Testaments, God is absolutely required as creator and designer.  (Already cited examples in the Bible text.)

And the Pope agrees.
   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
"How many people are there today who, fooled by atheism, think and try to demonstrate that it would be scientific to think that everything is without direction and order.

"Through sacred Scripture, the Lord reawakens the reason that sleeps and tells us that in the beginning is the creative word, the creative reason, the reason that has created everything, that has created this intelligent project."  --- Pope Benedict (CNS, Nov. 9 2005
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


So, we have the First  Incompatibility there.  No way to escape it.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Floyd, where is the text of the entire speech? I looked this up and you have taken one person's opinion of what they thought the Pope meant.  You keep taking stuff out of context and posting opinion as fact and you wonder why you keep losing.  

You know one definition of insanity is repeating the same behavior over and over again and expecting a different income.
Posted by: FloydLee on Oct. 12 2009,20:58

Okay, so let's look again at DHeddle's remarks one more time.

Originally, another poster had stated:


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I think every and all sanctimonius fanatics such as FL should take a look at Augustin's (sic) work, just for the sake of it.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I replied,


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I have, actually.  Augustine wrote that the earth was less than 6000 years old, he believed that God created everything instantly (yes, literally), and he believed that the global Noahic Flood was literally true.  A very good YEC, to be sure!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


So Dheddle said,


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Augustine did not take Genesis literally.  Instantaenous does not mean six days.  Instantaneous creation is an infinite number of orders of magnitude different from six days.  A 14 bya universe only differs by a mere  12 OOM.  In that sense, Augustine is the most radical non-literalist of all time.  He would say to you, "My god don't need no six days to create a universe!"
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


So I responded point by point:,


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
("Augustine did not take Genesis literally") But some things, Augustine DID take literally.  We know this from his own writings.  Like, the earth being less than 6000 years old.  He wrote that.  He meant that.  Literally.  Another example:  The Genesis account of a global Noahic Flood. He took that one literally. Not allegorical.  Literal history, period.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------




---------------------QUOTE-------------------
("Instantaneous does not mean six days") But it does mean YEC.  It only rationally fits in with YEC beliefs (a less-than-6000-year-old earth).  It's not ever gonna fit the OEC category, nope.  And it will never ever quality Augie for TE.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------




---------------------QUOTE-------------------
("Instantaneous creation is an infinite number of orders of magnitude different from six days.") Yes it is.  Also infinitely different from 14 billion years (universe or 4.6 billion years (earth).
---------------------QUOTE-------------------




---------------------QUOTE-------------------
("In that sense, Augustine is the most radical non-literalist of all time.  He would say to you:  "My god don't need to six days to create a universe!")  And he would say to you, "And He don't need to wait around for any 14 billion years (nor 4.6 billion years) eitehr.  He can do it instantly, and He did."
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Okay, so that's kind of the background there.  The next post replies to DHeddle's subsequent response to that.
Posted by: deadman_932 on Oct. 12 2009,21:01

Your job was to demonstrate that evolutionary theory and Christianity were inherently incompatible, Floyd. You failed.

Your primary argument for the incompatibility of evolution and Christianity was that you had your "Big Five Fantasies."

To try to pretend that those BFF's were valid, you tried to juggle three lines of fraudulent "evidence" :

1. You claimed that Christians (like the Pope) had to address your BFF's. Then you later later admit this not to be true -- Christians don't have to address your Fantasies at all, and they can still remain Christians in your own view....while still accepting evolution.

2. You used quotes from evolutionists that are shown invalidly applied to support your claim . For instance, the personal opinion of Mayr, which is (a) consonant with the Pope's statements that believers are free to believe, and (b) consistent with the scientific consensus view that science can't deal with claims of divine teleology and ontology.

3.You used quotes from apologist-"scientists" with you claiming that your BFF's Divine Teleology and Ontology DID apply to science. Unfortunately, your creo-scientists can't provide any viable scientific research model that would provide evidence in favor of their empty blather. Nor can you provide any such "pathetic level of detail." (to use Little Billy Dembski's hilarious phrase)
------------------------------

Your parrot is still dead.
Posted by: Reed on Oct. 12 2009,21:09

Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 12 2009,16:42)

Yes.  Something that is said to be "not required" (i.e. God as creator or designer), is considered excludable.   You can drop God out of the biological origins situation altogether if you want to, and that's that.
 
But when you say something "could not exclude a role for God", then suddenly God becomes required for that particular something.  You don't get to drop Him.

Add the two positions together and you get an incompatibility.  The First Incompatibility, to be exact.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


What a bizarre display of logic fail.

An omnipotent god cannot be excluded from anything by definition. You can discount the whole god hypothesis as not amenable to rational investigation and thus irrelevant, but even that doesn't exclude gods possible influence.

Evolution is a naturalistic theory which is sufficient to explain the available evidence. That does not, and by definition cannot, exclude the possibility of supernatural meddling. No amount of quotes from "evolutionists" can get around this. Either they are making an basic logical error, or (much more likely) < you are misinterpreting them >.
Posted by: FloydLee on Oct. 12 2009,21:58

Okay.  (Continuing with DHeddle).  He wrote on Oct 5,
   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
There was no claim by me that Augustine did not take any part of Genesis literally. That goes without saying. The most ardent non-literalist conservative Christian will still take much if not most of Genesis literally. They will agree, for example, that God made a covenant with Abraham.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Here's the thing, DHeddle.  You may not have MEANT to say that "Augustine did not take any part of Genesis literally", but in fact you DID say "Augustine did not take Genesis literally."  THAT statement, was what was responded to.

No use accusing anybody of being "disingenuous" when you write stuff like that.  If you need to be a little more specific in your claims, then just plain be more specific already, because I responded to the actual statement that you put out.

***
   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I made the specific claim that Augustine did not take the creation days literally, and he didn't.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Actually, you said, "Instantaneous does not mean six days", and I did not deny that.  

However, I did respond directly to it.  I pointed out that "instantaneous" would only rationally fit in with YEC, a less than 6000 year old earth.  It's absolutely logical that if the earth was created instantaneously, its age would be less than 6000 years (at the time Augie wrote that statement.)  
It certainly would NOT be an old earth in Augie's view, and Augie's view (not Hugh Ross's) is currently what's under examination right now.

(Although, it should be mentioned, that Hugh Ross is wrong about the way he views "yom",  Please see Robert McCabe's journal article on that issue.
< http://www.dbts.edu/journals/2000/McCabe.pdf > )

Your Oct 5 post also claimed that my reply was "irrelevant", but you are totally wrong on that because even Augie himself wrote that the the earth was less than 6000 years old, so it's clear that Augie's "instantaneous" position is still YEC anyway.  It's what HE meant.

***

You also said,  
   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
(Nor, by the way, did many revered church fathers, such as Justin, Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria, Origen, … most of whom who argued one creation day = 1000 years ( a la 2 Pet 3:8) to solve the very same "in that day you will surely die" problem.)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Consider what James R. Mook says, however:
   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
"The oft-used counter examples of Clement, Origen, and Augustine, best understood through the lens of Alexandrian allegorical hermeneutics, all held that the creation had been fully completed in an instant."

---Mook, "The Church Fathers on Genesis, the Flood, and the Age of the Earth" in Coming to Grips with Genesis, eds. Terry Mortenson and Thane Ury, c2008, p.51.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



So, long story short, these church fathers aren't nearly as old-earth as you make them out to be.  In fact, Mook points out, point-blank, that "The fathers were young-earth creationists" (Mortenson and Ury, page 51.)

As for the 2 Peter 3:8 "one creation day =  1000 years" argument, Dr. McCabe refutes that one totally in the previously provided journal article.

***

Long story short, I believe I have sufficiently answered your reply there about Augustine.  We could go into things more, obviously (especially with Mook's survey of the church fathers), but I want to get into your additional remarks on the Fourth Incompatibility.  As for St. Augie, he's a clear YEC.

FloydLee
Posted by: Henry J on Oct. 12 2009,22:05



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Pope said that the theory of evolution "could not exclude a role by God."

That's the First Incompatibility in a nutshell, quite honestly.  Evolution denies that God is a Required Explanation for biological origins, Christianity affirms that God is a Required Explanation for biological origins.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


That argument presupposes that God is either unable or unwilling to use evolution as the method of causation. Which is it, and why? (Without that presupposition, the argument is a non-sequitor.)

Henry
Posted by: Henry J on Oct. 12 2009,22:30



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
You know one definition of insanity is repeating the same behavior over and over again and expecting a different income.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

 
But what does that say about the people who keep trying to explain stuff to Floyd? ;)

Henry
Posted by: Henry J on Oct. 12 2009,22:30



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
As for St. Augie, he's a clear YEC.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


In what century did "St. Augie" live?

In what century was evidence of an old earth discovered by geologists?

Sheesh.

Henry
Posted by: Constant Mews on Oct. 13 2009,00:06

Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 12 2009,18:42)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Do you remotely understand the difference between "excluding" and "not requiring"?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Yes.  Something that is said to be "not required" (i.e. God as creator or designer), is considered excludable.   You can drop God out of the biological origins situation altogether if you want to, and that's that.
 
But when you say something "could not exclude a role for God", then suddenly God becomes required for that particular something.  You don't get to drop Him.

Add the two positions together and you get an incompatibility.  The First Incompatibility, to be exact.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Your logic is fallacious.  I see that you are lacking even the most rudimentary understanding of basic logic.  I will clarify for you.

The theory of evolution says nothing about God.  Nothing.  God might be involved, God might not, but the theory does not EXCLUDE the possibility that God might be required.  The theory, like all scientific theories, is a testable explanation.  God is not testable, but God certainly created the universe and sustains it in being.  You have already admitted that God need not be measurably involved in every step of the process.
Posted by: Constant Mews on Oct. 13 2009,00:09

Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 12 2009,20:18)
Mayr said that the theory of evolution "no longer requires God as creator or designer."

And yet, according to both the Old and New Testaments, God is absolutely required as creator and designer.  (Already cited examples in the Bible text.)

And the Pope agrees.
   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
"How many people are there today who, fooled by atheism, think and try to demonstrate that it would be scientific to think that everything is without direction and order.

"Through sacred Scripture, the Lord reawakens the reason that sleeps and tells us that in the beginning is the creative word, the creative reason, the reason that has created everything, that has created this intelligent project."  --- Pope Benedict (CNS, Nov. 9 2005
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


So, we have the First  Incompatibility there.  No way to escape it.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I'm sorry Floyd, but you completely wrong about this.  Your simplistic understanding of logic makes that clear.

The theory of evolution does not exclude God - just as the Pope said.  But as a theory, it includes only testable elements.

You are continuing to ignore my posts which have addressed all your points.

Looking back at your past behavior, I see that you do this every single time you are unable to deal with a poster's argument, so I take it that you have no capacity to refute my points.
Posted by: Constant Mews on Oct. 13 2009,00:12

Quote (Constant Mews @ Oct. 12 2009,10:17)
Since Floyd has become confused and unable to respond to requests for clarification on his points, I think it's best to provide a summary of what I believe his position to be.

Floyd believes that evolutionary theory and Christian doctrine are incompatible because:

1. Christian doctrine specifies that God is the necessary and sufficient explanation for biological organisms.  Evolutionary theory does not require God as the necessary and sufficient explanation.

2. Christian doctrine specifies that God chose to create the universe and mankind.  Evolutionary theory denies that God chose to create the universe and mankind.

3. Christian doctrine specifies that God created man in His own image.  Evolutionary theory denies that God created man in His own image.

4. Christian doctrine specifies that death did not occur before man.  Evolutionary theory requires that death existed before man.

5. Christian doctrine specifies that God is a loving, and all-powerful God.  Evolutionary theory implies otherwise, since the evolutionary process involves gratuitous pain and suffering.


Floyd has supplied no definition of Christian doctrine except John 3:16.  Although he later amended this by specifying that certain other beliefs were required or implied by John 3:16, he has never clarified what these beliefs are.

He has supplied a definition of evolutionary theory:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Evolution comes in two flavors, micro-evolution and macro-evolution.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------





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





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





---------------------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.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Finally, Floyd has offered a number of opinions and personal beliefs of scientists who accept evolution regarding the implications of evolutionary theory.  I must point out that these opinions and personal beliefs are not supported by the definitions Floyd has provided.

And that is all that Floyd has actually supplied.

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

What can we see from this?  Several points emerge immediately.  

First, that using the definitions Floyd provided, his point 1 is logically meaningless; God is not mentioned by evolutionary theory, and being thus silent, evolutionary theory has nothing whatever to say about God's necessity.

Second, that using the definitions that Floyd provided, his points 2 and 3 are completely false: nothing in Floyd's definitions specifies that God did not CHOOSE to create the universe and man; nothing in Floyd's definitions specifies that God did not make man in His own image.

Third, Floyd's point 4 is predicated on two things: a literal reading of Genesis and an unsupported reading of Romans 5:12.  Since a literal reading of Genesis is precluded by all available evidence of the world - a direct creation of God, we may reasonably discount Genesis 1:1-11 as being literally correct.  A contextual reading of Romans 5:12 indicates that "sin" and "death" are inextricably linked, and hence the reasonable reading of Romans 5:12 refers to spiritual death, not physical death.  This is supported by the clear logical problem of reading God's threat to Adam that on the day he ate of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil that he would die.  Since Adam did NOT die on that die, we cannot read that threat as implying physical death.

This leaves only his point 5.  Point 5 is simply the ancient Problem of Evil; the ultimate thorn in the side of Christianity.  Christianity provides the twin primary defenses of Free Will and the Fall to account for this.

Thus we see that it is quite logical for a True Christian, a devout and passionate Christian, to simultaneously accept both Christian Doctrine and evolutionary theory.

Since I am such a Christian, we have shown Floyd to be wrong in his assertions.

Floyd, please indicate precisely and clearly, with yes/no answers supported by accurate Biblical exegesis and citations of actual evolutionary theory where you dispute this analysis, otherwise I shall accept your concession.

Thanks.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Floyd, here is my post which proves that Christianity and evolution are compatible.  Address it, please.
Posted by: Schroedinger's Dog on Oct. 13 2009,01:58

About Oldroyd, first a few details about The (Australian) Weekend Review:

Country:
Australia
Language:
English
Content description:
Books, Arts, Film and TV supplement of the Australian Weekend

< link >

Not exactly either a scientific or religious, or even remotely serious source.

Second, when you make a basic search for The Australian Weekend review + Oldroyd, you only find 6 results, one of which is this very forum. The other 5 sites are all YEC forums and sites.

< link >

I would bet a lot that this Oldroyd "article" is yet another fabrication by the lying-for-jebus AIG folks...
Posted by: Dan on Oct. 13 2009,03:11

Summary of "debate":

1. FL posts his first alleged incompatibility in a particularly clear form:

< http://www.antievolution.org/cgi-bin....y156155 >

2. Schroedinger's Dog uses that particularly clarity of expression to detail exactly where FL went wrong:

< http://www.antievolution.org/cgi-bin....y156158 >

3. Deadman uses that particularly clarity of expression to detail exactly where FL went wrong:

< http://www.antievolution.org/cgi-bin....y156162 >

4. Constant Mews uses that particularly clarity of expression to detail exactly where FL went wrong:

< http://www.antievolution.org/cgi-bin....y156165 >

5. Dan uses that particularly clarity of expression to detail exactly where FL went wrong:

< ]http://www.antievolution.org/cgi-bin....156208] >

6. didymos uses that particularly clarity of expression to detail exactly where FL went wrong:

< http://www.antievolution.org/cgi-bin....y156209 >

7. FL merely restates his original contention, without any supporting logic or reasoning, claiming "So, we have the First  Incompatibility there.  No way to escape it.":

< http://www.antievolution.org/cgi-bin....y156219 >

In fact, FL has been shown five ways to escape it.  According to FL, these five posters have all performed a task that cannot be performed!

Thank you, FL, for considering the five of us to be superhumans who can perform amazing feats of reasoning!
Posted by: Quack on Oct. 13 2009,07:34

I am making certain I don't read any of FL's posts, but using the < links here >, I took a look at the controversy and while all of them said the same thing clearly enough, I found < Dan's entry > as lucid clarification of the issue as anyone could ask for. Except for FL, that is, but isn't it obvious by now that he is suffering a veritable comprehension problem?

Stealing from Dan:
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Just as plumbing neither requires nor excludes a role played by God.  Maybe God makes the water flow.  Maybe God doesn't.  This is irrelevant to plumbing: I'll use quarter-inch pipes in either case.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Now FL, please show us the incompatibility between the two statements as used in Dan's approach to plumbing.

It is like when I am sitting down to dinner: The use of salt is neither required or excluded - it is an option left entirely up to me whether I think I need some salt on my plate, or if I will exclude it. Heck, I'm not even required to eat, I can exclude it or not.

I believe what we are doing her is using analogies. They are useful when attempting to understand concepts beyond our comprehension.

The missing "y" is intentional.
Posted by: FloydLee on Oct. 13 2009,08:29



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I am making certain I don't read any of FL's posts,
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Then why make silly comments about "veritable comprehension problems"?  Honestly now dude.  Either read all sides of the discussion, or just sit on the sidelines quietly.
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Oct. 13 2009,08:32

Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 13 2009,09:29)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I am making certain I don't read any of FL's posts,
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Then why make silly comments about "veritable comprehension problems"?  Honestly now dude.  Either read all sides of the discussion, or just sit on the sidelines quietly.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


oh yeah that reminds me



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
why is god not part of the required explanation for why water runs downhill, when he is part of the required explanation for the EXISTENCE OF WATER?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: FloydLee on Oct. 13 2009,08:38

The theory of evolution says nothing about God.  Nothing.  God might be involved, God might not, but the theory does not EXCLUDE the possibility that God might be required.

Yes.  It does.  For two reasons, Futuyma's EB3 textbook pointed out.  

First, evolution does not admit conscious anticipation of the future (and before you respond, consider the fact that nobody has offered an evolutionist refutation for THAT one in all 39 pages of this debate), and with the God of Genesis you definitely get 100 percent conscious anticipation of the future.  

Second, you would automatically eliminate the claim that supernatural processes cannot be the subject of science, and with that, you open the legal door for teaching creationism in public school.  

(Which is all right by me, but I think you have a problem with it, eh?).
Posted by: SLP on Oct. 13 2009,08:44

Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 12 2009,19:02)

Here's your question:  Exactly how does this extended quote by the late evolutionist John Oro (Schopf 2002, "Life's Origins")....
   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
In the mid-1800s, Darwin showed how the concept of evolution by natural selection applies to living systems. But evolution also operates in the inanimate world, not only Earth but the universe as a whole, including all cosmic bodies (galaxies, stars, circumstellar and interstellar clouds, interstellar molecules, planetary systems, planets, comets, asteroids, meteorites) and all chemical elements. Comets transported organic molecules and water to the primitive Earth early in the planet's history, presumably over a period of several hundred million years. In the oceans that then formed, both cometary and terrestrial (those synthesized directly in the environment) organic molecules evolved by natural selection, ultimately giving rise to life - possibly in the "warm little pond" that Darwin envisioned in his famous letter to Joseph Hooker (see chapter 3). The linkage from cosmic elements to cometary molecules to primitive Earth to biological evolution ties cosmochemical evolution to the origin of life.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


....disprove or even disagree what I said earlier about the short version of Oro's quote?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



By 'short' you mean doctored, for you never indicate that you lop off half a sentence when you quote it and go so far as to capitalize the O in organic to make it appear as though it is the first word in the sentence.  That is, you take an active rople in deceiving your readers.
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------

     

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Notice that evolutionists posit the very same driving force for both prebiotic evolution and postbiotic evolution–natural selection. Hence prebiotic evolution is part and parcel of the overall theory of evolution.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


******
Good luck answering that one, SLP.  But honestly, you can't answer it, and you know it.  Oro simply made clear that abiogenesis is part and parcel of evolution.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Actually, I've answered it before.

Actually, about 6 other people agreed with my answer, and NONE, not even other YECs agreed with yours.

But first, I have to ask why you had always doctored the quote?

I thought you folks were supposed to be honest for fear of Yahweh's wrath?  I thought journalists would at least not rely on chopped quotes for fear of being found out and discredited.

Guess not.

I suspect you only used the doctored quote because the context showed how wild and unwarranted your extrapolations are.

The short answer is twofold:
1. "Linking" things together does not imply or necessitate relaince.
2. Even if it did, that is one person's opinion, not the concensus view

If you think relying on one person's non-consensus view proves your position true, then surely we can quote Hugh Ross as demonstrating that Creationists think the earth is old...

The longer answer:

YOU are the ONLY person who interprets the quote to indicate that abiogenesis is part of ToE. As is clear to EVERYONE but you, Oro is talking about 'evolution' as such, NOT the Theory of Evolution ala Darwin. Evolution by natural selection as in change through time molded by the environment, be that here on earth or in deep space. Why is that so hard for you to fathom?

Do you really think that refusing to budge on this makes you right or something?

Let me put this in perspective -


You and I are both citizens of the U.S. We are 'tied together' by this. Larry Moran is a Canadian citizen. Despite the fact that he is a citizen in his country and we are citizens in ours - all of us 'tied together' by the concept of citizenshp - we are no more 'dependant' upon Larry as a citizen of Canada for us to engage in our citizenship duties than biological evolution is dependant upon stellar or even abiotic evolution to produce new species.



It is interesting to note, however, that your 'take home message' from that quote has changed a bit since I presented it in context and pointed out that you've been parading around a doctored version.

Why can't you even at least admit that? Why are YEC cultists so darned afraid of being honest now and then? Is your "faith" really so fragile that admitting that you've basically lied about this going to destroy it?

And you claim a journalism background!?!


How do you think an editor would look upon you turning in a story in which had taken a quote from someone, lopped off half of it without indicating that you had done so, and presenting it to mean something that the author did not intend?


And I know you 'stand by' what you've written. W. Bush 'stood by' his claims that Iraq sought out uranium from Niger, too. That didn't make it true.

The evolutionist Oro does not REQUIRE that abiogenesis be part of the Theory of Evolution, as you have erroneously "interpreted" from the doctored quote from him that you've been parading around.

Acknowledging that the CONCEPT/PHENOMENON of "evolution" was involved in both both the origin of species and the origin of life (as well as the origins of stars, etc.) cannot, by any rational person, truly be interpreted to mean that the THEORY of biological evolution ala Darwin et al. thus CONTAINS abiogenesis as one of its foundational hypotheses.

You have had this explained to you before - I found this explanation written plainly to you a year ago on the MSNBC board (as well as PT), yet here you are, a year later, trotting out the same claim that you 'stand by', as if your confidence makes an error of interpretation not an error.

So, I guess I will just have to trot out the claims of creationist PhD Kurt Wise who not only acknowledges that there are transitional forms and that the fossil record provides good evidence for evolution, but that those who say otherwise are more or less lying.

Hey - a quote from a creationist himself - and one with a PhD no less - MUST be the truth!

[quote]
Furthermore, one of your comrades came up with a very recent De Duve quotation, which only serves to reinforce what Oro said.
     

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Nobel laureate Christian de Duve summarized the plenary session: "The participants unanimously accepted as indisputable the affirmation that the Universe, as well as life within it, are the products of long evolutionary histories...."

---Nmgirl's post, Oct 6th, 11:58, "International General 2009 (Conference)"
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



You must be one horrible journalist.

Please look up the words "linkage" and "concept."


linkage:
factor or relationship that connects or ties one thing to another; link: Administration officials sought to establish linkage between grain sales and relaxed immigration laws.

concept:
a general notion or idea; conception.

The problem with you people seems to be that if the word 'evolution' is used in any way, you immediately conclude that it refers back to biological evolution, regardless of the context.

I should have thought that a journalist would at the very least have a better handle on basic language.


And..

You seem to want to ignore the bulk of Oro's passage and hone in solely on a few terms and phrases. And that is your main problem.

And also basic understanding - look at the sentence you just quoted again:

"The linkage from cosmic elements to cometary molecules to primitive Earth to biological evolution ties cosmochemical evolution to the origin of life. "

He is tying cosmochemical evolution to the origin of life. He is NOT tying the origin of life to bioloigical evolution, excpet in the sense that 'evolutiopn' is the overarching concpet that they share. The concepts are tied together by a common phenomenon.

Just like how gravity ties together falling, diving, dropping bombs, and planetary orbits. But diving is not a part of planetary orbiting.


Note that in the first sentence and into the second (the part you never quote) he wrote:

"In the mid-1800s, Darwin showed how the concept of evolution by natural selection applies to living systems. But evolution also operates in the inanimate world..."

Darwin showed how the concept of evolution by natural selection applies to living things. But Oro goes to explain that the CONCEPT also applies to other things.

Why oh why is that beyond your comprehension?

Also note how I produced the quote - I indicated via ellipses that the quote is not complete. You should understand that.



Anyone agree with your interpretation yet?

Oh, I forgot - you've never answered my questions re: your use of sources. Why do you think Oro's take on this, even if your twisted misinterpretation were correct, is the 'right' one? Why do you present his position as the ultimate, all-encompassing 'evo' position on this matter?

In fact, why do you do that with ALL of your sources? It does not matter the topic or who the person is - if they've said or written something that you interpret as being favorable to your position, you present them as beyond reproach and their claims as set in stone. Why do you do that? You also have the annoying, odd, and foolish habit of simply ignoring individual words in sentences that you do not like. I recently reviewed an old thread on vestigials, for example, in which you took part you insisted that the definition that you had gleaned from a textbook was the ultimate no-questions-asked defitnion of vestigial and you, as you've done with the Oro quote, only presented the part that indicated that vestigials had no function, yet when someone presented more of the quote indicating that reduced or different function (from the original) also counted, you just re-posted the now more complete quote and bolded the word "functionless" and insisted that your point was proved.

What sort of person does that and actually thinks that their point is made?

It is as if I claimed that the U.S. flag were only red and white and to 'prove' this, presented this quote:


"The flag of the United States consists of thirteen equal horizontal stripes of red (top and bottom) alternating with white."

Then, someone who felt the flag were red, white and blue, found the source of my quote, and presented the rest of it:


The flag of the United States consists of thirteen equal horizontal stripes of red (top and bottom) alternating with white, with a blue rectangle in the canton bearing fifty small, white, five-pointed stars arranged in nine offset horizontal rows of six stars (top and bottom) alternating with rows of five stars.The flag of the United States consists of thirteen equal horizontal stripes of red (top and bottom) alternating with white, with a blue rectangle in the canton bearing fifty small, white, five-pointed stars arranged in nine offset horizontal rows of six stars (top and bottom) alternating with rows of five stars."

And I then thanked them for proving my point and to 'prove' this, did this:


The flag of the United States consists of thirteen equal horizontal stripes of red (top and bottom) alternating with white, with a blue rectangle in the canton bearing fifty small, white, five-pointed stars arranged in nine offset horizontal rows of six stars (top and bottom) alternating with rows of five stars.


And just sort of blew off the rest?

That is what YOU'VE done re: this quote.

I have to ask, and I do so sincerely- are you medicated?

< http://www.christiandiscussionforums.org/v....oststop >

And then you ran away....
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Oct. 13 2009,08:46

Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 13 2009,09:38)
The theory of evolution says nothing about God.  Nothing.  God might be involved, God might not, but the theory does not EXCLUDE the possibility that God might be required.

Yes.  It does.  For two reasons, Futuyma's EB3 textbook pointed out.  

First, evolution does not admit conscious anticipation of the future (and before you respond, consider the fact that nobody has offered an evolutionist refutation for THAT one in all 39 pages of this debate), and with the God of Genesis you definitely get 100 percent conscious anticipation of the future.  

Second, you would automatically eliminate the claim that supernatural processes cannot be the subject of science, and with that, you open the legal door for teaching creationism in public school.  

(Which is all right by me, but I think you have a problem with it, eh?).
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


speaking of admitting things and explanation...



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
why is god not part of the required explanation for why water runs downhill, when he is part of the required explanation for the EXISTENCE OF WATER?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------




heeeeeeere pussy pussy pussy pussy
Posted by: OgreMkV on Oct. 13 2009,08:47

Just as a quick aside... if you somehow "open the door" to teach creationism in public schools, then you also "open to the door" to teach every other creation myth that exists.  In fact, by the laws of the United States of America (cannot promote one religion over another), then I would be required to teach ALL creation myths.  With, given about 15 minutes for each, would require about 3 school years to do.  (Yes, that's just an estimate.)  

I have no problem with that, but I bet you do.

On the other hand, you keep saying these things.  I don't think they mean, what you think they mean.  

So you admit that the theory of evolution says nothing about God.  Good, I'm glad we agree on that.

science = natural
super natural /= natural
therefore:
 science /= supernatural

What about this aren't you getting?

Please describe in some detail a test whereby we could determine whether God has had a hand in anything in the natural world.
Posted by: didymos on Oct. 13 2009,08:59

Quote (Schroedinger's Dog @ Oct. 12 2009,23:58)
About Oldroyd, first a few details about The (Australian) Weekend Review:

Country:
Australia
Language:
English
Content description:
Books, Arts, Film and TV supplement of the Australian Weekend

< link >

Not exactly either a scientific or religious, or even remotely serious source.

Second, when you make a basic search for The Australian Weekend review + Oldroyd, you only find 6 results, one of which is this very forum. The other 5 sites are all YEC forums and sites.

< link >

I would bet a lot that this Oldroyd "article" is yet another fabrication by the lying-for-jebus AIG folks...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Yeah, I did some digging too.  Oldroyd is a known historian of science, especially geology, and he has written on evolution and such before (especially since Darwin relied on Lyell's work).  He contributed to a book callled < "Darwinism and Philosophy" > in 2005 and has both < edited and written > other texts on the general subject over the years.  My guess is that this quote is either from a book review or an interview associated with a book release.  Given that it ends with ellipses, my other guess is that it probably reads differently in its full context.  For reference, here's his faculty page at UNSW:

< http://hist-phil.arts.unsw.edu.au/staff....Oldroyd >

I suppose someone could email him and ask.  He might be interested in the fact that he's being used by creationists, and possibly quotemined.  Here's what Google Scholar has as well:

< http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&q=David+Oldroyd >

ETA: And, just to reiterate, even if the quote is wholly accurate and reads exactly the same in context, it still won't matter.  It'll still just be Oldroyd's personal opinion which no one is at all obligated to pay the least attention to.
Posted by: Robin on Oct. 13 2009,10:08

Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 09 2009,13:22)

---------------------QUOTE-------------------




---------------------QUOTE-------------------


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Ummm...having coconuts and herbs for food means death before the fall.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Nope, nope.  Coconuts and herbs do not have a "Nephesh."  Only animals and humans.   You are not killing the kiwifruit when you eat it.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



LOL! You can believe whatever silliness you wish, but the moment you pull and apple from a tree, you are in fact causing death. When you can objectively demonstrate this "nephesh" I'll go along with you. Until then, I'll stick with the physiological definitions we have.
Posted by: FrankH on Oct. 13 2009,11:08

Wow, so there's a different definition between "life" in animals and "life" in plants?  Where does fungi, bacterium, etc, fit in?
Posted by: FrankH on Oct. 13 2009,11:17

As I have no edit ability.  Here's a few questions:

1:  There are 6 Kingdoms of life.  Then there are Viruses and Prions.  Where do they all fit into the "Tree of Life" from a Creationist POV?

2:  How are the cells of plants (and the other non-animal cells) different from animal cells?

Those are two but I will think of more.
Posted by: Constant Mews on Oct. 13 2009,11:17

Quote (FrankH @ Oct. 13 2009,11:08)
Wow, so there's a different definition between "life" in animals and "life" in plants?  Where does fungi, bacterium, etc, fit in?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Having no nostrils within which the breath of life may be found, they are not living, of course.

You must keep up with your ancient Hebrew.
Posted by: Constant Mews on Oct. 13 2009,11:20

Quote (Henry J @ Oct. 12 2009,22:30)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
You know one definition of insanity is repeating the same behavior over and over again and expecting a different income.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

 
But what does that say about the people who keep trying to explain stuff to Floyd? ;)

Henry
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


In my case it's two-fold: primarily, I am trying to save his soul - he is a Christian gone astray who has set up a false idol in this life, which damns him to hell; second, he's an interesting psychological study, just as AFDave was.
Posted by: FloydLee on Oct. 13 2009,11:25

Okay, let's see if we can do one more 4th incompatibility response to Heddle.


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
("Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all men, because all sinned")...states absolutely nothing, with certainty, about animal death.

There is no logic by which Romans 5:12 absolutely precludes the possibility that, prior to Adam's sin, an elephant crushed an ant. The verse is at least arguably, if not most likely, by its construction, concerned only with humans. Even when taking about sin, it is talking about man's sin, not about sin first appearing on the earth. Why? Because Christian theology would state that Satan was already on the earth, sinning, before man’s fall.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Quite honestly, this is incorrect.  There is a key phrase in 5:12 that is impossible to sidestep on any level.


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



There is literally NO translation of the Bible (check 'em!) in which this order is reversed or either clause eliminated.  Sin enters this world first (via the Fall), and ONLY THEN does death--specifically, "MUT" in Genesis -- enter this world.  

("Mut" applies only to biological objects that have God's "breath of life" in them---animals & humans.)

Because of this, the correct biblical answer is
"No the Edenic pre-Fall elephant doesn't get to step on the ant, and the ant-eater doesn't get to slurp up the ants, and the ants don't get to gang up on the caterpillar and drag him home for supper" (I actually saw that happen one time in my teens.)  

Why not?  Because "Mut" only entered this world after Adam and Eve's sin.  Not before.  As you would say, it's the "construction of the sentence."  And it's only constructed ONE way.

Furthermore, you are directly contradicting Romans 5 (and Romans 8, btw) when you claim that sin was in the world prior to Adam and Eve's sin.  The text clearly states the opposite.  

Now if you wanna say that Romans 5 is incorrect because Satan was plopping around somewhere, that's fine, but understand that you automatically RE-AFFIRM the Fourth Incompatibility by doing so, because falsifying Romans 5:12-17 doesn't just mean falsifying Adam and his historical deed, but also means falsifying Christ and his historical deed too.

(Besides, Christ did NOT die for Satan's sins, did he?  So that effectively means that Satan's sins don't count for Romans 5:12-17).  

Pretty steep price tag there!

******

Now let's go to ICR's James Stambaugh, whom thou despisest or something.


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
(ICR Yahoo) We are told in Hebrews 9:22, "without the shedding of blood there is no remission of sin." So a blood sacrifice is only necessary if there is sin. The rest of the Old Testament has similar treatment of sacrifice for atonement.

If there was animal death before the fall of man, then God and all those who followed His pattern did useless acts.

One must observe that in the atonement the animal loses its life in the place of the human. If animal death existed before the fall, then the object lesson represented by the atoning sacrifice is in reality a cruel joke.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Again, biblically, Stambaugh is totally correct.  The first animal sacrifice took place in Eden itself, when the Lord was forced to kill an animal to provide a covering for the shamed Adam and Eve.

Then there was Abel---God honored his sacrifice of a lamb, instead of his brother's veggie sacrifice, because the lamb's blood provided cover for sin (remember Hebrews says that without blood there is no remission for sin.)  

This is no light thing.  God instituted an animal sacrifice system for the people of Israel, and ultimately God would sacrifice the very best He had -- his own Son, Jesus Christ -- to give up his blood for all of humanity.
All of the previous animal sacrifices foreshadowed that world-changing event.  ("The animal loses his life in place of the human", Stambaugh wrote.)  

That's why Christians sometimes call Jesus "the Lamb", btw.

But now think about it.  What if animals were ALREADY dying prior to the Sin of Adam and Eve?  Then something has gone wrong.  What are they dying for, when Adam and Eve haven't even sinned yet?  How does this avoid wrecking Romans 5 and Romans 8?  Moreover their worth as even a temporary covering for human sin drops to zero.  

Moreover, if animals are dying before the Fall, that means you got not just elephant sqooshing ants, but flatout Nature Red In Tooth and Claw.  Automatically brings up the 5th Incom.

Gotta stop there for now, but you clearly see the problems involved in your statements.

FloydLee
Posted by: FrankH on Oct. 13 2009,11:27

Quote (Constant Mews @ Oct. 13 2009,11:17)
Quote (FrankH @ Oct. 13 2009,11:08)
Wow, so there's a different definition between "life" in animals and "life" in plants?  Where does fungi, bacterium, etc, fit in?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Having no nostrils within which the breath of life may be found, they are not living, of course.

You must keep up with your ancient Hebrew.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Fish do not breath from their nostrils.  Sponges and jellyfish, animals last time I checked, have no nostrils.  Also, please correct me if I'm wrong) but I seem to remember that there are a few animals that breath through their skin as well.  Are they in the same category as plants?
Posted by: didymos on Oct. 13 2009,11:53

Quote (FrankH @ Oct. 13 2009,09:27)
Quote (Constant Mews @ Oct. 13 2009,11:17)
Quote (FrankH @ Oct. 13 2009,11:08)
Wow, so there's a different definition between "life" in animals and "life" in plants?  Where does fungi, bacterium, etc, fit in?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Having no nostrils within which the breath of life may be found, they are not living, of course.

You must keep up with your ancient Hebrew.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Fish do not breath from their nostrils.  Sponges and jellyfish, animals last time I checked, have no nostrils.  Also, please correct me if I'm wrong) but I seem to remember that there are a few animals that breath through their skin as well.  Are they in the same category as plants?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


And what about stomata?  Don't those count?
Posted by: OgreMkV on Oct. 13 2009,11:53

Floyd, a quick lesson in basic ecology.  

All the energy for life on Earth comes from the sun (we'll ignore the chemoautotrophs for now because they are rarely involved in the large ecosystems that most people are familiar with).
Plants use chlorophyll to convert that solar radiation to chemically available energy in the form of ATP, which is then used to build sugars.
Herbivores (obligate plant eaters) then consume the plants to get energy and raw materials to increase size, have babies, etc.
Carnivores (obligate meat eaters) then consume the herbivores to get the energy and raw materials they need to increase size, have babies, etc.
Omnivores (everything eaters) have the options to consume whatever food sources is available.
Decomposers consume dead things in order to recycle the material back into the ecosystem so that plants have a source of raw materials (not energy).

So, by your logic...
 1) There were no carnivores before the fall.  Many of these species are obligate meat-eaters.  That means that they must eat large amounts of animal protein in order to live.  Substitutes will not allow them to live.

 2) There were no decomposers, since they only consume dead things.

Your hypothesis REQUIRES, that we do not find any meat-eaters in the fossil record before 6000 years ago. (They wouldn't have anything to eat.)
Your hypothesis REQUIRES, that we do not find fossils (because nothing died) before 6000 years ago.
Your hypothesis REQUIRES, that even if something died, we should find it completly intact (all organs, soft tissue, etc) because there were no decomposers. (Decomposers would have had nothing to eat.)

Therefore: either fossils do not exist (especially the meat-eating fossils) or there is something wrong with your hypothesis.

It's demonstratable that fossil meat eating animals do exist.  
It's demonstratable that these fossilized animals did not exist during historical times (I think a smilodon would be a pretty obvious animal to mention in the historical records).

I could go on, but what's the point?
Posted by: OgreMkV on Oct. 13 2009,11:56

Quote (FrankH @ Oct. 13 2009,11:27)
Quote (Constant Mews @ Oct. 13 2009,11:17)
Quote (FrankH @ Oct. 13 2009,11:08)
Wow, so there's a different definition between "life" in animals and "life" in plants?  Where does fungi, bacterium, etc, fit in?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Having no nostrils within which the breath of life may be found, they are not living, of course.

You must keep up with your ancient Hebrew.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Fish do not breath from their nostrils.  Sponges and jellyfish, animals last time I checked, have no nostrils.  Also, please correct me if I'm wrong) but I seem to remember that there are a few animals that breath through their skin as well.  Are they in the same category as plants?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Some salamanders retain external gills throughout their life.

Is the nostril thing supposed to mean 'consumes oxygen for respiration'?  Cause plants do that too.
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Oct. 13 2009,12:16

and an entire family of salamanders doesn't even have lungs.

floyd you are a pretty stupid person if you think the bullshit you drag out of the bible has anything to do with reality.

why don't you answer the question now?
Posted by: jswilkins on Oct. 13 2009,12:28

I don't know what Oldroyd is being used for, as I haven't been following this thread while on the road, but he's an echt historian of philosophy and science,, knows his Darwin very well indeed, and wrote the best history of philosophy to have ever died stillborn (AoK):

Oldroyd, David R. 1983. Darwinian impacts: an introduction to the Darwinian revolution. 2nd rev. ed. Kensington, N.S.W.: University of New South Wales Press.
———. 1986. The Arch of Knowledge: An introductory study of the history of the philosophy and methodology of science. Kensington, NSW: New South Wales University Press.
Posted by: didymos on Oct. 13 2009,12:56

Quote (jswilkins @ Oct. 13 2009,10:28)
I don't know what Oldroyd is being used for, as I haven't been following this thread while on the road, but he's an echt historian of philosophy and science,, knows his Darwin very well indeed, and wrote the best history of philosophy to have ever died stillborn (AoK):

Oldroyd, David R. 1983. Darwinian impacts: an introduction to the Darwinian revolution. 2nd rev. ed. Kensington, N.S.W.: University of New South Wales Press.
———. 1986. The Arch of Knowledge: An introductory study of the history of the philosophy and methodology of science. Kensington, NSW: New South Wales University Press.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


He was a "Quotable Quote[mine]" in a < 1993 issue > of the magazine Creation (though Floyd found it < by way of AiG >, who used to distribute the magazine in the US before they started up Answers and the rest of AiG started calling itself Creation Minisitries International), and Floyd has copypasted it as "evidence" for one of his "Big Five Incompatibilities" between Christianity and Evolution.
Posted by: FloydLee on Oct. 13 2009,13:03



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
floyd you are a pretty stupid person if you think the bullshit you drag out of the bible has anything to do with reality.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Hmm.  Sounds like a person who used to believe in Jesus Christ and the Bible but has now rejected both (and that right strongly).

Nevertheless some of us still believe that Jesus Christ and the Bible speaks the truth about reality (including historical reality), all the same.
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Oct. 13 2009,13:07

Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 13 2009,14:03)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
floyd you are a pretty stupid person if you think the bullshit you drag out of the bible has anything to do with reality.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Hmm.  Sounds like a person who used to believe in Jesus Christ and the Bible but has now rejected both (and that right strongly).

Nevertheless some of us still believe that Jesus Christ and the Bible speaks the truth about reality (including historical reality), all the same.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


is that right?  in what reality do you have the answer for this question?



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
why is god not part of the required explanation for why water runs downhill, when he is part of the required explanation for the EXISTENCE OF WATER?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: didymos on Oct. 13 2009,13:15

Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 13 2009,11:03)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
floyd you are a pretty stupid person if you think the bullshit you drag out of the bible has anything to do with reality.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Hmm.  Sounds like a person who used to believe in Jesus Christ and the Bible but has now rejected both (and that right strongly).

Nevertheless some of us still believe that Jesus Christ and the Bible speaks the truth about reality (including historical reality), all the same.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Oh, sure. He responds to that.
Posted by: Chayanov on Oct. 13 2009,13:47

Quote (didymos @ Oct. 13 2009,13:15)
 
Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 13 2009,11:03)
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
floyd you are a pretty stupid person if you think the bullshit you drag out of the bible has anything to do with reality.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Hmm.  Sounds like a person who used to believe in Jesus Christ and the Bible but has now rejected both (and that right strongly).

Nevertheless some of us still believe that Jesus Christ and the Bible speaks the truth about reality (including historical reality), all the same.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Oh, sure. He responds to that.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Of course. Such comments are part of his missionary work.
Posted by: Lou FCD on Oct. 13 2009,13:53

Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 13 2009,14:03)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
floyd you are a pretty stupid person if you think the bullshit you drag out of the bible has anything to do with reality.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Hmm.  Sounds like a person who used to believe in Jesus Christ and the Bible but has now rejected both (and that right strongly).

Nevertheless some of us still believe that Jesus Christ and the Bible speaks the truth about reality (including historical reality), all the same.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Rabbits.

Cud.

Dipshit.
Posted by: Tracy P. Hamilton on Oct. 13 2009,14:17

Quote (Constant Mews @ Oct. 13 2009,11:17)
   
Quote (FrankH @ Oct. 13 2009,11:08)
Wow, so there's a different definition between "life" in animals and "life" in plants?  Where does fungi, bacterium, etc, fit in?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Having no nostrils within which the breath of life may be found, they are not living, of course.

You must keep up with your ancient Hebrew.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Stomata don't count as nostrils?  Not nephish enough, I guess.

Edited to add:  Damn you, Didymos!

Edited again: You stole my sig, which I stole from olegt!  :angry:   Back to the old one.
Posted by: Tracy P. Hamilton on Oct. 13 2009,14:27

Quote (Robin @ Oct. 13 2009,10:08)
Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 09 2009,13:22)

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Ummm...having coconuts and herbs for food means death before the fall.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Nope, nope.  Coconuts and herbs do not have a "Nephesh."  Only animals and humans.   You are not killing the kiwifruit when you eat it.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



LOL! You can believe whatever silliness you wish, but the moment you pull and apple from a tree, you are in fact causing death. When you can objectively demonstrate this "nephesh" I'll go along with you. Until then, I'll stick with the physiological definitions we have.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


A man noticed a farmer walking with three-legged pig on a leash. It looked very odd. He said, "Farmer, why are you walking a three-legged pig?"

"Why, stranger, this is no ordinary pig," the farmer replied. "One night our barn caught on fire, and before my wife and I even woke up, the pig had called the fire department, and herded all the other animals out of the barn. The next week, a burglar got into the house, and the pig had him tied up and the police were on their way before I even realized what had happened. Then just last week, I fell into the duck pond and was like to drown, except this pig jumped in and pulled me out. Like I say, this is no ordinary pig."

"Well, that truly is a remarkable pig. But tell me, how did he come to have only three legs?" "Are you kidding? A pig this good, you don't eat all at once."
Posted by: deadman_932 on Oct. 13 2009,14:38

When are we gonna get to Biblical biology and the talking donkeys* and snakes?
(*I know, I know, we already have Floyd...but he's not Biblical, just hysterical)

I can foresee the future: when questioned, Floyd will say "it was a miracle, each and every time"

ETA: And poor, poor Erasmus will never get his question answered about gods and water running downhill. Also, water will continue to be wet.
Posted by: Constant Mews on Oct. 13 2009,15:29

Quote (deadman_932 @ Oct. 13 2009,14:38)
When are we gonna get to Biblical biology and the talking donkeys* and snakes?
(*I know, I know, we already have Floyd...but he's not Biblical, just hysterical)

I can foresee the future: when questioned, Floyd will say "it was a miracle, each and every time"

ETA: And poor, poor Erasmus will never get his question answered about gods and water running downhill. Also, water will continue to be wet.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Floyd cannot answer that question, since it categorically disproves his first "incompatible".

Again, Floyd, you have already conceded your first "incompatible" by acknowledging that God may be responsible for (necessary and sufficient) the process of evolution, without intervening directing at any particular point.

Moreover, the theory of evolution as you have presented it does not preclude God.  It makes no mention of God.  It cannot exclude God (the point the Pope was making and with which you agree).
Posted by: Robin on Oct. 13 2009,15:47

Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 13 2009,13:03)

---------------------QUOTE-------------------




---------------------QUOTE-------------------


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
floyd you are a pretty stupid person if you think the bullshit you drag out of the bible has anything to do with reality.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Hmm.  Sounds like a person who used to believe in Jesus Christ and the Bible but has now rejected both (and that right strongly).

Nevertheless some of us still believe that Jesus Christ and the Bible speaks the truth about reality (including historical reality), all the same.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Hmmm...yet another indication that you don't know of what youe speak, Floyd. Last time I checked (within the month, so it hasn't been that long) the bible is silent on the subject of reality. In fact, it's silent on EVERY subject. Go ahead and check - hold one up to your ear and listen; there isn't bible out there that is going to say anything itself. No, a bible, like all books, speaks not a word, but rather the authors of the bible make statements in texts. Those texts are read and the reader comes away with an impression of what the authors wrote. Of course with the bible, there are all sorts of competing impressions of what the authors were trying to get across. You can insist your understanding is correct there Floyd, but given your track record on claims, so far there isn't any good reason to go along with you. I'll take the multitude of actual biblical scholars (my sister included) work on the subject of your obviously erroneous interpretations. Thanks.
Posted by: Robin on Oct. 13 2009,15:50

Quote (Tracy P. Hamilton @ Oct. 13 2009,14:27)

---------------------QUOTE-------------------




---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Quote (Robin @ Oct. 13 2009,10:08)
 
Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 09 2009,13:22)

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Ummm...having coconuts and herbs for food means death before the fall.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Nope, nope.  Coconuts and herbs do not have a "Nephesh."  Only animals and humans.   You are not killing the kiwifruit when you eat it.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



LOL! You can believe whatever silliness you wish, but the moment you pull and apple from a tree, you are in fact causing death. When you can objectively demonstrate this "nephesh" I'll go along with you. Until then, I'll stick with the physiological definitions we have.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


A man noticed a farmer walking with three-legged pig on a leash. It looked very odd. He said, "Farmer, why are you walking a three-legged pig?"

"Why, stranger, this is no ordinary pig," the farmer replied. "One night our barn caught on fire, and before my wife and I even woke up, the pig had called the fire department, and herded all the other animals out of the barn. The next week, a burglar got into the house, and the pig had him tied up and the police were on their way before I even realized what had happened. Then just last week, I fell into the duck pond and was like to drown, except this pig jumped in and pulled me out. Like I say, this is no ordinary pig."

"Well, that truly is a remarkable pig. But tell me, how did he come to have only three legs?" "Are you kidding? A pig this good, you don't eat all at once."
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



LMAO! Well played! Now that is a great story!
Posted by: FloydLee on Oct. 13 2009,16:16

Sure Erasmus.  A bright person like you has been keeping up with the order which I previously stated for replies, so you know that DHeddle has been replied to and that you're next up on the list.  (


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
why is god not part of the required explanation for why water runs downhill, when he is part of the required explanation for the EXISTENCE OF WATER?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Simply put, because you evolutionists don't accept that.  
Let's bring in Futuyma's evo-bio textbook---he's got a good example.


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
 The process cannot have a goal, any more than than erosion has the goal of forming canyons, for the future cannot cause material events in the past. -- EB3
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Yes, God is the required explanation for the origin of water.  Likewise for the origin of gravity.  So yes, God is indirectly, ultimately, the required explanation for water running downhill.

BUT....you evolutionists don't accept that.  For you, God is NOT the required explanation, not even indirectly or ultimately, for water running downhill, or water erosion producing the Grand Canyon.

Why not?  Because if you DO suddenly decide to announce that God is indirectly, ultimately, a required explanation for water running downhill, you immediately run into the Futuyma textbook-taught roadblock:  
Supernatural causes cannot be the subject of science
...which so many of you (including yourself) have agreed to.

So if you were somehow hoping to draw up some kind of analogy with evolution using the water-running-downhill thing as God-as-indirect-ultimate-explanation., that's BLOCKED at this time.  

Unless you are ready to admit supernatural causation as a legitimate subject of science, that is.  And teleology a la mode.  (And God knows what else!).

FloydLee
Posted by: Reed on Oct. 13 2009,16:21

Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 13 2009,06:38)
First, evolution does not admit conscious anticipation of the future (and before you respond, consider the fact that nobody has offered an evolutionist refutation for THAT one in all 39 pages of this debate), and with the God of Genesis you definitely get 100 percent conscious anticipation of the future.  

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Wrong. It has been pointed out many times that this objection is based on your failure to understand the how science works. The supernatural isn't addressed in science, so you wouldn't expect definitions of scientific theories to refer to supernatural. Adding "except for any possible supernatural meddling" to the definition of any scientific theory would be extraneous. If such an addendum was required for evolution, it would be required for all other scientific theories, e.g.
E=mc2 *
* except in the event of supernatural meddling


---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Second, you would automatically eliminate the claim that supernatural processes cannot be the subject of science,

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Uh no, that does not follow at all. The fact that science cannot address the supernatural clearly means that the supernatural doesn't belong in science class. In any case the establishment clause clearly prevents favoring any one supernatural explanation.

I notice you ignored my post here which previously addressed most of this: < http://www.antievolution.org/cgi-bin....y156228 >

So please is explain, if god is ominipotent how can he be excluded from anything ? Doesn't the definition of omnipotent meant that he could change anything, anywhere, any time ? Or is your god not omnipotent ?
Posted by: Constant Mews on Oct. 13 2009,16:26

Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 13 2009,16:16)
Sure Erasmus.  A bright person like you has been keeping up with the order which I previously stated for replies, so you know that DHeddle has been replied to and that you're next up on the list.  (
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
why is god not part of the required explanation for why water runs downhill, when he is part of the required explanation for the EXISTENCE OF WATER?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Simply put, because you evolutionists don't accept that.  
Let's bring in Futuyma's evo-bio textbook---he's got a good example.
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
 The process cannot have a goal, any more than than erosion has the goal of forming canyons, for the future cannot cause material events in the past. -- EB3
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Yes, God is the required explanation for the origin of water.  Likewise for the origin of gravity.  So yes, God is indirectly, ultimately, the required explanation for water running downhill.

BUT....you evolutionists don't accept that.  For you, God is NOT the required explanation, not even indirectly or ultimately, for water running downhill, or water erosion producing the Grand Canyon.

Why not?  Because if you DO suddenly decide to announce that God is indirectly, ultimately, a required explanation for water running downhill, you immediately run into the Futuyma textbook-taught roadblock:  
Supernatural causes cannot be the subject of science
...which so many of you (including yourself) have agreed to.

So if you were somehow hoping to draw up some kind of analogy with evolution using the water-running-downhill thing as God-as-indirect-ultimate-explanation., that's BLOCKED at this time.  

Unless you are ready to admit supernatural causation as a legitimate subject of science, that is.  And teleology a la mode.  (And God knows what else!).

FloydLee
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Floyd, you are projecting again, and lying about people you don't even know.  That is a sin.

You have, once again, made our point for us - and disproved your point 1.  Let's examine what you said:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Yes, God is the required explanation for the origin of water.  Likewise for the origin of gravity.  So yes, God is indirectly, ultimately, the required explanation for water running downhill.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

And God is, at least in my opinion, ultimately responsible for evolution.  It is exactly the same case.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
BUT....you evolutionists don't accept that.  For you, God is NOT the required explanation, not even indirectly or ultimately, for water running downhill, or water erosion producing the Grand Canyon.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


But why does that matter?  Once again, you are showing no grasp of logic.  Let me show you how simple this is:

1. Evolutionary theory is silent on the question of God.

2. Some people who accept evolutionary theory are atheists, they do not see God as the ultimate cause.

3. Some people who accept evolutionary theory are theists, we do see God as the ultimate cause.

The beliefs of the person who accepts the theory are not relevant to the accuracy or utility of the theory, nor to it's compatibility with God.

You have already conceded this point with your comments about water running downhill.

I am a Christian; I see no incompatibility between evolutionary theory and Christian doctrine.

You have been unable to demonstrate any such incompatibility; you are merely pointing out that atheists don't believe God is the ultimate cause of evolution.  We knew that to start with.

Not everyone who accepts evolutionary theory is an atheist.  Do you see that, Floyd?
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on Oct. 13 2009,16:26

Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 13 2009,16:16)
or water erosion producing the Grand Canyon.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Now, you see this is the problem.

Everybody agrees that "water erosion" produced the Grand Canyon.

The point is how long that took and why. The "ultimate" question can safely be put aside as it makes no difference one way or the other to the science. The problem is the science does not support your view. And your view will not/cannot change and so, somehow, the science is wrong instead.

The thing is that you say that "water erosion" produced the Grand Canyon yet what you really mean is the world was covered with water, totally, and somehow Noah knew what sex his dinosaur eggs were. And shovelled literally tons of waste off the side of a boat, day in and day out. And kept all those animals fed without them eating each other. And it was not two of each type was it FL? It was many more. And then, after all that, the trip to Australia to populate it with Koalas.

You see, "water erosion" can do a lot of things. What it cannot do is make a canyon as grand as the Grand Canyon in 40 days and 40 nights.

To insist that it did happen like that, well, it puts you in the same category as people who think they are Napoleon.
Posted by: Constant Mews on Oct. 13 2009,16:29



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Why not?  Because if you DO suddenly decide to announce that God is indirectly, ultimately, a required explanation for water running downhill, you immediately run into the Futuyma textbook-taught roadblock:  
Supernatural causes cannot be the subject of science
...which so many of you (including yourself) have agreed to.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



This has nothing whatsoever to do with whether or not God is ultimately responsible for evolution.  Nothing.  But science can only examine that which is testable.  Are you claiming that God - the divine, the Logos, the ineffable, whose ways are mysterious to man - is a testable phenomenon?

I realize your ignorance of theology and the Bible is considerable, but that is rather extreme, don't you think?

I am a Christian, Floyd.  I am a scientist, among other things.  And I fully accept evolutionary theory.  There are no incompatibilities between evolutionary theory and Christian Doctrine.

Not one.
Posted by: FloydLee on Oct. 13 2009,16:41



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Last time I checked (within the month, so it hasn't been that long) the bible is silent on the subject of reality
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Ha!   Now y'all just KNOW that a debate topic has entered wrapup-phase when the skeptics start talkin' all WILD like that!

FloydLee     :)
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on Oct. 13 2009,16:44

Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 13 2009,16:41)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Last time I checked (within the month, so it hasn't been that long) the bible is silent on the subject of reality
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Ha!   Now y'all just KNOW that a debate topic has entered wrapup-phase when the skeptics start talkin' all WILD like that!

FloydLee     :)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Way to go FL. Way to go.

And people actually thought you were serious about this.
Posted by: FloydLee on Oct. 13 2009,17:04



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Again, Floyd, you have already conceded your first "incompatible" by acknowledging that God may be responsible for (necessary and sufficient) the process of evolution, without intervening directing at any particular point.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Actually, we've already looked at Scripture (and the Pope too), and to whatever extent evolution exists (such as microevolution, but NOT macroevolution, for the latter has never been observed), God IS the required explanation for it.  

And no, you don't get to fudge by saying "without intervening directly".  After all, you've already said that God was "necessary and sufficient", thus locking Him into being the Required Explanation even if you think it's an indirect explanation.  You still bring in teleology, you still have to explain why God used a gazillion years of evolutionary animal suffering to evolve the first two humans, you still bring in your problems even when you try to make it "indirect."

And that "necessary and sufficient" you mentioned, is exactly what the theory of evolution denies.

For as Mayr pointed out, the theory of evolution explains things solely materialistically (or purely materialistically if you prefer Futuyma) and the theory of evolution no longer requires God as creator or designer.

No longer "necessary and sufficient", as you put it.

Hence the First Incompatibility remains solidly in place.

(..and that's not counting the statment of evolutionist David Oldroyd who, one poster said, knows his Darwin quite well.)

FloydLee
Posted by: FloydLee on Oct. 13 2009,17:15

Here's a question for the entire house.  Given the following statement:

"Evolution has no goal."  (Sources already cited.)

Does ANYBODY in this forum disagree with that specific statement?
Posted by: Schroedinger's Dog on Oct. 13 2009,17:15



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Actually, we've already looked at Scripture (and the Pope too), and to whatever extent evolution exists (such as microevolution, but NOT macroevolution, for the latter has never been observed), God IS the required explanation for it.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------




Nutjob!

By the way, if Da Flud deposited all those layers with dead dinos and all, what particular process actually "carved" the Grand Canyon? Why at this particular location? The mighty draining of the waters back to the fountains of the deep? If so, may we find the sinkhole to these fountains if we follow the river all the way to its end?

Just asking...
Posted by: Tracy P. Hamilton on Oct. 13 2009,17:25

Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 13 2009,17:15)
Here's a question for the entire house.  Given the following statement:

"Evolution has no goal."  (Sources already cited.)

Does ANYBODY in this forum disagree with that specific statement?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Does water flowing downhill have a goal?

Is God required for an explanation of that?
Posted by: Schroedinger's Dog on Oct. 13 2009,17:31

Quote (Tracy P. Hamilton @ Oct. 14 2009,00:25)
Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 13 2009,17:15)
Here's a question for the entire house.  Given the following statement:

"Evolution has no goal."  (Sources already cited.)

Does ANYBODY in this forum disagree with that specific statement?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Does water flowing downhill have a goal?

Is God required for an explanation of that?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


yeah, but see, Yodel Elf NEEDS evolution to have a goal, so he can continue to live in his little fairytale where he is a "special creation" and his sky daddy loves him so much more because he is special...
Posted by: Constant Mews on Oct. 13 2009,17:38

Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 13 2009,17:04)

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Floyd:

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Actually, we've already looked at Scripture (and the Pope too), and to whatever extent evolution exists (such as microevolution, but NOT macroevolution, for the latter has never been observed), God IS the required explanation for it.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Not according to evolutionary theory.  Apparently you didn't even bother to read the definitions you provided.  Your definitions - the ones that you gave us, say nothing about God's involvement, because science can't test for God.  Your ignorance of both the Bible and theology apparently isn't up to knowing that.

Your definitions, Lee.  Your quotes from the Pope.  Evolutionary theory does NOT deny the ultimate cause of God; it merely explains testable mechanisms.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
And no, you don't get to fudge by saying "without intervening directly".
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

But you've just said that, Floyd.  That was the point of the water flowing downhill example.  You've already conceded that water can operate a perfectly natural process for which God is ultimately responsible, and yet man cannot test for God.

You're on record as having conceded your first point.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
After all, you've already said that God was "necessary and sufficient", thus locking Him into being the Required Explanation even if you think it's an indirect explanation.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Certainly I do.  But science cannot test that particular point, and does not include it in evolutionary theory.  It doesn't exclude it from evolutionary theory either.

You've already conceded this point, Floyd.  You're on record as having admitted that your first "incompatible" is meaningless.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
You still bring in teleology,
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Of course I do.  So do you.


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
you still have to explain why God used a gazillion years of evolutionary animal suffering to evolve the first two humans, you still bring in your problems even when you try to make it "indirect."
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Ah, so you're conceding your first point again.  You cannot establish it, since you've already admitted that God is the necessary and sufficient explanation for water flowing downhill, despite the fact that it occurs naturally.

Now you're trying to argue theodicy, the ancient Problem of Evil.  But it has nothing to do with evolutionary theory; the Problem of Evil stands whether or not evolution is true.  No escape hatch for you there, Floyd.  If you'd like to discuss the POE, I'm more than willing to; but you will be unable to show that any part of evolutionary theory specifies it as a problem.

You've already conceded point 1, Floyd.  And as I showed you already, your points 2-4 are also not incompatibles.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
And that "necessary and sufficient" you mentioned, is exactly what the theory of evolution denies.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Not in the slightest.  Show me the precise wording in the theory, not the comments on the theory by atheists which shows that evolution denies God.

You can't do it.  Because it's not there.  Evolutionary theory says nothing about God at all.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
For as Mayr pointed out, the theory of evolution explains things solely materialistically (or purely materialistically if you prefer Futuyma) and the theory of evolution no longer requires God as creator or designer.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

But this is NOT what you are claiming.  You are claiming that the theory denies the involvement of God.  It does not do so.

And you've already conceded this point, Floyd, when you admitted that God can be ultimately responsible for water flowing downhill, and yet we have a natural explanation.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
No longer "necessary and sufficient", as you put it.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Mayr's opinion is not the theory, Floyd.

You provided the definition of the theory.  Show me precisely where, in your definitions, that is says God is not necessary and sufficient.  Show me.

You provided the definitions.

You show me precisely where they exclude God.

You can't.
Posted by: Constant Mews on Oct. 13 2009,17:38

Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 13 2009,17:15)
Here's a question for the entire house.  Given the following statement:

"Evolution has no goal."  (Sources already cited.)

Does ANYBODY in this forum disagree with that specific statement?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Evolution has no goal that we can observe.  God does.
Posted by: deadman_932 on Oct. 13 2009,17:40

Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 13 2009,17:04)
[snip]  as Mayr pointed out, the theory of evolution explains things solely materialistically (or purely materialistically if you prefer Futuyma) and the theory of evolution no longer requires God as creator or designer.

No longer "necessary and sufficient", as you put it.

Hence the First Incompatibility remains solidly in place.

(..and that's not counting the statment of evolutionist David Oldroyd who, one poster said, knows his Darwin quite well.)

FloydLee
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


As I said previously, Floyd: This is the relevant from the Mayr quote that you keep ignoring, a relevant point immediately preceding the sentence you keep trying to isolate (i.e. quotemine by removing context):
     

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
"The theory of evolution by natural selection explains the adaptedness and diversity of the world solely materialistically" -- Ernst Mayr
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


THEN Mayr says "IT [meaning the evolution of diversity] no longer requires God as creator or designer (although one is certainly still free to believe in God even if one accepts evolution)." < http://sciphilos.info/docs_pages/docs_Mayr_Dawin_css.html >

1) No one is obliged to agree with Mayr on any theological claims.
2) However, Mayr's statement, in context, refers to the diversity of the world's organisms by the mechanisms of adaptation and speciation. He is quite clear about that. What he is NOT speaking about is the Ultimate Origins of all things, evolution included.  
3) No Science can address sophisticated (meaning Prime Mover) claims of Ultimate Deistic Creation/Purpose. None.
4.) And lastly,even if Mayr was to make such a claim about some Ultimate Deistic Creation of all living things, so what? As you said, anyone is free to also ignore your "Big Five," accept evolution, and remain a Christian -- by your own admission.

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

There's four reasons why you're wrong. Any one of them is good enough to negate your attempt at "battling quotes." These things were pointed out to you many times so far, but you refuse to acknowledge them anyway, pretending they don't exist.

Just as you admit that water obeys the laws of gravity that make water run downhill, There is room for belief that evolution, set in existence and action by a God, obeys rules that can be known by man.

What science cannot investigate is ultimate deistic teleology/ontology. This always, always leaves room for faith. Even people as divergently opinionated as Mayr and the Pope agree on that point.  

This is more straightforward and honest than nutcases trying to prove God by using obvious fallacies.
Posted by: Henry J on Oct. 13 2009,17:43

Quote (Dan @ Oct. 13 2009,02:11)
[...]

In fact, FL has been shown five ways to escape it.  According to FL, these five posters have all performed a task that cannot be performed!

Thank you, FL, for considering the five of us to be superhumans who can perform amazing feats of reasoning!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


And they probably violated the SLoT while doing it!!111!!one!! :p
Posted by: Henry J on Oct. 13 2009,17:48

Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 13 2009,07:38)
The theory of evolution says nothing about God.  Nothing.  God might be involved, God might not, but the theory does not EXCLUDE the possibility that God might be required.

Yes.  It does.  For two reasons, Futuyma's EB3 textbook pointed out.  

First, evolution does not admit conscious anticipation of the future (and before you respond, consider the fact that nobody has offered an evolutionist refutation for THAT one in all 39 pages of this debate), and with the God of Genesis you definitely get 100 percent conscious anticipation of the future.  

Second, you would automatically eliminate the claim that supernatural processes cannot be the subject of science, and with that, you open the legal door for teaching creationism in public school.  

(Which is all right by me, but I think you have a problem with it, eh?).
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Evolution itself does not use anticipation of the future. That does not contradict the notion that some agency outside of the evolution process might be using it for something.
Posted by: Schroedinger's Dog on Oct. 13 2009,17:52

Quote (Henry J @ Oct. 14 2009,00:43)
Quote (Dan @ Oct. 13 2009,02:11)
[...]

In fact, FL has been shown five ways to escape it.  According to FL, these five posters have all performed a task that cannot be performed!

Thank you, FL, for considering the five of us to be superhumans who can perform amazing feats of reasoning!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


And they probably violated the SLoT while doing it!!111!!one!! :p
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Ahhh, the SLoT, my favorite!

Creotard: "the SLoT requires an external source of energy to allow change. That source is God!!!1111oneshift!!"

Normal guy: "look up, fucktard"


The End
Posted by: Henry J on Oct. 13 2009,17:57

Quote (FrankH @ Oct. 13 2009,10:17)
As I have no edit ability.  Here's a few questions:

1:  There are 6 Kingdoms of life.  Then there are Viruses and Prions.  Where do they all fit into the "Tree of Life" from a Creationist POV?

2:  How are the cells of plants (and the other non-animal cells) different from animal cells?

Those are two but I will think of more.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Well, plant cells have cellulose, and some of them have chlorophyll.

Six kingdoms? I've heard of plants, animals, and fungi being referred to as kingdoms. What other three taxa are called kingdoms? (In what I've read, Prokaryotes, Eukaryotes, and Archaea are sometimes called domains.)
Posted by: Henry J on Oct. 13 2009,17:58

Quote (Constant Mews @ Oct. 13 2009,10:17)
Quote (FrankH @ Oct. 13 2009,11:08)
Wow, so there's a different definition between "life" in animals and "life" in plants?  Where does fungi, bacterium, etc, fit in?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Having no nostrils within which the breath of life may be found, they are not living, of course.

You must keep up with your ancient Hebrew.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


What does that say about insects, spiders, etc., since they breath through their skin? :p
Posted by: Henry J on Oct. 13 2009,18:01

Quote (didymos @ Oct. 13 2009,10:53)
Quote (FrankH @ Oct. 13 2009,09:27)
Quote (Constant Mews @ Oct. 13 2009,11:17)
 
Quote (FrankH @ Oct. 13 2009,11:08)
Wow, so there's a different definition between "life" in animals and "life" in plants?  Where does fungi, bacterium, etc, fit in?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Having no nostrils within which the breath of life may be found, they are not living, of course.

You must keep up with your ancient Hebrew.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Fish do not breath from their nostrils.  Sponges and jellyfish, animals last time I checked, have no nostrils.  Also, please correct me if I'm wrong) but I seem to remember that there are a few animals that breath through their skin as well.  Are they in the same category as plants?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


And what about stomata?  Don't those count?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Nah, the stomata flunked math. :p
Posted by: Constant Mews on Oct. 13 2009,18:28

Quote (Henry J @ Oct. 13 2009,17:58)
Quote (Constant Mews @ Oct. 13 2009,10:17)
Quote (FrankH @ Oct. 13 2009,11:08)
Wow, so there's a different definition between "life" in animals and "life" in plants?  Where does fungi, bacterium, etc, fit in?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Having no nostrils within which the breath of life may be found, they are not living, of course.

You must keep up with your ancient Hebrew.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


What does that say about insects, spiders, etc., since they breath through their skin? :p
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Sorry, they're not alive either.
Posted by: Constant Mews on Oct. 13 2009,18:33

And because I'm willing to take pity on Floyd, who is clearly a lost soul desperate to find his faith again.

Francis Collins (head of the Human Genome Project):


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
[Evolution] may seem to us like a slow, inefficient, and even random process, but to God—who's not limited by space or time—it all came together in the blink of an eye. And for us who have been given the gift of intelligence and the ability to appreciate the wonders of the natural world that he created, to have now learned about this evolutionary creative process is a source of awe and wonder. I find these discoveries are completely compatible with everything I know about God through the Scriptures.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------





---------------------QUOTE-------------------
If evolution is true, don't atheists have a point?
No. To simply rule out of order any questions that go beyond the natural world is a circular argument. This leaves out profoundly important spiritual questions, such as why we are here, if there is a God, and what happens after we die. Those are questions that science is not really designed to answer. You have to look in another place, using another kind of approach. And for me that's faith.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------





---------------------QUOTE-------------------
My heart goes out to sincere believers who feel threatened by evolution and who feel that they have to maintain their position against it in order to prove their allegiance to God. But if God used this process and gave us the chance to discover it, then it seems anachronistic, to say the least, that we would feel we have to defend him against our own scientific conclusions. God is the author of all truth. You can find him in the laboratory as well as in the cathedral. He's the God of the Bible; he's the God of the genome. He did it all.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



all taken from < here. >
Posted by: Constant Mews on Oct. 13 2009,18:36

And again, for Floyd's benefit:

Kenneth Miller



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Q: Why is evolution so controversial?

Kenneth Miller: I think one of the reasons why evolution is such a contentious issue, quite frankly, is the same reason you can go into a bar and start a fight by saying something about somebody's mother. Evolution concerns who we are and how we got here. And to an awful lot of people, the story of evolution, the story of our continuity with every other living thing on this planet, that's not a story they want to hear.

They favor an entirely different story, in which our ancestry is separate, our biology distinct, and the whole notion of our lineage traceable not to other organisms, but to some sort of divine power and divine presence. But it's absolutely true that our ancestry traces itself along the same thread as that of every other living organism. That, for many people, is the unwelcome message, and I think that's why evolution has been, is, and will remain such a controversial idea for many years to come.

Q: Where do you come from personally on this topic?

Miller: I think that faith and reason are both gifts from God. And if God is real, then faith and reason should complement each other rather than be in conflict. Science is the child of reason. Reason has given us the ability to establish the scientific method to investigate the world around us, and to show that the world and the universe in which we live are far vaster and far more complex, and I think far more wonderful, than anyone could have imagined 1,000 or 2,000 years ago.

Does that mean that scientific reason, by taking some of the mystery out of nature, has taken away faith? I don't think so. I think by revealing a world that is infinitely more complex and infinitely more varied and creative than we had ever believed before, in a way it deepens our faith and our appreciation for the author of that nature, the author of that physical universe. And to people of faith, that author is God.

Now, I'm a scientist and I have faith in God. But that doesn't make faith a scientific proposition. Faith and reason are both necessary to the religious person for a proper understanding of the world in which we live, and there is ultimately no necessary contradiction between reason and faith.

"Whether God exists or not is not a scientific question."

Q: What's wrong with bringing God into the picture as an explanation?

Miller: Supernatural causes for natural phenomena are always possible. What's different, however, in the scientific view is the acknowledgement that if supernatural causes are there, they are above our capacity to analyze and interpret.

Saying that something has a supernatural cause is always possible, but saying that the supernatural can be investigated by science, which always has to work with natural tools and mechanisms, is simply incorrect. So by placing the supernatural as a cause in science, you effectively have what you might call a science-stopper. If you attribute an event to the supernatural, you can by definition investigate it no further.

If you close off investigation, you don't look for natural causes. If we had done that 100 years ago in biology, think of what we wouldn't have discovered because we would have said, "Well, the designer did it. End of story. Let's go do something else." It would have been a terrible day for science.

Q: Does science have limits to what it can tell us?

Miller: If science is competent at anything, it's in investigating the natural and material world around us. What science isn't very good at is answering questions that also matter to us in a big way, such as the meaning, value, and purpose of things. Science is silent on those issues. There are a whole host of philosophical and moral questions that are important to us as human beings for which we have to make up our minds using a method outside of science.

Q: Can science prove or disprove the existence of a creator, of God?

Miller: Whether God exists or not is not a scientific question.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



taken from < here. >
Posted by: Constant Mews on Oct. 13 2009,18:38

So once again, I ask Floyd a basic question which goes to the heart of his confusion on this subject, and may directly influence his inability to form a coherent and rational argument.

The theory of evolution says nothing about God; nothing at all.

Various scientists, some atheists, some theists say that the theory of evolution says something about God.

Do you understand the difference?
Posted by: didymos on Oct. 13 2009,18:52

Quote (Henry J @ Oct. 13 2009,15:57)
Six kingdoms? I've heard of plants, animals, and fungi being referred to as kingdoms. What other three taxa are called kingdoms? (In what I've read, Prokaryotes, Eukaryotes, and Archaea are sometimes called domains.)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Well, depends on the source, but for those that do go for the six kingdom thing, they are:

I. Plants
II. Animals
III. Fungi
IV. Protists
V. Bacteria
VI. Archaea

with the first four corresponding to Woese's Eukarya domain.

(edited for obsolete terminology)
Posted by: Lou FCD on Oct. 13 2009,19:15

Quote (Henry J @ Oct. 13 2009,18:57)
Six kingdoms? I've heard of plants, animals, and fungi being referred to as kingdoms. What other three taxa are called kingdoms? (In what I've read, Prokaryotes, Eukaryotes, and Archaea are sometimes called domains.)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Apparently that shit is in constant flux, and the three you're looking for would be Archaea, Protists, and Bacteria.*

But then as you've noted there is the system with Archaea and Prokarya elevated to Domains alongside Eukaryotes, but in that system there are like 17 kingdoms of Bacteria or some monster-high number like that, depending on who you ask, and I've seen one source quoted in one of my textbooks that claimed 33 or 36 kingdoms.

Biologists are fine-tuning the system to the point now that they have to add all kinds of crap like "Subkingdom", "Superphylum" etc and remembering all that seems a rather pointless pain in the ass. It's just not holding up well over time, with all due respect to Linnaeus. It's still a good introduction to nested hierarchies in a general visual overview kind of way, and it's reputed to retain some more direct usefulness, but it's a mess now, if you ask me.

I like Cladistics better, where there's less emphasis on a set of hierarchical nomenclature and more emphasis on common ancestors and relative relationships. Cladistics doesn't care if your species is 25 levels deep over here and your other species is only 12 levels deep over there.

YMMV

*Before reading further allow me to remind you that I'm just a baby biologist (see sig).

ETA: fist shaking at didymos


Posted by: OgreMkV on Oct. 13 2009,19:26

Quote (didymos @ Oct. 13 2009,18:52)
Quote (Henry J @ Oct. 13 2009,15:57)
Six kingdoms? I've heard of plants, animals, and fungi being referred to as kingdoms. What other three taxa are called kingdoms? (In what I've read, Prokaryotes, Eukaryotes, and Archaea are sometimes called domains.)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Well, depends on the source, but for those that do go for the six kingdom thing, they are:

I. Plants
II. Animals
III. Fungi
IV. Protists
V. Bacteria
VI. Archaea

with the first four corresponding to Woese's Eukarya domain.

(edited for obsolete terminology)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


V. should be Eubacteria... but I digress
Posted by: FrankH on Oct. 13 2009,19:35

Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 13 2009,17:15)
Here's a question for the entire house.  Given the following statement:

"Evolution has no goal."  (Sources already cited.)

Does ANYBODY in this forum disagree with that specific statement?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Saying Evolution has no goal is not entirely accurate.  It has no conscious goal but evolution does produce a goal of sorts.  Evolution works on populations.  The "goal" is for the population to adapt to the climate, available food, predominate predator/prey , etc.

So like water flowing downhill, evolution has a goal.  Granted it is harder to quantify but as water seeks the lowest level without conscious thought, Evolution works on populations to make the organisms in that population be better adapted to their environment.

So does Evolution have a Goal?  Yes!  Is Evolution diurected?  Yes!  Is this directed action conscious?  There is no evidence to suggest that there's any intelligence behind it so there is no direction.
Posted by: FrankH on Oct. 13 2009,19:43

Quote (FrankH @ Oct. 13 2009,19:35)
Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 13 2009,17:15)
Here's a question for the entire house.  Given the following statement:

"Evolution has no goal."  (Sources already cited.)

Does ANYBODY in this forum disagree with that specific statement?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Saying Evolution has no goal is not entirely accurate.  It has no conscious goal but evolution does produce a goal of sorts.  Evolution works on populations.  The "goal" is for the population to adapt to the climate, available food, predominate predator/prey , etc.

So like water flowing downhill, evolution has a goal.  Granted it is harder to quantify but as water seeks the lowest level without conscious thought, Evolution works on populations to make the organisms in that population be better adapted to their environment.

So does Evolution have a Goal?  Yes!  Is Evolution directed?  Yes!  Is this directed action conscious?  There is no evidence to suggest that there's any intelligence behind it so there is no consciousness directing what is the outcome of what comes out of the changes made to the populations made by evolutionary forces.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Ugh, I would like an edUgh, I would like an edit function.

The text in BOLD is what I was trying to say.it function.
Posted by: Constant Mews on Oct. 13 2009,19:51

Quote (FrankH @ Oct. 13 2009,19:35)
Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 13 2009,17:15)
Here's a question for the entire house.  Given the following statement:

"Evolution has no goal."  (Sources already cited.)

Does ANYBODY in this forum disagree with that specific statement?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Saying Evolution has no goal is not entirely accurate.  It has no conscious goal but evolution does produce a goal of sorts.  Evolution works on populations.  The "goal" is for the population to adapt to the climate, available food, predominate predator/prey , etc.

So like water flowing downhill, evolution has a goal.  Granted it is harder to quantify but as water seeks the lowest level without conscious thought, Evolution works on populations to make the organisms in that population be better adapted to their environment.

So does Evolution have a Goal?  Yes!  Is Evolution diurected?  Yes!  Is this directed action conscious?  There is no evidence to suggest that there's any intelligence behind it so there is no direction.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


It might be more accurate to say that evolutionary theory specifies no measurable teleological goal.  Given perfect information, we could predict precisely what evolution would produce.

Even the use of terminology like "purpose" and "goal" confuses the issue; by direct measurement, most evolution has no testable teleological component (we must exclude stock-keeping and breeding from this consideration, though these are also examples of evolution).
Posted by: Constant Mews on Oct. 13 2009,19:54

FrankH said:

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
There is no evidence to suggest that there's any intelligence behind it so there is no consciousness directing what is the outcome of what comes out of the changes made to the populations made by evolutionary forces.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



You are making a logic error here: you are claiming that absence of evidence for teleology constitutes actual absence of teleology.  This is not the case. Is it rational to operate in a sans deos mode?  Given the impossibility of proving the existence or non-existence of God coupled with the lack of solid empirical evidence, yes, it is.
Posted by: FrankH on Oct. 13 2009,20:13

Quote (Constant Mews @ Oct. 13 2009,19:51)
It might be more accurate to say that evolutionary theory specifies no measurable teleological goal.  Given perfect information, we could predict precisely what evolution would produce.

Even the use of terminology like "purpose" and "goal" confuses the issue; by direct measurement, most evolution has no testable teleological component (we must exclude stock-keeping and breeding from this consideration, though these are also examples of evolution).
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


One of the issues that I think makes evolution so difficult is that there are so many "moving parts" to it.  Not only would we need perfect information, we'd also need to control all the variables in the natural selection process.

What I'd like to see from a creationist is them to describe the exact path and the groves it creates in the sand when they pour water down a sandy embankment.  After all, it's simple fluid dynamics, gravity and particle dynamics, right?  With that, they should be able to predict how the water flows and the grooves left in the sand, right?
Posted by: FrankH on Oct. 13 2009,20:15

Quote (Constant Mews @ Oct. 13 2009,19:54)
FrankH said:  

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
There is no evidence to suggest that there's any intelligence behind it so there is no consciousness directing what is the outcome of what comes out of the changes made to the populations made by evolutionary forces.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



You are making a logic error here: you are claiming that absence of evidence for teleology constitutes actual absence of teleology.  This is not the case. Is it rational to operate in a sans deos mode?  Given the impossibility of proving the existence or non-existence of God coupled with the lack of solid empirical evidence, yes, it is.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You are correct.

It should say:

There is no evidence to suggest that there's any intelligence behind it so there is no evidence to conclude that there is any consciousness directing what is the outcome of what comes out of the changes made to the populations made by evolutionary forces.
Posted by: FrankH on Oct. 13 2009,20:23

I would say that to be able to use a god, creator or other being to make anything, one would have to provide evidence that such being exist.

Then, after the supernatural is shown to exist, it is no longer "super" is it?

My biggest issue with those who claim "to know how their perfect and infinite god" though they do claim to be both finite and fallible.  That alone is a logical fallacy.
Posted by: Constant Mews on Oct. 13 2009,20:24

Quote (FrankH @ Oct. 13 2009,20:13)
Quote (Constant Mews @ Oct. 13 2009,19:51)
It might be more accurate to say that evolutionary theory specifies no measurable teleological goal.  Given perfect information, we could predict precisely what evolution would produce.

Even the use of terminology like "purpose" and "goal" confuses the issue; by direct measurement, most evolution has no testable teleological component (we must exclude stock-keeping and breeding from this consideration, though these are also examples of evolution).
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


One of the issues that I think makes evolution so difficult is that there are so many "moving parts" to it.  Not only would we need perfect information, we'd also need to control all the variables in the natural selection process.

What I'd like to see from a creationist is them to describe the exact path and the groves it creates in the sand when they pour water down a sandy embankment.  After all, it's simple fluid dynamics, gravity and particle dynamics, right?  With that, they should be able to predict how the water flows and the grooves left in the sand, right?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Exactly.  The imprecision of evolutionary theory vis-a-vis electromagnetic theory, for example, lies in the inability of humans to accurate measure the factors influencing evolutionary direction.
Posted by: Constant Mews on Oct. 13 2009,20:26

Quote (FrankH @ Oct. 13 2009,20:23)
I would say that to be able to use a god, creator or other being to make anything, one would have to provide evidence that such being exist.

Then, after the supernatural is shown to exist, it is no longer "super" is it?

My biggest issue with those who claim "to know how their perfect and infinite god" though they do claim to be both finite and fallible.  That alone is a logical fallacy.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Theism is fraught with logic problems, I'm afraid.  I don't pretend that my beliefs are based on empirical evidence, nor do I claim that they should take precedence over more rationally-derived thought processes.  But I have them.  The practical problem would be not having them, so to speak.
Posted by: FrankH on Oct. 13 2009,20:47

Quote (Constant Mews @ Oct. 13 2009,20:26)
Quote (FrankH @ Oct. 13 2009,20:23)
I would say that to be able to use a god, creator or other being to make anything, one would have to provide evidence that such being exist.

Then, after the supernatural is shown to exist, it is no longer "super" is it?

My biggest issue with those who claim "to know how their perfect and infinite god" though they do claim to be both finite and fallible.  That alone is a logical fallacy.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Theism is fraught with logic problems, I'm afraid.  I don't pretend that my beliefs are based on empirical evidence, nor do I claim that they should take precedence over more rationally-derived thought processes.  But I have them.  The practical problem would be not having them, so to speak.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Well having beliefs is not the same as having dogma.

If one says, "My God created everything", while it is dogma, it is not in itself a bad thing.  Saying, "My God created everything and this is how my God did it", is also not a bad thing in itself.

What is a bad thing is when someone says,  "My God created everything and this is how my God did it", when there is no evidence to support that position and the evidence that is there shows a completely different scenario, that to me is a bad thing.

Personally, I don't care how FL believes or feels.  It is just when people like FL tell me they have the "trooth"tm and that I really need to see it their way when there is no evidence is when I get upset.
Posted by: Constant Mews on Oct. 13 2009,21:01

Quote (FrankH @ Oct. 13 2009,20:47)
Quote (Constant Mews @ Oct. 13 2009,20:26)
Quote (FrankH @ Oct. 13 2009,20:23)
I would say that to be able to use a god, creator or other being to make anything, one would have to provide evidence that such being exist.

Then, after the supernatural is shown to exist, it is no longer "super" is it?

My biggest issue with those who claim "to know how their perfect and infinite god" though they do claim to be both finite and fallible.  That alone is a logical fallacy.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Theism is fraught with logic problems, I'm afraid.  I don't pretend that my beliefs are based on empirical evidence, nor do I claim that they should take precedence over more rationally-derived thought processes.  But I have them.  The practical problem would be not having them, so to speak.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Well having beliefs is not the same as having dogma.

If one says, "My God created everything", while it is dogma, it is not in itself a bad thing.  Saying, "My God created everything and this is how my God did it", is also not a bad thing in itself.

What is a bad thing is when someone says,  "My God created everything and this is how my God did it", when there is no evidence to support that position and the evidence that is there shows a completely different scenario, that to me is a bad thing.

Personally, I don't care how FL believes or feels.  It is just when people like FL tell me they have the "trooth"tm and that I really need to see it their way when there is no evidence is when I get upset.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Floyd is one of those unfortunate Christians who possessed strong belief not coupled with the intellectual acuity to support, or at least not contradict, that belief.

A poster on theologyweb make a comment I rather like: she said that belief is orthogonal to intelligence, empathy, and indeed most other characteristics of a human being.

It is true that Floyd's insistence on "truth" that is flatly contradicted by all available evidence and indeed, the very "evidence" that he provides is galling.  Stupidity often is.

But remember that Floyd's impression of how this argument is going are very different from yours.  Since he doesn't seem to have the intellectual capacity to really understand the arguments, in his own mind he's conducting a brilliantly successful campaign of "twitting" the atheists and showing them up for the morons he thinks they are.  Part of his avoidance of questions isn't because he's not willing to answer them, but because he relishes the apparent irritation such avoidance generates in the posters.

But I don't believe anyone here is operating under any illusion that Floyd is capable of understanding the discussion, nor that he was ever planning to be honest in the first place.

I am here because I recognize that Floyd is a sinner in need of redemption; that he is most certainly damned for his actions, and I'd rather try to save his soul if I can.

I doubt anyone here shares my feelings on this.  :D
Posted by: FrankH on Oct. 13 2009,21:12

Floyd,


Do you understand the difference between an Atheist and an Agnostic?  For the record, I'm Agnostic.

Also, are you saying that those who claim to be Christians but do not believe the same way you do, especially when it comes to a literal Bible, are not Christians?
Posted by: Constant Mews on Oct. 13 2009,21:44

Quote (FrankH @ Oct. 13 2009,21:12)
Floyd,


Do you understand the difference between an Atheist and an Agnostic?  For the record, I'm Agnostic.

Also, are you saying that those who claim to be Christians but do not believe the same way you do, especially when it comes to a literal Bible, are not Christians?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


At the risk of answering for him, that is precisely what he is claiming.  Floyd's actual Christian doctrine requires a literal reading of the Bible (the key hint is his constant refrain of "Biblical" Christianity).  That particular doctrine is, in fact, incompatible with evolutionary theory.

And I suspect that Floyd will claim that anyone who does not accept his version of Biblical Christianity is not really Christian.

Floyd?
Posted by: OgreMkV on Oct. 13 2009,21:50

Part of the problem is that he's admitted that such people are indeed Christians... which he refuses to realize negates his entire argument.
Posted by: FrankH on Oct. 13 2009,21:52

Quote (Constant Mews @ Oct. 13 2009,21:44)
At the risk of answering for him, that is precisely what he is claiming.  Floyd's actual Christian doctrine requires a literal reading of the Bible (the key hint is his constant refrain of "Biblical" Christianity).  That particular doctrine is, in fact, incompatible with evolutionary theory.

And I suspect that Floyd will claim that anyone who does not accept his version of Biblical Christianity is not really Christian.

Floyd?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I agree.  But I'd like to read Floyd's answers.

I like to think that I went way out of my way not to just answer his question of goals or no goals in Evolution but also gave definitions so we don't squabble what the definition of "is" is.

I'd like to see him answer a few of mine.
Posted by: didymos on Oct. 13 2009,22:01

Quote (OgreMkV @ Oct. 13 2009,17:26)
V. should be Eubacteria... but I digress
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I thought they'd gone back to just "bacteria".  I had eubacteria first, then edited.  Damn it.
Posted by: Henry J on Oct. 13 2009,22:17

Lou FCD, posted 10/13/09 6:15 PM


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I like Cladistics better, where there's less emphasis on a set of hierarchical nomenclature and more emphasis on common ancestors and relative relationships. Cladistics doesn't care if your species is 25 levels deep over here and your other species is only 12 levels deep over there.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Yeah, cladistics does remove the need to maintain a whole bunch of labelling that doesn't really add information.

Plus, referring to the earliest chordates and earliest arthropods as being in separate phyla downplays the fact that they aren't nearly as different from each other as are their descendants a half billion years or so later.

Henry
Posted by: Henry J on Oct. 13 2009,22:17

OgreMkV, posted 10/13/09 6:26 PM


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
V. should be Eubacteria... but I digress  
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Yeah, some bacteria cause me so say Ew as well. (Oh, that's Eu not Ew. Never mind.)

Henry
Posted by: Henry J on Oct. 13 2009,23:05



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Here's a question for the entire house.  Given the following statement:

"Evolution has no goal."  (Sources already cited.)

Does ANYBODY in this forum disagree with that specific statement?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Evolution has no goal internal to itself.

If God caused it and caused it to result in erect bipeds with just the right number of fingers to type on a keyboard, that would mean that God had a goal, not that evolution did. (Not that I think that a God would need the result to have a particular anatomy; if the purpose were primarily to produce bodies that could house souls, then anatomical details wouldn't have to be what they happen to be now to satisfy that purpose.)

For a more mundane analogy, when animal breeders use evolutionary principles to produce a different variety, the breeders have a goal. The evolutionary processes that they're using do not.

Henry
Posted by: FloydLee on Oct. 13 2009,23:09

Frank H writes:
     

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Do you understand the difference between an Atheist and an Agnostic?  For the record, I'm Agnostic.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Sure.  And I also know the difference between Agnosticism and Christianity.  Short version:
     

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Agnosticism operates in the vague shadow-land of "don't know or can't know", while Christianity operates in the bold, positive, clear-cut affirmation of "I know whom I have believed..."
(2 Tim. 1:12).

---Nelson M. Smith, "The Case Against Agnosticism", ApologeticsPress (1975)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



******

You also asked a question that was previously asked (and answered).  But it's interesting to compare what a couple posters said.
     

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
(CM)
And I suspect that Floyd will claim that anyone who does not accept his version of Biblical Christianity is not really Christian.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


     

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
(Ogre)
Part of the problem is that he's admitted that such people are indeed Christians... (snipping the rest for now)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


CM (the one who wants to save my soul or something) wasn't evn aware that I'd already answered that question.  Ogre, by contrast, was on the ball and provided the correction.  Hmm.
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Oct. 13 2009,23:11

Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 13 2009,17:16)
Sure Erasmus.  A bright person like you has been keeping up with the order which I previously stated for replies, so you know that DHeddle has been replied to and that you're next up on the list.  (
   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
why is god not part of the required explanation for why water runs downhill, when he is part of the required explanation for the EXISTENCE OF WATER?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Simply put, because you evolutionists don't accept that.  
Let's bring in Futuyma's evo-bio textbook---he's got a good example.
   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
 The process cannot have a goal, any more than than erosion has the goal of forming canyons, for the future cannot cause material events in the past. -- EB3
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Yes, God is the required explanation for the origin of water.  Likewise for the origin of gravity.  So yes, God is indirectly, ultimately, the required explanation for water running downhill.

BUT....you evolutionists don't accept that.  For you, God is NOT the required explanation, not even indirectly or ultimately, for water running downhill, or water erosion producing the Grand Canyon.

Why not?  Because if you DO suddenly decide to announce that God is indirectly, ultimately, a required explanation for water running downhill, you immediately run into the Futuyma textbook-taught roadblock:  
Supernatural causes cannot be the subject of science
...which so many of you (including yourself) have agreed to.

So if you were somehow hoping to draw up some kind of analogy with evolution using the water-running-downhill thing as God-as-indirect-ultimate-explanation., that's BLOCKED at this time.  

Unless you are ready to admit supernatural causation as a legitimate subject of science, that is.  And teleology a la mode.  (And God knows what else!).

FloydLee
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


riiiiiiiight you were avoiding this because of a queue

ahem


You said:
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Nope.  He's not.  Furthermore, hydrologists (unlike evolutionists) are silent on the issue of God as a required explantion.

(Please note, however:  In the Bible, God IS the required explanation for the origin of water itself.)

And also He is the Required Explanation for the origin of plants, animals, and (this is where you come in) humans too.

Of course, evolution and evolutionists deny that.  Which is why there's an Incompatiblity there.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------





---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Nope.  He's not.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



That has nothing to do with the opinion of evilutionists.

YOU SAID that God is not part of the required explanation for why water runs downhill.

Now you are trying to say that this because evilutionists say so, not because YOU YOURSELF claimed it.

YOU SAID God is part of the required explanation for the existence of water.

How about this  

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
God is part of the required explanation for the existence of water living things
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

.

and

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
God is not part of the required explanation for why water runs downhill living things evolve
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



your logic.

your hat.

eat it.  

why won't you admit you are wrong?  you have refuted your own position.
Posted by: OgreMkV on Oct. 13 2009,23:13

Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 13 2009,23:09)
       

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
(Ogre)
Part of the problem is that he's admitted that such people are indeed Christians... (snipping the rest for now)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


CM (the one who wants to save my soul or something) wasn't evn aware that I'd already answered that question.  Ogre, by contrast, was on the ball and provided the correction.  Hmm.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Of all the things in this thread... that's the thing that makes you go 'hmmm'!?!?!?!?

Also, an interesting choice of snip there Floyd.  Just enough to make you go hmmm... but not enough to actually be something to discuss.

Are we getting to the ID is science part soon or are we going to beat a dead horse for another few days?
Posted by: Lou FCD on Oct. 13 2009,23:23

Floyd's beating something, but I'm betting it bears no resemblance to a horse.

ETA:




Posted by: FloydLee on Oct. 13 2009,23:27

test message
Posted by: FloydLee on Oct. 13 2009,23:30



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Also, an interesting choice of snip there Floyd.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


It's no big deal Ogre.  Evolutionist Rosenhouse has already answered that argument anyway (do you want me to repeat the quotation again?).  

But at least you caught what CM missed.
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Oct. 13 2009,23:39

Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 14 2009,00:27)
test message
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


is this what you were trying to say, but you couldn't spit it out?



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I admit that I am wrong
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



????

it's OK floyd I will actually think much much much much more of you if you admit it.  we've still got some other things to work on but getting past your misunderstandings of scientific explanation is a WONDERFUL place to start.
Posted by: FloydLee on Oct. 13 2009,23:43



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Are we getting to the ID is science part soon or are we going to beat a dead horse for another few days?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I'd say in a few days.  I think it's clear now that a definite and documentable Incompatibility exists between evolution and Christianity, but there's a few posts I still want to address anyway.  

(For example, like that one poster who tried to bring up Ken Miller without realizing that (1) Ken Miller called us humans "lucky accidents" in FDG--an automatic reaffirmation of Incompatibility, and (2)  Rosenhouse's argument (the 5th Incompatibility) was specifically targeted at Ken Miller anyway.)

SLP obviously wants to do a mini-debate on Oro, but since anything I post on that or other threads gets re-routed here anyway, (and since the bulk of the posting that was needed here on this topic is done), I might take one day or so just to engage SLP.
Posted by: FloydLee on Oct. 13 2009,23:49

Hey, Erasmus, are you going to change that sig line real soon, or do you need me to provide daily reminders?  It's up to you.

FloydLee
Posted by: didymos on Oct. 13 2009,23:53

Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 13 2009,21:43)
I'd say in a few days.  I think it's clear now that a definite and documentable Incompatibility exists between evolution and Christianity, but there's a few posts I still want to address anyway.  
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


How do you conclude that this is clear when no one but no one here even remotely agrees with you?  What you have is a couple opinions that say exactly what you want to hear.  Why do only those count, while the contrary opinions of everyone here (plus, lest ye forget, the Pope) do not?  Oh, right: because those don't say what you want to hear.
Posted by: OgreMkV on Oct. 13 2009,23:54

Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 13 2009,23:43)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Are we getting to the ID is science part soon or are we going to beat a dead horse for another few days?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I'd say in a few days.  I think it's clear now that a definite and documentable Incompatibility exists between evolution and Christianity, but there's a few posts I still want to address anyway.  

(For example, like that one poster who tried to bring up Ken Miller without realizing that (1) Ken Miller called us humans "lucky accidents" in FDG--an automatic reaffirmation of Incompatibility, and (2)  Rosenhouse's argument (the 5th Incompatibility) was specifically targeted at Ken Miller anyway.)

SLP obviously wants to do a mini-debate on Oro, but since anything I post on that or other threads gets re-routed here anyway, (and since the bulk of the posting that was needed here on this topic is done), I might take one day or so just to engage SLP.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Can you provide any evidence that is not a quote?  Cause, I think the others here have shown just as many quotes as you have that counter your argument.

I mean, if all you want is a quote count, we could probably do that, but what's the point?  

Of course, you have to use actual quotes, not made up or 'edited' ones and understand what the person quoted was talking about.
Posted by: FloydLee on Oct. 14 2009,00:35



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Cause, I think the others here have shown just as many quotes as you have that counter your argument.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Really?   Please document that claim.
Posted by: Constant Mews on Oct. 14 2009,01:18

Quote (OgreMkV @ Oct. 13 2009,23:13)
Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 13 2009,23:09)
       

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
(Ogre)
Part of the problem is that he's admitted that such people are indeed Christians... (snipping the rest for now)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


CM (the one who wants to save my soul or something) wasn't evn aware that I'd already answered that question.  Ogre, by contrast, was on the ball and provided the correction.  Hmm.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Of all the things in this thread... that's the thing that makes you go 'hmmm'!?!?!?!?

Also, an interesting choice of snip there Floyd.  Just enough to make you go hmmm... but not enough to actually be something to discuss.

Are we getting to the ID is science part soon or are we going to beat a dead horse for another few days?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Indeed, I missed that post.

So, Floyd.  You admit that Christians who do not accept your narrow reading of the Bible are Christians.

I am such a Christian.  I accept evolution.  Therefore Christianity and Evolution are not incompatible.

If you have nothing further, then we can dismiss your five "incompatibles" as a product of faulty logic.
Posted by: Constant Mews on Oct. 14 2009,01:20

Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 13 2009,23:43)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Are we getting to the ID is science part soon or are we going to beat a dead horse for another few days?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I'd say in a few days.  I think it's clear now that a definite and documentable Incompatibility exists between evolution and Christianity, but there's a few posts I still want to address anyway.  

(For example, like that one poster who tried to bring up Ken Miller without realizing that (1) Ken Miller called us humans "lucky accidents" in FDG--an automatic reaffirmation of Incompatibility, and (2)  Rosenhouse's argument (the 5th Incompatibility) was specifically targeted at Ken Miller anyway.)

SLP obviously wants to do a mini-debate on Oro, but since anything I post on that or other threads gets re-routed here anyway, (and since the bulk of the posting that was needed here on this topic is done), I might take one day or so just to engage SLP.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Unfortunately, Floyd, you have not demonstrated that any such incompatibility exists.

In fact, my very existence definitively proves you are wrong, since by your logic, I could not exist.

I admire your stubbornness, and feel sad that you apparently haven't read most of this thread, but you are behaving precisely the way most of the posters predicted you would.
Posted by: Constant Mews on Oct. 14 2009,01:22

Quote (Constant Mews @ Oct. 12 2009,10:17)
Since Floyd has become confused and unable to respond to requests for clarification on his points, I think it's best to provide a summary of what I believe his position to be.

Floyd believes that evolutionary theory and Christian doctrine are incompatible because:

1. Christian doctrine specifies that God is the necessary and sufficient explanation for biological organisms.  Evolutionary theory does not require God as the necessary and sufficient explanation.

2. Christian doctrine specifies that God chose to create the universe and mankind.  Evolutionary theory denies that God chose to create the universe and mankind.

3. Christian doctrine specifies that God created man in His own image.  Evolutionary theory denies that God created man in His own image.

4. Christian doctrine specifies that death did not occur before man.  Evolutionary theory requires that death existed before man.

5. Christian doctrine specifies that God is a loving, and all-powerful God.  Evolutionary theory implies otherwise, since the evolutionary process involves gratuitous pain and suffering.


Floyd has supplied no definition of Christian doctrine except John 3:16.  Although he later amended this by specifying that certain other beliefs were required or implied by John 3:16, he has never clarified what these beliefs are.

He has supplied a definition of evolutionary theory:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Evolution comes in two flavors, micro-evolution and macro-evolution.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------





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





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





---------------------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.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Finally, Floyd has offered a number of opinions and personal beliefs of scientists who accept evolution regarding the implications of evolutionary theory.  I must point out that these opinions and personal beliefs are not supported by the definitions Floyd has provided.

And that is all that Floyd has actually supplied.

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

What can we see from this?  Several points emerge immediately.  

First, that using the definitions Floyd provided, his point 1 is logically meaningless; God is not mentioned by evolutionary theory, and being thus silent, evolutionary theory has nothing whatever to say about God's necessity.

Second, that using the definitions that Floyd provided, his points 2 and 3 are completely false: nothing in Floyd's definitions specifies that God did not CHOOSE to create the universe and man; nothing in Floyd's definitions specifies that God did not make man in His own image.

Third, Floyd's point 4 is predicated on two things: a literal reading of Genesis and an unsupported reading of Romans 5:12.  Since a literal reading of Genesis is precluded by all available evidence of the world - a direct creation of God, we may reasonably discount Genesis 1:1-11 as being literally correct.  A contextual reading of Romans 5:12 indicates that "sin" and "death" are inextricably linked, and hence the reasonable reading of Romans 5:12 refers to spiritual death, not physical death.  This is supported by the clear logical problem of reading God's threat to Adam that on the day he ate of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil that he would die.  Since Adam did NOT die on that die, we cannot read that threat as implying physical death.

This leaves only his point 5.  Point 5 is simply the ancient Problem of Evil; the ultimate thorn in the side of Christianity.  Christianity provides the twin primary defenses of Free Will and the Fall to account for this.

Thus we see that it is quite logical for a True Christian, a devout and passionate Christian, to simultaneously accept both Christian Doctrine and evolutionary theory.

Since I am such a Christian, we have shown Floyd to be wrong in his assertions.

Floyd, please indicate precisely and clearly, with yes/no answers supported by accurate Biblical exegesis and citations of actual evolutionary theory where you dispute this analysis, otherwise I shall accept your concession.

Thanks.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I repeat this to demonstrate that Floyd had not demonstrated any incompatibility between Christianity and evolutionary theory.

I also note that he has not addressed any of my rebuttals in this post.

I think that says a great deal for his honesty and intellectual integrity.
Posted by: Constant Mews on Oct. 14 2009,01:25

Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 14 2009,00:35)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Cause, I think the others here have shown just as many quotes as you have that counter your argument.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Really?   Please document that claim.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Certainly.  < The entire thread. >
Posted by: Constant Mews on Oct. 14 2009,01:26

Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 13 2009,23:43)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Are we getting to the ID is science part soon or are we going to beat a dead horse for another few days?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I'd say in a few days.  I think it's clear now that a definite and documentable Incompatibility exists between evolution and Christianity, but there's a few posts I still want to address anyway.  

(For example, like that one poster who tried to bring up Ken Miller without realizing that (1) Ken Miller called us humans "lucky accidents" in FDG--an automatic reaffirmation of Incompatibility, and (2)  Rosenhouse's argument (the 5th Incompatibility) was specifically targeted at Ken Miller anyway.)

SLP obviously wants to do a mini-debate on Oro, but since anything I post on that or other threads gets re-routed here anyway, (and since the bulk of the posting that was needed here on this topic is done), I might take one day or so just to engage SLP.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


There are no happy accidents for God.  Once again, you show a lamentable inability to reason.

I am praying for you, Floyd.  You clearly need it.
Posted by: Amadan on Oct. 14 2009,06:32

It's time to move on to Floyd's second "debate" issue:
"ID-is-Science-so-let’s-teach-ID-in-Science-Classrooms"
As posed, this does not invoke consideration of US law and policy. Accordingly I consider American jurisprudence on the first amendment to the US constitution to be irrelevant to this debate. The Kitzmiller decision may be persuasive, but it is not conclusive here.

This issue can be addressed in two interrelated questions:
  • Is ID science?
  • Should ID be taught in science classrooms?
As to the first, some definition is essential. I take science to be concerned with three processes:
(1) the rational examination of nature by means of sensory observation,
(2) the application of logical processes to those observations, and
(3) the consequent production of ‘useful’ statements about nature.

The words ‘consequent’ and ‘useful’ are important here: those statements must be consistent with the observations  and previous ones (or account for the discrepancy), and must allow for a means of verifying or negating them by observational and logical means. In short, science requires methodological naturalism. This is the practice not because of some directive from On High: it’s because omission of any one or more of empiricism, logic or falsifiability leads to a negation of objectivity.

(Denizens of This Low Joint are aware I’m not a scientist, but I have to state it to comply with the court order. Those with suitably stained white coats are invited to correct the above if I’ve got anything wrong. As is Floyd.)

Q: Is ID science?
A: Not as proposed by anyone yet.

ID is a tripod with two legs, both flawed.

The first, proposed by Behe, is the idea of irreducible complexity. As I understand it, he argues that some biological phenomena comprise essential components that could not individually have had evolutionarily viable natures. Alternatively, if those elements were viable, it is improbable that they could have co-evolved so as to combine to produce the observed phenomenon.

This argument is undermined by process #2 above and refuted by process #3.  As to process #2, phenomena cited by Behe as being irreducibly complex (e.g. the bacterial flagellum and the human blood-clotting system) have been plausibly accounted for in ways that account for all observed evidence and that admit of falsification. Those accounts have not been falsified, and alternative accounts have not been found to be a priori invalid. As to process #3, the only way to maintain the ‘scientific’ status of a claim of irreducible complexity is to prohibit any examination of how the claim might be false. That is dogma, not science.

The second leg of the ID tripod is Dembski’s argument on grounds of probability. As I understand it, this argument is based on what has been shown to be a circular definition of the term ‘Complex Specified Information’. This is therefore refuted by process #2, which requires that statements derived from empirical observation follow the rules of logic. Dembski’s argument is also undermined by process #3: he persistently refuses to respond to critiques of his publications that point out fallacies and errors, rendering his conclusions about his ID inferences not ‘useful’.

That is why I conclude that ID as currently expounded  is not science, and I invite you to do likewise.

Q: Should ID be taught in science classrooms?
A: No.

School curricula are determined by decisions about utility, resources and children’s learning abilities, all in light of the principles intended to be served by the educational system in question. Science curricula at that level generally aim to acquaint students with the main established ideas and techniques of the relevant disciplines. Speculation and ideology are not taught.  My own experience as a student and parent persuades me that that approach is adequate and appropriate.

Behe’s and Dembski’s formulation of ID is not science. In terms of utility, what benefit is there in holding out logically flawed arguments as forming part of science? In terms of resources, what additional benefit does ID offer over the part of science that it would displace in the curriculum? In terms of children’s learning abilities, how should students be taught to equate unsupported hypotheses with supported ones? And why? What principle is served?

It is conceivable that ID could be formulated and tested as a scientific concept. It would be remarkable if someone could invent a reliable method of identifying purposive design. It would be transformational if that technique were to show purposive design in naturally occurring life-forms. That would definitely warrant a place in school science curricula. But it hasn’t happened yet.

I have excluded from my argument any examination of the history of how ID came to its present condition. Personally, I find that history to be a very persuasive argument against teaching ID in schools, but that alone shouldn’t sway this debate.

Apologies for a very long post. Over to you, Floyd.
Posted by: nmgirl on Oct. 14 2009,06:35

Floyd, you need to give it up.  You were toast the first time a Christian posted that he/she believed in evolution. You think that lies and mis-quotes will somehow change our beliefs or that you can judge us as not really Christians and continue to argue.

Millions of Christians accept evolution as science and your opinion is meaningless.

If we're wrong, we'll deal with God on the issue, not you.
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Oct. 14 2009,07:18

Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 14 2009,00:49)
Hey, Erasmus, are you going to change that sig line real soon, or do you need me to provide daily reminders?  It's up to you.

FloydLee
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


you haven't answered the question.  you told me evolutionists don't want to require God, but you said that whether we like it or not GOD is required for the existence of water.  

if god is required for the existence of water then why is he not required for water running downhill?  if there was no water it would not run downhill.

if THAT was your answer, then you have refuted your point.  i'll change it when you admit you are wrong, or when you address the question and don't evade it you coward.
Posted by: Schroedinger's Dog on Oct. 14 2009,07:31



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
"This isn't really, and never has been a debate about science. It's about religion and philosophy."
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



< Philip E. Johnson >*, about the ID movement.

Therefore, the next part of the debate is useless, except if everyone here enjoys Yodel Elf's stupidity as much as I do...





*Just writing the name makes me want to hurl...
Posted by: Amadan on Oct. 14 2009,07:41

Quote (Schroedinger's Dog @ Oct. 14 2009,07:31)
   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
"This isn't really, and never has been a debate about science. It's about religion and philosophypolitics and power."
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



< Philip E. Johnson >*, about the ID movement.

Therefore, the next part of the debate is useless, except if everyone here enjoys Yodel Elf's stupidity as much as I do...





*Just writing the name makes me want to hurl...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Fixed that for you.

PS: Those wanting to hurl should learn the basics < here >. You just might be the man to help knock Kilkenny of their perch, y'know.
Posted by: Schroedinger's Dog on Oct. 14 2009,07:55

Quote (Amadan @ Oct. 14 2009,14:41)
Quote (Schroedinger's Dog @ Oct. 14 2009,07:31)
   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
"This isn't really, and never has been a debate about science. It's about religion and philosophypolitics and power."
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



< Philip E. Johnson >*, about the ID movement.

Therefore, the next part of the debate is useless, except if everyone here enjoys Yodel Elf's stupidity as much as I do...





*Just writing the name makes me want to hurl...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Fixed that for you.

PS: Those wanting to hurl should learn the basics < here >. You just might be the man to help knock Kilkenny of their perch, y'know.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


yeah, Hurling is quite cool. In France, we have another cool game in the same spirit, although a lot less sofisticated: < La Soule >

Wouldn't mind hurling against Piwee Johnson, though...
Posted by: OgreMkV on Oct. 14 2009,08:02

As much as I would rather discuss science, everyone knows that ID is not science.  Even Dembski and Behe have said so.  That's a moot point.
Posted by: FloydLee on Oct. 14 2009,08:35



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
You were toast the first time a Christian posted that he/she believed in evolution.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Rosenhouse has refuted this argument.  What was your response to his statement, Nmgirl?
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Oct. 14 2009,08:39

Floyd



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
why is god not part of the required explanation for why water runs downhill, when he is part of the required explanation for the EXISTENCE OF WATER?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



because you think some evilutionists say so?

some evilutionists say your Big Five Fantasies are a pile of crap.

so much for your argument.
Posted by: FloydLee on Oct. 14 2009,08:40



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Certainly.  The entire thread (link).
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Clicked on link twice.  Nothing's coming up.  Would you offer me some names and page numbers so I can see for myself?
Posted by: Schroedinger's Dog on Oct. 14 2009,08:40

Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 14 2009,15:35)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
You were toast the first time a Christian posted that he/she believed in evolution.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Rosenhouse has refuted this argument.  What was your response to his statement, Nmgirl?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Who the fuck cares about Rosenhouse's opinion?

The simple fact that at least ONE christian accepts evolution nullifies your claim. That's the end of it. Game over!

No amount of lies, quoteminning or intellectual dishonnesty can change this FACT!

On to the next subject, Yodel Elf...
Posted by: FloydLee on Oct. 14 2009,08:47



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Cause, I think the others here have shown just as many quotes as you have that counter your argument.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Documentation for this claim has been sincerely asked for.  Any takers?
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Oct. 14 2009,08:48

Quote (Erasmus, FCD @ Oct. 14 2009,09:39)
Floyd



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
why is god not part of the required explanation for why water runs downhill, when he is part of the required explanation for the EXISTENCE OF WATER?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



because you think some evilutionists say so?

some evilutionists say your Big Five Fantasies are a pile of crap.

so much for your argument.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Yodel Elf are you chickenshit?
Posted by: OgreMkV on Oct. 14 2009,08:58

Quote (Constant Mews @ Oct. 13 2009,16:26)
I am a Christian; I see no incompatibility between evolutionary theory and Christian doctrine.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Here's one:
Posted by: nmgirl on Oct. 14 2009,08:58

Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 14 2009,08:35)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
You were toast the first time a Christian posted that he/she believed in evolution.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Rosenhouse has refuted this argument.  What was your response to his statement, Nmgirl?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


My response is real simple:  i am a Christian who believes in evolution.  someone else's opinion is irrelevant to my belief.
Posted by: Keelyn on Oct. 14 2009,09:03

Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 14 2009,09:47)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Cause, I think the others here have shown just as many quotes as you have that counter your argument.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


[bold]Documentation for this claim has been sincerely asked for.[/bold]  Any takers?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Bullshit, Floyd. You're about as sincere as a letter bomb.

So, we are dismissing "Biblical Perspective of Biology?" Just as well - "ID is Science" should be just as stupid.
Posted by: FloydLee on Oct. 14 2009,09:11



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Bullshit, Floyd. You're about as sincere as a letter bomb.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


In other words, there are no takers from your side to document Ogre's claim that was put forth.  Thanks for the notification Keelyn.
Posted by: OgreMkV on Oct. 14 2009,09:14

Quote (nmgirl @ Oct. 14 2009,08:58)
My response is real simple:  i am a Christian who believes in evolution.  someone else's opinion is irrelevant to my belief.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Here's another... since I'm discounting quotes taken out of context... we're two up on you.
Posted by: nmgirl on Oct. 14 2009,09:17

Quote (OgreMkV @ Oct. 14 2009,09:14)
Quote (nmgirl @ Oct. 14 2009,08:58)
My response is real simple:  i am a Christian who believes in evolution.  someone else's opinion is irrelevant to my belief.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Here's another... since I'm discounting quotes taken out of context... we're two up on you.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Here's 12050 more:  the clergy letter project.
Posted by: FloydLee on Oct. 14 2009,09:18



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
since I'm discounting quotes taken out of context
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Already went over that line of argument with Deadman.  Quote by quote, evolutionist by evolutionist, point by point.  It's done.
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Oct. 14 2009,09:36

Quote (Erasmus, FCD @ Oct. 14 2009,09:48)
Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Oct. 14 2009,09:39)
Floyd

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
why is god not part of the required explanation for why water runs downhill, when he is part of the required explanation for the EXISTENCE OF WATER?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



because you think some evilutionists say so?

some evilutionists say your Big Five Fantasies are a pile of crap.

so much for your argument.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Yodel Elf are you chickenshit?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


you going to pretend that you have addressed this?

coward
Posted by: OgreMkV on Oct. 14 2009,09:59

**Warning, this is kind of a rambling post, I was thinking as I was writing.  I hope there's a nugget or two of value in here.**

Yep, it's done, you lost.  

Look, since you get to use the personal opinion of scientists, then so do we.  C. Mews personal opinion is that there is no controversy.

You still haven't explained why he, as a Christian, can think there is no controversy and yet you claim, any Christian must realize that there must be a controversy.


Anyway, I think the important point here is that quotes are basically useless for debate.  If I looked hard enough, I could find a quote in the Bible that says "FL is the antichrist".

On the other hand, the people who think that there is no controversy keep trying to get you, Floyd, to define certain things, then explaining to you how your own defintions do not match what you claim, and how your interpretation of scripture is just that, your interpretation.  One that is not shared, so far as I can find, by anyone else.

To give you an example: I can argue about how bees can't possibly fly through the laws of aerodynamics, yet I make this argument on my fornt porch watching bees fly from flower to flower.  My interpretation of aerodynamics is obviously flawed in this case because of the massive amounts of evidence against it.  I could quote hundreds of engineers who said that bees can't possibly fly, yet there they go, making idiots of us all.

It's the same way with creationists.  You can quote all you want, you can bemoan how you're treated all you want, you can claim conspiracy all you want, and you can ignore reality all you want.  Until the bees fall to the ground, it's all just words.

I think part of the fundamental problem with this 'debate' is the whole point that scientists are trying to get you to understand.  Religion (any religion) and science are not two sides of the same coin, they are not in any way related, and they do not describe the same thing in mutually contradictory ways.  They are different.

Science can't explain religion.  Science doesn't want to explain religion (I refer to hard sciences here, no one understands what psycologists do).  Science doesn't care.

Religion shouldn't try to explain science.  Real religions don't care why gasoline burns, as long as it gets the congregation to Luby's before noon.  Religion just looks silly when it tries to explain science.

People on the other hand, do have opinions about both science and religion, sometimes both at the same time.  Since there are so many religions and not a few interpretations of some sciences, there are disagreements.  However, as has been pointed out, opinions about religion or science are just that, opinions.  

Basically, this entire arguement is wanking.
Posted by: Constant Mews on Oct. 14 2009,10:11

Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 14 2009,08:35)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
You were toast the first time a Christian posted that he/she believed in evolution.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Rosenhouse has refuted this argument.  What was your response to his statement, Nmgirl?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Rosenhouse has offered no rebuttal at all.  You haven't read this thread, have you?  

Floyd, the existence of Christians who accept evolution proves you are wrong, whatever Rosenhouse may have said.  Why do you think otherwise?  According to you, I cannot exist.  How do you deal with that?
Posted by: Constant Mews on Oct. 14 2009,10:12

Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 14 2009,08:35)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
You were toast the first time a Christian posted that he/she believed in evolution.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Rosenhouse has refuted this argument.  What was your response to his statement, Nmgirl?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Rosenhouse made no argument.  He pointed out the Problem of Evil is a problem for Christians.  Nothing about that is an argument nor a refutation.

Truly, Floyd, this is bizarre: according to you, I cannot exist.  And yet I do.  My very existence proves you wrong.  How do you address that?
Posted by: Constant Mews on Oct. 14 2009,10:14

Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 14 2009,09:11)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Bullshit, Floyd. You're about as sincere as a letter bomb.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


In other words, there are no takers from your side to document Ogre's claim that was put forth.  Thanks for the notification Keelyn.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Ogre posted a refutation.  Your refusal to read things you find uncomfortable is not a refutation of them.
Posted by: Constant Mews on Oct. 14 2009,10:17

Again, Floyd, since you apparently need things repeated:

My very existence as a Christian who accepts evolutionary theory and finds no conflict in it with Christian Doctrine,

proves that you are wrong.

The only way for you to counter this is for you to prove that either I am not a Christian, or that I do not understand the implications of evolutionary theory.

Neither of which you can do.

The clergy letter shows there are many of us who prove you wrong, Floyd - in fact, the majority of Christians in the world prove you are wrong.
Posted by: FloydLee on Oct. 14 2009,10:30

Okay, let's check back with SLP.  I asked him a question previously.  I want an answer.

In 2002, William Schopf published a fascinating book, Life's Origins:  The Beginnings of Biological Evolution.

(Yes, that's the full title.  Not exactly separating abiogenesis from evolution, is it?)

The most fascinating part of the book is what the late evolutionist Dr. John Oro wrote in one of the chapters.
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
In the mid-1800s, Darwin showed how the concept of evolution by natural selection applies to living systems. But evolution also operates in the inanimate world, not only Earth but the universe as a whole, including all cosmic bodies (galaxies, stars, circumstellar and interstellar clouds, interstellar molecules, planetary systems, planets, comets, asteroids, meteorites) and all chemical elements.

Comets transported organic molecules and water to the primitive Earth early in the planet's history, presumably over a period of several hundred million years. In the oceans that then formed, both cometary and terrestrial (those synthesized directly in the environment),
organic molecules evolved by natural selection,
ultimately giving rise to life - possibly in the "warm little pond" that Darwin envisioned in his famous letter to Joseph Hooker
(see chapter 3). The linkage from cosmic elements to cometary molecules to primitive Earth to biological evolution ties cosmochemical evolution to the origin of life.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Here's the key phrase in the middle of that quotation:
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
organic molecules evolved by natural selection,
ultimately giving rise to life - possibly in the "warm little pond" that Darwin envisioned in his famous letter to Joseph Hooker

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Not only does this statement tie abiogenesis to evolution, but notice that Oro even tosses in a direct, unmistakable factor:  "organic molecules evolved by natural selection."  IOW, the exact driving force cited for postbiotic evolution is the same cited for prebiotic evolution.

Oro also pointed out something else:
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
"We can conclude that the different forms of life are not the result of a process having a determined finality developed a priori by a creative  plan, nor are they the result of a chance fortuitous act.  Life emerged as the result of natural evolutionary processes, as a new form of movement of matter during its process of development."

---from AI Oparin's final scientific paper (1986), quoted by Oro in Schopf 2002.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


If that paragraph sounds familiar, it's because it echoes something De Duve recently said in 2009 (Nmgirl quoted it and SLP re-quoted it.)

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Nobel laureate Christian de Duve summarized the plenary session: "The participants unanimously accepted as indisputable the affirmation that the Universe, as well as life within it, are the products of long evolutionary histories...."

---Nmgirl's post, Oct 6th, 11:58, "International General 2009 (Conference)"
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Remember, you evolutionists say that abiogenesis is separate from evolution.  And you say it often.  However, your statement, as you can see, is NOT true.  That's what all this is about.

In fact, let's toss in one more statement, this one comes from Paul Lurquin's 2003 book concerning the orign of life.
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
"The RNA World Hypothesis is a very attractive one, because it bases the appearance of life squarely within the realm of evolution."

Lurquin, The Origins of Life and the Universe, p. 32.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



******

Okay, that's like background information for the upcoming post or posts.  

SLP thinks I "deceived readers" on the short version of Oro that I've quoted in other forums and past years (and wants to apparently debate it here and now), and meanwhile my own question for SLP is designed to show that I've never quotemined John Oro AND to show that Oro meant precisely what he said---and in doing so puts the lie to the evolutionist claim that prebiotic evolution (abiogenesis) is separate from evolution.  

No deceit, no joke:  Abiogenesis is part and parcel of evolution, no doubt.

Continued in next post or posts.

FloydLee
Posted by: deadman_932 on Oct. 14 2009,10:48

Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 14 2009,09:18)
   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
since I'm discounting quotes taken out of context
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Already went over that line of argument with Deadman.  Quote by quote, evolutionist by evolutionist, point by point.  It's done.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Liar.

 
Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 14 2009,09:18)
No deceit, no joke:  Abiogenesis is part and parcel of evolution, no doubt.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Is this "Biblical biology?" It looks more like you're back to yapping about evolution rather than "Biblical biology"

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

Just to help any new reader keep score, here's where you left off, Floyd Lee:

Your job was to demonstrate that evolutionary theory and Christianity were inherently incompatible.

Your only argument for the incompatibility of evolution and Christianity was that you had your "Big Five Fantasies." To try to pretend that those BFF's were valid, you tried to juggle three lines of fraudulent "evidence" :

1. You claimed that Christians (like the Pope) had to address your BFF's. Then you later later admit this not to be true -- Christians don't have to address your Fantasies at all, and they can still remain Christians in your own view....while still accepting evolution.

2. You used quotes from evolutionists that are shown invalidly applied to support your claim . For instance, the personal opinion of Mayr, which is (a) consonant with the Pope's statements that believers are free to believe, and (b) consistent with the scientific consensus view that science can't deal with claims of divine teleology and ontology.

3.You used quotes from apologist-"scientists" with you claiming that your BFF's Divine Teleology and Ontology DID apply to science. Unfortunately, your creo-scientists can't provide any viable scientific research model that would provide evidence in favor of their empty blather. You failed to show that they ever could provide that, even thoretically. Ever.

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

That's it, Floyd. Over 40 pages of you obfuscating and flinging fallacies and that's all you got. You failed in every meaningful way, yet you pretend that you still have a live parrot and that your Black Knight argument has legs.

Your only real "victory" was being more surreal than Monty Python
Posted by: OgreMkV on Oct. 14 2009,10:49

Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 14 2009,10:30)
Continued in next post or posts.

FloydLee
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I think we're still waiting on a point-by-point refutation promised several days ago...

Anyway, I just singed up for free acces to biomedcentral.com and type 'evolution' into the title search bar.

Something interesting appeared.  Within the first five results there are
2- Research Articles
1- Research
1- Review
and
1- Opinion (!!!!)

Interesting that scientists have opinions about sciency things.
Posted by: FloydLee on Oct. 14 2009,10:49



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Look, since you get to use the personal opinion of scientists, then so do we.  C. Mews personal opinion is that there is no controversy.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Interesting.  C. Mews' personal opinion.  I think after doing SLP, I will do an extended focus on "C. Mews' personal opinions" WRT the Big Five, and that will end the Incompatibility debate no matter who posts any more posts or declares victory (that includes you too).  

******



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
If I looked hard enough, I could find a quote in the Bible that says "FL is the antichrist".
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


May I ask for documentation on that claim too?
Posted by: deadman_932 on Oct. 14 2009,11:04

And for this page, too:

Just to help any new reader keep score, here's where you left off, Floyd Lee:

Your job was to demonstrate that evolutionary theory and Christianity were inherently incompatible, Floyd.

Your only argument for the incompatibility of evolution and Christianity was that you had your "Big Five Fantasies." Starting about page one of this thread you began to try to pretend that those BFF's were valid, you tried to juggle three lines of fraudulent "evidence" :

1.  You claimed that Christians (like the Pope) had to address your BFF's. Then you later later admit this not to be true -- Christians don't have to address your Fantasies at all, and they can still remain Christians in your own view....while still accepting evolution.

This was a killing stroke administered by yourself, to yourself.

2. You used quotes from evolutionists that are shown invalidly applied to support your claim . For instance, the personal opinion of Mayr, which is (a) consonant with the Pope's statements that believers are free to believe, and (b) consistent with the scientific consensus view that science can't deal with claims of divine teleology and ontology.

3.You used quotes from apologist-"scientists" with you claiming that your BFF's Divine Teleology and Ontology DID apply to science. Unfortunately, your creo-scientists can't provide any viable scientific research model that would provide evidence in favor of their empty blather. You failed to show that they ever could provide that, even thoretically. Ever.

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

That's it, Floyd. Over 40 pages of you obfuscating and flinging fallacies and that's all you got. You failed in every meaningful way, yet you pretend that you still have a live parrot and that your Black Knight argument has legs.

Your only real "victory" was you being more surreal than Monty Python, Floyd
Posted by: FrankH on Oct. 14 2009,11:04

Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 14 2009,10:30)
Okay, let's check back with SLP.  I asked him a question previously.  I want an answer.

(snip)

Remember, you evolutionists say that abiogenesis is separate from evolution.  And you say it often.  However, your statement, as you can see, is NOT true.  That's what all this is about.

In fact, let's toss in one more statement, this one comes from Paul Lurquin's 2003 book concerning the orign of life.
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
"The RNA World Hypothesis is a very attractive one, because it bases the appearance of life squarely within the realm of evolution."

Lurquin, The Origins of Life and the Universe, p. 32.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



******

Okay, that's like background information for the upcoming post or posts.  

SLP thinks I "deceived readers" on the short version of Oro that I've quoted in other forums and past years (and wants to apparently debate it here and now), and meanwhile my own question for SLP is designed to show that I've never quotemined John Oro AND to show that Oro meant precisely what he said---and in doing so puts the lie to the evolutionist claim that prebiotic evolution (abiogenesis) is separate from evolution.  

No deceit, no joke:  Abiogenesis is part and parcel of evolution, no doubt.

Continued in next post or posts.

FloydLee
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Oh Madonna,


The quotes you list say "evolved".  That's due more to a lack of a better discriminating word in the English language.  Like the phrase "Stellar Evolution", "Galactic Evolution", or better yet "The strategy for breaking into the Asian markets evolved over time" etc.  The problem is "evolve" means "to change" with an indirect but implied "and got better at whatever it was doing".

Abiogenesis and Evolution are related but one can be falsified and the other still remain true.

If Yaweh, Uncle Fester, LGM from Uranus, the Tooth Fairy and said, "Wham, you chemicals are alive now so go evolve into other things", Abiogenesis would be a dead end but Evolution still would have weight.  On the other hand if any of the above waited for the chemicals of the first life to have been formed by natural processes and then took those chemicals and made all life as we now see, it, Abiogenesis would still be correct while Evolution would have been falsified.

They are related but not dependent on the other.

I see now why you so desperately hold on to a literal Bible.  If you find that the Genesis story is not 100% the way it was, you'd have no faith what so ever would you?
Posted by: OgreMkV on Oct. 14 2009,11:19

Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 14 2009,10:49)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Look, since you get to use the personal opinion of scientists, then so do we.  C. Mews personal opinion is that there is no controversy.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Interesting.  C. Mews' personal opinion.  I think after doing SLP, I will do an extended focus on "C. Mews' personal opinions" WRT the Big Five, and that will end the Incompatibility debate no matter who posts any more posts or declares victory (that includes you too).  

******

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
If I looked hard enough, I could find a quote in the Bible that says "FL is the antichrist".
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


May I ask for documentation on that claim too?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


It was easier than I thought

2 John 1:7 (NIV)
Many deceivers... fl, ...is the deceiver and the antichrist.
Posted by: FrankH on Oct. 14 2009,11:33

Quote (OgreMkV @ Oct. 14 2009,11:19)
Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 14 2009,10:49)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Look, since you get to use the personal opinion of scientists, then so do we.  C. Mews personal opinion is that there is no controversy.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Interesting. C. Mews' personal opinion.  I think after doing SLP, I will do an extended focus on "C. Mews' personal opinions" WRT the Big Five, and that will end the Incompatibility debate no matter who posts any more posts or declares victory (that includes you too).  

******

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
If I looked hard enough, I could find a quote in the Bible that says "FL is the antichrist".
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

May I ask for documentation on that claim too?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

It was easier than I thought

2 John 1:7 (NIV)
Many deceivers... fl, ...is the deceiver and the antichrist.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Can't use the NIV.

We have a preacher close by who'll be burning all Bibles save the KJV as the others are tainted by Satan.

Also note that this includes many "christian writers", but not "TROOtm Christians" in his golden book of good and saved people, including the Rev. Billy Graham will have their books burned on Halloween.
Posted by: Quack on Oct. 14 2009,11:43



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Remember, you evolutionists say that abiogenesis is separate from evolution.  And you say it often.  However, your statement, as you can see, is NOT true.  That's what all this is about.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Nonsense again. It is your statement that is NOT true.

The trick employed again by FL is the reference to naked evolution. But the Theory of Evolution which is the theory that "Darwinism" is about is not just naked evolution, it is dressed up as a Theory. Within that cloak, those clothes, the Theory of Evolution is not naked.

If your claim is that "you evolutionists say that abiogenesis is separate from the Theory of Evolution", you better say it!

Or do you still want to go beating around the bush?

We all agree that the entire universe and everything in it has been subject to evolution ever since it all started.
From the Big Bang to evolution of galaxies, solar systems, planets, moons and all kinds of object, and so on and so forth. We cannot rule out that all sorts of designers have been at work too, but we do not bank on it. We tend to believe they have not because we have yet to see evidence of their existence, past or present.

But that does not imply that the Theory of Evolution, i.e. the origins of species as a subset of overall evolution depends on any particular mode of abiogenesis be it divine intervention, alien intervention or any other kind of intervention, - including what most scientists believe: Natural forces at work.

No matter what amount of semantic, linguistic and other literary device are employed, that fact remains but FL is fighting for the survival of his religion. Masada comes to mind.
Posted by: FloydLee on Oct. 14 2009,12:38



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
It was easier than I thought

2 John 1:7 (NIV)
Many deceivers... fl, ...is the deceiver and the antichrist.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I seeeee.   2 John 1:7 specifically lists FL as the antichrist.   Thanks for the clarification.

FloydLee
Posted by: OgreMkV on Oct. 14 2009,12:44

Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 14 2009,12:38)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
It was easier than I thought

2 John 1:7 (NIV)
Many deceivers... fl, ...is the deceiver and the antichrist.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I seeeee.   2 John 1:7 specifically lists FL as the antichrist.   Thanks for the clarification.

FloydLee
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Yep, if you can edit quotes, add elipises, and capitalize words that aren't done so in the original, then why can't I?
Posted by: FrankH on Oct. 14 2009,12:53

Quote (OgreMkV @ Oct. 14 2009,12:44)
Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 14 2009,12:38)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
It was easier than I thought

2 John 1:7 (NIV)
Many deceivers... fl, ...is the deceiver and the antichrist.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

I seeeee.   2 John 1:7 specifically lists FL as the antichrist.   Thanks for the clarification.

FloydLee
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Yep, if you can edit quotes, add elipises, and capitalize words that aren't done so in the original, then why can't I?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


While showing FL how annoying misquoting can be, it distracts from FL actually having to answer direst questions and actually sticking his neck out when dealing with issues he'd rather just see go away.

So FL, how about the other posts where you've been shown your dogma doesn't square with facts (oh yes, saying you've addressed it doesn't mean you've been able to refute it if you have, I'm sure you'll be more than willing to repost it and put those people in their place, right?).

What about my question that if you found that Genesis is not literal, you'd have no faith?  Is that a correct assessment?
Posted by: FloydLee on Oct. 14 2009,13:04



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
it distracts from FL actually having to answer direst questions
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


And it also keeps Ogre from documenting a certain claim he presented....
Posted by: Constant Mews on Oct. 14 2009,13:12

Since Natural Selection is NOT evolutionary theory, we note that once again Floyd is quote-mining Oro.

That's called lying, Floyd.  The only other alternative is that despite having these basics explained to you, you do not have the intellectual capacity to understand the theory of evolution.

According to your own definitions, the ones that you provided, abiogenesis is not part of evolution.

Why present definitions of terms and then ignore them?

Remember: according to YOU, abiogenesis is not part of evolution.
Posted by: Constant Mews on Oct. 14 2009,13:13

Quote (Constant Mews @ Oct. 13 2009,17:38)
[quote=FloydLee,Oct. 13 2009,17:04][/quote]
Floyd:  

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Actually, we've already looked at Scripture (and the Pope too), and to whatever extent evolution exists (such as microevolution, but NOT macroevolution, for the latter has never been observed), God IS the required explanation for it.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Not according to evolutionary theory.  Apparently you didn't even bother to read the definitions you provided.  Your definitions - the ones that you gave us, say nothing about God's involvement, because science can't test for God.  Your ignorance of both the Bible and theology apparently isn't up to knowing that.

Your definitions, Lee.  Your quotes from the Pope.  Evolutionary theory does NOT deny the ultimate cause of God; it merely explains testable mechanisms.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
And no, you don't get to fudge by saying "without intervening directly".
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

But you've just said that, Floyd.  That was the point of the water flowing downhill example.  You've already conceded that water can operate a perfectly natural process for which God is ultimately responsible, and yet man cannot test for God.

You're on record as having conceded your first point.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
After all, you've already said that God was "necessary and sufficient", thus locking Him into being the Required Explanation even if you think it's an indirect explanation.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Certainly I do.  But science cannot test that particular point, and does not include it in evolutionary theory.  It doesn't exclude it from evolutionary theory either.

You've already conceded this point, Floyd.  You're on record as having admitted that your first "incompatible" is meaningless.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
You still bring in teleology,
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Of course I do.  So do you.


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
you still have to explain why God used a gazillion years of evolutionary animal suffering to evolve the first two humans, you still bring in your problems even when you try to make it "indirect."
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Ah, so you're conceding your first point again.  You cannot establish it, since you've already admitted that God is the necessary and sufficient explanation for water flowing downhill, despite the fact that it occurs naturally.

Now you're trying to argue theodicy, the ancient Problem of Evil.  But it has nothing to do with evolutionary theory; the Problem of Evil stands whether or not evolution is true.  No escape hatch for you there, Floyd.  If you'd like to discuss the POE, I'm more than willing to; but you will be unable to show that any part of evolutionary theory specifies it as a problem.

You've already conceded point 1, Floyd.  And as I showed you already, your points 2-4 are also not incompatibles.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
And that "necessary and sufficient" you mentioned, is exactly what the theory of evolution denies.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Not in the slightest.  Show me the precise wording in the theory, not the comments on the theory by atheists which shows that evolution denies God.

You can't do it.  Because it's not there.  Evolutionary theory says nothing about God at all.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
For as Mayr pointed out, the theory of evolution explains things solely materialistically (or purely materialistically if you prefer Futuyma) and the theory of evolution no longer requires God as creator or designer.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

But this is NOT what you are claiming.  You are claiming that the theory denies the involvement of God.  It does not do so.

And you've already conceded this point, Floyd, when you admitted that God can be ultimately responsible for water flowing downhill, and yet we have a natural explanation.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
No longer "necessary and sufficient", as you put it.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Mayr's opinion is not the theory, Floyd.

You provided the definition of the theory.  Show me precisely where, in your definitions, that is says God is not necessary and sufficient.  Show me.

You provided the definitions.

You show me precisely where they exclude God.

You can't.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


These issues still remain, Floyd.
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Oct. 14 2009,13:17

Quote (Erasmus, FCD @ Oct. 14 2009,09:48)
Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Oct. 14 2009,09:39)
Floyd

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
why is god not part of the required explanation for why water runs downhill, when he is part of the required explanation for the EXISTENCE OF WATER?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



because you think some evilutionists say so?

some evilutionists say your Big Five Fantasies are a pile of crap.

so much for your argument.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Yodel Elf are you chickenshit?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


yodel elf you got anything for this yet?

you going to explain why god is not part of the required explanation for water flowing downhill, when god is part of the explanation for water itself?

saying that evilutionists don't accept doesn't cut it, palsy-walsy.  

It's not part of YOUR required explanation per your own words.  Why not?
Posted by: sledgehammer on Oct. 14 2009,13:17

Floyd, this is so obvious it shouldn't even have to be pointed out, except to you:
without replication, descent with modification followed by selection (Darwinian evolution) cannot happen.
What part of the term "cosmochemical" do you not understand?
We're only here to help :p
Posted by: OgreMkV on Oct. 14 2009,13:22

Quote (FrankH @ Oct. 14 2009,12:53)
While showing FL how annoying misquoting can be, it distracts from FL actually having to answer direst questions and actually sticking his neck out when dealing with issues he'd rather just see go away.

So FL, how about the other posts where you've been shown your dogma doesn't square with facts (oh yes, saying you've addressed it doesn't mean you've been able to refute it if you have, I'm sure you'll be more than willing to repost it and put those people in their place, right?).

What about my question that if you found that Genesis is not literal, you'd have no faith?  Is that a correct assessment?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You're right of course.  It was mainly an attempt at humor.  Since he can't see the difference when the actual quote is presented, then he won't understand any other part of it.

I've got a list building for the ID teaching in school part, floyd, just let me know when it's time.  But please, answer all the current issues first.
Posted by: Constant Mews on Oct. 14 2009,13:31

Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 14 2009,13:04)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
it distracts from FL actually having to answer direst questions
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


And it also keeps Ogre from documenting a certain claim he presented....
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


He already documented his claim.  You need to keep up, Floyd.  We can't wait for your slow reading.

But remember: my very existence as a Christian and a scientist who accepts evolution proves you to be wrong.

And you have not been able to refute that, in forty pages of trying.  Don't you think that should give you pause?
Posted by: FrankH on Oct. 14 2009,14:00

Quote (OgreMkV @ Oct. 14 2009,13:22)
You're right of course.  It was mainly an attempt at humor.  Since he can't see the difference when the actual quote is presented, then he won't understand any other part of it.

I've got a list building for the ID teaching in school part, floyd, just let me know when it's time.  But please, answer all the current issues first.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Just remember that Ogre Mark V are no match for 2000 GeVs blowing hot air.
Posted by: FrankH on Oct. 14 2009,14:01

Quote (FrankH @ Oct. 14 2009,14:00)
Quote (OgreMkV @ Oct. 14 2009,13:22)
You're right of course.  It was mainly an attempt at humor.  Since he can't see the difference when the actual quote is presented, then he won't understand any other part of it.

I've got a list building for the ID teaching in school part, floyd, just let me know when it's time.  But please, answer all the current issues first.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Just remember that Ogre Mark V are no match for 2000 GeVs blowing hot air.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


That should say 1 Ogre Mk V is no match.....
Posted by: Constant Mews on Oct. 14 2009,14:17

Quote (FrankH @ Oct. 14 2009,12:53)
Quote (OgreMkV @ Oct. 14 2009,12:44)
Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 14 2009,12:38)
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
It was easier than I thought

2 John 1:7 (NIV)
Many deceivers... fl, ...is the deceiver and the antichrist.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

I seeeee.   2 John 1:7 specifically lists FL as the antichrist.   Thanks for the clarification.

FloydLee
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Yep, if you can edit quotes, add elipises, and capitalize words that aren't done so in the original, then why can't I?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


While showing FL how annoying misquoting can be, it distracts from FL actually having to answer direst questions and actually sticking his neck out when dealing with issues he'd rather just see go away.

So FL, how about the other posts where you've been shown your dogma doesn't square with facts (oh yes, saying you've addressed it doesn't mean you've been able to refute it if you have, I'm sure you'll be more than willing to repost it and put those people in their place, right?).

What about my question that if you found that Genesis is not literal, you'd have no faith?  Is that a correct assessment?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


It is not possible to be intelligent, educated, and sane, and still accept Genesis as entirely historical.
Posted by: Constant Mews on Oct. 14 2009,14:21

Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 14 2009,12:38)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
It was easier than I thought

2 John 1:7 (NIV)
Many deceivers... fl, ...is the deceiver and the antichrist.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I seeeee.   2 John 1:7 specifically lists FL as the antichrist.   Thanks for the clarification.

FloydLee
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Actually, Proverbs 6:19 specifically mentions you, Floyd.
Posted by: FloydLee on Oct. 14 2009,14:27

Is SLP on the board yet?  Cmon, SLP.  Don't duck me now.

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
And I know you 'stand by' what you've written
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

 
Yeah, you DO know that from our past discussions.
Start here:

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Here's your question:  Exactly how does this extended quote by the late evolutionist John Oro (Schopf 2002, "Life's Origins")....
   Quote  
In the mid-1800s, Darwin showed how the concept of evolution by natural selection applies to living systems. But evolution also operates in the inanimate world, not only Earth but the universe as a whole, including all cosmic bodies (galaxies, stars, circumstellar and interstellar clouds, interstellar molecules, planetary systems, planets, comets, asteroids, meteorites) and all chemical elements. Comets transported organic molecules and water to the primitive Earth early in the planet's history, presumably over a period of several hundred million years. In the oceans that then formed, both cometary and terrestrial (those synthesized directly in the environment) organic molecules evolved by natural selection, ultimately giving rise to life - possibly in the "warm little pond" that Darwin envisioned in his famous letter to Joseph Hooker (see chapter 3). The linkage from cosmic elements to cometary molecules to primitive Earth to biological evolution ties cosmochemical evolution to the origin of life.  

....disprove or even disagree what I said earlier about the short version of Oro's quote?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Okay, I didnt' get a straight answer from you on this one and so permit me to insist.

Seems to be a lotta complainin's from you because the short version----"organic molecules evolved by natural selection, ultimately giving rise to life---possibly in the 'warm little pond' that Darwin envsioned in his famous letter to Joseph Hooker" wasn't quoted properly, apparently supposed to be something like....

"...organic molecules)  or "...(Organic) molecules" or
..."(Organic) molecules"


Well, that's fine.  Whatever way is the right stylistic way to start off that paragraph, I admit I didn't do it just right.  C'est la vie.
Much of the time, I simply wrote, "Organic molecules evolved by natural selection, ultimately giving rise to life---possibly in the 'warm little pond' that Darwin envsioned in his famous letter to Joseph Hooker."

Much later on, I think I started trying to change it over to be more stylistically correct, even though I was simply posting on discussion boards and not writing for publication.

But I'm not interested in folks trying to play games, trying to pretend that "abiogenesis is separate from evolution" based on a stylistic violation on a quotation.  If the idea is to claim that I'm "deceiving readers" or quotemining or taking anything out of context, then let SLP step up to the plate and demonstrate it, not just blindly assert it.  

Yeah, I'm talkin' to you SLP.  Step One is to answer that question I asked.
Posted by: FrankH on Oct. 14 2009,14:29

Well FL, while you're waiting for SLP, try answering the questions others have asked of you.


Thanks
Posted by: Schroedinger's Dog on Oct. 14 2009,14:33

Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 14 2009,21:27)
But I'm not interested in folks trying to play games, trying to pretend that "abiogenesis is separate from evolution" based on a stylistic violation on a quotation.  
---------------------QUOTE-------------------




---------------------QUOTE-------------------
The origin of life is a necessary precursor for biological evolution, but understanding that evolution occurred once organisms appeared and investigating how this happens does not depend on understanding exactly how life began.[195] The current scientific consensus is that the complex biochemistry that makes up life came from simpler chemical reactions, but it is unclear how this occurred.[196] Not much is certain about the earliest developments in life, the structure of the first living things, or the identity and nature of any last universal common ancestor or ancestral gene pool.[197][198] Consequently, there is no scientific consensus on how life began, but proposals include self-replicating molecules such as RNA,[199] and the assembly of simple cells.[200]
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



< There you go >

Next subject, please...
Posted by: Constant Mews on Oct. 14 2009,14:33

Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 14 2009,10:49)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Look, since you get to use the personal opinion of scientists, then so do we.  C. Mews personal opinion is that there is no controversy.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Interesting.  C. Mews' personal opinion.  I think after doing SLP, I will do an extended focus on "C. Mews' personal opinions" WRT the Big Five, and that will end the Incompatibility debate no matter who posts any more posts or declares victory (that includes you too).  

******

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
If I looked hard enough, I could find a quote in the Bible that says "FL is the antichrist".
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


May I ask for documentation on that claim too?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


All you've ever cited beyond your definition of the theory - which, by the way, is not incompatible with Christian doctrine - is personal opinion.

I am a Christian who accepts evolution, Floyd.  I am your nightmare, since according to you, I cannot exist.  But you've never shown that such incompatibility exists.

Indeed, based on the definitions of both Christianity and evolutionary theory that you provided, there are no such incompatibilities.

And you then conceded your point 1.  You've never addressed by refutations of your next four points.

I can now see why you wish to run away from the entire topic to focus on ID - where you will be eviscerated by the Christians, as well as the atheists.  But since you appear unable to deal with the "incompatibles" topic, I rather doubt your attempted defense of ID will be any more successful.
Posted by: Constant Mews on Oct. 14 2009,14:37

Floyd, I have a sincere question for you.  Why should SLP bother to answer your question, when you refuse - apparently arbitrarily - to answer dozens of questions posed to you?  If you refuse to argue in an honorable fashion, why should he?

You have done nothing to merit anyone treating you as anything more than a troll.  If you believe otherwise, perhaps you could point to any attempt you've made to discuss, debate, or argue in a rational, polite, constructive, honest fashion; I've read most of your posts here and at PT, and I've never seen any such instances.

Again - why should SLP be civil to you, when you refuse to be civil to us?
Posted by: FrankH on Oct. 14 2009,14:50

Just for FL, yeah it's CNN, the Communist News Nutwork, but:

< http://edition.cnn.com/2009....ex.html >

Besides your belief in a literal Bible, where's your evidence for Creationism?  You do know that even if Evolution is 100% wrong on every count, that does not make Creationism right by default, no?  There are many Creation stories so why is yours correct and the other ones wrong?
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on Oct. 14 2009,15:09

Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 14 2009,14:27)
then let SLP step up to the plate and demonstrate it, not just blindly assert it.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


ROFL. About that global flood....
Posted by: FloydLee on Oct. 14 2009,15:14

So, where's SLP?  Did he respond yet?  Judging from CM's attempt to cover for him, apparently not.

Git on here, SLP.  Answer the previous question.  Ohhh, and answer the OTHER question too while you're here:


---------------------QUOTE-------------------


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Notice that evolutionists posi the very same driving force for both prebiotic evolution and postbiotic evolution---natural selection.

Hence prebiotic evolution is part and parcel of the overall theory of evolution.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


******
Good luck answering that one, SLP.  But honestly, you can't answer it, and you know it.  Oro simply made clear that abiogenesis is part and parcel of evolution.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You said you answered this one.  Show me again exactly how you did?

******

Oh, and you dropped this one too.  Completely.


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Nobel laureate Christian De Duve summarized the plenary session:  "The participants unanimously accepted as indisputable the affirmation that the Universe, as well as life within it, are the products of long evolutionary histories..." (2009, Nmgirl's post)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Care to address what he said, SLP?  I don't think you can.  I think you major in minors because you're not able to handle the fact that multiple experts, past and present, really do connect evolution and abiogenesis even down to 2009.  You whine and wring your hands, and try to shoot the messenger because you're too limp to deal with the message, is that it?

Don't try to hide behind CM or other low-octaners on this one.  Git on here yourself if you dare, and answer to these realities.  Ready yet?
Posted by: FloydLee on Oct. 14 2009,15:17

Wikipedia, SD?  You have multiple statements from well known published OOL evolutionists that show that abiogenesis is part and parcel of evolution, and the best you can do is a generalized Wiki snip that doesn't even address nor refute each particular expert's statement?
Posted by: OgreMkV on Oct. 14 2009,15:19

While you're waiting, you could always finish one or two of the project you said that you would get to later and didn't or come up with something new that hasn't been refuted already.

For example, what does abiogenesis have to with whether evolution and chrisitanity are incompitable, or whatever it was you said?
Posted by: Schroedinger's Dog on Oct. 14 2009,15:23

Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 14 2009,22:17)
Wikipedia, SD?  You have multiple statements from well known published OOL evolutionists that show that abiogenesis is part and parcel of evolution, and the best you can do is a generalized Wiki snip that doesn't even address nor refute each particular expert's statement?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Well, if you were honest enough, you would go to that wiki page and follow the links. But that's too much to ask to a lying, crawling piece of crap like yourself.

but I won't expect you to undestand any basic concept anymore. when you are stupid enough to not see the difference between a general "evolutionary history" and the "theory of evolution", there's not much more we can do.

Sir Yodel Elf, you are a twat!
Posted by: FrankH on Oct. 14 2009,15:25

Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 14 2009,15:14)
So, where's SLP?  Did he respond yet?  Judging from CM's attempt to cover for him, apparently not.

Git on here, SLP.  Answer the previous question.  Ohhh, and answer the OTHER question too while you're here:
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Notice that evolutionists posi the very same driving force for both prebiotic evolution and postbiotic evolution---natural selection.

Hence prebiotic evolution is part and parcel of the overall theory of evolution.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

******
Good luck answering that one, SLP.  But honestly, you can't answer it, and you know it.  Oro simply made clear that abiogenesis is part and parcel of evolution.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You said you answered this one.  Show me again exactly how you did?

******

Oh, and you dropped this one too.  Completely.
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Nobel laureate Christian De Duve summarized the plenary session:  "The participants unanimously accepted as indisputable the affirmation that the Universe, as well as life within it, are the products of long evolutionary histories..." (2009, Nmgirl's post)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Care to address what he said, SLP?  I don't think you can.  I think you major in minors because you're not able to handle the fact that multiple experts, past and present, really do connect evolution and abiogenesis even down to 2009.  You whine and wring your hands, and try to shoot the messenger because you're too limp to deal with the message, is that it?

Don't try to hide behind CM or other low-octaners on this one.  Git on here yourself if you dare, and answer to these realities.  Ready yet?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


FL, I answered them.

Again, the problem is not that Abiogenesis and Evolution are one in the same, but the impreciseness of the English language is at fault.

So, as I've and at least one other person has answered the evolution of "evolution", you could read what we stated.
Posted by: Dan on Oct. 14 2009,15:26

I've been sick the last few days, so my apologies if this has been covered.

Compare this reasoning:

1. FL claims that faith in Christianity is incompatible with a holding of evolution.

2. There are many examples of Christians who hold to evolution.  (For one, the pope.)

3. But FL says he can't understand how they get around his five big incompatibilities, so insists that these examples don't count.

To this reasoning:

1. AB claims that no hand-held device can be both a calculator and a communications device.

2. There are many cell phones that are both calculators and communications devices.

2. But AB says he can't understand how a cell phone works, so insists that these examples don't count.

It is certainly true that AB doesn't understand how cell phones work.  No one understands all the details of how cell phones work: the antenna engineers don't know the details of the user interface, the keypad designer doesn't understand how the transmission frequencies are swapped back and forth, those who design the transducers don't know how to design the hinges.

The fact that AB doesn't understand how a cell phone works is irrelevant to the fact that cell phones work.

Similarly, the fact that FL doesn't understand how the pope both believes in Christianity and accepts evolution is irrelevant to the fact that he does.
Posted by: FloydLee on Oct. 14 2009,15:29

Got some more for you SLP.  



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
In the mid-1800's, Darwin showed how the concept of evolution by natural selection applies to living things.  But evolution also operates in the inanimate world....
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Right there, you see Oro providing a rationale that clearly connects abiogenesis to evolution, makes them inseparable in fact.  And look at it again, SLP, he's not just referring to "a concept" only, but actual evolution.  He does this same thing when he says "organic molecules evolved by natural selection".  He's talking actuality, NOT abstract concept.

So you got it wrong there too.  Care to respond?  Are you able to?
Posted by: Dan on Oct. 14 2009,15:39

Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 14 2009,15:29)
Got some more for you SLP.  

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
In the mid-1800's, Darwin showed how the concept of evolution by natural selection applies to living things.  But evolution also operates in the inanimate world....
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Right there, you see Oro providing a rationale that clearly connects abiogenesis to evolution, makes them inseparable in fact.  And look at it again, SLP, he's not just referring to "a concept" only, but actual evolution.  He does this same thing when he says "organic molecules evolved by natural selection".  He's talking actuality, NOT abstract concept.

So you got it wrong there too.  Care to respond?  Are you able to?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


The word "evolution," like most words, has multiple meanings.  Just this morning I gave a lecture on time development in quantum mechanics.  That simply means how quantal things change with time ... no connection to biological evolution is implied.  Certainly no connection to evolution by natural selection.

Similarly, we often talk about the evolution of stars, or of galaxies, or of radiation.  No one should think that this means stellar evolution is part of biological evolution, or that it proceeds by natural selection (it doesn't.)
Posted by: FloydLee on Oct. 14 2009,15:49



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
3. But FL says he can't understand how they get around his five big incompatibilities
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Uhhh, Dan, they DON'T get around them.  In fact, the Pope re-affirms the first three of them (you saw his quotations yourself) and is silent on the final two.  Agreed?
Posted by: FloydLee on Oct. 14 2009,15:50



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
For example, what does abiogenesis have to with whether evolution and chrisitanity are incompitable, or whatever it was you said?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Ask SLP.  This was his idea, not mine.  Go jump on him.  Me, I'm just finishing what he apparently wanted to start.
Posted by: Schroedinger's Dog on Oct. 14 2009,15:58

Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 14 2009,22:49)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
3. But FL says he can't understand how they get around his five big incompatibilities
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Uhhh, Dan, they DON'T get around them.  In fact, the Pope re-affirms the first three of them (you saw his quotations yourself) and is silent on the final two.  Agreed?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


One last time, Yodel Elf:

NOBODY CARES ABOUT YOUR BFFs!!! The simple fact that a large number of christians find their faith compatible with evolution makes you WRONG!

If you are too stupid to understand that, please GTF out of here!
Posted by: FloydLee on Oct. 14 2009,16:16



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
NOBODY CARES ABOUT YOUR BFFs!!!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Hmmm.  Judging from your current stress level, I'd say that at YOU care about those incompatibilities, and  quite a bit!!!!  Heh!!
Posted by: Reed on Oct. 14 2009,16:21

Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 14 2009,13:49)
Uhhh, Dan, they DON'T get around them.  In fact, the Pope re-affirms the first three of them (you saw his quotations yourself) and is silent on the final two.  Agreed?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


No, you have shown no such thing. All I've seen you show is a < failure to understand the basic principles of science and logic >, combined with a taste for tortured, illogical interpretations of quotes from various sources.

The fact is that god, as commonly defined, can do anything. This includes guiding evolution in such a way that it appears perfectly mechanistic. No tortured parsing of descriptions of evolution will change this.
Posted by: Schroedinger's Dog on Oct. 14 2009,16:21

Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 14 2009,23:16)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
NOBODY CARES ABOUT YOUR BFFs!!!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Hmmm.  Judging from your current stress level, I'd say that at YOU care about those incompatibilities, and  quite a bit!!!!  Heh!!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You are the one elevating my stress level. Your inhability to grasp even the most basic of concepts is a testimony to dumbfuckery everywhere.

You are a troll of the worst kind: a preaching troll. go proselytise somewhere else, or move on to the next subject...
Posted by: deadman_932 on Oct. 14 2009,16:26

Evasion: Ranging from outright refusal to deal with topics to subtler methods of ignoring, misdirecting or distracting.
Cherry-picking: Selectively addressing issues.

Transfer: Projecting positive or negative qualities (praise or blame) of an idea or action to another in order to make the second more acceptable or to discredit it. Ggenerally used to transfer blame and disapproval from one side of a dispute to another.
Eliciting disapproval: When an audience is led to believe that undesirable, subversive, or contemptible groups  support an idea or action, audience members might be influenced to change their position.
Stereotyping or Labeling: This technique attempts to arouse prejudices in an audience by labeling the object of the propaganda campaign as something the target audience finds undesirable.  
Scapegoating: Assigning blame to an individual or group that isn't really responsible, distracting from the actual guilt of responsible parties.
Appeal to fear: Seeks to build support by instilling fear

Glittering generalities: Appealing to emotionally-loaded notions such as love of God or country, desire for peace, freedom, etc. The words and phrases suggest different things to different people, but their connotation is useful to the propagandist.
Intentional vagueness: The intention is to move the audience by use of undefined phrases, without analyzing their validity or attempting to determine their reasonableness or application.
Rationalization: Using favorable generalities to rationalize questionable acts or beliefs. Vague or neutral phrases are often used to justify such actions or beliefs.
Oversimplification: Favorable generalities are used to provide simple answers to complex  problems/topics.

Common man: This approach attempts to convince the audience that the propagandist's positions reflect the "common sense of the average people."
Testimonial: Quotations, in or out of context (quotemines), cited to support or reject a given idea, action, program, or personality. The reputation or the role (expert, respected public figure, etc.) of the individual giving the statement is exploited. The testimonial places the official sanction of a respected person or authority on a propaganda message. This is done in an effort to cause the target audience to identify itself with the authority or to accept the authority's opinions and beliefs as its own. See also:
Appeal to authority: Appeals to authority cite prominent figures to support a position idea, argument, or course of action.

Virtue words: These are words in the value system of the target audience which tend to produce a positive image when attached to a person or issue. God, love, happiness, etc.
Slogans: A brief phrase that may include labeling and stereotyping. Good slogans are self-perpetuating memes.


< http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Propaganda >
< http://science.jrank.org/pages....da.html >
< http://www.historians.org/Project....da8.htm >
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on Oct. 14 2009,16:34

Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 14 2009,15:50)
Me, I'm just finishing what he apparently wanted to start.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Do you think nobody notices the pattern of what you "choose to finish" and what you ignore?
Posted by: Henry J on Oct. 14 2009,16:38



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Floyd believes that evolutionary theory and Christian doctrine are incompatible because:

1. Christian doctrine specifies that God is the necessary and sufficient explanation for biological organisms.  Evolutionary theory does not require God as the necessary and sufficient explanation.

2. Christian doctrine specifies that God chose to create the universe and mankind.  Evolutionary theory denies that God chose to create the universe and mankind.

3. Christian doctrine specifies that God created man in His own image.  Evolutionary theory denies that God created man in His own image.

4. Christian doctrine specifies that death did not occur before man.  Evolutionary theory requires that death existed before man.

5. Christian doctrine specifies that God is a loving, and all-powerful God.  Evolutionary theory implies otherwise, since the evolutionary process involves gratuitous pain and suffering.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Number 1 uses the tacit assumption that God couldn't or wouldn't use evolution as the method. Christianity as a whole is not dependent on that assumption. So that one is taken care of.

Number 2 is answered by the answer to number 1.

Number 3 uses the tacit assumptions that "image" means physical and that God has a physical form. Christianity as a whole is not dependent on either of these, let alone both. So that one's out.

Number 4 assumes that "death before man" wouldn't exist if it weren't for evolution, but fossilized remains of animals have been as old as a half billion years. That fact doesn't depend on evolution, and contradicting it would contradict geology and physics as well as evolution. Fortunately, Christianity as a whole does not deny those things.

Number 5 is answered by the answer to number 4.

All done.
Posted by: OgreMkV on Oct. 14 2009,16:47

that's 3 responses to all five BFFs and Floyd has yet to respond to any of them.

Two of them, he has said, "I'll post those in a bit."  Still waiting.

Someone wake me up when we get to teaching ID in science class.
Posted by: FloydLee on Oct. 14 2009,16:55



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Someone wake me up when we get to teaching ID in science class.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You were not even able to supply documentation for the specific claim you yourself provided.  Have a nice nap dude, you earned it.
Posted by: FloydLee on Oct. 14 2009,17:00

Looks like SLP is active this afternoon in another forum, and in no hurry to visit this one, so that frees me up to focus on CM who wants to pray for me and save my soul and whatnot (you so silly sometimes. CM!!!)
Posted by: Henry J on Oct. 14 2009,17:05

Quote (OgreMkV @ Oct. 14 2009,15:47)
that's 3 responses to all five BFFs and Floyd has yet to respond to any of them.

Two of them, he has said, "I'll post those in a bit."  Still waiting.

Someone wake me up when we get to teaching ID in science class.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Teaching I.D.:

Something(s) somehow did something(s) at some time(s) at some place(s).

There ya go.

All done. :p
Posted by: OgreMkV on Oct. 14 2009,17:15

Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 14 2009,16:55)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Someone wake me up when we get to teaching ID in science class.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You were not even able to supply documentation for the specific claim you yourself provided.  Have a nice nap dude, you earned it.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


The fact that you choose not to recognize a valid and true response, is not my problem.  I can't help it if you don't understand logic, evidence, or science.

You would have failed my science class miserably... because you refuse to learn.
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Oct. 14 2009,17:17

it's been 12 days now



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
why is god not part of the required explanation for why water runs downhill, when he is part of the required explanation for the EXISTENCE OF WATER?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



do you have no answer?
Posted by: FloydLee on Oct. 14 2009,17:29



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
The fact is that god, as commonly defined, can do anything. This includes guiding evolution in such a way that it appears perfectly mechanistic.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


So you have God "guiding evolution" but at the same time, making it look like evolution is "a completely mindless process" (EB3), therefore making the situation look as if he's trying to deceive us humans.
 
And since God's "guiding evolution", he must NECESSARILY also be guiding those cruel and sadistic aspects of evolution also---a gazillion years of "Nature Red in Tooth and Claw".  All that evolutionary bloodsport just to evolve the first humans.

Good job Reed.  Got some good incompatibilities there, thanks!

(Rosenhouse was right:  reconciling Christianity and evolution is NOT as easy at theistic evolutionists--or their secular homies, for that matter--try to make it sound.)
Posted by: OgreMkV on Oct. 14 2009,17:35

Tell me one thing Floyd.  What is one difference we would expect to see if God was and if he was not guiding evolution?
Posted by: FloydLee on Oct. 14 2009,17:36



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I can't help it if you don't understand logic, evidence, or science.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


However, I DO understand that you said this:
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Cause, I think the others here have shown just as many quotes as you have that counter your argument.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


After which you were sincerely asked,  
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Really?   Please document that claim.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


And I understand that the rrequested documentation wasn't provided.   All done, yes?     :)
Posted by: OgreMkV on Oct. 14 2009,17:42

Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 14 2009,17:36)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I can't help it if you don't understand logic, evidence, or science.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


However, I DO understand that you said this:
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Cause, I think the others here have shown just as many quotes as you have that counter your argument.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


After which you were sincerely asked,  
   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Really?   Please document that claim.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


And I understand that the rrequested documentation wasn't provided.   All done, yes?     :)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Nope, I provided you two quotes and a someone else provided a list of 13,000 (was it?) that refute your entire arguement.

Again, it's not my fault if you can't understand it.
Posted by: Schroedinger's Dog on Oct. 14 2009,17:48

Well, enough of this crap, right?

the ToE doesn't require god(s), in any way. I, as an atheist, am totally satisfied with this. And the ToE works very well without god(s).

But the ToE doesn't deny god(s) either. It doesn't adress the matter. Christians can definitely reconcile their faith with evolution. Each christian can make his/her own idea about the role of god(s) regarding evolution. And this is none of your damn business

See? ToE is so elegant it can actually fullfil anyone's needs. except for the terminally endoctrinated, to the point where their brain cannot process reality anymore. There is no elegance whatsoever in blind dogma.

You are weak in many ways, Yodel Elf, and should be thankful that at least CM is praying for you. If I was a believer, I wouldn't even bother!




EDIT: feel free to replace "christian" with "jew", "muslim", "zoroastrist", "venerialist", "Mythraesist"...
Posted by: deadman_932 on Oct. 14 2009,18:03

Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 14 2009,17:29)
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
The fact is that god, as commonly defined, can do anything. This includes guiding evolution in such a way that it appears perfectly mechanistic.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


So you have God "guiding evolution" but at the same time, making it look like evolution is "a completely mindless process" (EB3), therefore making the situation look as if he's trying to deceive us humans.
 
And since God's "guiding evolution", he must NECESSARILY also be guiding those cruel and sadistic aspects of evolution also---a gazillion years of "Nature Red in Tooth and Claw".  All that evolutionary bloodsport just to evolve the first humans.

Good job Reed.  Got some good incompatibilities there, thanks!

(Rosenhouse was right:  reconciling Christianity and evolution is NOT as easy at theistic evolutionists--or their secular homies, for that matter--try to make it sound.)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


(1) Your YEC god is far more deceptive -- FAR, FAR more.
(2) Nature is both filled with competition and cooperation at various levels, however, ID-proponent Michael Behe agrees with you that things like malaria and so forth make God look evil. In fact, he seems to think that God is at least part evil.
Posted by: Reed on Oct. 14 2009,18:05

Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 14 2009,15:29)

So you have God "guiding evolution" but at the same time, making it look like evolution is "a completely mindless process" (EB3), therefore making the situation look as if he's trying to deceive us humans.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Not necessarily. Maybe he only wants the ones who are smart enough to figure it out. It's not like he doesn't have a history of "testing" people. Or maybe the whole thing is a divinely inspired metaphor. Or maybe god is just a sick fuck who gets off on killing and lying.
   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------

And since God's "guiding evolution", he must NECESSARILY also be guiding those cruel and sadistic aspects of evolution also---a gazillion years of "Nature Red in Tooth and Claw".  All that evolutionary bloodsport just to evolve the first humans.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


It's hard to see how that's different from all the other stuff he supposedly did in your interpretation. Millions of years of death is incompatible with Christianity, but killing all but two (or seven or whatever) of everything on earth, just because humans were screwing up isn't ?

Or punishing all every living creature due to Adam and Eve fucking up ?

LOL.

But that is all beside the point. The fossil record shows that those millions of years of slaughter did happen, before humans existed, regardless of whether evolution is the source of the diversity of life on earth.  The only way to get around this is to claim that god is deliberately deceiving us in a last-tuesdayish fashion. Yet you apparently deny a deceptive god. Once again, your problem isn't evolution, it's reality. Your particular interpretation of the bible isn't compatible with reality. Compared to this, the theological quibbles of reconciling some interpretation of the bible with evolution are minor.

Finally, notice that you didn't actually address the objection I raised. You claimed that various quotes from "evolutionists" showed that god is excluded from evolution, yet you didn't actually deny that the definition of god makes this a logical contradiction.
Posted by: Schroedinger's Dog on Oct. 14 2009,18:14

Some insights about god(s) (although definitely the christian and jewish one):



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Let me give you a little inside information about God. God likes to watch. He's a prankster. Think about it. He gives man instincts. He gives you this extraordinary gift, and then what does He do, I swear for His own amusement, his own private, cosmic gag reel, He sets the rules in opposition. It's the goof of all time. Look but don't touch. Touch, but don't taste. Taste, don't swallow. Ahaha. And while you're jumpin' from one foot to the next, what is he doing? He's laughin' His sick, fuckin' ass off! He's a tight-ass! He's a SADIST! He's an absentee landlord! Worship that? NEVER!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------





---------------------QUOTE-------------------
God is a 12 years old with an ant farm!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



All these quotes are taken from a movie: The Devil's Advocate. They are a creation, and yet, they echo some rightfull feelings about the god(s) you are worshipping, Yodel Elf, if you belive in the litteracy of the bible...
Posted by: Constant Mews on Oct. 14 2009,18:15

Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 14 2009,15:49)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
3. But FL says he can't understand how they get around his five big incompatibilities
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Uhhh, Dan, they DON'T get around them.  In fact, the Pope re-affirms the first three of them (you saw his quotations yourself) and is silent on the final two.  Agreed?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Of course we get around them.  I have shown you why they are not "incompatibles" at all.

The fact that I exist - a devout Christian and a scientist who accepts evolution - is proof you are wrong, Floyd.

Deal with it.  Or run away, as you are doing now.
Posted by: Constant Mews on Oct. 14 2009,18:16

Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 14 2009,17:00)
Looks like SLP is active this afternoon in another forum, and in no hurry to visit this one, so that frees me up to focus on CM who wants to pray for me and save my soul and whatnot (you so silly sometimes. CM!!!)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I wish to save your soul since you are damned for lying.  That's simple.
Posted by: Schroedinger's Dog on Oct. 14 2009,18:27

Question, Yodel Elf:

What is the rational reason for the bible being true and all other cults being wrong? (Circular logic such as "because the bible says so" or "a billion believers can't be wrong" or "my minister says so" or "my parents say so" doesn't qualify as rational reason)...
Posted by: rhmc on Oct. 14 2009,18:39

Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 14 2009,18:29)
So you have God "guiding evolution" but at the same time, making it look like evolution is "a completely mindless process" (EB3), therefore making the situation look as if he's trying to deceive us humans.
 
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


so all the geologic evidence laying around that points quite clearly to an earth much older than 6,000 years, not to mention all them "bones" that humans keep diggin' up of creatures that clearly appear to have evolved from earlier forms is not evidence of efforts by a creator to decieve humans?
Posted by: Dan on Oct. 14 2009,21:13

Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 14 2009,15:49)
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
3. But FL says he can't understand how they get around his five big incompatibilities
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Uhhh, Dan, they DON'T get around them.  In fact, the Pope re-affirms the first three of them (you saw his quotations yourself) and is silent on the final two.  Agreed?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Not agreed, because it's not true.

Contrary to FL's claim, the pope does NOT affirm that there's any incompatibility between evolution, and the creation of man in God's image.

The incompatibility exists only in the mind of FL, and we've already seen how reliable that mind is:

< http://pandasthumb.org/archive....-177803 >
Posted by: Constant Mews on Oct. 14 2009,23:54

Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 14 2009,15:50)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
For example, what does abiogenesis have to with whether evolution and chrisitanity are incompitable, or whatever it was you said?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Ask SLP.  This was his idea, not mine.  Go jump on him.  Me, I'm just finishing what he apparently wanted to start.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


He merely pointed out that your were quote-mining something you apparently didn't understand.  Why should he be civil to you, when you refuse to civil to us?  It's a fair question.
Posted by: Constant Mews on Oct. 14 2009,23:56

Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 14 2009,15:49)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
3. But FL says he can't understand how they get around his five big incompatibilities
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Uhhh, Dan, they DON'T get around them.  In fact, the Pope re-affirms the first three of them (you saw his quotations yourself) and is silent on the final two.  Agreed?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Again, you are factually incorrect.  You cannot point to the precise quotes by the pope that show you are correct.

Really, Floyd - discussion on the internet isn't that difficult.  You should be able to do it.
Posted by: Constant Mews on Oct. 15 2009,00:01

Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 14 2009,17:29)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
The fact is that god, as commonly defined, can do anything. This includes guiding evolution in such a way that it appears perfectly mechanistic.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


So you have God "guiding evolution" but at the same time, making it look like evolution is "a completely mindless process" (EB3), therefore making the situation look as if he's trying to deceive us humans.
 
And since God's "guiding evolution", he must NECESSARILY also be guiding those cruel and sadistic aspects of evolution also---a gazillion years of "Nature Red in Tooth and Claw".  All that evolutionary bloodsport just to evolve the first humans.

Good job Reed.  Got some good incompatibilities there, thanks!

(Rosenhouse was right:  reconciling Christianity and evolution is NOT as easy at theistic evolutionists--or their secular homies, for that matter--try to make it sound.)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


God isn't trying to deceive us at all; evolution appears to be a mindless process because we are not aware of the ends for it that God has in store, just as we do not know history before it unfolds before us, though God does and we have faith that His will guides us to the eventual Jerusalem.

Your comment would mean that God does not exist because we are not aware of the future.  That may be the single stupidest comment you have made so far.

And now you demand that God conform to your trivial, limited, wholly unBiblical ideas of what constitutes good?

Not much a Christian, are you Floyd?  You continually want to box God?  And the Problem of Evil exists with or without evolution.  Consider that.
Posted by: Constant Mews on Oct. 15 2009,00:03

Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 14 2009,17:36)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I can't help it if you don't understand logic, evidence, or science.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


However, I DO understand that you said this:
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Cause, I think the others here have shown just as many quotes as you have that counter your argument.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


After which you were sincerely asked,  
   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Really?   Please document that claim.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


And I understand that the rrequested documentation wasn't provided.   All done, yes?     :)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


The documentation was provided.  You are lying, Floyd.  The Pope supports evolution.  I support evolution.  nmgirl supports evolution.  Thousands of clergy have signed a petition supporting evolution.  Catholics support evolution - that's a billion Christians right there.

Citations were provided.  It is not possible for you to lie about that, Floyd - everything is documented here on the internet.
Posted by: Constant Mews on Oct. 15 2009,00:04

Quote (Constant Mews @ Oct. 14 2009,18:15)

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 14 2009,15:49)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
3. But FL says he can't understand how they get around his five big incompatibilities
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Uhhh, Dan, they DON'T get around them.  In fact, the Pope re-affirms the first three of them (you saw his quotations yourself) and is silent on the final two.  Agreed?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Of course we get around them.  I have shown you why they are not "incompatibles" at all.

The fact that I exist - a devout Christian and a scientist who accepts evolution - is proof you are wrong, Floyd.

Deal with it.  Or run away, as you are doing now.
Posted by: Cubist on Oct. 15 2009,04:49

Quote (Constant Mews @ Oct. 15 2009,00:03)
Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 14 2009,17:36)
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I can't help it if you don't understand logic, evidence, or science.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


However, I DO understand that you said this:
   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Cause, I think the others here have shown just as many quotes as you have that counter your argument.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


After which you were sincerely asked,  
     

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Really?   Please document that claim.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


And I understand that the rrequested documentation wasn't provided.   All done, yes?     :)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


The documentation was provided.  You are lying, Floyd.  The Pope supports evolution.  I support evolution.  nmgirl supports evolution.  Thousands of clergy have signed a petition supporting evolution.  Catholics support evolution - that's a billion Christians right there.

Citations were provided.  It is not possible for you to lie about that, Floyd - everything is documented here on the internet.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

I beg to differ, CM: It's very possible for Loyd Flee (can't let the resident Frog have all the fun here!) to lie -- about5 this topic, or any other. Heck, how many statements of any kind has he made here which are actually true?
Posted by: Robin on Oct. 15 2009,08:30

Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 14 2009,15:49)

---------------------QUOTE-------------------




---------------------QUOTE-------------------


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
3. But FL says he can't understand how they get around his five big incompatibilities
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Uhhh, Dan, they DON'T get around them.  In fact, the Pope re-affirms the first three of them (you saw his quotations yourself) and is silent on the final two.  Agreed?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Still lying I see, Floyd. tsk tsk...
Posted by: Robin on Oct. 15 2009,08:36

Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 14 2009,16:16)

---------------------QUOTE-------------------




---------------------QUOTE-------------------


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
NOBODY CARES ABOUT YOUR BFFs!!!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Hmmm.  Judging from your current stress level, I'd say that at YOU care about those incompatibilities, and  quite a bit!!!!  Heh!!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Wow! Demonstrating your dishonesty previously and now demonstrating that you don't understand basic psychological logic. Care to go for three claims in a row that make you look silly, Floyd?

In actuality, assuming you could discern peoples' stress levels on a message board such as this, the only thing high stress could tell you is how someone feels about the particular discussion with a given individual or set of individuals. You couldn't actually determine anything about a specific subject. And since those folks who have demonstrated some level of agitation on here have specifically directed said agitation at you and noted that said agitation was in response to your behavior and insistance on repeating faulty and false claims, I'd say you yet again are full of BS, Floyd.
Posted by: Robin on Oct. 15 2009,08:45

Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 14 2009,17:29)
 


Good job Reed.  Got some good incompatibilities there, thanks!

(Rosenhouse was right:  reconciling Christianity and evolution is NOT as easy at theistic evolutionists--or their secular homies, for that matter--try to make it sound.)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------




---------------------QUOTE-------------------


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
The fact is that god, as commonly defined, can do anything. This includes guiding evolution in such a way that it appears perfectly mechanistic.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


So you have God "guiding evolution" but at the same time, making it look like evolution is "a completely mindless process" (EB3), therefore making the situation look as if he's trying to deceive us humans.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Whoohoo!! Three silly statements in a row! You get a free TARD hat, Floyd!

The fact is that it is quite easy for evolution (the process) to be mindless while an intelligence uses the knowledge of evolution (uses the process) to breed short haired dogs, fruit flies with white eyes, horses that can jump, etc. That you don't understand this distinction is not our problem.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
And since God's "guiding evolution", he must NECESSARILY also be guiding those cruel and sadistic aspects of evolution also---a gazillion years of "Nature Red in Tooth and Claw".  All that evolutionary bloodsport just to evolve the first humans.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Certainly invoking your 2000 year old primitive sun-god as the guider of evolutionary (or any physical) processes leads to the realization that such a god is a monster, but who cares? The bible presents that monster anyway, so clearly that god is not incompatible with evolution.
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Oct. 15 2009,09:00

Quote (Erasmus, FCD @ Oct. 14 2009,18:17)
it's been 12 days now



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
why is god not part of the required explanation for why water runs downhill, when he is part of the required explanation for the EXISTENCE OF WATER?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



do you have no answer?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


???
Posted by: FloydLee on Oct. 15 2009,09:33



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
it's been 12 days now
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



It's been answered.  Also change your sig line please. Both your first question (which you never acknowledged that I answered), and your most recent question, received answers.

(And you don't accept the answer gvien for your 2nd question, which is fine, but don't pretend you didn't get an answer on that one too.)

All done!
Posted by: OgreMkV on Oct. 15 2009,09:41

Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 15 2009,09:33)
All done!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Let's see:

You have failed to convince anyone here that your BFFs cause conflict between evolution and christianity.

You have failed to convince anyone here that your BFFs are even valid!

You have failed to reply to three persons critiques of your BFFs.

You have failed to provide reponses when you indicated you would provide responses (as in "I'll post about this in a minute").

You have failed simple tests of logic.

You have failed journalistic integrity.

Your interpretation of the bible: failed.

Your version of christianity: failed.

yeah, I guess you're right... all done.
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Oct. 15 2009,09:50

Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 15 2009,10:33)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
it's been 12 days now
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



It's been answered.  Also change your sig line please. Both your first question (which you never acknowledged that I answered), and your most recent question, received answers.

(And you don't accept the answer gvien for your 2nd question, which is fine, but don't pretend you didn't get an answer on that one too.)

All done!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


you didn't answer it.

YOU said that the requirements of the explanations were different.

your answer was "evilutionists won't accept god as the part of the requirement"

that wasn't the question, idiot.  

YOUR CLAIM is that the requirements are different.  why?
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Oct. 15 2009,09:52

Quote (Erasmus, FCD @ Oct. 15 2009,10:00)
Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Oct. 14 2009,18:17)
it's been 12 days now

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
why is god not part of the required explanation for why water runs downhill, when he is part of the required explanation for the EXISTENCE OF WATER?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



do you have no answer?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


???
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


just a reminder of what you need to answer, not change the subject or answer another question.  dishonest petty little fraud
Posted by: FloydLee on Oct. 15 2009,10:04



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Certainly invoking your 2000 year old primitive sun-god as the guider of evolutionary (or any physical) processes leads to the realization that such a god is a monster, but who cares? The bible presents that monster anyway, so clearly that god is not incompatible with evolution.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


So honestly, you do believe that evolution is compatible with Christianity because both evolution and God are cruel and sadistic and monster-ish.  Is that correct?
Posted by: Schroedinger's Dog on Oct. 15 2009,10:05

Let me illustrate Ras' question with a cute lolcat:



Posted by: deadman_932 on Oct. 15 2009,10:12

Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 15 2009,10:04)
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Certainly invoking your 2000 year old primitive sun-god as the guider of evolutionary (or any physical) processes leads to the realization that such a god is a monster, but who cares? The bible presents that monster anyway, so clearly that god is not incompatible with evolution.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


So honestly, you do believe that evolution is compatible with Christianity because both evolution and God are cruel and sadistic and monster-ish.  Is that correct?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


It's still more supported and plausible than your YEC-strosity -- which would make God into a bigger liar than you, even. Now that would be monstrous.

Your "response" to Erasmus lacks substance.
Posted by: Robin on Oct. 15 2009,11:01

Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 15 2009,10:04)

---------------------QUOTE-------------------




---------------------QUOTE-------------------


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Certainly invoking your 2000 year old primitive sun-god as the guider of evolutionary (or any physical) processes leads to the realization that such a god is a monster, but who cares? The bible presents that monster anyway, so clearly that god is not incompatible with evolution.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



So honestly, you do believe that evolution is compatible with Christianity because both evolution and God are cruel and sadistic and monster-ish.  Is that correct?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



For the seventh time Floyd read and respond to what I write, not what you think I said or what you want me to have said or what you presume I said or what you think my statement implies or anything else. My statement is quite clear and in no way offers or implies a causal relationship of any kind. I merely presented recognition that invoking a god (any god, even your god) as the guider and forethought behind any process (e.g., rationalizing a "purpose" or "goal" for the outcome of natural processes) makes such a god responsible for the conditions of the  process itself and therefore a cruel and sadistic monster. But since that's what the OT does anyway (example, presenting god as the reason for Noah's Flood or the Commander of Joshua's raids), it becomes a mute point. Your god is a monster - that is any god based on a literal reading of the bible - so it really is irrelevant for you to complain about such with regard to your god being the guider of evolution.

Bottom line, I do NOT think that evolution is compatible with Christianity because a biblically literal reading and evolution both present a cruel and sadistic god. That happens to be a compatibility, but is not the only one nor is it even a relevant one since biblical literalness has nothing to do with Christianity.
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Oct. 15 2009,11:09

the question i asked...

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
why is god not part of the required explanation for why water runs downhill, when he is part of the required explanation for the EXISTENCE OF WATER?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



reminder:  Floyd made the 2 claims that 1)  God is part of the required explanation for the existence of water and 2)  God is not part of the required explanation for why water runs downhill.

His answer to that question?

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Simply put, because you evolutionists don't accept that.  
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



from the mouth of the tard hisself

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Yes, God is the required explanation for the origin of water.  Likewise for the origin of gravity.  So yes, God is indirectly, ultimately, the required explanation for water running downhill.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



so he has contradicted himself.  Both cannot be true.

If he goes with the first statement, then he has reduced this matter to the opinion of the reviewer and thus dissolves his Big Five Fantasies.

If he goes with his second statement by including the caveat "indirectly, ultimately" floyd shows that the theory of evolution, by being silent on the matter of gods, IS "ULTIMATELY AND DIRECTLY" COMPATIBLE WITH CHRISTIANITY.

UNLESS Yodel Elf begins every single explanation of every single fucking thing with "In the beginning God created blah blah blah" and then proceeds to give a full historical material account of every particle involved in the process or phenomena to be explained, he is taking the very same shortcut taken by ToE ( and every other scientific theory ever devised).

In other words he is here pissing all over himself ALL OVER NOTHING.

Floyd you are petty dishonest little fraud who is probably not even a Christian.

Admit you are wrong you little bitch
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Oct. 15 2009,11:10

Quote (Erasmus, FCD @ Oct. 15 2009,10:52)
Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Oct. 15 2009,10:00)
Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Oct. 14 2009,18:17)
it's been 12 days now

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
why is god not part of the required explanation for why water runs downhill, when he is part of the required explanation for the EXISTENCE OF WATER?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



do you have no answer?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


???
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


just a reminder of what you need to answer, not change the subject or answer another question.  dishonest petty little fraud
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


you get another shot because you have one more foot.

????
Posted by: Constant Mews on Oct. 15 2009,11:14

Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 15 2009,09:33)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
it's been 12 days now
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



It's been answered.  Also change your sig line please. Both your first question (which you never acknowledged that I answered), and your most recent question, received answers.

(And you don't accept the answer gvien for your 2nd question, which is fine, but don't pretend you didn't get an answer on that one too.)

All done!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Actually no, Floyd.  You have not actually answered his question.  You really should - it would clarify for you, at least, that you have already conceded your point 1.
Posted by: Constant Mews on Oct. 15 2009,11:16

Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 15 2009,10:04)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Certainly invoking your 2000 year old primitive sun-god as the guider of evolutionary (or any physical) processes leads to the realization that such a god is a monster, but who cares? The bible presents that monster anyway, so clearly that god is not incompatible with evolution.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


So honestly, you do believe that evolution is compatible with Christianity because both evolution and God are cruel and sadistic and monster-ish.  Is that correct?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


No, he's not actually saying that.  You really need to read your opponent's posts before you make foolish statements.  But there is a grain of truth in what he says: the God of the OT is not incompatible with evolution.
Posted by: FrankH on Oct. 15 2009,11:29

I have no idea how one can reconcile a literal reading of the Bible to a caring, compassionate and loving father-figure god.

I can understand a POV where the Bible is a guide not so much of the god of Abraham's word, but how man fails to emulate goodness.

A few things:

1:  An omniscient god telling two people who don't know right from wrong or about good and evil (remember they are innocent and have no knowledge) and them leaving them to be coerced by a snake?  I thought this god was omniscient!  Would it be ok for me to leave to 2 year olds who can speak a few sentences alone with a loaded gun on the coffee table and say, "Don't touch", and expect everything to be hunky-dory when I get back?

2:  A flood that wipes out ALMOST ALL evil (like this omniscient god didn't know he was going to get pissed right?).  I say almost all because it seems that Ham and his wife were somehow cursed but they were still left on the boat while newborns were killed.

3:  A war where you kill all of those who are trying to join with you, even getting circumsized to do so.  Then, while they are healing up, you kill the men, boys and women, leaving only the virgin, young females that you can take as concubines and war trophies.

4:  Telling one how much they can sell their daughters into slavery.

5:  Not just allowing slavery but saying that a master can beat their slave severely, if that slave is able to get up in 3 days.

A person who doesn't take the Bible as literal can see these to be parables and stories about what not to do.  A literalist must do mental gymnastics just to avoid thinking about it, let alone make them see it a "good".
Posted by: FloydLee on Oct. 15 2009,13:27



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Certainly invoking your 2000 year old primitive sun-god
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Actually, even THIS much of your post is a painful exercise in Biblical illiteracy.  The God of the OT (who is the same as the God of the NT, but that's another post), is NOT "a primitive sun god" at all.  That much you could glean just by reading the Bible period!  

Exactly how is it that the Creator and Ruler and Sustainer of the Entire Universe At All Levels All Time All Space All Dimensions (both Testaments make that clear, Gen. 1:1, Col. 1:16) be limited to a mere "god of the sun" like some heathen half-patootie job?  That's irrational baby!

FloydLee
Posted by: nmgirl on Oct. 15 2009,13:31

Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 15 2009,13:27)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Certainly invoking your 2000 year old primitive sun-god
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Actually, even THIS much of your post is a painful exercise in Biblical illiteracy.  The God of the OT (who is the same as the God of the NT, but that's another post), is NOT "a primitive sun god" at all.  That much you could glean just by reading the Bible period!  

Exactly how is it that the Creator and Ruler and Sustainer of the Entire Universe At All Levels All Time All Space All Dimensions (both Testaments make that clear, Gen. 1:1, Col. 1:16) be limited to a mere "god of the sun" like some heathen half-patootie job?  That's irrational baby!

FloydLee
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Floyd, you are such a spazz!  

I'm going to put the water question another way:

Why don't fundies like you require teaching God in physics class when kids study gravity?  why don't you require teaching about god in chemistry class when talking about molecules of H2O?
Posted by: midwifetoad on Oct. 15 2009,13:46



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Ruler and Sustainer of the Entire Universe At All Levels All Time All Space All Dimensions
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Just keep in mind that arrows in flight require constant efforts by angels to maintain their motion.

Even in heaven, someone's got to clean the toilets and take out the garbage.
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Oct. 15 2009,13:50



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
why is god not part of the required explanation for why water runs downhill, when he is part of the required explanation for the EXISTENCE OF WATER?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



floyd you have another shot.  try not to hit your other foot.  or do, i don't care, we both know you are incapable of supporting your argument either way.
Posted by: FrankH on Oct. 15 2009,13:51

Quote (midwifetoad @ Oct. 15 2009,13:46)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Ruler and Sustainer of the Entire Universe At All Levels All Time All Space All Dimensions
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Just keep in mind that arrows in flight require constant efforts by angels to maintain their motion.

Even in heaven, someone's got to clean the toilets and take out the garbage.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


And all that crap that evangelicals just "absolutely know about what their heaven is like" gots to be flushed somewhere.

Probably why Satan is so pissed.  That shit runs downhill.
Posted by: Quack on Oct. 15 2009,14:32

This thread actually is lots of fun as long as I avoid the FL originals and just go for the replies. I just can't stand undiluted stupidity, I need the chaser to down it.
Posted by: Robin on Oct. 15 2009,15:13

Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 15 2009,13:27)

---------------------QUOTE-------------------




---------------------QUOTE-------------------


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Certainly invoking your 2000 year old primitive sun-god
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Actually, even THIS much of your post is a painful exercise in Biblical illiteracy.  The God of the OT (who is the same as the God of the NT, but that's another post), is NOT "a primitive sun god" at all.  That much you could glean just by reading the Bible period!  

Exactly how is it that the Creator and Ruler and Sustainer of the Entire Universe At All Levels All Time All Space All Dimensions (both Testaments make that clear, Gen. 1:1, Col. 1:16) be limited to a mere "god of the sun" like some heathen half-patootie job?  That's irrational baby!

FloydLee
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Floyd, let's get one thing straight here - my sister is a professional biblical scholar with degrees from Yale and Oxford and I have studied extensively not only on the bible, but also in ancient Greek and Hebrew history, culture, and language, along with several years of study in literary history and cultural constructions. Please don't try to lecture me on what constitutes biblical illiteracy as any such claims make you look beyond absurd. You've demonstrated repeatedly that you do not know and do not care to know about actual biblical literacy and contruction, preferring rather to approach the bible as a basis of literal and factual information a priori, which right there removes any possible credibility and validity from your claims about about appropriate "literacy".

Now that we've dispensed with your credibility on such claims, let's move on to the extensive and well-documented evidence that your OT biblical god *IS* in fact nothing more than a reflection of the Egyptian, Persian, Assyrian, and Babylonian sun-god, with sprinklings of Canaan and Sumerian beliefs:

< http://www.cresourcei.org/baal.html >

< http://www.bibleorigins.net/YahwehYawUgarit.html >

There are many other scholarly sources on the origin of the Old Testament god, which you are welcome to ignore all you want. But the fact is, your god is not much more than a glorified primative Sun-god.
Posted by: khan on Oct. 15 2009,15:22

Quote (Quack @ Oct. 15 2009,15:32)
This thread actually is lots of fun as long as I avoid the FL originals and just go for the replies. I just can't stand undiluted stupidity, I need the chaser to down it.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I do the same.
Posted by: Rrr on Oct. 15 2009,16:06

Quote (khan @ Oct. 15 2009,15:22)
Quote (Quack @ Oct. 15 2009,15:32)
This thread actually is lots of fun as long as I avoid the FL originals and just go for the replies. I just can't stand undiluted stupidity, I need the chaser to down it.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I do the same.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Apologies for abusing the peanut gallery rules.

I quite agree with the quoted. As does, it seems to me, < this poetic person >.
Posted by: Constant Mews on Oct. 15 2009,16:29

Quote (Robin @ Oct. 15 2009,15:13)
[quote=FloydLee,Oct. 15 2009,13:27][/quote]


---------------------QUOTE-------------------


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Certainly invoking your 2000 year old primitive sun-god
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Actually, even THIS much of your post is a painful exercise in Biblical illiteracy.  The God of the OT (who is the same as the God of the NT, but that's another post), is NOT "a primitive sun god" at all.  That much you could glean just by reading the Bible period!  

Exactly how is it that the Creator and Ruler and Sustainer of the Entire Universe At All Levels All Time All Space All Dimensions (both Testaments make that clear, Gen. 1:1, Col. 1:16) be limited to a mere "god of the sun" like some heathen half-patootie job?  That's irrational baby!

FloydLee
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Floyd, let's get one thing straight here - my sister is a professional biblical scholar with degrees from Yale and Oxford and I have studied extensively not only on the bible, but also in ancient Greek and Hebrew history, culture, and language, along with several years of study in literary history and cultural constructions. Please don't try to lecture me on what constitutes biblical illiteracy as any such claims make you look beyond absurd. You've demonstrated repeatedly that you do not know and do not care to know about actual biblical literacy and contruction, preferring rather to approach the bible as a basis of literal and factual information a priori, which right there removes any possible credibility and validity from your claims about about appropriate "literacy".

Now that we've dispensed with your credibility on such claims, let's move on to the extensive and well-documented evidence that your OT biblical god *IS* in fact nothing more than a reflection of the Egyptian, Persian, Assyrian, and Babylonian sun-god, with sprinklings of Canaan and Sumerian beliefs:

< http://www.cresourcei.org/baal.html >

< http://www.bibleorigins.net/YahwehYawUgarit.html >

There are many other scholarly sources on the origin of the Old Testament god, which you are welcome to ignore all you want. But the fact is, your god is not much more than a glorified primative Sun-god.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Not to mention the strong Mithraic elements in the NT.

I am interested - professionally, rather than spiritually - in the isolationist ignorance with which most theists such as Floyd approach their own Holy Texts.

Ignorance of the context, development, antecedents, and connections of the Bible seems to be a primary requirement for fundamentalists.  Whatever the basis of inspiration, Holy Writ is created by men for their own reasons and carries with it their own emotional and cultural baggage.  To pretend - as does Floyd - that such baggage does not exist is singularly foolish.
Posted by: Schroedinger's Dog on Oct. 15 2009,16:31

Quote (Quack @ Oct. 15 2009,21:32)
This thread actually is lots of fun as long as I avoid the FL originals and just go for the replies. I just can't stand undiluted stupidity, I need the chaser to down it.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


That's what I've been doing for more than 40 pages now  :D
Posted by: Reed on Oct. 15 2009,17:03

Quote (Constant Mews @ Oct. 15 2009,14:29)
To pretend - as does Floyd - that such baggage does not exist is singularly foolish.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I'm always shocked that people can actually believe there is a single, objectively valid, "literal" interpretation of something with such a long and convoluted history as the bible. Less shocked that the various people who believe this disagree on what that interpretation is ;)
Posted by: Constant Mews on Oct. 15 2009,17:33

Quote (Reed @ Oct. 15 2009,17:03)
Quote (Constant Mews @ Oct. 15 2009,14:29)
To pretend - as does Floyd - that such baggage does not exist is singularly foolish.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I'm always shocked that people can actually believe there is a single, objectively valid, "literal" interpretation of something with such a long and convoluted history as the bible. Less shocked that the various people who believe this disagree on what that interpretation is ;)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


The psychological nature of belief often precludes "interpretation", inasmuch as that introduces a level of complexity and subtlety most believers are uncomfortable with.  Frankly, I find the various flavours of Hindu far more sophisticated and flexible than any variant of Christianity, but that may have more to do with the cultural traditions.
Posted by: FloydLee on Oct. 15 2009,17:56



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Floyd, you are such a spazz!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Nmgirl, Please understand that what you quoted from me there (that "sun-god" shpiel), doesn't get resolved by merely exclaiming "you're a spazz."  A bit more substantial response is required.  The God that you and I  serve, ain't no 10-cent crumb-bum 'primitive sun-god' from South Heathenville.  You gotta take a stand on things like that!!


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I'm going to put the water question another way:
Why don't fundies like you require teaching God in physics class when kids study gravity?  why don't you require teaching about god in chemistry class when talking about molecules of H2O?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Actually, I like the way you asked that question, because it really shows where the "water question" can and can NOT be applied.  

The water question DOES fit with the issue of teaching biblical creationism in science class.  Can't deny that.  But....
It Doesn't work for trying to eliminate the First Incompatibility and totally ignoring the points made by evolutionists who bring up the First Incompatibility.

So why doesn't it work that way, you ask?  Because the First Incompatbility is all about the theory of evolution denying that God is the required explanation for historical/biological origins on Earth--a denial affirmed by both Mayr's SciAm article and Futuyma's textbook (and don't forget Oldroyd who knows his Darwin well.)

If you wish to claim that God "indirectly" is the required explanation for water running downhill (because He is the ultimate originator of both water and gravity), that's good of you, (and it's true too), but that "indirect" business DOESN'T apply to biological origins via the theory of evolution.  

Why not?  Because you have already incurred a unique and non-correctable incompatibility right off the bat.  (You listening, Erasmus?).

For in biblical Christianity, God is NEVER the indirect cause of biological origins, be they plant, animal or human.  See Genesis 1 if you doubt this.  

Now you can reject the Bible's claims here if you want to, (and clearly some already have in this forum), but make no mistake---God is the DIRECT cause of plant, animal and human origins in that Bible.   Not indirect.  Not maybe.  Not a zillion times removed sorta-kinda.  DIRECT.
Plants, animals, and humans are NOT originated naturally during Creation Week---it's all God Himself, doing the impossible (well, to you it's impossible!) all by Himself.

So, Erasmus's little ditty simply lays down ANOTHER incompatibility all by itself---and no way to resolve THAT one either!

******

Furthermore, BESIDES the clear published statements and reasons given by Mayr and Futuyma, any attempt to claim that God is the required explanation for Earth's evolutionary process, automatically generates conflicts involving not ONLY Incompatibilities Four and Five, but even Two and Three.  

******

Nmgirl, I think it's time to face the fact that, IF the topic is "Evolution is Compatible/Incompatible with Christianity", then Erasmus's little ditty is STONE DEAD.

Wanna talk about God as indirect explanation in physics class and water running downhill ?  Then maybe go do that, if the evo's don't sue you first (because of their religion of materialism that for them supersedes the scientific method.)

But when it comes to trying to play like God can be an "indirect explanation" for the existence of plants, animals, or even what you see when you yourself look in the mirror, you are bucking the Bible.  That sort of thing is NOT an okay activity for Christians, Nmgirl.  Hence Erasmus's schtick must be abandoned.
Posted by: Schroedinger's Dog on Oct. 15 2009,18:00

Yodel, go stuff yourself. You'll be doing humanity a favor.

I'm done with that turkey!
Posted by: FloydLee on Oct. 15 2009,18:09



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Yodel, go stuff yourself. You'll be doing humanity a favor.  I'm done with that turkey!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Wow, SD, that's a killer refutation of my post to Nmgirl.   But is that the best you've got?
Posted by: FloydLee on Oct. 15 2009,18:14



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Floyd, let's get one thing straight here - my sister is a professional biblical scholar with degrees from Yale and Oxford and I have studied extensively not only on the bible, but also in ancient Greek and Hebrew history, culture, and language, along with several years of study in literary history and cultural constructions.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Then how in the world did you come up with such an utterly totally un-biblical conclusion about what kind of God is presented in the Bible?  I can't speak for your sister, (and I like Greek and Hebrew too!) but YOU got it messed up seven ways to Hades!!  

I'm sorry, but in addition to study tools, languages, historical notes, etc, you gotta start allowing the Bible to speak for itself.  That's the truth.
Posted by: OgreMkV on Oct. 15 2009,18:20

Floyd, if you had bothered to read to Robin's post, you would have found two links that would have explained the origin of the various mythologies.

Finally, you realize that the Newton directly disagrees with the Bible too... or more correctly the bible directly disagrees with Newton and Einstein about what makes the planets orbit.

Joshua 10:12-14
12 On the day the LORD gave the Amorites over to Israel, Joshua said to the LORD in the presence of Israel: "O sun, stand still over Gibeon, O moon, over the Valley of Aijalon."
13 So the sun stood still, and the moon stopped, till the nation avenged itself on its enemies, as it is written in the Book of Jashar. The sun stopped in the middle of the sky and delayed going down about a full day.

Since this cannot happen in Newtowian or Eisteinian space, this goes DIRECTLY opposite them.  So why the tirade against just evolution?
Posted by: Constant Mews on Oct. 15 2009,18:22

Floyd, your failure to employ logic where it is required guarantees that you will be unable to make your case.  You will note that in forty-seven pages of posting, you have yet to even make an argument, let alone refute our rebuttals to your entirely incoherent presentation.  Let's consider this immediate problem.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Nmgirl, Please understand that what you quoted from me there (that "sun-god" shpiel), doesn't get resolved by merely exclaiming "you're a spazz."  A bit more substantial response is required.  The God that you and I  serve, ain't no 10-cent crumb-bum 'primitive sun-god' from South Heathenville.  You gotta take a stand on things like that!!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

You presented a fact-free splat of emotional nonsense.  Nmgirl is rightly responding in kind.  When you can present any rational argument on these lines, then we can engage you in that.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Actually, I like the way you asked that question, because it really shows where the "water question" can and can NOT be applied.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Since you have yet to actually answer the water question, this should prove amusing.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
The water question DOES fit with the issue of teaching biblical creationism in science class.  Can't deny that.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Admirable.  Perhaps you are not as unintelligent as your posts make you appear.


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
 But....
It Doesn't work for trying to eliminate the First Incompatibility and totally ignoring the points made by evolutionists who bring up the First Incompatibility.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Regrettably, it does.  It should be interesting to see how you try to spin it.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
So why doesn't it work that way, you ask?  Because the First Incompatbility is all about the theory of evolution denying that God is the required explanation for historical/biological origins on Earth--a denial affirmed by both Mayr's SciAm article and Futuyma's textbook (and don't forget Oldroyd who knows his Darwin well.)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Floyd, this is a lie.  No definition of evolutionary theory denies God.  Not a single one.  You can't even cite a single page of actual theory - as opposed to personal opinion - that makes that point.

You've done this day one on this thread - confused personal opinion about evolutionary theory with the theory itself.  Until you understand there is a difference, you will keep shooting yourself in the foot.

And you still haven't answered his question.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
If you wish to claim that God "indirectly" is the required explanation for water running downhill (because He is the ultimate originator of both water and gravity), that's good of you, (and it's true too), but that "indirect" business DOESN'T apply to biological origins via the theory of evolution.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Unfortunately, it does.  That's the point.  That's why the question is relevant.  By admitting that God is the ultimate, but not immediate explanation for water running downhill, you've ceded that your point one is meaningless.

Because evolutionary theory does not deny the involvement of God.  You will be unable to find a single reference to the actual theory that denies God.

The definitions you provided don't deny God.

And you still haven't answered his question.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Why not?  Because you have already incurred a unique and non-correctable incompatibility right off the bat.  (You listening, Erasmus?).

For in biblical Christianity, God is NEVER the indirect cause of biological origins, be they plant, animal or human.  See Genesis 1 if you doubt this.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Actually, consulting the Bible we see that you are completely wrong.

I have warned you, Floyd, that your ignorance of the Bible would trip you up eventually.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Now you can reject the Bible's claims here if you want to, (and clearly some already have in this forum), but make no mistake---God is the DIRECT cause of plant, animal and human origins in that Bible.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Again, utterly false.


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
  Not indirect.  Not maybe.  Not a zillion times removed sorta-kinda.  DIRECT.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Again, utterly false.


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Plants, animals, and humans are NOT originated naturally during Creation Week---it's all God Himself, doing the impossible (well, to you it's impossible!) all by Himself.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Again, utterly false.  Read the Bible, Floyd.  I see that you don't bother much with it.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
So, Erasmus's little ditty simply lays down ANOTHER incompatibility all by itself---and no way to resolve THAT one either!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Erasmus has offered no incompatibility.  He has merely pointed out that you have already conceded that your point one is false.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Furthermore, BESIDES the clear published statements and reasons given by Mayr and Futuyma, any attempt to claim that God is the required explanation for Earth's evolutionary process, automatically generates conflicts involving not ONLY Incompatibilities Four and Five, but even Two and Three.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Again, another lie on your part, Floyd.  At least three different complete refutations of all your points have been made on this thread - you have not responded to any of them.

Do I need to repost mine?  I suppose so.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Nmgirl, I think it's time to face the fact that, IF the topic is "Evolution is Compatible/Incompatible with Christianity", then Erasmus's little ditty is STONE DEAD.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Not in the slightest.  Erasmus has pointed out the fundamental flaw in your logic regarding point one.  You have not been able to establish it.

And you still haven't answered his question.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Wanna talk about God as indirect explanation in physics class and water running downhill ?  Then maybe go do that, if the evo's don't sue you first (because of their religion of materialism that for them supersedes the scientific method.)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

There is no religion of materialism.  Only a fool would claim otherwise.  Are you a fool?  Materialists worship no gods, have no sacred texts, practice no sacred rites.

Are you a fool, Floyd?  Making claims like that certainly makes it appear so.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
But when it comes to trying to play like God can be an "indirect explanation" for the existence of plants, animals, or even what you see when you yourself look in the mirror, you are bucking the Bible.  That sort of thing is NOT an okay activity for Christians, Nmgirl.  Hence Erasmus's schtick must be abandoned.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Floyd, I am a Christian who believes in the Bible; I accept evolution.  I prove you are wrong simply by existing.
Posted by: Constant Mews on Oct. 15 2009,18:23

Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 15 2009,18:09)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Yodel, go stuff yourself. You'll be doing humanity a favor.  I'm done with that turkey!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Wow, SD, that's a killer refutation of my post to Nmgirl.   But is that the best you've got?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


It's more than is actually needed, given the paucity of content in your posts, Floyd.
Posted by: Constant Mews on Oct. 15 2009,18:24

Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 15 2009,18:14)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Floyd, let's get one thing straight here - my sister is a professional biblical scholar with degrees from Yale and Oxford and I have studied extensively not only on the bible, but also in ancient Greek and Hebrew history, culture, and language, along with several years of study in literary history and cultural constructions.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Then how in the world did you come up with such an utterly totally un-biblical conclusion about what kind of God is presented in the Bible?  I can't speak for your sister, (and I like Greek and Hebrew too!) but YOU got it messed up seven ways to Hades!!  

I'm sorry, but in addition to study tools, languages, historical notes, etc, you gotta start allowing the Bible to speak for itself.  That's the truth.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Your ignorance of the Bible is showing once more, Floyd.

Really, you should try reading it before you take it in vain.

I pray for you.
Posted by: Constant Mews on Oct. 15 2009,18:25

Floyd, I should point out that any attempt on your part to make your point about incompatibility using the Bible will fail.  It does not support your case.
Posted by: Constant Mews on Oct. 15 2009,18:27

Tell me Floyd - and I would a simple, straightforward answer:

Can one accept Genesis as metaphor and still be a Christian?

Yes or no, Floyd.
Posted by: deadman_932 on Oct. 15 2009,18:30

Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 15 2009,17:56)
[snip]

The water question DOES fit with the issue of teaching biblical creationism in science class.  Can't deny that.  But....
It Doesn't work for trying to eliminate the First Incompatibility and totally ignoring the points made by evolutionists who bring up the First Incompatibility.

So why doesn't it work that way, you ask?  Because the First Incompatbility is all about the theory of evolution denying that God is the required explanation for historical/biological origins on Earth--a denial affirmed by both Mayr's SciAm article and Futuyma's textbook (and don't forget Oldroyd who knows his Darwin well.)

If you wish to claim that God "indirectly" is the required explanation for water running downhill (because He is the ultimate originator of both water and gravity), that's good of you, (and it's true too), but that "indirect" business DOESN'T apply to biological origins via the theory of evolution.  

Why not?  Because you have already incurred a unique and non-correctable incompatibility right off the bat.  (You listening, Erasmus?).

For in biblical Christianity, God is NEVER the indirect cause of biological origins, be they plant, animal or human.  See Genesis 1 if you doubt this.  

Now you can reject the Bible's claims here if you want to, (and clearly some already have in this forum), but make no mistake---God is the DIRECT cause of plant, animal and human origins in that Bible.   Not indirect.  Not maybe.  Not a zillion times removed sorta-kinda.  DIRECT.
Plants, animals, and humans are NOT originated naturally during Creation Week---it's all God Himself, doing the impossible (well, to you it's impossible!) all by Himself.

So, Erasmus's little ditty simply lays down ANOTHER incompatibility all by itself---and no way to resolve THAT one either!

******

Furthermore, BESIDES the clear published statements and reasons given by Mayr and Futuyma, any attempt to claim that God is the required explanation for Earth's evolutionary process, automatically generates conflicts involving not ONLY Incompatibilities Four and Five, but even Two and Three.  

******
[snip]

Wanna talk about God as indirect explanation in physics class and water running downhill ?  Then maybe go do that, if the evo's don't sue you first (because of their religion of materialism that for them supersedes the scientific method.)

But when it comes to trying to play like God can be an "indirect explanation" for the existence of plants, animals, or even what you see when you yourself look in the mirror, you are bucking the Bible.  That sort of thing is NOT an okay activity for Christians, Nmgirl.  Hence Erasmus's schtick must be abandoned.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


1) No one is obliged to agree with Mayr or Futuyama or Oldroyd (the latter, whose article you keep quoting, I am sure you have not read ) on any theological claims.
2) However, Mayr's statement, in context, refers to the diversity of the world's organisms by the mechanisms of adaptation and speciation. He is quite clear about that. What he is NOT speaking about is the Ultimate Origins of all things, evolution included.  
3) No Science can address sophisticated (meaning Prime Mover) claims of Ultimate Deistic Creation/Purpose. None.
4.) And lastly,even if Mayr was to make such a claim about some Ultimate Deistic Creation of all living things, so what? As you said, anyone is free to also ignore your "Big Five," accept evolution, and remain a Christian -- by your own admission.

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

There's four reasons why you're wrong. Any one of them is good enough to negate your attempt at "battling quotes." These things were pointed out to you many times so far, but you refuse to acknowledge them anyway, pretending they don't exist.

Just as you admit that water obeys the laws of gravity that make water run downhill, There is room for belief that evolution, set in existence and action by a God, obeys rules that can be known by man.

What science cannot investigate is ultimate deistic teleology/ontology. This always, always leaves room for faith. Even people as divergently opinionated as Mayr and the Pope agree on that point.  

This is more straightforward and honest than nutcases trying to prove God by using obvious fallacies.
Posted by: FloydLee on Oct. 15 2009,18:32



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Not to mention the strong Mithraic elements in the NT.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


They say you're a scientist, CM, and I believe 'em, but stuff like this shows you're a lot better at your scientific study than your Bible study.  

Or maybe your real religion is skepticism and not Christianity, and yes that honestly sounds like a distinct possibility, so don't bother getting offended over my sayin' it out loud.  
At some point, you have to make a decision about where you are REALLY at, and frankly you don't even share Jesus's own complete trust in the accuracy and historical trustworthiness of Scripture.   (Maybe you just like wearing the 'Christian' label or something, I dunno.)

Meanwhile, since you've decided, as a "Christian", to parrot the skeptics and try to connect the idol cult of Mithraism with the Christian NT, (are you kidding me dude?), let me offer a counter for that, courtesy of Dr. Ronald Nash.
   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Mithraism--Influence on the New Testament?

The major reason why no Mithraic influence on first-century Christianity is possible is the timing: it’s all wrong!

The flowering of Mithraism occurred after the close of the New Testament canon, much too late for it to have influenced anything that appears in the New Testament.

Moreover, no monuments for the cult can be dated earlier than A.D. 90-100, and even this dating requires us to make some exceedingly generous assumptions. Chronological difficulties, then, make the possibility of a Mithraic influence on early Christianity extremely improbable. Certainly, there remains no credible evidence for such an influence.

< http://www.equip.org/PDF/DB109.pdf >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: didymos on Oct. 15 2009,18:33

Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 15 2009,16:09)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Yodel, go stuff yourself. You'll be doing humanity a favor.  I'm done with that turkey!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Wow, SD, that's a killer refutation of my post to Nmgirl.   But is that the best you've got?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


It's not supposed to be a refutation, twit.  It's a contemptuous dismissal. Go read a dictionary, please. This isn't the first time you've misused and abused meaning.
Posted by: deadman_932 on Oct. 15 2009,18:35



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Floyd Lee blathered:
"you are bucking the Bible.  That sort of thing is NOT an okay activity for Christians, Nmgirl"
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Why? You disobey many parts of the Bible yourself, Floyd. Are you preaching "Do as I say, not as I do?"

Yeah, you are.

One is perfectly free to take the Genesis mythos symbolically. You are not judge of what is the "correct" interpretation of it.
Posted by: Schroedinger's Dog on Oct. 15 2009,18:35

Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 16 2009,01:09)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Yodel, go stuff yourself. You'll be doing humanity a favor.  I'm done with that turkey!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Wow, SD, that's a killer refutation of my post to Nmgirl.   But is that the best you've got?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Like I care refuting your stupid blabber.
Posted by: Constant Mews on Oct. 15 2009,18:36

Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 15 2009,18:32)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Not to mention the strong Mithraic elements in the NT.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


They say you're a scientist, CM, and I believe 'em, but stuff like this shows you're a lot better at your scientific study than your Bible study.  

Or maybe your real religion is skepticism and not Christianity, and yes that honestly sounds like a distinct possibility, so don't bother getting offended over my sayin' it out loud.  
At some point, you have to make a decision about where you are REALLY at, and frankly you don't even share Jesus's own complete trust in the accuracy and historical trustworthiness of Scripture.   (Maybe you just like wearing the 'Christian' label or something, I dunno.)

Meanwhile, since you've decided, as a "Christian", to parrot the skeptics and try to connect the idol cult of Mithraism with the Christian NT, (are you kidding me dude?), let me offer a counter for that, courtesy of Dr. Ronald Nash.
   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Mithraism--Influence on the New Testament?

The major reason why no Mithraic influence on first-century Christianity is possible is the timing: it’s all wrong!

The flowering of Mithraism occurred after the close of the New Testament canon, much too late for it to have influenced anything that appears in the New Testament.

Moreover, no monuments for the cult can be dated earlier than A.D. 90-100, and even this dating requires us to make some exceedingly generous assumptions. Chronological difficulties, then, make the possibility of a Mithraic influence on early Christianity extremely improbable. Certainly, there remains no credible evidence for such an influence.

< http://www.equip.org/PDF/DB109.pdf >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I have a considerable background in this subject, Floyd.  You will note that Mithraism and Christianity begin to show verifiable artifacts at roughly the same time-frame, even according to your quote.

Which, given your track record of dishonesty, need to be vetted.

Are you actually accusing me of not being a Christian?

Yes or no.
Posted by: didymos on Oct. 15 2009,18:45

Quote (Schroedinger's Dog @ Oct. 15 2009,16:35)
Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 16 2009,01:09)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Yodel, go stuff yourself. You'll be doing humanity a favor.  I'm done with that turkey!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Wow, SD, that's a killer refutation of my post to Nmgirl.   But is that the best you've got?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Like I care refuting your stupid blabber.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


See?  What'd I tell you?
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Oct. 15 2009,19:38

Floyd you are struggling still.  I suggest you answer my question directly instead of in the 3rd person.

but since you are sotto voce

the bible claims that every living thing on the planet is a direct descendant of the individuals on the ark.  clearly, speciation has occurred since then.  we have documented it.  and the biogeographical and fossil evidence is clear.  it's happened.  therefore, god is not the direct cause of all biological diversity, under your working definition of "direct".

FURTHER saying "God is the direct cause of biological origins" is a meaningless statement.  God's will?  God's action?  The physical effects of God's actions?  Which?  you are just arguing for an ontology where God is part of the required explanation of everything.  We get it.  We know that's your game.

that's why your answer to me was A LIE.  

you made the 2 claims that 1)  God is part of the required explanation for the existence of water and 2)  God is not part of the required explanation for why water runs downhill.

Why not?

You have yet to explain this.  Saying that evilutionists won't accept that god is part of the answer is NOT PART OF THE QUESTION.  I am asking you this because YOU CLAIMED IT, NOT ME.
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Oct. 15 2009,19:38



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
why is god not part of the required explanation for why water runs downhill, when he is part of the required explanation for the EXISTENCE OF WATER?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



step up to the plate, son.
Posted by: Jasper on Oct. 15 2009,22:01

Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 15 2009,18:56)
For in biblical Christianity, God is NEVER the indirect cause of biological origins, be they plant, animal or human.  See Genesis 1 if you doubt this.  

Now you can reject the Bible's claims here if you want to, (and clearly some already have in this forum), but make no mistake---God is the DIRECT cause of plant, animal and human origins in that Bible.   Not indirect.  Not maybe.  Not a zillion times removed sorta-kinda.  DIRECT.
Plants, animals, and humans are NOT originated naturally during Creation Week---it's all God Himself, doing the impossible (well, to you it's impossible!) all by Himself.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Umm...have you actually read Genesis 1, Floyd?



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Genesis 1:20: And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven.

Genesis 1:24 And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Oct. 15 2009,22:20

Quote (Jasper @ Oct. 15 2009,23:01)
Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 15 2009,18:56)
For in biblical Christianity, God is NEVER the indirect cause of biological origins, be they plant, animal or human.  See Genesis 1 if you doubt this.  

Now you can reject the Bible's claims here if you want to, (and clearly some already have in this forum), but make no mistake---God is the DIRECT cause of plant, animal and human origins in that Bible.   Not indirect.  Not maybe.  Not a zillion times removed sorta-kinda.  DIRECT.
Plants, animals, and humans are NOT originated naturally during Creation Week---it's all God Himself, doing the impossible (well, to you it's impossible!) all by Himself.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Umm...have you actually read Genesis 1, Floyd?



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Genesis 1:20: And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven.

Genesis 1:24 And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Jasper that's excellent!

Yodel Elf please, after you answer MY FIRST QUESTION (see sig) please explain what is the difference between



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
God Said Let the earth bring forth.. and it was so
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



and



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
The earth bringed forth
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



No sidestepping or dishonest equivocating please, but by all means continue to use your youth minister street lingo jingo
Posted by: Constant Mews on Oct. 15 2009,22:36

I warned you Floyd - the Bible does not support your fantasies. You will make a serious mistake to try to use it against us.
Posted by: Henry J on Oct. 15 2009,22:37



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Umm... have you actually read Genesis 1, Floyd?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------




Henry
Posted by: Constant Mews on Oct. 15 2009,23:38

Quote (Jasper @ Oct. 15 2009,22:01)
Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 15 2009,18:56)
For in biblical Christianity, God is NEVER the indirect cause of biological origins, be they plant, animal or human.  See Genesis 1 if you doubt this.  

Now you can reject the Bible's claims here if you want to, (and clearly some already have in this forum), but make no mistake---God is the DIRECT cause of plant, animal and human origins in that Bible.   Not indirect.  Not maybe.  Not a zillion times removed sorta-kinda.  DIRECT.
Plants, animals, and humans are NOT originated naturally during Creation Week---it's all God Himself, doing the impossible (well, to you it's impossible!) all by Himself.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Umm...have you actually read Genesis 1, Floyd?



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Genesis 1:20: And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven.

Genesis 1:24 And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


---------------------QUOTE-------------------


As we have noted, Floyd's ignorance of the Bible is astounding.
Posted by: Schroedinger's Dog on Oct. 16 2009,08:14



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
14. All leading representatives of the main monotheistic religions have adopted a much more moderate attitude. Pope Benedict XVI, for example, as his predecessor Pope John-Paul II, today praises the role of science in the evolution of humanity and recognises that the theory of evolution is “more than a hypothesis”.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



< Alinea 14 of the Council of Europe parliamentary Assembly resolution 1580 (2007) >. You can't really get a higher institution, and this one clearly states the compatibility of faith and ToE. You can't lie in a resolution...

Suck it!
Posted by: FloydLee on Oct. 16 2009,09:13



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Umm...have you actually read Genesis 1, Floyd?

Genesis 1:20: And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven.

Genesis 1:24 And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Absolutely, Jasper.   God's not calling for a gazillion years of evolution there.  Not with the water, and not with the land.  Instead, the situation is just like what God did in Gen. 1:3....

   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
"Then God said, “Let there be light”; and there was light."
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



And it just plain happened, Didn't take a zillion years.  It happened right then.  All within a 24-hr "evening and morning" day. Same for Gen. 1:20 ("water bring forth") and 1:24 ("earth bring forth").  

Both water animals and birds were done by the end of the fifth 24-hr "evening and morning", and both land animals and humans were completed by the end of the sixth 24-hr "evening and morning."  

Again, you may disagree with the Bible's claims because of your belief in evolution--another sign of incompatibility of course--but be clear that the specific phrase "evening and morning", along with other biblical evidences, means that the Bible is claiming that God's commands of"Let the waters bring forth" and "Let the earth bring forth" produced their creative results within a standard 24-hr day, NOT a gazillion years.
 
(See McCabe's article < http://www.dbts.edu/journals/2000/mccabe.pdf > for all the technical details.)

Furthermore, as I said earlier, the water animals and the land animals did not originate naturally, not even in the two verses you pointed to.  Absolutely NOTHING would have happened on either water or land, naturally speaking.  The ONLY thing that caused things to change was three key words preceding both the parts you highlighted:

"And God said."

And that's not natural.  That's supernatural.  That's how we got here, Jasper.

******

So, anyway wanna refute it?  Please try.

FloydLee
Posted by: FloydLee on Oct. 16 2009,09:17



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Yodel Elf please, after you answer MY FIRST QUESTION (see sig)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


See reply to Nmgirl.  All done (again).  Delete sig line please.
Posted by: Constant Mews on Oct. 16 2009,09:18

Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 16 2009,09:13)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Umm...have you actually read Genesis 1, Floyd?

Genesis 1:20: And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven.

Genesis 1:24 And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Absolutely, Jasper.   God's not calling for a gazillion years of evolution there.  Not with the water, and not with the land.  Instead, the situation is just like what God did in Gen. 1:3....

   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
"Then God said, “Let there be light”; and there was light."
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



And it just plain happened, Didn't take a zillion years.  It happened right then.  All within a 24-hr "evening and morning" day. Same for Gen. 1:20 ("water bring forth") and 1:24 ("earth bring forth").  

Both water animals and birds were done by the end of the fifth 24-hr "evening and morning", and both land animals and humans were completed by the end of the sixth 24-hr "evening and morning."  

Again, you may disagree with the Bible's claims because of your belief in evolution--another sign of incompatibility of course--but be clear that the specific phrase "evening and morning", along with other biblical evidences, means that the Bible is claiming that God's commands of"Let the waters bring forth" and "Let the earth bring forth" produced their creative results within a standard 24-hr day, NOT a gazillion years.
 
(See McCabe's article < http://www.dbts.edu/journals/2000/mccabe.pdf > for all the technical details.)

Furthermore, as I said earlier, the water animals and the land animals did not originate naturally, not even in the two verses you pointed to.  Absolutely NOTHING would have happened on either water or land, naturally speaking.  The ONLY thing that caused things to change was three key words preceding both the parts you highlighted:

"And God said."

And that's not natural.  That's supernatural.  That's how we got here, Jasper.

******

So, anyway wanna refute it?  Please try.

FloydLee
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Floyd, you claimed God created directly - not indirectly.

The Bible proves you wrong.

Remember that, Floyd. The [I]Bible[\I] proves you wrong.
Posted by: Schroedinger's Dog on Oct. 16 2009,09:21



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
And that's not natural.  That's supernatural.  That's how we got here, Jasper.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Yodel Elf, that's a rather harsh and definitive statement without any proof to support it. care to elaborate?


Edit for grammar and stuff...
Posted by: Constant Mews on Oct. 16 2009,09:23

Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 16 2009,09:17)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Yodel Elf please, after you answer MY FIRST QUESTION (see sig)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


See reply to Nmgirl.  All done (again).  Delete sig line please.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You are lying again. Your response to nmgirl did not answer his question.
Posted by: FloydLee on Oct. 16 2009,09:23



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
All leading representatives of the main monotheistic religions have adopted a much more moderate attitude. Pope Benedict XVI, for example, as his predecessor Pope John-Paul II, today praises the role of science in the evolution of humanity and recognises that the theory of evolution is “more than a hypothesis”.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


So, the Council of Europe chose not to address the Incompatibilities that both Popes have presented in their respective statements.  Convenient.
Posted by: Schroedinger's Dog on Oct. 16 2009,09:25

Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 16 2009,16:23)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
All leading representatives of the main monotheistic religions have adopted a much more moderate attitude. Pope Benedict XVI, for example, as his predecessor Pope John-Paul II, today praises the role of science in the evolution of humanity and recognises that the theory of evolution is “more than a hypothesis”.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


So, the Council of Europe chose not to address the Incompatibilities that both Popes have presented in their respective statements.  Convenient.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


What incompabilities were stated by both popes?
Posted by: Constant Mews on Oct. 16 2009,09:26

Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 16 2009,09:23)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
All leading representatives of the main monotheistic religions have adopted a much more moderate attitude. Pope Benedict XVI, for example, as his predecessor Pope John-Paul II, today praises the role of science in the evolution of humanity and recognises that the theory of evolution is “more than a hypothesis”.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


So, the Council of Europe chose not to address the Incompatibilities that both Popes have presented in their respective statements.  Convenient.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


There are no incompatibilities.

My existence as a christian and a scientist proves you wrong. Your claims have been refuted at least three times without any response from you.
Posted by: Constant Mews on Oct. 16 2009,09:31

Quote (Schroedinger's Dog @ Oct. 16 2009,09:25)
Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 16 2009,16:23)
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
All leading representatives of the main monotheistic religions have adopted a much more moderate attitude. Pope Benedict XVI, for example, as his predecessor Pope John-Paul II, today praises the role of science in the evolution of humanity and recognises that the theory of evolution is “more than a hypothesis”.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


So, the Council of Europe chose not to address the Incompatibilities that both Popes have presented in their respective statements.  Convenient.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


What incompabilities were stated by both popes?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


None, of course. Certainly Floyd has never presented any.
Posted by: Schroedinger's Dog on Oct. 16 2009,09:49

The sadest thing here is: I am probably the less educated participant here. I didn't even finish the GED level (never tried the GED, but I know what it's about). And yet, I can grasp basic concepts better than Yodel Elf. AND I don't pretend to know more than people that have been working in the field for years.

Sad state of affairs, when YEC's try to teach science to scientists...
Posted by: JonF on Oct. 16 2009,09:54

Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 16 2009,10:13)
God's not calling for a gazillion years of evolution there.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Ah, you know the Mind of God, then? How is it being able to tell God what He can and cannot mean? Gives you a warm and fuzzy feeling, does it?
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Oct. 16 2009,09:55

you never answered this one.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
 why is god not part of the required explanation for why water runs downhill, when he is part of the required explanation for the EXISTENCE OF WATER?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



You made that claim, idiot, not me.  Saying that I don't accept an answer that you never gave proves you are dumber than we gave you credit for being.

and you never answered this one, the second question



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
what is the difference between



---------------------QUOTE-------------------

God Said Let the earth bring forth.. and it was so
---------------------QUOTE-------------------




and



---------------------QUOTE-------------------

The earth bringed forth
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



---------------------QUOTE-------------------

???

Other than, as you simply restated, God Said?

All of us understand that your magical uncaused bearded thunderer is supernatural, no shit.  What the question is, in terms of explanatory power, what is the difference?

I know that you are both too stupid and dishonest to publicly admit that you are wrong but please at least attempt to answer the questions in good faith.  So far you have said exactly Jack Shit.
Posted by: Constant Mews on Oct. 16 2009,09:56

Quote (Schroedinger's Dog @ Oct. 16 2009,09:49)
The sadest thing here is: I am probably the less educated participant here. I didn't even finish the GED level (never tried the GED, but I know what it's about). And yet, I can grasp basic concepts better than Yodel Elf. AND I don't pretend to know more than people that have been working in the field for years.

Sad state of affairs, when YEC's try to teach science to scientists...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Cheer up. He's not trying to teach science, because he clearly knows no science. He is trying to teach outmoded and disproven theology in PLACE of science. Floyd has no science to offer.
Posted by: Quack on Oct. 16 2009,10:00

Honest study of any subject demands checking one's facts and sources.

I doubt FL have done his homework. I have, at least enough to know that things are not always what we are led to believe.

There are people out there wanting us to believe what they want us to believe, even when they do not even believe it themselves.

May I suggest FL start < here? >
Posted by: FloydLee on Oct. 16 2009,10:03



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Floyd, you claimed God created directly - not indirectly.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Absolutely.  See Gen 1, including the verses Jasper mentioned.

The worst part (for evolutionists, anyway) is when you get to the creation of the first humans.
   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being. (Gen. 2:7)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
And the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall on Adam, and he slept; and He took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh in its place. Then the rib which the LORD God had taken from man He made into a woman, and He brought her to the man. (Gen. 2:21-22)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Talk about direct!  NOTHING gets any more direct than that.  No possible chance of any humans originating via evolution from any common ancestor of humans and animals, including apes/chimps.

No chance of common descent being true for humans, at all.

******

Now Jesus believed the Bible, including the Adam and Eve part (see Matt.19: 4-6).  
Do you believe the Bible too, CM?
Posted by: FloydLee on Oct. 16 2009,10:07



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Sad state of affairs, when YEC's try to teach science to scientists...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Not trying to teach science to scientists.  But am trying to call people's attention to some pertinent Bible verses and how biblical Christianity is not compatible with evolution.  Hoping they're willing to consider THOSE facts.
Posted by: Schroedinger's Dog on Oct. 16 2009,10:09

this is a zstrong blow to Biology, Life studies, Medicine and all else derived.


Do the world a favor and live without the "lies" that evolution provided regarding viruses, bacterias, anti-bodies resistant forms, and all.

Oh, You are not allowed to drive cars, use computers, or even breath, from your point of view...
Posted by: deadman_932 on Oct. 16 2009,10:10

Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 16 2009,10:03)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Floyd, you claimed God created directly - not indirectly.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Absolutely.  See Gen 1, including the verses Jasper mentioned.

The worst part (for evolutionists, anyway) is when you get to the creation of the first humans.
     

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being. (Gen. 2:7)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


     

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
And the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall on Adam, and he slept; and He took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh in its place. Then the rib which the LORD God had taken from man He made into a woman, and He brought her to the man. (Gen. 2:21-22)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Talk about direct!  NOTHING gets any more direct than that.  No possible chance of any humans originating via evolution from any common ancestor of humans and animals, including apes/chimps.

No chance of common descent being true for humans, at all.

******

Now Jesus believed the Bible, including the Adam and Eve part (see Matt.19: 4-6).  
Do you believe the Bible too, CM?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Good thing that Christians don't have to accept your brain-damaged literal interpretation of that (the rib part is especially cute, leading many atavistic religionists to claim that women have a different number of ribs than men).

It is also possibly a remnant of a Sumerian pun, but that's a different bone to pick.
Posted by: Schroedinger's Dog on Oct. 16 2009,10:12

Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 16 2009,17:07)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Sad state of affairs, when YEC's try to teach science to scientists...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Not trying to teach science to scientists.  But am trying to call people's attention to some pertinent Bible verses and how biblical Christianity is not compatible with evolution.  Hoping they're willing to consider THOSE facts.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


And don't you understand that some (most?) people here don't give a rat's ass about your bible? I will respect CM, nmgirl and others' beliefs, but all in all, for me, this is just crap!
Posted by: deadman_932 on Oct. 16 2009,10:12

Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 16 2009,10:07)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Sad state of affairs, when YEC's try to teach science to scientists...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Not trying to teach science to scientists.  But am trying to call people's attention to some pertinent Bible verses and how biblical Christianity is not compatible with evolution.  Hoping they're willing to consider THOSE facts.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


"Facts" --- you keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.
Posted by: Schroedinger's Dog on Oct. 16 2009,10:16

FACTS: Fairly Acurrate Commitment for The Stupid...
Posted by: Schroedinger's Dog on Oct. 16 2009,10:18

BTW, I just fought, and annihilated a hicup burst.  Damn those Amphibians!



Edit: changed "fish" with "amphibians". hey, I'm no genius, I already said so!
Posted by: OgreMkV on Oct. 16 2009,10:36

I think we have another problem with semmantics.  Now we have to define 'direct' and 'indirect' for floyd.

By his definition, there are no indirect actions or results.
Posted by: tsig on Oct. 16 2009,10:37

Quote (FrankH @ Oct. 15 2009,13:51)
Quote (midwifetoad @ Oct. 15 2009,13:46)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Ruler and Sustainer of the Entire Universe At All Levels All Time All Space All Dimensions
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Just keep in mind that arrows in flight require constant efforts by angels to maintain their motion.

Even in heaven, someone's got to clean the toilets and take out the garbage.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


And all that crap that evangelicals just "absolutely know about what their heaven is like" gots to be flushed somewhere.

Probably why Satan is so pissed.  That shit runs downhill.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


It's widely known that god's shit don't stink.
Posted by: Robin on Oct. 16 2009,10:37

Quote (Constant Mews @ Oct. 15 2009,16:29)

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Quote (Robin @ Oct. 15 2009,15:13)
[quote=FloydLee,Oct. 15 Not to mention the strong Mithraic elements in the NT.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Quote so. The biblical writers and stories that came out of that time period were heavily influenced by the changing events of the time, other stories heard from other cultures and nations, and the beliefs people brought themselves.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I am interested - professionally, rather than spiritually - in the isolationist ignorance with which most theists such as Floyd approach their own Holy Texts.

Ignorance of the context, development, antecedents, and connections of the Bible seems to be a primary requirement for fundamentalists.  Whatever the basis of inspiration, Holy Writ is created by men for their own reasons and carries with it their own emotional and cultural baggage.  To pretend - as does Floyd - that such baggage does not exist is singularly foolish.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Indeed. And I personally do not find that such an understanding in anyway undermines one's faith in the religion. On the contrary, I find that those people who can approach their religions and holy text with such willingness and appreciation gain a greater depth of strength in the faith. That, at least, is the example set by my sister and her group.
Posted by: deadman_932 on Oct. 16 2009,10:38

Quote (Schroedinger's Dog @ Oct. 16 2009,10:18)
I'm no genius, I already said so!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Yeah, but you live on the Côte d'Azur, so I'm jealous anyway. Bastard!
Posted by: Robin on Oct. 16 2009,10:42

Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 15 2009,18:14)

---------------------QUOTE-------------------




---------------------QUOTE-------------------


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Floyd, let's get one thing straight here - my sister is a professional biblical scholar with degrees from Yale and Oxford and I have studied extensively not only on the bible, but also in ancient Greek and Hebrew history, culture, and language, along with several years of study in literary history and cultural constructions.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Then how in the world did you come up with such an utterly totally un-biblical conclusion about what kind of God is presented in the Bible?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Well that's would be your opinion. As noted earlier, your opinion is not based on actual factual information or eduction, so your claim that my understanding is "unbiblical" is not credible, nevermind not valid. The god presented in the bible, particularly the OT is a cruel and sadistic monster. There is no getting around that.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
 I can't speak for your sister, (and I like Greek and Hebrew too!) but YOU got it messed up seven ways to Hades!!  
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



The only one demonstrating an inaccurate understanding of the bible here thus far is you, Floyd.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I'm sorry, but in addition to study tools, languages, historical notes, etc, you gotta start allowing the Bible to speak for itself.  That's the truth.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Without the former and in particular an understanding of the cultures involved in the development of the stories, the bible doesn't indicate squat.
Posted by: Doc Bill on Oct. 16 2009,11:08

FL is a perfect example of what you get when you cross King James with Crown Royal.
Posted by: Constant Mews on Oct. 16 2009,13:28

Quote (Doc Bill @ Oct. 16 2009,11:08)
FL is a perfect example of what you get when you cross King James with Crown Royal.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Pardon my ignorance, but what would that be?
Posted by: Constant Mews on Oct. 16 2009,13:38

Given that Floyd clearly accepts Futuyma as an authority figure worth considering, it might be helpful to cite what Futuyma does actually says about evolutionary theory.  I had promised this earlier in the week; my schedule has been rather heavier than expected and I apologize for the delay.  But let us see what Futuyma actually defines evolutionary theory to be. There are twenty major tenets; I will post them as I have time.  I note in advance that not a single one of them contradicts Christian Doctrine.

1. The phenotype is different from the genotype, and the phenotypic differences among individual organisms can be due party to genetic differences and party to direct effects of the environment.

2. Environmental effects on an individual's phenotype do not affect the genes passed on to its offspring.  That is, acquired characteristics are not inherited.  However, the environment may affect the expression of an organism's genes.

3. Hereditary variations are based on particles - genes - that retain their identity as they pass through the gnereations; genes do not blend with other genes.

4. Genes mutate, usually at a fairly low rate, to alternative forms (alleles).  The phenotypic effects of such mutations can range all the way from undetectable to very great.  The variation that arises by mutation is amplified by [b]recombination[/i] among alleles at different loci.

5. Environmental factors may affect the rate of mutation, but they do not preferentially direct the production of mutations that would be favorable in the organism's specific environment.
Posted by: Constant Mews on Oct. 16 2009,13:47

Floyd, I must point out that your claim was that God did not create indirectly in the Bible.  Two things demonstrate that you apparently can't read the Bible:

1. Even in Genesis 1, God does not directly create animals and plants; they are created by the earth and sea and indirectly by God.

2. Every animal, plant, or human born in the Bible is done without God's direct intervention.

Your claim was that God only created directly.  A casual glance at the Bible by an atheist proved you wrong.

But this is your usual smokescreen.  The basic point is simple.

A literal reading of Genesis and certain other parts of the Bible is not a requirement of Christian belief.

Period.
Posted by: FloydLee on Oct. 16 2009,14:34



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Even in Genesis 1, God does not directly create animals and plants; they are created by the earth and sea and indirectly by God.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Nope, nowhere in the Bible (especially Genesis) does the earth and sea ever create life forms.  Only God creates.  And in this case, He literally spoke water and land animals into existence---otherwise they would not have existed at all.
Posted by: FloydLee on Oct. 16 2009,14:36



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Every animal, plant, or human born in the Bible is done without God's direct intervention.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Contradicted by Genesis 1 and 2.  Life forms below humans, God speaks them into existence;  Humans, God creates 'em by hand.  In both cases, it's very very direct.
Posted by: Robin on Oct. 16 2009,14:38

Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 16 2009,14:34)

---------------------QUOTE-------------------




---------------------QUOTE-------------------


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Even in Genesis 1, God does not directly create animals and plants; they are created by the earth and sea and indirectly by God.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Nope, nowhere in the Bible (especially Genesis) does the earth and sea ever create life forms.  Only God creates.  And in this case, He literally spoke water and land animals into existence---otherwise they would not have existed at all.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Geez Floyd...it's bad enough you do it to me and others, but claiming that the bible indicates what you want it to indicate rather than what is actually written is just pathetic. Seriously, you need help with those delusions of yours. No way to take anything you say seriously when you can't even relate simple facts as they are presented in black and white text.
Posted by: Robin on Oct. 16 2009,14:39

Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 16 2009,14:36)

---------------------QUOTE-------------------




---------------------QUOTE-------------------


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Every animal, plant, or human born in the Bible is done without God's direct intervention.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Contradicted by Genesis 1 and 2.  Life forms below humans, God speaks them into existence;  Humans, God creates 'em by hand.  In both cases, it's very very direct.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Just plain stupidly false based on the text Floyd.
Posted by: Cubist on Oct. 16 2009,14:40

Which came first, LoydFlee -- horses, or Adam? Did God create horses before Adam (as Genesis 1 says, with horses being part of the "the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind" bit in Gen 1:24, and humans coming a touch later in Gen 1:27), or did God create Adam before horses (with Adam being created in Gen 2:7, and horses being part of the "every beast of the field" bit in Gen 2:19, which is after "the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him" in Gen 2:18)?
Oh, and since you cite Gen. 2:21-22, which talks about the creation of the first human woman: Whatever happen to the first human woman who was created in Gen 1:27 ("male and female created he them")?
Posted by: Constant Mews on Oct. 16 2009,14:47

Floyd, let us know what part of:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Genesis 1:20: And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven.

Genesis 1:24 And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

You find difficult to understand.  I have emphasized the relevant parts.

You can lie, dissemble, etc. about a great many things, but for someone who claims to be a Biblical Christian to lie about what the Bible says, borders on madness.
Posted by: Constant Mews on Oct. 16 2009,14:49

This is truly fascinating Floyd.  Because no matter how you try to spin it, you blatantly lied about what the Bible said so that you would not have to admit you were wrong.

Why do you want to deny the Bible, Floyd?  Apparently you're NOT a Biblical Christian after all.
Posted by: Jasper on Oct. 16 2009,15:06

Quote (Constant Mews @ Oct. 16 2009,14:47)
Your claim was that God only created directly.  A casual glance at the Bible by an atheist proved you wrong.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Actually, I'm not an atheist.  I'm a Christian (one who also accepts evolution).
Posted by: OgreMkV on Oct. 16 2009,15:19

Maybe the Quote from John was right...

See here is the problem Floyd.  By your defintion of direct (presumed because you haven't defined it), then everything that happens is the result of direct intervention by God.  Which does mean that your god is a cruel, sadistic SOB.
Posted by: FloydLee on Oct. 16 2009,15:36



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Which came first, LoydFlee -- horses, or Adam?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Horses.  Gen 1 has a specifically chronological focus (first day this happened, second day that happened, etc).  Land animals came before Adam on Day 6, so horses came before Adam.

But Gen 2 does not have that same chronological focus.  Gen. 2 is, in effect, a magnifying glass placed next to Gen 1 so you can see more detail about the part of Gen 1 that relates specifically to humans and God's relationship with them.
   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
There is no contradiction between Genesis 1 and 2.

Genesis 1 is a detailed explanation of the six days of creation, day by day. Genesis two is a recap and a more detailed explanation of the sixth day, the day that Adam and Eve were made.

The recap is stated in Gen. 2:4, "This is the account of the heavens and the earth when they were created, in the day that the Lord God made earth and heaven."
Then, Moses goes on to detail the creation of Adam and Eve as is seen in verses 7 thru 24 of Gen. 2.

Proof that (Gen 2) is not a creative account is found in the fact that animals aren't even mentioned until after the creation of Adam. Why? Probably because their purpose was designated by Adam. They didn't need to be mentioned until after Adam was created.

---CARM, Matt Slick
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


******
   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Oh, and since you cite Gen. 2:21-22, which talks about the creation of the first human woman: Whatever happen to the first human woman who was created in Gen 1:27 ("male and female created he them")?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Same thing.  See previous explanation.

FloydLee (reading comprehension exercise---try to get the name right on your reply, yes?)
Posted by: deadman_932 on Oct. 16 2009,15:38

Jeez, Floyd. As referee of this thread, I'm going to have to ask you to throw in the towel before you suffer more brain damage than you already have.

You're bleeding from every orifice, Floyd. Time for you to admit what everyone else already knows -- you have no valid arguments, just a series of fallacies.

You're done. Your parrot is still dead.

P.S. You're citing Matt Slick?!?!?! You DO realize that Matt Slick is just the "founder" of a fuckin' website, right?  HAHAHAHA, hell, he's proof-texting and making things up like mad there, anyway. I was spanking matt slick back when he was still hanging around yahoo chat, trying to recruit losers like you, Floyd.
Posted by: Constant Mews on Oct. 16 2009,15:40

Quote (Jasper @ Oct. 16 2009,15:06)
Quote (Constant Mews @ Oct. 16 2009,14:47)
Your claim was that God only created directly.  A casual glance at the Bible by an atheist proved you wrong.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Actually, I'm not an atheist.  I'm a Christian (one who also accepts evolution).
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


My apologies.
Posted by: Constant Mews on Oct. 16 2009,15:46

Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 16 2009,15:36)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Which came first, LoydFlee -- horses, or Adam?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Horses.  Gen 1 has a specifically chronological focus (first day this happened, second day that happened, etc).  Land animals came before Adam on Day 6, so horses came before Adam.

But Gen 2 does not have that same chronological focus.  Gen. 2 is, in effect, a magnifying glass placed next to Gen 1 so you can see more detail about the part of Gen 1 that relates specifically to humans and God's relationship with them.
   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
There is no contradiction between Genesis 1 and 2.

Genesis 1 is a detailed explanation of the six days of creation, day by day. Genesis two is a recap and a more detailed explanation of the sixth day, the day that Adam and Eve were made.

The recap is stated in Gen. 2:4, "This is the account of the heavens and the earth when they were created, in the day that the Lord God made earth and heaven."
Then, Moses goes on to detail the creation of Adam and Eve as is seen in verses 7 thru 24 of Gen. 2.

Proof that (Gen 2) is not a creative account is found in the fact that animals aren't even mentioned until after the creation of Adam. Why? Probably because their purpose was designated by Adam. They didn't need to be mentioned until after Adam was created.

---CARM, Matt Slick
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


******
   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Oh, and since you cite Gen. 2:21-22, which talks about the creation of the first human woman: Whatever happen to the first human woman who was created in Gen 1:27 ("male and female created he them")?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Same thing.  See previous explanation.

FloydLee (reading comprehension exercise---try to get the name right on your reply, yes?)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


How nice of you to show that genesis 1 and 2 contradict each other. Genesis 1: man made on day 6. Genesis 2: man made on day 1.

Floyd, no intelligent, educated Christian takes Genesis 1-11 as anything more than metaphor.

But you're still not addressing your problem: Genesis 1 specifically states God created indirectly; in complete contradiction to your assertion.
Posted by: Constant Mews on Oct. 16 2009,15:47

Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 16 2009,14:36)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Every animal, plant, or human born in the Bible is done without God's direct intervention.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Contradicted by Genesis 1 and 2.  Life forms below humans, God speaks them into existence;  Humans, God creates 'em by hand.  In both cases, it's very very direct.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


God created Abel directly? Cain directly? Noah directly

Floyd, the Bible contradicts you
Posted by: Constant Mews on Oct. 16 2009,15:53

Quote (Constant Mews @ Oct. 16 2009,14:47)
Floyd, let us know what part of:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Genesis 1:20: And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven.

Genesis 1:24 And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

You find difficult to understand.  I have emphasized the relevant parts.

You can lie, dissemble, etc. about a great many things, but for someone who claims to be a Biblical Christian to lie about what the Bible says, borders on madness.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Here you are again, Floyd. God creates indirectly. The Bible makes it plain.

And why does this matter? You claimed Christianity is incompatible with evolution. But it's not. I am the living refutation. I prove you wrong.
Posted by: Schroedinger's Dog on Oct. 16 2009,16:03



---------------------QUOTE-------------------

You're done. Your parrot is still dead.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------




Obvious link for obvious reference:



< Dead parrot >
Posted by: FloydLee on Oct. 16 2009,16:25



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I was spanking matt slick back when he was still hanging around yahoo chat,
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


So spank him now.  Disprove his statements.  (Umm, profanity won't do it, you'll have to offer something substantive).  A bright referee like you should have no trouble.
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
There is no contradiction between Genesis 1 and 2.

Genesis 1 is a detailed explanation of the six days of creation, day by day. Genesis two is a recap and a more detailed explanation of the sixth day, the day that Adam and Eve were made.

The recap is stated in Gen. 2:4, "This is the account of the heavens and the earth when they were created, in the day that the Lord God made earth and heaven."
Then, Moses goes on to detail the creation of Adam and Eve as is seen in verses 7 thru 24 of Gen. 2.

Proof that (Gen 2) is not a creative account is found in the fact that animals aren't even mentioned until after the creation of Adam. Why? Probably because their purpose was designated by Adam. They didn't need to be mentioned until after Adam was created.

---CARM, Matt Slick
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: Schroedinger's Dog on Oct. 16 2009,16:34

Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 16 2009,23:25)
 
"This is the account of the heavens and the earth when they were created, in the day that the Lord God made earth and heaven."
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Redundancy, a clear sign of hollyness...

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
And the Lord spake, saying, "First shalt thou take out the Holy Pin. Then shalt thou count to three, no more, no less. Three shall be the number thou shalt count, and the number of the counting shall be three. Four shalt thou not count, neither count thou two, excepting that thou then proceed to three. Five is right out. Once the number three, being the third number, be reached, then lobbest thou thy Holy Hand Grenade of Antioch towards thy foe, who, being naughty in my sight, shall snuff it.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: deadman_932 on Oct. 16 2009,16:44

Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 16 2009,16:25)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I was spanking matt slick back when he was still hanging around yahoo chat,
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


So spank him now.  Disprove his statements.  (Umm, profanity won't do it, you'll have to offer something substantive).  A bright referee like you should have no trouble.
   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
There is no contradiction between Genesis 1 and 2.

Genesis 1 is a detailed explanation of the six days of creation, day by day. Genesis two is a recap and a more detailed explanation of the sixth day, the day that Adam and Eve were made.

The recap is stated in Gen. 2:4, "This is the account of the heavens and the earth when they were created, in the day that the Lord God made earth and heaven."
Then, Moses goes on to detail the creation of Adam and Eve as is seen in verses 7 thru 24 of Gen. 2.

Proof that (Gen 2) is not a creative account is found in the fact that animals aren't even mentioned until after the creation of Adam. Why? Probably because their purpose was designated by Adam. They didn't need to be mentioned until after Adam was created.

---CARM, Matt Slick
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Already done, floyd. He made his claim up. There's no substance to his claim at all. If I wanted to point out that the vast majority of Bible scholars would laugh at such a claim, that's easy to do, but I don't have to when all he is offering is his evidence-less opinion. When there is no evidence to disprove, you're asking me to disprove a negative.
Posted by: Reed on Oct. 16 2009,17:10

Quote (deadman_932 @ Oct. 16 2009,14:44)
Already done, floyd. He made his claim up.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


FL is also giving a demonstration of how "literalists" have to pick and choose particular interpretations. Why they choose interpretations so obviously in conflict with reality is a great mystery.
Posted by: JohnW on Oct. 16 2009,17:23

Quote (Reed @ Oct. 16 2009,15:10)
Quote (deadman_932 @ Oct. 16 2009,14:44)
Already done, floyd. He made his claim up.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


FL is also giving a demonstration of how "literalists" have to pick and choose particular interpretations. Why they choose interpretations so obviously in conflict with reality is a great mystery.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


The sillier the interpretation, the stronger the faith.
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Oct. 16 2009,17:23

Ahem

answer please



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
why is god not part of the required explanation for why water runs downhill, when he is part of the required explanation for the EXISTENCE OF WATER?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------




remember, you claimed this.  i want to know why you say this is true, or i want you to admit that in fact it is not true and you have been lying.  

THEN answer this



---------------------QUOTE-------------------

what is the difference between



---------------------QUOTE-------------------


God Said Let the earth bring forth.. and it was so
---------------------QUOTE-------------------





and



---------------------QUOTE-------------------


The earth bringed forth
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



---------------------QUOTE-------------------


???

then you can tell us why you add words unto the bible and don't fear damnation and hellfire. is it because you don't really believe all this stuff you are saying?  that would be the simplest explanation for your bad faith and dishonesty.
Posted by: Constant Mews on Oct. 16 2009,17:45

You know he can't answer.  He can do nothing but deny what the Bible says.

And that should be anathema.
Posted by: Lou FCD on Oct. 16 2009,18:07

Quote (Constant Mews @ Oct. 16 2009,18:45)
You know he can't answer.  He can do nothing but deny what the Bible says.

And that should be anathema.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You'd think that'd be strictly off limits, even under the rubric of Lying for Jesus. It's blasphemy after all, if one posits that the Bible is God's literal word.

Uh-oh, Floyd. Your ass is grass and baby Jesus is the lawn-mower.

ETA: HA HA, THIS IS YOU!





---------------------QUOTE-------------------
< Standing at the Gates of Hell >, by country_boy_shane
---------------------QUOTE-------------------




Posted by: Schroedinger's Dog on Oct. 16 2009,18:54



---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Uh-oh, Floyd. Your ass is grass and baby Jesus is the lawn-mower.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Thanks Lou, added to sig...
Posted by: Schroedinger's Dog on Oct. 16 2009,18:55

Double post to counter page change bug, and show my new siggy again :)
Posted by: Lou FCD on Oct. 16 2009,19:26

Quote (Schroedinger's Dog @ Oct. 16 2009,19:55)
Double post to counter page change bug, and show my new siggy again :)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Should be fixed now.
Posted by: FloydLee on Oct. 17 2009,06:20



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
ETA: HA HA, THIS IS YOU!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


It's now 4:11 am, CST, Saturday.  Only 14 days to finish everything, and this part is nearly done.  Certainly not much time for off-topic posts.  But then again, maybe this isn't an off-topic post.

Soon, this debate will be history.  You'll declare victory, (no matter what), and it'll just drop right off the Antievolution radar screen into oblivion.  But that doesn't bother me, that's how all debates go.

But Lou, your painting of Hell, DOES bother me.  No joke, it really disturbed me.  Why?  Because "Country Boy Shane" did a very good job there.  Reminded me of a strange gig I saw a couple years ago.

Can't remember who wrote it, nor what website it appeared on, (nobody famous, just another guy with a website somewhere out there).  Just maybe one or two paragraphs, no more than that.  A couple years ago.

Seems the guy was a Christian, and out of sheer curiosity, this guy actually asked God to show him Hell, to show him the real Hell that the Bible talks about.  No joke.  He asked God to show him.

Well, God chose NOT to do that.  No free tours.
But that night, God caused him to stare directly into the eyes of one of the humans currently residing down there.

About two or three minutes.  He didn't even see a face....only the eyes.  Nothing else.  Nobody else.  Just that one person's eyes.  
He never, ever, asked God to let him see Hell again.   And now that guy goes around urgently calling on people--anybody who will listen--to accept Jesus Christ as their personal Lord and Savior.  Todos las dias.

And that's why I think "Country Boy Shane" did such an excellent job there.  Something about the way he did those eyes.  (And everything else.)  Perfect--and horrific.  

******

But that's also what bothers me this morning, Lou.  How can YOU display a sobering, starkly precise painting like that one, and then try to make a joke about it?  

As God is my witness, somebody needs to step back and think about what the Hell (literally) they are making jokes about.  And I'm not just talking to Lou, either.  Take another look at that painting, boys.

Lou, that painting is NOT me, because Somebody paid for my sins and took my punishment for me.  I know where I'm gonna go when I die, and I know I'll be face to face with that Somebody who took my place.  

But if you pass away from this earthly life with your sins still Super-Glued to your butt because you were too proud (and for some of you, too angry) to accept and trust Jesus Christ as your personal Lord and Savior, you're going to find out EXACTLY why God only grants a relatively few requests to see what awaits down in Hell.  

This is nothing to play with.  God have mercy, some of you genuinely have NO clue what you're risking by living your daily lives without Jesus Christ as your Savior and Lord.  

Honestly, despite evolution clearly being incompatible with Christianity and eroding/corroding Christian faith, I would rather see you guys do like the Pope, do like Francis Collins, do like Nmgirl, and simply accept and trust Jesus Christ as your Lord and Savior, even if you NEVER EVER choose to become YEC's, OEC's or ID's.  Your life situation, your final destiny, is just that critically important.  

Go look at Lou's painting again. For many people, right now, that is their self-portrait.  And that painting offers only the TINIEST INDIRECT HINT of what's coming.  What does YOUR self-portrait look like?  

******

Sure, I promised Deadman that I wouldn't do any witnessing.  Screw that.  Shouldn't have brought up that painting.

Shoot, we ALL better go take one more look at Lou's painting--and make an honest decision about where we REALLY are right now, and where we REALLY want to be.  Time is short.  Life is short.  No promises that either one of us will see tomorrow.

Please consider, and make a decision.  ANYTHING is better than going to Hell, but you WILL go there--forever, no sleep, no love, no hope, no coffee breaks, no Internet buddies--unless you answer that persistent knock on your front door while there's still time.
           

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Here I am! I stand at the door and knock. If anyone hears my voice and opens the door, I will come in and eat with him, and he with me.

-- Jesus Christ's statement in Rev. 3:20
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


If you want to talk further privately, consider sending a message to solarskye@aol.com .

******

Hey, I bet some of you boys are genuinely curious about what else is waiting for you in Hell if you wind up there.  Ain't you wondering?  Sure you are.  So let's give you another small taste.  Check out these reports of what happened to actual people.  

You want a piece of THIS?

< http://www.hellandjustice.com/near_death_experiences.htm >

FloydLee
Posted by: deadman_932 on Oct. 17 2009,06:40

What amuses me is that you probably took a great deal of time to write that bit of fluff, Floyd. All the while imagining you were tapping into your profound literary skills, right?

If you're to pretend the power to compel people via purple prose and your shattered-brain visions of a mythic hell, you really should take some lessons in writing.

Oh, and by the way, it's "todos LOS dias." -- "Dia" takes the masculine,  much as "mano" non-intuitively takes the feminine.

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Floyd babbled:
"Sure, I promised Deadman that I wouldn't do any witnessing.  Screw that.  Shouldn't have brought up that painting."
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Yep, you break your word at the drop of a hat. There's no reason you shouldn't break each "promise" you made towards my stipulations, Floyd. This last one finishes off the lot.

You have the moral and ethical fiber of a typical con-artist, Floyd. If you weren't born into a Christian culture, it's my contention that you would bow and scrape before whatever God or Gods you could find. It's not even about faith for you, floyd ; it's about your ego and a desire to compensate for your shortcomings by this con-artist grasp at power.
Posted by: dnmlthr on Oct. 17 2009,07:33

It only took 50 pages for you to end up at Pascal's wager - a notoriously bullshit argument - still only using assertions.

Are you a child, Floyd?
Posted by: didymos on Oct. 17 2009,07:41

Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 17 2009,04:20)
Honestly, despite evolution clearly being incompatible with Christianity and eroding/corroding Christian faith, I would rather see you guys do like the Pope, do like Francis Collins, do like Nmgirl, and simply accept and trust Jesus Christ as your Lord and Savior, even if you NEVER EVER choose to become YEC's, OEC's or ID's.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Shorter version:  Evolution is incompatible with Christianity....and here's a list of Christians who think evolution is true.
Posted by: Cubist on Oct. 17 2009,07:41

They're your rules, LoydFlee.
It's your Hell.
You burn in it.
Posted by: Lou FCD on Oct. 17 2009,08:27

OMG!!  I NEVER THOUGHT ABOUT THAT, FLOYD!!!

Nosce inimicum tuum
Posted by: Lou FCD on Oct. 17 2009,08:42

Quote (Schroedinger's Dog @ Oct. 16 2009,19:54)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Uh-oh, Floyd. Your ass is grass and baby Jesus is the lawn-mower.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Thanks Lou, added to sig...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Happy to oblige and amuse, SD.
Posted by: OgreMkV on Oct. 17 2009,09:06

Floyd.  In all seriousness, do you really think it's OK to lie to others as long as you are preaching the word?

I mean, any translation of the bible includes words to the effect of "thou shall not bear false witness".  Yet, you lied to Deadman about what you would and would not do in the thread.

Do you really not understand why we slam you?  Do you really not understand that you translate some parts of the bible literally and some parts metaphorically and you claim to translate the whole thing literally?

These questions are intended to be a dig against you or your case.  I really want to know your honest answers to these questions.

Let me know when you get to teaching ID.  Still got my list ready.
Posted by: FloydLee on Oct. 17 2009,10:51



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Yet, you lied to Deadman about what you would and would not do in the thread.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Let me guess.  It's okay for somebody to put up a serious painting of a man standing at the very gates of Hell, about to forever be lost, and then for some Whatnot to claim that painting is about ME, and neither you nor Deadman got anything to say about that bit of religious talk.

But it's suddenly NOT okay for me to respond to that religious stuff in a serious and (for a Christian) a conscientious and biblical manner?  Some of you even go around telling me you gonna pray for me (which I have not said to any of you.)  Yet I can't even respond to Lou's painting?

You know I could rather easily (and rather sharply) comment on a situation like that, and on people who think like that.

But I'd prefer to not go there, if it's all the same to you.  I'd rather readers just take a couple seconds to think about the post--and Lou's painting.  

Me, I'm 50.  I know I don't have much time left in life.  And if I have it right, I think you were the poster that said you were 79+.   I'll leave it at that.
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Oct. 17 2009,10:57

Quote (Erasmus, FCD @ Oct. 16 2009,18:23)
Ahem

answer please



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
why is god not part of the required explanation for why water runs downhill, when he is part of the required explanation for the EXISTENCE OF WATER?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------




remember, you claimed this.  i want to know why you say this is true, or i want you to admit that in fact it is not true and you have been lying.  

THEN answer this

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------

what is the difference between

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


God Said Let the earth bring forth.. and it was so
---------------------QUOTE-------------------





and

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


The earth bringed forth
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



---------------------QUOTE-------------------


???

then you can tell us why you add words unto the bible and don't fear damnation and hellfire. is it because you don't really believe all this stuff you are saying?  that would be the simplest explanation for your bad faith and dishonesty.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


hey floyd when you get off the pulpit you might want to answer these questions
Posted by: OgreMkV on Oct. 17 2009,10:58

Floyd, the point is you said you would do certain things in this thread.  You haven't done those things.

Now answer the questions.
Posted by: FloydLee on Oct. 17 2009,11:00

No, the point is that some of you are hypocrites who traffic in double standards.  Are you one of them?
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Oct. 17 2009,11:13

Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 17 2009,12:00)
No, the point is that some of you are hypocrites who traffic in double standards.  Are you one of them?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


answer the questions?
Posted by: Keelyn on Oct. 17 2009,11:17

No one could possibly imagine how much it pains me to agree with Floyd on anything, and I'll probably end up hating myself for saying this, but there does seem to be a bit of a double standard going on here. Just remember, Floyd, I still don't accept any of your creationist bullshit or religious mumbo ...the "HELL" crap doesn't phase me. I just accept that I think you make a valid point abount the standards.
Posted by: OgreMkV on Oct. 17 2009,11:32

Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 17 2009,11:00)
No, the point is that some of you are hypocrites who traffic in double standards.  Are you one of them?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Pot = Kettle

You still (after what 6 days?) haven't answered Erasmus questions...

Let's see:

1) Erasmus questions about the water and why God is required for water and why he's not required for water to flow downhill
2) You haven't answer CM question about whether CM is a Christian or not
3) You haven't answered any of the three responses you've gotten for your big five fallacies
4) You haven't answered my question about "Do you really not understand that you translate some parts of the bible literally and some parts metaphorically and you claim to translate the whole thing literally?"

Anyone else remember some questions that FLoyd hasn't answered?  

So that's where we are right now.  Waiting for you to fulfill your part of the deal and answer the questions.

Aside: I am personally offended that you would call me a hypocrite.  I have made no claims of faith and made no statements that haven't been backed up with evidence.
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Oct. 17 2009,11:34

Quote (Keelyn @ Oct. 17 2009,12:17)
No one could possibly imagine how much it pains me to agree with Floyd on anything, and I'll probably end up hating myself for saying this, but there does seem to be a bit of a double standard going on here. Just remember, Floyd, I still don't accept any of your creationist bullshit or religious mumbo ...the "HELL" crap doesn't phase me. I just accept that I think you make a valid point abount the standards.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


what exactly is the point?  It's not clear to me.
Posted by: didymos on Oct. 17 2009,12:07

Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Oct. 17 2009,09:34)
 
Quote (Keelyn @ Oct. 17 2009,12:17)
No one could possibly imagine how much it pains me to agree with Floyd on anything, and I'll probably end up hating myself for saying this, but there does seem to be a bit of a double standard going on here. Just remember, Floyd, I still don't accept any of your creationist bullshit or religious mumbo ...the "HELL" crap doesn't phase me. I just accept that I think you make a valid point abount the standards.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


what exactly is the point?  It's not clear to me.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I don't know. Mostly I just saw people pointing out he violates his own professed standards.  I.e., more of Floyd's self-pwning, only theologically/ethically instead of scientifically (though w.r.t. to Floyd's writings, I use that term very loosely indeed).

(edited: clarity...and a pronoun)
Posted by: Constant Mews on Oct. 17 2009,13:38

Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 17 2009,10:51)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Yet, you lied to Deadman about what you would and would not do in the thread.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Let me guess.  It's okay for somebody to put up a serious painting of a man standing at the very gates of Hell, about to forever be lost, and then for some Whatnot to claim that painting is about ME, and neither you nor Deadman got anything to say about that bit of religious talk.

But it's suddenly NOT okay for me to respond to that religious stuff in a serious and (for a Christian) a conscientious and biblical manner?  Some of you even go around telling me you gonna pray for me (which I have not said to any of you.)  Yet I can't even respond to Lou's painting?

You know I could rather easily (and rather sharply) comment on a situation like that, and on people who think like that.

But I'd prefer to not go there, if it's all the same to you.  I'd rather readers just take a couple seconds to think about the post--and Lou's painting.  

Me, I'm 50.  I know I don't have much time left in life.  And if I have it right, I think you were the poster that said you were 79+.   I'll leave it at that.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


It's not OK to lie, Floyd. And that's what you did.

And that is why are going to go to he'll, Floyd. That's the fear we hear behind your words, the terror that informs whatever part of you isn't wrapped up in worship of your various false idols (I note 3 without much effort). That's your problem. You're terrified of he'll. And if show you to be wrong, that's what you'll have staring you in the face.

Oh, and your prosletization (sp?) technique is terrible. That's how I now you're not sincere when you launch tirades like that.

You're just lying.
Posted by: Constant Mews on Oct. 17 2009,13:40

Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 17 2009,11:00)
No, the point is that some of you are hypocrites who traffic in double standards.  Are you one of them?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


The only hypocrite we have seen here is you, Floyd. The only one. Feel free to try to prove otherwise.
Posted by: Constant Mews on Oct. 17 2009,14:58

Quote (OgreMkV @ Oct. 17 2009,11:32)
Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 17 2009,11:00)
No, the point is that some of you are hypocrites who traffic in double standards.  Are you one of them?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Pot = Kettle

You still (after what 6 days?) haven't answered Erasmus questions...

Let's see:

1) Erasmus questions about the water and why God is required for water and why he's not required for water to flow downhill
2) You haven't answer CM question about whether CM is a Christian or not
3) You haven't answered any of the three responses you've gotten for your big five fallacies
4) You haven't answered my question about "Do you really not understand that you translate some parts of the bible literally and some parts metaphorically and you claim to translate the whole thing literally?"

Anyone else remember some questions that FLoyd hasn't answered?  

So that's where we are right now.  Waiting for you to fulfill your part of the deal and answer the questions.

Aside: I am personally offended that you would call me a hypocrite.  I have made no claims of faith and made no statements that haven't been backed up with evidence.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Another for the list:

Floyd, do you understand that the opinions of scientists and theologists about evolutionary are entirely different from the tenets of evolutionary theory?

This is a critical problem for Floyd, and the basis behind much of his abject confusion.
Posted by: Keelyn on Oct. 17 2009,15:30

Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Oct. 17 2009,12:34)
Quote (Keelyn @ Oct. 17 2009,12:17)
No one could possibly imagine how much it pains me to agree with Floyd on anything, and I'll probably end up hating myself for saying this, but there does seem to be a bit of a double standard going on here. Just remember, Floyd, I still don't accept any of your creationist bullshit or religious mumbo ...the "HELL" crap doesn't phase me. I just accept that I think you make a valid point abount the standards.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


what exactly is the point?  It's not clear to me.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Well, I should have clarified that I was specifically referring only to the painting that Floyd was so disturbed (terrified?) by. I just thought it was reasonable that he have a right to comment on it - dumb as it was. That's all.
Posted by: Constant Mews on Oct. 17 2009,15:51

Quote (Keelyn @ Oct. 17 2009,15:30)
Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Oct. 17 2009,12:34)
 
Quote (Keelyn @ Oct. 17 2009,12:17)
No one could possibly imagine how much it pains me to agree with Floyd on anything, and I'll probably end up hating myself for saying this, but there does seem to be a bit of a double standard going on here. Just remember, Floyd, I still don't accept any of your creationist bullshit or religious mumbo ...the "HELL" crap doesn't phase me. I just accept that I think you make a valid point abount the standards.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


what exactly is the point?  It's not clear to me.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Well, I should have clarified that I was specifically referring only to the painting that Floyd was so disturbed (terrified?) by. I just thought it was reasonable that he have a right to comment on it - dumb as it was. That's all.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I see.  That makes sense.  I think that commenting on an image Floyd finds disturbing is somewhat different from what he actually did - which was to use the rant to present a very tired, very uninspiring, very unimpressive version of Pascal's Wager.

Only an idiot can be brought to Christ via the Wager.
Posted by: deadman_932 on Oct. 17 2009,16:00

Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 17 2009,11:00)
No, the point is that some of you are hypocrites who traffic in double standards.  Are you one of them?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Lou's post was a brief joke, not unlike your life, Floyd. Posting an obviously over-the-top photoshopped image is hardly comparable, especially when Lou wasn't asked not to preach or proselytize -- and didn't do that anyway.

You, on the other hand, were asked not to, and you agreed. Then you take what is an obvious attempt at humor and your drug-addled brain turned that into an immediate opportunity to break your word.

There's a pattern there, Floyd. As soon as you see the opportunity to break your word, you do it, if it suits your purposes.

THEN you launch into your   " You're going to die and MY god is going to torture you for eternity for mere doubt" bullshit -- which makes your god look insane, evil, selfish, childish, insecure and petty.

You think an all-loving god thinks as evilly as you? I prefer to think that the Bible is completely wrong than to believe the existence of such an ugly little god as your hallucinogen-inspired tiny reptilian brain vomited up.

Let me be clear, Floyd: Your god is essentially toxic.

Your god is the god of punishment and damnation for mere disbelief, the god that slaughters Amalekite and Amorite babies by the sword and can't manage to save them, but can magic up the fake appearance of age in the universe. Your God orders those CHILDREN that cannot themselves have done any evil (being unable to hold swords and fight at the time) to die, because YOUR god is more interested in punishing and torture by sword and fire.

Your god apparently divides its attentions between overseeing the entire universe at all times in all dimensions for every living creature everywhere, and giving a crap about whiny fundamentalist Christian zealots and their poisonous power-mongering ideas.

Your god takes sides. Your god favors ass-sucking sycophantic idiots that bleat their love while cursing anyone that doesn't think JUST like them.

Believing in God should not make you dumb. believing in divine power should not make you a blind lockstep zealot drone, bowing and kneeling and feeling unworthy and sinful and dirty. Belief should not make you need to lie, twist, conceal and pervert.  

Your god is the god of lies, and bears no resemblance to an honorable Christian god.
Posted by: Constant Mews on Oct. 17 2009,16:10

Quote (deadman_932 @ Oct. 17 2009,16:00)
Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 17 2009,11:00)
No, the point is that some of you are hypocrites who traffic in double standards.  Are you one of them?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Lou's post was a brief joke, not unlike your life, Floyd. Posting an obviously over-the-top photoshopped image is hardly comparable, especially when Lou wasn't asked not to preach or proselytize -- and didn't do that anyway.

You, on the other hand, were asked not to, and you agreed. Then you take what is an obvious attempt at humor and your drug-addled brain turned that into an immediate opportunity to break your word.

There's a pattern there, Floyd. As soon as you see the opportunity to break your word, you do it, if it suits your purposes.

THEN you launch into your   " You're going to die and MY god is going to torture you for eternity for mere doubt" bullshit -- which makes your god look insane, evil, selfish, childish, insecure and petty.

You think an all-loving god thinks as evilly as you? I prefer to think that the Bible is completely wrong than to believe the existence of such an ugly little god as your hallucinogen-inspired tiny reptilian brain vomited up.

Let me be clear, Floyd: Your god is essentially toxic.

Your god is the god of punishment and damnation for mere disbelief, the god that slaughters Amalekite and Amorite babies by the sword and can't manage to save them, but can magic up the fake appearance of age in the universe. Your God orders those CHILDREN that cannot themselves have done any evil (being unable to hold swords and fight at the time) to die, because YOUR god is more interested in punishing and torture by sword and fire.

Your god apparently divides its attentions between overseeing the entire universe at all times in all dimensions for every living creature everywhere, and giving a crap about whiny fundamentalist Christian zealots and their poisonous power-mongering ideas.

Your god takes sides. Your god favors ass-sucking sycophantic idiots that bleat their love while cursing anyone that doesn't think JUST like them.

Believing in God should not make you dumb. believing in divine power should not make you a blind lockstep zealot drone, bowing and kneeling and feeling unworthy and sinful and dirty. Belief should not make you need to lie, twist, conceal and pervert.  

Your god is the god of lies, and bears no resemblance to an honorable Christian god.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


But it is that very image of God - a false idol in Christian terminology - that appeals to Floyd's narrow, intellectually limited, authority-craving mindset.

It is why I pray for him.
Posted by: deadman_932 on Oct. 17 2009,16:14

Now you can accuse me of hypocrisy because I followed your lead, Floyd. But I won't make up obviously fraudulent excuses, fuckheaded little coward fear-monger. Your little written spasm on your evil god has reinforced my resolve to never serve the nasty little deity you have in your brain.
Posted by: Reed on Oct. 17 2009,17:09

Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 17 2009,08:51)
But I'd prefer to not go there, if it's all the same to you.  I'd rather readers just take a couple seconds to think about the post--and Lou's painting.  
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I took a few seconds to think about your post Floyd. I came to the conclusion that it is the typical irrational, inane, reality-free sort of drivel that religious zealots such as yourself routinely produce. Nothing in it resembles a reasoned discussion. It's just a bunch of fact free statements, very loosely based on a twisted interpretation of a collection of ancient myths. You could find any number of equivalent screeds from a number of other religions. What a waste of time. If you think this kind of thing will convince anyone who isn't already predisposed to your particular brand of bullshit, you are surely mistaken.

The painting is a human product. It may evoke an emotional response, but it isn't close representing the kind of suffering that happens every day in the real world.

I don't particularly fault you for breaking the rules (ATBC is by it's nature a bit of a free-for-all), but your dishonesty was readily apparent already. If lying is a sin, then no doubt you are sinner, so Lou's post did have a point.
Posted by: OgreMkV on Oct. 17 2009,17:15

To be honest... I thought the painting was a photoshop of Bruce Campbell's movie poster for Army of Darkness...
Posted by: JohnW on Oct. 17 2009,17:22

Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 17 2009,04:20)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
ETA: HA HA, THIS IS YOU!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


It's now 4:11 am, CST, Saturday.  Only 14 days to finish everything, and this part is nearly done.  Certainly not much time for off-topic posts.  But then again, maybe this isn't an off-topic post.

<incoherent nonsense deleted>

Hey, I bet some of you boys are genuinely curious about what else is waiting for you in Hell if you wind up there.  Ain't you wondering?  Sure you are.  So let's give you another small taste.  Check out these reports of what happened to actual people.  

You want a piece of THIS?

< http://www.hellandjustice.com/near_death_experiences.htm >

FloydLee
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Somewhere there's a street corner that's missing it's ranter.
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Oct. 17 2009,17:40

Quote (Erasmus, FCD @ Oct. 17 2009,11:57)
Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Oct. 16 2009,18:23)
Ahem

answer please

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
why is god not part of the required explanation for why water runs downhill, when he is part of the required explanation for the EXISTENCE OF WATER?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------




remember, you claimed this.  i want to know why you say this is true, or i want you to admit that in fact it is not true and you have been lying.  

THEN answer this

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------

what is the difference between

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


God Said Let the earth bring forth.. and it was so
---------------------QUOTE-------------------





and

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


The earth bringed forth
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



---------------------QUOTE-------------------


???

then you can tell us why you add words unto the bible and don't fear damnation and hellfire. is it because you don't really believe all this stuff you are saying?  that would be the simplest explanation for your bad faith and dishonesty.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


hey floyd when you get off the pulpit you might want to answer these questions
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


after you are done playing street preacher...
Posted by: Lou FCD on Oct. 17 2009,18:23

Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 17 2009,07:20)
But Lou, your painting of Hell, DOES bother me.  No joke, it really disturbed me.  Why?  Because "Country Boy Shane" did a very good job there.  Reminded me of a strange gig I saw a couple years ago.

Can't remember who wrote it, nor what website it appeared on, (nobody famous, just another guy with a website somewhere out there).  Just maybe one or two paragraphs, no more than that.  A couple years ago.

Seems the guy was a Christian, and out of sheer curiosity, this guy actually asked God to show him Hell, to show him the real Hell that the Bible talks about.  No joke.  He asked God to show him.

Well, God chose NOT to do that.  No free tours.
But that night, God caused him to stare directly into the eyes of one of the humans currently residing down there.

About two or three minutes.  He didn't even see a face....only the eyes.  Nothing else.  Nobody else.  Just that one person's eyes.  
He never, ever, asked God to let him see Hell again.   And now that guy goes around urgently calling on people--anybody who will listen--to accept Jesus Christ as their personal Lord and Savior.  Todos las dias.

And that's why I think "Country Boy Shane" did such an excellent job there.  Something about the way he did those eyes.  (And everything else.)  Perfect--and horrific.  
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


OMG, I took a nap today, and just before I drifted off to sleep, I asked Zeus to show me Hell.

He told me to fuck off because he was busy chasing skirts, but suggested I talk to Yahweh, because the Christian god was into pain and suffering and such.

Know what Yahweh said?

"Lou," said he. "HA HA, this is Floyd!"



And so I got really scared, and said, "Dude! Is that my future, too?"

And he was all like, "No way. That place is for TARDs and Liars. Here's what I got for scientists:"



Floyd, buddy, it so sucks to be you.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
< Hellfire >, by mysnapz and < Madison and Erica - Bent >, by Rob Beyer.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: didymos on Oct. 17 2009,18:58

Quote (OgreMkV @ Oct. 17 2009,15:15)
To be honest... I thought the painting was a photoshop of Bruce Campbell's movie poster for Army of Darkness...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Me too!  I was well into the post when I figured out my mistake.
Posted by: Lou FCD on Oct. 17 2009,19:48

Quote (Keelyn @ Oct. 17 2009,12:17)
No one could possibly imagine how much it pains me to agree with Floyd on anything, and I'll probably end up hating myself for saying this, but there does seem to be a bit of a double standard going on here. Just remember, Floyd, I still don't accept any of your creationist bullshit or religious mumbo ...the "HELL" crap doesn't phase me. I just accept that I think you make a valid point abount the standards.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Bullshit.

I was never party to or even privy to the details of Floyd's agreement.

In fact had I been consulted, I'd have passed on inviting him here in the first place. Floyd's been shitting up threads with his lies at PT for years. He's not even an interesting creotard, just a run-of-the-mill compulsive liar for Jesus. He's frantically looking for confirmation in numbers, hoping desperately to convince himself that he won't cease to exist when he dies.

It's all or nothing for Floyd. If Floyd admits to himself for one second that one little bit of his delusional nonsense isn't true, it will all come crashing down around his ears and he'll have to admit the possibility that the universe doesn't give one flying fuck about Floyd. That's just too scary for him to contemplate. To admit that even as a remote possibility would turn his weak little brain into a gibbering pile of mush.

Of course, it would be difficult for an outsider to notice any change...

So no, no double standard. I was never part of any agreement. What Floyd agreed to is on him. He lied. He broke his word. And he blasphemed to boot. (and no one is surprised, btw)

He's going to fry like chicken in a vat o' lard. (Hey, those are the rules of his superstition, not mine.)

G'night, Floyd. Sleep well, and dream vivid dreams.



 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
< The fires of Hell? >, by Xerones.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------




Posted by: Quack on Oct. 18 2009,04:14



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
hoping desperately to convince himself that he won't cease to exist when he dies.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I don't care much for this f***ing thread or FL but since the subject came up:
That, gentlemen, that's all what the subject of biblical literalism is about! It always was, right from the start. That's why Gnosticism and related 'heresies' had to be suppressed.

They overlook the fact that nowhere in scripture is physical survival the subject; the subject is spiritual renewal. If one reads Paul's genuine letters and ignore the fakes written to counter Paul's obvious Gnosticism and promote Jewish orthodoxy wrt women, that is not hard to see.
Posted by: tsig on Oct. 18 2009,11:49

Quote (deadman_932 @ Oct. 17 2009,06:40)
What amuses me is that you probably took a great deal of time to write that bit of fluff, Floyd. All the while imagining you were tapping into your profound literary skills, right?

If you're to pretend the power to compel people via purple prose and your shattered-brain visions of a mythic hell, you really should take some lessons in writing.

Oh, and by the way, it's "todos LOS dias." -- "Dia" takes the masculine,  much as "mano" non-intuitively takes the feminine.

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Floyd babbled:
"Sure, I promised Deadman that I wouldn't do any witnessing.  Screw that.  Shouldn't have brought up that painting."
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Yep, you break your word at the drop of a hat. There's no reason you shouldn't break each "promise" you made towards my stipulations, Floyd. This last one finishes off the lot.

You have the moral and ethical fiber of a typical con-artist, Floyd. If you weren't born into a Christian culture, it's my contention that you would bow and scrape before whatever God or Gods you could find. It's not even about faith for you, floyd ; it's about your ego and a desire to compensate for your shortcomings by this con-artist grasp at power.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Of course he broke his promise. He's only following the example of his god.

God's lies litter the bible. He told the Jews he'd help them out and then did some righteous smiting in their behalf til he came up onto iron chariots then it was " ok boys your own your own with this one"

God's elected seem to come up holding the bag a lot.

BTW:

Floyd, was Moses an eyewitness to the Creation?

Was he there personally?
Posted by: Dan on Oct. 18 2009,12:20

Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 16 2009,10:07)
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Sad state of affairs, when YEC's try to teach science to scientists...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Not trying to teach science to scientists.  But am trying to call people's attention to some pertinent Bible verses and how biblical Christianity is not compatible with evolution.  Hoping they're willing to consider THOSE facts.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


If this is FL's goal, then everyone has to admit that he has failed completely.

Not a single individual has been convinced by FL's flawed arguments.  How could they?  His so-called "incompatibilities" are actually cries of "I know that faith in Christianity and knowledge of evolution are compatible, but I wish they weren't!"

No one has come over from any other discussion board to support FL.  Why should they?  No one wants to associate himself with FL's raving disregard for both faith and knowledge.
Posted by: Jasper on Oct. 18 2009,13:16

I would like to suggest a new name for this thread:

Schadenfloyde.







Edit: Sorry, once it popped into my brain, I just couldn't resist.




Posted by: dnmlthr on Oct. 18 2009,13:57

Quote (Jasper @ Oct. 18 2009,19:16)
I would like to suggest a new name for this thread:

Schadenfloyde.







Edit: Sorry, once it popped into my brain, I just couldn't resist.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Post of the timeframe until another post is named post of the timeframe until another ...!

ETA: speling.
Posted by: Amadan on Oct. 18 2009,15:59

I nearly posted something about a Floydian slip but I have standards.

dnmlthr: Your avatar illustrates the practice of ducking into a crocodile. Have you notified Kirk Cameron?
Posted by: Louis on Oct. 18 2009,16:48

Well I'm going to mention it before anyone else gets there. Surely FL's posts can be seen as a case of haemafloyds. They are often diseased, painful little bubbles that pop out of an arsehole.

My coat. I has gone to gets it.

Louis
Posted by: didymos on Oct. 18 2009,19:12

Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 17 2009,09:00)
No, the point is that some of you are hypocrites who traffic in double standards.  Are you one of them?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Anyone notice this was Floyd's last post?  It's been about 32 hours since then.  Did we break him?
Posted by: Amadan on Oct. 18 2009,19:19

My hypothesis, which is mine*, is that puns are the the literary and rhetorical counterpart of flatulence. The pressure to release them is bearable in inverse proportion to the social acceptability of doing so, and the pleasure in their delivery is measured by the distress caused to persons upon whom they are inflicted.

(Ok. I'll get Louis's coat...)



* and it is mine too
Posted by: deadman_932 on Oct. 18 2009,19:39

Quote (Amadan @ Oct. 18 2009,19:19)
My hypothesis, which is mine*, is that puns are the the literary and rhetorical counterpart of flatulence. The pressure to release them is bearable in inverse proportion to the social acceptability of doing so, and the pleasure in their delivery is measured by the distress caused to persons upon whom they are inflicted.

(Ok. I'll get Louis's coat...)

* and it is mine too
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


So you're saying that Jasper just gave the thread a < "Dutch Oven." >
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Oct. 18 2009,20:48

Quote (didymos @ Oct. 18 2009,20:12)
Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 17 2009,09:00)
No, the point is that some of you are hypocrites who traffic in double standards.  Are you one of them?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Anyone notice this was Floyd's last post?  It's been about 32 hours since then.  Did we break him?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


perhaps he doesn't use the interwebz on the sabbath.  well, on sunday, which he calls the sabbath.  

or perhaps he is diddling goats.

i've some questions for the sad little man upon his return.
Posted by: OgreMkV on Oct. 18 2009,20:51

We better not have broken him.  We haven't even gotten to the teach ID in science yet.
Posted by: Henry J on Oct. 18 2009,22:16



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
We haven't even gotten to the teach ID in science yet.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


What?

You mean we have forty or fifty pages of that to look forward to? :O

Henry
Posted by: Robin on Oct. 19 2009,07:48

[quote=Lou FCD,Oct. 17 2009,18:23][/quote]


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
And he was all like, "No way. That place is for TARDs and Liars. Here's what I got for scientists:"


---------------------QUOTE-------------------



I want to go to there.
Posted by: FloydLee on Oct. 19 2009,08:43



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Anyone notice this was Floyd's last post?  It's been about 32 hours since then.  Did we break him?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Are you k.i.d.d.i.n.g, boys?  Good to see Lou getting upset at Keelyn's post, btw.

FloydLee    :)
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Oct. 19 2009,09:01

Oh, there he is.

Floyd....

Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Oct. 17 2009,18:40)
Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Oct. 17 2009,11:57)
 
Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Oct. 16 2009,18:23)
Ahem

answer please

   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
why is god not part of the required explanation for why water runs downhill, when he is part of the required explanation for the EXISTENCE OF WATER?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------




remember, you claimed this.  i want to know why you say this is true, or i want you to admit that in fact it is not true and you have been lying.  

THEN answer this

   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------

what is the difference between

   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


God Said Let the earth bring forth.. and it was so
---------------------QUOTE-------------------





and

   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


The earth bringed forth
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



---------------------QUOTE-------------------


???

then you can tell us why you add words unto the bible and don't fear damnation and hellfire. is it because you don't really believe all this stuff you are saying?  that would be the simplest explanation for your bad faith and dishonesty.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


hey floyd when you get off the pulpit you might want to answer these questions
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


after you are done playing street preacher...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: FloydLee on Oct. 19 2009,09:21

Your water question has been answered, Erasmus.  It's done.  You're done.  On the other question of yours, the Bible didn't say that the earth "bringeth forth" by itself.  Didn't happen naturally, (it took a supernatural command from God) and it all happened in a single 24-hr day (and you've already been given the biblical evidence on that), which totally excludes evolution as a possible explanation.

Any other questions?
Posted by: OgreMkV on Oct. 19 2009,09:36

What about all the other questions that you haven't answered (not to mention all the posts you siad you were going to get to, but never did) floyd?
Posted by: deadman_932 on Oct. 19 2009,09:59

Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 19 2009,08:43)
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Anyone notice this was Floyd's last post?  It's been about 32 hours since then.  Did we break him?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Are you k.i.d.d.i.n.g, boys?  Good to see Lou getting upset at Keelyn's post, btw.

FloydLee    :)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Enjoy seeing emotional upset between other human beings, do we Floyd? That's some evil shit, there.

Before you try to accuse me of hypocrisy, I'll point out that me poking at you alone is not the same as me enjoying the discord of others against you and saying "it's good." I'd much rather tell you to your face directly, solo, that you're a serpentine little fuckhead. That others get upset over such things is not a source of "good" to me.

Your willingness to believe that your faith allows you to engage in this sort of behavior reminds me of the inherent temptations of evil in such pursuits. People like you have used their religious beliefs to justify everything from "it's good to see emotional upset" to "slavery is allowable" or even "God won't mind if those heathens die."

Your reaction is indicative of the depths you're willing to go to, and there's really no limit to that kind of sheer evil when you have no real ethical and moral code of your own, Floyd. Don't pretend that the Bible = your ethical/moral code when you've violated strictures within it several times in this thread alone. You merely use the Bible to justify what your fucked-up ego wants to do.
Posted by: FloydLee on Oct. 19 2009,10:25

CM:  do you remember bringing up the Nicene Creed?
     

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
We believe in one God the Father Almighty,

Maker of heaven and earth, (Genesis 1: 1)  

and of all things visible and invisible. (Colossians 1: 15-16.)


And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of God, begotten of the Father before all worlds, God of God, Light of Light, Very God of Very God, begotten, not made, being of one substance with the Father

by whom all things were made (Hebrews 1: 1-2) ;

who for us men, and for our salvation, came down from heaven, and was incarnate by the Holy Spirit of the Virgin Mary, and was made man, and was crucified also for us under Pontius Pilate. He suffered and was buried, and the third day he rose again according to the Scriptures, and ascended into heaven, and sitteth on the right hand of the Father. And he shall come again with glory to judge both the quick and the dead, whose kingdom shall have no end.

And we believe in the Holy Spirit,

the Lord and Giver of Life (Genesis 1:2) ,

who proceedeth from the Father and the Son, who with the Father and the Son together is worshipped and glorified, who spoke by the prophets. And we believe one holy catholic and apostolic Church. We acknowledge one baptism for the remission of sins. And we look for the resurrection of the dead, and the life of the world to come. Amen.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


**********************

Two questions, CM:

(1)  Do you believe the Nicene Creed is literally true in its entirety?

(2)  The highlighted portions bring up the First Incompatibility.  They point out that God is the Required Explanation for cosmological and biological origins.   They very sharply clash with evolution, which denies that God is the Required Explanation.  
So how do you resolve the incompatibility between evolution and the Nicene Creed?
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Oct. 19 2009,10:37

Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 19 2009,10:21)
Your water question has been answered, Erasmus.  It's done.  You're done.  On the other question of yours, the Bible didn't say that the earth "bringeth forth" by itself.  Didn't happen naturally, (it took a supernatural command from God) and it all happened in a single 24-hr day (and you've already been given the biblical evidence on that), which totally excludes evolution as a possible explanation.

Any other questions?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


you didn't answer the water question, Floyd.

again.

you said that God was not required as part of the explanation for water running downhill, but was required to explain water itself.

you said that.

your answer when i asked you?  you said evilutionists wouldn't accept that.

but that wasn't the question.  the question was why YOU said that god is not required to explain water running downhill, when you claim that god is required to explain the existence of water.

so, again,

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
is god required to explain why water runs downhill?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



If yes, then apparently god is required to explain EVERYTHING.  Using simple algebra we find that explanations that don't invoke god do not suffer from any loss of explanatory power.  none.  

And, you have been dishonest.  if you say yes then please admit that you were wrong and that you have changed your mind.

If the answer is no, god is not required to explain water running down hill, then why is god required to explain biological evolution?  



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
On the other question of yours, the Bible didn't say that the earth "bringeth forth" by itself.  Didn't happen naturally, (it took a supernatural command from God) and it all happened in a single 24-hr day (and you've already been given the biblical evidence on that), which totally excludes evolution as a possible explanation.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



it doesn't matter if it is by itself or not Floyd.  see above.  if the earth bringed forth plants and animals at the command of god, whether or not that command is explicitly stated in the bible or on the restroom wall of the bus station in newark, the end material result is the same:  The earth bringed forth plants and animals.  

The evidence excludes the explanation in genesis from being a realistic historical account of the history of life but it doesn't rule out that genesis might not contain a divinely inspired allegorical understanding of that process.  I am inclined to think it doesn't, but I agree that i am largely prejudiced against that notion by lying dishonest ignorance peddlers such as yourself who make such a mockery of reason and good faith in their attempts to make the argument that the bible contains anything resembling truth.  

so, answer the question floyd.  For you.  Not as you think what some evilutionist somewhere will accept, and not the opinion of some plumber in Ottawa.  You claimed it, you back it up.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
why is god not required to explain why water runs downhill when god is required to explain the existence of water?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: Lou FCD on Oct. 19 2009,10:41

So I bumped into Jesus this morning and asked him what he thought of Floyd and his lies and blasphemy and general twatitude.

He sent a message for you, Floyd.






---------------------QUOTE-------------------
< Ahhh cool ass picture >, by spankmeeehard
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: FloydLee on Oct. 19 2009,10:43



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Enjoy seeing emotional upset between other human beings, do we Floyd? That's some evil shit, there.

Before you try to accuse me of hypocrisy,
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Yeah, you saw THAT potential counter coming a mile away, didn't you Deadman?  

The fact is that you (the official "Self Appointed Referee" of the thread) have allowed all kinds of malodorous moo-moo (including sexual profanities, mocking of Christian beliefs, etc) to be thrown at me without the slightest ethical cautions coming from you.  

So baby, I do not care.  I do not ask for your sympathy, in fact I don't ask for anything from you.  And you may want to avoid talking about "ego" around me, because that will only leave you wide open to the accusation you don't wanna hear. 

Oh, and it might be a good idea to actually SUBSCRIBE to a particular faith before trying too hard to preach to a member of that faith about what that faith permits or prohibits.  Otherwise you'll still come off sounding like you're a big fat...... Hypocrite!!!

FloydLee     :)
Posted by: deadman_932 on Oct. 19 2009,11:01

Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 19 2009,10:43)
   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Enjoy seeing emotional upset between other human beings, do we Floyd? That's some evil shit, there.

Before you try to accuse me of hypocrisy,
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Yeah, you saw THAT potential counter coming a mile away, didn't you Deadman?  

The fact is that you (the official "Self Appointed Referee" of the thread) have allowed all kinds of malodorous moo-moo (including sexual profanities, mocking of Christian beliefs, etc) to be thrown at me without the slightest ethical cautions coming from you.  

So baby, I do not care.  I do not ask for your sympathy, in fact I don't ask for anything from you.  And you may want to avoid talking about "ego" around me, because that will only leave you wide open to the accusation you don't wanna hear. 

Oh, and it might be a good idea to actually SUBSCRIBE to a particular faith before trying too hard to preach to a member of that faith about what that faith permits or prohibits.  Otherwise you'll still come off sounding like you're a big fat...... Hypocrite!!!

FloydLee     :)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I'll remind you that you decided to break your word regarding abiding by thread agreements, Floyd, and that if this had not occured -- I would have striven to ensure that such things would not have happened, Floyd.

I specifically warned you that if you did NOT abide by your previous agreements, that "all bets were off."
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Deadman_932 wrote:
"Remember my caveats – start preaching, witnessing or fail to adhere to good-faith discussion/debate standards and all “rules” go out the window. Your choices determine that. < http://pandasthumb.org/archive....-193695 >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Right, Floyd?

And before accusing me of *not* actually subscribing to your faith, you should have primary evidence that I do or do not, Floyd, and you don't have that. Yet you're willing to make any sort of wild unsupported accusation -- just to play propaganda games and excuse your own crap, Floyd.

In short, your cries of hypocrisy are merely more of your self-serving bullshit.
Posted by: Lou FCD on Oct. 19 2009,11:02

< lol >
Posted by: OgreMkV on Oct. 19 2009,11:02

Questions Floyd has not answered:

Floyd, do you understand that the opinions of scientists and theologists about evolutionary are entirely different from the tenets of evolutionary theory?


Quote (OgreMkV @ Oct. 17 2009,11:32)

1) Erasmus questions about the water and why God is required for water and why he's not required for water to flow downhill
2) You haven't answer CM question about whether CM is a Christian or not
3) You haven't answered any of the three responses you've gotten for your big five fallacies
4) You haven't answered my question about "Do you really not understand that you translate some parts of the bible literally and some parts metaphorically and you claim to translate the whole thing literally?"
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



and...

Floyd, do you understand that the opinions of scientists and theologists about evolutionary are entirely different from the tenets of evolutionary theory?

In direct response to "actually SUBSCRIBE to a particular faith before trying too hard to preach to a member of that faith about what that faith permits or prohibits", I'd just like to point out that
1) Some of the people here do subcribe to Chrisitianity
2) I don't think anyone subscribes to the faith you seem to be
3) We're not basing our comments on your faith on anything EXCEPT what you have specifically said.
Posted by: FloydLee on Oct. 19 2009,11:02



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
the question was why YOU said that god is not required to explain water running downhill, when you claim that god is required to explain the existence of water.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Here's a question for you too. Now that I've answered your question, (yes I did), would you mind explaining how that question was relevant specifically to this thread topic?
Posted by: Lou FCD on Oct. 19 2009,11:03

P.S.
Quote (Lou FCD @ Oct. 17 2009,09:27)
Nosce inimicum tuum
---------------------QUOTE-------------------




Posted by: dnmlthr on Oct. 19 2009,11:08

Louis' albatross model of creationist debating tactics still applies. Boy am I surprised.
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Oct. 19 2009,11:38

Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 19 2009,12:02)
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
the question was why YOU said that god is not required to explain water running downhill, when you claim that god is required to explain the existence of water.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Here's a question for you too. Now that I've answered your question, (yes I did), would you mind explaining how that question was relevant specifically to this thread topic?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


got a link?  I don't think you ever answered it.  The only attempt you made was when you said "because evilutionists don't accept that".

which is not and never was the question.

you made the claim.

i asked you why that was so.

saying "because that is the opinion of evolutionists" is not an answer, although it does destroy your argument from quote mining opinion of evolutionary biologists.  if that is your method of justification then all we have to do is find one quote from a christian biologist who doesn't deny evolution then your big five fantasies fall flat.  like we told you that they did.

so again, answer the question floyd.

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
why do YOU CLAIM that god is not required to explain water running downhill, when YOU CLAIM that god is required to explain the existence of water.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



and when you answer that, luv, I'll beat you with the answer until you understand why it's relevant to the thread topic.
Posted by: JohnW on Oct. 19 2009,11:41

Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 19 2009,08:25)
(1)  Do you believe the Nicene Creed is literally true in its entirety?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


What a stupid question.

It's a statement of beliefs, Floyd.  What do you mean "is it true?"  Is it literally true in its entirety that people who state these beliefs really have these beliefs?
Posted by: nmgirl on Oct. 19 2009,12:06

I think Floyd's head exploded.
Posted by: FloydLee on Oct. 19 2009,12:12



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
got a link?  I don't think you ever answered it.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



So now I gotta go back through 50+ pages and show you what you missed/omitted/didn't address/whatnot.
Posted by: deadman_932 on Oct. 19 2009,12:19

Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 19 2009,12:12)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
got a link?  I don't think you ever answered it.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



So now I gotta go back through 50+ pages and show you what you missed/omitted/didn't address/whatnot.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


All you have to do is find the response you claim you made

This is easily done by looking through your own posts available by clicking on your own name. < http://antievolution.org/feature....=Submit >

Of course, you'd have had to actually make a response other than what Erasmus already noted.
Posted by: FloydLee on Oct. 19 2009,12:21



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
quote mining opinion of evolutionary biologists
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Deadman's earlier accusation of "quotemining" was wiped out literally quote by quote, evolutionist by evolutionist.  

You never attempted to help him on that one.  Why?
Posted by: Lou FCD on Oct. 19 2009,12:21

Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 19 2009,13:12)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
got a link?  I don't think you ever answered it.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



So now I gotta go back through 50+ pages and show you what you missed/omitted/didn't address/whatnot.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


waaaah

Why not? It's fifty pages of everyone else showing you "what you missed/omitted/didn't address/whatnot" (and you can file "lied about, didn't understand, evaded, and quote-mined" under "whatnot").

Seems more than fair.
Posted by: Tracy P. Hamilton on Oct. 19 2009,12:24

Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 19 2009,12:12)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
got a link?  I don't think you ever answered it.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



So now I gotta go back through 50+ pages and show you what you missed/omitted/didn't address/whatnot.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



It is a very simple question, and you have NOT answered it.  No need to wade through 50 pages, just provide a simple, direct answer.  The relevance of the question is obvious to anybody with enough neurons to make a synapse.
Posted by: FloydLee on Oct. 19 2009,12:33



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
The relevance of the question is obvious to anybody with enough neurons to make a synapse.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Then go ahead and simply say out loud what that relevance is.  If you can.  Or are you afraid of the response that might come your way?
Posted by: deadman_932 on Oct. 19 2009,12:34

Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 19 2009,12:21)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
quote mining opinion of evolutionary biologists
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Deadman's earlier accusation of "quotemining" was wiped out literally quote by quote, evolutionist by evolutionist.  

You never attempted to help him on that one.  Why?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Liar

Why are you avoiding Erasmus' question and trying to throw up distractions?
Posted by: FloydLee on Oct. 19 2009,12:45



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Liar
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


No, I was watching close to see what would happen.

Neither Erasmus nor any of your other pals went to bat for you on that one.  A bit surprising, honestly.
Posted by: deadman_932 on Oct. 19 2009,13:00

Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 19 2009,12:45)
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Liar
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


No, I was watching close to see what would happen.

Neither Erasmus nor any of your other pals went to bat for you on that one.  A bit surprising, honestly.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Anyone that wants to can read the thread to determine whether or not you quotemined, Floyd. Neither I nor anyone else that responds to you needs others to "go to bat" for them.

You're just using it as an avoidance/distraction/red herring at the moment.

What you can't seem to do is point to your answer to Erasmus' question -- even though all you have to do is go through your posts.  

That's not surprising, honestly
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Oct. 19 2009,13:03



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
why do YOU CLAIM that god is not required to explain water running downhill, when YOU CLAIM that god is required to explain the existence of water.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Hey, you could just try to answer it again.  

Since NO ONE ELSE HAS SEEN THE ANSWER

your google fu is apparently as weak as the rest of your shtick (really, deadman held your hand all the way to the finish line there and you still have a limp dick).




---------------------QUOTE-------------------
why do YOU CLAIM that god is not required to explain water running downhill, when YOU CLAIM that god is required to explain the existence of water.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: Albatrossity2 on Oct. 19 2009,13:07

Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 19 2009,12:45)
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Liar
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


No, I was watching close to see what would happen.

Neither Erasmus nor any of your other pals went to bat for you on that one.  A bit surprising, honestly.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


He didn't need much help shooting the fish in your tiny barrel. Why do you think it is a measure of your "success" to have only one person at a time demolish your claims? I suspect that if folks had piled on there, you would now be claiming that you must have hit a nerve, since so many evilutionists were needed to address your "argument".

Meanwhile, you use distractors like this to avoid answering Erasmus' simple question.

Pathetic.
Posted by: FloydLee on Oct. 19 2009,13:13



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Anyone that wants to can read the thread to determine whether or not you quotemined, Floyd.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Convenient answer, given that you were allowed to twist in the wind.  Evolution produces such traitorous homies these days!!
Posted by: deadman_932 on Oct. 19 2009,13:18

Still can't point to your "answer" to Erasmus, Floyd? Desperate for distractions?
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Oct. 19 2009,13:24

Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 19 2009,13:33)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
The relevance of the question is obvious to anybody with enough neurons to make a synapse.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Then go ahead and simply say out loud what that relevance is.  If you can.  Or are you afraid of the response that might come your way?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


while you are looking for your "answer" you will probably find at least five instances where i have discussed the relevance of this question to the rest of your denial program.  

when you get a chance



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
why do YOU CLAIM that god is not required to explain water running downhill, when YOU CLAIM that god is required to explain the existence of water.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: SLP on Oct. 19 2009,13:24

Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 19 2009,12:21)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
quote mining opinion of evolutionary biologists
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Deadman's earlier accusation of "quotemining" was wiped out literally quote by quote, evolutionist by evolutionist.  

You never attempted to help him on that one.  Why?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Oro.

Fail.

Then of course there is  your patented 'Whomever I quote is the ultimate authority on whatever I am quoting them on - be it a veterinarian discussing vestigial structures of a chiropracter claiming that the coccyx anchors the nervous system - my quotes represent absolute TROOOOF!''....
Posted by: FloydLee on Oct. 19 2009,13:34



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Oro.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Hmm.  Didn't I take a few minutes and knock that one outta the park, SLP?  (Erasmus didn't give you any help either, as I recall.)
Posted by: deadman_932 on Oct. 19 2009,13:37

Rinse, repeat:
Quote (deadman_932 @ Oct. 19 2009,13:18)
Still can't point to your "answer" to Erasmus, Floyd? Desperate for distractions?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: snorkild on Oct. 19 2009,13:38

Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 19 2009,12:12)
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
got a link?  I don't think you ever answered it.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



So now I gotta go back through 50+ pages and show you what you missed/omitted/didn't address/whatnot.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Why don't you just repeat the answer?

It can't be that difficult, can it?

And don't forget to bookmark it, just in case.

(I have followed the thread, and as far as I remember you evaded the question rather than answering it).
Posted by: FloydLee on Oct. 19 2009,13:46

Somebody please let CM know that his gig on the Nicene Creed has been answered.
Posted by: deadman_932 on Oct. 19 2009,13:49

And when will you be pointing to your answer to Erasmus, Floyd?
Posted by: Lou FCD on Oct. 19 2009,13:57

Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Oct. 02 2009,13:37)
 
Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 02 2009,12:03)
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Is "God" part of the required explanation for why water runs downhill?

Yes or no.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Nope.  He's not.  Furthermore, hydrologists (unlike evolutionists) are silent on the issue of God as a required explantion.

(Please note, however:  In the Bible, God IS the required explanation for the origin of water itself.)

And also He is the Required Explanation for the origin of plants, animals, and (this is where you come in) humans too.

Of course, evolution and evolutionists deny that.  Which is why there's an Incompatiblity there.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


why is god not part of the required explanation for why water runs downhill, when he is part of the required explanation for the EXISTENCE OF WATER?

Here is your problem*.  

You misunderstand scientific explanation.

hells bells I ALREADY KNOW THAT FOR YOU GOD IS THE REQUIRED EXPLANATION FOR EVERY SINGLE THING YOU COULD POSSIBLY IMAGINE.

that's an ontological issue, not an issue with scientific explanation.

nothing makes sense, TO YOU, without your god as the starting point.  Fine.  

THAT'S

* the proximate problem.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


< Link >
Posted by: OgreMkV on Oct. 19 2009,14:01

Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 19 2009,13:46)
Somebody please let CM know that his gig on the Nicene Creed has been answered.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


In what way 'answered'?  As I recall the question was, "Do you, Floyd, agree with the creed?"

I have seen you attack CM, bu that's all in the last day.

Oh, there's a whole list of questions to answer instead of playing word games with whether it's answered or not.  Just restate your answer.  It's not that hard... unless there wasn't really an answer.
Posted by: FloydLee on Oct. 19 2009,14:07

Soooooo in fact, Erasmus's question has been answered from WAY WAY back.   Erasmus didn't like the anwer, (though the only thing he could do was whine, "You misunderstand scientific explanation", but he DID get an answer after all.

And that's not counting the ADDITIONAL time I addressed his question when addressing Nmgirl's revised version.  

(I even threw in the phrase "You listening, Erasmus?" in that particular post, just to make sure.)  

You've been answered at least twice, Erasmus.  

(Meanwhile, the Great Referee (heh!) remains stone-silent about your use of sexual profanity towards me.  Probably scared to say anything for fear of riling you up.)
Posted by: deadman_932 on Oct. 19 2009,14:07

In Lou's post, we see a couple of things:

(1) First and most importantly, Floyd says that while God is responsible for the origin of water, God is not an explanation for why water flows downhill. Interesting, what?

(2) We see that Floyd could easily have found his "answer" by simply clicking on the links Erasmus has conveniently included in his posts, following them back to Oct. 2.

(3) We see the reason for Floyd's duplicity and avoidance, because he didn't answer the question of

"Why is God responsible for the origin of water but not why water flows downhill?"
Posted by: SLP on Oct. 19 2009,14:11

Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 13 2009,23:43)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Are we getting to the ID is science part soon or are we going to beat a dead horse for another few days?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I'd say in a few days.  I think it's clear now that a definite and documentable Incompatibility exists between evolution and Christianity, but there's a few posts I still want to address anyway.  

(For example, like that one poster who tried to bring up Ken Miller without realizing that (1) Ken Miller called us humans "lucky accidents" in FDG--an automatic reaffirmation of Incompatibility, and (2)  Rosenhouse's argument (the 5th Incompatibility) was specifically targeted at Ken Miller anyway.)

SLP obviously wants to do a mini-debate on Oro, but since anything I post on that or other threads gets re-routed here anyway, (and since the bulk of the posting that was needed here on this topic is done), I might take one day or so just to engage SLP.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


If by "knocked out of the park" you mean engaged in sheer repetitive denial and truly bizarre extrapolations, coupled with a refusal to admit that you have had a tendency to present a doctored quote, then sure.

====================================


---------------------QUOTE-------------------


---------------------QUOTE-------------------

"Real deal" just like your doctored Oro quote that you've been bandying about the nets for a few years now?

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Hardly doctored, SLP.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



So, do you really believe that omitting the first half of a sentence and then capitalizing the firt letter of the next word to make it appear as though the first half of the sentence was NOT lopped off is NOT doctoring a quote?

What DO you call it?

Here is what you typically present:

"Organic molecules evolved by natural selection, ultimately giving rise to life - possibly in the "warm little pond" that Darwin envisioned in his famous letter to Joseph Hooker (see chapter 3). "

Here is the actual sentence:

"In the oceans that then formed, both cometary and terrestrial (those synthesized directly in the environment) organic molecules evolved by natural selection, ultimately giving rise to life - possibly in the "warm little pond" that Darwin envisioned in his famous letter to Joseph Hooker (see chapter 3). "

My point in bringing this up is more to point out your general dishonesty when presenting quotes - for it is DISHONEST to lop off "In the oceans that then formed, both cometary and terrestrial (those synthesized directly in the environment) " and not even indicate that this had been done and to then try to cover up this editing by capitalizing the first letter of the next word.  Antics like yours have made many many people completely distrust YECs when presenting quotes.

And let us never mind that your whole premise is silly and absurd.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Nobel laureate Christian de Duve summarized the plenary session: "The participants unanimously accepted as indisputable the affirmation that the Universe, as well as life within it, are the products of long evolutionary histories,"
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



That's a direct echo of what Oro wrote in Schopf 2002 which I have quoted over the past few years.  
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Yes - and you misinterpreted/misrepresent that, too.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Needless to say, the next time you guys try to suddently pretend that abiogenesis is separate from evolution, I'll be quoting not only Oro but De Duve as well!!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


In other words, you will parade your invincible ignorance for all to see and pat yourself on the back while doing it.

You still simply cannot understand the difference between the concept of evolution and the theory of evolution.

How on earth a person can conflate the 'evolution' of the universe with the theory of evolution is a mystery.  I believe this is the usual creationist retreat position - when shown to have made an egregious error in an anti-evolution argument, do NOT under any circumstances acknowledge it, for to do so might imply that you are open to admitting error on other issues!

You are an incredibly deluded and intellectually dishonest person, and I say that with all sincerity.

*************************


---------------------QUOTE-------------------


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Notice that evolutionists posit the very same driving force for both prebiotic evolution and postbiotic evolution–natural selection. Hence prebiotic evolution is part and parcel of the overall theory of evolution.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



******
Good luck answering that one, SLP.  But honestly, you can't answer it, and you know it.  Oro simply made clear that abiogenesis is part and parcel of evolution.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Actually, I've answered it before.

Actually, about 6 other people agreed with my answer, and NONE, not even other YECs agreed with yours.

But first, I have to ask why you had always doctored the quote?

I thought you folks were supposed to be honest for fear of Yahweh's wrath?  I thought journalists would at least not rely on chopped quotes for fear of being found out and discredited.

Guess not.

I suspect you only used the doctored quote because the context showed how wild and unwarranted your extrapolations are.

The short answer is twofold:
1. "Linking" things together does not imply or necessitate reliance.
2. Even if it did, that is one person's opinion, not the concensus view

If you think relying on one person's non-consensus view proves your position true, then surely we can quote Hugh Ross as demonstrating that Creationists think the earth is old...

The longer answer:

YOU are the ONLY person who interprets the quote to indicate that abiogenesis is part of ToE. As is clear to EVERYONE but you, Oro is talking about 'evolution' as such, NOT the Theory of Evolution ala Darwin. Evolution by natural selection as in change through time molded by the environment, be that here on earth or in deep space. Why is that so hard for you to fathom?

Do you really think that refusing to budge on this makes you right or something?

Let me put this in perspective -


You and I are both citizens of the U.S. We are 'tied together' by this. Larry Moran is a Canadian citizen. Despite the fact that he is a citizen in his country and we are citizens in ours - all of us 'tied together' by the concept of citizenshp - we are no more 'dependant' upon Larry as a citizen of Canada for us to engage in our citizenship duties than biological evolution is dependant upon stellar or even abiotic evolution to produce new species.


Why are YEC cultists so darned afraid of being honest now and then? Is your "faith" really so fragile that admitting that you've basically lied about this going to destroy it?

And you claim a journalism background!?!


How do you think an editor would look upon you turning in a story in which had taken a quote from someone, lopped off half of it without indicating that you had done so, and presenting it to mean something that the author did not intend?


And I know you 'stand by' what you've written. W. Bush 'stood by' his claims that Iraq sought out uranium from Niger, too. That didn't make it true.

The evolutionist Oro does not REQUIRE that abiogenesis be part of the Theory of Evolution, as you have erroneously "interpreted" from the doctored quote from him that you've been parading around.

Acknowledging that the CONCEPT/PHENOMENON of "evolution" was involved in both both the origin of species and the origin of life (as well as the origins of stars, etc.) cannot, by any rational person, truly be interpreted to mean that the THEORY of biological evolution ala Darwin et al. thus CONTAINS abiogenesis as one of its foundational hypotheses.

You have had this explained to you before - I found this explanation written plainly to you a year ago on the MSNBC board (as well as PT), yet here you are, a year later, trotting out the same claim that you 'stand by', as if your confidence makes an error of interpretation not an error.

So, I guess I will just have to trot out the claims of creationist PhD Kurt Wise who not only acknowledges that there are transitional forms and that the fossil record provides good evidence for evolution, but that those who say otherwise are more or less lying.

Hey - a quote from a creationist himself - and one with a PhD no less - MUST be the truth!



---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Furthermore, one of your comrades came up with a very recent De Duve quotation, which only serves to reinforce what Oro said.


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
 
Nobel laureate Christian de Duve summarized the plenary session: "The participants unanimously accepted as indisputable the affirmation that the Universe, as well as life within it, are the products of long evolutionary histories...."

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


---Nmgirl's post, Oct 6th, 11:58, "International General 2009 (Conference)"  

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



You must be one horrible journalist.

Please look up the words "linkage" and "concept."


linkage:
factor or relationship that connects or ties one thing to another; link: Administration officials sought to establish linkage between grain sales and relaxed immigration laws.

concept:
a general notion or idea; conception.

The problem with you people seems to be that if the word 'evolution' is used in any way, you immediately conclude that it refers back to biological evolution, regardless of the context.

I should have thought that a journalist would at the very least have a better handle on basic language.


And..

You seem to want to ignore the bulk of Oro's passage and hone in solely on a few terms and phrases. And that is your main problem.

And also basic understanding - look at the sentence you just quoted again:

"The linkage from cosmic elements to cometary molecules to primitive Earth to biological evolution ties cosmochemical evolution to the origin of life. "

He is tying cosmochemical evolution to the origin of life. He is NOT tying the origin of life to bioloigical evolution, excpet in the sense that 'evolutiopn' is the overarching concpet that they share. The concepts are tied together by a common phenomenon.

Just like how gravity ties together falling, diving, dropping bombs, and planetary orbits. But diving is not a part of planetary orbiting.


Note that in the first sentence and into the second (the part you never quote) he wrote:

"In the mid-1800s, Darwin showed how the concept of evolution by natural selection applies to living systems. But evolution also operates in the inanimate world..."

Darwin showed how the concept of evolution by natural selection applies to living things. But Oro goes to explain that the CONCEPT also applies to other things.

Why oh why is that beyond your comprehension?

Also note how I produced the quote - I indicated via ellipses that the quote is not complete. You should understand that.


Anyone agree with your interpretation yet?

Oh, I forgot - you've never answered my questions re: your use of sources. Why do you think Oro's take on this, even if your twisted misinterpretation were correct, is the 'right' one? Why do you present his position as the ultimate, all-encompassing 'evo' position on this matter?

In fact, why do you do that with ALL of your sources? It does not matter the topic or who the person is - if they've said or written something that you interpret as being favorable to your position, you present them as beyond reproach and their claims as set in stone. Why do you do that? You also have the annoying, odd, and foolish habit of simply ignoring individual words in sentences that you do not like. I recently reviewed an old thread on vestigials, for example, in which you took part you insisted that the definition that you had gleaned from a textbook was the ultimate no-questions-asked defitnion of vestigial and you, as you've done with the Oro quote, only presented the part that indicated that vestigials had no function, yet when someone presented more of the quote indicating that reduced or different function (from the original) also counted, you just re-posted the now more complete quote and bolded the word "functionless" and insisted that your point was proved.

What sort of person does that and actually thinks that their point is made?
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Oct. 19 2009,14:13

Quote (Lou FCD @ Oct. 19 2009,14:57)
 
Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Oct. 02 2009,13:37)
   
Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 02 2009,12:03)
     

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Is "God" part of the required explanation for why water runs downhill?

Yes or no.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Nope.  He's not.  Furthermore, hydrologists (unlike evolutionists) are silent on the issue of God as a required explantion.

(Please note, however:  In the Bible, God IS the required explanation for the origin of water itself.)

And also He is the Required Explanation for the origin of plants, animals, and (this is where you come in) humans too.

Of course, evolution and evolutionists deny that.  Which is why there's an Incompatiblity there.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


why is god not part of the required explanation for why water runs downhill, when he is part of the required explanation for the EXISTENCE OF WATER?

Here is your problem*.  

You misunderstand scientific explanation.

hells bells I ALREADY KNOW THAT FOR YOU GOD IS THE REQUIRED EXPLANATION FOR EVERY SINGLE THING YOU COULD POSSIBLY IMAGINE.

that's an ontological issue, not an issue with scientific explanation.

nothing makes sense, TO YOU, without your god as the starting point.  Fine.  

THAT'S

* the proximate problem.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


< Link >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


that's where Floyd did answer a question.

i asked him (as everyone but him is capable of reading and understanding) if god was part of the "required explanation" for water running down hill.

he said  Nope, He's Not.  

Then he said "In the bible God IS the required explanation for the origin of water itself.".

When I asked him why god is not part of the required explanation for water running down hill when he IS the required explanation for water existing at all, he said

"Because evilutionists don't accept that" or something like that (pssst, hey stupid, YOU FIND IT.  if that's what you call an answer).

And that's where we are.  

Lou posted the preceding question, which to his credit Yodel Elf provided an answer to that question.

Upon the followup, he cunted punted and has never tried to recover.  

here you go Floyd, your shot big guy



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
why do YOU CLAIM that god is not required to explain water running downhill, when YOU CLAIM that god is required to explain the existence of water.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



ETA and now I see that this idiot is actually claiming, as a result of Lou's post



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Soooooo in fact, Erasmus's question has been answered from WAY WAY back.   Erasmus didn't like the anwer, (though the only thing he could do was whine, "You misunderstand scientific explanation", but he DID get an answer after all.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



No, fool, you never answered my question.  read for comprehension, simpleton.
Posted by: Lou FCD on Oct. 19 2009,14:13

Quote (FloydLee the lying blasphemer on his way to his own Hell where he will burn in torture forever @ Oct. 19 2009,15:07)
Soooooo in fact, Erasmus's question has been answered from WAY WAY back.   Erasmus didn't like the anwer, (though the only thing he could do was whine, "You misunderstand scientific explanation", but he DID get an answer after all.

And that's not counting the ADDITIONAL time I addressed his question when addressing Nmgirl's revised version.  

(I even threw in the phrase "You listening, Erasmus?" in that particular post, just to make sure.)  

You've been answered at least twice, Erasmus.  

(Meanwhile, the Great Referee (heh!) remains stone-silent about your use of sexual profanity towards me.  Probably scared to say anything for fear of riling you up.)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You didn't give an answer, tardbucket.

 
Quote (Erasmus @ way the fuck back on October 2)
why is god not part of the required explanation for why water runs downhill, when he is part of the required explanation for the EXISTENCE OF WATER?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------





 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
< Eschew Obfuscation >, by stonehouse
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Oct. 19 2009,14:19

it's really quite simple.  

if god is not part of the required explanation for why water runs downhill then he is not part of the required explanation for biological evolution.

if god is part of the required explanation for why water runs downhill then god is part of the required explanation for every single thing including the required explanation for why god is part of the required explanation of things.  

dividing by one, we get the same answer.

What is the answer, Floyd?  


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
why is god not part of the required explanation for why water runs downhill, when he is part of the required explanation for the EXISTENCE OF WATER?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: deadman_932 on Oct. 19 2009,14:21

Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 19 2009,14:07)
 

(Meanwhile, the Great Referee (heh!) remains stone-silent about your use of sexual profanity towards me.  Probably scared to say anything for fear of riling you up.)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Do I really need to remind you AGAIN that by you violating your agreement to abide by "good faith" rules in this thread, that you have lost any right to special treatment?

I've stated this several times already.

I also find it amusing as hell that you claim that post of yours (that Lou put up) to be an "answer" to the question of why God is responsible for the origins of water but not an explanation for why water flows downhill.
Posted by: FloydLee on Oct. 19 2009,14:23

Curious.  Why are you guys scared to address my post to Nmgirl in which I said, "You listening, Erasmus?"
Posted by: Lou FCD on Oct. 19 2009,14:28

Quote (Lou FCD @ Oct. 19 2009,14:57)
 
Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Oct. 02 2009,13:37)
why is god not part of the required explanation for why water runs downhill, when he is part of the required explanation for the EXISTENCE OF WATER?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


< Link >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You haven't answered the question yet, Floyd.



 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
< The Man - Pants On Fire (1234) >, by Ron's Log
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: FloydLee on Oct. 19 2009,14:29



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
if god is not part of the required explanation for why water runs downhill then he is not part of the required explanation for biological evolution.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


All that caterwauling and namecalling for a point that got effectively answered in my post to Nmgirl anway.
Posted by: deadman_932 on Oct. 19 2009,14:34

Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 19 2009,14:29)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
if god is not part of the required explanation for why water runs downhill then he is not part of the required explanation for biological evolution.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


All that caterwauling and namecalling for a point that got effectively answered in my post to Nmgirl anway.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


"effectively answered"

"in a post to NMGirl"

Compare that to your claims to have actually answered Erasmus.
Posted by: deadman_932 on Oct. 19 2009,14:38

I'll let you in on my little secret, Floyd-liar:

The reasons I decided to go ahead and get you to "debate" here were firstly because I thought it would be a good thing to get you away from the Panda's Thumb threads for a while.

Secondly, If you decide to return to PT, I thought it would be good to have this thread as a guide to your tactics and willingness to use your tactics (such as outright lies).

Thanks for your cooperation, Floyd. You've compiled quite a record here.
Posted by: Lou FCD on Oct. 19 2009,14:49

Quote (Lou FCD @ Oct. 19 2009,14:57)
       
Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Oct. 02 2009,13:37)
why is god not part of the required explanation for why water runs downhill, when he is part of the required explanation for the EXISTENCE OF WATER?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


< Link >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Does this remind anyone of anyone here?

 
Quote (Crazy John @ Revelation 21:8)
But the fearful [Floyd], and unbelieving [Floyd], and the abominable [I find him so, don't you? Floyd], and murderers [Not yet, as far as we know...], and whoremongers [I doubt Floyd is this much fun], and sorcerers [Does "poof" count as magic? I think so. Floyd], and idolaters [Worshipping a book included, presumably. Floyd], and all liars [BINGO FLOYD], shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone: which is the second death.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Welcome home, Floyd. I believe you are expected.



     

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
< Dante's Gates of Hell >, by Stuck in Customs
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Oct. 19 2009,14:56

Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 19 2009,15:29)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
if god is not part of the required explanation for why water runs downhill then he is not part of the required explanation for biological evolution.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


All that caterwauling and namecalling for a point that got effectively answered in my post to Nmgirl anway.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


lololol

silly little man

you willfully misunderstand "effectively answered" and "answered" just like you willfully misunderstand "directly" and "indirectly"

Your babble, no matter how you try to squint, or add words unto the scriptures, does not say How any one of your gods created plants and animals and people.

it just says  that they were brought forth BY THE EARTH, at the whim of a possibly nonverbal command.

if you don't have to mention god when you mention water running downhill (even though She spoke it into being!!!), then you don't have to mention god when you speak of the earth bringing forth plants and animals.

but enough.  answer the question and don't let me lead you on.
Posted by: Schroedinger's Dog on Oct. 19 2009,15:06

Lou, that last one is beautiful!

BTW:

SLP said

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
How do you think an editor would look upon you turning in a story in which had taken a quote from someone, lopped off half of it without indicating that you had done so, and presenting it to mean something that the author did not intend?

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



probably would give him a raise, when you see the sad state of modern journalism. is there a patern to Yodel Elf's thought process just there?
Posted by: FloydLee on Oct. 19 2009,15:07



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Do I really need to remind you AGAIN that by you violating your agreement to abide by "good faith" rules in this thread, that you have lost any right to special treatment?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Hey, I've never used sexual profanity---or profanity period--against anybody in this forum.  You were scared to tell me exactly what your religious beliefs were (and you still are) but if you had told me, I would NOT have mocked them or proselytized you.  

In fact, early in this thread, I made clear to another poster that I wasn't here to "save anybody's souls."

Further, you have three posters here who have made posts associated with "witnessing" (CM "praying for me", SD's sig line, and Lou's painting of a man entering Hell).  

Only after the latter's extremely obvious religious display (and his claim that the painting represented me), did I say anything in serious response of my own.  

And even then I didn't give Lou the finger, as he subsequently did me (in a blasphemous manner, of course.)

Not one of these boys was cautioned or whistled by you, the Great Referee.  It's like YOU got a ton of double standards and barely an ounce of ethics to your name (and even non-Christians are supposed to have ethics, you know).

You are not very concerned with good faith rules, not as much as you pretend.  Plus you are clearly scared stiff to actually call your pals on any "infractions", lest they turn on you and gnash with sharp teeth and germy salivas on your weak jello bones.

FloydLee   :)
Posted by: deadman_932 on Oct. 19 2009,15:14

Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 19 2009,15:07)
   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Do I really need to remind you AGAIN that by you violating your agreement to abide by "good faith" rules in this thread, that you have lost any right to special treatment?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Hey, I've never used sexual profanity---or profanity period--against anybody in this forum.  You were scared to tell me exactly what your religious beliefs were (and you still are) but if you had told me, I would NOT have mocked them or proselytized you.  

[snip]

Not one of these boys was cautioned or whistled by you, the Great Referee.  It's like YOU got a ton of double standards and barely an ounce of ethics to your name (and even non-Christians are supposed to have ethics, you know).

You are not very concerned with good faith rules, not as much as you pretend. [snip]

FloydLee   :)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Fair treatment for you was abandoned by you, after this post, Floyd:  

   
Quote (deadman_932 @ Sep. 22 2009,15:22)
Floyd Lee: Beyond your shameful display of fallacy-weilding recently, I'd like to remind you of your "good faith" obligations here:

     

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Deadman_932 wrote:
"Remember my caveats – start preaching, witnessing or fail to adhere to good-faith discussion/debate standards and all “rules” go out the window. Your choices determine that." < http://pandasthumb.org/archive....-193695 >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------




     

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Deadman_932 wrote:
"Added comments to FL: If you’d like to discuss terms, such as what might constitute preaching/witnessing or failure to adhere to good-faith standards, feel free to post your points at AtBC. I can lay out my views in detail. Generalized good-faith agreements lay bare individual ethics and morals. Obviously, it’s up to you to determine how you present yourself. " < http://pandasthumb.org/archive....-193696 >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



and from my second post in this very thread:

       

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Deadman_932 wrote:
"Keep in mind that debate is dialogue, not monologue, and that civility (well, to a decent, ethical person) would require *directly* addressing the points of your opponent (as I have with you). " < http://www.antievolution.org/cgi-bin....y153036 >

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



I'm hopeful for you, Floyd -- I'm hopeful that you'll find the personal ethics to live up to what you'd agreed to in terms of "good faith" behavior.

Surprise me.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Your avoidance of Erasmus (again) is duly noted. Also, I'd like to point out that just a page or so ago, you claimed to know my religious beliefs:
 
Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 19 2009,10:43)
Oh, and it might be a good idea to actually SUBSCRIBE to a particular faith before trying too hard to preach to a member of that faith about what that faith permits or prohibits.  Otherwise you'll still come off sounding like you're a big fat...... Hypocrite!!!

FloydLee     :)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Yet here:
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
You were scared to tell me exactly what your religious beliefs were (and you still are) but if you had told me, I would NOT have mocked them or proselytized you.  

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You say I was "to scared to tell" you. (Another lie in itself).

How you can pretend to simultaneously KNOW (in unqualified terms) that I "didn't subscribe" to Christianity, THEN state (admit, really) that I was "too scared" to tell you my beliefs...well, that speaks for itself.


The lies never seem to end with you, Floyd.
Posted by: OgreMkV on Oct. 19 2009,15:18

Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 19 2009,15:07)

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I bet if you answer the question... and the other questions... and make the posts you said you would make... and discuss the refutations of the five fallacies... and, just perhaps, admit that you have made an error or two...

then they will quit treating you like a troll and we can get back serious debate instead of whatever it is we've got.

There are several people on this thread that have stated that you did not answer the question.  Instead of screaming about whether you did or not, why not just answer the question?  It's easier, it's more respectful, and it contributes to the discussion rather than distracting from it.
Posted by: FloydLee on Oct. 19 2009,15:30



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
If you decide to return to PT, I thought it would be good to have this thread as a guide to your tactics and willingness to use your tactics (such as outright lies).
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Hey, check your back pages---it was ME who informed you guys that if you were smart you'd print off this thread.  As for the issue of "lying", you probbbbbably don't wanna go there Deadman!
Posted by: deadman_932 on Oct. 19 2009,15:32

Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 19 2009,15:30)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
If you decide to return to PT, I thought it would be good to have this thread as a guide to your tactics and willingness to use your tactics (such as outright lies).
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Hey, check your back pages---it was ME who informed you guys that if you were smart you'd print off this thread.  As for the issue of "lying", you probbbbbably don't wanna go there Deadman!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I can start with you lying about pretending to know my religious views -- then admitting I never stated them.

Or I could start with you stating you'd abide by the "good faith" standards of this thread, then breaking them. In between, there were a lot more.

And you still haven't answered Erasmus.
Posted by: Schroedinger's Dog on Oct. 19 2009,15:34

WATERLOOOOOO!!!!

But Ogre is quite right. if you would just show some honesty, Yodel Elf, I for one would stop berate you and would be delighted to finaly see a debate.

And for that, you would only have to admit that your first assertion that evolution and christianism are incompatible is wrong.*



*no one's holding their breath so far...
Posted by: FloydLee on Oct. 19 2009,15:50



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
then they will quit treating you like a troll and we can get back serious debate instead of whatever it is we've got.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


.....this coming from the guy who was sincerely asked to document his particular claim involving quotations in this thread and he did not do it.  

(This is the same guy who early on, decided to blame me for **his** going to hell--and apparently some other frictions earlier in life--which once again Deadman did not call him on his theological commentary there.)

Don't worry though Ogre, I've worked hard at trying to keep up with answering multiple posters and I intend to finish my topics with much seriousness.   I'm going to offer "serious debate" these last two weeks, no matter how many clowns decide to keep practicing for circus.
Posted by: deadman_932 on Oct. 19 2009,15:55

"Serious debate" meaning you'll actually be answering Erasmus? Or will you continue your tradition of avoidance, obfuscation and deception?
Posted by: FloydLee on Oct. 19 2009,16:00



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
But Ogre is quite right. if you would just show some honesty, Yodel Elf, I for one would stop berate you and would be delighted to finaly see a debate.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


The request is mutual, SD.  And can we be honest?  You did a sig line that mocked Christian belief, and there was no reason for you to go there.  I didnt' even call you on it, nor try to "preach" to you.  Great Referee Deadman was too silent and scared to call you on it.  His standards are double, I now believe.

I have worked to make sure at least a few of your posts were responded to also, and for a while there I even complimented you when you were acting like you were serious about providing a Christian clergy perspective---

---and you don't even have the cajones to acknowledge any of that now.
Posted by: deadman_932 on Oct. 19 2009,16:06

There can be no double standards when (1) you were the one to agree to standards that you later rejected, despite me warning you that you would have no room for complaint. (2) No one else was asked to agree with anything, but once YOU made your decision to abandon your word, I stated clearly that "all bets were off"

Yet you pretend it's anyone else's fault, much less mine, despite me warning you several times?

Hahaha

P.S. : You still haven't answered Erasmus.
Posted by: Henry J on Oct. 19 2009,16:09

Quote (deadman_932 @ Oct. 19 2009,12:00)
What you can't seem to do is point to your answer to Erasmus' question -- even though all you have to do is go through your posts.  

That's not surprising, honestly
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Well, I certainly wouldn't want to go through all of Floyd's posts, again.
Posted by: Schroedinger's Dog on Oct. 19 2009,16:13

Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 19 2009,23:00)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
But Ogre is quite right. if you would just show some honesty, Yodel Elf, I for one would stop berate you and would be delighted to finaly see a debate.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


The request is mutual, SD.  And can we be honest?  You did a sig line that mocked Christian belief, and there was no reason for you to go there.  I didnt' even call you on it, nor try to "preach" to you.  Great Referee Deadman was too silent and scared to call you on it.  His standards are double, I now believe.

I have worked to make sure at least a few of your posts were responded to also, and for a while there I even complimented you when you were acting like you were serious about providing a Christian clergy perspective---

---and you don't even have the cajones to acknowledge any of that now.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


The main difference here is that I am not bound to what you think as "offensive" or "blasphemous". I could as easily accuse you of heresy or blasphemy because you didn't greet us every morning with "Jupiter Fulgor be upon you", or "shall the peace of Buddah guide your day".

Everything is in the eye of the beholder, and if you are offended by my treatment of your personal belief, you are more than welcome to go somewhere else. This is no kindergarden, and you shall only receive what you seek to give.

And giving props because i tried to get a clergy man into this mess is not debate. For my part, I will plead guilty for trying to harrass a poor man who probably already has much to do with his flock (by the way, no answer from the churche's secretary about an interview on such matters.)
Posted by: Schroedinger's Dog on Oct. 19 2009,16:19

And by the way, the priest could as easily answer "God's ways are mysterious ways indeed" to each and every single one of your BFFs.

Where would that put the debate?


You see, this is the problem with blind faith. When you don't understand something, you can always call out goddidit. This is where science beats religions hands down...
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Oct. 19 2009,16:37

AAAAAAAAAND you still haven't answered Erasmus

"limp dick" got too many sexual innuendoes for you [probably got him flustered]

OK Floyd how about this

"you are still standing there with a flaccid penis"

OK problem solved.  no sexual connotation, just anatomical.  

See i read for comprehension and address the merits of the arguments and claims and respond in good faith.

You on the other hand are scared to answer a single little question.  

Tard.
Posted by: JohnW on Oct. 19 2009,16:48

Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 19 2009,14:00)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
But Ogre is quite right. if you would just show some honesty, Yodel Elf, I for one would stop berate you and would be delighted to finaly see a debate.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


The request is mutual, SD.  And can we be honest?  You did a sig line that mocked Christian belief, and there was no reason for you to go there.  I didnt' even call you on it, nor try to "preach" to you.  Great Referee Deadman was too silent and scared to call you on it.  His standards are double, I now believe.

I have worked to make sure at least a few of your posts were responded to also, and for a while there I even complimented you when you were acting like you were serious about providing a Christian clergy perspective---

---and you don't even have the cajones to acknowledge any of that now.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Disparaging the beliefs of millions of Christians who accept evolution: good.
Disparaging the beliefs of Floyd Lee: bad.
Posted by: FloydLee on Oct. 19 2009,16:55

I'll try asking you one more time, SLP.  I've already answered your post in honest detail (and you seem bent on ignoring that response, plus you didn't really answer the questions that I gave to you in that response previously.).

Anyway, here's your quote:


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
"Organic molecules evolved by natural selection, ultimately giving rise to life - possibly in the "warm little pond" that Darwin envisioned in his famous letter to Joseph Hooker (see chapter 3). "

Here is the actual sentence:

"In the oceans that then formed, both cometary and terrestrial (those synthesized directly in the environment) organic molecules evolved by natural selection, ultimately giving rise to life - possibly in the "warm little pond" that Darwin envisioned in his famous letter to Joseph Hooker (see chapter 3). "
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Can you---are you ABLE to---show me where the "actual sentence" CONTRADICTS the shorter quotation in ANY manner?  Sincere question, but don't play games on this one SLP.  

I already admitted previously that the shorter sentence was stylistically incorrect.  (I also pointed out that I never used the stylistically incorrect shorter sentence in anything other than Internet discussion forums...  You did not acknowledge this.)

Now you need to get honest--yeah, you--and show me where I have incorrectly quoted Oro, even in light of the longer sentence that both you and I have sometimes quoted.

Show me that I took Oro out of context or quotemined him or something.   If you are unable to then you don't have much of a complaint, quite honestly.

Go ahead. show me.
Posted by: deadman_932 on Oct. 19 2009,16:59

Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 19 2009,16:55)
I'll try asking you one more time, SLP.  I've already answered your post in honest detail (and you seem bent on ignoring that response, plus you didn't really answer the questions that I gave to you in that response previously.).

Anyway, here's your quote:
   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
"Organic molecules evolved by natural selection, ultimately giving rise to life - possibly in the "warm little pond" that Darwin envisioned in his famous letter to Joseph Hooker (see chapter 3). "

Here is the actual sentence:

"In the oceans that then formed, both cometary and terrestrial (those synthesized directly in the environment) organic molecules evolved by natural selection, ultimately giving rise to life - possibly in the "warm little pond" that Darwin envisioned in his famous letter to Joseph Hooker (see chapter 3). "
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Can you---are you ABLE to---show me where the "actual sentence" CONTRADICTS the shorter quotation in ANY manner?  Sincere question, but don't play games on this one SLP.  

I already admitted previously that the shorter sentence was stylistically incorrect.  (I also pointed out that I never used the stylistically incorrect shorter sentence in anything other than Internet discussion forums...  You did not acknowledge this.)

Now you need to get honest--yeah, you--and show me where I have incorrectly quoted Oro, even in light of the longer sentence that both you and I have sometimes quoted.

Show me that I took Oro out of context or quotemined him or something.   If you are unable to then you don't have much of a complaint, quite honestly.

Go ahead. show me.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


"The practice of quoting out of context, sometimes referred to as "contextomy" or "quote mining", is a logical fallacy and type of false attribution in which a passage is removed from its surrounding matter in such a way as to distort its intended meaning " < http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy_of_quoting_out_of_context >

Memorize that, Floyd.

.
.
P.S. You still haven't answered Erasmus, Floyd.
Posted by: FloydLee on Oct. 19 2009,17:00

Furthermore, you were directly shown that Oro did NOT limit it to the mere "concept" of evolution at all.  For example, "Organic molecules evolved by natural selection" is a statement of actuality.  He's actually ascribing the origin of life to evolution---furthermore, the SAME KIND of evolution as the postbiotic arena---with the driving force being natural selection.

For you to pretend that Oro is merely dealing with the "concept" of evolution is---how did you put it?---"Dishonest."

How does it feel to be a dishonest evolutionist, SLP?
Posted by: FloydLee on Oct. 19 2009,17:03



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
"The practice of quoting out of context, sometimes referred to as "contextomy" or "quote mining", is a logical fallacy and type of false attribution in which a passage is removed from its surrounding matter in such a way as to distort its intended meaning."
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Great definition Deadman.  Now go ahead and show that the shorter Oro quotation was a quotemine.  You have the shorter and longer quotations in front of you.  You have your definition in front of you. Now produce.

Or simply admit that you're mistaken.  Or dishonest.  Or something.     :)
Posted by: deadman_932 on Oct. 19 2009,17:04

Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 19 2009,17:00)
Furthermore, you were directly shown that Oro did NOT limit it to the mere "concept" of evolution at all.  For example, "Organic molecules evolved by natural selection" is a statement of actuality.  He's actually ascribing the origin of life to evolution---furthermore, the SAME KIND of evolution as the postbiotic arena---with the driving force being natural selection.

For you to pretend that Oro is merely dealing with the "concept" of evolution is---how did you put it?---"Dishonest."

How does it feel to be a dishonest evolutionist, SLP?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Modern biological evolution = differential change in allele frequencies, Floyd.

"E-volvere" in other contexts, such as with inorganic or organic cemicals, simply and *literally* means "change through time" Stars "evolve." Chemicals change through time. Oceans "evolve" Ideas "evolve."

The same word can have different definitions in differing contexts, Floyd. The fact that you try to use quotemining and equivocation to pretend they mean the same precise thing is indicative of your lack of credibility.

By the way, Floyd, you still haven't answered Erasmus.
Posted by: FloydLee on Oct. 19 2009,17:06

Oh, and btw Deadman, I am very confident that you are not a Christian.  Do I know your exact beliefs?  Nope, because when I asked in sincerity, you refused.  I believe the refusal was out of fear.  So yeah, you've convinced me you're not a Christian.  

But lots of people are not Christians.  The problem here is that whatever you are, you have convinced me that you're unethical as well!
Posted by: Schroedinger's Dog on Oct. 19 2009,17:07

Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 19 2009,23:55)
I'll try asking you one more time, SLP.  I've already answered your post in honest detail (and you seem bent on ignoring that response, plus you didn't really answer the questions that I gave to you in that response previously.).

Anyway, here's your quote:
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
"Organic molecules evolved by natural selection, ultimately giving rise to life - possibly in the "warm little pond" that Darwin envisioned in his famous letter to Joseph Hooker (see chapter 3). "

Here is the actual sentence:

"In the oceans that then formed, both cometary and terrestrial (those synthesized directly in the environment) organic molecules evolved by natural selection, ultimately giving rise to life - possibly in the "warm little pond" that Darwin envisioned in his famous letter to Joseph Hooker (see chapter 3). "
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Can you---are you ABLE to---show me where the "actual sentence" CONTRADICTS the shorter quotation in ANY manner?  Sincere question, but don't play games on this one SLP.  

I already admitted previously that the shorter sentence was stylistically incorrect.  (I also pointed out that I never used the stylistically incorrect shorter sentence in anything other than Internet discussion forums...  You did not acknowledge this.)

Now you need to get honest--yeah, you--and show me where I have incorrectly quoted Oro, even in light of the longer sentence that both you and I have sometimes quoted.

Show me that I took Oro out of context or quotemined him or something.   If you are unable to then you don't have much of a complaint, quite honestly.

Go ahead. show me.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Indulge me, just one moment there.

When the sentence is presented as:

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Organic molecules evolved by natural selection, ultimately giving rise to life - possibly in the "warm little pond" that Darwin envisioned in his famous letter to Joseph Hooker (see chapter 3).
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

you are basically presenting a view that looks accepted and definitive.

But then when the sentence is presented as:

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
In the oceans that then formed, both cometary and terrestrial (those synthesized directly in the environment) organic molecules evolved by natural selection, ultimately giving rise to life - possibly in the "warm little pond" that Darwin envisioned in his famous letter to Joseph Hooker (see chapter 3).
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

you are presenting an opinion, an extrapolation, or a wild guess, even.

This is where scientific inquiery and knowledge come in. By taking off the first part of the sentence, it implies that the assertion is accepted as a given by Oro, and to a further extent from your mental rollercoaster, the whole scientific community.

As soon as you put back the full sentence in context, any person with an already existent knowledge of evolutionary science, will understand that this is a tentative argument, based on claims yet to be fully studied.

And again, the opinion of one doesn't make a theory...
Posted by: deadman_932 on Oct. 19 2009,17:08

Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 19 2009,17:06)
Oh, and btw Deadman, I am very confident that you are not a Christian.  Do I know your exact beliefs?  Nope, because when I asked in sincerity, you refused.  I believe the refusal was out of fear.  So yeah, you've convinced me you're not a Christian.  

But lots of people are not Christians.  The problem here is that whatever you are, you have convinced me that you're unethical as well!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Being confident that I am not a Christian is not the same as knowing I am not, Floyd. Your statements were not qualified in that way. You lied.

And claiming that I refused to answer out of fear is another lie. I pointed out that I have never divulged my beliefs online because it is irrelevant to the debates. The only time it became actually relevant was when you falsely pretended to know my religious beliefs.

P.S. You still haven't answered Erasmus
Posted by: OgreMkV on Oct. 19 2009,17:12

Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 19 2009,15:50)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
then they will quit treating you like a troll and we can get back serious debate instead of whatever it is we've got.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


.....this coming from the guy who was sincerely asked to document his particular claim involving quotations in this thread and he did not do it.  

(This is the same guy who early on, decided to blame me for **his** going to hell--and apparently some other frictions earlier in life--which once again Deadman did not call him on his theological commentary there.)

Don't worry though Ogre, I've worked hard at trying to keep up with answering multiple posters and I intend to finish my topics with much seriousness.   I'm going to offer "serious debate" these last two weeks, no matter how many clowns decide to keep practicing for circus.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


First, good job with the distractions... why not answer the questions instead of trying to pass blame.

Now, let's see I said that because you are a liar, you are arrogant, you are intolerant, ignorant, and a poor Christian who would rather fight a losing battle on the "inerrant" bible than minister as Christians laws suggest, that I would rather spend eternity in hell than spend any amount of time in heaven with you and people like you.

That's what is called an OPINION, based on the listed facts.  If you can't handle the opinions, that you have nothing to counter and everything to corroborate, then that's not my problem.

Again, I want to discuss science and as a professional educator, I can't wait to talk about the teaching of ID in a classroom.  Instead, you choose to argue about whether or not you answered a question for all of today.

If you want to play word games, well, I can do that too.  It's not as much fun, it's much more subjective (unlike science which has facts), and it all comes down to who gets bored first.  Frankly, I'm already bored with it.

Again, it was a nice dodge though.  Let me ask this... why won't you just answer the question?  

BTW: By my record keeping, you are about 6 days behind on making the posts you said you would and yet you want to argue about piddling things.
Posted by: FloydLee on Oct. 19 2009,17:18

Ohhh please.  Why play with words?  You could refute me in one shot by simply saying what your hoenst core religious beliefs are.  If they match with biblical Christianity, (John 3:16, Romans 10:9-10, 1 Cor. 15:3-4), then voila!  You're a Christian and I would have to retract my statements.

Shoot, you could give the same kind of simple quickie statement that Nmgirl gave, and that would be sufficient to cause me to retract.  Shoot me down that fast.

But let us not lie, either one of us.  You know you ain't there.  Playing with words don't cut it.  If you could have, you would have done just like CM and royally announced that you are "the living refutation" of the thread topic simply because you were a professing Christian who also believes in evolution.  

You've had 54 pages to do just like Nmgirl, just like CM, just like the Pope.  And you ain't done it.  Because you CANNOT do it.  

At this point, I would testify in a court of law (even if I somehow got refuted and embarrassed later) that you ain't no Christian.  

Wanna disprove me?  Come outta your hidey-hole and say your core beliefs out loud, right here and now.  Let the redeemed of the Lord say so, if he's really down wit' the crew.  I say you ain't, and that you're scared to admit you ain't.  Shoot me down, disprove me, right now.
Posted by: Schroedinger's Dog on Oct. 19 2009,17:20

Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 20 2009,00:18)
Ohhh please.  Why play with words?  You could refute me in one shot by simply saying what your hoenst core religious beliefs are.  If they match with biblical Christianity, (John 3:16, Romans 10:9-10, 1 Cor. 15:3-4), then voila!  You're a Christian and I would have to retract my statements.

Shoot, you could give the same kind of simple quickie statement that Nmgirl gave, and that would be sufficient to cause me to retract.  Shoot me down that fast.

But let us not lie, either one of us.  You know you ain't there.  Playing with words don't cut it.  If you could have, you would have done just like CM and royally announced that you are "the living refutation" of the thread topic simply because you were a professing Christian who also believes in evolution.  

You've had 54 pages to do just like Nmgirl, just like CM, just like the Pope.  And you ain't done it.  Because you CANNOT do it.  

At this point, I would testify in a court of law (even if I somehow got refuted and embarrassed later) that you ain't no Christian.  

Wanna disprove me?  Come outta your hidey-hole and say your core beliefs out loud, right here and now.  Let the redeemed of the Lord say so, if he's really down wit' the crew.  I say you ain't, and that you're scared to admit you ain't.  Shoot me down, disprove me, right now.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Wow! That's just so fuckin' relevant to the debate!
Posted by: deadman_932 on Oct. 19 2009,17:23

Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 19 2009,17:18)
Ohhh please.  Why play with words?  You could refute me in one shot by simply saying what your hoenst core religious beliefs are.  If they match with biblical Christianity, (John 3:16, Romans 10:9-10, 1 Cor. 15:3-4), then voila!  You're a Christian and I would have to retract my statements.

Shoot, you could give the same kind of simple quickie statement that Nmgirl gave, and that would be sufficient to cause me to retract.  Shoot me down that fast.

But let us not lie, either one of us.  You know you ain't there.  Playing with words don't cut it.  If you could have, you would have done just like CM and royally announced that you are "the living refutation" of the thread topic simply because you were a professing Christian who also believes in evolution.  

You've had 54 pages to do just like Nmgirl, just like CM, just like the Pope.  And you ain't done it.  Because you CANNOT do it.  

At this point, I would testify in a court of law (even if I somehow got refuted and embarrassed later) that you ain't no Christian.  

Wanna disprove me?  Come outta your hidey-hole and say your core beliefs out loud, right here and now.  Let the redeemed of the Lord say so, if he's really down wit' the crew.  I say you ain't, and that you're scared to admit you ain't.  Shoot me down, disprove me, right now.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


LOL. I don't have to answer to YOU in the least.

It is sufficient to point out that you first pretended to know my beliefs, then admitted I never mentioned them at all. All by itself, that makes you a liar.

It's the equivalent of me saying " I know you are/think/do/did  this thing "X" " --- then admitting I couldn't know any such thing. It would be a lie, regardless. And it would be seen as a lie in any court of law.
-----------------------------------------
I could sue the shit out of you for defamation, asshole. And win, because your statement was patently a willful, knowing lie. (meaning you knew you had no real way of knowing my religious beliefs)
Posted by: OgreMkV on Oct. 19 2009,17:23

Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 19 2009,17:18)
Ohhh please.  Why play with words?  You could refute me in one shot by simply saying what your hoenst core religious beliefs are.  If they match with biblical Christianity, (John 3:16, Romans 10:9-10, 1 Cor. 15:3-4), then voila!  You're a Christian and I would have to retract my statements.

Shoot, you could give the same kind of simple quickie statement that Nmgirl gave, and that would be sufficient to cause me to retract.  Shoot me down that fast.

But let us not lie, either one of us.  You know you ain't there.  Playing with words don't cut it.  If you could have, you would have done just like CM and royally announced that you are "the living refutation" of the thread topic simply because you were a professing Christian who also believes in evolution.  

You've had 54 pages to do just like Nmgirl, just like CM, just like the Pope.  And you ain't done it.  Because you CANNOT do it.  

At this point, I would testify in a court of law (even if I somehow got refuted and embarrassed later) that you ain't no Christian.  

Wanna disprove me?  Come outta your hidey-hole and say your core beliefs out loud, right here and now.  Let the redeemed of the Lord say so, if he's really down wit' the crew.  I say you ain't, and that you're scared to admit you ain't.  Shoot me down, disprove me, right now.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Witnessing to the heathens = FAIL!
Posted by: didymos on Oct. 19 2009,17:25

Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 19 2009,12:23)
Curious.  Why are you guys scared to address my post to Nmgirl in which I said, "You listening, Erasmus?"
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Who's scared? Here's the relevant bit:

 
Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 15 2009,15:56)
If you wish to claim that God "indirectly" is the required explanation for water running downhill (because He is the ultimate originator of both water and gravity), that's good of you, (and it's true too), but that "indirect" business DOESN'T apply to biological origins via the theory of evolution.  

Why not?  Because you have already incurred a unique and non-correctable incompatibility right off the bat.  (You listening, Erasmus?).
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



This is just another way of saying "He is not required."  It does not answer why he is not required, which is the actual question you seem incapable of recognizing as requiring a different and direct fucking answer.  You do quite ably illustrate the Dawkins Wicked-Stupid-Insane Trichotomy, however, as you are either too stupid to perceive the difference, wickedly lying your ass off so you can 'win', or so reality-challenged that you think two obviously different questions are the same.

BTW, stop using 'gig' to mean 'question'.  It's fucking lame, and not at all 'hip' or whatever effect you're reaching for thereby.

ETA:  I should note that you (rather indirectly) say it's because of the Bible, but you never actually explain that assertion, so it's not much of an answer.
Posted by: JohnW on Oct. 19 2009,17:32

Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 19 2009,15:18)
But let us not lie, either one of us.  You know you ain't there.  Playing with words don't cut it.  If you could have, you would have done just like CM and royally announced that you are "the living refutation" of the thread topic simply because you were a professing Christian who also believes in evolution.  

You've had 54 pages to do just like Nmgirl, just like CM, just like the Pope.  And you ain't done it.  Because you CANNOT do it.  
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I'm sure the Pope's hanging on your every word, Floyd.  He hasn't refuted you on this thread because he CANNOT do it.  What other explanation could there possibly be?
Posted by: deadman_932 on Oct. 19 2009,17:34

And Erasmus' question still sits unanswered by you, Floyd
Posted by: FloydLee on Oct. 19 2009,17:34



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Witnessing to the heathens = FAIL!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


And yet, early on, I posted a clear response that I was NOT here to "save people's souls" as one poster claimed.

(Or is this one of those "piddling" issues that you get to bring up whenever you want, but you don't want me to respond to it?  Hmm?)
Posted by: FloydLee on Oct. 19 2009,17:36



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
And Erasmus' question still sits unanswered by you, Floyd
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Answered already, whether you agree or disagree with the answer.  How come you're consistently scared to tell me what your core beliefs are?
Posted by: deadman_932 on Oct. 19 2009,17:41

BWAHAHA. I'll tell you what, Floyd. I think you molested your neighbor. But I admit there's no way for me to know. Tell me you did.

My core beliefs are not YOUR business, Floyd. Nor was it ever relevant to the debate until you lyingly claimed to know about my religious beliefs, despite admitting I told you they were irrelevant to the issues (and still are).

And no, you didn't actually answer Erasmus' question about why God is the required explanation for water, but not for why water flows downhill. Claiming you did and showing you did are two different things, Floyd.

Try defaming me again with lies, Floyd. I'll make my beliefs the court's business.
Posted by: FloydLee on Oct. 19 2009,17:59



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
My core beliefs are not YOUR business, Floyd. Nor was it ever relevant to the debate until you lyingly claimed to know about my religious belifs despite admitting I told you they were irrelevant to the issues (and still are).
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


What "lying"?  I said I know that you're not a Christian, and even now you sit there pinned to the wall, unable to say the one little bitty sentence---"Yes I have accepted Jesus Christ and he is the Savior and Lord of my life" ---that would immediately refute me and force an instant retraction.

I also said I don't know your exact beliefs (because when asked, you chose to hide them.  Fear factor.)  

So, those are the two things I know for sure.  No lie on my part, that's for sure.  Wanna disprove me?

******

And btw, my honest belief is that your as-yet-understated unstated core beliefs (and assumptions thereof) DO have something to do with the position(s) you've taken in this debate.  

I believe that it would be a very interesting (perhaps even delicious) rational exercise to see if your particular core beliefs lend support *for* or *against* the main proposition that "Evolution is Incompatible with Christianity."  

(But that's NOT a rational examination that you'd be willing to undertake, is it???  More fear factor.)
Posted by: FloydLee on Oct. 19 2009,18:01

Typo correction, previous post:  "as-yet-unstated core beliefs...."
Posted by: deadman_932 on Oct. 19 2009,18:01

Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 19 2009,17:59)
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
My core beliefs are not YOUR business, Floyd. Nor was it ever relevant to the debate until you lyingly claimed to know about my religious belifs despite admitting I told you they were irrelevant to the issues (and still are).
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


What "lying"?  I said I know that you're not a Christian, and even now you sit there pinned to the wall, unable to say the one little bitty sentence---"Yes I have accepted Jesus Christ and he is the Savior and Lord of my life" ---that would immediately refute me and force an instant retraction.

I also said I don't know your exact beliefs (because when asked, you chose to hide them.  Fear factor.)  

So, those are the two things I know for sure.  No lie on my part, that's for sure.  Wanna disprove me?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Read the bolded parts again, Floyd.

Besides heading for a nice lawsuit, you still haven't answered Erasmus.
Posted by: deadman_932 on Oct. 19 2009,18:18

I'd love to see you in court, Floyd.

Floyd, under oath: "Your honor, I KNOW this man is not a Christian!!11!1!"
Judge: "And how did you come to learn of his religious beliefs?"
Floyd: "Your honor, I don't know his religious beliefs."

Idiot.

P.S. You still haven't answered Erasmus.
Posted by: FloydLee on Oct. 19 2009,18:25

Okay Deadman, this is where I start doing the evil villain laughter.

(If you've ever watched the "Abominable Dr. Phibes" movies you know what kind of laugh I'm talking about, it's the one at the end of each movie.)  
   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
a nice lawsuit
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


"A NICE LAWSUIT"?  Is THIS how you evolutionists act when you get your fannies pinned down on non-descript yet non-Christian personal beliefs that you're trying to hide from cyber-examination?  

Have y'all gone Hogg Wilde or something??

Cmon now Mr. D.  Look, this session kinda started off with somebody asking if you guys had "broken" me.  Well, you got your answer---you guys didn't.  Still wild and crazy as ever.
 
But ummm, don't let me "break" you either.  You starting to sound like the rubber band is getting a little tight, Deadman.  Not good for the systolic count.

Relax a little bit.  We'll be ceasing this Incompatibility thing soon and moving on (if you guys will let it move on, of course.).
Posted by: deadman_932 on Oct. 19 2009,18:27

Now you're going to pretend to be internet mind-reader?

Hahahaha. Damn, you're pathetic, Floyd. First you pretend to know my religious views -- now you pretend to know my emotions via typing.

And you still haven't answered Erasmus' actual question, Floyd.
Posted by: OgreMkV on Oct. 19 2009,18:31

actually Floyd, you were the one who said, "I would swear in court" regarding deadman's religion.
Posted by: deadman_932 on Oct. 19 2009,18:33

Quote (OgreMkV @ Oct. 19 2009,18:31)
actually Floyd, you were the one who said, "I would swear in court" regarding deadman's religion.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Exactly why I pushed that point.
Posted by: dnmlthr on Oct. 19 2009,18:35

Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 19 2009,17:59)
   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
My core beliefs are not YOUR business, Floyd. Nor was it ever relevant to the debate until you lyingly claimed to know about my religious belifs despite admitting I told you they were irrelevant to the issues (and still are).
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


What "lying"?  I said I know that you're not a Christian, and even now you sit there pinned to the wall, unable to say the one little bitty sentence---"Yes I have accepted Jesus Christ and he is the Savior and Lord of my life" ---that would immediately refute me and force an instant retraction.

I also said I don't know your exact beliefs (because when asked, you chose to hide them.  Fear factor.)  

So, those are the two things I know for sure.  No lie on my part, that's for sure.  Wanna disprove me?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


The bolded parts represent mutually exclusive statements. Both cannot be true at the same time (just as A and ¬A). Yet you posted them in the same comment. Either you don't care about the quality of the argument or you don't understand the distinction or you do know but try to pull a fast one. Either way it's bad form.
Posted by: Lou FCD on Oct. 19 2009,18:36

Quote (Schroedinger's Dog @ Oct. 19 2009,16:06)
Lou, that last one is beautiful!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Thanks, I like that one a lot.

   
Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 19 2009,16:07)
Hey, I've never used sexual profanity---or profanity period--against anybody in this forum.  
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Waaaahhhh!

There's more to respect, honesty, integrity, good faith, and general non-fucktardery than not using your taboo words, you disingenuous piece of spooge. And you haven't any room to talk about blasphemy, you lie about your own Bible, Floydtard.

Grow up.

And when you do, how 'bout answering the question?
   
Quote (Lou FCD @ Oct. 19 2009,15:49)
   
Quote (Lou FCD @ Oct. 19 2009,14:57)
             
Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Oct. 02 2009,13:37)
why is god not part of the required explanation for why water runs downhill, when he is part of the required explanation for the EXISTENCE OF WATER?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


< Link >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Hey Floyd, you're gonna burn like toast.



 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
< (welcome to hell) / ça chauffe, les soirées république hystérique.. >, by [phil h]
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: dnmlthr on Oct. 19 2009,18:36

And deadman, why a lawsuit when you can have a lolsuit right here?
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Oct. 19 2009,18:42

Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 19 2009,18:18)
Ohhh please.  Why play with words?  You could refute me in one shot by simply saying what your hoenst core religious beliefs are.  If they match with biblical Christianity, (John 3:16, Romans 10:9-10, 1 Cor. 15:3-4), then voila!  You're a Christian and I would have to retract my statements.

Shoot, you could give the same kind of simple quickie statement that Nmgirl gave, and that would be sufficient to cause me to retract.  Shoot me down that fast.

But let us not lie, either one of us.  You know you ain't there.  Playing with words don't cut it.  If you could have, you would have done just like CM and royally announced that you are "the living refutation" of the thread topic simply because you were a professing Christian who also believes in evolution.  

You've had 54 pages to do just like Nmgirl, just like CM, just like the Pope.  And you ain't done it.  Because you CANNOT do it.  

At this point, I would testify in a court of law (even if I somehow got refuted and embarrassed later) that you ain't no Christian.  

Wanna disprove me?  Come outta your hidey-hole and say your core beliefs out loud, right here and now.  Let the redeemed of the Lord say so, if he's really down wit' the crew.  I say you ain't, and that you're scared to admit you ain't.  Shoot me down, disprove me, right now.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


he can do all this bullshit X 7 in this thread but can't answer one piddly little question.

and lies about having answered it.

Why Floyd?

WHY  

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
is god not part of the required explanation for why water runs downhill, when he is part of the required explanation for the EXISTENCE OF WATER?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



scared, shit bird?
Posted by: deadman_932 on Oct. 19 2009,18:45

Quote (dnmlthr @ Oct. 19 2009,18:36)
And deadman, why a lawsuit when you can have a lolsuit right here?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


The lolsuit was filed as soon as Floyd started posting. I was just pushing the point to see what would happen, really. I also find it astounding that Floyd seems to think that just typing (or saying) " Yes I have accepted Jesus Christ and he is the Savior and Lord of my life" = "Automatic Christian"

You're really a cartoon, Floyd.

And you still haven't answered Erasmus' actual question about why God isn't the required explanation for water flowing downhill. Is gravity of SATAN?
Posted by: didymos on Oct. 19 2009,19:11

Quote (deadman_932 @ Oct. 19 2009,16:45)
And you still haven't answered Erasmus' actual question about why God isn't the required explanation for water flowing downhill.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


What, you don't find "Uh, the Bible...because" to be a satisfying response? Frakkin' materialist.... :p
Posted by: Dan on Oct. 19 2009,19:23

Quote (Constant Mews @ Oct. 16 2009,15:47)
 
Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 16 2009,14:36)
   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Every animal, plant, or human born in the Bible is done without God's direct intervention.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Contradicted by Genesis 1 and 2.  Life forms below humans, God speaks them into existence;  Humans, God creates 'em by hand.  In both cases, it's very very direct.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


God created Abel directly? Cain directly? Noah directly

Floyd, the Bible contradicts you
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


While we're here, I want to remind FL again that according to II Maccabees, God creates in the womb every individual human being.  If FL wants to get into a word game about whether this was "direct" creation or "indirect" creation, he's welcome to waste his own time.

The relevant question: does this mean that "sperm and egg theory" is inconsistent with Christianity?  No.  It means that God creates human beings using the tools of sperm and egg.  Just as God creates new species using the tool of evolution.
Posted by: Dan on Oct. 19 2009,19:43

Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 19 2009,10:25)
CM:  do you remember bringing up the Nicene Creed?
         

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
We believe in one God the Father Almighty,

Maker of heaven and earth, (Genesis 1: 1)  

and of all things visible and invisible. (Colossians 1: 15-16.)


And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of God, begotten of the Father before all worlds, God of God, Light of Light, Very God of Very God, begotten, not made, being of one substance with the Father

by whom all things were made (Hebrews 1: 1-2) ;

who for us men, and for our salvation, came down from heaven, and was incarnate by the Holy Spirit of the Virgin Mary, and was made man, and was crucified also for us under Pontius Pilate. He suffered and was buried, and the third day he rose again according to the Scriptures, and ascended into heaven, and sitteth on the right hand of the Father. And he shall come again with glory to judge both the quick and the dead, whose kingdom shall have no end.

And we believe in the Holy Spirit,

the Lord and Giver of Life (Genesis 1:2) ,

who proceedeth from the Father and the Son, who with the Father and the Son together is worshipped and glorified, who spoke by the prophets. And we believe one holy catholic and apostolic Church. We acknowledge one baptism for the remission of sins. And we look for the resurrection of the dead, and the life of the world to come. Amen.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


**********************

Two questions, CM:

(1)  Do you believe the Nicene Creed is literally true in its entirety?

(2)  The highlighted portions bring up the First Incompatibility.  They point out that God is the Required Explanation for cosmological and biological origins.   They very sharply clash with evolution, which denies that God is the Required Explanation.  
So how do you resolve the incompatibility between evolution and the Nicene Creed?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


If God is the maker of all things, visible and invisible, then God made the pancakes I cooked two hours ago.  God also made the flour I put into the pancakes.

But why did I pay the grocery store for the flour, when after all the grocery store didn't make the flour ... God made it?

So my question for FL is: How do you resolve the "incompatibility" between cooking / grocery shopping and the Nicene creed, which is every bit as violent as the "incompatibility" between evolution and the Nicene creed?
Posted by: Dan on Oct. 19 2009,19:47

Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 19 2009,17:18)
Ohhh please.  Why play with words?  You could refute me in one shot by simply saying what your hoenst core religious beliefs are.  If they match with biblical Christianity, (John 3:16, Romans 10:9-10, 1 Cor. 15:3-4), then voila!  You're a Christian and I would have to retract my statements.

Shoot, you could give the same kind of simple quickie statement that Nmgirl gave, and that would be sufficient to cause me to retract.  Shoot me down that fast.

But let us not lie, either one of us.  You know you ain't there.  Playing with words don't cut it.  If you could have, you would have done just like CM and royally announced that you are "the living refutation" of the thread topic simply because you were a professing Christian who also believes in evolution.  

You've had 54 pages to do just like Nmgirl, just like CM, just like the Pope.  And you ain't done it.  Because you CANNOT do it.  

At this point, I would testify in a court of law (even if I somehow got refuted and embarrassed later) that you ain't no Christian.  

Wanna disprove me?  Come outta your hidey-hole and say your core beliefs out loud, right here and now.  Let the redeemed of the Lord say so, if he's really down wit' the crew.  I say you ain't, and that you're scared to admit you ain't.  Shoot me down, disprove me, right now.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Woowie.  FL believes that not only is "Christian" a trademark, but FL believes that he owns the trademark to "Christian" and is the only person eligible to say what is means.
Posted by: Dan on Oct. 19 2009,19:51

Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 19 2009,15:07)
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Do I really need to remind you AGAIN that by you violating your agreement to abide by "good faith" rules in this thread, that you have lost any right to special treatment?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Hey, I've never used sexual profanity---or profanity period--against anybody in this forum.  You were scared to tell me exactly what your religious beliefs were (and you still are) but if you had told me, I would NOT have mocked them or proselytized you.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


FL thinks that I'm scared of him.

Furthermore, his evidence is that I refuse to go off topic.

No comment necessary.
Posted by: Henry J on Oct. 19 2009,22:43

Nicene creed:


---------------------QUOTE-------------------

We believe in one God the Father Almighty,

Maker of heaven and earth, (Genesis 1: 1)

and of all things visible and invisible. (Colossians 1: 15-16.)


And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of God, begotten of the Father before all worlds, God of God, Light of Light, Very God of Very God, begotten, not made, being of one substance with the Father

by whom all things were made (Hebrews 1: 1-2) ;

who for us men, and for our salvation, came down from heaven, and was incarnate by the Holy Spirit of the Virgin Mary, and was made man, and was crucified also for us under Pontius Pilate. He suffered and was buried, and the third day he rose again according to the Scriptures, and ascended into heaven, and sitteth on the right hand of the Father. And he shall come again with glory to judge both the quick and the dead, whose kingdom shall have no end.

And we believe in the Holy Spirit,

the Lord and Giver of Life (Genesis 1:2) ,

who proceedeth from the Father and the Son, who with the Father and the Son together is worshipped and glorified, who spoke by the prophets. And we believe one holy catholic and apostolic Church. We acknowledge one baptism for the remission of sins. And we look for the resurrection of the dead, and the life of the world to come. Amen.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



That says that God caused life to exist. It doesn't say what methods were used in doing so. It doesn't say what methods weren't used in doing so; specifically it doesn't rule out methods that some humans find offensive.

Therefore that creed as stated above is not incompatible with ToE.

Henry
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Oct. 19 2009,22:45

is Floyd going to use this as an excuse to flounce?  good enough.

he never did answer that question.  what a tard.
Posted by: Doc Bill on Oct. 19 2009,22:55

Actually, FL is a heretic.

Ironic isn't it?
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Oct. 20 2009,00:26

maybe y'all gnawed the whistle box out of thissun too.

christ all that and still no answer to my question.  I'm dying to know how in the hell he can hold so many pairs of diametrically opposing views.  yodel elf should be a poster tard for cognitive dissonance.
Posted by: FloydLee on Oct. 20 2009,01:41



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I want to remind FL again that according to II Maccabees...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Umm, I and II Maccabees is part of the Apocrypha.  It's NOT part of the 66 books of the Bible.  I'm only dealing with the claims of the Bible for this thread topic.
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------

1.  Jews did not (and still do not) regard the Apocrypha as Scripture.

2.  The New Testament never quotes the Apocrypha.

3.  Until 1548 (at the Roman Catholic Council of Trent), the Apocrypha had a secondary status, and was not regarded as true Scripture. (And the Eastern Orthodox Church still gives the secondary status to the Apocrypha. See Timothy Ware, "The Orthodox Church", Penguin Books, 1963, p.208-209).

3.  Therefore the Protestant Reformers (1520's, 1530's) were clarifying the historical position of the early church when they excluded the Apocrypha.

< http://www.answering-islam.org/Bible/pbotapoc.html >

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: FloydLee on Oct. 20 2009,01:46



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
FL believes that he owns the trademark to "Christian" and is the only person eligible to say what is means.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Hardly.  Tell me what YOU think it means (and yes I'll probably compare your answer to Scripture to see if it matches up, just outta my own curiosity.)   You up for that?
Posted by: FloydLee on Oct. 20 2009,01:49



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
actually Floyd, you were the one who said, "I would swear in court" regarding deadman's religion.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I didn't threaten to sue the guy though.  You agree?  That's on Mr. D, not me.  It did make me laugh, a bit of comic relief.
Posted by: FloydLee on Oct. 20 2009,02:07



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
That says that God caused life to exist.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Which makes God the required explanation for the origin of life, which constitutes "the beginnings of biological evolution" (William Schopf).  
Which then re-affrims a huge Incompatibility with evolution, because it clearly "no longer requires God as creator or designer." (Ernst Mayr).
       

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

---Slate editor Jacob Weisberg, 8-10-2005
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


       

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Evolution is God's redundancy notice, his pink slip.

---Richard Dawkins, Wall Street Journal, Sept. 10, 2009.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: Amadan on Oct. 20 2009,04:10

Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 20 2009,02:07)
       

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
That says that God caused life to exist.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Which makes God the required explanation for the origin of life, which constitutes "the beginnings of biological evolution" (William Schopf).  
Which then re-affrims a huge Incompatibility with evolution, because it clearly "no longer requires God as creator or designer." (Ernst Mayr).
                 

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

---Slate editor Jacob Weisberg, 8-10-2005
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Evolution is God's redundancy notice, his pink slip.

---Richard Dawkins, Wall Street Journal, Sept. 10, 2009.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You are evading the point that has been made time after time here.

To use an analogy that is showing friction burns (if only on one side): if God made the universe "directly" (including water), then describing emergent properties of the matter and energy in it ("water runs downwards in response to gravity ") is not incompatible God's proclaimed status as Creator. Science describes biological evolution as an emergent property of living things. It also hypothesises that life is an emergent property of matter and energy under particular conditions. The contingency is upon the creation of the universe by God, not upon properties that God gave the universe, which, as I understand Christian teaching, God intends us to use reason and our senses to explore.  

Your naďve literalism is what is incompatible with Christianity. I suspect you realise this, and that that is why you evade questions that point out the absurd consequences of your arguments.
Posted by: Amadan on Oct. 20 2009,04:49

PS Floyd: Please read < Communion and Stewardship >, by the Catholic Church's International Theological Commission (president at the time a certain Joseph Ratzinger). This addresses what you term "incompatibilities" between science and Christianity.
Posted by: didymos on Oct. 20 2009,05:14

Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 19 2009,23:41)
Umm, I and II Maccabees is part of the Apocrypha.  It's NOT part of the 66 books of the Bible.  I'm only dealing with the claims of the Bible for this thread topic.
 
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Not quite right.  They're technically < deuterocanonical >, not apocryphal.  And, considered fully canon by the Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox Churches.  So yeah.
Posted by: Dan on Oct. 20 2009,06:07

Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 20 2009,01:41)
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I want to remind FL again that according to II Maccabees...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Umm, I and II Maccabees is part of the Apocrypha.  It's NOT part of the 66 books of the Bible.  I'm only dealing with the claims of the Bible for this thread topic.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


According to the Greek Orthodox, all four books of Maccabees are part of the sacred Bible.

Just wanted to point out that while FL rants about "THE Bible", there's no generally accepted definition for what is contained in the Bible.

Meanwhile, FL's only evading the issue.  If God "created all things visible and invisible", then God created FL in the womb.  Is this inconsistent with "sperm and egg theory"?  Also God created the dinner I served last night.  Is this inconsistent with "cooking on the stove theory"?  Also God created the flour I used in cooking last night.  Is this inconsistent with the "grocery store theory"?  Also God created the species of living things.  Is this inconsistent with "the theory of evolution"?
Posted by: Dan on Oct. 20 2009,06:10

Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 20 2009,02:07)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
That says that God caused life to exist.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Which makes God the required explanation for the origin of life, which constitutes "the beginnings of biological evolution" (William Schopf).  
Which then re-affrims a huge Incompatibility with evolution, because it clearly "no longer requires God as creator or designer." (Ernst Mayr).
       

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

---Slate editor Jacob Weisberg, 8-10-2005
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


       

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Evolution is God's redundancy notice, his pink slip.

---Richard Dawkins, Wall Street Journal, Sept. 10, 2009.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


---------------------QUOTE-------------------


PRATT
Posted by: Kattarina98 on Oct. 20 2009,06:45

Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 20 2009,02:07)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
That says that God caused life to exist.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Which makes God the required explanation for the origin of life, which constitutes "the beginnings of biological evolution" (William Schopf).  
Which then re-affrims a huge Incompatibility with evolution, because it clearly "no longer requires God as creator or designer." (Ernst Mayr).
       

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

---Slate editor Jacob Weisberg, 8-10-2005
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


       

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Evolution is God's redundancy notice, his pink slip.

---Richard Dawkins, Wall Street Journal, Sept. 10, 2009.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Mr Lee, using quotes to prove your point was a method used by medieval clerics. It has become outdated when modern science took over. The catchword is "evidence".

Please answer Erasmus' question, and use your brain instead of quotes. Your own bibles want you to do so:

< http://www.biblegateway.com/passage....ion=NIV >
Posted by: FrankH on Oct. 20 2009,06:59

Quote (didymos @ Oct. 20 2009,05:14)
Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 19 2009,23:41)
Umm, I and II Maccabees is part of the Apocrypha.  It's NOT part of the 66 books of the Bible.  I'm only dealing with the claims of the Bible for this thread topic.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Not quite right.  They're technically < deuterocanonical >, not apocryphal.  And, considered fully canon by the Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox Churches.  So yeah.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You forget that a lot of the Protestant denominations cut out of the Bible the parts they didn't like to suit their version of the god they created in their image.

Like Martin Luther and his famous "Faith, not works".  That was to end the sale of indulgences.  Now it's used as a club by many protestant denominations to ignore people and their needs they don't agree with.

Yet standing outside a Planned Parenthood Clinic protesting what they don't like is being a "soldier of god".  Funny that many of them have no issue with war.
Posted by: Keelyn on Oct. 20 2009,08:04

Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 19 2009,18:06)
Oh, and btw Deadman, I am very confident that you are not a Christian.  Do I know your exact beliefs?  Nope, because when I asked in sincerity, you refused.  I believe the refusal was out of fear.  So yeah, you've convinced me you're not a Christian.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



I've never understood reasoning like this. What is there to be fearful of? DM must be shaking in his shoes, right? I'm an agnostic, Floyd (it sure is scary to say that - I'm going to be quaking all day).

By the way, Floyd - it's October 20th. Only 11 days left. I still want to see that "ID is Science" argument you have.
Posted by: Keelyn on Oct. 20 2009,08:11

Quote (Lou FCD @ Oct. 19 2009,19:36)
Quote (Schroedinger's Dog @ Oct. 19 2009,16:06)
Lou, that last one is beautiful!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Thanks, I like that one a lot.

     
Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 19 2009,16:07)
Hey, I've never used sexual profanity---or profanity period--against anybody in this forum.  
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Waaaahhhh!

There's more to respect, honesty, integrity, good faith, and general non-fucktardery than not using your taboo words, you disingenuous piece of spooge. And you haven't any room to talk about blasphemy, you lie about your own Bible, Floydtard.

Grow up.

And when you do, how 'bout answering the question?
   
Quote (Lou FCD @ Oct. 19 2009,15:49)
     
Quote (Lou FCD @ Oct. 19 2009,14:57)
               
Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Oct. 02 2009,13:37)
why is god not part of the required explanation for why water runs downhill, when he is part of the required explanation for the EXISTENCE OF WATER?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


< Link >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Hey Floyd, you're gonna burn like toast.



 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
< (welcome to hell) / ça chauffe, les soirées république hystérique.. >, by [phil h]
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I'm liking Lou's pics more and more. I have a favorite, but I won't say which. What about you, Floyd? Do you have a favorite?
Posted by: FloydLee on Oct. 20 2009,08:33



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
What is there to be fearful of? DM must be shaking in his shoes, right? I'm an agnostic, Floyd (it sure is scary to say that - I'm going to be quaking all day).
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Interesting.  See how easy it is just to say out loud where you're really coming from, Keelyn?  You did it in one microsecond.  Easy as pie.  

So you tell me. What is there to be fearful of?
More specifically, what is there for Deadman to be fearful of?
Posted by: OgreMkV on Oct. 20 2009,08:48

Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 20 2009,08:33)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
What is there to be fearful of? DM must be shaking in his shoes, right? I'm an agnostic, Floyd (it sure is scary to say that - I'm going to be quaking all day).
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Interesting.  See how easy it is just to say out loud where you're really coming from, Keelyn?  You did it in one microsecond.  Easy as pie.  

So you tell me. What is there to be fearful of?
More specifically, what is there for Deadman to be fearful of?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Floyd, let it go.  No one cares.  It has nothing to do with the 'discussion' at hand (i.e. the 'incompatability' between science and religion).

Are you going to answer the questions (all of them)?
 -- if not, then
Are we going to move to the next topic?
 -- if not, then
Why?
Posted by: deadman_932 on Oct. 20 2009,08:52

Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 20 2009,01:49)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
actually Floyd, you were the one who said, "I would swear in court" regarding deadman's religion.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I didn't threaten to sue the guy though.  You agree?  That's on Mr. D, not me.  It did make me laugh, a bit of comic relief.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I'm sure that after you changed your underwear and found that I'd not pursued the matter, that you laughed . Keep being stupid and the outcome might be different.
Posted by: deadman_932 on Oct. 20 2009,08:53

Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 20 2009,08:33)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
What is there to be fearful of? DM must be shaking in his shoes, right? I'm an agnostic, Floyd (it sure is scary to say that - I'm going to be quaking all day).
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Interesting.  See how easy it is just to say out loud where you're really coming from, Keelyn?  You did it in one microsecond.  Easy as pie.  

So you tell me. What is there to be fearful of?
More specifically, what is there for Deadman to be fearful of?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Absolutely nothing, Floyd. I've seen more than enough in my life for me to to be afraid of living or dying.

You, however, reek of fear, even across the intrawebs.
Posted by: nmgirl on Oct. 20 2009,09:04

Let's try a new debate topic:  Why Floyd Lee is proof that there is no Intelligent Design.

1.  He keeps going off topic.
2.  He thinks he has the right to judge people in God's stead.
3.  He can't believe that millions of Christians don't agree with him.
4.  He can't read and respond to questions.
5.  He thinks that opinions are facts.
6.  He thinks that the Pope is not Christian.

I'm sure you guys can add some more proofs for me.
Posted by: FloydLee on Oct. 20 2009,09:13



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Floyd, let it go.  No one cares.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Merely responding to Keelyn, Mr. D.  That's all.
Hey, would you be an agnostic like she is?  Or an atheist?  Gotta be something (other than Christian.)
Posted by: deadman_932 on Oct. 20 2009,09:21

Yawn. Another day, another performance of the Floyd Fandango Avoi-Dance.

And you still haven't answered Erasmus' question -- one that is relevant to your whole claim:

Why, in your stated view, is God not responsible for water flowing downhill -- when God is responsible for the very origins of water?
Posted by: OgreMkV on Oct. 20 2009,09:21

Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 20 2009,09:13)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Floyd, let it go.  No one cares.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Merely responding to Keelyn, Mr. D.  That's all.
Hey, would you be an agnostic like she is?  Or an atheist?  Gotta be something (other than Christian.)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Here's another one:

Floyd can't read.  (See, I was the one who posted 'no one cares', Floyd.  Not Deadman.)

Now, instead of responding only to stuff that has bearing on the discussion at hand ('why science is compatible with religion')... why not answer some of the questions posted to you... OR make some of the posts that you said you would make several days ago?

How about it, back to the topic?  or have you given up?
Posted by: FrankH on Oct. 20 2009,09:36

Floyd,


Is science incompatible with all religions or just Christianity?

Also, you do know that if Evolution is wrong, biblical creationism is not right and does not win by default, correct?
Posted by: SLP on Oct. 20 2009,09:44

Ah, I finally found it...

Floyd:[quote]
Okay, let's check back with SLP.  I asked him a question previously.  I want an answer.
[/quote]

Do you, now?
That is rich, coming from someone with a pretty well documented tendency to abandon threads...
[quote]
In 2002, William Schopf published a fascinating book, Life's Origins:  The Beginnings of Biological Evolution.
(Yes, that's the full title.  Not exactly separating abiogenesis from evolution, is it?)[/quote]
Well, I guess you win!  A book title does not make it clear that abiogenesis is not part of evolution, thus, it must be!
Brilliant...
mamma jamma real meal deal brilliant.
[quote]
The most fascinating part of the book is what the late evolutionist Dr. John Oro wrote in one of the chapters.
  [quote]In the mid-1800s, Darwin showed how the concept of evolution by natural selection applies to living systems. But evolution also operates in the inanimate world, not only Earth but the universe as a whole, including all cosmic bodies (galaxies, stars, circumstellar and interstellar clouds, interstellar molecules, planetary systems, planets, comets, asteroids, meteorites) and all chemical elements.

Comets transported organic molecules and water to the primitive Earth early in the planet's history, presumably over a period of several hundred million years. In the oceans that then formed, both cometary and terrestrial (those synthesized directly in the environment),
organic molecules evolved by natural selection,
ultimately giving rise to life - possibly in the "warm little pond" that Darwin envisioned in his famous letter to Joseph Hooker
(see chapter 3). The linkage from cosmic elements to cometary molecules to primitive Earth to biological evolution ties cosmochemical evolution to the origin of life. [/quote]
Here's the key phrase in the middle of that quotation:
 [quote]organic molecules evolved by natural selection,
ultimately giving rise to life - possibly in the "warm little pond" that Darwin envisioned in his famous letter to Joseph Hooker
[/quote]
Not only does this statement tie abiogenesis to evolution, but notice that Oro even tosses in a direct, unmistakable factor:  "organic molecules evolved by natural selection."  IOW, the exact driving force cited for postbiotic evolution is the same cited for prebiotic evolution. [/quote]

Your proof-texting is both legendary and monumentally easy to demolish.  What about this key part (which you seem dead-set on ignoring):

"Darwin showed how the concept of evolution by natural selection applies to living systems."

In my reading (and apparently everyone but yours), Oro is saying that the CONCEPT of evolutioon by naturalselection - a MECHANISM - is not unique to the theory of evolution ala Darwin.  Just as the MECHANISM of bomb dropping, gravity, is not unique to the dropping of bombs but also to planetary orbits.

You bolded but do not seem to grasp the implications of this:

"But evolution also operates ..."

Hmmmm....

You have a hard time with parts of quotes that sort of diminish the take-home message of your proof texting.
[quote]
Oro also pointed out something else:
  [quote]"We can conclude that the different forms of life are not the result of a process having a determined finality developed a priori by a creative  plan, nor are they the result of a chance fortuitous act.  Life emerged as the result of natural evolutionary processes, as a new form of movement of matter during its process of development."

---from AI Oparin's final scientific paper (1986), quoted by Oro in Schopf 2002. [/quote]
If that paragraph sounds familiar, it's because it echoes something De Duve recently said in 2009 (Nmgirl quoted it and SLP re-quoted it.)

  [quote]Nobel laureate Christian de Duve summarized the plenary session: "The participants unanimously accepted as indisputable the affirmation that the Universe, as well as life within it, are the products of long evolutionary histories...."

---Nmgirl's post, Oct 6th, 11:58, "International General 2009 (Conference)"[/quote] [/quote]

You are really hung up on the use of the 'evolution', aren't you?
So, like, when someone says "That due is as cold as ice", you must really think that the dude is 0 degeees C...
[quote]
Remember, you evolutionists say that abiogenesis is separate from evolution.  And you say it often.  However, your statement, as you can see, is NOT true.  That's what all this is about.[/quote]
Actually, it is true.

Nowhere in the Origin does Darwin claim that abiogenesis must have occurred before evolution took place, or that the theory of evolution requires abiogenesis.  Nobody has ever said this or implied it.
It is certainly CONSISTENT with evolution, but evolution (as in the ToE) does not in fact require it.
Your inability to understand certain words and your prooftexting notwithstandfing...
[quote]

In fact, let's toss in one more statement, this one comes from Paul Lurquin's 2003 book concerning the orign of life.
  [quote]"The RNA World Hypothesis is a very attractive one, because it bases the appearance of life squarely within the realm of evolution."

Lurquin, The Origins of Life and the Universe, p. 32.[/quote][/quote]
Never heard of him of the book.  But I forgot - if Floyd Lee can find a mamma jamma real meal deal quote that he thinks props up his case, it is the absolute trooooof!

So, if I write a book and state the opposite (you seem very impressed with books), will you stop making these claims?
[quote]Okay, that's like background information for the upcoming post or posts.  

SLP thinks I "deceived readers" on the short version of Oro that I've quoted in other forums and past years (and wants to apparently debate it here and now), and meanwhile my own question for SLP is designed to show that I've never quotemined John Oro AND to show that Oro meant precisely what he said---and in doing so puts the lie to the evolutionist claim that prebiotic evolution (abiogenesis) is separate from evolution.  [/quote]
You HAVE deceived by use of a doctored quote, and the implication of the quote itself is irrelevant.  I don't feel thye need to 'debate' anythign here - you just write the same things over and over, same as on CARM.  You have staked out your little fiefdom in your prooftexting world, and you are not budging.  
Hopwever, it is my positon that you quotemined Oro by ignoring the overall context AND by ignoring the implications of his actual words, words like 'link' and 'concept' and 'also'.

Unless it really is your position that the Theory of Evolution is THE CONCEPT of evolution?

Do you think that stellar evolution is also 'part and parcel' of biological evolution?  You must - the word 'evolution' appears in it...
[quote]

No deceit, no joke:  Abiogenesis is part and parcel of evolution, no doubt.[/quote]

It is a joke and there is plenty of doubt.

Abiogenesis is consistent with evolution, but evolution does not require it (which is really what you mean, right?).
[quote]Got some more for you SLP.  

         [quote]In the mid-1800's, Darwin showed how the concept of evolution by natural selection applies to living things.  But evolution also operates in the inanimate world....[/quote]

Right there, you see Oro providing a rationale that clearly connects abiogenesis to evolution, makes them inseparable in fact. [/quote]

So, we've gone from 'part of' to 'inseperabl;e', all by parsing the same quote.  Amazing.  What next - Darwin required the RNA world?
You keep ignoring the "concept of evolution" part...
       

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


And look at it again, SLP, he's not just referring to "a concept" only, but actual evolution.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Then why does he use the word "CONCEPT"?

Proof-texting makes you like like a retard.
       

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


 He does this same thing when he says "organic molecules evolved by natural selection".  He's talking actuality, NOT abstract concept.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Do you really think that the evolution by natural selection that Oro refers to for organic molecules is the SAME as the evolution of natuiral selection as laid out by Darwin?  Really?
What niche competition was there for organic molecules?  Who was preying on them?  Who were they competing with for reproduction?
or gee, could it be he was referring to evolution as such?
       

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


So you got it wrong there too.  Care to respond?  Are you able to?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



I have actually already responded to this line of 'reasoning' the last several time syou brought it up.  You are just proof-texting.
       

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
         

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
And I know you 'stand by' what you've written
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

 
Yeah, you DO know that from our past discussions.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Hey look - Mellotron lops off another quote to make it more to his liking!
       

---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Start here:
       

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Here's your question:  Exactly how does this extended quote by the late evolutionist John Oro (Schopf 2002, "Life's Origins")....
.......disprove or even disagree what I said earlier about the short version of Oro's quote?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Okay, I didnt' get a straight answer from you on this one and so permit me to insist.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You got straight answers from me more than once.  < I refer you to this thread yet again - the one you bailed from after your repetitive mantras failed to convince anyone of the veracity of your position. >
       

---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Seems to be a lotta complainin's from you because the short version----"organic molecules evolved by natural selection, ultimately giving rise to life---possibly in the 'warm little pond' that Darwin envsioned in his famous letter to Joseph Hooker" wasn't quoted properly, apparently supposed to be something like....

"...organic molecules)  or "...(Organic) molecules" or
..."(Organic) molecules"


Well, that's fine.  Whatever way is the right stylistic way to start off that paragraph, I admit I didn't do it just right.  C'est la vie.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Yeah, no biggie.  Sure, you lopped off half a sentence without indicating you did so and tried to cover it up by capitalizing the first letter of the first word in your doctored quote.  Yeah, no biggie.  You're a (Fox news-style) journalist, why should we expect you to understand how to quote properly.  
One has to wonder how many other quotes form you are treated in this cavalier fashion.
I mean I am sure that the pew warmers you present it to won't care (and will liklely resist having your folly pointed out to them), but in the real world, honest people do care about such 'stylistic' issues.
       

---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Much of the time, I simply wrote, "Organic molecules evolved by natural selection, ultimately giving rise to life---possibly in the 'warm little pond' that Darwin envsioned in his famous letter to Joseph Hooker."

Much later on, I think I started trying to change it over to be more stylistically correct, even though I was simply posting on discussion boards and not writing for publication.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Right, so if you quoted this for the Topeka Star, you'd have done it right...
I hear that excuse from students accused of academic dishonesty all the time.
       

---------------------QUOTE-------------------

But I'm not interested in folks trying to play games, trying to pretend that "abiogenesis is separate from evolution" based on a stylistic violation on a quotation.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



That is not the case.  The case is that you proof-texted the paragraph and then only quote the part you think proves you are correct.
       

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
 If the idea is to claim that I'm "deceiving readers" or quotemining or taking anything out of context, then let SLP step up to the plate and demonstrate it, not just blindly assert it.  
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



I've done so repeatedly.  You keep ignoring it and then laughably act like you are here - all indignant and as if reiterating the same failed 'proofs' over and over will vindicate you.


---------------------QUOTE-------------------

snip laughable hubris
Ohhh, and answer the OTHER question too while you're here:
         

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
         

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Notice that evolutionists posi the very same driving force for both prebiotic evolution and postbiotic evolution---natural selection.

Hence prebiotic evolution is part and parcel of the overall theory of evolution.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


******
Good luck answering that one, SLP.  But honestly, you can't answer it, and you know it.  
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


---------------------QUOTE-------------------



You are too fucking stupid to understand the difference between a concept and a specifc application of the concept, so no answer will suffice for a proof-texting zealot.

Sorry.
       

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
       

---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Oro simply made clear that abiogenesis is part and parcel of evolution.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You said you answered this one.  Show me again exactly how you did?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


< Here for one example >.  
       

---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Oh, and you dropped this one too.  Completely.
         

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Nobel laureate Christian De Duve summarized the plenary session:  "The participants unanimously accepted as indisputable the affirmation that the Universe, as well as life within it, are the products of long evolutionary histories..." (2009, Nmgirl's post)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Care to address what he said, SLP?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Actually, I did reply to that, too.  Guess you just missed it.  The same answer applies - the issue is the concept of evolution, not a specific application of that concept.  I have a feeling that he did not mean that the theory governing the evolution of flora and fauna encompasses the evolution of the universe.  
Or do you think that the stellar evolution is 'in crisis' because we do not have a conclusive hypothesis of abiogenesis yet?

       

---------------------QUOTE-------------------

I don't think you can.  
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Allow me to correct that for yo:

Mellotron: "I don't think."        

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I think you major in minors because you're not able to handle the fact that multiple experts, past and present, really do connect evolution and abiogenesis even down to 2009.  You whine and wring your hands, and try to shoot the messenger because you're too limp to deal with the message, is that it?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



I major in not proof-texting and ignoring words that do not prop up my pre-conceived notions.


As for being limp....        

---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Don't try to hide behind CM or other low-octaners on this one.  Git on here yourself if you dare, and answer to these realities.  Ready yet?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



if I dare?

Cute...

       

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I'll try asking you one more time, SLP.  I've already answered your post in honest detail (and you seem bent on ignoring that response, plus you didn't really answer the questions that I gave to you in that response previously.).
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Actually, I don't check this board every day, and this is a fast moving thread.
       

---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Anyway, here's your quote:
         

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
"Organic molecules evolved by natural selection, ultimately giving rise to life - possibly in the "warm little pond" that Darwin envisioned in his famous letter to Joseph Hooker (see chapter 3). "
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Here is the actual sentence:
       

---------------------QUOTE-------------------

"In the oceans that then formed, both cometary and terrestrial (those synthesized directly in the environment) organic molecules evolved by natural selection, ultimately giving rise to life - possibly in the "warm little pond" that Darwin envisioned in his famous letter to Joseph Hooker (see chapter 3). "
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Can you---are you ABLE to---show me where the "actual sentence" CONTRADICTS the shorter quotation in ANY manner?  Sincere question, but don't play games on this one SLP.  
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Funny fellow - I never said that the entire sentence negates the part you doctored - no, you are arguing against what you THOUGHT I claimed, not what I did.  My complaint on that has ALWAYS been the fact that you dishonestly hacked the quote then made it appear as if it was the whole quote, and used that to claim that Oro says that abiogenesis is indeed part of the theory of evolution, and by extention that evolution is dependant upon abiogenesis.  The entire paragraph makes it quite clear that this is not the case.  The quoted sentence itself is really irrelevant, it is your use and misinterpretation of it that is the issue.        

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I already admitted previously that the shorter sentence was stylistically incorrect.  
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



"stylistically"?

If a student of mine got caught doing that on a paper, they would get hauled before the honor board!

If a YEC does it, it is par for the course.
       

---------------------QUOTE-------------------

(I also pointed out that I never used the stylistically incorrect shorter sentence in anything other than Internet discussion forums...  You did not acknowledge this.)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



How can I acknowledge that which I'd not yet seen?  Earlier in this thread, you wrote "Hardly doctored, SLP".  Not exactly an admission.  < And 3 months after you were exposed as doctoring the quote on CARM >, < there you are >, trotting it out yet again.  Apparently, your Christian sensibilities take a back seat to tossing out a 'juicy (doctored) quote'.


       

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
In the mid-1800s, Darwin showed how the concept of evolution by natural selection applies to living systems. But evolution also operates in the inanimate world, not only Earth but the universe as a whole, including all cosmic bodies (galaxies, stars, circumstellar and interstellar clouds, interstellar molecules, planetary systems, planets, comets, asteroids, meteorites) and all chemical elements. Comets transported organic molecules and water to the primitive Earth early in the planet's history, presumably over a period of several hundred million years. In the oceans that then formed, both cometary and terrestrial (those synthesized directly in the environment) organic molecules evolved by natural selection, ultimately giving rise to life - possibly in the "warm little pond" that Darwin envisioned in his famous letter to Joseph Hooker (see chapter 3). The linkage from cosmic elements to cometary molecules to primitive Earth to biological evolution ties cosmochemical evolution to the origin of life.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Now, let's try an alrenate bolding pattern - and pay attention Floyd:

       

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
In the mid-1800s, Darwin showed how the concept of evolution by natural selection applies to living systems. But evolution also operates in the inanimate world, not only Earth but the universe as a whole, including all cosmic bodies (galaxies, stars, circumstellar and interstellar clouds, interstellar molecules, planetary systems, planets, comets, asteroids, meteorites) and all chemical elements. Comets transported organic molecules and water to the primitive Earth early in the planet's history, presumably over a period of several hundred million years. In the oceans that then formed, both cometary and terrestrial (those synthesized directly in the environment) organic molecules evolved by natural selection, ultimately giving rise to life - possibly in the "warm little pond" that Darwin envisioned in his famous letter to Joseph Hooker (see chapter 3). The linkage from cosmic elements to cometary molecules to primitive Earth to biological evolution ties cosmochemical evolution to the origin of life.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------




I've already asked you to look up the words "linkage" and "concept" and even provided definitons for you, but it does not appear to have sunk in.  You may also want to look up "also".

On p. 43, you do some more of the same and more wild extrapolation desperately attempting to make abiogenesis part of evolution (the theory, not the concept).

So, are you saying you use this quote elsewhere, say, in public?  What do you think the chaces are that someone in the pews will have access to the book from which you snagged that quote and will be able to challenge you?  ZERO, which is what people like you count on.
       

---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Show me that I took Oro out of context or quotemined him or something.   If you are unable to then you don't have much of a complaint, quite honestly.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



I've done both, actually.  That you cannot or refuse to acknowledge this is a given.  It i
Posted by: SLP on Oct. 20 2009,09:45

Not sure what the problem with the BB coding was, but I couldn't fix it....
Posted by: FloydLee on Oct. 20 2009,09:46



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Is science incompatible with all religions or just Christianity?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Actually, science is compatible with Christianity.  Evolution isn't compatible with Christianity, because evolution is actually a mixture of science and religion -- the religion being materialism.
Posted by: deadman_932 on Oct. 20 2009,09:51

Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 20 2009,09:46)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Is science incompatible with all religions or just Christianity?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Actually, science is compatible with Christianity.  Evolution isn't compatible with Christianity, because evolution is actually a mixture of science and religion -- the religion being materialism.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Not by your standards, Floyd. Science itself doesn't allow for ultimate answers such as "knowing" with absolute certainty the origins of the universe, or life.

Nor can science itself deal with issues such as ultimate deistic teleology.

By your standards, science is incompatible with your version of Christianity, per your "Big Five Fantasies"

We've already been over this. Several times.
Posted by: FrankH on Oct. 20 2009,09:52

Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 20 2009,09:46)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Is science incompatible with all religions or just Christianity?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Actually, science is compatible with Christianity.  Evolution isn't compatible with Christianity, because evolution is actually a mixture of science and religion -- the religion being materialism.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Um, exactly how is Evolution, specifically Biological Evolution, "materialism"?  How is that different from Gravity not needing a god nor angels to move objects around others?

Are you saying that those who are Christians who THINK Evolution is how their god did things aren't Christians?  Please be specific.
Posted by: SLP on Oct. 20 2009,09:53

Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 19 2009,17:00)

---------------------QUOTE-------------------




---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Furthermore, you were directly shown that Oro did NOT limit it to the mere "concept" of evolution at all.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


That was just your proof-texting speaking.


---------------------QUOTE-------------------


For example, "Organic molecules evolved by natural selection" is a statement of actuality.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Actually, it is his opinion, for starters.  Second, if you stop proof-texting, you will see that your position is simply irrelevant.


---------------------QUOTE-------------------

 He's actually ascribing the origin of life to evolution---
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Actually, here on earth, he is doing the opposite.  He is saying that the concept of evolution via natural selection applies to cosmochemical origins just as uit does to biological ones.
If he believed that abiogenesis and biologicla evolution were one and the same, why did he mention them seperately?

"The linkage from cosmic elements to cometary molecules to primitive Earth to biological evolution ties cosmochemical evolution to the origin of life. "

For Christ's sake, tying things together does not mean that one is 'part and parcel' of the other.


---------------------QUOTE-------------------

furthermore, the SAME KIND of evolution as the postbiotic arena---with the driving force being natural selection.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


The SAME KIND of gravity causes bombs to fall as causes planets to orbit the sun, thus, orbital mechanics is part and parcel of ballistic trajectory calculations!


---------------------QUOTE-------------------


For you to pretend that Oro is merely dealing with the "concept" of evolution is---how did you put it?---"Dishonest."
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Yeah, I guess he actually used the word CONCEPT just for kicks..

"Darwin showed how the concept of evolution by natural selection applies to living systems."


---------------------QUOTE-------------------



How does it feel to be a dishonest evolutionist, SLP?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



I wouldn't know, I am not the proof-texting quote doctorer.
Posted by: Amadan on Oct. 20 2009,09:54

Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 20 2009,09:13)
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Floyd, let it go.  No one cares.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Merely responding to Keelyn, Mr. D.  That's all.
Hey, would you be an agnostic like she is?  Or an atheist?  Gotta be something (other than Christian.)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


That is just a distraction and you know it.

That Catholic Church has addressed evolutionary theory and found it compatible with Christianity:

< here >

< here >

I particularly like < this one >:

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
In modern times the theory of evolution has raised a special difficulty against the revealed doctrine about the creation of man as a being composed of soul and body. With their own methods, many natural scientists study the problem of the origin of human life on earth. Some maintain, contrary to other colleagues of theirs, not only the existence of a link between man and the ensemble of nature, but also his derivation from the higher animal species. This problem has occupied scientists since the last century and involves vast layers of public opinion.

The reply of the Magisterium was offered in the encyclical Humani Generis of Pius XII in 1950. In it we read: "The magisterium of the Church is not opposed to the theory of evolution being the object of investigation and discussion among experts. Here the theory of evolution is understood as an investigation of the origin of the human body from pre-existing living matter, for the Catholic faith obliges us to hold firmly that souls are created immediately by God..." (DS 3896).

It can therefore be said that, from the viewpoint of the doctrine of the faith, there are no difficulties in explaining the origin of man in regard to the body, by means of the theory of evolution. But it must be added that this hypothesis proposes only a probability, not a scientific certainty. However, the doctrine of faith invariably affirms that man's spiritual soul is created directly by God. According to the hypothesis mentioned, it is possible that the human body, following the order impressed by the Creator on the energies of life, could have been gradually prepared in the forms of antecedent living beings. However, the human soul, on which man's humanity definitively depends, cannot emerge from matter, since the soul is of a spiritual nature.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



These statements (and there are others) are made with full appreciation of evolutionary theory: you have to credit them with a proper working knowledge of all its scientific ramifications. The situation is not equivalent to that of Dawkins opining (rather pig-headedly, in my view) about Christianity.

Can we move on from this mortally flogged horse now please?
Posted by: deadman_932 on Oct. 20 2009,10:04

Quote (deadman_932 @ Oct. 14 2009,11:04)
And for this page, too:

Just to help any new reader keep score, here's where you left off, Floyd Lee:

Your job was to demonstrate that evolutionary theory and Christianity were inherently incompatible, Floyd.

Your only argument for the incompatibility of evolution and Christianity was that you had your "Big Five Fantasies." Starting about page one of this thread you began to try to pretend that those BFF's were valid, you tried to juggle three lines of fraudulent "evidence" :

1.  You claimed that Christians (like the Pope) had to address your BFF's. Then you later later admit this not to be true -- Christians don't have to address your Fantasies at all, and they can still remain Christians in your own view....while still accepting evolution.

This was a killing stroke administered by yourself, to yourself.

2. You used quotes from evolutionists that are shown invalidly applied to support your claim . For instance, the personal opinion of Mayr, which is (a) consonant with the Pope's statements that believers are free to believe, and (b) consistent with the scientific consensus view that science can't deal with claims of divine teleology and ontology.

3.You used quotes from apologist-"scientists" with you claiming that your BFF's Divine Teleology and Ontology DID apply to science. Unfortunately, your creo-scientists can't provide any viable scientific research model that would provide evidence in favor of their empty blather. You failed to show that they ever could provide that, even thoretically. Ever.

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

That's it, Floyd. Over 40 pages of you obfuscating and flinging fallacies and that's all you got. You failed in every meaningful way, yet you pretend that you still have a live parrot and that your Black Knight argument has legs.

Your only real "victory" was you being more surreal than Monty Python, Floyd
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


This was from a while back. It had been mentioned more than once or twice.

Your claim that science was compatible with ultimate deistic teleology and ontology depended upon you citing a couple of apologist-"scientists."  

When you were asked to show their scientific program for determining such matters as God's teleology, you refused to answer (again).

That leaves you with the empty, undemonstrated opinions of the very apologists you cited. Which means that you haven't shown science and your Big Five Fantasies to actually be compatible at all.

Thus, because, as the NAS states, science cannot conceivably deal with such notions as divine telology and ontology...by default that long-held aspect of science remains intact.

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

All claims in science, even those things we call "facts," have to be held tentatively, Floyd. Nothing in science is held to be eternally, immutably "true." Your claims about deistic teleology and the origins for all things...well, those are held by you to be absolutely true and immutably true.

This is entirely contrary to all science. Period.

And you cannot claim that your Big Five Fantasies are compatible with science at large at all.  YOU make claims about absolute immutable "truths" but science cannot.
Posted by: FloydLee on Oct. 20 2009,10:07

Let's go right here, SLP:
     

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
In fact, let's toss in one more statement, this one comes from Paul Lurquin's 2003 book concerning the orign of life.
       

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
"The RNA World Hypothesis is a very attractive one, because it bases the appearance of life squarely within the realm of evolution."

---Lurquin, The Origins of Life and the Universe, p. 32.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Okay, now that's a really clear example of abiogenesis NOT being separate from evolution.  So what was your response?
     

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Never heard of him of the book.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


So you get to simply ignore and blow-off published statements like that of OOL expert Paul Lurquin, simply because you ain't been to your public library (the science section, btw) and read his book?  

No, that's not rational.  "Never heard of him or his book" is not a rebuttal, and is not a refutation of what he said.  It's as simple as that.  What Lurquin wrote, still stands.
     

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
So, if I write a book and state the opposite (you seem very impressed with books), will you stop making these claims?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Maybe si, maybe no.  But if you write that book, you will be forced to read the books of others first, and THAT is a very good thing in this case.
Posted by: FrankH on Oct. 20 2009,10:22

Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 20 2009,10:07)
Let's go right here, SLP:

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
In fact, let's toss in one more statement, this one comes from Paul Lurquin's 2003 book concerning the orign of life.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
"The RNA World Hypothesis is a very attractive one, because it bases the appearance of life squarely within the realm of evolution." ---Lurquin, The Origins of Life and the Universe, p. 32.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Okay, now that's a really clear example of abiogenesis NOT being separate from evolution.  So what was your response?

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Never heard of him of the book.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

So you get to simply ignore and blow-off published statements like that of OOL expert Paul Lurquin, simply because you ain't been to your public library (the science section, btw) and read his book?  

No, that's not rational.  "Never heard of him or his book" is not a rebuttal, and is not a refutation of what he said.  It's as simple as that.  What Lurquin wrote, still stands.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
So, if I write a book and state the opposite (you seem very impressed with books), will you stop making these claims?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Maybe si, maybe no.  But if you write that book, you will be forced to read the books of others first, and THAT is a very good thing in this case.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Your attempt to equate one person's opinion with scientific fact is poor Floyd.

That is like linking Christianity to pro-slavery as the SBC, Southern Baptist Convention, was formed for the sole purpose of lending scriptural support to slavery and not only was it a natural state, but one blessed by god.  By extension that means that Christianity has no problem with slavery.

Do you agree with that Floyd?
Posted by: deadman_932 on Oct. 20 2009,10:23

And, Floyd,  you still haven't answered Erasmus' question regarding your claim that God is the required explanation for the origins of water, but NOT the required explanation for why water runs downhill.

Did Satan create gravity?
Posted by: SLP on Oct. 20 2009,10:26

Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 20 2009,10:07)

---------------------QUOTE-------------------




---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Let's go right here, SLP:
     

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
In fact, let's toss in one more statement, this one comes from Paul Lurquin's 2003 book concerning the orign of life.
       

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
"The RNA World Hypothesis is a very attractive one, because it bases the appearance of life squarely within the realm of evolution."

---Lurquin, The Origins of Life and the Universe, p. 32.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Okay, now that's a really clear example of abiogenesis NOT being separate from evolution.  So what was your response?
     

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Never heard of him of the book.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


So you get to simply ignore and blow-off published statements like that of OOL expert Paul Lurquin, simply because you ain't been to your public library (the science section, btw) and read his book?  
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



My point was that one person's opinion - whether they are 'experts' or not - is really irrelevant, especially when your quotes are nto what they are cracked up to be:

"The RNA World Hypothesis is a very attractive one, because it bases the appearance of life squarely within the realm of evolution.  RNA, by virtue of its ability to store information in a base sequence, propagate it by replication, and evolve through mutation, allows much more flexibility than can be seen in a world in which proteins appeared first... Natural selection cannot operate on them [proteins]."

Looks like, yet again, we have someone commenting on the CONCEPT of evolution via natural selection, and not someone indicating that agiogenesis is 'part and parcel' of the theory of evolution.

It is true that I've not heard of Lurquin, and I mention that as I know your game.


---------------------QUOTE-------------------


No, that's not rational.  "Never heard of him or his book" is not a rebuttal, and is not a refutation of what he said.  It's as simple as that.  What Lurquin wrote, still stands.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



What I wrote was not meant to be a refutation or rebuttal of Lurquin, but of you.

Lurquin's quote stands as words indicating he is  someone who favors an RNA world type hypothesis for abiogenesis over a protein-frist one, not that he PROVES that abiogenesis is part and parcel of the theory of evolution.


---------------------QUOTE-------------------


     

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
So, if I write a book and state the opposite (you seem very impressed with books), will you stop making these claims?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Maybe si, maybe no.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Actually, no.
I know how you operate - whomever you happen to quote is the ultimate authority, like your veterinarian on vestiges, or your chiropracter on the relevance of the coccyx.  You are immune to rational discourse.


---------------------QUOTE-------------------


But if you write that book, you will be forced to read the books of others first, and THAT is a very good thing in this case.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Actually, I would not write a book on abiogenesis for starters, for I have relatively little knowledge of the field and I am not a creationist who believes that google expertise is REAL expertise, and if I did, I would likely go to the primary literature, not books.
But if I were to write a book on abiogenesis, you can rest assured that my arguments would not consist of quotes and proof-texting.
Posted by: SLP on Oct. 20 2009,10:27

Quote (FrankH @ Oct. 20 2009,10:22)
Your attempt to equate one person's opinion with scientific fact is poor Floyd.

That is like linking Christianity to pro-slavery as the SBC, Southern Baptist Convention, was formed for the sole purpose of lending scriptural support to slavery and not only was it a natural state, but one blessed by god.  By extension that means that Christianity has no problem with slavery.

Do you agree with that Floyd?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


He HAS to.

I mean, if he is to be considered honest and not engaging in ad hoc double standards.
Posted by: jupiter on Oct. 20 2009,10:48

FL, what you're not getting and apparently can't get is that no one here considers Lurquin's book a sacred text or his opinions divinely inspired and inarguable. Same with your other sources and quotes.

Assuming you've accurately parsed this snippet of Lurqin's (by no means a certainty)—so? That's what Lurquin thinks. You've given me no reason to credit Lurquin's opinion over those of the many scientists and writers who've stated that abiogenesis is not inextricably bound up with the theory of evolution.

   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
So, if I write a book and state the opposite (you seem very impressed with books), will you stop making these claims?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Maybe si, maybe no.  But if you write that book, you will be forced to read the books of others first, and THAT is a very good thing in this case.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



I agree that reading books is generally a good thing. How many of these books (whose presumed authority you're borrowing) have you read?
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Oct. 20 2009,10:51

Hey floyd, I was wondering about something and thought you might be able to help me out with the answer to this question.  according to you,


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Why is god not part of the required explanation for why water runs downhill, when he is part of the required explanation for the EXISTENCE OF WATER?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



just thought I might ask since I apparently haven't asked you this before.
Posted by: FloydLee on Oct. 20 2009,10:58



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
However, the human soul, on which man's humanity definitively depends, cannot emerge from matter, since the soul is of a spiritual nature.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


This sentence makes God a required explanation, absolutely for the origin of the first humans.  
Moreover, the theory of evolution, in which "God as creator or designer is no longer required" (Mayr), is NOT sufficient to produce humans after all.  

Which adds up to create an incompatibility between evolution (which gives God his pink slip, Dawkins said), and Christianity, of course 

This is true even for Catholic Christianity, as it turns out.  As you can see, they **always** re-affirm the First Incompatibility WRT human origins on Earth.
Posted by: OgreMkV on Oct. 20 2009,11:04

Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 20 2009,10:58)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
However, the human soul, on which man's humanity definitively depends, cannot emerge from matter, since the soul is of a spiritual nature.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


This sentence makes God a required explanation, absolutely for the origin of the first humans.  
Moreover, the theory of evolution, in which "God as creator or designer is no longer required" (Mayr), is NOT sufficient to produce humans after all.  

Which adds up to create an incompatibility between evolution (which gives God his pink slip, Dawkins said), and Christianity, of course 

This is true even for Catholic Christianity, as it turns out.  As you can see, they **always** re-affirm the First Incompatibility WRT human origins on Earth.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


It make god a required explanation FOR THE SOUL of which science has not (and probably never will) have any opinion, investigation, or conclusion... because it's beyond the realm of nature (as that quote states).

I'm not sure I understand why you can't grasp that science doesn't have anything to do with supernatural stuff...
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Oct. 20 2009,11:06

Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 20 2009,11:58)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
However, the human soul, on which man's humanity definitively depends, cannot emerge from matter, since the soul is of a spiritual nature.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


This sentence makes God a required explanation, absolutely for the origin of the first humans.  
Moreover, the theory of evolution, in which "God as creator or designer is no longer required" (Mayr), is NOT sufficient to produce humans after all.  

Which adds up to create an incompatibility between evolution (which gives God his pink slip, Dawkins said), and Christianity, of course 

This is true even for Catholic Christianity, as it turns out.  As you can see, they **always** re-affirm the First Incompatibility WRT human origins on Earth.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


speaking of required explanations



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Why is god not part of the required explanation for why water runs downhill, when he is part of the required explanation for the EXISTENCE OF WATER?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



you never answered this question.
Posted by: improvius on Oct. 20 2009,11:14

Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 20 2009,11:58)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
However, the human soul, on which man's humanity definitively depends, cannot emerge from matter, since the soul is of a spiritual nature.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


This sentence makes God a required explanation, absolutely for the origin of the first humans.  
Moreover, the theory of evolution, in which "God as creator or designer is no longer required" (Mayr), is NOT sufficient to produce humans after all.  

Which adds up to create an incompatibility between evolution (which gives God his pink slip, Dawkins said), and Christianity, of course 

This is true even for Catholic Christianity, as it turns out.  As you can see, they **always** re-affirm the First Incompatibility WRT human origins on Earth.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


What you just said is that God is the required source of the human SOUL, not the human phenotype or genotype.  Evolution is the explanation of how the human genotype and phenotype developed, and has nothing whatsoever to do with the "soul".  The term "human" is very clearly being used with multiple meanings here.  Your perceived conflict is coming directly from your own equivocation.
Posted by: FrankH on Oct. 20 2009,11:24

Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 20 2009,10:58)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
However, the human soul, on which man's humanity definitively depends, cannot emerge from matter, since the soul is of a spiritual nature.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

This sentence makes God a required explanation, absolutely for the origin of the first humans.  
Moreover, the theory of evolution, in which "God as creator or designer is no longer required" (Mayr), is NOT sufficient to produce humans after all.  

Which adds up to create an incompatibility between evolution (which gives God his pink slip, Dawkins said), and Christianity, of course 

This is true even for Catholic Christianity, as it turns out.  As you can see, they **always** re-affirm the First Incompatibility WRT human origins on Earth.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Hardly.

First, there is no evidence souls exists.  So when you say with absolute certainty that the origins of humanity is based on something that has never been shown, it is an apt metaphor for your own level of discourse.

Again, what about the SBC and Slavery?  As the SBC was founded on showing that the Bible supported and according to John C. Calhoun demanded slavery, does that mean slavery is part and parcel of Christianity?
Posted by: Amadan on Oct. 20 2009,11:45

Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 20 2009,10:58)
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
However, the human soul, on which man's humanity definitively depends, cannot emerge from matter, since the soul is of a spiritual nature.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


This sentence makes God a required explanation, absolutely for the origin of the first humans.  
Moreover, the theory of evolution, in which "God as creator or designer is no longer required" (Mayr), is NOT sufficient to produce humans after all.  

Which adds up to create an incompatibility between evolution (which gives God his pink slip, Dawkins said), and Christianity, of course 

This is true even for Catholic Christianity, as it turns out.  As you can see, they **always** re-affirm the First Incompatibility WRT human origins on Earth.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------




sigh

Fot the second time on the same bloody page, Floyd!

Catholic teaching on human origins, link in my post above



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
It can therefore be said that, from the viewpoint of the doctrine of the faith, there are no difficulties in explaining the origin of man in regard to the body, by means of the theory of evolution. But it must be added that this hypothesis proposes only a probability, not a scientific certainty. However, the doctrine of faith invariably affirms that man's spiritual soul is created directly by God. According to the hypothesis mentioned, it is possible that the human body, following the order impressed by the Creator on the energies of life, could have been gradually prepared in the forms of antecedent living beings. However, the human soul, on which man's humanity definitively depends, cannot emerge from matter, since the soul is of a spiritual nature.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



There goes your first Incompetence Fallacy.

The (Christian) Catholic Church states that there is no incompatibility using the very text you use to suggest the opposite!

Drop it and move on the ID, Floyd. This is just pathetic.


Edit: Bloody Submit button has a mind of its own.
Posted by: Robin on Oct. 20 2009,12:01

Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 19 2009,17:06)

---------------------QUOTE-------------------




---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Oh, and btw Deadman, I am very confident that you are not a Christian.  Do I know your exact beliefs?  Nope, because when I asked in sincerity, you refused.  I believe the refusal was out of fear.  So yeah, you've convinced me you're not a Christian.  

But lots of people are not Christians.  The problem here is that whatever you are, you have convinced me that you're unethical as well!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Oh please...like such a statement on your part has any meaning, Floyd. You claiming someone like deadman is unethical is like a multiple rapist/murderer pointing to someone with an expired registration sticker and screaming, "what a bad person you are!" Yeah riiiight! LOL!
Posted by: FrankH on Oct. 20 2009,12:02

Floyd,


I'm still waiting on the Link of Slavery and Christianity brought to you by the SBC.

If you really think that the OPINIONS of someone mean that it is true, then you must accept not just that, but the OPINIONS of other Christians that Evolution and being a Christian is also true.
Posted by: Henry J on Oct. 20 2009,12:16



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Edit: Bloody Submit button has a mind of its own.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


But does it have a soul?
Posted by: Robin on Oct. 20 2009,12:16

Well...I'm now completely convinced. After 56 pages, Floyd has now convinced me: beyond any doubt whatsoever, the Theory of Evolution is absolutely incompitable with stupidity.
Posted by: Henry J on Oct. 20 2009,12:20

Quote (Amadan @ Oct. 20 2009,03:10)
You are evading the point that has been made time after time here.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


It appears that Floyd is conflating "is the cause of" with "is the explanation of". The assumption that God caused life does not require that the properties of that life can't be studied and explained in terms of the methods used in that causation.

Henry
Posted by: Dan on Oct. 20 2009,12:23

I just ran across this statement by Albert Einstein:

"The most beautiful experience we can have is the mysterious. It is the fundamental emotion that stands at the cradle of true art and true science. Whoever does not know it and can no longer wonder, no longer marvel, is as good as dead, and his eyes are dimmed. It was the experience of mystery -- even if mixed with fear -- that engendered religion. A knowledge of the existence of something we cannot penetrate, our perceptions of the profoundest reason and the most radiant beauty, which only in their most primitive forms are accessible to our minds: it is this knowledge and this emotion that constitute true religiosity."

FL clearly can't experience this mystery -- he claims that he can't understand how faith in Christianity and knowledge of evolution are consistent, and hence that they can't be consistent.  And, sure enough, he's as good as dead.
Posted by: ppb on Oct. 20 2009,12:23

Quote (Robin @ Oct. 20 2009,13:16)
Well...I'm now completely convinced. After 56 pages, Floyd has now convinced me: beyond any doubt whatsoever, the Theory of Evolution is absolutely incompitable with stupidity.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Or at least that Floyd is incompatible with reality.
Posted by: Robin on Oct. 20 2009,12:25

Quote (Robin @ Oct. 20 2009,12:16)

---------------------QUOTE-------------------




---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Well...I'm now completely convinced. After 56 pages, Floyd has now convinced me: beyond any doubt whatsoever, the Theory of Evolution is absolutely incompitable with stupidity.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



It's also incompatible... ;)
Posted by: Dan on Oct. 20 2009,12:35

I just found out the the Bible itself comments on this question!

In Romans 8:38-39, Paul lets us know that:

"neither death nor life, neither angels nor demons, neither the present nor the future, nor any powers, neither height nor depth, nor anything else in all creation, will be able to separate us from the love of God."

Since evolution is a "power" and is within "all creation", then obviously it's not able to separate us from the love of God.  Hence evolution is compatible with Christianity.
Posted by: Amadan on Oct. 20 2009,12:59

Floyd is no longer able to sustain arguments in support of his Five Flunktastic Fallacies.

Can we pleeeeeeease drop this and move on to ID?
Posted by: FloydLee on Oct. 20 2009,13:04

Just random googling, no more than two minutes duration, under the label "evolution incompatible with Christianity".  Found this opening post on another discussion forum, a general one.


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
What is/are your opinion(s) on evolution? The Catholic Church believes in it but they say that, somewhere along the line, God decided to give man a soul. That doesn't make sense to me? I'm not saying I don't believe in evolution (cause I do), I'm saying that evolution kind of contradicts God and Christianity a little, IMO.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


People can tell, folks.  Ordinary people can tell.
Posted by: FloydLee on Oct. 20 2009,13:05



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Floyd is no longer able to sustain arguments in support of his Five Flunktastic Fallacies.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Just curious, Amadan:  what was your specific refutation to the Fourth and Fifth Incompatibilities?
Posted by: Schroedinger's Dog on Oct. 20 2009,13:09

Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 20 2009,20:04)
Just random googling, no more than two minutes duration, under the label "evolution incompatible with Christianity".  Found this opening post on another discussion forum, a general one.
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
What is/are your opinion(s) on evolution? The Catholic Church believes in it but they say that, somewhere along the line, God decided to give man a soul. That doesn't make sense to me? I'm not saying I don't believe in evolution (cause I do), I'm saying that evolution kind of contradicts God and Christianity a little, IMO.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


People can tell, folks.  Ordinary people can tell.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Argumentum ad Google?


really?


Man, you've gone way beyond the limits of fucktardery!

< First result when searching "evolution is compatible with christianity" >

Professionals can tell, too!

Fucktard!
Posted by: JohnW on Oct. 20 2009,13:20

Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 20 2009,11:04)
Just random googling, no more than two minutes duration, under the label "evolution incompatible with Christianity".  Found this opening post on another discussion forum, a general one.
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
What is/are your opinion(s) on evolution? The Catholic Church believes in it but they say that, somewhere along the line, God decided to give man a soul. That doesn't make sense to me? I'm not saying I don't believe in evolution (cause I do), I'm saying that evolution kind of contradicts God and Christianity a little, IMO.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


People can tell, folks.  Ordinary people can tell.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Someone on teh interwebs says so.  Therefore it's true.


Note to self: become born again before Elvis ends the world in 2012.
Posted by: FrankH on Oct. 20 2009,13:34

Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 20 2009,13:04)
Just random googling, no more than two minutes duration, under the label "evolution incompatible with Christianity".  Found this opening post on another discussion forum, a general one.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
What is/are your opinion(s) on evolution? The Catholic Church believes in it but they say that, somewhere along the line, God decided to give man a soul. That doesn't make sense to me? I'm not saying I don't believe in evolution (cause I do), I'm saying that evolution kind of contradicts God and Christianity a little, IMO.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


People can tell, folks.  Ordinary people can tell.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Arguments from popular opinion?  "Ordinary people" thought slavery was good to and they could tell it was.  Is that what you're saying?  So when "ordinary people" revert to mob violence and kill innocent people "because they just know", that's okay with you?

I take it "ordinary people" means "those you agree with at  that time"?  What about those posts where people question and offer their conviction that the god of Abraham is a petty, jealous, rapist, murdering, egotistical blowhard that takes credit for all natural disasters even though this petulant child is no more responsible for these disasters than Elvis?
Posted by: FrankH on Oct. 20 2009,13:37

Floyd,


Why are you ignoring my posts?  Can't you answer them?

I guess that means in Floyd's world Christianity = Slavery = God's Blessed Will.

Thanks Floyd.
Posted by: FloydLee on Oct. 20 2009,13:40



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Argumentum ad Google?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Nope.  A mere observation.  Not intended to prove anything, but worth noting all the same.
You may be tempted to pretend such people don't exist, you may tempted to pretend that all Catholics don't see any incompatibility in there.  

But they do.  Many people do.  They can tell, even though they believe in evolution anyway.  I merely offered the reminder from an ordinary lay Catholic.  Seemed appropriate for this forum.
Posted by: OgreMkV on Oct. 20 2009,13:40

Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 20 2009,13:05)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Floyd is no longer able to sustain arguments in support of his Five Flunktastic Fallacies.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Just curious, Amadan:  what was your specific refutation to the Fourth and Fifth Incompatibilities?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I'm actually more curious as to what YOUR responses are to the THREE people who have disassembled ALL five Big Fat Fallacies.

Dude... google... I'll note that you
1) didn't post a link
2) didn't post the author
3) didn't post the forum/thread

Now, here's the google results... just the info that comes on google mind you.  Since you don't have a problem taking things out of context, it should be a big deal right.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
#
Baptist Press - Evolution incompatible with Christianity, Mohler ...
October 15, 2009. SECTION. BP News · BP en Espańol · BP Sports · BP Cartoons. BP on Assignment. FEATURES. SBC in the News · Culture Digest ...
www.bpnews.net/bpnews.asp?ID=21375 - Cached - Similar -
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



no information that actually matches the search terms



---------------------QUOTE-------------------

#
Evolution incompatible with Christianity
Evolution incompatible with Christianity. First published: Creation 15(4):22. September 1993. 'People seem to think that Christianity and evolution do or ...
< https://www.answersingenesis.com/docs/1300.asp > - Cached - Similar -

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



"People seem to think that Christianity and evolution"

And we all know answers in Genesis is always factually correct...



---------------------QUOTE-------------------

The Incompatibility of Biblical Christianity and Evolution ...
The purpose of this paper will be to briefly demonstrate that Biblical Christianity and naturalistic evolution are incompatible as belief systems or ...
theologyandsteak.wordpress.com/.../the-incompatibility-of-biblical-christianity-and-evolution/ - Cached - Similar -

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



A paper at the "Theology and Steak" blog.  It's almost too easy... naw, is it a paper napkin... is a steak a direct production of god, or was a cow involved?



---------------------QUOTE-------------------

WikiAnswers - Are Christianity and the theory of evolution ...
Religion and Spirituality question: Are Christianity and the theory of evolution incompatible? Many Christians (including the late Pope John-Paul) are able ...
wiki.answers.com/.../Are_Christianity_and_the_theory_of_evolution_incompatible - Cached - Similar -

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



That's a good question and the answer is obvious to everyone (including the late Pope John-Paul) (someone I trust more than an unknown web denzion, except with young boys... well maybe not)



---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Get Answers - Answers in Genesis
Why is evolution so dangerous for Christians to believe? ... Evolution incompatible with Christianity · The god of an old Earth · Jacques Monod vs Theistic ...
www.answersingenesis.org/get.../topic/creation-compromises - Cached - Similar -

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Again, AiG...



---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Lee Strobel on the case for the intelligent design movement ...
Random, undirected evolution is incompatible with Christianity, says a well-known evangelical author.
www.beliefnet.com/News/.../The-Case-For-A-Creator.aspx - Cached - Similar -

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



See, even in the precis from google, creationists can't get their definitions straight.  Random, undirected evolution is incompatible with... well... evolution.

I could go on, but what's the point.  If I look hard enough on the internet I can also find belief in a flying spagetti monster that talks like a pirate.

Try providing some valid resources... AND ANSWER THE BLOODY QUESTIONS!
Posted by: OgreMkV on Oct. 20 2009,13:41

Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 20 2009,13:40)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Argumentum ad Google?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Nope.  A mere observation.  Not intended to prove anything, but worth noting all the same.
You may be tempted to pretend such people don't exist, you may tempted to pretend that all Catholics don't see any incompatibility in there.  

But they do.  Many people do.  They can tell, even though they believe in evolution anyway.  I merely offered the reminder from an ordinary lay Catholic.  Seemed appropriate for this forum.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Prove the poster in that case was a lay catholic... oh and while you your at it... ANSWER THE BLOODY QUESTIONS.
Posted by: FloydLee on Oct. 20 2009,13:46



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Why are you ignoring my posts?  Can't you answer them?

I guess that means in Floyd's world Christianity = Slavery = God's Blessed Will.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Guess you guys wanna keep going on this topic all the way to Nov. 1.  Sure starting to look that way.

Go ahead and repeat your question Frank; I'll answer it now.
Posted by: improvius on Oct. 20 2009,13:51

Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 20 2009,14:46)
Guess you guys wanna keep going on this topic all the way to Nov. 1.  
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Why not?  You guys have kept it going for the past 150+ years
Posted by: FrankH on Oct. 20 2009,13:54

Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 20 2009,13:40)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Argumentum ad Google?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Nope.  A mere observation.  Not intended to prove anything, but worth noting all the same.

You may be tempted to pretend such people don't exist, you may tempted to pretend that all Catholics don't see any incompatibility in there.  

But they do.  Many people do.  They can tell, even though they believe in evolution anyway.  I merely offered the reminder from an ordinary lay Catholic.  Seemed appropriate for this forum.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Again Floyd:

Is Slavery part and parcel with Christianity?  Remember the SBC and what they said.

Instead of some unknown web posting from somebody who might be a paid apologist, what about the writings of the good Christian John C. Calhoun?  Ever read what he thought Christians were?  This guy had and still has a following.

Does that make that nut's word more credible?
Posted by: FloydLee on Oct. 20 2009,14:01



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Prove the poster in that case was a lay catholic.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


He said he was Catholic.  Didn't say he was a (insert deacon or clergy title here.)

But hey, I could be wrong, maybe's he not a layperson at all.  Maybe he's a Vatican Cardinal, surfing the Net incognito from St Peters' Basilica.  Yeah, that's gotta be it.

In which case you still have the same thing.  Apparently Vatican Cardinals can tell that there's some kind of incompatibility between evolution and Christianity.
Posted by: FrankH on Oct. 20 2009,14:02

Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 20 2009,13:46)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Why are you ignoring my posts?  Can't you answer them?

I guess that means in Floyd's world Christianity = Slavery = God's Blessed Will.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Guess you guys wanna keep going on this topic all the way to Nov. 1.  Sure starting to look that way.

Go ahead and repeat your question Frank; I'll answer it now.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


From at least five different posts:

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Floyd,

Is science incompatible with all religions or just Christianity?

Also, you do know that if Evolution is wrong, biblical creationism is not right and does not win by default, correct?

Um, exactly how is Evolution, specifically Biological Evolution, "materialism"?  How is that different from Gravity not needing a god nor angels to move objects around others?

Are you saying that those who are Christians who THINK Evolution is how their god did things aren't Christians?  Please be specific.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

As these are all baisclly the same:

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
That is like linking Christianity to pro-slavery as the SBC, Southern Baptist Convention, was formed for the sole purpose of lending scriptural support to slavery and not only was it a natural state, but one blessed by god.  By extension that means that Christianity has no problem with slavery.

Do you agree with that Floyd?

I'm still waiting on the Link of Slavery and Christianity brought to you by the SBC.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Could you answer that if a major sect of the Christian faith says Slavery is good and indeed blessed by god from your own statements that means you agree with the statement:

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Christian = Slavery = God's Blessed Will
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Correct?

Last but not least:

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
If you really think that the OPINIONS of someone mean that it is true, then you must accept not just that, but the OPINIONS of other Christians that Evolution and being a Christian is also true.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Looking forward to your answers
Posted by: OgreMkV on Oct. 20 2009,14:22

Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 20 2009,14:01)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Prove the poster in that case was a lay catholic.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


He said he was Catholic.  Didn't say he was a (insert deacon or clergy title here.)

But hey, I could be wrong, maybe's he not a layperson at all.  Maybe he's a Vatican Cardinal, surfing the Net incognito from St Peters' Basilica.  Yeah, that's gotta be it.

In which case you still have the same thing.  Apparently Vatican Cardinals can tell that there's some kind of incompatibility between evolution and Christianity.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


LOL... we've reach "he said" level... and my dad can hit your dad with a .50 bullet from 1800 yards away... whoopty freaking do.

Let's see
"Pope Pius XII, a deeply conservative man, directly addressed the issue of evolution in a 1950 encyclical, Humani Generis.  The document makes plain the pope’s fervent hope that evolution will prove to be a passing scientific fad, and it attacks those persons who “imprudently and indiscreetly hold that evolution …explains the origin of all things.”  Nonetheless, Pius XII states that nothing in Catholic doctrine is contradicted by a theory that suggests one specie might evolve into another—even if that specie is man."
--http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/vaticanview.html

That was two popes ago and they still haven't changed their mind... they have apparently gotten even more sure that there is incompatible with evolution.  

The present pope and JOhn Paul were both cardinals as well... so that statement of yours is false.

Now, answer the questions.
Posted by: Amadan on Oct. 20 2009,15:02

Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 20 2009,13:05)
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Floyd is no longer able to sustain arguments in support of his Five Flunktastic Fallacies.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Just curious, Amadan:  what was your specific refutation to the Fourth and Fifth Incompatibilities?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


On checking, I find that you have only raised four that I recall, Floyd: see < here >. Unless there's a super-secret double incompatibility somewhere.

Also, you forget that it has been pointed out that the compatibility of evolutionary theory and Christianity is not determined by your opinions. The fact that the Catholic Church is quite at ease with evolutionary theory refutes your claim without any need to consider your Five Four Flunktastic Freeform Failures. That you have your own private definition of Christianity is a credit to you. Please mind it carefully and above all else, don't give it to strangers who can't dispose of it safely.

Of course, it would be surprising if an institution like the Catholic Church, which is kinda involved in education n stuff,* hadn't thought about all that "made in the image of God" stuff in the light of a theory that has been at the heart of biology for 150 years. And oooooh look! < There it is! > The very one I linked to earlier which you never quite got around to reading! Well done Floyd.

And all that "death before the Fall" stuff. Hmmm. That's a stumper. Probably because nothing in Genesis says that there was no death before the Fall.

Nothing, Floyd.


Sorry.


If I said to you "Floyd, please don't jump off that cliff, if you do you will surely die", I'm afraid that your choice not to jump will not guarantee you immortality. Genesis says nothing about death in relation to animals and all the creepy-crawlies. That Paul thought otherwise is interesting, but, heck, that Paul guy? Whattadude... Really into slaves n stuff too.** That the RCC interprets what Paul means by "death" as being of the soul probably has something to do with the idea of Jesus conquering "death", which some (mortal) Christians seem to think is important.So presumably it doesn't refer to bodies.

Please give it up, Floyd. It's utterly wearisome. Your argument was stuffed long long ago. I realise you can't admit you even might be wrong, but please admit that you have failed to convince anyone here. Nobody: atheist, Christian, agnostic or None of the Above.



* Cue altarboy joke

** Speaking of which, any word from the SBC?

Posted by: FloydLee on Oct. 20 2009,15:10



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Is Slavery part and parcel with Christianity?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


The Bible's answer is no.  Euro-American slavery violated multiple Old Testament Biblical humane regulations (including at least one calling for a death penalty if violated, Exo. 21:16).  

Beyond that, God's plan for all humans has always been equality NOT slavery.

[quote]Slavery is a product of the fall of man and has existed in the world since that time. Slavery was not a part of God's original created order, and as God's created order has gradually been re-established since the time of Christ, slavery has gradually been eliminated.

---Steven McDowell, 2003, Wallbuilders website [/qujote]

And in the New Testament, the slaves were encouraged to go ahead and seek their freedom.
   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
"Were you a slave when you were called (to hook up with Christ)? That shouldn't bother you.

However, if you have a chance to become free, take it."  

(2 Cor. 7:21)  
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


So, from the Bible itself, it's very clear that slavery has no chance of being part and parcel of Christianity.  

Slavery, just like evolution, is Incompatible with Christianity.
Posted by: OgreMkV on Oct. 20 2009,15:23

Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 20 2009,15:10)

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Have you ever read the Bible Floyd?  I have... and well... 1 Peter 2:18 (New International Version)

18Slaves, submit yourselves to your masters with all respect, not only to those who are good and considerate, but also to those who are harsh.

and from the OT (which I think is more relevent in this case)

Deuteronomy 21:10-11
10 When you go to war against your enemies and the LORD your God delivers them into your hands and you take captives,
   11 if you notice among the captives a beautiful woman and are attracted to her, you may take her as your wife


I grow weary of this he said/she said crap.  Oh, just for posterities sake... you have a pile of unanswered questions and refutations that you still haven't dealt with.

Stop with this line, you'll only embarrass yourself... not that I expect the ID in science class to be any better.
Posted by: FrankH on Oct. 20 2009,15:34

Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 20 2009,15:10)

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Hmmm, that's not what I asked and your dodge is noted.

As a major evangelical Christian Sect was formed just to spread "God's truth about slavery", doesn't that make it one in the same?



---------------------QUOTE-------------------


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Is Slavery part and parcel with Christianity?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

The Bible's answer is no.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

No?  What about Exodus 21:7?  Also, if she's a virgin, I can get more but if she's not, then Deuteronomy22:28-29 can come into play.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Euro-American slavery violated multiple Old Testament Biblical humane regulations (including at least one calling for a death penalty if violated, Exo. 21:16).
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Humane?  Like this in Exodus 21:20-21

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
"And if a man smite his servant, or his maid, with a rod, and he die under his hand; he shall be surely punished. Notwithstanding, if he continue a day or two, he shall not be punished: for he is his money [property]."
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

So if a "master" beat his slave and he lived for a day or two, no big deal as the master is just out a few shekels.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Beyond that, God's plan for all humans has always been equality NOT slavery.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Sorry, but again the Bible trips you up as if that were true, there'd be nothing about buying or selling of slaves and how to do it.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Slavery is a product of the fall of man and has existed in the world since that time. Slavery was not a part of God's original created order, and as God's created order has gradually been re-established since the time of Christ, slavery has gradually been eliminated.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

So your god changes its mind depending on the times.  Seems like a change in the ways of man that wages the tail that is his god.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
---Steven McDowell, 2003, Wallbuilders website
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Ah argument from someone who didn't address the verses in the Bible directly but instead lied about it saying his god changes its mind and that man makes this god sit up and beg to be worshipped.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
And in the New Testament, the slaves were encouraged to go ahead and seek their freedom.(2 Cor. 7:21)  
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Which contradicts the OT making your god a good subject for some deep and probing psychological evaluations now.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
"Were you a slave when you were called (to hook up with Christ)? That shouldn't bother you.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Sounds more like it saying, "Being a slave,that was your lot so accept it".

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
However, if you have a chance to become free, take it."
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Which again goes against the OT here:

Leviticus 25:44-46: "Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves. You may also buy some of the temporary residents living among you and members of their clans born in your country, and they will become your property. You can will them to your children as inherited property and can make them slaves for life, but you must not rule over your fellow Israelites ruthlessly."

and here:

Leviticus 25:48-53: "After that he is sold he may be redeemed again; one of his brethren may redeem him: Either his uncle, or his uncle's son, may redeem him, or any that is nigh of kin unto him of his family may redeem him; or if he be able, he may redeem himself. And he shall reckon with him that bought him from the year that he was sold to him unto the year of jubilee: and the price of his sale shall be according unto the number of years, according to the time of an hired servant shall it be with him.

Looks like the OT contradicts what you say.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
So, from the Bible itself, it's very clear that slavery has no chance of being part and parcel of Christianity.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Looks like the Bible disagrees[/quote]Slavery, just like evolution, is Incompatible with Christianity.[/quote]From Joel 3:8:

And I will sell your sons and your daughters into the hand of the children of Judah, and they shall sell them to the Sabeans, to a people far off: for the LORD hath spoken it.

Looks like your lord your god says otherwise.
Posted by: Robin on Oct. 20 2009,15:37

[quote=FloydLee,Oct. 20 2009,13:40][/quote]
[quote]  

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Argumentum ad Google?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------




---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Nope.  A mere observation.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



LOL! Yeah riiiight! If it were a mere observation, you might have merely observed that there are other posters out there on the Intertubes who disagree with those folks and you. Seems more like a selective observation to me.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Not intended to prove anything, but worth noting all the same.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



LOL! Yeah riiiight! If it wasn't intended to prove anything, you wouldn't have bothered trying to defend it. Of course as others have noted, it isn't worth anything except that it demonstrates an argument by biased Internet poll or selective reading, take your pick.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
You may be tempted to pretend such people don't exist, you may tempted to pretend that all Catholics don't see any incompatibility in there.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Ha! There's no reason to pretend such folk don't exist - we only have to realize such folks are offering opinions and that such isn't relevant to whether evolution is ACTUALLY compatible with Christianity.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
But they do.  Many people do.  They can tell, even though they believe in evolution anyway.  I merely offered the reminder from an ordinary lay Catholic.  Seemed appropriate for this forum.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Here's something to really consider: anyone who says he or she believes in evolution (or any other scientifically described process, theory, law, etc) clearly knows little or nothing of what they are writing or saying. Saying one believes in evolution is no different than saying  one believes in solar power or that one believes in gravity.  So clearly not only do those folks likely NOT believe in evolution (as if one could), but they also likely don't know what it even is. Not unlike you, Floyd.
Posted by: FloydLee on Oct. 20 2009,15:42



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
On checking, I find that you have only raised four that I recall, Floyd: see here. Unless there's a super-secret double incompatibility somewhere.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Hmmm.  You missed one; the fifth one.  Very big.

Evolutionist Jason Rosenhouse explains the Fifth Incompatibility:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Evolution by natural selection, you see, is an awful process. It is bloody, sadistic, and cruel.

It flouts every moral precept we humans hold dear. It recognizes only survival and gene propagation, and even on those rare occasions where you find altruism and non-selfishness you can be certain that blind self-interest is lurking somewhere behind the scenes.

All of this suffering, pain and misery, mind you, to reach a foreordained moment when self-awae creature finally appeared.

What theological purpose was served by all this bloodsport?

If humans were inevitable why didn't God simply fast-forward the tape himself, thereby sparing all of those animals that died horrible deaths in the preceding hundreds of millions of years?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------




---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Reconciling evolution and Christianity is not as simple as theistic evolutionists often try to pretend.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


That's the fifth incompatibility.  Your refutation, Amadan?
Posted by: Schroedinger's Dog on Oct. 20 2009,15:50



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
That's the fifth incompatibility.  Your refutation, Amadan?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Almost anything in the OT, scumbag!
Posted by: FloydLee on Oct. 20 2009,16:04



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
As a major evangelical Christian Sect was formed just to spread "God's truth about slavery", doesn't that make it one in the same?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


What, are you in a hurry to ignore what the Bible says, FrankH?  After all, that same sect has ABANDONED their proslavery position and they affirm that the Bible was correctly opposed to their mistaken position.

They even apologized to blacks for their racial evils.

(Contrast that with the ongoing refusal of evolutionists to apologize for evolution-based racial wrongs like Ota Benga, the eugenic torment of minority women, and the flat-out murder of Australian Aborigines and stealing their children.)
Posted by: Lou FCD on Oct. 20 2009,16:10

Quote (Keelyn @ Oct. 20 2009,09:11)
 
I'm liking Lou's pics more and more. I have a favorite, but I won't say which. What about you, Floyd? Do you have a favorite?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


:) I'm glad. I'd like to know your fav, though. (You can PM me, if you'd rather.)

   
Quote (SLP @ Oct. 20 2009,11:27)
     
Quote (FrankH @ Oct. 20 2009,10:22)
Your attempt to equate one person's opinion with scientific fact is poor Floyd.

That is like linking Christianity to pro-slavery as the SBC, Southern Baptist Convention, was formed for the sole purpose of lending scriptural support to slavery and not only was it a natural state, but one blessed by god.  By extension that means that Christianity has no problem with slavery.

Do you agree with that Floyd?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


He HAS to.

I mean, if he is to be considered honest and not engaging in ad hoc double standards.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



I don't think Floyd's in any danger of being considered honest by anyone, including himself. He's a lying douchebag, and he knows it. He's just desperate to believe he'll never stop being. Truth is, he knows the universe doesn't give a flying fuck about him, that it will go on without him after he's dead just like it did before he showed up. That scares him shitless.

 
Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 20 2009,11:58)
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
However, the human soul, on which man's humanity definitively depends, cannot emerge from matter, since the soul is of a spiritual nature.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


This sentence makes God a required explanation, absolutely for the origin of the first humans.  
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



ORLY? Which god, Floyd? Aphrodite?

Oh, and I see you're lying about the Bible again.

It's a little ahead of schedule, but here's someone I'd like you to meet.



Ya'll are going to have so much to talk about, Floyd.
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
< Luciferouge >, by ::hap
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Oh, and Floyd?
 
Quote (Lou FCD @ Oct. 19 2009,14:57)
 
Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Oct. 02 2009,13:37)
why is god not part of the required explanation for why water runs downhill, when he is part of the required explanation for the EXISTENCE OF WATER?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


< Link >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Edited, a bit.


Posted by: Reed on Oct. 20 2009,16:38

Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 20 2009,13:42)
     

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Evolution by natural selection, you see, is an awful process. It is bloody, sadistic, and cruel.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


That's the fifth incompatibility.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


If "bloody sadistic and cruel" is incompatible with Christianity, then your god is incompatible. The bible is full of instances of god meting out bloody punishments on people who weren't responsible for the offense they were being punished for. < This has already been pointed out. >  If killing animals in a bloody, pointless fashion is wrong, how do you justify the flood ? Why didn't god just send a plague that killed of the sinful humans and leave the animals alone ?

But, as I said ealier, this is all irrelevant. Compatible or not, those hundreds of millions of years of death and suffering did happen, whether or not evolution is true. Unless you want to deny the ability of evidence to tell us anything about the past, that how it was. Once again, this isn't specifically about evolution Floyd, this is about reality.
Posted by: OgreMkV on Oct. 20 2009,16:41

Equality in the Bible:

Ezra 10:1-44 (10:2-3, 10-12, 44) RSV

"We have broken faith with our God and have married foreign women from the peoples of the land...let us make a covenant with our God TO PUT AWAY ALL THESE WIVES AND THEIR CHILDREN, according to the counsel of my lord and of those who tremble at the commandment of our God; and let it be done according to the law...Ezra the priest...said to them, "You have trespassed and married foreign women, and so increased the guilt of Israel. Now then make confession to the Lord the God of your fathers, and do his will; separate yourselves from the peoples of the land and from the foreign wives." Then all the assembly answered with a loud voice, "It is so; we must do as you have said...All these had married foreign women, AND THEY PUT THEM AWAY WITH THEIR CHILDREN."


Deuteronomy 23:2-3, 6  RSV

"No bastard shall enter the assembly of the Lord; even to the tenth generation none of his descendants shall enter the assembly of the Lord. NO Ammonite or _MOABITE_ SHALL ENTER THE ASSEMBLY OF THE LORD, _EVEN_ TO THE TENTH GENERATION _NONE_ BELONGING TO THEM SHALL ENTER THE ASSEMBLY OF THE LORD _FOR_EVER_;


Nehemiah 13:23-27 RSV

"In those days also I saw the Jews who had married women of Ashdod, Ammon, and Moab...I contended with them and CURSED THEM and beat some of them and pulled out their hair; and I made them take an oath in the name of God, saying, "You shall not give your daughters to their sons or for yourselves...Shall we do all this great evil and act treacherously against our God by marrying foreign women?"


Equality for 'my people' and everyone else can hang, you mean.

BTW: Why won't you answer the questions and comment on the refutations to your big five fallacies?

I don't even expect an answer at this point.  I just want to know why you WON'T answer the questions or make the posts you said you would make.
Posted by: Amadan on Oct. 20 2009,16:51

Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 20 2009,15:42)
     

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
On checking, I find that you have only raised four that I recall, Floyd: see here. Unless there's a super-secret double incompatibility somewhere.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Hmmm.  You missed one; the fifth one.  Very big.

Evolutionist Jason Rosenhouse explains the Fifth Incompatibility:

       

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Evolution by natural selection, you see, is an awful process. It is bloody, sadistic, and cruel.

It flouts every moral precept we humans hold dear. It recognizes only survival and gene propagation, and even on those rare occasions where you find altruism and non-selfishness you can be certain that blind self-interest is lurking somewhere behind the scenes.

All of this suffering, pain and misery, mind you, to reach a foreordained moment when self-awae creature finally appeared.

What theological purpose was served by all this bloodsport?

If humans were inevitable why didn't God simply fast-forward the tape himself, thereby sparing all of those animals that died horrible deaths in the preceding hundreds of millions of years?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


       

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Reconciling evolution and Christianity is not as simple as theistic evolutionists often try to pretend.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


That's the fifth incompatibility.  Your refutation, Amadan?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You do realise that this is entirely irrelevant, don't you Floyd? Your 'incompatibilities' are secondary to your main argument that evolutionary theory is incompatible with Christianity, but we have found lots and lots of Christians who disagree and, to the extent that they consider your 'incompatibilities' relevant, dismiss your objections.

As the discussion of slavery indicates, Christianity wobbles from one interpretation to another as time and circumstances go by. That's the problem with patchwork scripture. You start off with a good creation story (or two), and someone goes and welds on a bit of tribal folklore here, rationalisation for stealing the neighbour's land or cattle there, your law-book onto that bit, a few poems over there, and after a while it looks like something from the Experimental Sculpture reject pile. That is why your attempt to constrain it to the bounds of your fallacies is ridiculous.

But seeing that you asked me for how I would reconcile the 'savagery' of evolutionary theory with the God of the Bible, here goes.

God seems to have no problem at all with wholesale death and mayhem. Gadarene swine get infected with Bad Fairies which promptly drive them off a cliff (and, being omniscient, God knew that would happen). No mention of compensation either. Try that to a farmer in the EU nowadays and you'll have traffic jams from one end of France to the other all summer long.

Not to mention God Himself condemning Himself to a verrry nasty death (which, despite His own request, he refused to prevent Himself from inflicting on Himself) to atone to Himself for sins committed by someone else (who, if we are to believe what we are told, didn't know right from wrong and so could not be said to have willed to offend God). Is that sadism or masochism? And does it make the Holy Spirit a voyeur? Mel Gibson could probably tell us.

Then there's all that slavery, rape and pillage in the Old Testament. Definitely one law for us, none for them. Marvellous example for the children, as my wife frequently says through clenched teeth.

The savagery to man and beast that is condoned or even ordered in the Bible is more than enough to make your last objection (like its dribbling siblings) completely otiose. I'm sure Jason Rosenhouse is great guy to have a beer with, but the death and destruction he refers to suggests that evolutionary 'savagery' deserves its very own book of the Bible. ("A reading from the Book of Evo: For God so loved Fred and Murgatroyd that he gave their sons haemophilia")

Now will you please accept that you have failed to persuade anyone to accept your argument and move on from this ridiculous game of nail-the-jelly-to-the-wall?
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Oct. 20 2009,17:06

Floyd you have yet to answer this question from 2 weeks ago.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
why is god not part of the required explanation for why water runs downhill, when he is part of the required explanation for the EXISTENCE OF WATER?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



when you get a chance, luv
Posted by: Lou FCD on Oct. 20 2009,17:17

Quote (Amadan @ Oct. 20 2009,17:51)
That's the problem with patchwork scripture. You start off with a good creation story (or two), and someone goes and welds on a bit of tribal folklore here, rationalisation for stealing the neighbour's land or cattle there, your law-book onto that bit, a few poems over there, and after a while it looks like something from the Experimental Sculpture reject pile.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


eh, it isn't even that good a creation myth.

Now the Egyptians, < they knew how to tell a good story >:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Egyptian Creation Myth #1

From the beginning of time, there was only the watery chaos, called Nu. Atum (Amun, Amen), the sun god of the city of Heliopolis, rose up from the chaotic waters with only his thoughts and will.

With no place to stand in, except the watery chaos where he appeared, he created a hill. (It was said that the Temple of Heliopolis was built on top of this hill.) With the creation of the hill, it represented the coming of light into the darkness of Nu.

Sine he was the only god in the world, he wanted to create more gods, but without a mate he could not reproduce, so Atum made a union with his shadow. This unusual way of producing offspring was not considered strange to the Egyptians.

We see Atum as a bisexual god, ans sometimes consider him as the "Great He-She."

He was the one and only creative force in the universe. (Some texts say that the birth of Atum's children was on the hill, while others say that Atum stayed in the waters of Nu to give birth.)

He gave birth to his son by spitting him out, and he gave birth to his daughter by vomiting.

Shu was the son and the god of air, while Tefnut was the goddess of moisture. Shu and Tefnut continued the line of creation by setting up a social order.

To the order, Shu supplied the "Principles of Life," and Tefnut contributed the "Principles of Order."

Some time after their birth, Shu and Tefnut got lost in the watery chaos of Nu. Atum, who had only one eye which was removable. He removed his eye, which was called the Udjat eye, and sent it to search for his children.

In no time, the eye returned with the children. Atum wept like a baby with tears of joy after seeing his children. The place where the tears dropped, men came to form. With his children, Atum was ready to create the world.

After some time, Shu and Tefnut gave birth to two children, Geb, the earth, and Nut, the sky, who later became the parents of Osiris, Isis, Set, and Nephthys.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Plus, at least they have a mechanism. People aren't popping up out of nowhere to marry Cain and Abel...
Posted by: deadman_932 on Oct. 20 2009,18:19

Throughout this thread, Floyd has relied on specific tactics of pretense, avoidance, fallacy and recycling old discredited claims again and again.

Floyd's job was to demonstrate that evolution is inherently incompatible with Christianity. ALL of Christianity.

To try to forward this claim, Floyd uses three lines of "evidence"

1. He keeps citing his Big Five Fantasies (BFF's).
2. He cites opinions of "Pro-evolutionists"
3. He cites "anti-evolutionists"

THOSE ARE ALL HE HAS.

ALL HE DOES IS KEEP RUNNING BETWEEN THOSE THREE THINGS -- TO KEEP PEOPLE RESPONDING TO HIM WHILE HE REFUSES TO RESPOND TO HIS CRITICS.  

What has happened during this thread is that all three of his lines of "evidence" have been discredited. It doesn't matter if HE accepts it or not -- no one has to keep playing HIS game. He's failed.

1. Floyd admitted that a Christian like the pope didn't have to agree with the BFF's to remain a Christian. This alone makes each and every one of his "Big Five" irrelevant. A Christian never has to address them at all. A Christian can accept any or all -- and remain a Christian, he could reject any or all and remain a Christian. All while also accepting evolutionary theory. This leg of his tripod of tard is cut off

2. The second part is Floyd tossing out quoted opinions by "evolutionists." Quotes that HE claims run counter to belief in God.

Most importantly, the opinions he quotes simply remain OPINIONS about what evolution means.

Upon FURTHER examination, what the quotes primarily were saying was that science simply can't examine such notions of divine teleology and ontology. They are not amenable to scientific investigation for a large number of well-known reasons  such as falsifiability, reproducibility, changing concepts of God, etc. Science can't deal with claims of deistic supernaturalism.  Science is ALWAYS tentative, and Floyd claims to have eternal immutable "truth."

It's SCIENCE that is incompatible with Floyd's view, but it is still perfectly possible for a Christian to accept a prime mover god, ignore Floyd's "BFF's" and remain a Christian that accepts evolution. Floyd has never shown those things to be inherently incompatible at all.  

The second leg of his tripod of tard is cut off

3. The third leg of Floyd's tripod of tard is his use of apologist-"scientists" to try to pretend that science CAN address supernatural deistic causation and ultimate "meaning and purpose." This was negated by Floyd being unable to show any scientific model or program by which science could actually proceed.

Like Monte Python's Black Knight, Floyd has no legs to stand on. His parrot is irrevocably, eternally, inescapably dead and will not rise from the tomb, ever.

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

It is at this point that this aspect of Floyd's "demonstration" should end. He has not supported the claim that evolution is inherently incompatible with all Christianity.

All that does remain is FLoyd's attempt to demonstrate that Intelligent Design is somehow valid science, and people arguing against this know exactly how this will turn out, too.

Floyd has failed in supporting his claims and will just continue to do the same, probably using the same dishonest, deceptive and underhanded tactics.
Posted by: FrankH on Oct. 20 2009,20:31

Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 20 2009,16:04)

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Floyd Lee,


Let's look at your posts:

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
As a major evangelical Christian Sect was formed just to spread "God's truth about slavery", doesn't that make it one in the same?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

What, are you in a hurry to ignore what the Bible says, FrankH?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Wow, really funny that I was using your Bible to show  

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
After all, that same sect has ABANDONED their proslavery position and they affirm that the Bible was correctly opposed to their mistaken position.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

After how many years and even then, it was a huge fight inside the convention to do so!

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
They even apologized to blacks for their racial evils.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Yeah, we formed to enslave and slaughter whole families, now they are sorry for following their bible.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
(Contrast that with the ongoing refusal of evolutionists to apologize for evolution-based racial wrongs like Ota Benga, the eugenic torment of minority women, and the flat-out murder of Australian Aborigines and stealing their children.)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Huh?  There's nothing in evolution that says to kill or enslave anyone.  In your Bible it actively discusses slavery and killing others.

Oh yeah, Ota Benga was brought over by a missionary Samuel Phillips Verner who also arraigned his stay at the zoo.

His being used as "human evolution" was done by those who wanted to misuse evolution for there own political agenda.  Nowhere in evolution is there anything about racism.  That was promoted by your Christianity and its slavery issues far better.

As for other outrages, like the Aborigines, look no further than the preacher who told his flock of Ham and how the "black man" carried with him the evil of Cain.

Eugenics was also done in the "religious bible belt of the south" to eliminate undesirables.  It was done by racists misusing science to further their own ends.

What about the missionaries going across the world along with the troops to back them up?

Again, there is nothing in Evolution that says do to any of those things.  There is in YOUR bible, how much one can sell their daughters for into slavery, how badly a master can beat their slaves.  Even your own blather from 2 Corinthians showed how being a slave was not a bad thing and not to worry about it.

Again Floyd, you fail.

What Commandment did you just break?  Oh yes, False Witness.  But to you "lying for Jesus" is a noble thing that smacks of "Works" doesn't it?  So if you really do believe in "Faith alone", then why do you feel that you need to lie?
Posted by: Dan on Oct. 20 2009,20:32

Quote (deadman_932 @ Oct. 20 2009,18:19)
Like Monte Python's Black Knight, Floyd has no legs to stand on. His parrot is irrevocably, eternally, inescapably dead and will not rise from the tomb, ever.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Beautiful plumage, though.

< http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4vuW6tQ0218 >
Posted by: Henry J on Oct. 20 2009,21:01



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
FloydLee, posted 10/20/09 1:07 AM


---------------------QUOTE-------------------

That says that God caused life to exist.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Which makes God the required explanation for the origin of life, which constitutes "the beginnings of biological evolution" (William Schopf).
Which then re-affrims a huge Incompatibility with evolution, because it clearly "no longer requires God as creator or designer." (Ernst Mayr).
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Funny how a critical part of my post disappeared in the process of being quoted here!

The whole paragraph:


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
That says that God caused life to exist. It doesn't say what methods were used in doing so. It doesn't say what methods weren't used in doing so; specifically it doesn't rule out methods that some humans find offensive.

Therefore that creed as stated above is not incompatible with ToE.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



---

Floyd, posting a quote proves only that somebody said something.

It does not prove the accuracy of what was said, not even when it's quoted accurately.

It does not prove that what was said is the concensus of scientists.

It does not prove that what was said is part of the theory being discussed.

Continuing to make this error after it being repeatedly pointed out does prove something.

However, what that proves is something that one would think you'd want to avoid proving.

---

Secondly, you're still conflating "caused to exist" with "explains".

Evolutionary theory explains matching nest hierarchies, geographic clustering of genetically related species, series of fossils, etc.

Saying that the theory explains those patterns does not contradict the assertion that God caused the existence of life in the first place.

Henry
Posted by: Schroedinger's Dog on Oct. 21 2009,04:53

I think the problem here is that if Yodel Elf ever acknowledges the part evolution played (and continues to play) in the diversity of life, his whole litteral reading of the bible will fall appart. All his beliefs in genesis and the global flood will be compromised. He will then have to admit that these are all metaphorical and will have to do a bit of soul searching to find out what other parts of the bible are so.

that's way to much effort for his wee tinsy brain, which is a shame because his faith would be so much stronger and honest if he even tried to put his god-given brain at work.

As long as the maniac doesn't try to convince anyone he's right, it's all fine.

oh... wait...
Posted by: FrankH on Oct. 21 2009,07:13

Hey Floyd:

Why is Slavery so great in the OT and just nothing to be ashamed about in the NT?  Was it:

1:  An omniscient god changing their mind?
2:  Stories of men who are trying to really understand the workings of an infinite being that as mere finite mortals can never grasp (ie it's impossible to know or understand fully)?
3:  Stories of men that change as the civilizations mature and become less barbaric?

Jus' wonderin'.
Posted by: FloydLee on Oct. 21 2009,08:29



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Nowhere in evolution is there anything about racism.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Ever read The Descent of Man, FrankH?
Posted by: SLP on Oct. 21 2009,08:29

Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 20 2009,10:07)
Let's go right here, SLP:
      [quote]In fact, let's toss in one more statement, this one comes from Paul Lurquin's 2003 book concerning the orign of life.snip prooftexting gibberish
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


So, Floyd Mellotron Lee - you goad and bait me for a couple days for not replying to you within some arbitrary timeframe, boast about having a 'mini debate' with me, that you will 'deal' with me, etc., and THAT is all you can muster?


Not that I really care anymore - you've played your hand and you are holding a pair of threes and claiming that it beats my royal flush.

Proof-texting and this weird elevation of whomever you happen to quote (not always honestly) to imperial status is no argument.
Posted by: Keelyn on Oct. 21 2009,08:35

Quote (Lou FCD @ Oct. 20 2009,17:10)
Quote (Keelyn @ Oct. 20 2009,09:11)
 
I'm liking Lou's pics more and more. I have a favorite, but I won't say which. What about you, Floyd? Do you have a favorite?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


:) I'm glad. I'd like to know your fav, though. (You can PM me, if you'd rather.)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Hmmm. Ummm, well - Hmmm. I'll give that request some thought and definitely get back back to you, Lou. Actually, all your pics have been great having given all them a second look. :) (But I think a few of them scare Floyd - he's SOOOO literal)

Which reminds me. Just a reminder, Floyd - it's October 21st ...only ten days left. I was just wondering if you were planning on getting out of neutral (or reverse) and getting into maybe ...oh, 1/2 gear with "ID is Science?" I keep asking because, I'm really not that concerned about your BIG FIVE ...whatever they are. My interest is in preventing people like you from cramming your IDC claptrap into publicly financed science curriculums by conning science illiterates into believing that it has some scientific validity. It doesn't and I'd like an opportunity to demonstrate it. I'm certain that everyone here would like that opportunity. And most of them would probably be more eloquent than me (they know more about biology than I do) ...but still - just a chance would be nice. Besides, you have already lost this argument (long ago).

Oh, and here's a little something for you, Floyd.

< http://www.break.com/usercon....62.html >

Wasn't that sweet? Now, tell me that animals don't have souls. That's almost enough to convince even me. :)
Posted by: SLP on Oct. 21 2009,08:39

Quote (Henry J @ Oct. 20 2009,21:01)
Floyd, posting a quote proves only that somebody said something.

It does not prove the accuracy of what was said, not even when it's quoted accurately.

It does not prove that what was said is the concensus of scientists.

It does not prove that what was said is part of the theory being discussed.

Continuing to make this error after it being repeatedly pointed out does prove something.

However, what that proves is something that one would think you'd want to avoid proving.

---

Secondly, you're still conflating "caused to exist" with "explains".

Evolutionary theory explains matching nest hierarchies, geographic clustering of genetically related species, series of fossils, etc.

Saying that the theory explains those patterns does not contradict the assertion that God caused the existence of life in the first place.

Henry
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


No, no, no - you just don't get it.

If a person wrote or spoke those specific words, then the quote is accurate.  So when I quote Floyd Lee thusly:

"God's plan for all humans has always been slavery."

or when he wrote to Ogre:


"You're a Christian ."

What I quote is 100% true and accurate - Floyd Lee certainly did write those words (I just copy and pasted them, so  I know).  It doesn't matter that I omitted part of the sentence without indicating I did so, for as far as I am concerned, I did not change his intended meaning.
Posted by: FrankH on Oct. 21 2009,08:42

Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 21 2009,08:29)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Nowhere in evolution is there anything about racism.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Ever read The Descent of Man, FrankH?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Yes I have.  Your point?

Compare "The Descent of Man" with the writings of those great "Christians", starting with John C. Calhoun.
Posted by: OgreMkV on Oct. 21 2009,08:54

Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 21 2009,08:29)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Nowhere in evolution is there anything about racism.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Ever read The Descent of Man, FrankH?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Darwin reasoned that most of the visual differences between human races were superficial—issues of skin color and hair type—and that most of the mental differences were merely cases of "civilization" or a lack of it.

What's your point?

Oh, how about answering the questions we've asked and making your own points instead of asking us if we've read a book that you obviously haven't.

What does this have to do with whether science is incompatible with christianity?

The bible discussion, while silly, was more fruitfus than this.  The bible ACTIVELY discusses and approves slavery and inequality (as shown in the bible verses below).

Now my question to you is: IS THE BIBLE LITERALLY TRUE...

Here, since you most likely will ignore this question, I'll answer for you.

YES: Oh, well in that case, as shown by the above statements, the bible contradicts itself on a variety of matters (including slavery/servitude), the lineage of Jesus, and the order of the 'creation'.

Therefore the answer to my question must be NO: because the bible contradicts itself, so some statements must be 'interpreted' by the reader... in which case: "How do you know which statements can/should be taken literally and which can/should be interpreted?"

By the way, Why won't you answer the questions asked of you?
Posted by: FloydLee on Oct. 21 2009,08:57



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I was just wondering if you were planning on getting out of neutral (or reverse) and getting into maybe ...oh, 1/2 gear with "ID is Science?"
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Start asking your friends about it.  They seem to wanna continue this topic, and if I don't answer 'em here comes the stale "why don't you answer my question" routine.  I've already sent one none-too-subtle hint....maybe you can send them one too?  Better do it soon though.
Posted by: Amadan on Oct. 21 2009,08:58

Drop all the new stuff, guys. It's not a debate about slavery. (More's the pity).

On to ID Floyd. Your case for teaching it as "science" in the classroom.












Floyd?
Posted by: FloydLee on Oct. 21 2009,09:05



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
What does this have to do with whether science is incompatible with christianity?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Ask FrankH.  He brought this up.

Btw, the thread topic is NOT whether science is incompatible with Christianity.  Thought you were clear on that.
Posted by: OgreMkV on Oct. 21 2009,09:12

No, I'm not clear on that Floyd.  Because everything that you have stated to date applies not only to evolution, but to all science.

Does God make the planets stay in orbit or does gravity?
You see, orbital mechanics 'specifically excludes God' because Newton and Einstein can describe that motion ENTIRELY without god.

You pick on evolution because it offends you.  Just admit it and let's move on.

BTW: Why won't you answer questions asked of you?
Posted by: FloydLee on Oct. 21 2009,10:04



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
On to ID Floyd.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Yeah, YOU are apparently in a hurry to escape any response from me about your reply to the Fifth Incompatibility.  But do you know what you are really saying, Amadan?

"Evolution is cruel and sadistic, but that's okay, evolution is compatibile with Christianity because God is cruel and sadistic too."

I don't think you or Reed (or the other posters who tried this approach already) have any inkling how utterly and totally unconvincing this argument would be for Christians.   For example, why would anyone serve a "cruel and sadistic" God at all?  Why would Christians do so?

So right off the bat, your line of argument doesn't even BEGIN to supply anybody with an actual reconciliation of the Fifth Incompatibility.  Doesn't resolve the problem at all.  It's a fail you've offered.

******

You know, there are times in BOTH the Old and the New Testament when God executes lethal planetwide judgment and lethal individual judgments.  Therefore the God of the OT is no different than the God of the Christian NT.  It's the same God, it's the Christian God.

So for those people who reject God on God's terms, (and who ignore the Bible's many OT and NT statements about God's love, mercy, kindness, patience, etc) it may always gonna seem like God is cruel and sadistic.  But you [u]don't[/b] resolve or refute the Fifth Incompatibility by attacking the Christian God's character.  Rationally, that don't work.

******

(Btw, God's not cruel and sadistic, but he is the Just Judge of humanity, capable of executing just punishments and of course that follows from him being the Creator of humanity in the first place.  So you get all upset with God when God does what God is supposed to do?  Go figure.)

Also, the God of the Bible, who not only creates humans but also judges humans, is the same one that Jesus Christ died to reconcile humans to.  IOW, there is NO such thing as "the God of the OT is cruel and sadistic but the God of the Christian NT is love love."  There's only one God of the Bible, whether you accept Him or reject Him.

Btw (for Reed I think),
the fact is that human sin has created a fallen world in which animals, sharing in the Curse, are liable to be killed when God is forced to execute His judgment on humanity (think of all the dogs, cats, and bunny rabbits living in Sodom and Gomorrah when the titanic Blast struck those cities).

So it doesn't work to blame and diss God when you should be blaming free-will humans for choosing to sin and bringing down judgment.  

That's the real deal here.
Posted by: FrankH on Oct. 21 2009,10:12

Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 21 2009,09:05)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
What does this have to do with whether science is incompatible with christianity?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Ask FrankH.  He brought this up.

Btw, the thread topic is NOT whether science is incompatible with Christianity.  Thought you were clear on that.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I wanted to read what else in science disagrees with Floyd's selective and twisted reading of a book he considers infallible when it disagrees with things in "science".

Also, it was a great idea to see if he takes the bait and goes off topic.  My bad.

One thing that was shown he doesn't think Evolution is science was made clear.
Posted by: improvius on Oct. 21 2009,10:14

Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 21 2009,11:04)
the fact is that human sin has created a fallen world in which animals, sharing in the Curse, are liable to be killed when God is forced to execute His judgment on humanity (think of all the dogs, cats, and bunny rabbits living in Sodom and Gomorrah when the titanic Blast struck those cities).
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


It seems pretty clear that God doesn't give two shits about the animals if He's punishing them for the sins of man.
Posted by: FloydLee on Oct. 21 2009,10:15



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
That says that God caused life to exist. It doesn't say what methods were used in doing so. It doesn't say what methods weren't used in doing so; specifically it doesn't rule out methods that some humans find offensive.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


It does rule out evolution though.   Common descent too, btw.

Unless you're trying to say that evolution, which works strictly on material things, can produce an immaterial thing (the human soul.)  
Is that what you're claiming Henry?
Posted by: FloydLee on Oct. 21 2009,10:20



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Why won't you answer questions asked of you?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Did you ever provide that documentation I asked of you?  

(No you didn't.  Why not work on that for a while?  You made your claim upfront.  I sincerely asked for documentation of it.  Simply a matter of counting the number of thread quotations.  Why won't you provide documentation?)
Posted by: improvius on Oct. 21 2009,10:29

Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 21 2009,11:15)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
That says that God caused life to exist. It doesn't say what methods were used in doing so. It doesn't say what methods weren't used in doing so; specifically it doesn't rule out methods that some humans find offensive.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


It does rule out evolution though.   Common descent too, btw.

Unless you're trying to say that evolution, which works strictly on material things, can produce an immaterial thing (the human soul.)  
Is that what you're claiming Henry?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Wow.  I am in awe of this guy's complete inability to grasp such a simple point.
Posted by: OgreMkV on Oct. 21 2009,10:38

Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 21 2009,10:20)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Why won't you answer questions asked of you?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Did you ever provide that documentation I asked of you?  

(No you didn't.  Why not work on that for a while?  You made your claim upfront.  I sincerely asked for documentation of it.  Simply a matter of counting the number of thread quotations.  Why won't you provide documentation?)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


The question wasn't about me...

let me rephrase; "Why do you consistantly refuse to answer questions asked of you?"

If you can find a case were I have not provided evidence, then I apoligize... however, you not being able to understand the evidence is not my problem.  

Again, out of all the things I've said in the last two days, you choose this one to harp on...whatever dude.  Like I said, you're just embarassing yourself.
Posted by: Badger3k on Oct. 21 2009,10:40

Quote (improvius @ Oct. 21 2009,10:14)
Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 21 2009,11:04)
the fact is that human sin has created a fallen world in which animals, sharing in the Curse, are liable to be killed when God is forced to execute His judgment on humanity (think of all the dogs, cats, and bunny rabbits living in Sodom and Gomorrah when the titanic Blast struck those cities).
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


It seems pretty clear that God doesn't give two shits about the animals if He's punishing them for the sins of man.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


YHWH doesn't care about anybody.  He punishes the innocent all the time, both of the human variety of animal and others.  Killings the (most probably mythical) David's son as punishment for David's transgressions?  No problem for the ultimate bully, which is what YHWH is.  The defense - God has the power, he created everything, he can do what he wants.  

It's all about power and fear, and his followers try to emulate that.  Even Floyd's ignoring all the questions has biblical basis - you dare question God?  You have no right, and He owes no answers.  Same for Floyd.
Posted by: FloydLee on Oct. 21 2009,10:40

Just a quick note for tomorrow (Thurs):  Will post a somewhat shortened "Biblical Perspective on Biology".

Also (Thurs) will do a Final Summary of where the thread topic stands and why.   Also hope to finish printing things off.

Sometime Friday evening CST, will present the "ID is Science" argument.  

FloydLee
Posted by: Doc Bill on Oct. 21 2009,10:45

FL, I thought you were finished 57 pages ago.
Posted by: OgreMkV on Oct. 21 2009,10:48

Quote (Doc Bill @ Oct. 21 2009,10:45)
FL, I thought you were finished 57 pages ago.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


The brain is dead... it's just taking a while for the body to quit twitching.
Posted by: Amadan on Oct. 21 2009,10:51

Oh dear. You miss the point again Floyd. Whether an incompatibility exists is irrelevant to this argument. You have conceded your main argument already.

The death we all see in nature occurs whether or not you attribute it to God, evolution, or the tooth fairy.

People who understand what evolutionary theory is about do not anthropomorphise evolution. It is not a person or a god. Maybe you missed that part of language comprehension. Evolution does not kill people or things.
Evolution, like all other scientific theories, has no moral content.

Death is a fact, it occurs whether or not you believe in God. Evolutionary theory seeks - in broad terms - to explain why some populations have members who breed fertile young before they die. In other words, it takes all that death as a given. And so, in general, does the Bible. Likewise, so do Christians (I'm excluding the ones on Rapture Ready who seem to know something the rest of us don't)

So we have all the trillions of deaths in the world every day (let's include bacteria etc).Humans do some of it, often through malevolence, neglect and error. God has certainly offed a few people in His time. But let's be kind to God and not blame him for the rest: we'll just put it down to the nature of the world. Nothing more natural than for a pensioner to drop dead.

Does evolution kill them? No, Floyd. Evolution is a description, not a moral actor. It has the same will and power to act as the colour blue. That is why the number of deaths in world history does not make it incompatible with Christianity.

Your attempt to hand-wave away God's cruelty in the Bible is both pathetic and irrelevant.

Get onto ID Floyd.
Posted by: Amadan on Oct. 21 2009,10:58

Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 21 2009,10:15)
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
That says that God caused life to exist. It doesn't say what methods were used in doing so. It doesn't say what methods weren't used in doing so; specifically it doesn't rule out methods that some humans find offensive.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


It does rule out evolution though.   Common descent too, btw.

Unless you're trying to say that evolution, which works strictly on material things, can produce an immaterial thing (the human soul.)  
Is that what you're claiming Henry?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Dammit! Floyd has found the Secret Chapter of the Descent of Man where Darwin says the soul is a product of Evolution!

Hmmm. Maybe the EAC Fiendish Plots Sub-Committee will find a way to silence Floyd before Banana Press publishes it.

How many signatures do we need to propose a motion for the next meeting?
Posted by: Robin on Oct. 21 2009,11:18

[quote=FloydLee,Oct. 21 2009,10:40][/quote]


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Just a quick note for tomorrow (Thurs):  Will post a somewhat shortened "Biblical Perspective on Biology".

Also (Thurs) will do a Final Summary of where the thread topic stands and why.   Also hope to finish printing things off.

Sometime Friday evening CST, will present the "ID is Science" argument.  

FloydLee
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



My genitalia is all aflutter over the thought, Floyd...

/sarcasm off
Posted by: FrankH on Oct. 21 2009,12:46

Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 21 2009,10:04)

---------------------QUOTE-------------------




---------------------QUOTE-------------------


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
On to ID Floyd.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Yeah, YOU are apparently in a hurry to escape any response from me about your reply to the Fifth Incompatibility.  But do you know what you are really saying, Amadan?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Here's another EPIC FAIL on Floyd's part.  Amadan did.  The fact that you are truly incapable of understanding what they wrote is a fact.  There are competing Theories as to why:

1:  You just can't as the synaptic connections needed for such a leap in comprehension is not there.

2:  You have your mind so compartmentalized that there is no way for information that contradicts another compartment in your mind to seep over to it.

3:  A yet unknown possibility.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
"Evolution is cruel and sadistic, but that's okay, evolution is compatibile with Christianity because God is cruel and sadistic too."I don't think you or Reed (or the other posters who tried this approach already) have any inkling how utterly and totally unconvincing this argument would be for Christians.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

FAIL AGAIN! Floyd.  There are those on this board who ARE Christians AND believe in the Christian God while saying Evolution is how their God did it meaning they accept Evolution!

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
For example, why would anyone serve a "cruel and sadistic" God at all?  Why would Christians do so?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

You mean someone who drowns babies, leaves a loaded weapon for two finite individuals to find and then brings down wrath upon their heads, orders his "chosen" to slaughter men, boys, women and babies but save the virgin females as sex-slave, err concubines and more when you insist on a "literal bible"?  I have no idea why one would.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
So right off the bat, your line of argument doesn't even BEGIN to supply anybody with an actual reconciliation of the Fifth Incompatibility.  Doesn't resolve the problem at all.  It's a fail you've offered.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Actually no my dear Floyd.  Once again you're inability either organic or psychological to comprehend a POV based on logic and reasoning fails in so many ways for you.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
******You know, there are times in BOTH the Old and the New Testament when God executes lethal planetwide judgment and lethal individual judgments.  Therefore the God of the OT is no different than the God of the Christian NT.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

And why would such a powerful deity need to do that when all they have to do is go down to the people, explain a few things and maybe just WIPE OUT those who are the most wicked?  Seems to me to be a far more humane way, that's right your version of a god is not humane nor humble, to do it and make a real impression on the people.  ell, during the time of the Prophets, the Holy ghost was going down to one of them every other week and killing kids when one of the Prophets were mocked!  Don't believe me?  Check out Ezekiel.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
It's the same God, it's the Christian God.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Your version is a monstrous, petulant child who needs to be forgotten.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
So for those people who reject God on God's terms,
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Let me guess, you know the mind and terms of an universe spanning, omnipotent, omniscient being even though you're a finite mortal and by (your) god, you know what such an entity wants?

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
(and who ignore the Bible's many OT and NT statements about God's love, mercy, kindness, patience, etc)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Most likely they are too busy reading the parts where kids die because your god was a piss poor parent who blames the kids when they screw up big time.[QUOTE]it may always gonna seem like God is cruel and sadistic.  But you [u]don't[/b] resolve or refute the Fifth Incompatibility by attacking the Christian God's character.[QUOTE]Your monster of a god's character has its viciousness in print for all to see.  Unless you're saying that your god has multiple personalities that are mercurial and change on a whim.  That could be the case as this omniscient being forgets itself and while it can't save people being put to death by the sword of others, it will find the power to get people lost in the desert for 40 years.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Rationally, that don't work.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

What do you know about Rationality?  There is nothing in what you've written these past 59 pages that indicate you are even aware of the word and its context.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
******(Btw, God's not cruel and sadistic, but he is the Just Judge of humanity, capable of executing just punishments and of course that follows from him being the Creator of humanity in the first place.  So you get all upset with God when God does what God is supposed to do?  Go figure.)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

I have a major issue with your godhead.  This god creates things, sets up all the rules and then when two people who are clueless, yeah remember they didn't KNOW anything when they "disobeyed god" as they didn't KNOW what disobeying is!

The example of your god's reactions in the Garden of Eden smacks of a crack whore with little kids who as they are about to get high, tells her two 18 month old twins not to touch momma's stash of crack.  The children being young and having no idea, they are innocent kids with little if any understanding of right and wrong, do so.

Coming back from a crack fueled high, momma crackwhore sees the crack all over the room, useless and then she begins to beat the crap out of them.  Worse off, now that the crack is gone, the kids are kicked into the streets and the pets that they had turn feral, get killed or attack the kids.

So:

1:  How did Adam and Eve know that disobeying was wrong?  They had no idea and if the tree of knowledge implanted the ability to reason (hey, we're naked) there was no ability in either to know what they were doing.

2:  Why is everything to suffer for the actions of two innocents left alone by their babysitter?

3:  Where was god as he's omnipotent, omnipresent and omniscient when the two were being led astray by Satan?

4:  How could Adam and Eve "let sin and death" into the world when Satan was already there in the body of a snake?  Doesn't that mean god let evil into the world?  No?  Why not?

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Also, the God of the Bible, who not only creates humans but also judges humans, is the same one that Jesus Christ died to reconcile humans to.  IOW, there is NO such thing as "the God of the OT is cruel and sadistic but the God of the Christian NT is love love."
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

So your god does suffer from multiple and violent personalities then.  Thanks for saying so.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
There's only one God of the Bible, whether you accept Him or reject Him.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

And we come back to the dichotomy that leaves literalists permanently unable to function in the real world.

First, there may not be any gods, goddesses and such.

Second, there may be any gods, goddesses and such.

Third, even if there is a god, there is no reason to suspect that you have the "right version" of said deity.

In other words, your version of a god may be way off as to make an agnostic like me far more palatable to this or these deities as I'm no where as arrogant as you nor do I claim to know any of them personally.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Btw (for Reed I think),
the fact is that human sin has created a fallen world in which animals, sharing in the Curse, are liable to be killed when God is forced to execute His judgment on humanity (think of all the dogs, cats, and bunny rabbits living in Sodom and Gomorrah when the titanic Blast struck those cities).
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Wow, even the US military tries "surgical strikes".  Your god don't care who or what it kills and sends to hell for an eternity of torment.

And again, your god created all of this knowing full well what would happen?  If I knew that certain actions were going to kill my children or leave them in a lifetime of agony, I'd do something different.  But that is the difference between me and your monster god, I'm not cruel and I actually love my kids, even when they are bad and don't ever want to hurt them.  your god wants puppets, free-willed it seems but puppets none the less or lest you will be killed and burn in hell because your god's a real nasty piece of work.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
So it doesn't work to blame and diss God when you should be blaming free-will humans for choosing to sin and bringing down judgment.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Just when I think your remarks can't get more weird, yeah, blame those who play the game, not the one who made it and should be there on the field ALL THE TIME to ref it so all players know and see the refs directly.  Once again, you love your god because you FEAR your god.  Much like the battered syndrome, huh?

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
That's the real deal here.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

That's lunacy.
Posted by: FrankH on Oct. 21 2009,12:50

The middle part is supposed to say:

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
(and who ignore the Bible's many OT and NT statements about God's love, mercy, kindness, patience, etc)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Most likely they are too busy reading the parts where kids die because your god was a piss poor parent who blames the kids when they, the parent, screws up big time.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
it may always gonna seem like God is cruel and sadistic.  But you [u]don't[/b] resolve or refute the Fifth Incompatibility by attacking the Christian God's character.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Your monster of a god's character has its viciousness in print for all to see.  Unless you're saying that your god has multiple personalities that are mercurial and change on a whim.  That could be the case as this omniscient being forgets itself and while it can't save people being put to death by the sword of others, it will find the power to get people lost in the desert for 40 years.
Posted by: Henry J on Oct. 21 2009,12:50

Quote (improvius @ Oct. 21 2009,09:29)
Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 21 2009,11:15)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
That says that God caused life to exist. It doesn't say what methods were used in doing so. It doesn't say what methods weren't used in doing so; specifically it doesn't rule out methods that some humans find offensive.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


It does rule out evolution though.   Common descent too, btw.

Unless you're trying to say that evolution, which works strictly on material things, can produce an immaterial thing (the human soul.)  
Is that what you're claiming Henry?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Wow.  I am in awe of this guy's complete inability to grasp such a simple point.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Awwwwwwwww.

Oh, that's not what you meant.

Never mind.
Posted by: Henry J on Oct. 21 2009,13:00

Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 21 2009,09:15)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
That says that God caused life to exist. It doesn't say what methods were used in doing so. It doesn't say what methods weren't used in doing so; specifically it doesn't rule out methods that some humans find offensive.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


It does rule out evolution though.   Common descent too, btw.

Unless you're trying to say that evolution, which works strictly on material things, can produce an immaterial thing (the human soul.)  
Is that what you're claiming Henry?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Non sequitor.
Posted by: FloydLee on Oct. 21 2009,13:23



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Wow.  I am in awe of this guy's complete inability to grasp such a simple point.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


In short, you have no answer for the actual reply that was given, so you just kinda blow it off.  Okay!
Posted by: FrankH on Oct. 21 2009,13:29

Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 21 2009,13:23)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Wow.  I am in awe of this guy's complete inability to grasp such a simple point.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

In short, you have no answer for the actual reply that was given, so you just kinda blow it off.  Okay!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I'm sure he can but afterwords he'd have to kill himself for sinking so low.
Posted by: OgreMkV on Oct. 21 2009,13:31

Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 21 2009,13:23)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Wow.  I am in awe of this guy's complete inability to grasp such a simple point.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


In short, you have no answer for the actual reply that was given, so you just kinda blow it off.  Okay!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Again, your inability to understand the aswer is not our problem.  If you need help understanding it, then please ask for assistance.  

Please, tell me why you refuse to answer the questions asked of you and why you refuse to comment on the three different refutations of your big five whatchmacallits.
Posted by: FrankH on Oct. 21 2009,13:32

Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 21 2009,13:23)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Wow.  I am in awe of this guy's complete inability to grasp such a simple point.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

In short, you have no answer for the actual reply that was given, so you just kinda blow it off.  Okay!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Actually, the whole post was about "soul" so where is this soul and how do you know, empirically, that such a thing exists?

Also, what does and does not have a soul and what empirical evidence do you have to back that up?
Posted by: deadman_932 on Oct. 21 2009,13:32

Heh. Floyd Lee complaining that (he thinks) someone didn't answer his question.

The first part of your "debate" didn't fly very well at all. It's unlikely to ever do so, given the way you crippled your own arguments. So...

Just get on with your claim that ID is valid science, Floyd. I sense it'll be chock-full of slapstick humor
Posted by: deadman_932 on Oct. 21 2009,13:36

Quote (FrankH @ Oct. 21 2009,13:32)
Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 21 2009,13:23)
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Wow.  I am in awe of this guy's complete inability to grasp such a simple point.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

In short, you have no answer for the actual reply that was given, so you just kinda blow it off.  Okay!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Actually, the whole post was about "soul" so where is this soul and how do you know, empirically, that such a thing exists?

Also, what does and does not have a soul and what empirical evidence do you have to back that up?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Let's make a guess -- claims of Near-Death experiences and maybe that turn-of-the-century "experiment" that found an infinitesimal  decrease in body weight following death. Oh, and lots of Bible stuff. Lots and lots, because it's so convincing.

What would be really imaginative would be some Deepak-style quantum mumbo-jumbo, though. I'd like to see more of that, Floyd

ETA: Added a Snopes link to help Floyd out: < http://www.snopes.com/religion/soulweight.asp >
Posted by: improvius on Oct. 21 2009,13:41

Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 21 2009,14:23)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Wow.  I am in awe of this guy's complete inability to grasp such a simple point.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


In short, you have no answer for the actual reply that was given, so you just kinda blow it off.  Okay!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Classic tard behavior.  He ignores substantive posts and instead focuses on the ones that simply mock him.  Then he accuses everyone of "not having an answer".  Are you all sure Floyd here isn't running a troll operation?  I'm seeing a lot of textbook creationist debating and deluding tactics, and not much else.
Posted by: FloydLee on Oct. 21 2009,13:43



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Non sequitor.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


How can it possibly be a non-sequitor?  The immaterial human soul, and human ensoulment by God alone (NOT evolution), is NON-negotiable, according to Popes Benedict ,  JP2,  Pius,  and the rest.

No Catholic concessions (and no compatibilities either!) to evolution AT ALL on that one.
Posted by: Robin on Oct. 21 2009,13:44

Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 21 2009,13:23)

---------------------QUOTE-------------------




---------------------QUOTE-------------------


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Wow.  I am in awe of this guy's complete inability to grasp such a simple point.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


In short, you have no answer for the actual reply that was given, so you just kinda blow it off.  Okay!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!! Oh...Floyd...You're killing me here!! Why would anyone bother to address your claims at this point since you have demonstated time and again that you can't seem to respond to anyone with anything approaching a logically sound, factually-based argument? In fact,  you continue to ignore the very posts that have demolished your nonsense from day 1. You are, in fact, demonstrating that yet again with this nonsensical claim that evolution needs to account for the soul to be compatible with Christianity. It doesn't - at all. The soul could just magically bind to all humans upon birth through God's will. You don't know - there's no measure or observation of this supposed "soul" anyway, so who cares how it supposedly gets into humans. That your problem, not evolution's or science's. There is no need for the ToE to address souls in any way to still be compatible with even your complete lunacy, nevermind actual Christianity.
Posted by: nmgirl on Oct. 21 2009,13:51

Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 21 2009,13:43)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Non sequitor.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


How can it possibly be a non-sequitor?  The immaterial human soul, and human ensoulment by God alone (NOT evolution), is NON-negotiable, according to Popes Benedict ,  JP2,  Pius,  and the rest.

No Catholic concessions (and no compatibilities either!) to evolution AT ALL on that one.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


so are you now claiming that the soul is a physical, inheritable charachteristic, just like brown eyes?  


hahahahahahahahhahahahhahahahahaha!
Posted by: Robin on Oct. 21 2009,13:53

[quote=FloydLee,Oct. 21 2009,13:43][/quote]


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Non sequitor.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


How can it possibly be a non-sequitor?  The immaterial human soul, and human ensoulment by God alone (NOT evolution), is NON-negotiable, according to Popes Benedict ,  JP2,  Pius,  and the rest.

No Catholic concessions (and no compatibilities either!) to evolution AT ALL on that one.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



HAHAHAHA!! What a riot Floyd! It's automatically compatible, based on what you just wrote! To wit, "The immaterial human soul, and human ensoulment by God alone (NOT evolution), is NON-negotiable, according to Popes Benedict ,  JP2,  Pius,  and the rest." Ok fine...so what does it matter if humans (material entities) developed via evolution (a material process) when such clearly would not impact whether or not God (an immateral entity) provided humans with souls (an immaterial product) via God's will (an immaterial process)? Are you suggesting that immatial processes and products can't affect material objects and processes? If so, that begs the question of how your God interacts with humans at all.
Posted by: FloydLee on Oct. 21 2009,13:55



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
so are you now claiming that the soul is a physical, inheritable charachteristic, just like brown eyes?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

 
Please check the definition of "immaterial."  

Actually, you evolutionists would have a lock on the Catholic angle if the soul actually WAS a physical inheritable characteristic.  

As it stands now, the lock exists only for the Incompatibility!!
Posted by: nmgirl on Oct. 21 2009,14:00

Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 21 2009,13:55)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
so are you now claiming that the soul is a physical, inheritable charachteristic, just like brown eyes?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

 
Please check the definition of "immaterial."  

Actually, you evolutionists would have a lock on the Catholic angle if the soul actually WAS a physical inheritable characteristic.  

As it stands now, the lock exists only for the Incompatibility!!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


websters concise dictionary:  Immaterial- 1. not pertinent; unimportant 2.   incorporeal, spiritual.
Posted by: FloydLee on Oct. 21 2009,14:03



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
2.   incorporeal, spiritual.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


That's the ticket right there!
Posted by: Schroedinger's Dog on Oct. 21 2009,14:06

Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 21 2009,20:43)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Non sequitor.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


How can it possibly be a non-sequitor?  The immaterial human soul, and human ensoulment by God alone (NOT evolution), is NON-negotiable, according to Popes Benedict ,  JP2,  Pius,  and the rest.

No Catholic concessions (and no compatibilities either!) to evolution AT ALL on that one.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Oh, so now the popes' opinions matter?

Then there is no incompatibility between evolution and christianism.

Either that, or you have to retract your above-quoted statement right away. You can't have both, dumbfuck!
Posted by: FrankH on Oct. 21 2009,14:08

Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 21 2009,13:55)

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I just have to do this:

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
so are you now claiming that the soul is a physical, inheritable charachteristic, just like brown eyes?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Please check the definition of "immaterial."
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Why check?  We have 59 pages of your reasoning.  That's 59 pages of noting masquerading as actual thoughts.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Actually, you evolutionists would have a lock on the Catholic angle if the soul actually WAS a physical inheritable characteristic.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

No, the RCC says emphatically that the soul is based on faith and has nothing to do with evolution.  WTF are you blathering about?

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
As it stands now, the lock exists only for the Incompatibility!!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

No.  The incompatibility between Evolution and Christianity is Evolution and your "biblically literal save in places where we gloss over and "ooh, look at that over there, not the man behind the curtain" attempts
Posted by: Schroedinger's Dog on Oct. 21 2009,14:14

First part of the debate is over, me think!

Yodel Elf just used JP2, Benedict and Pius' opinions to prove his point. therefore, he has to accept the popes' opinion that there is no incompatibility between evolution and christianism.

On to ID now, please...
Posted by: deadman_932 on Oct. 21 2009,14:16

I really want to see the "sciencey" stuff, Floyd. Your Big Five Fallacies are irrelevant, as you admitted, so let's get on with the heavy lifting. C'mon, you can do it. Tell all about how ID is valid science, wouldja? Use lots of irrelevant false analogies and dig deep into Dembski's tard mine.
Posted by: FloydLee on Oct. 21 2009,14:29



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Yodel Elf just used JP2, Benedict and Pius' opinions to prove his point
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


And the specific point proven was that there exists a specific Incompatibility between clearly non-negotiable Catholic Christian beliefs and evolution.
Posted by: Amadan on Oct. 21 2009,14:32

Oh my sweet sainted guinea-pig Gertrude...

Not the first time < this passage > has been brought to your attention, Floyd:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------

It can therefore be said that, from the viewpoint of the doctrine of the faith, there are no difficulties in explaining the origin of man in regard to the body, by means of the theory of evolution. But it must be added that this hypothesis proposes only a probability, not a scientific certainty. However, the doctrine of faith invariably affirms that man's spiritual soul is created directly by God. According to the hypothesis mentioned, it is possible that the human body, following the order impressed by the Creator on the energies of life, could have been gradually prepared in the forms of antecedent living beings. However, the human soul, on which man's humanity definitively depends, cannot emerge from matter, since the soul is of a spiritual nature.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



To put it in terms you might understand....

comes from

BUT

comes from

The Pope does not have a problem with evolution.

Get over it.
Posted by: FrankH on Oct. 21 2009,14:37

Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 21 2009,14:29)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Yodel Elf just used JP2, Benedict and Pius' opinions to prove his point
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

And the specific point proven was that there exists a specific Incompatibility between clearly non-negotiable Catholic Christian beliefs and evolution.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Uh no.  The inconsistency here is all on your end.

The RCC says Evolution makes the body,  their God makes the soul.

One is scientific and has evidence.  The other is religious and is based on faith.  One is empirical and the other is philosophical.

As they are both separate from the other, there is no issue.
Posted by: FloydLee on Oct. 21 2009,14:40



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Tell all about how ID is valid science, wouldja?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Reading comprehension, mis amigos----go back and read the previous post that discusses when that topic will be presented.  Gracias!
Posted by: FloydLee on Oct. 21 2009,14:45

Consequently, theories of evolution which, in accordance with the philosophies inspiring them, consider the spirit as emerging from the forces of living matter or as a mere epiphenomenon of this matter, are incompatible with the truth about man. Nor are they able to ground the dignity of the person.
Posted by: deadman_932 on Oct. 21 2009,14:47

Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 21 2009,14:40)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Tell all about how ID is valid science, wouldja?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Reading comprehension, mis amigos----go back and read the previous post that discusses when that topic will be presented.  Gracias!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I'm not your "amigo" Floyd. Also, I've already mentioned that your Spanish sucks almost as bad as your anti-evolution arguments.

Just move on, pendejo.
Posted by: deadman_932 on Oct. 21 2009,14:51

Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 21 2009,14:45)
Consequently, theories of evolution which, in accordance with the philosophies inspiring them, consider the spirit as emerging from the forces of living matter or as a mere epiphenomenon of this matter, are incompatible with the truth about man. Nor are they able to ground the dignity of the person.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


All of science follows that mode. Science can't deal with claims of the supernaturally theistic-immaterial. When's the last time you read any studies on "the soul" anywhere? NDE's explore MENTAL processes, not "spirit"

But if you insist science can explore "the soul," tell me how you'd shape such a research program. Be precise and show how you'd make it robust, reproducible, falsifiable, and other required aspects of scientifically valid studies.

If you can't do that, then admit it's all of science that can't deal with such claims. And move on to your next Floyd-Foxtrot
Posted by: OgreMkV on Oct. 21 2009,14:52

Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 21 2009,14:45)
Consequently, theories of evolution which, in accordance with the philosophies inspiring them, consider the spirit as emerging from the forces of living matter or as a mere epiphenomenon of this matter, are incompatible with the truth about man. Nor are they able to ground the dignity of the person.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Show me one research paper that discusses evolution of the soul.  Show me one research paper that shows the soul exists.  Show me where the soul resides.  Hmmm... can't (won't same difference).  Therefore the soul is not only not considered as emerging from living matter, it is not considered at all.

You assume something is true without evidence and use that to base your entire argument on.  Can't do that.


Aside: I got five bucks that says Floyd will not meet his self imposed timeline for the ID is science discussion.
Posted by: deadman_932 on Oct. 21 2009,14:58

I think you're right about the Floyd avoi-dance, Ogre.

Well, Floyd, please state clearly and thoroughly how science...not just "evilushuns" but science itself...can deal with such claims about studying an immaterial theistically-derived "essential soul."

Show me your scientific research program.
Posted by: FloydLee on Oct. 21 2009,15:00



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
One is scientific and has evidence.  The other is religious and is based on faith.  One is empirical and the other is philosophical.  As they are both separate from the other, there is no issue.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


That's what you WANT to believe.  It's not what Pope John 2 actually said. In fact, he was quite sharp about it.
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Consequently, theories of evolution which, in accordance with the philosophies inspiring them, consider the spirit as emerging from the forces of living matter or as a mere epiphenomenon of this matter,

are incompatible with the truth about man.

Nor are they able to ground the dignity of the person.

---Oct. 22, 1996, "Truth Cannot Contradict Truth"
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Imagine that.  The Pope said the magic word, "INCOMPATIBLE".  And not just "incompatible", but incompatible with THE TRUTH ABOUT MAN!!

(IOW, He doesn't even give you a cheap fake NOMA bone to chew on!!  He's definitely insisting on a real incompatibility because of the God-ensoulment requirement.)
Posted by: FrankH on Oct. 21 2009,15:00

Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 21 2009,14:45)
.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------




---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Consequently, theories of evolution which, in accordance with the philosophies inspiring them, consider the spirit as emerging from the forces of living matter or as a mere epiphenomenon of this matter, are incompatible with the truth about man.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Yeah as Evolution, the science, really doesn't deal with "man's indomitable spirit" the Philosophy.  My dear sir, you confuse philosophical constructs with scientific evidence.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Nor are they able to ground the dignity of the person.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

I was waiting for this.  The "Evilution says we came from dirt.  The Bible says we came from dust.  Evilution is WRONG!  We are dusty not dirty physical beings!"

The real issue here is that Evolution means our physical bodies are nothing different when it comes down to it from any other animal.  Humans, being above animals in some people's book, are not able to endure the indignity of being an intelligent animal.
Posted by: Henry J on Oct. 21 2009,15:04

Quote (FrankH @ Oct. 21 2009,12:32)
Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 21 2009,13:23)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Wow.  I am in awe of this guy's complete inability to grasp such a simple point.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

In short, you have no answer for the actual reply that was given, so you just kinda blow it off.  Okay!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Actually, the whole post was about "soul" so where is this soul and how do you know, empirically, that such a thing exists?

Also, what does and does not have a soul and what empirical evidence do you have to back that up?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


The bottom of each shoe?
Posted by: deadman_932 on Oct. 21 2009,15:07

Quote (Henry J @ Oct. 21 2009,15:04)
Quote (FrankH @ Oct. 21 2009,12:32)
Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 21 2009,13:23)
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Wow.  I am in awe of this guy's complete inability to grasp such a simple point.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

In short, you have no answer for the actual reply that was given, so you just kinda blow it off.  Okay!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Actually, the whole post was about "soul" so where is this soul and how do you know, empirically, that such a thing exists?

Also, what does and does not have a soul and what empirical evidence do you have to back that up?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


The bottom of each shoe?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Heh, that's where I had to scrape off Floyd's arguments. Then throw away the scraper.
Posted by: FrankH on Oct. 21 2009,15:10

Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 21 2009,15:00)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
One is scientific and has evidence.  The other is religious and is based on faith.  One is empirical and the other is philosophical.  As they are both separate from the other, there is no issue.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

That's what you WANT to believe.  It's not what Pope John 2 actually said. In fact, he was quite sharp about it.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Consequently, theories of evolution which, in accordance with the philosophies inspiring them, consider the spirit as emerging from the forces of living matter or as a mere epiphenomenon of this matter,

are incompatible with the truth about man.

Nor are they able to ground the dignity of the person.

---Oct. 22, 1996, "Truth Cannot Contradict Truth"
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Imagine that.  The Pope said the magic word, "INCOMPATIBLE".  And not just "incompatible", but incompatible with THE TRUTH ABOUT MAN!!

(IOW, He doesn't even give you a cheap fake NOMA bone to chew on!!  He's definitely insisting on a real incompatibility because of the God-ensoulment requirement.)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Wow, you're powers of misdirection and confusion are even more amazing but you only do it to yourself.  The Pope said that theories of Evolution that say the spirit or soul of a human is from the forces of living matter are Incompatible.

I know of no theory of evolution that even tries to explain the soul.  None will, at least the ones that are based on science.  Evolutionists who explore the philosophies and ponder upon the soul or spirit being made by materialistic forces are not doing science but philosophizing.

Again, you fail.
Posted by: rhmc on Oct. 21 2009,15:10

Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 21 2009,15:40)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Tell all about how ID is valid science, wouldja?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Reading comprehension, mis amigos----go back and read the previous post that discusses when that topic will be presented.  Gracias!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


previous FloydLee: "Sometime Friday evening CST, will present the "ID is Science" argument.  "

so i guess he's gonna show us how ID is not valid science.  :)
Posted by: FrankH on Oct. 21 2009,15:27

Hey Floyd,

Do you have any examples of "evolutionary theories" that try to explain how the soul/spirit is formed via materialistic processes?

Do you even have anything that says how one can measure, point to, discover, or otherwise produce evidence that a soul even exists?

See, that is why there is no issue between the RCC and the Physical Evolution of the human physical body and the RCC and their insistence that the Christian God they follow created the soul.
Posted by: didymos on Oct. 21 2009,15:30

Quote (FrankH @ Oct. 21 2009,06:42)
Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 21 2009,08:29)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Nowhere in evolution is there anything about racism.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Ever read The Descent of Man, FrankH?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Yes I have.  Your point?

Compare "The Descent of Man" with the writings of those great "Christians", starting with John C. Calhoun.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Even better: we all know Floyd's a protestant, as he doesn't cotton to that Maccabees nonsense, so maybe he should get hold of a copy of On The Jews And Their Lies.  Luther is surely an authority worth listening to in Floydland.
Posted by: FloydLee on Oct. 21 2009,15:31



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Nor are they able to ground the dignity of the person.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I was waiting for this.  The "Evilution says we came from dirt.  The Bible says we came from dust.  Evilution is WRONG!  We are dusty not dirty physical beings!"

The real issue here is that Evolution means our physical bodies are nothing different when it comes down to it from any other animal.  Humans, being above animals in some people's book, are not able to endure the indignity of being an intelligent animal.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


And so, you've done a great job of exposing how John Paul's famous "TCCT" remarks concerning evolution reaffirm not only the 1st Incompatibility (Evolution denies God-as-required-explanation),
but also the 3rd Incompatibility (Evolution denies humans created in the Image-of God.)

IF you don't accept the Catholic God-ensoulment requirement, then you can no longer ground the dignity of man (and the specific reason for that failure is that the dignity of man is directly grounded in God creating humans in his own image. Without the Image-Of-God which comes with the Immaterial Ensoulment, you no longer have a basis for human dignity.  

(IOW, the Holocaust becomes mere pest-control instead of a planetary war-crime.)

If this dignity thing sounds familiar to you, it's because evolutionist James Rachels pointed out the same thing (see the early pages of this thread.)

The ONLY theism that supports the Image of God thesis is a creationist theism in which God actively designs man and the world as a home for man.  Remove the Image because of the theory of evolution, and you remove the ground of human dignity.  Remember what Mayr said?  "The application of common descent to humans deprived man of his former status."

So in fact we're back to reaffirming the Incompatibilities again.  Even if that's not what you intended.

FloydLee
Posted by: Robin on Oct. 21 2009,15:36

Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 21 2009,14:29)

---------------------QUOTE-------------------




---------------------QUOTE-------------------


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Yodel Elf just used JP2, Benedict and Pius' opinions to prove his point
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


And the specific point proven was that there exists a specific Incompatibility between clearly non-negotiable Catholic Christian beliefs and evolution.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



False as noted Floyd. You're being dishonest again. Your argument is quite idiotic. Move on to ID.
Posted by: Amadan on Oct. 21 2009,15:38

Floyd belongs to the Church of the Good Waitress.

The sacred scripture of that church can be found, bound and laminated in plastic, on the altars in its temple. Scripture clearly states "Ask the waitress for coffee and she'll be glad to get you some!"

Floyd opposes Bean Theory, which he says is incompatible with scripture. Bean Theory is proposed by a group known as Evidenciarists who maintain that coffee comes from dirt-grown objects called beans. Floyd tells us this is inconsistent with Scripture because the Waitress is a Good Waitress and would never inflict something on us that comes from a known source of flatulence. What's more, Bean Theory flies in the face of Scripture, which states it right there, plain as you like, that it's the Waitress who gives you coffee.

But Floyd's killer argument is the Proof by Sugar. Floyd likes two spoons of sugar in his coffee. The Waitress knows this, and he get sugar every time. It is an essential part of his coffee.

Floyd is explaining the errors of Bean Theory to the Pope.

Pope: "You know Floyd, I think the Evidenciarists might have got you there. They've got beans in the lab, they've detected caffeine in them, and they've dug up lots of ground up stuff that looks almost certainly to be old coffee-bean remains."

Floyd: "Doesn't matter. Coffee has sugar, right?"

Pope: "Well, I have to admit, I like a spoon in mine."

Floyd: "Bean Theory is incompatible with Scripture, Popey! Sugar doesn't come from beans!"



   
Quote (deadman_932 @ Oct. 21 2009,14:58)
I think you're right about the Floyd avoi-dance, Ogre.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------




Deadman: The word you're looking for is afloydance
Posted by: OgreMkV on Oct. 21 2009,15:41

Dignity of man?!??!  That's another false statement... pretty funny too.

Seriously Floyd, do you really understand that just because you say something doesn't mean it's true or even valid?  Then when you say something stupid like "dignity of man is directly grounded in God creating humans in his own image" and base your entire claim on that, you wonder why we don't understand your point.  

It's not that we don't understand.  It's that you are just saying things.  There's no evidence there, just an assertation that you happen to like.  

Please do a search on "Lady Gaga" and tell me that humans have dignity.
Posted by: Schroedinger's Dog on Oct. 21 2009,15:45



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Please do a search on "Lady Gaga" and tell me that humans have dignity.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


:D   :D   :D
Posted by: nmgirl on Oct. 21 2009,15:45

floyd's plauing quote games again:  here is the previous paragraph from John Paul II


"It is by virtue of his spiritual soul that the whole person possesses such a dignity even in his body. Pius XII stressed this essential point:

If the human body take its origin from pre-existent living matter, the spiritual soul is immediately created by God ("animas enim a Deo immediate creari catholica fides nos retinere iubei"; "Humani Generis," 36).

Consequently, theories of evolution which, in accordance with the philosophies inspiring them, consider the spirit as emerging from the forces of living matter or as a mere epiphenomenon of this matter, are incompatible with the truth about man. Nor are they able to ground the dignity of the person.
Posted by: Robin on Oct. 21 2009,15:45

Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 21 2009,14:45)

---------------------QUOTE-------------------




---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Consequently, theories of evolution which, in accordance with the philosophies inspiring them, consider the spirit as emerging from the forces of living matter or as a mere epiphenomenon of this matter, are incompatible with the truth about man. Nor are they able to ground the dignity of the person.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



6. With man, then, we find ourselves in the presence of an ontological difference, an ontological leap, one could say. However, does not the posing of such ontological discontinuity run counter to that physical continuity which seems to be the main thread of research into evolution in the field of physics and chemistry? Consideration of the method used in the various branches of knowledge makes it possible to reconcile two points of view which would seem irreconcilable.

The sciences of observation describe and measure the multiple manifestations of life with increasing precision and correlate them with the time line. The moment of transition to the spiritual is not the object of this kind of observation, which nevertheless can discover at the experimental level a series of very valuable signs indicating what is specific to the human being. But the experience of metaphysical knowledge, of self-awareness and self-reflection, of moral conscience, freedom, or again, of aesthetic and religious experience, falls within the competence of philosophical analysis and reflection, while theology brings out its ultimate meaning according to the Creator's plans.


Bottom line: never trust creationists' quotes - they always the important parts.
Posted by: deadman_932 on Oct. 21 2009,15:46

Dear Dr. Amadan:

If I afloydance too much after a heavy meal, I suffer from gassy floydtulance. Will GilCo's "Dodgen ManMusk" cologne cover the scent?
Posted by: JohnW on Oct. 21 2009,15:52

Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 21 2009,13:31)
(IOW, the Holocaust becomes mere pest-control instead of a planetary war-crime.)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Interesting choice of words.  So you regard Jews, Gypsies, Slavs, homosexuals and the disabled as pests, Floyd?  Would you like to tell us more?
Posted by: Schroedinger's Dog on Oct. 21 2009,15:53



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
after a heavy meal
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Damn! You were one "T" away from rocking the place!
Posted by: Amadan on Oct. 21 2009,15:55

Apropos nothing, it is said of WB Yeats that his party trick was to challenge people to find a word that rhymed with 'mahogany'. Nobody could.

Eventually however, in the lost bogs of Sligo, Seánie Pádraig Bán Óg Mac Giollaeaspaig pondered and slowly recited

My new chest of drawers is mahogany
And I polish it with Eau de Cologany

Posted by: FrankH on Oct. 21 2009,15:56

Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 21 2009,15:31)

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Nor are they able to ground the dignity of the person.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

I was waiting for this.  The "Evilution says we came from dirt.  The Bible says we came from dust.  Evilution is WRONG!  We are dusty not dirty physical beings!"

The real issue here is that Evolution means our physical bodies are nothing different when it comes down to it from any other animal.  Humans, being above animals in some people's book, are not able to endure the indignity of being an intelligent animal.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

And so, you've done a great job of exposing how John Paul's famous "TCCT" remarks concerning evolution reaffirm not only the 1st Incompatibility (Evolution denies God-as-required-explanation),[/QUOTE]Nope.  Evolution says nothing about a god.  Theistic Evolutionists hold that evolution is how their God did it.  If you read where in Genesis god spoke and from the Earth came life, that "from the Earth" is an allegorical response to a bunch of bronze age shepherds explaining as best they could understand that their god created them.  A Theistic Evolutionist holds the "Earth" was/is Evolution.  Again, you fall flat on your ass.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
but also the 3rd Incompatibility (Evolution denies humans created in the Image-of God.)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Ah yes, humans look like god or rather, humans made their gods, with some exceptions, to look like them.  Please re-read the part where the bible says stuff about God's hands, eyes, etc, especially where it speaks of god's wings and other things that human don't seem to have.

In the RCC, the "in god's image thing" is humans, as god and the angels do, have immortal souls and freewill.  That is what is said.

But again, that's not "reading the bible literally" again is it?  No problem for you as neither do you.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
IF you don't accept the Catholic God-ensoulment requirement, then you can no longer ground the dignity of man (and the specific reason for that failure is that the dignity of man is directly grounded in God creating humans in his own image. Without the Image-Of-God which comes with the Immaterial Ensoulment, you no longer have a basis for human dignity.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Epic Failure reached.

Hint Floyd, when you reach rock bottom and you can't dig anymore, blasting caps to go deeper ARE NOT the answer.

Human dignity comes not from some god but from who we are.  We are responsible for our own dignity.  Sorry, but I don't see how prostrating yourself to a viscous monster such as your petulant and evil child who you beleive to be your god is "dignified".

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
(IOW, the Holocaust becomes mere pest-control instead of a planetary war-crime.)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

I wouldn't know.  but you lost again.  Bringing in Nazis against your web opponent means you've lost and lost big time.

Loser, thy name is Floyd Lee.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
If this dignity thing sounds familiar to you, it's because evolutionist James Rachels pointed out the same thing (see the early pages of this thread.)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Wow, I don't take what James Rachels says as dogma.  What he writes in peer-reviewed science papers is one thing.  His opinions are his and I may or may not find them compatible with mine.  No big deal for me.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
The ONLY theism that supports the Image of God thesis is a creationist theism in which God actively designs man and the world as a home for man.  Remove the Image because of the theory of evolution, and you remove the ground of human dignity.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Non-sequitor of the most absurd kind.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Remember what Mayr said?  "The application of common descent to humans deprived man of his former status."
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Which was above all others because we have language and writing?  I don't know about you, but even with evolution I find humans pretty damn important.  While we have no right slaughtering animals and deforesting the Earth because we can, we need to think about future generations and what we leave for them.

the old theist doctrine of "We can do whatever the hell we want to any animal or forest" deprives humanity of our home and well being.  It is dogmatic adherence to outdated mythology, like the one you follow, that robs humanity of our dignity.  Being second to something that most likely doesn't and has never existed is not rising humanity up above anything.  In fact it reduces humanity to fearful creatures wondering if the wrath is going to come and get us unless we sacrifice something or someone to this god we created in our fear.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
So in fact we're back to reaffirming the Incompatibilities again.  Even if that's not what you intended.

FloydLee
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Ignorance is bliss Floyd and you're one hell of a happy person aren't you?
Posted by: FloydLee on Oct. 21 2009,15:57

Nmgirl quoted:
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
If the human body take its origin from pre-existent living matter, the spiritual soul is immediately created by God ("animas enim a Deo immediate creari catholica fides nos retinere iubei"; "Humani Generis," 36).

Consequently, theories of evolution which, in accordance with the philosophies inspiring them, consider the spirit as emerging from the forces of living matter or as a mere epiphenomenon of this matter, are incompatible with the truth about man.

Nor are they able to ground the dignity of the person.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Seems clear enough.
Posted by: FrankH on Oct. 21 2009,16:01

Crap, the first paragraph should look like this:

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


---------------------QUOTE-------------------


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Nor are they able to ground the dignity of the person.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

I was waiting for this.  The "Evilution says we came from dirt.  The Bible says we came from dust.  Evilution is WRONG!  We are dusty not dirty physical beings!"

The real issue here is that Evolution means our physical bodies are nothing different when it comes down to it from any other animal.  Humans, being above animals in some people's book, are not able to endure the indignity of being an intelligent animal.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


And so, you've done a great job of exposing how John Paul's famous "TCCT" remarks concerning evolution reaffirm not only the 1st Incompatibility (Evolution denies God-as-required-explanation),
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Nope.  Evolution says nothing about a god.  Theistic Evolutionists hold that evolution is how their God did it.  If you read where in Genesis god spoke and from the Earth came life, that "from the Earth" is an allegorical response to a bunch of bronze age shepherds explaining as best they could understand that their god created them.  A Theistic Evolutionist holds the "Earth" was/is Evolution.  Again, you fall flat on your ass.
Posted by: Reed on Oct. 21 2009,16:02

Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 21 2009,08:04)

I don't think you or Reed (or the other posters who tried this approach already) have any inkling how utterly and totally unconvincing this argument would be for Christians.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You've missed the point of course. This is dealing with your claim that apparent cruelty creates an incompatibility.

It's objectively true that the god of the bible does things that appear incomprehensibly cruel by normal standards (i.e. punishing people for things that happened before they were born, exterminating animals and infants for the sins of humans, condoning the slaughter of infants in warfare, condoning genocide, rape and slavery) If those things are compatible (and reconciling them is your problem, not mine), then you have no grounds to say that some other instance of apparent cruelty necessarily create incompatibility.

Apologists go through all kinds of mental gymnastics to justify the things I mentioned. That's fine, it's their fantasy, they can reconcile it however they want... but one could easily apply similar levels of rationalization to make evolution fit too. See Dembskis bizarre hypothesis that the fall acted backwards in time! (edit: < ref >)

Of course, you once again ignored the main point of post, which is that it doesn't matter if you think the millions of years of suffering is incompatible or not, because they are real regardless of whether evolution is true. Your interpretation is incompatible with reality. If compatibility matters to you, you have a big problem, and it's not specifically evolution.
Posted by: JohnW on Oct. 21 2009,16:03

Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 21 2009,13:57)
Nmgirl quoted:
   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
If the human body take its origin from pre-existent living matter, the spiritual soul is immediately created by God ("animas enim a Deo immediate creari catholica fides nos retinere iubei"; "Humani Generis," 36).

Consequently, theories of evolution which, in accordance with the philosophies inspiring them, consider the spirit as emerging from the forces of living matter or as a mere epiphenomenon of this matter, are incompatible with the truth about man.

Nor are they able to ground the dignity of the person.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Seems clear enough.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Yes, clear enough.  

And the theory of evolution as accepted by scientists does not "consider the spirit as emerging from the forces of living matter or as a mere epiphenomenon of this matter," or say anything else at all about the spirit.  So that theory of evolution is not incompatible with the church's "truth about man".
Posted by: FloydLee on Oct. 21 2009,16:09



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
So you regard Jews, Gypsies, Slavs, homosexuals and the disabled as pests, Floyd?  Would you like to tell us more?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Sure, there's more.  The evolution-based racism found in Darwin's "Descent of Man" finds a clear and sobering echo in Hitler's Mein Kampf.  

Evolution, Eugenics, Holocaust.  Like the Fixx used to sing on the radio, "One Thing Leads To Another."

Is that sufficient?
Posted by: Lou FCD on Oct. 21 2009,16:11



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it. - John 8:44
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Who's your daddy, Floyd?





---------------------QUOTE-------------------
< in nocturnal rapport >, by undergroundbastard.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: FrankH on Oct. 21 2009,16:20

Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 21 2009,16:09)

---------------------QUOTE-------------------




---------------------QUOTE-------------------


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
So you regard Jews, Gypsies, Slavs, homosexuals and the disabled as pests, Floyd?  Would you like to tell us more?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Sure, there's more.  The evolution-based racism found in Darwin's "Descent of Man" finds a clear and sobering echo in Hitler's Mein Kampf.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

You've never shown where Darwin was racist at all in "Descent of Man".  But I can show you where great and trootm christians were anti-semetic, racist or both.  Read Martin Luther's "The Jews and their Lies".  See the leader of the the entire protestant reformation speak so ill of Jews.

As the actual title is "Die Juden und Ihre Lugen", in German no less, it isn't hard to see where religious hatred can start a monster (you do know of course that many places, there were times when the Jews could be beaten and worse just because they were Jews and the religious leaders approved it, no?) and blame whatever they like.

Oh, the "Final Solution" was not Darwin based but religious as, "The Jews killed Christ, they to should be killed", crap.  But of course, you're a good parrot who is clueless and won't go looking up these things as it may make your hard wired brain explode.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Evolution, Eugenics, Holocaust.  Like the Fixx used to sing on the radio, "One Thing Leads To Another."
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Religion, out dated beliefs, vicious dogma, fear, ignorance, hatred, slavery, genocide is more prevalent.

You know, religious wars have killed more people than anything else, don't you?

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Is that sufficient?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

In your mind maybe.  In someone who can think for themselves, not even close.
Posted by: FrankH on Oct. 21 2009,16:22

Is it wrong for me to really be enjoying watching Floyd and his argument get smacked around so much?

Nah.....
Posted by: Schroedinger's Dog on Oct. 21 2009,16:22

here, Yodel Elf, meet one of your future play-friends:


(Hell, from the movie Constantine)

Because to be lying as you are, you are bound to end up in hell...
Posted by: Amadan on Oct. 21 2009,16:26

Leave it, folks. Floyd is just exhuming points that were disposed of before. His Five Frilly Failures are irrelevant.

Catholicism is unequivocally supportive of evolutionary theory. This has been made clear in this thread at least three times by me and many more times by others. (The fact that the RCC requires a divine origin for the soul is not a problem for them or evolutionary theory because evolutionary theory, like the rest of science and EU Council Regulation 1786/2003 on the common organisation of the market in dried fodder, is silent on the question of souls)

Whether Floyd's Frilly Failures matter to Catholics or anyone else is of no importance. Don't feed the troll.
Posted by: FrankH on Oct. 21 2009,16:26

Quote (Schroedinger's Dog @ Oct. 21 2009,16:22)
here, Yodel Elf, meet one of your future play-friends:
(Hell, from the movie Constantine)

Because to be lying as you are, you are bound to end up in hell...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Nope, my house on Turkey day when someone gets the last turkey leg before my brother (pictured) does.
Posted by: Quack on Oct. 21 2009,16:28

Quote (Lou FCD @ Oct. 21 2009,16:11)
   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it. - John 8:44
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Who's your daddy, Floyd?


---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Dammit, vomit all over my keyboard. Some people might be better  off with a millstone hanged about their neck and drowned in the depth of the sea.
Posted by: JohnW on Oct. 21 2009,16:33

Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 21 2009,14:09)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
So you regard Jews, Gypsies, Slavs, homosexuals and the disabled as pests, Floyd?  Would you like to tell us more?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Sure, there's more.  The evolution-based racism found in Darwin's "Descent of Man" finds a clear and sobering echo in Hitler's Mein Kampf.  

Evolution, Eugenics, Holocaust.  Like the Fixx used to sing on the radio, "One Thing Leads To Another."

Is that sufficient?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Actually, Floyd, instead of an irrelevant and incorrect screed about Darwin and Hitler, I was hoping to find out more about your description of Holocaust victims as pests.  What makes you think this?

I hope I don't have to do an Erasmus and post this day after day.
Posted by: JohnW on Oct. 21 2009,16:34

Quote (FrankH @ Oct. 21 2009,14:26)
Quote (Schroedinger's Dog @ Oct. 21 2009,16:22)
here, Yodel Elf, meet one of your future play-friends:
(Hell, from the movie Constantine)

Because to be lying as you are, you are bound to end up in hell...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Nope, my house on Turkey day when someone gets the last turkey leg before my brother (pictured) does.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I thought it was Birmingham on a Saturday night, but with less rain.
Posted by: khan on Oct. 21 2009,16:36

Quote (Amadan @ Oct. 21 2009,16:55)
Apropos nothing, it is said of WB Yeats that his party trick was to challenge people to find a word that rhymed with 'mahogany'. Nobody could.

Eventually however, in the lost bogs of Sligo, Seánie Pádraig Bán Óg Mac Giollaeaspaig pondered and slowly recited

My new chest of drawers is mahogany
And I polish it with Eau de Cologany

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Tom Lehrer rhymed 'mahogany' with 'agony' (Masochism Tango).
Posted by: FloydLee on Oct. 21 2009,16:42



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Actually, Floyd, instead of an irrelevant and incorrect screed about Darwin and Hitler, I was hoping to find out more about your description of Holocaust victims as pests.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I figured that you would try to change the subject quickly, once I started talking about historical and ideological connections between your pet evolution belief and the Holocaust itself.  Confirmed.  

And of course, YOU want no part of exploring evolution's denial of the Image-Of-God-Thesis as a potential source of denying human dignity and ultimately supporting genocide.

Thanks for proving me correct.   :)
Posted by: JohnW on Oct. 21 2009,16:47

Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 21 2009,14:42)
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Actually, Floyd, instead of an irrelevant and incorrect screed about Darwin and Hitler, I was hoping to find out more about your description of Holocaust victims as pests.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I figured that you would try to change the subject quickly, once I started talking about historical and ideological connections between your pet evolution belief and the Holocaust itself.  Confirmed.  

And of course, YOU want no part of exploring evolution's denial of the Image-Of-God-Thesis as a potential source of denying human dignity and ultimately supporting genocide.

Thanks for proving me correct.   :)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Let's review:

1.  Floyd describes the Holocaust as "pest-control".
2.  I ask him what he means by that.
3.  Floyd changes the subject.
4.  I ask him again.
5.  Floyd accuses me of changing the subject.

So, Floyd, I was hoping to find out more about your description of Holocaust victims as pests.  What makes you think this?
Posted by: FrankH on Oct. 21 2009,16:49

Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 21 2009,16:42)

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Just when you thought Floyd couldn't get any more inane with his posts:

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Actually, Floyd, instead of an irrelevant and incorrect screed about Darwin and Hitler, I was hoping to find out more about your description of Holocaust victims as pests.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

I figured that you would try to change the subject quickly, once I started talking about historical and ideological connections between your pet evolution belief and the Holocaust itself.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Uh, there is none.  Just because you say so doesn't make it so.  I note though that you didn't say anything about Martin Luther's treatise on Jews?  We can confirm that throughout Europe, religious persecution of the Jews was on going since Europe became more or less a Christian continent.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Confirmed.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

That your reading comprehension is non-existent?  Yes it is but we knew that 60 pages ago.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
And of course, YOU want no part of exploring evolution's denial of the Image-Of-God-Thesis as a potential source of denying human dignity and ultimately supporting genocide.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Humans were killing humans LONG before WW2.  So how does your flawed belief change anything?

Can you show us exactly the link you proposed?  I think not.  You're a lying coward for your little, monster god Floyd.  There's no dignity there.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Thanks for proving me correct.   :)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

That you're totally bonkers?  Sure, no problem.
Posted by: improvius on Oct. 21 2009,16:50

Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 21 2009,17:42)
I figured that you would try to change the subject quickly
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Seriously, this has to be an act.  If Floyd were really as stupid/unstable as his posts indicate, he wouldn't be able to operate a keyboard.
Posted by: JohnW on Oct. 21 2009,16:52

Quote (improvius @ Oct. 21 2009,14:50)
Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 21 2009,17:42)
I figured that you would try to change the subject quickly
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Seriously, this has to be an act.  If Floyd were really as stupid/unstable as his posts indicate, he wouldn't be able to operate a keyboard.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Are you new to the internet, improvius? :)
Posted by: Amadan on Oct. 21 2009,16:54

Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 21 2009,16:42)
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Actually, Floyd, instead of an irrelevant and incorrect screed about Darwin and Hitler, I was hoping to find out more about your description of Holocaust victims as pests.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I figured that you would try to change the subject quickly, once I started talking about historical and ideological connections between your pet evolution belief and the Holocaust itself.  Confirmed.  
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Troll-bait. Quit veering off topic, Floyd.




---------------------QUOTE-------------------
And of course, YOU want no part of exploring evolution's denial of the Image-Of-God-Thesis as a potential source of denying human dignity and ultimately supporting genocide.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Correct, WE don't want to explore it because

1. we have already established that Christianity is compatible with evolutionary theory

2. We have already gone down the image-of-God lane hand in hand with the Pope and come back up smiling

3. You are making a tendentious and inflammatory argument that is patently intended to spare you fulfilling your promise to argue in favour of teaching ID in science classrooms.

Get on with ID, Floyd.
Posted by: Henry J on Oct. 21 2009,16:57

I'm wondering how a comment about Darwin and Hitler constitutes a changes of subject from evolution and Holocaust? Aren't those pretty much within the same subject?

Or should I say same two subjects, given the lack of any discernible connection between Darwin and Hitler?
Posted by: improvius on Oct. 21 2009,16:59

Quote (JohnW @ Oct. 21 2009,17:52)
Quote (improvius @ Oct. 21 2009,14:50)
Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 21 2009,17:42)
I figured that you would try to change the subject quickly
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Seriously, this has to be an act.  If Floyd were really as stupid/unstable as his posts indicate, he wouldn't be able to operate a keyboard.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Are you new to the internet, improvius? :)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I'm just saying his ability to string coherent sentences together doesn't jibe with the utter inanity of his posts.  It's like he's trying too hard, or something.  I'm not buying it.
Posted by: Henry J on Oct. 21 2009,17:01



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I'm just saying his ability to string coherent sentences together doesn't jibe with the utter inanity of his posts
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Wait, are you saying there's an incompatibility between coherence and inanity?

Does it matter if the inanity is breathtaking or not?
Posted by: Amadan on Oct. 21 2009,17:01

If he is, he is surely the Moe of Poes.

< (Moe is their leader.) >



eta :@Ł* submit button....
Posted by: FloydLee on Oct. 21 2009,17:07



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Troll-bait. Quit veering off topic, Floyd.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



At this point you guys are no longer making rational sense.  

Reading comprehension zero, just talking stupid and arrogant really.  
(Am I including you?  Yep, you too.)
Posted by: deadman_932 on Oct. 21 2009,17:08

Well, I agree that GoP did manage an extended poe-troll, but Floyd's been around for years, has written a lot on these topics and that's his real name.

Shocking as it may seem, I think he's as real as Dave Hawkins, although (also shockingly) even dumber.
Posted by: FloydLee on Oct. 21 2009,17:11



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Floyd describes the Holocaust as "pest-control".
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Are you brain dead or something?  You sound that way, with that level of misrepresentation and outright lying.  Unevolved neurons on your part, maybe?
Posted by: Amadan on Oct. 21 2009,17:11

Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 21 2009,17:07)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Troll-bait. Quit veering off topic, Floyd.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



At this point you guys are no longer making rational sense.  

Reading comprehension zero, just talking stupid and arrogant really.  
(Am I including you?  Yep, you too.)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Sorry Floyd, not biting.

Get on to ID, Floyd.
Posted by: deadman_932 on Oct. 21 2009,17:14

Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 21 2009,17:07)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Troll-bait. Quit veering off topic, Floyd.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



At this point you guys are no longer making rational sense.  

Reading comprehension zero, just talking stupid and arrogant really.  
(Am I including you?  Yep, you too.)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


As opposed to "irrational sense, " no doubt.

Looking for another "out" via insult, are we? Re-read today's posts and see who's doing the afloydance fandango.

You have failed to support your claim that Christianity and evolution are incompatible.

On with your ID circus and dance revue.
Posted by: improvius on Oct. 21 2009,17:15

Quote (deadman_932 @ Oct. 21 2009,18:08)
Shocking as it may seem, I think he's as real as Dave Hawkins, although (also shockingly) even dumber.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I guess that's the most puzzling aspect for me.  I never would have believed that AFDave's absurdity could be topped without intentionally doing so.
Posted by: deadman_932 on Oct. 21 2009,17:18

Quote (improvius @ Oct. 21 2009,17:15)
Quote (deadman_932 @ Oct. 21 2009,18:08)
Shocking as it may seem, I think he's as real as Dave Hawkins, although (also shockingly) even dumber.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I guess that's the most puzzling aspect for me.  I never would have believed that AFDave's absurdity could be topped without intentionally doing so.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Well...there's always Ray Martinez' butterfly wombs. Or...do you remember that guy over at Dawkins' that thought he could resurrect bees? That shit made AFDave look like Einstein.
Posted by: JohnW on Oct. 21 2009,17:20

Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 21 2009,15:11)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Floyd describes the Holocaust as "pest-control".
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Are you brain dead or something?  You sound that way, with that level of misrepresentation and outright lying.  Unevolved neurons on your part, maybe?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 21 2009,13:31)

(IOW, the Holocaust becomes mere pest-control instead of a planetary war-crime.)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Must have been some other Floyd Lee.  If it was you and not your evil twin, please explain how I'm misrepresenting you or outright lying.

You know, Floyd, most people by now would have said something like "I got carried away in my ranting.  That was an unfortunate choice of words and I apologise".
Posted by: Schroedinger's Dog on Oct. 21 2009,17:20

Quote (improvius @ Oct. 22 2009,00:15)
Quote (deadman_932 @ Oct. 21 2009,18:08)
Shocking as it may seem, I think he's as real as Dave Hawkins, although (also shockingly) even dumber.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I guess that's the most puzzling aspect for me.  I never would have believed that AFDave's absurdity could be topped without intentionally doing so.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


yeah, I think deadman deserves some kind of award for bringing this chew-toy in...
Posted by: FloydLee on Oct. 21 2009,17:21

[qtote]Sorry Floyd, not biting.[/quote]
What?  You don't like it when I start sounding like you guys?  You can't take it dude?  Don't wanna talk about it?  Not emotionally prepped?   The word "Pitiful" comes to mind.  Plus you can't understand the meaning of the word "Friday."  (Shall I blame your schooling or your parenting for that failure?)
Posted by: didymos on Oct. 21 2009,17:21

Executive summary of everything Floyd has written so far:  "Hand me a shovel boys!  I'm a goin' to China!"
Posted by: FloydLee on Oct. 21 2009,17:23



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
If it was you and not your evil twin, please explain how I'm misrepresenting you or outright lying.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You familiar with the phrase "quote-mining", John?  They teach you about it in school?  They teach you it's wrong?
Posted by: deadman_932 on Oct. 21 2009,17:25

Quote (Schroedinger's Dog @ Oct. 21 2009,17:20)
Quote (improvius @ Oct. 22 2009,00:15)
 
Quote (deadman_932 @ Oct. 21 2009,18:08)
Shocking as it may seem, I think he's as real as Dave Hawkins, although (also shockingly) even dumber.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I guess that's the most puzzling aspect for me.  I never would have believed that AFDave's absurdity could be topped without intentionally doing so.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


yeah, I think deadman deserves some kind of award for bringing this chew-toy in...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I SAID I WAS SORRY!*

*Please don't let it be "a go at Arden," or "dress Louis for Halloween." I've suffered enough.
Posted by: didymos on Oct. 21 2009,17:25

Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 21 2009,15:23)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
If it was you and not your evil twin, please explain how I'm misrepresenting you or outright lying.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You familiar with the phrase "quote-mining", John?  They teach you about it in school?  They teach you it's wrong?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


[insert hypocrisy joke here]
Posted by: Reed on Oct. 21 2009,17:30

Quote (JohnW @ Oct. 21 2009,15:20)
You know, Floyd, most people by now would have said something like "I got carried away in my ranting.  That was an unfortunate choice of words and I apologise".
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Hrm, to be fair to FL my reading of that was that he was saying "evolutionists" would regard the holocaust as "pest control". That doesn't necessarily require him to believe the victims were actually pests. It's just the standard "if there is no god there's no such thing as morality" bullshit, in particularly offensive terms.

Still stupid, but not quite as offensively stupid as suggested. Or maybe the whole thing is a parody of FLs quote mining, in which case, carry on!
Posted by: FloydLee on Oct. 21 2009,17:36

You know John, I honestly don't think your school taught you that quote-mining is wrong.  Permit me to help out.
   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
IF you don't accept the Catholic God-ensoulment requirement, then you can no longer ground the dignity of man (and the specific reason for that failure is that the dignity of man is directly grounded in God creating humans in his own image. Without the Image-Of-God which comes with the Immaterial Ensoulment, you no longer have a basis for human dignity.  

(IOW, the Holocaust becomes mere pest-control instead of a planetary war-crime.)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Now, you quoted the very last sentence there---even ignoring the "IOW" that clearly connects the sentence to the previous paragraph--and took the last sentence completely out of context, trying to accuse me of saying that the Holocaust IS mere pest-control.  

That's quotemining, John.  Straight quotemining.

Of course, it could be that you're just really minimal on reading comprehension.

Or maybe you just like misrepresentation.  A hobby of sorts.

Or perhaps somebody taught you that it was okay to lie if the target wasn't a Darwinist.

Or maybe it's a combo deal.  I dunno.

Do you see any ethical problem with the tack you've taken?  Even slightly?
Posted by: deadman_932 on Oct. 21 2009,17:39

Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 21 2009,17:36)
Do you see any ethical problem with the tack you've taken?  Even slightly?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Right backatcha, Floyd.

Once might be a parody, or a simple misreading . You've got a pattern going, though.
Posted by: JohnW on Oct. 21 2009,17:46

Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 21 2009,15:36)
You know John, I honestly don't think your school taught you that quote-mining is wrong.  Permit me to help out.
   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
IF you don't accept the Catholic God-ensoulment requirement, then you can no longer ground the dignity of man (and the specific reason for that failure is that the dignity of man is directly grounded in God creating humans in his own image. Without the Image-Of-God which comes with the Immaterial Ensoulment, you no longer have a basis for human dignity.  

(IOW, the Holocaust becomes mere pest-control instead of a planetary war-crime.)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Now, you quoted the very last sentence there---even ignoring the "IOW" that clearly connects the sentence to the previous paragraph--and took the last sentence completely out of context, trying to accuse me of saying that the Holocaust IS mere pest-control.  

That's quotemining, John.  Straight quotemining.

Of course, it could be that you're just really minimal on reading comprehension.

Or maybe you just like misrepresentation.  A hobby of sorts.

Or perhaps somebody taught you that it was okay to lie if the target wasn't a Darwinist.

Or maybe it's a combo deal.  I dunno.

Do you see any ethical problem with the tack you've taken?  Even slightly?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Congratulations, Floyd.  You now accept that quote-mining is wrong and can give offence.

Do you think you can manage to stop on your own, or will you need a support group?
Posted by: Amadan on Oct. 21 2009,17:48

Quote (deadman_932 @ Oct. 21 2009,17:25)
Quote (Schroedinger's Dog @ Oct. 21 2009,17:20)
 
Quote (improvius @ Oct. 22 2009,00:15)
 
Quote (deadman_932 @ Oct. 21 2009,18:08)
Shocking as it may seem, I think he's as real as Dave Hawkins, although (also shockingly) even dumber.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I guess that's the most puzzling aspect for me.  I never would have believed that AFDave's absurdity could be topped without intentionally doing so.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


yeah, I think deadman deserves some kind of award for bringing this chew-toy in...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I SAID I WAS SORRY!*

*Please don't let it be "a go at Arden," or "dress Louis for Halloween." I've suffered enough.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Worse.

You shall listen to Schroedinger's Dog's entire metal collection.


Bwaha ha ha hajesuswhydoibother
Posted by: deadman_932 on Oct. 21 2009,17:56

Quote (Amadan @ Oct. 21 2009,17:48)
Quote (deadman_932 @ Oct. 21 2009,17:25)
I SAID I WAS SORRY!*

*Please don't let it be "a go at Arden," or "dress Louis for Halloween." I've suffered enough.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Worse.

You shall listen to Schroedinger's Dog's entire metal collection.


Bwaha ha ha hajesuswhydoibother
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


NNNNnoO0o...LOOK AT WHAT THAT DID TO THIS POOR CHILD!11!



Posted by: FloydLee on Oct. 21 2009,18:11



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Once might be a parody, or a simple misreading . You've got a pattern going, though.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


This coming from the guy who had his specific quotemining claim dissected literally quote-by-quote and evolutionist-by-evolutionist, till nothing was left at all.  Heh.

Meanwhile, I'm going to push back my scheduled postings by one day.   Might as well take my time about this stuff, it won't change anything.  
Sometime Friday evening, I'll do the shortened "Biblical perspective On Biology", and use Saturday (Oct 24) for the main "ID is science" presentation.  On Sunday, I'll go ahead and write my final summary of "Evolution is Incompatible With Christianity" even though we'll be debating the "ID as science" issue all the way up to (or through) Nov. 1.
Posted by: deadman_932 on Oct. 21 2009,18:26

Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 21 2009,18:11)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Once might be a parody, or a simple misreading . You've got a pattern going, though.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


This coming from the guy who had his specific quotemining claim dissected literally quote-by-quote and evolutionist-by-evolutionist, till nothing was left at all.  Heh.

Meanwhile, I'm going to push back my scheduled postings by one day.   Might as well take my time about this stuff, it won't change anything.  
Sometime Friday evening, I'll do the shortened "Biblical perspective On Biology", and use Saturday (Oct 24) for the main "ID is science" presentation.  On Sunday, I'll go ahead and write my final summary of "Evolution is Incompatible With Christianity" even though we'll be debating the "ID as science" issue all the way up to (or through) Nov. 1.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Prove that by posting my original post and all relevant posts.

Otherwise, I'll trust that readers can make their own judgements as to your honesty. Reading this thread gives insight into that.
Posted by: Amadan on Oct. 21 2009,18:32

Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 21 2009,18:11)
 On Sunday, I'll go ahead and write my final summary of "Evolution is Incompatible With Christianity" ...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------




Why, Floyd? You have already conceded that Catholics are Christian. The Catholic Church has expressly stated that it doesn't disapprove of evolution. You are attempting to reopen an argument you have conceded.

Better luck with ID, Floyd.
Posted by: Lou FCD on Oct. 21 2009,18:33

Say 'hello' for me, Floyd:





---------------------QUOTE-------------------
< Persephone >, by Olga Díez (Caliope)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: didymos on Oct. 21 2009,18:40

Quote (JohnW @ Oct. 21 2009,15:46)
Congratulations, Floyd.  You now accept that quote-mining is wrong and can give offence.

Do you think you can manage to stop on your own, or will you need a support group?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


*golf clap*
Posted by: didymos on Oct. 21 2009,18:40

Quote (Lou FCD @ Oct. 21 2009,16:33)
Say 'hello' for me, Floyd:



 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
< Persephone >, by Olga Díez (Caliope)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Think he'll get it? Might be too subtle.
Posted by: Lou FCD on Oct. 21 2009,19:47

Quote (didymos @ Oct. 21 2009,19:40)
Think he'll get it? Might be too subtle.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Nah, probably not. He's dumber than a box of rocks, besides being a liar and a hypocrite, and probably knows less of other mythologies than he does of his own.

Have a nice trip, Floyd.



 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
< Road to Perdition? >, by Giampaolo Macorig.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------




Posted by: JonF on Oct. 21 2009,19:54

Quote (deadman_932 @ Oct. 21 2009,18:18)
Well...there's always Ray Martinez' butterfly wombs.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


No, no, no ... butterfly wombs are supersport. As is < the speed of light is infinite > because he can't detect any lag looking at someone 10 feet away.
Posted by: OgreMkV on Oct. 21 2009,20:03

Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 21 2009,18:11)
Meanwhile, I'm going to push back my scheduled postings by one day.   Might as well take my time about this stuff, it won't change anything.  
Sometime Friday evening, I'll do the shortened "Biblical perspective On Biology", and use Saturday (Oct 24) for the main "ID is science" presentation.  On Sunday, I'll go ahead and write my final summary of "Evolution is Incompatible With Christianity" even though we'll be debating the "ID as science" issue all the way up to (or through) Nov. 1.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Less than 12 hours before he postponed some stuff... LOL.  Does he owe me five bucks?

Floyd, why won't you answer the questions you've been asked?  Really, I really want to know why you don't answer the majority of the questions you've been asked.

When you get to the ID part, I have 6 questions.  Will you answer them.  Because if I have to post them 4 or 5 times a day, the rest of the group might get annoyed.  

How about this?  If you answer my six questions, using real science (since that's what you'll be arguing), I'll give you a cookie.
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Oct. 21 2009,20:46

Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 21 2009,14:23)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Wow.  I am in awe of this guy's complete inability to grasp such a simple point.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


In short, you have no answer for the actual reply that was given, so you just kinda blow it off.  Okay!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


hey speaking of that why don't you answer my question

chickenshit
Posted by: The Wayward Hammer on Oct. 21 2009,20:48

Floyd, I have read every post on this thread.

You have made no headway in seeing the difference between "Required" and "Excluded."

You cannot distinguish between the Theory of Evolution, evolution as a concept and quotes from others (appeal to authority) about evolution.

You are times incoherent, yet strangely arrogant.  I must agree with Dr. Heddle, a quite devout Christian, that you make poor arguments and then get smug about them.  You have also shown dishonesty several times in blatant quote-mining.

You sir are either severely deluded or an idiot.  And I have not excluded the possibility that you are both.

Frankly you are making Christians look bad and being one myself, I wish you would stop.
[I]
Posted by: Henry J on Oct. 21 2009,21:04



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Robin, posted 10/21/09 2:45 PM
[...]
Bottom line: never trust creationists' quotes - they always the important parts.  
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Er, they always do what with the important parts? ;)

Or was that the point?

Henry
Posted by: Henry J on Oct. 21 2009,21:04

Re "(Evolution denies humans created in the Image-of God.)"

Only somebody who believes God to be an erect biped would worry about that. AFAIK, most Christians don't.

Re "Btw, the thread topic is NOT whether science is incompatible with Christianity.  Thought you were clear on that."

Not when you keep giving arguments that apply just as much to several other sciences as they do to biology.

Henry
Posted by: Henry J on Oct. 21 2009,21:04

Biblical perspective on biology:

How many legs do insects have?

Do bats have feathers?

Rabbit or whatever it was - does it chew its cud?

Do snakes talk?

Do donkeys talk?

Can a big fish swallow a person without killing him?

Can what an animal is looking at while mating affect the traits of the offspring?

Can a bird find fresh leaves in an area that's been under water for several months?

Did I miss any?

Henry
Posted by: Henry J on Oct. 21 2009,21:05

Is ID science?

Let's analyze that:

What is the consistently observed pattern(s) of observations that is supposed to be explained by I.D.?

How does this pattern logically follow from the clearly stated premise(s) of what I.D. means?

What sets of observations might be possible if I.D. is wrong, but highly unlikely if it is correct?

What predictions does the proposed theory make that are distinct from those of any current theories?

What is the clearly stated premise(s) of what I.D. means?
(Denial of evolution won't count here - ID has to say something about the evidence, not about its competition.)

How does the proposed theory explain the enormous success of the current theory?

For any proposed theory that really is science, there would be clear answers to these questions, and anybody claiming that I.D. is science would have those answers on hand.

Henry
Posted by: Dan on Oct. 21 2009,21:08

Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 21 2009,14:45)
Consequently, theories of evolution which, in accordance with the philosophies inspiring them, consider the spirit as emerging from the forces of living matter or as a mere epiphenomenon of this matter, are incompatible with the truth about man. Nor are they able to ground the dignity of the person.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I've heard a lot about the philosophies inspired by evolution (much of it bullshit) but I've never heard about evolution inspired by philosophy.

Darwin, for example, was inspired by Smith and Hutton (both geologists) and by Culver and Lamarck (both biologists) and my Malthus (an economist).  But I've never heard anyone argue that Darwin was inspired by Plato, or by Descartes.  Certainly Darwin's writings don't reflect any such inspiration.

And then there are others who contributed to our knowledge of evolution: classically, Wallace, Huxley, etc. -- neo, Wright, Fisher, Dobzhansky, Stebbins, etc. -- modern, Margulis, Smith, etc.  I have never heard of them being influenced by philosophy either.

Could FL clarify what he means here?
Posted by: Lou FCD on Oct. 21 2009,22:08

Quote (Dan @ Oct. 21 2009,22:08)
Could FL clarify what he means here?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


On purpose? Not likely.





---------------------QUOTE-------------------
< Flame >, by ul Marga.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------







---------------------QUOTE-------------------
< toast >, by SideLong.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: Henry J on Oct. 21 2009,23:00

Quote (Dan @ Oct. 21 2009,20:08)
Could FL clarify what he means here?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Seems unlikely. When arguments are based on emotion rather than evidence or logic, clarifying them to people who don't share those emotions is rather difficult.

Henry
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Oct. 22 2009,00:51

Quote (JohnW @ Oct. 21 2009,17:33)
Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 21 2009,14:09)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
So you regard Jews, Gypsies, Slavs, homosexuals and the disabled as pests, Floyd?  Would you like to tell us more?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Sure, there's more.  The evolution-based racism found in Darwin's "Descent of Man" finds a clear and sobering echo in Hitler's Mein Kampf.  

Evolution, Eugenics, Holocaust.  Like the Fixx used to sing on the radio, "One Thing Leads To Another."

Is that sufficient?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Actually, Floyd, instead of an irrelevant and incorrect screed about Darwin and Hitler, I was hoping to find out more about your description of Holocaust victims as pests.  What makes you think this?

I hope I don't have to do an Erasmus and post this day after day.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


if he's too stupid to answer the question it won't matter how many times you post it.

what a little chickenshit dried up turd of a person.
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Oct. 22 2009,00:57

Floyd before you start beating everyone's OTHER boot to a bloody hell with your face (you know, ID is algebra or whatever it is you said you'd prove) why don't you do us all a favor and give this one a go, since you never did yet

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
WHY is god not part of the required explanation for why water runs downhill, when he is part of the required explanation for the EXISTENCE OF WATER?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



remember, you said that.  Why did you say that?
Posted by: deadman_932 on Oct. 22 2009,01:28

Following Lou's thematic lead:
.

Posted by: Cubist on Oct. 22 2009,03:55

Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 21 2009,16:09)
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
So you regard Jews, Gypsies, Slavs, homosexuals and the disabled as pests, Floyd?  Would you like to tell us more?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Sure, there's more.  The evolution-based racism found in Darwin's "Descent of Man" finds a clear and sobering echo in Hitler's Mein Kampf.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I would very much like you to tell us more about "The evolution-based racism found in Darwin's Descent of Man'", Floyd. In particular, I would very much like you to cite chapter and verse, throwing the harsh spotlight of truth upon the exact and specific passages in Descent of Man  in which Darwin expressed racist ideas. Fortunately, pretty much everything Darwin ever wrote, < Descent of Man > included, is freely available online, which means it will be quite easy for anybody who might doubt your veracity to confirm that your chapter-and-verse citations of Darwin's words are accurate quotes which do no violence to Darwin's ideas. So go for it, Floyd! You'll have exposed the hated Darwin, and put the lie to those benighted souls who are so misguided that they have accused you of deceitful behavior like quote-mining! It's a win-win situation for you!
Posted by: Schroedinger's Dog on Oct. 22 2009,04:48

Quote (Cubist @ Oct. 22 2009,10:55)
Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 21 2009,16:09)
   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
So you regard Jews, Gypsies, Slavs, homosexuals and the disabled as pests, Floyd?  Would you like to tell us more?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Sure, there's more.  The evolution-based racism found in Darwin's "Descent of Man" finds a clear and sobering echo in Hitler's Mein Kampf.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I would very much like you to tell us more about "The evolution-based racism found in Darwin's Descent of Man'", Floyd. In particular, I would very much like you to cite chapter and verse, throwing the harsh spotlight of truth upon the exact and specific passages in Descent of Man  in which Darwin expressed racist ideas. Fortunately, pretty much everything Darwin ever wrote, < Descent of Man > included, is freely available online, which means it will be quite easy for anybody who might doubt your veracity to confirm that your chapter-and-verse citations of Darwin's words are accurate quotes which do no violence to Darwin's ideas. So go for it, Floyd! You'll have exposed the hated Darwin, and put the lie to those benighted souls who are so misguided that they have accused you of deceitful behavior like quote-mining! It's a win-win situation for you!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I would be much interested to see that.

Although, let's face it, Yodel Elf has never even opened any of Darwin's (or any scientific) book in his sad life. He's only regurgitating whatever stupidity he's read on some creotard forum or other.
Posted by: FrankH on Oct. 22 2009,07:16

Floyd,


It's like this.  Your credibility is in tatters.  The only thing you've shown that you're able to do is regurgipost from other sources.  Your claims:

1:  You can't be a Christian and think Evolution is right.
Survey says:  Wrong.  You admit that the RCC is a Christian Church and that the Pope is a Christian.  The RCC accepts Evolution for the physical body of humans.

2:  You then change your tactics to say Evolution is not accepted by the RCC when Evolution tries to explain how the human "soul" or "spirit" was materialistically formed.
Survey says:  There is no evidence that a "soul" or "spirit" even exists.  As Geology doesn't show land at the North Pole for Santa's workshop, an electron microscope show us how many angels can dance on the head of a pin or satellites show the Norse Gods fighting the Giants making the Auroras in the northern sky does that make them wrong too?  After all everyone knows Santa is real.  Can you show us any evidence for a soul or spirit?  You know, as your religion doesn't mention chakras, it must be wrong in other people's eyes don't you?  Last thing, can you show us those "Evolutionary Theories" which mention how a soul or spirit evolves?

3:  You equate biology needs to be guided by your god and that this god of yours was needed to make the chemicals needed for life.
Survey says:  Yet when you emphatically declare that your god was needed to make water, your god is not needed to make water run down a hill.  Why not?

4:  You claim your god is a loving caring god.
Survey says:  Your own god's book shows it to be a moody, schizo, monstrous and petulant child who kills whole populations, even newborns and I dare say babies in their mother's womb because it's pissed.  It also got mad because despite it being omnipotent, omnipresent and omniscient, it left two beings who didn't know anything including that disobeying was bad (how could they) and this god of your "went away" leaving the gates open for the creature of pure evil into the garden and tell the two innocents to do something they were told not to.  When they did do it, this omnipotent being had to ask them what happened and said they let evil into the world!  That's like a parent, leaving the toddlers home alone, front door open for anything to "crawl in" and a loaded gun on the kitchen table and then that parent has the audacity to blame the kids for letting in outsiders and touching the gun!

5:  You claim Evolution leads to hate, antisemitism, evil men, eugenics and a host of other evils.
Survey says:  Racial hatred, antisemitism, war and more were around long before Darwin's theories.  Even eugenics, under a different name of course, was around long before Darwin.  Of course "undesirables" usually meant "people of another faith".  Those who did eugenics were evil people hiding under a veneer of science while they practiced their hatred on others.  Can you show us where Evolution says anything about eugenics makes a species stronger?

6:  You claim Darwin was a racist and it is for all to see in "Descent of Man".
Survey says:  Wrong.  You yourself can't show us where Darwin says anything like that.  I can show you Christian Churches and their adherents who wrote extensively on how the "lesser races" needed to be enslaved.  Care to show us anything in Evolution that says that?  Can you even show us where Darwin was a racist?

7:  Your 5 points.
Survey says:  Your 5 points are trash.  They've been debunked, blown away, shown for the hot air they are.  The only reason they are brought back out of the grave is you keep digging them up.  But like all corpses, when you let go of them and yell, "Charge", they fall back into the hole.


Face it Floyd, you're out of your depth in a puddle.
Posted by: Schroedinger's Dog on Oct. 22 2009,07:38

Quote (FrankH @ Oct. 22 2009,14:16)
Floyd,


It's like this.  Your credibility is in tatters.  The only thing you've shown that you're able to do is regurgipost from other sources.  Your claims:

1:  You can't be a Christian and think Evolution is right.
Survey says:  Wrong.  You admit that the RCC is a Christian Church and that the Pope is a Christian.  The RCC accepts Evolution for the physical body of humans.

2:  You then change your tactics to say Evolution is not accepted by the RCC when Evolution tries to explain how the human "soul" or "spirit" was materialistically formed.
Survey says:  There is no evidence that a "soul" or "spirit" even exists.  As Geology doesn't show land at the North Pole for Santa's workshop, an electron microscope show us how many angels can dance on the head of a pin or satellites show the Norse Gods fighting the Giants making the Auroras in the northern sky does that make them wrong too?  After all everyone knows Santa is real.  Can you show us any evidence for a soul or spirit?  You know, as your religion doesn't mention chakras, it must be wrong in other people's eyes don't you?  Last thing, can you show us those "Evolutionary Theories" which mention how a soul or spirit evolves?

3:  You equate biology needs to be guided by your god and that this god of yours was needed to make the chemicals needed for life.
Survey says:  Yet when you emphatically declare that your god was needed to make water, your god is not needed to make water run down a hill.  Why not?

4:  You claim your god is a loving caring god.
Survey says:  Your own god's book shows it to be a moody, schizo, monstrous and petulant child who kills whole populations, even newborns and I dare say babies in their mother's womb because it's pissed.  It also got mad because despite it being omnipotent, omnipresent and omniscient, it left two beings who didn't know anything including that disobeying was bad (how could they) and this god of your "went away" leaving the gates open for the creature of pure evil into the garden and tell the two innocents to do something they were told not to.  When they did do it, this omnipotent being had to ask them what happened and said they let evil into the world!  That's like a parent, leaving the toddlers home alone, front door open for anything to "crawl in" and a loaded gun on the kitchen table and then that parent has the audacity to blame the kids for letting in outsiders and touching the gun!

5:  You claim Evolution leads to hate, antisemitism, evil men, eugenics and a host of other evils.
Survey says:  Racial hatred, antisemitism, war and more were around long before Darwin's theories.  Even eugenics, under a different name of course, was around long before Darwin.  Of course "undesirables" usually meant "people of another faith".  Those who did eugenics were evil people hiding under a veneer of science while they practiced their hatred on others.  Can you show us where Evolution says anything about eugenics makes a species stronger?

6:  You claim Darwin was a racist and it is for all to see in "Descent of Man".
Survey says:  Wrong.  You yourself can't show us where Darwin says anything like that.  I can show you Christian Churches and their adherents who wrote extensively on how the "lesser races" needed to be enslaved.  Care to show us anything in Evolution that says that?  Can you even show us where Darwin was a racist?

7:  Your 5 points.
Survey says:  Your 5 points are trash.  They've been debunked, blown away, shown for the hot air they are.  The only reason they are brought back out of the grave is you keep digging them up.  But like all corpses, when you let go of them and yell, "Charge", they fall back into the hole.


Face it Floyd, you're out of your depth in a puddle.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


POTW? Pretty please?

That was damn brilliant!
Posted by: Robin on Oct. 22 2009,09:22

Quote (Robin @ Oct. 21 2009,15:45)

---------------------QUOTE-------------------




---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Bottom line: never trust creationists' quotes - they always the important parts.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Dang...I guess no one noticed that I left out the word 'delete' in my sentence above. Illustration of a point is so hard to do on a message board...(sigh)
Posted by: improvius on Oct. 22 2009,09:34

I noticed and appreciated the intent, just didn't comment on it.
Posted by: Robin on Oct. 22 2009,09:36

[quote=FloydLee,Oct. 21 2009,15:57][/quote]


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Nmgirl quoted:
   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
If the human body take its origin from pre-existent living matter, the spiritual soul is immediately created by God ("animas enim a Deo immediate creari catholica fides nos retinere iubei"; "Humani Generis," 36).

Consequently, theories of evolution which, in accordance with the philosophies inspiring them, consider the spirit as emerging from the forces of living matter or as a mere epiphenomenon of this matter, are incompatible with the truth about man.

Nor are they able to ground the dignity of the person.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Seems clear enough.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Well, it's certainly clear enough to those of us who don't try to quote mine or selectively read the essay:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
And, to tell the truth, rather than the theory of evolution, we should speak of several theories of evolution. On the one hand, this plurality has to do with the different explanations advanced for the mechanism of evolution, and on the other, with the various philosophies on which it is based. Hence the existence of materialist, reductionist, and spiritualist interpretations. What is to be decided here is the true role of philosophy and, beyond it, of theology.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



So indeed, what the pope is saying is that there are several concepts of evolution and some of them -those that insist that the soul is a product of naturalist development - are incompatible with evolution. Those theories of evolution that are not based on absolute materialism are completely compatible with evolution. Once again, Floyd only demonstrates that he can't read or refuses to do so accurately and honestly.
Posted by: Amadan on Oct. 22 2009,10:00

Has anyone here ever heard of a theory of evolution "...that insist[s] that the soul is a product of naturalist development"?

Me neither.
Posted by: Robin on Oct. 22 2009,10:00

Quote (Henry J @ Oct. 21 2009,21:04)

---------------------QUOTE-------------------




---------------------QUOTE-------------------


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Robin, posted 10/21/09 2:45 PM
[...]
Bottom line: never trust creationists' quotes - they always the important parts.  
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Er, they always do what with the important parts? ;)

Or was that the point?

Henry
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Yay! You did get it Henry! Two shiny new shillings for you! My bad on saying no one had caught it. Thank you for proving me wrong Henry!
Posted by: Robin on Oct. 22 2009,10:05

[quote=Henry J,Oct. 21 2009,21:04][/quote]


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Biblical perspective on biology:

How many legs do insects have?

Do bats have feathers?

Rabbit or whatever it was - does it chew its cud?

Do snakes talk?

Do donkeys talk?

Can a big fish swallow a person without killing him?

Can what an animal is looking at while mating affect the traits of the offspring?

Can a bird find fresh leaves in an area that's been under water for several months?

Did I miss any?

Henry
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Well, there is the whole question of how snakes got around before they were cursed to go about on their bellies, eat dust, and bite women on their heals.

And btw, thank you Henry. I haven't had such a good weeping giggle fit in a long time. Very funny. Still trying to laugh and not disturb anyone around me...just makes it all the more funny!  :D
Posted by: Badger3k on Oct. 22 2009,10:16

Quote (FrankH @ Oct. 21 2009,15:00)
Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 21 2009,14:45)
.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------




---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Consequently, theories of evolution which, in accordance with the philosophies inspiring them, consider the spirit as emerging from the forces of living matter or as a mere epiphenomenon of this matter, are incompatible with the truth about man.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Yeah as Evolution, the science, really doesn't deal with "man's indomitable spirit" the Philosophy.  My dear sir, you confuse philosophical constructs with scientific evidence.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Nor are they able to ground the dignity of the person.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

I was waiting for this.  The "Evilution says we came from dirt.  The Bible says we came from dust.  Evilution is WRONG!  We are dusty not dirty physical beings!"

The real issue here is that Evolution means our physical bodies are nothing different when it comes down to it from any other animal.  Humans, being above animals in some people's book, are not able to endure the indignity of being an intelligent animal.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Wait a minute - "Ground the dignity of the person?"

This from a religion that considers everybody evil and worthy of eternal torture unless they worship their torturer?  Where is the dignity in that?
Posted by: Robin on Oct. 22 2009,10:21

Quote (Dan @ Oct. 21 2009,21:08)

---------------------QUOTE-------------------




---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 21 2009,14:45)
Consequently, theories of evolution which, in accordance with the philosophies inspiring them, consider the spirit as emerging from the forces of living matter or as a mere epiphenomenon of this matter, are incompatible with the truth about man. Nor are they able to ground the dignity of the person.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



I've heard a lot about the philosophies inspired by evolution (much of it bullshit) but I've never heard about evolution inspired by philosophy.

Darwin, for example, was inspired by Smith and Hutton (both geologists) and by Culver and Lamarck (both biologists) and my Malthus (an economist).  But I've never heard anyone argue that Darwin was inspired by Plato, or by Descartes.  Certainly Darwin's writings don't reflect any such inspiration.

And then there are others who contributed to our knowledge of evolution: classically, Wallace, Huxley, etc. -- neo, Wright, Fisher, Dobzhansky, Stebbins, etc. -- modern, Margulis, Smith, etc.  I have never heard of them being influenced by philosophy either.

Could FL clarify what he means here?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Floyd didn't say that - it's from an essay by Pope John Paul II. What the Pope was getting at in the essay was that science in general and evolution as part of biology in specific is based on a philosophical perspective about how we can know things about this world and what constitutes truths and facts about it. Different people over the years have approached the concept of knowledge from different philosophies and thus different people who have adopted those different philophies in turn approach evolution differently. So the Pope is saying, look...it can be said there there are really a number of theories of evolution, not just one single accept theory, because different people see the world, and thus the theory of evolution, differently. And those theories of evolution that insist that all components of this universe, even those unseen conceptual components such as spirits and souls, as being products of materialistic evolutionary processes are incompatible with the Catholic understanding completely. However, those theories of Evolution that take no stand on such immaterial components and allow that God may well implant such substance within the human outside the parameters of evolution are not incompatible. That's what the Pope is saying. Pity Floyd either doesn't understand that or is dishonestly evading that point.
Posted by: Quack on Oct. 22 2009,10:45



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
And those theories of evolution that insist that all components of this universe, even those unseen conceptual components such as spirits and souls, as being products of materialistic evolutionary processes are incompatible with the Catholic understanding completely. However, those theories of Evolution that take no stand on such immaterial components and allow that God may well implant such substance within the human outside the parameters of evolution are not incompatible. That's what the Pope is saying. Pity Floyd either doesn't understand that or is dishonestly evading that point.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I am no great fan of the Pope but I think he shows a degree of maturity in his thinking that is sadly lacking in every thought emanating from FL.
Posted by: FrankH on Oct. 22 2009,10:47

Quote (Quack @ Oct. 22 2009,10:45)
I am no great fan of the Pope but I think he shows a degree of maturity in his thinking that is sadly lacking in every thought emanating from FL.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


It's easy to see maturity and thinking in a person when they are not lying.

Sadly, I don't see maturity nor thinking in Floyd.
Posted by: Doc Bill on Oct. 22 2009,10:53



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Dang...I guess no one noticed that I left out the word 'delete' in my sentence above. Illustration of a point is so hard to do on a message board...(sigh)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



I caught it.  Sort of like "this sentence no verb" and "avoid cliches like the plague."

For the record I thought it was very clever and award you 4 kwatloos!
Posted by: Kattarina98 on Oct. 22 2009,11:27

Quote (Henry J @ Oct. 21 2009,21:04)
Biblical perspective on biology:

(snip)

Can what an animal is looking at while mating affect the traits of the offspring?

(snip)

Henry
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I always found that bit extremely puzzling. Ancient Hebrews must have been breeding goats at least for centuries. Wouldn't they laugh at a prophet making that ridiculous claim?
Posted by: FrankH on Oct. 22 2009,11:31

Quote (Kattarina98 @ Oct. 22 2009,11:27)
Quote (Henry J @ Oct. 21 2009,21:04)
Biblical perspective on biology:

(snip)

Can what an animal is looking at while mating affect the traits of the offspring?

(snip)

Henry
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

I always found that bit extremely puzzling. Ancient Hebrews must have been breeding goats at least for centuries. Wouldn't they laugh at a prophet making that ridiculous claim?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Maybe they were thinking of themselves and their offspring.
Posted by: Lou FCD on Oct. 22 2009,13:05

Quote (Schroedinger's Dog @ Oct. 22 2009,05:48)
Quote (Cubist @ Oct. 22 2009,10:55)
 
Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 21 2009,16:09)
     

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
So you regard Jews, Gypsies, Slavs, homosexuals and the disabled as pests, Floyd?  Would you like to tell us more?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Sure, there's more.  The evolution-based racism found in Darwin's "Descent of Man" finds a clear and sobering echo in Hitler's Mein Kampf.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I would very much like you to tell us more about "The evolution-based racism found in Darwin's Descent of Man'", Floyd. In particular, I would very much like you to cite chapter and verse, throwing the harsh spotlight of truth upon the exact and specific passages in Descent of Man  in which Darwin expressed racist ideas. Fortunately, pretty much everything Darwin ever wrote, < Descent of Man > included, is freely available online, which means it will be quite easy for anybody who might doubt your veracity to confirm that your chapter-and-verse citations of Darwin's words are accurate quotes which do no violence to Darwin's ideas. So go for it, Floyd! You'll have exposed the hated Darwin, and put the lie to those benighted souls who are so misguided that they have accused you of deceitful behavior like quote-mining! It's a win-win situation for you!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I would be much interested to see that.

Although, let's face it, Yodel Elf has never even opened any of Darwin's (or any scientific) book in his sad life. He's only regurgitating whatever stupidity he's read on some creotard forum or other.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


What he said.





---------------------QUOTE-------------------
< demonios internos >, por Bruno.C.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: FrankH on Oct. 22 2009,13:35

Where's the guest of honor?

Has he been scared away?
Posted by: snorkild on Oct. 22 2009,13:55




A darwinist belt buckle?
Posted by: Henry J on Oct. 22 2009,14:36

Quote (FrankH @ Oct. 22 2009,12:35)
Where's the guest of honor?

Has he been scared away?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


What are the odds of that?
Posted by: Lou FCD on Oct. 22 2009,14:38

Quote (Henry J @ Oct. 22 2009,15:36)
Quote (FrankH @ Oct. 22 2009,12:35)
Where's the guest of honor?

Has he been scared away?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


What are the odds of that?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Slim and none. The boy's too oblivious to reality to be scared.
Posted by: nmgirl on Oct. 22 2009,16:46

Quote (Robin @ Oct. 22 2009,09:36)
[quote=FloydLee,Oct. 21 2009,15:57][/quote]
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Nmgirl quoted:
   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
If the human body take its origin from pre-existent living matter, the spiritual soul is immediately created by God ("animas enim a Deo immediate creari catholica fides nos retinere iubei"; "Humani Generis," 36).

Consequently, theories of evolution which, in accordance with the philosophies inspiring them, consider the spirit as emerging from the forces of living matter or as a mere epiphenomenon of this matter, are incompatible with the truth about man.

Nor are they able to ground the dignity of the person.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Seems clear enough.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Well, it's certainly clear enough to those of us who don't try to quote mine or selectively read the essay:

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
And, to tell the truth, rather than the theory of evolution, we should speak of several theories of evolution. On the one hand, this plurality has to do with the different explanations advanced for the mechanism of evolution, and on the other, with the various philosophies on which it is based. Hence the existence of materialist, reductionist, and spiritualist interpretations. What is to be decided here is the true role of philosophy and, beyond it, of theology.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



So indeed, what the pope is saying is that there are several concepts of evolution and some of them -those that insist that the soul is a product of naturalist development - are incompatible with evolution. Those theories of evolution that are not based on absolute materialism are completely compatible with evolution. Once again, Floyd only demonstrates that he can't read or refuses to do so accurately and honestly.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Robin, thanks for highlighting the relevant phrase that FL left out.
Posted by: Constant Mews on Oct. 22 2009,17:39

Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 19 2009,10:25)
CM:  do you remember bringing up the Nicene Creed?
       

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
We believe in one God the Father Almighty,

Maker of heaven and earth, (Genesis 1: 1)  

and of all things visible and invisible. (Colossians 1: 15-16.)


And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of God, begotten of the Father before all worlds, God of God, Light of Light, Very God of Very God, begotten, not made, being of one substance with the Father

by whom all things were made (Hebrews 1: 1-2) ;

who for us men, and for our salvation, came down from heaven, and was incarnate by the Holy Spirit of the Virgin Mary, and was made man, and was crucified also for us under Pontius Pilate. He suffered and was buried, and the third day he rose again according to the Scriptures, and ascended into heaven, and sitteth on the right hand of the Father. And he shall come again with glory to judge both the quick and the dead, whose kingdom shall have no end.

And we believe in the Holy Spirit,

the Lord and Giver of Life (Genesis 1:2) ,

who proceedeth from the Father and the Son, who with the Father and the Son together is worshipped and glorified, who spoke by the prophets. And we believe one holy catholic and apostolic Church. We acknowledge one baptism for the remission of sins. And we look for the resurrection of the dead, and the life of the world to come. Amen.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


**********************

Two questions, CM:

(1)  Do you believe the Nicene Creed is literally true in its entirety?

(2)  The highlighted portions bring up the First Incompatibility.  They point out that God is the Required Explanation for cosmological and biological origins.   They very sharply clash with evolution, which denies that God is the Required Explanation.  
So how do you resolve the incompatibility between evolution and the Nicene Creed?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Of course I remember bringing up the creed.  It is, perhaps the single most universe statement of what it means to be Christian.

And nothing in it contradicts or conflicts with the theory of evolution.

Absolutely nothing.

Because nothing in the theory of evolution denies that God may be the Ultimate Cause.  Nothing.

You cannot show, prove, or demonstrate otherwise.

Once again, you are refuted.

I am praying for you; you truly need God's help and mercy.
Posted by: Constant Mews on Oct. 22 2009,17:41

To add clarity, Floyd - you will note that the Creed says nothing about how God creates.  Nothing.  Nor does the theory of evolution explicitly exclude God.

Game, set, and match, I'm afraid.
Posted by: silverspoon on Oct. 22 2009,17:58

Let's at least make the Beelzebub imagery pleasurable for Floyd.


Posted by: Schroedinger's Dog on Oct. 22 2009,18:32

Quote (silverspoon @ Oct. 23 2009,00:58)
Let's at least make the Beelzebub imagery pleasurable for Floyd.


---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Ahhhhhhhh. Liz Hurley in Bedazzled! Instant downward bloodflow!
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Oct. 22 2009,22:32

maybe he is writing a response to my long-avoided question.
Posted by: Henry J on Oct. 22 2009,22:56

Only if he can ever grok the difference between "is the ultimate cause of" and "is the explanation of".

Unless I missed something, Genesis declares that God is the cause.

It doesn't say that there isn't/aren't other explanations for the details.

Henry
Posted by: OgreMkV on Oct. 22 2009,22:57

Man, what's sad is Floyd wouldn't even take my bet.

Although I will say some research by others here was most interesting and I have learned a fair bit.  Unfortunately for Floyd, every bit of it pointed out in painful detail how totally unprepared for this he was.

Aside: If he comes back, I wonder what bit of inanity he will choose to comment on rather than the actual issues.
Posted by: Constant Mews on Oct. 23 2009,00:09

Quote (silverspoon @ Oct. 22 2009,17:58)
Let's at least make the Beelzebub imagery pleasurable for Floyd.


---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Rather reminds me of my ex-wife.  As I recall, though, mine carried a larger trident.
Posted by: FrankH on Oct. 23 2009,04:55

Quote (Henry J @ Oct. 22 2009,22:56)
Only if he can ever grok the difference between "is the ultimate cause of" and "is the explanation of".

Unless I missed something, Genesis declares that God is the cause.

It doesn't say that there isn't/aren't other explanations for the details.

Henry
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


But that's the problem for someone who is a literalist.  Their whole reason for being is they believe they know their God's mind and how one should live, vote, act, feel, etc to get saved.  How a finite and imperfect being can actually "know" a supposedly infinite and perfect being is beyond me.  Personally, I think that is the height of arrogance and hubris.

But I haven't met a "witnessing" evangelical who thinks I need to save my soul be anything but a egotistical asshole who just knows they are absolutely better than you.
Posted by: Schroedinger's Dog on Oct. 23 2009,05:33

Quote (FrankH @ Oct. 23 2009,11:55)
Quote (Henry J @ Oct. 22 2009,22:56)
Only if he can ever grok the difference between "is the ultimate cause of" and "is the explanation of".

Unless I missed something, Genesis declares that God is the cause.

It doesn't say that there isn't/aren't other explanations for the details.

Henry
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


But that's the problem for someone who is a literalist.  Their whole reason for being is they believe they know their God's mind and how one should live, vote, act, feel, etc to get saved.  How a finite and imperfect being can actually "know" a supposedly infinite and perfect being is beyond me.  Personally, I think that is the height of arrogance and hubris.

But I haven't met a "witnessing" evangelical who thinks I need to save my soul be anything but a egotistical asshole who just knows they are absolutely better than you.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


And thus, once again, we confirm Yodel Elf is gonna be toastin' in hell.

The only thing that sucks is that he will permanently anoy all those great men that are already there (Gandhi, Einstein...).

I'm starting to wonder if hell might just become that little bit worst with him around.
Posted by: Lou FCD on Oct. 23 2009,05:39

Quote (FrankH @ Oct. 23 2009,05:55)
But that's the problem for someone who is a literalist.  Their whole reason for being is they believe they know their God's mind and how one should live, vote, act, feel, etc to get saved.  How a finite and imperfect being can actually "know" a supposedly infinite and perfect being is beyond me.  Personally, I think that is the height of arrogance and hubris.

But I haven't met a "witnessing" evangelical who thinks I need to save my soul be anything but a egotistical asshole who just knows they are absolutely better than you.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Oh, did someone mention one of the seven deadlies?

You know where that will get you, don't you Floyd?





---------------------QUOTE-------------------
< Doctor Inferno >, by movimente
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: FrankH on Oct. 23 2009,06:45

Quote (Lou FCD @ Oct. 23 2009,05:39)
Oh, did someone mention one of the seven deadlies?

You know where that will get you, don't you Floyd?




---------------------QUOTE-------------------
< Doctor Inferno >, by movimente
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I think out good friend Floyd suffers from at least three.

I say "at least three" because I don't have any evidence for "Envy, Greed, Gluttony, and Lust".  I'm not say he doesn't have any of those but there is no evidence that he has displayed on this board.

"Sloth", "Wrath", and "Pride" are what I see him displaying here on this board.

"Wrath"?  He is telling us we're going to hell because "we don't believe".  He seems not just sure but I think he wants anyone who doesn't agree with him to go to hell and "just the just rewards".

"Pride"?  He knows the truth and he's so sure as to be impervious to even contemplating that he could be wrong.  This is after of course he tells everyone else to reconsider and that they might be wrong.

"Sloth"?  Seems a bit of a stretch to some I'm sure but it is not.  All it would take is a little work on Floyd's part to learn for himslef and not just reguripost from sources that he wants to believe.  That is very lazy and totally slothful in MNSHO.
Posted by: Robin on Oct. 23 2009,08:12

[quote=nmgirl,Oct. 22 2009,16:46][/quote]


---------------------QUOTE-------------------


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
So indeed, what the pope is saying is that there are several concepts of evolution and some of them -those that insist that the soul is a product of naturalist development - are incompatible with evolution. Those theories of evolution that are not based on absolute materialism are completely compatible with evolution. Once again, Floyd only demonstrates that he can't read or refuses to do so accurately and honestly.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Robin, thanks for highlighting the relevant phrase that FL left out.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



My pleasure, though it seems that while Floyd can't read, I can't proofread...The second to last sentence should have been, "Those theories of evolution that are not based on absolute materialism are completely compatible with Christianity". (sigh) Oh well...I'm hoping the point was obvious...
Posted by: FrankH on Oct. 23 2009,08:21

Quote (Robin @ Oct. 23 2009,08:12)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
So indeed, what the pope is saying is that there are several concepts of evolution and some of them -those that insist that the soul is a product of naturalist development - are incompatible with evolution. Those theories of evolution that are not based on absolute materialism are completely compatible with evolution. Once again, Floyd only demonstrates that he can't read or refuses to do so accurately and honestly.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Robin, thanks for highlighting the relevant phrase that FL left out.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

My pleasure, though it seems that while Floyd can't read, I can't proofread...The second to last sentence should have been, "Those theories of evolution that are not based on absolute materialism are completely compatible with Christianity". (sigh) Oh well...I'm hoping the point was obvious...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Goes to that "Sloth" thing I leveled against Floyd now, doesn't it?

Yes Floyd, everyone makes mistakes.  The honest ones own up to it.  Those that aren't "Slothful" change it, even if it is in a later post.
Posted by: FloydLee on Oct. 23 2009,08:56

Okay, back again.  Mostly working on the items previously stated.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Those theories of evolution that are not based on absolute materialism are completely compatible with evolution.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


And which textbook-taught, classroom-taught, theories of evolution would these be?  Please specify.  

Meanwhile, here's the real deal:

"Solely materialistically." -- Ernst Mayr, SciAm
"Purely materialistic." -- Douglas Futuyma, EB3
"Completely mindless process." -- EB3

Posted by: FrankH on Oct. 23 2009,09:10

Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 23 2009,08:56)
Okay, back again.  Mostly working on the items previously stated.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Those theories of evolution that are not based on absolute materialism are completely compatible with evolution.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

And which textbook-taught, classroom-taught, theories of evolution would these be?  Please specify.  

Meanwhile, here's the real deal:

"Solely materialistically." -- Ernst Mayr, SciAm
"Purely materialistic." -- Douglas Futuyma, EB3
"Completely mindless process." -- EB3

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


No "theory" that has non-materialistic parts is not a scientific theory.  So it begs the question namely, "WTF are you talking about?"

Only theories that make predictions that can be falsified materialistically are science.  Ideas or thoughts on "how it could be" are regulated to philosophy.  There is nothing wrong with philosophy but in many cases, it's not science.

As to the books, what are you trying to get at with them as I can't read your mind and I'm glad.
Posted by: FloydLee on Oct. 23 2009,09:28



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
How a finite and imperfect being can actually "know" a supposedly infinite and perfect being is beyond me.  Personally, I think that is the height of arrogance and hubris.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Hmmm.  Suppose I mentioned to you that you're actually insulting God Himself by what you said there.
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Jeremiah 24:7 NKJV)

[b]"Then I will give them a heart to know Me, that I am the LORD; and they shall be My people, and I will be their God, for they shall return to Me with their whole heart."
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


God Himself is the one making the offer to humans to get to know him.  Offer is open to you too, like all of us.

He didn't say you had to personally understand all the mechanics of the deal first.  He's just making the offer and if you give Him permission, (honestly and sincerely give Him permission, and don't take it back), then He can go to work on enabling you to know Him.
Posted by: Robin on Oct. 23 2009,09:37

Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 23 2009,08:56)

---------------------QUOTE-------------------




---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Okay, back again.  Mostly working on the items previously stated.

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Those theories of evolution that are not based on absolute materialism are completely compatible with evolution.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


And which textbook-taught, classroom-taught, theories of evolution would these be?  Please specify.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



All of them - there isn't a biology text book in use that presents ANY philosophy that conflicts with Christianity. In fact, that was already demonstrated with a few examples that you chose to ignore.




---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Meanwhile, here's the real deal:

"Solely materialistically." -- Ernst Mayr, SciAm
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



GASP! Oh NO! OH...oh wait...not a text book quote...Zzzzzzzz



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
"Purely materialistic." -- Douglas Futuyma, EB3
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



What did I say about trusting creationists with quotes...you left something out again Floyd. Tsk tsk...



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
"Completely mindless process." -- EB3

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



That certainly describes you as well Floyd. So are you incompatible with Christianity? But of course, that's irrelevant to the point since being a mindless process has nothing to do with what the Pope (and my summary noted above) was saying.
Posted by: OgreMkV on Oct. 23 2009,09:39

Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 23 2009,09:28)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
How a finite and imperfect being can actually "know" a supposedly infinite and perfect being is beyond me.  Personally, I think that is the height of arrogance and hubris.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Hmmm.  Suppose I mentioned to you that you're actually insulting God Himself by what you said there.
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Jeremiah 24:7 NKJV)

[b]"Then I will give them a heart to know Me, that I am the LORD; and they shall be My people, and I will be their God, for they shall return to Me with their whole heart."
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


God Himself is the one making the offer to humans to get to know him.  Offer is open to you too, like all of us.

He didn't say you had to personally understand all the mechanics of the deal first.  He's just making the offer and if you give Him permission, (honestly and sincerely give Him permission, and don't take it back), then He can go to work on enabling you to know Him.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Evangilism = Fail

Two posts and nothing answered and you have less than 24 hours for your self imposed deadline.

Hey, while you're writing: WHY WON'T YOU ANSWER QUESTIONS ASKED OF YOU OR RESPOND TO THE CRITQUES OF YOUR BFFs?
Posted by: FrankH on Oct. 23 2009,09:42

Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 23 2009,09:28)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
How a finite and imperfect being can actually "know" a supposedly infinite and perfect being is beyond me.  Personally, I think that is the height of arrogance and hubris.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Hmmm.  Suppose I mentioned to you that you're actually insulting God Himself by what you said there.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Jeremiah 24:7 NKJV)

[b]"Then I will give them a heart to know Me, that I am the LORD; and they shall be My people, and I will be their God, for they shall return to Me with their whole heart."
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

God Himself is the one making the offer to humans to get to know him.  Offer is open to you too, like all of us.

He didn't say you had to personally understand all the mechanics of the deal first.  He's just making the offer and if you give Him permission, (honestly and sincerely give Him permission, and don't take it back), then He can go to work on enabling you to know Him.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


"A heart to know me"?  So the heart is what we think with?  Is this like "Rabbits chewing their cud", or "Insects have four legs"?

If I were to read it, "Heart to know me", would be faith to believe in me and love me.  It would have nothing to do with knowledge of what the person wants, even is.

As for insulting, that would be for your narrow minded and self-serving reading how you want it to be because you think you know it intimately.

I have no doubt that you "know" your god as intimately as you know yourself.  As your god is just a projection of yourself, you know your god as you know yourself.
Posted by: FloydLee on Oct. 23 2009,09:52



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
No "theory" that has non-materialistic parts is not a scientific theory
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


That's the great fallback excuse that folks have used on this board, Frank.  Problem is, as I showed in response to Reed and Deadman, that particular line of argument is multiple-flawed and has been refuted.

Short version (Ratzsch):  There have been, and are, NO rationally sustainable blanket prohibitions against supernatural design being a subject of science.  Some design theories may not pan out as science, but that's entirely consistent in principle with other design theories being able to qualify as science.  The theories may also flop and come up empty or refuted upon investigation, but ALL scientific theories face that very same risk anyway.  So that's why nobody's been able to--and still hasn't--come up with a defensible BLANKET prohibition against supernatural design within science.

Short version (Millam):  Science is about what is TESTABLE, not necessarily what is NATURALISTIC.

Short version (Meyer):  Multiple known fatal-flaws exist with the notion of defining science in the way you described it (solely naturalistically).  See "Methodological Equivalence of Design and Descent"
Each of these rational fatal-flaws are longstanding and unsolved.  Nobody's been able to resolve them.  Among the biggest is "Circular Argument."

FloydLee
Posted by: Tracy P. Hamilton on Oct. 23 2009,09:53

Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 23 2009,08:56)
Okay, back again.  Mostly working on the items previously stated.

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Those theories of evolution that are not based on absolute materialism are completely compatible with evolution.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


And which textbook-taught, classroom-taught, theories of evolution would these be?  Please specify.  

Meanwhile, here's the real deal:

"Solely materialistically." -- Ernst Mayr, SciAm
"Purely materialistic." -- Douglas Futuyma, EB3
"Completely mindless process." -- EB3

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Kind of like how YOU say we should describe water going down hill scientifically, hypocrite?
Posted by: Robin on Oct. 23 2009,09:59

I found the guide to creationist debate tactics:

< http://www.heterodoxy.com/society....ed.html >

Interesting stuff.  :p
Posted by: FloydLee on Oct. 23 2009,10:01



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Evangilism = Fail
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


And what about you Ogre?  You used to know God.  Or you talk as if you once maybe did somehow, way way back in a dim dark past.

What happened, exactly?  Wasn't me that started you doubting God and hating God, that's for sure.   What exactly was going on back in those younger years?

Or was it, ummm, something about EVOLUTION that started greasing the slide down and away from God?

Unanswered questions.  Whatever the answers, they must have been quite severe, to have gotten you to his point.
Posted by: FrankH on Oct. 23 2009,10:15

Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 23 2009,09:52)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
No "theory" that has non-materialistic parts is not a scientific theory
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

That's the great fallback excuse that folks have used on this board, Frank.  Problem is, as I showed in response to Reed and Deadman, that particular line of argument is multiple-flawed and has been refuted.

Short version (Ratzsch):  There have been, and are, NO rationally sustainable blanket prohibitions against supernatural design being a subject of science.  Some design theories may not pan out as science, but that's entirely consistent in principle with other design theories being able to qualify as science.  The theories may also flop and come up empty or refuted upon investigation, but ALL scientific theories face that very same risk anyway.  So that's why nobody's been able to--and still hasn't--come up with a defensible BLANKET prohibition against supernatural design within science.

Short version (Millam):  Science is about what is TESTABLE, not necessarily what is NATURALISTIC.

Short version (Meyer):  Multiple known fatal-flaws exist with the notion of defining science in the way you described it (solely naturalistically).  See "Methodological Equivalence of Design and Descent"
Each of these rational fatal-flaws are longstanding and unsolved.  Nobody's been able to resolve them.  Among the biggest is "Circular Argument."

FloydLee
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Which is a lie.  You have not refuted anything.  You reguriposted and left it at that.  Then you walked away claiming victory.  Your mind is so compartmentalized to make yourself unaware that you lie and lie often.

Ratzch's OPINION is his OPINION.  It is not shared by all.  Once you let supernatural in, anything goes.

As for Millam, Testable and Naturalistic is not an issue.  We can smash together and then test the decay of particles in a vacuum chamber.  That is not something that happens naturally on Earth.  No problem there.

Once again, Floyd EPIC FAIL who can't answer the questions like why is his god not needed to make the patterns in the dirt as water runs downhill but his god needs to have made the water.

Then he can't explain how a omniscient, omnipresent and omnipotent god can blame two completely clueless people when "he goes away" and somehow "the numero uno evil being" somehow is allowed in (only Floyd's god can allow things like that to happen, right?) and gets two innocents to do something bad.

Then this "perfect creation goes to hell because evil was let in.  NEWS FLASH:  Your "god" let evil into the garden before when that damn snake slithered in!
Posted by: OgreMkV on Oct. 23 2009,10:15

I'll digress for a minute if I may.  

Yes floyd, it was SCIENCE (not just evolution) that pretty much changed how I thought about things.  You see, I learned to think logically.  I learned to consider all sides to an arguement.  I learned to do research.  Indeed, I learned how to learn.  [All of which, I notice, you fail to do.]

And then, I had people like you screaming in my ear constantly about how science and the bible were incompatible.  That little bit of indoctrination seemed to take.  I believed them that science and the bible were incompatible.  However, after my research and studying and reading, I knew someone had lied to me... and it wasn't science.

When I looked at my church, I saw pastors who were always "called" to preach at larger churches for a better salary.  I saw deacons who were so hungover, they could barely pass the collection plate.  I saw ministers frolicking with their secretaries.  Then I went to college and saw a bunch of scientists quietly working away and solving the problems that church said couldn't be solved.  The problems caused by sin.

Are all scientists perfect, of course not.  Are all christians immoral, unethical liars, no.  However, at least the scientists are not hypocrits about it.

In my personal opinion, Chrisitianity, as you define it (and most other fundamentalists define it) is incomaptible with science... not because of science, but because of the dogma of religion.  

Perhaps if some of those religious leaders had been moral, ethical, and kind, I might have remained a Christian.  If some of those religious leaders had stayed in their churches instead of trying to challenge science, I might have stayed a Christian.  If some of those religious leaders had kept to their bibles instead of pushing into classrooms and politics, I might have remained a Christian.  Had those religious leaders not FORCED me to CHOOSE between science and religion, then I might have remained a Christian.  But they didn't and I'm not.  

I'll restate my position because you must have missed it the first time... It is strictly because of people like you that I am not a Christian.  

I answered your question, I think I deserve an answer to mine.

Why won't you answer the questions asked of you or respond to the critiques of your BFFs?
Posted by: FrankH on Oct. 23 2009,10:23

Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 23 2009,10:01)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Evangilism = Fail
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

And what about you Ogre?  You used to know God.  Or you talk as if you once maybe did somehow, way way back in a dim dark past.

What happened, exactly?  Wasn't me that started you doubting God and hating God, that's for sure.   What exactly was going on back in those younger years?

Or was it, ummm, something about EVOLUTION that started greasing the slide down and away from God?

Unanswered questions.  Whatever the answers, they must have been quite severe, to have gotten you to his point.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Which god?  There are so many.

Why is your god real but Indra (Hindu, fyi) not?

Is the follower of Indra damned?

Also, can a person be a Christian or is there a "certain kind of Christian" one must be or can one be a Catholic who thinks Evolution is real and that their god used evolution and 12 billions years to do it, the bible is allegorical and follow the Pope?
Posted by: Robin on Oct. 23 2009,10:27

Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 23 2009,09:52)

---------------------QUOTE-------------------




---------------------QUOTE-------------------


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
No "theory" that has non-materialistic parts is not a scientific theory
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


That's the great fallback excuse that folks have used on this board, Frank.  Problem is, as I showed in response to Reed and Deadman, that particular line of argument is multiple-flawed and has been refuted.

Short version (Ratzsch):  There have been, and are, NO rationally sustainable blanket prohibitions against supernatural design being a subject of science.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



False:

< http://www.wordiq.com/definition/Supernatural >

< http://science.howstuffworks.com/scientific-method10.htm >

Definition:
Science: 3 a : knowledge or a system of knowledge covering general truths or the operation of general laws especially as obtained and tested through scientific method b : such knowledge or such a system of knowledge concerned with the physical world and its phenomena : natural science
Merriam-Webster

I think that pretty much covers Floyd's silliness on that claim.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Short version (Millam):  Science is about what is TESTABLE, not necessarily what is NATURALISTIC.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



While not necessarily false, this does require question begging on the part of those presuming non-natural investigation. How exactly does one test that which isn't natural?
Posted by: FloydLee on Oct. 23 2009,10:28



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Do snakes talk?

Do donkeys talk?

Can a big fish swallow a person without killing him?

Can what an animal is looking at while mating affect the traits of the offspring?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


All four of those items would require supernatural action.  But the Bible says all four events actually took place in history, all the same.  Literally.

But you don't believe the Bible on those items.

So tell me something  Henry.  The Resurrection of Jesus Christ.  You believe the Bible on THAT one?  Literally?  

I await your answer.
Posted by: Robin on Oct. 23 2009,10:31

Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 23 2009,10:01)

---------------------QUOTE-------------------




---------------------QUOTE-------------------


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Evangilism = Fail
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


And what about you Ogre?  You used to know God.  Or you talk as if you once maybe did somehow, way way back in a dim dark past.

What happened, exactly?  Wasn't me that started you doubting God and hating God, that's for sure.   What exactly was going on back in those younger years?

Or was it, ummm, something about EVOLUTION that started greasing the slide down and away from God?

Unanswered questions.  Whatever the answers, they must have been quite severe, to have gotten you to his point.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



I for one certainly don't hate God. Actually I love God. I just find that most of the man-made institutions devoted to celebrating, worshipping, and educating folks about God make him and the men and women in the institutions look ridiculous.
Posted by: FrankH on Oct. 23 2009,10:34

Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 23 2009,10:28)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Do snakes talk?

Do donkeys talk?

Can a big fish swallow a person without killing him?

Can what an animal is looking at while mating affect the traits of the offspring?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

All four of those items would require supernatural action.  But the Bible says all four events actually took place in history, all the same.  Literally.

But you don't believe the Bible on those items.

So tell me something  Henry.  The Resurrection of Jesus Christ.  You believe the Bible on THAT one?  Literally?  

I await your answer.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


In other words, Floyd punts.

Hey Floyd, is true that a father can have sex and impregnate his daughters when there are no "reputable or worthy men around"?

Hey Floyd, after this dad gets his daughters pregnant, can he still sell them as per the bible?

After all the bible says so!

Also, what about the Catholic Version of the bible, is it the "whole true bible too"?  Why or why not?

Also, it is noted that you can't answer so you proselytize.

Admit it, you're way over your head.
Posted by: OgreMkV on Oct. 23 2009,10:39

Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 23 2009,10:28)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Do snakes talk?

Do donkeys talk?

Can a big fish swallow a person without killing him?

Can what an animal is looking at while mating affect the traits of the offspring?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


All four of those items would require supernatural action.  But the Bible says all four events actually took place in history, all the same.  Literally.

But you don't believe the Bible on those items.

So tell me something  Henry.  The Resurrection of Jesus Christ.  You believe the Bible on THAT one?  Literally?  

I await your answer.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I notice you didn't mention that the bible considers bats to be birds and that rabbits chew cud and spiders are insects?  

Those don't require miracles Floyd, those are observation problems that a large group of primitive sheep herders couldn't understand.

How about this for literal?  If a gang comes to my house and wants to rape a guest, then I am required (by the bible) to give my virgin daughter to the gang instead of my guest.  Have you done this Floyd?  Woud you?

Here's another question for you: How come you get to ask questions and get all indignant if we don't answer, but you don't have to answer questions?

But we're totally digressing from the point here.  You were supposed to convince us that the Chrisitanity and Science were incompatible.  You have failed to do so.  Even though my personal opinion is that you are correct, it is my personal opinion.  Yet, even with the presuposition that I think your statement is correct, you still haven't been able to prove it to me.  I am much more swayed by the logical statements made by others that they believe and can do science than your ravings.

You've got just more than 12 hours to finish your summary and get on to ID in the classroom.  I'll bet 20 bucks that you don't go there at all.  That discussion will crucify you and you can become a martyr to Dembski or whatever Dembski wants to do with you.

Just so you know, you aren't doing your causes (Christianity and ID) any favors here.
Posted by: Robin on Oct. 23 2009,10:40

Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 23 2009,10:28)

---------------------QUOTE-------------------




---------------------QUOTE-------------------


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Do snakes talk?

Do donkeys talk?

Can a big fish swallow a person without killing him?

Can what an animal is looking at while mating affect the traits of the offspring?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


All four of those items would require supernatural action.  But the Bible says all four events actually took place in history, all the same.  Literally.

But you don't believe the Bible on those items.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Yeah...hmmm...let's see...

Here's the thought process, Floyd: Which alternative - do I accept the bible's claim of talking donkeys, talking snakes, etc when there is no evidence that such has ever actually occurred or do I accept the actual evidence presented thus far on this planet that donkeys and snakes don't talk and thus conclude the bible, a book written by men, is wrong? Hmm...so hard to tell which is the rational course of action here...



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
So tell me something  Henry.  The Resurrection of Jesus Christ.  You believe the Bible on THAT one?  Literally?  

I await your answer.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



I believe that bit is just as much a metaphor as the talking snakes and donkeys.
Posted by: FloydLee on Oct. 23 2009,10:47



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
In other words, Floyd punts.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Nope.  With you, things are clear and consistent.  You reject God, Jesus, miracles, and Bible claims involving the supernatural.  Don't have to ask you about Jesus' Resurrection, because for you the answer's a big nope.   You're not a Christian.  (That's not an insult---that's the only answer that's consistent with what you've been posting.

But I think Henry said he was a Christian somewhere back on PT.  So, I'm just asking him about the Resurrection of Jesus Christ  (another pesky supernatural event).  

Clarification, that's all.
Posted by: FloydLee on Oct. 23 2009,10:50



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
If a gang comes to my house and wants to rape a guest, then I am required (by the bible) to give my virgin daughter to the gang instead of my guest.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Just for fun Ogre, show me where the Bible "requires" (or even recommends) that move.  

(Hmm, another request for documentation.....)
Posted by: nmgirl on Oct. 23 2009,10:50

Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 23 2009,10:28)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Do snakes talk?

Do donkeys talk?

Can a big fish swallow a person without killing him?

Can what an animal is looking at while mating affect the traits of the offspring?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


All four of those items would require supernatural action.  But the Bible says all four events actually took place in history, all the same.  Literally.

But you don't believe the Bible on those items.

So tell me something  Henry.  The Resurrection of Jesus Christ.  You believe the Bible on THAT one?  Literally?  

I await your answer.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You know floyd, this isn't about anyone's faith or lack of faith.  You claim to have proved that Evolution is incompatible with christianity.  

You have failed.  Accept it and go on.  it is none of your business what anyone's faith is.  Act like a man, not a whiny 3 yr old.
Posted by: FloydLee on Oct. 23 2009,11:03



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
You were supposed to convince us that the Chrisitanity and Science were incompatible.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Nope.  The thread topic is "Evolution is Incompatible with Christianity."  

The thread topic was repeated multiple times on multiple pages.  You know that's the topic.

The scientific method is compatible with Christianity.  However, evolution is NOT compatible with Christianity.
Posted by: FloydLee on Oct. 23 2009,11:04

Let Henry answer the question please, Nmgirl.
Posted by: OgreMkV on Oct. 23 2009,11:08

Genesis 19
Sodom and Gomorrah Destroyed
1 The two angels arrived at Sodom in the evening, and Lot was sitting in the gateway of the city. When he saw them, he got up to meet them and bowed down with his face to the ground. 2 "My lords," he said, "please turn aside to your servant's house. You can wash your feet and spend the night and then go on your way early in the morning."
     "No," they answered, "we will spend the night in the square."
3 But he insisted so strongly that they did go with him and entered his house. He prepared a meal for them, baking bread without yeast, and they ate. 4 Before they had gone to bed, all the men from every part of the city of Sodom—both young and old—surrounded the house. 5 They called to Lot, "Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us so that we can have sex with them."

6 Lot went outside to meet them and shut the door behind him 7 and said, "No, my friends. Don't do this wicked thing. 8 Look, I have two daughters who have never slept with a man. Let me bring them out to you, and you can do what you like with them. But don't do anything to these men, for they have come under the protection of my roof."


Keep in mind that the men who were guests were angels of the lord.  Lot was a very holy man, in fact, he was holy that he and his daughters were the only survivors of the two cities (of course his daughters weren't that holy were they?)  Yet, this supremely holy man offered his daughters to a bunch of rapists so that his guests would not be harmed.

I have heard many sermons on 'doing as Lot'.

Now, I've answered TWO questions TODAY.

Answer mine...
Posted by: OgreMkV on Oct. 23 2009,11:15

Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 23 2009,11:03)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
You were supposed to convince us that the Chrisitanity and Science were incompatible.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Nope.  The thread topic is "Evolution is Incompatible with Christianity."  

The thread topic was repeated multiple times on multiple pages.  You know that's the topic.

The scientific method is compatible with Christianity.  However, evolution is NOT compatible with Christianity.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


No Floyd, it is not at all clear and it's obvious that you don't want to go there.

If you put Evolution in that spot, then ANY SCIENCE will go in that spot.  I notice you don't hold astronomy as incompatible with Christianity because astronomy shows that the sky is not a tent with holes poked in it.   You don't attack cosmology for the Big Bang Theory.  You don't attack geometry because Pi is 3.141529 (not 3 as stated in the bible).  You don't attack geography because the Earth doesn't have four corners.

Again, you're picking on evolution because it offends you personally.  You find it offensive that a 200,000th cousin of yours is a chimpanzee.  You can't accept that.

What you continually fail to realize is that all of the sciences cause problems with your 'personal revelation about the bible'.  The scientific method does not cause problems (with you) in the Bible.  However, the conclusions that result from many, many branches of science DO conflict with the supposed inerrancy of the bible.
Posted by: Robin on Oct. 23 2009,11:31

Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 23 2009,11:03)

---------------------QUOTE-------------------




---------------------QUOTE-------------------


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
You were supposed to convince us that the Chrisitanity and Science were incompatible.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Nope.  The thread topic is "Evolution is Incompatible with Christianity."  

The thread topic was repeated multiple times on multiple pages.  You know that's the topic.

The scientific method is compatible with Christianity.  However, evolution is NOT compatible with Christianity.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



LOL! Silly Floyd, Trix are for kids! If the SM is compatible with Christianity, then by definition evolution MUST be compatible as well, unless you are saying that that the ToE is incompatible with or isn't based on the use of the SM. Is that what you are say Floyd? Is your argument really that evolution is incompatible with Christianity because the ToE isn't science? I'd love to see your arguments for THAT one if that is the case.
Posted by: Schroedinger's Dog on Oct. 23 2009,11:46

Quote (Robin @ Oct. 23 2009,16:59)
I found the guide to creationist debate tactics:

< http://www.heterodoxy.com/society....ed.html >

Interesting stuff.  :p
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Ok, now, that's scary. Was it written in the last 12 hours based on this thread and Yodel Elf's "arguments"? I'm really tempted to copy/past it here and start to single out all matching strategies with our mentaly challenged friend...

EDIT:

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
SM is compatible with Christianity
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



I just knew it! all this stuff about whipes...
Posted by: JLT on Oct. 23 2009,11:48

As a service to all those who think that their religion isn't compatible with reality and therefore need to pick a new one:



HTH
Posted by: FloydLee on Oct. 23 2009,12:13



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Yet, this supremely holy man offered his daughters to a bunch of rapists so that his guests would not be harmed.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You directly said the Bible required this specific kind of behavior.

Show me where, please.    :)
Posted by: FloydLee on Oct. 23 2009,12:21



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
If you put Evolution in that spot, then ANY SCIENCE will go in that spot.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


On exactly what basis?  Is it because the practitioners of "any science" have published the clear-cut Incompatibility Statements that have been given by professional evolutionist scientists?  NOPE, they've been silent WRT the Big Five in their textbooks and journals.

Again, on exactly what basis?  A clearly-documented, clearly-refuted conflation of naturalism/materialism with science?  The conditions of refutation have been specified and quoted verbatim in this thread.

You guys have NOT come up with a Plan C, so that's it.  

Hence your statement is refuted Ogre.
Posted by: OgreMkV on Oct. 23 2009,12:23

Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 23 2009,12:13)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Yet, this supremely holy man offered his daughters to a bunch of rapists so that his guests would not be harmed.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You directly said the Bible required this specific kind of behavior.

Show me where, please.    :)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You're right, the bible does not specifically "require" this behavior.  

However, the behavior itself is in the bible.  

Now, I've answered two of your questions today, I've even offered an apology for a my intpretations of a verse vs. the actuality of the verse.  

Now, when are you going to answer my questions?  I'm really starting to understand why you get called 'chickenshit' a lot.
Posted by: FloydLee on Oct. 23 2009,12:28



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
....unless you are saying that that the ToE is incompatible with or isn't based on the use of the SM
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


There would be no Big Five Incompatibilities if you guys had just stuck with the scientific method WRT the ToE and left off all that negative materialism-religion baggage.
Posted by: JohnW on Oct. 23 2009,12:33

Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 23 2009,10:28)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
....unless you are saying that that the ToE is incompatible with or isn't based on the use of the SM
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


There would be no Big Five Incompatibilities if you guys had just stuck with the scientific method WRT the ToE and left off all that negative materialism-religion baggage.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Please show how "all that negative materialism-religion baggage" is part of the theory of evolution, rather than your opinion of other people's opinions.
Posted by: FloydLee on Oct. 23 2009,12:41

Okay, I think Henry's remarks constituted a good point to start doing Biblical Perspective on Biology.  

But first, if you'll repeat the questions you want answered Ogre, I'll go ahead and do 'em.  You many not like the answers, (and I may repeat some if it's the same ole questions), but go ahead and ask.
Posted by: OgreMkV on Oct. 23 2009,12:44

Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 23 2009,12:21)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
If you put Evolution in that spot, then ANY SCIENCE will go in that spot.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


On exactly what basis?  Is it because the practitioners of "any science" have published the clear-cut Incompatibility Statements that have been given by professional evolutionist scientists?  NOPE, they've been silent WRT the Big Five in their textbooks and journals.

Again, on exactly what basis?  A clearly-documented, clearly-refuted conflation of naturalism/materialism with science?  The conditions of refutation have been specified and quoted verbatim in this thread.

You guys have NOT come up with a Plan C, so that's it.  

Hence your statement is refuted Ogre.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


No Dummy!  Read carefully and parse correctly.

Your BFF have no impact on everything else you are saying.

You say (paraphrase): The bible must be interpretted literally.

If that is true, then the following sciences (and maths) are NOT compatible with the bible:

Astronomy: Says that the ligths in the sky are stars and not, as claimed in the bible, pin pricks in a tent that let light through.
Cosmology: Says the universe was created in the big bang, not directly from God.
Geology: Says that a universal Naochian flood never happened.
Geometery: Says that Pi is 3.142926 (ad infinitum) instead of the biblical value of exactly 3.
Nutrition: Says that carbohydrates cannot be converted to proteins outside of bodily chemical reactiosn (as the bible claims).
Chemistry: Says that water cannot be chemically converted into complex alcohols (as the bible claims).
Chemistry: (Conservation of Mass) Says that 3 fishes and 5 loaves cannot feed hundreds of people, as the bible claims.

Now, if you invoke a miracle for these things to occur, why do refuse to invoke a miracle for evolution?
Posted by: OgreMkV on Oct. 23 2009,12:46

Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 23 2009,12:41)
Okay, I think Henry's remarks constituted a good point to start doing Biblical Perspective on Biology.  

But first, if you'll repeat the questions you want answered Ogre, I'll go ahead and do 'em.  You many not like the answers, (and I may repeat some if it's the same ole questions), but go ahead and ask.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


My question is: Why do you continually refuse to answer questions asked of you and refuse to comment on the critiques (I should say 'complete destruction', but I'm being charitable) of your BFFs (that you said you would do)?
Posted by: FloydLee on Oct. 23 2009,12:49

Ogre, I'm putting off doing the Perspective so that you can give me any specific questions you want answered that I didn't previously answer in your view.  The offer won't be here long.
Posted by: Kattarina98 on Oct. 23 2009,12:50

Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 23 2009,12:21)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
If you put Evolution in that spot, then ANY SCIENCE will go in that spot.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


(snip)
Is it because the practitioners of "any science" have published the clear-cut Incompatibility Statements that have been given by professional evolutionist scientists?
(snip)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Mr Lee,

when this thread started I wanted to give you a chance to prove that - though mistaken and/or uninformed regarding science - you were sincere about your wish to honestly debate opposing views. I even silently disapproved of some of the harsher words used by members of this forum.

I am deeply disappointed by your behaviour.

The most easily verifiable evidence of your dishonesty is your stubborn use of opinions of individuals as proof of the contents of ToE and the scientific method. You have been explained time and again that this is a fallacy, and you must be aware of that by now.

Yet here you go again.

You could never have convinced me of the special flavour of your Christianity. But you even failed to convince me of your honesty.
Posted by: Robin on Oct. 23 2009,12:51

Quote (JLT @ Oct. 23 2009,11:48)

---------------------QUOTE-------------------




---------------------QUOTE-------------------
As a service to all those who think that their religion isn't compatible with reality and therefore need to pick a new one:
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



One word: Awesome!
Posted by: FrankH on Oct. 23 2009,12:52

Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 23 2009,12:49)
Ogre, I'm putting off doing the Perspective so that you can give me any specific questions you want answered that I didn't previously answer in your view.  The offer won't be here long.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


But you'll ignore it when you are completely unable to answer it, right?
Posted by: Constant Mews on Oct. 23 2009,12:58

Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 23 2009,09:28)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
How a finite and imperfect being can actually "know" a supposedly infinite and perfect being is beyond me.  Personally, I think that is the height of arrogance and hubris.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Hmmm.  Suppose I mentioned to you that you're actually insulting God Himself by what you said there.
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Jeremiah 24:7 NKJV)

[b]"Then I will give them a heart to know Me, that I am the LORD; and they shall be My people, and I will be their God, for they shall return to Me with their whole heart."
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


God Himself is the one making the offer to humans to get to know him.  Offer is open to you too, like all of us.

He didn't say you had to personally understand all the mechanics of the deal first.  He's just making the offer and if you give Him permission, (honestly and sincerely give Him permission, and don't take it back), then He can go to work on enabling you to know Him.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Actually, you're the one committing a sin here, Floyd, by claiming to know the mind of God.
Posted by: Constant Mews on Oct. 23 2009,13:00

Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 23 2009,08:56)
Okay, back again.  Mostly working on the items previously stated.

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Those theories of evolution that are not based on absolute materialism are completely compatible with evolution.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


And which textbook-taught, classroom-taught, theories of evolution would these be?  Please specify.  

Meanwhile, here's the real deal:

"Solely materialistically." -- Ernst Mayr, SciAm
"Purely materialistic." -- Douglas Futuyma, EB3
"Completely mindless process." -- EB3

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Floyd, would you like me to actually quote Futuyma from EB3?  You're not going to like it, since it refutes you.  And you've relied pretty heavily on quotes from folks like Futuyma.
Posted by: Constant Mews on Oct. 23 2009,13:02

Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 23 2009,10:01)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Evangilism = Fail
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


And what about you Ogre?  You used to know God.  Or you talk as if you once maybe did somehow, way way back in a dim dark past.

What happened, exactly?  Wasn't me that started you doubting God and hating God, that's for sure.   What exactly was going on back in those younger years?

Or was it, ummm, something about EVOLUTION that started greasing the slide down and away from God?

Unanswered questions.  Whatever the answers, they must have been quite severe, to have gotten you to his point.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Evolutionary theory has lead me to a greater appreciation of the glory and majesty of God.

I am your worst nightmare, Floyd.  According to you, I cannot exist.

And yet merely by existing, by being an intelligent, educated Christian who accepts Christ as my saviour, and also accepts evolutionary theory and sees no conflicts between these two I prove you wrong.
Posted by: OgreMkV on Oct. 23 2009,13:08

Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 23 2009,12:49)
Ogre, I'm putting off doing the Perspective so that you can give me any specific questions you want answered that I didn't previously answer in your view.  The offer won't be here long.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


look at the post three minutes ahead of yours.  I don't care about the answers to the actual questions... that's a moot point.

I want to know WHY you refused to answer them and WHY you refused to comment on the three people who posted full refutations of your entire BFF (especially considering you said you would).
Posted by: Constant Mews on Oct. 23 2009,13:11

Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 23 2009,11:03)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
You were supposed to convince us that the Chrisitanity and Science were incompatible.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Nope.  The thread topic is "Evolution is Incompatible with Christianity."  

The thread topic was repeated multiple times on multiple pages.  You know that's the topic.

The scientific method is compatible with Christianity.  However, evolution is NOT compatible with Christianity.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


No matter how many times you repeat this lie Floyd, and it is a lie, you will never make it true.

I accept Christ as my saviour, and I accept evolutionary theory.  There are no incompatibilities between Christianity and evolutionary theory.

And since I know a great deal more than you do about Christianity and evolutionary theory, I don't think your continual lie is likely to make much headway, now is it?
Posted by: Constant Mews on Oct. 23 2009,13:13

Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 23 2009,12:28)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
....unless you are saying that that the ToE is incompatible with or isn't based on the use of the SM
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


There would be no Big Five Incompatibilities if you guys had just stuck with the scientific method WRT the ToE and left off all that negative materialism-religion baggage.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Since none of that is in the theory itself, your point is moot.

You accept then, that there are no incompatibilities based your own definition of evolution?  Good.
Posted by: FrankH on Oct. 23 2009,13:13

Quote (Constant Mews @ Oct. 23 2009,13:02)
Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 23 2009,10:01)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Evangilism = Fail
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


And what about you Ogre?  You used to know God.  Or you talk as if you once maybe did somehow, way way back in a dim dark past.

What happened, exactly?  Wasn't me that started you doubting God and hating God, that's for sure.   What exactly was going on back in those younger years?

Or was it, ummm, something about EVOLUTION that started greasing the slide down and away from God?

Unanswered questions.  Whatever the answers, they must have been quite severe, to have gotten you to his point.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Evolutionary theory has lead me to a greater appreciation of the glory and majesty of God.

I am your worst nightmare, Floyd.  According to you, I cannot exist.

And yet merely by existing, by being an intelligent, educated Christian who accepts Christ as my saviour, and also accepts evolutionary theory and sees no conflicts between these two I prove you wrong.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Here's the thing Floyd,

I have no argument with Constant Mews.  Why?  Constant Mews thinks that their God was the cause of it all, no matter how far back science pushes the beginning of the Universe (or Multi-Verse if there is one).  Their God is one that, forgive me if I speak out of turn here CM, that they want to emulate and love, not prostrate themselves before and give sacrifices to out of fear that they will be persecuted if they didn't.

I think that God of Constant Mews is a lot smarter than yours could ever be.  The God of CM creates the beginning and is more than intelligent enough to be able to set mechanisms that require no micromanagement to complete.  Compare that to your God who seems that despite their omni-whatever, the more simple the person, the more likely they are able to understand this "god".

"Oh give me a simple mind which is easy to fill with faith as to leave no room for independent thought"

That's you Floyd.

As for CM, I'm sure we could be neighbors with no ill effect
Posted by: Constant Mews on Oct. 23 2009,13:14

Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 23 2009,12:49)
Ogre, I'm putting off doing the Perspective so that you can give me any specific questions you want answered that I didn't previously answer in your view.  The offer won't be here long.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


There are several dozen unanswered questions for you, Floyd.  Any one of which is likely to prove, once again, that you are wrong.
Posted by: Robin on Oct. 23 2009,13:23

Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 23 2009,12:28)

---------------------QUOTE-------------------




---------------------QUOTE-------------------


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
....unless you are saying that that the ToE is incompatible with or isn't based on the use of the SM
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


There would be no Big Five Incompatibilities if you guys had just stuck with the scientific method WRT the ToE and left off all that negative materialism-religion baggage.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



LOL! I'll take that as a yes. In which case I'll repeat my previous request: I'd love to see your arguments for THAT one if that is the case! Hint: so far, you've all you've got is a claim without any substantiation. I know I know...it's soooo much easier just to declare you are right about something, but oddly most folks will just snicker at you until you come up with something that demonstrates your claim has some credibility.
Posted by: OgreMkV on Oct. 23 2009,13:23

Quote (FrankH @ Oct. 23 2009,13:13)
As for CM, I'm sure we could be neighbors with no ill effect
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I agree totally.  Personally, I'd rather be having this debate with CM.
Posted by: FloydLee on Oct. 23 2009,13:39



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I even silently disapproved of some of the harsher words used by members of this forum.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Really?  Perhaps they became aware of your silent disapproval via extrasensory perception.  

Me, I don't think so.  I think you should have done the ole fashion'd thing and said something when you had the chance.

Even now, with the thread so close to concluding, you don't offer any specific "harsh-worder" any words of criticism.  Saved it all for me.  I'm impressed.

But hey, I genuinely appreciate you stating your opinion, okay?  
It's just that my only priorities now are to finish the topics by Nov. 1, try to keep up with people's remaining posts, and print off the entire Incompatibility portion.  

As for trying to earn honesty points from you.....no, I don't have time for that.  I'm sorry that you don't think I'm honest, for I don't think I'll have time to change that impression.   I'm equally sorry that you're able to stay silent when silence is less than appropriate, and I don't think that impression will change before debate's end.
Posted by: deadman_932 on Oct. 23 2009,13:42

Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 23 2009,09:52)
     

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
No "theory" that has non-materialistic parts is not a scientific theory
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


That's the great fallback excuse that folks have used on this board, Frank.  Problem is, as I showed in response to Reed and Deadman, that particular line of argument is multiple-flawed and has been refuted.

Short version (Ratzsch):  There have been, and are, NO rationally sustainable blanket prohibitions against supernatural design being a subject of science.  Some design theories may not pan out as science, but that's entirely consistent in principle with other design theories being able to qualify as science.  The theories may also flop and come up empty or refuted upon investigation, but ALL scientific theories face that very same risk anyway.  So that's why nobody's been able to--and still hasn't--come up with a defensible BLANKET prohibition against supernatural design within science.

Short version (Millam):  Science is about what is TESTABLE, not necessarily what is NATURALISTIC.

Short version (Meyer):  Multiple known fatal-flaws exist with the notion of defining science in the way you described it (solely naturalistically).  See "Methodological Equivalence of Design and Descent"
Each of these rational fatal-flaws are longstanding and unsolved.  Nobody's been able to resolve them.  Among the biggest is "Circular Argument."

FloydLee
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Damn, you're a total liar, Floyd. No surprise there, to everyone participating in this thread.
**********************************************

“[In Science] supernatural entities are inscrutable and inaccessible as a matter of principle” -- Mahner, M. & Bunge, M.: 1996a, 'Is religious education compatible with science education?', Science & Education 5(2), p. 117

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

"…the existence of a supernatural designer...is a religious concept, not science, and therefore does not belong in the science classroom." -- American Association for the Advancement of Science, 2006
--------------------------------------------

"Because science is limited to explaining the natural world by means of natural processes, it cannot use supernatural causation in its explanations…Explanations employing nonnaturalistic or supernatural events, whether or not explicit reference is made to a supernatural being, are outside the realm of science..." -- National Academy of Sciences:1998


"Creationism, intelligent design, and other claims of supernatural intervention in the origin of life or of species are not science because they are not testable by
the methods of science."  -- A View from the National Academy of Sciences: 1999
----------------------------------------

More precisely, the essential characteristics of science are:
(1) It is guided by natural law;
(2) It has to be explanatory by reference to nature law;
(3) It is testable against the empirical world;
(4) Its conclusions are tentative, i.e. are not necessarily the final word; and
(5) Its is falsifiable.

Judge William Overton, McLean v. Arkansas Board of Education (1982)
----------------------------------------

While supernatural explanations may be important and have merit, they are not part of science…This rigorous attachment to ‘natural’ explanations is an essential
attribute to science by definition and by convention. -- Judge John E. Jones III, Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District (2005)
------------------------------------------------------------

“Science simply cannot (by its legitimate methods) adjudicate the issue of God’s possible superintendence of nature. We neither affirm nor deny it; we simply can’t comment on it as scientists.” -- Stephen Gould, 1992.
**********************************************

Remember that the topic HERE is the existence of DEISTIC supernatural beings, Floyd, not ghosts or "does prayer work" or faeries or leprechauns. It's about Gods, and neither Del Ratschz nor anyone else you tried to cite  has a way of making Gods part of science in the sense required in this thread.

As anyone can see, you haven't backed Ratsczh's empty opinion that such things as deistic supernaturalism (which IS the topic here) can EVER be studied by science.

I have asked you at least a half-dozen times to show me any scientific research model that would allow this...and you have refused to answer each time. Nor have you refuted the cites I gave above. I could give cites in each field, but it is already clear to sane people that deistic supernaturalism is simply excluded from ANY valid science.

Your "Floydian" Christianity is explicitly ANTI-SCIENCE, by your own dismal logic, such as it is. It's not just anti-evolution, it's against all science.
Posted by: Robin on Oct. 23 2009,13:43

Quote (OgreMkV @ Oct. 23 2009,13:23)

---------------------QUOTE-------------------




---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Quote (FrankH @ Oct. 23 2009,13:13)
As for CM, I'm sure we could be neighbors with no ill effect
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I agree totally.  Personally, I'd rather be having this debate with CM.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Sure, but really...how long or interesting would that debate be?

CM: Well, I don't see evolution as being incompatible with Christianity.

Us:  ...
Posted by: ppb on Oct. 23 2009,14:03

Quote (Robin @ Oct. 23 2009,14:43)
[quote=OgreMkV,Oct. 23 2009,13:23][/quote]


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
 
Quote (FrankH @ Oct. 23 2009,13:13)
As for CM, I'm sure we could be neighbors with no ill effect
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I agree totally.  Personally, I'd rather be having this debate with CM.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Sure, but really...how long or interesting would that debate be?

CM: Well, I don't see evolution as being incompatible with Christianity.

Us:  ...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Long, no.  But more interesting...
Posted by: didymos on Oct. 23 2009,14:07

Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 23 2009,11:39)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I even silently disapproved of some of the harsher words used by members of this forum.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Really?  Perhaps they became aware of your silent disapproval via extrasensory perception.  

Me, I don't think so.  I think you should have done the ole fashion'd thing and said something when you had the chance.

Even now, with the thread so close to concluding, you don't offer any specific "harsh-worder" any words of criticism.  Saved it all for me.  I'm impressed.

But hey, I genuinely appreciate you stating your opinion, okay?  
It's just that my only priorities now are to finish the topics by Nov. 1, try to keep up with people's remaining posts, and print off the entire Incompatibility portion.  

As for trying to earn honesty points from you.....no, I don't have time for that.  I'm sorry that you don't think I'm honest, for I don't think I'll have time to change that impression.   I'm equally sorry that you're able to stay silent when silence is less than appropriate, and I don't think that impression will change before debate's end.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Get off your high horse Floyd and start answering the fucking questions. Jesus!
Posted by: FloydLee on Oct. 23 2009,14:14



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I have asked you at least a half-dozen times to show me any scientific research model that would allow this...and you have refused to answer each timep
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Oh yes, I answered you.  I specifically told you that THAT part of the discussion needed to go with the "ID is Science" debate, that it was enough for THIS part of the thread, to be able to show that your view of science actually DIDN'T have support and had multiple flaw.  

Don't you remember?  Or are you simply lying?
Posted by: FloydLee on Oct. 23 2009,14:17



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Ogre, I'm putting off doing the Perspective so that you can give me any specific questions you want answered that I didn't previously answer in your view.  The offer won't be here long.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Okay, this offer is off the table now.  Gotta move on.
Posted by: FrankH on Oct. 23 2009,14:19

Quote (Robin @ Oct. 23 2009,13:43)
[quote=OgreMkV,Oct. 23 2009,13:23][/quote]

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Quote (FrankH @ Oct. 23 2009,13:13)
As for CM, I'm sure we could be neighbors with no ill effect
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

I agree totally.  Personally, I'd rather be having this debate with CM.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Sure, but really...how long or interesting would that debate be?

CM: Well, I don't see evolution as being incompatible with Christianity.

Us:  ...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


There are times when "more drama" is NOT what the doctor asked for.

When 'm at home, while I love a lively debate, I fear talking with Floyd would be worse than talking to a brick wall.

The Brick Wall won't be saying the same old tired crap day after day after day after day.....
Posted by: FrankH on Oct. 23 2009,14:20

Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 23 2009,14:17)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Ogre, I'm putting off doing the Perspective so that you can give me any specific questions you want answered that I didn't previously answer in your view.  The offer won't be here long.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Okay, this offer is off the table now.  Gotta move on.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You had no intention of answering squat Floyd.  Do not think that you've made any points at all.
Posted by: FrankH on Oct. 23 2009,14:22

Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 23 2009,14:14)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I have asked you at least a half-dozen times to show me any scientific research model that would allow this...and you have refused to answer each timep
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Oh yes, I answered you.  I specifically told you that THAT part of the discussion needed to go with the "ID is Science" debate, that it was enough for THIS part of the thread, to be able to show that your view of science actually DIDN'T have support and had multiple flaw.  

Don't you remember?  Or are you simply lying?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Lying is your forte.

I don't think anyone wants to challenge you on that.
Posted by: OgreMkV on Oct. 23 2009,14:29

Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 23 2009,14:17)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Ogre, I'm putting off doing the Perspective so that you can give me any specific questions you want answered that I didn't previously answer in your view.  The offer won't be here long.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Okay, this offer is off the table now.  Gotta move on.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


<DONS tool="Precognitive goggles">

LOL and this is probably the excuse he will use when this mythical 'statement of improbability' or whatever he calls it, does not appear on time.

</DONS>

FLoyd, the question was there long before the offer went on the table and will remain long after this thread is closed.
Posted by: deadman_932 on Oct. 23 2009,14:32

You didn't answer this, Floyd:

 
Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 23 2009,09:52)
         

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
No "theory" that has non-materialistic parts is not a scientific theory
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


That's the great fallback excuse that folks have used on this board, Frank.  Problem is, as I showed in response to Reed and Deadman, that particular line of argument is multiple-flawed and has been refuted.

Short version (Ratzsch):  There have been, and are, NO rationally sustainable blanket prohibitions against supernatural design being a subject of science.  Some design theories may not pan out as science, but that's entirely consistent in principle with other design theories being able to qualify as science.  The theories may also flop and come up empty or refuted upon investigation, but ALL scientific theories face that very same risk anyway. So that's why nobody's been able to--and still hasn't--come up with a defensible BLANKET prohibition against supernatural design within science.

Short version (Millam):  Science is about what is TESTABLE, not necessarily what is NATURALISTIC.

Short version (Meyer):  Multiple known fatal-flaws exist with the notion of defining science in the way you described it (solely naturalistically).  See "Methodological Equivalence of Design and Descent"
Each of these rational fatal-flaws are longstanding and unsolved.  Nobody's been able to resolve them.  Among the biggest is "Circular Argument."

FloydLee
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Damn, you're a total liar, Floyd. No surprise there, to everyone participating in this thread.
**********************************************

“[In Science] supernatural entities are inscrutable and inaccessible as a matter of principle” -- Mahner, M. & Bunge, M.: 1996a, 'Is religious education compatible with science education?', Science & Education 5(2), p. 117

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

"…the existence of a supernatural designer...is a religious concept, not science, and therefore does not belong in the science classroom." -- American Association for the Advancement of Science, 2006
--------------------------------------------

"Because science is limited to explaining the natural world by means of natural processes, it cannot use supernatural causation in its explanations…Explanations employing nonnaturalistic or supernatural events, whether or not explicit reference is made to a supernatural being, are outside the realm of science..." -- National Academy of Sciences:1998


"Creationism, intelligent design, and other claims of supernatural intervention in the origin of life or of species are not science because they are not testable by
the methods of science."  -- A View from the National Academy of Sciences: 1999
----------------------------------------

More precisely, the essential characteristics of science are:
(1) It is guided by natural law;
(2) It has to be explanatory by reference to nature law;
(3) It is testable against the empirical world;
(4) Its conclusions are tentative, i.e. are not necessarily the final word; and
(5) Its is falsifiable.

Judge William Overton, McLean v. Arkansas Board of Education (1982)
----------------------------------------

While supernatural explanations may be important and have merit, they are not part of science…This rigorous attachment to ‘natural’ explanations is an essential
attribute to science by definition and by convention. -- Judge John E. Jones III, Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District (2005)
------------------------------------------------------------

“Science simply cannot (by its legitimate methods) adjudicate the issue of God’s possible superintendence of nature. We neither affirm nor deny it; we simply can’t comment on it as scientists.” -- Stephen Gould, 1992.
**********************************************

Remember that the topic HERE is the existence of DEISTIC supernatural beings, Floyd, not ghosts or "does prayer work" or faeries or leprechauns. It's about Gods, and neither Del Ratschz nor anyone else you tried to cite  has a way of making Gods part of science in the sense required in this thread.

As anyone can see, you haven't backed Ratsczh's empty opinion that such things as deistic supernaturalism (which IS the topic here) can EVER be studied by science.

I have asked you at least a half-dozen times to show me any scientific research model that would allow this...and you have refused to answer each time. Nor have you refuted the cites I gave above. I could give cites in each field, but it is already clear to sane people that deistic supernaturalism is simply excluded from ANY valid science.

Your "Floydian" Christianity is explicitly ANTI-SCIENCE, by your own dismal logic, such as it is. It's not just anti-evolution, it's against all science.
Posted by: FloydLee on Oct. 23 2009,15:47



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Actually, you're the one committing a sin here, Floyd, by claiming to know the mind of God.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Well, CM, now that you're back, let's delay doing the "Perspective" long enough for you and I to talk a bit.

You say you've accepted Jesus Christ as your Savior (hey that's good!!),
and Ogre says he doesn't mind having you for a neighbor (also good!).

At any rate, you're a professing Christian who says it's a sin to claim to know the mind of God.  But that particular claim is wrong because of this New Testamant verse:
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
For who hath known the mind of the Lord, that he may instruct him? But we have the mind of Christ.  
(1 Cor. 2:16).
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


David Guzik explains (at Blueletterbible.org):
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
"Who has known the mind of the Lord":
Isaiah 40:13 refers to the mind of Yahweh (translated here as Lord); but Paul has no trouble inserting 'mind of Christ' for 'mind of the Lord', because Jesus is Yahweh!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


So please tell me again exactly how it's supposed to be a sin for a Christian to have the mind of God!
Posted by: deadman_932 on Oct. 23 2009,15:47

Oh, and here's one more for ya, Floyd:

"We cannot discover by scientific investigation anything about the creative processes used by God." Duane Gish, Evolution -- The Fossils Say No! (3d ed. 1979)

Tell Gish-- as you gallop through hell-- that he was wrong, Floyd. Say hi for me, then tell teh demonz to poke him extra hard before they strap on the flaming sex toy for your culo, "amigo".
Posted by: Henry J on Oct. 23 2009,15:58

Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 23 2009,09:47)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
In other words, Floyd punts.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Nope.  With you, things are clear and consistent.  You reject God, Jesus, miracles, and Bible claims involving the supernatural.  Don't have to ask you about Jesus' Resurrection, because for you the answer's a big nope.   You're not a Christian.  (That's not an insult---that's the only answer that's consistent with what you've been posting.

But I think Henry said he was a Christian somewhere back on PT.  So, I'm just asking him about the Resurrection of Jesus Christ  (another pesky supernatural event).  

Clarification, that's all.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------




---------------------QUOTE-------------------
But I think Henry said he was a Christian somewhere back on PT.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Nope, I never said that.
Posted by: FrankH on Oct. 23 2009,15:58

Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 23 2009,15:47)
So please tell me again exactly how it's supposed to be a sin for a Christian to have the mind of God!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Here's your answer Floyd:

It's called Pride.  There is "knowing about" and "knowing intimately".  I know about my Great Grandparents.  I do not know them intimately.

I can tell you general things about my great grandparents.  It would be a lie for me to tell you I know what they are really like, how they would react, what their secrets were.  Hell, I know my daughters really well, but I can't even answer those questions about them.

Then compare that to your dead sure idea that you are so very "intimately familiar with god" that you know how we should act.  People can't ever say for certainty how others should act around others but you're so damn sure you know the way to some god's, your god it seems, eaven by acting a certain way.

Your sin is Pride.
Posted by: Constant Mews on Oct. 23 2009,16:01

Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 23 2009,15:47)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Actually, you're the one committing a sin here, Floyd, by claiming to know the mind of God.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Well, CM, now that you're back, let's delay doing the "Perspective" long enough for you and I to talk a bit.

You say you've accepted Jesus Christ as your Savior (hey that's good!!),
and Ogre says he doesn't mind having you for a neighbor (also good!).

At any rate, you're a professing Christian who says it's a sin to claim to know the mind of God.  But that particular claim is wrong because of this New Testamant verse:
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
For who hath known the mind of the Lord, that he may instruct him? But we have the mind of Christ.  
(1 Cor. 2:16).
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


David Guzik explains (at Blueletterbible.org):
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
"Who has known the mind of the Lord":
Isaiah 40:13 refers to the mind of Yahweh (translated here as Lord); but Paul has no trouble inserting 'mind of Christ' for 'mind of the Lord', because Jesus is Yahweh!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


So please tell me again exactly how it's supposed to be a sin for a Christian to have the mind of God!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Start with 1st Corinthians..  Or Romans. What a fool you are, Floyd, trying to argue with me on theology.  

Where are the answers to my other questions, Floyd?  It's time for you to start behaving like a Christian and treat others as you would be treated.  When you've answered my questions, I'll start answering yours.

I am your nightmare, Floyd.  I've shown that the Nicene Creed is compatible with evolutionary theory.  I've proved that your "incompatibles" are false.  I've proved your ignorance of the Bible.

Time to quit, Floyd.  I see that you are trying to run away again, like the coward that you are, without actually answering any questions.
Posted by: Schroedinger's Dog on Oct. 23 2009,16:01



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Your sin is Pride.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Ooooohhh. One of the deadly se7en.

Yodel Elf's gonna fry!
Posted by: Constant Mews on Oct. 23 2009,16:03

Quote (FrankH @ Oct. 23 2009,15:58)
Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 23 2009,15:47)
So please tell me again exactly how it's supposed to be a sin for a Christian to have the mind of God!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Here's your answer Floyd:

It's called Pride.  There is "knowing about" and "knowing intimately".  I know about my Great Grandparents.  I do not know them intimately.

I can tell you general things about my great grandparents.  It would be a lie for me to tell you I know what they are really like, how they would react, what their secrets were.  Hell, I know my daughters really well, but I can't even answer those questions about them.

Then compare that to your dead sure idea that you are so very "intimately familiar with god" that you know how we should act.  People can't ever say for certainty how others should act around others but you're so damn sure you know the way to some god's, your god it seems, eaven by acting a certain way.

Your sin is Pride.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Floyd is also guilty of several violations of the Commandments.  

All the odds are, without repentance, he will burn.
Posted by: Constant Mews on Oct. 23 2009,16:10

Here's some food for thought for Floyd.

Douglas Futuyma:

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Evolution, and all the rest of science, cannot be reconciled with a literal interpretation of such biblical passages--but doet that deny the existence of a supernatural power or powers, of spiritual reality, of God and a human soul?  On these questions, science, including evolutionary biology is silent.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Note: the biblical passages he references are in Joshua and Genesis.

Game, set, and match, Floyd.  Even Futuyma doesn't support you - when you stop quote-mining him, that is.
Posted by: FloydLee on Oct. 23 2009,16:15



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
"We cannot discover by scientific investigation anything about the creative processes used by God." Duane Gish, Evolution -- The Fossils Say No! (3d ed. 1979)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Sorry, but that one (and thanks for offering it---it was interesting!) does NOT refute what Dr. Ratzsch specifically wrote.  

Ratzsch did not say that you could scientifically discover how God actually created things.  Far from it.  The ONLY thing Ratzsch pointed out is that there AREN'T any sustainable BLANKET prohibitions that can be employed against scientific investigation of supernatural design.

IOW, design detection hypotheses and theories CAN in fact be scientific.   Any given design hypothesis or theory (like all scientific hypotheses or theories) may boom or bust upon actual investigation, but you do NOT have a rational basis for saying a priori that it's not even scientific.  

Again, that particular reality doesn't mean you can scientifically figure out how God created Adam.  It ONLY means that supernatural design detection CAN indeed fall within the realm of genuine science investigation.

FloydLee
Posted by: FloydLee on Oct. 23 2009,16:18



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Nope, I never said that.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Okay, sincere thanks for responding Henry J!
Will make a note of it.
Posted by: Constant Mews on Oct. 23 2009,16:20



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
By it's very nature, science can entertain and investigate only hypotheses about material causes that operate with at least probabilistic regularity.  It cannot test hypotheses of supernatural intervention--miracles--nor of the existence of immaterial beings.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Douglas Futuyma
Posted by: deadman_932 on Oct. 23 2009,16:20

Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 23 2009,16:15)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
"We cannot discover by scientific investigation anything about the creative processes used by God." Duane Gish, Evolution -- The Fossils Say No! (3d ed. 1979)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Sorry, but that one (and thanks for offering it---it was interesting!) does NOT refute what Dr. Ratzsch specifically wrote.  

Ratzsch did not say that you could scientifically discover how God actually created things.  Far from it.  The ONLY thing Ratzsch pointed out is that there AREN'T any sustainable BLANKET prohibitions that can be employed against scientific investigation of supernatural design.

IOW, design detection hypotheses and theories CAN in fact be scientific.   Any given design hypothesis or theory (like all scientific hypotheses or theories) may boom or bust upon actual investigation, but you do NOT have a rational basis for saying a priori that it's not even scientific.  

Again, that particular reality doesn't mean you can scientifically figure out how God created Adam.  It ONLY means that supernatural design detection CAN indeed fall within the realm of genuine science investigation.

FloydLee
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


So all you have to do is show that what Ratschz  is CLAIMING....is also true.

I've asked you to do that numerous times, and you have not. I'm willing to wager that you will avoid this again.

Oh, and why did you avoid dealing with the quotes on what science is capable of dealing with in regard to claims of deistic teleology and ontology, Floyd?

As I said, your Big Five Fantasies and the "logic" behind it pits YOUR view of "Christianity"  against all of science
Posted by: Constant Mews on Oct. 23 2009,16:21



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
The steady expansion of the sciences, to be sure, has left less and less to be explained by a supernatural Creator, but science neither can deny, nor affirm, such a being.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Douglas Futuyma
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Oct. 23 2009,16:22

Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 23 2009,13:49)
Ogre, I'm putting off doing the Perspective so that you can give me any specific questions you want answered that I didn't previously answer in your view.  The offer won't be here long.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


how about telling us why.... you know.... just do it!  

bock bock bock bock
Posted by: Constant Mews on Oct. 23 2009,16:23



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
The story of how Adam and Eve knew shame and sin when they ate the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil symbolically tells a truth, for there can be neither good nor evil, nor sin, unless is knowledge, consciousness, self-reflection.  But it is a symbolic truth, not a history of literal events.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Douglas Futuyma
Posted by: FloydLee on Oct. 23 2009,16:24



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Then compare that to your dead sure idea that you are so very "intimately familiar with god" that you know how we should act.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Ummm, keep in mind Frank that YOU GUYS are the ones who brought up this "having the mind of God" thing.  I never did.  And I haven't said much about "how you should act".  (Maybe your own conscience is starting to wear on you??)

And only after you starting claiming that having the mind of God was a SIN, did I offer you 1 Cor 2:16 in order to challenge that claim.

Unsurprisingly, you didn't say a single word about the Bible text itself.  You just blew right over it and ignored it.
Question is, "Why?"
Posted by: Henry J on Oct. 23 2009,16:24



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
but you do NOT have a rational basis for saying a priori that it's not even scientific.  
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


It's not a priori.

I.D. advocates have had decades in which to produce a viable hypothesis based on the notion that life was deliberately engineered.

They haven't done so.

That's what makes it non-scientific.

Henry
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Oct. 23 2009,16:25

Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 23 2009,15:17)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Ogre, I'm putting off doing the Perspective so that you can give me any specific questions you want answered that I didn't previously answer in your view.  The offer won't be here long.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Okay, this offer is off the table now.  Gotta move on.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


it was never really on the table, pussy.
Posted by: Constant Mews on Oct. 23 2009,16:25

Floyd, as I showed earlier, the Nicene Creed - the most fundamental statement of Christian belief - is completely compatible with evolutionary theory.

Game, set, and match.

We all see that you are preparing to abandon this line of discussion because you have been proved wrong.  But remember: the shame and embarrassment you feel for your cowardness will pursue you to the grave.

And quite possibly beyond.

I shall pray for you - you are truly in need of grace.
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Oct. 23 2009,16:27



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
why is god not part of the required explanation for why water runs downhill, when he is part of the required explanation for the EXISTENCE OF WATER?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: deadman_932 on Oct. 23 2009,16:28

Quote (deadman_932 @ Oct. 23 2009,16:20)
Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 23 2009,16:15)
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
"We cannot discover by scientific investigation anything about the creative processes used by God." Duane Gish, Evolution -- The Fossils Say No! (3d ed. 1979)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Sorry, but that one (and thanks for offering it---it was interesting!) does NOT refute what Dr. Ratzsch specifically wrote.  

Ratzsch did not say that you could scientifically discover how God actually created things.  Far from it.  The ONLY thing Ratzsch pointed out is that there AREN'T any sustainable BLANKET prohibitions that can be employed against scientific investigation of supernatural design.

IOW, design detection hypotheses and theories CAN in fact be scientific.   Any given design hypothesis or theory (like all scientific hypotheses or theories) may boom or bust upon actual investigation, but you do NOT have a rational basis for saying a priori that it's not even scientific.  

Again, that particular reality doesn't mean you can scientifically figure out how God created Adam.  It ONLY means that supernatural design detection CAN indeed fall within the realm of genuine science investigation.

FloydLee
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


So all you have to do is show that what Ratschz  is CLAIMING....is also true.

I've asked you to do that numerous times, and you have not. I'm willing to wager that you will avoid this again.

Oh, and why did you avoid dealing with the quotes on what science is capable of dealing with in regard to claims of deistic teleology and ontology, Floyd?

As I said, your Big Five Fantasies and the "logic" behind it pits YOUR view of "Christianity"  against all of science
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Try to focus your meager mental powers, Floyd.
Posted by: Constant Mews on Oct. 23 2009,16:29

Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 23 2009,16:24)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Then compare that to your dead sure idea that you are so very "intimately familiar with god" that you know how we should act.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Ummm, keep in mind Frank that YOU GUYS are the ones who brought up this "having the mind of God" thing.  I never did.  And I haven't said much about "how you should act".  (Maybe your own conscience is starting to wear on you??)

And only after you starting claiming that having the mind of God was a SIN, did I offer you 1 Cor 2:16 in order to challenge that claim.

Unsurprisingly, you didn't say a single word about the Bible text itself.  You just blew right over it and ignored it.
Question is, "Why?"
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Perhaps you should try reading the posts, Floyd.  We realize that you avoid answering because you cannot; we realize that you refuse to read certain posts because they show you to be a liar and a fool.

We know these things about you Floyd.  But you know nothing of us.  Except this:

I am your worst nightmare.  I am an intelligent, educated Christian - far more knowledgeable than you about the Bible and Christianity - who accepts the theory of evolution - again something about which I know far more than you.

Your opinions are worthless; your examples disproved; your citations quote-mines; your knowledge of evolution utterly lacking.

I pray for you, Floyd - you are need of grace.
Posted by: Quack on Oct. 23 2009,16:30

A word of comfort before he withdraws to his ivory tower; maybe it isn't so much about lying as it is just another case of     

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: FloydLee on Oct. 23 2009,16:31



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Start with 1st Corinthians..  Or Romans. What a fool you are, Floyd, trying to argue with me on theology.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Ummmm, CM. check that verse again---that IS 1 Corinthians.

And don't ignore it this time.  Please address it and engage it CM.
Posted by: FloydLee on Oct. 23 2009,16:34



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
"I am an intelligent, educated Christian - far more knowledgeable than you about the Bible and Christianity - who accepts the theory of evolution - again something about which I know far more than you."
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Ummm, remind me again about that "Pride" sin, please?
Posted by: JohnW on Oct. 23 2009,16:36

Quote (Henry J @ Oct. 23 2009,14:24)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
but you do NOT have a rational basis for saying a priori that it's not even scientific.  
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


It's not a priori.

I.D. advocates have had decades in which to produce a viable hypothesis based on the notion that life was deliberately engineered.

They haven't done so.

That's what makes it non-scientific.

Henry
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I would argue that ID as usually argued, either in public (An unspecified entity with unspecified abilities did unspecified things via unspecified means at unspecified times for unspecified purposes), or in private among its advocates (Goddidit) is a priori unscientific.  The first version is unfalsifiable without some knowledge of the designer's capabilities and purposes.  The second version posits an omnipotent god fiddling with the data - in which case, all scientific bets are off.
Posted by: FloydLee on Oct. 23 2009,16:40

Please go ahead and address 1 Cor. 2:16 at this time CM.
Posted by: deadman_932 on Oct. 23 2009,16:41

Quote (deadman_932 @ Oct. 23 2009,16:20)
Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 23 2009,16:15)
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
"We cannot discover by scientific investigation anything about the creative processes used by God." Duane Gish, Evolution -- The Fossils Say No! (3d ed. 1979)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Sorry, but that one (and thanks for offering it---it was interesting!) does NOT refute what Dr. Ratzsch specifically wrote.  

Ratzsch did not say that you could scientifically discover how God actually created things.  Far from it.  The ONLY thing Ratzsch pointed out is that there AREN'T any sustainable BLANKET prohibitions that can be employed against scientific investigation of supernatural design.

IOW, design detection hypotheses and theories CAN in fact be scientific.   Any given design hypothesis or theory (like all scientific hypotheses or theories) may boom or bust upon actual investigation, but you do NOT have a rational basis for saying a priori that it's not even scientific.  

Again, that particular reality doesn't mean you can scientifically figure out how God created Adam.  It ONLY means that supernatural design detection CAN indeed fall within the realm of genuine science investigation.

FloydLee
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


So all you have to do is show that what Ratschz  is CLAIMING....is also true.

I've asked you to do that numerous times, and you have not. I'm willing to wager that you will avoid this again.

Oh, and why did you avoid dealing with the quotes on what science is capable of dealing with in regard to claims of deistic teleology and ontology, Floyd?

As I said, your Big Five Fantasies and the "logic" behind it pits YOUR view of "Christianity"  against all of science
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Just to keep this on your radar, dim though it be, and try to focus your meager mental powers, Floyd.

Weren't you supposed to deal with this?
Posted by: FrankH on Oct. 23 2009,16:48

Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 23 2009,16:24)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Then compare that to your dead sure idea that you are so very "intimately familiar with god" that you know how we should act.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Ummm, keep in mind Frank that YOU GUYS are the ones who brought up this "having the mind of God" thing.  I never did.  And I haven't said much about "how you should act".  (Maybe your own conscience is starting to wear on you??)

And only after you starting claiming that having the mind of God was a SIN, did I offer you 1 Cor 2:16 in order to challenge that claim.

Unsurprisingly, you didn't say a single word about the Bible text itself.  You just blew right over it and ignored it.
Question is, "Why?"
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Do you or do you not think you know what your god requires as to get into heaven or not?

Do you or do you not say that your god is for "X, y and z" and against "a,b and c"?

Do you or do you not believe that the Bible is the unfettered and unfiltered word of god?

Do you or do you not believe that that you know what your god wants, completely, by reading the bible?

See Floyd, you come with so much baggage and so much in unclaimed "facts" that you hide sometimes even to yourself that underlies everything you say and do.
Posted by: FrankH on Oct. 23 2009,16:51

Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 23 2009,16:31)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Start with 1st Corinthians..  Or Romans. What a fool you are, Floyd, trying to argue with me on theology.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Ummmm, CM. check that verse again---that IS 1 Corinthians.

And don't ignore it this time.  Please address it and engage it CM.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I don't CM telling them that they have to believe as you or they will go to hell.

I see CM correcting you, often and deeply as it is beyond necessary, to which your Pride takes as Pride on CM's part.

Bejebus Floyd, you like to answer everything but the questions, like Deadman's "Why isn't you god needed to guide water down a hill when he's need to create water".

Answer that one Floyd.  I know you can't
Posted by: deadman_932 on Oct. 23 2009,16:57

That question is really Erasmus',  Frank. Floyd said that the required answer to the origins of water is God, but God is not the required answer to water flowing  downhill.

Apparently, Floyd realizes something amiss in his claim there, so he refuses to answer. As I jokingly suggested a while back, maybe gravity is of Satan to Floyd.

I'd really like Floyd to deal with demonstrating that Del Ratszschit is correct, too. All that one has to do is demonstrate how science can deal with claims of deistic teleology and ontology, Floyd. Got a model and methodology for that? Otherwise, Del Ratschzit is merely blowing smoke -- as you so often do, Floyd.
Posted by: FrankH on Oct. 23 2009,17:05

Mea Culpa Deadman.

I also responded to the wrong post by our resident YEC on his response to CM.

I really gotta eat something.
Posted by: Constant Mews on Oct. 23 2009,17:07

Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 23 2009,16:31)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Start with 1st Corinthians..  Or Romans. What a fool you are, Floyd, trying to argue with me on theology.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Ummmm, CM. check that verse again---that IS 1 Corinthians.

And don't ignore it this time.  Please address it and engage it CM.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Answer my questions, and I'll show you where in Corinthians to look, Floyd.

Be honest, for a change.
Posted by: Constant Mews on Oct. 23 2009,17:07

Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 23 2009,16:34)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
"I am an intelligent, educated Christian - far more knowledgeable than you about the Bible and Christianity - who accepts the theory of evolution - again something about which I know far more than you."
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Ummm, remind me again about that "Pride" sin, please?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


It's not pride.  It's provable from this thread.
Posted by: Constant Mews on Oct. 23 2009,17:08

Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 23 2009,16:40)
Please go ahead and address 1 Cor. 2:16 at this time CM.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Answer our questions, Floyd.  Stop lying and delaying.  Then I'll answer yours.
Posted by: Keelyn on Oct. 23 2009,17:13

!!! NEWSFLASH *** BULLETIN *** NEWSFLASH !!!

FLOYD LEE *** NEWSFLASH *** FLOYD LEE

INCONTROVERTIBLE EVIDENCE OF INTELLIGENT DESIGN


Did I get your attention, Floyd? Oh, good. As you know, this evening you promised to begin the debate on “ID is Science.” I’ve decided to be the good girl and help you out. Really. Seriously. You know very well everyone on here will be attempting to prove you wrong. The trouble with ID is a profound lack of evidence. For all anyone knows, it may very well be true. But, in order to present it as science you have to back it up with evidence. That’s a key distinction between science and religion isn’t it? Evidence. And know one is going to accept the “fairness” crap – it’s not about what’s fair, but about what’s science. And no one is going to accept the “appearance of design” argument, either. As it stands right now, ID is a joke from any scientific perspective. But suppose, Floyd, that you had evidence. Incontrovertible evidence. Well, that’s where I come in. Of course, everyone else on here will then see what it is, as well, but that’s ok – that’s what the debate is all about.

I’ll give you a short background first. I’ve been part of a “debate” (about as much a debate as this has been so far) on another site for some months. There is one …person – I don’t like to resort to name calling (like dimwit, dumbass, moron, idiot, douche bag, etc) – who refuses to accept ever being wrong. You know the type (she said with a smile). We have been though all the “no evidence for common descent, evolution is a religion, Darwin was this and that and responsible for blah, blah, blah,” and virtually every other creationist nonsense argument that has ever been presented. Suddenly, however, after blabbering for months (seems like years), Neal seems to have made a monumental, brilliant, mind boggling, earth shattering, never-before-realized discovery (so he thinks) that proves that ID is not only good science, but incontrovertibly true. I don’t know – maybe he appropriated it from some of the tutie-fruities over at the Disco Tute. I rarely visit Uncommon Dishonesty, but I haven’t seen any big write ups about it, so for the time being I’ll just attributed it to Neal’s pea brain. In fact, I even invited him over here to help you out …but it seems he has declined. Maybe I scared him off when I said that all the Pandas would love a new chew toy to rip and tear apart. I feel I’ve presented good arguments that show the flaws in his “brilliant proof,” but like the typical creationist, Neal is good at making shit up – that’s how he convinces himself that he’s always right. But, who knows. Maybe this time he really has something.

How about it, Floyd? Should I help you out or what? At the very least, it could get things started …or start a few things. And I think I’m one of the few people (perhaps in the entire world) who knows about it. You might even be able to add to Neal’s proof.

I have to go out for a while. Let me know, Floyd (or anyone else interested). I’ll check back later.

Oh, I guess the "debate" has already begun. I got in late. Just the same - maybe this will help. Maybe not.
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Oct. 23 2009,17:14

Quote (deadman_932 @ Oct. 23 2009,17:57)
That question is really Erasmus',  Frank. Floyd said that the required answer to the origins of water is God, but God is not the required answer to water flowing  downhill.

Apparently, Floyd realizes something amiss in his claim there, so he refuses to answer. As I jokingly suggested a while back, maybe gravity is of Satan to Floyd.

I'd really like Floyd to deal with demonstrating that Del Ratszschit is correct, too. All that one has to do is demonstrate how science can deal with claims of deistic teleology and ontology, Floyd. Got a model and methodology for that? Otherwise, Del Ratschzit is merely blowing smoke -- as you so often do, Floyd.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


either way he answers the water question, assuming he had the balls to do that and he doesn't, it demolishes the rest of his arguments made here.

you're done baby!  might as well let us get the final out instead of flouncing off the field in a pair of nasty panties
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Oct. 23 2009,17:17

Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Oct. 23 2009,17:27)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
why is god not part of the required explanation for why water runs downhill, when he is part of the required explanation for the EXISTENCE OF WATER?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


---------------------QUOTE-------------------


WHY???//????
Posted by: FloydLee on Oct. 23 2009,17:46



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Do you or do you not think you know what your god requires as to get into heaven or not?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Yes I do.  It's written down in the Bible, straight forward.  John 3:16.  Revelation 3:20.  Romans 10:9-10.  

And I would bet anything that you've seen or heard those salvation verses before.   IOW, even you, as a Non-Christian, knows exactly what God requires to get into heaven.  

You reject God and treat Him like a dog, but you still know what He's looking for.  He's lookin' for YOU, dude!!  Why not let down your defenses and give Him a try?

******
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Do you or do you not say that your god is for "X, y and z" and against "a,b and c"?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Sure I say that, because the Bible says that.  All actions do not please God and all roads do not lead to God.  You and I have choices to make.  In the Bible, God specifies which way to go.
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Come now, and let us reason together, says the Lord. Though your sins are like scarlet, they shall be as white as snow; though they are red like crimson, they shall be like wool.  (Isa. 1:18)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


******


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Do you or do you not believe that the Bible is the unfettered and unfiltered word of god?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Yes I do believe that.  In fact, Jesus Christ said it is the unbreakable word of God (John 10:35).  

Don't you allow anybody -- whether they call themselves Christian or non-Christian -- to sell you on any lesser view of the Bible.  If a person wants to follow Christ, then let them follow Christ's complete and total trust in the authority, reliability and perfection of Scripture.

******
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Do you or do you not believe that that you know what your god wants, completely, by reading the bible?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Yes.  And you know what God wants too, if you read the Bible.  But it's not just by reading.  As you can tell just from this thread alone, readin' the Bible ain't the same as believin' the Bible.  If you want to know what God wants, readin's a great first step, but then there's that issue of saying YES or NO to what you're reading.

Evolutionists keep on demanding that you say NO to God's clear word in Genesis.  Trouble is, a NO in that spot rationally opens the door to saying to NO in other spots.  
And ultimately, when one's faith gets all spotted up with disbelief, some folks end up saying NO to God, period.  

Then they go to HELL.  All alone.  (Except for their new little malformed pointy-eared friends.  You know, the ones with the sharp teeth and stinky breath who can't stop laughing at you while munching on your intestines.)

The solution is to read the Bible and say YES to what God is telling you in that Bible.  Stop saying NO to John 3:16 and other salvation verses.  Stop saying STFU to Jesus when He's pleading with you to just let him in the door (Rev. 3:20).   (Yeah, you!).

Floyd Lee
Posted by: JohnW on Oct. 23 2009,17:52

Yawn.  Isn't there a street corner you can go and rant on, Floyd?
Posted by: deadman_932 on Oct. 23 2009,17:55

Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 23 2009,17:46)

You reject God and treat Him like a dog, but you still know what He's looking for.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


No, people treat you as YOU deserve. You're confusing your bullshit with what other people write about God in the Bible. Making fun of YOUR interpretation of things in the Bible doesn't mean what you want it to mean. YOU are not God, no matter how long or hard you may wish at that. Your garbage is simply that, garbage. You don't speak for God or offer the "true" interpretations for God, fucknut.
Posted by: FloydLee on Oct. 23 2009,17:55



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
How about it, Floyd? Should I help you out or what?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Do whatever you'd like, Keelyn.  For me, the lineup is the Perspective followed by the main "ID is science" gig followed by the Final Summary of Incompatibility, as I stated specifically.

As you can see, your friends are in no hurry to leave the Incompatibility thread.  And I must admit, I kinda like it too.
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Oct. 23 2009,18:02

Quote (Erasmus, FCD @ Oct. 23 2009,18:17)
Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Oct. 23 2009,17:27)
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
why is god not part of the required explanation for why water runs downhill, when he is part of the required explanation for the EXISTENCE OF WATER?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


---------------------QUOTE-------------------


WHY???//????
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


hey before you move on, idiot, please address this.
Posted by: Schroedinger's Dog on Oct. 23 2009,18:03

Prozelytising. You know, Yodel Elf, there are countries where this is illegal.

Well, as for me, I will get down with the mask of (relative) politness. I would like to apologize in advance to CM, Wes and all other believers here.

Religion is a matter of faith, and faith alone. For a stupid joke like Yodel Elf to clamour to the four winds that the bible is truth is like a panda pissing in a violin! I could as easily hold that Tolkien's "The Silmarillion" is pure truth, because that makes sense to me. Yodel Elf, no one cares about your own personal perception of the bible, demented and lies-ridden as it is (your perception).

Science, on the other hand, is based on empirical evidence, testable, falsifiable, repeatable concepts. I will not, nor I think will anybody else in here or in the scientific community, let centuries of scientific knowledge and advancement be relegated to middle age supperstitions just because it  hurts your feelings.

If you think the ToE is a scam, then you will have to believe that all the other fields of science are a scam, thus leaving you no other choice than to turn off your computer, throw it away as well as your TV, cell phone, home phone, microwave...

Once again, you are attacking the ToE solely because your brain can't even fathom the fact that humans are no different in biology (and don't quotemine on that, everybody but you understands what i mean) than any other members of the animalia kingdom. Why don't you also attack those mean climatologists? Or paleobotanists?

Because you are a god-awful, lying-for-jebus joke!
Posted by: OgreMkV on Oct. 23 2009,18:06

Epic Evangelism Fail

Wow, you are a real piece of work.  Only you, and other fundamentalists, could scream for days that the bible is literal and refuse to discuss instances were it's literal, but you don't like it.

OK, Well back to the topic at hand.  The validity of the bible is a whole nother subject.  You're job is convince us that evolution (and all other science) is incompatible with the bible.  You have failed miserably.  As a last resort, you attempt to witness.  Sigh, at this point, you are so untrustworthy, is it any wonder a lot of people reject god.  If he's anything like you, he's a total ass.

So, you have 6 hours left on your self imposed deadline.  I predict Epic Fail.
Posted by: deadman_932 on Oct. 23 2009,18:07

Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 23 2009,17:55)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
How about it, Floyd? Should I help you out or what?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Do whatever you'd like, Keelyn.  For me, the lineup is the Perspective followed by the main "ID is science" gig followed by the Final Summary of Incompatibility, as I stated specifically.

As you can see, your friends are in no hurry to leave the Incompatibility thread.  And I must admit, I kinda like it too.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


masochist? Then why can't you respond to my posts?
Posted by: FloydLee on Oct. 23 2009,18:34



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Yodel Elf, no one cares about your own personal perception of the bible, demented and lies-ridden as it is (your perception).
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Then, ummm, why was I asked about my personal perception of the Bible?

And btw, does it make sense to you to accuse folks of "proselytizing" when they've just been sincerely asked religious point-blank questions like "Do you or do you not think you know what your god requires as to get into heaven or not?"

You see, SD, you need to take a moment and think about what you're saying there.  Me?  I'm sincerely responding to somebody else's sincere "Do you or don't you" questions.  

But you?  Those answers must be bugging you for some reason, even though they weren't even addressed to you at all.  

So now here YOU come outta the blue, all suddenly agitated and hand-wringing about "proselytizing."  

What is it?  YOUR conscience suddenly gittin' all itchy too?  Voice messages still beeping on your soul's cell phone and you cain't find a way to delete 'em???  Is that it, boys????

(Ohhhh goodness to booboo.  You guys are starting to make me laugh now, not in any vicious or demeaning way, but your anger and squirming discomfort in the presence of Scriptural truths--which you yourselves keep on bringing up, NOT me!--just comes across as kinda humorous sometimes.  

Ultimately, you guys necessarily constitute my final evidence that Evolution is Incompatible with Christianity!!!!   :)  
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Oct. 23 2009,18:49



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
why is god not part of the required explanation for why water runs downhill, when he is part of the required explanation for the EXISTENCE OF WATER?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



???  does anyone else know why Floyd would claim this but never answer any more questions about it?
Posted by: deadman_932 on Oct. 23 2009,18:51

Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 23 2009,18:34)
."  

What is it?  YOUR conscience suddenly gittin' all itchy too?  Voice messages still beeping on your soul's cell phone and you cain't find a way to delete 'em???  Is that it, boys????

Ultimately, you guys necessarily constitute my final evidence that Evolution is Incompatible with Christianity!!!!   :)  
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Apparently, even when those people are Christians, too.

You just try to use insinuation, veiled hints and other fallacies to try to connect those people to whatever Floyd deems "non-Christian"

What Floyd sees as non-Christian are those people who accept things that Floyd has deemed (not demonstrated, though) as un-Christian.

Spot the flaw in your "logic," Floyd.
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Oct. 23 2009,20:08

pffft



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Ultimately, you guys necessarily constitute my final evidence that Evolution is Incompatible with Christianity!!!!   :)  
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



floyd you wouldn't know evidence if it was sticking 18 inches out of your ass.  not only that, you still wouldn't care about it.
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Oct. 23 2009,20:39



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Stop saying STFU to Jesus
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



roflmao

Floyd are you drinking tonight?  do you ever drink alcohol?  just curious.
Posted by: Constant Mews on Oct. 23 2009,21:03

Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 23 2009,17:46)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Do you or do you not think you know what your god requires as to get into heaven or not?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Yes I do.  It's written down in the Bible, straight forward.  John 3:16.  Revelation 3:20.  Romans 10:9-10.  

And I would bet anything that you've seen or heard those salvation verses before.   IOW, even you, as a Non-Christian, knows exactly what God requires to get into heaven.  

You reject God and treat Him like a dog, but you still know what He's looking for.  He's lookin' for YOU, dude!!  Why not let down your defenses and give Him a try?

******
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Do you or do you not say that your god is for "X, y and z" and against "a,b and c"?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Sure I say that, because the Bible says that.  All actions do not please God and all roads do not lead to God.  You and I have choices to make.  In the Bible, God specifies which way to go.
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Come now, and let us reason together, says the Lord. Though your sins are like scarlet, they shall be as white as snow; though they are red like crimson, they shall be like wool.  (Isa. 1:18)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


******
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Do you or do you not believe that the Bible is the unfettered and unfiltered word of god?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Yes I do believe that.  In fact, Jesus Christ said it is the unbreakable word of God (John 10:35).  

Don't you allow anybody -- whether they call themselves Christian or non-Christian -- to sell you on any lesser view of the Bible.  If a person wants to follow Christ, then let them follow Christ's complete and total trust in the authority, reliability and perfection of Scripture.

******
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Do you or do you not believe that that you know what your god wants, completely, by reading the bible?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Yes.  And you know what God wants too, if you read the Bible.  But it's not just by reading.  As you can tell just from this thread alone, readin' the Bible ain't the same as believin' the Bible.  If you want to know what God wants, readin's a great first step, but then there's that issue of saying YES or NO to what you're reading.

Evolutionists keep on demanding that you say NO to God's clear word in Genesis.  Trouble is, a NO in that spot rationally opens the door to saying to NO in other spots.  
And ultimately, when one's faith gets all spotted up with disbelief, some folks end up saying NO to God, period.  

Then they go to HELL.  All alone.  (Except for their new little malformed pointy-eared friends.  You know, the ones with the sharp teeth and stinky breath who can't stop laughing at you while munching on your intestines.)

The solution is to read the Bible and say YES to what God is telling you in that Bible.  Stop saying NO to John 3:16 and other salvation verses.  Stop saying STFU to Jesus when He's pleading with you to just let him in the door (Rev. 3:20).   (Yeah, you!).

Floyd Lee
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I have accepted Christ; I have faith in God. I am a Christian.

And I accept evolutionary theory.

According to you, Floyd, I cannot exist. And yet I do. I am living and irrefutable proof that you are wrong. Found the RIGHT passage of Corinthians yet, Floyd? Need help?
Posted by: Constant Mews on Oct. 23 2009,21:20

Quote (Quack @ Oct. 23 2009,16:30)
A word of comfort before he withdraws to his ivory tower; maybe it isn't so much about lying as it is just another case of     

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You are civil to try to excuse him, but Floyd is well-aware that he is lying.  I wonder at his willingness to commit such sin, given his terror of damnation and hellfire.
Posted by: Constant Mews on Oct. 23 2009,21:34

So Floyd-you are going to point to Christains who accept evolution and claim that shows Christianity and evolution are incompatible?

Wouldn't that be rather stupid, Floyd?

How can you explain nmgirl and myself for example?

We are Christians who accept evolution. We prove you wrong.
Posted by: rhmc on Oct. 23 2009,21:38

Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 23 2009,11:28)
All four of those items would require supernatural action.  
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


oh ho, it's majick!!!  

< http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vvIMnr0DDK8 >
Posted by: rhmc on Oct. 23 2009,21:42

Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 23 2009,11:01)
Unanswered questions.  Whatever the answers, they must have been quite severe, to have gotten you to his point.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


exactly.  

what a hoot.  severe indeed.
Posted by: Henry J on Oct. 23 2009,21:46



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
JohnW, posted 10/23/09 3:36 PM


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
(Henry J @ Oct. 23 2009,14:24)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
but you do NOT have a rational basis for saying a priori that it's not even scientific.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


It's not a priori.

I.D. advocates have had decades in which to produce a viable hypothesis based on the notion that life was deliberately engineered.

They haven't done so.

That's what makes it non-scientific.

Henry
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I would argue that ID as usually argued, either in public (An unspecified entity with unspecified abilities did unspecified things via unspecified means at unspecified times for unspecified purposes), or in private among its advocates (Goddidit) is a priori unscientific.  The first version is unfalsifiable without some knowledge of the designer's capabilities and purposes.  The second version posits an omnipotent god fiddling with the data - in which case, all scientific bets are off.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Yep. That's why the "They haven't done so" in my comment. If only somebody had actually identified a consistently observed pattern that would be expected from deliberately engineered life forms and published something about it but otherwise not expected - but I've not heard of anything like that.

And, I certainly don't expect it to be accomplished by somebody who thinks the statement "evolution is mindless" implies that an omnipotent entity would be unable to use it to produce something.

Henry
Posted by: Henry J on Oct. 23 2009,21:46



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
FloydLee, posted 10/23/09 11:41 AM
Okay, I think Henry's remarks constituted a good point to start doing Biblical Perspective on Biology.

But first, if you'll repeat the questions you want answered Ogre, I'll go ahead and do 'em.  You many not like the answers, (and I may repeat some if it's the same ole questions), but go ahead and ask.  
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Are you kidding? The examples I listed show why it doesn't even make sense to talk about a "Biblical perspective" on biology. The people who wrote it (1) did not have modern scientific type knowledge, and (2) were writing poetry, not technical descriptions. That story about goats watching a striped stick might even have been imported from some people who had little or no experience with breeding animals, and perhaps technical accuracy was not one of the goals of the writer(s).

Henry
Posted by: Constant Mews on Oct. 23 2009,21:48

Let's see. This thread has shown that no incompatibilities exist between Christian doctrine and evolutionary theory.

We have seen by Floyd's citations that Christians who accept evolution form the overwhelming majority of Christians.

We have seen Floyd commit multiple sins to match his ignorance of the Bible.

Did I miss anything?
Posted by: rhmc on Oct. 23 2009,21:52

Quote (Erasmus, FCD @ Oct. 23 2009,21:39)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Stop saying STFU to Jesus
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



roflmao

Floyd are you drinking tonight?  do you ever drink alcohol?  just curious.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


only if it doesn't flow downhill.
Posted by: OgreMkV on Oct. 23 2009,21:55

Two hours to go Floyd until you miss your self imposed deadline.  

Man are you going to get pummeled if you try to bring us ID is science.  Is it wrong of me to be looking forward to it.

Meh, what am I saying.  We'd have to hit Floyd with a supertanker to get his attention.
Posted by: FrankH on Oct. 23 2009,23:09

Floyd's actions seem to be those of someone who is doing the research for him.

It also appears this person is making sure Floyd doesn't handle the hard questions and instead goes for the fluff.

I guess when you're used to being lead by the nose, it will happen.
Posted by: deadman_932 on Oct. 23 2009,23:41

Look familiar, Floyd?

It will
Posted by: Schroedinger's Dog on Oct. 24 2009,00:45

Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 24 2009,01:34)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Yodel Elf, no one cares about your own personal perception of the bible, demented and lies-ridden as it is (your perception).
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Then, ummm, why was I asked about my personal perception of the Bible?

And btw, does it make sense to you to accuse folks of "proselytizing" when they've just been sincerely asked religious point-blank questions like "Do you or do you not think you know what your god requires as to get into heaven or not?"

You see, SD, you need to take a moment and think about what you're saying there.  Me?  I'm sincerely responding to somebody else's sincere "Do you or don't you" questions.  

But you?  Those answers must be bugging you for some reason, even though they weren't even addressed to you at all.  

So now here YOU come outta the blue, all suddenly agitated and hand-wringing about "proselytizing."  

What is it?  YOUR conscience suddenly gittin' all itchy too?  Voice messages still beeping on your soul's cell phone and you cain't find a way to delete 'em???  Is that it, boys????

(Ohhhh goodness to booboo.  You guys are starting to make me laugh now, not in any vicious or demeaning way, but your anger and squirming discomfort in the presence of Scriptural truths--which you yourselves keep on bringing up, NOT me!--just comes across as kinda humorous sometimes.  

Ultimately, you guys necessarily constitute my final evidence that Evolution is Incompatible with Christianity!!!!   :)  
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Poor creature, damned to the eternal flames.

I'm stating facts, and yet here you are again trying to analyse me and sell me your idiocratic doctrine.

As was said countless times before, there's a street-corner somewhere missing its preacher.

In the wise words of Slayer:

Yodel Elf
Posted by: Lou FCD on Oct. 24 2009,02:39





---------------------QUOTE-------------------
< Inferno >, by Javier Torres 1976.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: Kattarina98 on Oct. 24 2009,07:16

Mr Lee,

in the beginning, I only silently disapproved of some harsh words because as a guest ("lurker") I did not wish to criticize the hosts. Later on, I realized that the abuses were deserved.
I might even add abuse myself: You behave like a rooster prancing about and claiming to be king of the chicken run when you are the only chicken around.



Posted by: Schroedinger's Dog on Oct. 24 2009,08:38

Quote (Kattarina98 @ Oct. 24 2009,14:16)
Mr Lee,

in the beginning, I only silently disapproved of some harsh words because as a guest ("lurker") I did not wish to criticize the hosts. Later on, I realized that the abuses were deserved.
I might even add abuse myself: You behave like a rooster prancing about and claiming to be king of the chicken run when you are the only chicken around.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------


great art, Kattarina, and spot on.

As an aside, Yodel Elf's rantings remind me a lot the sermon of Reverant Brown in the clearing as depicted in "Inherit the Wind". It's trully a mirror image...
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Oct. 24 2009,09:03

kattarina, 'round hyeer we call that King Shit of Turd Mountain
Posted by: OgreMkV on Oct. 24 2009,09:10

Now 9 hours past the self imposed deadline.
Posted by: Constant Mews on Oct. 24 2009,09:52

If he continues this discussion, he breaks his word. If he ignores it, he's dishonest.  In either case he is unable to establish his case.

I'm not sure which is worse: his dishonesty or his incompetence.
Posted by: SLP on Oct. 24 2009,09:53

Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 23 2009,16:15)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
"We cannot discover by scientific investigation anything about the creative processes used by God." Duane Gish, Evolution -- The Fossils Say No! (3d ed. 1979)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Sorry, but that one (and thanks for offering it---it was interesting!) does NOT refute what Dr. Ratzsch specifically wrote.  

Ratzsch did not say that you could scientifically discover how God actually created things.  Far from it.  The ONLY thing Ratzsch pointed out is that there AREN'T any sustainable BLANKET prohibitions that can be employed against scientific investigation of supernatural design.

IOW, design detection hypotheses and theories CAN in fact be scientific.   Any given design hypothesis or theory (like all scientific hypotheses or theories) may boom or bust upon actual investigation, but you do NOT have a rational basis for saying a priori that it's not even scientific.  

Again, that particular reality doesn't mean you can scientifically figure out how God created Adam.  It ONLY means that supernatural design detection CAN indeed fall within the realm of genuine science investigation.

FloydLee
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I have to wonder if YEC zealots like Floyd Mellotron Lee hurt their necks when they enter into the necessary mental contortions that they empploy to save their losing and self-defeating positions.

A well know creationist claims that you can't learn anything about god's creative powers via scientific iinvestigation - but wait!  - that flies in the face of what other YECs claim!  Gee.... Ummm...  I know - well, no I don't.. Ummm...

DOES NOT COMPUTE

ENGAGE MENTAL GYMNASTICS PROGRAM
Posted by: FrankH on Oct. 24 2009,10:26

Quote (Constant Mews @ Oct. 24 2009,09:52)
If he continues this discussion, he breaks his word. If he ignores it, he's dishonest.  In either case he is unable to establish his case.

I'm not sure which is worse: his dishonesty or his incompetence.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


In Floyd's case I really do think it is both coupled with an overabundance of arrogance.  He's incompetent but he won't learn as he's so damn arrogantly sure about his being able to handle it.  Which means he's lying to himself which shows how dishonest he really is.

Like Floyd's answer on how to get into heaven.  He just doesn't know the amount of crap he piled on himself.  I guess though, when you're being beaten as thoroughly as Floyd is, covering yourself in shit is one was to get people to leave you alone.
Posted by: OgreMkV on Oct. 24 2009,12:10

I'm actually very curious about his behavior.

Does Floyd really think it's OK to lie, if he's lying for Jesus?
Does Floyd really think that it's OK to take people's statements out of context?  He's get bent out of shape if we do it, so he must know.
Does Floyd really think that his version of Christianity is really the way it should be?
Posted by: Henry J on Oct. 24 2009,13:30

Can I resist the obvious quote mine from that last reply? :p

Henry
Posted by: Rrr on Oct. 24 2009,14:35

Quote (Henry J @ Oct. 24 2009,13:30)
Can I resist the obvious quote mine from that last reply? :p

Henry
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I think not -- I don't know your mind but I know in mine, I couldn't.
Remember, all bets are off since what, page 2? :-)
Posted by: deadman_932 on Oct. 24 2009,15:22

HAH. JUST U WAIT, EVOS.

FLODY WILL B BACK WITH EVIDUNCES THET NOT NO ONE CAN EXCAPE. THEN U WILL BOW TO FLODYS GOD
Posted by: Constant Mews on Oct. 24 2009,19:33

Quote (OgreMkV @ Oct. 24 2009,12:10)
I'm actually very curious about his behavior.

Does Floyd really think it's OK to lie, if he's lying for Jesus?
Does Floyd really think that it's OK to take people's statements out of context?  He's get bent out of shape if we do it, so he must know.
Does Floyd really think that his version of Christianity is really the way it should be?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


My guess is yes, he thinks it's ok to lie for Christ. He's wrong, of course, but his fear of hell is characteristic.
Posted by: Lou FCD on Oct. 24 2009,20:13

Quote (Constant Mews @ Oct. 24 2009,20:33)
Quote (OgreMkV @ Oct. 24 2009,12:10)
I'm actually very curious about his behavior.

Does Floyd really think it's OK to lie, if he's lying for Jesus?
Does Floyd really think that it's OK to take people's statements out of context?  He's get bent out of shape if we do it, so he must know.
Does Floyd really think that his version of Christianity is really the way it should be?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


My guess is yes, he thinks it's ok to lie for Christ. He's wrong, of course, but his fear of hell is characteristic.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


There certainly is substantial evidence to support your "guess".

I daresay there's enough to elevate it to a well-founded hypothesis.
Posted by: Jasper on Oct. 24 2009,20:30

Quote (Constant Mews @ Oct. 23 2009,22:34)
How can you explain nmgirl and myself for example?

We are Christians who accept evolution. We prove you wrong.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You can add my name to that list, too.
Posted by: Constant Mews on Oct. 24 2009,21:41

It remains Floyd's critical problem. He cannot explain how Christians such as us exist. According to him we are impossible. Yet here we are.
Posted by: OgreMkV on Oct. 24 2009,22:24

He has 1.5 hours left and then he misses both of his own self-imposed deadlines.

Lazy, incompetent, or scared.
Posted by: Constant Mews on Oct. 25 2009,00:06

Quote (OgreMkV @ Oct. 24 2009,22:24)
He has 1.5 hours left and then he misses both of his own self-imposed deadlines.

Lazy, incompetent, or scared.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


The last. We've seen his fear on very public display in this thread.
Posted by: Constant Mews on Oct. 25 2009,02:22

And so Floyd once again misses his own self-set deadlines.  He has failed to establish the incompatibility of Christianity and evolutionary theory; he cannot use this thread to make his claim since it includes at least 3 Christians who accept evolution.  His own quotes show that Catholics - one billion or so Christians - accept evolution, as do most of the mainstream Christian sects in America.

So Floyd has spent his time in vain, but established in the process that he is a liar, ignorant of Christian doctrine and of evolutionary theory, and a coward terrified beyond words of hell-fire.

Have I missed anything?
Posted by: Schroedinger's Dog on Oct. 25 2009,08:34


                   Yodel Elf
                          I
                          I
                          I
                          I
                          V


Ok, not really useful to the debate, but I felt creative...
Posted by: Lou FCD on Oct. 25 2009,08:46

He's coming for you, Floyd.





---------------------QUOTE-------------------
< Little Trucker >, by malweth.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Oct. 25 2009,10:15

Quote (Constant Mews @ Oct. 25 2009,03:22)
And so Floyd once again misses his own self-set deadlines.  He has failed to establish the incompatibility of Christianity and evolutionary theory; he cannot use this thread to make his claim since it includes at least 3 Christians who accept evolution.  His own quotes show that Catholics - one billion or so Christians - accept evolution, as do most of the mainstream Christian sects in America.

So Floyd has spent his time in vain, but established in the process that he is a liar, ignorant of Christian doctrine and of evolutionary theory, and a coward terrified beyond words of hell-fire.

Have I missed anything?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


that sums it up but i would be glad if he would just simply answer my question.  I'm genuinely curious.
Posted by: Constant Mews on Oct. 25 2009,10:35

Quote (Erasmus, FCD @ Oct. 25 2009,10:15)
Quote (Constant Mews @ Oct. 25 2009,03:22)
And so Floyd once again misses his own self-set deadlines.  He has failed to establish the incompatibility of Christianity and evolutionary theory; he cannot use this thread to make his claim since it includes at least 3 Christians who accept evolution.  His own quotes show that Catholics - one billion or so Christians - accept evolution, as do most of the mainstream Christian sects in America.

So Floyd has spent his time in vain, but established in the process that he is a liar, ignorant of Christian doctrine and of evolutionary theory, and a coward terrified beyond words of hell-fire.

Have I missed anything?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


that sums it up but i would be glad if he would just simply answer my question.  I'm genuinely curious.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


He will never answer it. He's too scared.
Posted by: Constant Mews on Oct. 25 2009,10:40

Though I also admit, I'm not sure he even understands the question; or why his "attempt" at an answer was so inappropriate.  His thinking appears quite muddled.
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Oct. 25 2009,11:21

yeah i think he might be too dumb to understand it.
Posted by: Keelyn on Oct. 25 2009,12:44

Well, Floyd won't be here to "debate" today - it's Fundie Sunday.
Posted by: Constant Mews on Oct. 25 2009,13:17

Quote (Keelyn @ Oct. 25 2009,12:44)
Well, Floyd won't be here to "debate" today - it's Fundie Sunday.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Hasn't he posted on Sunday before?
Posted by: OgreMkV on Oct. 25 2009,13:39

Hey Floyd, if you ever decide to actually read this thread and answer some questions... here's one for you.

Let's just say that each of the quotes you made were actually correct.  How exactly would that change any of the 150 years of research on evolution?  How exactly would those 5 or 6 quotes 'destroy the foundations of evolution'?
Would antibiotic resistance suddenly stop?  Would 20 years of Lenski's research suddenly change to not showing evolution of novel functions?
Posted by: deadman_932 on Oct. 25 2009,17:18

WTF?

What happened with you, Flody? Needed more time to figure out how to frame your "creatively alternate reality?"
Posted by: Schroedinger's Dog on Oct. 25 2009,18:32

Just a neat little summup on the dawn of religious beliefs I found while reading again Pratchett's, Stewart's and Cohen's "The science of Discworld". i'd just like to put it here so Floyd could maybe try to exercise his "brain" to the concept:

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
They didn’t know that Down Here was a pretty good
place for creatures like them to live. There was air to
breathe, animals and plants to eat, water to drink, land
to stand on, and caves to get out of the rain and the
lions. They did know that it was changeable, chaotic,
unpredictable ...
They didn’t know that Up There - the rest of the
universe - isn’t like that. Most of it is empty space, a
vacuum. You can’t breathe vacuum. Most of what isn’t
vacuum is huge balls of overheated plasma. You can’t
stand on a ball of flame. And most of what isn’t vacuum
and isn’t burning is lifeless rock. You can’t eat rock.
They were going to learn this later on. What they did
know was that Up There was, in human timescales,
calm, ordered, regular. And predictable,too - you
could set your stone circle by it.
All this gave rise to a general feeling that Up There was
different
from Down Here for a reason. Down Here
was clearly designed for us. Equally clearly, Up There
wasn’t. Therefore it must be designed for somebody
else. And the new humanity was already speculating
about some suitable tenants, and had been ever since
they’d hidden in the caves from the thunder. The gods!
They were Up There, looking Down! And they were
clearly in charge, because humanity certainly wasn’t.
As a bonus, that explained all of the things Down Here
that were a lot more complicated than anything visible
Up There, like thunderstorms and earthquakes and bees.
Those were under the control of the gods.
It was a neat package. It made us feel important. It
certainly made the priests important. And since priests
were the sort of people
who could have your tongue
torn out or banish you into Lion Country for
disagreeing with them, it rapidly became an
enormously
popular theory, if only because those who
had other ones either couldn’t speak or were up a tree
somewhere.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------




And of course, the best part:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
And yet ... every so often some lunatic with no sense of
self-preservation was born who found the whole story
unsatisfying, and risked the wrath of the priesthood to
say so. Such folk were already around by the time of the
Babylonians, whose civilization flourished between and
around the Tigris and Euphrates rivers from 4000 BC to
300 BC. The Babylonians - a term that covers a whole
slew of semi-independent peoples living in separate
cities such as Babylon, Ur, Nippur, Uruk, Lagash, and
so on - certainly worshipped the gods like everyone
else. One of their stories about gods is the basis of the
Biblical tale of Noah and his ark, for instance. But they
also took a keen interest in what those lights in the sky
did. They knew that the Moon was round - a sphere
rather than a flat disc. They probably knew that the
Earth was round, too, because it cast a rounded shadow
on the Moon during lunar eclipses. They knew that the
year was about 365 1/4 days long. They even knew
about the ’precession
of the equinoxes’, a cyclic
variation that completes one cycle every 26,000 years.
They made these discoveries by keeping careful records
of how the Moon and the planets moved across the sky.
Babylonian astronomical records from 500 BC survive
to this day.
From such beginnings, an alternative explanation of the
universe came into being. It didn’t involve gods, at least
directly, so it didn’t find much favour with the priestly
class. Some of their descendants are still trying to stamp
it out, even today. The traditional priesthoods
(whothen and now often included some very intelligent
people) eventually worked out an accommodation with
this godless way of thinking, but it’s still not popular
with postmodernists, creationists, tabloid astrologers
and others who prefer the answers you can make up for
yourself at home.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: Dan on Oct. 26 2009,05:55

Here's a summary of the "debate" so far:

There exist Christians who hold that evolution occurred.  But FL doesn't understand this, so he maintains that it can't happen.

Here's some parallel "reasoning":

I don't understand credit default swaps, therefore credit default swaps don't exist.
Posted by: FrankH on Oct. 26 2009,06:51

Quote (Dan @ Oct. 26 2009,05:55)
Here's a summary of the "debate" so far:

There exist Christians who hold that evolution occurred.  But FL doesn't understand this, so he maintains that it can't happen.

Here's some parallel "reasoning":

I don't understand credit default swaps, therefore credit default swaps don't exist.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Completely explains the problem with science for YECs and literalists.

They don't understand science so they make something up, call it science and then say the "other stuff ain't science 'cause it's a religion, just like mine".
Posted by: Amadan on Oct. 26 2009,09:18

I don't think it's quite that. Remember that, at its basic level, the YEC cult is part of a simplistic, anti-intellectual and paternalistic group identity. The dynamic works as long as members remained focused on the next life (or a fantasy apotheosis in this life where Jeebus comes and We watch the Others get skewered)  rather than the complicated, messy realities of this one. A form of emotional coercion, whereby you stick with Received Wisdom or face exclusion and damnation, keeps them doing just that. It is a very shallow faith that is easily threatened when (as with Floyd here) it is questioned by outsiders.

As far as I can see, "evolution" (like "socialism" or "atheism") is just a place-holder term for stuff that threatens that group identity. Because they are Wrong, it isn't important to examine the truth of their claims (or non-claims, in the case of atheism).

I suspect that Floyd sees Catholics as not-quite Christians, but can't trust his ability to handle the theological and doctrinal side of the argument, hence his concession (which pretty much punctured the rest of his argument). To be consistent, Floyd should have stuck to the approach that his version of Christianity is the only correct one. But I think Floyd has academic pretensions, as well as being an attention whore.
Posted by: deadman_932 on Oct. 26 2009,09:41

There's a vicious circle at the core of it, also: the power-seeking paternalistic group identity is also profoundly anti-intellectual.

It reminds me of this documentary on the !Kung-San "Bushmen", one of whom rhetorically asks an interviewer, when faced with external agricultural pressures; "Why plant when there are so many mongongo nuts?"

Frank Zappa once observed that the symbology of being punished for eating fruits of the tree of knowledge of life and death indicated a profound anti-intellectualism at the core, yet to have real power in this world, information is an absolute necessity.  

Their main identifier tells them they have all the knowledge they need, and in this thread, you see the outcome of it as Flody's views -- when taken to logical extremes -- reject science itself, and anything else that might call into question the omnipotence of the ideology.
Posted by: OgreMkV on Oct. 26 2009,11:22

Quote (deadman_932 @ Oct. 26 2009,09:41)
Frank Zappa once observed that the symbology of being punished for eating fruits of the tree of knowledge of life and death indicated a profound anti-intellectualism at the core, yet to have real power in this world, information is an absolute necessity.  
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I would disagree with this part of the statement.  I guess it depends on how you define power.  

In terms of political power, intelligence appears to be not required, perhaps even selected against.  It seems to me that the smart people are off busy with things that are important, like saving lives and keep aircraft in the air.  While politicians (and lawyers for that matter) sit around and ignore the reams of data that shows their pet ideology is stupid.  Instead they create false dichotomies to convince people that their very lives are at stake unless they follow the 'leader'.  

The smart people keep saying, 'look you idiots...', but unless the smart people are willing to try for political power, we will always have the least intelligent people as leaders... some with access to squadrons of fighter-bombers and nuclear weapons.

Consider monetary power.  There are few smart people that are really wealthy.  (Bill Gates does NOT count.)  Again, the smart people seem to just want to do their thing.  The unethical take advantage of smart people (and the system) to gain monetary power... and do whatever they have to to keep that power.

Unless the smart people want to pull an Atlas Shrugged (and I'm not saying that's a bad plan), the smart people will have to step up into the political and monetary arenas and fight to keep things even reasonable.  I mean, you really ought to see what these idiots are trying to do in Texas.  Our "history expert" hired by the school board at great expense doesn't even know where Rosa Parks made her stand (as it where).
Posted by: Quack on Oct. 26 2009,11:37

Quote (Amadan @ Oct. 26 2009,09:18)
I don't think it's quite that. Remember that, at its basic level, the YEC cult is part of a simplistic, anti-intellectual and paternalistic group identity. The dynamic works as long as members remained focused on the next life (or a fantasy apotheosis in this life where Jeebus comes and We watch the Others get skewered)  rather than the complicated, messy realities of this one. A form of emotional coercion, whereby you stick with Received Wisdom or face exclusion and damnation, keeps them doing just that. It is a very shallow faith that is easily threatened when (as with Floyd here) it is questioned by outsiders.

As far as I can see, "evolution" (like "socialism" or "atheism") is just a place-holder term for stuff that threatens that group identity. Because they are Wrong, it isn't important to examine the truth of their claims (or non-claims, in the case of atheism).

I suspect that Floyd sees Catholics as not-quite Christians, but can't trust his ability to handle the theological and doctrinal side of the argument, hence his concession (which pretty much punctured the rest of his argument). To be consistent, Floyd should have stuck to the approach that his version of Christianity is the only correct one. But I think Floyd has academic pretensions, as well as being an attention whore.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Can't be said too often...

(Bolded by me)
Posted by: Amadan on Oct. 26 2009,12:24

Quote (OgreMkV @ Oct. 26 2009,11:22)
     
Quote (deadman_932 @ Oct. 26 2009,09:41)
Frank Zappa once observed that the symbology of being punished for eating fruits of the tree of knowledge of life and death indicated a profound anti-intellectualism at the core, yet to have real power in this world, information is an absolute necessity.  
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I would disagree with this part of the statement.  I guess it depends on how you define power.  

In terms of political power, intelligence appears to be not required, perhaps even selected against.  It seems to me that the smart people are off busy with things that are important, like saving lives and keep aircraft in the air.  While politicians (and lawyers for that matter) sit around and ignore the reams of data that shows their pet ideology is stupid.  Instead they create false dichotomies to convince people that their very lives are at stake unless they follow the 'leader'.  
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



I disagree. I often work with politicians and many of them are very very intelligent. I suspect you're conflating intelligence with academic eminence.

And lay off the lawyers or I'll sue you in the Admiralty Courts, from which nobody has ever emerged alive, sane or solvent.

   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


The smart people keep saying, 'look you idiots...', but unless the smart people are willing to try for political power, we will always have the least intelligent people as leaders... some with access to squadrons of fighter-bombers and nuclear weapons.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Politicians are aware that Adam Smith's notion of the rational actor as the basis for economics is utter crap. Many, if not most decisions, are taken on non-rational grounds and only rationalised after the fact. That is particularly true for voting, where perceptions of identity, affirmation and such like are powerful influences (even determinants). And clever politicians, who want to get and keep power, use this. So they talk dumb just like we does, and they manipulate our fears because we like them to.If there is a demand for intelligent discussion of policy someone will eventually spot the gap and sell to it. But don't underestimate the irrationality of politics, or the intelligence of (most of) those who play the game.

   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Consider monetary power.  There are few smart people that are really wealthy.  (Bill Gates does NOT count.)  Again, the smart people seem to just want to do their thing.  The unethical take advantage of smart people (and the system) to gain monetary power... and do whatever they have to to keep that power.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Not wishing to be completely cynical, but was it ever different?
(I pause to savour the moment while the terms 'Microsoft' and 'ethical' compete for the same space in my brain)


   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Unless the smart people want to pull an Atlas Shrugged (and I'm not saying that's a bad plan), the smart people will have to step up into the political and monetary arenas and fight to keep things even reasonable.  I mean, you really ought to see what these idiots are trying to do in Texas.  Our "history expert" hired by the school board at great expense doesn't even know where Rosa Parks made her stand (as it where).
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



The thing I always loved about the notion of 'Going Galt' is that you would have to enforce trade-union style discipline if you wanted to stop an enterprising free-market blackleg Galt stepping in to take your place at a discount. Ironic, much?
Posted by: OgreMkV on Oct. 26 2009,12:36

In advance: Sorry for the threadjack.

OK, so you're saying that politicians are smart, but act in the manner that will best keep them in office.  I can buy that, up to a point.  Maybe this is true at the federal level, but at the state level or local level.  Maybe if you replaced 'smart' with 'animal cunning' it would be a more accurate description.  I've seen some really dumb people make it into office on the local level (I've even run against some of them), but of course, they say what the people want to hear.

The result, however, is the same.  Poor decisions by leaders.

My favorite passage from a Dilbert book (with respect to Scott Adams).  
"Ask one hundred of the smartest people in the world about something that the politicians disagree on.  If the one hundred smartest people also disagree on it, then intelligence is useless in political decision making.  If the one hundred smartest people all agree on one course of action, then intelligence is very important to decision making, but politics nullifies it.  Either way, it's scary."
Posted by: deadman_932 on Oct. 26 2009,12:41

Quote (OgreMkV @ Oct. 26 2009,11:22)
I would disagree with this part of the statement.  I guess it depends on how you define power.  
[major snippage]
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I'm always happy when others seem interested in concepts of power. I mean, it's a cliche that college students gravitate towards Machiavelli, Catcher in The Rye, Ayn Rand, Nietzsche, etc. in order to begin to understand/overcome the commonly unstated forces that dominate their own youthful lives -- yet people tend to kind of lose interest in the subject, despite it being so essential to who we are. Also, it's amazing how little work has been done in synthesizing research on power from various fields of study, even though its relevance to all aspects of human existence is unquestioned.  

Anyway, I could yap for a long time on the subject, but I'll try to make this brief: Old French  "poeir,"  means "to be able to act," and is used to refer to a relative measure of the ability to control the physical and social  environment, particularly the thoughts and behaviors of other entities ("actors").
In short, power is the ability to do or (more importantly) to get others to think/do what one wants them to. Power can be based on multiple sources of power ranging from brute Coercion to claims of Positional Power based on legitimization.  In order to achieve and maintain power, however , information is crucial. In every example of "Power" there is some form of information underlying the claim, even if it's just appeals to tradition. Knowledge and power are two sides of the same coin, ultimately.
 
I'll just offer an example from a visiting prof. I took a class from once:  A spaceship lands on Mars, loaded with valuable minerals and awesome weapons. However, it is disabled and there are only two humans left alive : the captain who has access to the "wealth" and weapons, etc.--but can't repair the ship. Then there's an engineer who only knows how to run the computers and fix the ship. Who has power? Granted this is an oversimplification, but it helps to analyze bases of power.

< http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Power_(philosophy) >
< http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authority >
Steven Lukes (1974) Power: A radical view.  
Max Weber's Basic Concepts in Sociology (1952) and The Three Types of Legitimate Rule (1958)
Keith Dowding's  (1996) Power . This last one is a little skinny book, but pretty important.

ETA: I got interested in concepts of power early on, but it really hit me when I began looking at how cultures "evolve" from hunter-gatherer groups to tribes, chiefdoms, states, etc. Information is everything in that regard.
Posted by: OgreMkV on Oct. 26 2009,12:54

Can we make this a new thread?  I'm interested in this discussion, mainly because I rarely get to have this level of discourse (at least one that doesn't involve me visiting my mother-in-law).

I'll hold off for a bit and marshal my thoughts.  And unlike Floyd, I will actually post some thoughts.
Posted by: deadman_932 on Oct. 26 2009,12:59

Done: < http://www.antievolution.org/cgi-bin....;t=6516 >
Posted by: Schroedinger's Dog on Oct. 26 2009,13:07

Ok. And what about the Power Rangers? I mean, how would you classify them?







Sorry, I'm out.
Posted by: Amadan on Oct. 26 2009,13:24

A teacher in my son's school does the Irish-language voice-over for one of the Power Rangers.

Is that kewel or whah?
Posted by: deadman_932 on Oct. 26 2009,13:25

Quote (Schroedinger's Dog @ Oct. 26 2009,13:07)
Ok. And what about the Power Rangers? I mean, how would you classify them?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



= PUNKS, compared to:


< http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jdB2lSmzLBk >

Speaking of, I see FloydLee on the user list.
Posted by: FloydLee on Oct. 26 2009,13:28

Hello again!  I have to apologize for being late, again had to take care of family business and church business this weekend—most of it completely unexpected.

Even now, I don’t have much time for reading or responding to anybody.  (A little, but not a lot.)  All I can do for today and tomorrow is finish typing the “Biblical Perspective on Biology” and the “ID is science” and simply present them in that order.  

Followed a couple days or so later, by the final summary (regarding evolution’s incompatibility).

If you would like to extend the final day to Nov. 8, as a way of making up for my delay, I am fully open to that, just let me know.  

If not, that's okay too.  At least I will have all my topics put on the table for this week, and the big one (Incompatibility) printed off in its entirety and summarized.  In the meantime, my apologies again.

********

Here's the Perspective thing.

Why bother discussing the Biblical perspective on biology?  Because as we’ve already seen, it has a direct bearing—in fact, MULTIPLE direct bearings—on the issue of whether evolution is compatible with Christianity or not.  

In order to answer the incompatibility issue, it is necessary to know what the Bible says or doesn’t say.  Period. So, with that in mind, what’s the Biblical perspective there?

First, the Bible’s perspective is that God is the required, the absolutely necessary, explanation for biological origins on earth.  I’m not talking about evolution right now, I’m talking about the Bible’s position.  God is not optional, either in the Old Testament (Gen. 1:1), or the New Testament (Col.1:16).   ANY historical explanation of plant, animal, or human origins on Earth in which God is not absolutely required, is in opposition to the position of Biblical Christianity.

Second, God is the DIRECT explanation for plant, animal, and human origins.   In Genesis, whether the topic is plants, animal, or human origins, God does NOT employ any indirect, gradual means of origination to produce the result.  He either speaks, and the creative action takes place, or he fashions the object himself by hand (the first human male and the first human female) and gets it done that way, that day.  

Furthermore,  NONE of this occurs naturally.  In fact, it occurs in a manner called “Ex Nihilo” (meaning “From Nothing.”)  

Evolution requires pre-existing material, but God absolutely does not, and did not, require any.  

   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear. – Hebrews 11:3
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



What this means, honestly, is that any attempt to try to create compatibility between evolution and Christianity based on a notion of God somehow maybe-sorta-kinda using a gradual gazillion-year extremely indirect are simply FALSE according to biblical Christianity.  In the Bible, it's direct, not indirect.  It's fast, not gradual, not old-earth.  

No "water running downhill" indirect analogies will work here, IOW.  It didn't work with Futuyma and evolution, but more importantly, it doesn't work at all with the Bible. The testimony of Scripture is that God DIRECTLY created.

******

Related to this is a third perspective:  God got it all done within six literal 24-hour days.  Way too fast for any evolution processes.  No chance of compatibility.

Why did God choose six 24-hour days of creation and then rest on the seventh day?  Quite straightforward, according to the Bible---He was modeling for us humans the way we were supposed to operate  (hat tip to Dr. Kurt Wise, [i]Faith Form and Time[/b]).  The Bible is very clear on this.

   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Genesis 2:1-3. Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the host of them. And on the seventh day God ended his work which he had made; and he rested on the seventh day from all his work which he had made. And God blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it: because that in it he had rested from all his work which God created and made.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy. But the seventh day is the sabbath of the LORD thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates: For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



So, the Bible’s position is that the time frame for biological origins (life itself, plants, water and land animals, humans) is six 24-hour days.  And that’s all.

Again, here are the technical details and proof that the Bible really does mean this:  http://www.dbts.edu/journals/2000/mccabe.pdf

Moreover, the familiar  “evening and morning” phrase in Genesis 1 directly means literal evening and morning, btw---a literal 24 hr day.  

******

Are there other details to this Biblical Perspective?  Sure there are.  For example, the Bible says that birds preceded land animals.  What that means is that evolutionists are wrong when they claim that dinosaurs or reptilians gradually evolved into birds.  Yet another point of conflict with evolution.

Finally, Rom. 1:20 makes a unique and powerful observation about the created world (including its biological life forms):

…..Just from what you can observe around you, or even just looking at yourself in the mirror, you should be able to understand that (1) God exists and (2) understand one or two important things about His nature.  And if you don’t, there’s no excuse:

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse.  (Romans 1:20),
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



This, again, contradicts the theory evolution, which doesn't require God as creator or designer and which is completely compatible with Atheism.  (And you know that's true!).

Finally, many people have no idea how many times the Bible affirms creation.  Some people think they can make evolution become compatible with Christianity if they can just neutralize Genesis.  Won't bother any other portions of Bible, they assume.  

That doesn’t even begin to work.  Just plain incorrect, for the Biblical perspective on biology is all over the Bible.  You cannot escape it.  Look at all these verses:
< http://www.gospelway.com/creation/creation_list.php >

(Did you look at those verses?  Look at them again.  If you ever publicly debate a YEC in a university or church setting on the Incompatibility topic, you can bet that's going to be a massive arsenal of information that the YEC could use on you.)

******

So, that’s a look at the Biblical perspective. We’ve already seen a good part of it in the Incompatibility debate already (the irrefutable Romans 5:12-17, for example).  

This perspective helps to make absolutely clear that evolution is incompatible with Christianity.  (And make no mistake---the Incompatibility does NOT go away merely by anybody claiming that evolution is correct and Bible is incorrect!!)

FloydLee
Posted by: FloydLee on Oct. 26 2009,13:43

Well, Floyd won't be here to "debate" today - it's Fundie Sunday. [/quote]
Good-----at least somebody understood that Sunday availabe time might be truncated in part because Christians tend go to church on Sunday.  It's a priority.
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on Oct. 26 2009,13:44

Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 26 2009,13:28)
What that means is that evolutionists are wrong when they claim that dinosaurs or reptilians gradually evolved into birds.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


They don't just "claim" it, they have scientific evidence for it.

Not that I'd expect you to understand the difference....
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on Oct. 26 2009,13:45

Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 26 2009,13:43)
Good-----at least somebody understood that Sunday availabe time might be truncated in part because Christians tend go to church on Sunday.  It's a priority.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Yes yes, and when you get home you beat your wife and abuse your children. What's new?
Posted by: nmgirl on Oct. 26 2009,13:49

69 pages of posts and FL's only proof is a literal interpretation of genesis.  Geez, I hope he didn't sprain any brain cells.
Posted by: deadman_932 on Oct. 26 2009,13:51

Quote (nmgirl @ Oct. 26 2009,13:49)
69 pages of posts and FL's only proof is a literal interpretation of genesis.  Geez, I hope he didn't sprain any brain cells.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I thought it was just one lonely neuron, screaming to itself.

ETA: that really was pretty pathetic, Floyd -- even by your standards.
Posted by: OgreMkV on Oct. 26 2009,13:55

I notice that you didn't say a single thing about people who don't believe that the bible is literal truth, yet are totally complete Christians.
Posted by: deadman_932 on Oct. 26 2009,14:01

Floyd's position on biology in the Bible was certainly surprising: "God did it, because the Bible says so"

Shocking. Who would expect a fundy-literalist to argue that?
Posted by: FloydLee on Oct. 26 2009,14:01



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
There exist Christians who hold that evolution occurred.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Evolutionist Rosenhouse answered this one. Does there exist a sound basis for them holding that opinion?  If not, simply saying "they hold that opinion" won't work.
Posted by: ppb on Oct. 26 2009,14:06

Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 26 2009,14:28)
Are there other details to this Biblical Perspective?  Sure there are.  For example, the Bible says that birds preceded land animals.  What that means is that evolutionists are wrong when they claim that dinosaurs or reptilians gradually evolved into birds.  Yet another point of conflict with evolution.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Floyd,
If someone had only the scientific evidence and didn't have the Bible to "guide" them, do you really think they would conclude that birds came before dinosaurs?
Posted by: FloydLee on Oct. 26 2009,14:07



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
69 pages of posts and FL's only proof is a literal interpretation of genesis.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Much much earlier, I asked all other professing Christians here in the forum to supply their own, "non-literal" interpretations for rational examination/comparison regarding this incompatibility topic.

They all punted.  All of them.
Posted by: deadman_932 on Oct. 26 2009,14:13

Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 26 2009,14:07)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
69 pages of posts and FL's only proof is a literal interpretation of genesis.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Much much earlier, I asked all other professing Christians here in the forum to supply their own, "non-literal" interpretations for rational examination/comparison regarding this incompatibility topic.

They all punted.  All of them.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


What color is the sky on your planet, Floyd?
Posted by: didymos on Oct. 26 2009,14:26

Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 26 2009,11:28)
(Did you look at those verses?  Look at them again.  If you ever publicly debate a YEC in a university or church setting on the Incompatibility topic, you can bet that's going to be a massive arsenal of information that the YEC could use on you.)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I surely did look, Floyd:    

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
1 Samuel 2:8 -- He raises the poor from the dust And lifts the beggar from the ash heap, To set them among princes And make them inherit the throne of glory. For the pillars of the earth are the Lord's, And He has set the world upon them.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



So if we're forced, left with no escape, from six 24 hour days, then we simply must take this verse at face value as well.  So, um, where exactly are these "pillars of the earth" again?

Also, I saw this one:
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Job 9:9 -- He made the Bear, Orion, and the Pleiades, And the chambers of the south;
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



So, I guess one of God's hobbies is arranging stars which in most cases, despite appearances, are actually nowhere near one another into patterns that humans find meaningful. Of course, people see Jesus in burnt toast, so I'm kinda iffy on this one. Still, Bible says it, so it must be so.  You think he did this directly on a whim, or did he set up the initial conditions so cleverly that the Official Constellations just sort of emerged?

Saw this one too:
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Job 28:26 -- When He made a law for the rain, And a path for the thunderbolt,
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



So I guess meteorology is wrong about why it rains.  Looks like physics is going to have to redo all that electricity stuff too.  I mean, God makes actual paths for lightning.  What it says right?

And one more:
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Job 33:6 -- Truly I am as your spokesman before God; I also have been formed out of clay.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



So, we gots to be literal, right?  Well, then that means that Job and Elihu were literally formed out of clay. Says so right there in the Good Book, don't it?  Is everyone made of clay, or just those dudes and Adam? Oh, and Clayface, the Batman villian.  That dude's definitely made of clay, but that goes without saying, really.
Posted by: JohnW on Oct. 26 2009,14:34

Quote (didymos @ Oct. 26 2009,12:26)
Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 26 2009,11:28)
(Did you look at those verses?  Look at them again.  If you ever publicly debate a YEC in a university or church setting on the Incompatibility topic, you can bet that's going to be a massive arsenal of information that the YEC could use on you.)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I surely did look, Floyd:  

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
1 Samuel 2:8 -- He raises the poor from the dust And lifts the beggar from the ash heap, To set them among princes And make them inherit the throne of glory. For the pillars of the earth are the Lord's, And He has set the world upon them.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



So if we're forced, left with no escape, from six 24 hour days, then we simply must take this verse at face value as well.  So, um, where exactly are these "pillars of the earth" again?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


This relates to a question I had for another bible-worshipper, on another thread.

Is the bible literally, word-for-word, true in all respects, Floyd?  Because if it is, we should be able to see these pillars somewhere.  Where are they?

On the other hand, perhaps you think the "pillars of the earth" are simply metaphor.  If that's the case, given that some things in the bible are metaphorical and therefore not literally true, do you have a reliable way to separate the literal from the metaphorical?
Posted by: FrankH on Oct. 26 2009,14:49

Quote (JohnW @ Oct. 26 2009,14:34)
[quote=didymos]
Quote (FloydLee](Did you look at those verses?  Look at them again.  If you ever publicly debate a YEC in a university or church setting on the Incompatibility topic @ you can bet that's going to be a massive arsenal of information that the YEC could use on you.)[/quote)
I surely did look, Floyd:

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
1 Samuel 2:8 -- He raises the poor from the dust And lifts the beggar from the ash heap, To set them among princes And make them inherit the throne of glory. For the pillars of the earth are the Lord's, And He has set the world upon them.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

So if we're forced, left with no escape, from six 24 hour days, then we simply must take this verse at face value as well.  So, um, where exactly are these "pillars of the earth" again?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

This relates to a question I had for another bible-worshipper, on another thread.

Is the bible literally, word-for-word, true in all respects, Floyd?  Because if it is, we should be able to see these pillars somewhere.  Where are they?

On the other hand, perhaps you think the "pillars of the earth" are simply metaphor.  If that's the case, given that some things in the bible are metaphorical and therefore not literally true, do you have a reliable way to separate the literal from the metaphorical?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Like how Floyd says "slavery is not biblical" even though we have the verses where it tells us how much a father can sell his daughters into slavery and that as long as a slave can walk again 3 days after a beating by the master, it's all good?

Yet Floyd can't seem to answer that.
Posted by: FloydLee on Oct. 26 2009,14:50



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Much much earlier, I asked all other professing Christians here in the forum to supply their own, "non-literal" interpretations for rational examination/comparison regarding this incompatibility topic.
They all punted.  All of them.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------




---------------------QUOTE-------------------
What color is the sky on your planet, Floyd?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


And what was your specific, alternative, non-literal, biblically supportable, evolution-compatible interpretation?

.....Oh wait a minute, you didn't supply one either.  Nobody did.
Posted by: OgreMkV on Oct. 26 2009,14:56

Yes floyd, several people did.  Again, we can't help it if you can't see it because of your belief blinders.

That was the reason we spent 12 or so pages on slavery and women's rights in the bible.  Because if the bible is so literal that the Earth was created in 6 days, then beating slaves and selling your daughter is acceptable.  If those are not acceptable, then there are some serious concerns with a literal interpretation of the bible.

Finally, I'll ask again (as others have), if part of the bible is to be taken literally and part metaphorically, how do you know which is which?
Posted by: deadman_932 on Oct. 26 2009,14:58

I already gave it to you, Floyd: "God created the entire universe and allowed it to unfold, including evolutionary processes."

This is fully supportable by the bible, as the Pope recognizes.

The Pope is smart enough to realize that while dimwits like YOU take things (and only selected things) literally, no one else HAS to. Men wrote the entire thing and men are fallible. Just as you don't believe that the Quran was directly the words of Gabriel, others don't have to take Genesis as the literal word of Moses or God.

The fact that you pretend that you haven't already been answered is just indicative (again) of how dishonest you are, Floyd.
Posted by: Robin on Oct. 26 2009,15:16

Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 26 2009,14:01)

---------------------QUOTE-------------------




---------------------QUOTE-------------------


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
There exist Christians who hold that evolution occurred.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Evolutionist Rosenhouse answered this one. Does there exist a sound basis for them holding that opinion?  If not, simply saying "they hold that opinion" won't work.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Floyd, you're misreading again. Rosenhouse only said that reconciling evolution and Christianity isn't something one does simply by stating such, but rather having to actually analyze the issue and come to well considered understanding. Seems that the other Christians hereon have done just that.

Quit projecting your own desires on what other people have written.
Posted by: Amadan on Oct. 26 2009,15:42

It may have escaped your attention, Floyd, but your literalist position is one held by a very small minority of Christians. Or are they not Christians, Floyd? (It is also one that you hold only when it suits you, as previous discussion on this thread shows.) In any event, it it hardly incumbent on them to justify their position to you: the fact is that you are the one advocating the unconventional opinion, and you, not they, should justify the break with mainstream Christianity. (I believe they call that heresy in some circles. Just saying.)

The only worthwhile thing to come out of this thread (apart from Lou's pictures) is the clear picture of the coronation of ignorance that would follow from permitting positions such as yours to be taught as science.
Posted by: FloydLee on Oct. 26 2009,16:15



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
This is fully supportable by the bible, as the Pope recognizes.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Specific Examples....?  

And did the Pope actually state this particular "fully supportable by the Bible" claim, or are you putting words in his mouth?
Posted by: Dr.GH on Oct. 26 2009,16:22

Quote (nmgirl @ Oct. 26 2009,11:49)
69 pages of posts and FL's only proof is a literal interpretation of genesis.  Geez, I hope he didn't sprain any brain cells.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


He never used any. He still has several in reserve.
Posted by: deadman_932 on Oct. 26 2009,16:24

Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 26 2009,16:15)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
This is fully supportable by the bible, as the Pope recognizes.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Specific Examples....?  

And did the Pope actually state this particular "fully supportable by the Bible" claim, or are you putting words in his mouth?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I said he recognizes it, and that's based on the words he wrote which were also posted in the thread.

I realize that thinking doesn't come easily to you, Flody, but do try to keep up.
Posted by: Constant Mews on Oct. 26 2009,16:34

Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 26 2009,14:01)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
There exist Christians who hold that evolution occurred.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Evolutionist Rosenhouse answered this one. Does there exist a sound basis for them holding that opinion?  If not, simply saying "they hold that opinion" won't work.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


We have excellent and quite sound reasons for holding that Christian doctrine and evolutionary theory are compatible.  I've already shown them to you.

As an example: the Nicene Creed, the most fundamental statement of Christian belief says nothing about Genesis or a literal interpretation of the entire bible.

Nothing.

You have chosen to ignore the work of God in favor of the work of Man.  Bad choice, Floyd - from the point of you of your eventual destination.
Posted by: Constant Mews on Oct. 26 2009,16:35

Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 26 2009,14:07)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
69 pages of posts and FL's only proof is a literal interpretation of genesis.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Much much earlier, I asked all other professing Christians here in the forum to supply their own, "non-literal" interpretations for rational examination/comparison regarding this incompatibility topic.

They all punted.  All of them.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Liar.

Your points have been dealt with - at least three times.  You ignored every one of them.

Liar.
Posted by: FloydLee on Oct. 26 2009,16:37



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
It may have escaped your attention, Floyd, but your literalist position is one held by a very small minority of Christians.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



On what are you basing that statement, Amadan?  2009 polls, perhaps?

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
No Consensus, and Much Confusion, on Evolution and the Origin of Species

About half of public believes plants, animals and humans evolved  while almost half believes humans were created directly by God.

ROCHESTER, N.Y. – February 18, 2009 – Two hundred years after the birth of Charles Darwin, Americans are still deeply divided on the subject of evolution and whether humans evolved or were created directly by God, as in the story of Genesis.

But it isn’t a neat division of opinion. Some people give inconsistent answers to different questions about evolution and what should be taught in schools.

In reply to one question almost half (45%) of adults say they believe humans were created directly by God and only 29% say they evolved from other species.

In reply to another question 53% of these same people say they believe that “plants, animals and human beings have evolved over time,” and only 21% say they do not believe this, with fully 25% who are not sure or decline to answer.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



And you'll like this one, Amadan:

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Furthermore a plurality favors schools teaching both Darwin’s theory and creationism.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



So, with that in mind, exactly how do you know that my specific positions are "held by a very small minority of Christians"?
Posted by: deadman_932 on Oct. 26 2009,16:40

Liar, liar, Flody on fire

Posted by: Constant Mews on Oct. 26 2009,16:40

It is sad to note that Floyd's sole rejoinder, after all this time, is merely to lie about the content of this thread.  His attempt to conflate biblical literalism with Christianity is unsupported by the overwhelming majority of Christians.  His questions have been answered in this thread multiple times.

His only recourse is to lie.  And lie badly.  After all, Floyd, anyone who wishes to can examine this thread and demonstrate precisely where your questions have been answered, and recognize that you are lying.

Liars go to hell, Floyd.  Keep that in mind.
Posted by: Constant Mews on Oct. 26 2009,16:41

Remember Floyd -

Liars go to hell

You have lied numerous times in this thread, and that is what you're doing now.
Posted by: Reed on Oct. 26 2009,16:43

Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 26 2009,12:01)
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
There exist Christians who hold that evolution occurred.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Evolutionist Rosenhouse answered this one. Does there exist a sound basis for them holding that opinion?  If not, simply saying "they hold that opinion" won't work.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


That's funny. You actually believe there is a logically "sound basis" for believing the earth is NOT billions of years old, and was created in a literal 6 days ?

If it turns out there is not, would that be sufficient to convince you Christianity is wrong ? If presented with sufficient evidence, would you abandon your faith based on that ? Or do you believe that not only does such evidence not exist, but that it is impossible that it could exist ?
Posted by: Schroedinger's Dog on Oct. 26 2009,16:46

Yodel Elf, Mrs Ganush is coming to get you!


Posted by: deadman_932 on Oct. 26 2009,16:50

Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 26 2009,16:37)
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
It may have escaped your attention, Floyd, but your literalist position is one held by a very small minority of Christians.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



On what are you basing that statement, Amadan?  2009 polls, perhaps?

   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
No Consensus, and Much Confusion, on Evolution and the Origin of Species

About half of public believes plants, animals and humans evolved  while almost half believes humans were created directly by God.

ROCHESTER, N.Y. – February 18, 2009 – Two hundred years after the birth of Charles Darwin, Americans are still deeply divided on the subject of evolution and whether humans evolved or were created directly by God, as in the story of Genesis.

But it isn’t a neat division of opinion. Some people give inconsistent answers to different questions about evolution and what should be taught in schools.

In reply to one question almost half (45%) of adults say they believe humans were created directly by God and only 29% say they evolved from other species.

In reply to another question 53% of these same people say they believe that “plants, animals and human beings have evolved over time,” and only 21% say they do not believe this, with fully 25% who are not sure or decline to answer.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


---------------------QUOTE-------------------


More quote-mining from Flody: He forgot the rest of the words that followed his quote:

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
When people give apparently inconsistent answers like these it is usually a sign that they have not thought much about the issue and do not have very firm opinions.  

These are some of the results of a new BBC World News America/The Harris Poll® of 2,158 adults surveyed online between February 3 and 5, 2009. Other interesting results of this BBC World News America/The Harris Poll include:

--People in the South and people who describe themselves as religious (67% of all adults) are less likely to believe that humans evolved from earlier species than are people in other regions or people who are not religious.
 
-- There is no consensus on what should be taught in schools.  The largest group (40%) favors teaching both Darwin’s theory of evolution and creationism.  Only
23% believe teaching only Darwin’s theory and an even fewer 17% favor only teaching creationism.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



From : < http://www.harrisinteractive.com/harris_...._18.pdf >
Posted by: Constant Mews on Oct. 26 2009,16:52

Floyd attempted to make his point by - once again, quote-mining:

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Evolutionist Rosenhouse answered this one.  Does there exist a sound basis for them holding that opinion?  If not, simply saying "they hold that opinion" won't work.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



There are sound and well-supported reasons for accepting evolutionary theory and believing in Christian doctrine (well, maybe not so much the latter).

So Rosenhouse didn't answer this one.  He posed a challenge.  I've already answered it for you at least three times on this very thread.

Liar.

Liars go to hell, Floyd.

Think about that.
Posted by: Richardthughes on Oct. 26 2009,16:54

XI) Thou shalt not do naughty things unless it's in my name to convert folks in which case 'tis fine.
Posted by: Constant Mews on Oct. 26 2009,16:57

What I find rather sad about this whole thing is that Floyd has now produced a solid, well-established document that confirms a number of points:

1. Floyd is ignorant of evolutionary theory.

2. Floyd is ignorant of Christian doctrine.

3. Floyd is dishonest.

4. Floyd is incapable of presenting an argument, let alone a rebuttal.

5. Floyd is a coward.

I certainly wouldn't want such a document forever captured on the internet for anyone who bothers to look up Floyd's past behavior to be available if I were the one indicted.

Floyd, sound reasons for supporting both evolutionary theory and it's compatibility with Christian doctrine have been provided.

You are lying if you claim otherwise.
Posted by: deadman_932 on Oct. 26 2009,17:01


I wonder why Flody didn't share this bit, from the poll he cited.
Posted by: FloydLee on Oct. 26 2009,17:01



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
As an example: the Nicene Creed, the most fundamental statement of Christian belief says nothing about Genesis or a literal interpretation of the entire bible.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


But the Nicene creed DID directly affirm the Genesis historical claim that God is the required, absolutely necessary explanation for (1) the origins of everything including the origins of plants ,animals, and humans, (2) the origin of life itself.
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Maker of heaven and earth, and of all things visible and invisible.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------




---------------------QUOTE-------------------
And we believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord and Giver of Life
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: FloydLee on Oct. 26 2009,17:02

And of course, the Nicene Creed does NOT affirm evolution in any way, shape, or form.
Posted by: deadman_932 on Oct. 26 2009,17:06

Sins of omission, sins of comission, direct lies and quotemines, fallacies and tall tales. That's our li'l Flody.
Posted by: Constant Mews on Oct. 26 2009,17:06

Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 26 2009,17:01)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
As an example: the Nicene Creed, the most fundamental statement of Christian belief says nothing about Genesis or a literal interpretation of the entire bible.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


But the Nicene creed DID directly affirm the Genesis historical claim that God is the required, absolutely necessary explanation for (1) the origins of everything including the origins of plants ,animals, and humans, (2) the origin of life itself.
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Maker of heaven and earth, and of all things visible and invisible.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
And we believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord and Giver of Life
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Of course it did.  It never said evolution wasn't the mechanism.  You really show no understanding of Christian theology, Floyd.

You're a liar, Floyd.  You've been shown wrong on this thread, and now you choose to lie about it.

Hell is for liars, Floyd.  Keep that in mind.
Posted by: OgreMkV on Oct. 26 2009,17:13

Let's just say, for funnies, that some number of people in the US believed special creation over evolutionary theory.

How exactly does that change any of the thousands of experiments that show evolution?  How does that change 200 years of paleontology?  How does that change 200 years of geology?  How does that change anything?

In other words, who cares.  No evidence is very simply no evidence.  And you ain't got none.
Posted by: Quack on Oct. 26 2009,17:18

Ah, the Nicene creed. I may stretch the good rules a bit but follow the example set by Emperor Constantine, hoping for forgiveness from the authors of "The Jesus Mysteries" (FL, DO NOT READ IT!):
   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
we found that the history of Christianity bequeathed to us by the Roman Church was a gross distortion of the truth. Actually the evidence completely endorsed the Jesus Mysteries Thesis. It was becoming increasingly obvious that we had been deliberately deceived, that the Gnostics were indeed the original Christians, and that their anarchic mysticism had been hijacked by an authoritarian institution which had created from it a dogmatic religion-and then brutally enforced the greatest cover-up in history.

   One of the major players in this cover-up operation was a character called Eusebius who, at the beginning of the fourth century, compiled from legends, fabrications, and his own imagination the only early history of Christianity that still exists today. All subsequent histories have been forced to base themselves on Eusebius' dubious claims, because there has been little other information to draw on. All those with a different perspective on Christianity were branded as heretics and eradicated. In this way falsehoods compiled in the fourth century have come down to us as established facts.
Eusebius was employed by the Roman Emperor Constantine, who made Christianity the state religion of the Empire and gave Literalist Christianity the power it needed to begin the final eradication of Paganism and Gnosticism. Constantine wanted "one God, one religion" to consolidate his claim of "one Empire, one Emperor." He oversaw the creation of the Nicene creed-the article of faith repeated in churches to this day-and Christians who refused to assent to this creed were banished from the Empire or otherwise silenced.
This "Christian" Emperor then returned home from Nicaea and had his wife suffocated and his son murdered. He deliberately remained unbaptized until his deathbed so that he could continue his atrocities and still receive forgiveness of sins and a guaranteed place in heaven by being baptized at the last moment. Although he had his "spin doctor" Eusebius compose a suitably obsequious biography for him, he was actually a monster-just like many Roman Emperors before him. Is it really at all surprising that a "history" of the origins of Christianity created by an employee in the service of a Roman tyrant should turn out to be a pack of lies?

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



My bolding.
Posted by: Constant Mews on Oct. 26 2009,17:22

Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 26 2009,17:02)
And of course, the Nicene Creed does NOT affirm evolution in any way, shape, or form.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


The Nicene creed was written before the theory of evolution was postulated.

Why are you being so stupid, Floyd?

The Nicene creed, the most basic statement of Christian faith does not commit Christians to a literal view of Genesis.

That's the simple fact you can't get over.  You can't get around it.  You can do nothing but lie about it.
Posted by: Constant Mews on Oct. 26 2009,17:24

Let me repeat that, since it's important.

The Nicene creed, the most fundamental and common statement of Christian doctrine, does not commit Christians to a literal reading of Genesis.

Period.
Posted by: rhmc on Oct. 26 2009,18:35

this has been truly fascinating.

i can't wait for the "ID as science" portion.  :)
Posted by: Dan on Oct. 26 2009,20:02

FL: "In order to answer the incompatibility issue, it is necessary to know what the Bible says or doesn’t say.  Period."

FL seems to have missed the point, made in this thread, that there is no one Bible.  Different Christian religions have different Bibles.

< http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Books_of_the_Bible >

Anyone speaking of "THE Bible" is in a state of error.
Posted by: Dan on Oct. 26 2009,20:04

Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 26 2009,17:02)
And of course, the Nicene Creed does NOT affirm evolution in any way, shape, or form.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


And, of course, no one ever said it did.
Posted by: Constant Mews on Oct. 26 2009,20:10

I'm sorry I missed this incredible piece of rank stupidity.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
This perspective helps to make absolutely clear that evolution is incompatible with Christianity.  (And make no mistake---the Incompatibility does NOT go away merely by anybody claiming that evolution is correct and Bible is incorrect!!)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Since you've based your entire case on conflict between your literal reading of the Bible and evolutionary theory, to claim that the Bible is incorrect completely resolves the problem.

You need to use some logic when you post, Floyd.

I will pray for you, you need the Grace of God to rescue you.
Posted by: Constant Mews on Oct. 26 2009,20:13

Quote (Dan @ Oct. 26 2009,20:04)
Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 26 2009,17:02)
And of course, the Nicene Creed does NOT affirm evolution in any way, shape, or form.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


And, of course, no one ever said it did.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Let's see:

Nicene Creed promulgated in the 4th century.

Evolutionary theory promulgated in the 19th century.

Floyd, how stupid are you?  That's a serious question; I am becoming concerned with your inability to reason.
Posted by: Henry J on Oct. 26 2009,23:03



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
But the Nicene creed DID directly affirm the Genesis historical claim that God is the required, absolutely necessary explanation for (1) the origins of everything including the origins of plants ,animals, and humans, (2) the origin of life itself.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Funny, but as far as I could tell what it said was that God was the cause of living things, not an explanation of the details. Cause and explanation are not the same thing. Ignoring this point will not make it go away.

As for the order of creation in Genesis being incompatible with evolution - the order of appearance of each kind in the geologic record is not dependent on the theory of evolution. A religion that demands an order different than the geologic record is in denial of geology and physics, and never mind evolution.

Henry
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Oct. 26 2009,23:42

Quote (deadman_932 @ Oct. 26 2009,15:01)
Floyd's position on biology in the Bible was certainly surprising: "God did it, because the Bible says so"

Shocking. Who would expect a fundy-literalist to argue that?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


and he even fucked that up.

"God spoke and it was so" = "God made it with his hands"

go home, idiot
Posted by: Keelyn on Oct. 27 2009,07:21

Let's see. A summary update - in 71 pages, Floyd has managed to (fill in the blank)
Posted by: Schroedinger's Dog on Oct. 27 2009,07:45

Quote (Keelyn @ Oct. 27 2009,13:21)
Let's see. A summary update - in 71 pages, Floyd has managed to (fill in the blank)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I was going to change "managed" to "failed", but then I realized it would be to long to fill in...
Posted by: deadman_932 on Oct. 27 2009,07:45

Quote (Keelyn @ Oct. 27 2009,07:21)
Let's see. A summary update - in 71 pages, Floyd has managed to (fill in the blank)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Make me reconsider my membership in the species?
Posted by: FrankH on Oct. 27 2009,08:06

Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 23 2009,17:46)

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I can't let this one go and I think Floyd if you look very carefully, you'll see the problems in your argument if you're actually honest with yourself.
Quote (floyd]

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Do you or do you not think you know what your god requires as to get into heaven or not?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Yes I do.  It's written down in the Bible @ straight forward.  [b)
John 3:16.  Revelation 3:20.  Romans 10:9-10.[/b]
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Wow, that's it?  That's all one has to do? Let's see here:
Quote (3:16 KJV]For God so loved the world @ that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.[/quote)
Next:[quote=Revelation 3:20 ]Here I am! I stand at the door and knock. If anyone hears my voice and opens the door, I will come in and eat with him, and he with me.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Last one is:
Quote (Romans 10:9-10]9 That if you confess with your mouth @ "Jesus is Lord," and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. 10 For it is with your heart that you believe and are justified, and it is with your mouth that you confess and are saved.[/quote)
Well I'll be damned (pun intended).

So Floyd, it looks like to be a Christian and be saved is to believe in Jesus Christ.  I don't see one thing about believing in a literal Bible, thinking Genesis is a technical account how your god did it or even not selling people into slavery.  Just blind faith in Jesus, right?  Good thing that the pesky idea of "works" was dumped by some Christians.  After all, could you imagine actually having to "work" to be saved and get into heaven?[quote=floyd]And I would bet anything that you've seen or heard those salvation verses before.   IOW, even you, as a Non-Christian, knows exactly what God requires to get into heaven.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Wow and if a Muslim tells you that only by praising Allah and following His prophet Mohammad will you find happiness in heaven, what would you say?

Why should I say anything different to you?

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
You reject God and treat Him like a dog, but you still know what He's looking for.  He's lookin' for YOU, dude!!  Why not let down your defenses and give Him a try?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

I do?  How?  By not worshiping your god?  Here's a hint, I'd never worship your blood-stained, baby killing, slave taking petulant child of a deity ever.

The Christian God of benevolence, who's book is allegorical of how humanity screwed up is one thing.  You god is something totally different.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Do you or do you not say that your god is for "X, y and z" and against "a,b and c"?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Sure I say that, because the Bible says that.  All actions do not please God and all roads do not lead to God.  You and I have choices to make.  In the Bible, God specifies which way to go.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

So you agree then that if I want to sell my daughters into slavery, I should start at the prices set forth in the bible right?  Or do I get to count in inflation?

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Come now, and let us reason together, says the Lord. Though your sins are like scarlet, they shall be as white as snow; though they are red like crimson, they shall be like wool.  (Isa. 1:18)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Wow, your god makes the rules, breaks them as it sees fit, leaves a lot of "holy writs" all over the place each with its own set of wackos slaughtering gleefully those that are "heretics" and I'm the sinner?

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Do you or do you not believe that the Bible is the unfettered and unfiltered word of god?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Yes I do believe that.  In fact, Jesus Christ said it is the unbreakable word of God (John 10:35).
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Then why don't you read the literal word when it comes to slavery?  The subjugation of women?  Killing of your enemies and raping their virgin daughters?  Are those not what your book said?

If you can't take that literally but need to "clarify" then why does Genesis need no clarification?

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Don't you allow anybody -- whether they call themselves Christian or non-Christian -- to sell you on any lesser view of the Bible.  If a person wants to follow Christ, then let them follow Christ's complete and total trust in the authority, reliability and perfection of Scripture.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

 I don't have to have anyone "sell it to me".  I've read the thing myself and it shows a petty, jealous and merciless deity who gets off on blaming others.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Do you or do you not believe that that you know what your god wants, completely, by reading the bible?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Yes.  And you know what God wants too, if you read the Bible.  But it's not just by reading.  As you can tell just from this thread alone, readin' the Bible ain't the same as believin' the Bible.  If you want to know what God wants, readin's a great first step, but then there's that issue of saying YES or NO to what you're reading.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

So your god isn't omni-anything then is it?  If you truly knew all that, you'd be god but isn't that it?  Isn't your god just a reflection of your wants and desires?

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Evolutionists keep on demanding that you say NO to God's clear word in Genesis.  Trouble is, a NO in that spot rationally opens the door to saying to NO in other spots.  
And ultimately, when one's faith gets all spotted up with disbelief, some folks end up saying NO to God, period.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

This god's word is anything but clear, especially with 2 different versions of Genesis saying different things about when things were made on what day.

Again, if Genesis is so clear, then why isn't the other passages where this god MADE leaders "hearts harden" just so this god could punish them instead of going down and just explaining a few things in person to Pharaoh?  Ah yes, last time someone wanted to join the Israelites, they waited for the males to all get circumsized and with this god's "righteous anger" went and slaughtered all of them, save the girls who were raped.

Funny that why they didn't want to join up.[quote]Then they go to HELL.  All alone.  (Except for their new little malformed pointy-eared friends.  You know, the ones with the sharp teeth and stinky breath who can't stop laughing at you while munching on your intestines.)[/quote ]So the Pope and all Catholics who heed the Pontiffs directives are damned to hell too, even if they are Christian?

Funny, I thought that following those three verses you gave at the beginning of this was enough to get into heaven.  Again, none of those verses say anything about following Genesis literally.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
The solution is to read the Bible and say YES to what God is telling you in that Bible.  Stop saying NO to John 3:16 and other salvation verses.  Stop saying STFU to Jesus when He's pleading with you to just let him in the door (Rev. 3:20).   (Yeah, you!).

Floyd Lee
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Tell you what Floyd, if Jesus were to come to my door and knock, first I'd like to see some credentials (nothing big, curing all innocent children with AIDS would be a start) I'll give that dude my full and undivided attention.

However, if I start hearing voices in my head (or worse, voices in my heart), I'm checking into an institution right away.

I'm sure the Pope talks to Jesus and the Pope has no issue with Evolution.  Is there something else talking to him or any other Christian that doesn't here "Read it literally or join your mother you will!"?
Posted by: silverspoon on Oct. 27 2009,08:06

Quote (Keelyn @ Oct. 27 2009,07:21)
Let's see. A summary update - in 71 pages, Floyd has managed to (fill in the blank)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Make my popcorn go stale.
Posted by: FrankH on Oct. 27 2009,08:12

Damn QUOTING!===>

I can't let this one go and I think Floyd if you look very carefully, you'll see the problems in your argument if you're actually honest with yourself.
Quote (Floyd @ ]

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Do you or do you not think you know what your god requires as to get into heaven or not?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Yes I do.  It's written down in the Bible, straight forward.  [b)
John 3:16.  Revelation 3:20.  Romans 10:9-10.[/b]
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Wow, that's it?  That's all one has to do? Let's see here:
Quote (3:16 KJV @ ]For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.[/quote)
Next:[quote=Revelation 3:20,]Here I am! I stand at the door and knock. If anyone hears my voice and opens the door, I will come in and eat with him, and he with me.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Last one is:
Quote (Romans 10:9-10 @ ]9 That if you confess with your mouth, "Jesus is Lord," and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. 10 For it is with your heart that you believe and are justified, and it is with your mouth that you confess and are saved.[/quote)
Well I'll be damned (pun intended).

So Floyd, it looks like to be a Christian and be saved is to believe in Jesus Christ.  I don't see one thing about believing in a literal Bible, thinking Genesis is a technical account how your god did it or even not selling people into slavery.  Just blind faith in Jesus, right?  Good thing that the pesky idea of "works" was dumped by some Christians.  After all, could you imagine actually having to "work" to be saved and get into heaven?[quote=floyd]And I would bet anything that you've seen or heard those salvation verses before.   IOW, even you, as a Non-Christian, knows exactly what God requires to get into heaven.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Wow and if a Muslim tells you that only by praising Allah and following His prophet Mohammad will you find happiness in heaven, what would you say?
Posted by: Keelyn on Oct. 27 2009,08:15

We can have a vote tomorrow for the best "fill in the blank."
Posted by: FrankH on Oct. 27 2009,08:23

I give up.

Canz eyes getz mee de edumachangit feetur?

Pulheezey?
Posted by: csadams on Oct. 27 2009,08:24

Percent of professors at evangelical seminaries who find no theological barriers to accepting evolution: 46

Summary < here >, white paper < here >.
Posted by: Constant Mews on Oct. 27 2009,08:33

Quite correct.  Floyd is doing what he has been doing since the very first: engaging in the "No True Scotsman" fallacy.

Floyd is trying to define who is Christian and who is not.

This is a sin.

Floyd will burn forever in hell for sinning.

The logic is, I'm sorry to say, unassailable.  This thread demonstrates that Floyd is damned.

That's why I pray for him - that God's Grace may yet rescue him.
Posted by: Constant Mews on Oct. 27 2009,08:44

Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 26 2009,14:50)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Much much earlier, I asked all other professing Christians here in the forum to supply their own, "non-literal" interpretations for rational examination/comparison regarding this incompatibility topic.
They all punted.  All of them.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
What color is the sky on your planet, Floyd?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


And what was your specific, alternative, non-literal, biblically supportable, evolution-compatible interpretation?

.....Oh wait a minute, you didn't supply one either.  Nobody did.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Merely pointing out this lie on Floyd's part.

Floyd, Genesis 1-11 is, at best, metaphorical truth explaining the concept of Original Sin.  Even Futuyma admits that.

You can publish your "summary" as you like; we will demonstrate that it is full of lies, distortions, and illogic.

I know that you are beyond any hope save prayer - only the direct intervention of God can save you from the darkness and sin in which you are currently wallowing - but no one else reading this thread, Christian or atheist alike, will understanding anything from it save that you are utterly ignorant of both Christian doctrine and evolutionary theory, and your opinions are therefore valueless.
Posted by: Robin on Oct. 27 2009,08:52

Quote (Constant Mews @ Oct. 26 2009,20:10)

---------------------QUOTE-------------------




---------------------QUOTE-------------------
You need to use some logic when you post, Floyd.

I will pray for you, you need the Grace of God to rescue you.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Nope...no way. I don't even think God is powerful enough to fix self-imposed stupid.
Posted by: FrankH on Oct. 27 2009,09:01

Quote (Robin @ Oct. 27 2009,08:52)
[quote=Constant Mews,Oct. 26 2009,20:10][/quote]

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
You need to use some logic when you post, Floyd.

I will pray for you, you need the Grace of God to rescue you.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Nope...no way. I don't even think God is powerful enough to fix self-imposed stupid.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Is that like the question of can God create a rock so big not even He could lift it?
Posted by: FrankH on Oct. 27 2009,09:05

Quote (deadman_932 @ Oct. 26 2009,17:01)

I wonder why Flody didn't share this bit, from the poll he cited.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I have a problem with the word "believe".

Like "Theory" in the wrong hands, as there are multiple meanings and some of them are very close, one can be easily tripped up into having their "belief" in the sun appearing to rise up from the East to be a statement of faith.

I don't "believe" the sun will appear to rise up in the East.  I THINK that with the absence of some most likely catastrophic event, the Earth will continue to rotate in a clockwise fashion when looking from a north to south perspective.

Likewise, I THINK that Evolution is the best at predicting the diversity of life here on Earth, etc, etc.
Posted by: Constant Mews on Oct. 27 2009,10:07

Quote (FrankH @ Oct. 27 2009,09:05)
Quote (deadman_932 @ Oct. 26 2009,17:01)

I wonder why Flody didn't share this bit, from the poll he cited.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I have a problem with the word "believe".

Like "Theory" in the wrong hands, as there are multiple meanings and some of them are very close, one can be easily tripped up into having their "belief" in the sun appearing to rise up from the East to be a statement of faith.

I don't "believe" the sun will appear to rise up in the East.  I THINK that with the absence of some most likely catastrophic event, the Earth will continue to rotate in a clockwise fashion when looking from a north to south perspective.

Likewise, I THINK that Evolution is the best at predicting the diversity of life here on Earth, etc, etc.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I suspect Floyd is unable to distinguish between "accepting" a theory and "believing" a theory.
Posted by: FrankH on Oct. 27 2009,10:38

Quote (Constant Mews @ Oct. 27 2009,10:07)
I suspect Floyd is unable to distinguish between "accepting" a theory and "believing" a theory.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


It's not just Floyd or "religious people" for that matter.  Anyone with a closely held, dogmatic belief will suffer from that issue.

Let me say that I'm one of the only person who voted for Obama, thinks that global Warming is real and doesn't go to church or otherwise believes deeply in the Almighty at work.  Too often I hear things like, "Well, it's just a Theory.  The 2LoT is a LAW!", along with a smattering of "why can't ToE predict what life will look like exactly"?  That's when I ask 'em about multiple body gravity effects and predicting how water will trace out grooves in the side of a sandy hill.

I've learned never to say "I believe x" on anything otherwise obviously I'm taking things on faith.
Posted by: FloydLee on Oct. 27 2009,10:47



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Floyd, Genesis 1-11 is, at best, metaphorical truth explaining the concept of Original Sin.  Even Futuyma admits that.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Thanks CM.  If Futuyma is saying that, he would be saying that on the basis of evolution, unless you have a biblical analysis from Futuyma to offer me.

Assuming you don't, then the only rational conclusion is that Evolution is Incompatible with Christianity, since Genesis 1-3 and 1-11 aren't metaphor at all.  

Those chapters are straight historical narrative and intended by the biblical writer to be taken that way, regardless of whether or not one agrees with the historical claims therein.  
Scholar James Barr (who was NOT a fundie and didn't personally believe Genesis himself) wrote:
     

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
"... probably, so far as I know, there is no professor of Hebrew or Old Testament at any world-class university who does not believe that the writer(s) of Genesis 1-11 intended to convey to their readers the ideas that:

1. creation took place in a series of six days which were the same as the days of 24 hours we now experience

2. the figures contained in the Genesis genealogies provided by simple addition a chronology from the beginning of the world up to later stages in the biblical story

3. Noah's flood was understood to be world-wide and extinguish all human and animal life except for those in the ark."

(In a letter to David C.C. Watson, 23 April 1984).  
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


So nope, Genesis 1-11 is NOT metaphor NOT allegory NOT non-historical.  You can disagree with what it says, but you cannot rewrite it to make it fit evolution.
Posted by: JohnW on Oct. 27 2009,11:22

As you're here and talking about metaphor, Floyd, how about answering my question from yesterday:
Quote (JohnW @ Oct. 26 2009,12:34)
Quote (didymos @ Oct. 26 2009,12:26)
 
Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 26 2009,11:28)
(Did you look at those verses?  Look at them again.  If you ever publicly debate a YEC in a university or church setting on the Incompatibility topic, you can bet that's going to be a massive arsenal of information that the YEC could use on you.)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I surely did look, Floyd:    

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
1 Samuel 2:8 -- He raises the poor from the dust And lifts the beggar from the ash heap, To set them among princes And make them inherit the throne of glory. For the pillars of the earth are the Lord's, And He has set the world upon them.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



So if we're forced, left with no escape, from six 24 hour days, then we simply must take this verse at face value as well.  So, um, where exactly are these "pillars of the earth" again?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


This relates to a question I had for another bible-worshipper, on another thread.

Is the bible literally, word-for-word, true in all respects, Floyd?  Because if it is, we should be able to see these pillars somewhere.  Where are they?

On the other hand, perhaps you think the "pillars of the earth" are simply metaphor.  If that's the case, given that some things in the bible are metaphorical and therefore not literally true, do you have a reliable way to separate the literal from the metaphorical?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: Jasper on Oct. 27 2009,11:26

There's no doubt that the writer(s) of Genesis 1-11 believed what they wrote regarding the creation of living things.

The problem is, if you consistently follow the same logic, you will have to reject the understanding we have gained from all fields of science that are contradicted by the Genesis account.

For instance, the writer(s) of Genesis also believed that the "raqiya" was a solid layer (or "Firmament") above the Earth that separated the waters below from the waters above. Genesis 1:20 tells us that the Firmament is above the earth but close enough to not be in outer space. It says:
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Modern science has shown that this solid layer does not exist, and yet the Biblical authors (OT & NT) clearly believed that it did exist.

If you cannot rewrite Genesis 1-11 to make it fit evolution, you also cannot rewrite it to make it fit modern astronomy. Interestingly, Floyd seems to have no problem with modern astronomy.
Posted by: Robin on Oct. 27 2009,11:32

Quote (FrankH @ Oct. 27 2009,09:01)

---------------------QUOTE-------------------




---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Quote (Robin @ Oct. 27 2009,08:52)
Quote (Constant Mews @ Oct. 26 2009,20:10)

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
You need to use some logic when you post, Floyd.

I will pray for you, you need the Grace of God to rescue you.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Nope...no way. I don't even think God is powerful enough to fix self-imposed stupid.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Is that like the question of can God create a rock so big not even He could lift it?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



I was thinking more along the lines of:

A man heard that his neighborhood was flooding due to a heavy rain storm. He got down on his knees and prayed to God: “Dear God, save me from the coming flood!”

The waters began to rise and a truck came by and the driver said, “Get in and I’ll drive you to higher ground.” The man said no, God would save him.

The waters continued to rise. A woman in a boat rowed by. She called, “Jump into the boat and I will row you to safety.” The man said no, God would save him.

The floodwaters continued to rise. The man was perched on the roof of his house. A helicopter flew by and let down a rope for the man to grab onto. “I will fly you to safety,” yelled the pilot. “No.” the man said, “I am waiting for God to save me.”

The man drowned.

He got to the heaven hopping mad. “What are you doing here?” God asked.

The man said, “God! I am mad at you! I asked you to save me from the flood and you did not!”

God smiled and said, “I sent you a truck, a boat and helicopter? What more did you want me to do?”
Posted by: Robin on Oct. 27 2009,11:36

Quote (FrankH @ Oct. 27 2009,09:05)

---------------------QUOTE-------------------




---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I have a problem with the word "believe".

Like "Theory" in the wrong hands, as there are multiple meanings and some of them are very close, one can be easily tripped up into having their "belief" in the sun appearing to rise up from the East to be a statement of faith.

I don't "believe" the sun will appear to rise up in the East.  I THINK that with the absence of some most likely catastrophic event, the Earth will continue to rotate in a clockwise fashion when looking from a north to south perspective.

Likewise, I THINK that Evolution is the best at predicting the diversity of life here on Earth, etc, etc.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Bingo! I cringe every time I hear someone say he or she "believes" in evolution or asks me if I believe in evolution. Uggh! Do you also believe in light and gravity and that 2+2 =4? Grrr...
Posted by: OgreMkV on Oct. 27 2009,11:50

Quote (Jasper @ Oct. 27 2009,11:26)
If you cannot rewrite Genesis 1-11 to make it fit evolution, you also cannot rewrite it to make it fit modern astronomy. Interestingly, Floyd seems to have no problem with modern astronomy.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Yep.  Floyd is personally offended by evolution because he believes he is better than an animal.  That is why he attacks it.

As has been pointed out many times... the entire thread here shows that Floyd's issue is not with evolution, but with science... for most sciences have data and conclusions that directly contradict the bible.

I'm still really curious about Floyd saying that Genesis is true in every word.  So, ummm... when was man formed?  Before plants and animals (as in Genesis 2) or after (as in Genesis 1).  

And how do we know which to use as truth and which is metaphorical or (as you claimed last time) details?
Posted by: Quack on Oct. 27 2009,12:02

I am easily satisfied, just show how to make a woman from a male rib bone. Complete with XX chromosomes.

Strikes me as a rather roundabout way of doing it for the magician that created man from clay.

Did He have to see Adam's loneliness to understand he was not just lonely but horny as well, f***ed up with just goats to play with?
Posted by: FrankH on Oct. 27 2009,12:03

Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 27 2009,10:47)
 
---------------------QUOTE-------------------




---------------------QUOTE-------------------


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Floyd, Genesis 1-11 is, at best, metaphorical truth explaining the concept of Original Sin.  Even Futuyma admits that.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Thanks CM.  If Futuyma is saying that, he would be saying that on the basis of evolution, unless you have a biblical analysis from Futuyma to offer me.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Spacious reasoning at it's best.  Even still, using Futuyma as "proof" when it is just his opinion is appeal to authority at it's worst.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Assuming you don't, then the only rational conclusion is that Evolution is Incompatible with Christianity, since Genesis 1-3 and 1-11 aren't metaphor at all.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

That will be taken as you surrendering any and all links to logic or rational thinking.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Those chapters are straight historical narrative and intended by the biblical writer to be taken that way, regardless of whether or not one agrees with the historical claims therein.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Right.....

Just like a "straight historical narrative" shows the god of the literal bible not going on with regards to the other aspects that you are so quiet about?

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Scholar James Barr (who was NOT a fundie and didn't personally believe Genesis himself) wrote:

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
"... probably, so far as I know, there is no professor of Hebrew or Old Testament at any world-class university who does not believe that the writer(s) of Genesis 1-11 intended to convey to their readers the ideas that:

1. creation took place in a series of six days which were the same as the days of 24 hours we now experience

2. the figures contained in the Genesis genealogies provided by simple addition a chronology from the beginning of the world up to later stages in the biblical story

3. Noah's flood was understood to be world-wide and extinguish all human and animal life except for those in the ark."

(In a letter to David C.C. Watson, 23 April 1984).  
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


So nope, Genesis 1-11 is NOT metaphor NOT allegory NOT non-historical.  You can disagree with what it says, but you cannot rewrite it to make it fit evolution.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Yet another appeal to authority.

OBTW, what does the whole quote actually say?
Posted by: FloydLee on Oct. 27 2009,12:30



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Yet another appeal to authority.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Hey, if you want to go directly to the Genesis biblical text itself, and CONFIRM that Gen. 1-11 were written as straight historical narrative, we can do that together.  

Or If you want to go to other Old Testament texts and confirm that the OT writers considered Genesis to be straight historical narrative, we can do that together.  

Or if you want to go to the NEW Testament and confirm that the NT writers (and Jesus too) considered Genesis to be straight historical narrative, we can do that too.

Which one you wanna do Frank?
Posted by: Robin on Oct. 27 2009,12:37

[quote=FrankH,Oct. 27 2009,12:03][/quote]


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Just like a "straight historical narrative" shows the god of the literal bible not going on with regards to the other aspects that you are so quiet about?  

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Scholar James Barr (who was NOT a fundie and didn't personally believe Genesis himself) wrote:  

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
"... probably, so far as I know, there is no professor of Hebrew or Old Testament at any world-class university who does not believe that the writer(s) of Genesis 1-11 intended to convey to their readers the ideas that:

1. creation took place in a series of six days which were the same as the days of 24 hours we now experience

2. the figures contained in the Genesis genealogies provided by simple addition a chronology from the beginning of the world up to later stages in the biblical story

3. Noah's flood was understood to be world-wide and extinguish all human and animal life except for those in the ark."

(In a letter to David C.C. Watson, 23 April 1984).  
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


So nope, Genesis 1-11 is NOT metaphor NOT allegory NOT non-historical.  You can disagree with what it says, but you cannot rewrite it to make it fit evolution.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Yet another appeal to authority.

OBTW, what does the whole quote actually say?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



What's that old saw about creationists and ellipses...

< http://members.iinet.net.au/~sejones/barrlett.html >

Floyd just doesn't get it.
Posted by: nmgirl on Oct. 27 2009,12:39

Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 27 2009,12:30)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Yet another appeal to authority.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Hey, if you want to go directly to the Genesis biblical text itself, and CONFIRM that Gen. 1-11 were written as straight historical narrative, we can do that together.  

Or If you want to go to other Old Testament texts and confirm that the OT writers considered Genesis to be straight historical narrative, we can do that together.  

Or if you want to go to the NEW Testament and confirm that the NT writers (and Jesus too) considered Genesis to be straight historical narrative, we can do that too.

Which one you wanna do Frank?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


i was going to post a rebuttal, but fl is just too pathetic to waste time on.
Posted by: OgreMkV on Oct. 27 2009,12:42

Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 27 2009,12:30)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Yet another appeal to authority.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Hey, if you want to go directly to the Genesis biblical text itself, and CONFIRM that Gen. 1-11 were written as straight historical narrative, we can do that together.  

Or If you want to go to other Old Testament texts and confirm that the OT writers considered Genesis to be straight historical narrative, we can do that together.  

Or if you want to go to the NEW Testament and confirm that the NT writers (and Jesus too) considered Genesis to be straight historical narrative, we can do that too.

Which one you wanna do Frank?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


So, which Genesis is it?  Chapter 1 (in which man was created last) or Chapter 2 (in which man was created first).

Which one is literal truth?
Posted by: Jasper on Oct. 27 2009,12:47

Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 27 2009,13:30)
Or if you want to go to the NEW Testament and confirm that the NT writers (and Jesus too) considered Genesis to be straight historical narrative, we can do that too.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


The OT & NT writers (and Jesus too) also considered Genesis to be an accurate description of the structure of the universe.

And yet, Floyd (apparently) disagrees with them about the existence of the Firmament, the nature of the sun, moon, and stars, the pillars of the earth, along with many other details.

How do you decide which parts of the Bible are literal truth, Floyd?
Posted by: nmgirl on Oct. 27 2009,12:48

I'm still trying to figure out how you get 24 hour days if the sun wasnt created until the 4th day.  how did these biblical experts measure 24 hours?
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on Oct. 27 2009,12:52

Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 27 2009,12:30)
Hey, if you want to go directly to the Genesis biblical text itself, and CONFIRM that Gen. 1-11 were written as straight historical narrative, we can do that together.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


That might be the way it was written FL but are you saying that a human being was standing there as the earth was created, writing down what happened?

Are you?

Are you really FL?

Is that your postion FL?
Posted by: FrankH on Oct. 27 2009,12:53

Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 27 2009,12:30)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Yet another appeal to authority.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Hey, if you want to go directly to the Genesis biblical text itself, and CONFIRM that Gen. 1-11 were written as straight historical narrative, we can do that together.  

Or If you want to go to other Old Testament texts and confirm that the OT writers considered Genesis to be straight historical narrative, we can do that together.  

Or if you want to go to the NEW Testament and confirm that the NT writers (and Jesus too) considered Genesis to be straight historical narrative, we can do that too.

Which one you wanna do Frank?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Do you consider the Hindu Vedic or the Koran of Islam to be sources that CONFIRM the existence of Indra or the s Mohammad to be true?

If it's no to any of the above, then why is yours correct and theirs not?
Posted by: nmgirl on Oct. 27 2009,13:05

we're repeating ourselves now.  yodel Elf is going to stick to his IDiocy no matter what.  Since hw is not going to offer anything new, I think it's time to shut this down.
Posted by: FrankH on Oct. 27 2009,13:08

Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 27 2009,12:30)
Or If you want to go to other Old Testament texts and confirm that the OT writers considered Genesis to be straight historical narrative, we can do that together.  

Or if you want to go to the NEW Testament and confirm that the NT writers (and Jesus too) considered Genesis to be straight historical narrative, we can do that too.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


The check I use to even begin to site a source is internal consistency.

Floyd, the OT all by itself is inconsistent.  When combined with the NT in a literal fashion, the weirdness meter breaks.

Oh yeah.  Is there a mountain high enough on which a person can see the whole world?
Posted by: SLP on Oct. 27 2009,13:20

Quote (deadman_932 @ Oct. 26 2009,16:50)
Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 26 2009,16:37)
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
It may have escaped your attention, Floyd, but your literalist position is one held by a very small minority of Christians.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



On what are you basing that statement, Amadan?  2009 polls, perhaps?

     

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
No Consensus, and Much Confusion, on Evolution and the Origin of Species

About half of public believes plants, animals and humans evolved  while almost half believes humans were created directly by God.

ROCHESTER, N.Y. – February 18, 2009 – Two hundred years after the birth of Charles Darwin, Americans are still deeply divided on the subject of evolution and whether humans evolved or were created directly by God, as in the story of Genesis.

But it isn’t a neat division of opinion. Some people give inconsistent answers to different questions about evolution and what should be taught in schools.

In reply to one question almost half (45%) of adults say they believe humans were created directly by God and only 29% say they evolved from other species.

In reply to another question 53% of these same people say they believe that “plants, animals and human beings have evolved over time,” and only 21% say they do not believe this, with fully 25% who are not sure or decline to answer.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


---------------------QUOTE-------------------


More quote-mining from Flody: He forgot the rest of the words that followed his quote:

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
When people give apparently inconsistent answers like these it is usually a sign that they have not thought much about the issue and do not have very firm opinions.  

These are some of the results of a new BBC World News America/The Harris Poll® of 2,158 adults surveyed online between February 3 and 5, 2009. Other interesting results of this BBC World News America/The Harris Poll include:

--People in the South and people who describe themselves as religious (67% of all adults) are less likely to believe that humans evolved from earlier species than are people in other regions or people who are not religious.
 
-- There is no consensus on what should be taught in schools.  The largest group (40%) favors teaching both Darwin’s theory of evolution and creationism.  Only
23% believe teaching only Darwin’s theory and an even fewer 17% favor only teaching creationism.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



From : < http://www.harrisinteractive.com/harris_...._18.pdf >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Floyd "SuperChristian" Lee ignoring or leaving out parts of quotes that do not support his position?  I'm SHOCKED, I tell you.
Posted by: Henry J on Oct. 27 2009,13:23

Quote (FrankH @ Oct. 27 2009,12:08)
Oh yeah.  Is there a mountain high enough on which a person can see the whole world?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Maybe if it's on the moon?
Posted by: SLP on Oct. 27 2009,13:31

Luke 14:26
Posted by: FrankH on Oct. 27 2009,13:35

Quote (Henry J @ Oct. 27 2009,13:23)
Quote (FrankH @ Oct. 27 2009,12:08)
Oh yeah.  Is there a mountain high enough on which a person can see the whole world?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Maybe if it's on the moon?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Now, I'm not very good at math, but I think that if the surface of a sphere is SA=4piR2 then you'd still be short S=2piR2 where R = radius of the Earth and pi = some number around 3.
Posted by: Henry J on Oct. 27 2009,13:37

Well, maybe not all at the same time, but closer to it than on a mountain on Earth.
Posted by: jswilkins on Oct. 27 2009,13:38

Quote (nmgirl @ Oct. 28 2009,03:48)
I'm still trying to figure out how you get 24 hour days if the sun wasnt created until the 4th day.  how did these biblical experts measure 24 hours?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Swiss watches.
Posted by: deadman_932 on Oct. 27 2009,13:39

God creates light and separates light from darkness, and day from night, on the first day. But, didn't make the light producing objects (the sun and the stars) until the fourth day (1:14-19).  So there's "the evening and the morning" on the first day but no sun to make a day or evening?

Plants created before the light to rule the day (sun)?

The latter usually "explained" by saying, "yes, but God created light first." which explains nothing at all about the source of that light or the intensity of it or why a sun wouldn't be created before plants.

The usual response is "God created the light, the light was good enough for the plants because we have plants, God can do anything, that settles it."

Viewing Genesis as literal history when it is simply borrowed creation myth...well, that's just kinda nuts.

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

Oh, and I agree that poll questions that use "believe" in regard to evolution are just a product of poll-writer bias and ignorance.

But they use the same terms when referring to things known to have occurred or known to be as "true" as fact can be, etc. (e.g.: "do you believe man walked on the moon?"). The odd thing is that I've never seen a modern poll asking something like :"do you believe in gravity?"

At LEAST in that particular poll question that was cited, the poll-writers were specifically referring to "Darwin's theory" of evo. Ah, well.
Posted by: OgreMkV on Oct. 27 2009,13:46

I have two questions for Floyd.  Since there seems be almost universal belief that the debate (at least as far as the incompatability between science and christianity go) is over, I want to know two things about Floyd's beliefs.

1) What evidence would persuade you that evolution is valid? Alternately, (or, if you wish, both) what evidence would persuade you that the literal creation in Genesis (Was it chapter 1 or 2?) is incorrect?

2) Would you tell me a lie to save my soul?
Posted by: deadman_932 on Oct. 27 2009,13:51

Quote (nmgirl @ Oct. 27 2009,13:05)
we're repeating ourselves now.  yodel Elf is going to stick to his IDiocy no matter what.  Since hw is not going to offer anything new, I think it's time to shut this down.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Truthfully, I was thinking the same thing.

Flody seems unable to do anything more than what he's already done, and he's clearly avoiding the ID aspect of his Originally Posted claim, so, yeah.

All in all, a really unimpressive yet depressingly typical "debate."

ETA -- On the optimist side of the ledger: (1) Floyd's been kept from posting much at PT. (2) The thread might provide some use in the future if Flody returns to his trolling routine there. I doubt he's actually learned anything, though, except to bullshit more effectively. He's just too far gone.
Posted by: Constant Mews on Oct. 27 2009,14:08

Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 27 2009,10:47)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Floyd, Genesis 1-11 is, at best, metaphorical truth explaining the concept of Original Sin.  Even Futuyma admits that.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Thanks CM.  If Futuyma is saying that, he would be saying that on the basis of evolution, unless you have a biblical analysis from Futuyma to offer me.

Assuming you don't, then the only rational conclusion is that Evolution is Incompatible with Christianity, since Genesis 1-3 and 1-11 aren't metaphor at all.  

Those chapters are straight historical narrative and intended by the biblical writer to be taken that way, regardless of whether or not one agrees with the historical claims therein.  
Scholar James Barr (who was NOT a fundie and didn't personally believe Genesis himself) wrote:
     

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
"... probably, so far as I know, there is no professor of Hebrew or Old Testament at any world-class university who does not believe that the writer(s) of Genesis 1-11 intended to convey to their readers the ideas that:

1. creation took place in a series of six days which were the same as the days of 24 hours we now experience

2. the figures contained in the Genesis genealogies provided by simple addition a chronology from the beginning of the world up to later stages in the biblical story

3. Noah's flood was understood to be world-wide and extinguish all human and animal life except for those in the ark."

(In a letter to David C.C. Watson, 23 April 1984).  
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


So nope, Genesis 1-11 is NOT metaphor NOT allegory NOT non-historical.  You can disagree with what it says, but you cannot rewrite it to make it fit evolution.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I believe I've already quoted Futuyma on this point.  If you are unable to read, please let me know and I'll include it as an MP3 file.

And of course Genesis 1-11 can be treated as metaphor.  That's the point: Christianity does not require a literal reading of Genesis.  It's really that simple.

As always, Floyd, you are wrong.  Your simple inability to reason is getting in your way, I'm afraid.

And once again you use a quote that does not substantiate your case.  That the original authors of Genesis might have meant what they wrote is at best doubtful, that they are correct is impossible, and that one does not have to accept literal Genesis to be a Christian is a certainty.

You are, as they say, Pawned, Floyd.
Posted by: Robin on Oct. 27 2009,14:09

Quote (nmgirl @ Oct. 27 2009,12:48)

---------------------QUOTE-------------------




---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I'm still trying to figure out how you get 24 hour days if the sun wasnt created until the 4th day.  how did these biblical experts measure 24 hours?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



God told them. He said, "During the time before the creation of your sun I measured the days I worked in reference to my omniscience and my omniponent capability to measure how time passes relative to the speed at which your Earth rotates. One full rotation against a fixed spot of my chosing constituted a day. Oh yeah...I took a half day to argue with Satan about where to plant things in the Garden of Eden; he has this thing about layers and fruit bearing trees, so technically I worked five and half days. Put me down for a full six though."
Posted by: Constant Mews on Oct. 27 2009,14:11

Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 27 2009,12:30)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Yet another appeal to authority.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Hey, if you want to go directly to the Genesis biblical text itself, and CONFIRM that Gen. 1-11 were written as straight historical narrative, we can do that together.  

Or If you want to go to other Old Testament texts and confirm that the OT writers considered Genesis to be straight historical narrative, we can do that together.  

Or if you want to go to the NEW Testament and confirm that the NT writers (and Jesus too) considered Genesis to be straight historical narrative, we can do that too.

Which one you wanna do Frank?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You cannot confirm that Genesis is a straight historical text from the text itself.  That is impossible.

What the authors intended and what other readers of the Bible thought DOES NOT CONSTITUTE PROOF THAT GENESIS 1-11 IS TRUE.

Let me repeat that for you Floyd.  God uses metaphors elsewhere in the Bible without explicitly designating them as such.  Genesis 1-11 is contradicted by all the evidence of the World itself - the direct work of God.

Are you calling God a liar?
Posted by: Constant Mews on Oct. 27 2009,14:13

Quote (SLP @ Oct. 27 2009,13:31)
Luke 14:26
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Floyd seems to be following this injunction quite well.  Perhaps the only words of Christ that he's following well.
Posted by: Constant Mews on Oct. 27 2009,14:14

Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 27 2009,12:30)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Yet another appeal to authority.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Hey, if you want to go directly to the Genesis biblical text itself, and CONFIRM that Gen. 1-11 were written as straight historical narrative, we can do that together.  

Or If you want to go to other Old Testament texts and confirm that the OT writers considered Genesis to be straight historical narrative, we can do that together.  

Or if you want to go to the NEW Testament and confirm that the NT writers (and Jesus too) considered Genesis to be straight historical narrative, we can do that too.

Which one you wanna do Frank?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Of course we can go here, Floyd.

You will look like an idiot when we do, but we can certainly do it if it will make you feel better.
Posted by: Constant Mews on Oct. 27 2009,14:19

Floyd, would you also like to go to Job 9:6?  Or Psalms 75:3, or perhaps I Samuel 2:8?
Posted by: FloydLee on Oct. 27 2009,14:27



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
What the authors intended and what other readers of the Bible thought DOES NOT CONSTITUTE PROOF THAT GENESIS 1-11 IS TRUE.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Not talking about "proving Genesi" true in this case, I'm talking about being able to confirm what the author of Genesis intended (historical narrative.)  

THAT, you can check the Scripture textually and contextually, and confirm.  Would you like to?
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on Oct. 27 2009,14:28

Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 27 2009,14:27)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
What the authors intended and what other readers of the Bible thought DOES NOT CONSTITUTE PROOF THAT GENESIS 1-11 IS TRUE.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Not talking about "proving Genesi" true in this case, I'm talking about being able to confirm what the author of Genesis intended (historical narrative.)  

THAT, you can check the Scripture textually and contextually, and confirm.  Would you like to?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Who wrote it, when did they write it?

Was it written before, after or during the creation event?

Were they an eyewitness to the creation event?
Posted by: FloydLee on Oct. 27 2009,14:28

typo correction: "Genesis"
Posted by: Constant Mews on Oct. 27 2009,14:28

Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 27 2009,14:27)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
What the authors intended and what other readers of the Bible thought DOES NOT CONSTITUTE PROOF THAT GENESIS 1-11 IS TRUE.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Not talking about "proving Genesi" true in this case, I'm talking about being able to confirm what the author of Genesis intended (historical narrative.)  

THAT, you can check the Scripture textually and contextually, and confirm.  Would you like to?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


What bearing does that have on Christianity and evolution, Floyd?

Backpedaling, are we?
Posted by: FrankH on Oct. 27 2009,14:29

Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 27 2009,14:27)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
What the authors intended and what other readers of the Bible thought DOES NOT CONSTITUTE PROOF THAT GENESIS 1-11 IS TRUE.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Not talking about "proving Genesi" true in this case, I'm talking about being able to confirm what the author of Genesis intended (historical narrative.)  

THAT, you can check the Scripture textually and contextually, and confirm.  Would you like to?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Sure, I'd love to see you twist with this one too.
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on Oct. 27 2009,14:31

C'mon FL. Answer the simplest question.

When was the account of "Genesis" written. Before, during or after the creation event?

If after, how long after? Hours? Days? Millions of years?
Posted by: Kattarina98 on Oct. 27 2009,14:31

I would not want to be invited to dinner by a literalist if he prepares bread according to the bible:

"And thou shalt eat it as barley cakes, and thou shalt bake it with dung that cometh out of man, in their sight."

Ezekiel 4:12 (King James Version)
Posted by: FloydLee on Oct. 27 2009,14:40



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Who wrote it, when did they write it?
Was it written before, after or during the creation event?
Were they an eyewitness to the creation event?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Moses.

Sometime during his adult life, perhaps while alone with God on Mount Sinai, (but that's just a guess.)

After.  

No.  God was there, so God told him about it.
Posted by: OgreMkV on Oct. 27 2009,14:44

Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 27 2009,14:40)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Who wrote it, when did they write it?
Was it written before, after or during the creation event?
Were they an eyewitness to the creation event?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Moses.

Sometime during his adult life, perhaps while alone with God on Mount Sinai, (but that's just a guess.)

After.  

No.  God was there, so God told him about it.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Which version?  The one in chapter 1 or the one in chapter 2?
Posted by: JohnW on Oct. 27 2009,14:45

While you're here, Floyd:
Quote (JohnW @ Oct. 27 2009,09:22)
As you're here and talking about metaphor, Floyd, how about answering my question from yesterday:
 
Quote (JohnW @ Oct. 26 2009,12:34)
 
Quote (didymos @ Oct. 26 2009,12:26)
   
Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 26 2009,11:28)
(Did you look at those verses?  Look at them again.  If you ever publicly debate a YEC in a university or church setting on the Incompatibility topic, you can bet that's going to be a massive arsenal of information that the YEC could use on you.)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I surely did look, Floyd:      

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
1 Samuel 2:8 -- He raises the poor from the dust And lifts the beggar from the ash heap, To set them among princes And make them inherit the throne of glory. For the pillars of the earth are the Lord's, And He has set the world upon them.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



So if we're forced, left with no escape, from six 24 hour days, then we simply must take this verse at face value as well.  So, um, where exactly are these "pillars of the earth" again?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


This relates to a question I had for another bible-worshipper, on another thread.

Is the bible literally, word-for-word, true in all respects, Floyd?  Because if it is, we should be able to see these pillars somewhere.  Where are they?

On the other hand, perhaps you think the "pillars of the earth" are simply metaphor.  If that's the case, given that some things in the bible are metaphorical and therefore not literally true, do you have a reliable way to separate the literal from the metaphorical?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: Henry J on Oct. 27 2009,14:49

Quote (nmgirl @ Oct. 27 2009,11:48)
I'm still trying to figure out how you get 24 hour days if the sun wasnt created until the 4th day.  how did these biblical experts measure 24 hours?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Hourglasses?
Posted by: Henry J on Oct. 27 2009,14:50

Quote (OgreMkV @ Oct. 27 2009,13:44)
Which version?  The one in chapter 1 or the one in chapter 2?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Yes.
Posted by: FloydLee on Oct. 27 2009,14:51



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Sure, I'd love to see you twist with this one too.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Sure you would.  Here's a pop quiz.  Mulitiple choice.
Correctly classify the following chapter.  

< http://www.biblegateway.com/passage....ion=NIV >

a.  Historical Narrative---specifically a historical genealogy  

b.  A Parable

c.  A Metaphor

d.  An Allegory


This quiz is Pass-Fail, btw, so get it right the first time.
Posted by: OgreMkV on Oct. 27 2009,14:58

How about:

E) A copy of a copy of a copy of illiterate shepards passing down a creation fable that they copied from previous cultures.
Posted by: FrankH on Oct. 27 2009,15:03

Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 27 2009,14:51)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Sure, I'd love to see you twist with this one too.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Sure you would.  Here's a pop quiz.  Mulitiple choice.
Correctly classify the following chapter.  

< http://www.biblegateway.com/passage....ion=NIV >

a.  Historical Narrative---specifically a historical genealogy  

b.  A Parable

c.  A Metaphor

d.  An Allegory


This quiz is Pass-Fail, btw, so get it right the first time.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You forgot:

e) A copy of a copy of a copy of illiterate shepards passing down a creation fable that they copied from previous cultures.

f) A drug induced vision by someone smoking camel dung.

g) A joke.

Posted by: deadman_932 on Oct. 27 2009,15:03

Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 27 2009,14:51)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Sure, I'd love to see you twist with this one too.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Sure you would.  Here's a pop quiz.  Mulitiple choice.
Correctly classify the following chapter.  

< http://www.biblegateway.com/passage....ion=NIV >
This quiz is Pass-Fail, btw, so get it right the first time.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Why should I care?

The funniest part is you obviously selecting what you want to believe in throughout the Bible, and failing to answer questions that probe at that delicate sore spot in your beliefs.
Posted by: FrankH on Oct. 27 2009,15:07

Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 27 2009,14:51)

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


For you Floyd:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Sure, I'd love to see you twist with this one too.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Sure you would.  Here's a pop quiz.  Mulitiple choice.
Correctly classify the following chapter.  

[URL=http:http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Leviticus+25%3A44-46&version=NIV[/URL]

a.  Historical Narrative---specifically a historical genealogy  

b.  A Parable

c.  A Metaphor

d.  An Allegory


This quiz is Pass-Fail, btw, so get it right the first time.
Posted by: OgreMkV on Oct. 27 2009,15:09

Quote (OgreMkV @ Oct. 27 2009,13:46)
I have two questions for Floyd.  Since there seems be almost universal belief that the debate (at least as far as the incompatability between science and christianity go) is over, I want to know two things about Floyd's beliefs.

1) What evidence would persuade you that evolution is valid? Alternately, (or, if you wish, both) what evidence would persuade you that the literal creation in Genesis (Was it chapter 1 or 2?) is incorrect?

2) Would you tell me a lie to save my soul?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Hey FLoys, while we're answer your questions, how about these?

Or any of the others (dozens?) of questions you have yet to answer.

Do you even read this thread or you just a hit&run poster?
Posted by: Henry J on Oct. 27 2009,15:11

Btw, what does that chapter have to do with whether Genesis 1 is historical or allegory or metaphor or whatever?

A string of "begats" is certainly in the form of a historical narrative.
Posted by: FrankH on Oct. 27 2009,15:12

Oh yes to answer your question about:

< http://www.biblegateway.com/passage....ion=NIV >

The answer is most likely e) but I can see f) as well.

Your turn.
Posted by: FrankH on Oct. 27 2009,15:14

Quote (Henry J @ Oct. 27 2009,15:11)
Btw, what does that chapter have to do with whether Genesis 1 is historical or allegory or metaphor or whatever?

A string of "begats" is certainly in the form of a historical narrative.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I still wonder who the sons of Adam begat with?

Eve?

Their sisters?

Someone else?

Something else?

Each other?
Posted by: deadman_932 on Oct. 27 2009,15:14

Floyd desperately wants to pretend towards being an authority in something. Anything.

This is diagnostic of every fundy-literalist I've ever encountered.
Posted by: Henry J on Oct. 27 2009,15:18

Quote (FrankH @ Oct. 27 2009,14:14)
Quote (Henry J @ Oct. 27 2009,15:11)
Btw, what does that chapter have to do with whether Genesis 1 is historical or allegory or metaphor or whatever?

A string of "begats" is certainly in the form of a historical narrative.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I still wonder who the sons of Adam begat with?

Eve?

Their sisters?

Someone else?

Something else?

Each other?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


And why do most of the reported begats only mention a father?
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on Oct. 27 2009,15:21

Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 27 2009,14:40)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Who wrote it, when did they write it?
Was it written before, after or during the creation event?
Were they an eyewitness to the creation event?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Moses.

Sometime during his adult life, perhaps while alone with God on Mount Sinai, (but that's just a guess.)

After.  

No.  God was there, so God told him about it.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Thanks.
Posted by: Dan on Oct. 27 2009,15:24

Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 27 2009,10:47)
   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Floyd, Genesis 1-11 is, at best, metaphorical truth explaining the concept of Original Sin.  Even Futuyma admits that.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Thanks CM.  If Futuyma is saying that, he would be saying that on the basis of evolution, unless you have a biblical analysis from Futuyma to offer me.

Assuming you don't, then the only rational conclusion is that Evolution is Incompatible with Christianity, since Genesis 1-3 and 1-11 aren't metaphor at all.  

Those chapters are straight historical narrative and intended by the biblical writer to be taken that way, regardless of whether or not one agrees with the historical claims therein.  
Scholar James Barr (who was NOT a fundie and didn't personally believe Genesis himself) wrote:
           

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
"... probably, so far as I know, there is no professor of Hebrew or Old Testament at any world-class university who does not believe that the writer(s) of Genesis 1-11 intended to convey to their readers the ideas that:

1. creation took place in a series of six days which were the same as the days of 24 hours we now experience

2. the figures contained in the Genesis genealogies provided by simple addition a chronology from the beginning of the world up to later stages in the biblical story

3. Noah's flood was understood to be world-wide and extinguish all human and animal life except for those in the ark."

(In a letter to David C.C. Watson, 23 April 1984).  
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


So nope, Genesis 1-11 is NOT metaphor NOT allegory NOT non-historical.  You can disagree with what it says, but you cannot rewrite it to make it fit evolution.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


This is supposed to be a debate.  That is, FL is supposed to state his position AND the reasoning supporting that position.  Instead, FL simply states his position.  No reasoning.  No evidence.

Instead, FL provides a quote from Barr that doesn't even address the question of "is Genesis 1 a metaphor?" and instead addresses the question of "did the writer(s) of Genesis 1 intend it as a metaphor?".

The latter topic is not only irrelevant to the former, but also entirely unanswerable.  We do not know who the writers of Genesis were, much less what they intended.  Even when you can see and talk to a person, it's difficult to tell what they're really thinking.  To imagine, with Barr, that we can mind-read the unknown ancient authors of Genesis is ludicrous.

So, FL, since the passage you quote is irrelevant to the point you wanted to demonstrate, why did you quote it?
Posted by: FloydLee on Oct. 27 2009,15:26



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Yes.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


"Yes" is the correct answer, btw.  There's only one creation account.  And it's complementary, not contradictory.  Chapter 2 holds up a magnifying glass on Chapter 1 and explains more about the origin of humans and also their relationship with their Creator.
Posted by: Constant Mews on Oct. 27 2009,15:29

Floyd, this is your claim:


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
So nope, Genesis 1-11 is NOT metaphor NOT allegory NOT non-historical.  You can disagree with what it says, but you cannot rewrite it to make it fit evolution.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



You cannot prove this from the Bible; it is completely impossible to do.  More importantly, what possible bearing does:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Not talking about "proving Genesi" true in this case, I'm talking about being able to confirm what the author of Genesis intended (historical narrative.)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



have to do with what you asserted?

It's not relevant what the authors thought; you have to prove that Genesis is a historical account in order to demonstrate any "incompatibility" with evolutionary theory.
Posted by: Constant Mews on Oct. 27 2009,15:29

Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 27 2009,15:26)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Yes.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


"Yes" is the correct answer, btw.  There's only one creation account.  And it's complementary, not contradictory.  Chapter 2 holds up a magnifying glass on Chapter 1 and explains more about the origin of humans and also their relationship with their Creator.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


And actually, you've got no ability to prove that, either.

Apparently your understanding of the Bible was begat in Sunday school and has never advanced.
Posted by: FrankH on Oct. 27 2009,15:30

Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 27 2009,15:26)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Yes.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

"Yes" is the correct answer, btw.  There's only one creation account.  And it's complementary, not contradictory.  Chapter 2 holds up a magnifying glass on Chapter 1 and explains more about the origin of humans and also their relationship with their Creator.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Didn't answer a single one of our questions there Floyd.

Care to try?

OBTW, Genesis 1 and 2 are contradictory.
Posted by: FloydLee on Oct. 27 2009,15:33



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
We do not know who the writers of Genesis were, much less what they intended.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Yes we do.  We know it's Moses, because Jesus said so (and you've read the NT already so you know that), and that's on top of a ton of internal evidence.  We know it's intended as historical narrative, we can confirm both text and context on it, and from both Testaments as well.
Posted by: Constant Mews on Oct. 27 2009,15:35

Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 27 2009,15:33)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
We do not know who the writers of Genesis were, much less what they intended.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Yes we do.  We know it's Moses, because Jesus said so (and you've read the NT already so you know that), and that's on top of a ton of internal evidence.  We know it's intended as historical narrative, we can confirm both text and context on it, and from both Testaments as well.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


What does it matter what it was intended for, Floyd?  In order to show that there exists an actual conflict with evolutionary theory, you will have to show that it is historical narrative.

And you can't.  Nor is the internal evidence conclusive; in fact it's pretty poor.

As I said - you seem to have learned what little you know of the Bible in Sunday school and haven't progressed much beyond that stage.
Posted by: OgreMkV on Oct. 27 2009,15:37

Quote (Henry J @ Oct. 27 2009,15:18)
And why do most of the reported begats only mention a father?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


That's a cultural thing, because at the time, women were pretty much second class citizens.  I mean, you could sell your daughters for goodness sake.

This same cultural reference, of course, brings lie to the 'fix' employed to explain why two gospels have different lineages for Jesus.  One was Joseph and the other Mary.  But that make no cultural sense because no one followed women's lineage.  There was no reason, they couldn't even own property (hence the parable of the widow).

Anyway...

Floyd's statement about 'detail' or 'clarification' in 2 Genesis is kind of like a medical examiner saying 'cause of death was drowning, but in detail, the water flooded in all these 9mm holes in his chest'
Posted by: JohnW on Oct. 27 2009,15:37

OI, FLOYD!
Quote (JohnW @ Oct. 26 2009,12:34)
 
Quote (didymos @ Oct. 26 2009,12:26)
 
Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 26 2009,11:28)
(Did you look at those verses?  Look at them again.  If you ever publicly debate a YEC in a university or church setting on the Incompatibility topic, you can bet that's going to be a massive arsenal of information that the YEC could use on you.)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I surely did look, Floyd:      

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
1 Samuel 2:8 -- He raises the poor from the dust And lifts the beggar from the ash heap, To set them among princes And make them inherit the throne of glory. For the pillars of the earth are the Lord's, And He has set the world upon them.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



So if we're forced, left with no escape, from six 24 hour days, then we simply must take this verse at face value as well.  So, um, where exactly are these "pillars of the earth" again?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


This relates to a question I had for another bible-worshipper, on another thread.

Is the bible literally, word-for-word, true in all respects, Floyd?  Because if it is, we should be able to see these pillars somewhere.  Where are they?

On the other hand, perhaps you think the "pillars of the earth" are simply metaphor.  If that's the case, given that some things in the bible are metaphorical and therefore not literally true, do you have a reliable way to separate the literal from the metaphorical?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Still no answer.  I'm sure it's just an oversight, and you do have an answer...
Posted by: FrankH on Oct. 27 2009,15:39

Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 27 2009,15:33)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
We do not know who the writers of Genesis were, much less what they intended.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Yes we do.  We know it's Moses, because Jesus said so (and you've read the NT already so you know that), and that's on top of a ton of internal evidence.  We know it's intended as historical narrative, we can confirm both text and context on it, and from both Testaments as well.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Does the concept of "circular reasoning" mean anything to you Floyd?  You know many other religions use their "holy writ" to back up their "holy writ" don't you?  Again, why are they wrong and you right?

What evidence do you have that Jesus existed?
Posted by: Constant Mews on Oct. 27 2009,15:40

Quote (FrankH @ Oct. 27 2009,15:39)
Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 27 2009,15:33)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
We do not know who the writers of Genesis were, much less what they intended.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Yes we do.  We know it's Moses, because Jesus said so (and you've read the NT already so you know that), and that's on top of a ton of internal evidence.  We know it's intended as historical narrative, we can confirm both text and context on it, and from both Testaments as well.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Does the concept of "circular reasoning" mean anything to you Floyd?  You know many other religions use their "holy writ" to back up their "holy writ" don't you?  Again, why are they wrong and you right?

What evidence do you have that Jesus existed?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Let's try to stay out of that box.  It will distract Floyd from all his other failures.
Posted by: deadman_932 on Oct. 27 2009,15:43

It doesn't seem likely that flody is going to be able to support his claim that evo is incompatible with christianity, nor is he making any effort to support "ID iz teh sciemce!!" -- So I'm about ready to shut this thread down.
.
.
75 pages is more than enough, and there's more than enough ammunition to use against Flody in the future.
Posted by: FloydLee on Oct. 27 2009,15:44



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
And actually, you've got no ability to prove that, either.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Oh yes I do.  We both have the actual text of Gen 1 and Gen 2.  We can examine individual verses from both chapters and quickly mark down the "magnifying glass" connections.  Wanna do this with me CM?
Posted by: Constant Mews on Oct. 27 2009,15:45

We have finally, after some seventy pages, reached the crux of the matter for Floyd - the actual argument he's been trying to make.  I will present in a simple fashion, since he clearly has trouble with complex logic.

If Christians are required to regard Genesis 1-11 as literal truth, then there exists an incompatibility between Christian doctrine and evolutionary theory.

That's it; that's his entire argument.

But the fundamental truth that Floyd cannot accept, cannot cope with, and cannot understand, is that Christian doctrine does not require a literal reading of Genesis 1-11.
Posted by: Constant Mews on Oct. 27 2009,15:46

Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 27 2009,15:44)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
And actually, you've got no ability to prove that, either.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Oh yes I do.  We both have the actual text of Gen 1 and Gen 2.  We can examine individual verses from both chapters and quickly mark down the "magnifying glass" connections.  Wanna do this with me CM?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Which does not prove your point, Floyd.  What part of "prove" do you have trouble understanding?  What you're offering is an explanation of a genuine textual incompatibility.  But you cannot demonstrate that your explanation is actually true.

It is not possible to prove the historical basis of Genesis using the Bible.

Impossible.  Trust me, I've studied far more exegesis than you have, Floyd.
Posted by: deadman_932 on Oct. 27 2009,15:47

Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 27 2009,15:44)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
And actually, you've got no ability to prove that, either.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Oh yes I do.  We both have the actual text of Gen 1 and Gen 2.  We can examine individual verses from both chapters and quickly mark down the "magnifying glass" connections.  Wanna do this with me CM?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Lol. You don't know what the word "prove" means in that context, Flody.

Proving one bit of the Bible by another bit of the Bible when both bits are demonstrably unhinged from reality is silly.

ETA: Damn,  CM, I read ur MIND!!
Posted by: Constant Mews on Oct. 27 2009,15:48

Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 27 2009,15:44)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
And actually, you've got no ability to prove that, either.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Oh yes I do.  We both have the actual text of Gen 1 and Gen 2.  We can examine individual verses from both chapters and quickly mark down the "magnifying glass" connections.  Wanna do this with me CM?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Certainly we can do this.  But it does not help you, Floyd.  It makes no difference to any "incompatibility" between Christianity doctrine and evolutionary theory.
Posted by: Constant Mews on Oct. 27 2009,15:49

Quote (deadman_932 @ Oct. 27 2009,15:47)
Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 27 2009,15:44)
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
And actually, you've got no ability to prove that, either.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Oh yes I do.  We both have the actual text of Gen 1 and Gen 2.  We can examine individual verses from both chapters and quickly mark down the "magnifying glass" connections.  Wanna do this with me CM?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Lol. You don't know what the word "prove" means in that context, Flody.

Proving one bit of the Bible by another bit of the Bible when both bits are demonstrably unhinged from reality is silly.

ETA: Damn,  CM, I read ur MIND!!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I wouldn't advise that; I've got confidential patient information in there.
Posted by: Constant Mews on Oct. 27 2009,15:50

This is your problem Floyd.  I'll repeat it so you don't forget it.  

We have finally, after some seventy pages, reached the crux of the matter for Floyd - the actual argument he's been trying to make.  I will present in a simple fashion, since he clearly has trouble with complex logic.

If Christians are required to regard Genesis 1-11 as literal truth, then there exists an incompatibility between Christian doctrine and evolutionary theory.

That's it; that's his entire argument.

But the fundamental truth that Floyd cannot accept, cannot cope with, and cannot understand, is that Christian doctrine does not require a literal reading of Genesis 1-11.
Posted by: FloydLee on Oct. 27 2009,15:51



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
What evidence do you have that Jesus existed?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------




---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Let's try to stay out of that box.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Very odd.  Your evo-homie is trying to dictate to you what you can and cannot ask of me.  I wonder why.
Posted by: FrankH on Oct. 27 2009,15:52

Quote (deadman_932 @ Oct. 27 2009,15:47)
Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 27 2009,15:44)
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
And actually, you've got no ability to prove that, either.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Oh yes I do.  We both have the actual text of Gen 1 and Gen 2.  We can examine individual verses from both chapters and quickly mark down the "magnifying glass" connections.  Wanna do this with me CM?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Lol. You don't know what the word "prove" means in that context, Flody.

Proving one bit of the Bible by another bit of the Bible when both bits are demonstrably unhinged from reality is silly.

ETA: Damn,  CM, I read ur MIND!!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Yeah, add "prove" and "proof" to the long list of words that are misused due to their flexibility which allows a "worm tongue" to trip up anyone by say, "But you said you believed it right here!  That's faith!"
Posted by: deadman_932 on Oct. 27 2009,15:53

Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 27 2009,15:51)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
What evidence do you have that Jesus existed?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Let's try to stay out of that box.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Very odd.  Your evo-homie is trying to dictate to you what you can and cannot ask of me.  I wonder why.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Lol.

Do you have anything to add to your "evidence" that evolution is incompatible with Christianity or to demonstrate the scientific legitimacy of ID?

If not, then you're done, Flody.
Posted by: FrankH on Oct. 27 2009,15:53

Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 27 2009,15:51)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
What evidence do you have that Jesus existed?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Let's try to stay out of that box.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Very odd.  Your evo-homie is trying to dictate to you what you can and cannot ask of me.  I wonder why.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Because CM saw more clearly than I about how you'll use whatever you can so you don't have to answer the tough questions there Floyd.

CM, sorry, you were right.
Posted by: FloydLee on Oct. 27 2009,16:19



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
It makes no difference to any "incompatibility" between Christianity doctrine and evolutionary theory.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


The claim was that Gen 1 and Gen 2 are separate and presumably contradictory creation accounts.  You already know that.  We can examine the actual text of both chapters and see where it's complementary not contradictory......one creation account not two separates.  Yes?
Posted by: deadman_932 on Oct. 27 2009,16:24

Quote (deadman_932 @ Oct. 27 2009,15:53)
 

Do you have anything to add to your "evidence" that evolution is incompatible with Christianity or to demonstrate the scientific legitimacy of ID?

If not, then you're done, Flody.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Maybe you didn't read this, Flody
Posted by: Constant Mews on Oct. 27 2009,16:34

Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 27 2009,16:19)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
It makes no difference to any "incompatibility" between Christianity doctrine and evolutionary theory.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


The claim was that Gen 1 and Gen 2 are separate and presumably contradictory creation accounts.  You already know that.  We can examine the actual text of both chapters and see where it's complementary not contradictory......one creation account not two separates.  Yes?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


1. You cannot prove your explanation is correct, which was your claim, I believe.

2. It is irrelevant to the requirement that Christians accept a literal reading of Genesis.

3. You're wrong.
Posted by: Constant Mews on Oct. 27 2009,16:41

This is your problem Floyd.  I'll repeat it so you don't forget it.  

We have finally, after some seventy pages, reached the crux of the matter for Floyd - the actual argument he's been trying to make.  I will present in a simple fashion, since he clearly has trouble with complex logic.

If Christians are required to regard Genesis 1-11 as literal truth, then there exists an incompatibility between Christian doctrine and evolutionary theory.

That's it; that's his entire argument.

But the fundamental truth that Floyd cannot accept, cannot cope with, and cannot understand, is that Christian doctrine does not require a literal reading of Genesis 1-11.
Posted by: Quack on Oct. 27 2009,17:10

Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 27 2009,15:26)
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Yes.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


"Yes" is the correct answer, btw.  There's only one creation account.  And it's complementary, not contradictory.  Chapter 2 holds up a magnifying glass on Chapter 1 and explains more about the origin of humans and also their relationship with their Creator.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


When tribes joined together, the epics, the stories became common tribal property. And the “tribal fathers” after whom the tribes were named, traditionally became “brothers”.

The 12 tribes of Israel had each their own founding father. When the tribes joined, the fathers became “brothers” in the mind of the people, and Jacob “Israel” became the father of them all.
The stories about Abraham, Isaac and Jacob originated as unrelated stories within the Semitic, semi-nomadic sheepherders in Palestine. But when these small tribes joined with the Hebrew that had migrated out of Egypt (a story of its own that actually may be a myth, but I will let that problem rest here), the stories again became incorporated in the common body of myths, whether referring to real events or persons, or not.

Thus, the Semitic tribal fathers became patriarchs for the entire nation that grew out of this.
Abraham, Isaac and Jacob belonged to different tribes and were not related, but the stories grew together into a collection and the persons were tied together as members of the same family. Isaac became son of Abraham, with Esau and Jacob becoming Isaac’s sons.  And Jacob became equipped with twelve sons, so the twelve tribes should be equal.

Into this storytelling old adventure stories also were incorporated, and they were told as being as credible as the heroic epics. The motif in the story about Joseph and the wife of Potifar for instance is copied from the Egyptian fairytale “The two Brothers”.  
Of old an enmity existed between the semi-nomadic sheepherders and the Bedouins. In the production of myths, the sheepherders therefore made a story about how the Bedouins were descendants of a farmer that had fled because of murdering his brother. We recognize the story about Cain and Abel. They then equipped Adam and Eve with a third son, Set, who was made god-fearing and straight enough to be the one they themselves descended from.

Two creation stories:
In Canaan, drought was the enemy; high summer was the death of nature. But with autumn the rains came, and nature awakened to life again.  The creation myth of the Canaanites therefore speaks of the dry, arid land that id being blessed by their God with rain and wells breaking forth.
Thus life was created on Earth.
Contrary to that; in Babylon floods were the dangerous problem. Their creation myth, that also became known by the Israelites and incorporated into their folklore, therefore tells that it began with waters all over, then with land rising out of the water. The two creation myths are placed side by side in the bible and they are both equally true and believable.

Most likely, people in those times believed those stories as more than just stories. For them, it was real history that earth and heavens, man and animals suddenly were created. They were aware of the existence of other peoples with other gods, but they were not part of their own history and how they might have been created was of no concern to them. So therefore, there was no problem for Cain to find a wife.
Most of the myths in Genesis are older than the immigration of the Israelites. They had been part of the tribal traditions for a long time. Their concept of God also was quite different. The patriarchs knew gods like El-sjaddai and Elohim, and neither Abram, Isaac or Jacob knew anything about Moses’ new creation, Yahweh. According to 2. Mos. 3, Moses asked the new god what he should be called, and the god replied: “I am who I am.” The story leaves no doubt that it is a new, hitherto unknown god that is being introduced, but history has made him identical with the god of the patriarch’s. While they had been more like family- or tribal gods, this new god was made the god of the Israeli nation, and theirs only. And in later history telling he became the god of the ancient myths and fairytales.

This new god was made the unifying symbol to create a nation out of the different tribes. True, we may read in the OT that the tribes time and again relapsed into their old traditions and ancient gods but the clergy threatened that their new god, Yahweh, would punish them severely if the did not stick to him. And they could point of examples of his tremendous power in connection with the exodus from Egypt.

Thus the stories were kept alive for hundreds of years as a spoken tradition of adventures, and they quite naturally underwent changes both in form and content over the centuries. They were adapted to new ways of thinking and new ways of living.

It was not until long after a kingdom had been instituted in Israel that the first of these epic myths were consigned into writing. The oldest known source of the OT probably was written between the years 800 to 740 BCE, i.e. 500 years after Moses. They are Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, Joshua, Judges, and Samuel. The author is called the Yahwist. His basic view is that all that happens is guided by Yahweh’s will and providence, his reward and punishment. And the result was not just a historical account, that apparently was not his intention, but to show how disobedience against Yahweh’s commandments led to punishment, for a person – or for the entire nation of Israel.

The world of the Yahwist was small. To him, Noah and Abraham were the origins of all of mankind. While he recognized the existence of other peoples in the surrounding country bet their origins was of no concern to him. According to the flood myth they too were descended from Noah. For the Yahwist the only people that counted was Israel. The Israelis were just and intelligent, while all other peoples were a lowly breed of sinful beings.

All the ancient tribal adventures or myths were incorporated in the Yahwist’s collected works; about the creation of the world, about Abraham as the tribal father of Israel, about Noah and the flood (even other peoples in the region of Euphrates and Tigris knew stories about the great flood and its survivor, but they gave him a different name) about the people who wanted to get close to the Godhead, either by eating from the tree of knowledge, or by building a tall tower.

Little in the way of judging the fitness of the stories to include in the writings were done, so stories more told for entertainment than anything else were included, like the story about Potifar and his wife, or stories of a more adventurous character. Yahweh was made identical with the family god of the patriarch’s, but under another name. And the ancient people were ascribed unlimited longevity. They lived until 800 or 900 years old, but since the god often were disappointed with them, he shortened their lives.

For a couple of hundred years the writings of the Yahwist served as the religious literature of the Israelites. There they could read about their special relationship with Yahweh, how Yahweh stood by his chosen people in times of peril, but also punished them for disobedience, and about Yahweh’s superior power against other the gods of other peoples – they were dwarfed by Yahweh.

In the middle of the 6th century BCE a new author sat down to improve the works of the Yahwist. This author is called the Elohist. He used the Yahwist’s works as his foundation, but made additions and deletions and reworked the text to better conform to more ‘modern’ thinking.
Posted by: Constant Mews on Oct. 27 2009,17:22

Yes, there are some surprisingly interesting issues related to any real understanding of Genesis; but the context in which these apparently oral traditions were committed to writing is beyond simple elucidation.
Posted by: FloydLee on Oct. 27 2009,17:44

Hey, there's one more item I needed to put on the table for conclude the Biblical Perspective on Biology part.  I may comment further on the Biblical Perspective thing (since you guys like to keep on commenting), but this will be the last part of the intended BP presentation.

Check this out.  Talk about incompatibility!
   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Evolution:  Sun before earth.
Genesis:  Earth before sun.

Evolution:  Dry land before sea.
Genesis:  Sea before dry land.

Evolution:  Atmosphere before sea.
Genesis:  Sea before atmosphere.

Evolution:  Sun before light on earth.
Genesis:  Light on earth before sun.

Evolution:  Stars before earth.
Genesis:  Earth before stars.

Evolution:  Earth at same time as planets.
Genesis:  Earth before other planets.

Evolution:  Sea creatures before land plants.
Genesis:  Land plants before sea creatures.

Evolution:  Earthworms before starfish.
Genesis:  Starfish before earthworms.

Evolution:  Land animals before trees.
Genesis:  Trees before land animals.

Evolution:  Death before man.
Genesis:  Man before death.

Evolution:  Thorns and thistles before man.
Genesis:  Man before thorns and thistles.

Evolution:  Cancer before man  (Edmontosaurus was found with a malignant tumor in 2003).
Genesis:  Man before cancer.

Evolution:  Reptiles before birds.
Genesis:  Birds before reptiles.

Evolution:  Dinosaurs before birds.
Genesis:  Birds before dinosaurs.

Evolution:  Insects before flowering plants.
Genesis:  Flowering plants before insects.

Evolution:  Sun before plants.
Genesis:  Plants before Sun.

--- Selected examples from Dr. Terry Mortenson's article, "The order of events matters!",  04-04-2006, AIG website

---Edmontosaurus item found at:  Biology Online
< http://www.bioedonline.org/news/news.cfm?art=598 > .
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



FloydLee
Posted by: Constant Mews on Oct. 27 2009,17:48

Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 27 2009,17:44)
Hey, there's one more item I needed to put on the table for conclude the Biblical Perspective on Biology part.  I may comment further on the Biblical Perspective thing (since you guys like to keep on commenting), but this will be the last part of the intended BP presentation.

Check this out.  Talk about incompatibility!
   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Evolution:  Sun before earth.
Genesis:  Earth before sun.

Evolution:  Dry land before sea.
Genesis:  Sea before dry land.

Evolution:  Atmosphere before sea.
Genesis:  Sea before atmosphere.

Evolution:  Sun before light on earth.
Genesis:  Light on earth before sun.

Evolution:  Stars before earth.
Genesis:  Earth before stars.

Evolution:  Earth at same time as planets.
Genesis:  Earth before other planets.

Evolution:  Sea creatures before land plants.
Genesis:  Land plants before sea creatures.

Evolution:  Earthworms before starfish.
Genesis:  Starfish before earthworms.

Evolution:  Land animals before trees.
Genesis:  Trees before land animals.

Evolution:  Death before man.
Genesis:  Man before death.

Evolution:  Thorns and thistles before man.
Genesis:  Man before thorns and thistles.

Evolution:  Cancer before man  (Edmontosaurus was found with a malignant tumor in 2003).
Genesis:  Man before cancer.

Evolution:  Reptiles before birds.
Genesis:  Birds before reptiles.

Evolution:  Dinosaurs before birds.
Genesis:  Birds before dinosaurs.

Evolution:  Insects before flowering plants.
Genesis:  Flowering plants before insects.

Evolution:  Sun before plants.
Genesis:  Plants before Sun.

--- Selected examples from Dr. Terry Mortenson's article, "The order of events matters!",  04-04-2006, AIG website

---Edmontosaurus item found at:  Biology Online
< http://www.bioedonline.org/news/news.cfm?art=598 > .
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



FloydLee
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


If Genesis is metaphor, this is irrelevant.
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on Oct. 27 2009,17:50

Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 27 2009,17:44)
Check this out.  Talk about incompatibility!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You are right.

And don't you find it odd that people who believe things like "Earth before stars" have no actual, erm, evidence for it. Other then a book which could not have been written before there was an Earth or stars?

So yes, we can talk about incompatibility and the conclusion we come to (everybody except you) is that you are simply wrong. And the folks at AIG are wrong. Plain and simply wrong.

The order of events does matter. And if you believe what you just posted there, you are simply wrong.

Tell me one last thing FL.

Did dinosaurs share the earth with man at the same time?
Posted by: FloydLee on Oct. 27 2009,17:58



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
In the middle of the 6th century BCE a new author sat down to improve the works of the Yahwist. This author is called the Elohist. He used the Yahwist’s works as his foundation, but made additions and deletions and reworked the text to better conform to more ‘modern’ thinking.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


This is part of what is known as the Documentary Hypothesis.  Long story short, the Documentary Hypothesis is wrong.  Dead Meato.

(And just to make sure it STAYS dead, here are some extra nails for its coffin!!)

< http://www.carm.org/christi....-theory >

< http://www.carm.org/christi....othesis >

< http://www.christian-thinktank.com/dochypo.html >
Posted by: JohnW on Oct. 27 2009,17:59

Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 27 2009,15:44)
Hey, there's one more item I needed to put on the table for conclude the Biblical Perspective on Biology part.  I may comment further on the Biblical Perspective thing (since you guys like to keep on commenting), but this will be the last part of the intended BP presentation.

Check this out.  Talk about incompatibility!
     

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Evolution:  Sun before earth.
Genesis:  Earth before sun.

Evolution:  Dry land before sea.
Genesis:  Sea before dry land.

Evolution:  Atmosphere before sea.
Genesis:  Sea before atmosphere.

Evolution:  Sun before light on earth.
Genesis:  Light on earth before sun.

Evolution:  Stars before earth.
Genesis:  Earth before stars.

Evolution:  Earth at same time as planets.
Genesis:  Earth before other planets.

Evolution:  Sea creatures before land plants.
Genesis:  Land plants before sea creatures.

Evolution:  Earthworms before starfish.
Genesis:  Starfish before earthworms.

Evolution:  Land animals before trees.
Genesis:  Trees before land animals.

Evolution:  Death before man.
Genesis:  Man before death.

Evolution:  Thorns and thistles before man.
Genesis:  Man before thorns and thistles.

Evolution:  Cancer before man  (Edmontosaurus was found with a malignant tumor in 2003).
Genesis:  Man before cancer.

Evolution:  Reptiles before birds.
Genesis:  Birds before reptiles.

Evolution:  Dinosaurs before birds.
Genesis:  Birds before dinosaurs.

Evolution:  Insects before flowering plants.
Genesis:  Flowering plants before insects.

Evolution:  Sun before plants.
Genesis:  Plants before Sun.

--- Selected examples from Dr. Terry Mortenson's article, "The order of events matters!",  04-04-2006, AIG website

---Edmontosaurus item found at:  Biology Online
< http://www.bioedonline.org/news/news.cfm?art=598 > .
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



FloydLee
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


This confirms, if anyone still had doubts, that Floyd's beef is with science, not evolution.

16 "incompatibilities".  Six of them are nothing to do with the theory of evolution.  (And I'm being generous in allowing "death before man", "cancer before man" and "sun before plants").
Posted by: FloydLee on Oct. 27 2009,18:05



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
(And I'm being generous in allowing "death before man", "cancer before man" and "sun before plants").
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


As if you had a choice!   :)
Posted by: Constant Mews on Oct. 27 2009,18:07

Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 27 2009,17:58)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
In the middle of the 6th century BCE a new author sat down to improve the works of the Yahwist. This author is called the Elohist. He used the Yahwist’s works as his foundation, but made additions and deletions and reworked the text to better conform to more ‘modern’ thinking.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


This is part of what is known as the Documentary Hypothesis.  Long story short, the Documentary Hypothesis is wrong.  Dead Meato.

(And just to make sure it STAYS dead, here are some extra nails for its coffin!!)

< http://www.carm.org/christi....-theory >

< http://www.carm.org/christi....othesis >

< http://www.christian-thinktank.com/dochypo.html >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Merely out of favour.
Posted by: Constant Mews on Oct. 27 2009,18:10

Floyd, if Genesis is metaphor, then your list is meaningless.

Don't you understand?  You either have to show that Genesis is literal truth, or you have to show that Christian doctrine requires Christians to treat Genesis as if it is literally true.

You cannot do either.  You cannot show that Genesis is historical narrative solely from the Bible itself; you cannot show that the authors of Genesis regarded it as historical narrative solely from the Bible itself; and you cannot show that Genesis is narrative truth in any event.

Your list of "conflicts" is meaningless.
Posted by: Constant Mews on Oct. 27 2009,18:11

Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 27 2009,18:05)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
(And I'm being generous in allowing "death before man", "cancer before man" and "sun before plants").
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


As if you had a choice!   :)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


But he is correct.  Your "interpretation" would require you to jettison all of modern science.
Posted by: deadman_932 on Oct. 27 2009,18:13

If you don't have anything to add to your "evidence" for incompatibility between Christianity and evolutionary theory, Flody, you might want to take a crack at answering the many questions you have had waiting for you in the thread.

Surprise everyone and try being forthrightly, directly honest in your answers. Perhaps you can start with the fact that you're actually arguing against all of science, as many people have already pointed out.

Astronomy to Zoology, your brand of literalism would spell the end of all sciences. A simple illustration of this would be that actual science cannot claim absolute, immutable final answers and "Truth" with a capital "T"

Contrast that with your childish crap which pretends final answers are already known.
Posted by: Doc Bill on Oct. 27 2009,18:34

From the ultimate source of knowledge, Wikipedia:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
"Moron" was coined in 1910 by psychologist Henry H. Goddard[3] from the Greek word moros, which meant "dull" (as opposed to "sharp"), and used to describe a person with a mental age located between 8 and 12 on the Binet scale.[4] It was once applied to people with an IQ of 51-70, being superior in one degree to "imbecile" (IQ of 26-50) and superior in two degrees to "idiot" (IQ of 0-25).

The word moron, along with others including "retarded", "idiotic", "imbecilic", "stupid", and "feeble-minded", was formerly considered a valid descriptor in the psychological community, but it is now deprecated by psychologists.[5]
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: Wesley R. Elsberry on Oct. 27 2009,19:12

Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 27 2009,17:58)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
In the middle of the 6th century BCE a new author sat down to improve the works of the Yahwist. This author is called the Elohist. He used the Yahwist’s works as his foundation, but made additions and deletions and reworked the text to better conform to more ‘modern’ thinking.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


This is part of what is known as the Documentary Hypothesis.  Long story short, the Documentary Hypothesis is wrong.  Dead Meato.

(And just to make sure it STAYS dead, here are some extra nails for its coffin!!)

< http://www.carm.org/christi....-theory >

< http://www.carm.org/christi....othesis >

< http://www.christian-thinktank.com/dochypo.html >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


The Documentary Hypothesis has garnered criticism on relying too specifically on inconsistency in redactors and consistency in sources. I see no indication that serious modern work on the linguistic analysis of the Pentateuch that would ascribe all of it to a single author, or that would identify that author as Moses. The DH in all its details may not be currently ascribed to by a preponderance of scholars, but the cat's out of the bag so far as the Pentateuch being a pastiche of different authors writing at different times.

Of the three links provided by FL, the first simply describes the DH, and the other two offer only straight-up denial as reasons to return to the earlier, simpler view of Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch.
Posted by: Constant Mews on Oct. 27 2009,19:14

Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Oct. 27 2009,19:12)
Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 27 2009,17:58)
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
In the middle of the 6th century BCE a new author sat down to improve the works of the Yahwist. This author is called the Elohist. He used the Yahwist’s works as his foundation, but made additions and deletions and reworked the text to better conform to more ‘modern’ thinking.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


This is part of what is known as the Documentary Hypothesis.  Long story short, the Documentary Hypothesis is wrong.  Dead Meato.

(And just to make sure it STAYS dead, here are some extra nails for its coffin!!)

< http://www.carm.org/christi....-theory >

< http://www.carm.org/christi....othesis >

< http://www.christian-thinktank.com/dochypo.html >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


The Documentary Hypothesis has garnered criticism on relying too specifically on inconsistency in redactors and consistency in sources. I see no indication that serious modern work on the linguistic analysis of the Pentateuch that would ascribe all of it to a single author, or that would identify that author as Moses. The DH in all its details may not be currently ascribed to by a preponderance of scholars, but the cat's out of the bag so far as the Pentateuch being a pastiche of different authors writing at different times.

Of the three links provided by FL, the first simply describes the DH, and the other two offer only straight-up denial as reasons to return to the earlier, simpler view of Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


So far as I can see, none of FL's citations actually support his case.  This is why I am beginning to wonder about some form of learning disorder; his reasoning abilities are seriously impaired.
Posted by: Dan on Oct. 27 2009,19:54

Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 27 2009,17:58)
Long story short, the Documentary Hypothesis is wrong.  Dead Meato.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Notice again... pure assertion.  No evidence, no reasoning.
Posted by: Dan on Oct. 27 2009,20:09

Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 are both written as "straight historical narrative".  They are inconsistent as straight historical narrative:

In Genesis 1 first animals are created by the earth, and then later men and women were created by God.  In Genesis 2 first Adam was created by God, then animals were created by God, then Eve was created by God.

FL explains this away using a contortion that would make even Bill Clinton or Dick Cheney blush: FL claims that Genesis 1 is "straight historical narrative" whereas Genesis 2 is not chronological, but dealt with things according to their importance (or somesuch).  Note that even this extraordinary contortion doesn't explain away the inconsistency that animals were created by the earth in Genesis 1, by God in Genesis 2.

How does FL know that Genesis 1 is chronological and Genesis 2 is "by order of importance"?  Both are written as straight historical narrative.  Why does FL claim that Genesis 1 must be read as "straight historical narrative" whereas Genesis 2 must not be read in this way?
Posted by: Constant Mews on Oct. 27 2009,20:13

Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 27 2009,15:33)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
We do not know who the writers of Genesis were, much less what they intended.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Yes we do.  We know it's Moses, because Jesus said so (and you've read the NT already so you know that), and that's on top of a ton of internal evidence.  We know it's intended as historical narrative, we can confirm both text and context on it, and from both Testaments as well.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Actually, no.  Jesus does not say that Moses is the author of Genesis.

Once again, Floyd, your understanding of the Bible is shown to be limited to a child's understanding.
Posted by: Constant Mews on Oct. 27 2009,20:26

Quote (Dan @ Oct. 27 2009,20:09)
Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 are both written as "straight historical narrative".  They are inconsistent as straight historical narrative:

In Genesis 1 first animals are created by the earth, and then later men and women were created by God.  In Genesis 2 first Adam was created by God, then animals were created by God, then Eve was created by God.

FL explains this away using a contortion that would make even Bill Clinton or Dick Cheney blush: FL claims that Genesis 1 is "straight historical narrative" whereas Genesis 2 is not chronological, but dealt with things according to their importance (or somesuch).  Note that even this extraordinary contortion doesn't explain away the inconsistency that animals were created by the earth in Genesis 1, by God in Genesis 2.

How does FL know that Genesis 1 is chronological and Genesis 2 is "by order of importance"?  Both are written as straight historical narrative.  Why does FL claim that Genesis 1 must be read as "straight historical narrative" whereas Genesis 2 must not be read in this way?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


FL didn't invent this; it's a fairly common attempt to explain the discrepancies between the two passages.
Posted by: Dan on Oct. 27 2009,20:26

Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 27 2009,17:44)
Hey, there's one more item I needed to put on the table for conclude the Biblical Perspective on Biology part.  I may comment further on the Biblical Perspective thing (since you guys like to keep on commenting), but this will be the last part of the intended BP presentation.

Check this out.  Talk about incompatibility!
     

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Evolution:  Sun before earth.
Genesis:  Earth before sun.

Evolution:  Dry land before sea.
Genesis:  Sea before dry land.

Evolution:  Atmosphere before sea.
Genesis:  Sea before atmosphere.

Evolution:  Sun before light on earth.
Genesis:  Light on earth before sun.

Evolution:  Stars before earth.
Genesis:  Earth before stars.

Evolution:  Earth at same time as planets.
Genesis:  Earth before other planets.

Evolution:  Sea creatures before land plants.
Genesis:  Land plants before sea creatures.

Evolution:  Earthworms before starfish.
Genesis:  Starfish before earthworms.

Evolution:  Land animals before trees.
Genesis:  Trees before land animals.

Evolution:  Death before man.
Genesis:  Man before death.

Evolution:  Thorns and thistles before man.
Genesis:  Man before thorns and thistles.

Evolution:  Cancer before man  (Edmontosaurus was found with a malignant tumor in 2003).
Genesis:  Man before cancer.

Evolution:  Reptiles before birds.
Genesis:  Birds before reptiles.

Evolution:  Dinosaurs before birds.
Genesis:  Birds before dinosaurs.

Evolution:  Insects before flowering plants.
Genesis:  Flowering plants before insects.

Evolution:  Sun before plants.
Genesis:  Plants before Sun.

--- Selected examples from Dr. Terry Mortenson's article, "The order of events matters!",  04-04-2006, AIG website

---Edmontosaurus item found at:  Biology Online
< http://www.bioedonline.org/news/news.cfm?art=598 > .
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



FloydLee
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


It is certainly true that a straightforward, literal reading of Genesis 1 is inconsistent with evolution.

It is equally true that a straightforward, literal reading of Genesis 1 is inconsistent with a straightforward, literal reading of Genesis 2.

And it is equally true that a straightforward, literal reading of 2 Samuel 23:8 is inconsistent with a straightforward, literal reading of 1 Chronicles 21:5.  Literal readings of these two passages  show that

  800,000 = 1,100,000

and that

  500,000 = 470,000.

There are many other examples of Biblical inconsistency:

< http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/ >

The moral of these stories is that the Bible -- any version -- should not be read in a straightforward, literal way.  Only 31% of Americans feel that this is the proper way of reading of the Bible

< http://www.gallup.com/poll....aspx#at >

I strongly suspect that most of the 31% who think "the Bible should be read literally" haven't read the Bible.
Posted by: Dan on Oct. 27 2009,20:28

Quote (Constant Mews @ Oct. 27 2009,20:26)
Quote (Dan @ Oct. 27 2009,20:09)
Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 are both written as "straight historical narrative".  They are inconsistent as straight historical narrative:

In Genesis 1 first animals are created by the earth, and then later men and women were created by God.  In Genesis 2 first Adam was created by God, then animals were created by God, then Eve was created by God.

FL explains this away using a contortion that would make even Bill Clinton or Dick Cheney blush: FL claims that Genesis 1 is "straight historical narrative" whereas Genesis 2 is not chronological, but dealt with things according to their importance (or somesuch).  Note that even this extraordinary contortion doesn't explain away the inconsistency that animals were created by the earth in Genesis 1, by God in Genesis 2.

How does FL know that Genesis 1 is chronological and Genesis 2 is "by order of importance"?  Both are written as straight historical narrative.  Why does FL claim that Genesis 1 must be read as "straight historical narrative" whereas Genesis 2 must not be read in this way?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


FL didn't invent this; it's a fairly common attempt to explain the discrepancies between the two passages.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Yes.  Fairly common and completely unsupported.
Posted by: Constant Mews on Oct. 27 2009,20:43

Quote (Dan @ Oct. 27 2009,20:28)
Quote (Constant Mews @ Oct. 27 2009,20:26)
Quote (Dan @ Oct. 27 2009,20:09)
Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 are both written as "straight historical narrative".  They are inconsistent as straight historical narrative:

In Genesis 1 first animals are created by the earth, and then later men and women were created by God.  In Genesis 2 first Adam was created by God, then animals were created by God, then Eve was created by God.

FL explains this away using a contortion that would make even Bill Clinton or Dick Cheney blush: FL claims that Genesis 1 is "straight historical narrative" whereas Genesis 2 is not chronological, but dealt with things according to their importance (or somesuch).  Note that even this extraordinary contortion doesn't explain away the inconsistency that animals were created by the earth in Genesis 1, by God in Genesis 2.

How does FL know that Genesis 1 is chronological and Genesis 2 is "by order of importance"?  Both are written as straight historical narrative.  Why does FL claim that Genesis 1 must be read as "straight historical narrative" whereas Genesis 2 must not be read in this way?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


FL didn't invent this; it's a fairly common attempt to explain the discrepancies between the two passages.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Yes.  Fairly common and completely unsupported.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I agree.  Speculation on the meaning, structure, and origins of the Genesis texts is endless and I suspect ultimately fruitless; we simply cannot recover enough information to establish the provenance, authorship, or formation of the Books of Moses (so-called, Floyd).
Posted by: Henry J on Oct. 27 2009,21:58

Evolution:  Sun before earth. <- astronomy, cosmology, common sense - not evolution.
Genesis:  Earth before sun.

Evolution:  Dry land before sea. <- astronomy, physics - not evolution.
Genesis:  Sea before dry land.

Evolution:  Atmosphere before sea. <- astronomy, physics - not evolution.
Genesis:  Sea before atmosphere.

Evolution:  Sun before light on earth. <- astronomy, cosmology, physics - not evolution.
Genesis:  Light on earth before sun.

Evolution:  Stars before earth. <- astronomy, cosmology, common sense - not evolution.
Genesis:  Earth before stars.

Evolution:  Earth at same time as planets. <- astronomy, cosmology, common sense - not evolution.
Genesis:  Earth before other planets.

Evolution:  Sea creatures before land plants. <- palentology, geology - the evidence does not depend on the explanation provided by evolution.
Genesis:  Land plants before sea creatures.

Evolution:  Earthworms before starfish. <- palentology, geology - the evidence does not depend on the explanation provided by evolution.
Genesis:  Starfish before earthworms.

Evolution:  Land animals before trees. <- palentology, geology - the evidence does not depend on the explanation provided by evolution.
Genesis:  Trees before land animals.

Evolution:  Death before man. <- palentology, geology, common sense - the evidence does not depend on the explanation provided by evolution.
Genesis:  Man before death.

Evolution:  Thorns and thistles before man. <- palentology, geology - the evidence does not depend on the explanation provided by evolution.
Genesis:  Man before thorns and thistles.

Evolution:  Cancer before man <- palentology - the evidence does not depend on the explanation provided by evolution.
Genesis:  Man before cancer.

Evolution:  Reptiles before birds. <- palentology, geology - the evidence does not depend on the explanation provided by evolution.
Genesis:  Birds before reptiles.

Evolution:  Dinosaurs before birds. <- palentology, geology - the evidence does not depend on the explanation provided by evolution.
Genesis:  Birds before dinosaurs.

Evolution:  Insects before flowering plants. <- palentology, geology - the evidence does not depend on the explanation provided by evolution.
Genesis:  Flowering plants before insects.

Evolution:  Sun before plants. <- astronomy, cosmology, physics, common sense - not evolution.
Genesis:  Plants before Sun.

-----------

There is also the continually ignored point that Christianity does not depend on a literal interpretation of those verses.

And the other continually ignored point that being the creator of something and being the explanation of something are two different issues.

Henry
Posted by: Constant Mews on Oct. 27 2009,22:34

Nicely summarized, Henry.  But that's characteristic of Floyd: he posts material that never supports his claims.
Posted by: Henry J on Oct. 27 2009,22:35



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
(Constant Mews @ Oct. 27 2009,19:26)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
(Dan @ Oct. 27 2009,20:09)
How does FL know that Genesis 1 is chronological and Genesis 2 is "by order of importance"?  Both are written as straight historical narrative.  Why does FL claim that Genesis 1 must be read as "straight historical narrative" whereas Genesis 2 must not be read in this way?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


FL didn't invent this; it's a fairly common attempt to explain the discrepancies between the two passages.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Huh. "Order of importance" is what I figured for Genesis 1. Well, either importance or the writer's best guess (given their level of knowledge) of what things depended on what other things.

Henry
Posted by: Henry J on Oct. 27 2009,23:11

Quote (Constant Mews @ Oct. 27 2009,21:34)
Nicely summarized, Henry.  But that's characteristic of Floyd: he posts material that never supports his claims.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


And not all that much effort, since all the "points" could be covered using only two basic answers, plus list of most relevant subjects to each case.
Posted by: Constant Mews on Oct. 27 2009,23:13

Henry J:

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
There is also the continually ignored point that Christianity does not depend on a literal interpretation of those verses.

And the other continually ignored point that being the creator of something and being the explanation of something are two different issues.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Exactly.  These are your critical problems at the moment, Floyd.  Neither of which you have addressed.
Posted by: Quack on Oct. 28 2009,05:14



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
The Documentary Hypothesis has garnered criticism on relying too specifically on inconsistency in redactors and consistency in sources. I see no indication that serious modern work on the linguistic analysis of the Pentateuch that would ascribe all of it to a single author, or that would identify that author as Moses. The DH in all its details may not be currently ascribed to by a preponderance of scholars, but the cat's out of the bag so far as the Pentateuch being a pastiche of different authors writing at different times.

Of the three links provided by FL, the first simply describes the DH, and the other two offer only straight-up denial as reasons to return to the earlier, simpler view of Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Both this and other comments are sufficient wrt FL's bold statement. I posted a piece to broach the subject a little at the peanut gallery. But expecting FL to budge on anything threatening his faith is like expecting the Pope converting to Islam.
Posted by: FloydLee on Oct. 28 2009,08:40



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Floyd, if Genesis is metaphor, then your list is meaningless.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Here's your problem CM.  Gen 1-11, and the creation account in Gen 1-3, are NOT metaphor.  Not allegory.  Not nonhistorical.

You need to show us evidence that these specific chapters are metaphor and NOT straight historical narrative.

(And btw, the argument "Darwin sez so" does not constitute evidence on this one.)
Posted by: FrankH on Oct. 28 2009,08:44

Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 28 2009,08:40)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Floyd, if Genesis is metaphor, then your list is meaningless.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Here's your problem CM.  Gen 1-11, and the creation account in Gen 1-3, are NOT metaphor.  Not allegory.  Not nonhistorical.

You need to show us evidence that these specific chapters are metaphor and NOT straight historical narrative.

(And btw, the argument "Darwin sez so" does not constitute evidence on this one.)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Again you're wrong.  You're trying to get someone to "prove a negative".  It really can't be done.  It's like me asking you to prove Islam being divinely inspired and given to Mohammad.  You can't.

It is up to those who hold on to something to provide the evidence for Genesis being historical.

OBTW, Darwin is mute on Genesis in his Theory.  He may have said his opinion on the subject but that is his opinion.

Learn the difference please between "opinion" and "evidence".
Posted by: FloydLee on Oct. 28 2009,08:45



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I posted a piece to broach the subject a little at the peanut gallery.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Any response I give to the peanut gallery is automatically redirected here.  Post your piece here if you want.
Posted by: FrankH on Oct. 28 2009,08:46

CRAP!

Again you're wrong.  You're trying to get someone to "prove a negative".  It really can't be done.  It's like me asking you to prove Islam being divinely inspired and given to Mohammad.  You can't.

Should say:

Again you're wrong.  You're trying to get someone to "prove a negative".  It really can't be done.  It's like me asking you to prove Islam wrong in that it is not divinely inspired and given to Mohammad.  You can't.
Posted by: FloydLee on Oct. 28 2009,08:48



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
You're trying to get someone to "prove a negative".
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Nope.  The specific claim is that Genesis 1-11 is metaphorical.  That's not "proving a negative."

Now you get to prove that Gen. 1-11 is metaphor and not a straight historical narrative.  You up for it?
Posted by: JonF on Oct. 28 2009,08:49

Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 28 2009,09:40)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Floyd, if Genesis is metaphor, then your list is meaningless.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Here's your problem CM.  Gen 1-11, and the creation account in Gen 1-3, are NOT metaphor.  Not allegory.  Not nonhistorical.

You need to show us evidence that these specific chapters are metaphor and NOT straight historical narrative.

(And btw, the argument "Darwin sez so" does not constitute evidence on this one.)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Nope. It's your claim that Genesis is straight historical narrative, it's your responsibility to support that claim.

(and, btw, any argument relying solely on the Bible for the "support" does not constitute evidence on this one.)
Posted by: FloydLee on Oct. 28 2009,08:55



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
It is up to those who hold on to something to provide the evidence for Genesis being historical.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You can believe that Gen is historically false all day long if you want to.  What I'm claiming here is that Gen is straight historical narrative, and not metaphor, EVEN IF you personally disbelieve those specific historical claims because of your Darwin religion.  

Examining the biblical text and context (such as the Gen 5 genealogy I provided you earlier) can confirm if the Gen text was meant to be a historical narrative or just a metaphor/allegory.
Posted by: deadman_932 on Oct. 28 2009,08:56

Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 28 2009,08:40)
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Floyd, if Genesis is metaphor, then your list is meaningless.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Here's your problem CM.  Gen 1-11, and the creation account in Gen 1-3, are NOT metaphor.  Not allegory.  Not nonhistorical.

You need to show us evidence that these specific chapters are metaphor and NOT straight historical narrative.

(And btw, the argument "Darwin sez so" does not constitute evidence on this one.)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


All available evidence is that Genesis doesn't represent a literal, historical account, but that's largely irrelevant, anyway, Flody. You claimed that it is a historical account, so it's your job to explain how; the burden of proof lies with the originator of the claim. You should do that while dealing with all the scientific data that says otherwise -- from astronomical to geological and paleontological, physics, chemistry, etc. If you can't do that, then cease your meaningless and unconnected yammering.  

Do you have anything to add to your "evidence" that evolution is incompatible with Christianity or to demonstrate the scientific legitimacy of ID?

If you have nothing substantial to add and you don't plan on dealing with your pretense that ID is legitimate science, then your only remaining task is to summarize your claims. Deal with your initial claims and only those claims -- that's all that this thread is for.

After that, the thread will be closed.

If you have other things to argue , then do so in another thread.
Posted by: FrankH on Oct. 28 2009,09:04

Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 28 2009,08:48)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
You're trying to get someone to "prove a negative".
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Nope.  The specific claim is that Genesis 1-11 is metaphorical.  That's not "proving a negative."

Now you get to prove that Gen. 1-11 is metaphor and not a straight historical narrative.  You up for it?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Wrong.

The claim, by you, is that Genesis is indeed historical and really did happen.  You're good at lying Floyd.

Your Jesus must be so proud!
Posted by: Robin on Oct. 28 2009,09:07

Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 27 2009,17:58)

---------------------QUOTE-------------------




---------------------QUOTE-------------------


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
In the middle of the 6th century BCE a new author sat down to improve the works of the Yahwist. This author is called the Elohist. He used the Yahwist’s works as his foundation, but made additions and deletions and reworked the text to better conform to more ‘modern’ thinking.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


This is part of what is known as the Documentary Hypothesis.  Long story short, the Documentary Hypothesis is wrong.  Dead Meato.

(And just to make sure it STAYS dead, here are some extra nails for its coffin!!)

< http://www.carm.org/christi....-theory >

< http://www.carm.org/christi....othesis >

< http://www.christian-thinktank.com/dochypo.html >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



ROTFL!!! OMG! Coffee all over the keyboard!! Um Floyd, hate to break it to you but neither you nor CARM carry any authoritative weight on whether the Documentary Hypothesis is valid and accepted or not. Last time I checked, actual, reputatable SCHOLARS (like my sister for one) actually accept it and present such not only on their textural analysis of the bible, but of other works from antiquity as well. So it appears those nails of yours are made of sugar and I just pored water all over them and you. LOL!
Posted by: Robin on Oct. 28 2009,09:17



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 27 2009,17:44)

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Hey, there's one more item I needed to put on the table for conclude the Biblical Perspective on Biology part.  I may comment further on the Biblical Perspective thing (since you guys like to keep on commenting), but this will be the last part of the intended BP presentation.

Check this out.  Talk about incompatibility!
     

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Astronomy:  Sun before earth.
Genesis:  Earth before sun.

Geology:  Dry land before sea.
Genesis:  Sea before dry land.

Geology and Paleontology:  Atmosphere before sea.
Genesis:  Sea before atmosphere.

Astronomy and Physics:  Sun before light on earth.
Genesis:  Light on earth before sun.

Astronomy :  Stars before earth.
Genesis:  Earth before stars.

Astronomy:  Earth at same time as planets.
Genesis:  Earth before other planets.

Evolution and Geology:  Sea creatures before land plants.
Genesis:  Land plants before sea creatures.

Evolution and Geology:  Earthworms before starfish.
Genesis:  Starfish before earthworms.

Evolution and Geology:  Land animals before trees.
Genesis:  Trees before land animals.

Chemistry, physiology, physics, and geology:  Death before man.
Genesis:  Man before death.

Evolution and Geology:  Thorns and thistles before man.
Genesis:  Man before thorns and thistles.

Chemistry, Bio-Chem, Physiology, Molecular Chemistry:  Cancer before man  (Edmontosaurus was found with a malignant tumor in 2003).
Genesis:  Man before cancer.

Evolution and Geology:  Reptiles before birds.
Genesis:  Birds before reptiles.

Evolution and Geology:  Dinosaurs before birds.
Genesis:  Birds before dinosaurs.

Evolution and Geology:  Insects before flowering plants.
Genesis:  Flowering plants before insects.

Astronomy, Biology, Physics :  Sun before plants.
Genesis:  Plants before Sun.

--- Selected examples from Dr. Terry Mortenson's article, "The order of events matters!",  04-04-2006, AIG website

---Edmontosaurus item found at:  Biology Online
< http://www.bioedonline.org/news/news.cfm?art=598 > .
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



FloydLee
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



There, fixed it for you Floyd. Seems science is incompatible with your beliefs. Oh well...
Posted by: Robin on Oct. 28 2009,09:25

Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 28 2009,08:55)

---------------------QUOTE-------------------




---------------------QUOTE-------------------


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
It is up to those who hold on to something to provide the evidence for Genesis being historical.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You can believe that Gen is historically false all day long if you want to.  What I'm claiming here is that Gen is straight historical narrative, and not metaphor,...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



And you can believe and claim that Genesis is historically accurate all day long if you want to, but without substantiation, we rational people are going to continue chortling at you and such an obviously absurd claim. LOL!



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Examining the biblical text and context (such as the Gen 5 genealogy I provided you earlier) can confirm if the Gen text was meant to be a historical narrative or just a metaphor/allegory.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Having done so quite specifically, I can say with some authority that you are wrong.
Posted by: JonF on Oct. 28 2009,09:28

Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 28 2009,09:55)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
It is up to those who hold on to something to provide the evidence for Genesis being historical.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You can believe that Gen is historically false all day long if you want to.  What I'm claiming here is that Gen is straight historical narrative, and not metaphor, EVEN IF you personally disbelieve those specific historical claims because of your Darwin religion.  

Examining the biblical text and context (such as the Gen 5 genealogy I provided you earlier) can confirm if the Gen text was meant to be a historical narrative or just a metaphor/allegory.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


What it was meant to be doesn't matter. What it can be shown to be does. Step up to the plate, Foldy-poo.

(and, btw, any argument relying solely on the Bible for the "support" does not constitute evidence on this one.)
Posted by: FrankH on Oct. 28 2009,09:28

Hey Floyd which of these can't be done:

Provide evidence that the following are metaphorical, made up, mythical or plain wrong:

1:  The Hindu Vedic
2:  The Bible
3:  The Q'ran
4:  Santa Clause
5:  Easter Bunny
Posted by: ppb on Oct. 28 2009,09:29

Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 28 2009,09:48)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
You're trying to get someone to "prove a negative".
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Nope.  The specific claim is that Genesis 1-11 is metaphorical.  That's not "proving a negative."

Now you get to prove that Gen. 1-11 is metaphor and not a straight historical narrative.  You up for it?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Floyd,

Whether or not you believe Genesis to be historical narrative is irrelevant.  The Genesis account is demonstrably false.  On a clear night, with dark skies, I can look up and see with my own eyes things that happened millions of years ago.  Paleontologists would love to be able to look at things that happened millions of years in the past.  Astronomers get to do it all the time.  With modern instruments we get to see the whole history of the universe unfold as we look deeper and deeper into the past, going back billions of years.  I can see with my own eyes that Genesis does not reflect reality.

To someone who is not predisposed to accept the Bible as literal truth, it is very clear that the Genesis creation story is the type of creation myth people around the world created to explain how things got to be the way they are.  They had no way of knowing how immense and wonderful the universe truly is, so they had to rely on their limited imaginations.  We have the benefit of centuries of learning and exploring, and we now live in a much larger and much more interesting universe than the people of biblical times.

So you are not just having compatibility problems with Evolution.  You have a problem with all of modern science.
Posted by: Lou FCD on Oct. 28 2009,10:34

Quote (Constant Mews @ Oct. 27 2009,21:26)
Quote (Dan @ Oct. 27 2009,20:09)
Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 are both written as "straight historical narrative".  They are inconsistent as straight historical narrative:

In Genesis 1 first animals are created by the earth, and then later men and women were created by God.  In Genesis 2 first Adam was created by God, then animals were created by God, then Eve was created by God.

FL explains this away using a contortion that would make even Bill Clinton or Dick Cheney blush: FL claims that Genesis 1 is "straight historical narrative" whereas Genesis 2 is not chronological, but dealt with things according to their importance (or somesuch).  Note that even this extraordinary contortion doesn't explain away the inconsistency that animals were created by the earth in Genesis 1, by God in Genesis 2.

How does FL know that Genesis 1 is chronological and Genesis 2 is "by order of importance"?  Both are written as straight historical narrative.  Why does FL claim that Genesis 1 must be read as "straight historical narrative" whereas Genesis 2 must not be read in this way?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


FL didn't invent this; it's a fairly common attempt to explain the discrepancies between the two passages.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Of course he didn't. Floyd Lee is not capable of having an original thought.

He's a parrot, a windup toy devoid of any ability to reason.
Posted by: Quack on Oct. 28 2009,10:51

Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 28 2009,08:45)
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I posted a piece to broach the subject a little at the peanut gallery.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Any response I give to the peanut gallery is automatically redirected here.  Post your piece here if you want.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I try to show some respect for the high ideal of intelligent and pointed discourse. I just made a comment for the record, and didn't think it would mean anything to you. Nothing does except the handwriting of God. All that remains is for you to present proof of the authorship.
Posted by: didymos on Oct. 28 2009,12:25

Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 28 2009,06:55)
Examining the biblical text and context (such as the Gen 5 genealogy I provided you earlier) can confirm if the Gen text was meant to be a historical narrative or just a metaphor/allegory.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Er, no.  This is just not an "either metaphor" or an "or history" issue.  It could be a composite of stuff that was really supposed to be historical narrative with stuff that was meant to be more arts and entertainment. I.e., something not unlike the Iliad, where you have a bit of history mixed in with liberal amounts of invention and improvisation, from an oral poetry tradition, parts of which used the tropes of actual historical narratives to literary effect.  Eventually it all gets written down, with a bit of editing as part of the process, causing it to become more or less fixed from then on.  And, also like the Iliad, many could have been perfectly aware that a bunch of the details were just plain made up over the course of multiple recitals by multiple oral poets but didn't care that it was "false" because it still expressed certain concepts important to the culture.  You can also throw in yet more possibilities: some stuff may have originally been "Our god pwns your god"-style tribal propaganda or the victor's version of history (i.e., meant to be a historical narrative that makes us look as badass and stuff as we can get away with).  Now combine any of those with people way on down the timeline forgetting about the history of their "history" and you've got the makings of some high-quality confusion as the Yahweh fanboys of yore wanked away trying to explain all the continuity errors and slagging each other off because they all prefer their own interpretations.
Posted by: FloydLee on Oct. 28 2009,12:36



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Jesus does not say that Moses is the author of Genesis.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


On the contrary, that was Jesus's own position.  No escape on that one folks.  
Jesus said the following:
     

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
"For if ye believed Moses, ye would believe me; for he wrote of me. But if ye believe not his writings, how shall ye believe my words?" (John 5:46-47).
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Where did Moses write about Jesus, pray tell?  Right here when he wrote this Genesis Messianic prophecy:
     

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
And I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your seed and her seed;
He shall bruise you on the head, and you shall bruise him on the heel."   (3:15)  
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Remember, Jesus wasn't a skeptic, and Jesus wasn't an evolutionist.  HE, like all the observant Jews of his day fully accepted Mosaic authorship of Genesis, and accepted it as actual historical narrative, just like the writers of the Old Testament and the New Testament did.

In fact, both Jesus and his opponents (the Pharisees) fully accepted that Moses wrote the first five books of the Bible, including Genesis.   Check out Matt. 19:
     

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
2 The Pharisees came and asked (Jesus), “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife?” testing Him.

3 And He answered and said to them, “What did Moses command you?”

4 They said, “Moses permitted a man to write a certificate of divorce, and to dismiss her.”

5 And Jesus answered and said to them, “Because of the hardness of your heart he wrote you this precept.

6 "But from the beginning of the creation, God ‘made them male and female.’ (Gen. 1:27; Gen. 5:2)

7 ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife,

8 and the two shall become one flesh’; ( Genesis 2:24) so then they are no longer two, but one flesh.

9 Therefore what God has joined together, let not man separate.”
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Jesus's response directly blocked the Pharisee attack, and there was nowhere to go for the Pharisees, they could not come up with a prior Mosaic quotation than the Genesis creation itself.  

Nor did the Pharisees come up with "Hey Jesus!  That's metaphor!  That's allegory!  That's non-historical!  That's not reality!  St. Darwin sez so!"  

No, they (like Jesus) fully accepted that Moses wrote Genesis and Moses said it as actual history.

(And please notice:  Jesus directly quoted the Genesis text itself as actual literal history.)

Finally, also note that Moses wrote again of Jesus in the fifth of the Five Books (the Five Books are called the Pentateuch, which includes Genesis).  Here's two more Messianic prophecies:
     

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
15  "The LORD your God will raise up for you a prophet like me from among you, from your countrymen, you shall listen to him.

18  'I will raise up a prophet from among their countrymen like you, and I will put My words in his mouth, and he shall speak to them all that I command him.

---Deut. 18
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


**********

So, bottom line is.....Moses wrote Genesis, according to Jesus (and the writers of the Old and New Testaments, and the Pharisees, and the Israelites, etc.)

Of course, if you don't believe Jesus Christ, well...........
Posted by: FloydLee on Oct. 28 2009,12:56



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Last time I checked, actual, reputatable SCHOLARS (like my sister for one) actually accept (the Doc. Hyp.) and present such not only on their textural analysis of the bible
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


No disrespect to your sister, but professor of Old Testament Dr. Gleason Archer, has already killed and buried the Documentary Hypothesis underneath multiple chapters of his textbook Survey of Old Testament Introduction. 
(With extra coffin-nails to be found in his Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties.)

But do send me a copy of your sister's OT textbook and I'll gladly look at it.

Meanwhile, here's some more Doc-Hyp-Equals-Stone-Dead confirmation:

< http://www.ukapologetics.net/docu.htm >

FloydLee
Posted by: FloydLee on Oct. 28 2009,13:13



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
All available evidence is that Genesis doesn't represent a literal, historical account
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Specifics, Deadman?  Care to examine the textual and contextual evidences, yes?
Posted by: FloydLee on Oct. 28 2009,13:14

(I think his answer is "No.")
Posted by: Amadan on Oct. 28 2009,13:19

Why are we wasting synapse time on exegetics? The purpose of this thread is to discuss

1. whether Christianity is compatible with evolution: that discussion was settled when it was demonstrated that the RCC (which is representative for these purposes of mainstream Christianity) is perfectly happy with evolution. Floyd, in conceding that the RCC is Christian, conceded this point;

2. whether ID should be taught as science in school classrooms: echoing silence.

The last ten pages or so have simply demonstrated that Floyd clings to a biblical literalism that has been discarded as naďve or erroneous by mainstream Christianity. Quelle surprise! Floyd is a YEC.

Can we drop the bible battles and get on to ID please?
Posted by: FloydLee on Oct. 28 2009,13:19

Oh, and feel free to close the thread on Nov. 2 if you wish, Deadman.  

My Biblical Perspective is finished, you guys are totally refuted (you too baby) concerning the genre of Genesis, and the only item left for me to present is the ID-is-science presentation plus the autopsy of your motley attempts to copewith the Big Five Incompatibilities.  Will have your serving of ID on the table, quite soon!
Posted by: Robin on Oct. 28 2009,13:22

Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 28 2009,12:36)

---------------------QUOTE-------------------




---------------------QUOTE-------------------


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Jesus does not say that Moses is the author of Genesis.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


On the contrary, that was Jesus's own position.  No escape on that one folks.  
Jesus said the following:
     

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
"For if ye believed Moses, ye would believe me; for he wrote of me. But if ye believe not his writings, how shall ye believe my words?" (John 5:46-47).
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Where did Moses write about Jesus, pray tell?  Right here when he wrote this Genesis Messianic prophecy:
     

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
And I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your seed and her seed;
He shall bruise you on the head, and you shall bruise him on the heel."   (3:15)  
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Oh Floyd...that parable is not about Jesus you dope. Moses (supposedly) wrote about Jesus here:

Deuteronomy 18:15

15(A) "The LORD your God will raise up for you a prophet like me from among you, from your brothers—it is to him you shall listen—

None of this even presents circumstantial evidence for Moses being the author of Genesis however. Try again.

Further, your reference to Matthew 19 is just piss poor. Here's what Matt 19 actually states:

1
1 When Jesus 2 finished these words, 3 he left Galilee and went to the district of Judea across the Jordan.
2
Great crowds followed him, and he cured them there.
3
Some Pharisees approached him, and tested him, 4 saying, "Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any cause whatever?"
4
5 He said in reply, "Have you not read that from the beginning the Creator 'made them male and female'
5
and said, 'For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh'?
6
So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore, what God has joined together, no human being must separate."
7
6 They said to him, "Then why did Moses command that the man give the woman a bill of divorce and dismiss (her)?"
8
He said to them, "Because of the hardness of your hearts Moses allowed you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it was not so.
9
I say to you, 7 whoever divorces his wife (unless the marriage is unlawful) and marries another commits adultery."
10
[His] disciples said to him, "If that is the case of a man with his wife, it is better not to marry."
11
He answered, "Not all can accept [this] word, 8 but only those to whom that is granted.
12
Some are incapable of marriage because they were born so; some, because they were made so by others; some, because they have renounced marriage 9 for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. Whoever can accept this ought to accept it."

So no Floyd, your completely wrong. The only thing Jesus acknowledges moses writing was how to get out of marriage. He didn't say anything about Moses writing anything else and in fact contradicts you entirely - he notes that "from the beginning it was different" from what Moses handed you - meaning that Moses wrote exceptions to what Genesis states.

Your theology is just as piss poor as your understanding of science, Floyd.
Posted by: Robin on Oct. 28 2009,13:29

Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 28 2009,12:56)

---------------------QUOTE-------------------




---------------------QUOTE-------------------


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Last time I checked, actual, reputatable SCHOLARS (like my sister for one) actually accept (the Doc. Hyp.) and present such not only on their textural analysis of the bible
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


No disrespect to your sister, but professor of Old Testament Dr. Gleason Archer, has already killed and buried the Documentary Hypothesis underneath multiple chapters of his textbook Survey of Old Testament Introduction.
(With extra coffin-nails to be found in his Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties.)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Floyd, you're going to have to get something through your head - your claims about what people have done and what is don't amount to anything. Archer didn't "kill and bury" anything as a) it is still used in scholarly work and b) Archer is neither the most prominent nor even a notably respected scholar in biblical studies.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
But do send me a copy of your sister's OT textbook and I'll gladly look at it.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



When you demonstrate a capacity to actual read and understand what is written, I will be happy to. Thus far, you haven't demonstrated the ability to read and understand even short postings on this board, nevermind actual biblical passages and scientific theories and theses, so there's no way you're capable of reading actual scholarly research.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Meanwhile, here's some more Doc-Hyp-Equals-Stone-Dead confirmation:

< http://www.ukapologetics.net/docu.htm >

FloydLee
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



LMAO! Sorry Floyd, but as I pointed out earlier, folks like CARM and UKapologetics are not authorities or credible sources. Try again.
Posted by: Amadan on Oct. 28 2009,13:32

Floyd, to reiterate:

Your Five 'incompatibilities' are irrelevant. They became irrelevant to this discussion when you conceded that Catholicism, which accepts evolution, is nevertheless still Christian.

(They are irrelevant in a wider sense because the points you raise in them have been addressed by Christians who have approached the question of Christians' attitude to science with far greater intelligence and depth of understanding that you have shown here. But your concession on the RCC makes that moot here).

Whether Genesis is factual, myth or metaphor is of no consequence anywhere outside the Southern Baptist Convention. If you want to run away shouting that you've won, please do. But sometime when you reflect on this thread, consider whether you have been a persuasive example of Christianity or of the purpose of science education. And when you refer to your great victory, don't forget to link back here so others can see the devastating clarity and the unimpeachable integrity of your arguments.
Posted by: Robin on Oct. 28 2009,13:34

Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 28 2009,12:56)

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Oh..contrary to Floyd's proclamation of the death of Documentary Hypothesis, here's what Wikipedia notes:

< http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Documentary_hypothesis: >

The documentary hypothesis still has many supporters, especially in the United States, where William H. Propp has completed a two-volume translation and commentary on Exodus for the prestigious Anchor Bible Series from within a DH framework,[22] and Antony F. Campbell and Mark A. O’Brien have published a "Sources of the Pentateuch" presenting the Torah sorted into continuous sources following the divisions of Martin Noth. Richard Elliott Friedman's "Who Wrote the Bible?" (1987) and "The Bible with Sources Revealed" (2003) were in essence an extended response to Whybray, explaining, in terms based on the history of ancient Israel, how the redactors could have tolerated inconsistency, contradiction and repetition, indeed had it forced upon them by the historical setting in which they worked. Friedman's classic four-source division differed from Wellhausen in accepting Yehezkel Kaufmann's dating of P to the reign of Hezekiah;[23] this in itself is no small modification of Wellhausen, for whom a late dating of P was essential to his model of the historical development of Israelite religion. Friedman argued that J appeared a little before 722 BCE, followed by E, and a combined JE soon after that. P was written as a rebuttal of JE (c. 715–687 BCE), and D was the last to appear, at the time of Josiah (c. 622 BCE), before the Redactor, whom Friedman identifies as Ezra, collated the final Torah.

While the terminology and insights of the documentary hypothesis—notably its recognition that the Pentateuch is the work of many hands and many centuries, and that its final form belongs to the middle of the 1st millennium BC—continue to inform scholarly debate about the origins of the Pentateuch, it no longer dominates that debate as it did for the first two thirds of the 20th century. "The verities enshrined in older introductions [to the subject of the origins of the Pentateuch] have disappeared, and in their place scholars are confronted by competing theories which are discouragingly numerous, exceedingly complex, and often couched in an expository style that is (to quote John van Seter's description of one seminal work) 'not for the faint-hearted.'"[24]
Posted by: Robin on Oct. 28 2009,13:36

Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 28 2009,13:19)

---------------------QUOTE-------------------




---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Oh, and feel free to close the thread on Nov. 2 if you wish, Deadman.  

My Biblical Perspective is finished, you guys are totally refuted (you too baby) concerning the genre of Genesis, and the only item left for me to present is the ID-is-science presentation plus the autopsy of your motley attempts to copewith the Big Five Incompatibilities.  Will have your serving of ID on the table, quite soon!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



The only person refuted has been you, Floyd. You not only don't know science, you clearly don't know a thing about the bible and what it actually states.
Posted by: JohnW on Oct. 28 2009,14:21

Quote (Robin @ Oct. 28 2009,11:36)
Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 28 2009,13:19)

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Oh, and feel free to close the thread on Nov. 2 if you wish, Deadman.  

My Biblical Perspective is finished, you guys are totally refuted (you too baby) concerning the genre of Genesis, and the only item left for me to present is the ID-is-science presentation plus the autopsy of your motley attempts to copewith the Big Five Incompatibilities.  Will have your serving of ID on the table, quite soon!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



The only person refuted has been you, Floyd. You not only don't know science, you clearly don't know a thing about the bible and what it actually states.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


And he appears unable to answer this:
Quote (JohnW @ Oct. 26 2009,12:34)
   
Quote (didymos @ Oct. 26 2009,12:26)
   
Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 26 2009,11:28)
(Did you look at those verses?  Look at them again.  If you ever publicly debate a YEC in a university or church setting on the Incompatibility topic, you can bet that's going to be a massive arsenal of information that the YEC could use on you.)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I surely did look, Floyd:        

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
1 Samuel 2:8 -- He raises the poor from the dust And lifts the beggar from the ash heap, To set them among princes And make them inherit the throne of glory. For the pillars of the earth are the Lord's, And He has set the world upon them.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



So if we're forced, left with no escape, from six 24 hour days, then we simply must take this verse at face value as well.  So, um, where exactly are these "pillars of the earth" again?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


This relates to a question I had for another bible-worshipper, on another thread.

Is the bible literally, word-for-word, true in all respects, Floyd?  Because if it is, we should be able to see these pillars somewhere.  Where are they?

On the other hand, perhaps you think the "pillars of the earth" are simply metaphor.  If that's the case, given that some things in the bible are metaphorical and therefore not literally true, do you have a reliable way to separate the literal from the metaphorical?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Pillars of the earth, Floyd.  Where are they?
Posted by: Lou FCD on Oct. 28 2009,14:31

Floyd is truly a TARD amongst TARDs.
Posted by: Lou FCD on Oct. 28 2009,14:32

Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 28 2009,14:19)
Oh, and feel free to close the thread on Nov. 2 if you wish, Deadman.  

My Biblical Perspective is finished, you guys are totally refuted (you too baby) concerning the genre of Genesis, and the only item left for me to present is the ID-is-science presentation plus the autopsy of your motley attempts to copewith the Big Five Incompatibilities.  Will have your serving of ID on the table, quite soon!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


And let's add demented, delusional fuckwit to that last.
Posted by: FloydLee on Oct. 28 2009,14:32



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Sorry Floyd, but as I pointed out earlier, folks like CARM and UKapologetics are not authorities or credible sources
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


In other words, you can't refute their actual statements on the Doc Hyp, your sister's not available to help out, and the only thing left is to claim out of the blue that they are not authorities or credible sources. Okay!

Meanwhile, readers can compare this source:

< http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Documentary_hypothesis: >

with this source (and all its sources therein):

< http://www.ukapologetics.net/docu.htm >

....and see what's going on there.
Posted by: FrankH on Oct. 28 2009,14:38

Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 28 2009,13:19)
Oh, and feel free to close the thread on Nov. 2 if you wish, Deadman.  

My Biblical Perspective is finished, you guys are totally refuted (you too baby) concerning the genre of Genesis, and the only item left for me to present is the ID-is-science presentation plus the autopsy of your motley attempts to copewith the Big Five Incompatibilities.  Will have your serving of ID on the table, quite soon!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


HAHAHAHAHA!  You did what?

Floyd, you're a liar.  A damn liar and you know it.

Using circular logic, "Jesus, who's in the Bible, says the Bible was written by Moses, so that shows ya", is bullshit.

I guess that means the Easter Bunny is alive and well as  my mom told me and well, she exists and others can talk to her, unlike your god which is all in your head.
Posted by: FrankH on Oct. 28 2009,14:39

Don't close the thread.

Let all see and read Floyd's lies and distortions for themselves.
Posted by: ppb on Oct. 28 2009,14:59

FL,

< Here's something > that occurred 13 billion years before your literalistic interpretation of creation.  Stuff has been happening for quite a long time now.  Considerably more than 6,000 years, give or take.
Posted by: Reed on Oct. 28 2009,15:07

Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 28 2009,11:13)
     

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
All available evidence is that Genesis doesn't represent a literal, historical account
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Specifics, Deadman?  Care to examine the textual and contextual evidences, yes?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Two simple questions:
Do you believe that it is possible to determine the course of past events using reason and evidience ?

Do you believe that the veracity (or otherwise) of the biblical account may be determined by these means ?
Posted by: JohnW on Oct. 28 2009,15:09

Quote (FrankH @ Oct. 28 2009,12:39)
Don't close the thread.

Let all see and read Floyd's lies and distortions for themselves.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


"Closed" doesn't mean "deleted", Frank.  The thread will be here for our amusement until long after the Rapture.
Posted by: deadman_932 on Oct. 28 2009,15:56

Setting aside Flody's other bizarre ramblings, this one caught my attention especially:

     
Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 28 2009,12:36)
     

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Jesus does not say that Moses is the author of Genesis.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


On the contrary, that was Jesus's own position.  No escape on that one folks.  
Jesus said the following:
             

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
"For if ye believed Moses, ye would believe me; for he wrote of me. But if ye believe not his writings, how shall ye believe my words?" (John 5:46-47).
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Where did Moses write about Jesus, pray tell?  Right here when he wrote this Genesis Messianic prophecy:
             

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
And I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your seed and her seed;
He shall bruise you on the head, and you shall bruise him on the heel."   (3:15)  
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Remember, Jesus wasn't a skeptic, and Jesus wasn't an evolutionist.  HE, like all the observant Jews of his day fully accepted Mosaic authorship of Genesis, and accepted it as actual historical narrative, just like the writers of the Old Testament and the New Testament did.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



That little bit from Flody made me wonder what the hell he could be thinking -- even from a Christian perspective, it's bizarre. That passage is clearly about God talking to THE FUCKIN' SERPENT that caused evil in the garden. But Flody says it's "really" about JESUS?

This beggars my ability to even mock it, it's quite literally insane shit that makes me wonder what kind of a satanic, snake-worshipping cult Flody belongs to.

Here's the fuller version of < Genesis 3:13-15 >, God Talking TO THE SERPENT  


     

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
13 And the LORD God said unto the woman, What is this that thou hast done? And the woman said, The serpent beguiled me, and I did eat.

14 And the LORD God said unto the serpent, Because thou hast done this, thou art cursed above all cattle, and above every beast of the field; upon thy belly shalt thou go, and dust shalt thou eat all the days of thy life:

15 And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



I'm not even going to write any more about this -- this entire episode speaks for itself and it's screaming out that Flody is truly fucked-up in the melon.

To imagine that "Moses" is secretly referring to Jesus in this Genesis passage about a serpent that caused Adam and Eve to be cast out of Eden...I have no words to mock it, it's just dripping, sodden with insane.

P.S. Flody: I know exactly what you're going to TRY to say...that "Jesus" is implicitly prefigured in the statement about the seed of Eve "bruising the head" of the serpent ... but it doesn't make sense from a Hebrew or Christian perspective, although Fundynuts try to pretend it does. < http://messiahtruth.org/gen315.html > (Jewish site)

More importantly, it's irrelevant to your claims about Christianity and evolution being incompatible.
Posted by: Rrr on Oct. 28 2009,16:47

Bruised in head and heel,
FL,
may you live to heal.
Else, I wish you well in Hell.
Posted by: Schroedinger's Dog on Oct. 28 2009,16:49

OMToE!!!

Now, Yodel Elf is actually misquoting the buybull? Damn, there's a pitchfork and BBQ put aside for him all right!

YE: your ass is gonna burn!


Posted by: Quack on Oct. 28 2009,17:21

If we should run out of topics(!), it might be interesting to debate those innocent looking words "Son of God". Do they mean what FL will claim they do, or do they mean what we may glean from unbiased study of the Bible and Jewish traditions?

But I really hope this thread will be terminated soon; it seems FL have enough problems already.
Posted by: OgreMkV on Oct. 28 2009,19:14

Unfortunately, this is totally typical.  It's really depressing that the Texas school board is made up of idiots like Floyd.

I really have no hope for the teaching ID as science.  Floyd will do the following:

1) Claim that science must be redefined, then refuse to accept that his redefinition requires astrology, witchcraft, asgardian magik, and other such to be taught.

2) Blather on for 253 pages (approximately) about the problems of evolution with not a single statement supporting his position.

2a) Alternately he might (and probably will) bring up Behe, Dembski, and if we're really lucky Glen Rose man tracks.

2b) change his position (which was never defined anyway) as soon as someone posts a scathing reply with properly verified sources (unless the reply is on Sunday).

3) Epically fail to know anything about science, education, or government for that matter.

4) Continue to look like an IDiot.

5) Probably use the final argument "Neener neener"1
Posted by: Dan on Oct. 28 2009,20:13

Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 28 2009,08:40)
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Floyd, if Genesis is metaphor, then your list is meaningless.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Here's your problem CM.  Gen 1-11, and the creation account in Gen 1-3, are NOT metaphor.  Not allegory.  Not nonhistorical.

You need to show us evidence that these specific chapters are metaphor and NOT straight historical narrative.

(And btw, the argument "Darwin sez so" does not constitute evidence on this one.)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Here's your problem, FL.  Star Wars 1-6, and the Jedi account in Star Wars 3, are NOT metaphor.  Not allegory.  Not nonhistorical.

You need to show us evidence that these specific movies are metaphor and NOT straight historical narrative.

(And btw, the argument "Lucas sez so" does not constitute evidence on this one.)
Posted by: Constant Mews on Oct. 28 2009,20:36

Floyd, if Genesis is metaphor, then your list is meaningless.

Don't you understand?  You either have to show that Genesis is literal truth, or you have to show that Christian doctrine requires Christians to treat Genesis as if it is literally true.

You cannot do either.  You cannot show that Genesis is historical narrative solely from the Bible itself; you cannot show that the authors of Genesis regarded it as historical narrative solely from the Bible itself; and you cannot show that Genesis is narrative truth in any event.

Your list of "conflicts" is meaningless.
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Oct. 28 2009,20:59

what a maroon!

Part I:  "eviloooootion and christianity are incompatible because I say the bible says so"

Part II:  "nothing in biology makes sense without the light of what i say the bible says because i say the bible says so"

wow, anyone care to project the ID is science angle?

Part III:??

"ID is science because I say the bible says so"

not much else to go with there flodd
Posted by: Constant Mews on Oct. 28 2009,21:01

Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 28 2009,12:36)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Jesus does not say that Moses is the author of Genesis.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


On the contrary, that was Jesus's own position.  No escape on that one folks.  
Jesus said the following:
     

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
"For if ye believed Moses, ye would believe me; for he wrote of me. But if ye believe not his writings, how shall ye believe my words?" (John 5:46-47).
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Where did Moses write about Jesus, pray tell?  Right here when he wrote this Genesis Messianic prophecy:
     

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
And I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your seed and her seed;
He shall bruise you on the head, and you shall bruise him on the heel."   (3:15)  
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Remember, Jesus wasn't a skeptic, and Jesus wasn't an evolutionist.  HE, like all the observant Jews of his day fully accepted Mosaic authorship of Genesis, and accepted it as actual historical narrative, just like the writers of the Old Testament and the New Testament did.

In fact, both Jesus and his opponents (the Pharisees) fully accepted that Moses wrote the first five books of the Bible, including Genesis.   Check out Matt. 19:
     

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
2 The Pharisees came and asked (Jesus), “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife?” testing Him.

3 And He answered and said to them, “What did Moses command you?”

4 They said, “Moses permitted a man to write a certificate of divorce, and to dismiss her.”

5 And Jesus answered and said to them, “Because of the hardness of your heart he wrote you this precept.

6 "But from the beginning of the creation, God ‘made them male and female.’ (Gen. 1:27; Gen. 5:2)

7 ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife,

8 and the two shall become one flesh’; ( Genesis 2:24) so then they are no longer two, but one flesh.

9 Therefore what God has joined together, let not man separate.”
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Jesus's response directly blocked the Pharisee attack, and there was nowhere to go for the Pharisees, they could not come up with a prior Mosaic quotation than the Genesis creation itself.  

Nor did the Pharisees come up with "Hey Jesus!  That's metaphor!  That's allegory!  That's non-historical!  That's not reality!  St. Darwin sez so!"  

No, they (like Jesus) fully accepted that Moses wrote Genesis and Moses said it as actual history.

(And please notice:  Jesus directly quoted the Genesis text itself as actual literal history.)

Finally, also note that Moses wrote again of Jesus in the fifth of the Five Books (the Five Books are called the Pentateuch, which includes Genesis).  Here's two more Messianic prophecies:
     

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
15  "The LORD your God will raise up for you a prophet like me from among you, from your countrymen, you shall listen to him.

18  'I will raise up a prophet from among their countrymen like you, and I will put My words in his mouth, and he shall speak to them all that I command him.

---Deut. 18
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


**********

So, bottom line is.....Moses wrote Genesis, according to Jesus (and the writers of the Old and New Testaments, and the Pharisees, and the Israelites, etc.)

Of course, if you don't believe Jesus Christ, well...........
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


False, Floyd.  Point me to the actual words of Jesus that state that Moses wrote Genesis.

You can't do it.

Address the various dozens of questions put to you in this thread, please.

I continue to pray for you - you are desperately in need of God's grace.
Posted by: Constant Mews on Oct. 28 2009,21:04

Here is your entire problem in a nutshell, Floyd.

In order to show that "incompatibilities" exist between Christian doctrine and evolutionary theory, you either have to show that Genesis is literal truth, or you have to show that Christian doctrine requires Christians to treat Genesis as if it is literally true.

You cannot do either.  You cannot show that Genesis is historical narrative solely from the Bible itself; you cannot show that the authors of Genesis regarded it as historical narrative solely from the Bible itself; and you cannot show that Genesis is narrative truth in any event.

The Nicene Creed, the single most common and fundamental statement of Christian doctrine is completely compatible with evolutionary theory.

Nothing in evolutionary theory prohibits God's responsibility as the ultimate cause of all creation.

Your list of "incompatibilities" is meaningless.
Posted by: Constant Mews on Oct. 28 2009,21:08

Oh, and by the way, Floyd - you do realize that Deuteronomy cannot be referring to Christ?

15  "The LORD your God will raise up for you a prophet like me from among you, from your countrymen, you shall listen to him.

18  'I will raise up a prophet from among their countrymen like you, and I will put My words in his mouth, and he shall speak to them all that I command him.

What part of that do you have trouble understanding?  The entire point is that Jesus was not like us, nor was he like the author's countrymen.

Your ignorance of the Bible is becoming clearer and clearer with every post you make.

It's very simple, Floyd.  I accept both Christian doctrine and evolutionary theory on rational grounds.  There are no "incompatibilities" between them.

You live in fear of hellfire, apparently.  You should.
Posted by: Dan on Oct. 28 2009,21:16

Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 28 2009,08:40)
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Floyd, if Genesis is metaphor, then your list is meaningless.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Here's your problem CM.  Gen 1-11, and the creation account in Gen 1-3, are NOT metaphor.  Not allegory.  Not nonhistorical.

You need to show us evidence that these specific chapters are metaphor and NOT straight historical narrative.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Here is some of the evidence:

1. Radioisotope dating shows that the Earth has existed for about 4 billion years rather than 6000 years.

2. Salinity dating shows that the Earth has existed for about 4 billion years rather than 6000 years.

3. Varve dating shows that the Earth has existed for more than 13,200 years.

4. Dendrochronology shows that the Earth has existed for more than 26,000 years.

5. Light from stars 10 billion light years away is just now reaching Earth, indicating that those stars existed 10 billion years ago, which is longer than 6000 years ago.

6. Microwaves from events 14.1 billion years ago are just now reaching the Earth (and being detected through the Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe).

7. Miles of sedimentary rock with no human fossils shows that the world existed for many millions of years -- not for 5 days -- before humans came into existence.

All of this evidence -- and much more besides -- indicates that the creation account of Genesis 1 is not literally true.  It also indicates that the creation account of Genesis 2 is not literally true.

There is also internal, Biblical evidence that these creation accounts are not true: In Genesis 1 the Earth created animals before God created man, and in Genesis 2 God created animals after God created man.

[I know that FL has tied himself up into intellectual knots denying this straightforward internal contradiction.  This merely proves that FL is even more flexible and even less honest than other intellectual knot-tiers like Bill Clinton or Dick Cheney.  It also proves that FL considers himself to be the product of incest between one of the sons of Adam and one of the daughters of Adam.]

This is some of the evidence that the creation stories in Genesis are nonhistorical.  This does not bother most Christians (69% of Americans, as I've previously pointed out) because they don't interpret the Bible literally.

So, FL, there's the evidence.  I notice that you haven't produced even an iota of evidence that Genesis is historical.  You've made that claim dozens of times -- you've even put it in the form of a multiple-choice quiz -- but all you've done is made the statement.

There is a lot of evidence that the authors of the Old Testament (including the authors of Genesis) were writing a propaganda document that was not intended to be literally true.

For example:
THE BIBLE UNEARTHED
Archaeology's New Vision of Ancient Israel
and the Origin of Its Sacred Texts.
By Israel Finkelstein and Neil Asher Silberman.

I quote from the review by Phyllis Trible:

"A small nation with big plans could use a grand story. In constructing it, authors and editors drew on many diverse and conflicting traditions, which they embellished and elaborated. The intent was ideological and theological -- not to record history (in the modern sense) but to appropriate the past for the present. The epic that emerged was edited and added to in subsequent centuries to become the powerful saga we know as the Hebrew Bible. Unequaled in the ancient world, it articulated a national and social compact for an entire people under God. Finkelstein and Silberman leave no doubt of their reverence for it. In their view, however, it is ''not a miraculous revelation, but a brilliant product of the human imagination.'' "

I've presented evidence that Genesis is ahistorical.  While you have stated the opposite, you have never presented evidence.  Where, Floyd, is your evidence?
Posted by: FrankH on Oct. 28 2009,21:33

Quote (JohnW @ Oct. 28 2009,15:09)
Quote (FrankH @ Oct. 28 2009,12:39)
Don't close the thread.

Let all see and read Floyd's lies and distortions for themselves.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

"Closed" doesn't mean "deleted", Frank.  The thread will be here for our amusement until long after the Rapture.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I know that.  But to give in to "ending this thread" would make Floyd a "winner" in his and other fundies' eyes.

Leave it open and ignore it for the most part but don't give Floyd his "victory".
Posted by: Constant Mews on Oct. 28 2009,21:47

Quote (Dan @ Oct. 28 2009,21:16)
Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 28 2009,08:40)
   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Floyd, if Genesis is metaphor, then your list is meaningless.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Here's your problem CM.  Gen 1-11, and the creation account in Gen 1-3, are NOT metaphor.  Not allegory.  Not nonhistorical.

You need to show us evidence that these specific chapters are metaphor and NOT straight historical narrative.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Here is some of the evidence:

1. Radioisotope dating shows that the Earth has existed for about 4 billion years rather than 6000 years.

2. Salinity dating shows that the Earth has existed for about 4 billion years rather than 6000 years.

3. Varve dating shows that the Earth has existed for more than 13,200 years.

4. Dendrochronology shows that the Earth has existed for more than 26,000 years.

5. Light from stars 10 billion light years away is just now reaching Earth, indicating that those stars existed 10 billion years ago, which is longer than 6000 years ago.

6. Microwaves from events 14.1 billion years ago are just now reaching the Earth (and being detected through the Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe).

7. Miles of sedimentary rock with no human fossils shows that the world existed for many millions of years -- not for 5 days -- before humans came into existence.

All of this evidence -- and much more besides -- indicates that the creation account of Genesis 1 is not literally true.  It also indicates that the creation account of Genesis 2 is not literally true.

There is also internal, Biblical evidence that these creation accounts are not true: In Genesis 1 the Earth created animals before God created man, and in Genesis 2 God created animals after God created man.

[I know that FL has tied himself up into intellectual knots denying this straightforward internal contradiction.  This merely proves that FL is even more flexible and even less honest than other intellectual knot-tiers like Bill Clinton or Dick Cheney.  It also proves that FL considers himself to be the product of incest between one of the sons of Adam and one of the daughters of Adam.]

This is some of the evidence that the creation stories in Genesis are nonhistorical.  This does not bother most Christians (69% of Americans, as I've previously pointed out) because they don't interpret the Bible literally.

So, FL, there's the evidence.  I notice that you haven't produced even an iota of evidence that Genesis is historical.  You've made that claim dozens of times -- you've even put it in the form of a multiple-choice quiz -- but all you've done is made the statement.

There is a lot of evidence that the authors of the Old Testament (including the authors of Genesis) were writing a propaganda document that was not intended to be literally true.

For example:
THE BIBLE UNEARTHED
Archaeology's New Vision of Ancient Israel
and the Origin of Its Sacred Texts.
By Israel Finkelstein and Neil Asher Silberman.

I quote from the review by Phyllis Trible:

"A small nation with big plans could use a grand story. In constructing it, authors and editors drew on many diverse and conflicting traditions, which they embellished and elaborated. The intent was ideological and theological -- not to record history (in the modern sense) but to appropriate the past for the present. The epic that emerged was edited and added to in subsequent centuries to become the powerful saga we know as the Hebrew Bible. Unequaled in the ancient world, it articulated a national and social compact for an entire people under God. Finkelstein and Silberman leave no doubt of their reverence for it. In their view, however, it is ''not a miraculous revelation, but a brilliant product of the human imagination.'' "

I've presented evidence that Genesis is ahistorical.  While you have stated the opposite, you have never presented evidence.  Where, Floyd, is your evidence?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I think you're missing part of Floyd's point.

What he is claiming is that the author of Genesis, et. al. intended it to be historical narrative.  This claim is orthogonal to any claim about whether the events it refers to are in fact historical.

What is interesting about this assertion by Floyd - an unprovable assertion, by the way - is that it is absolutely irrelevant to any of Floyd's arguments.  

The only assertion that matter is whether or not Christians are obliged to treat Genesis as historical narrative.

If they are obliged to do so in order to be considered Christians, then there exists fundamental incompatibilities with astronomy, cosmology, physics, geology, biology, chemistry, anthropology, archaeology, and most other branches of science as well as evolutionary biology.

But the point is, they're not.  No Christian is obliged to regard Genesis 1-11 solely as historical narrative (Floyd seems to have forgotten that Genesis might be both).

So whether or not Genesis actually represents genuine history, as opposed to something that its author or authors thought to be genuine history is a moot point.

The only point that matters is whether Christians must regard it as genuine history in order to be considered Christians.

As a simple demonstration that it is not so, I offered the Nicene Creed.  Nothing in that requires a Christian to treat Genesis as genuine history.

Floyd is right royally hoist on his own petard of ignorance.

I warned you, Floyd; you can't best me on Biblical exegesis nor on evolutionary theory nor on logic.
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Oct. 28 2009,21:52

but can he bench press more than you can CM?

mmmm probly not but who knows

who careth?
Posted by: Constant Mews on Oct. 28 2009,22:06

Quote (Erasmus, FCD @ Oct. 28 2009,21:52)
but can he bench press more than you can CM?

mmmm probly not but who knows

who careth?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


An interesting question.  But once more irrelevant to Floyd's "argument".   :p
Posted by: Constant Mews on Oct. 28 2009,22:07

Repeated for Floyd, since this is what the entire thread has reduced itself to.

So whether or not Genesis actually represents genuine history, as opposed to something that its author or authors thought to be genuine history is a moot point.

The only point that matters is whether Christians must regard it as genuine history in order to be considered Christians.

As a simple demonstration that it is not so, I offered the Nicene Creed.  Nothing in that requires a Christian to treat Genesis as genuine history.

Floyd is right royally hoist on his own petard of ignorance.
Posted by: deadman_932 on Oct. 28 2009,22:41

Quote (Constant Mews @ Oct. 28 2009,22:07)
Floyd is right royally hoist on his own petard of ignorance.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


With emphasis on the "tard."

The same issue of irrelevance really holds for all of Flody's "Big Five" as well, since he admitted that the Pope (a place-holder name for "any Christian," really) can simply ignore Floyd's "Big Five" and still remain a Christian who accepts evolution and ignores Floyd's Big Five.

Floyd basicaly shot himself in the foot on that one, too, but still keeps forwarding his "BF" as if they were somehow meaningful of something. It really is like watching some demented automaton thing bumping itself against a wall endlessly.
Posted by: Quack on Oct. 29 2009,03:36



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I warned you, Floyd; you can't best me on Biblical exegesis nor on evolutionary theory nor on logic.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Even I can't... Buuuuhuuuu...
Posted by: Amadan on Oct. 29 2009,06:23

Quack, I like your new avatar. A relation of yours?
Posted by: Quack on Oct. 29 2009,06:37

Quote (Amadan @ Oct. 29 2009,06:23)
Quack, I like your new avatar. A relation of yours?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Thank you. A little better than the slightly inebriated fellow waving a book "Norske Sengehester" (Norwegian bed-horses). We may laugh at it today, but in 1965 it was a harbinger of what IMHO has gone quite a bit to far.

WRT that fellow I like him too, but don't quite know if or where he might fit in. But I'll try to check it out, I want to know too!
Posted by: rossum on Oct. 29 2009,08:08

Quote (Constant Mews @ Oct. 28 2009,22:07)
The only point that matters is whether Christians must regard it as genuine history in order to be considered Christians.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Floyd's problem is worse than that.  Jesus did not reference a literal version of Genesis, He referenced a non-literal version.

At Mark 10:6 Jesus said: "But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female."

Which shows that Jesus did not interpret Genesis literally.  On a strict literal interpretation this is wrong twice over, firstly because Adam (and presumably Eve) were made some time during day six, not at "the beginning", but more than a hundred and twenty hours after the beginning. Secondly with Adam being made before Eve, there was a time when there was male and not female.  Both of these points show that Jesus was not interpreting Genesis literally.

If Jesus did not interpret Genesis literally then it is surely allowed for others not to interpret it literally.

rossum
Posted by: Constant Mews on Oct. 29 2009,08:44

Quote (rossum @ Oct. 29 2009,08:08)
Quote (Constant Mews @ Oct. 28 2009,22:07)
The only point that matters is whether Christians must regard it as genuine history in order to be considered Christians.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Floyd's problem is worse than that.  Jesus did not reference a literal version of Genesis, He referenced a non-literal version.

At Mark 10:6 Jesus said: "But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female."

Which shows that Jesus did not interpret Genesis literally.  On a strict literal interpretation this is wrong twice over, firstly because Adam (and presumably Eve) were made some time during day six, not at "the beginning", but more than a hundred and twenty hours after the beginning. Secondly with Adam being made before Eve, there was a time when there was male and not female.  Both of these points show that Jesus was not interpreting Genesis literally.

If Jesus did not interpret Genesis literally then it is surely allowed for others not to interpret it literally.

rossum
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


A very nice point. As someone once remarked, Christ appears to have been rather more nuanced than his followers.
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Oct. 29 2009,08:56

Quote (rossum @ Oct. 29 2009,09:08)
Quote (Constant Mews @ Oct. 28 2009,22:07)
The only point that matters is whether Christians must regard it as genuine history in order to be considered Christians.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Floyd's problem is worse than that.  Jesus did not reference a literal version of Genesis, He referenced a non-literal version.

At Mark 10:6 Jesus said: "But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female."

Which shows that Jesus did not interpret Genesis literally.  On a strict literal interpretation this is wrong twice over, firstly because Adam (and presumably Eve) were made some time during day six, not at "the beginning", but more than a hundred and twenty hours after the beginning. Secondly with Adam being made before Eve, there was a time when there was male and not female.  Both of these points show that Jesus was not interpreting Genesis literally.

If Jesus did not interpret Genesis literally then it is surely allowed for others not to interpret it literally.

rossum
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


DAYUM

how is flodd gonna lie about that, i wundah?

betcha the little bastid just ignores it
Posted by: FloydLee on Oct. 29 2009,09:02



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I'm not even going to write any more about this
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


It's just as well.  It seems very clear that you've done no studies on Messianic prophecies in the Bible.
We don't need to argue about it, Deadman, and your apparent stress is unwarranted.  Just leave it as part of the record.
Posted by: FloydLee on Oct. 29 2009,09:05



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
You cannot show that Genesis is historical narrative solely from the Bible itself
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Tell me your response to the Gen 5 genealogy again, CM?
Posted by: Constant Mews on Oct. 29 2009,09:09

Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 29 2009,09:05)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
You cannot show that Genesis is historical narrative solely from the Bible itself
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Tell me your response to the Gen 5 genealogy again, CM?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Repeated for Floyd, since this is what the entire thread has reduced itself to.

So whether or not Genesis actually represents genuine history, as opposed to something that its author or authors thought to be genuine history is a moot point.

The only point that matters is whether Christians must regard it as genuine history in order to be considered Christians.

As a simple demonstration that it is not so, I offered the Nicene Creed.  Nothing in that requires a Christian to treat Genesis as genuine history.

Floyd is right royally hoist on his own petard of ignorance.
Posted by: Robin on Oct. 29 2009,09:11

Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 28 2009,14:32)

---------------------QUOTE-------------------




---------------------QUOTE-------------------


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Sorry Floyd, but as I pointed out earlier, folks like CARM and UKapologetics are not authorities or credible sources
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


In other words, you can't refute their actual statements on the Doc Hyp, your sister's not available to help out, and the only thing left is to claim out of the blue that they are not authorities or credible sources. Okay!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Umm...Floyd - your references have no qualifications or authority on the subject. That's called an appeal to false authority. I don't have to refute apologetics statements; I just have to note that they has no authority and thus the statements have no credibility. You want folks to accept those statements, then back them up with something AUTHORITATIVE and VALID. But of course, you can't.

Oh...and yes my sister is available, but why on earth would I bother her with trivialities that are not valid points that need refuting? Offer me something that requires actual examination and I'll send it on over however.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Meanwhile, readers can compare this source:

< http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Documentary_hypothesis: >

with this source (and all its sources therein):

< http://www.ukapologetics.net/docu.htm >

....and see what's going on there.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Most definitely we can...
Posted by: deadman_932 on Oct. 29 2009,09:20

Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 29 2009,09:05)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
You cannot show that Genesis is historical narrative solely from the Bible itself
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Tell me your response to the Gen 5 genealogy again, CM?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


My personal response would be that there is absolutely no verified evidence of any human living the described lengths in that genealogy. This places it in the category of "not-historical, mythic."
Posted by: deadman_932 on Oct. 29 2009,09:21

Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 29 2009,09:02)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I'm not even going to write any more about this
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


It's just as well.  It seems very clear that you've done no studies on Messianic prophecies in the Bible.
We don't need to argue about it, Deadman, and your apparent stress is unwarranted.  Just leave it as part of the record.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


LOL
Posted by: Constant Mews on Oct. 29 2009,09:24

Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 29 2009,09:05)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
You cannot show that Genesis is historical narrative solely from the Bible itself
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Tell me your response to the Gen 5 genealogy again, CM?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Tell me, Floyd - why do you think this matters, except to demonstrate your ignorance of the Bible?

It does not help your case.

Until you can demonstrate that Christians - in order to be Christians - must consider Genesis to be literal truth, then the intentions or the author or authors of Genesis are irrelevant.  The nature of the Genesis text: narrative history, metaphor, analogy, or some combination is irrelevant.  What matters for a Christian is accepting Christ into his heart.

Where in the Nicene Creed, for example, do we find a requirement to take Genesis 1-11 literally, Floyd?  Point it out to me.  Be precise.

Because it's not in there.

Any Christian can accept evolutionary theory as the fashion in which God created man.  There are no conflicts between evolutionary science and Christian Doctrine.
Posted by: Constant Mews on Oct. 29 2009,09:25

Quote (deadman_932 @ Oct. 29 2009,09:21)
Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 29 2009,09:02)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I'm not even going to write any more about this
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


It's just as well.  It seems very clear that you've done no studies on Messianic prophecies in the Bible.
We don't need to argue about it, Deadman, and your apparent stress is unwarranted.  Just leave it as part of the record.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


LOL
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Floyd's usual response when it has been shown that he's wrong.  It is classic.
Posted by: deadman_932 on Oct. 29 2009,09:28

Quote (Constant Mews @ Oct. 29 2009,09:25)
Quote (deadman_932 @ Oct. 29 2009,09:21)
Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 29 2009,09:02)
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I'm not even going to write any more about this
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


It's just as well.  It seems very clear that you've done no studies on Messianic prophecies in the Bible.
We don't need to argue about it, Deadman, and your apparent stress is unwarranted.  Just leave it as part of the record.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


LOL
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Floyd's usual response when it has been shown that he's wrong.  It is classic.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


What really cracks me up is his bit about causing "apparent stress" in me. Earlier in the thread, he claimed the same thing without the "apparent" qualifier, and got mocked for pretending to be an internet psychic. So now he qualifies it, but the underlying sentiment of Floyd being ABLE to create stress is itself amusing. He actually "thinks" he's a force to be reckoned with or some delusional shit.

It's too, too precious.
Posted by: Constant Mews on Oct. 29 2009,09:33

Quote (deadman_932 @ Oct. 29 2009,09:28)
Quote (Constant Mews @ Oct. 29 2009,09:25)
Quote (deadman_932 @ Oct. 29 2009,09:21)
 
Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 29 2009,09:02)
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I'm not even going to write any more about this
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


It's just as well.  It seems very clear that you've done no studies on Messianic prophecies in the Bible.
We don't need to argue about it, Deadman, and your apparent stress is unwarranted.  Just leave it as part of the record.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


LOL
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Floyd's usual response when it has been shown that he's wrong.  It is classic.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


What really cracks me up is his bit about causing "apparent stress" in me. Earlier in the thread, he claimed the same thing without the "apparent" qualifier, and got mocked for pretending to be an internet psychic. So now he qualifies it, but the underlying sentiment of Floyd being ABLE to create stress is itself amusing. He actually "thinks" he's a force to be reckoned with or some delusional shit.

It's too, too precious.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Remember that in Floyd's mind, he believes he's making legitimate points; and that the points he's making are difficult for you to deal with.

The fact that this is not true, and that Floyd rarely rises beyond the level of simple amusement for the folks on the thread is not something that he can psychologically entertain.  The saddest part of Christians such as Floyd is watching them lie to themselves and delude themselves that they are, somehow, "bringing the fight to the atheists".  It's usually a way of compensating for failures elsewhere in their lives.

The funniest thing is that Floyd clearly regards me as an atheist, since I accept evolution and he cannot separate the two in his mind.  He just won't come out and say so.
Posted by: FrankH on Oct. 29 2009,09:38

Hey Floyd,

The following people accept Evolution as the way their god made life, including the physical nature of humans:

1:  The Pope
2:  CM
3:  Robin
4:  My sister

Question:  Are they or are they not Christians?  Yes or no will do.
Posted by: FloydLee on Oct. 29 2009,09:55

Hey, Rossum!  Good t'see ya.  Brief quote:
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Jesus did not reference a literal version of Genesis, He referenced a non-literal version.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Totally incorrect.  Both in Mark 10 and Matt 19, Jesus is quoting from straight Genesis verses.  We can even identify exactly which Gen verses Jesus quoted, in each case.

Furthermore, Jesus is using a straight literal historical example to TRUMP a straight literal historical example that was given by the Pharisees.  He's NOT using historical fiction to trump historical fact, he's using historical fact to trump historical fact.

And if you check the context, the Pharisees did NOT dispute the historicity or the literalness of Jesus's example from Genesis.  They caught it exactly the way Jesus pitched it, because they at least all agreed on that one thing.

Again, Jesus is NOT doing any "non literal versions".  As we've seen, he's quoting directly (And if you'll check a NIV or a NKJV--a modern version--the quotation marks are provided so you can see.)

So what does Jesus's phrase "from the beginning" in Mark mean?  After all, that seems to be the basis of Rossum's objection. So here's what it means (and doesn't mean):

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
....Jesus didn’t say Adam and Eve were created at the beginning of the “creation period” (i.e., the beginning of Creation Week).  

He said at the “beginning of creation.”  He is talking about the whole creation from Jesus’ day back to the very first moment of creation, just as Paul is referring to the whole creation during all of history in Romans 1:18-20 and Romans 8:19-23. I

In other words, Jesus is saying that Adam and Eve were created at the beginning of history.

This is seen also in the parallel passage to Mark 10:6 found in Matthew 19:4, where Jesus says that Adam and Eve were simply “at the beginning.” Jesus uses the exact same Greek words (translated as “from the beginning of the creation”) in Mark 13:19 and in the verse is clearly speaking of all time from the first day of creation to his day.  

Compare also his reference to the similar phrase “from the foundation of the world” in Luke 11:50-51.

.....Jesus is reaching farther back in history for the basis of his teaching on marriage. The Pharisees go back to the time of Moses’ writings in Deuteronomy, whereas Jesus goes back to the beginning of time.

Jesus spoke these words about 4000 years after the beginning.  If we equate those 4000 years with a 24-hour day, then Jesus was speaking at 24:00 and the creation of Adam and Eve on the sixth literal day of history would be equivalent to 00:00:00:35 (half a second after the beginning), in the non-technical language of Jesus here is the beginning of time.
So, Jesus is indeed saying that Adam and Eve were at the beginning of creation.

----Dr. Terry Mortenson, "But from the beginning of … the institution of marriage?", AIG, Nov. 1, 2004
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


There you go!

FloydLee
Posted by: FloydLee on Oct. 29 2009,10:02



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I don't have to refute apologetics statements
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


No, you don't have to.  But your inability to do so makes things a lot easier on me.     :)
Posted by: deadman_932 on Oct. 29 2009,10:03

Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 29 2009,10:02)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I don't have to refute apologetics statements
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


No, you don't have to.  But your inability to do so makes things a lot easier on me.     :)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


As seen by your inablity to answer direct questions, sure.
Posted by: OgreMkV on Oct. 29 2009,10:07

This is all very interesting Floyd, but instead of this total digresion...

1) you are now almost a week behind your self imposed schedule
2) you still have not answered many questions asked of you in the past few weeks
3) you still have not refuted the three persons who critiqued the bffs (in entirety)
4) you have not answered the one question which really negates all of these:  Is CM a Christian?

I think we ought to hold out for that answer.  All this biblical stuff, while interesting, is basically wanking.  Floyd believes is holds the ultimate authority, when it really doesn't.  

So floyd.  We're back to one question that you refuse to answer... Is CM a Christian?  

If he is, then all of your issues are moot because Christianity is not imcompatible with anything.

If he is not, then your definition of Christian does not match the definition as contained in the bible... which means that all your arguements are moot because you don't believe the bible either.
Posted by: FrankH on Oct. 29 2009,10:07

Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 29 2009,10:02)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I don't have to refute apologetics statements
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


No, you don't have to.  But your inability to do so makes things a lot easier on me.     :)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Hardly.  Do you feel the need to refute bullshit?

No?  So why do you think we need to refute yours?

Also, about those who are Christians and accept evolution.....
Posted by: nmgirl on Oct. 29 2009,10:10

Quote (FrankH @ Oct. 29 2009,09:38)
Hey Floyd,

The following people accept Evolution as the way their god made life, including the physical nature of humans:

1:  The Pope
2:  CM
3:  Robin
4:  My sister

Question:  Are they or are they not Christians?  Yes or no will do.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Hey, don't forget me, nmgirl.
Posted by: FrankH on Oct. 29 2009,10:35

Hey Floyd,

The following people accept Evolution as the way their god made life, including the physical nature of humans:

1:  The Pope
2:  CM
3:  Robin
4:  My sister
5:  nmgirl

Question:  Are they or are they not Christians?  Yes or no will do.
Posted by: FloydLee on Oct. 29 2009,10:43



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
The following people accept Evolution as the way their god made life, including the physical nature of humans:

1:  The Pope
2:  CM
3:  Robin
4:  My sister
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Your question WRT the Pope has already been answered by me (quite directly, btw).  I'll let you go back and look up my answer.

***

Robin said that the Resurrection of Jesus Christ was not historical and literal but instead metaphorical.  So I do NOT know what he is, honestly.

***

Don't know your sister.  Have to hear her own testimony as to what she really believes WRT Jesus Christ.

(However, if she IS a Christian, why aren't you following her example and hooking up with Jesus?  You could always sign up with Him as a theistic evolutionist, you know.)

***

CM, honestly, I don't really know one way or the other.  He testified he has accepted Jesus as his Savior, so I can't and don't fight about that.

But he also said that no sane person accepts a historically literal Genesis, which of course makes Jesus look very bad.  CM clearly disagrees with Jesus's position that the Scriptures are the unbreakable word of God (John 10:35).  

Also he believes that the Christian NT was strongly influenced by the idol cult of Mithraism (which again would deny the authority and trustworthiness of NT Scriptures.)

***

Okay, there's your lineup.  You agree with the scorecard?

FloydLee
Posted by: Constant Mews on Oct. 29 2009,10:43

Answer Frank H's question, Floyd.  It's critical.
Posted by: nmgirl on Oct. 29 2009,10:44

Quote (FrankH @ Oct. 29 2009,10:35)
Hey Floyd,

The following people accept Evolution as the way their god made life, including the physical nature of humans:

1:  The Pope
2:  CM
3:  Robin
4:  My sister
5:  nmgirl

Question:  Are they or are they not Christians?  Yes or no will do.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


And the 12000 plus signers at the clergy Letter Project.
Posted by: Constant Mews on Oct. 29 2009,10:45

Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 29 2009,10:43)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
The following people accept Evolution as the way their god made life, including the physical nature of humans:

1:  The Pope
2:  CM
3:  Robin
4:  My sister
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Your question WRT the Pope has already been answered by me (quite directly, btw).  I'll let you go back and look up my answer.

***

Robin said that the Resurrection of Jesus Christ was not historical and literal but instead metaphorical.  So I do NOT know what he is, honestly.

***

Don't know your sister.  Have to hear her own testimony as to what she really believes WRT Jesus Christ.

(However, if she IS a Christian, why aren't you following her example and hooking up with Jesus?  You could always sign up with Him as a theistic evolutionist, you know.)

***

CM, honestly, I don't really know one way or the other.  He testified he has accepted Jesus as his Savior, so I can't and don't fight about that.

But he also said that no sane person accepts a historically literal Genesis, which of course makes Jesus look very bad.  CM clearly disagrees with Jesus's position that the Scriptures are the unbreakable word of God (John 10:35).  

Also he believes that the Christian NT was strongly influenced by the idol cult of Mithraism (which again would deny the authority and trustworthiness of NT Scriptures.)

***

Okay, there's your lineup.  You agree with the scorecard?

FloydLee
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


He asked for yes/no answers.  You didn't give him any.

Try again, Floyd.

Answer the question.  Be honest - for a change.  Be serious - for a change.  Be Christian - for a change.

Frankly, I think you're so deep into lying to yourself that you'll be unable to do so.

Remember: the fact that I accept both evolutionary theory and Christianity proves you wrong about the incompatibilities.

Proves.  Not indicates, not shows, not implies.

Proves.
Posted by: nmgirl on Oct. 29 2009,10:47

We can now add the Methodists.  Resolutions from the 2008 General Conference:

Petition 80050: accepts evolution and corrects some ambiguities under “Science and Technology” in the Book of Discipline.


Petition 80990: endorses The Clergy Letter Project and its reconciliatory programs between religion and science and urges United Methodist clergy participation, in Resolution 11, “God’s Creation and the Church” in the Book of Resolutions.


Petition 80839: creates a new resolution, “Evolution and Intelligent Design,” in the Book of Resolutions: “The United Methodist Church goes on record as opposing the introduction of any faith-based theories such as Creationism or Intelligent Design into the science curriculum of our public schools.”
Posted by: rossum on Oct. 29 2009,10:48

Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 29 2009,09:55)
Both in Mark 10 and Matt 19, Jesus is quoting from straight Genesis verses.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


My apologies for phrasing my thoughts badly.  Jesus was indeed referring to verses from Genesis, my point is that He did not interpret them literally.

 
Quote (Mortenson @ AiG)
In other words, Jesus is saying that Adam and Eve were created at the beginning of history.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You have just lost the game Floyd.  If history started when Adam and Eve were created, then everything that is described in Genesis as happening before the creation of Adam and Eve, i.e. days one to five, cannot be history and should not be taken as history.  Yet, your case is that all of Genesis has to be taken as history, not just part of it.  Your own source is telling you that you lose.

 
Quote (Mortenson @ AiG)
.....Jesus is reaching farther back in history for the basis of his teaching on marriage. The Pharisees go back to the time of Moses’ writings in Deuteronomy, whereas Jesus goes back to the beginning of time.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


So AiG are denying that days one to five were part of time and hence that they cannot have been 24-hour days as you insist.  Why are you quoting from such a heretical website Floyd?  Again you lose.

 
Quote (Mortenson @ AiG)
Jesus spoke these words about 4000 years after the beginning.  If we equate those 4000 years with a 24-hour day, then Jesus was speaking at 24:00 and the creation of Adam and Eve on the sixth literal day of history would be equivalent to 00:00:00:35 (half a second after the beginning), in the non-technical language of Jesus here is the beginning of time.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


In the technical language of science, Dr. Mortenson is accusing Jesus of making an error; he is accusing Jesus of lying.  Jesus, being omniscient as you believe could have said "near the beginning..." or "close to the beginning..." and been perfectly truthful.  Instead Dr. Mortenson is accusing Jesus of error.

I already knew that AiG was appallingly bad at science.  Until now I have never bothered to read their apologetics stuff.  From the look of this article you picked their apologetics are just as awful as their science.

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
So, Jesus is indeed saying that Adam and Eve were at the beginning of creation.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


That is indeed what He said, and it shows that He did not interpret Genesis literally.  If He had interpreted Genesis literally He would have said "near the beginning...".  Are you going to follow Dr. Mortenson into heresy and accuse Jesus of lying?

rossum
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Oct. 29 2009,10:49

what a tap dance

one idiot quote some other idiot



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
In other words, Jesus is saying that Adam and Eve were created at the beginning of history.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



except, that it's not true.  there is biblical history BEFORE EVE.  it's the parts that you are denying here, the parts you are overlooking in order to contort your DEFILING OF THE WORD TO FIT YOUR ANTI-BIBLICAL BIAS!!!!

if you really loved the bible you would accept what it says without lying about it Flodd.

but you don't, and you can't, because at the root of it all you know that you are not really a christian by your standards.  must suck to live in that stinky closet with all of your self-loathing and repressed emotions.  open the door, Flodd!
Posted by: Constant Mews on Oct. 29 2009,10:49

Floyd, I think it's time you began to act more like a Christian, and ceased lying.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
CM, honestly, I don't really know one way or the other.  He testified he has accepted Jesus as his Savior, so I can't and don't fight about that.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



In other words, I am a Christian.  And I accept evolutionary theory as a valid explanation for the current biodiversity on the earth.

So you are proved wrong about your incompatibilities.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
But he also said that no sane person accepts a historically literal Genesis, which of course makes Jesus look very bad.  CM clearly disagrees with Jesus's position that the Scriptures are the unbreakable word of God (John 10:35).
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Unfortunately, you're wrong again about the Bible.

The actual quote: "If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken;"

What does this have to do with a literal Genesis?  Nothing, of course.  Genesis need not be literally true for Christ to make the same statement.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Also he believes that the Christian NT was strongly influenced by the idol cult of Mithraism (which again would deny the authority and trustworthiness of NT Scriptures.)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Liar.  Next time try reading what I actually wrote.  You're quote-mining and misrepresenting again.
Posted by: Badger3k on Oct. 29 2009,10:50

Quote (Constant Mews @ Oct. 28 2009,22:06)
Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Oct. 28 2009,21:52)
but can he bench press more than you can CM?

mmmm probly not but who knows

who careth?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


An interesting question.  But once more irrelevant to Floyd's "argument".   :p
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


As if the rest of his hysterical attempt at apologetics (hint Floyd, apologetics and biblical scholarship are on opposite sides).  Using CARM et al for biblical disputes is like using AIG for evolution.  

So far, I haven't seen where Floyd tells how Moses wrote about his own death and his burial location that exists "to this day" - was Moses a time traveller?
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Oct. 29 2009,10:51

and answer the question in my sig line, pathetic little man
Posted by: Constant Mews on Oct. 29 2009,10:52

Quote (Badger3k @ Oct. 29 2009,10:50)
Quote (Constant Mews @ Oct. 28 2009,22:06)
Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Oct. 28 2009,21:52)
but can he bench press more than you can CM?

mmmm probly not but who knows

who careth?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


An interesting question.  But once more irrelevant to Floyd's "argument".   :p
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


As if the rest of his hysterical attempt at apologetics (hint Floyd, apologetics and biblical scholarship are on opposite sides).  Using CARM et al for biblical disputes is like using AIG for evolution.  

So far, I haven't seen where Floyd tells how Moses wrote about his own death and his burial location that exists "to this day" - was Moses a time traveller?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


The current consensus is that Moses was not the author of the Pentateuch, so that objection is not really meaningful.
Posted by: Constant Mews on Oct. 29 2009,10:53

Floyd, yes or no answer:

In order to be Christian, a person must regard Genesis 1-11 as literally true.

Yes or no, Floyd.
Posted by: FrankH on Oct. 29 2009,10:55

Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 29 2009,10:43)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
The following people accept Evolution as the way their god made life, including the physical nature of humans:

1:  The Pope
2:  CM
3:  Robin
4:  My sister
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Your question WRT the Pope has already been answered by me (quite directly, btw).  I'll let you go back and look up my answer.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


In other words from Floyd

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
blah, blah, blah I won't answer as I haven't the cajoles
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Humor me.

Answer the questions again and directly.  Don't lie, dance or do the FL duck.  Be a man and answer them again, yes or no:

1:  The Pope
2:  CM
3:  Robin
4:  My sister
5:  nmgirl

You want peopel to answer you yet you refuse to do the same.  How many times have a re-answered you?  Way too many and yet you don't have the courtesy to do the same?
Posted by: Badger3k on Oct. 29 2009,11:02

Quote (Erasmus, FCD @ Oct. 29 2009,10:51)
and answer the question in my sig line, pathetic little man
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I admit that watching his tap dancing on the Titanic is funny, I think if we want to push one point, every single poster here will have to ask the same question, over and over, and not answer any other point.  It'd be hard, I'm sure, but it can be done.

I'm sure you can't find the answers at an apologetics website, but why don't you answer the question?
Posted by: FrankH on Oct. 29 2009,11:02

Hey Floyd,

Why are you such a damnable liar?  You know you've never answered my question with a "yes" or a "no".

If you want, I will go back and find every response by you, list the page and show that you are a true goddamn liar.

Answer my question about this:

1:  The Pope
2:  CM
3:  Robin
4:  My sister
5:  nmgirl

yes or no!

Then answer the question Eramus asked of you that you've completely ignored as you know far to well it will show you to be a pathetic liar for whatever the hell you worship.
Posted by: deadman_932 on Oct. 29 2009,11:06

Hi Floyd!

I know you consider me to be in the "not Christian" category, and I just wanted to say that you're really not doing a good job of bringing me the Good News.

I think my soul is in peril, Floyd, and you're only allowing that to increase as you avoid direct questions and use the sophomoric rhetorical/fallacy games you do.

Start dealing forthrightly and honestly with your interlocutors, Flody. A soul is a terrible thing to waste...won't you help? Isn't that part of what Jesus asked of all followers? WHYYYYYYYYYY are you failing me so?
Posted by: Quack on Oct. 29 2009,11:19

I would be surprised if FL hadn't already established that John Shelby Spong is not worth listening to; FL knows better, but anyway:
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
The Bishop of Newark writes about his disillusionment with Literalism: 'I look at the authority of the Scriptures as one who has been both nurtured by and then disillusioned with the literal Bible. My devotion to the Bible was so intense that it led me into a study that finally obliterated any possibility that the Bible could be related to on a literal basis... A literal Bible presents me with far more problems than assets. It offers me a God I cannot respect, much less worship ... Those who insist on biblical literalism thus become unwitting accomplices in bringing about the death of the Christianity they so deeply love.' (The Book your Church Doesn't Want You to Read", Leedom, T. C. (ed.) (1993), 116.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Oct. 29 2009,11:21

I think his name shall be "Fold".

I decided.
Posted by: Constant Mews on Oct. 29 2009,11:28

I note this comment by Floyd:

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Furthermore, Jesus is using a straight literal historical example to TRUMP a straight literal historical example that was given by the Pharisees.  He's NOT using historical fiction to trump historical fact, he's using historical fact to trump historical fact.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



So, Floyd.  In order to be a Christian, does a person have to accept that Genesis 1-11 is literally true?

Yes or no.
Posted by: Jasper on Oct. 29 2009,11:52

Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 29 2009,11:43)
CM, honestly, I don't really know one way or the other.  He testified he has accepted Jesus as his Savior, so I can't and don't fight about that.

But he also said that no sane person accepts a historically literal Genesis, which of course makes Jesus look very bad.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Jesus quoted other parts of the Bible, like Isaiah 13:


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
"But in those days, following that distress,
  " 'the sun will be darkened,
     and the moon will not give its light;
  the stars will fall from the sky,
     and the heavenly bodies will be shaken.'

Mark 13:24-25
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


No sane person today believes that the stars can actually "fall from the sky" or that the moon "give[s] light." And yet, this is what Jesus and the Biblical writers believed.

I assume that Floyd would disagree with Jesus concerning the possibility that stars can literally "fall from the sky."

Why are you making Jesus look bad, Floyd?
Posted by: Constant Mews on Oct. 29 2009,11:59

And since Christ occasionally contradicts the OT readings, we certainly cannot assume that he regarded every jot and tittle as "fixed."

A person has to accept that Genesis 1-11 is literal history in order to be a Christian.

Yes or no, Floyd.
Posted by: Lou FCD on Oct. 29 2009,12:07

Liars, blasphemers, and hypocrites, Floyd.





---------------------QUOTE-------------------
< Fire 1 >, by robpatrick.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



That's your fate, Floyd.

Burn baby, burn.
(Disco inferno!)
Posted by: FloydLee on Oct. 29 2009,12:12



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I know you consider me to be in the "not Christian" category, and I just wanted to say that you're really not doing a good job of bringing me the Good News.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Already offered John 3:16.  What more you lookin' for?  Besides, you don't like me witnessin' around here anyway.    :)
Posted by: Constant Mews on Oct. 29 2009,12:15

Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 29 2009,12:12)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I know you consider me to be in the "not Christian" category, and I just wanted to say that you're really not doing a good job of bringing me the Good News.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Already offered John 3:16.  What more you lookin' for?  Besides, you don't like me witnessin' around here anyway.    :)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Answer the questions, Floyd.  Why do you demand that we answer your questions when you refuse to return the same courtesy?
Posted by: Constant Mews on Oct. 29 2009,12:16

A person has to accept that Genesis 1-11 is literal history in order to be a Christian.

Yes or no, Floyd.
Posted by: FloydLee on Oct. 29 2009,12:24



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
If you want, I will go back and find every response by you, list the page and show that you are a true goddamn liar.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Then start with the Pope.  (You'll find Francis' Collins name next to his.)  Clear answers were already provided.

Also look up Nmgirl.  Already responded to her testimony, way back.

You'll want to start searching soon, I would think.  
Btw, you also received my specific answers on Robin, CM, and your sister (whoever she is).  Don't wanna respond back on THOSE answers, do you??
Posted by: nmgirl on Oct. 29 2009,12:31

Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 29 2009,12:24)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
If you want, I will go back and find every response by you, list the page and show that you are a true goddamn liar.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Then start with the Pope.  (You'll find Francis' Collins name next to his.)  Clear answers were already provided.

Also look up Nmgirl.  Already responded to her testimony, way back.

You'll want to start searching soon, I would think.  
Btw, you also received my specific answers on Robin, CM, and your sister (whoever she is).  Don't wanna respond back on THOSE answers, do you??
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Answer the question:  Is a literal interpretation of Genesis 1-11 REQUIRED to be a Christian.
Posted by: OgreMkV on Oct. 29 2009,12:35

Just answer the question Floyd.  It's easy, if you think the answer is Yes... type 'y' and hit the 'add reply' button.  If No, then type 'n' and hit the 'add reply' button.

Why is this so difficult?

Is a literal interpretation of Genesis 1-11 required to be a Christian?
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on Oct. 29 2009,12:36

Is a literal interpretation of Genesis 1-11 required to be a Christian?
Posted by: Lou FCD on Oct. 29 2009,12:39

Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Oct. 29 2009,13:36)
Is a literal interpretation of Genesis 1-11 required to be a Christian?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Answer the question, Floyd
Posted by: Robin on Oct. 29 2009,12:40

Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 29 2009,10:02)

---------------------QUOTE-------------------




---------------------QUOTE-------------------


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I don't have to refute apologetics statements
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


No, you don't have to.  But your inability to do so makes things a lot easier on me.     :)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



LOL! Ummm...yeeaaahh Floyd...clearly you can believe anything you want...(rolls eyes)
Posted by: deadman_932 on Oct. 29 2009,12:40

Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 29 2009,12:12)
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I know you consider me to be in the "not Christian" category, and I just wanted to say that you're really not doing a good job of bringing me the Good News.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Already offered John 3:16.  What more you lookin' for?  Besides, you don't like me witnessin' around here anyway.    :)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Perhaps you didn't understand what I actually wrote, Floyd. It had to do with you using sophomoric avoidance, and other ploys. As you once more illustrate.

See the questions in the thread, Floyd? Try answering them directly and honestly. Surprise everyone, perhaps even yourself. Try again.
Posted by: FloydLee on Oct. 29 2009,12:45



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
A person has to accept that Genesis 1-11 is literal history in order to be a Christian.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Nope, they don't have to.  But there are huge rational and Scriptural problems attached to that refusal to accept Gen. 1-11 as literal history....including the fact that it puts that person in direct disagreement with the Jesus that they are now claiming to follow.

But you went further than that, didn't you?  I'll tell you now, you directly said that a SANE person cannot accept Genesis as literal and historical.   Also you've attacked the trustworthiness of the NT in a previous post too.

If you don't retract that skeptic stuff, you're clearly implying that Jesus Christ and the writers of the Bible (both OT and NT, btw) are untrustworthy.  

If that's where you're honestly at, all I can say (if asked about your religion, as Frank asked me) is to simply repeat what you said (about accepting Jesus as Savior) and immediately follow it with a sincere and sober "But honestly I don't know."  

ARE you a Christian, CM.....?
Posted by: Jasper on Oct. 29 2009,12:53

Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 29 2009,13:45)
But you went further than that, didn't you?  I'll tell you now, you directly said that a SANE person cannot accept Genesis as literal and historical.

...

If you don't retract that skeptic stuff, you're clearly implying that Jesus Christ and the writers of the Bible (both OT and NT, btw) are untrustworthy.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


YOU don't accept Genesis as literal, Floyd.  Otherwise, you'd believe in the existence of the Firmament and that the moon gives light, as the Biblical writers did.

If you don't believe in the Firmament or that the moon gives its own light, you're clearly implying that Jesus Christ and the writers of the Bible (both OT and NT) are untrustworthy.

Right, Floyd?
Posted by: OgreMkV on Oct. 29 2009,12:56

Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 29 2009,12:45)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
A person has to accept that Genesis 1-11 is literal history in order to be a Christian.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Nope, they don't have to.  
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Well, that wasn't so hard was it?

Now we can move on to the attempt to get ID into my classroom.
Posted by: FloydLee on Oct. 29 2009,13:03



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Perhaps you didn't understand what I actually wrote
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Oh, I understood, Deadman.  But you're not the person to lecture about avoidance, see?   YOUR particular problem is that when I asked what it is that you actually believe, you were not even able to gimme an honest answer to the question throughout this entire thread.  

Talk about AVOIDANCE, baby!!!!!  That's on you.

You know, Keelyn said she was Agnostic within five microseconds.  No hesitation.

CM runs around saying he accepts Jesus Christ as Savior.   At least he does that much.

Nmgirl owned up to her specific Christian evolutionist belief without hemming and hawing, the FIRST time I asked.  

But youuuuuuuuuuuuuuu?  Still hiding like a skeerdy-cat at the dog pound.  

So here's a question just for you Deadman.  Why won't YOU answer the question that I asked YOU?
Posted by: Constant Mews on Oct. 29 2009,13:04

Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 29 2009,12:45)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
A person has to accept that Genesis 1-11 is literal history in order to be a Christian.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Nope, they don't have to.  But there are huge rational and Scriptural problems attached to that refusal to accept Gen. 1-11 as literal history....including the fact that it puts that person in direct disagreement with the Jesus that they are now claiming to follow.

But you went further than that, didn't you?  I'll tell you now, you directly said that a SANE person cannot accept Genesis as literal and historical.   Also you've attacked the trustworthiness of the NT in a previous post too.

If you don't retract that skeptic stuff, you're clearly implying that Jesus Christ and the writers of the Bible (both OT and NT, btw) are untrustworthy.  

If that's where you're honestly at, all I can say (if asked about your religion, as Frank asked me) is to simply repeat what you said (about accepting Jesus as Savior) and immediately follow it with a sincere and sober "But honestly I don't know."  

ARE you a Christian, CM.....?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------




---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Nope, they don't have to.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



And there go your five "incompatibles."

Nice of you to admit defeat, Floyd.

And yes, I am a Christian.
Posted by: FloydLee on Oct. 29 2009,13:05



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Now we can move on to the attempt to get ID into my classroom
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


What do you teach, btw?  And what grade level?
Posted by: Constant Mews on Oct. 29 2009,13:05

Quote (Jasper @ Oct. 29 2009,12:53)
Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 29 2009,13:45)
But you went further than that, didn't you?  I'll tell you now, you directly said that a SANE person cannot accept Genesis as literal and historical.

...

If you don't retract that skeptic stuff, you're clearly implying that Jesus Christ and the writers of the Bible (both OT and NT, btw) are untrustworthy.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


YOU don't accept Genesis as literal, Floyd.  Otherwise, you'd believe in the existence of the Firmament and that the moon gives light, as the Biblical writers did.

If you don't believe in the Firmament or that the moon gives its own light, you're clearly implying that Jesus Christ and the writers of the Bible (both OT and NT) are untrustworthy.

Right, Floyd?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Answer the question, please, Floyd.

Clearly you do not accept Genesis 1-11 as literal truth.

Do you therefore question the word of God?
Posted by: FloydLee on Oct. 29 2009,13:09

And btw, from now through Nov. 1, no matter what the topic is, I'm gonna keep on asking why Deadman won't answer my question---unless he does answer it.  

Turnabout is fair play boys.
Posted by: Constant Mews on Oct. 29 2009,13:10

Floyd said:


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Nope, they don't have to.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Then there are no incompatibilities between Christian doctrine and evolutionary theory.


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
But there are huge rational and Scriptural problems attached to that refusal to accept Gen. 1-11 as literal history....including the fact that it puts that person in direct disagreement with the Jesus that they are now claiming to follow.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

This is completely false.  There are neither rational nor Scriptural problems with a non-literal reading of Genesis 1-11.  After all, you don't accept that Genesis 1-11 is literal truth.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
But you went further than that, didn't you?  I'll tell you now, you directly said that a SANE person cannot accept Genesis as literal and historical.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

And I stand by that.  You are not sane, by any definition of the word.


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Also you've attacked the trustworthiness of the NT in a previous post too.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

The Bible is the work of Man: fallible, sinful, error-prone man.  The world is the work of God.  If conflict between them arises, then Man must be suspected.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
If you don't retract that skeptic stuff, you're clearly implying that Jesus Christ and the writers of the Bible (both OT and NT, btw) are untrustworthy.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

I have never implied that Christ was untrustworthy.  Nor have I implied anything about the authors of the Bible save that they are human.  And consequently fallible.

The Bible does not need to be accepted as infallible truth in order to accept Christ.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
If that's where you're honestly at, all I can say (if asked about your religion, as Frank asked me) is to simply repeat what you said (about accepting Jesus as Savior) and immediately follow it with a sincere and sober "But honestly I don't know."
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

I actually had no problem with your answer to him at that point.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
ARE you a Christian, CM.....?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Yes, I am.
Posted by: Constant Mews on Oct. 29 2009,13:10

Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 29 2009,13:09)
And btw, from now through Nov. 1, no matter what the topic is, I'm gonna keep on asking why Deadman won't answer my question---unless he does answer it.  

Turnabout is fair play boys.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Excellent.  Then answer the dozens of other questions we've put to you that you refuse to answer.

Turnabout is fair play, Floyd.  Time for you to behave like a grown-up.
Posted by: OgreMkV on Oct. 29 2009,13:14

Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 29 2009,13:05)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Now we can move on to the attempt to get ID into my classroom
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


What do you teach, btw?  And what grade level?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Sorry, admit that you've spun a web that you can't get out of, and declare that we're moving on.  Then I'll be happy to talk about it.

BTW: deadman's, or anyone else's, religion or lack thereof are totally immaterial to this arguement.  Why don't you stick to the topic at hand.  
You used quotes to defend you position, we provided quotes and evidence showing you're quotes don't help you.
You used the bible to defend your position, we provided plenty of refuations and evidence showing the bible doesn't help your position.
Now, you're falling back to non sequiters to shore up your scattered ego.

You admit that a literal interpretation of genesis is not required to be a christian.  Therefore anything that genesis says, implies, or suggests, historical or not, is not required to be a part of chrisitanity.  

You using genesis to support your position that evolution (and all other sciences, though you refuse to admit it) is incompatible with Christianity is wrong.

Move on.  kthxbye
Posted by: Robin on Oct. 29 2009,13:17

Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 29 2009,12:45)
 
---------------------QUOTE-------------------




---------------------QUOTE-------------------
A person has to accept that Genesis 1-11 is literal history in order to be a Christian.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Nope, they don't have to. [/quote]

My sister will be so relieved that you think so Floyd.
Posted by: deadman_932 on Oct. 29 2009,13:24

Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 29 2009,13:03)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Perhaps you didn't understand what I actually wrote
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Oh, I understood, Deadman.  But you're not the person to lecture about avoidance, see?   YOUR particular problem is that when I asked what it is that you actually believe, you were not even able to gimme an honest answer to the question throughout this entire thread.  

Talk about AVOIDANCE, baby!!!!!  That's on you.

You know, Keelyn said she was Agnostic within five microseconds.  No hesitation.

CM runs around saying he accepts Jesus Christ as Savior.   At least he does that much.

Nmgirl owned up to her specific Christian evolutionist belief without hemming and hawing, the FIRST time I asked.  

But youuuuuuuuuuuuuuu?  Still hiding like a skeerdy-cat at the dog pound.  

So here's a question just for you Deadman.  Why won't YOU answer the question that I asked YOU?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Because it's irrelevant to the discussion, Floyd. This is in direct contrast to people questioning you on who is/is not a Christian in your view, which DOES go directly to your claims about Christianity and evolution being "incompatible".

Put quite simply, my beliefs are (1) not pertinant (2) between me and what I believe in (3) quite literally none of your business.
Posted by: FloydLee on Oct. 29 2009,13:27



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
And there go your five "incompatibles."
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Not even close, trust me on that.  (Or if you don't trust me, trust Rosenhouse!)
Posted by: deadman_932 on Oct. 29 2009,13:28

Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 29 2009,13:09)
And btw, from now through Nov. 1, no matter what the topic is, I'm gonna keep on asking why Deadman won't answer my question---unless he does answer it.  

Turnabout is fair play boys.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Lol.

You're the one that made the claim that you could show Christianity and evolution incompatible, Floyd. It's very relevant for people to ask who you consider to be a Christian, when the examples forwarded (like the Pope) also accept evolution. Asking me about MY religious views serves what purpose in regard to the discussion? Particularly when you already have examples like the Pope to deal with?

Answer: none. It's just another cheap ploy on your part, one that would embarass anyone with a sense of honor or honesty to use.

You weren't answering questions long before I told you that my beliefs were none of your business and irrelevant to the discussion. I did answer you exactly that way, too.

It's not as though you're fooling anyone, Flody. Well, perhaps yourself if you're thinking you have any real ethics or morals. An ethical person would simply deal with the relevant questions put to them, rather than trying to pawn off responsibility on me. An ethical person, a moral person, would accept my response of "it's not your business"  -- nor have you shown my beliefs to be even vaguely relevant to your claim that Christianity and evolution are incompatible. In fact, it can't help you at all, regardless of my answer.

It's just an excuse for you, an excuse that is brimming with your shameful lack of even basic honor.
Posted by: Constant Mews on Oct. 29 2009,13:38

Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 29 2009,13:27)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
And there go your five "incompatibles."
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Not even close, trust me on that.  (Or if you don't trust me, trust Rosenhouse!)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Rosenhouse doesn't help you. The POE has an answer. Not the best answer, but it works.
Posted by: Robin on Oct. 29 2009,13:45

Quote (deadman_932 @ Oct. 29 2009,13:28)

---------------------QUOTE-------------------




---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 29 2009,13:09)
And btw, from now through Nov. 1, no matter what the topic is, I'm gonna keep on asking why Deadman won't answer my question---unless he does answer it.  

Turnabout is fair play boys.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Lol.

You're the one that made the claim that you could show Christianity and evolution incompatible, Floyd. It's very relevant for people to ask who you consider to be a Christian. Asking me about MY religious views serves what purpose in regard to the discussion? Particularly when you already have examples like the Pope to deal with? Answer: none. It's just another cheap ploy on your part, one that would embarass anyone with a sense of honor or honesty to use.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



I noticed you didn't include sense of humor. That's good, because quite frankly those of us with a sense of humor aren't embarrassed by it and actually find the ploy pretty funny.  :D
Posted by: FloydLee on Oct. 29 2009,13:46



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Put quite simply, my beliefs are (1) not pertinant
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Ahhh, but they ARE pertinent--very much so.  Why?  

Because those religious beliefs you're hiding are where your pre-suppositions are coming from, and THOSE items---whatever they are-- DO have bearing on this particular debate and the positions you take.

Just as my being utterly honest and clear with everybody about MY specific religious beliefs (and hence my presuppositional positions) gives you a clearer target to understand and address and engage,
so your COWARDICE and refusal to be honest and clear with everybody about your specific religious beliefs has the effect of hiding your pre-suppositional positions through which you come to adopt the views you state.

You're hiding because you are afraid to have your pre-sups rationally examined in public.  What I am not afraid of, you are totally skeer'd of.

And you have the nerve to accuse me of 'avoidance' and not answering question while nervously hiding like that sir?

***

Cmon, it's just a simple question.   You like for people to answer your questions.  Please answer mine.  Won't hurt you, will it?
Posted by: Constant Mews on Oct. 29 2009,13:47

So we see that Floyd has conceded that his first four "incompatibilities" dontt exist, leaving us only with the POE - because that is all Rosenhouse is describing. But Rosenhouse merely points out that some rationalization and analysis is required.
Posted by: deadman_932 on Oct. 29 2009,13:48

Quote (Robin @ Oct. 29 2009,13:45)
I noticed you didn't include sense of humor. That's good, because quite frankly those of us with a sense of humor aren't embarrassed by it and actually find the ploy pretty funny.  :D
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


It IS funny. It's a weird kind of tragicomic funny, in my view, but funny nonetheless. The lack of ethics, the implicit belief that other people are stupid enough to be fooled by it, the childish petulance behind it. Yeah, it's funny.
Posted by: deadman_932 on Oct. 29 2009,13:54

Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 29 2009,13:46)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Put quite simply, my beliefs are (1) not pertinant
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Ahhh, but they ARE pertinent--very much so.  Why?  

Because those religious beliefs you're hiding are where your pre-suppositions are coming from, and THOSE items---whatever they are-- DO have bearing on this particular debate and the positions you take.

Just as my being utterly honest and clear with everybody about MY specific religious beliefs (and hence my presuppositional positions) gives you a clearer target to understand and address and engage,
so your COWARDICE and refusal to be honest and clear with everybody about your specific religious beliefs has the effect of hiding your pre-suppositional positions through which you come to adopt the views you state.

You're hiding because you are afraid to have your pre-sups rationally examined in public.  What I am not afraid of, you are totally skeer'd of.

And you have the nerve to accuse me of 'avoidance' and not answering question while nervously hiding like that sir?

***

Cmon, it's just a simple question.   You like for people to answer your questions.  Please answer mine.  Won't hurt you, will it?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


This has nothing at all to do with  your ability to show evolution and christianity incompatible.

I'll just say I'm not a Christian in your view, Floyd.

There you go. How does that help you in any way to show that evolution and Christianity are incompatible?

It doesn't, because your opinion on my beliefs is irrelevant. It also doesn't deal in the least with those many other examples of open evolutionists who are Christians as well. My position doesn't affect the reality of those things.

Even your "justification" for asking me at all was nonsensical, Flody, but...hah, that's pretty much all you have to offer, really.
Posted by: OgreMkV on Oct. 29 2009,13:59

Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 29 2009,13:27)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
And there go your five "incompatibles."
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Not even close, trust me on that.  (Or if you don't trust me, trust Rosenhouse!)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


OMG, of course.  This statement makes it all clear.  That's the answer to everything.

I bow to your crushing grip on logic and reason...

Oh wait... nevermind.
Posted by: deadman_932 on Oct. 29 2009,14:05

I'll repeat, Flody:  you have broken your word at every turn, from the very beginning of this thread,  and refused to answer long before you asked me anything about my religious views.

Now what other excuse will you offer up to not answer direct questions, Flody? There will be other excuses or tactics for you to avoid that, Flody, and you will use them, won't you?
Posted by: Constant Mews on Oct. 29 2009,14:19

Since Floyd has become confused and unable to respond to requests for clarification on his points, I think it's best to provide a summary of what I believe his position to be.

Floyd believes that evolutionary theory and Christian doctrine are incompatible because:

1. Christian doctrine specifies that God is the necessary and sufficient explanation for biological organisms, and evolutionary theory does not require God as the necessary and sufficient explanation.

2. Christian doctrine specifies that God chose to create the universe and mankind and evolutionary theory denies that God chose to create the universe and mankind.

3. Christian doctrine specifies that God created man in His own image and evolutionary theory denies that God created man in His own image.

4. Christian doctrine specifies that death did not occur before man and evolutionary theory requires that death existed before man.

5. Christian doctrine specifies that God is a loving, and all-powerful God.  Evolutionary theory implies otherwise, since the evolutionary process involves gratuitous pain and suffering. This is Rosenhouse's point.

Now, once again, what definition of evolutionary theory did Floyd himself provide?



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Evolution comes in two flavors, micro-evolution and macro-evolution.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------





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





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





---------------------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.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



USING FLOYD'S OWN SUPPLIED DEFINITIONS, with regard to point 1, we note that evolutionary theory is silent on the involvement of God in biological diversity and origins.  We also note that since Floyd has conceded that Genesis 1-11 need not be taken literally to be Christian, a Christian may accept any mechanism God chooses to use.  Study of God's own work - the World - shows us that evolution is the mechanism God chose to use to create and diversify life.

USING FLOYD'S OWN SUPPLIED DEFINITIONS, with regard to point 2, we note that evolutionary theory is silent on the involvement of God in biological diversity and origins, and so does not deny that willed it and supports and maintains it.

USING FLOYD'S OWN SUPPLIED DEFINITIONS, with regard to point 3, we note that evolutionary theory is silent on the involvement of God in biological diversity and origins.  Evolutionary theory says nothing about souls; certainly no one claims that evolution created the soul.

USING FLOYD'S OWN SUPPLIED DEFINITIONS, with regard to point 4, we note that Christ is most likely referring to spiritual, rather than physical death, given the context of the passage.

USING FLOYD'S OWN SUPPLIED DEFINITIONS, with regard to point 5, we note that this has nothing to do with evolutionary theory per se - Rosenhouse is merely repeating the ancient Problem of Evil, for which Christianity already has an answer.

So Floyd, by conceding a non-literal reading of Genesis as compatible with Christian belief has conceded all points dependent on a Genesis history.

No incompatibilities, Floyd.  Not a single one.
Posted by: FloydLee on Oct. 29 2009,14:22



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
So we see that Floyd has conceded that his first four "incompatibilities"
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


By the way CM, what was your answer on Incompatibility #4?  Don't seem like you had much to say.  Please don't hold back on all that theological prowess, instead tell me how you resolved THAT one?
Posted by: deadman_932 on Oct. 29 2009,14:24

Who cares, Flody? AS YOU ADMITTED, no Christian has to address your "incompatibilities" at all for you to agree they are still Christians, even if they hold to acceptance of evolution as well.

You don't have an argument at all anymore, and you saw to it yourself. Of course, you may really be incapable of acknowledging that, but who cares? It's done.
Posted by: Constant Mews on Oct. 29 2009,14:26

Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 29 2009,14:22)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
So we see that Floyd has conceded that his first four "incompatibilities"
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


By the way CM, what was your answer on Incompatibility #4?  Don't seem like you had much to say.  Please don't hold back on all that theological prowess, instead tell me how you resolved THAT one?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I just supplied an answer. If you are unable to read, may I suggest remedial education. I can also give you some Bible study lessons - apparently you need them badly.
Posted by: FrankH on Oct. 29 2009,14:28

You know Floyd, I answered your questions.  I even answered questions about non-personal things you asked of other people.  So what about answering mine?

Now, before you say, "You didn't answer all of mine", go back and take a look at when and where you asked these questions.  They were when you answered a question with a question so you never answered my question.  Still in more than a few places, I answered you and re-posed my question.

So if you feel you have a problem with deadman, then fine.  But at least answer those who've answered you.
Posted by: FloydLee on Oct. 29 2009,14:28



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
USING FLOYD'S OWN SUPPLIED DEFINITIONS, with regard to point 4, we note that Christ is most likely referring to spiritual, rather than physical death, given the context of the passage.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


This one was specifically refuted God knows how many double-digit pages back.   It was refuted both from actual Romans text and current peer-review-published Romans scholarship (viz., Douglas Moo, NICNT).

Got anything else on #4?
Posted by: FloydLee on Oct. 29 2009,14:35



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
You know Floyd, I answered your questions.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Hey, I gave you straight answers on your laundry list of "Christians" there.  Even respectfully answered concerning your sister.  Gave you specific explanations.

But I did already provide this board specific answers on Pope and Nmgirl (and Francis Collins too), and and gave you specific answers on the rest including your sister.

Sorry, I think I have a right to insist that you NOT act like I never provided them already, and that's how you've been behaving all this time.  You've been on this board long enough to have looked them up already.  

You said you'd look 'em up to prove I was an (expletive) liar.  So, you gonna look 'em up already or not?
Posted by: Robin on Oct. 29 2009,14:36

[quote=FloydLee,Oct. 29 2009,13:46][/quote]


---------------------QUOTE-------------------


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Put quite simply, my beliefs are (1) not pertinant
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Ahhh, but they ARE pertinent--very much so.  Why?  

Because those religious beliefs you're hiding are where your pre-suppositions are coming from, and THOSE items---whatever they are-- DO have bearing on this particular debate and the positions you take.

Just as my being utterly honest and clear with everybody about MY specific religious beliefs (and hence my presuppositional positions) gives you a clearer target to understand and address and engage,
so your COWARDICE and refusal to be honest and clear with everybody about your specific religious beliefs has the effect of hiding your pre-suppositional positions through which you come to adopt the views you state.

You're hiding because you are afraid to have your pre-sups rationally examined in public.  What I am not afraid of, you are totally skeer'd of.

And you have the nerve to accuse me of 'avoidance' and not answering question while nervously hiding like that sir?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



There are  a few problems with your tactic here, Floyd. You have not established why Deadman's presuppostions (assuming he has any) are pertinent to your proving that evolution is incompatible with Christianity. Understanding where Deadman is coming from should have NO bearing on whether you can effectively prove that evolution is incompatible with Christianity. For example, it would make no difference to an argument regarding demonstrating that heavy rain storms are incompatible with a getting sheets dry on an outdoor clothes line what people's presuppositions are. If your argument regarding the incompatibility between evolution and Christianity is biased by presuppositions, your argument doesn't have a lot of objectivity to begin with. That makes it a rather weak argument since subjective arguments can't be proven at all and have little value to anyone.

Also, there's the little problem with the way you presented presuppositions as though they are some standard. They aren't. There's a facet of Christian apologetics that tries to establish a logical basis for biblical literalism by claiming that presuppositional positions require a valid starting point and that the bible is as valid (if not the only valid) starting point. The problem with this position, however, is that it is a) circular in nature and thus invalid, but b) easy to defeat by demonstrating a rational position that requires no presuppositions. I can demonstrate one if you like that cannot be defeated and has completely reduced Plantinga and Bahsen's arguments to moot points.

Bottom line, Deadman's position should have no bearing on your argument, but if it does, then your argument is of no value anyway.
Posted by: FloydLee on Oct. 29 2009,14:38



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I'll just say I'm not a Christian in your view, Floyd.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Question is, are you even a Christian in YOUR OWN view?  

Sheesh, all that duckin' and hidin'!!     :)
Posted by: deadman_932 on Oct. 29 2009,14:42

Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 29 2009,14:38)
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I'll just say I'm not a Christian in your view, Floyd.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Question is, are you even a Christian in YOUR OWN view?  

Sheesh, all that duckin' and hidin'!!     :)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Saying that my beliefs are both irrelevant and none of your business isn't "hiding" at all, Floyd. It is factual. You certainly haven't shown otherwise. I answered you because I'm aware that you would continue using my beliefs as though they somehow showed something relevant to your original claim , even though you can't show that either.

As for what I consider myself to be, again, how is that relevant? My "Presuppositions" won't help you show evolution and Christianity incompatible.

Finally, again, AS YOU ADMITTED, no Christian has to address your "incompatibilities" at all, for you to agree they are still Christians, even if they hold to acceptance of evolution as well.

You screwed yourself out of an argument, Floyd. At this point, all that's left is watching to see how more dishonest you'll get. I hope you won't disappoint, since it will be used against you for as long as you choose.
Posted by: FloydLee on Oct. 29 2009,15:03



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
You have not established why Deadman's presuppostions (assuming he has any) are pertinent to your proving that evolution is incompatible with Christianity.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Ohhhh yes I have.  For example, some posters (and Deadman was specifically one of them, so there!)  have appealed to an anti-supernaturalist presupposition of(naturalism for short) in an attempt to evade the force of the First and Second Incompatibilities.  You guys (and Deadman) did NOT appeal to science but instead to a negative theological presupposition.

Knowing what that particular presupposition is and how it works, helped me to both understand the objections you guys were lodging, and also to locate the correct professional sources with which to carefully and specifically argue against trying to equate that negative presupposition with science itself---(like Deadman and his pals were trying to do.)

So yeah, at bare minimum, you've already seen that Deadman's presuppositions, (or yours, or mine, which mine are all on the table already) can indeed have serious bearing on this topic.

But Deadman has had PLENTY to say around here, not just that one thing.  So how many MORE pre-suppositions are lurking in there?  How many MORE times is he actually relying on his Pre-Sups for his conclusions instead of on the evidences and sound reasonings?

(Actually, he ain't the only one who could be asked those question.  But at least you've been forthcoming and halfway straight with me on where you're coming from.  Deadman has NOT been.

You were willing, for example, to say out loud that the Resurrection of Jesus was metaphorical instead of historical.   You stood up and said your true beliefs.

I can't even get Deadman to be THAT honest with me.  He's ducking and hiding his cards.  And relying on YOU guys to keep him hid.
Posted by: Dan on Oct. 29 2009,15:08

Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 29 2009,13:46)
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Put quite simply, my beliefs are (1) not pertinant
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Ahhh, but they ARE pertinent--very much so.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


FL is still challenged by simple logic.

The question: "Is knowledge of evolution consistent with belief in Christianity?"

To demonstrate the affirmative, one need only find a Christian who holds to evolution.

FL believes that to demonstrate the negative, one need only find a Christian who doesn't hold to evolution.

FL is of course dead wrong, and FL knows that.  But in a vain attempt to salvage dignity, he's raising a bunch of irrelevant points.  Yes!  He accuses people of being cowardly because they remain on topic!  This is one such example.  Unfortunately for FL, he is violating the well-known principle "if you're deep in a hole, stop digging."
Posted by: FrankH on Oct. 29 2009,15:08

Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 29 2009,14:35)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
You know Floyd, I answered your questions.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Hey, I gave you straight answers on your laundry list of "Christians" there.  Even respectfully answered concerning your sister.  Gave you specific explanations.

But I did already provide this board specific answers on Pope and Nmgirl (and Francis Collins too), and and gave you specific answers on the rest including your sister.

Sorry, I think I have a right to insist that you NOT act like I never provided them already, and that's how you've been behaving all this time.  You've been on this board long enough to have looked them up already.  

You said you'd look 'em up to prove I was an (expletive) liar.  So, you gonna look 'em up already or not?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


No you did not.  Specific answers are "Yes" and/or "No".  You danced around answers but specifics?  Not even close.

Then I ask you r indulgence here to just come out and say YES or NO.  These people claim their God used Evolution:

1: The Pope
2: nmgirl
3: My Sister
4: Robin
5: CM

Are they Christian or not?
Posted by: FrankH on Oct. 29 2009,15:10

Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 29 2009,15:03)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
You have not established why Deadman's presuppostions (assuming he has any) are pertinent to your proving that evolution is incompatible with Christianity.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Ohhhh yes I have.  For example, some posters (and Deadman was specifically one of them, so there!)  have appealed to an anti-supernaturalist presupposition of(naturalism for short) in an attempt to evade the force of the First and Second Incompatibilities.  You guys (and Deadman) did NOT appeal to science but instead to a negative theological presupposition.

Knowing what that particular presupposition is and how it works, helped me to both understand the objections you guys were lodging, and also to locate the correct professional sources with which to carefully and specifically argue against trying to equate that negative presupposition with science itself---(like Deadman and his pals were trying to do.)

So yeah, at bare minimum, you've already seen that Deadman's presuppositions, (or yours, or mine, which mine are all on the table already) can indeed have serious bearing on this topic.

But Deadman has had PLENTY to say around here, not just that one thing.  So how many MORE pre-suppositions are lurking in there?  How many MORE times is he actually relying on his Pre-Sups for his conclusions instead of on the evidences and sound reasonings?

(Actually, he ain't the only one who could be asked those question.  But at least you've been forthcoming and halfway straight with me on where you're coming from.  Deadman has NOT been.

You were willing, for example, to say out loud that the Resurrection of Jesus was metaphorical instead of historical.   You stood up and said your true beliefs.

I can't even get Deadman to be THAT honest with me.  He's ducking and hiding his cards.  And relying on YOU guys to keep him hid.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Floyd still thinks people's opinions, even if he gets them all wrong, "prove" his points.

So I guess that a whacked out crack whore who believes she is giving birth to an aliens baby proves the existence of aliens.
Posted by: deadman_932 on Oct. 29 2009,15:22

Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 29 2009,15:03)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
You have not established why Deadman's presuppostions (assuming he has any) are pertinent to your proving that evolution is incompatible with Christianity.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Ohhhh yes I have.  For example, some posters (and Deadman was specifically one of them, so there!)  have appealed to an anti-supernaturalist presupposition of(naturalism for short) in an attempt to evade the force of the First and Second Incompatibilities.  You guys (and Deadman) did NOT appeal to science but instead to a negative theological presupposition.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Care to point to that? Page? Citation? My position on deistic supernaturalism is that I can't demonstrate it via naturalistic methods definitively one way or the other, period. My posts will always be consistent with that, so I'm pretty sure you're either lying outright or have managed once again to deliberately "misunderstand" a post.
Posted by: FloydLee on Oct. 29 2009,15:33



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Then I ask you r indulgence here to just come out and say YES or NO.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You bet you're asking my indulgence, after promising everybody that you would prove that I'm an (expletive) liar by looking up past pages for yourself.  Which now you're backing off of, you couldn't even keep that promise.

What would your sister say to all that, Frank...?
(Oh never mind, I don't wanna know.)

Hey, let's cut this short.  Pope and Nmgirl, already acknowledged their testimonies that they are Christian.  Didn't deny 'em, in fact I acknowledged so on those back pages that you're unaware of, that they are Christians.  Already said a yes on 'em.  

Now you don't have to do any homework on back pages.  Kewl?

The rest, already gave you the specific answers on each one, which you promptly ignored.  

FloydLee
Posted by: deadman_932 on Oct. 29 2009,15:35

Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 29 2009,15:33)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Then I ask you r indulgence here to just come out and say YES or NO.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You bet you're asking my indulgence, after promising everybody that you would prove that I'm an (expletive) liar by looking up past pages for yourself.  Which now you're backing off of, you couldn't even keep that promise.

What would your sister say to all that, Frank...?
(Oh never mind, I don't wanna know.)

Hey, let's cut this short.  Pope and Nmgirl, already acknowledged their testimonies that they are Christian.  Didn't deny 'em, in fact I acknowledged so on those back pages that you're unaware of, that they are Christians.  Already said a yes on 'em.  

Now you don't have to do any homework on back pages.  Kewl?

The rest, already gave you the specific answers on each one, which you promptly ignored.  

FloydLee
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Heh. Feeling desperate, Flody?
Posted by: Keelyn on Oct. 29 2009,15:38

Quote (Constant Mews @ Oct. 29 2009,15:19)
Since Floyd has become confused and unable to respond to requests for clarification on his points, I think it's best to provide a summary of what I believe his position to be.

Floyd believes that evolutionary theory and Christian doctrine are incompatible because:

1. Christian doctrine specifies that God is the necessary and sufficient explanation for biological organisms, and evolutionary theory does not require God as the necessary and sufficient explanation.

2. Christian doctrine specifies that God chose to create the universe and mankind and evolutionary theory denies that God chose to create the universe and mankind.

3. Christian doctrine specifies that God created man in His own image and evolutionary theory denies that God created man in His own image.

4. Christian doctrine specifies that death did not occur before man and evolutionary theory requires that death existed before man.

5. Christian doctrine specifies that God is a loving, and all-powerful God.  Evolutionary theory implies otherwise, since the evolutionary process involves gratuitous pain and suffering. This is Rosenhouse's point.

Now, once again, what definition of evolutionary theory did Floyd himself provide?



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Evolution comes in two flavors, micro-evolution and macro-evolution.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------





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





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





---------------------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.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



USING FLOYD'S OWN SUPPLIED DEFINITIONS, with regard to point 1, we note that evolutionary theory is silent on the involvement of God in biological diversity and origins.  We also note that since Floyd has conceded that Genesis 1-11 need not be taken literally to be Christian, a Christian may accept any mechanism God chooses to use.  Study of God's own work - the World - shows us that evolution is the mechanism God chose to use to create and diversify life.

USING FLOYD'S OWN SUPPLIED DEFINITIONS, with regard to point 2, we note that evolutionary theory is silent on the involvement of God in biological diversity and origins, and so does not deny that willed it and supports and maintains it.

USING FLOYD'S OWN SUPPLIED DEFINITIONS, with regard to point 3, we note that evolutionary theory is silent on the involvement of God in biological diversity and origins.  Evolutionary theory says nothing about souls; certainly no one claims that evolution created the soul.

USING FLOYD'S OWN SUPPLIED DEFINITIONS, with regard to point 4, we note that Christ is most likely referring to spiritual, rather than physical death, given the context of the passage.

USING FLOYD'S OWN SUPPLIED DEFINITIONS, with regard to point 5, we note that this has nothing to do with evolutionary theory per se - Rosenhouse is merely repeating the ancient Problem of Evil, for which Christianity already has an answer.

So Floyd, by conceding a non-literal reading of Genesis as compatible with Christian belief has conceded all points dependent on a Genesis history.

No incompatibilities, Floyd.  Not a single one.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I still think it is more easy to summarize by phrasing it as:

Now after 80 pages, Floyd has managed to [fill in the blank].
Posted by: deadman_932 on Oct. 29 2009,15:39



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Now after 80 pages, Floyd has managed to [fill in the blank].

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



My favorite answer to that is: "defeat his own claim"

ETA: I should have added this was about page 30. Floyd just keeps kicking the corpse and saying "it's alive!"
Posted by: Constant Mews on Oct. 29 2009,15:45

Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 29 2009,15:33)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Then I ask you r indulgence here to just come out and say YES or NO.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You bet you're asking my indulgence, after promising everybody that you would prove that I'm an (expletive) liar by looking up past pages for yourself.  Which now you're backing off of, you couldn't even keep that promise.

What would your sister say to all that, Frank...?
(Oh never mind, I don't wanna know.)

Hey, let's cut this short.  Pope and Nmgirl, already acknowledged their testimonies that they are Christian.  Didn't deny 'em, in fact I acknowledged so on those back pages that you're unaware of, that they are Christians.  Already said a yes on 'em.  

Now you don't have to do any homework on back pages.  Kewl?

The rest, already gave you the specific answers on each one, which you promptly ignored.  

FloydLee
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


So, by this acknowledgment, you admit that Christianity and evolution are compatible.

Good to know.
Posted by: Henry J on Oct. 29 2009,15:45

Quote (OgreMkV @ Oct. 29 2009,12:59)
Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 29 2009,13:27)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
And there go your five "incompatibles."
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Not even close, trust me on that.  (Or if you don't trust me, trust Rosenhouse!)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


OMG, of course.  This statement makes it all clear.  That's the answer to everything.

I bow to your crushing grip on logic and reason...

Oh wait... nevermind.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Answer to everything? No, that's 42.
Posted by: FloydLee on Oct. 29 2009,15:48



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Heh. Feeling desperate, Flody?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Nope.  Just stating the truth as I see it.

After all (ahemmm), I 'm not skeered to let readers know exactly what I believe and don't believe, even when it comes to core religious beliefs.
Posted by: Henry J on Oct. 29 2009,15:49

Quote (Constant Mews @ Oct. 29 2009,13:19)
1. Christian doctrine specifies that God is the necessary and sufficient explanation for biological organisms, and evolutionary theory does not require God as the necessary and sufficient explanation.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Also his assertions conflate being the cause of something with being the explanation of the details of that something.
Posted by: JohnW on Oct. 29 2009,15:50

Quote (deadman_932 @ Oct. 29 2009,13:39)
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Now after 80 pages, Floyd has managed to [fill in the blank].

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



My favorite answer to that is: "defeat his own claim"

ETA: I should have added this was about page 30. Floyd just keeps kicking the corpse and saying "it's alive!"
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


As he did again just three posts higher up:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Hey, let's cut this short.  Pope and Nmgirl, already acknowledged their testimonies that they are Christian.  Didn't deny 'em, in fact I acknowledged so on those back pages that you're unaware of, that they are Christians.  Already said a yes on 'em.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: deadman_932 on Oct. 29 2009,15:52

Quote (deadman_932 @ Oct. 08 2009,10:38)
 
Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 08 2009,10:32)
   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
For the Pope, my understanding is that he and others have formulated a view of God that merely allows evolution to come into existence and effect, like other natural phenomena -- like water flowing downhill.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


And yet, for some strange reason, nobody here can explain the specifics of that alleged "view of God" --- or even quote those specifics.

I have in fact provided a few quotes from the Pope about his "view of God"---but they all directly affirm the first three Incompatibilities.  Imagine that.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


And you've already acknowledged that whether the pope accepts or rejects any or all of your Big Five Fantasies -- the Pope remains a Christian.

Your objection is meaningless.

I've already explained this, Floyd. He accepts evolution as compatible with Christianity. He remains Christian irrespective of addressing your BFF.
He is free to reject the opinions of others regarding "philosophical meanings" of evolution.

Your argument that evo and Christianity are incompatible due to either
(a) your BFF or
(b) the opinions you cite
is simply done. Over. Deceased. No longer among the viable. A dead parrot.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Ah...page 30
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Oct. 29 2009,15:55

Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 29 2009,14:09)
And btw, from now through Nov. 1, no matter what the topic is, I'm gonna keep on asking why Deadman won't answer my question---unless he does answer it.  

Turnabout is fair play boys.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


maybe he'll do like you and never answer it, like a little whiny bitch.

wouldn't that be great fun?  after the way you have acted like a little whiny bitch and refused to answer a simple question that you know destroys your ridiculous position, nobody owes you shit.

you pissed away the goodwill and the rules of the thread LONG BEFORE

Quote (Floyd @ murmured in his sleep)
I'm gonna keep... fair... boys.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: Constant Mews on Oct. 29 2009,15:56

Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 29 2009,15:33)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Then I ask you r indulgence here to just come out and say YES or NO.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You bet you're asking my indulgence, after promising everybody that you would prove that I'm an (expletive) liar by looking up past pages for yourself.  Which now you're backing off of, you couldn't even keep that promise.

What would your sister say to all that, Frank...?
(Oh never mind, I don't wanna know.)

Hey, let's cut this short.  Pope and Nmgirl, already acknowledged their testimonies that they are Christian.  Didn't deny 'em, in fact I acknowledged so on those back pages that you're unaware of, that they are Christians.  Already said a yes on 'em.  

Now you don't have to do any homework on back pages.  Kewl?

The rest, already gave you the specific answers on each one, which you promptly ignored.  

FloydLee
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You are lying.  You did not give him the specific yes/no answers you were asked for.

We don't have to go back many pages, Floyd, to show you lying.  You've lied on this very page.
Posted by: deadman_932 on Oct. 29 2009,15:58

Quote (deadman_932 @ Oct. 08 2009,09:30)
I'll try to explain this as simply as possible, Floyd.

Your argument, like so many other bad arguments, was a composite. It had at least two legs that allowed you to equivocate as much as possible, running back and forth.

The first part of it was your insistence that your Big Five Fantasies had to be addressed by any Christian. it was then admitted by you that the Pope could be free to reject any or all of them and remain a Christian. Thus he never has to address them at all. He can accept any or all and remain a Christian, he could reject any or all and remain a Christian.

The second part is you tossing out quoted opinions by "evolutionists" that you claim run counter to belief in God. Upon examination, what the quotes primarily were saying was that science simply can't examine such notions. They are not amenable to scientific investigation for a large number of well-known reasons (falsifiability, reproducibility, changing concepts of God, etc.) Most importantly, they simply remain OPINIONS about what evolution means.

Believers are free to reject such interpretations. End of story.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


P.28
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Oct. 29 2009,15:59

Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 29 2009,14:46)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Put quite simply, my beliefs are (1) not pertinant
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Ahhh, but they ARE pertinent--very much so.  Why?  

Because those religious beliefs you're hiding are where your pre-suppositions are coming from, and THOSE items---whatever they are-- DO have bearing on this particular debate and the positions you take.

Just as my being utterly honest and clear with everybody about MY specific religious beliefs (and hence my presuppositional positions) gives you a clearer target to understand and address and engage,
so your COWARDICE and refusal to be honest and clear with everybody about your specific religious beliefs has the effect of hiding your pre-suppositional positions through which you come to adopt the views you state.

You're hiding because you are afraid to have your pre-sups rationally examined in public.  What I am not afraid of, you are totally skeer'd of.

And you have the nerve to accuse me of 'avoidance' and not answering question while nervously hiding like that sir?

***

Cmon, it's just a simple question.   You like for people to answer your questions.  Please answer mine.  Won't hurt you, will it?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


hahahahaha



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Just as my being utterly honest and clear with everybody about MY specific religious beliefs (and hence my presuppositional positions) gives you a clearer target to understand and address and engage,
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



No you didn't, pathetic little man.  You have avoided a single question for about 50 pages.  You haven't been honest YET
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Oct. 29 2009,16:01

Quote (deadman_932 @ Oct. 29 2009,15:24)
Who cares, Flody? AS YOU ADMITTED, no Christian has to address your "incompatibilities" at all for you to agree they are still Christians, even if they hold to acceptance of evolution as well.

You don't have an argument at all anymore, and you saw to it yourself. Of course, you may really be incapable of acknowledging that, but who cares? It's done.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


bwahahahahahaha

Fold
Posted by: Jasper on Oct. 29 2009,16:02

Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 29 2009,16:48)
After all (ahemmm), I 'm not skeered to let readers know exactly what I believe and don't believe, even when it comes to core religious beliefs.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


That's total BS, Floyd.

I've < asked > < you > < multiple > < times > about your beliefs concerning aspects of the Genesis account that you don't take literally (the Firmament, the moon "giving light", the pillars of the earth, etc.).

You reject a literal reading of Genesis when it comes to certain areas of science.

And yet, you demand that Genesis be interpreted literally when it comes to the question of whether evolution has occurred.

Why is that Floyd?
Posted by: Constant Mews on Oct. 29 2009,16:06

Since we do recognize that nothing Floyd says can be trusted, given his documented record of lying, let's check that Rosenhouse quote-mine.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
"Evolution by natural selection, you see, is an awful process. It is bloody, sadistic, and cruel. It flouts every moral precept we humans hold dear.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Rosenhouse is theologically confused; as morality is concerned with sin, and animals do not sin, the evolutionary process as regards animals does not flout moral precepts.  Now, interestingly enough, it may flout moral precepts developed through the process of evolution, but that is another issue entirely.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
It recognizes only survival and gene propagation, and even on those rare occasions where you find altruism and non-selfishness you can be certain that blind self-interest is lurking somewhere behind the scenes. All of this suffering, pain and misery, mind you, to reach a foreordained moment when self-aware creature finally appeared.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

His representation of evolution is simplistic, reciprocal altruism in its many manifestations, along with less morally reprehensible mechanisms such as sexual selection and genetic drift involve more than mere 'self-interest' - a characteristic of advanced minds in any event.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
What theological purpose was served by all this bloodsport? If humans were inevitable why didn't God simply fast-forward the tape himself, thereby sparing all of those animals that died horrible deaths in the preceding hundreds of millions of years?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

And so he comes to it - the basic Problem of Evil: why does evil and suffering occur in the universe of an omniscient, omnibenevolent God?



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
....Reconciling evolution and Christianity is not as simple as theistic evolutionists often try to pretend."
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Of course not.  But note what Rosenhouse does not say: he does not say that they are irreconcilable - merely that such reconciliation is not a trivial matter.

Every Christian theologian since Origen has concurred with this assessment.  And the pre-Christian theologians considered the matter even earlier.

Oddly enough, Christianity has a better answer for the Problem of Evil than the pre-Christian faiths supplied: the primacy of Free Will over evil.  The Problem of Gratuitous Suffering, on the other hand, only has partial answers.

But - and Floyd should keep this in mind, though he has demonstrated that he is unable to read our posts - the Problem of Evil exists no matter what mechanism God used to create Man.  If God merely "poofed" the universe into existence without such pain and suffering, the problem would still remain.
Posted by: Constant Mews on Oct. 29 2009,16:08

Floyd, you have admitted that you do not take Genesis 1-11 as literal truth.  Why do you deny it?  How do you reconcile that with your faith?

Reread Jasper's post; it should make this point clear.
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Oct. 29 2009,16:08

Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 29 2009,16:03)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
You have not established why Deadman's presuppostions (assuming he has any) are pertinent to your proving that evolution is incompatible with Christianity.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Ohhhh yes I have.  For example, some posters (and Deadman was specifically one of them, so there!)  have appealed to an anti-supernaturalist presupposition of(naturalism for short) in an attempt to evade the force of the First and Second Incompatibilities.  You guys (and Deadman) did NOT appeal to science but instead to a negative theological presupposition.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


bullshit.  they said that science can't deal with your magicks.  that doesn't mean they don't exist, stupid little man.  if you had tried to answer the water question instead of running away screaming like the coward that you are you might be beginning to grasp that.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Imagining that there was such a thing as Knowing what that particular presupposition is and how it works destroys my ridiculous arguments from armchair and handwave, helped me to both misunderstand the fatal objections you guys were lodging, and also to locate the correct professional sources tards and liars with which to carefully and specifically argue by mere assertion against the wind trying to equate that negative presupposition with and science itself---(science itself like Deadman and his pals were trying to do and succeeding, over and over.)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



fixed that for you, stupid ass
Posted by: OgreMkV on Oct. 29 2009,16:11

Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 29 2009,15:48)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Heh. Feeling desperate, Flody?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Nope.  Just stating the truth as I see it.

After all (ahemmm), I 'm not skeered to let readers know exactly what I believe and don't believe, even when it comes to core religious beliefs.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


And there's the whole problem Floyd... truth as you see it.  Unfortunately, you're blinded by intolerance and stupidity disguised as religious zeal.

Then why won't you answer the question... nevermind.  It's not even worth arguing about at this point.

He lost, everyone except him knows he lost, and no one but him really cares.
Posted by: deadman_932 on Oct. 29 2009,16:14

Quote (deadman_932 @ Oct. 29 2009,15:22)
Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 29 2009,15:03)
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
You have not established why Deadman's presuppostions (assuming he has any) are pertinent to your proving that evolution is incompatible with Christianity.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Ohhhh yes I have.  For example, some posters (and Deadman was specifically one of them, so there!)  have appealed to an anti-supernaturalist presupposition of(naturalism for short) in an attempt to evade the force of the First and Second Incompatibilities.  You guys (and Deadman) did NOT appeal to science but instead to a negative theological presupposition.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Care to point to that? Page? Citation? My position on deistic supernaturalism is that I can't demonstrate it via naturalistic methods definitively one way or the other, period. My posts will always be consistent with that, so I'm pretty sure you're either lying outright or have managed once again to deliberately "misunderstand" a post.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I'll be waiting for an answer to this, Flody. You based your deep need to know my "presuppositions" only on that, Flody. Can you back up your claim here? Let's see it.
Posted by: Constant Mews on Oct. 29 2009,16:15

Floyd, this:

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Ohhhh yes I have.  For example, some posters (and Deadman was specifically one of them, so there!)  have appealed to an anti-supernaturalist presupposition of(naturalism for short) in an attempt to evade the force of the First and Second Incompatibilities.  You guys (and Deadman) did NOT appeal to science but instead to a negative theological presupposition.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

appears to be yet another lie.

Your first and second "incompatibilities" are disproved by the definition of evolution that you yourself supplied.

Evolutionary theory does not deny the existence, action, or intention of God.  It says nothing about the existence, action, or intention of God.

Your confused arguments about "soul" demonstrated that you don't even understand the terms you're using - you thought that the soul was held to be a product of biological evolution; a position that the definition of evolution that you yourself supplied does not hold.

I have already discussed "incompatibility" four on at least two separate occasions, and "incompatibility" five in a very recent post.

Here are the points, Floyd.

You have provided no evidence that any incompatibilities exist between Christian Doctrine and evolutionary theory.  

You have quote-mined and lied constantly in this thread.  

You have shown yourself to be mortally afraid of hellfire and damnation (probably for excellent reason).

You demand courtesies and honesty that you yourself refuse to provide.

I pray for you, Floyd.  You desperately need the Grace of God to save you from the furnace you so desperately and cravenly fear.
Posted by: Constant Mews on Oct. 29 2009,16:53

And I would also point out that Rosenhouse explicitly identifies his issue as the Problem of Evil.  

And the Problem of Evil has been debated since long before evolutionary theory was conceived.
Posted by: Lou FCD on Oct. 29 2009,17:49

Hey Toastyboyfloyd.





---------------------QUOTE-------------------
< Welcome to hell >, by sara.musico.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



yer gonna burn, toastyboy.
Posted by: Dan on Oct. 29 2009,18:21

Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 29 2009,15:48)
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Heh. Feeling desperate, Flody?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Nope.  Just stating the truth as I see it.

After all (ahemmm), I 'm not skeered to let readers know exactly what I believe and don't believe, even when it comes to core religious beliefs.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


A very telling remark.

FL has let this slip in other contexts:  He does not think there's such a thing as "the truth" only "the truth as I see it".  To him, there are no observations or experiments or reasoning, there is only "belief".

FL behaves as if, and now admits he holds that, there's no such thing as a fact, there's only opinion.

According to Ohio’s Academic Content Standards in English Language Arts, subsection "Reading Applications: Informational, Technical and Persuasive Text Standard", students in third grade should know "the difference between facts and opinions".

Do you ever get the feeling that FL's intellect is at or below the second grade level?  You're right.
Posted by: Dan on Oct. 29 2009,18:28

Quote (deadman_932 @ Oct. 29 2009,15:39)
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Now after 80 pages, Floyd has managed to [fill in the blank].

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



My favorite answer to that is: "defeat his own claim"
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


My favorite answer is: "ignore his own defeating of his own claim".
Posted by: Constant Mews on Oct. 29 2009,18:48

Actually, I think it is more complex.

After 80 pages, Floyd does not yet even understand the basic problem.  He has a strong conviction based - as he himself admits - on pure supposition that evolutionary theory conflicts with Christianity.

In order to quantify this so that we can understand it, he has presented a definition of evolution - that does not support his case.  He has presented a definition of Christianity - that does not support his case.  He has offered quotes from various atheists about the incompatibility of evolution and theism; quotes whose logic is not supported by Floyd's own definitions.

And he does not understand the flaws in this "argument."  That is the observation that makes me question his sanity and ability to reason - that after all this time, he still does not understand why his "argument" is flawed.
Posted by: Lou FCD on Oct. 29 2009,18:49

Quote (Constant Mews @ Oct. 29 2009,14:10)
Turnabout is fair play, Floyd.  Time for you to behave like a grown-up.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I trust you're not foolish enough to hold your breath waiting for that...
Posted by: Amadan on Oct. 29 2009,19:02


Posted by: Constant Mews on Oct. 29 2009,19:18

Quote (Lou FCD @ Oct. 29 2009,18:49)
Quote (Constant Mews @ Oct. 29 2009,14:10)
Turnabout is fair play, Floyd.  Time for you to behave like a grown-up.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I trust you're not foolish enough to hold your breath waiting for that...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I think it is fair to give him the opportunity to display adult behavior.  Confused, dishonest, and exasperating though he may be - he is trying to make an argument.  Unfortunately, he has to rely entirely on opinions about science, since he apparently doesn't understand the science itself.  And he does occasionally answer questions as well as he can, given his lights.
Posted by: FrankH on Oct. 29 2009,19:31

Well Floyd you just showed that it is indeed possible to be both a Christian and think Evolution is how the Christian God did it.

As you concede that nmgirl, The Pontiff, and CM are Christians and they say that their God used Evolution as the mechanism for the diversity of life on Earth, that is the evidence needed that even you claim it is possible to be both a Christian and be an "Evolutionist".

Case Closed.  Onto ID!
Posted by: OgreMkV on Oct. 29 2009,19:37

Quote (Constant Mews @ Oct. 29 2009,19:18)
Quote (Lou FCD @ Oct. 29 2009,18:49)
Quote (Constant Mews @ Oct. 29 2009,14:10)
Turnabout is fair play, Floyd.  Time for you to behave like a grown-up.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I trust you're not foolish enough to hold your breath waiting for that...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I think it is fair to give him the opportunity to display adult behavior.  Confused, dishonest, and exasperating though he may be - he is trying to make an argument.  Unfortunately, he has to rely entirely on opinions about science, since he apparently doesn't understand the science itself.  And he does occasionally answer questions as well as he can, given his lights.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


The really sad part is that he is so committed to ignorance, that he must ignore those who would be willing to teach him.  As my grandfather used to say, as soon as you stop learning, you start to die.

I find it frustrating that his zealousness for ignorance is so readily transmitted to young people.  Kids who should spend their time learning and questioning, instead spend their time arguing.

It's really very depressing for an educator.  I would love to sit down and explain how science works to Floyd and show him the wonder that is Biology, but he refuses to learn.  

I just wonder if it's ever even occurred to him that there is even the slimmest possibility that he might be wrong.  It wouldn't corrode his faith, it wouldn't destroy his faith in Jesus.  It would, generally speaking, make him a much nicer person to be around and a much more effective witness for his faith.

Sigh...
Posted by: Lou FCD on Oct. 29 2009,20:05

Quote (OgreMkV @ Oct. 29 2009,20:37)
Quote (Constant Mews @ Oct. 29 2009,19:18)
Quote (Lou FCD @ Oct. 29 2009,18:49)
 
Quote (Constant Mews @ Oct. 29 2009,14:10)
Turnabout is fair play, Floyd.  Time for you to behave like a grown-up.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I trust you're not foolish enough to hold your breath waiting for that...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I think it is fair to give him the opportunity to display adult behavior.  Confused, dishonest, and exasperating though he may be - he is trying to make an argument.  Unfortunately, he has to rely entirely on opinions about science, since he apparently doesn't understand the science itself.  And he does occasionally answer questions as well as he can, given his lights.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


The really sad part is that he is so committed to ignorance, that he must ignore those who would be willing to teach him.  As my grandfather used to say, as soon as you stop learning, you start to die.

I find it frustrating that his zealousness for ignorance is so readily transmitted to young people.  Kids who should spend their time learning and questioning, instead spend their time arguing.

It's really very depressing for an educator.  I would love to sit down and explain how science works to Floyd and show him the wonder that is Biology, but he refuses to learn.  

I just wonder if it's ever even occurred to him that there is even the slimmest possibility that he might be wrong.  It wouldn't corrode his faith, it wouldn't destroy his faith in Jesus.  It would, generally speaking, make him a much nicer person to be around and a much more effective witness for his faith.

Sigh...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I think you both overestimate his intelligence. After several years of his breathtaking inanity, I'm rather convinced he's a lost cause, worthy of nothing but mockery and derision, a brain-washed wind-up toy no longer capable of independent thought.
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Oct. 29 2009,20:46

honestly i think he is here either trolling for man-meat or because he is trying to find a way out of his little corner.  

he's looking for his salvation!  sorry Fold I just plain don't like you and I'm sure if you had a come to the altar call it could change my opinion of you but it's unlikely.  just admit you are wrong and that you are nothing on your own and that you need facts to survive and only facts can sustain you.  go for it!
Posted by: Constant Mews on Oct. 29 2009,22:49

Quote (Erasmus, FCD @ Oct. 29 2009,20:46)
honestly i think he is here either trolling for man-meat or because he is trying to find a way out of his little corner.  

he's looking for his salvation!  sorry Fold I just plain don't like you and I'm sure if you had a come to the altar call it could change my opinion of you but it's unlikely.  just admit you are wrong and that you are nothing on your own and that you need facts to survive and only facts can sustain you.  go for it!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


True, he is afraid.  He is a scared, lost soul who is feeling both his mortality and his insignificance.

I pray for him.  He needs God's grace to redeem himself from hellfire.
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Oct. 29 2009,22:56

is is possible that both are true?  cause, uh, i think he is definitely here looking for a date*.  else he would have answered my questions, or anyone else's, or done SOMETHING in 82 pages.

*not that there is anything wrong with that.  cf Chatfield
Posted by: jupiter on Oct. 29 2009,23:34

Quote (OgreMkV @ Oct. 29 2009,19:37)
The really sad part is that he is so committed to ignorance, that he must ignore those who would be willing to teach him.  As my grandfather used to say, as soon as you stop learning, you start to die.

I find it frustrating that his zealousness for ignorance is so readily transmitted to young people.  Kids who should spend their time learning and questioning, instead spend their time arguing.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Flody and his like transmit and propagate their ignorance by tapping into a primal fear.

One of the facts of childhood is that you are powerless. Your continued existence depends upon how well you respond to the whims and demands of the adults around you. If you're lucky, those adults are essentially sane and responsible and responsive. Even then, it's a long and confusing process to figure out the rules, from “Don’t shit your pants” to “Casseroles are disgusting pig-slop and no decent woman would expect her family to eat that”.

Because you learn them so early, the rules become THE RULES, for everyone, everywhere, in every situation. And then you enter the wider world, where it’s still not okay to shit your pants but casseroles can be kinda tasty… That world doesn't care about you, personally, and it totally ignores the brazillion quirky family rules that have defined and shaped you. Bad things happen, your heart is broken, you face the abyss.

Choice 1: Decide that the world is large and complicated and beyond your control, so it’s better to focus on what you can control, i.e., your behavior and how it affects those around you.

Choice 2: Decide that the world is large and complicated and beyond your control, so it’s better to retreat elsewhen, i.e., to a time when there was someone in charge with THE RULES.

Look at Flody’s response to Lou FCD’s first jpg. I read it pretty much as I think Lou FCD intended: a riff on Flody’s holier&annoyingier-than-thou, passive-aggressive (“I love you but God hates you”) posts.

How did Flody respond? With a full-bore blast of proselytizing. He’s that powerless and defenseless, that childlike. He can’t tolerate an unexpected glimpse of what he imagines awaits him if he doesn’t follow THE RULES.

It would be tragic, if he weren’t such an insufferably arrogant clod.
Posted by: didymos on Oct. 30 2009,03:08

Wow. Playing catch-up and, I can't believe that no one jumped on this bit he addressed to Frank (bolding mine):

 
Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 29 2009,08:43)
(However, if she IS a Christian, why aren't you following her example and hooking up with Jesus?  You could always sign up with Him as a theistic evolutionist, you know.)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



I know he answered directly later, but I still think this is pretty funny, especially with how he was still dragging his heels right after posting it. That was some nice self-pwnage there, Floyd.  Only topped by finally just answering the damned question.  

I'd also like Floyd to note that the phrase 'hooking up with Jesus' is probably ill-advised and best avoided in the future as it does not mean what he thinks it means.  Or maybe it does, which is just really way too fucking disturbing to contemplate...

edited: got who Floyd was responding to wrong.
Posted by: Dan on Oct. 30 2009,03:28

I want to underscore the point of Constant Mews.

FL's "arguments" are garbage, and it's good that we point out this undeniable fact.  (Really undeniable ... FL himself does not deny it.)

But FL himself is not garbage.  He stands up for his beliefs (while mistaking his beliefs for facts).  He is not afraid to be in the minority (while somehow thinking that his minority status is evidence that his beliefs are facts).  I wish FL good health and improved thinking.  If you pray, I hope you'll pray for FL.
Posted by: Quack on Oct. 30 2009,05:50



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I just wonder if it's ever even occurred to him that there is even the slimmest possibility that he might be wrong.  It wouldn't corrode his faith, it wouldn't destroy his faith in Jesus.  It would, generally speaking, make him a much nicer person to be around and a much more effective witness for his faith.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


He might even learn to know "The Christ in me" (cit. St. Paul) ('me' in this case being  FL) instead of the fruitless worshiping of a mythical Jesus at Calvary. It is interesting to note that in a context of myth creation, use of "The location's landscape resembled the shape of a skull" would make sense.
Posted by: Amadan on Oct. 30 2009,06:04

Quote (didymos @ Oct. 30 2009,03:08)
Wow. Playing catch-up and, I can't believe that no one jumped on this bit he addressed to Robin (bolding mine):

   
Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 29 2009,08:43)
(However, if she IS a Christian, why aren't you following her example and hooking up with Jesus?  You could always sign up with Him as a theistic evolutionist, you know.)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



I know he answered directly later, but I still think this is pretty funny, especially with how he was still dragging his heels right after posting it. That was some nice self-pwnage there, Floyd.  Only topped by finally just answering the damned question.  

I'd also like Floyd to note that the phrase 'hooking up with Jesus' is probably ill-advised and best avoided in the future as it does not mean what he thinks it means.  Or maybe it does, which is just really way too fucking disturbing to contemplate...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Maybe Floyd and < this lady > could hook up.

I'd pay to see that.
Posted by: Robin on Oct. 30 2009,08:06

Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 29 2009,15:03)

---------------------QUOTE-------------------




---------------------QUOTE-------------------


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
You have not established why Deadman's presuppostions (assuming he has any) are pertinent to your proving that evolution is incompatible with Christianity.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Ohhhh yes I have.  For example, some posters (and Deadman was specifically one of them, so there!)  have appealed to an anti-supernaturalist presupposition of(naturalism for short) in an attempt to evade the force of the First and Second Incompatibilities.  You guys (and Deadman) did NOT appeal to science but instead to a negative theological presupposition.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------




Floyd, Floyd, Floyd...(sigh)...I already told you that the Presuppositional Apologetics argument is nonsense. So here we go. You are begging the question Floyd. Your claim that Deadman et al have invoked anti-supernatural presuppositional appeals is circular - you haven't established that your presupposition that the supernatural exists is valid. Thus, any statement about denying the supernatural CAN'T be a presupposition - such is merely a neutral statement against the fallacious presupposition of the theological assumption. You lose again Floyd.




---------------------QUOTE-------------------
You were willing, for example, to say out loud that the Resurrection of Jesus was metaphorical instead of historical.   You stood up and said your true beliefs.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



False Floyd - I stated an assessment of evidence. There is no evidence that the story is factual at all, thus the neutral position is that the story, like all other such stories is metaphorical. Unless the Apologetic can provided objective evidence that supports the resurrection (and only the resurrection) as being a valid explanation, the position that the story is metaphoricall cannot be a presupposition. It can only be a response to a claim that is unsubstantiated.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I can't even get Deadman to be THAT honest with me.  He's ducking and hiding his cards.  And relying on YOU guys to keep him hid.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



You're lying Floyd. Once again, Deadman's beliefs have NO BEARING on this discussion.
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Oct. 30 2009,08:17

Quote (Dan @ Oct. 30 2009,04:28)
I want to underscore the point of Constant Mews.

FL's "arguments" are garbage, and it's good that we point out this undeniable fact.  (Really undeniable ... FL himself does not deny it.)

But FL himself is not garbage.  He stands up for his beliefs (while mistaking his beliefs for facts).  He is not afraid to be in the minority (while somehow thinking that his minority status is evidence that his beliefs are facts).  I wish FL good health and improved thinking.  If you pray, I hope you'll pray for FL.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Dan you think he actually believes all the crap he says?  NO WAY
Posted by: Robin on Oct. 30 2009,08:21

Guys, c'mon...why are we even bothering with Floyd's issue #5? What's the first rule concerning a creationist taking a quote from some larger piece of work? That's right...it's likely take out of context.

Whoa...looky there! That's just what Floyd did with Rosenhouse's quote:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Frankly, the whole idea of niches existing in nature just waiting for animals to evolve their way into them is a bit dubious to begin with. Animals in part create their own niches, and the landscape is constantly changing as creatures evolve.

These are just a few of the scientific considerations that ought to dampen Miller's confidence in the inevitably of human-like creatrues. Curiously, though, this whole line of argument resolves one theological difficulty only at the price of creating other ones.

Yes, human inevitability would solve the problem of preserving human specialness in the face of evolutionary contingency. But just consider the view of natural history entailed by this. Evolution by natural selection, you see, is an awful process. It is bloody, sadistic, and cruel. It flouts every moral precept we humans hold dear. It recognizes only survival and gene propagation, and even on those rare occasions where you find altruism and non-selfishness you can be certain that blind self-interest is lurking somewhere behind the scenes. All of this suffering, pain and misery, mind you, to reach a foreordained moment when self-awae creature finally appeared. What theological purpose was served by all this bloodsport? If humans were inevitable why didn't God simply fast-forward the tape himself, thereby sparing all of those animals that died horrible deaths in the preceding hundreds of millions of years? Problem of evil, indeed.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------




OOOOOoooopsss...Seems Floyd's been dishonest about what Rosenhouse meant. His quote addresses a specific scenerio - this is what evolution would be if we accepted Ken Miller's proposition. But science DOESN'T take that position, so Rosenhouse's scenerio doesn't actually exist. Thus, neither does Floyd's argument.
Posted by: Robin on Oct. 30 2009,08:35

Quote (didymos @ Oct. 30 2009,03:08)

---------------------QUOTE-------------------




---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Wow. Playing catch-up and, I can't believe that no one jumped on this bit he addressed to Robin (bolding mine):

 
Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 29 2009,08:43)
(However, if she IS a Christian, why aren't you following her example and hooking up with Jesus?  You could always sign up with Him as a theistic evolutionist, you know.)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



I know he answered directly later, but I still think this is pretty funny, especially with how he was still dragging his heels right after posting it. That was some nice self-pwnage there, Floyd.  Only topped by finally just answering the damned question.  

I'd also like Floyd to note that the phrase 'hooking up with Jesus' is probably ill-advised and best avoided in the future as it does not mean what he thinks it means.  Or maybe it does, which is just really way too fucking disturbing to contemplate...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Just an FYI - I believe when Frank asked the question, he was referring to my sister, the theological scholar. I will say that she is a deeply devout Christian, though not a fundamentalist and/or an Apologist. She reads Koine Greek and Hebrew (and a little Aramaic), has degrees in ancient Romance Languages and Theology, and has put together various translations of religious works. I used to be a devout Christian like her, but I found over the years that the answers that Christianity provides are to questions that I discovered are not relevant to me. I enjoy discovering the answers to questions about the natural world.
Posted by: FrankH on Oct. 30 2009,08:55

Actually Robin I was not asking about your sister.  It was for my sister who's a good Catholic girl.

She took my word on "Theistic Evolution" and when the Pontiff came out and said what he did on Evolution and Catholicism, she dropped all issues with Evolution and being a Christian.
Posted by: FloydLee on Oct. 30 2009,09:13



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Care to point to that? Page? Citation?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Page 27, dude.  I was quoting you quite directly.
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
.....(All) of science denies being capable of investigating/supporting Supernaturalist Deities as a knowable "cause". --- Deadman
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Sound familiar?
Posted by: FrankH on Oct. 30 2009,09:27

Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 30 2009,09:13)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Care to point to that? Page? Citation?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Page 27, dude.  I was quoting you quite directly.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
.....(All) of science denies being capable of investigating/supporting Supernaturalist Deities as a knowable "cause". --- Deadman
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Sound familiar?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Um, I went to page 27.  I found Deadman's remarks and I didn't see that one anywhere.  Is it on a different page?

In any case that is true.  If one were to include "supernatural claims", then there will be no way to separate ANY of the myriad of Supernatural entity from being responsible from anything!

That means any religion and any belief can be used, all with equal weight, along with totems, animal spirits and the invisible friend of the weird guy sitting across from you in a McDonald's as being responsible for anything you want them to be responsible for.
Posted by: Robin on Oct. 30 2009,10:01

Quote (FrankH @ Oct. 30 2009,08:55)

---------------------QUOTE-------------------




---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Actually Robin I was not asking about your sister.  It was for my sister who's a good Catholic girl.

She took my word on "Theistic Evolution" and when the Pontiff came out and said what he did on Evolution and Catholicism, she dropped all issues with Evolution and being a Christian.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Ahh...my bad. Interesting note though. Thanks!
Posted by: FloydLee on Oct. 30 2009,10:02



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
His quote addresses a specific scenerio - this is what evolution would be if we accepted Ken Miller's proposition. But science DOESN'T take that position
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


But guess what, boys?   Imcompatibility #5 existed (and was mentioned by evolutionists) BEFORE Rosenhouse brought it up.   He's just re-stating something that's ALREADY there (and hasn't been solved at all!!) because it happens to fit Miller's situation.


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
"The total amount of suffering per year in the natural world is beyond all decent contemplation.
uring the minute that it takes me to compose this sentence, thousands of animals are being eaten alive, many others are running for their lives, whimpering with fear, others are being slowly devoured from within by rasping parasites, thousands of all kinds are dying of starvation, thirst and disease.... The universe that we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil and no good, nothing but pitiless indifference."


----Richard Dawkins, "God's Utility Function," Scientific American (vol. 273, November 1995), p. 85., quoted in
"The Fall, the Curse, and Evolution", Henry Morris, ICR website
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


So, nope, you haven't done a thing to erase Incompatibility #5, not even Rosenhouse's re-statement of it.  In fact you haven't even dented it, nor have you found a solution for his specific questions therein.

******

And then check THIS out:  if you try to escape Rosenhouse's re-statement of #5 by ducking Miller's current position in his book Only A Theory (the basis for Rosenhouse's re-stating of Incom #5), THEN you automatically bring up Miller's previous position in his previous book Finding Darwin's God, in which Miller called us humans "lucky accidents."  

(And THAT then creates a direct head on crash into Incompatibility #1 and #2, boys.)
 
Miller was trying to glom onto Simon Conway Morris's position in an attempt to find a way out of that particular FDG crash.  But now, by doing so, Miller merely crashes straight into the already-existing Incompatibility #5, as Rosenhouse perfectly points out in his response.

So any way you go, you're caught.  And please notice:  Robin still doesn't have an answer to Incompatibility #5 himself.
Posted by: deadman_932 on Oct. 30 2009,10:02

THIS is what you had posted, Flody:

"You guys (and Deadman) did NOT appeal to science but instead to a negative theological presupposition."
Posted by: deadman_932 on Oct. 30 2009,10:09

Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 29 2009,15:03)
Ohhhh yes I have.  For example, some posters (and Deadman was specifically one of them, so there!)  have appealed to an anti-supernaturalist presupposition of(naturalism for short) in an attempt to evade the force of the First and Second Incompatibilities.  You guys (and Deadman) did NOT appeal to science but instead to a negative theological presupposition.

Knowing what that particular presupposition is and how it works, helped me to both understand the objections you guys were lodging, and also to locate the correct professional sources with which to carefully and specifically argue against trying to equate that negative presupposition with science itself---(like Deadman and his pals were trying to do.)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Here's your full quote. Of course I have no problem with me saying "all of science denies supernaturalism as a knowable cause"  -- because it does.

When you were asked to point to any scientific program that could establish the causal origins of anything due to gods, you couldn't do that, FLody.

That's because so far as is known, there is no way to determine deistic supernatural causation for anything. Science cannot know the "ultimate truth" about such claims

Saying this about science is not the same thing as "Appealing to a negative theological supposition" Flody, and I know YOU know that, which is why you left that bit out of your last post.
Posted by: didymos on Oct. 30 2009,10:14

Quote (Robin @ Oct. 30 2009,06:35)
Just an FYI - I believe when Frank asked the question, he was referring to my sister, the theological scholar.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Oops.  I misread that.  It was Frank, and I see he was actually talking about his sister.  OK, I go fix.
Posted by: FloydLee on Oct. 30 2009,10:35



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
"You guys (and Deadman) did NOT appeal to science but instead to a negative theological presupposition."
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Quite true, btw.  The religion of materialism, to be specific.

Of course, you're welcome to believe in a materialist religion whenever you like, but don't try to equate it to science.
Posted by: FrankH on Oct. 30 2009,10:38

Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 30 2009,10:02)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
His quote addresses a specific scenerio - this is what evolution would be if we accepted Ken Miller's proposition. But science DOESN'T take that position
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


But guess what, boys?   Imcompatibility #5 existed (and was mentioned by evolutionists) BEFORE Rosenhouse brought it up.   He's just re-stating something that's ALREADY there (and hasn't been solved at all!!) because it happens to fit Miller's situation.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
"The total amount of suffering per year in the natural world is beyond all decent contemplation.
[b]D
uring the minute that it takes me to compose this sentence, thousands of animals are being eaten alive, many others are running for their lives, whimpering with fear, others are being slowly devoured from within by rasping parasites, thousands of all kinds are dying of starvation, thirst and disease.... The universe that we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil and no good, nothing but pitiless indifference."[/b]

----Richard Dawkins, "God's Utility Function," Scientific American (vol. 273, November 1995), p. 85., quoted in
"The Fall, the Curse, and Evolution", Henry Morris, ICR website
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

So, nope, you haven't done a thing to erase Incompatibility #5, not even Rosenhouse's re-statement of it.  In fact you haven't even dented it, nor have you found a solution for his specific questions therein.

******

And then check THIS out:  if you try to escape Rosenhouse's re-statement of #5 by ducking Miller's current position in his book Only A Theory (the basis for Rosenhouse's re-stating of Incom #5), THEN you automatically bring up Miller's previous position in his previous book Finding Darwin's God, in which Miller called us humans "lucky accidents."  

(And THAT then creates a direct head on crash into Incompatibility #1 and #2, boys.)
 
Miller was trying to glom onto Simon Conway Morris's position in an attempt to find a way out of that particular FDG crash.  But now, by doing so, Miller merely crashes straight into the already-existing Incompatibility #5, as Rosenhouse perfectly points out in his response.

So any way you go, you're caught.  And please notice:  Robin still doesn't have an answer to Incompatibility #5 himself.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


And once again Floyd takes Dawkin's opinions as some sort of an "Evilutionist" Canon to which all who "believe in Evilution" must abide by.

False.  Dawkins was expressing his oen Atheism and say why HE BELIEVES that the universe is not designed and there is no god.  That is a statement of faith, of sorts in no god or gods what so ever, a position to which I don't agree.  What Dawkins is actually doing here is criticizing people like you who think that because we survive in the universe, all of this was designed for us.

Why do you continually mix opinion with facts?

So you "#5" incompatibility is a construct of your own mind and has been defeated many, many times.  Only your willful ignorance.

You seem to forget that you yourself have already concluded that the Pontiff, nmgirl, CM and others are Christian and they accept Evolution.

Again, you lost and you are making yourself look more and more ridiculous.
Posted by: FrankH on Oct. 30 2009,10:44

Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 30 2009,10:35)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
"You guys (and Deadman) did NOT appeal to science but instead to a negative theological presupposition."
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Quite true, btw.  The religion of materialism, to be specific.

Of course, you're welcome to believe in a materialist religion whenever you like, but don't try to equate it to science.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


"Religion of Materialism"?

I guess it's like yours and other YECs who feel that those think Evolution is the best explanation for the diversity of life on Earth must "believe it is true".

Again, I don't believe Evolution is true.  I think it is the best explanation of how the diversity of life we see came about.
Posted by: deadman_932 on Oct. 30 2009,10:55

Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 30 2009,10:35)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
"You guys (and Deadman) did NOT appeal to science but instead to a negative theological presupposition."
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Quite true, btw.  The religion of materialism, to be specific.

Of course, you're welcome to believe in a materialist religion whenever you like, but don't try to equate it to science.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


No, Flody, that's simply bullshit. I didn't "rely on a negative theological presupposition" I merely stated the truth, which is that science denies theistic supernaturalism as a KNOWABLE CAUSE of things. There is no way for science to point at anything and say the ultimate cause of X or Y is a deity.

As I reiterated earlier,. when you were asked to show HOW SCIENCE COULD CONCEIVABLY achieve that, you simply refused to answer.

This remains fact, but it is not "negative theological presupposition"

You being duplicitous won't change that, and it also exposes your bogus "reason" for wanting--no, insisting-- on knowing my religious views, as being bullshit as well
Posted by: FloydLee on Oct. 30 2009,10:57



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Of course I have no problem with me saying "all of science denies supernaturalism as a knowable cause"  -- because it does.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Nope, you were presented with three separate refutations from the professionals---and to this day you remain unable to refute a one of them.

In fact, this is a good way to start presenting the "ID Is Science" portion.....by dealing with your main objection (your main presupposition, more accurately) right off the top.

First, let's review the three refutations that were given to you, and which you are totally unable to eliminate.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
"In fact, if the preceding investigations are correct, there is no compelling conceptual basis for any blanket prohibition on exploring applications or implications of the idea of supernatural design within the scientific context.

"Some design theories may be inappropriate in some instances, but that is perfectly consistent with others being in principle legitimate.

"It is, of course, perfectly possible that such attempts could end up wholly empty, but since every scientific research program faces at least that possibility, that hardly constitutes grounds for pre-emptive prohibitions."

--- Dr. Del Ratzsch, Nature, Design and Science, c2001, p.149
---------------------QUOTE-------------------




---------------------QUOTE-------------------
"Science is about what is testable, not necessarily what is naturalistic."
chemist Dr. John Millam, May 2005 KS science hearings
---------------------QUOTE-------------------




---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Naturalism: the only game in town?

G. K. Chesterton once said that "behind every double standard lies a single hidden agenda." Advocates of descent have used demarcation arguments to erect double standards against design, suggesting that the real methodological criterion they have in mind is naturalism.

Of course for many the equation of science with the strictly materialistic or naturalistic is not at all a hidden agenda. Scientists generally treat "naturalistic" as perhaps the most important feature of their enterprise. Clearly, if naturalism is regarded as a necessary feature of all scientific hypotheses, then design will not be considered a scientific hypothesis.

But must all scientific hypotheses be entirely naturalistic? Must scientific origins theories, in particular, limit themselves to materialistic causes?

Thus far none of the arguments advanced in support of a naturalistic definition of science has provided a noncircular justification for such a limitation. Nevertheless, perhaps such arguments are irrelevant. Perhaps scientists should just accept the definition of science that has come down to them. After all, the search for natural causes has served science well. What harm can come from continuing with the status quo? What compelling reasons can be offered for overturning the prohibition against nonnaturalistic explanation in science?

In fact, there are several.

First, with respect to origins, defining science as a strictly naturalistic enterprise is metaphysically gratuitous. Consider: It is at least logically possible that a personal agent existed before the appearance of the first life on earth.

Further, as Bill Dembski argues in the next chapter, we do live in the sort of world where knowledge of such an agent could possibly be known or inferred from empirical data. This suggests that it is logically and empirically possible that such an agent (whether divine or otherwise) designed or influenced the origin of life on earth.

To insist that postulations of past agency are inherently unscientific in the historical sciences (where the express purpose of such inquiry is to determine what happened in the past) suggests we know that no personal agent could have existed prior to humans. Not only is such an assumption intrinsically unverifiable, it seems entirely gratuitous in the absence of some noncircular account of why science should presuppose metaphysical naturalism.

Second, to exclude by assumption a logically and empirically possible answer to the question motivating historical science seems intellectually and theoretically limiting, especially since no equivalent prohibition exists on the possible nomological relationships that scientists may postulate in nonhistorical sciences.

The (historical) question that must be asked about biological origins is not "Which materialistic scenario will prove most adequate?" but "How did life as we know it actually arise on earth?"

Since one of the logically and syntactically appropriate answers to this later question is "Life was designed by an intelligent agent that existed before the advent of humans," it seems rationally stultifying to exclude the design hypothesis without a consideration of all the evidence, including the most current evidence, that might support it.

The a priori exclusion of design diminishes the rationality or origins research in another way. Recent nonpositivistic accounts of scientific rationality suggest that scientific theory evaluation is an inherently comparative enterprise. Notions such as consilience and Peter Lipton's inference to the best explanation discussed above imply the need to compare the explanatory power of competing hypotheses or theories.

If this process is subverted by philosophical gerrymandering, the rationality of scientific practise is vitiated. Theories that gain acceptance in artificially constrained competitions can claim to be neither "most probably true" nor "most empirically adequate." Instead such theories can only be considered "most probable or adequate among an artificially limited set of options."

Moreover, where origins are concerned only a limited number of basic research programs are logically possible. (Either brute matter has the capability to arrange itself into higher levels of complexity or it does not. If it does not, then either some external agency has assisted the arrangement of matter or matter has always possessed its present arrangement.)

The exclusion of one of the logically possible programs of origins research by assumption, therefore, seriously diminishes the significance of any claim to theoretical superiority by advocates of a remaining program. As Phillip Johnson has argued, the use of "methodological rules" to protect Darwinism from theoretical challenge has produced a situation in which Darwinist claims must be regarded as little more than tautologies expressing the deductive consequences of methodological naturalism.

An openness to empirical arguments for design is therefore a necessary condition of a fully rational historical biology.

A rational historical biology must not only address the question "Which materialistic or naturalistic evolutionary scenario provides the most adequate explanation of biological complexity?" but also the question "Does a strictly materialistic evolutionary scenario or one involving intelligent agency or some other theory best explain the origin of biological complexity, given all relevant evidence?"

To insist otherwise is to insist that materialism holds a metaphysically privileged position. Since there seems no reason to concede that assumption, I see no reason to concede that origins theories must be strictly naturalistic.

---Dr. Stephen C. Meyer, "Methodological Equivalence of Design and Descent", ARN, www.arn.org
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Okay, now those three are back on the table.  The next post answers your one question and takes everything further.
Posted by: deadman_932 on Oct. 30 2009,11:00

Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 30 2009,10:35)
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
"You guys (and Deadman) did NOT appeal to science but instead to a negative theological presupposition."
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Quite true, btw.  The religion of materialism, to be specific.

Of course, you're welcome to believe in a materialist religion whenever you like, but don't try to equate it to science.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


so you claimed to "need to know" my religious views, because you "needed to know my presuppositions" that you now say are "materalistic science" even though you already knew that...

Fuck, you're a very bad liar. Lies work best when they're remotely tied to reality, Flody, instead of obviously false on the face of them. If you're going to lie as baldly as this, you may as well give up.

ETA: regarding your last post,Flody: go ahead and show me the valid scientific esearch program in that brain-spew.

I asked you many, many times to show a scientifically valid research program to determine deistic causation or teleological plan and you refused to answer each time. so do it now, show me any valid scientific RESEARCH PROGRAM in that word salad you posted.
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on Oct. 30 2009,11:06

FL
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
"Does a strictly materialistic evolutionary scenario or one involving intelligent agency or some other theory best explain the origin of biological complexity, given all relevant evidence?"
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Well, what's your answer and what evidence did you consider in coming to that answer?
EDIT: Oh and FL

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
This suggests that it is logically and empirically possible that such an agent (whether divine or otherwise) designed or influenced the origin of life on earth.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Many things are logically and empirically possible. The question is, do you have evidence for them.

Please show your evidence. As we are talking about ID as science at this point It (should) go without saying that your evidence cannot be your Bible.
Posted by: Robin on Oct. 30 2009,11:27

[quote=FloydLee,Oct. 30 2009,10:02][/quote]


---------------------QUOTE-------------------


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
His quote addresses a specific scenerio - this is what evolution would be if we accepted Ken Miller's proposition. But science DOESN'T take that position
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


But guess what, boys?   Imcompatibility #5 existed (and was mentioned by evolutionists) BEFORE Rosenhouse brought it up.   He's just re-stating something that's ALREADY there (and hasn't been solved at all!!) because it happens to fit Miller's situation.


 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
"The total amount of suffering per year in the natural world is beyond all decent contemplation.
uring the minute that it takes me to compose this sentence, thousands of animals are being eaten alive, many others are running for their lives, whimpering with fear, others are being slowly devoured from within by rasping parasites, thousands of all kinds are dying of starvation, thirst and disease.... The universe that we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil and no good, nothing but pitiless indifference."


----Richard Dawkins, "God's Utility Function," Scientific American (vol. 273, November 1995), p. 85., quoted in
"The Fall, the Curse, and Evolution", Henry Morris, ICR website
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


So, nope, you haven't done a thing to erase Incompatibility #5, not even Rosenhouse's re-statement of it.  In fact you haven't even dented it, nor have you found a solution for his specific questions therein.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Double false Floyd. Dawkins is saying the exact same thing as Rosehouse in that quote from Scientific America, numbskull. Dawkins was noting what the natural world under evolution would imply about God if such a being existed. But as Dawkins notes, such isn't the case. This universe is the product of indifference, thus there is no "cruel god" issue at all. Bye bye to your issue #5.

You really need to learn to read, Floyd.

******



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
And then check THIS out:  if you try to escape Rosenhouse's re-statement of #5 by ducking Miller's current position in his book Only A Theory (the basis for Rosenhouse's re-stating of Incom #5), THEN you automatically bring up Miller's previous position in his previous book Finding Darwin's God, in which Miller called us humans "lucky accidents."  
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



No we don't because Miller is begging the question by reversing a logical argument. How can we be "accidents" if there is no purpose or design to the universe, Floyd? Answer: we can't. It's like saying that heads coming up when you flip a coin is an "accident" or that rain falling is an "accident". Such statements are appeals to emotion based on inaccurate assumptions (such as the whole fine tuned universe) that don't actually mean anything.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
(And THAT then creates a direct head on crash into Incompatibility #1 and #2, boys.)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



False yet again, as noted above.
 


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Miller was trying to glom onto Simon Conway Morris's position in an attempt to find a way out of that particular FDG crash.  But now, by doing so, Miller merely crashes straight into the already-existing Incompatibility #5, as Rosenhouse perfectly points out in his response.

So any way you go, you're caught.  And please notice:  Robin still doesn't have an answer to Incompatibility #5 himself.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Completely erroneous thinking Floyd. But thanks again for the entertainment and chuckle!
Posted by: Robin on Oct. 30 2009,11:30

Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 30 2009,10:35)

---------------------QUOTE-------------------




---------------------QUOTE-------------------


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
"You guys (and Deadman) did NOT appeal to science but instead to a negative theological presupposition."
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Quite true, btw.  The religion of materialism, to be specific.

Of course, you're welcome to believe in a materialist religion whenever you like, but don't try to equate it to science.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAH!!!!! What a laugh Floyd! Keep repeating that to yourself (religion of Materialism) that and $10 will get you cup of coffee!

But again Floyd, sorry, but that's just question begging (nevermind erroneous since there cannot, by definition, be a religion of Materialism). Care to try again?
Posted by: Robin on Oct. 30 2009,11:51

[quote=FloydLee,Oct. 30 2009,10:57][/quote]


---------------------QUOTE-------------------


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Of course I have no problem with me saying "all of science denies supernaturalism as a knowable cause"  -- because it does.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Nope, you were presented with three separate refutations from the professionals---and to this day you remain unable to refute a one of them.

In fact, this is a good way to start presenting the "ID Is Science" portion.....by dealing with your main objection (your main presupposition, more accurately) right off the top.

First, let's review the three refutations that were given to you, and which you are totally unable to eliminate.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
snipped nonsense for space
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Okay, now those three are back on the table.  The next post answers your one question and takes everything further.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



False Floyd. We completely elimated Ratzch's and Millam's claims by quoting actual definitions and prerequisites for science and about science. We also pointed out that neither Millam nor Ratzch have any authority to determine what is or isn't science. Ignoring that doesn't make that refutation go away.

As to Meyer's statement, he's just begging the question by assuming there is a God by definition, but such isn't established and presuming such doesn't put the burden on science or the non-believer to prove there isn't a god or supernatural powers. Once again, science as administered by humans is limited to natural instruments for testing and natural perceptions for natural senses. Thus, we can ONLY deal with what is natural. So much for Meyer's thesis.
Posted by: Robin on Oct. 30 2009,11:59

Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 30 2009,10:57)

---------------------QUOTE-------------------




---------------------QUOTE-------------------
First, with respect to origins, defining science as a strictly naturalistic enterprise is metaphysically gratuitous. Consider: It is at least logically possible that a personal agent existed before the appearance of the first life on earth.

Further, as Bill Dembski argues in the next chapter, we do live in the sort of world where knowledge of such an agent could possibly be known or inferred from empirical data. This suggests that it is logically and empirically possible that such an agent (whether divine or otherwise) designed or influenced the origin of life on earth.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



BTW Floyd, this argument by Meyer completely disassembles his own (and your) argument. If Dembski is correct and we can know about the "supernatural" from empirical data guess what? The data would come from a natural source and thus the explanation would be...(wait for it)...NATURAL! And actually, given the data of a natural phenomenon being natural, from a scientific perspective, the agent would also be considered natural. Such a tact completely demolishes the argument. Say thanks to Meyer for us!
Posted by: FloydLee on Oct. 30 2009,12:18



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
We completely elimated Ratzch's and Millam's claims by quoting actual definitions and prerequisites for science and about science.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


No you didn't.  Not ONE of the sources quoted offered ANY refutations to any of Meyer's specific points, nor Millam's huge point, nor even Ratzsch's for that matter.

Go ahead and re-quote your sources. if you'd like to compare notes.
Posted by: FloydLee on Oct. 30 2009,12:23



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
We also pointed out that neither Millam nor Ratzch have any authority to determine what is or isn't science.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Dr. Millam is a scientist with a PHD in computational chemistry and Dr. Ratzsch is a multiple-published professional philosopher of science.

You were saying.......?
Posted by: deadman_932 on Oct. 30 2009,12:32

Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 30 2009,12:18)
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
We completely elimated Ratzch's and Millam's claims by quoting actual definitions and prerequisites for science and about science.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


No you didn't.  Not ONE of the sources quoted offered ANY refutations to any of Meyer's specific points, nor Millam's huge point, nor even Ratzsch's for that matter.

Go ahead and re-quote your sources. if you'd like to compare notes.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You were asked to show the validity of their claims by describing, even hypothetically, a scientific research program that can deal with deistic supernatural agency.

You failed -- in fact, you refused and have refused to even address that in any meaningful way.

That means the claims of your Del Ratszche or Meyer or whoever...can all be dismissed until YOU show the validity of their claims.

Do it now. I've only asked you this same thing a dozen times. Show how a valid scientific research program can even in principle determine deistic causation or origins.
Posted by: FrankH on Oct. 30 2009,12:33

Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 30 2009,12:23)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
We also pointed out that neither Millam nor Ratzch have any authority to determine what is or isn't science.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Dr. Millam is a scientist with a PHD in computational chemistry and Dr. Ratzsch is a multiple-published professional philosopher of science.

You were saying.......?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


And Einstein had a PhD in Physics but I wouldn't let him operate on me or anyone else.

Tell me Floyd, what IS "Computational Chemistry"?  How does it relate to Biology?

As for "Dr. Ratzch", what is his degree?  Remember Von Danken(sp?)?  He wrote "Chariots of the Gods" and was published all over the world.  Again, how does a "professional philosopher of science" relate to biology?

Read the term "argument from authority" again.  Save your "authorities" are speaking out of their asses in subjects they don't study and do research in.
Posted by: FrankH on Oct. 30 2009,12:35

Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 30 2009,12:18)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
We completely elimated Ratzch's and Millam's claims by quoting actual definitions and prerequisites for science and about science.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

No you didn't.  Not ONE of the sources quoted offered ANY refutations to any of Meyer's specific points, nor Millam's huge point, nor even Ratzsch's for that matter.

Go ahead and re-quote your sources. if you'd like to compare notes.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Again, we do not have to "refute" a person's opinions.  The one making the opinions are required to back up their rhetoric.

Sadly for you, that doesn't happen in the YEC/ID world.
Posted by: deadman_932 on Oct. 30 2009,12:39

Your claim (or rather, those of Millam, Ratszche and Meyer) are the equivalent of saying "I have a faster-than-light ship that doesn't violate known science"

At that point, it is up to YOU as the claimant to demonstrate the validity of your claims, Floyd.

Do that now. Show (even in principle) a means of validly determining deistic origins of things, using a valid scientific research program. Words like "my ship can go faster than light" are easy to say and very hard to demonstrate as being valid.

The same thing is the case with the empty words of Millam, Meyers and Ratshit...show how they are valid in regard to deistic teleology and ontology.

Prediction: since I have asked the same thing about a dozen times and you have avoided that each time, I predict that you will never show their words to be scientifically supportable, Flody.

They remain empty words, immune to refutation -- just as they would be if they claimed faster-than-light travel without ever showing how.

It is up to the maker of extraordinary claims to show evidence, not ask people to refute a negative.
Posted by: OgreMkV on Oct. 30 2009,13:10

Oh, has Floyd abandoned his other stuff now.  We're into ID is science?  Yay.  Let me get the laptop with my file on it...

Bwah ha hah... oops... was that out loud?

BTW: very subtle segue.
Posted by: FloydLee on Oct. 30 2009,13:11

Okay, let's go further now.  Essentially Deadman's question FOLLOWS from what Drs. Ratzsch, Millam and Meyer pointed out.

Since there are no sustainable BLANKET prohibitions against investigating supernatural design within science, how does one test for the supernatural?

There's only one answer at this time, but it's a very real answer:  Indirectly.[/i]

Simply put:  The scientific method is all about observation, hypothesis formation, hypothesis testing, and drawing conclusion.   Indeed, Deadman's own insistence on "testing" reflects this reality.

So, we find an intelligent design hypothesis such that the causative agent in the given situation [n]could NOT be a natural cause.
 If this particular hypothesis can be FALSIFIED via observation, and if you can say what those observations would be, then you got yourself a scientific hypothesis.

This is true, btw, even if it takes you 20 years to actually observe one of those given falsifying situations.
One black swan is enough to falsify the hypothesis "all swans are white", even if you never see a black swan within your own lifetime.  (Hat Tip:  Wikipedia.)

So, that's how you test for supernatural.  Not directly.  Indirectly.  Now, let's find an ID hypothesis that fits.
Posted by: FloydLee on Oct. 30 2009,13:21



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
've only asked you this same thing a dozen times.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


And you were specifically told (as far back as the first time out.....)

(1)   Your answer would have to await this "ID is science" presentation...not earlier.

(2)  Drs. Ratzsch's, Dr. Millam's, and Dr. Meyer's specific points refuted your original claim regardless of the *followup* question of how one tests for supernatural design.

Did you forget.....?
Posted by: FrankH on Oct. 30 2009,13:23

Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 30 2009,13:11)
Okay, let's go further now.  Essentially Deadman's question FOLLOWS from what Drs. Ratzsch, Millam and Meyer pointed out.

Since there are no sustainable BLANKET prohibitions against investigating supernatural design within science, how does one test for the supernatural?

There's only one answer at this time, but it's a very real answer:  Indirectly.[/i]

Simply put:  The scientific method is all about observation, hypothesis formation, hypothesis testing, and drawing conclusion.   Indeed, Deadman's own insistence on "testing" reflects this reality.

So, we find an intelligent design hypothesis such that the causative agent in the given situation [n]could NOT be a natural cause.
 If this particular hypothesis can be FALSIFIED via observation, and if you can say what those observations would be, then you got yourself a scientific hypothesis.

This is true, btw, even if it takes you 20 years to actually observe one of those given falsifying situations.
One black swan is enough to falsify the hypothesis "all swans are white", even if you never see a black swan within your own lifetime.  (Hat Tip:  Wikipedia.)

So, that's how you test for supernatural.  Not directly.  Indirectly.  Now, let's find an ID hypothesis that fits.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I can see why you want to change tact.  You lost BIG TIME and you want to scoot away.  Great!  Fine with me.

OBTW, if something can be observed then it is NATURAL!

See, that "indirectly" way to observe things?  Science does it all the time.  Check out Particle Physics.  The thing is science makes experiments for it.  There is no such research for ID-iots and their science.
Posted by: deadman_932 on Oct. 30 2009,13:23

Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 30 2009,13:11)
Okay, let's go further now.  Essentially Deadman's question FOLLOWS from what Drs. Ratzsch, Millam and Meyer pointed out.

Since there are no sustainable BLANKET prohibitions against investigating supernatural design within science, how does one test for the supernatural?

There's only one answer at this time, but it's a very real answer:  Indirectly.[/i]

Simply put:  The scientific method is all about observation, hypothesis formation, hypothesis testing, and drawing conclusion.   Indeed, Deadman's own insistence on "testing" reflects this reality.

So, we find an intelligent design hypothesis such that the causative agent in the given situation [n]could NOT be a natural cause.
 If this particular hypothesis can be FALSIFIED via observation, and if you can say what those observations would be, then you got yourself a scientific hypothesis.

This is true, btw, even if it takes you 20 years to actually observe one of those given falsifying situations.
One black swan is enough to falsify the hypothesis "all swans are white", even if you never see a black swan within your own lifetime.  (Hat Tip:  Wikipedia.)

So, that's how you test for supernatural.  Not directly.  Indirectly.  Now, let's find an ID hypothesis that fits.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Someone has to show that a black swan exists, Floyd. You haven't even shown that a SCIENTIFICALLY valid research program into deistic causation is possible.

All you did was repeat the claim that it's possible, without showing how.
Posted by: FrankH on Oct. 30 2009,13:27

Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 30 2009,13:21)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
've only asked you this same thing a dozen times.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

And you were specifically told (as far back as the first time out.....)

(1)   Your answer would have to await this "ID is science" presentation...not earlier.

(2)  Drs. Ratzsch's, Dr. Millam's, and Dr. Meyer's specific points refuted your original claim regardless of the *followup* question of how one tests for supernatural design.

Did you forget.....?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


No forgetting here just nothing from you that needs to be refuted as it's all opinion, not fact, not science, not anything!

Again the things you say need to be refuted are someone's opinions.  Again that is not how it works.  If I were to tell you "your God is dead", it is not up to you to show that the petulant child that you claim is omni-whatever is dead, it is my job to give you the evidence for it.

No?  Show me that the Easter Bunny doesn't exist!

OBTW, you're lying again about when you'd do something.....
Posted by: deadman_932 on Oct. 30 2009,13:27

Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 30 2009,13:21)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
've only asked you this same thing a dozen times.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


And you were specifically told (as far back as the first time out.....)

(1)   Your answer would have to await this "ID is science" presentation...not earlier.

(2)  Drs. Ratzsch's, Dr. Millam's, and Dr. Meyer's specific points refuted your original claim regardless of the *followup* question of how one tests for supernatural design.

Did you forget.....?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


the use of their claim doesn't refute anything, Floyd. Their words have to be shown valid, by you, for you to be able to claim that they have refuted anything.

You have yet to do that. Their empty words are thus-far unsupported by any evidence of any valid scientific research program to support their empty words.

And YOU haven't shown any such program. Nor will you (see my prediction above) .
Posted by: Lou FCD on Oct. 30 2009,13:35

Looks like Floyd has had his ass handed to him yet again. Aren't your butt cheeks sore at this point, Floyd?





---------------------QUOTE-------------------
< Dummy Ass >, by gaelx.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: FrankH on Oct. 30 2009,13:37

Quote (Lou FCD @ Oct. 30 2009,13:35)
Looks like Floyd has had his ass handed to him yet again. Aren't your butt cheeks sore at this point, Floyd?



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
< Dummy Ass >, by gaelx.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I think he likes it.

But more likely with the fist and it shoved somewhere.
Posted by: FrankH on Oct. 30 2009,13:42

The even worse thing for Floyd is that if this were only about Philosophy, he'd still be losing.

Earth to Floyd, a hint:  When one stakes a position, even in Philosophy, it is best to be constant.  You claim that there's no way a person can be a Christian and be an "Evolutionist".

Yet the Pope and more than just a few of the people on this board hold hold of those positions.

The only logical way for you to have been consistent is to have declared them all to be "Not Christian".
Posted by: Robin on Oct. 30 2009,14:15

Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 30 2009,12:18)

---------------------QUOTE-------------------




---------------------QUOTE-------------------


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
We completely elimated Ratzch's and Millam's claims by quoting actual definitions and prerequisites for science and about science.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


No you didn't.  Not ONE of the sources quoted offered ANY refutations to any of Meyer's specific points, nor Millam's huge point, nor even Ratzsch's for that matter.

Go ahead and re-quote your sources. if you'd like to compare notes.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Posted: Oct. 23 2009,10:27 by Robin
Quote
Quote
No "theory" that has non-materialistic parts is not a scientific theory

That's the great fallback excuse that folks have used on this board, Frank.  Problem is, as I showed in response to Reed and Deadman, that particular line of argument is multiple-flawed and has been refuted.

Short version (Ratzsch):  There have been, and are, NO rationally sustainable blanket prohibitions against supernatural design being a subject of science.


False:

< http://www.wordiq.com/definition/Supernatural >

< http://science.howstuffworks.com/scientific-method10.htm >

Definition:
Science: 3 a : knowledge or a system of knowledge covering general truths or the operation of general laws especially as obtained and tested through scientific method b : such knowledge or such a system of knowledge concerned with the physical world and its phenomena : natural science
Merriam-Webster

I think that pretty much covers Floyd's silliness on that claim.


Quote
Short version (Millam):  Science is about what is TESTABLE, not necessarily what is NATURALISTIC.


While not necessarily false, this does require question begging on the part of those presuming non-natural investigation. How exactly does one test that which isn't natural?


Posted: Oct. 23 2009,10:15 by Frank H
Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 23 2009,09:52)
Quote
No "theory" that has non-materialistic parts is not a scientific theory
That's the great fallback excuse that folks have used on this board, Frank.  Problem is, as I showed in response to Reed and Deadman, that particular line of argument is multiple-flawed and has been refuted.

Short version (Ratzsch):  There have been, and are, NO rationally sustainable blanket prohibitions against supernatural design being a subject of science.  Some design theories may not pan out as science, but that's entirely consistent in principle with other design theories being able to qualify as science.  The theories may also flop and come up empty or refuted upon investigation, but ALL scientific theories face that very same risk anyway.  So that's why nobody's been able to--and still hasn't--come up with a defensible BLANKET prohibition against supernatural design within science.

Short version (Millam):  Science is about what is TESTABLE, not necessarily what is NATURALISTIC.

Short version (Meyer):  Multiple known fatal-flaws exist with the notion of defining science in the way you described it (solely naturalistically).  See "Methodological Equivalence of Design and Descent"
Each of these rational fatal-flaws are longstanding and unsolved.  Nobody's been able to resolve them.  Among the biggest is "Circular Argument."

FloydLee

Which is a lie.  You have not refuted anything.  You reguriposted and left it at that.  Then you walked away claiming victory.  Your mind is so compartmentalized to make yourself unaware that you lie and lie often.

Ratzch's OPINION is his OPINION.  It is not shared by all.  Once you let supernatural in, anything goes.

As for Millam, Testable and Naturalistic is not an issue.  We can smash together and then test the decay of particles in a vacuum chamber.  That is not something that happens naturally on Earth.  No problem there.

Once again, Floyd EPIC FAIL who can't answer the questions like why is his god not needed to make the patterns in the dirt as water runs downhill but his god needs to have made the water.

Then he can't explain how a omniscient, omnipresent and omnipotent god can blame two completely clueless people when "he goes away" and somehow "the numero uno evil being" somehow is allowed in (only Floyd's god can allow things like that to happen, right?) and gets two innocents to do something bad.

Then this "perfect creation goes to hell because evil was let in.  NEWS FLASH:  Your "god" let evil into the garden before when that damn snake slithered in!

Deadman_932
Posted: Oct. 23 2009,13:42  

Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 23 2009,09:52)
     
Quote
No "theory" that has non-materialistic parts is not a scientific theory

That's the great fallback excuse that folks have used on this board, Frank.  Problem is, as I showed in response to Reed and Deadman, that particular line of argument is multiple-flawed and has been refuted.

Short version (Ratzsch):  There have been, and are, NO rationally sustainable blanket prohibitions against supernatural design being a subject of science.  Some design theories may not pan out as science, but that's entirely consistent in principle with other design theories being able to qualify as science.  The theories may also flop and come up empty or refuted upon investigation, but ALL scientific theories face that very same risk anyway.  So that's why nobody's been able to--and still hasn't--come up with a defensible BLANKET prohibition against supernatural design within science.

Short version (Millam):  Science is about what is TESTABLE, not necessarily what is NATURALISTIC.

Short version (Meyer):  Multiple known fatal-flaws exist with the notion of defining science in the way you described it (solely naturalistically).  See "Methodological Equivalence of Design and Descent"
Each of these rational fatal-flaws are longstanding and unsolved.  Nobody's been able to resolve them.  Among the biggest is "Circular Argument."

FloydLee

Damn, you're a total liar, Floyd. No surprise there, to everyone participating in this thread.
**********************************************

“[In Science] supernatural entities are inscrutable and inaccessible as a matter of principle” -- Mahner, M. & Bunge, M.: 1996a, 'Is religious education compatible with science education?', Science & Education 5(2), p. 117

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

"…the existence of a supernatural designer...is a religious concept, not science, and therefore does not belong in the science classroom." -- American Association for the Advancement of Science, 2006
--------------------------------------------

"Because science is limited to explaining the natural world by means of natural processes, it cannot use supernatural causation in its explanations…Explanations employing nonnaturalistic or supernatural events, whether or not explicit reference is made to a supernatural being, are outside the realm of science..." -- National Academy of Sciences:1998


"Creationism, intelligent design, and other claims of supernatural intervention in the origin of life or of species are not science because they are not testable by
the methods of science."  -- A View from the National Academy of Sciences: 1999
----------------------------------------

More precisely, the essential characteristics of science are:
(1) It is guided by natural law;
(2) It has to be explanatory by reference to nature law;
(3) It is testable against the empirical world;
(4) Its conclusions are tentative, i.e. are not necessarily the final word; and
(5) Its is falsifiable.

Judge William Overton, McLean v. Arkansas Board of Education (1982)
----------------------------------------

While supernatural explanations may be important and have merit, they are not part of science…This rigorous attachment to ‘natural’ explanations is an essential
attribute to science by definition and by convention. -- Judge John E. Jones III, Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District (2005)
------------------------------------------------------------

“Science simply cannot (by its legitimate methods) adjudicate the issue of God’s possible superintendence of nature. We neither affirm nor deny it; we simply can’t comment on it as scientists.” -- Stephen Gould, 1992.
**********************************************

Remember that the topic HERE is the existence of DEISTIC supernatural beings, Floyd, not ghosts or "does prayer work" or faeries or leprechauns. It's about Gods, and neither Del Ratschz nor anyone else you tried to cite  has a way of making Gods part of science in the sense required in this thread.

As anyone can see, you haven't backed Ratsczh's empty opinion that such things as deistic supernaturalism (which IS the topic here) can EVER be studied by science.

I have asked you at least a half-dozen times to show me any scientific research model that would allow this...and you have refused to answer each time. Nor have you refuted the cites I gave above. I could give cites in each field, but it is already clear to sane people that deistic supernaturalism is simply excluded from ANY valid science.

Your "Floydian" Christianity is explicitly ANTI-SCIENCE, by your own dismal logic, such as it is. It's not just anti-evolution, it's against all science.


In other words Floyd, you no valid point from which to make your argument.
Posted by: Robin on Oct. 30 2009,14:20

Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 30 2009,12:23)

---------------------QUOTE-------------------




---------------------QUOTE-------------------


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
We also pointed out that neither Millam nor Ratzch have any authority to determine what is or isn't science.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Dr. Millam is a scientist with a PHD in computational chemistry and Dr. Ratzsch is a multiple-published professional philosopher of science.

You were saying.......?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



They don't have the authority to determine what is or is not science. That is what I wrote, Floyd, and it is a fact. NO single scientist has such an authority. They can toss out their opinions all they want, but the fact is science is defined as an institution by the scientific community. So no Floyd - for the 3rd time - they don't have the authority and those who are actual scientists (including me as a researcher) can ignore their opinions and go with the actual accepted definition.
Posted by: Robin on Oct. 30 2009,14:35

Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 30 2009,13:11)

---------------------QUOTE-------------------




---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Since there are no sustainable BLANKET prohibitions against investigating supernatural design within science
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



False Floyd, as proven. At this point your just posting for the sake of reading your own words.
Posted by: OgreMkV on Oct. 30 2009,14:37

Now, you want to teach intelligent design in my classroom.  As with any science, there are certain things that have to be met.  The following are the questions that you MUST answer to even be considered a science… much less a correct science.

Questions for you Floyd:

1) What is one hypothesis that ID proposes?
2) What is one prediction of ID that differs from evolutionary theory?  (In other words, what predictions made using ID would differ from predictions made from evolution.  PREDICTIONS, not statements like ‘life is designed’.)
3) Describe an experiment that could test this prediction (this test need not have been done yet).
4) What is one hypothesis of ID that has been tested and shown to be correct (this must have been tested)?
5) What is one piece of evidence that would falsify ID (in other words, what evidence proves ID to be incorrect)?
6) Dembski, Nelson, and Behe have both stated that ID as a scientific theory needs a lot of work and is not ready for the limelight.  How do you respond to that statement from three of the largest figures of ID theory?**

Now, if you can’t or won’t answer questions 1-5, then ID is not science and must (by definition) be excluded from any science class.  If can’t answer them correctly, ditto.

Please keep in mind that YOU want to argue SCIENCE, so you must argue using science’s rules.  Changing the definition of science is not a valid response.  Keep in mind that it has been tried, but those changes to science also allow the teaching of astrology and witchcraft in science classes (I don’t think you want that do you?  I can teach Wiccan.).

As I’m sure you’re aware (since you think Texas has such a great science program), 40% of all class time for any science class in Texas public schools must be ‘laboratory’.  

7)  Please describe a lab that my students could do that would show ID in action and be able to show that ID, as as a science works and is distinct from evolution.

Finally, regardless of your ability to articulate a valid argument or not, there is at least one, non-scientific problem with ID in the classroom.  At the present time, it is illegal.  In Kitzmiller vs. Dover, Judge Jones, a federal judge, declared ID not to be science and including it in a classroom violated the establishment clause of the first amendment.  Basically, it’s not only that it’s not science, but ID promotes a SPECIFIC religion and that is not allowed in public schools.  You can’t teach Christianity in school any more than I can teach Wiccan in school.  


**At a 2002 conference on Intelligent Design, leading ID scholar William Dembski said: “Because of ID’s outstanding success at gaining a cultural hearing, the scientific research part of ID is now lagging behind.”  http://www.iscid.org/papers/Dembski_DisciplinedScience_102802.pdf

And

ID theoretician Paul Nelson wrote in Touchstone, a Christian magazine: “We don’t have such a theory right now, and that’s a problem. Without a theory, it’s very hard to know where to direct your research focus. Right now, we’ve got a bag of powerful intuitions, and a handful of notions such as ‘irreducible complexity’ and ‘specified complexity’ – but, as yet, no general theory of biological design.”
< http://www.touchstonemag.com/archives/issue.php?id=76 >

And

“I quite agree that my argument against Darwinism does not add up to a logical proof,” he [Behe] says…  http://chem.tufts.edu/AnswersInScience/MasterPlanned.html
Posted by: FrankH on Oct. 30 2009,14:39

Quote (Robin @ Oct. 30 2009,14:20)
[quote=FloydLee,Oct. 30 2009,12:23][/quote]

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
We also pointed out that neither Millam nor Ratzch have any authority to determine what is or isn't science.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Dr. Millam is a scientist with a PHD in computational chemistry and Dr. Ratzsch is a multiple-published professional philosopher of science.

You were saying.......?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

They don't have the authority to determine what is or is not science. That is what I wrote, Floyd, and it is a fact. NO single scientist has such an authority. They can toss out their opinions all they want, but the fact is science is defined as an institution by the scientific community. So no Floyd - for the 3rd time - they don't have the authority and those who are actual scientists (including me as a researcher) can ignore their opinions and go with the actual accepted definition.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


{sarcasm=Hyperspeed}

Wrong!  Today, in honor of Theocratic Greatness Inquisitor Floyd I, I declare that scientists must provide us with White Chocolate to be scientists.

Tomorrow, I'll need it to be Pumpkin Pie.  After all, we were shown by TGIF 1 that science and facts are what we want them to be!

{sarcasm=off}
Posted by: FrankH on Oct. 30 2009,14:43

OgreMkV, I'd like to add one to you list:

Floyd Questions for you Floyd:

1) What is one hypothesis that ID proposes?
2) What is one prediction of ID that differs from evolutionary theory?  (In other words, what predictions made using ID would differ from predictions made from evolution.  PREDICTIONS, not statements like ‘life is designed’.)
3) Describe an experiment that could test this prediction (this test need not have been done yet).
4) What is one hypothesis of ID that has been tested and shown to be correct (this must have been tested)?
5) What is one piece of evidence that would falsify ID (in other words, what evidence proves ID to be incorrect)?
6) Dembski, Nelson, and Behe have both stated that ID as a scientific theory needs a lot of work and is not ready for the limelight.  How do you respond to that statement from three of the largest figures of ID theory?
7) Please describe a lab that my students could do that would show ID in action and be able to show that ID, as as a science works and is distinct from evolution.
8) Please provide a rigorous and testable definition of [/i]Information[/i] as it pertains to biology.

Thanks in advance.
Posted by: SLP on Oct. 30 2009,15:09

Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 30 2009,12:23)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
We also pointed out that neither Millam nor Ratzch have any authority to determine what is or isn't science.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Dr. Millam is a scientist with a PHD in computational chemistry and Dr. Ratzsch is a multiple-published professional philosopher of science.

You were saying.......?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Ah, more of the "whomever I quote is the ultimate authority" routine....

But...  Millam was called a "theoretical physicist" at the Kansas hearings... He then claimed 'theoretical chemist' whatever that means.

So, which of the three of you is incorrect?

Of course, Millam is a creationist, so...
Posted by: SLP on Oct. 30 2009,15:16

Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 30 2009,10:35)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
"You guys (and Deadman) did NOT appeal to science but instead to a negative theological presupposition."
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Quite true, btw.  The religion of materialism, to be specific.

Of course, you're welcome to believe in a materialist religion whenever you like, but don't try to equate it to science.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Please show that 'materialism' is a religion.

You know, when you guys so often try to claim that everything that you don;'t agree with is just another religion, you really show how little you think of your OWN religion...
Posted by: SLP on Oct. 30 2009,15:21

Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 26 2009,13:28)
Why did God choose six 24-hour days of creation and then rest on the seventh day?  Quite straightforward, according to the Bible---He was modeling for us humans the way we were supposed to operate  (hat tip to Dr. Kurt Wise, [i]Faith Form and Time[/b]).  
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


The same Dr. Kurt Wise who has admitted that there are transitional fossils and that there actually is a great deal of evidence for evolution?
Posted by: FloydLee on Oct. 30 2009,15:26

And now.....let's specifically see why ID is science.

Here before you is a scientific (and scientifically falsifiable) ID hypothesis.  

Have you read Gonzalez's and Richards' book The Privileged Planet? It's an excellent book, and the film version of it was even shown at the Smithsonian Institution.  

It presents one variety of the Intelligent Design hypothesis that's known as the cosmological or "fine-tuning" ID hypothesis.  The fact that our universe, our galaxy, our solar system, our planet, our EVERYTHING, is so very finely tuned in dozens of ways, leads to a rational inference that our universe (including solar system, planet Earth, etc) is the product of intelligent design.

And in their book, Gonzalez and Richards specifically write about how to Falsify their ID hypothesis.


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
The most decisive way to falsify our argument as a whole would be to find a distant and very different environment, which, while quite hostile to life, nevertheless offers a superior platform for making as many diverse scientific discoveries as does our local environment.

The opposite of this would have the same effect—finding an extremely habitable and inhabited place that was a lousy platform for observation.

Less devastating but still relevant, would be discoveries that contradict individual parts of our argument. Most such discoveries would also show that the conditions for habitability of complex life are much wider and more diverse than we claim.

For instance, discovering intelligent life inside a gas giant with an opaque atmosphere, near an X-ray emitting star in the Galactic center, or on a planet without a dark night would do it serious damage.

Or take a less extreme example. We suggested in Chapter 1 that conditions that produce perfect solar eclipses also contribute to the habitability of a planetary environment.

Thus, if intelligent extraterrestrial beings exist, they probably enjoy good to perfect solar eclipses.
However, if we find complex, intelligent, indigenous life on a planet without a largish natural satellite, this plank in our argument would collapse.

Our argument presupposes that all complex life, at least in this universe, will almost certainly be based on carbon.

Find a non-carbon based life form, and one of our presuppositions collapses. It’s clear that a number of discoveries would either directly or indirectly contradict our argument.

Similarly, there are future discoveries that would count in favor of it. Virtually any discovery in astrobiology is likely to bear on our argument one way or the other. If we find still more strict conditions that are important for habitability, this will strengthen our case.

---pages 314-315
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


So now, we clearly have a scientifically falsifiable ID hypothesis.   It can be falsified via observation.  This ID hypothesis is a scientific hypothesis.

In an Evolution News And Views article, Jay Richards and Jonathan Witt quote the above snippet from the Privileged Planet book, as well as offering clarifying comments on what terms like "testable" and "falsification" mean:


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
"Empirical testability" is the genus, of which falsification and confirmation are species. Something is empirically testable when it is either falsifiable, confirmable, or both.

< http://www.evolutionnews.org/2006....ca.html >  
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



***

"Science is all about what is testable, not necessarily what is naturalistic."  (chemist Dr. John Millam.)  Now you have good warrant for the claim "ID is science."
Posted by: FloydLee on Oct. 30 2009,15:29



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Please show that 'materialism' is a religion.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


It's a religion to me.  It sure ain't science (nor any part of the scientific method), and some of you seem to worship it most fanatically.
Posted by: FloydLee on Oct. 30 2009,15:30



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
He then claimed 'theoretical chemist' whatever that means.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


And he has the PhD and work resume to back it up, doesn't he?   (Go ahead and say yes; save time.)
Posted by: SLP on Oct. 30 2009,15:34

Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 27 2009,15:26)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Yes.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


"Yes" is the correct answer, btw.  There's only one creation account.  And it's complementary, not contradictory.  Chapter 2 holds up a magnifying glass on Chapter 1 and explains more about the origin of humans and also their relationship with their Creator.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


So, this special magnifying glass - apparently it has the power to switch around the timing of events without allowing those who use the magnifying glass to see it...
Posted by: SLP on Oct. 30 2009,15:38

Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 27 2009,17:44)
Hey, there's one more item I needed to put on the table for conclude the Biblical Perspective on Biology part.  I may comment further on the Biblical Perspective thing (since you guys like to keep on commenting), but this will be the last part of the intended BP presentation.

Check this out.  Talk about incompatibility!
   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Evolution:  Sun before earth.
Genesis:  Earth before sun.

Evolution:  Dry land before sea.
Genesis:  Sea before dry land.

Evolution:  Atmosphere before sea.
Genesis:  Sea before atmosphere.

Evolution:  Sun before light on earth.
Genesis:  Light on earth before sun.

Evolution:  Stars before earth.
Genesis:  Earth before stars.

Evolution:  Earth at same time as planets.
Genesis:  Earth before other planets.

Evolution:  Sea creatures before land plants.
Genesis:  Land plants before sea creatures.

Evolution:  Earthworms before starfish.
Genesis:  Starfish before earthworms.

Evolution:  Land animals before trees.
Genesis:  Trees before land animals.

Evolution:  Death before man.
Genesis:  Man before death.

Evolution:  Thorns and thistles before man.
Genesis:  Man before thorns and thistles.

Evolution:  Cancer before man  (Edmontosaurus was found with a malignant tumor in 2003).
Genesis:  Man before cancer.

Evolution:  Reptiles before birds.
Genesis:  Birds before reptiles.

Evolution:  Dinosaurs before birds.
Genesis:  Birds before dinosaurs.

Evolution:  Insects before flowering plants.
Genesis:  Flowering plants before insects.

Evolution:  Sun before plants.
Genesis:  Plants before Sun.

--- Selected examples from Dr. Terry Mortenson's article, "The order of events matters!",  04-04-2006, AIG website

---Edmontosaurus item found at:  Biology Online
< http://www.bioedonline.org/news/news.cfm?art=598 > .
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



FloydLee
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Yes, the order of events do matter.  Anyone that has not been brainwashed by the cult of YECism will see that the order of events claimed in the bible are incompatible with REALITY, evolution or no.
Posted by: SLP on Oct. 30 2009,15:43

Quote (Dan @ Oct. 27 2009,20:09)
Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 are both written as "straight historical narrative".  They are inconsistent as straight historical narrative:

In Genesis 1 first animals are created by the earth, and then later men and women were created by God.  In Genesis 2 first Adam was created by God, then animals were created by God, then Eve was created by God.

FL explains this away using a contortion that would make even Bill Clinton or Dick Cheney blush: FL claims that Genesis 1 is "straight historical narrative" whereas Genesis 2 is not chronological, but dealt with things according to their importance (or somesuch).  Note that even this extraordinary contortion doesn't explain away the inconsistency that animals were created by the earth in Genesis 1, by God in Genesis 2.

How does FL know that Genesis 1 is chronological and Genesis 2 is "by order of importance"?  Both are written as straight historical narrative.  Why does FL claim that Genesis 1 must be read as "straight historical narrative" whereas Genesis 2 must not be read in this way?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


It is how the fundaMENTAList mind must operate - in order to unquestioningly accept two contradictory aspects of a document they are told is 100% true they must engage in this shallow, easily demolished, child's lie-type of 'reasoning.  Or their heads would explode.
Posted by: SLP on Oct. 30 2009,15:46

Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 28 2009,08:40)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Floyd, if Genesis is metaphor, then your list is meaningless.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Here's your problem CM.  Gen 1-11, and the creation account in Gen 1-3, are NOT metaphor.  Not allegory.  Not nonhistorical.

You need to show us evidence that these specific chapters are metaphor and NOT straight historical narrative.

(And btw, the argument "Darwin sez so" does not constitute evidence on this one.)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Ummm...

Isn't the onus on YOU to show that the biblical narrative IS histroical and true?

I mean, with something other than repeated unsupported assertions, argument via preferential pseudoauthorities,  and pseudo-hipster doofus lingo.
***
Posted by: Robin on Oct. 30 2009,15:49

Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 30 2009,15:29)

---------------------QUOTE-------------------




---------------------QUOTE-------------------


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Please show that 'materialism' is a religion.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


It's a religion to me.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!! Uhh...Floyd? Hate to break it to you buddy, but your opinion on what is and isn't religion does't mean anything.  



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
It sure ain't science (nor any part of the scientific method), and some of you seem to worship it most fanatically.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Neither is banking or running, but that doesn't make them religions. Besides materialism already falls into a category - it's called "Philosophy".
Posted by: SLP on Oct. 30 2009,15:49

Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 28 2009,13:19)
Oh, and feel free to close the thread on Nov. 2 if you wish, Deadman.  

My Biblical Perspective is finished, you guys are totally refuted (you too baby) concerning the genre of Genesis, and the only item left for me to present is the ID-is-science presentation plus the autopsy of your motley attempts to copewith the Big Five Incompatibilities.  Will have your serving of ID on the table, quite soon!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Wow...

It must be so comforting to live in a fantasy world in which one need only link to a website that asserts the same things one does in order to prove one's point...

I can only imagine what amazing ID insights Mellotron will be able to provide.  Wait - I need not imagine, I need only do a little searching to see what he has presented on CARM etc. in the past on the subject, for FL's presentation really hardly changes.

He'll spew out Trevors and Abel's unsupported gibberish...

The 3-pointer...

Some Meyer and Behe...

What did I forget?

Oh, and of course it will not matter how much coutner evidence is presented, no matter how completely the claims of his heroes are demolished, nope.  FL will still claim victory no matter what.

Like a good little christian soldier.
Posted by: Henry J on Oct. 30 2009,15:55

Quote (Erasmus, FCD @ Oct. 29 2009,21:56)
is is possible that both are true?  cause, uh, i think he is definitely here looking for a date*.  else he would have answered my questions, or anyone else's, or done SOMETHING in 82 pages.

*not that there is anything wrong with that.  cf Chatfield
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Well, then just give him April first?
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Oct. 30 2009,15:58

Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 30 2009,13:23)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
We also pointed out that neither Millam nor Ratzch have any authority to determine what is or isn't science.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Dr. Millam is a scientist with a PHD in computational chemistry and Dr. Ratzsch is a multiple-published professional philosopher of science.

You were saying.......?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


jesus what an idiot
Posted by: SLP on Oct. 30 2009,15:58

Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 28 2009,14:32)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Sorry Floyd, but as I pointed out earlier, folks like CARM and UKapologetics are not authorities or credible sources
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


In other words, you can't refute their actual statements on the Doc Hyp, your sister's not available to help out, and the only thing left is to claim out of the blue that they are not authorities or credible sources. Okay!

Meanwhile, readers can compare this source:

< http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Documentary_hypothesis: >

with this source (and all its sources therein):

< http://www.ukapologetics.net/docu.htm >

....and see what's going on there.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Well, here:

< http://www.ukapologetics.net/mustest2.htm >

is a brief biography of the author of your 'authoritative' site on the DH.  I think it is pretty easy to see what is going on there.
Posted by: SLP on Oct. 30 2009,16:08

Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 29 2009,09:55)
Furthermore, Jesus is using a straight literal historical example to TRUMP a straight literal historical example that was given by the Pharisees.  He's NOT using historical fiction to trump historical fact, he's using historical fact to trump historical fact.
....
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Luke 14:26 (King James Version)

26If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple.

Straigh historical fact.  Can't be a disciple of Jebus unless you HATE your family.
Yeah, can't get much more straightforward than that.

So much for those 'family values' being biblically inspired, eh?

Let the mental contortions begin!

My favorite is 'Well, back in bible times, 'hate' meant 'love less'....

So when I say I love my grandmother but hate my grandfather, what I REALLY mean is that I love grandpa a little less....
:D
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Oct. 30 2009,16:13



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
One black swan is enough to falsify the hypothesis "all swans are white", even if you never see a black swan within your own lifetime.  (Hat Tip:  Wikipedia.)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



goog dod Fold is one dumb bastard.  

hat tip wikipedia
Posted by: Henry J on Oct. 30 2009,16:21

Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 30 2009,09:57)
An openness to empirical arguments for design is therefore a necessary condition of a fully rational historical biology.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


But, that empirical argument has to actually exist in order for openness to have any relevance.

Henry
Posted by: FloydLee on Oct. 30 2009,16:59



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Isn't the onus on YOU to show that the biblical narrative IS histroical and true?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Only have to show you that the text is historical narrative and that it's not metaphorical or allegorical.  

Like I said, you're free to believe Genesis is historically false (because of your belief in evolution) all day long.  The only issue here, however, is whether the Gen creation/fall/flood texts are written as historical narrative.

Already provided the Gen 5 genealogy to show that it's historical narrative, plus some other Scriptures too.  The biblical writers of the OT and NT were really serious about viewing Genesis as actual literal history and the foundation for the rest of the Bible doctrines.  Same for Jesus and Paul.  

FloydLee
Posted by: FrankH on Oct. 30 2009,17:07

Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 30 2009,16:59)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Isn't the onus on YOU to show that the biblical narrative IS histroical and true?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Only have to show you that the text is historical narrative and that it's not metaphorical or allegorical.  

Like I said, you're free to believe Genesis is historically false (because of your belief in evolution) all day long.  The only issue here, however, is whether the Gen creation/fall/flood texts are written as historical narrative.

Already provided the Gen 5 genealogy to show that it's historical narrative, plus some other Scriptures too.  The biblical writers of the OT and NT were really serious about viewing Genesis as actual literal history and the foundation for the rest of the Bible doctrines.  Same for Jesus and Paul.  

FloydLee
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


No, you have to show that Genesis is the way it happened.

Also, the are Creationist Hindus that will think of the NT and OT with the same disdain you have for the Vedic.  That means it is not Evolution vs the NT/OT, if one is right the other is wrong, it is which creation story do we believe?

You know there's a hell of a lot more than one.

Can you prove or show us that the Vedic is not a Historical Narrative?  Or is it just as real as your Bible?  Come on, prove the Vedic wrong!
Posted by: Henry J on Oct. 30 2009,17:41

Quote (Henry J @ Oct. 21 2009,20:05)
Is ID science?

Let's analyze that:

What is the consistently observed pattern(s) of observations that is supposed to be explained by I.D.?

How does this pattern logically follow from the clearly stated premise(s) of what I.D. means?

What sets of observations might be possible if I.D. is wrong, but highly unlikely if it is correct?

What predictions does the proposed theory make that are distinct from those of any current theories?

What is the clearly stated premise(s) of what I.D. means?
(Denial of evolution won't count here - ID has to say something about the evidence, not about its competition.)

How does the proposed theory explain the enormous success of the current theory?

For any proposed theory that really is science, there would be clear answers to these questions, and anybody claiming that I.D. is science would have those answers on hand.

Henry
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Is ID science?
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Oct. 30 2009,17:50

if jesus took genesis literally he didn't understand what it literally said because speaking of "in the beginning he made them male and female" is not what the bible says.  game over.  it's a stupid point and you have made nothing but stupid arguments and I think you are GoP.  period.
Posted by: OgreMkV on Oct. 30 2009,17:57

Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 30 2009,15:26)
And now.....let's specifically see why ID is science.

Here before you is a scientific (and scientifically falsifiable) ID hypothesis.  

Have you read Gonzalez's and Richards' book The Privileged Planet? It's an excellent book, and the film version of it was even shown at the Smithsonian Institution.  

It presents one variety of the Intelligent Design hypothesis that's known as the cosmological or "fine-tuning" ID hypothesis.  The fact that our universe, our galaxy, our solar system, our planet, our EVERYTHING, is so very finely tuned in dozens of ways, leads to a rational inference that our universe (including solar system, planet Earth, etc) is the product of intelligent design.

And in their book, Gonzalez and Richards specifically write about how to Falsify their ID hypothesis.
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
The most decisive way to falsify our argument as a whole would be to find a distant and very different environment, which, while quite hostile to life, nevertheless offers a superior platform for making as many diverse scientific discoveries as does our local environment.

The opposite of this would have the same effect—finding an extremely habitable and inhabited place that was a lousy platform for observation.

Less devastating but still relevant, would be discoveries that contradict individual parts of our argument. Most such discoveries would also show that the conditions for habitability of complex life are much wider and more diverse than we claim.

For instance, discovering intelligent life inside a gas giant with an opaque atmosphere, near an X-ray emitting star in the Galactic center, or on a planet without a dark night would do it serious damage.

Or take a less extreme example. We suggested in Chapter 1 that conditions that produce perfect solar eclipses also contribute to the habitability of a planetary environment.

Thus, if intelligent extraterrestrial beings exist, they probably enjoy good to perfect solar eclipses.
However, if we find complex, intelligent, indigenous life on a planet without a largish natural satellite, this plank in our argument would collapse.

Our argument presupposes that all complex life, at least in this universe, will almost certainly be based on carbon.

Find a non-carbon based life form, and one of our presuppositions collapses. It’s clear that a number of discoveries would either directly or indirectly contradict our argument.

Similarly, there are future discoveries that would count in favor of it. Virtually any discovery in astrobiology is likely to bear on our argument one way or the other. If we find still more strict conditions that are important for habitability, this will strengthen our case.

---pages 314-315
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


So now, we clearly have a scientifically falsifiable ID hypothesis.   It can be falsified via observation.  This ID hypothesis is a scientific hypothesis.

In an Evolution News And Views article, Jay Richards and Jonathan Witt quote the above snippet from the Privileged Planet book, as well as offering clarifying comments on what terms like "testable" and "falsification" mean:
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
"Empirical testability" is the genus, of which falsification and confirmation are species. Something is empirically testable when it is either falsifiable, confirmable, or both.

< http://www.evolutionnews.org/2006....ca.html >  
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



***

"Science is all about what is testable, not necessarily what is naturalistic."  (chemist Dr. John Millam.)  Now you have good warrant for the claim "ID is science."
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Sorry, does not meet criteria number 2.  There is no difference between a universe created by ID for us and one that developed in such a way as to allow us to exist.

There a number of other ways in which such a universe could have come about.

1) This universe is entirely a simulation run on an universe sized computer close to the big crunch in another universe.
2) This universe is one of an infinite number... this is just the one that happens to have the correct physical values to allow for stars, planets, life, etc.

Please describe an experiment that would allow us to test for intelligent design vs any other possible cause of the existence of the life.

Of course, what you said is not a hypothesis.  So:

1) What is one hypothesis that ID proposes?
2) What is one prediction of ID that differs from evolutionary theory?  (In other words, what predictions made using ID would differ from predictions made from evolution.  PREDICTIONS, not statements like ‘life is designed’.)
3) Describe an experiment that could test this prediction (this test need not have been done yet).
4) What is one hypothesis of ID that has been tested and shown to be correct (this must have been tested)?
5) What is one piece of evidence that would falsify ID (in other words, what evidence proves ID to be incorrect)?
6) Dembski, Nelson, and Behe have both stated that ID as a scientific theory needs a lot of work and is not ready for the limelight.  How do you respond to that statement from three of the largest figures of ID theory?**
7)  Please describe a lab that my students could do that would show ID in action and be able to show that ID, as as a science works and is distinct from evolution.
8) Please provide a rigorous and testable definition of [/i]Information[/i] as it pertains to biology.

It was actually a good try, but you've got a minimum of 6 more to go and the one you used failed.

Remember, you want this taught as science YOU have to prove that it is.
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Oct. 30 2009,18:32

bollocks ogre it wasn't a good try it was the same old horseshit this fool has been spewing for years.  he really doesn't care if he can convince you if ID is science or if his particular horseshit bible interpretation is Teh True One tm.  he doesn't care.  thoroughly dishonest, this one is.
Posted by: Constant Mews on Oct. 30 2009,19:08

Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 30 2009,16:59)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Isn't the onus on YOU to show that the biblical narrative IS histroical and true?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Only have to show you that the text is historical narrative and that it's not metaphorical or allegorical.  

Like I said, you're free to believe Genesis is historically false (because of your belief in evolution) all day long.  The only issue here, however, is whether the Gen creation/fall/flood texts are written as historical narrative.

Already provided the Gen 5 genealogy to show that it's historical narrative, plus some other Scriptures too.  The biblical writers of the OT and NT were really serious about viewing Genesis as actual literal history and the foundation for the rest of the Bible doctrines.  Same for Jesus and Paul.  

FloydLee
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Actually, you can't show that it was solely intended to be a historical narrative.  And we know it's not a true historical narrative from scientific evidence that has nothing to do with evolution.

I realize you don't bother to actually think Floyd, but when you try to ground your arguments in unsupportable contentions about the Bible, I'm forced to believe your faith is founded on your stupidity.

Shall we discuss how little you know about the Bible?  It will be very painful for you, I'm sorry to say.
Posted by: Amadan on Oct. 30 2009,19:09

Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 30 2009,15:26)
And now.....let's specifically see why ID is science.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Amadan stirs from under sheaves of pages of scripture that have been tossed around pointlessly for weeks now. Can it really be the time? How will the world have changed after this Bible battle?

   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Here before you is a scientific (and scientifically falsifiable) ID hypothesis.  
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Amadan blinks. Surely this must be . . .


   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Have you read Gonzalez's and Richards' book The Privileged Planet? It's an excellent book, and the film version of it was even shown at the Smithsonian Institution.  
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Grooaaaaaannnnnnn . . .

   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
It presents one variety of the Intelligent Design hypothesis that's known as the cosmological or "fine-tuning" ID hypothesis.  The fact that our universe, our galaxy, our solar system, our planet, our EVERYTHING, is so very finely tuned in dozens of ways, leads to a rational inference that our universe (including solar system, planet Earth, etc) is the product of intelligent design.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Correction, Floyd: It presents an unscientific hypothesis. Specifically, it is unscientific because it assumes that the conditions in which we on Earth find ourselves are improbably attuned to suit our existence. In doing so, they

 (a) assume their conclusion, namely that those conditions were designed; and
 (b) ignore the probability that nearly identical conditions exist (or have existed, or will exist) in the vastness of the Universe. In other words, they fail to apply Occam's Razor;
 ( c) fail to explain how they concluded that the conditions are improbable. With which universes did they compare our own?

   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
And in their book, Gonzalez and Richards specifically write about how to Falsify their ID hypothesis.
       

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
The most decisive way to falsify our argument as a whole would be to find a distant and very different environment, which, while quite hostile to life, nevertheless offers a superior platform for making as many diverse scientific discoveries as does our local environment.

The opposite of this would have the same effect—finding an extremely habitable and inhabited place that was a lousy platform for observation.

Less devastating but still relevant, would be discoveries that contradict individual parts of our argument. Most such discoveries would also show that the conditions for habitability of complex life are much wider and more diverse than we claim.

For instance, discovering intelligent life inside a gas giant with an opaque atmosphere, near an X-ray emitting star in the Galactic center, or on a planet without a dark night would do it serious damage.

Or take a less extreme example. We suggested in Chapter 1 that conditions that produce perfect solar eclipses also contribute to the habitability of a planetary environment.

Thus, if intelligent extraterrestrial beings exist, they probably enjoy good to perfect solar eclipses.
However, if we find complex, intelligent, indigenous life on a planet without a largish natural satellite, this plank in our argument would collapse.

Our argument presupposes that all complex life, at least in this universe, will almost certainly be based on carbon.

Find a non-carbon based life form, and one of our presuppositions collapses. It’s clear that a number of discoveries would either directly or indirectly contradict our argument.

Similarly, there are future discoveries that would count in favor of it. Virtually any discovery in astrobiology is likely to bear on our argument one way or the other. If we find still more strict conditions that are important for habitability, this will strengthen our case.

---pages 314-315
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


So now, we clearly have a scientifically falsifiable ID hypothesis.   It can be falsified via observation.  This ID hypothesis is a scientific hypothesis.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



To reiterate, it is not a scientific hypothesis because it assumes its conclusion and it makes a ludicrous assumption that similar conditions could not exist anywhere or at any time in the Universe.

Their proposed falsification is indeed empirical, but it does not prove or disprove design. It tests the proposition that life could never have, and never will, be observed elsewhere than originating from Earth.

   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
In an Evolution News And Views article, Jay Richards and Jonathan Witt quote the above snippet from the Privileged Planet book, as well as offering clarifying comments on what terms like "testable" and "falsification" mean:
       

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
"Empirical testability" is the genus, of which falsification and confirmation are species. Something is empirically testable when it is either falsifiable, confirmable, or both.

< http://www.evolutionnews.org/2006....ca.html >  
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



***

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



I disagree. Logical propositions are falsifiable but need not be empirical. This statement is of no relevance to the question of whether ID is science.


   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
"Science is all about what is testable, not necessarily what is naturalistic."  (chemist Dr. John Millam.)  Now you have good warrant for the claim "ID is science."
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



I call this the Sherlock Holmes approach: exclude the impossible and whatever remains, however improbable,  is the answer. It's useful in fiction when, like Conan Doyle, you create the universe of possibilities. Sadly, we are not in that position. We also cannot treat your Bible as the Manufacturer's Instructions either. So we have to fall back on logic, observation, and the working assumption that if you haven't found the answer, you'll find it if you keep looking. You base your hypotheses on the available evidence, but not on the assumption that there is no more evidence.

You have not justified treating ID as science, Floyd.
Posted by: Constant Mews on Oct. 30 2009,19:12

Here's the other point, Floyd.

You have admitted that a person need not take the first chapters of Genesis as literal history and still be Christian.  This means that rejection of Genesis as literal history has nothing to do with evolution.

Think, Floyd.  Try to reason.  Try to use logic.  But stop presenting garbage as "thought".  It makes you look very foolish.
Posted by: J-Dog on Oct. 30 2009,19:43

Suggestion:

In an attempt to keep FL and the topic on track, and in keeping with the latest "reality show" trend, I have a suggestion.

It occurs to me, that as we have been referred to as CBEB's (Church Burning Ebola Boys), and to give the thread  - and Floyd a much-needed sense of urgency - so he doesn't keep dragging out often refuted schlocky arguments that were old when Methusala was young, we need to give Ol Floyd a "Reason To Reason", if you will.

Therefore, from here on out, any more old and tired and/or too stupid to believe arguments, will give him a "strike", and if after he gets 3 strikes, then he has to burn down his favorite church!

This will accomplish:
1. Keep Floyd on Target (Ha!)
2. Hold up our Rep as CBEB's
3. Provide flames for roasted marshmallows
4. Provide hours of fun and laughs as we rememeber the story years from now.
5.  Put Floyd in closer touch with his proper soul-mate - Kent Hovind.

This is just an early idea, and with so many great minds here on this board, I am sure we can fix all the details later, so feel free to point out things I may have missed.

Floyd!  You're Going To Be A Star!
Posted by: Amadan on Oct. 30 2009,20:21

Quote (J-Dog @ Oct. 30 2009,19:43)
Suggestion:

5.  Put Floyd in closer touch with his proper soul-mate - Kent Hovind.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Kent is going to be incarcerated for only a few more months. Floyd is staring down the smoking-hot barrels of Eternity.

   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Floyd!  You're Going To Be A Starshes!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


FTFY
Posted by: Lou FCD on Oct. 30 2009,20:38

hahahaha

Floyd's expects his TARD train to just keep on rollin', but it's got no wheels, no engine, no cars, and only an ass for a caboose. "Full steam ahead, and damn the tardpedoes!"

I'd feel guilty about laughing at the moron if he weren't such a scum-sucking slimy fucker.


Posted by: Constant Mews on Oct. 30 2009,21:18

Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 30 2009,16:59)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Isn't the onus on YOU to show that the biblical narrative IS histroical and true?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Only have to show you that the text is historical narrative and that it's not metaphorical or allegorical.  

Like I said, you're free to believe Genesis is historically false (because of your belief in evolution) all day long.  The only issue here, however, is whether the Gen creation/fall/flood texts are written as historical narrative.

Already provided the Gen 5 genealogy to show that it's historical narrative, plus some other Scriptures too.  The biblical writers of the OT and NT were really serious about viewing Genesis as actual literal history and the foundation for the rest of the Bible doctrines.  Same for Jesus and Paul.  

FloydLee
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


But you can't actually do that. Metaphors, parables, and moral lessons are often written in historical form. Nothing in the Bible permits the conclusion that Genesis is historical narrative [I]and nothing more.[\I]
Posted by: Constant Mews on Oct. 30 2009,21:23

And Floyd, what on earth are you going on about? Whether Genesis is "historical narrative" in form, which is all you might be able to do is utterly irrelevant to anything else you're talking about.

Christianity and evolution are perfectly compatible, as you've already admitted. What does this pathological obsession with the form of Genesis matter?
Posted by: Amadan on Oct. 30 2009,21:55

Time for a song. Yiz can make up yer own tunes for it:



If I was a Bible-believer,
Which I'm not, thank the Lord, which I'm not;
I'd be quite overjoyed
That I wasn't like Floyd
Who, quite hypocritical,
Claims to be literal
Though he perfectly clearly is not.

If I was a Bible-believer,
Which Floyd claims to be, claims to be;
I'd write off the Flud
As a historical dud
And I'd say that the point
Was to chasten the joint
Though the thinking's too subtle for he.

If I was a Bible-believer,
I'd figure the point of the joke
Was to do unto others
And honour our mothers
And gener'ly be a good bloke.

If I was a Bible-believer
I surely would not be like Floyd.

Posted by: Henry J on Oct. 30 2009,22:19

I wonder if FL has given any thought to what would happen if he succeeded in convincing a significant number of Christians of that alleged incompatability?

Granted, that question is not itself an argument either for or against, but it does make one wonder about motives when somebody continuously behaves in a way that would undoubtedly be detrimental to the religion he purports to be defending, if he were to actually succeed in what he seems to be trying to do.

Henry
Posted by: Amadan on Oct. 30 2009,22:28

Henry, it's a emotional argument that is intended to appeal to the gut, not reason. The purpose isn't to persuade. It's to reinforce the group identity.
Posted by: Henry J on Oct. 30 2009,23:20

I guess something like that may be the intent, but doing stuff that's apt to drive educated people away from the group, doesn't strike me as something that would help that group's identity in the long run.

Henry
Posted by: deadman_932 on Oct. 30 2009,23:39

Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 30 2009,15:26)
Here before you is a scientific (and scientifically falsifiable) ID hypothesis.  

Have you read Gonzalez's and Richards' book The Privileged Planet? It's an excellent book, and the film version of it was even shown at the Smithsonian Institution.  

It presents one variety of the Intelligent Design hypothesis that's known as the cosmological or "fine-tuning" ID hypothesis.  The fact that our universe, our galaxy, our solar system, our planet, our EVERYTHING, is so very finely tuned in dozens of ways, leads to a rational inference that our universe (including solar system, planet Earth, etc) is the product of intelligent design.

And in their book, Gonzalez and Richards specifically write about how to Falsify their ID hypothesis.
         

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
The most decisive way to falsify our argument as a whole would be to find a distant and very different environment, which, while quite hostile to life, nevertheless offers a superior platform for making as many diverse scientific discoveries as does our local environment.

The opposite of this would have the same effect—finding an extremely habitable and inhabited place that was a lousy platform for observation.

Less devastating but still relevant, would be discoveries that contradict individual parts of our argument. Most such discoveries would also show that the conditions for habitability of complex life are much wider and more diverse than we claim.

For instance, discovering intelligent life inside a gas giant with an opaque atmosphere, near an X-ray emitting star in the Galactic center, or on a planet without a dark night would do it serious damage.

Or take a less extreme example. We suggested in Chapter 1 that conditions that produce perfect solar eclipses also contribute to the habitability of a planetary environment.

Thus, if intelligent extraterrestrial beings exist, they probably enjoy good to perfect solar eclipses.
However, if we find complex, intelligent, indigenous life on a planet without a largish natural satellite, this plank in our argument would collapse.

Our argument presupposes that all complex life, at least in this universe, will almost certainly be based on carbon.

Find a non-carbon based life form, and one of our presuppositions collapses. It’s clear that a number of discoveries would either directly or indirectly contradict our argument.

Similarly, there are future discoveries that would count in favor of it. Virtually any discovery in astrobiology is likely to bear on our argument one way or the other. If we find still more strict conditions that are important for habitability, this will strengthen our case.

---pages 314-315
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


So now, we clearly have a scientifically falsifiable ID hypothesis.   It can be falsified via observation.  This ID hypothesis is a scientific hypothesis.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


The "fine-tuning" argument or Strong Anthropic Principle (SAP) has some major problems when applied to "inferences for god". It also contains a large number of fallacies that disqualify it as a valid scientific hypothesis -- especially one that provides evidential support for deities (which is what you're supposed to be supporting, Flody.)

1.) Tautology. These anthropocentric arguments always come down to statements that at least imply circular conclusions : " My god exists, therefore whatever we find proves it --heads I win, tails you lose"

If we manage to explore our universe and find no life anywhere, what should we conclude? That this is evidence for a loving God who crafted life on Earth despite the fact that this universe is otherwise very inhospitable to life? What if we find life everywhere we go? Gonzales would simply then conclude that this same god created a universe where life can thrive, and therefore must also exist! -- "Heads I win, tails you lose."

They ignore the obvious illogic of their claims...Would it surprise you to find yourself living in a universe that cannot sustain life? I know it would surprise me. Since we are, in fact, alive, it should come as no surprise at all to us that we inhabit a universe that can sustain life, but what does a “life-sustaining universe"  mean? Does it mean  a “universe identical to this one-- the universe is fine-tuned to be just like this universe?" That's a neat tautology. All of us are fundamentally ignorant about the parameter space in which something we would be willing to call life can occur. Thus Gonzales is also guilty of Argumentam ad Ignorantiam

Gonzales et al. simply have assumed their conclusions BEFORE evidence is in, and more importantly, according to what actual choices are available, whatever evidence is found, it will be claimed by Gonzales or some other creonut to tautologically provide support for the conclusions they have already arrived at.

Importantly, also, what the fine-tuning argument for God also does not do is to show that life is in any way favored, supported, or designed for anything except to die out as the universe slowly runs out of energy.

People, scientists and theists, often argue as if fine-tuning did show a concern for life, when life will in fact still face all of the problems that everything in this universe faces. One would have to show that life is some sort of "goal" or "preferred outcome" even to suggest that a single universe with life is "unusual" in any way. Creationists/IDists only assume that life is a meaningful outcome, while we have no excuse to suppose that it is meaningful in a cosmic sense (as opposed to our own sense), however likely or unlikely it may be. The fact of the matter is, we have a sample set of *ONE* universe that happens to contain life so far as we know. We have *ONE* planet on which life exists so far as we know.

We have NO IDEA how many other possible universes there are--multiverses have been mentioned here, but I also like Steinhardt and Turok's "cyclic" model, which is at least theoretically testable via gravity waves. ( see: P.J. Steinhardt and N. Turok: "Why the Cosmological Constant is Small and Positive." Science.312, May 26, 2006. ) We DO know that 180 or so likely planets have been tentatively discovered, though. But NO ONE knows what the "odds " really are. It has also been demonstrated repeatedly that life on Earth tends to evolve to fit the environment available. [i]It has never been demonstrated that the parameters for the environment were put in place first BY A SUPERNATURAL GOD [i/] (not an alien, Flody!!) with the preconceived "idea" or "plan" that life would exist there later.

2.) Post hoc ergo propter hoc, also known as "coincidental correlation" or "false cause," is a fallacy which assumes or asserts that if one event happens ( the development of life) *after* another ( the emergence of the Universe and its "fine tuning" ), then the one must be causally linked to the other.

An analogy: Imagine a 10,000-person "russian roulette" game, with pairs of people facing off in a "round-robin"-style competition. Winners are paired randomly against winners until there are only two left. Should the last person standing alive conclude that he or she is favored by God? Because "fine-tuning" seems to exist, can I reasonably conclude that life is causally linked to it? Or that chance favored it? Or that God caused it to be so?

3.) God of the Gaps -- see :"Is There Anything Wrong with 'God of the Gaps' Reasoning?" (International Journal for the Philosophy of Religion 52: 129-142, 2002). A place you can plug God in, if you so wish, is before the Big Bang. You can also claim that this is where God did his "fine-tuning" , but, fundamentally, the god of the gaps argument is the logical fallacy of the argumentum ad ignorantium : basing a conclusion on a lack of information or understanding. The mere fact that we do cannot explain something is not a valid justification to rely upon something else, even more mysterious, as an "explanation." Such a tactic is also risky here because, as science progresses the "gaps" in scientific explanation grow smaller.

The theist who uses this to rationalize their beliefs may find that, at some point, there simply isn't enough room for their god anymore. In the past, it was common to point to lightning, thunder, earthquakes or other mysteries in nature and attribute them to some god. Unfortunately, even today many people think of God primarily as the explanation for things they don't understand. To define God in those terms, especially when Christians base their apologetics on the existence of such gaps, is a major error.

--------------------------------------
More importantly, Gonzales et al. are not distinguishing what YOU claim to be supporting, Flody. Read their statements and they have no way of distinguishing between "deities" and "extraterrestrials" capable of seeding a planet. This, along with the other fallacies and logical errors cited by myself and others, disqualify it as an actual scientific hypothesis that could provide support for Gods -- such as what YOU are nominally SUPPOSED to be trying to support, Flody.

If Gonzales can't show how to distinguish Gods and aliens, then how does this support your view, Flody? How does it make it a scientific program to research supernatural deities?

Given all the logical lapses, holes, and sheer ridiculous fallacy-mongering of Gonzales, it is perfectly obvious to point out that his nattering does NOT constitute a valid scientific research program FOR THE INVESTIGATION OF SUPERNATURAL DEITIES (which is what you were supposed to be showing, stupid).

Look back at all my posts on this matter -- I was asking you to show a valid scientific research program for the investigation of deities, and you post up crap , which --even if evidence is actually found for life being artificial on this planet -- cannot distinguish between "intelligent aliens from the planet Glurrgh " and "supernatural deities." You haven't presented any research program for the investigation of supernatural deities at all, dumb-ass
Posted by: Constant Mews on Oct. 31 2009,00:01

Floyd, I am well-versed in Christian doctrine and theology.  I know the Bible well and have studied exegesis extensively.

I also know and understand the theory of evolution and its implications.

Yet I am a Christian who accepts evolution.  

You continue to claim that this is impossible.

How do you explain me?  Seriously, how do you explain it?
Posted by: JohnW on Oct. 31 2009,01:18

Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 30 2009,13:26)
And in their book, Gonzalez and Richards specifically write about how to Falsify their ID hypothesis.
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
The most decisive way to falsify our argument as a whole would be to find a distant and very different environment, which, while quite hostile to life, nevertheless offers a superior platform for making as many diverse scientific discoveries as does our local environment.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


---------------------QUOTE-------------------


In addition to the many other objections raised, this core "decisive way" to test the Privileged Planet hypothesis is not a scientific test at all, and merely provides a foundation for future waffling.  

To make this a meaningful test, we first need to count the number of diverse scientific discoveries it's possible to make in our local environment.  Actually, cancel that.  What's a "diverse scientific discovery"?  (Special and general relativity: one diverse scientific discovery, or two?)  What's the "local environment"?  (Earth?  Inner Solar System?  Arms of a spiral galaxy?)

OK, so we need to define our terms.
Then we need to count our discoveries.  
Then we need a methodology for determining how many discoveries are possible in other environments - which are hostile to life, so we can't just ask the locals.

Sounds straightforward to me.  Let's see your data, Floyd.
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Oct. 31 2009,01:57

oh sure yeah right you are going to talk sense to the tard and he is going to understand and learn something from it.  

riiiiiight

i've watched this moron at Pt for long enough to know what he's going to do.

Hey Fold why don't you tell me why god is not part of the required explanation for water running downhill when he is part of the existence of water itself?

you know, for a change.
Posted by: Wesley R. Elsberry on Oct. 31 2009,07:23

FL and, apparently, Gonzalez and Richards do not understand what "falsification" means. It is the application of modus tollens to empirical study, and as such it requires that one set as the test saying what must be true if one's thesis is true and then looking to see if it is actually the case. If not, then the thesis is falsified. What is excluded as being falsification is the sort of wool-gathering armchair philosophy that IDC advocates are generically reduced to, as in the quoted section of G&R. Simple hint for the simple: if you have to use a construction like, "if X exists, Y is falsified", you are misusing falsification. Falsification is like, "If Y is true, X is true. Is X true?" I have < noted this before > about Dembski:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------

One will note that Dembski’s deployment of “falsifiability” is unrecognizable as any sort of usage that could be said to be derived from Popper. Demsbki does not proceed from some “theory of intelligent design” and find a proposition that is an entailed consequence and test its empirical validity, as Popper required for his “falsifiability”. Dembski asserts that an essentially unrelated proposition, whether some phenomenon can be explained sufficiently well by reference to a completely unrelated theory, somehow has implications for the truth value of the conjecture of interest. This has no corresponding construct in Popper’s framework, perhaps for the simple reason that it is an obviously invalid approach that Popper wouldn’t have touched with a ten foot pole. (See below for more.) It was this clearly erroneous deployment of “falsifiability” that I strongly critiqued in my presentation on June 17th, 2001 at the CTNS/AAAS “Interpreting Evolution” conference at Haverford College with William Dembski and Michael Behe in attendance (see slides 23-25).

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Beyond the false claim that G&R are presenting something falsifiable, there is the problem that what G&R present isn't even attributable to IDC. Historically, the use of fine-tuning and privileged observer arguments go back at least to William Paley, where one can find versions of those in his 1802 "Natural Theology". Gonzalez and Richards may have elaborated at length on the topic, but they did not invent the arguments themselves, and thus they don't qualify as "intelligent design" creationism arguments. These are, at best, natural theology arguments.
Posted by: FrankH on Oct. 31 2009,07:36

Quote (JohnW @ Oct. 31 2009,01:18)
Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 30 2009,13:26)
And in their book, Gonzalez and Richards specifically write about how to Falsify their ID hypothesis.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
The most decisive way to falsify our argument as a whole would be to find a distant and very different environment, which, while quite hostile to life, nevertheless offers a superior platform for making as many diverse scientific discoveries as does our local environment.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


---------------------QUOTE-------------------

In addition to the many other objections raised, this core "decisive way" to test the Privileged Planet hypothesis is not a scientific test at all, and merely provides a foundation for future waffling.  

To make this a meaningful test, we first need to count the number of diverse scientific discoveries it's possible to make in our local environment.  Actually, cancel that.  What's a "diverse scientific discovery"?  (Special and general relativity: one diverse scientific discovery, or two?)  What's the "local environment"?  (Earth?  Inner Solar System?  Arms of a spiral galaxy?)

OK, so we need to define our terms.
Then we need to count our discoveries.  
Then we need a methodology for determining how many discoveries are possible in other environments - which are hostile to life, so we can't just ask the locals.

Sounds straightforward to me.  Let's see your data, Floyd.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Another question for Floyd is what type of life would show that his god didn't "design it".  What type of life did his god design?

The problem now is very different from even just 50 years ago.  In the 50s, a YEC could say with certainty that the "life god wants" breathes oxygen or can metabolize CO2 for photosynthesis, lives in an O-N atmosphere, yada, essentially what we see on the Earth's surface and its upper layers of the oceans.  This YEC would also say with certainty that nothing can live in the scorching heat and pressures at the bottom of the ocean nor in the cracks and fissures around volcanoes.

Now we know those things exist.  We know about "Extremophiles" that live in pressures and temps that would turn anything on the surface into base proteins and even those might get mashed.

So FLoyd, what type of life would falsify your ID?

Thermaphiles, Extremophiles, etc, are no problem for Evolution as evolution holds life will do its best to adapt to the environment around it.  Life makes use of the materials around it in Evolution.

How does your ID handle that?
Posted by: FrankH on Oct. 31 2009,07:40

As a follow up, how does your theology even handle those things like Thermophilic life which lives in locations bronze age shepherds would be completely clueless?

On a broader scope, why is there all this stuff in the Universe if Earth and only Earth is the "Privileged Planet"?
Posted by: Wesley R. Elsberry on Oct. 31 2009,08:02

As a historical example of scientific progress being aided by the logic of falsification (though the term and explication post-date it), there is Eddington's test of gravitational bending of light. In 1919, two expeditions collected data during that year's solar eclipse. What I had not known before looking at < this > was that Eddington was looking to falsify either Newtonian or Einsteinian predictions, or both. In both, the prediction was that light would be bent; they differed in predicting in what degree light would be bent. Eddington looked to find out what must have been true if the theories in question were true. The results were entailed for observation of any suitable phenomena, such as the 1919 eclipse.

This contrasts strongly with the bafflegab IDC advocates try to pass off as  providing falsifiability of their various conjectures.
Posted by: FrankH on Oct. 31 2009,08:16

Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Oct. 31 2009,08:02)
(snip)

This contrasts strongly with the bafflegab IDC advocates try to pass off as  providing falsifiability of their various conjectures.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Ah yes the, "Our thingy predicted that too", method of lying when your "thingy", in this case ID "Theory", actually predicts nothing.

In a game I've played many years ago, SFB, it's called "me too" weapons fire.
Posted by: Quack on Oct. 31 2009,10:25

Quote (FrankH @ Oct. 31 2009,07:40)
As a follow up, how does your theology even handle those things like Thermophilic life which lives in locations bronze age shepherds would be completely clueless?

On a broader scope, why is there all this stuff in the Universe if Earth and only Earth is the "Privileged Planet"?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I am afraid questions like that means nothing to people like FL: the standard reply is, we don't know what may have been God's reason for making things the way they are. Or whatever.
Posted by: FrankH on Oct. 31 2009,11:48

Quote (Quack @ Oct. 31 2009,10:25)
Quote (FrankH @ Oct. 31 2009,07:40)
As a follow up, how does your theology even handle those things like Thermophilic life which lives in locations bronze age shepherds would be completely clueless?

On a broader scope, why is there all this stuff in the Universe if Earth and only Earth is the "Privileged Planet"?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

I am afraid questions like that means nothing to people like FL: the standard reply is, we don't know what may have been God's reason for making things the way they are. Or whatever.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I know.

But it begs the questions:

1:  Were they in the Ark?

2:  Why did your god create them if we and they can't live in the same environment/don't even live on the same planet?
Posted by: JohnW on Oct. 31 2009,12:10

Quote (JohnW @ Oct. 30 2009,23:18)
Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 30 2009,13:26)
And in their book, Gonzalez and Richards specifically write about how to Falsify their ID hypothesis.
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
The most decisive way to falsify our argument as a whole would be to find a distant and very different environment, which, while quite hostile to life, nevertheless offers a superior platform for making as many diverse scientific discoveries as does our local environment.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


---------------------QUOTE-------------------


In addition to the many other objections raised, this core "decisive way" to test the Privileged Planet hypothesis is not a scientific test at all, and merely provides a foundation for future waffling.  

To make this a meaningful test, we first need to count the number of diverse scientific discoveries it's possible to make in our local environment.  Actually, cancel that.  What's a "diverse scientific discovery"?  (Special and general relativity: one diverse scientific discovery, or two?)  What's the "local environment"?  (Earth?  Inner Solar System?  Arms of a spiral galaxy?)

OK, so we need to define our terms.
Then we need to count our discoveries.  
Then we need a methodology for determining how many discoveries are possible in other environments - which are hostile to life, so we can't just ask the locals.

Sounds straightforward to me.  Let's see your data, Floyd.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


On reflection, now that the Lagavulin has worn off, I see this is even more ridiculous that it looked last night.

We need to be able to count the "diverse scientific discoveries" we can't make from our local environment.  Do you have a list, Floyd?
Posted by: Schroedinger's Dog on Oct. 31 2009,12:35

Tinfoil hats for sale! Tinfoil hats for sale!!!



Yodel, could I help you to some tinfoil hat?
Posted by: SLP on Oct. 31 2009,12:49

Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 30 2009,15:30)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
He then claimed 'theoretical chemist' whatever that means.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


And he has the PhD and work resume to back it up, doesn't he?   (Go ahead and say yes; save time.)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You miss - purposely? - my point.

You said  one thing, Calvert said something else.  He says something different.

Point is - you people seem to provide whatever impressive-sounding title for your hero of the day depending on which moniker you think will be most impressive.
Posted by: SLP on Oct. 31 2009,12:51

Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 30 2009,15:29)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Please show that 'materialism' is a religion.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


It's a religion to me.  It sure ain't science (nor any part of the scientific method), and some of you seem to worship it most fanatically.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Oh, so now Floyd Lee, wannabe journalist, full-time internet YEC propagandist, gets to dictate what is and is not a religion.

You know what?

ID and YECism are mythic cults to me, so therefore, they ARE mythic cults.
Posted by: SLP on Oct. 31 2009,12:52

Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 30 2009,15:26)
And now.....let's specifically see why ID is science.

Here before you is a scientific (and scientifically falsifiable) ID hypothesis.  

Have you read Gonzalez's and Richards' book The Privileged Planet? It's an excellent book, and the film version of it was even shown at the Smithsonian Institution.  
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



So, if I rent a room at the Smithsonian and show "The Exorcist", you'd declare it to be scientific?


---------------------QUOTE-------------------

It presents one variety of the Intelligent Design hypothesis that's known as the cosmological or "fine-tuning" ID hypothesis.  blah blah blah  
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



***

"Science is all about what is testable, not necessarily what is naturalistic."  (chemist Dr. John Millam.)  Now you have good warrant for the claim "ID is science."[/quote]
Cute - post-hoc rationalizations now count as  'scientific hypotheses'....

So tell us - have any of these amazing ID scientist/theologians done any actual research ot try to falsify their hypotheses?

Or is merely tossing out this 'hypothesis' sufficient (ala Behe)?
Posted by: SLP on Oct. 31 2009,12:59

Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 30 2009,16:59)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Isn't the onus on YOU to show that the biblical narrative IS histroical and true?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Only have to show you that the text is historical narrative and that it's not metaphorical or allegorical.  

Like I said, you're free to believe Genesis is historically false (because of your belief in evolution) all day long.  The only issue here, however, is whether the Gen creation/fall/flood texts are written as historical narrative.

Already provided the Gen 5 genealogy to show that it's historical narrative, plus some other Scriptures too.  The biblical writers of the OT and NT were really serious about viewing Genesis as actual literal history and the foundation for the rest of the Bible doctrines.  Same for Jesus and Paul.  

FloydLee
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


In order for something to be an historical narrative, should there not be corroborating EVIDENCE to back up the narrative?

I mean, The Iliad reads like history, too.

And by the way - my 'belief' that the bible is ahistorical came before I accepted 'naturalism.'  I think I was in maybe 5th grade when I realized that it had to be mythology.
Posted by: SLP on Oct. 31 2009,13:02

Quote (Amadan @ Oct. 30 2009,19:09)
Correction, Floyd: It presents an unscientific hypothesis. Specifically, it is unscientific because it assumes that the conditions in which we on Earth find ourselves are improbably attuned to suit our existence. In doing so, they...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Yup..

When FL trots out Trevors and Abel, we will have to point out the same flaw - that they assume that information had to have been 'written' (their word) by an intelligence and then they rhetorically ask how 'inanimate nature' can accomplish this.

I've pointed this out to Floyd 'my opinion = fact' Lee before, and he just ignores it so he can 'justifiably' make the same pseudo-argument in the future.
Posted by: FrankH on Oct. 31 2009,15:27

Where's Floyd?

I guess he realizes that his "shur fiar points to trip up dem evil ol' Evilutionists" from Dr^2 or even Dr Dino aren't worth the electrons they're transmitted on.
Posted by: Henry J on Oct. 31 2009,16:39



---------------------QUOTE-------------------



---------------------QUOTE-------------------

And in their book, Gonzalez and Richards specifically write about how to Falsify their ID hypothesis.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------

The most decisive way to falsify our argument as a whole would be to find a distant and very different environment, which, while quite hostile to life, nevertheless offers a superior platform for making as many diverse scientific discoveries as does our local environment.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



---------------------QUOTE-------------------



---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Well, some things come to mind right off: the laws of motion would have been easier to decipher in weightlessness. Some physics would be easier to discover in vacuum than in an atmosphere. Astronomical observations would be easier from space, preferably somewhere shaded from the sun. Observations of the sun would be easier from Mercury (or even the moon). Some types of quantum effects would be easier in a much colder climate than ours. Black holes are (fortunately) too far away and/or behind too much debris for more than indirect observation of the objects near them.

Henry
Posted by: Henry J on Oct. 31 2009,16:40



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
What type of life did his god design?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Beetles?

Henry
Posted by: didymos on Oct. 31 2009,18:54

Quote (Henry J @ Oct. 31 2009,14:40)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
What type of life did his god design?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Beetles?

Henry
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Nowadays, you'd have to say bacteria.  Make beetles look like pikers.
Posted by: FloydLee on Oct. 31 2009,19:33



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Yet I am a Christian who accepts evolution.  
You continue to claim that this is impossible.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Nope.  I have NOT said "this is impossible", not at all.  
(Remember the Pope?  Remember Nmgirl?  Do you need to check a few of the back pages, CM?  Sure looks like you do.)

Instead, what I have fully demonstrated, that "this is rationally and Scripturally inconsistent."

THAT was the point of the Incompatibility debate, CM.  Surely you get it by now?
Posted by: deadman_932 on Oct. 31 2009,19:44

There is no incompatibility. Your argument was based on your "Big Five Fantasies" which you admitted no one actually had to consider at all.

This was established by page 28 of this thread, but you kept pretending that you *had* an argument, which was pretty amusing.


And now? You have no evidence of a scientific program to study supernatural design, but you'll pretend that you do, despite that very lack of support for your claim.

Surely you get it by now?
Posted by: FloydLee on Oct. 31 2009,19:44



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
why don't you tell me why god is not part of the required explanation for water running downhill when he is part of the existence of water itself?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Erasmus, you were given direct answers on this one, (including a very relevant quotation from Futuyma's EB# textbook, a timely example), and in fact you were given a complete explanation, all in all.   I have printed them off, including your unsuccessful attempts to refute them.  

In particular, you honestly could not come up with any comeback for the fact that your attempted analogy could NOT be applied to the issue of "Evolution is Incompatible with Christianity" because the Bible itself specifies exclusively DIRECT, not indirect, causations for ALL origin events during Creation Week.  

I have taken time to print off my answers to your question, as well as your attempts to respond---and where you did not even attempt to respond.  

(For future use, of course.)   But that's all on that one.  You're done.  (More accurately, done for!)

FloydLee     :)
Posted by: nmgirl on Oct. 31 2009,19:59

Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 31 2009,19:33)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Yet I am a Christian who accepts evolution.  
You continue to claim that this is impossible.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Nope.  I have NOT said "this is impossible", not at all.  
(Remember the Pope?  Remember Nmgirl?  Do you need to check a few of the back pages, CM?  Sure looks like you do.)

Instead, what I have fully demonstrated, that "this is rationally and Scripturally inconsistent."

THAT was the point of the Incompatibility debate, CM.  Surely you get it by now?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


what is "rational" about ignoring 200 years of scientific discoveries? You know FL, I think you need to get away from searching the web for people you can misquote and go into the real world.  maybe a dose of real geology or a trip to a real science museum would help, but I doubt it. Fortunately, I don't meet many people who are determined to remain stupid.
Posted by: FloydLee on Oct. 31 2009,20:05



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
So, if I rent a room at the Smithsonian and show "The Exorcist", you'd declare it to be scientific?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I'm afraid you don't understand, SLP.   Check this out.

The educational film "The Privileged Planet" passed the two preliminary screenings required by the Associate Director of Research and Collections at the Smithsonian Natural History Museum.

From that point, according to the usual custom of the Smithsonian, the museum director was also listed as co-sponsor of the invitation-only event, in exchange for an expected donation to the Smithsonian’s research efforts (in this case, $16,000).

However, when the invitations were sent out mentioning the traditional Smithsonian co-sponsorship, a bunch of evolutionists all wet their shorts at the same time, and they immediately applied pressure on the Smithsonian Institute itself to withdraw that co-sponsorship and implied endorsement, which it subsequently did.

And yet, even though they withdrew all that, the Smithsonian museum showed the Privileged Planet film in June of 2005 anyway.

So SLP, you're talking about a science movie, "The Privileged Planet" that has already passed the Smithsonian Institution's muster.  

This is a science film of the first rank, based on a science book of the first rank.

Btw, SLP, have you actually read or seen "The Privileged Planet" for yourself?  Serious question.

FloydLee
Posted by: Jasper on Oct. 31 2009,20:05

Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 31 2009,20:44)
...the Bible itself specifies exclusively DIRECT, not indirect, causations for ALL origin events during Creation Week.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Exclusively DIRECT?

ALL origin events?

What does Genesis actually say, Floyd?


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Then God said, "Let the land produce vegetation: seed-bearing plants and trees on the land that bear fruit with seed in it, according to their various kinds." And it was so. The land produced vegetation: plants bearing seed according to their kinds and trees bearing fruit with seed in it according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good.

Genesis 1:11-12
---------------------QUOTE-------------------




---------------------QUOTE-------------------
And God said, "Let the land produce living creatures according to their kinds: livestock, creatures that move along the ground, and wild animals, each according to its kind." And it was so.

Genesis 1:24
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Lying is against one of God's commandments, Floyd.

I'm just making sure you knew because, apparently, you've never actually read the Bible.
Posted by: deadman_932 on Oct. 31 2009,20:08

Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 31 2009,20:05)
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
So, if I rent a room at the Smithsonian and show "The Exorcist", you'd declare it to be scientific?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I'm afraid you don't understand, SLP.   Check this out.

The educational film "The Privileged Planet" passed the two preliminary screenings required by the Associate Director of Research and Collections at the Smithsonian Natural History Museum.

From that point, according to the usual custom of the Smithsonian, the museum director was also listed as co-sponsor of the invitation-only event, in exchange for an expected donation to the Smithsonian’s research efforts (in this case, $16,000).

However, when the invitations were sent out mentioning the traditional Smithsonian co-sponsorship, a bunch of evolutionists all wet their shorts at the same time, and they immediately applied pressure on the Smithsonian Institute itself to withdraw that co-sponsorship and implied endorsement, which it subsequently did.

And yet, even though they withdrew all that, the Smithsonian museum showed the Privileged Planet film in June of 2005 anyway.

So SLP, you're talking about a science movie, "The Privileged Planet" that has already passed the Smithsonian Institution's muster.  

This is a science film of the first rank, based on a science book of the first rank.

Btw, SLP, have you actually read or seen "The Privileged Planet" for yourself?  Serious question.

FloydLee
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Have you? Read the book? Know anything about the multiple fallacies and logical errors that have already been mentioned about it?

Most importantly, are you arguing for space-aliens creating life?

Is Jesus now just a cosmic alien extraterrestrial life-form  for you? That's what Gonzalez is talking about, you know.

Are you a Raelian?


Is this your God?
Posted by: nmgirl on Oct. 31 2009,20:08

Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 31 2009,19:33)
Instead, what I have fully demonstrated, that "this is rationally and Scripturally inconsistent."

THAT was the point of the Incompatibility debate, CM.  Surely you get it by now?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


So tell me Floyd, where did you get your degree in Theology?  Where are your published scholarly works on the bible. Which misquoted scriptures are inconsistent with acceptance of the Theory of Evolution?  And why in the hell do you still think that someone's opinion is evidence?
Posted by: FloydLee on Oct. 31 2009,20:16



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Have you? Read the book?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Yes.  Still have my copy with me, btw.

How 'bout you, Deadman?  Have you?
Posted by: deadman_932 on Oct. 31 2009,20:16

Then surely you can address the fallacies I and others mentioned -- and the fact that you appear to be arguing for space-aliens now, Floaty
Posted by: FloydLee on Oct. 31 2009,20:17



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Which misquoted scriptures are inconsistent with acceptance of the Theory of Evolution?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Which scriptures have I mis-quoted, Nmgirl?  Please specify which.
Posted by: OgreMkV on Oct. 31 2009,20:19

If you really believe that you have given a direct answer to this question then you are too stupid to continue discussing this with.

Please, find the reference where you answered this question or repost it.  I mean, do you really think that 7 or 8 reasonably intelligent people (unlike yourself) missed it.

Further more, your posting/debating style is both inconsiderate and stupid.  You do not answer questions asked you in a timely manner, you continually bring up irrelevant comments, and your 'arguments' are at best pathetic and at worst outright lying.

I don't expect a pathetic little indoctrinated mind like yours to understand this: But you are not helping the cause of ID or Christianity. The other Christians here think you're an idiot.  You have no idea how to act as Christian.  You have no skills in debate.  You have no knowledge of either Christianity or science.

Please Floyd, as a favor to your position and your faith, please try to debate responsibly.  Try to use some logic.  Poor arguments just make you look, at best, and a worst, an outright liar.  

You really embarrassing yourself and your faith.

If you do actually read this, I really have little hope that you understand.  You see, unlike you, if I'm presented with an argument or even a request, I do my research and present my side using logic.  Your ranting and raving that you have 'defeated' all our arguments is just pathetic.

Please try to be a reasonable person.
Posted by: FloydLee on Oct. 31 2009,20:19



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Then surely you can address the fallacies I and others mentioned -- and the fact that you appear to be arguing for space-aliens now, Floaty
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


And surely you can answer MY question---have you read the book, Deadman?
Posted by: deadman_932 on Oct. 31 2009,20:22

Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 31 2009,20:19)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Then surely you can address the fallacies I and others mentioned -- and the fact that you appear to be arguing for space-aliens now, Floaty
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


And surely you can answer MY question---have you read the book, Deadman?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Nope, and I don't have to, given that the "fine-tuning " argument has always been beset by the problems I mentioned. Until I see that someone is going to address those issues (you can't, Floaty?) -- the why should I finance the work of Gonzalez?

There's my answer, Floaty -- now you can answer what I asked about the fallacies, logical errors and Space-alien creators you now seem to be supporting by forwarding Gonzalez as somehow meaningful to your Christian creationism.
Posted by: OgreMkV on Oct. 31 2009,20:24

Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 31 2009,20:19)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Then surely you can address the fallacies I and others mentioned -- and the fact that you appear to be arguing for space-aliens now, Floaty
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


And surely you can answer MY question---have you read the book, Deadman?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


The BOOK doesn't freaking matter you MORON!

It's the arguments contained within the book.  If the arguments in the book suck, then the fact that it's in a book DOESN'T MATTER.

Do you really believe that everything in print is instantly correct?  Cause, I have some books on witchcraft that would interest you.  I also have a BOOK that shows that the universe was created by the Titans... and one that tells me the Earth is resting on the back of a turtle.

I'll try this again.  Just because a book says so, doesn't make it true.

You can't be this dense.
Posted by: deadman_932 on Oct. 31 2009,20:28

Quote (deadman_932 @ Oct. 30 2009,23:39)

More importantly, Gonzales et al. are not distinguishing what YOU claim to be supporting, Flody. Read their statements and they have no way of distinguishing between "deities" and "extraterrestrials" capable of seeding a planet. This, along with the other fallacies and logical errors cited by myself and others, disqualify it as an actual scientific hypothesis that could provide support for Gods -- such as what YOU are nominally SUPPOSED to be trying to support, Flody.

If Gonzales can't show how to distinguish Gods and aliens, then how does this support your view, Flody? How does it make it a scientific program to research supernatural deities?

Given all the logical lapses, holes, and sheer ridiculous fallacy-mongering of Gonzales, it is perfectly obvious to point out that his nattering does NOT constitute a valid scientific research program FOR THE INVESTIGATION OF SUPERNATURAL DEITIES (which is what you were supposed to be showing, stupid).


---------------------QUOTE-------------------


There you go, Floaty. Don't forget to ALSO respond to each of the fallacies and logical errors I mentioned in my original post on that (p.84).

Start answering.
Posted by: jupiter on Oct. 31 2009,20:32

Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 31 2009,19:33)
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Yet I am a Christian who accepts evolution.  
You continue to claim that this is impossible.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Nope.  I have NOT said "this is impossible", not at all.  
(Remember the Pope?  Remember Nmgirl?  Do you need to check a few of the back pages, CM?  Sure looks like you do.)

Instead, what I have fully demonstrated, that "this is rationally and Scripturally inconsistent."

THAT was the point of the Incompatibility debate, CM.  Surely you get it by now?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


So... your point is that self-declared Christians who accept concepts that are rationally and Scripturally inconsistent* are indeed Christians.

I doubt anyone here would argue with that. I'm a little confused about why it took so long to agree upon such a non-controversial point.

You may think that your "inconsistencies" make them beta-Christians while you're an alpha-Christian, with all the implied favors and benefits accruing to you and yours. Maybe so—but that's not your decision to make, is it?

*The phrase "rationally and Scripturally inconsistent" is yours. I don't agree with that characterization; nor do most Christians.
Posted by: Constant Mews on Oct. 31 2009,21:22

Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 31 2009,19:33)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Yet I am a Christian who accepts evolution.  
You continue to claim that this is impossible.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Nope.  I have NOT said "this is impossible", not at all.  
(Remember the Pope?  Remember Nmgirl?  Do you need to check a few of the back pages, CM?  Sure looks like you do.)

Instead, what I have fully demonstrated, that "this is rationally and Scripturally inconsistent."

THAT was the point of the Incompatibility debate, CM.  Surely you get it by now?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You have demonstrated nothing, I'm afraid.

You already admitted that Genesis need not be taken literally - in fact, you do it yourself.

Your "incompatibilities" have been dealt with at least three times, if not more, fully and completely.

I can explain to you exactly why there are no "incompatibilities" and have already done so.

Explain precisely which scriptures evolution is inconsistent with, given that you have already conceded that a Christian need not take the Bible literally.

Evolution is completely rational.  Christianity is not - but it was never intended to be.

Lying is not one of your great skills, Floyd.

I will pray for you.

Now answer my questions.
Posted by: Constant Mews on Oct. 31 2009,21:25

Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 31 2009,19:44)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
why don't you tell me why god is not part of the required explanation for water running downhill when he is part of the existence of water itself?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Erasmus, you were given direct answers on this one, (including a very relevant quotation from Futuyma's EB# textbook, a timely example), and in fact you were given a complete explanation, all in all.   I have printed them off, including your unsuccessful attempts to refute them.  

In particular, you honestly could not come up with any comeback for the fact that your attempted analogy could NOT be applied to the issue of "Evolution is Incompatible with Christianity" because the Bible itself specifies exclusively DIRECT, not indirect, causations for ALL origin events during Creation Week.  

I have taken time to print off my answers to your question, as well as your attempts to respond---and where you did not even attempt to respond.  

(For future use, of course.)   But that's all on that one.  You're done.  (More accurately, done for!)

FloydLee     :)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


But you have already agreed that those very Bible passages you are trying to cite need not be taken as literal truth.

You already admitted this, Floyd.

So now you claim that verses that need not be taken literally must be taken literally?

Your inability to reason and your remarkably poor understanding of the Bible are quite interesting to me.
Posted by: deadman_932 on Oct. 31 2009,21:26

Quote (deadman_932 @ Oct. 31 2009,20:22)
Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 31 2009,20:19)
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Then surely you can address the fallacies I and others mentioned -- and the fact that you appear to be arguing for space-aliens now, Floaty
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


And surely you can answer MY question---have you read the book, Deadman?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Nope, and I don't have to, given that the "fine-tuning " argument has always been beset by the problems I mentioned. Until I see that someone is going to address those issues (you can't, Floaty?) -- the why should I finance the work of Gonzalez?

There's my answer, Floaty -- now you can answer what I asked about the fallacies, logical errors and Space-alien creators you now seem to be supporting by forwarding Gonzalez as somehow meaningful to your Christian creationism.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Don't intentionally "forget" to answer me and vanish off the board, Floaty.
Posted by: Constant Mews on Oct. 31 2009,21:27

Quote (jupiter @ Oct. 31 2009,20:32)
Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 31 2009,19:33)
   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Yet I am a Christian who accepts evolution.  
You continue to claim that this is impossible.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Nope.  I have NOT said "this is impossible", not at all.  
(Remember the Pope?  Remember Nmgirl?  Do you need to check a few of the back pages, CM?  Sure looks like you do.)

Instead, what I have fully demonstrated, that "this is rationally and Scripturally inconsistent."

THAT was the point of the Incompatibility debate, CM.  Surely you get it by now?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


So... your point is that self-declared Christians who accept concepts that are rationally and Scripturally inconsistent* are indeed Christians.

I doubt anyone here would argue with that. I'm a little confused about why it took so long to agree upon such a non-controversial point.

You may think that your "inconsistencies" make them beta-Christians while you're an alpha-Christian, with all the implied favors and benefits accruing to you and yours. Maybe so—but that's not your decision to make, is it?

*The phrase "rationally and Scripturally inconsistent" is yours. I don't agree with that characterization; nor do most Christians.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Exactly.  Floyd is claiming one of three things:

A. I am not a Christian.

B. I do not understand Christianity.

C. I do not understand evolutionary theory.

Which is it, Floyd?

This is the crux of the matter; this is why I keep saying that you are claiming that I cannot exist.

Which is it, Floyd?
Posted by: Constant Mews on Oct. 31 2009,21:37



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
And yet, even though they withdrew all that, the Smithsonian museum showed the Privileged Planet film in June of 2005 anyway.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Yes, they did.  They will show any film not outright pornography for a fee.

They did not endorse it.

Really, Floyd, this is irrelevant; I've read the book, and it's a remarkably sloppy piece of misdirection, illogic, and baseless claims.

Remarkably similar to your "debating" on this thread.  Except that they're apparently far better educated.
Posted by: Lou FCD on Oct. 31 2009,21:41

Quote (Constant Mews @ Oct. 31 2009,22:22)
Lying is not one of your great skills, Floyd.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Odd, given how much practice he gets. You'd think he'd eventually get good at it.

You could think that, but you'd be wrong.
Posted by: FloydLee on Oct. 31 2009,21:51



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
You do not answer questions asked you in a timely manner
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You mean like this particular request Ogre?
       

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Cause, I think the others here have shown just as many quotes as you have that counter your argument.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Really?   Please document that claim.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You never did provide that documentation Ogre, even though all you had to do was count the number of quotes and simply see if the number of quotes from "the others" was at least equal to the number of quotes from me.  

So NOW you are concerned with being "timely"?   Can't say I'm impressed.  

***

Hey, how about this example from CM:
       

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Since FL seems comfortable with Futuyma, I will post the 20 tenets of evolutionary theory he identifies
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
(Oct 11) I will be posting it tomorrow; it has been a busy weekend.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Did we ever get those 20 in a timely fashion?

***

Or this example:
       

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
(Robin)
Even opinions from the likes of Mayr are just opinions and are not actual summations of the actual ToE.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

 
       

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
(Floyd)
So please provide me with these (ahem) "actual summations" that would negate and neutralize the published evolutionist statements that were specifically given for each of the Big Five Incompatibilities.  Thanks again!  
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Request not fulfilled at all, let alone timely.

***

Here's another request of mine:
       

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
("You and others") kept rambling on about how the Pope, as a Christian who accepts evolution under certain conditions (but not others), has somehow negated and neutralized each of the Big Five Incompatibilities as pointed out by professional scientist evolutionists.  

So I've been asking -- repeatedly & specifically --  how the Pope did that, and you seem to have no specific answers other than "the Pope accepts evolution."
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


And never did receive any actual specifics as requested.  Scratch the timely.

***

Another request that wasn't answered at all (let alone timely):
       

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Here's 5 examples just to get started.

Futuyma, Mayr, Bozarth, Coyne, (and)
Whoever's currently teaching Biology 391 at the Univ. of Tenn. at Martin.

So, would you agree?  Are those professional evolutionist scientists there?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Even that one never actually got a straight answer.

***

And here's a contradiction that was never actually resolved (let alone in timely manner) by you guys:      

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Here's a quotation from Deadman:
"The pontiff, speaking as he was concluding his holiday in northern Italy, also said that while there is much scientific proof to support evolution, the theory could not exclude a role by God."

Here's a quotation from Robin:
"The Pope accepts evolution under all conditions as he states...."
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


***

Furthermore of the known professing Christians within this forum (at this point that list would be strictly limited to Wesley, Nmgirl, and CM),
NONE offered an alternative, biblically sustainable, non-literal "interpretation" of Christianity that would be compatible with evolution and specifically resolve the Big Five, despite my sincerely asking more than once, and despite repeated assertions by evolutionists in this forum that such "interpretations" existed.  Timeliness fail.

(One poster expressed interest in bringing a Christian clergyman of his acquaintance to this particular debate to provide it, but he failed to provide the clergyman despite one sincere attempt, and he simply gave up on it.)  

***

And that's honestly only a few examples, Ogre.  Starting with you, of course.  Now we CAN simply take the position that everybody tried to do the best that they could on this long and unusual debate....or we can go on fault-finding and sniping, in which case another 85 pages of comments will surely be needed, and you'll definitely take your hits too.

***

I think the only person who needs an additional point of explanation is Erasmus.  I kept him waiting on his little obsession-question quite a while, and the main reason was because the boy used a sexual profanity against me.
Until that point, I was very concerned to get caught up with him.  After that point, I slowed way down on him.

Because I am a Christian, I don't get to use sexual profanity on people.  However, I can keep you waiting on a response for a good long time if I think you need it, and as you can see, there was NO shortage of people who were willing to continue dialoging with me on OTHER issues and questions despite me keeping Erasmus waiting.    

Only when Nmgirl restated Erasmus's question in a respectful manner did I decide to go ahead with a second response to his question---the Bible-driven response that permanently eliminated his question's applicability to this thread topic.

So, please add these comments to your "timeliness" notes as well, Ogre.

FloydLee
Posted by: FloydLee on Oct. 31 2009,22:01



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
But you have already agreed that those very Bible passages you are trying to cite need not be taken as literal truth.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


On the contrary, I showed you that indeed the writer of Genesis (let's call him "Moses") fully intended for you the reader to take Gen 1-11 as both historical and literal.

Hey, exactly what WAS your response to that Gen 5 genealogy again?  

And btw, notice that the Luke 3 genealogy ALSO affirms that Adam was straight historical and not ANY kind of metaphor/allegory:


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
38  Which was the son of Enos, which was the son of Seth, which was the son of Adam, which was the son of God.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Isn't it about time you started believing the Bible for a change, CM?  Jesus totally believed the Bible, no skepticism, no doubting, no excuses.  
You are following Jesus, yes??
Posted by: FloydLee on Oct. 31 2009,22:05



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
They did not endorse it.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Totally incorrect, CM.  The Smithsonian withdrew their co-sponsorship AFTER they had already granted it.
Posted by: OgreMkV on Oct. 31 2009,22:07

Floyd, everything you have ever asked has been RESPONDED to.  The fact that you do not understand that response or do not like that response is not any concern of ours.  The fact of the matter is that it is responded to.

Again, I really wish you would make an effort to understand the arguments presented to you.  I have only met two other people that were so willfully ignorant as you. They were both 16.
Posted by: OgreMkV on Oct. 31 2009,22:11

Quote (OgreMkV @ Oct. 30 2009,17:57)
1) What is one hypothesis that ID proposes?
2) What is one prediction of ID that differs from evolutionary theory?  (In other words, what predictions made using ID would differ from predictions made from evolution.  PREDICTIONS, not statements like ‘life is designed’.)
3) Describe an experiment that could test this prediction (this test need not have been done yet).
4) What is one hypothesis of ID that has been tested and shown to be correct (this must have been tested)?
5) What is one piece of evidence that would falsify ID (in other words, what evidence proves ID to be incorrect)?
6) Dembski, Nelson, and Behe have both stated that ID as a scientific theory needs a lot of work and is not ready for the limelight.  How do you respond to that statement from three of the largest figures of ID theory?**
7)  Please describe a lab that my students could do that would show ID in action and be able to show that ID, as as a science works and is distinct from evolution.
8) Please provide a rigorous and testable definition of [/i]Information[/i] as it pertains to biology.

It was actually a good try, but you've got a minimum of 6 more to go and the one you used failed.

Remember, you want this taught as science YOU have to prove that it is.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


We'll start here.
Posted by: OgreMkV on Oct. 31 2009,22:11

Quote (FrankH @ Oct. 30 2009,12:33)
Tell me Floyd, what IS "Computational Chemistry"?  How does it relate to Biology?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


No answer
Posted by: OgreMkV on Oct. 31 2009,22:14

Quote (Jasper @ Oct. 29 2009,16:02)
Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 29 2009,16:48)
After all (ahemmm), I 'm not skeered to let readers know exactly what I believe and don't believe, even when it comes to core religious beliefs.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


That's total BS, Floyd.

I've < asked > < you > < multiple > < times > about your beliefs concerning aspects of the Genesis account that you don't take literally (the Firmament, the moon "giving light", the pillars of the earth, etc.).

You reject a literal reading of Genesis when it comes to certain areas of science.

And yet, you demand that Genesis be interpreted literally when it comes to the question of whether evolution has occurred.

Why is that Floyd?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Another one...
Posted by: OgreMkV on Oct. 31 2009,22:15

Quote (Constant Mews @ Oct. 29 2009,14:19)
Since Floyd has become confused and unable to respond to requests for clarification on his points, I think it's best to provide a summary of what I believe his position to be.

Floyd believes that evolutionary theory and Christian doctrine are incompatible because:

1. Christian doctrine specifies that God is the necessary and sufficient explanation for biological organisms, and evolutionary theory does not require God as the necessary and sufficient explanation.

2. Christian doctrine specifies that God chose to create the universe and mankind and evolutionary theory denies that God chose to create the universe and mankind.

3. Christian doctrine specifies that God created man in His own image and evolutionary theory denies that God created man in His own image.

4. Christian doctrine specifies that death did not occur before man and evolutionary theory requires that death existed before man.

5. Christian doctrine specifies that God is a loving, and all-powerful God.  Evolutionary theory implies otherwise, since the evolutionary process involves gratuitous pain and suffering. This is Rosenhouse's point.

Now, once again, what definition of evolutionary theory did Floyd himself provide?



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Evolution comes in two flavors, micro-evolution and macro-evolution.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------





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





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





---------------------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.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



USING FLOYD'S OWN SUPPLIED DEFINITIONS, with regard to point 1, we note that evolutionary theory is silent on the involvement of God in biological diversity and origins.  We also note that since Floyd has conceded that Genesis 1-11 need not be taken literally to be Christian, a Christian may accept any mechanism God chooses to use.  Study of God's own work - the World - shows us that evolution is the mechanism God chose to use to create and diversify life.

USING FLOYD'S OWN SUPPLIED DEFINITIONS, with regard to point 2, we note that evolutionary theory is silent on the involvement of God in biological diversity and origins, and so does not deny that willed it and supports and maintains it.

USING FLOYD'S OWN SUPPLIED DEFINITIONS, with regard to point 3, we note that evolutionary theory is silent on the involvement of God in biological diversity and origins.  Evolutionary theory says nothing about souls; certainly no one claims that evolution created the soul.

USING FLOYD'S OWN SUPPLIED DEFINITIONS, with regard to point 4, we note that Christ is most likely referring to spiritual, rather than physical death, given the context of the passage.

USING FLOYD'S OWN SUPPLIED DEFINITIONS, with regard to point 5, we note that this has nothing to do with evolutionary theory per se - Rosenhouse is merely repeating the ancient Problem of Evil, for which Christianity already has an answer.

So Floyd, by conceding a non-literal reading of Genesis as compatible with Christian belief has conceded all points dependent on a Genesis history.

No incompatibilities, Floyd.  Not a single one.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Here's one refutation to all your incompatibilities... you have yet to comment on.
Posted by: OgreMkV on Oct. 31 2009,22:19

OK bored now... those were the last 10 pages and I hand picked the ones that hadn't been asked 50 times (like why is God required for water, but not required to make it flow downhill, etc.)

I could easily go further, but why?  Floyd will not answer them.
Posted by: jupiter on Oct. 31 2009,22:19

Quote (Constant Mews @ Oct. 31 2009,21:27)
     
Quote (jupiter @ Oct. 31 2009,20:32)
     
Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 31 2009,19:33)
         

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Yet I am a Christian who accepts evolution.  
You continue to claim that this is impossible.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Nope.  I have NOT said "this is impossible", not at all.  
(Remember the Pope?  Remember Nmgirl?  Do you need to check a few of the back pages, CM?  Sure looks like you do.)

Instead, what I have fully demonstrated, that "this is rationally and Scripturally inconsistent."

THAT was the point of the Incompatibility debate, CM.  Surely you get it by now?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


So... your point is that self-declared Christians who accept concepts that are rationally and Scripturally inconsistent* are indeed Christians.

I doubt anyone here would argue with that. I'm a little confused about why it took so long to agree upon such a non-controversial point.

You may think that your "inconsistencies" make them beta-Christians while you're an alpha-Christian, with all the implied favors and benefits accruing to you and yours. Maybe so—but that's not your decision to make, is it?

*The phrase "rationally and Scripturally inconsistent" is yours. I don't agree with that characterization; nor do most Christians.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Exactly.  Floyd is claiming one of three things:

A. I am not a Christian.

B. I do not understand Christianity.

C. I do not understand evolutionary theory.

Which is it, Floyd?

This is the crux of the matter; this is why I keep saying that you are claiming that I cannot exist.

Which is it, Floyd?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


CM, it's much simpler than that.

Floyd agrees that you're a Christian, despite your "rationally and Scripturally inconsistent beliefs." So much for his initial < argument >:

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

Who cares what he thinks about your understanding of Christianity or evolutionary theory? He's conceded that evolution is not incompatible with Christianity. We're done with that.

I'm eagerly looking forward to his presentation in favor of Point 2:

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

His valiant defense of the indefensible Point 1 threw off the schedule a bit. Let's give him the whole month of November to present his case for ID as science.
Posted by: FloydLee on Oct. 31 2009,22:23



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
A. I am not a Christian.

B. I do not understand Christianity.

C. I do not understand evolutionary theory.

Which is it, Floyd?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Absolutely "B"  for certain.  I have never seen anybody brag so much about how well they know Christianity and Theology and Bible, and yet display such a piss-poor, skepticism-filled understanding of 'em.

I also have to consider the possibility (only a possibility, that's all) of "A", because you've already made a specific claim about sanity versus believing in the literal historicity of Genesis that effectively undermines Jesus's own trustworthiness based on his acceptance of a literal historical Genesis in Matt 19 and Mark 10.  
Plus you've attacked the trustworthiness and authority of the NT itself by claiming it was strongly influenced by the idol-cult of Mithraism.

Understand that my statement that "A" is a possibility, is based on your two direct skeptic-statements there, and NOT because of your acceptance of evolution per se.

Ummm, you may want to refrain from asking questions like that in the future.  Not trying to attack or insult you, but you do leave yourself wide open for candid assessments.
Posted by: FloydLee on Oct. 31 2009,22:29



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
He's conceded that evolution is not incompatible with Christianity.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


No I have not.  I have already presented multiple personal testimonies that demonstrate the corrosive, eroding effects of the incompatibility of evolution with Christianity with in the lives of real people,
and also I have presented the Big Five Incompatibilities which you (among others) have not refuted.
Posted by: OgreMkV on Oct. 31 2009,22:31

Hmmm... I agree that no one really understands your version of Christianity Floyd.  Fortunately, there are many other varieties of Christianity that actually make sense.
Posted by: OgreMkV on Oct. 31 2009,22:36

Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 31 2009,22:29)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
He's conceded that evolution is not incompatible with Christianity.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


No I have not.  I have already presented multiple personal testimonies that demonstrate the corrosive, eroding effects of the incompatibility of evolution with Christianity with in the lives of real people,
and also I have presented the Big Five Incompatibilities which you (among others) have not refuted.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Little too quick on the draw there Floyd buddy.  Look five posts above the one I quoted from you.

Perhaps 'have not refuted' doesn't mean what you think it means.
Posted by: deadman_932 on Oct. 31 2009,22:45

Quote (deadman_932 @ Oct. 31 2009,20:22)
Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 31 2009,20:19)
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Then surely you can address the fallacies I and others mentioned -- and the fact that you appear to be arguing for space-aliens now, Floaty
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


And surely you can answer MY question---have you read the book, Deadman?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Nope, and I don't have to, given that the "fine-tuning " argument has always been beset by the problems I mentioned. Until I see that someone is going to address those issues (you can't, Floaty?) -- the why should I finance the work of Gonzalez?

There's my answer, Floaty -- now you can answer what I asked about the fallacies, logical errors and Space-alien creators you now seem to be supporting by forwarding Gonzalez as somehow meaningful to your Christian creationism.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


What, I answer you and you can't manage to deal with what I asked, Floaty?

Oh, yeah, there's a big surprise.
Posted by: Constant Mews on Oct. 31 2009,22:47

Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 31 2009,22:23)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
A. I am not a Christian.

B. I do not understand Christianity.

C. I do not understand evolutionary theory.

Which is it, Floyd?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Absolutely "B"  for certain.  I have never seen anybody brag so much about how well they know Christianity and Theology and Bible, and yet display such a piss-poor, skepticism-filled understanding of 'em.

I also have to consider the possibility (only a possibility, that's all) of "A", because you've already made a specific claim about sanity versus believing in the literal historicity of Genesis that effectively undermines Jesus's own trustworthiness based on his acceptance of a literal historical Genesis in Matt 19 and Mark 10.  
Plus you've attacked the trustworthiness and authority of the NT itself by claiming it was strongly influenced by the idol-cult of Mithraism.

Understand that my statement that "A" is a possibility, is based on your two direct skeptic-statements there, and NOT because of your acceptance of evolution per se.

Ummm, you may want to refrain from asking questions like that in the future.  Not trying to attack or insult you, but you do leave yourself wide open for candid assessments.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


And what precisely do you claim I do not understand about Christianity?

Are you arguing with the Nicene Creed?

Are you withdrawing your claim that a Christian need not take the first eleven chapters of Genesis as literal history?

Are you acknowleding that you don't understand either the Problem of Evil or the ways that Christian theology has coped with it over the centuries?

I point out my superior understanding of Christian theology because it is true.  Your simplistic readings; your inability to grasp nuance; your failure to understand even the most basic tenets of current theological theory; your continual misrepresenting and misunderstanding of basic Biblical passages demonstrates fairly clearly that you don't actually know much about either the Bible or about Christian doctrine.

As for you complaint regarding A... you yourself admitted that Genesis 1-11 need not be taken literally in order to be Christian.  It's there in black and white, Floyd - your admission that Christ might have a "piss-poor" knowledge of Genesis.

I realize you're stupid, Floyd, and I know that this entire discussion has been very hard for to cope with and keep up with, but flagrant lying when you can be proved wrong does very little to help your case.
Posted by: Constant Mews on Oct. 31 2009,22:49

Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 31 2009,22:29)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
He's conceded that evolution is not incompatible with Christianity.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


No I have not.  I have already presented multiple personal testimonies that demonstrate the corrosive, eroding effects of the incompatibility of evolution with Christianity with in the lives of real people,
and also I have presented the Big Five Incompatibilities which you (among others) have not refuted.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Personal stories are meaningless as "evidence", since we can produce an equal number of personal stories that tell otherwise: myself, Miller, and Collins to name just three.

And your "incompatible" have been directly and explicitly refuted at least three times on this thread.

You never responded to any of those refutation posts, so lying about it won't help your cause, Floyd.
Posted by: Constant Mews on Oct. 31 2009,22:50

Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 31 2009,22:23)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
A. I am not a Christian.

B. I do not understand Christianity.

C. I do not understand evolutionary theory.

Which is it, Floyd?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Absolutely "B"  for certain.  I have never seen anybody brag so much about how well they know Christianity and Theology and Bible, and yet display such a piss-poor, skepticism-filled understanding of 'em.

I also have to consider the possibility (only a possibility, that's all) of "A", because you've already made a specific claim about sanity versus believing in the literal historicity of Genesis that effectively undermines Jesus's own trustworthiness based on his acceptance of a literal historical Genesis in Matt 19 and Mark 10.  
Plus you've attacked the trustworthiness and authority of the NT itself by claiming it was strongly influenced by the idol-cult of Mithraism.

Understand that my statement that "A" is a possibility, is based on your two direct skeptic-statements there, and NOT because of your acceptance of evolution per se.

Ummm, you may want to refrain from asking questions like that in the future.  Not trying to attack or insult you, but you do leave yourself wide open for candid assessments.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I ask this question because it gets to the heart of your confusion, self-deception, and frank lack of understanding of Christianity.

I pray for you, Floyd, because you need the grace of God to move you from the road to certain hellfire you appear to be on.
Posted by: Constant Mews on Oct. 31 2009,22:51

Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 31 2009,22:05)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
They did not endorse it.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Totally incorrect, CM.  The Smithsonian withdrew their co-sponsorship AFTER they had already granted it.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You lie.  Try again, Floyd.  I suppose that it's possible you don't understand much about English.
Posted by: Constant Mews on Oct. 31 2009,22:52

Quote (Lou FCD @ Oct. 31 2009,21:41)
Quote (Constant Mews @ Oct. 31 2009,22:22)
Lying is not one of your great skills, Floyd.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Odd, given how much practice he gets. You'd think he'd eventually get good at it.

You could think that, but you'd be wrong.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


True.  What amazes me is his tendency to contradict himself in the same thread.  And someone assume that no one will catch him on it.  It is remarkable.
Posted by: Constant Mews on Oct. 31 2009,22:53

Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 31 2009,22:01)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
But you have already agreed that those very Bible passages you are trying to cite need not be taken as literal truth.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


On the contrary, I showed you that indeed the writer of Genesis (let's call him "Moses") fully intended for you the reader to take Gen 1-11 as both historical and literal.

Hey, exactly what WAS your response to that Gen 5 genealogy again?  

And btw, notice that the Luke 3 genealogy ALSO affirms that Adam was straight historical and not ANY kind of metaphor/allegory:
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
38  Which was the son of Enos, which was the son of Seth, which was the son of Adam, which was the son of God.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Isn't it about time you started believing the Bible for a change, CM?  Jesus totally believed the Bible, no skepticism, no doubting, no excuses.  
You are following Jesus, yes??
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Floyd said

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
On the contrary, I showed you that indeed the writer of Genesis (let's call him "Moses") fully intended for you the reader to take Gen 1-11 as both historical and literal.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



And you admitted that one could be Christian and not take these passage as literally true.

You admitted it, Floyd.

Why are you lying about it now?
Posted by: Keelyn on Oct. 31 2009,23:01

And it is exactly 00:00, November 1, 2009. “Debate” over! The consensus is after 87 pages – you lost Floyd. And the bet was, if you lost you wouldn’t post anywhere on PT for the next 25 years? Was that the bet? Someone say YES, please. Someone. Anyone?
Posted by: OgreMkV on Oct. 31 2009,23:04

Quote (Keelyn @ Oct. 31 2009,23:01)
And it is exactly 00:00, November 1, 2009. “Debate” over! The consensus is after 87 pages – you lost Floyd. And the bet was, if you lost you wouldn’t post anywhere on PT for the next 25 years? Was that the bet? Someone say YES, please. Someone. Anyone?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Unfortunately, he doesn't think he lost.  And it doesn't mater if he lies, because he's doing it for his religion and anything is OK under that stipulation.

Crusades were the same thing.
Posted by: Constant Mews on Oct. 31 2009,23:04

More Floyd:


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Hey, exactly what WAS your response to that Gen 5 genealogy again?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

I have given it to you twice.  Why should I repeat myself?



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
And btw, notice that the Luke 3 genealogy ALSO affirms that Adam was straight historical and not ANY kind of metaphor/allegory:
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

No, it confirms that the authors wrote what appears to be a straightforward genealogy.  That tells us nothing about whether or not that genealogy is true.  Nothing.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Isn't it about time you started believing the Bible for a change, CM?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

I do believe the Bible is what it claims to be.

Of course, you may not be familiar with 2nd Timothy.  You should take a look at it, you will find it educational.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Jesus totally believed the Bible, no skepticism, no doubting, no excuses.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

I agree.  Christ was also a great deal smarter than you are, and understood both his audience and the nuances of his words far better than you do.

Or are you presuming to instruct the Almighty in the meaning of His words?  I did not realize your ego was so large, Floyd.

Smell the brimstone?



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
You are following Jesus, yes??
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Of course.  And I realize you are, as well.  But your ignorance of the Bible and Christian doctrine, combined with your ignorance of evolutionary theory are making it difficult for you.
Posted by: Constant Mews on Oct. 31 2009,23:12

Quote (OgreMkV @ Oct. 31 2009,23:04)
Quote (Keelyn @ Oct. 31 2009,23:01)
And it is exactly 00:00, November 1, 2009. “Debate” over! The consensus is after 87 pages – you lost Floyd. And the bet was, if you lost you wouldn’t post anywhere on PT for the next 25 years? Was that the bet? Someone say YES, please. Someone. Anyone?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Unfortunately, he doesn't think he lost.  And it doesn't mater if he lies, because he's doing it for his religion and anything is OK under that stipulation.

Crusades were the same thing.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


It's not even that he doesn't think he's lost - he doesn't even understand the argument.

What has he presented?

1. A tiny number of testimonies that accepting evolution undermined faith.

- While amusing, this is irrelevant to the compatibility of evolution and Christianity.

2. A list of five "incompatibilities" that on examination, turn out not to be supported using the material that Floyd himself provided.

The heart of Floyd's problem with this discussion appears to be his inability to understand that commentary by someone with a particular philosophical or religious position on what evolutionary does or does not say is absolutely irrelevant to what evolutionary theory does say.

I suspect this is because he really cannot understand evolutionary theory; that he lacks even the most basic grounding in science and logic to make such an understanding possible.

All he has left are personal opinions; and since we can provide personal opinions that say exactly the opposite (mine, for example, or the Pope's), all that Floyd has left is the claim that those who disagree with him are not really Christians.

Which is what he is doing right now.

Floyd finds my existence impossible; so he rationalizes his inability to understand me by pretending that I am not a Christian.
Posted by: FloydLee on Oct. 31 2009,23:18



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Here's one refutation to all your incompatibilities... you have yet to comment on.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You've got to be kidding.  Folks, it is NOT smart of you to hide behind CM's skirts tonite, oh no no.

******
   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
with regard to point 1, we note that evolutionary theory is silent on the involvement of God in biological diversity and origins.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Refuted directly by evolutionists Futuyma, Mayr, and Oldroyd.  Evolutionary theory does NOT require God as creator or designer, evolutionary theory is purely materialistic (Futuyma) and solely materialistic (Mayr), the evolutionary process is a completely mindless process (Futuyma).

And here's the kicker----as we saw earlier (you saw this too Ogre), ANY attempt to dispute the above, effectively negates the evolutionist claim that the supernatural cannot be a subject of scientific investigation (Futuyma).

The fact is you cannot have it both ways Ogre.
Either evolution denies that God is a [u]required [/i]explanation for the evolutionary process, either evolution denies the teleology that God is clearly described as fully employing in biological origins of all plants animals humans, or else there's no longer any RATIONAL and SCIENTIFIC reason to legally keep ID out of public school biology classes.

This point was previously made, Ogre.  CM fell down on it.  Quoting the definitions I suppled doesn't negate anything.

******

In fact, CM is being a little silly about it:  acting as if the only part of the Campbell-Reece textbook regarding the topic of evolution that you're supposed to pay attention to, is simply the micro and macro definitions in the glossary.  

Is that how you teach your students about biological evolution, Ogre?  Evolution entails only the short definitions of evolution given in the glossary and thus your students don't have to read or understad what the evolution chapters actually say about what the rest of evolutionary theory entails?

Hope that's not how you operate.  Evolutionary theory is not limited to the definitions in the glossary, so you DON'T get to duck and hide your way past the evolutionist-published Big Five Incompatibilities by pretending that evolution only entails the short definitions given in the glossary.

***

CM's point two---already refuted.  Totally.  Previously.  

Evolution has no goal, remember?  Futuyma gave you a specific rational reason for that situation, remember?  (I quoted it and highlighted it already, straight outta page 342).  
And you remember that Fut's specific reason runs totally counter to the way God is described as operating in the Bible (OT and NT), right?  And we've already disposed of the twisted "definitions" argument.

Shoot, CM doesn't even ADDRESS THE TELEOLOGY ISSUE in his point 2!  He's not even addressing the evolutionist points involved.  How can you pretend he's done jack squat here, Ogre?

***

Point 3 actually repeats the same crap as 1 and 2, and doesn't even address the IMAGE-OF-GOD thesis or the reasons given by Nature science journal and by James Rachels as to how that thesis clashes with evolution.

***

Here's point 4:
   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
USING FLOYD'S OWN SUPPLIED DEFINITIONS, with regard to point 4, we note that Christ is most likely referring to spiritual, rather than physical death, given the context of the passage.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


This one was answered IN DETAIL when I answered DHeddle's posts many pages ago.  We went straight through all this. Somebody is not even bothering to check back.

Then, not long ago, I told CM that I answered this thing many pages ago.  Pointed out that I did so from the text itself and also from current peer-review-published Romans scholarship (I even mentioned NICNT and Douglas Moo as a reminder.)

Yet you say I've not commented previously on this, Ogre.  Are you kidding?  And how come YOU didn't get on with your own homework and try to succeed where CM failed?  What's up with your own silence on this topic?

***

Point 5:  another restatement of the crapola, but now CM claims that "Christianity already has an answer" for the SPECIFIC, EVOLUTION-BASED incompatibility argument that Rosenhouse employed (and as I showed earlier, he actually re-stated it--the argument has been around a very long time.)

But CM never actually told you what Christianity's answer to Rosenhouse's specific argument was supposed to be.  He gave you no details of this alleged answer.  No specs.  No outline.  No sketches.  No Bible verses. No nothing!!  

******

You know, I was kinda looking for a way to start summarizing on the Incompatibility debate.  I suppose I should tell you "Thank You", Ogre, for giving me an opening to do this much.  If the thread ends tomorrow, I now feel like I've at least got one decent summary on the table WRT incompatibility.  

(Actually it would be two because I've already given one summary of the Big Five at CM's request previously.)
Posted by: FloydLee on Oct. 31 2009,23:27



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
And you admitted that one could be Christian and not take these passage as literally true.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


That Christian would be rationally and Scripturally inconsistent, but they would remain a Christian.  Yes, that's true.

And yes, I'm saying that's where you're at right now, CM.  Yes, a Christian.  But also very much rationally and Scripturally inconsistent, painfully so.

Honestly, your current belief situation, as stated in this forum, seems to actually POINT to the actual existence of incompatibility between Christianity and evolution.  

I'm glad you're a professed Christian, but goodness, you're got all that disbelief in Scripture going on right and left, and at this point you only believe in the parts of the Bible that St. Darwin gives you permission to believe (for now).

That is the corrosive and eroding effect of evolution, the Universal Acid.  Surely it is incompatible with Christianity.
Posted by: OgreMkV on Oct. 31 2009,23:32

You wrote an awful lot floyd and you still didn't answer the refutations.

You still have no idea what evolution really is do you?  You know what you want it to say so you can yell about it, but you really don't get it do you?

If you like, I can help you learn what evolution is really about, but only if you want to.
Posted by: FloydLee on Oct. 31 2009,23:43



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
You wrote an awful lot floyd and you still didn't answer the refutations.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


One thing I've learned in this forum, is that I can answer somebody's refutation and the reply (after indeed writing an awful lot), will simply be that I didn't answer somebody's refutation.   Go figure.
Posted by: FloydLee on Oct. 31 2009,23:48



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
And the bet was, if you lost you wouldn’t post anywhere on PT for the next 25 years? Was that the bet? Someone say YES, please. Someone. Anyone?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Gosh, they're not cooperating with you Keelyn.  (Nor am I!)

Ahhh, the sound of the proverbial crickets chirping:

< http://www.freesound.org/samplesViewSingle.php?id=420 >
Posted by: Constant Mews on Oct. 31 2009,23:52

Floyd, you really should stop lying.  This is going to damn you forever, you know.  Consider this nonsense:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Either evolution denies that God is a [u]required [/i]explanation for the evolutionary process, either evolution denies the teleology that God is clearly described as fully employing in biological origins of all plants animals humans,  or else there's no longer any RATIONAL and SCIENTIFIC reason to legally keep ID out of public school biology classes.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Evolutionary theory does not deny that God is a required explanation.  

You cited the definition of evolution yourself.  Show me precisely where in that definition it denies God.  Show me.  Cite chapter and verse.  Be precise.

Your soul hangs on your not lying, Floyd.  Why do you keep endangering it?

And ID is already taught in schools.

Creationism is not and should not be.
Posted by: Constant Mews on Oct. 31 2009,23:53

Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 31 2009,23:43)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
You wrote an awful lot floyd and you still didn't answer the refutations.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


One thing I've learned in this forum, is that I can answer somebody's refutation and the reply (after indeed writing an awful lot), will simply be that I didn't answer somebody's refutation.   Go figure.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


No, what this forum points out is that you don't actually address refutations of your points.

You then lie about it.  We can prove this; it is not conjecture, personal opinion, or wishful thinking.
Posted by: Constant Mews on Oct. 31 2009,23:55



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
In fact, CM is being a little silly about it:  acting as if the only part of the Campbell-Reece textbook regarding the topic of evolution that you're supposed to pay attention to, is simply the micro and macro definitions in the glossary.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

But Floyd - THAT'S THE DEFINITION OF EVOLUTION THAT YOU PROVIDED.  YOU PROVIDED, FLOYD.  WE DIDN'T.  YOU SAID - THIS IS THE DEFINITION OF EVOLUTION.[B]

So you're claiming that you're silly?

You gave us a definition; we didn't offer it to you.  And based on the definition that you yourself provided -

you're wrong.

The remarkable funniness of you hoist on your own petard is irresistible.
Posted by: Constant Mews on Oct. 31 2009,23:56

Floyd said,

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
But CM never actually told you what Christianity's answer to Rosenhouse's specific argument was supposed to be.  He gave you no details of this alleged answer.  No specs.  No outline.  No sketches.  No Bible verses. No nothing!!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



An absolute lie.  I did provide Christianity's answer the Problem of Evil.  Must I find the actual post that shows you are lying?
Posted by: jupiter on Oct. 31 2009,23:58

Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 31 2009,22:29)
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
He's conceded that evolution is not incompatible with Christianity.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


No I have not.  I have already presented multiple personal testimonies that demonstrate the corrosive, eroding effects of the incompatibility of evolution with Christianity with in the lives of real people,
and also I have presented the Big Five Incompatibilities which you (among others) have not refuted.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Floyd, you don't get to say who is and who isn't a Christian.

Your incompatibilities, big or small, are yours, the result of your particular interpretation of the Bible. Most Christians don't agree with you and you have absolutely no authority over them. You can't declare your reading of the Bible the reading, unless you're willing to set yourself up as judge over all. Are you?

As for your presentation: I could match you ten-to-one with personal testimonies that demonstrate the corrosive, eroding effects of Christian belief in the lives of real people. For certain values of "corrosive" and "eroding," which don't involve swallowing lye or suffering debridement. (Your histrionics don't serve you well.)

Again: You don't get to say who is and who isn't a Christian. You're done with Point 1.

Can we move on to your presentation of the scientific basis for ID?
Posted by: Constant Mews on Nov. 01 2009,00:01

Floyd lied again

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
CM's point two---already refuted.  Totally.  Previously.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Not even addressed, I'm afraid.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Evolution has no goal, remember?  Futuyma gave you a specific rational reason for that situation, remember?  (I quoted it and highlighted it already, straight outta page 342).
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



And you failed to understand it.  Floyd, if you need help understanding evolutionary theory, let us know.

The theory is a testable explanation of observations.  The observation is that variation is random with respect to utility - no future planning.

But now you're speaking for God, again - telling us that God can't know what the future brings, and therefore from God's perspective, evolution is Godless.

That's really rather stupid, Floyd.  



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
And you remember that Fut's specific reason runs totally counter to the way God is described as operating in the Bible (OT and NT), right?  And we've already disposed of the twisted "definitions" argument.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



But you've already admitted that these don't mean anything.  You've already admitted that Christians need not take Genesis literally.

How soon you forget, Floyd.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Shoot, CM doesn't even ADDRESS THE TELEOLOGY ISSUE in his point 2!  He's not even addressing the evolutionist points involved.  How can you pretend he's done jack squat here, Ogre?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Of course, I did.  Your point 2 made a claim not supported by the theory; only supported by your quotation from someone about the theory.

I know you don't know what the theory of evolution actually says, Floyd.  I realize that's why you try to rely on commentary from others.

But you cannot show incompatibility unless you can show it from what the theory actually says.

Apparently you haven't actually read Futuyma.

Poor Floyd.
Posted by: Constant Mews on Nov. 01 2009,00:02

Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 31 2009,23:27)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
And you admitted that one could be Christian and not take these passage as literally true.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


That Christian would be rationally and Scripturally inconsistent, but they would remain a Christian.  Yes, that's true.

And yes, I'm saying that's where you're at right now, CM.  Yes, a Christian.  But also very much rationally and Scripturally inconsistent, painfully so.

Honestly, your current belief situation, as stated in this forum, seems to actually POINT to the actual existence of incompatibility between Christianity and evolution.  

I'm glad you're a professed Christian, but goodness, you're got all that disbelief in Scripture going on right and left, and at this point you only believe in the parts of the Bible that St. Darwin gives you permission to believe (for now).

That is the corrosive and eroding effect of evolution, the Universal Acid.  Surely it is incompatible with Christianity.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


No, you didn't say 'inconsistent'.

Liar.
Posted by: Constant Mews on Nov. 01 2009,00:04

Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 31 2009,23:27)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
And you admitted that one could be Christian and not take these passage as literally true.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


That Christian would be rationally and Scripturally inconsistent, but they would remain a Christian.  Yes, that's true.

And yes, I'm saying that's where you're at right now, CM.  Yes, a Christian.  But also very much rationally and Scripturally inconsistent, painfully so.

Honestly, your current belief situation, as stated in this forum, seems to actually POINT to the actual existence of incompatibility between Christianity and evolution.  

I'm glad you're a professed Christian, but goodness, you're got all that disbelief in Scripture going on right and left, and at this point you only believe in the parts of the Bible that St. Darwin gives you permission to believe (for now).

That is the corrosive and eroding effect of evolution, the Universal Acid.  Surely it is incompatible with Christianity.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You realize that the claim that evolution is incompatible because it causes effects you don't like is a fallacy, don't you?

Bless me, where do these children learn logic.  Apparently Floyd was sick that day.
Posted by: Constant Mews on Nov. 01 2009,00:05

Floyd,

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Point 3 actually repeats the same crap as 1 and 2, and doesn't even address the IMAGE-OF-GOD thesis or the reasons given by Nature science journal and by James Rachels as to how that thesis clashes with evolution.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Define image of God.  It cannot be physical, correct?  But evolution evolves the physical.

No incompatibility.

Bless me, where did you try to learn logic?  A correspondence course with a duck?
Posted by: Constant Mews on Nov. 01 2009,00:06

Floyd, you seem unable to actually present your argument in a coherent way.  I might give it a shot tomorrow, just to demonstrate how wrong you are.  It might be a useful exercise.

I pray for you to find God's guidance, since you are so clearly in fear of the hellfire that lies waiting for you... Apparently.
Posted by: Constant Mews on Nov. 01 2009,00:32

Oh, and Floyd?  I might remind you that you said this

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
So, as you see, I disagree with Futuyma...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



I suggest you cease using Futuyma as support, since you have already stated you disagree with him.

Do you see what I mean about your inability to reason logically?
Posted by: Constant Mews on Nov. 01 2009,00:53

Here is Floyd's unvarnished summary of his five "incompatibles".



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Sure.  Evolution and Christianity are incompatible because:
---------------------QUOTE-------------------





---------------------QUOTE-------------------
1.  In biblical Christianity, God clearly is the Required Explanation for biological origins (including the evolutionary process.)  No exceptions. But with Evolution, God is clearly NOT a required explanation at all.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Floyd has already conceded that God is not the required explanation for why water flows downhill, though He is the ultimate reason water exists.

There is not incompatibilty between evolutionary theory and Christian doctrine for two basic reasons:

A. Christian doctrine does not require God to use any particular mechanism to create biodiversity.  The Nicene Creed makes this quite clear.  Floyd is now claiming that the Nicene Creed is faulty.

B. Just as Floyd admits God is an ultimate, but not required explanation for why water flows downhill, God is the ultimate, but not required explanation for evolution.  Evolutionary theory says nothing about God; God is not, by definition excluded as an indirect cause.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
2.  In biblical Christianity, everything in the universe is originated via God's teleology, and especially humans.  (See Genesis chap 1, also see Col. 1:16).
In evolution, you have a total denial of that, at ALL points of the evolutionary process:  No Teleology No Conscious Forethought.  At least two rational reasons for this is given by EB3, who also (like Mayr) directly ascribes this to evolutionary theory.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



This is simply a lie on Floyd's part.  Nothing in the theory of evolution cited by Floyd or to be found in Futuyma or any other biology text DENIES God as an ultimate intentional agent.

Floyd can attempt to argue with this by citing the precise wording in the theory which denies God as the intentional agent.  Citations from biologists and atheists do not consitute citing the theory itself.  Since Floyd claims experience with Futuyma, he can start with Futuyma's 20 basic tenets of evolutionary theory.  They do not deny God.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
3.  In biblical Christianity, humans are created and designed in the image of God.  Again, evolution denies that, most recently the Nature June 14 2007 article in which evolution of the brain is the reason for denying the Image-of-God thesis.

Evolutionist James Rachels also pointed out, in the book Created From Animals, that "the image-of-god thesis does NOT just go with any kind of theism."  It requires a creationist theism, Rachel said, in which God is viewed as "actively designing man and the world as a home for man."
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Again, Floyd can attempt to argue with this by citing the precise wording in the theory which denies that God created man in His image. Citations from biologists and atheists do not consitute citing the theory itself.  Since Floyd claims experience with Futuyma, he can start with Futuyma's 20 basic tenets of evolutionary theory.  They do not deny God created man in His image.  We have already noted that Floyd is unable to even define what "created in God's image" means.  If in God's image, we mean that Man is a rational agent - able to assess Good and Evil and make free choice between them...then evolutionary theory is either silent on that point or supports it fully by demonstrating that reason, human reason, is a product of evolution.

You have to show the theory denies this, Floyd.  You cannot cite other people's opinions on what the theory implies.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
4.  Evolution's clear position is that death was present on this planet before humans arrived.  In fact, it's not even possible for natural selection and evolution to work as claimed UNLESS death was present on this planet prior to humans being originated.  (Totally beyond debate, btw.)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Certainly.  I do not debate this; evolution requires death.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
The New Testament's clear postion (Romans 5:12-17) is that death entered this world only AFTER Adam and Eve sinned.  Romans 5:12-17 draws a very huge, very tight historical linkage between Adam and what Adam did (the problem) and Christ and what Christ did (the solution).
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

And it is also quite clear that an educated, intelligent Christian will see that "Death" in Romans is far more likely to be referring to "spiritual death" than it is to "physical death."



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Therefore evolution's Death-Before-Adam historical claim not only negates the historical claim of biblical Christianity about Adam and the Fall, but ALSO negates what biblical Christianity's historical claim about Christ and the Atonement.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

But we have already had Floyd's admission that Genesis need not be taken as historical truth.  Floyd admitted this - not gracefully, but he admitted it.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Needless to say, THAT incompatibility goes all the way to the meaning of the Cross, goes all the way to the Gospel of Jesus Christ.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Christ redeems us from the spiritual death and brings us to life everlasting.  Christ was also fond of metaphors, analogies, parables, and nuanced understanding.  It is quite clear that an educated, intelligent Christian can appreciate Christ's references to the Fallen, pre-redemptive tales that the Jews committed to writing.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
5.  The Fifth Incompatibility was eloquently stated via evolutionist Jason Rosenhouse at Evolutionblog.
 


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Evolution by natural selection, you see, is an awful process. It is bloody, sadistic, and cruel. It flouts every moral precept we humans hold dear.

It recognizes only survival and gene propagation, and even on those rare occasions where you find altruism and non-selfishness you can be certain that blind self-interest is lurking somewhere behind the scenes.

All of this suffering, pain and misery, mind you, to reach a foreordained moment when self-aware creature finally appeared.

What theological purpose was served by all this bloodsport? If humans were inevitable why didn't God simply fast-forward the tape himself, thereby sparing all of those animals that died horrible deaths in the preceding hundreds of millions of years?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



And please notice:  once again, there's no way to blow off #5 as "somebody's opinion."  What Rosenhouse is describing there is EXACTLY the way evolution works in the animal world.  That's evolutionary theory, period.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Certainly.  But the Problem of Evil - which is what Rosenhouse is describing here already has a Christian answer.  I am astonished that Floyd is unfamiliar with it: the combination of Human Free Will, which dictates that Human-willed evil is a natural consequent of Free Will, and Demonic Choice, which permits the actions of the Fallen Angels to influence the physical structure of the world.

This is an old answer - any educated, intelligent Christian would be familiar with it.  Floyd's apparent ignorance of it speaks volumes.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Okay, there's the summary of the Big Five Incompatibilities.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



And a summary of my refutations.  If there is any point you still fail to understand, feel free to ask for clarification.  I am trying to save your soul, here Floyd.  A little extra effort on my part is the least I can do.
Posted by: Keelyn on Nov. 01 2009,01:23

Quote (OgreMkV @ Nov. 01 2009,00:04)
Quote (Keelyn @ Oct. 31 2009,23:01)
And it is exactly 00:00, November 1, 2009. “Debate” over! The consensus is after 87 pages – you lost Floyd. And the bet was, if you lost you wouldn’t post anywhere on PT for the next 25 years? Was that the bet? Someone say YES, please. Someone. Anyone?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Unfortunately, he doesn't think he lost.  And it doesn't mater if he lies, because he's doing it for his religion and anything is OK under that stipulation.

Crusades were the same thing.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Oh, you are so right. But, anyway, Deadman can close the thread and I can answer Lou's question.
Posted by: Keelyn on Nov. 01 2009,01:28

Quote (Lou FCD @ Oct. 17 2009,19:23)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
< Hellfire >, by mysnapz and < Madison and Erica - Bent >, by Rob Beyer.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


---------------------QUOTE-------------------


This one, Lou. We can all go to scientist heaven. Close the thread Deadman. :)
Posted by: Keelyn on Nov. 01 2009,01:30

Drop the Hellfire. Nice "debate" Floyd.
Posted by: Keelyn on Nov. 01 2009,01:30

Night
Posted by: FloydLee on Nov. 01 2009,01:20



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Floyd, you don't get to say who is and who isn't a Christian.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


And YOU don't get to declare people to be Christians when they personally testify that in fact they are not Christians.  

The people I have quoted earlier, who wrote that they are no longer Christians, you have to take their personal testimonies just as seriously as if they had claimed to be Christians.  

Otherwise you are not listening to them and you are not really respecting them.

And, to be honest, if they say that evolution has played a part in their loss of Christian faith--and they did--you have to take that aspect seriously too.
Posted by: FloydLee on Nov. 01 2009,01:29



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Christian doctrine does not require God to use any particular mechanism to create biodiversity.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Do you have access to a Bible?  You really need one in order to determine what "Christian doctrine" says.  Genesis and Hebrews are pretty specific, I'm afraid.
Posted by: FloydLee on Nov. 01 2009,01:37



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Certainly.  I do not debate this; evolution requires death.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Thanks.  You just openly affirmed the part evolution plays WRT the Fourth Incompatibility.  From here on out, no evolutionist should be using the term "opinion" WRT the 4th Incom.  Clearly the basis of #4 is fact, not opinion.
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
And it is also quite clear that an educated, intelligent Christian will see that "Death" in Romans is far more likely to be referring to "spiritual death" than it is to "physical death."
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I've already quoted Dr. Douglas Moo, professor of NT and author of the NICNT commentary on Romans (is that enough education and intelligence for you??), showing that the term "death" in Romans 5:12-17 is referring to BOTH physical and spiritual death, not either-or.  

Also referred to the Gen and Rom texts and offered a bit of explanation from those as well.  

Hence your claim is refuted, but again thanks for showing that the 4th Incompatibility is solidly based in evolutionary theory itself.
Posted by: FloydLee on Nov. 01 2009,01:42



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
....the result of your particular interpretation of the Bible
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



So what is YOUR particular interpretation, and would you mind putting it on the table for rational and critical examination?  

Seems like people around here are really really scared to offer their own particular interpretation of the verses/texts I've been discussing.  

(CM is pretty much the only exception to that rule, and as you can see, even he's doing rather poorly with his interpretation of Romans 5.)
Posted by: FloydLee on Nov. 01 2009,01:47



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
(CM)

Evolutionary theory says nothing about God
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
(Evolutionist Dr. Ernst Mayr)

Darwinism rejects all supernatural phenomena and causations.
The theory of evolution by natural selection explains the adaptedness and diversity of the world solely materialistically.
It no longer requires God as creator or designer (although one is certainly still free to believe in God even if one accepts evolution).

----SciAm, July 2000
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Nuff said.     :)
Posted by: FloydLee on Nov. 01 2009,01:50



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
But evolution evolves the physical.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


And the non-physical as well, according to Nature science journal (June 14, 2007).  Which is one reason (yes, there's more than one) why evolution denies that humans are created in the image of God.
Posted by: FloydLee on Nov. 01 2009,01:54



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
And ID is already taught in schools.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Where?  Which teachers?  I'm sure your evolutionist friends would like to hear some specifics on THAT particular claim of yours.

******

Well, that should do it for now.   I don't know what tomorrow (Sunday) holds, but if this thread is open tomorrow I will show up, Lord willing.

FloydLee
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on Nov. 01 2009,06:42

I can't find a video of "the Benny Hill chase scene" to embed here, so you'll just have to imagine it yourself.


Posted by: OgreMkV on Nov. 01 2009,06:51

Quote (FloydLee @ Nov. 01 2009,01:20)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Floyd, you don't get to say who is and who isn't a Christian.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


And YOU don't get to declare people to be Christians when they personally testify that in fact they are not Christians.  

The people I have quoted earlier, who wrote that they are no longer Christians, you have to take their personal testimonies just as seriously as if they had claimed to be Christians.  

Otherwise you are not listening to them and you are not really respecting them.

And, to be honest, if they say that evolution has played a part in their loss of Christian faith--and they did--you have to take that aspect seriously too.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


This comment isn't about who ISN'T a Christian, but who you say IS a Christian.

Nice twist.

Yeah, I have to agree... Floyd's totally incomprehension just makes this a waste of time.  His refusal to learn anything (including his own religion) just means he can't understand the argument.  His inability to even see responses he doesn't agree with mean this whole thing is a waste.

I was really hoping for the ID part, but that seems to appear to be a sad, old argument that doesn't have anything to do with ID anyway.
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Nov. 01 2009,08:41

Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 31 2009,20:44)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
why don't you tell me why god is not part of the required explanation for water running downhill when he is part of the existence of water itself?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Erasmus, you were given direct answers on this one, (including a very relevant quotation from Futuyma's EB# textbook, a timely example), and in fact you were given a complete explanation, all in all.   I have printed them off, including your unsuccessful attempts to refute them.  

In particular, you honestly could not come up with any comeback for the fact that your attempted analogy could NOT be applied to the issue of "Evolution is Incompatible with Christianity" because the Bible itself specifies exclusively DIRECT, not indirect, causations for ALL origin events during Creation Week.  

I have taken time to print off my answers to your question, as well as your attempts to respond---and where you did not even attempt to respond.  

(For future use, of course.)   But that's all on that one.  You're done.  (More accurately, done for!)

FloydLee     :)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


now you're just lying.  OK

you have yet to explain the question.  WHY, idiot.  WHY.
Posted by: FrankH on Nov. 01 2009,09:29

Quote (FloydLee @ Nov. 01 2009,01:29)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Christian doctrine does not require God to use any particular mechanism to create biodiversity.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Do you have access to a Bible?  You really need one in order to determine what "Christian doctrine" says.  Genesis and Hebrews are pretty specific, I'm afraid.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Hey Floyd,


If there was but one way to read the Bible then why are there so many Christian denominations?  Because there are so many denominations, doesn't that really mean there is no one way?  Can't you yourself be accused at "incomplete and inconsistent biblical readings" as well?

We already see that you're inconsistent with you biblical readings as you read things "literally" one way and other things "literal with explanations" for other things.

Then you don't always read the passages in the Bible that came after the parts you want to make a point with which means you read the bible incompletely as well.
Posted by: FrankH on Nov. 01 2009,09:42

Quote (FloydLee @ Nov. 01 2009,01:37)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Certainly.  I do not debate this; evolution requires death.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Thanks.  You just openly affirmed the part evolution plays WRT the Fourth Incompatibility.  From here on out, no evolutionist should be using the term "opinion" WRT the 4th Incom.  Clearly the basis of #4 is fact, not opinion.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
And it is also quite clear that an educated, intelligent Christian will see that "Death" in Romans is far more likely to be referring to "spiritual death" than it is to "physical death."
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

I've already quoted Dr. Douglas Moo, professor of NT and author of the NICNT commentary on Romans (is that enough education and intelligence for you??), showing that the term "death" in Romans 5:12-17 is referring to BOTH physical and spiritual death, not either-or.  

Also referred to the Gen and Rom texts and offered a bit of explanation from those as well.  

Hence your claim is refuted, but again thanks for showing that the 4th Incompatibility is solidly based in evolutionary theory itself.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Earth to Floyd:

Again you mistake "opinion" for fact.  Do you likewise hold the position that some really "bright" Dr/PhD types hold that many parts of the bible was not written until far later?  See Floyd, you take as evidence that which you already agree with and ignore the rest.

You do know that none of us have a vested interest in Evolution don't you?  Evolution could be shown to be wrong tomorrow and my life would go on just fine.  Also, if it were to find that Evolution is wrong, it does not mean OT style Creationism is automatically right.  There are plenty of Creation stories out there all with as much and some with more "evidence" as OT-YEC Creationism.

Then I think of you and what would happen if you lost your faith.  Images of Bell Towers and Rifles come to mind.
Posted by: FrankH on Nov. 01 2009,09:55

Quote (FloydLee @ Nov. 01 2009,01:42)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
....the result of your particular interpretation of the Bible
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

So what is YOUR particular interpretation, and would you mind putting it on the table for rational and critical examination?  

Seems like people around here are really really scared to offer their own particular interpretation of the verses/texts I've been discussing.  

(CM is pretty much the only exception to that rule, and as you can see, even he's doing rather poorly with his interpretation of Romans 5.)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Sure Floyd.

My best evidence "reading the Bible produces no consensus" are the staggering array of different Christian Denominations.  If everything was easy to read in the Bible, then there wouldn't even be the different flavors of Judaism.

Hell, the Christians can't even decide what books are in the Bible.  Martin Luther decided he knew the bible better and ripped out the parts he didn't agree with.  Who made him privy to this god's mind?
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Nov. 01 2009,10:32



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I think the only person who needs an additional point of explanation is Erasmus.  I kept him waiting on his little obsession-question quite a while, and the main reason was because the boy used a sexual profanity against me.
Until that point, I was very concerned to get caught up with him.  After that point, I slowed way down on him.

Because I am a Christian, I don't get to use sexual profanity on people.  However, I can keep you waiting on a response for a good long time if I think you need it, and as you can see, there was NO shortage of people who were willing to continue dialoging with me on OTHER issues and questions despite me keeping Erasmus waiting.    

Only when Nmgirl restated Erasmus's question in a respectful manner did I decide to go ahead with a second response to his question---the Bible-driven response that permanently eliminated his question's applicability to this thread topic.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



that's not why you didn't answer it, chickenshit.  

and you never did answer WHY?  

and you still won't.
Posted by: deadman_932 on Nov. 01 2009,11:23

Quote (deadman_932 @ Oct. 31 2009,20:22)
Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 31 2009,20:19)
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Then surely you can address the fallacies I and others mentioned -- and the fact that you appear to be arguing for space-aliens now, Floaty
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


And surely you can answer MY question---have you read the book, Deadman?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Nope, and I don't have to, given that the "fine-tuning " argument has always been beset by the problems I mentioned. Until I see that someone is going to address those issues (you can't, Floaty?) -- the why should I finance the work of Gonzalez?

There's my answer, Floaty -- now you can answer what I asked about the fallacies, logical errors and Space-alien creators you now seem to be supporting by forwarding Gonzalez as somehow meaningful to your Christian creationism.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You still haven't answered me on this...the only argument you've presented on "ID"
Posted by: FloydLee on Nov. 01 2009,11:31

Let's go back to Wesley Elsberry for a moment:

     

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
FL and, apparently, Gonzalez and Richards do not understand what "falsification" means. It is the application of modus tollens to empirical study, and as such it requires that one set as the test saying what must be true if one's thesis is true and then looking to see if it is actually the case. If not, then the thesis is falsified.
What is excluded as being falsification is the sort of wool-gathering armchair philosophy that IDC advocates are generically reduced to, as in the quoted section of G&R. Simple hint for the simple: if you have to use a construction like, "if X exists, Y is falsified", you are misusing falsification. Falsification is like, "If Y is true, X is true. Is X true?"
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Unfortunately, Karl Popper himself has effectively (and very clearly) refuted Elsberry on this one.  "If you observe X, then hypothesis Y is falsified" is VERY legitimate in science.
     

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
1.  It is easy to obtain confirmations, or verifications, for nearly every theory — if we look for confirmations.

2.  Confirmations should count only if they are the result of risky predictions; that is to say, if, unenlightened by the theory in question, we should have expected an event which was incompatible with the theory — an event which would have refuted the theory.

3.Every "good" scientific theory is a prohibition: it forbids certain things to happen. The more a theory forbids, the better it is.

4.  A theory which is not refutable by any conceivable event is non-scientific. Irrefutability is not a virtue of a theory (as people often think) but a vice.

5.  Every genuine test of a theory is an attempt to falsify it, or to refute it. Testability is falsifiability; but there are degrees of testability: some theories are more testable, more exposed to refutation, than others; they take, as it were, greater risks.


6.  Confirming evidence should not count except when it is the result of a genuine test of the theory; and this means that it can be presented as a serious but unsuccessful attempt to falsify the theory. (I now speak in such cases of "corroborating evidence.")

(Popper's emphasis.)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Popper also provides a clear example and a clear conclusion:

     

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Take one typical instance — Einstein's prediction, just then confirmed by the finding of Eddington's expedition. Einstein's gravitational theory had led to the result that light must be attracted by heavy bodies (such as the sun), precisely as material bodies were attracted. As a consequence it could be calculated that light from a distant fixed star whose apparent position was close to the sun would reach the earth from such a direction that the star would seem to be slightly shifted away from the sun; or, in other words, that stars close to the sun would look as if they had moved a little away from the sun, and from one another. This is a thing which cannot normally be observed since such stars are rendered invisible in daytime by the sun's overwhelming brightness; but during an eclipse it is possible to take photographs of them. If the same constellation is photographed at night one can measure the distance on the two photographs, and check the predicted effect.

Now the impressive thing about this case is the risk involved in a prediction of this kind. If observation shows that the predicted effect is definitely absent, then the theory is simply refuted.
The theory is incompatible with certain possible results of observation—in fact with results which everybody before Einstein would have expected.  

(Popper's emphasis).
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Source for both quotations:  http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/popper_falsification.html

And so, quite simply, authors Gonzalez and Richards are indeed shown to be totally on the mark in terms of explaining how their ID hypothesis is falsifiable.  

Gonzalez and Richards are able to show that their ID hypothesis is clearly incompatible with certain possible results of observation.   This fits right in with Popper's very clear statements.

******

Hey, let's look at some other sources too.
     

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Falsifiability (or refutability) is the logical possibility that an assertion can be shown false by an observation or a physical experiment. That something is "falsifiable" does not mean it is false; rather, that if it is false, then this can be shown by observation or experiment.

Falsifiability is an important concept in science and the philosophy of science. The term "testability" is related but more specific; it means that an assertion can be falsified through experimentation alone.

The term was made popular by Karl Popper. Popper asserted that a hypothesis, proposition, or theory is scientific only if it is falsifiable.

For example, "all men are mortal" is unfalsifiable, since no finite amount of observation could ever demonstrate its falsehood: that one or more men can live forever. "All men are immortal," by contrast, is falsifiable, by the presentation of just one dead man.

---"Falsifiability", Wikipedia
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


     

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
The statement "all swans are white," for example, could be falsified by observing a green swan.

On the other hand, the statement that "there is a green swan somewhere" could only be falsified by observing every swan in existence and noting that none of them are green.

"Falsifiability", SkepticWiki
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


     

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
When Judge Overton struck down the (Arkansas Creationism) Act in 1982, he used the criteria that a scientific theory must be tentative and always subject to revision or abandonment in light of the facts that are inconsistent with, or falsify, the theory.

---"William Overton (judge)", Wikipedia
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


******

So now you see that indeed the authors of "The Privileged Planet" indeed got it right concerning their presentation of a genuinely falsifiable (and hence genuinely scientific) cosmological ID hypothesis.

FloydLee
Posted by: deadman_932 on Nov. 01 2009,11:31

And just to remind you of where you stand at the moment, Floaty:

1) The only reason you cited quotes from "evolutionists" or various forms of creationists was to back your Big Five Fantasies.

2) But, you admitted that Christians like the Pope remain Christians who also agree with evolution, even if they don't ever address your Big Five Fantasies.

3) That meant (and still means) your use of quotes is irrelevant, because no one ever has to address your BFF. Beyond which, opinions remain opinions, and it is all of science that excludes deistic supernaturalism as investigateable by science. When you were asked to produce any scientific research program for supernatural deistic causation or teleology, you failed, miserably.

4) You pretended that Gonzalez' crap was addressing supernatural causation when it's just the standard "fine tuning" argument that is filled with fallacies, obvious logical errors and no means of distinguishing supernatural agency from space-aliens from the planet Glarrgh

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

In short, you've failed in every way in your originally posted arguments. Good job!

Oh, and the cites you gave (Wiki on falsifiability) agrees with Wes and Popper, not Gonzales. Not that you'd know the difference.

Hint: Gonzalez only offers up SUBJECTIVE criteria for "falsifying " his crap -- whereas Eddington/Einstein's test for falsification of relativity was not subjective, it was objective.

Also, read closely that wiki bit on falsification..."That something is "falsifiable" does not mean it is false"
Posted by: FloydLee on Nov. 01 2009,11:45

Hey, I missed Jasper's post there.  Briefly, let's look:
   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Then God said,

"Let the land produce vegetation: seed-bearing plants and trees on the land that bear fruit with seed in it, according to their various kinds." And it was so. The land produced vegetation: plants bearing seed according to their kinds and trees bearing fruit with seed in it according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good.
(Genesis 1:11-12)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


     

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
And God said,

"Let the land produce living creatures according to their kinds: livestock, creatures that move along the ground, and wild animals, each according to its kind." And it was so.  (Genesis 1:24)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


The highlighted portions are what makes these verses a clear example of EXCLUSIVELY DIRECT creation.  

God simply spoke and boom! The land produced, the water produced, very fast.  Far far too fast for ANY evolutionary processes of any kind at all, period.   This was NOT some kind of deep-time-friendly evolution-friendly "Indirect creation" gig.  Not even slightly!!

In fact the given creation deed you are reading there was DONE well before the end of each given literal 24-hour day.

(And indeed, it only took 24 hours, a very literal "the evening and the morning.")  See Mccabe.

< http://www.dbts.edu/journals/2000/McCabe.pdf >

So let's be clear:  neither of those Bible texts can be reconciled with evolution at all.  They are NOT "indirect creation" at all.
Posted by: deadman_932 on Nov. 01 2009,11:49

Yep, what Jasper cited is indirect by any rational use of the word. It is not direct -- the land is producing, not God.

And you keep "missing" responding to my posts, Floaty.

Intentionally.
Posted by: FloydLee on Nov. 01 2009,11:53



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
your use of quotes is irrelevant,
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


And that's really been your main argument throughout these 88 pages, Deadman.  

Anything you are unable to refute, or even to half-engage, suddenly becomes "irrelevant" and you are somehow magically relieved of the rational burden of dealing with it.

And honestly, that's why you have lost this debate Deadman.   Out of necessity, I've done my homework and I know (at least to some degree) who's saying what.

But you?  You have not done your homework.
 
And now it's too late to catch up.   :)
Posted by: deadman_932 on Nov. 01 2009,11:56

No, that has not been my "main" argument, Floaty.

The reason the quotes are irrelevant is because as you admitted, no Christian who accepts evolution ever has to address your Big Five Fantasies. Your use of quotes was to bolster your claim based on your Big Five Fantasies -- Fantasies that no Christian ever has to agree with to remain a Christian, by your own admission. Your own words destroyed your own argument.

THAT is the real reason and real argument, Floaty. Everything beyond that is indeed irrelevant once you admitted that.
Posted by: FloydLee on Nov. 01 2009,12:01

And while we're at it, let's look a little closer:
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
20 And God said, "Let the water teem with living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth across the expanse of the sky."
21 So God created the great creatures of the sea and every living and moving thing with which the water teems, according to their kinds, and every winged bird according to its kind.And God saw that it was good.
22 God blessed them and said, "Be fruitful and increase in number and fill the water in the seas, and let the birds increase on the earth."
23 And there was evening, and there was morning—the fifth day.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Check this out folks----Life first appeared in the water on Earth on the very same day that the first birds appeared on Earth.

Does that sound like the theory of evolution to YOU?  Hmmm?  
If not, then you better scrap all that "Indirect Creation" mess pronto, yes??

FloydLee
Posted by: deadman_932 on Nov. 01 2009,12:02

When will you be adressing the whole of my posts the last two days, Floaty?

Let's take an informed guess and say : "never."
Posted by: deadman_932 on Nov. 01 2009,12:05

Quote (FloydLee @ Nov. 01 2009,12:01)
And while we're at it, let's look a little closer:
   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
20 And God said, "Let the water teem with living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth across the expanse of the sky."
21 So God created the great creatures of the sea and every living and moving thing with which the water teems, according to their kinds, and every winged bird according to its kind.And God saw that it was good.
22 God blessed them and said, "Be fruitful and increase in number and fill the water in the seas, and let the birds increase on the earth."
23 And there was evening, and there was morning—the fifth day.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Check this out folks----Life first appeared in the water on Earth on the very same day that the first birds appeared on Earth.

Does that sound like the theory of evolution to YOU?  Hmmm?  
If not, then you better scrap all that "Indirect Creation" mess pronto, yes??

FloydLee
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Plants aren't moving things cited in those passages, Floaty.

Try again. Address the exact passages Jasper cited, without trying to substitute "living and moving things" for plants.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
"Let the land produce vegetation: seed-bearing plants and trees on the land that bear fruit with seed in it, according to their various kinds." And it was so. The land produced vegetation: plants bearing seed according to their kinds and trees bearing fruit with seed in it according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good."
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


(Genesis 1:11-12)
Posted by: FloydLee on Nov. 01 2009,12:07



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
...no Christian who accepts evolution ever has to address your Big Five Fantasies.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I never said that, Deadman.  Those are strictly your words, not mine, and I already refuted them specifically.  

I pointed out that you had no evidence nor rational reason for referring to the incompatibilities as "fantasies", and you were unable to refute that fact.  

I also pointed out (indeed somewhere in these last several pages) that any Christian who accepts evolution is clearly displaying both rational and Scriptural inconsistency  UNLESS they can rationally refute the Big Five Incompatibilities.  

And of course, there was nothing you could offer to refute that fact either.
Posted by: deadman_932 on Nov. 01 2009,12:09

Quote (FloydLee @ Nov. 01 2009,12:07)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
...no Christian who accepts evolution ever has to address your Big Five Fantasies.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I never said that, Deadman.  Those are strictly your words, not mine, and I already refuted them specifically.  

I pointed out that you had no evidence nor rational reason for referring to the incompatibilities as "fantasies", and you were unable to refute that fact.  

I also pointed out (indeed somewhere in these last several pages) that any Christian who accepts evolution is clearly displaying both rational and Scriptural inconsistency  UNLESS they can rationally refute the Big Five Incompatibilities.  

And of course, there was nothing you could offer to refute that fact either.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Your admission is on page 28 of this thread, Floyd. No Christian, such as the Pope, ever has to address your Big Five Fantasies while they remain Christians who accept evolution.

Are you trying to change that answer now?
Posted by: FloydLee on Nov. 01 2009,12:16



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
When will you be adressing the whole of my posts the last two days, Floaty?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Primarily just that one larger post in which you tried to cobble together some arguments against Gonzalez and Richard's "The Privileged Planet" statements even though you haven't read their book at all.

Needless to say, your failure to get that one little bit of homework under your belt, could potentially poke a hole in your criticisms, ya think?
Posted by: deadman_932 on Nov. 01 2009,12:17

From pages 26-29 of this thread, Floaty:


Quote (deadman_932 @ Oct. 07 2009,09:32)
 
Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 07 2009,08:49)
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
From the moment you assume the pope MUST have the same faith as yours, in every possible way, to be a christian, you basicaly shut down the debate.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You may want to go back to the first line of Deadman's "simple three line proof."
     

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
1.  The Pope is a Christian.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Now show me where I have disputed that specific premise at any time in this thread.  Good luck.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You do that everytime you demand/require that the Pope address your Big Five Fantasies (BFF). The implication there is quite clear that if the Pope does NOT accept your BFF, then he is not a Christian.

IF that is not the case, then answer this question directly: If the Pope denies your BFF as being essential to Christian faith, would you agree with him?

Answer fully and completely, recognizing that the Pope already accepts evolution as compatible with faith. If he rejects your claim, is he still Christian in your definition? If yes, say why, if no, say why.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------




Quote (deadman_932 @ Oct. 07 2009,10:46)
Sure, his statement that there is no conflict, Floyd. You were already given that.
   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
LORENZAGO DI CADORE, Italy - Pope Benedict XVI said the debate raging in some countries — particularly the United States and his native Germany — between creationism and evolution was an “absurdity,” saying that evolution can coexist with faith.

The pontiff, speaking as he was concluding his holiday in northern Italy, also said that while there is much scientific proof to support evolution, the theory could not exclude a role by God.

“They are presented as alternatives that exclude each other,” the pope said. “This clash is an absurdity because on one hand there is much scientific proof in favor of evolution, which appears as a reality that we must see and which enriches our understanding of life and being as such.” < http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19956961/ >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I realize that you'll just try to repost the opinions of various scientists or philosophers or ice-cream vendors who you will fallaciously imply "speak for science" when in fact science (as per the NAS statement) simply cannot address Ultimate Deistic teleological/ontological claims at all.

Yet you'll falsely and dishonestly offer up their personal opinions as if they DID speak for all of science. You've done it before, you'll likely do it again.
-----------------------------


How's about answering my question that I've already posted:

"If the Pope denies your BFF [Big Five Fantasies] as being essential to Christian faith, would you agree with him?

Answer fully and completely, recognizing that the Pope already accepts evolution as compatible with faith. If he rejects your claim, is he still Christian in your definition? If yes, say why, if no, say why."
---------------------QUOTE-------------------




Quote (deadman_932 @ Oct. 07 2009,12:10)
 
Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 07 2009,12:08)
Hey, where are those actual summations?  Who's in charge of that?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Here you go, Floyd:

"If the Pope denies your BFF [Big Five Fantasies] as being essential to Christian faith, would you agree with him?

Answer fully and completely, recognizing that the Pope already accepts evolution as compatible with faith. If he rejects your claim, is he still Christian in your definition? If yes, say why, if no, say why."

---------------------QUOTE-------------------




Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 08 2009,08:55)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
If he rejects your claim, is (the Pope) still Christian in your definition?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Go back to page 7, on Sept. 22.  (You did not see this post?)

***
   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
 Hey Floyd. Is the Pope Christian? Yes or No.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Yes.  He is.

So is Francis Collins, according to Collins book.

Both are good examples of Theistic Evolution, probably the best TE has got right now.

Neither One has come up with any solution for the Big Five Incompatibillities.   Simply not able to, so far.  

The End.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: FloydLee on Nov. 01 2009,12:17



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Since FL seems comfortable with Futuyma, I will post the 20 tenets of evolutionary theory he identifies
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Anybody find this laundry list yet?
Posted by: deadman_932 on Nov. 01 2009,12:20

Quote (FloydLee @ Nov. 01 2009,12:16)
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
When will you be adressing the whole of my posts the last two days, Floaty?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Primarily just that one larger post in which you tried to cobble together some arguments against Gonzalez and Richard's "The Privileged Planet" statements even though you haven't read their book at all.

Needless to say, your failure to get that one little bit of homework under your belt, could potentially poke a hole in your criticisms, ya think?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


As I said, the Fine-tuning argument has always been beset by the problems I mentioned . If you read the book and Gonzalez et al address those problems -- you should be able to show it.

But they don't. I already know that even without reading the book. There are enough critical reviews of it making that same point.  

So all you can do is try to claim I need to read the book to find out they don't address those issues?

Show me they address any of the fallacies and logical errors inherent to using the fine-tuning argument. Also explain how you can claim they're arguing for supernatural deistic involvement when they can't distinguish between Gods and Aliens and ONLY discuss Aliens in the passages you cited?
Posted by: FloydLee on Nov. 01 2009,12:26



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Both (Pope Benedict and Francis Collins) are good examples of Theistic Evolution, probably the best TE has got right now.

Neither One has come up with any solution for the Big Five Incompatibillities.   Simply not able to, so far.  

The End.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


And from September 22, 2009 to November 1, 2009, nobody in this forum (including you, Deadman) has been able to come up with any ***specifics*** with which to refute the highlighted portion there.  No specifics that actually show how those two TE men have eliminated and resolved each point of the Big Five Incompatibilities.

A fitting way to summarize and crystallize the outcome of this weeks-long Incompatibility Debate.  "The End."    :)
Posted by: deadman_932 on Nov. 01 2009,12:29

Quote (FloydLee @ Nov. 01 2009,12:26)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Both (Pope Benedict and Francis Collins) are good examples of Theistic Evolution, probably the best TE has got right now.

Neither One has come up with any solution for the Big Five Incompatibillities.   Simply not able to, so far.  

The End.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


And from September 22, 2009 to November 1, 2009, nobody in this forum (including you, Deadman) has been able to come up with any ***specifics*** with which to refute the highlighted portion there.  No specifics that actually show how those two TE men have eliminated and resolved each point of the Big Five Incompatibilities.

A fitting way to summarize and crystallize the outcome of this weeks-long Incompatibility Debate.  "The End."    :)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Your use of the Big Five Fantasies is irrelevant by your own admission, Floaty. The Pope never has to address them, while he accepts evolution.

You said he could ignore them and still remain a Christian while still accepting evolution.

That kills your argument, Floaty. That was 50 pages ago, and you still can't manage to deal with that honestly. By simple logical deduction, you eliminated any real incompatibility between evolution and Christianity based on your Big Five Fantasies. This includes the quotes you tried to use to support your Big Five Fantasies.
Posted by: Lou FCD on Nov. 01 2009,12:32

hahahaha

Floyd Lee, liar and retard for Jesus.
Posted by: Lou FCD on Nov. 01 2009,12:36

Say hello to Barbie for me, Floyd.






---------------------QUOTE-------------------
< BarbieInHell >, by SteveCarlin
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: deadman_932 on Nov. 01 2009,12:37

here's what I said over 50 pages ago:

Quote (deadman_932 @ Oct. 08 2009,10:38)
 
Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 08 2009,10:32)
   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
For the Pope, my understanding is that he and others have formulated a view of God that merely allows evolution to come into existence and effect, like other natural phenomena -- like water flowing downhill.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


And yet, for some strange reason, nobody here can explain the specifics of that alleged "view of God" --- or even quote those specifics.

I have in fact provided a few quotes from the Pope about his "view of God"---but they all directly affirm the first three Incompatibilities.  Imagine that.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


And you've already acknowledged that whether the pope accepts or rejects any or all of your Big Five Fantasies -- the Pope remains a Christian.

Your objection is meaningless.

I've already explained this, Floyd. He accepts evolution as compatible with Christianity. He remains Christian irrespective of addressing your BFF. He is free to reject the opinions of other regarding "philosophical meanings" of evolution.

Your argument that evo and Christianity are incompatible due to either
(a) your BFF or
(b) the opinions you cite
is simply done. Over. Deceased. No longer among the viable. A dead parrot.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------




 
Quote (deadman_932 @ Oct. 08 2009,11:18)
 
Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 08 2009,11:05)
   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Big Five Fantasies
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


btw Deadman.....what was your proof (I prefer published statements but I know you're not ready to go there) that the Big Five Incompatibilites are "fantasies"?  Please show me again.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


The "Fantasy" aspect lies in your previous insistence that dealing with them represents something meaningful regarding Christian faith, Floyd. You kept rambling on about how the Pope hadn't addressed them, or had and affirmed them, (which you just brought up again).

Then you admitted they don't make a damn bit of difference as to whether or not (in addressing them or not) a believer remains a Christian. Your statements render them meaningless, hence fantasies in terms of relevancy in regard to your claim that "evolution is incompatible with Christianity"

All that was required was you to affirm that.

You are back to a dead parrot, Floyd. You can keep insisting that he's merely "pinin' for the fjords" as long as you wish, though.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Your answer to that is non-existent, Floaty. Check for yourself.
Posted by: Lou FCD on Nov. 01 2009,13:02

Quote (FloydLee @ Nov. 01 2009,13:26)
"The End."
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Does this mean you've finished your insane little rant of lies, blasphemy, and general stupidity now, Tardbucket?
Posted by: Wesley R. Elsberry on Nov. 01 2009,15:07

Quote (FloydLee @ Nov. 01 2009,11:31)
Let's go back to Wesley Elsberry for a moment:

         

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
FL and, apparently, Gonzalez and Richards do not understand what "falsification" means. It is the application of modus tollens to empirical study, and as such it requires that one set as the test saying what must be true if one's thesis is true and then looking to see if it is actually the case. If not, then the thesis is falsified.
What is excluded as being falsification is the sort of wool-gathering armchair philosophy that IDC advocates are generically reduced to, as in the quoted section of G&R. Simple hint for the simple: if you have to use a construction like, "if X exists, Y is falsified", you are misusing falsification. Falsification is like, "If Y is true, X is true. Is X true?"
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Unfortunately, Karl Popper himself has effectively (and very clearly) refuted Elsberry on this one.  "If you observe X, then hypothesis Y is falsified" is VERY legitimate in science.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


FL didn't bother to read the article I linked, and is uncomprehending of what I (and Popper) wrote.

What I < quoted > from Popper:

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------

   With empirical irrefutability the situation is a little different. The simplest examples of empirically irrefutable statements are so-called strict or pure existential statements. Here is an example of a strict or pure existential statement: ‘There exists a pearl which is ten times larger than the next largest pearl.’ If in this statement we restrict the words ‘There exists’ to some finite region in space and time, then it may of course become a refutable statement. For example, the following statement is obviously empirically refutable: ‘At this moment and in this box here there exist at least two pearls one of which is ten times larger than the next largest pearl in this box.’ But then this statement is no longer a strict or pure existential statement: rather it is a restricted existential statement. A strict or pure existential statement applies to the whole universe, and it is irrefutable simply because there can be no method by which it could be refuted. For even if we were able to search our entire universe, the strict or pure existential  statement would not be refuted by our failure to discover the required pearl, seeing that it might always be hiding in a place where we are not looking.

   (Popper, 1985, pp.212-213.)

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Further, FL's restatement of Popper has the problem built-in that shows how he remains uncomprehending of falsification. Let's look again:

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------

"If you observe X, then hypothesis Y is falsified" is VERY legitimate in science.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Besides not being conceptually consistent with the statement I wrote, this has the further problem that observing X leading to falsification of Y occurs if and only if X is an entailed consequence of Y. In those circumstances, observing X leads to falsification of Y, but such falsification does not occur if entailment does not hold. In other words, just like IDC advocates wish to redefine "science" itself to include mushy non-empirical conjectures, they seek to obfuscate about falsifiability until it likewise has no rigorous meaning. In this case, FL is looking to expand falsifiability to cover even pure existential statements of the sort that I quote Popper above as explicitly rejecting as falsifiable.

I note that Floyd also doesn't have anything to say about the provenance of the argument, and how it was, at best, an argument for natural theology, not IDC.

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Beyond the false claim that G&R are presenting something falsifiable, there is the problem that what G&R present isn't even attributable to IDC. Historically, the use of fine-tuning and privileged observer arguments go back at least to William Paley, where one can find versions of those in his 1802 "Natural Theology". Gonzalez and Richards may have elaborated at length on the topic, but they did not invent the arguments themselves, and thus they don't qualify as "intelligent design" creationism arguments. These are, at best, natural theology arguments.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: Henry J on Nov. 01 2009,17:07



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Oh, you are so right. But, anyway, Deadman can close the thread and I can answer Lou's question.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


If he closes the thread, the resulting withdrawal symptoms are on his head. :p

Henry
Posted by: Henry J on Nov. 01 2009,17:11



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Check this out folks----Life first appeared in the water on Earth on the very same day that the first birds appeared on Earth.

Does that sound like the theory of evolution to YOU?  Hmmm?
If not, then you better scrap all that "Indirect Creation" mess pronto, yes??
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



The order in which classes of life appeared is determined by geology. It is independent of any explanation given by evolution theory. So any incompatability between a literal reading of those verses and the physical evidence is between that reading and the physical evidence from geology, astronomy, physics, and paleontology.

Plus, "And God said... " doesn't by itself imply any particular time frame, given that it's talking about an eternal being. The day numbers aren't taken as literal days by most Christains.

If you want my opinion (or even if you don't), the main point of those verses is to assert that God caused those things to exist, not to establish a particular order or time frame in which each type of thing first appeared, or any particular method of causation.

Henry
Posted by: Henry J on Nov. 01 2009,17:11

All of that reminds me of this:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Moses was preparing to write down the history of creation that God had just revealed to him.

Aaron (his accountant) says to Moses, what ARE you doing?? Don't you know the price of papyrus? We can't afford the amount of that stuff we'd need if you include every little thing!

Moses to Aaron: But God told me all this, we have to share it, don't we?

Aaron: We can't afford the papyrus for 16* billion years of prehistory.

Moses: Well, what can we afford?

Aaron: One week.

Moses: A week? (sigh) Well, if that's all we can manage, I guess I'll have to leave out a few things. Trilobites. Dinosaurs. Continental drift. (sigh).
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



*[the latest estimate when this was written]

Henry
Posted by: SLP on Nov. 01 2009,18:57

Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 31 2009,20:05)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
So, if I rent a room at the Smithsonian and show "The Exorcist", you'd declare it to be scientific?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I'm afraid you don't understand, SLP.   Check this out.

snip series of what are doubtless embellished assertions, as I am used to getting from Mellotron Lee


Btw, SLP, have you actually read or seen "The Privileged Planet" for yourself?  Serious question.

FloydLee
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


So, of all the stuff I wrote, you are going to focus and ONLY reply to THAT???


You must be desperate for a 'win.'

And no, I have not nor do I intend to read that silly argument via awe that Gonzo and his boyfriend wrote.  I've seen some of their 'best' arguments,  like how we are at the perfect spot for observing the galaxy...
As if that argument could nto be made if were were on the opposite side of it!

I've seen their argument presented by a pro-ID creationist, Joe Gallien, and they were PATHETIC and simplistic.

But I'm sure you were left agog...
Posted by: SLP on Nov. 01 2009,18:59

Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 31 2009,22:05)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
They did not endorse it.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Totally incorrect, CM.  The Smithsonian withdrew their co-sponsorship AFTER they had already granted it.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


So, are you claiming that PP was "endorsed" by the Smithsonian?

Like I said, I've learned not to belive you at all - even when you present quotes (as we all knnow how you deal with them...)...
Posted by: SLP on Nov. 01 2009,19:02

Quote (deadman_932 @ Oct. 31 2009,20:22)
Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 31 2009,20:19)
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Then surely you can address the fallacies I and others mentioned -- and the fact that you appear to be arguing for space-aliens now, Floaty
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


And surely you can answer MY question---have you read the book, Deadman?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Nope, and I don't have to, given that the "fine-tuning " argument has always been beset by the problems I mentioned. Until I see that someone is going to address those issues (you can't, Floaty?) -- the why should I finance the work of Gonzalez?

There's my answer, Floaty -- now you can answer what I asked about the fallacies, logical errors and Space-alien creators you now seem to be supporting by forwarding Gonzalez as somehow meaningful to your Christian creationism.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


He will never directly answer, of course.  I suspect because he has received assurtances that Gonzo and his boyfriend put out PP as cover for their true YECism.
Posted by: Constant Mews on Nov. 01 2009,19:02



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I also pointed out (indeed somewhere in these last several pages) that any Christian who accepts evolution is clearly displaying both rational and Scriptural inconsistency  UNLESS they can rationally refute the Big Five Incompatibilities.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Which I have now done at least four times.

You, on the other hand, are unable to explain why it is that the Nicene creed doesn't require a literal belief in Genesis.

And the creed is the single most common statement of Christian belief.

Floyd, failing to address dozens of key questions doesn't mean that your points have not been refuted.

They have.

Many times.

And you lie when you claim otherwise.  Lying is a sin.  You will no doubt burn forever in hell for lying like that.
Posted by: SLP on Nov. 01 2009,19:06

Quote (FloydLee @ Nov. 01 2009,01:47)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
(CM)

Evolutionary theory says nothing about God
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
(Evolutionist Dr. Ernst Mayr)

Darwinism rejects all supernatural phenomena and causations.
The theory of evolution by natural selection explains the adaptedness and diversity of the world solely materialistically.
It no longer requires God as creator or designer (although one is certainly still free to believe in God even if one accepts evolution).

----SciAm, July 2000
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Nuff said.     :)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Cool - so if I can present just one IDcreationist with a degree who says ID is not science, I can write "'Nuff said" and that will be that?
Posted by: SLP on Nov. 01 2009,19:08

Quote (FloydLee @ Nov. 01 2009,11:31)
******

So now you see that indeed the authors of "The Privileged Planet" indeed got it right concerning their presentation of a genuinely falsifiable (and hence genuinely scientific) cosmological ID hypothesis.

FloydLee
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


It is also a falsifiable hypothesis that the moon is made of cheese.

Is such an hypothesis therefore scientific?
Posted by: SLP on Nov. 01 2009,19:10

Quote (FloydLee @ Nov. 01 2009,12:01)
And while we're at it, let's look a little closer:
   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
20 And God said, "Let the water teem with living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth across the expanse of the sky."
21 So God created the great creatures of the sea and every living and moving thing with which the water teems, according to their kinds, and every winged bird according to its kind.And God saw that it was good.
22 God blessed them and said, "Be fruitful and increase in number and fill the water in the seas, and let the birds increase on the earth."
23 And there was evening, and there was morning—the fifth day.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Check this out folks----Life first appeared in the water on Earth on the very same day that the first birds appeared on Earth.

Does that sound like the theory of evolution to YOU?  Hmmm?  
If not, then you better scrap all that "Indirect Creation" mess pronto, yes??

FloydLee
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


No, but it does seem to run counter to the evidence.

A rational person would adopt that position for which the evidence fits.  I tool would reject such a position in favor of a pre-determined position premised on believing that a deity blew on dirt and a fully formed man popped out.

Mammajamma!
Posted by: Constant Mews on Nov. 01 2009,19:10

Quote (FloydLee @ Nov. 01 2009,12:17)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Since FL seems comfortable with Futuyma, I will post the 20 tenets of evolutionary theory he identifies
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Anybody find this laundry list yet?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I believe I've posted the first 10.  I'll post the others later.  The most amusing part, Floyd is that you will not be able to show that the theory of evolution denies God at the ultimate cause; nor that God choose to create the world; or that evolution produced the soul.

But I thought you already had Futuyma?  Were you lying, Floyd?  Apparently you were.
Posted by: Dan on Nov. 01 2009,19:46

Quote (FloydLee @ Nov. 01 2009,12:01)
And while we're at it, let's look a little closer:
     

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
20 And God said, "Let the water teem with living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth across the expanse of the sky."
21 So God created the great creatures of the sea and every living and moving thing with which the water teems, according to their kinds, and every winged bird according to its kind.And God saw that it was good.
22 God blessed them and said, "Be fruitful and increase in number and fill the water in the seas, and let the birds increase on the earth."
23 And there was evening, and there was morning—the fifth day.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Check this out folks----Life first appeared in the water on Earth on the very same day that the first birds appeared on Earth.

Does that sound like the theory of evolution to YOU?  Hmmm?  
If not, then you better scrap all that "Indirect Creation" mess pronto, yes??

FloydLee
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Indeed, let's take FL's advice and look closer.

Everyone agrees that evolution is incompatible with a straightforward, literal reading of Genesis.  That's not the question under debate here.

The question under debate is whether evolution is incompatible with Christianity.

Let me remind FL that (1) 69% of Americans do not believe that the Bible should be interpreted as a straightforward, literal way; and that (2) not all Christians can even agree on what the Bible is.

FL knows both these points.  But he tries to act as if he doesn't know them.  Why does he insist on repeated displays of ignorance?
Posted by: Dan on Nov. 01 2009,19:52

Quote (FloydLee @ Nov. 01 2009,12:26)
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Both (Pope Benedict and Francis Collins) are good examples of Theistic Evolution, probably the best TE has got right now.

Neither One has come up with any solution for the Big Five Incompatibillities.   Simply not able to, so far.  

The End.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


And from September 22, 2009 to November 1, 2009, nobody in this forum (including you, Deadman) has been able to come up with any ***specifics*** with which to refute the highlighted portion there.  No specifics that actually show how those two TE men have eliminated and resolved each point of the Big Five Incompatibilities.

A fitting way to summarize and crystallize the outcome of this weeks-long Incompatibility Debate.  "The End."    :)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


As a matter of fact, Robin did, Dheddle did, Constant Mews did, nmgirl did, and I did.  In addition, deadman and I both showed that FL's big five are irrelevant to the question under debate.

But FL has declared it "courageous" to go off topic.  I suspect that he knows that his five points are irrelevant, but wants to show his courage.
Posted by: Constant Mews on Nov. 01 2009,20:48

Quote (Dan @ Nov. 01 2009,19:52)
Quote (FloydLee @ Nov. 01 2009,12:26)
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Both (Pope Benedict and Francis Collins) are good examples of Theistic Evolution, probably the best TE has got right now.

Neither One has come up with any solution for the Big Five Incompatibillities.   Simply not able to, so far.  

The End.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


And from September 22, 2009 to November 1, 2009, nobody in this forum (including you, Deadman) has been able to come up with any ***specifics*** with which to refute the highlighted portion there.  No specifics that actually show how those two TE men have eliminated and resolved each point of the Big Five Incompatibilities.

A fitting way to summarize and crystallize the outcome of this weeks-long Incompatibility Debate.  "The End."    :)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


As a matter of fact, Robin did, Dheddle did, Constant Mews did, nmgirl did, and I did.  In addition, deadman and I both showed that FL's big five are irrelevant to the question under debate.

But FL has declared it "courageous" to go off topic.  I suspect that he knows that his five points are irrelevant, but wants to show his courage.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Courage?  Has he actually displayed any courage here?  Courage would be to engage his "opponents" in actual discussion - which he has yet to do.

For example, I have pointed on numerous occasions that his "claims" about what the theory of evolution says or does not say are not based on an examination of the actual theory, but on various, cherry-picked comments made by scientists of varying philosophical and theological positions.

This is fundamentally dishonest, or it indicates such a tremendous ignorance of evolutionary theory and science in general that Floyd cannot explore it.

He has simply ignored all of my posts on this subject.

That is not courage.  That is cowardliness.
Posted by: Constant Mews on Nov. 01 2009,20:51

Quote (FloydLee @ Nov. 01 2009,01:50)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
But evolution evolves the physical.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


And the non-physical as well, according to Nature science journal (June 14, 2007).  Which is one reason (yes, there's more than one) why evolution denies that humans are created in the image of God.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Unfortunately, that article does not support your case.  God can choose to make man in His image using any mechanism God chooses.  That's what the Nicene creed points out.

Therefore there is no "incompatibility" here.
Posted by: Constant Mews on Nov. 01 2009,20:53

Quote (FloydLee @ Nov. 01 2009,12:16)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
When will you be adressing the whole of my posts the last two days, Floaty?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Primarily just that one larger post in which you tried to cobble together some arguments against Gonzalez and Richard's "The Privileged Planet" statements even though you haven't read their book at all.

Needless to say, your failure to get that one little bit of homework under your belt, could potentially poke a hole in your criticisms, ya think?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I've read it.  I even saw the film.  But that doesn't help you.  You've still to establish that there exists any incompatibility between Christianity - not Biblical literalism - and evolutionary theory.

The problem is, you can't.  You can establish that evolutionary theory is incompatible with Biblical literalism.  In fact all of science is incompatible with Biblical literalism.  All of it.

But Biblical literalism is not Christianity.  Check out the Nicene Creed, for starters.
Posted by: Constant Mews on Nov. 01 2009,20:59

Once again, Floyd displays such a lamentable grasp of Biblical knowledge that I despair of saving him.  But he is still a child of God - though fallen and destined for the furnace - and I pray for him.  

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
The highlighted portions are what makes these verses a clear example of EXCLUSIVELY DIRECT creation.  

God simply spoke and boom! The land produced, the water produced, very fast.  Far far too fast for ANY evolutionary processes of any kind at all, period.   This was NOT some kind of deep-time-friendly evolution-friendly "Indirect creation" gig.  Not even slightly!!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



God said, Let there be light, and there was light.

God said, Let the Earth bring forth....

These two creative acts are qualitatively different.

Not that it matters.

A rational, educated, intelligent Christian does not regard the Genesis account as literal history.

After all, God has indicated otherwise, and who are we to gainsay God?
Posted by: Constant Mews on Nov. 01 2009,21:29

Let's lay out Floyd's principle difficulty.

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

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

Period.

Does it bother you to realize that you are lying in order to save face?  That you have put your ego on a pedestal above God?
Posted by: Constant Mews on Nov. 01 2009,21:46

Quote (FloydLee @ Nov. 01 2009,01:37)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Certainly.  I do not debate this; evolution requires death.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Thanks.  You just openly affirmed the part evolution plays WRT the Fourth Incompatibility.  From here on out, no evolutionist should be using the term "opinion" WRT the 4th Incom.  Clearly the basis of #4 is fact, not opinion.
   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
And it is also quite clear that an educated, intelligent Christian will see that "Death" in Romans is far more likely to be referring to "spiritual death" than it is to "physical death."
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I've already quoted Dr. Douglas Moo, professor of NT and author of the NICNT commentary on Romans (is that enough education and intelligence for you??), showing that the term "death" in Romans 5:12-17 is referring to BOTH physical and spiritual death, not either-or.  

Also referred to the Gen and Rom texts and offered a bit of explanation from those as well.  

Hence your claim is refuted, but again thanks for showing that the 4th Incompatibility is solidly based in evolutionary theory itself.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


And Francis Collins disagrees with you:

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
BioLogos offers an account of the Fall that fits comfortably with a range of reasonable and conventional interpretations of Scripture. There are no scriptural reasons to deny the presence of animal death before humans appeared. And the most reasonable interpretation of Scripture is that the death referred to in Romans and first Corinthians is spiritual death, not physical death. But BioLogos, despite affirming the generally accepted scientific story of origins as God’s method of creation, is also compatible with the idea that human death did not occur before the Fall as long as the definition of fully manifest humanness is not granted until Adam appears.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

from < Biologos >

You see the problem of dueling authorities?  Any time you can cite an authority on your side, I can cite one on mine.

You cannot "win".  You must examine the Bible and scripture directly - something you are remarkably reluctant to do.  Are you afraid?  Do you need a Bible?  I can loan you a few if you need one.
Posted by: Constant Mews on Nov. 01 2009,21:49

Or, if you'd prefer something a bit more "visual", you might take a look at some of < Denis Lamoureux >.  I don't fully agree with him, but he makes some interesting points.
Posted by: Constant Mews on Nov. 01 2009,22:08

Quote (FloydLee @ Nov. 01 2009,01:29)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Christian doctrine does not require God to use any particular mechanism to create biodiversity.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Do you have access to a Bible?  You really need one in order to determine what "Christian doctrine" says.  Genesis and Hebrews are pretty specific, I'm afraid.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


And here is the key to your problem.

Christine Doctrine is not Biblical literalism.
Posted by: Henry J on Nov. 01 2009,22:21

Quote (FrankH @ Nov. 01 2009,08:42)
See Floyd, you take as evidence that which you already agree with and ignore the rest.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


That's similar to what he does with the posts here when deciding what to reply to.
Posted by: OgreMkV on Nov. 01 2009,22:23

Quote (Constant Mews @ Nov. 01 2009,22:08)
Quote (FloydLee @ Nov. 01 2009,01:29)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Christian doctrine does not require God to use any particular mechanism to create biodiversity.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Do you have access to a Bible?  You really need one in order to determine what "Christian doctrine" says.  Genesis and Hebrews are pretty specific, I'm afraid.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


And here is the key to your problem.

Christine Doctrine is not Biblical literalism.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Correct me if I'm wrong, but Christian doctrine couldn't have existed until near the end of the four gospels... there would have been no doctrine until there was a Christ.
Posted by: Constant Mews on Nov. 01 2009,22:34

Quote (OgreMkV @ Nov. 01 2009,22:23)
Quote (Constant Mews @ Nov. 01 2009,22:08)
Quote (FloydLee @ Nov. 01 2009,01:29)
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Christian doctrine does not require God to use any particular mechanism to create biodiversity.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Do you have access to a Bible?  You really need one in order to determine what "Christian doctrine" says.  Genesis and Hebrews are pretty specific, I'm afraid.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


And here is the key to your problem.

Christine Doctrine is not Biblical literalism.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Correct me if I'm wrong, but Christian doctrine couldn't have existed until near the end of the four gospels... there would have been no doctrine until there was a Christ.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Actually, what I am referring to is the corpus of tenets which define one as a Christian; the fundamental statements are the Great Creeds: the Nicene Creed (a product of the great church councils of the 4th century AD) and the Apostles Creed (which seems to have developed in the 2nd century AD).  There are hundreds if not thousands of Christian sects which use their own creeds or variants, but the Great Creeds represent a fairly universal statement of faith (though the Apostles creed is not as common in the East).

If we are to seek for Christian Doctrine anywhere, it should be here.  Neither Creed demands Biblical literalism; indeed, neither mentions the Bible directly.

Floyd fails to understand Christianity; he apparently fails to understand the Bible and Christian doctrine as well.  That's why I told him that tangling with me on this subject would simply make him look foolish.
Posted by: Constant Mews on Nov. 01 2009,22:35

Quote (OgreMkV @ Nov. 01 2009,22:23)
Quote (Constant Mews @ Nov. 01 2009,22:08)
Quote (FloydLee @ Nov. 01 2009,01:29)
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Christian doctrine does not require God to use any particular mechanism to create biodiversity.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Do you have access to a Bible?  You really need one in order to determine what "Christian doctrine" says.  Genesis and Hebrews are pretty specific, I'm afraid.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


And here is the key to your problem.

Christine Doctrine is not Biblical literalism.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Correct me if I'm wrong, but Christian doctrine couldn't have existed until near the end of the four gospels... there would have been no doctrine until there was a Christ.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


And in the sense that no formalized doctrine or common set of defining Christian beliefs existed before Christ you are, in fact, correct.
Posted by: jupiter on Nov. 01 2009,22:59

Quote (FloydLee @ Nov. 01 2009,01:20)
     

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Floyd, you don't get to say who is and who isn't a Christian.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


And YOU don't get to declare people to be Christians when they personally testify that in fact they are not Christians.  

The people I have quoted earlier, who wrote that they are no longer Christians, you have to take their personal testimonies just as seriously as if they had claimed to be Christians.  

Otherwise you are not listening to them and you are not really respecting them.

And, to be honest, if they say that evolution has played a part in their loss of Christian faith--and they did--you have to take that aspect seriously too.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Floyd, you really don't get it, do you?

Your entire argument rests on the proposition that anyone who accepts the standard, contemporary theory of evolution, however much it departs from a literal interpretation of the KJV bible, is NOT a Christian.

You've acknowledged that this proposition is false. All else is wankery.

The personal testimonies you've quoted? Of course I take them seriously, as personal testimonies. I don't take them seriously as philosophical texts or moral precepts or recipes for meatloaf or anything other than what they are—personal testimonies.

Why are you elevating those personal testimonies into edicts?
Posted by: Henry J on Nov. 01 2009,23:12



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Why are you elevating those personal testimonies into edicts?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


He's got a "conclusion" that has to be supported somehow, so he uses the only things he has?
Posted by: sledgehammer on Nov. 01 2009,23:12

Quote (Constant Mews @ Nov. 01 2009,19:29)
Let's lay out Floyd's principle difficulty.

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

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

Period.

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


I'm in total agreement w/ CM here, as I stated very early in this thread. Without biblical literalism, your Five Nincompats fall apart.
 It seems to me Floyd, that your battle is not just with science and evolution, but also with the vast majority of modern Christians. I think you understand this all too well.
You and the few remaining fundamentalist biblical literalists have a tough row to hoe with the rest of the faith, and you and your ilk are obviously losing the battle, thank God.
 You are not helping your stated cause, of reducing the numbers of those leaving the faith. Most ex-Christians I've known, and the vast majority who write of their de-conversion experiences,  cite biblical literalism and the absurdly narrow viewpoint of the fundamentalists as a primary reason for leaving the faith.  Your quaint little cultish backwater of the Christian Faith is completely incompatible and irreconcilable with what the rest of modern Christians have come to accept as reality, and you are doing a disservice to your brethren.
 So my closing comment to you is this:
Before you even try to tackle science and evolution, you will have to first make your case for biblical literalism with your fellow Christians.
 As we have seen here in this thread, you haven't done so well in that regard.
Posted by: Constant Mews on Nov. 01 2009,23:12

Jupiter, you raise an interesting question.  You will note that throughout this entire exchange, Floyd has relied solely on other people's opinions and analysis.

For example, while he provided a "definition" of evolution early on, he has never used it (and when I took him to task for relying on it, he suddenly backed off), and instead relied on the opinions - cherry-picked opinions - of scientists regarding the relationship between evolutionary theory and Biblical literalism.

Floyd has yet to present an argument of his own; and naturally given his proclivities is incapable of actually reading and understanding either evolutionary theory or Christian exegesis, theology, or doctrine.

Hence, he must present others' opinions as facts.  He has nothing else to argue with.
Posted by: Constant Mews on Nov. 01 2009,23:17

Quote (sledgehammer @ Nov. 01 2009,23:12)
Quote (Constant Mews @ Nov. 01 2009,19:29)
Let's lay out Floyd's principle difficulty.

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

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

Period.

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


I'm in total agreement w/ CM here, as I stated very early in this thread. Without biblical literalism, your Five Nincompats fall apart.
 It seems to me Floyd, that your battle is not just with science and evolution, but also with the vast majority of modern Christians. I think you understand this all too well.
You and the few remaining fundamentalist biblical literalists have a tough row to hoe with the rest of the faith, and you and your ilk are obviously losing the battle, thank God.
 You are not helping your stated cause, of reducing the numbers of those leaving the faith. Most ex-Christians I've known, and the vast majority who write of their de-conversion experiences,  cite biblical literalism and the absurdly narrow viewpoint of the fundamentalists as a primary reason for leaving the faith.  Your quaint little cultish backwater of the Christian Faith is completely incompatible and irreconcilable with what the rest of modern Christians have come to accept as reality, and you are doing a disservice to your brethren.
 So my closing comment to you is this:
Before you even try to tackle science and evolution, you will have to first make your case for biblical literalism with your fellow Christians.
 As we have seen here in this thread, you haven't done so well in that regard.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Indeed.  The overwhelming majority of Christians are not Biblical literalists.

In fact, Floyd himself does not accept a literal reading of the Bible.  I often use this very amusing fact when discussing the kind of exegetical confusion Floyd is displaying here.
Posted by: jupiter on Nov. 01 2009,23:29

Quote (FloydLee @ Nov. 01 2009,01:42)
       

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
....the result of your particular interpretation of the Bible
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



So what is YOUR particular interpretation, and would you mind putting it on the table for rational and critical examination?  

Seems like people around here are really really scared to offer their own particular interpretation of the verses/texts I've been discussing.  

(CM is pretty much the only exception to that rule, and as you can see, even he's doing rather poorly with his interpretation of Romans 5.)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Again, Floyd, you're just not getting it.

It doesn't matter how I interpret the Bible or the Upanishads or the Yengishiki or the Ghanifarb. Your entire argument rests upon one proposition: Anyone who accepts the contemporary concept of evolutionary theory cannot be a Christian.

This proposition is false, as you've acknowledged.

You and CM and anyone who's interested can sling around chapter and verse and quibble over exegetic minutiae as long as you like. Everyone needs a hobby.

But don't delude yourself that the parry-and-thrust means anything. Imagine a wee Arthurian joust, with toothpicks, under the kitchen sink. Winning that is the best you can expect.
Posted by: Keelyn on Nov. 02 2009,00:58

Quote (Henry J @ Nov. 01 2009,18:07)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Oh, you are so right. But, anyway, Deadman can close the thread and I can answer Lou's question.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


If he closes the thread, the resulting withdrawal symptoms are on his head. :p

Henry
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I'm willing to chance it. :)
Posted by: Dan on Nov. 02 2009,06:29

Quote (FloydLee @ Nov. 01 2009,01:42)
Seems like people around here are really really scared to offer their own particular interpretation of the verses/texts I've been discussing.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


People around here are NOT "scared", except for FL.

People around here are trying to stay on the topic of "Can one be a Christian and hold to evolution?"  (Interpretation of particular verses is clearly irrelevant to this question.)

Except for FL, who wants to change the topic to "Does there exist one Christian who doesn't hold to evolution?"

There's no point in debating the second question, because it's obviously true.  (For that matter, there's no point in debating the first question, because it's obviously true too.  FL and only FL can't see the obvious.)
Posted by: FrankH on Nov. 02 2009,07:04

Quote (FloydLee @ Nov. 01 2009,01:47)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
(CM)Evolutionary theory says nothing about God
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
(Evolutionist Dr. Ernst Mayr)

Darwinism rejects all supernatural phenomena and causations.
The theory of evolution by natural selection explains the adaptedness and diversity of the world solely materialistically.
It no longer requires God as creator or designer (although one is certainly still free to believe in God even if one accepts evolution).

----SciAm, July 2000
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Nuff said.     :)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Here's a few other things that "rejects all supernatural phenomena and causations."

Medicine
Classical Physics
Quantum Mechanics
Rain Falling from the sky
Water cutting grooves into sandy soil as it drains down
Mechanical Eng
Computer Eng
Chemistry
Structural Eng
Internal Combustion Engines
A light bulb
etc

So all of "modern science" rejects supernatural causalities as science is empirical.

Can you name any science that uses the metaphysical?
Posted by: snorkild on Nov. 02 2009,07:31

If Floyd manages to convince Someone of his idea that there exists a dichotomy between fact based reasoning and Christian faith, and this Someone then leaves his faith because (s)he can't deny facts, doesn't that make Floyd into one who leads people away from faith?

Doesn't the Bible say samething about those who leads people away from Christianity?
Posted by: FloydLee on Nov. 02 2009,08:45

Okay, I see the thread's still open.  Thanks, and my apologies, had to shift gears because of illness situation again.

Top priority for today is to answer that one post from Deadman, with other comments as best I can.  In and out today.
Posted by: FloydLee on Nov. 02 2009,08:56



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I don't take them seriously as philosophical texts or moral precepts or recipes for meatloaf or anything other than what they are—personal testimonies.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


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

The testimonies establish that there's a genuine reason to talk about this issue.  The followup for that is to rationally examine the Big Five Incompatibilities.
Posted by: FrankH on Nov. 02 2009,09:05

Quote (FloydLee @ Nov. 02 2009,08:56)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I don't take them seriously as philosophical texts or moral precepts or recipes for meatloaf or anything other than what they are—personal testimonies.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

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

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


What about personal testimonies from Mormons, Catholics or Jehovah's Witnesses?  Then there's the witnessing of other faiths.  If witnessing is important, why aren't you one of those?

Why is your particular version of the bible right?  Why isn't the Catholic Version right?  How do you know it is right.

See that's the thing.  You are declaring what scriptures are to be believed and others ignored (slavery, remember?), what bible is to be used.  All you're doing is showing people how to be a Christian like you.

What that really does mean that you believe that the only "Trootm Christiantm according to you is one who acts, reads and thinks (in your case parrots oft refuted garbage) as you do.
Posted by: FloydLee on Nov. 02 2009,09:07



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
If Floyd manages to convince Someone of his idea that there exists a dichotomy between fact based reasoning and Christian faith, and this Someone then leaves his faith because (s)he can't deny facts, doesn't that make Floyd into one who leads people away from faith?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


It depends.  They say that the great revivalist, Charles Finney, wouldn't allow you to join his church if you owned ANY black slaves, even if you said they were Christian.

So, was Finney "leading people away from faith", or was he simply insisting on Christians letting go of major inconsistencies and living out a consistent, biblical Christianity?
Posted by: FloydLee on Nov. 02 2009,09:08

Typo correction:  "....even if you said YOU were a Christian."
Posted by: FrankH on Nov. 02 2009,09:09

Quote (FloydLee @ Nov. 02 2009,09:07)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
If Floyd manages to convince Someone of his idea that there exists a dichotomy between fact based reasoning and Christian faith, and this Someone then leaves his faith because (s)he can't deny facts, doesn't that make Floyd into one who leads people away from faith?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

It depends.  They say that the great revivalist, Charles Finney, wouldn't allow you to join his church if you owned ANY black slaves, even if you said they were Christian.

So, was Finney "leading people away from faith", or was he simply insisting on Christians letting go of major inconsistencies and living out a consistent, biblical Christianity?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


And yet there were churches springing up whose only purpose was to give scriptural support to slavery.

Remember Floyd, you failed on showing how slavery isn't part and parcel of the bible.
Posted by: FrankH on Nov. 02 2009,09:18

Quote (FrankH @ Nov. 02 2009,09:09)
Quote (FloydLee @ Nov. 02 2009,09:07)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
If Floyd manages to convince Someone of his idea that there exists a dichotomy between fact based reasoning and Christian faith, and this Someone then leaves his faith because (s)he can't deny facts, doesn't that make Floyd into one who leads people away from faith?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

It depends.  They say that the great revivalist, Charles Finney, wouldn't allow you to join his church if you owned ANY black slaves, even if you said they were Christian.

So, was Finney "leading people away from faith", or was he simply insisting on Christians letting go of major inconsistencies and living out a consistent, biblical Christianity?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

And yet there were churches springing up whose only purpose was to give scriptural support to slavery.

Remember Floyd, you failed on showing how slavery isn't part and parcel of the bible.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Actually what FL was not able to do was show that the bible condemns slavery.

I showed that it did.
Posted by: FloydLee on Nov. 02 2009,09:26



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Remember Floyd, you failed on showing how slavery isn't part and parcel of the bible.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


And YOU remember, I showed that the Euro-American slavery show, clearly violated the Bible (including violating a death-penalty-level Biblical regulation).

And I also showed (direct quote, remember?) that the New Testament openly called for slaves to take any opportunity they got to free themselves from slavery.

(And you better believe the American black slaves did NOT ignore those Bible instructions!!)    :)
Posted by: FrankH on Nov. 02 2009,09:34

Quote (FloydLee @ Nov. 02 2009,09:26)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Remember Floyd, you failed on showing how slavery isn't part and parcel of the bible.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

And YOU remember, I showed that the Euro-American slavery show, clearly violated the Bible (including violating a death-penalty-level Biblical regulation).

And I also showed (direct quote, remember?) that the New Testament openly called for slaves to take any opportunity they got to free themselves from slavery.

(And you better believe the American black slaves did NOT ignore those Bible instructions!!)    :)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You are a troo liar for Jesus Floyd.  Releasing oneself from slavery and condemning slavery are two very different things.

It also showed that Christian slaves were to do this, the rest of the world be damned.

Yeas Floyd, the verses you quoted showed nothing about condemning slavery in the NT while the OT told a man how much they can cell their daughters for.  Yeah, you selectively read your bible and as far as you reading the bible "literally", that's another lie from you.
Posted by: FloydLee on Nov. 02 2009,09:51



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
You and CM and anyone who's interested can sling around chapter and verse and quibble over exegetic minutiae as long as you like.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Actually, I wish he WOULD offer more chapter & verse!
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Nov. 02 2009,09:53

Quote (Constant Mews @ Nov. 02 2009,00:12)
Jupiter, you raise an interesting question.  You will note that throughout this entire exchange, Floyd has relied solely on other people's opinions and analysis.

For example, while he provided a "definition" of evolution early on, he has never used it (and when I took him to task for relying on it, he suddenly backed off), and instead relied on the opinions - cherry-picked opinions - of scientists regarding the relationship between evolutionary theory and Biblical literalism.

Floyd has yet to present an argument of his own; and naturally given his proclivities is incapable of actually reading and understanding either evolutionary theory or Christian exegesis, theology, or doctrine.

Hence, he must present others' opinions as facts.  He has nothing else to argue with.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


that's why he will never answer my question.

never has.  and never will.  because it requires him explaining why, to him, God is not part of the required explanation for water running down hill, when if it wasn't for God there wouldn't be any water!    He can't do that because then he would be forced to acknowledge that all that nonsense about "direct" and "indirect" creation can never be literally true.

But Fold is waaaaaaaay too stupid to grasp that on it's face.  He knows not to touch it, just like an alcoholic knows not to drink the last hidden airplane bottle until some more are procured.  Floyd is addicted to being willfully stupid for jesus!
Posted by: FloydLee on Nov. 02 2009,09:54



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
It also showed that Christian slaves were to do this, the rest of the world be damned.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Nope, the NT verse does NOT say "Non-Christians must stay on the ole ball and chain!"
Posted by: FrankH on Nov. 02 2009,09:58

Quote (FloydLee @ Nov. 02 2009,09:54)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
It also showed that Christian slaves were to do this, the rest of the world be damned.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Nope, the NT verse does NOT say "Non-Christians must stay on the ole ball and chain!"
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Who else would be reading or hearing that?

Christians of course.

Also note it does not admonish those with slaves to release them!
Posted by: FrankH on Nov. 02 2009,10:00

Quote (FloydLee @ Nov. 02 2009,09:54)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
It also showed that Christian slaves were to do this, the rest of the world be damned.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Nope, the NT verse does NOT say "Non-Christians must stay on the ole ball and chain!"
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Why?  Others have offered chapter and verse but you've already poo-pooed it because it was "Catholic doings and not (your) biblical!
Posted by: FrankH on Nov. 02 2009,10:22

Quote (FloydLee @ Nov. 02 2009,09:54)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
It also showed that Christian slaves were to do this, the rest of the world be damned.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Nope, the NT verse does NOT say "Non-Christians must stay on the ole ball and chain!"
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


As your bible said nothing about slave owners releasing their slaves, why is it true in your mind that slavery was condemned?  Your bible says nothing about it yet you think that is the way it is despite OT "witnessing" to the contrary and even with specific examples on how one can sell family members and treat their slaves!

Yet you say that the OT must be followed explicitly every where else but it was "changed" for things you don't like?

Who wrote the book Floyd?  Your god?  This god changes its mind?
Posted by: FloydLee on Nov. 02 2009,10:22

I showed that the Euro-American slavery show, clearly violated the Bible (including violating a death-penalty-level Biblical regulation).  And here's a reminder:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
The Bible condemns kidnapping as a capital crime, and kidnapping is what fueled the African slave trade of the 1500s to 1800s,
therefore the Old and New Testaments (Ex. 21:16; 1 Tim. 1:9-10; etc.) condemn slavery.  ----  Bob Enyart
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Your disproof of this was.......?
Posted by: FrankH on Nov. 02 2009,10:25

Quote (FloydLee @ Nov. 02 2009,10:22)
I showed that the Euro-American slavery show, clearly violated the Bible (including violating a death-penalty-level Biblical regulation).  And here's a reminder:

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
The Bible condemns kidnapping as a capital crime, and kidnapping is what fueled the African slave trade of the 1500s to 1800s,
therefore the Old and New Testaments (Ex. 21:16; 1 Tim. 1:9-10; etc.) condemn slavery.  ----  Bob Enyart
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Your disproof of this was.......?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You showed nothing of the sort Floyd.

Read the OT again about selling your daughters.

As for "kidnapping", taking prisoners of war was not "kidnapping" in the bible.  Like when the Israelites slaughtered the other tribe and took the virgin females as concubines.

Read you bible again Floyd.
Posted by: deadman_932 on Nov. 02 2009,10:26

The Bible doesn't condemn taking slaves forcibly. That would be kidnapping in any other context than war, and the Bible says that it's okay to take prisoners as slaves.
Posted by: deadman_932 on Nov. 02 2009,10:30

You'd better get to work on answering your critics today, Floaty, because this is your last day, so far as I am concerned.

You can't handle defending your position, which is shown by you not answering your critics. You're not advancing anything new, you're merely rehashing the old and stale. Get your summation in while you still have the chance.
Posted by: FrankH on Nov. 02 2009,10:40

Quote (deadman_932 @ Nov. 02 2009,10:26)
The Bible doesn't condemn taking slaves forcibly. That would be kidnapping in any other context than war, and the Bible says that it's okay to take prisoners as slaves.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Are you saying FL has "selective literalness"?

Perish the thought.
Posted by: FrankH on Nov. 02 2009,11:00

For FL:

21:2  If thou buy an Hebrew servant, six years he shall serve: and in the seventh he shall go out free for nothing.
21:3 If he came in by himself, he shall go out by himself: if he were married, then his wife shall go out with him.
21:4 If his master have given him a wife, and she have born him sons or daughters; the wife and her children shall be her master's, and he shall go out by himself.
21:5  And if the servant shall plainly say, I love my master, my wife, and my children; I will not go out free:
21:6 Then his master shall bring him unto the judges; he shall also bring him to the door, or unto the door post; and his master shall bore his ear through with an aul; and he shall serve him for ever.

So if you give a slave a wife, and the slaves wife has kids, and the guy decides to go, he's free.  If not, then he stays with you forever as the master's property.

Tell me again how this coincides with your "biblical" bull shit Floyd.  I'm showing you right here that in the bible, if you have a slave, you can make them yours forever by giving them a wife and having them stay!

OBTWm Ex 21:16 has to do with crimes against family and neighbors, ie those in your village.  Yet again Floyd you ignorance of your own Bible is amazing!
Posted by: FrankH on Nov. 02 2009,11:04

1 Tim 1:9 - 10,

Well, 1:9 has nothing about slavery:
We also know that law[a] is made not for the righteous but for lawbreakers and rebels, the ungodly and sinful, the unholy and irreligious; for those who kill their fathers or mothers, for murderers,

But 1:10 doesn't like slaves traders as much as it doesn't like liars, which is you Floyd:
for adulterers and perverts, for slave traders and liars and perjurers—and for whatever else is contrary to the sound doctrine

So liars are despised as much as slave traders.  Nothing about slave masters or owners though, note that?
Posted by: FrankH on Nov. 02 2009,11:26

Quote (deadman_932 @ Nov. 02 2009,10:26)
The Bible doesn't condemn taking slaves forcibly. That would be kidnapping in any other context than war, and the Bible says that it's okay to take prisoners as slaves.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Like this?  Deut 21:10-13

10When thou goest forth to war against thine enemies, and the LORD thy God hath delivered them into thine hands, and thou hast taken them captive,

And seest among the captives a beautiful woman, and hast a desire unto her, that thou wouldest have her to thy wife;

Then thou shalt bring her home to thine house, and she shall shave her head, and pare her nails;

And she shall put the raiment of her captivity from off her, and shall remain in thine house, and bewail her father and her mother a full month: and after that thou shalt go in unto her, and be her husband, and she shall be thy wife.
Posted by: FrankH on Nov. 02 2009,11:31

Hey Floyd, you still wanna play "Let's quote the bible"?

How about this:

Judges 21:10-12

And the congregation sent thither twelve thousand men of the valiantest, and commanded them, saying, Go and smite the inhabitants of Jabeshgilead with the edge of the sword, with the women and the children.

And this is the thing that ye shall do, Ye shall utterly destroy every male, and every woman that hath lain by man.

And they found among the inhabitants of Jabeshgilead four hundred young virgins, that had known no man by lying with any male: and they brought them unto the camp to Shiloh, which is in the land of Canaan.
Posted by: FrankH on Nov. 02 2009,11:56

So Floyd, what's the best EVIDENCE FOR ID you can think of?

Remember, if my name is not "Mr. Brown", it doesn't automatically mean my name is "Mr. Smith".

For ID to have merit, it must stand on its own, not on the perceived weakness of Evolution.
Posted by: FloydLee on Nov. 02 2009,12:52



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
....for adulterers and perverts, for slave traders and liars and perjurers—and for whatever else is contrary to the sound doctrine. (1 Tim 1:10)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Good!  Now nobody has to play games anymore---you DO agree that slave trading is condemned by the Bible, and you DO agree that the NT openly called on slaves to take any opportunity they could get to free themselves.

You also agree that the EuroAmerican slavery show violated Biblical regulations regarding slavery, and you agree that Genesis says that all humans are created equal, and created in the image of God.

At this point we don't need to debate the Bible and slavery any longer.  You may have some other questions about it, so I'm supplying a historical resources

< http://bible-history.com/isbe/S/SLAVE%3B+SLAVERY/ >
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
If I have despised the cause of my manservant (ebed) or of my maidservant, when they contended with me; what then shall I do when God riseth up? And when he (God) visiteth, what shall I answer him?

Did not he that made me in the womb make him? And did not one fashion us in the womb (Job 31:13-15)?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: FrankH on Nov. 02 2009,13:05

Quote (FloydLee @ Nov. 02 2009,12:52)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
....for adulterers and perverts, for slave traders and liars and perjurers—and for whatever else is contrary to the sound doctrine. (1 Tim 1:10)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Good!  Now nobody has to play games anymore---you DO agree that slave trading is condemned by the Bible, and you DO agree that the NT openly called on slaves to take any opportunity they could get to free themselves.

You also agree that the EuroAmerican slavery show violated Biblical regulations regarding slavery, and you agree that Genesis says that all humans are created equal, and created in the image of God.

At this point we don't need to debate the Bible and slavery any longer.  You may have some other questions about it, so I'm supplying a historical resources

< http://bible-history.com/isbe/S/SLAVE%3B+SLAVERY/ >

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
If I have despised the cause of my manservant (ebed) or of my maidservant, when they contended with me; what then shall I do when God riseth up? And when he (God) visiteth, what shall I answer him?

Did not he that made me in the womb make him? And did not one fashion us in the womb (Job 31:13-15)?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


---------------------QUOTE-------------------


The NT holds that slave trading is bad.  Still owning a slave is not on the list, presumably as in the OT one gets their slaves from conquests.

Even in the OT selling of slaves other than one's daughters doesn't seem to be an issue.  So the NT specifically mentions Slave Traders, not Slave Owners.

You haven't provided jack shit there Floyd.  You didn't even know what 1 Timothy 1:10 said until I provided it for you!  Then you bring up another apologetic site that ignores the parts they don't like.

What about Judges?  What about Exodus?  What about the "giving a slave a wife"?  Again Floyd you lie.

The bible may condemn Slave Traders (who may resort to kidnapping, etc., to get their slaves) but nothing against Slave Ownership!  Are you really that dense?
Posted by: Dan on Nov. 02 2009,13:10

Quote (FloydLee @ Nov. 02 2009,12:52)
Good!  Now nobody has to play games anymore---
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Says FL as he plays word games.

Go back to what was said, FL.  The point was that this passage condemns slave traders but not slave owners.
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on Nov. 02 2009,13:17

Quote (FloydLee @ Nov. 02 2009,12:52)
You also agree that the EuroAmerican slavery show violated Biblical regulations regarding slavery, and you agree that Genesis says that all humans are created equal, and created in the image of God.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


"Biblical regulations regarding slavery"?

So, simple question FL.

Do these "biblical regulations" say

A) Owning slaves is bad, m'kay
B) Owning slaves is OK if you follow a set of regulations.

Or to put it another way, could the "EuroAmerican slavery show" have happened in such a way as to meet the "biblical regulations" you speak of?

< http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_Baptist_Convention >



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
The next generation of Baptist preachers accommodated themselves to the society. Rather than challenging the gentry on slavery, they began to interpret the Bible as supporting its practice. In the two decades after the Revolution, preachers abandoned their pleas that slaves be manumitted. Many Baptist preachers even wanted to preserve the rights of ministers themselves to be slaveholders. The Triennial Convention and the Home Mission Society reaffirmed their neutrality concerning slavery.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Were they Christians or not FL?
Posted by: FrankH on Nov. 02 2009,13:18

From FL's own URL he listed:

Gal 3:28). The Christian slaves and masters are both exhorted in Paul's letters to live godly lives and make Christ-like their relations one to the other--obedience to masters and forbearance with slaves. "Bondservants (m), be obedient unto .... your masters, .... as bondservants (m) of Christ .... And, ye masters .... forbear threatening: .... their Master and yours is in heaven, and there is no respect of persons with him" (Eph 6:5-9).

Showing that slavery was still in the NT and acceptable but the master had to be more "humane".
Posted by: FloydLee on Nov. 02 2009,13:35



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Or to put it another way, could the "EuroAmerican slavery show" have happened in such a way as to meet the "biblical regulations" you speak of?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Not possible at all. Too many biblical violations on TOP of the kidnapping game (which itself warranted the death penalty).

Consider this:  if God were to punish America (of that time period) for each slave who died in the Middle Passage, on a "life-for-life" basis, America may well have been WIPED OUT!!
Posted by: OgreMkV on Nov. 02 2009,13:39

Haven't we done this already?

I guess ID as science doesn't have a prayer.  I really wanted those questions answered too.  

Can we have more fun with Floyd then?

Hey Floyd, ever eat pork (including pork chops, bacon, canadian bacon, hot dogs, or pigs ears)?  That's literally forbidden in the bible...
Posted by: FloydLee on Nov. 02 2009,13:45



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
And, ye masters .... forbear threatening:
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Oooops......ANOTHER biblical violation by the Euro-Americans!!
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
.... their Master and yours is in heaven, and there is no respect of persons with him" (Eph 6:5-9).
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Double the violation.  

How many different ways does one need to explore the fact that the Bible does NOT endorse slavery???
Posted by: FloydLee on Nov. 02 2009,13:47



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Haven't we done this already?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Hey, I told these boys that we don't need to debate this slavery thing anymore.  Maybe you should tell 'em!
Posted by: OgreMkV on Nov. 02 2009,13:52

Guys, Floyd lost, he doesn't understand that he can't take the bible literally and figuratively at the same time.  He doesn't understand that he can't quote-mine the bible (well, I guess he can, but it would be frowned upon if there is a Judeo-Christian afterlife).

How about answering the question Floyd?  Ever eat a pepperoni pizza?
Posted by: nmgirl on Nov. 02 2009,13:54

Is english FL's first language?
Posted by: Robin on Nov. 02 2009,13:57

[quote=FloydLee,Oct. 31 2009,21:51][/quote]


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Or this example:
         

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
(Robin)
Even opinions from the likes of Mayr are just opinions and are not actual summations of the actual ToE.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

 
         

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
(Floyd)
So please provide me with these (ahem) "actual summations" that would negate and neutralize the published evolutionist statements that were specifically given for each of the Big Five Incompatibilities.  Thanks again!  
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Request not fulfilled at all, let alone timely.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Umm...Floyd? I provided it the same day, dork. Nice try on the evasion though.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Another request that wasn't answered at all (let alone timely):
         

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Here's 5 examples just to get started.

Futuyma, Mayr, Bozarth, Coyne, (and)
Whoever's currently teaching Biology 391 at the Univ. of Tenn. at Martin.

So, would you agree?  Are those professional evolutionist scientists there?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Even that one never actually got a straight answer.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



False. I provided a simple straight answer less than an hour later. You're lying again Floyd.




---------------------QUOTE-------------------
And here's a contradiction that was never actually resolved (let alone in timely manner) by you guys:        

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Here's a quotation from Deadman:
"The pontiff, speaking as he was concluding his holiday in northern Italy, also said that while there is much scientific proof to support evolution, the theory could not exclude a role by God."

Here's a quotation from Robin:
"The Pope accepts evolution under all conditions as he states...."
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Yep. Even demonstrated why it's true Floyd. You're lying again.
Posted by: FrankH on Nov. 02 2009,13:58

Quote (FloydLee @ Nov. 02 2009,13:47)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Haven't we done this already?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Hey, I told these boys that we don't need to debate this slavery thing anymore.  Maybe you should tell 'em!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Of course we don't need to debate this slavery thing, you have no position other than to accept defeat.  Slavery is sanctioned by your god.  Deal with it.

Now about ID:

What is the best evidence you have for ID?

Remember for ID to be a Theory, it must make predictions on its own and not rely on perceived flaws in something else.
Posted by: FloydLee on Nov. 02 2009,14:18



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
he can't quote-mine the bible
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Maybe you need to show me specifically where I quote-mined the Bible-----oh wait a minute, weren't you the one who was just complaining about not discussing ID?????

Guess you'll hafta make up your mind!
Posted by: Amadan on Nov. 02 2009,14:20

Quote (FrankH @ Nov. 02 2009,13:58)
Now about ID:

What is the best evidence you have for ID?

Remember for ID to be a Theory, it must make predictions on its own and not rely on perceived flaws in something else.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Expect:

1. clouds of biblical squid ink as Floyd digresses to avoid discussing science

2. "select" quotations (or ahem near-quotations) about science or ID, but nothing that can't be described as vicarious argumentation.

This thread should be required reading for every vulnerable young mind tempted to sign up for Bible college.
Posted by: OgreMkV on Nov. 02 2009,14:24

Quote (FloydLee @ Nov. 02 2009,14:18)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
he can't quote-mine the bible
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Maybe you need to show me specifically where I quote-mined the Bible-----oh wait a minute, weren't you the one who was just complaining about not discussing ID?????

Guess you'll hafta make up your mind!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Here's the full Eph 6:5-9

5Slaves, obey your earthly masters with respect and fear, and with sincerity of heart, just as you would obey Christ. 6Obey them not only to win their favor when their eye is on you, but like slaves of Christ, doing the will of God from your heart. 7Serve wholeheartedly, as if you were serving the Lord, not men, 8because you know that the Lord will reward everyone for whatever good he does, whether he is slave or free.
9And masters, treat your slaves in the same way. Do not threaten them, since you know that he who is both their Master and yours is in heaven, and there is no favoritism with him.

That's called quote-mining.  When you take a quote out of context and try to twist the words to mean what you want them to mean.

It's bad enough that you do so with science, but the bible?  What the heck kind of religion do you subscribe to?

By the way: Ever eaten pork ribs?

Now, please stop with the slavery.  Move on to ID... or is this the best you got?
Posted by: FrankH on Nov. 02 2009,14:25

Quote (FloydLee @ Nov. 02 2009,14:18)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
he can't quote-mine the bible
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Maybe you need to show me specifically where I quote-mined the Bible-----oh wait a minute, weren't you the one who was just complaining about not discussing ID?????

Guess you'll hafta make up your mind!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


A chance for you to lie and quote mind now in ID Floyd:

From here:

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Posted: Nov. 02 2009,11:56    
So Floyd, what's the best EVIDENCE FOR ID you can think of?

Remember, if my name is not "Mr. Brown", it doesn't automatically mean my name is "Mr. Smith".

For ID to have merit, it must stand on its own, not on the perceived weakness of Evolution.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: FrankH on Nov. 02 2009,14:40

Quote (Amadan @ Nov. 02 2009,14:20)
Quote (FrankH @ Nov. 02 2009,13:58)
Now about ID:

What is the best evidence you have for ID?

Remember for ID to be a Theory, it must make predictions on its own and not rely on perceived flaws in something else.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Expect:

1. clouds of biblical squid ink as Floyd digresses to avoid discussing science

2. "select" quotations (or ahem near-quotations) about science or ID, but nothing that can't be described as vicarious argumentation.

This thread should be required reading for every vulnerable young mind tempted to sign up for Bible college.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I find it only works on minds that have the capacity to do something other than parrot.

Floyd here takes whatever "shor fiah auntie-evilutionism" POS argument there is and wonders why his ass is grass.

I've seen too many "biblical bible thumper college idiots" here in the south to expect much of anything from those brain dead kids.
Posted by: FloydLee on Nov. 02 2009,14:46

Cmon guys, either show me a real quote-mine or go look up the term in Websters Remedial Online.  
You're wasting time here.
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
5Slaves, obey your earthly masters with respect and fear, and with sincerity of heart, just as you would obey Christ. 6Obey them not only to win their favor when their eye is on you, but like slaves of Christ, doing the will of God from your heart. 7Serve wholeheartedly, as if you were serving the Lord, not men, 8because you know that the Lord will reward everyone for whatever good he does, whether he is slave or free.
9And masters, treat your slaves in the same way.

Do not threaten them,

since you know that he who is both their Master and yours is in heaven, and there is no favoritism with him.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Please note:  In order for the highlighted portion to be a quotemine, you **MUST** (c'mon boys get this right!) show that the extended snippet you give here somehow negates or contradicts the point made by the highlighted portion.

Please do that right now or else let's move on.  

(Sheesh!!  Where did you guys attend skeptic-school?)
Posted by: OgreMkV on Nov. 02 2009,14:56

"not threatening slaves" assumes one has slaves

please note (and do try to read the entire section) that this passage is how slaves are expected to behave.

Floyd, ever have a ham steak?

You're the one wasting time.  Fine, I won't bring it up again.  Let's get onto ID is science:

Questions for you Floyd:

1) What is one hypothesis that ID proposes?
2) What is one prediction of ID that differs from evolutionary theory?  (In other words, what predictions made using ID would differ from predictions made from evolution.  PREDICTIONS, not statements like ‘live is designed’.)
3) Describe an experiment that could test this prediction (this test need not have been done yet).
4) What is one hypothesis of ID that has been tested and shown to be correct (this must have been tested)?
5) What is one piece of evidence that would falsify ID (in other words, what evidence proves ID to be incorrect)?
6) Dembski, Nelson, and Behe have both stated that ID as a scientific theory needs a lot of work and is not ready for the limelight.  How do you respond to that statement from three of the largest figures of ID theory?**

Now, if you can’t or won’t answer questions 1-5, then ID is not science and must (by definition) be excluded from any science class.  If can’t answer them correctly, ditto.

Please keep in mind that YOU want to argue SCIENCE, so you must argue using science’s rules.  Changing the definition of science is not a valid response.  Keep in mind that it has been tried, but those changes to science also allow the teaching of astrology and witchcraft in science classes (I don’t think you want that do you?  I can teach Wiccan.).

As I’m sure you’re aware (since you think Texas has such a great science program), 40% of all class time for any science class in Texas public schools must be ‘laboratory’.  

7)  Please describe a lab that my students could do that would show ID in action and be able to show that ID works.

Finally, regardless of your ability to articulate a valid argument or not, there is at least one, non-scientific problem with ID in the classroom.  At the present time, it is illegal.  In Kitzmiller vs. Dover, Judge Jones, a federal judge, declared ID not to be science and including it in a classroom violated the establishment clause of the first amendment.  Basically, it’s not only that it’s not science, but ID promotes a SPECIFIC religion and that is not allowed in public schools.  You can’t teach Christianity in school any more than I can teach Wiccan in school.  


**At a 2002 conference on Intelligent Design, leading ID scholar William Dembski said: “Because of ID’s outstanding success at gaining a cultural hearing, the scientific research part of ID is now lagging behind.”  http://www.iscid.org/papers/Dembski_DisciplinedScience_102802.pdf

And

ID theoretician Paul Nelson wrote in Touchstone, a Christian magazine: “We don’t have such a theory right now, and that’s a problem. Without a theory, it’s very hard to know where to direct your research focus. Right now, we’ve got a bag of powerful intuitions, and a handful of notions such as ‘irreducible complexity’ and ‘specified complexity’ – but, as yet, no general theory of biological design.”
< http://www.touchstonemag.com/archives/issue.php?id=76 >

And

“I quite agree that my argument against Darwinism does not add up to a logical proof,” he [Behe] says…  http://chem.tufts.edu/AnswersInScience/MasterPlanned.html
Posted by: dheddle on Nov. 02 2009,15:00

Quote (OgreMkV @ Nov. 02 2009,13:39)
Haven't we done this already?

I guess ID as science doesn't have a prayer.  I really wanted those questions answered too.  

Can we have more fun with Floyd then?

Hey Floyd, ever eat pork (including pork chops, bacon, canadian bacon, hot dogs, or pigs ears)?  That's literally forbidden in the bible...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Actually it is not illegal to eat pork, in the sense that it applies to any Christian. As an example of the mistake you are making, sacrificing animals for sin atonement is commanded in the OT but it would be an abomination and the mother-of-all blasphemes in the NT. You have to remember that the seminal event in Christian history, the incarnation, substitutional death and resurrection of Christ, means there was a phase shift between the OT and the NT. Why people think that there was not a radical difference from before Christ arrived and after he achieved redemption is--to say the least--puzzling.

Not to mention that, in this case, the NT literally states that all food is lawful.

And, not that I am especially happy about agreeing with FL, and not that I even know that I am because I will not be bothered to go back and read the previous posts, but just for a point of argument, the New Testament does not, at all, condone slavery.
Posted by: FrankH on Nov. 02 2009,15:01

Floyd drop the slavery thing, you lost, suck it up.  Again, since you're incapable of forming a thought of your own:

What is the best evidence you have for ID?

Remember for ID to be a Theory, it must make predictions on its own and not rely on perceived flaws in something else.
Posted by: FloydLee on Nov. 02 2009,15:05



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
"not threatening slaves" assumes one has slaves
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


The point is that Euro-Americans threatened their black slaves every day, thus violating the Bible every day and ultimately incurring God's wrath on America.  
Therefore the phrase"Not threatening slaves" obviously does NOT mean an endorsement of slavery.

Furthermore----there's [u]nothing[/i] in the larger passage you quoted that negates the specific point of the smaller "not threatening" phase.  Not even slightly.

***This phrase is NOT a quotemine.***  Let it go, guys.
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on Nov. 02 2009,15:06

Quote (FloydLee @ Nov. 02 2009,15:05)
 
Therefore the phrase"Not threatening slaves" obviously does NOT mean an endorsement of slavery.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Is it possible to own a slave and still be in accord with biblical morality ?
Posted by: FloydLee on Nov. 02 2009,15:09



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
And, not that I am especially happy about agreeing with FL, and not that I even know that I am because I will not be bothered to go back and read the previous posts, but just for a point of argument, the New Testament does not, at all, condone slavery.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Hmm.  Now to move on.  :)
Posted by: OgreMkV on Nov. 02 2009,15:10

Quote (dheddle @ Nov. 02 2009,15:00)
Quote (OgreMkV @ Nov. 02 2009,13:39)
Haven't we done this already?

I guess ID as science doesn't have a prayer.  I really wanted those questions answered too.  

Can we have more fun with Floyd then?

Hey Floyd, ever eat pork (including pork chops, bacon, canadian bacon, hot dogs, or pigs ears)?  That's literally forbidden in the bible...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Actually it is not illegal to eat pork, in the sense that it applies to any Christian. As an example of the mistake you are making, sacrificing animals for sin atonement is commanded in the OT but it would be an abomination and the mother-of-all blasphemes in the NT. You have to remember that the seminal event in Christian history, the incarnation, substitutional death and resurrection of Christ, means there was a phase shift between the OT and the NT. Why people think that there was not a radical difference from before Christ arrived and after he achieved redemption is--to say the least--puzzling.

Not to mention that, in this case, the NT literally states that all food is lawful.

And, not that I am especially happy about agreeing with FL, and not that I even know that I am because I will not be bothered to go back and read the previous posts, but just for a point of argument, the New Testament does not, at all, condone slavery.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I think the point is that if the bible is to be read literally, then there are significant problems with things that are OK in one context and not OK in another context.

If Floyd wants Genesis to be read as literal, then the entire OT must also be read as literal... which does include proscription against pork and taking of slaves.

He can't just pick and choose which part is to be taken literal and which part is not to be taken literal.  Unless, he exlains in great detail, what allows one part to be taken literally and the other part not to and how to tell the difference when it not explicitlly mentioned elsewhere in the bible.

But, that's a digression.  I agree.


Questions for you Floyd:

1) What is one hypothesis that ID proposes?
2) What is one prediction of ID that differs from evolutionary theory?  (In other words, what predictions made using ID would differ from predictions made from evolution.  PREDICTIONS, not statements like ‘live is designed’.)
3) Describe an experiment that could test this prediction (this test need not have been done yet).
4) What is one hypothesis of ID that has been tested and shown to be correct (this must have been tested)?
5) What is one piece of evidence that would falsify ID (in other words, what evidence proves ID to be incorrect)?
6) Dembski, Nelson, and Behe have both stated that ID as a scientific theory needs a lot of work and is not ready for the limelight.  How do you respond to that statement from three of the largest figures of ID theory?**

Now, if you can’t or won’t answer questions 1-5, then ID is not science and must (by definition) be excluded from any science class.  If can’t answer them correctly, ditto.

Please keep in mind that YOU want to argue SCIENCE, so you must argue using science’s rules.  Changing the definition of science is not a valid response.  Keep in mind that it has been tried, but those changes to science also allow the teaching of astrology and witchcraft in science classes (I don’t think you want that do you?  I can teach Wiccan.).

As I’m sure you’re aware (since you think Texas has such a great science program), 40% of all class time for any science class in Texas public schools must be ‘laboratory’.  

7)  Please describe a lab that my students could do that would show ID in action and be able to show that ID works.

Finally, regardless of your ability to articulate a valid argument or not, there is at least one, non-scientific problem with ID in the classroom.  At the present time, it is illegal.  In Kitzmiller vs. Dover, Judge Jones, a federal judge, declared ID not to be science and including it in a classroom violated the establishment clause of the first amendment.  Basically, it’s not only that it’s not science, but ID promotes a SPECIFIC religion and that is not allowed in public schools.  You can’t teach Christianity in school any more than I can teach Wiccan in school.  


**At a 2002 conference on Intelligent Design, leading ID scholar William Dembski said: “Because of ID’s outstanding success at gaining a cultural hearing, the scientific research part of ID is now lagging behind.”  http://www.iscid.org/papers/Dembski_DisciplinedScience_102802.pdf

And

ID theoretician Paul Nelson wrote in Touchstone, a Christian magazine: “We don’t have such a theory right now, and that’s a problem. Without a theory, it’s very hard to know where to direct your research focus. Right now, we’ve got a bag of powerful intuitions, and a handful of notions such as ‘irreducible complexity’ and ‘specified complexity’ – but, as yet, no general theory of biological design.”
< http://www.touchstonemag.com/archives/issue.php?id=76 >

And

“I quite agree that my argument against Darwinism does not add up to a logical proof,” he [Behe] says…  http://chem.tufts.edu/AnswersInScience/MasterPlanned.html
Posted by: FrankH on Nov. 02 2009,15:10

Quote (dheddle @ Nov. 02 2009,15:00)
And, not that I am especially happy about agreeing with FL, and not that I even know that I am because I will not be bothered to go back and read the previous posts, but just for a point of argument, the New Testament does not, at all, condone slavery.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I have no doubt it was not in favor of it, but like the NT changes the OT here, why is Floyd so insistent about the OT when it comes to Genesis but so willing to wipe away the OT when it comes to slavery?

Sounds like "selective reading" to me.
Posted by: FrankH on Nov. 02 2009,15:15

Quote (FloydLee @ Nov. 02 2009,15:09)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
And, not that I am especially happy about agreeing with FL, and not that I even know that I am because I will not be bothered to go back and read the previous posts, but just for a point of argument, the New Testament does not, at all, condone slavery.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Hmm.  Now to move on.  :)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Of course Floyd but please note, the NT does not Condemn Slavery either.
Posted by: dheddle on Nov. 02 2009,15:20

Quote (FrankH @ Nov. 02 2009,15:10)
 
Quote (dheddle @ Nov. 02 2009,15:00)
And, not that I am especially happy about agreeing with FL, and not that I even know that I am because I will not be bothered to go back and read the previous posts, but just for a point of argument, the New Testament does not, at all, condone slavery.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I have no doubt it was not in favor of it, but like the NT changes the OT here, why is Floyd so insistent about the OT when it comes to Genesis but so willing to wipe away the OT when it comes to slavery?

Sounds like "selective reading" to me.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Like I said I haven't gone back to read the posts from the month or longer I've been gone. But there is no question at all that as far as the OT is concerned it was acceptable, under the correct circumstances, for the Jews to own slaves. And to commit ethnic cleansing. And to stone homosexuals and adulterers. It's inescapable. The error I always fight is when someone argues that, according to the bible, those things must still be lawful for Christians, but our cafeteria-style selection process causes us to hypocritically ignore those inconvenient legalities--when in truth such things are manifestly illegal for all Christians.
Posted by: JohnW on Nov. 02 2009,15:23

Quote (OgreMkV @ Nov. 02 2009,13:10)
He can't just pick and choose which part is to be taken literal and which part is not to be taken literal.  Unless, he exlains in great detail, what allows one part to be taken literally and the other part not to and how to tell the difference when it not explicitlly mentioned elsewhere in the bible.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Actually, he can do this - it's what most Christians do, albeit less crudely than "pick and choose" implies.  

Of course, loss of the "I'm more literal than you" card would cause problems for his whole argument.  Most Christians accept that, if the bible says one thing and reality says another, a literal interpretation of the bible would be silly.  There aren't many Christians who think the Earth has four corners and rests on pillars.
Posted by: dheddle on Nov. 02 2009,15:25

Quote (FrankH @ Nov. 02 2009,15:15)
 
Quote (FloydLee @ Nov. 02 2009,15:09)
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
And, not that I am especially happy about agreeing with FL, and not that I even know that I am because I will not be bothered to go back and read the previous posts, but just for a point of argument, the New Testament does not, at all, condone slavery.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Hmm.  Now to move on.  :)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Of course Floyd but please note, the NT does not Condemn Slavery either.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Yes it does. The second greatest commandment for the Christian, and the first when it comes to how humans are to behave toward one another, is to love our neighbor as ourself. Slavery is manifestly incompatible with Jesus' primary instruction for human relations.
Posted by: Richardthughes on Nov. 02 2009,15:29

Quote (dheddle @ Nov. 02 2009,15:25)
Quote (FrankH @ Nov. 02 2009,15:15)
 
Quote (FloydLee @ Nov. 02 2009,15:09)
   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
And, not that I am especially happy about agreeing with FL, and not that I even know that I am because I will not be bothered to go back and read the previous posts, but just for a point of argument, the New Testament does not, at all, condone slavery.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Hmm.  Now to move on.  :)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Of course Floyd but please note, the NT does not Condemn Slavery either.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Yes it does. The second greatest commandment for the Christian, and the first when it comes to how humans are to behave toward one another, is to love our neighbor as ourself. Slavery is manifestly incompatible with Jesus' primary instruction for human relations.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Nice of God to change his mind.  :)
Posted by: khan on Nov. 02 2009,15:31

Where in the OT or NT does anyone say that slavery might not be a good idea?
Posted by: FrankH on Nov. 02 2009,15:33

Quote (dheddle @ Nov. 02 2009,15:25)
Quote (FrankH @ Nov. 02 2009,15:15)
Quote (FloydLee @ Nov. 02 2009,15:09)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
And, not that I am especially happy about agreeing with FL, and not that I even know that I am because I will not be bothered to go back and read the previous posts, but just for a point of argument, the New Testament does not, at all, condone slavery.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Hmm.  Now to move on.  :)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Of course Floyd but please note, the NT does not Condemn Slavery either.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Yes it does. The second greatest commandment for the Christian, and the first when it comes to how humans are to behave toward one another, is to love our neighbor as ourself. Slavery is manifestly incompatible with Jesus' primary instruction for human relations.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Color it however you want.  I disagree it condemns slavery.  Slave traders, yes.  Jesus also said that he was to reinforce the Laws of Moses, not repeal them.

Seems to me that the NT told the Slave Master to "Love" their slaves.

But then again, I also think that any literal reading of the NT and OT if they ever two parts for some god, shows a bi-polar god.
Posted by: OgreMkV on Nov. 02 2009,15:33

Quote (JohnW @ Nov. 02 2009,15:23)
Quote (OgreMkV @ Nov. 02 2009,13:10)
He can't just pick and choose which part is to be taken literal and which part is not to be taken literal.  Unless, he exlains in great detail, what allows one part to be taken literally and the other part not to and how to tell the difference when it not explicitlly mentioned elsewhere in the bible.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Actually, he can do this - it's what most Christians do, albeit less crudely than "pick and choose" implies.  

Of course, loss of the "I'm more literal than you" card would cause problems for his whole argument.  Most Christians accept that, if the bible says one thing and reality says another, a literal interpretation of the bible would be silly.  There aren't many Christians who think the Earth has four corners and rests on pillars.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Hmmm... I agree with this.  And some Christians will take the parts that they want about God's love and leave the rest or whatever it is they want to say.  (I could go on about which parts get left for a bit...)

Anyway, I also agree with you that in FLoyd's situation, he's made the case that you can't pick and choose which parts of the Bible are literal.  He's stated that all of it is...

Which (BTW Floyd) is why ID is not science and not allowed in my classroom.  Because it promotes a specific religion over other religions violating the establishment clause of the US Constitution.
Posted by: Richardthughes on Nov. 02 2009,15:33

Quote (dheddle @ Nov. 02 2009,15:25)
Quote (FrankH @ Nov. 02 2009,15:15)
 
Quote (FloydLee @ Nov. 02 2009,15:09)
   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
And, not that I am especially happy about agreeing with FL, and not that I even know that I am because I will not be bothered to go back and read the previous posts, but just for a point of argument, the New Testament does not, at all, condone slavery.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Hmm.  Now to move on.  :)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Of course Floyd but please note, the NT does not Condemn Slavery either.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Yes it does. The second greatest commandment for the Christian, and the first when it comes to how humans are to behave toward one another, is to love our neighbor as ourself. Slavery is manifestly incompatible with Jesus' primary instruction for human relations.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


That's a nice endorsement for homosexuality, then.

You can't pick and choose, Dave.
Posted by: dheddle on Nov. 02 2009,15:52

Quote (FrankH @ Nov. 02 2009,15:33)
 
Quote (dheddle @ Nov. 02 2009,15:25)
   
Quote (FrankH @ Nov. 02 2009,15:15)
   
Quote (FloydLee @ Nov. 02 2009,15:09)
   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
And, not that I am especially happy about agreeing with FL, and not that I even know that I am because I will not be bothered to go back and read the previous posts, but just for a point of argument, the New Testament does not, at all, condone slavery.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Hmm.  Now to move on.  :)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Of course Floyd but please note, the NT does not Condemn Slavery either.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Yes it does. The second greatest commandment for the Christian, and the first when it comes to how humans are to behave toward one another, is to love our neighbor as ourself. Slavery is manifestly incompatible with Jesus' primary instruction for human relations.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Color it however you want.  I disagree it condemns slavery.  Slave traders, yes.  Jesus also said that he was to reinforce the Laws of Moses, not repeal them.

Seems to me that the NT told the Slave Master to "Love" their slaves.

But then again, I also think that any literal reading of the NT and OT if they ever two parts for some god, shows a bi-polar god.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Actually he never said that. And in effect he replaced them all (Moses' laws) with a fuller revelation of the law. Moses' law against adultery got replaced, in a direct statement, by Jesus' law against lust. Moses' law against murder, in a direct statement, by Jesus' law against hate. Moses' law on divorce was effectively replaced with: never. Laws on tithing were replaced by: give what you can joyfully, or don't even bother. Moses' pattern "Don't do this or that" was in fact entirely abandoned, replaced by Jesus' tougher laws concerned what you think rather than what you do or don't do.

The law that maintains each jot and tittle is Jesus' law, not Moses'. Following the pattern, the OT is a type or shadow of the NT. If you take the time to study Jesus' law, as his teaching on what is sin, which is quite different from the Mosaic law, and if you understand Paul's proper emphasis on the true gospel as opposed to an imaginary social gospel--then you can grasp why there is no explicit condemnation of slavery. If you are interested, I have a small post on this subject < here. >

It is not a bi-polar God, but one who demonstrated through the Jews that even the most privileged nation will not be able to save itself through obedience. That a savior was necessary or all are lost.
Posted by: Lou FCD on Nov. 02 2009,15:57

The contortions of language and logic necessary to maintain the illusion of a non-self-contradictory Bible always amuse me.

Please continue.
Posted by: khan on Nov. 02 2009,16:04

Quote (Lou FCD @ Nov. 02 2009,16:57)
The contortions of language and logic necessary to maintain the illusion of a non-self-contradictory Bible always amuse me.

Please continue.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Beyond pretzel logic.

< http://www.bettybowers.com/bettybowersbible.jpg >
Posted by: FloydLee on Nov. 02 2009,16:07



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
What is one hypothesis that ID proposes?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


This one......

Have you read Gonzalez's and Richards' book The Privileged Planet? It's an excellent book, and the film version of it was even shown at the Smithsonian Institution.  

It presents one variety of the Intelligent Design hypothesis that's known as the cosmological or "fine-tuning" ID hypothesis.  

The fact that our universe, our galaxy, our solar system, our planet, our EVERYTHING, is so very finely tuned in dozens of ways, leads to a rational inference that our universe (including solar system, planet Earth, etc) is the product of intelligent design.

And in their book, Gonzalez and Richards specifically write about how to Falsify their ID hypothesis.
 


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
"The most decisive way to falsify our argument as a whole would be to find a distant and very different environment, which, while quite hostile to life, nevertheless offers a superior platform for making as many diverse scientific discoveries as does our local environment.

"The opposite of this would have the same effect—finding an extremely habitable and inhabited place that was a lousy platform for observation.

"Less devastating but still relevant, would be discoveries that contradict individual parts of our argument. Most such discoveries would also show that the conditions for habitability of complex life are much wider and more diverse than we claim.

"For instance, discovering intelligent life inside a gas giant with an opaque atmosphere, near an X-ray emitting star in the Galactic center, or on a planet without a dark night would do it serious damage.

"Or take a less extreme example. We suggested in Chapter 1 that conditions that produce perfect solar eclipses also contribute to the habitability of a planetary environment.

"Thus, if intelligent extraterrestrial beings exist, they probably enjoy good to perfect solar eclipses.
However, if we find complex, intelligent, indigenous life on a planet without a largish natural satellite, this plank in our argument would collapse.

"Our argument presupposes that all complex life, at least in this universe, will almost certainly be based on carbon.

"Find a non-carbon based life form, and one of our presuppositions collapses. It’s clear that a number of discoveries would either directly or indirectly contradict our argument.

"Similarly, there are future discoveries that would count in favor of it. Virtually any discovery in astrobiology is likely to bear on our argument one way or the other. If we find still more strict conditions that are important for habitability, this will strengthen our case."

---pages 314-315
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


So now, we clearly have a scientifically falsifiable ID hypothesis.   It can be falsified via observation.  This ID hypothesis is a scientific hypothesis.

In an Evolution News And Views article, Jay Richards and Jonathan Witt quote the above snippet from the Privileged Planet book, as well as offering clarifying comments on what terms like "testable" and "falsification" mean:


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
"Empirical testability" is the genus, of which falsification and confirmation are species. Something is empirically testable when it is either falsifiable, confirmable, or both.

< http://www.evolutionnews.org/2006....ca.html >  
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



***

"Science is all about what is testable, not necessarily what is naturalistic."  (chemist Dr. John Millam.)  

I'm just bumping this all up for convenience as I try to post on it.  Anyway, you do have your ID hypothesis there Ogre.
Posted by: rossum on Nov. 02 2009,16:10

Quote (OgreMkV @ Nov. 02 2009,15:10)
6) Dembski, Nelson, and Behe have both stated that ID as a scientific theory needs a lot of work and is not ready for the limelight.  How do you respond to that statement from three of the largest figures of ID theory?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You left out Philip Johnson:

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I also don’t think that there is really a theory of intelligent design at the present time to propose as a comparable alternative to the Darwinian theory, which is, whatever errors it might contain, a fully worked out scheme. There is no intelligent design theory that’s comparable. Working out a positive theory is the job of the scientific people that we have affiliated with the movement. Some of them are quite convinced that it’s doable, but that’s for them to prove... No product is ready for competition in the educational world.

< Berkley Science Review (Spring 2006) >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Make that four of the largest figures in ID.
Posted by: dheddle on Nov. 02 2009,16:21

Lou,

Why contortions? It is only so if you view Jesus as an intercalation. That there was a “before”, then a period when Jesus was around, and then after he was gone we more or less we went back. But I would argue that is not only the improper way to view redemptive history—but that it should not make sense to anyone, even biblical and Christian critics. I would argue that it should be obvious to anyone who studies Christianity, even unbelievers, that Christianity self-consistently holds that when Christ said: it is finished that everything changed radically. It does not mean the OT is worthless, not by a long shot, for it presents, through God’s dealings with the Jews, the context of Jesus’ arrival and his ministry and a clear picture of man’s depravity. But is means that the OT described a way for a now extinct nation and a specific race to live, and the NT describes a way for Christians to live, and there is not reason whatsoever for the two to align.

FL,

I kind of enjoyed the Privileged Planet and don’t believe that Gonzalez and Richards made any gross errors in the book. With at least one obvious exception—the so-called falsifiability claims. These are not scientific falsifiability arguments. They are of the “I double dare you” type challenge, which has no place in science. Examples can be found on both sides of the evolution/ID-debate. “You can falsify irreducible complexity, just demonstrate how the flagellum evolved.” Or “You can falsify evolution, just find a Precambrian rabbit.” Scientific falsifiability does not follow this pattern. We don't say: "If Al Sharpton ever floats off the planet then gravity is falsified." The scientific pattern is this one: If you do this experiment with this equipment and you get result A then my theory is falsified. None of the Gonzalez and Richards test follow the accepted pattern used by scientists. They resemble the Al Sharpton pattern.

EDIT: typo correction. (And then some more.)
Posted by: JohnW on Nov. 02 2009,16:22

Quote (FloydLee @ Nov. 02 2009,14:07)
And in their book, Gonzalez and Richards specifically write about how to Falsify their ID hypothesis.
 
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
"The most decisive way to falsify our argument as a whole would be to find a distant and very different environment, which, while quite hostile to life, nevertheless offers a superior platform for making as many diverse scientific discoveries as does our local environment.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I went through this earlier, but here it is again for you to ignore a second time:

1.  How do we define "diverse scientific discoveries"?
2.  Can we count them?  If so, show us your list.
3.  How do we define "distant and very different environment"?
4.  How do we count the "diverse scientific discoveries" we haven't made, but which could be made elsewhere?

ETA: I agree with Heddle's "Al Sharpton" example also.  Gonzales and Richards are saying their hypothesis holds water unless we can say otherwise.  Similarly, if we watched Rev. Al long enough and closely enough, we might see him levitate a little bit.  Therefore there is no such thing as gravity.
Posted by: Wesley R. Elsberry on Nov. 02 2009,16:24

I've tried to educate FL, among other IDC advocates, concerning what falsifiability is. The message never seems to get through.
Posted by: OgreMkV on Nov. 02 2009,16:31

Please describe, in detail, what observations in this universe can be made that differentiate between design and evolution.
Posted by: Lou FCD on Nov. 02 2009,16:40

Quote (dheddle @ Nov. 02 2009,17:21)
Lou,

Why contortions? It is only so if you view Jesus as an intercalation. That there was a “before”, then a period when Jesus was around, and then after he was gone we more or less we went back. But I would argue that is not only the improper way to view redemptive history—but that it should not make sense to anyone, even biblical and Christian critics. I would argue that it should be obvious to anyone who studies Christianity, even unbelievers, that Christianity self-consistently holds that when Christ said: it is finished that everything changed radically. It does not mean the OT is worthless, not by a long shot, for it presents, through God’s dealings with the Jews, the context of Jesus’ arrival and his ministry and a clear picture of man’s depravity. But is means that the OT described a way for a now extinct nation and a specific race to live, and the NT describes a way for Christians to live, and there is not reason whatsoever for the two to align.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Thank you, Heddle. I appreciate your indulging me, but I was really directing my remarks to Tardbucket. I'll try to remember to be more specific in the future.
Posted by: nmgirl on Nov. 02 2009,16:51

Quote (JohnW @ Nov. 02 2009,16:22)
Quote (FloydLee @ Nov. 02 2009,14:07)
And in their book, Gonzalez and Richards specifically write about how to Falsify their ID hypothesis.
 
   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
"The most decisive way to falsify our argument as a whole would be to find a distant and very different environment, which, while quite hostile to life, nevertheless offers a superior platform for making as many diverse scientific discoveries as does our local environment.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I went through this earlier, but here it is again for you to ignore a second time:

1.  How do we define "diverse scientific discoveries"?
2.  Can we count them?  If so, show us your list.
3.  How do we define "distant and very different environment"?
4.  How do we count the "diverse scientific discoveries" we haven't made, but which could be made elsewhere?

ETA: I agree with Heddle's "Al Sharpton" example also.  Gonzales and Richards are saying their hypothesis holds water unless we can say otherwise.  Similarly, if we watched Rev. Al long enough and closely enough, we might see him levitate a little bit.  Therefore there is no such thing as gravity.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I would add a #5:
How do you define a "superior platform"?
Posted by: FloydLee on Nov. 02 2009,17:42



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Anyway, I also agree with you that in FLoyd's situation, he's made the case that you can't pick and choose which parts of the Bible are literal.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Here's the deal.  You can't just pick and choose which parts of the Bible are NON-literal, either.  (Like arbitrarily and falsely claiming that Genesis is non-literal, for example!)

Here's a simple rule for you to determine when to interpret something literally, and when to interpret something non-literally.


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Literal is a commitment that the meanings expressed in a biblical text are true and have reference to what is real unless the context indicates otherwise.

Literal is an expectation that the words are meant to be understood and used in their primary, matter-of-fact sense unless the context indicates otherwise.

-----Elliott E. Johnson
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


There you go.  It's considered literal "unless the context indicates otherwise."  

(Incidentally, even the OEC astronomer Dr. Hugh Ross subscribes to this rule of interpretation.  You don't even have to be a YEC!!)

Okay, so now you have a simple, easy way to make some responsible biblical interpretative decisions, Ogre.  

Remember, even the Mosaic dietary laws you were talking about, are very literal.  Check the text and context, you'll see that's true.  Those were literal commandments, not metaphors or allegories, that were given to the nation of Israel by Moses.

However (1) those dietary laws were directed to specific people at a specific time period, and

(2) the Mosaic dietary laws, ceremonial laws, etc, were fulfilled in Jesus Christ, which is why it's okay for Christians (those who trust and accept Jesus Christ as their personal Lord and Savior) to eat hot dogs (preferably with mustard).


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
For every creature of God is good, and nothing is to be refused, if it is received with thanksgiving;  for it is sanctified by the word of God and prayer.   (1 Tim. 4:4-5)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


That answers all your stuff about pork and pepperoni.  All done on that; let's keep moving.

FloydLee
Posted by: OgreMkV on Nov. 02 2009,17:49

BTW: I love how mealy mouthed that justification is.  "In context" that's rich coming from you.  

There is one other alternative.  The whole thing is non-literal, which is where I and I think most everyone else is.  Personally, I'd submit that the whole thing is out of context for today.

You've already admitted you don't have to read the entire Bible as literal to be a Christian, therefore everything you've argued for over the last 90 odd pages is moot.

Enough.  I think we've all seen enough.

Now, You have to defend ID as science.  Go!
Posted by: Albatrossity2 on Nov. 02 2009,18:22

Quote (FloydLee @ Nov. 02 2009,17:42)
the Mosaic dietary laws, ceremonial laws, etc, were fulfilled in Jesus Christ...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


One of the things that really kills me about religious folks is that they can say things like that and apparently believe that it actually makes sense.

It doesn't make sense at all. What does "fulfilled" mean here? How do you "fulfill" dietary dictates by simply ignoring them? When did JC discuss these laws, and how did he justify ignoring/fulfilling them?

Just reading that sentence a few times shows me how totally useless it would be to try to discuss anything with someone who could say that and not comprehend that it makes no sense at all!
Posted by: JohnW on Nov. 02 2009,18:37

Quote (FloydLee @ Nov. 02 2009,15:42)
Here's a simple rule for you to determine when to interpret something literally, and when to interpret something non-literally.
   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Literal is a commitment that the meanings expressed in a biblical text are true and have reference to what is real unless the context indicates otherwise.

Literal is an expectation that the words are meant to be understood and used in their primary, matter-of-fact sense unless the context indicates otherwise.

-----Elliott E. Johnson
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


There you go.  It's considered literal "unless the context indicates otherwise."  
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I think you meant this:

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Literal is a commitment that the meanings expressed in a biblical text are true and have reference to what is real unless Floyd Lee indicates otherwise.

Literal is an expectation that the words are meant to be understood and used in their primary, matter-of-fact sense unless Floyd Lee indicates otherwise.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: Chayanov on Nov. 02 2009,22:35

Quote (Albatrossity2 @ Nov. 02 2009,18:22)
 
Quote (FloydLee @ Nov. 02 2009,17:42)
the Mosaic dietary laws, ceremonial laws, etc, were fulfilled in Jesus Christ...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


One of the things that really kills me about religious folks is that they can say things like that and apparently believe that it actually makes sense.

It doesn't make sense at all. What does "fulfilled" mean here? How do you "fulfill" dietary dictates by simply ignoring them? When did JC discuss these laws, and how did he justify ignoring/fulfilling them?

Just reading that sentence a few times shows me how totally useless it would be to try to discuss anything with someone who could say that and not comprehend that it makes no sense at all!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Well, there's Matthew 5:17-18:

"Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.

For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled."

Oh wait. That actually argues the opposite. I don't know where they get it from.
Posted by: Richardthughes on Nov. 02 2009,23:00

Ŕ la carte Christianity.
Posted by: Chayanov on Nov. 02 2009,23:04

Quote (Richardthughes @ Nov. 02 2009,23:00)
Ŕ la carte Christianity.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


It's like a buffet of dogma.

"I'll have the hating gays and oppression of women, but pass on not eating pork and don't mix fabrics."
Posted by: dvunkannon on Nov. 02 2009,23:30

Quote (dheddle @ Nov. 02 2009,16:25)
Quote (FrankH @ Nov. 02 2009,15:15)
 
Quote (FloydLee @ Nov. 02 2009,15:09)
   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
And, not that I am especially happy about agreeing with FL, and not that I even know that I am because I will not be bothered to go back and read the previous posts, but just for a point of argument, the New Testament does not, at all, condone slavery.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Hmm.  Now to move on.  :)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Of course Floyd but please note, the NT does not Condemn Slavery either.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Yes it does. The second greatest commandment for the Christian, and the first when it comes to how humans are to behave toward one another, is to love our neighbor as ourself. Slavery is manifestly incompatible with Jesus' primary instruction for human relations.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


And yet, Paul seems to let slavery slide past. How do you read Philemon? (Ans. Very quickly!)
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Nov. 02 2009,23:38

Quote (FloydLee @ Nov. 02 2009,14:35)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Or to put it another way, could the "EuroAmerican slavery show" have happened in such a way as to meet the "biblical regulations" you speak of?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Not possible at all. Too many biblical violations on TOP of the kidnapping game (which itself warranted the death penalty).

Consider this:  if God were to punish America (of that time period) for each slave who died in the Middle Passage, on a "life-for-life" basis, America may well have been WIPED OUT!!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


and you know what, Fold?

every single one of those slaveowners is DEAD.

that's right!  WIPED OUT.

now, I say that right there could be my God acting indirectly.  and you say that it's YOUR God, by God, and YOUR God don't do no sissy in-di-rect-ly kind of acting.

how would we resolve this?

I say that God punished America (of that time period) for each slave who died in the Middle Passage, on a "life-forlife" basis!  America may well have been WIPED OUT!!.  

And the fact that this is TRUE, BABY*, means that God did punish America for violating the biblical regulations and that it could have been biblical but fallen man could not keep to God's plan.  And then he killed them all, some really slowly.

*Is this ID science yet?
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Nov. 02 2009,23:38

and by the way, answer my question please
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Nov. 02 2009,23:48

Quote (FloydLee @ Nov. 02 2009,14:45)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
And, ye masters .... forbear threatening:
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Oooops......ANOTHER biblical violation by the Euro-Americans!!
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
.... their Master and yours is in heaven, and there is no respect of persons with him" (Eph 6:5-9).
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Double the violation.  

How many different ways does one need to explore the fact that the Bible does NOT endorse slavery???
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


hey Fold i could see you probably being the kind of guy who likes to say with big moo cow eyes and all pouty faced "but some slaves loved their masters and they were very good to them"

blink blink

right?  so heck i mean you know some of those guys with all the nice friendly masters where they all slept in the same bed and sang campfire songs in the yard and stuff, they were doing it biblically?

is THAT what you are saying?  because i don't know you'll climb way way way up in a damn tree and tell a lie rather than kick the dust spit and tell the truth standing on the ground.  that's all i know, you're a damn fraud as far as i can see.
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Nov. 02 2009,23:50

hey tell you what floyd, i shouldn't comment as i try to catch up on the thread.  you just put themmar questions in that pile over thar in the corner where you flung all my other ones.  mebbe for a rainy day or suntin
Posted by: didymos on Nov. 02 2009,23:53

Quote (FloydLee @ Nov. 02 2009,15:42)
(Incidentally, even the OEC astronomer Dr. Hugh Ross subscribes to this rule of interpretation.  You don't even have to be a YEC!!)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Fantastic. The context there in Genesis is apparently so ambiguous one can still be "literal" and arrive at one of two ages....which only differ by a measly 4.5 or so billion fucking years.  But evolution, well, that shit is right out.  You know..'cause of the context. Makes perfect sense...to the intellectually cauterized.
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Nov. 02 2009,23:58

Quote (JohnW @ Nov. 02 2009,19:37)
 
Quote (FloydLee @ Nov. 02 2009,15:42)
Here's a simple rule for you to determine when to interpret something literally, and when to interpret something non-literally.
       

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Literal is a commitment that the meanings expressed in a biblical text are true and have reference to what is real unless the context indicates otherwise.

Literal is an expectation that the words are meant to be understood and used in their primary, matter-of-fact sense unless the context indicates otherwise.

-----Elliott E. Johnson
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


There you go.  It's considered literal "unless the context indicates otherwise."  
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I think you meant this:

     

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Literal is a commitment that the meanings expressed in a biblical text are true and have reference to what is real unless Floyd Lee indicates otherwise.

Literal is an expectation that the words are meant to be understood and used in their primary, matter-of-fact sense unless Floyd Lee indicates otherwise.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


---------------------QUOTE-------------------


haaaaahahahahaha

let this thread be proof that the expansion of  (postmoderns + batshit fundie) = raving nutter indistinguishable from asylum resident

frikking context, eh, jackie?  whooooooaaaaahahahaha!!  context!  hear that?  this boy said "Hit varries!"  ahahaaaaaahahahahahaha

well fuck you too lollipop!!!  You loved WW2!1!
Posted by: FrankH on Nov. 03 2009,03:38

Quote (dheddle @ Nov. 02 2009,15:52)
Quote (FrankH @ Nov. 02 2009,15:33)
Quote (dheddle @ Nov. 02 2009,15:25)
Quote (FrankH @ Nov. 02 2009,15:15)
   
Quote (FloydLee @ Nov. 02 2009,15:09)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
And, not that I am especially happy about agreeing with FL, and not that I even know that I am because I will not be bothered to go back and read the previous posts, but just for a point of argument, the New Testament does not, at all, condone slavery.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Hmm.  Now to move on.  :)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Of course Floyd but please note, the NT does not Condemn Slavery either.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Yes it does. The second greatest commandment for the Christian, and the first when it comes to how humans are to behave toward one another, is to love our neighbor as ourself. Slavery is manifestly incompatible with Jesus' primary instruction for human relations.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Color it however you want.  I disagree it condemns slavery.  Slave traders, yes.  Jesus also said that he was to reinforce the Laws of Moses, not repeal them.

Seems to me that the NT told the Slave Master to "Love" their slaves.

But then again, I also think that any literal reading of the NT and OT if they ever two parts for some god, shows a bi-polar god.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Actually he never said that. And in effect he replaced them all (Moses' laws) with a fuller revelation of the law. Moses' law against adultery got replaced, in a direct statement, by Jesus' law against lust. Moses' law against murder, in a direct statement, by Jesus' law against hate. Moses' law on divorce was effectively replaced with: never. Laws on tithing were replaced by: give what you can joyfully, or don't even bother. Moses' pattern "Don't do this or that" was in fact entirely abandoned, replaced by Jesus' tougher laws concerned what you think rather than what you do or don't do.

The law that maintains each jot and tittle is Jesus' law, not Moses'. Following the pattern, the OT is a type or shadow of the NT. If you take the time to study Jesus' law, as his teaching on what is sin, which is quite different from the Mosaic law, and if you understand Paul's proper emphasis on the true gospel as opposed to an imaginary social gospel--then you can grasp why there is no explicit condemnation of slavery. If you are interested, I have a small post on this subject < here. >

It is not a bi-polar God, but one who demonstrated through the Jews that even the most privileged nation will not be able to save itself through obedience. That a savior was necessary or all are lost.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


So Jesus didn't come to strengthen God's laws as said by Moses?  Wow.

That sarcasm wasn't meant for you but all of the literalists out there, like Floyd.  So often we hear how the OT is literal and that "Jesus said Mosaic Law is 100% right" .

Personally, I don't know what Jesus said or didn't say or if he was real and not just some amalgamation of different people, faiths and superstitions.

One thing I do know though is that the different writers of the NT seem to downplay the Communistic/Socialistic words of Jesus as do many of his most strenuous adherents today.

As to a "bipolar god", if one reads the bible literally, I think that is what one comes up with when comparing the OT to the NT, literally.  Then again as the whole thing was written by men with their own ideas on how things should be, one should expect to see what was "good in the day" being extolled as "righteousness".
Posted by: Dan on Nov. 03 2009,05:27

Quote (FloydLee @ Nov. 02 2009,17:42)
There you go.  [The Bible is] considered literal "unless the context indicates otherwise."
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Just what I've been saying.  The context of Genesis 1 is a creation myth, so it should not be considered literal.  The context of Genesis 2 is a morality tale, so it should not be considered literal either.

The contradiction between the two is not fatal, just as the contradiction between two Shakespeare plays is not fatal.  The plays of Shakespeare are fictional, and thus can get to the deeper truths than "name, rank, and serial number".  Same goes for the Bible.
Posted by: FloydLee on Nov. 03 2009,09:28



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
The context there in Genesis is apparently so ambiguous
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


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

The Genesis creation account is clearly talking about six literal 24-hour days in which God created.  Multiple times, for example I have posted the following explanation and analysis from Dr. Robert McCabe to that effect, and not one of you has refuted it, or even made the attempt.

< http://www.dbts.edu/journals/2000/mccabe.pdf >

So yeah, the Genesis text is quite clear; it's not ambiguous.  As McCabe points out, nobody even started trying to interpret the biblical days of creation as any kind of long pro-evolution "deep time" ages, until Darwin heated things up with his challenges.  

IOW, "Old-Earth" is not what the biblical data itself points to.

Make no mistake though:  OEC Hugh Ross is still an excellent creationist and evangelical Christian apologist (and in fact I'm hoping to post today a small snip of his famous list of cosmological "fine tuning coincidences" that greatly helped establish the cosmo-ID hypothesis).

FloydLee
Posted by: OgreMkV on Nov. 03 2009,09:46

Floyd, this would be a fascinating discussion... except that it's very off topic.

I've given you 7 questions (plus another one suggested by someone else) to help you in your defense that ID is science.

That was at least 3 days ago (Friday if I recall correctly).  So far you have presented one 'theoretical' claim, that unfortunately cannot be differentiated from what mainstream science presents (that would be the 9th question).

Why don't we just go there?  If you choose to not go there, why not (10th question)?
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on Nov. 03 2009,09:54

Quote (FloydLee @ Nov. 03 2009,09:28)
As McCabe points out, nobody even started trying to interpret the biblical days of creation as any kind of long pro-evolution "deep time" ages, until Darwin heated things up with his challenges.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


And what does that prove, exactly?

Nobody even started to question the "fact" that the sun revolves around the earth until somebody started to question the "fact" that the sun revolves around the earth.

So what? Should all such questioning stop in case the answerers  happens to contradict the bible?

Why don't you go live in a cave with the other cavemen? That's where you and yours would have us all...
Posted by: Richardthughes on Nov. 03 2009,09:59

Quote (Dan @ Nov. 03 2009,05:27)
Quote (FloydLee @ Nov. 02 2009,17:42)
There you go.  [The Bible is] considered literal "unless the context indicates otherwise."
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Just what I've been saying.  The context of Genesis 1 is a creation myth, so it should not be considered literal.  The context of Genesis 2 is a morality tale, so it should not be considered literal either.

The contradiction between the two is not fatal, just as the contradiction between two Shakespeare plays is not fatal.  The plays of Shakespeare are fictional, and thus can get to the deeper truths than "name, rank, and serial number".  Same goes for the Bible.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Dan, you're just rationalizing your picking and choosing. How about this - it's all a *fictional* morality tale.

Why would the omnipotent use such an imprecise and ambiguous medium?
Posted by: FloydLee on Nov. 03 2009,10:21



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I've given you 7 questions
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


And the first one, the most important one, was directly answered.  From there, the only task is to show that it's a scientific hypothesis.  That, in turn, is a matter of establishing falsifiability.  Just following the scientific method.  (Saves time.)

Doesn't really matter if mainstream scientists like Dr. Gonzalez present it, or if other mainstream scientists have already presented the hypothesis.
Posted by: OgreMkV on Nov. 03 2009,10:25

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

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

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

You're right, the scientific method works.
Posted by: OgreMkV on Nov. 03 2009,10:27

sorry

'C' should be "C) the only (or one of a few) universes out of an infinite number in which life like ours evolved"
Posted by: OgreMkV on Nov. 03 2009,10:35

Quote (JohnW @ Oct. 31 2009,01:18)
Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 30 2009,13:26)
And in their book, Gonzalez and Richards specifically write about how to Falsify their ID hypothesis.
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
The most decisive way to falsify our argument as a whole would be to find a distant and very different environment, which, while quite hostile to life, nevertheless offers a superior platform for making as many diverse scientific discoveries as does our local environment.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


---------------------QUOTE-------------------


In addition to the many other objections raised, this core "decisive way" to test the Privileged Planet hypothesis is not a scientific test at all, and merely provides a foundation for future waffling.  

To make this a meaningful test, we first need to count the number of diverse scientific discoveries it's possible to make in our local environment.  Actually, cancel that.  What's a "diverse scientific discovery"?  (Special and general relativity: one diverse scientific discovery, or two?)  What's the "local environment"?  (Earth?  Inner Solar System?  Arms of a spiral galaxy?)

OK, so we need to define our terms.
Then we need to count our discoveries.  
Then we need a methodology for determining how many discoveries are possible in other environments - which are hostile to life, so we can't just ask the locals.

Sounds straightforward to me.  Let's see your data, Floyd.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


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

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

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

Therefore that part can never be met.

Try again.
Posted by: FrankH on Nov. 03 2009,10:42

Quote (FloydLee @ Nov. 03 2009,10:21)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I've given you 7 questions
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

And the first one, the most important one, was directly answered.  From there, the only task is to show that it's a scientific hypothesis.  That, in turn, is a matter of establishing falsifiability.  Just following the scientific method.  (Saves time.)

Doesn't really matter if mainstream scientists like Dr. Gonzalez present it, or if other mainstream scientists have already presented the hypothesis.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Do you even know the difference, in science not vox populi, between Postulate, Hypothesis and Theory?

Also, are you even aware that the famous "laws of physics" are based on Classical, not modern Physics?

Do you even know what "falsifiability" is?
Posted by: FrankH on Nov. 03 2009,10:54

For a quick summation (please those of you "evilutionists" with more info than I feel free to jump in) of Falsifying ToE and predictions ToE makes:

Falsification:
Dogs giving birth (naturally) to cats
A Rabbit in the petrified gut of a T-Rex
Closely related species having no common DNA

Predictions:
Closer the species, the more commonality their respective DNA will be.
Those individuals in a population most likely to survive and propagate are those who a selective "edge" (the oft totally mis-quoted "survival of the fittest" which is actually "survival of the ones with the best adaptation to do so")
Mechanisms for genetic change and drift.

There.  I'm no biologist but even I cam come up with a few things that will falsify evolution and even offered predictions for ToE.

Your turn for ID.
Posted by: FrankH on Nov. 03 2009,11:15

Quote (Richardthughes @ Nov. 03 2009,09:59)
Dan, you're just rationalizing your picking and choosing. How about this - it's all a *fictional* morality tale.

Why would the omnipotent use such an imprecise and ambiguous medium?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


An omni-anything caring creator deity would be more than willing to come down every generation or more and let people really know what it expects of them.

Leaving fragments that people squabble and fight to the death over even when they read what is the same book is not the sign, to me at least, of what the bible says about its god.
Posted by: deadman_932 on Nov. 03 2009,11:51

Quote (FloydLee @ Nov. 02 2009,08:45)
Okay, I see the thread's still open.  Thanks, and my apologies, had to shift gears because of illness situation again.

Top priority for today is to answer that one post from Deadman, with other comments as best I can.  In and out today.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You still haven't done this, Floaty.
Posted by: deadman_932 on Nov. 03 2009,12:07

Quote (deadman_932 @ Oct. 30 2009,23:39)
The "fine-tuning" argument or Strong Anthropic Principle (SAP) has some major problems when applied to "inferences for god". It also contains a large number of fallacies that disqualify it as a valid scientific hypothesis -- especially one that provides evidential support for deities (which is what you're supposed to be supporting, Flody.)

1.) Tautology.  
2.) Argumentam ad Ignorantiam
3.) Assumed conclusions
4.) Post hoc ergo propter hoc
5.) God of the Gaps  
6.) Improper use of "falsification"
7.) Purely subjective criteria for "falsification"
8.) Gonzalez' claims don't constitute a valid scientific research program FOR THE INVESTIGATION OF SUPERNATURAL DEITIES and cannot distinguish Gods from "Aliens from the planet Glurrgh"
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



I compiled some objections to your use of Gonzalez' "fine tuning" claims, Floaty. These go back five days ago (Oct.30) ...you still haven't answered them.
Posted by: Constant Mews on Nov. 03 2009,12:10

Let's lay out Floyd's principle difficulty.

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

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

Period.

Does it bother you to realize that you are lying in order to save face?  That you have put your ego on a pedestal above God?
Posted by: JonF on Nov. 03 2009,12:31

Quote (FloydLee @ Nov. 03 2009,10:28)
As McCabe points out, nobody even started trying to interpret the biblical days of creation as any kind of long pro-evolution "deep time" ages, until Darwin heated things up with his challenges.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Bullshit.

It was obvious to educated people back in the middle-to-end of the eighteenth century, including loads of ordained ministers, that the Earth was far older than circa 10,000 years. They didn't have very good tools for estimating how much older, but the lowest estimates were in the many millions of years.

< Pre-1900 Non-Religious Estimates of the Age of the Earth >
< History of the Collapse of "Flood Geology" and a Young Earth >
Posted by: FloydLee on Nov. 03 2009,12:39



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


But that notion was NOT coming from the Bible texts themselves.  That's the difference.
Posted by: FrankH on Nov. 03 2009,12:46

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


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

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


Again we see that Floyd is far too happy to answer these types of questions rather than providing evidence for ID.

Oh and Floyd, I agree with you 100% here.  There is nothing in a "selectively read literal bible" as you do that says anything about the age of the Earth.
Posted by: Henry J on Nov. 03 2009,13:05

Cosmological ID and biological ID are two different concepts, so bringing in cosmological when the subject matter of this thread was biological, was changing the subject.

Henry
Posted by: deadman_932 on Nov. 03 2009,13:13

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

Henry
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Thanks, Henry. I'm sure other people can add in other objections to the list, too:

1.) Tautology.  
2.) Argumentam ad Ignorantiam
3.) Assumed conclusions
4.) Post hoc ergo propter hoc
5.) God of the Gaps  
6.) Improper use of "falsification"
7.) Purely subjective criteria for "falsification"
8.) Gonzalez' claims don't equal a valid scientific research program for the investigation of supernatural deities and can't distinguish Gods from "Aliens from the planet Glurrgh"
9.) The subject matter of this thread was evolution v. biological ID -- bringing up Gonzalez' cosmological ID = shifting goalposts.
Posted by: FrankH on Nov. 03 2009,13:16

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

Henry
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


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

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

and more!
Posted by: Richardthughes on Nov. 03 2009,13:24

Quote (deadman_932 @ Nov. 03 2009,13:13)
7.) Purely subjective criteria for "falsification"
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


That'd be Floydification.
Posted by: Henry J on Nov. 03 2009,13:51

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

Henry
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


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

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

and more!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


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

Well, maybe not those last two?
Posted by: Robin on Nov. 03 2009,14:20

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

---------------------QUOTE-------------------




---------------------QUOTE-------------------


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


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



Yo Twinky Weeper - the notion was not coming from "pro- evolution" or Darwin propostion either, contrary to the nonsense you stated earlier.
Posted by: JonF on Nov. 03 2009,14:40

Quote (FloydLee @ Nov. 03 2009,13:39)


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


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


The source of their realized knowledge doesn't matter. They either always interpreted the Bible texts figuratively, or they started to do so as soon as they realized that a literal interpretation of the Bible texts was flat-out wrong (as is required to make the Bible texts conform to the real world). Either way, they interpreted the biblical days of creation as long "deep time" ages long before Darwin was a twinkle in his father's eye.
Posted by: Robin on Nov. 03 2009,14:53

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

---------------------QUOTE-------------------




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

Henry
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


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

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

and more!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


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

Well, maybe not those last two?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Oh their in there too, at least according to Greg Bahsen and other such presuppostional apologists and pastor Doug Wilson who's currently promoting his "discussion" with Christopher Hitchens.
Posted by: Henry J on Nov. 03 2009,15:18

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


I doubt if J-Dog wants him. ;)
Posted by: jupiter on Nov. 03 2009,16:19

Quote (FloydLee @ Nov. 02 2009,08:56)
   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I don't take them seriously as philosophical texts or moral precepts or recipes for meatloaf or anything other than what they are—personal testimonies.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


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

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


Floyd, YET AGAIN you're not getting it.

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

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

But hey, knock yourself out. Like I said, everyone needs a hobby. Shine on, you fundy diamond.
Posted by: FloydLee on Nov. 03 2009,16:48

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

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

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

What sort of observations?  Well, observed items like:



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




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


In fact, they point out:


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

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

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


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

Such is the way science works.

FloydLee
Posted by: deadman_932 on Nov. 03 2009,17:00

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

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

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

What sort of observations?  Well, observed items like:

       

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


       

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


In fact, they point out:
       

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

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

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


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

Such is the way science works.

FloydLee
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


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

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

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

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

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

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

What Gonzalez is doing is merely pandering to his fan base -- and he's NOT doing science.
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on Nov. 03 2009,17:12

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

FloydLee
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Then the obvious question to ask yourself is why scientists are not convinced?
Posted by: JohnW on Nov. 03 2009,17:20



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


For example, the miraculous way in which puddles are exactly the right shape to fit the holes they sit in.  The odds against this happening by chance are astronomical.
Posted by: FloydLee on Nov. 03 2009,17:46

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

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

---------------------QUOTE-------------------

strong nuclear force constant

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

if smaller: no elements other than hydrogen

weak nuclear force constant

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

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

gravitational force constant

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

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

electromagnetic force constant

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

if smaller: insufficient chemical bonding

ratio of electromagnetic force constant to gravitational force constant

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

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

ratio of electron to proton mass

if larger: insufficient chemical bonding

if smaller: insufficient chemical bonding

ratio of number of protons to number of electrons

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

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

expansion rate of the universe

if larger: no galaxy formation

if smaller: universe collapses prior to star formation

entropy level of the universe

if larger: no star condensation within the proto-galaxies

if smaller: no proto-galaxy formation

mass density of the universe

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

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

average distance between galaxies

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

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

galaxy cluster type

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

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

average distance between stars

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

if smaller: planetary orbits would become destabilized

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

if larger: no stars more than 0.7 solar masses

if smaller: no stars less than 1.8 solar masses

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

decay rate of the proton

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

if smaller: insufficient matter in the universe for life

12C to 16O nuclear energy level ratio

if larger: insufficient oxygen

if smaller: insufficient carbon

ground state energy level for 4He

if larger: insufficient carbon and oxygen

if smaller: insufficient carbon and oxygen

decay rate of 8Be

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

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

mass excess of the neutron over the proton

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

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

polarity of the water molecule

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

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

supernovae eruptions

if too close: radiation would exterminate life on the planet

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

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

if too frequent: life on the planet would be exterminated

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

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

white dwarf binaries

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

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

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

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

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



Just food 4 thought, that's all.

FloydLee
Posted by: deadman_932 on Nov. 03 2009,17:51

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

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

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

"Just food 4 thought, that's all."
Posted by: didymos on Nov. 03 2009,18:14

Quote (FloydLee @ Nov. 03 2009,07:28)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
The context there in Genesis is apparently so ambiguous
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


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


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

See Floyd, you have two options here:

1.  Admit that:

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

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



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

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

Edited: forgot part of quote
Posted by: OgreMkV on Nov. 03 2009,18:21

He also hasn't answered...

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

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

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

You're right, the scientific method works.

and


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

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

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

Therefore that part can never be met.



Of course, FLoyd doesn't have any original ideas and can only parrot those that stole them from someone in the 1800s when this idea originated.
Posted by: didymos on Nov. 03 2009,18:40

BTW, Floyd, it's even worse when we consider the universe as a whole rather than just the Earth.  The discrepancy then becomes one of 13-14 billion years. You stilll wish to claim that Ross follows your rules of "literal" interpretation?
Posted by: Amadan on Nov. 03 2009,18:56

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

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

---------------------QUOTE-------------------

strong nuclear force constant

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

if smaller: no elements other than hydrogen

weak nuclear force constant

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

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

gravitational force constant

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

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

electromagnetic force constant

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

if smaller: insufficient chemical bonding

ratio of electromagnetic force constant to gravitational force constant

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

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

ratio of electron to proton mass

if larger: insufficient chemical bonding

if smaller: insufficient chemical bonding

ratio of number of protons to number of electrons

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

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

expansion rate of the universe

if larger: no galaxy formation

if smaller: universe collapses prior to star formation

entropy level of the universe

if larger: no star condensation within the proto-galaxies

if smaller: no proto-galaxy formation

mass density of the universe

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

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

average distance between galaxies

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

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

galaxy cluster type

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

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

average distance between stars

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

if smaller: planetary orbits would become destabilized

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

if larger: no stars more than 0.7 solar masses

if smaller: no stars less than 1.8 solar masses

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

decay rate of the proton

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

if smaller: insufficient matter in the universe for life

12C to 16O nuclear energy level ratio

if larger: insufficient oxygen

if smaller: insufficient carbon

ground state energy level for 4He

if larger: insufficient carbon and oxygen

if smaller: insufficient carbon and oxygen

decay rate of 8Be

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

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

mass excess of the neutron over the proton

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

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

polarity of the water molecule

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

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

supernovae eruptions

if too close: radiation would exterminate life on the planet

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

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

if too frequent: life on the planet would be exterminated

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

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

white dwarf binaries

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

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

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

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

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



Just food 4 thought, that's all.

FloydLee
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Are you suggesting that these are improbable, Floyd?

Compared to what, precisely?
Posted by: Dan on Nov. 03 2009,20:18

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


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


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


That's the difference between what and what?
Posted by: Lou FCD on Nov. 03 2009,20:24

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

FloydLee
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


As if you had the vaguest fucking clue as to how science works, Tardbucket.
Posted by: Henry J on Nov. 03 2009,22:09



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Are you suggesting that these are improbable, Floyd?

Compared to what, precisely?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


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

Henry
Posted by: Henry J on Nov. 03 2009,22:57

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

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

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

Henry
Posted by: Constant Mews on Nov. 03 2009,23:40

Let's lay out Floyd's principle difficulty.

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

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

Period.

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

Floyd - answer this question:

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

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

Christians - educated, intelligent Christians - can accept evolution rationally and with full understanding both of scripture and of evolutionary theory and of Christian doctrine, because Christian doctrine does not require that they adhere to a literal understanding of Genesis.
Posted by: Amadan on Nov. 04 2009,02:40

Quote (Henry J @ Nov. 03 2009,22:09)
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Are you suggesting that these are improbable, Floyd?

Compared to what, precisely?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


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

Henry
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Az der bubbe vot gehat baytzim vot zie geven mein zayde, as Auntie Livnat used to say.
Posted by: Quack on Nov. 04 2009,05:22



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Floyd - answer this question:

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


IMHO, Luke 10:25 - 28 says all that needs to be said about that, but I am afraid FL ha painted himself into a corner.
Posted by: FloydLee on Nov. 04 2009,06:55



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


Already refuted (from the book, ahemm) your claim that Dr. Gonzalez assumed his conclusions.   You could at least acknowledge that much.
Posted by: FloydLee on Nov. 04 2009,06:57



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Christianity is not based on Biblical literalism.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Quick question CM:  in the Bible, was Jesus'sResurrection literal or non-literal?
Posted by: FloydLee on Nov. 04 2009,07:07



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Admit Ross doesn't follow your idiosyncratic interpretive "principles"
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You know, it sounds like you're completely unfamiliar with what OEC Dr. Hugh Ross has written.  So tell me....what do you think of THIS?
   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
1.  The Bible must be taken literally unless the context indicates otherwise.

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

3.  The universe was both transcendentally and supernaturally created.

4.  Naturalism cannot explain the origin of life.

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

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

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

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

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

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


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


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

FloydLee
Posted by: FloydLee on Nov. 04 2009,07:13



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Cosmological "ID" is still a different subject from biological "ID",
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


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

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

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

FloydLee
Posted by: FloydLee on Nov. 04 2009,07:22



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


Please explain how the cosmological ID presentation in Gonzalez and Richard's book/film "The Privileged Planet" promotes "a specific religion over other religions."
(Btw, exactly what specific religion?)
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on Nov. 04 2009,07:28

Quote (FloydLee @ Nov. 04 2009,07:22)


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


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


Christianity.
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on Nov. 04 2009,07:33

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


William Dembski
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Intelligent design is just the Logos theology of John's Gospel restated in the idiom of information theory
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



< http://rationalwiki.com/wiki/William_Dembski >

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

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

< http://uncommondescent.com/ >

< Search of UncommonDescent for "Jesus" >

Therefore ID's designer = The Christian god, as shown by their very own words.
Posted by: FloydLee on Nov. 04 2009,07:33



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


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

So, at your convenience?
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on Nov. 04 2009,07:34

FL, Do you think that "Cosmological ID" and "Biological ID" have different designers?

On what basis?
Posted by: FrankH on Nov. 04 2009,07:35

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


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Cosmological "ID" is still a different subject from biological "ID",
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

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

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

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

FloydLee
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Uh, no.

In REAL science, Cosmology is a different science than Biology.

But I guess in biblical literalism, as everything comes from the bible, they would be the same.

I guess it is another reason Floyd can't handle reality.
Posted by: FloydLee on Nov. 04 2009,07:56



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Intelligent design is just the Logos theology of John's Gospel restated in the idiom of information theory
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


If the ID hypothesis (either cosmo or bio) survives falsification, the hypothesis would naturally tend to lend some measure of rational, philosophical support to theism, and likewise rationally subtract a measure of rational, philosophical support from atheism.  

That theism can be as simple as Gen. 1:1 or it can be a theism as simple (but not quite as simple) as John's NT statements about the Logos.
Either way ID, if it survives falsification, will tend to lend rational support to theism.

But that's what follows IF it survives falsification.

The fact is, neither Dembski's ID hypothesis (you will need to see his 1999 book Intelligent Design for an exact 3-point description of his ID hypothesis),
nor Gonzalez' and Richard's cosmo ID hypothesis from "The Privileged Planet",
pre-assume or require or claim ANY religious beliefs, any religious texts, or existence of God or any other deities, at any point of their respective ID hypotheses.

Therefore neither Dembski's ID hypothesis nor Gonzalez and Richard's ID hypothesis are "promoting Christianity" or even promoting any specific religion for that matter.  

Both YEC and OEC start with the texts of the Bible and their claims.  They don't start with observation, they start by assuming that certain Bible claims are true.

Gonzalez and Richard's specific cosmo ID hypothesis, starts with empirical observation not religious assumptions, and goes from there.  See the difference?

FloydLee
Posted by: Robin on Nov. 04 2009,07:59

Quote (FloydLee @ Nov. 04 2009,06:55)

---------------------QUOTE-------------------




---------------------QUOTE-------------------


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


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



LOL! Umm...negative Floyd. There is no question that Gonzalez assumes his conclusions AND starts with a faulty premise. He assumes that there must be a reason this universe is fined tuned and assumes that reason is humans, but there is no evidence this universe is fine tuned (there's no other universes to compare it to...for all Gonzalez knows EVERY universe MUST have these parameters) and there's no evidence humans had to exist.
Posted by: OgreMkV on Nov. 04 2009,08:11

OK FLoyd.  I'll bite...

please tell me, in detail, what evidence would falsify ID.  No wait, that's a stupid question because there is no ID hypothesis.  The only thing that would falsify it is some outragous statement like, 'if we didn't exist'.

You bring up Dembski.  How do you answer HIS charge that ID is not really science?  How about Behe's statement that ID doesn't have a research program (you'd think he's be leading it, but no).

Why is that your book 'Privileged Planet' is the font of all scientific knowledge and thousands of books that say something else are not... oh wait, they don't say 'godidit'.  So nevermind.

Floyd, have you read the transcripts of the Dover/Kitzmiller case?  It is quite obvious to anyone who is not seeped in fundamentalism that ID is based on Judeochristian mythology.

Would you like me teaching Wiccan in public schools?

BTW: You haven't answered the question "What is the difference between the 'priviliged planet' 'hypothesis' and the same result from any of previously listed scenarios.  i.e. what can we test to find out which is correct?
Posted by: dheddle on Nov. 04 2009,08:16

Quote (Robin @ Nov. 04 2009,07:59)
Quote (FloydLee @ Nov. 04 2009,06:55)

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
   

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


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



LOL! Umm...negative Floyd. There is no question that Gonzalez assumes his conclusions AND starts with a faulty premise. He assumes that there must be a reason this universe is fined tuned and assumes that reason is humans, but there is no evidence this universe is fine tuned (there's no other universes to compare it to...for all Gonzalez knows EVERY universe MUST have these parameters) and there's no evidence humans had to exist.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Actually there is compelling evidence that our universe is fine-tuned, if by fine-tuned you mean (what I mean): that the possibility of any kind of life at all is very sensitive to the values of the physical constants.

Or, more mundanely, the ability of our universe to produce rocks appears to rest on a razor's edge.

Using that definition it is more or less universally accepted that our universe is fine-tuned.
Posted by: FloydLee on Nov. 04 2009,08:38



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
You bring up Dembski.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


No, Oldman brought up Dembski.  I merely responded to him.  But I am not attempting to debate about Dembski in this thread.  Only Gonzalez and Richards' cosmo-ID hypothesis.
Posted by: deadman_932 on Nov. 04 2009,09:12

Quote (FloydLee @ Nov. 04 2009,06:55)
 

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


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


I'll acknowledge that you certainly dd not refute what I stated and you haven't addressed the criticisms I raised 6 days ago.

This was my response to your most recent post directed at me, Floaty:
 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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



This also remains unaddressed by you, along with that larger set of criticisms I mentioned previously.
Posted by: Doc Bill on Nov. 04 2009,09:16

Then, FL, you agree with Gonzalez that the universe is 13.7 billion years old.

Yes?
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on Nov. 04 2009,09:29

Quote (Doc Bill @ Nov. 04 2009,09:16)
Then, FL, you agree with Gonzalez that the universe is 13.7 billion years old.

Yes?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


An excellent point.

FL, please proceed to ignore this question.
Posted by: deadman_932 on Nov. 04 2009,09:40

Quote (dheddle @ Nov. 04 2009,08:16)
Actually there is compelling evidence that our universe is fine-tuned, if by fine-tuned you mean (what I mean): that the possibility of any kind of life at all is very sensitive to the values of the physical constants.

Or, more mundanely, the ability of our universe to produce rocks appears to rest on a razor's edge.

Using that definition it is more or less universally accepted that our universe is fine-tuned.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I'll agree (with reservations) with that view. It IS seemingly "weird." I've used the latter statement you cited to illustrate the "weirdness" of the universe, however, I think most physicists would also concede a couple of points, too:

1) Even the phrase "fine-tuning" has an anthropomorphic bent -- to be "tuned" strikes a chord of agency which leads to Gonzalez or Floyd leaping to an unwarranted culturally-derived conclusion of a hidden deistic "tunER" that "just happens" to be their God.

2) the same set of "fine-tunings" has been used to suggest support for multiple cosmologic models -- multiverse (e.g. Paul Davies) , "holographic" universes (Bohm) or even Kafatos' "Concious Universe" -- none of which require or neccessitate the kind of personalized deistic agent as presumed by Gonzalez.  

So far as I can see, Gonzalez is still using an underlying set of mundane facts to leap to a presumed conclusion. I'd hope we can also agree on that as well, Mr. Heddle.
Posted by: FloydLee on Nov. 04 2009,10:51



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


1. "preassumed."  

Refuted.  No evidence of any pre-assumptions in the book itself.  Their hypothesis starts with observations and data, not assumptions.

2.  "subjective."

Refuted.  Fine tuning cosmo and planetary situations have been empirically observed.  Many many times, btw.  
They're just going off what has been observed already, and were themselves careful to distinguish between well-observed phenomena, less-well-observed, reasonably theoretical, and speculative.

3.  "argumentum ad ignorantium."

Hardly.  We humans ARE astonishingly well-placed for the huge astronomical discoveries we make.  That's not ignorance, that's what we know scientifically.  Taken together with all the other fine tuning facts, one could rationally infer design instead of accident.

Check out this one little co-inky-dink, one of many:
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
"Thanks to its large, angular size, the Moon occults many stars along its path.  In this way, the Earth-Moon system acts like a giant telescope, allowing astronomers to resolve objects normally to small or close together to measure from the ground.

A slow angular speed of a moon across its host planet's sky, like our own, allows for more detailed measurements.  This method works best with a large moon without an atmosphere--which produces a crisp, knife-edge sharp edge on its limb--orbiting far from its host planet (but not too far, because the smaller a moon is, the fewer stars it occults over a month.) [

---pg 110
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


No wonder Earth is called the privileged planet!!

FloydLee
Posted by: rossum on Nov. 04 2009,10:55

Quote (dheddle @ Nov. 04 2009,08:16)
Or, more mundanely, the ability of our universe to produce rocks appears to rest on a razor's edge.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


The universe is better tuned for rocks than it is for us.  The greatest part of the universe is interstellar and intergalactic space which in extremely inhospitable for us but hospitable for rocks.  Rocks can survive in the cold and anoxic conditions that occupy 99.99% of the universe, while we cannot.

We are merely an an unintended consequence of a universe designed to be hospitable for rocks.

rossum
Posted by: FloydLee on Nov. 04 2009,10:56



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Then, FL, you agree with Gonzalez that the universe is 13.7 billion years old.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Yes?

Nope.  Not at all.   Fortunately, his cosmological ID hypothesis does not require agreement with old-age.  The fine-tuning appears whether you like "Old" or "Young."
Posted by: OgreMkV on Nov. 04 2009,10:58

Floyd, you're forgetting that if we weren't so 'well placed' then we wouldn't have the observations that let us assume we are well placed.

The assumption here is that human life is the end-all-be-all of the universe.  It's an unwritten assumption, but it is there never-the-less.

Again, what information would falsify this statement?
What experiment could be done to differentiate this statement from any of the four or so that have been presented as equivalent?

That's why it's not science.
Posted by: Robin on Nov. 04 2009,11:01

Quote (FloydLee @ Nov. 04 2009,07:33)

---------------------QUOTE-------------------




---------------------QUOTE-------------------


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


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

So, at your convenience?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Burden of proof fallacy. It is incumbant upon Gonzalez to demonstrate that Y is an entailed consequence of X. Gonzalez et al did not do so, hence the reason that their argument is question begging.
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on Nov. 04 2009,11:04

Quote (FloydLee @ Nov. 04 2009,10:56)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Then, FL, you agree with Gonzalez that the universe is 13.7 billion years old.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Yes?

Nope.  Not at all.   Fortunately, his cosmological ID hypothesis does not require agreement with old-age.  The fine-tuning appears whether you like "Old" or "Young."
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


So, once again you pick and choose.

Tell me FL, what requirement is there for fine-tuning when your deity made everything as is just 6000 years ago?

I mean, you seem to disagree with Gonzalez that the planet is fine tuned for life. You don't need to fine tune something when you can create it exactly as you require in the first place.

Gonzalez would not have been able to write the same book if he believed the earth was only 6000 years old, yet you somehow think that does not matter.

Amazing.
Posted by: OgreMkV on Nov. 04 2009,11:04

Quote (rossum @ Nov. 04 2009,10:55)
The universe is better tuned for rocks than it is for us.  The greatest part of the universe is interstellar and intergalactic space which in extremely inhospitable for us but hospitable for rocks.  Rocks can survive in the cold and anoxic conditions that occupy 99.99% of the universe, while we cannot.

We are merely an an unintended consequence of a universe designed to be hospitable for rocks.

rossum
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I'd make the arguement that the universe is expressly designed for hydrogen.  There is more of that in more places than any other atom.  

Of course, we could also make the point that the universe is expressly designed for gravity... if humans can ever create/control gravity, then the arguement could be made that we are just are part of the grand plan to promote gravity.

See, we can make up stuff all day too.  And none of it science, even though it's said by a sciencist (more or less).
Posted by: nmgirl on Nov. 04 2009,11:10

Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Nov. 04 2009,11:04)
Quote (FloydLee @ Nov. 04 2009,10:56)
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Then, FL, you agree with Gonzalez that the universe is 13.7 billion years old.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Yes?

Nope.  Not at all.   Fortunately, his cosmological ID hypothesis does not require agreement with old-age.  The fine-tuning appears whether you like "Old" or "Young."
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


So, once again you pick and choose.

Tell me FL, what requirement is there for fine-tuning when your deity made everything as is just 6000 years ago?

I mean, you seem to disagree with Gonzalez that the planet is fine tuned for life. You don't need to fine tune something when you can create it exactly as you require in the first place.

Gonzalez would not have been able to write the same book if he believed the earth was only 6000 years old, yet you somehow think that does not matter.

Amazing.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


"amazing" is not the word I would use for FL's thought process.  pathetic-yes, amazing-no!
Posted by: Robin on Nov. 04 2009,11:20

Quote (dheddle @ Nov. 04 2009,08:16)

---------------------QUOTE-------------------




---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Quote (Robin @ Nov. 04 2009,07:59)
 
Quote (FloydLee @ Nov. 04 2009,06:55)

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
   

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


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



LOL! Umm...negative Floyd. There is no question that Gonzalez assumes his conclusions AND starts with a faulty premise. He assumes that there must be a reason this universe is fined tuned and assumes that reason is humans, but there is no evidence this universe is fine tuned (there's no other universes to compare it to...for all Gonzalez knows EVERY universe MUST have these parameters) and there's no evidence humans had to exist.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Actually there is compelling evidence that our universe is fine-tuned, if by fine-tuned you mean (what I mean): that the possibility of any kind of life at all is very sensitive to the values of the physical constants.

Or, more mundanely, the ability of our universe to produce rocks appears to rest on a razor's edge.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



The problem is that such a concept is a reversal of logic. Instead of if P then Q the above is Q therefore assume P. But that doesn't work because you don't actually know that Q is the only condition that can be a result from P. Further, you don't even know what P is necessarily. Here's the logic:

A universe with life as we know it exists. This universe could only occur given a narrow range around the parameters we have. Therefore it must be fine-tuned. But you don't actually know what the range of possible universe arrangements could be. This universe could very well be with a range of possible arrangementst that would occur 99.99999999999% of the time, in which case this universe is anything BUT fined tuned. The other problem is the same issue a lot of folks have with respect to perspectives on islands. That is, this universe is supposedly fine-tuned only if you look at it from the perspective of "life as we know it" having to exist. Similarly, as Roy Scheider said in the movie Jaws, "An island is only an island if you look at it from the water". There's nothing that requires humans or any other life to be here; that just happens to be true. So assessing this universe as being fine-tuned for life is erroneous. It's no different than saying that water must be fine-tuned for sand since sand exists around almost all water on our world. Clearly it's actually the other way around in that case, and it's likely the other way around for life as well - it is logical to conclude that life is fine-tuned for the conditions of this universe and not the reverse.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Using that definition it is more or less universally accepted that our universe is fine-tuned.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Maybe, but it really isn't logical to hold that definition.
Posted by: dheddle on Nov. 04 2009,11:25

Quote (rossum @ Nov. 04 2009,10:55)
Quote (dheddle @ Nov. 04 2009,08:16)
Or, more mundanely, the ability of our universe to produce rocks appears to rest on a razor's edge.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


The universe is better tuned for rocks than it is for us.  The greatest part of the universe is interstellar and intergalactic space which in extremely inhospitable for us but hospitable for rocks.  Rocks can survive in the cold and anoxic conditions that occupy 99.99% of the universe, while we cannot.

We are merely an an unintended consequence of a universe designed to be hospitable for rocks.

rossum
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Maybe. But the point is that any universe that can produce life must be able to produce rocks. And our universe, it would (at least at the moment) appear, just barely produces rocks. That gives it a shot at supporting life. Whether life is improbable in such a universe I couldn't say--but without the rocks, there will be no life.
Posted by: Amadan on Nov. 04 2009,11:26

Quote (FloydLee @ Nov. 04 2009,10:51)
Refuted.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



No Floyd, you supplied a rebuttal, and a pretty lame one too. A refutation addresses and overturns the opponent's argument, which you have not done.

   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
 No evidence of any pre-assumptions in the book itself.  Their hypothesis starts with observations and data, not assumptions.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



You yourself state their hypothesis (< here) > in these terms:

   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
The fact that our universe, our galaxy, our solar system, our planet, our EVERYTHING, is so very finely tuned in dozens of ways, leads to a rational inference that our universe (including solar system, planet Earth, etc) is the product of intelligent design.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



To state as a fact that our universe etc "is so very finely tuned" is a 'pre-assumption' (remember that word, Floyd?) that they were "finely tuned". Or do you have evidence that universes etc tend not to be like ours? Does that lead you believe that the conditions in ours (and not, of course, just in our little corner of it) reflect the intention of someone or something able to "fine-tune" those conditions? Why?

   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
2.  "subjective."

Refuted.  Fine tuning cosmo and planetary situations have been empirically observed.  Many many times, btw.  
They're just going off what has been observed already, and were themselves careful to distinguish between well-observed phenomena, less-well-observed, reasonably theoretical, and speculative.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



And in each such situation there is a natural explanation that can be traced back by empirical and logical means to the inferred conditions of the universe at its beginning. Why do you infer intention? Where's your evidence?

   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
3.  "argumentum ad ignorantium."

Hardly.  We humans ARE astonishingly well-placed for the huge astronomical discoveries we make.  That's not ignorance, that's what we know scientifically.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Compared to a blind man in a coal shed, certainly. But on an astronomical scale, do we have a better-than-average view of things? Do you have any ideal of the scale of the Universe compared to our solar system, or even our Galaxy?

   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
 Taken together with all the other fine tuning facts, one could rationally infer design instead of accident.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Why do you assume that the conditions you describe as "fine tuning" are improbable (i.e. unlikely to occur through simple action of natural forces)? What other universes have you been comparing our one to?

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Check out this one little co-inky-dink, one of many:
         

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
"Thanks to its large, angular size, the Moon occults many stars along its path.  In this way, the Earth-Moon system acts like a giant telescope, allowing astronomers to resolve objects normally to small or close together to measure from the ground.

A slow angular speed of a moon across its host planet's sky, like our own, allows for more detailed measurements.  This method works best with a large moon without an atmosphere--which produces a crisp, knife-edge sharp edge on its limb--orbiting far from its host planet (but not too far, because the smaller a moon is, the fewer stars it occults over a month.) [

---pg 110
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



---------------------QUOTE-------------------


The same argument can be used to show that Ursa Major was designed to point to the North Star. Gimme a break.

   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
No wonder Earth is called the privileged planet!!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Once again, compared to which other planets in which other solar systems?
Posted by: FloydLee on Nov. 04 2009,11:30



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
We are merely an an unintended consequence of a universe designed to be hospitable for rocks.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Goodness, what a dreary bummer hypothesis!!  Why not sign up with Gonzalez and Richards instead???
Posted by: SLP on Nov. 04 2009,11:37

Quote (FloydLee @ Nov. 04 2009,10:51)
Check out this one little co-inky-dink, one of many:
   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
"Thanks to its large, angular size, the Moon occults many stars along its path.  In this way, the Earth-Moon system acts like a giant telescope, allowing astronomers to resolve objects normally to small or close together to measure from the ground.

A slow angular speed of a moon across its host planet's sky, like our own, allows for more detailed measurements.  This method works best with a large moon without an atmosphere--which produces a crisp, knife-edge sharp edge on its limb--orbiting far from its host planet (but not too far, because the smaller a moon is, the fewer stars it occults over a month.) [

---pg 110
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


No wonder Earth is called the privileged planet!!

FloydLee
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Yeah, because nobody cfould ever figure out how to do such things anywhere else in the entire universe!

WOW!!!

What an amazing 13.7 Billion year old universe, accordign to Gonzalez!
Posted by: SLP on Nov. 04 2009,11:40

Quote (FloydLee @ Nov. 04 2009,10:56)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Then, FL, you agree with Gonzalez that the universe is 13.7 billion years old.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Yes?

Nope.  Not at all.   Fortunately, his cosmological ID hypothesis does not require agreement with old-age.  The fine-tuning appears whether you like "Old" or "Young."
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Ah, the old selective authority gambit - you accept their 'authority' - in fact you denmand that they be recognized as the ultimate authority - when you agree with their cliam, but you simply dismiss the same authority if they claim something you do not agree with.

Amazing how that works....
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on Nov. 04 2009,11:44

Quote (FloydLee @ Nov. 04 2009,11:30)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
We are merely an an unintended consequence of a universe designed to be hospitable for rocks.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Goodness, what a dreary bummer hypothesis!!  Why not sign up with Gonzalez and Richards instead???
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


If the universe is designed for life where do we only find it in one single place?

If the universe was in fact designed for our sort of life I'd expect to see a Larry Niven type universe, full of air and massive trees for people to live on. Every square foot habitable.

This universe is in fact "designed" for large empty spaces Stars and rocks.
Posted by: dheddle on Nov. 04 2009,11:58

I know I have stated this before but is relevant. The Privileged Planet is, in fact, in at least one important way, slightly anti-ID.

Here is how. If you look at Hugh Ross’s arguments you will find that he presents observability as a tie-breaker. That is, in choosing between God and the multiverse he brings up the bonus fine-tuning trump card—that we are, without any reason to expect it, in a spectacularly good observational platform. And we are in the best time period for cosmological observations (distant galaxies will blink off due to accelerated expansion). And our large moon is scientifically beneficial in a number of ways, etc. It is as if, according to Ross, God wants us to do science. (I agree, by the way.)

Gonzalez and Richards actually pull the rug out from under this argument. They argue that observability is not a second, independent miracle—not a tie breaker at all. They weaken Ross’s cosmological ID argument in that they remove his tie breaker. Instead they argue—to me what seems in hindsight to be almost obvious—that observability is highly correlated with habitability.  Ross makes them independent. Gonzalez and Richards join them at the hip. According to the PP, you have to be in a cosmic backwater or radiation will get you—and that gives you a nice dark night sky. You have to have a transparent atmosphere in the visible part of the spectrum —and that permits astronomy. You need a large moon for orbit stabilization. Etc.

I think their arguments are reasonable and in some sense obvious. I think it is interesting that they in fact undermine the "independently fine-tuned for observation" argument of Ross.
Posted by: OgreMkV on Nov. 04 2009,12:06

Quote (FloydLee @ Nov. 04 2009,11:30)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
We are merely an an unintended consequence of a universe designed to be hospitable for rocks.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Goodness, what a dreary bummer hypothesis!!  Why not sign up with Gonzalez and Richards instead???
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Because reality is not determined by how depressing the alternates are.

I think that this is what you and all the other people who want to change science (and history in Texas) are missing and why this arguement can never be resolved.  

Do you really think that getting a court to order the teaching of Intelligent Design makes it a viable scientific enterprise?  

If so, then why didn't the courts nullify gravity in the late 50s to make space travel easier?

Reality sucks dude.  You can live in whatever fantasy world you like, but the real world is still there waiting to impinge on your perfect existence.  You can hold to whatever beliefs make you, personally, feel better about your existance.  However, no matter what you declare, the universe is still a harsh place with rules that science and engineers follow.  

Let's say that you somehow managed to get evolution 'declared' illegal.  Will that make all the antibiotic research automatically invalid?  Will super bacteria cease to exist?  Of course not and only a fool would think so.  When your doctor proscribes anti-biotics, do you take everyone of them like he says to?  Of course you do, because, in the end, you to knows that evolution, as a science, works.

Scientists, engineers, forensic scientists, doctors, even lawyers use tools that work.  If the tool doesn't do anything, then it's useless.

ID does NOTHING.  Go ahead, prove me wrong.  Name one scientific advancement in the last, oh, 50,000 years that can be attributed to research in intelligent design.

We can discuss specified complexity and panspermia and the suitibleness of the universe for rocks, but in the end ID provides no tools to advance science.  None.  Evolution does provide those tools.  Evolution tells us (in advance) what things we can expect to see when we look at the fossil record, and the changes in bacteria when exposed to antibiotics, and the effectiveness of HIV drugs, and a million other things that are neccesary for you to sit at your computer and blather on about how wrong it is.  

That is why, ID is doomed to fail.

So, tell us Floyd, tell us the tools that ID provides.  Tell us more than Dembski and Behe and Morris and Austin have ever done.  Tell us that... or go away in defeat, because in this case, there are only two options.  Prove ID is science or lose.

We're waiting.
Posted by: Albatrossity2 on Nov. 04 2009,12:09

Quote (dheddle @ Nov. 04 2009,11:58)
You have to have a transparent atmosphere in the visible part of the spectrum —and that permits astronomy.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Do you think it is possible that the "visible part of the spectrum" is so-named because we (the wonderful entities focusing on how wonderful it is that we are here in this wonderful situation) have photoreceptors that work with the light that makes it through our atmosphere?

Do you think it is possible that organisms on other planets with other atmospheres admitting other wavelengths might have photoreceptors that work at those wavelengths?

Sheesh.
Posted by: Doc Bill on Nov. 04 2009,12:11

Nonsense, FL.

(Take your pick on what I mean by "nonsense," basically everything you've ever written.)

However!

YEC requires a variable speed of light.  Look it up, moron.  Gonzalez is an adherent to the speed of light being a constant throughout the history of the universe.  Look it up, moron.

Therefore, Gonzalez proves that the universe is old, 13.7 billion years to be exact.

If you accept Gonzalez's proof of ID you must also accept an old universe.  Can't have one without the other because Gonzalez says so.  Look it up, moron.
Posted by: Chayanov on Nov. 04 2009,12:16

Look at our own planet. It's not even designed for us, since the vast majority of it is uninhabitable without taking special precautions, being underwater and all. We can't even drink most of that water since it's too salty for us. We also can't live in volcanoes, or under the ice sheets, or at the tops of the highest mountains. If this planet is designed for life, it's designed for bacteria, and humans are part of the means for giving bacteria a place to live. All worship the Great Bacterium God!
Posted by: didymos on Nov. 04 2009,12:18

Quote (FloydLee @ Nov. 04 2009,05:07)
   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Admit Ross doesn't follow your idiosyncratic interpretive "principles"
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You know, it sounds like you're completely unfamiliar with what OEC Dr. Hugh Ross has written.  So tell me....what do you think of THIS?
       

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
1.  The Bible must be taken literally unless the context indicates otherwise.

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

3.  The universe was both transcendentally and supernaturally created.

4.  Naturalism cannot explain the origin of life.

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

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

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

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

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

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


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


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

FloydLee
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


How soon we forget:
   
Quote (didymos @ Nov. 03 2009,16:14)

See Floyd, you have two options here:

1.  Admit that:

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

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



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

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

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Looks like it's option number one then.  To be fair, the part about admitting being a YEC moron who cites an OEC really should have been classified as option number three, with a note to the effect that it is entirely compatible with both options one and two, much like Christianity and Evolution being compatible.  I apologize for that oversight.

ETA:  Just to explain things a bit more clearly, Option Two is actually still quite available for the taking.  "How's that work?" you might wonder.  OK, Floyd, here's the deal: you really need to read for comprehension.  Note what I actually wrote:  Admit Ross doesn't follow those principles.  Not "professes to follow" or somesuch equivalent.  IOW, it's quite possible that you, Floyd Lee, personally explain his OEC beliefs as a failure to follow those principles in actual deed instead of merely word.  How else do you explain the very marked difference of opinion between people such as yourself and people such as Ross?  It's hard to say it's just simple error, especially on the part of someone like Ross who's devoted countless hours to the OEC cause.  Well, not hard to say, literally, but hard to get away with as an argument.  Take that tack and you're stuck trying to explain what has prevented him from noticing what should be so, so clear.  But that's neither here nor there, because by throwing up that quote, you're tacitly vouching for his adherence to said principles in both word and deed, and that means that the context of Genesis is apparently so ambiguous that YECs and OECs both can adhere to the same laundry list of exegetical rules in good conscience, good practice,and all sincerity, and yet still fail to agree on what the word 'day' actually means in context.  

Oh, and just so you know, I had no doubt about what Ross's ideas in that area are.  That was my whole fucking point, which I would have thought was sufficiently dead obvious given how much time has been spent on the subject of interpreting scripture and your ridiculous "incompatibilities" on this thread.  In the interest of fairness, after all your antics here, I really ought to have known the result would be something like this.

(re-edited for clarity)
Posted by: Chayanov on Nov. 04 2009,12:20

Quote (Albatrossity2 @ Nov. 04 2009,12:09)
 
Quote (dheddle @ Nov. 04 2009,11:58)
You have to have a transparent atmosphere in the visible part of the spectrum —and that permits astronomy.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Do you think it is possible that the "visible part of the spectrum" is so-named because we (the wonderful entities focusing on how wonderful it is that we are here in this wonderful situation) have photoreceptors that work with the light that makes it through our atmosphere?

Do you think it is possible that organisms on other planets with other atmospheres admitting other wavelengths might have photoreceptors that work at those wavelengths?

Sheesh.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Wait, you mean if we could see different wavelengths then we would have a completely different definition of "visible"? But then that means the fine-tuning argument isn't an argument at all.
Posted by: deadman_932 on Nov. 04 2009,12:23

Quote (FloydLee @ Nov. 04 2009,10:51)
     

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


1. "preassumed."  

Refuted.  No evidence of any pre-assumptions in the book itself.  Their hypothesis starts with observations and data, not assumptions.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


FALSE You have not demonstrated any such thing by pointing to Gonzalez' book and claiming there is no presumptive conclusion present from the beginning of Gonzalez' career.

Long before Gonzalez published "The Priviliged Planet" he was using the same arguments to conclude "Goddidit" < http://www.reasons.org/resourc....niverse > It is reasonable to assume that he knew of his own publications, the conclusions in those publications such as "Facts for Faith" magazine and even if he didn't state so in "The Priviliged Planet," that he had arrived at the "Fine Tuning" argument as a result of his culturally-derived preconceptions which led to his "conclusions" :
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
"Why would the Creator make the universe so measurable? What’s the point of allowing humans to measure the characteristics of the universe? To those who hold a Christian worldview, the answer is clear. In fact, the Bible explicitly states it: “For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse (Romans 1:19-20).” -- Guillermo Gonzales, writing in "Facts for Faith" magazine, long before publishing "Priviliged Planet"  
---------------------QUOTE-------------------




   
Quote (FloydLee @ Nov. 04 2009,10:51)
2.  "subjective."

Refuted.  Fine tuning cosmo and planetary situations have been empirically observed.  Many many times, btw.  
They're just going off what has been observed already, and were themselves careful to distinguish between well-observed phenomena, less-well-observed, reasonably theoretical, and speculative.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


FALSE The issue is not whether "fine tuning" parameters merely exist, the issue is what conclusions Gonzalez arrives at while ignoring the fallacies, illogic and his own willingness to discard equally-viable conclusions in favor of his culturally-derived preconceptions.

In an earlier post, I mentioned several cosmological arguments that are equally-viable as Gonzalez' preferred "Goddidit" : Multiverse, Holographic, concious Universe...and there are others, such as a Time-Reversal proposal that Gonzalez doesn't even touch on before (apparently) rejecting as improbable... in regard to which, you might want to read Eliot Sober's criticism of Gonzalez-type claims:
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
" if the hypothesis of mindless chance processes entailed that it is impossible that organisms exhibit delicate adaptations, then a quick application of modus tollens would sweep that hypothesis from the field. However much design theorists might yearn for an argument of this kind, there apparently are none to be had...
If modus tollens cannot be pressed into service, perhaps there is a probabilistic version of modus tollens that can achieve the same result. Is there a Law of Improbability that begins with the premiss that Pr(O * H) is very low and concludes that H should be rejected? There is no such principle (Royall 1997, ch. 3). The fact that you won the lottery does not, by itself, show that there is something wrong with the conjunctive hypothesis that the lottery was fair and a million tickets were sold and you bought just one ticket. And if we randomly drop a very sharp pin onto a line that is 1000 miles long, the probability of its landing where it does is negligible; however, that outcome does not falsify the hypothesis that the pin was dropped at random.
The fact that there is no probabilistic modus tollens has great significance for understanding the design argument. The logic of this problem is essentially comparative. To evaluate the design hypothesis, we must know what it predicts and compare this with the predictions made by other hypotheses. The design hypothesis cannot win by default.  The fact that an observation would be very improbable if it arose by chance is not enough to refute the chance hypothesis. One must show that the design hypothesis confers on the observation a higher probability, and even then the conclusion will merely be that the observation favors the design hypothesis."
Eliot Sober "the Design Argument" < http://74.125.155.132/scholar....n >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



   
Quote (FloydLee @ Nov. 04 2009,10:51)
3.  "argumentum ad ignorantium."

Hardly.  We humans ARE astonishingly well-placed for the huge astronomical discoveries we make.  That's not ignorance, that's what we know scientifically.  Taken together with all the other fine tuning facts, one could rationally infer design instead of accident.

Check out this one little co-inky-dink, one of many:
         

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
"Thanks to its large, angular size, the Moon occults many stars along its path.  In this way, the Earth-Moon system acts like a giant telescope, allowing astronomers to resolve objects normally to small or close together to measure from the ground.

A slow angular speed of a moon across its host planet's sky, like our own, allows for more detailed measurements.  This method works best with a large moon without an atmosphere--which produces a crisp, knife-edge sharp edge on its limb--orbiting far from its host planet (but not too far, because the smaller a moon is, the fewer stars it occults over a month.) [

---pg 110
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


No wonder Earth is called the privileged planet!!

FloydLee
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


FALSE The argumentum ad ignoratiam aspect of the fine tuning argument for deistic design doesn't mean what you seem to think it means. Here are some arguments from ignorance (and subjectivity) examples which you have never addressed:
     
Quote (JohnW @ Nov. 02 2009,16:22)
     
Quote (FloydLee @ Nov. 02 2009,14:07)
And in their book, Gonzalez and Richards specifically write about how to Falsify their ID hypothesis.
 
         

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
"The most decisive way to falsify our argument as a whole would be to find a distant and very different environment, which, while quite hostile to life, nevertheless offers a superior platform for making as many diverse scientific discoveries as does our local environment.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I went through this earlier, but here it is again for you to ignore a second time:

1.  How do we define "diverse scientific discoveries"?
2.  Can we count them?  If so, show us your list.
3.  How do we define "distant and very different environment"?
4.  How do we count the "diverse scientific discoveries" we haven't made, but which could be made elsewhere?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Here are a larger number of points that were made 6 days ago regarding the 'fine tuning = supernatural deistic design" that you also failed to address:

   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
The "fine-tuning" argument or Strong Anthropic Principle (SAP) has some major problems when applied to "inferences for god". It also contains a large number of fallacies that disqualify it as a valid scientific hypothesis -- especially one that provides evidential support for deities (which is what you're supposed to be supporting, Flody.)

1.) Tautology. These anthropocentric arguments always come down to statements that at least imply circular conclusions : " My god exists, therefore whatever we find proves it --heads I win, tails you lose"

If we manage to explore our universe and find no life anywhere, what should we conclude? That this is evidence for a loving God who crafted life on Earth despite the fact that this universe is otherwise very inhospitable to life? What if we find life everywhere we go? Gonzales would simply then conclude that this same god created a universe where life can thrive, and therefore must also exist! -- "Heads I win, tails you lose."

They ignore the obvious illogic of their claims...Would it surprise you to find yourself living in a universe that cannot sustain life? I know it would surprise me. Since we are, in fact, alive, it should come as no surprise at all to us that we inhabit a universe that can sustain life, but what does a “life-sustaining universe"  mean? Does it mean  a “universe identical to this one-- the universe is fine-tuned to be just like this universe?" That's a neat tautology. All of us are fundamentally ignorant about the parameter space in which something we would be willing to call life can occur. Thus Gonzales is also guilty of Argumentam ad Ignorantiam

Gonzales et al. simply have assumed their conclusions BEFORE evidence is in, and more importantly, according to what actual choices are available, whatever evidence is found, it will be claimed by Gonzales or some other creonut to tautologically provide support for the conclusions they have already arrived at.

Importantly, also, what the fine-tuning argument for God also does not do is to show that life is in any way favored, supported, or designed for anything except to die out as the universe slowly runs out of energy.

People, scientists and theists, often argue as if fine-tuning did show a concern for life, when life will in fact still face all of the problems that everything in this universe faces. One would have to show that life is some sort of "goal" or "preferred outcome" even to suggest that a single universe with life is "unusual" in any way. Creationists/IDists only assume that life is a meaningful outcome, while we have no excuse to suppose that it is meaningful in a cosmic sense (as opposed to our own sense), however likely or unlikely it may be. The fact of the matter is, we have a sample set of *ONE* universe that happens to contain life so far as we know. We have *ONE* planet on which life exists so far as we know.

We have NO IDEA how many other possible universes there are--multiverses have been mentioned here, but I also like Steinhardt and Turok's "cyclic" model, which is at least theoretically testable via gravity waves. ( see: P.J. Steinhardt and N. Turok: "Why the Cosmological Constant is Small and Positive." Science.312, May 26, 2006. ) We DO know that 180 or so likely planets have been tentatively discovered, though. But NO ONE knows what the "odds " really are. It has also been demonstrated repeatedly that life on Earth tends to evolve to fit the environment available. [i]It has never been demonstrated that the parameters for the environment were put in place first BY A SUPERNATURAL GOD [i/] (not an alien, Flody!!) with the preconceived "idea" or "plan" that life would exist there later.

2.) Post hoc ergo propter hoc, also known as "coincidental correlation" or "false cause," is a fallacy which assumes or asserts that if one event happens ( the development of life) *after* another ( the emergence of the Universe and its "fine tuning" ), then the one must be causally linked to the other.

An analogy: Imagine a 10,000-person "russian roulette" game, with pairs of people facing off in a "round-robin"-style competition. Winners are paired randomly against winners until there are only two left. Should the last person standing alive conclude that he or she is favored by God? Because "fine-tuning" seems to exist, can I reasonably conclude that life is causally linked to it? Or that chance favored it? Or that God caused it to be so?

3.) God of the Gaps -- see :"Is There Anything Wrong with 'God of the Gaps' Reasoning?" (International Journal for the Philosophy of Religion 52: 129-142, 2002). A place you can plug God in, if you so wish, is before the Big Bang. You can also claim that this is where God did his "fine-tuning" , but, fundamentally, the god of the gaps argument is the logical fallacy of the argumentum ad ignorantium : basing a conclusion on a lack of information or understanding. The mere fact that we do cannot explain something is not a valid justification to rely upon something else, even more mysterious, as an "explanation." Such a tactic is also risky here because, as science progresses the "gaps" in scientific explanation grow smaller.

The theist who uses this to rationalize their beliefs may find that, at some point, there simply isn't enough room for their god anymore. In the past, it was common to point to lightning, thunder, earthquakes or other mysteries in nature and attribute them to some god. Unfortunately, even today many people think of God primarily as the explanation for things they don't understand. To define God in those terms, especially when Christians base their apologetics on the existence of such gaps, is a major error.

--------------------------------------
More importantly, Gonzales et al. are not distinguishing what YOU claim to be supporting, Flody. Read their statements and they have no way of distinguishing between "deities" and "extraterrestrials" capable of seeding a planet. This, along with the other fallacies and logical errors cited by myself and others, disqualify it as an actual scientific hypothesis that could provide support for Gods -- such as what YOU are nominally SUPPOSED to be trying to support, Flody.

If Gonzales can't show how to distinguish Gods and aliens, then how does this support your view, Flody? How does it make it a scientific program to research supernatural deities?

Given all the logical lapses, holes, and sheer ridiculous fallacy-mongering of Gonzales, it is perfectly obvious to point out that his nattering does NOT constitute a valid scientific research program FOR THE INVESTIGATION OF SUPERNATURAL DEITIES (which is what you were supposed to be showing, stupid).

Look back at all my posts on this matter -- I was asking you to show a valid scientific research program for the investigation of deities, and you post up crap , which --even if evidence is actually found for life being artificial on this planet -- cannot distinguish between "intelligent aliens from the planet Glurrgh " and "supernatural deities." You haven't presented any research program for the investigation of supernatural deities at all, dumb-ass
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Those can be compacted down to this set:
1.) Tautology.
2.) Argumentam ad Ignorantiam
3.) Assumed conclusions
4.) Post hoc ergo propter hoc
5.) God of the Gaps
6.) Improper use of "falsification"
7.) Purely subjective criteria for "falsification"
8.) Gonzalez' claims don't constitute a valid scientific research program FOR THE INVESTIGATION OF SUPERNATURAL DEITIES and cannot distinguish Gods from "Aliens from the planet Glurrgh"


Again, Floaty, I'll remind you that the large post I made was given to you SIX DAYS ago, and that you stated clearly that you were going to address the concerns therein.

So far, you have failed to do so, just as Gonzalez ignores these issues which are obviously not original to me -- they've been around a long, long time. But Gonzalez ignores them in favor of his preconceived, ad ignorantiam subjective conclusions
Posted by: Albatrossity2 on Nov. 04 2009,12:27

Quote (Chayanov @ Nov. 04 2009,12:20)
Wait, you mean if we could see different wavelengths then we would have a completely different definition of "visible"? But then that means the fine-tuning argument isn't an argument at all.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Birds (some of which can see in the UV and detect polarized light) would have a different definition of visible.

Pit vipers, which use infrared, have a different definition of visible.

Astronomy using X-rays or microwaves or lots of other wavelengths is still possible, and would make it possible to engage in Gonzalez-esque navel gazing on planets where the atmosphere blocked "visible" light.

So yeah, it's not an argument at all. It's question-begging apologetics, per usual.
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Nov. 04 2009,12:50

Quote (dheddle @ Nov. 04 2009,12:25)
Quote (rossum @ Nov. 04 2009,10:55)
Quote (dheddle @ Nov. 04 2009,08:16)
Or, more mundanely, the ability of our universe to produce rocks appears to rest on a razor's edge.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


The universe is better tuned for rocks than it is for us.  The greatest part of the universe is interstellar and intergalactic space which in extremely inhospitable for us but hospitable for rocks.  Rocks can survive in the cold and anoxic conditions that occupy 99.99% of the universe, while we cannot.

We are merely an an unintended consequence of a universe designed to be hospitable for rocks.

rossum
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Maybe. But the point is that any universe that can produce life must be able to produce rocks. And our universe, it would (at least at the moment) appear, just barely produces rocks. That gives it a shot at supporting life. Whether life is improbable in such a universe I couldn't say--but without the rocks, there will be no life.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


all right heddle you don't know that any universe producing life must produce rocks.  there are probably forms of life that don't resemble anything anyone has ever seen.  but rocks don't have anything to do with it.

you could restate that as anything.  "bollocks".  any universe capable of producing life must also be capable of producing bollocks.  i decided.  

THAT'S ID SCEINCE BOYS AND RICH
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Nov. 04 2009,12:52

Quote (Albatrossity2 @ Nov. 04 2009,13:09)
Quote (dheddle @ Nov. 04 2009,11:58)
You have to have a transparent atmosphere in the visible part of the spectrum —and that permits astronomy.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Do you think it is possible that the "visible part of the spectrum" is so-named because we (the wonderful entities focusing on how wonderful it is that we are here in this wonderful situation) have photoreceptors that work with the light that makes it through our atmosphere?

Do you think it is possible that organisms on other planets with other atmospheres admitting other wavelengths might have photoreceptors that work at those wavelengths?

Sheesh.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


the puddle remains amazed at the fit of it's hole.
Posted by: didymos on Nov. 04 2009,12:52

Quote (Doc Bill @ Nov. 04 2009,07:16)
Then, FL, you agree with Gonzalez that the universe is 13.7 billion years old.

Yes?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


He seems to like him some Hugh Ross too, so one wonders if  he agrees with both of them on that matter.  Especially since Hugh Ross is apparently an A-number-one literalist by Floyd's standards.
Posted by: dheddle on Nov. 04 2009,13:10

Quote (Chayanov @ Nov. 04 2009,12:20)
   
Quote (Albatrossity2 @ Nov. 04 2009,12:09)
     
Quote (dheddle @ Nov. 04 2009,11:58)
You have to have a transparent atmosphere in the visible part of the spectrum —and that permits astronomy.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Do you think it is possible that the "visible part of the spectrum" is so-named because we (the wonderful entities focusing on how wonderful it is that we are here in this wonderful situation) have photoreceptors that work with the light that makes it through our atmosphere?

Do you think it is possible that organisms on other planets with other atmospheres admitting other wavelengths might have photoreceptors that work at those wavelengths?

Sheesh.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Wait, you mean if we could see different wavelengths then we would have a completely different definition of "visible"? But then that means the fine-tuning argument isn't an argument at all.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Come on. No it is not possible. The reason is Carbon chemistry. First of all there are, at first glance, three facts in play here.

1) The sun has a peak wavelength.
2) The atmosphere is narrowly transparent
3) Our eyes are sensitive to certain wavelengths.

Now the fact that all three coincide is remarkable. Of course evolution is a perfectly reasonable explanation as to why our eyes are sensitive to the peak of the sun’s spectrum. But (as far as I know) there is no strong evolutionary argument as to why the atmosphere must be (narrowly) transparent at the same wavelengths. (Not much UV or IR gets through.) That seems to be luck. Furthermore chemistry is chemistry, and (if Louis the chemist is around he can correct me) it is also true that the energy levels of many carbon molecules—which would be the same anywhere—have much overlap with what we call visible light—enabling, for example, photosynthesis.

In other words, if our atmosphere was transparent to UV and not visible light would there be a viable replacement for photosynthesis? Would our eyes have evolved to be sensitive to UV and ignore the sun’s peak wavelengths? Or would we still have evolved to be sensitive to the sun’s peak—but would have had an opaque sky? (and therefore no astronomy.) The answer is none of the above—most likely we wouldn’t be here. So the PP result stands—again in a sort of common sense way. Complex life probably requires the coincidence of an atmosphere transparent at the peak of its sun’s emission, and probably that has to be in what we call visible light. At least that is a serious and obvious advantage, and as a consequence it enables Astronomy.

Try not to have a hair-trigger reaction that Gonzalez and Richards must be wrong. If you think about it with an open mind you might conclude that their argument has merit without it demanding support for ID. At least I have come to believe that, independent of ID, their argument that habitability and observability are correlated is correct.

Erasmus, FCD



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
you could restate that as anything.  "bollocks".  any universe capable of producing life must also be capable of producing bollocks.  i decided.  
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



No, rocks are indeed the key. Because rocks require heavy elements. Heavy elements are created in stars. So a universe that creates rocks is a universe that first created stars that synthesized the heavy elements in the rocks. Rocks are a sign that your universe has heavy elements and stars. You cannot have any kind of life without heavy elements. When examining other universes for life--first look for rocks. They should be a ubiquitous precursor.
Posted by: JohnW on Nov. 04 2009,13:23

Quote (dheddle @ Nov. 04 2009,11:10)
Quote (Chayanov @ Nov. 04 2009,12:20)
   
Quote (Albatrossity2 @ Nov. 04 2009,12:09)
       
Quote (dheddle @ Nov. 04 2009,11:58)
You have to have a transparent atmosphere in the visible part of the spectrum —and that permits astronomy.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Do you think it is possible that the "visible part of the spectrum" is so-named because we (the wonderful entities focusing on how wonderful it is that we are here in this wonderful situation) have photoreceptors that work with the light that makes it through our atmosphere?

Do you think it is possible that organisms on other planets with other atmospheres admitting other wavelengths might have photoreceptors that work at those wavelengths?

Sheesh.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Wait, you mean if we could see different wavelengths then we would have a completely different definition of "visible"? But then that means the fine-tuning argument isn't an argument at all.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Come on. No it is not possible. The reason is Carbon chemistry. First of all there are, at first glance, three facts in play here.

1) The sun has a peak wavelength.
2) The atmosphere is narrowly transparent
3) Our eyes are sensitive to certain wavelengths.

Now the fact that all three coincide is remarkable. Of course evolution is a perfectly reasonable explanation as to why our eyes are sensitive to the peak of the sun’s spectrum. But (as far as I know) there is no strong evolutionary argument as to why the atmosphere must be (narrowly) transparent at the same wavelengths. (Not much UV or IR gets through.) That seems to be luck. Furthermore chemistry is chemistry, and (if Louis the chemist is around he can correct me) it is also true that the energy levels of many carbon molecules—which would be the same anywhere—have much overlap with what we call visible light—enabling, for example, photosynthesis.

In other words, if our atmosphere was transparent to UV and not visible light would there be a viable replacement for photosynthesis? Would our eyes have evolved to be sensitive to UV and ignore the sun’s peak wavelengths? Or would we still have evolved to be sensitive to the sun’s peak—but would have had an opaque sky? (and therefore no astronomy.) The answer is none of the above—most likely we wouldn’t be here. So the PP result stands—again in a sort of common sense way. Complex life probably requires the coincidence of an atmosphere transparent at the peak of its sun’s emission, and probably that has to be in what we call visible light. At least that is a serious and obvious advantage, and as a consequence it enables Astronomy.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


The three don't need to coincide.  A planet orbiting a red dwarf (with a peak in the infra-red) at a much closer distance would work just fine*.  As long as enough radiation gets to the surface for photosynthesis to take place, it doesn't really matter how much gets absorbed or reflected at other wavelengths.  So the position of the radiation peak doen't really matter.


* A planet orbiting a blue/UV star at a greater distance would also work, although they tend to have other problems (like going supernova in a couple of million years) making them unsuitable for life.
Posted by: OgreMkV on Nov. 04 2009,13:28

I disagree with most of this Heddle.  Because there are alternatives for all of the above.

IR is heat, so a lot of that energy gets through the atmosphere.  Some UV definitely gets through otherwise, I wouldn't need SPF 4000.  

There's no inherent (i.e. biochemical) reason that I can think of for organisms not to be able to detect radio or even microwaves.  The atmosphere is transparent to all of these.

In fact, evolution predicts that organisms should evolve sensors for visible light because of the utiltity advantage of visible light.  However, bees do see UV and not red light.

But would we be here if not for the sun's specific spectrum.  We probably wouldn't be, but that doesn't automatically exclude any intelligent for of life evolving in our stead.  Squid and Octopi are very intelligent, excellent problem solvers, equally dexterous when compared to humans, have better vision than we do, and even communicate in colors.  

Then we have to consider the huge mass of life that has never seen the sun and do not depend on the sun for photosynthesis.  Consider the food web of a black smoker with chemosynthetic bacteria as a replacement for plants.

We also need to consider those organisms that use sound as a primary sensory system rather than any form of EM radiation.  And those that use scent as a primary sensory system.

Again, we could, of course, be in a cleverly designed simulation run on a universe sized quantum computer.  However, there is no way for us to tell the difference between these competing hypotheses (multi-verse, bubble universe, simulation, intelligent design).  There is some discussion (from legitimate scientists) that all of these hypotheses are not science because we (currently) have no way to tell.  

In my opinion, some areas of 'non-science' like M-theory are rapidlly getting to the point where they will become 'real science' with testable differences and falsifiability.  If we say, "Oh, design", then what do we say when we actually discover the science... or do we just not do the science?
Posted by: Doc Bill on Nov. 04 2009,13:48

One little nit pick.

When we (the sane posters) refer to "life evolving" or "life arising" or simply "life" we should take the time to add

"as we know it"

just so we don't assume that life as we know it is the only kind of life possible in the universe.  Considering the ingenuity of extremeophiles at harvesting energy we would be presumptuous to assume that carbon, water, etc are essential to life.
Posted by: sledgehammer on Nov. 04 2009,13:49

Reasons the universe and our location in it is poorly suited for humans and human scientific discovery.
Counterpoint to “The Privileged Planet”

What a waste!

1. The universe is far too vast for humans to travel to even a tiny fraction of it.  
2. Distances between planets and solar systems are far too large for us to navigate.
3. The universal speed limit, c, is far too low to make exploration practical.
4. Normal visible matter constitutes a tiny fraction of the total mass-energy. The rest, dark matter and dark energy are of no value to us.
5. Antimatter is very hard to come by, needlessly restricting our technology .

Earth sucks!

1. Our sun is unstable and using up fuel way too fast, spraying high energy particles and harmful radiation at us to no good end.
2. Gravity is far too strong to suit us.  Makes reaching orbit very expensive, ruins our knees far too soon, and makes bridges and tall building much too difficult to engineer.
3. There’s not enough oxygen to be able to exploit all the available topography.
4. Water is far too opaque and heavy to allow us to use the 70% of available surface area.

Humans are weak!

1. We don’t live nearly long enough to allow us to achieve our full potential.
2. We can’t see but a very small fraction of the useful electromagnetic spectrum.
3. We can’t hardly even lift our own weight.
4. We can’t last even a measly week without water.
5. Some of us can’t seem to use even a small fraction of the brains we were born with.

I could go on and on ...
Posted by: dheddle on Nov. 04 2009,14:10

John W,

As you point out, the problems with big stars include (but are not limited to) the fact that they don’t live long enough. (Nor are they as luminosity stable.)

What you forgot to point out is that in the case of Red Dwarf stars, we would have to be close enough (for the existence of liquid water)  that we would phase lock (like Mercury)—almost certainly rendering the planet sterile. Not to mention that the energy flux would be much less, and at wavelengths not particularly synergistic with carbon Chemistry.

OgreMkV

   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
IR is heat, so a lot of that energy gets through the atmosphere.  Some UV definitely gets through otherwise, I wouldn't need SPF 4000.  
---------------------QUOTE-------------------




I didn’t invent that argument, it is established fact.




The fact that only a little UV gets through and yet it is still highly destructive to organic molecules strengthens my case: if the atmosphere was as transparent to UV as it is to visible, you would need SPF 4 trillion. And that is not a threat to our kind of life but any kind of life. Again, that is why visible is not just what we happen to call visible because of chauvinism. The visible part of the spectrum works well with carbon chemistry without destroying it as UV would or interacting too weakly such as IR does.

I sort of find the resistance to the PP argument strange. After all there are ~10^22 planets in the observable universe. If life is rare, then any planet supporting life is indeed privileged—and yet because of such big numbers there needn’t be any theological significance to our planet being privileged. It appears to me that the mere possibility (personally I believe it is true) that our planet possesses a rare confluence and that this might be co-opted for theological purposes should play no role in the scientific discussion.

Doc Bill,

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
just so we don't assume that life as we know it is the only kind of life possible in the universe.  Considering the ingenuity of extremeophiles at harvesting energy we would be presumptuous to assume that carbon, water, etc are essential to life.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Correct me if I am wrong, but I believe extremophiles are carbon based. I disagree with your view. Life requires complex molecules to store information. Nothing comes close to carbon in its ability to form complex molecules. And water and carbon (and visible light) work well together, in addition to water being nature's great solvent. It is reasonable to believe (and I think many biochemists do) that any complex life will be carbon based and will almost certainly require the rather unique properties of liquid water.
Posted by: JohnW on Nov. 04 2009,14:12

Regardless of whether the universe is "tuned for" or "tuned against" intelligent life, we need to remember that it's all (almost) baseless speculation.  We can say that, if various constants were slightly different, life as we know it would be impossible.  But we have no idea what the constraints on those constants might be, or what the relationships between them might be.

For all we know, the values we observe might be the only ones possible.  And even if they are highly variable, we can't rule out other kinds of life until we can determine what sorts of complexity other combinations of values might allow.  (Could we describe organic chemistry if we were given quark and electron properties?)

Until we can start estimating probabilities, we've got nothing to work with.  And we're a long, long way from the point where we can do that.

We do know one probability with exact precision, though: the conditional probability that intelligent life is possible in the universe, given that the universe contains intelligent life.
Posted by: midwifetoad on Nov. 04 2009,14:18

Regardless of whether our sun is particularly suited to support life, there is some reason to believe our sun is one of many similar stars formed at the same time in the same cluster.

But suppose we are unique as sentient beings. What can be concluded by the winner of lotto? That it was predestined?
Posted by: deadman_932 on Nov. 04 2009,14:31

Quote (sledgehammer @ Nov. 04 2009,13:49)
Reasons the universe and our location in it is poorly suited for humans and human scientific discovery.
Counterpoint to “The Privileged Planet”

[snip list]

I could go on and on ...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I'm sure many people are aware that there's a lot of s-f devoted to the notion that Earth, far from being priviliged in any cosmic sense, is "really" a prison planet for weak, puny beings such as ourselves that are nonetheless virally capable of exporting our violent madness elsewhere.

We're a long ways away from even the nearest Proxima Centauri, much less a nice habitable planet (terraforming notwithstanding). We're unsuited for space-travel, we're  pretty fragile compared to lots of other critters we already know of, and we lack the ability to go very far during our own lives, anyway.

Yep, the Priviliged Planet is a Galactic insane asylum.  

PROVE ME WRONG, FLOATY!
Posted by: JohnW on Nov. 04 2009,14:31

Quote (dheddle @ Nov. 04 2009,12:10)
I sort of find the resistance to the PP argument strange. After all there are ~10^22 planets in the observable universe. If life is rare, then any planet supporting life is indeed privileged—and yet because of such big numbers there needn’t be any theological significance to our planet being privileged. It appears to me that the mere possibility (personally I believe it is true) that our planet possesses a rare confluence and that this might be co-opted for theological purposes should play no role in the scientific discussion.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I actually agree with this, dheddle.  Life does appear to be rare, based on what we've observed*.  It's the theological speculation arising from that fact which I have issues with.  I don't think "life can only arise in circumstances in which life can arise" tells us anything either way about the existence of a creator, never mind what the creator's intentions might have been.


* The usual caveat about all science being provisional applies here.  In this case, it's a twenty-foot-tall, forty-ton caveat.  With knobs on.
Posted by: deadman_932 on Nov. 04 2009,14:57

Quote (JohnW @ Nov. 04 2009,14:31)
Quote (dheddle @ Nov. 04 2009,12:10)
I sort of find the resistance to the PP argument strange. After all there are ~10^22 planets in the observable universe. If life is rare, then any planet supporting life is indeed privileged—and yet because of such big numbers there needn’t be any theological significance to our planet being privileged. It appears to me that the mere possibility (personally I believe it is true) that our planet possesses a rare confluence and that this might be co-opted for theological purposes should play no role in the scientific discussion.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I actually agree with this, dheddle.  Life does appear to be rare, based on what we've observed*.  It's the theological speculation arising from that fact which I have issues with.  I don't think "life can only arise in circumstances in which life can arise" tells us anything either way about the existence of a creator, never mind what the creator's intentions might have been.


* The usual caveat about all science being provisional applies here.  In this case, it's a twenty-foot-tall, forty-ton caveat.  With knobs on.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Agreed, also.

I should apologize to Mr. Heddle for poking at him at Pharyngula long ago -- I wasn't sure it was him, anyway, if he even recalls. Mr. Heddle appears reasonable in most of his arguments, except for Nascar and such. By the way, Mr. Heddle, I ran across a hot nascar babe for your delectation:  

Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Nov. 04 2009,15:02

what if "bollocks" are a form of life that doesn't require heavy metals?  hell, nobody knows if such things as exist.  i don't presume to know such things anyway and i strongly suspect anyone that claims to know such things is full of it.  you don't know what you don't know, which is a more succint way of dismissing all this idle speculation about these panglossities

ETA HAR HAR HAR THATS UR WIFE
Posted by: JohnW on Nov. 04 2009,15:08

Quote (deadman_932 @ Nov. 04 2009,12:57)
I should apologize to Mr. Heddle for poking at him at Pharyngula long ago -- I wasn't sure it was him, anyway, if he even recalls. Mr. Heddle appears reasonable in most of his arguments, except for Nascar and such. By the way, Mr. Heddle, I ran across a hot nascar babe for your delectation:  

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I didn't know Sarah Palin had tattoos.
Posted by: dheddle on Nov. 04 2009,15:14

Quote (JohnW @ Nov. 04 2009,15:08)
 
Quote (deadman_932 @ Nov. 04 2009,12:57)
I should apologize to Mr. Heddle for poking at him at Pharyngula long ago -- I wasn't sure it was him, anyway, if he even recalls. Mr. Heddle appears reasonable in most of his arguments, except for Nascar and such. By the way, Mr. Heddle, I ran across a hot nascar babe for your delectation:  

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I didn't know Sarah Palin had tattoos.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


She's a Jeff Gordon fan. What do you expect? I'm pretty sure she is an, um, associate of Mr. Richard Hughes.
Posted by: deadman_932 on Nov. 04 2009,15:23

I didn't think that Mr. TaHugs "associated" with females at all. Live and learn! Also, hawt!
Posted by: Albatrossity2 on Nov. 04 2009,15:24

Quote (dheddle @ Nov. 04 2009,13:23)
Come on. No it is not possible. The reason is Carbon chemistry.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


This is all still question-begging. We have the biology we have because of the conditions that pertain on this planet, not the other way around.

Is carbon chemistry the only way to get biology? Maybe, and it certainly is the only way that we get the biology that we observe. But isn't it also possible that other types of chemistry are capable of supporting entities that reproduce, reduce entropy in a local manner, and all of the other things that we associate with life?  The answer to that is "I don't know, and neither do you". But to say "No it is not possible" is, IMHO, hubris.

The point is that we have things we call "living", and a spectra we call "visible", because we evolved on this planet. To say that the planet was perfectly made for us is ass-backward, and is, as others are fond of saying, equivalent to saying that the depression in the asphalt was perfectly made for that puddle of water.

I don't have a hair-trigger reaction that Gonzalez and Richards must be wrong; thanks for that vote of confidence. I do have an ability to look at the arguments, and find them remarkably unconvincing. Their use of these unconvincing arguments to advance a theological agenda does nothing to convince me further.

And based on a sample size of 1, I find it remarkable that you would buy the argument that habitability and observability are correlated. Look up the roots of that verb "correlate". Don't you need more than one observation to correlate with another?
Posted by: Amadan on Nov. 04 2009,15:30

Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Nov. 04 2009,15:02)
what if "bollocks" are a form of life that doesn't require heavy metals?  
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Well, I dunno, BUT

Heavy Metal is a form of life that requires this bollocks:


Posted by: Robin on Nov. 04 2009,15:32

Quote (sledgehammer @ Nov. 04 2009,13:49)

---------------------QUOTE-------------------




---------------------QUOTE-------------------
2. We can’t see but a very small fraction of the useful electromagnetic spectrum.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



And most of us really poorly at that thanks largely to the invention of text that allows us to read silly things like bibles...
Posted by: JohnW on Nov. 04 2009,15:34

Quote (Albatrossity2 @ Nov. 04 2009,13:24)
Quote (JohnW @ Nov. 04 2009,13:23)
Come on. No it is not possible. The reason is Carbon chemistry.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


---------------------QUOTE-------------------


For the record: dheddle, not me.
Posted by: Albatrossity2 on Nov. 04 2009,15:37

Quote (JohnW @ Nov. 04 2009,15:34)
Quote (Albatrossity2 @ Nov. 04 2009,13:24)
Quote (JohnW @ Nov. 04 2009,13:23)
Come on. No it is not possible. The reason is Carbon chemistry.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


---------------------QUOTE-------------------


For the record: dheddle, not me.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


thanks for the catch. I've editated the original to make this correction.
Posted by: Chayanov on Nov. 04 2009,15:49



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I don't have a hair-trigger reaction that Gonzalez and Richards must be wrong; thanks for that vote of confidence. I do have an ability to look at the arguments, and find them remarkably unconvincing. Their use of these unconvincing arguments to advance a theological agenda does nothing to convince me further.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Well, gee, if you were just open-minded enough you'd accept their baseless assertions and speculation on the face of it. There's certainly no room for discussion or debate on this topic whatsoever, since everyone else is in perfect agreement with it. What kind of scientist are you?
Posted by: dheddle on Nov. 04 2009,16:31

Quote (Albatrossity2 @ Nov. 04 2009,15:24)
   
Quote (dheddle @ Nov. 04 2009,13:23)
Come on. No it is not possible. The reason is Carbon chemistry.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


This is all still question-begging. We have the biology we have because of the conditions that pertain on this planet, not the other way around.

Is carbon chemistry the only way to get biology? Maybe, and it certainly is the only way that we get the biology that we observe. But isn't it also possible that other types of chemistry are capable of supporting entities that reproduce, reduce entropy in a local manner, and all of the other things that we associate with life?  The answer to that is "I don't know, and neither do you". But to say "No it is not possible" is, IMHO, hubris.

The point is that we have things we call "living", and a spectra we call "visible", because we evolved on this planet. To say that the planet was perfectly made for us is ass-backward, and is, as others are fond of saying, equivalent to saying that the depression in the asphalt was perfectly made for that puddle of water.

I don't have a hair-trigger reaction that Gonzalez and Richards must be wrong; thanks for that vote of confidence. I do have an ability to look at the arguments, and find them remarkably unconvincing. Their use of these unconvincing arguments to advance a theological agenda does nothing to convince me further.

And based on a sample size of 1, I find it remarkable that you would buy the argument that habitability and observability are correlated. Look up the roots of that verb "correlate". Don't you need more than one observation to correlate with another?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Not a sample size of 1 is sufficient. Correlated means mutually or reciprocally related. In that sense it doesn't require statistics.

Now, fair enough, we are not talking science here--but whether or not their arguments are reasonable.

I think they are common sense.

For example we are in a low density part of the galaxy. Right away that tells you that it is probably necessary to be in a low density part of the galaxy--since by a pick-a-star-at-random draw we would expect to find ourselves in a  high density part. But it doesn't take much to figure out that high density regions are indeed inhospitable. More ambient radiation. More orbital perturbations. More life-extinguishing supernovae, etc.

So habitability places us in a low density region. But a low density region allows us to see outside of our galaxy. It permits cosmology. In high density regions of the Milky way we could not do cosmology.

In this example, trivially I would argue, habitibility is correlated with observability.

How is that argument wrong? If they are simply wrong--then tell me how the argument I just made is manifestly wrong.

The only thing that I can see that makes it controversial is that they then throw in their theological implications. But if you ignore those I would argue that their claims are, at a minimum, reasonable speculation. And I would argue that their view would be non-controversial without the ID connotation.

EDIT: typo
Posted by: dheddle on Nov. 04 2009,17:03

To Albatrossity2 and all:

I retract the "hair trigger" comment. That was cheap shot, uncalled for, and insulting.

I apologize.
Posted by: JohnW on Nov. 04 2009,17:13

I'm enjoying the grown-up conversation now that Floyd has gone.
Posted by: Henry J on Nov. 04 2009,17:18

Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Nov. 04 2009,10:44)
If the universe is designed for life where do we only find it in one single place?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Maybe cause we've hardly been to any other places? (At least not any further than our own moon.)

Henry
Posted by: Henry J on Nov. 04 2009,17:42

Quote (FloydLee @ Nov. 04 2009,09:51)
Hardly.  We humans ARE astonishingly well-placed for the huge astronomical discoveries we make.  That's not ignorance, that's what we know scientifically.  Taken together with all the other fine tuning facts, one could rationally infer design instead of accident.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Um. Name one discovery that humans have made that we aren't "well-placed" to make.

Or to put that another way, we've no idea what all we haven't discovered because of not being "well-placed" to make those discoveries.

Henry
Posted by: Doc Bill on Nov. 04 2009,18:37

Playing along for fun, wouldn't being in an open star cluster be better than being part of a spiral arm?

How about a Lone Star?  Even better?

Just think, instead of the Lone Star state we could be the Lone Star solar system!  By Jove I like that idea.
Posted by: Doc Bill on Nov. 04 2009,18:47



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
To Albatrossity2 and all:

I retract the "hair trigger" comment. That was cheap shot, uncalled for, and insulting.

I apologize.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



On behalf of the Darwinian Pressure Group, Delta Pi Gamma, I hereby give you, Dr. D. Heddle, a Cheap Shots Pass for Life for not only surviving but flourishing after a kick to the balls by Dr. Dr. D*mbski for actually trying to help that moron be less of a moron.

Furthermore, I hereby grant you Honorary Membership into Delta Pi Gamma the perks of which include, but are not limited to, unlimited "seconds" of Mac & Cheese at the Baylor Cafeteria, 10% off at the bar and the privilege of driving the fraternity's BMW* once a year.

Congratulations!

*after we collect enough dues to buy it.
Posted by: deadman_932 on Nov. 04 2009,19:21

Quote (Doc Bill @ Nov. 04 2009,18:47)
[snip]

I hereby grant you Honorary Membership into Delta Pi Gamma the perks of which include, but are not limited to, unlimited "seconds" of Mac & Cheese at the Baylor Cafeteria, 10% off at the bar and the privilege of driving the fraternity's BMW* once a year.

Congratulations!

*after we collect enough dues to buy it.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


The CBEB's already have a Ford Pinto AND an AMC Gremlin in our sumptuous collection.

This leaves Mr. Heddle something to aspire to.
Posted by: Lou FCD on Nov. 04 2009,19:23

Quote (JohnW @ Nov. 04 2009,18:13)
I'm enjoying the grown-up conversation now that Floyd has gone.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Agreed.

But I have to ask, what about the inhabitants of Planet Mirth, in the Snickers galaxy? Those poor fuckers got wiped out by a comet 8,000,000,000 years ago, while they were still bacteria-like critters.

They might disagree about that whole "fine-tuned" thing.
Posted by: Dan on Nov. 04 2009,19:33

Quote (FloydLee @ Nov. 04 2009,11:30)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
We are merely an an unintended consequence of a universe designed to be hospitable for rocks.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Goodness, what a dreary bummer hypothesis!!  Why not sign up with Gonzalez and Richards instead???
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Notice, yet again.

FL is not looking for facts or evidence.  He doesn't want to live in a "bummer" universe, so he selects a different one instead.  He thinks it's all just a matter of "signing up".

I choose to sign up for what I want!  Evidence has nothing to do with it!  It's just a matter of opinion!
Posted by: Dan on Nov. 04 2009,19:37

Quote (FloydLee @ Nov. 04 2009,10:56)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Then, FL, you agree with Gonzalez that the universe is 13.7 billion years old.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Yes?

Nope.  Not at all.   Fortunately, his cosmological ID hypothesis does not require agreement with old-age.  The fine-tuning appears whether you like "Old" or "Young."
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


It is quite false that "fine-tuning" applies to both old and young universes.

For example, one prong of the "fine-tuning" argument says that if gravity were weaker, galaxies would not form in the first billion years, whereas if gravity were stronger, galaxies would collapse after about three billion years.

Of course, this argument is just nonsense in the young universe picture, because the universe is just 6000 years old.
Posted by: OgreMkV on Nov. 04 2009,19:44

I would like to point out that humanity is a 'ahppy accident' at least from our perspective.  If not for a rather large chunk of space debris, we might be descendants of velociraptors having this conversation.

If the universe is designed for a 'higher life form', then surely it was designed for dinosaurs that went an unprecedented 60+ million years.

No, they were not 'intelligent' (we think)... at least they weren't obviously tool users, but then neither are dolphins.

Personally I agree with those that count a well-designed universe as merely humanity projecting its own desires into the universe.

I still say that there it is not science, because there is no way to determine the difference between the results of design vs. luck in our universe.  

If you can think of a way to test it, I'll be happy to help.
Posted by: Lou FCD on Nov. 04 2009,19:51

For a universe that's "fine tuned" for us, it sure is < trying awful hard to kill us >.
Posted by: Albatrossity2 on Nov. 04 2009,20:02

Quote (dheddle @ Nov. 04 2009,17:03)
To Albatrossity2 and all:

I retract the "hair trigger" comment. That was cheap shot, uncalled for, and insulting.

I apologize.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Thanks, Dave. I also appreciate the opportunity to converse with grownups, and the opportunity to disagree in a cordial scientific manner.

Trivially, re the correlation between observability and habitability, is the atmosphere on Mars amenable to observability? According to Wikipedia, it's mostly CO2, nitrogen and argon. If it is an atmosphere that lends itself to observability, and yet Mars is not considered habitable, how does this affect the claimed correlation between observability and habitability?

Secondly, the fact that we can "do cosmology" is wonderful, especially for physicists, but is it really something that is necessarily correlated with life? Could organisms exist in situations where they couldn't "do cosmology"? I think that they could, so what does that "common sense" postulate do for the argument that there exists a correlation between observability and habitability?

Bottom line - I'd think that physicists, of all people, should understand that the universe can hold things that are surprising, non-intuitive or even counter-intuitive, and that our observations of our own private planet might (just might) be parochial. What is wrong with the argument that says other forms of biology might not exist, or even other universes?

And if you acknowledge those as possibilities, I think that the PP arguments of Gonzalez and Richards degenerate into apologetics.
Posted by: jupiter on Nov. 04 2009,20:28

Quote (Amadan @ Nov. 04 2009,15:30)
     
Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Nov. 04 2009,15:02)
what if "bollocks" are a form of life that doesn't require heavy metals?  
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Well, I dunno, BUT

Heavy Metal is a form of life that requires this bollocks:


---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Bollocks? WHAT bollocks? None are visible—and no wonder. Just look at the fit of the man's jeans. Before you look away...

...think of those helpless 'nads, driven into whatever yeasty refuge they found, only to be immobilized like veal... itchy, sweaty veal with extremely poor impulse control. And then, once the strangulating jeans were peeled off, try to imagine the heroic efforts required to retrieve and restore those traumatized man-tonsils. A flathead screwdriver, a widemouth groupie, plenty of powder (Bolivian Marching and Gold Bond)—just the beginning.

Yet, despite the horrors of the not-so-distant past, skinny jeans for men are once again rearing their ugly heads, pushing the boundaries of their cramped pup tents.

Won't you consider joining HUEVOS (Honoring Unfettered Emergence of Vas-deferential Orbs and Scrota)? We need your help to fight the global threat to free-range testicles.

NB: In a truly fine-tuned universe, our struggle would be unnecessary.
Posted by: didymos on Nov. 04 2009,20:50

Quote (jupiter @ Nov. 04 2009,18:28)
Won't you consider joining HUEVOS (Honoring Unfettered Emergence of Vas-deferential Orbs and Scrota)? We need your help to fight the global threat to free-range testicles.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I should suppose it goes without saying that HUEVOS has a paramilitary, fully commando wing.
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Nov. 04 2009,21:59

bwaaaaaaahahahaha

huevos and all good lord

hahahahhaa

PP is macro-ID without the added assurance that macro level processes are a function of micro level.  pfffft

fuck until we get a list of all the possible life forms and their stat sheets like some kinda D&D guide that Louis keeps under his couch cushions then all this crap about what is best suited for life or visibility etc etc etc is jibber jabber best reserved for sunday school and acid trips.  i just don't get the appeal.
Posted by: Henry J on Nov. 04 2009,23:06



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Albatrossity2
And based on a sample size of 1, I find it remarkable that you would buy the argument that habitability and observability are correlated. Look up the roots of that verb "correlate". Don't you need more than one observation to correlate with another?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------





---------------------QUOTE-------------------
dheddle
Not a sample size of 1 is sufficient. Correlated means mutually or reciprocally related. In that sense it doesn't require statistics.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Perhaps it's more of a subset relation than a two way correlation?

After all, we launch observational equipment into places that are distinctly uninhabitable by us, simply because those places offer much better observability than the surface of our planet. So there are definitely places that have observability but not habitability.

Henry
Posted by: Richardthughes on Nov. 04 2009,23:32

Quote (dheddle @ Nov. 04 2009,15:14)
Quote (JohnW @ Nov. 04 2009,15:08)
 
Quote (deadman_932 @ Nov. 04 2009,12:57)
I should apologize to Mr. Heddle for poking at him at Pharyngula long ago -- I wasn't sure it was him, anyway, if he even recalls. Mr. Heddle appears reasonable in most of his arguments, except for Nascar and such. By the way, Mr. Heddle, I ran across a hot nascar babe for your delectation:  

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I didn't know Sarah Palin had tattoos.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


She's a Jeff Gordon fan. What do you expect? I'm pretty sure she is an, um, associate of Mr. Richard Hughes.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


HEDDLE, HAS I NOT BEAN NICE TO YOU LATELY? THAT KIEFS HAS CORRUPTED YOU AND YOUR INN WITH A BAD CROWD NOW. HE MESSES WITH RAVENS AND BANANANASAS.

SHE'S TWO SKINNY FOR ME ANYWAY. AND I BET SHE HAS A TINY PEANUS.
Posted by: Richardthughes on Nov. 04 2009,23:38

Crossposted from "Sciencebreaks":

Kicking the privileged planet

< http://media4.obspm.fr/exoplanets/base/carte3d.php >

(see how many are in habitable zones)
Posted by: Constant Mews on Nov. 04 2009,23:57

Quote (FloydLee @ Nov. 04 2009,06:57)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Christianity is not based on Biblical literalism.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


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


Answer my question, Floyd.
Posted by: MichaelJ on Nov. 05 2009,00:09

Quote (Doc Bill @ Nov. 05 2009,09:37)
Playing along for fun, wouldn't being in an open star cluster be better than being part of a spiral arm?

How about a Lone Star?  Even better?

Just think, instead of the Lone Star state we could be the Lone Star solar system!  By Jove I like that idea.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Imagine being above the galactic core or travelling at 0.99c
Posted by: JohnW on Nov. 05 2009,01:12

Quote (Dan @ Nov. 04 2009,17:33)
Quote (FloydLee @ Nov. 04 2009,11:30)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
We are merely an an unintended consequence of a universe designed to be hospitable for rocks.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Goodness, what a dreary bummer hypothesis!!  Why not sign up with Gonzalez and Richards instead???
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Notice, yet again.

FL is not looking for facts or evidence.  He doesn't want to live in a "bummer" universe, so he selects a different one instead.  He thinks it's all just a matter of "signing up".

I choose to sign up for what I want!  Evidence has nothing to do with it!  It's just a matter of opinion!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Universe full of rocks: Dreary bummer.
Eternal torture for those not following the orders of Floyd's "loving" god: Not dreary bummer.
Posted by: Chayanov on Nov. 05 2009,02:05

Quote (JohnW @ Nov. 05 2009,01:12)
Universe full of rocks: Dreary bummer.
Eternal torture for those not following the orders of Floyd's "loving" god: Not dreary bummer.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Not a bummer for FL, at any rate. Which rather says something about him.
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on Nov. 05 2009,03:08

Quote (Henry J @ Nov. 04 2009,17:18)
 
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Nov. 04 2009,10:44)
If the universe is designed for life where do we only find it in one single place?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Maybe cause we've hardly been to any other places? (At least not any further than our own moon.)

Henry
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


True, however if the universe is "designed for life" I'd expect to see evidence of it elsewhere in the universe right now, given how old it is. In a "designed for life" universe there would be innumerable species that would have come and gone before we made it into the scene and I'm sure we'd see the evidence in the sky at some level. Dyson spheres all over the place, that sort of thing.

But we don't. So if we can say one thing it's that the universe may well be designed for life but it's not life as we know it.

And anyway, if the universe was designed for human type life then why are all the other planets in the solar system unsuitable for human life? Sure, they may be outside of the "goldilocks" zone but I'd expect a designer capable of creating the universe to be able to get around such small details.

Due to the expansion of the universe at some point we'll look up and see almost no stars at all. Would a designed for life universe be doing it's best to separate for eternity from each other the reason the universe was designed? Probably not...

And so on.
Posted by: dheddle on Nov. 05 2009,04:17

Quote (Albatrossity2 @ Nov. 04 2009,20:02)
Quote (dheddle @ Nov. 04 2009,17:03)
To Albatrossity2 and all:

I retract the "hair trigger" comment. That was cheap shot, uncalled for, and insulting.

I apologize.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Thanks, Dave. I also appreciate the opportunity to converse with grownups, and the opportunity to disagree in a cordial scientific manner.

Trivially, re the correlation between observability and habitability, is the atmosphere on Mars amenable to observability? According to Wikipedia, it's mostly CO2, nitrogen and argon. If it is an atmosphere that lends itself to observability, and yet Mars is not considered habitable, how does this affect the claimed correlation between observability and habitability?

Secondly, the fact that we can "do cosmology" is wonderful, especially for physicists, but is it really something that is necessarily correlated with life? Could organisms exist in situations where they couldn't "do cosmology"? I think that they could, so what does that "common sense" postulate do for the argument that there exists a correlation between observability and habitability?

Bottom line - I'd think that physicists, of all people, should understand that the universe can hold things that are surprising, non-intuitive or even counter-intuitive, and that our observations of our own private planet might (just might) be parochial. What is wrong with the argument that says other forms of biology might not exist, or even other universes?

And if you acknowledge those as possibilities, I think that the PP arguments of Gonzalez and Richards degenerate into apologetics.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Well maybe correlation isn't the right word--but at any rate the answer to the Mars question is that the claim is not "observability implies habitability" but the other way around.

Similarly, the claim is not that "doing cosmology" is necessary for life, but rather the opportunity for doing cosmology (the ability to see deep space, assuming you can see) is simply a byproduct of the planet's habitability.
Posted by: Quack on Nov. 05 2009,04:40



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
And anyway, if the universe was designed for human type life then why are all the other planets in the solar system unsuitable for human life? Sure, they may be outside of the "goldilocks" zone but I'd expect a designer capable of creating the universe to be able to get around such small details.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


We know we are not allowed (according to types like FL) to ask questions about the mind of God; it is unfathomable, i.e. irrational. So whether chopping down an entire forest to make a matchstick or creating a vast universe when he needs only a tiny solar system, that's just the way he works, 'in mysterious ways'.

'You' can explain anything, i.e. nothing by using the Bible as 'your' vademecum.

I have another question too: Why did he go to all that trouble, creating so much misery when he could have created his heaven right away, with all of us pre-installed ready to play the harp and sing His praise? That's his goal, isn't it? What a roundabout way of doing things. But fully in accord with what to expect from the psychopathic tyrant  of the OT.
Posted by: Badger3k on Nov. 05 2009,07:01

Quote (Quack @ Nov. 05 2009,04:40)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
And anyway, if the universe was designed for human type life then why are all the other planets in the solar system unsuitable for human life? Sure, they may be outside of the "goldilocks" zone but I'd expect a designer capable of creating the universe to be able to get around such small details.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


We know we are not allowed (according to types like FL) to ask questions about the mind of God; it is unfathomable, i.e. irrational. So whether chopping down an entire forest to make a matchstick or creating a vast universe when he needs only a tiny solar system, that's just the way he works, 'in mysterious ways'.

'You' can explain anything, i.e. nothing by using the Bible as 'your' vademecum.

I have another question too: Why did he go to all that trouble, creating so much misery when he could have created his heaven right away, with all of us pre-installed ready to play the harp and sing His praise? That's his goal, isn't it? What a roundabout way of doing things. But fully in accord with what to expect from the psychopathic tyrant  of the OT.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Ooh - ooh!  I know.  Free will.  It is so important for some reason for us to choose to enslave ourselves to this tyrant who needs our love, like an abusive husband, that we have to have free will and not be in heaven immediately.  If we were in heaven (which lacks free will, according to most Christians), then we wouldn't be choosing to be tortured forever.

How's that?
Posted by: FrankH on Nov. 05 2009,07:59

I have request for a little help here.  One thing I've noted is how YEC, even OECs love to quote from books.  Doesn't matter that these books are 15 years old, already refuted and have refs to even old creation books to "support it".

No, I can go to the Geological Society to read a few of the research papers there.  I would like to know if there is a better depository not just for geology, but evolution, astronomy, etc., that is search-able.

Where are these on the web?
Posted by: JonF on Nov. 05 2009,08:21

Quote (Quack @ Nov. 05 2009,05:40)
We know we are not allowed (according to types like FL) to ask questions about the mind of God; it is unfathomable, i.e. irrational.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Somewhere a few pages back FL claimed to know the Mind of God not in the sense of acquaintance, but in the sense of full understanding and ability to predict what He would do in any circumstance.
Posted by: FloydLee on Nov. 05 2009,08:48



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I'm enjoying the grown-up conversation now that Floyd has gone
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


a)  I'm not gone

b)  grown-ups don't do childish insults like that, Johnny---work on it
Posted by: FloydLee on Nov. 05 2009,08:53

Also need to ask something else.  Who in here has actually read "The Privileged Planet"?
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on Nov. 05 2009,09:18

Quote (FloydLee @ Nov. 05 2009,08:53)
Also need to ask something else.  Who in here has actually read "The Privileged Planet"?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


What books on evolution have *you* read FL?
Posted by: OgreMkV on Nov. 05 2009,09:40

hey floyd,  I'm glad your back.  I'm hoping we can move away from the 'privileged planet' thing because it really isn't science either.

How about providing us with a tool, based on ID, that can be used to predict the changes in bacteria over 40,000 generations when exposed to various environmental issues or toxins and when limited in food choices?
Posted by: OgreMkV on Nov. 05 2009,09:41

hey floyd,  I'm glad your back.  I'm hoping we can move away from the 'privileged planet' thing because it really isn't science either.

How about providing us with a tool, based on ID, that can be used to predict how organisms respond at the genetic level to changes in their environment?
Posted by: midwifetoad on Nov. 05 2009,09:42

It's not the "facts" presented in PP that are generally disputed.

It's the argument that because someone wins a lottery, he must have been selected by some magic agency.

Of course the facts can be disputed. There are  astronomers who expect to find many twins of our sun because they have reason to believe our sun was born in a cluster of similar stars.
Posted by: SLP on Nov. 05 2009,09:47

Quote (FloydLee @ Nov. 05 2009,08:48)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I'm enjoying the grown-up conversation now that Floyd has gone
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


a)  I'm not gone

b)  grown-ups don't do childish insults like that, Johnny---work on it
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Right - grown-ups write things like "real meal deal" and "mamma jamma"  and "HMMMMMMM?"  and use weird font styles like this *********
Posted by: SLP on Nov. 05 2009,09:48

Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Nov. 05 2009,09:18)
Quote (FloydLee @ Nov. 05 2009,08:53)
Also need to ask something else.  Who in here has actually read "The Privileged Planet"?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


What books on evolution have *you* read FL?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Not that it matters - whatever books Floyd has read contain absolute truth written by unimpeachable authorities....  At least when the truths they wrote coincide with Floyd's pre-determined conclusions.
Posted by: FloydLee on Nov. 05 2009,09:49



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I'm hoping we can move away from the 'privileged planet' thing because it really isn't science either.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


What?  Falsifiability is no longer required for scientific hypotheses?  Did you actually address the specific falsifiers Gonzalez and Richards wrote about in their book?
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on Nov. 05 2009,09:57

Quote (FloydLee @ Nov. 05 2009,09:49)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I'm hoping we can move away from the 'privileged planet' thing because it really isn't science either.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


What?  Falsifiability is no longer required for scientific hypotheses?  Did you actually address the specific falsifiers Gonzalez and Richards wrote about in their book?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Can you tell me how we could go about falsifying the claims made in PP? A single example.

Is that something we can do in a lab? In the next year?  10 years?

Give us an example of an experiment that can be done with available resources that will prove the case one way or the other.
Posted by: FloydLee on Nov. 05 2009,10:02



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
What books on evolution have *you* read FL?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Understanding Evolution 6th Edition, Volpe and Rosenbaum
Evolution, Monroe Strickberger

....those two were for Biology 150, "Evolution", at my hometown university.  Got a "B".    

A couple others:

Evolutionary Analysis 3rd ed, Freeman and Herron.

....and my personal favorite (because he spilled the real beans on evolution), Futuyma's Evolutionary Biology 3rd ed.

Floyd Lee

PS.....so, who has read Gonzalez and Richard's book?
Posted by: OgreMkV on Nov. 05 2009,10:04

Answer this question floyd:

What is the expected and testable difference between a universe that is specifically designed for us and one that is not?

If you or anyone else cannot answer that question, then it isn't science and we can move on.

There is no ability to falsify the statements given in this book until several points are defined to a high degree of precision (which, I note, you and the authors fail to do).  Such things as (Thanks JohnW):

What's a "diverse scientific discovery"?  (Special and general relativity: one diverse scientific discovery, or two?)  

What's the "local environment"?  (Earth?  Inner Solar System?  Arms of a spiral galaxy?)

define 'superior platform'.

Explain the fact that "quite hostile to life" means that there would be no life, how can a scientific discovery be made.  If there was life, the environment wouldn't be hostile.

You see, scientists can't just throw words about (though we are all guilty of doing so) without having very precise meanings assigned to each word or phrase.  So, define and answer the above... then we can start thinking about whether it's even testable or not.  But before we do all of that... it's not a question that science can answer, therefore, not science.

What's a tool that ID provides to predict the reaction of HIV to a particular treatment program.
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Nov. 05 2009,10:06

So my hypothesis is that God created vaginas because at the end of time they will grow teeth and devour the world much a la the Langoliers.

THAT IS FALSIFIABLE.

Just sit and wait until the end of time and if the vaginas don't grow teeth and devour the universe then IT IS FALSIFIED, BAYBEEEEE.

Hey Fold is that ID science yet?  It's equivalent to the PP hand wave cough "hypothesis".
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Nov. 05 2009,10:08

Quote (FloydLee @ Nov. 05 2009,11:02)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
What books on evolution have *you* read FL?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Understanding Evolution 6th Edition, Volpe and Rosenbaum
Evolution, Monroe Strickberger

....those two were for Biology 150, "Evolution", at my hometown university.  Got a "B".    

A couple others:

Evolutionary Analysis 3rd ed, Freeman and Herron.

....and my personal favorite (because he spilled the real beans on evolution), Futuyma's Evolutionary Biology 3rd ed.

Floyd Lee

PS.....so, who has read Gonzalez and Richard's book?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


all those textbooks lololol

so, after all this, the sum of your arguments are contesting textbook characterizations of serious science?  no shit.

hey guys i've got a physics book for seventh graders that has cartoons in it, but no real physicists use cartoons.  clearly that says something about those real physicists, lying scumbags that hate jesus and stuff.
Posted by: FloydLee on Nov. 05 2009,10:30



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
It's the argument that because someone wins a lottery, he must have been selected by some magic agency.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


It's not about magic at all.  Only about a rational, falsfifiable-via-observation inference of intelligent causation.

But your comment does illuminate what I was talking about earlier.  Intelligent causation of the fine-tuning we see in the universe, galaxy, solar system, and Earth, DOES at least carry a possible implication of a supernatural cause of that universe (the God of the Bible for example).  

Cosmo ID, if that hypothesis survives the falsifiers, would lend some measure rational support to those theistic philosophers and theologians and anybody who already agrees with the Bible's theism.

But it's still a scientific, falsifiable-by-observation hypothesis.
Posted by: Robin on Nov. 05 2009,10:32

Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Nov. 05 2009,03:08)

---------------------QUOTE-------------------




---------------------QUOTE-------------------
True, however if the universe is "designed for life" I'd expect to see evidence of it elsewhere in the universe right now, given how old it is. In a "designed for life" universe there would be innumerable species that would have come and gone before we made it into the scene and I'm sure we'd see the evidence in the sky at some level. Dyson spheres all over the place, that sort of thing.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Sure, but how do you think that evidence would be displayed? In other words, for all we know right now, our very own solar system may well be teeming with life, but how would we know? We've dropped probes on...how many planets and moons? Two? We have rovers on Mars and they've looked at...what...less than .0000012 percent of the planet? How many other planets or other orbital bodies have we looked even this well? We've certainly had several probes fly by a number of our orbital bodies...at what...a few hundred miles away? So given this, there could very well be be Dyson Spheres all over the place, but we just haven't gotten far enough to even detect them.

Of course, I don't disagree with your overall point. There really is a great deal that indicates this universe appears not to be designed for life (or if it is, designed really poorly for it), but I'm just noting that we really don't have any idea at this point how much life might be out there.
Posted by: midwifetoad on Nov. 05 2009,10:42



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
fine-tuning we see in the universe, galaxy, solar system, and Earth, DOES at least carry a possible implication of a supernatural cause of that universe
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Anything is possible. It does not argue for one cause being more likely than another, however. Assigning causes to the results of chance is called superstition, even by the religious.
Posted by: JohnW on Nov. 05 2009,10:57

Quote (SLP @ Nov. 05 2009,07:47)
Quote (FloydLee @ Nov. 05 2009,08:48)
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I'm enjoying the grown-up conversation now that Floyd has gone
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


a)  I'm not gone

b)  grown-ups don't do childish insults like that, Johnny---work on it
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Right - grown-ups write things like "real meal deal" and "mamma jamma"  and "HMMMMMMM?"  and use weird font styles like this *********
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Exactly.  It was nice to have a real discussion with people who are capable of using multiple neurons simultaneously, and aren't making a pathetic attempt to sound like they're thirteen.  Oh well.
Posted by: FloydLee on Nov. 05 2009,11:16



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Can you tell me how we could go about falsifying the claims made in PP? A single example.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Let's do better than that.  Let's give you G and R's specifics.  These are the specific falsifiers for their particular cosmological ID hypothesis.  Please engage.
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
The most decisive way to falsify our argument as a whole would be to find a distant and very different environment, which, while quite hostile to life, nevertheless offers a superior platform for making as many diverse scientific discoveries as does our local environment.

The opposite of this would have the same effect—finding an extremely habitable and inhabited place that was a lousy platform for observation.

Less devastating but still relevant would be discoveries that contradict individual parts of our argument. Most such discoveries would also show that the conditions for habitability of complex life are much wider and more diverse than we claim.

For instance, discovering intelligent life inside a gas giant with an opaque atmosphere, near an X-ray emitting star in the Galactic center, or on a planet without a dark night would do it serious damage.

Or take a less extreme example. We suggested in Chapter 1 that conditions that produce perfect solar eclipses also contribute to the habitability of a planetary environment. Thus, if intelligent extraterrestrial beings exist, they probably enjoy good to perfect solar eclipses.
However, if we find complex, intelligent, indigenous life on a planet without a largish natural satellite, this plank in our argument would collapse.

Our argument presupposes that all complex life, at least in this universe, will almost certainly be based on carbon. Find a non-carbon based life form, and one of our presuppositions collapses.

It’s clear that a number of discoveries would either directly or indirectly contradict our argument.
Similarly, there are future discoveries that would count in favor of it. Virtually any discovery in astrobiology is likely to bear on our argument one way or the other. If we find still more strict conditions that are important for habitability, this will strengthen our case.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


******


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Is that something we can do in a lab?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Doesn't seem like it much, but falsifiability of a scientific hypothesis is NOT limited to what can be observed in laboratories on the ground, as G and R's specifics make clear.
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
In the next year?  10 years?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Or even 20.  Or more.  Falsifiability of a scientific hypothesis NOT dependent on how many years it takes you to observe and record that one killer falsifying observation.

It's like what Casey Luskin said at EN & V on June 4, 2007.  He said it best:

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Clearly the privileged planet hypothesis makes testable predictions. It may take much data to completely determine if the hypothesis stands the test of time, but Dr. Gonzalez’s viewpoint is testable and falsifiable.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: OgreMkV on Nov. 05 2009,11:16

Quote (FloydLee @ Nov. 05 2009,10:30)
But it's still a scientific, falsifiable-by-observation hypothesis.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


What is the testable difference between a universe specifically designed for us and a universe that is not?

Can't answer... or won't?
Posted by: JohnW on Nov. 05 2009,11:26

Quote (FloydLee @ Nov. 05 2009,09:16)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Can you tell me how we could go about falsifying the claims made in PP? A single example.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Let's do better than that.  Let's give you G and R's specifics.  These are the specific falsifiers for their particular cosmological ID hypothesis.  Please engage.
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
...the same stuff for at least the third time...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Please engage?  How about going back over the last few pages and "engaging" the many demolitions of this
'hypothesis" you'll find there.  It's essentially a subjective statement, Floyd.  It's not falsifiable.
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Nov. 05 2009,11:30



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
The most decisive way to falsify our argument as a whole would be to find a distant and very different environment, which, while quite hostile to life, nevertheless offers a superior platform for making as many diverse scientific discoveries as does our local environment.

The opposite of this would have the same effect—finding an extremely habitable and inhabited place that was a lousy platform for observation.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Fold you really are this stupid aren't you.

"Observe every thing in the universe from every place in the universe."

"Compile list of diverse scientific discoveries possible in any local environment.Then, like compare with a graph or something."

hahaahahahaha

yeah that's ID science alright, stupid ass.
Posted by: nmgirl on Nov. 05 2009,11:31

Quote (FloydLee @ Nov. 05 2009,11:16)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Can you tell me how we could go about falsifying the claims made in PP? A single example.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Let's do better than that.  Let's give you G and R's specifics.  These are the specific falsifiers for their particular cosmological ID hypothesis.  Please engage.
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
The most decisive way to falsify our argument as a whole would be to find a distant and very different environment, which, while quite hostile to life, nevertheless offers a superior platform for making as many diverse scientific discoveries as does our local environment.

The opposite of this would have the same effect—finding an extremely habitable and inhabited place that was a lousy platform for observation.

Less devastating but still relevant would be discoveries that contradict individual parts of our argument. Most such discoveries would also show that the conditions for habitability of complex life are much wider and more diverse than we claim.

For instance, discovering intelligent life inside a gas giant with an opaque atmosphere, near an X-ray emitting star in the Galactic center, or on a planet without a dark night would do it serious damage.

Or take a less extreme example. We suggested in Chapter 1 that conditions that produce perfect solar eclipses also contribute to the habitability of a planetary environment. Thus, if intelligent extraterrestrial beings exist, they probably enjoy good to perfect solar eclipses.
However, if we find complex, intelligent, indigenous life on a planet without a largish natural satellite, this plank in our argument would collapse.

Our argument presupposes that all complex life, at least in this universe, will almost certainly be based on carbon. Find a non-carbon based life form, and one of our presuppositions collapses.

It’s clear that a number of discoveries would either directly or indirectly contradict our argument.
Similarly, there are future discoveries that would count in favor of it. Virtually any discovery in astrobiology is likely to bear on our argument one way or the other. If we find still more strict conditions that are important for habitability, this will strengthen our case.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


******
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Is that something we can do in a lab?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Doesn't seem like it much, but falsifiability of a scientific hypothesis is NOT limited to what can be observed in laboratories on the ground, as G and R's specifics make clear.
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
In the next year?  10 years?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Or even 20.  Or more.  Falsifiability of a scientific hypothesis NOT dependent on how many years it takes you to observe and record that one killer falsifying observation.

It's like what Casey Luskin said at EN & V on June 4, 2007.  He said it best:

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Clearly the privileged planet hypothesis makes testable predictions. It may take much data to completely determine if the hypothesis stands the test of time, but Dr. Gonzalez’s viewpoint is testable and falsifiable.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


---------------------QUOTE-------------------


so your proof of "ID is Science" are hypotheses that can not be tested by our current level of technology?  I'm still waiting for definitions of "hostile to life" "superior platform" and diversise scientific descoveries".
Posted by: OgreMkV on Nov. 05 2009,11:33

Again Floyd:

What's a "diverse scientific discovery"?  (Special and general relativity: one diverse scientific discovery, or two?)  

What's the "local environment"?  (Earth?  Inner Solar System?  Arms of a spiral galaxy?)

define 'superior platform'.

Explain the fact that "quite hostile to life" means that there would be no life, how can a scientific discovery be made.  If there was life, the environment wouldn't be hostile.

Finding another life form that has or does x isn't testable.  We would literally have to explore everything in the entire universe to verify or falsify this statement.  It's not possible.

So, what is a testable difference between a universe that is specifically designed for us and any other universe?
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Nov. 05 2009,11:34

Fold are you Daniel Smith?
Posted by: OgreMkV on Nov. 05 2009,11:37

You've had three people tell you the same thing in just a few minutes.

Can we move on or is this it?
Posted by: SLP on Nov. 05 2009,11:40

Quote (FloydLee @ Nov. 05 2009,09:49)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I'm hoping we can move away from the 'privileged planet' thing because it really isn't science either.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


What?  Falsifiability is no longer required for scientific hypotheses?  Did you actually address the specific falsifiers Gonzalez and Richards wrote about in their book?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


So, my moon=cheese hypothesis is scientific because it is falsifiable.  Thanks.
Posted by: JohnW on Nov. 05 2009,11:41

Quote (Erasmus, FCD @ Nov. 05 2009,09:34)
Fold are you Daniel Smith?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I suspect Floyd's next move, after ignoring the expanding cloud of plasma where his "hypothesis" used to be, will be to announce that he has conclusively shown that he's right.  He'll make this announcement in a mixture of Spanish and French.
Posted by: Robin on Nov. 05 2009,11:45

Quote (OgreMkV @ Nov. 05 2009,11:33)

---------------------QUOTE-------------------




---------------------QUOTE-------------------
So, what is a testable difference between a universe that is specifically designed for us and any other universe?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



And while you're at it Floyd, please explain how Gonzalez, et al, aren't question begging to when they present the argument "the conditions to support life, particularly humans, are rare and a narrow range, therefore the universe must have been fine-tuned since any deviation of that range would not have allowed us to exist." As I've noted now four times, Gonzalez does not know what parameters are "normal" for any given universe - the parameters we see could very well be 99.99999999% necessitated by having matter and energy. The writers don't know Floyd, and neither do you. To declare this a "privileged planet" is question at best and likely disingenuous.There is nothing remotely valid about Gonzalez's argument from a scientific perspective.
Posted by: nmgirl on Nov. 05 2009,11:45

Help me out here guys.  i am new to posting to these boards with the IDiots but I see the same things everywhere.  Why are most of their posts cut and paste of other people's words.  Are people like FL incapable of presenting their thoughts in their own words?
Posted by: Robin on Nov. 05 2009,11:53

Quote (FloydLee @ Nov. 05 2009,10:30)

---------------------QUOTE-------------------




---------------------QUOTE-------------------


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
It's the argument that because someone wins a lottery, he must have been selected by some magic agency.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


It's not about magic at all.  Only about a rational, falsfifiable-via-observation inference of intelligent causation.

But your comment does illuminate what I was talking about earlier.  Intelligent causation of the fine-tuning we see in the universe, galaxy, solar system, and Earth, DOES at least carry a possible implication of a supernatural cause of that universe (the God of the Bible for example).  

Cosmo ID, if that hypothesis survives the falsifiers, would lend some measure rational support to those theistic philosophers and theologians and anybody who already agrees with the Bible's theism.

But it's still a scientific, falsifiable-by-observation hypothesis.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Ummm...quick question - if the "fine-tuning" argument a la Gonzalez et al is actually valid science, as you attest it is, why did Gonzalez et al publish the concept through a private distributor in a book form as opposed to any number of scientific journals? Why didn't they present it for peer review per the scientific method and have it submitted to a scientific society for scientific research?
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Nov. 05 2009,11:55

Quote (nmgirl @ Nov. 05 2009,12:45)
Help me out here guys.  i am new to posting to these boards with the IDiots but I see the same things everywhere.  Why are most of their posts cut and paste of other people's words.  Are people like FL incapable of presenting their thoughts in their own words?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


ahhahahahahahahaha

incapable, who knows?

sure as hell resistant to it, definitely.  

argument by quote mine, with never an iota of independent thought or second order analysis.  

you'll do just fine!
Posted by: dheddle on Nov. 05 2009,12:03

Quote (Robin @ Nov. 05 2009,11:45)
 
Quote (OgreMkV @ Nov. 05 2009,11:33)

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
So, what is a testable difference between a universe that is specifically designed for us and any other universe?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



And while you're at it Floyd, please explain how Gonzalez, et al, aren't question begging to when they present the argument "the conditions to support life, particularly humans, are rare and a narrow range, therefore the universe must have been fine-tuned since any deviation of that range would not have allowed us to exist." As I've noted now four times, Gonzalez does not know what parameters are "normal" for any given universe - the parameters we see could very well be 99.99999999% necessitated by having matter and energy. The writers don't know Floyd, and neither do you. To declare this a "privileged planet" is question at best and likely disingenuous.There is nothing remotely valid about Gonzalez's argument from a scientific perspective.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Again I have to disagree. In our own solar system there are ~8.5 planets and ~175 moons. And it looks like only earth supports complex life. And I don't think any of us would be surprised if it is the only orb in our solar system with any life. So the question is not really whether earth is privileged, our own solar system sets the upper level of its privileged character at ~ one in a hundred.  The question is only one of degree.

And I also disagree that none of Gonzalez's arguments are valid. I see nothing scientifically invalid, for example, in his idea of a galactic habitability zone.That is independent of whether it turns out to be correct. As a scientific concept it it is valid in the sense that it merits consideration. Whether it stands the test of time--who knows.
Posted by: OgreMkV on Nov. 05 2009,12:17

Quote (dheddle @ Nov. 05 2009,12:03)
Again I have to disagree. In our own solar system there are ~8.5 planets and ~175 moons. And it looks like only earth supports complex life. And I don't think any of us would be surprised if it is the only orb in our solar system with any life. So the question is not really whether earth is privileged, our own solar system sets the upper level of its privileged character at ~ one in a hundred.  The question is only one of degree.

And I also disagree that none of Gonzalez's arguments are valid. I see nothing scientifically invalid, for example, in his idea of a galactic habitability zone.That is independent of whether it turns out to be correct. As a scientific concept it it is valid in the sense that it merits consideration. Whether it stands the test of time--who knows.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I disagree heddle.  I would be very surprised if Earth is the only body with any form of life in our solar system.  Ganymede, Europa, and Titan all look pretty good for some form of life.  Heck, comets have complex organic molecules on them.

Again, and this is the big problem (as a testable science) with the arguements as presented, we have to visit every rock (and indeed gas giant and for that matter star) and determine if life is present or not.  And, while we do that, we may have to radically change our definition of life.

I can agree... up to a point about a 'galactic habitability zone' if you include 'for humans'.  I know I wouldn't want to live a few parsecs down from the black hole(s?) in the center of the galaxy... but that's not to say that some form of life wouldn't find it very pleasant.  

Again, it's not science because it's not testable.  At best, it's logical philosophy.  Ask me again in 65,000 years or so and I may have a different answer because science may have caught up with philosophy as has happened any number of times.
Posted by: FloydLee on Nov. 05 2009,12:43

Just curious, Ogre.  Do you have any evidence that any universe exists other than the one we see now?

And have you read the book "The Privileged Planet"?
Posted by: midwifetoad on Nov. 05 2009,12:47



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
The question is only one of degree.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



The question is one of relevance. What question is asked or answered by noting that we happen to exist in a temperate zone?

What question is asked or answered if we continue not finding extraterrestrial life?
Posted by: Constant Mews on Nov. 05 2009,12:54

Quote (FloydLee @ Nov. 05 2009,08:48)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I'm enjoying the grown-up conversation now that Floyd has gone
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


a)  I'm not gone

b)  grown-ups don't do childish insults like that, Johnny---work on it
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Be an adult. Answer my question.
Posted by: OgreMkV on Nov. 05 2009,12:55

Quote (FloydLee @ Nov. 05 2009,12:43)
Just curious, Ogre.  Do you have any evidence that any universe exists other than the one we see now?

And have you read the book "The Privileged Planet"?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Do you have any evidence that this universe is the only universe?

Of course you don't and of course I don't... WHICH IS THE POINT!

It's not testable.

Now, you say that the principle that our universe (and by implication our planet, and us) are specifically designed.

What test can we do that will provide information (and what is that information) whether you or I are correct?  That is science... see the difference?
Posted by: Constant Mews on Nov. 05 2009,12:57

Quote (FloydLee @ Nov. 05 2009,08:53)
Also need to ask something else.  Who in here has actually read "The Privileged Planet"?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I have already told you. I have.

Answer my questions, Floyd.

Be an adult.
Posted by: FloydLee on Nov. 05 2009,13:17



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
WHICH IS THE POINT!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I think the two points are that:

(1)  Very specific, empirically observable ID falsifiers have been presented by G and R.  You don't accept them, but you are unable to refute them either.  

(2)  You haven't read the book The Privileged Planet.
Posted by: rhmc on Nov. 05 2009,13:25

Quote (FloydLee @ Nov. 05 2009,14:17)
I think the two points are that:
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


you won't answer questions.  pretty funny stuff.

absolutely fascinating, though.  

your refusal to deal with the gaping logical holes poked through your shabby belief system is quite revealing as to your psychological make up.
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Nov. 05 2009,13:26

Quote (FloydLee @ Nov. 05 2009,14:17)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
WHICH IS THE POINT!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I think the two points are that:

(1)  Very specific, empirically observable ID falsifiers have been presented by G and R.  You don't accept them, but you are unable to refute them either.  

(2)  You haven't read the book The Privileged Planet.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


the 2 points are

1)  You don't care about what is falsifiable and what is not
2)  You don't care that the difference has been demonstrated for you.

Now, at the end of time you tell me if vaginas grow teeth and eat the world.  That is just as scientific a hypothesis as the little PP!
Posted by: OgreMkV on Nov. 05 2009,13:31

From the "privileged planet" website

Q #1: Is the fact that we can see "perfect" solar eclipses related to our existence?
A: The Earth's surface provides the best view of solar eclipses in the Solar System. The Earth's surface is also the most habitable place in the Solar System. Is this coincidence just that? In The Privileged Planet, we argue that it isn't. The conditions that make a planet habitable also make its inhabitants more likely to see solar eclipses.

The authors mistake cause and effect.  The causes of a solar ecplise somehow cause life.  At this point, this isn't testable because we don't have anything to compare our planet to.  I would however, be perfectly willing to argue that the moon of a gas giant would be even more 'safe' for any potential inhabitants than our planet.


Q #2: Is our existence related to the transparency of the atmosphere?
A: Atmospheres come in many forms, but not all allow for complex life or clear views of the wider universe. Complex life requires a certain type of atmosphere. It turns that this same type of atmosphere provides a remarkably clear view of the near and distant universe. Complex, intelligent beings are unlikely to find themselves on a planet with an opaque atmosphere or deep in a murky ocean. We explain this relationship in detail in The Privileged Planet.

Again, mistakes cause and effect.  Complex organisms surely appeared in the oceans before land.  Octopi are known as far back as 95 million years.

I would also point out that the atmosphere of the primevil Earth was pretty hostile and life changed that atmosphere.

Q #3: Can life be based on any liquid substance, or is water somehow special?
A: Water is common on Earth's surface, but one might suspect that on other planets, there are complex, intelligent beings that are not based on water, but liquid ammonia, methane, or nitrogen. But that's very unlikely. As it turns out, water is endowed with life-support capacities lacking in other substances. Together these capacities make water the most anomalous compound known to science. In The Privileged Planet, we also explain how important water has been to the rise of science.

"water is endowed with life support capacities"?  "Water is the most anomalous compound known to science"?  Why is life based on other solvents so unlikely?  Talk about an anthropomorphic view.

Q #4: Is Earth a data recorder?
A: A walk through a Redwood forest is like a walk through the Library of Congress. Trees, along with corals, polar ice, marine sediments, and lake sediments contain vast storehouses of detailed information about Earth's past climate. Is this a typical feature of planets? On the contrary, we argue in that, as planets go, Earth (or, more precisely, the Earth-Moon system) is a quite high fidelity recorder of the past.

Now, we're just getting silly.  I'm guessing that they had to add the 'Earth-Moon system' because of the huge array of historical information we can get from the moon.  Of course, Mars will have to be added because of all the info (including paleo) we get from there.  Then any planet/moon/dwarf planet with craters.  

Q #5: Is the appearance of the night sky related to our existence?
A: Not only is our atmosphere transparent, but we also enjoy dark nights. Several happy coincidences, from having a planet that rotates on its axis, to our location in the galaxy, to the age of the cosmos, conspire to make this possible. And those dark nights have been vital to many scientific discoveries, as we argue in The Privileged Planet.

So no other planets rotate on an axis?  What would be the difference if our solar system existed anywhere else?  

Q #6: Why are there so many planets in the Solar System?
A: Isn't just one planet (Earth) all we need? Doesn't it seem like a waste of space and materials to have all those other barren worlds? Well, not if those worlds are players in the games of life and scientific discovery. In The Privileged Planet, we discuss how the other planets serve as Earth's protectors while at the same time helping us in our quest to learn about the nature of the cosmos.

Again, this is just silly.  The planets in our solar system exist to protect us and teach us.  So You want to go back to worshipping Jupiter?

Q #7: Did Copernicus remove us from the center of the cosmos?
A: In most introductory astronomy textbooks and popular descriptions of the history of science, students are told that until Copernicus, the West believed that Earth and its human inhabitants viewed themselves as being in the most important place in the cosmos. Copernicus, we are told, demoted us by making Earth merely one of the planets. As it is usually presented, this popular story is mostly mythology rather than historical fact. In Pre-Copernican cosmology, the "center" of the cosmos meant something entirely different from what it is now taken to mean. We explain why in The Privileged Planet

When all else fails, change the rules of the game.  

Sigh.  I haven't read the book and I'm not going to waste processing power and memory space on it.

Again, please describe the difference between a universe specifically designed for us and one that is not.  I'll help, fill in the blanks:

If the universe is designed, then we should see ___.

While you're doing that, provide me with an ID based tool that is better than evolution at predicting results of experiments.
Posted by: FloydLee on Nov. 05 2009,13:32



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
you won't answer questions.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Already answered two of Ogre's.  Can't even get him to admit he's not read the book.

How about you?  You read it?  Yes or no?
Posted by: FloydLee on Nov. 05 2009,13:34

Correction....I think he just owned up to not reading it.  

How about you, Rhmc?
Posted by: OgreMkV on Nov. 05 2009,13:47

I don't care about the book.  Have you actually thought about this or are you just parroting something that you think supports ID?

define 'superior observational platform'
define a method to count observations
explain the paradox that if a place is hostile to life, then it has no life and therefore no observations can be made.  Alternately, if there is life, then the environment is not hostile to life.

Give me a piece of information that we would expect to see in a designed universe and why that piece is different from any other possible universe.

Oh, and how about describing an ID based tool that I can use to predict the phenotypes of my cat's kittens.

Here's one, why won't you answer the above questions?  They are necessary for the SCIENCE part of your explanation.
Posted by: rhmc on Nov. 05 2009,13:55

Quote (FloydLee @ Nov. 05 2009,14:32)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
you won't answer questions.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Already answered two of Ogre's.  Can't even get him to admit he's not read the book.

How about you?  You read it?  Yes or no?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


how about the several hundred questions you've dodged in the past 98 pages?  

you answer those, i'll answer yours.
Posted by: Chayanov on Nov. 05 2009,13:58



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Not only is our atmosphere transparent, but we also enjoy dark nights. Several happy coincidences, from having a planet that rotates on its axis, to our location in the galaxy, to the age of the cosmos, conspire to make this possible.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Before our ancestors learned how to control fire those dark nights would have been terrifying, as people huddled together for protection against large predators with much better night vision. How was that a privileged position?
Posted by: JohnW on Nov. 05 2009,14:10

Quote (FloydLee @ Nov. 05 2009,11:17)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
WHICH IS THE POINT!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I think the two points are that:

(1)  Very specific, empirically observable ID falsifiers have been presented by G and R.  You don't accept them, but you are unable to refute them either.  

(2)  You haven't read the book The Privileged Planet.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


1.  How about telling us what these "very specific, observable ID falsifiers" are?  You've presented none so far.

2.  No, I haven't.  I don't have time to read all the good books, without wasting time on bad ones.  If you think it's a good book and worthy of my time, go ahead and try to convince me.
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Nov. 05 2009,14:14

100 pages and the only thing that is firmly established is that Fold is Full Of Shit.

And most of us knew that already (except... DEADMAN bwahahahaha)

Seriously Fold I mean I think it's great and all that you are not on PT acting like a stupid ass but honestly I'd rather you were there than here if you aren't even going to pretend to attempt to answer questions or have a grown up discussion.

the itsy bitsy PP hypothesis is no more scientific than my vaginas-grow-teeth-at-the-end-the-time hypothesis.

and that's the best you have done in 100 pages.  you flunked with your big 5 fantasies because you couldn't explain WHY God is part of any required explanation.  you did manage to describe your position but not explain it.  It's OK, no one expected much of you and you didn't disappoint.

your bible based biology, well, that's about what anyone would have predicted.  stoooopit

ID=science you are doing a bang up job of beating everyone's boots to death with your face.  

just wondering if you maybe were thinking about a good time to bail and go preach to some high school kids who might still think you are kinda cool in a weird way that they will later figure out is gay.  Hint:  NOWS THE TIME OLD BUDDY.
Posted by: Amadan on Nov. 05 2009,14:16

Floyd, try to remember 99 pages ago when you entered this debate. Not Gonzales or any of his chums.

Are you able to (a) state and (b) defend your argument in your own words?

If not, why not just send over your big brother to do your fighting for you instead of holding up a picture of him and saying that he's so tough he's beaten us up without our even knowing it.
Posted by: FloydLee on Nov. 05 2009,14:36



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Are you able to (a) state and (b) defend your argument in your own words?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



You have received sentence- or short-paragraph  summaries for all five of the Big Five Incompatibilities, and a similar short-summary of the G and R Cosmo ID hypothesis.  In my own words

IOW, you have received both "my own words" and the published statements of the professional PhD scientists and philosophers of science.  Also answered questions likewise.  Agreed?

FloydLee
Posted by: Henry J on Nov. 05 2009,14:44

Quote (OgreMkV @ Nov. 05 2009,12:31)
From the "privileged planet" website

Q #1: Is the fact that we can see "perfect" solar eclipses related to our existence?
A: The Earth's surface provides the best view of solar eclipses in the Solar System. The Earth's surface is also the most habitable place in the Solar System. Is this coincidence just that? In The Privileged Planet, we argue that it isn't. The conditions that make a planet habitable also make its inhabitants more likely to see solar eclipses.

The authors mistake cause and effect.  The causes of a solar ecplise somehow cause life.  At this point, this isn't testable because we don't have anything to compare our planet to.  I would however, be perfectly willing to argue that the moon of a gas giant would be even more 'safe' for any potential inhabitants than our planet.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


As I understand it, 3-4 billion years ago the moon was much closer to Earth than it is now. But that was presumably before there was anybody on the planet to care that the corona was visible only momentarily at the start and again at the end of the eclipse.

Also, the moon is still moving away, so in several million years there won't be total eclipses at all (the moon will at that point only blot out a circular piece of the sun). Will that cause Earth to become uninhabitable?

Henry
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on Nov. 05 2009,14:46

Quote (FloydLee @ Nov. 05 2009,14:36)
IOW, you have received both "my own words" and the published statements of the professional PhD scientists and philosophers of science.  Also answered questions likewise.  Agreed?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


If the published statements of professional PhD scientists and philosophers of science are so important to you why do you choose to listen to the tiny minority that support ID?

Is it perhaps just the particular conclusion they come to that attracts you?

If not, why then?
Posted by: Henry J on Nov. 05 2009,14:50

Even if we found a way to survey all the planets in this galaxy, and found that all (or at least a large majority) of intelligent species originated on planets from which astronomical observations could be made from the ground, what exactly would that prove?

Not that this is gonna happen any time soon, of course. Plus, explorers from Earth would be likely to be biased as to what kind of planet they surveyed, so there might be a tendency to ignore other kinds of planets even if the transportation costs were to go way down.

Henry
Posted by: OgreMkV on Nov. 05 2009,14:54

Quote (Henry J @ Nov. 05 2009,14:44)
As I understand it, 3-4 billion years ago the moon was much closer to Earth than it is now. But that was presumably before there was anybody on the planet to care that the corona was visible only momentarily at the start and again at the end of the eclipse.

Also, the moon is still moving away, so in several million years there won't be total eclipses at all (the moon will at that point only blot out a circular piece of the sun). Will that cause Earth to become uninhabitable?

Henry
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


True, I always forget about that.  I never can remember anything past about 65 million years ago.

Another point, the moon is not in a perfectly circular orbit around the Earth.  The moon wobbles a bit up and down each cycle.  So, if things were designed so perfectly, one would think that perfect ecplises should happen frequently, so as to allow the most 'teaching' to occur.

Floyd, do you really want to understand this stuff or do you just want to preach?
Posted by: Robin on Nov. 05 2009,15:06

Quote (nmgirl @ Nov. 05 2009,11:45)

---------------------QUOTE-------------------




---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Help me out here guys.  i am new to posting to these boards with the IDiots but I see the same things everywhere.  Why are most of their posts cut and paste of other people's words.  Are people like FL incapable of presenting their thoughts in their own words?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



By and large I think it is because they think that some of the statements made by other "smart" ID folk sound intelligent and correct even if they don't understand it. Keep in mind, a lot of the slock the FL (et al) post is specifically fuzzy about a lot of the details but very straight forward about supporting the Big Tent perspective. I'm sure the FL and most other ID/Creationist types haven't a clue what 80% of the stuff they post even means and why, when really examined, it falls apart, but they don't really care because they believe it's true because it sounds good and implies what they want to hear.
Posted by: Constant Mews on Nov. 05 2009,15:12

Quote (FloydLee @ Nov. 05 2009,14:36)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Are you able to (a) state and (b) defend your argument in your own words?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



You have received sentence- or short-paragraph  summaries for all five of the Big Five Incompatibilities, and a similar short-summary of the G and R Cosmo ID hypothesis.  In my own words

IOW, you have received both "my own words" and the published statements of the professional PhD scientists and philosophers of science.  Also answered questions likewise.  Agreed?

FloydLee
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Floyd, I have already explained that I have read their book.  They are arguing from incredulity.

And you have not answered my questions.

And adult - as you yourself pointed out - would have.

Are you a child?
Posted by: Constant Mews on Nov. 05 2009,15:14

Quote (FloydLee @ Nov. 05 2009,14:36)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Are you able to (a) state and (b) defend your argument in your own words?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



You have received sentence- or short-paragraph  summaries for all five of the Big Five Incompatibilities, and a similar short-summary of the G and R Cosmo ID hypothesis.  In my own words

IOW, you have received both "my own words" and the published statements of the professional PhD scientists and philosophers of science.  Also answered questions likewise.  Agreed?

FloydLee
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


There are actually dozens of questions posed to you in good faith on this thread which you have ignored.

Answer my questions, Floyd.  And adult would answer.

Are you a child?
Posted by: Robin on Nov. 05 2009,15:15

Quote (dheddle @ Nov. 05 2009,12:03)

---------------------QUOTE-------------------




---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Again I have to disagree. In our own solar system there are ~8.5 planets and ~175 moons. And it looks like only earth supports complex life. And I don't think any of us would be surprised if it is the only orb in our solar system with any life. So the question is not really whether earth is privileged, our own solar system sets the upper level of its privileged character at ~ one in a hundred.  The question is only one of degree.

And I also disagree that none of Gonzalez's arguments are valid. I see nothing scientifically invalid, for example, in his idea of a galactic habitability zone.That is independent of whether it turns out to be correct. As a scientific concept it it is valid in the sense that it merits consideration. Whether it stands the test of time--who knows.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



See Ogre's post above. To add to that, as I noted earlier, how many of these 8.5 planets and 175 moons have we spent any time actually studying in any kind of detail? 2 of them? Woohoo...that presents a big area of assumption if one is going to say, "our solar system doesn't appear to have any other life." To move the goal posts and say "complext life" begs the question further - why are you presuming how to evaluate life and why are you presuming the complex is somehow an indication of something significant?

As to your statement about that you disagree that none of Gonzalez's arguments are valid, I wasn't trying to imply such - hence I used the term "argument" in singular. If I gave that impression, my apologies. The fine-tuned argument is, however, invalid and has no merit. It is question begging based on a reversal of logic and holds no place in science.
Posted by: Robin on Nov. 05 2009,15:19

Quote (FloydLee @ Nov. 05 2009,13:17)

---------------------QUOTE-------------------




---------------------QUOTE-------------------


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
WHICH IS THE POINT!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I think the two points are that:

(1)  Very specific, empirically observable ID falsifiers have been presented by G and R.  You don't accept them, but you are unable to refute them either.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



No they haven't as I've now demonstrated 3 times and argued against an addional 2 times.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
(2)  You haven't read the book The Privileged Planet.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Irrelevant to the point that the fine-tuned argument is invalid.
Posted by: deadman_932 on Nov. 05 2009,15:22

And just to remind you of where you stand at the moment, Floaty:

1) The only reason you cited quotes from "evolutionists" or various forms of creationists was to back your Big Five Fantasies.

2) But, you admitted that Christians like the Pope remain Christians who also agree with evolution, even if they don't ever address your Big Five Fantasies.

3) That meant (and still means) your use of quotes is irrelevant, because no one ever has to address your BFF. Beyond which, opinions remain opinions, and it is all of science that excludes deistic supernaturalism as investigateable by science. When you were asked to produce any scientific research program for supernatural deistic causation or teleology, you failed, miserably.

4) You pretended that Gonzalez' crap was addressing supernatural causation when it's just the standard "fine tuning" argument that is filled with fallacies, obvious logical errors and no means of distinguishing supernatural agency from space-aliens from the planet Glarrgh

5) I didn't have to read Gonzalez' book to make the point that I just did, Floaty. Nor did I need to read gonzalez' book to make the additional points that I did about Gonzalez' claims (you supplied his "falsification" quotes  and he has a webpage and at least 3 interviews available online to look at his claims).

I posted my criticisms of Gonzalez' claims to you 7 full days ago, Floaty. YOU said that you would address them, and have failed to do so. Insisting that I read his book is just an excuse for you, Floaty -- as I said, you posted the material that I based my criticism on. YOU supplied it. Then I went and read his interviews online and his website. My criticisms still stand unaddressed by you because you can't address them.
Posted by: Lou FCD on Nov. 05 2009,15:32

I'd just like to interject that the side conversations amongst the grownups are much more interesting than anything involving Floyd.

Let's not lose them in the train wreck.
Posted by: OgreMkV on Nov. 05 2009,15:34

heddle is using the same arguements that he used in 2004 at Panda's Thumb.  I killed the link, but search in the archive for 'Priviliged Planet'.

You'd think in 5 years, someone would come up with a testable experiment to differentiate between a specifically designed universe and one that is not specifically designed.  

I also would like to point out that the first slide of Kuehn's powerpoint crituquing the book discusses how Christians should witness and bring up ID.  Then he trashes the book too.  

LOL
Posted by: Henry J on Nov. 05 2009,15:35

Quote (Constant Mews @ Nov. 05 2009,14:14)
There are actually dozens of questions posed to you in good faith on this thread which you have ignored.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Not to mention the refutations of his claims that he also ignores, sometimes entirely, and sometimes by "addressing" a minor point from the same post.

Henry
Posted by: deadman_932 on Nov. 05 2009,15:36

Eh, Time's up,. Floyd. You have failed to act honestly and responsibly from the beginning of this thread, when you decided to break your agreements with me. You failed to support yur "evo and christianity are incompatible " for reasons posted multiple times .

You've failed to even TRY to answer my criticisms of Gonzalez.

That's enough.
Posted by: Lou FCD on Nov. 05 2009,15:36

Say goodnight, Gracie.

100 pages is plenty of time for Floyd to make whatever case he intended to make, and plenty of evidence that he's not going to.

Interesting side conversations can be continued in relevant threads.
end


Powered by Ikonboard 3.0.2a
Ikonboard © 2001 Jarvis Entertainment Group, Inc.