Peanut gallery:Accepting human evolution is not a rejection of orthodoxy

[PETE_]

This thread exists to discuss the formal debate (in the formal debate forum) between shernren and Mark Kennedy regarding the accepting evolution as the best scientific explanation for the biological makeup of humans does not constitute a rejection of orthodox Christian belief.




Debate thread located here

 

[shernren]

Hmm PETE, the link you posted is a link for starting new threads.

 

[PETE_]

OK, should be fixed now

 

[mark kennedy]

I'll get the OP up soon, probably tonight or tommorow. Still have to finish up the Justification by Faith Alone thread. See you in the formal debate shernren, hope you have some fun with it, I know I will.

 

[shernren]

Am looking forward to it too.

*munches down on his indomee while waiting*

 

[Chesterton]

*munches down on his indomee while waiting*

Hey, this is the peanut gallery, not the noodle gallery.

 

[shernren]

Hey, this is the peanut gallery, not the noodle gallery.

Well, my soto mee has crushed peanuts all over it. Does that count?

 

[Mallon]

For those interested, there's a parallel discussion going on re: this very same issue over at the Evangelical Dialogue on Evolution here:
http://evanevodialogue.blogspot.com/
Scroll down to the post made on Oct. 26 and read the subsequent posts to see what's been said so far.

 

[shernren]

Mmmmokay. My fries are getting cold though. =/

EDIT: Wowzors, loved the discussion there. A little for everyone (except perhaps the fundie creationist ); the series is a must read!

 

[Chesterton]

I'm a little confused. I've never monitored a "formal debate" before; I thought it was between two people. But a couple days ago someone who is not one of the two posted.

 

[Mallon]

I'm a little confused. I've never monitored a "formal debate" before; I thought it was between two people. But a couple days ago someone who is not one of the two posted.

And what's worse, he is using some of the most tired, ill-informed arguments out there. He says, "When you try to use known science against Evolutionosts [sic] they automatically say you do not know science". Well, I hate to say it, but this guy DOES NOT KNOW SCIENCE.

 

[shernren]

WHOA. MK already posted? Oh dear. I thought I had turned on notifications for that thread!

Eeps. I'll get on to my reply straightaway.

 

[Melethiel]

And what's worse, he is using some of the most tired, ill-informed arguments out there. He says, "When you try to use known science against Evolutionosts [sic] they automatically say you do not know science". Well, I hate to say it, but this guy DOES NOT KNOW SCIENCE.

Not to mention that abiogenesis is not evolution...

 

[PETE_]

I'm a little confused. I've never monitored a "formal debate" before; I thought it was between two people. But a couple days ago someone who is not one of the two posted.

You are not confused, it is between two people. We have removed the post by the nonparticipant. If you happen toi see the situationn come up again, just report the posts so we can get them deleted.

 

[mark kennedy]

WHOA. MK already posted? Oh dear. I thought I had turned on notifications for that thread!

Eeps. I'll get on to my reply straightaway.

It's been there for a couple of weeks and I could have sworn I dropped you a PM. No matter, let me know when you get your post up.

 

[shernren]

I normally rely on thread notifications to tell me when things happen. I don't visit the Formal Debates forum so I wouldn't have been able to tell, and since I hadn't posted in the thread I wasn't automatically subscribed to it, and I thought I had manually subscribed but well - it turns out I hadn't.

 

[mark kennedy]

I normally rely on thread notifications to tell me when things happen. I don't visit the Formal Debates forum so I wouldn't have been able to tell, and since I hadn't posted in the thread I wasn't automatically subscribed to it, and I thought I had manually subscribed but well - it turns out I hadn't.

I see, it's no big deal really since I'm in no big hurry. I'll monitor the thread and I'm looking forward to your post. Take your time shernren and I'll see you in the formal debate. By the way, Happy Thanksgiving.

 

[theFijian]

Hi mark, just wondering about this sentence from your opening gambit

Accepting human evolution is not a rejection of orthodoxy but the rejection of the special creation of Adam and original sin definitely is.

Can you expand on that a bit? Unless you were planning to in one of your subsequent posts of course.

 

[mark kennedy]

Hi mark, just wondering about this sentence from your opening gambit

Can you expand on that a bit? Unless you were planning to in one of your subsequent posts of course.

I said...

Accepting human evolution is not a rejection of orthodoxy but the rejection of the special creation of Adam and original sin definitely is.

Its not from my statement it's from Paul. This is about the Scriptures and I don't compromise with secular skeptics as much as I would like to.

Any questions?

 

[Chesterton]

I was wondering about the phrase in the sentence “special creation of Adam and original sin”. Are those two things to be taken together as one idea? I think the rejection of original sin would of course be unorthodox, but could one accept original sin and reject the special creation of Adam?