AE BB DB Explorer


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


form_srcid: FloydLee

form_srcid: FloydLee

form_cmd: view_author

Your IP address is 54.204.67.26

View Author detected.

view author posts with search matches:

Retrieve source record and display it.

form_author:

form_srcid: FloydLee

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 'FloydLee%' and forum_view_threads LIKE '*' ORDER BY POST_DATE ASC

DB_err:

DB_result: Resource id #4

Date: 2009/09/14 01:15:26, Link
Author: FloydLee
Well, hello there!  My apologies; it's 12:35 am CST, and I'd meant to be logged in at least an hour or two ago.  

So this is the legendary AtBC, hmm!  Looks like a most interesting saloon in which to conduct a gunfight....

And sincere thanks to Deadman for setting this up.

***

Brief recap:  From tonite through Sun Nov 1, I will be explaining and defending the overall topic "Evolution Is Incompatible With Christianity" (including an emphasis on "the biblical perspective on biology").
followed afterwards by explaining and defending the overall topic "The ID Hypothesis is Science and should therefore be taught in Public School Science Classrooms.".  

Mostly I'll be posting and responding at night, but sometimes in the daytime too.  By Nov. 1, my intention is to be finished discussing both topics.  

Btw, I couldn't help but smile at Doc Bill's comment:

Quote
The fact that FL can generate 3 pages of mocking WITHOUT EVEN FUCKING SHOWING UP is BRILLIANT.


Sounds like we all gonna have some fun up in here!  

:)

Date: 2009/09/14 02:31:26, Link
Author: FloydLee
So, why should we start off with an honest, extended discussion/debate of "Evolution Is Incompatible With Christianity"?

Because, first and foremost, that's the truth, as we shall see.  

Secondly, because of the damage that evolution is doing to the faith of Christians (in some cases, former faith, as it has already been lost).  
Evolution erodes and corrodes Christian faith.  Poisonously so.  Daniel Dennett was right: evolution is "The Universal Acid."

No, evolution is not always the entire gig of why people lose their faith (after all, you're talking about an entire constellation of causes there).

But evolution clearly seems to grease that overall slide downward.  It's a contributing corrosive factor, and it keeps on popping up in various personal testimonies.  Here's two examples.

       
Quote
"As were many persons from Alabama, I was a born-again Christian.  When I was fifteen, I entered the Southern Baptist Church with great fervor and interest in the fundamentalist religion.  I left at seventeen when I got to the University of Alabama and heard about evolutionary theory."

---E.O. Wilson, The Humanist magazine, Sept. 1982


       
Quote
"Evolution played an even more central role in torpedoing (Richard) Dawkins' Anglican when he was 15.  Dawkins says he had always assumed that the intricacy of living things meant God must have designed them, just as the English philosopher William Paley argued in his 1802 book "Natural Theology."

Then Dawkins began to learn about evolution, and he realized that biology could explain life's apparent design without the need for a deity.

"So finally it was Darwinism that did it for my religious faith," Dawkins said in an interview at Oxford University.

---Jeremy Manier, "The New Theology,", Chicago Tribune Online, Jan. 20, 2008


By the way, Manier's article also contains the sad story of Christian college professor (and theistic evolutionist)  Howard Van Till's fall from Christianity.  Might as well check that horror story out too:

       
Quote
"If your faith requires supernaturalism, or a God who wields overpowering control over nature, then yes, evolution will challenge that," says Van Till, who took early retirement from Calvin College in 1999.
 

So since belief in the biblical Jesus automatically entails belief in supernaturalism (you know, supernatural miracles, including "overpowering control" of stormy winds and waves, and little things like, umm, rising from the dead), Van Till is effectively denying what the Bible clearly and foundationally said about Jesus himself.    

At that point, you droppin' out of Christianity, folks.  You takin' the A-train straight to Eternal Hell-Fire on your Eternal Butt, and meanwhile thinkin' that you all enlightened, all scientific, and all cool on the tracks.
You gotta be kidding.  All you're doing is proving that Evolution is NOT compatible with Christianity.

And then there's the ultimate tragic back-sliding evolution example, Big Daddy Chuck Darwin himself, your patron saint.

         
Quote
"That evolution erodes religious belief seems almost too obvious to require argument.

It destroyed the faith of Darwin himself, who moved from Christianity to agnosticism as a result of his discoveries and was immediately recognized as a huge threat by his reverent contemporaries."

---Jacob Weisberg, Slate.com, Aug. 10, 2005


The details of evolution's tragic erosion and destruction of Charles Darwin's faith can be found here:

http://www.christiananswers.net/q-aig/darwin.html

******

So people we gotta get serious, I don't care what label you wear or don't wear.  Evolutionists from Eugenie Scott and her NCSE gang to the Freeman-Herron evolutionary biology textbook Evolutionary Analysis 4th edition are busy trying to sell you the snake-oiled scam that evolution is somehow compatible with Christianity, even though you can clearly see from the above examples that it is simply NOT compatible.

So that's why we have to talk about it.  Some of YOU, sitting right there, already know that evolution has done some serious corroding and eroding on YOUR personal or former Christian beliefs too.  In fact, some of you used to be Christians but now are NO longer Christians---and evolution is a factor in there somewhere.  
Shoot, every time some of you stick your evolutionist nose close to your keyboards, you keep getting faint whiffs of sulphur and brimstone.  Get a clue baby!!

This is a tragedy.  This is an emergency.  And it's happening to science-loving, God-loving youth and young adults right now.  We gotta at least talk about it, assuming you got the cajones for such discussion.

My next post will offer a short list of the primary reasons why evolution is not compatible with Christianity.

Date: 2009/09/14 02:44:18, Link
Author: FloydLee
Okay, I think I get it now.  There's a "FL debate thread" AND an "FL peanut gallery thread."  (Good grief!!)

Well, I've already started posting on the peanut gallery thread, (and probably will do some more posting there too, btw!), but I will use this thread for the main focus and debate.  

In this main debate thread, I will focus on civility and such.  In the peanut thread, I reserve the right to go freestyle and say inflammatory and impolite (but non-profane and not-too-insulting) statements on occasion.

FL  (Floyd Lee, aka Mellotron)

Date: 2009/09/14 02:49:16, Link
Author: FloydLee
So, why should we start off with an honest, extended discussion/debate of "Evolution Is Incompatible With Christianity"?

Because, first and foremost, that's the truth, as we shall see.  

Secondly, because of the damage that evolution is doing to the faith of Christians (in some cases, former faith, as it has already been lost).  

Evolution erodes and corrodes Christian faith.  Poisonously so.  Daniel Dennett was right: evolution is "The Universal Acid."

No, evolution is not always the entire gig of why people lose their faith (after all, you're talking about an entire constellation of causes there).

But evolution clearly seems to grease that overall slide downward.  It's a contributing corrosive factor, and it keeps on popping up in various personal testimonies.  Here's two examples.

       
Quote
"As were many persons from Alabama, I was a born-again Christian.  When I was fifteen, I entered the Southern Baptist Church with great fervor and interest in the fundamentalist religion.  I left at seventeen when I got to the University of Alabama and heard about evolutionary theory."

---E.O. Wilson, The Humanist magazine, Sept. 1982


       
Quote
"Evolution played an even more central role in torpedoing (Richard) Dawkins' Anglican when he was 15.  Dawkins says he had always assumed that the intricacy of living things meant God must have designed them, just as the English philosopher William Paley argued in his 1802 book "Natural Theology."

Then Dawkins began to learn about evolution, and he realized that biology could explain life's apparent design without the need for a deity.

"So finally it was Darwinism that did it for my religious faith," Dawkins said in an interview at Oxford University.

---Jeremy Manier, "The New Theology,", Chicago Tribune Online, Jan. 20, 2008


By the way, Manier's article also contains the sad story of Christian college professor (and theistic evolutionist)  Howard Van Till's fall from Christianity.  Might as well check that horror story out too:

       
Quote
"If your faith requires supernaturalism, or a God who wields overpowering control over nature, then yes, evolution will challenge that," says Van Till, who took early retirement from Calvin College in 1999.
 

So since belief in the biblical Jesus automatically entails belief in supernaturalism (you know, supernatural miracles, including "overpowering control" of stormy winds and waves, and little things like, umm, rising from the dead), Van Till is effectively denying what the Bible clearly and foundationally said about Jesus himself.    

At that point, you droppin' out of Christianity, folks.  A very serious, very tragic, situation.  And more than likely, your decisions and actions are influencing somebody else to follow in your footsteps.

And then there's the ultimate tragic back-sliding evolution example, Big Daddy Chuck Darwin himself.

         
Quote
"That evolution erodes religious belief seems almost too obvious to require argument.

It destroyed the faith of Darwin himself, who moved from Christianity to agnosticism as a result of his discoveries and was immediately recognized as a huge threat by his reverent contemporaries."

---Jacob Weisberg, Slate.com, Aug. 10, 2005


The details of evolution's tragic erosion and destruction of Charles Darwin's faith can be found here:

http://www.christiananswers.net/q-aig/darwin.html

******

So people, we gotta get serious, I don't care what label you wear or don't wear.  

Evolutionists from Eugenie Scott and her NCSE gang to the Freeman-Herron evolutionary biology textbook Evolutionary Analysis 4th edition, are busy trying to sell the snake-oiled scam that evolution is somehow compatible with Christianity, even though you can clearly see from the above examples that it is simply NOT compatible.

So that's why we have to talk about it.  Some of YOU, sitting right there, already know that evolution has done some serious corroding and eroding on YOUR personal or former Christian beliefs too.  In fact, some of you used to be Christians but now are NO longer Christians---and evolution is a factor in there somewhere.  

(How do I know this?  From reading years of your posts at Pandasthumb and other forums, that's how.  It just kinda pops up on occasion, it seems.)

This is a tragedy.  This is an emergency.  And it's happening to science-loving, God-loving youth and young adults right now.  We gotta at least talk about it, assuming you got the cajones for such discussion.

My next post will offer a short list of the primary reasons why evolution is not compatible with Christianity.

Date: 2009/09/14 03:18:10, Link
Author: FloydLee
Quote
Ooooh are we going to be saved? I haven't been saved in ages.


Oh no no, don't get me wrong dude.  I didn't come here to save anybody.  You wanna be Old Scratch's next piece of Pitchfork Shish-Ka-Bobbed Rump-Roast, I'm not gonna git in your way at all!

Shoot, if savin' you guys were my intention up in here, I'd be all polite and circumspect in my choice of words within this peanut thread.  Heh!

Nope, my intention here is simply to execute the two stated discussion/debate topics to the best of my ability by Nov 1.  The opportunity was graciously extended and so I'm here.

Now I have promised to be civil, respectful and circumspect about it all in the main debate thread, and I will very seriously keep that promise.  
I do value respectfulness and civility and my two favorite discussion forums (CARM and TCJ, btw), are quite seriously (and evenhandedly) moderated for precisely those two qualities.

However, in this AtBC peanut thread, I might loosen up and go freestyle a bit, have a little fun, stick some ants in your evo-pants.  (Preferably solenopsis invicta, yes?)

Date: 2009/09/14 12:58:08, Link
Author: FloydLee
Quote
FL has his opinion, and he will not be persuaded otherwise, as years of interaction have shown.


And I can say the exact same thing about you, Dr. Elsberry, based on reading your PT posts for years likewise.  

In fact, I would be very highly surprised if anybody in this forum confessed at all to being "persuaded otherwise" from their current position, after being presented with the facts and reasonings that I intend to offer, as well as the counter-responses from Deadman and other posters.

You see, this debate--though intended to "persuade" as all debates are intended to--is not based on anybody promising to be "persuaded otherwise" or confess such, even if their POV does happen to quietly change.  Most public debates--online or offline--don't come with any guarantees or expectations in that direction.  

The idea is simply that each side rationally presents their case the best they can, also rationally responding to their opponent's case the best they can, and then both sides let the chips fall where they may.  That's it.

As I suggested, I'm NOT here looking for converts.  I'm NOT going to conduct any "Sawdust Trail Altar Calls" after this debate is over to see if anybody's ready to repent and accept Christ as Lord and Savior, or ready to accept the historicity and trustworthiness of Genesis, or ready to accept whatever whatever.  That's simply not the issue here.

All I wanna do is honor the gracious invitation that was given, and do my best on the topics given.  
Hopefully the end result will be that an informative and vigorous discussion/debate will have taken place and provide much food for thought, for all your readers and lurkers.

******

There is one other thing, however.  My understanding from previous posts of the past, is that you yourself profess to be a Christian, Dr. Elsberry.  
So one of the things that I am particularly interested in is hearing the views and responses of the AtBC posters who claim to be Christians as well as evolutionists, in light of the very heavy incompatibilities I'll be presenting and documenting later today.

So I hope you will make time in your busy schedule to respond to some or all of them, as time permits for you.  This particular request is extended not only to Dr. Elsberry but to all Christian (and non-Christian) evolutionists who may be reading this post.  Thanks in advance!

FloydLee

Date: 2009/09/14 13:13:40, Link
Author: FloydLee
Quote
....the generalization "evolution is incompatible with all forms of Christianity" is so obviously wrong


Is it so obviously wrong?  Is it really, Sledgehammer?

You know, over at CARM, I keep on asking the resident evolutionists to please offer me a Bible-supported, and rationally-supported, version of "Christianity" that evolution as currently taught is clearly compatible with.

Been asking them for years, quite literally.  I sincerely want to hear about and critically examine this alleged alternative version of Christianity.

But they can't deliver the goods.  Every time, they wind up having to back off.  (Seems the Bible just won't co-operate with them or something.)

That's one reason why I'm happy to have this opportunity within this forum.  In the course of this debate, I intend to ask you guys and gals the same sincere request, both the resident Christians and the resident non-Christians.  

Maybe I'll have more luck this time, with you guys and gals.  We'll see.  (PS....I don't believe in luck.)

Date: 2009/09/14 13:40:15, Link
Author: FloydLee
Quote
Is it only Christianity that evolution is incompatible with?


I don't know.  Honestly haven't done a survey of world religions on that particular question.  

However, evolution IS compatible with the religion of deism (and I'll be discussing that a little more in today's response to Deadman within the main debate thread), but what you evolutionists are publicly trying to sell to everybody is the claim that evolution is compatible with Christianity, specifically.  Not deism, but Christianity.

So debunking that particular evo-claim of "compatibility" is an emergency priority.  

After all, one cannot maintain good health by drinking battery acid---in fact it will have the opposite effect.  Likewise, American Christianity cannot maintain its health by drinking "The Universal Acid" -- evolution.  We are all seeing the said opposite effect taking place even now within American Christianity.  

******

         
Quote
prediction:  FL will use this thread as an excuse to avoid or ignore the other one.


You wish I would baby, but all yo' little wishin's are in vain.  The field is in play and now your choices are to step up, step off, or just plain git run over anyway!  

Just make sure YOU don't disappear on ME, either in this thread or the main debate thread.  I'll be listening for your considered responses Erasmus.

Date: 2009/09/15 23:30:36, Link
Author: FloydLee
Okay, gentlemen, good to be back.  Forgive my delay, wanted to be here yesterday but family and sickness interrupted.  I'll be here (the main debate thread) for about a couple of hours.   Also plan on doing so tomorrow as well.   Let's go to Deadman right now:

 
Quote
I'm not going to bother much with your claims about Dawkins, E.O. Wilson or Darwin, FL -- Except to point out that E.O.Wilson remains very much a believer (see his introduction in  his 1998 book "Consilience" (Borzoi Books:N.Y., p.6)


A "believer"?  In what?  Oh no no no---most certainly Wilson is NOT a believer, if you are using that word to denote any sort of Christian believer.  Unless otherwise specified, that is the ONLY sense in which I myself will be using that term "believer", because again the topic to be defended is "Evolution is Incompatible with Christianity."

Let's go to Wilson's book Consilience, shall we?

 
Quote
...But most of all, Baptist theology made no provision for evolution.  The biblical authors had missed the most important revelation of all!

Could it be that they were not really privy to the thoughts of God?  Might the pastors of my childhood, good and loving men though they were, be mistaken?
It was all too much, and freedom was ever so sweet.

I drifted away from the church, not definitively agnostic nor atheistic, just Baptist no more.


Please notice:  EVOLUTION was the belief that clearly caused him to drop Christianity.  
And carefully notice something else:  Wilson didn't just drop "fundamentalist Christianity", Dan.  Wilson dropped all of Christianity, even theism itself.

 
Quote
(Wilson) "So I am not a theist, but I'll be a provisional deist...."

(Steve Paulson, Slate.com interviewer)  "It's fascinating because everything you've said up until now suggests that you should be an atheist. Why hold out the specter that maybe there was some divine presence that got the whole thing going?"

(Wilson)  "Well, because there's a possibility that a god or gods -- I don't think it would resemble anything of the Judeo-Christian variety -- or a super-intelligent force came along and started the universe with a big bang and moved on to the next universe. I can't discount that."  

--Slate.com, May 21, 2006


My guess Dan, is that if you speak with him again, you'll see that THAT is his actual position.  Second only to Richard Dawkins, perhaps, EO Wilson is the standout evolutionist example that evolution is incompatible with Christianity.  Listen to part of evolutionist Michael Ruse's review of Consilience:

 
Quote
Moreover, never a man to let a problem or an obstacle deter him, having lost the supports of Christianity, (Wilson) is determined to find religious supports elsewhere.

Indeed he has found them elsewhere, namely in evolution – a fact which Wilson proclaims here as before in many places (notably in On Human Nature). Wilson finds evolution to be the "myth" that he needs to build his new religion.  

---Ruse, "The Global Spiral" online, Metanexus.net


Doesn't get much clearer than that, does it folks?

******

Okay, let's move on from Wilson.  But be clear:  Wilson's tragic (but very instructive) example of ruined Christian faith via evolution's incompatibility is beyond argument.

FloydLee

Date: 2009/09/16 00:30:08, Link
Author: FloydLee
Let us continue with Deadman:

 
Quote
See, Darwin wrote in his autobiography that a man can undoubtedly be an "ardent Theist & an evolutionist" (he mentions Kingsley and Asa Gray as examples of such).


And yet, Darwin unfortunately couldn't cite himself in support of that claim, could he?  Oh, no no.  He dropped out of Christianity AND theism and wound up, AFAIK, dying as an agnostic.  
And as his own words from the christianity.net link made very clear, that dropping out was directly related to his evolution beliefs and their implications, which caused him to first drop the Old Testament historical claims, and then the New Testament historical claims (including those about Jesus Christ), and then theism itself.

(And of course, we've already seen Wilson dropping out of Christianity and theism by his own admission, not to mention Dawkins of course.)

Oh sure sure, evolution-beliefs don't cause everybody to drop out of Christianity and become deists/agnostics/atheists.
By the sheer grace and power of God, many Christians are spared from that fate.  But NOT because evolution is compatible with Christianity, as we shall see.     

Most importantly, as we've already seen, people ARE slipping through the cracks, losing their faith because evolution is incompatible with Christianity---and if you lose your Christian faith, if like Darwin you can't even believe in Jesus Christ and what He did for you on the Cross anymore, what will happen to you after you die???

So, we must needs continue examining this issue.  Too much at stake, honestly.  After all, you and I can't hide behind Asa Gray's skirts on Judgment Day!

******

Therefore, Deadman, let us proceed to the main incompatibilities and hash them out.  You said,

 
Quote
The view that evolution is inherently antireligious is simply false.


However, I did not say that our topic would be "Evolution is Incompatible with Religion."

After all, if you are a deist, or an agnostic, or an atheist, (yes the 7th circuit court of appeals made clear that atheism is a religion too), you'll have LOADS of fun with evolution.  Those three belief-systems are right up the ole evo-alley for sure..

But I said that "Evolution is Incompatible with Christianity."  That's the difference.  THAT stark reality is what ain't goin' away anytime soon.

******

And now, let's start off with FOUR very serious, very documented, reasons why evolution is incompatible with Christianity.

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

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

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

Quote
"People seem to think that Christianity and evolution do or can go together.  But I suggest this is only possible for the intellectually schizophrenic.

Biological theory does not require or allow any sort of divine guidance for the evolutionary process..."

---David Olroyd, professor, School of Science and Technology Studies, University of New South Wales in Australia, speaking to The Weekend Review (Aus), Mar. 20-21, 1993.


 
Quote
"First, Darwinism rejects all supernatural phenomena and causations. The theory of evolution by natural selection explains the adaptedness and diversity of the world solely materialistically.

"It no longer requires God as creator or designer (although one is certainly still free to believe in God even if one accepts evolution)."

---evolutionist Ernst Mayr, "Darwin's Influence on Modern Thought", SciAm July 2000.
http://www.biologie.uni-hamburg.de/b-online/e36_2/darwin_influence.htm


******

Okay, let's stop there for a moment.  There are three more very serious incompatibilities between evolution and Christianity.  The next post will display them.

FloydLee

Date: 2009/09/16 01:08:37, Link
Author: FloydLee
As I said, there are FOUR very serious, very specific, very documented, incompatibilities between evolution and Christianity.  
(There may be more than four; but let's just start with these biggies for now.)

The first one has been put on the table already.  Let's go to the next one.

******

2.   Evolution directly preaches and teaches the doctrine of NT-NCF (No-Teleology-No-Conscious-Forethought), which is clearly diametrically opposed to what biblical Christianity teaches about biological origins.

What does evolution's doctrine of NT-NCF look like?  It looks (and smells) like THIS:

 
Quote
"Teleological statements are those that invoke goals, or ends (Greek teleos, "end"), as causes (eg, "He went to the store in order to get milk.")

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

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


Now read that again, folks.  Carefully.  It's important.

He's saying that according to evolutionary theory itself, the process of evolution that resulted in the origination of the first humans on Earth DOES NOT ADMIT any conscious forethought, any purposefulness or any goal-directedness at ANY point of said evolutionary process, including the point where humans appear.  NO EXCEPTIONS.

Listen again to the textbook-taught NT-NCF of evolution:

 
Quote
"Thus the adaptations of organisms have indeed been 'designed', but by a completely mindless process.  

The process cannot have a goal, any more than than erosion has the goal of forming canyons, for the future cannot cause material events in the past."  ---EB3, pg 342.  


Do you see this, people?  DO you?  
This is a direct head-on CRASH with Bible verses like Genesis 1:26-27, Matthew 19:4-6 (Jesus's own words), and Colossians 1:16, all of which speak not only of God's teleology in creation, but Jesus's teleology in creation.  All creation.  Including humans!!!

(Remember, Col. 1:16 not only says that everything was created BY Jesus, but that everything was created FOR him---that's a direct inescapable claim of teleology right there folks!!).

So now you see the existence of another huge incompatiblity between evolution and Christianity.   And just like Item #1, evolutionists have NEVER been able to resolve it.  Never.  The chasm is just that monstrous.

 
Quote
"Evolution has no goal." --- Jerry Coyne, Why Evolution Is True, 2009

"Evolution has no goal." -- Online Lecture Notes for Biology 391, Organic Evolution, at the University of Tennessee-Martin.  


Can you hear what you guys are actually SAYING here?

FloydLee

Date: 2009/09/16 01:26:54, Link
Author: FloydLee
Quote
Um... Does what is above equate to a real "response?"


Ohhh yes it does, Deadman.  And we're but gettin' started.

Let's face it....With Darwin's own Christian faith clearly getting flushed down the toilent, piece by biblical piece, by his own handwritten admissions to friends and acquaintances, that honestly makes any "hey look at ardent theist Asa Gray" pronouncements on Darwin's part ring very hollow.

If evolution is compatible with Christianity, then what are YOU doing bogged down in the swamp of agnosticism, Mr. Charles Darwin?  Why aren't you following Asa Gray's example of hanging on to the Christian faith, why aren't you living what you yourself are claiming?

******

Quote
Gray, considered by Darwin to be his friend and "best advocate", also attempted to convince Darwin in these letters that design was inherent in all forms of life, and to return to his faith.  ---  Wikipedia


Ahhh, but notice something else--Gray tried to defend the concept of intelligent design WRT origins.  Gray apparently took a stand against NT-NCF evolution as taught by evolutionists today.

FloydLee

Date: 2009/09/16 01:42:05, Link
Author: FloydLee
Quote
In this thread, FL says he will "focus on civility," yet he calls this gentle and thoughtful man "Big Daddy Chuck Darwin".  FL, is this your idea of civility?


Won't lie to you, Dan---Mr. Darwin AIN'T my patron saint, and you should not look for me to speak reverently of him at all times, not even in this main debate thread where I'm committed to civility.  
Besides, the promised civility applies to you and all the posters/readers here.   Didn't promise anything to Darwin.

Now, I won't do any blatant insults on him, but for me "Big Daddy Chuck Darwin" is within the boundaries.  
I do not owe him any reverence---and quite frankly, given what he said about black folks in The Descent Of Man, I honestly think I'm being too lenient on his butt anyway.  

But having said that, I'll go no farther than the occasional "B-D-C-D".  Fair enough, yes?

FloydLee

Date: 2009/09/16 01:52:48, Link
Author: FloydLee
Quote
Did you notice that FL completely ignored my comment?


What, you think I'm gonna let YOU off the hook, dude?  Pfffft!!  

(And wott is Stanton doin' in this saloon?  Don't he know that LIVE AMMO is permitted in this joint??)

Okay, let's first lay down the final two incompatibilites Dale,
then I'll do your question there.    :)

Date: 2009/09/16 03:02:02, Link
Author: FloydLee
Okay, to recap, you've seen the existence of two killer incompatibilities between evolution and Christianity that are taking place right here and right now.

1.  God is clearly a REQUIRED explanation for all biological origins (and cosmological origins too), according to biblical Christianity.  Evolution clearly denies this foundational belief.

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

******

Okay, now let's present the last two incompatibilities.

3.  Evolution specifically denies the foundational Christian claim that humans are created and designed in the image of God.  Needless to say, both the Old and New Testaments affirm that humans are created in God's image.  Yet evolution denies this.

         
Quote
"With all deference to the sensibilities of religious people, the idea that man was created in the image of God can surely be put aside."

---"Evolution and the Brain", Nature science journal, June 14, 2007


 
Quote
"The image-of-God thesis does NOT go along with just any theistic view.  It requires a theism that sees God as actively designing man and the world as a home for man."

--- pro-evolution philosopher James Rachels, Created From Animals, c1990.


Okay, so you can see that evolution is NOT compatible with Christianity on that one.  Don't even try to fix it.
Let's go to the final killer incompatibility.

******

4.  Evolution teaches (and absolutely requires) the historical claim of Death-Before-Adam, in clear violation and opposition to Romans 5:12-17.

This one is the worst of all, because it directly crashes into the Gospel of Jesus Christ.  There is no way to escape the broken-glass impact of this one.

Evolutionary theory teaches that death has ALWAYS been present on this planet. No exceptions.

This is a direct negation of Romans 5:12-17, which says that death historically entered this world only AFTER Adam and Eve sinned (this event is called "The Fall.")

That particular negation is very bad, because if Romans 5:12-17 is historically false, then it's NO longer possible for Christians to tell anybody the meaning of what Christ accomplished or didn't accomplish on the Cross.  

Because of the direct unavoidable historical parallels drawn between Adam and Jesus in Rom. 5:12-17, a non-historical Genesis necessarily means a non-historical Gospel.  A historically inaccurate Creation (and Fall) account necessarily means a historically inaccurate Cross (and Atonement) account.  Then you Christians out there got NOTHING to offer this planet anymore.  

BTW, both Christians and non-Christians have pointed out this stunning situation.  (For example, the Native American activist Vine Deloria Jr. in his book God is Red. calls attention to it)  

Here, check out this evolutionist example---this guy knows the score:
         
Quote
"Destroy Adam and Eve and the original sin, and in the rubble you will find the sorry remains of the son of god.

"Take away the meaning of his death. If Jesus was not the redeemer who died for our sins--and this is what evolution means--then Christianity is nothing!"


---- evolutionist G. Richard Bozarth, “The Meaning of Evolution,” The American Atheist, Feb. 1978, p. 30.


Quite clear, yes?  You see that, Deadman?  How about you, Dale?  You, Stanton?  You see what evolution REALLY means, yes?

******

So there you go.  Four Incompatibilities between Evolution and Christianity.  Each one a killer, each one massive and huge, each one long-standing and intractable, each one clearly documented by evolutionists themselves.  

Please review them and think them over during the course of this discussion.  Sincere thanks if you choose  to do so.

FloydLee

Date: 2009/09/16 03:22:09, Link
Author: FloydLee
Okay, let's start winding down for the night.  Let's address posts by Reed and by Dale:

For Reed:  You're right, we do need to start defining what is meant by the term "evolution", although you can see from some of the quotations that evolutionists themselves do not always do so.

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

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

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


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

Quote
Macroevolution:
Large evolutionary change, usually in morphology;
typically refers to the evolution of differences among populations that would warrant their placement in different genera or higher-level taxa.


FloydLee

Date: 2009/09/16 03:37:05, Link
Author: FloydLee
Quote
If FL truly beleives that evolution is incompatible with Christianity, why not do the obvious thing and abandon Christianity? Because there is a LOT more evidence for evolution than there ever has been for the historical claims of Christianity.


Well, you may want to read that paragraph again Dale.  What you're writing there--whether I agree with it or not (and I don't)--is actually REINFORCING the truth claim that I'm seeking to defend in this main debate thread:  "Evolution is Incompatible with Christianity."

What you're saying there is NOT causing evolution to become compatible with Christianity.  Instead you're recommending a course of action (abandonment of Christianity) that apparently assumes that indeed there does exists a real incompatibility somewhere, and that abandoning Christianity is the most rational way (as you see it) to respond to that real incompatibility.

Nice reinforcement of incompatibility there.  Also your suggestion that Genesis is "discredited", and that the writers of the Scriptures may be lying, likewise doesn't create any reconciliations between evolution and Christianity.

FloydLee

Date: 2009/09/16 03:50:50, Link
Author: FloydLee
Quote
Who cares if evolution is incompatible with Christianity (or Islam, or Zoroastrianism, or Pastafarianism, for that matter)?


Go visit Eugenie Scott's NCSE website when you get a chance to, Albatrossity.

Or go visit the National Academy of Science's website and read their latest edition of Science, Evolution, and Creationism.  Use the following link:

http://books.nap.edu/html/11876/SECbrochure.pdf

Or take a look at Freeman and Herron's evolutionary biology textbook Evolutionary Analysis 4th edition.

All these evolutionists, and many more, are trying very VERY hard to sell people on the (demonstrably false) notion that evolution is somehow compatible with Christianity.  
You can find clear examples of this sales effort, within each of those sources I mentioned.

So when you ask "Who cares....", take a good hard look at your own evolutionist side of the fence and ask why your own comrades care so much.  After all, they clearly do!!

FloydLee

Date: 2009/09/16 04:01:48, Link
Author: FloydLee
Quote
There it is - not even one "alternate version" of christianity, only FL's version.
No alternate interpretations of the Bible, only FL's One True Interpretation.


In this forum, you are free to provide everybody with your own "interpretation", presumably one in which biblical Christianity can be demonstrated to be compatible with evolution, particularly with macroevolution (see the definitions I supplied in the main debate thread.)

Just relax, sit down, and type out your alternate interpretation.  Then we can go to the Bible together in this debate forum and see how well the Scriptural data, the biblical texts and their contexts, supports the "alternate interpretation" that you currently subscribe to.

That's certainly a rational approach, and it can be equally and even-handedly applied to both "my interpretation" and "your interpretation."  

Do you wish to give it a try?  Is there an "alternate interpretation" you've got that, in light of the biblical data, reconciles evolution and Christianity?

FloydLee

Date: 2009/09/16 10:36:48, Link
Author: FloydLee
Let's do a few items, a bit at a time....

 
Quote
Perhaps you might be good enough to check out Morton's harmonization of science with Christianity, and identify any errors Morton may have committed?


Somewhere between today and Friday, I will at least glance at Morton's website to see how he fares specifically WRT resolving the Big Four Incompatibilities I've presented.  
Any other Morton topic I'll probably skip for now, just would want to see if he has resolved those particular issues.  Last time I looked, I don't believe he did.

******

 
Quote
FL, what is a "biblical christian"?  Is this your definition who believes in a literal interpretation of every word in the bible?  so what do you call us who are not literalists?  Oh wait, i know the answer:  hell bound, spawns of Satan, evilutionists.


So far, I have referred to "biblical Christianity", not "biblical Christians."  Quite frankly, the Bible tells us what beliefs are clearly involved in Christianity.  So I'm sticking with that.  

I didn't say anything about you or anybody being a spawn of Satan, nor do I intend to.  Nor did I say you are going to Hell, although if you talk like you're unsaved and don't even care, I may just mention good ole Hell-Fire anyway, just for the sake of doing so.

On the other hand, the New Testament clearly shows that even people who claim to be Christians are sometimes capable of swallowing beliefs that erode and corrode Christian faith, even to the point of leading a person away from the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

 
Quote
"I am amazed that you are so quickly deserting Him who called you by the grace of Christ, for a different gospel;
which is really not another; only there are some who are disturbing you and want to distort the gospel of Christ."

---Gal. 1:6-7  


So it's not about consigning you to Hell, Nmgirl, but instead simply looking to see if evolution is compatible or incompatible with biblical Christianity.  

(Besides, I'm not even sure what you mean by suggesting that you're "not a literalist" Christian.  
For example, are a you a "non-literalist" when it comes to Jesus's substitutionary atonement on the cross?  How about WRT Jesus's Resurrection---are you a "non-literalist" on THAT biblically non-negotiable issue?  Hmm?)

******

So, for now, I'm just focussing mostly on doing the evolution-Christianity comparison for the sake of determining compatibility or incompatibility.  

FloydLee

Date: 2009/09/16 10:59:57, Link
Author: FloydLee
Quote
Psst, Hey Floyd.  Someone should tell you how babies are made.  There ain't no God in it.


Hmmm.  That is specifically not what the Bible says.  Let's check things out:

Quote
13 For you created my inmost being; you knit me together in my mother's womb.

14 I praise you because I am fearfully and wonderfully made; your works are wonderful, I know that full well.

15 My frame was not hidden from you when I was made in the secret place.  When I was woven together in the depths of the earth,

16 your eyes saw my unformed body.  All the days ordained for me were written in your book before one of them came to be.

---Psalm 139


Looks like the Bible says that God is directly involved in it.  
In fact, let's be specific:  the Bible says that God was directly involved in YOUR OWN existence as a baby.  

He did it.  Not evolution.  Not materialism.  Not atheism.  GOD did it.  THAT is why you're existing right now as an adult, reading this post at this very moment.  Period.

Even the Muslims agree on this point:

http://harunyahya.com/creation04.php

Date: 2009/09/16 12:27:03, Link
Author: FloydLee
Quicknote:  I did see your post DHeddle.  I want to respond to that one in detail.  Along with my promise to check on GMorton WRT the Big Four, I will very probably need from now through Friday, maybe Saturday, to get that all in.

FloydLee

Date: 2009/09/17 09:08:48, Link
Author: FloydLee
Quote
And in response, you totally failed to refute my statement that the historical case for Christianity is far weaker than the scientific case for evolution.

Simply put, Dale, that's a separate topic for debate.  Could spend the entire time just on hashing out that one topic.  

But that's not what I've chosen to debate.  There will be no attempt, at least not by me, at refuting your statement.

It is honestly sufficient, imo, just to say "I disagree" while noting that your response, to whatever degree, would apparently help reinforce rather than refute the chosen topic.

FloydLee

Date: 2009/09/17 10:07:51, Link
Author: FloydLee
Quote
doesn't the Bible at times refer to natural weather phenomenon as being under the control of God, yet modern meteorology does not make room for the kinds of teleological processes written about in the Bible.  In what real sense then is meteorology more compatible with Christianity than evolutionary biology?


The big difference is that if you will go to a meteorology textbook, or a physics textbook, or a chemistry science journal article, you will see that they are SILENT on the issue of teleology.  

You will NOT see them denying teleology, instead they just stay silent and stick to whatever they can back up with science.   You won't see public claims of:

"Meteorology does not admit conscious anticipation of the future (ie consious forethought)..."

"Physics is a completely mindless process..."

"(Chemistry and the Brain) -- With all deference to religious people, the notion that humans were created in the image of God can be set aside."

"Astronomy rejects all supernatural phenomena and causations."

No.  No sir.   These kinds of public pronouncements are found only within--and are inherently part of-- EVOLUTION.  Evolution is incompatible with Christianity.

FloydLee

Date: 2009/09/17 10:21:48, Link
Author: FloydLee
Quote
FL, what about the nearly 12000 christian pastors who signed up in the Clergy Letter Project? Are they all wrong?

Yes.  They are.  (Gosh, that was an easy question!)

Actually, I'm hoping you'll re-check out their "Clergy Letter" gig in light of the Big Four Incompatibilities that's being presented and discussed.  Exactly HOW do they offer to reconcile those Killer Four issues?

My answer for you is:  They Don't.  They honestly have no biblically supportable solutions on this gig.  They don't have any solution other than waving white flags and surrendering to Darwinism, surrendering to the erosion and the corrosion we discussed and documented earlier.

Doesn't mean they are bad guys.  They're not 'enemies."  They're clergy.  Good people.

BUT......we gotta huge problem here and their answer is no answer at all, I'm sorry to say.  

FloydLee

Date: 2009/09/17 10:43:37, Link
Author: FloydLee
Quote
Floyd, that if you are going to apply your “Incompatibility …theory? hypothesis? idea? opinion?” to biology (specifically evolutionary biology), then you must equally apply it to geology, cosmology, chemistry, and quite possibly a good piece of physics. Yes or no?

See my response to Someotherguy's question,

(It's just a couple posts previously, see "Posted on Sep. 17 2009, 10:07".)

Date: 2009/09/17 10:53:25, Link
Author: FloydLee
Quote
May I suggest that this thread become more of a Heddle / FL match?

Nope.  I wouldn't have to be doing all this typing if Heddle was the only person contributing responses, questions, challenges, links, extended quotations, etc.

Clearly some people around here are interested in this particular topic.   In fact, I'm workin' seriously on trying to review and organize all the different responses so that I don't miss replying to anybody's question or response.  I appreciate all those who are responding.

FloydLee

Date: 2009/09/17 11:07:39, Link
Author: FloydLee
Quote
Second, do you think schools should teaching those subjects, or just stop teaching that they are compatible with Christianity?

Nope, the schools should NOT stop teaching those science subjects, not even stop teaching biology, not even stop using the canned Darwin Dogma Dogfood textbooks that they're using right now.

Instead, what is needed is for Christians to

(1) start educating themselves (and their fellow Christians, and their clergy and teachers and choir memebers and Sunday School and CCIA groups) with the specific details of how evolution is incompatible with Christianity and is eroding and corroding Christian faith.

(2) start supporting positive Science Education Reform by initiating and supporting positive, critical-thinking-oriented changes in State Science Standards such as what Louisiana and Texas have successfully accomplished.   THAT's the way to do things right!

FloydLee

Date: 2009/09/17 12:47:28, Link
Author: FloydLee
Quote
What you're arguing against is statements by individuals about what they think or believe...

Actually, Futuyma's statement of NT-NCF in his evolutionary biology textbook was directly ascribed to "evolutionary theory" itself, NOT to Futuyma's individual or personal opinion:
 
Quote
"Evolutionary theory does not admit...."

Furthermore, there are so many evolutionists saying and teaching "Evolution has no goal"  (for example, Futuyma, Mayr, Coyne's Why Evolution is True, and Biology 391 Online at Univ. of Tenn. at Martin),
that at this point you'd need to show that such a statement was merely a matter of individual opinion instead of the clear solid no-waffling position of evolutionary theory itself.

Date: 2009/09/17 12:48:51, Link
Author: FloydLee
Quote
Reality is wrong
Your interpretation is wrong
Your book is wrong

....Or perhaps somebody's naturalistic interpretation of reality is wrong?

Date: 2009/09/17 13:34:00, Link
Author: FloydLee
Quote
To phrase a coin, that's not even halibut.

You sure about that, Amadan?  Stop by the main debate board and supply some actual reasons (preferably specific reasons) for your assertion there.  Thanks!

Date: 2009/09/18 08:36:59, Link
Author: FloydLee
Quote
"No. No sir.   These kinds of public pronouncements are found only within--and are inherently part of-- EVOLUTION.  Evolution is incompatible with Christianity."

This is contradicted by the vast history of science. You don't think that this argument ever came up in physics and astronomy, as the earth being the privileged, center of the universe created 6000 years ago?

So far I haven't said anything about the age of the universe or of the earth.  In fact, ALL of the Big Four Incompatibilities are actually independent of the age of the earth, as you've probably noticed.

So, can you show me exactly how what I said is "contradicted by the vast history of science"?

FloydLee

Date: 2009/09/18 08:48:26, Link
Author: FloydLee
Quote
FL what's your timeline for the Earths history and what is your scientific explanation for the Flood?

As suggested to the other poster, the Big Four Incompatibilities are completely independent of age-of-Earth issues, Flood, etc.  
(I do believe in the Bible's account of a literal 6-day creation and a global Noahic Flood, however.)

Date: 2009/09/18 08:54:15, Link
Author: FloydLee
Quote
God did not give you the right to define what beliefs make a Christian and it is incredibly arrogant to assume you have that right. ("pride goeth before a fall"?)

Do you believe that certain claims of the Bible define what makes a Christian?  Or do you believe that a Christian is anybody who labels themselves a Christian no matter what they believe or don't believe?

Date: 2009/09/18 09:23:33, Link
Author: FloydLee
Btw, here's another guy who lost his Christian faith.  Was evolution the final trigger for that tragic loss?  Nope, apparently not.  (In fact he is very clear on what that final trigger turned out to be.)

On the other hand, you can see where evolution played a clear role, greasing his slide, quietly eroding his beliefs.  No escaping that part of his story.

 
Quote
"....I no longer needed a reason for my existence, just a reason to live."


Does Ricky Gervais' tragic story prove all by itself that evolution is incompatible with Christianity?  Nope---but it does help with pointing out that this issue is NOT just some dry academic hypothetical gig.  

Real people are suffering real spiritual damage becasue of evolution--even to the point of abandoning their Christian faith and becoming real candidates for Hell itself when they pass away from this life.

http://www.rickygervais.com/bestlife.php

FloydLee

Date: 2009/09/18 10:13:07, Link
Author: FloydLee
Actually, another way of looking at Ricky Gervais' story (in a more chronological fashion) is that (if he received no exposure at all to evolution prior to losing his faith) is that he made an immature (8 years old), irrational decision.
(After all, exactly how does one's brother asking 'why do you believe in God' followed by Mom's shushing up said brother, rationally add up to a warrant for believing in atheism?)

In this case, a child made a tragic, unsupported decision to disbelieve in God.  Yet, as Gervais himself makes clear, that decision to jump into atheism did NOT rationally satisfy him -- he was aware that his atheism wasn't by itself providing any reason for his existence.

He could have said (in age-appropriate language), "My athiesm has failed to offer me a reason for being, for my existence, therefore I honestly don't have a rational warrant for hanging on to such a belief."  No intellectual fulfillment was being provided.

But nope.  EVOLUTION becomes his savior.  Evolution becomes the glue that reinforces his atheism in place, blinding him to his need to abandon it.

Btw, just like atheism, evolution didn't give him any reason for existence either -- but as you see from his remarks, NOW he's been anesthestized (via evolution) and no longer cares about that question which used to be important to find an answer to.

He's slid so far down via his comforting evolution-belief that he "no longer need a reason for his existence, only a reason to live."  

Evolution has thus robbed him of his motivation to move past his tragic irrational decision made when he was merely 8 years old, a decision which has placed his soul in jeopardy.

So here you can see that same sort of evolution-greases-the-slide action taking place in yet another life.  
Again, by itself, that doesn't prove evolution's incompatibility with Christianity.  

But added up with all the others, it shows that Christians have a REAL problem (affecting real people) on their hands with that incompability issue, and that it's necessarily to consider the issue very seriously.

Date: 2009/09/18 10:25:13, Link
Author: FloydLee
Quote
So, given that you argue that the main facts of human natural history compel this result (I agree, although others here disagree), and given that those facts are beyond reasonable dispute, are you arguing that people should be prevented from learning those facts, or lied to about those facts?

Nope.  This is similar to another poster asking me if I wanted to stop teaching physics, chemistry, biology, evolution, etc in the schools because of the incompatibility issue.
The only rational answer is nope.   Don't stop teaching 'em.

Instead, it's time for Christians and churchgoers to start educating themselves (and their pastors and priests and teachers and choir directors and youth ministers) on this incompability issue.
 
It's also time to support positive, critical-thinking-oriented, science education reform efforts such as the successful changes in Texas and Louisiana.  

It's time to remind science students that there's a big difference between data and interpretation, and that those same science kids have a serious responsibility to check out evolutionist claims (and their possible weaknesses, unproven assumptions, etc) instead of uncritically swallowing those claims from a canned textbook and refusing to listen to all sides of the science story.

We can make huge differences in the lives of youth and young adults like Gervais, Wilson, etc etc, if we can reach them with the two approaches mentioned above.  We can slow down some of these tragedies.

FloydLee

Date: 2009/09/18 10:40:06, Link
Author: FloydLee
Quote
I think all of us here would like to hear your answer to this problem, which seems to cut straight through the haze of your big four arguments.

Really?  Indeed we shall seeeeee if your faith in Dan's ditty carries rational warrant.  Will start on that one, beginning around 12:30 CST.

FloydLee

Date: 2009/09/18 12:58:49, Link
Author: FloydLee
Quote
1. The Pope is a Christian.

2. The Pope holds that evolution happens.

3. Therefore, Evolution is compatible with Christianity.

A simple three-line proof.

So, let's check out this "proof".  Let's ask a few questions.  Better yet, let's just ask one question.

What exactly does (1) have to do with (2)?

Note carefully:  It is entirely possible, according to your 3-point set-up, that the Pope is affirming that "evolution happens" even though it creates a conflict with his personal belief in Christianity.  That would kinda wreck the claim of "proof."

(After all, you'll notice that nowhere in your e-point set-up did you actually claim that the Pope says that evolution is compatible with Christianity, nor is any evidence provided by the Pope to support such a claim, nor does the Pope offer any specific resolutions of any of the Big Four Incompatibilities.)

FloydLee

Date: 2009/09/18 14:37:37, Link
Author: FloydLee
Quote
Yeah, and it was only directed at you 4 days ago.

Hey, you can afford to be patient.  I remind you that you have not yet chosen to directly deal with each of the Big Four Incompatibilities.  I was honestly expecting more from you, but you're not making the effort.  Meanwhile:
Quote
Argument from Consequences.....
Arguing that a proposition is true because belief in it has good consequences, or that it is false because belief in it has bad consequences is ***often*** an irrelevancy.


"Often"---but not always, according to the writer of the piece.  That is really important.

You've been presented with a total of five self-testimonies in which a former Christian has clearly suffered "bad consequences" to their Christian faith (erosion, corrosion, even to the point of dropping their Christian faith and/or continuing in that decision) as a self-confessed partial or indirect result of their belief in evolution.  

I've already suggested that in isolation, none of these cases constitute "proof" that evolution is incompatible with Christianity.  However, they DO show that the incompatibility problem is real and relevant, not hypothetical, not imaginary, and that real people are affected.  

Furthermore, the five examples have been combined with four very clear and documented rational incompatibilities.  These further reinforce the relevancy, and show that the erosion of Christian faith, as demonstrated in the examples, could rationally be based on a very real set of incompatibilities between evolution and Christianity.

Date: 2009/09/18 15:35:22, Link
Author: FloydLee
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.

Date: 2009/09/18 15:46:47, Link
Author: FloydLee
Quote
....some people formulate their personal theology in such a way that no discernible dissonance exists.


Who are these people, specifically?  Are there any in this forum that would be willing to offer such a theology?  (And does the non-discernable dissonance suddenly show up when a Bible is brought to the table?)

Date: 2009/09/18 16:10:52, Link
Author: FloydLee
Quote
What you have now indicated is that evolution doesn't incorporate a conclusion of literal-based Christianity. That strikes me as a rather different issue.


That's not what was said in the 3-point set-up.  There was no qualifier of "literal-based" given in the alleged "proof."

The problem with that set-up that breaks down the claim of "a proof" is that just because the Pope says "evolution happened", there is no automatic rational linkage there with the statement "the Pope is a Christian."  THAT line, is maybe what should have been worded differently if the idea was to "prove" compatibility.

Date: 2009/09/18 17:41:36, Link
Author: FloydLee
Quote
If becoming a Christian is as easy as reading and understanding John 3:16, then where is the conflict with Evolution?  There is nothing in that passage that mentions anything about origins.

I suspected somebody might try to respond in that manner.  Here is the issue:  there are Christian beliefs that are foundational even to John 3:16, even.  They're quite important and can't be blown off.

For example, you know that John 3:16 presumes theism.  There's no way an ATHEIST can do John 3:16 without first giving up atheism.  Theism is foundational to John 3:16, even if a person doesn't even know how to spell the word theism.  Theism is foundational to Christianity.  

Well, there's some OTHER biblical beliefs that are foundational to Christianity too.  Deny these other biblical beliefs--and as we've seen already in four areas, evolution DOES deny them--and you are effectively eroding, corroding, undercutting Christian belief.  

Doesn't mean necessarily that you're not a Christian, but goodness, look at that danger and damage, that potential to erode and corrode important beliefs---and look at the people who are no longer holding on to the Christian faith you're holding on to, people for whom the damage is already done.

And that's happening right now.

Date: 2009/09/18 17:56:56, Link
Author: FloydLee
Quote
(prior statement)
"....some people formulate their personal theology in such a way that no discernible dissonance exists."

(my response)
"Who are these people, specifically?  Are there any in this forum that would be willing to offer such a theology?"

I'm repeating this snippet for you, Occam.  Notice:  a specific claim was made by a poster.  Very clear.

I'm just asking who are those "some people" the poster had in mind, that happens to fit that very specific wording.  

I'm ALSO asking if there are any Christians in THIS forum who fit that specific wording and would like to demonstrate it by sharing their own personal theology.  

How about you, Nmgirl?  I think you said that you were a Christian.   Would you be willing to share your personal theology so we can examine and see if there's "no discernable dissonance" between evolution and Christianity within your chosen theology?  

(Btw, any other Christians in this forum want to join her in that effort?)

FloydLee

Date: 2009/09/21 14:06:55, Link
Author: FloydLee
Okay, back again.  Still recovering from illness, could not post this weekend.  Was able to print off all six pages of ATBC debate, however, and I'm currently studying those.

Checked out Glenn Morton's site also.  He only addresses ONE of the Big Four (leaving three untouched).  He only addresses the fourth one, so I'll do his and DHeddle's together.  

(Btw, Morton doesn't do a good job on his one gig, so it shouldn't take long to move on to Heddle's.)

FloydLee

Date: 2009/09/21 14:37:26, Link
Author: FloydLee
Quote
Gee, it seems that I already debunked FL's claim that evolution is incompatible with Christianity by showing that one may believe in God and Jesus and not be blind followers of everything the Bible says as literally true. Why? Because the Bible was written by fallible, sinful men, not any God, and it would be insulting God Himself to claim otherwise.


Well, let's see Dale.  First, you've just denied the operation of the providence of God in the making of the Scriptures.

Second, your particular argument attacking the reliability of the Scriptures, is just as quickly applicable to the Gospels as well as Genesis, and is just as severe an attack on the historical claims of the Cross of Christ as well as the Creation.

So you haven't reconciled anything between evolution and Christianity by your specific argument there.  Instead, you've denied an important biblical attribute of God, and ALSO succeeded in employing a skeptic-argument that actualy attacks Christianity itself, not just Creation.  Good job!

Date: 2009/09/21 15:58:39, Link
Author: FloydLee
Keelyn recaps:
 
Quote
1. Floyd is a Young Earth Creationist (He says so in a Sept 18 post – 09:48)

True.  After several years of discussion and debate, I have come to the conclusion that the Bible does in fact teach YEC.  With any viewpoint you will have questions and challenges, but Old-Earth Creationism has more problems than YEC, and Theistic Evolutionism is a Total-Theological-Train-Wrec at this time.

At the same time, however, I like reading OEC writers like Hugh Ross and Rich Deem, and Francis Collins did show some real courage as a TE in his Language of God book, he's unwilling to serve merely as a shoeshine boy for the secular evolutionists.  So I commend him that much.  But neither OEC (and especially not TE) enjoys as much biblical support as YEC.

And of course, I like ID, particularly on the science front.

Date: 2009/09/21 16:10:43, Link
Author: FloydLee
continuing:
Quote
2. At no time (so far) has Floyd offered up any evidence that any part of evolutionary theory is invalid. (He has only made some disparaging remarks without any examples to support them)

Probably true.  The fact is that you simply DON't have to prove that "evolutionary theory is invalid" in order to establish that evolution is incompatible with Christianity.  Establishing that point can be accomplished whether evolution is scientifically 100% right or 100% wrong.

Date: 2009/09/21 16:45:51, Link
Author: FloydLee
Quote
abiogenesis and evolution "leaves him [God] with nothing to do".

Interesting statement by Richard Dawkins, Dan.  
Thanks for looking it up and putting it on the table.  

Sorta reminds me of what Slate.com editor Jacob Weisberg said:
 
Quote
"Post-Darwinian evolutionary theory, which can explain the emergence of the first bacteria, doesn't even leave much room for a deist God whose minimal role might have been to flick the first switch."

Sure doesn't sound compatible with Christianity, folks!!

:)

Date: 2009/09/22 08:43:11, Link
Author: FloydLee
Quote
Note the quote mine.  I showed why Dawkins was wrong, but FL, bless his heart, left that part out!


No quote mine there, Dan.  Dawkins said exactly what HE meant, and your attempt to escape his statement demonstrates that indeed it was a statement of incompatilibility.  It simply reminded me of somebody else's similar statement and all I wanted to do was mention it (and of course, to thank you for bringing up Dawkins' line in the first place! )

Date: 2009/09/22 09:28:04, Link
Author: FloydLee
Quote
If God is timeless, then it all unfolds to the majesty of his great plan, surely?


Very interesting you should word it that way, because the existence of "the majesty of His great plan" WRT biological origins is exactly what evolution denies.  

By claiming that there's a God whose majestic great plan includes evolution, you've just said that God is the required explanation for origins.  Which evolutionists Mayr and Olford already told you evolutionary theory means that God is NOT required as a explanation for origins.

By saying "the majesty of His great plan", you're also directly invoking Teleology and conscious forethought---which again, evolutionary theory itself DOES NOT admit. No-Teleology-No-Conscious-Forethought, remember?

And there's a third major problem with what you said, which multiple evolutionists have brought up already, everybody from Monod to Dawkins to Rosenhouse.  It goes something like this:

 
Quote
"(Natural) selection is the blindest and most cruel way of evolving new species, and more and more complex and refined organisms..."---Jacques Monod


 
Quote
"Evolution by natural selection, you see, is an awful process. It is bloody, sadistic, and cruel. It flouts every moral precept we humans hold dear.

It recognizes only survival and gene propagation, and even on those rare occasions where you find altruism and non-selfishness you can be certain that blind self-interest is lurking somewhere behind the scenes. All of this suffering, pain and misery, mind you, to reach a foreordained moment when self-aware creature finally appeared.

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

....Reconciling evolution and Christianity is not as simple as theistic evolutionists often try to pretend."

---Jason Rosenhouse's Evolutionblog, "My Review of Only A Theory", June 21, 2008


Notice how, under critical examination by evolutionists, evolution does NOT make God's plan look "majestic" at all, but instead cruel and sadistic.

ANOTHER incompatibility.

******

So here's the real deal:  by suggesting that evolution is part of "the majesty of (God's) great plan", you have not only run afoul of evolution's clear teachings (Incompatibility #1 and #2), but you have actually introduced a FIFTH huge incompatibility, longstanding and intractable just like the others, between evolution and Christianity.

From now on I will be saying "The Big Five" instead of "The Big Four."

FloydLee

Date: 2009/09/22 09:35:13, Link
Author: FloydLee
Quote
And yes, we automatically assume that you're quotemining...

Saves you from having to factually check it out and do the actual homework for yourself, doesn't it?  How very convenient.    :)

Date: 2009/09/22 10:09:12, Link
Author: FloydLee
Quote
cherry-pick

So far, none of the evolutionist statements I've quoted WRT the Big Five, have been cherry-picked or quote- mined.  

Each person quoted has meant exactly what he or she said on each point for which they were quoted WRT the Big Five.  

Nobody in this forum has come up with an extended quotation that contradicted the point expressed in the original quotation that I supplied.  Your felow evolutionists, authors, professors, are quite serious about what they are saying here.  They're not backing down one bit.

Date: 2009/09/22 10:16:26, Link
Author: FloydLee
Quote
"A serious case could be made for a deistic God." RD.


Yeah, except that a deistic god doesn't fit biblical Christianity at all.   The religion of deism fits evolution fine, but deism is not compatible with Christianity.

Date: 2009/09/22 10:30:04, Link
Author: FloydLee
Quote
Reject Physics, if it claims that Genesis isn't LITERALLY "true" n all aspects. Reject Genetics if it says sheep don't change colors because of sticks placed near them, or reject Chemistry if it says that water cannot be *literally* turned into wine by instantaneous miraculous transmutation.

So, find me a high school or university-level Physics, Genetics, or Chemistry textbook that SAYS these particular things.  

How about Halliday Resnick Walker's physics textbook, for example?  That's the one they teach from at my hometown university.  Do they talk about Genesis being literal or non-literal in that book?

Me, I can't seem to find any such statements.  Those textbooks are SILENT on such topics as you mention.  

But when we turn to evolution, THEN we get into books, college courses, and articles where everybody just lets it all hang out, don't we???

Date: 2009/09/22 10:43:18, Link
Author: FloydLee
Quote
Hey Floyd. Is the Pope Christian? Yes or No.

Yes.  He is.

So is Francis Collins, according to Collins book.

Both are good examples of Theistic Evolution, probably the best TE has got right now.

Neither One has come up with any solution for the Big Five Incompatibillities.   Simply not able to, so far.  

The End.

Date: 2009/09/22 10:53:04, Link
Author: FloydLee
Quote
So if it is assumed, it is OK?

Nope, not okay.   I just want somebody to find those physics, genetics and chemistry textbooks.  If those textbooks DON'T say those things deadman said, then let's be honest and admit that those other disciplines are SILENT on these issues but that evolution is not silent on its incompatibility issues.

Date: 2009/09/22 10:54:41, Link
Author: FloydLee
Quote
Neither one (Pope Benedict, Francis Collins) has come up with any solution for the Big Five Incompatibillities.   Simply not able to, so far.
 
Anybody able to refute this particular statement?

Date: 2009/09/22 11:19:05, Link
Author: FloydLee
Quote
"It is as certain that the Universe started with a Big bang about 15 Billion years ago as it is that the Earth goes around the sun."


It's a okay catch, Deadman.  I'd savor it if I were you, because you already know you've got nothing on the genetics and chemistry textbooks, and that one snip is  likely to be the only statement you find from that HRW text that can relate (by inference, for even here they don't mention Genesis) to the issue of "literally true in all aspects."

But as the OEC's Ross and Rana and Deem and Archer and Etc would tell you, the age of the universe or the earth is not necessarily incompatible with Christianity.  As has been pointed out already, the incompatibility of evolution with Christianity is completely independent of the age of the earth and the age of the universe.

So nope, you've not done a thing to refute the topic at hand.

So there would be no reason to reject physics merely because of your one quotation there---(but that doesn't mean that you have to blindly swallow HRW's quotation as infallible without doing your own science homework and critical examination of the issue.)

Date: 2009/09/22 12:43:17, Link
Author: FloydLee
Quote
That quote on the age of the Universe is incompatible with YOUR YEC-LIERALIST VERSION of Christianity, which is all this discussion is about.

Nope.  Won't make it that way.

You have NOT produced a physics-chemistry-etc-etc textbook (not even our mutual favorite, Halliday-Resnick-Walker!) in which any of the Big Five Incompatibilities with Christianity are mentioned.

The very BEST you could come up with, was to produce a single HRW "Big Bang" quote that would interfere (via inference) with the YEC claim that the earth is young.  However, the topic under defense is "Evolution is Incompatible with Christianity."  (Not YEC, but Christianity.)

(a)  Your HRW quotation is NOT the same as producing a physics-chemistry-etc-etc textbook quote in which any of the Big Five Incoms are suggested, inferred, or claimed, and

(b) it was already established that NONE of the Big Five involve the age of the earth or the age of the universe.
(And please notice:  Nobody in this forum has been able to demonstrate that any of the specific Big Five Incompatibililtes is dependent upon any given age of the earth/ any given age of the universe, whether old or young.)

FloydLee

Date: 2009/09/22 12:54:46, Link
Author: FloydLee
Quote
So an OEC like Ross, even though he denies evolution, is not compatible with Christianity, according to your point 4, for the same reason you claim evolution is not compatible.


Nope. If I am going to say that the Pope and Francis Collins are Christians, (and they're TE's of all things), what makes you think I am going to claim that OEC Hugh Ross, on whom I agree with so many more things, is not a Christian?

Date: 2009/09/22 13:27:35, Link
Author: FloydLee
Quote
death before the fall is not a “problem” unique to evolution; it is a problem for any old-earth view.

Yes it is.  OEC's really got their hands full trying to deal with it, because it's a killer incompatibility, even larger than the monstrous NT-NCF gig.  

However, it is NOT necesarily true that:
Quote
If death before Adam is the issue, then Ross and Heddle* are just as heretical as Dawkins and Darwin.
 
One only needs to compare what D and D have written to what Ross and Heddle has written, and that much becomes absolutely clear.   Also I believe that you are NOT atheist nor agnostic.

But having said that, it IS true that the biblical Christianity only supports death AFTER The Fall -- not before.  

You can believe in wrong doctrines (to an extent, and yes we all got areas like that, nobody's perfect) and still be a Christian---but there aren't any positives to believing what the Bible opposes, and potential negatives could always result from such moves, even with God's ongoing grace on you and I.

Date: 2009/09/22 13:56:08, Link
Author: FloydLee
Quote
It was YOU that decided to challenge me on "show me any physics text that says these things " -- Remember what you posted? It's DIRECTLY above on THIS page:


Hey, I acknowledged that you made an okay HRW physics textbook catch relative to the item you specifically mentioned--whether Genesis was literally true "in every aspect.  Your Big Bang quote, via inference, would indeed challenge the claim of a young earth.  I let you know you got a catch there, didn't I?

I'm just reminding you that the usefulness of your one Big Bang quotation IS limited.  You yourself made clear that the quotation's applicability extends ONLY to it's contradicting of the YEC claim of a young earth.

So (although I commend you again for astutely finding that physics textbook quotation), please don't try to pretend that you came up with a physics textbook (or any other science's textbook) quotation that actually applies to any of the Big Five Incompatibilities.
You most certainly did not.  

So you have not yet defeated the thread topic of Incompatibility---not even close, Deadman.

(Furthermore, Your particular belief in the Big Bang clearly does NOT resolve any of the Big Five at all.)

FloydLee

Date: 2009/09/22 14:36:43, Link
Author: FloydLee
Quote
Umm...who in their right mind cares if Christianity is incompatible with evolutionary theory if evolution theory is scientifically 100% accurate?

Wouldn't you just abandon such a obviously irrational institutional belief system that you felt didn't mesh with an absolutely accurate scientific theory?


VERY perceptive question there Robin.  Combine it with those evolutionist self-testimonies and the Big Five issues that you read earlier in the thread, and you will see for yourself that

(1) evolution is VERY capable of eroding and corroding Christian faith and therefore
(2) there is a good warrant to seriously consider (and in light of all the reasons taken together, to accept) the claim that Evolutin is Incompatible with Christianity.

Date: 2009/09/22 14:45:24, Link
Author: FloydLee
Quote
I'll go one better; neither one (Pope Benedict, Francis Collins) thinks there are Big Five Incompatibilities.

And specifically how does this prove that the Big Five do not exist (especially at a time when evolutionists are clearly saying that they do exist?)

FloydLee

Date: 2009/09/22 15:25:19, Link
Author: FloydLee
Quote
Evolution enhances, glorifies...and I dare say embiggens the Christianity of hundreds of millions.

Hmmm.   "Embiggens."  Don't know about all that "hundreds of millions" stuff (what, did you do a scientific poll or something?), but that's okay.  Here's what I really want to ask:  

Just take a couple minutes, and tell me specifically how evolution "embiggens" biblical Christianity?

Date: 2009/09/22 16:51:00, Link
Author: FloydLee
There is absolutely NO chance the Noahic Flood can be local....unless, as the late OEC professor of Old Testament Gleason Archer suggested in his book Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties, the Bible is just flat-out in error about the Flood, period.

First, the Bible itself only points in ONE direction:  Global Noahic Flood.  Not local.  Accept it or reject it, take it or leave it.  Global Flood or No Flood.  That's the only choice the Biblical data offers to you.

http://www.grisda.org/origins/22058.htm

IOW, if the Bible is wrong about the Global Noahic Flood, you actually CANNOT salvage that situation by claiming it was just a local flood.  Simply doesn't work that way.  
And even the skeptics know the score on that situation.  Notice what the Secular Blasphemy blog at Salon.com says.
   
Quote
Why the Ark?

One obvious question, often asked by global flood proponents, is: If the flood was only local, why should Noah and family have to build an ark to survive?
It would have been much easier to just relocate. Given the long warning, they could have relocated practically anywhere on the planet.

Also, why all the work to save the animals? Animal species would easily survive elsewhere.

Also, why birds? If the water started to rise, the birds would be better off flying away than staying inside a ship. This is certainly a strong argument against a local flood scenario. The internal logic of the Genesis story strongly implies a global flood.

Even if we leave this question aside, the Ark story is not much easier to defend from the perspective of a local flood than a global one.

It is the obvious fact that whoever wrote the Genesis flood legend was not a member of a sea-faring nation. Ancient Israel was not famous for its ships, and the description of the Ark shows that the author hadn't the faintest clue about how to make a seaworthy vessel. It is safe to say that the story would look very different had it been written in Phoenicia, Britain or, for that matter, Norway.

Anyone growing up by the sea in Norway, as I have, would learn the sad truth about wooden vessels: they leak. Always. A lot. Even a small wooden rowboat will accumulate so much water during a few hours in the water that you get very familiar with a scoop and, if you're not used to it, painful blisters in your hands.

A wooden sea vessel 140 meters (450 ft) long is simply impossible.

First, it would leak so much and so heavily that even a battery of modern engine pumps would be hard pressed to save it from a watery grave.

Second, the structure would not be strong enough to carry its own weight in calm water, and much less during a violent flood. Large wooden vessels have hardly been possible even in the industrial age, and then they needed to be reinforced with iron and of course they required constant pumping.

To the landlubber who wrote Genesis, pitch may sound like it's sufficient to make a boat watertight. It is not. Obviously, extrapolating experience with pitch on roofs that only had to sustain rain to what is needed for a boat is very inadequate. Wooden vessels must also be allowed to swell for a period in water before they are sea worthy. The Ark in Genesis didn't even go through this process. No wonder the Hebrews stayed on dry land....

   
Quote
Where was the Flood?

....The arguments against the flood outlined above are really just included for completeness, because there is one topic where the local flood scenario breaks down completely and proves to be almost equally absurd as the global flood: the geographic location of the flood.

In debating flood proponents, I have had serious problems making them understand this very simple fact: a local flood requires a totally enclosed area, where all of the mountains or hills making up the enclosing rim around the flooded area must be higher than the flood itself.

A simple kitchen experiment will confirm this. You can try from here to eternity to fill up only half of the area of your kitchen sink with water, while allowing the other half to remain dry. Without making some sort of wall, it is simply not possible. Given a chance to escape, water will run out of the enclosure. That is why we have rivers, and that's why the few land areas in the world lower than the sea level are not connected to the ocean by a channel or river.

Where was the local flood? Most casual Bible readers will assume this to be a silly question. Everybody knows that the Ark landed on Mt. Ararat. This is the reason fundamentalist Christians from time to time are engaged in the silly exercise of trying to find the Ark somewhere on this mountain.

Obviously, if the Ark landed on Mt Ararat, the local flood scenario is physically impossible.
This mountain is actually by far the highest in the whole region, with the highest peak 5,137 meters (16,854 ft) above sea level. If the water stood higher than the top of Mt Ararat, then only a small handful of peaks, like a few mountains in the Himalayas, were visible above the water. The flood would have to be global. End of story.

However, the Bible does not actually say that the Ark landed on Mt Ararat. It says:

Genesis 8:3,4 "The water receded steadily from the earth. At the end of the hundred and fifty days the water had gone down, and on the seventeenth day of the seventh month the ark came to rest on the mountains of Ararat."

Ararat, in this text, does not describe a mountain, but a region:

"The name Ararat, as it appears in the Bible, is the Hebrew equivalent of Urardhu, or Urartu, the Assyro-Babylonian name of a kingdom that flourished between the Aras and the Upper Tigris rivers from the 9th to the 7th century BC." Encyclopædia Britannica, "Mount Ararat" (article no longer freely available online)

We actually find the region, or kingdom, mentioned in four different verses of the Bible (two of which reads the same):

Genesis 8:4 "and on the seventeenth day of the seventh month the ark came to rest on the mountains of Ararat."

2 Kings 19:37 and Isaiah 37:38 "One day, while he was worshiping in the temple of his god Nisroch, his sons Adrammelech and Sharezer cut him down with the sword, and they escaped to the land of Ararat. And Esarhaddon his son succeeded him as king." (These two scriptures are the same)

Jeremiah 51:27 "Lift up a banner in the land! Blow the trumpet among the nations! Prepare the nations for battle against her; summon against her these kingdoms: Ararat, Minni and Ashkenaz. Appoint a commander against her; send up horses like a swarm of locusts."

The Ararat area thus was a remote, but known, area to the Hebrew authors of Old Testament books. It corresponds, actually, to the region where we find Mt Ararat, so the tradition of placing the Ark on this mountain is not contrary to the Bible, but it must be noted that the quoted verse, in isolation, allows the Ark to land on any of the mountains in this area.

According to Black's Bible Dictionary, the Ararat area is

"A section of E[ast] Armenia E[ast] of the Araxes River, somewhat N[orth] of Lakes Van and Urmia, today belonging to Turkey. Ararat provides part of Euphrates' source." (M. S. Miller and J. L. Miller. 1973. Black's Bible Dictionary. London: A. and C. Black Limited. Page 31.)

If the reader is to take the Bible's word as fact, and accept that the Ark landed on some mountain in the Ararat area in East Armenia, then obviously the whole discussion about how to translate the Hebrew word 'har' (discussed later) is totally moot.

To adapt the old joke saying there is no such a thing as 'half a mile' in Australia, it is obvious that the Ararat area has no hills, only mountains. When the Bible says that the water rouse above the 'highest mountains' in this area - which actually is Mt Ararat itself - this makes a local flood scenario absolutely impossible. Look up this area on a map. Lake Van is 1,662 meters (5,452 ft) above sea level. The area is, as far as it's possible to see on a good map, more than 200 kilometers from any area as low as 500 meters above sea level, and twice as long to any area below 200 meters.

Naturally, any flood rising to such levels would have been a global disaster. The local flood proponents still face an impossible scenario.

The local flood believers thus have to relocate the flood to some other region.
Disregarding the exact geographic designation found of the Bible - the whereabouts of the Ararat area is known both from Babylonian and Bible sources - they go searching for some area where they can find room for a local flood and an ark. Somewhere, presumably, with hills but without mountains.

One favorite location for many local flood proponents is the Euphrates-Tigris valley, also known as Mesopotamia. This, they say, is an area without many tall mountains (at least in the southern part), and it is also not too far away from the Biblical lands. Presumably, not moving the Ararat area too far away from where it historically was is also a concern with these apologists, even though their thinking here seems a bit hard to understand.

Again, local flood proponents demonstrate a total lack of understanding of topology and geography.
If you look at a map of an area, and a river runs through it, you can know quite a bit about elevation even without further investigation. If a river runs from the north to the south, as the Euphrates and Tigris rivers generally do, you can be certain about one thing: the land will consistently tilt southwards. Following the river, at no part of the run will the land rise notably. If the land flattens, or especially rises, the river will have to run around it or form a lake that rises to the edge, and then allows the water to run on. This is pretty self-evident.

So, since the Mesopotamian valley contains two rivers, it necessarily cannot contain any mountains or other formations that can form an enclosure for a large flooded area. If it should rain so heavily that it makes the water rise temporarily in some area, the water will quickly escape through any opening. The Biblical flood lasted for many months, which is physically impossible without a totally enclosed area.

We also have to ask how large the flooded area would have to be.
While local flood proponents will have to demonstrate imaginative exegesis generally, it can't be seriously denied that the Genesis text insists that Noah and the other people on the Ark did not see land during many months when they sailed around on the water:

Genesis 8:3-5: "The water receded steadily from the earth. At the end of the hundred and fifty days the water had gone down, and on the seventeenth day of the seventh month the ark came to rest on the mountains of Ararat. The waters continued to recede until the tenth month, and on the first day of the tenth month the tops of the mountains became visible."

As we can see, only some time after the Ark had landed on a mountain did other tops become visible. From this we can easily conclude that this mountain was the tallest in the region, except, presumably, the enclosing mountains that were too distant from the Ark to be visible.

A rule of thumb, well known to sea men, is that the distance to the horizon in nautical miles is 1.17 times the square root of your height of eye in feet. So, since the Ark was 45 feet high (and the window was at the top), we find that an observer would be able to see the horizon 7.85 nautical miles (14.5 km, 9 miles) away. What we are looking for, of course, is how far away an observer could see the enclosing mountains, and since there is no totally smooth crater top of comparative size anywhere in the world, the edge can't be expected to be totally smooth.

Also, since the water resided over a number of months, the relative height of these mountains must steadily have raised. (Gen 8:3 says: "The water receded steadily from the earth.") Yet, nobody on the Ark could see them, so it had to be outside the area that could be seen from the Ark.

Even if we assume the height of the flood enclosure to be no more than 45 feet (same as height of Ark), we would need a circular area with a radius of around 20 km (12.4 miles). That would mean 40 km either way. And this, of course, assumes that the Ark was totally immovable, standing in the exact middle of the flooded area. Is that possible in a turbulent, violent flood? It goes without saying that such a scenario is impossible. And it gets worse. Anyone who has forgotten to moor a small boat, or done it badly, will know that even in smooth waters, only a few hours later the boat will be a speck on the horizon. If it is windy, the situation will be even worse. And the Bible says:

Genesis 8:1 "But God remembered Noah and all the wild animals and the livestock that were with him in the ark, and he sent a wind over the earth, and the waters receded."

This wind blew for 150 days, and a big, rectangular vessel like the Ark would be strongly influenced by this wind (large boats are not allowed to enter narrow channels in strong wind, because they can easily be pushed off course). Even if we assume that the Ark only held a speed of one knot (unrealistically slow), this could take the ark more than 6500 km (4000 miles). That would actually allow the Ark to cross the Atlantic Ocean in 150 days. With a more realistic speed, the strong wind God sent would send the Ark around the Earth many times.

Of course, this presumes a global, not a local, flood, which is exactly what the Genesis text describes.

There's a lot more anti-local-Flood arguments offered in that article, but this will do for now.

http://blogs.salon.com/0001561/

******

So, for Christians, a key decision must be made.  Will you choose to believe the Bible and believe in the Global Noahic Flood?  Or will you disbelieve the Bible and abandon the entire Flood story period?  

Those are your only two choices, and whichever choice you make will influence future choices, when the skeptics come a-callin' again WRT other Bible issues.

Date: 2009/09/22 17:13:49, Link
Author: FloydLee
Quote
THEN I will answer your questions.

In other words, you really haven't given much thought to specifically how evolution supposedly "embiggens" biblical Christianity.  You suggest it does, yeah yeah, but you've not critically thought it through at all.

You haven't yet worked through that claim for yourself, and you honestly haven't checked whatever it is you have in mind there against the Scriptural data, to make sure you've got actual Bible Compatibility and Consistency with which to support this new "embiggens" claim.

And therefore you're not yet able to tell me how this "evolution embiggens Christianity" claim is actually supposed to work.

(Especially in light of the Big Five Butcher Knives that evolution clearly continues to aim in the direction of biblical Christianity!)

:)

Date: 2009/09/22 17:24:11, Link
Author: FloydLee
Stanton speaks of:
 
Quote
....the fact that the Pope is a walking, talking, benedicting refutation of all four of FL's points.

So, Stanton, sounds like you've worked your way through this.  Please do me a favor, then?  Please locate exactly (online, print, any way you can) where Pope Benedict has stated a specific refutation for each of the Big Four (actually, now it's the Big Five, so please include each of the Big Five.)  

Then show 'em to me so I can examine and consider them.

Thanks in advance!     :)

Date: 2009/09/23 08:46:27, Link
Author: FloydLee
Quote
I provided a URL mentioning the Pope saying that it was nonsense to believe in Young Earth Creationism and a literal reading of the Bible earlier in this thread.

Yes, I did read it.  So in fact, the Pope has NOT actually addressed the specific Big Five Incompatibilities at all, let alone provided a solution for them.  
Would you agree Stanton?

Date: 2009/09/23 08:58:38, Link
Author: FloydLee
Quote
I'm curious as to why Floyd Lee posted up that last bit concering a "Global  V. Local Flood."

That actually belonged in the peanut thread (I'll paste a copy there today) because some folks mentioned the issue there.

It's an honest mistake, no big deal, but I can understand your hand-wringing about it though.  Much easier for you to do that than to deal with those Big Five, much easier.

FloydLee

Date: 2009/09/23 09:52:06, Link
Author: FloydLee
In fact, this Pope angle has been really weak, coming from you guys.  

The Pope hasn't addressed the Big Five, hasn't provided ANY kind of reconcilations, the Pope hasn't addressed the self-testimonies of evolutionists who say that evolution was part of their loss of faith.

And of course, in all your attempts you consistently fail to mention that in fact, the Pope has in fact AFFIRMED the first and second of the Big Five.
   
Quote
"With the sacred Scripture, the Lord awakens the reason that sleeps and tells us: In the beginning, there was the creative word. In the beginning, the creative word -- this word that created everything and created this intelligent project that is the cosmos -- is also love."

<a href="http://kdka.com/national/Vatican.Pope.Benedict.2.259662.html" target="_blank"></a>  

Take note:

1.  God is the Required Explanation for origins, according to the Pope.  And note the scope of the claim:  "c.r.e.a.t.e.d  e.v.e.r.y.t.h.i.n.g".   That's the first of the Big Five, you'll remember.  And it's a big one.

2.  Teleology again.  That 'creative word' and 'creative reason' is STRAIGHT teleology, not a penny less. Conscious forethought.  Purpose.  Goal-directedness.
Oh sure sure, the Pope still supports evolution.  BUT....only on condition that teleology is admitted in the evolutionary process.  For e.v.e.r.y.t.h.i.n.g.  The pope used a notable phrase, btw---"Intelligent Project".  

Doesn't mean he's an ID guy, (he's a TE guy, not ID), but it DOES mean a solid endorsement of teleology.  God's teleology, even.  He's saying it's NOT optional.  That's the huge second gig of the Big Five.

In fact, the Pope quotes St. Basil, in case you don't git the message.
   
Quote
He quoted St. Basil the Great, a fourth century saint, as saying some people, "fooled by the atheism that they carry inside of them, imagine a universe free of direction and order, as if at the mercy of chance."

"How many of these people are there today? These people, fooled by atheism, believe and try to demonstrate that it's scientific to think that everything is free of direction and order," he said.

And remember, the Pope has NEVER retracted these particular statements of his.  Not even once.  (Any atheists out there?  He's in your face there.)

But hey, by him insisting on God-Is-Required-Explanation and God-Teleology-in-Evolution, doesn't that directly contradict evolutionary theory's non-negotialte NT-NCF, doesn't that negate Futuyma EB-3rd Mayr Coyne Biology-391?  "Evolutionary theory DOES NOT ADMIT...", right?
 
Right.  Absolutely.  So how does the Pope rationally resolve this discrepancy?  He never says how.  The giant incompatibility remains unresolved to this day.)

******

So, would you guys mind ramping it up a bit on this Pope thing?  Right now your attempts to exploit him are looking mighteh weak.

Date: 2009/09/23 10:05:57, Link
Author: FloydLee
Hey, let me offer something extra here.  
If you are Catholic and interested in evolution, you may be especially interested in Thomas Centrella's excellent article, "Is Theistic Evolution Truly Plausible?"  

(He makes a very good papal-based case that it is NOT.)  

Give it a try:

http://www.kolbecenter.org/centrella_te_plausible.htm

Date: 2009/09/23 10:16:41, Link
Author: FloydLee
On page 12, the possibility of a local Flood was raised.  In response to that, I would point out:

There is absolutely NO chance the Noahic Flood can be local....unless, as the late OEC professor of Old Testament Gleason Archer suggested in his book Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties, the Bible is just flat-out in error about the Flood, period.

First, the Bible itself only points in ONE direction:  Global Noahic Flood.  Not local.  Accept it or reject it, take it or leave it.  Global Flood or No Flood.  That's the only choice the Biblical data offers to you.

http://www.grisda.org/origins/22058.htm

IOW, if the Bible is wrong about the Global Noahic Flood, you actually CANNOT salvage that situation by claiming it was just a local flood.  Simply doesn't work that way.

And even the skeptics know the score on that situation.  Notice what the Secular Blasphemy blog at Salon.com says.

Quote
Why the Ark?

One obvious question, often asked by global flood proponents, is: If the flood was only local, why should Noah and family have to build an ark to survive?

It would have been much easier to just relocate. Given the long warning, they could have relocated practically anywhere on the planet.

Also, why all the work to save the animals? Animal species would easily survive elsewhere.

Also, why birds? If the water started to rise, the birds would be better off flying away than staying inside a ship. This is certainly a strong argument against a local flood scenario. The internal logic of the Genesis story strongly implies a global flood.

Even if we leave this question aside, the Ark story is not much easier to defend from the perspective of a local flood than a global one.

It is the obvious fact that whoever wrote the Genesis flood legend was not a member of a sea-faring nation. Ancient Israel was not famous for its ships, and the description of the Ark shows that the author hadn't the faintest clue about how to make a seaworthy vessel. It is safe to say that the story would look very different had it been written in Phoenicia, Britain or, for that matter, Norway.

Anyone growing up by the sea in Norway, as I have, would learn the sad truth about wooden vessels: they leak. Always. A lot. Even a small wooden rowboat will accumulate so much water during a few hours in the water that you get very familiar with a scoop and, if you're not used to it, painful blisters in your hands.

A wooden sea vessel 140 meters (450 ft) long is simply impossible.

First, it would leak so much and so heavily that even a battery of modern engine pumps would be hard pressed to save it from a watery grave.

Second, the structure would not be strong enough to carry its own weight in calm water, and much less during a violent flood. Large wooden vessels have hardly been possible even in the industrial age, and then they needed to be reinforced with iron and of course they required constant pumping.

To the landlubber who wrote Genesis, pitch may sound like it's sufficient to make a boat watertight. It is not. Obviously, extrapolating experience with pitch on roofs that only had to sustain rain to what is needed for a boat is very inadequate. Wooden vessels must also be allowed to swell for a period in water before they are sea worthy. The Ark in Genesis didn't even go through this process. No wonder the Hebrews stayed on dry land....


Quote
Where was the Flood?

....The arguments against the flood outlined above are really just included for completeness, because there is one topic where the local flood scenario breaks down completely and proves to be almost equally absurd as the global flood:
the geographic location of the flood.

In debating flood proponents, I have had serious problems making them understand this very simple fact: a local flood requires a totally enclosed area, where all of the mountains or hills making up the enclosing rim around the flooded area must be higher than the flood itself.

A simple kitchen experiment will confirm this. You can try from here to eternity to fill up only half of the area of your kitchen sink with water, while allowing the other half to remain dry.

Without making some sort of wall, it is simply not possible. Given a chance to escape, water will run out of the enclosure. That is why we have rivers, and that's why the few land areas in the world lower than the sea level are not connected to the ocean by a channel or river.

Where was the local flood? Most casual Bible readers will assume this to be a silly question. Everybody knows that the Ark landed on Mt. Ararat. This is the reason fundamentalist Christians from time to time are engaged in the silly exercise of trying to find the Ark somewhere on this mountain.

Obviously, if the Ark landed on Mt Ararat, the local flood scenario is physically impossible.
This mountain is actually by far the highest in the whole region, with the highest peak 5,137 meters (16,854 ft) above sea level. If the water stood higher than the top of Mt Ararat, then only a small handful of peaks, like a few mountains in the Himalayas, were visible above the water. The flood would have to be global. End of story.

However, the Bible does not actually say that the Ark landed on Mt Ararat. It says:

Genesis 8:3,4 "The water receded steadily from the earth. At the end of the hundred and fifty days the water had gone down, and on the seventeenth day of the seventh month the ark came to rest on the mountains of Ararat."

Ararat, in this text, does not describe a mountain, but a region:

"The name Ararat, as it appears in the Bible, is the Hebrew equivalent of Urardhu, or Urartu, the Assyro-Babylonian name of a kingdom that flourished between the Aras and the Upper Tigris rivers from the 9th to the 7th century BC." Encyclopædia Britannica, "Mount Ararat" (article no longer freely available online)

We actually find the region, or kingdom, mentioned in four different verses of the Bible (two of which reads the same):

Genesis 8:4 "and on the seventeenth day of the seventh month the ark came to rest on the mountains of Ararat."

2 Kings 19:37 and Isaiah 37:38 "One day, while he was worshiping in the temple of his god Nisroch, his sons Adrammelech and Sharezer cut him down with the sword, and they escaped to the land of Ararat. And Esarhaddon his son succeeded him as king." (These two scriptures are the same)

Jeremiah 51:27 "Lift up a banner in the land! Blow the trumpet among the nations! Prepare the nations for battle against her; summon against her these kingdoms: Ararat, Minni and Ashkenaz. Appoint a commander against her; send up horses like a swarm of locusts."

The Ararat area thus was a remote, but known, area to the Hebrew authors of Old Testament books. It corresponds, actually, to the region where we find Mt Ararat, so the tradition of placing the Ark on this mountain is not contrary to the Bible, but it must be noted that the quoted verse, in isolation, allows the Ark to land on any of the mountains in this area.

According to Black's Bible Dictionary, the Ararat area is

"A section of E[ast] Armenia E[ast] of the Araxes River, somewhat N[orth] of Lakes Van and Urmia, today belonging to Turkey. Ararat provides part of Euphrates' source." (M. S. Miller and J. L. Miller. 1973. Black's Bible Dictionary. London: A. and C. Black Limited. Page 31.)

If the reader is to take the Bible's word as fact, and accept that the Ark landed on some mountain in the Ararat area in East Armenia, then obviously the whole discussion about how to translate the Hebrew word 'har' (discussed later) is totally moot.

To adapt the old joke saying there is no such a thing as 'half a mile' in Australia, it is obvious that the Ararat area has no hills, only mountains. When the Bible says that the water rouse above the 'highest mountains' in this area - which actually is Mt Ararat itself - this makes a local flood scenario absolutely impossible. Look up this area on a map. Lake Van is 1,662 meters (5,452 ft) above sea level. The area is, as far as it's possible to see on a good map, more than 200 kilometers from any area as low as 500 meters above sea level, and twice as long to any area below 200 meters.

Naturally, any flood rising to such levels would have been a global disaster.
The local flood proponents still face an impossible scenario.The local flood believers thus have to relocate the flood to some other region.

Disregarding the exact geographic designation found of the Bible - the whereabouts of the Ararat area is known both from Babylonian and Bible sources - they go searching for some area where they can find room for a local flood and an ark. Somewhere, presumably, with hills but without mountains.

One favorite location for many local flood proponents is the Euphrates-Tigris valley, also known as Mesopotamia. This, they say, is an area without many tall mountains (at least in the southern part), and it is also not too far away from the Biblical lands. Presumably, not moving the Ararat area too far away from where it historically was is also a concern with these apologists, even though their thinking here seems a bit hard to understand.

Again, local flood proponents demonstrate a total lack of understanding of topology and geography.
If you look at a map of an area, and a river runs through it, you can know quite a bit about elevation even without further investigation. If a river runs from the north to the south, as the Euphrates and Tigris rivers generally do, you can be certain about one thing: the land will consistently tilt southwards. Following the river, at no part of the run will the land rise notably. If the land flattens, or especially rises, the river will have to run around it or form a lake that rises to the edge, and then allows the water to run on. This is pretty self-evident.

So, since the Mesopotamian valley contains two rivers, it necessarily cannot contain any mountains or other formations that can form an enclosure for a large flooded area. If it should rain so heavily that it makes the water rise temporarily in some area, the water will quickly escape through any opening. The Biblical flood lasted for many months, which is physically impossible without a totally enclosed area.


Quote
We also have to ask how large the flooded area would have to be.
While local flood proponents will have to demonstrate imaginative exegesis generally, it can't be seriously denied that the Genesis text insists that Noah and the other people on the Ark did not see land during many months when they sailed around on the water:

Genesis 8:3-5: "The water receded steadily from the earth. At the end of the hundred and fifty days the water had gone down, and on the seventeenth day of the seventh month the ark came to rest on the mountains of Ararat. The waters continued to recede until the tenth month, and on the first day of the tenth month the tops of the mountains became visible."

As we can see, only some time after the Ark had landed on a mountain did other tops become visible. From this we can easily conclude that this mountain was the tallest in the region, except, presumably, the enclosing mountains that were too distant from the Ark to be visible.

A rule of thumb, well known to sea men, is that the distance to the horizon in nautical miles is 1.17 times the square root of your height of eye in feet. So, since the Ark was 45 feet high (and the window was at the top), we find that an observer would be able to see the horizon 7.85 nautical miles (14.5 km, 9 miles) away. What we are looking for, of course, is how far away an observer could see the enclosing mountains, and since there is no totally smooth crater top of comparative size anywhere in the world, the edge can't be expected to be totally smooth.

Also, since the water resided over a number of months, the relative height of these mountains must steadily have raised. (Gen 8:3 says: "The water receded steadily from the earth.") Yet, nobody on the Ark could see them, so it had to be outside the area that could be seen from the Ark.

Even if we assume the height of the flood enclosure to be no more than 45 feet (same as height of Ark), we would need a circular area with a radius of around 20 km (12.4 miles). That would mean 40 km either way. And this, of course, assumes that the Ark was totally immovable, standing in the exact middle of the flooded area. Is that possible in a turbulent, violent flood? It goes without saying that such a scenario is impossible. And it gets worse. Anyone who has forgotten to moor a small boat, or done it badly, will know that even in smooth waters, only a few hours later the boat will be a speck on the horizon. If it is windy, the situation will be even worse. And the Bible says:

Genesis 8:1 "But God remembered Noah and all the wild animals and the livestock that were with him in the ark, and he sent a wind over the earth, and the waters receded."

This wind blew for 150 days, and a big, rectangular vessel like the Ark would be strongly influenced by this wind (large boats are not allowed to enter narrow channels in strong wind, because they can easily be pushed off course). Even if we assume that the Ark only held a speed of one knot (unrealistically slow), this could take the ark more than 6500 km (4000 miles). That would actually allow the Ark to cross the Atlantic Ocean in 150 days. With a more realistic speed, the strong wind God sent would send the Ark around the Earth many times.

Of course, this presumes a global, not a local, flood, which is exactly what the Genesis text describes.
 

There's a lot more anti-local-Flood arguments offered in that article, but this will do for now.

http://blogs.salon.com/0001561/

******

So, for Christians, a key decision must be made.  Will you choose to believe the Bible and believe in the Global Noahic Flood?  Or will you disbelieve the Bible and abandon the entire Flood story period?  

Those are your only two choices, and whichever choice you make will influence future choices, when the skeptics come a-callin' again WRT other Bible issues.

Date: 2009/09/23 10:21:01, Link
Author: FloydLee
test message

Date: 2009/09/23 10:22:53, Link
Author: FloydLee
Okay, now I see what's happening.  Apparently, anything I post on the peanut thread is automatically being redirected to the main debate thread.

Well, no problem.  But that explains why the post about the Flood appeared here.

Date: 2009/09/23 12:29:17, Link
Author: FloydLee
Just a reminder for Quack:  whatever I type in the peanut thread seems to be redirecting to the main debate board.

Date: 2009/09/23 12:34:49, Link
Author: FloydLee
Having said that,  let's look at one Quack statement.

Quote
That’s only the beginning, the whole bible stinks – and it reeks of symbolic language too.


Just curious, a sort of side inquiry:  how many of you readers agree with that specific statement?

Date: 2009/09/23 13:02:54, Link
Author: FloydLee
Quote
Floyd Lee's current tactic is to pretend his "Big Five " have not been addressed.

Certainly not by Pope Benedict, as we have seen.

Furthermore, where his speeches may  impact on our discussion of the Big Five, we have seen that his words actually REINFORCE the first two incompatibilites, creating clear clashes with evolutionary theory as currently taught by evolutionist scientists.  Nor has he offered any reconciliations for ANY of the Big Five.

Y'all gotta do a much much better job of hiding behind his skirts, if that is your intention.

Incidentally, nobody has yet shown how evolution supposedly "embiggens" (love that word!) Christianity.

FloydLee

Date: 2009/09/23 13:31:11, Link
Author: FloydLee
Quote
It appears that's exactly what he wants to be able to claim "persecution" and "victory"....

I haven't suggested anything about claiming either "persecution" or "victory" in this debate.  At all.  Not even thinking in those terms.

Perhaps slow down a little Deadman?  Cool off?  Take a break, eat some Little Debbies with the oatmeal cream inside, knock out a couple PlayStation football games?  Would that help?

Date: 2009/09/23 14:42:26, Link
Author: FloydLee
Quote
Since you post more than me, by my count....

Hmm.  I wonder if your honest concession that I post more than you do, might possibly undercut your claim that I am ignoring the issues/points.

After all, unlike you, I am responding to multiple posters within this debate.   :)

(At least you're not doing any more hand-wringing over the Flood post.  I should be thankful, I suppose.)

FloydLee

Date: 2009/09/23 16:24:23, Link
Author: FloydLee
I think we can simpify this discussion regarding the Pope.  We won't agree on it, but it can be simplified.
 
Quote
So in fact, the Pope has NOT actually addressed the specific Big Five Incompatibilities at all, let alone provided a solution for them.

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

Robin ducks the point.  Stanton ducks the point.  Deadman ducks the point.  Because, after all, the Pope honestly has NOTeven addressed or reconciled the specific Big Five items.  

All he has said (and you are challenged to prove me wrong) is that evolution is compatible with Christianity, and even then---and this is the part that you guys clearly ignored until I pointed it out---the Pope makes that statement only under specific conditions, conditions that not only re-introduce the first two incompatibilities, but actually REINFORCE those first two.

(And yes, I provided the quotations to back that up.  And no, the Pople hasn't yet issued additional statements to resolve the clash (for example) between his own teleological "intelligent project" statements and evolutionary theory's NT-NCF position, quoted earlier.)

So, we might as well be laid back like a Pop Tart about everything, because clearly we can do mutual accusations of avoiding points/issues all day long if that's what you want, but that kind of thing won't resolve anything.

Instead, why not admit the possibility that the Pope, even though he's a TE for sure, is clearly NOT the best guy to use as a defense against the Big Five at this time?  Find me a TE that reconciles the otherwise irrconcilable Big Five.  Gotta be one somewhere in the Virgo Galactic Cluster, I'm sure.

FloydLee

Date: 2009/09/23 17:47:29, Link
Author: FloydLee
Quote
Floyd still hasn't addressed this directly, except to imply that while the Pope may be a Christian, he isn't as good a Christian as Floyd.


You may want to go back and check the pages on this one.  AND when you find my response to the "simple three-line proof", you may want to read for comprehension, and quote what I said in an accurate fashion (you don't need to risk incorrect paraphrasing anymore, just use the quote button instead), and THEN offer your assessment.

I trust that's not beyond your current abilities John.
(But please let me know if you need help on it!)

Date: 2009/09/23 17:50:24, Link
Author: FloydLee
In fact, just in case, let's go ahead and offer at least a hint for you.  My response to the "simple three-line proof" (the response you're going to carefully read again for comprehension) would fall under option "C".

Date: 2009/09/23 18:06:58, Link
Author: FloydLee
Quote
Note carefully:  It is entirely possible, according to your 3-point set-up, that the Pope is affirming that "evolution happens" even though it creates a conflict with his personal belief in Christianity.  That would kinda wreck the claim of "proof."


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

You remember what you said your Option "C" was, don't you Deadman?
   
Quote
C -- Contend that the reasoning deriving statement 3 from statements 1 and 2 is wrong.

So in fact, your post received a straight-up, direct response.  I actually gave you the type of response that you specifically asked for in your post:  

   
Quote
....*directly* addressing the points of your opponent


NOW wha'cha got to say dude?  
No escaping that you at least got the sort of response that you asked for, even though you didn't (and don't) agree with the response itself.  

Can you at least acknowledge that much, or is that too much for you to handle right now?     :)

Date: 2009/09/23 18:50:51, Link
Author: FloydLee
Quote
For Floyd to say, as the irrelevant person that he is, that the pope has to address *Floyd's* PERSONAL points

You forget...(rather conveniently)...that those are NOT *my* "personal" points, but instead these are the published teachings and assessments of evolution and evolutionists.  

You were supplied with evolutionist statements, in direct quotation, for EACH of the Big Five Incompatibilities.   You were told exactly which evolutionist wrote it so there would be no mistake.  
Shoot, one of the extra evolutionist quotes didn't even come from me but from one of your own comrades in this forum!  

And, if I may say so, I think that's what is bothering you.   You've got a solid wall of major incompatibilites that come from YOUR OWN side of the fence, stuff that your own side agrees with and has been arguing for a long time.  

For example, has anybody in this forum come up yet with, say, any refutation of Jason Rosenhouse's knockout punch (the fifth incompatibility)?  Anybody at all?  

Nobody has?  At all?  Period?  No quickie quotations from the Pope to help you beat Rosenhouse's Rap?  

Well, I submit that this inability is determining the responses you're offering.  These are five bloody long nails in the coffin of "Evolution and Christianity are compatible."  

These Big Five make clear that a lot of Christians are in fact being asked to accept a totally discredited, refuted claim of compatibility that only hurts their own claimed religious beliefs and even fails to move secular evolutionists in the direction of TE.  The secular evolutionists know what evolution means.  They know the score.
   
Quote
"Whatever the God implied by evolutionary theory  and the data of natural history may be like, He is not the Protestant God of waste not, want not.  He is also not a loving God who cares about his productions.  He is not even the awful God portrayed in the book of Job.  

The God of the Galapagos is careless, wasteful, indifferent, and almost diabolical. He is certainly not the sort of God to whom anyone would want to pray."

---evolutionist David Hull, "The God of the Galapagos", Nature science journal, Aug. 8, 1991.  

See there?  And to be REALLY honest, some of you evolutionists in this forum are apparently trying to argue that evolution and Christianity are somehow compatible for "millions of Christians" while YOU YOURSELF personally reject Christianity and accept evolution!  You know THAT is a hot mess, don't you?     

Anyway, I'm looking for ANY evolutionist---be they as religious as the Pope or as atheist as Dawkins---to step up to the plate and specifically reconcile or resolve these specific Big Five Incompatibilities between evolution and Christianity.

Date: 2009/09/24 04:54:08, Link
Author: FloydLee
Quote
Yeah, why did he post (1) an article that proved the Flood couldn't be local, and (2) an article that proved the Flood couldn't be global. Take those together, what's left?

What's left, Henry J?  Nothing's left, of course, if the skeptics are correct.   (The operative term being "if.")

But there are some TE's (and OEC's) out there who think they can escape the anti-Flood skeptics merely by claiming that the Noahic Flood was somehow "local."  

So the purpose of the Secular Blasphemy article was to show that those TE's (and OEC's) are quite mistaken on that point, and that they have as much work cut out for them WRT the skeptics, as those who believe in the Global Noahic Flood.

FloydLee

Date: 2009/09/24 05:14:33, Link
Author: FloydLee
Quote
Mark 11:
Jesus was hungry.  Seeing in the distance a fig tree in leaf, he went to find out if it had any fruit.  When he reached it, he found nothing but leaves, because it was not the season for figs.  Then he said to the tree, "May no one ever eat fruit from you again."  And his disciples heard him say it. ... In the [next] morning, as they went along, they saw the fig tree withered from the roots.  Peter remembered and said to Jesus, "Rabbi, look! The fig tree you cursed has withered!"  "Have faith in God," Jesus answered.

Matthew 21:19:  
As he was on his way back to the city, he was hungry. Seeing a fig tree by the road, he went up to it but found nothing on it except leaves. Then he said to it, "May you never bear fruit again!" Immediately the tree withered.


Dan, I'm a little surprised to see you directly accusing Jesus Christ of "cruel and sadistic" behavior.  Permit me to briefly ask a side question, out of my own curiosity:  Are you yourself a Christian?

Date: 2009/09/24 05:17:30, Link
Author: FloydLee
Quote
so because some biologists and advocates of evolutionary biology are atheists, evolutionary biology is incompatible with christianity.


Would you mind going back and reviewing the specific reasons I have given for why evolution is incompatible with Christianity, Erasmus?   And maybe take another look at the actual words of those evolutionists who are no longer Christians?

Date: 2009/09/24 05:35:17, Link
Author: FloydLee
Quote
other than an ancient tale, you've yet to provide any proof of a world wide flood.

Nor has Henry provided you any proof of a merely local flood.  As for me, I will not be attempting to prove the global Noahic Flood in this thread.  

******

 
Quote
i'd settle for an explanation of where all the water came from and where it is now.

Where it came from:
http://www.christiananswers.net/q-aig/aig-c010.html

Where did it go:
http://www.christiananswers.net/q-aig/aig-floodwater.html

FloydLee

Date: 2009/09/24 09:09:43, Link
Author: FloydLee
Quote
Floyd, this doesn't make any sense. How can someone be a "Christian" and affirm that evolution is compatible with Christianity when you've insisted that isn't possible? Are you suggesting that the Pope is lying?

Nope, just saying that he's wrong about that claim of compatibility (to the extent that he's claiming it.)
Didn't say that he was lying about it; didn't say that he's not a Christian.

Date: 2009/09/25 09:49:43, Link
Author: FloydLee
Quote
What the heck does me providing something about a local flood have to do with wether you talk about a global one?

All I'm saying (and as the secular article I provided clearly showed), is that those who try to advocate a local flood face as many or more challenges from the skeptical side as do those  who advocate a global flood.  

As you know, there are some TE's out there who suggest that the Noahic Flood was a merely local flood, so I just provided the article (on the peanut thread which redirected everything to this thread) for the information it gave.

Other than that, I offer no further discussion froabout the Flood, because that's not the thread topic.

Date: 2009/09/25 09:52:52, Link
Author: FloydLee
Quote
Actually, the TOE says nothing about biological origins or cosmological origins.

The ToE doesn't even say anything about biological origins, Robin?

Date: 2009/09/25 13:15:18, Link
Author: FloydLee
Quote
Read, "biological origins" as "origin of life."

Hmm.  Is that the sound of a goalpost moving?  You guys are rather surprising sometimes.

Darwin's book "Origin of Species", is 100 percent talking about biological origins.    But here you are, trying to do the bayou bougaloo on the spot, trying not to acknowledge the obvious.

Honestly, are you trying to tell me that the evolutionist claim that all living organisms originated (via evolution) from one or a few common ancestors is NOT a claim concerning biological origins?  

Now y'all know better 'n' that, don't ye?

Date: 2009/09/25 14:21:53, Link
Author: FloydLee
Quote
Yet another major US evangelical has now declared himself a YEC. Mega church Pastor Charles Stanley has invided Ken Ham to  speak at his church in October.

Now THAT's powerful.  (They say theologian RC Sproul has also become convinced of YEC as well and now identifies with YEC.  That's good too.)

Okay, I know that this announcement is bad news from your perspective, but I cannot help my feelings here:  that's very good news, a welcome surprise.
   
Quote
I strongly feel that unless a mainstream evangelical comes out in support of it, evolution Sunday is really dead in the water.

I honestly don't think Evolution Sunday is dead in the water--not even close!--if the various media articles are any indication.  

(Btw, Evolution Sunday was NOT created by Christians, but instead by an Atheist---Michael Zimmerman.   Go figure!!)

However, evangelical refusal to play along with the Evolution Sunday gig, has at least slowed down the problem, and bought American Christianity some badly needed time to regroup and take a stand against ES.  

FloydLee

Date: 2009/09/25 14:24:52, Link
Author: FloydLee
Interesting.  I just posted on Peter Henderson's thread and it automatically redirected my post here.  Well, so be it.  

Besides, given that evolution is incompatible with Christianity, it would be in the best interest of American Christians to boycott Evolution Sunday anyway!!

FloydLee

Date: 2009/09/25 14:35:48, Link
Author: FloydLee
Quote
If you say the Origin of SPECIES is really about the origin of life,

That's not what I said.  That wasn't even suggested in the post.  
(Where did you even get that idea from?)

Read my post again, Deadman.   It's quite clear.  Take another look.

Date: 2009/09/29 09:48:41, Link
Author: FloydLee
Quote
Another question, doesn't FL have any friends that would post here and back him up?

Well, I was the only person invited here.  So I accepted the invitation.  Very few YECs regularly participate at PandasThumb, it seems.

It is true that I like FtK's blog.  It's a very good blog, full of color and life.  Interesting articles and videos.  

http://reasonablekansans.blogspot.com/

******

Meanwhile, while continuing to reply to various posts, what I am doing this week is collecting and organizing the specific responses that you've provided--or not provided--to each of the Big Five Incompatibilities.  I'm one of those people who need to see everything in summary form once in a while.  

(Also that will help me do needed replies to anybody that I've missed.)

******

Also Nmgirl, I wanted to really thank you for at least being willing to tell me about your personal Christians beliefs, in response to my sincere request for pro-evolution Christians on this thread to offer their own personal theology so that we could see if there was "no discernable dissonance" between it and evolution.

I know about three people in this thread who have identified themselves in the past as "Christians" on PandasThumb, but they have seemingly all punted on this one.  
(Again, I'm reviewing the pages to see if I missed explanations of other personal theologies from any other professing Christians.  If so, let me know folks.)  

So far, Nmgirl, you are the only professing Christian with enough faith and/or courage to even say what you believed & not believed.

You know what I really believe, Nmgirl?  With the exception of some headliners like Francis Collins, Pope Benedict, etc., the great majority of Christian evolutionists are honestly SCARED to discuss and debate the Incompatibility issue within evolution forums that are clearly dominated by secular evolutionists, such as PT and AtBC and FRDB.
Perhaps these Christians are afraid that in a secular pro-evolution environment, they could possibly wind up "getting it from both sides" or something, so they avoid putting their actual beliefs on the table where a few of the seculars might suddenly decide to analyze and critique those Christian beliefs themselves, on top of a YEC like me offering an "discernable dissonance" analysis on the opposite end.

(Hmmm.  "Getting it from both sides" has actually happened on PandasThumb before, come to think of it.  I suppose that could make many a Christian evolutionist quite skittish and nervous.)

FloydLee

Date: 2009/09/29 13:20:49, Link
Author: FloydLee
Quote
....the last two Popes, have absolutely no conflict with accepting the facts of evolution

And yet, we've already seen that Pope Benedict DOES have a conflict with accepting evolution, the evolution that you believe in, the evolution that is textbook-taught this very day.

We've seen (you saw it too!) how Pope Benedict accepts evolution ONLY under the conditions that:

(1) God is the required explanation for the evolutionary process

(2) God's teleology is included in the evolutionary process

....which means that the current Pope has himself REINFORCED the first two of the Big Five Incompatibilities.

******

But guess what?  You mentioned the late John Paul II, didn't you....?

Well, turns out that HE only accepted evolution if God was the required explanation for the evolutionary origin of humans.
     
Quote
"It is by virtue of his spiritual soul that the whole person possesses such a dignity even in his body. Pius XII stressed this essential point: If the human body take its origin from pre-existent living matter, the spiritual soul is immediately created by God[ ("animas enim a Deo immediate creari catholica fides nos retinere iubei"; "Humani Generis," 36).

Consequently, theories of evolution which, in accordance with the philosophies inspiring them, consider the spirit as emerging from the forces of living matter or as a mere epiphenomenon of this matter, are incompatible with the truth about man. Nor are they able to ground the dignity of the person."

"Truth Cannot Contradict Truth" (1996)  

Are you willing to accept that evolution cannot account for the origin of humans on Earth and that at least one direct immediate supernatural act by God was ALSO required, Stanton?  

If not, then you clearly see the existence of the First Incompatibility clearly manifested in Pope John Paul II's own words.  

See, it's not enough to say "the Pope accepts evolution" these days and think .  Gotta deal with their actual statements, for they're NOT conceding exactly what evolutionists would like for them to concede.

And speaking of not conceding things....

     
Quote
"For I confess that all men from Adam, even to the consummation of the world, having been born and having died with Adam himself and his wife, who were not born of other parents, but were created, the one from the earth, the other [al.: altera], however, from the rib of man.”

---Pope Pelagius I (557 AD)

     
Quote
"....We record what is to all known, and cannot be doubted by any, that God, on the sixth day of creation, having made man from the slime of the earth, and having breathed into his face the breath of life, gave him a companion, whom He miraculously took from the side of Adam when he was locked in sleep."

---Pope Leo XII (1880)

Now THAT's how you do papal pronouncements!

FloydLee

Date: 2009/09/29 13:24:57, Link
Author: FloydLee
Typo correction:  incomplete sentence in previous post.  The sentence should read:

"See, it's not enough to say 'the Pope accepts evolution"these days and think that you've got it all covered."

Date: 2009/09/29 13:43:47, Link
Author: FloydLee
Quote
flattery will get you no where.

What flattery?  I never said you offered any reconciliation -- not even remotely -- of any of the five large incompatibilities on the table, ohh no.

I simply gave you credit for that which you did offer.  You offered it in sincerity, it did shed a bit of light on how you view the situation, it was helpful.
So I gave an honest "thank you" for your effort, as was due.

Date: 2009/09/30 09:13:25, Link
Author: FloydLee
Quote
".... evolutionary theory (nor any other scientific theory) makes NONE of the DENIALS or REQUIREMENTS that Floyd insists that it does."

Well, let's look again.
   
Quote

(1st Incompatibility)

"Darwinism rejects all supernatural phenomena and causations.

The theory of evolution by natural selection explains the adaptedness and diversity of the world solely materialistically.

It no longer requires God as creator or designer..."


---Ernst Mayr, SciAm July 2000

   
Quote
(2nd Incompatibility)

"Evolutionary theory does not admit conscious anticipation of the future, i.e. conscious forethought."

---Futuyma, Evolutionary Biology 3ed.

Let's be honest here.  So far, Robin's response (and your response) to these very clear statements is simply to talk as if these statements were never made at all.    

Futuyma, for example, gives you a very specific reason why evolution does not admit teleology:
   
Quote
"The process cannot have a goal, any more than than erosion has the goal of forming canyons, for the future cannot cause material events in the past."

Exactly how did Robin neutralize this specific statement?  And how did you neutralize it?  
Answer:  She didn't.  You didn't.

So you gotta do more than just say, "Evolution doesn't deny these things."  Obviously it DOES deny these things.  

FloydLee

Date: 2009/09/30 09:17:00, Link
Author: FloydLee
Quote
"she" is actually a "he".

So noted, my apologies Robin.

Date: 2009/09/30 09:28:47, Link
Author: FloydLee
Quote
Number 5 first – A quick review of the Old Testament would easily convince anyone with an IQ higher than flat tire that the supernatural entity in question is as cruel, sadistic, vile, hateful, vindictive, murderous, and all around creepy as anything that could possibly be observed in nature. )

I'm not ignoring you Keelyn, yours is an interesting post too.

Here's how your paragraph comes across to me (and some other posters have sounded the same way, btw):

"Evolution is cruel and sadistic, but that's okay, it's still compatible with Christianity because God and Jesus are cruel and sadistic too."

An interesting argument, but how many Christians do you think are going to buy into it??

FloydLee

Date: 2009/09/30 09:44:59, Link
Author: FloydLee
Quote
Mayr's conception of the evolutionary process...

...is the same NT-NCF position as Futuyma's, Coyne's, Olroyd's, Myers', Dawkin's, Rachel's, and Biology 391 Online at U-Tenn at Martin.   In short, it's the consensus position, period.

And, as both Mayr and Futuyma independently pointed out----it's the actual position of the theory of evolution itself, (not a matter of anybody's personal opinions).

Date: 2009/09/30 09:56:10, Link
Author: FloydLee
Quote
How many people were alive in 2500BC?

Hi OM!  Gotta ask......would you be trying to ask me a question about the Flood after I stated that I wouldn't try to do a Flood discussion (because of the need to stay with thread topic).  

That one poster asked for an explanation of "where did the water come from" and "where did the water go" and I simply supplied the links, but that's all for that.

Date: 2009/09/30 10:03:12, Link
Author: FloydLee
Quote
Mayr and Futuyma didn't point any such thing out.

What?  Did I fail to provide their clear statements a couple minutes ago?  
Let me check----yep, their clear statements are sitting right there on your computer monitor.  Ain't goin' away anytime soon.

Date: 2009/09/30 13:41:11, Link
Author: FloydLee
Quote
.... while the process itself cannot have a goal, that doesn't mean that the process can't have been used to achieve a specific goal.

Understand carefully what you just said, Deadman.  You have just stated that somebody can direct an undirected process.  That's not a rational statement.

Also, consider this:  you are attempting to "reconcile" the NT-NCF issue (the 2nd Incompatibility), by making a statement that actually contradicts what you said about "the process itself cannot have a goal."  

The fact is that you are claiming that the evolutionary process is goal-directed (teleological) ANYWAY-----your statement only pushes back the teleology by one level!

FloydLee

Date: 2009/09/30 14:55:26, Link
Author: FloydLee
Quote
Why do you insist on leaving out his parenthesis that note that his assessment is based on his opinion of what Darwinism presented historically?

Mayr is not just talking about how things went in the dim dark historical past, as if somehow y'all evolutionists got it straightened out since then.  No, Mayr's clearly talking about the present-day too.

Indeed, notice how Mayr repeatedly uses PRESENT TENSE in his statements:
 
Quote
First, Darwinism rejects
all supernatural phenomena and causations.

The theory of evolution by natural selection explains
the adaptedness and diversity of the world solely materialistically.

It no longer requires
God as creator or designer (although one is certainly still free to believe in God even if one accepts evolution).

Present tense, not past tense.  And you'll notice that NOWHERE in the SciAm article (please check!) does Mayr take back any of these specific statements, nor relegates them back to any historical dustbins.

Present tense, Robin.

FloydLee

Date: 2009/09/30 15:23:14, Link
Author: FloydLee
Quote
First, the quote is mine.

Okay.  My apologies to Deadman for the error.
 
Quote
Second, you are incorrect. I did not say that somebody can direct an undirected process. I wrote that someone could use an undirected process to achieve a goal. Subtly different, but different nonetheless.

Take a minute (you may need more than one!) and show me exactly how it's different.
 
But right now, I gotta tell you upfront:  the sentence "Someone could USE an undirected process to acheive" sounds just as seriously not-rational as "Someone can direct an undirected process."

And like I said, you only pushed back the teleology one level anyway.

Date: 2009/09/30 15:25:59, Link
Author: FloydLee
Typo correction:  "The sentence 'Someone could USE an undirected process to acheive a goal'
sounds just as seriously not-rational as 'Someone can direct an undirected process.'"

Date: 2009/09/30 18:02:05, Link
Author: FloydLee
So, according to Robin, this particular paragraph --
   
Quote
Darwin’s accomplishments were so many and so diverse that it is useful to distinguish three fields to which he made major contributions: evolutionary biology; the philosophy of science; and the modern zeitgeist. Although I will be focusing on this last domain, for the sake of completeness I will put forth a short overview of his contributions - particularly as they inform his later ideas - to the first two areas.

---somehow negates and neutralizes these three specific present-tense statements also made by Mayr:
   
Quote
First, Darwinism rejects
all supernatural phenomena and causations.

The theory of evolution by natural selection explains
the adaptedness and diversity of the world solely materialistically.

It no longer requires
God as creator or designer (although one is certainly still free to believe in God even if one accepts evolution).

But where is the specific explanation of how that top quotation supposedly neutralizes that bottom quotation?  Robin doesn't offer any.  

And in fact, no such explanation is rationally sustainable anyway, given the actual text of Mayr's article.  As you'll see, Robin has no escape-hatches on this one.  His argument is shot clean through.

(1)  We've already seen that Mayr is directly speaking in PRESENT TENSE (not past tense) in each of those three statements.

(2)  Mayr is careful to offer "Then And Now" corrective statements whenever needed.  Here's a good example:
   
Quote
The widespread thesis of social Darwinism, promoted at the end of the 19th century by Spencer, was that evolutionary explanations were at odds with the development of ethics.

We now know, however, that in a social species not only the individual must be considered - an entire social group can be the target of selection. Darwin applied this reasoning to the human species in 1871 in The Descent of Man.

But now, go back to those earlier three present-tense statements and look at the full context---does Mayr offer any "we now know" adjustments to any of those three present-tense statements?  

No, he doesn't.  Nowhere in his article does Mayr retract or even water down those three specific present-tense statements.  Check it yourself please.  Do it now.  Mayr does not retract nor modify any of it.

(3)  Finally, just to MAKE SURE you understand that he's talking about right here and now instead of the dim dark historical past, Mayr actually REPEATS the Incompatibilities in his concluding wind-up:
[quote]I hope I have successfully illustrated the wide reach of Darwin's ideas. Yes, he established a philosophy of biology by introducing the time factor, by demonstrating the importance of chance and contingency, and by showing that theories in evolutionary biology are based on concepts rather than laws.

   
Quote
But furthermore - and this is perhaps Darwin's greatest contribution - he developed a set of new principles that influence the thinking of every person: the living world, through evolution, can be explained without recourse to supernaturalism; essentialism or typology is invalid, and we must adopt population thinking, in which all individuals are unique (vital for education and the refutation of racism); natural selection, applied to social groups, is indeed sufficient to account for the origin and maintenance of altruistic ethical systems; cosmic teleology, an intrinsic process leading life automatically to ever greater perfection, is fallacious, with all seemingly teleological phenomena explicable by purely material processes; and determinism is thus repudiated, which places our fate squarely in our own evolved hands.  


That paragraph simply destroys Robin's line of argument.  It's clear now that Mayr meant exactly what he said earlier, and most importantly, he WASN'T limiting those statements to the 19th century but was talking about modern times as well.  Read the article yourself, folks.  Mayr wrote it.  No escape baby.

Mayr's own concluding summary actually RE-AFFIRMS both the First Incompatibility (denial of God as the Required-Explanation) and the Second Incompatibility (No-Teleology-No-Conscious Forethought.).  

The first highlighted statement clearly would eliminate God (since God is supernatural not natural) as the required explantion, and the second highlighted statement (btw, did you see that word "all"?) clearly denies teleology---it's solid NT-NCF all the way.

So, now you see the real deal.  The paragraph Robin offered, he offered with sincerity, but it clearly doesn't negate the three specific statements Mayr made.  PLUS Mayr was careful to re-affirm those statements and make sure that you knew those three specific statements belonged to "Right Now" in the theory of evolution, not just "Way Back When".

So, that's that, baby!!!

Floyd Lee

Date: 2009/09/30 18:10:42, Link
Author: FloydLee
Quote
(Newton's Gravitational Theory, Einstein's General Theory of Relativity, Atomic Theory, Germ Theory) reject all supernatural phenomena and causations.

Yes, yes, y'all have already tried that line of argument (of course, you can't find that specific statement in the physics articles and textbooks, but that hasn't stopped you from falsely subscribing to it anyway. )

However, Robin's line of argument is different from the line of argument that you offer here.  Mayr's article clearly shoots down Robin's line of argument.

Date: 2009/10/01 09:10:16, Link
Author: FloydLee
Quote
Floyd, if I was to produce a statement by a biologist to the effect that evolution was compatible with Christianity, how would you evaluate it against Mayr? Is Mayr correct because of his understanding of the nature of God (or Christianity, or any other religion, come to think of it)? Or is it because of his qualifications etc as an evolutionary biologist?

Okay, those are good questions there.  First and foremost, I would evaluate his statement to see how that biologist answered Mayr's statements that reinforced the 1st and 2nd Incompatibilities.  

Mayr's article does show some understanding of Christianity vis-a-vis evolution.  Ffor example, he gave a very perceptive commentary on how "the application of common descent to man deprived man of his former status" (as being made in the image of God, "above and apart from" the animals.)

Actually, I would ask readers to carefully look at that specific paragraph.  So far we've just been talking about Mayr WRT the first two incompatibilities, but Mayr just reinforced the thirdincompatibility with those comments.  

However, Mayr is an evolutionary biologst by profession, not a theologian.  He knows his business primarily on the topic of evolution.  So yes, if Mayr is saying that these incompatibilities exist, then yes, one has to take him seriouslyl

Date: 2009/10/01 10:26:07, Link
Author: FloydLee
Quote
Is it relevant whether the 'pro-Christianity' statement is made in a textbook? If so, should it be in a school-level one, which gives only a broad description of evolution?


If you get an evolutionist stating one of the Incompatibilities in a public high school textbook, that's a pretty serious deal.  It can make it sound like he's trying to indoctrinate instead of educate.  In the past, evolutionist Dr. Ken Miller was guilty of this in the first two editions of his high school textbook.

Quote
"Darwin knew that accepting his theory required believing in philosophical materialism, the conviction that matter is the stuff of all existence and that all mental and spiritual phenomena are its byproducts...
"Suddenly, humanity was reduced to just one more species in a world that cared nothing for us... Worst of all, there was no divine plan to guide us."

---from the FTE Amicus Brief (Kitzmiller)


Interesting!  Ken Miller affirming NT-NCF right in front of the kiddies.  (And btw, if you read his book "Finding Darwin's God", he also reinforces the NT-NCF for human origins too.  Good job baby!!)

Of course, Ken Miller removed his statements from his later textbooks.  (However, the FTE pointed out the directly applicability of the situation to the Pandas trial in Dover:
"(If) unpublished drafts—never seen by the school board or students—evidence the “real meaning” of Pandas, what should be the significance of language that Dr. Miller actually published?"

*****

At any rate, I honestly don't expect to see "pro-Christian" statements in high school biology textbooks, (and they shouldn't be affirming the Big Five Incompatibilities either!  Parents need to monitor their child's biology books to make sure evolutionists don't overstep themselves).

Undergraduate and specialist textbooks, well, they are what they are.  (But they can sometimes be useful for finding money quotes in various debates!)

FloydLee

Date: 2009/10/01 10:32:40, Link
Author: FloydLee
Quote
I think every and all sanctimonious ignoramus fanatics such as FL should take a look at Augustin's work, just for the sake of it...

I have, actually.   Augustine wrote that the earth was less than 6000 years old, he believed that God created everything instantly, (yes, literally), and he believed that the global Noahic Flood was literally true.

A very good YEC, to be sure!

FloydLee

Date: 2009/10/01 11:08:16, Link
Author: FloydLee
Quote
Considering that *I* am the one you agreed to "debate" with, Floyd Lee, I find it especially humorous that you seem to avoid addressing my posts at all now.

Patience, amigo.  I like responding to you (but I never promised that you'd be the only poster that I responded to.)

Got quite a few customers in this restaurant, and it's good to try to serve as many as possible.

Date: 2009/10/01 15:23:06, Link
Author: FloydLee
Quote
It no longer requires
God as creator or designer (although one is certainly still free to believe in God even if one accepts evolution).

Ummm, Dan.....Please notice Mayr does not offer you any rational reason to continue "believing in God" after pointing out that evolution no longer requires God as creator or designer.

Mayr is NOT removing the Incompatibility, ohhhh no he's not.  He just says that, given the situation at hand, you're at least personally free to believe whatever you want about God's existence (but he's not supplying you any rational reasons for it).  

You're free to believe whatever you want about God, he says, as long as you understand that,  because of evolution), God is NO LONGER the required explanation for biological origins, including the origin of humans.  Period.

Date: 2009/10/01 15:47:39, Link
Author: FloydLee
Quote
Augustine did not take Genesis literally.

But some Genesis things, Augustine DID take literally.  We know this from his own writings.

Like, the earth being less than 6000 years old.  He wrote that.  He meant that.  Literally.  

Another example:  The Genesis account of a global Noahic Flood.  He took that one literally.  Not allegorical.  Literal history, period.

   
Quote
Instantaneous does not mean six days.

But it does mean YEC.  It only rationally fits in with YEC beliefs (a less than 6000-yr-old Earth).  

It's not ever gonna fit the OEC category, nope.  And it sure will never ever qualify Augie for TE. 

     
Quote
Instantaneous creation is an infinite number of orders of magnitude different from six days.

Yes it is.  Also infinitely different from 14 billion years (universe) or 4.6 billion years (earth).

Quote
In that sense, Augustine is the most radical non-literalist of all time. He would say to you: "My god don't need no six days to create a universe!"


And he would say to you, "And He don't need to wait around for any 14 billion years (nor 4.6 billion years) either.  He can do it instantly, and He did."

Date: 2009/10/01 15:59:49, Link
Author: FloydLee
Quote
So, FL is saying that either we have to believe that God magically and mysteriously poofed everything, including people, plants and fake evidence, into existence 6,000 years ago, or we're automatically godless heathens who automatically reject Jesus.

Hmmm.  You wouldn't be mis-representing my position a little, would you, Stanton?

Date: 2009/10/01 17:11:59, Link
Author: FloydLee
Quote
The fact is, believing in any god is not rational....

Hmmm.   Just gotta comment on that one.
 
Quote
For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse.

----Rom. 1:20

Believing in God is a VERY rational act because you would be basing that decision on observational evidence, as Romans 1:20 makes clear.

In fact, it's so rational that anybody who chooses to adopt atheism or agnosticism is WITHOUT EXCUSE for doing so.  Something to think about, for sure.

Hope you're not an atheist or agnostic, Robin.....!

Date: 2009/10/02 09:29:22, Link
Author: FloydLee
Quote
Likewise, no evidence that those particular editions are used in any public school district in Kansas.  No evidence that such a statement appears in current editions of Miller's textbook.  FL seems to expect us to believe there existed/exists a deliberate attempt by Miller to deceive school boards and to evade court scrutiny.  Does it really surprise anyone that FL has no evidence?

(1) No claim was made that those two particular editions were used in Kansas.  Strawman, Csadams?

(2) I made it clear that Miller's wording was not in current editions.  I said, "the first two editions".

(3) The FTE brief makes absolutely clear what the point of the Miller example was, relative to their textbook issue.  (Which of course poked a hole right into "Matzke and Forrest's" stuff.)  

I also pointed out, relative to OUR thread topic here, that Miller's statement actually reinforced one of the Incompatibilities.

Curiously, Csadams has nothing to say to refute those actual points themselves.  Cat got your tongue Cs?  

(4) You asked about a cite.  The FTE amicus brief itself directly cited, "Joseph S. Levine and Kenneth R. Miller, Biology: Discovering Life 152 (D.C. Heath and Co., 1st ed. 1992; this language was not removed for the 2nd ed. in 1994)."  

Clear enough.  

(5) You try to link to an earlier PT discussion not related to the FTE quotation or to an Incompatibility, but that's a two way street you're walking.  Let's walk together for a minute.
   
Quote
"One of the biology textbooks currently used in my hometown school district, for example, introduces students to the “RNA World” hypothesis but does NOT mention any of the problems with it. Doesn’t give the student ANY indication of any troubles with it. "

Using an older edition of the same textbook, you were able to show that the last sentence needed to be retracted, which I did do precisely that.  

The first sentence remained clear and affirmed however, and there was nothing you could do about it except fall silent on the point.  Here's what I said back then:
[quote]I did not read carefully enough, it seems, especially on the back page or so, and so I admit I am mistaken on that part, since I did say the above statements.

***

On the other hand.…since you have CsAdam’s scans in front of you, you CAN confirm for yourself that my following statement IS in fact correct:

   
Quote
One of the biology textbooks currently used in my hometown school district, for example, introduces students to the “RNA World” hypothesis but does NOT mention any of the problems with it.

Go back and look at those scanned pages again before you respond.
None of the actual problems associated with the RNA World are actually mentioned in Holt 2004. Nor are the **magnitude** of the problems indicated.

(In contrast, Orgel’s article cited earlier, does BOTH imo.)  


That was that.  There was nothing you could do about it.  Holt 2004 "Biology" had the last word.

******

See, that's what I like about an extended debate like this.  We can take our time and hash out a little more stuff, at least to some degree.

******

But, again we're kinda wandering a bit.   Let's bring it back a little.  
Csadams, you say you are a Christian.  Can you tell me your specific reasons, based on your own professed Christian beliefs, why you believe that evolution is somehow compatible with Christianity?

FloydLee

Date: 2009/10/02 09:58:24, Link
Author: FloydLee
(While responding to various people today, I'm going to try to get in a few more responses for Deadman.  I'm starting from a few pages back and trying to catch up.)
 
Quote
(....From page 11)

The Popes (or anyone else) are free to speculate (add, append, tack on their faith-based belief)  regarding what can be said (in their belief) about established evolutionary science.

What it doesn't mean is that you have somehow shown an inherent, incontrovertible incompatiblity between Christianity and evolutionary science.

But it sure does mean that merely saying "the Pope accepts evolution and he's a Christian" (as some of you have done) does NOT eliminate the Big Five Incompatibilities that are currently sitting on your table.

Date: 2009/10/02 10:03:24, Link
Author: FloydLee
Again, from Deadman:
Quote
What's interesting is that the Pope simply says "God  --the author of evolution itself -- by Will and Idea allows evolution to unfold."

(1)  "the author of evolution itself" -- God As Required Explanation  (1st Incompatibility).

(2)  "by Will and Idea allows evolution to unfold" -- God's Teleology (2nd Incompatibility).

Date: 2009/10/02 10:23:40, Link
Author: FloydLee
Quote
And here's the kicker, Floyd... you already HAVE the well-known catholic stance as an example to deal with, to point out verifiable incompatibilities. But you haven't managed to do that, despite having that well-known example available, immediately.

But as you can see, I indeed have.  Not just with Pope Benedict, but even with Pope John Paul II, Pope Leo, and Pope Pelagius too.
 
Quote
No one here is obliged to spoon-feed you their detailed theology, Floyd. Personally, I've never bothered -- in the many years since usenet days -- to divulge my views on deities. I don't care if other people believe in gods so long as they aren't trying to force views on me.

And indeed nobody here is forcing their views on you, and you're right that nobody is obligated to tell me what they really believe or don't believe WRT personal belief system.  Agreed.

But, why should I stop thinking that evolution is incompatible with Christianity when both the Christian evolutionists and the non-Christian evolutionists are so very SCARED to tell me what they believe in the first place?

You know, I've been upfront about what I believe.  I offer you and everybody a clear target to shoot at, and some of y'all haven't hesitated to shoot at will, aye?  

So obviously I ain't scared of my beliefs being critically examined in secular company---so why should you (and especially the Christian theistic evolutionists) be afraid to do so?  

FloydLee

Date: 2009/10/02 10:46:16, Link
Author: FloydLee
Quote
If at least 1 (one) Christian is able to reconcile his faith with evolution, then both are compatible, and this even if YOU don't agree!


That Christian you speak of, should therefore be able to specifically state HOW he or she has reconciled evolution with their Christianity, (what specific supportable reasons they subscribe to for claiming a reconcilation).

And also sort of speak about HOW the clear published statements by evolutionists that constitute the Big Five Incompatiblities have been neutralized or reconciled by their stated reasons.  (Or if not, then he or she should honestly admit they've not been reconciled after all.)

At a minimum, they should simply be able to say what they believe or don't believe like Nmgirl did and just leave it at that.  That's honorable, even if it doesn't reconcile anything.

Date: 2009/10/02 11:03:42, Link
Author: FloydLee
Quote
Is "God" part of the required explanation for why water runs downhill?

Yes or no.


Nope.  He's not.  Furthermore, hydrologists (unlike evolutionists) are silent on the issue of God as a required explantion.

(Please note, however:  In the Bible, God IS the required explanation for the origin of water itself.)

And also He is the Required Explanation for the origin of plants, animals, and (this is where you come in) humans too.

Of course, evolution and evolutionists deny that.  Which is why there's an Incompatiblity there.

Date: 2009/10/02 12:29:41, Link
Author: FloydLee
Quote
FL's version may be compatible only with YEC creationism, while other versions have no problems with science whatsoever.


Well, there are five huge incompatibilities on the table.  If those "Other Versions" can actually resolve and reconcilate them, I'm definitely listening.

Of course, somebody would have to actually PRESENT their "Other Version(s) Of Christianity" (preferably a version that they personally believe and live out) so we can see if said version is supportable and actually reconciles any of the Big Five or not.  

Any takers?

Date: 2009/10/02 14:11:10, Link
Author: FloydLee
Quote
#3 has already been demonstrated to be a complete loser argument unless you believe that God is literally a magical hominid.


Really?  Let's do #3.  #3 says that Evolution denies that human beings are created in the image of God.  The two evolutionist sources cited for this one were Nature science journal June 2007 and evolutionist James Rachels.  (And also Ernst Mayr, remember.)

Your answer?  That the biblical image-of-God claim must mean that God is literally a hominid.

But that is false.  That is not what the Bible's image-of-God claim entails.  The image-of-God thing is NOT talking about God having a belly button or a double chin or an Adam's apple or some ovaries.  "God is Spirit", the bible says.  

Instead, the image-of-God changes everything for US, for us humans.  WE are fundamentally & permanently different from ALL animals and all other Earth life because WE are created in the Image of God.  The Image Of God affects every part of us:  spirit, mind, AND body.  

WE have rationality, asthetics, abstract thought, superior intelligence, we're capable of conceptualizing way past three dimensions, capable of actual union and communion with God, and so many many other things, because every human is created in the Image of God.

But evolution denies all that.  Incompatibility #3.

******

In fact, pretend for a moment that the Image-of-God thing really DOES mean that Christians mistakenly think "God is a magical hominid," just like you said.

Would your being (presumably) correct, actually RECONCILE evolution with Christianity on point #3?
The actual answer turns out to be "NO."  

For regardless of how God is viewed by Christians (a "magical hominid", a cosmic muffin, or the biblical Creator God of the Entire Universe) it doesn't change the actual nature of the evolutionist denial.  

Why is that?  Because like evolutionist Rachels said, the only theism in which you can sustain the Image-Of-God thesis in the first place, is a creationist theism that pictures God as designing the humans and also designing the world as a home for those humans. Therefore the sort of God you have in mind---hominid, muffin, or Lord of All---doesn't even matter as long as you subscribe to that particular theism.

And with that, the Incompatibility #3 remains.

FloydLee

Date: 2009/10/02 14:20:51, Link
Author: FloydLee
Quote
I have no problem with having any one or two of the posters with longer antagonistic dealings with Floyd take over -- per the early request to limit the participants to a couple of folks.

Interesting how your evo-comrades failed to honor that particular request, Deadman.   But that won't change my plans for today.  Several of today's posts will be aimed at previous posts of yours.  You are welcome to deal with them as best you can.

Date: 2009/10/02 15:30:45, Link
Author: FloydLee
Quote
Posting a quote by Ernst Myer that indicates he rejects a need for any god based on his understanding of evolution is not the same thing as demonstrating that the ToE is incompatible with Christianity.


First of all, you're directly misrepresenting Mayr's position, Deadman.  Let's read what he said again:
 
Quote
Darwinism rejects all supernatural phenomena and causations. The theory of evolution by natural selection explains the adaptedness and diversity of the world solely materialistically.

Please note:  Mayr is not saying that MAYR rejects all supernatural phenomena and causation.  Mayr is not saying that MAYR explains the adaptiveness and diversity solely materialistically.

Mayr is saying that the theory of evolution is specifically what does those two things.  The incompatibility lies with theory of evolution, not with Mayr's personal belief system preferences.

Btw, this is a 100 percent matchup with Futuyma's evolutionary biology textbook page 342, which describes the evolutionary process specifically as "purely materialistic" and "a completely mindless process."  This stuff is straight Incomp #1 and Incomp #2 from both guys.

And remember, that is NOT merely Futuyma's personal opinion.  He supplied a specific rational reason for NT-NCF, previously quoted, and you guys (including Deadman) have been totally unable to address it let alone rebut it.

Therefore the clear Incompatibilities shown herein are clearly attributed to the ToE, not anybody's personal opinion.

Date: 2009/10/02 18:14:41, Link
Author: FloydLee
Okay, Deadman, let's repeat the very clear abstract statement, the opening statement, of the Nature science journal June 2007 article "Evolution and the Brain."

 
Quote
With all deference to the sensibilities of religious people, the idea that man was created in the image of God can surely be put aside.


First and foremost, that statement is very clear.   Can't skip over it, can't ignore it, can't pretend they didn't write it.

It's a clear denial statement.  They are saying, "Surely Put It Aside."  Nothing less.

Why are they saying that?  Because of evolution.  And also because of the Image-of-God thesis.  These evolutionists ARE directly saying that the two items are incompatible, specifically incompatible to the point where even religious people must abandon the Image-of-God thesis.

******

Check the article again Deadman.  First, their statement on the image of God.  You highlighted it in red (and thanks for doing so!).
 
Quote
But the suggestion that any entity capable of creating the Universe has a mind encumbered with the same emotional structures and perceptual framework as that of an upright ape adapted to living in small, intensely social peer-groups on the African savannah seems a priori unlikely.

This is a variant of the error I addressed just previously, the "Image-Of-God Means God Has Belly-Button" error.

Those evolutionists are thinking that the biblical Image-of-God thesis somehow means God's mind must be "a mind encumbered with the same emotional structures and perceptual framework as that of an upright ape."

And given that way of thinking, their rational response is perfectly understandable:   "A priori unlikely."

But notice the force of what they said.  "A PRIORI." Don't even have to search for disconfirming evidences.  Don't even have to run any experiments.  Unlikely on the very face of it, meaning no further rational or scientific searching is needed, you can go ahead and make a perfectly rational choice to abandon it aside here and now.

THAT, is what they are saying in that Nature article.
No wonder that clear opening statement is never retracted nor neutralized.  

******

Oh sure sure, the evolutionists kindly say the words, "....does not utterly invalidate (Brownback's image-of-God) idea", but notice how they worded it.  
Not "utterly", nope.   Not abbbbsolute zero, nope.

But they ARE genuinely saying that the Image-Of-God thesis is so close to zero-likelihood that it is not even worth rationally or scientifically searching for any likelihood of it being true.  They are therefore NOT watering down their denial of the image of God, not retracting it at all.

******

Now, once again, the Nature evolutionists' notion of what the Image-of-God means is incorrect.  The image of God thesis is NOT "God has a belly button", it's NOT "God's mind is like an upright ape."   See Isa. 55:8, 9.
 
Quote
"For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways," declares the LORD.

"As the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways and my thoughts than your thoughts.

So it's quite obvious that the Nature evolutionists have the wrong concept of the Image-Of-God.  It's not about God having a hominid mind or an upright-ape mind (the Bible clearly disproves that!), it's instead about US HUMANS being fundamentally and permanently different from and separate from and above the animals, even in our minds, because we humans are created in the image and likeness of God.  The image of God impacts every part of us---body, mind and spirit.  

The evolutionists' view of what is meant by "the image of God" in that article is flawed.  Very Badly.

******

But again, having said all that, the same key issue pops up as in the earlier discussion.  The linchpin of the Nature journal's opening statement is NOT their biblically illiterate view of what the Image-Of-God means, though that is important.  

Instead, you are told to abandon your belief of humans being created in the image of God simply because EVOLUTION simply precludes that particular belief.   They make this totally clear.  Evolution "without reference to a divine creation" originated your mind and any aspects of it that you might be tempted to ascribe to having the Image Of God in you, they say.  

You already read it, but read it again.  Don't try to duck this Deadman.
 
Quote
Current theorizing on this topic, although fascinating, may be wide of the mark. But its basis in the idea that human minds are the product of evolution is not atheistic theology. It is unassailable fact....

Now we learn that untutored beliefs about 'what ought to be' do, in fact, reflect an 'is': the state of the human mind as an evolved entity. Accepting this represents a challenge that few as yet have really grappled with....

.....Scientific theories of human nature may be discomforting or unsatisfying, but they are not illegitimate. And serious attempts to frame them will reflect the origins of the human mind in biological and cultural evolution, without reference to a divine creation.


Now look at that.   How much clearer does it get folks?  These guys are NOT allowing you some kind of theistic evolution wiggle room on this one. Read it again.  They don't even try to string you along with any more "not utterly" crap.  
Whatever you think the Image of God may have done for you (WRT the origins of the human mind), the real deal is that Evolution DID it, divine creation specifically DIDN'T do it, and that's unassailable fact, they directly wrote.

Directly reinforcing their opening statement.  Not even TRYING to water down that clear, sharp abstract statement.

Can't ramp up an Incompatibility higher than that, can you Deadman?  Now you see that Incompatibility #3 is really a tough one.  We haven't even talked about what James Rachels said (btw, the exact year is 1990.  Will have the page number shortly.  That should make you happy.)

******

I suppose I should thank you for bringing up the entire Nature article so we can all see all those extra statements that clearly PROVE that they actually meant what they said in their clear and precise abstract statement.  They (and you) have done a fantastic job of proving the existence of Incompatibility #3.

FloydLee

Date: 2009/10/02 18:19:41, Link
Author: FloydLee
Quote
Eh, he'll just pull a disappearing act to avoid specific questions anyway.

You wish, baby!  You got a full plate right there, (and ummm, you'll need to address it NOT duck it, okay?), and I got more comin' out the oven for you!

Date: 2009/10/04 21:51:21, Link
Author: FloydLee
Quote
For your fifth alleged incompatibility, why do you think that things like predation, internal parasites or old age are terrible, horrible things that conflict with the Love of God, when the Bible mentions numerous terrible, horrible things done either by God, or done as per the commands of God, including total annihilation of life on Earth simply for the sin of humans, numerous murders, and genocide of entire nations, save for the virgin daughters who were taken as child slaves to reward the Jewish army?

Okay, back again.  Sort of starting with page 20 but will go back and forth, try to respond to as many as possible.

The above quotation is Stanton's, and it simply echoes what another poster or two already tried to argue in response to the Fifth Incompatibility.   The general idea seems to be:

"Evolution is cruel and sadistic, but hey that's okay, evolution is still compatible with Christianity because God is cruel and sadistic too."

To which I once again reply, "How many Christians do you honestly think will buy into that line of argument?"

FloydLee

Date: 2009/10/04 21:58:37, Link
Author: FloydLee
Quote
The theory of evolution does reject supernatural phenomena.  In fact, all science rejects supernatural phenomena.


This is one of two responses that I particularly want to focus on tonight.  It's been echoed in various posts in this thread  (I think by Reed, Deadman, Csadams, and maybe a couple others too; the above quote is Dan's version.)

That's one that I haven't yet gotten to, so I particularly want to go there today.

The other claim to reply to, would be Deadman's claim that I am somehow quotemining.  One of the things I love to do is critically examining people's accusations of quotemining, (especially when I know they're wrong!), and that's where I'll start.  

After that, we can look at the line of argument summarized in Dan's quote above and see how well it fares.

FloydLee

Date: 2009/10/04 22:16:04, Link
Author: FloydLee
So, regarding the accusation of quote-mining by Deadman, let's review:
   
Quote
(First Incompatiblity)

"People seem to think that Christianity and evolution do or can go together.  But I suggest this is only possible for the intellectually schizophrenic.

Biological theory does not require or allow any sort of divine guidance for the evolutionary process..."


---David Olroyd, professor, School of Science and Technology Studies, University of New South Wales in Australia, speaking to The Weekend Review (Aus), Mar. 20-21, 1993.  

Unchallenged (AFAIK, please correct me if a previous post claimed "quote-mining" on this specific quote.)

******
 
Quote
(First Incompatibility)

"First, Darwinism rejects all supernatural phenomena and causations. The theory of evolution by natural selection explains the adaptedness and diversity of the world solely materialistically.

"It no longer requires God as creator or designer (although one is certainly still free to believe in God even if one accepts evolution)."


---evolutionist Ernst Mayr, "Darwin's Influence on Modern Thought", SciAm July 2000.
http://www.biologie.uni-hamburg.de/b-online/e36_2/darwin_influence.htm  

Challenged; but the challenged was defeated by showing that (1) Mayr spoke in present tense not past tense, (2) nowhere in the article does Mayr take anything back or alter it; and (3)  Mayr brings up and re-affirms the first two Incompatibilities again in his concluding summary paragraph.   (And as we saw, he even finds a way to re-affirm the Third Incompatibillity in his article as well.)

These facts clearly overcome the challenge that was presented.

Hence, no quotemining, no misunderstanding, no ducking.  Mayr was very very clear.  No quote-mine accusation can be sustained here.

Date: 2009/10/04 22:25:22, Link
Author: FloydLee
Okay, continuing on with Deadman's claim of "quote-mining."
 
Quote
(Second Imcompatibility)

"Teleological statements are those that invoke goals, or ends (Greek teleos, "end"), as causes (eg, "He went to the store in order to get milk.")

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


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

Unchallenged, AFAIK. (But please correct me if a previous post has claimed "quote-mining" on this specific quote.)

***
 
Quote
(Second Incompatibility)

"Thus the adaptations of organisms have indeed been 'designed', but by a completely mindless process.  

The process cannot have a goal, any more than than erosion has the goal of forming canyons, for the future cannot cause material events in the past."
 ---EB3, pg 342.

Unchallenged, AFAIK.  (Again, if you saw a previous post that did claim this quote was specifically a quotemine, let me know.)

***
 
Quote
(Second Incompatiblity)

"Evolution has no goal." --- Jerry Coyne, Why Evolution Is True, 2009

"Evolution has no goal." -- Online Lecture Notes for Biology 391, Organic Evolution, at the University of Tennessee-Martin.  


Unchallenged, AFAIK.  Let me know if these were accused of being quotemines.

FloydLee

Date: 2009/10/04 22:51:22, Link
Author: FloydLee
Okay, let's check on the Third Incompatibility.  Trying to find "quote-mines" as was claimed by Deadman.
 
Quote

(Third Incompatibility)
"With all deference to the sensibilities of religious people, the idea that man was created in the image of God can surely be put aside."

---"Evolution and the Brain", Nature science journal, June 14, 2007
 
Challenged, like the Mayr article was, very sincerely and seriously.  

However, upon closer examination of the entire article (see previous page or two), it turned out that this opening statement of the Nature article was NEVER recanted, never taken back, throughout the article.

In fact, the opening quoted statement was re-affirmed from multiple additional quotations in the article itself, even to the point of setting up a DIRECT contrast/conflict between evolution and "divine creation" at the end of the article.  

Challenge defeated.

***
 
Quote
(Third Incompatibility)

"The image-of-God thesis does NOT go along with just any theistic view.  It requires a theism that sees God as actively designing man and the world as a home for man."

--- pro-evolution philosopher James Rachels, Created From Animals, c1990.


Unchallenged, AFAIK.  No claim of quotemining.

Date: 2009/10/04 22:56:58, Link
Author: FloydLee
Almost done.  Fourth Incompatibility.  Checking on Deadman's claim that I'm quotemining.
 
Quote
"Destroy Adam and Eve and the original sin, and in the rubble you will find the sorry remains of the son of god.

"Take away the meaning of his death. If Jesus was not the redeemer who died for our sins--and this is what evolution means--then Christianity is nothing!"


---- evolutionist G. Richard Bozarth, “The Meaning of Evolution,” The American Atheist, Feb. 1978, p. 30.

Unchallenged, AFAIK.  Nobody has claimed that this is a quotemine.

Date: 2009/10/04 23:11:14, Link
Author: FloydLee
And finally, the Fifth Incompatibility.  Check to see if I've quote-mined anybody as claimed by Deadman.

 
Quote
"Evolution by natural selection, you see, is an awful process. It is bloody, sadistic, and cruel. It flouts every moral precept we humans hold dear.

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

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

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

....Reconciling evolution and Christianity is not as simple as theistic evolutionists often try to pretend."


---Jason Rosenhouse's Evolutionblog, "My Review of Only A Theory", June 21, 2008.


Unchallenged.  Nobody's claimed that it's a quotemine.  (The article is online if you wanna check for yourself.)

******

Okay, that's that, Deadman.  All five.  Your move.   Support your accusation of quote-mining.

Date: 2009/10/04 23:46:47, Link
Author: FloydLee
Quote
Mayr is one person. His opinion on theological matters is only his opinion; it is not part of the science.

But as we've seen with a little help from his evolutionist colleagues, Mayr's position IS actually part of the science.  Textbook-taught.  Multiple affirmations; it's very clear now that Mayr is NOT JUST "one person".

For example, evolutionary theory ITSELF gives us the NT-NCF position (as Futuyma so succintly documented).  It's not about Mayr's private personal theological beliefs.

Btw, have you noticed something here?  Where are the professional evolutionist quotations that specifically REFUTE the professional evolutionist quotations that I'm offering on each of the specific Big Five Incompatibilities?

For example, where are the evolutionary biology textbooks that say "Evolution DOES admit conscious anticipation of the future, ie conscious forethought."
Got any?

******
 
Quote
Evolution theory doesn't use any "supernatural" factors....

It's far worse than that, I'm afraid.   Evolution theory doesn't merely "doesn't use", oh no no no.  Evolution specifically REJECTS any supernatural factors at all points of the evolutionary process, as Mayr, Futuyma, Olroyd (and Nature journal June 14, 2007 as well!) so clearly pointed out.  

Remember, how does the theory of evolution explain the adaptiveness and diversity of life?

"Solely materialistically." --- Mayr, SciAm
"Purely materialistically." --- Futuyma, EB3

That's where evolution is at, folks.

Date: 2009/10/04 23:53:47, Link
Author: FloydLee
Quote
Before we can determine whether Christianity is compatible with evolution we have to determine which version of Christianity we are up against. FL's version may be compatible only with YEC creationism, while other versions have no problems with science whatsoever.

This is just a reminder for Quack.  Nobody's presenting those "Other Versions of Christianity", (the ones that are presumably Bible-supportable and demonstrably compatible with evolution), in this forum as of yet.  Nobody.

Perhaps those "Other Versions" don't even exist at all, aye?

Date: 2009/10/05 00:17:21, Link
Author: FloydLee
Another brief ditty from Stanton:
Quote
You refuse to realize that evolutionary biology is descriptive, not proscriptive or prescriptive.

Honestly?  Both EB3 and Nature 6-27-07 have refuted that one statement, for example.

Sure, evolution can be descriptive.  But it doesn't always limit itself to that.

Date: 2009/10/05 00:26:25, Link
Author: FloydLee
Quote
Animals have been eating other animals for food for as long as there have been animals, regardless of whether they evolved or not.

Your statement is directly contradicted by Scripture, Henry.  Let's take a look.
   
Quote
Then God said, "I give you every seed-bearing plant on the face of the whole earth and every tree that has fruit with seed in it. They will be yours for food.

And to all the beasts of the earth and all the birds of the air and all the creatures that move on the ground—everything that has the breath of life in it—I give every green plant for food." And it was so.
 

----Gen. 1:29-30

Well......that's that!  Seems clear enough.

Date: 2009/10/05 00:48:35, Link
Author: FloydLee
Well, it looks like Dheddle is ready to take his marbles and go home, so I do want to at least give him one good reply regarding his page 1 post.

Of course, Dheddle only responded to ONE of the Big Five Incompatibilities, leaving the other four completely unchallenged and untouched.  

And when I directly replied to Dheddle's comments concerning St. Augustine (my response appears on Page 19, Posted Oct. 01 2009, 15:47),
Dheddle fell silent and dropped back, unable to offer any kind of reply to my one response.

But that's okay, I had in fact wanted to take time to reply on his comments about the Fourth Incompatibility.  Definitely interesting post

So before hitting Reed's-Deadman's-Cs's-Occam's-Dan's-Erasmus'-and-a-couple-others' main issue, I'll slow down here and look at Dheddle's post about Death-Before-Adam---the Fourth Incompatibility.

(Someone else will have to PM him and tell him about it, though.  I'm not impressed by his post about taking his marbles home, especially since I did give him a timely and considered response on Augustine and he had flat nothing to say on that one.)

FloydLee

Date: 2009/10/05 02:20:48, Link
Author: FloydLee
So, in case you decide to stop by again, Dheddle, here is that particular response you want (albeit belatedly, my apologies to you) on the issue of the very real Fourth Incompatibility.

Start here:  Romans chapter 5.  Dheddle quoted:
     
Quote
12Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all men, because all sinned—

13for before the law was given, sin was in the world. But sin is not taken into account when there is no law.

14Nevertheless, death reigned from the time of Adam to the time of Moses, even over those who did not sin by breaking a command, as did Adam, who was a pattern of the one to come.

Now, let's take it point by point.  
     
Quote
The first objection is not the more important one—but rather just a note on precision. Verse 12 informs us that death came to all men. It says nothing about animals.

Dhelddle's statement directly ignores what verse 12 said--
     
Quote
...sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin

Death follows from sin.  Death entered this world AFTER sin entered this world.  Sin entering this world could only have come about via living humans committing sin, since there is NO indication from the Bible that animals commit sin.  That means that neither sin--nor that which followed it, death--could appear in this world UNLESS living humans opened the door for it by committing sin.  

God gave the command not to eat from a certain Edenic tree to HUMANS---nobody else.   Only humans could therefore violate that specific command.

So, given the Bible's own information, there's no way  that you can argue here that animals were already subject to death prior to humans being subject to death.   And there was ONLY ONE way humans could bring death to this planet---via the choice to commit sin.  Death could NOT enter this world otherwise.

******

Besides, if you do argue that death has always been present and that animal death took place prior to the Fall, then you've got THIS situation to contend with:
     
Quote
We are told in Hebrews 9:22, "without the shedding of blood there is no remission of sin." So a blood sacrifice is only necessary if there is sin. The rest of the Old Testament has similar treatment of sacrifice for atonement.

If there was animal death before the fall of man, then God and all those who followed His pattern did useless acts. One must observe that in the atonement the animal loses its life in the place of the human. If animal death existed before the fall, then the object lesson represented by the atoning sacrifice is in reality a cruel joke.

---"Death Before Sin?", James Stambaugh, ICR

Now, try to resolve THAT one, yes?

(Continued next post.)

Date: 2009/10/05 04:03:11, Link
Author: FloydLee
Hey wait Keelyn, don't concede anything just yet.  After all, I think you specifically deferred to Dheddle in one of your posts (correct me if I'm wrong.)  

Therefore you would have a particular interest in checking out my response to Dheddle WRT the Fourth Incompatibility (Death-Before-Adam.)

******

So Dheddle continues by saying,
 
Quote
However—that is for amusement purposes only. The real issue is taking death in the Romans passage to refer to physical death as opposed to spiritual death—i.e., as in “dead in our sins” (Eph. 2:1).

Even within the passage itself it is tortuous to interpret this death as mundane physical death. For in v. 14 Paul tells us that death reigned from Adam to Moses. But there was no change in the pattern of physical death at the arrival of Moses (or Jesus for that matter.) People died in the same manner. Clearly Paul is referring to a spiritual change with the arrival of Moses—manifested, obviously, by the giving of the Law. But physical death? No—man had his three score and ten before Moses and the same after Moses.


The answer to this objection is pretty clear:  The term "death" in Romans 5:12-14 is referring to BOTH physical and spiritual death.  Not "Either-Or", but "Both-And."  

 
Quote
(Verse 14) "Death" refers to physical death, but not to physical death alone.  As in verse 12, spiritual death, condemnation, is also involved.

---Douglas Moo, Romans, (NICNT), 1996 Eerdmans, pg 333.  


There's no doubt on this one.  And so it's not difficult, not "tortuous", to explain from Scripture what happened after the Fall.  It's quite straightforward, in fact.

God had clearly warned Adam and Eve that death would take place if His commandment not to eat from the forbidden tree was violated.  The first humans chose to disobey, to commit sin; they violated God's specific commandment.  So death was the result, just like God warned previously.
Like Romans 6:23 says, "the wages of sin is death."  

Adam and Eve died spiritually that very day--just like God said--but the spiritual death that hit them that day took a while to overcome their physical bodies.  Oh, they died that same day--death was already operating both spiritually and physically--but it took a while for them to complete the process of physical death and decay.

Given the perfect bodies they'd been given from God, it took a while---hundreds of years, in fact--for their bodies to finally succumb to the effects of spiritual death---physical death.  But succumb they eventually did, all the same.  Spiritual death AND physical death.  Not either-or.  Both and.  Both operative, both inescapable, from the very day of the Fall.  For the wages of sin IS death.  God wasn't--and isn't--lying.

And so that's why, in the Romans passage (5:12, 14), the term "death" means BOTH physical death and spiritual death.  There's no such thing as excluding physical death from that situation, unlike what Dheddle seems to believe.

***

Btw, when Paul says "death reigned from Adam to Moses", he's not trying to say that somehow things changed WRT death after Moses came on the scene.

If you read that entire section in context, you'll see that Paul is saying that death reigned over everybody regardless of whether people had access to the Mosaic Law or (like those living after Adam but before Moses), people did NOT have such access at all.   It didn't matter, all eventually died, for death reigned because of the Fall.

(And obviously, there's no way to exclude physical death from THAT situation either.)

***

Finally, let's examine one more Dheddle statement:
 
Quote
As we know, Adam did eat. And on that day he surely did not stop breathing. In fact, according Gen. 5:5, Adam lived to the age of 930.  The literalist is left with some unpleasant choices:

1) God was only blowing smoke—like the bad parent: I swear if you touch that one more time I’ll spank you so hard your eyes’ll pop out!

2) God changed his mind—repudiating the doctrine of God’s immutability and leaving us with the unpleasant possibility that he’ll change his mind about other things too. (No way am I sending Jesus back—what was I thinking when I made that promise?)

3) Here “death” actually means “to start the process of dying.” Say goodbye to literality.

And yet again, Dheddle's position is incorrect.  He clearly leaves out the correct fourth choice:  to see the term "death" as meaning BOTH physical and spiritual death, the way the Bible views that term.  

If you'll just accept the Bible's view of the term "death", Dheddle, you won't have to "say goodbye to literality" on the Romans 5 situation, and more importantly, you won't have to stop believing in the clear and vital testimony of Scripture on an important issue that affects the Gospel of Jesus Christ itself.

Remember, spiritual death is NOT a "non-literal" death -- it is very very literal, just like physical death, otherwise Jesus Christ would NEVER have had to go to the Cross to pay the price of both spiritual death and physical death on your behalf and my behalf.  

This is what the great historical parallel of Romans 5:12-19 is all about, Dheddle.  Christ's Solution HAD TO MATCH UP WITH Adam's Problem.  Adam's problem involved sin and death --- both spiritual and physical death.  

Christ's own Solution was to take our sins on Himself, right there on the Cross, and then voluntarily pay the price for our sins--to die for us all, and specifically to die both a spiritual death AND a physical death.
 
Quote
For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures. -- 1 Cor. 15:4

 
Quote
"But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels, now crowned with glory and honor because he suffered death, so that by the grace of God he might taste death for everyone."

---Heb. 2:9

 
Quote
Christ carried our sins in his body on the cross so that freed from our sins, we could live a life that has God's approval. His wounds have healed you.

-- 1 Pet. 2:24, GWT

This is why you cannot rewrite the Bible to make Romans 5:12-14 only refer to "spiritual death", Heddle.  You cannot exclude physical death from that situation.  It's gotta be both physical death and spiritual death.  THAT, is the meaning of the term "death" in Romans 5:12-14 and as you can see, it's really important that you accept the Bible's view of it.

Besides, while we know that trusting Christ as Lord and Savior will immediately pass you from spiritual death to spiritual life, (John 5:24), you also know from the New Testament that one day even PHYSICAL DEATH will be overcome as well.

 
Quote
Listen, I tell you a mystery: We will not all sleep, but we will all be changed— in a flash, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet. For the trumpet will sound, the dead will be raised imperishable, and we will be changed.
For the perishable must clothe itself with the imperishable, and the mortal with immortality.When the perishable has been clothed with the imperishable, and the mortal with immortality, then the saying that is written will come true: "Death has been swallowed up in victory."   1 Cor. 15


What does all this mean?  It means THIS:  
that in Romans 5:12-14, the term "death" means BOTH spiritual death and physical death.  So God was NOT lying when he warned Adam that he would die on the same day if he ate the fruit from the forbidden tree.
Both aspects of death were present and operating.  Spiritual death was immediate, physical death was active and operative that same day, merely a matter of time to overtake a perfect body given by God Himself.

IOW, you don't have to "abandon the literality", you don't have to disbelieve what Genesis is telling you there, you don't have to let the skeptics rob you of believing what Genesis is literally telling you there. on that point.


******

Okay.  I apologize for the lengthiness, but I promised Dheddle a point-by-point response and now he's got one.  

My guess is that somehow Dheddle will get wind of this reply.  So it's your move Dheddle, and I'll be watching.....  You can also reply to what I replied to you about Augustine too, at your convenience of course.

Date: 2009/10/05 04:58:03, Link
Author: FloydLee
Quote
Some famous top-ten early church theologians recognized this problem and became the first non-literalists, arguing that “a day is like a thousand years” to God, so that each Genesis day was a thousand years—and Adam did not live to be 1000—problem solved.


And no, that doesn't solve any problems at all, Dheddle.  Cmon, walk with me on this one.

First of all, evolutionists say that the Earth is 4.6 billion years old and that Homo Sapiens by itself is around 250,000 years old.  
If you start claiming that "each Genesis day was a 1000 years" in length, that's STILL nowhere near long enough to match up with the numbers given by the evolutionists.  You haven't solved anything!

Secondly, that's not even what the Bible is claiming, period.  Dr. Robert McCabe explains:

 
Quote
Psalm 90:4 is a passage that has often been used to suggest that “day” may refer to an extended period of  time: “For a thousand years in Your sight are like  yesterday when it passes by, or as a watch in the night.” The argument is that Moses interprets his use of day in Genesis 1 in Psalm 90, the only psalm ascribed to him. Psalm 90:4, as the argument goes, indicates  that “God’s days are not our days”; that is, God’s days are not 24-hour days but long periods of time.

Can this argument be sustained from Psalm 90:4? In comparing the use of “day” in this verse with its use in Genesis 1, three observations will be helpful. First, in Psalm 90:4 the comparison between “a thousand years” and “yesterday” involves a simile, “like” (Hebrew term). However, in Genesis 1, God describes his actual activities on each creation day. He is not making comparative statements, as is the case in Psalm 90:4.

The simile in v. 4 compares “a thousand years” to two brief periods of time, “yesterday when it passes by” and “a watch in the night.”

This is to say, the author is not using “a thousand years” in comparison with a solar day, but with a short period of time. The point of this verse is that God
does not evaluate time the way man does.

Second, though “day,” (Hebrew term) is used in Genesis 1 and Psalm 90:4, is consistently used in Genesis 1 as a singular noun. However, in Psalm 90:4, (Hebrew term) is part of a compound grammatical construction, “like-a-day-already-past” (i.e., “like yesterday,” (Hebrew phrase). As such, this  comparison is grammatically deficient.

Third, Psalm 90 is not a creation hymn, and the stanza in which v. 4 is located does not focus on any items from creation. Therefore, if any attention is given to exegetical detail, Psalm 90:4 cannot be used to support a figurative interpretation of the days of Genesis 1.

***

The second text used to support a figurative interpretation of the creation days is 2 Peter 3:8: “But do not let this one fact escape your notice, beloved, that with the Lord one day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years like one day.”

It has been suggested that if we take this passage at face value along with Psalm 90:4, it explicitly rules out a literal interpretation of the days of Genesis 1. In contrast to this type of naïve interpretation, we should notice that the immediate context of 2 Peter 3:8 is not a creation context.

Furthermore, as in Psalm 90:4, a simile is used to make a comparison.  For those using this text to suggest that a “day” in Genesis 1 is a thousand years, or however many years, Whitcomb’s response is apropos:

The latter verse [2 Pet 3:8], for example, does not say that God’s days last a thousand years, but that “one day is with the Lord as a thousand years.” In other words, God is above the limitations of time in the sense that he can accomplish in one literal day what nature or man could not accomplish in a vast period of time, if ever.
Note that one day is “as a thousand years,” not “is a thousand years,” with God. If “one day” in this verse means a long period of time, then we would end up with the following absurdity: “a long period of time is with the Lord as a thousand years.” Instead of this, the verse reveals how much God can actually accomplish in a literal day of twenty-four hours.


http://www.dbts.edu/journals/2000/McCabe.pdf


So now we see that in fact, claiming that "a day is like a thousand years" does not resolve either the Romans 5 situation nor the Genesis 1 situation.  They're not even referring to the length of the days in the Genesis creation week at all.   Nor would such Bible texts even begin to cover the extreme "deep time" ages that evolutionists accept.  

So it's not a "problem solved" at all, Dheddle.

******

FloydLee

Date: 2009/10/05 05:02:13, Link
Author: FloydLee
You know, I think I will give Heddle that PM myself after all.  I don't think he'll be able to refute what I've written here--not even close--but I would like to see if he's got the whatevers to respond on the Augustine thing, at least.

Date: 2009/10/05 05:22:39, Link
Author: FloydLee
Hey, maybe a little something for Dale Husband (if he's lurking despite taking his marbles home.)  He quoted:

 
Quote
The important point to remember is that Christianity is not based on the literal truth of the Book of Genesis. It is based on whether you beleive that Jesus was the Messiah predicted to come and save the world.


Most interesting.  In the Bible, that latter claim is always expressed as literal truth, not a penny less.  So exactly on what basis does Dale reject the literal truth of Genesis but simultaenously accept the literal truth of the Gospels?

Oh, wait a minute:  Dale DOESN'T accept the literal truth of the Gospels.  Jesus is NOT Dale's Messiah.  Dale effectively rejects BOTH Genesis and Gospel.  That's his solution to the problem.

Hmmm.

Date: 2009/10/05 05:26:20, Link
Author: FloydLee
Quote
Would you please mind adressing OldMan and Deadman's points.

Ask them to start addressing MY points for a change.  (There's plenty for them to chew on, that's for sure!).

FloydLee

Date: 2009/10/05 05:56:54, Link
Author: FloydLee
Quote
The pope has....

No he hasn't, Dan.  C'mon already.

Given the Big Five Incompatibilities, we've seen that Pope Benedict has in fact made public statements that actually RE-AFFIRM the first two of them.  Those re-affirmations remain unrefuted, of course, and I'm still waiting for anybody here to try takin' them on.

In fact Dan, let's make it the first THREE incompatibilites:

       
Quote
"God created humankind in his image, but this image is covered with so much dirt from sin that it is almost impossible to see," the pope said.

---Cindy Wooden, Catholic News Service, April 20, 2009.


Most interesting, aye?   Pope Benedict has directly reaffirmed the Third Incompatibility.  Not even mincing any words about it.
He has FAILED to set aside a foundational Christian belief that the Nature science journal has publicly called on everybody to set aside (because of evolution).  
He has thus re-affirmed yet another conflict area.  

That makes three out of five huge Incompatibilities that Benedict has publicly affirmed, and there's been absolutely NO papal attempts to reconcile and resolve the final two Incompatibilities.....Go figure!!

(Meanwhile, all the posters here remain totally unable to provide their own "Other Versions of Christianity" that are Bible-supportable and which also resolves and reconciles the Big Five Incompatibilities between evolution and Christianity.  But I'm still watching, waiting, hoping somebody will step up and provide it, if only for Quack's sake!)

FloydLee

Date: 2009/10/05 06:10:10, Link
Author: FloydLee
Quote
Well Floyd, once again I'd say that you made the initial claims, so the burden of proof's on you.

Well, let's narrow things down a bit.  Deadman accused me of quotemining.  I went through the quotes used in support of each of the Five Incompatibilities, noting which ones had not been accused of quotemining at all by anybody, (and I was careful to say "correct me if I'm wrong" on that),
and also directly responding in detail on the two articles which had been challenged in detail, carefully overturning each accusation on a point by point basis as much as possible.  

Can you at least ask Deadman to respond in detail on THAT stuff, eh?   I think that's an extremely fair request.  

I've gone down the line and responded for all five incompatibilities WRT this quotemining issue.  Deadman now apparently wants to duck it, declare victory and git out of Dodge, but you DID say something about "intellectual honesty".   And so I would call on you to ask Deadman to step up to the plate.

Date: 2009/10/05 06:18:43, Link
Author: FloydLee
Quote
This afternoon (it's 1 pm here right now) , I will go to the St Helene Parish, 100 meters from my place. It is a Catholic parish, where I was baptized, and the priest there is really nice (not much kiddy-fundling, plus he did my grand-aunt's funeral admirably). I will try to get his views on the subject and get back to you...

Sincere thanks.  You'd think the professing Christians in this forum would come up with their OWN personal compatibility/incompatibility theology for examination and consideration, but since that's obviously not the case, I'm grateful for your plans to import somebody who can actually step up to that plate.......  

Date: 2009/10/05 06:27:50, Link
Author: FloydLee
Quote
Speak to me, directly, floyd. You're quite aware that I'm on this site at the same time you are right now.


Hey, the man tried to defend you (or at least tried to shift "the burden" back on to me on your behalf, which was sorta kinda indirectly defending you.).  
I did have to respond to him on that part first.

But, since you're here, I surely don't mind speaking to you directly.  You've been given quite a bit of response -- detailed, considered response -- on your quotemining accusation.  You need to deal with that now.  You honestly do.

******

Also, it wouldn't hurt you to acknowledge that your "simple 3-line proof" did receive at least one considered reply already from me.  
Statements like "Still unanswered from page one of the thread" simply aren't accurate in this case.  You did get an answer, though you disagreed with it.

You want to preach about honesty Deadman?  Then start modeling the desired behavior.

Date: 2009/10/05 16:19:34, Link
Author: FloydLee
Okay, back again for a bit.  A few notes:

(1)  I could be wrong, but I think CsAdams will start falling silent about the cite thing now.  She had said, "And we wonder why FL doesn't provide cites for those textbooks", so I provided her the cite for the Miller textbook straight out of the FTE amicus brief itself.

But then instead of simply checking out the provided cite, she starts insisting on a page scan.  However, the poster JLT went ahead and did the checking and (even without offering any page scans himself), offered the appropriate Miller text, which confirmed that the FTE cite I provided was the real deal.  

And that, as they say, is that.  (Btw, on an earlier page, CsAdams tried to cast doubt on the definitions of macroevolution and microevolution that I provided from Campbell-Reece "Biology" 7th edition, but that likewise fell into silence very very quickly.  Didn't even bother asking for page scans on that one.)

***

(2)  I agree with some of you -- the "Above and Beyond" award definitely goes to the Schroedinger K-9 poster for a most entertaining post, AND for making some real honest efforts at seeking to have a Christian address the Five Incompatibilities from their own personal Christian theology which they profess to believe in and live out.  

It amazes me that a non-Christian who allegedly "looks like Satan" (at least to French ladies in blue dresses) is stepping off-line and making/documenting all these efforts, simply to bring in a Christian voice, a clergyman from halfway across the planet, who's apparently wiling to step right up to the plate on this thing.  Kudos SD.

***

(3)  Give the "Very Honorable Mention" award to the 79-(or more)-year-old poster Quack, for speaking in detail and from the heart about his own religious and philsophical background and how it has shaped his views.  Again, that honestly sheds light on things, that increases the understanding, that is helpful.  

***

(4)  I see DHeddle returned, and this time he replied on Augustine as well as the Fourth Incompatibility.  Thanks much, and yes I will get a response in on yours.

***

(5)  And we still gotta get on with this other main argument which many of you have offered...the attempt to water-down the force of the Big Five Incompatibilities by suggesting that all the sciences go there, not just evolution.

***

(6)  And of course I gotta go back to Deadman's "simple three-line proof" which Deadman claimed had gone unanswered from page one (but thanks for Dan --Oct 5 post, 15:26 -- for at least agreeing that I did answer Deadman once, even though Dan didn't agree with my answer either.)

***

Okay......still quite a bit on the plate, but the issues here should be at least discussed to some degree by the end of this week and weekend.  That would set the stage for starting the process of wrapping up this issue (with two or three extra days for focussing on "Biblical Perspective On Biology") and then switching over to "ID is science" debate.

Date: 2009/10/06 10:30:36, Link
Author: FloydLee
Okay, another day, another debate.  Interesting comments as always.

(I won't lie to you---I think some of you are not enjoying this debate very much.  But me, I am.  Completely worth it.  I'm learning some things, and I hope you are too.)

Let's begin with Deadman again. (This will be more than one post). Remember, he's got the handy-dandy three-line proof:

Quote
1. The Pope is a Christian.

2. The Pope holds that evolution happens.

3. Therefore, Evolution is compatible with Christianity.

A simple three-line proof.

FL now has only five options:

A -- Contend that statement 1 is false.

B -- Contend that statement 2 is false.

C -- Contend that the reasoning deriving statement 3 from statements 1 and 2 is wrong.

D -- Accept that statement 3 is true.

OR

E -- Change the subject by saying something irrelevant like "Some of you boys have already experienced either the LOSS of your Christian faith, or at least a SERIOUS EROSION of your Christian faith. And your slide (your back-slide, that is) is partly or indirectly due to the impact of evolution-claims on your own beliefs.


I chose Option "C", of course, thereby causing Deadman to lose his rather overconfident bet:

Quote
My money is that you'll merely try to use a combination of "A" and "E" then launch into a Gish Gallop while ignoring actually facing the reality of your instant loss.


So, let's go back over that "C" argument.

Quote
....Let's check out this "proof".  Let's ask a few questions.  Better yet, let's just ask one question.

What exactly does (1) have to do with (2)?

Note carefully:  It is entirely possible, according to your 3-point set-up, that the Pope is affirming that "evolution happens" even though it creates a conflict with his personal belief in Christianity.  

That would kinda wreck the claim of "proof."

(After all, you'll notice that nowhere in your e-point set-up did you actually claim that the Pope says that evolution is compatible with Christianity, nor is any evidence provided by the Pope to support such a claim, nor does the Pope offer any specific resolutions of any of the Big Four Incompatibilities.)


Okay.  Seems clear enough.

Here's the deal:  this syllogism was claimed to be a proof.  It's not.  Why not?  Because a rational reason (in fact, more 'n' one) exists why (3) does not NECESSARILY follow (1) and (2).

(a)  The Pope may simply be unaware of the existence of particular Incompatibilities.

(b)  The pope may acknowledge that "evolution happens" but only under certain conditions, which means that under different conditions, he is NOT in agreement that evolution is compatible with Christianity.

©  By "evolution happens", does the Pope mean "microevolution happens", "macroevolution happens", or both?  Without specifiying things further, you can't be sure what Pope means there, and therefore your (3) may not necessarily follow from your (1) and (2)

Seems clear enough.  There are visible holes in this proof.  Items where (3) just MIGHT NOT necessarily follow from (1) and (2).  That's the deal.

(Again, please note that this all falls under Option C.)

So, Deadman, how do you plug those three specific holes and get your "proof" back up to the status of an actual "proof"?

Date: 2009/10/06 10:43:57, Link
Author: FloydLee
Quote
He's just saying "I win, I win!"

Please notice that I have not claimed any victory in this debate so far, nor do I intend to.  The quoted statement is a misrepresentation.  

I hope the poster involved will do less misrepresentation and actually engage in detail the responses that I am offering.  At one's convenience, of course.

Date: 2009/10/06 11:02:46, Link
Author: FloydLee
Quote
As someone recently commented: Our churches are empty, but that’s because Christianity has won.

Another good anc considered post Quack, but I gotta say from my perspective:  THAT line is eerie to the max.  That's Halloween-level irony there.

Over here, empty churches, lost members scattered to the winds, no-longer-existing churches, mean great tragedy for Christianity.  Complete Defeat!!

Date: 2009/10/06 12:44:15, Link
Author: FloydLee
Quote
"Real deal" just like your doctored Oro quote that you've been bandying about the nets for a few years now?

Hardly doctored, SLP.  In fact, did you see what Nmgirl posted?
 
Quote
Nobel laureate Christian de Duve summarized the plenary session: "The participants unanimously accepted as indisputable the affirmation that the Universe, as well as life within it, are the products of long evolutionary histories,"

That's a direct echo of what Oro wrote in Schopf 2002 which I have quoted over the past few years.  

Needless to say, the next time you guys try to suddently pretend that abiogenesis is separate from evolution, I'll be quoting not only Oro but De Duve as well!!

Date: 2009/10/06 12:52:04, Link
Author: FloydLee
Quote
The rest of your quibbles are irrelevant

Funny how if you see something you don't like in my responses, it's always "irrelevant" whether or not it really is.  Will look at your post further.

Date: 2009/10/06 13:05:47, Link
Author: FloydLee
Quote
You calling them "rational reasons" does not make that so. I view your claims as completely irrational.

Hey, I view YOUR claims as completely irrational.  Which means if we're gonna get anywhere, we both must provide rational reasons for whatever we claim, as best we can.

If you need a model, look at Dan's post.  He's at least trying to be specific.

***

Date: 2009/10/06 13:19:43, Link
Author: FloydLee
Quote
The Pope, as been repeatedly noted, rejects your so-called conflict.

But the Pope has not rejected the Big Five Incompatibilities, and in fact has affirmed the first Three of them in comments that were quoted in this thread.

Date: 2009/10/06 13:22:09, Link
Author: FloydLee
Probably need to ask something else, too.  Have you ever taken a course in ancient or modern philosophy, Deadman?  They usually discuss when something can be said to be "proof" or not.

Date: 2009/10/06 14:30:38, Link
Author: FloydLee
Quote
 
Quote
This is just a reminder for Quack.  Nobody's presenting those "Other Versions of Christianity", (the ones that are presumably Bible-supportable and demonstrably compatible with evolution), in this forum as of yet.  Nobody.
 

Funny, I could have sworn that the pope had been mentioned several times on this thread.

Henry


I've highlighted the phrase you may have missed, Henry.

Date: 2009/10/06 16:07:51, Link
Author: FloydLee
Quote
If the Pope believes in Evolution and also believes that evolution is incompatible with Christianity, he must regularly experience a painful amount of cognitive dissonance.

Maybe yes, maybe no, I don't know.
But you can tell from the previous Pope quotations I offered in this thread that he's really, thoughtfully struggled with the issue.  

He has never retracted his own Required Explanation/Teleology/Intelligent-Project statements, and he did allow Cardinal Schoenborn to offer his own pro-ID challenge in the media some years ago.  That's courageous and thoughtful of him.

But, there IS a very serious dissonance involved with Christianity and Evolution.   You've already read the personal statements of five former Christians for whom that dissonance helped erode and corrode their Christian faith past the breaking point.  

It's no accident -- none at all -- that Jason Rosenhouse wrote at Evolutionblog that
     
Quote
"Reconciling evolution and Christianity is not as simple as theistic evolutionists often try to pretend."

---June 21, 2008

He's right.  That situation has to be taken mondo seriously.

Btw, Rosenhouse wrote something else too.  Consider well:
       
Quote
But 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.


----Rosenhouse, eSkeptic website, Oct 10, 2007

Dissonance.  Conflict.  Erosion.  Damage.  Think about it.  Even this generalized "the Pope accepts evolution" statement that some posters are advocating, doesn't take into account certain other serious items that he's said publicly.  

I think it's clear that there's a certain amount of cognitive dissonance taking place (although I don't know to what extent) taking place among the Christian TE's.  

FloydLee

Date: 2009/10/06 16:37:58, Link
Author: FloydLee
Quote
Let's leave him to his own interpretation of faith, and let the other millions of interpretations that accept evolution laugh at him with scorn (or scones. I love scones...)

Hey, speaking of those other millions of interpretations, how are your efforts going with bringing in that Christian clergyman to provide his interpretation?  I was very impressed with that post, quite honestly.

Date: 2009/10/06 17:56:34, Link
Author: FloydLee
Quote
In order to invalidate the logical proof, you must show one or more of the premises invalid. You haven't shown either invalid. The conclusion follows from those premises.


OR....one can invalidate the logical proof by showing that the conclusion doesn't necessarily follow from the premises given.  That's where your "simple 3-line proof" is at, Deadman.  You got yourself a non-sequiter in there, as I've shown.  Messes up your game.

(a)  The Pope may simply be unaware of the existence of particular Incompatibilities.

You can eliminate (a) by bringing in some Pope Benedict quotations that specifically address one or more of the Incompatibilities and specifically refutes (NOT re-affirms!!) one or more of them.

So, with that in mind, let's check out Robin's comments briefly.  He commented on (a) and (b).

 
Quote
You said that your Big Five were directly derived conditions of biblical Christianity.

True.  Nobody here has even attempted a refutation of that.
   
Quote
If the Pope is unaware of them, then either a) he isn't a Christian or b) they don't actually exist. There is no alternative.

And that's where Robin is wrong.  Remember, Robin's fellow evolutionists (the professionals, anyway) have stated ALL FIVE, in writing.

Therefore the Big Five "actually exist", quite honestly, whether the Pope is aware of their existence or not.  

For example, I have not found any Papal responses to Jason Rosenhouse (the Fifth Incompatibility.)  Does that mean that Rosenhouse's argument doesn't even exist?  HARDLY.`

But it could possibly mean that the Pope (a very busy man, to be sure) might not unaware of Rosenhouse's argument.  As you can see, that's not ruled out.

Regarding (b), which was:  "The pope may acknowledge that "evolution happens" but only under certain conditions, which means that under different conditions, he is NOT in agreement that evolution is compatible with Christianity."  Robin responded:
   
Quote
The Pope may say that wearing pink frilly underwear on one's head under certain conditions feels sexy, but unless you can established he did say such and actually [/i]established certain conditions[/i] that specifically conflict with the TOE, your speculation amounts to a hand wave. As of this moment, however, all we can go on is what the Pope has presented, which so far only conflicts with your claims.

But that is clearly wrong all by itself.  The Pope's statements that re-affirm the first three incompatibilities have already been directly quoted in this thread.  Clear as glass.  

For example, exactly how much more explanation is required to show that "God's teleology" conflicts with "No Teleology At All"?  Didn't Nature science journal flat-out say that the Image-Of-God thesis (which was directly concisely stated by the Pope) must be "set aside"?  The pope is putting out re-affirmations of Incompatibility here.  His own words.  Up Front.

The point is that, if you could find some Papal quotes that eliminate (b), then once again you'd make progress towards establishing that your conclusion--your (3) did in fact follow from your premises (1) and (2).   But as we've seen, the Pope's quotes do the exact OPPOSITE.

Thereby messing up your syllogism as any kind of "proof" here.

Date: 2009/10/06 17:58:48, Link
Author: FloydLee
typo correction:  the sentence should read  "the Pope might not be aware of Rosenhouse's argument...."

Date: 2009/10/07 06:54:07, Link
Author: FloydLee
Quote
Even more amusingly, when you are saying " maybe the pope isn't aware of my made-up list of incompatibilities" you are merely saying "the Pope isn't really a Christian until he agrees with me" in a slightly different way.

Now THAT's a pretty good stretch, Deadman. Please go ahead and provide supporting reason(s) for that one.  And be sure they're rational reasons too!

Date: 2009/10/07 07:40:10, Link
Author: FloydLee
Okay, let's also bring up another major topic today.

Back on page 2, Someotherguy asked,

     
Quote
doesn't the Bible at times refer to natural weather phenomenon as being under the control of God, yet modern meteorology does not make room for the kinds of teleological processes written about in the Bible.  In what real sense then is meteorology more compatible with Christianity than evolutionary biology?


To which I replied,

     
Quote
The big difference is that if you will go to a meteorology textbook, or a physics textbook, or a chemistry science journal article, you will see that they are SILENT on the issue of teleology.  

You will NOT see them denying teleology, instead they just stay silent and stick to whatever they can back up with science.   You won't see public claims of:

"Meteorology does not admit conscious anticipation of the future (ie consious forethought)..."

"Physics is a completely mindless process..."

"(Chemistry and the Brain) -- With all deference to religious people, the notion that humans were created in the image of God can be set aside."

"Astronomy rejects all supernatural phenomena and causations."

No.  No sir.   These kinds of public pronouncements are found only within--and are inherently part of-- EVOLUTION.  Evolution is incompatible with Christianity.


And of course, that remains true. Nobody was able to find a meteorology/physics/chemistry/astronomy/etc textbook that denies teleology.  Such textbooks are silent on the issue.  Only evolution publicly preaches NT-NCF.  All the time, too.

So the rationale then offered, were various statements to the effect of:

     
Quote
Supernatural causes are already excluded from all science. --- Reed


     
Quote
.....(All) of science denies being capable of investigating/supporting Supernaturalist Deities as a knowable "cause". --- Deadman


Now, notice what is happening here.  This particular line of argument does NOT deny---(check it out for yourself baby)---this particular line of argument does NOT deny that the Big Five Incompatibilities are true regarding evolution.

Instead, the idea is to water down the force of the Big Five by claiming that "all of science" does the Big Five as well.  

Now, as we've seen, that claim can NOT be established by going straight to science textbooks and searching for Big Five pronouncements therein, so the only other move left to make is to try to establish the claim via methodological naturalism, as summarized by (for example)Reed's and Deadman's statements above.

******

But there's a problem.  Do you really KNOW that "supernatural causes" are "automatically excluded" from "all of science"?

The answer is: Nope, you do NOT know that.  At all.  

     
Quote
"In fact, if the preceding investigations are correct, there is no compelling conceptual basis for any blanket prohibition on exploring applications or implications of the idea of supernatural design within the scientific context.

"Some design theories may be inappropriate in some instances, but that is perfectly consistent with others being in principle legitimate.

"It is, of course, perfectly possible that such attempts could end up wholly empty, but since every scientific research program faces at least that possibility, that hardly constitutes grounds for pre-emptive prohibitions."


--- Dr. Del Ratzsch, Nature, Design and Science, c2001, p.149,


******

And there's something else.  Reed's and Deadman's statements absolutely depend on using the philosophy of methodological naturalism to define what science is.  

The next post shows why that dependence is wrong.

FloydLee

Date: 2009/10/07 08:49:17, Link
Author: FloydLee
Quote
From the moment you assume the pope MUST have the same faith as yours, in every possible way, to be a christian, you basicaly shut down the debate.

You may want to go back to the first line of Deadman's "simple three line proof."
 
Quote
1.  The Pope is a Christian.

Now show me where I have disputed that specific premise at any time in this thread.  Good luck.

Date: 2009/10/07 09:12:36, Link
Author: FloydLee
Quote
I already demonstrated they were your big five incompatibilities based on your misuse of other's opinions.

What "misuse"?  Deadman's allegations of quotemining have already been specifically refuted for ALL FIVE imcompatibilities and each quotation therein, one by one.  

At this point, you'll need to come up with some kind of rational support for a claim of "misuse."  Don't just assert it, show some proof.  So far, nothing sustainable has been offered at all.

Date: 2009/10/07 09:40:34, Link
Author: FloydLee
Quote
you don't dispute the pope's christianity and since we know the pope says evolution is not incompatible with christianity, you have just scored an "own goal".
thanks.  it's been amusing.

Not good enough, Rhmc.  Not sufficient.
   
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

Date: 2009/10/07 10:02:19, Link
Author: FloydLee
Quote
Even opinions from the likes of Mayr are just opinions and are not actual summations of the actual ToE.

So please provide me with these (ahem) "actual summations" that would negate and neutralize the published evolutionist statements that were specifically given for each of the Big Five Incompatibilities.  Thanks again!

Date: 2009/10/07 10:33:51, Link
Author: FloydLee
Quote
That was already done.

Then please copy and paste 'em.  Remember, these are supposed to be "actual summations" (of what ToE says), presumably from a published source and not just your own opinion.  Can you provide 'em?

Date: 2009/10/07 10:37:50, Link
Author: FloydLee
And btw, since I DID quote the Pope directly where his own comments happen to affirm the first three specific Incompatibilities, could you maybe come up with some other Papal quotes that specifically negate or neutralize 'em?

Date: 2009/10/07 12:08:03, Link
Author: FloydLee
Hey, where are those actual summations?  Who's in charge of that?

Date: 2009/10/07 15:51:36, Link
Author: FloydLee
Quote
The pontiff, speaking as he was concluding his holiday in northern Italy, also said that while there is much scientific proof to support evolution, the theory could not exclude a role by God.

I can appreciate this quotation, Deadman.  It directly and irreconcilably opposes the published statements from these two professional evolutionist scientists:
 
Quote
"People seem to think that Christianity and evolution do or can go together.  But I suggest this is only possible for the intellectually schizophrenic.

Biological theory does not require or allow any sort of divine guidance for the evolutionary process..."

---David Olroyd

 
Quote
"First, Darwinism rejects all supernatural phenomena and causations. The theory of evolution by natural selection explains the adaptedness and diversity of the world solely materialistically.

"It no longer requires God as creator or designer (although one is certainly still free to believe in God even if one accepts evolution)." --- Ernst Mayr


But let me ask you this, Deadman.   For certain, the Pope's statement and the evolutionist scientists' statements CANNOT be true at the same time.  

So please tell me which party you agree with and which party you disagree with.  Thanks!

Date: 2009/10/07 18:24:40, Link
Author: FloydLee
Quote
So thank you Floyd, if I go to hell, then it's because of you and (Floyd's) 'Christianity'.  You have only yourself to blame for my 'fall'.

Wow!   Me doing Ye Olde Divell's dirty work again, it seems.  (Force of habit, some would say.)

But let me say this for you, Ogre.  Like Quack, and like Nmgirl, you're speaking straight from your heart about where you're at and how you got there.  That's huge.  That's honest.  And I appreciate it.

However, there were one or two candid questions that came to mind while reading your personal testimony.  For example:
       
Quote
I've spent my life (37 plus years) with some amazing Christians and you aren't even worthy to clean their boots.

Hey, I'd be the first to agree with you, even though I don't even know who these people are that you're referring to.   No joke.

But the fact is that, by your own admission, you have REJECTED their faith in Jesus Christ just as much as you've rejected mine, despite their stellar example which (you claim) impressed you so much.  The obvious question, is, um, whyyyyy.

See, here's the deal Ogre.  My guess is that, come Judgment Day, if you try to hide behind MY skirts and plead, "Hey God, That Rotten Fundie Floyd Is The Real Reason Why I Spat In Christ's Face", God might just say to you, "Yeah bro, I'm on your side, that Rotten Fundie Floyd is nothing but a Wackadoodle Mess with a Backwards Clergy Collar.  I feel your pain dude."

But see, God already knows that you met some "Amazing" Christians who apparently showed you all the good stuff I failed to show you here.  

So what lame-bunny excuse are you gonna hand God on J-Day when He replays the video of how THEY impressed you with their example and their faith?   You gonna blame THEM as well, for your rejection of Jesus Christ?

Nope.  You'll just stand there, full of guilt, unable even to look God in the eye, knowing that you blew it all the way, standing there watching the "DOWN" button flashing on your personal Elevator.

Now, please please don't misunderstand, I'm not jumping on you.   This is NO attack on you, for like I suggested, I rather liked the way you spoke.  It was helpful and helped me to better understand where you're comin' from.  

But.....your own words have rationally left you WITHOUT any rational (let alone religious) excuse as to why you've "rejected all religion", including your rejection of the religion of the non-Floydish Christians that you claim you were impressed by.  

(And please note:  our lives are short as Hell, according to the rock band "Shooting Star."  You and I ain't got time for incorrect spiritual choices, aye?)

So you may want to think things over a bit.  If you choose to respond to this assessment, I'm listening.

Floyd Lee    :)

Date: 2009/10/07 19:31:08, Link
Author: FloydLee
Quote
I also stipulated quite clearly that if you began preaching, proselytizing or "witnessing" you have broken the agreement we had, Floyd Lee.

Give it a rest, Deadman.  Ogre posted to me from his heart, and I posted to him from mine.  Show some flexibility there.    :)

Date: 2009/10/07 21:23:10, Link
Author: FloydLee
Quote
If the Pope disagrees with your insistence that your "interpretation" of each of your Big Five Fantasies (BFF) is the "correct" interpretation, IF the Pope in fact rejects your claims and your willingness to use fallacies AND your conclusions drawn from your BFF --  If the Pope denies your BFF [Big Five Fantasies] as being essential to Christian faith, would you agree with him?

I count three separate "IF's" there.  And (this is important) you DID say "each" of the Big Five.  You are held to what you have specified.

To answer your question, no I wouldn't necessarily agree with him.  

First, there's no need for me to agree to items I've not been shown yet, and I think you understand that THOSE three "if's" that you've specified (repeat: specified), have yet to be offered by the Pope himself.  Or at least you have yet to show them to me.

Think about it:  in the process of establishing your three "IF's", you'd even have to locate NEW statements by Benedict that negate Benedict's own previous God-As-Required-Explanation/God's Teleology/God's Image statements.  Good luck on that one.  
(And if those topics aren't foundational to Christian belief, why did HE bother bringing them up and affirming them?)

Secondly, I don't see how the Pope is going to eliminate the specific evolutionist statements supporting the Big Five Incompatibilities, that have already been given.   He's been silent so far,  except for the three Incompatibilities he's already affirmed (instead of rejected).

So, for now, the only rational answer from me to your question would have to be a "No."  I'm very willing to see what you can offer, though.  

(You must have SOME sort of new papal information that meets the three "IF's" that you specified in the quoted paragraph, right....?)

FloydLee

Date: 2009/10/07 21:44:25, Link
Author: FloydLee
Quote
(Robin)

Even opinions from the likes of Mayr are just opinions and are not actual summations of the actual ToE.

 
Quote
(Floyd)

So please provide me with these (ahem) "actual summations" that would negate and neutralize the published evolutionist statements that were specifically given for each of the Big Five Incompatibilities.  Thanks again!

   
Quote
(Robin)

Easy:
   
Quote
The definition
Biological evolution, simply put, is descent with modification. This definition encompasses small-scale evolution (changes in gene frequency in a population from one generation to the next) and large-scale evolution (the descent of different species from a common ancestor over many generations). Evolution helps us to understand the history of life.

The explanation
Biological evolution is not simply a matter of change over time. Lots of things change over time: trees lose their leaves, mountain ranges rise and erode, but they aren't examples of biological evolution because they don't involve descent through genetic inheritance.

The central idea of biological evolution is that all life on Earth shares a common ancestor, just as you and your cousins share a common grandmother.

Through the process of descent with modification, the common ancestor of life on Earth gave rise to the fantastic diversity that we see documented in the fossil record and around us today. Evolution means that we're all distant cousins: humans and oak trees, hummingbirds and whales.


(berkeley.edu)


Okay.  Robin, what you've provided is merely a general, short, popular-level explanation of evolution.   Nothing more.  

It clearly does not even address, let alone "negate and neutralize" as I previously asked for, the published evolutionist statements that were specifically given in support of the Big Five Incompatibilities.  It doesn't say anything one way or the other.  

You mentioned Mayr, for example:  How does that little googly shpiel eliminate what Mayr specifically wrote in SciAm?  Answer:  it doesn't.  At all.

Yes, it IS a summation.  No, it doesn't do ANYTHING to resolve negate eliminate or neutralize any of the Big Five Incompatibillities.  IOW, given what was clearly asked for, you've got nothing there.

(You'd have far better luck with the Pope argument, skimpy as that is!!)

FloydLee

Date: 2009/10/08 08:40:25, Link
Author: FloydLee
Quote
Those folks made those statements from their own feelings and philosophies, not from the science of evolution.

Hmm ......why did the evolutionists ascribe their claims to the theory of evolution itself, instead of to "their own feelings and philosophies"?  Are you saying that these evolutionists are lying, Robin?

Date: 2009/10/08 08:48:13, Link
Author: FloydLee
Quote
You have claimed from the beginning that the issue is evolution is incompatible with Christianity. what I provided *IS* evolution.

Does this mean that what Futuyma provided in Evolutionary Biology 3rd ed.  is NOT evolution?  Does this mean that Mayr's denial of teleology in his book What Evolution Is, (the same kind of denial as in his SciAm article) is NOT evolution?

Date: 2009/10/08 08:55:52, Link
Author: FloydLee
Quote
If he rejects your claim, is (the Pope) still Christian in your definition?

Go back to page 7, on Sept. 22.  (You did not see this post?)

***
 
Quote
 Hey Floyd. Is the Pope Christian? Yes or No.

 
Quote
Yes.  He is.

So is Francis Collins, according to Collins book.

Both are good examples of Theistic Evolution, probably the best TE has got right now.

Neither One has come up with any solution for the Big Five Incompatibillities.   Simply not able to, so far.  

The End.

Date: 2009/10/08 09:12:37, Link
Author: FloydLee
Quote
I wonder how FloydLee would feel if he stood before God and He told FL that ISLAM was the only true religion. Or Judaism. Or Hinduism. Or any other faith than the Christian one.

Sure, Dale, I'd be shocked if that kind of thing took place.  I think anyone with a working knowledge of John 3:16 would be visibly surprised.

But that's the deal.  The entire New Testament points in only ONE direction.  Period.  Jesus himself explains it.
 
Quote
Jesus said to him, "I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me."

---John 14:6

FloydLee

Date: 2009/10/08 10:00:26, Link
Author: FloydLee
Quote
What you believe Jesus to mean may not be the interpretation others ascribe to that alleged utterance.

Hmmm. there's always these alleged "other interpretations" that you allude to, but you guys can't seem to provide any of them in detail when asked.

Date: 2009/10/08 10:32:23, Link
Author: FloydLee
Quote
For the Pope, my understanding is that he and others have formulated a view of God that merely allows evolution to come into existence and effect, like other natural phenomena -- like water flowing downhill.

And yet, for some strange reason, nobody here can explain the specifics of that alleged "view of God" --- or even quote those specifics.

I have in fact provided a few quotes from the Pope about his "view of God"---but they all directly affirm the first three Incompatibilities.  Imagine that.

Date: 2009/10/08 11:05:18, Link
Author: FloydLee
Quote
Big Five Fantasies

btw Deadman.....what was your proof (I prefer published statements but I know you're not ready to go there) that the Big Five Incompatibilites are "fantasies"?  Please show me again.

Date: 2009/10/08 12:34:08, Link
Author: FloydLee
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."

Date: 2009/10/08 12:44:09, Link
Author: FloydLee
Quote
Nothing about what Futuyma provided in Evolutionary Biology creates any inconsistency as has been demonstrated over a half dozen times on this board alone.

I take it you don't have access to Evolutionary Biology 3rd ed (not even for free at your local library), right?

Date: 2009/10/08 12:50:01, Link
Author: FloydLee
Quote
So, please define what "professional scientist evolutionists" means.
`
Here's 5 examples just to get started.

Futuyma
Mayr
Bozarth
Coyne
Whoever's currently teaching Biology 391 at the Univ. of Tenn. at Martin

So, would you agree?  Are those professional evolutionist scientists there?

Date: 2009/10/08 13:22:09, Link
Author: FloydLee
Quote
I'm not even entering the debate anymore, except to comment on your stupidity and hypocrisy.

Understood, but can you at least let me know if you have any success getting that Christian clergyman on board with his perspective?  
He would be the only Christian in this forum, in all the pages of this thread, to actually step up to the plate in terms of offering specific reconciliations with which to negate the Big Five.  

(If he chooses to offer them, that is.)

FloydLee

Date: 2009/10/08 15:16:16, Link
Author: FloydLee
Quote
It's actually up to you to prove that your big 5 are required by the pope.
 
Even more basic than that, Ogre:  I need merely prove that the Big Five Incompatibilities EXIST.  

That task, I have carefully executed, one at a time.  Comparing published evolutionist statements one by one with the position given by the Bible texts.  (Remember, the Bible is my authority, not the Pope).  Supplying reasons why each incompatibility really IS an incomptability with Christianity.  There's five in all.

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

Normally we all rely on scientists to tell us about evolution and what evolution actually entails or doesn't entail.  As you can see, your comrades in this forum have severely fallen away from that reliance, to the point of actually ignoring clear statements that actual working evolutionary scientists have published.  
But that's the wrong way to go.  One does not eliminate the incompatibilities by pretending that the evolutionists didn't say what they said.

And I've already shown that the incompatibilities are actually tied to evolution theory itself, not just somebody's "personal opinion."  For example, the Fourth Incompatibility (Death-Before-Adam) is based on the fact that evolution REQUIRES death to have been present at all times on this planet.  Period.  That's not even debatable.  
What you said about "successive alterations that led from the earliest protoorganism to snails, bees, giraffes, and dandelions" absolutely *requires* that death appear in this world BEFORE the time the Bible said it appeared (exclusively after The Fall, not before).
That's how evolution, that's how natural selection, works.

Yet you have people around here talking like the Fourth incompatibility, the reality of the situation, doesn't even exist.  As if ignoring the problem makes it magically go away.

That's not rational, Ogre.  Not even slightly.

FloydLee

Date: 2009/10/08 15:43:25, Link
Author: FloydLee
Quote
I've come to the conclusion that losing my and this poor priest's time to answer your blatant sillyness is beyond the scope of logic.

Genuinely sorry to hear that.  I would have enjoyed listening and thinking about your clergy friend's perspective on this issue.

So, the evolutionist Christians have effectively taken a pass on this debate.   At this point, the only Christian-evolutionist response to the Big Five Incompatibilities is merely, "the Pope believes in Evolution" (under certain specific conditions which nobody around here wants to discuss).

I think I can live with that situation; it helps me to evaluate the strength of each incompatibility WRT the evolutionist Christians.  

But my guess is that your Christian clergy friend, being an experienced clergyman, probably might would have put up a serious, considered response.  An actual challenge, even.

Tis a mondo shame that he'll not be participating.

Floyd Lee   :)

Date: 2009/10/08 16:07:06, Link
Author: FloydLee
Here's a quotation from Deadman:
Quote
The pontiff, speaking as he was concluding his holiday in northern Italy, also said that while there is much scientific proof to support evolution, the theory could not exclude a role by God.

Here's a quotation from Robin:
Quote
The Pope accepts evolution under all conditions as he states...."

And then you guys wanna declare victory despite all that contradiction?

Date: 2009/10/09 03:04:42, Link
Author: FloydLee
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

Date: 2009/10/09 03:07:39, Link
Author: FloydLee
Quote
Agreed, he's ignored any attempt to actually define what he's talking about.

We've already discussed what was meant by "evolution" and "Christianity", Ogre.   Please review the previous pages if need be.

Date: 2009/10/09 03:16:35, Link
Author: FloydLee
Hey Deadman, you promised that if I answered your "Three If's" papal question, you'd answer the following question.
     
Quote
     
Quote
The pontiff, speaking as he was concluding his holiday in northern Italy, also said that while there is much scientific proof to support evolution, the theory could not exclude a role by God.

I can appreciate this quotation, Deadman.  It directly and irreconcilably opposes the published statements from these two professional evolutionist scientists:
     
Quote
"People seem to think that Christianity and evolution do or can go together.  But I suggest this is only possible for the intellectually schizophrenic.

Biological theory does not require or allow any sort of divine guidance for the evolutionary process..."

---David Olroyd

     
Quote

"First, Darwinism rejects all supernatural phenomena and causations. The theory of evolution by natural selection explains the adaptedness and diversity of the world solely materialistically.

"It no longer requires God as creator or designer (although one is certainly still free to believe in God even if one accepts evolution)." --- Ernst Mayr  

But let me ask you this, Deadman.   For certain, the Pope's statement and the evolutionist scientists' statements CANNOT be true at the same time.  

So please tell me which party you agree with and which party you disagree with.  Thanks!

Did you answer that question already?

Date: 2009/10/09 04:46:38, Link
Author: FloydLee
Quote
So, it's now established that some evolutionists have opinions about theology and teleology. So what?
That doesn't mean their opinions are logical deductions from the premises behind evolution theory.

Well, let's check that out Henry.  Let's do the Second Incompatibility.
     
Quote
"Teleological statements are those that invoke goals, or ends (Greek teleos, "end"), as causes (eg, "He went to the store in order to get milk.")
But evolutionary theory does not admit anticipation of the future (i.e. conscious forethought),
either in the process of evolution of an adaptive characteristic or in the development of or behavior of an individual organism."

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

     
Quote
"(Darwin's) alternative to intelligent design was natural selection, according to which organisms possessing variations that enhance survival or reproduction replace those less suitably endowed, which therefore survive or reproduce in lesser degree.  Thus the adaptations of organisms have indeed been 'designed', but by a completely mindless process.  

"The process cannot have a goal, any more than than erosion has the goal of forming canyons, for the future cannot cause material events in the past."  ---EB3, pg 342.  

     
Quote
"Evolution has no goal." --- Jerry Coyne, Why Evolution Is True, 2009.

"Evolution has no goal." -- Online Lecture Notes for Biology 391, Organic Evolution, at the University of Tennessee-Martin.

Okay.  From this, we can see that Futuyma, and others, are clearly talking about evolutionary theory itself.

He -- and they -- are not offering you his personal opinions about theology here.  EB# directly points out that evolutionary theory itself does not admit a certain something.  

Furthermore, you are given an exact, rational reason in EB3 -- already quoted -- why evolutionary theory itself does NOT (in this case) admit that certain something.  In fact, page 342 of EB3 contains a second reason why evolution doesn't admit teleology:
     
Quote
"Supernatural processes cannot be the subject of science; and so when Darwin offered a purely naturalistic alternative to the argument from design, he not only shook the foundations of theology and philosophy, but brought every aspect of the study of life into the realm of science.

This is important, Henry.  Not only does evolutionary theory itself NOT admit teleology and conscious forethought because of that first reason Futuyma gave, but it turns out that if you reject what Futuyma says, if you DO admit teleology and conscious forethought into the evolutionary process,
you ARE actually opening the rational door to allowing supernatural processes to become the subject of science.  You can no longer quarantine 'em out if you admit teleology at any point of the evolutionary process.

And you and your evolutionist pals don't want THAT kind of situation, do you?

******

Now, at this point I have to mention something.  Back on page 27, I pointed out that this particular claim of "Supernatural causes are already excluded from all science" (stated by Reed and echoed by Deadman and several others) is in fact UNSUPPORTED.  
     
Quote
"In fact, if the preceding investigations are correct, there is no compelling conceptual basis for any blanket prohibition on exploring applications or implications of the idea of supernatural design within the scientific context.

"Some design theories may be inappropriate in some instances, but that is perfectly consistent with others being in principle legitimate.

"It is, of course, perfectly possible that such attempts could end up wholly empty, but since every scientific research program faces at least that possibility, that hardly constitutes grounds for pre-emptive prohibitions."

--- Dr. Del Ratzsch, Nature, Design and Science, c2001, p.149.

     
Quote
"There is nothing inherent in the scientific enterprise that requires restricting it to natural causes only.  Science is about what is testable, not necessarily what is naturalistic." --- chemist Dr. John Millam, 2005 Kansas State Science Standards Hearings

So, as you see, I disagree with Futuyma, Reed, Deadman and others.  
However......., although I agree with Ratzsch and Millam, you might (as an evolutionist) still agree with Futuyma, Reed, Deadman, etc. and continue to believe that "Supernatural causes are already excluded from all science."

That's fine, but the kicker is this:  as you've seen from Futuyma's EB3, you now have a choice to make.  Admit the reality of the Second Incompatibility, or else destroy a favorite pro-evolution belief right here and now.

EITHER "evolutionary theory does NOT admit conscious anticipation of the future, ie conscious forethought", as EB3 states,
OR it is no longer true that supernatural causes cannot be the subject of science.  Admission of teleology and conscious forethought into the evolutionary process at any point, necessarily creates a situation in which you can no longer rationally rule out or dismiss supernatural-causes-within-science at that particular point.


Bottom line:  You can't have it both ways Henry.  Which option you wanna choose?  Choose only one please.

******

FloydLee

Date: 2009/10/09 04:57:51, Link
Author: FloydLee
Okay, there's just one more thing on my reply to Henry.  Earlier, I quoted philosopher of science Del Ratzsch and chemist John Millam to show that Futuyma's claim of "Supernatural processes cannot be the subject of science" is, at minimum, UNSUPPORTED.

Along with that, I wanted to offer additional commentary by Stephen C. Meyer, which helps to illuminate some of the issues involved.  

I may or may not refer to this commentary again, along with Ratzsch and Millam, when discussing whether ID is science.  I just wanted to put it on the table now, since it's a helpful discussion.

Quote
Naturalism: the only game in town?

G. K. Chesterton once said that "behind every double standard lies a single hidden agenda." Advocates of descent have used demarcation arguments to erect double standards against design, suggesting that the real methodological criterion they have in mind is naturalism.
Of course for many the equation of science with the strictly materialistic or naturalistic is not at all a hidden agenda. Scientists generally treat "naturalistic" as perhaps the most important feature of their enterprise. Clearly, if naturalism is regarded as a necessary feature of all scientific hypotheses, then design will not be considered a scientific hypothesis.

But must all scientific hypotheses be entirely naturalistic? Must scientific origins theories, in particular, limit themselves to materialistic causes? Thus far none of the arguments advanced in support of a naturalistic definition of science has provided a noncircular justification for such a limitation.

Nevertheless, perhaps such arguments are irrelevant. Perhaps scientists should just accept the definition of science that has come down to them. After all, the search for natural causes has served science well.
What harm can come from continuing with the status quo?

What compelling reasons can be offered for overturning the prohibition against nonnaturalistic explanation in science?

In fact, there are several.


First, with respect to origins, defining science as a strictly naturalistic enterprise is metaphysically gratuitous. Consider: It is at least logically possible that a personal agent existed before the appearance of the first life on earth. Further, as Bill Dembski argues in the next chapter, we do live in the sort of world where knowledge of such an agent could possibly be known or inferred from empirical data.

This suggests that it is logically and empirically possible that such an agent (whether divine or otherwise) designed or influenced the origin of life on earth.
To insist that postulations of past agency are inherently unscientific in the historical sciences (where the express purpose of such inquiry is to determine what happened in the past) suggests we know that no personal agent could have existed prior to humans.

Not only is such an assumption intrinsically unverifiable, it seems entirely gratuitous in the absence of some noncircular account of why science should presuppose metaphysical naturalism.

Second, to exclude by assumption a logically and empirically possible answer to the question motivating historical science seems intellectually and theoretically limiting, especially since no equivalent prohibition exists on the possible nomological relationships that scientists may postulate in nonhistorical sciences.

The (historical) question that must be asked about biological origins is not "Which materialistic scenario will prove most adequate?" but "How did life as we know it actually arise on earth?" Since one of the logically and syntactically appropriate answers to this later question is "Life was designed by an intelligent agent that existed before the advent of humans," it seems rationally stultifying to exclude the design hypothesis without a consideration of all the evidence, including the most current evidence, that might support it.

The a priori exclusion of design diminishes the rationality or origins research in another way. Recent nonpositivistic accounts of scientific rationality suggest that scientific theory evaluation is an inherently comparative enterprise.
Notions such as consilience and Peter Lipton's inference to the best explanation discussed above imply the need to compare the explanatory power of competing hypotheses or theories.

If this process is subverted by philosophical gerrymandering, the rationality of scientific practise is vitiated. Theories that gain acceptance in artificially constrained competitions can claim to be neither "most probably true" nor "most empirically adequate." Instead such theories can only be considered "most probable or adequate among an artificially limited set of options."

Moreover, where origins are concerned only a limited number of basic research programs are logically possible. (Either brute matter has the capability to arrange itself into higher levels of complexity or it does not. If it does not, then either some external agency has assisted the arrangement of matter or matter has always possessed its present arrangement.) The exclusion of one of the logically possible programs of origins research by assumption, therefore, seriously diminishes the significance of any claim to theoretical superiority by advocates of a remaining program.

As Phillip Johnson has argued, the use of "methodological rules" to protect Darwinism from theoretical challenge has produced a situation in which Darwinist claims must be regarded as little more than tautologies expressing the deductive consequences of methodological naturalism.

An openness to empirical arguments for design is therefore a necessary condition of a fully rational historical biology.
A rational historical biology must not only address the question "Which materialistic or naturalistic evolutionary scenario provides the most adequate explanation of biological complexity?" but also the question "Does a strictly materialistic evolutionary scenario or one involving intelligent agency or some other theory best explain the origin of biological complexity, given all relevant evidence?"

To insist otherwise is to insist that materialism holds a metaphysically privileged position. Since there seems no reason to concede that assumption, I see no reason to concede that origins theories must be strictly naturalistic.

Date: 2009/10/09 09:05:38, Link
Author: FloydLee
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."

Date: 2009/10/09 10:18:31, Link
Author: FloydLee
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

Date: 2009/10/09 10:53:58, Link
Author: FloydLee
Quote
Evolution is not a theory in crisis. It is not teetering on the verge of collapse. It has not failed as a scientific explanation. There is evidence for evolution, gobs and gobs of it.

AFAIK, I have not attempted to claim in this forum that the theory of evolution is collapsing, or in crisis, or a failure, or lacking of evidence.  The Big Five Incompatibilities are completely independent of Todd Wood's statement.  

My stated goal, the only goal in this forum, is to establish that "Evolution is Incompatible with Christianity", regardless of whatever level of confirmation/disconfirmation you happen to subscribe to regarding the theory itself.

Btw, on Oct. 8th (yesterday), Todd Wood also wrote the following items at his blog:
   
Quote
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.

Would you be willing to agree, SLP, that what Todd Wood stated there is INCOMPATIBLE with the theory of evolution?

FloydLee

Date: 2009/10/09 12:18:17, Link
Author: FloydLee
Quote
I suspected somebody might try to respond in that manner.  Here is the issue:  there are Christian beliefs that are foundational even to John 3:16, even.  They're quite important and can't be blown off.

For example, you know that John 3:16 presumes theism.  There's no way an ATHEIST can do John 3:16 without first giving up atheism.  Theism is foundational to John 3:16, even if a person doesn't even know how to spell the word theism.  Theism is foundational to Christianity.  

Well, there's some OTHER biblical beliefs that are foundational to Christianity too.  Deny these other biblical beliefs--and as we've seen already in four areas, evolution DOES deny them--and you are effectively eroding, corroding, undercutting Christian belief.  

Doesn't mean necessarily that you're not a Christian, but goodness, look at that danger and damage, that potential to erode and corrode important beliefs---and look at the people who are no longer holding on to the Christian faith you're holding on to, people for whom the damage is already done.

And that's happening right now.

Ppb, what was your refutation of this explanation?  You don't seem to have supplied one.

Date: 2009/10/09 12:24:04, Link
Author: FloydLee
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.

Date: 2009/10/09 12:41:28, Link
Author: FloydLee
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.

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.)

Date: 2009/10/09 12:44:04, Link
Author: FloydLee
Quote
I have no interest in discussing your 4 or 5 points.

Then that's that, at least for now.  If you change your mind, just jump right in!

Date: 2009/10/09 13:06:10, Link
Author: FloydLee
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

Date: 2009/10/09 13:22:04, Link
Author: FloydLee
Quote
Ummm...having coconuts and herbs for food means death before the fall.

Nope, nope.  Coconuts and herbs do not have a "Nephesh."  Only animals and humans.   You are not killing the kiwifruit when you eat it.

Date: 2009/10/09 13:45:43, Link
Author: FloydLee
Quote
That comment isn't from me.

That's fine Ogre.  My apologies.
Quote
It's actually worse than that.  When you eat fruit your basically performing an abortion on all the possible plants that could have come from the seeds in the fruit!

I appreciate your attempt at humor.   :)

Date: 2009/10/09 15:03:01, Link
Author: FloydLee
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.  

Date: 2009/10/09 15:13:32, Link
Author: FloydLee
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.

Date: 2009/10/09 15:20:14, Link
Author: FloydLee
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."

Date: 2009/10/09 15:24:58, Link
Author: FloydLee
Quote
Floyd, I'd caution you about something: most, if not all of the folks on this board don't hate God.

Didn't say they did.  
   
Quote
It's impossible to hate something you don't believe exists.
 
You just gave yourself away.  Looks like Ogre ain't the only one hating on God around here!

Date: 2009/10/09 15:31:20, Link
Author: FloydLee
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.

Date: 2009/10/09 16:11:42, Link
Author: FloydLee
Quote
It is easy enough to find opposite opinions on this point[?

Then do it, CM.   Don't say it, just do it, quote 'em to me.  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.

Date: 2009/10/09 16:23:55, Link
Author: FloydLee
Quote
He also will talk about Christianity in a generic sense, as in whether or not the Pope is a Christian.

That was the question you guys kept asking ME, remember?  I didn't initiate question, AND I'd answered it as far back as Sept 22----but somebody failed to remember (and failed to check the back pages), and kept trying to harp on it until I re-posted my response which he missed in the first place.  

So, please try to tell it right.  Or maybe, just stay on the sidelines, hmm?

Date: 2009/10/09 16:26:23, Link
Author: FloydLee
Quote
The Biblical basis for this claim was not provided.

Here you go.  

http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/am/v1/n2/do-leaves-die

Date: 2009/10/09 16:33:03, Link
Author: FloydLee
Quote
A while back, I posted up a statement from the NAS on science and religious concepts of God that basically invoked the NOMA.

And pray tell, what is the first commandment of all versions of NOMA?
Quote
"The first commandment for all versions of NOMA might be summarized by stating: ‘Thou shalt not mix the magisteria by claiming that God directly ordains important events in the history of nature by special interference knowable only through revelation and not accessible to science.’…

“In common parlance, we refer to such special interference as ‘miracle’ – operationally defined as a unique and temporary suspension of natural law to reorder the facts of nature by divine fiat….

“NOMA does impose this ‘limitation’ on concepts of God ….”

--- Stephen J. Gould, Rocks Of Ages

So if your intention is to pretend that evolution is compatible with Christianity, you better abandon that NOMA, and pronto!!

Date: 2009/10/09 17:06:03, Link
Author: FloydLee
Quote
when the limits of science re supernatural deities are pointed out, Floyd Lee has then said "Yes, but Del Ratzsche and Steven Meyer have said otherwise" . When asked to show their actual scientific research model that would overcome the limits of science...he can't. But he believes he's made a point, somewhere.

Yes, in fact, I absolutely made a point there.  When we later discuss "ID as science", your question will indeed be askable, and I imagine you will ask it.  (And yes, I have a response waiting for that time when it comes.)

HOWEVER, while we're on THIS topic, your question doesn't do anything for you.  

The reason is that you rationally DON'T have to offer an alternative "actual scientific research model" merely to point out what Meyer beautifully pointed out:  that the current claim of "supernatural causes are excluded from science" contains mulitple huge unresolved rational problems all by itself (including the problem of circularity.)

Did you provide any refutations to Meyer's specific points?  Nope, none.

***

Another reason is that "Science is about what is testable, not necesarily what is naturalistic."  (Chemist Dr. John Millam.)  

Did you provide any refutations for Millam?  Nope, you didn't.  
(Remember, we're not yet discussing "Is ID science".  Instead, we're just dealing with the fact that "what is testable" trumps "what is naturalistic" when it comes to deciding what is science and what is not, for testability is written right into the scientific method itself.

***

And then, yet ANOTHER reason is simply that throughout the history of science, at the conceptual level, there just hasn't been ANY sustainable rational BLANKET prohibitions against supernatural causes within the realm of science, which was what Ratzsch pointed out.  

So, did you provide a refutation for Dr. Ratzsch?  Nope, nope.  

So, as far as your question goes, ask it when we're discussing ID as science.  Asking it now, when an alternative model is NOT required merely to demonstrate the rational faults with your specific claim, doesn't work at all.

Date: 2009/10/09 17:15:51, Link
Author: FloydLee
Quote
If you insist on these things meaning "physical living thing", then your arguments totally fall apart.

The point is simply that plants don't have the "breath of life" in them like animals and humans do.  Therefore they don't die in the sense of the Hebrew word "mut".
End of 25-cent plant controversy.  You can't establish death-before-Adam by claiming veggies died.

Bottom line:  you're not committing Murder One against a celery stick.  The Bible never said you were doing so.  Put some mayo on it and eat it up.  Tastes good.  Lotsa antioxidant.  You'll love it.

Date: 2009/10/09 17:30:22, Link
Author: FloydLee
Quote
Nobody has to refute Meyer's points.

Ohhhhh, yes you do.  Those specific Meyer assessments have been standing unrefuted and effective for YEARS (I've posted them on Pandasthumb, CARM, and most everywhere else) and not a one of you evolutionists have been able to say so mucha as 'Boo' against those specific points.

Same thing for Ratzsch's statement, and same thing for Millam (since 2005 when he made his presentation at the Kansas hearings.)  No refutations at all.  You evolutionists just keep on parroting the same old mantra and hope that nobody's noticed the inherent intractable problems with it.

You evolutionists are weak as yellow tissue paper on some issues, and THIS is surely one of them.

Date: 2009/10/09 17:39:24, Link
Author: FloydLee
Quote
So if Millam says supernatural deities are testable, I expect you to show how.

You can expect a discussion of that when we're talking about ID.  Not before.  Go home and cry in your pillow if that frustrates you.  Science--the scientific method is about what is testable, not what is naturalistic.  You can't even find an evolutionist quotation to refute Millam's exact statement, can you?  Heh.  

(Btw, did Millam's quotation say "deities"?  Nope, he did not.  You kinda have this way of getting stuff a little garbled sometimes, or maybe you refuse to read stuff the way it's actually written if you don't like it.  Go figure.)

Date: 2009/10/10 00:10:03, Link
Author: FloydLee
Just need to ask Dan one question before going further.

Given the following:
     
Quote
On Oct. 8th (yesterday), Todd Wood also wrote the following items at his blog:
     
Quote
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.

Dan, you responded by saying,
     
Quote
What Todd Wood states is incompatible with the facts, but it's not incompatible with the theory of evolution.

So let me ask again.  Given that Todd Wood said THIS:
     
Quote
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.

Is it still your position that Todd Wood's statements are not incompatible with the theory of evolution?

Date: 2009/10/10 00:15:39, Link
Author: FloydLee
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.)  

Date: 2009/10/10 01:40:07, Link
Author: FloydLee
For Deadman, a couple notes:

(1)  Pages 84 and 85, you'll find it all in Chapter Two, Rocks of Ages, Stephen J. Gould.  Period.  He doesn't take any of it back and he doesn't water any of it down.  That quotation is exactly what he meant, not a penny less.

(2)  The only online reference or cite I have to Oldroyd's statement in the The Weekend Review (Australian) is the one provided by AIG:  
http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v15/i4/compatible.asp

Nevertheless, the reference is very specific.  Perhaps the people at your local library can track down that copy of the newspaper further.  In the meantime, nobody--including yourself--is able to dispute that Oldroyd's statement appears in that particular newspaper at that particular citation.

So you have Oldroyd's and Mayr's statements (and you already had access to the full Mayr article anyway), in direct contrast to what the Pope said.

At this point, it's time for you to stop stalling and fulfill the earlier promise you made.

(And btw, if you'll check back, your original promise was to answer my question if I answered your papal "Three If's" question.  Period. You didn't mention anything about having to look up any further references to the Weekend Review in addition to answering your question.)

So, I look forward to your answer now.  Tell me whether you agree with the Pope's specific statement that was given earlier, or with Oldroyd's and Mayr's specific statements instead.  One party or the other, period.

******

Hey, while searching around on Deadman's request, I found a couple of golden oldies online.  These will help readers understand why evolution is NOT compatible with Christianity.  Consider:
         
Quote
Theologians, if they want to remain honest, should make a choice. You can claim your own magisterium, separate from science’s but still deserving of respect. But in that case you have to renounce miracles.

– evolutionist Richard Dawkins

         
Quote
Those evolutionists who see no conflict between evolution and their religious beliefs have been careful not to look as closely as we have been looking, or else hold a religious view that gives God what we might call a merely ceremonial role to play.

–evolutionist Daniel Dennett


******

For Saturday, I will be checking on Deadman's answer, and probably responding briefly to it, but my primary focus will be on working on my promise to respond to  Dheddle one more time.  

(After Heddle, I might do some low-octane gig like tossing a one-liner Erasmus's way or something, maybe on Sunday).

Date: 2009/10/10 02:09:03, Link
Author: FloydLee
But you will keep your earlier promise, won't you Deadman?

Date: 2009/10/11 22:40:04, Link
Author: FloydLee
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.

Date: 2009/10/11 22:54:13, Link
Author: FloydLee
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.....

:)

Date: 2009/10/11 23:02:24, Link
Author: FloydLee
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?

Date: 2009/10/11 23:06:09, Link
Author: FloydLee
(Musical side note: it is very cool to listen to Emerson Lake and Palmer's "Hoedown" while participating in this debate.  Also Paul Speer's "Prelude Oculus", and "Matrix Gate" by Planet X.)

Date: 2009/10/11 23:15:25, Link
Author: FloydLee
Quote
I gave you the NAS statement which is respresentative of the consensus of an entire group of scientists

Oh yes, I remember your NAS quotation.  Not only did it NOT specifically address (let alone offer any reconcilation) of the Big Five Incompatibilities as I requested, it actually brought up and reinforced the infamous NOMA surrender-demand that was popularized by SJ Gould in Rocks Of Ages.

Next time you do a debate on incompatibility, Deadman, you may just wanna leave off the NAS quotation.  That little evo-sales-pitch is a STANDOUT example of incompatibility, all by itself.

FloydLee

Date: 2009/10/11 23:24:15, Link
Author: FloydLee
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.

Date: 2009/10/12 09:30:21, Link
Author: FloydLee
Okay.  Let us now see if Deadman answered the question he promised to answer.  I originally posted:
     
Quote
     
Quote
The pontiff, speaking as he was concluding his holiday in northern Italy, also said that while there is much scientific proof to support evolution, the theory could not exclude a role by God.

I can appreciate this quotation, Deadman.  It directly and irreconcilably opposes the published statements from these two professional evolutionist scientists:
     
Quote
"People seem to think that Christianity and evolution do or can go together.  But I suggest this is only possible for the intellectually schizophrenic.

Biological theory does not require or allow any sort of divine guidance for the evolutionary process..."

---David Oldroyd

     
Quote
"First, Darwinism rejects all supernatural phenomena and causations. The theory of evolution by natural selection explains the adaptedness and diversity of the world solely materialistically.

"It no longer requires God as creator or designer (although one is certainly still free to believe in God even if one accepts evolution)." --- Ernst Mayr


But let me ask you this, Deadman.   For certain, the Pope's statement and the evolutionist scientists' statements CANNOT be true at the same time.  

So please tell me which party you agree with and which party you disagree with.  Thanks!

Okay, so here was your answer:
     
Quote
Christians who have genuine faith -- meaning that they don't run around like YECS trying to "prove" that which cannot (by definition ) be proven -- are free to place their faith in a prime mover god which created all things, including evolutionary forces. I have absolutely no problem with that.

In such cases and others, science has limits that preclude it from investigating or saying anything at all about that concept of God. I would agree with Mayr who says this leaves believers free to believe.

I won't comment on your "Oldroyd" quote because I don't know that AIG didn't just forge it, and neither do you. What I DO KNOW, and what I CAN demonstrate is that AIG has a typically disgusting YEC track record of quotemines and fake quotes.


******

The honest truth is this, Deadman:  You promised to answer the question, but you did so much hemming and hawing that you mostly failed to answer the question.

You were specifically asked to name which party you agreed with and ALSO which party you disagreed with.  You barely got in the first part, and you failed the second part.

Nevertheless, here is the statement you have agreed with:
     
Quote
"First, Darwinism rejects all supernatural phenomena and causations. The theory of evolution by natural selection explains the adaptedness and diversity of the world solely materialistically.

"It no longer requires God as creator or designer (although one is certainly still free to believe in God even if one accepts evolution)."  --Mayr

And therefore here is the statement that you necessarily disagree with:
   
Quote
"The pontiff, speaking as he was concluding his holiday in northern Italy, also said that while there is much scientific proof to support evolution, the theory could not exclude a role by God."

As I said before, these two statements cannot both be true at the same time.

Therefore what you have done here, is to re-affirm the existence of the First Incompatibility.

******

(Side note:  you were -- and are -- completely unable to establish that the citation AIG provided for Oldroyd's statement was false in any manner.)

FloydLee

Date: 2009/10/12 09:32:17, Link
Author: FloydLee
Quote
aims not only that quote-mining is a legitimate tool of science and reason


Hey Dan, we've already went line-by-line and quote-by-quote on Deadman's accusation of quotemining and completely disconfirmed it.  You want to go down that same road too?

Date: 2009/10/12 09:43:01, Link
Author: FloydLee
And while I'm at it, let's go ahead and examine this item:
 
Quote
So let me ask again.  Given that Todd Wood said THIS:
 
Quote
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.

Is it still your position that Todd Wood's statements are not incompatible with the theory of evolution?

Dan, your answer was worse than Deadman's.  Deadman at least gave me Mayr's name to work with.  You completely failed or ducked YOUR question altogether.

And it was a simple Yes or No question too!

******

But understand this:  you earlier post, which you referred do, DOES NOT DENY your claim that Todd Wood's two quoted statements are not incompatible with the theory of evolution.

So, from here on out (unless you decide to contribute an honest Yes or No on the issue), my publicly expressed position is that Dan believes that the two quoted Wood statemens ARE compatible with the theory of evolution.

I believe I can have some fun with that one.  A keeper.

FloydLee

Date: 2009/10/12 18:35:49, Link
Author: FloydLee
Quote
Mayr says that one is free to accept God, but is not required to do so. The Pope says one is free to accept a role for god, too.

No, Deadman.  That's why I was careful to supply the quote AND highlight the parts that needed to be read.

First, (check the quotes again) you'll notice that both Mayr and the Pope were referring directly to the theory of evolution within their respective quotations.  Upfront, even.

Mayr said that the theory of evolution "no longer requires God as creator or designer."

Pope said that the theory of evolution "could not exclude a role by God."

That's the First Incompatibility in a nutshell, quite honestly.  Evolution denies that God is a Required Explanation for biological origins, Christianity affirms that God is a Required Explanation for biological origins.

FloydLee

Date: 2009/10/12 18:42:30, Link
Author: FloydLee
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.

Date: 2009/10/12 19:02:25, Link
Author: FloydLee
Gotta hurry on to DHeddle, but let's also do SLP as well.  

Here's your question:  Exactly how does this extended quote by the late evolutionist John Oro (Schopf 2002, "Life's Origins")....
 
Quote
In the mid-1800s, Darwin showed how the concept of evolution by natural selection applies to living systems. But evolution also operates in the inanimate world, not only Earth but the universe as a whole, including all cosmic bodies (galaxies, stars, circumstellar and interstellar clouds, interstellar molecules, planetary systems, planets, comets, asteroids, meteorites) and all chemical elements. Comets transported organic molecules and water to the primitive Earth early in the planet's history, presumably over a period of several hundred million years. In the oceans that then formed, both cometary and terrestrial (those synthesized directly in the environment) organic molecules evolved by natural selection, ultimately giving rise to life - possibly in the "warm little pond" that Darwin envisioned in his famous letter to Joseph Hooker (see chapter 3). The linkage from cosmic elements to cometary molecules to primitive Earth to biological evolution ties cosmochemical evolution to the origin of life.

....disprove or even disagree what I said earlier about the short version of Oro's quote?
 
Quote
Notice that evolutionists posit the very same driving force for both prebiotic evolution and postbiotic evolution–natural selection. Hence prebiotic evolution is part and parcel of the overall theory of evolution.

******
Good luck answering that one, SLP.  But honestly, you can't answer it, and you know it.  Oro simply made clear that abiogenesis is part and parcel of evolution.

Furthermore, one of your comrades came up with a very recent De Duve quotation, which only serves to reinforce what Oro said.
 
Quote
Nobel laureate Christian de Duve summarized the plenary session: "The participants unanimously accepted as indisputable the affirmation that the Universe, as well as life within it, are the products of long evolutionary histories...."

---Nmgirl's post, Oct 6th, 11:58, "International General 2009 (Conference)"

Date: 2009/10/12 19:07:36, Link
Author: FloydLee
Quote
I'm ignoring the Oldroyd thing since it's unsourced....

Ohhhh no no, a very specific and direct source citation was given for Oldroyd's statement by AIG.  Here it is, right down to the page number, in case you missed it.
 
Quote
David Oldroyd, The (Australian) Weekend Review, 20–21 March 1993, p. 5.

If a person doesn't have time to visit their local library and track down the Weekend Review article, then that's understandable, but please don't make the mistake of saying or suggesting it's unsourced.  That would be a falsehood.

Date: 2009/10/12 20:18:16, Link
Author: FloydLee
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.

Date: 2009/10/12 20:58:12, Link
Author: FloydLee
Okay, so let's look again at DHeddle's remarks one more time.

Originally, another poster had stated:
Quote
I think every and all sanctimonius fanatics such as FL should take a look at Augustin's (sic) work, just for the sake of it.

I replied,
Quote
I have, actually.  Augustine wrote that the earth was less than 6000 years old, he believed that God created everything instantly (yes, literally), and he believed that the global Noahic Flood was literally true.  A very good YEC, to be sure!

So Dheddle said,
Quote
Augustine did not take Genesis literally.  Instantaenous does not mean six days.  Instantaneous creation is an infinite number of orders of magnitude different from six days.  A 14 bya universe only differs by a mere  12 OOM.  In that sense, Augustine is the most radical non-literalist of all time.  He would say to you, "My god don't need no six days to create a universe!"

So I responded point by point:,
Quote
("Augustine did not take Genesis literally") But some things, Augustine DID take literally.  We know this from his own writings.  Like, the earth being less than 6000 years old.  He wrote that.  He meant that.  Literally.  Another example:  The Genesis account of a global Noahic Flood. He took that one literally. Not allegorical.  Literal history, period.

Quote
("Instantaneous does not mean six days") But it does mean YEC.  It only rationally fits in with YEC beliefs (a less-than-6000-year-old earth).  It's not ever gonna fit the OEC category, nope.  And it will never ever quality Augie for TE.

Quote
("Instantaneous creation is an infinite number of orders of magnitude different from six days.") Yes it is.  Also infinitely different from 14 billion years (universe or 4.6 billion years (earth).

Quote
("In that sense, Augustine is the most radical non-literalist of all time.  He would say to you:  "My god don't need to six days to create a universe!")  And he would say to you, "And He don't need to wait around for any 14 billion years (nor 4.6 billion years) eitehr.  He can do it instantly, and He did."

Okay, so that's kind of the background there.  The next post replies to DHeddle's subsequent response to that.

Date: 2009/10/12 21:58:31, Link
Author: FloydLee
Okay.  (Continuing with DHeddle).  He wrote on Oct 5,
   
Quote
There was no claim by me that Augustine did not take any part of Genesis literally. That goes without saying. The most ardent non-literalist conservative Christian will still take much if not most of Genesis literally. They will agree, for example, that God made a covenant with Abraham.

Here's the thing, DHeddle.  You may not have MEANT to say that "Augustine did not take any part of Genesis literally", but in fact you DID say "Augustine did not take Genesis literally."  THAT statement, was what was responded to.

No use accusing anybody of being "disingenuous" when you write stuff like that.  If you need to be a little more specific in your claims, then just plain be more specific already, because I responded to the actual statement that you put out.

***
   
Quote
I made the specific claim that Augustine did not take the creation days literally, and he didn't.

Actually, you said, "Instantaneous does not mean six days", and I did not deny that.  

However, I did respond directly to it.  I pointed out that "instantaneous" would only rationally fit in with YEC, a less than 6000 year old earth.  It's absolutely logical that if the earth was created instantaneously, its age would be less than 6000 years (at the time Augie wrote that statement.)  
It certainly would NOT be an old earth in Augie's view, and Augie's view (not Hugh Ross's) is currently what's under examination right now.

(Although, it should be mentioned, that Hugh Ross is wrong about the way he views "yom",  Please see Robert McCabe's journal article on that issue.
http://www.dbts.edu/journals/2000/McCabe.pdf )

Your Oct 5 post also claimed that my reply was "irrelevant", but you are totally wrong on that because even Augie himself wrote that the the earth was less than 6000 years old, so it's clear that Augie's "instantaneous" position is still YEC anyway.  It's what HE meant.

***

You also said,  
   
Quote
(Nor, by the way, did many revered church fathers, such as Justin, Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria, Origen, … most of whom who argued one creation day = 1000 years ( a la 2 Pet 3:8) to solve the very same "in that day you will surely die" problem.)

Consider what James R. Mook says, however:
   
Quote
"The oft-used counter examples of Clement, Origen, and Augustine, best understood through the lens of Alexandrian allegorical hermeneutics, all held that the creation had been fully completed in an instant."

---Mook, "The Church Fathers on Genesis, the Flood, and the Age of the Earth" in Coming to Grips with Genesis, eds. Terry Mortenson and Thane Ury, c2008, p.51.


So, long story short, these church fathers aren't nearly as old-earth as you make them out to be.  In fact, Mook points out, point-blank, that "The fathers were young-earth creationists" (Mortenson and Ury, page 51.)

As for the 2 Peter 3:8 "one creation day =  1000 years" argument, Dr. McCabe refutes that one totally in the previously provided journal article.

***

Long story short, I believe I have sufficiently answered your reply there about Augustine.  We could go into things more, obviously (especially with Mook's survey of the church fathers), but I want to get into your additional remarks on the Fourth Incompatibility.  As for St. Augie, he's a clear YEC.

FloydLee

Date: 2009/10/13 08:29:53, Link
Author: FloydLee
Quote
I am making certain I don't read any of FL's posts,

Then why make silly comments about "veritable comprehension problems"?  Honestly now dude.  Either read all sides of the discussion, or just sit on the sidelines quietly.

Date: 2009/10/13 08:38:19, Link
Author: FloydLee
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.

Yes.  It does.  For two reasons, Futuyma's EB3 textbook pointed out.  

First, evolution does not admit conscious anticipation of the future (and before you respond, consider the fact that nobody has offered an evolutionist refutation for THAT one in all 39 pages of this debate), and with the God of Genesis you definitely get 100 percent conscious anticipation of the future.  

Second, you would automatically eliminate the claim that supernatural processes cannot be the subject of science, and with that, you open the legal door for teaching creationism in public school.  

(Which is all right by me, but I think you have a problem with it, eh?).

Date: 2009/10/13 11:25:58, Link
Author: FloydLee
Okay, let's see if we can do one more 4th incompatibility response to Heddle.
Quote
("Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all men, because all sinned")...states absolutely nothing, with certainty, about animal death.

There is no logic by which Romans 5:12 absolutely precludes the possibility that, prior to Adam's sin, an elephant crushed an ant. The verse is at least arguably, if not most likely, by its construction, concerned only with humans. Even when taking about sin, it is talking about man's sin, not about sin first appearing on the earth. Why? Because Christian theology would state that Satan was already on the earth, sinning, before man’s fall.


Quite honestly, this is incorrect.  There is a key phrase in 5:12 that is impossible to sidestep on any level.
Quote
sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin


There is literally NO translation of the Bible (check 'em!) in which this order is reversed or either clause eliminated.  Sin enters this world first (via the Fall), and ONLY THEN does death--specifically, "MUT" in Genesis -- enter this world.  

("Mut" applies only to biological objects that have God's "breath of life" in them---animals & humans.)

Because of this, the correct biblical answer is
"No the Edenic pre-Fall elephant doesn't get to step on the ant, and the ant-eater doesn't get to slurp up the ants, and the ants don't get to gang up on the caterpillar and drag him home for supper" (I actually saw that happen one time in my teens.)  

Why not?  Because "Mut" only entered this world after Adam and Eve's sin.  Not before.  As you would say, it's the "construction of the sentence."  And it's only constructed ONE way.

Furthermore, you are directly contradicting Romans 5 (and Romans 8, btw) when you claim that sin was in the world prior to Adam and Eve's sin.  The text clearly states the opposite.  

Now if you wanna say that Romans 5 is incorrect because Satan was plopping around somewhere, that's fine, but understand that you automatically RE-AFFIRM the Fourth Incompatibility by doing so, because falsifying Romans 5:12-17 doesn't just mean falsifying Adam and his historical deed, but also means falsifying Christ and his historical deed too.

(Besides, Christ did NOT die for Satan's sins, did he?  So that effectively means that Satan's sins don't count for Romans 5:12-17).  

Pretty steep price tag there!

******

Now let's go to ICR's James Stambaugh, whom thou despisest or something.
Quote
(ICR Yahoo) We are told in Hebrews 9:22, "without the shedding of blood there is no remission of sin." So a blood sacrifice is only necessary if there is sin. The rest of the Old Testament has similar treatment of sacrifice for atonement.

If there was animal death before the fall of man, then God and all those who followed His pattern did useless acts.

One must observe that in the atonement the animal loses its life in the place of the human. If animal death existed before the fall, then the object lesson represented by the atoning sacrifice is in reality a cruel joke.

Again, biblically, Stambaugh is totally correct.  The first animal sacrifice took place in Eden itself, when the Lord was forced to kill an animal to provide a covering for the shamed Adam and Eve.

Then there was Abel---God honored his sacrifice of a lamb, instead of his brother's veggie sacrifice, because the lamb's blood provided cover for sin (remember Hebrews says that without blood there is no remission for sin.)  

This is no light thing.  God instituted an animal sacrifice system for the people of Israel, and ultimately God would sacrifice the very best He had -- his own Son, Jesus Christ -- to give up his blood for all of humanity.
All of the previous animal sacrifices foreshadowed that world-changing event.  ("The animal loses his life in place of the human", Stambaugh wrote.)  

That's why Christians sometimes call Jesus "the Lamb", btw.

But now think about it.  What if animals were ALREADY dying prior to the Sin of Adam and Eve?  Then something has gone wrong.  What are they dying for, when Adam and Eve haven't even sinned yet?  How does this avoid wrecking Romans 5 and Romans 8?  Moreover their worth as even a temporary covering for human sin drops to zero.  

Moreover, if animals are dying before the Fall, that means you got not just elephant sqooshing ants, but flatout Nature Red In Tooth and Claw.  Automatically brings up the 5th Incom.

Gotta stop there for now, but you clearly see the problems involved in your statements.

FloydLee

Date: 2009/10/13 13:03:59, Link
Author: FloydLee
Quote
floyd you are a pretty stupid person if you think the bullshit you drag out of the bible has anything to do with reality.

Hmm.  Sounds like a person who used to believe in Jesus Christ and the Bible but has now rejected both (and that right strongly).

Nevertheless some of us still believe that Jesus Christ and the Bible speaks the truth about reality (including historical reality), all the same.

Date: 2009/10/13 16:16:17, Link
Author: FloydLee
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

Date: 2009/10/13 16:41:08, Link
Author: FloydLee
Quote
Last time I checked (within the month, so it hasn't been that long) the bible is silent on the subject of reality

Ha!   Now y'all just KNOW that a debate topic has entered wrapup-phase when the skeptics start talkin' all WILD like that!

FloydLee     :)

Date: 2009/10/13 17:04:18, Link
Author: FloydLee
Quote
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.

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.  

And no, you don't get to fudge by saying "without intervening directly".  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.  You still bring in teleology, 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."

And that "necessary and sufficient" you mentioned, is exactly what the theory of evolution denies.

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.

No longer "necessary and sufficient", as you put it.

Hence the First Incompatibility remains solidly in place.

(..and that's not counting the statment of evolutionist David Oldroyd who, one poster said, knows his Darwin quite well.)

FloydLee

Date: 2009/10/13 17:15:11, Link
Author: FloydLee
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?

Date: 2009/10/13 23:09:25, Link
Author: FloydLee
Frank H writes:
     
Quote
Do you understand the difference between an Atheist and an Agnostic?  For the record, I'm Agnostic.

Sure.  And I also know the difference between Agnosticism and Christianity.  Short version:
     
Quote
Agnosticism operates in the vague shadow-land of "don't know or can't know", while Christianity operates in the bold, positive, clear-cut affirmation of "I know whom I have believed..."
(2 Tim. 1:12).

---Nelson M. Smith, "The Case Against Agnosticism", ApologeticsPress (1975)


******

You also asked a question that was previously asked (and answered).  But it's interesting to compare what a couple posters said.
     
Quote
(CM)
And I suspect that Floyd will claim that anyone who does not accept his version of Biblical Christianity is not really Christian.

     
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.

Date: 2009/10/13 23:27:31, Link
Author: FloydLee
test message

Date: 2009/10/13 23:30:28, Link
Author: FloydLee
Quote
Also, an interesting choice of snip there Floyd.

It's no big deal Ogre.  Evolutionist Rosenhouse has already answered that argument anyway (do you want me to repeat the quotation again?).  

But at least you caught what CM missed.

Date: 2009/10/13 23:43:21, Link
Author: FloydLee
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.

Date: 2009/10/13 23:49:16, Link
Author: FloydLee
Hey, Erasmus, are you going to change that sig line real soon, or do you need me to provide daily reminders?  It's up to you.

FloydLee

Date: 2009/10/14 00:35:09, Link
Author: FloydLee
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.

Date: 2009/10/14 08:35:21, Link
Author: FloydLee
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?

Date: 2009/10/14 08:40:48, Link
Author: FloydLee
Quote
Certainly.  The entire thread (link).

Clicked on link twice.  Nothing's coming up.  Would you offer me some names and page numbers so I can see for myself?

Date: 2009/10/14 08:47:14, Link
Author: FloydLee
Quote
Cause, I think the others here have shown just as many quotes as you have that counter your argument.

Documentation for this claim has been sincerely asked for.  Any takers?

Date: 2009/10/14 09:11:42, Link
Author: FloydLee
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.

Date: 2009/10/14 09:18:53, Link
Author: FloydLee
Quote
since I'm discounting quotes taken out of context

Already went over that line of argument with Deadman.  Quote by quote, evolutionist by evolutionist, point by point.  It's done.

Date: 2009/10/14 10:30:51, Link
Author: FloydLee
Okay, let's check back with SLP.  I asked him a question previously.  I want an answer.

In 2002, William Schopf published a fascinating book, Life's Origins:  The Beginnings of Biological Evolution.

(Yes, that's the full title.  Not exactly separating abiogenesis from evolution, is it?)

The most fascinating part of the book is what the late evolutionist Dr. John Oro wrote in one of the chapters.
 
Quote
In the mid-1800s, Darwin showed how the concept of evolution by natural selection applies to living systems. But evolution also operates in the inanimate world, not only Earth but the universe as a whole, including all cosmic bodies (galaxies, stars, circumstellar and interstellar clouds, interstellar molecules, planetary systems, planets, comets, asteroids, meteorites) and all chemical elements.

Comets transported organic molecules and water to the primitive Earth early in the planet's history, presumably over a period of several hundred million years. In the oceans that then formed, both cometary and terrestrial (those synthesized directly in the environment),
organic molecules evolved by natural selection,
ultimately giving rise to life - possibly in the "warm little pond" that Darwin envisioned in his famous letter to Joseph Hooker
(see chapter 3). The linkage from cosmic elements to cometary molecules to primitive Earth to biological evolution ties cosmochemical evolution to the origin of life.

Here's the key phrase in the middle of that quotation:
 
Quote
organic molecules evolved by natural selection,
ultimately giving rise to life - possibly in the "warm little pond" that Darwin envisioned in his famous letter to Joseph Hooker

Not only does this statement tie abiogenesis to evolution, but notice that Oro even tosses in a direct, unmistakable factor:  "organic molecules evolved by natural selection."  IOW, the exact driving force cited for postbiotic evolution is the same cited for prebiotic evolution.

Oro also pointed out something else:
 
Quote
"We can conclude that the different forms of life are not the result of a process having a determined finality developed a priori by a creative  plan, nor are they the result of a chance fortuitous act.  Life emerged as the result of natural evolutionary processes, as a new form of movement of matter during its process of development."

---from AI Oparin's final scientific paper (1986), quoted by Oro in Schopf 2002.

If that paragraph sounds familiar, it's because it echoes something De Duve recently said in 2009 (Nmgirl quoted it and SLP re-quoted it.)

 
Quote
Nobel laureate Christian de Duve summarized the plenary session: "The participants unanimously accepted as indisputable the affirmation that the Universe, as well as life within it, are the products of long evolutionary histories...."

---Nmgirl's post, Oct 6th, 11:58, "International General 2009 (Conference)"


Remember, you evolutionists say that abiogenesis is separate from evolution.  And you say it often.  However, your statement, as you can see, is NOT true.  That's what all this is about.

In fact, let's toss in one more statement, this one comes from Paul Lurquin's 2003 book concerning the orign of life.
 
Quote
"The RNA World Hypothesis is a very attractive one, because it bases the appearance of life squarely within the realm of evolution."

Lurquin, The Origins of Life and the Universe, p. 32.


******

Okay, that's like background information for the upcoming post or posts.  

SLP thinks I "deceived readers" on the short version of Oro that I've quoted in other forums and past years (and wants to apparently debate it here and now), and meanwhile my own question for SLP is designed to show that I've never quotemined John Oro AND to show that Oro meant precisely what he said---and in doing so puts the lie to the evolutionist claim that prebiotic evolution (abiogenesis) is separate from evolution.  

No deceit, no joke:  Abiogenesis is part and parcel of evolution, no doubt.

Continued in next post or posts.

FloydLee

Date: 2009/10/14 10:49:33, Link
Author: FloydLee
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?

Date: 2009/10/14 12:38:35, Link
Author: FloydLee
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

Date: 2009/10/14 13:04:52, Link
Author: FloydLee
Quote
it distracts from FL actually having to answer direst questions

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

Date: 2009/10/14 14:27:21, Link
Author: FloydLee
Is SLP on the board yet?  Cmon, SLP.  Don't duck me now.

 
Quote
And I know you 'stand by' what you've written
 
Yeah, you DO know that from our past discussions.
Start here:

 
Quote
Here's your question:  Exactly how does this extended quote by the late evolutionist John Oro (Schopf 2002, "Life's Origins")....
   Quote  
In the mid-1800s, Darwin showed how the concept of evolution by natural selection applies to living systems. But evolution also operates in the inanimate world, not only Earth but the universe as a whole, including all cosmic bodies (galaxies, stars, circumstellar and interstellar clouds, interstellar molecules, planetary systems, planets, comets, asteroids, meteorites) and all chemical elements. Comets transported organic molecules and water to the primitive Earth early in the planet's history, presumably over a period of several hundred million years. In the oceans that then formed, both cometary and terrestrial (those synthesized directly in the environment) organic molecules evolved by natural selection, ultimately giving rise to life - possibly in the "warm little pond" that Darwin envisioned in his famous letter to Joseph Hooker (see chapter 3). The linkage from cosmic elements to cometary molecules to primitive Earth to biological evolution ties cosmochemical evolution to the origin of life.  

....disprove or even disagree what I said earlier about the short version of Oro's quote?


Okay, I didnt' get a straight answer from you on this one and so permit me to insist.

Seems to be a lotta complainin's from you because the short version----"organic molecules evolved by natural selection, ultimately giving rise to life---possibly in the 'warm little pond' that Darwin envsioned in his famous letter to Joseph Hooker" wasn't quoted properly, apparently supposed to be something like....

"...organic molecules)  or "...(Organic) molecules" or
..."(Organic) molecules"


Well, that's fine.  Whatever way is the right stylistic way to start off that paragraph, I admit I didn't do it just right.  C'est la vie.
Much of the time, I simply wrote, "Organic molecules evolved by natural selection, ultimately giving rise to life---possibly in the 'warm little pond' that Darwin envsioned in his famous letter to Joseph Hooker."

Much later on, I think I started trying to change it over to be more stylistically correct, even though I was simply posting on discussion boards and not writing for publication.

But I'm not interested in folks trying to play games, trying to pretend that "abiogenesis is separate from evolution" based on a stylistic violation on a quotation.  If the idea is to claim that I'm "deceiving readers" or quotemining or taking anything out of context, then let SLP step up to the plate and demonstrate it, not just blindly assert it.  

Yeah, I'm talkin' to you SLP.  Step One is to answer that question I asked.

Date: 2009/10/14 15:14:43, Link
Author: FloydLee
So, where's SLP?  Did he respond yet?  Judging from CM's attempt to cover for him, apparently not.

Git on here, SLP.  Answer the previous question.  Ohhh, and answer the OTHER question too while you're here:
Quote
Quote
Notice that evolutionists posi the very same driving force for both prebiotic evolution and postbiotic evolution---natural selection.

Hence prebiotic evolution is part and parcel of the overall theory of evolution.

******
Good luck answering that one, SLP.  But honestly, you can't answer it, and you know it.  Oro simply made clear that abiogenesis is part and parcel of evolution.

You said you answered this one.  Show me again exactly how you did?

******

Oh, and you dropped this one too.  Completely.
Quote
Nobel laureate Christian De Duve summarized the plenary session:  "The participants unanimously accepted as indisputable the affirmation that the Universe, as well as life within it, are the products of long evolutionary histories..." (2009, Nmgirl's post)


Care to address what he said, SLP?  I don't think you can.  I think you major in minors because you're not able to handle the fact that multiple experts, past and present, really do connect evolution and abiogenesis even down to 2009.  You whine and wring your hands, and try to shoot the messenger because you're too limp to deal with the message, is that it?

Don't try to hide behind CM or other low-octaners on this one.  Git on here yourself if you dare, and answer to these realities.  Ready yet?

Date: 2009/10/14 15:17:54, Link
Author: FloydLee
Wikipedia, SD?  You have multiple statements from well known published OOL evolutionists that show that abiogenesis is part and parcel of evolution, and the best you can do is a generalized Wiki snip that doesn't even address nor refute each particular expert's statement?

Date: 2009/10/14 15:29:32, Link
Author: FloydLee
Got some more for you SLP.  

Quote
In the mid-1800's, Darwin showed how the concept of evolution by natural selection applies to living things.  But evolution also operates in the inanimate world....


Right there, you see Oro providing a rationale that clearly connects abiogenesis to evolution, makes them inseparable in fact.  And look at it again, SLP, he's not just referring to "a concept" only, but actual evolution.  He does this same thing when he says "organic molecules evolved by natural selection".  He's talking actuality, NOT abstract concept.

So you got it wrong there too.  Care to respond?  Are you able to?

Date: 2009/10/14 15:49:21, Link
Author: FloydLee
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?

Date: 2009/10/14 15:50:56, Link
Author: FloydLee
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.

Date: 2009/10/14 16:16:11, Link
Author: FloydLee
Quote
NOBODY CARES ABOUT YOUR BFFs!!!

Hmmm.  Judging from your current stress level, I'd say that at YOU care about those incompatibilities, and  quite a bit!!!!  Heh!!

Date: 2009/10/14 16:55:17, Link
Author: FloydLee
Quote
Someone wake me up when we get to teaching ID in science class.

You were not even able to supply documentation for the specific claim you yourself provided.  Have a nice nap dude, you earned it.

Date: 2009/10/14 17:00:13, Link
Author: FloydLee
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!!!)

Date: 2009/10/14 17:29:27, Link
Author: FloydLee
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.)

Date: 2009/10/14 17:36:54, Link
Author: FloydLee
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?     :)

Date: 2009/10/15 09:33:46, Link
Author: FloydLee
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!

Date: 2009/10/15 10:04:43, Link
Author: FloydLee
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?

Date: 2009/10/15 13:27:06, Link
Author: FloydLee
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

Date: 2009/10/15 17:56:01, Link
Author: FloydLee
Quote
Floyd, you are such a spazz!

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!!
Quote
I'm going to put the water question another way:
Why don't fundies like you require teaching God in physics class when kids study gravity?  why don't you require teaching about god in chemistry class when talking about molecules of H2O?

Actually, I like the way you asked that question, because it really shows where the "water question" can and can NOT be applied.  

The water question DOES fit with the issue of teaching biblical creationism in science class.  Can't deny that.  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.

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.)

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.  

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.  

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.

So, Erasmus's little ditty simply lays down ANOTHER incompatibility all by itself---and no way to resolve THAT one either!

******

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.  

******

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.

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.)

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.

Date: 2009/10/15 18:09:22, Link
Author: FloydLee
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?

Date: 2009/10/15 18:14:52, Link
Author: FloydLee
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.

Date: 2009/10/15 18:32:01, Link
Author: FloydLee
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

Date: 2009/10/16 09:13:32, Link
Author: FloydLee
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

Date: 2009/10/16 09:17:38, Link
Author: FloydLee
Quote
Yodel Elf please, after you answer MY FIRST QUESTION (see sig)

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

Date: 2009/10/16 09:23:38, Link
Author: FloydLee
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.

Date: 2009/10/16 10:03:08, Link
Author: FloydLee
Quote
Floyd, you claimed God created directly - not indirectly.

Absolutely.  See Gen 1, including the verses Jasper mentioned.

The worst part (for evolutionists, anyway) is when you get to the creation of the first humans.
   
Quote
And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being. (Gen. 2:7)

   
Quote
And the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall on Adam, and he slept; and He took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh in its place. Then the rib which the LORD God had taken from man He made into a woman, and He brought her to the man. (Gen. 2:21-22)

Talk about direct!  NOTHING gets any more direct than that.  No possible chance of any humans originating via evolution from any common ancestor of humans and animals, including apes/chimps.

No chance of common descent being true for humans, at all.

******

Now Jesus believed the Bible, including the Adam and Eve part (see Matt.19: 4-6).  
Do you believe the Bible too, CM?

Date: 2009/10/16 10:07:25, Link
Author: FloydLee
Quote
Sad state of affairs, when YEC's try to teach science to scientists...

Not trying to teach science to scientists.  But am trying to call people's attention to some pertinent Bible verses and how biblical Christianity is not compatible with evolution.  Hoping they're willing to consider THOSE facts.

Date: 2009/10/16 14:34:26, Link
Author: FloydLee
Quote
Even in Genesis 1, God does not directly create animals and plants; they are created by the earth and sea and indirectly by God.

Nope, nowhere in the Bible (especially Genesis) does the earth and sea ever create life forms.  Only God creates.  And in this case, He literally spoke water and land animals into existence---otherwise they would not have existed at all.

Date: 2009/10/16 14:36:02, Link
Author: FloydLee
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.

Date: 2009/10/16 15:36:30, Link
Author: FloydLee
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?)

Date: 2009/10/16 16:25:49, Link
Author: FloydLee
Quote
I was spanking matt slick back when he was still hanging around yahoo chat,

So spank him now.  Disprove his statements.  (Umm, profanity won't do it, you'll have to offer something substantive).  A bright referee like you should have no trouble.
 
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

Date: 2009/10/17 06:20:29, Link
Author: FloydLee
Quote
ETA: HA HA, THIS IS YOU!

It's now 4:11 am, CST, Saturday.  Only 14 days to finish everything, and this part is nearly done.  Certainly not much time for off-topic posts.  But then again, maybe this isn't an off-topic post.

Soon, this debate will be history.  You'll declare victory, (no matter what), and it'll just drop right off the Antievolution radar screen into oblivion.  But that doesn't bother me, that's how all debates go.

But Lou, your painting of Hell, DOES bother me.  No joke, it really disturbed me.  Why?  Because "Country Boy Shane" did a very good job there.  Reminded me of a strange gig I saw a couple years ago.

Can't remember who wrote it, nor what website it appeared on, (nobody famous, just another guy with a website somewhere out there).  Just maybe one or two paragraphs, no more than that.  A couple years ago.

Seems the guy was a Christian, and out of sheer curiosity, this guy actually asked God to show him Hell, to show him the real Hell that the Bible talks about.  No joke.  He asked God to show him.

Well, God chose NOT to do that.  No free tours.
But that night, God caused him to stare directly into the eyes of one of the humans currently residing down there.

About two or three minutes.  He didn't even see a face....only the eyes.  Nothing else.  Nobody else.  Just that one person's eyes.  
He never, ever, asked God to let him see Hell again.   And now that guy goes around urgently calling on people--anybody who will listen--to accept Jesus Christ as their personal Lord and Savior.  Todos las dias.

And that's why I think "Country Boy Shane" did such an excellent job there.  Something about the way he did those eyes.  (And everything else.)  Perfect--and horrific.  

******

But that's also what bothers me this morning, Lou.  How can YOU display a sobering, starkly precise painting like that one, and then try to make a joke about it?  

As God is my witness, somebody needs to step back and think about what the Hell (literally) they are making jokes about.  And I'm not just talking to Lou, either.  Take another look at that painting, boys.

Lou, that painting is NOT me, because Somebody paid for my sins and took my punishment for me.  I know where I'm gonna go when I die, and I know I'll be face to face with that Somebody who took my place.  

But if you pass away from this earthly life with your sins still Super-Glued to your butt because you were too proud (and for some of you, too angry) to accept and trust Jesus Christ as your personal Lord and Savior, you're going to find out EXACTLY why God only grants a relatively few requests to see what awaits down in Hell.  

This is nothing to play with.  God have mercy, some of you genuinely have NO clue what you're risking by living your daily lives without Jesus Christ as your Savior and Lord.  

Honestly, despite evolution clearly being incompatible with Christianity and eroding/corroding Christian faith, I would rather see you guys do like the Pope, do like Francis Collins, do like Nmgirl, and simply accept and trust Jesus Christ as your Lord and Savior, even if you NEVER EVER choose to become YEC's, OEC's or ID's.  Your life situation, your final destiny, is just that critically important.  

Go look at Lou's painting again. For many people, right now, that is their self-portrait.  And that painting offers only the TINIEST INDIRECT HINT of what's coming.  What does YOUR self-portrait look like?  

******

Sure, I promised Deadman that I wouldn't do any witnessing.  Screw that.  Shouldn't have brought up that painting.

Shoot, we ALL better go take one more look at Lou's painting--and make an honest decision about where we REALLY are right now, and where we REALLY want to be.  Time is short.  Life is short.  No promises that either one of us will see tomorrow.

Please consider, and make a decision.  ANYTHING is better than going to Hell, but you WILL go there--forever, no sleep, no love, no hope, no coffee breaks, no Internet buddies--unless you answer that persistent knock on your front door while there's still time.
           
Quote
Here I am! I stand at the door and knock. If anyone hears my voice and opens the door, I will come in and eat with him, and he with me.

-- Jesus Christ's statement in Rev. 3:20

If you want to talk further privately, consider sending a message to solarskye@aol.com .

******

Hey, I bet some of you boys are genuinely curious about what else is waiting for you in Hell if you wind up there.  Ain't you wondering?  Sure you are.  So let's give you another small taste.  Check out these reports of what happened to actual people.  

You want a piece of THIS?

http://www.hellandjustice.com/near_death_experiences.htm

FloydLee

Date: 2009/10/17 10:51:33, Link
Author: FloydLee
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.

Date: 2009/10/17 11:00:43, Link
Author: FloydLee
No, the point is that some of you are hypocrites who traffic in double standards.  Are you one of them?

Date: 2009/10/19 08:43:01, Link
Author: FloydLee
Quote
Anyone notice this was Floyd's last post?  It's been about 32 hours since then.  Did we break him?

Are you k.i.d.d.i.n.g, boys?  Good to see Lou getting upset at Keelyn's post, btw.

FloydLee    :)

Date: 2009/10/19 09:21:27, Link
Author: FloydLee
Your water question has been answered, Erasmus.  It's done.  You're done.  On the other question of yours, the Bible didn't say that the earth "bringeth forth" by itself.  Didn't happen naturally, (it took a supernatural command from God) and it all happened in a single 24-hr day (and you've already been given the biblical evidence on that), which totally excludes evolution as a possible explanation.

Any other questions?

Date: 2009/10/19 10:25:06, Link
Author: FloydLee
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?

Date: 2009/10/19 10:43:57, Link
Author: FloydLee
Quote
Enjoy seeing emotional upset between other human beings, do we Floyd? That's some evil shit, there.

Before you try to accuse me of hypocrisy,

Yeah, you saw THAT potential counter coming a mile away, didn't you Deadman?  

The fact is that you (the official "Self Appointed Referee" of the thread) have allowed all kinds of malodorous moo-moo (including sexual profanities, mocking of Christian beliefs, etc) to be thrown at me without the slightest ethical cautions coming from you.  

So baby, I do not care.  I do not ask for your sympathy, in fact I don't ask for anything from you.  And you may want to avoid talking about "ego" around me, because that will only leave you wide open to the accusation you don't wanna hear. 

Oh, and it might be a good idea to actually SUBSCRIBE to a particular faith before trying too hard to preach to a member of that faith about what that faith permits or prohibits.  Otherwise you'll still come off sounding like you're a big fat...... Hypocrite!!!

FloydLee     :)

Date: 2009/10/19 11:02:56, Link
Author: FloydLee
Quote
the question was why YOU said that god is not required to explain water running downhill, when you claim that god is required to explain the existence of water.

Here's a question for you too. Now that I've answered your question, (yes I did), would you mind explaining how that question was relevant specifically to this thread topic?

Date: 2009/10/19 12:12:14, Link
Author: FloydLee
Quote
got a link?  I don't think you ever answered it.


So now I gotta go back through 50+ pages and show you what you missed/omitted/didn't address/whatnot.

Date: 2009/10/19 12:21:06, Link
Author: FloydLee
Quote
quote mining opinion of evolutionary biologists

Deadman's earlier accusation of "quotemining" was wiped out literally quote by quote, evolutionist by evolutionist.  

You never attempted to help him on that one.  Why?

Date: 2009/10/19 12:33:48, Link
Author: FloydLee
Quote
The relevance of the question is obvious to anybody with enough neurons to make a synapse.

Then go ahead and simply say out loud what that relevance is.  If you can.  Or are you afraid of the response that might come your way?

Date: 2009/10/19 12:45:24, Link
Author: FloydLee
Quote
Liar

No, I was watching close to see what would happen.

Neither Erasmus nor any of your other pals went to bat for you on that one.  A bit surprising, honestly.

Date: 2009/10/19 13:13:26, Link
Author: FloydLee
Quote
Anyone that wants to can read the thread to determine whether or not you quotemined, Floyd.

Convenient answer, given that you were allowed to twist in the wind.  Evolution produces such traitorous homies these days!!

Date: 2009/10/19 13:34:21, Link
Author: FloydLee
Quote
Oro.

Hmm.  Didn't I take a few minutes and knock that one outta the park, SLP?  (Erasmus didn't give you any help either, as I recall.)

Date: 2009/10/19 13:46:05, Link
Author: FloydLee
Somebody please let CM know that his gig on the Nicene Creed has been answered.

Date: 2009/10/19 14:07:08, Link
Author: FloydLee
Soooooo in fact, Erasmus's question has been answered from WAY WAY back.   Erasmus didn't like the anwer, (though the only thing he could do was whine, "You misunderstand scientific explanation", but he DID get an answer after all.

And that's not counting the ADDITIONAL time I addressed his question when addressing Nmgirl's revised version.  

(I even threw in the phrase "You listening, Erasmus?" in that particular post, just to make sure.)  

You've been answered at least twice, Erasmus.  

(Meanwhile, the Great Referee (heh!) remains stone-silent about your use of sexual profanity towards me.  Probably scared to say anything for fear of riling you up.)

Date: 2009/10/19 14:23:39, Link
Author: FloydLee
Curious.  Why are you guys scared to address my post to Nmgirl in which I said, "You listening, Erasmus?"

Date: 2009/10/19 14:29:37, Link
Author: FloydLee
Quote
if god is not part of the required explanation for why water runs downhill then he is not part of the required explanation for biological evolution.

All that caterwauling and namecalling for a point that got effectively answered in my post to Nmgirl anway.

Date: 2009/10/19 15:07:27, Link
Author: FloydLee
Quote
Do I really need to remind you AGAIN that by you violating your agreement to abide by "good faith" rules in this thread, that you have lost any right to special treatment?

Hey, I've never used sexual profanity---or profanity period--against anybody in this forum.  You were scared to tell me exactly what your religious beliefs were (and you still are) but if you had told me, I would NOT have mocked them or proselytized you.  

In fact, early in this thread, I made clear to another poster that I wasn't here to "save anybody's souls."

Further, you have three posters here who have made posts associated with "witnessing" (CM "praying for me", SD's sig line, and Lou's painting of a man entering Hell).  

Only after the latter's extremely obvious religious display (and his claim that the painting represented me), did I say anything in serious response of my own.  

And even then I didn't give Lou the finger, as he subsequently did me (in a blasphemous manner, of course.)

Not one of these boys was cautioned or whistled by you, the Great Referee.  It's like YOU got a ton of double standards and barely an ounce of ethics to your name (and even non-Christians are supposed to have ethics, you know).

You are not very concerned with good faith rules, not as much as you pretend.  Plus you are clearly scared stiff to actually call your pals on any "infractions", lest they turn on you and gnash with sharp teeth and germy salivas on your weak jello bones.

FloydLee   :)

Date: 2009/10/19 15:30:26, Link
Author: FloydLee
Quote
If you decide to return to PT, I thought it would be good to have this thread as a guide to your tactics and willingness to use your tactics (such as outright lies).

Hey, check your back pages---it was ME who informed you guys that if you were smart you'd print off this thread.  As for the issue of "lying", you probbbbbably don't wanna go there Deadman!

Date: 2009/10/19 15:50:09, Link
Author: FloydLee
Quote
then they will quit treating you like a troll and we can get back serious debate instead of whatever it is we've got.

.....this coming from the guy who was sincerely asked to document his particular claim involving quotations in this thread and he did not do it.  

(This is the same guy who early on, decided to blame me for **his** going to hell--and apparently some other frictions earlier in life--which once again Deadman did not call him on his theological commentary there.)

Don't worry though Ogre, I've worked hard at trying to keep up with answering multiple posters and I intend to finish my topics with much seriousness.   I'm going to offer "serious debate" these last two weeks, no matter how many clowns decide to keep practicing for circus.

Date: 2009/10/19 16:00:32, Link
Author: FloydLee
Quote
But Ogre is quite right. if you would just show some honesty, Yodel Elf, I for one would stop berate you and would be delighted to finaly see a debate.

The request is mutual, SD.  And can we be honest?  You did a sig line that mocked Christian belief, and there was no reason for you to go there.  I didnt' even call you on it, nor try to "preach" to you.  Great Referee Deadman was too silent and scared to call you on it.  His standards are double, I now believe.

I have worked to make sure at least a few of your posts were responded to also, and for a while there I even complimented you when you were acting like you were serious about providing a Christian clergy perspective---

---and you don't even have the cajones to acknowledge any of that now.

Date: 2009/10/19 16:55:23, Link
Author: FloydLee
I'll try asking you one more time, SLP.  I've already answered your post in honest detail (and you seem bent on ignoring that response, plus you didn't really answer the questions that I gave to you in that response previously.).

Anyway, here's your quote:
Quote
"Organic molecules evolved by natural selection, ultimately giving rise to life - possibly in the "warm little pond" that Darwin envisioned in his famous letter to Joseph Hooker (see chapter 3). "

Here is the actual sentence:

"In the oceans that then formed, both cometary and terrestrial (those synthesized directly in the environment) organic molecules evolved by natural selection, ultimately giving rise to life - possibly in the "warm little pond" that Darwin envisioned in his famous letter to Joseph Hooker (see chapter 3). "

Can you---are you ABLE to---show me where the "actual sentence" CONTRADICTS the shorter quotation in ANY manner?  Sincere question, but don't play games on this one SLP.  

I already admitted previously that the shorter sentence was stylistically incorrect.  (I also pointed out that I never used the stylistically incorrect shorter sentence in anything other than Internet discussion forums...  You did not acknowledge this.)

Now you need to get honest--yeah, you--and show me where I have incorrectly quoted Oro, even in light of the longer sentence that both you and I have sometimes quoted.

Show me that I took Oro out of context or quotemined him or something.   If you are unable to then you don't have much of a complaint, quite honestly.

Go ahead. show me.

Date: 2009/10/19 17:00:12, Link
Author: FloydLee
Furthermore, you were directly shown that Oro did NOT limit it to the mere "concept" of evolution at all.  For example, "Organic molecules evolved by natural selection" is a statement of actuality.  He's actually ascribing the origin of life to evolution---furthermore, the SAME KIND of evolution as the postbiotic arena---with the driving force being natural selection.

For you to pretend that Oro is merely dealing with the "concept" of evolution is---how did you put it?---"Dishonest."

How does it feel to be a dishonest evolutionist, SLP?

Date: 2009/10/19 17:03:32, Link
Author: FloydLee
Quote
"The practice of quoting out of context, sometimes referred to as "contextomy" or "quote mining", is a logical fallacy and type of false attribution in which a passage is removed from its surrounding matter in such a way as to distort its intended meaning."

Great definition Deadman.  Now go ahead and show that the shorter Oro quotation was a quotemine.  You have the shorter and longer quotations in front of you.  You have your definition in front of you. Now produce.

Or simply admit that you're mistaken.  Or dishonest.  Or something.     :)

Date: 2009/10/19 17:06:50, Link
Author: FloydLee
Oh, and btw Deadman, I am very confident that you are not a Christian.  Do I know your exact beliefs?  Nope, because when I asked in sincerity, you refused.  I believe the refusal was out of fear.  So yeah, you've convinced me you're not a Christian.  

But lots of people are not Christians.  The problem here is that whatever you are, you have convinced me that you're unethical as well!

Date: 2009/10/19 17:18:48, Link
Author: FloydLee
Ohhh please.  Why play with words?  You could refute me in one shot by simply saying what your hoenst core religious beliefs are.  If they match with biblical Christianity, (John 3:16, Romans 10:9-10, 1 Cor. 15:3-4), then voila!  You're a Christian and I would have to retract my statements.

Shoot, you could give the same kind of simple quickie statement that Nmgirl gave, and that would be sufficient to cause me to retract.  Shoot me down that fast.

But let us not lie, either one of us.  You know you ain't there.  Playing with words don't cut it.  If you could have, you would have done just like CM and royally announced that you are "the living refutation" of the thread topic simply because you were a professing Christian who also believes in evolution.  

You've had 54 pages to do just like Nmgirl, just like CM, just like the Pope.  And you ain't done it.  Because you CANNOT do it.  

At this point, I would testify in a court of law (even if I somehow got refuted and embarrassed later) that you ain't no Christian.  

Wanna disprove me?  Come outta your hidey-hole and say your core beliefs out loud, right here and now.  Let the redeemed of the Lord say so, if he's really down wit' the crew.  I say you ain't, and that you're scared to admit you ain't.  Shoot me down, disprove me, right now.

Date: 2009/10/19 17:34:31, Link
Author: FloydLee
Quote
Witnessing to the heathens = FAIL!

And yet, early on, I posted a clear response that I was NOT here to "save people's souls" as one poster claimed.

(Or is this one of those "piddling" issues that you get to bring up whenever you want, but you don't want me to respond to it?  Hmm?)

Date: 2009/10/19 17:36:45, Link
Author: FloydLee
Quote
And Erasmus' question still sits unanswered by you, Floyd

Answered already, whether you agree or disagree with the answer.  How come you're consistently scared to tell me what your core beliefs are?

Date: 2009/10/19 17:59:45, Link
Author: FloydLee
Quote
My core beliefs are not YOUR business, Floyd. Nor was it ever relevant to the debate until you lyingly claimed to know about my religious belifs despite admitting I told you they were irrelevant to the issues (and still are).

What "lying"?  I said I know that you're not a Christian, and even now you sit there pinned to the wall, unable to say the one little bitty sentence---"Yes I have accepted Jesus Christ and he is the Savior and Lord of my life" ---that would immediately refute me and force an instant retraction.

I also said I don't know your exact beliefs (because when asked, you chose to hide them.  Fear factor.)  

So, those are the two things I know for sure.  No lie on my part, that's for sure.  Wanna disprove me?

******

And btw, my honest belief is that your as-yet-understated unstated core beliefs (and assumptions thereof) DO have something to do with the position(s) you've taken in this debate.  

I believe that it would be a very interesting (perhaps even delicious) rational exercise to see if your particular core beliefs lend support *for* or *against* the main proposition that "Evolution is Incompatible with Christianity."  

(But that's NOT a rational examination that you'd be willing to undertake, is it???  More fear factor.)

Date: 2009/10/19 18:01:31, Link
Author: FloydLee
Typo correction, previous post:  "as-yet-unstated core beliefs...."

Date: 2009/10/19 18:25:36, Link
Author: FloydLee
Okay Deadman, this is where I start doing the evil villain laughter.

(If you've ever watched the "Abominable Dr. Phibes" movies you know what kind of laugh I'm talking about, it's the one at the end of each movie.)  
   
Quote
a nice lawsuit

"A NICE LAWSUIT"?  Is THIS how you evolutionists act when you get your fannies pinned down on non-descript yet non-Christian personal beliefs that you're trying to hide from cyber-examination?  

Have y'all gone Hogg Wilde or something??

Cmon now Mr. D.  Look, this session kinda started off with somebody asking if you guys had "broken" me.  Well, you got your answer---you guys didn't.  Still wild and crazy as ever.
 
But ummm, don't let me "break" you either.  You starting to sound like the rubber band is getting a little tight, Deadman.  Not good for the systolic count.

Relax a little bit.  We'll be ceasing this Incompatibility thing soon and moving on (if you guys will let it move on, of course.).

Date: 2009/10/20 01:41:24, Link
Author: FloydLee
Quote
I want to remind FL again that according to II Maccabees...

Umm, I and II Maccabees is part of the Apocrypha.  It's NOT part of the 66 books of the Bible.  I'm only dealing with the claims of the Bible for this thread topic.
 
Quote

1.  Jews did not (and still do not) regard the Apocrypha as Scripture.

2.  The New Testament never quotes the Apocrypha.

3.  Until 1548 (at the Roman Catholic Council of Trent), the Apocrypha had a secondary status, and was not regarded as true Scripture. (And the Eastern Orthodox Church still gives the secondary status to the Apocrypha. See Timothy Ware, "The Orthodox Church", Penguin Books, 1963, p.208-209).

3.  Therefore the Protestant Reformers (1520's, 1530's) were clarifying the historical position of the early church when they excluded the Apocrypha.

http://www.answering-islam.org/Bible/pbotapoc.html

Date: 2009/10/20 01:46:59, Link
Author: FloydLee
Quote
FL believes that he owns the trademark to "Christian" and is the only person eligible to say what is means.

Hardly.  Tell me what YOU think it means (and yes I'll probably compare your answer to Scripture to see if it matches up, just outta my own curiosity.)   You up for that?

Date: 2009/10/20 01:49:49, Link
Author: FloydLee
Quote
actually Floyd, you were the one who said, "I would swear in court" regarding deadman's religion.

I didn't threaten to sue the guy though.  You agree?  That's on Mr. D, not me.  It did make me laugh, a bit of comic relief.

Date: 2009/10/20 02:07:54, Link
Author: FloydLee
Quote
That says that God caused life to exist.

Which makes God the required explanation for the origin of life, which constitutes "the beginnings of biological evolution" (William Schopf).  
Which then re-affrims a huge Incompatibility with evolution, because it clearly "no longer requires God as creator or designer." (Ernst Mayr).
       
Quote
Post-Darwinian evolutionary theory, which can explain the emergence of the first bacteria, doesn't even leave much room for a deist God whose minimal role might have been to flick the first switch.

---Slate editor Jacob Weisberg, 8-10-2005

       
Quote
Evolution is God's redundancy notice, his pink slip.

---Richard Dawkins, Wall Street Journal, Sept. 10, 2009.

Date: 2009/10/20 08:33:16, Link
Author: FloydLee
Quote
What is there to be fearful of? DM must be shaking in his shoes, right? I'm an agnostic, Floyd (it sure is scary to say that - I'm going to be quaking all day).

Interesting.  See how easy it is just to say out loud where you're really coming from, Keelyn?  You did it in one microsecond.  Easy as pie.  

So you tell me. What is there to be fearful of?
More specifically, what is there for Deadman to be fearful of?

Date: 2009/10/20 09:13:19, Link
Author: FloydLee
Quote
Floyd, let it go.  No one cares.

Merely responding to Keelyn, Mr. D.  That's all.
Hey, would you be an agnostic like she is?  Or an atheist?  Gotta be something (other than Christian.)

Date: 2009/10/20 09:46:25, Link
Author: FloydLee
Quote
Is science incompatible with all religions or just Christianity?

Actually, science is compatible with Christianity.  Evolution isn't compatible with Christianity, because evolution is actually a mixture of science and religion -- the religion being materialism.

Date: 2009/10/20 10:07:51, Link
Author: FloydLee
Let's go right here, SLP:
     
Quote
In fact, let's toss in one more statement, this one comes from Paul Lurquin's 2003 book concerning the orign of life.
       
Quote
"The RNA World Hypothesis is a very attractive one, because it bases the appearance of life squarely within the realm of evolution."

---Lurquin, The Origins of Life and the Universe, p. 32.

Okay, now that's a really clear example of abiogenesis NOT being separate from evolution.  So what was your response?
     
Quote
Never heard of him of the book.

So you get to simply ignore and blow-off published statements like that of OOL expert Paul Lurquin, simply because you ain't been to your public library (the science section, btw) and read his book?  

No, that's not rational.  "Never heard of him or his book" is not a rebuttal, and is not a refutation of what he said.  It's as simple as that.  What Lurquin wrote, still stands.
     
Quote
So, if I write a book and state the opposite (you seem very impressed with books), will you stop making these claims?

Maybe si, maybe no.  But if you write that book, you will be forced to read the books of others first, and THAT is a very good thing in this case.

Date: 2009/10/20 10:58:00, Link
Author: FloydLee
Quote
However, the human soul, on which man's humanity definitively depends, cannot emerge from matter, since the soul is of a spiritual nature.

This sentence makes God a required explanation, absolutely for the origin of the first humans.  
Moreover, the theory of evolution, in which "God as creator or designer is no longer required" (Mayr), is NOT sufficient to produce humans after all.  

Which adds up to create an incompatibility between evolution (which gives God his pink slip, Dawkins said), and Christianity, of course 

This is true even for Catholic Christianity, as it turns out.  As you can see, they **always** re-affirm the First Incompatibility WRT human origins on Earth.

Date: 2009/10/20 13:04:02, Link
Author: FloydLee
Just random googling, no more than two minutes duration, under the label "evolution incompatible with Christianity".  Found this opening post on another discussion forum, a general one.
Quote
What is/are your opinion(s) on evolution? The Catholic Church believes in it but they say that, somewhere along the line, God decided to give man a soul. That doesn't make sense to me? I'm not saying I don't believe in evolution (cause I do), I'm saying that evolution kind of contradicts God and Christianity a little, IMO.

People can tell, folks.  Ordinary people can tell.

Date: 2009/10/20 13:05:37, Link
Author: FloydLee
Quote
Floyd is no longer able to sustain arguments in support of his Five Flunktastic Fallacies.

Just curious, Amadan:  what was your specific refutation to the Fourth and Fifth Incompatibilities?

Date: 2009/10/20 13:40:14, Link
Author: FloydLee
Quote
Argumentum ad Google?

Nope.  A mere observation.  Not intended to prove anything, but worth noting all the same.
You may be tempted to pretend such people don't exist, you may tempted to pretend that all Catholics don't see any incompatibility in there.  

But they do.  Many people do.  They can tell, even though they believe in evolution anyway.  I merely offered the reminder from an ordinary lay Catholic.  Seemed appropriate for this forum.

Date: 2009/10/20 13:46:23, Link
Author: FloydLee
Quote
Why are you ignoring my posts?  Can't you answer them?

I guess that means in Floyd's world Christianity = Slavery = God's Blessed Will.

Guess you guys wanna keep going on this topic all the way to Nov. 1.  Sure starting to look that way.

Go ahead and repeat your question Frank; I'll answer it now.

Date: 2009/10/20 14:01:33, Link
Author: FloydLee
Quote
Prove the poster in that case was a lay catholic.

He said he was Catholic.  Didn't say he was a (insert deacon or clergy title here.)

But hey, I could be wrong, maybe's he not a layperson at all.  Maybe he's a Vatican Cardinal, surfing the Net incognito from St Peters' Basilica.  Yeah, that's gotta be it.

In which case you still have the same thing.  Apparently Vatican Cardinals can tell that there's some kind of incompatibility between evolution and Christianity.

Date: 2009/10/20 15:10:54, Link
Author: FloydLee
Quote
Is Slavery part and parcel with Christianity?

The Bible's answer is no.  Euro-American slavery violated multiple Old Testament Biblical humane regulations (including at least one calling for a death penalty if violated, Exo. 21:16).  

Beyond that, God's plan for all humans has always been equality NOT slavery.

[quote]Slavery is a product of the fall of man and has existed in the world since that time. Slavery was not a part of God's original created order, and as God's created order has gradually been re-established since the time of Christ, slavery has gradually been eliminated.

---Steven McDowell, 2003, Wallbuilders website [/qujote]

And in the New Testament, the slaves were encouraged to go ahead and seek their freedom.
   
Quote
"Were you a slave when you were called (to hook up with Christ)? That shouldn't bother you.

However, if you have a chance to become free, take it."  

(2 Cor. 7:21)  

So, from the Bible itself, it's very clear that slavery has no chance of being part and parcel of Christianity.  

Slavery, just like evolution, is Incompatible with Christianity.

Date: 2009/10/20 15:42:26, Link
Author: FloydLee
Quote
On checking, I find that you have only raised four that I recall, Floyd: see here. Unless there's a super-secret double incompatibility somewhere.

Hmmm.  You missed one; the fifth one.  Very big.

Evolutionist Jason Rosenhouse explains the Fifth Incompatibility:

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-awae 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?

Quote
Reconciling evolution and Christianity is not as simple as theistic evolutionists often try to pretend.

That's the fifth incompatibility.  Your refutation, Amadan?

Date: 2009/10/20 16:04:27, Link
Author: FloydLee
Quote
As a major evangelical Christian Sect was formed just to spread "God's truth about slavery", doesn't that make it one in the same?

What, are you in a hurry to ignore what the Bible says, FrankH?  After all, that same sect has ABANDONED their proslavery position and they affirm that the Bible was correctly opposed to their mistaken position.

They even apologized to blacks for their racial evils.

(Contrast that with the ongoing refusal of evolutionists to apologize for evolution-based racial wrongs like Ota Benga, the eugenic torment of minority women, and the flat-out murder of Australian Aborigines and stealing their children.)

Date: 2009/10/21 08:29:23, Link
Author: FloydLee
Quote
Nowhere in evolution is there anything about racism.

Ever read The Descent of Man, FrankH?

Date: 2009/10/21 08:57:53, Link
Author: FloydLee
Quote
I was just wondering if you were planning on getting out of neutral (or reverse) and getting into maybe ...oh, 1/2 gear with "ID is Science?"

Start asking your friends about it.  They seem to wanna continue this topic, and if I don't answer 'em here comes the stale "why don't you answer my question" routine.  I've already sent one none-too-subtle hint....maybe you can send them one too?  Better do it soon though.

Date: 2009/10/21 09:05:28, Link
Author: FloydLee
Quote
What does this have to do with whether science is incompatible with christianity?

Ask FrankH.  He brought this up.

Btw, the thread topic is NOT whether science is incompatible with Christianity.  Thought you were clear on that.

Date: 2009/10/21 10:04:32, Link
Author: FloydLee
Quote
On to ID Floyd.

Yeah, YOU are apparently in a hurry to escape any response from me about your reply to the Fifth Incompatibility.  But do you know what you are really saying, Amadan?

"Evolution is cruel and sadistic, but that's okay, evolution is compatibile with Christianity because God is cruel and sadistic too."

I don't think you or Reed (or the other posters who tried this approach already) have any inkling how utterly and totally unconvincing this argument would be for Christians.   For example, why would anyone serve a "cruel and sadistic" God at all?  Why would Christians do so?

So right off the bat, your line of argument doesn't even BEGIN to supply anybody with an actual reconciliation of the Fifth Incompatibility.  Doesn't resolve the problem at all.  It's a fail you've offered.

******

You know, there are times in BOTH the Old and the New Testament when God executes lethal planetwide judgment and lethal individual judgments.  Therefore the God of the OT is no different than the God of the Christian NT.  It's the same God, it's the Christian God.

So for those people who reject God on God's terms, (and who ignore the Bible's many OT and NT statements about God's love, mercy, kindness, patience, etc) it may always gonna seem like God is cruel and sadistic.  But you [u]don't[/b] resolve or refute the Fifth Incompatibility by attacking the Christian God's character.  Rationally, that don't work.

******

(Btw, God's not cruel and sadistic, but he is the Just Judge of humanity, capable of executing just punishments and of course that follows from him being the Creator of humanity in the first place.  So you get all upset with God when God does what God is supposed to do?  Go figure.)

Also, the God of the Bible, who not only creates humans but also judges humans, is the same one that Jesus Christ died to reconcile humans to.  IOW, there is NO such thing as "the God of the OT is cruel and sadistic but the God of the Christian NT is love love."  There's only one God of the Bible, whether you accept Him or reject Him.

Btw (for Reed I think),
the fact is that human sin has created a fallen world in which animals, sharing in the Curse, are liable to be killed when God is forced to execute His judgment on humanity (think of all the dogs, cats, and bunny rabbits living in Sodom and Gomorrah when the titanic Blast struck those cities).

So it doesn't work to blame and diss God when you should be blaming free-will humans for choosing to sin and bringing down judgment.  

That's the real deal here.

Date: 2009/10/21 10:15:52, Link
Author: FloydLee
Quote
That says that God caused life to exist. It doesn't say what methods were used in doing so. It doesn't say what methods weren't used in doing so; specifically it doesn't rule out methods that some humans find offensive.

It does rule out evolution though.   Common descent too, btw.

Unless you're trying to say that evolution, which works strictly on material things, can produce an immaterial thing (the human soul.)  
Is that what you're claiming Henry?

Date: 2009/10/21 10:20:05, Link
Author: FloydLee
Quote
Why won't you answer questions asked of you?

Did you ever provide that documentation I asked of you?  

(No you didn't.  Why not work on that for a while?  You made your claim upfront.  I sincerely asked for documentation of it.  Simply a matter of counting the number of thread quotations.  Why won't you provide documentation?)

Date: 2009/10/21 10:40:49, Link
Author: FloydLee
Just a quick note for tomorrow (Thurs):  Will post a somewhat shortened "Biblical Perspective on Biology".

Also (Thurs) will do a Final Summary of where the thread topic stands and why.   Also hope to finish printing things off.

Sometime Friday evening CST, will present the "ID is Science" argument.  

FloydLee

Date: 2009/10/21 13:23:48, Link
Author: FloydLee
Quote
Wow.  I am in awe of this guy's complete inability to grasp such a simple point.

In short, you have no answer for the actual reply that was given, so you just kinda blow it off.  Okay!

Date: 2009/10/21 13:43:00, Link
Author: FloydLee
Quote
Non sequitor.

How can it possibly be a non-sequitor?  The immaterial human soul, and human ensoulment by God alone (NOT evolution), is NON-negotiable, according to Popes Benedict ,  JP2,  Pius,  and the rest.

No Catholic concessions (and no compatibilities either!) to evolution AT ALL on that one.

Date: 2009/10/21 13:55:16, Link
Author: FloydLee
Quote
so are you now claiming that the soul is a physical, inheritable charachteristic, just like brown eyes?
 
Please check the definition of "immaterial."  

Actually, you evolutionists would have a lock on the Catholic angle if the soul actually WAS a physical inheritable characteristic.  

As it stands now, the lock exists only for the Incompatibility!!

Date: 2009/10/21 14:03:16, Link
Author: FloydLee
Quote
2.   incorporeal, spiritual.

That's the ticket right there!

Date: 2009/10/21 14:29:58, Link
Author: FloydLee
Quote
Yodel Elf just used JP2, Benedict and Pius' opinions to prove his point

And the specific point proven was that there exists a specific Incompatibility between clearly non-negotiable Catholic Christian beliefs and evolution.

Date: 2009/10/21 14:40:57, Link
Author: FloydLee
Quote
Tell all about how ID is valid science, wouldja?

Reading comprehension, mis amigos----go back and read the previous post that discusses when that topic will be presented.  Gracias!

Date: 2009/10/21 14:45:19, Link
Author: FloydLee
Consequently, theories of evolution which, in accordance with the philosophies inspiring them, consider the spirit as emerging from the forces of living matter or as a mere epiphenomenon of this matter, are incompatible with the truth about man. Nor are they able to ground the dignity of the person.

Date: 2009/10/21 15:00:07, Link
Author: FloydLee
Quote
One is scientific and has evidence.  The other is religious and is based on faith.  One is empirical and the other is philosophical.  As they are both separate from the other, there is no issue.

That's what you WANT to believe.  It's not what Pope John 2 actually said. In fact, he was quite sharp about it.
 
Quote
Consequently, theories of evolution which, in accordance with the philosophies inspiring them, consider the spirit as emerging from the forces of living matter or as a mere epiphenomenon of this matter,

are incompatible with the truth about man.

Nor are they able to ground the dignity of the person.

---Oct. 22, 1996, "Truth Cannot Contradict Truth"


Imagine that.  The Pope said the magic word, "INCOMPATIBLE".  And not just "incompatible", but incompatible with THE TRUTH ABOUT MAN!!

(IOW, He doesn't even give you a cheap fake NOMA bone to chew on!!  He's definitely insisting on a real incompatibility because of the God-ensoulment requirement.)

Date: 2009/10/21 15:31:51, Link
Author: FloydLee
Quote
 
Quote
Nor are they able to ground the dignity of the person.

I was waiting for this.  The "Evilution says we came from dirt.  The Bible says we came from dust.  Evilution is WRONG!  We are dusty not dirty physical beings!"

The real issue here is that Evolution means our physical bodies are nothing different when it comes down to it from any other animal.  Humans, being above animals in some people's book, are not able to endure the indignity of being an intelligent animal.

And so, you've done a great job of exposing how John Paul's famous "TCCT" remarks concerning evolution reaffirm not only the 1st Incompatibility (Evolution denies God-as-required-explanation),
but also the 3rd Incompatibility (Evolution denies humans created in the Image-of God.)

IF you don't accept the Catholic God-ensoulment requirement, then you can no longer ground the dignity of man (and the specific reason for that failure is that the dignity of man is directly grounded in God creating humans in his own image. Without the Image-Of-God which comes with the Immaterial Ensoulment, you no longer have a basis for human dignity.  

(IOW, the Holocaust becomes mere pest-control instead of a planetary war-crime.)

If this dignity thing sounds familiar to you, it's because evolutionist James Rachels pointed out the same thing (see the early pages of this thread.)

The ONLY theism that supports the Image of God thesis is a creationist theism in which God actively designs man and the world as a home for man.  Remove the Image because of the theory of evolution, and you remove the ground of human dignity.  Remember what Mayr said?  "The application of common descent to humans deprived man of his former status."

So in fact we're back to reaffirming the Incompatibilities again.  Even if that's not what you intended.

FloydLee

Date: 2009/10/21 15:57:14, Link
Author: FloydLee
Nmgirl quoted:
 
Quote
If the human body take its origin from pre-existent living matter, the spiritual soul is immediately created by God ("animas enim a Deo immediate creari catholica fides nos retinere iubei"; "Humani Generis," 36).

Consequently, theories of evolution which, in accordance with the philosophies inspiring them, consider the spirit as emerging from the forces of living matter or as a mere epiphenomenon of this matter, are incompatible with the truth about man.

Nor are they able to ground the dignity of the person.

Seems clear enough.

Date: 2009/10/21 16:09:16, Link
Author: FloydLee
Quote
So you regard Jews, Gypsies, Slavs, homosexuals and the disabled as pests, Floyd?  Would you like to tell us more?

Sure, there's more.  The evolution-based racism found in Darwin's "Descent of Man" finds a clear and sobering echo in Hitler's Mein Kampf.  

Evolution, Eugenics, Holocaust.  Like the Fixx used to sing on the radio, "One Thing Leads To Another."

Is that sufficient?

Date: 2009/10/21 16:42:07, Link
Author: FloydLee
Quote
Actually, Floyd, instead of an irrelevant and incorrect screed about Darwin and Hitler, I was hoping to find out more about your description of Holocaust victims as pests.

I figured that you would try to change the subject quickly, once I started talking about historical and ideological connections between your pet evolution belief and the Holocaust itself.  Confirmed.  

And of course, YOU want no part of exploring evolution's denial of the Image-Of-God-Thesis as a potential source of denying human dignity and ultimately supporting genocide.

Thanks for proving me correct.   :)

Date: 2009/10/21 17:07:44, Link
Author: FloydLee
Quote
Troll-bait. Quit veering off topic, Floyd.


At this point you guys are no longer making rational sense.  

Reading comprehension zero, just talking stupid and arrogant really.  
(Am I including you?  Yep, you too.)

Date: 2009/10/21 17:11:15, Link
Author: FloydLee
Quote
Floyd describes the Holocaust as "pest-control".


Are you brain dead or something?  You sound that way, with that level of misrepresentation and outright lying.  Unevolved neurons on your part, maybe?

Date: 2009/10/21 17:21:43, Link
Author: FloydLee
[qtote]Sorry Floyd, not biting.[/quote]
What?  You don't like it when I start sounding like you guys?  You can't take it dude?  Don't wanna talk about it?  Not emotionally prepped?   The word "Pitiful" comes to mind.  Plus you can't understand the meaning of the word "Friday."  (Shall I blame your schooling or your parenting for that failure?)

Date: 2009/10/21 17:23:21, Link
Author: FloydLee
Quote
If it was you and not your evil twin, please explain how I'm misrepresenting you or outright lying.

You familiar with the phrase "quote-mining", John?  They teach you about it in school?  They teach you it's wrong?

Date: 2009/10/21 17:36:37, Link
Author: FloydLee
You know John, I honestly don't think your school taught you that quote-mining is wrong.  Permit me to help out.
   
Quote
IF you don't accept the Catholic God-ensoulment requirement, then you can no longer ground the dignity of man (and the specific reason for that failure is that the dignity of man is directly grounded in God creating humans in his own image. Without the Image-Of-God which comes with the Immaterial Ensoulment, you no longer have a basis for human dignity.  

(IOW, the Holocaust becomes mere pest-control instead of a planetary war-crime.)

Now, you quoted the very last sentence there---even ignoring the "IOW" that clearly connects the sentence to the previous paragraph--and took the last sentence completely out of context, trying to accuse me of saying that the Holocaust IS mere pest-control.  

That's quotemining, John.  Straight quotemining.

Of course, it could be that you're just really minimal on reading comprehension.

Or maybe you just like misrepresentation.  A hobby of sorts.

Or perhaps somebody taught you that it was okay to lie if the target wasn't a Darwinist.

Or maybe it's a combo deal.  I dunno.

Do you see any ethical problem with the tack you've taken?  Even slightly?

Date: 2009/10/21 18:11:49, Link
Author: FloydLee
Quote
Once might be a parody, or a simple misreading . You've got a pattern going, though.

This coming from the guy who had his specific quotemining claim dissected literally quote-by-quote and evolutionist-by-evolutionist, till nothing was left at all.  Heh.

Meanwhile, I'm going to push back my scheduled postings by one day.   Might as well take my time about this stuff, it won't change anything.  
Sometime Friday evening, I'll do the shortened "Biblical perspective On Biology", and use Saturday (Oct 24) for the main "ID is science" presentation.  On Sunday, I'll go ahead and write my final summary of "Evolution is Incompatible With Christianity" even though we'll be debating the "ID as science" issue all the way up to (or through) Nov. 1.

Date: 2009/10/23 08:56:49, Link
Author: FloydLee
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

Date: 2009/10/23 09:28:41, Link
Author: FloydLee
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.

Date: 2009/10/23 09:52:45, Link
Author: FloydLee
Quote
No "theory" that has non-materialistic parts is not a scientific theory

That's the great fallback excuse that folks have used on this board, Frank.  Problem is, as I showed in response to Reed and Deadman, that particular line of argument is multiple-flawed and has been refuted.

Short version (Ratzsch):  There have been, and are, NO rationally sustainable blanket prohibitions against supernatural design being a subject of science.  Some design theories may not pan out as science, but that's entirely consistent in principle with other design theories being able to qualify as science.  The theories may also flop and come up empty or refuted upon investigation, but ALL scientific theories face that very same risk anyway.  So that's why nobody's been able to--and still hasn't--come up with a defensible BLANKET prohibition against supernatural design within science.

Short version (Millam):  Science is about what is TESTABLE, not necessarily what is NATURALISTIC.

Short version (Meyer):  Multiple known fatal-flaws exist with the notion of defining science in the way you described it (solely naturalistically).  See "Methodological Equivalence of Design and Descent"
Each of these rational fatal-flaws are longstanding and unsolved.  Nobody's been able to resolve them.  Among the biggest is "Circular Argument."

FloydLee

Date: 2009/10/23 10:01:28, Link
Author: FloydLee
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.

Date: 2009/10/23 10:28:27, Link
Author: FloydLee
Quote
Do snakes talk?

Do donkeys talk?

Can a big fish swallow a person without killing him?

Can what an animal is looking at while mating affect the traits of the offspring?

All four of those items would require supernatural action.  But the Bible says all four events actually took place in history, all the same.  Literally.

But you don't believe the Bible on those items.

So tell me something  Henry.  The Resurrection of Jesus Christ.  You believe the Bible on THAT one?  Literally?  

I await your answer.

Date: 2009/10/23 10:47:26, Link
Author: FloydLee
Quote
In other words, Floyd punts.

Nope.  With you, things are clear and consistent.  You reject God, Jesus, miracles, and Bible claims involving the supernatural.  Don't have to ask you about Jesus' Resurrection, because for you the answer's a big nope.   You're not a Christian.  (That's not an insult---that's the only answer that's consistent with what you've been posting.

But I think Henry said he was a Christian somewhere back on PT.  So, I'm just asking him about the Resurrection of Jesus Christ  (another pesky supernatural event).  

Clarification, that's all.

Date: 2009/10/23 10:50:00, Link
Author: FloydLee
Quote
If a gang comes to my house and wants to rape a guest, then I am required (by the bible) to give my virgin daughter to the gang instead of my guest.

Just for fun Ogre, show me where the Bible "requires" (or even recommends) that move.  

(Hmm, another request for documentation.....)

Date: 2009/10/23 11:03:20, Link
Author: FloydLee
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.

Date: 2009/10/23 11:04:05, Link
Author: FloydLee
Let Henry answer the question please, Nmgirl.

Date: 2009/10/23 12:13:46, Link
Author: FloydLee
Quote
Yet, this supremely holy man offered his daughters to a bunch of rapists so that his guests would not be harmed.

You directly said the Bible required this specific kind of behavior.

Show me where, please.    :)

Date: 2009/10/23 12:21:58, Link
Author: FloydLee
Quote
If you put Evolution in that spot, then ANY SCIENCE will go in that spot.

On exactly what basis?  Is it because the practitioners of "any science" have published the clear-cut Incompatibility Statements that have been given by professional evolutionist scientists?  NOPE, they've been silent WRT the Big Five in their textbooks and journals.

Again, on exactly what basis?  A clearly-documented, clearly-refuted conflation of naturalism/materialism with science?  The conditions of refutation have been specified and quoted verbatim in this thread.

You guys have NOT come up with a Plan C, so that's it.  

Hence your statement is refuted Ogre.

Date: 2009/10/23 12:28:22, Link
Author: FloydLee
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.

Date: 2009/10/23 12:41:23, Link
Author: FloydLee
Okay, I think Henry's remarks constituted a good point to start doing Biblical Perspective on Biology.  

But first, if you'll repeat the questions you want answered Ogre, I'll go ahead and do 'em.  You many not like the answers, (and I may repeat some if it's the same ole questions), but go ahead and ask.

Date: 2009/10/23 12:49:44, Link
Author: FloydLee
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.

Date: 2009/10/23 13:39:51, Link
Author: FloydLee
Quote
I even silently disapproved of some of the harsher words used by members of this forum.

Really?  Perhaps they became aware of your silent disapproval via extrasensory perception.  

Me, I don't think so.  I think you should have done the ole fashion'd thing and said something when you had the chance.

Even now, with the thread so close to concluding, you don't offer any specific "harsh-worder" any words of criticism.  Saved it all for me.  I'm impressed.

But hey, I genuinely appreciate you stating your opinion, okay?  
It's just that my only priorities now are to finish the topics by Nov. 1, try to keep up with people's remaining posts, and print off the entire Incompatibility portion.  

As for trying to earn honesty points from you.....no, I don't have time for that.  I'm sorry that you don't think I'm honest, for I don't think I'll have time to change that impression.   I'm equally sorry that you're able to stay silent when silence is less than appropriate, and I don't think that impression will change before debate's end.

Date: 2009/10/23 14:14:32, Link
Author: FloydLee
Quote
I have asked you at least a half-dozen times to show me any scientific research model that would allow this...and you have refused to answer each timep

Oh yes, I answered you.  I specifically told you that THAT part of the discussion needed to go with the "ID is Science" debate, that it was enough for THIS part of the thread, to be able to show that your view of science actually DIDN'T have support and had multiple flaw.  

Don't you remember?  Or are you simply lying?

Date: 2009/10/23 14:17:01, Link
Author: FloydLee
Quote
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.

Okay, this offer is off the table now.  Gotta move on.

Date: 2009/10/23 15:47:35, Link
Author: FloydLee
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!

Date: 2009/10/23 16:15:33, Link
Author: FloydLee
Quote
"We cannot discover by scientific investigation anything about the creative processes used by God." Duane Gish, Evolution -- The Fossils Say No! (3d ed. 1979)

Sorry, but that one (and thanks for offering it---it was interesting!) does NOT refute what Dr. Ratzsch specifically wrote.  

Ratzsch did not say that you could scientifically discover how God actually created things.  Far from it.  The ONLY thing Ratzsch pointed out is that there AREN'T any sustainable BLANKET prohibitions that can be employed against scientific investigation of supernatural design.

IOW, design detection hypotheses and theories CAN in fact be scientific.   Any given design hypothesis or theory (like all scientific hypotheses or theories) may boom or bust upon actual investigation, but you do NOT have a rational basis for saying a priori that it's not even scientific.  

Again, that particular reality doesn't mean you can scientifically figure out how God created Adam.  It ONLY means that supernatural design detection CAN indeed fall within the realm of genuine science investigation.

FloydLee

Date: 2009/10/23 16:18:35, Link
Author: FloydLee
Quote
Nope, I never said that.

Okay, sincere thanks for responding Henry J!
Will make a note of it.

Date: 2009/10/23 16:24:49, Link
Author: FloydLee
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?"

Date: 2009/10/23 16:31:29, Link
Author: FloydLee
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.

Date: 2009/10/23 16:34:17, Link
Author: FloydLee
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?

Date: 2009/10/23 16:40:30, Link
Author: FloydLee
Please go ahead and address 1 Cor. 2:16 at this time CM.

Date: 2009/10/23 17:46:42, Link
Author: FloydLee
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

Date: 2009/10/23 17:55:31, Link
Author: FloydLee
Quote
How about it, Floyd? Should I help you out or what?

Do whatever you'd like, Keelyn.  For me, the lineup is the Perspective followed by the main "ID is science" gig followed by the Final Summary of Incompatibility, as I stated specifically.

As you can see, your friends are in no hurry to leave the Incompatibility thread.  And I must admit, I kinda like it too.

Date: 2009/10/23 18:34:05, Link
Author: FloydLee
Quote
Yodel Elf, no one cares about your own personal perception of the bible, demented and lies-ridden as it is (your perception).

Then, ummm, why was I asked about my personal perception of the Bible?

And btw, does it make sense to you to accuse folks of "proselytizing" when they've just been sincerely asked religious point-blank questions like "Do you or do you not think you know what your god requires as to get into heaven or not?"

You see, SD, you need to take a moment and think about what you're saying there.  Me?  I'm sincerely responding to somebody else's sincere "Do you or don't you" questions.  

But you?  Those answers must be bugging you for some reason, even though they weren't even addressed to you at all.  

So now here YOU come outta the blue, all suddenly agitated and hand-wringing about "proselytizing."  

What is it?  YOUR conscience suddenly gittin' all itchy too?  Voice messages still beeping on your soul's cell phone and you cain't find a way to delete 'em???  Is that it, boys????

(Ohhhh goodness to booboo.  You guys are starting to make me laugh now, not in any vicious or demeaning way, but your anger and squirming discomfort in the presence of Scriptural truths--which you yourselves keep on bringing up, NOT me!--just comes across as kinda humorous sometimes.  

Ultimately, you guys necessarily constitute my final evidence that Evolution is Incompatible with Christianity!!!!   :)  

Date: 2009/10/26 13:28:34, Link
Author: FloydLee
Hello again!  I have to apologize for being late, again had to take care of family business and church business this weekend—most of it completely unexpected.

Even now, I don’t have much time for reading or responding to anybody.  (A little, but not a lot.)  All I can do for today and tomorrow is finish typing the “Biblical Perspective on Biology” and the “ID is science” and simply present them in that order.  

Followed a couple days or so later, by the final summary (regarding evolution’s incompatibility).

If you would like to extend the final day to Nov. 8, as a way of making up for my delay, I am fully open to that, just let me know.  

If not, that's okay too.  At least I will have all my topics put on the table for this week, and the big one (Incompatibility) printed off in its entirety and summarized.  In the meantime, my apologies again.

********

Here's the Perspective thing.

Why bother discussing the Biblical perspective on biology?  Because as we’ve already seen, it has a direct bearing—in fact, MULTIPLE direct bearings—on the issue of whether evolution is compatible with Christianity or not.  

In order to answer the incompatibility issue, it is necessary to know what the Bible says or doesn’t say.  Period. So, with that in mind, what’s the Biblical perspective there?

First, the Bible’s perspective is that God is the required, the absolutely necessary, explanation for biological origins on earth.  I’m not talking about evolution right now, I’m talking about the Bible’s position.  God is not optional, either in the Old Testament (Gen. 1:1), or the New Testament (Col.1:16).   ANY historical explanation of plant, animal, or human origins on Earth in which God is not absolutely required, is in opposition to the position of Biblical Christianity.

Second, God is the DIRECT explanation for plant, animal, and human origins.   In Genesis, whether the topic is plants, animal, or human origins, God does NOT employ any indirect, gradual means of origination to produce the result.  He either speaks, and the creative action takes place, or he fashions the object himself by hand (the first human male and the first human female) and gets it done that way, that day.  

Furthermore,  NONE of this occurs naturally.  In fact, it occurs in a manner called “Ex Nihilo” (meaning “From Nothing.”)  

Evolution requires pre-existing material, but God absolutely does not, and did not, require any.  

   
Quote
Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear. – Hebrews 11:3


What this means, honestly, is that any attempt to try to create compatibility between evolution and Christianity based on a notion of God somehow maybe-sorta-kinda using a gradual gazillion-year extremely indirect are simply FALSE according to biblical Christianity.  In the Bible, it's direct, not indirect.  It's fast, not gradual, not old-earth.  

No "water running downhill" indirect analogies will work here, IOW.  It didn't work with Futuyma and evolution, but more importantly, it doesn't work at all with the Bible. The testimony of Scripture is that God DIRECTLY created.

******

Related to this is a third perspective:  God got it all done within six literal 24-hour days.  Way too fast for any evolution processes.  No chance of compatibility.

Why did God choose six 24-hour days of creation and then rest on the seventh day?  Quite straightforward, according to the Bible---He was modeling for us humans the way we were supposed to operate  (hat tip to Dr. Kurt Wise, [i]Faith Form and Time[/b]).  The Bible is very clear on this.

   
Quote
Genesis 2:1-3. Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the host of them. And on the seventh day God ended his work which he had made; and he rested on the seventh day from all his work which he had made. And God blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it: because that in it he had rested from all his work which God created and made.


   
Quote
Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy. But the seventh day is the sabbath of the LORD thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates: For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.


So, the Bible’s position is that the time frame for biological origins (life itself, plants, water and land animals, humans) is six 24-hour days.  And that’s all.

Again, here are the technical details and proof that the Bible really does mean this:  http://www.dbts.edu/journals/2000/mccabe.pdf

Moreover, the familiar  “evening and morning” phrase in Genesis 1 directly means literal evening and morning, btw---a literal 24 hr day.  

******

Are there other details to this Biblical Perspective?  Sure there are.  For example, the Bible says that birds preceded land animals.  What that means is that evolutionists are wrong when they claim that dinosaurs or reptilians gradually evolved into birds.  Yet another point of conflict with evolution.

Finally, Rom. 1:20 makes a unique and powerful observation about the created world (including its biological life forms):

…..Just from what you can observe around you, or even just looking at yourself in the mirror, you should be able to understand that (1) God exists and (2) understand one or two important things about His nature.  And if you don’t, there’s no excuse:

 
Quote
For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse.  (Romans 1:20),


This, again, contradicts the theory evolution, which doesn't require God as creator or designer and which is completely compatible with Atheism.  (And you know that's true!).

Finally, many people have no idea how many times the Bible affirms creation.  Some people think they can make evolution become compatible with Christianity if they can just neutralize Genesis.  Won't bother any other portions of Bible, they assume.  

That doesn’t even begin to work.  Just plain incorrect, for the Biblical perspective on biology is all over the Bible.  You cannot escape it.  Look at all these verses:
http://www.gospelway.com/creation/creation_list.php

(Did you look at those verses?  Look at them again.  If you ever publicly debate a YEC in a university or church setting on the Incompatibility topic, you can bet that's going to be a massive arsenal of information that the YEC could use on you.)

******

So, that’s a look at the Biblical perspective. We’ve already seen a good part of it in the Incompatibility debate already (the irrefutable Romans 5:12-17, for example).  

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!!)

FloydLee

Date: 2009/10/26 13:43:44, Link
Author: FloydLee
Well, Floyd won't be here to "debate" today - it's Fundie Sunday. [/quote]
Good-----at least somebody understood that Sunday availabe time might be truncated in part because Christians tend go to church on Sunday.  It's a priority.

Date: 2009/10/26 14:01:19, Link
Author: FloydLee
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.

Date: 2009/10/26 14:07:09, Link
Author: FloydLee
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.

Date: 2009/10/26 14:50:20, Link
Author: FloydLee
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.

Date: 2009/10/26 16:15:19, Link
Author: FloydLee
Quote
This is fully supportable by the bible, as the Pope recognizes.

Specific Examples....?  

And did the Pope actually state this particular "fully supportable by the Bible" claim, or are you putting words in his mouth?

Date: 2009/10/26 16:37:42, Link
Author: FloydLee
Quote
It may have escaped your attention, Floyd, but your literalist position is one held by a very small minority of Christians.


On what are you basing that statement, Amadan?  2009 polls, perhaps?

 
Quote
No Consensus, and Much Confusion, on Evolution and the Origin of Species

About half of public believes plants, animals and humans evolved  while almost half believes humans were created directly by God.

ROCHESTER, N.Y. – February 18, 2009 – Two hundred years after the birth of Charles Darwin, Americans are still deeply divided on the subject of evolution and whether humans evolved or were created directly by God, as in the story of Genesis.

But it isn’t a neat division of opinion. Some people give inconsistent answers to different questions about evolution and what should be taught in schools.

In reply to one question almost half (45%) of adults say they believe humans were created directly by God and only 29% say they evolved from other species.

In reply to another question 53% of these same people say they believe that “plants, animals and human beings have evolved over time,” and only 21% say they do not believe this, with fully 25% who are not sure or decline to answer.


And you'll like this one, Amadan:

 
Quote
Furthermore a plurality favors schools teaching both Darwin’s theory and creationism.


So, with that in mind, exactly how do you know that my specific positions are "held by a very small minority of Christians"?

Date: 2009/10/26 17:01:57, Link
Author: FloydLee
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

Date: 2009/10/26 17:02:30, Link
Author: FloydLee
And of course, the Nicene Creed does NOT affirm evolution in any way, shape, or form.

Date: 2009/10/27 10:47:55, Link
Author: FloydLee
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.

Date: 2009/10/27 12:30:52, Link
Author: FloydLee
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?

Date: 2009/10/27 14:27:30, Link
Author: FloydLee
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?

Date: 2009/10/27 14:28:54, Link
Author: FloydLee
typo correction: "Genesis"

Date: 2009/10/27 14:40:23, Link
Author: FloydLee
Quote
Who wrote it, when did they write it?
Was it written before, after or during the creation event?
Were they an eyewitness to the creation event?

Moses.

Sometime during his adult life, perhaps while alone with God on Mount Sinai, (but that's just a guess.)

After.  

No.  God was there, so God told him about it.

Date: 2009/10/27 14:51:22, Link
Author: FloydLee
Quote
Sure, I'd love to see you twist with this one too.

Sure you would.  Here's a pop quiz.  Mulitiple choice.
Correctly classify the following chapter.  

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage....ion=NIV

a.  Historical Narrative---specifically a historical genealogy  

b.  A Parable

c.  A Metaphor

d.  An Allegory


This quiz is Pass-Fail, btw, so get it right the first time.

Date: 2009/10/27 15:26:39, Link
Author: FloydLee
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.

Date: 2009/10/27 15:33:25, Link
Author: FloydLee
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.

Date: 2009/10/27 15:44:03, Link
Author: FloydLee
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?

Date: 2009/10/27 15:51:49, Link
Author: FloydLee
Quote
What evidence do you have that Jesus existed?

Quote
Let's try to stay out of that box.

Very odd.  Your evo-homie is trying to dictate to you what you can and cannot ask of me.  I wonder why.

Date: 2009/10/27 16:19:49, Link
Author: FloydLee
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?

Date: 2009/10/27 17:44:58, Link
Author: FloydLee
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

Date: 2009/10/27 17:58:41, Link
Author: FloydLee
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

Date: 2009/10/27 18:05:12, Link
Author: FloydLee
Quote
(And I'm being generous in allowing "death before man", "cancer before man" and "sun before plants").

As if you had a choice!   :)

Date: 2009/10/28 08:40:16, Link
Author: FloydLee
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.

(And btw, the argument "Darwin sez so" does not constitute evidence on this one.)

Date: 2009/10/28 08:45:23, Link
Author: FloydLee
Quote
I posted a piece to broach the subject a little at the peanut gallery.

Any response I give to the peanut gallery is automatically redirected here.  Post your piece here if you want.

Date: 2009/10/28 08:48:30, Link
Author: FloydLee
Quote
You're trying to get someone to "prove a negative".

Nope.  The specific claim is that Genesis 1-11 is metaphorical.  That's not "proving a negative."

Now you get to prove that Gen. 1-11 is metaphor and not a straight historical narrative.  You up for it?

Date: 2009/10/28 08:55:47, Link
Author: FloydLee
Quote
It is up to those who hold on to something to provide the evidence for Genesis being historical.

You can believe that Gen is historically false all day long if you want to.  What I'm claiming here is that Gen is straight historical narrative, and not metaphor, EVEN IF you personally disbelieve those specific historical claims because of your Darwin religion.  

Examining the biblical text and context (such as the Gen 5 genealogy I provided you earlier) can confirm if the Gen text was meant to be a historical narrative or just a metaphor/allegory.

Date: 2009/10/28 12:36:10, Link
Author: FloydLee
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...........

Date: 2009/10/28 12:56:20, Link
Author: FloydLee
Quote
Last time I checked, actual, reputatable SCHOLARS (like my sister for one) actually accept (the Doc. Hyp.) and present such not only on their textural analysis of the bible

No disrespect to your sister, but professor of Old Testament Dr. Gleason Archer, has already killed and buried the Documentary Hypothesis underneath multiple chapters of his textbook Survey of Old Testament Introduction. 
(With extra coffin-nails to be found in his Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties.)

But do send me a copy of your sister's OT textbook and I'll gladly look at it.

Meanwhile, here's some more Doc-Hyp-Equals-Stone-Dead confirmation:

http://www.ukapologetics.net/docu.htm

FloydLee

Date: 2009/10/28 13:13:47, Link
Author: FloydLee
Quote
All available evidence is that Genesis doesn't represent a literal, historical account

Specifics, Deadman?  Care to examine the textual and contextual evidences, yes?

Date: 2009/10/28 13:14:53, Link
Author: FloydLee
(I think his answer is "No.")

Date: 2009/10/28 13:19:52, Link
Author: FloydLee
Oh, and feel free to close the thread on Nov. 2 if you wish, Deadman.  

My Biblical Perspective is finished, you guys are totally refuted (you too baby) concerning the genre of Genesis, and the only item left for me to present is the ID-is-science presentation plus the autopsy of your motley attempts to copewith the Big Five Incompatibilities.  Will have your serving of ID on the table, quite soon!

Date: 2009/10/28 14:32:57, Link
Author: FloydLee
Quote
Sorry Floyd, but as I pointed out earlier, folks like CARM and UKapologetics are not authorities or credible sources

In other words, you can't refute their actual statements on the Doc Hyp, your sister's not available to help out, and the only thing left is to claim out of the blue that they are not authorities or credible sources. Okay!

Meanwhile, readers can compare this source:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Documentary_hypothesis:

with this source (and all its sources therein):

http://www.ukapologetics.net/docu.htm

....and see what's going on there.

Date: 2009/10/29 09:02:11, Link
Author: FloydLee
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.

Date: 2009/10/29 09:05:06, Link
Author: FloydLee
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?

Date: 2009/10/29 09:55:59, Link
Author: FloydLee
Hey, Rossum!  Good t'see ya.  Brief quote:
 
Quote
Jesus did not reference a literal version of Genesis, He referenced a non-literal version.

Totally incorrect.  Both in Mark 10 and Matt 19, Jesus is quoting from straight Genesis verses.  We can even identify exactly which Gen verses Jesus quoted, in each case.

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.

And if you check the context, the Pharisees did NOT dispute the historicity or the literalness of Jesus's example from Genesis.  They caught it exactly the way Jesus pitched it, because they at least all agreed on that one thing.

Again, Jesus is NOT doing any "non literal versions".  As we've seen, he's quoting directly (And if you'll check a NIV or a NKJV--a modern version--the quotation marks are provided so you can see.)

So what does Jesus's phrase "from the beginning" in Mark mean?  After all, that seems to be the basis of Rossum's objection. So here's what it means (and doesn't mean):

 
Quote
....Jesus didn’t say Adam and Eve were created at the beginning of the “creation period” (i.e., the beginning of Creation Week).  

He said at the “beginning of creation.”  He is talking about the whole creation from Jesus’ day back to the very first moment of creation, just as Paul is referring to the whole creation during all of history in Romans 1:18-20 and Romans 8:19-23. I

In other words, Jesus is saying that Adam and Eve were created at the beginning of history.

This is seen also in the parallel passage to Mark 10:6 found in Matthew 19:4, where Jesus says that Adam and Eve were simply “at the beginning.” Jesus uses the exact same Greek words (translated as “from the beginning of the creation”) in Mark 13:19 and in the verse is clearly speaking of all time from the first day of creation to his day.  

Compare also his reference to the similar phrase “from the foundation of the world” in Luke 11:50-51.

.....Jesus is reaching farther back in history for the basis of his teaching on marriage. The Pharisees go back to the time of Moses’ writings in Deuteronomy, whereas Jesus goes back to the beginning of time.

Jesus spoke these words about 4000 years after the beginning.  If we equate those 4000 years with a 24-hour day, then Jesus was speaking at 24:00 and the creation of Adam and Eve on the sixth literal day of history would be equivalent to 00:00:00:35 (half a second after the beginning), in the non-technical language of Jesus here is the beginning of time.
So, Jesus is indeed saying that Adam and Eve were at the beginning of creation.

----Dr. Terry Mortenson, "But from the beginning of … the institution of marriage?", AIG, Nov. 1, 2004

There you go!

FloydLee

Date: 2009/10/29 10:02:01, Link
Author: FloydLee
Quote
I don't have to refute apologetics statements

No, you don't have to.  But your inability to do so makes things a lot easier on me.     :)

Date: 2009/10/29 10:43:09, Link
Author: FloydLee
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

Date: 2009/10/29 12:12:56, Link
Author: FloydLee
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.    :)

Date: 2009/10/29 12:24:28, Link
Author: FloydLee
Quote
If you want, I will go back and find every response by you, list the page and show that you are a true goddamn liar.

Then start with the Pope.  (You'll find Francis' Collins name next to his.)  Clear answers were already provided.

Also look up Nmgirl.  Already responded to her testimony, way back.

You'll want to start searching soon, I would think.  
Btw, you also received my specific answers on Robin, CM, and your sister (whoever she is).  Don't wanna respond back on THOSE answers, do you??

Date: 2009/10/29 12:45:27, Link
Author: FloydLee
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.....?

Date: 2009/10/29 13:03:04, Link
Author: FloydLee
Quote
Perhaps you didn't understand what I actually wrote

Oh, I understood, Deadman.  But you're not the person to lecture about avoidance, see?   YOUR particular problem is that when I asked what it is that you actually believe, you were not even able to gimme an honest answer to the question throughout this entire thread.  

Talk about AVOIDANCE, baby!!!!!  That's on you.

You know, Keelyn said she was Agnostic within five microseconds.  No hesitation.

CM runs around saying he accepts Jesus Christ as Savior.   At least he does that much.

Nmgirl owned up to her specific Christian evolutionist belief without hemming and hawing, the FIRST time I asked.  

But youuuuuuuuuuuuuuu?  Still hiding like a skeerdy-cat at the dog pound.  

So here's a question just for you Deadman.  Why won't YOU answer the question that I asked YOU?

Date: 2009/10/29 13:05:22, Link
Author: FloydLee
Quote
Now we can move on to the attempt to get ID into my classroom

What do you teach, btw?  And what grade level?

Date: 2009/10/29 13:09:10, Link
Author: FloydLee
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.

Date: 2009/10/29 13:27:31, Link
Author: FloydLee
Quote
And there go your five "incompatibles."

Not even close, trust me on that.  (Or if you don't trust me, trust Rosenhouse!)

Date: 2009/10/29 13:46:06, Link
Author: FloydLee
Quote
Put quite simply, my beliefs are (1) not pertinant

Ahhh, but they ARE pertinent--very much so.  Why?  

Because those religious beliefs you're hiding are where your pre-suppositions are coming from, and THOSE items---whatever they are-- DO have bearing on this particular debate and the positions you take.

Just as my being utterly honest and clear with everybody about MY specific religious beliefs (and hence my presuppositional positions) gives you a clearer target to understand and address and engage,
so your COWARDICE and refusal to be honest and clear with everybody about your specific religious beliefs has the effect of hiding your pre-suppositional positions through which you come to adopt the views you state.

You're hiding because you are afraid to have your pre-sups rationally examined in public.  What I am not afraid of, you are totally skeer'd of.

And you have the nerve to accuse me of 'avoidance' and not answering question while nervously hiding like that sir?

***

Cmon, it's just a simple question.   You like for people to answer your questions.  Please answer mine.  Won't hurt you, will it?

Date: 2009/10/29 14:22:05, Link
Author: FloydLee
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?

Date: 2009/10/29 14:28:56, Link
Author: FloydLee
Quote
USING FLOYD'S OWN SUPPLIED DEFINITIONS, with regard to point 4, we note that Christ is most likely referring to spiritual, rather than physical death, given the context of the passage.

This one was specifically refuted God knows how many double-digit pages back.   It was refuted both from actual Romans text and current peer-review-published Romans scholarship (viz., Douglas Moo, NICNT).

Got anything else on #4?

Date: 2009/10/29 14:35:43, Link
Author: FloydLee
Quote
You know Floyd, I answered your questions.


Hey, I gave you straight answers on your laundry list of "Christians" there.  Even respectfully answered concerning your sister.  Gave you specific explanations.

But I did already provide this board specific answers on Pope and Nmgirl (and Francis Collins too), and and gave you specific answers on the rest including your sister.

Sorry, I think I have a right to insist that you NOT act like I never provided them already, and that's how you've been behaving all this time.  You've been on this board long enough to have looked them up already.  

You said you'd look 'em up to prove I was an (expletive) liar.  So, you gonna look 'em up already or not?

Date: 2009/10/29 14:38:50, Link
Author: FloydLee
Quote
I'll just say I'm not a Christian in your view, Floyd.

Question is, are you even a Christian in YOUR OWN view?  

Sheesh, all that duckin' and hidin'!!     :)

Date: 2009/10/29 15:03:13, Link
Author: FloydLee
Quote
You have not established why Deadman's presuppostions (assuming he has any) are pertinent to your proving that evolution is incompatible with Christianity.

Ohhhh yes I have.  For example, some posters (and Deadman was specifically one of them, so there!)  have appealed to an anti-supernaturalist presupposition of(naturalism for short) in an attempt to evade the force of the First and Second Incompatibilities.  You guys (and Deadman) did NOT appeal to science but instead to a negative theological presupposition.

Knowing what that particular presupposition is and how it works, helped me to both understand the objections you guys were lodging, and also to locate the correct professional sources with which to carefully and specifically argue against trying to equate that negative presupposition with science itself---(like Deadman and his pals were trying to do.)

So yeah, at bare minimum, you've already seen that Deadman's presuppositions, (or yours, or mine, which mine are all on the table already) can indeed have serious bearing on this topic.

But Deadman has had PLENTY to say around here, not just that one thing.  So how many MORE pre-suppositions are lurking in there?  How many MORE times is he actually relying on his Pre-Sups for his conclusions instead of on the evidences and sound reasonings?

(Actually, he ain't the only one who could be asked those question.  But at least you've been forthcoming and halfway straight with me on where you're coming from.  Deadman has NOT been.

You were willing, for example, to say out loud that the Resurrection of Jesus was metaphorical instead of historical.   You stood up and said your true beliefs.

I can't even get Deadman to be THAT honest with me.  He's ducking and hiding his cards.  And relying on YOU guys to keep him hid.

Date: 2009/10/29 15:33:38, Link
Author: FloydLee
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

Date: 2009/10/29 15:48:18, Link
Author: FloydLee
Quote
Heh. Feeling desperate, Flody?

Nope.  Just stating the truth as I see it.

After all (ahemmm), I 'm not skeered to let readers know exactly what I believe and don't believe, even when it comes to core religious beliefs.

Date: 2009/10/30 09:13:59, Link
Author: FloydLee
Quote
Care to point to that? Page? Citation?

Page 27, dude.  I was quoting you quite directly.
 
Quote
.....(All) of science denies being capable of investigating/supporting Supernaturalist Deities as a knowable "cause". --- Deadman

Sound familiar?

Date: 2009/10/30 10:02:24, Link
Author: FloydLee
Quote
His quote addresses a specific scenerio - this is what evolution would be if we accepted Ken Miller's proposition. But science DOESN'T take that position

But guess what, boys?   Imcompatibility #5 existed (and was mentioned by evolutionists) BEFORE Rosenhouse brought it up.   He's just re-stating something that's ALREADY there (and hasn't been solved at all!!) because it happens to fit Miller's situation.
Quote
"The total amount of suffering per year in the natural world is beyond all decent contemplation.
uring the minute that it takes me to compose this sentence, thousands of animals are being eaten alive, many others are running for their lives, whimpering with fear, others are being slowly devoured from within by rasping parasites, thousands of all kinds are dying of starvation, thirst and disease.... The universe that we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil and no good, nothing but pitiless indifference."


----Richard Dawkins, "God's Utility Function," Scientific American (vol. 273, November 1995), p. 85., quoted in
"The Fall, the Curse, and Evolution", Henry Morris, ICR website

So, nope, you haven't done a thing to erase Incompatibility #5, not even Rosenhouse's re-statement of it.  In fact you haven't even dented it, nor have you found a solution for his specific questions therein.

******

And then check THIS out:  if you try to escape Rosenhouse's re-statement of #5 by ducking Miller's current position in his book Only A Theory (the basis for Rosenhouse's re-stating of Incom #5), THEN you automatically bring up Miller's previous position in his previous book Finding Darwin's God, in which Miller called us humans "lucky accidents."  

(And THAT then creates a direct head on crash into Incompatibility #1 and #2, boys.)
 
Miller was trying to glom onto Simon Conway Morris's position in an attempt to find a way out of that particular FDG crash.  But now, by doing so, Miller merely crashes straight into the already-existing Incompatibility #5, as Rosenhouse perfectly points out in his response.

So any way you go, you're caught.  And please notice:  Robin still doesn't have an answer to Incompatibility #5 himself.

Date: 2009/10/30 10:35:21, Link
Author: FloydLee
Quote
"You guys (and Deadman) did NOT appeal to science but instead to a negative theological presupposition."

Quite true, btw.  The religion of materialism, to be specific.

Of course, you're welcome to believe in a materialist religion whenever you like, but don't try to equate it to science.

Date: 2009/10/30 10:57:41, Link
Author: FloydLee
Quote
Of course I have no problem with me saying "all of science denies supernaturalism as a knowable cause"  -- because it does.

Nope, you were presented with three separate refutations from the professionals---and to this day you remain unable to refute a one of them.

In fact, this is a good way to start presenting the "ID Is Science" portion.....by dealing with your main objection (your main presupposition, more accurately) right off the top.

First, let's review the three refutations that were given to you, and which you are totally unable to eliminate.

Quote
"In fact, if the preceding investigations are correct, there is no compelling conceptual basis for any blanket prohibition on exploring applications or implications of the idea of supernatural design within the scientific context.

"Some design theories may be inappropriate in some instances, but that is perfectly consistent with others being in principle legitimate.

"It is, of course, perfectly possible that such attempts could end up wholly empty, but since every scientific research program faces at least that possibility, that hardly constitutes grounds for pre-emptive prohibitions."

--- Dr. Del Ratzsch, Nature, Design and Science, c2001, p.149

Quote
"Science is about what is testable, not necessarily what is naturalistic."
chemist Dr. John Millam, May 2005 KS science hearings

Quote
Naturalism: the only game in town?

G. K. Chesterton once said that "behind every double standard lies a single hidden agenda." Advocates of descent have used demarcation arguments to erect double standards against design, suggesting that the real methodological criterion they have in mind is naturalism.

Of course for many the equation of science with the strictly materialistic or naturalistic is not at all a hidden agenda. Scientists generally treat "naturalistic" as perhaps the most important feature of their enterprise. Clearly, if naturalism is regarded as a necessary feature of all scientific hypotheses, then design will not be considered a scientific hypothesis.

But must all scientific hypotheses be entirely naturalistic? Must scientific origins theories, in particular, limit themselves to materialistic causes?

Thus far none of the arguments advanced in support of a naturalistic definition of science has provided a noncircular justification for such a limitation. Nevertheless, perhaps such arguments are irrelevant. Perhaps scientists should just accept the definition of science that has come down to them. After all, the search for natural causes has served science well. What harm can come from continuing with the status quo? What compelling reasons can be offered for overturning the prohibition against nonnaturalistic explanation in science?

In fact, there are several.

First, with respect to origins, defining science as a strictly naturalistic enterprise is metaphysically gratuitous. Consider: It is at least logically possible that a personal agent existed before the appearance of the first life on earth.

Further, as Bill Dembski argues in the next chapter, we do live in the sort of world where knowledge of such an agent could possibly be known or inferred from empirical data. This suggests that it is logically and empirically possible that such an agent (whether divine or otherwise) designed or influenced the origin of life on earth.

To insist that postulations of past agency are inherently unscientific in the historical sciences (where the express purpose of such inquiry is to determine what happened in the past) suggests we know that no personal agent could have existed prior to humans. Not only is such an assumption intrinsically unverifiable, it seems entirely gratuitous in the absence of some noncircular account of why science should presuppose metaphysical naturalism.

Second, to exclude by assumption a logically and empirically possible answer to the question motivating historical science seems intellectually and theoretically limiting, especially since no equivalent prohibition exists on the possible nomological relationships that scientists may postulate in nonhistorical sciences.

The (historical) question that must be asked about biological origins is not "Which materialistic scenario will prove most adequate?" but "How did life as we know it actually arise on earth?"

Since one of the logically and syntactically appropriate answers to this later question is "Life was designed by an intelligent agent that existed before the advent of humans," it seems rationally stultifying to exclude the design hypothesis without a consideration of all the evidence, including the most current evidence, that might support it.

The a priori exclusion of design diminishes the rationality or origins research in another way. Recent nonpositivistic accounts of scientific rationality suggest that scientific theory evaluation is an inherently comparative enterprise. Notions such as consilience and Peter Lipton's inference to the best explanation discussed above imply the need to compare the explanatory power of competing hypotheses or theories.

If this process is subverted by philosophical gerrymandering, the rationality of scientific practise is vitiated. Theories that gain acceptance in artificially constrained competitions can claim to be neither "most probably true" nor "most empirically adequate." Instead such theories can only be considered "most probable or adequate among an artificially limited set of options."

Moreover, where origins are concerned only a limited number of basic research programs are logically possible. (Either brute matter has the capability to arrange itself into higher levels of complexity or it does not. If it does not, then either some external agency has assisted the arrangement of matter or matter has always possessed its present arrangement.)

The exclusion of one of the logically possible programs of origins research by assumption, therefore, seriously diminishes the significance of any claim to theoretical superiority by advocates of a remaining program. As Phillip Johnson has argued, the use of "methodological rules" to protect Darwinism from theoretical challenge has produced a situation in which Darwinist claims must be regarded as little more than tautologies expressing the deductive consequences of methodological naturalism.

An openness to empirical arguments for design is therefore a necessary condition of a fully rational historical biology.

A rational historical biology must not only address the question "Which materialistic or naturalistic evolutionary scenario provides the most adequate explanation of biological complexity?" but also the question "Does a strictly materialistic evolutionary scenario or one involving intelligent agency or some other theory best explain the origin of biological complexity, given all relevant evidence?"

To insist otherwise is to insist that materialism holds a metaphysically privileged position. Since there seems no reason to concede that assumption, I see no reason to concede that origins theories must be strictly naturalistic.

---Dr. Stephen C. Meyer, "Methodological Equivalence of Design and Descent", ARN, www.arn.org

Okay, now those three are back on the table.  The next post answers your one question and takes everything further.

Date: 2009/10/30 12:18:13, Link
Author: FloydLee
Quote
We completely elimated Ratzch's and Millam's claims by quoting actual definitions and prerequisites for science and about science.

No you didn't.  Not ONE of the sources quoted offered ANY refutations to any of Meyer's specific points, nor Millam's huge point, nor even Ratzsch's for that matter.

Go ahead and re-quote your sources. if you'd like to compare notes.

Date: 2009/10/30 12:23:00, Link
Author: FloydLee
Quote
We also pointed out that neither Millam nor Ratzch have any authority to determine what is or isn't science.

Dr. Millam is a scientist with a PHD in computational chemistry and Dr. Ratzsch is a multiple-published professional philosopher of science.

You were saying.......?

Date: 2009/10/30 13:11:42, Link
Author: FloydLee
Okay, let's go further now.  Essentially Deadman's question FOLLOWS from what Drs. Ratzsch, Millam and Meyer pointed out.

Since there are no sustainable BLANKET prohibitions against investigating supernatural design within science, how does one test for the supernatural?

There's only one answer at this time, but it's a very real answer:  Indirectly.[/i]

Simply put:  The scientific method is all about observation, hypothesis formation, hypothesis testing, and drawing conclusion.   Indeed, Deadman's own insistence on "testing" reflects this reality.

So, we find an intelligent design hypothesis such that the causative agent in the given situation [n]could NOT be a natural cause.
 If this particular hypothesis can be FALSIFIED via observation, and if you can say what those observations would be, then you got yourself a scientific hypothesis.

This is true, btw, even if it takes you 20 years to actually observe one of those given falsifying situations.
One black swan is enough to falsify the hypothesis "all swans are white", even if you never see a black swan within your own lifetime.  (Hat Tip:  Wikipedia.)

So, that's how you test for supernatural.  Not directly.  Indirectly.  Now, let's find an ID hypothesis that fits.

Date: 2009/10/30 13:21:53, Link
Author: FloydLee
Quote
've only asked you this same thing a dozen times.

And you were specifically told (as far back as the first time out.....)

(1)   Your answer would have to await this "ID is science" presentation...not earlier.

(2)  Drs. Ratzsch's, Dr. Millam's, and Dr. Meyer's specific points refuted your original claim regardless of the *followup* question of how one tests for supernatural design.

Did you forget.....?

Date: 2009/10/30 15:26:04, Link
Author: FloydLee
And now.....let's specifically see why ID is science.

Here before you is a scientific (and scientifically falsifiable) ID hypothesis.  

Have you read Gonzalez's and Richards' book The Privileged Planet? It's an excellent book, and the film version of it was even shown at the Smithsonian Institution.  

It presents one variety of the Intelligent Design hypothesis that's known as the cosmological or "fine-tuning" ID hypothesis.  The fact that our universe, our galaxy, our solar system, our planet, our EVERYTHING, is so very finely tuned in dozens of ways, leads to a rational inference that our universe (including solar system, planet Earth, etc) is the product of intelligent design.

And in their book, Gonzalez and Richards specifically write about how to Falsify their ID hypothesis.
Quote
The most decisive way to falsify our argument as a whole would be to find a distant and very different environment, which, while quite hostile to life, nevertheless offers a superior platform for making as many diverse scientific discoveries as does our local environment.

The opposite of this would have the same effect—finding an extremely habitable and inhabited place that was a lousy platform for observation.

Less devastating but still relevant, would be discoveries that contradict individual parts of our argument. Most such discoveries would also show that the conditions for habitability of complex life are much wider and more diverse than we claim.

For instance, discovering intelligent life inside a gas giant with an opaque atmosphere, near an X-ray emitting star in the Galactic center, or on a planet without a dark night would do it serious damage.

Or take a less extreme example. We suggested in Chapter 1 that conditions that produce perfect solar eclipses also contribute to the habitability of a planetary environment.

Thus, if intelligent extraterrestrial beings exist, they probably enjoy good to perfect solar eclipses.
However, if we find complex, intelligent, indigenous life on a planet without a largish natural satellite, this plank in our argument would collapse.

Our argument presupposes that all complex life, at least in this universe, will almost certainly be based on carbon.

Find a non-carbon based life form, and one of our presuppositions collapses. It’s clear that a number of discoveries would either directly or indirectly contradict our argument.

Similarly, there are future discoveries that would count in favor of it. Virtually any discovery in astrobiology is likely to bear on our argument one way or the other. If we find still more strict conditions that are important for habitability, this will strengthen our case.

---pages 314-315

So now, we clearly have a scientifically falsifiable ID hypothesis.   It can be falsified via observation.  This ID hypothesis is a scientific hypothesis.

In an Evolution News And Views article, Jay Richards and Jonathan Witt quote the above snippet from the Privileged Planet book, as well as offering clarifying comments on what terms like "testable" and "falsification" mean:
Quote
"Empirical testability" is the genus, of which falsification and confirmation are species. Something is empirically testable when it is either falsifiable, confirmable, or both.

http://www.evolutionnews.org/2006....ca.html  


***

"Science is all about what is testable, not necessarily what is naturalistic."  (chemist Dr. John Millam.)  Now you have good warrant for the claim "ID is science."

Date: 2009/10/30 15:29:16, Link
Author: FloydLee
Quote
Please show that 'materialism' is a religion.

It's a religion to me.  It sure ain't science (nor any part of the scientific method), and some of you seem to worship it most fanatically.

Date: 2009/10/30 15:30:55, Link
Author: FloydLee
Quote
He then claimed 'theoretical chemist' whatever that means.

And he has the PhD and work resume to back it up, doesn't he?   (Go ahead and say yes; save time.)

Date: 2009/10/30 16:59:15, Link
Author: FloydLee
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

Date: 2009/10/31 19:33:00, Link
Author: FloydLee
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?

Date: 2009/10/31 19:44:29, Link
Author: FloydLee
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     :)

Date: 2009/10/31 20:05:02, Link
Author: FloydLee
Quote
So, if I rent a room at the Smithsonian and show "The Exorcist", you'd declare it to be scientific?

I'm afraid you don't understand, SLP.   Check this out.

The educational film "The Privileged Planet" passed the two preliminary screenings required by the Associate Director of Research and Collections at the Smithsonian Natural History Museum.

From that point, according to the usual custom of the Smithsonian, the museum director was also listed as co-sponsor of the invitation-only event, in exchange for an expected donation to the Smithsonian’s research efforts (in this case, $16,000).

However, when the invitations were sent out mentioning the traditional Smithsonian co-sponsorship, a bunch of evolutionists all wet their shorts at the same time, and they immediately applied pressure on the Smithsonian Institute itself to withdraw that co-sponsorship and implied endorsement, which it subsequently did.

And yet, even though they withdrew all that, the Smithsonian museum showed the Privileged Planet film in June of 2005 anyway.

So SLP, you're talking about a science movie, "The Privileged Planet" that has already passed the Smithsonian Institution's muster.  

This is a science film of the first rank, based on a science book of the first rank.

Btw, SLP, have you actually read or seen "The Privileged Planet" for yourself?  Serious question.

FloydLee

Date: 2009/10/31 20:16:01, Link
Author: FloydLee
Quote
Have you? Read the book?

Yes.  Still have my copy with me, btw.

How 'bout you, Deadman?  Have you?

Date: 2009/10/31 20:17:49, Link
Author: FloydLee
Quote
Which misquoted scriptures are inconsistent with acceptance of the Theory of Evolution?

Which scriptures have I mis-quoted, Nmgirl?  Please specify which.

Date: 2009/10/31 20:19:25, Link
Author: FloydLee
Quote
Then surely you can address the fallacies I and others mentioned -- and the fact that you appear to be arguing for space-aliens now, Floaty

And surely you can answer MY question---have you read the book, Deadman?

Date: 2009/10/31 21:51:59, Link
Author: FloydLee
Quote
You do not answer questions asked you in a timely manner

You mean like this particular request Ogre?
       
Quote
Cause, I think the others here have shown just as many quotes as you have that counter your argument.

   
Quote
Really?   Please document that claim.

You never did provide that documentation Ogre, even though all you had to do was count the number of quotes and simply see if the number of quotes from "the others" was at least equal to the number of quotes from me.  

So NOW you are concerned with being "timely"?   Can't say I'm impressed.  

***

Hey, how about this example from CM:
       
Quote
Since FL seems comfortable with Futuyma, I will post the 20 tenets of evolutionary theory he identifies

 
Quote
(Oct 11) I will be posting it tomorrow; it has been a busy weekend.

Did we ever get those 20 in a timely fashion?

***

Or this example:
       
Quote
(Robin)
Even opinions from the likes of Mayr are just opinions and are not actual summations of the actual ToE.
 
       
Quote
(Floyd)
So please provide me with these (ahem) "actual summations" that would negate and neutralize the published evolutionist statements that were specifically given for each of the Big Five Incompatibilities.  Thanks again!  

Request not fulfilled at all, let alone timely.

***

Here's another request of mine:
       
Quote
("You and others") kept rambling on about how the Pope, as a Christian who accepts evolution under certain conditions (but not others), has somehow negated and neutralized each of the Big Five Incompatibilities as pointed out by professional scientist evolutionists.  

So I've been asking -- repeatedly & specifically --  how the Pope did that, and you seem to have no specific answers other than "the Pope accepts evolution."

And never did receive any actual specifics as requested.  Scratch the timely.

***

Another request that wasn't answered at all (let alone timely):
       
Quote
Here's 5 examples just to get started.

Futuyma, Mayr, Bozarth, Coyne, (and)
Whoever's currently teaching Biology 391 at the Univ. of Tenn. at Martin.

So, would you agree?  Are those professional evolutionist scientists there?

Even that one never actually got a straight answer.

***

And here's a contradiction that was never actually resolved (let alone in timely manner) by you guys:      
Quote
Here's a quotation from Deadman:
"The pontiff, speaking as he was concluding his holiday in northern Italy, also said that while there is much scientific proof to support evolution, the theory could not exclude a role by God."

Here's a quotation from Robin:
"The Pope accepts evolution under all conditions as he states...."

***

Furthermore of the known professing Christians within this forum (at this point that list would be strictly limited to Wesley, Nmgirl, and CM),
NONE offered an alternative, biblically sustainable, non-literal "interpretation" of Christianity that would be compatible with evolution and specifically resolve the Big Five, despite my sincerely asking more than once, and despite repeated assertions by evolutionists in this forum that such "interpretations" existed.  Timeliness fail.

(One poster expressed interest in bringing a Christian clergyman of his acquaintance to this particular debate to provide it, but he failed to provide the clergyman despite one sincere attempt, and he simply gave up on it.)  

***

And that's honestly only a few examples, Ogre.  Starting with you, of course.  Now we CAN simply take the position that everybody tried to do the best that they could on this long and unusual debate....or we can go on fault-finding and sniping, in which case another 85 pages of comments will surely be needed, and you'll definitely take your hits too.

***

I think the only person who needs an additional point of explanation is Erasmus.  I kept him waiting on his little obsession-question quite a while, and the main reason was because the boy used a sexual profanity against me.
Until that point, I was very concerned to get caught up with him.  After that point, I slowed way down on him.

Because I am a Christian, I don't get to use sexual profanity on people.  However, I can keep you waiting on a response for a good long time if I think you need it, and as you can see, there was NO shortage of people who were willing to continue dialoging with me on OTHER issues and questions despite me keeping Erasmus waiting.    

Only when Nmgirl restated Erasmus's question in a respectful manner did I decide to go ahead with a second response to his question---the Bible-driven response that permanently eliminated his question's applicability to this thread topic.

So, please add these comments to your "timeliness" notes as well, Ogre.

FloydLee

Date: 2009/10/31 22:01:00, Link
Author: FloydLee
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??

Date: 2009/10/31 22:05:25, Link
Author: FloydLee
Quote
They did not endorse it.

Totally incorrect, CM.  The Smithsonian withdrew their co-sponsorship AFTER they had already granted it.

Date: 2009/10/31 22:23:24, Link
Author: FloydLee
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.

Date: 2009/10/31 22:29:06, Link
Author: FloydLee
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.

Date: 2009/10/31 23:18:15, Link
Author: FloydLee
Quote
Here's one refutation to all your incompatibilities... you have yet to comment on.

You've got to be kidding.  Folks, it is NOT smart of you to hide behind CM's skirts tonite, oh no no.

******
   
Quote
with regard to point 1, we note that evolutionary theory is silent on the involvement of God in biological diversity and origins.

Refuted directly by evolutionists Futuyma, Mayr, and Oldroyd.  Evolutionary theory does NOT require God as creator or designer, evolutionary theory is purely materialistic (Futuyma) and solely materialistic (Mayr), the evolutionary process is a completely mindless process (Futuyma).

And here's the kicker----as we saw earlier (you saw this too Ogre), ANY attempt to dispute the above, effectively negates the evolutionist claim that the supernatural cannot be a subject of scientific investigation (Futuyma).

The fact is you cannot have it both ways Ogre.
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.

This point was previously made, Ogre.  CM fell down on it.  Quoting the definitions I suppled doesn't negate anything.

******

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.  

Is that how you teach your students about biological evolution, Ogre?  Evolution entails only the short definitions of evolution given in the glossary and thus your students don't have to read or understad what the evolution chapters actually say about what the rest of evolutionary theory entails?

Hope that's not how you operate.  Evolutionary theory is not limited to the definitions in the glossary, so you DON'T get to duck and hide your way past the evolutionist-published Big Five Incompatibilities by pretending that evolution only entails the short definitions given in the glossary.

***

CM's point two---already refuted.  Totally.  Previously.  

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 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.

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?

***

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.

***

Here's point 4:
   
Quote
USING FLOYD'S OWN SUPPLIED DEFINITIONS, with regard to point 4, we note that Christ is most likely referring to spiritual, rather than physical death, given the context of the passage.

This one was answered IN DETAIL when I answered DHeddle's posts many pages ago.  We went straight through all this. Somebody is not even bothering to check back.

Then, not long ago, I told CM that I answered this thing many pages ago.  Pointed out that I did so from the text itself and also from current peer-review-published Romans scholarship (I even mentioned NICNT and Douglas Moo as a reminder.)

Yet you say I've not commented previously on this, Ogre.  Are you kidding?  And how come YOU didn't get on with your own homework and try to succeed where CM failed?  What's up with your own silence on this topic?

***

Point 5:  another restatement of the crapola, but now CM claims that "Christianity already has an answer" for the SPECIFIC, EVOLUTION-BASED incompatibility argument that Rosenhouse employed (and as I showed earlier, he actually re-stated it--the argument has been around a very long time.)

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!!  

******

You know, I was kinda looking for a way to start summarizing on the Incompatibility debate.  I suppose I should tell you "Thank You", Ogre, for giving me an opening to do this much.  If the thread ends tomorrow, I now feel like I've at least got one decent summary on the table WRT incompatibility.  

(Actually it would be two because I've already given one summary of the Big Five at CM's request previously.)

Date: 2009/10/31 23:27:59, Link
Author: FloydLee
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.

Date: 2009/10/31 23:43:13, Link
Author: FloydLee
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.

Date: 2009/10/31 23:48:35, Link
Author: FloydLee
Quote
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?

Gosh, they're not cooperating with you Keelyn.  (Nor am I!)

Ahhh, the sound of the proverbial crickets chirping:

http://www.freesound.org/samplesViewSingle.php?id=420

Date: 2009/11/01 01:20:50, Link
Author: FloydLee
Quote
Floyd, you don't get to say who is and who isn't a Christian.

And YOU don't get to declare people to be Christians when they personally testify that in fact they are not Christians.  

The people I have quoted earlier, who wrote that they are no longer Christians, you have to take their personal testimonies just as seriously as if they had claimed to be Christians.  

Otherwise you are not listening to them and you are not really respecting them.

And, to be honest, if they say that evolution has played a part in their loss of Christian faith--and they did--you have to take that aspect seriously too.

Date: 2009/11/01 01:29:11, Link
Author: FloydLee
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.

Date: 2009/11/01 01:37:17, Link
Author: FloydLee
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.

Date: 2009/11/01 01:42:16, Link
Author: FloydLee
Quote
....the result of your particular interpretation of the Bible


So what is YOUR particular interpretation, and would you mind putting it on the table for rational and critical examination?  

Seems like people around here are really really scared to offer their own particular interpretation of the verses/texts I've been discussing.  

(CM is pretty much the only exception to that rule, and as you can see, even he's doing rather poorly with his interpretation of Romans 5.)

Date: 2009/11/01 01:47:35, Link
Author: FloydLee
Quote
(CM)

Evolutionary theory says nothing about God

   
Quote
(Evolutionist Dr. Ernst Mayr)

Darwinism rejects all supernatural phenomena and causations.
The theory of evolution by natural selection explains the adaptedness and diversity of the world solely materialistically.
It no longer requires God as creator or designer (although one is certainly still free to believe in God even if one accepts evolution).

----SciAm, July 2000

Nuff said.     :)

Date: 2009/11/01 01:50:46, Link
Author: FloydLee
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.

Date: 2009/11/01 01:54:49, Link
Author: FloydLee
Quote
And ID is already taught in schools.

Where?  Which teachers?  I'm sure your evolutionist friends would like to hear some specifics on THAT particular claim of yours.

******

Well, that should do it for now.   I don't know what tomorrow (Sunday) holds, but if this thread is open tomorrow I will show up, Lord willing.

FloydLee

Date: 2009/11/01 11:31:38, Link
Author: FloydLee
Let's go back to Wesley Elsberry for a moment:

     
Quote
FL and, apparently, Gonzalez and Richards do not understand what "falsification" means. It is the application of modus tollens to empirical study, and as such it requires that one set as the test saying what must be true if one's thesis is true and then looking to see if it is actually the case. If not, then the thesis is falsified.
What is excluded as being falsification is the sort of wool-gathering armchair philosophy that IDC advocates are generically reduced to, as in the quoted section of G&R. Simple hint for the simple: if you have to use a construction like, "if X exists, Y is falsified", you are misusing falsification. Falsification is like, "If Y is true, X is true. Is X true?"

Unfortunately, Karl Popper himself has effectively (and very clearly) refuted Elsberry on this one.  "If you observe X, then hypothesis Y is falsified" is VERY legitimate in science.
     
Quote
1.  It is easy to obtain confirmations, or verifications, for nearly every theory — if we look for confirmations.

2.  Confirmations should count only if they are the result of risky predictions; that is to say, if, unenlightened by the theory in question, we should have expected an event which was incompatible with the theory — an event which would have refuted the theory.

3.Every "good" scientific theory is a prohibition: it forbids certain things to happen. The more a theory forbids, the better it is.

4.  A theory which is not refutable by any conceivable event is non-scientific. Irrefutability is not a virtue of a theory (as people often think) but a vice.

5.  Every genuine test of a theory is an attempt to falsify it, or to refute it. Testability is falsifiability; but there are degrees of testability: some theories are more testable, more exposed to refutation, than others; they take, as it were, greater risks.


6.  Confirming evidence should not count except when it is the result of a genuine test of the theory; and this means that it can be presented as a serious but unsuccessful attempt to falsify the theory. (I now speak in such cases of "corroborating evidence.")

(Popper's emphasis.)


Popper also provides a clear example and a clear conclusion:

     
Quote
Take one typical instance — Einstein's prediction, just then confirmed by the finding of Eddington's expedition. Einstein's gravitational theory had led to the result that light must be attracted by heavy bodies (such as the sun), precisely as material bodies were attracted. As a consequence it could be calculated that light from a distant fixed star whose apparent position was close to the sun would reach the earth from such a direction that the star would seem to be slightly shifted away from the sun; or, in other words, that stars close to the sun would look as if they had moved a little away from the sun, and from one another. This is a thing which cannot normally be observed since such stars are rendered invisible in daytime by the sun's overwhelming brightness; but during an eclipse it is possible to take photographs of them. If the same constellation is photographed at night one can measure the distance on the two photographs, and check the predicted effect.

Now the impressive thing about this case is the risk involved in a prediction of this kind. If observation shows that the predicted effect is definitely absent, then the theory is simply refuted.
The theory is incompatible with certain possible results of observation—in fact with results which everybody before Einstein would have expected.  

(Popper's emphasis).

Source for both quotations:  http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/popper_falsification.html

And so, quite simply, authors Gonzalez and Richards are indeed shown to be totally on the mark in terms of explaining how their ID hypothesis is falsifiable.  

Gonzalez and Richards are able to show that their ID hypothesis is clearly incompatible with certain possible results of observation.   This fits right in with Popper's very clear statements.

******

Hey, let's look at some other sources too.
     
Quote
Falsifiability (or refutability) is the logical possibility that an assertion can be shown false by an observation or a physical experiment. That something is "falsifiable" does not mean it is false; rather, that if it is false, then this can be shown by observation or experiment.

Falsifiability is an important concept in science and the philosophy of science. The term "testability" is related but more specific; it means that an assertion can be falsified through experimentation alone.

The term was made popular by Karl Popper. Popper asserted that a hypothesis, proposition, or theory is scientific only if it is falsifiable.

For example, "all men are mortal" is unfalsifiable, since no finite amount of observation could ever demonstrate its falsehood: that one or more men can live forever. "All men are immortal," by contrast, is falsifiable, by the presentation of just one dead man.

---"Falsifiability", Wikipedia

     
Quote
The statement "all swans are white," for example, could be falsified by observing a green swan.

On the other hand, the statement that "there is a green swan somewhere" could only be falsified by observing every swan in existence and noting that none of them are green.

"Falsifiability", SkepticWiki

     
Quote
When Judge Overton struck down the (Arkansas Creationism) Act in 1982, he used the criteria that a scientific theory must be tentative and always subject to revision or abandonment in light of the facts that are inconsistent with, or falsify, the theory.

---"William Overton (judge)", Wikipedia

******

So now you see that indeed the authors of "The Privileged Planet" indeed got it right concerning their presentation of a genuinely falsifiable (and hence genuinely scientific) cosmological ID hypothesis.

FloydLee

Date: 2009/11/01 11:45:17, Link
Author: FloydLee
Hey, I missed Jasper's post there.  Briefly, let's look:
   
Quote
Then God said,

"Let the land produce vegetation: seed-bearing plants and trees on the land that bear fruit with seed in it, according to their various kinds." And it was so. The land produced vegetation: plants bearing seed according to their kinds and trees bearing fruit with seed in it according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good.
(Genesis 1:11-12)

     
Quote
And God said,

"Let the land produce living creatures according to their kinds: livestock, creatures that move along the ground, and wild animals, each according to its kind." And it was so.  (Genesis 1:24)

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!!

In fact the given creation deed you are reading there was DONE well before the end of each given literal 24-hour day.

(And indeed, it only took 24 hours, a very literal "the evening and the morning.")  See Mccabe.

http://www.dbts.edu/journals/2000/McCabe.pdf

So let's be clear:  neither of those Bible texts can be reconciled with evolution at all.  They are NOT "indirect creation" at all.

Date: 2009/11/01 11:53:04, Link
Author: FloydLee
Quote
your use of quotes is irrelevant,

And that's really been your main argument throughout these 88 pages, Deadman.  

Anything you are unable to refute, or even to half-engage, suddenly becomes "irrelevant" and you are somehow magically relieved of the rational burden of dealing with it.

And honestly, that's why you have lost this debate Deadman.   Out of necessity, I've done my homework and I know (at least to some degree) who's saying what.

But you?  You have not done your homework.
 
And now it's too late to catch up.   :)

Date: 2009/11/01 12:01:21, Link
Author: FloydLee
And while we're at it, let's look a little closer:
 
Quote
20 And God said, "Let the water teem with living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth across the expanse of the sky."
21 So God created the great creatures of the sea and every living and moving thing with which the water teems, according to their kinds, and every winged bird according to its kind.And God saw that it was good.
22 God blessed them and said, "Be fruitful and increase in number and fill the water in the seas, and let the birds increase on the earth."
23 And there was evening, and there was morning—the fifth day.

Check this out folks----Life first appeared in the water on Earth on the very same day that the first birds appeared on Earth.

Does that sound like the theory of evolution to YOU?  Hmmm?  
If not, then you better scrap all that "Indirect Creation" mess pronto, yes??

FloydLee

Date: 2009/11/01 12:07:49, Link
Author: FloydLee
Quote
...no Christian who accepts evolution ever has to address your Big Five Fantasies.

I never said that, Deadman.  Those are strictly your words, not mine, and I already refuted them specifically.  

I pointed out that you had no evidence nor rational reason for referring to the incompatibilities as "fantasies", and you were unable to refute that fact.  

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.  

And of course, there was nothing you could offer to refute that fact either.

Date: 2009/11/01 12:16:32, Link
Author: FloydLee
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?

Date: 2009/11/01 12:17:26, Link
Author: FloydLee
Quote
Since FL seems comfortable with Futuyma, I will post the 20 tenets of evolutionary theory he identifies

Anybody find this laundry list yet?

Date: 2009/11/01 12:26:41, Link
Author: FloydLee
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."    :)

Date: 2009/11/02 08:45:55, Link
Author: FloydLee
Okay, I see the thread's still open.  Thanks, and my apologies, had to shift gears because of illness situation again.

Top priority for today is to answer that one post from Deadman, with other comments as best I can.  In and out today.

Date: 2009/11/02 08:56:14, Link
Author: FloydLee
Quote
I don't take them seriously as philosophical texts or moral precepts or recipes for meatloaf or anything other than what they are—personal testimonies.

And that's the way it should be.  The personal testimonies are provided so that you and I can see that this issue is a REAL problem for Christians, not merely an excuse to play around with online debating.

The testimonies establish that there's a genuine reason to talk about this issue.  The followup for that is to rationally examine the Big Five Incompatibilities.

Date: 2009/11/02 09:07:24, Link
Author: FloydLee
Quote
If Floyd manages to convince Someone of his idea that there exists a dichotomy between fact based reasoning and Christian faith, and this Someone then leaves his faith because (s)he can't deny facts, doesn't that make Floyd into one who leads people away from faith?

It depends.  They say that the great revivalist, Charles Finney, wouldn't allow you to join his church if you owned ANY black slaves, even if you said they were Christian.

So, was Finney "leading people away from faith", or was he simply insisting on Christians letting go of major inconsistencies and living out a consistent, biblical Christianity?

Date: 2009/11/02 09:08:38, Link
Author: FloydLee
Typo correction:  "....even if you said YOU were a Christian."

Date: 2009/11/02 09:26:35, Link
Author: FloydLee
Quote
Remember Floyd, you failed on showing how slavery isn't part and parcel of the bible.

And YOU remember, I showed that the Euro-American slavery show, clearly violated the Bible (including violating a death-penalty-level Biblical regulation).

And I also showed (direct quote, remember?) that the New Testament openly called for slaves to take any opportunity they got to free themselves from slavery.

(And you better believe the American black slaves did NOT ignore those Bible instructions!!)    :)

Date: 2009/11/02 09:51:59, Link
Author: FloydLee
Quote
You and CM and anyone who's interested can sling around chapter and verse and quibble over exegetic minutiae as long as you like.

Actually, I wish he WOULD offer more chapter & verse!

Date: 2009/11/02 09:54:53, Link
Author: FloydLee
Quote
It also showed that Christian slaves were to do this, the rest of the world be damned.

Nope, the NT verse does NOT say "Non-Christians must stay on the ole ball and chain!"

Date: 2009/11/02 10:22:36, Link
Author: FloydLee
I showed that the Euro-American slavery show, clearly violated the Bible (including violating a death-penalty-level Biblical regulation).  And here's a reminder:

Quote
The Bible condemns kidnapping as a capital crime, and kidnapping is what fueled the African slave trade of the 1500s to 1800s,
therefore the Old and New Testaments (Ex. 21:16; 1 Tim. 1:9-10; etc.) condemn slavery.  ----  Bob Enyart


Your disproof of this was.......?

Date: 2009/11/02 12:52:57, Link
Author: FloydLee
Quote
....for adulterers and perverts, for slave traders and liars and perjurers—and for whatever else is contrary to the sound doctrine. (1 Tim 1:10)

Good!  Now nobody has to play games anymore---you DO agree that slave trading is condemned by the Bible, and you DO agree that the NT openly called on slaves to take any opportunity they could get to free themselves.

You also agree that the EuroAmerican slavery show violated Biblical regulations regarding slavery, and you agree that Genesis says that all humans are created equal, and created in the image of God.

At this point we don't need to debate the Bible and slavery any longer.  You may have some other questions about it, so I'm supplying a historical resources

http://bible-history.com/isbe/S/SLAVE%3B+SLAVERY/
 
Quote
If I have despised the cause of my manservant (ebed) or of my maidservant, when they contended with me; what then shall I do when God riseth up? And when he (God) visiteth, what shall I answer him?

Did not he that made me in the womb make him? And did not one fashion us in the womb (Job 31:13-15)?

Date: 2009/11/02 13:35:49, Link
Author: FloydLee
Quote
Or to put it another way, could the "EuroAmerican slavery show" have happened in such a way as to meet the "biblical regulations" you speak of?

Not possible at all. Too many biblical violations on TOP of the kidnapping game (which itself warranted the death penalty).

Consider this:  if God were to punish America (of that time period) for each slave who died in the Middle Passage, on a "life-for-life" basis, America may well have been WIPED OUT!!

Date: 2009/11/02 13:45:50, Link
Author: FloydLee
Quote
And, ye masters .... forbear threatening:

Oooops......ANOTHER biblical violation by the Euro-Americans!!
 
Quote
.... their Master and yours is in heaven, and there is no respect of persons with him" (Eph 6:5-9).

Double the violation.  

How many different ways does one need to explore the fact that the Bible does NOT endorse slavery???

Date: 2009/11/02 13:47:52, Link
Author: FloydLee
Quote
Haven't we done this already?


Hey, I told these boys that we don't need to debate this slavery thing anymore.  Maybe you should tell 'em!

Date: 2009/11/02 14:18:34, Link
Author: FloydLee
Quote
he can't quote-mine the bible

Maybe you need to show me specifically where I quote-mined the Bible-----oh wait a minute, weren't you the one who was just complaining about not discussing ID?????

Guess you'll hafta make up your mind!

Date: 2009/11/02 14:46:48, Link
Author: FloydLee
Cmon guys, either show me a real quote-mine or go look up the term in Websters Remedial Online.  
You're wasting time here.
 
Quote
5Slaves, obey your earthly masters with respect and fear, and with sincerity of heart, just as you would obey Christ. 6Obey them not only to win their favor when their eye is on you, but like slaves of Christ, doing the will of God from your heart. 7Serve wholeheartedly, as if you were serving the Lord, not men, 8because you know that the Lord will reward everyone for whatever good he does, whether he is slave or free.
9And masters, treat your slaves in the same way.

Do not threaten them,

since you know that he who is both their Master and yours is in heaven, and there is no favoritism with him.

Please note:  In order for the highlighted portion to be a quotemine, you **MUST** (c'mon boys get this right!) show that the extended snippet you give here somehow negates or contradicts the point made by the highlighted portion.

Please do that right now or else let's move on.  

(Sheesh!!  Where did you guys attend skeptic-school?)

Date: 2009/11/02 15:05:18, Link
Author: FloydLee
Quote
"not threatening slaves" assumes one has slaves

The point is that Euro-Americans threatened their black slaves every day, thus violating the Bible every day and ultimately incurring God's wrath on America.  
Therefore the phrase"Not threatening slaves" obviously does NOT mean an endorsement of slavery.

Furthermore----there's [u]nothing[/i] in the larger passage you quoted that negates the specific point of the smaller "not threatening" phase.  Not even slightly.

***This phrase is NOT a quotemine.***  Let it go, guys.

Date: 2009/11/02 15:09:37, Link
Author: FloydLee
Quote
And, not that I am especially happy about agreeing with FL, and not that I even know that I am because I will not be bothered to go back and read the previous posts, but just for a point of argument, the New Testament does not, at all, condone slavery.

Hmm.  Now to move on.  :)

Date: 2009/11/02 16:07:03, Link
Author: FloydLee
Quote
What is one hypothesis that ID proposes?

This one......

Have you read Gonzalez's and Richards' book The Privileged Planet? It's an excellent book, and the film version of it was even shown at the Smithsonian Institution.  

It presents one variety of the Intelligent Design hypothesis that's known as the cosmological or "fine-tuning" ID hypothesis.  

The fact that our universe, our galaxy, our solar system, our planet, our EVERYTHING, is so very finely tuned in dozens of ways, leads to a rational inference that our universe (including solar system, planet Earth, etc) is the product of intelligent design.

And in their book, Gonzalez and Richards specifically write about how to Falsify their ID hypothesis.
 
Quote
"The most decisive way to falsify our argument as a whole would be to find a distant and very different environment, which, while quite hostile to life, nevertheless offers a superior platform for making as many diverse scientific discoveries as does our local environment.

"The opposite of this would have the same effect—finding an extremely habitable and inhabited place that was a lousy platform for observation.

"Less devastating but still relevant, would be discoveries that contradict individual parts of our argument. Most such discoveries would also show that the conditions for habitability of complex life are much wider and more diverse than we claim.

"For instance, discovering intelligent life inside a gas giant with an opaque atmosphere, near an X-ray emitting star in the Galactic center, or on a planet without a dark night would do it serious damage.

"Or take a less extreme example. We suggested in Chapter 1 that conditions that produce perfect solar eclipses also contribute to the habitability of a planetary environment.

"Thus, if intelligent extraterrestrial beings exist, they probably enjoy good to perfect solar eclipses.
However, if we find complex, intelligent, indigenous life on a planet without a largish natural satellite, this plank in our argument would collapse.

"Our argument presupposes that all complex life, at least in this universe, will almost certainly be based on carbon.

"Find a non-carbon based life form, and one of our presuppositions collapses. It’s clear that a number of discoveries would either directly or indirectly contradict our argument.

"Similarly, there are future discoveries that would count in favor of it. Virtually any discovery in astrobiology is likely to bear on our argument one way or the other. If we find still more strict conditions that are important for habitability, this will strengthen our case."

---pages 314-315

So now, we clearly have a scientifically falsifiable ID hypothesis.   It can be falsified via observation.  This ID hypothesis is a scientific hypothesis.

In an Evolution News And Views article, Jay Richards and Jonathan Witt quote the above snippet from the Privileged Planet book, as well as offering clarifying comments on what terms like "testable" and "falsification" mean:
Quote
"Empirical testability" is the genus, of which falsification and confirmation are species. Something is empirically testable when it is either falsifiable, confirmable, or both.

http://www.evolutionnews.org/2006....ca.html  


***

"Science is all about what is testable, not necessarily what is naturalistic."  (chemist Dr. John Millam.)  

I'm just bumping this all up for convenience as I try to post on it.  Anyway, you do have your ID hypothesis there Ogre.

Date: 2009/11/02 17:42:07, Link
Author: FloydLee
Quote
Anyway, I also agree with you that in FLoyd's situation, he's made the case that you can't pick and choose which parts of the Bible are literal.

Here's the deal.  You can't just pick and choose which parts of the Bible are NON-literal, either.  (Like arbitrarily and falsely claiming that Genesis is non-literal, for example!)

Here's a simple rule for you to determine when to interpret something literally, and when to interpret something non-literally.
Quote
Literal is a commitment that the meanings expressed in a biblical text are true and have reference to what is real unless the context indicates otherwise.

Literal is an expectation that the words are meant to be understood and used in their primary, matter-of-fact sense unless the context indicates otherwise.

-----Elliott E. Johnson

There you go.  It's considered literal "unless the context indicates otherwise."  

(Incidentally, even the OEC astronomer Dr. Hugh Ross subscribes to this rule of interpretation.  You don't even have to be a YEC!!)

Okay, so now you have a simple, easy way to make some responsible biblical interpretative decisions, Ogre.  

Remember, even the Mosaic dietary laws you were talking about, are very literal.  Check the text and context, you'll see that's true.  Those were literal commandments, not metaphors or allegories, that were given to the nation of Israel by Moses.

However (1) those dietary laws were directed to specific people at a specific time period, and

(2) the Mosaic dietary laws, ceremonial laws, etc, were fulfilled in Jesus Christ, which is why it's okay for Christians (those who trust and accept Jesus Christ as their personal Lord and Savior) to eat hot dogs (preferably with mustard).
Quote
For every creature of God is good, and nothing is to be refused, if it is received with thanksgiving;  for it is sanctified by the word of God and prayer.   (1 Tim. 4:4-5)

That answers all your stuff about pork and pepperoni.  All done on that; let's keep moving.

FloydLee

Date: 2009/11/03 09:28:55, Link
Author: FloydLee
Quote
The context there in Genesis is apparently so ambiguous

Ohhhh no, it's not.  Not even slightly.  I didn't mention the OEC astronomer Hugh Ross as an endorsement of his OEC views, I mentioned him as an endorsement of his adherence to the same Bible interpretation rule that YECs adhere to.

The Genesis creation account is clearly talking about six literal 24-hour days in which God created.  Multiple times, for example I have posted the following explanation and analysis from Dr. Robert McCabe to that effect, and not one of you has refuted it, or even made the attempt.

http://www.dbts.edu/journals/2000/mccabe.pdf

So yeah, the Genesis text is quite clear; it's not ambiguous.  As McCabe points out, nobody even started trying to interpret the biblical days of creation as any kind of long pro-evolution "deep time" ages, until Darwin heated things up with his challenges.  

IOW, "Old-Earth" is not what the biblical data itself points to.

Make no mistake though:  OEC Hugh Ross is still an excellent creationist and evangelical Christian apologist (and in fact I'm hoping to post today a small snip of his famous list of cosmological "fine tuning coincidences" that greatly helped establish the cosmo-ID hypothesis).

FloydLee

Date: 2009/11/03 10:21:07, Link
Author: FloydLee
Quote
I've given you 7 questions

And the first one, the most important one, was directly answered.  From there, the only task is to show that it's a scientific hypothesis.  That, in turn, is a matter of establishing falsifiability.  Just following the scientific method.  (Saves time.)

Doesn't really matter if mainstream scientists like Dr. Gonzalez present it, or if other mainstream scientists have already presented the hypothesis.

Date: 2009/11/03 12:39:36, Link
Author: FloydLee
Quote
It was obvious to educated people back in the middle-to-end of the eighteenth century, including loads of ordained ministers, that the Earth was far older than circa 10,000 years.

But that notion was NOT coming from the Bible texts themselves.  That's the difference.

Date: 2009/11/03 16:48:54, Link
Author: FloydLee
Hey, I found that information I was looking for from OEC Hugh Ross.  Will post that shortly.

But first let's do one objection from Deadman and Amadan.  They're claiming that Gonzalez/Richards have "assumed their conclusions."

The problem is that, having actually read "The Privileged Planet", it's clear that there's absolutely no evidence of that at all.  The authors start with observations (not assumptions) and then go from there.

What sort of observations?  Well, observed items like:

Quote
...how earth is precisely positioned in the Milky Way---not only for life, but also to allow us to find answers to the greatest mysteries of the universe

Quote
...striking ways in which water doesn't behave like most other liquids---and how each of its quirks makes it perfectly suited for the existence of creatures like us

In fact, they point out:
Quote
Most of the examples we have selected  are based on well-understood phenomena, and they are founded on abundant empirical evidence.  Examples include the properties of our atmosphere, solar eclipses, sedimentation processes, tectonic processes, the characteristics of the planets in the solar system, stellar spectra, stellar structure, and our place in the Milky Way galaxy.

Some of our other examples have a weaker empirical base, because of the rapid change and recent acquisition of knowledge in certain fields.This new knowledge includes extrasolar planets, additional requirements for habitability, and a host of insights in the field of cosmology.  But even in these examples, our arguments have a reasonable theoretical basis.

Where our discussions are speculative, we have identified them as such. ----pg 319.  

So it's not a matter of "assuming the conclusion" on the Privileged Planet cosmological ID hypothesis, but instead a matter of working from empirical observations to a reasonable (and especially testable) conclusion.  

Such is the way science works.

FloydLee

Date: 2009/11/03 17:46:49, Link
Author: FloydLee
Now, I'm NOT arguing that "ID is science" based upon OEC Hugh Ross's writings.  That's absolutely clear, or I hope it is.  I'm strictly going by Gonzalez and Richard's cosmological ID hypothesis from "The Privileged Planet."

However, a classic laundry list by which a person might choose to infer cosmological design, happens to come from Ross.  Here are a few selections.  
 
Quote

strong nuclear force constant

if larger: no hydrogen; nuclei essential for life would be unstable

if smaller: no elements other than hydrogen

weak nuclear force constant

if larger: too much hydrogen converted to helium in big bang, hence too much heavy element material made by star burning; no expulsion of heavy elements from stars

if smaller: too little helium produced from big bang, hence too little heavy element material made by star burning; no expulsion of heavy elements from stars

gravitational force constant

if larger: stars would be too hot and would burn up quickly and unevenly

if smaller: stars would be so cool that nuclear fusion would not ignite, thus no heavy element production

electromagnetic force constant

if larger: insufficient chemical bonding; elements more massive than boron would be unstable to fission

if smaller: insufficient chemical bonding

ratio of electromagnetic force constant to gravitational force constant

if larger: no stars less than 1.4 solar masses, hence short and uneven stellar burning

if smaller: no stars more than 0.8 solar masses, hence no heavy element production

ratio of electron to proton mass

if larger: insufficient chemical bonding

if smaller: insufficient chemical bonding

ratio of number of protons to number of electrons

if larger: electromagnetism dominates gravity preventing galaxy, star, and planet formation

if smaller: electromagnetism dominates gravity preventing galaxy, star, and planet formation

expansion rate of the universe

if larger: no galaxy formation

if smaller: universe collapses prior to star formation

entropy level of the universe

if larger: no star condensation within the proto-galaxies

if smaller: no proto-galaxy formation

mass density of the universe

if larger: too much deuterium from big bang, hence stars burn too rapidly

if smaller: insufficient helium from big bang, hence too few heavy elements forming

average distance between galaxies

if larger: insufficient gas would be infused into our galaxy to sustain star formation for a long enough time

if smaller: the sun’s orbit would be too radically disturbed

galaxy cluster type

if too rich: galaxy collisions and mergers would disrupt solar orbit

if too sparse: insufficient infusion of gas to sustain star formation for a long enough time

average distance between stars

if larger: heavy element density too thin for rocky planets to form

if smaller: planetary orbits would become destabilized

fine structure constant (a number used to describe the fine structure splitting of spectral lines)

if larger: no stars more than 0.7 solar masses

if smaller: no stars less than 1.8 solar masses

if larger than 0.06: matter is unstable in large magnetic fields

decay rate of the proton

if greater: life would be exterminated by the release of radiation

if smaller: insufficient matter in the universe for life

12C to 16O nuclear energy level ratio

if larger: insufficient oxygen

if smaller: insufficient carbon

ground state energy level for 4He

if larger: insufficient carbon and oxygen

if smaller: insufficient carbon and oxygen

decay rate of 8Be

if slower: heavy element fusion would generate catastrophic explosions in all the stars

if faster: no element production beyond beryllium and, hence, no life chemistry possible

mass excess of the neutron over the proton

if greater: neutron decay would leave too few neutrons to form the heavy elements essential for life

if smaller: proton decay would cause all stars to rapidly collapse into neutron stars or black holes

polarity of the water molecule

if greater: heat of fusion and vaporization would be too great for life to exist

if smaller: heat of fusion and vaporization would be too small for life; liquid water would be too inferior of solvent for life chemistry to proceed; ice would not float, leading to a runaway freeze-up

supernovae eruptions

if too close: radiation would exterminate life on the planet

if too far: not enough heavy element ashes for the formation of rocky planets

if too infrequent: not enough heavy element ashes for the formation of rocky planets

if too frequent: life on the planet would be exterminated

if too soon: not enough heavy element ashes for the formation of rocky planets

if too late: life on the planet would be exterminated by radiation

white dwarf binaries

if too few: insufficient flourine produced for life chemistry to proceed

if too many: disruption of planetary orbits from stellar density; life on the planet would be exterminated

if too soon: not enough heavy elements made for efficient flourine production

if too late: flourine made too late for incorporation in protoplanet

---Hugh Ross, http://www.origins.org/articles/ross_evidencescosmos.html


Just food 4 thought, that's all.

FloydLee

Date: 2009/11/04 06:55:57, Link
Author: FloydLee
Quote
Floaty won't or can't address the fallacies and illogical steps already pointed out to him.

Already refuted (from the book, ahemm) your claim that Dr. Gonzalez assumed his conclusions.   You could at least acknowledge that much.

Date: 2009/11/04 06:57:36, Link
Author: FloydLee
Quote
Christianity is not based on Biblical literalism.

Quick question CM:  in the Bible, was Jesus'sResurrection literal or non-literal?

Date: 2009/11/04 07:07:02, Link
Author: FloydLee
Quote
Admit Ross doesn't follow your idiosyncratic interpretive "principles"

You know, it sounds like you're completely unfamiliar with what OEC Dr. Hugh Ross has written.  So tell me....what do you think of THIS?
   
Quote
1.  The Bible must be taken literally unless the context indicates otherwise.

2.  The Bible is inerrant in all disciplines of scholarship.

3.  The universe was both transcendentally and supernaturally created.

4.  Naturalism cannot explain the origin of life.

5.  Naturalism cannot entirely explain the history of life, nor can theistic evolution.

6.  Naturalism cannot entirely explain the geophysical history of the earth.

7.  Naturalism cannot explain entirely the astrophysical history of the universe and solar system.

8.  Genesis 1 is both factual and chronological in its content. It describes God’s "very good" creation in the space of six days.

9.   Adam and Eve were a literal couple created by God just thousands of years ago.  

10.  All human beings owe their descent to Adam and Eve.


---Dr. Hugh Ross, "Ten Similarities", Jan.23, 2001

Now, he's still an OEC and such, but this IS what Hugh Ross wrote. So, you agree with him?

FloydLee

Date: 2009/11/04 07:13:39, Link
Author: FloydLee
Quote
Cosmological "ID" is still a different subject from biological "ID",

Intelligent Design is Intelligent Design.  I said I'd present posts on "ID is science and therefore it should be taught in science classrooms."  That's exactly what I'm doing.  What are you complaining about?

Guys, I can't help it if you've never read "The Privileged Planet" by Gonzalez and Richards. It's there at your local library and bookstore, it's been there for years, why didn't you READ it when you had a chance?  

Now you'll just have to play catch-up.  Your local library should be open today during daylight hours, yes?

FloydLee

Date: 2009/11/04 07:22:42, Link
Author: FloydLee
Quote
Because it promotes a specific religion over other religions violating the establishment clause of the US Constitution.

Please explain how the cosmological ID presentation in Gonzalez and Richard's book/film "The Privileged Planet" promotes "a specific religion over other religions."
(Btw, exactly what specific religion?)

Date: 2009/11/04 07:33:17, Link
Author: FloydLee
Quote
....observing X leading to falsification of Y occurs if and only if X is an entailed consequence of Y. In those circumstances, observing X leads to falsification of Y, but such falsification does not occur if entailment does not hold.

But curiously, nobody around here has shown that "...entailment does not hold" for the specific X's that Gonzalez and Richards wrote about in their book (which I previously quoted).

So, at your convenience?

Date: 2009/11/04 07:56:19, Link
Author: FloydLee
Quote
Intelligent design is just the Logos theology of John's Gospel restated in the idiom of information theory

If the ID hypothesis (either cosmo or bio) survives falsification, the hypothesis would naturally tend to lend some measure of rational, philosophical support to theism, and likewise rationally subtract a measure of rational, philosophical support from atheism.  

That theism can be as simple as Gen. 1:1 or it can be a theism as simple (but not quite as simple) as John's NT statements about the Logos.
Either way ID, if it survives falsification, will tend to lend rational support to theism.

But that's what follows IF it survives falsification.

The fact is, neither Dembski's ID hypothesis (you will need to see his 1999 book Intelligent Design for an exact 3-point description of his ID hypothesis),
nor Gonzalez' and Richard's cosmo ID hypothesis from "The Privileged Planet",
pre-assume or require or claim ANY religious beliefs, any religious texts, or existence of God or any other deities, at any point of their respective ID hypotheses.

Therefore neither Dembski's ID hypothesis nor Gonzalez and Richard's ID hypothesis are "promoting Christianity" or even promoting any specific religion for that matter.  

Both YEC and OEC start with the texts of the Bible and their claims.  They don't start with observation, they start by assuming that certain Bible claims are true.

Gonzalez and Richard's specific cosmo ID hypothesis, starts with empirical observation not religious assumptions, and goes from there.  See the difference?

FloydLee

Date: 2009/11/04 08:38:17, Link
Author: FloydLee
Quote
You bring up Dembski.

No, Oldman brought up Dembski.  I merely responded to him.  But I am not attempting to debate about Dembski in this thread.  Only Gonzalez and Richards' cosmo-ID hypothesis.

Date: 2009/11/04 10:51:53, Link
Author: FloydLee
Quote
Even the points you try to raise "how earth is precisely positioned...for life, but also to allow us to find answers to the greatest mysteries of the universe" relies on argumentam ad ignorantiam to make a claim that is preassumed and subjective.

1. "preassumed."  

Refuted.  No evidence of any pre-assumptions in the book itself.  Their hypothesis starts with observations and data, not assumptions.

2.  "subjective."

Refuted.  Fine tuning cosmo and planetary situations have been empirically observed.  Many many times, btw.  
They're just going off what has been observed already, and were themselves careful to distinguish between well-observed phenomena, less-well-observed, reasonably theoretical, and speculative.

3.  "argumentum ad ignorantium."

Hardly.  We humans ARE astonishingly well-placed for the huge astronomical discoveries we make.  That's not ignorance, that's what we know scientifically.  Taken together with all the other fine tuning facts, one could rationally infer design instead of accident.

Check out this one little co-inky-dink, one of many:
 
Quote
"Thanks to its large, angular size, the Moon occults many stars along its path.  In this way, the Earth-Moon system acts like a giant telescope, allowing astronomers to resolve objects normally to small or close together to measure from the ground.

A slow angular speed of a moon across its host planet's sky, like our own, allows for more detailed measurements.  This method works best with a large moon without an atmosphere--which produces a crisp, knife-edge sharp edge on its limb--orbiting far from its host planet (but not too far, because the smaller a moon is, the fewer stars it occults over a month.) [

---pg 110

No wonder Earth is called the privileged planet!!

FloydLee

Date: 2009/11/04 10:56:37, Link
Author: FloydLee
Quote
Then, FL, you agree with Gonzalez that the universe is 13.7 billion years old.

Yes?

Nope.  Not at all.   Fortunately, his cosmological ID hypothesis does not require agreement with old-age.  The fine-tuning appears whether you like "Old" or "Young."

Date: 2009/11/04 11:30:54, Link
Author: FloydLee
Quote
We are merely an an unintended consequence of a universe designed to be hospitable for rocks.

Goodness, what a dreary bummer hypothesis!!  Why not sign up with Gonzalez and Richards instead???

Date: 2009/11/05 08:48:49, Link
Author: FloydLee
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

Date: 2009/11/05 08:53:02, Link
Author: FloydLee
Also need to ask something else.  Who in here has actually read "The Privileged Planet"?

Date: 2009/11/05 09:49:51, Link
Author: FloydLee
Quote
I'm hoping we can move away from the 'privileged planet' thing because it really isn't science either.

What?  Falsifiability is no longer required for scientific hypotheses?  Did you actually address the specific falsifiers Gonzalez and Richards wrote about in their book?

Date: 2009/11/05 10:02:17, Link
Author: FloydLee
Quote
What books on evolution have *you* read FL?

Understanding Evolution 6th Edition, Volpe and Rosenbaum
Evolution, Monroe Strickberger

....those two were for Biology 150, "Evolution", at my hometown university.  Got a "B".    

A couple others:

Evolutionary Analysis 3rd ed, Freeman and Herron.

....and my personal favorite (because he spilled the real beans on evolution), Futuyma's Evolutionary Biology 3rd ed.

Floyd Lee

PS.....so, who has read Gonzalez and Richard's book?

Date: 2009/11/05 10:30:15, Link
Author: FloydLee
Quote
It's the argument that because someone wins a lottery, he must have been selected by some magic agency.

It's not about magic at all.  Only about a rational, falsfifiable-via-observation inference of intelligent causation.

But your comment does illuminate what I was talking about earlier.  Intelligent causation of the fine-tuning we see in the universe, galaxy, solar system, and Earth, DOES at least carry a possible implication of a supernatural cause of that universe (the God of the Bible for example).  

Cosmo ID, if that hypothesis survives the falsifiers, would lend some measure rational support to those theistic philosophers and theologians and anybody who already agrees with the Bible's theism.

But it's still a scientific, falsifiable-by-observation hypothesis.

Date: 2009/11/05 11:16:17, Link
Author: FloydLee
Quote
Can you tell me how we could go about falsifying the claims made in PP? A single example.

Let's do better than that.  Let's give you G and R's specifics.  These are the specific falsifiers for their particular cosmological ID hypothesis.  Please engage.
 
Quote
The most decisive way to falsify our argument as a whole would be to find a distant and very different environment, which, while quite hostile to life, nevertheless offers a superior platform for making as many diverse scientific discoveries as does our local environment.

The opposite of this would have the same effect—finding an extremely habitable and inhabited place that was a lousy platform for observation.

Less devastating but still relevant would be discoveries that contradict individual parts of our argument. Most such discoveries would also show that the conditions for habitability of complex life are much wider and more diverse than we claim.

For instance, discovering intelligent life inside a gas giant with an opaque atmosphere, near an X-ray emitting star in the Galactic center, or on a planet without a dark night would do it serious damage.

Or take a less extreme example. We suggested in Chapter 1 that conditions that produce perfect solar eclipses also contribute to the habitability of a planetary environment. Thus, if intelligent extraterrestrial beings exist, they probably enjoy good to perfect solar eclipses.
However, if we find complex, intelligent, indigenous life on a planet without a largish natural satellite, this plank in our argument would collapse.

Our argument presupposes that all complex life, at least in this universe, will almost certainly be based on carbon. Find a non-carbon based life form, and one of our presuppositions collapses.

It’s clear that a number of discoveries would either directly or indirectly contradict our argument.
Similarly, there are future discoveries that would count in favor of it. Virtually any discovery in astrobiology is likely to bear on our argument one way or the other. If we find still more strict conditions that are important for habitability, this will strengthen our case.

******
Quote
Is that something we can do in a lab?

Doesn't seem like it much, but falsifiability of a scientific hypothesis is NOT limited to what can be observed in laboratories on the ground, as G and R's specifics make clear.
 
Quote
In the next year?  10 years?

Or even 20.  Or more.  Falsifiability of a scientific hypothesis NOT dependent on how many years it takes you to observe and record that one killer falsifying observation.

It's like what Casey Luskin said at EN & V on June 4, 2007.  He said it best:

 
Quote
Clearly the privileged planet hypothesis makes testable predictions. It may take much data to completely determine if the hypothesis stands the test of time, but Dr. Gonzalez’s viewpoint is testable and falsifiable.

Date: 2009/11/05 12:43:19, Link
Author: FloydLee
Just curious, Ogre.  Do you have any evidence that any universe exists other than the one we see now?

And have you read the book "The Privileged Planet"?

Date: 2009/11/05 13:17:54, Link
Author: FloydLee
Quote
WHICH IS THE POINT!

I think the two points are that:

(1)  Very specific, empirically observable ID falsifiers have been presented by G and R.  You don't accept them, but you are unable to refute them either.  

(2)  You haven't read the book The Privileged Planet.

Date: 2009/11/05 13:32:31, Link
Author: FloydLee
Quote
you won't answer questions.

Already answered two of Ogre's.  Can't even get him to admit he's not read the book.

How about you?  You read it?  Yes or no?

Date: 2009/11/05 13:34:11, Link
Author: FloydLee
Correction....I think he just owned up to not reading it.  

How about you, Rhmc?

Date: 2009/11/05 14:36:59, Link
Author: FloydLee
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

Date: 2009/12/23 07:25:29, Link
Author: FloydLee
[quote]For this we say unto you by the word of the Lord, that we which are alive and remain unto the coming of the Lord shall not prevent them which are asleep.

For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God: and the dead in Christ shall rise first:

Then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air: and so shall we ever be with the Lord. [QUOTE]

You say this is a "lie", Quack.  But you didn't give any reason why that's so.  Tell me why it's a lie?

Date: 2009/12/23 07:29:59, Link
Author: FloydLee
test

Date: 2009/12/23 07:33:24, Link
Author: FloydLee
Okay, just checking things out.  

Hey Quack:  you recently said that the following NT passage is a "lie",

Quote
For this we say unto you by the word of the Lord, that we which are alive and remain unto the coming of the Lord shall not prevent them which are asleep.

       For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God: and the dead in Christ shall rise first:

      Then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air: and so shall we ever be with the Lord.

(1Thes 4:15)


But you never really offer any good reasons why this should be characterized as a "lie."  So, tell me why?

FL

Date: 2009/12/23 08:52:20, Link
Author: FloydLee
Quote
Why you didn't post your question there is beyond me, FL, but whatever.

Already tried it.  No matter what ATBC thread I may respond to, my reply is automatically re-directed to this one thread.  That's why.

However, no complaints about that.  As you confirmed, Quack did say that the Rapture text is a "lie."  So I'm just asking him why he said that.

***

Meanwhile, Oldman says,
   
Quote
it's never going to happen

But how do you KNOW that it's never going to happen?

Date: 2009/12/23 15:21:26, Link
Author: FloydLee
Quote
Well, gee, in that verse you quoted Paul said Jesus will come back in his lifetime, and since Paul's dead and Jesus didn't come back, I don't see where the "out" is.


Good!  At least you've offered a sincere answer to the question.  So let's look at the text again (and a little bit of context too) in 1 Thess. chapter 4 (New International Version):

[quote]13 Brothers, we do not want you to be ignorant about those who fall asleep, or to grieve like the rest of men, who have no hope.

14 We believe that Jesus died and rose again and so we believe that God will bring with Jesus those who have fallen asleep in him.

15 According to the Lord's own word, we tell you that we who are still alive, who are left till the coming of the Lord, will certainly not precede those who have fallen asleep.

16 For the Lord himself will come down from heaven, with a loud command, with the voice of the archangel and with the trumpet call of God, and the dead in Christ will rise first.

17 After that, we who are still alive and are left will be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air. And so we will be with the Lord forever.

18 Therefore encourage each other with these words. [quote]

Notice first, regarding the text, that Paul never says anything about Jesus returning within Paul's own lifetime (or anyone else's) in this specific text.

Notice secondly, regarding the context, what Paul said in the very next chapter (chap. 5):

Quote
"Now, brothers, about times and dates we do not need to write to you, for you know very well that the day of the Lord will come like a thief in the night."


"A thief in the night", Paul says.  Unexpected and sudden. So both the text and context are clear:  Paul does NOT know when Jesus will appear.  

Paul is NOT claiming that Jesus will return within his lifetime or within the lifetimes of his readers.  He ALSO doesn't say that it won't happen that way either.  It's not up to him to say either way, and he doesn't.

Furthermore, The context clearly shows that Paul gave this brief information about the Rapture, with the explicit purpose of helping the Thessalonian Christians to hang on to their hope in God when faced with death, either their own, or of friends or family in Christ.  Paul's purpose was NOT to claim that Jesus was coming back in Paul's lifetime or anyone else's.  

Indeed, as a follower of Jesus, Paul was in no position to state any dates anyway, for even Jesus clearly specified that no human knew the time when He would appear.

Quote
But of that day and hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels in heaven, but my Father only. (Matt. 24:36-44)


******

So when you look at this information, it becomes clear that Paul is NOT saying that Jesus would return in the Rapture during Paul's lifetime.  For Paul (and his readers), it was maybe si, maybe no.  But what was certain was that Jesus WOULD return and the Rapture would take place unexpectedly and sudden.  

Therefore there isn't any rational reason to refer to the text regarding the Rapture as a "lie".  It COULD happen.  Tonight.  2010.  2100. You and I simply don't know.

So here's the kicker: either you're prepared right this minute for Jesus' Return and all its implications--like today, like right now--or you are not.

If your honest answer is "I'm not ready"---then what do you intend to DO about it?

Quote
"Remember what it says: 'Today when you hear his voice, don't harden your hearts as Israel did when they rebelled.'"  (Heb. 3:15, NLT)


FloydLee

Date: 2009/12/23 15:37:28, Link
Author: FloydLee
Quote
Of course, the Beatles were bigger than Jesus.

John Lennon's famous declaration, of course.

Btw, this is the same John Lennon who privately asked for spiritual help from the late evangelist Oral Roberts.  

Rev. Roberts sent a private reply to Lennon.  The media apparently never found out about this.  Would you like to know exactly what that reply was, and would you lke to find out what happened to Lennon afterwards?  

If so, please check this out:

http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2007/januaryweb-only/001-22.0.html

Floyd Lee

Date: 2009/12/23 15:51:07, Link
Author: FloydLee
Quote
But when it has been said that this is going to happen while some of you are still alive...


Not "...this IS going to happen while some of you are still alive", but instead "...this COULD happen while some of you are still alive."  Very big difference.

That's the point that has now been fully established by rationally examining the actual text and context of the 1 Thessalonians Rapture text.  The biblical evidence is clear at this point unless anybody has anything else to offer.

Quote
As far as I am concerned, unless you can prove it is true, my claim that it is false stands.


I would ask why "your claim that it is false stands", given that Chay was the only person who brought up any kind of rational point in support of your claim that the 1 Thessalonians text was a lie.  Now that Chay's specific point has been critically examined in light of the clear biblical text and its context, and visibiy refuted on both counts, I see no rational reason to consider the Rapture text a lie.

Floyd Lee

Date: 2010/03/04 14:20:29, Link
Author: FloydLee
Quote
There is now a Creation Letter Project in opposition to the Clergy Letter Project.


Thanks for the heads-up!  Been lookin' for some place like that to sign-up on.

FL

(Umm, if this post does not appear in the YEC News thread, that's because somebody has caused all my posts to re-direct to one specific thread no matter what thread I am "post replying" in.)

Date: 2010/04/12 22:45:12, Link
Author: FloydLee
The main debate thread is over for now, Michael.  I only use this thread on occasion.  Like today.

In the PT thread "A Theological Perspective..." by Matt Young, Rilke's Granddaughter asked:

<quote>But really - based on what you’ve posted that I can read, you’ve never made any attempt to discuss a topic in good faith.

Can you point me to a counter-example?</quote>

Yes.  Earlier in the thread, you made a blanket declaration:  "Unitarians are Christians."  I pointed out that such a blanket statement is wrong, and gave the reason why.  

At 4:48 pm today, one of your fellow evo-posters, David Fickett-Wilbar reluctantly (and with "great pain", he said) chose to agree with me, instead of with you.  This is on page 16 of the "Theological Perspective" thread, the very same page where you posted the above request to point you to a counter-example, less than 3 hours later.  (As if you were totally unaware of the existence of David FW's post, btw.  You have not replied to him at all, as of this writing.)

So yes, you now have a serious counterexample there for you to meditate on.  Perhaps, if that thread is now closed as I believe it may be, you will decide to offer your OWN "serious attempt" to respond to the comments offered to you?

FL



Thanks.

<quote>

Date: 2010/04/13 08:38:10, Link
Author: FloydLee
Not sure what your point is, but my purpose in posting that is specific  and twofold:

(1) If RG herself sees it, she'll know that her specific question, (which was addressed to me), was answered despite the closure of the PT thread.

(2) If she does not see the post, but repeats the same question on the same issue in a future PT thread, I'll already have this response ready to copy and paste.

That's all!

Date: 2010/04/13 09:21:25, Link
Author: FloydLee
Whatever, Doc. Didn't see you doing much of anything in the "Theological Perspective" PT thread.    :p

Date: 2010/04/13 11:11:33, Link
Author: FloydLee
Hey, we spent quite a few pages showing why ID is science, remember?  AND.....you also remember that it wasn't me who ended that thread.  

You'll have to talk to the guy who pulled the plug.  He must'a got tired or something.

Date: 2010/04/13 13:17:57, Link
Author: FloydLee
Quote
That case unambiguously decided that ID is religion


Unambiguously....?  Try "Incorrectly."

http://www.intelligentdesignnetwork.org/Remarks....609.pdf

Date: 2010/04/13 13:29:58, Link
Author: FloydLee
Quote
The main proponents of ID speaking at churches rather than science symposiums


I watched evolutionist Ken Miller give a lecture at a Presbyterian church about 4 or 5 years ago.  Therefore evolution isn't science, right?

Date: 2010/04/13 13:47:54, Link
Author: FloydLee
But it doesn't really matter.  Presented the specific reasons wrt both cosmo and bio ID, I believe.   We debated them, (but some of you--you guys, not me-- couldn't stop trying to talk about the first topic.)

But I would have stayed on,  as long as you guys wanted.  You, YOU, got tired.  Not me.

Date: 2010/04/13 15:02:55, Link
Author: FloydLee
They don't "lecture" in the peer reviewed literature. And on the very small number of occasions when they do they never mention "intelligent design" in the paper, but make grand claims for "intelligent design" elsewhere about that very same paper.

Okay, the highlighted part contains a logical contradiction.  First half says "they don't" and second half says "when they do."  Contradiction.  And honestly, there's no way to take back the "they do."  Even one or two peer review papers are still peer review.

Second, peer review publication will help further acceptance of a scientific hypothesis among professional scientists and the public (we all agree on that),
BUT....does a hypothesis need to be peer-review journal article published in order to be a scientific hypothesis?

The flat answer is simply "No."  The scientific method, defines science and defines whether or not a hypothesis is scientific.

You can be a scientist--an amateur scientist, and a good one--but never ever get a chance to publish in one of the professional science journals.  And you wouldn't be the first to do so.

http://amasci.com/amateur/sciam1.html

So how do you determine what's science?  What matters is whether your hypothesis can follow the clear steps of the scientific method, including most importantly, the capability of being falsified via observation.


THAT, is the difference between a scientific hypothesis and one that is not.

FL

Date: 2010/04/13 15:22:34, Link
Author: FloydLee
Quote
I notice you didn't comment on the 'no data' statement.  Or the 'Demski says ID is religous' statement.  Why is that?

Probably because
(1) you may not know what 'data' is or how much that term can cover, and

(2) Dembski never said that "ID is religious."  He has not retracted his claim that ID is a scientific hypothesis.

Date: 2010/04/13 17:12:20, Link
Author: FloydLee
[quote]As I recall, deadman closed the thread because FL had been off topic for too long.

Yep, you guys were allowed to ask and talk and snipe about Topic #1 ("evolution is incompatible with Christianity") virtually throughout the entire debate.   Talk about "off topic for too long", (or double standards, or hypocrisy.)

Quote
He did say that "Intelligent design is just the Logos theology of John's Gospel restated in the idiom of Information theory."


Already dealt with previously.  The same book (Intelligent Design, 1999 IVP that contains this particular quotation, also contains Dembski's specific statement that the 3-point ID hypothesis (which again he spells out in the same book) does NOT rely, require, pre-assume, ANY religious claims from ANY religion's sacred texts, including the Gospel of John.

If Dembski's specific 3-point hypothesis survives the falsification process, then you are free to rationally or religiously infer --on your own time and dime--support fo,r or some sort of equivalence WRT, the biblical Logos concept.

(Just as Dawkins and Myers and Wilson and Stenger and etc and etc and etc have chosen the religion of atheism as an inference that follows from evolutionary theory.  Evolution very clearly has theological implications if it's true, just like ID does if it's true. )

But the implications follow AFTER the hypothesis IF the hypothesis is accepted.  That's the point.

Indeed, the Logos thing is a reasonable and plausible inference, given what we know about the term 'Logos' in the Gospel of John.

(But that's your inferential decision to make, on your own time and dime, if that's your choice.

It doesn't make the ID hypothesis "religion-based", for  Dembski has showed that his specific ID hypothesis doesn't rely require assume or presuppose any religion's claims.)

FL

Date: 2010/04/13 17:49:41, Link
Author: FloydLee
Quote
"If we take seriously the word-flesh Christology of Chalcedon (i.e. the doctrine that Christ is fully human and fully divine) and view Christ as the telos toward which God is drawing the whole of creation, then any view of the sciences that leaves Christ out of the picture must be seen as fundamentally deficient."

 
Quote
"Intelligent Design opens the whole possibility of
us being created in the image of a benevolent
God.”


You know, these are two of the most profound statements I've ever read from anybody outside of the Bible writers.  It explains exactly why you evolutionists viscerally hate ID so very much.  

Be honest:  You've spent your lives nurturing a passion for science (which is a good thing), and ALSO nurtuing a passion for naturalism, materialism, atheism, agnosticism, (and in the case of Christian evolutionists, for syncretism), which is not good.

And now here comes Dembski saying that there's something fundamentally wrong with leaving Jesus Christ out of your concept of science in the first place.  Jesus Christ is no agnostic, no atheist, no syncretist, no materialist, and if you let HIM into your concept of what science is, then all those sewer-stenched idol gods (previously listed) got to git OUT and stay out.

And THAT's why there's this palpable visceral extreme hatred and suspicion of all things ID.  ID poses no threat to science, but those religious setups you guys have currently got going, are clear targets for belief-shifts and elimination.

FL

Date: 2010/04/13 17:54:20, Link
Author: FloydLee
Quote
What's the difference between an organism that's designed and one that is not designed?

The not-designed one willtotally lack any specified complexity / irreducible complexity, right down to its last little cell and that cell's components.

FL

Date: 2010/04/13 17:59:38, Link
Author: FloydLee
Quote
"And I find I can actually get the turnaround faster by writing a book and getting the ideas expressed there." --- Dembski

And if you don't think evolutionists aren't doing the very same thing to sell the masses on their evolutionary snake oil,  then you've never read Gould, Sagan, Ken Miller, nor Dawkins.  (Nor even Francis Collins!!).

FL

Date: 2010/04/13 20:58:17, Link
Author: FloydLee
Quote
"naturalism, materialism, atheism, agnosticism" are "sewer-stenched idol gods"???

Honestly?  Yes.  Straight down the line.  

Baal-Mart Blue-Light Specials, every last blasted one of 'em.   Hopefully you haven't been shopping their clearance racks??

FL

Date: 2010/04/13 21:18:49, Link
Author: FloydLee
And btw, Fnxtr...I think you might be intrigued by this assessment:
   
Quote
"...(Idolatry)--worshipping the creation rather than the Creator--is so completely backward, for it assigns ultimate value to something that is inherently incapable of achieving ultimate value.  Creation, especially a fallen creation, can at best reflect God's glory.  Idolatry, on the other hand, contends that creation fully comprehends God's glory.  Idolatry turns the creation into ultimate reality.  

"We've seen this before.  It is called naturalism.

"No doubt contemporary scientific naturalism is a lot more sophisticated that pagan fertility cults, but the difference is superficial.  
Naturalism is idolatry by another name."

Dembski, Intelligent Design (1999), p. 226.

Date: 2010/04/14 10:18:16, Link
Author: FloydLee
Quote
Floyd, you do know that Ba'al is Canaanite for "Lord" as well as a personal name.  Kind of like..."God".

"Baal" is translated "lord", but if you think there is any possible equivalence between the Canaanite Baal and the real live God, please grab the nearest Old Testament (1 Kings chap. 18, for example) and totally wipe out that fallacy.  Quick!!
 
Quote
27 At noon Elijah began to taunt them.
"Shout louder!" he said. "Surely (Baal) is a god! Perhaps he is deep in thought, or busy, or traveling. Maybe he is sleeping and must be awakened."

28 So they shouted louder and slashed themselves with swords and spears, as was their custom, until their blood flowed.

29 Midday passed, and they continued their frantic prophesying until the time for the evening sacrifice. But there was no response, no one answered, no one paid attention.

(Afterwards, Elijah said....)
 
Quote
37 "Answer me, O LORD, answer me, so these people will know that you, O LORD, are God, and that you are turning their hearts back again."

38 Then the fire of the LORD fell and burned up the sacrifice, the wood, the stones and the soil, and also licked up the water in the trench.

39 When all the people saw this, they fell prostrate and cried, "The LORD -he is God! The LORD -he is God!"

Worshipping Baal is a total mistake, just like worshipping Evolution.   (Burn all those idol gods, people!)

There's only one real God.  The God of the Bible.

FL

Date: 2010/04/14 14:57:02, Link
Author: FloydLee
Quote
Sez you. Who cares?

You never can tell.  Even down in Atheistville, you got some people who are quietly interested.  Think Antony Flew.

Who will be NEXT to defect from the atheistic camp??  Step right up, boys!!!!!

FL   :)

Date: 2010/04/14 15:14:21, Link
Author: FloydLee
ID is not mechanistic, Dembski wrote.   So where's the published proof that a scientific hypothesis needs to be mechanistic in order to be science?  

(And what exactly will you evolutionists do to salvage your high-school biology textbooks' chemical evolution sales-pitch, if you insist on every scientific hypothesis being mechanistic?)

******

Quote
True, there may be dots to be connected. But there may also be fundamental discontinuities, and with IC systems that is what ID is discovering. -- William Dembski


Anyone have a published disproof of that statement?

FL

Date: 2010/04/14 15:55:07, Link
Author: FloydLee
Quote
You see FL, you can say all kinds of things.  But to actually be able to measure them and unambiguously come up with an answer that everyone who does the experiment (or observation) will also come up with, means that you may have something.

I wonder if evolutionists are able, every time with no exceptions, to "measure things and unambiguously come up with an answer that everyone who does the experiment or observation will also come up with" especially WRT:

(1) chemical evolution hypotheses, and also  

(2) human evolution hypotheses.

If not, of course, then one has to ask why a double standard is being employed when it comes to the ID hypothesis.

Date: 2010/04/15 09:51:26, Link
Author: FloydLee
Quote
Are you seriously suggesting that the descriptions of chemical evolution in high-school biology textbooks are not mechanistic? Is it your assertion that such textbook descriptions do not reference physical or "natural" causes?

Here's an example:
 
Quote
Miller & Levine, Biology Prentice-Hall (1993), pp.342-348:

"From the jumbled mixture of ... in Earth's oceans, the highly organized structures of RNA and DNA must somehow have evolved."

And you guys are still in "somehow" mode, btw, wrt your chemical evolution OOL hypothesis.  
Another example:  many problems and Not-Known Mechanisms associated with the "RNA World hypothesis", but that hypothesis that is presented to science kids (with no mention of problems or blankspots) within Glencoe's latest high school edition of "Biology-The Dynamics of Life."  

That's your OOL life from-nonlife mechanism, effectively:  "Somehow."

So, you DO accept hypotheses as scientific WITHOUT having or knowing of any mechanism.  

And I notice that this item remained unanswered:
 
Quote
So where's the published proof that a scientific hypothesis needs to be mechanistic in order to be science?

So I'm just saying, rational and scientific consistency demands you treat the ID hypothesis the same way.

FloydLee

Date: 2010/04/15 10:46:55, Link
Author: FloydLee
No mention about the latest edition of Glencoe Biology and its sanitized, missing-mechanism RNA World presentation, eh?

Again, the point is simply that you evolutionists don't require a scientific hypothesis to have a mechanism, when it suits you.  

You'll accept it as science, you'll teach it in high school biology class, in fact you're doing that in each of my hometown's high schools right this very minute (they all use Glencoe, for example.)

So, stay with the point please:  why the double standard?  Why insist that the ID hypothesis must be mechanistic, when you don't even follow that principle with your own "Somehow" chemical evolution hypothesis (-ses)?

Date: 2010/04/15 16:23:20, Link
Author: FloydLee
Ah, here's the post I was looking for earlier.
   
Quote
Let me parse this for you -

ID = Intelligent design
is = is
religious = just the Logos theology of John's Gospel
. = restated in the idiom of information theory.

Substituting yields:  ID is religious.

I'm right, FL, right?

No.  Not only are you wrong, but there are very specific intractable reasons why you are wrong.

The source of your error is that you're thinking (or pretending) that the specific quotation from Dembski [u]is his definition of ID.[/i]  

But to take Dembski's specific quotation in that manner, is to take it out of context....and that includes multiple sources, not just one, where Dembski is clear about what his definition is and IS NOT.

******

I did mis-speak a bit in an earlier post--the specific "Logos" quotation you're using comes from a Touchstone article that Dembski wrote, not from his 1999 book Intelligent Design like I suggested.  

However, the Touchstone quotation IS a correct one-line summary of the huge explanation Dembski gave in his seminal 1999 book about the theological implications of ID wrt the Logos concept in the Gospel of John.  (Again, it's an implication that would rationally follow from a theological angle, if Dembski's ID hypothesis survives falsification.)

Now, here's the deal:  as Casey Luskin pointed out, the Touchstone quotation was NOT a definition of ID, for Dembski offered a definition elsewhere in the Touchstone article itself.....the ID Explanatory Filter (and flowchart).

Now you may personally think the ID Explanatory Filter is pure wonderful or pure worthless, in terms of science.  

That's fine, it doesn't matter either way, because for THIS discussion, the only issue is did Dembski use the EF to define his ID or did his use the "Logos/John" statement to define his ID.  

(The clear answer, of course, is the EF.)

In fact, the very same EF appears in Intelligent Design (1999) in chapter five, on page 134, two chapters before Dembski starts discussing in theological terms how ID bridges science and theology.  

So even in the 1999 book, Dembski makes the same point clear:  the Logos/John point is NOT a definition of ID, but instead what theologically follows from the ID hypothesis, which was defined elsewhere..  

(And remember, Dembski has the straight academic credentials from Princeton to offer a professional evaluation of ID's theological implications.  He's qualified to make that "Logos/John" statement.)

******

Again, please read the following explanation from Intelligent Design in order to see that the "Logos/John" statement is NOT a definition of ID:
   
Quote
Scientific creationism holds to two presuppositions:

1.  There exists a supernatural agent who creates and orders the world.
2.  The biblical account of creation recorded in Genesis is scientifically accurate.

The supernatural agent presupposed by scientific creationism is usually understood as the transcendant personal God of the well known monotheistic religions, specifically Christianity.
This God is said to create the world out of nothing (i.e. without the use of pre-existing materials.)  Moreover the sequence of events by which this God creates, is said to parallel the biblical record.

By contrast, intelligent design nowhere attempts to identify the intelligent cause responsible for the design in nature, nor does it prescribe in advance the sequence of events by which this intelligent cause had to act.
Intelligent design holds to three tenets:

1.  Specified complexity is well-defined and empirically detectable.
2.  Undirected natural causes are incapable of explaining specified complexity.
3.  Intelligent causation best explains specified complexity.

----page 247.

So, again, his Touchstone "Logos" quotation is NOT a definition of ID.  

Dembski gave you his actual 3-point ID hypothesis there.  Again, you're free to say that it's perfect (or conversely, that it's poison) in terms of science.

Don't matter either way, because as you can see, that actual 3-point hypothesis does NOT rely on, or require, or pre-assume, ANY texts or claims from the Gospel of John--not even the "Logos" verse.  That's the point folks.

******

At the risk of overkill, Casey Luskin also points out that Dembski again defines ID in The Design Revolution.

   
Quote
Intelligent design is the science that studies signs of intelligence. Note that a sign is not the thing signified. Intelligent design does not try to get into the mind of the designer and figure out what a designer is thinking. Its focus is not a designer's mind (the thing signified) but the artifact due to a designer's mind (the sign). What a designer is thinking may be an interesting question, and one may be able to infer something about what a designer is thinking from the designed objects that a designer produces (provided the designer is being honest). But the designer's thought processes lie outside the scope of intelligent design. As a scientific research program, intelligent design investigates the effects of intelligence and not intelligence as such.

--page 33

So in fact, even in the 1999 ID book, and even in Touchstone magazine (where the original quote is located), and even in the later book Design Revolution, Dembski is totally clear that he's NOT using the Logos/John statement as a definition of ID, but instead as a theological implication that, in his view, would rationally and scripturally FOLLOW from the ID hypothesis if the hypothesis survives

(Evolution has theological implications too, as Dawkins and Gould and Rosenhouse have proven so very accurately.)

FloydLee

Date: 2010/04/15 17:26:56, Link
Author: FloydLee
Quote
. . and why should we believe anything you say about textbook contents? Please verify that what you're saying about the Glencoe text is actually true.  Scan, please.

Specific quotation and specific citation from the actual source is sufficient, Cs.  I'll have that done in just a bit for both Glencoe and Miller-Levine.

If all you have to offer is that old scanned version that you used last time, that's not my fault.  Go buy the later version like I did.  If the topic is really important to you, you won't mind investing in actual textbooks.

You are also reminded that even with your older scanned version, I necessarily retracted part of my claims as a result, but your own scanned version actually CONFIRMED the other claim that I made.  

Here's the proof, directly from your own link:
   
Quote
January 28, 2009 5:07 PM

Kudos to Cheryl for her scans. Appears to be sorta older version than mine (2004) but wording is definitely close enough or exact enough, so no argument on that.

***

The part I need to retract is:
   
Quote
there is no “tentative” language in that textbook WRT that topic (RNA World)

and
   
Quote
The exact answer to your question, “Does it phrase its discussion of the hypothesis with language such as “one idea scientists consider…” or “one possiblity…?” is a flat-out “No.”

I did not read carefully enough, it seems, especially on the back page or so, and so I admit I am mistaken on that part, since I did say the above statements.

***

On the other hand.…since you have CsAdam’s scans in front of you, Wheels, you CAN confirm for yourself that my following statement IS in fact correct:
   
Quote
One of the biology textbooks currently used in my hometown school district, for example, introduces students to the “RNA World” hypothesis but does NOT mention any of the problems with it.

Go back and look at those scanned pages again before you respond, Wheels. None of the actual problems associated with the RNA World are actually mentioned in Holt 2004. Nor are the **magnitude** of the problems indicated. (In contrast, Orgel’s article cited earlier, does BOTH imo.)


So the real deal is very clear there, Cs.  I'm willing to retract when I get it wrong, but are YOU willing to give credit when I get it right?  Hmm?  Consider it well.  

Meanwhile I'll have those items soon.

FL

Date: 2010/04/15 17:28:57, Link
Author: FloydLee
Quote
Can you give us an ID hypotheses?

Sure.  You just saw one of them.  Page 247.     :)

Date: 2010/04/20 10:15:27, Link
Author: FloydLee
[qutoe]I'll give credit where it's due, no problem.[/quote]

Well, Cs, I'm waiting.  I specified the section where your scanned text proved me correct.  

Need me to re-paste it for you and the readers?

Date: 2010/04/20 10:20:37, Link
Author: FloydLee
Quote
January 28, 2009 5:07 PM

Kudos to Cheryl for her scans. Appears to be sorta older version than mine (2004) but wording is definitely close enough or exact enough, so no argument on that.

***

The part I need to retract is:
 
Quote
there is no “tentative” language in that textbook WRT that topic (RNA World)

and  
 
Quote
The exact answer to your question, “Does it phrase its discussion of the hypothesis with language such as “one idea scientists consider…” or “one possiblity…?” is a flat-out “No.”

I did not read carefully enough, it seems, especially on the back page or so, and so I admit I am mistaken on that part, since I did say the above statements.

***

On the other hand.…since you have CsAdam’s scans in front of you, Wheels, you CAN confirm for yourself that my following statement IS in fact correct:
 
Quote
One of the biology textbooks currently used in my hometown school district, for example, introduces students to the “RNA World” hypothesis but does NOT mention any of the problems with it.

Go back and look at those scanned pages again before you respond, Wheels. None of the actual problems associated with the RNA World are actually mentioned in Holt 2004. Nor are the **magnitude** of the problems indicated. (In contrast, Orgel’s article cited earlier, does BOTH imo.)


Okay.  It's right there Cs.  I acknowledged my error, but you never acknowledged that the other one I got right.

No need to go any farther until you do.

Date: 2010/04/20 10:23:55, Link
Author: FloydLee
Quote
Is evolution religious?  No.


I think it's clear from the main debate thread that evolution is religious (at least if we read what evolutionists themselves publish.)

But, no need to rehash that debate.  You lost that one, and you can't get it back.

Date: 2010/04/20 10:35:15, Link
Author: FloydLee
Quote
Show me...

How do we measure specified complexity?
How do we measure irreducible complexity?
What units do we measure specified complexity in?
What units do we measure irreducible complexity in?
What tools do we use to specified complexity?
What tools do we use to measure irreducible complexity?
What values of the above measurements indicated that an organism has sufficient specified complexity to be designed?
What values of the above measurements indicated that an organism has sufficient specified complexity to be not designed?
What do we measure to determine specified complexity?
What do we measure irreducible complexity ?
We'll add EF to all of these...


You know, Ogre, I'm sitting here with Dembski's basic book Intelligent Design (1999), along with some of his more technical stuff like "Specification:  the Pattern that Defines Intelligence""...

http://www.designinference.com/documents/2005.06.Specification.pdf

...and I'm just honestly wondering, Why won't Ogre just do 30 minutes of googling and reading the answers to his little laundry list for himself....?   Why hasn't he been to a library to even look at the basic easy-read Dembski book?

Tell me why, Ogre.  Is it so vital to persuade you that ID is science that I start running around doing all the homework you could do at your keyboard?  

Don't see it.  Who honestly cares if you are personally convinced or unconvinced?   I can't say I am.  Sorry to say it like that, but that's how you come across.  We did our debate.  Do some homework and show me you're interested.

Date: 2010/04/20 10:46:40, Link
Author: FloydLee
Quote
Remember, Dembski said "ID is religious."

This one was specifically knocked out in the past few pages.  You guys aren't even listening.  Not even paying attention.  Repeating the same refuted claim.  

U gotta be kidding.   Honestly.

Date: 2010/04/22 10:19:16, Link
Author: FloydLee
Just a brief responses.  Again, CSadam's own scanned pages.  I directly wrote:

Quote
One of the biology textbooks currently used in my hometown school district, for example, introduces students to the “RNA World” hypothesis but does NOT mention any of the problems with it.


And Cheryl said....what?  First she says,

Quote
Note that nowhere does the term “RNA world” even appear in the text.The para on p. 256 is labeled “A possible role for catalysts.” Right there, big and bold.


You gotta be kidding CS.  Are you even ATTEMPTING to deny that your own scanned page 256, is directly presenting what is commonly known the RNA World Hypothesis??  In both paragraph and flowchart forms?Your attempt to evade that one is so very lame.  The scan-page even gives the name of the guy who came up with the RNA World in the first place.  

Here folks, take a look and see:

http://www.anevolvingcreation.net/standup....466.jpg

Then Cheryl also says:

Quote
The final paragraph in the section also makes it clear that the origin of RNA is far from understood:


and refers to this scan-page paragraph:

Quote
Because researchers do not yet understand how DNA, RNA, and hereditary mechanisms first developed, how life might have originated naturally and spontaneously remains a subject of intense interest, research, and discussion among scientists.


So, do you see any actual problems associated with the RNA World hypothesis being specified on that scan-page?  Even just ONE actual problem?

No, you do not.  Which I why I said, (again this is from Cheryl's PT link):

[quote]Go back and look at those scanned pages again before you respond, Wheels. None of the actual problems associated with the RNA World are actually mentioned in Holt 2004. Nor are the **magnitude** of the problems indicated. (In contrast, Orgel’s article cited earlier, does BOTH imo.)

You see that?  Cheryl's busted now.  

Her own scan-page reveals that she actually NEVER acknowledged that I correctly identified one important problem with the textbook while openly retracting my other statement.  

Instead she tried to duck and dodge, (but apparently forgot that her own scan-page was right there to tell the truth on her as well as me.)

So, that's where it stands.  Not convinced of my trustworthiness, Cs?  Well baby, I'm not convinced of yours either, as you can see why.  

We can just let it all stay in standoff mode, if you'd like.  In this forum, it's not that important.

Date: 2010/12/09 17:14:51, Link
Author: FloydLee
Quote
Oh, the other guy that does that is FL.  Come to think of it, has anyone seen JoeG and FL in the same place at the same time???  Could it be ... "


Nope, cain't be.  I'm me, quite exclusively.  Never been anybody else.  

You'd think after all our previous dancing in this forum, that would be clear!  :)

Btw, this is just a courtesy quicknote to clear up your inquiry. I actually won't be around till Feb 1 at the earliest.

After Feb 1, just to see how things are going, I might seriously check out this Evolutionary Discussion Forum (otherwise known as the No-count Dar-win Var-mint Pig-pen, as JoeG may have discovered by now), once again!!

FL

Date: 2010/12/30 18:11:24, Link
Author: FloydLee
Quote
Indeed. This has turned into the same tired old science/religion, atheist/accomdationist circle-jerk that so many threads here and elsewhere turn into. Sometime I wonder whether you all that think about anything else!

For the simple reason that you’ve gotten off the topic of the post, I’m closing comments.  ---John Lynch


As 2010 comes to a close, let me offer one observation on the year.  You guys (and gals) think you're into defending science and such, don't you?  Of course you do.  You think that's why you're here.  True-blue, thru-and-thru, the guardians of science and rationality.

But in fact, that's NOT what you're really interested in, as the evolutionist quotation makes clear.   You actually are heavily and highly interested in discussing and defending RELIGION.  

In fact, your interest in religion frequently eclipses your interest in science.  Yes it does, so don't bother lying about it.  I've been here for years and I see it all the time.

Consider:  It's possible for a PandasThumb thread to git all frisky and get itself shut down WITHOUT ANY creationists or IDer's or trolls offering ANY posts on that thread at all.  

Which is precisely what happened today, of course.  Not one creo in the batch, and you evo's STILL messed up your own PT thread, killing it before even 3 full pages could be logged.

So why do I show up at Pandas or ATBC?  Because you obviously WANT me to show up.  Or at least you want to discuss God with somebody (viz., somebody who still believes the Bible, somebody who believes God is Creator and Evolution is Dogpoop, somebody who's not all dragged up through the atheistic evolutionary mud!!).

C'mon now boys.  You already know the God of the Bible exists out there, you know he calls the shots (which is why you're still alive btw), you know he created the entire universe including your rebellious fanny.  

And you know he did NOT use evolution to create humans.  Evolution will never be able to account for YOUR existence.  You're better, much better, than that.  You are an engineering marvel, full of teleology.  Evolution has no answers for you.  It never did.  

Plus God knows your name, your fame, your game, and your momma's too.  But that's another debate for another time.  God knows you--because he created you.

Point is, as you look back on 2010, take a long look at yourself and see how deeply interested YOU are in spiritual matters.  You WILL see some interest there, that's for sure (especially if such matters happen to clash with your favorite devil-religion commonly known as "Evolution.")  

Check it out and notice how your cherished beliefs in materialism, (especially materialism masquerading as science) get all tense and twangy when challenged by issues such as creationism, intelligent design, or even an occasional inconvenient Michael Ruse question.  Ask yourself why that's happening.

Meanwhile, Happy New Year to you!  May your 2011 truly be all blessed.  

(And may evolutionary theory truly be all cursed!!)

FL

 

 

 

=====