AE BB DB Explorer


Action:
Author:
Search Terms (separate with commas, no spaces):


form_srcid: Constant Mews

form_srcid: Constant Mews

form_cmd: view_author

Your IP address is 54.196.5.163

View Author detected.

view author posts with search matches:

Retrieve source record and display it.

form_author:

form_srcid: Constant Mews

q: SELECT AUTHOR, MEMBER_NAME, IP_ADDR, POST_DATE, TOPIC_ID, t1.FORUM_ID, POST, POST_ID, FORUM_VIEW_THREADS from ib_forum_posts AS t1 LEFT JOIN (ib_member_profiles AS t2, ib_forum_info AS t3) ON (t1.forum_id = t3.forum_id AND t1.author = t2.member_id) WHERE MEMBER_NAME like 'Constant Mews%' and forum_view_threads LIKE '*' ORDER BY POST_DATE ASC

DB_err:

DB_result: Resource id #6

Date: 2007/09/23 15:41:10, Link
Author: Constant Mews
[quote="SteveSteve"]Dave, your blog has a switch. You can turn off requiring approval for comments. We never hold your comments for approval. Why are you more censorious than the dread Wesley Elsberry?[/quote]
Quote ("Dave"]Yes @ Steve, I'm quite aware it has a switch.   I flipped the "unmoderate" switch about a month ago.  So the truth is, I am LESS censorious than the "dread Wesley Elsberry."[/quote)
Are you really?  You are LESS consorious?  Let us examine this claim.[quote="SteveSteve"Real Dave: when you post here, we don't hold your posts--or anyone's posts--for approval. Will you commit to doing the same at your blog, or will you remain much more censorious than Mr. Elsberry?
Quote
Again, yes to the 1st question.  Already said so.  Except for a few individuals with disruptive track records like Occam's Aftershave.


In other words, Dave, you are a first-rate and unmitigated liar.  You claim that you do not censor comments, and then point out that you do censor comments.  It's a on-off switch, Dave - either you a liar or your are simply too stupid to know that you are lying.

You censor comments.  Clearly you fear truth.  Why, Dave?  Why fear the truth?

Date: 2007/09/23 16:22:57, Link
Author: Constant Mews
I appreciate both the welcome and the editing help, jeannot.

As always, Dave's behavior baffles me - given that his stated aim is to present 'good science' in the hopes of bringing folks closer to God, why would he spend so much time driving people away from God by behaving like an ill-mannered lout and congenital moron?  I am not trying to use those terms in anything other than a purely descriptive way.

Dave is working very, very hard to completely prevent anyone from taking him - or the 'science' he presents seriously.

Why would someone work so hard to undermine his own goals?  What kind of intelligence is on display here?

Date: 2007/09/23 20:28:28, Link
Author: Constant Mews
Quote (jeannot @ Sep. 23 2007,03:52)
Quote (Occam's Aftershave @ Sep. 22 2007,19:13)
If you are serious about finding the TRUTH, you won't fear having contradicting scientific evidence posted on your blog.

Dave is a liar, plain and simple.

More importantly, Dave is a hypocrit. To claim that he does not moderate and then state that he does? And be too stupid to recognize the difference?Amazing.

Date: 2007/09/24 11:27:07, Link
Author: Constant Mews
Don't bother with the link; Dave begins with a number of red-herrings and inaccuracies about the DH; then ignores all the responses.

Typical Dave: lies, distortions, misrepresentations.  All it lacks is some crime....

Date: 2007/09/26 16:27:59, Link
Author: Constant Mews
Quote (afdave @ Sep. 26 2007,16:17)
Reposted here from IIDB so as not to be accused of posting off topic and getting an infraction ... http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?p=4816402#post4816402 ... the mods there will let Dr. Meert post off topic because he holds the "correct" viewpoint, but they will not allow me to do so.  

 
Quote
AfDave,

    Will I participate in a phone conversation with Walt Brown and you 'moderating'?  I've yet to see evidence of moderation from you.  If Walt Brown wants to have his ideas heard, there are venues for that.  We have yearly (example from GSA) or twice yearly meetings where Walt can present his ideas.   If he wants to be a scientist, let him act like one.  Acting like one means doing some science in front of other scientists.

Cheers

Joe Meert
Not so veiled insult directed at me RE: moderation noted.  As far as that goes, there is no need for me to be on the call.  Just you and Walt.

I'll pass along the conference invites to him -- hopefully he will participate.  You say acting like a scientist means doing some science in front of other scientists.    But I thought YOU are a scientist.  Why is talking on the phone with a scientist (you) not "doing science in front of scientists"?  Maybe you mean he should submit his work to a mainstream journal?  I think you know exactly what would happen.  It would be rejected because it smacks of creationism.  My opinion is that his theory is a good one and you may not have any good rebuttals.  Why don't you prove me wrong?

The mods at IIDB - the ones whom you have claimed numerous times were fair and unbiased - prefer that no one post off topic.

Your refusal to post fairly led to Jet Black's comment.

Date: 2007/09/26 16:30:52, Link
Author: Constant Mews
Quote (afdave @ Sep. 24 2007,17:12)
TP ...  
Quote
Thank you for responding, but I am not interested in arguing religious apologetics.
The Documentary Hypothesis has nothing to do with religious apologetics.  It's a (IMO debunked) theory of how Genesis was composed.  A much better theory is what I call the Modified Wiseman Hypothesis (Tablet Theory of Genesis), which shows that Genesis is very likely a compilation of ancient written, eyewitness accounts.  I can't imagine why anyone wouldn't be interested in that.  Many of my fans here (like my good friends Constant Mews and Occam's Aftershave) are.  Come join the fun!

Your opinion on the Wiseman hypothesis and the DH are valueless, because you have neither education, training, nor experience with the analysis of ancient texts.  You are, as usual, stealing your entire argument from someone else, an argument that you barely understand.

The result?  You are being eviscerated.  Every point you try to raise has been soundly rebutted, and your ability to construct a rational argument has, once again, been shown to be non-existent.

Why do you spend so much time making Christians look like idiots, Dave?  Why do you spend so much time driving folks further into the atheist camp?

Date: 2007/09/26 16:34:01, Link
Author: Constant Mews
[quote="Dave"]But I thought YOU are a scientist.  Why is talking on the phone with a scientist (you) not "doing science in front of scientists"?[/quote]Because Walt Brown is not a scientist, Dave - any more than you are.  Brown is terrified to debate in public or on a public forum because he knows that his 'argument' will be trashed.  It happened on the KCFS (sp?) board; he appeared, was soundly thrashed, and ran away like a scared rabbit.

Very similar to your behavior on IIDB.  Doesn't it ever bother you?  Lying?  Running away from questions?  Encouraging atheism?

I suppose not - you appear to have little or no gift for introspection.

Date: 2007/09/26 16:34:53, Link
Author: Constant Mews
Quote (blipey @ Sep. 26 2007,16:33)
Because he's important, really important.

To other mental masturbators, I suppose.

Date: 2007/09/26 18:51:16, Link
Author: Constant Mews
Dave certainly has the capacity to come up with new, genuinely stupid ideas on a recurring basis.  Every single time he deviates from the various authoritative documents he worships, this sort of thing occurs.

Date: 2007/09/27 08:27:32, Link
Author: Constant Mews
Quote (ericmurphy @ Sep. 27 2007,01:43)
Quote (afdave @ Sep. 26 2007,20:28)
Everyone picks and chooses parts of articles which support what they are trying to say.  But if your question really is "Am I quote mining dishonestly?" the answer is "No."  Never have.  Never will, although my beloved followers like Deadman and Constant Mews will probably go to their deathbeds claiming that I do.  But their posts speak for themselves as to their honesty and other character qualities.  Read the article for yourself.   The part I quoted supports my point and my use does not do violence to the rest of the article.

Dave still doesn't understand the distinction between "quote-mining" and "misquoting." It's hard to tell whether he thinks he can get away with silently substituting one for the other (you can't, Dave, not with us), or if he just doesn't have the intellectual horsepower to see the difference.

it's fairly clear where the problem is: cognitive ability. Dave is - to be quite blunt- stupid. Basic concepts such as 'evidence', 'falsification', quote-mining' are apparently impossible to grasp. Don't be fooled by his apparent faculty with words or his personal creationist demon.

Dave is simply stupid.

He also happens to be a habitual liar and quite probably autistic, but the fact that he is a dumb hick is important.

Date: 2007/09/27 09:51:25, Link
Author: Constant Mews
Quote (afdave @ Sep. 27 2007,08:55)
Quote (Constant Mews @ Sep. 27 2007,08:27)
Dave is simply stupid.

He also happens to be a habitual liar and quite probably autistic, but the fact that he is a dumb hick is important.

Ah ... "Dr." Constant-Internet-Psychiatrist-Doctor-of-Theology-Mews has finally found a place where he can unleash all his "Christian love" upon me ... the good old Bathroom Wall, where no pesky mods will make him be nice.

Just a diagnosis, Dave.  No reason to be testy - unless you think it hits home?

Date: 2007/09/27 09:53:04, Link
Author: Constant Mews
Quote (improvius @ Sep. 27 2007,09:16)
Quote (Constant Mews @ Sep. 27 2007,09:27)
it's fairly clear where the problem is: cognitive ability. Dave is - to be quite blunt- stupid. Basic concepts such as 'evidence', 'falsification', quote-mining' are apparently impossible to grasp. Don't be fooled by his apparent faculty with words or his personal creationist demon.

Dave is simply stupid.

He also happens to be a habitual liar and quite probably autistic, but the fact that he is a dumb hick is important.

I would disagree with you on this.  I would argue that "faculty with words" is a reliable indicator of intelligence.  For the most part, Dave seems to write fairly well.  I'm talking about sentence structure and word choice here.  If Dave were truly as stupid as you say he is, we'd see something more like the mish-mash that Rob Bryce posts.  I'm not saying Dave's writing skills are stellar, but they are certainly what I would consider to be above average.  No, I think "stupid" is too simplistic in this case.  Rather, I believe there are some powerful mental constructs that are actively inhibiting Dave's reasoning ability.

There are a number of different kinds of intelligence. Verbal facility is not a reliable indicator of reasoning and logical facility.

Date: 2007/09/27 11:56:17, Link
Author: Constant Mews
Quote (afdave @ Sep. 27 2007,10:25)
Quote (Constant Mews @ Sep. 27 2007,09:51)
 
Quote (afdave @ Sep. 27 2007,08:55)
   
Quote (Constant Mews @ Sep. 27 2007,08:27)
Dave is simply stupid.

He also happens to be a habitual liar and quite probably autistic, but the fact that he is a dumb hick is important.

Ah ... "Dr." Constant-Internet-Psychiatrist-Doctor-of-Theology-Mews has finally found a place where he can unleash all his "Christian love" upon me ... the good old Bathroom Wall, where no pesky mods will make him be nice.

Just a diagnosis, Dave.  No reason to be testy - unless you think it hits home?

Right.  Let me know where your public office is ... maybe I will come in and get a prescription from you for my "condition."

(Oh wait ... you don't have an office ... well then never mind)

Dave, you are a genuine ill person.  You show a number of symptoms consonant with autism, dementia, obsessive-compulsive behavior, and anger management.

All these things are interfering with your ability to do God's work, and making you - and other Christians by association - more of laughing stock than we already are among the "intelligent, educated" part of the populace.

The irrelevant secondary facts that you appear to be a habitual liar and - in your own words - "not very smart" simply compound the problem.

Get help, Dave.  Seriously.  Find a local psychiatrist who can treat your problems.

After all, you can't afford my rates.

Date: 2007/12/06 15:22:56, Link
Author: Constant Mews
Quote
Personally, I believe ID has raised so many questions that NEED to be answered in regard to the evolutionary paradigm that that fact alone should push science to a whole new level, but this fact doesn’t even affect our student’s early education, and that is where I believe the problem lies.
FTK, I am curious about this point.  What problems - precisely - do you feel that ID has raised about evolution?  I do not see where ID has produced any quantifiable challenges to the 'evolutionary paradigm' based on actual experiment, rigorously applied mathematics, or even simple description.  Could you explicate what you feel are the three or four most significant such questions?  Thanks.

Date: 2007/12/06 15:25:00, Link
Author: Constant Mews
Dave is unable to admit that he is in error - this is a great part of his problem.  It almost certainly stems from his development in an environment dominated by an adored, but over-restrictive and over-authoritative father.  Add to this a weak will, a poor self-image, and a singular lack of curiousity and you have a devastating cocktail.

Date: 2007/12/07 00:29:19, Link
Author: Constant Mews
Quote (ck1 @ Dec. 06 2007,19:20)
Quote (afdave @ Dec. 06 2007,16:17)
Right, DM ... you like telling one sided stories I know, so I hate to spoil it for you ... the other side of the story is ...

10 infractions over 4 months (RBH's idea of a short time), maybe 2 of them legit, the rest very bogus ... anyone who reads QPC and that new sticky thread in E/C knows this and can see others complaining also on my behalf.

Just over 100 posts reported in 4 months comes to less than 1 per day ... and I only reported them because RBH instructed me to.  If he had told me to stop reporting them I would have.  Furthermore, if he had told me to quit posting so much, I would have also complied ... but he never did.  

It has the appearance that the Admins were tired of all the questioning of Darwinism going on in E/C.  Does that sound familiar?  Never had any trouble in BCH and I posted a lot there too ... had people ask me to post more there.  I've had former IIDB mods PM me and invite me to RnR and many other posters including the highly respected Jet Black express their desire to converse with me and even defend me.

So, DM ... you're Theory of Origins is not the only theory of yours that is questionable.  

Cheers!

Dave,
I do not know why you were suspended at IIDB, but I know the mods there bent over backwards to accomodate you and your "fan club".

So, since you have run into similar problems on ATBC, RD and now IIDB, don't you think it is time to take stock?  You should consider the complaints you have heard for almost 2 years, especially from those you consider your "hecklers".  You know, the people whose posts you proudly say you avoid reading.  

Read them.

I gather you spend your time on these sites to get your creationist ideas evaluated by scientists.  But if you are not willing to deal with the science honestly, then you will not be taken seriously, and the discussion degenerates into name calling and worse.  Tactics that do not work - quotemining, ignoring substantive responses, repeating refuted claims over and over, and your decision to avoid learning mainstream science from the people who actually do the work.

Not that you will pay attention to any of this...

The saddest thing is that he will burn out his welcome at TheologyWeb as well.  Dave cannot learn, and will never understand that he is the source of his problem.

Date: 2007/12/07 00:32:36, Link
Author: Constant Mews
Quote (Constant Mews @ Dec. 06 2007,15:22)
Quote
Personally, I believe ID has raised so many questions that NEED to be answered in regard to the evolutionary paradigm that that fact alone should push science to a whole new level, but this fact doesn’t even affect our student’s early education, and that is where I believe the problem lies.
FTK, I am curious about this point.  What problems - precisely - do you feel that ID has raised about evolution?  I do not see where ID has produced any quantifiable challenges to the 'evolutionary paradigm' based on actual experiment, rigorously applied mathematics, or even simple description.  Could you explicate what you feel are the three or four most significant such questions?  Thanks.

I thought I would remind you of my question.  Perhaps you missed it.

Date: 2007/12/07 02:27:21, Link
Author: Constant Mews
Quote (blipey @ Dec. 07 2007,00:53)
Mews,

I could add your question to the list if you'd like.  I don't think she missed it.  She might come back and tell you she's addressed that at least 1X10^14 times already on other forums so she isn't going to answer you here.  She might also forget to provide a link to any of those times. :)

Nonetheless, I will give her the benefit of the doubt.  FTK, could you take a look at my post above?  It would help greatly if I understood precisely what questions you feel ID has raised.  Thanks.

Date: 2007/12/10 14:34:56, Link
Author: Constant Mews
Quote (afdave @ Dec. 07 2007,07:28)
CM ...  
Quote
The saddest thing is that he will burn out his welcome at TheologyWeb as well.  Dave cannot learn, and will never understand that he is the source of his problem.
No, CM.  The problem seems to be certain anti-creationists who say they want creationists to engage them, but when it actually happens (they never expected that it would), then they suddenly decide it's not so great after all having their broken arguments refuted and they resort to all kinds of psychobabble such as the variety you engage in.

Dave, I am an expert in mental health.

Yours is abominable, I'm afraid.  

As a Christian, I urge you to seek out medical help and counseling.  As a doctor, I would accept you as a patient but - and this is a very important but - you simply could not afford me.

You are using the faith as a prison for your mind - you have thrown away God AND science in the name of your vanity and ego.

Date: 2007/12/10 14:47:40, Link
Author: Constant Mews
Quote (carlsonjok @ Dec. 08 2007,08:11)
Oh my, Dave's thread over on Theologyweb is pure gold.  Although I am worried that Dave's self image has suffered due to his constant fight against evilushun. See here for this:
 
Quote
One final thing ... YOU started this topic and YOU challenged Dr. Baumgardner to answer your objections. I get the impression that you think the reason he has not appeared here is because he has no answer. I disagree with this and we may never know for sure. So Dr. B may not appear, but I have appeared. I'm not your first choice I'm sure, but I'll have to do if he doesn't show. As I said ... YOU started this topic and issued the challenge. I hope that as we progress and I meet your challenge that you stick with it and deal with data fairly. I could write a book on the posters I have conversed with who dodge, duck, run, hide, twist, hoot, laugh, insult, quote mine and a host of other childish games. I have engaged you because I have reason to believe that you are not like this and you are well known anti-YEC who I believe needs to be engaged. And ... if your arguments are persuasive, you just might persuade me to your side! And if you do, that's a big notch in your belt because of my influential position at Kids4Truth International and my close association with Answers in Genesis.

And Morton's dismantling can't help but leave a mark. Ouch.

A beautiful job on Glenn's part.

It is interesting that another interested party; one who knows his subject well; one who is a Christian, and a devout one; who has no prior experience with Dave; can see that Dave is an ignorant, illogical, pathological liar within a mere handful of posts.

Dave, you're not fooling anyone: perhaps the only honest statement you've made (aside from your actual Creationist beliefs, which I am fully willing to acknowledge you BELIEVE to be true) was this,

[quote]I'm not actually very smart.[/i]

One of the few times you've been honest with both us and with yourself.

I truly urge you Dave to seek medical and spiritual help.

Date: 2007/12/10 15:42:27, Link
Author: Constant Mews
I must admit that Glenn Morton has a way with words.  The clarity of his annihilation of Dave's pretense is devastating.  This post is a particularly fine example:
Quote
More stupid word games, Dave. No serious intellectual content for the likes of you.

The lurkers will follow the logic, you, of course, won't. Gary is noting that when waters rage, small rocks become missiles in the water. As the guy trying to cross the stream gets his legs pummelled by these small stones, the force is such as to break the bones.

Dave, It is an amazingly complex topic to get your wee brain around, but people can't stand upon broken legs. (having once broken my leg in 4 places, I know). So, once again, being a very complex thing for you to grasp, when they can't stand, they fall---think hard on this davie boy and you just might grasp part of it. Now, they fall into what? Oh, they are in a stream with a raging flood so it must be ......think hard, davie boy, water. Now once under water, those stones which were breaking their legs are now busy breaking their skulls, knocking them unconcious. (Davie boy, a skull is that thing on your shoulders that in most people contains a brain--you might not know of that marvelous organ but trust me, having one would do you wonders). And once unconscious, gasp, they drown.

Now for the little shrimpie poo. Put him in the same environment. the rocks will smash him flat. Want to see what the little shrimpie poo would look like davie boy? Put a shrimp, shell and all on the floor. Step on him. Voila, you will have what a shrimp in a raging flood would look like.

I know, I know, advanced concepts are very very difficult for wee lads, but one day, you might grow a brain. We can only hope

Are there any lurker YECs out there who have the integrity to tell this guy how silly he is making YEC look, I mean tell him publically? Or is this the sort of thing you YECs agree with? Silence means agreement in my book

Date: 2007/12/10 22:19:04, Link
Author: Constant Mews
Still funnier is Dave's citation of Jet Black's resignation thread   as a citation of praise of Dave by JB.  An almost unbelievably stupid moment when Dave is desperately - and unconvincingly - trying to convince Glenn Morton that Dave is not a liar of the first order.

I have rarely seen anyone be so stupid.

Date: 2007/12/10 23:57:23, Link
Author: Constant Mews
To point out another error on Dave's part: he claims
Quote
I think it is significant that there are a growing number of highly credentialed posters with whom I interact on a regular basis, who consider me to be honest (and even intelligent and articulate ... thanks, people!) Here's a recent quote from "Jet Black" a highly respected physicist and former administrator at the Internet Infidels Forum.

   fwiw I did alot of defending dave because he stimulated alot of interesting conversation. Being able to swear at people and tell them to fuck off is all well and good (since that's about as much as you can do on the internet) but it gets boring fast. Out of many of the creationists that I have come across, dave was by far one of the better ones. people like Spiritdad and Ikester are just batshit insane. You can say and show them whatever you like, but they will forever just blindly believe in their flipping greenlands, their flying sapphire thrones and that the sky is blue because nitrogen ionizes. From there you just go through the inverse correlation of what people know and think they know - people who while completely uneducated think they know it all. These people will doom us all to a lifetime of explaining simple physical and biological fundamentals before they get bored and run away after asking questions far beyond them. Then there are the people that listen, they're rare, but iften even they don't incite particularly exciting conversation, though you do get the warm feeling in your tummy when they drop creationism like a ton of bricks. Then you get the rare ones, like dave, and while he is completely enveloped by creationism and his creationist chums, he actually asks interesting questions - the sorts that people actually have to think about, rather than rattle off the same old stuff they've said to creationists a thousand times before. Yeah sure he generated alot of work, hell I know - I dealt with most of it, but I don't post in science fora just to have bunch of people agree with me, or to converse with complete idiots who don't even know what evolution is, never mind about argue about it, he made life interesting, and I think IIDB has lost out by getting rid of him. http://www.rantsnraves.org/showthrea...768#post129768

Thanks, Jet Black!
Now, the interesting part is that - although he claimed that JB considers him honest, intelligent, and articulate - nothing whatsoever in his quote from JB nor in the link supplied does JB state any of those things.

Dave is truly delusional.  And Glenn is correct - Dave will never see the light.  God has abandoned him.

Date: 2007/12/11 11:32:31, Link
Author: Constant Mews
Quote (afdave @ Dec. 11 2007,08:18)
Hi CM ... I see you figured out the error you made two posts up.  :D

I made no errors, Dave.  Nothing that you cited has any relevance to your claim that Jet Black referred to you as honest or intelligent.

And now you have moved onto even funnier stuff: you are showing your typical Creationist hypocrisy on protesting that Glenn isn't interpreting your own statements correctly.

You said
Quote
when I am finished investigating this topic, I will find that burrows are actually quite compatible with the idea of a Global Flood
and now you are trying to weasel out of it by claiming some other meaning.

Interesting, Dave, because you do precisely the same thing with your various quote-mines of Provine and pretty much every other mainstream scientist you've ever quoted.

What a liar, hypocrite, and ignorant non-scientist you are, Dave.

Did you enjoyed being protoscoped by science on a public forum?  Did you enjoy being ass-reamed by an expert because of your ignorance?  Why else would you mention it on yet another web-site?

Why, Dave?  Why do you enjoy making an idiot of yourself in public and then bringing it to other people's attention?

Date: 2007/12/11 11:45:20, Link
Author: Constant Mews
And gentlemen, I give you the magnificent sanctimonious assohole nature of Dave Hawkins - one of the true fools of the internet:
Quote
Glenn, let me explain a little more of my perspective to you. You (and others like you at places like Talk Origins) have set up yourself as an authority on why YEC is supposedly wrong and many laymen come to your website and think it's gospel truth. Many of these folks will never read an Ichnology book or any other technical book. They will just take your word for it. So it is very important that what you say is accurate. In my almost two years of online discussions, I don't recall ever thinking "Glenn is dishonest" although I had questions about your claims. But now I'm seeing some things that, if you do not change them on your website, I will be forced to conclude that you are dishonest. I feel very strongly about this issue. I believe many people are being misled by erroneous information out there from people just like you and I am committed to doing something about it if I can.

You can leave and make no changes if you like, but you do have to live with yourself and look at yourself in the mirror.

Regards.

Date: 2007/12/11 12:43:18, Link
Author: Constant Mews
Quote (afdave @ Dec. 11 2007,11:55)
CM ...    
Quote
God has abandoned him.
Does that mean that you will too now?  (Since you're so close to Him?  And claim to pray for my soul every day?)  :p

Not at all.  I will never give up on a sinner - and you are a major sinner.  You have shut yourself off from the Word of God and the World of God to spend your life in a dismal prison of your own making - a windowless shell where you can masturbate to your heart's content.  But it changes nothing in the world - your hilarious attempts to get a rise out of Glenn Morton who is someone in the YEC and Biblical Inerrantist world.  I am trying to save you Dave from the hell that you have created for yourself and the Hell that awaits you.

Lying to others is a sin.

Lying to yourself is also stupid.

Date: 2007/12/31 15:47:13, Link
Author: Constant Mews
FTK I am a Christian - and a scientist. Methodological naturalism is the tool that God has given us in order to understand His world. Like all the tools of God, it works. The theory of evolution is the ONLY viable explanation to fit our observations of His world's biodiversity. Aside fromthe assumption that God is a liar, which I suspect you will join me in rejecting. Darwinism is not atheism, nor is it a faith. It is the workings of the Hand of God.

I see that I must pray for your redemption, as I pray daily for Dave Hawkins.

Date: 2007/12/31 22:41:15, Link
Author: Constant Mews
Quote (Ftk @ Dec. 31 2007,16:07)
Quote (Constant Mews @ Dec. 31 2007,15:47)
FTK I am a Christian - and a scientist. Methodological naturalism is the tool that God has given us in order to understand His world. Like all the tools of God, it works. The theory of evolution is the ONLY viable explanation to fit our observations of His world's biodiversity. Aside fromthe assumption that God is a liar, which I suspect you will join me in rejecting. Darwinism is not atheism, nor is it a faith. It is the workings of the Hand of God.

I see that I must pray for your redemption, as I pray daily for Dave Hawkins.

I'm glad to see that you believe that God is in constant interaction with his creatures, because MN has not always been the tool used in science.  He must have "given is to us" as an afterthought.  

But, I am glad you're praying for me.  That's nice.

MN is what science is about. There is no conflict of any kind between evolution and Christianity - though given your limited understanding of both evolution AND Christianity, I don't necessarily expect you to understand that point. And indeed I pray for God to bring you out of the horrible spiritual darkness in which you founder.

Date: 2009/10/08 17:09:40, Link
Author: Constant Mews
Floyd, I am a Christian and well-versed in evolutionary theory which I accept as truth.

My very existence demonstrates conclusively that you are wrong about your five "incompatibles".

You can conceded now.

Date: 2009/10/08 17:11:18, Link
Author: Constant Mews
My apologies: a poor spell-checker.

Floyd, you may now concede.  My existence as a Christian, a scientist, and one who accepts evolution conclusively proves you are wrong.

You're welcome.

Date: 2009/10/09 08:36:47, Link
Author: Constant Mews
Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 09 2009,03:04)
Quote
Floyd, I am a Christian and well-versed in evolutionary theory which I accept as truth.  My very existence demonstrates conclusively that you are wrong about your five "incompatibles".

Hi Constant.  You say that your "very existence demonstrates conclusively that..."?  Ummm, okay.  But would you take a few minutes and specify precisely HOW it does, for each incompatibility?
       
Quote
(You) cannot reconcile evolution with Christianity simply by declaring that many people see no conflict.

The issue is whether they have a sound basis for their opinions.


----evolutionist J. Rosenhouse, eSkeptic website, Oct 10, 2007

I'm curious, Floyd: why does it matter?  Your initial contention is that Christianity and evolution are incompatible.  The fact that there exists a person who finds them completely compatible proves without further emendation that you are wrong in your claim.  But certainly, since I realize I am dealing with a theological innocent, we can discuss your "points".

Date: 2009/10/09 08:39:09, Link
Author: Constant Mews
Oh, and Floyd, since you've let yourself get a little tangled up and confused in this thread, could you please post a simple summary of what your five point are?  The first two pages of the thread don't even present them in a coherent fashion.

Thanks.

Date: 2009/10/09 08:48:04, Link
Author: Constant Mews
I will begin with what appears to be your first "incompatible" (I will continue to refer to your contentions in quotes, since you have yet to demonstrate that they are, in fact, genuine incompatibilities.  Clearly your unsupported opinion is of no value here).

Quote
1.  In biblical Christianity, God is the REQUIRED explanation for the origins and existence of all biological objects (plants, animals, humans, etc) on earth, and He is the REQUIRED explanation for the origins and existence of the stars, the planets, the sun, the moon, and all other cosmological objects -- indeed, the entire universe.  The Bible is very clear on this point.

(See Genesis 1:1, Genesis chapters 1 and 2, and see Colossians 1:16, for example.  Also see John chapter 1:3 ---  "All things were made by Him; and without Him was not any thing made that was made.")

In contrast, evolution specifically denies that God is the REQUIRED explanation for said origins.


Actually, evolutionary theory says nothing of the sort.  Evolutionary theory is, like all scientific theories, silent on the question of divine intervention.  Please note that the opinions expressed by scientists on the question are not germane to the issue: the theory itself takes no position on the topic of God.

And since you have already admitted that the flow of water down a slope doesn't directly require the intervention of God, even if God is responsible for the actual existence of the water molecules involved, you've already conceded this point.

I suspect that one thing tripping you up is your rather simplistic understanding of the nature of the divine.  You seem to be operating off a "Sunday-school" image of the deus which envisions God operating in the same timeframe that humans understand.  By limiting yourself to this cartoon version of God, you miss the actual nature of the Logos.

The compatibility of free-will and divine omniscience - a point I suspect you will concede - is analogous.

Date: 2009/10/09 09:03:19, Link
Author: Constant Mews
Let's see if we can't Floyd a bit more this morning while I wait for my next client.

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.
As we have seen, evolutionary theory does not deny this: it is silent on this point, though various scientists and theologians have their own opinions.

Quote
2.  God created everything with teleology (purposefulness, goal-directedness, and conscious forethought) according to biblical forethought.  In fact, according to the clear statement of the New Testament, Jesus Christ himself is the Teleological Creator of the entire universe and everything in it, including us humans.
Evolutionary theory itself completely denies this, and especially denies ("DOES NOT ADMIT") the involvement of any conscious forethought at any point of the evolutionary process, including the origination of humans.  No wiggle room, no exceptions, no escape hatches.
As above.  And you're a theological moron if you're contending that everything in the universe is conscious, etc.

All evolutionary theory (the theory itself, not the opinions of its practitioners) states is that variation is random with respect to utility.

God doesn't work the way you do Floyd - in the limited, interventionist here and now.  As measurable by humans, variation is random.  That doesn't particularly mean it is unguided by God.


Quote
Okay, now let's present the last two incompatibilities.
I thought you claimed there were five?

Quote
3.  Evolution specifically denies the foundational Christian claim that humans are created and designed in the image of God.  Needless to say, both the Old and New Testaments affirm that humans are created in God's image.  Yet evolution denies this.
Not in the slightest.  Show us, precisely, page and verse, the part of the theory that states "humans did not evolve in God's image"

Show us, Floyd; because that's what you've claimed.  That the theory itself specifically denies that humans were evolved in the image of God.

Quote
4.  Evolution teaches (and absolutely requires) the historical claim of Death-Before-Adam, in clear violation and opposition to Romans 5:12-17.
The Bible is not referring to physical, but to spiritual death.

Very simple, Floyd.

In closing, may I point out a couple of things?  I note that your argument consists entirely of offering snippets of opinion from various folks about evolution, but never actually uses any part of the theory itself.  Why is that?  Are you so completely unfamiliar with or unable to understand the theory that you can't refer to it?

Second, your theology is remarkably simplistic: roughly on par with Seventh Day Adventist tracks.  If you'd like to actually deal with this interesting compatibility problem, I would suggest you begin by learning something about religion and Christianity in general.

Date: 2009/10/09 09:06:20, Link
Author: Constant Mews
Quote (OgreMkV @ Oct. 09 2009,08:59)
Quote (FloydLee @ Sep. 18 2009,15:35)
Quote
I'd ask for definitions of three of the five words in the proposition "evolution is incompatible with christianity" before I even ventured an answer.

Well, we've already defined evolution.  I'm using Campbell-Reece's 2005 textbook definition of macroevolution and microevolution, (previously posted earlier), if anybody here has a question about what's being used when.  

(As you know, many evolutionists often use the word "evolution" without even defining the term.)

You already know what compatible/incompatible means, because some of you are tryin' real hard not to accept that evolution is incompatible with Christianity.

And honestly?  You have a pretty good idea already of the beliefs that are involved with biblical Christianity and I've been careful to relate EACH of the four incompatibilities to a specific and important biblical Christian belief (God-as-required-explanation-for-origins, the Image-Of-God, etc.)

A basic definition of Christianity, indeed becoming a Christian, is as easy to do as reading and understanding John 3:16.  So it's no problem doing a basic definition, just look up one of the online dictionaries.

But like I said, I've already shown where each incompatibility corresponds to a foundational biblical Christian belief.

Here's the only statement I found where you even attemp to define anything.

You say Christianity is defined as reading and understanding John 3:16.  So please explain how John 3:16 incorporates your big 5 whatever they are.

Also, I read carefully the defintion of evolution that you provided and I see no mention of denying any god or gods.  Please provided and definition of evolution that “denies God”.  No, an interpretation of the definition to deny god is not enough, you’re a literalist remember.  The statement must use the words “denies that God is required”.

BTW: If you think science education in Texas is succesful, then you know nothing about education in Texas at all.

I agree with Ogre here, Floyd:

Based on the definitions you, yourself have provided for both evolution and Christianity, there is no incompatibility.

Let me repeat that, since I see from other posts you have some reading problems.

You provided two "definitions" (poor ones, I confess, but they are all you've given us); one for Christianity and one for evolution.

The definitions you provided show no, I repeat, no incompatibility.

Case closed.

Date: 2009/10/09 09:08:22, Link
Author: Constant Mews
Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 09 2009,09:05)
Quote
The fact that there exists a person who finds them completely compatible proves without further emendation that you are wrong in your claim.

Well, evolutionist Rosenhouse said it best:"The issue is whether they have a sound basis for their opinions."  
Merely stating that somebody exists who happens to believe they are compatible, is not rationally sufficient.  The question to be answered is always "why do they believe that."

Actually, it's not.  I accept Christianity and evolution.  You are incapable of judging whether or not my reasoning is sound.

I suspect that your usual solution to this problem is the trite, rather boring one often put forward by "fundies": the No True Scotsman defense.

How dull.  And how invalid.

Date: 2009/10/09 10:24:47, Link
Author: Constant Mews
Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 09 2009,10:18)
Quote
could you please post a simple summary of what your five point are?

Sure.  Evolution and Christianity are incompatible because:

1.  In biblical Christianity, God clearly is the Required Explanation for biological origins (including the evolutionary process.)  No exceptions. But with Evolution, God is clearly NOT a required explanation at all.

*** 

2.  In biblical Christianity, everything in the universe is originated via God's teleology, and especially humans.  (See Genesis chap 1, also see Col. 1:16).
In evolution, you have a total denial of that, at ALL points of the evolutionary process:  No Teleology No Conscious Forethought.  At least two rational reasons for this is given by EB3, who also (like Mayr) directly ascribes this to evolutionary theory.

***

3.  In biblical Christianity, humans are created and designed in the image of God.  Again, evolution denies that, most recently the Nature June 14 2007 article in which evolution of the brain is the reason for denying the Image-of-God thesis.

Evolutionist James Rachels also pointed out, in the book Created From Animals, that "the image-of-god thesis does NOT just go with any kind of theism."  It requires a creationist theism, Rachel said, in which God is viewed as "actively designing man and the world as a home for man."

***

4.  Evolution's clear position is that death was present on this planet before humans arrived.  In fact, it's not even possible for natural selection and evolution to work as claimed UNLESS death was present on this planet prior to humans being originated.  (Totally beyond debate, btw.)

The New Testament's clear postion (Romans 5:12-17) is that death entered this world only AFTER Adam and Eve sinned.  Romans 5:12-17 draws a very huge, very tight historical linkage between Adam and what Adam did (the problem) and Christ and what Christ did (the solution).  

Therefore evolution's Death-Before-Adam historical claim not only negates the historical claim of biblical Christianity about Adam and the Fall, but ALSO negates what biblical Christianity's historical claim about Christ and the Atonement.

Needless to say, THAT incompatibility goes all the way to the meaning of the Cross, goes all the way to the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

***

5.  The Fifth Incompatibility was eloquently stated via evolutionist Jason Rosenhouse at Evolutionblog.
     
Quote
Evolution by natural selection, you see, is an awful process. It is bloody, sadistic, and cruel. It flouts every moral precept we humans hold dear.

It recognizes only survival and gene propagation, and even on those rare occasions where you find altruism and non-selfishness you can be certain that blind self-interest is lurking somewhere behind the scenes.

All of this suffering, pain and misery, mind you, to reach a foreordained moment when self-aware creature finally appeared.

What theological purpose was served by all this bloodsport? If humans were inevitable why didn't God simply fast-forward the tape himself, thereby sparing all of those animals that died horrible deaths in the preceding hundreds of millions of years?

And please notice:  once again, there's no way to blow off #5 as "somebody's opinion."  What Rosenhouse is describing there is EXACTLY the way evolution works in the animal world.  That's evolutionary theory, period.

***
Okay, there's the summary of the Big Five Incompatibilities.

FloydLee

Thank you.  I'll deal with these in a bit, but may I point out that your "incompatibility 5" is not in the least in conflict with Christianity's vision of a fallen world?

You seem to be mixing theodicy up with evolution.  I begin to see the basis for your confusion on these points, and I hope to be able to help you understand your errors.

Date: 2009/10/09 13:35:41, Link
Author: Constant Mews
Quote (JonF @ Oct. 08 2009,18:54)
Quote (Constant Mews @ Oct. 08 2009,18:09)
Floyd, I am a Christian and well-versed in evolutionary theory which I accept as truth.

My very existence demonstrates conclusively that you are wrong about your five "incompatibles".

You can concede now.

Hey, CM, nice to see you! Long time no type!

True enough.  Working on a book takes time; and I've gotten some research monies to do a little project in Germany.  It should be an interesting Autumn.

Date: 2009/10/09 13:46:30, Link
Author: Constant Mews
Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 09 2009,12:41)
Quote
I'll deal with these in a bit, but may I point out that your "incompatibility 5" is not in the least in conflict with Christianity's vision of a fallen world?

You appear to severely misunderstand what evolutionist Rosenhouse was saying there.  Perhaps misunderstand Christianity's vision a bit as well.[/quote]

In Christianity's vision, God is not cruel and sadistic.  However, we know for a fact that, as Rosenhouse points out, evolution honestly IS cruel and sadistic.  Nature red in tooth and claw, you know.  Wasps laying their eggs in their still-living victims so the eggs can hatch and the wasps-in-training slowly eat up their living victims from the inside out.

Rosenhouse is asking what sort of God would do a gazillion years of bloody sadistic evolution just to come up with a couple of human beings.  What kind of theological justification can a theistic evolutionist provide for THAT? Wouldn't a loving ethical God "fast forward" the tape and spare all those gazillion years of animal suffering a death, Rosenhouse is asking you.

Biblical Christianity already has an answer.  The Fall is the reason for nature red in tooth and claw.  Everybody, every animal, was a herbivore until Adam and Eve sinned.  That's the testimony of the Bible.  God did NOT engage in bloodsport, God did NOT use a gazillion years of sadistic cruel evolution and natural selection to originate human beings.  We humans brought down all that "nature red in tooth and claw."  Not God.

But notice:  Biblical Christianity's answer NECESSARILY denies the evolutionist claim that humans originated via evolution/common descent/etc.  Now you rationally have a irrconcilable Either-Or situation to deal with.

You either must say that God is sadistic and cruel (and amazingly, some of the posters have actually tried to pull that stunt!) or else you must say that humans didn't evolve from a non-human "common ancestor" animal as the evolutionists claim.)

We have Rosenhouse's opinion of what constitutes cruel and sadistic behavior.  More important, your argument has nothing to do with evolution, it has to do with nature - you object that nature is cruel.  But you've put yourself in an untenable position here: if evolution is responsible for the cruelty you mention (e.g. wasps), then God isn't.  But you've rejected that: you now claim that God is the author, the direct author of horrific and unmentionable cruelty.

You really need to think this through before you post on it again, I notice a certain incoherence in your logic.

As for this point:
Quote
But notice:  Biblical Christianity's answer NECESSARILY denies the evolutionist claim that humans originated via evolution/common descent/etc.  Now you rationally have a irrconcilable Either-Or situation to deal with.

You either must say that God is sadistic and cruel (and amazingly, some of the posters have actually tried to pull that stunt!) or else you must say that humans didn't evolve from a non-human "common ancestor" animal as the evolutionists claim.)
You are again, completely incorrect.  You have adopted a simplistic, literal reading of the Bible which is rejected by virtually all scientifically-literate sects.  Are you, in fact, a YEC?

Date: 2009/10/09 13:48:49, Link
Author: Constant Mews
Quote (Dan @ Oct. 09 2009,12:55)
Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 09 2009,10:18)
5.  The Fifth Incompatibility was eloquently stated via evolutionist Jason Rosenhouse at Evolutionblog.
     
Quote
Evolution by natural selection, you see, is an awful process. It is bloody, sadistic, and cruel. It flouts every moral precept we humans hold dear.

It recognizes only survival and gene propagation, and even on those rare occasions where you find altruism and non-selfishness you can be certain that blind self-interest is lurking somewhere behind the scenes.

All of this suffering, pain and misery, mind you, to reach a foreordained moment when self-aware creature finally appeared.

What theological purpose was served by all this bloodsport? If humans were inevitable why didn't God simply fast-forward the tape himself, thereby sparing all of those animals that died horrible deaths in the preceding hundreds of millions of years?

And please notice:  once again, there's no way to blow off #5 as "somebody's opinion."  What Rosenhouse is describing there is EXACTLY the way evolution works in the animal world.  That's evolutionary theory, period.

If the theory of evolution is inconsistent with Christianity because it involves processes that might be "bloody, sadistic, and cruel," then we must also hold that:

Parasitology is inconsistent with Christianity because parasites might be bloody, sadistic, and cruel.

Animal ecology is inconsistent with Christianity because predation might be bloody, sadistic, and cruel.

Infectious disease is inconsistent with Christianity because diseases might be bloody, sadistic, and cruel.

Cancer is certainly inconsistent with Christianity.

History is inconsistent with Christianity because history is often bloody, sadistic, and cruel.

War is inconsistent with Christianity because war is usually bloody, sadistic, and cruel.

The Crusades were inconsistent with Christianity because the Crusades were bloody, sadistic, and cruel.

The Spanish Inquisition was inconsistent with Christianity because it was bloody, sadistic, and cruel.

Martin Luther was inconsistent with Christianity because he advocated treating Jews in ways that were bloody, sadistic, and cruel.

Exactly.  Floyd has gotten his anti-evolution argument mixed up with theodicy - which has a far more complex tradition behind it.

Evil exists.  That is fundamentally incompatible with an omniscient, omnipotent deity.  Nothing in there about evolution.

Date: 2009/10/09 13:59:20, Link
Author: Constant Mews
Quote (nmgirl @ Oct. 09 2009,13:21)
Floyd, the first step in getting out a hole is to stop digging.

I doubt he has realized the extent of his problems.  Clearly he is confusing a number of disparate arguments into a single, unharmonious whole and failing to support any one of them.  This speaks to, as Claudius commented, "A will most incorrect to heaven.  A heart unfortified, a mind impatient, an understanding simple and unschooled." (Emphasis added).

Date: 2009/10/09 14:01:02, Link
Author: Constant Mews
Quote (Henry J @ Oct. 09 2009,11:30)
Quote (Constant Mews @ Oct. 09 2009,08:03)
Quote
Okay, now let's present the last two incompatibilities.
I thought you claimed there were five?

He started with four, and invented a fifth one along the way.

His fifth "incompatible" is nothing more than a simplistic rendering of the Problem of Evil, historically confused.

Date: 2009/10/09 14:05:02, Link
Author: Constant Mews
Quote (ppb @ Oct. 09 2009,10:40)
Quote (Constant Mews @ Oct. 09 2009,11:24)
... and I hope to be able to help you understand your errors.

Good luck with that CM.

I see Floyd much the same way I saw AFDave - a child of God lost in his own ignorance and foolishness.  But every child of God is redeemable; every soul can be brought to abandon its idols (in Dave and Floyd's case this is clearly the Bible, or rather their childish reading of the Bible).

I pray for them both.

Date: 2009/10/09 14:15:42, Link
Author: Constant Mews
Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 09 2009,10:53)
Quote
Btw, on Oct. 8th (yesterday), Todd Wood also wrote the following items at his blog:

I believe that God created everything that you see in six consecutive days around 6000 years ago.

I believe that Adam and Eve were the very first humans and were directly created by God.

I believe Adam and Eve sinned, and that sin brought death, carnivory, disease, and suffering into the world.

I believe that people really lived to be 900+ years back then.

I believe that there was a truly global Flood that inundated the entire planet.

I believe that humans and land animals were preserved on an Ark (approximately 450 feet long for those keeping score).

I believe that the humans after the Flood gradually stopped living to be 900+.

I believe that the humans after the Flood tried to build a tower in Babel to prevent their dispersal across the globe, in direct contradiction to God's command.

I believe that God punished the builders of Babel by miraculously confusing their languages.

Why is this relevant?  Do you claim that these are foundational beliefs of Christianity?

Date: 2009/10/09 14:16:29, Link
Author: Constant Mews
Quote (OgreMkV @ Oct. 09 2009,14:07)
Quote (Constant Mews @ Oct. 09 2009,14:05)
Quote (ppb @ Oct. 09 2009,10:40)
 
Quote (Constant Mews @ Oct. 09 2009,11:24)
... and I hope to be able to help you understand your errors.

Good luck with that CM.

I see Floyd much the same way I saw AFDave - a child of God lost in his own ignorance and foolishness.  But every child of God is redeemable; every soul can be brought to abandon its idols (in Dave and Floyd's case this is clearly the Bible, or rather their childish reading of the Bible).

I pray for them both.

I find it interested that this supposed Christian is more interested in being right than trying to save our souls... of course, I think he was asked not to...

But I've noticed that with a lot of creationists and similar fundamentalist groups.

Floyd's understanding of his faith is a child's understanding.  He needs to grow up.

Date: 2009/10/09 14:55:08, Link
Author: Constant Mews
Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 09 2009,13:06)
Quote
So, Dinosaurs had sharp teeth to open coconuts.
Discuss.

Biblically, that's correct Ogre.  You may disagree with the claim itself, but you will not be able to deny that the Bible is making that specific claim.
 
Quote
Also, to every beast of the earth, to every bird of the air, and to everything that creeps on the earth, in which there is life, I have given every green herb for food”; and it was so. --  Gen. 1:30

I'm sorry, Floyd, but the Bible does not make that specific claim.

You are either lying, or you are unfamiliar with the Bible. If you believe I am wrong, you may feel free to cite the specific chapter and verse which discusses the purpose of the sharp teeth of dinosaurs.

I'm waiting.

Date: 2009/10/09 14:57:09, Link
Author: Constant Mews
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Oct. 09 2009,14:16)
Could somebody clarify something?

If there was no "death" before "the fall" does that mean FL thinks plants are not alive?

Plants were eaten before the fall. There was no death before the fall. Therefore plants are not alive?

Hmm.

Plants do not possess the "breath" of life; in fundie circles, that means that they are not, in fact, considered living things.

Date: 2009/10/09 15:08:10, Link
Author: Constant Mews
Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 09 2009,12:24)
Quote
(Ogre asked)
....doesn't that kind of negate the whole conversation?

Nope.  The already-proffered suggestion of "Such-and-such-a-Christian accepts evolution even though he says specific things that clearly are NOT compatible with a belief in evolution," simply doesn't rationally establish that evolution is compatible with Christianity.

But that is not what any of us have offered.  You have invented a strawman to fight with.  All well and good, if the level of intelligent discourse you'd like to have is hay

Date: 2009/10/09 15:08:58, Link
Author: Constant Mews
Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 09 2009,15:03)
Quote
I find it interested that this supposed Christian is more interested in being right than trying to save our souls

Yeah, you're right, my participation here is NOT an evangelistic tour.  God does exist, He loves you, you hate Him (for whatever reasons, some of which you've alluded to), but that's not what is on the table right now.   I'm just here for the opportunity to explain and defend the thread topic.
 
Now, if for some reason you DO want to accept and trust Jesus Christ as your personal Lord and Savior, if you want to pray a prayer of repentence and ask God to forgive you of your sins and save you through the atoning blood of Christ on the Cross, I can honestly be of assistance on that matter.  Been there done that.  I'm available on PM if need be.

But that's not why I'm here, and I've never claimed that such was my reason for being here.  

Nor have I ever claime

Date: 2009/10/09 15:11:25, Link
Author: Constant Mews
Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 09 2009,15:03)
Quote
I find it interested that this supposed Christian is more interested in being right than trying to save our souls

Yeah, you're right, my participation here is NOT an evangelistic tour.  God does exist, He loves you, you hate Him (for whatever reasons, some of which you've alluded to), but that's not what is on the table right now.   I'm just here for the opportunity to explain and defend the thread topic.
 
Now, if for some reason you DO want to accept and trust Jesus Christ as your personal Lord and Savior, if you want to pray a prayer of repentence and ask God to forgive you of your sins and save you through the atoning blood of Christ on the Cross, I can honestly be of assistance on that matter.  Been there done that.  I'm available on PM if need be.

But that's not why I'm here, and I've never claimed that such was my reason for being here.  

Floyd, I'd caution you about something: most, if not all of the folks on this board don't hate God.  It's impossible to hate something you don't believe exists.  You're projecting again.

Date: 2009/10/09 15:13:25, Link
Author: Constant Mews
Quote (ppb @ Oct. 09 2009,14:59)
Quote (Constant Mews @ Oct. 09 2009,15:57)
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Oct. 09 2009,14:16)
Could somebody clarify something?

If there was no "death" before "the fall" does that mean FL thinks plants are not alive?

Plants were eaten before the fall. There was no death before the fall. Therefore plants are not alive?

Hmm.

Plants do not possess the "breath" of life; in fundie circles, that means that they are not, in fact, considered living things.

Well, plants do breath.  If they didn't, we wouldn't either!

The ancient Hebrews didn't know that.  It's one of those interesting points which shows so clearly why one cannot take Genesis 1-11 as literal truth.  If the Word of God - a product of fallible men - contradicts the Work of God - an infallible source of wisdom - then obviously the products of man must be presumed to be in error.

Date: 2009/10/09 15:16:31, Link
Author: Constant Mews
Quote (OgreMkV @ Oct. 09 2009,11:08)
So if this Todd person is YEC who believes in the literal interpretation of Genesis AND believes that evolution "works and works well"...

doesn't that kind of negate the whole conversation?

It shows that Todd is gifted with compartmentalization of a very high order.

Date: 2009/10/09 15:17:15, Link
Author: Constant Mews
Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 09 2009,15:13)
Quote
Plants were eaten before the fall. There was no death before the fall. Therefore plants are not alive?

Michael Todhunter from AIG offers this explanation:
 
Quote
We commonly use the word die to describe when plants, animals, or humans no longer function biologically. However, this is not the definition of the word die or death in the Old Testament. The Hebrew word for die (or death), mût (or mavet), is used only in relation to the death of man or animals with the breath of life, not regarding plants. This usage indicates that plants are viewed differently from animals and humans.

Already addressed Floyd.  Do try to keep up.

Date: 2009/10/09 15:25:09, Link
Author: Constant Mews
Quote
1.  In biblical Christianity, God clearly is the Required Explanation for biological origins (including the evolutionary process.)  No exceptions. But with Evolution, God is clearly NOT a required explanation at all.
Evolution is a testable explanation of current biodiversity.  God is not testable, and cannot, therefore, comprise any part of such an explanation.  That doesn't mean that God is not directly involved at every moment of the universe, supporting, sustaining, and creating.

Quote
2.  In biblical Christianity, everything in the universe is originated via God's teleology, and especially humans.  (See Genesis chap 1, also see Col. 1:16).
In evolution, you have a total denial of that, at ALL points of the evolutionary process:  No Teleology No Conscious Forethought.  At least two rational reasons for this is given by EB3, who also (like Mayr) directly ascribes this to evolutionary theory.
Nothing whatsoever in the theory of evolution precludes the idea that the process was designed and implemented by God.

Quote
3.  In biblical Christianity, humans are created and designed in the image of God.  Again, evolution denies that, most recently the Nature June 14 2007 article in which evolution of the brain is the reason for denying the Image-of-God thesis.
Only if you presume "image of God" involves a specific biological form.  Since God is clearly not physical, a physical shape is irrelevant: we must be made in the spiritual image of God.  Since evolution takes no position on the evolution or development of our souls, this is not an incompatible.

Quote
Evolutionist James Rachels also pointed out, in the book Created From Animals, that "the image-of-god thesis does NOT just go with any kind of theism."  It requires a creationist theism, Rachel said, in which God is viewed as "actively designing man and the world as a home for man."
Rachels is, I'm sorry to say, unfamiliar with the actual theology involved - as are you, apparently.

Quote
4.  Evolution's clear position is that death was present on this planet before humans arrived.  In fact, it's not even possible for natural selection and evolution to work as claimed UNLESS death was present on this planet prior to humans being originated.  (Totally beyond debate, btw.)
Well, yes.  Why is this a problem?

Quote
The New Testament's clear postion (Romans 5:12-17) is that death entered this world only AFTER Adam and Eve sinned.  Romans 5:12-17 draws a very huge, very tight historical linkage between Adam and what Adam did (the problem) and Christ and what Christ did (the solution).  
This is quite simple: the death referred to is not physical death, but rather spiritual death.

Quote
Therefore evolution's Death-Before-Adam historical claim not only negates the historical claim of biblical Christianity about Adam and the Fall, but ALSO negates what biblical Christianity's historical claim about Christ and the Atonement.
Point me to the precise statements in the theory of evolution that deny the historical claims of Adam and Christ.  Be very specific; we know you have access to various evolution textbooks.

Quote
5.  The Fifth Incompatibility was eloquently stated via evolutionist Jason Rosenhouse at Evolutionblog.
 
Quote
Evolution by natural selection, you see, is an awful process. It is bloody, sadistic, and cruel. It flouts every moral precept we humans hold dear.

It recognizes only survival and gene propagation, and even on those rare occasions where you find altruism and non-selfishness you can be certain that blind self-interest is lurking somewhere behind the scenes.

All of this suffering, pain and misery, mind you, to reach a foreordained moment when self-aware creature finally appeared.

What theological purpose was served by all this bloodsport? If humans were inevitable why didn't God simply fast-forward the tape himself, thereby sparing all of those animals that died horrible deaths in the preceding hundreds of millions of years?

And please notice:  once again, there's no way to blow off #5 as "somebody's opinion."  What Rosenhouse is describing there is EXACTLY the way evolution works in the animal world.  That's evolutionary theory, period.
Theodicy.  Why does a loving God permit evil and gratuitous suffering.

Quote
Okay, there's the summary of the Big Five Incompatibilities.
Thank you.  These continue to remain assertions on your part.  Where should be begin in clarifying your understanding?

Date: 2009/10/09 15:28:35, Link
Author: Constant Mews
Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 09 2009,15:24)

I said:
Quote
Floyd, I'd caution you about something: most, if not all of the folks on this board don't hate God.

Floyd answered:
Quote
Didn't say they did.


Regrettably, Floyd, that is a deliberate lie.  Shall I quote you?  Sure, I should:

Quote
God does exist, He loves you, you hate Him (for whatever reasons, some of which you've alluded to), but that's not what is on the table right now.   I'm just here for the opportunity to explain and defend the thread topic.
What part of "you hate Him" did you fail to understand?  You wrote it, did you not?  You were responding to a comment about the generic "us", were you not?

Floyd, I understand that this kind of clear thinking is difficult for you - but to blatantly lie when you can so easily be checked is disturbing.

And of course I don't hate God.  Your reading comprehension needs some sharpening.

Date: 2009/10/09 15:31:00, Link
Author: Constant Mews
Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 09 2009,15:20)
Quote
But that is not what any of us have offered.

Oh, but some of your pals have indeed offere that one.  Please review the previous pages.  Look for the key words "The Pope."

I reviewed the posts.  Nothing that has been quoted from the Bishop of Rome is incompatible with the theory of evolution.

What is becoming quite clear is that you don't understand what the theory actually says.  You keep trying to utilize the opinions of scientists and other folk about the implications of the theory as it pertains to them.

Date: 2009/10/09 15:37:07, Link
Author: Constant Mews
Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 09 2009,15:31)
Quote
Nothing whatsoever in the theory of evolution precludes the idea that the process was designed and implemented by God.

Did you even read what Futuyma wrote in EB3?   Or Mayr in SciAm? Sincere question.  I know I discussed it in extensive detail already.  Ignoring the problems don't make 'em go away.

Floyd, I have pointed something out numerous times, perhaps you missed it:

In order to show that the theory of evolution is incompatible with Christian tenets, you need to actually offer as evidence the details of the theory - not the opinions of men about the implications of the theory.

Try again, please.  This is equivalent to your citing an atheist's opinions on the validity of the Bible as actually being statements by the Bible.  Surely you wouldn't do anything that stupid, would you?

Date: 2009/10/09 15:39:20, Link
Author: Constant Mews
Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 09 2009,15:31)
Quote
Nothing whatsoever in the theory of evolution precludes the idea that the process was designed and implemented by God.

Did you even read what Futuyma wrote in EB3?   Or Mayr in SciAm? Sincere question.  I know I discussed it in extensive detail already.  Ignoring the problems don't make 'em go away.

And I have discussed evolutionary theory with Futuyma; he would be the first to agree that the perceived implications of a theory and the theory itself are radically different beasts.

It is easy enough to find opposite opinions on this point, but arguing opinions is meaningless.  Discuss the details of the theory, not what people think about the theory.  Discuss the actual tenets of the Christian faith, rather than people's opinions of the those tenets.

THEN you might be able to show some incompatibility exists.

Date: 2009/10/09 15:41:56, Link
Author: Constant Mews
Tell me, Floyd, do you believe that God operates in the same timeframe we do?  That actual intervention of a measurable nature would be required for God to direct evolution?

Do you believe in a literal reading of the first eleven chapters of Genesis as necessary for Christianity?

Do you understand that the physical characteristics of man are irrelevant to the concept of being created "in God's image?"

Date: 2009/10/09 15:42:45, Link
Author: Constant Mews
Quote (deadman_932 @ Oct. 09 2009,15:40)
Quote (Constant Mews @ Oct. 09 2009,15:37)
 This is equivalent to your citing an atheist's opinions on the validity of the Bible as actually being statements by the Bible.  Surely you wouldn't do anything that stupid, would you?

There's very little that's truly stupid which Floyd hasn't tried, I'm afraid.

Do you think he recognizes, intellectually, that citing opinions about the implications of a theory is not the same as citing the theory itself?

Date: 2009/10/09 15:49:50, Link
Author: Constant Mews
Quote (deadman_932 @ Oct. 09 2009,15:49)
Floyd's problems run the gamut.
(1) Thinking that opinions on the implications of a theory = the theory itself.
(2) Believing that individual opinions = scientific consensus
(3) Believing the inapplicability of divine intervention, teleology, ontology mystically only applies to one branch of science and not all science

That's quite a list.  Floyd, would you care to comment?

Date: 2009/10/09 15:59:55, Link
Author: Constant Mews
Quote (deadman_932 @ Oct. 09 2009,15:55)
Quote (Constant Mews @ Oct. 09 2009,15:49)
 
Quote (deadman_932 @ Oct. 09 2009,15:49)
Floyd's problems run the gamut.
(1) Thinking that opinions on the implications of a theory = the theory itself.
(2) Believing that individual opinions = scientific consensus
(3) Believing the inapplicability of divine intervention, teleology, ontology mystically only applies to one branch of science and not all science

That's quite a list.  Floyd, would you care to comment?

Take # 3 in that list. Floyd would then reply "yes, but ONLY evolutionary biologists say these things... evolutionists alone deny divine teleology and ontology. PHYSICISTS don't say these things, we don't see it expressed in THEIR textbooks. "

Which is, of course, utter bullshit.

More interestingly, Floyd refuses to accept the mirror-image condition: that theists frequently point out the limitations of the Bible in the context of science.  Calvin, as I recall, once said, "The whole point of scripture is to bring us to a knowledge of Christ --- and having come to know him (and all that this implies), we should come to a halt and not expect to learn more. Scripture provides us with spectacles through which we may view the world as God’s creation and self-expression; it does not, and was never intended, to provide us with an infallible repository of astronomical and medical information."

Date: 2009/10/10 13:10:13, Link
Author: Constant Mews
Quote (Henry J @ Oct. 10 2009,00:09)
If "incompatability" is intended to mean logical contradiction, that can't be supported by battling quotations.

Support for that kind of claim has to be by means of logical deduction from the premises that are being claimed to be incompatable.

Of course, before that can be done, the premises have to be clearly stated and agreed upon.

-------

Quote
Plants do not possess the "breath" of life; in fundie circles, that means that they are not, in fact, considered living things.

Well, if "breath" is taken to mean exchange of gases via lungs, then plants don't qualify. Then again, insects and fish don't use lungs for their breathing, either. (Well, most fish, anyway.)

-------

Quote
If you believe I am wrong, you may feel free to cite the specific chapter and verse which discusses the purpose of the sharp teeth of dinosaurs.

Another point: if a creature was given the anatomical equipment for hunting, then there's two choices: either it (or its ancestors) used to hunt, or the one giving that equipment knew it (or its descendants) was going to have to in the future.

Henry

I believe and must commend Henry for correctly identifying the key issue at stake here:

We must argue from the actual tenets of evolutionary theory and the actual tenets of Christianity to determine if any conflict exists.

Since FL seems comfortable with Futuyma, I will post the 20 tenets of evolutionary theory he identifies; I will also post the Nicene creed, the primal statement of Christian beliefs.  If no logical contradiction can be found between these two sets of definitions, then FL is provably wrong about any conflict.

FL, do you understand what needs to be done here?  Do you understand that argument by quotation of opinions is meaningless?

Oh, and have you withdrawn your lies about the posters here hating God?

Date: 2009/10/10 13:24:03, Link
Author: Constant Mews
We will begin with the Nicene Creed (of which, alas, many slightly variant forms exist).  Nonetheless it remains a cornerstone of the Christian faith, and the clearest definition of what it means to be a Christian.

As follows:

Quote
   We believe in one God,

       the Father, the Almighty
       maker of heaven and earth,
       of all that is, seen and unseen.

   We believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ,

       the only Son of God,
       eternally begotten of the Father,
       God from God, Light from Light,
       true God from true God,
       begotten, not made,
       of one Being with the Father.
       Through him all things were made.
       For us men and for our salvation

           he came down from heaven:

       by the power of the Holy Spirit

           he became incarnate from the Virgin Mary, and was made man.

       For our sake he was crucified under Pontius Pilate;

           he suffered death and was buried.

       On the third day he rose again

           in accordance with the Scriptures;

       he ascended into heaven

           and is seated at the right hand of the Father.

       He will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead,

           and his kingdom will have no end

   We believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of Life,

       who proceeds from the Father and the Son.
       With the Father and the Son he is worshipped and glorified.
       He has spoken through the Prophets.
       We believe in one holy catholic and apostolic Church.
       We acknowledge one baptism for the forgiveness of sins.
       We look for the resurrection of the dead,

           and the life of the world to come. Amen.

Date: 2009/10/10 13:28:25, Link
Author: Constant Mews
Again, for FL's benefit, I point out that by moving to actual doctrinal statements, we are leaving behind the world of opinion and counter-opinion which is meaningless.

FL demanded to know that my acceptance of evolutionary theory and Christianity was a reasonable one.  I see no other way to establish this for him.

Date: 2009/10/10 13:31:48, Link
Author: Constant Mews
Quote (OgreMkV @ Oct. 10 2009,13:27)
Quote (OgreMkV @ Oct. 08 2009,13:43)
Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 08 2009,12:34)
 
Quote
You kept rambling on about how the Pope hadn't addressed them,

....Because 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."

Floyd, as a point to debating.  It's actually up to you to prove that your big 5 are required by the pope.  

This debate is about the incompatability of evolution with Christianity not about scienctists or about personal opinions or about anything else.

How's this for starters
Christiantity
1) the Bible is the only perfect rule for faith, doctrine, and conduct
2) the necessity of the new birth in Jesus Christ
3) the Church as a fellowship of believers.
4) a conscious dependence on the Holy Spirit.

Evolution
"In the broadest sense, evolution is merely change, and so is all-pervasive; galaxies, languages, and political systems all evolve. Biological evolution ... is change in the properties of populations of organisms that transcend the lifetime of a single individual. The ontogeny of an individual is not considered evolution; individual organisms do not evolve. The changes in populations that are considered evolutionary are those that are inheritable via the genetic material from one generation to the next. Biological evolution may be slight or substantial; it embraces everything from slight changes in the proportion of different alleles within a population (such as those determining blood types) to the successive alterations that led from the earliest protoorganism to snails, bees, giraffes, and dandelions."


Please point out where these two definitions are incompatible.
If these are not the definitions you use for Christianity, then post your definition of Christianity.

There are three requests for you in this post Floyd, please be so good as to answer them.

I tried this several days ago.  Good luck in getting an answer.

The comforting part is the recognition that unless FL actually makes some attempt to address these points, his argument is meaningless.  It is quite possible that FL himself is unable to profit from this - that he is, in the end, not amenable to reason and logic.

But I suspect that part of his strong avoidance at this juncture is simple fear: he realizes that a serious attempt to address the problem will result in the destruction of his shibboleths.  That's hard for the young to deal with.

Date: 2009/10/10 14:45:31, Link
Author: Constant Mews
Quote (OgreMkV @ Oct. 10 2009,14:07)
I agree totally, which does bring us to the whole doctrinal crisis thing.  The more fundamentalist positions one takes, the more problematic they are, especially when they realize that none of the things they believe make sense.

Most rational Christians have no problems with science or evolution because they realize the difference between the time the bible was written and now and that the new testament basically allows worship however one pleases regardless of belief in everything else.

It's very unfortunate that the rest of us have to deal with the problems caused by many of these fundamentalists when they get into positions of power and try to force their insanity on us.

Civilisation changes or advances according to the drives and motives of a small handful of individuals; those forceful enough to impose their ideas on the populace.  Sometimes those motives are good (the elimination of slavery or interracial marriage), sometimes they are bad (ID and other forms of creationism that destroy the educational system).  As a collective, we need to police these drivers.  How?

Date: 2009/10/10 15:07:02, Link
Author: Constant Mews
Quote (OgreMkV @ Oct. 10 2009,14:59)
That's the big problem with democracy.  The majority of the people really don't have a clue about what's going on, don't do any research, and that includes the people in power.

Personally, I think we about to bring back the concept of 'the citizen'... those people that have somehow contributed to society or have met some minimum requirements (degree, job, not on welfare, etc).  But that's just me...

Sorry for the thread jack.

Since we've beaten down the evolution is incompatible with Christianity argument, can we go to the teach ID thing... I've got some really good questions for FLoyd.

I'd like to see if Floyd has any capacity to understand the key flaw in his attempts to argue the current point:

to wit, that he is not arguing that the basic tenets of evolutionary theory and Christianity conflict, but rather than the opinions of a small group of individuals about those tenets are in conflict.

Only a child would argue this way.  Let's see if Floyd can behave like an adult.

Date: 2009/10/10 15:11:06, Link
Author: Constant Mews
Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 10 2009,00:15)
Noticed something else (this is for CM)
 
Quote
(FloydLee)
4.  Evolution teaches (and absolutely requires) the historical claim of Death-Before-Adam, in clear violation and opposition to Romans 5:12-17.

 
Quote
(CM)
The Bible is not referring to physical, but to spiritual death.

This particular response was given by another poster CM, and was already responded to in detail. (In Gen 1 and Romans 5, the term "death" refers to both physical and spiritual death.)  

I'm sorry, Floyd, but this is false.  Certainly evolutionary theory requires physical death (both of plants and animals, I must point out), but Romans does not actually require or demand physical death for anything but humans.

In addition, Genesis in this context much clearly be interpreted as spiritual death, or Genesis is demanding that God be a liar, since Adam certainly did not die on the day that he ate of the Tree.

I have studied theology in Paris and Rome, Floyd.  Your understanding of theology and exegesis is trivial and simplistic.  You can't win on these points.

Date: 2009/10/10 15:15:34, Link
Author: Constant Mews
Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 10 2009,00:15)
Noticed something else (this is for CM)
 
Quote
(FloydLee)
4.  Evolution teaches (and absolutely requires) the historical claim of Death-Before-Adam, in clear violation and opposition to Romans 5:12-17.

 
Quote
(CM)
The Bible is not referring to physical, but to spiritual death.

This particular response was given by another poster CM, and was already responded to in detail. (In Gen 1 and Romans 5, the term "death" refers to both physical and spiritual death.)  

Actually, Floyd, looking back on the thread, I must point out that you have NOT dealt with this issue.  No "detailed" response was ever made by you to resolve it.

Please, Floyd, it is important not to bear false witness about those points you yourself have raised - it's too easy to verify that you are telling falsehoods.

Date: 2009/10/10 15:19:34, Link
Author: Constant Mews
Floyd, you demanded that I show my acceptance of evolution reasonable in the light of my Christian faith.  I have done so.

Now it's your turn: you need to show that the actual tenets of evolutionary theory are in conflict with the actual tenets of Christianity.

You can't.

Date: 2009/10/10 17:21:54, Link
Author: Constant Mews
In order to help Floyd understand the profoundly fallacious reasoning he is using, I will provide an example:

Floyd said:
Quote
Evolution comes in two flavors, micro-evolution and macro-evolution.  So if there is any question about things, I will be using the definitions given by the standard (and currently used) high-school and university textbook "Biology" by Campbell and Reece, 7th edition, c2005.

"Microevolution: Evolutionary change below the species level, change in the genetic makeup of a population from generation to generation.

Macroevolution: Evolutionary change above the species level, including the appearance of major evolutionary developments, such as flight, that we use to define higher taxa."


Campbell-Reece's definition of macroevolution is consistent with what Scott Freeman-Jon Herron offers in their Evolutionary Analysis textbook, so I will include that definition as well:

"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."


Note that Floyd has helpfully provided what he accepts as a definition of evolution.

But in addition, Floyd provides something else: an opinion about evolutionary theory from Futuyma:
Quote
"Teleological statements are those that invoke goals, or ends (Greek teleos, "end"), as causes (eg, "He went to the store in order to get milk.")

But evolutionary theory does not admit anticipation of the future (i.e. conscious forethought),
either in the process of evolution of an adaptive characteristic or in the development of or behavior of an individual organism."

---Douglas Futuyma, Evolutionary Biology 3rd edition, p. 342


Note the basic problem: the theory of evolution as defined by Floyd does not, in fact, accord with the opinion of Futuyma that Floyd provided.

How do you reconcile that, Floyd?

Date: 2009/10/11 01:48:36, Link
Author: Constant Mews
Since Futuyma is frequently mentioned, I will add one more quote that might be of interest to Floyd, since it clarifies Futuyma's position:

Quote
The philosopher Daniel Dennett called natural selection “Darwin’s dangerous idea” for a good reason: it is a very simple natural mechanism that explains the appearance of design in living things. Before Darwin, the adaptations and exquisite complexity of organisms were ascribed to creation by an omnipotent, beneficent designer, namely God, and indeed were among the major arguments for the existence of such a designer. Darwin’s (and Wallace’s) concept of natural selection made this “argument from design” completely superfluous. It accomplished for biology what Newton and his successors had accomplished in physics: it provided a purely natural explanation for order and the appearance of design. It made the features of organisms explicable by processes that can be studied by science instead of ascribing them to miracles. The contemporary “intelligent design” movement is simply a repetition of the predarwinian argument, and of course it cannot be taken seriously as a scientific explanation of the properties of living things.

Date: 2009/10/11 01:52:03, Link
Author: Constant Mews
Quote (Amadan @ Oct. 10 2009,19:02)
No, I don't think that's a fair comment. As far as I recall, Floyd's opinion is that the Fall introduced death of both the body and soul.

Which does nothing to account for Jesus' Y chromosome, but then again it's late. Oíche mhaith agus codladh sámh ó mBaile Átha Cliath

I think he's actually correct; it's not a question of whether Adam's sin introduced physical and spiritual death (it's clear from the context that it's only spiritual death), but the fact that if Floyd is claiming that the reference is to physical and spiritual death, then Christ's sacrifice must logically have redeemed us from physical death.  Which it hasn't.

Date: 2009/10/11 22:30:39, Link
Author: Constant Mews
Quote (Dan @ Oct. 11 2009,07:34)
Quote (Constant Mews @ Oct. 10 2009,13:10)
We must argue from the actual tenets of evolutionary theory and the actual tenets of Christianity to determine if any conflict exists.

Since FL seems comfortable with Futuyma, I will post the 20 tenets of evolutionary theory he identifies; I will also post the Nicene creed, the primal statement of Christian beliefs.


Constant Mews:

I see and I appreciate your posting of the Nicene Creed.

I can't find your posting of the 20 tenets concerning evolution from Futuyma.

Perhaps you got distracted, or perhaps it got lost in the ether[net], but either way, I'd appreciate seeing them.

Thanks,
Dan

I will be posting it tomorrow; it has been a busy weekend.

Date: 2009/10/11 22:56:56, Link
Author: Constant Mews
Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 11 2009,22:54)
Quote
Quote those evolutionist scientists who offer "opposite opinions" that refute the Big Five Incompatibilities.  Substantive, considered opinions, reconciliations of the Big Five, from fellow evolutionists.  Please quote 'em.  I've been waiting for somebody to do that, all thread long.

Hmmm.  This sincere (and important) request was not answered.  Must be a very difficult gig for the homies to accomplish, aye.....

:)

Floyd, you have failed to address a number of my posts which deal with this very issue: I have pointed out that such 'opinions' are valueless in establishing whether or not evolutionary theory conflicts with Christianity.

You have to look at the actual specific tenets of the theory.  And the actual definition of Christianity.

Based on what you have provided for each of these, there is NO conflict at all.

Do you understand this?  You, yourself, have established that there is no conflict between Christianity and evolution.

Date: 2009/10/11 22:57:29, Link
Author: Constant Mews
Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 11 2009,22:54)
Quote
Quote those evolutionist scientists who offer "opposite opinions" that refute the Big Five Incompatibilities.  Substantive, considered opinions, reconciliations of the Big Five, from fellow evolutionists.  Please quote 'em.  I've been waiting for somebody to do that, all thread long.

Hmmm.  This sincere (and important) request was not answered.  Must be a very difficult gig for the homies to accomplish, aye.....

:)

"homies"?  What are you referring to?

Date: 2009/10/11 22:58:40, Link
Author: Constant Mews
Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 11 2009,22:40)
Okay, back again.  Brief responses for Deadman and Dan, then response to Heddle, a one-or-two liner for Erasmus, then go from there, (Nicene Creed looks good for a reply or two).

******

A note for Keelyn:  you wrote---
   
Quote
You only have until November 1st to prove your points

And the same for you, of course.  (And no you haven't done so yet.)

But a bit of realism may be helpful here:  Nobody here is going to admit that anything was "proven" to them.

When is the last time you attended or participated in a public debate where either side said, "Golly gee, you're right I'm wrong, you proved yours I didn't prove mine, therefore I surrender"?

No, that doesn't happen in the real world.  What happens in the real world is that both sides walk away believing they've won--(and if they're smart, they'll retain a copy of the debate transcript for further study and spin control.)  

You've got some people around here already declaring victory, even though they have had to ignore (not to mention misrepresent) certain things in order to make the declaration.  

I'm sure that's likely to happen wholesale on Nov. 1 and 2, but I honestly don't care.  The fact is that the things for which I was listening and learning, I'm pretty much there now.  This upcoming week is, AFAIK, wrapup-phase for me.  

(Won't take long to do the "Biblical Perspective on Biology part", btw, then go on to "ID as science", which is a claim you're likely not going to accept anyway.)  

To answer your question though, yes I do know what I'm doing, and I will be quite ready to apply the discussion and learning experiences from this forum to new endeavors.  

For that, I am sincerely grateful to you and your fellow evolutionists.  For now, however, it's time to do those aforementioned responses.

But Floyd, you have yet to begin the debate.  Do you actually understand how a debate works?  Apparently not.

Date: 2009/10/11 23:00:33, Link
Author: Constant Mews
And of course I have not declared victory; you have not yet begun to have a rational discussion.

Again: you have established, based on the definitions for Christianity and evolution that you provided, that there is no conflict between Christianity and evolution.

Your definitions, Floyd.  How do you reconcile that problem?

Date: 2009/10/11 23:08:10, Link
Author: Constant Mews
Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 11 2009,23:02)
Deadman said:
 
Quote
And I will remind you that none of your quotes from "evolutionists" carry any weight in scientific consensus.

But how do you **know** this, Deadman?  You have not offered a single published evolutionist scientist quotation to negate any of the specific professional evolutionist statements that were offered in support of the Big Five.  I did ask, you know.

Surely you could have done so by now, given the length of this debate.  Yet you haven't.  No published evolutionary scientist refutations coming from you.  

May I suggest to you that the professional evolutionist statements I've offered to you come closest to being the consensus?

We could, but we don't actually have to: you have to see what the theory itself says, and not what various scientists claim the theory says.

Do you actually understand the difference, Floyd?  I realize that the theory can be quite difficult for the uneducated to deal with, but the basics are quite simple.

Indeed, the very definition of evolution that you provided contradicts the quotes and opinions of scientists that you provided.

Date: 2009/10/11 23:17:39, Link
Author: Constant Mews
Floyd, I note that you have failed to address any of the last dozen or so of my posts.  Is this due to incapacity?  Or am I not being clear enough?

The definition of evolution you provided contradicts the opinions you have presented from various scientists.

What matters is the theory, not the opinions.  Do you understand this?

Date: 2009/10/12 09:42:06, Link
Author: Constant Mews
Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 11 2009,23:24)
Quote
Floyd, I note that you have failed to address any of the last dozen or so of my posts.

This is incorrect.  Did you not see the reference to the "Nicene Creed" in my response to Keelyn?  However, I intend to follow the order I stated; please keep that in mind.

That is false; you did not address any of my points.  Please do not lie so blatantly, Floyd, it will make our discussion more difficult.  You merely mentioned one of my posts; that does not address it in any way.

Date: 2009/10/12 10:17:31, Link
Author: Constant Mews
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.  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.  Evolutionary theory denies that God chose to create the universe and mankind.

3. Christian doctrine specifies that God created man in His own image.  Evolutionary theory denies that God created man in His own image.

4. Christian doctrine specifies that death did not occur before man.  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.


Floyd has supplied no definition of Christian doctrine except John 3:16.  Although he later amended this by specifying that certain other beliefs were required or implied by John 3:16, he has never clarified what these beliefs are.

He has supplied a definition of evolutionary theory:

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.


Finally, Floyd has offered a number of opinions and personal beliefs of scientists who accept evolution regarding the implications of evolutionary theory.  I must point out that these opinions and personal beliefs are not supported by the definitions Floyd has provided.

And that is all that Floyd has actually supplied.

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

What can we see from this?  Several points emerge immediately.  

First, that using the definitions Floyd provided, his point 1 is logically meaningless; God is not mentioned by evolutionary theory, and being thus silent, evolutionary theory has nothing whatever to say about God's necessity.

Second, that using the definitions that Floyd provided, his points 2 and 3 are completely false: nothing in Floyd's definitions specifies that God did not CHOOSE to create the universe and man; nothing in Floyd's definitions specifies that God did not make man in His own image.

Third, Floyd's point 4 is predicated on two things: a literal reading of Genesis and an unsupported reading of Romans 5:12.  Since a literal reading of Genesis is precluded by all available evidence of the world - a direct creation of God, we may reasonably discount Genesis 1:1-11 as being literally correct.  A contextual reading of Romans 5:12 indicates that "sin" and "death" are inextricably linked, and hence the reasonable reading of Romans 5:12 refers to spiritual death, not physical death.  This is supported by the clear logical problem of reading God's threat to Adam that on the day he ate of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil that he would die.  Since Adam did NOT die on that die, we cannot read that threat as implying physical death.

This leaves only his point 5.  Point 5 is simply the ancient Problem of Evil; the ultimate thorn in the side of Christianity.  Christianity provides the twin primary defenses of Free Will and the Fall to account for this.

Thus we see that it is quite logical for a True Christian, a devout and passionate Christian, to simultaneously accept both Christian Doctrine and evolutionary theory.

Since I am such a Christian, we have shown Floyd to be wrong in his assertions.

Floyd, please indicate precisely and clearly, with yes/no answers supported by accurate Biblical exegesis and citations of actual evolutionary theory where you dispute this analysis, otherwise I shall accept your concession.

Thanks.

Date: 2009/10/12 18:04:31, Link
Author: Constant Mews
The key point being, as I have demonstrated above, that using only the definitions of Christian doctrine and evolutionary theory that Floyd himself has provided, there are no incompatibilities.

This interests me: that Floyd, who seems to wish to argue his five points has provided only information which either refutes or fails to support them.

Floyd, please address my post above.  It should clarify your various errors.

Date: 2009/10/13 00:06:32, Link
Author: Constant Mews
Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 12 2009,18:42)
Quote
Do you remotely understand the difference between "excluding" and "not requiring"?

Yes.  Something that is said to be "not required" (i.e. God as creator or designer), is considered excludable.   You can drop God out of the biological origins situation altogether if you want to, and that's that.
 
But when you say something "could not exclude a role for God", then suddenly God becomes required for that particular something.  You don't get to drop Him.

Add the two positions together and you get an incompatibility.  The First Incompatibility, to be exact.

Your logic is fallacious.  I see that you are lacking even the most rudimentary understanding of basic logic.  I will clarify for you.

The theory of evolution says nothing about God.  Nothing.  God might be involved, God might not, but the theory does not EXCLUDE the possibility that God might be required.  The theory, like all scientific theories, is a testable explanation.  God is not testable, but God certainly created the universe and sustains it in being.  You have already admitted that God need not be measurably involved in every step of the process.

Date: 2009/10/13 00:09:43, Link
Author: Constant Mews
Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 12 2009,20:18)
Mayr said that the theory of evolution "no longer requires God as creator or designer."

And yet, according to both the Old and New Testaments, God is absolutely required as creator and designer.  (Already cited examples in the Bible text.)

And the Pope agrees.
   
Quote
"How many people are there today who, fooled by atheism, think and try to demonstrate that it would be scientific to think that everything is without direction and order.

"Through sacred Scripture, the Lord reawakens the reason that sleeps and tells us that in the beginning is the creative word, the creative reason, the reason that has created everything, that has created this intelligent project."  --- Pope Benedict (CNS, Nov. 9 2005

So, we have the First  Incompatibility there.  No way to escape it.

I'm sorry Floyd, but you completely wrong about this.  Your simplistic understanding of logic makes that clear.

The theory of evolution does not exclude God - just as the Pope said.  But as a theory, it includes only testable elements.

You are continuing to ignore my posts which have addressed all your points.

Looking back at your past behavior, I see that you do this every single time you are unable to deal with a poster's argument, so I take it that you have no capacity to refute my points.

Date: 2009/10/13 00:12:00, Link
Author: Constant Mews
Quote (Constant Mews @ Oct. 12 2009,10:17)
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.  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.  Evolutionary theory denies that God chose to create the universe and mankind.

3. Christian doctrine specifies that God created man in His own image.  Evolutionary theory denies that God created man in His own image.

4. Christian doctrine specifies that death did not occur before man.  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.


Floyd has supplied no definition of Christian doctrine except John 3:16.  Although he later amended this by specifying that certain other beliefs were required or implied by John 3:16, he has never clarified what these beliefs are.

He has supplied a definition of evolutionary theory:

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.


Finally, Floyd has offered a number of opinions and personal beliefs of scientists who accept evolution regarding the implications of evolutionary theory.  I must point out that these opinions and personal beliefs are not supported by the definitions Floyd has provided.

And that is all that Floyd has actually supplied.

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

What can we see from this?  Several points emerge immediately.  

First, that using the definitions Floyd provided, his point 1 is logically meaningless; God is not mentioned by evolutionary theory, and being thus silent, evolutionary theory has nothing whatever to say about God's necessity.

Second, that using the definitions that Floyd provided, his points 2 and 3 are completely false: nothing in Floyd's definitions specifies that God did not CHOOSE to create the universe and man; nothing in Floyd's definitions specifies that God did not make man in His own image.

Third, Floyd's point 4 is predicated on two things: a literal reading of Genesis and an unsupported reading of Romans 5:12.  Since a literal reading of Genesis is precluded by all available evidence of the world - a direct creation of God, we may reasonably discount Genesis 1:1-11 as being literally correct.  A contextual reading of Romans 5:12 indicates that "sin" and "death" are inextricably linked, and hence the reasonable reading of Romans 5:12 refers to spiritual death, not physical death.  This is supported by the clear logical problem of reading God's threat to Adam that on the day he ate of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil that he would die.  Since Adam did NOT die on that die, we cannot read that threat as implying physical death.

This leaves only his point 5.  Point 5 is simply the ancient Problem of Evil; the ultimate thorn in the side of Christianity.  Christianity provides the twin primary defenses of Free Will and the Fall to account for this.

Thus we see that it is quite logical for a True Christian, a devout and passionate Christian, to simultaneously accept both Christian Doctrine and evolutionary theory.

Since I am such a Christian, we have shown Floyd to be wrong in his assertions.

Floyd, please indicate precisely and clearly, with yes/no answers supported by accurate Biblical exegesis and citations of actual evolutionary theory where you dispute this analysis, otherwise I shall accept your concession.

Thanks.

Floyd, here is my post which proves that Christianity and evolution are compatible.  Address it, please.

Date: 2009/10/13 11:17:58, Link
Author: Constant Mews
Quote (FrankH @ Oct. 13 2009,11:08)
Wow, so there's a different definition between "life" in animals and "life" in plants?  Where does fungi, bacterium, etc, fit in?

Having no nostrils within which the breath of life may be found, they are not living, of course.

You must keep up with your ancient Hebrew.

Date: 2009/10/13 11:20:40, Link
Author: Constant Mews
Quote (Henry J @ Oct. 12 2009,22:30)
Quote
You know one definition of insanity is repeating the same behavior over and over again and expecting a different income.
 
But what does that say about the people who keep trying to explain stuff to Floyd? ;)

Henry

In my case it's two-fold: primarily, I am trying to save his soul - he is a Christian gone astray who has set up a false idol in this life, which damns him to hell; second, he's an interesting psychological study, just as AFDave was.

Date: 2009/10/13 15:29:22, Link
Author: Constant Mews
Quote (deadman_932 @ Oct. 13 2009,14:38)
When are we gonna get to Biblical biology and the talking donkeys* and snakes?
(*I know, I know, we already have Floyd...but he's not Biblical, just hysterical)

I can foresee the future: when questioned, Floyd will say "it was a miracle, each and every time"

ETA: And poor, poor Erasmus will never get his question answered about gods and water running downhill. Also, water will continue to be wet.

Floyd cannot answer that question, since it categorically disproves his first "incompatible".

Again, Floyd, you have already conceded your first "incompatible" by acknowledging that God may be responsible for (necessary and sufficient) the process of evolution, without intervening directing at any particular point.

Moreover, the theory of evolution as you have presented it does not preclude God.  It makes no mention of God.  It cannot exclude God (the point the Pope was making and with which you agree).

Date: 2009/10/13 16:26:03, Link
Author: Constant Mews
Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 13 2009,16:16)
Sure Erasmus.  A bright person like you has been keeping up with the order which I previously stated for replies, so you know that DHeddle has been replied to and that you're next up on the list.  (
 
Quote
why is god not part of the required explanation for why water runs downhill, when he is part of the required explanation for the EXISTENCE OF WATER?

Simply put, because you evolutionists don't accept that.  
Let's bring in Futuyma's evo-bio textbook---he's got a good example.
 
Quote
 The process cannot have a goal, any more than than erosion has the goal of forming canyons, for the future cannot cause material events in the past. -- EB3

Yes, God is the required explanation for the origin of water.  Likewise for the origin of gravity.  So yes, God is indirectly, ultimately, the required explanation for water running downhill.

BUT....you evolutionists don't accept that.  For you, God is NOT the required explanation, not even indirectly or ultimately, for water running downhill, or water erosion producing the Grand Canyon.

Why not?  Because if you DO suddenly decide to announce that God is indirectly, ultimately, a required explanation for water running downhill, you immediately run into the Futuyma textbook-taught roadblock:  
Supernatural causes cannot be the subject of science
...which so many of you (including yourself) have agreed to.

So if you were somehow hoping to draw up some kind of analogy with evolution using the water-running-downhill thing as God-as-indirect-ultimate-explanation., that's BLOCKED at this time.  

Unless you are ready to admit supernatural causation as a legitimate subject of science, that is.  And teleology a la mode.  (And God knows what else!).

FloydLee

Floyd, you are projecting again, and lying about people you don't even know.  That is a sin.

You have, once again, made our point for us - and disproved your point 1.  Let's examine what you said:

Quote
Yes, God is the required explanation for the origin of water.  Likewise for the origin of gravity.  So yes, God is indirectly, ultimately, the required explanation for water running downhill.
And God is, at least in my opinion, ultimately responsible for evolution.  It is exactly the same case.

Quote
BUT....you evolutionists don't accept that.  For you, God is NOT the required explanation, not even indirectly or ultimately, for water running downhill, or water erosion producing the Grand Canyon.

But why does that matter?  Once again, you are showing no grasp of logic.  Let me show you how simple this is:

1. Evolutionary theory is silent on the question of God.

2. Some people who accept evolutionary theory are atheists, they do not see God as the ultimate cause.

3. Some people who accept evolutionary theory are theists, we do see God as the ultimate cause.

The beliefs of the person who accepts the theory are not relevant to the accuracy or utility of the theory, nor to it's compatibility with God.

You have already conceded this point with your comments about water running downhill.

I am a Christian; I see no incompatibility between evolutionary theory and Christian doctrine.

You have been unable to demonstrate any such incompatibility; you are merely pointing out that atheists don't believe God is the ultimate cause of evolution.  We knew that to start with.

Not everyone who accepts evolutionary theory is an atheist.  Do you see that, Floyd?

Date: 2009/10/13 16:29:16, Link
Author: Constant Mews
Quote
Why not?  Because if you DO suddenly decide to announce that God is indirectly, ultimately, a required explanation for water running downhill, you immediately run into the Futuyma textbook-taught roadblock:  
Supernatural causes cannot be the subject of science
...which so many of you (including yourself) have agreed to.


This has nothing whatsoever to do with whether or not God is ultimately responsible for evolution.  Nothing.  But science can only examine that which is testable.  Are you claiming that God - the divine, the Logos, the ineffable, whose ways are mysterious to man - is a testable phenomenon?

I realize your ignorance of theology and the Bible is considerable, but that is rather extreme, don't you think?

I am a Christian, Floyd.  I am a scientist, among other things.  And I fully accept evolutionary theory.  There are no incompatibilities between evolutionary theory and Christian Doctrine.

Not one.

Date: 2009/10/13 17:38:00, Link
Author: Constant Mews
Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 13 2009,17:04)

Floyd:
Quote
Actually, we've already looked at Scripture (and the Pope too), and to whatever extent evolution exists (such as microevolution, but NOT macroevolution, for the latter has never been observed), God IS the required explanation for it.
Not according to evolutionary theory.  Apparently you didn't even bother to read the definitions you provided.  Your definitions - the ones that you gave us, say nothing about God's involvement, because science can't test for God.  Your ignorance of both the Bible and theology apparently isn't up to knowing that.

Your definitions, Lee.  Your quotes from the Pope.  Evolutionary theory does NOT deny the ultimate cause of God; it merely explains testable mechanisms.

Quote
And no, you don't get to fudge by saying "without intervening directly".
But you've just said that, Floyd.  That was the point of the water flowing downhill example.  You've already conceded that water can operate a perfectly natural process for which God is ultimately responsible, and yet man cannot test for God.

You're on record as having conceded your first point.

Quote
After all, you've already said that God was "necessary and sufficient", thus locking Him into being the Required Explanation even if you think it's an indirect explanation.
Certainly I do.  But science cannot test that particular point, and does not include it in evolutionary theory.  It doesn't exclude it from evolutionary theory either.

You've already conceded this point, Floyd.  You're on record as having admitted that your first "incompatible" is meaningless.

Quote
You still bring in teleology,
Of course I do.  So do you.
Quote
you still have to explain why God used a gazillion years of evolutionary animal suffering to evolve the first two humans, you still bring in your problems even when you try to make it "indirect."
Ah, so you're conceding your first point again.  You cannot establish it, since you've already admitted that God is the necessary and sufficient explanation for water flowing downhill, despite the fact that it occurs naturally.

Now you're trying to argue theodicy, the ancient Problem of Evil.  But it has nothing to do with evolutionary theory; the Problem of Evil stands whether or not evolution is true.  No escape hatch for you there, Floyd.  If you'd like to discuss the POE, I'm more than willing to; but you will be unable to show that any part of evolutionary theory specifies it as a problem.

You've already conceded point 1, Floyd.  And as I showed you already, your points 2-4 are also not incompatibles.

Quote
And that "necessary and sufficient" you mentioned, is exactly what the theory of evolution denies.
Not in the slightest.  Show me the precise wording in the theory, not the comments on the theory by atheists which shows that evolution denies God.

You can't do it.  Because it's not there.  Evolutionary theory says nothing about God at all.

Quote
For as Mayr pointed out, the theory of evolution explains things solely materialistically (or purely materialistically if you prefer Futuyma) and the theory of evolution no longer requires God as creator or designer.
But this is NOT what you are claiming.  You are claiming that the theory denies the involvement of God.  It does not do so.

And you've already conceded this point, Floyd, when you admitted that God can be ultimately responsible for water flowing downhill, and yet we have a natural explanation.

Quote
No longer "necessary and sufficient", as you put it.
Mayr's opinion is not the theory, Floyd.

You provided the definition of the theory.  Show me precisely where, in your definitions, that is says God is not necessary and sufficient.  Show me.

You provided the definitions.

You show me precisely where they exclude God.

You can't.

Date: 2009/10/13 17:38:51, Link
Author: Constant Mews
Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 13 2009,17:15)
Here's a question for the entire house.  Given the following statement:

"Evolution has no goal."  (Sources already cited.)

Does ANYBODY in this forum disagree with that specific statement?

Evolution has no goal that we can observe.  God does.

Date: 2009/10/13 18:28:13, Link
Author: Constant Mews
Quote (Henry J @ Oct. 13 2009,17:58)
Quote (Constant Mews @ Oct. 13 2009,10:17)
Quote (FrankH @ Oct. 13 2009,11:08)
Wow, so there's a different definition between "life" in animals and "life" in plants?  Where does fungi, bacterium, etc, fit in?

Having no nostrils within which the breath of life may be found, they are not living, of course.

You must keep up with your ancient Hebrew.

What does that say about insects, spiders, etc., since they breath through their skin? :p

Sorry, they're not alive either.

Date: 2009/10/13 18:33:00, Link
Author: Constant Mews
And because I'm willing to take pity on Floyd, who is clearly a lost soul desperate to find his faith again.

Francis Collins (head of the Human Genome Project):
Quote
[Evolution] may seem to us like a slow, inefficient, and even random process, but to God—who's not limited by space or time—it all came together in the blink of an eye. And for us who have been given the gift of intelligence and the ability to appreciate the wonders of the natural world that he created, to have now learned about this evolutionary creative process is a source of awe and wonder. I find these discoveries are completely compatible with everything I know about God through the Scriptures.


Quote
If evolution is true, don't atheists have a point?
No. To simply rule out of order any questions that go beyond the natural world is a circular argument. This leaves out profoundly important spiritual questions, such as why we are here, if there is a God, and what happens after we die. Those are questions that science is not really designed to answer. You have to look in another place, using another kind of approach. And for me that's faith.


Quote
My heart goes out to sincere believers who feel threatened by evolution and who feel that they have to maintain their position against it in order to prove their allegiance to God. But if God used this process and gave us the chance to discover it, then it seems anachronistic, to say the least, that we would feel we have to defend him against our own scientific conclusions. God is the author of all truth. You can find him in the laboratory as well as in the cathedral. He's the God of the Bible; he's the God of the genome. He did it all.


all taken from here.

Date: 2009/10/13 18:36:21, Link
Author: Constant Mews
And again, for Floyd's benefit:

Kenneth Miller

Quote
Q: Why is evolution so controversial?

Kenneth Miller: I think one of the reasons why evolution is such a contentious issue, quite frankly, is the same reason you can go into a bar and start a fight by saying something about somebody's mother. Evolution concerns who we are and how we got here. And to an awful lot of people, the story of evolution, the story of our continuity with every other living thing on this planet, that's not a story they want to hear.

They favor an entirely different story, in which our ancestry is separate, our biology distinct, and the whole notion of our lineage traceable not to other organisms, but to some sort of divine power and divine presence. But it's absolutely true that our ancestry traces itself along the same thread as that of every other living organism. That, for many people, is the unwelcome message, and I think that's why evolution has been, is, and will remain such a controversial idea for many years to come.

Q: Where do you come from personally on this topic?

Miller: I think that faith and reason are both gifts from God. And if God is real, then faith and reason should complement each other rather than be in conflict. Science is the child of reason. Reason has given us the ability to establish the scientific method to investigate the world around us, and to show that the world and the universe in which we live are far vaster and far more complex, and I think far more wonderful, than anyone could have imagined 1,000 or 2,000 years ago.

Does that mean that scientific reason, by taking some of the mystery out of nature, has taken away faith? I don't think so. I think by revealing a world that is infinitely more complex and infinitely more varied and creative than we had ever believed before, in a way it deepens our faith and our appreciation for the author of that nature, the author of that physical universe. And to people of faith, that author is God.

Now, I'm a scientist and I have faith in God. But that doesn't make faith a scientific proposition. Faith and reason are both necessary to the religious person for a proper understanding of the world in which we live, and there is ultimately no necessary contradiction between reason and faith.

"Whether God exists or not is not a scientific question."

Q: What's wrong with bringing God into the picture as an explanation?

Miller: Supernatural causes for natural phenomena are always possible. What's different, however, in the scientific view is the acknowledgement that if supernatural causes are there, they are above our capacity to analyze and interpret.

Saying that something has a supernatural cause is always possible, but saying that the supernatural can be investigated by science, which always has to work with natural tools and mechanisms, is simply incorrect. So by placing the supernatural as a cause in science, you effectively have what you might call a science-stopper. If you attribute an event to the supernatural, you can by definition investigate it no further.

If you close off investigation, you don't look for natural causes. If we had done that 100 years ago in biology, think of what we wouldn't have discovered because we would have said, "Well, the designer did it. End of story. Let's go do something else." It would have been a terrible day for science.

Q: Does science have limits to what it can tell us?

Miller: If science is competent at anything, it's in investigating the natural and material world around us. What science isn't very good at is answering questions that also matter to us in a big way, such as the meaning, value, and purpose of things. Science is silent on those issues. There are a whole host of philosophical and moral questions that are important to us as human beings for which we have to make up our minds using a method outside of science.

Q: Can science prove or disprove the existence of a creator, of God?

Miller: Whether God exists or not is not a scientific question.


taken from here.

Date: 2009/10/13 18:38:08, Link
Author: Constant Mews
So once again, I ask Floyd a basic question which goes to the heart of his confusion on this subject, and may directly influence his inability to form a coherent and rational argument.

The theory of evolution says nothing about God; nothing at all.

Various scientists, some atheists, some theists say that the theory of evolution says something about God.

Do you understand the difference?

Date: 2009/10/13 19:51:38, Link
Author: Constant Mews
Quote (FrankH @ Oct. 13 2009,19:35)
Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 13 2009,17:15)
Here's a question for the entire house.  Given the following statement:

"Evolution has no goal."  (Sources already cited.)

Does ANYBODY in this forum disagree with that specific statement?

Saying Evolution has no goal is not entirely accurate.  It has no conscious goal but evolution does produce a goal of sorts.  Evolution works on populations.  The "goal" is for the population to adapt to the climate, available food, predominate predator/prey , etc.

So like water flowing downhill, evolution has a goal.  Granted it is harder to quantify but as water seeks the lowest level without conscious thought, Evolution works on populations to make the organisms in that population be better adapted to their environment.

So does Evolution have a Goal?  Yes!  Is Evolution diurected?  Yes!  Is this directed action conscious?  There is no evidence to suggest that there's any intelligence behind it so there is no direction.

It might be more accurate to say that evolutionary theory specifies no measurable teleological goal.  Given perfect information, we could predict precisely what evolution would produce.

Even the use of terminology like "purpose" and "goal" confuses the issue; by direct measurement, most evolution has no testable teleological component (we must exclude stock-keeping and breeding from this consideration, though these are also examples of evolution).

Date: 2009/10/13 19:54:44, Link
Author: Constant Mews
FrankH said:
Quote
There is no evidence to suggest that there's any intelligence behind it so there is no consciousness directing what is the outcome of what comes out of the changes made to the populations made by evolutionary forces.


You are making a logic error here: you are claiming that absence of evidence for teleology constitutes actual absence of teleology.  This is not the case. Is it rational to operate in a sans deos mode?  Given the impossibility of proving the existence or non-existence of God coupled with the lack of solid empirical evidence, yes, it is.

Date: 2009/10/13 20:24:07, Link
Author: Constant Mews
Quote (FrankH @ Oct. 13 2009,20:13)
Quote (Constant Mews @ Oct. 13 2009,19:51)
It might be more accurate to say that evolutionary theory specifies no measurable teleological goal.  Given perfect information, we could predict precisely what evolution would produce.

Even the use of terminology like "purpose" and "goal" confuses the issue; by direct measurement, most evolution has no testable teleological component (we must exclude stock-keeping and breeding from this consideration, though these are also examples of evolution).

One of the issues that I think makes evolution so difficult is that there are so many "moving parts" to it.  Not only would we need perfect information, we'd also need to control all the variables in the natural selection process.

What I'd like to see from a creationist is them to describe the exact path and the groves it creates in the sand when they pour water down a sandy embankment.  After all, it's simple fluid dynamics, gravity and particle dynamics, right?  With that, they should be able to predict how the water flows and the grooves left in the sand, right?

Exactly.  The imprecision of evolutionary theory vis-a-vis electromagnetic theory, for example, lies in the inability of humans to accurate measure the factors influencing evolutionary direction.

Date: 2009/10/13 20:26:04, Link
Author: Constant Mews
Quote (FrankH @ Oct. 13 2009,20:23)
I would say that to be able to use a god, creator or other being to make anything, one would have to provide evidence that such being exist.

Then, after the supernatural is shown to exist, it is no longer "super" is it?

My biggest issue with those who claim "to know how their perfect and infinite god" though they do claim to be both finite and fallible.  That alone is a logical fallacy.

Theism is fraught with logic problems, I'm afraid.  I don't pretend that my beliefs are based on empirical evidence, nor do I claim that they should take precedence over more rationally-derived thought processes.  But I have them.  The practical problem would be not having them, so to speak.

Date: 2009/10/13 21:01:39, Link
Author: Constant Mews
Quote (FrankH @ Oct. 13 2009,20:47)
Quote (Constant Mews @ Oct. 13 2009,20:26)
Quote (FrankH @ Oct. 13 2009,20:23)
I would say that to be able to use a god, creator or other being to make anything, one would have to provide evidence that such being exist.

Then, after the supernatural is shown to exist, it is no longer "super" is it?

My biggest issue with those who claim "to know how their perfect and infinite god" though they do claim to be both finite and fallible.  That alone is a logical fallacy.

Theism is fraught with logic problems, I'm afraid.  I don't pretend that my beliefs are based on empirical evidence, nor do I claim that they should take precedence over more rationally-derived thought processes.  But I have them.  The practical problem would be not having them, so to speak.

Well having beliefs is not the same as having dogma.

If one says, "My God created everything", while it is dogma, it is not in itself a bad thing.  Saying, "My God created everything and this is how my God did it", is also not a bad thing in itself.

What is a bad thing is when someone says,  "My God created everything and this is how my God did it", when there is no evidence to support that position and the evidence that is there shows a completely different scenario, that to me is a bad thing.

Personally, I don't care how FL believes or feels.  It is just when people like FL tell me they have the "trooth"tm and that I really need to see it their way when there is no evidence is when I get upset.

Floyd is one of those unfortunate Christians who possessed strong belief not coupled with the intellectual acuity to support, or at least not contradict, that belief.

A poster on theologyweb make a comment I rather like: she said that belief is orthogonal to intelligence, empathy, and indeed most other characteristics of a human being.

It is true that Floyd's insistence on "truth" that is flatly contradicted by all available evidence and indeed, the very "evidence" that he provides is galling.  Stupidity often is.

But remember that Floyd's impression of how this argument is going are very different from yours.  Since he doesn't seem to have the intellectual capacity to really understand the arguments, in his own mind he's conducting a brilliantly successful campaign of "twitting" the atheists and showing them up for the morons he thinks they are.  Part of his avoidance of questions isn't because he's not willing to answer them, but because he relishes the apparent irritation such avoidance generates in the posters.

But I don't believe anyone here is operating under any illusion that Floyd is capable of understanding the discussion, nor that he was ever planning to be honest in the first place.

I am here because I recognize that Floyd is a sinner in need of redemption; that he is most certainly damned for his actions, and I'd rather try to save his soul if I can.

I doubt anyone here shares my feelings on this.  :D

Date: 2009/10/13 21:44:56, Link
Author: Constant Mews
Quote (FrankH @ Oct. 13 2009,21:12)
Floyd,


Do you understand the difference between an Atheist and an Agnostic?  For the record, I'm Agnostic.

Also, are you saying that those who claim to be Christians but do not believe the same way you do, especially when it comes to a literal Bible, are not Christians?

At the risk of answering for him, that is precisely what he is claiming.  Floyd's actual Christian doctrine requires a literal reading of the Bible (the key hint is his constant refrain of "Biblical" Christianity).  That particular doctrine is, in fact, incompatible with evolutionary theory.

And I suspect that Floyd will claim that anyone who does not accept his version of Biblical Christianity is not really Christian.

Floyd?

Date: 2009/10/14 01:18:31, Link
Author: Constant Mews
Quote (OgreMkV @ Oct. 13 2009,23:13)
Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 13 2009,23:09)
       
Quote
(Ogre)
Part of the problem is that he's admitted that such people are indeed Christians... (snipping the rest for now)

CM (the one who wants to save my soul or something) wasn't evn aware that I'd already answered that question.  Ogre, by contrast, was on the ball and provided the correction.  Hmm.

Of all the things in this thread... that's the thing that makes you go 'hmmm'!?!?!?!?

Also, an interesting choice of snip there Floyd.  Just enough to make you go hmmm... but not enough to actually be something to discuss.

Are we getting to the ID is science part soon or are we going to beat a dead horse for another few days?

Indeed, I missed that post.

So, Floyd.  You admit that Christians who do not accept your narrow reading of the Bible are Christians.

I am such a Christian.  I accept evolution.  Therefore Christianity and Evolution are not incompatible.

If you have nothing further, then we can dismiss your five "incompatibles" as a product of faulty logic.

Date: 2009/10/14 01:20:50, Link
Author: Constant Mews
Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 13 2009,23:43)
Quote
Are we getting to the ID is science part soon or are we going to beat a dead horse for another few days?

I'd say in a few days.  I think it's clear now that a definite and documentable Incompatibility exists between evolution and Christianity, but there's a few posts I still want to address anyway.  

(For example, like that one poster who tried to bring up Ken Miller without realizing that (1) Ken Miller called us humans "lucky accidents" in FDG--an automatic reaffirmation of Incompatibility, and (2)  Rosenhouse's argument (the 5th Incompatibility) was specifically targeted at Ken Miller anyway.)

SLP obviously wants to do a mini-debate on Oro, but since anything I post on that or other threads gets re-routed here anyway, (and since the bulk of the posting that was needed here on this topic is done), I might take one day or so just to engage SLP.

Unfortunately, Floyd, you have not demonstrated that any such incompatibility exists.

In fact, my very existence definitively proves you are wrong, since by your logic, I could not exist.

I admire your stubbornness, and feel sad that you apparently haven't read most of this thread, but you are behaving precisely the way most of the posters predicted you would.

Date: 2009/10/14 01:22:22, Link
Author: Constant Mews
Quote (Constant Mews @ Oct. 12 2009,10:17)
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.  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.  Evolutionary theory denies that God chose to create the universe and mankind.

3. Christian doctrine specifies that God created man in His own image.  Evolutionary theory denies that God created man in His own image.

4. Christian doctrine specifies that death did not occur before man.  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.


Floyd has supplied no definition of Christian doctrine except John 3:16.  Although he later amended this by specifying that certain other beliefs were required or implied by John 3:16, he has never clarified what these beliefs are.

He has supplied a definition of evolutionary theory:

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.


Finally, Floyd has offered a number of opinions and personal beliefs of scientists who accept evolution regarding the implications of evolutionary theory.  I must point out that these opinions and personal beliefs are not supported by the definitions Floyd has provided.

And that is all that Floyd has actually supplied.

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

What can we see from this?  Several points emerge immediately.  

First, that using the definitions Floyd provided, his point 1 is logically meaningless; God is not mentioned by evolutionary theory, and being thus silent, evolutionary theory has nothing whatever to say about God's necessity.

Second, that using the definitions that Floyd provided, his points 2 and 3 are completely false: nothing in Floyd's definitions specifies that God did not CHOOSE to create the universe and man; nothing in Floyd's definitions specifies that God did not make man in His own image.

Third, Floyd's point 4 is predicated on two things: a literal reading of Genesis and an unsupported reading of Romans 5:12.  Since a literal reading of Genesis is precluded by all available evidence of the world - a direct creation of God, we may reasonably discount Genesis 1:1-11 as being literally correct.  A contextual reading of Romans 5:12 indicates that "sin" and "death" are inextricably linked, and hence the reasonable reading of Romans 5:12 refers to spiritual death, not physical death.  This is supported by the clear logical problem of reading God's threat to Adam that on the day he ate of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil that he would die.  Since Adam did NOT die on that die, we cannot read that threat as implying physical death.

This leaves only his point 5.  Point 5 is simply the ancient Problem of Evil; the ultimate thorn in the side of Christianity.  Christianity provides the twin primary defenses of Free Will and the Fall to account for this.

Thus we see that it is quite logical for a True Christian, a devout and passionate Christian, to simultaneously accept both Christian Doctrine and evolutionary theory.

Since I am such a Christian, we have shown Floyd to be wrong in his assertions.

Floyd, please indicate precisely and clearly, with yes/no answers supported by accurate Biblical exegesis and citations of actual evolutionary theory where you dispute this analysis, otherwise I shall accept your concession.

Thanks.

I repeat this to demonstrate that Floyd had not demonstrated any incompatibility between Christianity and evolutionary theory.

I also note that he has not addressed any of my rebuttals in this post.

I think that says a great deal for his honesty and intellectual integrity.

Date: 2009/10/14 01:25:13, Link
Author: Constant Mews
Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 14 2009,00:35)
Quote
Cause, I think the others here have shown just as many quotes as you have that counter your argument.

Really?   Please document that claim.

Certainly.  The entire thread.

Date: 2009/10/14 01:26:20, Link
Author: Constant Mews
Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 13 2009,23:43)
Quote
Are we getting to the ID is science part soon or are we going to beat a dead horse for another few days?

I'd say in a few days.  I think it's clear now that a definite and documentable Incompatibility exists between evolution and Christianity, but there's a few posts I still want to address anyway.  

(For example, like that one poster who tried to bring up Ken Miller without realizing that (1) Ken Miller called us humans "lucky accidents" in FDG--an automatic reaffirmation of Incompatibility, and (2)  Rosenhouse's argument (the 5th Incompatibility) was specifically targeted at Ken Miller anyway.)

SLP obviously wants to do a mini-debate on Oro, but since anything I post on that or other threads gets re-routed here anyway, (and since the bulk of the posting that was needed here on this topic is done), I might take one day or so just to engage SLP.

There are no happy accidents for God.  Once again, you show a lamentable inability to reason.

I am praying for you, Floyd.  You clearly need it.

Date: 2009/10/14 10:11:18, Link
Author: Constant Mews
Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 14 2009,08:35)
Quote
You were toast the first time a Christian posted that he/she believed in evolution.

Rosenhouse has refuted this argument.  What was your response to his statement, Nmgirl?

Rosenhouse has offered no rebuttal at all.  You haven't read this thread, have you?  

Floyd, the existence of Christians who accept evolution proves you are wrong, whatever Rosenhouse may have said.  Why do you think otherwise?  According to you, I cannot exist.  How do you deal with that?

Date: 2009/10/14 10:12:47, Link
Author: Constant Mews
Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 14 2009,08:35)
Quote
You were toast the first time a Christian posted that he/she believed in evolution.

Rosenhouse has refuted this argument.  What was your response to his statement, Nmgirl?

Rosenhouse made no argument.  He pointed out the Problem of Evil is a problem for Christians.  Nothing about that is an argument nor a refutation.

Truly, Floyd, this is bizarre: according to you, I cannot exist.  And yet I do.  My very existence proves you wrong.  How do you address that?

Date: 2009/10/14 10:14:03, Link
Author: Constant Mews
Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 14 2009,09:11)
Quote
Bullshit, Floyd. You're about as sincere as a letter bomb.

In other words, there are no takers from your side to document Ogre's claim that was put forth.  Thanks for the notification Keelyn.

Ogre posted a refutation.  Your refusal to read things you find uncomfortable is not a refutation of them.

Date: 2009/10/14 10:17:15, Link
Author: Constant Mews
Again, Floyd, since you apparently need things repeated:

My very existence as a Christian who accepts evolutionary theory and finds no conflict in it with Christian Doctrine,

proves that you are wrong.

The only way for you to counter this is for you to prove that either I am not a Christian, or that I do not understand the implications of evolutionary theory.

Neither of which you can do.

The clergy letter shows there are many of us who prove you wrong, Floyd - in fact, the majority of Christians in the world prove you are wrong.

Date: 2009/10/14 13:12:48, Link
Author: Constant Mews
Since Natural Selection is NOT evolutionary theory, we note that once again Floyd is quote-mining Oro.

That's called lying, Floyd.  The only other alternative is that despite having these basics explained to you, you do not have the intellectual capacity to understand the theory of evolution.

According to your own definitions, the ones that you provided, abiogenesis is not part of evolution.

Why present definitions of terms and then ignore them?

Remember: according to YOU, abiogenesis is not part of evolution.

Date: 2009/10/14 13:13:32, Link
Author: Constant Mews
Quote (Constant Mews @ Oct. 13 2009,17:38)
[quote=FloydLee,Oct. 13 2009,17:04][/quote]
Floyd:  
Quote
Actually, we've already looked at Scripture (and the Pope too), and to whatever extent evolution exists (such as microevolution, but NOT macroevolution, for the latter has never been observed), God IS the required explanation for it.
Not according to evolutionary theory.  Apparently you didn't even bother to read the definitions you provided.  Your definitions - the ones that you gave us, say nothing about God's involvement, because science can't test for God.  Your ignorance of both the Bible and theology apparently isn't up to knowing that.

Your definitions, Lee.  Your quotes from the Pope.  Evolutionary theory does NOT deny the ultimate cause of God; it merely explains testable mechanisms.

Quote
And no, you don't get to fudge by saying "without intervening directly".
But you've just said that, Floyd.  That was the point of the water flowing downhill example.  You've already conceded that water can operate a perfectly natural process for which God is ultimately responsible, and yet man cannot test for God.

You're on record as having conceded your first point.

Quote
After all, you've already said that God was "necessary and sufficient", thus locking Him into being the Required Explanation even if you think it's an indirect explanation.
Certainly I do.  But science cannot test that particular point, and does not include it in evolutionary theory.  It doesn't exclude it from evolutionary theory either.

You've already conceded this point, Floyd.  You're on record as having admitted that your first "incompatible" is meaningless.

Quote
You still bring in teleology,
Of course I do.  So do you.
Quote
you still have to explain why God used a gazillion years of evolutionary animal suffering to evolve the first two humans, you still bring in your problems even when you try to make it "indirect."
Ah, so you're conceding your first point again.  You cannot establish it, since you've already admitted that God is the necessary and sufficient explanation for water flowing downhill, despite the fact that it occurs naturally.

Now you're trying to argue theodicy, the ancient Problem of Evil.  But it has nothing to do with evolutionary theory; the Problem of Evil stands whether or not evolution is true.  No escape hatch for you there, Floyd.  If you'd like to discuss the POE, I'm more than willing to; but you will be unable to show that any part of evolutionary theory specifies it as a problem.

You've already conceded point 1, Floyd.  And as I showed you already, your points 2-4 are also not incompatibles.

Quote
And that "necessary and sufficient" you mentioned, is exactly what the theory of evolution denies.
Not in the slightest.  Show me the precise wording in the theory, not the comments on the theory by atheists which shows that evolution denies God.

You can't do it.  Because it's not there.  Evolutionary theory says nothing about God at all.

Quote
For as Mayr pointed out, the theory of evolution explains things solely materialistically (or purely materialistically if you prefer Futuyma) and the theory of evolution no longer requires God as creator or designer.
But this is NOT what you are claiming.  You are claiming that the theory denies the involvement of God.  It does not do so.

And you've already conceded this point, Floyd, when you admitted that God can be ultimately responsible for water flowing downhill, and yet we have a natural explanation.

Quote
No longer "necessary and sufficient", as you put it.
Mayr's opinion is not the theory, Floyd.

You provided the definition of the theory.  Show me precisely where, in your definitions, that is says God is not necessary and sufficient.  Show me.

You provided the definitions.

You show me precisely where they exclude God.

You can't.

These issues still remain, Floyd.

Date: 2009/10/14 13:31:14, Link
Author: Constant Mews
Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 14 2009,13:04)
Quote
it distracts from FL actually having to answer direst questions

And it also keeps Ogre from documenting a certain claim he presented....

He already documented his claim.  You need to keep up, Floyd.  We can't wait for your slow reading.

But remember: my very existence as a Christian and a scientist who accepts evolution proves you to be wrong.

And you have not been able to refute that, in forty pages of trying.  Don't you think that should give you pause?

Date: 2009/10/14 14:17:36, Link
Author: Constant Mews
Quote (FrankH @ Oct. 14 2009,12:53)
Quote (OgreMkV @ Oct. 14 2009,12:44)
Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 14 2009,12:38)
 
Quote
It was easier than I thought

2 John 1:7 (NIV)
Many deceivers... fl, ...is the deceiver and the antichrist.
I seeeee.   2 John 1:7 specifically lists FL as the antichrist.   Thanks for the clarification.

FloydLee
Yep, if you can edit quotes, add elipises, and capitalize words that aren't done so in the original, then why can't I?

While showing FL how annoying misquoting can be, it distracts from FL actually having to answer direst questions and actually sticking his neck out when dealing with issues he'd rather just see go away.

So FL, how about the other posts where you've been shown your dogma doesn't square with facts (oh yes, saying you've addressed it doesn't mean you've been able to refute it if you have, I'm sure you'll be more than willing to repost it and put those people in their place, right?).

What about my question that if you found that Genesis is not literal, you'd have no faith?  Is that a correct assessment?

It is not possible to be intelligent, educated, and sane, and still accept Genesis as entirely historical.

Date: 2009/10/14 14:21:52, Link
Author: Constant Mews
Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 14 2009,12:38)
Quote
It was easier than I thought

2 John 1:7 (NIV)
Many deceivers... fl, ...is the deceiver and the antichrist.

I seeeee.   2 John 1:7 specifically lists FL as the antichrist.   Thanks for the clarification.

FloydLee

Actually, Proverbs 6:19 specifically mentions you, Floyd.

Date: 2009/10/14 14:33:43, Link
Author: Constant Mews
Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 14 2009,10:49)
Quote
Look, since you get to use the personal opinion of scientists, then so do we.  C. Mews personal opinion is that there is no controversy.

Interesting.  C. Mews' personal opinion.  I think after doing SLP, I will do an extended focus on "C. Mews' personal opinions" WRT the Big Five, and that will end the Incompatibility debate no matter who posts any more posts or declares victory (that includes you too).  

******

 
Quote
If I looked hard enough, I could find a quote in the Bible that says "FL is the antichrist".

May I ask for documentation on that claim too?

All you've ever cited beyond your definition of the theory - which, by the way, is not incompatible with Christian doctrine - is personal opinion.

I am a Christian who accepts evolution, Floyd.  I am your nightmare, since according to you, I cannot exist.  But you've never shown that such incompatibility exists.

Indeed, based on the definitions of both Christianity and evolutionary theory that you provided, there are no such incompatibilities.

And you then conceded your point 1.  You've never addressed by refutations of your next four points.

I can now see why you wish to run away from the entire topic to focus on ID - where you will be eviscerated by the Christians, as well as the atheists.  But since you appear unable to deal with the "incompatibles" topic, I rather doubt your attempted defense of ID will be any more successful.

Date: 2009/10/14 14:37:59, Link
Author: Constant Mews
Floyd, I have a sincere question for you.  Why should SLP bother to answer your question, when you refuse - apparently arbitrarily - to answer dozens of questions posed to you?  If you refuse to argue in an honorable fashion, why should he?

You have done nothing to merit anyone treating you as anything more than a troll.  If you believe otherwise, perhaps you could point to any attempt you've made to discuss, debate, or argue in a rational, polite, constructive, honest fashion; I've read most of your posts here and at PT, and I've never seen any such instances.

Again - why should SLP be civil to you, when you refuse to be civil to us?

Date: 2009/10/14 18:15:36, Link
Author: Constant Mews
Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 14 2009,15:49)
Quote
3. But FL says he can't understand how they get around his five big incompatibilities

Uhhh, Dan, they DON'T get around them.  In fact, the Pope re-affirms the first three of them (you saw his quotations yourself) and is silent on the final two.  Agreed?

Of course we get around them.  I have shown you why they are not "incompatibles" at all.

The fact that I exist - a devout Christian and a scientist who accepts evolution - is proof you are wrong, Floyd.

Deal with it.  Or run away, as you are doing now.

Date: 2009/10/14 18:16:08, Link
Author: Constant Mews
Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 14 2009,17:00)
Looks like SLP is active this afternoon in another forum, and in no hurry to visit this one, so that frees me up to focus on CM who wants to pray for me and save my soul and whatnot (you so silly sometimes. CM!!!)

I wish to save your soul since you are damned for lying.  That's simple.

Date: 2009/10/14 23:54:33, Link
Author: Constant Mews
Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 14 2009,15:50)
Quote
For example, what does abiogenesis have to with whether evolution and chrisitanity are incompitable, or whatever it was you said?

Ask SLP.  This was his idea, not mine.  Go jump on him.  Me, I'm just finishing what he apparently wanted to start.

He merely pointed out that your were quote-mining something you apparently didn't understand.  Why should he be civil to you, when you refuse to civil to us?  It's a fair question.

Date: 2009/10/14 23:56:28, Link
Author: Constant Mews
Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 14 2009,15:49)
Quote
3. But FL says he can't understand how they get around his five big incompatibilities

Uhhh, Dan, they DON'T get around them.  In fact, the Pope re-affirms the first three of them (you saw his quotations yourself) and is silent on the final two.  Agreed?

Again, you are factually incorrect.  You cannot point to the precise quotes by the pope that show you are correct.

Really, Floyd - discussion on the internet isn't that difficult.  You should be able to do it.

Date: 2009/10/15 00:01:20, Link
Author: Constant Mews
Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 14 2009,17:29)
Quote
The fact is that god, as commonly defined, can do anything. This includes guiding evolution in such a way that it appears perfectly mechanistic.

So you have God "guiding evolution" but at the same time, making it look like evolution is "a completely mindless process" (EB3), therefore making the situation look as if he's trying to deceive us humans.
 
And since God's "guiding evolution", he must NECESSARILY also be guiding those cruel and sadistic aspects of evolution also---a gazillion years of "Nature Red in Tooth and Claw".  All that evolutionary bloodsport just to evolve the first humans.

Good job Reed.  Got some good incompatibilities there, thanks!

(Rosenhouse was right:  reconciling Christianity and evolution is NOT as easy at theistic evolutionists--or their secular homies, for that matter--try to make it sound.)

God isn't trying to deceive us at all; evolution appears to be a mindless process because we are not aware of the ends for it that God has in store, just as we do not know history before it unfolds before us, though God does and we have faith that His will guides us to the eventual Jerusalem.

Your comment would mean that God does not exist because we are not aware of the future.  That may be the single stupidest comment you have made so far.

And now you demand that God conform to your trivial, limited, wholly unBiblical ideas of what constitutes good?

Not much a Christian, are you Floyd?  You continually want to box God?  And the Problem of Evil exists with or without evolution.  Consider that.

Date: 2009/10/15 00:03:28, Link
Author: Constant Mews
Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 14 2009,17:36)
Quote
I can't help it if you don't understand logic, evidence, or science.

However, I DO understand that you said this:
 
Quote
Cause, I think the others here have shown just as many quotes as you have that counter your argument.

After which you were sincerely asked,  
   
Quote
Really?   Please document that claim.

And I understand that the rrequested documentation wasn't provided.   All done, yes?     :)

The documentation was provided.  You are lying, Floyd.  The Pope supports evolution.  I support evolution.  nmgirl supports evolution.  Thousands of clergy have signed a petition supporting evolution.  Catholics support evolution - that's a billion Christians right there.

Citations were provided.  It is not possible for you to lie about that, Floyd - everything is documented here on the internet.

Date: 2009/10/15 00:04:53, Link
Author: Constant Mews
Quote (Constant Mews @ Oct. 14 2009,18:15)

Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 14 2009,15:49)
Quote
3. But FL says he can't understand how they get around his five big incompatibilities

Uhhh, Dan, they DON'T get around them.  In fact, the Pope re-affirms the first three of them (you saw his quotations yourself) and is silent on the final two.  Agreed?

Of course we get around them.  I have shown you why they are not "incompatibles" at all.

The fact that I exist - a devout Christian and a scientist who accepts evolution - is proof you are wrong, Floyd.

Deal with it.  Or run away, as you are doing now.

Date: 2009/10/15 11:14:42, Link
Author: Constant Mews
Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 15 2009,09:33)
Quote
it's been 12 days now


It's been answered.  Also change your sig line please. Both your first question (which you never acknowledged that I answered), and your most recent question, received answers.

(And you don't accept the answer gvien for your 2nd question, which is fine, but don't pretend you didn't get an answer on that one too.)

All done!

Actually no, Floyd.  You have not actually answered his question.  You really should - it would clarify for you, at least, that you have already conceded your point 1.

Date: 2009/10/15 11:16:39, Link
Author: Constant Mews
Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 15 2009,10:04)
Quote
Certainly invoking your 2000 year old primitive sun-god as the guider of evolutionary (or any physical) processes leads to the realization that such a god is a monster, but who cares? The bible presents that monster anyway, so clearly that god is not incompatible with evolution.

So honestly, you do believe that evolution is compatible with Christianity because both evolution and God are cruel and sadistic and monster-ish.  Is that correct?

No, he's not actually saying that.  You really need to read your opponent's posts before you make foolish statements.  But there is a grain of truth in what he says: the God of the OT is not incompatible with evolution.

Date: 2009/10/15 16:29:39, Link
Author: Constant Mews
Quote (Robin @ Oct. 15 2009,15:13)
[quote=FloydLee,Oct. 15 2009,13:27][/quote]
Quote
Quote
Certainly invoking your 2000 year old primitive sun-god

Actually, even THIS much of your post is a painful exercise in Biblical illiteracy.  The God of the OT (who is the same as the God of the NT, but that's another post), is NOT "a primitive sun god" at all.  That much you could glean just by reading the Bible period!  

Exactly how is it that the Creator and Ruler and Sustainer of the Entire Universe At All Levels All Time All Space All Dimensions (both Testaments make that clear, Gen. 1:1, Col. 1:16) be limited to a mere "god of the sun" like some heathen half-patootie job?  That's irrational baby!

FloydLee


Floyd, let's get one thing straight here - my sister is a professional biblical scholar with degrees from Yale and Oxford and I have studied extensively not only on the bible, but also in ancient Greek and Hebrew history, culture, and language, along with several years of study in literary history and cultural constructions. Please don't try to lecture me on what constitutes biblical illiteracy as any such claims make you look beyond absurd. You've demonstrated repeatedly that you do not know and do not care to know about actual biblical literacy and contruction, preferring rather to approach the bible as a basis of literal and factual information a priori, which right there removes any possible credibility and validity from your claims about about appropriate "literacy".

Now that we've dispensed with your credibility on such claims, let's move on to the extensive and well-documented evidence that your OT biblical god *IS* in fact nothing more than a reflection of the Egyptian, Persian, Assyrian, and Babylonian sun-god, with sprinklings of Canaan and Sumerian beliefs:

http://www.cresourcei.org/baal.html

http://www.bibleorigins.net/YahwehYawUgarit.html

There are many other scholarly sources on the origin of the Old Testament god, which you are welcome to ignore all you want. But the fact is, your god is not much more than a glorified primative Sun-god.

Not to mention the strong Mithraic elements in the NT.

I am interested - professionally, rather than spiritually - in the isolationist ignorance with which most theists such as Floyd approach their own Holy Texts.

Ignorance of the context, development, antecedents, and connections of the Bible seems to be a primary requirement for fundamentalists.  Whatever the basis of inspiration, Holy Writ is created by men for their own reasons and carries with it their own emotional and cultural baggage.  To pretend - as does Floyd - that such baggage does not exist is singularly foolish.

Date: 2009/10/15 16:53:23, Link
Author: Constant Mews
This may simply be a case of gross ignorance: FL is unable to distinguish the fact of evolution - which does take place in a variety of contexts - from the theory of evolution, which deals specifically with biodiversity.

What acts in contrary to this explanation is Floyd's refusal to modify his untenable position even when the facts are explained to him.  At this point we move into only one of two possible explanations: rank dishonesty or mental incapacity.

Date: 2009/10/15 17:33:20, Link
Author: Constant Mews
Quote (Reed @ Oct. 15 2009,17:03)
Quote (Constant Mews @ Oct. 15 2009,14:29)
To pretend - as does Floyd - that such baggage does not exist is singularly foolish.

I'm always shocked that people can actually believe there is a single, objectively valid, "literal" interpretation of something with such a long and convoluted history as the bible. Less shocked that the various people who believe this disagree on what that interpretation is ;)

The psychological nature of belief often precludes "interpretation", inasmuch as that introduces a level of complexity and subtlety most believers are uncomfortable with.  Frankly, I find the various flavours of Hindu far more sophisticated and flexible than any variant of Christianity, but that may have more to do with the cultural traditions.

Date: 2009/10/15 18:22:54, Link
Author: Constant Mews
Floyd, your failure to employ logic where it is required guarantees that you will be unable to make your case.  You will note that in forty-seven pages of posting, you have yet to even make an argument, let alone refute our rebuttals to your entirely incoherent presentation.  Let's consider this immediate problem.

Quote
Nmgirl, Please understand that what you quoted from me there (that "sun-god" shpiel), doesn't get resolved by merely exclaiming "you're a spazz."  A bit more substantial response is required.  The God that you and I  serve, ain't no 10-cent crumb-bum 'primitive sun-god' from South Heathenville.  You gotta take a stand on things like that!!
You presented a fact-free splat of emotional nonsense.  Nmgirl is rightly responding in kind.  When you can present any rational argument on these lines, then we can engage you in that.

Quote
Actually, I like the way you asked that question, because it really shows where the "water question" can and can NOT be applied.
Since you have yet to actually answer the water question, this should prove amusing.

Quote
The water question DOES fit with the issue of teaching biblical creationism in science class.  Can't deny that.
Admirable.  Perhaps you are not as unintelligent as your posts make you appear.
Quote
 But....
It Doesn't work for trying to eliminate the First Incompatibility and totally ignoring the points made by evolutionists who bring up the First Incompatibility.
Regrettably, it does.  It should be interesting to see how you try to spin it.

Quote
So why doesn't it work that way, you ask?  Because the First Incompatbility is all about the theory of evolution denying that God is the required explanation for historical/biological origins on Earth--a denial affirmed by both Mayr's SciAm article and Futuyma's textbook (and don't forget Oldroyd who knows his Darwin well.)

Floyd, this is a lie.  No definition of evolutionary theory denies God.  Not a single one.  You can't even cite a single page of actual theory - as opposed to personal opinion - that makes that point.

You've done this day one on this thread - confused personal opinion about evolutionary theory with the theory itself.  Until you understand there is a difference, you will keep shooting yourself in the foot.

And you still haven't answered his question.

Quote
If you wish to claim that God "indirectly" is the required explanation for water running downhill (because He is the ultimate originator of both water and gravity), that's good of you, (and it's true too), but that "indirect" business DOESN'T apply to biological origins via the theory of evolution.
Unfortunately, it does.  That's the point.  That's why the question is relevant.  By admitting that God is the ultimate, but not immediate explanation for water running downhill, you've ceded that your point one is meaningless.

Because evolutionary theory does not deny the involvement of God.  You will be unable to find a single reference to the actual theory that denies God.

The definitions you provided don't deny God.

And you still haven't answered his question.

Quote
Why not?  Because you have already incurred a unique and non-correctable incompatibility right off the bat.  (You listening, Erasmus?).

For in biblical Christianity, God is NEVER the indirect cause of biological origins, be they plant, animal or human.  See Genesis 1 if you doubt this.
Actually, consulting the Bible we see that you are completely wrong.

I have warned you, Floyd, that your ignorance of the Bible would trip you up eventually.

Quote
Now you can reject the Bible's claims here if you want to, (and clearly some already have in this forum), but make no mistake---God is the DIRECT cause of plant, animal and human origins in that Bible.
Again, utterly false.
Quote
  Not indirect.  Not maybe.  Not a zillion times removed sorta-kinda.  DIRECT.
Again, utterly false.
Quote
Plants, animals, and humans are NOT originated naturally during Creation Week---it's all God Himself, doing the impossible (well, to you it's impossible!) all by Himself.
Again, utterly false.  Read the Bible, Floyd.  I see that you don't bother much with it.

Quote
So, Erasmus's little ditty simply lays down ANOTHER incompatibility all by itself---and no way to resolve THAT one either!
Erasmus has offered no incompatibility.  He has merely pointed out that you have already conceded that your point one is false.

Quote
Furthermore, BESIDES the clear published statements and reasons given by Mayr and Futuyma, any attempt to claim that God is the required explanation for Earth's evolutionary process, automatically generates conflicts involving not ONLY Incompatibilities Four and Five, but even Two and Three.
Again, another lie on your part, Floyd.  At least three different complete refutations of all your points have been made on this thread - you have not responded to any of them.

Do I need to repost mine?  I suppose so.

Quote
Nmgirl, I think it's time to face the fact that, IF the topic is "Evolution is Compatible/Incompatible with Christianity", then Erasmus's little ditty is STONE DEAD.


Not in the slightest.  Erasmus has pointed out the fundamental flaw in your logic regarding point one.  You have not been able to establish it.

And you still haven't answered his question.

Quote
Wanna talk about God as indirect explanation in physics class and water running downhill ?  Then maybe go do that, if the evo's don't sue you first (because of their religion of materialism that for them supersedes the scientific method.)
There is no religion of materialism.  Only a fool would claim otherwise.  Are you a fool?  Materialists worship no gods, have no sacred texts, practice no sacred rites.

Are you a fool, Floyd?  Making claims like that certainly makes it appear so.

Quote
But when it comes to trying to play like God can be an "indirect explanation" for the existence of plants, animals, or even what you see when you yourself look in the mirror, you are bucking the Bible.  That sort of thing is NOT an okay activity for Christians, Nmgirl.  Hence Erasmus's schtick must be abandoned.


Floyd, I am a Christian who believes in the Bible; I accept evolution.  I prove you are wrong simply by existing.

Date: 2009/10/15 18:23:43, Link
Author: Constant Mews
Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 15 2009,18:09)
Quote
Yodel, go stuff yourself. You'll be doing humanity a favor.  I'm done with that turkey!

Wow, SD, that's a killer refutation of my post to Nmgirl.   But is that the best you've got?

It's more than is actually needed, given the paucity of content in your posts, Floyd.

Date: 2009/10/15 18:24:34, Link
Author: Constant Mews
Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 15 2009,18:14)
Quote
Floyd, let's get one thing straight here - my sister is a professional biblical scholar with degrees from Yale and Oxford and I have studied extensively not only on the bible, but also in ancient Greek and Hebrew history, culture, and language, along with several years of study in literary history and cultural constructions.

Then how in the world did you come up with such an utterly totally un-biblical conclusion about what kind of God is presented in the Bible?  I can't speak for your sister, (and I like Greek and Hebrew too!) but YOU got it messed up seven ways to Hades!!  

I'm sorry, but in addition to study tools, languages, historical notes, etc, you gotta start allowing the Bible to speak for itself.  That's the truth.

Your ignorance of the Bible is showing once more, Floyd.

Really, you should try reading it before you take it in vain.

I pray for you.

Date: 2009/10/15 18:25:57, Link
Author: Constant Mews
Floyd, I should point out that any attempt on your part to make your point about incompatibility using the Bible will fail.  It does not support your case.

Date: 2009/10/15 18:27:06, Link
Author: Constant Mews
Tell me Floyd - and I would a simple, straightforward answer:

Can one accept Genesis as metaphor and still be a Christian?

Yes or no, Floyd.

Date: 2009/10/15 18:36:03, Link
Author: Constant Mews
Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 15 2009,18:32)
Quote
Not to mention the strong Mithraic elements in the NT.

They say you're a scientist, CM, and I believe 'em, but stuff like this shows you're a lot better at your scientific study than your Bible study.  

Or maybe your real religion is skepticism and not Christianity, and yes that honestly sounds like a distinct possibility, so don't bother getting offended over my sayin' it out loud.  
At some point, you have to make a decision about where you are REALLY at, and frankly you don't even share Jesus's own complete trust in the accuracy and historical trustworthiness of Scripture.   (Maybe you just like wearing the 'Christian' label or something, I dunno.)

Meanwhile, since you've decided, as a "Christian", to parrot the skeptics and try to connect the idol cult of Mithraism with the Christian NT, (are you kidding me dude?), let me offer a counter for that, courtesy of Dr. Ronald Nash.
   
Quote
Mithraism--Influence on the New Testament?

The major reason why no Mithraic influence on first-century Christianity is possible is the timing: it’s all wrong!

The flowering of Mithraism occurred after the close of the New Testament canon, much too late for it to have influenced anything that appears in the New Testament.

Moreover, no monuments for the cult can be dated earlier than A.D. 90-100, and even this dating requires us to make some exceedingly generous assumptions. Chronological difficulties, then, make the possibility of a Mithraic influence on early Christianity extremely improbable. Certainly, there remains no credible evidence for such an influence.

http://www.equip.org/PDF/DB109.pdf

I have a considerable background in this subject, Floyd.  You will note that Mithraism and Christianity begin to show verifiable artifacts at roughly the same time-frame, even according to your quote.

Which, given your track record of dishonesty, need to be vetted.

Are you actually accusing me of not being a Christian?

Yes or no.

Date: 2009/10/15 22:36:57, Link
Author: Constant Mews
I warned you Floyd - the Bible does not support your fantasies. You will make a serious mistake to try to use it against us.

Date: 2009/10/15 23:38:33, Link
Author: Constant Mews
Quote (Jasper @ Oct. 15 2009,22:01)
Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 15 2009,18:56)
For in biblical Christianity, God is NEVER the indirect cause of biological origins, be they plant, animal or human.  See Genesis 1 if you doubt this.  

Now you can reject the Bible's claims here if you want to, (and clearly some already have in this forum), but make no mistake---God is the DIRECT cause of plant, animal and human origins in that Bible.   Not indirect.  Not maybe.  Not a zillion times removed sorta-kinda.  DIRECT.
Plants, animals, and humans are NOT originated naturally during Creation Week---it's all God Himself, doing the impossible (well, to you it's impossible!) all by Himself.

Umm...have you actually read Genesis 1, Floyd?

Quote
Genesis 1:20: And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven.

Genesis 1:24 And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so.

As we have noted, Floyd's ignorance of the Bible is astounding.

Date: 2009/10/16 09:18:24, Link
Author: Constant Mews
Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 16 2009,09:13)
Quote
Umm...have you actually read Genesis 1, Floyd?

Genesis 1:20: And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven.

Genesis 1:24 And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so.


Absolutely, Jasper.   God's not calling for a gazillion years of evolution there.  Not with the water, and not with the land.  Instead, the situation is just like what God did in Gen. 1:3....

   
Quote
"Then God said, “Let there be light”; and there was light."


And it just plain happened, Didn't take a zillion years.  It happened right then.  All within a 24-hr "evening and morning" day. Same for Gen. 1:20 ("water bring forth") and 1:24 ("earth bring forth").  

Both water animals and birds were done by the end of the fifth 24-hr "evening and morning", and both land animals and humans were completed by the end of the sixth 24-hr "evening and morning."  

Again, you may disagree with the Bible's claims because of your belief in evolution--another sign of incompatibility of course--but be clear that the specific phrase "evening and morning", along with other biblical evidences, means that the Bible is claiming that God's commands of"Let the waters bring forth" and "Let the earth bring forth" produced their creative results within a standard 24-hr day, NOT a gazillion years.
 
(See McCabe's article http://www.dbts.edu/journals/2000/mccabe.pdf for all the technical details.)

Furthermore, as I said earlier, the water animals and the land animals did not originate naturally, not even in the two verses you pointed to.  Absolutely NOTHING would have happened on either water or land, naturally speaking.  The ONLY thing that caused things to change was three key words preceding both the parts you highlighted:

"And God said."

And that's not natural.  That's supernatural.  That's how we got here, Jasper.

******

So, anyway wanna refute it?  Please try.

FloydLee

Floyd, you claimed God created directly - not indirectly.

The Bible proves you wrong.

Remember that, Floyd. The [I]Bible[\I] proves you wrong.

Date: 2009/10/16 09:23:08, Link
Author: Constant Mews
Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 16 2009,09:17)
Quote
Yodel Elf please, after you answer MY FIRST QUESTION (see sig)

See reply to Nmgirl.  All done (again).  Delete sig line please.

You are lying again. Your response to nmgirl did not answer his question.

Date: 2009/10/16 09:26:38, Link
Author: Constant Mews
Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 16 2009,09:23)
Quote
All leading representatives of the main monotheistic religions have adopted a much more moderate attitude. Pope Benedict XVI, for example, as his predecessor Pope John-Paul II, today praises the role of science in the evolution of humanity and recognises that the theory of evolution is “more than a hypothesis”.

So, the Council of Europe chose not to address the Incompatibilities that both Popes have presented in their respective statements.  Convenient.

There are no incompatibilities.

My existence as a christian and a scientist proves you wrong. Your claims have been refuted at least three times without any response from you.

Date: 2009/10/16 09:31:33, Link
Author: Constant Mews
Quote (Schroedinger's Dog @ Oct. 16 2009,09:25)
Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 16 2009,16:23)
 
Quote
All leading representatives of the main monotheistic religions have adopted a much more moderate attitude. Pope Benedict XVI, for example, as his predecessor Pope John-Paul II, today praises the role of science in the evolution of humanity and recognises that the theory of evolution is “more than a hypothesis”.

So, the Council of Europe chose not to address the Incompatibilities that both Popes have presented in their respective statements.  Convenient.

What incompabilities were stated by both popes?

None, of course. Certainly Floyd has never presented any.

Date: 2009/10/16 09:56:43, Link
Author: Constant Mews
Quote (Schroedinger's Dog @ Oct. 16 2009,09:49)
The sadest thing here is: I am probably the less educated participant here. I didn't even finish the GED level (never tried the GED, but I know what it's about). And yet, I can grasp basic concepts better than Yodel Elf. AND I don't pretend to know more than people that have been working in the field for years.

Sad state of affairs, when YEC's try to teach science to scientists...

Cheer up. He's not trying to teach science, because he clearly knows no science. He is trying to teach outmoded and disproven theology in PLACE of science. Floyd has no science to offer.

Date: 2009/10/16 13:28:42, Link
Author: Constant Mews
Quote (Doc Bill @ Oct. 16 2009,11:08)
FL is a perfect example of what you get when you cross King James with Crown Royal.

Pardon my ignorance, but what would that be?

Date: 2009/10/16 13:38:43, Link
Author: Constant Mews
Given that Floyd clearly accepts Futuyma as an authority figure worth considering, it might be helpful to cite what Futuyma does actually says about evolutionary theory.  I had promised this earlier in the week; my schedule has been rather heavier than expected and I apologize for the delay.  But let us see what Futuyma actually defines evolutionary theory to be. There are twenty major tenets; I will post them as I have time.  I note in advance that not a single one of them contradicts Christian Doctrine.

1. The phenotype is different from the genotype, and the phenotypic differences among individual organisms can be due party to genetic differences and party to direct effects of the environment.

2. Environmental effects on an individual's phenotype do not affect the genes passed on to its offspring.  That is, acquired characteristics are not inherited.  However, the environment may affect the expression of an organism's genes.

3. Hereditary variations are based on particles - genes - that retain their identity as they pass through the gnereations; genes do not blend with other genes.

4. Genes mutate, usually at a fairly low rate, to alternative forms (alleles).  The phenotypic effects of such mutations can range all the way from undetectable to very great.  The variation that arises by mutation is amplified by [b]recombination[/i] among alleles at different loci.

5. Environmental factors may affect the rate of mutation, but they do not preferentially direct the production of mutations that would be favorable in the organism's specific environment.

Date: 2009/10/16 13:47:06, Link
Author: Constant Mews
Floyd, I must point out that your claim was that God did not create indirectly in the Bible.  Two things demonstrate that you apparently can't read the Bible:

1. Even in Genesis 1, God does not directly create animals and plants; they are created by the earth and sea and indirectly by God.

2. Every animal, plant, or human born in the Bible is done without God's direct intervention.

Your claim was that God only created directly.  A casual glance at the Bible by an atheist proved you wrong.

But this is your usual smokescreen.  The basic point is simple.

A literal reading of Genesis and certain other parts of the Bible is not a requirement of Christian belief.

Period.

Date: 2009/10/16 14:47:11, Link
Author: Constant Mews
Floyd, let us know what part of:

Quote
Genesis 1:20: And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven.

Genesis 1:24 And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so.
You find difficult to understand.  I have emphasized the relevant parts.

You can lie, dissemble, etc. about a great many things, but for someone who claims to be a Biblical Christian to lie about what the Bible says, borders on madness.

Date: 2009/10/16 14:49:19, Link
Author: Constant Mews
This is truly fascinating Floyd.  Because no matter how you try to spin it, you blatantly lied about what the Bible said so that you would not have to admit you were wrong.

Why do you want to deny the Bible, Floyd?  Apparently you're NOT a Biblical Christian after all.

Date: 2009/10/16 15:40:00, Link
Author: Constant Mews
Quote (Jasper @ Oct. 16 2009,15:06)
Quote (Constant Mews @ Oct. 16 2009,14:47)
Your claim was that God only created directly.  A casual glance at the Bible by an atheist proved you wrong.

Actually, I'm not an atheist.  I'm a Christian (one who also accepts evolution).

My apologies.

Date: 2009/10/16 15:46:05, Link
Author: Constant Mews
Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 16 2009,15:36)
Quote
Which came first, LoydFlee -- horses, or Adam?

Horses.  Gen 1 has a specifically chronological focus (first day this happened, second day that happened, etc).  Land animals came before Adam on Day 6, so horses came before Adam.

But Gen 2 does not have that same chronological focus.  Gen. 2 is, in effect, a magnifying glass placed next to Gen 1 so you can see more detail about the part of Gen 1 that relates specifically to humans and God's relationship with them.
   
Quote
There is no contradiction between Genesis 1 and 2.

Genesis 1 is a detailed explanation of the six days of creation, day by day. Genesis two is a recap and a more detailed explanation of the sixth day, the day that Adam and Eve were made.

The recap is stated in Gen. 2:4, "This is the account of the heavens and the earth when they were created, in the day that the Lord God made earth and heaven."
Then, Moses goes on to detail the creation of Adam and Eve as is seen in verses 7 thru 24 of Gen. 2.

Proof that (Gen 2) is not a creative account is found in the fact that animals aren't even mentioned until after the creation of Adam. Why? Probably because their purpose was designated by Adam. They didn't need to be mentioned until after Adam was created.

---CARM, Matt Slick

******
   
Quote
Oh, and since you cite Gen. 2:21-22, which talks about the creation of the first human woman: Whatever happen to the first human woman who was created in Gen 1:27 ("male and female created he them")?

Same thing.  See previous explanation.

FloydLee (reading comprehension exercise---try to get the name right on your reply, yes?)

How nice of you to show that genesis 1 and 2 contradict each other. Genesis 1: man made on day 6. Genesis 2: man made on day 1.

Floyd, no intelligent, educated Christian takes Genesis 1-11 as anything more than metaphor.

But you're still not addressing your problem: Genesis 1 specifically states God created indirectly; in complete contradiction to your assertion.

Date: 2009/10/16 15:47:54, Link
Author: Constant Mews
Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 16 2009,14:36)
Quote
Every animal, plant, or human born in the Bible is done without God's direct intervention.

Contradicted by Genesis 1 and 2.  Life forms below humans, God speaks them into existence;  Humans, God creates 'em by hand.  In both cases, it's very very direct.

God created Abel directly? Cain directly? Noah directly

Floyd, the Bible contradicts you

Date: 2009/10/16 15:53:41, Link
Author: Constant Mews
Quote (Constant Mews @ Oct. 16 2009,14:47)
Floyd, let us know what part of:

Quote
Genesis 1:20: And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven.

Genesis 1:24 And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so.
You find difficult to understand.  I have emphasized the relevant parts.

You can lie, dissemble, etc. about a great many things, but for someone who claims to be a Biblical Christian to lie about what the Bible says, borders on madness.

Here you are again, Floyd. God creates indirectly. The Bible makes it plain.

And why does this matter? You claimed Christianity is incompatible with evolution. But it's not. I am the living refutation. I prove you wrong.

Date: 2009/10/16 17:45:12, Link
Author: Constant Mews
You know he can't answer.  He can do nothing but deny what the Bible says.

And that should be anathema.

Date: 2009/10/17 13:38:01, Link
Author: Constant Mews
Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 17 2009,10:51)
Quote
Yet, you lied to Deadman about what you would and would not do in the thread.

Let me guess.  It's okay for somebody to put up a serious painting of a man standing at the very gates of Hell, about to forever be lost, and then for some Whatnot to claim that painting is about ME, and neither you nor Deadman got anything to say about that bit of religious talk.

But it's suddenly NOT okay for me to respond to that religious stuff in a serious and (for a Christian) a conscientious and biblical manner?  Some of you even go around telling me you gonna pray for me (which I have not said to any of you.)  Yet I can't even respond to Lou's painting?

You know I could rather easily (and rather sharply) comment on a situation like that, and on people who think like that.

But I'd prefer to not go there, if it's all the same to you.  I'd rather readers just take a couple seconds to think about the post--and Lou's painting.  

Me, I'm 50.  I know I don't have much time left in life.  And if I have it right, I think you were the poster that said you were 79+.   I'll leave it at that.

It's not OK to lie, Floyd. And that's what you did.

And that is why are going to go to he'll, Floyd. That's the fear we hear behind your words, the terror that informs whatever part of you isn't wrapped up in worship of your various false idols (I note 3 without much effort). That's your problem. You're terrified of he'll. And if show you to be wrong, that's what you'll have staring you in the face.

Oh, and your prosletization (sp?) technique is terrible. That's how I now you're not sincere when you launch tirades like that.

You're just lying.

Date: 2009/10/17 13:40:15, Link
Author: Constant Mews
Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 17 2009,11:00)
No, the point is that some of you are hypocrites who traffic in double standards.  Are you one of them?

The only hypocrite we have seen here is you, Floyd. The only one. Feel free to try to prove otherwise.

Date: 2009/10/17 14:58:46, Link
Author: Constant Mews
Quote (OgreMkV @ Oct. 17 2009,11:32)
Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 17 2009,11:00)
No, the point is that some of you are hypocrites who traffic in double standards.  Are you one of them?

Pot = Kettle

You still (after what 6 days?) haven't answered Erasmus questions...

Let's see:

1) Erasmus questions about the water and why God is required for water and why he's not required for water to flow downhill
2) You haven't answer CM question about whether CM is a Christian or not
3) You haven't answered any of the three responses you've gotten for your big five fallacies
4) You haven't answered my question about "Do you really not understand that you translate some parts of the bible literally and some parts metaphorically and you claim to translate the whole thing literally?"

Anyone else remember some questions that FLoyd hasn't answered?  

So that's where we are right now.  Waiting for you to fulfill your part of the deal and answer the questions.

Aside: I am personally offended that you would call me a hypocrite.  I have made no claims of faith and made no statements that haven't been backed up with evidence.

Another for the list:

Floyd, do you understand that the opinions of scientists and theologists about evolutionary are entirely different from the tenets of evolutionary theory?

This is a critical problem for Floyd, and the basis behind much of his abject confusion.

Date: 2009/10/17 15:51:55, Link
Author: Constant Mews
Quote (Keelyn @ Oct. 17 2009,15:30)
Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Oct. 17 2009,12:34)
 
Quote (Keelyn @ Oct. 17 2009,12:17)
No one could possibly imagine how much it pains me to agree with Floyd on anything, and I'll probably end up hating myself for saying this, but there does seem to be a bit of a double standard going on here. Just remember, Floyd, I still don't accept any of your creationist bullshit or religious mumbo ...the "HELL" crap doesn't phase me. I just accept that I think you make a valid point abount the standards.

what exactly is the point?  It's not clear to me.


Well, I should have clarified that I was specifically referring only to the painting that Floyd was so disturbed (terrified?) by. I just thought it was reasonable that he have a right to comment on it - dumb as it was. That's all.

I see.  That makes sense.  I think that commenting on an image Floyd finds disturbing is somewhat different from what he actually did - which was to use the rant to present a very tired, very uninspiring, very unimpressive version of Pascal's Wager.

Only an idiot can be brought to Christ via the Wager.

Date: 2009/10/17 16:10:24, Link
Author: Constant Mews
Quote (deadman_932 @ Oct. 17 2009,16:00)
Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 17 2009,11:00)
No, the point is that some of you are hypocrites who traffic in double standards.  Are you one of them?

Lou's post was a brief joke, not unlike your life, Floyd. Posting an obviously over-the-top photoshopped image is hardly comparable, especially when Lou wasn't asked not to preach or proselytize -- and didn't do that anyway.

You, on the other hand, were asked not to, and you agreed. Then you take what is an obvious attempt at humor and your drug-addled brain turned that into an immediate opportunity to break your word.

There's a pattern there, Floyd. As soon as you see the opportunity to break your word, you do it, if it suits your purposes.

THEN you launch into your   " You're going to die and MY god is going to torture you for eternity for mere doubt" bullshit -- which makes your god look insane, evil, selfish, childish, insecure and petty.

You think an all-loving god thinks as evilly as you? I prefer to think that the Bible is completely wrong than to believe the existence of such an ugly little god as your hallucinogen-inspired tiny reptilian brain vomited up.

Let me be clear, Floyd: Your god is essentially toxic.

Your god is the god of punishment and damnation for mere disbelief, the god that slaughters Amalekite and Amorite babies by the sword and can't manage to save them, but can magic up the fake appearance of age in the universe. Your God orders those CHILDREN that cannot themselves have done any evil (being unable to hold swords and fight at the time) to die, because YOUR god is more interested in punishing and torture by sword and fire.

Your god apparently divides its attentions between overseeing the entire universe at all times in all dimensions for every living creature everywhere, and giving a crap about whiny fundamentalist Christian zealots and their poisonous power-mongering ideas.

Your god takes sides. Your god favors ass-sucking sycophantic idiots that bleat their love while cursing anyone that doesn't think JUST like them.

Believing in God should not make you dumb. believing in divine power should not make you a blind lockstep zealot drone, bowing and kneeling and feeling unworthy and sinful and dirty. Belief should not make you need to lie, twist, conceal and pervert.  

Your god is the god of lies, and bears no resemblance to an honorable Christian god.

But it is that very image of God - a false idol in Christian terminology - that appeals to Floyd's narrow, intellectually limited, authority-craving mindset.

It is why I pray for him.

Date: 2009/10/22 17:39:59, Link
Author: Constant Mews
Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 19 2009,10:25)
CM:  do you remember bringing up the Nicene Creed?
       
Quote
We believe in one God the Father Almighty,

Maker of heaven and earth, (Genesis 1: 1)  

and of all things visible and invisible. (Colossians 1: 15-16.)


And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of God, begotten of the Father before all worlds, God of God, Light of Light, Very God of Very God, begotten, not made, being of one substance with the Father

by whom all things were made (Hebrews 1: 1-2) ;

who for us men, and for our salvation, came down from heaven, and was incarnate by the Holy Spirit of the Virgin Mary, and was made man, and was crucified also for us under Pontius Pilate. He suffered and was buried, and the third day he rose again according to the Scriptures, and ascended into heaven, and sitteth on the right hand of the Father. And he shall come again with glory to judge both the quick and the dead, whose kingdom shall have no end.

And we believe in the Holy Spirit,

the Lord and Giver of Life (Genesis 1:2) ,

who proceedeth from the Father and the Son, who with the Father and the Son together is worshipped and glorified, who spoke by the prophets. And we believe one holy catholic and apostolic Church. We acknowledge one baptism for the remission of sins. And we look for the resurrection of the dead, and the life of the world to come. Amen.

**********************

Two questions, CM:

(1)  Do you believe the Nicene Creed is literally true in its entirety?

(2)  The highlighted portions bring up the First Incompatibility.  They point out that God is the Required Explanation for cosmological and biological origins.   They very sharply clash with evolution, which denies that God is the Required Explanation.  
So how do you resolve the incompatibility between evolution and the Nicene Creed?

Of course I remember bringing up the creed.  It is, perhaps the single most universe statement of what it means to be Christian.

And nothing in it contradicts or conflicts with the theory of evolution.

Absolutely nothing.

Because nothing in the theory of evolution denies that God may be the Ultimate Cause.  Nothing.

You cannot show, prove, or demonstrate otherwise.

Once again, you are refuted.

I am praying for you; you truly need God's help and mercy.

Date: 2009/10/22 17:41:20, Link
Author: Constant Mews
To add clarity, Floyd - you will note that the Creed says nothing about how God creates.  Nothing.  Nor does the theory of evolution explicitly exclude God.

Game, set, and match, I'm afraid.

Date: 2009/10/23 00:09:01, Link
Author: Constant Mews
Quote (silverspoon @ Oct. 22 2009,17:58)
Let's at least make the Beelzebub imagery pleasurable for Floyd.


Rather reminds me of my ex-wife.  As I recall, though, mine carried a larger trident.

Date: 2009/10/23 12:58:58, Link
Author: Constant Mews
Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 23 2009,09:28)
Quote
How a finite and imperfect being can actually "know" a supposedly infinite and perfect being is beyond me.  Personally, I think that is the height of arrogance and hubris.

Hmmm.  Suppose I mentioned to you that you're actually insulting God Himself by what you said there.
 
Quote
Jeremiah 24:7 NKJV)

[b]"Then I will give them a heart to know Me, that I am the LORD; and they shall be My people, and I will be their God, for they shall return to Me with their whole heart."

God Himself is the one making the offer to humans to get to know him.  Offer is open to you too, like all of us.

He didn't say you had to personally understand all the mechanics of the deal first.  He's just making the offer and if you give Him permission, (honestly and sincerely give Him permission, and don't take it back), then He can go to work on enabling you to know Him.

Actually, you're the one committing a sin here, Floyd, by claiming to know the mind of God.

Date: 2009/10/23 13:00:12, Link
Author: Constant Mews
Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 23 2009,08:56)
Okay, back again.  Mostly working on the items previously stated.

 
Quote
Those theories of evolution that are not based on absolute materialism are completely compatible with evolution.

And which textbook-taught, classroom-taught, theories of evolution would these be?  Please specify.  

Meanwhile, here's the real deal:

"Solely materialistically." -- Ernst Mayr, SciAm
"Purely materialistic." -- Douglas Futuyma, EB3
"Completely mindless process." -- EB3

Floyd, would you like me to actually quote Futuyma from EB3?  You're not going to like it, since it refutes you.  And you've relied pretty heavily on quotes from folks like Futuyma.

Date: 2009/10/23 13:02:37, Link
Author: Constant Mews
Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 23 2009,10:01)
Quote
Evangilism = Fail

And what about you Ogre?  You used to know God.  Or you talk as if you once maybe did somehow, way way back in a dim dark past.

What happened, exactly?  Wasn't me that started you doubting God and hating God, that's for sure.   What exactly was going on back in those younger years?

Or was it, ummm, something about EVOLUTION that started greasing the slide down and away from God?

Unanswered questions.  Whatever the answers, they must have been quite severe, to have gotten you to his point.

Evolutionary theory has lead me to a greater appreciation of the glory and majesty of God.

I am your worst nightmare, Floyd.  According to you, I cannot exist.

And yet merely by existing, by being an intelligent, educated Christian who accepts Christ as my saviour, and also accepts evolutionary theory and sees no conflicts between these two I prove you wrong.

Date: 2009/10/23 13:11:34, Link
Author: Constant Mews
Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 23 2009,11:03)
Quote
You were supposed to convince us that the Chrisitanity and Science were incompatible.

Nope.  The thread topic is "Evolution is Incompatible with Christianity."  

The thread topic was repeated multiple times on multiple pages.  You know that's the topic.

The scientific method is compatible with Christianity.  However, evolution is NOT compatible with Christianity.

No matter how many times you repeat this lie Floyd, and it is a lie, you will never make it true.

I accept Christ as my saviour, and I accept evolutionary theory.  There are no incompatibilities between Christianity and evolutionary theory.

And since I know a great deal more than you do about Christianity and evolutionary theory, I don't think your continual lie is likely to make much headway, now is it?

Date: 2009/10/23 13:13:27, Link
Author: Constant Mews
Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 23 2009,12:28)
Quote
....unless you are saying that that the ToE is incompatible with or isn't based on the use of the SM

There would be no Big Five Incompatibilities if you guys had just stuck with the scientific method WRT the ToE and left off all that negative materialism-religion baggage.

Since none of that is in the theory itself, your point is moot.

You accept then, that there are no incompatibilities based your own definition of evolution?  Good.

Date: 2009/10/23 13:14:43, Link
Author: Constant Mews
Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 23 2009,12:49)
Ogre, I'm putting off doing the Perspective so that you can give me any specific questions you want answered that I didn't previously answer in your view.  The offer won't be here long.

There are several dozen unanswered questions for you, Floyd.  Any one of which is likely to prove, once again, that you are wrong.

Date: 2009/10/23 16:01:47, Link
Author: Constant Mews
Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 23 2009,15:47)
Quote
Actually, you're the one committing a sin here, Floyd, by claiming to know the mind of God.

Well, CM, now that you're back, let's delay doing the "Perspective" long enough for you and I to talk a bit.

You say you've accepted Jesus Christ as your Savior (hey that's good!!),
and Ogre says he doesn't mind having you for a neighbor (also good!).

At any rate, you're a professing Christian who says it's a sin to claim to know the mind of God.  But that particular claim is wrong because of this New Testamant verse:
 
Quote
For who hath known the mind of the Lord, that he may instruct him? But we have the mind of Christ.  
(1 Cor. 2:16).

David Guzik explains (at Blueletterbible.org):
 
Quote
"Who has known the mind of the Lord":
Isaiah 40:13 refers to the mind of Yahweh (translated here as Lord); but Paul has no trouble inserting 'mind of Christ' for 'mind of the Lord', because Jesus is Yahweh!

So please tell me again exactly how it's supposed to be a sin for a Christian to have the mind of God!

Start with 1st Corinthians..  Or Romans. What a fool you are, Floyd, trying to argue with me on theology.  

Where are the answers to my other questions, Floyd?  It's time for you to start behaving like a Christian and treat others as you would be treated.  When you've answered my questions, I'll start answering yours.

I am your nightmare, Floyd.  I've shown that the Nicene Creed is compatible with evolutionary theory.  I've proved that your "incompatibles" are false.  I've proved your ignorance of the Bible.

Time to quit, Floyd.  I see that you are trying to run away again, like the coward that you are, without actually answering any questions.

Date: 2009/10/23 16:03:11, Link
Author: Constant Mews
Quote (FrankH @ Oct. 23 2009,15:58)
Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 23 2009,15:47)
So please tell me again exactly how it's supposed to be a sin for a Christian to have the mind of God!

Here's your answer Floyd:

It's called Pride.  There is "knowing about" and "knowing intimately".  I know about my Great Grandparents.  I do not know them intimately.

I can tell you general things about my great grandparents.  It would be a lie for me to tell you I know what they are really like, how they would react, what their secrets were.  Hell, I know my daughters really well, but I can't even answer those questions about them.

Then compare that to your dead sure idea that you are so very "intimately familiar with god" that you know how we should act.  People can't ever say for certainty how others should act around others but you're so damn sure you know the way to some god's, your god it seems, eaven by acting a certain way.

Your sin is Pride.

Floyd is also guilty of several violations of the Commandments.  

All the odds are, without repentance, he will burn.

Date: 2009/10/23 16:10:09, Link
Author: Constant Mews
Here's some food for thought for Floyd.

Douglas Futuyma:
Quote
Evolution, and all the rest of science, cannot be reconciled with a literal interpretation of such biblical passages--but doet that deny the existence of a supernatural power or powers, of spiritual reality, of God and a human soul?  On these questions, science, including evolutionary biology is silent.


Note: the biblical passages he references are in Joshua and Genesis.

Game, set, and match, Floyd.  Even Futuyma doesn't support you - when you stop quote-mining him, that is.

Date: 2009/10/23 16:20:14, Link
Author: Constant Mews
Quote
By it's very nature, science can entertain and investigate only hypotheses about material causes that operate with at least probabilistic regularity.  It cannot test hypotheses of supernatural intervention--miracles--nor of the existence of immaterial beings.


Douglas Futuyma

Date: 2009/10/23 16:21:29, Link
Author: Constant Mews
Quote
The steady expansion of the sciences, to be sure, has left less and less to be explained by a supernatural Creator, but science neither can deny, nor affirm, such a being.


Douglas Futuyma

Date: 2009/10/23 16:23:21, Link
Author: Constant Mews
Quote
The story of how Adam and Eve knew shame and sin when they ate the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil symbolically tells a truth, for there can be neither good nor evil, nor sin, unless is knowledge, consciousness, self-reflection.  But it is a symbolic truth, not a history of literal events.


Douglas Futuyma

Date: 2009/10/23 16:25:36, Link
Author: Constant Mews
Floyd, as I showed earlier, the Nicene Creed - the most fundamental statement of Christian belief - is completely compatible with evolutionary theory.

Game, set, and match.

We all see that you are preparing to abandon this line of discussion because you have been proved wrong.  But remember: the shame and embarrassment you feel for your cowardness will pursue you to the grave.

And quite possibly beyond.

I shall pray for you - you are truly in need of grace.

Date: 2009/10/23 16:29:08, Link
Author: Constant Mews
Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 23 2009,16:24)
Quote
Then compare that to your dead sure idea that you are so very "intimately familiar with god" that you know how we should act.

Ummm, keep in mind Frank that YOU GUYS are the ones who brought up this "having the mind of God" thing.  I never did.  And I haven't said much about "how you should act".  (Maybe your own conscience is starting to wear on you??)

And only after you starting claiming that having the mind of God was a SIN, did I offer you 1 Cor 2:16 in order to challenge that claim.

Unsurprisingly, you didn't say a single word about the Bible text itself.  You just blew right over it and ignored it.
Question is, "Why?"

Perhaps you should try reading the posts, Floyd.  We realize that you avoid answering because you cannot; we realize that you refuse to read certain posts because they show you to be a liar and a fool.

We know these things about you Floyd.  But you know nothing of us.  Except this:

I am your worst nightmare.  I am an intelligent, educated Christian - far more knowledgeable than you about the Bible and Christianity - who accepts the theory of evolution - again something about which I know far more than you.

Your opinions are worthless; your examples disproved; your citations quote-mines; your knowledge of evolution utterly lacking.

I pray for you, Floyd - you are need of grace.

Date: 2009/10/23 17:07:20, Link
Author: Constant Mews
Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 23 2009,16:31)
Quote
Start with 1st Corinthians..  Or Romans. What a fool you are, Floyd, trying to argue with me on theology.

Ummmm, CM. check that verse again---that IS 1 Corinthians.

And don't ignore it this time.  Please address it and engage it CM.

Answer my questions, and I'll show you where in Corinthians to look, Floyd.

Be honest, for a change.

Date: 2009/10/23 17:07:42, Link
Author: Constant Mews
Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 23 2009,16:34)
Quote
"I am an intelligent, educated Christian - far more knowledgeable than you about the Bible and Christianity - who accepts the theory of evolution - again something about which I know far more than you."

Ummm, remind me again about that "Pride" sin, please?

It's not pride.  It's provable from this thread.

Date: 2009/10/23 17:08:09, Link
Author: Constant Mews
Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 23 2009,16:40)
Please go ahead and address 1 Cor. 2:16 at this time CM.

Answer our questions, Floyd.  Stop lying and delaying.  Then I'll answer yours.

Date: 2009/10/23 21:03:10, Link
Author: Constant Mews
Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 23 2009,17:46)
Quote
Do you or do you not think you know what your god requires as to get into heaven or not?

Yes I do.  It's written down in the Bible, straight forward.  John 3:16.  Revelation 3:20.  Romans 10:9-10.  

And I would bet anything that you've seen or heard those salvation verses before.   IOW, even you, as a Non-Christian, knows exactly what God requires to get into heaven.  

You reject God and treat Him like a dog, but you still know what He's looking for.  He's lookin' for YOU, dude!!  Why not let down your defenses and give Him a try?

******
 
Quote
Do you or do you not say that your god is for "X, y and z" and against "a,b and c"?

Sure I say that, because the Bible says that.  All actions do not please God and all roads do not lead to God.  You and I have choices to make.  In the Bible, God specifies which way to go.
 
Quote
Come now, and let us reason together, says the Lord. Though your sins are like scarlet, they shall be as white as snow; though they are red like crimson, they shall be like wool.  (Isa. 1:18)

******
 
Quote
Do you or do you not believe that the Bible is the unfettered and unfiltered word of god?

Yes I do believe that.  In fact, Jesus Christ said it is the unbreakable word of God (John 10:35).  

Don't you allow anybody -- whether they call themselves Christian or non-Christian -- to sell you on any lesser view of the Bible.  If a person wants to follow Christ, then let them follow Christ's complete and total trust in the authority, reliability and perfection of Scripture.

******
 
Quote
Do you or do you not believe that that you know what your god wants, completely, by reading the bible?

Yes.  And you know what God wants too, if you read the Bible.  But it's not just by reading.  As you can tell just from this thread alone, readin' the Bible ain't the same as believin' the Bible.  If you want to know what God wants, readin's a great first step, but then there's that issue of saying YES or NO to what you're reading.

Evolutionists keep on demanding that you say NO to God's clear word in Genesis.  Trouble is, a NO in that spot rationally opens the door to saying to NO in other spots.  
And ultimately, when one's faith gets all spotted up with disbelief, some folks end up saying NO to God, period.  

Then they go to HELL.  All alone.  (Except for their new little malformed pointy-eared friends.  You know, the ones with the sharp teeth and stinky breath who can't stop laughing at you while munching on your intestines.)

The solution is to read the Bible and say YES to what God is telling you in that Bible.  Stop saying NO to John 3:16 and other salvation verses.  Stop saying STFU to Jesus when He's pleading with you to just let him in the door (Rev. 3:20).   (Yeah, you!).

Floyd Lee

I have accepted Christ; I have faith in God. I am a Christian.

And I accept evolutionary theory.

According to you, Floyd, I cannot exist. And yet I do. I am living and irrefutable proof that you are wrong. Found the RIGHT passage of Corinthians yet, Floyd? Need help?

Date: 2009/10/23 21:20:17, Link
Author: Constant Mews
Quote (Quack @ Oct. 23 2009,16:30)
A word of comfort before he withdraws to his ivory tower; maybe it isn't so much about lying as it is just another case of     
Quote
Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do.

You are civil to try to excuse him, but Floyd is well-aware that he is lying.  I wonder at his willingness to commit such sin, given his terror of damnation and hellfire.

Date: 2009/10/23 21:34:46, Link
Author: Constant Mews
So Floyd-you are going to point to Christains who accept evolution and claim that shows Christianity and evolution are incompatible?

Wouldn't that be rather stupid, Floyd?

How can you explain nmgirl and myself for example?

We are Christians who accept evolution. We prove you wrong.

Date: 2009/10/23 21:48:48, Link
Author: Constant Mews
Let's see. This thread has shown that no incompatibilities exist between Christian doctrine and evolutionary theory.

We have seen by Floyd's citations that Christians who accept evolution form the overwhelming majority of Christians.

We have seen Floyd commit multiple sins to match his ignorance of the Bible.

Did I miss anything?

Date: 2009/10/24 09:52:47, Link
Author: Constant Mews
If he continues this discussion, he breaks his word. If he ignores it, he's dishonest.  In either case he is unable to establish his case.

I'm not sure which is worse: his dishonesty or his incompetence.

Date: 2009/10/24 19:33:49, Link
Author: Constant Mews
Quote (OgreMkV @ Oct. 24 2009,12:10)
I'm actually very curious about his behavior.

Does Floyd really think it's OK to lie, if he's lying for Jesus?
Does Floyd really think that it's OK to take people's statements out of context?  He's get bent out of shape if we do it, so he must know.
Does Floyd really think that his version of Christianity is really the way it should be?

My guess is yes, he thinks it's ok to lie for Christ. He's wrong, of course, but his fear of hell is characteristic.

Date: 2009/10/24 21:41:13, Link
Author: Constant Mews
It remains Floyd's critical problem. He cannot explain how Christians such as us exist. According to him we are impossible. Yet here we are.

Date: 2009/10/25 00:06:54, Link
Author: Constant Mews
Quote (OgreMkV @ Oct. 24 2009,22:24)
He has 1.5 hours left and then he misses both of his own self-imposed deadlines.

Lazy, incompetent, or scared.

The last. We've seen his fear on very public display in this thread.

Date: 2009/10/25 02:22:11, Link
Author: Constant Mews
And so Floyd once again misses his own self-set deadlines.  He has failed to establish the incompatibility of Christianity and evolutionary theory; he cannot use this thread to make his claim since it includes at least 3 Christians who accept evolution.  His own quotes show that Catholics - one billion or so Christians - accept evolution, as do most of the mainstream Christian sects in America.

So Floyd has spent his time in vain, but established in the process that he is a liar, ignorant of Christian doctrine and of evolutionary theory, and a coward terrified beyond words of hell-fire.

Have I missed anything?

Date: 2009/10/25 10:35:16, Link
Author: Constant Mews
Quote (Erasmus, FCD @ Oct. 25 2009,10:15)
Quote (Constant Mews @ Oct. 25 2009,03:22)
And so Floyd once again misses his own self-set deadlines.  He has failed to establish the incompatibility of Christianity and evolutionary theory; he cannot use this thread to make his claim since it includes at least 3 Christians who accept evolution.  His own quotes show that Catholics - one billion or so Christians - accept evolution, as do most of the mainstream Christian sects in America.

So Floyd has spent his time in vain, but established in the process that he is a liar, ignorant of Christian doctrine and of evolutionary theory, and a coward terrified beyond words of hell-fire.

Have I missed anything?

that sums it up but i would be glad if he would just simply answer my question.  I'm genuinely curious.

He will never answer it. He's too scared.

Date: 2009/10/25 10:40:44, Link
Author: Constant Mews
Though I also admit, I'm not sure he even understands the question; or why his "attempt" at an answer was so inappropriate.  His thinking appears quite muddled.

Date: 2009/10/25 13:17:52, Link
Author: Constant Mews
Quote (Keelyn @ Oct. 25 2009,12:44)
Well, Floyd won't be here to "debate" today - it's Fundie Sunday.

Hasn't he posted on Sunday before?

Date: 2009/10/26 16:34:45, Link
Author: Constant Mews
Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 26 2009,14:01)
Quote
There exist Christians who hold that evolution occurred.

Evolutionist Rosenhouse answered this one. Does there exist a sound basis for them holding that opinion?  If not, simply saying "they hold that opinion" won't work.

We have excellent and quite sound reasons for holding that Christian doctrine and evolutionary theory are compatible.  I've already shown them to you.

As an example: the Nicene Creed, the most fundamental statement of Christian belief says nothing about Genesis or a literal interpretation of the entire bible.

Nothing.

You have chosen to ignore the work of God in favor of the work of Man.  Bad choice, Floyd - from the point of you of your eventual destination.

Date: 2009/10/26 16:35:27, Link
Author: Constant Mews
Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 26 2009,14:07)
Quote
69 pages of posts and FL's only proof is a literal interpretation of genesis.

Much much earlier, I asked all other professing Christians here in the forum to supply their own, "non-literal" interpretations for rational examination/comparison regarding this incompatibility topic.

They all punted.  All of them.

Liar.

Your points have been dealt with - at least three times.  You ignored every one of them.

Liar.

Date: 2009/10/26 16:40:23, Link
Author: Constant Mews
It is sad to note that Floyd's sole rejoinder, after all this time, is merely to lie about the content of this thread.  His attempt to conflate biblical literalism with Christianity is unsupported by the overwhelming majority of Christians.  His questions have been answered in this thread multiple times.

His only recourse is to lie.  And lie badly.  After all, Floyd, anyone who wishes to can examine this thread and demonstrate precisely where your questions have been answered, and recognize that you are lying.

Liars go to hell, Floyd.  Keep that in mind.

Date: 2009/10/26 16:41:35, Link
Author: Constant Mews
Remember Floyd -

Liars go to hell

You have lied numerous times in this thread, and that is what you're doing now.

Date: 2009/10/26 16:52:37, Link
Author: Constant Mews
Floyd attempted to make his point by - once again, quote-mining:
Quote
Evolutionist Rosenhouse answered this one.  Does there exist a sound basis for them holding that opinion?  If not, simply saying "they hold that opinion" won't work.


There are sound and well-supported reasons for accepting evolutionary theory and believing in Christian doctrine (well, maybe not so much the latter).

So Rosenhouse didn't answer this one.  He posed a challenge.  I've already answered it for you at least three times on this very thread.

Liar.

Liars go to hell, Floyd.

Think about that.

Date: 2009/10/26 16:57:40, Link
Author: Constant Mews
What I find rather sad about this whole thing is that Floyd has now produced a solid, well-established document that confirms a number of points:

1. Floyd is ignorant of evolutionary theory.

2. Floyd is ignorant of Christian doctrine.

3. Floyd is dishonest.

4. Floyd is incapable of presenting an argument, let alone a rebuttal.

5. Floyd is a coward.

I certainly wouldn't want such a document forever captured on the internet for anyone who bothers to look up Floyd's past behavior to be available if I were the one indicted.

Floyd, sound reasons for supporting both evolutionary theory and it's compatibility with Christian doctrine have been provided.

You are lying if you claim otherwise.

Date: 2009/10/26 17:06:49, Link
Author: Constant Mews
Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 26 2009,17:01)
Quote
As an example: the Nicene Creed, the most fundamental statement of Christian belief says nothing about Genesis or a literal interpretation of the entire bible.

But the Nicene creed DID directly affirm the Genesis historical claim that God is the required, absolutely necessary explanation for (1) the origins of everything including the origins of plants ,animals, and humans, (2) the origin of life itself.
 
Quote
Maker of heaven and earth, and of all things visible and invisible.

 
Quote
And we believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord and Giver of Life

Of course it did.  It never said evolution wasn't the mechanism.  You really show no understanding of Christian theology, Floyd.

You're a liar, Floyd.  You've been shown wrong on this thread, and now you choose to lie about it.

Hell is for liars, Floyd.  Keep that in mind.

Date: 2009/10/26 17:22:58, Link
Author: Constant Mews
Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 26 2009,17:02)
And of course, the Nicene Creed does NOT affirm evolution in any way, shape, or form.

The Nicene creed was written before the theory of evolution was postulated.

Why are you being so stupid, Floyd?

The Nicene creed, the most basic statement of Christian faith does not commit Christians to a literal view of Genesis.

That's the simple fact you can't get over.  You can't get around it.  You can do nothing but lie about it.

Date: 2009/10/26 17:24:17, Link
Author: Constant Mews
Let me repeat that, since it's important.

The Nicene creed, the most fundamental and common statement of Christian doctrine, does not commit Christians to a literal reading of Genesis.

Period.

Date: 2009/10/26 20:10:18, Link
Author: Constant Mews
I'm sorry I missed this incredible piece of rank stupidity.

Quote
This perspective helps to make absolutely clear that evolution is incompatible with Christianity.  (And make no mistake---the Incompatibility does NOT go away merely by anybody claiming that evolution is correct and Bible is incorrect!!)


Since you've based your entire case on conflict between your literal reading of the Bible and evolutionary theory, to claim that the Bible is incorrect completely resolves the problem.

You need to use some logic when you post, Floyd.

I will pray for you, you need the Grace of God to rescue you.

Date: 2009/10/26 20:13:07, Link
Author: Constant Mews
Quote (Dan @ Oct. 26 2009,20:04)
Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 26 2009,17:02)
And of course, the Nicene Creed does NOT affirm evolution in any way, shape, or form.

And, of course, no one ever said it did.

Let's see:

Nicene Creed promulgated in the 4th century.

Evolutionary theory promulgated in the 19th century.

Floyd, how stupid are you?  That's a serious question; I am becoming concerned with your inability to reason.

Date: 2009/10/26 22:25:59, Link
Author: Constant Mews
America's political system - from the point of view of a relative outsider - is fascinating.  Jefferson and Madison hit upon an interesting combination of factors to prevent the execution of power by the governors, but they utilized a system of selecting those governors apparently based on emotional appeal to the masses, rather than intelligence.

Date: 2009/10/27 08:33:17, Link
Author: Constant Mews
Quite correct.  Floyd is doing what he has been doing since the very first: engaging in the "No True Scotsman" fallacy.

Floyd is trying to define who is Christian and who is not.

This is a sin.

Floyd will burn forever in hell for sinning.

The logic is, I'm sorry to say, unassailable.  This thread demonstrates that Floyd is damned.

That's why I pray for him - that God's Grace may yet rescue him.

Date: 2009/10/27 08:44:12, Link
Author: Constant Mews
Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 26 2009,14:50)
Quote
Much much earlier, I asked all other professing Christians here in the forum to supply their own, "non-literal" interpretations for rational examination/comparison regarding this incompatibility topic.
They all punted.  All of them.

 
Quote
What color is the sky on your planet, Floyd?

And what was your specific, alternative, non-literal, biblically supportable, evolution-compatible interpretation?

.....Oh wait a minute, you didn't supply one either.  Nobody did.

Merely pointing out this lie on Floyd's part.

Floyd, Genesis 1-11 is, at best, metaphorical truth explaining the concept of Original Sin.  Even Futuyma admits that.

You can publish your "summary" as you like; we will demonstrate that it is full of lies, distortions, and illogic.

I know that you are beyond any hope save prayer - only the direct intervention of God can save you from the darkness and sin in which you are currently wallowing - but no one else reading this thread, Christian or atheist alike, will understanding anything from it save that you are utterly ignorant of both Christian doctrine and evolutionary theory, and your opinions are therefore valueless.

Date: 2009/10/27 10:07:23, Link
Author: Constant Mews
Quote (FrankH @ Oct. 27 2009,09:05)
Quote (deadman_932 @ Oct. 26 2009,17:01)

I wonder why Flody didn't share this bit, from the poll he cited.

I have a problem with the word "believe".

Like "Theory" in the wrong hands, as there are multiple meanings and some of them are very close, one can be easily tripped up into having their "belief" in the sun appearing to rise up from the East to be a statement of faith.

I don't "believe" the sun will appear to rise up in the East.  I THINK that with the absence of some most likely catastrophic event, the Earth will continue to rotate in a clockwise fashion when looking from a north to south perspective.

Likewise, I THINK that Evolution is the best at predicting the diversity of life here on Earth, etc, etc.

I suspect Floyd is unable to distinguish between "accepting" a theory and "believing" a theory.

Date: 2009/10/27 14:08:40, Link
Author: Constant Mews
Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 27 2009,10:47)
Quote
Floyd, Genesis 1-11 is, at best, metaphorical truth explaining the concept of Original Sin.  Even Futuyma admits that.

Thanks CM.  If Futuyma is saying that, he would be saying that on the basis of evolution, unless you have a biblical analysis from Futuyma to offer me.

Assuming you don't, then the only rational conclusion is that Evolution is Incompatible with Christianity, since Genesis 1-3 and 1-11 aren't metaphor at all.  

Those chapters are straight historical narrative and intended by the biblical writer to be taken that way, regardless of whether or not one agrees with the historical claims therein.  
Scholar James Barr (who was NOT a fundie and didn't personally believe Genesis himself) wrote:
     
Quote
"... probably, so far as I know, there is no professor of Hebrew or Old Testament at any world-class university who does not believe that the writer(s) of Genesis 1-11 intended to convey to their readers the ideas that:

1. creation took place in a series of six days which were the same as the days of 24 hours we now experience

2. the figures contained in the Genesis genealogies provided by simple addition a chronology from the beginning of the world up to later stages in the biblical story

3. Noah's flood was understood to be world-wide and extinguish all human and animal life except for those in the ark."

(In a letter to David C.C. Watson, 23 April 1984).  

So nope, Genesis 1-11 is NOT metaphor NOT allegory NOT non-historical.  You can disagree with what it says, but you cannot rewrite it to make it fit evolution.

I believe I've already quoted Futuyma on this point.  If you are unable to read, please let me know and I'll include it as an MP3 file.

And of course Genesis 1-11 can be treated as metaphor.  That's the point: Christianity does not require a literal reading of Genesis.  It's really that simple.

As always, Floyd, you are wrong.  Your simple inability to reason is getting in your way, I'm afraid.

And once again you use a quote that does not substantiate your case.  That the original authors of Genesis might have meant what they wrote is at best doubtful, that they are correct is impossible, and that one does not have to accept literal Genesis to be a Christian is a certainty.

You are, as they say, Pawned, Floyd.

Date: 2009/10/27 14:11:34, Link
Author: Constant Mews
Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 27 2009,12:30)
Quote
Yet another appeal to authority.

Hey, if you want to go directly to the Genesis biblical text itself, and CONFIRM that Gen. 1-11 were written as straight historical narrative, we can do that together.  

Or If you want to go to other Old Testament texts and confirm that the OT writers considered Genesis to be straight historical narrative, we can do that together.  

Or if you want to go to the NEW Testament and confirm that the NT writers (and Jesus too) considered Genesis to be straight historical narrative, we can do that too.

Which one you wanna do Frank?

You cannot confirm that Genesis is a straight historical text from the text itself.  That is impossible.

What the authors intended and what other readers of the Bible thought DOES NOT CONSTITUTE PROOF THAT GENESIS 1-11 IS TRUE.

Let me repeat that for you Floyd.  God uses metaphors elsewhere in the Bible without explicitly designating them as such.  Genesis 1-11 is contradicted by all the evidence of the World itself - the direct work of God.

Are you calling God a liar?

Date: 2009/10/27 14:13:22, Link
Author: Constant Mews
Quote (SLP @ Oct. 27 2009,13:31)
Luke 14:26

Floyd seems to be following this injunction quite well.  Perhaps the only words of Christ that he's following well.

Date: 2009/10/27 14:14:48, Link
Author: Constant Mews
Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 27 2009,12:30)
Quote
Yet another appeal to authority.

Hey, if you want to go directly to the Genesis biblical text itself, and CONFIRM that Gen. 1-11 were written as straight historical narrative, we can do that together.  

Or If you want to go to other Old Testament texts and confirm that the OT writers considered Genesis to be straight historical narrative, we can do that together.  

Or if you want to go to the NEW Testament and confirm that the NT writers (and Jesus too) considered Genesis to be straight historical narrative, we can do that too.

Which one you wanna do Frank?

Of course we can go here, Floyd.

You will look like an idiot when we do, but we can certainly do it if it will make you feel better.

Date: 2009/10/27 14:19:02, Link
Author: Constant Mews
Floyd, would you also like to go to Job 9:6?  Or Psalms 75:3, or perhaps I Samuel 2:8?

Date: 2009/10/27 14:28:55, Link
Author: Constant Mews
Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 27 2009,14:27)
Quote
What the authors intended and what other readers of the Bible thought DOES NOT CONSTITUTE PROOF THAT GENESIS 1-11 IS TRUE.

Not talking about "proving Genesi" true in this case, I'm talking about being able to confirm what the author of Genesis intended (historical narrative.)  

THAT, you can check the Scripture textually and contextually, and confirm.  Would you like to?

What bearing does that have on Christianity and evolution, Floyd?

Backpedaling, are we?

Date: 2009/10/27 15:29:01, Link
Author: Constant Mews
Floyd, this is your claim:
Quote
So nope, Genesis 1-11 is NOT metaphor NOT allegory NOT non-historical.  You can disagree with what it says, but you cannot rewrite it to make it fit evolution.


You cannot prove this from the Bible; it is completely impossible to do.  More importantly, what possible bearing does:

Quote
Not talking about "proving Genesi" true in this case, I'm talking about being able to confirm what the author of Genesis intended (historical narrative.)


have to do with what you asserted?

It's not relevant what the authors thought; you have to prove that Genesis is a historical account in order to demonstrate any "incompatibility" with evolutionary theory.

Date: 2009/10/27 15:29:45, Link
Author: Constant Mews
Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 27 2009,15:26)
Quote
Yes.

"Yes" is the correct answer, btw.  There's only one creation account.  And it's complementary, not contradictory.  Chapter 2 holds up a magnifying glass on Chapter 1 and explains more about the origin of humans and also their relationship with their Creator.

And actually, you've got no ability to prove that, either.

Apparently your understanding of the Bible was begat in Sunday school and has never advanced.

Date: 2009/10/27 15:35:55, Link
Author: Constant Mews
Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 27 2009,15:33)
Quote
We do not know who the writers of Genesis were, much less what they intended.

Yes we do.  We know it's Moses, because Jesus said so (and you've read the NT already so you know that), and that's on top of a ton of internal evidence.  We know it's intended as historical narrative, we can confirm both text and context on it, and from both Testaments as well.

What does it matter what it was intended for, Floyd?  In order to show that there exists an actual conflict with evolutionary theory, you will have to show that it is historical narrative.

And you can't.  Nor is the internal evidence conclusive; in fact it's pretty poor.

As I said - you seem to have learned what little you know of the Bible in Sunday school and haven't progressed much beyond that stage.

Date: 2009/10/27 15:40:40, Link
Author: Constant Mews
Quote (FrankH @ Oct. 27 2009,15:39)
Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 27 2009,15:33)
Quote
We do not know who the writers of Genesis were, much less what they intended.
Yes we do.  We know it's Moses, because Jesus said so (and you've read the NT already so you know that), and that's on top of a ton of internal evidence.  We know it's intended as historical narrative, we can confirm both text and context on it, and from both Testaments as well.

Does the concept of "circular reasoning" mean anything to you Floyd?  You know many other religions use their "holy writ" to back up their "holy writ" don't you?  Again, why are they wrong and you right?

What evidence do you have that Jesus existed?

Let's try to stay out of that box.  It will distract Floyd from all his other failures.

Date: 2009/10/27 15:45:23, Link
Author: Constant Mews
We have finally, after some seventy pages, reached the crux of the matter for Floyd - the actual argument he's been trying to make.  I will present in a simple fashion, since he clearly has trouble with complex logic.

If Christians are required to regard Genesis 1-11 as literal truth, then there exists an incompatibility between Christian doctrine and evolutionary theory.

That's it; that's his entire argument.

But the fundamental truth that Floyd cannot accept, cannot cope with, and cannot understand, is that Christian doctrine does not require a literal reading of Genesis 1-11.

Date: 2009/10/27 15:46:55, Link
Author: Constant Mews
Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 27 2009,15:44)
Quote
And actually, you've got no ability to prove that, either.

Oh yes I do.  We both have the actual text of Gen 1 and Gen 2.  We can examine individual verses from both chapters and quickly mark down the "magnifying glass" connections.  Wanna do this with me CM?

Which does not prove your point, Floyd.  What part of "prove" do you have trouble understanding?  What you're offering is an explanation of a genuine textual incompatibility.  But you cannot demonstrate that your explanation is actually true.

It is not possible to prove the historical basis of Genesis using the Bible.

Impossible.  Trust me, I've studied far more exegesis than you have, Floyd.

Date: 2009/10/27 15:48:49, Link
Author: Constant Mews
Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 27 2009,15:44)
Quote
And actually, you've got no ability to prove that, either.

Oh yes I do.  We both have the actual text of Gen 1 and Gen 2.  We can examine individual verses from both chapters and quickly mark down the "magnifying glass" connections.  Wanna do this with me CM?

Certainly we can do this.  But it does not help you, Floyd.  It makes no difference to any "incompatibility" between Christianity doctrine and evolutionary theory.

Date: 2009/10/27 15:49:22, Link
Author: Constant Mews
Quote (deadman_932 @ Oct. 27 2009,15:47)
Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 27 2009,15:44)
 
Quote
And actually, you've got no ability to prove that, either.

Oh yes I do.  We both have the actual text of Gen 1 and Gen 2.  We can examine individual verses from both chapters and quickly mark down the "magnifying glass" connections.  Wanna do this with me CM?

Lol. You don't know what the word "prove" means in that context, Flody.

Proving one bit of the Bible by another bit of the Bible when both bits are demonstrably unhinged from reality is silly.

ETA: Damn,  CM, I read ur MIND!!

I wouldn't advise that; I've got confidential patient information in there.

Date: 2009/10/27 15:50:57, Link
Author: Constant Mews
This is your problem Floyd.  I'll repeat it so you don't forget it.  

We have finally, after some seventy pages, reached the crux of the matter for Floyd - the actual argument he's been trying to make.  I will present in a simple fashion, since he clearly has trouble with complex logic.

If Christians are required to regard Genesis 1-11 as literal truth, then there exists an incompatibility between Christian doctrine and evolutionary theory.

That's it; that's his entire argument.

But the fundamental truth that Floyd cannot accept, cannot cope with, and cannot understand, is that Christian doctrine does not require a literal reading of Genesis 1-11.

Date: 2009/10/27 16:34:29, Link
Author: Constant Mews
Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 27 2009,16:19)
Quote
It makes no difference to any "incompatibility" between Christianity doctrine and evolutionary theory.

The claim was that Gen 1 and Gen 2 are separate and presumably contradictory creation accounts.  You already know that.  We can examine the actual text of both chapters and see where it's complementary not contradictory......one creation account not two separates.  Yes?

1. You cannot prove your explanation is correct, which was your claim, I believe.

2. It is irrelevant to the requirement that Christians accept a literal reading of Genesis.

3. You're wrong.

Date: 2009/10/27 16:41:27, Link
Author: Constant Mews
This is your problem Floyd.  I'll repeat it so you don't forget it.  

We have finally, after some seventy pages, reached the crux of the matter for Floyd - the actual argument he's been trying to make.  I will present in a simple fashion, since he clearly has trouble with complex logic.

If Christians are required to regard Genesis 1-11 as literal truth, then there exists an incompatibility between Christian doctrine and evolutionary theory.

That's it; that's his entire argument.

But the fundamental truth that Floyd cannot accept, cannot cope with, and cannot understand, is that Christian doctrine does not require a literal reading of Genesis 1-11.

Date: 2009/10/27 17:22:27, Link
Author: Constant Mews
Yes, there are some surprisingly interesting issues related to any real understanding of Genesis; but the context in which these apparently oral traditions were committed to writing is beyond simple elucidation.

Date: 2009/10/27 17:48:42, Link
Author: Constant Mews
Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 27 2009,17:44)
Hey, there's one more item I needed to put on the table for conclude the Biblical Perspective on Biology part.  I may comment further on the Biblical Perspective thing (since you guys like to keep on commenting), but this will be the last part of the intended BP presentation.

Check this out.  Talk about incompatibility!
   
Quote
Evolution:  Sun before earth.
Genesis:  Earth before sun.

Evolution:  Dry land before sea.
Genesis:  Sea before dry land.

Evolution:  Atmosphere before sea.
Genesis:  Sea before atmosphere.

Evolution:  Sun before light on earth.
Genesis:  Light on earth before sun.

Evolution:  Stars before earth.
Genesis:  Earth before stars.

Evolution:  Earth at same time as planets.
Genesis:  Earth before other planets.

Evolution:  Sea creatures before land plants.
Genesis:  Land plants before sea creatures.

Evolution:  Earthworms before starfish.
Genesis:  Starfish before earthworms.

Evolution:  Land animals before trees.
Genesis:  Trees before land animals.

Evolution:  Death before man.
Genesis:  Man before death.

Evolution:  Thorns and thistles before man.
Genesis:  Man before thorns and thistles.

Evolution:  Cancer before man  (Edmontosaurus was found with a malignant tumor in 2003).
Genesis:  Man before cancer.

Evolution:  Reptiles before birds.
Genesis:  Birds before reptiles.

Evolution:  Dinosaurs before birds.
Genesis:  Birds before dinosaurs.

Evolution:  Insects before flowering plants.
Genesis:  Flowering plants before insects.

Evolution:  Sun before plants.
Genesis:  Plants before Sun.

--- Selected examples from Dr. Terry Mortenson's article, "The order of events matters!",  04-04-2006, AIG website

---Edmontosaurus item found at:  Biology Online
http://www.bioedonline.org/news/news.cfm?art=598 .


FloydLee

If Genesis is metaphor, this is irrelevant.

Date: 2009/10/27 18:07:41, Link
Author: Constant Mews
Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 27 2009,17:58)
Quote
In the middle of the 6th century BCE a new author sat down to improve the works of the Yahwist. This author is called the Elohist. He used the Yahwist’s works as his foundation, but made additions and deletions and reworked the text to better conform to more ‘modern’ thinking.

This is part of what is known as the Documentary Hypothesis.  Long story short, the Documentary Hypothesis is wrong.  Dead Meato.

(And just to make sure it STAYS dead, here are some extra nails for its coffin!!)

http://www.carm.org/christi....-theory

http://www.carm.org/christi....othesis

http://www.christian-thinktank.com/dochypo.html

Merely out of favour.

Date: 2009/10/27 18:10:59, Link
Author: Constant Mews
Floyd, if Genesis is metaphor, then your list is meaningless.

Don't you understand?  You either have to show that Genesis is literal truth, or you have to show that Christian doctrine requires Christians to treat Genesis as if it is literally true.

You cannot do either.  You cannot show that Genesis is historical narrative solely from the Bible itself; you cannot show that the authors of Genesis regarded it as historical narrative solely from the Bible itself; and you cannot show that Genesis is narrative truth in any event.

Your list of "conflicts" is meaningless.

Date: 2009/10/27 18:11:42, Link
Author: Constant Mews
Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 27 2009,18:05)
Quote
(And I'm being generous in allowing "death before man", "cancer before man" and "sun before plants").

As if you had a choice!   :)

But he is correct.  Your "interpretation" would require you to jettison all of modern science.

Date: 2009/10/27 19:14:08, Link
Author: Constant Mews
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Oct. 27 2009,19:12)
Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 27 2009,17:58)
 
Quote
In the middle of the 6th century BCE a new author sat down to improve the works of the Yahwist. This author is called the Elohist. He used the Yahwist’s works as his foundation, but made additions and deletions and reworked the text to better conform to more ‘modern’ thinking.

This is part of what is known as the Documentary Hypothesis.  Long story short, the Documentary Hypothesis is wrong.  Dead Meato.

(And just to make sure it STAYS dead, here are some extra nails for its coffin!!)

http://www.carm.org/christi....-theory

http://www.carm.org/christi....othesis

http://www.christian-thinktank.com/dochypo.html

The Documentary Hypothesis has garnered criticism on relying too specifically on inconsistency in redactors and consistency in sources. I see no indication that serious modern work on the linguistic analysis of the Pentateuch that would ascribe all of it to a single author, or that would identify that author as Moses. The DH in all its details may not be currently ascribed to by a preponderance of scholars, but the cat's out of the bag so far as the Pentateuch being a pastiche of different authors writing at different times.

Of the three links provided by FL, the first simply describes the DH, and the other two offer only straight-up denial as reasons to return to the earlier, simpler view of Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch.

So far as I can see, none of FL's citations actually support his case.  This is why I am beginning to wonder about some form of learning disorder; his reasoning abilities are seriously impaired.

Date: 2009/10/27 20:13:26, Link
Author: Constant Mews
Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 27 2009,15:33)
Quote
We do not know who the writers of Genesis were, much less what they intended.

Yes we do.  We know it's Moses, because Jesus said so (and you've read the NT already so you know that), and that's on top of a ton of internal evidence.  We know it's intended as historical narrative, we can confirm both text and context on it, and from both Testaments as well.

Actually, no.  Jesus does not say that Moses is the author of Genesis.

Once again, Floyd, your understanding of the Bible is shown to be limited to a child's understanding.

Date: 2009/10/27 20:26:16, Link
Author: Constant Mews
Quote (Dan @ Oct. 27 2009,20:09)
Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 are both written as "straight historical narrative".  They are inconsistent as straight historical narrative:

In Genesis 1 first animals are created by the earth, and then later men and women were created by God.  In Genesis 2 first Adam was created by God, then animals were created by God, then Eve was created by God.

FL explains this away using a contortion that would make even Bill Clinton or Dick Cheney blush: FL claims that Genesis 1 is "straight historical narrative" whereas Genesis 2 is not chronological, but dealt with things according to their importance (or somesuch).  Note that even this extraordinary contortion doesn't explain away the inconsistency that animals were created by the earth in Genesis 1, by God in Genesis 2.

How does FL know that Genesis 1 is chronological and Genesis 2 is "by order of importance"?  Both are written as straight historical narrative.  Why does FL claim that Genesis 1 must be read as "straight historical narrative" whereas Genesis 2 must not be read in this way?

FL didn't invent this; it's a fairly common attempt to explain the discrepancies between the two passages.

Date: 2009/10/27 20:43:45, Link
Author: Constant Mews
Quote (Dan @ Oct. 27 2009,20:28)
Quote (Constant Mews @ Oct. 27 2009,20:26)
Quote (Dan @ Oct. 27 2009,20:09)
Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 are both written as "straight historical narrative".  They are inconsistent as straight historical narrative:

In Genesis 1 first animals are created by the earth, and then later men and women were created by God.  In Genesis 2 first Adam was created by God, then animals were created by God, then Eve was created by God.

FL explains this away using a contortion that would make even Bill Clinton or Dick Cheney blush: FL claims that Genesis 1 is "straight historical narrative" whereas Genesis 2 is not chronological, but dealt with things according to their importance (or somesuch).  Note that even this extraordinary contortion doesn't explain away the inconsistency that animals were created by the earth in Genesis 1, by God in Genesis 2.

How does FL know that Genesis 1 is chronological and Genesis 2 is "by order of importance"?  Both are written as straight historical narrative.  Why does FL claim that Genesis 1 must be read as "straight historical narrative" whereas Genesis 2 must not be read in this way?

FL didn't invent this; it's a fairly common attempt to explain the discrepancies between the two passages.

Yes.  Fairly common and completely unsupported.

I agree.  Speculation on the meaning, structure, and origins of the Genesis texts is endless and I suspect ultimately fruitless; we simply cannot recover enough information to establish the provenance, authorship, or formation of the Books of Moses (so-called, Floyd).

Date: 2009/10/27 22:34:38, Link
Author: Constant Mews
Nicely summarized, Henry.  But that's characteristic of Floyd: he posts material that never supports his claims.

Date: 2009/10/27 23:13:27, Link
Author: Constant Mews
Henry J:
Quote
There is also the continually ignored point that Christianity does not depend on a literal interpretation of those verses.

And the other continually ignored point that being the creator of something and being the explanation of something are two different issues.


Exactly.  These are your critical problems at the moment, Floyd.  Neither of which you have addressed.

Date: 2009/10/28 20:36:12, Link
Author: Constant Mews
Floyd, if Genesis is metaphor, then your list is meaningless.

Don't you understand?  You either have to show that Genesis is literal truth, or you have to show that Christian doctrine requires Christians to treat Genesis as if it is literally true.

You cannot do either.  You cannot show that Genesis is historical narrative solely from the Bible itself; you cannot show that the authors of Genesis regarded it as historical narrative solely from the Bible itself; and you cannot show that Genesis is narrative truth in any event.

Your list of "conflicts" is meaningless.

Date: 2009/10/28 21:01:04, Link
Author: Constant Mews
Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 28 2009,12:36)
Quote
Jesus does not say that Moses is the author of Genesis.

On the contrary, that was Jesus's own position.  No escape on that one folks.  
Jesus said the following:
     
Quote
"For if ye believed Moses, ye would believe me; for he wrote of me. But if ye believe not his writings, how shall ye believe my words?" (John 5:46-47).

Where did Moses write about Jesus, pray tell?  Right here when he wrote this Genesis Messianic prophecy:
     
Quote
And I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your seed and her seed;
He shall bruise you on the head, and you shall bruise him on the heel."   (3:15)  

Remember, Jesus wasn't a skeptic, and Jesus wasn't an evolutionist.  HE, like all the observant Jews of his day fully accepted Mosaic authorship of Genesis, and accepted it as actual historical narrative, just like the writers of the Old Testament and the New Testament did.

In fact, both Jesus and his opponents (the Pharisees) fully accepted that Moses wrote the first five books of the Bible, including Genesis.   Check out Matt. 19:
     
Quote
2 The Pharisees came and asked (Jesus), “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife?” testing Him.

3 And He answered and said to them, “What did Moses command you?”

4 They said, “Moses permitted a man to write a certificate of divorce, and to dismiss her.”

5 And Jesus answered and said to them, “Because of the hardness of your heart he wrote you this precept.

6 "But from the beginning of the creation, God ‘made them male and female.’ (Gen. 1:27; Gen. 5:2)

7 ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife,

8 and the two shall become one flesh’; ( Genesis 2:24) so then they are no longer two, but one flesh.

9 Therefore what God has joined together, let not man separate.”

Jesus's response directly blocked the Pharisee attack, and there was nowhere to go for the Pharisees, they could not come up with a prior Mosaic quotation than the Genesis creation itself.  

Nor did the Pharisees come up with "Hey Jesus!  That's metaphor!  That's allegory!  That's non-historical!  That's not reality!  St. Darwin sez so!"  

No, they (like Jesus) fully accepted that Moses wrote Genesis and Moses said it as actual history.

(And please notice:  Jesus directly quoted the Genesis text itself as actual literal history.)

Finally, also note that Moses wrote again of Jesus in the fifth of the Five Books (the Five Books are called the Pentateuch, which includes Genesis).  Here's two more Messianic prophecies:
     
Quote
15  "The LORD your God will raise up for you a prophet like me from among you, from your countrymen, you shall listen to him.

18  'I will raise up a prophet from among their countrymen like you, and I will put My words in his mouth, and he shall speak to them all that I command him.

---Deut. 18

**********

So, bottom line is.....Moses wrote Genesis, according to Jesus (and the writers of the Old and New Testaments, and the Pharisees, and the Israelites, etc.)

Of course, if you don't believe Jesus Christ, well...........

False, Floyd.  Point me to the actual words of Jesus that state that Moses wrote Genesis.

You can't do it.

Address the various dozens of questions put to you in this thread, please.

I continue to pray for you - you are desperately in need of God's grace.

Date: 2009/10/28 21:04:45, Link
Author: Constant Mews
Here is your entire problem in a nutshell, Floyd.

In order to show that "incompatibilities" exist between Christian doctrine and evolutionary theory, you either have to show that Genesis is literal truth, or you have to show that Christian doctrine requires Christians to treat Genesis as if it is literally true.

You cannot do either.  You cannot show that Genesis is historical narrative solely from the Bible itself; you cannot show that the authors of Genesis regarded it as historical narrative solely from the Bible itself; and you cannot show that Genesis is narrative truth in any event.

The Nicene Creed, the single most common and fundamental statement of Christian doctrine is completely compatible with evolutionary theory.

Nothing in evolutionary theory prohibits God's responsibility as the ultimate cause of all creation.

Your list of "incompatibilities" is meaningless.

Date: 2009/10/28 21:08:17, Link
Author: Constant Mews
Oh, and by the way, Floyd - you do realize that Deuteronomy cannot be referring to Christ?

15  "The LORD your God will raise up for you a prophet like me from among you, from your countrymen, you shall listen to him.

18  'I will raise up a prophet from among their countrymen like you, and I will put My words in his mouth, and he shall speak to them all that I command him.

What part of that do you have trouble understanding?  The entire point is that Jesus was not like us, nor was he like the author's countrymen.

Your ignorance of the Bible is becoming clearer and clearer with every post you make.

It's very simple, Floyd.  I accept both Christian doctrine and evolutionary theory on rational grounds.  There are no "incompatibilities" between them.

You live in fear of hellfire, apparently.  You should.

Date: 2009/10/28 21:47:01, Link
Author: Constant Mews
Quote (Dan @ Oct. 28 2009,21:16)
Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 28 2009,08:40)
   
Quote
Floyd, if Genesis is metaphor, then your list is meaningless.

Here's your problem CM.  Gen 1-11, and the creation account in Gen 1-3, are NOT metaphor.  Not allegory.  Not nonhistorical.

You need to show us evidence that these specific chapters are metaphor and NOT straight historical narrative.

Here is some of the evidence:

1. Radioisotope dating shows that the Earth has existed for about 4 billion years rather than 6000 years.

2. Salinity dating shows that the Earth has existed for about 4 billion years rather than 6000 years.

3. Varve dating shows that the Earth has existed for more than 13,200 years.

4. Dendrochronology shows that the Earth has existed for more than 26,000 years.

5. Light from stars 10 billion light years away is just now reaching Earth, indicating that those stars existed 10 billion years ago, which is longer than 6000 years ago.

6. Microwaves from events 14.1 billion years ago are just now reaching the Earth (and being detected through the Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe).

7. Miles of sedimentary rock with no human fossils shows that the world existed for many millions of years -- not for 5 days -- before humans came into existence.

All of this evidence -- and much more besides -- indicates that the creation account of Genesis 1 is not literally true.  It also indicates that the creation account of Genesis 2 is not literally true.

There is also internal, Biblical evidence that these creation accounts are not true: In Genesis 1 the Earth created animals before God created man, and in Genesis 2 God created animals after God created man.

[I know that FL has tied himself up into intellectual knots denying this straightforward internal contradiction.  This merely proves that FL is even more flexible and even less honest than other intellectual knot-tiers like Bill Clinton or Dick Cheney.  It also proves that FL considers himself to be the product of incest between one of the sons of Adam and one of the daughters of Adam.]

This is some of the evidence that the creation stories in Genesis are nonhistorical.  This does not bother most Christians (69% of Americans, as I've previously pointed out) because they don't interpret the Bible literally.

So, FL, there's the evidence.  I notice that you haven't produced even an iota of evidence that Genesis is historical.  You've made that claim dozens of times -- you've even put it in the form of a multiple-choice quiz -- but all you've done is made the statement.

There is a lot of evidence that the authors of the Old Testament (including the authors of Genesis) were writing a propaganda document that was not intended to be literally true.

For example:
THE BIBLE UNEARTHED
Archaeology's New Vision of Ancient Israel
and the Origin of Its Sacred Texts.
By Israel Finkelstein and Neil Asher Silberman.

I quote from the review by Phyllis Trible:

"A small nation with big plans could use a grand story. In constructing it, authors and editors drew on many diverse and conflicting traditions, which they embellished and elaborated. The intent was ideological and theological -- not to record history (in the modern sense) but to appropriate the past for the present. The epic that emerged was edited and added to in subsequent centuries to become the powerful saga we know as the Hebrew Bible. Unequaled in the ancient world, it articulated a national and social compact for an entire people under God. Finkelstein and Silberman leave no doubt of their reverence for it. In their view, however, it is ''not a miraculous revelation, but a brilliant product of the human imagination.'' "

I've presented evidence that Genesis is ahistorical.  While you have stated the opposite, you have never presented evidence.  Where, Floyd, is your evidence?

I think you're missing part of Floyd's point.

What he is claiming is that the author of Genesis, et. al. intended it to be historical narrative.  This claim is orthogonal to any claim about whether the events it refers to are in fact historical.

What is interesting about this assertion by Floyd - an unprovable assertion, by the way - is that it is absolutely irrelevant to any of Floyd's arguments.  

The only assertion that matter is whether or not Christians are obliged to treat Genesis as historical narrative.

If they are obliged to do so in order to be considered Christians, then there exists fundamental incompatibilities with astronomy, cosmology, physics, geology, biology, chemistry, anthropology, archaeology, and most other branches of science as well as evolutionary biology.

But the point is, they're not.  No Christian is obliged to regard Genesis 1-11 solely as historical narrative (Floyd seems to have forgotten that Genesis might be both).

So whether or not Genesis actually represents genuine history, as opposed to something that its author or authors thought to be genuine history is a moot point.

The only point that matters is whether Christians must regard it as genuine history in order to be considered Christians.

As a simple demonstration that it is not so, I offered the Nicene Creed.  Nothing in that requires a Christian to treat Genesis as genuine history.

Floyd is right royally hoist on his own petard of ignorance.

I warned you, Floyd; you can't best me on Biblical exegesis nor on evolutionary theory nor on logic.

Date: 2009/10/28 22:06:39, Link
Author: Constant Mews
Quote (Erasmus, FCD @ Oct. 28 2009,21:52)
but can he bench press more than you can CM?

mmmm probly not but who knows

who careth?

An interesting question.  But once more irrelevant to Floyd's "argument".   :p

Date: 2009/10/28 22:07:47, Link
Author: Constant Mews
Repeated for Floyd, since this is what the entire thread has reduced itself to.

So whether or not Genesis actually represents genuine history, as opposed to something that its author or authors thought to be genuine history is a moot point.

The only point that matters is whether Christians must regard it as genuine history in order to be considered Christians.

As a simple demonstration that it is not so, I offered the Nicene Creed.  Nothing in that requires a Christian to treat Genesis as genuine history.

Floyd is right royally hoist on his own petard of ignorance.

Date: 2009/10/29 08:44:37, Link
Author: Constant Mews
Quote (rossum @ Oct. 29 2009,08:08)
Quote (Constant Mews @ Oct. 28 2009,22:07)
The only point that matters is whether Christians must regard it as genuine history in order to be considered Christians.

Floyd's problem is worse than that.  Jesus did not reference a literal version of Genesis, He referenced a non-literal version.

At Mark 10:6 Jesus said: "But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female."

Which shows that Jesus did not interpret Genesis literally.  On a strict literal interpretation this is wrong twice over, firstly because Adam (and presumably Eve) were made some time during day six, not at "the beginning", but more than a hundred and twenty hours after the beginning. Secondly with Adam being made before Eve, there was a time when there was male and not female.  Both of these points show that Jesus was not interpreting Genesis literally.

If Jesus did not interpret Genesis literally then it is surely allowed for others not to interpret it literally.

rossum

A very nice point. As someone once remarked, Christ appears to have been rather more nuanced than his followers.

Date: 2009/10/29 09:09:10, Link
Author: Constant Mews
Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 29 2009,09:05)
Quote
You cannot show that Genesis is historical narrative solely from the Bible itself

Tell me your response to the Gen 5 genealogy again, CM?

Repeated for Floyd, since this is what the entire thread has reduced itself to.

So whether or not Genesis actually represents genuine history, as opposed to something that its author or authors thought to be genuine history is a moot point.

The only point that matters is whether Christians must regard it as genuine history in order to be considered Christians.

As a simple demonstration that it is not so, I offered the Nicene Creed.  Nothing in that requires a Christian to treat Genesis as genuine history.

Floyd is right royally hoist on his own petard of ignorance.

Date: 2009/10/29 09:24:18, Link
Author: Constant Mews
Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 29 2009,09:05)
Quote
You cannot show that Genesis is historical narrative solely from the Bible itself

Tell me your response to the Gen 5 genealogy again, CM?

Tell me, Floyd - why do you think this matters, except to demonstrate your ignorance of the Bible?

It does not help your case.

Until you can demonstrate that Christians - in order to be Christians - must consider Genesis to be literal truth, then the intentions or the author or authors of Genesis are irrelevant.  The nature of the Genesis text: narrative history, metaphor, analogy, or some combination is irrelevant.  What matters for a Christian is accepting Christ into his heart.

Where in the Nicene Creed, for example, do we find a requirement to take Genesis 1-11 literally, Floyd?  Point it out to me.  Be precise.

Because it's not in there.

Any Christian can accept evolutionary theory as the fashion in which God created man.  There are no conflicts between evolutionary science and Christian Doctrine.

Date: 2009/10/29 09:25:05, Link
Author: Constant Mews
Quote (deadman_932 @ Oct. 29 2009,09:21)
Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 29 2009,09:02)
Quote
I'm not even going to write any more about this

It's just as well.  It seems very clear that you've done no studies on Messianic prophecies in the Bible.
We don't need to argue about it, Deadman, and your apparent stress is unwarranted.  Just leave it as part of the record.

LOL

Floyd's usual response when it has been shown that he's wrong.  It is classic.

Date: 2009/10/29 09:33:39, Link
Author: Constant Mews
Quote (deadman_932 @ Oct. 29 2009,09:28)
Quote (Constant Mews @ Oct. 29 2009,09:25)
Quote (deadman_932 @ Oct. 29 2009,09:21)
 
Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 29 2009,09:02)
 
Quote
I'm not even going to write any more about this

It's just as well.  It seems very clear that you've done no studies on Messianic prophecies in the Bible.
We don't need to argue about it, Deadman, and your apparent stress is unwarranted.  Just leave it as part of the record.

LOL

Floyd's usual response when it has been shown that he's wrong.  It is classic.

What really cracks me up is his bit about causing "apparent stress" in me. Earlier in the thread, he claimed the same thing without the "apparent" qualifier, and got mocked for pretending to be an internet psychic. So now he qualifies it, but the underlying sentiment of Floyd being ABLE to create stress is itself amusing. He actually "thinks" he's a force to be reckoned with or some delusional shit.

It's too, too precious.

Remember that in Floyd's mind, he believes he's making legitimate points; and that the points he's making are difficult for you to deal with.

The fact that this is not true, and that Floyd rarely rises beyond the level of simple amusement for the folks on the thread is not something that he can psychologically entertain.  The saddest part of Christians such as Floyd is watching them lie to themselves and delude themselves that they are, somehow, "bringing the fight to the atheists".  It's usually a way of compensating for failures elsewhere in their lives.

The funniest thing is that Floyd clearly regards me as an atheist, since I accept evolution and he cannot separate the two in his mind.  He just won't come out and say so.

Date: 2009/10/29 10:43:28, Link
Author: Constant Mews
Answer Frank H's question, Floyd.  It's critical.

Date: 2009/10/29 10:45:25, Link
Author: Constant Mews
Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 29 2009,10:43)
Quote
The following people accept Evolution as the way their god made life, including the physical nature of humans:

1:  The Pope
2:  CM
3:  Robin
4:  My sister

Your question WRT the Pope has already been answered by me (quite directly, btw).  I'll let you go back and look up my answer.

***

Robin said that the Resurrection of Jesus Christ was not historical and literal but instead metaphorical.  So I do NOT know what he is, honestly.

***

Don't know your sister.  Have to hear her own testimony as to what she really believes WRT Jesus Christ.

(However, if she IS a Christian, why aren't you following her example and hooking up with Jesus?  You could always sign up with Him as a theistic evolutionist, you know.)

***

CM, honestly, I don't really know one way or the other.  He testified he has accepted Jesus as his Savior, so I can't and don't fight about that.

But he also said that no sane person accepts a historically literal Genesis, which of course makes Jesus look very bad.  CM clearly disagrees with Jesus's position that the Scriptures are the unbreakable word of God (John 10:35).  

Also he believes that the Christian NT was strongly influenced by the idol cult of Mithraism (which again would deny the authority and trustworthiness of NT Scriptures.)

***

Okay, there's your lineup.  You agree with the scorecard?

FloydLee

He asked for yes/no answers.  You didn't give him any.

Try again, Floyd.

Answer the question.  Be honest - for a change.  Be serious - for a change.  Be Christian - for a change.

Frankly, I think you're so deep into lying to yourself that you'll be unable to do so.

Remember: the fact that I accept both evolutionary theory and Christianity proves you wrong about the incompatibilities.

Proves.  Not indicates, not shows, not implies.

Proves.

Date: 2009/10/29 10:49:59, Link
Author: Constant Mews
Floyd, I think it's time you began to act more like a Christian, and ceased lying.

Quote
CM, honestly, I don't really know one way or the other.  He testified he has accepted Jesus as his Savior, so I can't and don't fight about that.


In other words, I am a Christian.  And I accept evolutionary theory as a valid explanation for the current biodiversity on the earth.

So you are proved wrong about your incompatibilities.

Quote
But he also said that no sane person accepts a historically literal Genesis, which of course makes Jesus look very bad.  CM clearly disagrees with Jesus's position that the Scriptures are the unbreakable word of God (John 10:35).


Unfortunately, you're wrong again about the Bible.

The actual quote: "If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken;"

What does this have to do with a literal Genesis?  Nothing, of course.  Genesis need not be literally true for Christ to make the same statement.

Quote
Also he believes that the Christian NT was strongly influenced by the idol cult of Mithraism (which again would deny the authority and trustworthiness of NT Scriptures.)

Liar.  Next time try reading what I actually wrote.  You're quote-mining and misrepresenting again.

Date: 2009/10/29 10:52:20, Link
Author: Constant Mews
Quote (Badger3k @ Oct. 29 2009,10:50)
Quote (Constant Mews @ Oct. 28 2009,22:06)
Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Oct. 28 2009,21:52)
but can he bench press more than you can CM?

mmmm probly not but who knows

who careth?

An interesting question.  But once more irrelevant to Floyd's "argument".   :p

As if the rest of his hysterical attempt at apologetics (hint Floyd, apologetics and biblical scholarship are on opposite sides).  Using CARM et al for biblical disputes is like using AIG for evolution.  

So far, I haven't seen where Floyd tells how Moses wrote about his own death and his burial location that exists "to this day" - was Moses a time traveller?

The current consensus is that Moses was not the author of the Pentateuch, so that objection is not really meaningful.

Date: 2009/10/29 10:53:04, Link
Author: Constant Mews
Floyd, yes or no answer:

In order to be Christian, a person must regard Genesis 1-11 as literally true.

Yes or no, Floyd.

Date: 2009/10/29 11:28:07, Link
Author: Constant Mews
I note this comment by Floyd:
Quote
Furthermore, Jesus is using a straight literal historical example to TRUMP a straight literal historical example that was given by the Pharisees.  He's NOT using historical fiction to trump historical fact, he's using historical fact to trump historical fact.


So, Floyd.  In order to be a Christian, does a person have to accept that Genesis 1-11 is literally true?

Yes or no.

Date: 2009/10/29 11:59:46, Link
Author: Constant Mews
And since Christ occasionally contradicts the OT readings, we certainly cannot assume that he regarded every jot and tittle as "fixed."

A person has to accept that Genesis 1-11 is literal history in order to be a Christian.

Yes or no, Floyd.

Date: 2009/10/29 12:15:29, Link
Author: Constant Mews
Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 29 2009,12:12)
Quote
I know you consider me to be in the "not Christian" category, and I just wanted to say that you're really not doing a good job of bringing me the Good News.

Already offered John 3:16.  What more you lookin' for?  Besides, you don't like me witnessin' around here anyway.    :)

Answer the questions, Floyd.  Why do you demand that we answer your questions when you refuse to return the same courtesy?

Date: 2009/10/29 12:16:09, Link
Author: Constant Mews
A person has to accept that Genesis 1-11 is literal history in order to be a Christian.

Yes or no, Floyd.

Date: 2009/10/29 13:04:01, Link
Author: Constant Mews
Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 29 2009,12:45)
Quote
A person has to accept that Genesis 1-11 is literal history in order to be a Christian.

Nope, they don't have to.  But there are huge rational and Scriptural problems attached to that refusal to accept Gen. 1-11 as literal history....including the fact that it puts that person in direct disagreement with the Jesus that they are now claiming to follow.

But you went further than that, didn't you?  I'll tell you now, you directly said that a SANE person cannot accept Genesis as literal and historical.   Also you've attacked the trustworthiness of the NT in a previous post too.

If you don't retract that skeptic stuff, you're clearly implying that Jesus Christ and the writers of the Bible (both OT and NT, btw) are untrustworthy.  

If that's where you're honestly at, all I can say (if asked about your religion, as Frank asked me) is to simply repeat what you said (about accepting Jesus as Savior) and immediately follow it with a sincere and sober "But honestly I don't know."  

ARE you a Christian, CM.....?

Quote
Nope, they don't have to.


And there go your five "incompatibles."

Nice of you to admit defeat, Floyd.

And yes, I am a Christian.

Date: 2009/10/29 13:05:28, Link
Author: Constant Mews
Quote (Jasper @ Oct. 29 2009,12:53)
Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 29 2009,13:45)
But you went further than that, didn't you?  I'll tell you now, you directly said that a SANE person cannot accept Genesis as literal and historical.

...

If you don't retract that skeptic stuff, you're clearly implying that Jesus Christ and the writers of the Bible (both OT and NT, btw) are untrustworthy.

YOU don't accept Genesis as literal, Floyd.  Otherwise, you'd believe in the existence of the Firmament and that the moon gives light, as the Biblical writers did.

If you don't believe in the Firmament or that the moon gives its own light, you're clearly implying that Jesus Christ and the writers of the Bible (both OT and NT) are untrustworthy.

Right, Floyd?

Answer the question, please, Floyd.

Clearly you do not accept Genesis 1-11 as literal truth.

Do you therefore question the word of God?

Date: 2009/10/29 13:10:11, Link
Author: Constant Mews
Floyd said:
Quote
Nope, they don't have to.
Then there are no incompatibilities between Christian doctrine and evolutionary theory.
Quote
But there are huge rational and Scriptural problems attached to that refusal to accept Gen. 1-11 as literal history....including the fact that it puts that person in direct disagreement with the Jesus that they are now claiming to follow.
This is completely false.  There are neither rational nor Scriptural problems with a non-literal reading of Genesis 1-11.  After all, you don't accept that Genesis 1-11 is literal truth.

Quote
But you went further than that, didn't you?  I'll tell you now, you directly said that a SANE person cannot accept Genesis as literal and historical.
And I stand by that.  You are not sane, by any definition of the word.
Quote
Also you've attacked the trustworthiness of the NT in a previous post too.
The Bible is the work of Man: fallible, sinful, error-prone man.  The world is the work of God.  If conflict between them arises, then Man must be suspected.

Quote
If you don't retract that skeptic stuff, you're clearly implying that Jesus Christ and the writers of the Bible (both OT and NT, btw) are untrustworthy.
I have never implied that Christ was untrustworthy.  Nor have I implied anything about the authors of the Bible save that they are human.  And consequently fallible.

The Bible does not need to be accepted as infallible truth in order to accept Christ.

Quote
If that's where you're honestly at, all I can say (if asked about your religion, as Frank asked me) is to simply repeat what you said (about accepting Jesus as Savior) and immediately follow it with a sincere and sober "But honestly I don't know."
I actually had no problem with your answer to him at that point.

Quote
ARE you a Christian, CM.....?
Yes, I am.

Date: 2009/10/29 13:10:59, Link
Author: Constant Mews
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.

Excellent.  Then answer the dozens of other questions we've put to you that you refuse to answer.

Turnabout is fair play, Floyd.  Time for you to behave like a grown-up.

Date: 2009/10/29 13:38:41, Link
Author: Constant Mews
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.

Date: 2009/10/29 13:47:30, Link
Author: Constant Mews
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.

Date: 2009/10/29 14:19:08, Link
Author: Constant Mews
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.

Date: 2009/10/29 14:26:52, Link
Author: Constant Mews
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.

Date: 2009/10/29 15:45:37, Link
Author: Constant Mews
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.

Date: 2009/10/29 15:56:27, Link
Author: Constant Mews
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

You are lying.  You did not give him the specific yes/no answers you were asked for.

We don't have to go back many pages, Floyd, to show you lying.  You've lied on this very page.

Date: 2009/10/29 16:06:48, Link
Author: Constant Mews
Since we do recognize that nothing Floyd says can be trusted, given his documented record of lying, let's check that Rosenhouse quote-mine.

Quote
"Evolution by natural selection, you see, is an awful process. It is bloody, sadistic, and cruel. It flouts every moral precept we humans hold dear.
Rosenhouse is theologically confused; as morality is concerned with sin, and animals do not sin, the evolutionary process as regards animals does not flout moral precepts.  Now, interestingly enough, it may flout moral precepts developed through the process of evolution, but that is another issue entirely.

Quote
It recognizes only survival and gene propagation, and even on those rare occasions where you find altruism and non-selfishness you can be certain that blind self-interest is lurking somewhere behind the scenes. All of this suffering, pain and misery, mind you, to reach a foreordained moment when self-aware creature finally appeared.
His representation of evolution is simplistic, reciprocal altruism in its many manifestations, along with less morally reprehensible mechanisms such as sexual selection and genetic drift involve more than mere 'self-interest' - a characteristic of advanced minds in any event.

Quote
What theological purpose was served by all this bloodsport? If humans were inevitable why didn't God simply fast-forward the tape himself, thereby sparing all of those animals that died horrible deaths in the preceding hundreds of millions of years?
And so he comes to it - the basic Problem of Evil: why does evil and suffering occur in the universe of an omniscient, omnibenevolent God?

Quote
....Reconciling evolution and Christianity is not as simple as theistic evolutionists often try to pretend."
Of course not.  But note what Rosenhouse does not say: he does not say that they are irreconcilable - merely that such reconciliation is not a trivial matter.

Every Christian theologian since Origen has concurred with this assessment.  And the pre-Christian theologians considered the matter even earlier.

Oddly enough, Christianity has a better answer for the Problem of Evil than the pre-Christian faiths supplied: the primacy of Free Will over evil.  The Problem of Gratuitous Suffering, on the other hand, only has partial answers.

But - and Floyd should keep this in mind, though he has demonstrated that he is unable to read our posts - the Problem of Evil exists no matter what mechanism God used to create Man.  If God merely "poofed" the universe into existence without such pain and suffering, the problem would still remain.

Date: 2009/10/29 16:08:11, Link
Author: Constant Mews
Floyd, you have admitted that you do not take Genesis 1-11 as literal truth.  Why do you deny it?  How do you reconcile that with your faith?

Reread Jasper's post; it should make this point clear.

Date: 2009/10/29 16:15:45, Link
Author: Constant Mews
Floyd, this:
Quote
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.
appears to be yet another lie.

Your first and second "incompatibilities" are disproved by the definition of evolution that you yourself supplied.

Evolutionary theory does not deny the existence, action, or intention of God.  It says nothing about the existence, action, or intention of God.

Your confused arguments about "soul" demonstrated that you don't even understand the terms you're using - you thought that the soul was held to be a product of biological evolution; a position that the definition of evolution that you yourself supplied does not hold.

I have already discussed "incompatibility" four on at least two separate occasions, and "incompatibility" five in a very recent post.

Here are the points, Floyd.

You have provided no evidence that any incompatibilities exist between Christian Doctrine and evolutionary theory.  

You have quote-mined and lied constantly in this thread.  

You have shown yourself to be mortally afraid of hellfire and damnation (probably for excellent reason).

You demand courtesies and honesty that you yourself refuse to provide.

I pray for you, Floyd.  You desperately need the Grace of God to save you from the furnace you so desperately and cravenly fear.

Date: 2009/10/29 16:53:25, Link
Author: Constant Mews
And I would also point out that Rosenhouse explicitly identifies his issue as the Problem of Evil.  

And the Problem of Evil has been debated since long before evolutionary theory was conceived.

Date: 2009/10/29 18:48:31, Link
Author: Constant Mews
Actually, I think it is more complex.

After 80 pages, Floyd does not yet even understand the basic problem.  He has a strong conviction based - as he himself admits - on pure supposition that evolutionary theory conflicts with Christianity.

In order to quantify this so that we can understand it, he has presented a definition of evolution - that does not support his case.  He has presented a definition of Christianity - that does not support his case.  He has offered quotes from various atheists about the incompatibility of evolution and theism; quotes whose logic is not supported by Floyd's own definitions.

And he does not understand the flaws in this "argument."  That is the observation that makes me question his sanity and ability to reason - that after all this time, he still does not understand why his "argument" is flawed.

Date: 2009/10/29 19:18:55, Link
Author: Constant Mews
Quote (Lou FCD @ Oct. 29 2009,18:49)
Quote (Constant Mews @ Oct. 29 2009,14:10)
Turnabout is fair play, Floyd.  Time for you to behave like a grown-up.

I trust you're not foolish enough to hold your breath waiting for that...

I think it is fair to give him the opportunity to display adult behavior.  Confused, dishonest, and exasperating though he may be - he is trying to make an argument.  Unfortunately, he has to rely entirely on opinions about science, since he apparently doesn't understand the science itself.  And he does occasionally answer questions as well as he can, given his lights.

Date: 2009/10/29 22:49:44, Link
Author: Constant Mews
Quote (Erasmus, FCD @ Oct. 29 2009,20:46)
honestly i think he is here either trolling for man-meat or because he is trying to find a way out of his little corner.  

he's looking for his salvation!  sorry Fold I just plain don't like you and I'm sure if you had a come to the altar call it could change my opinion of you but it's unlikely.  just admit you are wrong and that you are nothing on your own and that you need facts to survive and only facts can sustain you.  go for it!

True, he is afraid.  He is a scared, lost soul who is feeling both his mortality and his insignificance.

I pray for him.  He needs God's grace to redeem himself from hellfire.

Date: 2009/10/30 19:08:12, Link
Author: Constant Mews
Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 30 2009,16:59)
Quote
Isn't the onus on YOU to show that the biblical narrative IS histroical and true?

Only have to show you that the text is historical narrative and that it's not metaphorical or allegorical.  

Like I said, you're free to believe Genesis is historically false (because of your belief in evolution) all day long.  The only issue here, however, is whether the Gen creation/fall/flood texts are written as historical narrative.

Already provided the Gen 5 genealogy to show that it's historical narrative, plus some other Scriptures too.  The biblical writers of the OT and NT were really serious about viewing Genesis as actual literal history and the foundation for the rest of the Bible doctrines.  Same for Jesus and Paul.  

FloydLee

Actually, you can't show that it was solely intended to be a historical narrative.  And we know it's not a true historical narrative from scientific evidence that has nothing to do with evolution.

I realize you don't bother to actually think Floyd, but when you try to ground your arguments in unsupportable contentions about the Bible, I'm forced to believe your faith is founded on your stupidity.

Shall we discuss how little you know about the Bible?  It will be very painful for you, I'm sorry to say.

Date: 2009/10/30 19:12:02, Link
Author: Constant Mews
Here's the other point, Floyd.

You have admitted that a person need not take the first chapters of Genesis as literal history and still be Christian.  This means that rejection of Genesis as literal history has nothing to do with evolution.

Think, Floyd.  Try to reason.  Try to use logic.  But stop presenting garbage as "thought".  It makes you look very foolish.

Date: 2009/10/30 21:18:20, Link
Author: Constant Mews
Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 30 2009,16:59)
Quote
Isn't the onus on YOU to show that the biblical narrative IS histroical and true?

Only have to show you that the text is historical narrative and that it's not metaphorical or allegorical.  

Like I said, you're free to believe Genesis is historically false (because of your belief in evolution) all day long.  The only issue here, however, is whether the Gen creation/fall/flood texts are written as historical narrative.

Already provided the Gen 5 genealogy to show that it's historical narrative, plus some other Scriptures too.  The biblical writers of the OT and NT were really serious about viewing Genesis as actual literal history and the foundation for the rest of the Bible doctrines.  Same for Jesus and Paul.  

FloydLee

But you can't actually do that. Metaphors, parables, and moral lessons are often written in historical form. Nothing in the Bible permits the conclusion that Genesis is historical narrative [I]and nothing more.[\I]

Date: 2009/10/30 21:23:16, Link
Author: Constant Mews
And Floyd, what on earth are you going on about? Whether Genesis is "historical narrative" in form, which is all you might be able to do is utterly irrelevant to anything else you're talking about.

Christianity and evolution are perfectly compatible, as you've already admitted. What does this pathological obsession with the form of Genesis matter?

Date: 2009/10/31 00:01:54, Link
Author: Constant Mews
Floyd, I am well-versed in Christian doctrine and theology.  I know the Bible well and have studied exegesis extensively.

I also know and understand the theory of evolution and its implications.

Yet I am a Christian who accepts evolution.  

You continue to claim that this is impossible.

How do you explain me?  Seriously, how do you explain it?

Date: 2009/10/31 21:22:35, Link
Author: Constant Mews
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.

Date: 2009/10/31 21:25:17, Link
Author: Constant Mews
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.

Date: 2009/10/31 21:27:57, Link
Author: Constant Mews
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?

Date: 2009/10/31 21:37:19, Link
Author: Constant Mews
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.

Date: 2009/10/31 22:47:06, Link
Author: Constant Mews
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.

Date: 2009/10/31 22:49:15, Link
Author: Constant Mews
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.

Date: 2009/10/31 22:50:22, Link
Author: Constant Mews
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.

Date: 2009/10/31 22:51:35, Link
Author: Constant Mews
Quote (FloydLee @ 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.

You lie.  Try again, Floyd.  I suppose that it's possible you don't understand much about English.

Date: 2009/10/31 22:52:36, Link
Author: Constant Mews
Quote (Lou FCD @ 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.

True.  What amazes me is his tendency to contradict himself in the same thread.  And someone assume that no one will catch him on it.  It is remarkable.

Date: 2009/10/31 22:53:58, Link
Author: Constant Mews
Quote (FloydLee @ 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??

Floyd said
Quote
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.


And you admitted that one could be Christian and not take these passage as literally true.

You admitted it, Floyd.

Why are you lying about it now?

Date: 2009/10/31 23:04:48, Link
Author: Constant Mews
More Floyd:
Quote
Hey, exactly what WAS your response to that Gen 5 genealogy again?
I have given it to you twice.  Why should I repeat myself?

Quote
And btw, notice that the Luke 3 genealogy ALSO affirms that Adam was straight historical and not ANY kind of metaphor/allegory:
No, it confirms that the authors wrote what appears to be a straightforward genealogy.  That tells us nothing about whether or not that genealogy is true.  Nothing.

Quote
Isn't it about time you started believing the Bible for a change, CM?
I do believe the Bible is what it claims to be.

Of course, you may not be familiar with 2nd Timothy.  You should take a look at it, you will find it educational.

Quote
Jesus totally believed the Bible, no skepticism, no doubting, no excuses.
I agree.  Christ was also a great deal smarter than you are, and understood both his audience and the nuances of his words far better than you do.

Or are you presuming to instruct the Almighty in the meaning of His words?  I did not realize your ego was so large, Floyd.

Smell the brimstone?

Quote
You are following Jesus, yes??
Of course.  And I realize you are, as well.  But your ignorance of the Bible and Christian doctrine, combined with your ignorance of evolutionary theory are making it difficult for you.

Date: 2009/10/31 23:12:35, Link
Author: Constant Mews
Quote (OgreMkV @ Oct. 31 2009,23:04)
Quote (Keelyn @ Oct. 31 2009,23:01)
And it is exactly 00:00, November 1, 2009. “Debate” over! The consensus is after 87 pages – you lost Floyd. And the bet was, if you lost you wouldn’t post anywhere on PT for the next 25 years? Was that the bet? Someone say YES, please. Someone. Anyone?

Unfortunately, he doesn't think he lost.  And it doesn't mater if he lies, because he's doing it for his religion and anything is OK under that stipulation.

Crusades were the same thing.

It's not even that he doesn't think he's lost - he doesn't even understand the argument.

What has he presented?

1. A tiny number of testimonies that accepting evolution undermined faith.

- While amusing, this is irrelevant to the compatibility of evolution and Christianity.

2. A list of five "incompatibilities" that on examination, turn out not to be supported using the material that Floyd himself provided.

The heart of Floyd's problem with this discussion appears to be his inability to understand that commentary by someone with a particular philosophical or religious position on what evolutionary does or does not say is absolutely irrelevant to what evolutionary theory does say.

I suspect this is because he really cannot understand evolutionary theory; that he lacks even the most basic grounding in science and logic to make such an understanding possible.

All he has left are personal opinions; and since we can provide personal opinions that say exactly the opposite (mine, for example, or the Pope's), all that Floyd has left is the claim that those who disagree with him are not really Christians.

Which is what he is doing right now.

Floyd finds my existence impossible; so he rationalizes his inability to understand me by pretending that I am not a Christian.

Date: 2009/10/31 23:52:08, Link
Author: Constant Mews
Floyd, you really should stop lying.  This is going to damn you forever, you know.  Consider this nonsense:

Quote
Either evolution denies that God is a [u]required [/i]explanation for the evolutionary process, either evolution denies the teleology that God is clearly described as fully employing in biological origins of all plants animals humans,  or else there's no longer any RATIONAL and SCIENTIFIC reason to legally keep ID out of public school biology classes.


Evolutionary theory does not deny that God is a required explanation.  

You cited the definition of evolution yourself.  Show me precisely where in that definition it denies God.  Show me.  Cite chapter and verse.  Be precise.

Your soul hangs on your not lying, Floyd.  Why do you keep endangering it?

And ID is already taught in schools.

Creationism is not and should not be.

Date: 2009/10/31 23:53:00, Link
Author: Constant Mews
Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 31 2009,23:43)
Quote
You wrote an awful lot floyd and you still didn't answer the refutations.

One thing I've learned in this forum, is that I can answer somebody's refutation and the reply (after indeed writing an awful lot), will simply be that I didn't answer somebody's refutation.   Go figure.

No, what this forum points out is that you don't actually address refutations of your points.

You then lie about it.  We can prove this; it is not conjecture, personal opinion, or wishful thinking.

Date: 2009/10/31 23:55:06, Link
Author: Constant Mews
Quote
In fact, CM is being a little silly about it:  acting as if the only part of the Campbell-Reece textbook regarding the topic of evolution that you're supposed to pay attention to, is simply the micro and macro definitions in the glossary.
But Floyd - THAT'S THE DEFINITION OF EVOLUTION THAT YOU PROVIDED.  YOU PROVIDED, FLOYD.  WE DIDN'T.  YOU SAID - THIS IS THE DEFINITION OF EVOLUTION.[B]

So you're claiming that you're silly?

You gave us a definition; we didn't offer it to you.  And based on the definition that you yourself provided -

you're wrong.

The remarkable funniness of you hoist on your own petard is irresistible.

Date: 2009/10/31 23:56:13, Link
Author: Constant Mews
Floyd said,
Quote
But CM never actually told you what Christianity's answer to Rosenhouse's specific argument was supposed to be.  He gave you no details of this alleged answer.  No specs.  No outline.  No sketches.  No Bible verses. No nothing!!


An absolute lie.  I did provide Christianity's answer the Problem of Evil.  Must I find the actual post that shows you are lying?

Date: 2009/11/01 00:01:57, Link
Author: Constant Mews
Floyd lied again
Quote
CM's point two---already refuted.  Totally.  Previously.
Not even addressed, I'm afraid.

Quote
Evolution has no goal, remember?  Futuyma gave you a specific rational reason for that situation, remember?  (I quoted it and highlighted it already, straight outta page 342).


And you failed to understand it.  Floyd, if you need help understanding evolutionary theory, let us know.

The theory is a testable explanation of observations.  The observation is that variation is random with respect to utility - no future planning.

But now you're speaking for God, again - telling us that God can't know what the future brings, and therefore from God's perspective, evolution is Godless.

That's really rather stupid, Floyd.  

Quote
And you remember that Fut's specific reason runs totally counter to the way God is described as operating in the Bible (OT and NT), right?  And we've already disposed of the twisted "definitions" argument.


But you've already admitted that these don't mean anything.  You've already admitted that Christians need not take Genesis literally.

How soon you forget, Floyd.

Quote
Shoot, CM doesn't even ADDRESS THE TELEOLOGY ISSUE in his point 2!  He's not even addressing the evolutionist points involved.  How can you pretend he's done jack squat here, Ogre?
Of course, I did.  Your point 2 made a claim not supported by the theory; only supported by your quotation from someone about the theory.

I know you don't know what the theory of evolution actually says, Floyd.  I realize that's why you try to rely on commentary from others.

But you cannot show incompatibility unless you can show it from what the theory actually says.

Apparently you haven't actually read Futuyma.

Poor Floyd.

Date: 2009/11/01 00:02:53, Link
Author: Constant Mews
Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 31 2009,23:27)
Quote
And you admitted that one could be Christian and not take these passage as literally true.

That Christian would be rationally and Scripturally inconsistent, but they would remain a Christian.  Yes, that's true.

And yes, I'm saying that's where you're at right now, CM.  Yes, a Christian.  But also very much rationally and Scripturally inconsistent, painfully so.

Honestly, your current belief situation, as stated in this forum, seems to actually POINT to the actual existence of incompatibility between Christianity and evolution.  

I'm glad you're a professed Christian, but goodness, you're got all that disbelief in Scripture going on right and left, and at this point you only believe in the parts of the Bible that St. Darwin gives you permission to believe (for now).

That is the corrosive and eroding effect of evolution, the Universal Acid.  Surely it is incompatible with Christianity.

No, you didn't say 'inconsistent'.

Liar.

Date: 2009/11/01 00:04:00, Link
Author: Constant Mews
Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 31 2009,23:27)
Quote
And you admitted that one could be Christian and not take these passage as literally true.

That Christian would be rationally and Scripturally inconsistent, but they would remain a Christian.  Yes, that's true.

And yes, I'm saying that's where you're at right now, CM.  Yes, a Christian.  But also very much rationally and Scripturally inconsistent, painfully so.

Honestly, your current belief situation, as stated in this forum, seems to actually POINT to the actual existence of incompatibility between Christianity and evolution.  

I'm glad you're a professed Christian, but goodness, you're got all that disbelief in Scripture going on right and left, and at this point you only believe in the parts of the Bible that St. Darwin gives you permission to believe (for now).

That is the corrosive and eroding effect of evolution, the Universal Acid.  Surely it is incompatible with Christianity.

You realize that the claim that evolution is incompatible because it causes effects you don't like is a fallacy, don't you?

Bless me, where do these children learn logic.  Apparently Floyd was sick that day.

Date: 2009/11/01 00:05:08, Link
Author: Constant Mews
Floyd,
Quote
Point 3 actually repeats the same crap as 1 and 2, and doesn't even address the IMAGE-OF-GOD thesis or the reasons given by Nature science journal and by James Rachels as to how that thesis clashes with evolution.
Define image of God.  It cannot be physical, correct?  But evolution evolves the physical.

No incompatibility.

Bless me, where did you try to learn logic?  A correspondence course with a duck?

Date: 2009/11/01 00:06:31, Link
Author: Constant Mews
Floyd, you seem unable to actually present your argument in a coherent way.  I might give it a shot tomorrow, just to demonstrate how wrong you are.  It might be a useful exercise.

I pray for you to find God's guidance, since you are so clearly in fear of the hellfire that lies waiting for you... Apparently.

Date: 2009/11/01 00:32:19, Link
Author: Constant Mews
Oh, and Floyd?  I might remind you that you said this
Quote
So, as you see, I disagree with Futuyma...


I suggest you cease using Futuyma as support, since you have already stated you disagree with him.

Do you see what I mean about your inability to reason logically?

Date: 2009/11/01 00:53:26, Link
Author: Constant Mews
Here is Floyd's unvarnished summary of his five "incompatibles".

Quote
Sure.  Evolution and Christianity are incompatible because:


Quote
1.  In biblical Christianity, God clearly is the Required Explanation for biological origins (including the evolutionary process.)  No exceptions. But with Evolution, God is clearly NOT a required explanation at all.


Floyd has already conceded that God is not the required explanation for why water flows downhill, though He is the ultimate reason water exists.

There is not incompatibilty between evolutionary theory and Christian doctrine for two basic reasons:

A. Christian doctrine does not require God to use any particular mechanism to create biodiversity.  The Nicene Creed makes this quite clear.  Floyd is now claiming that the Nicene Creed is faulty.

B. Just as Floyd admits God is an ultimate, but not required explanation for why water flows downhill, God is the ultimate, but not required explanation for evolution.  Evolutionary theory says nothing about God; God is not, by definition excluded as an indirect cause.

Quote
2.  In biblical Christianity, everything in the universe is originated via God's teleology, and especially humans.  (See Genesis chap 1, also see Col. 1:16).
In evolution, you have a total denial of that, at ALL points of the evolutionary process:  No Teleology No Conscious Forethought.  At least two rational reasons for this is given by EB3, who also (like Mayr) directly ascribes this to evolutionary theory.


This is simply a lie on Floyd's part.  Nothing in the theory of evolution cited by Floyd or to be found in Futuyma or any other biology text DENIES God as an ultimate intentional agent.

Floyd can attempt to argue with this by citing the precise wording in the theory which denies God as the intentional agent.  Citations from biologists and atheists do not consitute citing the theory itself.  Since Floyd claims experience with Futuyma, he can start with Futuyma's 20 basic tenets of evolutionary theory.  They do not deny God.

Quote
3.  In biblical Christianity, humans are created and designed in the image of God.  Again, evolution denies that, most recently the Nature June 14 2007 article in which evolution of the brain is the reason for denying the Image-of-God thesis.

Evolutionist James Rachels also pointed out, in the book Created From Animals, that "the image-of-god thesis does NOT just go with any kind of theism."  It requires a creationist theism, Rachel said, in which God is viewed as "actively designing man and the world as a home for man."
Again, Floyd can attempt to argue with this by citing the precise wording in the theory which denies that God created man in His image. Citations from biologists and atheists do not consitute citing the theory itself.  Since Floyd claims experience with Futuyma, he can start with Futuyma's 20 basic tenets of evolutionary theory.  They do not deny God created man in His image.  We have already noted that Floyd is unable to even define what "created in God's image" means.  If in God's image, we mean that Man is a rational agent - able to assess Good and Evil and make free choice between them...then evolutionary theory is either silent on that point or supports it fully by demonstrating that reason, human reason, is a product of evolution.

You have to show the theory denies this, Floyd.  You cannot cite other people's opinions on what the theory implies.

Quote
4.  Evolution's clear position is that death was present on this planet before humans arrived.  In fact, it's not even possible for natural selection and evolution to work as claimed UNLESS death was present on this planet prior to humans being originated.  (Totally beyond debate, btw.)
Certainly.  I do not debate this; evolution requires death.

Quote
The New Testament's clear postion (Romans 5:12-17) is that death entered this world only AFTER Adam and Eve sinned.  Romans 5:12-17 draws a very huge, very tight historical linkage between Adam and what Adam did (the problem) and Christ and what Christ did (the solution).
And it is also quite clear that an educated, intelligent Christian will see that "Death" in Romans is far more likely to be referring to "spiritual death" than it is to "physical death."

Quote
Therefore evolution's Death-Before-Adam historical claim not only negates the historical claim of biblical Christianity about Adam and the Fall, but ALSO negates what biblical Christianity's historical claim about Christ and the Atonement.
But we have already had Floyd's admission that Genesis need not be taken as historical truth.  Floyd admitted this - not gracefully, but he admitted it.

Quote
Needless to say, THAT incompatibility goes all the way to the meaning of the Cross, goes all the way to the Gospel of Jesus Christ.
Christ redeems us from the spiritual death and brings us to life everlasting.  Christ was also fond of metaphors, analogies, parables, and nuanced understanding.  It is quite clear that an educated, intelligent Christian can appreciate Christ's references to the Fallen, pre-redemptive tales that the Jews committed to writing.

Quote
5.  The Fifth Incompatibility was eloquently stated via evolutionist Jason Rosenhouse at Evolutionblog.
 
Quote
Evolution by natural selection, you see, is an awful process. It is bloody, sadistic, and cruel. It flouts every moral precept we humans hold dear.

It recognizes only survival and gene propagation, and even on those rare occasions where you find altruism and non-selfishness you can be certain that blind self-interest is lurking somewhere behind the scenes.

All of this suffering, pain and misery, mind you, to reach a foreordained moment when self-aware creature finally appeared.

What theological purpose was served by all this bloodsport? If humans were inevitable why didn't God simply fast-forward the tape himself, thereby sparing all of those animals that died horrible deaths in the preceding hundreds of millions of years?


And please notice:  once again, there's no way to blow off #5 as "somebody's opinion."  What Rosenhouse is describing there is EXACTLY the way evolution works in the animal world.  That's evolutionary theory, period.


Certainly.  But the Problem of Evil - which is what Rosenhouse is describing here already has a Christian answer.  I am astonished that Floyd is unfamiliar with it: the combination of Human Free Will, which dictates that Human-willed evil is a natural consequent of Free Will, and Demonic Choice, which permits the actions of the Fallen Angels to influence the physical structure of the world.

This is an old answer - any educated, intelligent Christian would be familiar with it.  Floyd's apparent ignorance of it speaks volumes.

Quote
Okay, there's the summary of the Big Five Incompatibilities.


And a summary of my refutations.  If there is any point you still fail to understand, feel free to ask for clarification.  I am trying to save your soul, here Floyd.  A little extra effort on my part is the least I can do.

Date: 2009/11/01 19:02:59, Link
Author: Constant Mews
Quote
I also pointed out (indeed somewhere in these last several pages) that any Christian who accepts evolution is clearly displaying both rational and Scriptural inconsistency  UNLESS they can rationally refute the Big Five Incompatibilities.

Which I have now done at least four times.

You, on the other hand, are unable to explain why it is that the Nicene creed doesn't require a literal belief in Genesis.

And the creed is the single most common statement of Christian belief.

Floyd, failing to address dozens of key questions doesn't mean that your points have not been refuted.

They have.

Many times.

And you lie when you claim otherwise.  Lying is a sin.  You will no doubt burn forever in hell for lying like that.

Date: 2009/11/01 19:10:57, Link
Author: Constant Mews
Quote (FloydLee @ Nov. 01 2009,12:17)
Quote
Since FL seems comfortable with Futuyma, I will post the 20 tenets of evolutionary theory he identifies

Anybody find this laundry list yet?

I believe I've posted the first 10.  I'll post the others later.  The most amusing part, Floyd is that you will not be able to show that the theory of evolution denies God at the ultimate cause; nor that God choose to create the world; or that evolution produced the soul.

But I thought you already had Futuyma?  Were you lying, Floyd?  Apparently you were.

Date: 2009/11/01 20:48:14, Link
Author: Constant Mews
Quote (Dan @ Nov. 01 2009,19:52)
Quote (FloydLee @ Nov. 01 2009,12:26)
 
Quote
Both (Pope Benedict and Francis Collins) are good examples of Theistic Evolution, probably the best TE has got right now.

Neither One has come up with any solution for the Big Five Incompatibillities.   Simply not able to, so far.  

The End.

And from September 22, 2009 to November 1, 2009, nobody in this forum (including you, Deadman) has been able to come up with any ***specifics*** with which to refute the highlighted portion there.  No specifics that actually show how those two TE men have eliminated and resolved each point of the Big Five Incompatibilities.

A fitting way to summarize and crystallize the outcome of this weeks-long Incompatibility Debate.  "The End."    :)

As a matter of fact, Robin did, Dheddle did, Constant Mews did, nmgirl did, and I did.  In addition, deadman and I both showed that FL's big five are irrelevant to the question under debate.

But FL has declared it "courageous" to go off topic.  I suspect that he knows that his five points are irrelevant, but wants to show his courage.

Courage?  Has he actually displayed any courage here?  Courage would be to engage his "opponents" in actual discussion - which he has yet to do.

For example, I have pointed on numerous occasions that his "claims" about what the theory of evolution says or does not say are not based on an examination of the actual theory, but on various, cherry-picked comments made by scientists of varying philosophical and theological positions.

This is fundamentally dishonest, or it indicates such a tremendous ignorance of evolutionary theory and science in general that Floyd cannot explore it.

He has simply ignored all of my posts on this subject.

That is not courage.  That is cowardliness.

Date: 2009/11/01 20:51:15, Link
Author: Constant Mews
Quote (FloydLee @ Nov. 01 2009,01:50)
Quote
But evolution evolves the physical.

And the non-physical as well, according to Nature science journal (June 14, 2007).  Which is one reason (yes, there's more than one) why evolution denies that humans are created in the image of God.

Unfortunately, that article does not support your case.  God can choose to make man in His image using any mechanism God chooses.  That's what the Nicene creed points out.

Therefore there is no "incompatibility" here.

Date: 2009/11/01 20:53:32, Link
Author: Constant Mews
Quote (FloydLee @ Nov. 01 2009,12:16)
Quote
When will you be adressing the whole of my posts the last two days, Floaty?

Primarily just that one larger post in which you tried to cobble together some arguments against Gonzalez and Richard's "The Privileged Planet" statements even though you haven't read their book at all.

Needless to say, your failure to get that one little bit of homework under your belt, could potentially poke a hole in your criticisms, ya think?

I've read it.  I even saw the film.  But that doesn't help you.  You've still to establish that there exists any incompatibility between Christianity - not Biblical literalism - and evolutionary theory.

The problem is, you can't.  You can establish that evolutionary theory is incompatible with Biblical literalism.  In fact all of science is incompatible with Biblical literalism.  All of it.

But Biblical literalism is not Christianity.  Check out the Nicene Creed, for starters.

Date: 2009/11/01 20:59:17, Link
Author: Constant Mews
Once again, Floyd displays such a lamentable grasp of Biblical knowledge that I despair of saving him.  But he is still a child of God - though fallen and destined for the furnace - and I pray for him.  
Quote
The highlighted portions are what makes these verses a clear example of EXCLUSIVELY DIRECT creation.  

God simply spoke and boom! The land produced, the water produced, very fast.  Far far too fast for ANY evolutionary processes of any kind at all, period.   This was NOT some kind of deep-time-friendly evolution-friendly "Indirect creation" gig.  Not even slightly!!


God said, Let there be light, and there was light.

God said, Let the Earth bring forth....

These two creative acts are qualitatively different.

Not that it matters.

A rational, educated, intelligent Christian does not regard the Genesis account as literal history.

After all, God has indicated otherwise, and who are we to gainsay God?

Date: 2009/11/01 21:29:15, Link
Author: Constant Mews
Let's lay out Floyd's principle difficulty.

Christianity is not based on Biblical literalism.  The appropriate, rational reading of Biblical verses does not require literalism.  The reason no "incompatibilities" exist is that Biblical literalism is not a key tenet of Christianity, and the "incompatibilities" only exist with regard to Biblical literalism.

Do you understand that, Floyd?  Biblical literalism and Christianity are not synonymous.

Period.

Does it bother you to realize that you are lying in order to save face?  That you have put your ego on a pedestal above God?

Date: 2009/11/01 21:46:00, Link
Author: Constant Mews
Quote (FloydLee @ Nov. 01 2009,01:37)
Quote
Certainly.  I do not debate this; evolution requires death.

Thanks.  You just openly affirmed the part evolution plays WRT the Fourth Incompatibility.  From here on out, no evolutionist should be using the term "opinion" WRT the 4th Incom.  Clearly the basis of #4 is fact, not opinion.
   
Quote
And it is also quite clear that an educated, intelligent Christian will see that "Death" in Romans is far more likely to be referring to "spiritual death" than it is to "physical death."

I've already quoted Dr. Douglas Moo, professor of NT and author of the NICNT commentary on Romans (is that enough education and intelligence for you??), showing that the term "death" in Romans 5:12-17 is referring to BOTH physical and spiritual death, not either-or.  

Also referred to the Gen and Rom texts and offered a bit of explanation from those as well.  

Hence your claim is refuted, but again thanks for showing that the 4th Incompatibility is solidly based in evolutionary theory itself.

And Francis Collins disagrees with you:
Quote
BioLogos offers an account of the Fall that fits comfortably with a range of reasonable and conventional interpretations of Scripture. There are no scriptural reasons to deny the presence of animal death before humans appeared. And the most reasonable interpretation of Scripture is that the death referred to in Romans and first Corinthians is spiritual death, not physical death. But BioLogos, despite affirming the generally accepted scientific story of origins as God’s method of creation, is also compatible with the idea that human death did not occur before the Fall as long as the definition of fully manifest humanness is not granted until Adam appears.
from Biologos

You see the problem of dueling authorities?  Any time you can cite an authority on your side, I can cite one on mine.

You cannot "win".  You must examine the Bible and scripture directly - something you are remarkably reluctant to do.  Are you afraid?  Do you need a Bible?  I can loan you a few if you need one.

Date: 2009/11/01 21:49:35, Link
Author: Constant Mews
Or, if you'd prefer something a bit more "visual", you might take a look at some of Denis Lamoureux.  I don't fully agree with him, but he makes some interesting points.

Date: 2009/11/01 22:08:42, Link
Author: Constant Mews
Quote (FloydLee @ Nov. 01 2009,01:29)
Quote
Christian doctrine does not require God to use any particular mechanism to create biodiversity.

Do you have access to a Bible?  You really need one in order to determine what "Christian doctrine" says.  Genesis and Hebrews are pretty specific, I'm afraid.

And here is the key to your problem.

Christine Doctrine is not Biblical literalism.

Date: 2009/11/01 22:34:50, Link
Author: Constant Mews
Quote (OgreMkV @ Nov. 01 2009,22:23)
Quote (Constant Mews @ Nov. 01 2009,22:08)
Quote (FloydLee @ Nov. 01 2009,01:29)
 
Quote
Christian doctrine does not require God to use any particular mechanism to create biodiversity.

Do you have access to a Bible?  You really need one in order to determine what "Christian doctrine" says.  Genesis and Hebrews are pretty specific, I'm afraid.

And here is the key to your problem.

Christine Doctrine is not Biblical literalism.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but Christian doctrine couldn't have existed until near the end of the four gospels... there would have been no doctrine until there was a Christ.

Actually, what I am referring to is the corpus of tenets which define one as a Christian; the fundamental statements are the Great Creeds: the Nicene Creed (a product of the great church councils of the 4th century AD) and the Apostles Creed (which seems to have developed in the 2nd century AD).  There are hundreds if not thousands of Christian sects which use their own creeds or variants, but the Great Creeds represent a fairly universal statement of faith (though the Apostles creed is not as common in the East).

If we are to seek for Christian Doctrine anywhere, it should be here.  Neither Creed demands Biblical literalism; indeed, neither mentions the Bible directly.

Floyd fails to understand Christianity; he apparently fails to understand the Bible and Christian doctrine as well.  That's why I told him that tangling with me on this subject would simply make him look foolish.

Date: 2009/11/01 22:35:44, Link
Author: Constant Mews
Quote (OgreMkV @ Nov. 01 2009,22:23)
Quote (Constant Mews @ Nov. 01 2009,22:08)
Quote (FloydLee @ Nov. 01 2009,01:29)
 
Quote
Christian doctrine does not require God to use any particular mechanism to create biodiversity.

Do you have access to a Bible?  You really need one in order to determine what "Christian doctrine" says.  Genesis and Hebrews are pretty specific, I'm afraid.

And here is the key to your problem.

Christine Doctrine is not Biblical literalism.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but Christian doctrine couldn't have existed until near the end of the four gospels... there would have been no doctrine until there was a Christ.

And in the sense that no formalized doctrine or common set of defining Christian beliefs existed before Christ you are, in fact, correct.

Date: 2009/11/01 23:12:58, Link
Author: Constant Mews
Jupiter, you raise an interesting question.  You will note that throughout this entire exchange, Floyd has relied solely on other people's opinions and analysis.

For example, while he provided a "definition" of evolution early on, he has never used it (and when I took him to task for relying on it, he suddenly backed off), and instead relied on the opinions - cherry-picked opinions - of scientists regarding the relationship between evolutionary theory and Biblical literalism.

Floyd has yet to present an argument of his own; and naturally given his proclivities is incapable of actually reading and understanding either evolutionary theory or Christian exegesis, theology, or doctrine.

Hence, he must present others' opinions as facts.  He has nothing else to argue with.

Date: 2009/11/01 23:17:10, Link
Author: Constant Mews
Quote (sledgehammer @ Nov. 01 2009,23:12)
Quote (Constant Mews @ Nov. 01 2009,19:29)
Let's lay out Floyd's principle difficulty.

Christianity is not based on Biblical literalism.  The appropriate, rational reading of Biblical verses does not require literalism.  The reason no "incompatibilities" exist is that Biblical literalism is not a key tenet of Christianity, and the "incompatibilities" only exist with regard to Biblical literalism.

Do you understand that, Floyd?  Biblical literalism and Christianity are not synonymous.

Period.

Does it bother you to realize that you are lying in order to save face?  That you have put your ego on a pedestal above God?

I'm in total agreement w/ CM here, as I stated very early in this thread. Without biblical literalism, your Five Nincompats fall apart.
 It seems to me Floyd, that your battle is not just with science and evolution, but also with the vast majority of modern Christians. I think you understand this all too well.
You and the few remaining fundamentalist biblical literalists have a tough row to hoe with the rest of the faith, and you and your ilk are obviously losing the battle, thank God.
 You are not helping your stated cause, of reducing the numbers of those leaving the faith. Most ex-Christians I've known, and the vast majority who write of their de-conversion experiences,  cite biblical literalism and the absurdly narrow viewpoint of the fundamentalists as a primary reason for leaving the faith.  Your quaint little cultish backwater of the Christian Faith is completely incompatible and irreconcilable with what the rest of modern Christians have come to accept as reality, and you are doing a disservice to your brethren.
 So my closing comment to you is this:
Before you even try to tackle science and evolution, you will have to first make your case for biblical literalism with your fellow Christians.
 As we have seen here in this thread, you haven't done so well in that regard.

Indeed.  The overwhelming majority of Christians are not Biblical literalists.

In fact, Floyd himself does not accept a literal reading of the Bible.  I often use this very amusing fact when discussing the kind of exegetical confusion Floyd is displaying here.

Date: 2009/11/03 12:10:07, Link
Author: Constant Mews
Let's lay out Floyd's principle difficulty.

Christianity is not based on Biblical literalism.  The appropriate, rational reading of Biblical verses does not require literalism.  The reason no "incompatibilities" exist is that Biblical literalism is not a key tenet of Christianity, and the "incompatibilities" only exist with regard to Biblical literalism.

Do you understand that, Floyd?  Biblical literalism and Christianity are not synonymous.

Period.

Does it bother you to realize that you are lying in order to save face?  That you have put your ego on a pedestal above God?

Date: 2009/11/03 23:40:42, Link
Author: Constant Mews
Let's lay out Floyd's principle difficulty.

Christianity is not based on Biblical literalism.  The appropriate, rational reading of Biblical verses does not require literalism.  The reason no "incompatibilities" exist is that Biblical literalism is not a key tenet of Christianity, and the "incompatibilities" only exist with regard to Biblical literalism.

Do you understand that, Floyd?  Biblical literalism and Christianity are not synonymous.

Period.

Does it bother you to realize that you are lying in order to save face?  That you have put your ego on a pedestal above God?

Floyd - answer this question:

Does a person have to accept a literal version of Genesis to be a Christian.

That's the entirety of your "argument" and your "incompatibles" summed up.

Christians - educated, intelligent Christians - can accept evolution rationally and with full understanding both of scripture and of evolutionary theory and of Christian doctrine, because Christian doctrine does not require that they adhere to a literal understanding of Genesis.

Date: 2009/11/04 23:57:14, Link
Author: Constant Mews
Quote (FloydLee @ Nov. 04 2009,06:57)
Quote
Christianity is not based on Biblical literalism.

Quick question CM:  in the Bible, was Jesus'sResurrection literal or non-literal?

Answer my question, Floyd.

Date: 2009/11/05 12:54:49, Link
Author: Constant Mews
Quote (FloydLee @ Nov. 05 2009,08:48)
Quote
I'm enjoying the grown-up conversation now that Floyd has gone

a)  I'm not gone

b)  grown-ups don't do childish insults like that, Johnny---work on it

Be an adult. Answer my question.

Date: 2009/11/05 12:57:35, Link
Author: Constant Mews
Quote (FloydLee @ Nov. 05 2009,08:53)
Also need to ask something else.  Who in here has actually read "The Privileged Planet"?

I have already told you. I have.

Answer my questions, Floyd.

Be an adult.

Date: 2009/11/05 15:12:34, Link
Author: Constant Mews
Quote (FloydLee @ Nov. 05 2009,14:36)
Quote
Are you able to (a) state and (b) defend your argument in your own words?


You have received sentence- or short-paragraph  summaries for all five of the Big Five Incompatibilities, and a similar short-summary of the G and R Cosmo ID hypothesis.  In my own words

IOW, you have received both "my own words" and the published statements of the professional PhD scientists and philosophers of science.  Also answered questions likewise.  Agreed?

FloydLee

Floyd, I have already explained that I have read their book.  They are arguing from incredulity.

And you have not answered my questions.

And adult - as you yourself pointed out - would have.

Are you a child?

Date: 2009/11/05 15:14:03, Link
Author: Constant Mews
Quote (FloydLee @ Nov. 05 2009,14:36)
Quote
Are you able to (a) state and (b) defend your argument in your own words?


You have received sentence- or short-paragraph  summaries for all five of the Big Five Incompatibilities, and a similar short-summary of the G and R Cosmo ID hypothesis.  In my own words

IOW, you have received both "my own words" and the published statements of the professional PhD scientists and philosophers of science.  Also answered questions likewise.  Agreed?

FloydLee

There are actually dozens of questions posed to you in good faith on this thread which you have ignored.

Answer my questions, Floyd.  And adult would answer.

Are you a child?

Date: 2009/11/06 00:10:38, Link
Author: Constant Mews
Quote (dheddle @ Nov. 05 2009,18:27)
Quote (Henry J @ Nov. 05 2009,17:18)
Hypothetically, what if octopuses had built a civilization on the sea floor but never acquired the hobby of looking at the night sky? (After all, they'd need instruments for observations that we can make by eyeball.) What would that do to the observability/habitability correlation?

To me that sounds like something that could happen on an Earth-like planet, even if it didn't on this one.

Henry

It wouldn't negate their argument. Because the earth would still be a good platform for observation--even if the race of octopuses never took advantage of it.

The argument is not anthropomorphic at all. It is not that the planet is designed for people to do science--that's Hugh Ross's argument--and that is an ID argument--but their argument is quite different—in opposition, really. Their argument is that the habitability brings the observability along for the ride--no design required--making no comment as to whether the planet will actually support life that takes advantage of the observability.

But then their argument lacks force: if the sole contention is that habitability implies observational capacity, they have not established this; merely commented on the single sample they have available.

 

 

 

=====