Re: 3 Notorious Evo Strawmen
Dana Tweedy
"Ray Martinez" <pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1133034732.1...@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> Here are 3 notorious straw men set-up by evolutionists against
> Creationism:
>
>
> 1. All causations are directly supernatural.
"evolutionists" don't claim this.
>
> In reality, Creationism claims the only supernatural causations are the
> ones listed in Genesis; sudden special creation of all living things.
Any appeal to a supernatural causation makes a claim unscientific. In any
case Genesis does not claim "sudden special creation" of all living things.
>
>
> 2. The Bible claims, what evolutionists call "fixity and constancy of
> species".
This is not what "evolutionists" state, it's what early Creationists
believed.
>
> The Bible makes no such claims. Evolutionists want the Bible to say
> microevolution does not exist when it says no such thing.
The Bible says nothing about evolution, either in "micro" or "macro".
Early creationists such as Agasszi did believe in the fixity of species.
>
>
> 3. The choice is between Science and Biblical Fundamentalism.
"Evolutionists" don't make this claim. It's another one that the
Creationists make.
>
> In reality, the choice is acceptance of the tyranny of Darwinian
> science
There is no "Darwinian" science. There is just science, which so far has
been consistent with evolutionary theory.
> and their straw men, or preserving and defending Science which
> corroborates the Bible.
If science corraborated a literal reading of the Bible, then it would be a
simple matter for you to show such evidence. We would see in the
scientific literature ample support for your statement. We see no such
support, however.
By the way, Ray. I'm still waiting for your retraction of your claim that
Kenneth Miller said he was not a sinner in "Finding Darwin's God". When
are you going to admit you were wrong yet again?
DJT
Bob
wrote:
>Here are 3 notorious straw men set-up by evolutionists against
>Creationism:
>
>
>1. All causations are directly supernatural.
>
>In reality, Creationism claims the only supernatural causations are the
>ones listed in Genesis; sudden special creation of all living things.
what is supernatural? how do we know it? how can we test it?
meaningless assertion.
>
>2. The Bible claims, what evolutionists call "fixity and constancy of
>species".
>
>The Bible makes no such claims. Evolutionists want the Bible to say
>microevolution does not exist when it says no such thing.
really? evolutionary biologists never mention the bible. if you have
proof, please present it.
>
>
>3. The choice is between Science and Biblical Fundamentalism.
>
>In reality, the choice is acceptance of the tyranny of Darwinian
>science and their straw men, or preserving and defending Science which
>corroborates the Bible.
>
science corroborates the bible, but science is wrong?
because all scientists, according to a recent gallup poll, accept
evolution.
---------------------------
to see who "wf3h" is, go to "qrz.com"
and enter 'wf3h' in the field
Andrew McClure
>
>In reality, the choice is acceptance of the tyranny of Darwinian
>science and their straw men, or preserving and defending Science which
>corroborates the Bible.
So.. what you're saying is that "evolutionists" claim that the choice
must be between science and biblical fundamentalism, but *really* (you
say) the choice must be between darwinism and biblical fundamentalism?
....uhm.
Are you absolutely sure you know the meaning of the word "straw man"? I
mean, you really know what that term means, you didn't just hear it
somewhere and now you're repeating it? I am just checking.
Steven J.
"Ray Martinez" <pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1133034732.1...@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> Creationism:
>
>
> 1. All causations are directly supernatural.
>
> In reality, Creationism claims the only supernatural causations are the
> ones listed in Genesis; sudden special creation of all living things.
>
all causes are directly supernatural? Now, many anti-creationists argue
that creationists can never rule out the possibility of a supernatural cause
(e.g. if your car is not working today, that might be because the battery is
dead, or because the car is possessed by demons), but that is a different
matter. We know that creationists hold that only a few events in history
have supernatural causes; what we want to know is what rational
justification you can give us for asking us to consider supernatural causes
for some unexplained phenomena (e.g. the origin of life), and not for others
(e.g. the car that won't work). And, of course, we would like to know how
you propose to distinguish between the supernatural causes you consider
reasonable (e.g. God made humans ca. 4000 BC), and supernatural causes you
consider unreasonable (e.g. Vishnu made humans ca. 4 billion BC).
>
> 2. The Bible claims, what evolutionists call "fixity and constancy of
> species".
>
> The Bible makes no such claims. Evolutionists want the Bible to say
> microevolution does not exist when it says no such thing.
>
species), it is perfectly consistent with fixity of species. Some
evolutionists are, themselves, Bible believers (I know, I know, even Hitler
claimed to be a Christian, and for that matter, even you do), and argue that
the Bible does not even deny common descent of humans and other species. It
all depends on [a] whether "after their kind" means that populations can
never evolve from one "kind" to another, or merely that offspring tend to
resemble their parents (which, of course, evolution depends on), and [b]
whether "kind" means "species" or something else (it does not seem to have
actually been equivalent to any formal taxonomical rank, but referred to
whatever level of distinction the ancient Hebrews thought worth making:
species, where cattle were concerned, or entire classes, where ants or bats
were concerned -- but saying that the ancient Hebrews saw no point in
telling one bat species from another does not mean that the Bible teaches
that bats are a clade, but humans and chimps together are not).
>
> 3. The choice is between Science and Biblical Fundamentalism.
>
> In reality, the choice is acceptance of the tyranny of Darwinian
> science and their straw men, or preserving and defending Science which
> corroborates the Bible.
>
amicable aquaintance. How compatible "biblical fundamentalism" is with
science depends, I suppose, on which Biblical teachings (and human
interpretations of those teachings) you consider "fundamental." But many of
your own beliefs do not strike me as biblically defensible, and evolution is
abundantly supported by evidence (from fossils of _Microraptor_ to shared
endogenous retroviruses in humans and other primates), whether it is
supported by Gene Scott or not.
>
> Ray Martinez
>
-- Steven J.
bre...@aintitcoolmail.com
Ray Martinez wrote:
> Here are 3 notorious straw men set-up by evolutionists against
> Creationism:
Ahh. The elusive strawman-strawman, or metastrawman.
> 3. The choice is between Science and Biblical Fundamentalism.
>
> In reality, the choice is acceptance of the tyranny of Darwinian
> science and their straw men, or preserving and defending Science which
> corroborates the Bible.
So evolutionists accuse creationists of the wrong false dichotomy. Hmm.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_dichotomy
Heck, Let's make it a contest. Who can identify all the logical
fallacies in Ray's post?
Andrew McClure
> Steven J. wrote:
> > Can you cite any "evolutionists" who describe creationists as holding that
> > all causes are directly supernatural?
>
So what you are saying is, no, you cannot cite any.
> We don't ask. We declare what is obvious.
If you speak for all "creationists" with this statement, then indeed
the choice is real and it is fundamentally impossible to support both
creationism and science...
Ray Martinez
I only responded in order to preserve the post of yours from future
deletion. You are stuck with these replies forever.
Ray
Ray Martinez
Because you asserted logical fallacies, but did not expose them, I must
conclude there were none.
Ray
explainer
Ray Martinez wrote:
> Here are 3 notorious straw men set-up by evolutionists against
> Creationism:
This sounds like a personal opinion.
What is your reference?
Where is the universal epicenter defining Creationism?
We all have opinions. Where is your evidence?
dearcilla
Ray Martinez wrote:
> > You and reality would seem, at best, to have a nodding and not terribly
> > amicable aquaintance.
>
>
Darwin was a creationist, who travelled around the world, studying
God's creation. And he ended up believing in evolution...
Maybe God did write the Bible, but have you read His collected works?
Desertphile
> Creationism:
Next will you will be lecturing us on The Prefideous Jew?
Bob
wrote:
>
>Steven J. wrote:
>> >
>> Can you cite any "evolutionists" who describe creationists as holding that
>> all causes are directly supernatural?
>
>It is strewn through-out your literature.
oh. you can't.
yeah we already knew that.
>
>
>> what we want to know is what rational
>> justification you can give us for asking us to consider supernatural causes
>> for some unexplained phenomena (e.g. the origin of life),
>
>We don't ask. We declare what is obvious. Your inability to embrace is
>also explained supernaturally.
oh. hold on...i have a supernatural message coming in.
ah. it's you're wrong. see how easy that is? my supernatural message
is better than yours.
>
>
> >
>> And, of course, we would like to know how
>> you propose to distinguish between the supernatural causes you consider
>> reasonable (e.g. God made humans ca. 4000 BC), and supernatural causes you
>> consider unreasonable (e.g. Vishnu made humans ca. 4 billion BC).
>> >
>
>God created Adamkind 5100 BC. Is there any objective evidence
>contradicting this fact ?
wrong question. is there any evidence contradicting the fact you're a
child molester? is it up to me to prove it or you to disprove it?
>> >
>
>> Some
>> evolutionists are, themselves, Bible believers (I know, I know, even Hitler
>> claimed to be a Christian, and for that matter, even you do), and argue that
>> the Bible does not even deny common descent of humans and other species. It
>> all depends on [a] whether "after their kind" means that populations can
>> never evolve from one "kind" to another,
>
>
>The Bible specifically says Adamkind was specially created - not a
>matter of opinion.
created by evolution. no problem.
>
>As for animals: DARWINIAN macroevolution fantasies are obviously not
>taught - God is the Creator - not Darwin and his idiot dialogues held
>as "evidence".
ah. god COULDNT work thru evolution?
gee. god, i'm sure, appreciates your assessment of his incomptence.
>
>Nowhere does the Bible imply Darwinian evolution.
and nowhere does it not imply it.
>
>Genetic homeostasis establishes the barriers/kinds = Genesis
>corroborated by science.
uh, no. what is 'genetic homeostasis' and where is it written it
establishes barriers?
oh. it's not.
>
>Some kinds:
>
>Adamkind
>
>Birds
>
>Quadrupeds
quadrupeds? cats? lizards?
Dana Tweedy
"Future deletion" by whom? My reply is correct, and you obviously have
no ability to answer my points. Why should anyone want to delete them?
DJT
>
> Ray
>
CreateThis
> ... For a quick moment, without looking at the cover
> I thought the biology book was the mechanic book
LOL. You're a Creationist comedian, aren't you? You can't really
expect to say such absurd crap and not be laughed at.
CT
Dana Tweedy
>
> Steven J. wrote:
>> "Ray Martinez" <pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> news:1133034732.1...@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>> > Here are 3 notorious straw men set-up by evolutionists against
>> > Creationism:
>> >
>> >
>> > 1. All causations are directly supernatural.
>> >
>> > In reality, Creationism claims the only supernatural causations are the
>> > ones listed in Genesis; sudden special creation of all living things.
>> >
>> Can you cite any "evolutionists" who describe creationists as holding
>> that
>> all causes are directly supernatural?
>
Then lets see you present a single instance in this "literature" where any
"evolutionist" made such a claim...
>
>
>> Now, many anti-creationists argue
>> that creationists can never rule out the possibility of a supernatural
>> cause
>> (e.g. if your car is not working today, that might be because the battery
>> is
>> dead, or because the car is possessed by demons), but that is a different
>> matter. We know that creationists hold that only a few events in history
>> have supernatural causes;
>
> Good.
>
>> what we want to know is what rational
>> justification you can give us for asking us to consider supernatural
>> causes
>> for some unexplained phenomena (e.g. the origin of life),
>
> We don't ask. We declare what is obvious.
Who is the 'we', and what makes you think it's "obvious"? Is this like when
you state your opinion and declare it's not a matter of opinion?
>Your inability to embrace is
> also explained supernaturally.
Your inability to come up with a rational answer to Steven's statements is
explained by your non-supernatural ignorance.
>
>
>> and not for others
>> (e.g. the car that won't work).
>
> You have now betrayed what you denied in the opening - that evos do not
> set-up this strawman.
Ray, you don't seem to understand what a "strawman" is.
> If this is not what you meant then I will accept
> based on your past performance of reasonableness and mutual respect.
Ray, what makes you think you deserve any respect?
>
>
>
> >
>> And, of course, we would like to know how
>> you propose to distinguish between the supernatural causes you consider
>> reasonable (e.g. God made humans ca. 4000 BC), and supernatural causes
>> you
>> consider unreasonable (e.g. Vishnu made humans ca. 4 billion BC).
>> >
>
> God created Adamkind 5100 BC. Is there any objective evidence
> contradicting this fact ?
Yes, quite a lot. We have fossil evidence of modern humans that predates
5100 BC by a factor of 20. We have genetic evidence which shows that
humans are closely related to other life. We have cave paintings from
20,000 years ago. etc, etc...
>
> Where are the disciples of Vishnu - I am not one ?
Can you even admit that there might be other religions with claims that
compete with yours?
>
>
>> > 2. The Bible claims, what evolutionists call "fixity and constancy of
>> > species".
>> >
>> > The Bible makes no such claims. Evolutionists want the Bible to say
>> > microevolution does not exist when it says no such thing.
>> >
>> Of course, as evolutionists define "microevolution" (i.e. change within a
>> species), it is perfectly consistent with fixity of species.
>
> Negative, Mayr says the Bible makes the fixity of species claim.
Citation, please. Even if Mayr did say that, so what?
> Fixity
> precludes microevolution = strawman set up by Mayr.
When did Mayr ever claim that "fixity precludes microevolution"?
>
>
>
>> Some
>> evolutionists are, themselves, Bible believers (I know, I know, even
>> Hitler
>> claimed to be a Christian, and for that matter, even you do), and argue
>> that
>> the Bible does not even deny common descent of humans and other species.
>> It
>> all depends on [a] whether "after their kind" means that populations can
>> never evolve from one "kind" to another,
>
>
> The Bible specifically says Adamkind was specially created - not a
> matter of opinion.
The Bible does not say that. Stating your opinion while claiming it's not a
matter of opinion is one of your little habits.
>
> As for animals: DARWINIAN macroevolution fantasies are obviously not
> taught - God is the Creator - not Darwin and his idiot dialogues held
> as "evidence".
As Steven pointed out, and even many Creationists claim, the Bible doesn't
deny common descent of other animals. In fact many creationists claim
that species evolved from the 'kinds' supposedly on the ark. This would
involve macroevolution on a scale beyond what any evolutionary biologist
would propose.
>
> Nowhere does the Bible imply Darwinian evolution.
You are forgetting the supposed rapid evolution following the Flood.
> For evos to assert
> this contrary to what anyone can verify for themself shows how
> shameless they are.
Or, more likely, it shows Ray is wrong, yet again.
> It is also congruent with evolutionism since it is
> based wholly upon lies/assertions - anyway, supported by the Emperor's
> new clothes/educational credentials metaphor.
Evolution is based on the evidence, nothing more. It's odd to see Ray
appealing to the authority of Gene Scott's "educational credentials"
whenever it's convienient for him, yet he derides the hard earned
credentials of those who disagree with him.
>
> Genetic homeostasis establishes the barriers/kinds = Genesis
> corroborated by science.
Genetic homeostasis is no barrier to speciation. You keep making this same
mistake no matter how many times you are corrected.
>
>
>
>> or merely that offspring tend to
>> resemble their parents (which, of course, evolution depends on), and [b]
>> whether "kind" means "species" or something else (it does not seem to
>> have
>> actually been equivalent to any formal taxonomical rank, but referred to
>> whatever level of distinction the ancient Hebrews thought worth making:
>> species, where cattle were concerned, or entire classes, where ants or
>> bats
>> were concerned -- but saying that the ancient Hebrews saw no point in
>> telling one bat species from another does not mean that the Bible teaches
>> that bats are a clade, but humans and chimps together are not).
>> >
>
> Genetic homeostasis establishes the text to mean large groups of
> species called kinds.
This is a poor misunderstanding of the concept of homeostasis. There are
no "kinds" in a biological sense.
> Genesis and the supernatural origin of each
> animal kind is corroborated by GH.
Again, Ray completely misunderstand the point, and slings jargon that he
doesn't grasp.
>If GH was not a fact then God does
> not exist, rather a major Biblical claim would be unsupportable and the
> former could be rightfully postulated.
Genetic homeostatsis has nothing to do with the existance of God. Ray
predictably misunderstands the term, and uses it to support his
unsupportable beliefs.
>
>
> Some kinds:
>
> Adamkind
Why does this not include other closely related species?
>
> Birds
There are over 10,000 species of birds. For all of these to be
"microevolution" would require much more genetic change than what we find
between humans and their closest primate relatives.
>
> Quadrupeds
Ray, humans and birds are quadropeds. I've explained this to you before,
why do you keep making the same basic errors?
>
> Reptiles
Cladistically, Birds are reptiles. Some cladists would even argue that
mammals, including all humans, are cladistically reptiles.
>
> Sea creatures
"Sea creatures" include reptiles (sea snakes, turtles, ichytsaurs) mammals
(whales, dolphins, seals, manatees) birds ( penguins, auks, puffins) bony
fish, sharks, and other chordates, many mollusks, arthopods, etc, etc...
>
> GH will not allow kinds to be breached.
Genetic homeostatsis is the principle where individuals in a species tend to
gather around a central "type". It's no barrier to speciation, and
further genetic change in populations.
>
> NS explains nothing - it is a euphemism for an empty trojan horse
> supported by the Emperor's new clothes.
Natural selection is the principle where individuals in a population
reproduce differentally. Not every member of a population reproduces,
which means that some of the population will be culled out and their genes
will not pass the next generation.
>
>
>
>> > 3. The choice is between Science and Biblical Fundamentalism.
>> >
>> > In reality, the choice is acceptance of the tyranny of Darwinian
>> > science and their straw men, or preserving and defending Science which
>> > corroborates the Bible.
>> >
>> You and reality would seem, at best, to have a nodding and not terribly
>> amicable aquaintance.
>
> Because you are a Darwinist - thanks for the compliment.
Maybe, Ray, you should consider that if multiple people are telling you
this, you should consider the possibility that it's you that is wrong.
DJT
Ken Shackleton
Ray Martinez wrote:
> Here are 3 notorious straw men set-up by evolutionists against
> Creationism:
>
>
> 1. All causations are directly supernatural.
I don't believe that anyone claims this....some causations are clearly
natural.
>
> In reality, Creationism claims the only supernatural causations are the
> ones listed in Genesis; sudden special creation of all living things.
>
>
> 2. The Bible claims, what evolutionists call "fixity and constancy of
> species".
>
> The Bible makes no such claims. Evolutionists want the Bible to say
> microevolution does not exist when it says no such thing.
Most evolutionists don't "want" the Bible to say anything. If they are
Christians....then they read the Bible and interpret it how they see
fit. I am sure that most would recognise that the Bible has nothing to
say at all about evolution when read as allegorical stories about human
morality.
>
>
> 3. The choice is between Science and Biblical Fundamentalism.
>
> In reality, the choice is acceptance of the tyranny of Darwinian
> science and their straw men, or preserving and defending Science which
> corroborates the Bible.
Creationists are the only people that I have ever seen make statements
like this.
>
>
> Ray Martinez
Ken Shackleton
Ken Shackleton wrote:
> Ray Martinez wrote:
> > Here are 3 notorious straw men set-up by evolutionists against
> > Creationism:
> >
> >
> > 1. All causations are directly supernatural.
>
> I don't believe that anyone claims this....some causations are clearly
> natural.
After reading this....I should have said that ALL causations that have
been investigated to a conclusion have been natural, not supernatural.
Deadrat
>
> What are you saying ?
>
> Creationism and Science are synonymous. Just recently, I happened upon
> an automobile/engine mechanics textbook at a library. All of the
> pictures and illustrations were close-ups and cut-aways of parts and
> mechanisms of things designed for specific functions. By chance a
> biology textbook from the 80's was sitting underneath. It too contained
> what I just descibed, in fact, the first book was the biology book and
> not the mechanic book. For a quick moment, without looking at the cover
> I thought the biology book was the mechanic book because I assumed both
> books were the same after seeing the mechanic book's cover after
> picking up the biology book.
>
> Science has perfectly proven the IDer. Your inability to see the
> obvious can only be explained by the Romans 1 blinding penalty.
There is no "Romans 1 blinding penalty" from the translations I read.
But why should we accept your interpretation of a book you can't read in
the original? And why should we pay attention to this book at all?
> Any
> Deity who can create like Genesis says (out of nothing/miraculously) is
> fully capable of the mass blinding penalty. Because millions of people
> see design with the naked eye - the blinding penalty is the only
> plausible explanation for the inability of an equal or greater number
> of masses from seeing it.
It couldn't be that people mistakenly see design where there isn't any,
could it? After all appearances can be deceiving. It couldn't be that
some of these people are simply as mistaken and clueless as you are,
could it? You, who can't tell a biology book from a book on auto
mechanics.
Deadrat
>
> Ray
>
Dana Tweedy
>
> What are you saying ?
He's saying that your claim that the dichotomy between science and
fundamentalism is not a strawman, but a real division, as evidenced by your
own statements.
>
> Creationism and Science are synonymous.
Only if you believe that synonoymous means "opposites".
> Just recently, I happened upon
> an automobile/engine mechanics textbook at a library. All of the
> pictures and illustrations were close-ups and cut-aways of parts and
> mechanisms of things designed for specific functions.
Were any of these parts made by a supernatural being?
> By chance a
> biology textbook from the 80's was sitting underneath. It too contained
> what I just descibed, in fact, the first book was the biology book and
> not the mechanic book. For a quick moment, without looking at the cover
> I thought the biology book was the mechanic book because I assumed both
> books were the same after seeing the mechanic book's cover after
> picking up the biology book.
Which only means that you can't read well.....
>
> Science has perfectly proven the IDer.
Where, exactly? Can you cite any scientific papers which prove the "IDer"?
>Your inability to see the
> obvious can only be explained by the Romans 1 blinding penalty.
There is no such penalty, Ray. We've been over this before. God does not
punish people for using their intellect, and the Bible doesn't support your
cliams.
> Any
> Deity who can create like Genesis says (out of nothing/miraculously) is
> fully capable of the mass blinding penalty.
Likewise any Deity who can create like Genesis can use evolution as his
method of creation. Claiming a non-existant "blinding penalty" to explain
why you can't convince reasonable people of your statements is foolish.
It's only serves to make God look as petty and small as yourself.
> Because millions of people
> see design with the naked eye - the blinding penalty is the only
> plausible explanation for the inability of an equal or greater number
> of masses from seeing it.
How about the possibility that there is no "obvious" design visible to the
naked eye? The "blinding penalty" claim is just an excuse for why you
can't provide reasonable explanation to support your beliefs. You are
blaming other people for you inablity to provide a reasonable and cogent
argument.
DJT
Dana Tweedy
Ray, a false dichotomy is a logical fallacy. You also employ:
Ad hominem
argument from fallacy
arguement from ignorance
appeal to ridicule
begging the question
false analogy
false choice
appeal to authority.
"No true scotsman"
and many others.
DJT
>
> Ray
>
Bob
wrote:
>
>
>What are you saying ?
>
>Creationism and Science are synonymous.
funny that creationism is completely absent from the world's
scientific literature and any dept of science at any university in the
world.
Just recently, I happened upon
>an automobile/engine mechanics textbook at a library. All of the
>pictures and illustrations were close-ups and cut-aways of parts and
>mechanisms of things designed for specific functions. By chance a
>biology textbook from the 80's was sitting underneath. It too contained
>what I just descibed, in fact, the first book was the biology book and
>not the mechanic book. For a quick moment, without looking at the cover
>I thought the biology book was the mechanic book because I assumed both
>books were the same after seeing the mechanic book's cover after
>picking up the biology book.
betcha each auto textbook described how engines work according to
NATURAL laws...not supernaturalism as is the case with creationism
Steven J.
>
> Steven J. wrote:
>> "Ray Martinez" <pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> news:1133034732.1...@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>> > Here are 3 notorious straw men set-up by evolutionists against
>> > Creationism:
>> >
>> >
>> > 1. All causations are directly supernatural.
>> >
>> > In reality, Creationism claims the only supernatural causations are the
>> > ones listed in Genesis; sudden special creation of all living things.
>> >
>> Can you cite any "evolutionists" who describe creationists as holding
>> that
>> all causes are directly supernatural?
>
>
all. When evolutionists do discuss creationists, they often, in my
experience, not that creationists by and large assume that most causes are
*not* supernatural. They want to know why creationists think that
methodological naturalism is a perfectly valid approach to most problems,
but is a bigoted and unreasonable approach to questions of origins.
>
>> Now, many anti-creationists argue
>> that creationists can never rule out the possibility of a supernatural
>> cause
>> (e.g. if your car is not working today, that might be because the battery
>> is
>> dead, or because the car is possessed by demons), but that is a different
>> matter. We know that creationists hold that only a few events in history
>> have supernatural causes;
>
>
>> what we want to know is what rational
>> justification you can give us for asking us to consider supernatural
>> causes
>> for some unexplained phenomena (e.g. the origin of life),
>
> also explained supernaturally.
>
Muslims (you surely have heard of them) declare that it is "obvious" that no
mere human could have written something so magnificent as the Qur'an, and
therefore it is obviously of supernatural origin. I have not heard, yet, a
Muslim claim that my inability to embrace that claim is some sort of
supernatural curse, but who knows what tomorrow might bring? You claim that
it is "obvious" that ... what? It is not even a little bit obvious that
humans could not be derived from the same ancestors as chimpanzees; indeed,
the evidence makes it obvious that we did. It is not really obvious that
life could not have originated by purely natural causes; it is only obvious
that we don't yet know the full set of natural causes that could do this.
Saying that what seems obvious to you is not obvious to others merely
because the others are cursed by God seems (*OBVIOUSLY*) like one of those
conspiracy theories in which the only reason we can't prove that Elvis shot
JFK is because Elvis hid all the evidence (and by hiding the evidence, of
course, he proves his guilt). It's reasoning so circular it makes one
dizzy.
>
>> and not for others
>> (e.g. the car that won't work).
>
> based on your past performance of reasonableness and mutual respect.
>
for automotive failure. But this raises the question, why not? If you tell
me that my failure to embrace creationism is a curse from God, and someone
else tells me your car not starting is a curse from God, why should I
consider your claim and not his? I don't see, for myself, that the Bible
supports either claim, but if he claims the Bible supports it, how is that
claim different from yours? It does not seem more or less investigable.
>
> >
>> And, of course, we would like to know how
>> you propose to distinguish between the supernatural causes you consider
>> reasonable (e.g. God made humans ca. 4000 BC), and supernatural causes
>> you
>> consider unreasonable (e.g. Vishnu made humans ca. 4 billion BC).
>> >
>
> contradicting this fact ?
>
Ethiopia, dated at 160,000 years old. That would seem to to contradict any
claim that humans did not exist prior to 5100 BC. Skulls belonging not
merely to our species but our particular subspecies (_H. sapiens sapiens_)
only date back to a little over 100,000 years BC. Note that this merely
reflects on the age of "Adamkind;" there is also, of course, the fossil and
genetic evidence linking us to other primates. On the other hand, there is
Ussher's chronology which dates the creation of "Adamkind" to 4004 BC;
Ussher doesn't have fossils or radiometric dating to back his claims, but
why are his chronological claims less "objective evidence" than yours?
>
> Where are the disciples of Vishnu - I am not one ?
>
China? However, Hindu creationism has some adherents closer to home (mine
and your homes, anyway): consider Cremo's _Forbidden Archaeology_.
>
>> > 2. The Bible claims, what evolutionists call "fixity and constancy of
>> > species".
>> >
>> > The Bible makes no such claims. Evolutionists want the Bible to say
>> > microevolution does not exist when it says no such thing.
>> >
>> Of course, as evolutionists define "microevolution" (i.e. change within a
>> species), it is perfectly consistent with fixity of species.
>
> precludes microevolution = strawman set up by Mayr.
>
is not a religion, it does not have prophets and inerrant texts. If Mayr
states that the Bible claims species are fixed, that does not mean that all
"Darwinists" must agree that he was right. Second, "fixity of species"
means that one species cannot turn into another. "Microevolution" is a
species changing, but not into another species, so it is perfectly
>
>> Some
>> evolutionists are, themselves, Bible believers (I know, I know, even
>> Hitler
>> claimed to be a Christian, and for that matter, even you do), and argue
>> that
>> the Bible does not even deny common descent of humans and other species.
>> It
>> all depends on [a] whether "after their kind" means that populations can
>> never evolve from one "kind" to another,
>
>
> matter of opinion.
>
rise up out of the Mediterranean sea in the near future of people living in
the late 1st century. The Bible specifically speaks of the Earth standing
unmoving while the sun orbits it. Not everything the Bible specifically
says is meant literally, and many Christians hold this view of the creation
accounts in Genesis.
>
> As for animals: DARWINIAN macroevolution fantasies are obviously not
> taught - God is the Creator - not Darwin and his idiot dialogues held
> as "evidence".
>
on Darwin's authority. Certainly Darwin's writings are not themselves held
as evidence for evolution, although they mention evidence for evolution: the
consistent nested hierarchy of life, biogeography, vestigial structures, and
so forth.
Second, evolutionary theory is not taught in the Bible. Neither is atomic
theory, meteorological theory, heliocentric astronomy, or the fact that "pi"
is an irrational number. Yet references to "the windows of heaven" are not,
by most Christians, as reason to believe that meteorology is antiBiblical,
nor references to the sun hastening in its journey around the Earth as
reason to believe that modern astronomy is unbiblical. The point is that
the Biblical origins account is directed against the idea that nature or
nature's contents are themselves deities or not subject to God; it is not
necessarily a literal scientific account.
>
> Nowhere does the Bible imply Darwinian evolution. For evos to assert
> this contrary to what anyone can verify for themself shows how
> shameless they are. It is also congruent with evolutionism since it is
> based wholly upon lies/assertions - anyway, supported by the Emperor's
> new clothes/educational credentials metaphor.
>
Nowhere does the Bible even imply that the Earth is a globe. How far do you
wish to take this argument?
For that matter, you have insisted to me in the past not only that my
refusal to embrace creationism is a result of God's curse (a reading of
Romans 1:12 which I had never previously encountered or considered, and to
which I still see no merit), and that the epistle of James was placed in the
Bible only to illustrate "righteous-sounding heresy." To most Christians --
I dare say, even to most creationists -- such statements seem to be grosser
"lies/assertions" than any suggestion that evolution is compatible with
scriptural teaching.
>
> Genetic homeostasis establishes the barriers/kinds = Genesis
> corroborated by science.
>
"Genetic homeostasis" is the tendency for the genetic composition of a
population -- the frequency of various alleles -- to remain constant. To
the extent that it prevents evolution, it is a barrier even to
microevolution (since if the frequency of alleles changes, even without
speciation, it obviously hasn't remained constant). Mayr offered this as a
reason why evolution (including macroevolution) would occur in isolated
peripheral populations rather than across the range of a numerous,
widespread species, but it offers nothing at all to someone who wishes to
have evolution and speciation, but only within "kinds."
>
>> or merely that offspring tend to
>> resemble their parents (which, of course, evolution depends on), and [b]
>> whether "kind" means "species" or something else (it does not seem to
>> have
>> actually been equivalent to any formal taxonomical rank, but referred to
>> whatever level of distinction the ancient Hebrews thought worth making:
>> species, where cattle were concerned, or entire classes, where ants or
>> bats
>> were concerned -- but saying that the ancient Hebrews saw no point in
>> telling one bat species from another does not mean that the Bible teaches
>> that bats are a clade, but humans and chimps together are not).
>> >
>
> Genetic homeostasis establishes the text to mean large groups of
> species called kinds. Genesis and the supernatural origin of each
> animal kind is corroborated by GH. If GH was not a fact then God does
> not exist, rather a major Biblical claim would be unsupportable and the
> former could be rightfully postulated.
>
At the risk of giving still further offense, I think the above paragraph
calls into question my concession that you and reality had at least a
nodding aquaintance.
>
> Some kinds:
>
> Adamkind
>
Does this include _H. sapiens idaltu_? How about _H. georgicus_ (_H. ex.gr.
erectus_)? How about _H. habilis_ or _A. afarensis_?
>
> Birds
>
Are reptiles, cladistically speaking, but never mind. Even claiming that
penguins, woodpeckers, and eagles are a single "kind" would [a] create a
single "kind" larger and more diverse than, say, the primates including
humans, and [b] strike most "baraminologists" ("created kinds" would-be
experts) as anathema.
>
> Quadrupeds
>
Elephants, horses, cows, and lions are a single "kind," but humans and
chimps are not? What sort of biological sense is that supposed to make?
>
> Reptiles
>
> Sea creatures
>
Are you asserting that jellyfish, lobsters, tuna and dolphins are a single
"kind?" If you are not asserting this, what in all the names of heaven
*are* you asserting?
>
> GH will not allow kinds to be breached.
>
As noted, either genetic homeostasis guarantees the fixity of species you
decry, or it does not limit evolution to "kinds" (unless by "kind" you mean
"the Linnaean taxon ranked above domains").
>
> NS explains nothing - it is a euphemism for an empty trojan horse
> supported by the Emperor's new clothes.
>
I'm trying very hard to make sense of that metaphor. A euphemism is used
for something that can't be mentioned or shown in public, but the whole
point of a trojan horse is that it can be publically displayed and
discussed. What it conceals, of course, is not to be spoken of or revealed
until it's too late -- but an empty trojan horse conceals nothing. And I'm
not clear on how one is to picture invisible (actually nonexistent) clothing
supporting a giant empty wooden horse that has to be called by a euphemism.
In any case, as has been pointed out, natural selection is not a tautology.
"Selection" cannot be a tautology: if we select dogs with certain traits
(say, long floppy ears) to breed, we don't go around saying that the traits
bred for must have been whatever traits turned up in later generations.
Likewise, if you examine the "peppered moth" example, the entire point is
that just by looking at the moths you can see why one morph is favored in
one environment and the other in another.
Of course, the effects of natural selection can be witnessed, in plants
growing near mine tailings that evolve immunity to the poisons in the
tailings, or in bacterial colonies that evolve the ability to resist
penicillin or digest nylon, or in the changes of beak size in explicable
response to climate changes in the Galapagos.
>
>> > 3. The choice is between Science and Biblical Fundamentalism.
>> >
>> > In reality, the choice is acceptance of the tyranny of Darwinian
>> > science and their straw men, or preserving and defending Science which
>> > corroborates the Bible.
>> >
>> You and reality would seem, at best, to have a nodding and not terribly
>> amicable aquaintance.
>
> Because you are a Darwinist - thanks for the compliment.
>
Don't worry; I withdrew it above after you offered the "genetic homeostasis
proof of God."
>
> SNIP more of the same.
>
> Ray
>
-- Steven J.
Mark VandeWettering
>> news:1133034732.1...@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>> > Here are 3 notorious straw men set-up by evolutionists against
>> > Creationism:
>> >
>> >
>> > 1. All causations are directly supernatural.
>> >
>> > In reality, Creationism claims the only supernatural causations are the
>> > ones listed in Genesis; sudden special creation of all living things.
>> >
>> Can you cite any "evolutionists" who describe creationists as holding that
>> all causes are directly supernatural?
>
Then it shouldn't be hard to come up with an example. I've certainly never
seen that claim before, but I haven't read every book, so maybe you could
show me up by presenting such an instance?
>> Now, many anti-creationists argue
>> that creationists can never rule out the possibility of a supernatural cause
>> (e.g. if your car is not working today, that might be because the battery is
>> dead, or because the car is possessed by demons), but that is a different
>> matter. We know that creationists hold that only a few events in history
>> have supernatural causes;
>
> Good.
>
>> what we want to know is what rational
>> justification you can give us for asking us to consider supernatural causes
>> for some unexplained phenomena (e.g. the origin of life),
>
> We don't ask. We declare what is obvious. Your inability to embrace is
> also explained supernaturally.
>
>
>> and not for others
>> (e.g. the car that won't work).
>
> You have now betrayed what you denied in the opening - that evos do not
> set-up this strawman. If this is not what you meant then I will accept
> based on your past performance of reasonableness and mutual respect.
>
>
>
> >
>> And, of course, we would like to know how
>> you propose to distinguish between the supernatural causes you consider
>> reasonable (e.g. God made humans ca. 4000 BC), and supernatural causes you
>> consider unreasonable (e.g. Vishnu made humans ca. 4 billion BC).
>> >
>
> God created Adamkind 5100 BC. Is there any objective evidence
> contradicting this fact ?
Well, mankind has been around significantly longer than that.
Not 4 billion years though (sorry Vishnu).
> Where are the disciples of Vishnu - I am not one ?
>
>
>> > 2. The Bible claims, what evolutionists call "fixity and constancy of
>> > species".
>> >
>> > The Bible makes no such claims. Evolutionists want the Bible to say
>> > microevolution does not exist when it says no such thing.
>> >
>> Of course, as evolutionists define "microevolution" (i.e. change within a
>> species), it is perfectly consistent with fixity of species.
>
> Negative, Mayr says the Bible makes the fixity of species claim. Fixity
> precludes microevolution = strawman set up by Mayr.
Mayr says that the Bible makes that claim because many Christian creationists
make that claim. I may be mistaken, but I think you yourself have "argued"
that speciation is actually impossible, so you have in fact reinforced that
notion yourself. It seems odd to argue against it now as a strawman.
>
>
>> Some
>> evolutionists are, themselves, Bible believers (I know, I know, even Hitler
>> claimed to be a Christian, and for that matter, even you do), and argue that
>> the Bible does not even deny common descent of humans and other species. It
>> all depends on [a] whether "after their kind" means that populations can
>> never evolve from one "kind" to another,
>
>
> The Bible specifically says Adamkind was specially created - not a
> matter of opinion.
All Christians believe that mankind is specially created by God. Some just
think that has to do more with something spiritual than biological. When the
Bible says that man was created in God's image, we don't hypothesize that
God was a 5'10" guy with bad teeth and a bad back.
>
> As for animals: DARWINIAN macroevolution fantasies are obviously not
> taught - God is the Creator - not Darwin and his idiot dialogues held
> as "evidence".
>
> Nowhere does the Bible imply Darwinian evolution.
It doesn't imply gravitation either, or quantum mechanics. To Christians,
it has value anyway, even though an understanding of gravitation and
quantum mechanics has also proven useful to Christians.
> For evos to assert
> this contrary to what anyone can verify for themself shows how
> shameless they are. It is also congruent with evolutionism since it is
> based wholly upon lies/assertions - anyway, supported by the Emperor's
> new clothes/educational credentials metaphor.
Blah blah blah.
> Genetic homeostasis establishes the barriers/kinds = Genesis
> corroborated by science.
See? Aren't you arguing for fixity of species here? Do you understand
what the term "strawman" actually means?
>> or merely that offspring tend to
>> resemble their parents (which, of course, evolution depends on), and [b]
>> whether "kind" means "species" or something else (it does not seem to have
>> actually been equivalent to any formal taxonomical rank, but referred to
>> whatever level of distinction the ancient Hebrews thought worth making:
>> species, where cattle were concerned, or entire classes, where ants or bats
>> were concerned -- but saying that the ancient Hebrews saw no point in
>> telling one bat species from another does not mean that the Bible teaches
>> that bats are a clade, but humans and chimps together are not).
>> >
>
> Genetic homeostasis establishes the text to mean large groups of
> species called kinds. Genesis and the supernatural origin of each
> animal kind is corroborated by GH. If GH was not a fact then God does
> not exist, rather a major Biblical claim would be unsupportable and the
> former could be rightfully postulated.
>
>
> Some kinds:
>
> Adamkind
>
> Birds
>
> Quadrupeds
>
> Reptiles
>
> Sea creatures
>
> GH will not allow kinds to be breached.
>
> NS explains nothing - it is a euphemism for an empty trojan horse
> supported by the Emperor's new clothes.
>
>
>
>> > 3. The choice is between Science and Biblical Fundamentalism.
>> >
>> > In reality, the choice is acceptance of the tyranny of Darwinian
>> > science and their straw men, or preserving and defending Science which
>> > corroborates the Bible.
>> >
>> You and reality would seem, at best, to have a nodding and not terribly
>> amicable aquaintance.
>
> Because you are a Darwinist - thanks for the compliment.
>
>
> SNIP more of the same.
>
> Ray
Mark
Mark VandeWettering
That's another logical fallacy Ray.
Mark
>
> Ray
>
John Wilkins
--
John S. Wilkins, Postdoctoral Research Fellow, Biohumanities Project
University of Queensland - Blog: evolvethought.blogspot.com
Nihil tam absurdum quod non quidam Philosophi dixerit - Cicero
Thurisaz the Einherjer
--
Romans 2:24 revised:
"For the name of God is blasphemed among the Gentiles through you
cretinists, as it is written on aig."
Jim Willemin
[snip
>
> Some kinds:
>
> Adamkind
>
> Birds
>
> Quadrupeds
>
> Reptiles
>
> Sea creatures
>
[snip]
This list of kinds is interesting for several reasons. First, of course,
if this represents the bill of lading for the Ark, Noah could have gotten
by with a smallish houseboat holding a canary, a mouse, a garter snake, and
a barnacle. Second, of course, this list cannot represent the bill of
lading for the ark, since each category given includes animals both clean
and unclean - hogs and cattle, for instance, or cod and lobsters. Surely
the notion of 'kind' needs to keep clean and unclean animals in different
groups - or do you claim that an unclean type of animal can, through
allowed microevolution, give rise to a clean animal, and vice versa? I
think you are getting a little sloppy here.
--
Jim
"Value nothing but truth, compassion, and love"
Alky
Ray Martinez wrote:
> Here are 3 notorious straw men set-up by evolutionists against
> Creationism:
>
>
>
> In reality, Creationism claims the only supernatural causations are the
> ones listed in Genesis; sudden special creation of all living things.
>
>
> species".
>
> The Bible makes no such claims. Evolutionists want the Bible to say
> microevolution does not exist when it says no such thing.
>
>
>
> In reality, the choice is acceptance of the tyranny of Darwinian
> science and their straw men, or preserving and defending Science which
> corroborates the Bible.
>
>
This post is really too stupid to be true.
1. No one says that creationists think ALL things are caused by
supernatural means (other than, perhaps, that the 'first cause' caused
all things).
2. Depends how you read it.
3. and here's the really bad argument! Let's see it goes something like
this:
Evolutionists claim A xor B!
But they're wrong, it's actually A reworded xor B reworded!
jrs...@sbcglobal.net
What are you talking about? Seems like you are stuck with this pathetic
response forever. Do you disagree with his post? Then counter it. That's
how this works Ray..
JR
>
> Ray
>
macea...@astound.net
Ray Martinez wrote:
> Here are 3 notorious straw men set-up by evolutionists against
> Creationism:
>
>
> 1. All causations are directly supernatural.
>
> ones listed in Genesis; sudden special creation of all living things.
Never heard number 1 before, other than from you. It's certainly
a straw man but appears to be one set up by you claiming falsely
that others claim it.
> 2. The Bible claims, what evolutionists call "fixity and constancy of
> species".
>
> The Bible makes no such claims. Evolutionists want the Bible to say
> microevolution does not exist when it says no such thing.
The Bible claims no such thing. Creationists do, however. But then
creationists don't seem to actually know much of the Bible.
> 3. The choice is between Science and Biblical Fundamentalism.
>
> In reality, the choice is acceptance of the tyranny of Darwinian
> science and their straw men, or preserving and defending Science which
> corroborates the Bible.
Nope, that one's yours all the way. The choice is very large with
science
only one of the possibilities. All creation myths from all cultures are
available for a choice. They are all different and pretty much mutially
irreconciliable. And, of course, there is no science which corroborates
the Bible, but that's another issue.
Dana Tweedy
<jrs...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:R8lif.18588$D13....@newssvr11.news.prodigy.com...
snipping
>>
>> I only responded in order to preserve the post of yours from future
>> deletion. You are stuck with these replies forever.
>
>
> What are you talking about? Seems like you are stuck with this pathetic
> response forever. Do you disagree with his post? Then counter it.
> That's how this works Ray..
Ray has nothing to counter my statements with, and he knows it. Why he
thought I would attempt to delete my message sometime in the future is a
mystery. Perhaps Ray is projecting his own behavior again.
DJT
Augray
<sjt195...@nts.link.net.INVALID> wrote:
>
>"Ray Martinez" <pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>news:1133050431.7...@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
[snip]
It would also be interesting to know where Ray draws the line between
birds and reptiles. Was, let's say, _Dilong_, covered with feathery
filaments and a basal tyrannosaurid, a bird? It's not that different
from _Caudipteryx_ and _Protarchaeopteryx_, which he would probably
claim *are* birds.
Not that I expect an answer.
[snip]
Gary Bohn
> Andrew McClure wrote:
>> Ray Martinez wrote:
>> > Steven J. wrote:
>> > > Can you cite any "evolutionists" who describe creationists as
>> > > holding that all causes are directly supernatural?
>> >
>> > It is strewn through-out your literature.
>>
>> So what you are saying is, no, you cannot cite any.
>>
>> > We don't ask. We declare what is obvious.
>>
>> If you speak for all "creationists" with this statement, then indeed
>> the choice is real and it is fundamentally impossible to support both
>> creationism and science...
>
> Andrew:
>
> What are you saying ?
>
> Creationism and Science are synonymous. Just recently, I happened upon
> an automobile/engine mechanics textbook at a library. All of the
> pictures and illustrations were close-ups and cut-aways of parts and
> mechanisms of things designed for specific functions. By chance a
> biology textbook from the 80's was sitting underneath. It too
> contained what I just descibed, in fact, the first book was the
> biology book and not the mechanic book. For a quick moment, without
> looking at the cover I thought the biology book was the mechanic book
> because I assumed both books were the same after seeing the mechanic
> book's cover after picking up the biology book.
>
> Science has perfectly proven the IDer. Your inability to see the
> obvious can only be explained by the Romans 1 blinding penalty. Any
> Deity who can create like Genesis says (out of nothing/miraculously)
> is fully capable of the mass blinding penalty. Because millions of
> people see design with the naked eye - the blinding penalty is the
> only plausible explanation for the inability of an equal or greater
> number of masses from seeing it.
>
> Ray
>
>
Interesting thing Ray, humans cannot design and manufacture as complex
creations as can nature. The IDists are basing their concept of
intelligent design on known human design methods that result in much
simpler creations than that of nature. They make the assumption that an
intelligent designer would design as we do, except of course to a
greater, and in their mind, more complex degree; yet the design they see
in nature only superficially resembles human design. From that
superficial similarity they jump to the conlusion that nature is the
result of human-like intelligence.
There is another possibility that IDists refuse to entertain because it
does not mesh with their desire to see God in places where science tends
to show otherwise. That other possiblity is that human design takes much
of its inspiration from nature. Couple that with the trial and error
methods that *both* nature and human designers use and you'll see that
IDists have it essentially backwards.
What is born out in computer simulations of this trial and error method
is that the mechanisms utilized by a fully natural evolution results in
designs that increase in complexity, retain non-functional features,
even contain nonsensical (to our mind) features that function in
mysterious ways. When these designs are compared with human design and
then with nature's design, the similarities to nature is much much
closer than any similarities to human design.
Many IDists draw parallels between the cumultive improvement in design
we see humans produce over time with the apparent design improvements in
nature. What they don't either consider, or admit - take your choice - ,
is that human designers strive for simplicity and modularization in
their designs, generally attempting to eliminate waste in material and
interactions. This is not true of what we observe in nature. There is
modularization in nature, but for obviously different reasons. Each
module in human design is there to *simplify* the design, manufacture,
and maintenance process. Each module in nature is due to modification,
or duplication and modification of existing modules. Human modules have
no wasted energy, no retained parts that were at one time functional but
totally useless in the current design. Nature on the other hand results
in increasingly complex modules that many times include non-functional
components.
This increased natural complexity is one reason IDists can't agree on a
definition of 'information'. They need a definition of information that
will guarantee a direct relation between information content and
complexity yet allow them to arbitrarily control the evident information
content.
However the ID proposed putative link between information and the
ability of nature to produce what is called a 'novel' feature is
tenuous. If we consider the information content of a gene duplication we
see that the second *new* gene does not count as more information (there
is no 'surprise' value in Shannon, nor will it take a longer algorithm
to produce the second gene in C-K information), so of course complexity
has not increased. Yet in an hypothetical case of a 4 winged insect,
duplication of the gene that determines the growth of wings, we would
end up with a 6 winged insect. If that gene then suffers a mutation that
fixes the wing so it is unable to beat, the insect has gained a novel
feature and function (effortless gliding ability). This new gene can
undergo cumulative mutations just as any gene or group of genes can
experience, resulting in a completely new function for the feature.
Nature can and does produce designs every bit as complex as an
intelligent designer. The ID contention of the unlikelyhood of nature
producing complexity to the same degree as an intelligent designer may
be correct, but it is correct in the wong direction. An intelligent
designer is *less* likely to produce highly complex structures than
natural processes unless that designer is God (which removes
testability), and we both know that ID is not about religion don't we.
--
Gary Bohn
Science rationally modifies a theory to fit evidence, creationism
emotionally modifies evidence to fit a specific interpretation of the
bible.
raven1
wrote:
>Here are 3 notorious straw men set-up by evolutionists against
>Creationism:
>
>
>1. All causations are directly supernatural.
This would come as a surprise to scientists in any field I can think
of...
>In reality, Creationism claims the only supernatural causations are the
>ones listed in Genesis; sudden special creation of all living things.
So the other miracles claimed in the Bible didn't happen, or they
weren't supernatural?
>2. The Bible claims, what evolutionists call "fixity and constancy of
>species".
>
>The Bible makes no such claims. Evolutionists want the Bible to say
>microevolution does not exist when it says no such thing.
What specific mechanism prevents micro evolution from accumulating
over time to equal macro evolution?
>
>3. The choice is between Science and Biblical Fundamentalism.
>
>In reality, the choice is acceptance of the tyranny of Darwinian
>science and their straw men, or preserving and defending Science which
>corroborates the Bible.
What specific claims of the Bible are you referring to, and what
science corroborates them?
---
"This is how liberty dies: with thunderous applause"
- Padme Amidala, Episode III
Bob Pease
<macea...@astound.net> wrote in message
news:1133110729....@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Amazing....
Level two strawman...
Making a straw man t of the issue that the opponents built strawmen that
they didn't bui;d
maybe lying is a better name
Actually #1 is also faulty generalization
The fact that scientists claim that spooks don't cause some things is
certainly not an indictment that they don't believe that things can BE
caused.
RayLogic has got so dim as to be ludicrous/
A already plonked him
RJ P
Bob Pease
"Alky" <craig....@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1133101429.4...@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
It's even worse than that.
His "Rewordings" are not equivalent to originals.
It's a grotesque tautology to define Biblical Fumdamentalism as Science
which defends the Bible.
Snore...
RJ P
Bob Pease
"Jim Willemin" <jimwi...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:Xns971B59891AF2Fji...@216.196.97.142...
GIGO doesn't even apply here because that applies to a process with
functioning logic!!
RJ P
Ferrous Patella
Martinez:
> Here are 3 notorious straw men set-up by evolutionists against
> Creationism:
>
>
> 1. All causations are directly supernatural.
>
> In reality, Creationism claims the only supernatural causations are the
> ones listed in Genesis; sudden special creation of all living things.
>
Don't forget that flood thingy.
> 2. The Bible claims, what evolutionists call "fixity and constancy of
> species".
>
> The Bible makes no such claims. Evolutionists want the Bible to say
> microevolution does not exist when it says no such thing.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
"fixity and constancy of species" addresses *macro*evolution not
microevolution.
>
>
> 3. The choice is between Science and Biblical Fundamentalism.
>
> In reality, the choice is acceptance of the
> tyranny of Darwinian science and their straw men,
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
At least this little bit is true, but not in the way you mean.
> or preserving and defending Science which
> corroborates the Bible.
>
>
> Ray Martinez
>
>
--
Ferrous Patella (Homo gerardii)
T.A., Philosophy Lab
University of Ediacara
Å vite hva man ikke vet,
er også en slags allvitenhet.
Robert J. Kolker
The strawman in question nontheless is common.
>
> Naturalism is wholly unreasonable in regards to origins because it
> assumes atheist philosophy as fact for its starting assumptions. IOW,
> God is never an option. Your neutrality claims are a joke and without
> any credibility since the Divine exclusion rule of Naturalism is a
> fact.
Naturalism is neither an affirmation nor a a denial of the existence of
God. God simply is irrelevent in Naturalism. Only physical laws and
processes are invoked for explanations and causes.
Now consider this: Suppose God set up the universet to run according to
what we call the laws of physics. Then you get the same explanation as
you do by ignoring God.
The problem (for you) is that this view denies the infallibility or
inerrency of scripture. So what? It is you and your ilk that have made
an idol out of scripture.
Scripture is mostly "just-so" stories written by people who live before
science and philosophy were invented. The Greeks got by the god haunted
demon haunted mode around the time of Thales. He proposed natural laws
that govern or at least describe the workings of the world. He displaced
the gods and demons for an understanding of nature. So the naturalism
that you despise goes all the way back to the Greeks circa 600 b.c.e. It
hardly started with Darwin.
Aristotle believed that life always existed and considered the kosmos as
a kind of living system. Empedocles proposed a crude evolutionary
hypothesis. That is all pre-Darwin, pre-Wallace by over 2000 millenia.
Bob Kolker
Dana Tweedy
snipping
>> Most literature on evolutionary biology does not deal with creationists
>> at
>> all. When evolutionists do discuss creationists, they often, in my
>> experience, not that creationists by and large assume that most causes
>> are
>> *not* supernatural. They want to know why creationists think that
>> methodological naturalism is a perfectly valid approach to most problems,
>> but is a bigoted and unreasonable approach to questions of origins.
>
> The strawman in question nontheless is common.
So common that you can't cite a single example?
>
> Naturalism is wholly unreasonable in regards to origins because it
> assumes atheist philosophy as fact for its starting assumptions.
Wrong again, Ray. "Naturalism" does not assume any "atheist philosophy".
It's a practical means that allows science to operate.
> IOW,
> God is never an option.
Supernatural beings are excluded from scientific investigations in order to
limit the possibilities to something that can be studied. It's a practical
concession to allow a working system.
>Your neutrality claims are a joke and without
> any credibility since the Divine exclusion rule of Naturalism is a
> fact.
Naturalism as used by science does not exclude the possibility of the
Divine. It excludes any influence of the Divine in order to be able to
study the matter.
Note that what Ray claimed is that scientists insist that Creationists
invoke the supernatural for every explanation. This is obviously a false
claim on Ray's part. Instead of admitting his error, he has tried to turn
the discussion to one about "naturalism".
Try to stay focused Ray.
snipping
>> Muslims (you surely have heard of them) declare that it is "obvious" that
>> no
>> mere human could have written something so magnificent as the Qur'an, and
>> therefore it is obviously of supernatural origin. I have not heard, yet,
>> a
>> Muslim claim that my inability to embrace that claim is some sort of
>> supernatural curse, but who knows what tomorrow might bring? You claim
>> that
>> it is "obvious" that ... what? It is not even a little bit obvious that
>> humans could not be derived from the same ancestors as chimpanzees;
>> indeed,
>> the evidence makes it obvious that we did. It is not really obvious that
>> life could not have originated by purely natural causes; it is only
>> obvious
>> that we don't yet know the full set of natural causes that could do this.
>> Saying that what seems obvious to you is not obvious to others merely
>> because the others are cursed by God seems (*OBVIOUSLY*) like one of
>> those
>> conspiracy theories in which the only reason we can't prove that Elvis
>> shot
>> JFK is because Elvis hid all the evidence (and by hiding the evidence, of
>> course, he proves his guilt). It's reasoning so circular it makes one
>> dizzy.
>
> Nobody suffering the blinding penalty thinks it even exists even though
> it has been written in Romans for over 2000 years
Nobody thinks it exists, because there is absolutely no evidence of such a
"penalty". The passage in Romans doesn't even support your claims. Also
it's directly contradictory to the nature of God revealed in the scriptures.
To claim there is such a "penalty" in direct opposition to God's word is
madness.
>- available for
> anyone to read.
That's just the problem, Ray. Anyone can read it and find out you are
wrong. Your assertions that such a penalty exist are not supported by
either factual information, or from textual sources. It's just so much hot
air to explain why you are unable to convince people of your claims.
> Your nifty little diatribe above mocks the very notion
> = evidence you are an object of the penalty.
How is Steven's demolishment of your claim "evidence" of the claim being
true?
>
> It is quite conspicuous that atheists/Darwinists/TEists are in
> conspiracy against the Deity of Genesis.
It may be "conspicuous" to you, but that's because you are inclined to see
conspiracies where they don't exist.
> Either supernatural Genesis is
> absolutely true or false.
This is a false dichotomy. If you accept this position you must then
conclude that Genesis is false, based on the evidence. That is why most
Christian theologians don't hold this position.
> Naturalism is a previously decided
> philosophic decision to do away with the God of Genesis VIA the absurd
> neutrality claim.
Again, Ray, this does not answer the points that Steven made. Your claim
was that scientists make a "strawman" by claiming that Creationists say that
all causes are supernatual. It's clear from the responses to your posts
that this claim of yours is false. Scientists do not claim that
Creationists ascribe all events to supernatural causes. You can't cite a
single example of scientists doing this, despite your claim of it being
"common practice".
>
> The Bible says ANY decision that rules God out ***a priori*** in
> reality, is made, because God has already ruled you out for
> entertaining THOUGHTS denying Him Creator credit.
Actually, the Bible says no such thing. God does not punish people for
thinking, nor do those who accept evolution automatically deny God creator
credit. Your assertion is false on it's face.
snip
>> > You have now betrayed what you denied in the opening - that evos do not
>> > set-up this strawman. If this is not what you meant then I will accept
>> > based on your past performance of reasonableness and mutual respect.
>> >
>> My point was that creationists don't expect or look for a supernatural
>> cause
>> for automotive failure. But this raises the question, why not?
>
> Okay....it could be....whats your point ?
Ray, the point is that your claim about scientists using claims that
Creationists use supernatural claims in all cases, is false. Steven is
pointing out that if one appeals to a supernatural explanation in one case
(ie. creation of the universe), why do they not appeal to supernatural
causes in other matters? This points out why appeal to the supernatural
is inherently unscientific, and why science does not allow appeal to such.
It has nothing to do with denial of God, but with the practical limits of
science.
>
>
>> If you tell
>> me that my failure to embrace creationism is a curse from God, and
>> someone
>> else tells me your car not starting is a curse from God, why should I
>> consider your claim and not his?
>
> Because his claim is a straw man set up by you in order to trivialize
> the invulnerable falsification of ToE/blinding penalty.
Ray, your claim of a "blinding penalty" cannot be falsified, as you ascribe
any falsifying evidence to the "blinding penalty". I've explained to you
several times why it's a circular claim. Certianly you can see that, can't
you??
>You CAN tell
> the difference if you can deduce obscure fossil scraps to be as your
> worldview needs them to be.
Ray, once again, I call your attention to the fossil KNM WT 15000. This
fossil is neither obscure, or "scraps". Science is not a "worldview" it's
a system of investigation which uses a specific method of investigation.
The evidence of human evolution is based on a great deal of evidence, some
of which is necessarily "scrappy" in nature, but other fossil hominids are
quite complete.
>
>> I don't see, for myself, that the Bible
>> supports either claim, but if he claims the Bible supports it, how is
>> that
>> claim different from yours? It does not seem more or less investigable.
>
> Nobody claims the absurd claim. The blinding penalty is not a matter of
> opinion
Which is Ray's way of saying it's entirely his own opinion.
>- Romans 1:21 "...and their senseless minds were darkened".
Which doesn't refer to modern people who accept scientific evidence. You
are misinterpeting the scripture.
> (RSV) The context is the 18th verse wrath of God AND the deliberate
> denial of Creator credit the preceding phrase in the 21st verse
> establishes.
But, as I've pointed out an numerous occasions, acceptance of evolution does
not mean denial of God, or his credit for creation. You are making
assertions based on nothing but your own misunderstandings of scripture.
>
> Denying confirms the penalty - your blindness. Dr. Scott defines
> "darkening" as "absence or withdrawal of light" = the ability to see
> ID.
Which is a perfect example of a circular claim. Denial of a false claim
only serves to support the claim. Ability to see "ID" would be improved,
if you could cite some evidence of "ID". Gene Scott was wrong about a
great deal of things, and his "darkening "claim is just another area he was
wrong about.
snip
>> > God created Adamkind 5100 BC. Is there any objective evidence
>> > contradicting this fact ?
>> >
>> Well, there is BOU-VP-16/1, a skull of _Homo sapiens idaltu_ from Herto,
>> Ethiopia, dated at 160,000 years old. That would seem to to contradict
>> any
>> claim that humans did not exist prior to 5100 BC. Skulls belonging not
>> merely to our species but our particular subspecies (_H. sapiens
>> sapiens_)
>> only date back to a little over 100,000 years BC. Note that this merely
>> reflects on the age of "Adamkind;" there is also, of course, the fossil
>> and
>> genetic evidence linking us to other primates. On the other hand, there
>> is
>> Ussher's chronology which dates the creation of "Adamkind" to 4004 BC;
>> Ussher doesn't have fossils or radiometric dating to back his claims, but
>> why are his chronological claims less "objective evidence" than yours?
>
> Desparately holding to what an idiot unscientific Bishop postulated
> shows the Darwinian proclivity to set up absurd straw men against the
> Bible.
But it's Ray who's holding on to the Bishop's chronology. Ray is the
one who claimed that "Adamkind' was created in 5100 BC, based on what?
>
> I will recuse myself from your fossil commentary since my forth-coming
> paper will deal with the fossil evidence, that is account for it.
Which means Ray is going to run away from it like a scalded dog.....
> I do
> not want to preempt my own thunder.
No "thunder" to preempt, Ray. Your article (if it's ever produced) will
have the all impact of a wet firecracker, based on your previous writings.
snipping
>> There are two points to note here. First of all, since evolutionary
>> theory
>> is not a religion, it does not have prophets and inerrant texts.
>
> Of course it does.
What are the prophets and inerrant texts in Evolution?
> Victorian evolutionists secretly admire the power
> religionists had and craved the exact same type.
Most of the Victorian evolutionists were religionists themselves.
> Naturalism is the same
> business on the other side of the street. Talibanic methods keep it in
> power not to mention the penalty.
What "talibanic" methods are used to "keep it in power"? Remember it's
the Creationists who have passed laws to prevent the teaching of evolution,
not scientists.
>
>> If Mayr
>> states that the Bible claims species are fixed, that does not mean that
>> all
>> "Darwinists" must agree that he was right.
>
> Irrelevant. The topic claimed a strawman and Mayr is the bigest evo of
> all time
Your claim is wrong on both counts. In any case, as Steven pointed out,
scientists are not high priests. Mayr's statements are only as good as the
evidence he cited. Even the "bigest" scientist can be wrong on some
matters.
>= claim verified. Distancing yourself from Mayr only hurts
> yourself. Do you know WHO Mayr was ?
We know who Mayr was. You appear to have an odd opinion of the man.
>
>> Second, "fixity of species"
>> means that one species cannot turn into another. "Microevolution" is a
>> species changing, but not into another species, so it is perfectly
>> consistent with fixity of species.
>
> Agreed, but evos get double duty by allowing the implication that
> "fixity" also means the Bible says microevolution is not possible.
No scientist has ever said, or implied that the Bible says that
microevolution is not possible. Your claim of "strawman" is false. For
that matter, the Bible does not say that macroevolution is not possible.
> My
> point is: the Bible says no such thing about micro.
The Bible says nothing about evolution at all. No one claims that it does.
>
> Time to laugh while your defend TEists against Mayr....?
Theistic evolutionists don't require defense against Mayr, or against your
false claims.
snipping
>> > The Bible specifically says Adamkind was specially created - not a
>> > matter of opinion.
>> >
>> The Bible specifically says that a seven-headed, ten-horned monster would
>> rise up out of the Mediterranean sea in the near future of people living
>> in
>> the late 1st century.
>
> Imagery depicting various nations that have ruled the ancient world.
So you agree that the Bible can be interpeted in a non-literal manner.
Good.
>
>> The Bible specifically speaks of the Earth standing
>> unmoving while the sun orbits it.
>
> Negative. The Bible reports what Joshua said and believed. This is also
> what ancient Egypt believed = proof he grew up there.
So, you agree that the Bible's language may not reflect actual events, just
the perception of those events. Good.
>
> Theologically, it means: do what God says and He will do the equivalent
> for you too.
So, you agree that the Bible may be interpeted to mean something different
than the exact wording. Good.
>
>> Not everything the Bible specifically
>> says is meant literally, and many Christians hold this view of the
>> creation
>> accounts in Genesis.
>
> Deliberately ambiguous. "literal" was invented by persons who do not
> like what the Bible says as it is an attempted smear upon anyone who
> believes what it says = stupid = atheist invent.
Yet Ray demonstrates that he doesn't believe what the Bible says. It may
be an allegory, events may not happen as described, and it can be interpeted
as meaning something different. Ray himself has admitted to this. So
what's the problem with those who interpet Genesis as allegory?
>
>
>> >
>> > As for animals: DARWINIAN macroevolution fantasies are obviously not
>> > taught - God is the Creator - not Darwin and his idiot dialogues held
>> > as "evidence".
>> >
>> First of all, again, evolutionary theory is not a religion and does not
>> rest
>> on Darwin's authority.
>
> Ken Miller, Mayr, Jerry Coyne, Dawkins, etc etc. the list goes on and
> on. Darwin is defended to the max. You are out of touch with literary
> reality.
Darwin's work is defended when the evidence supports it. Where Darwin was
wrong, he's been corrected. There's no religious devotion to Darwin or
his writings. Darwin's mechanism actually fell out of favor for a time,
until the re-discovery of Mendel's findings vindicated Darwin.
>
>> Certainly Darwin's writings are not themselves held
>> as evidence for evolution,
>
> Ken Miller wrote an entire book "Finding Darwin's God" alleging how
> Darwin got everything right.
Actually, if you read the book, you will see that Miller was explaining how
a Christian can agree with Darwin's work. Miller doesn't religiously
accept everything that Darwin wrote.
> Mayr too. In fact, all my sources for the
> paper I am writing are big-time Darwinists.
So you intend to misrepresent many scientists. So what?
> ALL of them defend Darwin
> tooth and nail. There is nowhere for you to go on this.
They defend Darwin's work, which has held up to scrutiny for over 150 years.
>
>
>> although they mention evidence for evolution: the
>> consistent nested hierarchy of life, biogeography, vestigial structures,
>> and
>> so forth.
>>
>> Second, evolutionary theory is not taught in the Bible.
>
> Thank you.
Which everyone has been telling you this for a very long time.
>
> Any chance of convincing your TEist friends on this ?
Who needs "convincing"? I've been telling you this same thing for months.
The Bible was written thousands of years before Evolution was proposed.
There is no reason why the Bible should or would teach evolution. What
you've been told for a long time is that the Bible doesn't conflict with the
Bible.
snipping
> But there are no factual errors in the Bible of any kind.
Except for the ones which have been brought to your attention already.
The Bible was written in pre-scientific times, and is not expected to be
scientifically accurate.
snip
>> For that matter, you have insisted to me in the past not only that my
>> refusal to embrace creationism is a result of God's curse (a reading of
>> Romans 1:12 which I had never previously encountered or considered, and
>> to
>> which I still see no merit), and that the epistle of James was placed in
>> the
>> Bible only to illustrate "righteous-sounding heresy." To most
>> Christians --
>> I dare say, even to most creationists -- such statements seem to be
>> grosser
>> "lies/assertions" than any suggestion that evolution is compatible with
>> scriptural teaching.
>
> You have a valid point IF you are pointing out that most christians
> back the book of James.
Few, if any Christians deny the book of James is a part of the Bible.
(Also, Ray, what about the "majority is always wrong")?
snipping ignored points
>> As noted, either genetic homeostasis guarantees the fixity of species you
>> decry, or it does not limit evolution to "kinds" (unless by "kind" you
>> mean
>> "the Linnaean taxon ranked above domains").
>
> I haven't the time to address what is written above. But I will.
Sure you will Ray. Just like you will find the JPL vapor canopy papers....
>> >
>> > NS explains nothing - it is a euphemism for an empty trojan horse
>> > supported by the Emperor's new clothes.
>> >
>> I'm trying very hard to make sense of that metaphor. A euphemism is used
>> for something that can't be mentioned or shown in public,
>
> Negative.
>
> euphemism: garbage man/collector = sanitation technician.
This agrees with Steven's statement.
>
> NS = scientific sounding mechanism = euphemism for the strong and their
> traits survive DUH ! - no mechanism - just common sense.
Ray, this has been explained to you many times. Natural selection does not
mean simply "the strong survive". It's the best fitted to the enviorment
that survive, and pass on their traits to the next generation. It's the
fact that not every indvidual in a population reproduces. This coupled
with random mutations is the mechanism by which genetic change occurs in a
population over time.
>
>> but the whole
>> point of a trojan horse is that it can be publically displayed and
>> discussed.
>
> Negative. A Trojan horse = something that is NOT what it appears to be,
> rather it is actually just the opposite.
A Trojan horse is defined as a ruse to allow entry to something unpleasant
or dangerous.
>
> NS = T.H. because it is not a scientific mechanism but a hindsight
> observation packaged as a scientific discovery.
This simply indicates your ignorance of science. Natural selection is part
of the mechanism of evolution.
> My paper will expose
> the origin of NS and you will fall out of your chair when you read it.
Perhaps with laughter. But seriously, Ray, you are totally deluded if you
think your "paper" (if it ever sees the light of day) is going to be
anything but a joke.
snipping
>> Don't worry; I withdrew it above after you offered the "genetic
>> homeostasis
>> proof of God."
>> >
>
> I don't get it.
That is probably the truest statement you've ever written.
DJT
Iain
Ray Martinez wrote:> > news:1133034732.1...@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> > > Here are 3 notorious straw men set-up by evolutionists against
> > > Creationism:
> > >
> > >
> > > 1. All causations are directly supernatural.
> >
> > >
> > > ones listed in Genesis; sudden special creation of all living things.
> >
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > 2. The Bible claims, what evolutionists call "fixity and constancy of
> > > species".
> >
> > believed.
> >
> > >
> > > microevolution does not exist when it says no such thing.
> >
> > Early creationists such as Agasszi did believe in the fixity of species.
> >
> >
> > >
> > >
> >
> > Creationists make.
> >
> > >
> > > science
> >
> > been consistent with evolutionary theory.
> >
> > > corroborates the Bible.
> >
> > If science corraborated a literal reading of the Bible, then it would be a
> > simple matter for you to show such evidence. We would see in the
> > scientific literature ample support for your statement. We see no such
> > support, however.
> >
> >
> > By the way, Ray. I'm still waiting for your retraction of your claim that
> > Kenneth Miller said he was not a sinner in "Finding Darwin's God". When
> > are you going to admit you were wrong yet again?
> >
> >
> >
> > DJT
>
> deletion. You are stuck with these replies forever.
What are you talking about, you bizarre finding, you?
~Iain
Steven J.
text (since there doesn't seem to be much sense in endless debates over,
e.g. whether you and Gene Scott, or every other reader of scripture on the
planet, is correct on the meaning of Romans 1:21), and address a few points.
"Ray Martinez" <pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1133233081.7...@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
>
-- [snip]
>
> The strawman in question nontheless is common.
>
As Dana Tweedy asked, so common that you can't cite a single example?
>
> Naturalism is wholly unreasonable in regards to origins because it
> assumes atheist philosophy as fact for its starting assumptions. IOW,
> God is never an option. Your neutrality claims are a joke and without
> any credibility since the Divine exclusion rule of Naturalism is a
> fact.
>
Naturalism assumes that things have "natures" and act according to them. It
assumes that we can discover (to some extent) the rules according to which
nature operates, and reconstruct unobserved events from the evidence they
leave behind. It is the assumption used by medical examiners trying to
determine cause of death, by crash-scene investigators trying to figure out
why an aircraft is scattered over several square miles of swampland, and,
indeed, by mechanics trying to figure out why your car won't start. It does
not rule out God, although it rules out a deceptive God Who weaves "one vast
and superfluous lie" into His creation.
"Naturalism" leads to evolution not because "God is never an option," but
because life falls into a consistent nested hiearchy (with relics of
evolutionary history, like shared pseudogenes and endogenous retroviruses,
or the plantaris tendon, scattered through our bodies and genes). Such
hierarchies are the results, in our experience, of branching descent with
modification, not of individual separate designs. Such traces of history
are "naturalistically" interpreted as being produced by an actual history
(formerly functional genes in a common ancestor being disabled by mutations,
or formerly functional structures losing function as bodies and lifestyles
are modified in the course of evolution).
To accept separate creation one must assume either that God planted a lot of
false evidence to test our faith, or, possibly, the idea you propose: that
God has left our minds unable to properly understand the nature He created.
But on that assumption, why assume that God (or Allah or Vishnu) has not
blinded you to the true meaning of scripture? Trying to understand the
world on the assumption that your mind doesn't work seems counterproductive.
>
-- [snip]
>
> Desparately holding to what an idiot unscientific Bishop postulated
> shows the Darwinian proclivity to set up absurd straw men against the
> Bible.
>
It is not clear to me why an Anglican Bishop and noted scholar like Ussher
is less "scientific" or more "idiotic" than a televangelist like Gene Scott.
It is even less clear why a chronology based on the Bible is being set up
"against the Bible," rather than against your own claims about what the
Bible says. You stated that the Bible says "Adamkind" was created in 5100
BC; I merely noted that other scholars (many other scholars, all as --
pardon the term -- "literalist" as yourself) put the biblical date of
creation a thousand years later.
>
> I will recuse myself from your fossil commentary since my forth-coming
> paper will deal with the fossil evidence, that is account for it. I do
> not want to preempt my own thunder.
>
Will the paper deal with dating of fossils? There is, so far as I know, no
uncertainty that these are fossils of our species; if they are as old as
scientists say, then either there were specimens of _Homo sapiens_ who were
not "Adamkind," or "Adamkind" is far older than your exegesis allows.
>
-- [snip]
>
>> If Mayr
>> states that the Bible claims species are fixed, that does not mean that
>> all
>> "Darwinists" must agree that he was right.
>
> Irrelevant. The topic claimed a strawman and Mayr is the bigest evo of
> all time = claim verified. Distancing yourself from Mayr only hurts
> yourself. Do you know WHO Mayr was ?
>
Yes. He was one of the founders of the modern evolutionary synthesis,
combining Darwin's ideas of natural selection with Mendel's ideas of
genetics, and with the role of mutations. He wrote on, but (according to
John Wilkins, who has extensively studied the matter) was not an expert on,
the history of species ideas.
>
-- [snip]
>
>> The Bible specifically speaks of the Earth standing
>> unmoving while the sun orbits it.
>
> Negative. The Bible reports what Joshua said and believed. This is also
> what ancient Egypt believed = proof he grew up there.
>
My reference was to, e.g. Psalm 93:1, where it is stated that the Earth is
established and cannot move, or to Psalm 19:1-6 which speaks of the sun
hastening around the Earth. There are to this day geocentrist creationists
who cite these and similar verses as evidence that the Earth, not the sun,
is the center of the "solar system" (and, indeed, of the universe). These
are not reports of Joshua's beliefs, but of those of the psalmists.
Of course, a great many ancient peoples believed the sun orbited the Earth;
the ancient Egyptians were not alone in this respect. One might as well
note that the ancient Greeks mostly embraced geocentrism, and argue that
Joshua must therefore really have grown up in Athens (except that the
argument works as well for Babylon, China, and, of course, Palestine).
>
-- [snip]
>
> I don't get it.
>
Admitting that is always the first step.
>
> Ray
>
-- Steven J.
Dana Tweedy
"Ray Martinez" <pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1133312846.5...@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
>>
>> Interesting thing Ray, humans cannot design and manufacture as complex
>> creations as can nature.
>
No, Ray he didn't.
>
> You have replaced God with Nature; this is a recognition that
> intelligence is responsible for the complexity of nature. We know
> complexity is the m.o. of bright persons/God.
Actually, simplicity is considered more a sign of intelligence than
complexity.
>
>
>> The IDists are basing their concept of
>> intelligent design on known human design methods that result in much
>> simpler creations than that of nature.
>
> Yes, it becomes a contrast to appreciate the brilliance of the IDer - a
> gauge.
Yet you claimed that "complextity" was the result of the "brilliance" of
God.
>
>> They make the assumption that an
>> intelligent designer would design as we do, except of course to a
>> greater, and in their mind, more complex degree; yet the design they see
>> in nature only superficially resembles human design. From that
>> superficial similarity they jump to the conlusion that nature is the
>> result of human-like intelligence.
>>
>
> Perfectly logical.
Consider that in Ray's logic, evidence of something being wrong is evidence
that it's correct.
>
>
>> There is another possibility that IDists refuse to entertain because it
>> does not mesh with their desire to see God in places where science tends
>> to show otherwise. That other possiblity is that human design takes much
>> of its inspiration from nature. Couple that with the trial and error
>> methods that *both* nature and human designers use and you'll see that
>> IDists have it essentially backwards.
>>
>
> Your judgements do not make sense. How is it that we have it backwards
> ? Because you are a Darwinist, I would say the backwards claim is a
> very good indication we have it right.
And, on cue, Ray gives a demonstration of his circular logic....
>
>
>> What is born out in computer simulations of this trial and error method
>> is that the mechanisms utilized by a fully natural evolution results in
>> designs that increase in complexity, retain non-functional features,
>> even contain nonsensical (to our mind) features that function in
>> mysterious ways.
>
> Utter nonsense. These CS are programmed by Darwinists.
It doesn't matter who programs the computer simulations, they model the
action of random mutation and natural selection.
>
> You are asserting a blind directionless process is responsible for the
> precision and complexity of nature.
Which is what the evidence shows.
> This is a recognition of products
> produced by design capriciously assigned to your idiotic theory =
> plagiarism.
Ray, do you have any idea what plagiarism is? You are assuming that the
"products" were the result of deliberate design, and then claiming that
acribing them to a scientific theory that the theory that explains much
better how those products came to be, is "plagiarism". Obviously you have
no idea of what the term "plagiarism" means.
>
> All you guys do is assert evolution-did-it.
No, we show the evidence that evolution did it. Evolution is a scientific
theory that explains how it was done. Creationism explains nothing, but
simply inserts a miracle as a placeholder for ignorance.
> The definition of evolution
> precludes it from having anything to do with what we see in nature.
The definition of evolution is genetic change in a population of living
organisms over generations. How could this "preclude" it from having
anything to do with nature? Evolution DESCRIBES nature.
> This is why Dawkins wrote a book (Blind Watchmaker) which recognizes
> the obviousness of design arbitrarily assigned to chance/evolution.
Now you are simply being ridiculous. The "design" we see in nature is
ascribed to evolution because it's the only scientific theory that explains
the appearance of design. Evolution is not 'chance', as has been explained
to you countless times.
> Senselessness hoping educational credentials prevent anyone from
> pointing out that the Emperor has no clothes or logic.
Ray, everyone else sees the "Emperor" as clothed. Perhaps it's your
perception that's in error.
> Watchmakers
> cannot be blind no matter how much you assert contrary to logic.
How can your position be "logical" if it's contrary to observed evidence?
Non directed processes can and do produce orderly results. Many examples
from nature can be given, including weather systems, ocean currents, and
living things.
> This
> is called removing your brain before one enters the First Church of
> Crackpot Scientist, Rev. Richard Dawkins, senior Pastor.
Dawkins is not considered a holy man, and he's not seen as presenting
religious beliefs.
>
>
>> When these designs are compared with human design and
>> then with nature's design, the similarities to nature is much much
>> closer than any similarities to human design.
>>
>> Many IDists draw parallels between the cumultive improvement in design
>> we see humans produce over time with the apparent design improvements in
>> nature. What they don't either consider, or admit - take your choice - ,
>> is that human designers strive for simplicity and modularization in
>> their designs, generally attempting to eliminate waste in material and
>> interactions.
>
> Yes, of course, whats the point ?
That we don't see that kind of thing in nature. We see overly complex
systems, with plenty of waste and unecessary interactions.
snipping
>> Nature can and does produce designs every bit as complex as an
>> intelligent designer.
>
> You have to admit that. The only issue is the source. Chance and NS
> (euphemism) cannot produce what we have.
Natural selection is not a euphenism, it's a well established priniciple of
nature.
>
> The brighter the P/person = the increased capacity to comprehend and
> produce intricate functional complexity.
Evidence for this assertion, please.
> The level of complexity seen
> in nature self-evidently gives visibility to an invisible Designer.
As has been pointed out before, intelligent designers strive for simplicity,
not complexity. Complex systems are the sign of a imperfect design.
> It
> takes intelligence to figure nature out; the same to report the
> findings, yet it took none to produce it = senseless predictable
> atheistic philosophical conclusion.
Ray you are assuming that only an intelligent being can produce something
that an intelligent being can figure out. That's obvious nonsense.
Haven't you ever seen a fishing line get tangled so badly that it takes
hours to untangle it? What "intelligent being" tangled that fishing line?
>The inability to figure out nature
> and/or its ability to keep our bests minds in pursuit of its secrets =
> the work of an IDer.
Then how about providing some evidence of that "IDer"? Saying "Goddidit"
does not give a satisfactory answer to anyone who wants to understand how
the world works.
>
> We know the size and capacity of a computer chip.
Which chip?
>
> We know the size and capacity of a human cell.
Which cell? Cells come in different sizes and "capacities".
>
> The differential of information stored, in comparison to its size, is
> in direct ratio to the brilliance of its D/designer = how complexity is
> measured.
That "measure" of complexity has been shot down the first time you tried to
float it. 100 years ago, there was no such thing as a computer chip. 20
years ago, computer chips didn't hold much information. Today they are
much better, but in another 100 years, who knows how more capacity a
computer chip will hold? Humans today are not appreciably more intelligent
than humans 100, or 20 years ago. In another 100 years, humans will not be
appreciably more intelligent than today.
>
>> The ID contention of the unlikelyhood of nature
>> producing complexity to the same degree as an intelligent designer may
>> be correct, but it is correct in the wong direction. An intelligent
>> designer is *less* likely to produce highly complex structures than
>> natural processes unless that designer is God (which removes
>> testability), and we both know that ID is not about religion don't we.
>>
>
> Atheist conclusion spoils the preceding logic. I don't know any person
> who thinks God is not testable.
Then how do you test God? What experiment do you propose to test God's
powers?
>
>> --
>> Gary Bohn
>>
>> Science rationally modifies a theory to fit evidence, creationism
>> emotionally modifies evidence to fit a specific interpretation of the
>> bible.
>
>
> Could one expect an atheist to have any other opinion ?
Yes, one could.
>
> Nonetheless, I enjoyed your message.
Nonetheless, you spout the same nonsense.
DJT
Robert J. Kolker
> Robert J. Kolker wrote:
>
>>Ray Martinez wrote:
>> The strawman in question nontheless is common.
>>
>>>Naturalism is wholly unreasonable in regards to origins because it
>>>assumes atheist philosophy as fact for its starting assumptions. IOW,
>>>God is never an option. Your neutrality claims are a joke and without
>>>any credibility since the Divine exclusion rule of Naturalism is a
>>>fact.
>>
>>Naturalism is neither an affirmation nor a a denial of the existence of
>>God. God simply is irrelevent in Naturalism. Only physical laws and
>>processes are invoked for explanations and causes.
>>
>
>
> Robert, I have obtained controlling interest in a bridge in Brooklyn -
> email me if you want in.
>
>
>
>>Now consider this: Suppose God set up the universet to run according to
>>what we call the laws of physics. Then you get the same explanation as
>>you do by ignoring God.
>>
>
>
> Illogic ad nauseum.
>
> Ignoring God is the exact sin which triggers the blinding penalty,
> which ensures allegiance to Naturalism.
>
>
>
>>The problem (for you) is that this view denies the infallibility or
>>inerrency of scripture. So what? It is you and your ilk that have made
>>an idol out of scripture.
>>
>
>
> There are hundreds of translations and grammatical errors in the Bible,
> however. There are no factual errors. How could the word of God contain
> factual errors ?
>
> The point is God's subjective opinions = objective truth BECAUSE of who
> He is. Don't agree ? Just read the Bible as it contains many examples
> of what happens when a person disagrees with God.
>
>
>
>>Scripture is mostly "just-so" stories written by people who live before
>>science and philosophy were invented.
>
>
> Typical atheist ignorance. Its the way they were raised.
>
>
>>The Greeks got by the god haunted
>>demon haunted mode around the time of Thales. He proposed natural laws
>>that govern or at least describe the workings of the world. He displaced
>>the gods and demons for an understanding of nature. So the naturalism
>>that you despise goes all the way back to the Greeks circa 600 b.c.e. It
>>hardly started with Darwin.
>>
>
>
> Yes, I am very acquainted with history.
>
> Greek civilization originated from Hebrew via Lower Egypt (c. 2000 BC)
> [source: Gordon, "Common Backround of Greek and Hebrew Civilizations",
> 1965]
It most certainly did not! The Greeks and Hebrews met much later on when
Persia controlled the Holy Land under a king who was an descendent of
one of Alexander's buddies.
Bob Kolker
>
> A schism of Naturalism is found in every civilization. The
> "enthronement of Naturalism" as the prevailing philosophy began in
> 1859. [source: Larson, "Evolution", 2004]
Lie. Naturalism goes back to Thales, circle 600 b.c.e.
>
> The source and cause of Naturalism is Supernaturalism, rather God's
> wrath designed a special place to put His enemies so they would never
> find Him.
You goyim are shit stupdid, do you know that?
Bob Kolker
Dana Tweedy
>
> Robert J. Kolker wrote:
snipping
>> Naturalism is neither an affirmation nor a a denial of the existence of
>> God. God simply is irrelevent in Naturalism. Only physical laws and
>> processes are invoked for explanations and causes.
>>
>
> Robert, I have obtained controlling interest in a bridge in Brooklyn -
> email me if you want in.
Sorry, Ray, but I doubt Robert will be interested in taking that item off
your hands. You'll have to find another Creationist to sell it to. By the
way, was the salesman who sold you the bridge a graduate of Standford U?
>
>
>> Now consider this: Suppose God set up the universet to run according to
>> what we call the laws of physics. Then you get the same explanation as
>> you do by ignoring God.
>>
>
> Illogic ad nauseum.
In what way? Where do you see the "illogical" in this?
>
> Ignoring God is the exact sin which triggers the blinding penalty,
> which ensures allegiance to Naturalism.
There is no "blinding penalty". God does not punish people for using
their intellect. "Naturalism" is a necessary condition for doing science,
not a religious tenet. You keep making the same basic errors, Ray.
>
>
>> The problem (for you) is that this view denies the infallibility or
>> inerrency of scripture. So what? It is you and your ilk that have made
>> an idol out of scripture.
>>
>
> There are hundreds of translations and grammatical errors in the Bible,
> however. There are no factual errors. How could the word of God contain
> factual errors ?
Because it was written down by falliable human beings, who knew nothing
about science. The Bible contains many "factual" errors, if you are
foolish enough to insist that the Bible be taken as "factual".
>
> The point is God's subjective opinions = objective truth BECAUSE of who
> He is. Don't agree ? Just read the Bible as it contains many examples
> of what happens when a person disagrees with God.
Ray, you are employing circular reasoning again. You are claiming the
Bible is "true", because the Bible says it's "true". How about providing
some physical evidence of the Bible being correct in scientific matters?
You can start by showing how bats are birds.
>
>
>> Scripture is mostly "just-so" stories written by people who live before
>> science and philosophy were invented.
>
> Typical atheist ignorance. Its the way they were raised.
Do you have anything to counter this, other than ad hominem?
>
>> The Greeks got by the god haunted
>> demon haunted mode around the time of Thales. He proposed natural laws
>> that govern or at least describe the workings of the world. He displaced
>> the gods and demons for an understanding of nature. So the naturalism
>> that you despise goes all the way back to the Greeks circa 600 b.c.e. It
>> hardly started with Darwin.
>>
>
> Yes, I am very acquainted with history.
Which means Ray is as ignorant of history as he is of biology.
>
> Greek civilization originated from Hebrew via Lower Egypt (c. 2000 BC)
> [source: Gordon, "Common Backround of Greek and Hebrew Civilizations",
> 1965]
Do you have any more recent sources? Any other archeologists who agree
with Gordon?
>
> A schism of Naturalism is found in every civilization. The
> "enthronement of Naturalism" as the prevailing philosophy began in
> 1859. [source: Larson, "Evolution", 2004]
Quoting from Larson's book, we find he states:
"On the other hand, scientists inclined towards methodological naturalism,
personifed by Charles Lyell , questioned Cuvier's invocation of unobserved
past catastrophies to account for the pattern on species in the fossil
record." (Pg 51)
This indicates that methodological naturalism was in use before Darwin
Larson also writes, on page 110: " For theists like Asa Grey, and perhaps
Owen, evolution might simply represent the immediate or secondary cause of a
new species,( with God remaining the Prime Mover); "
Which contradicts your claims that "evolutionists" don't give God credit for
creation.
>
> The source and cause of Naturalism is Supernaturalism, rather God's
> wrath designed a special place to put His enemies so they would never
> find Him.
That is contrary to logic, and contrary to scripture. God is not a petty,
insecure, sadist, which you are describing him.
DJT
rja.ca...@excite.com
Ray Martinez wrote:
> Here are 3 notorious straw men set-up by evolutionists against
> Creationism:
>
>
> 1. All causations are directly supernatural.
>
> ones listed in Genesis; sudden special creation of all living things.
So creationism denies every miracle in Exodus (parting of the Red Sea,
etc, and the actual physical presence of God), in Joshua (sun stopping
in the sky, etc), every miracle in the Gospels, and the new heaven and
the new earth in Revelation.
Is that what you're saying?
> 2. The Bible claims, what evolutionists call "fixity and constancy of
> species".
>
> The Bible makes no such claims. Evolutionists want the Bible to say
> microevolution does not exist when it says no such thing.
In my NIV Bible it's stated plainly that the animate creatures that God
created /then/ are all the same creatures that exist "now" (i.e. when
the book was written) - the present tense is used. But of course this
Bible likes to make things easier.
> 3. The choice is between Science and Biblical Fundamentalism.
>
> In reality, the choice is acceptance of the tyranny of Darwinian
> science and their straw men, or preserving and defending Science which
> corroborates the Bible.
I don't want to multiply false dichotomies, but certainly our options
include judging scientific propositions in terms of scientific method
before we consider scriptural inerrancy, or alternatively judging
propoistions in terms of scriptural inerrancy before we consider
scientific method. But this does not exhaust the possible sources of
insight. For instance, we could pray for the truth to be revealed to
us in a prophetic dream, or break out a ouija board.
Ray Martinez
Dana Tweedy wrote:
> "Ray Martinez" <pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:1133315079.0...@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> >
> > Robert J. Kolker wrote:
> snipping
>
> >> Naturalism is neither an affirmation nor a a denial of the existence of
> >> God. God simply is irrelevent in Naturalism. Only physical laws and
> >> processes are invoked for explanations and causes.
> >>
> >
> > Robert, I have obtained controlling interest in a bridge in Brooklyn -
> > email me if you want in.
>
> Sorry, Ray, but I doubt Robert will be interested in taking that item off
> your hands. You'll have to find another Creationist to sell it to. By the
> way, was the salesman who sold you the bridge a graduate of Standford U?
>
Very funny but keep your day job Dana.
> >
> >
> >> Now consider this: Suppose God set up the universet to run according to
> >> what we call the laws of physics. Then you get the same explanation as
> >> you do by ignoring God.
> >>
> >
> > Illogic ad nauseum.
>
> In what way? Where do you see the "illogical" in this?
>
Bob assumes God instituted the laws, then he advocates a cold shoulder.
How is this logical ?
The laws of physics demand a Creator - TEist. If not then find another
term for law.
> >
> > Ignoring God is the exact sin which triggers the blinding penalty,
> > which ensures allegiance to Naturalism.
>
> There is no "blinding penalty". God does not punish people for using
> their intellect.
IOW, if you disagree with Dana you are stupid = the age-old ace up the
sleeve that Darwinists employ against their opponents. Its just an
insult and insults indicate inability to refute.
It took Darwin 22 years to invent, finalize, and publish his theory = a
gigantic effort = what it takes to "refute" God as origin of creation.
IOW, he used his intellect to flip God off = your view of intellect is
nothing but common apostasy at work.
> "Naturalism" is a necessary condition for doing science,
> not a religious tenet. You keep making the same basic errors, Ray.
>
When Dana says errors he means he disagrees with his opponent. Like all
Darwinists he is attempting to talk down and paint himself a teacher
correcting an inferior = enraged tactic of a person unable to refute
exercising his only other option: ad hom - the Darwinian way.
Dana, only atheists and Darwinists and their puppets called TEists
believe Naturalism/atheist philosophy to be the correct way of
investigating science. We Supernaturalists disagree. You did not make
an error Dana, we just differ on philosophy.
> >
> >
> >> The problem (for you) is that this view denies the infallibility or
> >> inerrency of scripture. So what? It is you and your ilk that have made
> >> an idol out of scripture.
> >>
> >
> > There are hundreds of translation and grammatical errors in the Bible,
> > however. There are no factual errors. How could the word of God contain
> > factual errors ?
>
> Because it was written down by falliable human beings, who knew nothing
> about science. The Bible contains many "factual" errors, if you are
> foolish enough to insist that the Bible be taken as "factual".
>
There are no factual errors Dana. That is why we are theists. Have you
forgotten that you claim to know the very Deity who produced a error
ridden source ? How can you trust Him for salvation ?
You are woefully ignorant of the evidence proving the Bible.
> >
> > The point is God's subjective opinions = objective truth BECAUSE of who
> > He is. Don't agree ? Just read the Bible as it contains many examples
> > of what happens when a person disagrees with God.
>
> Ray, you are employing circular reasoning again. You are claiming the
> Bible is "true", because the Bible says it's "true".
No Dana I am not. I am saying IF God IS then His subjective views as
found in the Bible become objective truth.
> How about providing
> some physical evidence of the Bible being correct in scientific matters?
> You can start by showing how bats are birds.
>
Are you claiming the Bible makes false claims about bats and birds ?
Genesis says God formed Adam from the clay-like ground. What falsifies
this fact ? Plain observation of our bodies proves it.
> >
> >
> >> Scripture is mostly "just-so" stories written by people who live before
> >> science and philosophy were invented.
> >
> > Typical atheist ignorance. Its the way they were raised.
>
> Do you have anything to counter this, other than ad hominem?
>
An ad hom will usually be countered with an ad hom.
> >
> >> The Greeks got by the god haunted
> >> demon haunted mode around the time of Thales. He proposed natural laws
> >> that govern or at least describe the workings of the world. He displaced
> >> the gods and demons for an understanding of nature. So the naturalism
> >> that you despise goes all the way back to the Greeks circa 600 b.c.e. It
> >> hardly started with Darwin.
> >>
> >
> > Yes, I am very acquainted with history.
>
> Which means Ray is as ignorant of history as he is of biology.
> >
> > Greek civilization originated from Hebrew via Lower Egypt (c. 2000 BC)
> > [source: Gordon, "Common Backround of Greek and Hebrew Civilizations",
> > 1965]
>
> Do you have any more recent sources? Any other archeologists who agree
> with Gordon?
>
False assumption: facts produced in 1965 are somehow less true in
2005. Using this criteria can I dismiss uniformitarian claims in the
billions of years in the past ?
Gordon was THE eminent archaeologist and linguist.
Gordon: "I divide my critics into two camps: those who catch on quickly
and those who need more time."
> >
> > A schism of Naturalism is found in every civilization. The
> > "enthronement of Naturalism" as the prevailing philosophy began in
> > 1859. [source: Larson, "Evolution", 2004]
>
> Quoting from Larson's book, we find he states:
>
> "On the other hand, scientists inclined towards methodological naturalism,
> personifed by Charles Lyell , questioned Cuvier's invocation of unobserved
> past catastrophies to account for the pattern on species in the fossil
> record." (Pg 51)
>
> This indicates that methodological naturalism was in use before Darwin
>
Who claimed otherwise ?
Are you erecting another strawman ?
> Larson also writes, on page 110: " For theists like Asa Grey, and perhaps
> Owen, evolution might simply represent the immediate or secondary cause of a
> new species,( with God remaining the Prime Mover); "
>
> Which contradicts your claims that "evolutionists" don't give God credit for
> creation.
>
Gray was not an evolutionist. Now you have made an error.
Also Dana you forgot the issue here: WHEN Naturalism became enthroned.
Larson's book has a chapter ( I forget which one) titled "The
Enthronement of Naturalism" of which he goes on to evidence when this
happened, and what triggered: an event that occurred in 1859.
I NEVER claimed Naturalism was not around. Anytime Bob Kolker wants an
ancient history debate just step forward.
> >
> > The source and cause of Naturalism is Supernaturalism, rather God's
> > wrath designed a special place to put His enemies so they would never
> > find Him.
>
> That is contrary to logic, and contrary to scripture. God is not a petty,
> insecure, sadist, which you are describing him.
>
>
> DJT
You create and design the world THEN have some of your creations
actively rule you out of your invention and see how mad you get.
My article will make any Darwinist who has an ounce of objectivity in
their body to lose sleep.
Ray
Richard Forrest
Ray Martinez wrote:
> Dana Tweedy wrote:
> > "Ray Martinez" <pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > news:1133315079.0...@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> > >
> > > Robert J. Kolker wrote:
> > snipping
> >
> > >> Naturalism is neither an affirmation nor a a denial of the existence of
> > >> God. God simply is irrelevent in Naturalism. Only physical laws and
> > >> processes are invoked for explanations and causes.
> > >>
> > >
> > > Robert, I have obtained controlling interest in a bridge in Brooklyn -
> > > email me if you want in.
> >
> > Sorry, Ray, but I doubt Robert will be interested in taking that item off
> > your hands. You'll have to find another Creationist to sell it to. By the
> > way, was the salesman who sold you the bridge a graduate of Standford U?
> >
>
> Very funny but keep your day job Dana.
>
>
> > >
> > >
> > >> Now consider this: Suppose God set up the universet to run according to
> > >> what we call the laws of physics. Then you get the same explanation as
> > >> you do by ignoring God.
> > >>
> > >
> > > Illogic ad nauseum.
> >
> > In what way? Where do you see the "illogical" in this?
> >
>
> Bob assumes God instituted the laws, then he advocates a cold shoulder.
> How is this logical ?
>
> The laws of physics demand a Creator - TEist. If not then find another
> term for law.
>
There are no "laws of physics", only theories which are constantly
being questioned by physicists
> > >
> > > Ignoring God is the exact sin which triggers the blinding penalty,
> > > which ensures allegiance to Naturalism.
> >
> > There is no "blinding penalty". God does not punish people for using
> > their intellect.
>
> IOW, if you disagree with Dana you are stupid
No, but as your assertion is that if you disagree with your unfounded
assertions you will be punished it is apt.
>= the age-old ace up the
> sleeve that Darwinists employ against their opponents. Its just an
> insult and insults indicate inability to refute.uin
Only in the tiny, petty worldview which you espouse, Ray. Dana was not
insulting you.
>
> It took Darwin 22 years to invent, finalize, and publish his theory = a
> gigantic effort = what it takes to "refute" God as origin of creation.
I suggest that you read Darwin's and provide us with something to
support this ridiculous assertion. But you won't: self-education is not
one of your strong points.
> IOW, he used his intellect to flip God off = your view of intellect is
> nothing but common apostasy at work.
>
He used his intellect to try to understand the wonders of creation. He
was a theist.
>
> > "Naturalism" is a necessary condition for doing science,
> > not a religious tenet. You keep making the same basic errors, Ray.
> >
>
> When Dana says errors he means he disagrees with his opponent. Like all
> Darwinists he is attempting to talk down and paint himself a teacher
> correcting an inferior = enraged tactic of a person unable to refute
> exercising his only other option: ad hom - the Darwinian way.
No, he is making a point about the basic nature of science. If you
want to refute him, all you need do is to provide a reference in which
any scientist in any branch of any science uses the explanation "God
did it" in any scientific publication.
>
> Dana, only atheists and Darwinists and their puppets called TEists
> believe Naturalism/atheist philosophy to be the correct way of
> investigating science. We Supernaturalists disagree. You did not make
> an error Dana, we just differ on philosophy.
You are not scientists.
>
>
>
> > >
> > >
> > >> The problem (for you) is that this view denies the infallibility or
> > >> inerrency of scripture. So what? It is you and your ilk that have made
> > >> an idol out of scripture.
> > >>
> > >
> > > There are hundreds of translation and grammatical errors in the Bible,
> > > however. There are no factual errors. How could the word of God contain
> > > factual errors ?
> >
> > Because it was written down by falliable human beings, who knew nothing
> > about science. The Bible contains many "factual" errors, if you are
> > foolish enough to insist that the Bible be taken as "factual".
> >
>
> There are no factual errors Dana.
Oh, please! What you mean is that if there are any factual errors you
will either ignore them of else pretend that they are in some way not
errors.
>That is why we are theists. Have you
> forgotten that you claim to know the very Deity who produced a error
> ridden source ? How can you trust Him for salvation ?
>
In the way that Christians have for the past two millenia, Ray. The
idea of an infallible and error-free bible is an invention of 19th
century America.
> You are woefully ignorant of the evidence proving the Bible.
>
There is no evidence which "proves the Bible". I don't suppose you can
even articulate what you mean by the term.
> > >
> > > The point is God's subjective opinions = objective truth BECAUSE of who
> > > He is. Don't agree ? Just read the Bible as it contains many examples
> > > of what happens when a person disagrees with God.
> >
> > Ray, you are employing circular reasoning again. You are claiming the
> > Bible is "true", because the Bible says it's "true".
>
> No Dana I am not. I am saying IF God IS then His subjective views as
> found in the Bible become objective truth.
>
That is exactly the circular argument Dana pointed out.
>
> > How about providing
> > some physical evidence of the Bible being correct in scientific matters?
> > You can start by showing how bats are birds.
> >
>
> Are you claiming the Bible makes false claims about bats and birds ?
>
It claims that bats have feathers
> Genesis says God formed Adam from the clay-like ground. What falsifies
> this fact ? Plain observation of our bodies proves it.
Well, your feet are evidently made of clay. As is the foundation of
your faith, and your arguments.
>
> > >
> > >
> > >> Scripture is mostly "just-so" stories written by people who live before
> > >> science and philosophy were invented.
> > >
> > > Typical atheist ignorance. Its the way they were raised.
> >
> > Do you have anything to counter this, other than ad hominem?
> >
>
> An ad hom will usually be countered with an ad hom.
>
He offered no ad hominen.
> > >
> > >> The Greeks got by the god haunted
> > >> demon haunted mode around the time of Thales. He proposed natural laws
> > >> that govern or at least describe the workings of the world. He displaced
> > >> the gods and demons for an understanding of nature. So the naturalism
> > >> that you despise goes all the way back to the Greeks circa 600 b.c.e. It
> > >> hardly started with Darwin.
> > >>
> > >
> > > Yes, I am very acquainted with history.
> >
> > Which means Ray is as ignorant of history as he is of biology.
> > >
> > > Greek civilization originated from Hebrew via Lower Egypt (c. 2000 BC)
> > > [source: Gordon, "Common Backround of Greek and Hebrew Civilizations",
> > > 1965]
> >
> > Do you have any more recent sources? Any other archeologists who agree
> > with Gordon?
> >
>
> False assumption: facts produced in 1965 are somehow less true in
> 2005. Using this criteria can I dismiss uniformitarian claims in the
> billions of years in the past ?
>
No, but picking on a single source which supports your claim whilst
ignoring the many which don't without any attempt to address the
evidence is neither sound scholarship nor honest.
> Gordon was THE eminent archaeologist and linguist.
Nonsense. Just because someone writes something with which you agree
does not make them eminent.
>
> Gordon: "I divide my critics into two camps: those who catch on quickly
> and those who need more time."
>
So what?
> > >
> > > A schism of Naturalism is found in every civilization. The
> > > "enthronement of Naturalism" as the prevailing philosophy began in
> > > 1859. [source: Larson, "Evolution", 2004]
> >
> > Quoting from Larson's book, we find he states:
> >
> > "On the other hand, scientists inclined towards methodological naturalism,
> > personifed by Charles Lyell , questioned Cuvier's invocation of unobserved
> > past catastrophies to account for the pattern on species in the fossil
> > record." (Pg 51)
> >
> > This indicates that methodological naturalism was in use before Darwin
> >
>
> Who claimed otherwise ?
>
You did, or at least implied it, in the quotation you provided!
> Are you erecting another strawman ?
No, he was merely responding to your posting.
>
> > Larson also writes, on page 110: " For theists like Asa Grey, and perhaps
> > Owen, evolution might simply represent the immediate or secondary cause of a
> > new species,( with God remaining the Prime Mover); "
> >
> > Which contradicts your claims that "evolutionists" don't give God credit for
> > creation.
> >
>
> Gray was not an evolutionist. Now you have made an error.
What do you mean by "evolutionist"? Or will you simply change your
definition of the term whenever it suits you?
>
> Also Dana you forgot the issue here: WHEN Naturalism became enthroned.
> Larson's book has a chapter ( I forget which one) titled "The
> Enthronement of Naturalism" of which he goes on to evidence when this
> happened, and what triggered: an event that occurred in 1859.
>
> I NEVER claimed Naturalism was not around. Anytime Bob Kolker wants an
> ancient history debate just step forward.
>
Your knowledge of ancient history is so limited and pathetic that you
are unable to engage anyone in any real debate.
> > >
> > > The source and cause of Naturalism is Supernaturalism, rather God's
> > > wrath designed a special place to put His enemies so they would never
> > > find Him.
> >
> > That is contrary to logic, and contrary to scripture. God is not a petty,
> > insecure, sadist, which you are describing him.
> >
> >
> > DJT
>
> You create and design the world THEN have some of your creations
> actively rule you out of your invention and see how mad you get.
>
> My article will make any Darwinist who has an ounce of objectivity in
> their body to lose sleep.
>
> Ray
Dream on ,Ray.
You're nothing more than a bad joke.
RF
shane
> Dana Tweedy wrote:
>
>>"Ray Martinez" <pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>news:1133315079.0...@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>>
>>>Robert J. Kolker wrote:
>>
>>snipping
>>
>>
>>>>Naturalism is neither an affirmation nor a a denial of the existence of
>>>>God. God simply is irrelevent in Naturalism. Only physical laws and
>>>>processes are invoked for explanations and causes.
>>>>
>>>
>>>Robert, I have obtained controlling interest in a bridge in Brooklyn -
>>>email me if you want in.
>>
>>Sorry, Ray, but I doubt Robert will be interested in taking that item off
>>your hands. You'll have to find another Creationist to sell it to. By the
>>way, was the salesman who sold you the bridge a graduate of Standford U?
>>
>
>
> Very funny but keep your day job Dana.
Remember that statement from Ray, it is relevant a bit further down.
>>>>Now consider this: Suppose God set up the universet to run according to
>>>>what we call the laws of physics. Then you get the same explanation as
>>>>you do by ignoring God.
>>>>
>>>
>>>Illogic ad nauseum.
>>
>>In what way? Where do you see the "illogical" in this?
>>
>
>
> Bob assumes God instituted the laws, then he advocates a cold shoulder.
Where does Bob advocate this?
> How is this logical ?
More to the point how is it illogical?
> The laws of physics demand a Creator
And the evidence for that assertion is?
> - TEist. If not then find another
> term for law.
As far as science is concerned, it has one, THEORY, which is more
correct, unfortunately it is also more confusing to those not so
familiar with science.
>>>Ignoring God is the exact sin which triggers the blinding penalty,
>>>which ensures allegiance to Naturalism.
>>
>>There is no "blinding penalty". God does not punish people for using
>>their intellect.
>
>
> IOW, if you disagree with Dana you are stupid
Nope, doesn't say that anywhere here, yet if you disagree with ray he
immediately assumes you are an atheist, and hence blinded by god.
> = the age-old ace up the
> sleeve that Darwinists employ against their opponents.
Note that Ray could not point to any evidence supporting his conclusion
in Dana's post, nor from any other source. Good ol Ray, he is certainly
uncontaminated by evidence.
> Its just an
> insult and insults indicate inability to refute.
Remember that little mini-insult that Ray poked at Dana, above. Allow me
to let you in on a little secret Ray has, when he insults others, it
does not mean an inability to refute, it is just Ray demonstrating his
christain love for his fellow man.
> It took Darwin 22 years to invent, finalize, and publish his theory = a
> gigantic effort = what it takes to "refute" God as origin of creation.
> IOW, he used his intellect to flip God off = your view of intellect is
> nothing but common apostasy at work.
Again, note the evidence Ray posts. You would think that Ray could post
some words of Darwin's that support his accusation, but no, Ray just
goes merrily on his way thoughtlessly slandering any person without the
slightest hesitation. And he calls Dana apostate, yet based on Usenet
behaviour, there is a vast gulf between his behaviour and Dana's, that
reflects very poorly upon Ray.
>>"Naturalism" is a necessary condition for doing science,
>>not a religious tenet. You keep making the same basic errors, Ray.
>>
>
>
> When Dana says errors he means he disagrees with his opponent.
No he actually pointed out where you made the error. Note how Ray is so
blind to evidence that he cannot, or will not, see it.
> Like all
> Darwinists he is attempting to talk down and paint himself a teacher
> correcting an inferior
Inferior? now that is an insight and a half into Ray's manner of
thinking. Dana is not talking down to an inferior, but talking to
someone who lacks understanding in a subject Dana is familiar with.
> = enraged tactic of a person unable to refute
> exercising his only other option: ad hom - the Darwinian way.
Apparently Ray now thinks he is a Darwinist, whatever that is, as he
called Dana apostate, and a poor comedian earlier, both attacks against
Dana and not his arguments. As for enraged, I for one, would one day
love for ray to point out what in a post makes him think the writer is
enraged.
> Dana, only atheists and Darwinists and their puppets called TEists
> believe Naturalism/atheist philosophy to be the correct way of
> investigating science.
There are over 10,000 christian clergy in the U.S. alone who disagree
with Ray here,
http://www.uwosh.edu/colleges/cols/religion_science_collaboration.htm
as well as a goodly portion of those that post here on t.o. who have no
trouble reconciling evolution and religion.
> We Supernaturalists disagree.
We?? so far there is only one saying this.
> You did not make
> an error Dana,
Ray finally gets it right, well done.
we just differ on philosophy.
and ethics and morality, based on their individual behaviours on t.o..
>>>>The problem (for you) is that this view denies the infallibility or
>>>>inerrency of scripture. So what? It is you and your ilk that have made
>>>>an idol out of scripture.
>>>>
>>>
>>>There are hundreds of translation and grammatical errors in the Bible,
>>>however. There are no factual errors. How could the word of God contain
>>>factual errors ?
>>
>>Because it was written down by falliable human beings, who knew nothing
>>about science. The Bible contains many "factual" errors, if you are
>>foolish enough to insist that the Bible be taken as "factual".
>>
>
>
> There are no factual errors Dana.
Rabbits chewing their cud; global flood, geneologies that don't match.
world stood still, etc.
> That is why we are theists. Have you
> forgotten that you claim to know the very Deity who produced a error
> ridden source ?
Now where did Dana say that? One would expect Ray to be able to back
that up with a cite, but no, Ray doesn't do evidence, remember. Note
Dana specifically says that because the bible was written by fallible
humans it contains errors, not because it was written by a deity.
> How can you trust Him for salvation ?
There is no Him, in the sense Ray is talking about. The deity did not
write the bible so there is no such deity to trust.
> You are woefully ignorant of the evidence proving the Bible.
And Ray will not post one bit of the, voluminous is the term I think he
once used, evidence he has. I wonder why that is?
>>>The point is God's subjective opinions = objective truth BECAUSE of who
>>>He is. Don't agree ? Just read the Bible as it contains many examples
>>>of what happens when a person disagrees with God.
>>
>>Ray, you are employing circular reasoning again. You are claiming the
>>Bible is "true", because the Bible says it's "true".
>
>
> No Dana I am not. I am saying IF God IS then His subjective views as
> found in the Bible become objective truth.
Ray is not right here, as there is no "IF" in his original statment,
just the bald "...God's subjective opinions = objective truth..." If Ray
were being honest here, his statement would read "...God's subjective
opinions may= objective truth..." then he would be correct to claim he
said "IF".
>> How about providing
>>some physical evidence of the Bible being correct in scientific matters?
>>You can start by showing how bats are birds.
>>
>
>
> Are you claiming the Bible makes false claims about bats and birds ?
No he is saying that the bible says bats ARE birds. I wonder what was so
obscure about that that Ray could not see it.
> Genesis says God formed Adam from the clay-like ground.
Clay-like? there is nothing clay-like abiut dust.
> What falsifies
> this fact ? Plain observation of our bodies proves it.
Nope, I looked and nothing dust like about it. Just ask Logos, if you
need any further clarification.
>>>>Scripture is mostly "just-so" stories written by people who live before
>>>>science and philosophy were invented.
>>>
>>>Typical atheist ignorance. Its the way they were raised.
>>
>>Do you have anything to counter this, other than ad hominem?
>>
>
>
> An ad hom will usually be countered with an ad hom.
Ahh, there is just no hiding the christian in Ray, it comes out all the
time... whoops wait a minute, that can't be right, hmmmm.
>>>>The Greeks got by the god haunted
>>>>demon haunted mode around the time of Thales. He proposed natural laws
>>>>that govern or at least describe the workings of the world. He displaced
>>>>the gods and demons for an understanding of nature. So the naturalism
>>>>that you despise goes all the way back to the Greeks circa 600 b.c.e. It
>>>>hardly started with Darwin.
>>>>
>>>
>>>Yes, I am very acquainted with history.
>>
>>Which means Ray is as ignorant of history as he is of biology.
>>
>>>Greek civilization originated from Hebrew via Lower Egypt (c. 2000 BC)
>>>[source: Gordon, "Common Backround of Greek and Hebrew Civilizations",
>>>1965]
>>
>>Do you have any more recent sources? Any other archeologists who agree
>>with Gordon?
>>
>
>
> False assumption: facts produced in 1965 are somehow less true in
> 2005.
Nope, that is Rays strawman. Note that Dana did not say "facts" were in
dispute, he merely asked if any more recent research had been done, and
wheteher other archeologists disputed the referenced work. Methinks from
the reaction, that the answer to both those questions is YES.
Note also the logical implication of that strawman, there is no way for
knowledge to increase. The first time something is discovered then all
knowledge on that front is frozen, for example, once someone says that
the spesd of light is say, 260,000 k's a second then that is it, case
closed, end of argument. Don't bother even looking to see if that figure
is correct. What a warped view of science Ray has.
> Using this criteria can I dismiss uniformitarian claims in the
> billions of years in the past ?
Not honestly, as the criteria is false, see above. However if honesty is
meaningless to Ray than he can say what he likes, which maybe explains
why he does just that.
> Gordon was THE eminent archaeologist and linguist.
Even if he is correct in this, note the evidence, Ray left the sentence
unfinished, please add, "of his time."
> Gordon: "I divide my critics into two camps: those who catch on quickly
> and those who need more time."
Well that convinces me. I wonder that if I say it will that make me the
eminent archeologist and linguist?
>>>A schism of Naturalism is found in every civilization. The
>>>"enthronement of Naturalism" as the prevailing philosophy began in
>>>1859. [source: Larson, "Evolution", 2004]
>>
>>Quoting from Larson's book, we find he states:
>>
>>"On the other hand, scientists inclined towards methodological naturalism,
>>personifed by Charles Lyell , questioned Cuvier's invocation of unobserved
>>past catastrophies to account for the pattern on species in the fossil
>>record." (Pg 51)
>>
>>This indicates that methodological naturalism was in use before Darwin
>>
>
>
> Who claimed otherwise ?
Who said anyone claimed otherwise?
> Are you erecting another strawman ?
Ray is probably concerned that there will not be enough room for his.
>>Larson also writes, on page 110: " For theists like Asa Grey, and perhaps
>>Owen, evolution might simply represent the immediate or secondary cause of a
>>new species,( with God remaining the Prime Mover); "
>>
>>Which contradicts your claims that "evolutionists" don't give God credit for
>>creation.
>>
>
>
> Gray was not an evolutionist. Now you have made an error.
Funny, I see three names mentioned in the quote, but Ray picks only one,
I wonder why?
> Also Dana you forgot the issue here: WHEN Naturalism became enthroned.
> Larson's book has a chapter ( I forget which one) titled "The
> Enthronement of Naturalism" of which he goes on to evidence when this
> happened, and what triggered: an event that occurred in 1859.
>
> I NEVER claimed Naturalism was not around. Anytime Bob Kolker wants an
> ancient history debate just step forward.
>
>
>>>The source and cause of Naturalism is Supernaturalism, rather God's
>>>wrath designed a special place to put His enemies so they would never
>>>find Him.
>>
>>That is contrary to logic, and contrary to scripture. God is not a petty,
>>insecure, sadist, which you are describing him.
>>
>>
>>DJT
>
>
> You create and design the world THEN have some of your creations
> actively rule you out of your invention and see how mad you get.
Yeah like your kids, very few parents want to subject their kids to
eternal suffering just because they rejected parental values and ideals.
Of course Ray is more in tune to the fundamentalist mindset that I, so
he probably knows people who actually do think that way.
> My article will make any Darwinist who has an ounce of objectivity in
> their body to lose sleep.
Yeah, we can hardly wait. Logos is back to merely posting drivel rather
than funny drivel, so its been a bit quiet on the comedy front lately.
> Ray
>
--
shane
And the truth shall set you free.
Iain
Ray Martinez wrote:
> >
> > Interesting thing Ray, humans cannot design and manufacture as complex
> > creations as can nature.
>
>
> intelligence is responsible for the complexity of nature. We know
> complexity is the m.o. of bright persons/God.
>
>
> > intelligent design on known human design methods that result in much
> > simpler creations than that of nature.
>
> gauge.
>
> > intelligent designer would design as we do, except of course to a
> > greater, and in their mind, more complex degree; yet the design they see
> > in nature only superficially resembles human design. From that
> > superficial similarity they jump to the conlusion that nature is the
> > result of human-like intelligence.
> >
>
>
>
> > There is another possibility that IDists refuse to entertain because it
> > does not mesh with their desire to see God in places where science tends
> > to show otherwise. That other possiblity is that human design takes much
> > of its inspiration from nature. Couple that with the trial and error
> > methods that *both* nature and human designers use and you'll see that
> > IDists have it essentially backwards.
> >
>
> ? Because you are a Darwinist, I would say the backwards claim is a
> very good indication we have it right.
>
>
> > is that the mechanisms utilized by a fully natural evolution results in
> > designs that increase in complexity, retain non-functional features,
> > even contain nonsensical (to our mind) features that function in
> > mysterious ways.
>
Would you like to see the programs?
All they do is imitate the known behaviour of DNA that a Creationist
wouldn't deny.
Genetic programming has been used to synthesis designs for mechanical
objects, merely by taking input on what the result of the machine
should be.
> You are asserting a blind directionless process is responsible for the
> precision and complexity of nature. This is a recognition of products
> produced by design capriciously assigned to your idiotic theory =
> plagiarism.
Okay, try and get your head round this:
Life is:
1) Ordered because DNA reacts according to a fixed standard.
2) Functional because of what that standard is.
3) Complex because the input from the environment is complex.
4) Intricate because development is aggregate.
Life is:
1: Functional) More organisms are born than will procreate; therefore
the average genome of a population is forever homing in on whatever is
immediately useful under slowly developing circumstances.
2: Complex) This process is too short-sighted to start afresh; it
cannot backtrack and take an easier route, so its results can become
elaborate.
In other words, evolution is a formulaic reaction to developing input.
Overall change only happens with the proviso that it lends itself to
reproduction.
What you see as complex intricasy etc, is only mysterious if you
envision organisms developing like pictures being drawn. However, the
fossil record shows that new features no not arise as such; Instead
they emerge from others over the course of the general process.
Everything we classify as a characteristic or organ, is emergent from
previous formation.
Organs were once parts of other organs or conditions of parts of tubes,
shark teeth are modified scales, etc, etc.
Experimentation independently verifies that characteristics, if more
than one is counted, change co-operatively with eachother. This is
because their effects on reproduction are interrelated.
~Iain
rja.ca...@excite.com
> > [source: Gordon, "Common Backround of Greek and Hebrew Civilizations",
> > 1965]
>
> Do you have any more recent sources? Any other archeologists who agree
> with Gordon?
"Maverick scholar Cyrus Gordon" also believed Jews discovered America.
HTH
<http://www.flavinscorner.com/4-6-01.htm>
Dana Tweedy
snipping
>> >> Now consider this: Suppose God set up the universet to run according
>> >> to
>> >> what we call the laws of physics. Then you get the same explanation as
>> >> you do by ignoring God.
>> >>
>> >
>> > Illogic ad nauseum.
>>
>> In what way? Where do you see the "illogical" in this?
>>
>
> Bob assumes God instituted the laws, then he advocates a cold shoulder.
It's interesting in a psychological sense that you see that practicing
science is giving God the "cold shoulder".
> How is this logical ?
Bob's statement was that you get the same explanation for the world whether
or not God exists, if you consider that God may have used natural processes
as his way of creation. This is not 'giving the cold shoulder', it's
practicing science.
>
> The laws of physics demand a Creator - TEist. If not then find another
> term for law.
In science the term "law" refers to a set of observations that have been
found to be consistent. There is no reason why these observations require
a "creator".
>
>> >
>> > Ignoring God is the exact sin which triggers the blinding penalty,
>> > which ensures allegiance to Naturalism.
>>
>> There is no "blinding penalty". God does not punish people for using
>> their intellect.
>
> IOW, if you disagree with Dana you are stupid
I didn't say that. My point is that God doesn't punish people for thinking
and asking questions about nature. You are claiming that God punishes
people for just thinking about how nature works. This is wrong and in
direct violation of Christian theology and scripture.
>= the age-old ace up the
> sleeve that Darwinists employ against their opponents. Its just an
> insult and insults indicate inability to refute.
It's again psychologically facinating to see that Ray assumes an insult
where none is meant.
>
> It took Darwin 22 years to invent, finalize, and publish his theory = a
> gigantic effort = what it takes to "refute" God as origin of creation.
Darwin did not attempt to refute God as creator, and his work does not
refute God. Darwin took his time in presenting his theory because he
wanted to avoid conflict. He wanted to present a case so solid and airtight
that no one could dispute it. To a large extent, he succeeded in that.
> IOW, he used his intellect to flip God off = your view of intellect is
> nothing but common apostasy at work.
Again, using one's intellect does not 'flip off God'. You are making God
out to be as petty and small as your own limited mind.
>
>
>> "Naturalism" is a necessary condition for doing science,
>> not a religious tenet. You keep making the same basic errors, Ray.
>>
>
> When Dana says errors he means he disagrees with his opponent.
No, when I say errors, I mean you are making factual mistakes.
Naturalism, as used by science, is not a religious belief, it's a practical
concession. Without limits on what kinds of explanations you will accept,
science can't work.
> Like all
> Darwinists he is attempting to talk down and paint himself a teacher
> correcting an inferior
Ray, you may not like it, but when you continue to make basic factual
errors, you are inferior to those who know better.
> = enraged tactic of a person unable to refute
> exercising his only other option: ad hom - the Darwinian way.
I didn't employ any ad hominem. Ad hominem is saying that one can't believe
anything the other says because he's a "Darwinist". I am pointing out your
logical and factual errors.
>
> Dana, only atheists and Darwinists and their puppets called TEists
> believe Naturalism/atheist philosophy to be the correct way of
> investigating science.
Can you cite any genuine science that does not use methodological
naturalism? Calling people "atheist" and "puppets" is ad hominem.
Every scientific dicipline uses naturalistic assumptions as a practical
matter. Appeals to the supernatural are inherently unscientific.
> We Supernaturalists disagree.
Who is the "we" you are referring to? If you chose to be a
"Supernaturalist" then you are admitting you can't be scientific.
>You did not make
> an error Dana, we just differ on philosophy.
I know I didn't make an error. I do know that you have made many factual,
logical, and theological errors. Your philosophy is not the issue, it's
your mistakes.
snip
>>
>> Because it was written down by falliable human beings, who knew nothing
>> about science. The Bible contains many "factual" errors, if you are
>> foolish enough to insist that the Bible be taken as "factual".
>>
>
> There are no factual errors Dana.
But there are. That's my point. Asserting no errors is simply denial of
reality.
> That is why we are theists.
Again, who is the "we" you are referring to? I'm a theist because of my
faith, not because of the fallacious belief that the Bible is inerrant.
> Have you
> forgotten that you claim to know the very Deity who produced a error
> ridden source ?
As I wrote above, the Bible was written down by falliable human beings, who
knew nothing of science. I don't expect such a writing to be
scientifically accurate.
> How can you trust Him for salvation ?
Because I have faith in God, the creator of the Bible. I don't worship the
created object known as the Bible.
>
> You are woefully ignorant of the evidence proving the Bible.
Then why not present some physical evidence "proving" the Bible? I gave
an example of a factual error in the Bible. Bats are not birds. Let's
see some of your "evidence" that the Bible is entirely factual.
>
>> >
>> > The point is God's subjective opinions = objective truth BECAUSE of who
>> > He is. Don't agree ? Just read the Bible as it contains many examples
>> > of what happens when a person disagrees with God.
>>
>> Ray, you are employing circular reasoning again. You are claiming the
>> Bible is "true", because the Bible says it's "true".
>
> No Dana I am not. I am saying IF God IS then His subjective views as
> found in the Bible become objective truth.
Which is saying the the Bible is true because the Bible says it is.
Circular reasoning.
>
>
>> How about providing
>> some physical evidence of the Bible being correct in scientific matters?
>> You can start by showing how bats are birds.
>>
>
> Are you claiming the Bible makes false claims about bats and birds ?
Yes, the Bible describes bats as being birds. Lev 11:13-19
13 "You are to detest these birds. They must not be eaten because they are
detestable:the eagle, the bearded vulture,the black vulture, 14 the kite,
the various kinds of falcon, 15 every kind of raven, 16 the ostrich, the
short-eared owl, the gull, the various kinds of hawk, 17 the little owl, the
cormorant, the long-eared owl, 18 the white owl, the desert owl, the osprey,
19 the stork, the various kinds of heron, the hoopoe, and the bat.
This is repeated in De 14: 11-18.
>
> Genesis says God formed Adam from the clay-like ground.
Actually Genesis says Adam was formed from "dust". Genesis 2:7
2:7
Then the Lord God formed the man out of the dust from the ground and
breathed the breath of life into his nostrils, and the man became a living
being.
>What falsifies this fact ?
Biochemistry, mostly. Living flesh is quite different from dirt.
> Plain observation of our bodies proves it.
Only if you think abiotic dirt is identical to body chemistry.
>
>> >
>> >
>> >> Scripture is mostly "just-so" stories written by people who live
before
>> >> science and philosophy were invented.
>> >
>> > Typical atheist ignorance. Its the way they were raised.
>>
>> Do you have anything to counter this, other than ad hominem?
>>
>
> An ad hom will usually be countered with an ad hom.
Why? Why not use logic or evidence? Remember Christians are supposed
to set an example, not lower themselves to the level of the "unbeliever".
>
>> >
>> >> The Greeks got by the god haunted
>> >> demon haunted mode around the time of Thales. He proposed natural
laws
>> >> that govern or at least describe the workings of the world. He
displaced
>> >> the gods and demons for an understanding of nature. So the
naturalism
>> >> that you despise goes all the way back to the Greeks circa 600
b.c.e. It
>> >> hardly started with Darwin.
>> >>
>> >
>> > Yes, I am very acquainted with history.
>>
>> Which means Ray is as ignorant of history as he is of biology.
>> >
>> > Greek civilization originated from Hebrew via Lower Egypt (c. 2000
BC)
>> > [source: Gordon, "Common Backround of Greek and Hebrew
Civilizations",
>> > 1965]
>>
>> Do you have any more recent sources? Any other archeologists who
agree
>> with Gordon?
>>
>
> False assumption:
What "assumption"? I was asking if you had any newer sources. Science
builds on prior sources, and a 40 year old reference is usually not
considered to be current.
> facts produced in 1965 are somehow less true in
> 2005.
In fourty years, science can change quite a bit. Consensus changes, more
information often overturns older conclusions. If you give a 40 year old
reference, it's legitamate to try to see if any new information has been
discovered since then.
> Using this criteria can I dismiss uniformitarian claims in the
> billions of years in the past ?
Not if the information is current. Fourty year old information in a
field that is changing as quickly as physical archeology is largely
outdated.
>
> Gordon was THE eminent archaeologist and linguist.
No, Ray, he may have been a respected archeologist and linguist, but he
didn't speak for the entire community. Science doesn't work that way.
One person does not speak for the entire collective enterprise of
archeology. Even highly respected scientists can be wrong, and hang onto
questionable ideas. That's why I asked for newer citations, and for other
archeologists who agree with Gordon. One person's opinion, even if that
person is a recognized expert, is not conclusive evidence.
>
> Gordon: "I divide my critics into two camps: those who catch on quickly
> and those who need more time."
Which only goes to show he had a large ego. That doesn't mean he wasn't
wrong.
>
>> >
>> > A schism of Naturalism is found in every civilization. The
>> > "enthronement of Naturalism" as the prevailing philosophy began in
>> > 1859. [source: Larson, "Evolution", 2004]
>>
>> Quoting from Larson's book, we find he states:
>>
>> "On the other hand, scientists inclined towards methodological
naturalism,
>> personifed by Charles Lyell , questioned Cuvier's invocation of
unobserved
>> past catastrophies to account for the pattern on species in the fossil
>> record." (Pg 51)
>>
>> This indicates that methodological naturalism was in use before Darwin
>>
>
> Who claimed otherwise ?
You did. Don't you read your own posts?
>
> Are you erecting another strawman ?
Ray, I am becoming convinced you don't understand what a "strawman" is.
>
>> Larson also writes, on page 110: " For theists like Asa Grey, and
perhaps
>> Owen, evolution might simply represent the immediate or secondary cause
of a
>> new species,( with God remaining the Prime Mover); "
>>
>> Which contradicts your claims that "evolutionists" don't give God
credit for
>> creation.
>>
>
> Gray was not an evolutionist. Now you have made an error.
No, Ray, as usual the error is yours.
Asa Gray was one of Darwin's closest friends and most ardent supporters.
See:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asa_Gray
http://www.answers.com/topic/asa-gray
http://www.ecampus.com/bk_detail.asp?isbn=0801837413&referrer=22
>
> Also Dana you forgot the issue here: WHEN Naturalism became enthroned.
> Larson's book has a chapter ( I forget which one) titled "The
> Enthronement of Naturalism" of which he goes on to evidence when this
> happened, and what triggered: an event that occurred in 1859.
Irrelevant. Naturalism was used in science long before Darwin.
>
> I NEVER claimed Naturalism was not around.
You implied it, however.
Anytime Bob Kolker wants an
> ancient history debate just step forward.
Ray, you would just run away from the debate as soon as you found you were
overmatched, just like you did with Budikka a few days ago.
>
>> >
>> > The source and cause of Naturalism is Supernaturalism, rather God's
>> > wrath designed a special place to put His enemies so they would never
>> > find Him.
>>
>> That is contrary to logic, and contrary to scripture. God is not a
petty,
>> insecure, sadist, which you are describing him.
>>
>>
>> DJT
>
> You create and design the world THEN have some of your creations
> actively rule you out of your invention and see how mad you get.
Again, you are ascribing to God the kind of pettiness and small mindedness
that exists in yourself. Can't you imagine that God has more of a
forgiving and understanding nature than yourself? Just because you can't
handle the idea of someone being what you see as "ungrateful", doesn't mean
that God sees it that way.
>
> My article will make any Darwinist who has an ounce of objectivity in
> their body to lose sleep.
Your article, (if it ever sees the light of day) is not going to have the
slightest impact on anyone who is objective. Objective people can see that
you are no great scholar, and you have no basis for your tirade against
evolutionary theory.
DJT
Augray
wrote:
>Dana Tweedy wrote:
[snip]
>> "Naturalism" is a necessary condition for doing science,
>> not a religious tenet. You keep making the same basic errors, Ray.
>>
>
>When Dana says errors he means he disagrees with his opponent. Like all
>Darwinists he is attempting to talk down and paint himself a teacher
>correcting an inferior = enraged tactic of a person unable to refute
>exercising his only other option: ad hom - the Darwinian way.
>
>Dana, only atheists and Darwinists and their puppets called TEists
>believe Naturalism/atheist philosophy to be the correct way of
>investigating science. We Supernaturalists disagree. You did not make
>an error Dana, we just differ on philosophy.
Ray, science is the investigation, not the subject being investigated.
Also, I'm curious as to how you Supernaturalists do science. Tarot
cards? Ouija boards? If the power in your house goes off, how do you
determine the cause? Do you use the Naturalism method of checking the
fuse box, or is there some Supernatural divination method that works
better? Tea leaves, perhaps?
[snip the rest]
rja.ca...@excite.com
Dana Tweedy wrote:
> "Ray Martinez" <pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:1133326439.8...@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
>
>
> Yes, the Bible describes bats as being birds. Lev 11:13-19
> 13 "You are to detest these birds. They must not be eaten because they are
> detestable:the eagle, the bearded vulture,the black vulture, 14 the kite,
> the various kinds of falcon, 15 every kind of raven, 16 the ostrich, the
> short-eared owl, the gull, the various kinds of hawk, 17 the little owl, the
> cormorant, the long-eared owl, 18 the white owl, the desert owl, the osprey,
> 19 the stork, the various kinds of heron, the hoopoe, and the bat.
>
> This is repeated in De 14: 11-18.
This does look more like a translation issue, although that doesn't
help a lot if you want to believe that the KJV is inerrant. But
otherwise, if the ancient Hebrew word merely means
flying-animal-that-isn't-an-insect, you're covered, surely. (There is
a different Scriptural problem regarding insects.) Incidentally,
Wikipedia says that the Bible Lands "Arabian ostrich" became extinct in
1940. Oh yeah, ostriches don't fly. But they want to.
But what did they guys think they were doing?? "When Jews in Oudtshoorn
were involved in the ostrich business, the feather trade was the fourth
largest industry in the country [South Africa] - after gold, diamonds
and wool."
http://www.jta.org/page_view_story.asp?intarticleid=14779&intcategoryid=5
You wouldn't be kidding me now...
Dana Tweedy
<rja.ca...@excite.com> wrote in message
news:1133454851....@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
>
> Dana Tweedy wrote:
>> "Ray Martinez" <pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> news:1133326439.8...@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> > Are you claiming the Bible makes false claims about bats and birds ?
>>
>> Yes, the Bible describes bats as being birds. Lev 11:13-19
>> 13 "You are to detest these birds. They must not be eaten because they
>> are
>> detestable:the eagle, the bearded vulture,the black vulture, 14 the kite,
>> the various kinds of falcon, 15 every kind of raven, 16 the ostrich, the
>> short-eared owl, the gull, the various kinds of hawk, 17 the little owl,
>> the
>> cormorant, the long-eared owl, 18 the white owl, the desert owl, the
>> osprey,
>> 19 the stork, the various kinds of heron, the hoopoe, and the bat.
>>
>> This is repeated in De 14: 11-18.
>
> This does look more like a translation issue, although that doesn't
> help a lot if you want to believe that the KJV is inerrant. But
> otherwise, if the ancient Hebrew word merely means
> flying-animal-that-isn't-an-insect, you're covered, surely.
The hebrew word, according to Strong's is "oph", which translates as a bird,
or something covered with feathers. In Deuteronomy, the word used is
Tsippor, which translates as "small bird"
Snip the rest
DJT
Augray
wrote:
>This is proof of the exact strawman the OP indicted as notorious.
No, it isn't. Your original post at
news:1133034732.1...@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com had the
following list of "strawmen":
1. All causations are directly supernatural.
2. The Bible claims, what evolutionists call "fixity and constancy of
species".
3. The choice is between Science and Biblical Fundamentalism.
None of these have anything to do with my question of how
Supernaturalists do science. I also note that you didn't come out and
*say* how Supernaturalists do science. Will you tell me, or should I
interpret your future silence as an admission that you bit off more
than you could chew?
>Ray
Dana Tweedy
Ray, you seem to be trying to avoid answering the question. How does a
"supernaturalist" do science? If you allow one supernatural explanation,
on what grounds do you rule out any other supernatural explanation?
You are mistaking Augray's pointing out the problem with supernatural
explanations for the "strawman" of your own making. Scientists don't say
that Creationists always use supernatural explanations, they are saying that
if you allow supernatural explanations, where do you stop?
DJT
Ray Martinez
>
> >>>Ignoring God is the exact sin which triggers the blinding penalty,
> >>>which ensures allegiance to Naturalism.
> >>
> >>There is no "blinding penalty". God does not punish people for using
> >>their intellect.
> >
> >
> > IOW, if you disagree with Dana you are stupid
>
> Nope, doesn't say that anywhere here, yet if you disagree with ray he
> immediately assumes you are an atheist, and hence blinded by god.
>
The Bible explains atheism as a penalty from God for resisting His
perceived encroachments one day too long. Could one expect a Deity to
have any other explanation for persons who actually think He does not
exist ?
>
> Remember that little mini-insult that Ray poked at Dana, above. Allow me
> to let you in on a little secret Ray has, when he insults others, it
> does not mean an inability to refute, it is just Ray demonstrating his
> christain love for his fellow man.
>
This is a virtually anonymous debate on the Internet and an opponent
suddenly thinks his opponent should give his opponents a handicap via
his view of "christian love". Epitome of a non-sequitur to boot.
> > It took Darwin 22 years to invent, finalize, and publish his theory = a
> > gigantic effort = what it takes to "refute" God as origin of creation.
> > IOW, he used his intellect to flip God off = your view of intellect is
> > nothing but common apostasy at work.
>
> Again, note the evidence Ray posts. You would think that Ray could post
> some words of Darwin's that support his accusation
Here we have a Darwinist pretending that he doesn't know that "Origin
of Species, 1859" is considered the scientific work which disproved the
God of Genesis and His supernatural creation claims.
In reality, Shane very well knows this. Shane is attempting to spam the
debate with absolute nonsense in hopes his opponent will go away.
>
> >>"Naturalism" is a necessary condition for doing science,
> >>not a religious tenet. You keep making the same basic errors, Ray.
> >>
> >
> >
> > When Dana says errors he means he disagrees with his opponent.
>
> No he actually pointed out where you made the error. Note how Ray is so
> blind to evidence that he cannot, or will not, see it.
>
> > Like all
> > Darwinists he is attempting to talk down and paint himself a teacher
> > correcting an inferior
>
> Inferior? now that is an insight and a half into Ray's manner of
> thinking. Dana is not talking down to an inferior, but talking to
> someone who lacks understanding in a subject Dana is familiar with.
>
> > = enraged tactic of a person unable to refute
> > exercising his only other option: ad hom - the Darwinian way.
>
> Apparently Ray now thinks he is a Darwinist, whatever that is, as he
> called Dana apostate, and a poor comedian earlier, both attacks against
> Dana and not his arguments. As for enraged, I for one, would one day
> love for ray to point out what in a post makes him think the writer is
> enraged.
>
I did Shane. I will repeat:
Dana, like a lot of Darwinists, continually "assert error or mistake
for their inferior opponent".
What is obvious, though, is that they completely disagree, as is what
happens when Darwinists and Creationists have discourse. However, the
Darwinist is so enraged with his opponent he decides to vent this rage
via assuming the role of a teacher correcting a student. This is a
debate - not a teacher-student relationship. When the Darwinist employs
this tactic he has announced his rage and inability to refute, and is
desparately attempting to cast his opponent as ignorant and stupid in
need of correction. Yet, in reality, this is a creation-evolution
debate: the participants are already known to wholly diasgree. This
enraged tactic is pure ad hom = inability to refute = why it is
employed.
> > Dana, only atheists and Darwinists and their puppets called TEists
> > believe Naturalism/atheist philosophy to be the correct way of
> > investigating science.
>
> There are over 10,000 christian clergy in the U.S. alone who disagree
> with Ray here,
> http://www.uwosh.edu/colleges/cols/religion_science_collaboration.htm
> as well as a goodly portion of those that post here on t.o. who have no
> trouble reconciling evolution and religion.
>
IN the Bible the majority is always wrong = typology is proven true by
your link above.
The Bible's basic message: the whole world is wrong and going to hell
unless you come into right relationship with God through Christ via the
gospel.
Paul wrote 2/3rds of the N.T.
The Church at Jerusalem (Pastored by James the epistle-writer) was the
christian majority and they were Paul's worst opponents. Typology
further supported. IOW, the Paulinists speak for God - the majority are
the enemies.
The christian majority today continues to exalt ONE hereterical epistle
(James) as equal and compatible with the Christ ordained letters of
Paul (2/3rds of N.T.) = nothing has changed today = typology
corresponds with reality = Bible proven true AGAIN.
>
> >>>>The problem (for you) is that this view denies the infallibility or
> >>>>inerrency of scripture. So what? It is you and your ilk that have made
> >>>>an idol out of scripture.
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>>There are hundreds of translation and grammatical errors in the Bible,
> >>>however. There are no factual errors. How could the word of God contain
> >>>factual errors ?
> >>
> >>Because it was written down by falliable human beings, who knew nothing
> >>about science. The Bible contains many "factual" errors, if you are
> >>foolish enough to insist that the Bible be taken as "factual".
> >>
> >
> >
> > There are no factual errors Dana.
>
> Rabbits chewing their cud; global flood, geneologies that don't match.
> world stood still, etc.
>
> > That is why we are theists. Have you
> > forgotten that you claim to know the very Deity who produced a error
> > ridden source ?
>
> Now where did Dana say that? One would expect Ray to be able to back
> that up with a cite, but no, Ray doesn't do evidence, remember. Note
> Dana specifically says that because the bible was written by fallible
> humans it contains errors, not because it was written by a deity.
>
> > How can you trust Him for salvation ?
>
> There is no Him, in the sense Ray is talking about. The deity did not
> write the bible so there is no such deity to trust.
No Protestant or Catholic or Eastern Orthodox believes your nonsense.
Again, you are deliberately spamming idiocy into the debate hoping I
will leave.
Everyone believes and knows the Bible is God's word. Only atheists and
apostates say otherwise as would be expected.
God wrote the Bible via the ones who did. Called men and women of God
correct the translation errors and interpret = the way God has chosen
to speak. The Bible says He could have used angels but elected not to.
Instead, He chose to use us = fulfilling our greatest need: the need to
be needed.
> > Are you claiming the Bible makes false claims about bats and birds ?
>
> No he is saying that the bible says bats ARE birds. I wonder what was so
> obscure about that that Ray could not see it.
>
Are you saying bats are not birds ?
Also, I cannot find any evidence of bat evolution ?
Why is that ?
> > Genesis says God formed Adam from the clay-like ground.
>
> Clay-like? there is nothing clay-like abiut dust.
>
> > What falsifies
> > this fact ? Plain observation of our bodies proves it.
>
> Nope, I looked and nothing dust like about it. Just ask Logos, if you
> need any further clarification.
>
Attempting to pit a creo against a creo....you are desparate just like
I said.
>
> Yeah like your kids, very few parents want to subject their kids to
> eternal suffering just because they rejected parental values and ideals.
> Of course Ray is more in tune to the fundamentalist mindset that I, so
> he probably knows people who actually do think that way.
>
Yuppie political correctness used to falsify the Bible !
Unfuckingbelievable.
> shane
> And the truth shall set you free.
Quote mine of Jesus Christ.
Imagine that; a Darwinist stealing the words of the eminent Creationist
of all time and making it seen to support atheist drivel.
Unfuckingbelieveable.
Ray Martinez, Protestant Evangelical Paulinist.
Ray Martinez
You are guilty of the strawman above as is seen in the preceding
paragraph.
Your quick/hot reply confirms what we read.
Ray
Ernest Major
Martinez <pyram...@yahoo.com> writes
>
>Here we have a Darwinist pretending that he doesn't know that "Origin
>of Species, 1859" is considered the scientific work which disproved the
>God of Genesis and His supernatural creation claims.
>
claim; on the one hand an allegorical interpretation of Genesis is
compatible with evolution and the rest of the observed universe; on the
other hand a "literal" interpretation was disproved decades before 1859,
by assorted geologists, including several CoE ministers.
--
alias Ernest Major
--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.362 / Virus Database: 267.13.8/183 - Release Date: 25/11/2005
Dana Tweedy
snipp
>> > IOW, if you disagree with Dana you are stupid
>>
>> Nope, doesn't say that anywhere here, yet if you disagree with ray he
>> immediately assumes you are an atheist, and hence blinded by god.
>>
>
> The Bible explains atheism as a penalty from God for resisting His
> perceived encroachments one day too long.
No, the Bible says nothing of the sort.
> Could one expect a Deity to
> have any other explanation for persons who actually think He does not
> exist ?
Yes, if one can imagine a Deity that is not a petty, insecure tyrant.
>>
>> Remember that little mini-insult that Ray poked at Dana, above. Allow me
>> to let you in on a little secret Ray has, when he insults others, it
>> does not mean an inability to refute, it is just Ray demonstrating his
>> christain love for his fellow man.
>>
>
> This is a virtually anonymous debate on the Internet and an opponent
> suddenly thinks his opponent should give his opponents a handicap via
> his view of "christian love". Epitome of a non-sequitur to boot.
Ray, the Bible tells us to have love for one another. If you display
hatred of your opponents, it only shows you are not being Christian.
>
>> > It took Darwin 22 years to invent, finalize, and publish his theory = a
>> > gigantic effort = what it takes to "refute" God as origin of creation.
>> > IOW, he used his intellect to flip God off = your view of intellect is
>> > nothing but common apostasy at work.
>>
>> Again, note the evidence Ray posts. You would think that Ray could post
>> some words of Darwin's that support his accusation
>
> Here we have a Darwinist pretending that he doesn't know that "Origin
> of Species, 1859" is considered the scientific work which disproved the
> God of Genesis and His supernatural creation claims.
"is considered" by whom? Not by Darwin. Not by anyone who has actually
read the book. A scientific work cannot disprove a supernatural being, or
any supernatural claims. All it can do is show a more plausable
explanation.
>
> In reality, Shane very well knows this. Shane is attempting to spam the
> debate with absolute nonsense in hopes his opponent will go away.
Ray now claims mind reading powers. The whole point is that Origin of
Species is not a refutation of God. Ray, instead of trying to give
evidence to support his claim, he simply goes for the ad hominem.
snipping
>> Apparently Ray now thinks he is a Darwinist, whatever that is, as he
>> called Dana apostate, and a poor comedian earlier, both attacks against
>> Dana and not his arguments. As for enraged, I for one, would one day
>> love for ray to point out what in a post makes him think the writer is
>> enraged.
>>
>
> I did Shane. I will repeat:
>
> Dana, like a lot of Darwinists, continually "assert error or mistake
> for their inferior opponent".
Ray, when you keep making a factual error, it's not "rage" that makes one
point out that error. When you display little or no knowlege on a subject,
you are stating that you are "inferior" to someone who has some knowlege of
that subject.
>
> What is obvious, though, is that they completely disagree, as is what
> happens when Darwinists and Creationists have discourse. However, the
> Darwinist is so enraged with his opponent he decides to vent this rage
> via assuming the role of a teacher correcting a student.
Ray, do you think that perhaps people can have other emotions than "rage"?
When you continue to make false and incorrect statements, it's not "rage"
that makes one correct you.
> This is a
> debate - not a teacher-student relationship. When the Darwinist employs
> this tactic he has announced his rage and inability to refute, and is
> desparately attempting to cast his opponent as ignorant and stupid in
> need of correction.
When you keep making incorrect statements, you *are* in need of correction.
> Yet, in reality, this is a creation-evolution
> debate: the participants are already known to wholly diasgree. This
> enraged tactic is pure ad hom = inability to refute = why it is
> employed.
Correcting factual errors in your posts is not ad hominem, Ray. Ad hominem
is when you try to claim that anything your opponent says is wrong because
he's a "Darwinist".
>
>
>> > Dana, only atheists and Darwinists and their puppets called TEists
>> > believe Naturalism/atheist philosophy to be the correct way of
>> > investigating science.
>>
>> There are over 10,000 christian clergy in the U.S. alone who disagree
>> with Ray here,
>> http://www.uwosh.edu/colleges/cols/religion_science_collaboration.htm
>> as well as a goodly portion of those that post here on t.o. who have no
>> trouble reconciling evolution and religion.
>>
>
> IN the Bible the majority is always wrong = typology is proven true by
> your link above.
Yet you embrace the "majority" when they support what you want. Since
these clergy are not "IN" the Bible, how is this relevant?
>
> The Bible's basic message: the whole world is wrong and going to hell
> unless you come into right relationship with God through Christ via the
> gospel.
A "right relationship with God" includes following Christ's commandments,
and not declaring that you can do anything you want if wronged. It means
living in a Christlike manner, and giving up hatred and thoughts of revenge.
These are things you obviously are not ready to do.
>
> Paul wrote 2/3rds of the N.T.
Irrelevant, at best.
>
> The Church at Jerusalem (Pastored by James the epistle-writer) was the
> christian majority and they were Paul's worst opponents. Typology
> further supported. IOW, the Paulinists speak for God - the majority are
> the enemies.
Again, Ray demonstrates he neither understands Christ's message, or follows
Christ's examples.
>
> The christian majority today continues to exalt ONE hereterical epistle
> (James) as equal and compatible with the Christ ordained letters of
> Paul (2/3rds of N.T.) = nothing has changed today = typology
> corresponds with reality = Bible proven true AGAIN.
Ray, your inablilty to understand the message of the Gospels does not mean
that "Bible proven true". Your rejection of the message of James just
indicates your own heresy.
snip
>> There is no Him, in the sense Ray is talking about. The deity did not
>> write the bible so there is no such deity to trust.
>
> No Protestant or Catholic or Eastern Orthodox believes your nonsense.
> Again, you are deliberately spamming idiocy into the debate hoping I
> will leave.
Ray has no idea what Protestant, Catholic, or Eastern Orthodox people
believe, so his claims are worthless.
>
> Everyone believes and knows the Bible is God's word. Only atheists and
> apostates say otherwise as would be expected.
"Everyone" meaning only Ray. The Bible is the word of God, but it was
written down by faillable human beings. It was written in a pre-scientific
culture, with no idea about modern scientific notions. To expect it to be
scientifically accurate is foolish.
>
> God wrote the Bible via the ones who did. Called men and women of God
> correct the translation errors and interpret = the way God has chosen
> to speak.
So, Ray is saying that we shouldn't listen to God, but to self proclaimed
"Called men and women". This is what Christ was talking about when he
refered to "Blind Guides". Matthew 15:10-14.
> The Bible says He could have used angels but elected not to.
> Instead, He chose to use us = fulfilling our greatest need: the need to
> be needed.
So, why do you expect the Bible to be scientifically accurate?
>
>
>> > Are you claiming the Bible makes false claims about bats and birds ?
>>
>> No he is saying that the bible says bats ARE birds. I wonder what was so
>> obscure about that that Ray could not see it.
>>
>
> Are you saying bats are not birds ?
Yes, I am. Bats are mammals, not birds. Note the lack of feathers, the
presence of fur, the milk glands, the single jaw bone, and the three ear
bones in bats. Note also the lack of a beak on bats, the lack of egg
laying in bats, and the presence of teeth in bat species.
>
> Also, I cannot find any evidence of bat evolution ?
I imagine you haven't been looking very hard. Here are a few sources to
choose from.
http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-51418?tocId=51418
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4213495.stm
http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1511/is_11_19/ai_57564244
http://www.newsroom.ucr.edu/cgi-bin/display.cgi?id=978
http://www.pandasthumb.org/pt-archives/000621.html
>
> Why is that ?
1. You don't accept any evidence of evolution at all.
2. Bats are relatively fragile animals that live in habitats that don't
produce many fossils.
3. Molecular and genetic evidence provides much better evidence of bat
evolution than fossils do.
>
>> > Genesis says God formed Adam from the clay-like ground.
>>
>> Clay-like? there is nothing clay-like abiut dust.
>>
>> > What falsifies
>> > this fact ? Plain observation of our bodies proves it.
>>
>> Nope, I looked and nothing dust like about it. Just ask Logos, if you
>> need any further clarification.
>>
>
> Attempting to pit a creo against a creo....you are desparate just like
> I said.
Do you agree with "Logos"? If not, why not?
>
>>
>> Yeah like your kids, very few parents want to subject their kids to
>> eternal suffering just because they rejected parental values and ideals.
>> Of course Ray is more in tune to the fundamentalist mindset that I, so
>> he probably knows people who actually do think that way.
>>
>
> Yuppie political correctness used to falsify the Bible !
How did anything Shane say attempt to "falsify" the Bible? He was pointing
out that you were suggesting that God inflicts punishments on people for
using their intellectual capacity, and that was like an abusive parent
subjecting his child to torment for rejecting parental values.
>
> Unfuckingbelievable.
Since it's not true, why should you believe it?
>
> >
>> shane
>> And the truth shall set you free.
>
> Quote mine of Jesus Christ.
Using a phrase is not quote mining, Ray.
>
> Imagine that; a Darwinist stealing the words of the eminent Creationist
> of all time and making it seen to support atheist drivel.
What evidence do you have that Jesus was "the eminent Creationist"? What
is "atheist drivel" about Shane's use of a commonly known prhase.
DJT
Dana Tweedy
snipp
>> >
>> >This is proof of the exact strawman the OP indicted as notorious.
>>
>> No, it isn't. Your original post at
>> news:1133034732.1...@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com had the
>> following list of "strawmen":
>>
>> 1. All causations are directly supernatural.
>>
>
> You are guilty of the strawman above as is seen in the preceding
> paragraph.
Augray is not guilty of any "strawman". Ray, do you even know what the
term means? What he was telling you was that not that creationists claim
that all causations are directly supernatural. He's saying that if you
allow one supernatural explanation, where do you draw the line? How do you
do science without using methodological naturalism?
>
> Your quick/hot reply confirms what we read.
What makes you think Augray's response was either "quick" or "hot"? You
seem to be projecting your own emotional state again.
DJT
rupert....@gmail.com
heresy (the entire book of James, apparently)?
shane
>
>>>>>Ignoring God is the exact sin which triggers the blinding penalty,
>>>>>which ensures allegiance to Naturalism.
>>>>
>>>>There is no "blinding penalty". God does not punish people for using
>>>>their intellect.
>>>
>>>
>>>IOW, if you disagree with Dana you are stupid
>>
>>Nope, doesn't say that anywhere here, yet if you disagree with ray he
>>immediately assumes you are an atheist, and hence blinded by god.
>>
>
>
> The Bible explains atheism as a penalty from God for resisting His
> perceived encroachments one day too long.
Note the evidence Ray posts to support that assertion. And note that Ray
thinks atheism is the penalty given by god, so logically an atheist is
following gods will, as god has made them that way. It may even be that
an atheist is following gods will better than Ray is. Weird stuff hey,
but then it usually is when you misinterpret things.
> Could one expect a Deity to
> have any other explanation for persons who actually think He does not
> exist ?
Absolutely yes. The deity could make it a bit clearer that he exists
instead of all this contradictory, smoke and mirrors stuff.
>>Remember that little mini-insult that Ray poked at Dana, above. Allow me
>>to let you in on a little secret Ray has, when he insults others, it
>>does not mean an inability to refute, it is just Ray demonstrating his
>>christain love for his fellow man.
> This is a virtually anonymous debate on the Internet and an opponent
> suddenly thinks his opponent should give his opponents a handicap via
> his view of "christian love". Epitome of a non-sequitur to boot.
Hmm Ray thinks showing christian love puts him at a disadvantage. That
shows Ray's distinct lack of faith in the abilities of his god. I wonder
why?
>>>It took Darwin 22 years to invent, finalize, and publish his theory = a
>>>gigantic effort = what it takes to "refute" God as origin of creation.
>>>IOW, he used his intellect to flip God off = your view of intellect is
>>>nothing but common apostasy at work.
>>
>>Again, note the evidence Ray posts. You would think that Ray could post
>>some words of Darwin's that support his accusation
>
>
> Here we have a Darwinist pretending that he doesn't know that "Origin
> of Species, 1859" is considered the scientific work which disproved the
> God of Genesis and His supernatural creation claims.
Instead of writing that, Ray could have merely posted the reference that
showed I was wrong, I wonder why he chose not to?
> In reality, Shane very well knows this.
Ray's judgements as to the intent, attitude and knowledge of others, are
as valid as his characterisation of evolution, strictly for his own
consumption.
> Shane is attempting to spam the
> debate with absolute nonsense in hopes his opponent will go away.
Spam??? one post, that addresses issues raised in a previous post. Just
remember this folks, Ray frequently puts his own interpretation on
commonly used words. And as for Ray going away, I hope he does not, as
he keeps the group informed as to the tinking of a particular
fundamentalist subset, which then can be easily shown to be wrong in a
public forum.
>>>>"Naturalism" is a necessary condition for doing science,
>>>>not a religious tenet. You keep making the same basic errors, Ray.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>When Dana says errors he means he disagrees with his opponent.
>>
>>No he actually pointed out where you made the error. Note how Ray is so
>>blind to evidence that he cannot, or will not, see it.
No comment from Ray here.
>>>Like all
>>>Darwinists he is attempting to talk down and paint himself a teacher
>>>correcting an inferior
>>
>>Inferior? now that is an insight and a half into Ray's manner of
>>thinking. Dana is not talking down to an inferior, but talking to
>>someone who lacks understanding in a subject Dana is familiar with.
Ditto.
>>>= enraged tactic of a person unable to refute
>>>exercising his only other option: ad hom - the Darwinian way.
>>
>>Apparently Ray now thinks he is a Darwinist, whatever that is, as he
>>called Dana apostate, and a poor comedian earlier, both attacks against
>>Dana and not his arguments. As for enraged, I for one, would one day
>>love for ray to point out what in a post makes him think the writer is
>>enraged.
>>
>
>
> I did Shane. I will repeat:
>
> Dana, like a lot of Darwinists, continually "assert error or mistake
> for their inferior opponent".
Ray may want to revisit that and translate it into english one day.
> What is obvious, though, is that they completely disagree, as is what
> happens when Darwinists and Creationists have discourse. However, the
> Darwinist is so enraged
But how does Ray know they are enraged?
> with his opponent he decides to vent this rage
> via assuming the role of a teacher correcting a student.
Ahh, this is how he knows, whenever someone tries to teach another
person, they are doing it out of rage. Now that may be an interesting
insight into Ray's school years.
> This is a
> debate - not a teacher-student relationship. When the Darwinist employs
> this tactic he has announced his rage and inability to refute, and is
> desparately attempting to cast his opponent as ignorant and stupid in
> need of correction. Yet, in reality, this is a creation-evolution
> debate: the participants are already known to wholly diasgree. This
> enraged tactic is pure ad hom = inability to refute = why it is
> employed.
Hmmm, if I read that right, any time someone tries to educate another in
this debate, then they are enraged and wrong. Makes me wonder why Ray
even posts at all, as if he posts anything in support of his assertions
he automatically counts himself out, ahh but wait a minute, Ray never
posts anything in support of his assertions.
It's all becoming clear, the way Ray wins a debate is through complete
lack of any evidence, and the moment his opponent presents any, the rage
bit kicks in with its consequent "inability to refute" penalty. This is
why Ray claims victory in his debates and never posts evidence.
Remember what I wrote above about Ray having his own definitions for
things. Sad stuff indeed when you have to play those sorts of games to
feel good about yourself and your beliefs.
>>>Dana, only atheists and Darwinists and their puppets called TEists
>>>believe Naturalism/atheist philosophy to be the correct way of
>>>investigating science.
>>
>>There are over 10,000 christian clergy in the U.S. alone who disagree
>>with Ray here,
>>http://www.uwosh.edu/colleges/cols/religion_science_collaboration.htm
>>as well as a goodly portion of those that post here on t.o. who have no
>>trouble reconciling evolution and religion.
>>
>
>
> IN the Bible the majority is always wrong = typology is proven true by
> your link above.
Oh dear, Ray just shot himself in the foot, big time. 10,000 clergy in
the U.S. would be in the minority as far as clergy is concerned, so that
would make the signers (the minority) correct, and all the clergy who
have not signed (the majority), incorrect. Sometimes there is just no
excaping the truth.
> The Bible's basic message: the whole world is wrong and going to hell
> unless you come into right relationship with God through Christ via the
> gospel.
>
> Paul wrote 2/3rds of the N.T.
>
> The Church at Jerusalem (Pastored by James the epistle-writer) was the
> christian majority
And Ray knows this how? One church in a smallish city was the majority
over however many churches in the rest of the world? Again Ray provides
his own mis-interpretation of words.
> and they were Paul's worst opponents.
Assertion without evidence.
> Typology
> further supported. IOW, the Paulinists speak for God - the majority are
> the enemies.
So in the U.S. where the majority believe the bible, they are wrong,
whereas in India, where a minority believe the same thing, they are
right. Ray surely does tie himself up in knots with his ideas.
> The christian majority today continues to exalt ONE hereterical epistle
> (James) as equal and compatible with the Christ ordained letters of
> Paul (2/3rds of N.T.) = nothing has changed today = typology
> corresponds with reality = Bible proven true AGAIN.
Ray really does go on doesn't he, why I just got home from the James
Exaltation Day, here in rural Victoria, its very common you know. Its no
surprise that a certain type of person does not like the book of James,
as it is full of practical stuff, that very easily shows the difference
between claiming to be a christian and actually being a christian.
James contains a description of "pure religion";
James1:27 Pure religion and undefiled before God and the Father is this,
To visit the fatherless and widows in their affliction, and to keep
himself unspotted from the world.
I wonder what Ray's version of pure religion is? as he says that this
one must be wrong because it was promulgated by "the majority".
For a few more quotes from James, see the closing comments to this post.
>>>>>>The problem (for you) is that this view denies the infallibility or
>>>>>>inerrency of scripture. So what? It is you and your ilk that have made
>>>>>>an idol out of scripture.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>There are hundreds of translation and grammatical errors in the Bible,
>>>>>however. There are no factual errors. How could the word of God contain
>>>>>factual errors ?
>>>>
>>>>Because it was written down by falliable human beings, who knew nothing
>>>>about science. The Bible contains many "factual" errors, if you are
>>>>foolish enough to insist that the Bible be taken as "factual".
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>There are no factual errors Dana.
>>
>>Rabbits chewing their cud; global flood, geneologies that don't match.
>>world stood still, etc.
No comment here from Ray, I wonder why?
>>>That is why we are theists. Have you
>>>forgotten that you claim to know the very Deity who produced a error
>>>ridden source ?
>>
>>Now where did Dana say that? One would expect Ray to be able to back
>>that up with a cite, but no, Ray doesn't do evidence, remember. Note
>>Dana specifically says that because the bible was written by fallible
>>humans it contains errors, not because it was written by a deity.
>>
>>
>>>How can you trust Him for salvation ?
>>
>>There is no Him, in the sense Ray is talking about. The deity did not
>>write the bible so there is no such deity to trust.
>
>
> No Protestant or Catholic or Eastern Orthodox believes your nonsense.
> Again, you are deliberately spamming idiocy into the debate hoping I
> will leave.
>
> Everyone believes and knows the Bible is God's word.
Yeah the Buddhists, Hindu's, Australian aboriginals, Muslims, New
Guinean tribes that have never even seen a bible, Taoists, Shintoists,
Confucianists, Sikhs, etc. they all know this, according to Ray. I
somehow rather doubt it myself.
> Only atheists and
> apostates say otherwise as would be expected.
Let alone all the others Ray conveniently forgets about.
> God wrote the Bible via the ones who did.
Wow, after saying that Dana and myself, were wrong, Ray now says we were
right, amazing.
> Called men and women of God
> correct the translation errors and interpret = the way God has chosen
> to speak. The Bible says He could have used angels but elected not to.
I'm reasonably familiar with the bible, but I do not recall coming
accross that one before, and would appreciate a reference.
> Instead, He chose to use us = fulfilling our greatest need: the need to
> be needed.
How did he use us to write the bible? How do we feel needed by having a
few dozen people a few thousand years ago write a book? Its a funny way
to make people feel needed by saying, "Here, write this book for me, I
know you will make mistakes and get things wrong, and I could have had
experts do it, but go, on you do it." Sounds sort of patronising to me.
>>>Are you claiming the Bible makes false claims about bats and birds ?
>>
>>No he is saying that the bible says bats ARE birds. I wonder what was so
>>obscure about that that Ray could not see it.
>>
>
>
> Are you saying bats are not birds ?
Yep.
> Also, I cannot find any evidence of bat evolution ?
>
> Why is that ?
Didn't look, is the simplest answer.
>>>Genesis says God formed Adam from the clay-like ground.
>>
>>Clay-like? there is nothing clay-like abiut dust.
No comment from Ray here; interesting.
>>>What falsifies
>>>this fact ? Plain observation of our bodies proves it.
>>
>>Nope, I looked and nothing dust like about it. Just ask Logos, if you
>>need any further clarification.
>>
>
>
> Attempting to pit a creo against a creo....you are desparate just like
> I said.
Not at all, I just suggested a source for further information, and Logos
had just represented himself as an expert on the matter.
Unethical, immoral and dishonest snip restored, so that people can see
what depths some will sink to to protect their self image, and to
maintain the context of my response. Note that I am restoring Ray's own
words.
"You create and design the world THEN have some of your creations
actively rule you out of your invention and see how mad you get."
>>Yeah like your kids, very few parents want to subject their kids to
>>eternal suffering just because they rejected parental values and ideals.
>> Of course Ray is more in tune to the fundamentalist mindset that I, so
>>he probably knows people who actually do think that way.
>>
>
>
> Yuppie political correctness used to falsify the Bible !
Nope, the concept Ray was referring to is not in the bible, it was
merely Ray's wishful thinking, whereby he is personally justified and
everyone that disagrees with him is punished. Typical fundamentalist
elitist thinking, as I am well aware of; I grew up in the middle of it.
> Unfuckingbelievable.
(See comment below about the language).
What is unbelievable, is the snip Ray made which removed what my comment
was responding to, restored above;
Now those were Ray's own words, which, ISTM, he wrote thinking he had a
telling argument, and which upon either reflection, or reading my
response, he realised did not hold his god up in a very good light, so
he wanted to get rid of them, and hoped no-one would notice. And based
on his response, I nailed it in the final part, so it seems that Ray
himself would punish his children eternally for rejecting parental
values and ideals.
>>shane
>>And the truth shall set you free.
> Quote mine of Jesus Christ.
Ray, apparently, believes that only certain truth will set certain
people free, but sadly for him that is not what the quote says.
> Imagine that; a Darwinist stealing the words of the eminent Creationist
> of all time and making it seen to support atheist drivel.
Stealing!!! Nuff said.
> Unfuckingbelieveable.
Matthew 15:11 Not that which goeth into the mouth defileth a man; but
that which cometh out of the mouth, this defileth a man.
James 3:6 And the tongue is a fire, a world of iniquity: so is the
tongue among our members, that it defileth the whole body, and setteth
on fire the course of nature; and it is set on fire of hell.
James 3:9 Therewith bless we God, even the Father; and therewith curse
we men, which are made after the similitude of God.
James 3:10 Out of the same mouth proceedeth blessing and cursing. My
brethren, these things ought not so to be.
No wonder Ray does not like the book of James, it cuts rather close to
the bone.
> Ray Martinez, Protestant Evangelical Paulinist.
>
--
rja.ca...@excite.com
Dana Tweedy wrote:
> "Ray Martinez" <pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:1133326439.8...@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
> snipping
>
> BC)
> >> > [source: Gordon, "Common Backround of Greek and Hebrew
> Civilizations",
> >> > 1965]
> >>
> >> Do you have any more recent sources? Any other archeologists who
> agree
> >> with Gordon?
> >
> > False assumption:
>
> What "assumption"? I was asking if you had any newer sources. Science
> builds on prior sources, and a 40 year old reference is usually not
> considered to be current.
>
> > facts produced in 1965 are somehow less true in
> > 2005.
>
> In fourty years, science can change quite a bit. Consensus changes, more
> information often overturns older conclusions. If you give a 40 year old
> reference, it's legitamate to try to see if any new information has been
> discovered since then.
However, not everyone writes only to be overturned in the future, and
we're discussing dry, dusty old matter. Not much new has come to
light.
I don't mean to speak in support of Cyrus Gordon's work; even outright
fraud isn't unknown in history and archaeology.
shane
> Maybe I'm being slow, but how can the Bible be inerrant and yet contain
> heresy (the entire book of James, apparently)?
>
Welcome to the bizarre world of Ray. Apparently it was included as some
sort of test.
--
shane
Ray Martinez
rupert....@gmail.com wrote:
> Maybe I'm being slow, but how can the Bible be inerrant and yet contain
> heresy (the entire book of James, apparently)?
Because the INTENT of placing James in the Canon, by God, was to
showcase what heresy looks like while dressed in righteous mainstream
clothes/arguments. Its a crooked stick meant to show the beauty of the
straight sticks of Paul's letters.
Ray
CreateThis
Your god's logic is as slippery as yours. Hmmm... come to think of it,
I've never seen you two together.
CT
shane
Lets examine some of this heresy and see why Ray does not like it, for,
ISTM, there is a good reason he does not like it.
James 1:5 If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God, that giveth to
all men liberally, and upbraideth not; and it shall be given him.
Ray obviously does not adhere to that heretical philosophy, fancy asking
god for something you lack, he would rather ask Gene Scott, or remain
unwise.
James 1:12 Blessed is the man that endureth temptation: for when he is
tried, he shall receive the crown of life, which the Lord hath promised
to them that love him.
Yep, Ray knows that to resist temptation is to follow a heresy, that is
why he never resists, and still feels good about himself.
James 1:17 Every good gift and every perfect gift is from above, and
cometh down from the Father of lights, with whom is no variableness,
neither shadow of turning.
Ray ascribes all good things in his life to sources other than God. To
think otherwise is heresy, in his opinion.
James 1:22 But be ye doers of the word, and not hearers only, deceiving
your own selves.
It is in order to avoid this particular heresy, that Ray shuns any
action that would identify him as a christian.
James 2:9 But if ye have respect to persons, ye commit sin, and are
convinced of the law as transgressors.
Ray makes sure he always treats those who disagree with him badly, so
that his god will know he has not fallen for this heretical advice from
James.
James 2:13 For he shall have judgment without mercy, that hath shewed no
mercy; and mercy rejoiceth against judgment.
To judge others harshly is apparently the method to ensure you are
judged fairly. This is why Ray always jumps to the conclusion that
others are enraged and atheists, it ensures that his own judgment will
be easy and take into account the effort he put in to suppress this heresy.
James 3:10 Out of the same mouth proceedeth blessing and cursing. My
brethren, these things ought not so to be.
James 3:11 Doth a fountain send forth at the same place sweet water and
bitter?
Apparently Ray is convinced that he has to curse periodically in order
to show the depth of his christianity. It's not that he wants to do
this, but to not curse is to fall foul of this heretical scripture.
James 3:13 Who is a wise man and endued with knowledge among you? let
him shew out of a good conversation his works with meekness of wisdom.
Ray purports to be wise, and knowledgable, and the way to demonstrate it
is not by the method enjoined by James, that would be heresy, rather Ray
shows his wisdom and knowledge by poor conversation, laced with pride
and foolishness. (refer to pretty much any of his posts for the evidence).
James 4:7 Submit yourselves therefore to God. Resist the devil, and he
will flee from you.
Another heresey Ray avoids. Ray never resists the devil, for to do so
would make him a heretic. Nuff said.
James 4:12 There is one lawgiver, who is able to save and to destroy:
who art thou that judgest another?
Ray apparently thinks that there is more than one lawgiver, and that it
is every persons right to judge others.
James 4:17 Therefore to him that knoweth to do good, and doeth it not,
to him it is sin.
No wonder Ray does not like this book. It is very pointed isn't it? It
just comes right out and says what it means, and very plainly exposes
those that claim to be christians, yet lack any evidence to back that
claim up, to be sinners.
James 5:12 But above all things, my brethren, swear not, neither by
heaven, neither by the earth, neither by any other oath: but let your
yea be yea; and your nay, nay; lest ye fall into condemnation.
Here is another nest of heretical advice. So never fail to swear by
physical things, and of course always leave people guessing, as to what
you really mean. To do otherwise is heresy, apparently.
James 5:16 Confess your faults one to another, and pray one for another,
that ye may be healed. The effectual fervent prayer of a righteous man
availeth much.
This one is a kicker isn't it. Fancy having to admit you made a mistake,
and as for praying for healing, well obviously if sickness is gods
judgement on a sinner, then to pray for healing is praying for god to be
merciful. That last sentence in the scripture is a little too close to
home for Ray apparently. One wonders if his prayers are all too often
not answered, which means that James is rather blunt about his spiritual
condition.
All in all, James is one of the best books to find out how to live life
as a practical christian. No wonder Ray will take any excuse to avoid
following any of its prescribed behaviours, which are so obviously at
odds with the way Ray presents himself on Usenet.
--
rja.ca...@excite.com
> Lets examine some of this heresy and see why Ray does not like it, for,
> ISTM, there is a good reason he does not like it.
>
> James 1:5 If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God, that giveth to
> all men liberally, and upbraideth not; and it shall be given him.
>
> Ray obviously does not adhere to that heretical philosophy, fancy asking
> god for something you lack, he would rather ask Gene Scott, or remain
> unwise.
Also, upbraiding is Ray's major hobby.
rja.ca...@excite.com
Iain wrote:
> Ray Martinez wrote:
> > Dana Tweedy wrote:
> > I only responded in order to preserve the post of yours from future
> > deletion. You are stuck with these replies forever.
>
> What are you talking about, you bizarre finding, you?
Perhaps Ray is under the impression that Dana has used the X No Archive
switch to exclude his writing from archives of Usenet, although Google
Groups isn't telling me that that's the case.
rja.ca...@excite.com
> To accept separate creation one must assume either that God planted a lot of
> false evidence to test our faith, or, possibly, the idea you propose: that
> God has left our minds unable to properly understand the nature He created.
> But on that assumption, why assume that God (or Allah or Vishnu) has not
> blinded you to the true meaning of scripture? Trying to understand the
> world on the assumption that your mind doesn't work seems counterproductive.
AIUI, one angle is that maybe God /has/ blinded you to the true meaning
of Scripture, but in that case you are screwed forever, so you might as
well presume the contrary.
But I don't think this is universal or even very Pauline - Paul himself
was a convert, according to the story, and a convert whose experience
included a new understanding of Scripture which he previously knew
well, as far as "these are the words".
Of course conjectures contrary to the story are possible, including for
instance that Paul is some other guy who murdered Saul and stole his
letters of authority, or that the entire Bible is a mediaeval
forgery... not all conjectures are equally credible ;-)
rja.ca...@excite.com
>
>
> [snip
>
> >
> > Some kinds:
> >
> > Adamkind
> >
> > Birds
> >
> > Quadrupeds
> >
> > Reptiles
> >
> > Sea creatures
> >
>
> [snip]
>
> This list of kinds is interesting for several reasons. First, of course,
> if this represents the bill of lading for the Ark, Noah could have gotten
> by with a smallish houseboat holding a canary, a mouse, a garter snake, and
> a barnacle. Second, of course, this list cannot represent the bill of
> lading for the ark, since each category given includes animals both clean
> and unclean - hogs and cattle, for instance, or cod and lobsters. Surely
> the notion of 'kind' needs to keep clean and unclean animals in different
> groups - or do you claim that an unclean type of animal can, through
> allowed microevolution, give rise to a clean animal, and vice versa? I
> think you are getting a little sloppy here.
I won't challenge that sentiment, but clean to unclean doesn't seem
unfeasible. There is quite a list of circumstances that cause an
observant Jew to be unclean instead of clean, e.g. involving body
fluids. Also, sacrificial animals usually are only acceptable if they
are without blemish. So what happens if microevolution introduces a
hereditary blemish?
The other direction is trickier, since presumably the Fall caused
animals to become unclean (by causing microevolution, maybe). How
about this, though - before God executed His plan to re-sanctify
humankind through Jesus, He practised on some animals, somehow. He
knew, of course, that the Jews would need them for sacrifices. So the
plan comes together, you see.
Not that any of this actually matters.
Dana Tweedy
snip
>> >
>> > You are guilty of the strawman above as is seen in the preceding
>> > paragraph.
>>
>> Augray is not guilty of any "strawman". Ray, do you even know what the
>> term means?
>
> The OP indicted evos as setting up certain straw men against
> Creationism then "refuting" that non-existent claim.
Which tends to support my hypothesis that you don't understand what the term
"strawman" really means.
>
>
>> What he was telling you was that not that creationists claim
>> that all causations are directly supernatural. He's saying that if you
>> allow one supernatural explanation, where do you draw the line?
>
> Now you are making an excuse for him.
No, I'm trying to explain to you how his comment is not a strawman.
>
> This is not what happened.
Right, I was not making an excuse for Augray. Augray doesn't need any
excuses.
>
> One of the 3 OP strawmen was to claim Creationism assigns direct
> supernatural causations to everything.
Which as many people have shown you, is not something that scientists tend
to do. Creationist don't assign supernatural causations to everything.
What Augray is asking is why don't they? What is your answer for that?
>
> Augray jumped in with a post claiming just that. I simply pointed out
> what spectacular proof it was for the OP.
The point, which you seem to have missed, is that Augray didn't claim "just
that". He asked how does a "supernaturalist" do science? What causes
you to rule out supernatural explanations for all events?
>
> In response, my opponets have been forced to act like none of this
> actually happened = standard Darwinian behavior.
In response people, including myself have pointed out that you are mistaken,
yet again. Look again. Augray did not say that Creationists always
ascribe a supernatural explanation to every event. He was asking how do
"supernaturalists" (your own term to describe yourself) practice science?
>
> Augray so perfectly gave substance to the OP charge.
Here we have another situation where Ray made a mistake, and can't admit he
was wrong.
> In reply, we have
> Dana Tweedy "honesty" and an embarrassed Augray with nowhere to go on
> this.
Except that I am honest, and Augray is not embarassed. You made a mistake,
and instead of facing the mistake, you tried to change the goalposts.
>
> I made one mistake a while back about how to relay my training in
> Greek.
You don't have any training in Greek, Ray. You admitted this yourself.
And it wasn't a "mistake" to say you could read Greek, when you cannnot,
it's a lie.
> You Dana have made brazen lie after brazen lie with no end in
> sight.
I have not lied at all about you, or anything else, Ray. You on the other
hand claimed that you were able to read Greek, then later admitted you could
not. You were the one who brazenly lied, Ray, not I.
> When are you going to admit Augray is guilty and that Genesis
> makes supernatural creation claims - TEist ?
First of all, I would only "admit" that Augray was "gulity" if he was.
To do so when he obviously was not 'guilty' of anything of the sort would be
a deception on my part, and I don't do that. Second, I never claimed that
by your reading of Genesis it made "supernatural creation claims". Can
you show anywhere that I made such a claim? Why would I have to "admit"
to something I never did?
>
> LOL !
>
> I think hell has a better chance of freezing over.
Ray, in order for me to "admit" to something, it has to be true. I won't
"admit" to something that is only in your imagination. You are wrong
about your claims about Augray, and you are wrong about me.
Also, I'm still waiting for your retraction of your claims against Kenneth
Miller, or is this yet another lie?
DJT
Ernest Major
"rja.ca...@excite.com" <rja.ca...@excite.com> writes
--
alias Ernest Major
--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.362 / Virus Database: 267.13.11/191 - Release Date: 02/12/2005
shane
[...]
>
> I made one mistake a while back about how to relay my training in
> Greek. You Dana have made brazen lie after brazen lie with no end in
> sight. When are you going to admit Augray is guilty and that Genesis
> makes supernatural creation claims - TEist ?
Why does Ray accuse Dana of lying? talks about a double standard? Out of
honesty and fairness (yeah, I know, not much chance of either from Ray),
the most Ray should say is that Dana made a mistake.
[...]
Ray Martinez
Actually, I agree. The lie is the inability and refusal to admit the
mistake after it was pointed out.
Ray
Jesus Christ, the Resurrected Savior: "the truth shall set you free...I
am the truth."
Augray
wrote:
No, I merely asked how Supernaturalists investigating science. Nowhere
did I claim that creationists believe that all causations are
supernatural.
>Your quick/hot reply confirms what we read.
It was hardly quick, nor was it hot. But it *was* written in an amused
tone. And it was a simple question that you seem to have chronically
misunderstood.
>Ray
Augray
wrote:
>Dana Tweedy wrote:
>> "Ray Martinez" <pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> news:1133469907....@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>> >> >This is proof of the exact strawman the OP indicted as notorious.
>> >>
>> >> No, it isn't. Your original post at
>> >> news:1133034732.1...@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com had the
>> >> following list of "strawmen":
>> >>
>> >> 1. All causations are directly supernatural.
>> >>
>> >
>> > You are guilty of the strawman above as is seen in the preceding
>> > paragraph.
>>
>> Augray is not guilty of any "strawman". Ray, do you even know what the
>> term means?
>
>The OP indicted evos as setting up certain straw men against
>Creationism then "refuting" that non-existent claim.
Which has nothing to do with my question, since I *don't* claim that
creationists believe that all causations are directly supernatural.
Note the emphasis around the word "don't".
>> What he was telling you was that not that creationists claim
>> that all causations are directly supernatural. He's saying that if you
>> allow one supernatural explanation, where do you draw the line?
>
>Now you are making an excuse for him.
>
>This is not what happened.
>
>One of the 3 OP strawmen was to claim Creationism assigns direct
>supernatural causations to everything.
>
>Augray jumped in with a post claiming just that.
No, I didn't. I simply asked how you Supernaturalists investigate
science.
> I simply pointed out
>what spectacular proof it was for the OP.
And you were spectacularly mistaken about it.
>In response, my opponets have been forced to act like none of this
>actually happened = standard Darwinian behavior.
>
>Augray so perfectly gave substance to the OP charge. In reply, we have
>Dana Tweedy "honesty" and an embarrassed Augray with nowhere to go on
>this.
Nowhere? Heck Ray, I can simply ask how Supernaturalists investigating
science differently than Naturalists. If you refuse to give an answer,
I feel quite justified in concluding that there *isn't* a difference,
and that you were simply talking through of your hat *again*. Note
that coming to a conclusion is not "nowhere to go".
>I made one mistake a while back about how to relay my training in
>Greek. You Dana have made brazen lie after brazen lie with no end in
>sight. When are you going to admit Augray is guilty and that Genesis
>makes supernatural creation claims - TEist ?
It has nothing to do with Genesis. It's a simple question: How do
Supernaturalists investigate science?
>LOL !
I'll admit, there are times you can be quite amusing Ray. I predict
that this "Supernaturalists have a different way of investigating
science" claim will end up on the same list as your "JPL scientists
back Vapor Canopy" claim. That would be the list of "Claims that Ray
Can't Support".
>I think hell has a better chance of freezing over.
Before you give me an answer? I agree. It's too bad you don't think
your claims through before posting them.
>Ray
Dana Tweedy
>
> shane wrote:
>> Ray Martinez wrote:
>>
>> [...]
>>
>> >
>> > I made one mistake a while back about how to relay my training in
>> > Greek. You Dana have made brazen lie after brazen lie with no end in
>> > sight. When are you going to admit Augray is guilty and that Genesis
>> > makes supernatural creation claims - TEist ?
>>
>> Why does Ray accuse Dana of lying? talks about a double standard? Out of
>> honesty and fairness (yeah, I know, not much chance of either from Ray),
>> the most Ray should say is that Dana made a mistake.
>>
>
> Actually, I agree. The lie is the inability and refusal to admit the
> mistake after it was pointed out.
Ok, Ray, this should be good... What "mistake" are you claiming I have not
admitted to? Where did you point out anything factually wrong that I
claimed, and I did not admit was wrong. While it's true, I've made
mistakes in my posting from time to time, when any factual errors have been
pointed out, I've admitted that, and publically stated that I was wrong.
Remember, what I said has to have been: 1. factually incorrect, 2. you
pointed it out, and 3. I didn't admit to the error.
Let's see what you got.......
In the mean time, let's review:
You lied about being able to read Greek. (this was a deliberate lie, not a
mistake)
You lied about having university training (again, deliberate lie)
You were wrong about Kenneth Miller saying he was without sin in "Finding
Darwin's God"
You were wrong about non human apes sexually assaulting human females.
You were wrong about the "Vapor Canopy"
You were wrong about JPL scientists proposing a vapor canopy.
You were wrong about birds being human ancestors
You are wrong about bats being birds
You are wrong about female reproductive systems producing species specific
"scent"
You are wrong to call people who don't accept your religioius beliefs
"Atheists".
I also feel you are wrong about your interpetation of the Bible, and your
claims about the book of James being heresy.
DJT
Dana Tweedy
"shane" <remarcs...@ozemail.com.au> wrote in message
news:4390da6d$0$8598$5a62...@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au...
Shane, can you demonstrate anywhere I made a mistake that I have not
admitted?
DJT
shane
> shane wrote:
>
>>Ray Martinez wrote:
>>
>>[...]
>>
>>
>>>I made one mistake a while back about how to relay my training in
>>>Greek. You Dana have made brazen lie after brazen lie with no end in
>>>sight. When are you going to admit Augray is guilty and that Genesis
>>>makes supernatural creation claims - TEist ?
>>
>>Why does Ray accuse Dana of lying? talks about a double standard? Out of
>>honesty and fairness (yeah, I know, not much chance of either from Ray),
>>the most Ray should say is that Dana made a mistake.
>>
>
>
> Actually, I agree. The lie is the inability and refusal to admit the
> mistake after it was pointed out.
>
If Ray agrees, why then does he continue with the accusation? Weird
stuff indeed.
And is a lie really an "inability and refusal" to admit a mistake? It
seems to be a very off beat interpretation as well as being extremely
poor logic. If you have an inability to do something, why would you
refuse to do it, you wouldn't have the ability to do it in any case.
Raylogic, sometimes it makes you wonder if Ray actually ever does get
out and actually meet and interact with people.
> Ray
>
> Jesus Christ, the Resurrected Savior: "the truth shall set you free...I
> am the truth."
>
Gotta love those "...'s"; using them you can show anything. For example;
Thou shalt ... commit adultery.
--
shane
And the truth shall set you free.
shane
My apologies Dana for not being clearer; I was not suggesting that you
made a mistake, and would seriously doubt that you had. I was commenting
on the fact that Ray excused his own behaviour with an airy "I merely
made a mistake", whilst accusing you of "brazen lie after brazen lie". I
was highlighting his double standard, and suggesting that his accusation
against you should have been as mild as his dismissal of his own behaviour.
I should have been clearer in saying that I did not agree with Ray's
accusation at all.
--
shane
Robert J. Kolker
>
> I also feel you are wrong about your interpetation of the Bible, and your
> claims about the book of James being heresy.
The epistle of James caused Martin Luether to hyperventilate. Luether
believed that the James letters should never have been cannonized. It is
not coincidence that the James letters is the most jewish or jewish
oriented book in the NT. James put works before faith (faith without
works is dead etc) which drove ML to have even more furious attacks of
ulcerated colitis.
The ueber Protestant fundy types hate works and glorify faith. They also
hate the Torah. They get that by way Paul/Saul the Self Hating Jew.
Christianity might have been a reasonable religion but for two people:
Paul and John. The both hated Jews.
Bob Kolker
Dana Tweedy
> Dana Tweedy wrote:
snipping
>> Shane, can you demonstrate anywhere I made a mistake that I have not
>> admitted?
>>
>> DJT
>>
>
> My apologies Dana for not being clearer; I was not suggesting that you
> made a mistake, and would seriously doubt that you had. I was commenting
> on the fact that Ray excused his own behaviour with an airy "I merely
> made a mistake", whilst accusing you of "brazen lie after brazen lie". I
> was highlighting his double standard, and suggesting that his accusation
> against you should have been as mild as his dismissal of his own
> behaviour.
>
> I should have been clearer in saying that I did not agree with Ray's
> accusation at all.
Thank you, I freely admit I make mistakes, and whenever I do make a factual
mistake, I expect to be dragged over the coals by friend and foe alike. I
do endeavor to own up to my mistakes, and correct them if possible.
I don't care if Ray, or any other creationists wants to falsely accuse
me of lying, as I know myself that I'm not lying. Creationists of Ray's
stripe have forfeited any honor or integrity, so I'm not bothered by their
false accusations. What would bother me is if there were cases where I made
mistakes that I was not able to own up to. That would indicate a moral
failing on my part, and I'm not comfortable with that.
I predict Ray can't come up with a single case of my refusing to
acknowlege a factual error, but I hate to think that someone might feel I
would do such a thing.
DJT
Dana Tweedy
"Ernest Major" <{$to$}@meden.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:OT3Y+3YF...@meden.demon.co.uk...
> In message <1133533604.7...@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
> "rja.ca...@excite.com" <rja.ca...@excite.com> writes
>>
>>Iain wrote:
>>> Ray Martinez wrote:
>>> > Dana Tweedy wrote:
>>
>>> > I only responded in order to preserve the post of yours from future
>>> > deletion. You are stuck with these replies forever.
>>>
>>> What are you talking about, you bizarre finding, you?
>>
>>Perhaps Ray is under the impression that Dana has used the X No Archive
>>switch to exclude his writing from archives of Usenet, although Google
>>Groups isn't telling me that that's the case.
>>
> Google will remove your posts from its archive if you ask them to.
Just for the record, I've never requested any of my posts be removed from
the archive, nor do I ever intend to. I stand behind all of my postings,
even the ones where I made mistakes. I have nothing to hide.
I wonder if Ray was projecting his own behavior on someone else, yet again.
DJT
an...@sci.sci
> ones listed in Genesis; sudden special creation of all living things.
You've omitted a majority of what Genesis claims were created within 6 days:
- Day#1:
-- The Earth, not yet with any separated continents or waters. (Gen 1:1,2)
-- Light (not coming from the Sun, which didn't yet exist). (Gen 1:3)
-- Directionality of light, making day/night. (Gen 1:4,5)
- Day#2:
-- "Firmament" dividing waters above and below. (Gen 1:6,7,8)
- Day#3:
-- Gathering of land to form continents, separating the b-waters. (Gen 1:9,10)
-- Grasses and flowers on land (still no life in the seas). (Gen 1:11,12)
- Day#4:
-- Sun, Moon, stars, no mention of daylight from Sun. (Gen 1:14,15,16,17,18)
- Day#5:
-- All motile sea life, and birds, but no reptiles/insects yet. (Gen 1:20,21)
-- Ability of sea life to reproduce. (Gen 1:22)
- Day#6:
-- All life on land (except birds already done, and humans). (Gen 1:24)
-- Ability of life on land to reproduce. (Gen 1:25)
-- Humans. (Gen 1:26)
-- Male/Female division among humans. (Gen 1:27)
-- Ability of male/female humans to reproduce. (Gen 1:28)
- Day#7:
-- Self-contradictory: God rested (Gen 2:2), or God made Adam sleep and
took rib out of him to make Eve (Gen 2:21,22,23). Why was that
necessary when women had already been made the day before?
Note that Genesis alleges that God made all that stuff within 6-7 days,
about 6000-7000 years ago according to geneology in later chapters,
hence must have made all life nearly identically to how life appears
today, very very few exceptions, such as breeds of dogs recently
evolved, new strains of virus and bacteria, etc. No explanation for the
500 million years of different species, now extinct, we see in the
fossil record prior to 7000 years ago. In particular, both whales and
birds were allegedly made *before* their mammal/reptile ancestors.
The only three possible explanations are:
- Myth: Genesis is just a fictional story, not in any respect true. NH is true.
- Omphalos: The Bible is a complete lie told by God. Natural history is true.
- Nihilism: Nothing we observe is real: not NH, not the Bible, not revelation.
I suppose some idiot is going to come here and claim there's a fourth
possibility, that Genesis is somehow true, while everything else, all
natural history and science, all astronomy, all technology based on
science, even the paper the Bible is written on, all modern evidence,
even our own hands we see with our own eyes and use to turn pages in
the Bible, are all just illusion.
Anyway, note Earth/Sun/Moon/stars and continents/waters were all
allegedly created by God according to Genesis, not just living things
as you claim. Also note that Genesis never mentions cessile marine
life, nor any river/lake life whatsoever. So when were they allegedly
created according to Biblical-literalist Creationists?
(Quote of strawman:)
> 2. The Bible claims, what evolutionists call "fixity and constancy of
> species".
(Rebuttal:)
> The Bible makes no such claims. Evolutionists want the Bible to say
> microevolution does not exist when it says no such thing.
The Bible makes no mention of species, a modern concept. It is
ambiguous as to what "kind" means, as in reproducing the same kind.
> In reality, the choice is acceptance of the tyranny of Darwinian
> science and their straw men, or preserving and defending Science which
> corroborates the Bible.
There is no reputable science that corroborates the creation of light
shining only during the "day" when the Sun was not yet created to
produce that light.
There is no reputable science that corroborates the creation of birds
before their reptile ancestors, nor whales before their mammal
ancestors.
There is no tyranny of Darwinian science.
You're an arrogant idiot to make the allegations I quoted above.
.
Ray Martinez
6th grade IQ test question:
Who wrote the above text to a Creationist ?
A) Protestant
B) Catholic
C) Atheist
D) Jew
E) Darwinist/atheist
Ray Martinez
Okay.
>
> >> What he was telling you was that not that creationists claim
> >> that all causations are directly supernatural. He's saying that if you
> >> allow one supernatural explanation, where do you draw the line?
> >
> >Now you are making an excuse for him.
> >
> >This is not what happened.
> >
> >One of the 3 OP strawmen was to claim Creationism assigns direct
> >supernatural causations to everything.
> >
> >Augray jumped in with a post claiming just that.
>
> No, I didn't. I simply asked how you Supernaturalists investigate
> science.
>
Objectively....like anyone else would.
You have apparently missed my replies in those issues.
Augray: why is there no evidence of bat evolution ?
Will your answer invoke *special pleading* ?
I say the reason there is no evidence of bat evolution is because YOUR
theory is not true.
Ray
Ernest Major
Martinez <pyram...@yahoo.com> writes
>
>Augray: why is there no evidence of bat evolution ?
>
homologies between bats, and with other mammals, amniotes, tetrapods,
etc., in the form of DNA sequence homologies within bats, and with other
mammals, amniotes, tetrapods, etc, in the form of the biogeographical
distribution of bats, and probably in other forms, such as the fossil
record, even if the bat fossil record is sparse.
Augray
wrote:
What does "Naturalism/atheist philosophy" have to do with it? Does one
have to be a Supernaturalist to be objective?
There *is* evidence of bat evolution.
>Will your answer invoke *special pleading* ?
If pleading with you to investigate a topic before posting on it is
*special pleading*, then yes.
>I say the reason there is no evidence of bat evolution is because YOUR
>theory is not true.
And does evidence of bird evolution mean that MY theory *is* true?
>Ray