DAVE VS PASTOR DAVE: IS MACROEVOLUTION TRUE?
Pastor Dave
First we star with the rules.
1) Do not ask me to define macroevolution.
We both know what it means and that is
your attempt to avoid dealing with the facts
and it is a stall tactic, that is designed to
get me to make a claim, so that you can
avoid dealing with having to defend what
it is you believe and the fact is, since you
made the claim, it is you who would have
to define it. But I would not allow that,
since we both know that you would try to
switch the meaning, to suit microevolution.
I will not get involved in word games with you.
2) This thread is based on one person's
claims and one person's claims only.
YOURS. And they went as follows...
"But the fact is that, in the case of science,
it's true, and in the case of evolution, it's true."
You have made a truth claim. It will be your
responsibility to prove that.
You also made the claim that I refuse to debate
the evidence for evolution with you and that was
a false claim, since you never asked me to. But
you don't care about lying, which is obvious.
Thus, the burden is on you to provide said evidence
that you claim to have, so that it can be debated.
Since I do not believe there is any evidence for
macroevolution, it is not logical to ask me to
provide the evidence to debate and frankly,
is quite stupid to even suggest. But you
knew that.
3) If macroevolution is true, then you should have
no problem proving that, which is what you said
you could do. You said, "It will be a pleasure
taking you down", to me.
So please, proceed to do so. You will be the first.
It seems that your arrogance is your guide.
4) Do not try to turn the tables and claim that
I need to back up my claims. I made no claims.
I responded to your claim.
Any attempts to turn the tables, will result in
an immediate declaration of you having lost
the debate, since you will not acknowledge
what anyone can see, by reading the thread
and knowing that your messages came before
mine and that I responded to you, requesting
you to back up your claim.
5) Insults and foul language will not be tolerated.
This will be a polite and respectful debate, once
it begins.
6) Dodging points will not be tolerated. And
pretending that you haven't done so will not
be tolerated. Nor will lying and claiming that
I have, when I have not.
7) Attacking creationism will not be tolerated.
According to you, it is not science and therefore,
should not even be mentioned in a scientific
discussion. So by your own words, you have
no reason to bring it up.
This will be a purely scientific discussion.
8) Making claims that something is true, without
proving beyond doubt that it is true, will not be
tolerated. If you claim it's true, prove it is true
with solid, irrefutable facts.
9) Asking questions is fine, if a statement prompts
one, unless they are designed to avoid admitting
that what either party just said is true.
10) Each point must be discussed to its conclusion.
Trying to bring other points into the discussion, to
avoid dealing with a particular point, will not be
tolerated.
11) No discussion with others in this thread will be
tolerated. This is between you and I and others
should not be responded to. Also, no discussion
about this thread in other threads, nor about the
other person in this debate, in this thread, nor
any other, will be tolerated. This is between you
and I and slamming the other person in other
threads will only lead to personal arguments.
And responding to other people in this thread,
will only lead to sidetracking the discussion.
If you claim to be able to take me down, then
you should be able to do it, one on one, without
anyone else's comments, nor help.
12) Any violation of any of these rules, which are
fair, will be seen as an act of cowardice and an
admission of the person's inability to defend
their statements and will result in an immediate
declaration of concession, whether you agree
or not.
Those are my rules. If you accept them, then
let's begin. I will not discuss them. They are
what they are. If you're scared, say you're
scared. Otherwise, live up to all of that crap
that you've been talking about how great
you are and let's proceed.
If you accept them, then let it proceed with
this opening question...
What is your first evidence for macroevolution?
We can begin our polite, respectful and purely
scientific discussion there.
And do not ask me to prove creation. According
to you, there is no such thing as evidence for
creation and therefore, there is nothing to discuss.
And as I said, this discussion is based on YOUR
claims, NOT MINE.
--
Pastor Dave
Silence in the Face of Doctrinal Criticism is Suicide
Dave
> First we star with the rules.
"pastor" Dave presumes that he gets to provide the "rules," but I
reject his authority to do so. I refer the readers to:
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/free.christians/msg/e8125b5cb97152af?dmode=source&hl=en
To get an idea what's going on, especially since "pastor" Dave has
decided to add more groups than were originally involved. I will
respond to "pastor" Dave and destroy him in my own good time and by the
rules that most tend to observe in give-and-take and intelligent
discussion--these are things in which "pastor" Dave has no interest.
"pastor" Dave can show me that this isn't true by agreeing to negotiate
the rules by which a debate may take place. Until such time as that
occurs, I will deal with him in the way that I think best suits the
purpose, that is, to educate the readers about the issues, and to
expose "pastor" Dave as the fraud that he is.
Snip
Pastor Dave
<hor...@gmail.com> spake thusly:
>Pastor Dave wrote:
>> First we star with the rules.
>
>"pastor" Dave presumes that he gets to provide the "rules," but I
>reject his authority to do so.
Then you say no and refuse the debate
and refuse to back up your truth claim.
>I will respond to "pastor" Dave and destroy him
>in my own good time
Meaning that you are not able to do so now
and pray that you can scramble and find
some information that will help you, since
you were stupid enough to make a claim
without being able to support it.
>and by the rules that most tend to observe in
>give-and-take and intelligent discussion--these
>are things in which "pastor" Dave has no interest.
Interesting statement, considering we have not
debated yet.
What you really mean, is that you want to be able
to make claims and not have to support them.
Then when that is pointed out, you want to be able
to use foul language, as you have been doing and
claim my title is "self appointed" and never back
that statement up. Then, get your buddies to
join in and insult me some more and then claim
that I ran away.
You claimed macroevolution is "truth". That was
your word and yet, this is what we see from you,
when challenged.
And you, to your advantage, paste one message,
in which you try to make yourself look like the
good guy.
And as for my adding groups, yes, I did. You see,
I am not afraid of everyone seeing the debate.
You are which is why you object.
Face it. You're another lying coward who thrives
on hatred and is incapable of backing up his
claims. You hate God and want everyone to
know it and you pretend that your hatred is science.
The bottom line is, you refused the debate and you lie
and claim that you are responding to my claims, when
yours came first. I was not involved in the thread at
all, until I responded to your claim.
And then, after ridiculing creationists, claiming that
they are ridiculous, because all they do, is try to
punch holes in evolution, you tried to demand that
I do that very thing and try to punch holes in
evolution. The very thing you claimed to hate.
You are a fool.
Goodbye.
Pastor Dave
<hor...@gmail.com> spake thusly:
>Pastor Dave wrote:
>> First we star with the rules.
>
>"pastor" Dave presumes that he gets to provide the "rules," but I
>reject his authority to do so.
Then you say no and refuse the debate
and refuse to back up your truth claim.
>I will respond to "pastor" Dave and destroy him
>in my own good time
Meaning that you are not able to do so now
and pray that you can scramble and find
some information that will help you, since
you were stupid enough to make a claim
without being able to support it.
>and by the rules that most tend to observe in
>give-and-take and intelligent discussion--these
>are things in which "pastor" Dave has no interest.
Interesting statement, considering we have not
debated yet.
You are a fool.
Goodbye.
--
Dave
> On 10 Jul 2005 18:22:16 -0700, "Dave"
> <hor...@gmail.com> spake thusly:
>
> >Pastor Dave wrote:
> >> First we star with the rules.
> >
> >"pastor" Dave presumes that he gets to provide the "rules," but I
> >reject his authority to do so.
>
> Then you say no and refuse the debate
> and refuse to back up your truth claim.
I refuse you the authority to unilaterally decide the "rules."
> >I will respond to "pastor" Dave and destroy him
> >in my own good time
>
> Meaning that you are not able to do so now
> and pray that you can scramble and find
> some information that will help you, since
> you were stupid enough to make a claim
> without being able to support it.
No, it means exactly what it says, given that I must soon call it a
night *and* Google is about to tell me I can't post from my login or
address any more.
> >and by the rules that most tend to observe in
> >give-and-take and intelligent discussion--these
> >are things in which "pastor" Dave has no interest.
>
> Interesting statement, considering we have not
> debated yet.
Based on observation.
> What you really mean...
I'll decide what I mean.
Snip remainder, most of which is a whine.
You're goin' down.
Pastor Dave
<hor...@gmail.com> spake thusly:
>> Son, I'm not the one who is concerned
>> with trying to make myself look superior...
>
>Of course you are, starting with the phony title,
>"pastor,"
And of course, you don't have the integrity
to either prove your claim, or retract it. No.
It's just a lie you use, to try to get under
someone's skin. Honesty and integrity
are the farthest things from your mind
and they are things that you do not
possess.
If you're scared, say you're scared.
>> Will you admit that you cannot prove your
>> accusation and retract it?
>
>I can't prove it; but I believe it to be true
So even though you can't prove it, you will
claim it is truth anyway. Gotcha.
Pastor Dave
<hor...@gmail.com> spake thusly:
>Pastor Dave wrote:
>> On 10 Jul 2005 18:22:16 -0700, "Dave"
>> <hor...@gmail.com> spake thusly:
>>
>> >Pastor Dave wrote:
>> >> First we star with the rules.
>> >
>> >"pastor" Dave presumes that he gets to provide the "rules," but I
>> >reject his authority to do so.
>>
>> Then you say no and refuse the debate
>> and refuse to back up your truth claim.
>
>I refuse you the authority to unilaterally decide the "rules."
If you're scared, say you're scared.
--
Pastor Dave
<hor...@gmail.com> spake thusly:
>Pastor Dave wrote:
>> On 10 Jul 2005 18:22:16 -0700, "Dave"
>> <hor...@gmail.com> spake thusly:
>>
>> >Pastor Dave wrote:
>> >> First we star with the rules.
>> >
>> >"pastor" Dave presumes that he gets to provide the "rules," but I
>> >reject his authority to do so.
>>
>> Then you say no and refuse the debate
>> and refuse to back up your truth claim.
>
>I refuse you the authority to unilaterally decide the "rules."
If you're scared, say you're scared.
--
Red Rum
<news-gr...@nospam-tampa-bay.rr.com> wrote:
> On 10 Jul 2005 18:33:12 -0700, "Dave"
> <hor...@gmail.com> spake thusly:
>
>
> >> Son, I'm not the one who is concerned
> >> with trying to make myself look superior...
> >
> >Of course you are, starting with the phony title,
> >"pastor,"
>
Give it up Mr Dave
You have been rumbled
More Pasta than Pastor, spaghetti man
Red Rum
"Do you think that the Church has adequately explored and explained the
spiritual aspects of evolution? What does it mean spiritually that we
evolved from apes?"
Dear Phyllis,
In a word my answer to your first question is a very loud NO! Evolution
has always threatened traditional Christianity. That is why Charles Darwin
is so vigorously attacked, even today, in some religious circles. However,
the fact is that the typical religious attack on Darwin is light years
away from the place where Darwin made his impact on traditional
understanding.
Darwin shattered biblical literalism and its seven-day creation story. The
critics of Darwin, unable to meet this challenge, finally accommodated
Darwin by suggesting that each of the days referred to in the creation
story might have represented eons of time and that the evolutionary method
might therefore be accurate. They believed that this compromise left them
with the claim of biblical accuracy still in tact. It was a shallow and
papered-over peace destined not to last. It only served to keep the
Darwinian wolf away from the Christian door for another 100 years.
Eventually, the real Darwinian challenge became visible and, when it did,
the whole interpretative myth by which Christianity presented its faith
system began to crumble. That myth asserted that in the beginning was a
good creation at which time all things bore witness to God's perfection.
Then there came an act of rebellion - told in the Garden of Eden story as
an act of disobeying God's only prohibition that forbade the eating of the
fruit from the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil. This act plunged
the world into a state of sin and separation from which there was no way
of escape that was open to the fallen creature. Even God seemed unable to
overcome the fall. The flood at the time of Noah was designed to destroy
all living things so that God could begin anew with an unfallen world.
However, even the righteous Noah still possessed the human weakness that
resulted, we are told, from the fall so sin was still present in the human
race. Next at Mt. Sina! i, we are told that God sent the law to guide
human beings back to their original perfection. The fallen human creature
was, however, unable to keep God's precepts even when they were fully
known. Then God sent the prophets to recall at least the messianic people
to God's purpose in creation. However, the prophets were murdered and
banished. Finally, the story says "in the fullness of time" God entered
human life in the person of Jesus, who bore the punishment of the fall,
was victimized by it and paid the price for it in the crucifixion and
overcame it in the Resurrection. Finally, the Church was created in which
baptism could wash from each newborn life the stain of the fall and the
Eucharist or the Mass could reenact, week by week, the drama of salvation
so that believers in every age could appropriate for themselves the
salvation offered on the cross of Calvary. This Christian myth constituted
a neat theological system and it has dominated theological thinking for!
most of the 2000 years of Christian history. The only problem is tha t
this myth is based on an understanding of human origins that is simply
wrong.
Darwin forced us to acknowledge that there never was a finished and
perfect creation. Creation, he asserted is an ongoing and unfinished
process. Human life is evolving from lower forms of life so it was,
therefore, not created perfect. If perfection was not our original
definition, then we could not fall into sin, not even metaphorically. This
means that there never was something called "the fall." Human beings
cannot, therefore, be rescued from a fall that never happened, nor can
they be restored to a status that they have never possessed. All life is
in flux. That was the Darwinian insight. Our problem is not that we are
fallen sinners; our problem is that we have not yet become fully human. If
this is so then the old way of telling the Jesus story as the invading
divine rescuer of a fallen humanity no longer makes sense. To speak of a
Christ, who calls and empowers us to be more deeply and fully human, might
be the new way to tell that story. One thing is sure, until we find a new
way, there is not much hope for a Christian future.
Steven J.
Pastor Dave wrote:
> First we star with the rules.
>
"closed thread," and since (though you seem to exclude the possibility
of others participating, under rule eleven, once the debate starts)
your discussion of rule five implies that the debate *hasn't* started
yet, I've decided to interject a few comments. Note that since you
haven't started the debate yet, you can respond to them.
>
> 1) Do not ask me to define macroevolution.
> We both know what it means and that is
> your attempt to avoid dealing with the facts
> and it is a stall tactic, that is designed to
> get me to make a claim, so that you can
> avoid dealing with having to defend what
> it is you believe and the fact is, since you
> made the claim, it is you who would have
> to define it. But I would not allow that,
> since we both know that you would try to
> switch the meaning, to suit microevolution.
>
> I will not get involved in word games with you.
>
refusing to define your terms. But I will assume that you mean, by
"macroevolution," not merely "speciation, as in a new species of
mosquito evolving in the London underground within the last century,"
but rather something like "large-scale common descent." I further
assume that, in turn, it will be sufficient to make a case that humans
share common ancestry with other apes.
If these assumptions are not correct, you really ought to go to the
trouble of defining what it is you wish to argue about.
>
-- [snip]
>
> 6) Dodging points will not be tolerated. And
> pretending that you haven't done so will not
> be tolerated. Nor will lying and claiming that
> I have, when I have not.
>
What counts as "dodging points?" If you argue that the fossil record
is not complete enough to prove common descent to your satisfaction,
and Dave replies that the fossil record is not the only means, or a
necessary means, of providing evidence, is that "dodging points?" If
Dave argues that the fossil record *is* complete enough to satisfy any
reasonable person, is that "dodging points" (or is it a personal
attack?)?
>
> 7) Attacking creationism will not be tolerated.
> According to you, it is not science and therefore,
> should not even be mentioned in a scientific
> discussion. So by your own words, you have
> no reason to bring it up.
>
Yet it is conceivable that you will argue that some evidence of
"macroevolution" really shows only changes within a "kind." If you do
that, is it "attacking creationism" to argue that "kind" is
indefinitely elastic and inconsistently employed? Is it "attacking
creationism" to point out that [a] different creationist experts claim
that, e.g. fossil skull ER1470 clearly belongs to the human kind, and
others claim it clearly belongs to the ape kind? Is it "attacking
creationism" to argue that such disagreements show that, in fact, the
fossil straddles the supposed barrier between "kinds" and illustrates
"macroevolution?"
>
> This will be a purely scientific discussion.
>
> 8) Making claims that something is true, without
> proving beyond doubt that it is true, will not be
> tolerated. If you claim it's true, prove it is true
> with solid, irrefutable facts.
>
There are people alive and publishing today who do not regard it as
"beyond doubt" that the Earth orbits the sun (and, therefore, I suppose
it has not been shown beyond doubt). There are people (I think you've
debated them yourself) who have no trouble doubting that the Nazis
deliberately murdered millions of Jews. The human capacity to doubt is
a marvelous and powerful thing.
Note that criminal courts, in the most serious matters, when placing
defendants at risk of their freedom or their very lives, asks only for
proof beyond a *reasonable* doubt, which is explicitly a different
thing from proving beyond all doubt. Science, for its part, is not in
the business of "proving" theories "beyond doubt," but in showing that
they are supported by evidence and explain the totality of the evidence
better than any rival theory.
>
> 9) Asking questions is fine, if a statement prompts
> one, unless they are designed to avoid admitting
> that what either party just said is true.
>
Why should he ask a question to avoid admitting that something you said
is true? All he has to do, *under your own rules*, is show that you
have not proved it beyond doubt (and if he doubts it, doesn't that show
you haven't proved it beyond doubt?). This sort of thing is why you
should seriously revise rule eight.
>
> 10) Each point must be discussed to its conclusion.
> Trying to bring other points into the discussion, to
> avoid dealing with a particular point, will not be
> tolerated.
>
Doesn't this already fall under rule six? You seem over-fond of
repeated declarations of what you will not tolerate.
>
> 11) No discussion with others in this thread will be
> tolerated. This is between you and I and others
> should not be responded to. Also, no discussion
> about this thread in other threads, nor about the
> other person in this debate, in this thread, nor
> any other, will be tolerated. This is between you
> and I and slamming the other person in other
> threads will only lead to personal arguments.
> And responding to other people in this thread,
> will only lead to sidetracking the discussion.
>
The latter half of this rule seems unnecessary. Surely you can ignore
comments made in other threads?
>
> If you claim to be able to take me down, then
> you should be able to do it, one on one, without
> anyone else's comments, nor help.
>
No consulting with textbooks, websites, or personal friends? I don't
see how you could enforce such a decree; I don't even see why you'd
want to. No one, in a serious debate, relies only on what he happens
to know off the top of his head. If the argument is over "is
macroevolution true" (rather than, e.g. is Dave smart enough to
convince Pastor Dave of something PD wants very much not to believe,
but not smart enough to reject the entire effort as a fool's errand),
why shouldn't he be allowed to get help from fellow posters as well as
books?
Also, what is this "take me down" nonsense? You have asked him to
defend (okay, "prove beyond doubt") a proposition (to wit, as I
understand it, that humans share common ancestry with apes). You've
explicitly demanded that he *not* make the debate about you, or about
Christianity or creationism. You further disclaim any responsibility
to defend any position or claim of your own. As I read it, "taking you
down" is a violation of the rules (and, unless you regard being related
to Koko the gorilla as fatal to your reputation and self-esteem,
entirely unnecessary).
>
> 12) Any violation of any of these rules, which are
> fair, will be seen as an act of cowardice and an
> admission of the person's inability to defend
> their statements and will result in an immediate
> declaration of concession, whether you agree
> or not.
>
At this point, Pastor Dave, I think you should avoid the passive voice.
You mean that *you* will see a refusal to accede to these rules as
cowardice and a concession. Other people may see it quite differently,
since other people might not share your own high opinion of your own
fairness and reasonableness.
>
-- [snip]
>
-- Steven J.
Mike Andrade
news:1121051174....@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
> At this point, Pastor Dave, I think you should avoid the passive
> voice.
> You mean that *you* will see a refusal to accede to these rules
> as
> cowardice and a concession. Other people may see it quite
> differently, since other people might not share your own high
> opinion of your own fairness and reasonableness.
>
That's putting it lightly.
--
Mike
"I wish people who have trouble communicating would just shut up."
- Tom Lehrer
H...@nospam.nix
"Red Rum" <threeti...@overthesticks.com> wrote in message
news:threetimewinner-...@ppp2f32.dyn.pacific.net.au...
> Phyllis from Carefree, Arizona writes:
> "Do you think that the Church has adequately explored and explained the
> spiritual aspects of evolution? What does it mean spiritually that we
> evolved from apes?"
Most who are even slightly familiar with the subject would counsel that
evolution doesn't
say we descended from or evolved from apes. It suggests we had common
ancestors.
Two different things.
Red Rum
<H...@nospam.nix> wrote:
A very reasonable point if you use a particular scientific definition of
"apes" but I think as a popular way of expressing the evolution of man it
comes close enough
Dave
else's alleged admitted "lies," when, in fact, there is no admission
and certainly no lies.
Pastor Dave wrote:
> On 10 Jul 2005 18:33:12 -0700, "Dave"
> <hor...@gmail.com> spake thusly:
>
>
> >> Son, I'm not the one who is concerned
> >> with trying to make myself look superior...
> >
> >Of course you are, starting with the phony title,
> >"pastor,"
>
> And of course, you don't have the integrity
> to either prove your claim, or retract it. No.
> It's just a lie you use, to try to get under
> someone's skin.
It's not a lie if it's believed to be true. Your actions and your
previous commentary on the subject make it clear: The title is phony.
Give me independent verification that you possess a recognized
ordination, and I'll retract. You've had quite a bit of opportunity to
do that, and you've failed.
> Honesty and integrity are the farthest things
> from your mind and they are things that you do
> not possess.
When you're done whining, tell us who ordained you.
> If you're scared, say you're scared.
Scared of what? You claim to be a "pastor." Who ordained you? How
did you come by the title?
> >> Will you admit that you cannot prove your
> >> accusation and retract it?
> >
> >I can't prove it; but I believe it to be true
>
> So even though you can't prove it, you will
> claim it is truth anyway. Gotcha.
I said that I believe it. Whether it is "truth" in any sort of general
sense is another matter. *I* *believe* it to be true. But there does
seem to be considerable doubt as to the authenticity of the title with
respect to you, and that's just more support for my position.
You can't prove that you actually possess a legitimate pastoral title,
and in the end, who's claim here need to be proven? The one making the
original claim, right? That's you, "pastor?"
So where is this lie that I'm alleged to have admitted? Where did I
admit a lie? Whoopsie! Looks like you lied, yourself, eh, "pastor?"
Are pastors supposed to lie?
Wayne Delia
> Nothing like a self-ordained "pastor" telling others about someone
> else's alleged admitted "lies," when, in fact, there is no admission
> and certainly no lies.
>
> Pastor Dave wrote:
>>Honesty and integrity are the farthest things
>>from your mind and they are things that you do
>>not possess.
>
> When you're done whining, tell us who ordained you.
"Pastor" Dave seems to think God ordained him, and he's currently
looking forward to a time when he has an actual congregation, which he's
been trying to develop for several years.
--
Wayne Delia, w...@deliafamily.net
Delta Iota Chapter Advisor, Phi Kappa Sigma at Marist College
"Don't eat me! I have a wife and kids! Eat them!" (Homer Simpson)
Red Rum
wrote:
> Dave wrote:
> > Nothing like a self-ordained "pastor" telling others about someone
> > else's alleged admitted "lies," when, in fact, there is no admission
> > and certainly no lies.
> >
> > Pastor Dave wrote:
>
> >>Honesty and integrity are the farthest things
> >>from your mind and they are things that you do
> >>not possess.
> >
> > When you're done whining, tell us who ordained you.
>
> "Pastor" Dave seems to think God ordained him, and he's currently
> looking forward to a time when he has an actual congregation, which he's
> been trying to develop for several years.
>
Seems to be a total fraud and should be treated as such until either he
produces evidence of his ordination and qualification or ceases using it
and apologises for attempting to defraud by abuse of said title
IMHO it should be a crime
There are too many people claiming to be pastors etc in order to get power
over children
+++++++++++++
Glenn (Christian Mystic)
"Red Rum" <threeti...@overthesticks.com> wrote in message
news:threetimewinner-...@ppp2467.dyn.pacific.net.au...
Dave
> So I guess you think God should be subordinate to man ?
It's only fair. The image of God that we have is one we created.