RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

Pages: (100) < ... 7 8 9 10 11 [12] 13 14 15 16 17 ... >   
  Topic: FL "Debate Thread", READ FIRST POST BEFORE PARTICIPATING PLZ< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  
deadman_932



Posts: 3094
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 23 2009,18:47   



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

  
deadman_932



Posts: 3094
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 23 2009,18:48   

Whoopsie.

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

  
FloydLee



Posts: 577
Joined: Sep. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: 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

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.  

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.

  
someotherguy



Posts: 398
Joined: Aug. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: 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.


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.

--------------
Evolander in training

  
deadman_932



Posts: 3094
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: 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.

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

  
deadman_932



Posts: 3094
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: 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.

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.

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

  
Dan



Posts: 77
Joined: Sep. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: 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.

  
k.e..



Posts: 4522
Joined: May 2007

(Permalink) Posted: 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"....

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?

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?

--------------
"I get a strong breeze from my monitor every time k.e. puts on his clown DaveTard suit" dogdidit
"ID is deader than Lenny Flanks granmaws dildo batteries" Erasmus
"I'm busy studying scientist level science papers" Galloping Gary Gaulin

  
Henry J



Posts: 4981
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: 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.


FL said he was here to debate.  But his actions show that he's here to debase.  


All your debase belong to us.

  
Henry J



Posts: 4981
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: 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."


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

  
Erasmus, FCD



Posts: 6349
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: 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.

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

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

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

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

  
Dale_Husband



Posts: 118
Joined: April 2008

(Permalink) Posted: 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


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

   
Stanton



Posts: 266
Joined: Jan. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: 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.

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.
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

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.

  
Stanton



Posts: 266
Joined: Jan. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: 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.

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.

  
FloydLee



Posts: 577
Joined: Sep. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: 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?

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

  
rhmc



Posts: 340
Joined: Dec. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: 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?

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

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.

  
FloydLee



Posts: 577
Joined: Sep. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: 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.


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?

  
FloydLee



Posts: 577
Joined: Sep. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 24 2009,05:17   

Quote
so because some biologists and advocates of evolutionary biology are atheists, evolutionary biology is incompatible with christianity.


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?

  
FloydLee



Posts: 577
Joined: Sep. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 24 2009,05:35   

Quote
other than an ancient tale, you've yet to provide any proof of a world wide flood.

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.

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

  
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: 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

Do you believe those explanations?

--------------
I also mentioned that He'd have to give me a thorough explanation as to *why* I must "eat human babies".
FTK

if there are even critical flaws in Gauger’s work, the evo mat narrative cannot stand
Gordon Mullings

  
rhmc



Posts: 340
Joined: Dec. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: 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.

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.

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

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.

  
Dan



Posts: 77
Joined: Sep. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: 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.


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?

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.

  
deadman_932



Posts: 3094
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: 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.

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

  
Robin



Posts: 1431
Joined: Sep. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: 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.


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.

This statement is specifically true, (otherwise refuting that statement would be as easy as directly quoting the Pope on it and that's that.)


...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.


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.  


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.


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.)


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.


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


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.

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

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

  
Albatrossity2



Posts: 2780
Joined: Mar. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: 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?

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.

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

   
Robin



Posts: 1431
Joined: Sep. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 24 2009,08:14   

Quote (FloydLee @ Sep. 23 2009,18:06)

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."


Notice that my paragraph--whether it's 100 percent right or 100 percent wrong--clearly places my response under your Option "C".


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?

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

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

  
Robin



Posts: 1431
Joined: Sep. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: 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

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
"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.  

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?  


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.


No problem - I already did. They don't exist as far as the actual scientfic theory is concerned.

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

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

  
Robin



Posts: 1431
Joined: Sep. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 24 2009,08:28   

Quote (someotherguy @ Sep. 23 2009,18:54)

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.


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.



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.

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

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

  
FloydLee



Posts: 577
Joined: Sep. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: 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?

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.

  
Dale_Husband



Posts: 118
Joined: April 2008

(Permalink) Posted: 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?

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.

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.

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

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

Pages: (100) < ... 7 8 9 10 11 [12] 13 14 15 16 17 ... >   


Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

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