What we must accept if we accept evolution Part 2

Welcome and your criticisms are spot on. Its hard sometimes when you work for an hour or so on a post and have it merely hand waved away just because someone can't deal with it. Thank you for getting your voice heard and helping to make more transparent the tactics of those who claim to have the sole sponsorship of logic.Sometimes it is hard to know what other people think about the conversation that takes place and it is good to see that the glib responses to real criticism are noticed as such.

---

No smoking signs by gas stations. No religion in the public square. The government should keep us from being engulfed in flames on earth, and that is pretty much it. -- Jon Stewart, The Daily Show

What Jazzns said.iamaelephant, your post was entirely appropriate; I disagree strongly with iano about that (and much else!). Faith can take care of herself just fine.So, yes: Welcome.Lay on, McIamaelephant. Lurk no more.

Thanks mate, I appreciate the support Of course, the last thing I want to do is make enemies on this forum, so if I'm stepping on anyone's toes I do appreciate it when someone pulls me up on it.

Imagine that. Happens to me 99.999999% of the time.

You can't make an enemy of iano--he's a Christian!He was just being gallant.

So you should know exactly how it feels. This is strange given that not a single one of my posts to you thus far have recieved anything of substance. What about my posts don't you like? The fact that I disagree with you and consider your position completely defunct of merit and logic? I think you are totally wrong on a level that is way to deep to even begin to try to water it down. Can you not handle someone who disagrees with you so fiercly in a debate? Do you still think I am villifying you?If you would like I would sincerly help you start your own blog. I work on the web all day so I know how to do it pretty easily. That way you wouldn't have to stress and pressure of giving substantial responses to those who disagree with you because there would be no one who did. Blogs are great and they are all the rage. But you have been here long enough to know that this is a debate board and if you want people like me, who have rarely if ever treated YOU in such a glib manner, to take you seriously then maybe you might want to rethink your position on "do unto others".This message has been edited by Jazzns, 01-31-2006 08:23 PM

---

No smoking signs by gas stations. No religion in the public square. The government should keep us from being engulfed in flames on earth, and that is pretty much it. -- Jon Stewart, The Daily Show

Just curious. What do you think your contribution amounts to anyway? I mean you have merely joined your voice with oh six seven eight others in condemning my posts. My strange entourage, my anti-groupies. Maybe I should be flattered. You may have the right, but what's the value? I'm thankful to Modulous for recognizing some part of my argument as valid despite his being on the other side, and Robin, who originated this topic, though he and I disagree on probably 90% of what is argued here at EvC. Iano's my brother of course, but he hasn't been in on the argument. And Phat, but I wasn't sure what his point was. Otherwise everybody else is in lockstep. But hey, welcome to the entourage. Please move to the back of the bus.This message has been edited by Faith, 02-01-2006 09:36 AM

Welcome, iamaelephant.I am disappointed at the chilly reception you received from one or two of our members. Please disregard their rudeness. We are glad to have you join the debate.

---

Faith, no offense, but do you...drink?

i actually think this is a splendid contribution. welcome aboard and may i lend you a pair of goggles?

Ok, but can we agree that a god doesn't have to be evil, a "godlet" (heh), or nonexistent to be compatible with evolution; that an omnipotent and benevolent god could have created the Universe in the evolution scenario, if we allow for a Fall-like situation to have happened?

How is this possible? I thought I showed pretty clearly that it isn't.This message has been edited by Faith, 02-01-2006 12:19 AM

quote:

---

Well, the Logic Challenged are hulking their way to victory by trampling down all the delicate operations of reason asusual. THAT's the way debates are won at EvC.

---

That is exactly what your post quoted above is doing. Rather than deal with the points presented you just make false accusations.Unfortunately for you are wrong to claim that your tactics win..

Polytheistic religions have included weak and cruel Gods. so the concepts hold water at least to the extent that they are not obviously false.But I must remind you that you invoked YEC beliefs in place of philosphical arguments. Then you say that I should not talk about the YEC God and instead must deal with philosophy. Effectively you are indulging in equivocation.I would add that if you remve "negligent God" as an option you are really down to affirming atheism independantly of the truth of evolution. Which again amounts to question-begging.So to reiterate:The actual evidence shows that death and sufering long preceded the arrival of huans. Without rejecting that evidence in favour of YEC beliefs the Fall is hardly a plausible option.YEC beliefs include animals undergoing death and suffering - both from the Fall, the Flood and the animal sacrifices commanded by God, for no fault of their own. Even on a purely philosphical level the first is necessarily true since the whole point of invoking the Fall is to explain animal suffering and death.Yet the idea that a small human act of disobedience could radically change the whole universe is highly implausible unless the universe were made to be dependant on that particular human action.Was God unable to create a universe without this problem, this vulnerable point ? If so then you are invoking a "weak God", which you reject.Did God intentionally include this flaw, knowing that it could - and probably would - inflict suffering and death on animals who had no part in the event ? Then we have the "cruel God" that you reject.We are left than with a God who somehow included this flaw by accident, not realising the likely effects. This is an incompetent and negligent God - is that any better thna a "cruel God" or a "weak God" ?Yet if the Fall is not a viable option either your argument is wrong or we are left with the conclusion of atheism simply from the observed suffering and death in the present day. In which case evolution is an irrelevance.-

An example of how it's possible was given back in Message 64As far as I can see, all you've showed is that a literal interpretation of the Genesis creation account is incompatible with evolution. Not many would dispute that.