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) < ... 75 76 77 78 79 [80] 81 82 83 84 85 ... >

FloydLee Posts: 577 Joined: Sep. 2009 (Permalink) Posted: Oct. 29 2009,13:27    Quote And there go your five "incompatibles." Not even close, trust me on that.  (Or if you don't trust me, trust Rosenhouse!)

deadman_932 Posts: 3094 Joined: May 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Oct. 29 2009,13:28    Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 29 2009,13:09) And btw, from now through Nov. 1, no matter what the topic is, I'm gonna keep on asking why Deadman won't answer my question---unless he does answer it.   Turnabout is fair play boys. Lol. You're the one that made the claim that you could show Christianity and evolution incompatible, Floyd. It's very relevant for people to ask who you consider to be a Christian, when the examples forwarded (like the Pope) also accept evolution. Asking me about MY religious views serves what purpose in regard to the discussion? Particularly when you already have examples like the Pope to deal with? Answer: none. It's just another cheap ploy on your part, one that would embarass anyone with a sense of honor or honesty to use. You weren't answering questions long before I told you that my beliefs were none of your business and irrelevant to the discussion. I did answer you exactly that way, too. It's not as though you're fooling anyone, Flody. Well, perhaps yourself if you're thinking you have any real ethics or morals. An ethical person would simply deal with the relevant questions put to them, rather than trying to pawn off responsibility on me. An ethical person, a moral person, would accept my response of "it's not your business"  -- nor have you shown my beliefs to be even vaguely relevant to your claim that Christianity and evolution are incompatible. In fact, it can't help you at all, regardless of my answer. It's just an excuse for you, an excuse that is brimming with your shameful lack of even basic honor. -------------- AtBC Award for Thoroughness in the Face of Creationism

Constant Mews Posts: 323 Joined: Sep. 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Oct. 29 2009,13:38    Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 29 2009,13:27) Quote And there go your five "incompatibles." Not even close, trust me on that.  (Or if you don't trust me, trust Rosenhouse!) Rosenhouse doesn't help you. The POE has an answer. Not the best answer, but it works.

Robin Posts: 1431 Joined: Sep. 2009 (Permalink) Posted: Oct. 29 2009,13:45    Quote (deadman_932 @ Oct. 29 2009,13:28) Quote Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 29 2009,13:09) And btw, from now through Nov. 1, no matter what the topic is, I'm gonna keep on asking why Deadman won't answer my question---unless he does answer it.   Turnabout is fair play boys. Lol. You're the one that made the claim that you could show Christianity and evolution incompatible, Floyd. It's very relevant for people to ask who you consider to be a Christian. Asking me about MY religious views serves what purpose in regard to the discussion? Particularly when you already have examples like the Pope to deal with? Answer: none. It's just another cheap ploy on your part, one that would embarass anyone with a sense of honor or honesty to use. I noticed you didn't include sense of humor. That's good, because quite frankly those of us with a sense of humor aren't embarrassed by it and actually find the ploy pretty funny.   -------------- 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: Oct. 29 2009,13:46    Quote Put quite simply, my beliefs are (1) not pertinant Ahhh, but they ARE pertinent--very much so.  Why?   Because those religious beliefs you're hiding are where your pre-suppositions are coming from, and THOSE items---whatever they are-- DO have bearing on this particular debate and the positions you take. Just as my being utterly honest and clear with everybody about MY specific religious beliefs (and hence my presuppositional positions) gives you a clearer target to understand and address and engage, so your COWARDICE and refusal to be honest and clear with everybody about your specific religious beliefs has the effect of hiding your pre-suppositional positions through which you come to adopt the views you state. You're hiding because you are afraid to have your pre-sups rationally examined in public.  What I am not afraid of, you are totally skeer'd of. And you have the nerve to accuse me of 'avoidance' and not answering question while nervously hiding like that sir? *** Cmon, it's just a simple question.   You like for people to answer your questions.  Please answer mine.  Won't hurt you, will it?

Constant Mews Posts: 323 Joined: Sep. 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Oct. 29 2009,13:47    So we see that Floyd has conceded that his first four "incompatibilities" dontt exist, leaving us only with the POE - because that is all Rosenhouse is describing. But Rosenhouse merely points out that some rationalization and analysis is required.

deadman_932 Posts: 3094 Joined: May 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Oct. 29 2009,13:48    Quote (Robin @ Oct. 29 2009,13:45) I noticed you didn't include sense of humor. That's good, because quite frankly those of us with a sense of humor aren't embarrassed by it and actually find the ploy pretty funny.  :D It IS funny. It's a weird kind of tragicomic funny, in my view, but funny nonetheless. The lack of ethics, the implicit belief that other people are stupid enough to be fooled by it, the childish petulance behind it. Yeah, it's funny. -------------- AtBC Award for Thoroughness in the Face of Creationism

deadman_932 Posts: 3094 Joined: May 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Oct. 29 2009,13:54    Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 29 2009,13:46) Quote Put quite simply, my beliefs are (1) not pertinant Ahhh, but they ARE pertinent--very much so.  Why?   Because those religious beliefs you're hiding are where your pre-suppositions are coming from, and THOSE items---whatever they are-- DO have bearing on this particular debate and the positions you take. Just as my being utterly honest and clear with everybody about MY specific religious beliefs (and hence my presuppositional positions) gives you a clearer target to understand and address and engage, so your COWARDICE and refusal to be honest and clear with everybody about your specific religious beliefs has the effect of hiding your pre-suppositional positions through which you come to adopt the views you state. You're hiding because you are afraid to have your pre-sups rationally examined in public.  What I am not afraid of, you are totally skeer'd of. And you have the nerve to accuse me of 'avoidance' and not answering question while nervously hiding like that sir? *** Cmon, it's just a simple question.   You like for people to answer your questions.  Please answer mine.  Won't hurt you, will it? This has nothing at all to do with  your ability to show evolution and christianity incompatible. I'll just say I'm not a Christian in your view, Floyd. There you go. How does that help you in any way to show that evolution and Christianity are incompatible? It doesn't, because your opinion on my beliefs is irrelevant. It also doesn't deal in the least with those many other examples of open evolutionists who are Christians as well. My position doesn't affect the reality of those things. Even your "justification" for asking me at all was nonsensical, Flody, but...hah, that's pretty much all you have to offer, really. -------------- AtBC Award for Thoroughness in the Face of Creationism

OgreMkV Posts: 3668 Joined: Oct. 2009 (Permalink) Posted: Oct. 29 2009,13:59    Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 29 2009,13:27) Quote And there go your five "incompatibles." Not even close, trust me on that.  (Or if you don't trust me, trust Rosenhouse!) OMG, of course.  This statement makes it all clear.  That's the answer to everything. I bow to your crushing grip on logic and reason... Oh wait... nevermind. -------------- 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. 29 2009,14:05    I'll repeat, Flody:  you have broken your word at every turn, from the very beginning of this thread,  and refused to answer long before you asked me anything about my religious views. Now what other excuse will you offer up to not answer direct questions, Flody? There will be other excuses or tactics for you to avoid that, Flody, and you will use them, won't you? -------------- AtBC Award for Thoroughness in the Face of Creationism

Constant Mews Posts: 323 Joined: Sep. 2007 (Permalink) Posted: 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.

FloydLee Posts: 577 Joined: Sep. 2009 (Permalink) Posted: Oct. 29 2009,14:22    Quote So we see that Floyd has conceded that his first four "incompatibilities" By the way CM, what was your answer on Incompatibility #4?  Don't seem like you had much to say.  Please don't hold back on all that theological prowess, instead tell me how you resolved THAT one?

deadman_932 Posts: 3094 Joined: May 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Oct. 29 2009,14:24    Who cares, Flody? AS YOU ADMITTED, no Christian has to address your "incompatibilities" at all for you to agree they are still Christians, even if they hold to acceptance of evolution as well. You don't have an argument at all anymore, and you saw to it yourself. Of course, you may really be incapable of acknowledging that, but who cares? It's done. -------------- AtBC Award for Thoroughness in the Face of Creationism

Constant Mews Posts: 323 Joined: Sep. 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Oct. 29 2009,14:26    Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 29 2009,14:22) Quote So we see that Floyd has conceded that his first four "incompatibilities" By the way CM, what was your answer on Incompatibility #4?  Don't seem like you had much to say.  Please don't hold back on all that theological prowess, instead tell me how you resolved THAT one? I just supplied an answer. If you are unable to read, may I suggest remedial education. I can also give you some Bible study lessons - apparently you need them badly.

FrankH Posts: 525 Joined: Feb. 2009 (Permalink) Posted: Oct. 29 2009,14:28    You know Floyd, I answered your questions.  I even answered questions about non-personal things you asked of other people.  So what about answering mine? Now, before you say, "You didn't answer all of mine", go back and take a look at when and where you asked these questions.  They were when you answered a question with a question so you never answered my question.  Still in more than a few places, I answered you and re-posed my question. So if you feel you have a problem with deadman, then fine.  But at least answer those who've answered you. -------------- Marriage is not a lifetime commitment, it's a life sentence!

FloydLee Posts: 577 Joined: Sep. 2009 (Permalink) Posted: Oct. 29 2009,14:28    Quote 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. This one was specifically refuted God knows how many double-digit pages back.   It was refuted both from actual Romans text and current peer-review-published Romans scholarship (viz., Douglas Moo, NICNT). Got anything else on #4?

FloydLee Posts: 577 Joined: Sep. 2009 (Permalink) Posted: Oct. 29 2009,14:35    Quote You know Floyd, I answered your questions. Hey, I gave you straight answers on your laundry list of "Christians" there.  Even respectfully answered concerning your sister.  Gave you specific explanations. But I did already provide this board specific answers on Pope and Nmgirl (and Francis Collins too), and and gave you specific answers on the rest including your sister. Sorry, I think I have a right to insist that you NOT act like I never provided them already, and that's how you've been behaving all this time.  You've been on this board long enough to have looked them up already.   You said you'd look 'em up to prove I was an (expletive) liar.  So, you gonna look 'em up already or not?

Robin Posts: 1431 Joined: Sep. 2009 (Permalink) Posted: Oct. 29 2009,14:36    [quote=FloydLee,Oct. 29 2009,13:46][/quote] Quote Quote Put quite simply, my beliefs are (1) not pertinant Ahhh, but they ARE pertinent--very much so.  Why?   Because those religious beliefs you're hiding are where your pre-suppositions are coming from, and THOSE items---whatever they are-- DO have bearing on this particular debate and the positions you take. Just as my being utterly honest and clear with everybody about MY specific religious beliefs (and hence my presuppositional positions) gives you a clearer target to understand and address and engage, so your COWARDICE and refusal to be honest and clear with everybody about your specific religious beliefs has the effect of hiding your pre-suppositional positions through which you come to adopt the views you state. You're hiding because you are afraid to have your pre-sups rationally examined in public.  What I am not afraid of, you are totally skeer'd of. And you have the nerve to accuse me of 'avoidance' and not answering question while nervously hiding like that sir? There are  a few problems with your tactic here, Floyd. You have not established why Deadman's presuppostions (assuming he has any) are pertinent to your proving that evolution is incompatible with Christianity. Understanding where Deadman is coming from should have NO bearing on whether you can effectively prove that evolution is incompatible with Christianity. For example, it would make no difference to an argument regarding demonstrating that heavy rain storms are incompatible with a getting sheets dry on an outdoor clothes line what people's presuppositions are. If your argument regarding the incompatibility between evolution and Christianity is biased by presuppositions, your argument doesn't have a lot of objectivity to begin with. That makes it a rather weak argument since subjective arguments can't be proven at all and have little value to anyone. Also, there's the little problem with the way you presented presuppositions as though they are some standard. They aren't. There's a facet of Christian apologetics that tries to establish a logical basis for biblical literalism by claiming that presuppositional positions require a valid starting point and that the bible is as valid (if not the only valid) starting point. The problem with this position, however, is that it is a) circular in nature and thus invalid, but b) easy to defeat by demonstrating a rational position that requires no presuppositions. I can demonstrate one if you like that cannot be defeated and has completely reduced Plantinga and Bahsen's arguments to moot points. Bottom line, Deadman's position should have no bearing on your argument, but if it does, then your argument is of no value anyway. -------------- 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: Oct. 29 2009,14:38    Quote I'll just say I'm not a Christian in your view, Floyd. Question is, are you even a Christian in YOUR OWN view?   Sheesh, all that duckin' and hidin'!!     :)

deadman_932 Posts: 3094 Joined: May 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Oct. 29 2009,14:42    Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 29 2009,14:38)   Quote I'll just say I'm not a Christian in your view, Floyd. Question is, are you even a Christian in YOUR OWN view?   Sheesh, all that duckin' and hidin'!!     :) Saying that my beliefs are both irrelevant and none of your business isn't "hiding" at all, Floyd. It is factual. You certainly haven't shown otherwise. I answered you because I'm aware that you would continue using my beliefs as though they somehow showed something relevant to your original claim , even though you can't show that either. As for what I consider myself to be, again, how is that relevant? My "Presuppositions" won't help you show evolution and Christianity incompatible. Finally, again, AS YOU ADMITTED, no Christian has to address your "incompatibilities" at all, for you to agree they are still Christians, even if they hold to acceptance of evolution as well. You screwed yourself out of an argument, Floyd. At this point, all that's left is watching to see how more dishonest you'll get. I hope you won't disappoint, since it will be used against you for as long as you choose. -------------- AtBC Award for Thoroughness in the Face of Creationism

FloydLee Posts: 577 Joined: Sep. 2009 (Permalink) Posted: Oct. 29 2009,15:03    Quote You have not established why Deadman's presuppostions (assuming he has any) are pertinent to your proving that evolution is incompatible with Christianity. Ohhhh yes I have.  For example, some posters (and Deadman was specifically one of them, so there!)  have appealed to an anti-supernaturalist presupposition of(naturalism for short) in an attempt to evade the force of the First and Second Incompatibilities.  You guys (and Deadman) did NOT appeal to science but instead to a negative theological presupposition. Knowing what that particular presupposition is and how it works, helped me to both understand the objections you guys were lodging, and also to locate the correct professional sources with which to carefully and specifically argue against trying to equate that negative presupposition with science itself---(like Deadman and his pals were trying to do.) So yeah, at bare minimum, you've already seen that Deadman's presuppositions, (or yours, or mine, which mine are all on the table already) can indeed have serious bearing on this topic. But Deadman has had PLENTY to say around here, not just that one thing.  So how many MORE pre-suppositions are lurking in there?  How many MORE times is he actually relying on his Pre-Sups for his conclusions instead of on the evidences and sound reasonings? (Actually, he ain't the only one who could be asked those question.  But at least you've been forthcoming and halfway straight with me on where you're coming from.  Deadman has NOT been. You were willing, for example, to say out loud that the Resurrection of Jesus was metaphorical instead of historical.   You stood up and said your true beliefs. I can't even get Deadman to be THAT honest with me.  He's ducking and hiding his cards.  And relying on YOU guys to keep him hid.

Dan Posts: 77 Joined: Sep. 2009 (Permalink) Posted: Oct. 29 2009,15:08    Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 29 2009,13:46)   Quote Put quite simply, my beliefs are (1) not pertinant Ahhh, but they ARE pertinent--very much so. FL is still challenged by simple logic. The question: "Is knowledge of evolution consistent with belief in Christianity?" To demonstrate the affirmative, one need only find a Christian who holds to evolution. FL believes that to demonstrate the negative, one need only find a Christian who doesn't hold to evolution. FL is of course dead wrong, and FL knows that.  But in a vain attempt to salvage dignity, he's raising a bunch of irrelevant points.  Yes!  He accuses people of being cowardly because they remain on topic!  This is one such example.  Unfortunately for FL, he is violating the well-known principle "if you're deep in a hole, stop digging."

FrankH Posts: 525 Joined: Feb. 2009 (Permalink) Posted: Oct. 29 2009,15:08    Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 29 2009,14:35) Quote You know Floyd, I answered your questions. Hey, I gave you straight answers on your laundry list of "Christians" there.  Even respectfully answered concerning your sister.  Gave you specific explanations. But I did already provide this board specific answers on Pope and Nmgirl (and Francis Collins too), and and gave you specific answers on the rest including your sister. Sorry, I think I have a right to insist that you NOT act like I never provided them already, and that's how you've been behaving all this time.  You've been on this board long enough to have looked them up already.   You said you'd look 'em up to prove I was an (expletive) liar.  So, you gonna look 'em up already or not? No you did not.  Specific answers are "Yes" and/or "No".  You danced around answers but specifics?  Not even close. Then I ask you r indulgence here to just come out and say YES or NO.  These people claim their God used Evolution: 1: The Pope 2: nmgirl 3: My Sister 4: Robin 5: CM Are they Christian or not? -------------- Marriage is not a lifetime commitment, it's a life sentence!

FrankH Posts: 525 Joined: Feb. 2009 (Permalink) Posted: Oct. 29 2009,15:10    Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 29 2009,15:03) Quote You have not established why Deadman's presuppostions (assuming he has any) are pertinent to your proving that evolution is incompatible with Christianity. Ohhhh yes I have.  For example, some posters (and Deadman was specifically one of them, so there!)  have appealed to an anti-supernaturalist presupposition of(naturalism for short) in an attempt to evade the force of the First and Second Incompatibilities.  You guys (and Deadman) did NOT appeal to science but instead to a negative theological presupposition. Knowing what that particular presupposition is and how it works, helped me to both understand the objections you guys were lodging, and also to locate the correct professional sources with which to carefully and specifically argue against trying to equate that negative presupposition with science itself---(like Deadman and his pals were trying to do.) So yeah, at bare minimum, you've already seen that Deadman's presuppositions, (or yours, or mine, which mine are all on the table already) can indeed have serious bearing on this topic. But Deadman has had PLENTY to say around here, not just that one thing.  So how many MORE pre-suppositions are lurking in there?  How many MORE times is he actually relying on his Pre-Sups for his conclusions instead of on the evidences and sound reasonings? (Actually, he ain't the only one who could be asked those question.  But at least you've been forthcoming and halfway straight with me on where you're coming from.  Deadman has NOT been. You were willing, for example, to say out loud that the Resurrection of Jesus was metaphorical instead of historical.   You stood up and said your true beliefs. I can't even get Deadman to be THAT honest with me.  He's ducking and hiding his cards.  And relying on YOU guys to keep him hid. Floyd still thinks people's opinions, even if he gets them all wrong, "prove" his points. So I guess that a whacked out crack whore who believes she is giving birth to an aliens baby proves the existence of aliens. -------------- Marriage is not a lifetime commitment, it's a life sentence!

deadman_932 Posts: 3094 Joined: May 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Oct. 29 2009,15:22    Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 29 2009,15:03) Quote You have not established why Deadman's presuppostions (assuming he has any) are pertinent to your proving that evolution is incompatible with Christianity. Ohhhh yes I have.  For example, some posters (and Deadman was specifically one of them, so there!)  have appealed to an anti-supernaturalist presupposition of(naturalism for short) in an attempt to evade the force of the First and Second Incompatibilities.  You guys (and Deadman) did NOT appeal to science but instead to a negative theological presupposition. Care to point to that? Page? Citation? My position on deistic supernaturalism is that I can't demonstrate it via naturalistic methods definitively one way or the other, period. My posts will always be consistent with that, so I'm pretty sure you're either lying outright or have managed once again to deliberately "misunderstand" a post. -------------- AtBC Award for Thoroughness in the Face of Creationism

FloydLee Posts: 577 Joined: Sep. 2009 (Permalink) Posted: Oct. 29 2009,15:33    Quote Then I ask you r indulgence here to just come out and say YES or NO. You bet you're asking my indulgence, after promising everybody that you would prove that I'm an (expletive) liar by looking up past pages for yourself.  Which now you're backing off of, you couldn't even keep that promise. What would your sister say to all that, Frank...? (Oh never mind, I don't wanna know.) Hey, let's cut this short.  Pope and Nmgirl, already acknowledged their testimonies that they are Christian.  Didn't deny 'em, in fact I acknowledged so on those back pages that you're unaware of, that they are Christians.  Already said a yes on 'em.   Now you don't have to do any homework on back pages.  Kewl? The rest, already gave you the specific answers on each one, which you promptly ignored.   FloydLee

deadman_932 Posts: 3094 Joined: May 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Oct. 29 2009,15:35    Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 29 2009,15:33) Quote Then I ask you r indulgence here to just come out and say YES or NO. You bet you're asking my indulgence, after promising everybody that you would prove that I'm an (expletive) liar by looking up past pages for yourself.  Which now you're backing off of, you couldn't even keep that promise. What would your sister say to all that, Frank...? (Oh never mind, I don't wanna know.) Hey, let's cut this short.  Pope and Nmgirl, already acknowledged their testimonies that they are Christian.  Didn't deny 'em, in fact I acknowledged so on those back pages that you're unaware of, that they are Christians.  Already said a yes on 'em.   Now you don't have to do any homework on back pages.  Kewl? The rest, already gave you the specific answers on each one, which you promptly ignored.   FloydLee Heh. Feeling desperate, Flody? -------------- AtBC Award for Thoroughness in the Face of Creationism

Keelyn Posts: 40 Joined: Feb. 2009 (Permalink) Posted: Oct. 29 2009,15:38    Quote (Constant Mews @ Oct. 29 2009,15:19) 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. I still think it is more easy to summarize by phrasing it as: Now after 80 pages, Floyd has managed to [fill in the blank]. -------------- This isn't right. This isn't even wrong. -- Wolfgang Pauli Never let the truth get in the way of a good story. -- Mark Twain

deadman_932 Posts: 3094 Joined: May 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Oct. 29 2009,15:39    Quote Now after 80 pages, Floyd has managed to [fill in the blank]. My favorite answer to that is: "defeat his own claim" ETA: I should have added this was about page 30. Floyd just keeps kicking the corpse and saying "it's alive!" -------------- AtBC Award for Thoroughness in the Face of Creationism

Constant Mews Posts: 323 Joined: Sep. 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Oct. 29 2009,15:45    Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 29 2009,15:33) Quote Then I ask you r indulgence here to just come out and say YES or NO. You bet you're asking my indulgence, after promising everybody that you would prove that I'm an (expletive) liar by looking up past pages for yourself.  Which now you're backing off of, you couldn't even keep that promise. What would your sister say to all that, Frank...? (Oh never mind, I don't wanna know.) Hey, let's cut this short.  Pope and Nmgirl, already acknowledged their testimonies that they are Christian.  Didn't deny 'em, in fact I acknowledged so on those back pages that you're unaware of, that they are Christians.  Already said a yes on 'em.   Now you don't have to do any homework on back pages.  Kewl? The rest, already gave you the specific answers on each one, which you promptly ignored.   FloydLee So, by this acknowledgment, you admit that Christianity and evolution are compatible. Good to know.

Pages: (100) < ... 75 76 77 78 79 [80] 81 82 83 84 85 ... >

Track this topic	Email this topic	Print this topic

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