RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

Pages: (100) < ... 3 4 5 6 7 [8] 9 10 11 12 13 ... >   
  Topic: FL "Debate Thread", READ FIRST POST BEFORE PARTICIPATING PLZ< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  
Richardthughes



Posts: 10762
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 22 2009,10:51   

Quote (FloydLee @ 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.

Floyd, you don't get to pick 'the end'.

So, Christianity is compatible with evolution, then?

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

  
FloydLee



Posts: 577
Joined: Sep. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 22 2009,10:53   

Quote
So if it is assumed, it is OK?

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.

  
FloydLee



Posts: 577
Joined: Sep. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: 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.
 
Anybody able to refute this particular statement?

  
Quack



Posts: 1960
Joined: May 2007

(Permalink) Posted: 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.

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.

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

  
deadman_932



Posts: 3094
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: 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.
 
Anybody able to refute this particular statement?

I don't care if they have or haven't.

What counts is that your claims have been refuted here, in this thread.

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

  
deadman_932



Posts: 3094
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: 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.

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?

[my emphases]
Just because this tickles the heck out of me

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

  
deadman_932



Posts: 3094
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 22 2009,11:10   

Quote (FloydLee @ Sep. 22 2009,10:53)
Quote
So if it is assumed, it is OK?

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.

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.

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

  
FloydLee



Posts: 577
Joined: Sep. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: 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."


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.)

  
deadman_932



Posts: 3094
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: 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."


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.)

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?

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

  
Richardthughes



Posts: 10762
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 22 2009,11:26   

Quote
because you already know you've got nothing on the genetics and chemistry textbooks


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.

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

  
Stanton



Posts: 266
Joined: Jan. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 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.
 
Anybody able to refute this particular statement?

So, in other words, you're claiming that you know Christianity better than the Pope?

Why haven't you excommunicated the Pope yet, then?

  
dheddle



Posts: 540
Joined: Sep. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: 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.

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.

(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.

--------------
Mysticism is a rational enterprise. Religion is not. The mystic has recognized something about the nature of consciousness prior to thought, and this recognition is susceptible to rational discussion. The mystic has reason for what he believes, and these reasons are empirical. --Sam Harris

   
FloydLee



Posts: 577
Joined: Sep. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: 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.

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

  
deadman_932



Posts: 3094
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: 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.

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

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."


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???

[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.

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

  
FloydLee



Posts: 577
Joined: Sep. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: 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.


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?

  
deadman_932



Posts: 3094
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: 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.


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?

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.

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

  
olegt



Posts: 1405
Joined: Dec. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: 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.)

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!

--------------
If you are not:
Galapagos Finch
please Logout »

  
deadman_932



Posts: 3094
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: 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."


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?

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

  
FloydLee



Posts: 577
Joined: Sep. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: 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.

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.
 
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.

  
dheddle



Posts: 540
Joined: Sep. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: 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.)


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.

(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.

--------------
Mysticism is a rational enterprise. Religion is not. The mystic has recognized something about the nature of consciousness prior to thought, and this recognition is susceptible to rational discussion. The mystic has reason for what he believes, and these reasons are empirical. --Sam Harris

   
Richardthughes



Posts: 10762
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 22 2009,13:32   

Quote (deadman_932 @ Sep. 22 2009,13:21)
HOW CAN YOU BE TRUSTED NOW IN ANYTHING YOU SAY?

Floyd has broken one of my big five doohickeys.

--------------
"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

  
Albatrossity2



Posts: 2780
Joined: Mar. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 22 2009,13:35   

Quote (FloydLee @ Sep. 22 2009,10:53)
 
Quote
So if it is assumed, it is OK?

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.

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.

--------------
Flesh of the sky, child of the sky, the mind
Has been obligated from the beginning
To create an ordered universe
As the only possible proof of its own inheritance.
                        - Pattiann Rogers

   
deadman_932



Posts: 3094
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 22 2009,13:36   

Quote (dheddle @ Sep. 22 2009,12:23)
-----------------
* I'm dheddle, dammit.

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

I'm sorry, Mr. Heddle, but I can't ...help...this...

I'M SPARTACUS!!!

P.S.: Louis? Do you like gladiator movies?

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

  
Richardthughes



Posts: 10762
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 22 2009,13:40   

Quote (deadman_932 @ Sep. 22 2009,13:36)
Quote (dheddle @ Sep. 22 2009,12:23)
-----------------
* I'm dheddle, dammit.

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

I'm sorry, Mr. Heddle, but I can't ...help...this...

I'M SPARTACUS!!!

P.S.: Louis? Do you like gladiator movies?



--------------
"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

  
Robin



Posts: 1431
Joined: Sep. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 22 2009,13:44   

Quote (FloydLee @ Sep. 21 2009,16:10)

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)

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.


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?

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

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

  
Stanton



Posts: 266
Joined: Jan. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 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)

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.


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?

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.

  
FloydLee



Posts: 577
Joined: Sep. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: 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:


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

  
Richardthughes



Posts: 10762
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: 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.

--------------
"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 2009,14:05   

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:


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

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.

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

  
Robin



Posts: 1431
Joined: Sep. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: 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.


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?


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...

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

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

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

Pages: (100) < ... 3 4 5 6 7 [8] 9 10 11 12 13 ... >   


Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

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