Christians feel that it is their duty, their obligation to "God" to defend him against disbelievers, maybe even convert a few of them. You can spew all the facts and logic you can find at them, but they will always say you don't have any evidence or that your reasoning is inductive, so it proves nothing. No, Christians don't want to believe, but I say it is more likely that they CAN'T believe. They're not ready to think on their own yet.

Zazzy, you think Drich is tough? Try taking on Waldorf. THAT guy is a blockhead. No sense of reason at all.

(September 25, 2013 at 1:56 pm)Beta Ray Bill Wrote: They're not ready to think on their own yet.

So what do you think is up with Christian scientists? I know a few very smart, very good ones who are nonetheless pretty serious theists . Do you think they're just able to compartmentalize? Or is it more sect-specific, like most of the people I'm talking about are Catholics, who seem generally not to have a problem with evolution, so it's theologically OK to be an evolutionary scientist?

Quote:Zazzy, you think Drich is tough? Try taking on Waldorf. THAT guy is a blockhead. No sense of reason at all.

Dog forbid. I've been hearing about this guy all over.

(September 25, 2013 at 2:01 pm)Zazzy Wrote:

(September 25, 2013 at 1:56 pm)Beta Ray Bill Wrote: They're not ready to think on their own yet.

So what do you think is up with Christian scientists? I know a few very smart, very good ones who are nonetheless pretty serious theists . Do you think they're just able to compartmentalize? Or is it more sect-specific, like most of the people I'm talking about are Catholics, who seem generally not to have a problem with evolution, so it's theologically OK to be an evolutionary scientist?

Catholic dogma doesn't insist that the Genesis creation account is literal fact. The same goes with many Protestant cults.

(September 25, 2013 at 1:56 pm)Beta Ray Bill Wrote: Zazzy, you think Drich is tough? Try taking on Waldorf. THAT guy is a blockhead. No sense of reason at all.

(September 25, 2013 at 2:01 pm)Zazzy Wrote: Dog forbid. I've been hearing about this guy all over.

Huge waste of time.

(September 25, 2013 at 11:23 am)Rahul Wrote:

(September 25, 2013 at 10:49 am)Drich Wrote: which is really meaningless anyway, because again this is not an evolutionary discussion, but how the Whole of evolution now fits with in the confines of creation.

The creation story in the bible is very brief and very vague. You can invent whatever apologetics you would like to try and shove a square peg into a round hole but it's not going to look very pretty after you're done.

Humans and chimps share more DNA with each other than any other creatures on the planet, even though all life is related. We share around 30 percent of our DNA with plants like the carrot.

Theists say, "Well, why couldn't god use the same DNA for various creations?"

Well, he could. Especially if he was too dimwitted to come up with an alternative way to code for it.

Human remains a little over 100,000 years ago can not be found anywhere else on the planet other than certains parts of Africa. Oddly enough the same part of the planet where Chimps exist.

Humans show the most genetic diversity also in this same location. The only genetic variability among humans more diverse between groups rather than within groups relates to skin pigmentation. This is an example of environmentally selection based evolution.

All of these various facts, found in wide ranging scientific fields from Evolution, Geography, Morphology, Archaeology, etc., support that we share a common ancestor with Chimps and that this common ancestor was from somewhere in Africa.

Everything humanity has learned, including new fields of study that didn't even exist more than a few decades ago, supports a scientific theory first proposed over 150 years ago.

That biological evolution is a fact, that humans are just another animal on earth, and that we are descended from a common ancestor with our fellow great apes.

Now either god A) is retarded or B) he intentionally meant to deceive us by his creation or C) religion is a bunch of BS. Or can you come up with a fourth suggestion? If not a fourth, I would like to hear your explanation for why a supposedly "all loving" god would intentionally deceive us humans in order to trick us into ignoring his salvation and spending an eternity in his little punishment dimension of never ending anguish and torment.

You also have to factor in that if all life is the result of intelligent design how is it that the Amoeba has a genome 200 times larger than ours?

Was God learning on the job?

(September 25, 2013 at 2:01 pm)Zazzy Wrote: So what do you think is up with Christian scientists? I know a few very smart, very good ones who are nonetheless pretty serious theists . Do you think they're just able to compartmentalize? Or is it more sect-specific, like most of the people I'm talking about are Catholics, who seem generally not to have a problem with evolution, so it's theologically OK to be an evolutionary scientist?

I don't know a lot about Christian scientists, but I have a friend who may fit the way of thinking. My friend is "spiritual but not religious". He believes in evolution and thinks a lot of the bible is metaphorical and not factual. However, he is a stern believer in creationism. I think that Christian scientists, like my friend, are willing to accept science, BUT ONLY TO A DEGREE. My friend accepts science, but only that which doesn't conflict with his faith.

Then there are fundamentalist Christian scientists who try to use ad hoc ideas just so their beliefs won't be completely wiped out, and those people I think don't qualify as scientists.

(September 25, 2013 at 2:33 pm)Beta Ray Bill Wrote: I don't know a lot about Christian scientists, but I have a friend who may fit the way of thinking. My friend is "spiritual but not religious". He believes in evolution and thinks a lot of the bible is metaphorical and not factual. However, he is a stern believer in creationism. I think that Christian scientists, like my friend, are willing to accept science, BUT ONLY TO A DEGREE. My friend accepts science, but only that which doesn't conflict with his faith.

Funny misunderstanding. I meant actual scientists who are also Christians. I don't know anything at all about the CS sect, other than what you just told me, and the fact that I pass a CS "reading room" on my walks often.

(September 25, 2013 at 2:41 pm)Zazzy Wrote:

(September 25, 2013 at 2:33 pm)Beta Ray Bill Wrote: I don't know a lot about Christian scientists, but I have a friend who may fit the way of thinking. My friend is "spiritual but not religious". He believes in evolution and thinks a lot of the bible is metaphorical and not factual. However, he is a stern believer in creationism. I think that Christian scientists, like my friend, are willing to accept science, BUT ONLY TO A DEGREE. My friend accepts science, but only that which doesn't conflict with his faith.

Funny misunderstanding. I meant actual scientists who are also Christians. I don't know anything at all about the CS sect, other than what you just told me, and the fact that I pass a CS "reading room" on my walks often.

I'm not sure he was referring to the cult of Christian Scientists (a.k.a. First Church of Jesus Christ, Scientist):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_S...osecutions Wrote:In over 50 cases, from the prosecution of Abby Corner in 1888 to the early 1990s, prosecutors charged Christian Scientists with manslaughter or murder after both adults and children died of treatable illnesses without medical attention.[198] Fraser writes that the "child cases," as they are known within Christian Science, began in 1967 in Massachusetts, when five-year-old Lisa Sheridan died of pneumonia without medical care, as a result of which her mother was convicted of manslaughter and sentenced to probation.[199]

Christian Science (the cult) has about as much to do with science as science does with astrology.

(September 25, 2013 at 2:41 pm)Zazzy Wrote:

(September 25, 2013 at 2:33 pm)Beta Ray Bill Wrote: I don't know a lot about Christian scientists, but I have a friend who may fit the way of thinking. My friend is "spiritual but not religious". He believes in evolution and thinks a lot of the bible is metaphorical and not factual. However, he is a stern believer in creationism. I think that Christian scientists, like my friend, are willing to accept science, BUT ONLY TO A DEGREE. My friend accepts science, but only that which doesn't conflict with his faith.

Funny misunderstanding. I meant actual scientists who are also Christians. I don't know anything at all about the CS sect, other than what you just told me, and the fact that I pass a CS "reading room" on my walks often.

Sorry, that's who I thought I was talking about. IMO, scientists who are Christians, like my friend, they believe in science but also have to believe in Creationism and Christian faith-based morals. They still live under the grasp of Christianity, even if it is a considerably smaller grasp than a fundamentalist's.

If I'm still not grasping what you're asking, then I plead the 5th and should get back to work.

(September 25, 2013 at 1:56 pm)Beta Ray Bill Wrote: Zazzy, you think Drich is tough? Try taking on Waldorf. THAT guy is a blockhead. No sense of reason at all.

Agreed. He is totally impervious to reason.

One of his quotes I submitted made fstdt.com though: http://fstdt.com/QuoteComment.aspx?QID=96673

(September 25, 2013 at 11:49 am)Zazzy Wrote:

(September 25, 2013 at 10:49 am)Drich Wrote: Zazzy the science teacher who taught at a university who originally represented him/herself as an evolutionary biologist.

I represented myself as I am. Accusing me of lying is just weird, and it doesn't make me angry- it just makes me go looking for more reasonable conversationalists.

I see from reading through your other threads that this is your MO- evade, attack, accuse, sneer, deny, and insult. You present as someone who feels constantly mistreated, while you mistreat those around you.

If you ever learn how to have a civil conversation, let me know. And good luck with this idea of yours.

Are these not your words?

Zazzy Wrote:I'm an evolutionary biologist by trade,

According to the last post on page 3 these are indeed your words. Then you tell me your a high school science teacher on post 4 page 11.

The term by trade means as a profession. To say you are 'x' by trade means your primary responsiablity is 'x' and not grading papers, and cleaning lab stations for the next class. Even if evolutionary biology was all you taught it still does not make you an evolutionary biologist 'by trade.' It makes you a teacher by trade.

Again absolutly nothing wrong with being a teacher as far as this discussion goes. For that matter there is nothing wrong with being caught in a lie, as far as this discussion goes. I am perfectly willing to forget the whole thing so long as you are and do not insist that I must adopt your page 3 persona.

If it makes you feel any better I started out as a mechanic 'by trade.' Who couldn't read or write above a 4th grade level after graduating high school. I went to a year of trade school, and my formal training stopped there...

So, job titles aside if you wish to proceed then ask your next question. If not then I do understand.

---

(September 25, 2013 at 11:58 am)Esquilax Wrote: More than that, what was the point of having Adam and Eve in the garden, created from nothing, if evolution was already spitting out people on the other side of the fence?

Oh right, apologetics only have to make sense regarding one problem at a time...

Adam and Eve were created with In The seven days of creation. Who knows how much time elapsed between their creation by God, and when evolution finally caught up.

---

(September 25, 2013 at 1:00 pm)Zazzy Wrote:

(September 25, 2013 at 12:55 pm)Cthulhu Dreaming Wrote: He apparently doesn't *want* to understand. Many of us have gone around and around on the very same issue. It's been explained to him.

When I asked him for evidence, it went a bit like this.

"Evidence?"

"What kind of evidence would you like to see?"

"The kind the you possess that supports your claim."

*crickets*

There seem to be 3 options for how to read this behavior:
1.) Laziness. He wants you to tell him what the evidence is so he doesn't have to go looking for it.
2.) Conscious denial of the fact that he knows very well what evidence is and what it would look like, but he knows it isn't out there and he doesn't want to admit it.
3.) He's just messing with you.

I wonder which is correct?

4) to show you that you are not in a position to identify evidence when it is presented. For if you can not define what you are looking for, then it stands to reason your not really looking to accept anything.

Your afraid to define said evidence because if it were presented, then you would have to concede. As it stands you can simply move the goal posts no matter what is presented.