I am a creationist
Dylan
intelligent design (ID) theory. But I'm a creationist nonetheless.
For I believe that God created evolution. Note that I say "I believe
that God created evolution" and not "It is proven that God created
evolution" or even "I hypothesize that God created evolution." For it
is purely a matter of my faith.
My belief that God created evolution is my faith, and my faith is my
faith. It is purely apodictic and not subject to either scientific
confirmation or disconfirmation.
However, the CONTENT of my faith is subject to change. Once, as a child
at my mother's and father's knees, I believed that God created the
universe in six literal days "about six thousand years ago." But since
that time I've run across too many problems with that statement. For
one thing, it isn't logical that God created light on the first day,
then the sun, the source of the light, on the fourth. For another
thing, I started studying evolution (supported by geology, biology,
paleontology, archaeology) and discovered a theory that did make sense.
This is the theory of evolution.
Ergo, without giving up my faith in God as the creator, I am able to
accept evolution as the theory that best explains the evidence.
I'm a journalist. Long ago, in my first newswriting class, I learned
about "the five Ws and the H": WHO, WHAT, WHEN, WHERE, WHY and HOW.
What does this bit of autobiography have to do with my synthesis of the
science of evolution with my faith in God?
My creationist faith tells me:
WHAT - that "the heavens and the earth" are created.
WHO - that it was God who did the creating.
WHY - because God wanted to do something "very good" (Genesis 1:31).
And Darwin's evolutionist theory tells me:
WHEN - from about 4.5 billion years ago till now.
WHERE - earth embedded in the universe (or multiverse)
HOW - variating life forms acted on by natural selection and other
decreasers of variation (such as genetic drift)
Ergo, though I've become an evolutionist by dint of the data, I remain
a creationist by faith in God.
Ken Shackleton
I believe that you will find that a large number of people will agree
[or at least not disagree] with your reasoning and position.
Unlike the biblical literalists, you are able to differentiate between
faith and science.
Ray Martinez
Embracing a theory that was invented to falsify God AS the Creator
means you have no source for your alleged theism unless you evade,
ignore, radically change, corrupt, or re-write what the Bible says.
TEists are a dime a dozen and for all I know you are an atheist
attempting to corrupt Scripture.
How do we know you really are a christian/ theist ?
Answer: By having a source for what you believe.
ANYONE can claim to be a christian:
http://homepages.paradise.net.nz/mischedj/ca_hitler.html
"My feelings as a Christian points me to my Lord and Savior as a
fighter. It points me to the man who once in loneliness, surrounded by
a few followers, recognized these Jews for what they were and summoned
men to fight against them and who, God's truth! was greatest not as a
sufferer but as a fighter."
--Adolf Hitler [1922]
You are here to ass kiss atheists and assist while they drag Genesis in
their rape rooms and hold her down while you do the dirty work.
The only evidence needed to see how wrong and corrupt you are is the
approval your kind enjoys from atheist-Darwinism.
This applies to you Mark Isaak as well.
Ray Martinez
Dan Luke
"Ray Martinez" wrote:
> You are here to ass kiss atheists and assist while they drag Genesis
> in
> their rape rooms and hold her down while you do the dirty work.
You think about this kind of stuff a lot, don't you, Ray?
--
Dan
"Did you just have a stroke and not tell me?" - Jiminy Glick
Dylan
There's no evidence that evolution is a "theory that was invented to
falsify God AS the Creator." Quite the opposite: Darwin hated the idea
that his theory went against Christianity as it was understood by him
at the time.
scooter
Ray Martinez wrote:
>
> You are here to ass kiss atheists and assist while they drag Genesis
in
> their rape rooms and hold her down while you do the dirty work.
>
How do you know Genesis isn't a boy?
AC
I talked to God last night. He says he likes hot dogs, and is looking
forward to Ray Martinez getting what's coming to him for teaching heresy and
judging his brother. I guess you'll be spending eternity in torment with us
atheists.
'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank
Ray Martinez wrote:
> DYLAN:
>
> Embracing a theory that was invented to falsify God AS the Creator
> means you have no source for your alleged theism unless you evade,
> ignore, radically change, corrupt, or re-write what the Bible says.
>
Is that your opinion, or God's.
Or are you arrogant, self-righteous, and prideful enough to think they
are one and the same.
Who annointed you to be anyone's Judge?
================================================
Lenny Flank
"There are no loose threads in the web of life"
Creation "Science" Debunked:
http://www.geocities.com/lflank
DebunkCreation email list:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DebunkCreation/
Friar Broccoli
> How do we know you really are a christian/ theist ?
> Answer: By having a source for what you believe.
So which source do you believe, Genesis 1 where broccoli was created
first and man last, or Genesis 2 where man was created first,
just before broccoli ?
As a Broccolist/Theists I am willing to state CLEARLY where I stand
on this issue. ARE YOU ??
Cordially;
Friar Broccoli
Robert Keith Elias, Quebec, Canada Email: kelias (from) clic * net
Best programmer's & all purpose text editor: http://www.semware.com
--------- I consider ALL arguments in support of my views ---------
Milan
"Ray Martinez" <pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1115159509.6...@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> You are here to ass kiss atheists and assist while they drag >Genesis in
their rape rooms and hold her down while you >do the dirty work.
Fooking hell, this guy is a world-class sicko. This has to be the chez watt
of the century.
regards
Milan
Ray Martinez
RAY M:
Your opinion assumes Darwin honest telling the truth.
We know he was openly racist.
http://4forums.com/political/showpost.php?p=112787&postcount=1
And how honest is any person who believes man evolved from an ape ?
The Bible says Darwin and his crowd deliberately chose to flip God off
even though they knew about Him.
You have no evidence for your beliefs and an ulterior motive to paint
black white.
Ray Martinez
Mark VandeWettering
It is completely unsurprising to me that the most vitriolic response comes
not from an atheist, but from a fellow theist.
Mark
Faux_Pseudo
> And how honest is any person who believes man evolved from an ape ?
People who honestly evaluate new information as it becomes available
are far more honest than those who hold to an idea even when it is
shown to be wrong.
> The Bible says Darwin and his crowd deliberately chose to flip God off
> even though they knew about Him.
What prophecy is Darwin mentioned in?
--
.-')) fauxascii.com ('-. | It's a damn poor mind that
' ..- .:" ) ( ":. -.. ' | can only think of one way to
((,,_;'.;' UIN=66618055 ';. ';_,,)) | spell a word.
((_.YIM=Faux_Pseudo :._)) | - Andrew Jackson
Ken Shaw
Dylan wrote:
Welcome. I'm sorry that Ray has felt the need to crawl out from under
his rock to spout his vitriol at you but you best get used to it.
According to most of the YEC's around here you are at best apostate and
most will call you an atheist.
Ken
Ray Martinez
I am an OEC.
Not that accuracy counts but I must hope it does nontheless.
Ray Martinez
Ken Shaw
Faux_Pseudo wrote:
> _.-In talk.origins, Ray Martinez wrote the following -._
>
>>And how honest is any person who believes man evolved from an ape ?
>
>
> People who honestly evaluate new information as it becomes available
> are far more honest than those who hold to an idea even when it is
> shown to be wrong.
>
>
>>The Bible says Darwin and his crowd deliberately chose to flip God off
>>even though they knew about Him.
>
>
> What prophecy is Darwin mentioned in?
>
Daniel 7:13
;)
Ken
Lt. Kizhe Catson
> Ken:
>
> I am an OEC.
>
> Not that accuracy counts but I must hope it does nontheless.
Coming from you? Not that I'd noticed.
-- Kizhe
Ken Shaw
Ray Martinez wrote:
> Ken:
>
> I am an OEC.
>
> Not that accuracy counts but I must hope it does nontheless.
>
Well since I didn't call you a YEC this is at best a non sequitur. You
might try learning to read for comprehension.
Ken
Niels van der Linden
Have you used your capacity of logic (and experience of a changing
worldview) to look into the theories on:
- How one comes to belief?
- How brains work
http://cscs.umich.edu/~crshalizi/Dawkins/viruses-of-the-mind.html
BBC Brain Story (mvgroup.org)
BBC Life on Earth (mvgroup.org)
- How life started on earth
BBC Life on Earth (mvgroup.org)
BBC Space (mvgroup.org)
BBC The Planets (mvgroup.org)
Talkorigins.org
- How stars are created
- How solar systems are created
- How solar systems change over time
- How the universe changes over time
BBC Space (mvgroup.org)
BBC The Planets (mvgroup.org)
Niels
Niels van der Linden
Get some argumenting skills, will you?
http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/logic.html
Niels
Dylan
"The Bible says Darwin and his crowd deliberately chose to flip God off
even though they knew about Him"?
You refer to the apostle Paul in Romans 1:19-21?
NIV translation: "What may be known about God is plain to them [men who
suppress the truth]. For since the creation of the world God's
invisible qualities - his eternal power and divine nature - have
been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that
men are without excuse. For although they knew God, they neither
glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became
futile and their foolish hearts wre darkened."
Ray, this passage constitutes no condemnation of honest, sincere,
ethical atheists. It is an explanation of the behavior of wicked
persons. If an atheist does not behave wickedly, then this passage
doesn't condemn him. Paul makes an even harsher condemnation against
BELIEVERS who behave wickedly (Romans 2:17-28) and concludes that NO
ONE is righteous ("Jews and Gentiles alike are all under sin," verse
9). Nowhere in Romans, or anywhere in the Bible, are honest, sincere,
ethical people EVER condemned. To the contrary, they are honored, even
though they don't know Christ.
Your problem, Ray, is serious. For by the language that you have used
in your posts on this thread, you have placed yourself with the only
crowd that the Bible condemns.
I'm really sorry,
Dylan
Steven J.
"Ray Martinez" <pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1115159509.6...@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> Embracing a theory that was invented to falsify God AS the Creator
> means you have no source for your alleged theism unless you evade,
> ignore, radically change, corrupt, or re-write what the Bible says.
>
> TEists are a dime a dozen and for all I know you are an atheist
> attempting to corrupt Scripture.
>
> How do we know you really are a christian/ theist ?
>
> Answer: By having a source for what you believe.
>
James 2:14, or John 14:15.
I'm not sure that obscenity-laced antievolution diatribes constitute that
sort of works that show faith, or the sort of obedience that Jesus
recommended.
>
-- [snip]
>
> Ray Martinez
>
-- Steven J.
Bobby D. Bryant
You were doing OK up to here:
> I'm a journalist. Long ago, in my first newswriting class, I learned
> about "the five Ws and the H": WHO, WHAT, WHEN, WHERE, WHY and HOW.
> What does this bit of autobiography have to do with my synthesis of
> the science of evolution with my faith in God?
>
> My creationist faith tells me:
>
> WHAT - that "the heavens and the earth" are created.
>
> WHO - that it was God who did the creating.
As a journalist, would you feel compelled to provide a "who" if the
story were about a volcano or tsunami?
> WHY - because God wanted to do something "very good" (Genesis 1:31).
Same question as above.
--
Bobby Bryant
Austin, Texas
Dylan
Yes.
Niels van der Linden
worldview) to look into the theories on:
>> - How one comes to belief?
>> - How brains work
>> - How solar systems are created
>> - How solar systems change over time
>> - How the universe changes over time
Dylan wrote
> Yes.
And..? Did they "make sense"?
Dylan
"As a journalist, would you feel compelled to provide a "who" if the
story were about a volcano or tsunami?"
No. The "5 Ws and the H" principle carries with it no obligation to
include them all in every lead.
Dylan
Dylan
Commenting on Darwin: We know he was openly racist.
Well, while we do know he didn't shave, we don't know he was openly
racist, only that you refer to your assertion that he was in a
different post. He was a man of his times, imperfect as we all are, but
"openly racist," whatever that means, is a bit of a stretch.
Raymond E. Griffith
"Ray Martinez" <pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1115159509.6...@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> DYLAN:
>
> Embracing a theory that was invented to falsify God AS the Creator
> means you have no source for your alleged theism unless you evade,
> ignore, radically change, corrupt, or re-write what the Bible says.
>
> TEists are a dime a dozen and for all I know you are an atheist
> attempting to corrupt Scripture.
>
> How do we know you really are a christian/ theist ?
>
> Answer: By having a source for what you believe.
>
>
>
> http://homepages.paradise.net.nz/mischedj/ca_hitler.html
>
> "My feelings as a Christian points me to my Lord and Savior as a
> fighter. It points me to the man who once in loneliness, surrounded by
> a few followers, recognized these Jews for what they were and summoned
> men to fight against them and who, God's truth! was greatest not as a
> sufferer but as a fighter."
>
> --Adolf Hitler [1922]
>
> You are here to ass kiss atheists and assist while they drag Genesis in
> their rape rooms and hold her down while you do the dirty work.
>
> The only evidence needed to see how wrong and corrupt you are is the
> approval your kind enjoys from atheist-Darwinism.
>
> This applies to you Mark Isaak as well.
>
> Ray Martinez
This is the same illogic that the Pharisees used against Jesus. Jesus was
approved of by the tax-collectors and the sinners. Since Jesus was sought
after by the scum of the earth, the Pharisees saw Jesus as scum, too.
And here you are, taking a person who has professed faith and trust in God,
and accusing him of being corrupt. The only way you could do that, though,
is by deleting all of his own words! Your own morality is bankrupt. You are
yourself full of deceit.
Hmmm. The Pharisees were taken to task by Jesus. They were the Bible
literalists. Jesus even said that they believed that they had eternal life
in their belief in the Scriptures. But they were blind where He was
concerned, and despite their "faith", they weren't really righteous. Jesus
said that they were like a cup which was washed only on the outside, while
all sorts of filth resided on the inside. He said they were like a painted
tomb, pretty to look at but still full of rottenness.
And you, Ray Martinez, are very like the Pharisees as Jesus described them.
Looks like you are the one in the wrong crowd. Of course, you don't have to
stay there. It is your choice.
Regards,
Raymond E. Griffith
Bobby D. Bryant
> DYLAN:
>
> Embracing a theory that was invented to falsify God AS the Creator
> means you have no source for your alleged theism unless you evade,
> ignore, radically change, corrupt, or re-write what the Bible says.
>
> TEists are a dime a dozen and for all I know you are an atheist
> attempting to corrupt Scripture.
>
> How do we know you really are a christian/ theist ?
>
> Answer: By having a source for what you believe.
>
> ANYONE can claim to be a christian:
>
>
> http://homepages.paradise.net.nz/mischedj/ca_hitler.html
>
> "My feelings as a Christian points me to my Lord and Savior as a
> fighter. It points me to the man who once in loneliness, surrounded by
> a few followers, recognized these Jews for what they were and summoned
> men to fight against them and who, God's truth! was greatest not as a
> sufferer but as a fighter."
>
> --Adolf Hitler [1922]
>
> You are here to ass kiss atheists and assist while they drag Genesis in
> their rape rooms and hold her down while you do the dirty work.
>
> The only evidence needed to see how wrong and corrupt you are is the
> approval your kind enjoys from atheist-Darwinism.
>
> This applies to you Mark Isaak as well.
I guess God can retire now that he has someone to sit in judgement for
him.
OldMan
Ray, please take a look at 1 Peter 3:15-16. I suspect you believe you
are being obedient to verse 15 but you seem to have forgotten 16. Your
posts are bringing reproach to Christ and shame to yourself. Hopefully
that is not your goal.
Ray Martinez
Who annointed you to be anyone's Judge?
RAY M:
IOW, you cannot refute the fact that Dylan must evade or ignore
Biblical sudden creation in order to accomodate the secular theory of
origins.
My point was so pointy you intentionally made it appear to be some type
of moral issue = tactic employed due to the inability to refute.
Ray Martinez
Ray Martinez
Ray, please take a look at 1 Peter 3:15-16. I suspect you believe you
are being obedient to verse 15 but you seem to have forgotten 16. Your
posts are bringing reproach to Christ and shame to yourself. Hopefully
that is not your goal.
RAY M:
Your opinion above can be equated to side with my opponents. My
opponents are Darwinists = persons who think the God of Genesis is not
the Creator.
Genesis says God suddenly created Adam in His image.
Does God look like an animal or ape ?
John 1 says IF you've seen Jesus/the Logos you have seen the Father.
Did Jesus look like an ape or animal ?
Dylan has no source for his alleged theism because the Bible does not
support his assertions.
My previous post quoting Hitler proves that anyone can claim to be a
christian. This is where you fit in.
Prcatical Advice:
If you want accurate renderings of the Bible - assume it means what it
says and says what it means, and of course, do not consult an atheist
or Darwinist for obvious reasons.
Ray Martinez
Ray Martinez
Even though we disagree you are one of my favorite evos.
STEVEN J:
The Bible, as I recall, has rather different diagnostic criteria;
consider James 2:14, or John 14:15.
RAY M:
God placed the book of James into the canon for only one reason:
To demonstrate what righteous sounding heresy looks like.
The book is intended to show us the wrong message of faith dressed up
as works.
People assume the epistle of James must be reconciled with Paul.
It's only purpose is to evidence the crooked message of O.T. works.
Ray Martinez
Faux_Pseudo
I had no idea that Darwin ever wrote anything about lesbians or caused
lesbianism. I always figued that homosexuality was the one thing that
creationists could use to attempt to debunk Darwin. "If evilution be
true then there'd be no gay folk." Of course this leaves them with
the problem of finding a place for gays in "God's Plan".
You learn (and make fun of) something every day.
Also worth noting that Romans 2:1 is:
You, therefore, have no excuse, you who pass judgment on someone
else, for at whatever point you judge the other, you are condemning
yourself, because you who pass judgment do the same things.
Kind of fitting since it is the religious who are so fastest to judge
others actions. In America the politicians have it backwards. The
"Religious Right" loves the death penalty and the "Liberal Left" is so
PC it can't find a double ungood thing to say about anybody.
Dylan
"Dylan must evade or ignore Biblical sudden creation in order to
accomodate the secular theory of origins."
Two thoughts in response:
1. Darwin's theory of origins is not secular if by "secular" you mean
anti-God or anti-religious. It takes no position whether for or against
divine creation. It is only concerned with WHAT happened, WHEN it
happened and HOW it happened. It is a theory designed to explain the
facts, not a religious belief designed to create them.
2. I neither evade nor ignore biblical creation, just your
interpretation of it. I believe that Genesis creation account was
written down by people who had no idea of Darwin's theory, but were
inspired by God to write the story in terms of what they knew and
could understand appropriate to their time, culture and location.
Otherwise they wouldn't know what they were writing about and their
creation would be useless to the people who needed to learn about
creation from God - not from you.
OldMan
Ray, I do take the Bible literally and seek to follow all of it's
teachings. It is apparent however that you do not. I feel sorry for
you.
Dylan
You wrote: God placed the book of James into the canon for only one
reason: To demonstrate what righteous sounding heresy looks like.
Your assessment disagrees with that of the scholars of the New
International Version who say that James is in the canon for this
reason:
"Its emphasis on vital Christianity, characterized by good deeds and a
faith that works (genuine faith must and will be accompanied by a
consistent life-style)" - which is different from the life-style
demonstrated by the filthy language you have been using in this thread.
-Dylan
Faux_Pseudo
In ToS there is a bit where Darwin talks about how sad it was that a
human could be made to cower and have no dignity before another one
because his skin was a different color.
Darwin was no racist.
When can I become so famous that I can be referred to by just my
last name? How many people get that honer?
Kenedy, Hitler, Khan, Caesar, Einstien, ...
Dylan
not
the Creator.
I am a Darwinist, and I think of the God of Genesis IS the Creator.
-Dylan
KMarissa
>International Version
Come on Dylan, even I know the answer to this one. If they disagree
with Ray, they are obviously atheists. I mean, *obviously.*
Ray Martinez
1. Darwin's theory of origins is not secular if by "secular" you mean
anti-God or anti-religious. It takes no position whether for or against
divine creation
RAY M:
Darwin was apostate/atheist/naturalist/ = but gave lip service to God
because intolerant theists ruled the world then.
Darwinism: Created things are the product of other created things and
not God.
Asserting contrary only exhibits the degree of dishonesty or ignorance
in your position.
DYLAN:
It is only concerned with WHAT happened, WHEN it
happened and HOW it happened. It is a theory designed to explain the
facts.
RAY M:
True, but its presupposition assumed atheist worldview philosophy as
fact.
Creationism is the explanation of the same facts.
The Bible also declares Darwinism (as defined above) to be a penalty
from God for denying Him Creator credit.
DYLAN:
I neither evade nor ignore biblical creation, just your
interpretation of it. I believe that Genesis creation account was
written down by people who had no idea of Darwin's theory, but were
inspired by God to write the story in terms of what they knew and
could understand appropriate to their time, culture and location.
Otherwise they wouldn't know what they were writing about and their
creation would be useless to the people who needed to learn about
creation from God - not from you.
RAY M:
The above comments are easily refuted by pointing out that they were
written by a Darwinist.
The comments also attempt to objectify subjective evolution friendly
renderings fo the Bible.
IOW, you must ignore what the Bible says = then your theory has
Scriptural support.
Ray Martinez
VoiceOfReason
Ray Martinez wrote:
> DYLAN:
>
> Embracing a theory that was invented to falsify God ...
When you begin your post with a lie, it's obvious anything else you
have to say is worthless.
<SNIP>
Dylan
Genesis says God suddenly created Adam in His image. Did Jesus look
like an ape or animal ?
You are mistaken. The Tanakh Translation (TT, copyright 1999) in the
Jewish Study Bible text note to Genesis 1:27 ("God created man in His
image") says this:
"In the ancient Near east, the king was often said to be the 'image' of
the god and thus to act with divine authority. So here, the creation of
humanity in God's IMAGE and LIKENESS carries with it a commission to
rule over the animal kingdom. ... [T]he Tanakh [Hebrew Bible] presents
humanity not as the owner of nature but as its steward ...."
Meaning: In Scripture the image of God has nothing to do with physical
appearance. In fact, God forbade the Israelites from making images of
God.
Even in the New Testament the fact that Jesus Christ was in God's image
had nothing to do with his physical appearance, any more than it did in
the Old. It had to do with his authority.
-Dylan
Dylan
Yes. I said before that I was a journalist, but I didn't add that I am
a science journalist, specializing in health/medical. I love all of the
sciences and try to keep up as best I can, even in fields in which I'm
not currently writing/editing.
-Dylan
raven1
wrote:
>LENNY F:
>
>Who annointed you to be anyone's Judge?
>
>RAY M:
>
>IOW, you cannot refute the fact that Dylan must evade or ignore
>Biblical sudden creation in order to accomodate the secular theory of
>origins.
Tell us, Ray, whatever gave you the idea that the first chapters of
Genesis are to be taken literally, especially given that the order of
creation in the first chapter clearly contradicts observed reality?
Dylan
Other single-named persons: Cher, "the artist formerly called Prince,"
Madonna, ..., there must be many more, probably many also who are not
famous.
-Dylan
Steven J.
> Hi Steven:
>
> Even though we disagree you are one of my favorite evos.
>
> STEVEN J:
>
> The Bible, as I recall, has rather different diagnostic criteria;
> consider James 2:14, or John 14:15.
>
> RAY M:
>
> God placed the book of James into the canon for only one reason:
>
> To demonstrate what righteous sounding heresy looks like.
>
thought the book "an epistle of straw," did not dare describe it as outright
heresy. I am bemused by the idea that some books of the Bible are put in
merely to illustrate (not to describe, but to serve as exemplars of) false
and heretical belief. Given that Genesis, as you interpret it, is contrary
to much of biology, paleontology, and even geology (how you manage to argue
with geology while embracing an OEC position is beyond me, but you do), and
given that it apparently spurs creationists to misrepresent scientists and
scientific data, to advance fallacious and absurd arguments, and (in some
cases, such as yours) to spew forth abusive and obscene language, perhaps
*Genesis* was put in the Bible merely to show what righteous-sounding
scientific idiocy looks like. Mind you, I am not, personally, advancing
this position, but it is consistent with your estimation of the book of
James.
>
> The book is intended to show us the wrong message of faith dressed up
> as works.
>
>
> People assume the epistle of James must be reconciled with Paul.
>
very insistent that our good works are inadequate to earn salvation, but he
is also very insistent that we ought to do good works. He is constantly
urging his listeners to forgo various sins, to help one another, to donate
to others in need. James, for his part, insists not that we are saved
through what Paul calls "works" (assorted ritual practices), but that proper
faith must invariably result in moral actions. The differences from Paul's
position (as opposed to the differences from Paul's words, quoted out of
context) are negligible.
>
> It's only purpose is to evidence the crooked message of O.T. works.
>
insistent that all science be deformed to match your particular reading of
Genesis?
raven1
wrote:
>Hi Steven:
>
>Even though we disagree you are one of my favorite evos.
>
>STEVEN J:
>
>The Bible, as I recall, has rather different diagnostic criteria;
>consider James 2:14, or John 14:15.
>
>RAY M:
>
>God placed the book of James into the canon for only one reason:
God didn't place anything into the canon; humans did.
>
>To demonstrate what righteous sounding heresy looks like.
>
>The book is intended to show us the wrong message of faith dressed up
>as works.
>
>People assume the epistle of James must be reconciled with Paul.
>
>It's only purpose is to evidence the crooked message of O.T. works.
A very curious theological position to take. On what do you base this
interpretation?
>
>Ray Martinez
Andrew Melka
I think the authors of Genesis were aware that humans likely
evolved from animals. Why is the tree of the fruit of the knowledge of
good and evil in the center of Eden? Because it, like other world-trees
in mythology, is a symbolic umbiblical cord. Many cultures have used a
sacred knife to sever the newborn's umbiblical cord, whereas most mammal
mothers bite through the umbiblical cord and eat the afterbirth. Eve
initiates the eating of the fruit as a symbol of this pre-human
behavior. Genesis is more accurate in determining the crucial event in
human evolution than Darwin was. Darwin thought it was upright posture,
but we now know that the Australopiths were upright apes for millions of
years until the genus _Homo_ arose simultaneously with the use of stone
knives.
Dylan
God because intolerant theists ruled the world then.
Of course this is nonsense.
-Dylan
raven1
wrote:
>OLD MAN:
>
>Ray, please take a look at 1 Peter 3:15-16. I suspect you believe you
>are being obedient to verse 15 but you seem to have forgotten 16. Your
>
>posts are bringing reproach to Christ and shame to yourself. Hopefully
>
>that is not your goal.
>
>RAY M:
>
>Your opinion above can be equated to side with my opponents. My
>opponents are Darwinists = persons who think the God of Genesis is not
>the Creator.
IIRC, this thread was started by a professed Christian who also
accepts evolution.
>
>Genesis says God suddenly created Adam in His image.
That would be "male *and female*", as per the text. Is that where you
were going with this?
>
>Does God look like an animal or ape ?
Humans are both animals and apes.
>
>John 1 says IF you've seen Jesus/the Logos you have seen the Father.
>
>Did Jesus look like an ape or animal ?
As human, Jesus was both an animal and an ape.
>
>Dylan has no source for his alleged theism because the Bible does not
>support his assertions.
Where does the Bible say that the creation account in Genesis is to be
taken literally? Bear in mind that Jesus taught largely in parables
that were not meant to be taken literally, but to illustrate a moral
point.
>
>My previous post quoting Hitler proves that anyone can claim to be a
>christian. This is where you fit in.
I seem to recall a certain passage regarding the mote in one's
brother's eye and the weaver's beam in one's own, but it would no
doubt be lost on you.
>
>Prcatical Advice:
>
>If you want accurate renderings of the Bible - assume it means what it
>says and says what it means,
On what do you base this literalism? The Bible was intended as a moral
guide, not a science textbook, and reflects the scientific knowledge
of the period it was written.
> and of course, do not consult an atheist
>or Darwinist for obvious reasons.
Argumentum ad Hominem duly noted.
KMarissa
It is only concerned with WHAT happened, WHEN it
happened and HOW it happened. It is a theory designed to explain the
facts.
RAY M:
True, but its presupposition assumed atheist worldview philosophy as
fact.
Since there are no facts tending to suggest the existence of some
supernatural big guy up in the sky, it would be silly for evolution, as
a theory, to start from this assumption. If, in fact, the evidence
clearly points to creationism, then there is no need to START from a
creationist point of view: an objective look at the evidence would lead
any honest scientist to that conclusion. Rather than hear a bunch of
Bible-thumping and twisted explanations from Christian "scientists," I
would be more interested in hearing how many atheists and other
NON-Christians, after examining all the evidence, became convinced that
creationism was correct. It seems as though, if evidence clearly
supported creationism, theist scientists (in particular) from many
religions would believe it.
I also find your mention of "intolerant theists" rather amusing.
Steven J.
> OLD MAN:
>
> Ray, please take a look at 1 Peter 3:15-16. I suspect you believe you
> are being obedient to verse 15 but you seem to have forgotten 16. Your
>
> posts are bringing reproach to Christ and shame to yourself. Hopefully
>
> that is not your goal.
>
> RAY M:
>
> Your opinion above can be equated to side with my opponents. My
> opponents are Darwinists = persons who think the God of Genesis is not
> the Creator.
>
describes the Creator; there are nonChristian theists in the world. Of
course, there are a large number of "Darwinists" who see the God of Genesis
as the Creator, but do not believe that Genesis is a literal account of how
He created.
>
> Genesis says God suddenly created Adam in His image.
>
phrase "great pyramid."
>
> Does God look like an animal or ape ?
>
primates look like each other. God, according to Jesus's words in John, is
spirit. Most sects of Christianity count it heretical to regard the _imago
dei_ as a *physical* likeness between humans and their Creator (and, of
course, if the image of God is a physical image, then presumably some humans
look more like God than others; that way lies all manner of loathsome forms
of discrimination).
>
> John 1 says IF you've seen Jesus/the Logos you have seen the Father.
>
> Did Jesus look like an ape or animal ?
>
humans *are* apes, and look, again, as much like other primates as other
primates look like each other, apparently he did.
>
> Dylan has no source for his alleged theism because the Bible does not
> support his assertions.
>
> My previous post quoting Hitler proves that anyone can claim to be a
> christian. This is where you fit in.
>
Christian, albeit giving them less reason to want to.
>
> Prcatical Advice:
>
> If you want accurate renderings of the Bible - assume it means what it
> says and says what it means, and of course, do not consult an atheist
> or Darwinist for obvious reasons.
>
> Ray Martinez
>
Dylan
things and
not God.
Darwin never said anything even remotely like that.
-Dylan
raven1
wrote:
>Ken:
>
>I am an OEC.
Then your specific objection to the TOE would be...?
Dylan
1. The above comments are easily refuted by pointing out that they were
written by a Darwinist. 2. The comments also attempt to objectify
subjective evolution friendly
renderings fo the Bible. 3. IOW, you must ignore what the Bible says =
then your theory has
Scriptural support.
Dylan responds:
1. The comments haven't been refuted. 2. They don't. 3. I don't.
Dylan
Ray: True, but its [evolution's ability to explain facts]
presupposition assumed atheist worldview philosophy as fact.
Dylan: It makes no such presupposition or assumption, but rather
remains neutral regarding metanarration or metaphysical explanations of
spiritual truths. Hence some evolutionist-scientists are atheists but
the overwhelming majority aren't.
Ray: Creationism is the explanation of the same facts.
Dylan: Your brand of creationism isn't. Mine is.
Ray: The Bible also declares Darwinism (as defined above) to be a
penalty from God for denying Him Creator credit.
Dylan: You have no chapter-and-verses, only faux allusions and
misrepresentations of Paul in Romans 1.
Faux_Pseudo
It is all in the Good Book. :)
> Other single-named persons: Cher, "the artist formerly called Prince,"
> Madonna, ..., there must be many more, probably many also who are not
> famous.
I was thinking more of people known by just their last name. As far
as I know Cher has only one name. Vs Madonna and Prince who are known
only by their first name.
Eros
Faux_Pseudo wrote:
> _.-In talk.origins, Dylan wrote the following -._
> > Ray,
> >
> > Commenting on Darwin: We know he was openly racist.
> >
> > Well, while we do know he didn't shave, we don't know he was openly
> > racist, only that you refer to your assertion that he was in a
> > different post. He was a man of his times, imperfect as we all are,
but
> > "openly racist," whatever that means, is a bit of a stretch.
>
> In ToS there is a bit where Darwin talks about how sad it was that a
> human could be made to cower and have no dignity before another one
> because his skin was a different color.
>
> Darwin was no racist.
>
> When can I become so famous that I can be referred to by just my
> last name? How many people get that honer?
>
> Kenedy, Hitler, Khan, Caesar, Einstien, ...
Wilkins?
EROS.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Moses made mistakes, Abraham made mistakes, David made mistakes,
Elijah made mistakes..."-- Herbert W. Armstrong, explaining why the
world did not end in 1972, as he had foretold, quoted from David
Milsted, The Cassell Dictionary of Regrettable Quotations (1999)
Eros
Ray Martinez wrote:
> LENNY F:
>
> Who annointed you to be anyone's Judge?
>
> RAY M:
>
> IOW, you cannot refute the fact that Dylan must evade or ignore
> Biblical sudden creation in order to accomodate the secular theory of
> origins.
>
type
> of moral issue = tactic employed due to the inability to refute.
>
> Ray Martinez
Yes, but who annointed you to be anyone's Judge?
"My point was so pointy"??????????? WTF!!
EROS.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Hell exists because God loves you... and nothing says 'I love you!'
like eternal torture."
Faux_Pseudo
> Did Jesus look like an ape or animal ?
According to this formal POTM he would have looked like a ape which is
an animal.
<url:http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/postmonth/may03.html>
An addendum to that POTM: While reading through the newest Scientific
American a week ago there was a caption to a picture that mentioned a
protein that is only found in primates. It was called anul or
something like that. Yet more evidence for common ancestry.
> Prcatical Advice:
>
> If you want accurate renderings of the Bible - assume it means what it
> says and says what it means,
The fathers shall not be put to death for the children,
neither shall the children be put to death for the fathers:
every man shall be put to death for his own sin.
--- Deuteronomy 24:16
Are we then to assume that Jesus, (aka God, our Father) who died for
our sins (John 3:16) didn't die for our sins?
Anyone who says that the bible "mans what it says and says what it
means" has got a screw loose. Maybe that is because the screw wasn't
made right since the makers of the skrew used 3 for PI instead of
someting closer to 3.14? (1 Kings 7:23)
So tell me Mr Literalist Bible Reader: Is PI 3 or 3.14~
Eros
Mark VandeWettering wrote:> > Embracing a theory that was invented to falsify God AS the Creator
> > means you have no source for your alleged theism unless you evade,
> > ignore, radically change, corrupt, or re-write what the Bible says.
> >
> > TEists are a dime a dozen and for all I know you are an atheist
> > attempting to corrupt Scripture.
> >
> > How do we know you really are a christian/ theist ?
> >
> > Answer: By having a source for what you believe.
> >
> > ANYONE can claim to be a christian:
> >
> >
> > http://homepages.paradise.net.nz/mischedj/ca_hitler.html
> >
> > "My feelings as a Christian points me to my Lord and Savior as a
> > fighter. It points me to the man who once in loneliness, surrounded
by
> > a few followers, recognized these Jews for what they were and
summoned
> > men to fight against them and who, God's truth! was greatest not as
a
> > sufferer but as a fighter."
> >
> > --Adolf Hitler [1922]
> >
> > You are here to ass kiss atheists and assist while they drag
Genesis in
> > their rape rooms and hold her down while you do the dirty work.
> >
> > The only evidence needed to see how wrong and corrupt you are is
the
> > approval your kind enjoys from atheist-Darwinism.
> >
> > This applies to you Mark Isaak as well.
> >
> > Ray Martinez
>
> It is completely unsurprising to me that the most vitriolic response
comes
> not from an atheist, but from a fellow theist.
Yes, in fact, some psychologists have observed that there is a link
between theism and insanity;-
"Religion is another fertile cause of insanity. Mr. Haslam, though he
declares it sinful to consider religion as a cause of insanity, adds,
however, that he would be ungrateful, did he not avow his obligation to
Methodism for its supply of numerous cases. Hence the primitive
feelings of religion may be misled and produce insanity; that is what I
would contend for, and in that sense religion often leads to
insanity." -- Johann Gaspar Spurzheim, German physician, born
December 31, 1776, Longuich near Trier, Germany; died November 10,
1832, Boston, Massachusetts, U.S.A.
You really have to wonder about the abhorent, irrational behaviour of
many so-called theists in this forum, and elsewhere, don't you.
EROS.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Why me, Lord? Where have I gone wrong? I've always been nice to
people. I don't drink or dance or swear. I've even kept Kosher just
to be on the safe side. I've done everything the bible says, even the
stuff that contradicts the other stuff." - Ned Flanders
Dylan
Regarding the determination of pi in 1 Kings, although I'm not Mr.
Literalist Bible Reader, let me take a stab at interpreting the
description of the cast metal tank that was 10 cubits across,
completely round, 5 cubits in height, and 30 cubits in circumference.
The Jewish Study Bible (copyright 2004) in its text note to 1 Kings
7:23-24, says this:
"A comparison of the tank's diameter and circumference indicates that
the author used 3 as the value of pi. Assuming the correctness of the
diameter, the circumference was almost 31.5 cubits (15 m or 47 ft)."
Perchance the good biblical author believed in rounding?
-Dylan*
*Actually it's my first pseudonym, Thomas my last. "Do not go gentle
into that good night."
Thore "Tocis" Schmechtig
> For I believe that God created evolution. [...]
May well be so. Hard to prove _that_ either way. :)
> For it
> is purely a matter of my faith.
Indeed. If all creationists would just admit the very same thing, the whole
"controversy" wouldn't be there. ;)
> Ergo, though I've become an evolutionist by dint of the data, I remain
> a creationist by faith in God.
As far as I'm concerned, you're welcome. :)
--
Regards
Thore "Tocis" Schmechtig
Dylan
very same thing [that their creationism is purely a matter of faith],
the whole 'controversy' wouldn't be there." And to my assertion
that, "though I've become an evolutionist by dint of the data, I
remain a creationist by faith in God," he says, "As far as I'm
concerned, you're welcome. :)"
To which I can only reply: His attitude is far more Christian (in the
best sense of that term) than 99% of the YECs and IDers with whom
I've tried to make my case that God created evolution.
Now if Jesus were walking the earth today, whom do you suppose he'd
bless? Hint: Read the Sermon on the Mount (Matthew 5-7).
-Dylan
Faux_Pseudo
>
> Darwin was apostate/atheist/naturalist/ = but gave lip service to God
> because intolerant theists ruled the world then.
Because we all know that people who pay lip service to religon try for
a degree in divinity from Cambridge. Don't you hate it when the
people you are ignorantly insulting have more credentials in your area
of expertise then you do?
I do belive he got a BA from his religious studies there. What did
you get?
Faux_Pseudo
s/FS/FP/
> Regarding the determination of pi in 1 Kings, although I'm not Mr.
> Literalist Bible Reader,
Noted.
> let me take a stab at interpreting the
> description of the cast metal tank that was 10 cubits across,
> completely round, 5 cubits in height, and 30 cubits in circumference.
>
> The Jewish Study Bible (copyright 2004) in its text note to 1 Kings
> 7:23-24, says this:
>
> "A comparison of the tank's diameter and circumference indicates that
> the author used 3 as the value of pi. Assuming the correctness of the
> diameter, the circumference was almost 31.5 cubits (15 m or 47 ft)."
>
> Perchance the good biblical author believed in rounding?
Can one be a literalist /and/ belive in rounding?
Dylan
Can one be a literalist /and/ believe in rounding?
Why not?
John Wilkins
> Can one be a literalist /and/ believe in rounding?
>
> Why not?
>
believe it is precise. 3 for pi can be accurate, and yet not very
precise. Another way to say this is that if the Bible implied it was 7,
then it would be neither precise nor accurate. If it implied pi was
7.123456789, it would be precise, but not accurate.
I think the pi = 3 thing is a silly objection.
--
John S. Wilkins, Postdoctoral Research Fellow, Biohumanities Project
University of Queensland - Blog: evolvethought.blogspot.com
"Darwin's theory has no more to do with philosophy than any other
hypothesis in natural science." Tractatus 4.1122
SortingItOut
Wow!
Thanks for the illustration. I now have a better understanding of how
European Christians from centuries ago could bring themselves torture,
hang, and/or burn their fellow man and even their fellow Christians.
You've taken a post that most people would interpret as a Christian
expressing his understanding of God's creative process, and you managed
to turn it into something else, calling the poster "corrupt", referring
to his "kind", comparing him to Hitler, and hinting that he is not only
an atheist, but an atheist bent on corrupting scripture.
It's really disturbing.
rthe...@hotmail.com
Ray Martinez wrote:
> The above comments are easily refuted by pointing out that they were
> written by a Darwinist.
Everything you write is easily rejected by pointing out that it was
written by you.
Roy
Daniel T.
"Ray Martinez" <pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> If you want accurate renderings of the Bible - assume it means what it
> says and says what it means, and of course, do not consult an atheist
> or Darwinist for obvious reasons.
Ray,
Taking into account the above, how many children did Michal (the
daughter of Saul) have? (2 Samuel 6:23, 2 Samuel 21:8)
Raymond E. Griffith
Martinez at pyram...@yahoo.com wrote on 05/03/05 11:01 PM:
> Hi Steven:
>
> Even though we disagree you are one of my favorite evos.
>
> STEVEN J:
>
> The Bible, as I recall, has rather different diagnostic criteria;
> consider James 2:14, or John 14:15.
>
> RAY M:
>
> God placed the book of James into the canon for only one reason:
>
> To demonstrate what righteous sounding heresy looks like.
>
> The book is intended to show us the wrong message of faith dressed up
> as works.
>
> People assume the epistle of James must be reconciled with Paul.
>
> It's only purpose is to evidence the crooked message of O.T. works.
>
> Ray Martinez
>
Oh my! A person who claims to believe the Bible and claims that everything
is inspired and means what it says -- and who then throws away what he
doesn't like!
Niels van der Linden
> not from an atheist, but from a fellow theist.
"4. The sufferer may find himself behaving intolerantly towards vectors of
rival faiths, in extreme cases even killing them or advocating their deaths.
He may be similarly violent in his disposition towards apostates (people who
once held the faith but have renounced it);
[-->] or towards heretics (people who espouse a different --- often, perhaps
significantly, only very slightly different --- version of the faith). [<--]
He may also feel hostile towards other modes of thought that are potentially
inimical to his faith, such as the method of scientific reason which may
function rather like a piece of anti-viral software."
http://cscs.umich.edu/~crshalizi/Dawkins/viruses-of-the-mind.html
Niels
Niels van der Linden
> bless? Hint: Read the Sermon on the Mount (Matthew 5-7).
Jesus blessing something is just as meaningless as the pope blessing
something.
allanm
Ray Martinez wrote:
> Ken:
>
> I am an OEC.
You can call yourself what you like, of course (as can Dylan) but this
made me sit up. As someone who insists on the literal Word-for-Word
interpretation of Genesis, yet is elsewhere dubious about dating
methods, superposition of strata and other old-earth pointers, what
leads you to conclude that Biblical "days" are not, in fact, days, or
that the A-begat-B genealogy is somewhere incomplete?
>
> Not that accuracy counts but I must hope it does nontheless.
>
> Ray Martinez
Thore "Tocis" Schmechtig
> To which I can only reply: His attitude is far more Christian (in the
> best sense of that term) than 99% of the YECs and IDers with whom
> I've tried to make my case that God created evolution.
Whoah, it's been quite some time since I received such a compliment
online... :)
*bows thankfully*
Matthew Isleb
> DYLAN:
>
> Embracing a theory that was invented to falsify God AS the Creator
> means you have no source for your alleged theism unless you evade,
> ignore, radically change, corrupt, or re-write what the Bible says.
>
> TEists are a dime a dozen and for all I know you are an atheist
> attempting to corrupt Scripture.
>
> How do we know you really are a christian/ theist ?
Better torture him and find out...
-matthew
chris.li...@gmail.com
Ray Martinez wrote:
> DYLAN:
>
> There's no evidence that evolution is a "theory that was invented to
> falsify God AS the Creator." Quite the opposite: Darwin hated the
idea
> that his theory went against Christianity as it was understood by him
> at the time.
>
> RAY M:
>
> Your opinion assumes Darwin honest telling the truth.
>
> We know he was openly racist.
>
This always intrigued me. If evolution is false because Darwin was
racist, can we not disprove creationism by bringing out Louis Agassiz?
Agassiz was much, much worse than Darwin (who was pretty liberal for
his time), even believing that black people are part of a "degraded and
degenerate race."
So Ray, what's it like up there on that petard?
Chris
Ken Shaw
Ray Martinez wrote:
>
> If you want accurate renderings of the Bible - assume it means what it
> says and says what it means, and of course, do not consult an atheist
> or Darwinist for obvious reasons.
Have you ever consumed shellfish? Have you ever worn a garment made from
two different kinds of fiber (cotton/poly for instance)? If so why are
you still alive? Don't you fear your gods promised punishment of your
friends and family? What do you do if someone in your community grows
more than one kind of plant in a garden plot?
Ken
chris.li...@gmail.com
Eros wrote:
> Yes, in fact, some psychologists have observed that there is a link
> between theism and insanity;-
>
[snip]
If you saw someone standing on the street corner, talking to someone no
one else could see, what would you think about that person? Now move
that person into a house of worship.
And no, I do not think all people who pray and/or worship are nutjobs.
But as others have pointed out, many of the behaviours associated with
religious worship can, in a different context, be considered symptoms
of mental illness.
Chris
Dylan
Ray writes, "I am an OEC," meaning old earth creationist as
distinguished from YEC (young earth creationist). I am a creationist,
but I fit under neither the OEC nor YEC label. Not under YEC because I
accept data that earth is about 5.5 billion years old.
Nor under OEC because that movement is stuck with too many positions
with which I disagree, such as explaining equilibrium punctuations as
progressive creationism in a way that trashes sound geology. Your
remark in this respect, Allan, strikes me as particularly revealing:
OEC can't deal very well with dating methods, such as superposition of
strata, that muddle the creation concept of "days" rather than leaving
them alone as strictly metanarration.
Nor am I particularly fond of TE (theistic evolutionist) because that
label sounds too much like turning evolution into a form of theology
rather than leaving it as it is - raw science, like relativity, open
to continual modification by the data as it arrives.
So I call myself an evolutionary creationist (EC). The central
principle of evolutionary creationism is: God created evolution. This
principle crystalizes creationism as theology and not science. It also
innoculates evolutionary theory against God-of-the-gaps contamination.
-Dylan
Mark VandeWettering
> OLD MAN:
>
> Ray, please take a look at 1 Peter 3:15-16. I suspect you believe you
> are being obedient to verse 15 but you seem to have forgotten 16. Your
>
> posts are bringing reproach to Christ and shame to yourself. Hopefully
>
> that is not your goal.
>
> RAY M:
>
> Your opinion above can be equated to side with my opponents. My
> opponents are Darwinists = persons who think the God of Genesis is not
> the Creator.
Ah. So you are only obligated to follow God's teaching amongst your
fellow nutj.. err.. faithful, but not when dealing with others?
It's a mighty convenient faith you seem to have there, Ray.
> Genesis says God suddenly created Adam in His image.
>
> Does God look like an animal or ape ?
>
> John 1 says IF you've seen Jesus/the Logos you have seen the Father.
>
> Did Jesus look like an ape or animal ?
>
> Dylan has no source for his alleged theism because the Bible does not
> support his assertions.
>
> My previous post quoting Hitler proves that anyone can claim to be a
> christian. This is where you fit in.
*sigh*
> Prcatical Advice:
Spelling lessons?
But perhaps you just need to chill. It can be difficult to spell when
you are full of adrenaline.
> If you want accurate renderings of the Bible - assume it means what it
> says and says what it means, and of course, do not consult an atheist
> or Darwinist for obvious reasons.
Or, it would appear, a fundamentalist nutjob.
> Ray Martinez
Mark
Matthew Isleb
> RAY M:
>
> Darwin was apostate/atheist/naturalist/ = but gave lip service to God
> because intolerant theists ruled the world then.
Isn't that the way it would be if you and your ilk ruled the world today?
You pretty much embody the intolerant theist. Maybe you don't go around
torturing heretics, but you certainly use language which indicates that
you might given half a chance. In other words, I could imagine you as part
of a lynch mob.
-matthew
Niels van der Linden
a.. Virtually all Englishmen in Darwin's time viewed blacks as culturally
and intellectually inferior to Europeans. Some (such as Louis Agassiz, a
staunch creationist) went so far as to say they were a different species.
Charles Darwin was a product of his times and no doubt viewed non-Europeans
as inferior in ways, but he was far more liberal than most: He vehemently
opposed slavery (Darwin 1913, especially chap. 21), and he contributed to
missionary work to better the condition of the native Tierra del Fuegans. He
treated people of all races with compassion.
a.. The mention of "favoured races" in the subtitle of Origin of Species
merely refers to variations within species which survive to leave more
offspring. It does not imply racism.
a.. The views of Darwin, or of any person, are irrelevant to the fact of
evolution. Evolution is based on evidence, not on people's opinions.
Niels van der Linden
>> best sense of that term) than 99% of the YECs and IDers with whom
>> I've tried to make my case that God created evolution.
>
> Whoah, it's been quite some time since I received such a compliment
> online... :)
The Christian virus, even 'in the best sense of the term', is still a virus.
http://cscs.umich.edu/~crshalizi/Dawkins/viruses-of-the-mind.html
Niels
Niels van der Linden
> religious worship can, in a different context, be considered symptoms
> of mental illness.
No need the even worry about the context. You might want to call it a "virus
of the mind":
http://cscs.umich.edu/~crshalizi/Dawkins/viruses-of-the-mind.html
Niels
loua...@yahoo.com
>Ray Martinez wrote:
>> OLD MAN:
>>
>> Ray, please take a look at 1 Peter 3:15-16. I suspect you believe
>you
>> are being obedient to verse 15 but you seem to have forgotten 16.
>Your
>>
>> posts are bringing reproach to Christ and shame to yourself.
>> RAY M:
>>
>> Your opinion above can be equated to side with my opponents.
>> christian. This is where you fit in.
>Ray, I do take the Bible literally and seek to follow all of it's
>teachings. It is apparent however that you do not. I feel sorry for
>you.
I think well of you for the attempt, but there was never a chance.
I do ask that you keep this in mind when you ask yourself "Why do
'fundies' have such a bad reputation in this newsgroup? Why does
describing myself as a biblical literalist get me jumped on as if I'd
attacked people?"
For all his faults, Ray hasn't (that I know of) thrown a pregnant
teenaged daughter out on the street to live or die as a prostitute. Nor
told an atheist poster, the father of one live and one stillborn child,
that his firstborn is better off dead than being raised by him. (Yep,
real posters. Happy to tell you that theirs is the one true faith. )
The whole business of judging evolution -- or any idea -- by the people
who hold it is pointless ad hominem. If Charles Manson runs down the
street shouting "the sky is blue!" that doesn't make it any less blue.
You judge _people_ by their behavior. You judge _ideas_, at least in
science, by whether they're true or false on the evidence.
Dylan
Hi Niels,
So by saying, "You might want to call it [Christianity, even in the
best sense of the term] a "virus of the mind," are you medically
diagnosing me as mentally ill because I'm a Christian? Are you trying
to provoke me to see if I really live by my Christian principles? Or
are you just trying to insult me (and all Christians) because of the
way you feel or because of the way supposedly Christian people have
treated you in your past?
-Dylan
Dave
> DYLAN:
>
> There's no evidence that evolution is a "theory that
> was invented to falsify God AS the Creator." Quite the
> opposite: Darwin hated the idea that his theory went
> against Christianity as it was understood by him at the
> time.
>
> RAY M:
>
> Your opinion assumes Darwin honest telling the truth.
No, the evidence speaks for itself.
> We know he was openly racist.
In the mid-1800 almost everyone was racist.
> And how honest is any person who believes man evolved from an ape ?
Would you prefer a proto-Lemur?
> The Bible says Darwin and his crowd deliberately chose to
> flip God off even though they knew about Him.
Knew about various old fables?
> You have no evidence for your beliefs and an ulterior
> motive to paint black white.
The evidence supports evolution.
Ken Shackleton
Dave wrote:
> Ray Martinez wrote:
> > DYLAN:
>
> > We know he was openly racist.
>
> In the mid-1800 almost everyone was racist.
>
was 200 years ago [that almost everyone is a racist].
eyelessgame
Faux_Pseudo wrote:
> When can I become so famous that I can be referred to by just my
> last name? How many people get that honor?
>
> Kennedy, Hitler, Khan, Caesar, Einstein, ...
I wanna be remembered for my first name. Like kings, and Galileo and
Hillary and Rush. I want people 500 years from now to refer to 'Al's
Laws' and have everyone know it was me.
eyelessgame (al)
Niels van der Linden
> best sense of the term] a "virus of the mind," are you medically
> diagnosing me as mentally ill because I'm a Christian?
Medically: no. Behaviourally: yes. You're showing all the signs. For one:
you've taking on a belief in something despite a total lack of "standard
methodology: testability, evidential support, precision, quantifiability,
consistency, intersubjectivity, repeatability, universality,
progressiveness, independence of cultural milieu, and so on."
And now in order to sustain the idea, you're bending in all sorts of
directions:
> Are you trying
> to provoke me to see if I really live by my Christian principles?
> Or
> are you just trying to insult me (and all Christians) because of the
> way you feel or because of the way supposedly Christian people have
> treated you in your past?
You've also conveniently sidestepped a question of me:
"Have you used your capacity of logic (and experience of a changing
worldview) to look into the theories on:
- How one comes to belief?
- How brains work
- How life started on earth
- How stars are created
- How solar systems are created
- How solar systems change over time
- How the universe changes over time"
> I love all of the sciences and try to keep up as best I can, even in
> fields in which I'm
not currently writing/editing. <
..is not at all an answer to:
Have you put your mind again open to a new worldview in the following
areas?..
> the way supposedly Christian people have
> treated you in your past?
I have a lot of problems with the way believers treat other people in the
world. To name a few fundies: Bush, Bin Laden, the Pope(s). Also my local
ministeries that claim to be tolerant, but in the same speech marveling over
how many people they have 'converted' in China. However, I am not trying to
insult you, because I understand the proces of infection (I was too). I am
trying to make you see the mechanism.
Now,
If you'd read this article, you could get an understanding of the symptoms
and see if they apply to you, and what their consequences are.
http://cscs.umich.edu/~crshalizi/Dawkins/viruses-of-the-mind.html
Important: if you somehow can't get through it (your mind wants to stop
you), think about why this is so and if these feelings are legitimate. The
same thing applies to you not wanting to read it at all.
Niels
unrestra...@hotmail.com
AC wrote:
> On 3 May 2005 15:31:49 -0700,
> Ray Martinez <pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > DYLAN:
> >
> > Embracing a theory that was invented to falsify God AS the Creator
> > means you have no source for your alleged theism unless you evade,
> > ignore, radically change, corrupt, or re-write what the Bible says.
> >
> > TEists are a dime a dozen and for all I know you are an atheist
> > attempting to corrupt Scripture.
> >
> > How do we know you really are a christian/ theist ?
> >
> >
> > ANYONE can claim to be a christian:
> >
> >
> > http://homepages.paradise.net.nz/mischedj/ca_hitler.html
> >
> > "My feelings as a Christian points me to my Lord and Savior as a
> > fighter. It points me to the man who once in loneliness, surrounded
by
> > a few followers, recognized these Jews for what they were and
summoned
> > men to fight against them and who, God's truth! was greatest not as
a
> > sufferer but as a fighter."
> >
> > --Adolf Hitler [1922]
> >
> > You are here to ass kiss atheists and assist while they drag
Genesis in
> > their rape rooms and hold her down while you do the dirty work.
> >
> > The only evidence needed to see how wrong and corrupt you are is
the
> > approval your kind enjoys from atheist-Darwinism.
> >
> > This applies to you Mark Isaak as well.
>
looking
> forward to Ray Martinez getting what's coming to him for teaching
heresy and
> judging his brother. I guess you'll be spending eternity in torment
with us
> atheists.
>
> --
> mightym...@hotmail.com
What!? I'm spending eternity with Ray Martinez?
Grrr. God's an Englishman after all.
Kermit
unrestra...@hotmail.com
Dylan wrote:
> Ray,
>
> "Dylan must evade or ignore Biblical sudden creation in order to
> accomodate the secular theory of origins."
>
> Two thoughts in response:
>
> 1. Darwin's theory of origins is not secular if by "secular" you mean
> anti-God or anti-religious. It takes no position whether for or
against
> divine creation. It is only concerned with WHAT happened, WHEN it
> happened and HOW it happened. It is a theory designed to explain the
> facts, not a religious belief designed to create them.
I would think that "secular" is simply non-religious, not
anti-religious. Hence most cookbooks, biology texts, stereo manuals,
and programming tomes are secular.
>
> 2. I neither evade nor ignore biblical creation, just your
> interpretation of it. I believe that Genesis creation account was
> written down by people who had no idea of Darwin's theory, but were
> inspired by God to write the story in terms of what they knew and
> could understand appropriate to their time, culture and location.
> Otherwise they wouldn't know what they were writing about and their
> creation would be useless to the people who needed to learn about
> creation from God - not from you.
But you seem to be forgetting the irrefutable fact that Ray is
infallible. Since he cannot be wrong on any important subject, you must
be wrong about his interpretation of the bible. His infallibility is as
obvious as his love, or his modesty - highly valued traits in the
Christian doctrine, I believe.
Kermit
Mark Isaak
wrote:
>DYLAN:
>
>Embracing a theory that was invented to falsify God AS the Creator
>means you have no source for your alleged theism unless you evade,
>ignore, radically change, corrupt, or re-write what the Bible says.
>
>TEists are a dime a dozen and for all I know you are an atheist
>attempting to corrupt Scripture.
>
>How do we know you really are a christian/ theist ?
>
>Answer: By having a source for what you believe.
>
>ANYONE can claim to be a christian:
>
>
>http://homepages.paradise.net.nz/mischedj/ca_hitler.html
>
>"My feelings as a Christian points me to my Lord and Savior as a
>fighter. It points me to the man who once in loneliness, surrounded by
>a few followers, recognized these Jews for what they were and summoned
>men to fight against them and who, God's truth! was greatest not as a
>sufferer but as a fighter."
>
>--Adolf Hitler [1922]
>
>You are here to ass kiss atheists and assist while they drag Genesis in
>their rape rooms and hold her down while you do the dirty work.
>
>The only evidence needed to see how wrong and corrupt you are is the
>approval your kind enjoys from atheist-Darwinism.
>
>This applies to you Mark Isaak as well.
>
>Ray Martinez
Dylan,
Pay no attention to Ray. He is one of those sad people for whom the
concept of faith is literally unimanginable. But he was raised
thinking faith in God is important, so he has adopted belief in God
instead, and he tells himself it is faith. In the meantime, his lack
of faith prevents him from taking an honest look at himself, which
means his self-righteousness and hate go unnoticed except by those
around him.
The real atrocity is that some religions get power from such people
and so don't do anything to try to get them to improve.
--
Mark Isaak eciton (at) earthlink (dot) net
"Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of
the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are
being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and
exposing the country to danger." -- Hermann Goering
Dylan
Dylan
say, "God is, therefore I exist." Both positions are starting points.
All systems of thought have to have axiomatic starting points that
aren't always necessarily subject to all of the below:
"standard methodology: testability, evidential support, precision,
quantifiability, consistency, intersubjectivity, repeatability,
universality, progressiveness, independence of cultural milieu, and so
on."
-Dylan
Mark Isaak
<wett...@attbi.com> wrote:
>On 2005-05-03, Ray Martinez <pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>> [Rant]
>
>It is completely unsurprising to me that the most vitriolic response comes
>not from an atheist, but from a fellow theist.
A point I wish was made more in public: Probably the largest
anti-religious movement in America today is creationism.