Antievolution.org :: Antievolution.org Discussion Board The Critic's Resource on Antievolution

Antievolution.org Discussion Board > From the Panda's Thumb > After the Bar Closes... > FL "Debate Thread"

Pages: (100) < ... 81 82 83 84 85 [86] 87 88 89 90 91 ... >

OgreMkV Posts: 3668 Joined: Oct. 2009 (Permalink) Posted: Oct. 31 2009,20:19    If you really believe that you have given a direct answer to this question then you are too stupid to continue discussing this with. Please, find the reference where you answered this question or repost it.  I mean, do you really think that 7 or 8 reasonably intelligent people (unlike yourself) missed it. Further more, your posting/debating style is both inconsiderate and stupid.  You do not answer questions asked you in a timely manner, you continually bring up irrelevant comments, and your 'arguments' are at best pathetic and at worst outright lying. I don't expect a pathetic little indoctrinated mind like yours to understand this: But you are not helping the cause of ID or Christianity. The other Christians here think you're an idiot.  You have no idea how to act as Christian.  You have no skills in debate.  You have no knowledge of either Christianity or science. Please Floyd, as a favor to your position and your faith, please try to debate responsibly.  Try to use some logic.  Poor arguments just make you look, at best, and a worst, an outright liar.   You really embarrassing yourself and your faith. If you do actually read this, I really have little hope that you understand.  You see, unlike you, if I'm presented with an argument or even a request, I do my research and present my side using logic.  Your ranting and raving that you have 'defeated' all our arguments is just pathetic. Please try to be a reasonable person. -------------- Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims. http://skepticink.com/smilodo....retreat

FloydLee Posts: 577 Joined: Sep. 2009 (Permalink) Posted: Oct. 31 2009,20:19    Quote Then surely you can address the fallacies I and others mentioned -- and the fact that you appear to be arguing for space-aliens now, Floaty And surely you can answer MY question---have you read the book, Deadman?

deadman_932 Posts: 3094 Joined: May 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Oct. 31 2009,20:22    Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 31 2009,20:19) Quote Then surely you can address the fallacies I and others mentioned -- and the fact that you appear to be arguing for space-aliens now, Floaty And surely you can answer MY question---have you read the book, Deadman? Nope, and I don't have to, given that the "fine-tuning " argument has always been beset by the problems I mentioned. Until I see that someone is going to address those issues (you can't, Floaty?) -- the why should I finance the work of Gonzalez? There's my answer, Floaty -- now you can answer what I asked about the fallacies, logical errors and Space-alien creators you now seem to be supporting by forwarding Gonzalez as somehow meaningful to your Christian creationism. -------------- AtBC Award for Thoroughness in the Face of Creationism

OgreMkV Posts: 3668 Joined: Oct. 2009 (Permalink) Posted: Oct. 31 2009,20:24    Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 31 2009,20:19) Quote Then surely you can address the fallacies I and others mentioned -- and the fact that you appear to be arguing for space-aliens now, Floaty And surely you can answer MY question---have you read the book, Deadman? The BOOK doesn't freaking matter you MORON! It's the arguments contained within the book.  If the arguments in the book suck, then the fact that it's in a book DOESN'T MATTER. Do you really believe that everything in print is instantly correct?  Cause, I have some books on witchcraft that would interest you.  I also have a BOOK that shows that the universe was created by the Titans... and one that tells me the Earth is resting on the back of a turtle. I'll try this again.  Just because a book says so, doesn't make it true. You can't be this dense. -------------- Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims. http://skepticink.com/smilodo....retreat

deadman_932 Posts: 3094 Joined: May 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Oct. 31 2009,20:28    Quote (deadman_932 @ Oct. 30 2009,23:39) More importantly, Gonzales et al. are not distinguishing what YOU claim to be supporting, Flody. Read their statements and they have no way of distinguishing between "deities" and "extraterrestrials" capable of seeding a planet. This, along with the other fallacies and logical errors cited by myself and others, disqualify it as an actual scientific hypothesis that could provide support for Gods -- such as what YOU are nominally SUPPOSED to be trying to support, Flody. If Gonzales can't show how to distinguish Gods and aliens, then how does this support your view, Flody? How does it make it a scientific program to research supernatural deities? Given all the logical lapses, holes, and sheer ridiculous fallacy-mongering of Gonzales, it is perfectly obvious to point out that his nattering does NOT constitute a valid scientific research program FOR THE INVESTIGATION OF SUPERNATURAL DEITIES (which is what you were supposed to be showing, stupid). There you go, Floaty. Don't forget to ALSO respond to each of the fallacies and logical errors I mentioned in my original post on that (p.84). Start answering. -------------- AtBC Award for Thoroughness in the Face of Creationism

jupiter Posts: 97 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Oct. 31 2009,20:32    Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 31 2009,19:33)   Quote Yet I am a Christian who accepts evolution.   You continue to claim that this is impossible. Nope.  I have NOT said "this is impossible", not at all.   (Remember the Pope?  Remember Nmgirl?  Do you need to check a few of the back pages, CM?  Sure looks like you do.) Instead, what I have fully demonstrated, that "this is rationally and Scripturally inconsistent." THAT was the point of the Incompatibility debate, CM.  Surely you get it by now? So... your point is that self-declared Christians who accept concepts that are rationally and Scripturally inconsistent* are indeed Christians. I doubt anyone here would argue with that. I'm a little confused about why it took so long to agree upon such a non-controversial point. You may think that your "inconsistencies" make them beta-Christians while you're an alpha-Christian, with all the implied favors and benefits accruing to you and yours. Maybe so—but that's not your decision to make, is it? *The phrase "rationally and Scripturally inconsistent" is yours. I don't agree with that characterization; nor do most Christians.

Constant Mews Posts: 323 Joined: Sep. 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Oct. 31 2009,21:22    Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 31 2009,19:33) Quote Yet I am a Christian who accepts evolution.   You continue to claim that this is impossible. Nope.  I have NOT said "this is impossible", not at all.   (Remember the Pope?  Remember Nmgirl?  Do you need to check a few of the back pages, CM?  Sure looks like you do.) Instead, what I have fully demonstrated, that "this is rationally and Scripturally inconsistent." THAT was the point of the Incompatibility debate, CM.  Surely you get it by now? You have demonstrated nothing, I'm afraid. You already admitted that Genesis need not be taken literally - in fact, you do it yourself. Your "incompatibilities" have been dealt with at least three times, if not more, fully and completely. I can explain to you exactly why there are no "incompatibilities" and have already done so. Explain precisely which scriptures evolution is inconsistent with, given that you have already conceded that a Christian need not take the Bible literally. Evolution is completely rational.  Christianity is not - but it was never intended to be. Lying is not one of your great skills, Floyd. I will pray for you. Now answer my questions.

Constant Mews Posts: 323 Joined: Sep. 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Oct. 31 2009,21:25    Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 31 2009,19:44) Quote why don't you tell me why god is not part of the required explanation for water running downhill when he is part of the existence of water itself? Erasmus, you were given direct answers on this one, (including a very relevant quotation from Futuyma's EB# textbook, a timely example), and in fact you were given a complete explanation, all in all.   I have printed them off, including your unsuccessful attempts to refute them.   In particular, you honestly could not come up with any comeback for the fact that your attempted analogy could NOT be applied to the issue of "Evolution is Incompatible with Christianity" because the Bible itself specifies exclusively DIRECT, not indirect, causations for ALL origin events during Creation Week.   I have taken time to print off my answers to your question, as well as your attempts to respond---and where you did not even attempt to respond.   (For future use, of course.)   But that's all on that one.  You're done.  (More accurately, done for!) FloydLee     :) But you have already agreed that those very Bible passages you are trying to cite need not be taken as literal truth. You already admitted this, Floyd. So now you claim that verses that need not be taken literally must be taken literally? Your inability to reason and your remarkably poor understanding of the Bible are quite interesting to me.

deadman_932 Posts: 3094 Joined: May 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Oct. 31 2009,21:26    Quote (deadman_932 @ Oct. 31 2009,20:22) Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 31 2009,20:19)   Quote Then surely you can address the fallacies I and others mentioned -- and the fact that you appear to be arguing for space-aliens now, Floaty And surely you can answer MY question---have you read the book, Deadman? Nope, and I don't have to, given that the "fine-tuning " argument has always been beset by the problems I mentioned. Until I see that someone is going to address those issues (you can't, Floaty?) -- the why should I finance the work of Gonzalez? There's my answer, Floaty -- now you can answer what I asked about the fallacies, logical errors and Space-alien creators you now seem to be supporting by forwarding Gonzalez as somehow meaningful to your Christian creationism. Don't intentionally "forget" to answer me and vanish off the board, Floaty. -------------- AtBC Award for Thoroughness in the Face of Creationism

Constant Mews Posts: 323 Joined: Sep. 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Oct. 31 2009,21:27    Quote (jupiter @ Oct. 31 2009,20:32) Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 31 2009,19:33)     Quote Yet I am a Christian who accepts evolution.   You continue to claim that this is impossible. Nope.  I have NOT said "this is impossible", not at all.   (Remember the Pope?  Remember Nmgirl?  Do you need to check a few of the back pages, CM?  Sure looks like you do.) Instead, what I have fully demonstrated, that "this is rationally and Scripturally inconsistent." THAT was the point of the Incompatibility debate, CM.  Surely you get it by now? So... your point is that self-declared Christians who accept concepts that are rationally and Scripturally inconsistent* are indeed Christians. I doubt anyone here would argue with that. I'm a little confused about why it took so long to agree upon such a non-controversial point. You may think that your "inconsistencies" make them beta-Christians while you're an alpha-Christian, with all the implied favors and benefits accruing to you and yours. Maybe so—but that's not your decision to make, is it? *The phrase "rationally and Scripturally inconsistent" is yours. I don't agree with that characterization; nor do most Christians. Exactly.  Floyd is claiming one of three things: A. I am not a Christian. B. I do not understand Christianity. C. I do not understand evolutionary theory. Which is it, Floyd? This is the crux of the matter; this is why I keep saying that you are claiming that I cannot exist. Which is it, Floyd?

Constant Mews Posts: 323 Joined: Sep. 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Oct. 31 2009,21:37    Quote And yet, even though they withdrew all that, the Smithsonian museum showed the Privileged Planet film in June of 2005 anyway. Yes, they did.  They will show any film not outright pornography for a fee. They did not endorse it. Really, Floyd, this is irrelevant; I've read the book, and it's a remarkably sloppy piece of misdirection, illogic, and baseless claims. Remarkably similar to your "debating" on this thread.  Except that they're apparently far better educated.

Lou FCD Posts: 5455 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Oct. 31 2009,21:41    Quote (Constant Mews @ Oct. 31 2009,22:22) Lying is not one of your great skills, Floyd. Odd, given how much practice he gets. You'd think he'd eventually get good at it. You could think that, but you'd be wrong. -------------- “Why do creationists have such a hard time with commas? Linky“. ~ Steve Story, Legend

FloydLee Posts: 577 Joined: Sep. 2009 (Permalink) Posted: Oct. 31 2009,21:51    Quote You do not answer questions asked you in a timely manner You mean like this particular request Ogre?         Quote Cause, I think the others here have shown just as many quotes as you have that counter your argument.     Quote Really?   Please document that claim. You never did provide that documentation Ogre, even though all you had to do was count the number of quotes and simply see if the number of quotes from "the others" was at least equal to the number of quotes from me.   So NOW you are concerned with being "timely"?   Can't say I'm impressed.   *** Hey, how about this example from CM:         Quote Since FL seems comfortable with Futuyma, I will post the 20 tenets of evolutionary theory he identifies   Quote (Oct 11) I will be posting it tomorrow; it has been a busy weekend. Did we ever get those 20 in a timely fashion? *** Or this example:         Quote (Robin) Even opinions from the likes of Mayr are just opinions and are not actual summations of the actual ToE.           Quote (Floyd) So please provide me with these (ahem) "actual summations" that would negate and neutralize the published evolutionist statements that were specifically given for each of the Big Five Incompatibilities.  Thanks again!   Request not fulfilled at all, let alone timely. *** Here's another request of mine:         Quote ("You and others") kept rambling on about how the Pope, as a Christian who accepts evolution under certain conditions (but not others), has somehow negated and neutralized each of the Big Five Incompatibilities as pointed out by professional scientist evolutionists.   So I've been asking -- repeatedly & specifically --  how the Pope did that, and you seem to have no specific answers other than "the Pope accepts evolution." And never did receive any actual specifics as requested.  Scratch the timely. *** Another request that wasn't answered at all (let alone timely):         Quote Here's 5 examples just to get started. Futuyma, Mayr, Bozarth, Coyne, (and) Whoever's currently teaching Biology 391 at the Univ. of Tenn. at Martin. So, would you agree?  Are those professional evolutionist scientists there? Even that one never actually got a straight answer. *** And here's a contradiction that was never actually resolved (let alone in timely manner) by you guys:       Quote Here's a quotation from Deadman: "The pontiff, speaking as he was concluding his holiday in northern Italy, also said that while there is much scientific proof to support evolution, the theory could not exclude a role by God." Here's a quotation from Robin: "The Pope accepts evolution under all conditions as he states...." *** Furthermore of the known professing Christians within this forum (at this point that list would be strictly limited to Wesley, Nmgirl, and CM), NONE offered an alternative, biblically sustainable, non-literal "interpretation" of Christianity that would be compatible with evolution and specifically resolve the Big Five, despite my sincerely asking more than once, and despite repeated assertions by evolutionists in this forum that such "interpretations" existed.  Timeliness fail. (One poster expressed interest in bringing a Christian clergyman of his acquaintance to this particular debate to provide it, but he failed to provide the clergyman despite one sincere attempt, and he simply gave up on it.)   *** And that's honestly only a few examples, Ogre.  Starting with you, of course.  Now we CAN simply take the position that everybody tried to do the best that they could on this long and unusual debate....or we can go on fault-finding and sniping, in which case another 85 pages of comments will surely be needed, and you'll definitely take your hits too. *** I think the only person who needs an additional point of explanation is Erasmus.  I kept him waiting on his little obsession-question quite a while, and the main reason was because the boy used a sexual profanity against me. Until that point, I was very concerned to get caught up with him.  After that point, I slowed way down on him. Because I am a Christian, I don't get to use sexual profanity on people.  However, I can keep you waiting on a response for a good long time if I think you need it, and as you can see, there was NO shortage of people who were willing to continue dialoging with me on OTHER issues and questions despite me keeping Erasmus waiting.     Only when Nmgirl restated Erasmus's question in a respectful manner did I decide to go ahead with a second response to his question---the Bible-driven response that permanently eliminated his question's applicability to this thread topic. So, please add these comments to your "timeliness" notes as well, Ogre. FloydLee

FloydLee Posts: 577 Joined: Sep. 2009 (Permalink) Posted: Oct. 31 2009,22:01    Quote But you have already agreed that those very Bible passages you are trying to cite need not be taken as literal truth. On the contrary, I showed you that indeed the writer of Genesis (let's call him "Moses") fully intended for you the reader to take Gen 1-11 as both historical and literal. Hey, exactly what WAS your response to that Gen 5 genealogy again?   And btw, notice that the Luke 3 genealogy ALSO affirms that Adam was straight historical and not ANY kind of metaphor/allegory: Quote 38  Which was the son of Enos, which was the son of Seth, which was the son of Adam, which was the son of God. Isn't it about time you started believing the Bible for a change, CM?  Jesus totally believed the Bible, no skepticism, no doubting, no excuses.   You are following Jesus, yes??

FloydLee Posts: 577 Joined: Sep. 2009 (Permalink) Posted: Oct. 31 2009,22:05    Quote They did not endorse it. Totally incorrect, CM.  The Smithsonian withdrew their co-sponsorship AFTER they had already granted it.

OgreMkV Posts: 3668 Joined: Oct. 2009 (Permalink) Posted: Oct. 31 2009,22:07    Floyd, everything you have ever asked has been RESPONDED to.  The fact that you do not understand that response or do not like that response is not any concern of ours.  The fact of the matter is that it is responded to. Again, I really wish you would make an effort to understand the arguments presented to you.  I have only met two other people that were so willfully ignorant as you. They were both 16. -------------- Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims. http://skepticink.com/smilodo....retreat

OgreMkV Posts: 3668 Joined: Oct. 2009 (Permalink) Posted: Oct. 31 2009,22:11    Quote (OgreMkV @ Oct. 30 2009,17:57) 1) What is one hypothesis that ID proposes? 2) What is one prediction of ID that differs from evolutionary theory?  (In other words, what predictions made using ID would differ from predictions made from evolution.  PREDICTIONS, not statements like ‘life is designed’.) 3) Describe an experiment that could test this prediction (this test need not have been done yet). 4) What is one hypothesis of ID that has been tested and shown to be correct (this must have been tested)? 5) What is one piece of evidence that would falsify ID (in other words, what evidence proves ID to be incorrect)? 6) Dembski, Nelson, and Behe have both stated that ID as a scientific theory needs a lot of work and is not ready for the limelight.  How do you respond to that statement from three of the largest figures of ID theory?** 7)  Please describe a lab that my students could do that would show ID in action and be able to show that ID, as as a science works and is distinct from evolution. 8) Please provide a rigorous and testable definition of [/i]Information[/i] as it pertains to biology. It was actually a good try, but you've got a minimum of 6 more to go and the one you used failed. Remember, you want this taught as science YOU have to prove that it is. We'll start here. -------------- Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims. http://skepticink.com/smilodo....retreat

OgreMkV Posts: 3668 Joined: Oct. 2009 (Permalink) Posted: Oct. 31 2009,22:11    Quote (FrankH @ Oct. 30 2009,12:33) Tell me Floyd, what IS "Computational Chemistry"?  How does it relate to Biology? No answer -------------- Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims. http://skepticink.com/smilodo....retreat

OgreMkV Posts: 3668 Joined: Oct. 2009 (Permalink) Posted: Oct. 31 2009,22:14    Quote (Jasper @ Oct. 29 2009,16:02) Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 29 2009,16:48) After all (ahemmm), I 'm not skeered to let readers know exactly what I believe and don't believe, even when it comes to core religious beliefs. That's total BS, Floyd. I've asked you multiple times about your beliefs concerning aspects of the Genesis account that you don't take literally (the Firmament, the moon "giving light", the pillars of the earth, etc.). You reject a literal reading of Genesis when it comes to certain areas of science. And yet, you demand that Genesis be interpreted literally when it comes to the question of whether evolution has occurred. Why is that Floyd? Another one... -------------- Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims. http://skepticink.com/smilodo....retreat

OgreMkV Posts: 3668 Joined: Oct. 2009 (Permalink) Posted: Oct. 31 2009,22:15    Quote (Constant Mews @ Oct. 29 2009,14:19) Since Floyd has become confused and unable to respond to requests for clarification on his points, I think it's best to provide a summary of what I believe his position to be. Floyd believes that evolutionary theory and Christian doctrine are incompatible because: 1. Christian doctrine specifies that God is the necessary and sufficient explanation for biological organisms, and evolutionary theory does not require God as the necessary and sufficient explanation. 2. Christian doctrine specifies that God chose to create the universe and mankind and evolutionary theory denies that God chose to create the universe and mankind. 3. Christian doctrine specifies that God created man in His own image and evolutionary theory denies that God created man in His own image. 4. Christian doctrine specifies that death did not occur before man and evolutionary theory requires that death existed before man. 5. Christian doctrine specifies that God is a loving, and all-powerful God.  Evolutionary theory implies otherwise, since the evolutionary process involves gratuitous pain and suffering. This is Rosenhouse's point. Now, once again, what definition of evolutionary theory did Floyd himself provide? Quote Evolution comes in two flavors, micro-evolution and macro-evolution. Quote Microevolution: Evolutionary change below the species level, change in the genetic makeup of a population from generation to generation. Quote Macroevolution: Evolutionary change above the species level, including the appearance of major evolutionary developments, such as flight, that we use to define higher taxa. Quote 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. USING FLOYD'S OWN SUPPLIED DEFINITIONS, with regard to point 1, we note that evolutionary theory is silent on the involvement of God in biological diversity and origins.  We also note that since Floyd has conceded that Genesis 1-11 need not be taken literally to be Christian, a Christian may accept any mechanism God chooses to use.  Study of God's own work - the World - shows us that evolution is the mechanism God chose to use to create and diversify life. USING FLOYD'S OWN SUPPLIED DEFINITIONS, with regard to point 2, we note that evolutionary theory is silent on the involvement of God in biological diversity and origins, and so does not deny that willed it and supports and maintains it. USING FLOYD'S OWN SUPPLIED DEFINITIONS, with regard to point 3, we note that evolutionary theory is silent on the involvement of God in biological diversity and origins.  Evolutionary theory says nothing about souls; certainly no one claims that evolution created the soul. USING FLOYD'S OWN SUPPLIED DEFINITIONS, with regard to point 4, we note that Christ is most likely referring to spiritual, rather than physical death, given the context of the passage. USING FLOYD'S OWN SUPPLIED DEFINITIONS, with regard to point 5, we note that this has nothing to do with evolutionary theory per se - Rosenhouse is merely repeating the ancient Problem of Evil, for which Christianity already has an answer. So Floyd, by conceding a non-literal reading of Genesis as compatible with Christian belief has conceded all points dependent on a Genesis history. No incompatibilities, Floyd.  Not a single one. Here's one refutation to all your incompatibilities... you have yet to comment on. -------------- Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims. http://skepticink.com/smilodo....retreat

OgreMkV Posts: 3668 Joined: Oct. 2009 (Permalink) Posted: Oct. 31 2009,22:19    OK bored now... those were the last 10 pages and I hand picked the ones that hadn't been asked 50 times (like why is God required for water, but not required to make it flow downhill, etc.) I could easily go further, but why?  Floyd will not answer them. -------------- Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims. http://skepticink.com/smilodo....retreat

jupiter Posts: 97 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Oct. 31 2009,22:19    Quote (Constant Mews @ Oct. 31 2009,21:27)       Quote (jupiter @ Oct. 31 2009,20:32)       Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 31 2009,19:33)           Quote Yet I am a Christian who accepts evolution.   You continue to claim that this is impossible. Nope.  I have NOT said "this is impossible", not at all.   (Remember the Pope?  Remember Nmgirl?  Do you need to check a few of the back pages, CM?  Sure looks like you do.) Instead, what I have fully demonstrated, that "this is rationally and Scripturally inconsistent." THAT was the point of the Incompatibility debate, CM.  Surely you get it by now? So... your point is that self-declared Christians who accept concepts that are rationally and Scripturally inconsistent* are indeed Christians. I doubt anyone here would argue with that. I'm a little confused about why it took so long to agree upon such a non-controversial point. You may think that your "inconsistencies" make them beta-Christians while you're an alpha-Christian, with all the implied favors and benefits accruing to you and yours. Maybe so—but that's not your decision to make, is it? *The phrase "rationally and Scripturally inconsistent" is yours. I don't agree with that characterization; nor do most Christians. Exactly.  Floyd is claiming one of three things: A. I am not a Christian. B. I do not understand Christianity. C. I do not understand evolutionary theory. Which is it, Floyd? This is the crux of the matter; this is why I keep saying that you are claiming that I cannot exist. Which is it, Floyd? CM, it's much simpler than that. Floyd agrees that you're a Christian, despite your "rationally and Scripturally inconsistent beliefs." So much for his initial argument: (1.)  First, I’m going to combine “Evolution is incompatible with Christianity” and “The Biblical Perspective on Biology” and write about BOTH items under the overall topic “Evolution is Incompatible with Christianity.” Who cares what he thinks about your understanding of Christianity or evolutionary theory? He's conceded that evolution is not incompatible with Christianity. We're done with that. I'm eagerly looking forward to his presentation in favor of Point 2: (2.) After a few weeks, I’ll stop posting on that topic, and begin the also-important “ID-is-Science-so-let’s-teach-ID-in-Science-Classrooms” discussion for a few weeks. That will take us to Nov. 1.   His valiant defense of the indefensible Point 1 threw off the schedule a bit. Let's give him the whole month of November to present his case for ID as science.

FloydLee Posts: 577 Joined: Sep. 2009 (Permalink) Posted: Oct. 31 2009,22:23    Quote A. I am not a Christian. B. I do not understand Christianity. C. I do not understand evolutionary theory. Which is it, Floyd? Absolutely "B"  for certain.  I have never seen anybody brag so much about how well they know Christianity and Theology and Bible, and yet display such a piss-poor, skepticism-filled understanding of 'em. I also have to consider the possibility (only a possibility, that's all) of "A", because you've already made a specific claim about sanity versus believing in the literal historicity of Genesis that effectively undermines Jesus's own trustworthiness based on his acceptance of a literal historical Genesis in Matt 19 and Mark 10.   Plus you've attacked the trustworthiness and authority of the NT itself by claiming it was strongly influenced by the idol-cult of Mithraism. Understand that my statement that "A" is a possibility, is based on your two direct skeptic-statements there, and NOT because of your acceptance of evolution per se. Ummm, you may want to refrain from asking questions like that in the future.  Not trying to attack or insult you, but you do leave yourself wide open for candid assessments.

FloydLee Posts: 577 Joined: Sep. 2009 (Permalink) Posted: Oct. 31 2009,22:29    Quote He's conceded that evolution is not incompatible with Christianity. No I have not.  I have already presented multiple personal testimonies that demonstrate the corrosive, eroding effects of the incompatibility of evolution with Christianity with in the lives of real people, and also I have presented the Big Five Incompatibilities which you (among others) have not refuted.

OgreMkV Posts: 3668 Joined: Oct. 2009 (Permalink) Posted: Oct. 31 2009,22:31    Hmmm... I agree that no one really understands your version of Christianity Floyd.  Fortunately, there are many other varieties of Christianity that actually make sense. -------------- Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims. http://skepticink.com/smilodo....retreat

OgreMkV Posts: 3668 Joined: Oct. 2009 (Permalink) Posted: Oct. 31 2009,22:36    Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 31 2009,22:29) Quote He's conceded that evolution is not incompatible with Christianity. No I have not.  I have already presented multiple personal testimonies that demonstrate the corrosive, eroding effects of the incompatibility of evolution with Christianity with in the lives of real people, and also I have presented the Big Five Incompatibilities which you (among others) have not refuted. Little too quick on the draw there Floyd buddy.  Look five posts above the one I quoted from you. Perhaps 'have not refuted' doesn't mean what you think it means. -------------- Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims. http://skepticink.com/smilodo....retreat

deadman_932 Posts: 3094 Joined: May 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Oct. 31 2009,22:45    Quote (deadman_932 @ Oct. 31 2009,20:22) Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 31 2009,20:19)   Quote Then surely you can address the fallacies I and others mentioned -- and the fact that you appear to be arguing for space-aliens now, Floaty And surely you can answer MY question---have you read the book, Deadman? Nope, and I don't have to, given that the "fine-tuning " argument has always been beset by the problems I mentioned. Until I see that someone is going to address those issues (you can't, Floaty?) -- the why should I finance the work of Gonzalez? There's my answer, Floaty -- now you can answer what I asked about the fallacies, logical errors and Space-alien creators you now seem to be supporting by forwarding Gonzalez as somehow meaningful to your Christian creationism. What, I answer you and you can't manage to deal with what I asked, Floaty? Oh, yeah, there's a big surprise. -------------- AtBC Award for Thoroughness in the Face of Creationism

Constant Mews Posts: 323 Joined: Sep. 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Oct. 31 2009,22:47    Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 31 2009,22:23) Quote A. I am not a Christian. B. I do not understand Christianity. C. I do not understand evolutionary theory. Which is it, Floyd? Absolutely "B"  for certain.  I have never seen anybody brag so much about how well they know Christianity and Theology and Bible, and yet display such a piss-poor, skepticism-filled understanding of 'em. I also have to consider the possibility (only a possibility, that's all) of "A", because you've already made a specific claim about sanity versus believing in the literal historicity of Genesis that effectively undermines Jesus's own trustworthiness based on his acceptance of a literal historical Genesis in Matt 19 and Mark 10.   Plus you've attacked the trustworthiness and authority of the NT itself by claiming it was strongly influenced by the idol-cult of Mithraism. Understand that my statement that "A" is a possibility, is based on your two direct skeptic-statements there, and NOT because of your acceptance of evolution per se. Ummm, you may want to refrain from asking questions like that in the future.  Not trying to attack or insult you, but you do leave yourself wide open for candid assessments. And what precisely do you claim I do not understand about Christianity? Are you arguing with the Nicene Creed? Are you withdrawing your claim that a Christian need not take the first eleven chapters of Genesis as literal history? Are you acknowleding that you don't understand either the Problem of Evil or the ways that Christian theology has coped with it over the centuries? I point out my superior understanding of Christian theology because it is true.  Your simplistic readings; your inability to grasp nuance; your failure to understand even the most basic tenets of current theological theory; your continual misrepresenting and misunderstanding of basic Biblical passages demonstrates fairly clearly that you don't actually know much about either the Bible or about Christian doctrine. As for you complaint regarding A... you yourself admitted that Genesis 1-11 need not be taken literally in order to be Christian.  It's there in black and white, Floyd - your admission that Christ might have a "piss-poor" knowledge of Genesis. I realize you're stupid, Floyd, and I know that this entire discussion has been very hard for to cope with and keep up with, but flagrant lying when you can be proved wrong does very little to help your case.

Constant Mews Posts: 323 Joined: Sep. 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Oct. 31 2009,22:49    Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 31 2009,22:29) Quote He's conceded that evolution is not incompatible with Christianity. No I have not.  I have already presented multiple personal testimonies that demonstrate the corrosive, eroding effects of the incompatibility of evolution with Christianity with in the lives of real people, and also I have presented the Big Five Incompatibilities which you (among others) have not refuted. Personal stories are meaningless as "evidence", since we can produce an equal number of personal stories that tell otherwise: myself, Miller, and Collins to name just three. And your "incompatible" have been directly and explicitly refuted at least three times on this thread. You never responded to any of those refutation posts, so lying about it won't help your cause, Floyd.

Constant Mews Posts: 323 Joined: Sep. 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Oct. 31 2009,22:50    Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 31 2009,22:23) Quote A. I am not a Christian. B. I do not understand Christianity. C. I do not understand evolutionary theory. Which is it, Floyd? Absolutely "B"  for certain.  I have never seen anybody brag so much about how well they know Christianity and Theology and Bible, and yet display such a piss-poor, skepticism-filled understanding of 'em. I also have to consider the possibility (only a possibility, that's all) of "A", because you've already made a specific claim about sanity versus believing in the literal historicity of Genesis that effectively undermines Jesus's own trustworthiness based on his acceptance of a literal historical Genesis in Matt 19 and Mark 10.   Plus you've attacked the trustworthiness and authority of the NT itself by claiming it was strongly influenced by the idol-cult of Mithraism. Understand that my statement that "A" is a possibility, is based on your two direct skeptic-statements there, and NOT because of your acceptance of evolution per se. Ummm, you may want to refrain from asking questions like that in the future.  Not trying to attack or insult you, but you do leave yourself wide open for candid assessments. I ask this question because it gets to the heart of your confusion, self-deception, and frank lack of understanding of Christianity. I pray for you, Floyd, because you need the grace of God to move you from the road to certain hellfire you appear to be on.

Pages: (100) < ... 81 82 83 84 85 [86] 87 88 89 90 91 ... >

Track this topic	Email this topic	Print this topic

© 2002-2009 Antievolution.org Powered by Ikonboard 3.0.2a © 2001 Ikonboard