Falling Stars, Damnable Heresy, and the Spirit of Evolution

Renew America ^ | Sept. 19, 2013 | Linda Kimball

[BroJoeK]

YHAOS: "You have more brass than a marching band (exceeded only by your presumptuousness)."

You're speaking of yourself, of course?
You have, it appears, only one major function here, and that is to mock & insult those who disagree, even when they agree!
You're on a mission, it seems -- a "search and destroy" -- and so there's no room in your Rules of Engagement for even attempting to understand -- you take no prisoners, do you?

And so now we can easily guess where your vast library of "mockings" listed in your post #134 comes from -- you mock, insult and provoke until you get a response-in-kind, and then you deposit another "victory" in your troll-library, right?
And you get paid for doing this, or is mocking just your idea of "fun"?

YHAOS: "I don’t know who you think you’re kidding, but it is not anyone on this thread with whom you are currently corresponding."

What, are you speaking of yourself again?
Your powers of "projection" are truly amazing, FRiend.

YHAOS: "You are seizing the ideas expressed by others, claiming them as your own, and then, in turn, presuming to instruct them on their own ideas as though their thoughts are your property."

I'm sorry, FRiend, if you thoroughly misunderstand what Free Republic is all about -- it's the internet equivalent of normal people sitting around in their family room, watching TV news and discussing topics they feel passionately about.
Every one of us knows some facts and everyone has opinions, which we attempt to express in the most coherent ways possible.

None of us claim that our opinions are "original", indeed most take a certain pride in loyally expressing views first developed by others, sometimes even thousands of years ago.

If you have a big problem with that, then just maybe Free Republic is not your real home?

YHAOS: "Typical of a two-bit politician, you also seem to think getting out in front of the parade deceives everyone into believing you are leading it."

And this refers to what, exactly?

YHAOS: "how do “other similar words,” such as “effective hunter-gatherers” equate with “vicious predatory animal”? "

see my posts #228 & 257.
If you wish to learn more, then you'll first need to answer my question (#257): "what, exactly, you mean by the phrase: 'vicious predatory animal.' "

YHAOS: "In post #200m this thread, you allege no new quotes since February of 2009, How Much Longer Dan They Sell Darwinism? FR, and you set the standard for “new quotes” to be four year’s (or less).
Prove what you allege."

As is typical of YHAOS, you again misrepresent the facts, which are:

1. YHAOS, post #81: "There’s nothing to prevent you from correcting [Dawkins'] fans on FR who assail his FR critics "

2. BJK, post #92: "In fact, there are no such "fans" posting of Free Republic, except in the projections of your own rather fertile imagination."

3. YHAOS, post #106: "These “fans” mock Christians with sneering references to “Demonic” possession and accusations of the adoption of the principal that a lie, told often enough, acquires a semblance of truth by virtue of sheer repetition.
   Your blatant denial of the patently obvious is so irrational as to be comedic. "

4. BJK, post #109: "I've seen nothing remotely resembling your description here.
   Indeed, mocking comes from the other side..."

5. YHAOS, post #134: "To “see,” one must look."
   Posts 27 alleged "mockings" of Christians by so-called fans of Dawkins.

6. BJK, post #137: "When I responded that I'd never seen such fans, you shape-shift to saying: "these 'fans' mock Christians..." and then produce a totally un-sourced listing of 27 alleged "mockings" of Christians."

7. YHAOS, post #174: "Strangely enough, when many of the same of what you now call the “allegedly” mocking of Christians, was introduced to you, by yours truly, in 2009 on FR (see February of 2009, How Much Longer Can They Sell Darwinism?), you had no objection, just excuses for the misbehavior of Atheists attempting to use Science as a shield."

8. BJK, post #200: "So let's see if I understand this -- to prove your claim that "Darwinists" mock Christians, you researched back in time FOUR YEARS to recover your own previous list of one-sided quotes, which by themselves prove nothing except a lively debate at that time?

   "And in the FOUR YEARS since, you can produce no new quotes?
   And you have no quotes from this thread?"

9. YHAOS, post #204: "In the above, you allege no new quotes, and you set the standard to be less than “FOUR YEARS.”
   Prove what you allege."

10. YHAOS, post #238: "In post #200, this thread, you allege no new quotes since February of 2009, How Much Longer Can They Sell Darwinism?, FR, and you set the standard for “new quotes” to be four year’s (or less).
    Prove what you allege. "

11. BJK, post #257: "Of course, if you, yourself, YHAOS were to provide source data for your own grudge-list, including the full contexts of those exchanges, then (and only then) I might take them a bit more seriously."

12. YHAOS, post #274: "Again. In post #200m this thread, you allege no new quotes since February of 2009, How Much Longer Dan They Sell Darwinism? FR, and you set the standard for “new quotes” to be four year’s (or less).
    Prove what you allege. "

Please note, FRiend, in item #8 above, the question marks on the two sentences which you describe as "allegations".
They are not "allegations", they are questions to you, which, like most of my questions, you utterly refuse to answer.

Because that's who YHAOS is, it's what you do, right?
You're here to mock & insult, not reasonably discuss, right?

On that subject of mockery, let me refer you to many scripture verses, especially Proverbs 9: 7-12.

[BroJoeK]

betty boop: "Here you impute to me a question I did not ask.
Not "insistently."
Not at all.
What on earth is going on here?"

Sorry, just trying to be brief.
But you certainly do insist that there are "questions" about evolution, "questions" which involve the idea of an Intelligent Designer (G*d), "questions" which boil down to: "does G*d control and guide the processes of evolution?"

Which, if you'll just give it a moment's thought, you'll realize boils down to: "Does G*d exist?"

[HiTech RedNeck]

Any hypothetical “theistic evolution” would have to be well soaked with miracles to get it to go anywhere, by the lights of the physics and chemistry we know today. One would have to call it something like 999,999,999 parts miracle to 1 part nature. And it isn’t just in retrospect we see providence here, we also see it ongoing, which proves that it’s providence and not some stupendous dumb luck. Because dumb luck does not plan!

[bert]

For the Record...... it’s ok to type “God”

[HiTech RedNeck]

Man, what an ego fight all around this has turned into.

I suggest glorifying God as best we can, and settling differences or at least agreeing that we have come as close as we can, in a gracious manner. The exact manner of creation is one of those riddles that we can speculate about, but can’t pin down with the knowledge at hand. Many YEC advocates have attempted to pin it down anyhow, and while they produce an interesting theory, we lack the evidential wherewithal to put total trust in it. The best we can do is give it an emphatic maybe, and that’s only if they have managed to avoid obvious errors.

[BroJoeK]

spirited irish: "It has long been said that the eyes (senses) are the door to the soul/spirit (mind).
Any truly great artist will tell you that eyes (senses) and inspiration (mind) work instantaneously together, united in harmony, not one thing followed finally by the other.
There is never an instant where eyes (senses) work alone."

Of course that's true, but your allegations against me are utter rubbish, and you should stop doing it.
It's bad for your soul to make false accusations against others.

The fact remains, as I posted before, that Aquinas recognized:

• 1) theology beginning with, and based on, biblical revelations as distinct from
• 2) "natural-philosophy" which begins with inputs from our senses.

Aquinas never denied the functions of mind, nor do I, nor should you, FRiend.

[BroJoeK]

bert: "For the Record...... it’s ok to type 'God' "

Thanks for your advice.
I do my best not to offend people unnecessarily, and some do insist on G_d or G*d, as a sign of respect for our Deity.
And since it's just as easy to type _ or * as o, why not?

[bert]

I do not think it is respect but selfrighteousness that is responsible

[spirited irish]

It’s bad for your soul to make false accusations against others.

Spirited: No BroJoeK, it’s very, very bad for your soul to posit a limited God, a miserable deity who is the cause of death and suffering due to the fact that evolution posits millions of prior creatures who lived and died long before the appearance of man.

All conceptions of a limited God in process of becoming (evolving) are Satanic.

You are in process of selling your soul on behalf of natural science and evolution.

[BroJoeK]

HiTech RedNeck: "Man, what an ego fight all around this has turned into."

Sorry, but I do my best to deal reasonably with mockers and false-accusers like YHAOS, and even, sadly spirited irish.

In doing so, I have two hopes: first to provide effective answers for readers who may be tempted to take mockers seriously, and second, to maybe shame the mockers, even a little?

HiTech RedNeck: "The exact manner of creation is one of those riddles that we can speculate about, but can’t pin down with the knowledge at hand.
Many YEC advocates have attempted to pin it down anyhow, and while they produce an interesting theory, we lack the evidential wherewithal to put total trust in it."

Let me reasonably suggest to you that in Biblical terms, it is utterly, completely irrelevant precisely how G*d created the Universe or Life on Earth.
Those "hows" have nothing -- zero, zip, nada -- to do with the Bible's major themes and message.
Nor can any specific "how" have any serious effect on people's ability to achieve and maintain their faith in G*d.

So let me put it to you this way: such faith is a gift, which is almost always granted despite our personal resistance to it.
And, if you sat down to make a listing of the Top Ten, or hundred, reasons for people's resistance to faith in G*d, then Creation and Evolution would not even make your list, FRiend.

Of course, you can, as many do, claim that if every word of the Bible is not understood precisely "literally", then nobody will believe any of it.
But I'd reject that on at least three counts:

1. Some of the Bible is self-acknowledged metaphor, not intended to be taken literally.

2. Despite numerous recent scholarly translations, nobody today really understands what every word of the Bible was precisely intended to mean, by those who wrote it.
   Often, a close approximation is the best we can hope for.

3. There is a long history and tradition of Biblical exegeses that both add-to and subtract-from scripture's words.
   The Trinity is an example of doctrine "added-to", while the virtual deletions of hundreds of Old Testament laws (but not the Ten Commandments) are significant "subtracted-froms".
   Point is: even "literalists" aren't always 100% literal.

That's why it has always been understood, especially by the great Doctors of the Church, that deep and humble faith, along with educated guidance are needed to understand, both what the Bible originally intended and how those words can apply today.

No, I'm not saying that ordinary people can't understand the Bible, far from it.
I am saying we should be humble enough to recognize that what we get out of it may not be precisely the same as what some others do.
After all, we might just benefit from their learning.

[BroJoeK]

bert: "I do not think it is respect but selfrighteousness that is responsible"

hmmmmm...
Would you call it "self-righteousness" if I refrain from using profanity, even in a form which may be allowed here?
Would you call it "self-righteousness" if I address you as "bert" instead of, oh say, "bertoff" or "burp"?

So why not ask straight out: do you take offense at the form, "G*d", and if so, could you explain why?

[bert]

It is unnecessary and serves no real purpose

[BroJoeK]

spirited irish: "No BroJoeK, it’s very, very bad for your soul to posit a limited God, a miserable deity who is the cause of death and suffering due to the fact that evolution posits millions of prior creatures who lived and died long before the appearance of man."

Is that your real problem?
Are you so deathly afraid, that if you frankly acknowledge what the fossil record clearly shows, your faith in G*d and Christ's salvation will crumble to dust?

Is your faith so weak and fragile?
Is it based on nothing besides the ages of various geological strata?
Let's look directly at this:

Romans 5:12-14 "Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all people, because all sinned..."
13 To be sure, sin was in the world before the law was given, but sin is not charged against anyone’s account where there is no law.
14 Nevertheless, death reigned from the time of Adam to the time of Moses, even over those who did not sin by breaking a command..."

1 Corinthians 15: "For since death came through a man, the resurrection of the dead comes also through a man.
22 For as in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive."

So this is it: as near as I can tell, the only place in the entire Bible which says there was "no death" before Adam -- no book or prophet of the Old Testament says it, no Gospel writer (Matthew, Mark, Luke or John) says it, Peter doesn't say it, nor do James or Jude, even Jesus Himself never says it.

Only Paul, so what are we to think of this fellow?
A man of great depth of thinking, and frequent metaphors, he advises us:

1 Corinthians 13:
"4 Charity suffereth long, and is kind; charity envieth not; charity vaunteth not itself, is not puffed up,
5 Doth not behave itself unseemly, seeketh not her own, is not easily provoked, thinketh no evil;
6 Rejoiceth not in iniquity, but rejoiceth in the truth;
7 Beareth all things, believeth all things, hopeth all things, endureth all things.
8 Charity never faileth: but whether there be prophecies, they shall fail; whether there be tongues, they shall cease; whether there be knowledge, it shall vanish away.
9 For we know in part, and we prophesy in part.
10 But when that which is perfect is come, then that which is in part shall be done away.
11 When I was a child, I spake as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child: but when I became a man, I put away childish things.
12 For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known.
13 And now abideth faith, hope, charity, these three; but the greatest of these is charity."

So what do you think?
Would you forgive Paul an occasional metaphor, to teach us what it's most important for us to know?

spirited irish: "All conceptions of a limited God in process of becoming (evolving) are Satanic.
You are in process of selling your soul on behalf of natural science and evolution."

Nobody says "God evolves", but His Universe obviously does, and why should it not?
So why, even though I've warned you before, do you continue to falsely accuse me?
Which religion allows you to do that?
Surely not Christianity, FRiend?

[BroJoeK]

bert: "It is unnecessary and serves no real purpose"

Thanks for your advice, FRiend.
I will at least keep it in mind, an may decide to heed it.
If so, thanks in advance. :-)

[MHGinTN]

Um, the question, 'Does God exist' is not inherent in the question, 'Does God guide, or did God design the process of evolution', because a Deist would be able to ask both questions without overlap. Here's what I mean: a Deist (like my long dead Grandfather) holds to the notion that God created the Universe and then stepped away from it to let it run, kind of like a watch maker makes a watch, winds it up and lets it run without constantly changing the position of the hands on the face or rewinding every few minutes.

But I think you've hit upon the essence of why this is often a heated discussion, this conflating of the theory of evolution and the existence of a Creator of it all!

You and I seem to agree on something fundamental to the discussions, that there is nothing about the process of evolution which precludes God having set it in motion. And nothing in the running of the process precludes the potter, er, I mean the Creator from intervening on special occasions, to perhaps cause a phase shift here and there, or add some aspect tot he Creation which The Creator had in the original design to be added when a crucial stage is reached int he unfolding evolutionary process.

A young earth creationist will argue against this notion because to sustain the YEC position requires excluding probably as many points of evidence which corrode the theory as a strict 'non-God impelled' evolution believer must ignore to continue a rigid hold on origin of the species. Neither of those positions is sensible, given that we do not near enough data points to prove either and therefore the position is held on faith or guess, or obstinance (Professor Dawkins as case in point).

Other than entertaining, these 'discussion' tend to expose internally for the readers points around which reality has yet to edit. I just return to the Biblical promise that 'God is, and He is a rewarder of those who diligently seek Him.' It would be nice if we could have these discussions without becoming quite so personally agitated. And my friend bert is fond of pointing that out at our occasional lunches.

[HiTech RedNeck]

To each his own, but I still insist that we can elevate matters if we apply more grace and less damnation.

[YHAOS]

In addition to your intellectual claim jumping, apparently you believe the sincere to be at a disadvantage when dealing with the insincere. On the surface, this seems to be true, so those who look only at the surface are fooled.

“They are not “allegations”, they are questions to you, which, like most of my questions, you utterly refuse to answer.”

I’ve answered your questions. But not in the manner you anticipated, and therefore, not to your pleasure. I’m not here to please you.

Allegations in the form of questions are a common technique. William Buckley Jr. dealt with this obvious Liberal tactic fifty years ago when he exposed the dishonest and personal attacks of Hubert “The Hump” Humphrey. Everyone could see what “The Hump” was doing. Buckley named it for what it was.

In post #200 this thread, you allege no new quotes since February of 2009, How Much Longer Can They Sell Darwinism? FR, and you set the standard for “new quotes” to be four year’s (or less). Prove what you allege. (third request)

Aside from your exception, how do “other similar words,” such as “effective hunter-gatherers” equate with “vicious predatory animal”? (third request)

[HiTech RedNeck]

COOL IT, you are making humanity look like fools.

[BroJoeK]

YHAOS: "Allegations in the form of questions are a common technique.
William Buckley Jr. dealt with this obvious Liberal tactic fifty years ago..."

Sorry, but despite your cynical appeal to Buckley, the fact remains that a question is a question, is a still question, and you won't answer it, refuse to answer even a simple "yes" or "no" -- all the while repeating your own "questions" that have already been answered, in great detail.

YHAOS: "I’m not here to please you."

Well, then, that sort of explains everything, doesn't it?
And you were demanding answers from me?

[YHAOS]

“COOL IT, you are making humanity look like fools.”

Explain yourself.

”Humanity” does not require my aid (by the way).