whywontgodhealamputees.com

Main Discussion Zone => Formal Debates => Topic started by: UniversityPastor on September 09, 2010, 01:44:50 AM

Title: Evolution: Christian on Christian action Commentary Thread
Post by: UniversityPastor on September 09, 2010, 01:44:50 AM
[modbreak]

Sorry for the interruption.  This thread was split off and made the commentary thread. 

All commentary of the "Evolution: Christian on Christian action" is to be made here.

Enjoy.

020
[/modbreak]


Me vs BS on Evolution? Sounds fun.

UP-  What is your position on this topic?


I agree with evolution.

I think it's a fantastic scientific theory, that we aught to keep using it and keep teaching it to our kids.

I don't think it's perfect, but I think it's at least as accurate as the Quantum Model of the atom. It's a scientific model that holds up impeccably and is wonderfully predictive of truth. We might one day find a model that describes the movement of electrons or how we got here better, but we don't have that theory yet, and when we get there, I expect it to be a refinement of evolution, not an abandonment of it.

And just to be clear... Yes I'm talking about "Macroevolution" too.

I do believe God created, I think he did it through evolution (just like i think he make Loihi trough volcanic eruptions)

I believe Genesis is the word of God, I believe it's first chapters are mostly figurative, and i believe that if you and I go through it together with an even keel and a sound mind, you'll realize you believe those chapters are mostly figurative too. We're arguing over a difference of about 10% of the language being figurative. You think It's about 40 or 50% figurative already, I think it's more like 50 or 60%
Title: Re: Debate Challenges
Post by: Timo on September 09, 2010, 02:57:50 AM
I'd definitely be interested in reading this debate.  Though, I have to wonder already, what exactly do you mean when you write that you believe that Genesis is the "word of God"?  You've acknowledged that you accept that its first few chapters are largely figurative but what do you make of the rest?  Were Judah and Israel flesh and blood people too?  I suppose this is tangential, but I'm curious.
Title: Re: Debate Challenges
Post by: UniversityPastor on September 09, 2010, 04:06:50 AM
I'd definitely be interested in reading this debate.  Though, I have to wonder already, what exactly do you mean when you write that you believe that Genesis is the "word of God"?  You've acknowledged that you accept that its first few chapters are largely figurative but what do you make of the rest?  Were Judah and Israel flesh and blood people too?  I suppose this is tangential, but I'm curious.

Real quick (and hopefully this won't merit a response and the mods won't have to relocate us) I think even Adam and Eve were flesh and blood people (as in..there was a first man, and a first woman)

I just think they evolved from monkeys
Title: Evolution: Christian on Christian action Commentary Thread
Post by: Operator_020 on September 09, 2010, 07:53:45 AM
All discussion by non-participants is to be done in this thread.  Enjoy.
Title: Re: Evolution: Christian on Christian action Commentary Thread
Post by: William on September 09, 2010, 08:08:06 AM
Can I say, before it begins or my microwave popcorn beeps, an advance big thankyou to University Pastor and BibleStudent for doing this.  I'm looking forward to observing a free flow of theist views on the topic of evolution without interfering (for a change  ;D ).
Title: Re: Evolution: Christian on Christian action Commentary Thread
Post by: plethora on September 09, 2010, 08:10:17 AM
xtian on xtian ... nice. I'm ready to read :)
Title: Re: Debate Challenges
Post by: Timo on September 09, 2010, 10:39:05 AM
I'd definitely be interested in reading this debate.  Though, I have to wonder already, what exactly do you mean when you write that you believe that Genesis is the "word of God"?  You've acknowledged that you accept that its first few chapters are largely figurative but what do you make of the rest?  Were Judah and Israel flesh and blood people too?  I suppose this is tangential, but I'm curious.

Real quick (and hopefully this won't merit a response and the mods won't have to relocate us) I think even Adam and Eve were flesh and blood people (as in..there was a first man, and a first woman)

I just think they evolved from monkeys

This is a commentary thread.  I think that side talk is allowed.  But I don't really know.  If not, I think the fault is only with me and not you.  You only answered my question.

Anyway, from an evolutionary standpoint, I don't think that your position makes any sense.  Individuals don't evolve, after all.  Populations do.  It's not as if there would be these two first individuals to cross some sort of imagined genetic threshold.  Rather, a population that we would have once considered to be something other than human became, at some point, something that we would consider human.  And the exact point at which we would draw that line would be somewhat arbitrary.

I don't know, I like that you, as a Christian, are okay with evolution.  I wish there were more like you.  But I just don't think your position is coherent.  And if I were a young earth creationist, I would hammer at this point mercilessly if I were in debate with you.  I don't think you can have it both ways.
Title: Re: Evolution: Christian on Christian action Commentary Thread
Post by: kin hell on September 09, 2010, 10:45:35 AM
bm
Title: Re: Evolution: Christian on Christian action Commentary Thread
Post by: screwtape on September 09, 2010, 11:37:54 AM
Timo,

In another thread you were talking about how you wished all xians were liberal and moderate and took the bible figuratively.  Here you are trying to push a liberal toward literalism and fundamentalism.  Will you please make up your mind?

This is the right place for commentary, by the way.  I am something of an authority on the matter.  I was mod of this area for 5 minutes.
Title: Re: Evolution: Christian on Christian action Commentary Thread
Post by: nogodsforme on September 09, 2010, 11:52:36 AM
Hey there,  UP;
The TOE does not suggest that humans evolved from monkeys. It says that humans, apes and monkeys are all descended from an earlier primate-type critter. Present-day primates are all like cousins; monkeys are not our ancestors.

But be that as it may, do you think that god actually made the early primates, and then humans evolved from them? Or that god just started the first chemical reactions with amino acids or whatever that became the earliest life forms?
Title: Re: Evolution: Christian on Christian action Commentary Thread
Post by: Timo on September 09, 2010, 12:22:21 PM
Timo,

In another thread you were talking about how you wished all xians were liberal and moderate and took the bible figuratively.  Here you are trying to push a liberal toward literalism and fundamentalism.  Will you please make up your mind?

I think you just need to read more carefully.

If you were to look back to that thread, the Science and Religion thread, you'd find that I was saying that I would like Christians to take the whole of Genesis and most of the Hebrew Bible as something other than factual history.  In fact, we were mostly talking about the Canaanite genocide and other horrific episodes in the Bible.  But if UP believes that Adam and Eve were actual people, my guess is that he also believes, among other things, that God told Moses to order the mass murder and sexual slavery of the Midionites.  If this is the case then he's not an adherent to the sort of liberal Christianity I was sketching out by any stretch of the imagination.

And no, I'm not trying to push UP towards fundamentalism.  If you'd care to read his posts, you'd find that he already rejects the young earthers out of hand.  (Hence the proposed debate.)  For example:

I believe in an old earth, evolution, and the legalization of same sex marriage, for instance. And I reject all notions that doubt is bad, science is the opposition, and you should stop thinking and "just have faith" as horrible misinterpretations of the teachings of Christ.

[snip]

Sometimes I'll be listening to some idiot talk about how you should "believe god to go to heaven because the bible says evolution is not science" and I'll really sincerely wish they weren't on my side, but Christianity is not an exclusive club, any idiot can join, there's nothing I can do about it.

Basically, I think he's already on the right track and I just wish he'd go a bit further.  The position that evolution is true, and at the same time Adam and Eve (and Lilith?) were flesh and blood people is a completely incoherent position.  I'd prefer that he reject the latter and not the former.  And I think that, if he changes his position, that's the way he'd go.  He already knows why the young earthers and anti-evolution folks are wrong.  I don't think that my claims are going to make their arguments more persuasive to him.


Peace
Title: Re: Debate Challenges
Post by: velkyn on September 09, 2010, 02:39:23 PM
Real quick (and hopefully this won't merit a response and the mods won't have to relocate us) I think even Adam and Eve were flesh and blood people (as in..there was a first man, and a first woman)

I just think they evolved from monkeys

this sounds like a claim I've heard Christians make that somehow God imbued A&E with the usual special snowflake serum whilst there were other hominids around.  It just allows for Christians to accept science that has been shown accurate and not be totally hypocritical but still keep the woo in their religion. 
Title: Re: Evolution: Christian on Christian action Commentary Thread
Post by: screwtape on September 09, 2010, 03:21:22 PM
I think you just need to read more carefully.

Or write with my tongue more obviously in my cheek. 
Title: Re: Evolution: Christian on Christian action Commentary Thread
Post by: Gimpy on September 09, 2010, 03:48:21 PM

Me vs BS on Evolution? Sounds fun.


Actually, I'd prefer to see you and Wootah discuss evolution.
Title: Re: Evolution: Christian on Christian action Commentary Thread
Post by: Timo on September 09, 2010, 04:18:56 PM
I think you just need to read more carefully.

Or write with my tongue more obviously in my cheek. 

I think I can see how you meant that now.  But yeah, irony and sarcasm are sometimes hard to convey via text.
Title: Re: Evolution: Christian on Christian action Commentary Thread
Post by: screwtape on September 09, 2010, 07:54:09 PM
I think I can see how you meant that now.  But yeah, irony and sarcasm are sometimes hard to convey via text.

It is a lesson I have to learn almost weekly.  You'd think I would get it by now.
Title: Re: Debate Challenges
Post by: UniversityPastor on September 10, 2010, 01:34:12 AM
I'd definitely be interested in reading this debate.  Though, I have to wonder already, what exactly do you mean when you write that you believe that Genesis is the "word of God"?  You've acknowledged that you accept that its first few chapters are largely figurative but what do you make of the rest?  Were Judah and Israel flesh and blood people too?  I suppose this is tangential, but I'm curious.

Real quick (and hopefully this won't merit a response and the mods won't have to relocate us) I think even Adam and Eve were flesh and blood people (as in..there was a first man, and a first woman)

I just think they evolved from monkeys

[snip]

Anyway, from an evolutionary standpoint, I don't think that your position makes any sense.  Individuals don't evolve, after all.  Populations do.  It's not as if there would be these two first individuals to cross some sort of imagined genetic threshold.  Rather, a population that we would have once considered to be something other than human became, at some point, something that we would consider human.  And the exact point at which we would draw that line would be somewhat arbitrary.

I don't know, I like that you, as a Christian, are okay with evolution.  I wish there were more like you.  But I just don't think your position is coherent.  And if I were a young earth creationist, I would hammer at this point mercilessly if I were in debate with you.  I don't think you can have it both ways.

There are lots of places to go with it, and I'm not sure which theory I like best (and certainty not which one is true)

One would be that Adam was a federal head of this first crop of Homo Sapiens, and none of the others were mentioned but his sin was still the first, and it was sufficient for all to fall. (i don't like this one terribly much, I think it tries to hard)

Certainty the entire story could be fabricated, as a means of conveying the central message of genesis (God made everything, he didn't have help, and humans were the pinnacle of his creation)

With BibleStudent I expect to defend the theory that there was an instance of punctuated equilibrium between the early hominids and the first humans resulting in the very first humans arising very suddenly, in a very small population (2ish) leaving few fossil ancestors of missing links. That way I sidestep the pigs tooth conversation, and hammer home the theistic aspect of my theistic evolution (God, the great punctuator of my equilibrium)

With you Timo, I'd rather say this. What you're describing is a bright line issue. It's true that we as scientists looking at a population would have to arbitrarily draw a line at some point. But that's nothing more than a statement about how much we know. There was a first human whether or not we can tell who it was simply because, there had to be. Whether or not there were a lot of other just barley not-humans-yet in the same community doesn't really matter.
Title: Re: Evolution: Christian on Christian action Commentary Thread
Post by: UniversityPastor on September 10, 2010, 01:39:07 AM
Hey there,  UP;
The TOE does not suggest that humans evolved from monkeys. It says that humans, apes and monkeys are all descended from an earlier primate-type critter. Present-day primates are all like cousins; monkeys are not our ancestors.

Yes of course. I was just subtly poking at the rhetoric "I didn't come from no monkey" Yes you did.

Quote
But be that as it may, do you think that god actually made the early primates, and then humans evolved from them? Or that god just started the first chemical reactions with amino acids or whatever that became the earliest life forms?

I think that God made Adam from the dust. Which he made into an aqueous solution, which he made into the first amino acids, which he made into one celled organisms and so on all the way through apes. (or ape-like hominids)
Title: Re: Evolution: Christian on Christian action Commentary Thread
Post by: relativetruth on September 10, 2010, 02:24:06 AM
DNA research suggests that 'Mitochrondrial Eve' existed about 200,000 years and 'Y-chromosomal Adam' existed between 90,000 and 60,000 years ago.

I suppose what UP is saying is that whatever was done to hominid 'Adam' to make him human was also done to Eve even though both hominid 'Adam' and hominid 'Eve' were biological desendants of a much earlier animal 'mitochrondrial Eve'.
Title: Re: Evolution: Christian on Christian action Commentary Thread
Post by: UniversityPastor on September 10, 2010, 04:34:08 AM
DNA research suggests that 'Mitochrondrial Eve' existed about 200,000 years and 'Y-chromosomal Adam' existed between 90,000 and 60,000 years ago.

I suppose what UP is saying is that whatever was done to hominid 'Adam' to make him human was also done to Eve even though both hominid 'Adam' and hominid 'Eve' were biological desendants of a much earlier animal 'mitochrondrial Eve'.

I'm so glad you said that RT (can I call you Arty?) I had in my mind some information about genetic bottlenecking and the sources I read it in but I decided it would be better to leave my self a lot of ground than pick a fight on a topic that i read about in an article once.

but yes
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Y-chromosomal_Adam
http://www.suite101.com/content/who-is-mitochondrial-eve-a127250
Title: Re: Evolution: Christian on Christian action Commentary Thread
Post by: relativetruth on September 10, 2010, 05:24:28 AM
DNA research suggests that 'Mitochrondrial Eve' existed about 200,000 years and 'Y-chromosomal Adam' existed between 90,000 and 60,000 years ago.

I suppose what UP is saying is that whatever was done to hominid 'Adam' to make him human was also done to Eve even though both hominid 'Adam' and hominid 'Eve' were biological desendants of a much earlier animal 'mitochrondrial Eve'.

I'm so glad you said that RT (can I call you Arty?) I had in my mind some information about genetic bottlenecking and the sources I read it in but I decided it would be better to leave my self a lot of ground than pick a fight on a topic that i read about in an article once.

but yes
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Y-chromosomal_Adam
http://www.suite101.com/content/who-is-mitochondrial-eve-a127250


I don't wish to derail any threads but I would be interested in reasons for believing that Adam was humanised (maybe by adding the soul?).

I will watch out to BM any future thread.
Title: Re: Debate Challenges
Post by: velkyn on September 10, 2010, 10:19:04 AM
With BibleStudent I expect to defend the theory that there was an instance of punctuated equilibrium between the early hominids and the first humans resulting in the very first humans arising very suddenly, in a very small population (2ish) leaving few fossil ancestors of missing links. That way I sidestep the pigs tooth conversation, and hammer home the theistic aspect of my theistic evolution (God, the great punctuator of my equilibrium)

that should prove entertaining since the evidence shows anything but.
Title: Re: Evolution: Christian on Christian action Commentary Thread
Post by: jetson on September 10, 2010, 10:35:41 AM
It will very likely devolve into a complete misunderstanding and misrepresentation of the actual theory.  This happens in almost every conversation with creationists.  I would love to see a complete acknowledgement and understanding of the actual theory demonstrated by both (although I know it's not required in this debate.)  Acknowledging and understanding the theory does NOT mean you have to agree with it. 

BS' first reply hints at the possibility that micro and macro will likely be abused.
Title: Re: Evolution: Christian on Christian action Commentary Thread
Post by: MockTurtle on September 10, 2010, 11:46:44 AM
I gotta give props to UP.  After the style of his opening post I was getting all misty thinking about my High School debate team ;)
And, as a lawyer, I'm always impressed any time someone works "Res" into a conversation.

Title: Re: Evolution: Christian on Christian action Commentary Thread
Post by: ParkingPlaces on September 10, 2010, 10:52:46 PM
While I am interested in how this debate goes, but I'm not sure why since I don't agree with either side. To me, it's like debating about which member of Milli Vanilli was the best singer.
Title: Re: Evolution: Christian on Christian action Commentary Thread
Post by: godisimaginary on September 11, 2010, 12:37:12 AM
I don't understand why the theory of Evolution is still even debated. It is not like a new taboo theory that came out. It is a agreed upon theory backed by supporting evidence. Evidence that continues to pile up.

am i rite ?
Title: Re: Evolution: Christian on Christian action Commentary Thread
Post by: xphobe on September 11, 2010, 01:36:14 AM
The TOE does not suggest that humans evolved from monkeys. It says that humans, apes and monkeys are all descended from an earlier primate-type critter. Present-day primates are all like cousins; monkeys are not our ancestors.

IIRC, Aron-Ra made a youtube video in which he explained that we are not only descended from monkeys, we are monkeys, because what we call "new world monkeys" diverged from "old world monkeys" long before humans ever appeared, and if they were monkeys, then any line that diverged from them had to have been monkeys too.

Or something like that.  Aron-Ra talks so fast I sometimes have trouble following.



At any rate, I understand what UP is saying: Whether we can identify them or not, there had to have been a first man and a first woman, because there was a time when there were no humans, and now there are humans.

So Genesis taken allegorically is acknowledging that fact.  Its problem is, it takes the metaphor too far.  Remember, those folks didn't know anything about evolution.  It was a lucky guess for them to assume there was a time before humans.  They based that guess on most things they observed.  Houses don't exist until you build them.  Crops don't exist until you plant them.  In their world, things that didn't exist but then do exist all required a creator.  But then they apply that same logic to the Universe as a whole, and there's simply no justification for that.  They weren't aware of the Big Bang or quantum vacuum fluctuations or the possibility of a "finite but unbounded" spacetime.
Title: Re: Evolution: Christian on Christian action Commentary Thread
Post by: jetson on September 11, 2010, 10:21:27 AM

At any rate, I understand what UP is saying: Whether we can identify them or not, there had to have been a first man population of men and a first woman population of women, because there was a time when there were no humans, and now there are humans.


Though, it was really a population of male and female men and women, collectively known today as humans.  I'm sure you weren't intending to say that there was once a single first man and a single first woman!
Title: Re: Evolution: Christian on Christian action Commentary Thread
Post by: xphobe on September 11, 2010, 11:05:35 AM
Though, it was really a population of male and female men and women, collectively known today as humans.  I'm sure you weren't intending to say that there was once a single first man and a single first woman!

There was undoubtedly a small population of male and female "almost-humans".  But mathematically, there had to have been a single first male and a single first female that were what we would call human.  They didn't necessarily live together in a garden, nor did they necessarily know each other.  And I'm not talking about "mitochondrial Eve", who would have come later, and who happens through chance to be one of the common ancestors of us all.   When does "day" happen?  Hard to say exactly down to the second, but we know there must have been one single moment we call "sunrise" because we pass through it every 24 hours.
Title: Re: Evolution: Christian on Christian action Commentary Thread
Post by: ParkingPlaces on September 11, 2010, 11:49:30 AM
Xphobe probably has it right. Given that each generation is in transition, there did there need to be a specific first couple who got all jiggy with each other. There is nothing that would require that the first human male could only have sex with the first human female for all of this to happen. The difference between species at that point would have been so small as to be indiscernible either by them or us. At some point the gene pool we call human would have emerged from others, but not necessarily with a bang (no pun intended. Well, maybe it was).

We are still evolving. Our average brain size is decreasing, wisdom teeth are disappearing, the appendix apparently no longer does what it used to (whatever that was). At what point is the species that created Aristotle going to be different than the one that creates our grandchildren a few hundred thousand or million years down the road?

Some species can interbreed, and certainly many pre-human versions could do just that because they were so closely related. Presumably we became who we are in part because of those oft-intermingled genes.

Those who came up with punctuated equalibrium, something UP thinks supports his thesis, have pointed out that by "fast" they mean a change happening within a 50,000 year time span, not literally overnight. Fifty thousand years is zippity quick in geologic time, but not really all that fast in the internet age. It's hard for a human living 1/625th of that time to comprehend how long it is. Or put it in perspective.

Edit: got rid of all the extra empty space at the bottom of this post. People sometimes use that as evidence that I have nothing to say  ;D
Title: Re: Evolution: Christian on Christian action Commentary Thread
Post by: jetson on September 11, 2010, 11:59:23 AM
Agreed on both points from Xphobe and ParkingPlaces...

I commented only to be sure that we don't give credence to a popular myth within creation circles that all humans spawned literally from a single man and woman.  While there may be a specific speciation event for a specific species mathematically, the current understanding is that speciation occurs within populations and not individuals.

I think the point is interesting and I would like to dig deeper, if I can find some good material on the topic!
Title: Re: Evolution: Christian on Christian action Commentary Thread
Post by: UniversityPastor on September 11, 2010, 12:53:06 PM
Agreed on both points from Xphobe and ParkingPlaces...
... And UP

That's what that "..." was for right? After all, they were agreeing with me.

Anyway all that as a very long way to answer your question: Yes, i think Judah and Isreal were real flesh and blood people (Judah was Isreal's son) as were Abraham, Isaac, Adam, and Eve. But the details about their lives may or may not reflect reality. The Pentateuch consists mostly of oral histories, the kind that would have been told to children around campfires to explain who Hebrews are and where they come from.

I suppose it wouldn't frustrate me terribly much to find evidence that their was not in fact an actual human Jacob, and Judah, but i'd certainty be surprised.
Title: Re: Evolution: Christian on Christian action Commentary Thread
Post by: screwtape on September 11, 2010, 06:22:54 PM
Xphobe probably has it right. Given that each generation is in transition, there did there need to be a specific first couple who got all jiggy with each other. There is nothing that would require that the first human male could only have sex with the first human female for all of this to happen. The difference between species at that point would have been so small as to be indiscernible either by them or us. At some point the gene pool we call human would have emerged from others, but not necessarily with a bang (no pun intended. Well, maybe it was).

I came up with an analogy for speciation that I have been saving to bust out on a creationist.  But it's just busting out of me and I'm sick of waiting. 

Speciation is like milk.  Milk sits in your refrigerator for some period of time.  If you don't use it, you look in one day and it has become sour and chunky and has gone bad.  It is not milk anymore.  It has transformed.

But if you checked on the milk every minute between the time it was milk and the time went bad, you could not pinpoint exactly when it ceased being good and became bad.  You know when it was definitely drinkable milk.  And you know when it definitely was not.  But you cannot draw any clear line between the two.

The same is true of species. Once upon a time, there were some smart-ish apes.  A couple hundred thousand years later, they were... different.  Still apes.  Still not all that bright.  But less hairy.  And they talked.  And they made cocktails, and built an internet of computers so they could look at each other naked without having to go through all the social ritual. 

When did they stop being the original species?  I dunno.  You cannot identify the year, or decade or probably even the century.  Maybe not even the millenia. But somewhere in there, they became us.  We are like milk gone bad.

Title: Re: Evolution: Christian on Christian action Commentary Thread
Post by: Ambassador Pony on September 11, 2010, 06:34:40 PM
Screw, does the analogy lock us into only sampling the milk with our taste buds and thus having difficulty pinpointing the exact moment when the synecdochal process passes the milk / not-milk threshold? If the analogy allows for the existence and practical application of other tools and scales of measurement, then it doesn't work, I think.

I assume that we define the non-milk according the number of units of new organic and / or chemical components created over time.   

Title: Re: Evolution: Christian on Christian action Commentary Thread
Post by: screwtape on September 11, 2010, 07:09:25 PM
Screw, does the analogy lock us into only sampling the milk with our taste buds and thus having difficulty pinpointing the exact moment when the synecdochal process passes the milk / not-milk threshold? If the analogy allows for the existence and practical application of other tools and scales of measurement, then it doesn't work, I think.

I assume that we define the non-milk according the number of units of new organic and / or chemical components created over time.   

Remember you are talking to the mechanical engineer here and not the biologist or chemist. My understanding is the definition is the problem, not the sampling method.  How do you draw the line?  50,000 ppm?  Okay, but you could probably get away with 50,002 ppm and still manage to eat your Cheerios.  Maybe more. 

What does "bad" really mean, when talking about milk?  What really is the difference between parent/ child species? 
Title: Re: Evolution: Christian on Christian action Commentary Thread
Post by: xphobe on September 11, 2010, 07:21:25 PM
We are like milk gone bad.

sour chunky milk ... I prefer my sunrise analogy because it's more cheerful, but really, just about any analogy will do, if it's a gradual process whose end result is obviously something other than it was before.  When does a block of marble become a statue?  When does a stream become a river?  When does global warming become a problem?
Title: Re: Evolution: Christian on Christian action Commentary Thread
Post by: HAL on September 11, 2010, 07:25:56 PM
When does a block of marble become a statue?  
When does a stream become a river?  
When does global warming become a problem?

When does a thread become fit for the Bottomless Pit? Yea I get it!
Title: Re: Evolution: Christian on Christian action Commentary Thread
Post by: jetson on September 11, 2010, 08:24:50 PM
We are like milk gone bad.

sour chunky milk ... I prefer my sunrise analogy because it's more cheerful, but really, just about any analogy will do, if it's a gradual process whose end result is obviously something other than it was before.  When does a block of marble become a statue?  When does a stream become a river?  When does global warming become a problem?

Well, one problem I am constantly reminded of by creationists is that the milk, is still milk!  It's just rotten, chunky milk.  I really, really grow tired of the macro evolution bullshit spewed out by these people.  And what's worse is that they believe in microevolution!!!!  So I ask for the mechanism that stops micro from becoming macro...and we end up at extinction, and brand new species from who else - God himself!  Of course!

Microevolution MUST happen, since it is beyond obvious, and it is intelligent design at work, as the micro changes allow species to adapt to new environments and pressures!  OMG!!!!!

OK, now I'm just angry again...sigh.
Title: Re: Evolution: Christian on Christian action Commentary Thread
Post by: screwtape on September 11, 2010, 09:19:57 PM
Well, one problem I am constantly reminded of by creationists is that the milk, is still milk!  It's just rotten, chunky milk. 

No, it is not.  Milk is a liquid, with all sorts of proteins and fats suspended in it.  Sour milk, is no longer that.  Chemically it is different.  It is a different consistency.  It is still a dairy product, but think of that as the class or order. 

If you want to still use dairy as your analogy, talk about churning milk into butter.  At some point in the process it clearly is no longer milk, but it is not butter either. The line is blurry.

I really, really grow tired of the macro evolution bullshit spewed out by these people.  And what's worse is that they believe in microevolution!!!! 

So they are saying milk can turn into yogurt, but not cheese...

Title: Re: Evolution: Christian on Christian action Commentary Thread
Post by: jetson on September 11, 2010, 09:57:09 PM

So they are saying milk can turn into yogurt, but not cheese...


Now this, I can use.  These particular creationists are old earth.  So, they feel they have a much stronger case for creationism.
Title: Re: Evolution: Christian on Christian action Commentary Thread
Post by: relativetruth on September 12, 2010, 05:28:38 AM

So they are saying milk can turn into yogurt, but not cheese...


Now this, I can use.  These particular creationists are old earth.  So, they feel they have a much stronger case for creationism.
How far can you stretch analogies?

When does grape juice become wine?

Are wine and vinegar part of the same species?

EDIT - for grammar
Title: Re: Evolution: Christian on Christian action Commentary Thread
Post by: screwtape on September 12, 2010, 09:18:49 AM
How far can you stretch analogies?

I am not sure, but they always get stretched too far, don't they?  I once vowed to stop using them because the arguments I used them in invariably became about the analogy and not the point I was trying to make. 
Title: Re: Evolution: Christian on Christian action Commentary Thread
Post by: jetson on September 12, 2010, 03:09:45 PM
How far can you stretch analogies?

I am not sure, but they always get stretched too far, don't they?  I once vowed to stop using them because the arguments I used them in invariably became about the analogy and not the point I was trying to make. 

Indeed.  They are never satisfying enough...
Title: Re: Evolution: Christian on Christian action Commentary Thread
Post by: jetson on September 12, 2010, 03:20:17 PM
Oh boy!  BS is out of the gate in denial of speciation!  This should be fun!

And look, he agrees with "micro" evolution!  Isn't that even more special.  I do have to give some slight credit however, to acknowledging that the theory does in fact account for speciation - although BS is in full denial of it, and even adds that science somehow slipped it right into the classroom - and nobody noticed!

Are there posting rules for a commentary thread?  I mean, beyond the normal rules?
Title: Re: Evolution: Christian on Christian action Commentary Thread
Post by: xphobe on September 12, 2010, 03:51:26 PM
I am not sure, but they always get stretched too far, don't they?  I once vowed to stop using them because the arguments I used them in invariably became about the analogy and not the point I was trying to make. 

Analogies do tend to get stretched past their elasticity and experience plastic deformation, don't they.  Eventually they get all stretched out of shape and hang down like sleeve of wizard.  Just like that, in fact.
Title: Re: Evolution: Christian on Christian action Commentary Thread
Post by: relativetruth on September 12, 2010, 04:36:39 PM
I am not sure, but they always get stretched too far, don't they?  I once vowed to stop using them because the arguments I used them in invariably became about the analogy and not the point I was trying to make. 

Analogies do tend to get stretched past their elasticity and experience plastic deformation, don't they.  Eventually they get all stretched out of shape and hang down like sleeve of wizard.  Just like that, in fact.

Did you not just stretch your analogy analogy too far?
Title: Re: Evolution: Christian on Christian action Commentary Thread
Post by: Ambassador Pony on September 12, 2010, 04:46:12 PM
I pulled an analogy one time, doctor said I needed to stay off of it for at least a day.
Title: Re: Evolution: Christian on Christian action Commentary Thread
Post by: relativetruth on September 12, 2010, 04:51:38 PM
Oh boy!  BS is out of the gate in denial of speciation!  This should be fun!

And look, he agrees with "micro" evolution!  Isn't that even more special.  I do have to give some slight credit however, to acknowledging that the theory does in fact account for speciation - although BS is in full denial of it, and even adds that science somehow slipped it right into the classroom - and nobody noticed!

Are there posting rules for a commentary thread?  I mean, beyond the normal rules?

BS should define what he understands by speciation.
Title: Re: Evolution: Christian on Christian action Commentary Thread
Post by: ParkingPlaces on September 12, 2010, 05:43:49 PM
BS should define what he understands by speciation.

If he is a normal creationist, he can tell us what he understands, but none of it can be about speciation.

I have yet to run across a creationist who understands it enough to make up good excuses why it isn't real. Instead they make up what it is and argue against that version. I trust BS will continue the tradition. (Of course I hope I'm wrong).
Title: Re: Evolution: Christian on Christian action Commentary Thread
Post by: screwtape on September 12, 2010, 06:01:25 PM
Good point.  Speciation and what creationists think is speciation are non-intersecting sets.
Title: Re: Evolution: Christian on Christian action Commentary Thread
Post by: Gnu Ordure on September 12, 2010, 06:24:07 PM
Jetson:
Quote
Are there posting rules for a commentary thread?  I mean, beyond the normal rules?

I've noticed in previous commentary threads that sometimes posters seem to forget, in discussing the action in the debate, that the debaters are also listening to the commentary.

And some people slip into being abusive about the debators, which is unnecessary.

For example, godisimaginary said earlier:
Quote
Quote
xtian on xtian ... nice. I'm ready to read

Of course you are! It's like watching two retards fight. Amusing and sad at the same time.

I've reported that. If we invite two theists to our forum to take part in a civilized debate, it doesn't look good if we then compare them to retards.

Gnu.
Title: Re: Evolution: Christian on Christian action Commentary Thread
Post by: BibleStudent on September 12, 2010, 06:37:45 PM
BS should define what he understands by speciation.

If he is a normal creationist, he can tell us what he understands, but none of it can be about speciation.

I have yet to run across a creationist who understands it enough to make up good excuses why it isn't real. Instead they make up what it is and argue against that version. I trust BS will continue the tradition. (Of course I hope I'm wrong).

Good point.  Speciation and what creationists think is speciation are non-intersecting sets.

Why don't one of the three of you provide YOUR definition. I'd be very interested to see it.

Who wants to go first?
Title: Re: Evolution: Christian on Christian action Commentary Thread
Post by: Operator_020 on September 12, 2010, 06:41:45 PM
Are there posting rules for a commentary thread?  I mean, beyond the normal rules?

Normal rules.  Gnu made some good points you may want to review if you have not already. Like not calling either of the debaters names.

020
Title: Re: Evolution: Christian on Christian action Commentary Thread
Post by: Operator_020 on September 12, 2010, 06:44:44 PM
Hi BibleStudent,

Why don't one of the three of you provide YOUR definition. I'd be very interested to see it.

Who wants to go first?


While you are free to engage in conversation in the commentary if you like, I recommend against it.  It defeats the whole point of having a closed, moderated discussion and it will be redundant with the "debate".  Plus, your plate is pretty full as it is.  That is just my friendly advice which you may take or leave.

Happy posting

020

Title: Re: Evolution: Christian on Christian action Commentary Thread
Post by: Gnu Ordure on September 12, 2010, 07:11:27 PM
BS, if you have time on your hands, there are people on a thread here (http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/forums/index.php?topic=15098.msg352452#msg352452), including me, waiting for you to resume the discussion.

Gnu.
Title: Re: Evolution: Christian on Christian action Commentary Thread
Post by: jetson on September 12, 2010, 07:43:33 PM
OK - UP is the first Christian I've ever encountered that has a decent grasp of the ToE.  Wow.  I'm impressed.  Can;t wait to see where God played a part!
Title: Re: Evolution: Christian on Christian action Commentary Thread
Post by: HAL on September 12, 2010, 07:47:04 PM
(http://www.atheistthinktank.net/HAL/threadbombs/popcorn.gif)
Title: Re: Evolution: Christian on Christian action Commentary Thread
Post by: screwtape on September 12, 2010, 08:50:42 PM
So there's no conspiracy going on here.

Agree up until the part I bolded. Let's just say that I do not believe everything coming out of the halls of science is absent some form of manipulation. We see forms of deceit and falsehoods in virtually every aspect of our lives....why should I feel science is any different?


Funny that he does not apply this level of skepticism to the bible or the people who wrote it. 

Does anyone else want to elaborate on just how incomprehensible it is that all scientists are collaborating to lie about the foundation of biology?  Or how in order to maintain that lie, they would have to fudge decades of results?  And how all those fudged results would be useless for any science or practical applications?  And how by now the entire house of cards would have collapsed?

I have a hard time putting into words how much I hate what the various religious establishments have done to undermine science.

Title: Re: Evolution: Christian on Christian action Commentary Thread
Post by: jetson on September 12, 2010, 09:05:15 PM

I have a hard time putting into words how much I hate what the various religious establishments have done to undermine science.


Indeed.  To make matters worse, there are many (I'm not including BS or UP in this) who claim that science wants to get rid of God.  That science is atheistic, and therefore evil.  It's really, really sad to see this happening in front of us, and there seems to be so little we can do about it.  It's like we are forced to watch as we drop back into the dark ages, from which we will have to climb out of again - if we can ever pry people away from the dogma of religious belief systems that do nothing to add value to our society.
Title: Re: Evolution: Christian on Christian action Commentary Thread
Post by: jetson on September 12, 2010, 09:06:54 PM
To add, I do think it is sad that so many people just don't seem to trust science.
Title: Re: Evolution: Christian on Christian action Commentary Thread
Post by: ParkingPlaces on September 12, 2010, 09:44:27 PM
I just made a major mistake. I read the conservapedia.com entries on evolution and speciation. Personally, I am amazed that they at least spelled the words right. It is very hard to figure out where they got their information.

Conservapedia stated, at the end of the speciation article, that "Sometimes speciation is described as "evolution in action." While this description is essentially correct, speciation does not prove the general theory of evolution, specifically, universal common descent."

To paraphrase, they are saying that it is essentially correct that it is evolution in action, except since there is no such thing as evolution it doesn't prove anything.

I have to go wash my eyeballs out with bleach, but I'll be back soon. Crap I'm gonna stink.
Title: Re: Evolution: Christian on Christian action Commentary Thread
Post by: William on September 12, 2010, 10:13:35 PM
I have a hard time putting into words how much I hate what the various religious establishments have done to undermine science.

A sentiment I share.  I had a little go at it one time - remember Sam who was stonewalling about "mutations":

Quote
If you have a genetics or microbiology department near you, go in and introduce yourself - ask them to show you a bit of what they do.  I think you will be shocked at the resources, study, and years of effort it takes to conduct this type of research.  They are working with stuff that is close to invisible, is easily contaminated, and very complicated.  It's heroic stuff actually - and to have creationists sniping at it from the sidelines while themselves doing no serious work to contribute anything useful is a shame.  Creationists are quite happy to enjoy the medicines, the health care, the foods, the chemicals, the water purification etc etc - but all the time buzz around like annoying little disease carrying mosquitoes on a mission to infect the science with a dysfunctional thought process.
Title: Re: Evolution: Christian on Christian action Commentary Thread
Post by: UniversityPastor on September 13, 2010, 12:41:18 AM

I have a hard time putting into words how much I hate what the various religious establishments have done to undermine science.


Indeed.  To make matters worse, there are many (I'm not including BS or UP in this) who claim that science wants to get rid of God. 

I do not by any means think that science wants to get rid of god, or that it is atheistic and therefore bad.

I agree with every scientific consensus I can think of.
Title: Re: Evolution: Christian on Christian action Commentary Thread
Post by: Timo on September 13, 2010, 02:00:43 AM
Does anyone else want to elaborate on just how incomprehensible it is that all scientists are collaborating to lie about the foundation of biology?  Or how in order to maintain that lie, they would have to fudge decades of results?  And how all those fudged results would be useless for any science or practical applications?  And how by now the entire house of cards would have collapsed?

It's worse than that.  If the young earth people are right then there would have to be entire fields of science that are either collectively in on the lie or too incompetent to notice the problem.  It's not just biology.  The young earthers also have a problem with the findings of, among other fields, geology, archeology, and cosmology.
Title: Re: Evolution: Christian on Christian action Commentary Thread
Post by: UniversityPastor on September 13, 2010, 04:17:57 AM
My opening arguments are up.

I just wanted to pre-empt what will be the inevitable response

"Just like a theist to start with an argument that their claim can't be disproven"

But notice that it's a 2 parter, and contention B says "and I can provide evidence in it's favor" I have a plan here, people.

I don't want BS to feel buried under a mountain of science he doesn't trust or believe in. I want him to feel met on his own terms. Then, when he understands that what he's clinging to won't hold him up, he will be able to see what other options he has.
Title: Re: Evolution: Christian on Christian action Commentary Thread
Post by: screwtape on September 13, 2010, 09:37:28 AM
Good opening, UP. 
Title: Re: Evolution: Christian on Christian action Commentary Thread
Post by: Tykster on September 13, 2010, 03:24:03 PM
Good opening, UP. 

Agreed, but Occam's razor is going to be very dull, methinks, at the conclusion of this exchange.....
Title: Re: Evolution: Christian on Christian action Commentary Thread
Post by: screwtape on September 13, 2010, 10:21:42 PM
No, this is not enough. Aside from it being an argument ad populum,

At what point does the consensus opinion cease to be an argument from popularity?  What I mean is, how much expertise does a group have to have for it to no longer be just a popular opinion?  It is not like we are talking about the scientists' opinion.  They agree because they have all seen the same facts that point to the same conclusions. And they are experts because they have more facts and more practice using them.   

When we say "99% of scientists believe X" where X is an idea in their field, that is not the same as taking a poll of a-holes on the street and seeing what they think of the president.  There is a difference between opinion and profession opinions, no?  I am inclined to call bullshit on biblestudent here.

Even if not. In order to explain away this incredible inequality in the scientific community you have only 2 options:

One, you could believe you personally know more about biology than most biologists
Or two, you could believe that scientists are so devoted to not following God that they’ve allowed their eyes to be blinded from the truth.

I choose neither.
Instead, what I assert is that science has failed to adequately provide, beyond hypotheticals, critical evidence for the process that it alleges has created complex life and brought about its diversification. Even to this day, after decades of hypothesizing, testing, researching, and digging….I have yet to see ONE SINGLE convincing argument for speciation.

For those of you who missed it, that is choice number one - biblestudent thinks he knows more.


Title: Re: Evolution: Christian on Christian action Commentary Thread
Post by: jetson on September 13, 2010, 10:40:55 PM
Wow.  Another sad victim of the "evolution conspiracy" crap from the world of crazy creationists.  So very sad that BS has bought it all, hook, line, and sinker.  I could recommend a great site that explains the micro/macro non-sense that BS is latched onto, but I can virtually guarantee he is not honest enough to admit he is wrong in his entire view of the terms.

Maybe BS will take the time to explain the exact mechanism God uses to STOP micro evolution before it becomes a new species!  Nobel Prize anyone?????  Mwu ha ha ha ha ha...sad.

Still some woo coming from UP, but nothing that can't be resolved by a drop of the god delusion. 
Title: Re: Evolution: Christian on Christian action Commentary Thread
Post by: relativetruth on September 14, 2010, 02:44:32 AM
It is interesting that BS has completely ignored what UP considers his main argument which is that Xtians do not need to be so afraid of TOE because it is consistant with the bible (in UP's view).

I had been looking forward to the battle of the decoder rings.

Title: Re: Evolution: Christian on Christian action Commentary Thread
Post by: Timo on September 14, 2010, 03:28:23 AM
It is interesting that BS has completely ignored what UP considers his main argument which is that Xtians do not need to be so afraid of TOE because it is consistant with the bible (in UP's view).

Yeah, looking back, I think that this would have been a better issue around which to focus a debate between Christians.  We've all seen creationists pretend that the scientific consensus surrounding evolution is the result of some sort of grand conspiracy, but I think that the intra-faith conversation would have been much more interesting.

Honestly, at this point, I'm impressed with your patience, UP.  I just can't pretend that the anti-evolution side has anything going for it.  And I don't really know how to properly engage with a side that I don't fully respect, intellectually.
Title: Re: Evolution: Christian on Christian action Commentary Thread
Post by: Emergence on September 14, 2010, 03:50:38 AM
Even to this day, after decades of hypothesizing, testing, researching, and digging….I have yet to see ONE SINGLE convincing argument for speciation.

I'd be interested to hear whether BS considers the evidence for the formation and separation of languages brought forth by linguists convincing or whether he believes that all current languages are a result of God's intervention at the "Tower of Babel" incident. If he finds the linguists' evidence credible and reliable, where does he see it as qualitatively different and stronger than that of us poor, misguided biologists?

Maybe in another debate...

Hey, UP, thank you for your time and effort. This scientist here really appreciates it.  :)
Title: Re: Evolution: Christian on Christian action Commentary Thread
Post by: UniversityPastor on September 14, 2010, 05:05:09 AM
Hey, UP, thank you for your time and effort. This scientist here really appreciates it.  :)


Thanks for appreciating it.
Title: Re: Evolution: Christian on Christian action Commentary Thread
Post by: UniversityPastor on September 14, 2010, 05:24:38 AM
When I debate, I like to keep a "flow" that keeps track of the arguments and where they apply. I thought since we had this discussion thread, I'd share my Flow with you, so you can follow along with me.

My arguments will be in Bold
His will be in Red

On Case

A: There Is No Reason Whatsoever Not To Believe Evolution
---no response---

B: There Is At Least Some Reason To Believe Evolution

B1: Most Scientists Believe Evolution
1. That's An Argument Ad Populoum
2. Scientists Lie And Cheat A Lot
B2: I Have Met BS's Own Criterion
Or Alternatively BS Is So Confident I'll Be Able To That He Won't Fairly Spell Out What That Is
---Still waiting to learn what that is---
B3: It's Implied By The Biblical Narrative
Does that mean you think abiogenesis is a part of evolution? (no)
B4: Other Stuff
I don't have to answer that

Off Case
---No Counterarguments Yet---

Title: Re: Evolution: Christian on Christian action Commentary Thread
Post by: Tykster on September 14, 2010, 09:32:04 AM
 



I choose neither.
Instead, what I assert is that science has failed to adequately provide, beyond hypotheticals, critical evidence for the process that it alleges has created complex life and brought about its diversification. Even to this day, after decades of hypothesizing, testing, researching, and digging….I have yet to see ONE SINGLE convincing argument for speciation.


<my bolding>  Would this qualify for speciation?

Something I came across after watching a documentary on the subject. In an evolutionary blink of an eye, dogs came from wolves :

Quote
The Evolution of Dogs from Wolves - Descendent of the Domestic Dog
Dr. Robert K. Wayne's work implies that the modern dog, although very similar genetically to the Grey
Wolf, has many separately distinct origins in both time and locations. The Grey Wolf and our modern "canine best friend"  are in fact so closely related to Grey Wolves that they can still interbreed, producing  fully viable offspring.


edit : fix quotes
Title: Re: Evolution: Christian on Christian action Commentary Thread
Post by: BibleStudent on September 14, 2010, 09:41:16 AM
When we say "99% of scientists believe X" where X is an idea in their field, that is not the same as taking a poll of a-holes on the street and seeing what they think of the president.  There is a difference between opinion and profession opinions, no?  I am inclined to call bullshit on biblestudent here.

This may startle you, but even I believe in certain aspects of evolution. It's when we get to macroevolution/speciation and the origins of life that things are strictly hypothetical and unconvincing.

I have seen some information indicating that 98%-99% of scientists believe in evolution.....well, cripes, you could count me in there if I were a scientist and you are speaking in general terms.....but those figures fail to make the distinction I am making. They are misleading. How many of them are convinced that abiogenesis and speciation are as convincing as things that happen on a micro level?
 

Title: Re: Evolution: Christian on Christian action Commentary Thread
Post by: jetson on September 14, 2010, 10:09:16 AM
When we say "99% of scientists believe X" where X is an idea in their field, that is not the same as taking a poll of a-holes on the street and seeing what they think of the president.  There is a difference between opinion and profession opinions, no?  I am inclined to call bullshit on biblestudent here.

This may startle you, but even I believe in certain aspects of evolution. It's when we get to macroevolution/speciation and the origins of life that things are strictly hypothetical and unconvincing.

I have seen some information indicating that 98%-99% of scientists believe in evolution.....well, cripes, you could count me in there if I were a scientist and you are speaking in general terms.....but those figures fail to make the distinction I am making. They are misleading. How many of them are convinced that abiogenesis and speciation are as convincing as things that happen on a micro level?
 

You are making a distinction out of something you made up (or at best, borrowed from some ignorant creationist blowhard).  Your premise, and failure to understand the ToE is the only problem here.  You are free to deny it for the rest of your life, but you are plainly and factually wrong in this case.  Sorry. 

Title: Re: Evolution: Christian on Christian action Commentary Thread
Post by: Operator_020 on September 14, 2010, 10:12:58 AM
Maybe in another debate...

Maybe a BibleStudent vs Emergence debate on linguistics?  I know a guy who can set that up...
Title: Re: Evolution: Christian on Christian action Commentary Thread
Post by: Emergence on September 14, 2010, 10:42:38 AM
Maybe a BibleStudent vs Emergence debate on linguistics?  I know a guy who can set that up...

I personally am not interested in a participation in a formal debate. Too demanding in terms of time and effort. Sorry.
Title: Re: Evolution: Christian on Christian action Commentary Thread
Post by: BibleStudent on September 14, 2010, 11:14:55 AM
I personally am not interested in a participation in a formal debate. Too demanding in terms of time and effort. Sorry.

Chicken !!

Just kidding. I would have to decline as well. I am already participating in two other discussions/debates.....and it is, as you said, rather time consuming.


Title: Re: Evolution: Christian on Christian action Commentary Thread
Post by: velkyn on September 14, 2010, 11:35:25 AM
wow, considering that BS still has no idea what the ToE is and keeps trying to redefine it to suit his desires, isn't it unfair and pointless to even try to discuss it with him?   It is amazing on how he still tries to conflate abiogenesis with evolutionary theory *and* tries to seperate speciation from evolution.  Willful ignorance is rather sad that way. It always seems that the claimant thinks that repeating misinformation will eventually make it "true".
 


Title: Re: Evolution: Christian on Christian action
Post by: Gnu Ordure on September 14, 2010, 11:47:31 AM
Mod20/ UP/BS, may I make a suggestion?

UP said this in his OP:
Quote
Then we have to decade how the debate should be judged. And I think that should be on balance. Meaning that when we have this debate, I'm going to make some arguments in favor of the theory of evolution, you're going to sake some arguments against the theory, and then we're both going to try to tear down one anothers arguments or use them to defend our own.

I think at the end of the debate, whoever has more powerful arguments that have survived, should win.

UP, it seems to me that if you do that, you'll be spending more time claiming victory in parts of the debate than actually having the debate (a slight exaggeration).

And it seems a litttle unnecessary, when we already have a traditional procedure for deciding who has a won a debate; a vote from the audience.

In this case, it would be easy, after each person has agreed to bring the debate to an end and has made his closing statement, for Mod 20 to open a poll at the top of the thread so we can vote Yes or No, and we''ll find out if the motion has been carried or not.

What do you think?

Gnu.

PS maybe I should have put this in the commentary, but I thought you might not notice it there. Feel free to move it, 20, if you want to.
Title: Re: Evolution: Christian on Christian action Commentary Thread
Post by: UniversityPastor on September 14, 2010, 12:03:38 PM
@GNU (I'm going to reply to you hear because I'm pretty sure your comment will get moved here)

Yes. I agree with you. Mod asked for some parameters to start with, so I tried to be clear, and then BS promptly agreed to those terms, but didn't debate according to them.

I just want to give him one more chance to put something down and then I'll rip him a new one.

No more discussion about discussion I promise.

Or should I just do it now. Mod? Do you want me to just end this quick and painfully?
Title: Re: Evolution: Christian on Christian action Commentary Thread
Post by: MathIsCool on September 14, 2010, 12:42:22 PM
When I debate, I like to keep a "flow" that keeps track of the arguments and where they apply...

Yay!  I remember the term "flow."  Brings back fond memories...

To be perfectly honest, I'm a little skeptical of the whole theory of evolution (though I cringe to say that on a board like this) but I have to admit that up to this point UP is winning pretty handily against BS.

BS, a little friendly advice -

I think UP is, in his main point, asking you to talk about biblical, theological reasons why evolution cannot be.  If First Kelletonians 23:42 said "And it shall come to pass that 1,850 years after the Son of Man's death and ressurection, there shall arise an evil and false theory, it shall be named evolution and thou shalt not believe in it..." then even if UP had shown gobs and gobs and gobs of scientific evidence in favor of evolution, UP would concede that he lost the debate.  There would be a good biblical, theological reason to disbelieve evolution.

However, First Kelletonians doesn't exist, so some other biblical arguments you could try:

1) The Bible teaches Mankind is made in the image of God, set apart from other animals.  The Theory of Evolution seems to contradict this.

2) The Bible teaches Sin and, more importantly for this debate, death were not present before the Fall, which Evolution pretty adamently contradicts.

3) The Bible says six times that there "was evening and there was morning - the nth day."  This sounds like it's describing 24 hour days, not epochs, which does not give Evolution enough time to work with.

Title: Re: Evolution: Christian on Christian action Commentary Thread
Post by: Omen on September 14, 2010, 03:23:11 PM
I still haven't seen anything convincing that BS even knows what natural selection is functionally speaking or even how to apply that function to understanding how speciation can occur.  There is a common usage of single generic terms as if those terms represented all basic knowledge regarding that subject ( theory of evolution, multiple explanatory mechanisms involved; speciation, multiple kinds of selective speciation involved ).

What I often find is that fundamentalist not only don't know what evolution is, but actively work to avoid acknowledging anything beyond the vague projection that they've assumed evolution to be.  There is also the issue of having to educate every fundamentalist on basic science at the starting gate.
Title: Re: Evolution: Christian on Christian action Commentary Thread
Post by: nogodsforme on September 14, 2010, 03:57:04 PM
Prayer, faith healing, etc do not work. That is why we have to rely on science. If the TOE was not valid, the science based on it would not work and the TOE would have been tossed out long ago. The science works, and has for the past century and a half. Therefore the theory is valid.  Scientists have confirmed that all life had a single common ancestor. It is the only way that many aspects of modern science can exist.

Why is there even an argument about this? What is there to "believe" or not "believe" about a theory that is clearly valid? People who don't "believe" in the TOE have to explain how it is that the science based on a bogus theory somehow works. Is it by magic? I am assuming that most of these TOE deniers have been vaccinated against many awful diseases, and if not, have avoided smallpox, etc, because most of the world has been vaccinated......

It is like a person who doesn't "believe" in the theory of gravity that has enabled people to put objects into space,  telling you all this on a satellite phone while driving a car that has GPS. :shrug
Title: Re: Evolution: Christian on Christian action Commentary Thread
Post by: Omen on September 14, 2010, 04:04:49 PM
I think the primary problem is that a presuppositionalist apologetic by necessity has to attack basic knowledge.  They've essentially leave themselves with no other option after defining what truth is regarding their presumptions, without any basis of support.  Science, a simple system of knowing, consistently contradicts biblical literalism in virtually every single field of study.  It has to be denied or attacked, doing anything less is unacceptable.
Title: Re: Evolution: Christian on Christian action Commentary Thread
Post by: OnePerson on September 14, 2010, 04:19:46 PM
What I often find is that fundamentalist not only don't know what evolution is, but actively work to avoid acknowledging anything beyond the vague projection that they've assumed evolution to be.  There is also the issue of having to educate every fundamentalist on basic science at the starting gate.

It doesn't annoy me that people don't believe in evolution.  It annoys me that most of these people don't even know what it is.

For example (And this is the most face-palming quote I've ever heard about evolution and science):

"As far as I have heard from scientists, the age of the earth has been determined solely by how long they estimate it must take for evolution to occur (which keeps getting longer and longer) and is not based on factual evidence."
Title: Re: Evolution: Christian on Christian action Commentary Thread
Post by: nogodsforme on September 14, 2010, 04:30:24 PM
^^^^Huh?
Title: Re: Evolution: Christian on Christian action Commentary Thread
Post by: Azdgari on September 14, 2010, 04:37:08 PM
Where's that quote from? lol
Title: Re: Evolution: Christian on Christian action Commentary Thread
Post by: OnePerson on September 14, 2010, 04:51:43 PM
^Some random gaming forum I was reading.  You can find it if you Google it with quotes.  The guy said quite a lot of hilarious face-palming things about evolution.

"Evolution IS based on the idea that everything is going towards perfection (attainable or not). If it was not going towards perfection then why is the entire hypothesis based on things getting better because the less than average don't survive? If the less than average die off, then the average bar is raised, and so on, until the bar is set at perfect (or continually getting closer)."
Title: Re: Evolution: Christian on Christian action Commentary Thread
Post by: Omen on September 14, 2010, 04:53:44 PM
I particularly despise:
'
"darwinism doesn't explain everything.."

Which of course, the obvious response is that no one says that it does or at least no one except the idiot who lied to you.
Title: Re: Evolution: Christian on Christian action Commentary Thread
Post by: UniversityPastor on September 14, 2010, 05:26:46 PM
I am assuming that most of these TOE deniers have been vaccinated against many awful diseases, and if not, have avoided smallpox, etc, because most of the world has been vaccinated......

My last girlfriend was one of the many Christians from a insular home-schooled community that didn't trust "western" medicine, and wouldn't get vaccinated. >:( It was quite disgusting. She was also afraid of "processed" food and anything dairy.



She was really really hot though.
Title: Re: Evolution: Christian on Christian action Commentary Thread
Post by: jetson on September 14, 2010, 07:21:59 PM

She was really really hot though.

As a general rule, hot girls deserve special consideration above and beyond their intellectual level, or their delusion.
 ;D ;D ;D

Just kidding girls!  Luv Ya!
Title: Re: Evolution: Christian on Christian action Commentary Thread
Post by: Omen on September 14, 2010, 09:12:10 PM
I think he's terrified that you are right.  The formal debate structure works to prevent any obfuscating tactics because it can be identified and challenged, without the ability to simply ignore it.
Title: Re: Evolution: Christian on Christian action Commentary Thread
Post by: Omen on September 15, 2010, 06:55:53 AM
Now, I realize that my opponent will try to tell you that science no longer makes a distinction between micro and macro evolution and that use of these terms on my part are indicative of ignorance....

Of course!  Science doesn't actually mean what it actually means, and instead means something vague you mean it to be. 

Or in this case, an idiotic falsehood:

Quote
Evolutionary science would like us all to believe that is unnecessary to distinguish between the two because microevolution has been proven and all macroevolution is is a bunch of microevolution at work.

This is what I mean when I say creationist often have no comprehension of what evolution is or how it works.  Based off absolutely nothing, bible student has constructed a position that he seemingly holds that has absolutely nothing to do with any scientific argument or evolution itself as presented.  He dismisses the obvious problem that will be pointed out about his own ignorant assertions about micro vs macro, then later concludes that its all part of a larger conspiracy:

Quote
Well, it is my belief that this assertion made by evolutionary science is mere propaganda employed to deceive the masses into believing that evolution can successfully account for all of the steps in the evolutionary process.

Yes, all biologist throughout the world for the past 150 years have conspired together to fool anyone that supposedly doesn't know anything about science beyond it being a mystical out of your reach tier of knowledge that can be easily manipulated by nefarious people on top!

Oh but he's not really saying what he's really saying:

Quote
I am not charging all of evolutionary science with corruption and bias. This type of behavior is, admittedly, not the norm. However, we need to consider the existence of this behavior when deciding if science is good in terms of whether it is presenting the true facts.

Holy shit, the stupid and dishonesty is mind boggling.
Title: Re: Evolution: Christian on Christian action Commentary Thread
Post by: jetson on September 15, 2010, 07:55:54 AM
Omen,

Thank you.  I could not have said it better without being banned.
Title: Re: Evolution: Christian on Christian action Commentary Thread
Post by: jetson on September 15, 2010, 08:01:03 AM
Quote from: BibleStudent
CONCLUSION

My opponent contends that Christianity can be compatible with evolution. As a Christian myself, I accuse him of placing God’s Word into a worldview inconsistent with the Bible that he bases his faith on.  He does not need evolution to explain the account of creation the Bible clearly lays out. Reputable Christian scientists have laid out highly plausible explanations for how any concept of evolution can be explained by the Biblical record of creation. If he honestly believes that evolutionary science is “good science,” he must successfully demonstrate, for the purposes of this argument, that it has and is giving some recognition to a Creator as means of explaining the complex occurrence of "speciation"....particularly since the Bible he and I use explains it all very well !

Bolded by me.

I have asked creationists to explain the mechanism created by God that accounts for speciation, as well as the MASSIVE amount of extinction that has apparently occurred.  To date, the only plausible answer are the super powers of God himself.  Game, set, match.  The Bible has nothing beyond supernatural non-sense regarding anything remotely akin to evolution.

I would LOVE to see anything in The Bible that "explains it all very well."
Title: Re: Evolution: Christian on Christian action Commentary Thread
Post by: Omen on September 15, 2010, 08:19:33 AM
Omen,

Thank you.  I could not have said it better without being banned.

His lack of reasoning and the delusional projection he's constructing goes back to what I originally predicted:

What I often find is that fundamentalist not only don't know what evolution is, but actively work to avoid acknowledging anything beyond the vague projection that they've assumed evolution to be.  There is also the issue of having to educate every fundamentalist on basic science at the starting gate.

There can't be a reasonable expectation of a discussion, when one person insists on creating a make believe position to respond with or about.  The creationist/fundie has to keep the subject material vague and/or misleading in order to make further follow up arguments, despite everything that exists to the contrary.  He even denies the obvious counter point that his assertions are factually wrong, dismissing by pleading for justification to seemingly no one except himself.  He just needs a slim amount of room to insert his own plausible denial, it doesn't need to be correct just fuzzy enough to satisfy his own ego.

That's what is really frustrating about these discussions, that creationists by far are engaging in an exchange that is mind numbingly below the grade level of the subject itself.  Everyday might as well be bring a crayon day, because the level of discourse from creationist hasn't evolved beyond even a cursory introduction to science for 5th graders.
Title: Re: Evolution: Christian on Christian action Commentary Thread
Post by: jetson on September 15, 2010, 08:26:27 AM
My eight year old would crush the stuff BS is writing, I guarantee it.  He spent 3 hours sifting through a pile of crushed rocks at a Houston museum, looking for fossils.  He gave me a small bag of his findings and labeled it "20 million year old sea life fossils."

Title: Re: Evolution: Christian on Christian action Commentary Thread
Post by: Omen on September 15, 2010, 08:56:25 AM
My eight year old would crush the stuff BS is writing, I guarantee it.  He spent 3 hours sifting through a pile of crushed rocks at a Houston museum, looking for fossils.  He gave me a small bag of his findings and labeled it "20 million year old sea life fossils."

Hence the need to isolate their children or even their audience from any source that doesn't first come from themselves.  They have to make sure their target demographic is ignorant of basic science in order to make the appeal in the first place.  Hence, they actively do no research, make no attempts to publish in peer review ( they don't even try ), and entirely rely on appeals to laymen through pr firms and publications.

His reference to wells is laughable, who so frequently lies in his own books anyway.  Plus, Wells doesn't even contribute anything new to the discussion, since his book ( icons of evolution ) is nothing but a wholesale repeat of every single creationist canard out there complete with the same misinformation.
Title: Re: Evolution: Christian on Christian action Commentary Thread
Post by: UniversityPastor on September 15, 2010, 10:09:41 AM
Okay guys am I crazy?

I'm still not sure if this is an opening argument, or just a slightly more annoyed rebuttal to my opening argument.

I think it's his opening argument, but why is it organized into an A, and a B1, B2, B3, and B4? why are A and B1 pretty much exactly what I said only with "Nut Uh!" attached?

Is this just BS's first foray into an organized debate and he now believes they are all organized and enumerated the same way as my opening arguments?

I'm going to respond later today... Will someone just let me know if I missed something?
Title: Re: Evolution: Christian on Christian action Commentary Thread
Post by: jetson on September 15, 2010, 11:29:11 AM
Okay guys am I crazy?

I'm still not sure if this is an opening argument, or just a slightly more annoyed rebuttal to my opening argument.

I think it's his opening argument, but why is it organized into an A, and a B1, B2, B3, and B4? why are A and B1 pretty much exactly what I said only with "Nut Uh!" attached?

Is this just BS's first foray into an organized debate and he now believes they are all organized and enumerated the same way as my opening arguments?

I'm going to respond later today... Will someone just let me know if I missed something?

Welcome to the world of BS.  Pun intended.

Sorry, but I have had a bit of a problem with BS' approach in other threads, and this is no surprise to me at all.  What's surprising to me is the tolerance for his style.  I think it is some bizarre black hole of some sort, where BS has managed to convince some forum members that he is truly trying to learn from others, or is interested in two way discussions.

I'll jump on board as soon as we convert him to atheism!
Title: Re: Evolution: Christian on Christian action Commentary Thread
Post by: Omen on September 15, 2010, 11:34:59 AM
If you try to educate him on basic science and biology, he'll assert what he's already concluded: That you're part of or fooled by the larger atheist evolutionary conspiracy.  He can't afford to have his blatant lie corrected.

There is nothing you can do beyond that
Title: Re: Evolution: Christian on Christian action Commentary Thread
Post by: blue on September 15, 2010, 12:21:10 PM
Sorry, but I have had a bit of a problem with BS' approach in other threads, and this is no surprise to me at all.  What's surprising to me is the tolerance for his style.  I think it is some bizarre black hole of some sort, where BS has managed to convince some forum members that he is truly trying to learn from others, or is interested in two way discussions.

I tried to give him the benefit of the doubt, but he's hopeless. And either a liar or an amoral monster, take your pic. I predict he'll bail on this debate the second he's rebutted with facts and logic.

Edit to take out off topic comments.
Title: Re: Evolution: Christian on Christian action Commentary Thread
Post by: nogodsforme on September 15, 2010, 02:59:29 PM

She was really really hot though.

As a general rule, hot girls deserve special consideration above and beyond their intellectual level, or their delusion.
 ;D ;D ;D

Just kidding girls!  Luv Ya!



Ya know what they say about those kinda girls; "crazy in the head, crazy in the bed"....
Of course for guys it is more like "crazy in the head, collected guns, saw red, now resides in a maximum security correctional facility run by the fed"!

This does not hold for all you cool crazy guys on this site. Luv ya! ;)
Title: Re: Evolution: Christian on Christian action Commentary Thread
Post by: Operator_020 on September 15, 2010, 07:50:47 PM
Let me just take the opportunity to remind everyone this is a thread for commentary on the debate, not to comment on the character of the debaters.  Discussion of the points made in the debate are encouraged.  Please keep it civil.  Thanks.

020
Title: Re: Evolution: Christian on Christian action Commentary Thread
Post by: jetson on September 15, 2010, 10:30:27 PM
Fair enough, who needs character attacks when you've got so much else to chew on.

Quote from: BibleStudent
Why is it that “pure” creation science is not given a fair shake by the scientific community?

Number 1, it's not science, it's absolute, "pure" crap.  It doesn't even approach science.  It ALWAYS leaves us wondering about the mechanism, and the mechanism always ends up at a god.  NOT SCIENCE, MYTHOLOGY.  Period.

Number 2, if it was science, it would most definitely get it's fair shake.  In fact, there are certainly plenty of scientists who would kill to debunk evolution even accidentally, just for the fame and fortune of such a breakthrough!

Number 3, Where is the science, exactly?  Where is the science that you so adamantly claim is not being considered?  WHERE IS IT?  If there were ANY science at all, there would be PLENTY of interested parties to take a look at it and consider its merits.

Quote from: BibleStudent
Why is it, by and large, disregarded as worthy of hypotheticals in light of inability to provide solid evidence for speciation?

If I had to guess, I would think he is asking why creation science hypotheses are disregarded in light of the ToE's inability to provide solid evidence for speciation?  Shoot, who knows what this question was attempting to get at.

If my guess is correct, I would just make a couple of points:

1. Hypotheses are always welcome, as long as they have some basis to begin applying the scientific method against, in order to begin forming a potential theory.  Creation science has no such thing, and is thus disregarded wholly by actual scientists (God's scientists certainly disagree, of course.)

2. There is more solid and irrefutable evidence for speciation than is even necessary to completely take it as scientific fact.  That you ignore it for personal reasons is the more serious problem here.  When speciation occurs in a laboratory, in front of everyone, and is repeatable by anyone with a lab coat and a tongue full of bacteria, there's little reason to even discuss the evidence with people who think like you.  Perhaps if you stand on a stool or a ladder and re-read this reply, it won't go completely over your head?


Quote from: BibleStudent
Why is evolutionary archaeology not more interested in demonstrating that the fossil record be used to establish that speciation might be due to Intelligent Design?

Intelligent Design is Creationism.  These two things are one in the same, this has been proven in a court of law, when it's adherents were caught red-handed.  I won't link to the case because I'm certain that BS is going to separate ID from Creation despite this little fact.

The honest, and hard-working scientists from all different fields have been working with the theory as it was posited and written about by Darwin.  Even though we have learned so much more than Darwin even could have imagined, we know that Darwin was right on target.  There is literally NO REASON for any credible scientist to jump into some rabbit hole in search of some designer, because there is absolutely NO EVIDENCE that points in that direction.  None.  Zip.  Nada.  Zero.

If such evidence existed, we would have competing theories, now wouldn't we?  Oh, no?  We wouldn't...because...because...the evil scientists couldn't stand to have all of their hard work flushed down the toilet by A MYTHICAL MAGICAL GOD...sob...sob...sob...

Creationism is crap.  It's a fairy tale, connected to another fairy tale, written before humans realized they were whirling through a universe on a tiny planet in the middle of fucking nowhere.  If God were real, we might be looking into whether this god created stuff, or kicked off life, or caused evolution, or whatever.  But God isn't even close to real, so we don't consider it worthy of much time and effort when we have real work to do (sorry UP, all Gods are imaginary)  ;D
Title: Re: Evolution: Christian on Christian action Commentary Thread
Post by: Timo on September 16, 2010, 02:54:07 AM
UP, great response.  I particularly liked this bit:

Now let me ask you a question:

If we are afraid to follow science wherever it leads us, and trust that the truth will eventually lead us back to Christianity. Then do we really believe Christianity to begin with? Why should a Christian believer ever be afraid to let someone follow the evidence without biblical help?
Title: Re: Evolution: Christian on Christian action Commentary Thread
Post by: Eddy Swirl on September 16, 2010, 04:25:12 AM
How do you make the bell *ding* on a forum thread, signalling times up, next speaker?

No offence UP, it just seems that you're drowning him.
Title: Re: Evolution: Christian on Christian action Commentary Thread
Post by: jetson on September 16, 2010, 06:46:09 AM
Hmmm...the last replies from UP give me hope.  It seems entirely possible that UP could be convinced that The Bible is a collection of writings from unknown individuals, written to various audiences, each for various reasons, over a long period of time, and some of those writings were stapled together and called the New Testament.

That's a very easy thing to see if you look at the actual evidence.

On evolution, UP has a decent grasp of the ToE, which is far beyond what you can expect from 99% of the creationists out there.  So how much of a leap would it be for UP to drop God?

We watch one Christian lay out decent arguments that show evolution to be as factual and useful as it should be, while we watch another Christian argue that speciation doesn't occur.  It's almost entertainment!
Title: Re: Evolution: Christian on Christian action Commentary Thread
Post by: UniversityPastor on September 16, 2010, 11:51:12 AM
How do you make the bell *ding* on a forum thread, signalling times up, next speaker?

No offence UP, it just seems that you're drowning him.

Yeah I understand that sentiment. That's why I split it up into 3 posts.

BS if you're out there. If you want to just take 1 of those 3 sections to respond to now, we can cover that, and then come back around if you like. That would probably be easier.

However in my defense. the ground should be much smaller when BS responds. His A had no substance to it, and his Bs are almost totally irrelevant, so once we get past commentary on those, they'll be done with and we'll only have on case to discuss
Title: Re: Evolution: Christian on Christian action Commentary Thread
Post by: velkyn on September 16, 2010, 12:03:55 PM
UP, wasn't sure if you knew but you can see the last time anyone was on the forum by clicking on their profile icon under their name on a post of theirs.  I've used it to gauge how sincere anyone is in responding.
Title: Re: Evolution: Christian on Christian action Commentary Thread
Post by: generousgeorge on September 16, 2010, 12:15:07 PM
Bible student states... "Reputable Christian Scientists"   Thats like the joke we used to have about the chance of there being "Intelligent Officers" in the Army Intelligence Corp.   &)

Christian Scientist is just another name for "Christian Apologetic"    They sure resist losing their Binkies, these religious folks.

Do "Christian Scientists" use faith  as an ingredient when they use the "Scientific Method" in their "experiments to discredit Evolution and the evil "Darwinists"?

Oh wait, experiments are objective searches for the truth, oh yeah Christian Scientist would be good for that. But they may be a tad prejudice if their experiment results show a lack of "faith" on their part which would cause them to lose their place in line for Paradise.  :o Course I know all Reputable Christian Scientists would disavow their "faith" if their objective experimental results showed evolution to be correct.  RIGHT??  :P
Title: Re: Evolution: Christian on Christian action Commentary Thread
Post by: UniversityPastor on September 16, 2010, 12:23:52 PM
UP, wasn't sure if you knew but you can see the last time anyone was on the forum by clicking on their profile icon under their name on a post of theirs.  I've used it to gauge how sincere anyone is in responding.

I'm afraid I'm not picking up what you're putting down.

Pretend like you're talking to a theist...Explain it real slow...
Title: Re: Evolution: Christian on Christian action Commentary Thread
Post by: Azdgari on September 16, 2010, 12:46:44 PM
I just clicked on your name, UP, and got a page with this at the top:

Quote
  Summary - UniversityPastor  Picture/Text
Name:  UniversityPastor
Posts:  115 (8.846 per day)
Position:  Undergraduate
Date Registered:  September 03, 2010, 12:15:55 PM
Last Active:  2 minutes ago

...(other stuff)


That's what velkyn is talking about.
Title: Re: Evolution: Christian on Christian action Commentary Thread
Post by: Gnu Ordure on September 16, 2010, 03:49:27 PM
UP:
Quote
Yeah I understand that sentiment. That's why I split it up into 3 posts.
That doesn't really help, UP. It's still a giant response, in toto, compared to his previous one.

What you could do is agree to confine yourselves to the maximum word-count of one post; I don't how much that is, but it's surely sufficient for debating purposes...
Title: Re: Evolution: Christian on Christian action Commentary Thread
Post by: screwtape on September 16, 2010, 06:23:00 PM
However, there are aspects of it that deserve scrutiny and criticism. There are a number of reasons for making this statement...

The best reason is "that's science".  Science is all about scrutiny and criticism.  It is how we make sure we got it right.  Since Darwin published his findings, the theory of evolution has received possibly more scrutiny and criticism than any other theory in science.  This does not make it the weakest. Rather the opposite.  Because of this scrutiny and criticism, it may be the strongest theory in all science.


Is it possible that the research, studies, and conclusions within evolutionary science are conducted with an inherent dictate to prove that evolution is valid and provable….at all costs. Certainly, science is just as susceptible to corruption as, say, Wallstreet. Consider the following:

How about considering this instead: corruption and falsification in science will be rooted out. That is one of the reasons why we use the scientific method.  Consider also corruption in theology.  Who has more to gain from corruption?  The scientist or the huckster holy man?  And whom is the one making the testable claims?  A scientist claims he's developed cold fusion.  Great.  Let me try it out.  But a priest claims god told him to screw your hot 16 year old daughter?  How dare you question god.  You lack faith.



in the end, he was compelled to admit that this creature is not an irrefutable example of transition. Good science would responsibly present it for what it truly is rather than “proof.”

what the flip?  "Irrefutable proof"?  You are demanding irrefutable proof?  You who worships an invisible, mute god who demands that no tests be applied to it?  You cannot be serious.


A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism- 100 Scientists who are skeptical of evolution.
http://www.discovery.org/articleFiles/PDFs/100ScientistsAd.pdf

Funny how few biologists there are and how many have backgrounds in  mathemetics, philosophy of science, astronomy, signal and image processing, physics, plasma physics, etc.  I think it is fair to say they either do not know what they are talking about OR like all good scientists, they are saying we should be skeptical of all of our knowledge.  As in, "of course we could be wrong about it, but it is the best explanation we have."  I am not the first to say this.: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Scientific_Dissent_From_Darwinism#Expertise_relevance
Check out the part where people say the Discovery Institute was misleading when they asked them to sign.  Talk about ethics and fraud.  What a pack of liars.  I thought xians were supposed to be better, more moral than us? 

You should be ashamed, biblestudent.  Very ashamed.  Hang your head and beg baby jesus to forgive you for such a lame argument.



Title: Re: Evolution: Christian on Christian action Commentary Thread
Post by: Emergence on September 17, 2010, 02:09:18 AM
in the end, he was compelled to admit that this creature is not an irrefutable example of transition. Good science would responsibly present it for what it truly is rather than “proof.”

If you are talking about me here, you are totally misrepresenting my position - again. And profoundly so.

Edit: Re-read the original thread: http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/forums/index.php?topic=15330.msg342469#msg342469
Title: Re: Evolution: Christian on Christian action Commentary Thread
Post by: Azdgari on September 17, 2010, 02:12:17 AM
It's pretty clear he is talking about you here.  And lying about you, as you point out.

He'd rather point Gestapo officers to Jews than tell a lie to keep them alive, so I can't begin to imagine what horrors are compelling him into committing this lie.
Title: Re: Evolution: Christian on Christian action Commentary Thread
Post by: Operator_020 on September 17, 2010, 08:43:07 AM
Emergence,

You have my permission to correct the record on this point.  If one of the key points of his argument is in fact a misrepresentation of your words, then it is fair - to you and to UniversityPastor - that you get a shot to clarify your position. You may have one post.  UniversityPastor will have to take it from that point though as I do not think it would be good to have a back and forth with you involved.

020
Title: Re: Evolution: Christian on Christian action Commentary Thread
Post by: Azdgari on September 17, 2010, 10:37:04 AM
And now BibleStudent has decided to interpret Emergence's words in a way in which he did not intend, and indeed in a way which he has explicitly stated - afterward - that he did not intend.

He then decided to lie about Emergence's position.  Again, if saving lives isn't cause for lying (according to BibleStudent), then what is forcing his hand in this instance?
Title: Re: Evolution: Christian on Christian action Commentary Thread
Post by: Emergence on September 17, 2010, 10:56:13 AM
It is an abysmal brazenness that BS displays and it is one of the reasons i can not, in any form, respect most figures from the YEC and ID movement, now also including him. BibleStudent, you are one objectionable contemporary.

From the late in the thread (after the post BS quoted):

I still think you changed direction late in the game, but I am not going to accuse you outright of dishonesty.

I am not satisfied with this. There's nothing that i would have had to define about my position earlier. I think it is very clear that any position a person takes or any knowledge someone holds can be wrong. I didn't change anything about my position. You just didn't understand it.
(my emphasis)

I am really really annoyed by BS behavior (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x5wQeBLQ194).
Title: Re: Evolution: Christian on Christian action Commentary Thread
Post by: jetson on September 17, 2010, 12:06:24 PM
And now BibleStudent has decided to interpret Emergence's words in a way in which he did not intend, and indeed in a way which he has explicitly stated - afterward - that he did not intend.

He then decided to lie about Emergence's position.  Again, if saving lives isn't cause for lying (according to BibleStudent), then what is forcing his hand in this instance?

Be careful there, apparently we need to treat BS with kid gloves.  Some of God's people really are special!
Title: Re: Evolution: Christian on Christian action Commentary Thread
Post by: Azdgari on September 17, 2010, 12:13:12 PM
Calling him on a lie is fair if one can directly reference the lie and show that it is a lie (rather than simply being mistaken).  Especially if it's a lie about an individual on the forum.

Going on about how he's a liar (in general) without having an example handy is different, Jetson.
Title: Re: Evolution: Christian on Christian action Commentary Thread
Post by: Omen on September 17, 2010, 12:15:45 PM
Calling him on a lie is fair if one can directly reference the lie and show that it is a lie (rather than simply being mistaken).  Especially if it's a lie about an individual on the forum.

Including examining the logical possibilities of motivations behind the action, ie intentional lie or subconscious action.  We are well beyond establishing that it is in fact a falsehood, next comes the interpretation of the reasoning.

Quote
Going on about how he's a liar (in general) without having an example handy is different, Jetson.

Which no one is doing or has done.
Title: Re: Evolution: Christian on Christian action Commentary Thread
Post by: Emergence on September 17, 2010, 12:46:03 PM
I don't call BS a liar, because i think he simply doesn't get what i am saying and that he is probably unfamiliar with the concept that any knowledge - regardless how reliable the foundation is seen to be - may be erroneous. I don't think that he thinks about his knowledge in the same way as i do about mine.
Title: Re: Evolution: Christian on Christian action Commentary Thread
Post by: Azdgari on September 17, 2010, 12:52:29 PM
Quote
Going on about how he's a liar (in general) without having an example handy is different, Jetson.
Which no one is doing or has done.

Not in this thread.  Jetson was chastised by a mod a while back for trolling elsewhere, and is acting out for it here.

I don't call BS a liar, because i think he simply doesn't get what i am saying and that he is probably unfamiliar with the concept that any knowledge - regardless how reliable the foundation is seen to be - may be erroneous. I don't think that he thinks about his knowledge in the same way as i do about mine.

That would be a fair comment on the original thread, Emergence, but not here and now.  He has had time to read and process your responses to him in the interim, and has pretended that you never made them.
Title: Re: Evolution: Christian on Christian action Commentary Thread
Post by: Emergence on September 17, 2010, 01:01:22 PM
Well, i simply entertain the possibility that - due to the divergence of our philosophical understanding of 'knowledge' - everything i said in the original thread after "I may be wrong" flew right over his head. Regardless of that, i find it really aggravating that he doesn't even make an effort of understanding now that it has been pointed out clearly to him.

On the other hand: I said what i had to say and it is on record in the debate thread and therefore i am done with this episode. Additionally UP has done a really nice job in further illustrating my point. All that this incident now does is showing how big the discrepancies between BS train of thought and valid reasoning really are. At least to me it does.  
Title: Re: Evolution: Christian on Christian action Commentary Thread
Post by: jetson on September 17, 2010, 02:28:27 PM

Not in this thread.  Jetson was chastised by a mod a while back for trolling elsewhere, and is acting out for it here.


Back on topic please.  I was mistaken, and have discussed offline.
Title: Re: Evolution: Christian on Christian action Commentary Thread
Post by: UniversityPastor on September 18, 2010, 11:16:16 PM
Okay Crowd, I need a ruling.

BS "does not know how to begin to respond" to my posts

I worked hard on those, for a good hour.

There's some really great stuff in there. Did you see my bit on blowing up the universe? I really want to see him respond to it!

So I'm tempted to explain, that a good place to start would be with the first claim of the first post, and then the second, and so on.

But I've already danced the dance quite a bit with BS about debate format, and the posts are long, so I could understand the sentiment that says "Just answer his questions"

Since you're the audience, I thought it would be fitting to let you decide. I need the old roman Pollice verso. Thumbs up or thumbs down?

Do I play his game? or do I force him to refute my existing argumentation or else admit defeat?

(http://inyourface.freedomblogging.com/files/2008/06/thumbs-up-n-down.jpg)
Title: Re: Evolution: Christian on Christian action Commentary Thread
Post by: Emergence on September 19, 2010, 01:37:16 AM
(http://i261.photobucket.com/albums/ii71/Chemobile/thumb-down.jpg)

As 'burned child' i am naturally not in favor of letting BS play his games and dictate the rules of conversation. To me this has turned out to be very counterproductive. Not that i am sure that strict rules will improve the overall quality of conversation, but at least it is more educational that way.
Title: Re: Evolution: Christian on Christian action Commentary Thread
Post by: catlady on September 19, 2010, 04:32:54 AM
Okay Crowd, I need a ruling.

BS "does not know how to begin to respond" to my posts
So I'm tempted to explain, that a good place to start would be with the first claim of the first post, and then the second, and so on.

But I've already danced the dance quite a bit with BS about debate format, and the posts are long, so I could understand the sentiment that says "Just answer his questions"

Since you're the audience, I thought it would be fitting to let you decide. I need the old roman Pollice verso. Thumbs up or thumbs down?

Do I play his game? or do I force him to refute my existing argumentation or else admit defeat?

 IMO, I think BS should try to answer all 3 posts as best he can manage, in the formal debate structure/ format as agreed to, since debate was begun and has continued in that manner. I'm not sure why he thinks he "can't begin to respond" but that impression could be due to his unfamiliarity with the manner of  organizing his responses to fit format or something- not that he doesn't already have his responses to post. Somehow,  I think he does. I would just post a short one-line reply to him as the above post  suggests at this point: i.e., 'Start with the 1st claim of the 1st post,... and so on'. 

 It seems the debate style is the difficulty , unless that implied 'difficulty' and 'unfamiliarity' is indeed a  BibleStudent 'game' to change the style of conversation; but I do have to agree with BS on his earlier  point that most  previous discussions in this section [refer to archives] didn't follow formal debate style-they appeared more like extended thread posts. A debate with loose structure in this one with BS like I believe  he apparently wants (?) would possibly have the potential to  go on for 50+ pages, arguing whatever minutiae.  Re: "admitting defeat"(with a forced ultimatum), I highly doubt BS would ever admit defeat; Yet, if he does, would anyone interpret that as his opponent really "winning" this debate? I'd like to see what  BS' refutations are, so hopefully, this won't end with BS not responding, or calling the whole thing "unfair" or some such excuse.
Title: Re: Evolution: Christian on Christian action Commentary Thread
Post by: generousgeorge on September 19, 2010, 09:47:12 AM
The reason I left WWGHA forum a year or so ago (at which time I was the leading poster.) was the futility of trying to reason with people who have foregone conclusions about the invisible guy in the sky. Doesn't seem like much as changed, one side looks for the facts to draw reasonable conclusions on while the other side tries to support their foregone conclusion in any way they can.

Can't really blame them, since in their view, really questioning the invisible guy in the sky about his inerrant book causes you to lose your place in line for paradise.  &)
Title: Re: Evolution: Christian on Christian action Commentary Thread
Post by: xphobe on September 19, 2010, 10:05:18 AM
^ heh come back in 2000 years and I bet nothing will have changed, only the names - it will be the Orange Catholics vs the Bene Gesserit or something else...
Title: Re: Evolution: Christian on Christian action Commentary Thread
Post by: Operator_020 on September 19, 2010, 03:46:30 PM
Okay Crowd, I need a ruling.

BS "does not know how to begin to respond" to my posts

I worked hard on those, for a good hour.

There's some really great stuff in there. Did you see my bit on blowing up the universe? I really want to see him respond to it!

So I'm tempted to explain, that a good place to start would be with the first claim of the first post, and then the second, and so on.

But I've already danced the dance quite a bit with BS about debate format, and the posts are long, so I could understand the sentiment that says "Just answer his questions"

Since you're the audience, I thought it would be fitting to let you decide. I need the old roman Pollice verso. Thumbs up or thumbs down?

How about this, BibleStudent gets 72 hours from now to respond to all points without you posting?  I think that is ample time to cover it.  After that, you each get one more post.  Is that fair?

Do I play his game?

No.  That was one of the reasons I kept harping on an agreement of protocol for the debate/discussion.  Unfortunately, there was never an explicit agreement, so my hands are somewhat tied.  However, there has been something of a format laid out and sort of followed.  Changing the direction entirely is bad form.  I would say unacceptable.

... or do I force him to refute my existing argumentation or else admit defeat?

I think given the time and effort you have put in, he owes a response.

Title: Re: Evolution: Christian on Christian action Commentary Thread
Post by: UniversityPastor on September 19, 2010, 04:12:52 PM
Do I play his game?

No.  That was one of the reasons I kept harping on an agreement of protocol for the debate/discussion.  Unfortunately, there was never an explicit agreement, so my hands are somewhat tied.  However, there has been something of a format laid out and sort of followed.  Changing the direction entirely is bad form.  I would say unacceptable.

Okay, Do you want to PM hm with the news?

yeah BS didn't really explicitly agree to anything ever. I kept putting things before him, and he kept resisting explicitness. I think at some point we have to accept non-disagreement on BS's part as agreement.
Title: Re: Evolution: Christian on Christian action Commentary Thread
Post by: voodoo child on September 19, 2010, 06:53:43 PM
I have changed my mind about you UP, interesting... I nothing funny to say. shit, I wasn't funny anyway.  ;D
Title: Re: Evolution: Christian on Christian action Commentary Thread
Post by: Operator_020 on September 19, 2010, 09:13:25 PM
Okay, Do you want to PM hm with the news?

Done.  I have provided the link to my post and asked him to state whether he accepts the terms.  If he says no, then it will be a heavy blow to his forum reputation, such as it is.

yeah BS didn't really explicitly agree to anything ever. I kept putting things before him, and he kept resisting explicitness. I think at some point we have to accept non-disagreement on BS's part as agreement.

I took his participation as tacit agreement, though his not following any of the formatting seemed to be an explicit denial.
Title: Re: Evolution: Christian on Christian action Commentary Thread
Post by: Gnu Ordure on September 20, 2010, 10:39:33 AM
020:
Quote
If he says no, then it will be a heavy blow to his forum reputation, such as it is.

His reputation can get lower than this?

(http://t0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:coh0h8AR5p4hgM:http://www.clker.com/cliparts/c/8/c/4/11949855901258553456arrow-down-green_benji_p_01.svg.med.png)
Title: Re: Evolution: Christian on Christian action Commentary Thread
Post by: Operator_020 on September 22, 2010, 05:04:39 PM
UniversityPastor,

It has been 3 days.  I've not received a reply from BibleStudent. He has not made a post here. However, he has not logged on since before I sent the PM.  What would you like to do?

020
Title: Re: Evolution: Christian on Christian action Commentary Thread
Post by: UniversityPastor on September 23, 2010, 04:44:36 PM
I'm in no hurry.

We could wait 3 days from the time he logs in.

Or whatever you decide.
Title: Re: Evolution: Christian on Christian action Commentary Thread
Post by: Operator_020 on September 24, 2010, 08:02:35 AM
That seems fair to me.

020
Title: Re: Evolution: Christian on Christian action Commentary Thread
Post by: UniversityPastor on September 24, 2010, 05:05:53 PM
So Wootah's in ER
BibleStudent hasn't logged on since I Pollice versoed him
Who's left on my side?
Title: Re: Evolution: Christian on Christian action Commentary Thread
Post by: generousgeorge on September 24, 2010, 05:25:11 PM
Were all on the side of truth, I believe.  8)
Title: Re: Evolution: Christian on Christian action Commentary Thread
Post by: catlady on September 25, 2010, 12:06:43 AM
So Wootah's in ER
BibleStudent hasn't logged on since I Pollice versoed him
Who's left on my side?
UP, Perhaps  BibleStudent is merely still working on, and  composing his reply to your 3 posts; He's disappeared before during discussions in which he was deeply engaged and has returned. "Wait and see", that seems like a good course of action for the time being. If no return, I would like to see you debate perhaps  some other YEC member, who is willing to take your challenge.
Title: Re: Evolution: Christian on Christian action Commentary Thread
Post by: UniversityPastor on September 25, 2010, 12:29:33 AM
^^ I'm in, but who would that be?
Title: Re: Evolution: Christian on Christian action Commentary Thread
Post by: generousgeorge on September 25, 2010, 12:33:06 AM
I would be happy to oblige.  &)
Title: Re: Evolution: Christian on Christian action Commentary Thread
Post by: UniversityPastor on September 25, 2010, 12:42:43 AM
You and me on YEC Jorge?

I'm not seeing this end well.
Title: Re: Evolution: Christian on Christian action Commentary Thread
Post by: generousgeorge on September 25, 2010, 01:01:53 AM
Be brave!  :-*
Title: Re: Evolution: Christian on Christian action Commentary Thread
Post by: generousgeorge on September 25, 2010, 01:06:54 AM
By the way....which side will you be representing?  :shrug
Title: Re: Evolution: Christian on Christian action Commentary Thread
Post by: Azdgari on September 25, 2010, 06:22:34 AM
Wootah won't be ER'd for much longer, most likely.  Maybe he'd be willing?  At least he couldn't claim to be overwhelmed!
Title: Re: Evolution: Christian on Christian action Commentary Thread
Post by: generousgeorge on September 25, 2010, 08:34:48 AM
UP.....How shall we start? what is the format? Who goes first? Standing by for count down......lift off.....  5...4....3...2.....1......
Title: Re: Evolution: Christian on Christian action Commentary Thread
Post by: UniversityPastor on September 25, 2010, 12:29:50 PM
I'm trying to think of any way to do this that doesn't result in total chaos, George. I'm not against the idea, but If i defend the YECs people will quickly forget that I'm not actually a YEC and I'll spend the next three threads undoing the damage. If you do, you will do a ridiculous illogical impression and beat me with your infathomability, which would be worse than being beat by a real YEC.
Title: Re: Evolution: Christian on Christian action Commentary Thread
Post by: generousgeorge on September 25, 2010, 01:37:51 PM
I was under the impression you were a YEC..... seems you are not. No sense discussing.  ;D I would not have to try very hard to make ridiculous arguments for YEC, I would just use their own, which are plenty ridiculous already.  :P
Title: Re: Evolution: Christian on Christian action Commentary Thread
Post by: UniversityPastor on September 25, 2010, 02:33:27 PM
No I'm a theistic evolutionist who is still waiting on BS to respond to my very first argument, which was, as it happens, that there was absolutely no reason not to believe in evolution.

He hasn't logged on in a few days

I had a PM conversation with another theist, and he seems to have left with his tail between his legs.

Now there's talk of matching me with Wootah. If I fluster him to the point that he stonewalls and you have to permaban him, Will I officially be the most successful atheist on this site?...while christian
Title: Re: Evolution: Christian on Christian action Commentary Thread
Post by: generousgeorge on September 25, 2010, 04:03:27 PM
LOL
Title: Re: Evolution: Christian on Christian action Commentary Thread
Post by: Eddy Swirl on September 25, 2010, 09:41:46 PM
Either that or the straw that broke the camels back.

I'd still find it amusing though.
Title: Re: Evolution: Christian on Christian action Commentary Thread
Post by: Gnu Ordure on October 08, 2010, 12:17:54 PM
So this debate just fizzled out, then...

Or rather, BibleStudent ran away.



Not sure what the Debate Rulebook says, but doesn't running away kind of mean losing?
Title: Re: Evolution: Christian on Christian action Commentary Thread
Post by: xphobe on October 08, 2010, 03:24:58 PM
Or rather, BibleStudent ran away.

"BibleStudent ran away.
He bravely ran away, away
brave BibleStudent"
Title: Re: Evolution: Christian on Christian action Commentary Thread
Post by: Operator_011 on October 08, 2010, 03:25:42 PM
Not sure what the Debate Rulebook says, but doesn't running away kind of mean losing?
Sounds about right to me.
Title: Re: Evolution: Christian on Christian action Commentary Thread
Post by: kin hell on October 08, 2010, 03:55:49 PM
So this debate just fizzled out, then...

Or rather, BibleStudent ran away.



Not sure what the Debate Rulebook says, but doesn't running away kind of mean losing?

......but he is well trained in the art of ignoring the anguish of cognitive dissonance.   Somewhere out there BibleStudent is probably convinced that he won.
Title: Re: Evolution: Christian on Christian action Commentary Thread
Post by: Operator_020 on October 08, 2010, 04:08:57 PM
So this debate just fizzled out, then...

Or rather, BibleStudent ran away.



Not sure what the Debate Rulebook says, but doesn't running away kind of mean losing?

I totally agree.  I looked in on this last weekend and decided I was going to give it until today before declaring BibleStudent forfeit and archiving.

Let it be so.

020