Are you going to pay your debt, welcher?

What was Zindler's argument for inferring that Adam and Eve were not real persons from the "fact" of biological evolution? My guess is that Craig or someone else showed the argument (if Zindler did give it with many details) is full of holes. If the guess is correct, I'd say that you may be making a mountain out of a molehill.

The welcher's talking complete bollox as usual. Zindler wasn't saying evolution was ideological or theological, only that it has consequences that affect certain religious beliefs. Evolution is no more a theological matter because it has consequences for Adam and Eve than corbital mechanics is a theological matter because it has consequences for the earth not being square.

Interesting that you should bring up Craig. He doesn't have a very high opinion of YEC. In fact he said that your leadership is an embarrassment to Christianity. In an interview which can be heard here on Youtube (so anyone can hear for himself that these remarks are not taken out of context -- quote mined) Craig made the following statement at about the 1 minute 50 second mark:

I think you were going for orbital mechanics.

Jorge - you should not be so quick to agree with an Atheist on theological matters. Evolution is simply an observation about the physical world. If Zindler is right, then you should abandon your faith.

But I am quite convinced he is WRONG. He is wrong on almost all counts. Each of the elements of his 'cascade' of elements of the faith undone is in fact not undone at all. Evolution does NOT imply Adam and Eve never were real people. Though it may (and I say 'may') change the view that Adam and Eve where the first physically modern humans (assuming one does not allow for a miraculous but unique 'jump'). Further, there are many ways to account for the doctrine of original sin and the need for salvation in a world where the physical form of man was arrived at through the evolutionary process. The problem here is that YOU Jorge are have laid all your eggs in the Young Earth basket as an interpretive paradigm, to the extent you are willing the wager the Cross itself on its validity.

Jim

Yep - another instance of modern evangelicalism sacrificing moral integrity for doctrinal 'purity'.

Jim

I think I was too. Alas I am imperfect.

I think it more likely that he's sacrificing moral integrity for personal aggrandisement.

I always found it incredibly hypocritical the way Jorge is so quick to chastise his fellow Christians when they agree with an atheist over a scientific matter (often going so far to imply that they're closet atheists because of that) but then immediately jumps into bed with some of the more militant ones like Dawkins praising them on how they interpret what the Bible says in opposition to how the majority of Christians read it

I just finished replying to a PM by Sparko. The essence of my reply was for him to recognize that you are an unrepentant liar and the he needs to direct his attention at you, not at me.

I provided a more-than-adequate explanation of my phrase, the one that you took out of context.
"Functional Complex Information is INFORMATION that is complex and functional."

Of course, Hell will freeze over before you will ever admit as much.

Now, formally I demand that you stop posting at me - I do not interact with identified liars.
Failure to comply and I will have to report you to Big Brother.

Jorge

Nope - I'm not "making a mountain out of a molehill". Perhaps it is YOU that isn't aware of what has been and is going on. Evolution has long been recognized by BOTH sides as the 'wedge' - a sort of 'Trojan Horse' - for inserting doubt and false doctrine into orthodox Christianity.

It is the fact of this stealthy, satanic strategy that has captured many a hapless sheep (aka, uninformed Christians) and made them easy prey.

Here's what Dawkins said on this Evolution matter:

"Oh well, by far the most important [reason for rejecting God - denying His existence] was understanding evolution. I think the evangelical Christians have really sort of got it right in a way, in seeing evolution as the enemy. Whereas the more, what shall we say, sophisticated theologians are quite happy to live with evolution, I think they are deluded. I think the evangelicals have got it right, in that there is a deep incompatibility between evolution and Christianity, and I think I realized that about the age of sixteen." [my emphasis]

Like I said, even hardcore Atheists get it. The fact that many "Christians" don't get it is a large part of the reason why it's been a steady downhill slide for a long time - and it'll get worse.

Jorge

Craig does much good for Christianity. Having said that, unless you have solid proof that Craig is infallible then you're practicing your usual style of selective reporting. In other words, Craig is right on many Christian matters but on this particular one he is dead wrong. If he were right on everything, that would make him God, wouldn't it.

Now back you go to the sandbox with your little friends.

Jorge

As is typical for you, you miss/evade the point.

Of course Zindler is wrong. His logic is faulty - committing logical fallacies all over.

That said, ALL of the world's most prominent hardcore Atheists (Dawkins, Dennett, Hitchens, Harris, Stenger, Pennock ... etc) agree that Evolution represents "the death knell of Christianity" and that "Evolution and Christianity are fundamentally incompatible" (not necessarily in those exact words but the essence is the same).

Now, unless you can explain how they ALL agree on this point then your post is superficial / sophomoric.
Read their books - I do - and see how they build their case - it's an eye-opener.

Jorge