Evilutionists hate this Harvard guy

[Carey]

http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://chandra.harvard.edu/photo/snrg/e0102electricbluej.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.questioningchristian.com/2006/09/creation_a_tita.html&h=438&w=436&sz=68&hl=en&start=13&um=1&tbnid=f97S-pP1xLX7ZM:&tbnh=127&tbnw=126&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dchristian%2Bcreation%26um%3D1%26hl%3Den%26safe%3Doff%26rlz%3D1T4DKUS_enUS257US268

 

[AintNoMonkey]

www.tinyurl.com is your friend, friend.

 

[AintNoMonkey]

Also, somehow I'm not fearing this guy?!?

I think my fear fuse is broken :~

 

[yasic]

Um... why?

 

[UncleHermit]

The man himself appears to be an evolutionist, so unless you are claiming that he hates himself you may want to rethink your thread title.

 

[eri]

Most of that seems about right. What's your point, exactly? And who is this guy supposed to be? And what's the Harvard connection? Nothing I can see about him mentions Harvard. He says he's a lawyer from Houston.

 

[MrGoodBytes]

Why should I hate this "Harvard guy", again?

 

[Carey]

noone who posted here has read the entire deal on the link...hahahaha

read it all and then reply.

 

[yasic]

edit

 

[MrGoodBytes]

noone who posted here has read the entire deal on the link...hahahaha

read it all and then reply.

I did read the entire article, and everything he said is

1. correct and
2. irrelevant to evolution.

What am I missing?

 

[AintNoMonkey]

noone who posted here has read the entire deal on the link...hahahaha

read it all and then reply.

I definitely read the whole thing, and I'll tell you what, other than a couple lines about 'and scientists think blah' and 'if scientists are right, etc.' there's nothing in there that's even remotely frightening.

It's basically your run-of-the-mill layman's explaination of universe history, with a couple 'but what if's' thrown in.

You people seriously overestimate what scares us and what helps you. A little reading comprehension would serve you well.

 

[AintNoMonkey]

Seriously though, tinyurl that link. It's really the only thing in this thread I hate.

 

[UncleHermit]

noone who posted here has read the entire deal on the link...hahahaha

read it all and then reply.

I don't know what you mean by the "entire deal", but I read all of the posted blog you linked to as well as a few others. As I said before, the man appears to accept evolution so your thread title is wrong.

 

[TheManeki]

I did a google search of D.C. Toedt's blog, and found this entry:

My beef with intelligent design is that too many IDers seem to be trying to affirmatively disprove evolution. It's as though their personal trust in God stands or falls depending on whether or not a particular scientific theory is valid. That would be a pretty weak faith, if you ask me. (I have a similar beef with radical evolutionists such as Richard Dawkins.)

It seems to me that a far-healthier attitude would be, "it is what it is." Assuming God exists (and personally I'm persuaded), then he has done what he has done, and he did it the way he did it. In this area,

• ours is not to declare that God must have done his work in such-and-such a way. That attitude strikes me as prideful, and verging on blasphemy;
• instead (to paraphrase the Rev. Barbara Brown Taylor), our job is humbly to seek the truth, whatever the truth turns out to be, about what God in fact has done, and about how in fact he has done it.

Toedt doesn't sound like the type of person who would willfully blind himself to scientific evidence because it doesn't fit with his personal interpretation of the Bible, let alone use childish labels like "evilutionists."

For more posts at "The Questioning Christian" regarding evolution, click here.

 

[AintNoMonkey]

Wow, so I've read some of the guy's other blogs, and you picked the wroooong guy to tell me I hate.

I think he may be my new favorite Christian. He's lulzy and also a pretty logical, sober thinker. Thanks for the link, his blog is favorited now.

Edit: Here's his home page: http://www.questioningchristian.org/ I suggest reading the blog on the first page there; it's remaniscent of many of the posters here.

 

[Carey]

I did read the entire article, and everything he said is

1. correct and
2. irrelevant to evolution.

What am I missing?

Or energy might have been created ex nihilo (from nothing).


These Titanic Processes of Creation Give the Appearance of Having Been Fine-Tuned. There are a number of physical constants underlying these creation processes which, if they had been just a bit different, would evidently have made the universe, as we know it, an impossibility. There may be natural explanations for these "cosmic coincidences"; for example, perhaps our universe is merely one of many, and ours happens to be the one in which the physical constants are what they need to be. Or perhaps not ....

 

[Bombila]

OP: reading comprehension... Ur doin it rong.

 

[atomweaver]

AintNoMonkey is right... From the same blogger on the reliability of personal testimony;

http://www.questioningchristian.com/2008/03/how-to-judge-th.html

"The Prologue of the Gospel of John is a classic example of lack of foundation. The author asserts that certain things happened at the beginning of time. But we have no evidence, direct or indirect, to suggest that "John" knew what he was talking about. Scripturalists want us to rely on that passage from John (and many, many other foundationless passages in the Bible), in making perhaps the biggest decision of our lives, namely to accept the assertion that Jesus was God incarnate. IMHO, that decision is far too important to base on foundationless assertions like that.
The factual testimony of the New Testament documents is replete with similar examples of lack of foundation. Some of the testimony I'm willing to accept, despite its lack of foundation, for reasons I'd have to look at on a case-by-case basis. As to other foundationless testimony, however, I'm not willing to accept it. "

Seriously Carey, why him? He's no friend to the cause of Biblical Literalism... Thanks, though, for bringing his blog to our attention. I like the cut of his jib.

 

[BrainHertz]

Rather presumptuous title don't you think?

Personally, I'd never heard of this guy before you posted the link. He appears to be a lawyer talking about cosmology.

Why am I supposed to "hate" him exactly?

 

[TheManeki]

Or energy might have been created ex nihilo (from nothing).


These Titanic Processes of Creation Give the Appearance of Having Been Fine-Tuned. There are a number of physical constants underlying these creation processes which, if they had been just a bit different, would evidently have made the universe, as we know it, an impossibility. There may be natural explanations for these "cosmic coincidences"; for example, perhaps our universe is merely one of many, and ours happens to be the one in which the physical constants are what they need to be. Or perhaps not ....

In the future, you might want to read the entire essay instead of just homing in on a few buzzwords.

But thanks for introducing us to a great example of a literate, moderate Christian. He'll be quite a resource for all of us who debate fundamentalists.

Here, Carey. Have a Barney Fife award. You deserve it for shooting your own argument in the foot.