Believing it is not proving it

Im not convinced that biological evolution is incompatible with Christianity. Does this infer that anyone who believes in what they study and practice are WRONG and are not Christians? This message has been edited by Phat, 03-31-2006 09:52 PM

i think the idea that evolution rules out a god only works if you define christianity as only the YEC belief, evolution does rule out a YEC view, but hey god could use evolution, he can do anything he wants right?

Of course he doesn't. I'm not sure why you said no evos (except rr) challenge jar. I think most of the time he is an okay poster, but sometimes he gets stuck in a position and will not open up to anything. Unfortunately I feel that is almost always the case for him as moderator.Ironically, this thread is a perfect example. Remember when I got suspended (you came to my defense at that time if I remember right)? Jar had closed down my thread which was essentially this exactly the same thing as what you have done here, because He said it wasn't worthy and could have been done with links instead of quotes.When I asked why and what people should do in the future all I got was NWR saying he supported Jar's decision that it should never have been started. And Percy apparently thought so too, to the point that my simply asking for clarification got me booted.Yet apparently they all believe its okay to promote and run this one of yours.What's the difference? Nothing. But they will run to the defense of Jar's decision, and apparently Jar doesn't find such a discussion "boring" or part of your personal file cabinet, when the issue under discussion is himself or things he has said.When Jar isn't responding to reason, just drop it. You can't argue him into adopting reason.This message has been edited by holmes, 04-01-2006 10:51 AM

---

holmes
"Some day the piecing together of dissociated knowledge will open up such terrifying vistas of reality, and of our frightful position therein, that we shall either go mad from the revelation or flee from the light into the peace and safety of a new dark age." (Lovecraft)

If I may, Im gonna put on my Admin hat for a moment and suggest that we steer back towards the topic, IF we even know what that topic is!Faith, you started this thread so the ball is in your court.Or I can just shut it down.Holmes, are you being nice? Forum Guidelines

True, and I think if I'd been given the time to redo the OP I thought I had, I would have reduced the emphasis on jar. In fact it was a couple of admins' opinion that the thread wasn't promotable as is which makes it very odd that they promoted it. But the point was the illogic of a certain argument that happened to be jar's, and the fact that that illogic prevailed against all the logical answers to it, which was driving me crazy. I really didn't want to get into the whole thing with jar again at all, I just wanted that illogic recognized, didn't matter whose it was, except the fact that it WAS jar's made it even more unlikely it would never be recognized.I've been worn out with the war here, got a surge of determination for this thread, but that may be it for a while.

Actually Phat, I think it should stay open for a while. I hope Robin may eventually show up. He's the one who understands his argument which is what I was basing this thread on, and I think he might do a better job with it than I've been doing. Or close it until he shows up maybe.Also that topic proposal (Did God create evolution?) that was suggested to be a 4-way debate ought to include him if it does become that. That's been his topic for weeks now and it is a spinoff from this one I believe. RR's view is that the traditional Christian God couldn't have created evolution, and if Christian has the same view that would make it two against two who argue the opposite (since Randman is ID I assume he'd argue the opposite but maybe I'm wrong).What was "not nice" about what holmes was saying?This message has been edited by Faith, 04-01-2006 09:56 AM

Thats ok. Take a rest, sip some lemonade by the old Oak Tree, invite jar over for a glass and, above all, remember this scripture: My horse needs a nap!

Nothing, actually aside from the fact that he was bringing up old stuff....but then, don't we all like rehash with our corned beefs?

Most of science rules out the YEC view. There is astronomy, physics, geology, and biology, as well are palentology and archelogy.

hey jar, you are an admin, right? I thought if I took the question to a new thread, you'd answer it and assumed that meant you'd promote it or have someone promote it.Not sure how it wasn't on-topic here, but maybe the topic is not so well-defined.

Well, it has spirled out of control and right now there seem to be a bunch of Admins in there that you have been talking with. Frankly, I'm just sitting and watching the show. Good luck. Hope you work things out.AbE: since the OP was couched as yet another call out jar thread I really don't think I should be the one to promote it.This message has been edited by jar, 04-01-2006 07:55 PM

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

In other words, practically speaking, you are not going to answer, neither here nor there?

Well let's see if it get's promoted and what get's promoted. It's your PNT, so let's see what you do to get it promoted in the format you want. You're the originator.If the OP had been promoted it would have been the shortest thread in history. My answer would have been yes and I don't know. End of discussion that I can see.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

The obvious implication jar is that the argument is frequently made that improper design, as seen by the one making the statement, refutes the concept of a Designer.But as you know, the evolutionary process requires a lack of perfection in design, in the sense of design being perfectly practical and not able to be improved upon. So if God designed evolution, then one must be saying improper design is consistent with the idea of a Creator God.The truth of the matter is that when evos make the argument of "poor design" against ID, what they are really doing is introducing theology into a scientific debate, which is all the more ironic because that is what they always accuse everyone else of doing, in general.

Randman, I have no intention of letting you simply wander back to square one after having invested many hours explaining my position on that subject to you. This has been hashed over completely.I will not allow you in addition to change the subject, to once again try to move the Goal Posts.The record is clear for all to read.In your proposed PNT the Op says: Note no mention of ID and that I have fully answered BOTH of the questions you raised in the OP of your PNT.I have also responded fully to your ideas on ID and in fact, IIRC you finally admitted that you agreed with my position.The audience can read that debate here. The record is clear and present for all to read.So your new PNT has been answered fully and your comments on ID have been answered fully.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion