Do you HATE Evolution? Black Student Throws a Fit in Florida Evolution Class

Cure Socialism ^ | March 22, 2012 | Jonathon Moseley

[betty boop]

But when the going gets tough for creationists when arguing against a scientific theory they don't really understand well, making an argument against atheism or accusing anyone who disagrees of atheism seems a convenient fallback argument.

Please advise, dear allmendream: In what way is this statement not an ad hominem attack — on me and my "cohort?"

Please advise!

[allmendream]

First because it speaks to the issues not personalities.

The issue is the discussion of a scientific theory.

There is a demonstrated tendency for some to discard discussion of a scientific theory in favor of accusing the proponent of said theory of being an atheist - or making the argument about atheism.

You attempting to make the argument about my credentials, or my personal religious beliefs is an ad hominem attack.

Me pointing out that you and your cohort tend to do so is an accurate observation - as demonstrated - it is not an attack against your personality or personal beliefs.

[Alamo-Girl]

Frankly, we have no use for argumentum ad hominem debate tactics. They are "all heat and no light," thus thoroughly counterproductive; and therefore to be avoided in principle.

I very strongly agree and will not be replying to the correspondent in this sidebar as long as the subject of his posts remain "me" "myself" and "I."

[Moseley]

There is a demonstrated tendency for some to discard discussion of a scientific theory in favor of accusing the proponent of said theory of being an atheist - or making the argument about atheism.

That would not be a valid argument, of course. However, it is true and a very valid argument to point out that the ONLY basis for the validity of a hypothesis of evolution is to bend over backwards to deny the existence of God. Evolution is a complete corruption of the mind and logic in pursuit of a universe not created by God. So it is not (or should not be) an attack on the validity of the speaker as a fallacious attempt to refute the point spoken. But it is true that the only thread on which evolution hangs is a desperate attempt to explain the universe without God.

Then, also, enter the HALF-believing Christian who cannot quite bring himself to believe that the God He believes in is big enough or powerful enough to create the universe and its contents. He would rather believe that NOTHING created the universe or THAT GOD NEEDED LOTS OF HELP ALONG THE WAY.

SO while believing in God, many have a concept of a small God in a big universe. That means that GOD NEEDED HELP, lots of it, to make the universe as we know it.

So we see that evolution makes sense NOT on scientific grounds but ONLY as a "cure" for religion, to help people escape the obvious reality that there is a God.

However, those of us who know evolution better than most evolutionists need to speak out and expose its falsehood, for those who may only vaguely understand what is wrong with it, why it does not hang together on scientific grounds.

[allmendream]

The theory of evolution no more denies the existence of God than any other theory that conflicts with creationists delusion, that being just about all of them - astronomy, geology, paleontology, archeology, anthropology, and physics.

Is the Pope, in your formulation, a “HALF-believing Christian”?

It is those who accept “intelligent design” who think God needed to coddle his creation along through constant miraculous tinkering. God needed no “help” along the way, unless by “help” you mean the laws of reality that God put in place.

You have demonstrated that your knowledge of evolution is negligible. Far from understanding it better, it seems you have very little understanding of it at all. What you think you know about it is wrong.

[Moseley]

The theory of evolution no more denies the existence of God than any other theory that conflicts with creationists delusion, that being just about all of them - astronomy, geology, paleontology, archeology, anthropology, and physics.

I agree with that, but the point I have been trying to make all along (I know that many cooks in this discussion may make for a diverse stew) is that BELIEF IN THE CHRISTIAN CONCEPT OF GOD AS REVEALED IN THE NEW TESTAMENT CONFLICTS WITH EVOLUTION.

Yes, it is true that evolution and an undefined god can both exist. That's true.

My point is that the God revealed in the Christian New Testament and the Hebrew Bible (Old Testament) is incompatible with evolution.

Yes, you can logically believe in "a" God and also believe in evolution, or more pointedly believe that the two are very much related, that God used evolution knowingly and intentionally.

But my argument is that such a God could not be the God portrayed in the Christian tradition.

Is the Pope, in your formulation, a “HALF-believing Christian”?

Well, the Pope never said he personally believed in evolution. I think he was pretty clear that the Catholic Church simply wanted to welcome all comers, and not fight over evolution. I certainly agree that it makes sense to get people in the door, teach them about Jesus Christ, and worry about the details later.

So I think that the Pope is simply dodging the issue in order to maximize the popularity of the Catholic Church and get as big an audience as possible for the gospel of Jesus Christ. I wouldn't call that a profile in courage. But I don't believe the Pope or the Catholic Church on any level has ever proclaimed that evolution is actually TRUE, simply that they don't wish to fight about it.

It is those who accept “intelligent design” who think God needed to coddle his creation along through constant miraculous tinkering. God needed no “help” along the way, unless by “help” you mean the laws of reality that God put in place.

Yes, that is the very definition of "intelligent design." True, you could slice that up two different ways: Intelligent design at the beginning, with no further intervention versus on-going, continual supervision and intervention.

Contrary to what most people think they have heard, "Intelligent Design" is *NOT* a religious study, but is an exploration of the physical characteristics of the universe and of life on Earth, discovering the intricate level of DESIGN inherent in life and the universe.

Strictly, speaking, Intelligent Design NEVER identifies WHO or WHAT the intelligence is. It simply explores whether what we observe could exist without an intelligence shaping it.

Strictly speaking, you could accept the study of Intelligent Design and believe that aliens from another galaxy were the guiding intelligence.

[allmendream]

The point I have been trying to make to you is that acceptance of any number of scientific theories conflict with a creationist concept of God - astronomy, geology, paleontology, archeology, anthropology, and physics.

The Pope said evolution was a “reality” that has “scientific proof” and it “enriches our understanding of life”. But go on pretending you didn’t read the quote I previously provided if your delusions are based upon the Pope not accepting evolution.

Considering that the Pope DOES accept evolution, using terms much stronger than I myself would use (I would never say “proof”) - does that make the Pope a “Half-believing Christian”?

[Moseley]

First, I do not personally care what the Pope says on anything. I do not derive truth from what the Pope says.

However, what I said is that believing that God used evolution is incompatible with an understanding of the Christian God.

But human beings are perfectly capable of being inconsistent.

A person who is truly a Christian can — and almost always does — believe many things that are inconsistent or confused or inaccurate. That does not mean the person is not trualy a Christian. It measn they are simply WRONG about many things.

Being wrong about any number of things doesn’t mean one is not truly a Christian. It simply means they are wrong.

The trouble with Christians, including the Pope, is that they are not specialists in science enough to know they are being buffaloed by charlatan scientists. So when a Christian, including the Pope, feels unable to refute the hoax of evolution, that does not make evolution true. It merely means that those Christians are ill-equipped to recognize and expose the hoax.

You are tripping over the word “accept.” The Pope does not in any way believe or declare that evolution is true. The Pope says that evolution is a possibility, and if you want to believe in it, that’s okay. The Pope did not say that the Pope or the Catholic Church believes evolution is true.

http://www.usatoday.com/tech/science/2007-04-12-pope-evolution_N.htm

I say that evolution cannot be reconciled with Christianity.

But most genuine Christians will enter eternity still confused, uncertain, or misunderstanding a great many things. We woll only know fully on the other side of eternity. So it does not invalidate one’s salvation to say that they are confused or wrong about some thing or some things.

[Moseley]

I should clarify this a little better:

Is the Pope or someone else who feels the need to knuckle under to the hypothesis of evolution half-believing? Yes, his faith is weak — or else he just doesn’t want to fight about it, in order to gather up as many people as possible to the essential question of salvation.

Does that mean he or other people aren’t saved, or aren’t real Christians? No, not necessarily.

The act of salvation is something that God does to us in our weakness, need, and confusion. Being saved by God through Jesus Christ is like drowning in the middle of a vast ocean with nothing around, and a Coast Guard helicopter (God) comes along and plucks you out of the water.

So we often have imperfect understanding. God is the one doing the saving. We are just being hauled up out of the ocean to safety by God, our Savior.

So someone who is TRULY a Christian, genuinely saved, may nevertheless have weak faith about many questions, be confused about many things, and just “wrong” about many things — yet will still go to heaven.

St. Paul himself said that we know in part and see in part, that we see dimly as if through a dark glass. If even St. Paul acknowledged not knowing or understanding everything clearly or perfectly, we should not think anyone has to know all truth exactly right in order to be a Christian (to be saved).

So, yes, I would say that the Pope if he believes that God used evolution to create the world as we know it would believe that because his faith is WEAK and does not have the faith in an all-powerful God necessary to reject the shadows and appearances of the world.

Faith OFTEN requires us to look at the world which APPEARS to be one thing, but isn’t. Again, the Bible tells us that we walk by faith AND NOT BY SIGHT. The Bible tells us that what we see or think we see is often NOT TRUE.

But claiming that Christians must accept what we THINK we see as evolution is t oreject what the Bible tells us: NO, we do not nee to accept what we THINK we see. On the contrary, we are admonished repeatedly that what we THINK we see around us turns out NOT to be true. The world often presents us with false appearances, which I think are for the very purpose of giving you the opportunity to CHOOSE whether to believe the shadows and stage props and false images or to believe in God.

AND I WILL SAY THIS: I suspect that if we got into the question of whether Jesus was (is) God and whether Jesus actually performed miracles and actually rose from the dead, we would very quickly discover that your problem with evolution is that you reject the supernatural.

You, like many people, insist that you are a Christian.

Yet I am astonished at how many people who profess to be Christian, violently reject the core reality of Christianity that Jesus was and is God who entered the world in the form of a man, died, and rose again from death.

The objection is often the same: Many have joined the “Christian club” for social reasons, but violently reject the concept of a SUPERNATURAL God, who has the power to snap His fingers and turn the sun blue in the very next second, who could snap His fingers and make all the world’s oceans jump up a mile above the Earth and hang there, who could change the speed of light with just a thought, and who can create a new species out of thin air instantly on a whim.

[allmendream]

“The Pope does not in any way believe or declare that evolution is true.” Moseley

“there is much scientific proof in favor of evolution, which appears as a reality that we must see and which enriches our understanding of life and being as such.” Pope Benedict XVI

I think the Pope has a plenty good understanding of Christianity and God. He certainly has a better understanding of his stance on evolution than YOU do. But it is amusing that you cannot mount an argument against a scientific theory without pulling out the TRUMP card - “My theology is correct and every other theology is wrong - because I say so!”.

[Moseley]

I don’t understand your point, and I don’t think you understand what the Pope said.

Just because the Pope is trying to please everybody does not mean the Pope believes in evolution.

[allmendream]

It is unfortunate that you are unable to understand. That doesn’t change that the Pope said evolution is a reality that enriches our understanding.

[editor-surveyor]

Stupilution!
.

[editor-surveyor]

Well, so far, ‘better’ creatures have not appeared.

Men have steadily lost intelligence since Adam, and now can’t even figure out how useless socialism is.

[editor-surveyor]

Do you have a hump?

[Lady Lucky]

Uh, whut?

[Moseley]

No, that is not what the Pope said. You are reading what you want to read into it. And for a “something for everyone” statement I guess it did its job.

Saying there is significant evidence for evolution, without saying I believe it, is just a sop to those who believe in evolution. Nowhere does the Pope say “I believe it.”

[editor-surveyor]

A Hump, like you said in post #15.

[editor-surveyor]

>> “The issue is the discussion of a scientific theory.” <<

.
Balderdash!

Evolutionisn’t scientific in any way; it’s a political tool, and all of the purported ‘evidence’ to support it is fabricated and/or deliberately misinterpreted.

Same kind of ‘science’ as global warming, same kind of morals too.
.

[editor-surveyor]

>> “The issue is the discussion of a scientific theory.” <<

.
Balderdash!

Evolution isn’t scientific in any way; it’s a political tool, and all of the purported ‘evidence’ to support it is fabricated and/or deliberately misinterpreted.

Same kind of ‘science’ as global warming, same kind of morals too.
.