Summations Only

The light has just dawned - you don't actually know what a hypothesis is. That explains alot.

Hey, he got one right. Of course you dont falsify a conclusion, thats why the end hypothesis of the ToE, is Soley Narual causes. If it were a conclusion you would be able to demonstrate it. Becuase you cant, yet by obligation you maintain it as a part of the ToE. You cant just disclaim any responsibility from this conclusion and hope no one will notice Apearently Coyote, thinks you can falsify it. Lets see what you have. I would love to see how you intended to falsify the end hypothesis of the ToE, which is Soley Natural causes.

Yet more misrepresentation from Dawn Bertot as expected.

First, the Theory of Evolution does have an end hypotheses.

If it did, it would not be "solely by natural causes" as you assert.

If it did include that assumption, then you could falsify it by presenting what folk have been asking you to produce for years, namely one single example of a non-natural cause.

What can be said and said as a conclusion is that no evidence of even a single non-natural cause has ever been found.

That end hypo is, how did life start

That would be a conclusion.

Did you study any science subjects at school?

Right, so we are left with the available evidence and the conclusions (end hypos) of what that evidence allows

Dawn, you fool: there is no such thing as an 'end hypo'. You are confusing a hypothesis with a conclusion; cementing many people's thoughts that you do not know of what you speak.

Edited by Larni, : exasperation

Edited by Larni, : No reason given.

Dawn Bertot writes: There is, NOT ACTUALLY, your side and my side.

If that was true, we would agree. As we don't agree, then it is clearly false.

There is not actually, YOUR investigation and MINE. there is just an investgation

Neither you nor I are carrying out an investigation. We're both spectating what science is doing. I am reporting the scientific outcomes as I understand them, you are making stuff up in your head and claiming that it is science. It is not science it's stuff you're making up that does not in any way conform to the scientific consensus.

If you actually were carrying out an investigation you would have some actual facts. You do not have any facts to support the stuff you make up.

Becuase that which Ihave just stated is actually the CASE and true, it follows that that investigation has to have an end hypo.

Because the stuff you make up in your head and you alone believe is not true or even real, you'll not be surprised to hear that I disagree.
But even if it was true, your conclusion that science's end hypothesis (whatever that means - the phrase has no meaning to anyone but yourself) it would still be wrong. It's wrong because a scientific theory STARTS with a bloody hypothesis - it doesn't end with one.

"This is because the ToE deals with how life developed AFTER life began and because we have proof beyond reasonable doubt that life evolved and was not created as we see it today" My friend, this is what you need to prove, not just assert. You cant just asser this proposition, then assume it is true

The ToE IS the proof. If you wish to have a discussion about science you need to start from there - inconvenient though that may be for you.

Hey Dawn,

You have hijacked this thread so this summary can pretty much only be directed at you.

If several people from many different countries disagree with you,...

I didnt say several people. I said all people. When all people, people who are highly educated in the fields you are discussing, put forward objections to your posts, you may need to have another look at what you are saying. Judges, whose job it is to judge, find your ID idea to not be something other than science.

...yet can not refute your propositions, then go ahead and change your thinking to suit thiers, becuase they must be right, because they are the opposition and have vehemently argued thier position. Not accurately but vehemently, with vulgarity, insult and rudeness, but no evidence t the contrary

No evidence?

Do you think that if you say that it does not exist it actually disappears. Can you try that with an object near you. Close your eyes and say '*object* does not exist', then open your eyes and see if it has disappeared. I bet it does not.

The rest of your post is total bullshit. A series of claims of information and ideas you have not supported or presented or are misconceptions of science and are generally not rational. Also a series of incorrect statements regarding the overwhelming body of problems with your idea that have been put forward by the rest of us. Your delusion is obviously very strong. I hope they dont let you stray too far from your cage.

I started listing all of the objections to your idea and point out how you had not actually dealt with any of them but the list became too long. So I will narrow it down to a smaller list. Then, after that list became pretty huge, I got bored finding all of your mistakes and decided to stop. Here is as far as I got...

I am going to refer to you in the third person in this list because i will probably refer you and other posters back to it in the future.

1. Dawn believes that creationism has been proven scientifically and evidence of creation can be seen in the real world. The problem with this is that there is no scientific evidence of any god/s. As yet, Dawn has not shown 1 single piece of scientific evidence supporting the existence of any god/s.

Message 37

creationism is an evaluation of the real world concerning its origin and derives all its conclusions in a scientific manner

Message 39

Its (creationism) not majic, its science, all reasoning to proper conclusions is science

Message 78

If you removed religion out of the context, creationism and ID would still exist as scientific investigations of the explanations of existence

Message 1

Even after the strictiest investigations, it still leaves us with only two logical possibilites (creationism/ID and natural causes), both of which is demonstrateable and both of which are logical conclusions against the natural world

2. Dawn believes that there are only two possibilities. 1 : the creation story as outlined in the Bible. 2 : soley [sic] natural causes. This logical fallacy is a false dichotomy. Other options include : all of the other creation stories, unintelligent design, accidental creation, intelligent being (not supernatural) creation, scientific ideas not yet conceived etc

Message 60

creationism is a simple logical proposition derived from the ONLY two logical possibilites, of the existence of things, and the only two that existence will allows us, as an explanation.

Message 60

The Bible is an illustration of a greater proposition, which states that it is very much possible, given the only two possibilites of things in existence, that things were created or made

3. Dawn believes that Creationism is an explanation of something. The problem with this is 'god did it' decribes nothing at all. It is the same as saying that it happened by magic.

Message 60

Dont confuse the Process of evolution, which is only an explantion of how things WORK, with creationism, the explanation of the origin of things

4. Dawn will often jump from creationsim to ID when his position is debated against. He distances himself from creationism just like the other ID nutjobs.

In a reply to a comment that religion is not science Dawn stated -
Message 77

Yeah I agree, but fortunately, ID is science and does not involve religion.

Message 77

Since ID is not religion and is one of only two logical possibilites, determined by investigation, even scientific investigation, it follows that both should be taught in the science arena

5. Dawn often lies. Open, obvious, bald faced lies.

Message 60

Evolution has nothing to with the ultimate origin of things, it is only a possible explanation of how things work, not an explantion for the existence of things as a whole Most of these fellas here will try and lump the two together and try to make people believe they have offered an explantion for the origin of things, by explaining evolution. They havent

The lie here is that 'most of the fellas here will try and lump the two (evolution and abiogenesis) together'. Nobody with any basic knowledge of evolution will 'believe they have offered an explantion for the origin of things, by explaining evolution'. Dawn knows this. He is lying.

Message 129

Its difficult debating a creationist that knows what he is talking about, isnt it?

So ID is not religion huh?

Also included in Dawns lies are his comments that he has provided evidence and he has made his point. Also his claims that he makes sense and can put together a valid argument.

6. Dawn cannot work out if creation/ID is a process, an explanation of existence, an origin, a method or if it is a conclusion or helps gain conlcusions.

Message 60

creationism, the explanation of the origin of things

Message 60

creationism is at its heart a logical proposition about the origin of anything. But it derives its conclusions from the very existence of things

Message 144

I only affirmed that the Process of ID follows the same approach and comes to very demonstratable and valid conclusion, concerning things we can see and know, ie, order, law and purpose.

Notice how the conclusion in this quote is law, order and purpose. But in the next quote, the conclusion is a designer?

Message 107

ID or the process of ID points to the conclusion of a Designer, because it tenets are just like those practiced by the SM, its a detailed investigation, like the SM, into the natural world.

So it seems that intelligent design is the process and a designer is the conclusion. But Dawn cannot describe the process of intelligent design, show any evidence of intelligent design, show any scientific research illustarting intelligent design, advise on how to perform an experiment to test for intelligent design or why things that appear to be designed MUST point to a conclusion of a designer.

Message 268

If you will notice that the process of the IDs method identifes the law and order from a biological standpoin to explain why the sky is blue.

So now IDs method has a process that has not been defined either.

Dawn fails to see how the Theory of Evolution can be falsified regardless of the amount of times he is given ways it can be falsified.

3 ways the Theory of Evolution can be falsified -

Find a fossil of a modern rabbit in the cambrian.

Finding an instruction manual called 'Animal Design for Supernatural Beings'

God walking out on stage at a UN summit and announcing that he did it all and he did not use evolution.

7. Dawn fails to answer questions that he states are extremely important and demands answers to from his opposition.

Message 89

Every investigation in this context has to start with the idea of how and why.

Ok, HOW did the creator/intelligent designer make the universe? Why did the creator/intelligent designer make the universe?

Message 108

Notice how ID and creation make logical sense in combining the two, (how and Why),its the only logical approach

How did the intelligent designer/ creator make the universe? Why did the intellignet designer/creator make the universe?

8. Dawn does not understand basic science. The best example from this thread is his continual insistence that the Theory of Evolution leads to or starts with solely natural causes. Evolution could have been started by gods, aliens or the Stay Puft Marshmallow Man. There is no requirement for the Theory of Evolution to begin with solely natural causes. Through the study of evolution, there has been no indication of supernatural interaction.

Message 128

Does it show real evidence from the real world that, it is a product of soley natural causes?

Message 107

How does TOE point to the conclusion of Soley natural causes.

Message 1

The TOE implies and indirectly teaches, processes by Soley natural cuases, Without including the only other scientifically demonstatable approach, that has nothing to do with religion

The Theory of Evolution does not imply or teach solely natural causes. The Theory of Evolution involves no supernatural interaction because etheir is no evidence of it. It also does not teach that fairies are part of the process. Do you think that ommiting fairies implies or indirectly teaches soley natural causes?

Message 144

Only a nitwit would ignore the fact that even the SM and the TOE, necessarily involve a conclusion. In this case , Soley natural causes.

Natural causes is not a conclusion of the Theory of Evolution or the scientific method. The Theory of Evolution does not rule out supernatural intervention. There is just no evidence of supernatural intervention.

Message 182

In essence I am not saying the SM, is not science, Im saying once you remove your prejudices concerning creationism and ID, youll see the ID process as science, using no different terms or ideas that the SM

So the ID process, requiring a supernatural being performing magic is science? Even without any of my prejudices against creationism and ID, magic is still not science.

Message 274

The ToE has to have conclusion. Since that conclusion cannot be demonstrated, all logical possibilites that correspond to the evidence have to be demonstrtated not to be science, for them not to be taught as science

The conclusion of the Theory of Evolution is not solely natural causes. No evidence of supernatural causes has been found. Are you suggesting that in order for ID to be taught in science class, we would have to prove that there was no supernatural intervention in any process?

Message 274

Both IDs process of investigation and its conclusion can be demonstrated in the investigation and in any given property in the natural world.

How can IDs conclusion, creation, be demonstrated in any given property in the natural world? For starters, SUPERnatural beings cannot be demonstrated in the NATURAL world. Here are 3 properties to choose from - water boils at sea level at 100c, balsa wood has a density of 380kg/m.cu+, the average weight of a male walrus is 1250kg. Please indicate how they demonstrate creation.

Message 300

Yes I am aware of that. Since the ToLO&P is a model and a theory, it is either falsifiable or it is not. In this instance it is not necessary to falsify something that is always true

So the theory of law, order and purpose if the model of ID? Or is ID the process still? Is the theory of law order and process the model of creation? If this theory is scientific, then it need to be falsifiable. From your statement, it is not falsifiable. It is ALWAYS true. That would mean that if would have to have supporting evidence that exceeds the Theory of Evolution. I cant believe you are telling us all of this, you should be keeping it quite Dawn. You will win the nobel prize for cince for this! Oh wait, you wont, because it is bullshit and makes no sense. If you think it is science, have it published.Start you message to a scientific journal with the words - "I have a scientific theory that replaces the scientific method and the Theory of Evolution that cannot be falsified because it is always true" and see how far you get. Unless it is pure maths, you wont get far.

9. Dawn uses words in a way known only to him. And he refuses to define these words regardless of the amount of times he is asked.

These words include -

Law

Order

Purpose

consitency (consistency?)

Scientific method

Theory of Evolution

Creation

Intelligent Design

Method

Process

Conclusion

Fasified

hypothesis

harmony

change

natural selection

10. Dawn often states things that simply dont make any sense. (I am not including any examples of word salad here, just statements that can be understood but make no sense)

Message 99

Since the TOE only identifies HOW and cannot or will not address why, it follws that it cannot be falsified, there fore cannot be considered as science, according to your own rules

Seriously, he actually said that.

Message 99

since an inextricable part of any investigation includes how and why,not just how, it follows that the TOE, must include, the process that started evolution in the first place.

Yes, he really said this too.

Message 107

So if ID is not falsifiable, then neither is the TOE, because it must include why, to be a valid investigation.

If ID is not falsifiable, then the theory of evolution is not falsifiable? Because it must include why? That is bullshit, but it begs the question - Why did the intelligent designer design the universe? According to you, if you cannot answer that, then you dont have a theory.

Message 128

Doing science would include all vaild scientific approaches to the Natural world correct?

Yes it would, that is why we dont include SUPERNATURAL things in the NATURAL world.

Message 182

Because if the ToE is going to stand by its natural conclusion, of soley natural causes. It must must Demonstrate in a logical way why, Law Order and purpose are not established in the same manner

That makes no sense. If for no other reason than the fact that the Theory of Evolution does not conclude solely natural causes.

11. Dawn continually states that the only scientific and/or logical position includes origins in its description.

Message 128

Its first mistake, it to assume that its investigative process, does not need to involve questions of origins. Instead of just repeating yourself on this point and reminding what you have decided the SM involves and should do, just show me in logical form why it shouldnt include origins or orgination processes

So in order to be a logical and/or scientific position, Dawn would be able to state the origin of the intelligent designer/creator.

Message 128

Its (evolution) an investigation into the natural world, which if it is to be considered a complete and rational one, needs to include the origins.

What is the origin of the intelligent designer/creator.

Message 280

When I can only explain the process and can provide no absolute answer as to its intiation in by existnce itself, it falls to the logical proposition and best evidence against such realites.

What was the initiatial initiator of the intelligent designer/creator of the universe?

All the while I have been asking Dawn to respond to my post way back in Message 193. Still no reply. I know you cant answer the questions. So I am not really surprised.

The thing I find most amusing about you Dawn is that you think that your idea is so wonderful and brilliant and flawless that anyone who objects just must not be as smart as you so they dont understand it. I find it ironic that someone who shows such an appalling level of stupidy and lack of knowledge with regards to the subject at hand would think that he is the only one who can understand his theory and that all of the poeple who are knowledgable about the subject just dont get it.

The alternative is that your idea is a total pile of shit.

If you idea does what you think it does, then you will win a nobel prize for it. I will check for it each year. Each year it does not appear, I will know you are that little bit closer to realising that you have no idea what you are talking about.

I have only read one statement by Dawn Bertot that I believe was honestly written and made sense.

Message 118

I dont know what that means

Edited by Butterflytyrant, : No reason given.

The thread began well enough, as agent_509 discussed his encounter with evidence.

But then a major spillage began at around Message 37. And, by now, the thread is a hopeless mess of mostly off-topic nonsense.

I do agree with nwr, to some extent, that the thread ended up derailed and I confess that I had a part to play in that. However, I think this derailment may have served a useful purpose.

agent_509 explained very clearly the false dichotomy that exists in YEC teaching, that its either YEC or atheism. His subsequent enlightenment shows just what that false dichotomy will lead to, should problems with the YEC position become apparent to believers. It's also something that biblical inerrantists will have to face in the same circumstances.

By stating that this is an either/or case, the YECs have painted themselves into a corner. As more and more evidence has been gathered by science, they have become unable to hand-wave it all away and so have tried to use science to argue their case. Unfortunately they know so little of science that they can't come up with valid explanations. This is never going to change since I believe that to hold a YEC position you have to be science illiterate. If you understand the science you can't honestly hold a YEC position.

To attempt to stop this inevitable loss to the YEC community, they've had to sound "sciencey", use strangled and confusing arguments and instill fear in their followers, i.e., if you don't stick to the YEC position you have to throw the whole Bible out. This is an attempt to prevent their followers with more questioning minds from asking questions and investigating for themselves.

As soon as a YEC realises the bullshit they've been fed, they lose faith in anything the YEC crowd has said to them in the past, as evidenced by agent_509. Cashfrog had a brilliant idea for agent_509 to revisit his creationist posts and show us where his mind now takes him with regard to those arguments. That would have been fascinating. Unfortunaely derai9lment arived in the form of Dawn Bertot.

I have to say that I think this derailment did serve a purpose. It provided in all it's awful clarity the very reasons why agent_509 abandoned the YEC position. The utter stupidity and ridiculousness of many of the arguments, assertions and explanations and the falsehoods, lies and see-sawing of position and definition are very apparent. Seen in isolation those statements and explanations may seem plausible to a YEC or IDist, but when they come thick and fast in one place the inconsistencies can't be missed and the whole shebang comes crashing down. By conflating Yecism with biblical inerrancy the YECists have just about guaranteed that any conversion from YECism will be to atheism.

A potentially interesting thread got Bertot all over it, and that stuff just doesn't wash off.

While Dawn did stick her face and arse where they were not required it was a tour de force of arrogant ignorance for all the lurkers to behold and shrink away from in dismay.

Surely, Dawn puts the cause of Yecism (nice neologism, Trix) back even further into the brown age.

Partly my fault, sorry. But proper delusion is fascinating isn't it?

The whole idea of Young Earth has been so totally refuted for several hundred years at least that it takes someone who has decided to be willfully ******** at best to believe in it and someone who is totally dishonest to try to market it.

The summation, as if one was needed

Jar writes

Yet more misrepresentation from Dawn Bertot as expected. First, the Theory of Evolution does have an end hypotheses. If it did, it would not be "solely by natural causes" as you assert. If it did include that assumption, then you could falsify it by presenting what folk have been asking you to produce for years, namely one single example of a non-natural cause. What can be said and said as a conclusion is that no evidence of even a single non-natural cause has ever been found.

Again, no evidence of natrual causes exists either If there actually was evidence of natural causes, you would be able to do two things. You would be able to explain and given answers to the questions, for which there is no answer. Since you cant do this it follows that there is no actual evidence of natural causes

Secondly you would be able to demonstrate that the ToLO&P and design are untenable. Since you cannot do this, it follows that both conclusions are tenable.. You are dishonest as to what evidence is and how to establish a valid conclusion, concerning matters of an investigative nature

Lastly, you have still failed to present any evidence (actual evidence) that things are here by Soley Natural causes. You are playing with words to make an attempt, to justify an assertion you cannot demonstrate

If it did include that assumption, then you could falsify it by presenting what folk have been asking you to produce for years, namely one single example of a non-natural cause.

No Jar a lack of evidence to demonstrate the conclusion of soley natrual causes is not evidence. It is saying you have no idea on the how and why

Since you have no idea or evidence of Soley natural causes actually (just your assetion), it should be clear that that is not falsifying your hypothesis

Larni writes

Dawn, you fool: there is no such thing as an 'end hypo'. You are confusing a hypothesis with a conclusion; cementing many people's thoughts that you do not know of what you speak.

Ill try this one more time. Where there is no definte answer for a conclusion, its ok to call it an end hypothesis. If you want to call it a conclusion, that does not matter either, because, there is no definte answer. There is no definte answer of Soley Natrual causes, so one may consider it still in hypothesis mode. Does it really matter?

Since it is still an unfounded hypothesis, it cannot have direct evidence. Therefore any other hypothesis that maintains the same type of evidence, with no definte answer, it follows that that evidence should be included

Yourself and Jar are not smart enough, I suppose, to see that maintaining that there is only evidence of Soley Natrual causes, indicates that you believe there is actually an end hypothesis, even tothe ToE That is, you have given it that determination,then turn around and suggest there is no end hypothesis. Surely you two can see the simple mistake you are making

Tangle writes

Neither you nor I are carrying out an investigation. We're both spectating what science is doing.

Then how did you or others decide that there is only evidence of Soley Natrual causes?

Either your conclusion of SN causes, is invaild because you are speculating or you are conducting a scientific investigation to come to that conclusion. You simply dont understand that there is only an investigation, valid or invalid. There are no sides and throwing terms at an investigation that explores the natural world by the same humans, that live on the same planet, wont make it any more than an investigation, valid or invalid

Only a Nitwit would suggest that an investgation into the natural world,would cease, at the point the TOE suggests. Any further investigation processes, whether described as philosophy or abiogenesis, are just Terms of the same investigation. To suggest otherwise is at best nonsesne and at worst blatant stupidity

Other than just saying it is this or that, no one has provided any evidence as to why it is not actually the same investigation. Again, you cant just say, "Well, we have examined everything and as to how and why it is here in the first place, Well will just leave that to someone else" When they ask us why we are leaving that to someone else, we will just say, "because we just dont care and it doesnt matter"
How many children do you think that will by that brilliant insight?

Tangle writes

I am reporting the scientific outcomes as I understand them, you are making stuff up in your head and claiming that it is science.

Every scientific outcome has to have a summation or conclusion, even if that summation cannot be evidenced directly. Did you not pay attention to Larni and Jar, Insisting that all investigations or science can produce, is that there is only evidence of Soley natural causes. This my simple friend is a end hypo or conclusion. What you desigante or call it is not important. What the investigation, all of it, does, and how it is approached does matter

Whether in debate or in person, I have failed yet to have a person, not understand that simple point and without hesitation they say, well that makes perfect sense.

Did you not pay attention to the fact that only two logically scientific approaches to the existence of things, are the only two included, that can be considered as science. The conclusion of Soley Natural causes must be included in reporting the outcomes of science (and it must be), for your science to make any sense.

You cant just stop where you choose and call it Good

It's wrong because a scientific theory STARTS with a bloody hypothesis - it doesn't end with one.

This demonstrates two things. You dont even understand what the word science means and you dont have the ability to comprehend simple reality. The investigation does not stop with a simple examination of data and matter. It must have a hypothesis as to its origination. If it decides one is not available or that it is by SN causes, then that is still an end hypo and a conlcusion

Call it philosophy, call it abogenesis, its just an extention of the same investigation, which to this point as I can surmize, from you fellas, is that it is here by Soley Natrual causes. If the ToE does not have conclusions what is that.

The ToE IS the proof. If you wish to have a discussion about science you need to start from there - inconvenient though that may be for you.

The ToE is proof that change has taken place. It is proof of nothing else. When you quit both in court and here in person confusing my conclusion of ID with the process of the ToE, you will see clearly to understand that the SM and the ToE, have and provide nothing, that can be considered different than IDs process

Butterflytyrant writes

2. Dawn believes that there are only two possibilities. 1 : the creation story as outlined in the Bible. 2 : soley [sic] natural causes. This logical fallacy is a false dichotomy. Other options include : all of the other creation stories, unintelligent design, accidental creation, intelligent being (not supernatural) creation, scientific ideas not yet conceived etc

This statement alone bares out two things, from your post. You dont even understand what is being discussed and because of that point, you continue to misrepresent anything I am saying. Please show in some other thread, as this one is done, where I ever referenced the creation story, in this thread

You dont even understand whats being discussed

As i staed earlier, if Percy permits, I will be happy to engage you on any of the questions and concerns you have raised. But one thing is certain, those things you alledge and attempt to refute, are not what is being discussed here. So you continue to miss the point and continue to misrepresent me presently

You fellas are so glaringly inconsistent. With one breath you say the SM and the ToE dont answer or involve itself with the questions of origins, then turn right around and claim to know that things, the way they are were not created or designed to proceed and operate the way you claim they have

You have and i suspect will continue to make the mistake that if evo were true, it would not or could not involve creation or design.

You fail to realize that one doesnt preclude the other. But i also suspect you will keep this glaring lie up, so as to exclude any religion in any context or involvement in the classroom

I wonder if you even bother to expalin the fact to children that even if Evo were true, that it has nothing to do with design? Or do you keep up the idea (lie) that it is in direct conflict with evolution

Well thats one way to keep your employment

Happy summation to all and to all a good night. See you on another thread concerning these related issues, I hope, there Mallethead

Dawn Bertot

Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

I don’t know what it was that caused agent 509 to lose his faith but if I had to believe in the Christianity of Dawn and Buz I would quickly lose mine as well. In the first place they don’t actually believe the message of the Scriptures, but at the same time they claim intimate knowledge of them.

Does anyone actually believe that a God whose intelligence is responsible for all of creation would also be petty enough to worry about what we believe about how we came into existence, or about a supposed flood a few thousand years ago?

The fundamentalists/literalists are the modern day equivalent of the Pharisees. It becomes all about me and my salvation as opposed to the message of Jesus which is about being loving stewards of God’s creation. It is about sacrificial love. Instead of putting our focus on ourselves we are to put the focus on God and neighbour. If our whole point is only about our own salvation then we have totally lost the point of it all. The Bible is clear that it is not about head knowledge. It is about having hearts that love unselfishly.

If you notice the fundamentalists spend a great deal of time arguing against evolution or arguing about the flood. I really have to wonder if they really believe that the God of creation, the loving God we see in Jesus would think that this is a good use of the gift of time that they have been given.

That form of Christianity IMHO is not the Christianity espoused by either Jesus or Paul, nor is it the Christianity of Augustine or Lewis. As I mentioned before, it is closer to the religion of the Pharisees and the Temple money changers than it is to the teachings of Jesus.