Which Christian denominations won't accept Darwinism?

[exchemist]

I think it is beneficial to explore the causes of human suffering from the Bible's perspective, evaluating all the evidence and coming to correct conclusions before assuming unsubstantiated things about the Creator. Have you ever really explored the causes?
I wonder because you seem to think that God is somehow 'out of control' with regard to his creation. Nothing could be further from the truth IMV. There is a big difference between God being "out of control" and him 'stepping back' to allow certain things to take place as a way of proving a point and settling an important issue that could have remained unresolved forever if it was not addressed and settled in the beginning.

Let me illustrate.....suppose you were an excellent teacher in a math class and you put up an equation on the board and taught your students that this was absolute truth. Then one student stands up and says that you are wrong and he can prove it. What are your options? Send the student to the principle on report for being disruptive or insubordinate in class?.....or allow the student time to prove that he is right? All the other students are now wondering if he has a case. If the teacher sends the student to the Principle for reprimand, does it prove that the teacher is right, or merely that he has more power because of his position? Wouldn't a wise teacher invite the student to prove his case, uninterrupted?

Now put that principle to work in God's contending with his adversary in Eden. To simply remove the rebel who made the accusations, (as God had every right to do,) would have proven nothing to other intelligent beings who were observing the scene and hearing the accusations and wondering if satan was right. Was God a liar? Did he have his human children's best interests at heart, or was he just on a power trip? Did he have a right to tell them what to do if he was less than who and what he said he was? Was obeying that one command really so important?

The only way to prove who was right, was to allow the rebel to prove his accusations. God would step out of the picture and allow the scene to play out as he knew it would. This whole exercise is about the responsible use of free will. It had to be "free" but not absolutely, because too much freedom would result in abuse. The free will of one would then impact on the free will of others, causing trouble and conflict and resulting in untold suffering. God knew that this would not go well because he did not design humans to exercise power over each other.....giving humans power just corrupts them. The more power they exercise, the more corrupt they become. We see this very clearly in the world. If God had intervened to alleviate the suffering caused by this rebellion, man would never see the full impact of the devastation it can cause.

God was right to restrict freedom to within reasonable limits but "telling" his children was not enough, because they now had doubts raised by someone who appealed to selfish interests....God had to allow them to experience the full consequence of what total freedom means...and where it leads....and as we can see in this world ruled by the devil, nothing good comes from humans exercising power over other humans. After all these thousands of years, we are no further forward...in fact we have not advanced one little bit

There is a time limit for this exercise however, and I believe we are nearing the end of it. Humans have tried every conceivable kind of rulership and they have all failed due to corruption. We have reached a point in human history where mankind is now its own worst enemy. Humans have developed weapons that can obliterate all life on this planet. God cannot allow them to destroy it completely.....he will intervene as he always said he would, but the rebel's case will have been settled beyond all doubt....humans cannot rule themselves independently of their Maker. It is the height of arrogance to assume that we can, given the clear evidence in our track record.

Precedents have been set that will not allow rebellion to ever surface again. Not in this realm nor in the one where angels reside. All of God's intelligent creation will have seen for themselves how destructive the abuse of free will is when God's rules are disobeyed.

Right from the beginning, it is all God has ever asked of us.



Its not unusual for evolutionists to get cranky when presented with visual evidence for intelligent creation.

But there is none. That's the point.

 

[Kirran]

Simple.....whatever science can actually "prove" rather than what they "assume" is true from the way they interpret evidence. If you read what evolutionary scientists write about their conclusions, if they use the the words, "might have"...."could have"..."leads us to conclude that"....."must have"....etc, you know that this is 'assumption', not provable fact. Their articles are riddled with such terms, which means that they really have no proof for what they are asserting (as all the scientists here keep telling me, there is no proof in science) so their conclusions are based on educated guesswork. IOW what science teaches as fact is not really fact, but only what they "believe" happened all those millions of years ago. There is not a single shred of solid, substantiated evidence that single celled organisms transformed themselves into creatures as big as a multi-story building with nothing directing the process except blind chance.

I look at the incredibly complex processes that are programmed into biological creatures and I see design, some of it brilliant! I see purpose and interdependence in an ecology that was designed to support all this "life".....blind chance is so out of the question when you really look at what scientists are assuming.

Use your eyes as well as your heart......we are not just 'biological' and neither are they.

(Google Images)

I could fill pages with images of these creatures and never get to the end.....the very sight of them stirs something in the human heart that moves it to praise the Designer of all these beautiful and unique living things who share this planet with us. Such diversity could never be the product of blind forces because blindness cannot create or appreciate beauty....or give us a sense of majesty.

Tell me if you think any of these creatures would exist if it were not for the senses that they were given? We often take them for granted....sight, hearing, taste, smell, touch....you really believe that such functions are merely biological accidents?....that nothing intelligent designed them? Now tell me what use those senses would be without a brain to process them all and to direct the body to act? Tell me who programmed these creatures to sustain themselves so that they can replicate their 'kind' perpetually?

If we can't 'see' design...then IMO, we have been 'blinded' in ways we cannot discern. One can never say "I see" and really mean it.

OK, well this isn't the place to rehash the old Evolution vs Creation debates!

Suffice it to say, I agree with you entirely that all creatures have more to them than the biological, that the role of the senses in the generation of the world we perceive around us, in all its myriad forms, is central, and that all beauty is a manifestation of the will of the Divine, which is what animates the world. I see no reason to focus on the points on which we don't agree.

But this does not address my question. Wouldn't it be fairer to say that your first and foremost source of knowledge is the Bible and the JW interpretation of the Bible, to which scientific findings take a second place? i.e. if some finding doesn't disagree with your understanding of Scripture, you see no reason to reject it, whereas the things which you find disagreeable in the scientific consensus are ones which go against your take on the Bible? I see no reason it should be problematic for you to admit to such a thing, if it is indeed the case.

 

[Sapiens]

My entire post is about being human......not some kind of 'AI' that is devoid of this quality.
Does that make you uncomfortable?

Uncomfortable, not at all, embarrassed for you ... absolutely. Your entire argument is a prime example of the self-deceit of logical fallacies.

paean
noun

1. a song of praise or triumph.
   • a creative work expressing enthusiastic praise

YESSSSS!!!!

It certainly is!

But what is it? It is incredulity and ignorance. You are expecting people to agree with you because in your self-admitted ignorance you are incredulous that all the things about you could occur without an intelligent designer. The fact that you are incredulous, the fact that you claim to be ignorant, that fact that you argue from both of these holes of Stygian darkness, persuades no one to your views ... quite the opposite.

 

[Deeje]

OK, well this isn't the place to rehash the old Evolution vs Creation debates!

You asked the question....."How do you decide what scientific findings are 'true and provable'?"....and I answered it.

I see no reason to focus on the points on which we don't agree.

But this does not address my question. Wouldn't it be fairer to say that your first and foremost source of knowledge is the Bible and the JW interpretation of the Bible, to which scientific findings take a second place? i.e. if some finding doesn't disagree with your understanding of Scripture, you see no reason to reject it, whereas the things which you find disagreeable in the scientific consensus are ones which go against your take on the Bible?

The Bible's author is the one I trust....man looking to eliminate an Intelligent Designer by suggesting that life is a series of fortunate accidents, not so much.

Don't get me wrong...I love what science "knows" as opposed to what it "suggests" or "assumes"....especially when it contradicts the Bible with very little in the way of real facts.

You speak of our interpretation of the Bible and yet you rely on science's interpretation of evidence with no more real evidence than we have. IMO we both have nothing more than a "belief" system. There are no facts in science...or so everyone keeps telling me.

Having read quite a lot of articles and links provided to me over the years, it has been reinforced time and again that when science does not have real facts for its interpretation of evidence, we see the use of terms like "could have"..."might have"..."must have"....."leads us to believe"....or terms that leave the reader wondering "IF" something "could have" or "might have" happened. It is not very "scientific" to substitute guesswork for real science though, is it?

When we see evolution explained to students, stripped of its jargon and simplified down to its bare bones, something emerges that cannot be ignored.

e.g. this explanation from Evolution 101 on macro-evolution demonstrates what I mean.....

"Macroevolution encompasses the grandest trends and transformations in evolution, such as the origin of mammals and the radiation of flowering plants. Macroevolutionary patterns are generally what we see when we look at the large-scale history of life.

It is not necessarily easy to "see" macroevolutionary history; there are no firsthand accounts to be read. Instead, we reconstruct the history of life using all available evidence: geology, fossils, and living organisms.

Once we've figured out what evolutionary events have taken place, we try to figure out how they happened. Just as in microevolution, basic evolutionary mechanisms like mutation, migration, genetic drift, and natural selection are at work and can help explain many large-scale patterns in the history of life.

The basic evolutionary mechanisms — mutation, migration, genetic drift, and natural selection — can produce major evolutionary change if given enough time.

What is macroevolution?

Now, a cursory reading of those statements might seem perfectly reasonable to someone who accepts that macro-evolution is an undisputed fact. But as I have highlighted in RED there is much between the lines that is not obvious at first glance.

OK, so what grand "trends and transformations" are we talking about? What "patterns" are being referred to?
Those observed in adaptation? There is absolutely no way to prove the suggestion that science can "reconstruct" what took place in the dim, dark past, based on the adaptive qualities of living organisms in a lab. It can hazard a guess, but nothing more....certainly nothing I would stake my life on.

Science began with a premise about what took place, and then tried to force everything to fit into it.....I believe that they failed to begin with a solid foundation at the outset.

What kind of "science" is being discussed on this site that is designed to educate students? Is it real and provable science? Why is it "not necessarily easy to "see" macroevolutionary history"? If there are no "firsthand accounts" and no one was around to document anything, how do we know that "microevolution" can "help explain many large scale patterns in the history of life"? There are no "large scale patterns in the history of life", there are only small scale patterns that show small adaptive changes within a single taxa. The "large scale patterns" are a figment of their biased imagination as far as I can see.

The "basic evolutionary mechanisms like mutation, migration, genetic drift and natural selection" do not prove anything with regard to macroevolution.....that is pure assumption. No one can prove that evolution on that scale ever happened. All they can do is suggest that if a little produced "this"...then a lot must have produced "that".

I'm sorry, but guesswork masquerading as science is just not good enough for me. If I am to put faith in science and abandon belief in an Intelligent Creator, it will have to do way better than what has been presented to date.

I see no reason it should be problematic for you to admit to such a thing, if it is indeed the case.

If science has the proof...I'm all ears.

Up to this point I have not needed to concede anything that has been presented as evidence for macroevolution. You got anything new?

 

[Kirran]

You asked the question....."How do you decide what scientific findings are 'true and provable'?"....and I answered it.



The Bible's author is the one I trust....man looking to eliminate an Intelligent Designer by suggesting that life is a series of fortunate accidents, not so much.

Don't get me wrong...I love what science "knows" as opposed to what it "suggests" or "assumes"....especially when it contradicts the Bible with very little in the way of real facts.

You speak of our interpretation of the Bible and yet you rely on science's interpretation of evidence with no more real evidence than we have. IMO we both have nothing more than a "belief" system. There are no facts in science...or so everyone keeps telling me.

Having read quite a lot of articles and links provided to me over the years, it has been reinforced time and again that when science does not have real facts for its interpretation of evidence, we see the use of terms like "could have"..."might have"..."must have"....."leads us to believe"....or terms that leave the reader wondering "IF" something "could have" or "might have" happened. It is not very "scientific" to substitute guesswork for real science though, is it?

When we see evolution explained to students, stripped of its jargon and simplified down to its bare bones, something emerges that cannot be ignored.

e.g. this explanation from Evolution 101 on macro-evolution demonstrates what I mean.....

"Macroevolution encompasses the grandest trends and transformations in evolution, such as the origin of mammals and the radiation of flowering plants. Macroevolutionary patterns are generally what we see when we look at the large-scale history of life.

It is not necessarily easy to "see" macroevolutionary history; there are no firsthand accounts to be read. Instead, we reconstruct the history of life using all available evidence: geology, fossils, and living organisms.

Once we've figured out what evolutionary events have taken place, we try to figure out how they happened. Just as in microevolution, basic evolutionary mechanisms like mutation, migration, genetic drift, and natural selection are at work and can help explain many large-scale patterns in the history of life.

The basic evolutionary mechanisms — mutation, migration, genetic drift, and natural selection — can produce major evolutionary change if given enough time.

What is macroevolution?

Now, a cursory reading of those statements might seem perfectly reasonable to someone who accepts that macro-evolution is an undisputed fact. But as I have highlighted in RED there is much between the lines that is not obvious at first glance.

OK, so what grand "trends and transformations" are we talking about? What "patterns" are being referred to?
Those observed in adaptation? There is absolutely no way to prove the suggestion that science can "reconstruct" what took place in the dim, dark past, based on the adaptive qualities of living organisms in a lab. It can hazard a guess, but nothing more....certainly nothing I would stake my life on.

Science began with a premise about what took place, and then tried to force everything to fit into it.....I believe that they failed to begin with a solid foundation at the outset.

What kind of "science" is being discussed on this site that is designed to educate students? Is it real and provable science? Why is it "not necessarily easy to "see" macroevolutionary history"? If there are no "firsthand accounts" and no one was around to document anything, how do we know that "microevolution" can "help explain many large scale patterns in the history of life"? There are no "large scale patterns in the history of life", there are only small scale patterns that show small adaptive changes within a single taxa. The "large scale patterns" are a figment of their biased imagination as far as I can see.

The "basic evolutionary mechanisms like mutation, migration, genetic drift and natural selection" do not prove anything with regard to macroevolution.....that is pure assumption. No one can prove that evolution on that scale ever happened. All they can do is suggest that if a little produced "this"...then a lot must have produced "that".

I'm sorry, but guesswork masquerading as science is just not good enough for me. If I am to put faith in science and abandon belief in an Intelligent Creator, it will have to do way better than what has been presented to date.



If science has the proof...I'm all ears.

Up to this point I have not needed to concede anything that has been presented as evidence for macroevolution. You got anything new?

Deeje, I'm sorry, but you seem to have missed the point of my question. I'll come at it another way: do you put as much scrutiny into areas of scientific findings which do not interfere with your interpretation of the Bible? It seems from the way you phrase things in this post here that you're basically saying that it's the Bible that comes first, and there are bound to be holes in something which contradicts what you understand the Bible as saying. "The Bible's author is the one I trust....man looking to eliminate an Intelligent Designer by suggesting that life is a series of fortunate accidents, not so much. "

Also, do remember, many people see no contradiction between God and evolution (e.g. me). It's not one or the other.

 

[Deeje]

Uncomfortable, not at all, embarrassed for you ... absolutely. Your entire argument is a prime example of the self-deceit of logical fallacies.

But what is it? It is incredulity and ignorance. You are expecting people to agree with you because in your self-admitted ignorance you are incredulous that all the things about you could occur without an intelligent designer. The fact that you are incredulous, the fact that you claim to be ignorant, that fact that you argue from both of these holes of Stygian darkness, persuades no one to your views ... quite the opposite.

I wish you could read your own posts from the perspective of the readers here.

I think perhaps you need to save your embarrassment for yourself Sapiens.....and the fact that you still respond to my posts suggests that they bother you more than you let on. Are you afraid that the cracks in your precious theory are being exposed? That people are beginning to realize that the Emperor is naked?
Why else would you bother?

The traffic on these threads can affirm that there may be many who could be thinking that science is not quite as clever or convincing as it might think it is.

Perhaps you need a little oxygen for the altitude up there.....

 

[Deeje]

Deeje, I'm sorry, but you seem to have missed the point of my question. I'll come at it another way: do you put as much scrutiny into areas of scientific findings which do not interfere with your interpretation of the Bible? It seems from the way you phrase things in this post here that you're basically saying that it's the Bible that comes first, and there are bound to be holes in something which contradicts what you understand the Bible as saying.

I have spent two thirds of my life studying the Bible in depth.....the other third I spent wondering.

I believe it is the guidebook provided by our Creator. I trust it because of its age, its contents and the accuracy and wisdom of what it teaches. I AM basically saying that the Bible comes first. From my perspective it must.....because science is the imperfect study of what a perfect Creator has made. I trust the manufacturer to know his product better than someone who just tinkers with a few components in the machinery, trying to figure out how it all works.

I have not seen any evidence to date that convinces me that science knows more about biology than its creator.

Also, do remember, many people see no contradiction between God and evolution (e.g. me). It's not one or the other.

People can believe whatever they like.....but I personally see evolution and creation as opposites, so to me it IS one or the other. I cannot blend them or fuse them, but that doesn't mean that I am anti-science...it just means that I am not convinced that science can prove its claims. And I cannot see anything but compromise in the position of those who claim to worship "the Creator" and yet basically call him a liar. He either created the way he says he did...or he didn't.

Science cannot put God in the closet for those who believe in him. Nor can it demonstrate that God created life and then stood back and watched evolution happen. There is no room in the creation account for that. Evolution is simply not necessary for those who trust that the Creator cannot lie....why would he? Science can't prove that evolution, on the macro-scale that they claim, is even possible. So unless you have something more substantive than what has been presented to date, I'll stick to God. Creation is so much more logical IMO.

 

[Audie]

Deeje, I'm sorry, but you seem to have missed the point of my question. I'll come at it another way: do you put as much scrutiny into areas of scientific findings which do not interfere with your interpretation of the Bible? It seems from the way you phrase things in this post here that you're basically saying that it's the Bible that comes first, and there are bound to be holes in something which contradicts what you understand the Bible as saying. "The Bible's author is the one I trust....man looking to eliminate an Intelligent Designer by suggesting that life is a series of fortunate accidents, not so much. "

Also, do remember, many people see no contradiction between God and evolution (e.g. me). It's not one or the other.

A person who does not give due attention to contrary
evidence is simply being intellectually dishonest.
Self deception, or trying to deceive others is not respectable.

Adding snark or other cant gives it an ill odor.

ETA, the "evolutionists" are always being told that they
are guilty of this.

So, I hope the creationists will soon show us some contrary
data that we may show if it is true, that their evidence is
simply dismissed.

 

[Deeje]

A person who does not give due attention to contrary
evidence is simply being intellectually dishonest.

I know.....I've been asking the science buffs to produce some but they can't seem to manage it.

Self deception, ttying to deceive othrrs is not respectable.

Adding snark or other cant gives it an ill odor.

I have no idea what you just said......

 

[Thermos aquaticus]

Simple.....whatever science can actually "prove" rather than what they "assume" is true from the way they interpret evidence. If you read what evolutionary scientists write about their conclusions, if they use the the words, "might have"...."could have"..."leads us to conclude that"....."must have"....etc, you know that this is 'assumption', not provable fact.

What do you think is the difference between assumption and conclusion based on facts?

Do you think facts should never be interpreted? If so, you are arguing against the very idea of doing science. In my experience, most creationists are anti-science.

 

[Audie]

What do you think is the difference between assumption and conclusion based on facts?

Do you think facts should never be interpreted? If so, you are arguing against the very idea of doing science. In my experience, most creationists are anti-science.

I wonder what you think would be an example of a fact, in science.
How is the word used?

How about an assumption, based on one or more facts?
An example of that? How about a conclusion?

"Interpretation" is maybe a little harder to describe, but have at it
if you wish.

 

[Thermos aquaticus]

I wonder what you think would be an example of a fact, in science.
How is the word used?

"In science, "fact" can only mean "confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional assent." I suppose that apples might start to rise tomorrow, but the possibility does not merit equal time in physics classrooms."--Stephen Jay Gould, "Evolution as Fact and Theory"

How about an assumption, based on one or more facts?
An example of that?

Assumptions are often based on facts. For example, it is a fact that we observe certain isotopes decaying at a certain rate. We also look out at the universe and see that the fundamental laws that are the foundation of nuclear decay are the same through space and time. Therefore, we assume that atoms decayed the same in the past as in the present.

Assumptions are also used to construct hypotheses. For example, we assume that if spacetime is curved around massive objects that starlight should bend around those massive objects. We then observe stars around massive objects to see if that light is bent. The hypothesis establishes the observations that will support or not support the overlying theory.

How about a conclusion?

Conclusions are descriptions of how the observations fit the hypothesis, as well as descriptions of the foundations for further hypotheses. Since no scientific experiment can produce all possible data the conclusions are always tentative, hence the use of tentative language.

"Interpretation" is maybe a little harder to describe, but have at it
if you wish.

Interpretation is really the application of the scientific method. You produce hypotheses and see if the observations fit your hypotheses. If they do, then the supported hypotheses are the interpretation.

 

[Audie]

"In science, "fact" can only mean "confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional assent." I suppose that apples might start to rise tomorrow, but the possibility does not merit equal time in physics classrooms."--Stephen Jay Gould, "Evolution as Fact and Theory"



Assumptions are often based on facts. For example, it is a fact that we observe certain isotopes decaying at a certain rate. We also look out at the universe and see that the fundamental laws that are the foundation of nuclear decay are the same through space and time. Therefore, we assume that atoms decayed the same in the past as in the present.

Assumptions are also used to construct hypotheses. For example, we assume that if spacetime is curved around massive objects that starlight should bend around those massive objects. We then observe stars around massive objects to see if that light is bent. The hypothesis establishes the observations that will support or not support the overlying theory.



Conclusions are descriptions of how the observations fit the hypothesis, as well as descriptions of the foundations for further hypotheses. Since no scientific experiment can produce all possible data the conclusions are always tentative, hence the use of tentative language.



Interpretation is really the application of the scientific method. You produce hypotheses and see if the observations fit your hypotheses. If they do, then the supported hypotheses are the interpretation.

One of my professors said that the only time he would
use the word "fact" would be in a connection like.
"it is a fact that this is my data". Use of the word as you have it, say from Gould, is more as a pop science term, dont you
think?

You sure do not use "assumption" the way the creationists do!

"Conclusion" and "fact' as per what you say is, like
a "law", "beyond reasonable doubt". Though like with
theories, there are gradations. Always probabilities.

"Interpretation"-good concise statement on that.

How do you respond to a contention of "same evidence,
different interpretation"?

It is not much of a conclusion if two interpretations /
conclusions are seemingly equally valid.

 

[Rational Agnostic]

Evangelical lutherans mostly accept evolution as true. The way I hear it, it's more in the US where protestants, the so called evangelicals don't accept it?

I grew up in an evangelical Lutheran church, and all of the church leaders believed the earth was 6000 years old (or at least claimed to). Of course this is only one example, but from my personal experience, Lutherans tend to deny the science more than most congregations.

 

[Thermos aquaticus]

One of my professors said that the only time he would
use the word "fact" would be in a connection like.
"it is a fact that this is my data". Use of the word as you have it, say from Gould, is more as a pop science term, dont you
think?

I would suspect that your professor would consider infectious diseases a fact even though germs are a theory. If an interpretation has stood up to decades of testing and is really well supported then I would suspect your professor considers them facts without even realizing it. To put it another way, facts are something proven so extensively that scientists don't waste any more time testing them and instead use them as the foundation for asking new questions.

"Conclusion" and "fact' as per what you say is, like
a "law", "beyond reasonable doubt". Though like with
theories, there are gradations. Always probabilities.

First, conclusions are not laws. A scientific law is nothing more than an idealized description of observations. Ideal gas laws describe our observations of changes in pressure and temperature. The kinetic theory of gases explains why we see those observations.

How do you respond to a contention of "same evidence,
different interpretation"?

My first response is to ask how the interpretation is scientific and supported by the evidence. Anyone can make up an interpretation, such as saying that you interpret clouds as the leftovers from unicorn farts. Same evidence, different interpretation. However, what evidence would convince anyone that your interpretation is correct?

It is not much of a conclusion if two interpretations /
conclusions are seemingly equally valid.

There are many peer reviewed papers that do give two possible conclusions for a set of data, so there is nothing wrong with that. The only time problems arise is when an interpretation is either incapable of being falsified or the interpretation is inconsistent with the observations.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I grew up in an evangelical Lutheran church, and all of the church leaders believed the earth was 6000 years old (or at least claimed to). Of course this is only one example, but from my personal experience, Lutherans tend to deny the science more than most congregations.

Was it Missouri Synod? In this case the phrase "an evangelical Lutheran church" can be misleading since the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America does not deny evolution. They do not endorse it either so I guess that individual leaders could have their own beliefs, but it is not part of the ELCA dogma:

http://download.elca.org/ELCA Resource Repository/faithandscience_askascientist.pdf

 

[Jumi]

I grew up in an evangelical Lutheran church, and all of the church leaders believed the earth was 6000 years old (or at least claimed to). Of course this is only one example, but from my personal experience, Lutherans tend to deny the science more than most congregations.

Was this in America? Lutherans are quite secular in Europe.

 

[metis]

Was this in America? Lutherans are quite secular in Europe.

Oh, you should see some of them in da U.P. that make the Mennonites look like hedonistic slackers.

 

[Jose Fly]

I know.....I've been asking the science buffs to produce some but they can't seem to manage it.

And therein lies the biggest problem in interacting with Deeje. The above statement is demonstrably false, but the issue is how do we respond to it? Do we go the direct route and call it what seems most obvious: a lie told by a dishonest person? Or should we be a little more generous and say that she's just being delusional? Or do we go full-on magnanimous and conclude that she's just saying what someone in her situation has to say, lest her life lose all meaning and her friends and family treat her like a piece of garbage?

Further, we also see how Deeje plays this board. When cornered in the other thread linked to above, she just leaves the thread, waits a bit, and then jumps into another thread and starts up all over again as if nothing had ever happened. And because there are so many evolutionists and so few creationists here, she knows there'll be someone who won't be able to help themselves and will just go along and forget about the other thread she ran away from.

Fascinating.

 

[Rational Agnostic]

Was it Missouri Synod? In this case the phrase "an evangelical Lutheran church" can be misleading since the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America does not deny evolution. They do not endorse it either so I guess that individual leaders could have their own beliefs, but it is not part of the ELCA dogma:

http://download.elca.org/ELCA Resource Repository/faithandscience_askascientist.pdf

I believe it was WELS, which is similar to Missouri Synod, but no, it was not ELCA.