AE BB DB Explorer


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


form_srcid: Keelyn

form_srcid: Keelyn

form_cmd: view_author

Your IP address is 54.81.108.205

View Author detected.

view author posts with search matches:

Retrieve source record and display it.

form_author:

form_srcid: Keelyn

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

DB_err:

DB_result: Resource id #7

Date: 2009/09/13 12:29:31, Link
Author: Keelyn
He (FL) probably will not even reply, anyway. Nine months from now he will post an explanation (lie) or an excuse (lie) of how he was distracted or too busy or forgot. If so, I will be a little disappointed - I sort of enjoy seeing FL get kicked around like a soccer ball.

Date: 2009/09/14 12:11:21, Link
Author: Keelyn
FL said:

“…Evolution Is Incompatible With Christianity?

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

No, as has been demonstrated to the point of ad nauseam, that is not the truth. That is lie number one (you are off to an unsurprising start). It is only true for you and other Sunday fundies who happen to share your particular interpretation of Christianity – hardly a universal truth. But, simply for the sake of argument, even if it was true, so what? Evolutionary biology is a science (whether you wish to acknowledge that fact or not is irrelevant) supported by volumes of facts and evidence, i.e., reality. It doesn’t matter whether it conflicts (even universally) with Christian dogma or not. ToE is no more, or less, contradictory to your beliefs than quantum theory or Lambda CDM\Big Bang theory. In any of the cases mentioned, so what? Scientific facts and evidence are just that – facts and evidence (again, reality). What you are apparently advocating is that reality be dismissed in favor of centuries old religious dogma. Are you totally oblivious to how patently stupid that is? I can’t attribute that kind of inane thought processing to ignorance; on the contrary, it falls squarely at the high end of the stupid spectrum. I have to assume that your particular belief system is the result of intense childhood indoctrination and not something you acquired in the midst of adulthood.

Having been raised by ultra-liberal, reality oriented, but god believing parents, my brother and I were spared being spoon-fed any of your fundamentalist garbage. I can’t personally speak for my younger brother, he died too young to have formulated a serious opinion, but I have no doubt that my own devout, apathetic agnosticism is a direct result of my parents telling me the real truth about things I questioned – and for that I thank them. Which leads me to your second lie:

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

Wrong. It obviously hasn’t corroded your faith or others who fervently believe as you do. As for most other people, they do not see a conflict between evolution and their faith to begin with, therefore your statement doesn’t even apply. As for those who may have abandoned fundamentalist nonsense in favor of reality …wonderful. That’s not an erosion, it’s blessing! It’s called enlightenment to the truths of the Universe. It also means that there is one less self-appointed, self-righteous moralist standing on self-anointed high ground, hell bent to deny equal opportunities and benefits to people like me. If all of Christendom evaporated into oblivion this afternoon, who (other than you and your ilk) would really care? It would simply be the demise of an institution that has, for centuries, caused more harm, divisiveness, and strife then any appreciable benefit.

The rest of your biblical babble rant you have posted a thousand times before – it’s all ridiculous and no more relevant now then it was before. Nonsense about supernatural miracles that have absolutely no compelling evidence of support, childish scare tactics about hell, stupid remarks like Darwin being a patron saint (I don’t worship dead people – even ones who have made monumental contributions to science and humanity – I admire and respect them …worshiping dead people is something you do), and the imagined tragedy and emergency to today’s youth being corrupted by real science (it hasn’t corrupted me). And the only time I get a whiff of sulfur is when my grandfather lights a match for his pipe. So, why don’t you get a clue and drop the “incompatibility argument” (you are merely voicing a personal opinion that is no more valid than any other opinion) and just move on to the “ID is science” nonsense. At least that would be somewhat more …interesting. No more compelling, but maybe a little more interesting (or not). Any chance?

Date: 2009/09/15 01:46:58, Link
Author: Keelyn
FL misses everything  :)

Date: 2009/09/15 22:57:43, Link
Author: Keelyn
Quote (Henry J @ Sep. 15 2009,21:38)
Quote
Hey, I logged in here for FL's great debate.  Where is his indisputible proof that christianity and evilution are incompatible.  Enquiring minds want to know!

Don't worry about it. Once somebody points out that Christianity includes a huge number of sects with widely divergent opinions on the details, and that proving that one of those sects is inconsistent with something doesn't prove it for the rest of them, the debate is pretty much over at that point.

Henry


You are being reasonable, Henry. I don't think reason is enough to stop FL.

Date: 2009/09/16 10:43:51, Link
Author: Keelyn
I won’t post in the “Debate” forum (at this time), since as an agnostic it is of no importance to me at all whether evolutionary theory and Christianity are compatible. Although, I would personally conclude that the two are “incompatible” only when one takes the typical YEC literalist (like FL) interpretation of scripture. Whatever.

However, his comments about Darwin are childish at best. It’s rather interesting, though dismissible, that FL insists that the best judge of Darwin’s personal feelings and philosophies are the opinions and conclusions of others and not the personal writings of Darwin himself. But, citing only two examples (one of which is highly suspect) hardly makes a case against the hundreds of millions of people who don’t take his literalist view of the scriptures. If FL kicked everyone who didn’t agree with his interpretation of the Bible out of the Christian faith, he’d reduce Christianity to an insignificant player in the world’s religions. Hmm. Maybe he’s on to something – that doesn’t seem like such a bad idea to me.

I do wish he would stop conflating evolutionary (biological) theory with cosmology – two disciplines which he knows absolutely nothing about. First of all, evolution does not specifically deny God – scientific methodology (which includes evolution, geology, cosmology, etc), in general, simply doesn’t address supernatural explanations – that is not a denial of anything. Secondly, evolution (biological) does not come in “two flavors” – micro and macro. It comes in ONE delicious flavor – it’s called …evolution. The terms microevolution and macroevolution were first used in 1927 …by a Russian. They are exactly the same process and modern biologists make no real distinction between the two. That “magic” line is a creationist invention, regardless of which textbooks FL cites.

Date: 2009/09/16 22:58:20, Link
Author: Keelyn
[quote=FloydLee,Sep. 14 2009,03:49][/quote]
I would have posted this in the “Peanut Gallery,” but the thread seems to have taken a turn towards …well, to something or other that I don’t understand. It will self-correct eventually.

In the meantime, I have a couple of issues I hope FL will address. First, assuming for the moment that your argument has merit, it seems to me, 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? Second, do you think schools should teaching those subjects, or just stop teaching that they are compatible with Christianity? If you think schools should stop teaching these subjects, what would you replace them with (if anything)? I ask because, quite frankly, I agree with you – I don’t think schools should be trying to convince anyone that evolution, or geology, chemistry, cosmology, or that any other science is compatible, or not compatible, with Christianity or any other religion – religion of any kind should not be addressed in any manner in a science class. Would you agree with that?

Date: 2009/09/17 01:21:33, Link
Author: Keelyn
Quote (Reed @ Sep. 17 2009,00:27)
 
Quote (Keelyn @ Sep. 16 2009,20:58)
In the meantime, I have a couple of issues I hope FL will address. First, assuming for the moment that your argument has merit, it seems to me, 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?

I agree. Despite quoting some definitions for evolution, his arguments do not relate specifically to them. His actual beef appears to be with methodological naturalism.


If by "beef" you mean complaint, Reed, perhaps. Floyd definitely has a complaint, but if you really read what he says you will see that it is actually a fear. Floyd is so afraid.

Date: 2009/09/17 13:03:29, Link
Author: Keelyn
Quote (FloydLee @ Sep. 17 2009,13:48)
Quote
Reality is wrong
Your interpretation is wrong
Your book is wrong

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


It is just so typical of a YEC to make a ridiculous statement like that.

Date: 2009/09/20 01:54:07, Link
Author: Keelyn
Yes, well the current premise on the table is “Evolution is Incompatible with Christianity.” So, let’s recap one more time.

 1. Floyd is a Young Earth Creationist (He says so in a Sept 18 post – 09:48)
 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)
 3. The last poll I read stated that only about 38% of Americans accept evolution as fact (I’m not sure what the danger and emergency is that Floyd refers to so emphatically – well, maybe I do …it’s at the end of this post)


So, recapping your four claims of incompatibility, Floyd:

FLOYD CLAIM 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.

FLOYD EVO-CLAIM 1 - In contrast, evolution specifically denies that God is the REQUIRED explanation for said origins.

REALITY 1 – Absolutely false. Biological evolution does not address origins (especially cosmic origins – and that is the end of that). It also does not specifically deny anything. You are more than welcome to offer up a supernatural explanation of origins and objects (biological and\or cosmological) if you wish. Simply provide a hypothesis that can be tested. Do you have one, Floyd?


FLOYD CLAIM 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.

REALITY 2 – True and false. First, evolution doesn’t preach anything. True, evolution has no teleology, but then neither does any other scientific discipline. It is a weak argument at best and could be applied to any science. Floyd is saying that evolution is not goal oriented (neither is plate tectonics) – in particular, not goal oriented about humans. But, a lack of teleology in essence applies to all sciences – hence, science is incompatible with Christianity (or Floyd’s interpretation of it). In fact, however, it is a false claim – Floyd is once again invited to provide a hypothesis that can be tested to demonstrate that evolution (or any other discipline of science) does have a goal and that that goal is guided by supernatural entity. Nothing in evolutionary theory stops you, Floyd. Do you have one? (Misrepresented quotes are very unconvincing)


FLOYD CLAIM 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.

REALITY 3 – Another absurd claim. Evolution makes no such claim. Again, misrepresenting a few quotes is unconvincing. Are you are implying that God is a hominid, Floyd? Pathetic. Only a biblical literalist would confuse the physical with the spiritual.


FLOYD CLAIM 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.")

REALITY 4 – Dheddle has already addressed this false assertion very adequately. The claim is absurd and, again, only a biblical literalist would be so dumb.


So, to recap Floyd, all four of your claims have been refuted without any need to misquote or misrepresent any famous scientists.

There is one thing, however, that is very clear in everything Floyd writes. He is a like a very frightened little boy – all alone in the dark of the 21st century. It is summed up very well right here (Floyd won’t read it, of course – but maybe some other posters or lurkers will):


http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2009/09/stanley_the_barnacle.php


Yes, Floyd, you really are a little barnacle. If I were you, I would be very upset with my god. Here you are a frightened child in the technological world of the 21st century when you could have been a contented man at any time between the 8th and 14th centuries. It’s a shame that you missed out by as much as 1300 years.

Date: 2009/09/21 09:02:52, Link
Author: Keelyn
Ok. I think it is reasonable to conclude that Floyd has lost the argument to part 1a of “Evolution is Incompatible with Christianity” – his “Four very serious incompatibilities.” We can now move on to part 1b – “…emphasis on "the biblical perspective on biology").” So far, I haven’t seen the “emphasis.” What do you say, Floyd? A little emphasis?

Date: 2009/09/22 01:23:58, Link
Author: Keelyn
Actually, I think it is great! I read they going to up it to 100,000 copies. I wish they would double that. All you have to do is remove Ray's obnoxious lying bullshit and you have a wonderful copy of Origins - for free!

Date: 2009/09/22 20:40:30, Link
Author: Keelyn
So far, this has been a classic example of the futility of trying to reason (arguably, there seems to be very little debate going on) with a close-minded, irrational, fanatic. The frightening thing is that, contrary to Floyd's imaginary fears that millions are in peril of going straight to f'ing hell, fanatical and irrational literalist fundamentalism (such as YEC) seems to be growing, not dwindling - at least here in the U.S. (Ham's Creation "Museum" and the mega-churches seem to be thriving and expanding businesses) Of course, Floyd will totally deny that he is close-minded, irrational, or fanatical. Close-minded, irrational fanatics always do.

Date: 2009/09/23 01:20:21, Link
Author: Keelyn
As I stated earlier - Floyd is well equiped for a comfortable life of mind ...provided he had lived before the middle of the 19th century - I guess he missed out by about 150 years or so. What worries me more are all the others who think like him and are in positions of making education policies at state and local levels.

Date: 2009/09/26 22:09:24, Link
Author: Keelyn
Well, he (FL) must be sick again - he hasn't posted much the last couple of days. I should clarify; by "sick" I mean physical illness - mental illness has never been a show stopper for him. I hope that's not being too cruel.  :)

Date: 2009/09/30 01:58:06, Link
Author: Keelyn
Well, this seems to be going nowhere really slow. No wonder Floyd wanted to drag this out until November 1st (2009 I assume). I hate to do it, but while Floyd is resting his mind (or whatever he said he was doing) let’s recap one more time (mundane as it is).

Floyd’s “Four Original Grand, Stupendous, Extraordinary (and totally false) Incompatibilities of Evolution with Christianity …blab, blab, blab …and more blab.”

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.

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.

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


Floyd then appropriates and misrepresents a quote by Richardthughes (“If God is timeless, then it all unfolds to the majesty of his great plan, surely?”) and invents a fifth incompatibility.

5. 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.


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. If Floyd thinks that nature is cruel and sadistic, then it couldn’t be more compatible with Christianity. (throw in crusades, inquisitions, witch burnings, etc – all human constructs dedicated to and in the name of the entity in question)


As for One through Four – It doesn’t matter what the Pope (any of them), or anyone else for that matter, has said or hasn’t said, implied or not implied, thinks or doesn’t think, whether orally or in writing; Floyd’s arguments fail from a major flaw in his basic premise. I, and others (notably Robin – and she has done so quite eloquently in my opinion), that evolutionary theory (nor any other scientific theory) makes NONE of the DENIALS or REQUIREMENTS that Floyd insists that it does. Not addressing something is not indicative of a denial or requirement …and THAT is the END of THAT. Floyd, you are totally within your right to introduce any supernatural explanations you want into biology theory or into any scientific theory. All you have to do is provide a hypothesis that can be scientifically tested and verified. Personally, I’m not going to hold my breath waiting for that, so I think you must concede, Floyd, that any impartial jury would conclude at this point that you have failed miserably to prove any of your arguments. With that, let’s move on to part 2 – “The Biblical Perspective on Biology” – I can’t wait (hardly).

Date: 2009/10/01 00:05:09, Link
Author: Keelyn
Well, this is the first opportunity I have had to get on since my last post. I have reviewed all the succeeding posts. Oh, first, my apologies to Robin ( sir :) ) - I just made an assumption ...I appreciate the correction. Second, I see that in my absence everyone else has already spoken for me - there is nothing substantive that I could add. It is clear to me that Floyd is totally unresponsive to in-your-face reality, logic, or common sense, i.e. rationalism. This could continue for ...? Therefore, I doubt I will bother to add any further to this part of the "debate." (I'll be reading though, Floyd :) )

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

Floyd, since I only anticipate living a typical lifespan (80 years?), and since this could exceed that by several thousand years, is there any chance you could set a date and time for ending this phase of your inane nonsense and moving on to phase II - "more silly gibberish" ...oh, I mean "Biblical Perspectives on Biology," and then we can get to the really juicy hogwash of "Why ID is Real Science and Should be Taught in Public School Science Classes?" Just Wondering. (I'm not eternal you know)

Date: 2009/10/02 06:47:01, Link
Author: Keelyn
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Oct. 02 2009,03:57)
Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 01 2009,15:47)
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.

Do these "YEC beliefs" have an opinion on the population growth of humanity?

I.E.
Time Zero - 2 People
Time 2500BC - ? People
Today - 6.788 billion

Do you know how to graph numbers FL?

Why are you ignoring this question FL?

You go on about incompatibilities but don't seem to want to address this incompatibility. Why is that?

I don't see why this is such a big deal. All Floyd needs to do is claim that the Pyramids were formed by the Flud rather than by humans. Humans simply added some hieroglyphics and a few dead kings afterwards. There - problem solved. Seems perfectly consistent with the rest of YEC mythology.

Date: 2009/10/05 01:06:40, Link
Author: Keelyn
Quote (Jasper @ Oct. 05 2009,00:00)
Quote (Henry J @ Oct. 04 2009,23:49)
But that aside, why would somebody who claims to be defending Christianity put a lot of effort into producing arguments that would drive educated people away from it if those people were to actually pay attention to those arguments?

I've always thought that FL specializes in a sort of "evangelism-in-reverse."

He seeks out places on the Internet where there are likely to a high percentage of non-Christians, and then he does his best to increase that percentage.

Although I agree with Henry J and Jasper’s remarks, they are really irrelevant to the central argument – Evolution is Incompatible with Christianity. It doesn’t matter whether the arguments that Floyd presents drives people away from Christianity (or evolution) or not. Whether it drives people away, or perhaps even attracts, isn’t the point. Floyd’s arguments are what matter.

Now, he’s on a binge about being accused of quote mining. Granted, the accusations are legitimate and granted, Floyd has a legitimate right to respond to the accusations. But, it seems like such another waste of time. It really doesn’t matter whether he has taken quotes out of context or not (other than to demonstrate that like all creationists, Floyd has no qualms at all lying out his teeth), because either way it hasn’t helped his cause AT ALL.

Throughout this entire “debate,” so far, the only thing Floyd has managed to clearly establish is that his personal perspective of evolution is incompatible with his personal perspective of Christianity. Since Floyd is entitled to his personal opinions and perspectives (right or wrong – and no one could possibly convince Floyd that he is wrong on anything …a sort of “Rush Limbaugh Syndrome”), I will concede that Floyd’s perspective of evolution is incompatible with Floyd’s perspective of Christianity.

Now, all Floyd has to do is to state, conclusively and invariably, that anyone (all the many millions of people) who disagrees with his perspective of evolution and his perspective of Christianity does not understand evolutionary theory and\or is not a Christian. Will you make that statement, Floyd? Yes or No.

Date: 2009/10/10 23:00:21, Link
Author: Keelyn
Just a reminder, Floyd - it is October 10th. You only have until November 1st to prove your points and you have yet to really touch on the "Biblical Perspective of Biology" let alone "How ID is Real Science (and belongs in public school science classes)." Your clock is running down. But, I'm sure you know what you're doing, yes?

Date: 2009/10/11 01:44:06, Link
Author: Keelyn
It says I made a post - damned if I can see it. So anyway - just a reminder, Floyd. It's October 11th. You only have until November 1st to prove your points. And you have yet to really touch on "The Biblical Perspective of Biology" let alone "ID is Real Science (and sgould be included in the public school science class." Clock is running down. But, you know what you're doing, yes?

Date: 2009/10/11 01:46:49, Link
Author: Keelyn
Stupid thing. Now it shows up - after a second post. Oh well - anyway ...get on with it, Floyd. You have lost this round - maybe you can do better. One down, two to go. :)

Date: 2009/10/14 09:03:11, Link
Author: Keelyn
Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 14 2009,09:47)
Quote
Cause, I think the others here have shown just as many quotes as you have that counter your argument.

[bold]Documentation for this claim has been sincerely asked for.[/bold]  Any takers?

Bullshit, Floyd. You're about as sincere as a letter bomb.

So, we are dismissing "Biblical Perspective of Biology?" Just as well - "ID is Science" should be just as stupid.

Date: 2009/10/17 11:17:37, Link
Author: Keelyn
No one could possibly imagine how much it pains me to agree with Floyd on anything, and I'll probably end up hating myself for saying this, but there does seem to be a bit of a double standard going on here. Just remember, Floyd, I still don't accept any of your creationist bullshit or religious mumbo ...the "HELL" crap doesn't phase me. I just accept that I think you make a valid point abount the standards.

Date: 2009/10/17 15:30:58, Link
Author: Keelyn
Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Oct. 17 2009,12:34)
Quote (Keelyn @ Oct. 17 2009,12:17)
No one could possibly imagine how much it pains me to agree with Floyd on anything, and I'll probably end up hating myself for saying this, but there does seem to be a bit of a double standard going on here. Just remember, Floyd, I still don't accept any of your creationist bullshit or religious mumbo ...the "HELL" crap doesn't phase me. I just accept that I think you make a valid point abount the standards.

what exactly is the point?  It's not clear to me.


Well, I should have clarified that I was specifically referring only to the painting that Floyd was so disturbed (terrified?) by. I just thought it was reasonable that he have a right to comment on it - dumb as it was. That's all.

Date: 2009/10/20 08:04:54, Link
Author: Keelyn
Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 19 2009,18:06)
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.


I've never understood reasoning like this. 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).

By the way, Floyd - it's October 20th. Only 11 days left. I still want to see that "ID is Science" argument you have.

Date: 2009/10/20 08:11:10, Link
Author: Keelyn
Quote (Lou FCD @ Oct. 19 2009,19:36)
Quote (Schroedinger's Dog @ Oct. 19 2009,16:06)
Lou, that last one is beautiful!

Thanks, I like that one a lot.

     
Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 19 2009,16:07)
Hey, I've never used sexual profanity---or profanity period--against anybody in this forum.  


Waaaahhhh!

There's more to respect, honesty, integrity, good faith, and general non-fucktardery than not using your taboo words, you disingenuous piece of spooge. And you haven't any room to talk about blasphemy, you lie about your own Bible, Floydtard.

Grow up.

And when you do, how 'bout answering the question?
   
Quote (Lou FCD @ Oct. 19 2009,15:49)
     
Quote (Lou FCD @ Oct. 19 2009,14:57)
               
Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Oct. 02 2009,13:37)
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?

Link


Hey Floyd, you're gonna burn like toast.



 
Quote
(welcome to hell) / ça chauffe, les soirées république hystérique.., by [phil h]

I'm liking Lou's pics more and more. I have a favorite, but I won't say which. What about you, Floyd? Do you have a favorite?

Date: 2009/10/21 08:35:58, Link
Author: Keelyn
Quote (Lou FCD @ Oct. 20 2009,17:10)
Quote (Keelyn @ Oct. 20 2009,09:11)
 
I'm liking Lou's pics more and more. I have a favorite, but I won't say which. What about you, Floyd? Do you have a favorite?

:) I'm glad. I'd like to know your fav, though. (You can PM me, if you'd rather.)

Hmmm. Ummm, well - Hmmm. I'll give that request some thought and definitely get back back to you, Lou. Actually, all your pics have been great having given all them a second look. :) (But I think a few of them scare Floyd - he's SOOOO literal)

Which reminds me. Just a reminder, Floyd - it's October 21st ...only ten days left. 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?" I keep asking because, I'm really not that concerned about your BIG FIVE ...whatever they are. My interest is in preventing people like you from cramming your IDC claptrap into publicly financed science curriculums by conning science illiterates into believing that it has some scientific validity. It doesn't and I'd like an opportunity to demonstrate it. I'm certain that everyone here would like that opportunity. And most of them would probably be more eloquent than me (they know more about biology than I do) ...but still - just a chance would be nice. Besides, you have already lost this argument (long ago).

Oh, and here's a little something for you, Floyd.

http://www.break.com/usercon....62.html

Wasn't that sweet? Now, tell me that animals don't have souls. That's almost enough to convince even me. :)

Date: 2009/10/23 17:13:22, Link
Author: Keelyn
!!! NEWSFLASH *** BULLETIN *** NEWSFLASH !!!

FLOYD LEE *** NEWSFLASH *** FLOYD LEE

INCONTROVERTIBLE EVIDENCE OF INTELLIGENT DESIGN


Did I get your attention, Floyd? Oh, good. As you know, this evening you promised to begin the debate on “ID is Science.” I’ve decided to be the good girl and help you out. Really. Seriously. You know very well everyone on here will be attempting to prove you wrong. The trouble with ID is a profound lack of evidence. For all anyone knows, it may very well be true. But, in order to present it as science you have to back it up with evidence. That’s a key distinction between science and religion isn’t it? Evidence. And know one is going to accept the “fairness” crap – it’s not about what’s fair, but about what’s science. And no one is going to accept the “appearance of design” argument, either. As it stands right now, ID is a joke from any scientific perspective. But suppose, Floyd, that you had evidence. Incontrovertible evidence. Well, that’s where I come in. Of course, everyone else on here will then see what it is, as well, but that’s ok – that’s what the debate is all about.

I’ll give you a short background first. I’ve been part of a “debate” (about as much a debate as this has been so far) on another site for some months. There is one …person – I don’t like to resort to name calling (like dimwit, dumbass, moron, idiot, douche bag, etc) – who refuses to accept ever being wrong. You know the type (she said with a smile). We have been though all the “no evidence for common descent, evolution is a religion, Darwin was this and that and responsible for blah, blah, blah,” and virtually every other creationist nonsense argument that has ever been presented. Suddenly, however, after blabbering for months (seems like years), Neal seems to have made a monumental, brilliant, mind boggling, earth shattering, never-before-realized discovery (so he thinks) that proves that ID is not only good science, but incontrovertibly true. I don’t know – maybe he appropriated it from some of the tutie-fruities over at the Disco Tute. I rarely visit Uncommon Dishonesty, but I haven’t seen any big write ups about it, so for the time being I’ll just attributed it to Neal’s pea brain. In fact, I even invited him over here to help you out …but it seems he has declined. Maybe I scared him off when I said that all the Pandas would love a new chew toy to rip and tear apart. I feel I’ve presented good arguments that show the flaws in his “brilliant proof,” but like the typical creationist, Neal is good at making shit up – that’s how he convinces himself that he’s always right. But, who knows. Maybe this time he really has something.

How about it, Floyd? Should I help you out or what? At the very least, it could get things started …or start a few things. And I think I’m one of the few people (perhaps in the entire world) who knows about it. You might even be able to add to Neal’s proof.

I have to go out for a while. Let me know, Floyd (or anyone else interested). I’ll check back later.

Oh, I guess the "debate" has already begun. I got in late. Just the same - maybe this will help. Maybe not.

Date: 2009/10/25 12:44:24, Link
Author: Keelyn
Well, Floyd won't be here to "debate" today - it's Fundie Sunday.

Date: 2009/10/27 07:21:17, Link
Author: Keelyn
Let's see. A summary update - in 71 pages, Floyd has managed to (fill in the blank)

Date: 2009/10/27 08:15:14, Link
Author: Keelyn
We can have a vote tomorrow for the best "fill in the blank."

Date: 2009/10/29 15:38:09, Link
Author: Keelyn
Quote (Constant Mews @ Oct. 29 2009,15:19)
Since Floyd has become confused and unable to respond to requests for clarification on his points, I think it's best to provide a summary of what I believe his position to be.

Floyd believes that evolutionary theory and Christian doctrine are incompatible because:

1. Christian doctrine specifies that God is the necessary and sufficient explanation for biological organisms, and evolutionary theory does not require God as the necessary and sufficient explanation.

2. Christian doctrine specifies that God chose to create the universe and mankind and evolutionary theory denies that God chose to create the universe and mankind.

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

4. Christian doctrine specifies that death did not occur before man and evolutionary theory requires that death existed before man.

5. Christian doctrine specifies that God is a loving, and all-powerful God.  Evolutionary theory implies otherwise, since the evolutionary process involves gratuitous pain and suffering. This is Rosenhouse's point.

Now, once again, what definition of evolutionary theory did Floyd himself provide?

Quote
Evolution comes in two flavors, micro-evolution and macro-evolution.


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


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


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


USING FLOYD'S OWN SUPPLIED DEFINITIONS, with regard to point 1, we note that evolutionary theory is silent on the involvement of God in biological diversity and origins.  We also note that since Floyd has conceded that Genesis 1-11 need not be taken literally to be Christian, a Christian may accept any mechanism God chooses to use.  Study of God's own work - the World - shows us that evolution is the mechanism God chose to use to create and diversify life.

USING FLOYD'S OWN SUPPLIED DEFINITIONS, with regard to point 2, we note that evolutionary theory is silent on the involvement of God in biological diversity and origins, and so does not deny that willed it and supports and maintains it.

USING FLOYD'S OWN SUPPLIED DEFINITIONS, with regard to point 3, we note that evolutionary theory is silent on the involvement of God in biological diversity and origins.  Evolutionary theory says nothing about souls; certainly no one claims that evolution created the soul.

USING FLOYD'S OWN SUPPLIED DEFINITIONS, with regard to point 4, we note that Christ is most likely referring to spiritual, rather than physical death, given the context of the passage.

USING FLOYD'S OWN SUPPLIED DEFINITIONS, with regard to point 5, we note that this has nothing to do with evolutionary theory per se - Rosenhouse is merely repeating the ancient Problem of Evil, for which Christianity already has an answer.

So Floyd, by conceding a non-literal reading of Genesis as compatible with Christian belief has conceded all points dependent on a Genesis history.

No incompatibilities, Floyd.  Not a single one.

I still think it is more easy to summarize by phrasing it as:

Now after 80 pages, Floyd has managed to [fill in the blank].

Date: 2009/10/31 23:01:11, Link
Author: Keelyn
And it is exactly 00:00, November 1, 2009. “Debate” over! The consensus is after 87 pages – you lost Floyd. And the bet was, if you lost you wouldn’t post anywhere on PT for the next 25 years? Was that the bet? Someone say YES, please. Someone. Anyone?

Date: 2009/11/01 01:23:11, Link
Author: Keelyn
Quote (OgreMkV @ Nov. 01 2009,00:04)
Quote (Keelyn @ Oct. 31 2009,23:01)
And it is exactly 00:00, November 1, 2009. “Debate” over! The consensus is after 87 pages – you lost Floyd. And the bet was, if you lost you wouldn’t post anywhere on PT for the next 25 years? Was that the bet? Someone say YES, please. Someone. Anyone?

Unfortunately, he doesn't think he lost.  And it doesn't mater if he lies, because he's doing it for his religion and anything is OK under that stipulation.

Crusades were the same thing.

Oh, you are so right. But, anyway, Deadman can close the thread and I can answer Lou's question.

Date: 2009/11/01 01:28:24, Link
Author: Keelyn
Quote (Lou FCD @ Oct. 17 2009,19:23)
Quote
Hellfire, by mysnapz and Madison and Erica - Bent, by Rob Beyer.

This one, Lou. We can all go to scientist heaven. Close the thread Deadman. :)

Date: 2009/11/01 01:30:17, Link
Author: Keelyn
Drop the Hellfire. Nice "debate" Floyd.

Date: 2009/11/01 01:30:49, Link
Author: Keelyn
Night

Date: 2009/11/02 00:58:57, Link
Author: Keelyn
Quote (Henry J @ Nov. 01 2009,18:07)
Quote
Oh, you are so right. But, anyway, Deadman can close the thread and I can answer Lou's question.

If he closes the thread, the resulting withdrawal symptoms are on his head. :p

Henry

I'm willing to chance it. :)

Date: 2009/12/20 08:42:24, Link
Author: Keelyn
Quote
Cubist ...

Anybody seen Phantom Menace around in the past few days? I was looking forward to seeing how he responds to my "which sequence has more 'genetic information'?" question...


Well, it has only been four days. He may still be analyzing. :)

 
Quote
phantom menace ...

I believe the universe has laws because it was created by a Lawgiver ...


No, no, I was wrong! I submit, I bear myself to the will of Landru! No! Lawgivers! Help! Help me!

Date: 2010/03/14 20:50:05, Link
Author: Keelyn
I think the problem here is that Joe G's family tree doesn't have any branches in it. Just when I thought no one could be more stupid than Byers and IBelieveInBullshitandFairytales, I accidentally stumble onto this head full of spaghetti and meatballs. It's a great comedy routine, Joe. Keep it up.

 

 

 

=====