RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

Pages: (100) < ... 2 3 4 5 6 [7] 8 9 10 11 12 ... >   
  Topic: FL "Debate Thread", READ FIRST POST BEFORE PARTICIPATING PLZ< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  
Stanton



Posts: 266
Joined: Jan. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: 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.

You want we should start moving on to discussing how and why FL's insistence that Intelligent Design is epic fail?

  
Dan



Posts: 77
Joined: Sep. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 21 2009,18:39   

Quote (FloydLee @ Sep. 21 2009,16:45)
 
Quote
abiogenesis and evolution "leaves him [God] with nothing to do".

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

...

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

:)

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.)

  
deadman_932



Posts: 3094
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: 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.

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

  
Dale_Husband



Posts: 118
Joined: April 2008

(Permalink) Posted: 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.

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.

--------------
If you need a man-made book to beleive in a God who is said to have created the universe, of what value is your faith? You might as well worship an idol.

   
deadman_932



Posts: 3094
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: 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.


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.


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.


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.

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.

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

  
Quack



Posts: 1959
Joined: May 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 22 2009,02:25   

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

If that's the case, this ought to be of scientific interest to you.

--------------
Rocks have no biology.
              Robert Byers.

  
FloydLee



Posts: 577
Joined: Sep. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: 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!


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! )

  
Stanton



Posts: 266
Joined: Jan. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: 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!


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! )

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.

  
FloydLee



Posts: 577
Joined: Sep. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 22 2009,09:28   

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


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
"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


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

  
FloydLee



Posts: 577
Joined: Sep. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 22 2009,09:35   

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

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

  
Erasmus, FCD



Posts: 6349
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: 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

--------------
You're obviously illiterate as hell. Peach, bro.-FtK

Finding something hard to believe based on the evidence, is science.-JoeG

the odds of getting some loathsome taint are low-- Gordon E Mullings Manjack Heights Montserrat

I work on molecular systems with pathway charts and such.-Giggles

  
Erasmus, FCD



Posts: 6349
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 22 2009,09:38   

Quote (FloydLee @ Sep. 22 2009,10:35)
Quote
And yes, we automatically assume that you're quotemining...

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

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

--------------
You're obviously illiterate as hell. Peach, bro.-FtK

Finding something hard to believe based on the evidence, is science.-JoeG

the odds of getting some loathsome taint are low-- Gordon E Mullings Manjack Heights Montserrat

I work on molecular systems with pathway charts and such.-Giggles

  
Richardthughes



Posts: 10762
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: 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.  



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.

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

  
deadman_932



Posts: 3094
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: 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.

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

  
Erasmus, FCD



Posts: 6349
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: 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.

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

bad politics, i reckon

--------------
You're obviously illiterate as hell. Peach, bro.-FtK

Finding something hard to believe based on the evidence, is science.-JoeG

the odds of getting some loathsome taint are low-- Gordon E Mullings Manjack Heights Montserrat

I work on molecular systems with pathway charts and such.-Giggles

  
Stanton



Posts: 266
Joined: Jan. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: 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.

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.

  
Stanton



Posts: 266
Joined: Jan. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: 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?

  
deadman_932



Posts: 3094
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: 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

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)

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

  
FloydLee



Posts: 577
Joined: Sep. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 22 2009,10:09   

Quote
cherry-pick

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.

  
Stanton



Posts: 266
Joined: Jan. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 22 2009,10:16   

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

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.

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.

  
FloydLee



Posts: 577
Joined: Sep. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 22 2009,10:16   

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


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.

  
Richardthughes



Posts: 10762
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 22 2009,10:20   

Quote (FloydLee @ Sep. 22 2009,10:16)
Quote
"A serious case could be made for a deistic God." RD.


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.

Hey Floyd. Is the Pope Christian? Yes or No.

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

  
deadman_932



Posts: 3094
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 22 2009,10:20   

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

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.


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.


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?

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

  
FloydLee



Posts: 577
Joined: Sep. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: 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.

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???

  
Richardthughes



Posts: 10762
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 22 2009,10:30   

Erm, is the Pope Christian? Yes or no. Thanks.

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

  
deadman_932



Posts: 3094
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: 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.

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???

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."


Contradicts your Biblical literalism regarding Genesis, don't it?

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

  
SLP



Posts: 136
Joined: Dec. 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 22 2009,10:40   

Quote (FloydLee @ Sep. 22 2009,09:35)
Quote
And yes, we automatically assume that you're quotemining...

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

How ironic...

  
SLP



Posts: 136
Joined: Dec. 2002

(Permalink) Posted: 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.

So, find me a high school or university-level Physics, Genetics, or Chemistry textbook that SAYS these particular things.  

So if it is assumed, it is OK?

  
FloydLee



Posts: 577
Joined: Sep. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 22 2009,10:43   

Quote
Hey Floyd. Is the Pope Christian? Yes or No.

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.

  
deadman_932



Posts: 3094
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: 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.

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

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

Pages: (100) < ... 2 3 4 5 6 [7] 8 9 10 11 12 ... >   


Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

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