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." Encyclopædia 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." Encyclopædia 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 naïve 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,