Believing it is not proving it

Yes, you are refuting a straw man, and so was jar. That is not the argument, and jar should have known it because he's been corrected on that misrepresentation I don't know how many times. The argument is not that nobody can believe in both -- it has been stated ad nauseum that that is not and was not ever the statement. Such a statement would be utterly ridiculous at EvC where many claim to believe in both.The contention is that evolution and Christianity are incompatible or mutually contradictory, and one way this was said was that "Christian evolutionism is an oxymoron."That CANNOT be refuted by claiming to believe in both.Your logic is as bad as jar's.This message has been edited by Faith, 04-02-2006 12:37 PM

This was never said on this thread, and if it was ever said elsewhere it was simply a casual way of saying that Christianity and evolution are incompatible. It ought to be obvious in the context of EvC with all you who claim to believe in both that that simply could not possibly have meant anything else. And it has been corrected ad nauseum.

What Robin said in Message 124 was: In other words it was not his own words, he was correcting that misreading and in fact did not say it himself except to repeat nwr's phrasing. I think RR should not have used nwr's phrasing, should NEVER allow that phrasing to stand, because the opposition is apparently unable to recognize that RR has NEVER been talking about belief, and they jump on that casual phrasing as if it were about belief no matter how illogical it is that they continue to think so. That is simply the straw man abuse that is the whole reason for this flap in the first place that has been identified over and over again to deaf ears.ABE: And for pete's sake that message is Robin's STATING THAT HE NEVER MEANT ANYTHING ABOUT BELIEF. Which OUGHT to have been obvious from the beginning anyway.The problem is that it is a casual way of saying that the two are incompatible, knowing that people do nevertheless believe it. I answered nwr's misreading of it that way already, and it has been answered the umpteen times when others have said it too, by Robin and occasionally a few others as well. It is ridiculous to think one would ever say that a person couldn't BELIEVE the two things. Obviously he is saying they are incompatible. And that is what he is AGAIN saying in message 124.And I strongly protest your taking the Admin role to chide me about a completely on-topic, relevant statement, and indeed merely a restating of the central point of the thread, which is exactly the same thing that RR has been saying. If you want me to take it to the Moderation thread I will.This message has been edited by Faith, 04-02-2006 03:34 PMThis message has been edited by Faith, 04-02-2006 03:37 PMThis message has been edited by Faith, 04-02-2006 03:40 PM

Obviously. That is his view, yes. Obviously. Obviously. Obviously. Obviously. DOZENS HERE AT EVC FOR STARTERS. You feel you need to INFORM him of this obvious fact? It is exactly what he is talking about. That is absolutely correct and thoroughly familiar. Why do you feel you need to inform Robin of this? Obviously he can't have failed to notice how commonly the idea is held by Christians.What he's saying is that they are logically in the wrong to do so.If you want to refute that you have to stop talking about what people believe, which is irrelevant and refutes nothing Robin has said. You can only refute it by discussing the definition of Christian belief. And that was what the other threads were about. This thread is about the illogic of trying to refute Robin's position by pointing out there are people who believe it is not contradictory to be a Christian and support evolution. And you just committed that illogic yourself.And in fact his statement about what makes the views contradictory is also logically correct, as the idea that God created evolution implies that God "created a situation in which, in order to survive, life forms must torture, kill, and eat other life forms".This message has been edited by Faith, 04-02-2006 03:50 PM

That is correct. But how can anyone deny that to believe God created evolution implies that God created the situation of suffering and death of living things? And that this is incompatible with the Biblical God? Therefore I think it is open and shut that Robin has successfully shown that evolution and the Biblical God are incompatible and that all those who accept evolution are denying the Biblical God even though they say they believe in Him, and are in fact believing in a contradiction as Robin has argued. Only if you make up your own version of Christianity. Evolution is clearly incompatible with the traditional Bible-based faith. Sure, you can make up your own if you like that is not incompatible, but it is not the traditional Christian faith and this is what Robin has shown. Even though Methodists and Catholics accept evolution, they are doing so illogically, as it is incompatible with the traditional teachings of Christianity.

I'm sure RR thinks he shouldn't have to correct something so obvious.And nobody said nwr couldn't reply to it, but he made a straw man of it, which was my point.

No, Asgara, I have never equated the Creation with the Fall. I know it is popular for others here to make that equation but I consider it to be wrong, and I also don't agree with your definition of omniscience and omnipotence.

There's nothing to discuss, jar. You have been refuted.A brand new conundrum has been established by EvC. When a tree falls in the sight of all assembled, it still didn't happen and the very few who say it happened are called wrong. Weird. Happens over and over. Emperor's new clothes. Nice to have proved to myself that this is what is happening at least.Cheers.This message has been edited by Faith, 04-02-2006 04:25 PM

deleted.This message has been edited by Faith, 04-02-2006 04:28 PM