Posted on 05/21/2009 6:05:26 PM PDT by GodGunsGuts
Some readers thought I was unfair in a previous entry explaining the difference between my perspective on evolution and that of my fellow Beliefnet blogger Dr. Francis Collins over at Science and the Sacred. Am I really not being fair? Well, let's test that hypothesis by picking out one idea from Dr. Collins's book and from his website BioLogos. It's his treatment of the idea that somehow a moral law in every heart points us to the existence of God.
Because BioLogos -- or theistic evolution, however we may designate the general approach -- surrenders so easily to naturalism, it must be willing to accommodate Darwinism's explanation of where that moral law comes from...
(Excerpt) Read more at blog.beliefnet.com ...
Ping!
“Well, let’s test that hypothesis by picking out one idea...”
Nope...doesn’t work that way...that’s why the three blind men concluded an elephant looked like a leaf, a trre trunk or a snake...
Thank you for the perfect example of sophistry. And non sequitur. And straw man. And specious.
See, you CAN educate FR!!!
Very good! The fact that you are starting to recognize your problems bodes well for your future. Just keep repeating that to yourself, and there will be hope for you yet!
I guess we could say that theistic creationism surrenders easily to idol worship and paganism, since all pagan cultures have a creation story that the gods made everything. And we have an example in the Bible, with the golden calf back when Moses was on Mount Sinai!
I don’t get the point of your link? If your original post says that theistic evolution “leads” to naturalism, with no backup at all, then we can equally claim that theistic creationism leads to paganism because ALL pagan religions have a creation story where the gods simply “spoke” and the world came into being...
Now, your WSJ article makes no sense in this discussion, unless you’re trying to imply that because Bill Maher is an atheist I must be a liberal moron like Maher?
Did you read down to where it talks how liberal denominations are much more prone to be superstitious?
Yes, and as far as I know, evolution isn’t a liberal/conservative denomination thing. How would you categorize Catholicism? My own church - a VERY conservative Free Methodist denomination - has no problem with evolution and in fact has several universities that have biologists teaching evolution.
So again, I don’t know what the link has to do about evolution?
>>Very good! The fact that you are starting to recognize your problems bodes well for your future. Just keep repeating that to yourself, and there will be hope for you yet!<<
Shouldn’t you be working your WWN beat? That is where you get your material, right?
And your “I know you are but what am I” responses are just childish. Actually, babyish.
>>>Yes, and as far as I know, evolution isn’t a liberal/conservative denomination thing. How would you categorize Catholicism? My own church - a VERY conservative Free Methodist denomination - has no problem with evolution and in fact has several universities that have biologists teaching evolution.<<
ggg hates Catholics. And anyone who understands real science. His brand of nonsensical sophomoric rantings is all he will accept. And it you call him out on it, he will hit you with his devastating “I am rubber you are glue” response.
LOL...you were the one that brought up your belief in astrology. Wasn’t it you who said that “the moon is in the 7th house and Jupiter has aligned with Mars.” I was merely pointing out that liberal protestant denomination and Evo-atheists are much more likely to believe in astrology, just like you do. Does this bother you?
>>LOL...you were the one that brought up your belief in astrology. Wasn’t it you who said that “the moon is in the 7th house and Jupiter has aligned with Mars.” I was merely pointing out that liberal protestant denomination and Evo-atheists are much more likely to believe in astrology, just like you do. Does this bother you
You are so dense you didn’t get the joke. I was saying that citing aig or cgs or whatever your little “creation science” site is is the same as astrology or WWN (home of Bat Boy).
You are really, really slow.
And your continue childish attempts to equate understanding real science (not your pathetic sophomoric pseudo-science babblings) to atheism continues to get no traction at all.
Are you sure you know how to use a computer?
>>Well seeing how the Catholicism once stood against darwood’s Godless creation myth, and now they are compromising with the same, I would say that the Catholic Church has taken a left-turn with respect to darwood’s pseudo-scientific ideas. What say you?
As I said, you hate Catholics. All several billion of them. The fact you don’t understand science means nothing in the scheme of things. People with advanced degrees in real science understand these things. Little old you with a 9th grade edumication from your ma and pa is pretty meaningless.
But you are funny (not in the way you want to be), so I continue to give you the time of day.
I never said I hate Catholics. I am just as critical of Protestant denominations that compromise with derwood’s Godless creation myth.
Not all Catholics are compromising with the Temple of Darwin:
http://www.theotokos.org.uk/pages/creation/daylight/daylight.html
Good for them!!!!
>>I never said I hate Catholics. I am just as critical of Protestant denominations that compromise with derwood’s Godless creation myth.<<
You are on record as hating and demeaning anyone who understands science, especially TToE. Catholic doctrine is crystal clear — TToE is quite valid in her perspective.
You can’t reconcile these views. If everyone who understands TToE is an atheist, then you hold Catholics to be atheists.
You don’t know much about Catholicism do you? We can toss that on the massive stack of things you don’t know, like science.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.