Response to Augray's rebuttal of Chuck Colson's letter
Augray
appropriate forum.
On Mon, 22 Oct 2007 18:12:17 +0000 (UTC), Batman <Bat...@azteca.net>
wrote in <ffip61$2fj$1...@reader1.panix.com> :
>On Oct 21, 10:35 am, Augray <aug...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
>> On Sat, 20 Oct 2007 18:56:26 +0000 (UTC), Batman <Bat...@azteca.net>
>> wrote in <ffdj0q$o6...@reader1.panix.com> :
>>
>> >On Oct 20, 8:24 am, Augray <aug...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
>> >> On Fri, 19 Oct 2007 19:56:11 +0000 (UTC), Batman <Bat...@azteca.net>
>> >> wrote in <ffb24r$mh...@reader1.panix.com> :
>>
>> >> >On Oct 19, 6:02 am, "Jacques E. Bouchard" <inva...@invalid.invalid>
>> >> >wrote:
>> >> >> "marybo...@rcn.com" <marybo...@rcn.com> wrote in news:ff9l2n$emu$1
>> >> >> @reader1.panix.com:
>>
>> >> >> > Life's too short to engage in an
>> >> >> > "Oh yeah? YEAH!" bickerfest.
>>
>> >> >> About a month shorter now than when people got into this complete waste of
>> >> >> time...
>>
>> >> >> jaybee
>>
>> >> >I don't believe it to be a complete waste of time. Checkout today's
>> >> >Breakpoint:
>>
>> >> >What Darwinism Can't Do
>> >> >The Edge of Evolution
>>
>> >> >October 19, 2007
>>
>> >> >The intelligent design (ID) movement has been accused of a lot of
>> >> >things over the years. Among the mildest of those accusations is that
>> >> >ID is just religion masquerading as science.
>>
>> >> >Anyone who could seriously think that, cannot be paying attention.
>> >> >Intelligent design, as defined by the Discovery Institute, teaches
>> >> >simply "that certain features of the universe and of living things are
>> >> >best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected [random]
>> >> >process such as natural selection."
>>
>> >> Natural Selection isn't random.
>>
>> >If Natural Selection isn't random, as you've just stated, then it must
>> >be directed.
>>
>> That really depends on what you mean by "directed". Are falling
>> objects directed? Do you consider the cubic shape of salt crystals to
>> be the result of direction?
>>
>> >And I'll claim victory for my side a second time.
>>
>> I think that we can agree that there are regularities in nature. If
>> you want to claim that admission as a victory, it seems like a pretty
>> small one.
>>
>> >Of
>> >course, I did it the first time below, however, I'm scrolling up to
>> >answer each of your points. See if you can figure that out :)
>>
>> Were you in a hurry?
>>
>> >> >That's it.
>>
>> >> It boils down to "Somewhere, somehow, someone did something, at some
>> >> time. Maybe."
>>
>> >I'd remove the maybe, and you'd be right.
>>
>> That's a pretty vague claim, and can encompass everything from God(s)
>> to aliens to time travelers. Wouldn't it be amazing if the scenario
>> depicted in 2001: A Space Odyssey were true? Yet ID advocates don't
>> find this to be an interesting question.
>>
>> >> >It does not attempt to
>> >> >define or describe that cause.
>>
>> >> Why not? Why don't ID advocates find that to be a question worth
>> >> pursuing?
>>
>> >Because at that point, beliefs are called into question,
>>
>> So what? In science, beliefs are called into question all the time.
>>
>> >including I
>> >would guess, yours. Which you haven't actually stated in this
>> >thread....
>>
>> The only beliefs relevant to a scientific question is the belief that
>> nature isn't trying to trick us when we observe it.
>>
>> >It's more important to decide whether or not ID is fact first,
>>
>> ID advocates have already done that, haven't they? If not, why are
>> people trying to teach it in schools?
>>
>> >and
>> >then we can move on and decide if we can figure out if there's one or
>> >many designers, and who that is.
>>
>> Recognizing design is dependent on understanding the motivations of
>> the designer. The two are inseparably intertwined.
>>
>> >> >Most scientists who subscribe to
>> >> >intelligent design do believe in some form of evolution. And some of
>> >> >them are not even believers in the Bible-they are secularists.
>>
>> >> Who?
>>
>> >In an opinion piece of limited length, I don't believe he needs to
>> >list them.
>>
>> Yeah, he does. Didn't you write innews:ff84ij$f8m$1...@reader1.panix.com
>> that
>>
>> Unless you're willing to provide this supposed evidence, I'm not
>> going to be convinced on just your say so....
>>
>> Why does Colson get a free pass?
>>
>> >They do indeed exist, if you were to take the time to do a
>> >search....
>>
>> It's not my job to support Colson's claims.
>>
>> >> >They
>> >> >simply believe that Darwinism does not have all the answers,
>> >> >especially about how life originated. (Darwin himself never pretended
>> >> >certainty on that.)
>>
>> >> But Darwin never intended evolution to explain the origin of life.
>>
>> >You're serious? What do you call his first book,
>>
>> "Zoology of the Voyage of H.M.S. Beagle".
>>
>> >and subsequent works?
>>
>> They certainly have nothing to do with the origin of life. Abiogenesis
>> is separate from evolution.
>>
>> >If A does not imply B, then this thread is over. And the side of,
>> >"There is a creator" wins. Note the small C.
>>
>> I don't know if you'll interpret what follows as a victory or not.
>> Here's the last sentence of the sixth edition of The Origin of
>> Species:
>>
>> There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers,
>> having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms
>> or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone circling on
>> according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning
>> endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and
>> are being evolved.
>>
>> Even Darwin saw biological evolution as being separate from
>> abiogenesis.
>>
>> >> >Now, with the publication of Michael Behe's second book, there is
>> >> >little excuse left for anyone to remain ignorant of what intelligent
>> >> >design actually is. Behe, you may remember, is the professor of
>> >> >biological science from Lehigh University who shook up the scientific
>> >> >world when he published Darwin's Black Box over a decade ago. Now he
>> >> >has written The Edge of Evolution: The Search for the Limits of
>> >> >Darwinism. Behe leaves no doubt of his belief in natural selection. He
>> >> >even goes much further than many of us, including myself, by declaring
>> >> >his belief in a common ancestor.
>>
>> >> Why does the writer reject that when Behe doesn't?
>>
>> >See below.
>>
>> You never get around to addressing the question.
>>
>> >> >In short, he is more than willing to acknowledge common ground with
>> >> >the evolutionists. All he is trying to show here is that there are
>> >> >certain things that Darwinism cannot answer.
>>
>> >> But no one ever claimed that Darwinism had an answer for everything.
>>
>> >Isn't that what youv'e been claiming this entire thread?
>>
>> Where did I do that?
>>
>> >Maybe you
>> >need to restate your arguments.
>>
>> My argument is that biological evolution happens. That's it.
>>
>> >Are you now claiming that Darwinism
>> >and evolution are mutually exclusive?
>>
>> No. What makes you think that?
>>
>> >If you're now claiming that
>> >your entire argument is flawed,
>>
>> Fortunately, I'm not.
>>
>> >then clearly, we have to look to other
>> >sources to find the answers.
>>
>> The answers to what? The reason for the existence of the tree of life?
>> Biological evolution does a pretty good job of that, as even Behe
>> admits.
>>
>> >> >But even for that, he
>> >> >gets pilloried. The New York Times showed Behe's book the ultimate
>> >> >disrespect by assigning someone who had publicly disagreed with and
>> >> >denounced him to review it: the vehement "anti-theist" Richard
>> >> >Dawkins, of all people. So much for the objectivity of the New York
>> >> >Times.
>>
>> >> Why is it that disrespectful? Should the reviewer have been someone
>> >> who agreed with everything Behe wrote? If ID isn't about religion, why
>> >> is Dawkins's atheism relevant?
>>
>> >Because journalistic integrity went out the window a long time ago.
>>
>> That's an unsupported assertion.
>>
>> >Clearly, you get a different review based on the reviewer of the book.
>>
>> I won't argue that. But why is atheism relevant to the review of a
>> supposedly scientific book?
>>
>> >Someone with a preconceived notion against the subject being reviewed,
>> >will probably not be objective.
>>
>> Dawkins is biased against science?
>>
>> >And the answer to your question is,
>> >the reviewer should've been someone on the NY Times staff, a opposed
>> >to bringing in an outside source with his own agenda, to promote his
>> >own book.
>>
>> Here's the review: http://select.nytimes.com/preview/2007/07/01/books/1154680128921.html.
>..
>> Where does Dawkins promote his book?
>>
>> >> >That would be roughly the equivalent of the New York Times
>> >> >asking me to review one of Dawkins's books. Fat chance.
>>
>> >> Why?
>>
>> >> >Naturally, Dawkins accuses Behe of doing exactly what he does not do:
>> >> >Namely, he suggests that Behe states that where evolution reaches its
>> >> >limits, "God must step in to help."
>>
>> >> Who does the writer think the designer(s) are?
>>
>> >Chuck Colson is a God fearing Christian, so, my guess is, that he
>> >thinks that God is the designer. If you're referring to Behe, I don't
>> >know what he thinks, however, I have a good idea.
>>
>> If Behe thinks the designer is God, why is it a problem for Colson
>> when Dawkins writes that "God must step in to help"?
>>
>> >> >Behe does no such thing. What he does is provide a series of case
>> >> >studies, such as the malaria virus,
>>
>> >> Malaria isn't a virus. Did the writer of this piece actually read the
>> >> book?
>>
>> >I'm sure he did read the book. Is this part of your argument relevant
>> >to the quote at hand?
>>
>> If Colson doesn't understand what's being discussed, why should anyone
>> care about his opinion? It's like someone discussing electric power
>> when they think that it's delivered to their house via lightning rod.
>>
>> >If malaria isn't a virus, then what is it?
>>
>> It's a single-celled parasite.
>>
>> >> >the AIDS virus, and the human
>> >> >immune system, and shows what evolution did or did not do for them.
>> >> >For example, he shows that although human cells have evolved in many
>> >> >ways to combat malaria, many humans are still vulnerable to it-and in
>> >> >some cases, those human cells are even worse off than they were
>> >> >before.
>>
>> >> It would seem that there was more than one designer, since the it's
>> >> obvious that malaria and the human immune system are at cross-purposes
>> >> to each other.
>>
>> >For purposes of this discussion, AND for the secularists among you,
>> >I'll agree to this point, however, at the same time, you would be
>> >admitting to the fact that there is indeed, a designer.
>>
>> No, I'm saying that IF there's a designer, ...
>>
>> read more »
>
>Clearly, you've contradicted yourself in this response, and
>furthermore, you couldn't be bothered to start a new thread, as I
>requested.
I could be, but Intelligent Design is clearly off-topic for
misc.writing.screenplays.moderated.
>Therefore it follows you're not seriously interested in
>discussing this with me in front of God and everybody,
God doesn't read this thread?
>therefore, I
>will no longer be participating in this thread here.
In other words, you're running away.
>If you want to move this discussion to RGP, where I'm having almost
>exactly the same type of discussion with poker players, we can do so
>there, as I'm not as burnt out with them.
This is what you think is on-topic for rec.gambling.poker??? Weren't
you the person who posted in
http://groups.google.ca/group/rec.gambling.poker/msg/051ab054b89bedff
that "Poker should be discussed to almost the exclusion of all else"
when discussing the possibility of moderating a poker forum? Why does
rec.gambling.poker get to be open for any discussion?
>I find it interesting where you don't see that you've contradicted
>yourself above. See if you can find it.
Just because you perceive something to be a contradiction doesn't mean
that it actually is.
>Oh, and I didn't realize that
>Origin of the Species wasn't Darwin's first book. My bad. The fact
>that you quote the end of that book as supporting your points, is
>indeed, puzzling.
I'm simply pointing out that accepting evolution doesn't mean that one
can't believe in God, despite what creationists would have you
believe.
Ray Martinez
> I'm starting a new thread at the request of Batman, albeit in a more
> appropriate forum.
>
> On Mon, 22 Oct 2007 18:12:17 +0000 (UTC), Batman <Bat...@azteca.net>
> that "Poker should be discussed to almost the exclusion of all else"
> when discussing the possibility of moderating a poker forum? Why does
> rec.gambling.poker get to be open for any discussion?
>
> >I find it interesting where you don't see that you've contradicted
> >yourself above. See if you can find it.
>
> Just because you perceive something to be a contradiction doesn't mean
> that it actually is.
>
> >Oh, and I didn't realize that
> >Origin of the Species wasn't Darwin's first book. My bad. The fact
> >that you quote the end of that book as supporting your points, is
> >indeed, puzzling.
>
> I'm simply pointing out that accepting evolution doesn't mean that one
> can't believe in God, despite what creationists would have you
>
> - Show quoted text -
The objective meaning and understanding of 'evolution' (within the
context of the Creation-Evolution debate since Darwin) means that God
was not and is not involved in any biological production. Darwin's
proposal, within twenty years of publication, achieved scientific
paradigm change from pro-Creationism suppositions to the pro-Atheist
suppositions of Materialsim-Naturalism.
Any person who believes or accepts that God created the evolutionary
process, does not, of course, have any source for said view. Evolution
is bridled by God excluding Materialism-Naturalism presuppositions and
the Bible, of course, says and presupposes that life was a direct
product of Divine creation and power. Those who, nonetheless believe,
that God created by evolution would do well to ask themselves why all
Atheists rabidly defend evolution?
Ray
wf3h
>>
> The objective meaning and understanding of 'evolution' (within the
> context of the Creation-Evolution debate since Darwin) means that God
> was not and is not involved in any biological production.
just as chemistry means god's not involved in acid base chemistry and
physics means god's not involved in an apple falling to earth from a
tree.
Darwin's
> proposal, within twenty years of publication, achieved scientific
> paradigm change from pro-Creationism suppositions to the pro-Atheist
> suppositions of Materialsim-Naturalism.
uh, no. that was happening long before this, due to the fact that, for
thousands of years, 'god did it' led no where.
>
> Any person who believes or accepts that God created the evolutionary
> process, does not, of course, have any source for said view. Evolution
> is bridled by God excluding Materialism-Naturalism presuppositions and
> the Bible, of course, says and presupposes that life was a direct
> product of Divine creation and power. Those who, nonetheless believe,
> that God created by evolution would do well to ask themselves why all
> Atheists rabidly defend evolution?
for the same reason they defend heliocentrism and the idea the earth
is round: it's the truth.
>
> Ray
Dana Tweedy
snip
>> I'm simply pointing out that accepting evolution doesn't mean that one
>> can't believe in God, despite what creationists would have you
>> believe.- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
> The objective meaning and understanding of 'evolution' (within the
> context of the Creation-Evolution debate since Darwin) means that God
> was not and is not involved in any biological production.
Ray, once again, you are not allowed to just go around re-defining
words. "Objective" does not mean "My personal, and uniquely deluded".
Evolution says nothing about whether or not God was involved in "any
biological production".
> Darwin's
> proposal, within twenty years of publication, achieved scientific
> paradigm change from pro-Creationism suppositions to the pro-Atheist
> suppositions of Materialsim-Naturalism.
Of course there is nothing "pro-atheist" about science, and
methodological naturalism has always been a requirement for science.
>
> Any person who believes or accepts that God created the evolutionary
> process, does not, of course, have any source for said view.
Why would one need a "source" for this view? It's a matter of faith.
> Evolution
> is bridled by God excluding Materialism-Naturalism presuppositions and
> the Bible,
The methodological naturalism that science uses does not exclude God.
It simply doesn't allow an appeal to the supernatural to explain natural
happenings. The idea that God uses natural methods is entirely
consistent with science.
> of course, says and presupposes that life was a direct
> product of Divine creation and power.
Actually, the Bible doesn't make any presuppositions. Only those who
read the Bible have them. The Bible doesn't say how God created, and
what mechanism he used. The belief that God used a "magic poof" to
create has no more "source" than the belief that God used natural
processes. However the idea that God used natural processes is at least
consistent with the physical evidence. There has never been any
observation of God, or any other supernatural being, using magic. There
is, of course the observation that natural processes exist.
> Those who, nonetheless believe,
> that God created by evolution would do well to ask themselves why all
> Atheists rabidly defend evolution?
And the answer, as has been explained to Ray several times, is that
evolution is the scientific theory that best explains the physical
evidence. Even if all atheists "rabidly" supported evolution, (a
statement that's not true), evolution would still be the best
explanation for the evidence. Atheists also "rabidly" support the idea
that the Earth is round, that the sky is blue, or that if you drop an
object it will fall.
DJT
Augray
<pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote in
<1193608463.5...@57g2000hsv.googlegroups.com> :
>On Oct 27, 2:52 pm, Augray <aug...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
[snip]
>> I'm simply pointing out that accepting evolution doesn't mean that one
>> can't believe in God, despite what creationists would have you
>> believe.
>
>The objective meaning and understanding of 'evolution' (within the
>context of the Creation-Evolution debate since Darwin) means that God
>was not and is not involved in any biological production.
No, no such claim is made.
>Darwin's
>proposal, within twenty years of publication, achieved scientific
>paradigm change from pro-Creationism suppositions to the pro-Atheist
>suppositions of Materialsim-Naturalism.
No, you're simply confused. One might claim that the science of
meteorology changed pro-theistic suppositions to the pro-Atheist
suppositions of Materialism-Naturalism, and be wrong in exactly the
same manner. The problem is that Ray simply doesn't like evolution,
plain and simple. There is no other reason.
>Any person who believes or accepts that God created the evolutionary
>process, does not, of course, have any source for said view.
Just as anyone who claims that created the physical laws of the
universe does not have any source for said view.
>Evolution
>is bridled by God excluding Materialism-Naturalism presuppositions
Evolution has not such restrictions. It simply does concern itself
with God because God is beyond the reach of science.
>and
>the Bible, of course, says and presupposes that life was a direct
>product of Divine creation and power.
No, it doesn't.
>Those who, nonetheless believe,
>that God created by evolution would do well to ask themselves why all
>Atheists rabidly defend evolution?
Similarly, since the Bible all but states that the world is flat,
those who believe in a spherical Earth would do well to ask themselves
why all atheists defend a spherical Earth.
Steven J.
>
-- [snip]
>
>
> The objective meaning and understanding of 'evolution' (within the
> context of the Creation-Evolution debate since Darwin) means that God
> was not and is not involved in any biological production. Darwin's
> proposal, within twenty years of publication, achieved scientific
> paradigm change from pro-Creationism suppositions to the pro-Atheist
> suppositions of Materialsim-Naturalism.
>
himself an agnostic, and publically announced that he saw no reason
that his theory should overturn anyone's faith (he also refused to
have a genuinely pro-atheist book by Marx's son-in-law dedicated to
him). And the turn away from explanations in terms of miracles, and
the search for explanations in terms of natural causes, had begun,
even in biology, before Darwin set pen to paper. Indeed, the idea
that scientific explanations should be based, not on miracles, but on
the regular operations of natural causes established by God, had been
set forth by Christian philosophers back in the Middle Ages.
Second, is it at all satisfactory to have God be only, or primarily, a
God of the gaps? Have you ever read Mark Twain's _Letters from
Earth_? Part of the text is a complaint that Christians routinely
praise God for things done by human beings -- for, e.g. a treatment
for sleeping sickness found by scientists funded by Rockefeller. Of
course, one need not go to Twain for this attitude: in an episode of
_The Simpsons_, Bart prays "We bought all this food ourselves, God, so
thanks for nothing." Now, I think every Christian would regard Bart's
attitude as wrong and Twain's critique as somehow missing the point:
God works through natural processes, including the actions and
decisions of human beings, and provides through natural means more
than through miracles. It is no more absurd to suppose that God
creates the diversity and complexity of life through evolution, than
that He accomplishes His will in history through the donations and
deeds of human agents.
>
> Any person who believes or accepts that God created the evolutionary
> process, does not, of course, have any source for said view. Evolution
> is bridled by God excluding Materialism-Naturalism presuppositions and
> the Bible, of course, says and presupposes that life was a direct
> product of Divine creation and power. Those who, nonetheless believe,
> that God created by evolution would do well to ask themselves why all
> Atheists rabidly defend evolution?
>
I think that not all atheists do rabidly defend evolution; consider
the cartoonist Scott Adams, who at least is not any sort of
conventional theist, but who also refuses to accept the mainstream
view of evolution. But many atheists do indeed defend evolution, for
much the same reason that they defend, against its critics, the idea
that HIV causes AIDS, or, on the rare occasions modern geocentrists
make themselves obvious, they defend heliocentric astronomy. That is,
atheists defend evolution because the evidence supports it, and they
think that evidence ought to trump dogma. But then, there is a long
(if often a minority) tradition in Christianity that evidence ought to
trump, at least, human interpretations of scripture and the dogmas
invented by human "experts."
The view that God created the evolutionary process has two roots: one
is the biblical doctrine, accepted on faith, that God created,
directly or indirectly, everything that exists, and the other is the
vast empirical evidence that evolution, in fact, has happened and
continues to happen. There are many Christians who feel that God is
not served by denying and lying about scientific facts in His name.
>
> Ray
-- Steven J.
Greg Guarino
>> >> >> >But even for that, he
>> >> >> >gets pilloried. The New York Times showed Behe's book the ultimate
>> >> >> >disrespect by assigning someone who had publicly disagreed with and
>> >> >> >denounced him to review it: the vehement "anti-theist" Richard
>> >> >> >Dawkins, of all people. So much for the objectivity of the New York
>> >> >> >Times.
I don't know if this has already been pointed out or not, but the
statement above could only be made by someone who is unfamiliar with
the NY Times Book Review. Many of the reviews, I believe slightly more
than half, are written by people not on the Times' staff. Quite often
the reviewer will be well-known, working in a field related to the
book's subject matter and famous for a viewpoint in opposition to the
author's. It is also common for there to be a lengthy response from
the author in the next week's issue, Behe being one example.
Yesterday was the "music" issue, so I didn't find any obvious examples
of "opposition", but Stephen King wrote the review of Eric Clapton's
autobiography. Presumably this isn't a regular side-gig for King.
Greg Guarino
Rolf
"Ray Martinez" <pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1193608463.5...@57g2000hsv.googlegroups.com...
I don't know about the rabidity, but the simple answer is of course the
facts. But that's something you know nothing about.
> Ray
>
>
>
geo...@hotmail.com
shook the boat, but the stormy weather that preceded him is oft
overlooked.
er...@swva.net
>
(snip)
> Any person who believes or accepts that God created the evolutionary
> process, does not, of course, have any source for said view.
Yes, we do. We believe in God, and the source of evolution is
science. So if everything comes from God, then so must evolution.
The theory of relativity doesn't mention God, but I don't think that
it any more or less supports atheism than evolution does.
> Evolution
> is bridled by God excluding Materialism-Naturalism presuppositions
What's this mean in English?
> and
> the Bible, of course, says and presupposes that life was a direct
> product of Divine creation and power.
So what? The Bible is full of all sorts of minor inaccuracies.
> Those who, nonetheless believe,
> that God created by evolution would do well to ask themselves why all
> Atheists rabidly defend evolution?
Really? I doubt that all atheists even know about evolution, so they
couldn't defend it "rabidly" or otherwise. And if they did, so what?
The religious stance of its adherents has absolutely nothing to do
with the truth or value of a theory, and that's just a matter of
simple, iron-clad logic.
>
> Ray
Eric Root
Richard Clayton
Ray, could you define the word "objective" as you use it? Because your
meaning when you throw that word around seems radically different from
the conventional usage as described in a typical dictionary.
> (within the
> context of the Creation-Evolution debate since Darwin) means that God
> was not and is not involved in any biological production.
That's neither an implication nor a requirement of the theory of
evolution. It says absolutely NOTHING about God or gods, in exactly
the same way gravity says nothing about God or gods.
> Darwin's
> proposal, within twenty years of publication, achieved scientific
> paradigm change from pro-Creationism suppositions to the pro-Atheist
> suppositions of Materialsim-Naturalism.
I'm still waiting for some examples of that supernaturalistic science
you keep talking about.
> Any person who believes or accepts that God created the evolutionary
> process, does not, of course, have any source for said view.
There is no scientific source for claiming God is responsible for any
natural process; that's why it's a statement of faith. If you think
God is responsible for creating the strong nuclear force that keeps
the nuclei of atoms from flying apart, you're welcome to believe
that-- and I wouldn't claim you're wrong. But that's not science,
that's religion.
> Evolution
> is bridled by God excluding Materialism-Naturalism presuppositions and
> the Bible, of course, says and presupposes that life was a direct
> product of Divine creation and power.
Which is not incompatible with the theory of evolution, any more than
gravity is inconsistent with God creating the universe.
> Those who, nonetheless believe,
> that God created by evolution would do well to ask themselves why all
> Atheists rabidly defend evolution?
Not all do; you've pointed to at least one who doesn't, and I've also
met a few myself.
Ray Martinez
> On Oct 28, 8:54 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > The objective meaning and understanding of 'evolution' (within the
> > context of the Creation-Evolution debate since Darwin) means that God
> > was not and is not involved in any biological production.
>
> just as chemistry means god's not involved in acid base chemistry and
> physics means god's not involved in an apple falling to earth from a
> tree.
>
You have a odd way of stating agreement.
> Darwin's
>
> > proposal, within twenty years of publication, achieved scientific
> > paradigm change from pro-Creationism suppositions to the pro-Atheist
> > suppositions of Materialsim-Naturalism.
>
> uh, no. that was happening long before this, due to the fact that, for
> thousands of years, 'god did it' led no where.
>
When? Do you have any references?
Are you denying what is known in scholarship circles as the "Darwinian
revolution"?
"Origin" caused paradigm change from pro-God suppositions of
Creationism to pro-Atheist suppositions of Materialism.
If not, what theory dethroned Creationism-Design? The only ones prior
to Darwin were "Vestiges" (physics and biology explanation) and
Lamarck. Darwin published in 1859.
My point is that this NG could care less about uncontested facts of
history; what their own scholars have redundantly established, and
deny all facts by assertion that say evolution sought to refute
creationism in the 19th century. I cannot even find ONE author or
scholar who denies this but has, in fact, said it plainly in their
writings beyond abundantly. This proves that this NG and its
evolutionists are horribly ignorant or dishonest. In my view they are
both.
Why do the evolutionists in this NG have a concerted campaign to deny
that Darwinian evolution attacked and claims to refute Creationism
(which no scholar denies)?
Answer: Because they seek to misportray evolution as friendly to
believers and not anti-God. The price of such a gross and brazen lie
is severance from their own authors and scholars.
I might add that credentialed members like John Harshman and John
Wilkins, if they deny that evolution sought to refute creationism,
then I will gladly portray them against their peers as liars in the
near future. Their alleged degrees will be worthless if they are not
already. But I do know that these persons are responsible for the
ignorance of this Group and its belief that evolution was not
specifically developed to oppose God and Creationism.
>
>
> > Any person who believes or accepts that God created the evolutionary
> > process, does not, of course, have any source for said view. Evolution
> > is bridled by God excluding Materialism-Naturalism presuppositions and
> > the Bible, of course, says and presupposes that life was a direct
> > product of Divine creation and power. Those who, nonetheless believe,
> > that God created by evolution would do well to ask themselves why all
> > Atheists rabidly defend evolution?
>
> for the same reason they defend heliocentrism and the idea the earth
> is round: it's the truth.
>
>
>
>
>
> > Ray- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Because they know evolution contradicts Genesis and if true refutes
the existence of God.
That is the only reason Atheists rabidly defend evolution. To deny is
a ploy to try and trick believers into accepting evolution because
without Theist support, evolution will die and remain Materialism.
Ray
DJT
> On Oct 28, 4:10 pm, wf3h <w...@vsswireless.net> wrote:
>
> > On Oct 28, 8:54 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > The objective meaning and understanding of 'evolution' (within the
> > > context of the Creation-Evolution debate since Darwin) means that God
> > > was not and is not involved in any biological production.
>
> > just as chemistry means god's not involved in acid base chemistry and
> > physics means god's not involved in an apple falling to earth from a
> > tree.
>
> You have a odd way of stating agreement.
You have an odd way of missing the point. No science includes any
supernatural being. Why are you singling out evolution as being
"atheist"?
>
> > Darwin's
>
> > > proposal, within twenty years of publication, achieved scientific
> > > paradigm change from pro-Creationism suppositions to the pro-Atheist
> > > suppositions of Materialsim-Naturalism.
>
> > uh, no. that was happening long before this, due to the fact that, for
> > thousands of years, 'god did it' led no where.
>
> When? Do you have any references?
Try looking up "The Dark Ages".
>
> Are you denying what is known in scholarship circles as the "Darwinian
> revolution"?
What he's denying is that scientists ever used appeal to the
supernatural.
>
> "Origin" caused paradigm change from pro-God suppositions of
> Creationism to pro-Atheist suppositions of Materialism.
Science never had any "pro-God suppositions", and there is no "pro-
atheist" suppositons of the methodological naturalism used by
science.
>
> If not, what theory dethroned Creationism-Design?
Creationism was never a theory. There wasn't any scientific theory
that explained the diversity of life before evolution.
> The only ones prior
> to Darwin were "Vestiges" (physics and biology explanation) and
> Lamarck. Darwin published in 1859.
Neither Vestiges, or Lamarck's ideas were scientific theories.
>
> My point is that this NG could care less about uncontested facts of
> history;
The problem is, Ray, that your "unconstested facts" are you own
misguided ideas. They are "contested" and are most often flatly
wrong. By the way, the phrase is properly 'could not care less'.
> what their own scholars have redundantly established,
Once again, Ray, facts are not established by "scholars". Facts
stand on their own. Your own misreading, and misunderstanding
doesn't make things "established".
> and
> deny all facts by assertion that say evolution sought to refute
> creationism in the 19th century.
Evolutionary theory is not meant to "refute" anything. It's meant to
explain the evidence. It happens to do a much better job than the
creationism of the 19th century. That was refuted by the evidence,
so much that it was largely abandoned by the time Darwin published.
That's why your assuption about the "Darwinian revolution" is
mistaken. Science didn't suddenly give over to "materialistic"
explanations. Science has always sought materialistic explanations
(because religious ones are not science).
> I cannot even find ONE author or
> scholar who denies this but has, in fact, said it plainly in their
> writings beyond abundantly.
Obviously you are mistaken about what those authors were saying. But
let's give you a chance to cite one respected author who claims that
before 1859, scientists allowed appeal to the supernatural in
questions of science.
> This proves that this NG and its
> evolutionists are horribly ignorant or dishonest. In my view they are
> both.
Or, it could mean that you are wrong. I think that's a much more
likely case.
>
> Why do the evolutionists in this NG have a concerted campaign to deny
> that Darwinian evolution attacked and claims to refute Creationism
> (which no scholar denies)?
Because evolution did not attack, or claim to refute Creationism.
Evolution attacked no one, and made a claim only to explain the
evidence. I doubt there are any "scholars" who would claim that
"Darwinian evolution" attacked creationism, nor are there any who
would claim that the goal of evolution was to refute Creationism.
Can Ray produce a single "source" that makes such a claim?
A literal reading of Genesis as a scientific idea was already
almost dead by the time Darwin wrote his book, and was just needing a
testable theory that explained the evidence better to put the final
nail in the coffin.
>
> Answer: Because they seek to misportray evolution as friendly to
> believers and not anti-God.
Well, evolution is just as "friendly" to believers as is the theory of
the solar system (which raised some religious objections when it was
first proposed). It's just as "friendly" to believers as germ theory,
which suggested that it was tiny organisms that caused disease, not
God. It's just as "friendly" to believers as the theory that planets
orbit due to gravity, not rest in celestial spheres, as the Church
once taught.... All of those ideas were met with resistance from
religious persons when first proposed. But eventually religious
persons realized that they weren't a threat to their faith. In the
same way, most reasonable religious persons don't see evolution as a
threat to their beliefs.
Evolution is not "anti-God". It's just a scientific theory, which
makes no mention of God. How a believer adjust his faith to the fact
of evolution is another matter, but the theory itself is not anti-God
in any way.
>The price of such a gross and brazen lie
> is severance from their own authors and scholars.
Once again, Ray, it's not "authors" or "scholars" that make something
true. Your misreading of authors, and your appeal to authority does
not make your claims to be any more correct.
>
> I might add that credentialed members like John Harshman and John
> Wilkins, if they deny that evolution sought to refute creationism,
Evolution sought to explain the evidence, which it did very well.
There was no need to refute what was already mostly abandoned
anyway.
> then I will gladly portray them against their peers as liars in the
> near future.
Ray, you will do that anyway. You falsely accuse anyone who disagrees
with you.
> Their alleged degrees will be worthless if they are not
> already.
On what grounds? Having a degree does not mean you must agree with
everyone else. It does not mean that out of context quotations affect
the quality of one's degree.
> But I do know that these persons are responsible for the
> ignorance of this Group and its belief that evolution was not
> specifically developed to oppose God and Creationism.
Ray, evolution was not developed to oppose "creationism" and it
certianly was not developed to oppose God. Why not worry about your
own ignorance, rather than the perceived 'ignorance" of others.
snip
>
>
> > > Any person who believes or accepts that God created the evolutionary
> > > process, does not, of course, have any source for said view. Evolution
> > > is bridled by God excluding Materialism-Naturalism presuppositions and
> > > the Bible, of course, says and presupposes that life was a direct
> > > product of Divine creation and power. Those who, nonetheless believe,
> > > that God created by evolution would do well to ask themselves why all
> > > Atheists rabidly defend evolution?
>
> > for the same reason they defend heliocentrism and the idea the earth
> > is round: it's the truth.
>
> > > Ray- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> Because they know evolution contradicts Genesis and if true refutes
> the existence of God.
Actually, Ray it's the evidence that contradicts a literal reading of
Genesis. That does not refute the existence of God. At most it
refutes your own myopic view of God. Maybe God is greater than your
own small, weak ideas.....
>
> That is the only reason Atheists rabidly defend evolution.
Atheists, and many religionists as well, defend evolution because it's
the best scientific explanation. Why you claim that atheists
"rabidly" defend evolution is open to question.
> To deny is
> a ploy to try and trick believers into accepting evolution because
> without Theist support, evolution will die and remain Materialism.
A scientific theory doesn't need "theist support". Scientific
theories stand and fall in relation to how well they explain the
evidence. Even if every "theist" in the world opposed the theory, it
would still stand, based on it's explanitory power.
All science makes use of methodological naturalism. Without it,
science can't function. Evolution survives qutie well, only because
it explains the evidence better than any other scientific concept.
DJT
Greg Guarino
<pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>Why do the evolutionists in this NG have a concerted campaign to deny
>that Darwinian evolution attacked and claims to refute Creationism
>(which no scholar denies)?
>
>Answer: Because they seek to misportray evolution as friendly to
>believers and not anti-God. The price of such a gross and brazen lie
>is severance from their own authors and scholars.
You conflate "God" and "Creationism", which, as far as your own
beliefs go, is permissible. But you don't speak for everyone.
>I might add that credentialed members like John Harshman and John
>Wilkins, if they deny that evolution sought to refute creationism,
>then I will gladly portray them against their peers as liars in the
>near future. Their alleged degrees will be worthless if they are not
>already. But I do know that these persons are responsible for the
>ignorance of this Group and its belief that evolution was not
>specifically developed to oppose God and Creationism.
Evolution and Common Descent (as well as geology and astronomy) do
indeed contradict Genesis and any other claims that God created the
Earth recently and species separately. As that is what is usually mean
by Creationism, evolution does refute Creationism.
But people have other conceptions of God, including a God who created
a universe that would develop all sorts of interesting features
without constant fiddling. I imagine that there are even Theists who
would criticize creationists for denying the beauty and power of God's
plan for a naturally-unfolding universe.
I very much doubt that evolution was "specifically developed" to do
anything other than explain the diversity of life on Earth. But that
is a powerful notion, and it is not surprising that it has had
repercussions outside of biology.
>> > Any person who believes or accepts that God created the evolutionary
>> > process, does not, of course, have any source for said view.
By which you mean, no Bible, I assume, just human speculation? There
are many of us, of course, who believe that the source you prefer was
also human speculation, albeit somewhat older. Speculation is the best
we can do, really.
>> >Evolution
>> > is bridled by God excluding Materialism-Naturalism presuppositions and
>> > the Bible, of course, says and presupposes that life was a direct
>> > product of Divine creation and power. Those who, nonetheless believe,
>> > that God created by evolution would do well to ask themselves why all
>> > Atheists rabidly defend evolution?
This is a common argument of yours, that Theists may not agree with
Atheists on any facet of the origins of the world. This is illogical.
A theist and an atheist can agree on the processes of physics,
chemistry and evolutionary biology, but part company as to the
ultimate source of the universe and its laws.
Greg Guarino
Ray Martinez
> On Mon, 29 Oct 2007 12:04:34 -0700, Ray Martinez
>
> >Why do the evolutionists in this NG have a concerted campaign to deny
> >that Darwinian evolution attacked and claims to refute Creationism
> >(which no scholar denies)?
>
> >Answer: Because they seek to misportray evolution as friendly to
> >believers and not anti-God. The price of such a gross and brazen lie
> >is severance from their own authors and scholars.
>
> You conflate "God" and "Creationism", which, as far as your own
> beliefs go, is permissible. But you don't speak for everyone.
>
> >I might add that credentialed members like John Harshman and John
> >Wilkins, if they deny that evolution sought to refute creationism,
> >then I will gladly portray them against their peers as liars in the
> >near future. Their alleged degrees will be worthless if they are not
> >already. But I do know that these persons are responsible for the
> >ignorance of this Group and its belief that evolution was not
> >specifically developed to oppose God and Creationism.
>
> Evolution and Common Descent (as well as geology and astronomy) do
> indeed contradict Genesis and any other claims that God created the
> Earth recently and species separately. As that is what is usually mean
> by Creationism, evolution does refute Creationism.
>
Take away the word "recently" and add the word "claim" after
'evolution does' then I agree with your comment.
Greg: why do most evos, unlike yourself, disagree?
I commend you for your objectivity (no condescension implied or
intended).
> But people have other conceptions of God, including a God who created
> a universe that would develop all sorts of interesting features
> without constant fiddling. I imagine that there are even Theists who
> would criticize creationists for denying the beauty and power of God's
> plan for a naturally-unfolding universe.
>
> I very much doubt that evolution was "specifically developed" to do
> anything other than explain the diversity of life on Earth.
You just admitted otherwise above. I am intentionally withholding a
zillion source cites that plainly say that Darwinian evolution and
selection was proposed and developed to explain reality in a way that
refutes the reigning paradigm of pre-1859 Britain: Creationism-Design.
How could all you educated evolutionists not know this?
> But that
> is a powerful notion, and it is not surprising that it has had
> repercussions outside of biology.
>
> >> > Any person who believes or accepts that God created the evolutionary
> >> > process, does not, of course, have any source for said view.
>
> By which you mean, no Bible, I assume, just human speculation? There
> are many of us, of course, who believe that the source you prefer was
> also human speculation, albeit somewhat older. Speculation is the best
> we can do, really.
>
> >> >Evolution
> >> > is bridled by God excluding Materialism-Naturalism presuppositions and
> >> > the Bible, of course, says and presupposes that life was a direct
> >> > product of Divine creation and power. Those who, nonetheless believe,
> >> > that God created by evolution would do well to ask themselves why all
> >> > Atheists rabidly defend evolution?
>
> This is a common argument of yours, that Theists may not agree with
> Atheists on any facet of the origins of the world. This is illogical.
This assertion says there is nothing logically amiss when the Atheist
and Christian agree on origins. This comment reveals utter delusion
since I judge it to be forthrightly written.
> A theist and an atheist can agree on the processes of physics,
> chemistry and evolutionary biology, but part company as to the
> ultimate source of the universe and its laws.
>
> Greg Guarino
The above statement simply says that Christians believe God created
the evolutionary process. The Bible explicitly says that He did no
such thing, and spends two chapters denying common ancestry. This
leaves these Christians subordinate to their traditional enemy. This
is why we know that these Christians are not real Christians, if you
are objective.
An objective understanding says that when an Atheist and a Christian
accept the same biological origins theory then one party is not
genuinely as such. I believe that the Atheists who defend evolution (a
unanimous lot) are real Atheists.
Ray
Ray Martinez
> On Oct 28, 4:54 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> -- [snip]
>
> > The objective meaning and understanding of 'evolution' (within the
> > context of the Creation-Evolution debate since Darwin) means that God
> > was not and is not involved in any biological production. Darwin's
> > proposal, within twenty years of publication, achieved scientific
> > paradigm change from pro-Creationism suppositions to the pro-Atheist
> > suppositions of Materialsim-Naturalism.
>
> First, even Darwin was not "pro-atheist;" he privately declared
> himself an agnostic,
Darwin claimed Agnostic status in the strict context of biological
First Cause after 1869, which was a departure from his public Deist
(quasi-Theist) position ending the "Origin" (1859), so your "private"
contention is true and I agree.
> and publically announced that he saw no reason
> that his theory should overturn anyone's faith (he also refused to
> have a genuinely pro-atheist book by Marx's son-in-law dedicated to
> him).
"Thus saith Darwin, that settles it" - is that your argument?
Evolution overturned Darwin's faith so his comment, like a host of
similar ones, makes no sense.
As for your Marx comment: He did so because he was a closet Atheist,
which was very common back then. Privately, he encouraged the editor
of that publication and invited them to have supper at his home (which
they did).
Edward Aveling, an avowed Atheist, the person who asked for the
dedication, tells us what happened at the supper. It is only eight
pages long, you should read it:
http://darwin-online.org.uk/content/frameset?viewtype=text&itemID=A234&pageseq=1
> And the turn away from explanations in terms of miracles, and
> the search for explanations in terms of natural causes, had begun,
> even in biology, before Darwin set pen to paper. Indeed, the idea
> that scientific explanations should be based, not on miracles, but on
> the regular operations of natural causes established by God, had been
> set forth by Christian philosophers back in the Middle Ages.
>
Biological paradigm change was caused by "Origin of Species."
> Second, is it at all satisfactory to have God be only, or primarily, a
> God of the gaps? Have you ever read Mark Twain's _Letters from
> Earth_? Part of the text is a complaint that Christians routinely
> praise God for things done by human beings -- for, e.g. a treatment
> for sleeping sickness found by scientists funded by Rockefeller. Of
> course, one need not go to Twain for this attitude: in an episode of
> _The Simpsons_, Bart prays "We bought all this food ourselves, God, so
> thanks for nothing."
The real Christian recognizes that he would have no job or money
unless God allowed and caused it.
> Now, I think every Christian would regard Bart's
> attitude as wrong and Twain's critique as somehow missing the point:
> God works through natural processes, including the actions and
> decisions of human beings,
But evolution says "natural processes" means that God did not create
them or create through them. So your comment is deliberate
equivocation.
The Bible shows plainly that God uses what appears to be the chance
decisions and actions of human beings, they are, in fact, under His
control. Lets face it: the sex drive of Potiphar's wife got Joseph
thrown in jail on a trumped up rape charge. If this did not happen
then the events which led him to be known to Pharoah as an interpreter
of dreams would not have happened, even though it could have been
brought to Pharoah's attention some other way. The point is that God
is in control and that he tested Joseph's faith in the dream he had as
a youth (which was from God) until that day in Pharoah's court
thirteen years later.
> and provides through natural means more
> than through miracles.
False. That is not the choice, Steven.
> It is no more absurd to suppose that God
> creates the diversity and complexity of life through evolution, than
> that He accomplishes His will in history through the donations and
> deeds of human agents.
>
Genesis specifically rules out non-supernatural evolution/common
ancestry. Everyone agrees on this. Evolution is only postulated
because it contradicts Genesis.
> > Any person who believes or accepts that God created the evolutionary
> > process, does not, of course, have any source for said view. Evolution
> > is bridled by God excluding Materialism-Naturalism presuppositions and
> > the Bible, of course, says and presupposes that life was a direct
> > product of Divine creation and power. Those who, nonetheless believe,
> > that God created by evolution would do well to ask themselves why all
> > Atheists rabidly defend evolution?
>
> I think that not all atheists do rabidly defend evolution;
ALL do, not a matter of opinion.
> consider
> the cartoonist Scott Adams, who at least is not any sort of
> conventional theist, but who also refuses to accept the mainstream
> view of evolution. But many atheists do indeed defend evolution, for
> much the same reason that they defend, against its critics, the idea
> that HIV causes AIDS, or, on the rare occasions modern geocentrists
> make themselves obvious, they defend heliocentric astronomy. That is,
> atheists defend evolution because the evidence supports it, and they
> think that evidence ought to trump dogma. But then, there is a long
> (if often a minority) tradition in Christianity that evidence ought to
> trump, at least, human interpretations of scripture and the dogmas
> invented by human "experts."
>
> The view that God created the evolutionary process has two roots: one
> is the biblical doctrine, accepted on faith, that God created,
> directly or indirectly, everything that exists, and the other is the
> vast empirical evidence that evolution, in fact, has happened and
> continues to happen. There are many Christians who feel that God is
> not served by denying and lying about scientific facts in His name.
>
>
>
> > Ray
>
> -- Steven J.
Anyone who says that the Bible supports evolution is a brazen liar or
horribly ignorant or horribly deluded.
Ray
Steven J.
> On Oct 28, 4:10 pm, wf3h <w...@vsswireless.net> wrote:
>
> > On Oct 28, 8:54 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > The objective meaning and understanding of 'evolution' (within the
> > > context of the Creation-Evolution debate since Darwin) means that God
> > > was not and is not involved in any biological production.
>
> > just as chemistry means god's not involved in acid base chemistry and
> > physics means god's not involved in an apple falling to earth from a
> > tree.
>
> You have a odd way of stating agreement.
>
parts that are not under God's control (e.g. gravity or embryonic
development) and those that are effected by miraculous supercession of
natural law (e.g. the origin of species). I'm reasonably sure this is
both unbiblical and contrary to nearly two millennia of Christian
theology; you seem to concede the entire world, a handful of miracles
aside, to godlessness.
>
> > > Darwin's proposal, within twenty years of publication, achieved scientific
> > > paradigm change from pro-Creationism suppositions to the pro-Atheist
> > > suppositions of Materialsim-Naturalism.
>
> > uh, no. that was happening long before this, due to the fact that, for
> > thousands of years, 'god did it' led no where.
>
> When? Do you have any references?
>
<http://www.pandasthumb.org/archives/2006/03/on-the-origins.html>
It notes, among other examples, how the philosopher and cleric Jean
Buridan argued six hundred years before Darwin that natural causes
should be preferred to miracles as explanations for natural
phenomena. Even a purely materialistic approach to life and human
thought predates Darwin by over a century: see, e.g. Julien Offray de
la Mettrie's _L'Homme Machine_ in the 18th century.
For references for the proposition, "for thousands of years, 'god did
it' led nowhere," consider the insistence of the ID movement that we
are entitled to no assumptions about how the Designer would create.
If "god did it" had been a fruitful approach to devising theories,
there would by now have been at least the beginnings of a theory of
creation, a few basics known about the methods and design philosophy
of the Designer/Creator, and there would be no need for IDers and
creationists to retreat into belligerent epistemological nihilism to
defend their ideas.
>
> Are you denying what is known in scholarship circles as the "Darwinian
> revolution"?
>
Most intellectual revolutions are overrated: Darwin had precursors for
the idea of natural selection, for descent with modification, even for
common descent, and certainly for the hope of finding some sort of
natural mechanism for evolution. Darwin's writings caused a major
shift, certainly, popularizing the idea of common descent with
modification and of natural selection. But note that in the early
20th century, there was what was called "the eclipse of Darwinism,"
when the importance of natural selection was widely disputed, but this
was not accompanied by any widespread return of biologists to
creationist ideas.
>
> "Origin" caused paradigm change from pro-God suppositions of
> Creationism to pro-Atheist suppositions of Materialism.
>
Belief in God and creationism was in retreat before Darwin, on the one
hand, and on the other, many of Darwin's early supporters were
themselves Christians. You grossly oversimplify the long change in
how Christians thought about the Bible and creation, and in how people
in western civilization thought about Christianity. If you want to
complain about a paradigm change, perhaps you should go back to the
17th century, with geocentrist physicists on the one hand, and the
wars of religion on the other.
>
> If not, what theory dethroned Creationism-Design? The only ones prior
> to Darwin were "Vestiges" (physics and biology explanation) and
> Lamarck. Darwin published in 1859.
>
> My point is that this NG could care less about uncontested facts of
> history; what their own scholars have redundantly established, and
> deny all facts by assertion that say evolution sought to refute
> creationism in the 19th century. I cannot even find ONE author or
> scholar who denies this but has, in fact, said it plainly in their
> writings beyond abundantly. This proves that this NG and its
> evolutionists are horribly ignorant or dishonest. In my view they are
> both.
>
Evolutionary theory does flatly contradict what is usually called
creationism (although, to be sure, the Russian-American biologist
Theodosius Dobzhansky called himself "both a creationist and an
evolutionist"), although it is the evidence that refutes creationism,
as it earlier refuted the geocentrism that earlier generations of
Christians had thought necessary to a correct understanding of the
Bible. It is as true, or as false, to say that the purpose of
evolutionary theory was to install an atheist-materialist view of
reality, as to say that the purpose of heliocentric astronomy was to
install such a view of reality. It is only your own attachment to the
creationist views of Gene Scott, and not any point of logic or
evidence or the biblical text, that makes you insist on a literal
reading of the creation account but a figurative reading of the
geocentric texts of the Bible.
>
> Why do the evolutionists in this NG have a concerted campaign to deny
> that Darwinian evolution attacked and claims to refute Creationism
> (which no scholar denies)?
>
You are conflating creationism, Christianity, and theism. They are
separate concepts, and one can believe in the latter two, or even the
last of these, without accepting the first of them. So far as I know,
no one on this newsgroup denies that "Darwinian evolution" was opposed
to creationism (although modern creationism arose, in part, as a
reaction to "Darwinian evolution" and the evidence for it); what is
widely insisted is that evolutionary theory is not opposed to theism
or Christianity themselves.
>
> Answer: Because they seek to misportray evolution as friendly to
> believers and not anti-God. The price of such a gross and brazen lie
> is severance from their own authors and scholars.
>
Again, evolutionary theory is no more "anti-God" than heliocentric
astronomy or modern meteorology.
>
> I might add that credentialed members like John Harshman and John
> Wilkins, if they deny that evolution sought to refute creationism,
> then I will gladly portray them against their peers as liars in the
> near future. Their alleged degrees will be worthless if they are not
> already. But I do know that these persons are responsible for the
> ignorance of this Group and its belief that evolution was not
> specifically developed to oppose God and Creationism.
>
Darwin, and subsequent evolutionists, often argued against
creationism; this is true, and no one denies it. Evolutionary theory
itself is an explanation for much of the data in biology, and was
devised as such an explanation; it is a competitor for other
naturalistic theories in biology, not to any religious dogma. And
neither Christianity nor theism are identical to creationism. Darwin
himself argued that his theory ought not trouble any religious person,
and many early evolutionists were themselves Christians; any
reasonable person might suspect that they had motives other than
opposing God.
>
> > > Any person who believes or accepts that God created the evolutionary
> > > process, does not, of course, have any source for said view. Evolution
> > > is bridled by God excluding Materialism-Naturalism presuppositions and
> > > the Bible, of course, says and presupposes that life was a direct
> > > product of Divine creation and power. Those who, nonetheless believe,
> > > that God created by evolution would do well to ask themselves why all
> > > Atheists rabidly defend evolution?
>
> > for the same reason they defend heliocentrism and the idea the earth
> > is round: it's the truth.
>
> > > Ray
>
> Because they know evolution contradicts Genesis and if true refutes
> the existence of God.
>
Heliocentric astronomy contradicts Genesis (which has the Earth
created before the sun, which is a real problem if planets are
supposed to orbit the sun), and Judges to boot (in which the writer
declares that the sun, not the Earth, obeyed Joshua's command). Given
that the Bible itself frequently attributes to God actions that have
natural explanations in human actions (e.g. the Babylonian captivity
of Judah), I think it is unbiblical to suggest that explaining
something without reference to God amounts to a refutation of the
existence of God.
>
> That is the only reason Atheists rabidly defend evolution. To deny is
> a ploy to try and trick believers into accepting evolution because
> without Theist support, evolution will die and remain Materialism.
>
Atheists defend evolutionary theory because the evidence supports it.
This is, oddly, the same reason many theists defend it.
>
> Ray
-- Steven J.
Ernest Major
Martinez <pyram...@yahoo.com> writes
>
>Genesis specifically rules out non-supernatural evolution/common
>ancestry. Everyone agrees on this. Evolution is only postulated because
>it contradicts Genesis.
>
modification through the agency of natural selection and other
processes) is inferred from the evidence - there are literally billions
of supporting observations; evolution (transmutation of species) has
been observed in the field, under domestication and in the laboratory;
evolution (change of allele frequencies) is observed over and over
again.
Whether it contradicts Genesis may be an unanswerable question; there is
internal evidence that the first two chapters of Genesis weren't meant
to be taken "literally", but at this remove I'm not sure we can reliably
reconstruct the intended meaning. But regardless of this many people who
accept the factuality of common descent with modification through the
agency of natural selection and other processes don't care about whether
the theory of evolution contradicts Genesis or otherwise.
The meaning of your first sentence above is unclear. It seems to imply
that Genesis is compatible with theistic evolution, in which case you
statement boils down to Genesis (particularly the claim that God created
the world) is incompatible with atheism, which would be (near?)
universally agreed on. But from your past writings one would assume you
meant something different, in which case your claim that everyone agrees
on it would be false.
--
alias Ernest Major
Ray Martinez
> On Oct 29, 2:04 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:> On Oct 28, 4:10 pm, wf3h <w...@vsswireless.net> wrote:
>
> > > On Oct 28, 8:54 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > The objective meaning and understanding of 'evolution' (within the
> > > > context of the Creation-Evolution debate since Darwin) means that God
> > > > was not and is not involved in any biological production.
>
> > > just as chemistry means god's not involved in acid base chemistry and
> > > physics means god's not involved in an apple falling to earth from a
> > > tree.
>
> > You have a odd way of stating agreement.
>
> You, for your part, have an odd way of dividing up nature into those
> parts that are not under God's control (e.g. gravity or embryonic
> development)
I have never said that any part of nature was not under God's control
- I am a Creationist, we believe and know that all of nature is under
God's direct control.
> and those that are effected by miraculous supercession of
> natural law (e.g. the origin of species). I'm reasonably sure this is
> both unbiblical and contrary to nearly two millennia of Christian
> theology; you seem to concede the entire world, a handful of miracles
> aside, to godlessness.
>
I have no idea as to what you are talking about. The world shows God's
direct control and involvement. The observation of design is beyond
abundant and logically corresponds to invisible Designer. Only
Atheists deny for obvious reasons.
> > > > Darwin's proposal, within twenty years of publication, achieved scientific
> > > > paradigm change from pro-Creationism suppositions to the pro-Atheist
> > > > suppositions of Materialsim-Naturalism.
>
> > > uh, no. that was happening long before this, due to the fact that, for
> > > thousands of years, 'god did it' led no where.
>
> > When? Do you have any references?
>
> There is an interesting article on the Panda's Thumb archives, here:
> <http://www.pandasthumb.org/archives/2006/03/on-the-origins.html>
>
It is quite interesting.
> It notes, among other examples, how the philosopher and cleric Jean
> Buridan argued six hundred years before Darwin that natural causes
> should be preferred to miracles as explanations for natural
> phenomena. Even a purely materialistic approach to life and human
> thought predates Darwin by over a century: see, e.g. Julien Offray de
> la Mettrie's _L'Homme Machine_ in the 18th century.
>
So?
What's the point?
> For references for the proposition, "for thousands of years, 'god did
> it' led nowhere," consider the insistence of the ID movement that we
> are entitled to no assumptions about how the Designer would create.
> If "god did it" had been a fruitful approach to devising theories,
> there would by now have been at least the beginnings of a theory of
> creation, a few basics known about the methods and design philosophy
> of the Designer/Creator, and there would be no need for IDers and
> creationists to retreat into belligerent epistemological nihilism to
> defend their ideas.
>
Again, I literally have no idea as to what you are talking about.
> > Are you denying what is known in scholarship circles as the "Darwinian
> > revolution"?
>
> Most intellectual revolutions are overrated: Darwin had precursors for
> the idea of natural selection,
False.
Two or three persons used the term but it had zero correspondence to
how Darwin defined it and popularized it.
> for descent with modification, even for
> common descent, and certainly for the hope of finding some sort of
> natural mechanism for evolution. Darwin's writings caused a major
> shift, certainly, popularizing the idea of common descent with
> modification and of natural selection.
So you agree?
> But note that in the early
> 20th century, there was what was called "the eclipse of Darwinism,"
> when the importance of natural selection was widely disputed, but this
> was not accompanied by any widespread return of biologists to
> creationist ideas.
>
What is meant by the "Darwinian revolution" is the triumph of
transmutation (I did not say NS) over Creationism before 1880.
> > "Origin" caused paradigm change from pro-God suppositions of
> > Creationism to pro-Atheist suppositions of Materialism.
>
> Belief in God and creationism was in retreat before Darwin,
It was stagnant to say the least starting in ***1850*** (not before).
But your comment is deceptive in that the "Origin" CAUSED major shift
within two decades. This is a undisputed fact of history.
> on the one
> hand, and on the other, many of Darwin's early supporters were
> themselves Christians. You grossly oversimplify the long change in
> how Christians thought about the Bible and creation, and in how people
> in western civilization thought about Christianity. If you want to
> complain about a paradigm change,
I didn't complain; I stated that it happened by 1880, why are you
denying?
Evolution, beginning in 1850-1859, overturned Creationism by 1880.
Where did I mention "Christianity" or "Theism"?
How could I conflate two things that I did not mention? I said
Creationism - period.
> They are
> separate concepts, and one can believe in the latter two, or even the
> last of these, without accepting the first of them. So far as I know,
> no one on this newsgroup denies that "Darwinian evolution" was opposed
> to creationism
But I said "refuted," not 'opposed.'
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/dbc8614ddbc55cf9
Dana Tweedy (an evolutionist) writes:
"Because evolution did not attack, or claim to refute Creationism.
Evolution attacked no one, and made a claim only to explain the
evidence. I doubt there are any "scholars" who would claim that
"Darwinian evolution" attacked creationism, nor are there any who
would claim that the goal of evolution was to refute Creationism."
If you agree with Dana, can you or the author produce ANY reference in
support of these opinions?
> (although modern creationism arose, in part, as a
> reaction to "Darwinian evolution" and the evidence for it); what is
> widely insisted is that evolutionary theory is not opposed to theism
> or Christianity themselves.
>
The ***objective claims of evolution*** claims to refute Theism,
nobody denies this fact. This is why all Atheists are evolutionists.
> > Answer: Because they seek to misportray evolution as friendly to
> > believers and not anti-God. The price of such a gross and brazen lie
> > is severance from their own authors and scholars.
>
> Again, evolutionary theory is no more "anti-God" than heliocentric
> astronomy or modern meteorology.
>
> > I might add that credentialed members like John Harshman and John
> > Wilkins, if they deny that evolution sought to refute creationism,
> > then I will gladly portray them against their peers as liars in the
> > near future. Their alleged degrees will be worthless if they are not
> > already. But I do know that these persons are responsible for the
> > ignorance of this Group and its belief that evolution was not
> > specifically developed to oppose God and Creationism.
>
> Darwin, and subsequent evolutionists, often argued against
> creationism; this is true, and no one denies it.
Dana did above.
> Evolutionary theory
> itself is an explanation for much of the data in biology, and was
> devised as such an explanation; it is a competitor for other
> naturalistic theories in biology, not to any religious dogma. And
> neither Christianity nor theism are identical to creationism. Darwin
> himself argued that his theory ought not trouble any religious person,
Ridiculous. His theory came under fire relentlessly and it still does
today.
Here Steven, we can play too:
"Creationism should not trouble any Atheist."
> and many early evolutionists were themselves Christians; any
> reasonable person might suspect that they had motives other than
> opposing God.
>
Correction: they ***claimed*** to be Christians.
Do you know that in the Bible, God with all powers, has trouble
deciding if a person is a real and true believer? But there is a test
and way to know who is a real believer and who is not.
>
>
>
>
> > > > Any person who believes or accepts that God created the evolutionary
> > > > process, does not, of course, have any source for said view. Evolution
> > > > is bridled by God excluding Materialism-Naturalism presuppositions and
> > > > the Bible, of course, says and presupposes that life was a direct
> > > > product of Divine creation and power. Those who, nonetheless believe,
> > > > that God created by evolution would do well to ask themselves why all
> > > > Atheists rabidly defend evolution?
>
> > > for the same reason they defend heliocentrism and the idea the earth
> > > is round: it's the truth.
>
> > > > Ray
>
> > Because they know evolution contradicts Genesis and if true refutes
> > the existence of God.
>
> Heliocentric astronomy contradicts Genesis (which has the Earth
> created before the sun, which is a real problem if planets are
> supposed to orbit the sun), and Judges to boot (in which the writer
> declares that the sun, not the Earth, obeyed Joshua's command). Given
> that the Bible itself frequently attributes to God actions that have
> natural explanations in human actions (e.g. the Babylonian captivity
> of Judah), I think it is unbiblical to suggest that explaining
> something without reference to God amounts to a refutation of the
> existence of God.
>
Total misrepresentation of Biblical claims by an Atheist-evolutionist.
Also: "excluding God does not presuppose His non-existence and
involvement" = argument lacking any logic or sense.
> > That is the only reason Atheists rabidly defend evolution. To deny is
> > a ploy to try and trick believers into accepting evolution because
> > without Theist support, evolution will die and remain Materialism.
>
> Atheists defend evolutionary theory because the evidence supports it.
> This is, oddly, the same reason many theists defend it.
>
>
>
> > Ray
>
> -- Steven J.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Atheists and Christians do not agree on origins.
When they do one groups is not genuinely as such, thus saith
objectivity.
Ray
DJT
snip
> > Evolution and Common Descent (as well as geology and astronomy) do
> > indeed contradict Genesis and any other claims that God created the
> > Earth recently and species separately. As that is what is usually mean
> > by Creationism, evolution does refute Creationism.
>
> Take away the word "recently" and add the word "claim" after
> 'evolution does' then I agree with your comment.
Trying to re-write others words again, Ray? Evolution does not claim
to refute Creationism, it simply explains the evidence. It's the
evidence that refutes creationism.
>
> Greg: why do most evos, unlike yourself, disagree?
Perhaps you are misunderstanding Greg.
>
> I commend you for your objectivity (no condescension implied or
> intended).
Remember that Ray's definition of "objectivity" is not the same as is
usually understood.
>
> > But people have other conceptions of God, including a God who created
> > a universe that would develop all sorts of interesting features
> > without constant fiddling. I imagine that there are even Theists who
> > would criticize creationists for denying the beauty and power of God's
> > plan for a naturally-unfolding universe.
>
> > I very much doubt that evolution was "specifically developed" to do
> > anything other than explain the diversity of life on Earth.
>
> You just admitted otherwise above.
No, he did not. He said that the facts of Geology, Astronomy, and
Biology refutes creationism. He did not say that anyone developed any
of those fields of study in order to refute the Bible.
> I am intentionally withholding a
> zillion source cites that plainly say that Darwinian evolution and
> selection was proposed and developed to explain reality in a way that
> refutes the reigning paradigm of pre-1859 Britain:
Are you defining "witholding a zillion source cites" to mean "I don't
have any evidence"? Darwinian evolution was proposed to explain
the evidence, not to refute the "reigning paradigm". The idea of
immutibility of species was already dying, and the idea that the
Genesis flood could explain the geology was already dead and
buried. Darwin did not, in any way, wish to refute the Bible, or
cause a crisis of faith for Christians.
> Creationism-Design.
Creationism or design was not the "reigning paradigm". There was no
scientific theory that explained the evidence at the point that Darwin
published.
> How could all you educated evolutionists not know this?
Because you are wrong.
snip
> > This is a common argument of yours, that Theists may not agree with
> > Atheists on any facet of the origins of the world. This is illogical.
>
> This assertion says there is nothing logically amiss when the Atheist
> and Christian agree on origins.
Yes, that is true. There indeed is nothing logically amiss. It
only goes wrong when you try to claim that there is no way they can
agree.
> This comment reveals utter delusion
> since I judge it to be forthrightly written.
Actually, Ray, have you considered that you might be wrong about
this? You've been given plenty of examples of atheists and
religionists who agree on matters of origins. You've even agreed
*yourself* with atheists on origins.
>
> > A theist and an atheist can agree on the processes of physics,
> > chemistry and evolutionary biology, but part company as to the
> > ultimate source of the universe and its laws.
>
> > Greg Guarino
>
> The above statement simply says that Christians believe God created
> the evolutionary process.
Many Christians do, including myself.
> The Bible explicitly says that He did no
> such thing,
Can you find the chapter and verse where the Bible says specifically,
"I did not create using evolution"?
> and spends two chapters denying common ancestry.
Those "two chapters" are legendary stories, which were never meant to
be taken as scientific. If God had wanted to deny common ancestory,
he'd would not have made humans genetically, anatomically, and
behaviorally identical to apes.
> This
> leaves these Christians subordinate to their traditional enemy.
Ray, the truth is not a traditional enemy of Christians. You may see
the truth as your enemy, but it's not the view of the rest of the
world.
> This
> is why we know that these Christians are not real Christians, if you
> are objective.
The problem with this is YOU are not objective. Your claim that
others are not 'real Christians" is based only on your own biases, and
prejudice.
>
> An objective understanding says that when an Atheist and a Christian
> accept the same biological origins theory then one party is not
> genuinely as such.
You've never explained why this is either logical, or objective.
Moreover, you've been given plenty of counterexamples that show this
is simply not true. Atheists and Christians, as well as many other
religious people accept the biological origins theory because it's the
best explanation for the evidence. You are claiming that "real"
Christians must ignore the evidence, and reject their intelligence,
because of your own mistaken interpetation of the Bible. Maybe you
are the one who has been listening to the traditional enemy of
Christians.....
> I believe that the Atheists who defend evolution (a
> unanimous lot) are real Atheists.
Not all atheists do defend evolution, and many people, myself
included, are not atheist, but accept and defend the science of
evolution. That shows that your claim is wrong.
DJT
John Wilkins
> In message <1193693829.4...@d55g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>, Ray
> Martinez <pyram...@yahoo.com> writes
> >
> >Genesis specifically rules out non-supernatural evolution/common
> >ancestry. Everyone agrees on this. Evolution is only postulated because
> >it contradicts Genesis.
> >
> There's a least one falsehood in there. Evolution (common descent with
> modification through the agency of natural selection and other
> processes) is inferred from the evidence - there are literally billions
> of supporting observations; evolution (transmutation of species) has
> been observed in the field, under domestication and in the laboratory;
> evolution (change of allele frequencies) is observed over and over
> again.
>
> Whether it contradicts Genesis may be an unanswerable question; there is
> internal evidence that the first two chapters of Genesis weren't meant
> to be taken "literally", but at this remove I'm not sure we can reliably
> reconstruct the intended meaning. But regardless of this many people who
> accept the factuality of common descent with modification through the
> agency of natural selection and other processes don't care about whether
> the theory of evolution contradicts Genesis or otherwise.
I don't think that is true; in fact, with critical interpretations I
think we *can* now understand Genesis in ways that were not available
beforehand. And the interpretation is not fantastic for creationists:
God does not create ex nihilo, it is not the same God in different parts
of the text, there are other gods that are real and of similar if not
equal standing, God is limited in his capabilities, the world is like a
cooking pot inverted under water, etc.
Basically, Genesis is a composite document from divergent religious
traditions, which asserts the reality of a physical world that cannot,
under any circumstances, be reconciled with the world today. The only
conclusion a "scientific creationist" could derive is that at some
point, God swapped out the old cosmos for the present one unannounced.
>
> The meaning of your first sentence above is unclear. It seems to imply
> that Genesis is compatible with theistic evolution, in which case you
> statement boils down to Genesis (particularly the claim that God created
> the world) is incompatible with atheism, which would be (near?)
> universally agreed on. But from your past writings one would assume you
> meant something different, in which case your claim that everyone agrees
> on it would be false.
--
John S. Wilkins, Postdoctoral Research Fellow, Philosophy
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."
DJT
snip
>
> Darwin claimed Agnostic status in the strict context of biological
> First Cause after 1869, which was a departure from his public Deist
> (quasi-Theist) position ending the "Origin" (1859), so your "private"
> contention is true and I agree.
So, why are you claiming that Darwin was an atheist?
>
> > and publically announced that he saw no reason
> > that his theory should overturn anyone's faith (he also refused to
> > have a genuinely pro-atheist book by Marx's son-in-law dedicated to
> > him).
>
> "Thus saith Darwin, that settles it" - is that your argument?
Why is that worse than your "If Gene Scott said it, that settles
it"? But that's not the "argument" that Steven is using. We have
no reason to suspect that Darwin was not speaking truthfully when he
said he was agnostic, and there is no reason why Darwin would have
been "pro-atheist".
> Evolution overturned Darwin's faith so his comment, like a host of
> similar ones, makes no sense.
It was the evidence, plus personal tragedy that overturned Darwin's
faith. His comments are those of a man trying to make sense of his
world. It does make sense, that he would not lightly give up his
religious beliefs.
>
> As for your Marx comment: He did so because he was a closet Atheist,
> which was very common back then.
What evidence do you have for this assertion?
> Privately, he encouraged the editor
> of that publication and invited them to have supper at his home (which
> they did).
Evidence for this assertion?
>
> Edward Aveling, an avowed Atheist, the person who asked for the
> dedication, tells us what happened at the supper. It is only eight
> pages long, you should read it:
>
> http://darwin-online.org.uk/content/frameset?viewtype=text&itemID=A23...
So, if Aveling said it, it must be true...?
>
> > And the turn away from explanations in terms of miracles, and
> > the search for explanations in terms of natural causes, had begun,
> > even in biology, before Darwin set pen to paper. Indeed, the idea
> > that scientific explanations should be based, not on miracles, but on
> > the regular operations of natural causes established by God, had been
> > set forth by Christian philosophers back in the Middle Ages.
>
> Biological paradigm change was caused by "Origin of Species."
Actually, it was the evidence that Darwin collected, along with the
other naturalists who were working at the time. The notion that
species were mutable was already becoming well accepted when Darwin
produced his work.
>
> > Second, is it at all satisfactory to have God be only, or primarily, a
> > God of the gaps? Have you ever read Mark Twain's _Letters from
> > Earth_? Part of the text is a complaint that Christians routinely
> > praise God for things done by human beings -- for, e.g. a treatment
> > for sleeping sickness found by scientists funded by Rockefeller. Of
> > course, one need not go to Twain for this attitude: in an episode of
> > _The Simpsons_, Bart prays "We bought all this food ourselves, God, so
> > thanks for nothing."
>
> The real Christian recognizes that he would have no job or money
> unless God allowed and caused it.
Again, you are claiming that God is a micromanager, rather than a
universal spirit.
>
> > Now, I think every Christian would regard Bart's
> > attitude as wrong and Twain's critique as somehow missing the point:
> > God works through natural processes, including the actions and
> > decisions of human beings,
>
> But evolution says "natural processes" means that God did not create
> them or create through them.
No, it says nothing of the sort. There is no reason why God can't
use natural processes as his means of creation.
> So your comment is deliberate
> equivocation.
Do you often work this hard to miss an obvious point? There is
nothing about evolution that says that God cannot have used this
process.
What part of that is giving you trouble?
>
> The Bible shows plainly that God uses what appears to be the chance
> decisions and actions of human beings,
So, using evolution should be no problem....
> they are, in fact, under His
> control.
Again, not a problem for evolutionary theory.
> Lets face it: the sex drive of Potiphar's wife got Joseph
> thrown in jail on a trumped up rape charge.
Or so the story goes.....
> If this did not happen
> then the events which led him to be known to Pharoah as an interpreter
> of dreams would not have happened, even though it could have been
> brought to Pharoah's attention some other way. The point is that God
> is in control and that he tested Joseph's faith in the dream he had as
> a youth (which was from God) until that day in Pharoah's court
> thirteen years later.
Ok, so why couldn't God use evolution as his means of creation?
>
> > and provides through natural means more
> > than through miracles.
>
> False. That is not the choice, Steven.
Then what is "the choice"?
>
> > It is no more absurd to suppose that God
> > creates the diversity and complexity of life through evolution, than
> > that He accomplishes His will in history through the donations and
> > deeds of human agents.
>
> Genesis specifically rules out non-supernatural evolution/common
> ancestry.
No, it does not. It says that God created, it does not say how.
> Everyone agrees on this.
Wrong again, Ray. Not everyone agrees on this.
> Evolution is only postulated
> because it contradicts Genesis.
No, evolution explains the evidence. That the evidence contradicts
the way you read Genesis is not a problem for either evolution, or
God.
>
> > > Any person who believes or accepts that God created the evolutionary
> > > process, does not, of course, have any source for said view. Evolution
> > > is bridled by God excluding Materialism-Naturalism presuppositions and
> > > the Bible, of course, says and presupposes that life was a direct
> > > product of Divine creation and power. Those who, nonetheless believe,
> > > that God created by evolution would do well to ask themselves why all
> > > Atheists rabidly defend evolution?
>
> > I think that not all atheists do rabidly defend evolution;
>
> ALL do, not a matter of opinion.
Then why do some not "defend evolution'? You've already been
presented with examples of atheists who don't support evolution. Are
you saying they don't exist?
snip
> > The view that God created the evolutionary process has two roots: one
> > is the biblical doctrine, accepted on faith, that God created,
> > directly or indirectly, everything that exists, and the other is the
> > vast empirical evidence that evolution, in fact, has happened and
> > continues to happen. There are many Christians who feel that God is
> > not served by denying and lying about scientific facts in His name.
>
> > > Ray
>
> > -- Steven J.
>
> Anyone who says that the Bible supports evolution is a brazen liar or
> horribly ignorant or horribly deluded.
Ray, no one is saying that the Bible supports evolution. What is
being said is that the Bible does not need to be in conflict with
evolution. You are the one who is claiming that the Bible is
incompatable with evolution, and that claim has shown to be
nonsense.
DJT
Steven J.
> On Oct 28, 6:49 pm, "Steven J." <steve...@altavista.com> wrote:
>
> > On Oct 28, 4:54 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > -- [snip]
>
> > > The objective meaning and understanding of 'evolution' (within the
> > > context of the Creation-Evolution debate since Darwin) means that God
> > > was not and is not involved in any biological production. Darwin's
> > > proposal, within twenty years of publication, achieved scientific
> > > paradigm change from pro-Creationism suppositions to the pro-Atheist
> > > suppositions of Materialsim-Naturalism.
>
> > First, even Darwin was not "pro-atheist;" he privately declared
> > himself an agnostic,
>
> Darwin claimed Agnostic status in the strict context of biological
> First Cause after 1869, which was a departure from his public Deist
> (quasi-Theist) position ending the "Origin" (1859), so your "private"
> contention is true and I agree.
>
> > and publically announced that he saw no reason
> > that his theory should overturn anyone's faith (he also refused to
> > have a genuinely pro-atheist book by Marx's son-in-law dedicated to
> > him).
>
> "Thus saith Darwin, that settles it" - is that your argument?
>
he suggested that lungs evolved from the swim bladders of fish,
whereas modern phylogenic reconstructions have it the other way
around. But surely Darwin is the primary authority on what Darwin
himself thought. Given sufficient evidence, we might conclude that he
was lying or confused, but if it comes down to your word vs. Darwin's
on what Darwin believed, I'm going with Charles.
>
> Evolution overturned Darwin's faith so his comment, like a host of
> similar ones, makes no sense.
>
multitude of causes, including the death of his favorite daughter.
Evolutionary theory closed a rather large gap into which apologists
had been in the habit of stuffing God, and seriously weakened one of
the classic medieval arguments for theism. For Darwin, who seems
(despite having once studied for the clergy) never to have been a
particularly religious man, this apparently left no particular reason
to believe. Of course, from a strictly logical standpoint, even the
absence of any naturalistic explanation for the origin of life and its
diversity and complexity is no reason to invoke any particular God as
a supernaturalistic explanation. Faith in God cannot be adequately
grounded merely on a god of the gaps argument, no matter how imposing
the gap might be, and if grounded on something else, does not need the
gap.
>
> As for your Marx comment: He did so because he was a closet Atheist,
> which was very common back then. Privately, he encouraged the editor
> of that publication and invited them to have supper at his home (which
> they did).
>
> Edward Aveling, an avowed Atheist, the person who asked for the
> dedication, tells us what happened at the supper. It is only eight
> pages long, you should read it:
>
>
It's an interesting document, but I'm not sure it helps your case. I
have pointed out in responses to "backspace" that words can have
different meanings depending on context, and this is a case in point.
Aveling asserts that he and Darwin avoided alike "the folly of God
denial" and "the folly of God assertion." He calls this "atheism,"
lack of belief in God, and Darwin agrees with him, but obviously this
is not the sort of atheism you have in mind when you speak of
evolution as meaning that "God was not and is not involved in any
biological production." That would be not merely lack of belief in
God, but what Aveling refers to as "the folly of God denial," which he
states that Darwin (and, surprisingly to me, Aveling himself) seek to
avoid. This position is entirely consistent with Darwin's later
avowal that his position was "agnostic:" he made no claim to know
anything about God or His possible role in creation.
Note also that according to that article, Darwin did not abandon
Christianity until he was forty. That would be in 1849, more than a
decade after he first accepted that humans shared ancestors with
apes. So his decision to accept human evolution, on his own account
of the matter, could not have proceeded from his prior rejection of
God or Christianity, as you have suggested in the past.
>
> > And the turn away from explanations in terms of miracles, and
> > the search for explanations in terms of natural causes, had begun,
> > even in biology, before Darwin set pen to paper. Indeed, the idea
> > that scientific explanations should be based, not on miracles, but on
> > the regular operations of natural causes established by God, had been
> > set forth by Christian philosophers back in the Middle Ages.
>
> Biological paradigm change was caused by "Origin of Species."
>
In the sense you mean, I think the biological paradigm change had been
started before Lamarck, and continued after Darwin's theory of natural
selection had fallen into temporary disfavor.
>
> > Second, is it at all satisfactory to have God be only, or primarily, a
> > God of the gaps? Have you ever read Mark Twain's _Letters from
> > Earth_? Part of the text is a complaint that Christians routinely
> > praise God for things done by human beings -- for, e.g. a treatment
> > for sleeping sickness found by scientists funded by Rockefeller. Of
> > course, one need not go to Twain for this attitude: in an episode of
> > _The Simpsons_, Bart prays "We bought all this food ourselves, God, so
> > thanks for nothing."
>
> The real Christian recognizes that he would have no job or money
> unless God allowed and caused it.
>
> > Now, I think every Christian would regard Bart's
> > attitude as wrong and Twain's critique as somehow missing the point:
> > God works through natural processes, including the actions and
> > decisions of human beings,
>
> But evolution says "natural processes" means that God did not create
> them or create through them. So your comment is deliberate
> equivocation.
>
But, as your own quote from Aveling states, Darwin did not claim to
know that God did not create natural process or use them for further
creation. And several "Darwinists," from Asa Gray through Theodosius
Dobzhansky to Kenneth Miller, have held precisely that God did create
natural processes and act through them. So I think that "evolution"
does not say what you insist that it says, or at least it does not say
so clearly enough that many actual evolutionists can hear it.
>
> The Bible shows plainly that God uses what appears to be the chance
> decisions and actions of human beings, they are, in fact, under His
> control. Lets face it: the sex drive of Potiphar's wife got Joseph
> thrown in jail on a trumped up rape charge. If this did not happen
> then the events which led him to be known to Pharoah as an interpreter
> of dreams would not have happened, even though it could have been
> brought to Pharoah's attention some other way. The point is that God
> is in control and that he tested Joseph's faith in the dream he had as
> a youth (which was from God) until that day in Pharoah's court
> thirteen years later.
>
> > and provides through natural means more
> > than through miracles.
>
> False. That is not the choice, Steven.
>
> > It is no more absurd to suppose that God
> > creates the diversity and complexity of life through evolution, than
> > that He accomplishes His will in history through the donations and
> > deeds of human agents.
>
> Genesis specifically rules out non-supernatural evolution/common
> ancestry. Everyone agrees on this. Evolution is only postulated
> because it contradicts Genesis.
>
First, you have a very constricted and non-literal sense of
"everyone," it seems to me. If Genesis, with its reference to the
Earth being created before the sun, and the various passages elsewhere
in the Bible speaking of the Earth being fixed and immobile, do not
specifically rule out heliocentrism, then Genesis cannot specifically
rule out evolution.
Second, evolution is postulated because it fits the facts.
>
> > > Any person who believes or accepts that God created the evolutionary
> > > process, does not, of course, have any source for said view. Evolution
> > > is bridled by God excluding Materialism-Naturalism presuppositions and
> > > the Bible, of course, says and presupposes that life was a direct
> > > product of Divine creation and power. Those who, nonetheless believe,
> > > that God created by evolution would do well to ask themselves why all
> > > Atheists rabidly defend evolution?
>
> > I think that not all atheists do rabidly defend evolution;
>
> ALL do, not a matter of opinion.
>
I think it is very odd for you to make a claim that, on the one hand,
could be refuted by a single counterexample (e.g. if notorious god-
denier Ayn Rand was not convinced that humans evolved from apes, then
clearly not ALL atheists rabidly defend evolutionary theory), and on
the other, is of much less import than you suppose (after all, nearly
all atheists do or would, if asked, "rabidly" defend heliocenrism or
meteorology, but this does not mean that atheism is the foundation of
either theory).
>
> > consider
> > the cartoonist Scott Adams, who at least is not any sort of
> > conventional theist, but who also refuses to accept the mainstream
> > view of evolution. But many atheists do indeed defend evolution, for
> > much the same reason that they defend, against its critics, the idea
> > that HIV causes AIDS, or, on the rare occasions modern geocentrists
> > make themselves obvious, they defend heliocentric astronomy. That is,
> > atheists defend evolution because the evidence supports it, and they
> > think that evidence ought to trump dogma. But then, there is a long
> > (if often a minority) tradition in Christianity that evidence ought to
> > trump, at least, human interpretations of scripture and the dogmas
> > invented by human "experts."
>
> > The view that God created the evolutionary process has two roots: one
> > is the biblical doctrine, accepted on faith, that God created,
> > directly or indirectly, everything that exists, and the other is the
> > vast empirical evidence that evolution, in fact, has happened and
> > continues to happen. There are many Christians who feel that God is
> > not served by denying and lying about scientific facts in His name.
>
> > > Ray
>
> > -- Steven J.
>
> Anyone who says that the Bible supports evolution is a brazen liar or
> horribly ignorant or horribly deluded.
>
That's odd ... because "a brazen liar, horribly ignorant, and horribly
deluded" pretty much sums up the impression of yourself that one would
get from reading your posts in this newsgroup.
>
> Ray
-- Steven J.
Greg Guarino
If I understand you correctly, and I'm not sure I do, this means that
you think that the scienctific disciplines I mention preclude the idea
of God entirely. They do not, and cannot. They just say that certain
things happened. A religious belief that doesn't depend on claims that
those things did not happen is compatible with science. (I'm sure I'm
going to get a visit from the Abstract Authority Avenger, but I think
my meaning is clear).
>and add the word "claim" after
>'evolution does' then I agree with your comment.
[shrug]
>Greg: why do most evos, unlike yourself, disagree?
In the main, they don't, as far as I know. To you , there is only one
kind of God, one that is inextricably bound to Genesis. Evolution, and
other scientific ideas do contradict Genesis. No one I know disagrees
with that. But that does not preclude *any* sort of God, whether or
not you can see it.
>I commend you for your objectivity (no condescension implied or
>intended).
>
>
>> But people have other conceptions of God, including a God who created
>> a universe that would develop all sorts of interesting features
>> without constant fiddling. I imagine that there are even Theists who
>> would criticize creationists for denying the beauty and power of God's
>> plan for a naturally-unfolding universe.
>>
>> I very much doubt that evolution was "specifically developed" to do
>> anything other than explain the diversity of life on Earth.
>
>You just admitted otherwise above. I am intentionally withholding a
>zillion source cites that plainly say that Darwinian evolution and
>selection was proposed and developed to explain reality in a way that
>refutes the reigning paradigm of pre-1859 Britain: Creationism-Design.
>How could all you educated evolutionists not know this?
And again you seem not to be able to separate God from Biblical
Literalism. Your previous quote, which is what I was responding to
was:
"But I do know that these persons are responsible for the
>> >ignorance of this Group and its belief that evolution was not
>> >specifically developed to oppose God and Creationism."
Well, evolution does directly contradict Creationism as it is usually
understood. That does not support your assertion that it was
"specifically developed" to do so. People had noticed long before
Darwin that nature seemed to work at least mostly on its own.
Moreover, do I need to repeat it, one can refute creationism without
"opposing" God.
>> But that
>> is a powerful notion, and it is not surprising that it has had
>> repercussions outside of biology.
>>
>> >> > Any person who believes or accepts that God created the evolutionary
>> >> > process, does not, of course, have any source for said view.
>>
>> By which you mean, no Bible, I assume, just human speculation? There
>> are many of us, of course, who believe that the source you prefer was
>> also human speculation, albeit somewhat older. Speculation is the best
>> we can do, really.
>>
>> >> >Evolution
>> >> > is bridled by God excluding Materialism-Naturalism presuppositions and
>> >> > the Bible, of course, says and presupposes that life was a direct
>> >> > product of Divine creation and power. Those who, nonetheless believe,
>> >> > that God created by evolution would do well to ask themselves why all
>> >> > Atheists rabidly defend evolution?
>>
>> This is a common argument of yours, that Theists may not agree with
>> Atheists on any facet of the origins of the world. This is illogical.
>
>This assertion says there is nothing logically amiss when the Atheist
>and Christian agree on origins. This comment reveals utter delusion
>since I judge it to be forthrightly written.
First of all, I didn't mention anything about Christians. But some
Christians obviously disagree with you.
>> A theist and an atheist can agree on the processes of physics,
>> chemistry and evolutionary biology, but part company as to the
>> ultimate source of the universe and its laws.
>>
>> Greg Guarino
>
>The above statement simply says that Christians believe God created
>the evolutionary process. The Bible explicitly says that He did no
>such thing, and spends two chapters denying common ancestry.
I imagine that such Christians think that parts of the Bible are
allegorical.
>This
>leaves these Christians subordinate to their traditional enemy. This
>is why we know that these Christians are not real Christians, if you
>are objective
You have a very restrictive view of what a Christian is, and, it must
be said, a very simplistic view of the beliefs people hold and how
they come to hold them. How are such Christians "subordinate"? Is it
not likely that at least some of them have come to their own
conclusions about religion and science? Why are Christians and
Atheists "enemies"? They disagree, to be sure. But enemies? Are
Buddhists your enemy? Jews? Am I?
>An objective understanding says that when an Atheist and a Christian
>accept the same biological origins theory then one party is not
>genuinely as such. I believe that the Atheists who defend evolution (a
>unanimous lot) are real Atheists.
What about the non-atheists that defend evolution, which would likely
be most of them?
Greg Guarino
wf3h
> >
> My point is that this NG could care less about uncontested facts of
> history; what their own scholars have redundantly established, and
> deny all facts by assertion that say evolution sought to refute
> creationism in the 19th century. I cannot even find ONE author or
> scholar who denies this but has, in fact, said it plainly in their
> writings beyond abundantly. This proves that this NG and its
> evolutionists are horribly ignorant or dishonest. In my view they are
> both.
evolution seeks to refute creationism as much as chemistry seeks to
refute alchemy. both creationism and alchemy are vestiges of ignorant
thinking..
wf3h
> >
> > A theist and an atheist can agree on the processes of physics,
> > chemistry and evolutionary biology, but part company as to the
> > ultimate source of the universe and its laws.
>
> > Greg Guarino
>
> The above statement simply says that Christians believe God created
> the evolutionary process. The Bible explicitly says that He did no
> such thing
if ray can prove this, i'll become a creationist
, and spends two chapters denying common ancestry. This
> leaves these Christians subordinate to their traditional enemy. This
> is why we know that these Christians are not real Christians, if you
> are objective.
the first target of creationists is other xtians
>
wf3h
>
> Genesis specifically rules out non-supernatural evolution/common
> ancestry. Everyone agrees on this. Evolution is only postulated
> because it contradicts Genesis.
for thousands of years christians believed magic was a force in
nature.
science explained more in 10 years than religion explained in 1000.
wf3h
> On Oct 29, 3:16 pm, "Steven J." <steve...@altavista.com> wrote:
>
>
> >
> > You, for your part, have an odd way of dividing up nature into those
> > parts that are not under God's control (e.g. gravity or embryonic
> > development)
>
> I have never said that any part of nature was not under God's control
> - I am a Creationist, we believe and know that all of nature is under
> God's direct control.
creationism is dangerously close to pantheism. if one excludes
natural laws as a creative force in nature, and if one relies on 'god
did it', then god is a natural force and the universe is god.
> >>
> The ***objective claims of evolution*** claims to refute Theism,
> nobody denies this fact. This is why all Atheists are evolutionists.
atheists also believe the earth is round. do xtians believe it's flat?
>
DJT
snip
> > You, for your part, have an odd way of dividing up nature into those
> > parts that are not under God's control (e.g. gravity or embryonic
> > development)
>
> I have never said that any part of nature was not under God's control
> - I am a Creationist, we believe and know that all of nature is under
> God's direct control.
Just out of curiosity, do you consider the institution of slavery in
the US was under God's direct control? Why did God allow such a
thing?
>
> > and those that are effected by miraculous supercession of
> > natural law (e.g. the origin of species). I'm reasonably sure this is
> > both unbiblical and contrary to nearly two millennia of Christian
> > theology; you seem to concede the entire world, a handful of miracles
> > aside, to godlessness.
>
> I have no idea as to what you are talking about. The world shows God's
> direct control and involvement.
Again, World Wars, genocide, children with cancer, AIDS, etc? All of
these are God's works?
>The observation of design is beyond
> abundant and logically corresponds to invisible Designer. Only
> Atheists deny for obvious reasons.
Ray, I'm not an atheist, and I deny that the appearance of design
corresponds to an invisible designer. Many people who are not
atheists have done the same.
I've asked you many times to provide even ONE example of a known
designed object that has a known invisible designer. You've not
provided any. You've just ignored the question.
>
> > > > > Darwin's proposal, within twenty years of publication, achieved scientific
> > > > > paradigm change from pro-Creationism suppositions to the pro-Atheist
> > > > > suppositions of Materialsim-Naturalism.
>
> > > > uh, no. that was happening long before this, due to the fact that, for
> > > > thousands of years, 'god did it' led no where.
>
> > > When? Do you have any references?
>
> > There is an interesting article on the Panda's Thumb archives, here:
> > <http://www.pandasthumb.org/archives/2006/03/on-the-origins.html>
>
> It is quite interesting.
Meaning you've ignored it......
>
> > It notes, among other examples, how the philosopher and cleric Jean
> > Buridan argued six hundred years before Darwin that natural causes
> > should be preferred to miracles as explanations for natural
> > phenomena. Even a purely materialistic approach to life and human
> > thought predates Darwin by over a century: see, e.g. Julien Offray de
> > la Mettrie's _L'Homme Machine_ in the 18th century.
>
> So?
>
> What's the point?
That there is no "supernatural science". What about it are you
missing?
>
> > For references for the proposition, "for thousands of years, 'god did
> > it' led nowhere," consider the insistence of the ID movement that we
> > are entitled to no assumptions about how the Designer would create.
> > If "god did it" had been a fruitful approach to devising theories,
> > there would by now have been at least the beginnings of a theory of
> > creation, a few basics known about the methods and design philosophy
> > of the Designer/Creator, and there would be no need for IDers and
> > creationists to retreat into belligerent epistemological nihilism to
> > defend their ideas.
>
> Again, I literally have no idea as to what you are talking about.
That much is clear. That's why you always lose these arguments.
>
> > > Are you denying what is known in scholarship circles as the "Darwinian
> > > revolution"?
>
> > Most intellectual revolutions are overrated: Darwin had precursors for
> > the idea of natural selection,
>
> False.
No, Ray. You are showing your own lack of scholarship.
>
> Two or three persons used the term but it had zero correspondence to
> how Darwin defined it and popularized it.
Actually, Ray, the idea of natural selection can be seen as far back
and the ancient Greeks. You again are just making assertions you
can't back.
>
> > for descent with modification, even for
> > common descent, and certainly for the hope of finding some sort of
> > natural mechanism for evolution. Darwin's writings caused a major
> > shift, certainly, popularizing the idea of common descent with
> > modification and of natural selection.
>
> So you agree?
Note Steven's sentence following.
>
> > But note that in the early
> > 20th century, there was what was called "the eclipse of Darwinism,"
> > when the importance of natural selection was widely disputed, but this
> > was not accompanied by any widespread return of biologists to
> > creationist ideas.
>
> What is meant by the "Darwinian revolution" is the triumph of
> transmutation (I did not say NS) over Creationism before 1880.
The idea that species are mutable, and change was already well on it's
way to acceptance before Darwin. "Creationism" died off because it
was worthless to explain the evidence that Darwin, and many others had
collected. Darwin and his work did not "bring down" creatonism, it
just finished off the dying body...
>
> > > "Origin" caused paradigm change from pro-God suppositions of
> > > Creationism to pro-Atheist suppositions of Materialism.
>
> > Belief in God and creationism was in retreat before Darwin,
>
> It was stagnant to say the least starting in ***1850*** (not before).
Actually, long before 1850.
> But your comment is deceptive in that the "Origin" CAUSED major shift
> within two decades. This is a undisputed fact of history.
No, as Steven rightly pointed out, the idea of creationism was already
dying. Darwin's providing a natural mechanism to explain evolution
gave it the final push it needed to finish off any intellectual
support.
>
> > on the one
> > hand, and on the other, many of Darwin's early supporters were
> > themselves Christians. You grossly oversimplify the long change in
> > how Christians thought about the Bible and creation, and in how people
> > in western civilization thought about Christianity. If you want to
> > complain about a paradigm change,
>
> I didn't complain; I stated that it happened by 1880, why are you
> denying?
Because it was already happening before Darwin.
>
> Evolution, beginning in 1850-1859, overturned Creationism by 1880.
Creationism was not "overturned" it was quitely buried, as it expired
from it's own lack of evidence.
snip
> > > Why do the evolutionists in this NG have a concerted campaign to deny
> > > that Darwinian evolution attacked and claims to refute Creationism
> > > (which no scholar denies)?
>
> > You are conflating creationism, Christianity, and theism.
>
> Where did I mention "Christianity" or "Theism"?
That is what Steven is pointing out. You are claiming that evolution
attacked and refuted Creationism, but that's not Christanity.
Darwin did not attack Creationism, it was already dying, and was no
threat. Darwin provided evidence to support his own ideas. That's
why it was accepted, not because it was against a literal reading of
Genesis.
>
> How could I conflate two things that I did not mention? I said
> Creationism - period.
But you are obviously conflating Creationism with Christanity.
>
> > They are
> > separate concepts, and one can believe in the latter two, or even the
> > last of these, without accepting the first of them. So far as I know,
> > no one on this newsgroup denies that "Darwinian evolution" was opposed
> > to creationism
>
> But I said "refuted," not 'opposed.'
You were wrong. Evolution is opposed to creationism. It doesn't
refute creationism, as that's what the evidence does. Again, it's
EVIDENCE that refutes creation. Evolution explains that evidence
better than creationism ever could.
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/dbc8614ddbc55cf9
>
> Dana Tweedy (an evolutionist) writes:
>
> "Because evolution did not attack, or claim to refute Creationism.
> Evolution attacked no one, and made a claim only to explain the
> evidence. I doubt there are any "scholars" who would claim that
> "Darwinian evolution" attacked creationism, nor are there any who
> would claim that the goal of evolution was to refute Creationism."
>
> If you agree with Dana, can you or the author produce ANY reference in
> support of these opinions?
Sure:
http://en.allexperts.com/q/Biology-664/Scientific-evidence-proving-theory-2.htm
"The debate continues because to some evolution contradicts Biblical
accounts of the origins of species. A fact is only a fact when it can
be proven false (tested) Evolution can be tested. Spontaneous
creation cannot be proven false"
If Darwin had been intending to attack Creationism, and been hostile
to God, it would not make sense for him to hold off publishing. He
would have most likely rushed his work into print. He did not do
that. Darwin held off for 20 years, gathering evidence to support
his theory.
Here's another:
http://www.dailyprincetonian.com/archives/2006/01/13/arts/14244.shtml
"Those who see Darwin as anti-religion are in for a surprise, as are
those who see him only as a stern white-bearded man glowering out of a
biology textbook. They will discover a Darwin who faced up to his own
professional struggles and was protective of his private life,
preferring his quiet suburban home with his wife and ten children to
the celebrity and controversy that enveloped him after he made his
theory public"
>
> > (although modern creationism arose, in part, as a
>
> > reaction to "Darwinian evolution" and the evidence for it); what is
> > widely insisted is that evolutionary theory is not opposed to theism
> > or Christianity themselves.
>
> The ***objective claims of evolution*** claims to refute Theism,
No, the objective claims of evolution refute only a narrow and
probably mistaken interpetation of the Bible.
> nobody denies this fact.
Ray, thousands of people deny this. Your claim is obviously wrong.
> This is why all Atheists are evolutionists.
All atheists aren't evolutionists. That claim is wrong as well. And
even if it were true, it says nothing about the science of
evolution.
snip
> > Darwin, and subsequent evolutionists, often argued against
> > creationism; this is true, and no one denies it.
>
> Dana did above.
Nope, Ray. Darwin did argue against creationism, but it was not his
intention to oppose it. Darwin presented his evidence to support his
own theory. Your claim was that Darwin's purpose in publishing was
to refute creationism. That is not true. It is true that Darwin and
others have had to argue against creationists.
>
> > Evolutionary theory
> > itself is an explanation for much of the data in biology, and was
> > devised as such an explanation; it is a competitor for other
> > naturalistic theories in biology, not to any religious dogma. And
> > neither Christianity nor theism are identical to creationism. Darwin
> > himself argued that his theory ought not trouble any religious person,
>
> Ridiculous. His theory came under fire relentlessly and it still does
> today.
However it was never Darwin's intention to be against religion. That
some religious people get offended easily is not Darwin's fault.
>
> Here Steven, we can play too:
>
> "Creationism should not trouble any Atheist."
For most atheists, I woud imagine it wouldn't, as long as it's not
being forced into school classrooms as if it were a real science.
Creationism is fine, as a personal belief, but it's not science.
>
> > and many early evolutionists were themselves Christians; any
> > reasonable person might suspect that they had motives other than
> > opposing God.
>
> Correction: they ***claimed*** to be Christians.
There's no reason to belive they are wrong, and you are right in your
own claim. They certianly acted more Christian than you have ever
done.
DJT
Ray Martinez
I want whomever to know that I know that Wilkins has me killfiled -
the Atheist way of recent 20th century history (censorship).
> Ernest Major <{$t...@meden.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> > In message <1193693829.415996.118...@d55g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>, Ray
> > Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> writes
>
> > >Genesis specifically rules out non-supernatural evolution/common
> > >ancestry. Everyone agrees on this. Evolution is only postulated because
> > >it contradicts Genesis.
>
> > There's a least one falsehood in there. Evolution (common descent with
> > modification through the agency of natural selection and other
> > processes) is inferred from the evidence - there are literally billions
> > of supporting observations; evolution (transmutation of species) has
> > been observed in the field, under domestication and in the laboratory;
> > evolution (change of allele frequencies) is observed over and over
> > again.
>
> > Whether it contradicts Genesis may be an unanswerable question; there is
> > internal evidence that the first two chapters of Genesis weren't meant
> > to be taken "literally", but at this remove I'm not sure we can reliably
> > reconstruct the intended meaning. But regardless of this many people who
> > accept the factuality of common descent with modification through the
> > agency of natural selection and other processes don't care about whether
> > the theory of evolution contradicts Genesis or otherwise.
>
> I don't think that is true; in fact, with critical interpretations I
> think we *can* now understand Genesis in ways that were not available
> beforehand. And the interpretation is not fantastic for creationists:
> God does not create ex nihilo,....
Here we have a comment that presupposes ancient Holy Torah Text, the
most examined Text of all time, was not understandable (but it is now)
and that the original Hebrew can be changed to say exactly opposite of
what it does say in many places: creation ex nihilo, which is expected
and conducive with how an almighty omnipotent Deity would produce. By
asserting no creation ex nihilo at any point the author is saying that
matter always existed and did not require a Creator, extreme illogic
noted, especially in behalf of a Text that is filled from cover to
cover with every miracle imaginable.
> ....it is not the same God in different parts
> of the text, there are other gods that are real and of similar if not
> equal standing, God is limited in his capabilities, the world is like a
> cooking pot inverted under water, etc.
>
Now the opinion gets downright atheistic, which explains it.
> Basically, Genesis is a composite document from divergent religious
> traditions, which asserts the reality of a physical world that cannot,
> under any circumstances, be reconciled with the world today.
Only if you are a Darwinist or Atheist. Everyone else has no problem.
> The only
> conclusion a "scientific creationist" could derive is that at some
> point, God swapped out the old cosmos for the present one unannounced.
>
>
>
> > The meaning of your first sentence above is unclear. It seems to imply
> > that Genesis is compatible with theistic evolution, in which case you
> > statement boils down to Genesis (particularly the claim that God created
> > the world) is incompatible with atheism, which would be (near?)
> > universally agreed on. But from your past writings one would assume you
> > meant something different, in which case your claim that everyone agrees
> > on it would be false.
>
> --
> John S. Wilkins, Postdoctoral Research Fellow, Philosophy
> 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."- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
If this person did not tell us that he allegedly has a graduate degree
then we would never know it judging by the content of his post.
Ray
Steven J.
> On Oct 29, 3:16 pm, "Steven J." <steve...@altavista.com> wrote:
>
> > On Oct 29, 2:04 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:> On Oct 28, 4:10 pm, wf3h <w...@vsswireless.net> wrote:
>
> > > > On Oct 28, 8:54 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > The objective meaning and understanding of 'evolution' (within the
> > > > > context of the Creation-Evolution debate since Darwin) means that God
> > > > > was not and is not involved in any biological production.
>
> > > > just as chemistry means god's not involved in acid base chemistry and
> > > > physics means god's not involved in an apple falling to earth from a
> > > > tree.
>
> > > You have a odd way of stating agreement.
>
> > You, for your part, have an odd way of dividing up nature into those
> > parts that are not under God's control (e.g. gravity or embryonic
> > development)
>
> I have never said that any part of nature was not under God's control
> - I am a Creationist, we believe and know that all of nature is under
> God's direct control.
>
means that God not and is not involved in any biological production."
Evolution (common descent with modification) is part of nature.
Natural selection (as the name rather implies) is part of nature.
Your contention that if evolution continues so far that, e.g. humans
and chimpanzees share common ancestry, then God cannot be involved,
must imply that there are at least potentially natural processes that
escape and defy God's control. Or, conversely, if all natural
processes must be under God's direct control, then, again, common
descent through natural selection cannot toss God off His throne any
more than meteorology or developmental biology can.
>
> > and those that are effected by miraculous supercession of
> > natural law (e.g. the origin of species). I'm reasonably sure this is
> > both unbiblical and contrary to nearly two millennia of Christian
> > theology; you seem to concede the entire world, a handful of miracles
> > aside, to godlessness.
>
> I have no idea as to what you are talking about. The world shows God's
> direct control and involvement. The observation of design is beyond
> abundant and logically corresponds to invisible Designer. Only
> Atheists deny for obvious reasons.
>
idiosyncratically as you define "racist" (and, by the way, you haven't
called me a racist even once yet in this thread; where's the love,
Ray?). We know that humans can design genetic algorithms that are
capable of "designing" (through generating random variations on a
starting design and testing them) aircraft wings, electronic circuits,
and other things. Surely an omnipotent Creator could do more, and
design natural processes that can generate life and its complexity and
diversity from scratch. If you find the evidence of design "beyond
abundant," that is an argument for seeing a divine Designer of
evolution, not for denying evolution or for insisting that "if God, no
evolution, and if evolution, no God."
>
> > > > > Darwin's proposal, within twenty years of publication, achieved scientific
> > > > > paradigm change from pro-Creationism suppositions to the pro-Atheist
> > > > > suppositions of Materialsim-Naturalism.
>
> > > > uh, no. that was happening long before this, due to the fact that, for
> > > > thousands of years, 'god did it' led no where.
>
> > > When? Do you have any references?
>
> > There is an interesting article on the Panda's Thumb archives, here:
> > <http://www.pandasthumb.org/archives/2006/03/on-the-origins.html>
>
> It is quite interesting.
>
> > It notes, among other examples, how the philosopher and cleric Jean
> > Buridan argued six hundred years before Darwin that natural causes
> > should be preferred to miracles as explanations for natural
> > phenomena. Even a purely materialistic approach to life and human
> > thought predates Darwin by over a century: see, e.g. Julien Offray de
> > la Mettrie's _L'Homme Machine_ in the 18th century.
>
> So?
>
> What's the point?
>
possible, natural causes should be sought for natural phenomena. The
grounds on which Buridan argued for methodological naturalism in
investigating astronomical phenomena imply equally that methodological
naturalism ought to be applied, to the extent possible, in explaining
biological phenomena.
>
> > For references for the proposition, "for thousands of years, 'god did
> > it' led nowhere," consider the insistence of the ID movement that we
> > are entitled to no assumptions about how the Designer would create.
> > If "god did it" had been a fruitful approach to devising theories,
> > there would by now have been at least the beginnings of a theory of
> > creation, a few basics known about the methods and design philosophy
> > of the Designer/Creator, and there would be no need for IDers and
> > creationists to retreat into belligerent epistemological nihilism to
> > defend their ideas.
>
> Again, I literally have no idea as to what you are talking about.
>
help. Let me rephrase: it is common to point out that, e.g.
biological features like the inverted retina of the vertebrate eye (as
compared to the "verted" retina of the cephalopod eye) are not the way
that any known sort of designer would design things; in that respect,
the eye does not look designed. Creationists tell us, when confronted
with this argument, that we are not entitled to any assumptions about
how God (or the Intelligent Designer) would design an eye. This is
not a defense of design, and still less is it an explanation of
design. If the assumption of design/creation had yielded any fruit in
scientific research, creationists would be able to say, with respect
to some structures, that it was designed such-and-such a way for such-
and-such a reason (that is, they would have at least parts of a theory
of creation), rather than simply saying that there is nothing we can
say about how God ought to design and create.
>
> > > Are you denying what is known in scholarship circles as the "Darwinian
> > > revolution"?
>
> > Most intellectual revolutions are overrated: Darwin had precursors for
> > the idea of natural selection,
>
> False.
>
> Two or three persons used the term but it had zero correspondence to
> how Darwin defined it and popularized it.
>
selection," as far back as Aristotle, who, like many later writers,
saw it as preserving groups of living things from degeneration. The
term itself was used by Patrick Matthew in 1831, in an obscure essay
which may well have been the first suggestion that natural selection
could not only preserve a species from degeneration but, under
appropriate environmental conditions, change it into another species.
Darwin was apparently unfamiliar with Matthew's essay until after he
had published the first edition of _Origin of Species_, but mentioned
his priority in later editions.
>
> > for descent with modification, even for
> > common descent, and certainly for the hope of finding some sort of
> > natural mechanism for evolution. Darwin's writings caused a major
> > shift, certainly, popularizing the idea of common descent with
> > modification and of natural selection.
>
> So you agree?
>
>
> > But note that in the early
> > 20th century, there was what was called "the eclipse of Darwinism,"
> > when the importance of natural selection was widely disputed, but this
> > was not accompanied by any widespread return of biologists to
> > creationist ideas.
>
> What is meant by the "Darwinian revolution" is the triumph of
> transmutation (I did not say NS) over Creationism before 1880.
>
away from theism and towards anti-supernaturalism and atheism. As
noted, that began before Darwin and continued after him.
>
> > > "Origin" caused paradigm change from pro-God suppositions of
> > > Creationism to pro-Atheist suppositions of Materialism.
>
> > Belief in God and creationism was in retreat before Darwin,
>
> It was stagnant to say the least starting in ***1850*** (not before).
> But your comment is deceptive in that the "Origin" CAUSED major shift
> within two decades. This is a undisputed fact of history.
>
>
> > on the one
> > hand, and on the other, many of Darwin's early supporters were
> > themselves Christians. You grossly oversimplify the long change in
> > how Christians thought about the Bible and creation, and in how people
> > in western civilization thought about Christianity. If you want to
> > complain about a paradigm change,
>
> I didn't complain; I stated that it happened by 1880, why are you
> denying?
>
> Evolution, beginning in 1850-1859, overturned Creationism by 1880.
>
writings of Lamarck at the end of the 18th century; some would go
further back to the speculations of Buffon and his contemporaries.
not involved in any biological production." That implies that
evolution necessarily implies that theism, not merely creationism, is
false.
>
> How could I conflate two things that I did not mention? I said
> Creationism - period.
>
things, but you continue to argue that "evolution contradicts
creationism" as though that were automatically equivalent to
"evolution contradicts theism" or "evolution contradicts
Christianity."
>
> > They are
> > separate concepts, and one can believe in the latter two, or even the
> > last of these, without accepting the first of them. So far as I know,
> > no one on this newsgroup denies that "Darwinian evolution" was opposed
> > to creationism
>
> But I said "refuted," not 'opposed.'
>
realize that creationism is false, it seems very odd for you to speak
of evolutionary theory as "refuting" creationism. And for the rest of
us, of course, the evidence for evolution, not evolution itself or the
theory of evolution itself, that refutes creationism.
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/dbc8614ddbc55cf9
>
> Dana Tweedy (an evolutionist) writes:
>
> "Because evolution did not attack, or claim to refute Creationism.
> Evolution attacked no one, and made a claim only to explain the
> evidence. I doubt there are any "scholars" who would claim that
> "Darwinian evolution" attacked creationism, nor are there any who
> would claim that the goal of evolution was to refute Creationism."
>
> If you agree with Dana, can you or the author produce ANY reference in
> support of these opinions?
>
discuss evolutionary theory without claiming that it was devised to
refute creationism? Is that not on a par with the apocryphal defense
lawyer who offered to produce a dozen witnesses who did not see his
client commit the crime with which he was charged? Would it not be
more efficient for you to find a reference that supports your
position, since no matter how many sources we produce that do not
mention attacking creationism as Darwin's motive for devising the
theory of evolution, there might always be sources we overlooked that
do say such a thing?
>
> > (although modern creationism arose, in part, as a
>
> > reaction to "Darwinian evolution" and the evidence for it); what is
> > widely insisted is that evolutionary theory is not opposed to theism
> > or Christianity themselves.
>
> The ***objective claims of evolution*** claims to refute Theism,
> nobody denies this fact. This is why all Atheists are evolutionists.
>
insist that the burden of proof is on theists -- that nonbelief in God
is the rational position until the theist has offered sufficient
reason for belief -- why should atheists feel any need for a
refutation of theism? As one of the "new atheists" (I forget which
one) argued, no one ever "refuted" Zeus or Odin; that is not why
people stopped believing in them.
On the other hand, this entire subthread arose because quite a few
people denied that evolutionary theory refutes theism, so your claim
that "nobody denies this fact" implies that you can finish a post
without remembering what you wrote at the start of it. How long have
you had these memory problems?
>
> > > Answer: Because they seek to misportray evolution as friendly to
> > > believers and not anti-God. The price of such a gross and brazen lie
> > > is severance from their own authors and scholars.
>
> > Again, evolutionary theory is no more "anti-God" than heliocentric
> > astronomy or modern meteorology.
>
> > > I might add that credentialed members like John Harshman and John
> > > Wilkins, if they deny that evolution sought to refute creationism,
> > > then I will gladly portray them against their peers as liars in the
> > > near future. Their alleged degrees will be worthless if they are not
> > > already. But I do know that these persons are responsible for the
> > > ignorance of this Group and its belief that evolution was not
> > > specifically developed to oppose God and Creationism.
>
> > Darwin, and subsequent evolutionists, often argued against
> > creationism; this is true, and no one denies it.
>
> Dana did above.
>
No, Dana denied that evolutionary theory itself originated as an
attempt to refute creationism. But to the extent that creationism
purports to offer an alternate explanation for the evidence, or to the
extent that it simply insists that evolutionary theory is false, then
arguing for evolutionary theory tends to result in arguing against
creationism.
>
> > Evolutionary theory
> > itself is an explanation for much of the data in biology, and was
> > devised as such an explanation; it is a competitor for other
> > naturalistic theories in biology, not to any religious dogma. And
> > neither Christianity nor theism are identical to creationism. Darwin
> > himself argued that his theory ought not trouble any religious person,
>
> Ridiculous. His theory came under fire relentlessly and it still does
> today.
>
All sorts of things happen that ought not happen.
>
> Here Steven, we can play too:
>
> "Creationism should not trouble any Atheist."
>
> > and many early evolutionists were themselves Christians; any
> > reasonable person might suspect that they had motives other than
> > opposing God.
>
> Correction: they ***claimed*** to be Christians.
>
> Do you know that in the Bible, God with all powers, has trouble
> deciding if a person is a real and true believer? But there is a test
> and way to know who is a real believer and who is not.
>
So Ray Martinez is smarter than God. Oddly, I think atheists will be
happier with that suggestion than theists will.
>
> > > > > Any person who believes or accepts that God created the evolutionary
> > > > > process, does not, of course, have any source for said view. Evolution
> > > > > is bridled by God excluding Materialism-Naturalism presuppositions and
> > > > > the Bible, of course, says and presupposes that life was a direct
> > > > > product of Divine creation and power. Those who, nonetheless believe,
> > > > > that God created by evolution would do well to ask themselves why all
> > > > > Atheists rabidly defend evolution?
>
> > > > for the same reason they defend heliocentrism and the idea the earth
> > > > is round: it's the truth.
>
> > > > > Ray
>
> > > Because they know evolution contradicts Genesis and if true refutes
> > > the existence of God.
>
> > Heliocentric astronomy contradicts Genesis (which has the Earth
> > created before the sun, which is a real problem if planets are
> > supposed to orbit the sun), and Judges to boot (in which the writer
> > declares that the sun, not the Earth, obeyed Joshua's command). Given
> > that the Bible itself frequently attributes to God actions that have
> > natural explanations in human actions (e.g. the Babylonian captivity
> > of Judah), I think it is unbiblical to suggest that explaining
> > something without reference to God amounts to a refutation of the
> > existence of God.
>
> Total misrepresentation of Biblical claims by an Atheist-evolutionist.
>
Really? Why do you think so?
>
> Also: "excluding God does not presuppose His non-existence and
> involvement" = argument lacking any logic or sense.
>
It is neither illogical nor, I think, incomprehensible to suggest that
there is no evidence for God's involvement in some process, and that
nothing is added to our theories by adding "and God was involved," and
yet acknowledge that our lack of evidence for God's involvement does
not prove that God does not exist, or even prove that God was not
involved, in some way that we cannot detect. No scientific theory
excludes every imaginable cause that it does not specifically mention.
>
> > > That is the only reason Atheists rabidly defend evolution. To deny is
> > > a ploy to try and trick believers into accepting evolution because
> > > without Theist support, evolution will die and remain Materialism.
>
> > Atheists defend evolutionary theory because the evidence supports it.
> > This is, oddly, the same reason many theists defend it.
>
> > > Ray
>
> > -- Steven J.
>
> Atheists and Christians do not agree on origins.
>
> When they do one groups is not genuinely as such, thus saith
> objectivity.
>
Was "objectivity" Gene Scott's usenet pseudonym?
>
> Ray
-- Steven J.
Ken Rode
> On Oct 29, 4:50 pm, j.wilki...@uq.edu.au (John Wilkins) wrote:
>
> I want whomever to know that I know that Wilkins has me killfiled -
> the Atheist way of recent 20th century history (censorship).
It isn't censorship to choose to ignore someone, Ray. If it was, you'd
be guilty of it yourself. Stop being so kooky.
<snip more of Ray's silliness>
John Wilkins
It's rather more of the theme: life is too short to continue to engage
with idiots. Especially those who don't actually want to *discuss*.
Timberwoof
geo...@hotmail.com wrote:
I haven't been around here much lately, so this is what I get when I
return: a POTM nomination that hasn't been
Seconded.
--
Timberwoof <me at timberwoof dot com> http://www.timberwoof.com
"When you post sewage, don't blame others for
emptying chamber pots in your direction." æ°—hris L.
Ray Martinez
On Oct 29, 6:44 pm, "Steven J." <steve...@altavista.com> wrote:
> On Oct 29, 6:28 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Oct 29, 3:16 pm, "Steven J." <steve...@altavista.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Oct 29, 2:04 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:> On Oct 28, 4:10 pm, wf3h <w...@vsswireless.net> wrote:
>
> > > > > On Oct 28, 8:54 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > The objective meaning and understanding of 'evolution' (within the
> > > > > > context of the Creation-Evolution debate since Darwin) means that God
> > > > > > was not and is not involved in any biological production.
>
> > > > > just as chemistry means god's not involved in acid base chemistry and
> > > > > physics means god's not involved in an apple falling to earth from a
> > > > > tree.
>
> > > > You have a odd way of stating agreement.
>
> > > You, for your part, have an odd way of dividing up nature into those
> > > parts that are not under God's control (e.g. gravity or embryonic
> > > development)
>
> > I have never said that any part of nature was not under God's control
> > - I am a Creationist, we believe and know that all of nature is under
> > God's direct control.
>
> Yet you have asserted, a couple of posts upthread, that "evolution
> means that God not and is not involved in any biological production."
> Evolution (common descent with modification) is part of nature.
> Natural selection (as the name rather implies) is part of nature.
> Your contention that if evolution continues so far that, e.g. humans
> and chimpanzees share common ancestry, then God cannot be involved,
> must imply that there are at least potentially natural processes that
> escape and defy God's control.
Your comments simply presuppose evolution and human evolution to be
true; and they presuppose that if God exists then He "created" through
evolution and human evolution. The objective meaning of evolution and
human evolution says God does not exist, if true. This is why all
Atheists rabidly support evolution. Your comments seek to cover the
objective meaning of evolution in order to trick undecided believers
into accepting evolution.
Your comment also misrepresents me by speaking for me while asserting
that I believe things that I do not believe. It is a bad idea to
brazenly misrepresent your opponent since it reveals inability to
refute what he actually said and rage caused by that fact.
> Or, conversely, if all natural
> processes must be under God's direct control, then, again, common
> descent through natural selection cannot toss God off His throne any
> more than meteorology or developmental biology can.
>
But when a evolutionist uses the phrase "natural processes" it
objectively means that the supernatural was not involved. 'Natural'
and 'Supernatural' are antonyms. You are either confused or like I
said: simply attempting to intertwine two words for the purpose of
saying and presupposing that God "created" the natural process of
evolution. The Bible says God did not create this way, but through
direct supernatural power - the exact thing evolution rejects.
Again, your deliberate conflation is an attempt to trick undecided
believers into accepting evolution or you are confused and unaware of
antonyms and how you are using them.
> > > and those that are effected by miraculous supercession of
> > > natural law (e.g. the origin of species). I'm reasonably sure this is
> > > both unbiblical and contrary to nearly two millennia of Christian
> > > theology; you seem to concede the entire world, a handful of miracles
> > > aside, to godlessness.
>
> > I have no idea as to what you are talking about. The world shows God's
> > direct control and involvement. The observation of design is beyond
> > abundant and logically corresponds to invisible Designer. Only
> > Atheists deny for obvious reasons.
>
> It is becoming increasingly obvious that you define "atheist" as
> idiosyncratically as you define "racist" (and, by the way, you haven't
> called me a racist even once yet in this thread; where's the love,
> Ray?). We know that humans can design genetic algorithms that are
> capable of "designing" (through generating random variations on a
> starting design and testing them) aircraft wings, electronic circuits,
> and other things. Surely an omnipotent Creator could do more, and
> design natural processes that can generate life and its complexity and
> diversity from scratch. If you find the evidence of design "beyond
> abundant," that is an argument for seeing a divine Designer of
> evolution, not for denying evolution or for insisting that "if God, no
> evolution, and if evolution, no God."
>
Evidence of design is evidence of a invisible Designer, not evolution
which denies design. I suspect that you are so desparate to trick
undecideds into accepting evolution that you are now saying evolution
produced design. Dawkins has said abundantly that natural selection
produces the ***illusion of design.*** In other words, design does not
actually exist. That is a better argument for what you are attempting
to accomplish and it has a recognized scholar for a source if anyone
asks for a reference. You are welcome.
>
>
>
>
> > > > > > Darwin's proposal, within twenty years of publication, achieved scientific
> > > > > > paradigm change from pro-Creationism suppositions to the pro-Atheist
> > > > > > suppositions of Materialsim-Naturalism.
>
> > > > > uh, no. that was happening long before this, due to the fact that, for
> > > > > thousands of years, 'god did it' led no where.
>
> > > > When? Do you have any references?
>
> > > There is an interesting article on the Panda's Thumb archives, here:
> > > <http://www.pandasthumb.org/archives/2006/03/on-the-origins.html>
>
> > It is quite interesting.
>
> > > It notes, among other examples, how the philosopher and cleric Jean
> > > Buridan argued six hundred years before Darwin that natural causes
> > > should be preferred to miracles as explanations for natural
> > > phenomena. Even a purely materialistic approach to life and human
> > > thought predates Darwin by over a century: see, e.g. Julien Offray de
> > > la Mettrie's _L'Homme Machine_ in the 18th century.
>
> > So?
>
> > What's the point?
>
> The point is that Darwin did not originate the idea that, as far as
> possible, natural causes should be sought for natural phenomena.
I know that. Come on, stop with the kindergarten stuff.
> The
> grounds on which Buridan argued for methodological naturalism in
> investigating astronomical phenomena imply equally that methodological
> naturalism ought to be applied, to the extent possible, in explaining
> biological phenomena.
>
According to the link you posted MN was not coined until the 20th
century. You would have to show that Buridan meant what the modern
concept meant and not put meanings in his mouth concerning words or
concepts that did not carry those meanings when he lived.
But it doesn't really matter: MN is false. It simply dares anyone to
call its supporters a liar. How about this:
methodological supernaturalism: evolution could be true and we are not
saying that it is not true, only that there is no evidence of it in
reality.
> > > For references for the proposition, "for thousands of years, 'god did
> > > it' led nowhere," consider the insistence of the ID movement that we
> > > are entitled to no assumptions about how the Designer would create.
> > > If "god did it" had been a fruitful approach to devising theories,
> > > there would by now have been at least the beginnings of a theory of
> > > creation, a few basics known about the methods and design philosophy
> > > of the Designer/Creator, and there would be no need for IDers and
> > > creationists to retreat into belligerent epistemological nihilism to
> > > defend their ideas.
>
> > Again, I literally have no idea as to what you are talking about.
>
> Admitting that you have a problem is the first step towards getting
> help. Let me rephrase: it is common to point out that, e.g.
> biological features like the inverted retina of the vertebrate eye (as
> compared to the "verted" retina of the cephalopod eye) are not the way
> that any known sort of designer would design things;
False.
Comment presupposes that the retina is not optimal: when it is,
contrary to the lies of Ken Milller and other evolutionists.
> in that respect,
> the eye does not look designed.
The eye is the epitome of looking designed and it is IC. There is no
evidence that contradicts this long established fact.
> Creationists tell us, when confronted
> with this argument, that we are not entitled to any assumptions about
> how God (or the Intelligent Designer) would design an eye.
Because they have accepted the false and fraudulent assertions of
Darwinists about the eye.
I never said what you have me saying. You have me saying things I
never said because you do not like what I actually said and it is
easier for your contrary viewpoints to erect strawmen.
> > > > "Origin" caused paradigm change from pro-God suppositions of
> > > > Creationism to pro-Atheist suppositions of Materialism.
>
> > > Belief in God and creationism was in retreat before Darwin,
>
> > It was stagnant to say the least starting in ***1850*** (not before).
> > But your comment is deceptive in that the "Origin" CAUSED major shift
> > within two decades. This is a undisputed fact of history.
>
> Technically, 1850 to 1880 is three decades.
>
> > > on the one
> > > hand, and on the other, many of Darwin's early supporters were
> > > themselves Christians. You grossly oversimplify the long change in
> > > how Christians thought about the Bible and creation, and in how people
> > > in western civilization thought about Christianity. If you want to
> > > complain about a paradigm change,
>
> > I didn't complain; I stated that it happened by 1880, why are you
> > denying?
>
> > Evolution, beginning in 1850-1859, overturned Creationism by 1880.
>
> Most people would date the start of evolutionary theorizing from the
> writings of Lamarck at the end of the 18th century; some would go
> further back to the speculations of Buffon and his contemporaries.
>
I didn't say "the start" of evolutionary theorizing; I said paradigm
change: it began in 1859 and was complete by 1880.
Neither Lamarck or Buffon had theories that resembled the modern
accepted theory of Darwin's; they were NOT forerunners of Darwin by
any means. That is the verdict of modern scholarship.
>
>
>
>
> > > perhaps you should go back to the
> > > 17th century, with geocentrist physicists on the one hand, and the
> > > wars of religion on the other.
>
> > > > If not, what theory dethroned Creationism-Design? The only ones prior
> > > > to Darwin were "Vestiges" (physics and biology explanation) and
> > > > Lamarck. Darwin published in 1859.
>
> > > > My point is that this NG could care less about uncontested facts of
> > > > history; what their own scholars have redundantly established, and
> > > > deny all facts by assertion that say evolution sought to refute
> > > > creationism in the 19th century. I cannot even find ONE author or
> > > > scholar who denies this but has, in fact,
>
> ...
>
> read more »- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Ray
Ken Rode
<snip>
> It is a bad idea to
> brazenly misrepresent your opponent since it reveals inability to
> refute what he actually said and rage caused by that fact.
Should I bother commenting on the irony? Nah...
<snip>
Rupert Morrish
>> it is common to point out that, e.g.
>> biological features like the inverted retina of the vertebrate eye (as
>> compared to the "verted" retina of the cephalopod eye) are not the way
>> that any known sort of designer would design things;
>
> False.
Which known designer would design a camera with the photosensitive
elements facing away from the lens, and put a hole in the middle of the
picture for a wire to come through?
Seriously. Name one.
>
> Comment presupposes that the retina is not optimal: when it is,
> contrary to the lies of Ken Milller and other evolutionists.
>
Optimal for what? I'm wearing reading glasses as I type this. My eyes
certainly aren't optimal for the tasks I need to perform. Maybe it's the
blindness penalty creeping up on me?
>
>> in that respect,
>> the eye does not look designed.
>
> The eye is the epitome of looking designed
Only to someone who has not studied design, optics, or the eyes of other
creatures.
> and it is IC.
No it isn't. Many intermediate forms of light-sensing organs exist.
> There is no
> evidence that contradicts this long established fact.
Yes there is. Your choice to remain ignorant of the evidence does not
mean it does not exist. Read
http://www.corante.com/loom/archives/2005/02/15/eyes_part_one_opening_up_the_russian_doll.php
for an introduction on the evolution of the vertebrate eye.
>
>> Creationists tell us, when confronted
>> with this argument, that we are not entitled to any assumptions about
>> how God (or the Intelligent Designer) would design an eye.
>
> Because they have accepted the false and fraudulent assertions of
> Darwinists about the eye.
Or possibly they've realised that eyes are /not/ irreducibly complex,
that numerous intermediate forms exist in organisms alive today, and
that evolutionary mechanisms have been proposed for all the transitions.
Stick to bacterial flagella. Your little god can hide in that gap for at
least a year or two before evolutionists figure that one out.
[snip]
-----------------
www.Newsgroup-Binaries.com - *Completion*Retention*Speed*
Access your favorite newsgroups from home or on the road
-----------------
Steven J.
> On Oct 29, 6:44 pm, "Steven J." <steve...@altavista.com> wrote:
>
> > On Oct 29, 6:28 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
> > > I have never said that any part of nature was not under God's control
> > > - I am a Creationist, we believe and know that all of nature is under
> > > God's direct control.
>
> > Yet you have asserted, a couple of posts upthread, that "evolution
> > means that God not and is not involved in any biological production."
> > Evolution (common descent with modification) is part of nature.
> > Natural selection (as the name rather implies) is part of nature.
> > Your contention that if evolution continues so far that, e.g. humans
> > and chimpanzees share common ancestry, then God cannot be involved,
> > must imply that there are at least potentially natural processes that
> > escape and defy God's control.
>
> Your comments simply presuppose evolution and human evolution to be
> true; and they presuppose that if God exists then He "created" through
> evolution and human evolution. The objective meaning of evolution and
> human evolution says God does not exist, if true. This is why all
> Atheists rabidly support evolution. Your comments seek to cover the
> objective meaning of evolution in order to trick undecided believers
> into accepting evolution.
>
species (or, if that is insufficiently blunt for you, that some of our
ancestors were nonhuman apes, and earlier ancestors were monkeys, and
far earlier, some of our ancestors were fish). But my comments in the
paragraph above do not presuppose this; they presuppose, rather, that
*if* human evolution occurred, then it is a natural process (Behe
would disagree, I suppose, but his position ends up at the conclusion
of my argument all the faster for that). You have said that ALL
natural processes are under the direct control of God. No scientific
theory takes a position one way or another on that question; it is a
theological rather than a scientific point. Therefore, you ought to
accept that if human evolution occurred, then God was directly in
charge of it.
>
> Your comment also misrepresents me by speaking for me while asserting
> that I believe things that I do not believe. It is a bad idea to
> brazenly misrepresent your opponent since it reveals inability to
> refute what he actually said and rage caused by that fact.
>
recant your earlier statement that "evolution means that God is not
involved in any biological production," or your more recent assertion
that "God is in direct control of all natural processes?" I merely
point out that these two statements contradict one another; you may
logically believe one or the other, but not both. I am trying to
point out to you the implications of your own statements. Perhaps you
do not in fact believe these implications; that would show that you
had not thought through the ideas that rattle about in your head,
which is your problem, not mine.
Please note that it is not especially relevant whether individual
evolutionists believe that God exists or is, in fact, in direct
control of all natural processes. Evolutionary biologists are experts
on biology and evolution, not on God (whether anyone is an expert on
God is another matter), and their opinions on whether God is, in fact,
in control of natural processes, or even exists, is worth, as we say
here on T.O., as much as the opinion of Lenny Flank's pizza-delivery
boy.
>
> > Or, conversely, if all natural
> > processes must be under God's direct control, then, again, common
> > descent through natural selection cannot toss God off His throne any
> > more than meteorology or developmental biology can.
>
> But when a evolutionist uses the phrase "natural processes" it
> objectively means that the supernatural was not involved. 'Natural'
> and 'Supernatural' are antonyms. You are either confused or like I
> said: simply attempting to intertwine two words for the purpose of
> saying and presupposing that God "created" the natural process of
> evolution. The Bible says God did not create this way, but through
> direct supernatural power - the exact thing evolution rejects.
>
When an evolutionist (or other scientist) uses the phrase "natural
processes," it means "regularities of nature that can be uncovered,
understood (to some extent), predicted and used by human beings." It
is true that the most obvious reading of the Bible states that God
created living things in their present form, without evolutionary
precursors (it is not clear to me that Genesis actually distinguishes
between "natural" and "supernatural" causes). Of course, the most
obvious reading of the Bible also indicates that God created the Earth
flat, topped with the solid dome of the sky, to which the sun, moon,
and stars were attached. You deny this, of course, which merely shows
that you do not realize that you yourself interpret the Bible and
decide to take some parts literally and others figuratively, or to
impose tortuous and unlikely readings on the "literal" text. The
theistic evolutionist is arguably more consistent in his handling of
the text than you are.
>
> Again, your deliberate conflation is an attempt to trick undecided
> believers into accepting evolution or you are confused and unaware of
> antonyms and how you are using them.
>
Perhaps, in the spirit of Christ and mindful of motes and beams, you
should address your own confusion before attempting to deal with
mine.
Have you actually read what I actually wrote? I used "design" in
scare quotes, mindful of Dawkins's point (although I should point out
that "Dawkins has said" and "all evolutionists must accept" are not
equivalent statements; evolutionary theory has no Pope, nor even a Dr.
Gene Scott, to lay down dogma for all). You have two arguments here:
one is, "the universe and life are obviously designed," and the other
is "the Bible says that God created directly and supernaturally." I
have two counterarguments: an omnipotent God could have designed the
universe with the ability to produce "design" on its own, and you
already accept many parts of the Bible either figuratively or in
senses that are not obvious to anyone who is not a disciple of Gene
Scott (i.e. 99+% of Christendom and a larger fraction of the rest of
the world).
>
-- [snip of things Ray says don't matter]
>
> But it doesn't really matter: MN is false. It simply dares anyone to
> call its supporters a liar. How about this:
>
How can a methodology be false? It can be inappropriate, or yield
incorrect results; that would make it a bad methodology. But a bad
approach to a problem is still an approach; it is not "false,"
although the results obtained using it might be. But I think you are
trying to critique methodological naturalism (the attempt to find
natural causes for natural phenomena) without even knowing what it is.
>
> methodological supernaturalism: evolution could be true and we are not
> saying that it is not true, only that there is no evidence of it in
> reality.
>
I would have thought that methodological supernaturalism would be a
method of producing and testing scientific hypotheses on the
assumption that the laws of nature were subject to change without
notice. But according to you, methodological supernaturalism is
belligerent ignorance. There is a great deal of evidence for common
descent, for speciation, and for natural selection (i.e. for the
components of evolution) in reality (and where else would evidence be,
anyway?). I don't think you're much helping your own cause.
>
-- [snip]
>
> > Admitting that you have a problem is the first step towards getting
> > help. Let me rephrase: it is common to point out that, e.g.
> > biological features like the inverted retina of the vertebrate eye (as
> > compared to the "verted" retina of the cephalopod eye) are not the way
> > that any known sort of designer would design things;
>
> False.
>
> Comment presupposes that the retina is not optimal: when it is,
> contrary to the lies of Ken Milller and other evolutionists.
>
Please note that you are arguing that one way of putting an eye
together is optimal for tuna, sharks, dolphins, etc, while a different
way of doing so is optimal (or are you arguing that God screwed over
the cephalopods, giving them the suboptimal design?) for octopuses and
squids. Again, you may not realize that this is what you are arguing,
but it is.
>
> > in that respect,
> > the eye does not look designed.
>
> The eye is the epitome of looking designed and it is IC. There is no
> evidence that contradicts this long established fact.
>
Even Behe does not claim that the eye is IC, and in any case Mueller,
before Behe was even born, showed that IC designs could evolve through
mutation and natural selection. There are numerous intermediates
observable in nature between the complexity of the vertebrate or
octopus eye and a simple light-sensitive nerve ending.
>
> > Creationists tell us, when confronted
> > with this argument, that we are not entitled to any assumptions about
> > how God (or the Intelligent Designer) would design an eye.
>
> Because they have accepted the false and fraudulent assertions of
> Darwinists about the eye.
>
Ah, I forgot: only Ray is wise, only Ray knows the truth, only Ray
understands. Well, Ray, and Gene Scott, and Melissa Scott, but no one
else. Only those who have bathed in the wisdom of Dr. Scott have a
clue what they're talking about, no matter how many decades of study
they may have applied to their subjects.
>
-- [snip of rest]
>
Now, you remark in a portion of the post that I snipped, that
meteorology (which I cited to you as another candidate for a science
that excluded God as an explanation) that meteorology does not
actually assert that God is not involved. Yet certainly people have
argued that on behalf of this field. I have several times read
skeptics and atheists who cited the practice in many churches of
prayers for rain (or, in areas threatened by flood, for an end to
rain) that rain is caused by natural forces that are pretty well
understood, and that there is no evidence that God is involved or that
He ever alters natural causes in response to such prayers. And yet,
as I've noted before, God's direct control over the weather is a
larger theme of the Bible than special creation is. So meteorology
logically ought to be an even bigger assault on God's sovereignity and
the Bible's accuracy than evolutionary theory is. Yet you accept
modern meteorology and reject evolutionary theory out of hand. I
suggest that rather than "infallible logic" (to quote one of your
favorite phrases), you base your interpretations of the Bible and
science on a slavish submssion to Gene Scott's rather exagerrated
sense of his own scholarly accomplishments.
-- Steven J.
Rolf
"Ray Martinez" <pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1193700531.9...@22g2000hsm.googlegroups.com...
They don't, but when they do they are not what they are. Brilliant Rayesian
logic.
Just a small question - is Ray's definitions the only valid definitions?
According to my definitions, Ray is only making stupid claims. When he
should be working on his paper. He promised it would be out this year. I
believe we soon will have confirmation that he can't be trusted.
>
> Ray
>
>
Rolf
Yes, reminds me of Harry Potter. Funny how magic works so well in books, but
never in the real world....
[snip]
> Ray
>
>
Ray Martinez
First off: science does take a position on God: evolution excludes
God; creationism includes God; both offer interpretations of the same
database of scientific evidence. Evolution is illegitimate "science"
because of its exclusion and is called Scientism. Creationism owns the
right to be called Science for its inclusion.
Why would anyone accept human evolution when there is no evidence for
it, but much to the contrary? Your acceptance of human evolution is an
Atheist philosophical need since Genesis is not an option.
Also, when I said or implied that God is in control of 'natural
processes' that means two things: that they exist and that they
reflect direct Divine power. Human evolution cannot be a natural
process since it does not exist except by pro-Atheist presupposition,
and the Textual evidence explicitly singles out Adamkind to have been
created from the clay-like redness in God's image - a claim that is
voodoo to evolution and its pro-Atheist presuppositions.
But you already knew that I was a Creationist who rejects human
evolution, which baffles me as to why you would seek such a
"concession"?
> > Your comment also misrepresents me by speaking for me while asserting
> > that I believe things that I do not believe. It is a bad idea to
> > brazenly misrepresent your opponent since it reveals inability to
> > refute what he actually said and rage caused by that fact.
>
> What have I accused you of saying, which you do not believe? Do you
> recant your earlier statement that "evolution means that God is not
> involved in any biological production," or your more recent assertion
> that "God is in direct control of all natural processes?"
Your misrepresentations are when you do not recognize the meaning of
the phrase 'natural processes' and assume a contrary and subjective
one in my behalf.
To the evolutionist the phrase presupposes that the supernatural was
not and is not involved. That is why the antonymic word 'natural'
begins said phrase.
To the creationist the phrase presupposes something reflecting the
direct work of Divine power. In my forth coming paper I am careful to
make these distinctions ad nauseum.
> I merely
> point out that these two statements contradict one another;
Only if you ignore the meaning I intended and insert your own in my
behalf without informing the audience. What you did was pure Dana
Tweedyistic, stop it!
You presupposed human evolution true and then said: "Ray, since you
accept natural processes to be God ordained or controlled, why not
accept human evolution?"
Answer: you already know that I am a Creationist, which makes this
whole issue a sorry charade.
> you may
> logically believe one or the other, but not both. I am trying to
> point out to you the implications of your own statements. Perhaps you
> do not in fact believe these implications; that would show that you
> had not thought through the ideas that rattle about in your head,
> which is your problem, not mine.
>
> Please note that it is not especially relevant whether individual
> evolutionists believe that God exists or is, in fact, in direct
> control of all natural processes. Evolutionary biologists are experts
> on biology and evolution, not on God (whether anyone is an expert on
> God is another matter), and their opinions on whether God is, in fact,
> in control of natural processes, or even exists, is worth, as we say
> here on T.O., as much as the opinion of Lenny Flank's pizza-delivery
> boy.
>
I agree, the opinions of evolutionary theorists or supporters about
God are worthless if not always also predictable.
> > > Or, conversely, if all natural
> > > processes must be under God's direct control, then, again, common
> > > descent through natural selection cannot toss God off His throne any
> > > more than meteorology or developmental biology can.
>
> > But when a evolutionist uses the phrase "natural processes" it
> > objectively means that the supernatural was not involved. 'Natural'
> > and 'Supernatural' are antonyms. You are either confused or like I
> > said: simply attempting to intertwine two words for the purpose of
> > saying and presupposing that God "created" the natural process of
> > evolution. The Bible says God did not create this way, but through
> > direct supernatural power - the exact thing evolution rejects.
>
> When an evolutionist (or other scientist) uses the phrase "natural
> processes," it means "regularities of nature that can be uncovered,
> understood (to some extent), predicted and used by human beings."
It also presupposes that the supernatural was not and is not involved
- SHEESH!
> It
> is true that the most obvious reading of the Bible states that God
> created living things in their present form, without evolutionary
> precursors (it is not clear to me that Genesis actually distinguishes
> between "natural" and "supernatural" causes).
Finally, we have somewhat of an objective admission by you. I might
add, Genesis does say that living things were created by God's power
and evolution says they were not, do you agree?
> Of course, the most
> obvious reading of the Bible also indicates that God created the Earth
> flat, topped with the solid dome of the sky, to which the sun, moon,
> and stars were attached.
It only says these things if you lack a modicum of prose comprehension
skills, not to mention intelligence.
But please tell me: why is it that only Atheists see these ridiculous
things in the Bible?
> You deny this, of course, which merely shows
> that you do not realize that you yourself interpret the Bible and
> decide to take some parts literally and others figuratively, or to
> impose tortuous and unlikely readings on the "literal" text.
Comment presupposes the error of "one or the other" when it is both
(and other literary devices) attempting to convey truth corresponding
to reality.
Do you know how much confusion Darwin started by commencing the
"Origin" with a metaphor and not stating this CLEARLY as an analogy to
how nature operates?
Some persons actually thought that he was not talking about reality.
Of course most of these persons were Creationists who were fucking
stupid. Anyone with any amount of comprehension could instantly tell
that Darwin was comparing intelligent artificial breeding selection to
nature in the context of claiming that nature behaves the same minus
intelligent agent selecting. One could,of course, disagree, but that
assumes one understands his position and view. Instead, many persons
didn't even get what he was saying, but were hung up on his metaphor
and its intent.
The same with the Bible: it is stupid fucking Atheists who do not
understand and who do not want to understand. There will always be
persons who just don't get it for whatever reason no matter how clear
the author was.
> The
> theistic evolutionist is arguably more consistent in his handling of
> the text than you are.
>
TEists are full blooded evolutionists, their handling is no different
than the Atheist.
But your counter-argument forgets that evolution says that design does
not actually exist.
And dogma is something produced by evolutionists, Dr. Scott was a
scholar who produced facts. Ken Miller, for example, is not a real
scholar. He lies and uses his degree for immunity. Or he is horribly
confused since evolution sides with Atheism every step of the way.
Since Miller openly parades Theism to be compatible with evolution, he
is horribly confused, best explained by truths recorded in the Bible
that I have argued many times. Miller could care less about the
objective claims of the Bible: anyone who says that the Bible and
evolution are compatible is a brazen liar or horribly confused. And
Miller says that the Bible and evolution are compatible. Again, Miller
is an evolutionist, which explains everything.
> -- [snip of things Ray says don't matter]
>
> > But it doesn't really matter: MN is false. It simply dares anyone to
> > call its supporters a liar. How about this:
>
> How can a methodology be false?
Its not a methodology. It's a lying assertion in this case. It asks
everyone to believe that evolutionists are not saying anything about
God while they use all of their explanations of evidence to say that
God is not seen in reality.
> It can be inappropriate, or yield
> incorrect results; that would make it a bad methodology. But a bad
> approach to a problem is still an approach; it is not "false,"
> although the results obtained using it might be. But I think you are
> trying to critique methodological naturalism (the attempt to find
> natural causes for natural phenomena) without even knowing what it is.
>
> > methodological supernaturalism: evolution could be true and we are not
> > saying that it is not true, only that there is no evidence of it in
> > reality.
>
> I would have thought that methodological supernaturalism would be a
> method of producing and testing scientific hypotheses on the
> assumption that the laws of nature were subject to change without
> notice. But according to you, methodological supernaturalism is
> belligerent ignorance. There is a great deal of evidence for common
> descent, for speciation, and for natural selection (i.e. for the
> components of evolution) in reality (and where else would evidence be,
> anyway?). I don't think you're much helping your own cause.
>
You didn't get my drift - just forget it for now.
>
>
>
>
> -- [snip]
>
> > > Admitting that you have a problem is the first step towards getting
> > > help. Let me rephrase: it is common to point out that, e.g.
> > > biological features like the inverted retina of the vertebrate eye (as
> > > compared to the "verted" retina of the cephalopod eye) are not
>
Greg Guarino
<pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>Your comments simply presuppose evolution and human evolution to be
>true; and they presuppose that if God exists then He "created" through
>evolution and human evolution.
OK so far. We understand that you don't believe this is how life arose
on Earth. But you seem to think that this scenario is precluded by
evolutionary theory. Could take us through the logical chain you have
in mind?
>The objective meaning of evolution and
>human evolution says God does not exist, if true.
The clearly stated meaning of evolutionary theory is that life on
Earth descended and diversified from a common ancestor through natural
processes. It does not even address how the first life got started.
But I'm sure that most biologists expect that natural abiogenesis,
although separate from evolution, also occurred on Earth.
But how does any of that preclude God from existence? Could not God,
even the Christian God you believe in, have used evolutionary
processes if it had suited his fancy? Does that same God have the
knowledge and power to create a universe in which complexity
(including stars, planets and life) would arise through the natural
laws that He installed in the system? We understand that you believe
that the Bible says that that is not what God DID do, but couldn't he
have if he had wanted to?
There isn't anything about evolutionary ideas that suggests how the
universe got started and why it is the way it is. It just says that
the laws of nature HOWEVER THEY CAME TO BE, can explain the diversity
of life on Earth.
>This is why all
>Atheists rabidly support evolution. Your comments seek to cover the
>objective meaning of evolution in order to trick undecided believers
>into accepting evolution.
This forum is pretty much the only place I discuss evolution or
religion. But there's no "trick" involved. I accept that evolution has
happened. I don't need any tricks to argue what I believe to be true.
>
>Your comment also misrepresents me by speaking for me while asserting
>that I believe things that I do not believe. It is a bad idea to
>brazenly misrepresent your opponent since it reveals inability to
>refute what he actually said and rage caused by that fact.
>> Or, conversely, if all natural
>> processes must be under God's direct control, then, again, common
>> descent through natural selection cannot toss God off His throne any
>> more than meteorology or developmental biology can.
>>
>
>But when a evolutionist uses the phrase "natural processes" it
>objectively means that the supernatural was not involved. 'Natural'
>and 'Supernatural' are antonyms.
I have natural flowers and artificial flowers in my house. (well, I
don't actually have either, but let's proceed as if I did). Is that a
contradiction?
My Toyota produces power using chemical and physical processes and
does not seem to require supernatural assistance to make it start (my
old Buick needed the odd incantation, though) Does that mean that God
could not have had a hand in the natural laws that make combustion
possible?
>You are either confused or like I
>said: simply attempting to intertwine two words for the purpose of
>saying and presupposing that God "created" the natural process of
>evolution.
What he is saying is that nothing about evolution as we understand it
precludes that possibility.
>The Bible says God did not create this way, but through
>direct supernatural power
> the exact thing evolution rejects.
Evolution does reject that God created the individual species the way
they are. It does not "reject" the idea that God might have created
the universe to allow evolution to occur. How could it?
>Again, your deliberate conflation is an attempt to trick undecided
>believers into accepting evolution or you are confused and unaware of
>antonyms and how you are using them.
Antonyms express opposite concepts. They don't necessarily preclude
each other from existence. I have a shirt on with white and black
stripes. (well, I don't actually, but , you know)
(big snip)
>According to the link you posted MN was not coined until the 20th
>century. You would have to show that Buridan meant what the modern
>concept meant and not put meanings in his mouth concerning words or
>concepts that did not carry those meanings when he lived.
>
>But it doesn't really matter: MN is false.
Methodological naturalism is essentially the idea that we can only
study observable phenomena, and is the linchpin on which effective
science rests. But beyond that, creationists have a problem, because
if God created the world we live in, he quite evidently intended for
it to be one in which natural causes could be found for all the
phenomena we observe. That logical, decipherable quality of the world
(at least at our macro, non-quantum scale) is demonstrated over and
over again.
God could have done otherwise, could he not? Imagine a world in which
rain, crop yields, disease and the like were controlled by the whim of
various spirits and demigods; not regular, not predictable, not
controlled by discernable laws. But that is not what we find. If God
exists, then a rational world must have been his intent.
<bigger snip>
Greg Guarino
Richard Clayton
> First off: science does take a position on God: evolution excludes
> God
This is a lie. Evolution no more excludes God than gravity excludes
God.
> creationism includes God
Creationism is not science. Feel free to prove me wrong by posting the
scientific theory of creationism, as well as how it can be tested.
You've run from this challenge several times before.
> both offer interpretations of the same
> database of scientific evidence. Evolution is illegitimate "science"
> because of its exclusion and is called Scientism. Creationism owns the
> right to be called Science for its inclusion.
>
> Why would anyone accept human evolution when there is no evidence for
> it, but much to the contrary?
If you're so sure the evidence is in your favor, why do you keep
running away from discussions of the evidence? You fled from me in a
formal debate, and you've been running away from Dana Tweedy's
challenge for a year now.
[rest snipped]
Cj
> I might add that credentialed members like John Harshman and John
> Wilkins, if they deny that evolution sought to refute creationism,
> then I will gladly portray them against their peers as liars in the
> near future. Their alleged degrees will be worthless if they are not
> already. But I do know that these persons are responsible for the
> ignorance of this Group and its belief that evolution was not
> specifically developed to oppose God and Creationism.
>
Evolution is a fact, and the name of a theory about life on this planet. It
has nothing to do with God. Evolution was not developed to oppose
creationism and, in fact, says nothing about creationism or the
supernatural. In your paranoid pseudocommunity you have chosen to label
some people as liars without any evidence other than your psychotic
imaginations. I suggest that you consult a psychiatrist before you become
dangerous to those around you.
Cj
Dana Tweedy
snip
>> I do accept that humans evolved and share common ancestors with other
>> species (or, if that is insufficiently blunt for you, that some of our
>> ancestors were nonhuman apes, and earlier ancestors were monkeys, and
>> far earlier, some of our ancestors were fish). But my comments in the
>> paragraph above do not presuppose this; they presuppose, rather, that
>> *if* human evolution occurred, then it is a natural process (Behe
>> would disagree, I suppose, but his position ends up at the conclusion
>> of my argument all the faster for that). You have said that ALL
>> natural processes are under the direct control of God. No scientific
>> theory takes a position one way or another on that question; it is a
>> theological rather than a scientific point. Therefore, you ought to
>> accept that if human evolution occurred, then God was directly in
>> charge of it.
>>
>
> First off: science does take a position on God: evolution excludes
> God;
No more than meterology, or chemistry does.
> creationism includes God; both offer interpretations of the same
> database of scientific evidence.
Well, no. Creationism excludes any evidence that contradicts it's
claims. Creationists do not interpret the same evidence as real
scientists do. They only use the evidence they think supports their
beliefs, and they discard anything that doesn't.
> Evolution is illegitimate "science"
> because of its exclusion and is called Scientism.
All legitimate science excludes appeal to the supernatural. No one
calls evolution 'Scientism' except for a few die hard creationists.
> Creationism owns the
> right to be called Science for its inclusion.
Actually, the main reason creationism is not science is that it appeals
to a supernatural being to explain natural occurrences. That makes it
not science.
>
> Why would anyone accept human evolution when there is no evidence for
> it, but much to the contrary?
They wouldn't. There is plenty of evidence for human evolution, and
none to the contrary.
> Your acceptance of human evolution is an
> Atheist philosophical need since Genesis is not an option.
Genesis is not a scientific option at all, it's a religious belief.
If there were any evidence to support a literal reading of Genesis, then
you might have some reason to claim "atheist philosophic need", but
there simply is not.
>
> Also, when I said or implied that God is in control of 'natural
> processes' that means two things: that they exist and that they
> reflect direct Divine power.
Evolution does exist, so, if you are correct, it does reflect direct
divine power.
> Human evolution cannot be a natural
> process since it does not exist except by pro-Atheist presupposition,
Ray, human evolution does exist, and there is no need for a "pro
atheist" anything. You keep denying the evidence, and running away
from it.
> and the Textual evidence explicitly singles out Adamkind to have been
> created from the clay-like redness in God's image - a claim that is
> voodoo to evolution and its pro-Atheist presuppositions.
Where does the Bible use the term "Adamkind"? Since God is stated, in
the Bible to be a spirit, how can he have a physical image? And why
can't the creation story of Adam's creation be seen as a metaphor for
how God created using natural processes?
>
> But you already knew that I was a Creationist who rejects human
> evolution,
For no logical reason.
> which baffles me as to why you would seek such a
> "concession"?
Maybe Steven is not asking for a "confession", but simply logical
consistency from you.
>
>
>>> Your comment also misrepresents me by speaking for me while asserting
>>> that I believe things that I do not believe. It is a bad idea to
>>> brazenly misrepresent your opponent since it reveals inability to
>>> refute what he actually said and rage caused by that fact.
>> What have I accused you of saying, which you do not believe? Do you
>> recant your earlier statement that "evolution means that God is not
>> involved in any biological production," or your more recent assertion
>> that "God is in direct control of all natural processes?"
>
> Your misrepresentations are when you do not recognize the meaning of
> the phrase 'natural processes' and assume a contrary and subjective
> one in my behalf.
Ah, so you fault Steven for not knowing your own private definitions?
>
> To the evolutionist the phrase presupposes that the supernatural was
> not and is not involved.
Actually, it means there is no way to tell if the supernatural was
involved.
> That is why the antonymic word 'natural'
> begins said phrase.
Again, perhaps you shouldn't use your own private definitions in public
discourse.
>
> To the creationist the phrase presupposes something reflecting the
> direct work of Divine power.
Which, by your claim, wouldn't be natural.
> In my forth coming paper I am careful to
> make these distinctions ad nauseum.
But will you use words as they are commonly understood, or use your own
private meanings?
>
>> I merely
>> point out that these two statements contradict one another;
>
> Only if you ignore the meaning I intended and insert your own in my
> behalf without informing the audience. What you did was pure Dana
> Tweedyistic, stop it!
Wow, I get a word made up for myself.. Cool. Ray, if you use your own
private meanings, you need to let others know. No one will understand
you if you don't tell people what you mean.
>
> You presupposed human evolution true
human evolution is true. No "presupposition" is needed. You are the
one who presuming that evolution is false, despite the wealth of evidence.
> and then said: "Ray, since you
> accept natural processes to be God ordained or controlled, why not
> accept human evolution?"
Why not Ray? The evidence shows that human evolution is true. You
have been entirely unable to even address that evidence without running
away in terror.
>
> Answer: you already know that I am a Creationist, which makes this
> whole issue a sorry charade.
Ray, you are a "Creationist" because you ignore the evidence, and have
some odd fascination with Gene Scott. Neither are logical reasons to
hold that position.
>
>> you may
>> logically believe one or the other, but not both. I am trying to
>> point out to you the implications of your own statements. Perhaps you
>> do not in fact believe these implications; that would show that you
>> had not thought through the ideas that rattle about in your head,
>> which is your problem, not mine.
>>
>> Please note that it is not especially relevant whether individual
>> evolutionists believe that God exists or is, in fact, in direct
>> control of all natural processes. Evolutionary biologists are experts
>> on biology and evolution, not on God (whether anyone is an expert on
>> God is another matter), and their opinions on whether God is, in fact,
>> in control of natural processes, or even exists, is worth, as we say
>> here on T.O., as much as the opinion of Lenny Flank's pizza-delivery
>> boy.
>>
>
> I agree, the opinions of evolutionary theorists or supporters about
> God are worthless if not always also predictable.
Why would they be worthless, even if they were predictable?
>
>
>>>> Or, conversely, if all natural
>>>> processes must be under God's direct control, then, again, common
>>>> descent through natural selection cannot toss God off His throne any
>>>> more than meteorology or developmental biology can.
>>> But when a evolutionist uses the phrase "natural processes" it
>>> objectively means that the supernatural was not involved. 'Natural'
>>> and 'Supernatural' are antonyms. You are either confused or like I
>>> said: simply attempting to intertwine two words for the purpose of
>>> saying and presupposing that God "created" the natural process of
>>> evolution. The Bible says God did not create this way, but through
>>> direct supernatural power - the exact thing evolution rejects.
>> When an evolutionist (or other scientist) uses the phrase "natural
>> processes," it means "regularities of nature that can be uncovered,
>> understood (to some extent), predicted and used by human beings."
>
> It also presupposes that the supernatural was not and is not involved
> - SHEESH!
No, it merely points out that the supernatural is beyond the ability of
science to detect.
>
>> It
>> is true that the most obvious reading of the Bible states that God
>> created living things in their present form, without evolutionary
>> precursors (it is not clear to me that Genesis actually distinguishes
>> between "natural" and "supernatural" causes).
>
> Finally, we have somewhat of an objective admission by you. I might
> add, Genesis does say that living things were created by God's power
> and evolution says they were not, do you agree?
I'd disagree, as evolution doesn't say anything about God.
>
>> Of course, the most
>> obvious reading of the Bible also indicates that God created the Earth
>> flat, topped with the solid dome of the sky, to which the sun, moon,
>> and stars were attached.
>
> It only says these things if you lack a modicum of prose comprehension
> skills, not to mention intelligence.
Or, perhaps you simply are missing the point.
>
> But please tell me: why is it that only Atheists see these ridiculous
> things in the Bible?
It's not only atheists, but most people who have studied the Bible. Of
course you assert that anyone who doesn't agree with you, is an atheist.
Rather a neat bit of circularity.
>
>> You deny this, of course, which merely shows
>> that you do not realize that you yourself interpret the Bible and
>> decide to take some parts literally and others figuratively, or to
>> impose tortuous and unlikely readings on the "literal" text.
>
> Comment presupposes the error of "one or the other" when it is both
> (and other literary devices) attempting to convey truth corresponding
> to reality.
Ray, another fallacy is the "false dichotomy". You use that quite
often.
>
> Do you know how much confusion Darwin started by commencing the
> "Origin" with a metaphor and not stating this CLEARLY as an analogy to
> how nature operates?
It appears you don't understand what Darwin was talking about either.
>
> Some persons actually thought that he was not talking about reality.
> Of course most of these persons were Creationists who were fucking
> stupid.
Do you have any evidence for this assertion?
> Anyone with any amount of comprehension could instantly tell
> that Darwin was comparing intelligent artificial breeding selection to
> nature in the context of claiming that nature behaves the same minus
> intelligent agent selecting.
Yes, and he gave plenty of evidence to support his statements.
> One could,of course, disagree, but that
> assumes one understands his position and view. Instead, many persons
> didn't even get what he was saying, but were hung up on his metaphor
> and its intent.
What do you think his "metaphor" was?
>
> The same with the Bible: it is stupid fucking Atheists who do not
> understand and who do not want to understand.
Actually, Ray, the atheists don't believe the Bible is God's word.
They don't treat the Bible as something to be misunderstood, or
rejected. They simply don't pay attention to it.
> There will always be
> persons who just don't get it for whatever reason no matter how clear
> the author was.
Maybe you are the one who isn't getting it.
>
>> The
>> theistic evolutionist is arguably more consistent in his handling of
>> the text than you are.
>>
>
> TEists are full blooded evolutionists, their handling is no different
> than the Atheist.
Except that theistic evolutionists, like myself, believe in God. What
exactly is a "full blooded evolutionist" anyway? Evolution is accepted
because of the evidence, not because of any need to believe, or
religious dogma.
>
>
>>> Again, your deliberate conflation is an attempt to trick undecided
>>> believers into accepting evolution or you are confused and unaware of
>>> antonyms and how you are using them.
>> Perhaps, in the spirit of Christ and mindful of motes and beams, you
>> should address your own confusion before attempting to deal with
>> mine.
No response, Ray?
snip
>> Have you actually read what I actually wrote? I used "design" in
>> scare quotes, mindful of Dawkins's point (although I should point out
>> that "Dawkins has said" and "all evolutionists must accept" are not
>> equivalent statements; evolutionary theory has no Pope, nor even a Dr.
>> Gene Scott, to lay down dogma for all). You have two arguments here:
>> one is, "the universe and life are obviously designed," and the other
>> is "the Bible says that God created directly and supernaturally." I
>> have two counterarguments: an omnipotent God could have designed the
>> universe with the ability to produce "design" on its own, and you
>> already accept many parts of the Bible either figuratively or in
>> senses that are not obvious to anyone who is not a disciple of Gene
>> Scott (i.e. 99+% of Christendom and a larger fraction of the rest of
>> the world).
>>
>
> But your counter-argument forgets that evolution says that design does
> not actually exist.
Actually, evolution doesn't say anything about "design" in the sense you
appear to be using it.
>
> And dogma is something produced by evolutionists,
How, exactly? What "dogma" do "evolutionists" produce?
> Dr. Scott was a
> scholar who produced facts.
Well, no, he was a televangelist who made a lot of statements. He
didn't produce any "facts" to back up his claims.
> Ken Miller, for example, is not a real
> scholar.
Dr. Miller is more of a "real" scholar than Gene Scott. Dr. Miller has
published scientific articles, written books, and actually produced good
scientific work. Gene Scott... not so much.
> He lies and uses his degree for immunity.
What lies are you accusing Dr. Miller of telling? Where do you get the
idea he uses his 'degree for immunity'?
> Or he is horribly
> confused since evolution sides with Atheism every step of the way.
Ray, since evolution does not "side with atheism", it appears that you
are the one confused. In any case, scientific matters are not decided
by appeals to authority. Evolution is a scientific theory that stands
on the evidence. The authority of Dr. Miller, or any other
evolutionary scientist is not the basis of this science.
> Since Miller openly parades Theism to be compatible with evolution, he
> is horribly confused,
Or, it's you who is confused. Since you seem to ignore the evidence,
and hold onto illogical and contradictory statements, it appears that
you are the one confused.
> best explained by truths recorded in the Bible
> that I have argued many times.
Your argument does not get better for repeating it, despite being shot
down every time.
> Miller could care less about the
> objective claims of the Bible:
What evidence do you have for this statement? Do you claim now to
read minds?
> anyone who says that the Bible and
> evolution are compatible is a brazen liar or horribly confused.
Or, maybe you are wrong about this. Since Dr. Miller is not lying, and
does not appear to be confused, it would seem that you are the one
confused.
> And
> Miller says that the Bible and evolution are compatible. Again, Miller
> is an evolutionist, which explains everything.
But that doesn't make his statement wrong. Miller is not alone in
accepting that the Bible and evolution are compatible. Thousands of
Christian leaders agree with Miller, including the Pope.
>
>
>> -- [snip of things Ray says don't matter]
>>
>>> But it doesn't really matter: MN is false. It simply dares anyone to
>>> call its supporters a liar. How about this:
>> How can a methodology be false?
>
> Its not a methodology.
That's why it's called "methodological" naturalism.
> It's a lying assertion in this case.
As Steven pointed out, how can it be "lying"? Methodological
naturalism is the method of accepting only natural causes for natural
events. How can that possibly be a lie?
> It asks
> everyone to believe that evolutionists are not saying anything about
> God while they use all of their explanations of evidence to say that
> God is not seen in reality.
Ray, it's not just "evolutionists" who use methodological naturalism,
and the claim that God is "seen in reality" is your own opinion, not
shared by the rest of the world.
>
>
>> It can be inappropriate, or yield
>> incorrect results; that would make it a bad methodology. But a bad
>> approach to a problem is still an approach; it is not "false,"
>> although the results obtained using it might be. But I think you are
>> trying to critique methodological naturalism (the attempt to find
>> natural causes for natural phenomena) without even knowing what it is.
>>
>>> methodological supernaturalism: evolution could be true and we are not
>>> saying that it is not true, only that there is no evidence of it in
>>> reality.
>> I would have thought that methodological supernaturalism would be a
>> method of producing and testing scientific hypotheses on the
>> assumption that the laws of nature were subject to change without
>> notice. But according to you, methodological supernaturalism is
>> belligerent ignorance. There is a great deal of evidence for common
>> descent, for speciation, and for natural selection (i.e. for the
>> components of evolution) in reality (and where else would evidence be,
>> anyway?). I don't think you're much helping your own cause.
>>
>
> You didn't get my drift - just forget it for now.
Maybe your "drift" was off course. How exactly would "methodological
supernaturalism" work? If you can appeal to the supernatural to
explain anything, you explain nothing. Methodological naturalism at
least has the advantage of allowing for testing of ideas. How do you
test a supernatural being?
DJT
Tom McDonald
> It is a bad idea to
> brazenly misrepresent your opponent since it reveals inability to
> refute what he actually said and rage caused by that fact.
Out of the mouth of Ray.
One can only wonder how Ray can say this sort of thing, and at the
same time "brazenly misrepresent[s]" his "opponent[s]".
And, on current evidence, Ray appears poised to use massive
misrepresentations in his great white hopeless.
So can we assume that his paper is going to be inability to refute,
and full of rage?
<snip>
Ray Martinez
> "Ray Martinez" <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote
>
> > I might add that credentialed members like John Harshman and John
> > Wilkins, if they deny that evolution sought to refute creationism,
> > then I will gladly portray them against their peers as liars in the
> > near future. Their alleged degrees will be worthless if they are not
> > already. But I do know that these persons are responsible for the
> > ignorance of this Group and its belief that evolution was not
> > specifically developed to oppose God and Creationism.
>
> Evolution is a fact, and the name of a theory about life on this planet. It
> has nothing to do with God.
Unbelievable ignorance. Evolution was advocated and developed by
persons who believe that God does not exist.
> Evolution was not developed to oppose
> creationism
Transmutation was deliberately offered as refuting Creationism which
was called "Natural Theology" in 19th century England. This is a round
earth fact that no one disputes. You are ignorant and uneducated. I
cannot find even one scholar who has ever denied, all of them say it
explicitly in their writings while presupposing it too. The previous
sentence said "all."
Creationism was the reigning scientific theory before 1850-1859. You
are simply denying history out of unquenchable Atheist rage toward God
and the previous fact. Before 1850, 99 percent of all persons
practicing science were Paleyan special creationists and designists.
Again, I could cite 20 big name evolution historians but I won't
because I want many posts in this NG showing how detached the
evolutionists are from basic uncontested history.
Everyone knows evolution toppled creationism in the 19th century due
to Darwin. Most of the creationist scientists converted to evolution.
You are just intentionally describing the history in a way that denies
the reign of Creationism by word play and evasion for the reason just
stated. It shows how dishonest evolutionists are and their willingness
to lie to ones face, but I have been a gentleman and given you a way
out: ignorance.
> and, in fact, says nothing about creationism or the
> supernatural. In your paranoid pseudocommunity you have chosen to label
> some people as liars without any evidence other than your psychotic
> imaginations. I suggest that you consult a psychiatrist before you become
> dangerous to those around you.
> Cj
Brazen ignorance or lies, we cannot know for certain.
Richard Dawkins:
"For Darwin, any evolution that had to be helped over the jumps by God
was no evolution at all. It made a nonsense of the ***central point***
of evolution" (1986:249; emphasis added). I might add: consider the
suppositions incorporated in the previous quote by Dawkins.
On page 4 (or the early single digit pages of the same book, surely
you know the name of the book that Dawkins wrote in 1986 without
having to be told, don't you?) Dawkins quotes Reverend Paley
extensively and then says natural selection refuted his argument.
Paley's argument was that God is the Designer. "Origin of Species" was
a reply to Paley as was Dawkins 1986. I could cite another 20
evolution historians.
This is just a drop in the bucket - about as much as your Stone Age
brain can handle.
Ray
Dana Tweedy
> On Oct 31, 2:40 pm, "Cj" <cw...@gwi.net> wrote:
>> "Ray Martinez" <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote
>>
>>> I might add that credentialed members like John Harshman and John
>>> Wilkins, if they deny that evolution sought to refute creationism,
>>> then I will gladly portray them against their peers as liars in the
>>> near future. Their alleged degrees will be worthless if they are not
>>> already. But I do know that these persons are responsible for the
>>> ignorance of this Group and its belief that evolution was not
>>> specifically developed to oppose God and Creationism.
>> Evolution is a fact, and the name of a theory about life on this planet. It
>> has nothing to do with God.
>
> Unbelievable ignorance. Evolution was advocated and developed by
> persons who believe that God does not exist.
Yes, Ray, your statement does betray unbelievable ignorance, but it's
what we've come to expect from you. Evolution was developed by
scientists, some who believed in God, some who did not. The beliefs of
the persons involved in the science are largely irrelevant.
>
>> Evolution was not developed to oppose
>> creationism
>
> Transmutation was deliberately offered as refuting Creationism which
> was called "Natural Theology" in 19th century England.
No, the theory of evolution was offered to explain the evidence. The
idea of a literal reading of Genesis being scientific was already dead,
or nearly so before Darwin was born.
> This is a round
> earth fact that no one disputes.
Actually, Ray, as you know, many people dispute this, because it's
simply not true.
> You are ignorant and uneducated.
Then why is it you are the one who is wrong?
> I
> cannot find even one scholar who has ever denied, all of them say it
> explicitly in their writings while presupposing it too. The previous
> sentence said "all."
So, provide one "scholar" who states that Evolution was developed
specifically to refute the Bible. Give a citation to ONE of these
"scholars".
>
> Creationism was the reigning scientific theory before 1850-1859.
Creationism was never a scientific theory. It was always a religious
belief.
> You
> are simply denying history out of unquenchable Atheist rage toward God
> and the previous fact.
Why would you assume that someone opposing your twisted view of history
is fueled by "rage toward God"? And why would an atheist have
"unquenchable rage" toward something he does not believe exists?
> Before 1850, 99 percent of all persons
> practicing science were Paleyan special creationists and designists.
Support for this assertion, please?
> Again, I could cite 20 big name evolution historians but I won't
> because I want many posts in this NG showing how detached the
> evolutionists are from basic uncontested history.
You won't because you can't. I doubt you'd be able to find even one
"evolution historian" who claims that figure, and that they were
"Paleyan special creationists and designists".
>
> Everyone knows evolution toppled creationism in the 19th century due
> to Darwin.
What everyone knows is that Evolution was accepted as a scientific
theory because of the evidence. Darwin provided a working scientific
theory that explained the evidence much better than any previous
concept. If Darwin had not lived, it would have been some other
scientist (most likely Wallace) who would have gotten the credit.
> Most of the creationist scientists converted to evolution.
The scientists of the time accepted the scientific theory of evolution,
due to the evidence. They had no scientific theory before then that
explained the evidence.
> You are just intentionally describing the history in a way that denies
> the reign of Creationism by word play and evasion for the reason just
> stated.
There was no "reign" of Creationism. Modern day Creationism did not
exist at the time, and the beliefs of most of the scientists of the 19th
century would hardly be recognized as "creationism" in the modern sense.
> It shows how dishonest evolutionists are and their willingness
> to lie to ones face, but I have been a gentleman and given you a way
> out: ignorance.
Why not take the most reasonable "way out". Point out that Ray is
wrong.
>
>> and, in fact, says nothing about creationism or the
>> supernatural. In your paranoid pseudocommunity you have chosen to label
>> some people as liars without any evidence other than your psychotic
>> imaginations. I suggest that you consult a psychiatrist before you become
>> dangerous to those around you.
>> Cj
>
> Brazen ignorance or lies, we cannot know for certain.
We do know for certain that Ray's claims are wrong.
>
> Richard Dawkins:
>
> "For Darwin, any evolution that had to be helped over the jumps by God
> was no evolution at all. It made a nonsense of the ***central point***
> of evolution" (1986:249; emphasis added). I might add: consider the
> suppositions incorporated in the previous quote by Dawkins.
The "suppositions" that Dawkins has is that evidence matters. What
Dawkins is saying is that Darwin didn't subscribe to the "god of the
gaps" idea.
>
> On page 4 (or the early single digit pages of the same book, surely
> you know the name of the book that Dawkins wrote in 1986 without
> having to be told, don't you?)
Why not tell it, Ray?
> Dawkins quotes Reverend Paley
> extensively and then says natural selection refuted his argument.
It was the evidence that refuted Paley. Darwin was writing to explain
the evidence, not to refute Paley.
>
> Paley's argument was that God is the Designer.
Which Hume dealt with even before Paley wrote.
>"Origin of Species" was
> a reply to Paley as was Dawkins 1986.
No, Origin of Species was a explanation of the evidence that life has
evolved. Dawkins may have been talking about Paley, but Darwin wasn't.
> I could cite another 20
> evolution historians.
This citation doesn't support your claim.
>
> This is just a drop in the bucket - about as much as your Stone Age
> brain can handle.
Which simply means Ray has nothing to offer.
DJT
Greg Guarino
<pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>On Oct 31, 2:40 pm, "Cj" <cw...@gwi.net> wrote:
>> "Ray Martinez" <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote
>>
>> > I might add that credentialed members like John Harshman and John
>> > Wilkins, if they deny that evolution sought to refute creationism,
>> > then I will gladly portray them against their peers as liars in the
>> > near future. Their alleged degrees will be worthless if they are not
>> > already. But I do know that these persons are responsible for the
>> > ignorance of this Group and its belief that evolution was not
>> > specifically developed to oppose God and Creationism.
>>
>> Evolution is a fact, and the name of a theory about life on this planet. It
>> has nothing to do with God.
>Unbelievable ignorance. Evolution was advocated and developed by
>persons who believe that God does not exist.
Even if true,, it doesn't follow that the theory must preclude the
existence of God. Theories transcend their authors.
>> Evolution was not developed to oppose
>> creationism
>Transmutation was deliberately offered as refuting Creationism which
>was called "Natural Theology" in 19th century England. This is a round
>earth fact that no one disputes. You are ignorant and uneducated. I
>cannot find even one scholar who has ever denied, all of them say it
>explicitly in their writings while presupposing it too. The previous
>sentence said "all."
>
>Creationism was the reigning scientific theory before 1850-1859. You
>are simply denying history out of unquenchable Atheist rage toward God
>and the previous fact. Before 1850, 99 percent of all persons
>practicing science were Paleyan special creationists and designists.
>Again, I could cite 20 big name evolution historians but I won't
>because I want many posts in this NG showing how detached the
>evolutionists are from basic uncontested history.
Again, logic please. Evolutionary ideas do indeed refute what is
usually meant by creationism. But that does not demonstrate, or even
suggest,a preordained goal of "opposing creationism" rather than
"following the evidence".
I agree that evolution does indeed "say something" about traditional
creationism. It says that that variety of creationism is incorrect.
Buit creationism does not equal God, at least not for everyone, and
certainly not by any necessity of logic..
Evolution does not refute the existence of God, but if He exists, He
must be the creator of THIS universe, the way we find it. And what we
find, at least on our planet, is that life diversified from a common
ancestor through natural processes. Some people find in that history a
testament to the elegance and power of God. Others assert that such
natural processes show any conception of God to be unnecessary.
Those differing opinions, and their myriad cousins around the globe,
are real and can't be reduced to Christian, Atheist and Dupe.
Greg Guarino
Steven J.
> On Oct 31, 12:50 am, "Steven J." <steve...@altavista.com> wrote:
>
>
> > I do accept that humans evolved and share common ancestors with other
> > species (or, if that is insufficiently blunt for you, that some of our
> > ancestors were nonhuman apes, and earlier ancestors were monkeys, and
> > far earlier, some of our ancestors were fish). But my comments in the
> > paragraph above do not presuppose this; they presuppose, rather, that
> > *if* human evolution occurred, then it is a natural process (Behe
> > would disagree, I suppose, but his position ends up at the conclusion
> > of my argument all the faster for that). You have said that ALL
> > natural processes are under the direct control of God. No scientific
> > theory takes a position one way or another on that question; it is a
> > theological rather than a scientific point. Therefore, you ought to
> > accept that if human evolution occurred, then God was directly in
> > charge of it.
>
> First off: science does take a position on God: evolution excludes
> God; creationism includes God; both offer interpretations of the same
> database of scientific evidence. Evolution is illegitimate "science"
> because of its exclusion and is called Scientism. Creationism owns the
> right to be called Science for its inclusion.
>
ancestors with nonhumans, or the possibility that their interpretation
of the Bible happens not to correspond to reality. Evolutionary
theory does not exclude God. If God is a natural phenomenon (as, say,
human designers are natural phenomena), then provide us with a theory
of how God creates, and evidence supporting it, and evolutionists will
accomodate their theories to this. If God is supernatural, beyond
human understanding or testing, then science can say nothing about Him
anyway, so it makes little sense to try to incorporate Him into a
theory.
I reject your assertion that "both [creationism and evolutionary
theory] offer interpretations of the same database of scientific
evidence." To the extent that creationists actually deal with the
evidence, they spend a lot of time arguing that of course God could
have made, e.g. dinosaurs with feathers, or ape-men without souls, or
whatever; this is not an interpretation of the evidence but an attempt
to argue that the evidence doesn't really matter. Of course, often
creationists simply misrepresent or ignore the evidence, which even
more obviously is not an interpretation of the evidence. You, for
example, simply deal with all fossil evidence for human-ape
transitionals by asserting that the discoverers are racists; this is
not an interpretation of the evidence, but an excuse for not looking
at it.
>
> Why would anyone accept human evolution when there is no evidence for
> it, but much to the contrary? Your acceptance of human evolution is an
> Atheist philosophical need since Genesis is not an option.
>
I do not know why anyone would accept human evolution if there were no
evidence for it; there do not seem to have been any such people before
evidence for evolution (biogeography, faunal succession in the fossil
record, an appreciation of the nested hierarchy of life) began to
accumulate. Atheists have no "philosophical need" for common descent;
some sort of Lamarckian scheme for separate origins and evolution
would serve, as would the Aristotelian notion that humans and other
species had always existed. There is, of course, a great deal of
evidence for human evolution, from shared pseudogenes and endogenous
retroviruses in humans and other primates, to the fact that the
greatest degree of human genetic diversity is found on the same
continent where the most humanlike apes are found, to the existence of
transitional fossil hominids that straddle any dividing line you might
wish to draw between "fully-formed humans" and nonhuman apes.
>
> Also, when I said or implied that God is in control of 'natural
> processes' that means two things: that they exist and that they
> reflect direct Divine power. Human evolution cannot be a natural
> process since it does not exist except by pro-Atheist presupposition,
> and the Textual evidence explicitly singles out Adamkind to have been
> created from the clay-like redness in God's image - a claim that is
> voodoo to evolution and its pro-Atheist presuppositions.
>
Ray, unless you wish to claim that you already know all the laws of
nature and all the ways in which they can operate together (i.e.
unless you claim to know more than all scientists alive put together),
you cannot know all the natural processes that exist or all the ones
that don't exist. Therefore, logically, either you are claiming that
God controls only the natural processes that you admit exist, or else
you are claiming that God controls all natural processes, whether you
know about them, or acknowledge them or not. Your insistence that
evolution cannot exist does not make it not exist, and therefore can
have no bearing on whether God is in control of evolution, or whether
evolution is a natural process.
>
> But you already knew that I was a Creationist who rejects human
> evolution, which baffles me as to why you would seek such a
> "concession"?
>
I'm trying to get you to think more clearly.
>
> > > Your comment also misrepresents me by speaking for me while asserting
> > > that I believe things that I do not believe. It is a bad idea to
> > > brazenly misrepresent your opponent since it reveals inability to
> > > refute what he actually said and rage caused by that fact.
>
> > What have I accused you of saying, which you do not believe? Do you
> > recant your earlier statement that "evolution means that God is not
> > involved in any biological production," or your more recent assertion
> > that "God is in direct control of all natural processes?"
>
> Your misrepresentations are when you do not recognize the meaning of
> the phrase 'natural processes' and assume a contrary and subjective
> one in my behalf.
>
In other words, as Dana Tweedy as already noted, I failed to realize
that you attach your own special definitions to words, and then expect
the rest of the world to use them. _Mea culpa, mea maxima culpa_.
>
> To the evolutionist the phrase presupposes that the supernatural was
> not and is not involved. That is why the antonymic word 'natural'
> begins said phrase.
>
In the very common phrase "natural selection," the word "natural"
means, in most cases, "not artificial" or "not done by humans."
Compare, e.g. such usages as "a natural lake" as opposed, not to a
magical lake, but to a man-made lake, or "natural ingredients" as
opposed to "ingredients synthesized in a factory." Or, if you will,
"natural selection" is "selection (or the equivalent) done by nature
rather than by human beings." When I said "in most cases," above, I
meant to call to mind that evolutionists will, from time to time,
point out that humans are part of nature and that the distinction
between natural selection and human artificial selection is blurry and
somewhat arbitrary. But "natural" means "the supernatural is not
involved" only if you assume that dog breeders are miracle workers.
And I stand by my earlier statement that in general, "natural" means
"having a discoverable nature, and behaving consistently according to
it."
>
> To the creationist the phrase presupposes something reflecting the
> direct work of Divine power. In my forth coming paper I am careful to
> make these distinctions ad nauseum.
>
First, I think that if this paper ever shows up, it might be useful to
make a distinction between "natural processes" and "miracles." If
both reflect the direct work of divine power, what distinguishes
between them, and why should you prefer to be directly and divinely
made by one means rather than the other?
Second, thank you for warning us that your forthcoming paper will be
nauseous.
>
> > I merely
> > point out that these two statements contradict one another;
>
> Only if you ignore the meaning I intended and insert your own in my
> behalf without informing the audience. What you did was pure Dana
> Tweedyistic, stop it!
>
I cannot read your mind. If you haven't bothered to inform the
audience of the secret meanings you have bestowed on common phrases,
how I am supposed to know what you mean? I am, after all, part of
your audience.
>
> You presupposed human evolution true and then said: "Ray, since you
> accept natural processes to be God ordained or controlled, why not
> accept human evolution?"
>
I presuppose that *if* human evolution occurred, it was a natural
process, and that you do not, in fact, *know* that it did not occur,
and that your personal beliefs do not determine reality. Now, you of
course do not accept that evolution did occur. But your principle
argument for this position is not that the evidence contradicts it
(you say it does, of course, but you have only the most cursory and
error-laden aquaintance with the evidence, so that cannot be your
primary reason), but that evolution automatically rules out God. I am
attempting to point out that evolution does NOT automatically rule out
God, so that if you wish to continue to argue against evolution, you
ought to learn something about the evidence and how to interpret it.
>
> Answer: you already know that I am a Creationist, which makes this
> whole issue a sorry charade.
>
You're a very concrete thinker, Ray. Normally, that would mean that
you cannot deal with abstractions and hypotheticals, but in this case
I am seriously considering the possibility that the space between your
ears is filled with a mixture of cement, sand and gravel rather than
brains.
>
> > you may
> > logically believe one or the other, but not both. I am trying to
> > point out to you the implications of your own statements. Perhaps you
> > do not in fact believe these implications; that would show that you
> > had not thought through the ideas that rattle about in your head,
> > which is your problem, not mine.
>
> > Please note that it is not especially relevant whether individual
> > evolutionists believe that God exists or is, in fact, in direct
> > control of all natural processes. Evolutionary biologists are experts
> > on biology and evolution, not on God (whether anyone is an expert on
> > God is another matter), and their opinions on whether God is, in fact,
> > in control of natural processes, or even exists, is worth, as we say
> > here on T.O., as much as the opinion of Lenny Flank's pizza-delivery
> > boy.
>
> I agree, the opinions of evolutionary theorists or supporters about
> God are worthless if not always also predictable.
>
I did not say that they were worthless. I'm reasonably certain that
they are worth at least as much as Gene Scott's opinion; I'm just
unconvinced that Gene Scott's opinion is worth more than that of the
pizza-delivery boy.
>
-- [snip]
>
> > It
> > is true that the most obvious reading of the Bible states that God
> > created living things in their present form, without evolutionary
> > precursors (it is not clear to me that Genesis actually distinguishes
> > between "natural" and "supernatural" causes).
>
> Finally, we have somewhat of an objective admission by you. I might
> add, Genesis does say that living things were created by God's power
> and evolution says they were not, do you agree?
>
The Bible in several places says that God sends rain upon the Earth,
or withholds it. Modern meteorology has, as LaPlace put it, "no need
of that hypothesis." The Bible in other passages says that God opens
or closes the wombs of women, enabling them to bear children or making
them barren; modern embryology does not make use of that assumption in
treating infertility. If evolutionary theory says that living things
were not created by God's power, then equally meteorology and
embryology say that God does not act in the parts of nature within
their purviews.
Please do not obfuscate by saying "evolution says that living things
were not created by God's power" when you mean, or ought to mean,
"evolution does not say that living "kinds" were created immediately
(i.e. "without intermediates," which may or may not imply
"instantaneously") in their present form."
>
> > Of course, the most
> > obvious reading of the Bible also indicates that God created the Earth
> > flat, topped with the solid dome of the sky, to which the sun, moon,
> > and stars were attached.
>
> It only says these things if you lack a modicum of prose comprehension
> skills, not to mention intelligence.
>
> But please tell me: why is it that only Atheists see these ridiculous
> things in the Bible?
>
Martin Luther and John Calvin were not atheists (nor were either
markedly unintelligent), and both saw the Bible as teaching that the
Earth stood motionless in the center of the cosmos. Lactantius
Firmiatus, advisor to the emperor Constantine, was not an atheist, and
he saw the Bible as saying that the Earth was flat (by the way, he was
described as "the Christian Cicero;" I think it would be imprudent to
describe him as lacking prose comprehension skills or intelligence).
I do not know who wrote the book of Enoch, but I doubt very much that
he was an atheist; he subscribed to the very flat-earth, domed-sky
cosmology I described above, based on the Old Testament writings which
were his Bible.
>
> > You deny this, of course, which merely shows
> > that you do not realize that you yourself interpret the Bible and
> > decide to take some parts literally and others figuratively, or to
> > impose tortuous and unlikely readings on the "literal" text.
>
> Comment presupposes the error of "one or the other" when it is both
> (and other literary devices) attempting to convey truth corresponding
> to reality.
>
I do not think I am imposing a false dichotomy on the text; I am
simply stating that you don't realize that your interpretations of the
text are just that -- interpretations, not the immediate and obvious
sense of the text.
>
> Do you know how much confusion Darwin started by commencing the
> "Origin" with a metaphor and not stating this CLEARLY as an analogy to
> how nature operates?
>
Depending on whether you count "commencing the _Origin_ as the
preface, the introduction, or the first chapter, Darwin started either
by recounting earlier suggestions that species evolved over time, or
by recounting his voyage and researches on the _Beagle_, or by
describing how much more breeds of domestic species vary from one
another than do local populations of wild species. Darwin is, in
fact, quite clear that he is making an analogy between differential
success in the struggle for survival and human selection. To say that
he does not make clear that he is using a figure of speech, one would
need to lack a modicum of prose comprehension skills, not to mention
intelligence.
>
-- [snip of arguments by unsupported assertion]
>
> Ray
-- Steven J.
The Last Conformist
> On Oct 29, 4:50 pm, j.wilki...@uq.edu.au (John Wilkins) wrote:
>
> I want whomever to know that I know that Wilkins has me killfiled -
> the Atheist way of recent 20th century history (censorship).
It would be censorship if he prevented *others* to read your posts.
But you know this. Why are you systematically discrediting yourself by
pointless and obvious lying?
Ray Martinez
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/94f50bc9450d5dfc
"Evolution is a fact, and the name of a theory about life on this
planet. It has nothing to do with God. Evolution was not developed
to oppose creationism and, in fact, says nothing about creationism or
the supernatural."
Dana Tweedy (evolutionist) wrote:
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/dbc8614ddbc55cf9
"Because evolution did not attack, or claim to refute Creationism.
Evolution attacked no one, and made a claim only to explain the
evidence. I doubt there are any "scholars" who would claim that
"Darwinian evolution" attacked creationism, nor are there any who
would claim that the goal of evolution was to refute Creationism."
Now some contradictions (and some objective honesty):
Steven J. (evolutionist) wrote:
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/46f2d3b9a519e563
"Evolutionary theory does flatly contradict what is usually called
creationism...."
"Darwin, and subsequent evolutionists, often argued against
creationism; this is true, and no one denies it."
Greg Guarino (evolutionist) wrote:
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/bc52653d6fb17674
"Evolution and Common Descent (as well as geology and astronomy) do
indeed contradict Genesis and any other claims that God created the
Earth recently and species separately. As that is what is usually mean
by Creationism, evolution does refute Creationism."
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/c1c88af864c63228
"Well, evolution does directly contradict Creationism as it is usually
understood."
What will happen is that the messenger will be blamed and the
dishonesty and lies and contradiction and ignorance of evolutionists
ignored.
Only ordinary evolutionists on the Internet deny that evolution was
deliberately offered as refuting creationism and special creation and
Paleyan design. This is the most uncontested fact of history and the
reason for being of the Creation-Evolution debate. The same deniers
(two evolutionists above) and most evolutionists in this NG are
completely ignorant to the fact that before 1859, Creationism-Design
was the reigning scientific theory. There is no scholar that has
denied but ALL ( I said ALL) plainly admit and presuppose this fact in
ALL of their writings. The evolutionists in this NG refuse to admit,
out of hatred and rage, that Creationism was the scientific theory in
every decade prior to 1859 because it is the revisionistic campaign of
TalkOrigins to intentionally misportray evolution as not anti-God or
anti-Theism. They have shown that in even in the face of their own
scholars who have established this fact in every history book that
they will ignore this fact and lie and equivocate in order to protect
what they have already said and their revision efforts. Or their silly
assertions are a testimony to how ignorant and unread they are, the
only other option.
The real point here is this: persons who are educated like John
Harshman and John Wilkins, who know exactly what I am talking about,
choose to remain silent and not correct their lying or ignorant fellow
evolutionists.
I only want to point out that both Harshman and Wilkins are frauds,
liars, and completely dishonest until they do so. They, unlike the
ordinary evolutionists here, have no excuse. Their degrees should be
rescinded and are worthless, but again they are Darwinists who accept
a theory that is built on the PREsupposition that the observation of
design does not correspond to invisible Designer (= Atheism negating
evidence by philosophical assumption).
Ray Martinez, Protestant Evangelical Creationist.
John Harshman
Hey, I'm in a thread title. Why? Let's look.
Nope, nothing so far.
> What will happen is that the messenger will be blamed and the
> dishonesty and lies and contradiction and ignorance of evolutionists
> ignored.
>
> Only ordinary evolutionists on the Internet deny that evolution was
> deliberately offered as refuting creationism and special creation and
> Paleyan design. This is the most uncontested fact of history and the
> reason for being of the Creation-Evolution debate. The same deniers
> (two evolutionists above) and most evolutionists in this NG are
> completely ignorant to the fact that before 1859, Creationism-Design
> was the reigning scientific theory. There is no scholar that has
> denied but ALL ( I said ALL) plainly admit and presuppose this fact in
> ALL of their writings. The evolutionists in this NG refuse to admit,
> out of hatred and rage, that Creationism was the scientific theory in
> every decade prior to 1859 because it is the revisionistic campaign of
> TalkOrigins to intentionally misportray evolution as not anti-God or
> anti-Theism. They have shown that in even in the face of their own
> scholars who have established this fact in every history book that
> they will ignore this fact and lie and equivocate in order to protect
> what they have already said and their revision efforts. Or their silly
> assertions are a testimony to how ignorant and unread they are, the
> only other option.
Nope, not so far.
> The real point here is this: persons who are educated like John
> Harshman and John Wilkins, who know exactly what I am talking about,
> choose to remain silent and not correct their lying or ignorant fellow
> evolutionists.
Ah, here we are. But in fact I have no real idea what Ray is talking
about. I agree with everything the quoted folks have said. But of course
whether evolution and creationism are in conflict depends on your
definition of creationism. It's usually taken around here to mean (at
least in part, but an essential part) the denial of common descent (at
least above the level of "kind", whatever a "kind" is). And evolution is
usually taken to mean (at least in part, but an essential part) the
common descent of all life from one or a very few ancestral populations.
And these are indeed incompatible.
But if by "creationism" you simply mean that God is somehow responsible
for the life, the universe, and everything, then evolution has little to
do with that.
Now in fact the fixity of species was the reigning paradigm before
Darwin. But was it a scientific paradigm or just an inherited default?
If you want it to be scientific, there have to have been scientific
reasons for its initial adoption, and I don't see any of that. It was
just the common assumption, based on Genesis and nothing more. Calling
natural theology a science would be stretching a bit. Cracks in the
paradigm go back at least to Buffon, and progress was slowed because for
some time it was actually dangerous to profess transformism in public.
After the power of the church was reduced, social pressure worked for a
while. But not forever. When Darwin published, transformism had been in
the air for some time. He just made it respectable by assembling many
sorts of evidence and by providing a mechanism for adaptation.
> I only want to point out that both Harshman and Wilkins are frauds,
> liars, and completely dishonest until they do so.
No, in fact the reason I usually don't respond to Ray is that I think
he's seriously disturbed and is best left alone. I never read his posts.
Unless he attracts my attention by putting "Harshman" in the thread
title. (And please don't make a habit of this.)
> They, unlike the
> ordinary evolutionists here, have no excuse. Their degrees should be
> rescinded and are worthless, but again they are Darwinists who accept
> a theory that is built on the PREsupposition that the observation of
> design does not correspond to invisible Designer (= Atheism negating
> evidence by philosophical assumption).
Have a nice day.
Greg Guarino
<pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>Greg Guarino (evolutionist) wrote:
>
>http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/bc52653d6fb17674
>
>"Evolution and Common Descent (as well as geology and astronomy) do
>indeed contradict Genesis and any other claims that God created the
>Earth recently and species separately. As that is what is usually mean
>by Creationism, evolution does refute Creationism."
>
>http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/c1c88af864c63228
>
>"Well, evolution does directly contradict Creationism as it is usually
>understood."
>
>
>What will happen is that the messenger will be blamed and the
>dishonesty and lies and contradiction and ignorance of evolutionists
>ignored.
I did indeed write what you quote above, and stand by it. However both
those posts, and several others of mine, also contain some version of
the following:
-------------------------------------------------
I agree that evolution does indeed "say something" about traditional
creationism. It says that that variety of creationism is incorrect.
But creationism does not equal God, at least not for everyone, and
certainly not by any necessity of logic..
Evolution does not refute the existence of God, but if He exists, He
must be the creator of THIS universe, the way we find it. And what we
find, at least on our planet, is that life diversified from a common
ancestor through natural processes. Some people find in that history a
testament to the elegance and power of God. Others assert that such
natural processes show any conception of God to be unnecessary.
Those differing opinions, and their myriad cousins around the globe,
are real and can't be reduced to Christian, Atheist and Dupe.
--------------------------------------------------
In short (oh, who am I kidding):
Evolution does refute what is usually meant by the term "creationism".
That does not mean that if evolution is true God does not exist. It
does not mean that if evolution is true God did not create the
universe. Strictly speaking, evolution, by itself, doesn't even
contradict the idea that God shaped the Earth in his fingers and set
it in orbit around the Sun. Other disciplines do cast doubt on such
ideas, of course.
It also does not follow that evolutionary ideas were put forth as the
solution to the problem, "how can we deny God?". Some people find
support for atheism in scientific ideas that show that the processes
of life and the universe can act without outside help; others see the
same information as evidence of a God of great subtlety and depth.
Still others, like me, think that human beings can never know the
ultimate "why" of our reality. Perhaps even the question itself
demonstrates our limited perspective.
I don't find lumping people into two or three clumsy categoriies a
valuable activity; it makes things simple to be sure, but also
incomprehensible unless you throw a heaping shovelful of willful
blindness and denial in as well. Even people I think are idiots seem
to come in different flavors.
Greg Guarino
geo...@hotmail.com
[snip]
Dear Ray,
'contradicts' does not mean 'was made with the deliberate intent to
refute and deny'. Thus you are wrong. If you repeat this without
correction, you are therefore dishonestly twisting the clearly written
words of your opponents.
sincerely,
Straggler
PS. I notice you're quite active these days, at the Panda's Thumb too.
Does this mean you have given up on your paper? Two months to go!
Dana Tweedy
> Cj (evolutionist) wrote:
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/94f50bc9450d5dfc
>
> "Evolution is a fact, and the name of a theory about life on this
> planet. It has nothing to do with God. Evolution was not developed
> to oppose creationism and, in fact, says nothing about creationism or
> the supernatural."
>
> Dana Tweedy (evolutionist) wrote:
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/dbc8614ddbc55cf9
>
> "Because evolution did not attack, or claim to refute Creationism.
> Evolution attacked no one, and made a claim only to explain the
> evidence. I doubt there are any "scholars" who would claim that
> "Darwinian evolution" attacked creationism, nor are there any who
> would claim that the goal of evolution was to refute Creationism."
>
> Now some contradictions (and some objective honesty):
>
> Steven J. (evolutionist) wrote:
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/46f2d3b9a519e563
>
> "Evolutionary theory does flatly contradict what is usually called
> creationism...."
But that's not saying that the purpose of evolution is to refute
creationism. Note that you are taking Steven's statements out of
context.
>
> "Darwin, and subsequent evolutionists, often argued against
> creationism; this is true, and no one denies it."
As Steven pointed out, that's not the same as saying that evolution was
proposed, or developed to refute creationism.
>
> Greg Guarino (evolutionist) wrote:
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/bc52653d6fb17674
>
> "Evolution and Common Descent (as well as geology and astronomy) do
> indeed contradict Genesis and any other claims that God created the
> Earth recently and species separately. As that is what is usually mean
> by Creationism, evolution does refute Creationism."
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/c1c88af864c63228
>
> "Well, evolution does directly contradict Creationism as it is usually
> understood."
It's the evidence that contradicts creationism. Evolution is the best
explanation for the evidence.
>
>
> What will happen is that the messenger will be blamed and the
> dishonesty and lies and contradiction and ignorance of evolutionists
> ignored.
Actually, what will happen is that it will be pointed out that you are
misinterpreting what you have been told. The only lies, contradiction,
and ignorance is your own.
>
> Only ordinary evolutionists on the Internet deny that evolution was
> deliberately offered as refuting creationism and special creation and
> Paleyan design.
Which is quite correct to deny. It was not "deliberately offered" to
refute creationism, or "special creation" and "Paleyan design". It
was deliberately offered to explain the evidence. That the evidence
contradicts a literal reading of Genesis, and that Paley's "argument
from design" was refuted by other philosophers, is beside the point.
> This is the most uncontested fact of history and the
> reason for being of the Creation-Evolution debate.
If it is indeed "the most uncontested fact", then you should be able to
produce some support for this.
> The same deniers
> (two evolutionists above) and most evolutionists in this NG are
> completely ignorant to the fact that before 1859, Creationism-Design
> was the reigning scientific theory.
Actually, before 1859, there was no scientific theory that explained the
evidence of evolution. Creationism is not, and has never been a
scientific theory.
> There is no scholar that has
> denied but ALL ( I said ALL) plainly admit and presuppose this fact in
> ALL of their writings.
So, let's see an example of an "scholar" who has claimed that evolution
was proposed specifically to refute creationism. Let's see a "scholar"
who considers creationism to be a scientific theory.
Stop making unsupported assertions, and back up your claims.
> The evolutionists in this NG refuse to admit,
> out of hatred and rage, that Creationism was the scientific theory in
> every decade prior to 1859
I have no hatred, and no rage toward anyone. The fact remains that
creationism was never a scientific theory.
> because it is the revisionistic campaign of
> TalkOrigins to intentionally misportray evolution as not anti-God or
> anti-Theism.
There is no need to "misportray" what is obviously true. Evolution is
not anti God, or anti theism. That is why many believers and theists
accept the fact of evolution.
> They have shown that in even in the face of their own
> scholars who have established this fact in every history book that
> they will ignore this fact and lie and equivocate in order to protect
> what they have already said and their revision efforts.
Ray, once again, "scholars" do not establish facts. Facts stand on
their own. Your wild assertions are not facts, and no one but yourself
has been lying and equivocating.
> Or their silly
> assertions are a testimony to how ignorant and unread they are, the
> only other option.
You forget the option that you are wrong. Why do you keep forgetting
that option?
>
> The real point here is this: persons who are educated like John
> Harshman and John Wilkins, who know exactly what I am talking about,
> choose to remain silent and not correct their lying or ignorant fellow
> evolutionists.
Perhaps because it's you who is wrong.
>
> I only want to point out that both Harshman and Wilkins are frauds,
> liars, and completely dishonest until they do so.
You saying something doesn't make it true.
> They, unlike the
> ordinary evolutionists here, have no excuse. Their degrees should be
> rescinded and are worthless, but again they are Darwinists who accept
> a theory that is built on the PREsupposition that the observation of
> design does not correspond to invisible Designer (= Atheism negating
> evidence by philosophical assumption).
Once more, I have to ask you to provide a single known instance of a
known designed object having an invisible designer. It's not atheism
to acknowledge that the facts don't back you up, Ray.
DJT
Ye Old One
It takes one position on everything: that there has to be evidence.
Since there is no evidence for gods science ignores them.
> evolution excludes
>God;
Nope. If there was evidence then science would look at it.
> creationism includes God;
But has no supporting evidence whatsoever.
> both offer interpretations of the same
>database of scientific evidence.
No, creationism does NOT interpret any evidence, rather it ignores it.
>Evolution is illegitimate "science"
>because of its exclusion
Evolution is good science because it explains all the evidence.
>and is called Scientism. Creationism owns the
>right to be called Science for its inclusion.
Creationism is not science - it call on the supernatural therefore it
cannot be science.
>
>Why would anyone accept human evolution when there is no evidence for
>it,
They wouldn't, but then there is so much evidence that it takes a real
fool to ignore it.
> but much to the contrary? Your acceptance of human evolution is an
>Atheist philosophical need since Genesis is not an option.
Genesis is a fairy tale Dishonest Ray, it has no basis in reality.
[snip a lot more of Dishonest Ray's usual style of lying and ranting.]
--
Bob.
Ray Martinez
wrote:
As we can see, you are not a historian, and I actually forgot this.
Your degree is evolutionary biology, a specialist in defrauding the
uneducated pro-evolution masses that the same is science backed up by
legitimate evidence.
> > I only want to point out that both Harshman and Wilkins are frauds,
> > liars, and completely dishonest until they do so.
>
> No, in fact the reason I usually don't respond to Ray is that I think
> he's seriously disturbed and is best left alone. I never read his posts.
> Unless he attracts my attention by putting "Harshman" in the thread
> title. (And please don't make a habit of this.)
>
[A "veiled" call for censorship (ignore my posts); censorship is the
method preferred by Atheists in recent 20th century history in dealing
with their enemies.]
I cannot remember the last time I responded to one of your messages
because I do not feel your intellectuality deserves the time of day in
comparsion to the persons who I do reply to most often. And do not
agitate over having your name in a topic title. I probably lead the
pack in persons who have had their name in a topic title. If I had
remembered that you are not a historian I would not have placed your
name in the topic title.
> > They, unlike the
> > ordinary evolutionists here, have no excuse. Their degrees should be
> > rescinded and are worthless, but again they are Darwinists who accept
> > a theory that is built on the PREsupposition that the observation of
> > design does not correspond to invisible Designer (= Atheism negating
> > evidence by philosophical assumption).
>
> Have a nice day.- Hide quoted text -
Tiny Bulcher
Ray is very impressionable. He sees all the other creationists lying, he
thinks he has to do it, too. He's a terrible liar (as in, very bad at
it).
Phil
> On Nov 1, 11:13 am, John Harshman <jharshman.diespam...@pacbell.net>
> wrote:
>> Ray Martinez wrote:
>
>
> As we can see, you are not a historian, and I actually forgot this.
> Your degree is evolutionary biology, a specialist in defrauding the
> uneducated pro-evolution masses that the same is science backed up by
> legitimate evidence.
Since you're so hung up on degrees, maybe you can sure with us what your
degree is in?
John Harshman
What's your degree in, exactly?
It was probably a mistake to respond to you. Please stop putting my name
into thread titles, and I'll leave you alone. Deal?
>>>I only want to point out that both Harshman and Wilkins are frauds,
>>>liars, and completely dishonest until they do so.
>>
>>No, in fact the reason I usually don't respond to Ray is that I think
>>he's seriously disturbed and is best left alone. I never read his posts.
>>Unless he attracts my attention by putting "Harshman" in the thread
>>title. (And please don't make a habit of this.)
>
> [A "veiled" call for censorship (ignore my posts); censorship is the
> method preferred by Atheists in recent 20th century history in dealing
> with their enemies.]
>
> I cannot remember the last time I responded to one of your messages
> because I do not feel your intellectuality deserves the time of day in
> comparsion to the persons who I do reply to most often. And do not
> agitate over having your name in a topic title. I probably lead the
> pack in persons who have had their name in a topic title. If I had
> remembered that you are not a historian I would not have placed your
> name in the topic title.
By this I gather that you will not be putting my name into any more
thread titles, which is an excellent idea.
John Vreeland
<jharshman....@pacbell.net> opined:
>>
>> I cannot remember the last time I responded to one of your messages
>> because I do not feel your intellectuality deserves the time of day in
>> comparsion to the persons who I do reply to most often. And do not
>> agitate over having your name in a topic title. I probably lead the
>> pack in persons who have had their name in a topic title. If I had
>> remembered that you are not a historian I would not have placed your
>> name in the topic title.
>
>By this I gather that you will not be putting my name into any more
>thread titles, which is an excellent idea.
I'm beginning to think that Ray Martinez is deranged. He never made a
whole lot of sense but now he appears to be absolutely opposed to the
concept. He is highly confused and seems to be incapable learning
anything that might force him to yield a point. It's a mystery as to
why he wastes time cavorting in this forum. He makes careful if
excruciatingly incorrect points, only to either ignore or wilfully
misunderstand the respond the responses. It's as if he has suffered
some sort of stroke-induced brain impairment, which--instead of
causing spatial neglect----has made it impossible for him to
understand anything outside his strange philosophy.
Now he's resorting to a form of name-calling, which might signal a
low point.
--
Preferred by three out of four Christian Deities.
---John Vreeland (IEEE.org) http://rtmabc.blogspot.com
Cj
>
> And dogma is something produced by evolutionists, Dr. Scott was a
> scholar who produced facts. Ken Miller, for example, is not a real
> scholar. He lies and uses his degree for immunity. Or he is horribly
> confused since evolution sides with Atheism every step of the way.
> Since Miller openly parades Theism to be compatible with evolution, he
> is horribly confused, best explained by truths recorded in the Bible
> that I have argued many times. Miller could care less about the
> objective claims of the Bible: anyone who says that the Bible and
> evolution are compatible is a brazen liar or horribly confused. And
> Miller says that the Bible and evolution are compatible. Again, Miller
> is an evolutionist, which explains everything.
>
>
Why are you frightened by Miller? Is it because he's intelligent? The only
objective view is that you are both a brazen liar and horribly confused.
What is the linkage between the theory of evolution and atheism again? Why
are you frightened by atheism? Since you don't understand evolution and
know nothing about atheism why do you repeatedly challenge them in your cute
half-witted way? You would be more fun if you had an intelligent argument.
Cj
Rolf
Cut the crap - the ToE stands firm as ever, and no amount of quote mining
and debeyae about who wrotw ehat when and who is or isn not a Christian,
atheist, liar, evolutionist, Darwinist, creationist or not is completely
irrelevant.
Get back to your production of facts, and get your paper finished before you
end down in hell, your time is running awful short now.
I am losing patience with you.
Rolf
Richard Clayton
He's been resorting to name-calling for over a year now. He pretty much
gave up on the evidence.
--
[The address listed is a spam trap. To reply, take off every zig.]
Richard Clayton
"Freedom is the right of all sentient beings." — Optimus Prime
John Harshman
> On Thu, 01 Nov 2007 13:02:53 -0700, John Harshman
> <jharshman....@pacbell.net> opined:
>
>
>
>>>I cannot remember the last time I responded to one of your messages
>>>because I do not feel your intellectuality deserves the time of day in
>>>comparsion to the persons who I do reply to most often. And do not
>>>agitate over having your name in a topic title. I probably lead the
>>>pack in persons who have had their name in a topic title. If I had
>>>remembered that you are not a historian I would not have placed your
>>>name in the topic title.
>>
>>By this I gather that you will not be putting my name into any more
>>thread titles, which is an excellent idea.
>
>
> I'm beginning to think that Ray Martinez is deranged.
That's been my view since his first post.
[snip]
AC
Friar Broccoli
> On Thu, 01 Nov 2007 13:02:53 -0700, John Harshman
>
>
>
> >> I cannot remember the last time I responded to one of your messages
> >> because I do not feel your intellectuality deserves the time of day in
> >> comparsion to the persons who I do reply to most often. And do not
> >> agitate over having your name in a topic title. I probably lead the
> >> pack in persons who have had their name in a topic title. If I had
> >> remembered that you are not a historian I would not have placed your
> >> name in the topic title.
>
> >By this I gather that you will not be putting my name into any more
> >thread titles, which is an excellent idea.
>
> I'm beginning to think that Ray Martinez is deranged. He never made a
> whole lot of sense but now he appears to be absolutely opposed to the
> concept. He is highly confused and seems to be incapable learning
> anything that might force him to yield a point. It's a mystery as to
> why he wastes time cavorting in this forum. He makes careful if
> excruciatingly incorrect points, only to either ignore or wilfully
> misunderstand the respond the responses. It's as if he has suffered
> some sort of stroke-induced brain impairment, which--instead of
> causing spatial neglect----has made it impossible for him to
> understand anything outside his strange philosophy.
I would like to point out that Ray has improved DRAMATICALLY
since first showing up here. Below is a post chosen more or less
at random from among his earliest:
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/91584a7d16bc606e
I long for the Ray of old.
Chris Krolczyk
> On Nov 1, 11:13 am, John Harshman <jharshman.diespam...@pacbell.net>
> wrote:
> > No, in fact the reason I usually don't respond to Ray is that I think
> > he's seriously disturbed and is best left alone. I never read his posts.
> > Unless he attracts my attention by putting "Harshman" in the thread
> > title. (And please don't make a habit of this.)
>
> [A "veiled" call for censorship (ignore my posts);
Nope. Am I "censoring" the popular reality TV show
of the moment by ignoring it? What about your posts?
Am I "censoring" them because I don't read each and
every one of them, as stomach-turning a task as
that may be?
> censorship is the
> method preferred by Atheists in recent 20th century history in dealing
> with their enemies.
You're not an "enemy", Ray. You're merely a pathetic
little man with massive delusions of grandeur and
a huge need to act stupid in public. Grow up.
-Chris Krolczyk
John Wilkins
Thanks for saving me the trouble of reading it myself.
Incidentally, fixity of species was only the default view after John Ray
in 1686, who defined them and at the same time declared that the world
had not changed since it was created. Prior to that, the default view
was that kinds ("species") existed, but that they could bend, break,
hybridise, and stay the same. The issue really didn't arise until Ray
defined it thus, for reasons of piety.
--
John S. Wilkins, Postdoctoral Research Fellow, Philosophy
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."
John Wilkins
Why, I am Everyman, so in preventing myself from reading Ray, I am
preventing Everyman from reading Ray, and hence it is censorship.
Of course, that's not how *I* see it. Killfiling Ray is rather more like
wearing a conceptual condom, to prevent infection by something nasty.
DJT
snip
Why? John is correct.
> and I actually forgot this.
> Your degree is evolutionary biology, a specialist in defrauding the
> uneducated pro-evolution masses that the same is science backed up by
> legitimate evidence.
What the people here have been trying to tell you, is that evolution
is science, backed up by masses of legitamate evidence. Obviously you
can't deal with any of that evidence, as you've run away whenever the
evidence is discussed.
>
> > > I only want to point out that both Harshman and Wilkins are frauds,
> > > liars, and completely dishonest until they do so.
>
> > No, in fact the reason I usually don't respond to Ray is that I think
> > he's seriously disturbed and is best left alone. I never read his posts.
> > Unless he attracts my attention by putting "Harshman" in the thread
> > title. (And please don't make a habit of this.)
>
> [A "veiled" call for censorship (ignore my posts); censorship is the
> method preferred by Atheists in recent 20th century history in dealing
> with their enemies.]
Ray, didn't you, just a week or so ago, announce that you were
ignoring me, and Augray? Isn't that just as much "censorship"?
>
> I cannot remember the last time I responded to one of your messages
> because I do not feel your intellectuality deserves the time of day in
> comparsion to the persons who I do reply to most often.
Here we have a "nobody" telling a Ph.D that he is not "intellectual"
enough.
> And do not
> agitate over having your name in a topic title.
So, why put it there?
> I probably lead the
> pack in persons who have had their name in a topic title.
Really? Care to back that up?
> If I had
> remembered that you are not a historian I would not have placed your
> name in the topic title.
Why would it matter if John was a "historian" or not? He's still
correct.
snip what Ray ignored.
DJT
DJT
> "Ray Martinez" <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote
>
>
>
> > And dogma is something produced by evolutionists, Dr. Scott was a
> > scholar who produced facts. Ken Miller, for example, is not a real
> > scholar. He lies and uses his degree for immunity. Or he is horribly
> > confused since evolution sides with Atheism every step of the way.
> > Since Miller openly parades Theism to be compatible with evolution, he
> > is horribly confused, best explained by truths recorded in the Bible
> > that I have argued many times. Miller could care less about the
> > objective claims of the Bible: anyone who says that the Bible and
> > evolution are compatible is a brazen liar or horribly confused. And
> > Miller says that the Bible and evolution are compatible. Again, Miller
> > is an evolutionist, which explains everything.
>
> Why are you frightened by Miller? Is it because he's intelligent?
Ray is frightened of Miller because he, like myself, is a theistic
evolutionist. Ray bases his entire belief system on the idea that
only atheists support evolution. When it's pointed out that there are
those who are Christian, and also support evolution, his only recourse
is to react with anger and name calling.
Miller is also a well respected Ph.D. To Ray, a Ph.D is almost like
a holy office, and anything a Ph.D says, according to Ray, is the
"Truth".(especially if that Ph. D happens to be Gene Scott)
Therefore a Ph.D. who supports evolution, is Christian, and is well
respected by the scientific community is a triple threat. He has to
attack Miller personally, because he doesn't have the ability to
address Dr. Miller's scientific work.
> The only
> objective view is that you are both a brazen liar and horribly confused.
You must remember that Ray is backed by "invulernable logic", which
means he can never be wrong. Whenever it's pointed out that he's
wrong, he insists he has "invulernable logic", which means he can't be
wrong. Round and Round it goes.
> What is the linkage between the theory of evolution and atheism again? Why
> are you frightened by atheism?
Apparenlty Gene Scott used atheists as a kind of boogeyman to scare
his congregation into sending more money. Atheists, it's imagined
by Scott's followers are constantly trying to attack God, and anything
God (ie Gene Scott) stands for.
> Since you don't understand evolution and
> know nothing about atheism why do you repeatedly challenge them in your cute
> half-witted way? You would be more fun if you had an intelligent argument.
Ray's just fun loon to prod with the pointy stick...
DJT
Ray Martinez
> On Nov 1, 2:54 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > On Nov 1, 11:13 am, John Harshman <jharshman.diespam...@pacbell.net>
> > wrote:
> > > No, in fact the reason I usually don't respond to Ray is that I think
> > > he's seriously disturbed and is best left alone. I never read his posts.
> > > Unless he attracts my attention by putting "Harshman" in the thread
> > > title. (And please don't make a habit of this.)
>
> > [A "veiled" call for censorship (ignore my posts);
>
> Nope. Am I "censoring" the popular reality TV show
> of the moment by ignoring it? What about your posts?
> Am I "censoring" them because I don't read each and
> every one of them, as stomach-turning a task as
> that may be?
>
John Harshman (an admitted Atheist) was signally for everyone to do
the same as him, do you understand now? Your reply is a defense of
Harshman's call for censorship. If logic, truth and facts are on the
side of evolution then you have nothing to fear and therefore nothing
to censor. The call for censorship is a subliminal recognition that
evolution does not have logic, truth and facts on its side.
> > censorship is the
> > method preferred by Atheists in recent 20th century history in dealing
> > with their enemies.
>
> You're not an "enemy", Ray. You're merely a pathetic
> little man with massive delusions of grandeur and
> a huge need to act stupid in public. Grow up.
>
> -Chris Krolczyk
You are lashing out in name calling and invective for no apparent
reason. But you are, whether you realize it or not, attempting to
justify the call for censorship via slander.
I might add: the experts (Castro, Pol Pot, Tse-Tung, old Soviet
Politburo; all of whom were Atheists) agree: censorship works.
Ray
Ray Martinez
Dr. Scott talking about Atheist Professor Larry Thomas (of Stanford):
"He had more integrity in the tip of his finger than any Christian I
have ever known."
Ray
DJT
Well, I'm sure that just about anyone had more integrity in the tip of
his finger than Gene had in his body, or his stable of racehorses.
However this does not affect the fact that Scott, and yourself have
demonized atheists.
DJT
DJT
snip
> > > [A "veiled" call for censorship (ignore my posts);
>
> > Nope. Am I "censoring" the popular reality TV show
> > of the moment by ignoring it? What about your posts?
> > Am I "censoring" them because I don't read each and
> > every one of them, as stomach-turning a task as
> > that may be?
>
> John Harshman (an admitted Atheist)
so?
> was signally for everyone to do
> the same as him,
What makes you think that John was "signalling" anything, and why
would anyone be compelled to follow him?
> do you understand now?
More to the point, do *you* understand now? John ignoring your
whining is not censorship.
> Your reply is a defense of
> Harshman's call for censorship.
John didn't call for any censorship. You are just being paranoid.
> If logic, truth and facts are on the
> side of evolution then you have nothing to fear and therefore nothing
> to censor.
No one fears you, Ray, and no one is calling for censorship. John
was saying that he finds your posts to be a waste of his time.
>The call for censorship is a subliminal recognition that
> evolution does not have logic, truth and facts on its side.
Since John made no such "call" the facts, logic, and truth must still
be on the side of science. I still wonder, Ray, why you keep running
away from the evidence. This post gives a good reason why you keep
running away.
>
> > > censorship is the
> > > method preferred by Atheists in recent 20th century history in dealing
> > > with their enemies.
>
> > You're not an "enemy", Ray. You're merely a pathetic
> > little man with massive delusions of grandeur and
> > a huge need to act stupid in public. Grow up.
>
> > -Chris Krolczyk
>
> You are lashing out in name calling and invective for no apparent
> reason.
Ray, you are the one who is name calling and "lashing out". Chris is
just pointing out how silly it makes you look.
> But you are, whether you realize it or not, attempting to
> justify the call for censorship via slander.
No one has slandered you, Ray, and no one is calling for censorship.
You are being very paranoid, perhaps because you have nothing to
offer.
>
> I might add: the experts (Castro, Pol Pot, Tse-Tung, old Soviet
> Politburo; all of whom were Atheists) agree: censorship works.
Censorship was used by the Catholic Church, protestant churches, and
any number of religious leaders. Censorship ultimately does not
work, as the truth has a way of getting out.
Also, Mr. "unlearned", if by "Tse-tung" you are referring to the
former leader of China, I believe you will find that "Tse-Tung" is his
given name, and his surname was Mao.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mao_Zedong
DJT
Chris Krolczyk
> On Nov 1, 4:56 pm, Chris Krolczyk <chriskrolc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > On Nov 1, 2:54 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Nov 1, 11:13 am, John Harshman <jharshman.diespam...@pacbell.net>
> > > wrote:
> > > > No, in fact the reason I usually don't respond to Ray is that I think
> > > > he's seriously disturbed and is best left alone. I never read his posts.
> > > > Unless he attracts my attention by putting "Harshman" in the thread
> > > > title. (And please don't make a habit of this.)
>
> > > [A "veiled" call for censorship (ignore my posts);
>
> > Nope. Am I "censoring" the popular reality TV show
> > of the moment by ignoring it? What about your posts?
> > Am I "censoring" them because I don't read each and
> > every one of them, as stomach-turning a task as
> > that may be?
>
> John Harshman (an admitted Atheist) was signally for everyone to do
> the same as him, do you understand now?
Do I understand that he was advocating that people ignore you?
Why, yes, I do. I also understand that advocating such a policy
is not tantamount in *any way* to advocating that you're banned
from either this newsgroup or Usenet in general. Do you under-
stand *that* little bit of information?
> Your reply is a defense of
> Harshman's call for censorship.
You're reading words that I didn't post, moron. It shouldn't surprise
me that you'd jump to all sorts of wild-ass conclusions about what
other people write (since you, after all, are so fond of proving your
detractors correct whenever you post), but I was willing to give you
the benefit of a doubt. And predictably, you failed.
> If logic, truth and facts are on the
> side of evolution then you have nothing to fear and therefore nothing
> to censor.
Show proof of advocacy of "censorship", Ray. You haven't.
> The call for censorship is a subliminal recognition that
> evolution does not have logic, truth and facts on its side.
Show proof of advocacy of "censorship" first, Ray. You *do*
have this proof forthcoming, right? You're not being thwarted
from posting it by any "infidel Jews" or "sun worshipping
camel riders", now, are you?
> > > censorship is the
> > > method preferred by Atheists in recent 20th century history in dealing
> > > with their enemies.
>
> > You're not an "enemy", Ray. You're merely a pathetic
> > little man with massive delusions of grandeur and
> > a huge need to act stupid in public. Grow up.
> You are lashing out in name calling and invective for no apparent
> reason.
I calls 'em as I sees 'em. But hey, seeing as you were so fond
of calling Aaron Clausen an "Infidel Jew", why should it bother
you when you get the same treatment? Feeling a mite thin-
skinned when the shoe's on the other foot, aren't you?
> But you are, whether you realize it or not, attempting to
> justify the call for censorship via slander.
You can't justify the nonexistent with "slander", Ray. And
while you're at it, try to explain how anyone responding
to *any* of your posts is libelling you when all they have to
gauge your personal behavior by is what you write.
> I might add: the experts (Castro, Pol Pot, Tse-Tung, old Soviet
> Politburo; all of whom were Atheists) agree: censorship works.
So ignoring you is equivalent to killing millions of people?
Thanks for proving my point about how delusional you are.
-Chris Krolczyk
John Vreeland
opined:
I was skeptical, but I see he has improved. His posts are still
mostly meaningless, but they are far more coherent than now than
before. This offers me hope that one day he will be able to
communicate.
>> Now he's resorting to a form of name-calling, which might signal a
>> low point.
I withdraw my statement. It was a rather polite form of name-calling,
much improved from his wicked past.
--
Two Creation Scientists can hold an intelligent conversation, if one of them is a sock puppet.
---John Vreeland(IEEE.org) http://rtmabc.blogspot.com
Ye Old One
<pyram...@yahoo.com> enriched this group when s/he wrote:
>On Nov 1, 4:56 pm, Chris Krolczyk <chriskrolc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> On Nov 1, 2:54 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>> > On Nov 1, 11:13 am, John Harshman <jharshman.diespam...@pacbell.net>
>> > wrote:
>> > > No, in fact the reason I usually don't respond to Ray is that I think
>> > > he's seriously disturbed and is best left alone. I never read his posts.
>> > > Unless he attracts my attention by putting "Harshman" in the thread
>> > > title. (And please don't make a habit of this.)
>>
>> > [A "veiled" call for censorship (ignore my posts);
>>
>> Nope. Am I "censoring" the popular reality TV show
>> of the moment by ignoring it? What about your posts?
>> Am I "censoring" them because I don't read each and
>> every one of them, as stomach-turning a task as
>> that may be?
>>
>
>John Harshman (an admitted Atheist) was signally for everyone to do
>the same as him, do you understand now? Your reply is a defense of
>Harshman's call for censorship.
He has not called for censorship.
> If logic, truth and facts are on the
>side of evolution then you have nothing to fear and therefore nothing
>to censor.
Nobody is looking to censor.
> The call for censorship is a subliminal recognition that
>evolution does not have logic, truth and facts on its side.
The advice to add you to the killfile is a good one Dishonest Ray.
However, it has one flaw - that if all the intelligent and honest
people did that to you then your dishonest racist brand of lies would
go unchallenged. That, of course, could not be allowed to happen.
>
>
>> > censorship is the
>> > method preferred by Atheists in recent 20th century history in dealing
>> > with their enemies.
>>
>> You're not an "enemy", Ray. You're merely a pathetic
>> little man with massive delusions of grandeur and
>> a huge need to act stupid in public. Grow up.
>>
>> -Chris Krolczyk
>
>You are lashing out in name calling and invective for no apparent
>reason.
You are the reason Dishonest Ray.
> But you are, whether you realize it or not, attempting to
>justify the call for censorship via slander.
No censorship and, of course, no slander you illiterate moron.
>
>I might add: the experts (Castro, Pol Pot, Tse-Tung, old Soviet
>Politburo; all of whom were Atheists) agree: censorship works.
No scientist approves of censorship.
>
>Ray
>
--
Bob.
Ye Old One
enriched this group when s/he wrote:
Or the whole of his congregation.
>However this does not affect the fact that Scott, and yourself have
>demonized atheists.
>
>
>DJT
--
Bob.
Rolf
"Ray Martinez" <pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1193964481.6...@d55g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
You are conveniently leaving Christianity out - but no organization have a
longer and more successful history of censorship. Ray, you really suck!
BTW, deadline is near, do you sleep well? Waiting for more Eureka
experiences?
Rolf
> Ray
>
>
Rolf
> On Nov 1, 5:43 pm, DJT <mousede...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> > On Nov 1, 3:56 pm, "Cj" <cw...@gwi.net> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > > "Ray Martinez" <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote
> >
> > > > And dogma is something produced by evolutionists, Dr. Scott was a
> > > > scholar who produced facts. Ken Miller, for example, is not a real
> > > > scholar. He lies and uses his degree for immunity. Or he is horribly
> > > > confused since evolution sides with Atheism every step of the way.
> > > > Since Miller openly parades Theism to be compatible with evolution,
he
> > > > is horribly confused, best explained by truths recorded in the Bible
> > > > that I have argued many times. Miller could care less about the
> > > > objective claims of the Bible: anyone who says that the Bible and
> > > > evolution are compatible is a brazen liar or horribly confused. And
> > > > Miller says that the Bible and evolution are compatible. Again,
Miller
> > > > is an evolutionist, which explains everything.
> >
End of debate. Now, just let us have that paper. We are dying to wipe you
ass with it.
Rolf
> Dr. Scott talking about Atheist Professor Larry Thomas (of Stanford):
>
> "He had more integrity in the tip of his finger than any Christian I
> have ever known."
>
Reasonable, Christians are rather short on integrity.
> Ray
>
>
T Pagano
Secular atheists have (so far) successfully censored non naturalistic
possibilities from the public square and this is their goal and
purpose----that is, so that the unwashed masses won't get an accurate
representation of the opposing view. Atheists have had and acted on
their goal of censorship since the Enlightenment.
On the other hand christian entities (and I'm mostly focused on the
Catholic Church) have done no such thing. The Catholic Church has
predominantly censored Catholics (not outsiders) from attempting to
teach heresy and alter Catholic doctrine. However since the
Vatican II Council in the 60s the Catholic Church has been loathe to
censor anyone including those within its ranks. A historical example
might help since it has been frequently misrepresented.
For example, the Catholic Church's issue with Galileo was his public
arrogance in teaching that the Church should alter its interpretation
of Scripture based upon unproven scientific theories. Cardinal
Ballarmine even warned Galileo to cease teaching as fact what was only
hypothesis and cease undermining the Church's authority over
theological doctrine. Galileo refused and continued to undermine
Church authority over theological doctrine and was rightly censored as
a Catholic. Galileo submitted to Church authority as a Catholic. This
had no effect on the others who agreed with and propagated Galileo's
theory's including I suspect a fair number of Catholics who didn't
undermine Church authority over theological doctrine..
Regards,
T Pagano
John Harshman
If by "censorship" Pagano means the practice of pointing and laughing,
he is right. Of course it's necessary to point out that this consists of
giving an accurately representation of opposing views to mainstream
science, because those views are absurd enough that merely stating them
accurately is a form of ridicule. And need it be mentioned, at this late
date, that Pagano confuses atheism and science?
> On the other hand christian entities (and I'm mostly focused on the
> Catholic Church) have done no such thing. The Catholic Church has
> predominantly censored Catholics (not outsiders) from attempting to
> teach heresy and alter Catholic doctrine.
Of course the Church has in the past considered everyone within its
power to be Catholic (what does "catholic" mean, hmmm?) and has enforced
its own claimed universality with fire and sword. And heresy has from
time to time included some ideas you might not consider central to
Christian doctrine, like the notion that the earth moves.
> However since the
> Vatican II Council in the 60s the Catholic Church has been loathe to
> censor anyone including those within its ranks. A historical example
> might help since it has been frequently misrepresented.
>
> For example, the Catholic Church's issue with Galileo was his public
> arrogance in teaching that the Church should alter its interpretation
> of Scripture based upon unproven scientific theories.
Nonsense. He never mentioned interpretation of scripture. He was talking
about interpretation of the world. And who says his theories were unproven?
> Cardinal
> Ballarmine even warned Galileo to cease teaching as fact what was only
> hypothesis and cease undermining the Church's authority over
> theological doctrine.
"Theological doctrine", at the time, seeming to encompass all ideas
about the nature of the physical world.
> Galileo refused and continued to undermine
> Church authority over theological doctrine and was rightly censored as
> a Catholic. Galileo submitted to Church authority as a Catholic. This
> had no effect on the others who agreed with and propagated Galileo's
> theory's including I suspect a fair number of Catholics who didn't
> undermine Church authority over theological doctrine..
Well, it had no effect on Protestants who happened to be outside the
Church's practical authority, or over the private thoughts of
individuals. But since when is the question of heliocentrism a
theological doctrine? Protestants, of course, had their own censors.
wf3h
>
> Secular atheists have (so far) successfully censored non naturalistic
> possibilities from the public square
no...that was done by guys named 'thomas jefferson' and 'james
madison'. perhaps you've heard of them. they wrote a document called
the 'united states constitution'....the 1st amendment of which
prohibits the establishment of religion in the USA.
oh. no wonder you've not heard of them...
and this is their goal and
> purpose----that is, so that the unwashed masses won't get an accurate
> representation of the opposing view. Atheists have had and acted on
> their goal of censorship since the Enlightenment.
hmmm...let's see...who threatened to murder galileo? who burned
'heretics' at the stake?
oh. christians did.
>
> On the other hand christian entities (and I'm mostly focused on the
> Catholic Church) have done no such thing. The Catholic Church has
> predominantly censored Catholics (not outsiders) from attempting to
> teach heresy and alter Catholic doctrine.
??the catholic church gladly and willingly murdered non christians.
ever hear of the 'inquisition'?
oh. pagano doesn't know his history any more than he knows his
science.
>
> For example, the Catholic Church's issue with Galileo was his public
> arrogance in teaching that the Church should alter its interpretation
> of Scripture based upon unproven scientific theories. Cardinal
> Ballarmine even warned Galileo to cease teaching as fact what was only
> hypothesis and cease undermining the Church's authority over
> theological doctrine. Galileo refused and continued to undermine
> Church authority over theological doctrine and was rightly censored as
> a Catholic. Galileo submitted to Church authority as a Catholic.
ROFLMAO!! he didn't 'submit'...he was ARRESTED and placed under house
arrest. that's NOT submission...it's COERCION!!
>
>
>
wf3h
> >
> Only ordinary evolutionists on the Internet deny that evolution was
> deliberately offered as refuting creationism and special creation and
> Paleyan design.
martinez, being a taliban christian, thinks that scientific theories
are offered to refute religion, rather than to explain nature.
the reason evolution is science is that it explains features of
nature.
period.
it does so successfully.
and it does so in a way that religion never could, and never can.
ray believes religion is science. for 2000 years people who held that
view retarded the advancement of civilization.
ray thinks the pinnacle of human thought was reached in the 14th
century.
richardal...@googlemail.com
> On Sat, 3 Nov 2007 13:16:37 +0100, "Rolf" <r...@tele2.no> wrote:
>
> >"Ray Martinez" <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
...which is of course why we see anything in print from from
astrologers, crystal healers, tantric therapists, creationists or any
of the other crackpots selling their own particular brand of nonsense.
Oh, wait. There is a vast amount of such rubbish in the media. Seems
that the "success" is somewhat limited.
> and this is their goal and
> purpose----that is, so that the unwashed masses won't get an accurate
> representation of the opposing view.
I think that if the "unwashed masses" (your term, not mine) got an
accurate view they'd realise that the creationists and other crackpots
are a bunch of ignoramuses at best and cynical liars at worst.
> Atheists have had and acted on
> their goal of censorship since the Enlightenment.
Whereas Christian churches haven't?
Which planet do you live on?
>
> On the other hand christian entities (and I'm mostly focused on the
> Catholic Church) have done no such thing.
Bullshit.
> The Catholic Church has
> predominantly censored Catholics (not outsiders) from attempting to
> teach heresy and alter Catholic doctrine.
Bullshit. It has systematically used political control to prevent
other Christian churches from teaching their version Christianity.
> However since the
> Vatican II Council in the 60s the Catholic Church has been loathe to
> censor anyone including those within its ranks.
Bullshit. There has been plenty of censorship within the church,
especially under the rule of JPII.
> A historical example
> might help since it has been frequently misrepresented.
Which is irrelevant as it has also frequently been accurately
reported.
>
> For example, the Catholic Church's issue with Galileo was his public
> arrogance in teaching that the Church should alter its interpretation
> of Scripture based upon unproven scientific theories.
Bullshit. It was more to do with the fact that Galileo's theories were
seen as originating from Lutheran teachings. The church turned away
from an acceptance of Galileo's theories because of the internal
politics of the church, not the validity of his evidence.
> Cardinal
> Ballarmine even warned Galileo to cease teaching as fact what was only
> hypothesis and cease undermining the Church's authority over
> theological doctrine.
Bullshit. He advised Galileo that his discoveries would be seen as
lending support to Lutheran teachings.
> Galileo refused and continued to undermine
> Church authority over theological doctrine and was rightly censored as
> a Catholic. Galileo submitted to Church authority as a Catholic. This
> had no effect on the others who agreed with and propagated Galileo's
> theory's including I suspect a fair number of Catholics who didn't
> undermine Church authority over theological doctrine..
>
> Regards,
> T Pagano
>
Pathetic little man.
Why not learn some of the history of your own church?
RF
Steven J.
>
-- [snip]
>
> >You are conveniently leaving Christianity out - but no organization have a
> >longer and more successful history of censorship. Ray, you really suck!
>
> Secular atheists have (so far) successfully censored non naturalistic
> possibilities from the public square and this is their goal and
> purpose----that is, so that the unwashed masses won't get an accurate
> representation of the opposing view. Atheists have had and acted on
> their goal of censorship since the Enlightenment.
>
impediments to presenting creationist or ID views in American politics
are that [a] neither ID nor creationism proponents can agree on just
what those views are, and [b], to the extent that they have agreed,
the views make you look like an idiot. Education? I would think a
Roman Catholic would appreciate restrictions on using public schools
to indoctrinate schoolchildren in religious doctrine, considering how,
historically, it would surely not have been Catholic doctrine (and
probably wouldn't be today, either). Life in general? Of all the
silly notions you have, the idea that creationist and ID books are
"censored" or not generally available may be the silliest. No one is
preventing creationists and ID proponents from publishing books,
making movies, and in general spreading their views to any audience
that will have them. Certainly no one is stopping churches from
inviting creationists and IDists to preach.
>
> On the other hand christian entities (and I'm mostly focused on the
> Catholic Church) have done no such thing. The Catholic Church has
> predominantly censored Catholics (not outsiders) from attempting to
> teach heresy and alter Catholic doctrine. However since the
> Vatican II Council in the 60s the Catholic Church has been loathe to
> censor anyone including those within its ranks. A historical example
> might help since it has been frequently misrepresented.
>
people from presenting non-Catholic teaching as Roman Catholicism, and
that modern secular science prevents people from presenting
pseudoscientific drivel as science, and you see a difference in this.
>
> For example, the Catholic Church's issue with Galileo was his public
> arrogance in teaching that the Church should alter its interpretation
> of Scripture based upon unproven scientific theories. Cardinal
> Ballarmine even warned Galileo to cease teaching as fact what was only
> hypothesis and cease undermining the Church's authority over
> theological doctrine. Galileo refused and continued to undermine
> Church authority over theological doctrine and was rightly censored as
> a Catholic. Galileo submitted to Church authority as a Catholic. This
> had no effect on the others who agreed with and propagated Galileo's
> theory's including I suspect a fair number of Catholics who didn't
> undermine Church authority over theological doctrine..
>
allowing them to teach their religious dogmas, in public schools at
taxpayer expense, as science, is "censorship," but threatening to
torture a man to death for having the temerity to disagree with
theologians over whether something is a scientific fact, is just a
matter of internal discipline for the church (which, at the time,
didn't let you leave the church if you disagreed with it), and not
nearly as bad as trying to distinguish between science and
pseudoscience?
You have an interesting take on reality, Tony.
>
> Regards,
> T Pagano
>
-- Steven J.
Chris Krolczyk
> Secular atheists have (so far) successfully censored non naturalistic
> possibilities from the public square and this is their goal and
> purpose----that is, so that the unwashed masses won't get an accurate
> representation of the opposing view.
Why, they've done such a thorough job that they've
even kept people like Tony Pagano from posting to...to...
Ah, skip it.
> Atheists have had and acted on
> their goal of censorship since the Enlightenment.
Tony, Tony, Tony. When will you learn? In posting
crackpot theories, you *always* have to invoke
the Freemasons and the Jews! Haven't you learned
that by now?
> On the other hand christian entities (and I'm mostly focused on the
> Catholic Church) have done no such thing. The Catholic Church has
> predominantly censored Catholics (not outsiders)
Do Huguenots count as "outsiders" in your book, Tony?
Oh. Wait. They weren't censored in 1572; they were
just killed. Silly me.
> from attempting to
> teach heresy and alter Catholic doctrine.
Which makes it justifiable in your opinion, right?
How predictable.
-Chris Krolczyk
Cory Albrecht
> BTW, deadline is near, do you sleep well? Waiting for more Eureka
> experiences?
Feh. If Ray had 1‱ the creativity of the TV show Eureka, he be able to
argue his way out of a paper bag, and his paper would have been
completed aaages ago.
Or, at the very least, he be able to think of better ways to accuse Dana
Tweedy of being a racist. :-)
Dana Tweedy
snip
>> You are conveniently leaving Christianity out - but no organization have a
>> longer and more successful history of censorship. Ray, you really suck!
>
> Secular atheists have (so far) successfully censored non naturalistic
> possibilities from the public square
You know, Tony, you've been asked before how a "non naturalistic"
science would work. You've never been able to answer that question.
> and this is their goal and
> purpose----that is, so that the unwashed masses won't get an accurate
> representation of the opposing view.
There is no "opposing view" as far as science is concerned. Non
naturalistic claims are not science, no matter how much you want them to
be "considered".
> Atheists have had and acted on
> their goal of censorship since the Enlightenment.
There's one way to get out of that "censorship". Produce a testable
theory of creation, and explain how appeal to the supernatural can be
scientific.
>
> On the other hand christian entities (and I'm mostly focused on the
> Catholic Church) have done no such thing.
So, Galileo was not threatened with torture by the Church for opposing
the Earth centric dogma?
> The Catholic Church has
> predominantly censored Catholics (not outsiders) from attempting to
> teach heresy and alter Catholic doctrine.
I'll bet that the Inquisition would have had no trouble with censoring
"outsiders" too.
> However since the
> Vatican II Council in the 60s the Catholic Church has been loathe to
> censor anyone including those within its ranks. A historical example
> might help since it has been frequently misrepresented.
>
> For example, the Catholic Church's issue with Galileo was his public
> arrogance in teaching that the Church should alter its interpretation
> of Scripture based upon unproven scientific theories.
That is, the evidence. Scientific theories are never "proven".
> Cardinal
> Ballarmine even warned Galileo to cease teaching as fact what was only
> hypothesis and cease undermining the Church's authority over
> theological doctrine. Galileo refused and continued to undermine
> Church authority over theological doctrine and was rightly censored as
> a Catholic.
for daring to say that the Church's dogma was wrong, regarding a
scientific question.
> Galileo submitted to Church authority as a Catholic.
On threat of torture.
> This
> had no effect on the others who agreed with and propagated Galileo's
> theory's including I suspect a fair number of Catholics who didn't
> undermine Church authority over theological doctrine..
Because those others were outside the Church's jurisdiction, and
couldn't be threatened with torture and death.
DJT
Greg G.
> On Sat, 3 Nov 2007 13:16:37 +0100, "Rolf" <r...@tele2.no> wrote:
>
Was it atheist censorship that brought forth Scientific Creationism or
did Original Creationism lack sensible explanations? Scientific
Creationists told us that they interpreted the evidence differently.
Was it censorship that kept them from presenting explanations for
evidence that obviously refuted their claims or did they just ignore
it?
Scientific Creationists told us that there was no evolution, natural
selection didn't work, and there were no beneficial mutations. Was it
censorship that made them backtrack on those claims when they changed
to a misunderstanding of microevolution vs. macroevolution argument?
Did the atheists cause the creationists to embrace the Intelligent
Design argument that even the founders now say is premature after
trying to force it into schools for several years?
A few years ago, creationists didn't want to be called creationists
because of the negative connotations. Are atheists responsble for
that? Well, OK, in this case, maybe. Of course, now, they are back to
creationists because all of a sudden "IDist" became even more
embarrassing.
Now the creationists are back to saying that they look at the same
evidence as scientists but by rejecting the implications of the
evidence, they have adopted a nihilistic philosophy toward evidence.
They essentially concede that the evidence is consistent with
evolution but deny that indicates evolution with a Last Thursdayism
argument by saying that GunderscoreD could have done it that way. Are
atheists responsible for that?
Nobody has prevented creationists from putting forth their rhetoric.
Their problem is that their claims are transparently absurd so they
have to keep moving while all the evidence keeps supporting
evolution.
Creationists have never attempted to present a scientific theory of
creationism. You can blame reality for that, not atheist censorship.
--
Greg G.
Good Intentions Paving Company
"Alot of people follow our roads."
.
Ray Martinez
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/94f50bc9450d5dfc
"Evolution is a fact, and the name of a theory about life on this
planet. It has nothing to do with God. Evolution was not developed
to oppose creationism and, in fact, says nothing about creationism or
the supernatural."
Dana Tweedy (evolutionist) wrote:
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/dbc8614ddbc55cf9
"Because evolution did not attack, or claim to refute
Creationism.Evolution attacked no one, and made a claim only to
explain the evidence. I doubt there are any "scholars" who would
claim that "Darwinian evolution" attacked creationism, nor are there
any who would claim that the goal of evolution was to refute
Creationism."
Now some contradictions (and some objective honesty):
Steven J. (evolutionist) wrote:
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/46f2d3b9a519e563
"Evolutionary theory does flatly contradict what is usually called
creationism...."
"Darwin, and subsequent evolutionists, often argued against
creationism; this is true, and no one denies it."
Greg Guarino (evolutionist) wrote:
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/bc52653d6fb17674
"Evolution and Common Descent (as well as geology and astronomy) do
indeed contradict Genesis and any other claims that God created the
Earth recently and species separately. As that is what is usually mean
by Creationism, evolution does refute Creationism."
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/c1c88af864c63228
"Well, evolution does directly contradict Creationism as it is usually
understood."
In addition to the contradictions above:
Can we agree that both Dr. Eugenie Scott (no relation to Bible scholar
Dr. Gene Scott) and Mark Isaak are solid pro-evolutionists?
Eugenie C. Scott's "Evolution vs. Creationism" (book title).
http://www.amazon.com/Counter-Creationism-Handbook-Mark-Isaak/dp/031333305X
Mark Isaak's "The Counter-Creationism Handbook" (book title).
For those evolutionists who make the silly claim that evolution does
not claim to refute creationism, both titles above explicitly imply
this round earth fact.
And the contradictions above are still unanswered.
General Reader:
Why do some evolutionists deny that their theory does not **claim** to
refute creationism?
It tells the world what brazen liars evolutionists can be and reveals
why they say there is evidence for evolution when there is none. If
they would lie so badly about their theory not claiming to refute
their enemy - creationism, then just think how bad they lie about
evidence supporting the idea of evolution? Since all Atheists support
and defend evolution rabidly, this tells us that not only does
evolution claim to refute creationism, but it also claims to refute
the source of creationism, the Book of Genesis (which no published
scholar denies). Now we can deduce why some evolutionists make this
silly claim: they also believe or rather they want people to believe
that evolution says nothing about God. Again, the willingness to lie
so brazenly, in view of the fact that all Atheists, of course, support
evolution, tells honest and objective persons that the level of
honesty within the ranks of persons who believe in evolution is what
might be expected from Atheists and Infidels, the same who think apes
became men.
[By the way, apparently Pandas Thumb has banned me, the Atheist-
evolutionist way of silencing persons that they cannot refute.]
Ray Martinez, Protestant Evangelical, Old Earth-Young Biosphere
Creationist, Paleyan-Designist.
Steven J.
> Cj (evolutionist) wrote:
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/94f50bc9450d5dfc
>
> "Evolution is a fact, and the name of a theory about life on this
> planet. It has nothing to do with God. Evolution was not developed
> to oppose creationism and, in fact, says nothing about creationism or
> the supernatural."
>
explain what did happen in terms of known causes; it does not attempt
to show that any particular unknown causes (e.g. "supernatural"
causes, which are not merely unknown but, from a scientific point of
view, forever unknowable) did NOT play a part. Evolutionary theory
does not deal at all with the claims that God created the laws of
nature, or governs all natural processes whether here and now or in
the distant past. In the broadest sense, "creationism" means simply
these claims that evolutionary theory does not address.
>
> Dana Tweedy (evolutionist) wrote:
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/dbc8614ddbc55cf9
>
> "Because evolution did not attack, or claim to refute
> Creationism.Evolution attacked no one, and made a claim only to
> explain the evidence. I doubt there are any "scholars" who would
> claim that "Darwinian evolution" attacked creationism, nor are there
> any who would claim that the goal of evolution was to refute
> Creationism."
>
>
> Now some contradictions (and some objective honesty):
>
> Steven J. (evolutionist) wrote:
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/46f2d3b9a519e563
>
> "Evolutionary theory does flatly contradict what is usually called
> creationism...."
>
between proposing a theory that happens to contradict a religious
doctrine, and proposing a theory in order to contradict that
doctrine. To propose an analogy, if there's one donut left on the
plate, and I take it, I keep you from eating it, but it doesn't follow
that I took it to keep you from eating it; I might not have been
thinking of you at all. Common descent was proposed to explain the
nested hierarchy of homologies, the patterns of biogeography, and
faunal succession in the fossil record (all phenomena noted by
"creationists"). It was not proposed to overturn creationism.
Second, note that I spoke of "what is usually called creationism."
"Creationism" in this sense is not merely the idea that God is
involved, somehow, in origins, or that His providence underlies all
natural phenomena, but specifically the idea of separate origins and
independent creation of "kinds." Evolutionary theory contradicts
this, as embryology contradicts the idea that God miraculously shapes
out of nonliving matter each individual human born, and as modern
meteorology contradicts the idea that God sends rain down on the Earth
by opening literal "windows in heaven" (or as heliocentric astronomy
contradicts the idea that the psalms speaking of the Earth being
unmoveable and the sun going around it are literal descriptions of
reality).
>
> "Darwin, and subsequent evolutionists, often argued against
> creationism; this is true, and no one denies it."
>
Creationists often argued for separate origins (no relationship by
descent between humans and other primates, or, originally, between
horses and zebras), and offered such explanations as "common design"
for data that evolutionary theory explained by "common descent." So
yes, there were arguments then as now between proponents of special
creation and evolution. And there were Christians who saw no point to
this argument, any more than they saw a point to an argument that the
sun literally orbited the Earth (in Darwin's day, there were still a
few Christians who seriously argued this point -- indeed, a handful
exist yet today).
>
> Greg Guarino (evolutionist) wrote:
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/bc52653d6fb17674
>
> "Evolution and Common Descent (as well as geology and astronomy) do
> indeed contradict Genesis and any other claims that God created the
> Earth recently and species separately. As that is what is usually mean
> by Creationism, evolution does refute Creationism."
>
Note that Cj and Greg Guarino are using different definitions of
"creationism" (so they're talking about different things, and it's not
too surprising that they come to different conclusions: if I ask what
2 + 2 equals, do not be surprised if it turns out not the be the same
thing as 3 + 3). "Creationism" here means not "the idea that God
created the laws of nature and governs their workings" but "claims
that God created the Earth recently and species separately." Indeed,
by Greg's definition of "creationism," your own version of creationism
"refutes creationism," since you yourself deny that God created the
Earth RECENTLY.
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/c1c88af864c63228
>
> "Well, evolution does directly contradict Creationism as it is usually
> understood."
>
"Creationism as it is usually understood" means the ideas of Ken Ham
that you deride as "fundamentalism." Even if one dismisses young-
earth ideas, there is a difference between contradicting separate
origins and special creation, and contradicting the idea that God is
the Author and Ruler of nature.
>
> In addition to the contradictions above:
>
> Can we agree that both Dr. Eugenie Scott (no relation to Bible scholar
> Dr. Gene Scott) and Mark Isaak are solid pro-evolutionists?
>
I think of them as "pro-science." Are they really "pro-evolution?"
Does Dr. Scott hold that even more pathogens ought to evolve
resistance to antibiotics? Does Mark Isaak look forward to the
speciation of the human race? Or do they both simply accept reality
and assume that their personal views of the desirability of evolution
have no effect on its reality?
>
> http://www.ncseweb.org/evc/
>
> Eugenie C. Scott's "Evolution vs. Creationism" (book title).
>
> http://www.amazon.com/Counter-Creationism-Handbook-Mark-Isaak/dp/0313...
>
> Mark Isaak's "The Counter-Creationism Handbook" (book title).
>
> For those evolutionists who make the silly claim that evolution does
> not claim to refute creationism, both titles above explicitly imply
> this round earth fact.
>
Once again, there are two separate claims being made here: first, that
evolutionary theory was not proposed FOR THE PURPOSE of refuting
creationism, and second, that for some (arguably the most
theologically important and only theologically essential) meaning of
creationism (God as Author and Governor of the laws of nature and
their results), evolutionary theory does not contradict THAT sense of
"creationism." For more restricted meanings of creationism, whether
the creationism of Ken Ham or that of Gene Scott, yes, there is a
contradiction between evolutionary theory and creationism. Indeed,
since "creationism" emerged as a term mainly to indicate faith-based
opposition to evolutionary theory, there is a necessary contradiction
between that sort of creationism (which didn't exist before
evolutionary theory), and the evolutionary theory that it arose to
combat. But that is not the only sort of creationism that might
exist.
>
> And the contradictions above are still unanswered.
>
> General Reader:
>
> Why do some evolutionists deny that their theory does not **claim** to
> refute creationism?
>
> It tells the world what brazen liars evolutionists can be and reveals
> why they say there is evidence for evolution when there is none. If
> they would lie so badly about their theory not claiming to refute
> their enemy - creationism, then just think how bad they lie about
> evidence supporting the idea of evolution? Since all Atheists support
> and defend evolution rabidly, this tells us that not only does
> evolution claim to refute creationism, but it also claims to refute
> the source of creationism, the Book of Genesis (which no published
> scholar denies). Now we can deduce why some evolutionists make this
> silly claim: they also believe or rather they want people to believe
> that evolution says nothing about God. Again, the willingness to lie
> so brazenly, in view of the fact that all Atheists, of course, support
> evolution, tells honest and objective persons that the level of
> honesty within the ranks of persons who believe in evolution is what
> might be expected from Atheists and Infidels, the same who think apes
> became men.
>
Ray, I doubt very much that you've actually polled all atheists,
although, given your idiosyncratic definitions of terms like
"atheists" and "rabid," perhaps "atheists rabidly support evolution"
is an analytic rather than synthetic truth given your definition.
Now, whether evolution says anything about God depends on what you
mean by "says anything about God." Evolutionary theory does not deal
with whether God exists. On the other hand, all sorts of scientific
theories contradict specific claims that might be or actually have
been made about God. If a televangelist says that God has healed a
particular person, a physician's investigation of the patient might
refute the notion that he has been healed by anybody at all. If a
Pope or Protestant divine says that God created the Earth immobile and
the sun orbiting it, then Copernicus, Galileo, Kepler and Newton
contradict that claim about what God has done. And, yes, evolutionary
theory contradicts the idea that Genesis 1 is literal history and that
God created species separately. This is, in a real sense, a claim
about God, but it is not a claim about whether God exists.
>
> [By the way, apparently Pandas Thumb has banned me, the Atheist-
> evolutionist way of silencing persons that they cannot refute.]
>
Why, Ray, thank you. I suppose this means that Stalin and Hitler
cannot have been "atheist-evolutionists," since their preferred way of
silencing people they couldn't refute usually ran to shooting them in
the head. However, just to be argumentative, I feel I must point out
that it is not "censorship" to ban other points of view from one's own
property. Your free-speech rights don't give you the right to have
your views printed in the _New York Times_, or the Answers in Genesis
website, the Catechism of the Roman Catholic Church, or the Panda's
Thumb forum. By the same token, I might demand that you post pro-
Darwin (or, for that matter, pro-George Bush) posters on your
property, and then complain of "censorship" when you decline.
>
> Ray Martinez, Protestant Evangelical, Old Earth-Young Biosphere
> Creationist, Paleyan-Designist.
>
You need to work harder; I think that "backspace" is ahead of you in
excluding other Christians from the ranks of the True Faithful.
-- Steven J.
Dana Tweedy
> Cj (evolutionist) wrote:
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/94f50bc9450d5dfc
>
> "Evolution is a fact, and the name of a theory about life on this
> planet. It has nothing to do with God. Evolution was not developed
> to oppose creationism and, in fact, says nothing about creationism or
> the supernatural."
>
> Dana Tweedy (evolutionist) wrote:
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/dbc8614ddbc55cf9
>
> "Because evolution did not attack, or claim to refute
> Creationism.Evolution attacked no one, and made a claim only to
> explain the evidence. I doubt there are any "scholars" who would
> claim that "Darwinian evolution" attacked creationism, nor are there
> any who would claim that the goal of evolution was to refute
> Creationism."
>
> Now some contradictions (and some objective honesty):
The below does not contradict my, or Cj's statements.
>
> Steven J. (evolutionist) wrote:
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/46f2d3b9a519e563
>
> "Evolutionary theory does flatly contradict what is usually called
> creationism...."
Which does not mean that it was presented in order to refute
"creationism".
>
> "Darwin, and subsequent evolutionists, often argued against
> creationism; this is true, and no one denies it."
>
> Greg Guarino (evolutionist) wrote:
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/bc52653d6fb17674
>
> "Evolution and Common Descent (as well as geology and astronomy) do
> indeed contradict Genesis and any other claims that God created the
> Earth recently and species separately. As that is what is usually mean
> by Creationism, evolution does refute Creationism."
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/c1c88af864c63228
>
> "Well, evolution does directly contradict Creationism as it is usually
> understood."
>
> In addition to the contradictions above:
>
> Can we agree that both Dr. Eugenie Scott (no relation to Bible scholar
> Dr. Gene Scott) and Mark Isaak are solid pro-evolutionists?
>
> http://www.ncseweb.org/evc/
>
> Eugenie C. Scott's "Evolution vs. Creationism" (book title).
>
> http://www.amazon.com/Counter-Creationism-Handbook-Mark-Isaak/dp/031333305X
>
> Mark Isaak's "The Counter-Creationism Handbook" (book title).
>
> For those evolutionists who make the silly claim that evolution does
> not claim to refute creationism, both titles above explicitly imply
> this round earth fact.
Note, my statement was that evolution was not proposed in order to
refute Creationism. There was no need, as creationism is not a
scientific theory. The evidence that evolution explains does indeed
refute the religious belief of Creationism. The point is that it was
proposed to explain the evidence, not refute creationism.
>
> And the contradictions above are still unanswered.
There is no contradictions. Ray is equivocating.
>
> General Reader:
>
> Why do some evolutionists deny that their theory does not **claim** to
> refute creationism?
Because the theory does not claim to refute creationism. It explains
the evidence. It's the evidence that refutes creationist claims.
>
> It tells the world what brazen liars evolutionists can be and reveals
> why they say there is evidence for evolution when there is none.
There is plenty of evidence for evolution. You are aware of that
evidence, and you run away from discussing the evidence every time.
> If
> they would lie so badly about their theory not claiming to refute
> their enemy - creationism, then just think how bad they lie about
> evidence supporting the idea of evolution?
Creationism is not the "enemy" of evolution. It's just another
religious belief. There is no evidence that supports creationism.
If you feel that my statement is false, present the evidence.
> Since all Atheists support
> and defend evolution rabidly,
Not all atheists support, or defend evolution, rabidly or not. Even if
they did, that's not relevant to the scientific evidence that supports
evolution.
> this tells us that not only does
> evolution claim to refute creationism,
Evolution does not claim to refute creationism. It claims to explain
the evidence. The evidence refutes creationism.
> but it also claims to refute
> the source of creationism, the Book of Genesis (which no published
> scholar denies).
The book of Genesis is not the "source of Creationism", any more than a
hallmark card is the "source of Valentine's Day".
> Now we can deduce why some evolutionists make this
> silly claim: they also believe or rather they want people to believe
> that evolution says nothing about God.
Evolution does not say anything about God. In that, it's the same as
every other scientific theory.
> Again, the willingness to lie
> so brazenly, in view of the fact that all Atheists, of course, support
> evolution,
Not all atheists do support evolution. You are the one who is lying
brazenly here.
> tells honest and objective persons that the level of
> honesty within the ranks of persons who believe in evolution is what
> might be expected from Atheists and Infidels, the same who think apes
> became men.
Ray, "men" are apes. Also, you have no conception of what an honest,
or objective person might think.
>
> [By the way, apparently Pandas Thumb has banned me, the Atheist-
> evolutionist way of silencing persons that they cannot refute.]
Gee, Ray, can't you get along with anyone?
>
> Ray Martinez, Protestant Evangelical, Old Earth-Young Biosphere
> Creationist, Paleyan-Designist.
And known liar.
DJT
John Vreeland
<pyram...@yahoo.com> opined:
>
>[By the way, apparently Pandas Thumb has banned me, the Atheist-
>evolutionist way of silencing persons that they cannot refute.]
Surprising. Under what name were you posting?
Cj
> Cj (evolutionist) wrote:
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/94f50bc9450d5dfc
>
> "Evolution is a fact, and the name of a theory about life on this
> planet. It has nothing to do with God. Evolution was not developed
> to oppose creationism and, in fact, says nothing about creationism or
> the supernatural."
>>>>>>>>>>>>>snip<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
I have asserted that evolution is a fact and a theory. The theory of
evolution has nothing to do with gods. The theory of evolution was not
developed to oppose any religious concept. The theory of evolution says
nothing about creationism or the supernatural. The fact of evolution proves
the falsity of creationism. The fact of evolution denies the validity of
Genesis. The facts of evolution dispute the reality of your convictions. I
realize that it is difficult for you to understand that a word can have two
or more meanings but that's the reality of language. I also appreciate that
you cannot understand the difference between evolution itself and the theory
of evolution but I'm not going to try to dumb it down to your level so you
can think about it. Rational and intelligent thinking about real evidence
has developed the theory of evolution over the last century and a half, your
feeble opposition is a joke to any educated person.
Cj
Dick C
> Cj (evolutionist) wrote:
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/94f50bc9450d5dfc
>
> "Evolution is a fact, and the name of a theory about life on this
> planet. It has nothing to do with God. Evolution was not developed
> to oppose creationism and, in fact, says nothing about creationism or
> the supernatural."
>
> Dana Tweedy (evolutionist) wrote:
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/dbc8614ddbc55cf9
>
> "Because evolution did not attack, or claim to refute
> Creationism.Evolution attacked no one, and made a claim only to
> explain the evidence. I doubt there are any "scholars" who would
> claim that "Darwinian evolution" attacked creationism, nor are there
> any who would claim that the goal of evolution was to refute
> Creationism."
>
> Now some contradictions (and some objective honesty):
>
> Steven J. (evolutionist) wrote:
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/46f2d3b9a519e563
>
> "Evolutionary theory does flatly contradict what is usually called
> creationism...."
No contradiction there, Ray. First of all, the TOE was developed to
explain the diveristy of organisms, and it says nothing about religion.
And modern creationism was invented to counter the TOE. Thus, by design
of the religious, the TOE contradicts creationism. Note, not by design of
scientists, but by design of the religious. However, the TOE still says
nothing about creationism.
Just like when you finally publish your paper, the TOE will contradict
it, but not because of design or desire by scientists, but by your own
efforts.
--
Dick #1349
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary
safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
~Benjamin Franklin
Home Page: dickcr.iwarp.com
email: dic...@comcast.net
d...@dandrake.com
<jharshman....@pacbell.net> wrote:
> > For example, the Catholic Church's issue with Galileo was his public
> > arrogance in teaching that the Church should alter its interpretation
> > of Scripture based upon unproven scientific theories.
>
> Nonsense. He never mentioned interpretation of scripture. He was talking
> about interpretation of the world. And who says his theories were unproven?
Well, let's not go overboard in stating what's essentially true. He
_mentioned_ interpretation in the context of asking people, including
the Church, not to over-interpret Scripture so as to contradict the
evidence that was in front of one. In fact, his treatment in the
Letter to Gand Duchess Christina was fairly extensive.
But the point is, as you say, that he had no notion of trying to force
the church to put heliocentrism into its philosophy, but just to be
open to it at that time and not try to kill it a priori.
And in a strict sense, you could call the idea unproven. You could
call any scientific idea whatsoever unproven, according to very widely
accepted ideas of the philosophy of science. And other people will
insist, not completely without basis, that _proof_ of the Earth's
motion had to wait another century. Hence, it would have been rather
poor science for Galileo to demand that everybody accept the idea
without reservation. What luck that he did no such thing. If you call
being an extraordinary scientist good luck, and I guess I would.