On 12/22/15 4:06 PM, Ray Martinez wrote:
> On Saturday, December 19, 2015 at 1:22:33 PM UTC-8, Ray Martinez wrote:
>> On Saturday, December 19, 2015 at 6:07:35 AM UTC-8, Nick Matzke wrote:
>>> Hi TO! Is it just me or is talk.origins ticking up in activity lately?
>>> Anyhoo -- I just put this up, there is intro stuff and advanced stuff...
>>> Bonus material on The Evolution of Antievolution Policies After Kitzmiller v. Dover
>> Over at Pandas where Nick debuted his "brilliant" work he, as one could expect, evaded criticism that completely undermines his work:
>> "Creationism, whatever variety, became unconstitutional after the rise of evolution in science, higher education, and law. Only in the 20th century did judges "suddenly see" the Constitution as reflecting their bias."
> Because Nick is an Atheist all of his conclusions are predictable and predetermined. The same is true concerning myself: Because I'm a Christian-Creationist all of my conclusions are predictable and predetermined.
Ray, the issue is not if the conclusions are "predictable" or
"predetermined" but if they are correct. Scientific conclusions are
tested, and if new evidence comes in to show the conclusion doesn't
match the evidence, new conclusions are reached.
In your case, you don't have conclusions, you have assertions, and
assumptions, which you want to be correct. But you have no way of
testing these assumptions, and no way to determine if you are right or
wrong. You just assume that you are right, and ignore any evidence that
shows you were mistaken.
> The point: We have no problem admitting, unlike the Nick Matzke's of the world. Nick wants the world to believe that his conclusions are based on evidence and argument.
That's because Nick's conclusions regarding science ARE based on
evidence and arguments. That's what science is for, reaching
conclusions based on evidence, and reasoning.
> Not true, even in the slightest. Worldview predetermines every conclusion.
That's your own mistake. Your own "worldview" predetermines whatever
you will accept, so you assume everyone else does the same. When it
comes to science, there's a way to test whether one's conclusion is
correct, or not. It's done by testing the claims with actual evidence.
> This is WHY a lot of Atheists attempt to hide behind the thin veil of Agnosticism, and some even dress up in sheep's clothing, like a Judge Jones.
Of course, you simply assume that everyone who doesn't share your
prejudices against reality is an atheist. Your inability to accept that
you might be mistaken makes you pigeonhole anyone into the category of
"atheist", and any deviation from what you think an atheist would do, is
dismissed as "hiding behind a veil" or "dressing up in sheeps clothing".
It never crosses your mind that people accept evolution because it is
an excellent scientific theory.
> It's a very old game and tactic.
It's a very transparent dodge on your part. You need to invoke wild
conspiracies and "old games and tactic" to make your errors fit reality.
Everyone is conspiring against you, and, because you are a liar at
heart, everyone must be lying.
> But the fact of the matter is that we are Christians because nature is observed designed: faith is based on visible fact.
Ray, people are Christian because they believe in God, and believe in
Christ's teachings. They don't become Christians because they assume
their own conclusion, and they don't stop being Christians because they
are capable of thinking logically.
> Atheists offer the world an inference of evolution, which equates to invisibility.
Atheists don't "offer" evolution. Evolution is a scientific theory, and
science is not owned, or controlled by atheists.
Furthermore, evolution is actually observed, which is why people of
all religious traditions accept evolution as the best scientific
explanation for the evidence.
> Atheists believe in something that cannot be seen----evolution, which is their god.
Ray, whatever atheists may, or may not "believe in" is irrelevant.
Evolution is a scientific theory. It offers no more support to atheism
as it does to a religious belief or lack of belief.