Virginia: Chesterfield School Board takes up debate on different theories of life.
Jason Spaceman
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Donna C. Gregory
Chesterfield ObserverTuesday, June 05, 2007
How were the oceans, puppies and human beings formed? Was it through
evolution, creationism or something in between?
It's a heavy topic that's generated debate for years. That discourse
landed in Chesterfield School Board members' laps recently when they
set about adopting new science textbooks for middle and high schools.
At issue was the concept of intelligent design, and why none of the
proposed textbooks offered an alternative to evolution for how the
universe came to be.
Intelligent design proponents urged the School Board to include that
theory in the school system's science curriculum so students can
consider differing viewpoints in the classroom. But, federal law
requires school systems to remain neutral on the topic, making it
illegal for teachers to prompt discussions involving intelligent
design or creationism.
In the end, members unanimously approved the proposed textbooks, but
issued a formal statement saying, "It is the School Board's belief
that this topic, along with all other topics that raise differences of
thought and opinion, should receive the thorough and unrestricted
study as we have just articulated. Accordingly, we direct our
superintendent to charge those of our professionals who support
curriculum development and implementation with the responsibility to
investigate and develop processes that encompass a comprehensive
approach to the teaching and learning of these topics."
(To read the School Board's complete statement, visit
www.chesterfieldobserver. com and click on the link for "special" in
the menu on the left.)
Superintendent Marcus Newsome was also asked to ensure teachers are
aware of federal laws regarding any discussions of religion in the
classroom. Currently, any discussions of creationism or intelligent
design must be raised by students – not teachers – and teachers must
remain neutral on the topic.
But some proponents of intelligent design who spoke before the School
Board last week believe limiting discussions to evolution is anything
but neutral.
"Our children are not being educated; they are being indoctrinated,"
said Cathleen Waagner. "Let the evidence speak for itself and let [the
students] draw their own conclusions."
Another speaker, Michael Slagle, presented a document containing 700
signatures of scientists worldwide who have questioned the validity of
evolution.
"Students are being excluded from scientific debate. It's time to
bring this debate into the classroom," he said.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Read it at
http://www.richmond.com/education/output.aspx?Article_ID=4707910&Vertical_ID=127&tier=1&position=5
or http://tinyurl.com/2ud6p6
J. Spaceman
rich hammett
olisi pitänyt tietää KUKA SINÄ OLET, Jason Spaceman:
I think he's right! This debate will only be MORE scientific if you include
children. That might say something about this particular debate, though.
rich
--
-to reply, it's hot not warm
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
\ Rich Hammett http://home.hiwaay.net/~rhammett
/ Barry Goldwater: "Every good Christian should line up
\ and kick Jerry Falwell's ass."
Ron O
wrote:
> From the article:
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> the menu on the left.)
>
> Superintendent Marcus Newsome was also asked to ensure teachers are
> aware of federal laws regarding any discussions of religion in the
> classroom. Currently, any discussions of creationism or intelligent
> remain neutral on the topic.
>
> But some proponents of intelligent design who spoke before the School
> Board last week believe limiting discussions to evolution is anything
> but neutral.
>
> "Our children are not being educated; they are being indoctrinated,"
> said Cathleen Waagner. "Let the evidence speak for itself and let [the
> students] draw their own conclusions."
>
> Another speaker, Michael Slagle, presented a document containing 700
> signatures of scientists worldwide who have questioned the validity of
> evolution.
>
> "Students are being excluded from scientific debate. It's time to
> bring this debate into the classroom," he said.
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> orhttp://tinyurl.com/2ud6p6
>
> J. Spaceman
Oops the ID scam propaganda worked too well. More ignorant rubes that
got scammed by ID that don't know that the ID scam was dropped for a
new scam that doesn't even mention that ID ever existed. Teach the
Controversy or Critical Analysis is the new scam and it doesn't even
mention that ID ever existed.
My guess is that the Discovery Institute ID scam artists are sending
these boobs the memo that they must have missed outlining the bait and
switch scam that the Discovery Institute has been running for around
half a decade when they figured out that ID was too bogus to teach.
They only keep blowing smoke about ID to make it look like the Teach
the Controversy replacement scam is legit. They don't want people to
know that ID/creationism is not part of the controversy. That is only
supposed to be known by the dishonest perps running the scam. The
rubes are just supposed to shut up and take the scam and hope some
ignorant or incompetent teacher screws up and teaches what the
creationist scam artists know that they can't teach honestly.
Really, wait until these guys get set straight. Want to bet that if
they are dishonest enough to push the issue that they will issue a new
statement that all they want to do is teach more about evolution and
the problems with it? Want to bet that ID will be pushed to the side
for the replacement scam? Want to bet that their bogus intent will
remain unchanged, and that just a new creationist scam will be run?
Even the ID creationist scam artists at the Discovery Institute never
put up anything to teach about ID in all the years that they ran that
dishonest creationist scam. That should tell any thinking human being
how much they can trust the new scam that the same dishonest perps are
pushing.
Guys like these can't even buy a clue. With friends like these you
don't need enemies. These creationists are even too ignorant to know
that the scam has changed. Talk about blowing it before you ever get
started.
Ron Okimoto
Ron O
SNIP:
Full text of the School boards statement follows:
CONTACT: Debra Marlow
Director, Community Relations
Phone: 748-1433
Date: May 23, 2007
For immediate release
Science textbook statement from School Board Chair Thomas J. Doland
Chesterfield County School Board Chair Thomas J. Doland read this
statement during the May 22 board meeting. Mr. Doland asked that the
statement be included Memorandum No. 45 regarding textbook adoptions
for Chesterfield County Public Schools.
"Our vision for this school system is anchored upon the understanding
that our schools must be thriving, dynamic, and inspiring educational
environments that produce self-directed learners. Self-directed
learning occurs only when alternative views are explored and
discussed. The unimpeded exploration of different perspectives is
essential in this regard, and the School Board wholeheartedly
encourages such exploration. We implore our students to expand their
knowledge through research, to debate the concepts as presented, and
to develop their creative and independent thinking skills.
The Virginia Constitution authorizes the State Board of Education to
approve textbooks and instructional aids and materials for use in
courses in the public schools of the Commonwealth. The State Board has
adopted applicable regulations and our School Board is complying with
the Constitution and those regulations as it adopts textbooks for use
in Chesterfield County Public Schools. The School Board is cognizant
that technology now allows easy access to an almost infinite number of
resources facilitating learning. To suggest that we should limit our
students' access to specifically approved textbooks and instructional
materials would not only inhibit self-directed learning but would also
ill-prepare our young people for the challenges that will face them in
the competitive global market of the 21st century.
Science textbook statement from School Board Chair Thomas J. Doland
(cont.)
"We have received much interest and concern from our citizens relating
to the theory of evolution as taught in our science classes. It is the
School Board's belief that this topic, along with all other topics
that raise differences of thought and opinion, should receive the
thorough and unrestricted study as we have just articulated.
Accordingly, we direct our superintendent to charge those of our
professionals who support curriculum development and implementation
with the responsibility to investigate and develop processes that
encompass a comprehensive approach to the teaching and learning of
these topics. We also ask that the Superintendent report to us the
results of this assignment and his evaluation of its success.
As it relates to every aspect of our official duties, we have each
taken an oath to uphold the Constitution of the United States. The
U.S. Secretary of Education has reminded us that "the First Amendment
requires public school officials to be neutral in their treatment of
religion, showing neither favoritism toward nor hostility against
religious expression. He further states, "[s]tudents may express their
beliefs about religion in homework, artwork, and other written and
oral assignments free from discrimination based on the religious
content of their submissions. Such home and classroom work should be
judged by ordinary academic standards of substance and relevance and
against other legitimate pedagogical concerns identified by the
school." We must never confuse the requirement for religious
neutrality of the government with the rights of our students to engage
in religious expression. To this end, the School Board directs the
Superintendent, the School Board Attorney, and other appropriate
members of the staff to instruct all of the Board's employees
responsible for the education of our students about these principles
that we have sworn to uphold. This instruction shall be accomplished
on an ongoing basis with verification provided to the School Board
annually."
-- end --
COMMUNITY RELATIONS DEPARTMENT
Post Office Box 10 · Chesterfield, Virginia 23832
(804) 748-1433 · fax (804) 768-4383
Equal Opportunity Employer
Ray Martinez
>
> - Show quoted text -
17 times Ron writes the word "scam" or a derivative in the above
broken record rant describing theories which say God created reality.
We know that Ronny is a Christian who professes a miracle, that the
Risen Christ is his Savior, yet he is absolutely convinced that
Intelligent Design and Creationism (theories which say the Father of
his Savior is responsible for reality) are "scams" and the theory that
says Divine power is not responsible for reality (Evolution) is
literal truth. How do we explain such contradiction? How do we explain
a Christian who believes what rabid Atheist Richard Dawkins believes
concering the production of nature and mankind?
We (= fellow Christians) do not want anyone to think that our Ronny is
a closet Atheist, we want the world and Group to know that he is a
Christian and that he is genuinely confused at the present time.
Apparently the scam of Evolution has made him believe that it is the
way his God created, why else would he defend it so vigorously?
Ray
Desertphile
<notr...@jspaceman.homelinux.org> wrote:
> Virginia: Chesterfield School Board takes
> up debate on different theories of life.
There is more than one? I had no idea!
> How were the oceans, puppies and human beings formed? Was it through
> evolution,
No, Yes, and Yes. Golly, that was easy.
> creationism or something in between?
No.
> It's a heavy topic that's generated debate for years.
Only among the occult.
> That discourse
> landed in Chesterfield School Board members' laps recently when they
> set about adopting new science textbooks for middle and high schools.
If they "debated" the issue, that means some of them should be
fired.
> At issue was the concept of intelligent design, and why none of the
> proposed textbooks offered an alternative to evolution for how the
> universe came to be.
ROTFL! I had no idea evolution had anything to do with now the
universe came to be.
Gods, even the reporter is a fucktard.
--
http://desertphile.org
Desertphile's Desert Soliloquy. WARNING: view with plenty of water
"Why aren't resurrections from the dead noteworthy?" -- Jim Rutz
Dana Tweedy
"Ray Martinez" <pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1181095121.1...@p77g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
snip
> 17 times Ron writes the word "scam" or a derivative in the above
> broken record rant describing theories which say God created reality.
The concepts being described are not theories, they are, as Ron so
eloquently put it, scams. Whether or not God created reality is not
something that science can determine.
>
> We know that Ronny is a Christian who professes a miracle, that the
> Risen Christ is his Savior, yet he is absolutely convinced that
> Intelligent Design and Creationism (theories which say the Father of
> his Savior is responsible for reality) are "scams"
Because ID and it's parent Creationism are scams. They are not theories,
they are religious beliefs. Presenting them as if they were science is a
scam.
> and the theory that
> says Divine power is not responsible for reality (Evolution) is
> literal truth.
Evolution says nothing about "divine power", for or against. Evolution is
"literal truth" because it explains the evidence better than any other
scientific theory.
> How do we explain such contradiction?
What 'contradiction'? Why can't a Christian be upset that someone is using
the name of God to conduct a scam?
> How do we explain
> a Christian who believes what rabid Atheist Richard Dawkins believes
> concering the production of nature and mankind?
Because Dr. Dawkins, depsite being an atheist, accepts the scientific
evidence. Ron disagrees with Dawkins regarding the existance of God, but
agrees that evolution is a valid scientific explanation for diversity.
Likewise he likely agrees with Dawkins about the production of rain, wind,
and thunder as well.
>
> We (= fellow Christians)
Ray, why would you assume that any "fellow Christians" accept your own
views?
> do not want anyone to think that our Ronny is
> a closet Atheist,
No one thinks that Ron is a "closet atheist". Only a loony would assume
that.
> we want the world and Group to know that he is a
> Christian and that he is genuinely confused at the present time.
Ron is not the one confused, Ray.
> Apparently the scam of Evolution has made him believe that it is the
> way his God created, why else would he defend it so vigorously?
Because it's not evolution that's the scam. The evidence tells us that
evolution is fact. If one wishes to believe that God created, evolution is
obviously the way God did it.
DJT
Steven J.
point, and one reason he describes ID as a "scam;" there is no
teachable theory of ID, a point which ID proponents admit in some
circles but don't point out to the creationists who make up the bulk
of their support. Of course, ID is a scam in other ways: it's just a
bunch of creationist arguments with a new paint job and a new name
(or, as Ron O points out, a series of new names), invented to get
creationism into the science curriculum after courts ruled that
"scientific creationism" was not really scientific.
>
> We know that Ronny is a Christian who professes a miracle, that the
> Risen Christ is his Savior, yet he is absolutely convinced that
> Intelligent Design and Creationism (theories which say the Father of
> his Savior is responsible for reality) are "scams" and the theory that
> says Divine power is not responsible for reality (Evolution) is
> literal truth. How do we explain such contradiction? How do we explain
> a Christian who believes what rabid Atheist Richard Dawkins believes
> concering the production of nature and mankind?
>
produced some aspects of biology. Creationism says that science can't
determine the facts about origins, and that all statements about
origins are based on faith (of course, either statement may be found
from proponents of either position, but if you want to distinguish
them, that will do). Neither position necessarily follows from the
belief that "the Father of his Savior is responsible for reality."
The Bible, after all, holds that God is responsible for all aspects of
history, even those like meteorology or embryonic development that
happen according to known naturalistic processes, or those, like the
Aramean incursions into Israel after the death of Ahab, or the
Babylonian conquest of Judah, that proceeded from human decisions. If
God can use the Babylonians to chastise human beings, it seems to me
that He can certainly use evolution to create them. But from this it
does not follow that we must be able to scientifically discern divine
intervention in the case of either the fall of Jerusalem in 586 BC or
in the origin of species.
Again, many Christians, yourself included, agree with "rabid atheist
Richard Dawkins" about the age of the Earth and the fact that the
Earth orbits the sun, no matter how much Gerardus Bouw protests that
Copernicanism and Lyellianism are as hostile to the Bible and faith as
is Darwinism.
>
> We (= fellow Christians) do not want anyone to think that our Ronny is
> a closet Atheist, we want the world and Group to know that he is a
> Christian and that he is genuinely confused at the present time.
> Apparently the scam of Evolution has made him believe that it is the
> way his God created, why else would he defend it so vigorously?
>
I would assume that Ron O. objects to dishonesty and stupidity. I do
not think it an outrageous speculation to suppose that, as a
Christian, he is especially embarrassed and offended by people (like
the leaders of the ID movement) who inspire Christians to behave
stupidly and dishonestly.
>
> Ray
-- Steven J.
John Wilkins
...
> J. Spaceman
You know, Jason, if you put these up as a blog, I'd subscribe to the RSS
feed...
--
John S. Wilkins, Postdoctoral Research Fellow, Biohumanities Project
University of Queensland - Blog: scienceblogs.com/evolvingthoughts
"He used... sarcasm. He knew all the tricks, dramatic irony, metaphor,
bathos, puns, parody, litotes and... satire. He was vicious."
Ron O
> "Ray Martinez" <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> news:1181095121.1...@p77g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
> snip
>
> > 17 times Ron writes the word "scam" or a derivative in the above
> > broken record rant describing theories which say God created reality.
>
> The concepts being described are not theories, they are, as Ron so
> eloquently put it, scams. Whether or not God created reality is not
> something that science can determine.
>
If someone else comes up with another word that effectively conveys
what the ID scam artists have been doing for the last half decade with
ID they can put it forward. I feel sorry for Ray. I don't rag on him
because I don't think that he is competent enough to understand what
he does or writes. He obviously isn't competent enough to rationally
evaluate the current situation.
Pointing out things like faith healers using earbug radios to make it
look like they are getting information from God as being a scam
dosen't mean that Christianity is a scam. Religion is used all the
time by the dishonest that want to run some scam or another, and as
others have pointed out accepting the fact that the earth orbits the
sun doesn't make anyone any less of a Christian. Just Google
"geocentrism" and look up the creationist kooks that think otherwise.
I haven't called those guys scam artists, mainly because everyone can
say about what they want as long as they aren't doing someone harm,
and they aren't running bait and switch scam on the public, or
dishonestly trying to push a political agenda by dishonestly
manipulating peoples religious beliefs by misleading them about
science and theology.
Having some political agenda and then dishonestly using peoples honest
religious beliefs to further those political goals is a scam. I don't
think that anyone denies that the Discovery Institute ran the bait and
switch scam on the Ohio rubes and anyone else that bought into the ID
scam, but switched to the "teach the controversy" or "critical
analysis" or whatever they are calling the latest scams now. Anyone
can look up my posts (I used to post as Ronald Okimoto and Pokemoto
when I had AOL or a Mac) and see that I didn't start calling the ID
movement a scam until they ran the bait and switch on the Ohio rubes
in 2002, and then it took me a while and it was mainly due to the
ostrich treatment that creationist like Ray gave the issue. Ignoring
something because you don't want to believe it or it doesn't match up
with what you think should be going on just resulted in things like
Dover and this recent Virginia fiasco. The ID scam artists have
dropped their efforts to get ID taught in the public schools and they
did it over half a decade ago. They just didn't tell their supporters
in a way that made that perfectly clear. Ohio and Dover had to
happen, and still there are ignorant rubes that fell for the ID scam
that haven't gotten the message. They will be informed and what they
do will tell what kind of rubes they were. They can either drop the
issue or they can take the next scam from the same guys that lied to
them about ID. The sad thing is how many creationists take the next
scam when they know that they can't trust the guys that are feeding it
to them.
During and right after Dover some of the Discovery Institute
creationist scam artists tried to deny that they ever pushed teaching
intelligent design. Anyone that has followed this issue for the last
decade with any interest knows that they were lying in any such
denial. You might play word games and claim that they had wiggle
words in such statements, but why would they need wiggle words when
they admitted to writing the Wedge document where they claimed that
their goal was to target school boards and legislators to get
intelligent design into the public schools?
Scam artist is a mild term for such people.
Ron Okimoto
Desertphile
There are no theories describing how gods "created reality," nor
did Ron O imply there are.
Daoud
You're correct of course. But this does make me wonder where the US
and the teaching of science would be now if separation of church and
state was NEVER in the constitution? Guess we can just count our
blessings that it IS.
Alexander
Never existed here in the UK and I think we managed ok. In fact I
believe we've managed to turn out one or two fairly decent scientists
despite this supposed handicap - neither do we have the engrained
religiosity of the US.
The real question for the US is perhaps - has it _become_ an issue in
spite of separation or because of it?
Rolf
"Ray Martinez" <pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1181095121.1...@p77g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
The confusion is yours, re the beam in your own eye.
Daoud
We don't have it in Canada either. And it doesn't seem to be really
needed presently. However, I guess you could argue that it *would*
have been needed or beneficial 3-400 years ago, when there was
religious persecution and violence in the UK, and which is why it was
consciously part of the US constitution.
VoiceOfReason
> 17 times Ron writes the word "scam" or a derivative in the above
> broken record rant describing theories which say God created reality.
Yes, Ron needs to find a couple synonyms to sprinkle in there.
> We know that Ronny
(Ronny? Is it okay if we call you Ray-bo?)
> is a Christian who professes a miracle, that the
> Risen Christ is his Savior, yet he is absolutely convinced that
> Intelligent Design and Creationism (theories which say the Father of
> his Savior is responsible for reality) are "scams" and the theory that
> says Divine power is not responsible for reality (Evolution) is
> literal truth. How do we explain such contradiction?
That's easy, Ray-bo. Quite a number of people understand that science
is compatible with Christianity. Why you can't reconcile your own
faith with the world around you is a personal problem.
> How do we explain
> a Christian who believes what rabid Atheist Richard Dawkins believes
> concering the production of nature and mankind?
Guilt by association went out of style with McCarthyism, Ray-bo.
> We (= fellow Christians) do not want anyone to think that our Ronny is
> a closet Atheist, we want the world and Group to know that he is a
> Christian and that he is genuinely confused at the present time.
We (= educated people) know that you're a fool and a bigot. That
makes your opinion worthless, Ray-bo.
'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank
wrote:
> From the article:
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> the menu on the left.)
>
> Superintendent Marcus Newsome was also asked to ensure teachers are
> aware of federal laws regarding any discussions of religion in the
> classroom. Currently, any discussions of creationism or intelligent
> remain neutral on the topic.
>
> But some proponents of intelligent design who spoke before the School
> Board last week believe limiting discussions to evolution is anything
> but neutral.
>
> "Our children are not being educated; they are being indoctrinated,"
> said Cathleen Waagner. "Let the evidence speak for itself and let [the
> students] draw their own conclusions."
>
> Another speaker, Michael Slagle, presented a document containing 700
> signatures of scientists worldwide who have questioned the validity of
> evolution.
>
> "Students are being excluded from scientific debate. It's time to
> bring this debate into the classroom," he said.
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> orhttp://tinyurl.com/2ud6p6
>
Maybe they can get the Thomas More Law Center to defend them. For
free.
I guess some people just HAVE to pee on the electric fence for
themselves.
(snicker) (giggle)
================================================
Lenny Flank
"There are no loose threads in the web of life"
Author:
"Deception by Design: The Intelligent Design Movement in America"
http://www.redandblackpublishers.com/deceptionbydesign.html
Creation "Science" Debunked:
http://www.geocities.com/lflank
'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank
Hey Ray, if this school district thing goes to court, would you be
willing to go testify that ID/creationism is indeed all about
Christianity and atheism, and that ID/creationists are just lying to
us when they claim otherwise?
Perhaps they'll let you read your, uh, world-shattering scientific
paper that will finally destroy darwinism forever and ever.
Ray Martinez
Are we to believe that the above comment was written by a person
inhabiting reality during the last 20 years? Has this person been
living in a cave or outer space unconnected to reality and does not
know about the current ID movement and their science agenda?
Or maybe the comment was written by an angry Atheist-evolutionist
insulting the main rival to his theory?
If the latter is true then the comment also plainly exposes a
willingness to brazenly lie since ID enjoys the support of tens of
millions of persons in this nation. Since the comment was written by
an Atheist all is explained. I am sorry that the preceding observation
smears all Atheists but I herein exempt the honest ones.
> That is Ron's
> point, and one reason he describes ID as a "scam;" there is no
> teachable theory of ID,
Ron is one of ours, that is, a Christian, he is presently confused as
I have gently pointed out and we decry your pernicious attempt to
further confuse him by justifying his confusion. Since you are an
Atheist all is explained but not forgotten or forgiven.
> a point which ID proponents admit in some
> circles but don't point out to the creationists who make up the bulk
> of their support. Of course, ID is a scam in other ways: it's just a
> bunch of creationist arguments with a new paint job and a new name
> (or, as Ron O points out, a series of new names), invented to get
> creationism into the science curriculum after courts ruled that
> "scientific creationism" was not really scientific.
>
We know Atheists believe and/or misrepresent all opposition to atheist-
evolution this way - what is your point?
This is one of the reasons why our Ron is confused. He has the total
backing of this Atheist who has patted him on the back. How do we
explain a Christian like Ron O. who enjoys unwavering support of the
enemies of Christians (= Atheists)?
There is no comforting answer; Ron is a classic example of a confused
person. He is not a liar and he is not evil since he honestly believes
that the theories which say that his Savior's Father is directly
responsible for produing reality is not true.
Ron is responsible before God for his own decision to accept evolution
is the first place resulting in his confusion, all we fellow
Christians can do is point to him and learn and see that he is a
victim of the pernicious lies and perverted logic known as Evolution -
a theory that all Atheists rabidly support and defend for obvious
reasons.
Invulnerable logic: anytime a Christian and Atheists agree on origins
the Christian is confused. The Bible voluminously explains confusion
to be an effect of the work of the invisible Devil.
Ron O. should literally scare the hell out of any Christian who has
not lost his or her mind and is contemplating the "truth of
evolution." That "truth" gets you the approval of Atheists, which,
logically, should make you see that there is no truth in a theory that
assumes God is not responsible for reality; the evidence then, no
matter what, can ever harm the assumption and assumptions, of course,
are not evidence, but in this case, just plain Atheist philosophy
parading as "science."
I hope Ron comes to his senses, the parable of the Prodigal Son says
God has not given up on Ron if he wants to come home.
Ray Martinez, Protestant Evangelical Creationist.
gregwrld
If anyone should scare the hell out of christians its you. It's hard
enough to
have faith and then you come along to demonstrate how faith can
produce a
complete loon like you.
It's not hard for many christians to accept that the TOE is the best
explanation
for biological diversity. For them, it just makes god all the wiser
and more profound.
It is hard for them to reconcile your version of christianity with
theirs.
But then, you belong to an obscure cult of personality centered on
the teachings
of a con man.
gregwrld
richardal...@googlemail.com
So what is the theory of ID and how can it be falsified?
I'm not asking for a potential falsifier of evolutionary theory, but a
potential falsifier of the assertion that an unspecified but possibly
supernatural entity interferes in normal evolutionary processes to an
unspecified extent and in an unspecified way.
I can think of no possible phenomenon which can *NOT* be "explained"
by such an assertion. but perhaps you can.
Of course, unless you can, there is no theory of ID.
If you think that there is a theory of ID, perhaps you can explain why
the DI are lobbying to have the definition of science changed to
accommodate the supernatural? After all, no theory in any branch of
any science requires supernatural intervention, so why should ID be
treated differently?
RF
Slimebot McGoo
You must mean ID's agenda to attack, undermine and redefine science
out of existence. If not, please describe a scientific advance made
by ID. Why do you lie about this?
>Or maybe the comment was written by an angry Atheist-evolutionist
>insulting the main rival to his theory?
Since ID isn't a scientific theory, it can't be any kind of "rival" to
the theory of evolution. Why do you lie about this?
>If the latter is true then the comment also plainly exposes a
>willingness to brazenly lie since ID enjoys the support of tens of
>millions of persons in this nation.
Is astrology true because millions of persons "support" it, Ray? In
this case I don't believe you're lying - just stupid.
>Since the comment was written by
>an Atheist all is explained. I am sorry that the preceding observation
>smears all Atheists but I herein exempt the honest ones.
Nobody cares who you "exempt" from your own nonsense.
>> That is Ron's
>> point, and one reason he describes ID as a "scam;" there is no
>> teachable theory of ID,
>
>Ron is one of ours, that is, a Christian, he is presently confused as
>I have gently pointed out and we decry your pernicious attempt to
>further confuse him by justifying his confusion. Since you are an
>Atheist all is explained but not forgotten or forgiven.
Everything you ever say here is explained by the fact that you're a
babbling cretin.
Your "enemies" here aren't enemies of Christians, Ray. They're
enemies of willful stupidity and hateful prejudice. Besides, you're
not a Christian.
>There is no comforting answer; Ron is a classic example of a confused
>person. He is not a liar and he is not evil since he honestly believes
>that the theories which say that his Savior's Father is directly
>responsible for produing reality is not true.
Nodoby will take your definition of "evil" seriously, Ray. If you
weren't completely nuts you'd be the definition of evil.
>Ron is responsible before God for his own decision to accept evolution
>is the first place resulting in his confusion, all we fellow
>Christians can do is point to him and learn and see that he is a
>victim of the pernicious lies and perverted logic known as Evolution -
>a theory that all Atheists rabidly support and defend for obvious
>reasons.
>
>Invulnerable logic:
Everything contained in that titanium skull of yours is invulnerable,
Ray, but none of it is logic.
McGoo
Steven J.
> On Jun 5, 8:47 pm, "Steven J." <steve...@altavista.com> wrote:
>
> > On Jun 5, 7:58 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
> > > 17 times Ron writes the word "scam" or a derivative in the above
> > > broken record rant describing theories which say God created reality.
>
> > How can one describe a theory that does not exist?
>
> Are we to believe that the above comment was written by a person
> inhabiting reality during the last 20 years? Has this person been
> living in a cave or outer space unconnected to reality and does not
> know about the current ID movement and their science agenda?
>
agenda. The former aims to tell creationists that science supports
their beliefs; the second aims to prevent the schools from informing
their children otherwise. What it does not have is a science agenda.
It shows no interest in explaining how the Designer designs, or what
the purposes or design philosophy of the Designer might be, or (most
interesting and seemingly doable) how design is actually implemented.
It does not even commit itself to the question of when design events
took place, or how many. ID does not even seem interested in studying
nature for itself and discovering new, supposedly "irreducibly
complex" or "specifically complex" biological structures; it relies on
quote-mining papers by non-creationists.
>
> Or maybe the comment was written by an angry Atheist-evolutionist
> insulting the main rival to his theory?
>
theory; it's a rival to current information theories. ID holds that
design can be recognized without any idea of the nature, goals, or
methods of the designer(s). I'm not sure how one would go about
rigorously testing that theory, and ID proponents don't seem
interested in developing the theory to the extent that it can be
rigorously tested, but in any case that proposition does not, by
itself, imply that humans do not share ancestors with monkeys (indeed,
Michael Behe, a leading ID proponent, argues in his new book that we
do). It does not even imply, by itself, that we are not products of
unguided natural processes; it takes a lot of handwaving and
misrepresentation of the data to argue that point. ID proponents do
argue that natural processes could not have shaped us, but they have
not shown this; all they have shown is that there is no detailed
reconstruction of how such processes have shaped various aspects of
living things.
>
> If the latter is true then the comment also plainly exposes a
> willingness to brazenly lie since ID enjoys the support of tens of
> millions of persons in this nation. Since the comment was written by
> an Atheist all is explained. I am sorry that the preceding observation
> smears all Atheists but I herein exempt the honest ones.
>
many millions of people have to think a vague, untestable assertion is
a theory before it becomes one? How many millions of people have to
believe a bad argument before it becomes a sound argument? Please
recall that millions of people can't tell you who their senators are,
much less correctly state a single ID argument; how much value should
one put on the support these people offer to ID?
>
> > That is Ron's
> > point, and one reason he describes ID as a "scam;" there is no
> > teachable theory of ID,
>
> Ron is one of ours, that is, a Christian, he is presently confused as
> I have gently pointed out and we decry your pernicious attempt to
> further confuse him by justifying his confusion. Since you are an
> Atheist all is explained but not forgotten or forgiven.
>
any random atheist or agnostic, assume that you are right? After all,
Gerardus Bouw not only holds that only a confused Christian could
adhere to the pernicious atheist teachings that the Earth orbits the
sun. Ken Ham holds that only a confused Christian could adhere to the
pernicious uniformitarian belief that the Earth is much more than
6000 years old. Therefore, either would insist that you are as
confused as Ron is, a blind man trying to lead the blind. Conversely,
a great many Christians would insist that, since his acceptance of
evolution is justified by the evidence, that you in your creationist
refusal to accept facts are confused, and attempting to instill that
confusion in others -- a blind leader of the seeing.
>
> > a point which ID proponents admit in some
> > circles but don't point out to the creationists who make up the bulk
> > of their support. Of course, ID is a scam in other ways: it's just a
> > bunch of creationist arguments with a new paint job and a new name
> > (or, as Ron O points out, a series of new names), invented to get
> > creationism into the science curriculum after courts ruled that
> > "scientific creationism" was not really scientific.
>
> We know Atheists believe and/or misrepresent all opposition to atheist-
> evolution this way - what is your point?
>
evolutionary theory, and [b] wrong, no matter what my own religious
beliefs. I have not misrepresented it.
completely. You are not an entirely satisfying interlocutor.
>
> > Again, many Christians, yourself included, agree with "rabid atheist
> > Richard Dawkins" about the age of the Earth and the fact that the
> > Earth orbits the sun, no matter how much Gerardus Bouw protests that
> > Copernicanism and Lyellianism are as hostile to the Bible and faith as
> > is Darwinism.
>
> > > We (= fellow Christians) do not want anyone to think that our Ronny is
> > > a closet Atheist, we want the world and Group to know that he is a
> > > Christian and that he is genuinely confused at the present time.
> > > Apparently the scam of Evolution has made him believe that it is the
> > > way his God created, why else would he defend it so vigorously?
>
> > I would assume that Ron O. objects to dishonesty and stupidity. I do
> > not think it an outrageous speculation to suppose that, as a
> > Christian, he is especially embarrassed and offended by people (like
> > the leaders of the ID movement) who inspire Christians to behave
> > stupidly and dishonestly.
>
> This is one of the reasons why our Ron is confused. He has the total
> backing of this Atheist who has patted him on the back. How do we
> explain a Christian like Ron O. who enjoys unwavering support of the
> enemies of Christians (= Atheists)?
>
Why do you suppose that people cannot agree on some issues and
disagree on others? Yet again, Ken Ham and you enjoy the unwavering
support of atheists on the question of heliocentrism.
>
> There is no comforting answer; Ron is a classic example of a confused
> person. He is not a liar and he is not evil since he honestly believes
> that the theories which say that his Savior's Father is directly
> responsible for produing reality is not true.
>
if someone would point you to an exit). Now, on my own understanding,
as conveyed to me by reliable witnesses, I was not directly produced
by a miracle, but came to be through the natural processes of human
reproduction. Indeed, this is true, _mutatis mutandis_, for an
enormous range of reality: not one living thing around you, so far as
can be determined or as most creationists teach, was directly produced
by the Savior's father, but arose through natural ("secondary," to a
theologian) causes. If God can yet be the Creator of a reality so
little of which He directly created, why could he not be the Creator
of a world formed and shaped by evolutionary processes?
>
> Ron is responsible before God for his own decision to accept evolution
> is the first place resulting in his confusion, all we fellow
> Christians can do is point to him and learn and see that he is a
> victim of the pernicious lies and perverted logic known as Evolution -
> a theory that all Atheists rabidly support and defend for obvious
> reasons.
>
evidence for evolution is neither pernicious lies nor perverted
logic.
>
> Invulnerable logic: anytime a Christian and Atheists agree on origins
> the Christian is confused. The Bible voluminously explains confusion
> to be an effect of the work of the invisible Devil.
>
write fairly well for someone working in an acquired tongue. However,
you ought to know that in standard English, "invulnerable logic" does
not mean "arbitrary and ludicrous assertion," and you really ought to
stop using it that way.
>
> Ron O. should literally scare the hell out of any Christian who has
> not lost his or her mind and is contemplating the "truth of
> evolution." That "truth" gets you the approval of Atheists, which,
> logically, should make you see that there is no truth in a theory that
> assumes God is not responsible for reality; the evidence then, no
> matter what, can ever harm the assumption and assumptions, of course,
> are not evidence, but in this case, just plain Atheist philosophy
> parading as "science."
>
general, why are you presuming to tell Christians who have not lost
their minds what to think and how to feel?
Ray, the fact that people don't agree with you, even about the point
that God exists and that Gene Scott had His fax number, agree on a
conclusion does not prove that the conclusion is false. Evolutionary
theory does not assume that God is not responsible for reality; it
concludes that He did not specially create a world of unrelated
biological "kinds." There is a difference. Nor does it follow, from
the fact that some evolutionist differ from you theologically, that
their data is false or their theories unfalsifiable. You cannot show
that evolutionary theory is "just plain atheist philosophy parading as
science" simply by asserting it and noting that many atheist accept
evolutionary theories.
>
> I hope Ron comes to his senses, the parable of the Prodigal Son says
> God has not given up on Ron if he wants to come home.
>
The parable of the wheat and tares, on the other hand, says that it is
not your place to decide who is and is not a true follower of God.
>
> Ray Martinez, Protestant Evangelical Creationist.
>
Shouldn't that be, "Ray Martinez, Incorrigible Gene Scott Fetishist?"
-- Steven J.
-- Steven J.
WuzYoungOnceToo
>
> If someone else comes up with another word that effectively conveys
> what the ID scam artists have been doing for the last half decade with
> ID they can put it forward. I feel sorry for Ray. I don't rag on him
> because I don't think that he is competent enough to understand what
> he does or writes. He obviously isn't competent enough to rationally
> evaluate the current situation.
In Texas, you'd follow that up with "Bless his heart."
Ray Martinez
Technically, you have a point. I said technically.
> nor
> did Ron O imply there are.
>
No shit.
> Desertphile's Desert Soliloquy. WARNING: view with plenty of water
> "Why aren't resurrections from the dead noteworthy?" -- Jim Rutz- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Ray
wf...@comcast.net
<pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>Invulnerable logic: anytime a Christian and Atheists agree on origins
>the Christian is confused. The Bible voluminously explains confusion
>to be an effect of the work of the invisible Devil.
gee. anytime a christian and an atheist agree on heliocentrism the
christian is confused
anytime an xtian and atheist agree on atomic theory...germ theory of
disease...the xtian is confused.
seems xtians spend alot of time being confused.
>
Gerry Murphy
"Ray Martinez" <pyram...@yahoo.com>,the paranoid poster child for
psychological projection, prevaricated in message
news:1181262537....@p47g2000hsd.googlegroups.com...
<snip>
So, Ray, how's your paper coming?
Didn't you promise to finish it before posting again?
Oh, of course, how silly of me! You were lying.
Ray Martinez
Are you talking about DI's ID theory or historic ID?
> I'm not asking for a potential falsifier of evolutionary theory, but a
> potential falsifier of the assertion that an unspecified but possibly
> supernatural entity interferes in normal evolutionary processes to an
> unspecified extent and in an unspecified way.
Comment presupposes that evolution has happened. Historic ID rejects
this proposition.
> I can think of no possible phenomenon which can *NOT* be "explained"
> by such an assertion. but perhaps you can.
> Of course, unless you can, there is no theory of ID.
> If you think that there is a theory of ID, perhaps you can explain why
> the DI are lobbying to have the definition of science changed to
> accommodate the supernatural? After all, no theory in any branch of
> any science requires supernatural intervention, so why should ID be
> treated differently?
> RF- Hide quoted text -
> - Show quoted text -
I support the DI in general because they are attempting to get things
on the right track, but I do not agree with their version and
definition of ID. Tony Pagano convinced me that DI science
interpretation first runs through a political agenda filter. A
political agenda should never determine the interpretation of
scientific evidence. Do not get me wrong, I totally agree that
science
is mis-defined by the in-power status quo in order to protect their
godless theory, but the end (restore correct definition of science)
does not justify the means (interpret scientific evidence
inaccurately
in order to help that agenda).
The issue between Pagano and I was over the best way to present and
evidence special creation in case you were wondering.
Ray
Ray Martinez
Be that as it may, you are wrong and I and every other IDist already
knew this, sheesh!
>
>
>
>
> > > > We know that Ronny is a Christian who professes a miracle, that the
> > > > Risen Christ is his Savior, yet he is absolutely convinced that
> > > > Intelligent Design and Creationism (theories which say the Father of
> > > > his Savior is responsible for reality) are "scams" and the theory that
> > > > says Divine power is not responsible for reality (Evolution) is
> > > > literal truth. How do we explain such contradiction? How do we explain
> > > > a Christian who believes what rabid Atheist Richard Dawkins believes
> > > > concering the production of nature and mankind?
>
> > > Intelligent design says that we can tell that supernatural causes
> > > produced some aspects of biology.
Yes.
> > > Creationism says that science can't
> > > determine the facts about origins, and that all statements about
> > > origins are based on faith
Fucking false as it fucking gets.
Creationism is Science and it CLAIMS that its facts are based on
observable evidence. How is misrepresenting Creationism "a good point
by your interlocutor"?
> > > (of course, either statement may be found
> > > from proponents of either position, but if you want to distinguish
> > > them, that will do). Neither position necessarily follows from the
> > > belief that "the Father of his Savior is responsible for reality."
Since your beliefs and suppositions about ID and Creationism are
wrong, no wonder. Where ever a false belief exists everything built on
that belief will perpetuate said error.
There are basically two types of ID: DI IDism and historic ID. The
latter is just another name for Creationism, much like Darwinism is
just another name for Evolution of ToE.
But please tell me again, because I sure do not understand how you
think that Creationism or any ID does not foundationally say and claim
that reality was not produced by the Father?
I understand that DI IDism denies, much like Darwinism and Evolution
denies any statement about God, or rather I should say that
Talk.Origins evolutionists and a streak of internal and external
scholarship make this claim, which is actually an agenda. But the
point is that with denials aside the very words "intelligent design"
are making a claim and statement about God. Culturally, "evolution" is
understood to be making a claim about God's non-existence, literally
and emotively. Deny as you will and it still exists in reality.
Your point about Creationism and Ron is false since Creationism
plainly says and is saying that God is the creator of reality.
Ray
to be contiunued....
> ...
>
> read more »- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
Steven J.
> On Jun 7, 9:58 am, richardalanforr...@googlemail.com wrote:
>
> > So what is the theory of ID and how can it be falsified?
>
>
> Are you talking about DI's ID theory or historic ID?
>
> > I'm not asking for a potential falsifier of evolutionary theory, but a
> > potential falsifier of the assertion that an unspecified but possibly
> > supernatural entity interferes in normal evolutionary processes to an
> > unspecified extent and in an unspecified way.
>
> Comment presupposes that evolution has happened. Historic ID rejects
> this proposition.
>
"historic ID." Even in Darwin's day, it was widely accepted that a
single ancestral stock could differentiate into distinct local
varieties of a species. That is evolution: microevolution, but still
evolution. This is still, I think, the position of typical OECs.
Many YECs accept much larger degrees of evolution "within kinds,"
including limited speciation. The modern ID movement is all over the
map, of course, with Behe accepting universal common descent (albeit
with natural selection doing only a small part of the job of adaption
and speciation), and others accepting only microevolution. But any
position that might be called "historic ID" accepts that some
evolution, perhaps a very great deal of it, has happened. Note that
causing new species to come into existence, which are similar to other
species but could not be derived from them by natural mechanisms,
would qualify as "interfering in normal evolutionary processes" (which
a creationist/IDer would not expect to produce changes of that
magnitude).
>
> > I can think of no possible phenomenon which can *NOT* be "explained"
> > by such an assertion. but perhaps you can.
> > Of course, unless you can, there is no theory of ID.
> > If you think that there is a theory of ID, perhaps you can explain why
> > the DI are lobbying to have the definition of science changed to
> > accommodate the supernatural? After all, no theory in any branch of
> > any science requires supernatural intervention, so why should ID be
> > treated differently?
> > RF- Hide quoted text -
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> I support the DI in general because they are attempting to get things
> on the right track, but I do not agree with their version and
> definition of ID. Tony Pagano convinced me that DI science
> interpretation first runs through a political agenda filter. A
> political agenda should never determine the interpretation of
> scientific evidence. Do not get me wrong, I totally agree that
> science
> is mis-defined by the in-power status quo in order to protect their
> godless theory, but the end (restore correct definition of science)
> does not justify the means (interpret scientific evidence
> inaccurately in order to help that agenda).
>
course, you avoid dealing with the scientific evidence inaccurately by
refusing to deal with it at all, on the one hand dismissing all
evidence for evolution as fraud or as distorted by racism and atheism,
which does not so much correct science as abolish it. And science is
defined as "naturalistic" only to the extent that only theories in
terms of causes with discoverable natures can be tested and confirmed
or falsified. This is the point you do not address at all in your
reply: what possible observation would falsify the idea of "design" in
living things?
>
> The issue between Pagano and I was over the best way to present and
> evidence special creation in case you were wondering.
>
or, assuming it existed, evidence against special creation?
>
> Ray
-- Steven J.
Ray Martinez
If God exists then He has to be ultimately responsible for eveything.
>From this fact you launch into a very old straw man argument of
listing absurdity after absurdity. Absent from all these age old straw
man misrepresentations is the recognition of the Angelic and Adamic
fall, and Free Will, which accounts for your blame God absurdities.
Any introduction of the Hebrew and Christian Deity into any argument
must acknowledge both reductions and their consequences because the
only source for said Deity includes these claims. Therefore, your
statement above contains a false fact, and like I said in previous
post eveything built on this error will perpetuate said error.
> > > or those, like the
> > > Aramean incursions into Israel after the death of Ahab, or the
> > > Babylonian conquest of Judah, that proceeded from human decisions.
"Aramean?" These particular events are God's hand, stubbing ones toe
is not.
> > > If
> > > God can use the Babylonians to chastise human beings, it seems to me
> > > that He can certainly use evolution to create them.
The source of Babylonian instrumentation equal to the punishing hand
of God is from the O.T. and is valid.
The same source does not say a word about creating through
***Darwinian*** evolution. In fact, the creation chapters were written
to say creation did NOT happen that way.
With this said, what is your source for God creating by Darwinian
evolution?
You have made a counterfactual leap, TEist corruption notwithstanding.
> > > But from this it
> > > does not follow that we must be able to scientifically discern divine
> > > intervention in the case of either the fall of Jerusalem in 586 BC or
> > > in the origin of species.
>
You did not explain how your conclusion about the fall of Jerusalem is
justified since the source you are using says it was caused by God?
Real quickly I can tell you that ONE of the best ways to know the
origin claims is true is via the many historical claims being
evidenced true. We an open minded and objective person sees claim
after claim after claim in the O.T. be evidenced true, then the hard
ones are assumed true based on the previous performance. The physical
evidence existing in the British Museum alone supporting O.T.
historical claims is utterly staggering. You "evidence-based-and-
driven" evolutionists should spend some time looking at that. But the
prima facie evidence for special creation and the origin of species is
in my paper. Evolutionists are major hypocrites for hammering the
Bible for small evidential gaps, yet the deep time gaps of
evolutionary theory is almost undescribeable. All I have argued is
that the virtually groundless extrapolation that evolutionists employ
as compared to the tiny gaps in Biblical evidence between events and
the subsequent blind eye turned toward your own evidential problems is
a double standard of epic proportions.
As for Ron, since you are an Atheist, your defense can only hurt him.
You should let a TEist take up his cause.
Ray
Steven J.
> On Jun 7, 3:18 pm, "Steven J." <steve...@altavista.com> wrote:
>
>
> > My point is that ID is [a] not a theoretical alternative to
> > evolutionary theory, and [b] wrong, no matter what my own religious
> > beliefs. I have not misrepresented it.
>
> Be that as it may, you are wrong and I and every other IDist already
> knew this, sheesh!
>
modern ID proponents (the proponents of what you call "historic ID"
did not call their position "ID," and I see no reason to differ from
their usage, or non-usage). You offer no suggestions about testable
predictions or possible falsifiers of ID, either the modern or
historic versions. I cannot see how you *know* I am wrong, no matter
how firmly you believe it. And, again, modern ID proponents have
outright admitted that they have no teachable theory to offer
alongside or in place of evolutionary theory; why should I take your
word over theirs?
>
> > > > > We know that Ronny is a Christian who professes a miracle, that the
> > > > > Risen Christ is his Savior, yet he is absolutely convinced that
> > > > > Intelligent Design and Creationism (theories which say the Father of
> > > > > his Savior is responsible for reality) are "scams" and the theory that
> > > > > says Divine power is not responsible for reality (Evolution) is
> > > > > literal truth. How do we explain such contradiction? How do we explain
> > > > > a Christian who believes what rabid Atheist Richard Dawkins believes
> > > > > concering the production of nature and mankind?
>
> > > > Intelligent design says that we can tell that supernatural causes
> > > > produced some aspects of biology.
>
> Yes.
>
> > > > Creationism says that science can't
> > > > determine the facts about origins, and that all statements about
> > > > origins are based on faith
>
> Fucking false as it fucking gets.
>
assertion became supported if you strung enough obscenities through
the assertion?
>
> Creationism is Science and it CLAIMS that its facts are based on
> observable evidence. How is misrepresenting Creationism "a good point
> by your interlocutor"?
>
in Genesis, which repeatedly states that creationists and
evolutionists use the same facts and simply interpret them through
different sets of assumptions (we interpret them through the
assumption that any account of origins might in principle be wrong,
and they interpret it through the assumption that theirs cannot
possibly be wrong). AiG has, as a fundamental premise for studying
the universe, the view that "No apparent, perceived or claimed
evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid
if it contradicts the Scriptural record." Most creationist
organizations have such a statement among their statements of faith.
Now, yes, creationism asserts that its positions are based on
observable evidence, but when they assert that the same observable
evidence can support a 6000-year-old Earth or a 4.55 billion-year-old
Earth, depending on interpretative assumptions that must be accepted
on faith, it is absurd to call those positions "facts." This is the
distinction creationists draw between "origins science" (where
inferences from the facts CANNOT themselves be facts) and "operations
science" (where inferences from facts CAN be facts themselves).
Mainstream science, of course, rejects this distinction.
>
> > > > (of course, either statement may be found
> > > > from proponents of either position, but if you want to distinguish
> > > > them, that will do). Neither position necessarily follows from the
> > > > belief that "the Father of his Savior is responsible for reality."
>
> Since your beliefs and suppositions about ID and Creationism are
> wrong, no wonder. Where ever a false belief exists everything built on
> that belief will perpetuate said error.
>
Ray, out of idle curiosity, why should I place more weight on what you
claim ID and creationism say, than I do on what, e.g. the Discovery
Institute and Answers in Genesis claim ID and creationism say?
>
> There are basically two types of ID: DI IDism and historic ID. The
> latter is just another name for Creationism, much like Darwinism is
> just another name for Evolution of ToE.
>
Historically, "ID" was not a term used for creationism; it emerged
after court cases in the U.S. ruled that "scientific creationism" was
in fact a religious rather than scientific position. So there is no
good reason to speak of "historic ID," as opposed to "historic
precursors of modern ID" such as Paley.
>
> But please tell me again, because I sure do not understand how you
> think that Creationism or any ID does not foundationally say and claim
> that reality was not produced by the Father?
>
There is a differences between saying something (as an article of
faith) and claiming that it is a scientifically-demonstrated fact.
Now, officially, the modern ID movement indeed refrains from saying
that the intelligent Designer was the Faither (or even that the
intelligent Designer is supernatural, or one, or holy, or faithful).
Creationism (at least Christian creationism; there are Hindu, Muslim,
and other variants of creationism, but we were not discussing them)
does say that "reality was produced by the Father," but, as noted, in
general they do not claim that this, anymore than common descent, can
be established as a scientific fact.
I apologize if I failed to make the distinction clear in my earlier
post.
>
> I understand that DI IDism denies, much like Darwinism and Evolution
> denies any statement about God, or rather I should say that
> Talk.Origins evolutionists and a streak of internal and external
> scholarship make this claim, which is actually an agenda.
>
There is a rather large difference between ID not officially saying
the Designer is God, and evolutionary theory not saying whether God
somehow acts through evolution. The ID insists that there is
scientific proof of a Designer, and then feigns a complete inability
to say anything about Whom that Designer might be (although they are
quite willing to drop broad hints in front of creationist audiences).
Evolutionary theorists currently hold that there is no evidence for
any theory about how God's purposes or methods are manifest in
evolution, and note that science can make no claims about supernatural
(scientifically-untestable) forces that might be somehow at work.
Let me put it this way: the universe may well be full of things that
science cannot discover or explain; it would be equally absurd, from a
scientific point of view, to assert that these things exist or that
they do not. By definition, we don't know anything about things we
don't know anything about. But if ID proponents claim we *know* there
is a designer, it seems very strange indeed to rush to proclaim that
studying His designs tells us nothing of His nature, powers, or
constraints.
>
> But the
> point is that with denials aside the very words "intelligent design"
> are making a claim and statement about God. Culturally, "evolution" is
> understood to be making a claim about God's non-existence, literally
> and emotively. Deny as you will and it still exists in reality.
>
I know that from Asa Grey on through Kenneth Miller, some
evolutionists have concluded that evolution does not make any
statement about God's non-existence. There are of course large
numbers of creationists who disagree. This belief still exists in
reality, as do beliefs about statues that bleed, about virgins waiting
for suicide bombers in the afterlife, and about the power to attract
wealth or the flu just by thinking about it. What people who don't
understand evolutionary theory or the philosophy of science think that
evolution implies ought, I think, be given less weight than what
people who actually understand evolutionary biology think about what
it implies.
>
> Your point about Creationism and Ron is false since Creationism
> plainly says and is saying that God is the creator of reality.
>
Christian creationism plainly says that Christ died for our sins.
Does it therefore state that this is a scientifically demonstrated
fact? Again, it seems to me that creationism claims (at least in
modern times) that statements about origins are statements of faith,
not (scientific) fact. Of course the creationist holds that his faith
is true, but it does not follow that science can demonstrate that it
is true.
>
> Ray
>
> to be contiunued....
>
-- [snip]
>
-- Steven J.
Earle Jones
"Gerry Murphy" <gerry...@comcast.net> wrote:
> "Ray Martinez" <pyram...@yahoo.com>,the paranoid poster child for
> psychological projection, prevaricated in message
> news:1181262537....@p47g2000hsd.googlegroups.com...
>
> <snip>
>
> So, Ray, how's your paper coming?
This is, I'm afraid, one of those questions:
"Pious Jews have a category of questions that can harmlessly be
allowed to go without an answer until the Messiah comes.
I suspect that this is one of them."
--Joseph C. Fineman
earle
*
Steven J.
> On Jun 7, 3:18 pm, "Steven J." <steve...@altavista.com> wrote:
>
>
> > > > Intelligent design says that we can tell that supernatural causes
> > > > produced some aspects of biology. Creationism says that science can't
> > > > determine the facts about origins, and that all statements about
> > > > origins are based on faith (of course, either statement may be found
> > > > from proponents of either position, but if you want to distinguish
> > > > them, that will do). Neither position necessarily follows from the
> > > > belief that "the Father of his Savior is responsible for reality."
> > > > The Bible, after all, holds that God is responsible for all aspects of
> > > > history, even those like meteorology or embryonic development that
> > > > happen according to known naturalistic processes,
>
> If God exists then He has to be ultimately responsible for eveything.
>
the diversity and complexity of life.
>
> From this fact you launch into a very old straw man argument of
> listing absurdity after absurdity. Absent from all these age old straw
> man misrepresentations is the recognition of the Angelic and Adamic
> fall, and Free Will, which accounts for your blame God absurdities.
>
Christian doctrine has traditionally held that God can work through
causes that are ignorant of and unconcerned with, or even outright
hostile to, His will. On those assumptions, God must be capable of
working through naturalistic evolution (which after all, while not
seeking to do His will is, unlike the King of Babylon, not seeking
actively to thwart it). This follows from the principle, which you
called a "fact," that God is ultimately responsible for everything.
>
> Any introduction of the Hebrew and Christian Deity into any argument
> must acknowledge both reductions and their consequences because the
> only source for said Deity includes these claims. Therefore, your
> statement above contains a false fact, and like I said in previous
> post eveything built on this error will perpetuate said error.
>
His, but cannot work through processes that have no will at all? I am
not sure that makes any sense.
>
> > > > or those, like the
> > > > Aramean incursions into Israel after the death of Ahab, or the
> > > > Babylonian conquest of Judah, that proceeded from human decisions.
>
> "Aramean?" These particular events are God's hand, stubbing ones toe
> is not.
>
>
> > > > If
> > > > God can use the Babylonians to chastise human beings, it seems to me
> > > > that He can certainly use evolution to create them.
>
> The source of Babylonian instrumentation equal to the punishing hand
> of God is from the O.T. and is valid.
>
> The same source does not say a word about creating through
> ***Darwinian*** evolution. In fact, the creation chapters were written
> to say creation did NOT happen that way.
>
noted, there are geocentrist creationists who claim they were in fact
written to say this) that the Earth is immobile in space, and that the
sun orbits the Earth. For that matter, the creation account speaks of
a solid canopy over the Earth, with water above it and the sun below
it, although I know of no one who today holds that these passages were
written to teach flat-earth and solid-skyism.
As science progressed, Christians decided that the Bible needed to be
reinterpreted; passages such as Psalm 93:1 were no longer read
literally. There has been, at least since Augustine wrote _On the
Literal Meaning of Genesis_, a tradition of interpreting the creation
account as nonliterally as accounts of a solid sky with windows to let
the rain through.
>
> With this said, what is your source for God creating by Darwinian
> evolution?
>
The source is the multiple coinciding nested hierarchies of
homologies, biogeography, faunal succession in the fossil record,
shared pseudogenes and endogenous retroviruses between humans and
monkeys or between hippos and whales, fossils that straddle any
boundary line you wish to draw between humans and nonhuman apes, and
so forth: the evidence that Darwinian evolution in fact took place,
coupled with the faith-based assumption that God is, as you noted
above, "ultimately responsible for everything that happens."
>
> You have made a counterfactual leap, TEist corruption notwithstanding.
>
> > > > But from this it
> > > > does not follow that we must be able to scientifically discern divine
> > > > intervention in the case of either the fall of Jerusalem in 586 BC or
> > > > in the origin of species.
>
> You did not explain how your conclusion about the fall of Jerusalem is
> justified since the source you are using says it was caused by God?
>
But how do we bring the instruments of science to bear on such a
claim?
>
> Real quickly I can tell you that ONE of the best ways to know the
> origin claims is true is via the many historical claims being
> evidenced true. We an open minded and objective person sees claim
> after claim after claim in the O.T. be evidenced true, then the hard
> ones are assumed true based on the previous performance. The physical
> evidence existing in the British Museum alone supporting O.T.
> historical claims is utterly staggering. You "evidence-based-and-
> driven" evolutionists should spend some time looking at that.
>
The official T.O. stock response to this claim is that many, many
details in Tom Clancy novels can be verified and shown to be factual.
>From this it does not follow that, e.g. a terrorist nuke devastated
Denver a few years back, even though it is claimed in books that make
claim after claim after claim that can be shown to be correct. Many,
many books contain a mixture of facts, untestable assertions, and
demonstrable errors, in various proportions.
If the evidence in the British museum is sufficient evidence for the
purely historical claims of Isaiah, ought not the evidence in the
American Museum of Natural History count as reason to doubt the claims
of a literally-interpreted Genesis?
>
> But the
> prima facie evidence for special creation and the origin of species is
> in my paper. Evolutionists are major hypocrites for hammering the
> Bible for small evidential gaps, yet the deep time gaps of
> evolutionary theory is almost undescribeable. All I have argued is
> that the virtually groundless extrapolation that evolutionists employ
> as compared to the tiny gaps in Biblical evidence between events and
> the subsequent blind eye turned toward your own evidential problems is
> a double standard of epic proportions.
>
There are some rather huge gaps in Biblical evidence. Some are
perhaps not important; the sparsity of extrabiblical evidence for
David is, I think, insufficient reason to reject his historical
existence. But a global flood or separate creation of humans and
other primates requires rather more evidence than showing that, e.g.
Luke was correct about the titles of local rulers in the 1st century
AD. A great deal of the history of the Earth and life on it are
unrecovered and perhaps unrecoverable, but this does not diminish the
support given by the evidence to the parts that can be recovered.
>
> As for Ron, since you are an Atheist, your defense can only hurt him.
> You should let a TEist take up his cause.
>
If Ron asks me to stop trying to help, I'll apologize and back off. I
think you might not be the best judge of his interests, though.
>
> Ray
-- Steven J.
richardal...@googlemail.com
Rejecting a proposition is not the same as proposing a theory which
can be tested using the tools of science.
So what is the potential falsifier of the assertion that an
unspecified but possibly supernatural entity interferes in normal
evolutionary processes to an unspecified extent and in an unspecified
way?
Unless you can produce one, you cannot claim that there is any
scientific theory of ID.
RF
> > I can think of no possible phenomenon which can *NOT* be "explained"
> > by such an assertion. but perhaps you can.
> > Of course, unless you can, there is no theory of ID.
> > If you think that there is a theory of ID, perhaps you can explain why
> > the DI are
>
> ...
>
> read more »
Rolf
The theory of evolution assumes nothing about God; it just consider the
evidence and that's that.
Incidentally, that is what the police do as well; it wouldn't do you no god
to say God told me to do it.
wf...@comcast.net
<pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>Real quickly I can tell you that ONE of the best ways to know the
>origin claims is true is via the many historical claims being
>evidenced true. We an open minded and objective person sees claim
>after claim after claim in the O.T. be evidenced true, t
so are the claims of the 'peloponnesian war'...
OH MY GAWD!!! thucydides is GOD!!!
hen the hard
>ones are assumed true based on the previous performance. The physical
>evidence existing in the British Museum alone supporting O.T.
>historical claims is utterly staggering. You "evidence-based-and-
>driven" evolutionists should spend some time looking at that. But the
>prima facie evidence for special creation and the origin of species is
>in my paper. Evolutionists are major hypocrites for hammering the
>Bible for small evidential gaps, yet the deep time gaps of
>evolutionary theory is almost undescribeable''
BIG difference...evolution does not claim perfection as the bible
does..
Rolf
"Ray Martinez" <pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1181262537....@p47g2000hsd.googlegroups.com...
>
> > potential falsifier of the assertion that an unspecified but possibly
> > supernatural entity interferes in normal evolutionary processes to an
> > unspecified extent and in an unspecified way.
> >
>
> this proposition.
>
> > by such an assertion. but perhaps you can.
> >
> > Of course, unless you can, there is no theory of ID.
> >
> > If you think that there is a theory of ID, perhaps you can explain why
> > the DI are lobbying to have the definition of science changed to
> > accommodate the supernatural? After all, no theory in any branch of
> > any science requires supernatural intervention, so why should ID be
> > treated differently?
> >
> >
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> on the right track, but I do not agree with their version and
> definition of ID.
Why not let us in on your version and definiton of ID? You think you are
better at that than the DI, Behe, Dembski or clown Sal? How many versions
are there?
Tony Pagano convinced me that DI science
> interpretation first runs through a political agenda filter. A
> political agenda should never determine the interpretation of
> scientific evidence.
Right, but who are filtering ID?
Do not get me wrong, I totally agree that science
> is mis-defined by the in-power status quo in order to protect their
> godless theory, but the end (restore correct definition of science)
> does not justify the means (interpret scientific evidence tangetially
> in order to help that agenda).
>
> The issue between Pagano and I was over the best way to present and
> evidence special creation in case you were wondering.
>
> Ray
>
>
Rolf
Ron O
> On Jun 6, 3:35 pm, Daoud <ustadb...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jun 5, 7:08 pm, Ron O <rokim...@cox.net> wrote:
>
> > > On Jun 5, 3:34 pm, Jason Spaceman <notrea...@jspaceman.homelinux.org>
> > > wrote:
>
> > > > From the article:
> > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------限------
>
> > > > Read it athttp://www.richmond.com/education/output.aspx?Article_ID=4707910&Vert...
> > > > orhttp://tinyurl.com/2ud6p6
>
> > and the teaching of science would be now if separation of church and
> > state was NEVER in the constitution? Guess we can just count our
> > blessings that it IS.
>
> Never existed here in the UK and I think we managed ok. In fact I
> believe we've managed to turn out one or two fairly decent scientists
> despite this supposed handicap - neither do we have the engrained
> religiosity of the US.
>
> The real question for the US is perhaps - has it _become_ an issue in
> spite of separation or because of it?- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
In this respect Europe is different. The "older and wiser" condition
applies in that experience matters. Europe experienced the problems
mixing religion and politics could result in. It isn't so much that
it isn't a problem, but more like "we don't want to do that, again."
The US knew about those problems and set up so that they wouldn't
become as much of a problem. We never had to suffer the consequences
of the Inqusition or Reformation. We never had to deal with forced
conversion or 30 year wars going back and forth across the continent.
My take is that it will just be a little longer for Europe to see a
major problem in this regard. People will become complacent and most
will tend to forget or begin to believe that history doesn't apply to
themselves.
Gloat now, but it won't stay this way if history is any indication of
human nature.
Ron Okimoto
Ye Old One
The ID movement do not have a theory and they, like the creationists
the pretend not to be, do not do any real science.
>
>Or maybe the comment was written by an angry Atheist-evolutionist
>insulting the main rival to his theory?
>
>If the latter is true then the comment also plainly exposes a
>willingness to brazenly lie since ID enjoys the support of tens of
>millions of persons in this nation.
Doubt that very much, and I know that asking for a cite would be
asking a bit much of Dishonest Ray.
> Since the comment was written by
>an Atheist all is explained. I am sorry that the preceding observation
>smears all Atheists but I herein exempt the honest ones.
>
>> That is Ron's
>> point, and one reason he describes ID as a "scam;" there is no
>> teachable theory of ID,
>
>Ron is one of ours,
I do not think Ron will be happy to be classed as one of you - he has
more honesty in his little finger than you have in your whole body.
[snip more of Dishonest Ray's usual brand of lies.]
--
Bob.
Ye Old One
<pyram...@yahoo.com> enriched this group when s/he wrote:
>On Jun 7, 9:58 am, richardalanforr...@googlemail.com wrote:
>
>
>> On Jun 7, 5:08 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> > parading as "science."
>
>
>> > I hope Ron comes to his senses, the parable of the Prodigal Son says
>> > God has not given up on Ron if he wants to come home.
>
>
>> > Ray Martinez, Protestant Evangelical Creationist.
>
>
>> So what is the theory of ID and how can it be falsified?
>
>
>
>Are you talking about DI's ID theory or historic ID?
What is the difference? Neither has anything to do with reality.
>
>
>> I'm not asking for a potential falsifier of evolutionary theory, but a
>> potential falsifier of the assertion that an unspecified but possibly
>> supernatural entity interferes in normal evolutionary processes to an
>> unspecified extent and in an unspecified way.
>
>
>Comment presupposes that evolution has happened.
It has.
> Historic ID rejects
>this proposition.
One reason why it failed.
>
>
>> I can think of no possible phenomenon which can *NOT* be "explained"
>> by such an assertion. but perhaps you can.
>
>> Of course, unless you can, there is no theory of ID.
>
>
>> If you think that there is a theory of ID, perhaps you can explain why
>> the DI are lobbying to have the definition of science changed to
>> accommodate the supernatural? After all, no theory in any branch of
>> any science requires supernatural intervention, so why should ID be
>> treated differently?
>
>
>> RF- Hide quoted text -
>
>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
>
>
>I support the DI in general because they are attempting to get things
>on the right track, but I do not agree with their version and
>definition of ID. Tony Pagano convinced me that DI science
They do no science.
>interpretation first runs through a political agenda filter. A
>political agenda should never determine the interpretation of
>scientific evidence.
Nor should a religious filter.
> Do not get me wrong, I totally agree that
>science
>is mis-defined by the in-power status quo in order to protect their
>godless theory, but the end (restore correct definition of science)
>does not justify the means (interpret scientific evidence
>inaccurately
>in order to help that agenda).
>
>The issue between Pagano and I was over the best way to present and
>evidence special creation in case you were wondering.
There is no evidence for special creation. If there was, you would
have produced it long ago.
>
>
>Ray
By the way. I'm still waiting for that email from you.
--
Bob.
Ray Martinez
> On Jun 7, 8:38 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Jun 7, 9:58 am, richardalanforr...@googlemail.com wrote:
>
> > > So what is the theory of ID and how can it be falsified?
>
> -- [snip]
>
> > Are you talking about DI's ID theory or historic ID?
>
> > > I'm not asking for a potential falsifier of evolutionary theory, but a
> > > potential falsifier of the assertion that an unspecified but possibly
> > > supernatural entity interferes in normal evolutionary processes to an
> > > unspecified extent and in an unspecified way.
>
> > Comment presupposes that evolution has happened. Historic ID rejects
> > this proposition.
>
> >From what I understand, this is not true, for any plausible meaning of
>
> "historic ID." Even in Darwin's day, it was widely accepted that a
> single ancestral stock could differentiate into distinct local
> varieties of a species. That is evolution: microevolution, but still
> evolution.
That was a minority belief. Creationism peaked c.1800 and gradually
waned until 1850, then from this point until 1859 science was in a
state of flux and transition. Between 1859 and 1879 Darwinian biology
completed the "palace coup" and took over biology in Britain, France,
Germany and North America.
Prior to 1859 and 1850 the majority view was independent creation, not
evolution. Prior to 1837 Darwin was a Creationist and an
essentialist.
> This is still, I think, the position of typical OECs.
Probably.
Let me say it now: my view as an OEC has changed. I had accepted
microevolution, but now I know for a fact that evolution, as defined
by Darwin, is false. Everything built on Darwin is false. Evolution
has not happened.
If microevolution has occurred then Creationism is falsified. There is
no way around it. I have intensely studied evolution for many years
now and I can, without a doubt, say that if species are mutable by
Darwinian processes then Creationism is false, however. There is no
way around it, evolution has not occurred, Creationism is true. I
intend to prove these assertions in my paper to be released in the
Fall or early Winter of this year.
The CONTEXT of Darwin's proposal was 19th century special creation
Science and Paleyan Argument from Design. The latter rejected
mutability of species in favor of God's direct hand. This is where the
action is (= 19th century), when I falsify Darwin's Beagle research,
which was the definitive evidence used to establish the mutability of
species, everything built on this sand (modern biology) goes with it.
I have to log off.
I will finish replying to your posts ASAP.
Ray
SNIP material that will be answered later...
Tiny Bulcher
Huh-huh. Are you then going to 'falsify' Alfred Russell Wallace's research,
and then all the evolutionary biologists who came after him? Are you going
to 'falsify', seriatim et privatim, all the observed instances of speciation
both in the wild and under experimental conditions (I can post the list
again, if you like)?
Evolution rests not on Darwin alone. You do know that, don't you?
Rolf
I belive that is a blatant lie! Please provide some evidence that you
actually have studeid evolution at all, let alone 'intensely'.
I just do not belivee you, and hiven your track record of telling lies in
all and everyone of your posts, I cant' see how this one might be different.
Besides, evolution does NOt build on Darwin. We can forget all and everythig
Darwin did, thought, and wrote. That would not change the theory of
evolution one bit - we have tons of evidence and facts collected entirely
independent of Darwin or the studies he made on the Beagle. Man, you are
just weird!
> now and I can, without a doubt, say that if species are mutable by
> Darwinian processes then Creationism is false, however. There is no
> way around it, evolution has not occurred, Creationism is true. I
> intend to prove these assertions in my paper to be released in the
> Fall or early Winter of this year.
>
> The CONTEXT of Darwin's proposal was 19th century special creation
> Science and Paleyan Argument from Design. The latter rejected
> mutability of species in favor of God's direct hand. This is where the
> action is (= 19th century), when I falsify Darwin's Beagle research,
> which was the definitive evidence used to establish the mutability of
> species, everything built on this sand (modern biology) goes with it.
No no no, that was just the beginning - 150 years of science have just
confirmed, again and again that Darwins observations were true.
Moder biology rests solidly on its own merits. It is you who are building on
sand, imagination and hypocrisy.
Steven J.
> On Jun 7, 8:21 pm, "Steven J." <steve...@altavista.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Jun 7, 8:38 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Jun 7, 9:58 am, richardalanforr...@googlemail.com wrote:
>
> > > > So what is the theory of ID and how can it be falsified?
>
> > -- [snip]
>
> > > Are you talking about DI's ID theory or historic ID?
>
> > > > I'm not asking for a potential falsifier of evolutionary theory, but a
> > > > potential falsifier of the assertion that an unspecified but possibly
> > > > supernatural entity interferes in normal evolutionary processes to an
> > > > unspecified extent and in an unspecified way.
>
> > > Comment presupposes that evolution has happened. Historic ID rejects
> > > this proposition.
>
> > >From what I understand, this is not true, for any plausible meaning of
>
> > "historic ID." Even in Darwin's day, it was widely accepted that a
> > single ancestral stock could differentiate into distinct local
> > varieties of a species. That is evolution: microevolution, but still
> > evolution.
>
> That was a minority belief. Creationism peaked c.1800 and gradually
> waned until 1850, then from this point until 1859 science was in a
> state of flux and transition. Between 1859 and 1879 Darwinian biology
> completed the "palace coup" and took over biology in Britain, France,
> Germany and North America.
>
support the claim that it was a minority belief among creationists
that species could form varieties or races -- could, in short,
"evolve" (although that term was not used in the sense of change in
populations until Darwin) within limits.
>
> Prior to 1859 and 1850 the majority view was independent creation, not
> evolution. Prior to 1837 Darwin was a Creationist and an
> essentialist.
>
indeed every breed of dog and cattle, must be specially created.
Certainly Darwin, in his studies of variation under domestication,
found breeders who thought this, but most scientists saw the absurdity
of the view.
>
> > This is still, I think, the position of typical OECs.
>
> Probably.
>
> Let me say it now: my view as an OEC has changed. I had accepted
> microevolution, but now I know for a fact that evolution, as defined
> by Darwin, is false. Everything built on Darwin is false. Evolution
> has not happened.
>
Africa, are you saying that they are impossible to distinguish from,
say, the Dutch or the Japanese? Or are you saying that all these
peoples represent separate creation events, so that not even
microevolution was needed to produce local variants of humanity? Or,
more likely, are you using some idiosyncratic (and quite possibly self-
contradictory) definition of "evolution as defined by Darwin?"
Everyone but you admits that "microevolution" has happened. And
before you pull your "according to biblical typology, the majority is
always wrong" act, let me point out that the man who thinks he's
poached egg is equally a minority, and equally wrong.
>
> If microevolution has occurred then Creationism is falsified. There is
> no way around it. I have intensely studied evolution for many years
> now and I can, without a doubt, say that if species are mutable by
> Darwinian processes then Creationism is false, however. There is no
> way around it, evolution has not occurred, Creationism is true. I
> intend to prove these assertions in my paper to be released in the
> Fall or early Winter of this year.
>
Given that species *do* change over time -- maize and bananas all by
themselves prove it -- then either creationism is falsified, or you
have a very weird definition of "evolution" (or both). I myself
cannot see, any more than Ken Ham or Michael Behe, how the existence
of mutations and natural selection or their efficacy in modifying
populations proves creationism false by themselves. Of course, you
would need to demonstrate some built-in limit to how far natural
processes could take evolution, and no one has done this, but the mere
existence of evolution is compatible with creationism. Again, it's
Ray and the poached-egg guy against the world.
>
> The CONTEXT of Darwin's proposal was 19th century special creation
> Science and Paleyan Argument from Design. The latter rejected
> mutability of species in favor of God's direct hand. This is where the
> action is (= 19th century), when I falsify Darwin's Beagle research,
> which was the definitive evidence used to establish the mutability of
> species, everything built on this sand (modern biology) goes with it.
>
Nineteenth century creationism rejected the mutability of one species
into another, but accepted mutability within the limits of species.
Even the modern YEC position -- mutability within but not between
superspecific "kinds" -- would not be absurd, if only they could
define "kinds" and describe in some testable fashion the barriers that
supposedly prevent one "kind" from evolving into another.
Get rid of Darwin's _Beagle_ research, and you still have his research
on barnacles and on orchids, and the research done by others and
collected by him, and the research from embryology and paleontology,
and the research from genetics, and ... well, the point is, that the
"mutability of species" is supported by immense amounts and variety of
research, and does not depend on Darwin's original work, and would not
be refuted even if you succeeded in refuting Darwin's original work.
It's like arguing that if you could refute the work of Dalton in the
early 19th century, you'd have proved all atomic theory and modern
chemistry false.
>
> I have to log off.
>
> I will finish replying to your posts ASAP.
>
You are most gracious, in your own fashion.
>
> Ray
>
> SNIP material that will be answered later...
-- Steven J.
Ray Martinez
> On Jun 7, 8:38 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Jun 7, 9:58 am, richardalanforr...@googlemail.com wrote:
>
> > > So what is the theory of ID and how can it be falsified?
>
> -- [snip]
>
> > Are you talking about DI's ID theory or historic ID?
>
> > > I'm not asking for a potential falsifier of evolutionary theory, but a
> > > potential falsifier of the assertion that an unspecified but possibly
> > > supernatural entity interferes in normal evolutionary processes to an
> > > unspecified extent and in an unspecified way.
>
> > Comment presupposes that evolution has happened. Historic ID rejects
> > this proposition.
>
> >From what I understand, this is not true, for any plausible meaning of
>
> "historic ID." Even in Darwin's day, it was widely accepted that a
> single ancestral stock could differentiate into distinct local
> varieties of a species. That is evolution: microevolution, but still
> evolution. This is still, I think, the position of typical OECs.
> Many YECs accept much larger degrees of evolution "within kinds,"
> including limited speciation.
True.
> The modern ID movement is all over the
> map, of course, with Behe accepting universal common descent (albeit
> with natural selection doing only a small part of the job of adaption
> and speciation), and others accepting only microevolution.
True, but Dembski has shown that IF the concept of selection is true
then it cannot be natural/Nature, it must be the product of someones
intellect, whether human or Divine.
> But any
> position that might be called "historic ID" accepts that some
> evolution, perhaps a very great deal of it, has happened. Note that
> causing new species to come into existence, which are similar to other
> species but could not be derived from them by natural mechanisms,
> would qualify as "interfering in normal evolutionary processes" (which
> a creationist/IDer would not expect to produce changes of that
> magnitude).
>
What?
Negative. We do not "avoid dealing with the scientific evidence...."
We interpret it differently. Secondly, evidence interpreted to say
evolution has occurred has its being within pro-atheist suppositions
and parameters. This means all interpretations and conclusions are
predetermined. At issue is then: whose suppositions are correct
corresponding to reality; or whose suppositions best explain said
evidence to correspond to reality; and whose suppositions best explain
all of the evidence.
The Young Earth explanation is demonstrably false; God told Adam to
REplenish the Earth as oppose to plenish because it had a long pre-
history. Ezekiel saw Lucifer BEFORE his fall in Eden, this also
suggests a very old Earth for those who have a grip on the gestalt of
the Bible and natural sciences. Genesis 1:2 can accurately be
translated "the Earth BECAME a waste and a desolation" because Hebrew
words have various meanings. Context usually decides which meaning but
since we are talking about the second verse in the Bible there is no
previous context. We must use the following verses for context, which
directly suggests an old Earth. The few facts just alluded to are
corroborated by science which favors an old Earth.
The OEC position is shown true in accordance with science; therefore
your "does not so much correct science as abolish it" is without any
merit. Of course I could go on and on and on presenting facts of the
Bible corresponding to scientific reality. Thus far, the evidence
justifies our suppositions.
Now, can you justify your suppositions (ToEs) with facts corresponding
to scientific reality? Probably, but the issue is: whose suppositions
better explain the facts. This formula requires you to state your
suppositions, and not merely define your suppositions to be said facts
(science).
I have (above) presupposed the Biblical worldview.
Your turn.
> And science is
> defined as "naturalistic" only to the extent that only theories in
> terms of causes with discoverable natures can be tested and confirmed
> or falsified. This is the point you do not address at all in your
> reply: what possible observation would falsify the idea of "design" in
> living things?
>
Question presupposes Popperian falsification theory Gospel truth.
Richard Lewontin has plainly stated that natural selection is exempt
from Popperian falsification because it explains most of the facts of
reality and it cannot ever be falsified.
Richard Lewontin Ph.D.
"Darwin's theory of evolution by natural selection in particular is
hopelessly metaphysical, according to the rules of etiquette laid down
in the Logic of Scientific Inquiry and widely believed in by
practicing scientists who bother to think about the problem. The first
rule for any scientific hypothesis ought to be that it is at least
possible to conceive of an observation that would contradict the
theory. For what good is a theory that is guaranteed by its internal
logical structure to agree with all conceivable observations,
irrespective of the real structure of the world? If scientists are
going to use logically unbeatable theories about the world, they might
as well give up natural science and take up religion. Yet is that not
exactly the situation with regard to Darwinism? The theory of
evolution by natural selection states that changes in the inherited
characters of species occur, giving rise to differentiation in space
and time, because different genetical types leave different numbers of
offspring in different environments... Such a theory can never be
falsified, for it asserts that some environmental difference created
the conditions for natural selection of a new character. It is
existentially quantified so that the failure to find the environmental
factor proves nothing, except that one has not looked hard enough. Can
one really imagine observations about nature that would disprove
natural selection as a cause of the difference in bill size? The
theory of natural selection is then revealed as metaphysical rather
than scientific. Natural selection explains nothing because it
explains everything." "Testing the Theory of Natural Selection"
Nature, March 24, 1972 p.181
The before and after context pleads for an exemption of Popperian
falsification because natural selection really does explain "all" the
facts.
My point is: once design is identified as real and actual, as opposed
to illusory, it is not subject to falsification. It becomes a
positively identified observation and NOT a "theory" per se. This is
why I want to call my brand of ID "historic ID" as to differentiate
from whatever the DI "is now saying." Again, I do not oppose the DI;
rather, it is just normal disagreement much like evolutionists agree
evolution has happened but disagree on how it has happened.
> > The issue between Pagano and I was over the best way to present and
> > evidence special creation in case you were wondering.
>
> So? What conclusions did you reach? What would count as evidence for
> or, assuming it existed, evidence against special creation?
>
We both agree special creation is a fact. He goes the faith route
(based on a political agenda of having a theory that has nothing to
say about God). I go the scientific route. If evolution producing
common ancestry is true then special creation is false.
Ray
Steven J.
> On Jun 7, 8:21 pm, "Steven J." <steve...@altavista.com> wrote:
>
>
> > From what I understand, this is not true, for any plausible meaning of
> > "historic ID." Even in Darwin's day, it was widely accepted that a
> > single ancestral stock could differentiate into distinct local
> > varieties of a species. That is evolution: microevolution, but still
> > evolution. This is still, I think, the position of typical OECs.
> > Many YECs accept much larger degrees of evolution "within kinds,"
> > including limited speciation.
>
> True.
>
> > The modern ID movement is all over the
> > map, of course, with Behe accepting universal common descent (albeit
> > with natural selection doing only a small part of the job of adaption
> > and speciation), and others accepting only microevolution.
>
> True, but Dembski has shown that IF the concept of selection is true
> then it cannot be natural/Nature, it must be the product of someones
> intellect, whether human or Divine.
>
of evolutionary theory is a metaphor, used because it's shorter than
"nonrandom survival of randomly variant offspring." There is no need
for a conscious, willful agent doing the "selecting." Are we supposed
to believe that the hand of God is Personally behind every antibiotic-
resistant strain of this or that which turns after overuse of
antibiotics?
>
> > But any
> > position that might be called "historic ID" accepts that some
> > evolution, perhaps a very great deal of it, has happened. Note that
> > causing new species to come into existence, which are similar to other
> > species but could not be derived from them by natural mechanisms,
> > would qualify as "interfering in normal evolutionary processes" (which
> > a creationist/IDer would not expect to produce changes of that
> > magnitude).
>
> What?
>
may not wish to call it "evolution," as though changing names changes
facts, but what they accept is evolution). If evolution routinely
happens, but only within limits, and an intelligent being produces a
change that is greater than what can happen within those limits, that
is "interfering in the normal evolutionary processes."
>
-- [snip]
>
> > That's a very principled position, in its own deranged way. Of
> > course, you avoid dealing with the scientific evidence inaccurately by
> > refusing to deal with it at all, on the one hand dismissing all
> > evidence for evolution as fraud or as distorted by racism and atheism,
> > which does not so much correct science as abolish it.
>
> Negative. We do not "avoid dealing with the scientific evidence...."
> We interpret it differently. Secondly, evidence interpreted to say
> evolution has occurred has its being within pro-atheist suppositions
> and parameters. This means all interpretations and conclusions are
> predetermined. At issue is then: whose suppositions are correct
> corresponding to reality; or whose suppositions best explain said
> evidence to correspond to reality; and whose suppositions best explain
> all of the evidence.
>
that science can't determine the facts about origins, and that all
taking essentially the same position: you interpret the same evidence
(or claim you do) using different "suppositions and parameters." If
you can decide, without faith, which suppositions best correspond to
reality and make sense of all the facts, then you don't need to resort
to talk about "suppositions and parameters" at all; there is an
empirically and scientifically right approach to the data. If you
cannot decide between suppositions without faith, then you are in the
position of saying that there is no way to determine "facts" as
opposed to faith in origins.
This is more than a verbal quibble: you don't really understand your
own position, and are stitching together bits and pieces of arguments
you don't understand. You are unhappy with your opponents on this
thread because they understand your positions better than you do; it
would be more appropriate to be unhappy with yourself, and to have
severe doubts about the validity of your supposed demolition of
evolutionary theory.
>
> The Young Earth explanation is demonstrably false; God told Adam to
> REplenish the Earth as oppose to plenish because it had a long pre-
> history. Ezekiel saw Lucifer BEFORE his fall in Eden, this also
> suggests a very old Earth for those who have a grip on the gestalt of
> the Bible and natural sciences. Genesis 1:2 can accurately be
> translated "the Earth BECAME a waste and a desolation" because Hebrew
> words have various meanings. Context usually decides which meaning but
> since we are talking about the second verse in the Bible there is no
> previous context. We must use the following verses for context, which
> directly suggests an old Earth. The few facts just alluded to are
> corroborated by science which favors an old Earth.
>
Okay, in order: if God told Adam anything, presumably He didn't tell
him in Elizabethan English. "Replenish" translates a Hebrew verb
_male'_ meaning simply "fill up," with no implication of any previous
filling. The word "replenish" apparently relied on earlier
translations into medieval Latin, in which the "re" prefix had lost
much of its former meaning of "again." There is no implication here
of a long prehistory to Earth.
"Lucifer" is a Latin word for "light-bearer," and was an epithet for
the planet Venus (the brightest object, other than the sun or moon, in
the night sky). The original Hebrew is _hellel_, "shining one,"
which, again, seems to have been an epithet for the planet Venus. In
context, the passage seems to a sarcastic reference to the fulsome
titles and praises heaped upon the King of Babylon, the target of the
passage in Ezekiel.
Some "gap theorists" say that Genesis 1:2 can be translated "the Earth
*became* a waste and a desolation," but this is a great deal of weight
to place on a common verb _hayah_, when there is no hint in the
passage that any span of time passed between the creation of the Earth
and its description as _tohu wabohu_.
Again, the most natural meaning of the text, with no need to reconcile
it to a scientifically discovered great age of the Earth, is that the
Earth was originally created "without form and void," and over the
next six days organized into a living whole. Yet this interpretation
implies a catastrophic discontinuity between the recent world and the
prehistoric world that is not seen in the fossil or geological record;
there is no huge mass extinction or global catastrophe discoverable by
paleontology just before humans and other recent species appear. If
one is going to reconcile the Genesis account with science, then the
day-age or, better, the Augustinian symbolic days (with no mapping to
chronology) schemes are better.
>
> The OEC position is shown true in accordance with science; therefore
> your "does not so much correct science as abolish it" is without any
> merit. Of course I could go on and on and on presenting facts of the
> Bible corresponding to scientific reality. Thus far, the evidence
> justifies our suppositions.
>
The assumption that any scientific datum that contradicts one's
interpretation of the Bible can't possibly be a fact is, indeed, fatal
to scientific inquiry; it dictates that one's conclusions precede
one's actual research, and can't be altered by them.
>
> Now, can you justify your suppositions (ToEs) with facts corresponding
> to scientific reality? Probably, but the issue is: whose suppositions
> better explain the facts. This formula requires you to state your
> suppositions, and not merely define your suppositions to be said facts
> (science).
>
Heredity exists. Mutations exist. Differential reproductive success
of variant offspring exists. The nested hierarchy of life exists.
Fossils that some creationists insist are fully human, and other
creationists insist are fully nonhuman, and that people who haven't
sworn to disbelieve all facts that contradict Genesis insist are
intermediate between humans and nonhuman apes, exist. The same
assumptions that we use to infer that one man rather than another is
the father of a particular child are used to establish common ancestry
of disparate species.
>
> I have (above) presupposed the Biblical worldview.
>
You have presupposed one particular Biblical worldview: that the Bible
cannot be wrong or nonliteral in describing separate, blatantly
supernatural origins for separate species, but it can be nonliteral or
at least extremely nonobvious when describing the age of the Earth.
>
> Your turn.
>
My presupposition is that the Bible might be wrong. Not, "must be"
wrong, merely "might be," as any account of past events (including
evolutionary scenarios or proposed mechanisms) might be wrong.
Interpreting the data on the assumption that any data that contradicts
one's ideas must be ignored, denied, or "explained" in omphalistic
terms is not science and is not reasonable.
>
> > And science is
> > defined as "naturalistic" only to the extent that only theories in
> > terms of causes with discoverable natures can be tested and confirmed
> > or falsified. This is the point you do not address at all in your
> > reply: what possible observation would falsify the idea of "design" in
> > living things?
>
> Question presupposes Popperian falsification theory Gospel truth.
> Richard Lewontin has plainly stated that natural selection is exempt
> from Popperian falsification because it explains most of the facts of
> reality and it cannot ever be falsified.
>
Okay, let's rephrase the question: what possible observation would
count against "design," or require that a major auxiliary hypothesis
be altered?
Lewontin's point is this: if one observes that a particular variant is
favored in a particular environment, but one can find no environmental
reason, one can't prove there *isn't* a reason. Evolutionary theory
implies that there are selective pressures we haven't, and perhaps
never will, detect, and how do you falsify that claim? I'm not sure
that this is very different from the situation in other areas of
science: how do you prove, just because all the matter you've checked
is made of atoms, that all matter everywhere is? One could easily
falsify some aspects of natural selection: if there were no variations
in offspring, or if survival were random, or even if there were no
discernable causes of any nonrandom survival, that would be very bad
indeed for natural selection. Given that "genetic drift" (random
evolution not the product of natural selection) is a recognized
phenomenon in evolution, the statement that "natural selection
explains nothing because it explains everything" seems to me either
out of context or false. Lewontin is no more an inerrant prophet of
evolution than Darwin himself was.
>
> The before and after context pleads for an exemption of Popperian
> falsification because natural selection really does explain "all" the
> facts.
>
Clearly, there are facts it does not explain. And there are things
that it explains under circumstances in which it could be falsified.
>
> My point is: once design is identified as real and actual, as opposed
> to illusory, it is not subject to falsification. It becomes a
> positively identified observation and NOT a "theory" per se. This is
> why I want to call my brand of ID "historic ID" as to differentiate
> from whatever the DI "is now saying." Again, I do not oppose the DI;
> rather, it is just normal disagreement much like evolutionists agree
> evolution has happened but disagree on how it has happened.
>
The only design that has been identified as real and actual is human
design; unless you wish to argue that humans designed the bacterial
flagellum and the mammalian blood-clotting cascade, I don't see that
this gets you anywhere. Other examples of "design" are pure and
simple god-of-the-gaps arguments.
>
> > > The issue between Pagano and I was over the best way to present and
> > > evidence special creation in case you were wondering.
>
> > So? What conclusions did you reach? What would count as evidence for
> > or, assuming it existed, evidence against special creation?
>
> We both agree special creation is a fact. He goes the faith route
> (based on a political agenda of having a theory that has nothing to
> say about God). I go the scientific route. If evolution producing
> common ancestry is true then special creation is false.
>
The "scientific route" would involve coming up with an actual theory
and actual evidence for it (as opposed to specious arguments against
evolution).
>
> Ray
-- Steven J.
wf...@comcast.net
<pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>Let me say it now: my view as an OEC has changed. I had accepted
>microevolution, but now I know for a fact that evolution, as defined
>by Darwin, is false. Everything built on Darwin is false. Evolution
>has not happened.
guess ray doesn't keep up on the news. the guy who had the incurable
TB bacteria carries with him the fruits of evolution..bacterial
resistance.
does ray think this story is an atheist/evolutionist conspiracy...
wf...@comcast.net
<pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>True, but Dembski has shown that IF the concept of selection is true
>then it cannot be natural/Nature, it must be the product of someones
>intellect, whether human or Divine.
>
intellect is a product of evolution. we've never seen intellect apart
from brains...and brains are natural.
>
>Negative. We do not "avoid dealing with the scientific evidence...."
>We interpret it differently.
except creationists are parasites. they sit around on their religious
asses, waiting for scientists to do their work, then toss religious
fecal matter at the results.
Secondly, evidence interpreted to say
>evolution has occurred has its being within pro-atheist suppositions
>and parameters
except, of course, most evolutionary biologists are xtians...a problem
for ray's view.
>as well give up natural science and take up religion. Yet is that not
>exactly the situation with regard to Darwinism? The theory of
>evolution by natural selection states that changes in the inherited
>characters of species occur, giving rise to differentiation in space
>and time, because different genetical types leave different numbers of
>offspring in different environments... Such a theory can never be
>falsified, for it asserts that some environmental difference created
>the conditions for natural selection of a new character.
again and again he denies simple incidents of evolution...bacterial
resistance for example...
Dana Tweedy
"Ray Martinez" <pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1181328910.2...@x35g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
>> "historic ID." Even in Darwin's day, it was widely accepted that a
>> single ancestral stock could differentiate into distinct local
>> varieties of a species. That is evolution: microevolution, but still
>> evolution.
>
> That was a minority belief.
No, it was widely recognized. Stock breeders knew that different stocks
were known from different locations.
> Creationism peaked c.1800 and gradually
> waned until 1850, then from this point until 1859 science was in a
> state of flux and transition.
Science did not change in that time period. Creationism was never science.
> Between 1859 and 1879 Darwinian biology
> completed the "palace coup" and took over biology in Britain, France,
> Germany and North America.
There was no "palace coup", and no separate "Darwinian" biology. Biology
is biology. Darwin's theory explained the diversity of life better than any
other scientific theory.
>
> Prior to 1859 and 1850 the majority view was independent creation, not
> evolution.
There was a growing consensus that species were not static, long before
Darwin was even born.
> Prior to 1837 Darwin was a Creationist and an
> essentialist.
Prior to 1837, Darwin accepted the idea that species were fixed. He
realized that wasn't supported by the evidence.
>
>
>> This is still, I think, the position of typical OECs.
>
> Probably.
>
> Let me say it now: my view as an OEC has changed. I had accepted
> microevolution, but now I know for a fact that evolution, as defined
> by Darwin, is false.
No, that's what you hope, but you actually know that's not true. Evolution
has been observed.
> Everything built on Darwin is false. Evolution
> has not happened.
Then you are denying facts that even Creationists aren't foolish enough to
deny.
>
> If microevolution has occurred then Creationism is falsified.
Bingo! Creationism was falsified even before Darwin.
> There is
> no way around it. I have intensely studied evolution for many years
> now and I can, without a doubt, say that if species are mutable by
> Darwinian processes then Creationism is false,
Creationism s false.
> however. There is no
> way around it, evolution has not occurred,
Tell that to all the animals and plants that have evolved.
> Creationism is true. I
> intend to prove these assertions in my paper to be released in the
> Fall or early Winter of this year.
Another deadline to be missed....
>
> The CONTEXT of Darwin's proposal was 19th century special creation
> Science and Paleyan Argument from Design. The latter rejected
> mutability of species in favor of God's direct hand. This is where the
> action is (= 19th century), when I falsify Darwin's Beagle research,
> which was the definitive evidence used to establish the mutability of
> species, everything built on this sand (modern biology) goes with it.
Ray, the evidence for evolution goes far beyond what Darwin collected on the
Beagle, and modern evolutionary theory has gone far beyond what Darwin
collected in hisi lifetime.
>
> I have to log off.
>
> I will finish replying to your posts ASAP.
Once again, Ray runs away...
DJT
Dana Tweedy
snip
>> The modern ID movement is all over the
>> map, of course, with Behe accepting universal common descent (albeit
>> with natural selection doing only a small part of the job of adaption
>> and speciation), and others accepting only microevolution.
>
> True, but Dembski has shown that IF the concept of selection is true
> then it cannot be natural/Nature, it must be the product of someones
> intellect, whether human or Divine.
Where did Dembski show that? Even Dembski doesn't claim that all evolution
is due to the direct hand of God.
>
>
>> But any
>> position that might be called "historic ID" accepts that some
>> evolution, perhaps a very great deal of it, has happened. Note that
>> causing new species to come into existence, which are similar to other
>> species but could not be derived from them by natural mechanisms,
>> would qualify as "interfering in normal evolutionary processes" (which
>> a creationist/IDer would not expect to produce changes of that
>> magnitude).
>>
>
> What?
What part of this is giving you trouble, Ray?
snipp
>> That's a very principled position, in its own deranged way. Of
>> course, you avoid dealing with the scientific evidence inaccurately by
>> refusing to deal with it at all, on the one hand dismissing all
>> evidence for evolution as fraud or as distorted by racism and atheism,
>> which does not so much correct science as abolish it.
>
> Negative. We do not "avoid dealing with the scientific evidence...."
You do. You positively run away from scientific evidence, such as KNM WT
15000
> We interpret it differently.
No, you don't. You ignore what you can't deal with, and lie about what you
think you can.
> Secondly, evidence interpreted to say
> evolution has occurred has its being within pro-atheist suppositions
> and parameters.
No, it's not. It's interpeted within scientific parameters.
> This means all interpretations and conclusions are
> predetermined.
Just because your own conclusions are predetermined, it doesn't mean that
everyone's are.
> At issue is then: whose suppositions are correct
> corresponding to reality; or whose suppositions best explain said
> evidence to correspond to reality; and whose suppositions best explain
> all of the evidence.
That would be science.
>
> The Young Earth explanation is demonstrably false; God told Adam to
> REplenish the Earth as oppose to plenish because it had a long pre-
> history.
What evidence do you have for that assertion? Is there even a word
"plentish"? Moreover, since the word is a translation of the ancient
Hebrew, why would you assume such a thing.
> Ezekiel saw Lucifer BEFORE his fall in Eden,
How dd Ezekiel see this, when he came after Eden?
> this also
> suggests a very old Earth for those who have a grip on the gestalt of
> the Bible and natural sciences.
Ray, you have a very slippery grip on both science and the Bible.
> Genesis 1:2 can accurately be
> translated "the Earth BECAME a waste and a desolation" because Hebrew
> words have various meanings.
Why should anyone assume your interpetation is correct?
> Context usually decides which meaning but
> since we are talking about the second verse in the Bible there is no
> previous context. We must use the following verses for context, which
> directly suggests an old Earth. The few facts just alluded to are
> corroborated by science which favors an old Earth.
What verses suggest an old Earth? Chapter and verse, please.
>
> The OEC position is shown true in accordance with science;
The OEC position is no more scientific than the YEC one.
> therefore
> your "does not so much correct science as abolish it" is without any
> merit. Of course I could go on and on and on presenting facts of the
> Bible corresponding to scientific reality. Thus far, the evidence
> justifies our suppositions.
Ray, how can you "go on" doing something you haven't done yet? You haven't
presented any "facts of the Bible" which correspond to science...
>
> Now, can you justify your suppositions (ToEs) with facts corresponding
> to scientific reality?
Absolutely. One of such facts is the fossil KNM WT 15000. There are
thousands of other facts, which you continue to ignore.
> Probably, but the issue is: whose suppositions
> better explain the facts.
The scientific ones.
>This formula requires you to state your
> suppositions, and not merely define your suppositions to be said facts
> (science).
The "suppositions" are that the evidence matters.
>
> I have (above) presupposed the Biblical worldview.
No, you have stated your own fantasies, without any evidence that supports
them.
Yes, creationists are fond of using out of context quotations. Did you
bother to read the full article (which is a book review, by the way)? In
any case Lewontin's opinions are not the be all and end all of science.
>
> The before and after context pleads for an exemption of Popperian
> falsification because natural selection really does explain "all" the
> facts.
Natural selection does not explain "all the facts", nor was it meant to.
>
> My point is: once design is identified as real and actual, as opposed
> to illusory, it is not subject to falsification.
The problem is, that it's not possible to "identify" what is designed, and
what appears to be designed just by looking at it.
> It becomes a
> positively identified observation and NOT a "theory" per se. This is
> why I want to call my brand of ID "historic ID" as to differentiate
> from whatever the DI "is now saying." Again, I do not oppose the DI;
> rather, it is just normal disagreement much like evolutionists agree
> evolution has happened but disagree on how it has happened.
The difference is that "evolutionists" have evidence that evolution
happened.
>
>> > The issue between Pagano and I was over the best way to present and
>> > evidence special creation in case you were wondering.
>>
>> So? What conclusions did you reach? What would count as evidence for
>> or, assuming it existed, evidence against special creation?
>>
>
> We both agree special creation is a fact. He goes the faith route
> (based on a political agenda of having a theory that has nothing to
> say about God). I go the scientific route.
Ray, you haven't got a "scientific route". All you have is your own
misunderstanding and fantasies...
> If evolution producing
> common ancestry is true then special creation is false.
Then special creation is false. Case closed.
DJT
Rolf
"Ray Martinez" <pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1181341939.4...@q75g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
> > On Jun 7, 8:38 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > > On Jun 7, 9:58 am, richardalanforr...@googlemail.com wrote:
> >
> > > > So what is the theory of ID and how can it be falsified?
[snip]
> My point is: once design is identified as real and actual, as opposed
> to illusory, it is not subject to falsification. It becomes a
> positively identified observation and NOT a "theory" per se.
How can design be identified as real and actual?
FYI, evolution has already been identified as real and actual - which by
application of your way of reasoning then becomes established beyond being
subject to falsification. Evolution therefore has become a positively
Ye Old One
>On Jun 7, 8:21 pm, "Steven J." <steve...@altavista.com> wrote:
>> On Jun 7, 8:38 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> > On Jun 7, 9:58 am, richardalanforr...@googlemail.com wrote:
>>
>> > > So what is the theory of ID and how can it be falsified?
>>
>> -- [snip]
>>
>> > Are you talking about DI's ID theory or historic ID?
>>
>> > > I'm not asking for a potential falsifier of evolutionary theory, but a
>> > > potential falsifier of the assertion that an unspecified but possibly
>> > > supernatural entity interferes in normal evolutionary processes to an
>> > > unspecified extent and in an unspecified way.
>>
>> > Comment presupposes that evolution has happened. Historic ID rejects
>> > this proposition.
>>
>> >From what I understand, this is not true, for any plausible meaning of
>>
>> "historic ID." Even in Darwin's day, it was widely accepted that a
>> single ancestral stock could differentiate into distinct local
>> varieties of a species. That is evolution: microevolution, but still
>> evolution.
>
>That was a minority belief. Creationism peaked c.1800 and gradually
>waned until 1850,
Because more and more scientists were finding big holes in the
concept.
> then from this point until 1859 science was in a
>state of flux and transition. Between 1859 and 1879 Darwinian biology
>completed the "palace coup" and took over biology in Britain, France,
>Germany and North America.
And the rest of the world.
>
>Prior to 1859 and 1850 the majority view was independent creation, not
>evolution. Prior to 1837 Darwin was a Creationist and an
>essentialist.
Was he?
>
>
>> This is still, I think, the position of typical OECs.
>
>Probably.
>
>Let me say it now: my view as an OEC has changed. I had accepted
>microevolution,
Evolution is evolution Dishonest Ray, the terms micro and macro only
mark an artificial line which really does not exist.
> but now I know for a fact that evolution, as defined
>by Darwin, is false. Everything built on Darwin is false. Evolution
>has not happened.
Why to you feel the need to lie on a public newsgroup?
>
>
>If microevolution has occurred then Creationism is falsified. There is
>no way around it. I have intensely studied evolution for many years
No you haven't.
>now and I can, without a doubt, say that if species are mutable by
>Darwinian processes then Creationism is false, however. There is no
>way around it, evolution has not occurred, Creationism is true. I
>intend to prove these assertions in my paper to be released in the
>Fall or early Winter of this year.
You said that last year. In fact you made a firm promise not to post
to this newsgroup until the paper was ready. You are posting, that
proves, beyond all doubt, that you are dishonest.
>
>The CONTEXT of Darwin's proposal was 19th century special creation
>Science and Paleyan Argument from Design. The latter rejected
>mutability of species in favor of God's direct hand. This is where the
>action is (= 19th century), when I falsify Darwin's Beagle research,
>which was the definitive evidence used to establish the mutability of
>species, everything built on this sand (modern biology) goes with it.
>
>I have to log off.
Do not return until you paper is ready.
>
>I will finish replying to your posts ASAP.
No, do not return until your paper is ready.
>
>Ray
>
>SNIP material that will be answered later...
No, for once in you sad and dishonest existence, keep your promise and
do not return until your paper is ready.
--
Bob.
Alexander
Not gloating at all Ron - we have our share of extremists and loons of
various stripes, but the heavily engrained politicised religiosity
that we see in the US seems to exist here within only certain regions
such as the Protestant parties of NI or some areas of Eastern Europe
(Poland springs to mind, especially when it comes to issues around
homosexuality).
What is interesting about the US experience is that while the
separation of church and state seems to have reinforced and emphasised
the differences rather than minimise them the European path has
increasingly been toward a lesser role of religion in day to day
lives.
It's rare, for example, that issues of faith and belief mean that
political candidates will make a public statement to the effect that
they are a God fearing Christian simply because it's not considered a
relevant factor here. In the US of course it's a different matter
entirely.
ID and DI could not really have arisen within Europe for example. Not
just because there is no real strong desire to enforce creationism in
science classes (and where there is a hunger for it via the Vardy/
Emanuel Foundation the thinking behind it is driven by US evangelical
beliefs - not local need or politically motivated parents and school
boards) precisely because there is no requirement to circumvent such a
constitutional limitation.
Here in the UK the Home Office can say 'it's not science therefore
won't be considered as part of the national curriculum' and that's
that. Part of this is tied to how the arguments around science and
religion have grown up together over the past 200 years within
Europe. I'm not saying that dismantling that constitutional
separation would be a good thing for the US now (it certainly wouldn't
be), that Europe couldn't beneft from such similar division now that
the rule of Divine Right and state churches are redundant (they are)
or that things will remain as they are (they most certainly won't).
However, the fact that Europe has had no separation of church and
state has led it to the current situation where religiosity is
markedly less important than the US. Which, considering all your very
valid points about the reason for the consitutional division in the
first place, is ironic. Religion will continue to impact heavily on
US society in a way that it clearly does not here for some
considerable time.
Alexander
> On Jun 6, 1:59 pm, Alexander <alexanderhud...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Jun 6, 3:35 pm, Daoud <ustadb...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Jun 5, 7:08 pm, Ron O <rokim...@cox.net> wrote:
>
> > > > On Jun 5, 3:34 pm, Jason Spaceman <notrea...@jspaceman.homelinux.org>
> > > > wrote:
>
> > > > > From the article:
> needed presently. However, I guess you could argue that it *would*
> have been needed or beneficial 3-400 years ago, when there was
> religious persecution and violence in the UK, and which is why it was
> consciously part of the US constitution.
I understand that - I'm just curious as to how much real difference
it's actually made ... considering the present situation and
comparison between the US and Europe. One of the reasons that various
fundamentalist notions arouse in the US was precisely because of some
of the restrictions the CofE placed around its doctrine. Without such
restrictions the US was free to indulge in its own pursuit of
religious beliefs in any manner of ways which included some
interesting ideas of America's place in the world - especially after
independence.
Without any centralised authority when it came to religion the
differences were enhanced and reinforced and - perhaps rather
unsurprisingly - all Christian. A central doctrine in Europe has,
oddly, acted as a moderating influence and effectively had to mature
and adapt as science and society have become more relevant than faith.
The problem was that while those who wrote the constitution were all
men of the Enlightenment, deists and intellectuals - those that
actually shaped the US's religious framework were nothing like them.
Ron O
> On Jun 8, 12:15 pm, Ron O <rokim...@cox.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jun 6, 12:59 pm, Alexander <alexanderhud...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Jun 6, 3:35 pm, Daoud <ustadb...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Jun 5, 7:08 pm, Ron O <rokim...@cox.net> wrote:
>
> > > > > On Jun 5, 3:34 pm, Jason Spaceman <notrea...@jspaceman.homelinux.org>
> > > > > wrote:
>
> > > > > > From the article:
>
> - Show quoted text -
I agree with all that, but in the US we have had to take the good with
the bad. Certain rights obviously foster certain groups abilities to
gain a foot hold that enables them to try and circumvent the very
rights that they depend on to exist as they do. When you have
conscience and history to guide a path of development it might work
sometimes, but it has failed. In the US they have tried to enforce a
"conscience" due to "history," but it might not be a fair comparison
because we weren't very consistent in the application, and certain
religious groups tended to have more rights than others. We had
things like prayer and laws banning teaching biological evolution in
our public schools until the 1960's. No religion was actively
censored, but some were more equal than others. So certain groups had
it their way and were happy with the status quo. When they lost the
special privileges they got upset. It has turned into an issue that
can be manipulated by the political powers, and they haven't passed up
the opportunity.
Ron Okimoto
Ray Martinez
> On Jun 7, 9:53 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:> On Jun 7, 3:18 pm, "Steven J." <steve...@altavista.com> wrote:
>
> -- [snip of points addressed elsewhere or not at all]
>
> > > > > Intelligent design says that we can tell that supernatural causes
> > > > > produced some aspects of biology. Creationism says that science can't
> > > > > determine the facts about origins, and that all statements about
> > > > > origins are based on faith (of course, either statement may be found
> > > > > from proponents of either position, but if you want to distinguish
> > > > > them, that will do). Neither position necessarily follows from the
> > > > > belief that "the Father of his Savior is responsible for reality."
> > > > > The Bible, after all, holds that God is responsible for all aspects of
> > > > > history, even those like meteorology or embryonic development that
> > > > > happen according to known naturalistic processes,
>
> > If God exists then He has to be ultimately responsible for eveything.
>
> In which case, He could and must be responsible for the evolution of
> the diversity and complexity of life.
>
Lazy-cheap "point" since you already know Creationists and IDists
disagree. Most of all, point is a deliberate corruption of God
attempting to make Him creator of your god-not-involved theory, and
since we know that you are an Atheist the corruption tactic is
confirmed.
> > From this fact you launch into a very old straw man argument of
> > listing absurdity after absurdity. Absent from all these age old straw
> > man misrepresentations is the recognition of the Angelic and Adamic
> > fall, and Free Will, which accounts for your blame God absurdities.
>
> My point was not to blame God for anything, but to point out that
> Christian doctrine has traditionally held that God can work through
> causes that are ignorant of and unconcerned with, or even outright
> hostile to, His will. On those assumptions, God must be capable of
> working through naturalistic evolution (which after all, while not
> seeking to do His will is, unlike the King of Babylon, not seeking
> actively to thwart it). This follows from the principle, which you
> called a "fact," that God is ultimately responsible for everything.
>
There is no verse of scripture that even slightly indicates creation
was by naturalistic evolution and common ancestry. There is not one
evolutionary authority or fact in existence that has ever implied or
said that any Deity or supernatural entity guides evolution. Again,
you are attempting to corrupt scripture by stealing principles and
applying them to your wholly invented "cause," which is asserting God
to have created the evolutionary process - a process and theory that
all Atheists rabidly support and defend. Since you are an infidel your
Bible destruction agenda is obvious and expected. Since you are an
Atheist you have no legitimate reason to want a God involved in
evolution.
You have zero understanding of Christian doctrine, if you did you
would not be butchering the Bible to suit your atheistic ulterior
motives. The Bible is either right or wrong with nothing in between
possible.
> > Any introduction of the Hebrew and Christian Deity into any argument
> > must acknowledge both reductions and their consequences because the
> > only source for said Deity includes these claims. Therefore, your
> > statement above contains a false fact, and like I said in previous
> > post eveything built on this error will perpetuate said error.
>
> Is your claim that God can work through beings with wills that oppose
> His, but cannot work through processes that have no will at all? I am
> not sure that makes any sense.
>
God can and has certainly done the former. There is no evidence of the
latter since Genesis chapters one and two say the exact opposite of
what evolutionary theory claims.
> > > > > or those, like the
> > > > > Aramean incursions into Israel after the death of Ahab, or the
> > > > > Babylonian conquest of Judah, that proceeded from human decisions.
>
> > "Aramean?" These particular events are God's hand, stubbing ones toe
> > is not.
>
> I meant "Aramaean;" my spelling is occasionally wrong.
>
> > > > > If
> > > > > God can use the Babylonians to chastise human beings, it seems to me
> > > > > that He can certainly use evolution to create them.
>
> > The source of Babylonian instrumentation equal to the punishing hand
> > of God is from the O.T. and is valid.
>
> > The same source does not say a word about creating through
> > ***Darwinian*** evolution. In fact, the creation chapters were written
> > to say creation did NOT happen that way.
>
> And several psalms (e.g. Psalm 93:1) specifically state (and, as
> noted, there are geocentrist creationists who claim they were in fact
> written to say this) that the Earth is immobile in space,
And their are Nazi's who endorse evolutionary theory, what is your
point?
All you are doing is defending some crazy Fundamentalist rendering of
the Bible and saying that the Bible is saying that.
Are we to reject ToE because Nazi's endorse said theory? Are we
obligated to answer every crazy rendering of the Bible? Or are you
backing every crazy rendering of the Bible based on your Atheism and
its need to have a source of Theism discredited?
> and that the
> sun orbits the Earth.
The Bible reports that persons living in the 15th century BC believed
that the sun orbited the Earth.
> For that matter, the creation account speaks of
> a solid canopy over the Earth, with water above it and the sun below
> it, although I know of no one who today holds that these passages were
> written to teach flat-earth and solid-skyism.
>
You have conflated one true fact with one false claim.
> As science progressed, Christians decided that the Bible needed to be
> reinterpreted; passages such as Psalm 93:1 were no longer read
> literally. There has been, at least since Augustine wrote _On the
> Literal Meaning of Genesis_, a tradition of interpreting the creation
> account as nonliterally as accounts of a solid sky with windows to let
> the rain through.
>
What does "literal" mean in the context that you are using it?
> > With this said, what is your source for God creating by Darwinian
> > evolution?
>
> The source is the multiple coinciding nested hierarchies of
> homologies, biogeography, faunal succession in the fossil record,
> shared pseudogenes and endogenous retroviruses between humans and
> monkeys or between hippos and whales, fossils that straddle any
> boundary line you wish to draw between humans and nonhuman apes, and
> so forth: the evidence that Darwinian evolution in fact took place,
> coupled with the faith-based assumption that God is, as you noted
> above, "ultimately responsible for everything that happens."
>
No, I meant what is your literary source for any God creating by
evolution?
> > You have made a counterfactual leap, TEist corruption notwithstanding.
>
> > > > > But from this it
> > > > > does not follow that we must be able to scientifically discern divine
> > > > > intervention in the case of either the fall of Jerusalem in 586 BC or
> > > > > in the origin of species.
>
> > You did not explain how your conclusion about the fall of Jerusalem is
> > justified since the source you are using says it was caused by God?
>
> But how do we bring the instruments of science to bear on such a
> claim?
>
History and archaeology has confirmed the claim. The claim resides in
a book claiming to be God's word. The more any claims in the book are
shown true the more the claim that the book contains God's word is
shown true.
> > Real quickly I can tell you that ONE of the best ways to know the
> > origin claims is true is via the many historical claims being
> > evidenced true. We an open minded and objective person sees claim
> > after claim after claim in the O.T. be evidenced true, then the hard
> > ones are assumed true based on the previous performance. The physical
> > evidence existing in the British Museum alone supporting O.T.
> > historical claims is utterly staggering. You "evidence-based-and-
> > driven" evolutionists should spend some time looking at that.
>
> The official T.O. stock response to this claim is that many, many
> details in Tom Clancy novels can be verified and shown to be factual. From this it does not follow >that, e.g. a terrorist nuke devastated
This means that the evolutionist claim to be open for the evidence
that proves the Bible was and is false, confirming what we already
knew and suspected.
> Denver a few years back, even though it is claimed in books that make
> claim after claim after claim that can be shown to be correct. Many,
> many books contain a mixture of facts, untestable assertions, and
> demonstrable errors, in various proportions.
>
Like scientific theories.
> If the evidence in the British museum is sufficient evidence for the
> purely historical claims of Isaiah, ought not the evidence in the
> American Museum of Natural History count as reason to doubt the claims
> of a literally-interpreted Genesis?
>
Yes, but there is no evidence for the latter.
> > But the
> > prima facie evidence for special creation and the origin of species is
> > in my paper. Evolutionists are major hypocrites for hammering the
> > Bible for small evidential gaps, yet the deep time gaps of
> > evolutionary theory is almost undescribeable. All I have argued is
> > that the virtually groundless extrapolation that evolutionists employ
> > as compared to the tiny gaps in Biblical evidence between events and
> > the subsequent blind eye turned toward your own evidential problems is
> > a double standard of epic proportions.
>
> There are some rather huge gaps in Biblical evidence. Some are
> perhaps not important; the sparsity of extrabiblical evidence for
> David is, I think, insufficient reason to reject his historical
> existence. But a global flood or separate creation of humans and
> other primates requires rather more evidence than showing that, e.g.
> Luke was correct about the titles of local rulers in the 1st century
> AD. A great deal of the history of the Earth and life on it are
> unrecovered and perhaps unrecoverable, but this does not diminish the
> support given by the evidence to the parts that can be recovered.
>
> > As for Ron, since you are an Atheist, your defense can only hurt him.
> > You should let a TEist take up his cause.
>
> If Ron asks me to stop trying to help, I'll apologize and back off. I
> think you might not be the best judge of his interests, though.
>
>
>
> > Ray
>
> -- Steven
Ray
Dana Tweedy
snip
>> > If God exists then He has to be ultimately responsible for eveything.
>>
>> In which case, He could and must be responsible for the evolution of
>> the diversity and complexity of life.
>>
>
> Lazy-cheap "point" since you already know Creationists and IDists
> disagree.
But why do they disagree? Does it make God any less able, if he used
natural processes to create?
> Most of all, point is a deliberate corruption of God
> attempting to make Him creator of your god-not-involved theory,
Ray, for someone who claims to be an expert in logic, you are missing the
obvious here. If you believe in God, and God is in charge of everything,
there is no such thing as a "god not involved theory".
> and
> since we know that you are an Atheist the corruption tactic is
> confirmed.
Ray, you are just "confirming" your own assumption, based on your own
logical fallacies.
>
>> > From this fact you launch into a very old straw man argument of
>> > listing absurdity after absurdity. Absent from all these age old straw
>> > man misrepresentations is the recognition of the Angelic and Adamic
>> > fall, and Free Will, which accounts for your blame God absurdities.
>>
>> My point was not to blame God for anything, but to point out that
>> Christian doctrine has traditionally held that God can work through
>> causes that are ignorant of and unconcerned with, or even outright
>> hostile to, His will. On those assumptions, God must be capable of
>> working through naturalistic evolution (which after all, while not
>> seeking to do His will is, unlike the King of Babylon, not seeking
>> actively to thwart it). This follows from the principle, which you
>> called a "fact," that God is ultimately responsible for everything.
>>
>
> There is no verse of scripture that even slightly indicates creation
> was by naturalistic evolution and common ancestry.
There's no verse that says it wasn't, either. Since the Bible is not a
science text, why would it talk about "naturalistic evolution" and common
ancestory?
> There is not one
> evolutionary authority or fact in existence that has ever implied or
> said that any Deity or supernatural entity guides evolution.
Not as a scientific concept, but there are several "authorities" who have
held that very position. Kenneth Miller is one, for example.
> Again,
> you are attempting to corrupt scripture by stealing principles and
> applying them to your wholly invented "cause," which is asserting God
> to have created the evolutionary process
Why is it not possible for God to have created that way?
>- a process and theory that
> all Atheists rabidly support and defend.
Whether or not atheists "support and defend" a scientific theory is
irrelevant to the veracity of that theory. Atheists also defend the
concept of the round Earth, germ theory, meterology, etc...
> Since you are an infidel your
> Bible destruction agenda is obvious and expected.
Yet Steven hasn't shown any signs of having an agenda to "destroy the
Bible". If anyone is destroying the meaning of the Bible, it's you.
> Since you are an
> Atheist you have no legitimate reason to want a God involved in
> evolution.
Whether or not Steven wants God involved in evolution is also irrelevant.
If God exists, he is involved.
>
> You have zero understanding of Christian doctrine,
Which makes him equal, if not ahead of you, who's understanding of Christian
doctrine is badly warped.
> if you did you
> would not be butchering the Bible to suit your atheistic ulterior
> motives. The Bible is either right or wrong with nothing in between
> possible.
Steven is not the one "butchering" the Bible. Your insistance that the
Bible be "right or wrong" is butchery itself. The Bible was not written to
be taken on a "black/white", "right/wrong" basis.
>
>
>> > Any introduction of the Hebrew and Christian Deity into any argument
>> > must acknowledge both reductions and their consequences because the
>> > only source for said Deity includes these claims. Therefore, your
>> > statement above contains a false fact, and like I said in previous
>> > post eveything built on this error will perpetuate said error.
>>
>> Is your claim that God can work through beings with wills that oppose
>> His, but cannot work through processes that have no will at all? I am
>> not sure that makes any sense.
>>
>
> God can and has certainly done the former. There is no evidence of the
> latter since Genesis chapters one and two say the exact opposite of
> what evolutionary theory claims.
Genesis chapters one and two do not say anything opposite of what evolution
presents. Genesis says that God created, it doesn't say how, by what
process. How can that be opposite of evolutionary theory?
snip
>> And several psalms (e.g. Psalm 93:1) specifically state (and, as
>> noted, there are geocentrist creationists who claim they were in fact
>> written to say this) that the Earth is immobile in space,
>
> And their are Nazi's who endorse evolutionary theory, what is your
> point?
The point is: Why is your interpetation better than theirs?
>
> All you are doing is defending some crazy Fundamentalist rendering of
> the Bible and saying that the Bible is saying that.
No, he's saying that one crazy Fundamentalist rendering (yours) is no
different than any other crazy fundamentalist rendering.
>
> Are we to reject ToE because Nazi's endorse said theory?
Actually, the Nazis never endorsed evolution, but you have already made the
claim we should reject evolution for that very reason. That was wrong
then, it's wrong now.
> Are we
> obligated to answer every crazy rendering of the Bible?
You are obligated to show why your crazy rendering is better than theirs.
> Or are you
> backing every crazy rendering of the Bible based on your Atheism and
> its need to have a source of Theism discredited?
Ray, the Bible is not the "source of Theism". It's a book. The source of
theism is belief.
>
>> and that the
>> sun orbits the Earth.
>
> The Bible reports that persons living in the 15th century BC believed
> that the sun orbited the Earth.
Chapter and verse, please.
>
>> For that matter, the creation account speaks of
>> a solid canopy over the Earth, with water above it and the sun below
>> it, although I know of no one who today holds that these passages were
>> written to teach flat-earth and solid-skyism.
>>
>
> You have conflated one true fact with one false claim.
There are many false claims in the Bible, if you treat it like a science
text..
>
>> As science progressed, Christians decided that the Bible needed to be
>> reinterpreted; passages such as Psalm 93:1 were no longer read
>> literally. There has been, at least since Augustine wrote _On the
>> Literal Meaning of Genesis_, a tradition of interpreting the creation
>> account as nonliterally as accounts of a solid sky with windows to let
>> the rain through.
>>
>
> What does "literal" mean in the context that you are using it?
The same way everyone uses it.
>
>
>> > With this said, what is your source for God creating by Darwinian
>> > evolution?
>>
>> The source is the multiple coinciding nested hierarchies of
>> homologies, biogeography, faunal succession in the fossil record,
>> shared pseudogenes and endogenous retroviruses between humans and
>> monkeys or between hippos and whales, fossils that straddle any
>> boundary line you wish to draw between humans and nonhuman apes, and
>> so forth: the evidence that Darwinian evolution in fact took place,
>> coupled with the faith-based assumption that God is, as you noted
>> above, "ultimately responsible for everything that happens."
>>
>
> No, I meant what is your literary source for any God creating by
> evolution?
Why would you need a "literary source"? It's a logical conclusion from
the premise. If God exists, and God is responsible for everything, he's
therefore responsible for evolution. The fact is that evolution happens,
and you can either assume that it happens without God, or you can believe
that it happens with God. It's your choice. Science offers no clues either
way.
>
>
>> > You have made a counterfactual leap, TEist corruption notwithstanding.
>>
>> > > > > But from this it
>> > > > > does not follow that we must be able to scientifically discern
>> > > > > divine
>> > > > > intervention in the case of either the fall of Jerusalem in 586
>> > > > > BC or
>> > > > > in the origin of species.
>>
>> > You did not explain how your conclusion about the fall of Jerusalem is
>> > justified since the source you are using says it was caused by God?
>>
>> But how do we bring the instruments of science to bear on such a
>> claim?
>>
>
> History and archaeology has confirmed the claim.
Where have they done this? Specific examples, please.
> The claim resides in
> a book claiming to be God's word. The more any claims in the book are
> shown true the more the claim that the book contains God's word is
> shown true.
A rather poor metric for accepting if a book is "Gods Word". There are
many claims in the Bible that are not shown to be true, if you are foolish
enough to expect scientific accuracy from a ancient religious text.
>
>
>> > Real quickly I can tell you that ONE of the best ways to know the
>> > origin claims is true is via the many historical claims being
>> > evidenced true. We an open minded and objective person sees claim
>> > after claim after claim in the O.T. be evidenced true, then the hard
>> > ones are assumed true based on the previous performance. The physical
>> > evidence existing in the British Museum alone supporting O.T.
>> > historical claims is utterly staggering. You "evidence-based-and-
>> > driven" evolutionists should spend some time looking at that.
>>
>> The official T.O. stock response to this claim is that many, many
>> details in Tom Clancy novels can be verified and shown to be factual.
>> From this it does not follow >that, e.g. a terrorist nuke devastated
>
> This means that the evolutionist claim to be open for the evidence
> that proves the Bible was and is false, confirming what we already
> knew and suspected.
Ray, you need to present the evidence, not simply assert that there is
evidence. What evidence do you have that 'proves the Bible"? Some of the
historical figures in the Bible have been verified, some of them have not,
and some have been refuted by the evidence.
>
>> Denver a few years back, even though it is claimed in books that make
>> claim after claim after claim that can be shown to be correct. Many,
>> many books contain a mixture of facts, untestable assertions, and
>> demonstrable errors, in various proportions.
>>
>
> Like scientific theories.
What errors are you talking about? Please be specific..
>
>
>> If the evidence in the British museum is sufficient evidence for the
>> purely historical claims of Isaiah, ought not the evidence in the
>> American Museum of Natural History count as reason to doubt the claims
>> of a literally-interpreted Genesis?
>>
>
> Yes, but there is no evidence for the latter.
There is a great deal of evidence for the latter, you just refuse to
acknowlege it.
snip of what's ignored
DJT
Ye Old One
<pyram...@yahoo.com> enriched this group when s/he wrote:
>There is no verse of scripture that even slightly indicates creation
>was by naturalistic evolution and common ancestry. There is not one
>evolutionary authority or fact in existence that has ever implied or
>said that any Deity or supernatural entity guides evolution.
Both statements 100% true - WOW! Two truthful statements in one post
from Dishonest Ray! Whatever next?
Now, as I said, both statements are true. We can therefore disregard
the bible as a work of fiction as every single scrap of evidence
points towards natural evolution as being the process which led from
origins to the current diversity of life on Earth.
--
Bob.
wf...@comcast.net
>>
>
>There is no verse of scripture that even slightly indicates creation
>was by naturalistic evolution and common ancestry.
nor is there a verse that prohibits evolution.
There is not one
>evolutionary authority or fact in existence that has ever implied or
>said that any Deity or supernatural entity guides evolution.
nor is there a chemist who thinks god causes chemical reactions to
happen, apart from the laws of chemistry.
again and again you prove evolution is science.
>
>You have zero understanding of Christian doctrine
there are 30,000 christian churches.
which has THE 'christian' doctrine?
>
>God can and has certainly done the former. There is no evidence of the
>latter since Genesis chapters one and two say the exact opposite of
>what evolutionary theory claims.
in YOUR view. your view is one...among many...that christians have of
scripture.
>
>Are we to reject ToE because Nazi's endorse said theory? Are we
>obligated to answer every crazy rendering of the Bible? Or are you
>backing every crazy rendering of the Bible based on your Atheism and
>its need to have a source of Theism discredited?
well, it's pretty hard to overlook ephesians, chapter 6 v 5 where paul
says that 'slaves should obey their masters'.
how do you interpret THAT to make it non evil?
>
stew dean
> On Jun 7, 9:48 pm, "Steven J." <steve...@altavista.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Jun 7, 9:53 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:> On Jun 7, 3:18 pm, "Steven J." <steve...@altavista.com> wrote:
>
> > > From this fact you launch into a very old straw man argument of
> > > listing absurdity after absurdity. Absent from all these age old straw
> > > man misrepresentations is the recognition of the Angelic and Adamic
> > > fall, and Free Will, which accounts for your blame God absurdities.
>
> > My point was not to blame God for anything, but to point out that
> > Christian doctrine has traditionally held that God can work through
> > causes that are ignorant of and unconcerned with, or even outright
> > hostile to, His will. On those assumptions, God must be capable of
> > working through naturalistic evolution (which after all, while not
> > seeking to do His will is, unlike the King of Babylon, not seeking
> > actively to thwart it). This follows from the principle, which you
> > called a "fact," that God is ultimately responsible for everything.
>
> There is no verse of scripture that even slightly indicates creation
> was by naturalistic evolution and common ancestry.
There is also no verse or scripture about basic chemistry, yet we know
that exists.
> There is not one
> evolutionary authority or fact in existence that has ever implied or
> said that any Deity or supernatural entity guides evolution.
And the same is true about basic chemistry. Evolution is just part of
science.
> Again,
> you are attempting to corrupt scripture by stealing principles and
> applying them to your wholly invented "cause," which is asserting God
> to have created the evolutionary process - a process and theory that
> all Atheists rabidly support and defend.
Atheists also rabidly support and defend basic chemistry - but then so
do many non atheists. Exactly the same with evolution.
Do you deny chemistry exists? After all it is not mentioned in the
bible, and yet if it does and you believe in god then god uses
chemistry to do things. You can swap out chemistry for any other well
understood part of science.
QED
Stew Dean
Ray Martinez
> On Jun 8, 5:32 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:> On Jun 7, 8:21 pm, "Steven J." <steve...@altavista.com> wrote:
>
> -- [snip]
>
> > > From what I understand, this is not true, for any plausible meaning of
> > > "historic ID." Even in Darwin's day, it was widely accepted that a
> > > single ancestral stock could differentiate into distinct local
> > > varieties of a species. That is evolution: microevolution, but still
> > > evolution. This is still, I think, the position of typical OECs.
> > > Many YECs accept much larger degrees of evolution "within kinds,"
> > > including limited speciation.
>
> > True.
>
> > > The modern ID movement is all over the
> > > map, of course, with Behe accepting universal common descent (albeit
> > > with natural selection doing only a small part of the job of adaption
> > > and speciation), and others accepting only microevolution.
>
> > True, but Dembski has shown that IF the concept of selection is true
> > then it cannot be natural/Nature, it must be the product of someones
> > intellect, whether human or Divine.
>
> How has Dembski shown this?
"Intelligent Design" (1999).
LOGIC: What is a characteristic of intelligence? The ability to
choose. Since the outcome is ultimately beneficial and progressive,
and since nature has no mind, selection is the result of
intelligence.
Is Dembski attempting to re-define natural selection? Yes (but he does
not actively pursue it). Do I agree? No. Why? Although his logic is
invulnerable, natural selection, as defined by Darwin and the
synthesis, has explicitly said the exact opposite: intelligence is not
involved. However, Dembski is correct that intelligence is involved
and that would be the intelligence of Darwin and Darwinists speaking
for a personified Nature by sock puppet proxy. Darwinists are the new
Prophets of Nature, speaking for their Idol which cannot speak.
Either God runs nature hands-on or natural selection is true. Both
cannot be true and since the term "selection" has never existed in a
context corresponding to Divinity or intelligence it cannot be re-
defined to say that it is.
> Now, of course, "selection" in the case
> of evolutionary theory is a metaphor, used because it's shorter than
> "nonrandom survival of randomly variant offspring." There is no need
> for a conscious, willful agent doing the "selecting." Are we supposed
> to believe that the hand of God is Personally behind every antibiotic-
> resistant strain of this or that which turns after overuse of
> antibiotics?
>
Already answered above.
> > > But any
> > > position that might be called "historic ID" accepts that some
> > > evolution, perhaps a very great deal of it, has happened. Note that
> > > causing new species to come into existence, which are similar to other
> > > species but could not be derived from them by natural mechanisms,
> > > would qualify as "interfering in normal evolutionary processes" (which
> > > a creationist/IDer would not expect to produce changes of that
> > > magnitude).
>
> > What?
>
> Creationists and ID proponents accept evolution within limits (they
> may not wish to call it "evolution," as though changing names changes
> facts, but what they accept is evolution). If evolution routinely
> happens, but only within limits, and an intelligent being produces a
> change that is greater than what can happen within those limits, that
> is "interfering in the normal evolutionary processes."
>
Commentary presupposes evolution is true. I reject said supposition
(regardless of any other Creationist who accepts "microevolution") .
Have you forgotten that not too long ago we had agreed that if any
evolution is true and has occurred then Creationism is falsified?
Again, my position has changed. Research has deconverted me from
accepting microevolution. I hope and expect my forth-coming paper to
have a far reaching effect and deconvert fellow Creationists who
accept microevolution. I, like most Creationists, simply accepted
microevolution because if one did not they were a dinosaur - everyone
accepts microevolution. Now, I do not give a f*ck what anyone thinks
of me. I know the truth and I have the facts in my possession and
command: evolution is false and it has never happened at any rate of
speed at anytime. Do you got that?
> -- [snip]
>
> > > That's a very principled position, in its own deranged way. Of
> > > course, you avoid dealing with the scientific evidence inaccurately by
> > > refusing to deal with it at all, on the one hand dismissing all
> > > evidence for evolution as fraud or as distorted by racism and atheism,
> > > which does not so much correct science as abolish it.
>
> > Negative. We do not "avoid dealing with the scientific evidence...."
> > We interpret it differently. Secondly, evidence interpreted to say
> > evolution has occurred has its being within pro-atheist suppositions
> > and parameters. This means all interpretations and conclusions are
> > predetermined. At issue is then: whose suppositions are correct
> > corresponding to reality; or whose suppositions best explain said
> > evidence to correspond to reality; and whose suppositions best explain
> > all of the evidence.
>
> Ray, didn't you object, upthread, to my comment that "creationism says
> that science can't determine the facts about origins, and that all
> statements about origins are based on faith?"
No, I did not.
> Yet here, you are
> taking essentially the same position: you interpret the same evidence
> (or claim you do) using different "suppositions and parameters." If
> you can decide, without faith, which suppositions best correspond to
> reality and make sense of all the facts, then you don't need to resort
> to talk about "suppositions and parameters" at all; there is an
> empirically and scientifically right approach to the data.
In other words you are making this huge spectacle of an argument in
order to evade my challenge asking you to state your suppositions.
> If you
> cannot decide between suppositions without faith, then you are in the
> position of saying that there is no way to determine "facts" as
> opposed to faith in origins.
>
I never said anything about "faith" = your straw man.
> This is more than a verbal quibble: you don't really understand your
> own position, and are stitching together bits and pieces of arguments
> you don't understand. You are unhappy with your opponents on this
> thread because they understand your positions better than you do; it
> would be more appropriate to be unhappy with yourself, and to have
> severe doubts about the validity of your supposed demolition of
> evolutionary theory.
>
We could only wonder what you are talking about.
I have no desire to entertain another one of your Atheist rants.
Ray
SNIP....
Free Lunch
>On Jun 8, 4:59 pm, "Steven J." <steve...@altavista.com> wrote:
>> On Jun 8, 5:32 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:> On Jun 7, 8:21 pm, "Steven J." <steve...@altavista.com> wrote:
>>
>> -- [snip]
>>
>> > > From what I understand, this is not true, for any plausible meaning of
>> > > "historic ID." Even in Darwin's day, it was widely accepted that a
>> > > single ancestral stock could differentiate into distinct local
>> > > varieties of a species. That is evolution: microevolution, but still
>> > > evolution. This is still, I think, the position of typical OECs.
>> > > Many YECs accept much larger degrees of evolution "within kinds,"
>> > > including limited speciation.
>>
>> > True.
>>
>> > > The modern ID movement is all over the
>> > > map, of course, with Behe accepting universal common descent (albeit
>> > > with natural selection doing only a small part of the job of adaption
>> > > and speciation), and others accepting only microevolution.
>>
>> > True, but Dembski has shown that IF the concept of selection is true
>> > then it cannot be natural/Nature, it must be the product of someones
>> > intellect, whether human or Divine.
>>
>> How has Dembski shown this?
>
>"Intelligent Design" (1999).
>
>LOGIC: What is a characteristic of intelligence? The ability to
>choose. Since the outcome is ultimately beneficial and progressive,
>and since nature has no mind, selection is the result of
>intelligence.
Logic that relies on lies about the facts is just as dishonest. Dembski
lied to us. You were suckered into believing his lies.
...
Steven J.
> On Jun 7, 9:48 pm, "Steven J." <steve...@altavista.com> wrote:
>
> > On Jun 7, 9:53 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
> > > If God exists then He has to be ultimately responsible for eveything.
>
> > In which case, He could and must be responsible for the evolution of
> > the diversity and complexity of life.
>
> Lazy-cheap "point" since you already know Creationists and IDists
> disagree. Most of all, point is a deliberate corruption of God
> attempting to make Him creator of your god-not-involved theory, and
> since we know that you are an Atheist the corruption tactic is
> confirmed.
>
thinking: if one is not part of the elect, he cannot understand the
Bible or those who truly explicate it. But then, why do you bother
posting? One must suppose that those who are part of the elect don't
need your help, and others can't benefit from it. From my own point
of view, I can understand a viewpoint, partially but correctly,
without accepting it, and even explain it to others correctly.
>
> > > From this fact you launch into a very old straw man argument of
> > > listing absurdity after absurdity. Absent from all these age old straw
> > > man misrepresentations is the recognition of the Angelic and Adamic
> > > fall, and Free Will, which accounts for your blame God absurdities.
>
> > My point was not to blame God for anything, but to point out that
> > Christian doctrine has traditionally held that God can work through
> > causes that are ignorant of and unconcerned with, or even outright
> > hostile to, His will. On those assumptions, God must be capable of
> > working through naturalistic evolution (which after all, while not
> > seeking to do His will is, unlike the King of Babylon, not seeking
> > actively to thwart it). This follows from the principle, which you
> > called a "fact," that God is ultimately responsible for everything.
>
> There is no verse of scripture that even slightly indicates creation
> was by naturalistic evolution and common ancestry. There is not one
> evolutionary authority or fact in existence that has ever implied or
> said that any Deity or supernatural entity guides evolution. Again,
> you are attempting to corrupt scripture by stealing principles and
> applying them to your wholly invented "cause," which is asserting God
> to have created the evolutionary process - a process and theory that
> all Atheists rabidly support and defend. Since you are an infidel your
> Bible destruction agenda is obvious and expected. Since you are an
> Atheist you have no legitimate reason to want a God involved in
> evolution.
>
make it again. There is not one verse of the Bible that supports the
idea that the Earth orbits the sun. There is not one verse that, in
context, supports the idea that the Earth is older than, say, ten
thousand years. There is not one verse to contradict the view, held
(as shown in the apocryphal book of Enoch, or by the writings of the
Christian rhetorician Lactantius) by many ancient readers of the
Bible, that the sky is a solid dome over a flat Earth. *All* of these
understandings of the Bible were once held by Christians (or Jews) as
devout and knowledgable of the scriptures as Gene Scott was or you
are, and all were defended with the same fervor (and similar
arguments) as is displayed in your defense of creationism. And yet
you reject all of them, and so do many Christian creationists today,
despite the lack of any biblical verse justifying your rejection.
There is no verse that tells how God implemented His commands for the
sea to bring forth life, or the dry land to bring forth plants. There
is no verse that denounces common descent or modification by natural
selection as false. Theistic evolutionists have all the authority for
accepting evolution as part of God's plan for creation as you have for
accepting heliocentrism as part of God's plan for creation.
>
> You have zero understanding of Christian doctrine, if you did you
> would not be butchering the Bible to suit your atheistic ulterior
> motives. The Bible is either right or wrong with nothing in between
> possible.
>
Would not my atheistic ulterior motives impel me to agree with you:
find a list of errors in the Bible, and demand that it be rejected
entirely for any of them?
>
> > > Any introduction of the Hebrew and Christian Deity into any argument
> > > must acknowledge both reductions and their consequences because the
> > > only source for said Deity includes these claims. Therefore, your
> > > statement above contains a false fact, and like I said in previous
> > > post eveything built on this error will perpetuate said error.
>
> > Is your claim that God can work through beings with wills that oppose
> > His, but cannot work through processes that have no will at all? I am
> > not sure that makes any sense.
>
> God can and has certainly done the former. There is no evidence of the
> latter since Genesis chapters one and two say the exact opposite of
> what evolutionary theory claims.
>
In some respects, actually, they agree with evolutionary theory
against the more extreme creationists. Creationists deny that we are
animals, but the Bible is quite specific that we originated by the
same processes as any other beast, and they and we are alike "living
organisms" or "living souls" depending on how one wishes to translate
the Hebrew _chay nephesh_, which is used to describe us and other
mammals indifferently in Genesis 2. But I have already pointed out
that there is a tradition in Christian exegesis, long predating the
introduction of evolutionary theories, that the creation accounts in
Genesis are best interpreted metaphorically or symbolically.
>
-- [snip]
>
> > > The same source does not say a word about creating through
> > > ***Darwinian*** evolution. In fact, the creation chapters were written
> > > to say creation did NOT happen that way.
>
> > And several psalms (e.g. Psalm 93:1) specifically state (and, as
> > noted, there are geocentrist creationists who claim they were in fact
> > written to say this) that the Earth is immobile in space,
>
> And their are Nazi's who endorse evolutionary theory, what is your
> point?
>
The Nazis were never in the mainstream of understanding evolutionary
theory, nor were they contributors to it. On the other hand, some of
the 16th and 17th century geocentrists were major figures in biblical
scholarship, from Luther and Calvin to that Doctor of the Catholic
Church Robert Bellarmine. For that matter, even flat-earth beliefs
were advanced, long after the pagan Greeks discovered the Earth was a
sphere, by Lactantius Firmiatus, not one of the leading Bible scholars
of the 4th century Christian church, but a more prominent Christian
scholar in his day than, say, Gene Scott is in ours. The view that
the Bible literally teaches geocentrism is not an eccentric or
fanatic view, but a traditional one held by serious, devout scholars.
>
> All you are doing is defending some crazy Fundamentalist rendering of
> the Bible and saying that the Bible is saying that.
>
I'm saying that their reading is not a whit more arbitrary, silly, or
blind to the scientific evidence than yours is. How can they be
crazy, when you use the same sort of reasoning, and count yourself
sane?
>
> Are we to reject ToE because Nazi's endorse said theory? Are we
> obligated to answer every crazy rendering of the Bible? Or are you
> backing every crazy rendering of the Bible based on your Atheism and
> its need to have a source of Theism discredited?
>
Ray, the point is not that bad or crazy people accept creationism.
Rather, the point is that good and sane Christian scholars accepted
geocentrism (and even, on occasion, flat-earthism) just as strongly as
you accept creationism, and were just as sure that Biblical authority
rested on an interpretation of the Bible that taught that the sun
orbited the Earth. If good and sane Christian scholars could accept
Ptolemaic astronomy until the evidence forced them to give it up, and
still be good and sane Christian scholars, how can you be so sure that
good and sane Christian scholars cannot be evolutionists?
>
> > and that the
> > sun orbits the Earth.
>
> The Bible reports that persons living in the 15th century BC believed
> that the sun orbited the Earth.
>
I don't see that the Bible distinguishes clearly between their beliefs
and the actual facts of the case. Couldn't you equally well say, "the
Bible reports that persons living in the 15th century BC did not
realize that humans and other living things shared ancestors in the
distant past?"
>
> > For that matter, the creation account speaks of
> > a solid canopy over the Earth, with water above it and the sun below
> > it, although I know of no one who today holds that these passages were
> > written to teach flat-earth and solid-skyism.
>
> You have conflated one true fact with one false claim.
>
Genesis 7:11 clearly states that the Flood began when the fountains of
the great deep were broken up, and the windows of heaven were opened.
Windows that let rain through inescapably imply a solid dome with
waters above it.
>
> > As science progressed, Christians decided that the Bible needed to be
> > reinterpreted; passages such as Psalm 93:1 were no longer read
> > literally. There has been, at least since Augustine wrote _On the
> > Literal Meaning of Genesis_, a tradition of interpreting the creation
> > account as nonliterally as accounts of a solid sky with windows to let
> > the rain through.
>
> What does "literal" mean in the context that you are using it?
>
It means, in a sense that implies that the text tells us the actual
order and method God used for creating.
>
> > > With this said, what is your source for God creating by Darwinian
> > > evolution?
>
> > The source is the multiple coinciding nested hierarchies of
> > homologies, biogeography, faunal succession in the fossil record,
> > shared pseudogenes and endogenous retroviruses between humans and
> > monkeys or between hippos and whales, fossils that straddle any
> > boundary line you wish to draw between humans and nonhuman apes, and
> > so forth: the evidence that Darwinian evolution in fact took place,
> > coupled with the faith-based assumption that God is, as you noted
> > above, "ultimately responsible for everything that happens."
>
> No, I meant what is your literary source for any God creating by
> evolution?
>
What is your literary source for asserting that God created the solar
system with the Earth orbiting the sun? I'm pretty sure I'm appealing
to the same literary source.
>
-- [snip]
>
> > > You did not explain how your conclusion about the fall of Jerusalem is
> > > justified since the source you are using says it was caused by God?
>
> > But how do we bring the instruments of science to bear on such a
> > claim?
>
> History and archaeology has confirmed the claim. The claim resides in
> a book claiming to be God's word. The more any claims in the book are
> shown true the more the claim that the book contains God's word is
> shown true.
>
How does one show the claims in the Bible are true? One tests them
against other (usually archaeological) evidence, and sees if they
agree and if the best explanation for that is that the accounts are
correct. But suppose one tests the claims of the Bible against
scientific observations (geological, paleontological, astronomical,
etc.) and finds that they disagree with the way everyone has
traditionally interpreted the Bible? One must conclude that on these
points the Bible is wrong (and therefore, less and less likely to be
God's word), or that it has been interpreted wrongly (in which case,
perhaps one should always be willing to modify one's interpretations
in light of new science, rather than insisting on modifying the
science in terms of your interpretations of the Bible).
>
> > > Real quickly I can tell you that ONE of the best ways to know the
> > > origin claims is true is via the many historical claims being
> > > evidenced true. We an open minded and objective person sees claim
> > > after claim after claim in the O.T. be evidenced true, then the hard
> > > ones are assumed true based on the previous performance. The physical
> > > evidence existing in the British Museum alone supporting O.T.
> > > historical claims is utterly staggering. You "evidence-based-and-
> > > driven" evolutionists should spend some time looking at that.
>
> > The official T.O. stock response to this claim is that many, many
> > details in Tom Clancy novels can be verified and shown to be factual. From this it does not follow
> > that, e.g. a terrorist nuke devastated
>
> This means that the evolutionist claim to be open for the evidence
> that proves the Bible was and is false, confirming what we already
> knew and suspected.
>
I think I've already stated explicitly that I interpret the evidence
on the assumption that the Bible might, indeed, be wrong about some
things. Are you conceding that you are not open to the evidence that
what you believe about the Bible (whether it affects its veracity or
merely your interpretation of it) might be wrong?
>
> > Denver a few years back, even though it is claimed in books that make
> > claim after claim after claim that can be shown to be correct. Many,
> > many books contain a mixture of facts, untestable assertions, and
> > demonstrable errors, in various proportions.
>
> Like scientific theories.
>
True. But pointing out that scientific theories might be, and
frequently are, partly wrong, does nothing to establish either that
the Bible is inerrant, or that your interpretation of it is any more
reasonable than Lactantius Firmiatus's.
>
> > If the evidence in the British museum is sufficient evidence for the
> > purely historical claims of Isaiah, ought not the evidence in the
> > American Museum of Natural History count as reason to doubt the claims
> > of a literally-interpreted Genesis?
>
> Yes, but there is no evidence for the latter.
>
There are some of those transitional fossils you deny exist, for
starters.
>
-- [snip]
>
> Ray
-- Steven J.
Dana Tweedy
"Ray Martinez" <pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1181427685....@k79g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
snip
>> > True, but Dembski has shown that IF the concept of selection is true
>> > then it cannot be natural/Nature, it must be the product of someones
>> > intellect, whether human or Divine.
>>
>> How has Dembski shown this?
>
> "Intelligent Design" (1999).
>
> LOGIC: What is a characteristic of intelligence? The ability to
> choose. Since the outcome is ultimately beneficial and progressive,
> and since nature has no mind, selection is the result of
> intelligence.
Assuming the above is a quote from Dembski, he hasn't shown anything, he's
just asserted it. Nature doesn't have to have a mind to select something,
any more than a sieve needs to be intelligent to select larger grains of
sand.
>
> Is Dembski attempting to re-define natural selection? Yes (but he does
> not actively pursue it). Do I agree? No. Why? Although his logic is
> invulnerable,
I.e. flawed
> natural selection, as defined by Darwin and the
> synthesis, has explicitly said the exact opposite: intelligence is not
> involved.
What Darwin demonstrated is that "intelligence" (in this case, deliberate
intent) is not neccessary to produce a particular outcome. It's not
necessary for water to have intelligence to seek out the lowest level, for
example. It's not necessary for crystals to have intelligence to form
complex patterns.
> However, Dembski is correct that intelligence is involved
> and that would be the intelligence of Darwin and Darwinists speaking
> for a personified Nature by sock puppet proxy. Darwinists are the new
> Prophets of Nature, speaking for their Idol which cannot speak.
Ray, you imagine that this makes any kind of sense? Evolutionary
scientists don't attempt to "personfiy" nature, or try to speak for nature.
Evolution is an observation of how nature operates.
>
> Either God runs nature hands-on or natural selection is true.
Why can't God run nature by using natural selection?
> Both
> cannot be true
Why not?
> and since the term "selection" has never existed in a
> context corresponding to Divinity or intelligence it cannot be re-
> defined to say that it is.
Natural selection is a simple fact of nature, whether you want to acknowlege
it or not.
>
>> Now, of course, "selection" in the case
>> of evolutionary theory is a metaphor, used because it's shorter than
>> "nonrandom survival of randomly variant offspring." There is no need
>> for a conscious, willful agent doing the "selecting." Are we supposed
>> to believe that the hand of God is Personally behind every antibiotic-
>> resistant strain of this or that which turns after overuse of
>> antibiotics?
>>
>
> Already answered above.
that is, avoided above.
>
>
>> > > But any
>> > > position that might be called "historic ID" accepts that some
>> > > evolution, perhaps a very great deal of it, has happened. Note that
>> > > causing new species to come into existence, which are similar to
>> > > other
>> > > species but could not be derived from them by natural mechanisms,
>> > > would qualify as "interfering in normal evolutionary processes"
>> > > (which
>> > > a creationist/IDer would not expect to produce changes of that
>> > > magnitude).
>>
>> > What?
>>
>> Creationists and ID proponents accept evolution within limits (they
>> may not wish to call it "evolution," as though changing names changes
>> facts, but what they accept is evolution). If evolution routinely
>> happens, but only within limits, and an intelligent being produces a
>> change that is greater than what can happen within those limits, that
>> is "interfering in the normal evolutionary processes."
>>
>
> Commentary presupposes evolution is true.
Evolution is true. No amount of denial on your part changes that.
> I reject said supposition
> (regardless of any other Creationist who accepts "microevolution") .
Then you are ignoring observed fact.
>
> Have you forgotten that not too long ago we had agreed that if any
> evolution is true and has occurred then Creationism is falsified?
Evolution is true, and Creationism was falsified a very long time ago.
Why you continue to cling to something that's obviously false is anyone's
guess.
>
> Again, my position has changed. Research has deconverted me from
> accepting microevolution.
It would seem that research has probably shown that evolution is a fact
beyond a reasonable doubt. Therefore you are expressing unreasonable doubt.
> I hope and expect my forth-coming paper to
> have a far reaching effect and deconvert fellow Creationists who
> accept microevolution.
A forlorn hope. Evolution is too strongly established a scientific fact for
your "paper" should it ever be released, to overturn.
> I, like most Creationists, simply accepted
> microevolution because if one did not they were a dinosaur - everyone
> accepts microevolution.
Because of the evidence. It's too strong to convieniently ignore.
> Now, I do not give a f*ck what anyone thinks
> of me.
Because you have jettisoned any chance that anyone might consider you to be
reasonable.
> I know the truth and I have the facts in my possession and
> command: evolution is false and it has never happened at any rate of
> speed at anytime. Do you got that?
So, you are wrong. It wouldn't be the first time. Evolution can be
observed happening in real time. Your claim is utterly false.
snip
>> Ray, didn't you object, upthread, to my comment that "creationism says
>> that science can't determine the facts about origins, and that all
>> statements about origins are based on faith?"
>
> No, I did not.
>
>> Yet here, you are
>> taking essentially the same position: you interpret the same evidence
>> (or claim you do) using different "suppositions and parameters." If
>> you can decide, without faith, which suppositions best correspond to
>> reality and make sense of all the facts, then you don't need to resort
>> to talk about "suppositions and parameters" at all; there is an
>> empirically and scientifically right approach to the data.
>
> In other words you are making this huge spectacle of an argument in
> order to evade my challenge asking you to state your suppositions.
The "suppositions" of science are very simple. One supposes that the
evidence means something, and that some supernatural being isn't playing
tricks on us. Other than that, no "suppositions" are required.
>
>
>> If you
>> cannot decide between suppositions without faith, then you are in the
>> position of saying that there is no way to determine "facts" as
>> opposed to faith in origins.
>>
>
> I never said anything about "faith" = your straw man.
You already have demonstrated you have no faith, and are sustained only by
your inflated ego.
>
>
>> This is more than a verbal quibble: you don't really understand your
>> own position, and are stitching together bits and pieces of arguments
>> you don't understand. You are unhappy with your opponents on this
>> thread because they understand your positions better than you do; it
>> would be more appropriate to be unhappy with yourself, and to have
>> severe doubts about the validity of your supposed demolition of
>> evolutionary theory.
>>
>
> We could only wonder what you are talking about.
Or you could attempt to read what Steven is saying. Steven is correct, in
that you don't even understand your own position. You are making things up
as you go along, and haven't been too good at maintaining continuity.
That's why you get caught in contradictions.
>
> I have no desire to entertain another one of your Atheist rants.
So, you are going to run away some more... how ordinary.
DJT
wf...@comcast.net
<pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>Is Dembski attempting to re-define natural selection? Yes (but he does
>not actively pursue it). Do I agree? No. Why? Although his logic is
>invulnerable, natural selection, as defined by Darwin and the
>synthesis, has explicitly said the exact opposite: intelligence is not
>involved. However, Dembski is correct that intelligence is involved
>and that would be the intelligence of Darwin and Darwinists speaking
>for a personified Nature by sock puppet proxy. Darwinists are the new
>Prophets of Nature, speaking for their Idol which cannot speak.
ironically enough, ray's god cant speak either. he apparently wrote a
book...that is so confusing there are 30,000 different churches.
and you've confused choice with intelligence. nature can make
unintelligent choices.it does so all the time. radioactive decay is an
example.
>
>Either God runs nature hands-on or natural selection is true
ah. so ray comes out in favor of pantheism. god's a force of nature,
liike electricity or gravity.
but this is contradictory since even creationists admit gravity
exists.
>. I know the truth
is there any religious fanatic who ever said otherwise?
Steven J.
> On Jun 8, 4:59 pm, "Steven J." <steve...@altavista.com> wrote:
>
>
> > On Jun 8, 5:32 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > True, but Dembski has shown that IF the concept of selection is true
> > > then it cannot be natural/Nature, it must be the product of someones
> > > intellect, whether human or Divine.
>
> > How has Dembski shown this?
>
> "Intelligent Design" (1999).
>
> LOGIC: What is a characteristic of intelligence? The ability to
> choose. Since the outcome is ultimately beneficial and progressive,
> and since nature has no mind, selection is the result of
> intelligence.
>
another example of the formal fallacy of "affirming the consequent:"
it does not follow, from "all intelligence involves choice," to "all
choice indicates intelligence." But if you define "choice" as the
product of intelligence, then we have already noted that natural
selection is a metaphor: it has the effects of choice but need not be
a choice itself.
Note that evolutionary theory has no requirement that evolutionary
change be "progressive." Lineages can lose structures during
evolution (as, e.g. snakes lost their limbs), or become less complex
in various ways (common among parasites compared to their free-living
relatives). As for "ultimately beneficial," natural selection is
simply the recognition that changes that are, in the short term (not
"ultimately") beneficial to the organism will survive and those that
are harmful will be lost. There is no requirement that the results of
natural selection be "ultimately beneficial" to anyone: a predator
benefits from changes that make it deadlier to its prey, but nothing
prevents a really successful predator from killing off all its prey
and then starving to death.
Dembski is simply playing word games here, and not even good word
games.
>
> Is Dembski attempting to re-define natural selection? Yes (but he does
> not actively pursue it). Do I agree? No. Why? Although his logic is
> invulnerable, natural selection, as defined by Darwin and the
> synthesis, has explicitly said the exact opposite: intelligence is not
> involved. However, Dembski is correct that intelligence is involved
> and that would be the intelligence of Darwin and Darwinists speaking
> for a personified Nature by sock puppet proxy. Darwinists are the new
> Prophets of Nature, speaking for their Idol which cannot speak.
>
I don't think Dembski is trying to re-define natural selection
(although, of course, you may be quoting him out of context); in the
passage cited, he sounds, as I said, as though he's trying to read a
metaphor literally and score cheap points off that. I should point
out that Darwin pointed out that selection occurred on a continuum,
from deliberate artificial selection, through unconscious selection
(as when, e.g. lab animals are bred to be weak and docile, not because
the scientists particularly want them weak, but because they breed the
ones that adapt to captivity and don't escape their cages), or though
purely unintelligent selection. Evolutionary theorists do not seek to
be prophets, and nature does not need spokespersons for differential
reproductive success to change a species.
>
> Either God runs nature hands-on or natural selection is true. Both
> cannot be true and since the term "selection" has never existed in a
> context corresponding to Divinity or intelligence it cannot be re-
> defined to say that it is.
>
Now you are the one playing word games. You cannot go around
asserting that God is ultimately responsible for everything that
happens, and then turn around and say that there are natural processes
that forbid his responsibility simply because scientists study and
define them without regard to His responsibility. Scientists do that
to everything: human reproduction, the weather, history, all the
things that the Bible says are the results of God's providence. You
might as well say "either God runs nature hands-on, or meteorology is
true; both cannot be."
>
> > Now, of course, "selection" in the case
> > of evolutionary theory is a metaphor, used because it's shorter than
> > "nonrandom survival of randomly variant offspring." There is no need
> > for a conscious, willful agent doing the "selecting." Are we supposed
> > to believe that the hand of God is Personally behind every antibiotic-
> > resistant strain of this or that which turns after overuse of
> > antibiotics?
>
> Already answered above.
>
Then, presumably, my point stands confirmed, since the answer above
was pathetic.
>
-- [snip]
>
> > > What?
>
> > Creationists and ID proponents accept evolution within limits (they
> > may not wish to call it "evolution," as though changing names changes
> > facts, but what they accept is evolution). If evolution routinely
> > happens, but only within limits, and an intelligent being produces a
> > change that is greater than what can happen within those limits, that
> > is "interfering in the normal evolutionary processes."
>
> Commentary presupposes evolution is true. I reject said supposition
> (regardless of any other Creationist who accepts "microevolution") .
>
Ray, in case this has never been explained to you, the universe really
does not give a damn what you reject or accept. Evolution happens.
>
> Have you forgotten that not too long ago we had agreed that if any
> evolution is true and has occurred then Creationism is falsified?
>
By "we," you must mean you and your tapeworm, as I don't recall
agreeing to any such thing, in part because I know quite a few
creationists who don't agree to any such thing.
>
> Again, my position has changed. Research has deconverted me from
> accepting microevolution. I hope and expect my forth-coming paper to
> have a far reaching effect and deconvert fellow Creationists who
> accept microevolution. I, like most Creationists, simply accepted
> microevolution because if one did not they were a dinosaur - everyone
> accepts microevolution. Now, I do not give a f*ck what anyone thinks
> of me. I know the truth and I have the facts in my possession and
> command: evolution is false and it has never happened at any rate of
> speed at anytime. Do you got that?
>
Yes. You're a delusional egomaniac. I'm sorry to hear that; I hope
you feel better soon.
>
-- [snip]
>
> > > Negative. We do not "avoid dealing with the scientific evidence...."
> > > We interpret it differently. Secondly, evidence interpreted to say
> > > evolution has occurred has its being within pro-atheist suppositions
> > > and parameters. This means all interpretations and conclusions are
> > > predetermined. At issue is then: whose suppositions are correct
> > > corresponding to reality; or whose suppositions best explain said
> > > evidence to correspond to reality; and whose suppositions best explain
> > > all of the evidence.
>
> > Ray, didn't you object, upthread, to my comment that "creationism says
> > that science can't determine the facts about origins, and that all
> > statements about origins are based on faith?"
>
> No, I did not.
>
I could have sworn you posted that the above statement was "[expletive
deleted] false as it [expletive deleted] gets," yet now I can't find
the post where you said that, so perhaps I'm mistaken.
>
> > Yet here, you are
> > taking essentially the same position: you interpret the same evidence
> > (or claim you do) using different "suppositions and parameters." If
> > you can decide, without faith, which suppositions best correspond to
> > reality and make sense of all the facts, then you don't need to resort
> > to talk about "suppositions and parameters" at all; there is an
> > empirically and scientifically right approach to the data.
>
> In other words you are making this huge spectacle of an argument in
> order to evade my challenge asking you to state your suppositions.
>
My suppositions are that nature can be understood through observation
and the hypothetico-deductive method, and, as I said, that the Bible,
among other documents, assertions, and theories about reality, might
turn out to be wrong on various points.
>
> > If you
> > cannot decide between suppositions without faith, then you are in the
> > position of saying that there is no way to determine "facts" as
> > opposed to faith in origins.
>
> I never said anything about "faith" = your straw man.
>
> > This is more than a verbal quibble: you don't really understand your
> > own position, and are stitching together bits and pieces of arguments
> > you don't understand. You are unhappy with your opponents on this
> > thread because they understand your positions better than you do; it
> > would be more appropriate to be unhappy with yourself, and to have
> > severe doubts about the validity of your supposed demolition of
> > evolutionary theory.
>
> We could only wonder what you are talking about.
>
You could, I suppose, try to think harder, rather than idly wondering.
>
> I have no desire to entertain another one of your Atheist rants.
>
> Ray
>
> SNIP....
-- Steven J.
Ray Martinez
Phraseology presupposes that the Bible says the sun orbits the Earth.
Since no such verse exists I must point out that you are an Atheist
and the presupposition is explained.
You have resisted the explanation: JOSHUA (not the Bible or God)
believed that the sun revolved around the Earth, since he grew up in
Egypt where Ra was worshipped as God this is expected. The Bible
reports what a person in the 15th century BC believed.
Your evasion of this fact and its explanation shows us that your only
motive is corruption by endless posts containing many words and
senseless ideas that have no correspondence to what is actually
written in the Bible.
But your comment above actually is a straw man: because no verse says
what you have set up.
When we remember that you are an Atheist this nonsense then "makes
sense."
> There is not one verse that, in
> context, supports the idea that the Earth is older than, say, ten
> thousand years.
Only if you evade what I have said and argued and evidenced in
previous posts.
Where does the Bible say the Earth is young?
I have shown the Bible saying the Earth is old and you have ignored,
evaded and corrupted because you want the source which is an enemy to
your worldview saying silly things that contradict science.
You have ignored, evaded and corrupted because you cannot refute.
> There is not one verse to contradict the view, held
> (as shown in the apocryphal book of Enoch, or by the writings of the
> Christian rhetorician Lactantius) by many ancient readers of the
> Bible, that the sky is a solid dome over a flat Earth. *All* of these
> understandings of the Bible were once held by Christians (or Jews) as
> devout and knowledgable of the scriptures as Gene Scott was or you
> are, and all were defended with the same fervor (and similar
> arguments) as is displayed in your defense of creationism. And yet
> you reject all of them, and so do many Christian creationists today,
> despite the lack of any biblical verse justifying your rejection.
>
Here we have an Atheist-evolutionist insisting Medieval beliefs are
what the Bible really says.
These beliefs are falisified by your support alone. Since you have
shown zero inclination to modify your Biblical views, but have clung
to citing every crazy rendering that makes the Bible look silly
contrary to what it says, we can only conclude that you are an infidel
doing what all infidels have always done: misrepresent the Bible.
> There is no verse that tells how God implemented His commands for the
> sea to bring forth life, or the dry land to bring forth plants.
Of course there is. Since you have shown no desire to learn they
cannot ever exist in your mind.
> There
> is no verse that denounces common descent or modification by natural
> selection as false.
Genesis 1 and 2 at face value, if not the Creation-Evolution debate
does not exist and we are not having this discussion.
Here we have an Atheist-evolutionist defending corruption of the Bible
by fellow evolutionists. My corruption charge proven and supported.
Atheists do not believe in the existence of God; Steven's only
interest is corrupting the Bible and making it say God created his
theory. Why else would an Atheist fight to have the Bible "say" that
it supports evolution?
> Theistic evolutionists have all the authority for
> accepting evolution as part of God's plan for creation as you have for
> accepting heliocentrism as part of God's plan for creation.
>
Incoherent.
You just got done in a previous post saying that natural selection was
a metaphor. Now Genesis is a metaphor.
"Everything is a metaphor - Steven J." - what are you talking about?
Ray
SNIP... meaningless closed minded atheist drivel about the Bible.
Earle Jones
Ray Martinez <pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote:
[clip]
> I go the scientific route.
[clip]
> Ray
*
Nominated for Chez Watt of 2007.
earle
*
Free Lunch
...
>> Ray, you seem very resistant to this point, but I'm going to try to
>> make it again. There is not one verse of the Bible that supports the
>> idea that the Earth orbits the sun.
>
>Phraseology presupposes that the Bible says the sun orbits the Earth.
>Since no such verse exists I must point out that you are an Atheist
>and the presupposition is explained.
You are right, Ray, the Bible is even more ignorant of science than
supposing that there were any sorts of orbits. The Old Testament stories
imply that there was a big bowl over a flat earth and that the sun just
followed a path along this bowl.
Of course the authors of these books aren't particularly observant.
Anyone who pays even a bit of attention would notice that the moon
spends as much time in the sky during the day as it does during the
night, but the authors of the OT didn't catch that.
...
Dana Tweedy
"Ray Martinez" <pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1181433763.3...@m36g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
snip
>> Ray, you seem very resistant to this point, but I'm going to try to
>> make it again. There is not one verse of the Bible that supports the
>> idea that the Earth orbits the sun.
>
> Phraseology presupposes that the Bible says the sun orbits the Earth.
The story about Joshua stopping the sun suggest that, as well as the verses
in Psalms that say the Earth is immobile.
> Since no such verse exists I must point out that you are an Atheist
> and the presupposition is explained.
Ad hominem doesn't help you, Ray.
>
> You have resisted the explanation: JOSHUA (not the Bible or God)
> believed that the sun revolved around the Earth,
No matter, as that's what the Bible says.
> since he grew up in
> Egypt where Ra was worshipped as God this is expected. The Bible
> reports what a person in the 15th century BC believed.
As it reported what people before science thought how life began. You are
now saying the Bible doesn't mean what it says.
>
> Your evasion of this fact and its explanation shows us that your only
> motive is corruption by endless posts containing many words and
> senseless ideas that have no correspondence to what is actually
> written in the Bible.
What is written in the Bible suggests the Earth is immobile.
>
> But your comment above actually is a straw man: because no verse says
> what you have set up.
No verse says that the Earth orbits the sun. No verse says anything about
North America, or the magnetic north pole, or the atomic weight of helium
either.
>
> When we remember that you are an Atheist this nonsense then "makes
> sense."
When we remember that Ray has nothing but ad hominem, his reliance on that
fallacy still doesn't make sense, but it's at least explanable.
>
>> There is not one verse that, in
>> context, supports the idea that the Earth is older than, say, ten
>> thousand years.
>
> Only if you evade what I have said and argued and evidenced in
> previous posts.
He hasn't "evaded" any of your claims.
>
> Where does the Bible say the Earth is young?
The same place that it says the Earth is old. Hint, it doesn't say either
way.
>
> I have shown the Bible saying the Earth is old and you have ignored,
No, you have not "shown" that. You made a false claim, based on a bad
translation error on your part.
> evaded and corrupted because you want the source which is an enemy to
> your worldview saying silly things that contradict science.
Ray, it doesn't matter what Steven or you want. This is what it says. In
any case, the Bible is not the "source" of any "worldview".
>
> You have ignored, evaded and corrupted because you cannot refute.
That may explain your own actions, but not Steven's.
>
>
>> There is not one verse to contradict the view, held
>> (as shown in the apocryphal book of Enoch, or by the writings of the
>> Christian rhetorician Lactantius) by many ancient readers of the
>> Bible, that the sky is a solid dome over a flat Earth. *All* of these
>> understandings of the Bible were once held by Christians (or Jews) as
>> devout and knowledgable of the scriptures as Gene Scott was or you
>> are, and all were defended with the same fervor (and similar
>> arguments) as is displayed in your defense of creationism. And yet
>> you reject all of them, and so do many Christian creationists today,
>> despite the lack of any biblical verse justifying your rejection.
>>
>
> Here we have an Atheist-evolutionist insisting Medieval beliefs are
> what the Bible really says.
Those indviduals from before the Medieval times believed that was what the
Bible said. What is the justification for you rejecting what other
Creationists have accepted?
>
> These beliefs are falisified by your support alone.
How?
> Since you have
> shown zero inclination to modify your Biblical views,
You have shown zero reason why he should.
> but have clung
> to citing every crazy rendering that makes the Bible look silly
> contrary to what it says, we can only conclude that you are an infidel
> doing what all infidels have always done: misrepresent the Bible.
Ray, he's not the one misrepresenting the Bible, you are.
>
>> There is no verse that tells how God implemented His commands for the
>> sea to bring forth life, or the dry land to bring forth plants.
>
> Of course there is. Since you have shown no desire to learn they
> cannot ever exist in your mind.
So, let's see that verse. Please provide the correct chapter and verse.
>
>
>> There
>> is no verse that denounces common descent or modification by natural
>> selection as false.
>
> Genesis 1 and 2 at face value, if not the Creation-Evolution debate
> does not exist and we are not having this discussion.
At "face value" the first chapters of Genesis are what the ancient legends
taught about how life began. If you feel that Joshua's beliefs excuse the
errors of the Bible in regards to astronomy, why isn't that the same
explanation for the Bible's errors about biology?
>
> Here we have an Atheist-evolutionist defending corruption of the Bible
> by fellow evolutionists. My corruption charge proven and supported.
No, your charge is simply hot air. You are the one who is attempting to
corrupt the Bible to say what it does not say.
>
> Atheists do not believe in the existence of God; Steven's only
> interest is corrupting the Bible and making it say God created his
> theory.
Why would Steven be interested in making the Bible say anything?
> Why else would an Atheist fight to have the Bible "say" that
> it supports evolution?
Steven is not doing that. The Bible doesn't support evolution, but it
doesn't rule it out, either.
>
>
>> Theistic evolutionists have all the authority for
>> accepting evolution as part of God's plan for creation as you have for
>> accepting heliocentrism as part of God's plan for creation.
>>
>
> Incoherent.
Most of your claims are. Steven, however is correct.
snip
>> In some respects, actually, they agree with evolutionary theory
>> against the more extreme creationists. Creationists deny that we are
>> animals, but the Bible is quite specific that we originated by the
>> same processes as any other beast, and they and we are alike "living
>> organisms" or "living souls" depending on how one wishes to translate
>> the Hebrew _chay nephesh_, which is used to describe us and other
>> mammals indifferently in Genesis 2. But I have already pointed out
>> that there is a tradition in Christian exegesis, long predating the
>> introduction of evolutionary theories, that the creation accounts in
>> Genesis are best interpreted metaphorically or symbolically.
>>
>
> You just got done in a previous post saying that natural selection was
> a metaphor. Now Genesis is a metaphor.
Yes, the both can be seen as metaphor.
>
> "Everything is a metaphor - Steven J." - what are you talking about?
You are misrepresenting Steven's position. You seem to do that whenever you
can't deal rationally with what was actually said.
>
>
> Ray
>
> SNIP... meaningless closed minded atheist drivel about the Bible.
Poor Ray, outclassed, and running away again.
DJT
Steven J.
> On Jun 9, 3:35 pm, "Steven J." <steve...@altavista.com> wrote:
>
> > On Jun 9, 11:59 am, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
> > > There is no verse of scripture that even slightly indicates creation
> > > was by naturalistic evolution and common ancestry. There is not one
> > > evolutionary authority or fact in existence that has ever implied or
> > > said that any Deity or supernatural entity guides evolution. Again,
> > > you are attempting to corrupt scripture by stealing principles and
> > > applying them to your wholly invented "cause," which is asserting God
> > > to have created the evolutionary process - a process and theory that
> > > all Atheists rabidly support and defend. Since you are an infidel your
> > > Bible destruction agenda is obvious and expected. Since you are an
> > > Atheist you have no legitimate reason to want a God involved in
> > > evolution.
>
> > Ray, you seem very resistant to this point, but I'm going to try to
> > make it again. There is not one verse of the Bible that supports the
> > idea that the Earth orbits the sun.
>
> Phraseology presupposes that the Bible says the sun orbits the Earth.
> Since no such verse exists I must point out that you are an Atheist
> and the presupposition is explained.
>
Bible does say (Psalm 104:5) that God has fixed Earth on its
foundation forever, never to be moved (implicitly, the apparent motion
of the sun cannot be caused by the rotation of the Earth, if the Earth
cannot move, and the seasons cannot be caused by the orbit of the
Earth, if the Earth does not move). It speaks (Psalm 19:5) of the
sun, like a bridegroom, leaving its chamber and running its course.
Ecclesiastes 1:5, again, speaks of the sun rising and going down, and
hastening back to its starting point. There are other verses of
similar import. Perhaps even more striking is the order of events in
Genesis 1 itself: the Earth is created *before* the sun. If the Earth
orbits the sun, that's like building a house before you lay the
foundation for it, yet the rest of the creation story implies some
attempt at a logical order. The Bible does not insist that the sun
orbits the Earth, but if our only data was the Bible, it would
overwhelmingly support a geocentric rather than a heliocentric model
of the solar system.
>
> You have resisted the explanation: JOSHUA (not the Bible or God)
> believed that the sun revolved around the Earth, since he grew up in
> Egypt where Ra was worshipped as God this is expected. The Bible
> reports what a person in the 15th century BC believed.
>
in the Psalms that speak of a fixed Earth. Note that nothing in the
text suggests that Joshua was wrong to suppose the sun moved about the
Earth. Note also, although it's not very relevant to the point at
hand, that [a] the Egyptians were not unique in accepting geocentrism,
[b] worshiping the sun does not imply that the Earth is the center of
the universe, and [c] Joshua is presented as an exclusive worshiper of
Adonai JHVH; even if he still believed in the Egyptian pantheon, he
didn't worship them or, presumably, base his cosmology on them.
>
> Your evasion of this fact and its explanation shows us that your only
> motive is corruption by endless posts containing many words and
> senseless ideas that have no correspondence to what is actually
> written in the Bible.
>
geocentric cosmology, and, yet again, nothing in the story suggests
that Joshua was wrong to think the sun went around the Earth.
>
> But your comment above actually is a straw man: because no verse says
> what you have set up.
>
don't share ancestors with monkeys. You have merely insisted on
reading certain verses that way, making them deny evolution when that
was not their original intent or import, the way I have taken the
verses indicated above and read them to indicate heliocentrism.
>
> When we remember that you are an Atheist this nonsense then "makes
> sense."
>
you said elsewhere, "the scientific route," then remember to be
objective, not subjective: you can't dismiss someone as wrong simply
because his beliefs on other matters differ from yours.
>
> > There is not one verse that, in
> > context, supports the idea that the Earth is older than, say, ten
> > thousand years.
>
> Only if you evade what I have said and argued and evidenced in
> previous posts.
>
of your "evidence."
>
> Where does the Bible say the Earth is young?
>
mention of any substantial pre-Adamic Earth history or prehistory, so
in the absence of extrabiblical evidence it is reasonable to infer
that there was no such prehistory. But if you're going to interpret
the Bible in terms of extrabiblical evidence, then you might as well
accept, and attempt to incorporate into your hermeneutics and
theology, the evidence for common descent and natural selection.
>
> I have shown the Bible saying the Earth is old and you have ignored,
> evaded and corrupted because you want the source which is an enemy to
> your worldview saying silly things that contradict science.
>
that contradict science. You insist, as even Kent Hovind would not,
that the Bible insists that no evolution at all goes on: no speciation
(for all that it has been observed), no adaption through natural
selection (for all that it has been observed), no natural selection
(for all that scientists and physicians see it at work constantly),
and surely no common descent (requiring you to ignore -- "interpret"
as nonexistent -- hosts of fossil, biogeographical, and biochemical
evidence). Well, you have at least a lot of company on that last
point, but "no evolution AT ALL" is every bit as silly a position as
"the sun orbits the flat earth."
>
> You have ignored, evaded and corrupted because you cannot refute.
>
>
> > There is not one verse to contradict the view, held
> > (as shown in the apocryphal book of Enoch, or by the writings of the
> > Christian rhetorician Lactantius) by many ancient readers of the
> > Bible, that the sky is a solid dome over a flat Earth. *All* of these
> > understandings of the Bible were once held by Christians (or Jews) as
> > devout and knowledgable of the scriptures as Gene Scott was or you
> > are, and all were defended with the same fervor (and similar
> > arguments) as is displayed in your defense of creationism. And yet
> > you reject all of them, and so do many Christian creationists today,
> > despite the lack of any biblical verse justifying your rejection.
>
> Here we have an Atheist-evolutionist insisting Medieval beliefs are
> what the Bible really says.
>
texts (in their original cultural context) than we do. If context
determines the meaning of a passage, might not Lactantius have a
better grasp of the original cultural context than you do? They
interpreted the Bible without the modern scientific data that we have,
so that they had no incentive to read those data back into the text.
Note that the specific examples cited above were not medieval, but
pre-medieval, the earliest interpretations of the Biblical texts we
have.
>
> These beliefs are falisified by your support alone. Since you have
> shown zero inclination to modify your Biblical views, but have clung
> to citing every crazy rendering that makes the Bible look silly
> contrary to what it says, we can only conclude that you are an infidel
> doing what all infidels have always done: misrepresent the Bible.
>
biblical views, I've done that several times during my lifetime.
Perhaps I'm reluctant to admit that I still haven't got it right. But
the fact that I won't take your word for it that your bigoted and
incoherent tirades "= invulnerable logic" doesn't prove that I am
intransigent or obtuse.
And, again, insisting that the Bible says no evolution can happen is
at least as silly as any view any atheist here has ascribed to the
Bible.
>
> > There is no verse that tells how God implemented His commands for the
> > sea to bring forth life, or the dry land to bring forth plants.
>
> Of course there is. Since you have shown no desire to learn they
> cannot ever exist in your mind.
>
Ray? At this point, your argument would fare better if you actually
cited the verse that says how God implemented His commands, rather
than talking as if certain verses existed only when read by people
with the right state of mind (after all, certain pink elephants exist
only when viewed by people in the right state of mind).
>
> > There
> > is no verse that denounces common descent or modification by natural
> > selection as false.
>
> Genesis 1 and 2 at face value, if not the Creation-Evolution debate
> does not exist and we are not having this discussion.
>
"At face value," Genesis 1 and 2 say the sky is a solid dome and the
sun is just a light moving in the sky beneath this dome. The creation-
evolution debate exists, but that fact does not establish which side
has the more coherent exegesis of Genesis.
>
> Here we have an Atheist-evolutionist defending corruption of the Bible
> by fellow evolutionists. My corruption charge proven and supported.
>
You repeat yourself a lot. Please note that no matter how often you
utter a logical fallacy, it remains a logical fallacy.
>
> Atheists do not believe in the existence of God; Steven's only
> interest is corrupting the Bible and making it say God created his
> theory. Why else would an Atheist fight to have the Bible "say" that
> it supports evolution?
>
I don't recall saying that. I said that an interpretation of the
Bible that is consistent with evolution is more coherent and more
intellectually honest than an interpretation that accepts
heliocentrism, and modern meteorology, but rejects modern evolutionary
biology.
>
> > Theistic evolutionists have all the authority for
> > accepting evolution as part of God's plan for creation as you have for
> > accepting heliocentrism as part of God's plan for creation.
>
> Incoherent.
>
I thought it was clearly expressed.
>
-- [snip]
>
> > > God can and has certainly done the former. There is no evidence of the
> > > latter since Genesis chapters one and two say the exact opposite of
> > > what evolutionary theory claims.
>
> > In some respects, actually, they agree with evolutionary theory
> > against the more extreme creationists. Creationists deny that we are
> > animals, but the Bible is quite specific that we originated by the
> > same processes as any other beast, and they and we are alike "living
> > organisms" or "living souls" depending on how one wishes to translate
> > the Hebrew _chay nephesh_, which is used to describe us and other
> > mammals indifferently in Genesis 2. But I have already pointed out
> > that there is a tradition in Christian exegesis, long predating the
> > introduction of evolutionary theories, that the creation accounts in
> > Genesis are best interpreted metaphorically or symbolically.
>
> You just got done in a previous post saying that natural selection was
> a metaphor. Now Genesis is a metaphor.
>
Genesis contains metaphors. Now, I once ran across a biblical
commentary (I wish I could remember which one) which interpreted
"their eyes were opened, and they saw that they were naked" as a
literal report: before eating the forbidden fruit, Adam and Eve were
blind and navigated around the Garden of Eden by sonar, or something.
But most commentators interpret "their eyes were opened" as metaphor.
Was there some law passed limiting the number of metaphors that can
exist?
>
> "Everything is a metaphor - Steven J." - what are you talking about?
>
"Remove the plank in your eye, and then you will see clearly to remove
the speck in your brother's eye" is also a metaphor.
>
> Ray
>
> SNIP... meaningless closed minded atheist drivel about the Bible.
>
I prefer "closed-minded agnostic drivel," if it's all the same to
you. And perhaps if you can't discern my meaning, you should re-read
and, if necessary, ask for clarification.
-- Steven J.
AC
Ray Martinez <pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
> broken record rant describing theories which say God created reality.
>
> We know that Ronny is a Christian who professes a miracle, that the
> Risen Christ is his Savior, yet he is absolutely convinced that
> Intelligent Design and Creationism (theories which say the Father of
> his Savior is responsible for reality) are "scams" and the theory that
> says Divine power is not responsible for reality (Evolution) is
> literal truth. How do we explain such contradiction? How do we explain
> a Christian who believes what rabid Atheist Richard Dawkins believes
> concering the production of nature and mankind?
>
> We (= fellow Christians) do not want anyone to think that our Ronny is
> a closet Atheist, we want the world and Group to know that he is a
> Christian and that he is genuinely confused at the present time.
> Apparently the scam of Evolution has made him believe that it is the
> way his God created, why else would he defend it so vigorously?
He defends it because it happened, and because you're a racist liar.
--
Aaron Clausen
mightym...@gmail.com
Rolf
> On Jun 8, 4:59 pm, "Steven J." <steve...@altavista.com> wrote:
> > On Jun 8, 5:32 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:> On Jun 7,
8:21 pm, "Steven J." <steve...@altavista.com> wrote:
> >
>
> Either God runs nature hands-on or natural selection is true.
Oh,now I see. Your God is running you, hands-on. Since your God is not our
God, it is only to be expected that you have gone astray.
> Both
> cannot be true and since the term "selection" has never existed in a
> context corresponding to Divinity or intelligence it cannot be re-
> defined to say that it is.
>
[snip]
Ray Martinez
Imagine that; an Atheist arguing that the source for Creationism
actually supports Evolution instead?
Is Steven J. confused, stupid or deliberately misrepresenting the
prose of Genesis?
Where is Christian Ron Okimoto and why has he not put Atheist Steven
J. in his place? Are we to believe that Steven J. is not involved in a
scam to corrupt the Bible? If Genesis actually supports Evolution
"after all" then how is the age old Creation-Evolution debate
explained?
How is it that the same person can allegedly follow arguments written
in complicated scientific jargon published in journals, but Genesis
creation chapters are not advocating special creation?
Steven, in my opinion, is just a typical Atheist doing what all
Atheist-evolutionists do: misrepresent the source of supernaturalism
and Theism.
Ray
SNIP....
Dana Tweedy
snip
>> Well, if you want to get picky, no verse actually says that humans
>> don't share ancestors with monkeys. You have merely insisted on
>> reading certain verses that way, making them deny evolution when that
>> was not their original intent or import, the way I have taken the
>> verses indicated above and read them to indicate heliocentrism.
>>
>
> Imagine that; an Atheist arguing that the source for Creationism
> actually supports Evolution instead?
Actually, Ray what he's saying is that the Bible doesn't refute evoution,
any more than it refutes an old Earth.
>
> Is Steven J. confused, stupid or deliberately misrepresenting the
> prose of Genesis?
Or is Ray just misrepresenting Steven?
>
> Where is Christian Ron Okimoto and why has he not put Atheist Steven
> J. in his place?
What "place' should anyone put Steven in? Steven didn't say that the
Bible supports evolution, he said it doesn't deny evolution.
> Are we to believe that Steven J. is not involved in a
> scam to corrupt the Bible?
Yes, we are to believe that, because Steven is not involved in any such
"scam". Ray, however is actively corrupting the meaning of the Bible.
> If Genesis actually supports Evolution
> "after all" then how is the age old Creation-Evolution debate
> explained?
By pointing out that creatonists (who have only been around for the last 40
years) ignore the evidence.
>
> How is it that the same person can allegedly follow arguments written
> in complicated scientific jargon published in journals, but Genesis
> creation chapters are not advocating special creation?
Because the Genesis creation chapers don't "advocate" special creation.
They are legends, which report early oral stories with religious overtones.
>
> Steven, in my opinion, is just a typical Atheist doing what all
> Atheist-evolutionists do: misrepresent the source of supernaturalism
> and Theism.
Your opinion is of no more importance than your "paper". both are
worthless.
DJT
Steven J.
> On Jun 9, 7:58 pm, "Steven J." <steve...@altavista.com> wrote:
>
>
> > No, the Bible does not *say* that the sun orbits the Earth. But the
> > Bible does say (Psalm 104:5) that God has fixed Earth on its
> > foundation forever, never to be moved (implicitly, the apparent motion
> > of the sun cannot be caused by the rotation of the Earth, if the Earth
> > cannot move, and the seasons cannot be caused by the orbit of the
> > Earth, if the Earth does not move). It speaks (Psalm 19:5) of the
> > sun, like a bridegroom, leaving its chamber and running its course.
> > Ecclesiastes 1:5, again, speaks of the sun rising and going down, and
> > hastening back to its starting point. There are other verses of
> > similar import. Perhaps even more striking is the order of events in
> > Genesis 1 itself: the Earth is created *before* the sun. If the Earth
> > orbits the sun, that's like building a house before you lay the
> > foundation for it, yet the rest of the creation story implies some
> > attempt at a logical order. The Bible does not insist that the sun
> > orbits the Earth, but if our only data was the Bible, it would
> > overwhelmingly support a geocentric rather than a heliocentric model
> > of the solar system.
>
>
> > The Joshua account is only one of many biblical texts suggesting a
> > geocentric cosmology, and, yet again, nothing in the story suggests
> > that Joshua was wrong to think the sun went around the Earth.
>
>
> > Well, if you want to get picky, no verse actually says that humans
> > don't share ancestors with monkeys. You have merely insisted on
> > reading certain verses that way, making them deny evolution when that
> > was not their original intent or import, the way I have taken the
> > verses indicated above and read them to indicate heliocentrism.
>
> Imagine that; an Atheist arguing that the source for Creationism
> actually supports Evolution instead?
>
evolution as it is with heliocentrism or modern meteorology. An
interpretation that sees the order of creation in Genesis 1 as
compatible with modern astronomy, or can interpolate billions of years
between Genesis1:1 and Genesis 1:2, is no harder to reconcile with the
plain sense of the text than is one compatible with common descent.
>
> Is Steven J. confused, stupid or deliberately misrepresenting the
> prose of Genesis?
>
hatches in it, and that the sun moves *inside* the dome. It also
implies that if one breeds cattle in front of striped or spotted rods,
one ought to get striped or spotted offspring. I assume you are not
insisting on either of those points.
I remember a fellow student in an English class who insisted that W.B.
Yeats' "we too had many pretty toys when we were young; a law
indifferent to praise or blame," was talking about the contents of his
childhood toy chest. Sometimes, you just have to get beyond the prose
to the poetry of the text.
>
> Where is Christian Ron Okimoto and why has he not put Atheist Steven
> J. in his place? Are we to believe that Steven J. is not involved in a
> scam to corrupt the Bible? If Genesis actually supports Evolution
> "after all" then how is the age old Creation-Evolution debate
> explained?
>
If the Bible actually supports heliocentric astronomy, then how do we
explain why all the early Protestant scholars (and their Roman
Catholic counterparts, if you care) fought against the idea that the
Earth orbits the sun? Why do some Christians *still* fight against
that idea? If the Bible actually teaches an old Earth, why have there
been Christians fighting against old-earth geology for the last two
and a half centuries? For that matter, why does any dispute over
biblical teaching or Christian doctrine exist? People differ on their
interpretation of scripture. It seems to me better to adopt an
interpretation consistent with the actual data. To you, apparently,
it seems more reasonable to accept only the evidence consistent with
your particular interpretation of the Bible. At the very least, I
cannot see why the latter course of action is less perverse or more
reasonable than the former.
>
> How is it that the same person can allegedly follow arguments written
> in complicated scientific jargon published in journals, but Genesis
> creation chapters are not advocating special creation?
>
Well, at least I can't turn that argument back on you; you've shown no
signs of being able to follow arguments written in complicated
scientific jargon. But anyway, I've answered that question as best I
can.
>
> Steven, in my opinion, is just a typical Atheist doing what all
> Atheist-evolutionists do: misrepresent the source of supernaturalism
> and Theism.
>
Supernaturalism and theism existed before the Bible. How could it be
otherwise: the Bible was written and compiled by people who believed
in God when they had no Bible? Therefore, the Bible cannot be the
source of supernaturalism and theism.
You really should be less certain that your opinions and those of God
Almighty necessarily coincide.
>
> Ray
>
> SNIP....
>
Well, if you can't address my arguments, I suppose ignoring them will
have to do.
-- Steven J.
Ray Martinez
You are demonstrably confused (that is the best we can do you). It's
either that or I remind everyone of your worldview (Atheism) and all
is explained instantly.
> > Is Steven J. confused, stupid or deliberately misrepresenting the
> > prose of Genesis?
>
> The "prose of Genesis" implies that the sky is a solid dome with
> hatches in it, and that the sun moves *inside* the dome. It also
> implies that if one breeds cattle in front of striped or spotted rods,
> one ought to get striped or spotted offspring. I assume you are not
> insisting on either of those points.
>
Bible "interpretation" by Atheist, now it "makes sense."
> I remember a fellow student in an English class who insisted that W.B.
> Yeats' "we too had many pretty toys when we were young; a law
> indifferent to praise or blame," was talking about the contents of his
> childhood toy chest. Sometimes, you just have to get beyond the prose
> to the poetry of the text.
>
> > Where is Christian Ron Okimoto and why has he not put Atheist Steven
> > J. in his place? Are we to believe that Steven J. is not involved in a
> > scam to corrupt the Bible? If Genesis actually supports Evolution
> > "after all" then how is the age old Creation-Evolution debate
> > explained?
>
> If the Bible actually supports heliocentric astronomy, then how do we
> explain why all the early Protestant scholars (and their Roman
> Catholic counterparts, if you care) fought against the idea that the
> Earth orbits the sun? Why do some Christians *still* fight against
> that idea? If the Bible actually teaches an old Earth, why have there
> been Christians fighting against old-earth geology for the last two
> and a half centuries? For that matter, why does any dispute over
> biblical teaching or Christian doctrine exist? People differ on their
> interpretation of scripture. It seems to me better to adopt an
> interpretation consistent with the actual data. To you, apparently,
> it seems more reasonable to accept only the evidence consistent with
> your particular interpretation of the Bible. At the very least, I
> cannot see why the latter course of action is less perverse or more
> reasonable than the former.
>
This is what happens when Atheists "honestly" try to "interpret" the
Bible.
> > How is it that the same person can allegedly follow arguments written
> > in complicated scientific jargon published in journals, but Genesis
> > creation chapters are not advocating special creation?
>
> Well, at least I can't turn that argument back on you; you've shown no
> signs of being able to follow arguments written in complicated
> scientific jargon. But anyway, I've answered that question as best I
> can.
>
> > Steven, in my opinion, is just a typical Atheist doing what all
> > Atheist-evolutionists do: misrepresent the source of supernaturalism
> > and Theism.
>
> Supernaturalism and theism existed before the Bible. How could it be
> otherwise: the Bible was written and compiled by people who believed
> in God when they had no Bible? Therefore, the Bible cannot be the
> source of supernaturalism and theism.
>
> You really should be less certain that your opinions and those of God
> Almighty necessarily coincide.
>
> > Ray
>
> > SNIP....
>
> Well, if you can't address my arguments, I suppose ignoring them will
> have to do.
>
> -- Steven J.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
No matter how many times you label your nonsense an "argument" it
remains nonsense because you are an Atheist, which means your Bible
beliefs and representations and "arguments" are predetermined.
Ray
Ken Rode
> On Jun 10, 5:50 pm, "Steven J." <steve...@altavista.com> wrote:
<snip>
> > Well, if you can't address my arguments, I suppose ignoring them will
> > have to do.
>
> > -- Steven J.
>
> No matter how many times you label your nonsense an "argument" it
> remains nonsense because you are an Atheist, which means your Bible
> beliefs and representations and "arguments" are predetermined.
Do you seriously consider that *your* Bible beliefs and
representations and "arguments" (such as they are) are *not*
predetermined, Ray?
Why would you think that "predetermined" beliefs, representations, or
arguments should not be discussed? Your views are largely
predetermined, but most people here are eager to engage you in
discussing your views. You, on the other hand, manage to find some of
the weakest ways of evading such conversation. It's a bit pathetic,
frankly.
> Ray
wf...@comcast.net
<pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>No matter how many times you label your nonsense an "argument" it
>remains nonsense because you are an Atheist, which means your Bible
>beliefs and representations and "arguments" are predetermined.
>
>Ray
>
wonder if ray's ever read the 'loving' decision in which a virginia
judge, based on creationism, upheld the laws against people of
different races getting married.
Jim Willemin
{snip}
>
> No matter how many times you label your nonsense an "argument" it
> remains nonsense because you are an Atheist, which means your Bible
> beliefs and representations and "arguments" are predetermined.
>
It seems to me that this is really truly a type example of an argument ad hominem.
Ray is dismissing Steve's arguments as 'nonsense' purely on the basis of Steve's
acceptance of evolution (hence is an 'atheist' in Rayworld).
To quote one Ray Martinez, "Ad hominem = inability to refute."
Therefore, by invulnerable logic, Steve's arguments stand - Ray cannot invalidate
them.
Dana Tweedy
"Ray Martinez" <pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1181593645.1...@h2g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
snip
>> No, I am arguing that the source of creationism is as compatible with
>> evolution as it is with heliocentrism or modern meteorology. An
>> interpretation that sees the order of creation in Genesis 1 as
>> compatible with modern astronomy, or can interpolate billions of years
>> between Genesis1:1 and Genesis 1:2, is no harder to reconcile with the
>> plain sense of the text than is one compatible with common descent.
>>
>
> You are demonstrably confused (that is the best we can do you).
Ray, why is it that you claim others are "confused" when it's you who
appears to be lost?
> It's
> either that or I remind everyone of your worldview (Atheism) and all
> is explained instantly.
More ad hominem when Ray can't refute.
>
>
>> > Is Steven J. confused, stupid or deliberately misrepresenting the
>> > prose of Genesis?
>>
>> The "prose of Genesis" implies that the sky is a solid dome with
>> hatches in it, and that the sun moves *inside* the dome. It also
>> implies that if one breeds cattle in front of striped or spotted rods,
>> one ought to get striped or spotted offspring. I assume you are not
>> insisting on either of those points.
>>
>
> Bible "interpretation" by Atheist, now it "makes sense."
Ray running away from the points raised? What kind of "sense" does that
make?
sniip
>> If the Bible actually supports heliocentric astronomy, then how do we
>> explain why all the early Protestant scholars (and their Roman
>> Catholic counterparts, if you care) fought against the idea that the
>> Earth orbits the sun? Why do some Christians *still* fight against
>> that idea? If the Bible actually teaches an old Earth, why have there
>> been Christians fighting against old-earth geology for the last two
>> and a half centuries? For that matter, why does any dispute over
>> biblical teaching or Christian doctrine exist? People differ on their
>> interpretation of scripture. It seems to me better to adopt an
>> interpretation consistent with the actual data. To you, apparently,
>> it seems more reasonable to accept only the evidence consistent with
>> your particular interpretation of the Bible. At the very least, I
>> cannot see why the latter course of action is less perverse or more
>> reasonable than the former.
>>
>
> This is what happens when Atheists "honestly" try to "interpret" the
> Bible.
This is what happens when Ray can't offer any reasonable answer.
snip
> No matter how many times you label your nonsense an "argument" it
> remains nonsense because you are an Atheist, which means your Bible
> beliefs and representations and "arguments" are predetermined.
Ray, ad hominem is a fallacy, no matter how much you depend on it.
DJT
Ray Martinez
> On Jun 11, 4:27 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > On Jun 10, 5:50 pm, "Steven J." <steve...@altavista.com> wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> > > Well, if you can't address my arguments, I suppose ignoring them will
> > > have to do.
>
> > > -- Steven J.
>
> > No matter how many times you label your nonsense an "argument" it
> > remains nonsense because you are an Atheist, which means your Bible
> > beliefs and representations and "arguments" are predetermined.
>
> Do you seriously consider that *your* Bible beliefs and
> representations and "arguments" (such as they are) are *not*
> predetermined, Ray?
>
Since I have plainly admitted that I am brainwashed by the facts in
the Bible, yes, of course.
> Why would you think that "predetermined" beliefs, representations, or
> arguments should not be discussed? Your views are largely
> predetermined, but most people here are eager to engage you in
> discussing your views. You, on the other hand, manage to find some of
> the weakest ways of evading such conversation. It's a bit pathetic,
> frankly.
>
This says that Atheist Steven J's Bible "arguments" are valid. Might
you be an Atheist?
I am perfectly willing to make your point, Atheists, of course, are
not. That is why the Agnostic label exists.
How could anyone not predict what an Atheist will say and conclude
about the Bible?
How could anyone not predict what a Evolutionist will say and conclude
about the Bible?
Ray
Ray Martinez
wrote:
Jim: are you aware of the fact that Steven was actually arguing that
the source for supernaturalism actually supports god-not-involved
antithetic natural evolution? "And God said, 'Let there be common
ancestry'"
Why would an Atheist fight to have the Bible support evolution? Why is
he not saying that Genesis creation is falsified by evolution?
Of course both of these questions are rhetorical (as you know).
Ray
Ken Rode
> On Jun 11, 1:50 pm, Ken Rode <kar...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Jun 11, 4:27 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Jun 10, 5:50 pm, "Steven J." <steve...@altavista.com> wrote:
>
> > <snip>
>
> > > > Well, if you can't address my arguments, I suppose ignoring them will
> > > > have to do.
>
> > > > -- Steven J.
>
> > > No matter how many times you label your nonsense an "argument" it
> > > remains nonsense because you are an Atheist, which means your Bible
> > > beliefs and representations and "arguments" are predetermined.
>
> > Do you seriously consider that *your* Bible beliefs and
> > representations and "arguments" (such as they are) are *not*
> > predetermined, Ray?
>
> Since I have plainly admitted that I am brainwashed by the facts in
> the Bible, yes, of course.
>
> > Why would you think that "predetermined" beliefs, representations, or
> > arguments should not be discussed? Your views are largely
> > predetermined, but most people here are eager to engage you in
> > discussing your views. You, on the other hand, manage to find some of
> > the weakest ways of evading such conversation. It's a bit pathetic,
> > frankly.
>
> This says that Atheist Steven J's Bible "arguments" are valid. Might
> you be an Atheist?
Actually, what I said is that you might discuss them rather than
simply dismissing them out of hand. I made no comment whatsoever on
the validity of his arguments.
Please don't read more out of my comments than what I wrote into them.
I try to write with some degree of precision, and I make an effort to
be direct in those things that I have to say. If you come to a
conclusion regarding my words that isn't supported by the words, it's
likely to be wrong, as you were above.
> I am perfectly willing to make your point, Atheists, of course, are
> not. That is why the Agnostic label exists.
I'm unable to parse this paragraph. Could you rephrase, please? Once I
understand it, we can discuss it further.
> How could anyone not predict what an Atheist will say and conclude
> about the Bible?
As an atheist, what I would say about the Bible is this: that it
contains some sophistication of thought regarding ethics, provides
some guidance to living a good life harmonious with those around you,
contains some poetry, some history and some mythology. Is that what
you expected that I might say? I cannot and do not speak for any other
atheist, of course, so this is what *I* will say about the Bible. What
another atheist would say is anyone's guess.
> How could anyone not predict what a Evolutionist will say and conclude
> about the Bible?
Anyone can make such a prediction. However, given that evolution is
not a religious position, they would have far less chance of being
right than for your previous question about atheists. I know that you
will disagree with this, but we've already established that you are
aware that some of your beliefs are not shared by the majority of
Christians. A lot of Christians don't have a problem reconciling a
belief in God with an acceptance of the evidence for evolution. You
choose to see such people as non-Christian, but in reality that choice
says far more about you than it does about them.
> Ray
Steven J.
> On Jun 10, 5:50 pm, "Steven J." <steve...@altavista.com> wrote:
>
> > On Jun 10, 6:34 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
> > > Imagine that; an Atheist arguing that the source for Creationism
> > > actually supports Evolution instead?
>
> > No, I am arguing that the source of creationism is as compatible with
> > evolution as it is with heliocentrism or modern meteorology. An
> > interpretation that sees the order of creation in Genesis 1 as
> > compatible with modern astronomy, or can interpolate billions of years
> > between Genesis1:1 and Genesis 1:2, is no harder to reconcile with the
> > plain sense of the text than is one compatible with common descent.
>
> You are demonstrably confused (that is the best we can do you). It's
> either that or I remind everyone of your worldview (Atheism) and all
> is explained instantly.
>
talent you learned from your mentor and idol, Gene Scott. But feel
free to show me wrong: why does having the sun created *after* the
Earth (and plants, but let that pass) not imply that the sun goes
actually physically goes around the Earth? Why do the passages in the
Psalms that speak of the Earth being fixed in place not mean what that
the Earth is, well, fixed in place? And why are the geocentric
passages of the Bible to be taken as figurative or reflections of the
views of less scientifically sophisticated bronze-age people, but the
creation account in Genesis must be taken literally as science?
Pointing out what you see as my theological beliefs doesn't explain
these issues at all.
>
> > > Is Steven J. confused, stupid or deliberately misrepresenting the
> > > prose of Genesis?
>
> > The "prose of Genesis" implies that the sky is a solid dome with
> > hatches in it, and that the sun moves *inside* the dome. It also
> > implies that if one breeds cattle in front of striped or spotted rods,
> > one ought to get striped or spotted offspring. I assume you are not
> > insisting on either of those points.
>
> Bible "interpretation" by Atheist, now it "makes sense."
>
many other Old Testament passages? Why was Jacob praised for his
cleverness in breeding cattle on the assumption that markings seen by
the mothers when they conceived could be passed on to the offspring?
What is the creationist "interpretation" of these passages?
>
> > I remember a fellow student in an English class who insisted that W.B.
> > Yeats' "we too had many pretty toys when we were young; a law
> > indifferent to praise or blame," was talking about the contents of his
> > childhood toy chest. Sometimes, you just have to get beyond the prose
> > to the poetry of the text.
>
>
> > > Where is Christian Ron Okimoto and why has he not put Atheist Steven
> > > J. in his place? Are we to believe that Steven J. is not involved in a
> > > scam to corrupt the Bible? If Genesis actually supports Evolution
> > > "after all" then how is the age old Creation-Evolution debate
> > > explained?
>
> > If the Bible actually supports heliocentric astronomy, then how do we
> > explain why all the early Protestant scholars (and their Roman
> > Catholic counterparts, if you care) fought against the idea that the
> > Earth orbits the sun? Why do some Christians *still* fight against
> > that idea? If the Bible actually teaches an old Earth, why have there
> > been Christians fighting against old-earth geology for the last two
> > and a half centuries? For that matter, why does any dispute over
> > biblical teaching or Christian doctrine exist? People differ on their
> > interpretation of scripture. It seems to me better to adopt an
> > interpretation consistent with the actual data. To you, apparently,
> > it seems more reasonable to accept only the evidence consistent with
> > your particular interpretation of the Bible. At the very least, I
> > cannot see why the latter course of action is less perverse or more
> > reasonable than the former.
>
> This is what happens when Atheists "honestly" try to "interpret" the
> Bible.
>
By the way, in the above paragraph, I was not interpreting the Bible.
I was pointing out how past Christian scholars interpreted the Bible,
and asking, by implication, why your interpretation was sounder than
theirs.
>
> > > How is it that the same person can allegedly follow arguments written
> > > in complicated scientific jargon published in journals, but Genesis
> > > creation chapters are not advocating special creation?
>
> > Well, at least I can't turn that argument back on you; you've shown no
> > signs of being able to follow arguments written in complicated
> > scientific jargon. But anyway, I've answered that question as best I
> > can.
>
> > > Steven, in my opinion, is just a typical Atheist doing what all
> > > Atheist-evolutionists do: misrepresent the source of supernaturalism
> > > and Theism.
>
> > Supernaturalism and theism existed before the Bible. How could it be
> > otherwise: the Bible was written and compiled by people who believed
> > in God when they had no Bible? Therefore, the Bible cannot be the
> > source of supernaturalism and theism.
>
> > You really should be less certain that your opinions and those of God
> > Almighty necessarily coincide.
>
> > > Ray
>
> > > SNIP....
>
> > Well, if you can't address my arguments, I suppose ignoring them will
> > have to do.
>
> > -- Steven J
>
> No matter how many times you label your nonsense an "argument" it
> remains nonsense because you are an Atheist, which means your Bible
> beliefs and representations and "arguments" are predetermined.
>
Assume that my "beliefs and representations and 'arguments'" are
predetermined. So what? Pointing out that my arguments are just what
you'd expect from me does not tell anyone whether those arguments are
good or bad, right or wrong. And certainly it doesn't offer a
refutation of them. An argument is not nonsense simply because it is
predictable.
>
> Ray
-- Steven J.
Rolf
Everybody knows what Ray will say and conclude abut the Bible, science,
Intelligent Design,
Dr. Scott, Velikovsky, Atheists, Darwinists, Evolutionists - and himself. He
have not got anything else to say, he alread have said it all a million
times. He is becoming boring with his monomaniacal nonsense arguments, and I
believe he is headed for disaster.
> Ray
>
wf...@comcast.net
<pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>On Jun 11, 1:50 pm, Ken Rode <kar...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
>>
>>
>> Do you seriously consider that *your* Bible beliefs and
>> representations and "arguments" (such as they are) are *not*
>> predetermined, Ray?
>>
>
>Since I have plainly admitted that I am brainwashed by the facts in
>the Bible, yes, of course.
your view of the facts, at least. of course, one CAN be delusional
about the bible...better folks than you have been..
>
>How could anyone not predict what a Evolutionist will say and conclude
>about the Bible?
>
because there are xtians who accept evolution and atheists who accept
evolution. they would have wildly different views of the bible...
your assertion that you're the only xtian in existence
notwithstanding...
DJT
snip
> > Do you seriously consider that *your* Bible beliefs and
> > representations and "arguments" (such as they are) are *not*
> > predetermined, Ray?
>
> Since I have plainly admitted that I am brainwashed by the facts in
> the Bible, yes, of course.
Correction, what you are brainwashed to think are "facts in the
Bible".
>
> > Why would you think that "predetermined" beliefs, representations, or
> > arguments should not be discussed? Your views are largely
> > predetermined, but most people here are eager to engage you in
> > discussing your views. You, on the other hand, manage to find some of
> > the weakest ways of evading such conversation. It's a bit pathetic,
> > frankly.
>
> This says that Atheist Steven J's Bible "arguments" are valid. Might
> you be an Atheist?
Why would that matter, if the arguments are correct. I'm not an
atheist, and I agree that Steven's statements are correct.
>
> I am perfectly willing to make your point, Atheists, of course, are
> not. That is why the Agnostic label exists.
The 'agnostic" label exists because some people aren't sure of the
existance of God. Libelling atheists doesn't support your own
claims.
>
> How could anyone not predict what an Atheist will say and conclude
> about the Bible?
Because atheists tend to be a diverse group, and have diverse
opinions.
>
> How could anyone not predict what a Evolutionist will say and conclude
> about the Bible?
Because those who accept evolution are an even more diverse group, and
have many different religious opinions.
Really, Ray, the ad hominem is really wearing thin. Please try to
come up with some other form of logical fallacy.
DJT
DJT
> On Jun 11, 5:17 pm, Jim Willemin <jim***willemin@hot***mail.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote innews:1181593645.1...@h2g2000hsg.googlegroups.com:
>
> > {snip}
>
> > > No matter how many times you label your nonsense an "argument" it
> > > remains nonsense because you are an Atheist, which means your Bible
> > > beliefs and representations and "arguments" are predetermined.
>
> > It seems to me that this is really truly a type example of an argument ad hominem.
> > Ray is dismissing Steve's arguments as 'nonsense' purely on the basis of Steve's
> > acceptance of evolution (hence is an 'atheist' in Rayworld).
>
> > To quote one Ray Martinez, "Ad hominem = inability to refute."
> > Therefore, by invulnerable logic, Steve's arguments stand - Ray cannot invalidate
> > them.
>
> Jim: are you aware of the fact that Steven was actually arguing that
> the source for supernaturalism actually supports god-not-involved
> antithetic natural evolution?
No, that's not what Steven was saying. What he was saying is that the
Bible (which is not the 'source for supernaturalism') does not
specifically deny the concept of evolution, and more than it denies
your claim of an old Earth.
> "And God said, 'Let there be common
> ancestry'"
Which isn't a bad translation of "go forth and multiply".
>
> Why would an Atheist fight to have the Bible support evolution?
Since no "atheist" did, why ask?
> Why is
> he not saying that Genesis creation is falsified by evolution?
Because it's not. The evidence falsifies the Genesis creation
stories. Evolution explains diversity of life in a more scientific
manner.
>
> Of course both of these questions are rhetorical (as you know).
Yet both questions have answers, that you have apparently not
considered.
DJT
Ray Martinez
How is it that this Atheist can figure out when Darwin is speaking by
metaphor attempting to explain reality but the same ability is somehow
crippled and disabled when the Bible employs simple metaphors and
analogies to explain reality and God's actions?
Of course, said question is rhetorical.
Natural selection is the most complicated and convoluted scientific
principle anyone will find anywhere at anytime. Harvard Professor of
Science History, Janet Browne, has admitted how complicated natural
selection really is. We know that Darwin, when attempting to explain
how nature was produced by natural selection, apart from Divine
guidance, used antonymic intelligence (artificial breeders choosing
desired traits) as a metaphor comparable to what Nature does without
any intelligence involved. Yet Steven J. has no problem figuring this
out. But when the Bible uses any type of metaphor or symbolism or
typology or analogy, he suddenly has no ability to understand what is
being said. He, in fact, "thinks" *windows of heaven* literally means
that God installed those things that are built into our houses, into
the house of heaven. How can he not see that the phrase, in whatever
context, is talking about an act of God into reality and not the silly
rendering he has "honestly" put forth?
We explain the ability and the inability by pointing out the obvious:
Steven is an admitted Atheist; he has every motive to pretend that he
is attempting to convey what the Bible says by asking "genuine"
questions which are really rhetorical points of a made up mind;
attempting to misrepresent the enemy (Bible) of his worldview
(Atheism). Since he has no trouble deciphering Darwin's antonymic
metaphors we know he is not stupid but has a needed level of
intelligence. Since the same ability does not exist when the subject
is the Bible we can only conclude that his Atheism is the cause.
If any other person would like to take up Steven's cause and discuss
things with me, or if Steven were to suddenly obtain the same ability
when he reads Darwin, and be able to understand the prose of the
Bible, then please create a message. I love discussing the Bible and
Evolution and related things.
But we know Steven J. must now produce another long winded post acting
like he does not know what I am talking about. He must do this, if
not, he would, in essence, be silently admitting to deliberate
corruption of Biblical prose under the guise of "genuine discussion."
Ray
SNIP more "genuine" Bible "questions" and "arguments".....
Tiny Bulcher
>
> If any other person would like to take up Steven's cause and discuss
> things with me, or if Steven were to suddenly obtain the same ability
> when he reads Darwin, and be able to understand the prose of the
> Bible, then please create a message. I love discussing the Bible and
Let's cut to the chase. If as you say (and I don't disagree) the Bible is
full of homely metaphors ... why aren't Genesis 1 & 2 two of them? In fact,
don't you yourself think 'six days' to be metaphorical? If the six days is a
metaphor, why isn't 'created from the dust of the ground' one, too?
DJT
Ray, it's you who seems to be missing the metaphors in the Bible.
What is the "simple metaphor" the Bible was using in the story of
Jacob and the spotted animals?
>
> Of course, said question is rhetorical.
>
> Natural selection is the most complicated and convoluted scientific
> principle anyone will find anywhere at anytime.
Actually, natural selection is quite a simple concept. Some
organisms live, some don't. The traits of the organism in
relationship to the enviroment makes the decision.
> Harvard Professor of
> Science History, Janet Browne, has admitted how complicated natural
> selection really is.
When did she do this?
> We know that Darwin, when attempting to explain
> how nature was produced by natural selection, apart from Divine
> guidance, used antonymic intelligence (artificial breeders choosing
> desired traits) as a metaphor comparable to what Nature does without
> any intelligence involved.
No, Ray, that's not a metaphor, it was an example of how selection
works in a population.
>Yet Steven J. has no problem figuring this
> out.
Steven, of course is not blinded by Ray's brand of hatred and
bigotry.
>But when the Bible uses any type of metaphor or symbolism or
> typology or analogy, he suddenly has no ability to understand what is
> being said. He, in fact, "thinks" *windows of heaven* literally means
> that God installed those things that are built into our houses, into
> the house of heaven.
Ray, are you saying the Bible doesn't mean what it says?
> How can he not see that the phrase, in whatever
> context, is talking about an act of God into reality and not the silly
> rendering he has "honestly" put forth?
Again, Ray, you are taking the "plain meaning" of the Bible and making
interpetations. Why don't you allow others to do the same?
>
> We explain the ability and the inability by pointing out the obvious:
> Steven is an admitted Atheist; he has every motive to pretend that he
> is attempting to convey what the Bible says by asking "genuine"
> questions which are really rhetorical points of a made up mind;
Ray, maybe that is how you operate, but it's not everyone.
> attempting to misrepresent the enemy (Bible) of his worldview
> (Atheism).
Ray, the Bible is not the enemy of atheists. They don't believe it's
the word of God, but they don't consider it an enemy.
>Since he has no trouble deciphering Darwin's antonymic
> metaphors we know he is not stupid but has a needed level of
> intelligence. Since the same ability does not exist when the subject
> is the Bible we can only conclude that his Atheism is the cause.
Or we can conclude that Ray is unable to give a real answer, so he
resorts to ad hominem yet again.
>
> If any other person would like to take up Steven's cause and discuss
> things with me, or if Steven were to suddenly obtain the same ability
> when he reads Darwin, and be able to understand the prose of the
> Bible, then please create a message. I love discussing the Bible and
> Evolution and related things.
Yet you run away whenever anyone asks difficult questions, or shows
they know more than you do (admittedly, not a difficult task).
>
> But we know Steven J. must now produce another long winded post acting
> like he does not know what I am talking about.
Or perhaps your claims are just too transparent to bother with.
>He must do this, if
> not, he would, in essence, be silently admitting to deliberate
> corruption of Biblical prose under the guise of "genuine discussion."
Or, Ray simply runs away after being bested.
>
> Ray
>
> SNIP more "genuine" Bible "questions" and "arguments".....
Ray runs away some more...
DJT
Ray Martinez
> žus cwęš Ray Martinez:
>
>
>
> > If any other person would like to take up Steven's cause and discuss
> > things with me, or if Steven were to suddenly obtain the same ability
> > when he reads Darwin, and be able to understand the prose of the
> > Bible, then please create a message. I love discussing the Bible and
> > Evolution and related things.".....
>
> Let's cut to the chase. If as you say (and I don't disagree) the Bible is
> full of homely metaphors ...
Where did I say the Bible "is FULL of HOMELY metaphors"?
> why aren't Genesis 1 & 2 two of them?
Because evolutionists are predictably attempting to corrupt their
enemy - the Bible.
How anyone could think that God creating from the dust = natural god
not involved evolution from apes proves my point, especially so called
educated evolutionists who have no trouble understanding scientific
jargon but suddenly are claiming that they do not understand that the
Bible is claiming special creation - a claim that ALL Atheist scholars
admit exists in the Bible, except for a handful of ordinary lying
Darwinists at this Usenet.
> In fact,
> don't you yourself think 'six days' to be metaphorical? If the six days is a
> metaphor, why isn't 'created from the dust of the ground' one, too?
Metaphor for what?
Whatever you are alluding to it must make sense. But we know you are
an enraged evolutionist acting like you do not understand, attempting
to corrupt the Bible.
Since you are an evolutionist, this is expected. Now hurry up and post
a message evading the specifics with nonsense and acting like you do
not understand, lest I be proven wrong.
Ray
DJT
> On Jun 12, 12:15 pm, "Tiny Bulcher" <RSGD9...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > žus cwęš Ray Martinez:
>
> > > If any other person would like to take up Steven's cause and discuss
> > > things with me, or if Steven were to suddenly obtain the same ability
> > > when he reads Darwin, and be able to understand the prose of the
> > > Bible, then please create a message. I love discussing the Bible and
> > > Evolution and related things.".....
>
> > Let's cut to the chase. If as you say (and I don't disagree) the Bible is
> > full of homely metaphors ...
>
> Where did I say the Bible "is FULL of HOMELY metaphors"?
When you said:
"How is it that this Atheist can figure out when Darwin is speaking
by
metaphor attempting to explain reality but the same ability is
somehow
crippled and disabled when the Bible employs simple metaphors and
analogies to explain reality and God's actions? "
>
> > why aren't Genesis 1 & 2 two of them?
>
> Because evolutionists are predictably attempting to corrupt their
> enemy - the Bible.
That's not an answer, Ray, it's an excuse for special pleading.
>
> How anyone could think that God creating from the dust = natural god
> not involved evolution from apes proves my point,
Why are you assuming that evolution is "god not involved"? Why do
you find human evolution "from apes" to be unlikely?
> especially so called
> educated evolutionists who have no trouble understanding scientific
> jargon but suddenly are claiming that they do not understand that the
> Bible is claiming special creation
Ray, what is causing the problem is that these educated people
disagree with you about what the Bible is claiming. You haven't
demonstrated that your own peculiar beleifs are the only way to
interpet the Bible.
>- a claim that ALL Atheist scholars
> admit exists in the Bible, except for a handful of ordinary lying
> Darwinists at this Usenet.
Ray, in order for you to make such a claim, you'd have to demonstrate
that "all" atheist scholars make that claim, or even a large
percentage. You have failed to do so. The fact is that Bible does
not claim "special creation", it only says that God created. It does
not say how.
>
> > In fact,
> > don't you yourself think 'six days' to be metaphorical? If the six days is a
> > metaphor, why isn't 'created from the dust of the ground' one, too?
>
> Metaphor for what?
For natural processes producing life.
>
> Whatever you are alluding to it must make sense.
Why don't your claims have to make sense then?
> But we know you are
> an enraged evolutionist acting like you do not understand, attempting
> to corrupt the Bible.
Ray, you are the one who is corrupting the Bible.
>
> Since you are an evolutionist, this is expected. Now hurry up and post
> a message evading the specifics with nonsense and acting like you do
> not understand, lest I be proven wrong.
Ray, you've been proven wrong many times over. Your inablity to
defend your claims is not anyone's fault but your own.
DJT
Tiny Bulcher
> On Jun 12, 12:15 pm, "Tiny Bulcher" <RSGD9...@aol.com> wrote:
>> žus cwęš Ray Martinez:
>>
>>
>>
>>> If any other person would like to take up Steven's cause and discuss
>>> things with me, or if Steven were to suddenly obtain the same
>>> ability when he reads Darwin, and be able to understand the prose
>>> of the Bible, then please create a message. I love discussing the
>>> Bible and Evolution and related things.".....
>>
>> Let's cut to the chase. If as you say (and I don't disagree) the
>> Bible is full of homely metaphors ...
>
> Where did I say the Bible "is FULL of HOMELY metaphors"?
Why, you listed several just recently. Windows of heaven were one of them, I
do believe.
>> why aren't Genesis 1 & 2 two of them?
>
> Because evolutionists are predictably attempting to corrupt their
> enemy - the Bible.
Nah. I'm too busy corrupting my real enemy - the Tao te Ching.
> How anyone could think that God creating from the dust = natural god
> not involved evolution from apes proves my point, especially so called
> educated evolutionists who have no trouble understanding scientific
> jargon but suddenly are claiming that they do not understand that the
> Bible is claiming special creation - a claim that ALL Atheist scholars
> admit exists in the Bible, except for a handful of ordinary lying
> Darwinists at this Usenet.
Well, those six days that YOU claim to be a metaphor seem pretty damn clear
to me - you know, evenings and mornings, and so on? Strikes me that trying
to claim that six days (complete with evenings and mornings) is metaphorical
is at least much of a tortured interpretation as any attempt to make Genesis
1 & 2 square with evolution.
>> In fact,
>> don't you yourself think 'six days' to be metaphorical? If the six
>> days is a metaphor, why isn't 'created from the dust of the ground'
>> one, too?
>
> Metaphor for what?
How about ... giving a creature already created (via evolution, naturally) a
soul, and thus raising them up out of the metaphorical dust into true
humanity. Would that work? Not that I really care; it's your holy book, not
mine. I daresay Christian and Jewish evolutionists can come up with better
ones.
> Whatever you are alluding to it must make sense. But we know you are
> an enraged evolutionist acting like you do not understand, attempting
> to corrupt the Bible.
Oh, I'm not trying to corrupt the Bible. Christians are so much better at
that kind of thing.
> Since you are an evolutionist, this is expected. Now hurry up and post
> a message evading the specifics with nonsense and acting like you do
> not understand, lest I be proven wrong.
I understand perfectly, kemo sabe. Talking of specifics, I do hope that your
forthcoming and eagerly-awaited paper, will, as part of your recently
announced conversion to anti-microevolutionism, refute, in detail, each and
every example of speciation that has been observed and documented both in
the wild and under experimental conditions? I asked this once before, but
recieved no reply. I can post a list of same, if you like, so that you can
make a start on it. Because unless you can explain each and every one of
those events, your attempt to disprove microevolution is doomed to failure.
AC
> On Jun 12, 12:15 pm, "Tiny Bulcher" <RSGD9...@aol.com> wrote:
>> žus cwęš Ray Martinez:
>>
>>
>>
>>> If any other person would like to take up Steven's cause and discuss
>>> things with me, or if Steven were to suddenly obtain the same ability
>>> when he reads Darwin, and be able to understand the prose of the
>>> Bible, then please create a message. I love discussing the Bible and
>>> Evolution and related things.".....
>> Let's cut to the chase. If as you say (and I don't disagree) the Bible is
>> full of homely metaphors ...
>
> Where did I say the Bible "is FULL of HOMELY metaphors"?
>
>> why aren't Genesis 1 & 2 two of them?
>
> Because evolutionists are predictably attempting to corrupt their
> enemy - the Bible.
Really? How? Do you know of any "evolutionist" who has done anything
to the Bible? It's you guys (by which I mean literalists) who can't
come with a single framework to determine what is and what isn't literal
or metaphorical. Some of you demand that we accept a Young Earth of no
more than six thousand years old. Some of you demand that the Bible's
mention of "days" is metaphorical, and that the Earth is Old. Some of
you demand that kinds are species, while others seem willing to stretch
the concept out to any distance (in some cases going to extreme forms of
evolution beyond anything that science allows for).
Don't turn your side's inability to come up with a consistent answer on
to us. We're not the ones that can't get the damn story straight.
<snip>
--
Aaron Clausen
mightym...@gmail.com