Re: Judge Jones: No Surpise


"Ray Martinez" <pyramidial@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1135216875.158514.296820@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
>>
>> >
>> > Ken Miller is a lunatic evolutionist playing Catholic like Mafia bosses
>> > do.
>>
>> Which is your assertion, that you haven't supported. Ad hominems
>> against
>> Miller don't address the evidence he presents, or his religious beliefs.
>>
>
> I just did Dana.

No, you just made an ad hominem attack on Miller.

>
> Miller says his god is Darwin's.

By which he means that Darwin believed in a God who used natural processes
as his means of creating.

>
> Darwin rejected God and claimed Nature produced itself without God.

No, Darwin did not reject God. Darwin's belief was that God used nature as
his means of creating.

> Darwin became a raging atheist after "Origin".

Darwin became agnostic after the death of his daughter. He was never an
atheist, "raging" or otherwise. Can you show any statement by Darwin where
he claimed to be atheist, or where he denigrated religious beliefs?

>You are ignorant and a
> TEist attempting to evade the conflict of the Bible and Evolution.

And the ad hominem keeps flowing. There is no conflict between the Bible
and evolution. They cover different subjects.

>
> Evolution: God not involved = its central point - not a matter of
> opinion.

Evolution does not say that God is not involved. Again, you issue your
opinion, and declare it to be "not a matter of opinion". Evolution could
easily be the mechanism by which God created the diversity of life. It's
only your opinion that God is excluded.

>
> If you do not agree = reason to dismiss everything else you say if you
> cannot admit this universally agreed upon point.

"agreed on" by whom? Your opinion is not universally held.

>
> Dana, you are either deluded or a frustrated liar.

Or, more likely, I'm right. Don't forget that possibility. Since I'm
not deluded, and I'm not fustrated, or a liar, it's the most likely choice.

> I seriously doubt
> you would say these things to any respected Darwinian in the scientific
> world.

That only goes to show how much you are wrong about me, and about the
"respected Darwinians". I would have no fear of repeating any of my
comments to any prominent scientists, and I'm sure that any respected
scientists would, if they would disagree on religious grounds, be at least
respectful of my religious beliefs. What evidence do you have to the
contrary?

>
> Larson, Browne, Mayr, Dawkins, Gould, the list goes on: evolution
> falsifies the God of the Bible.

Dawkins in his books states that while he disagrees, respects the religious
views of theistic evolutionists. Mayr is dead, so I've missed any chance
to speak to him. By "Larson" I take it you mean Edward Larson? Larson in
his book Evolution : The Remarkable History of a Scientific Theory, makes
mention of theistic evolutionists such as Asa Gray, without any rancor. By
"Browne" are you referring to biographer Janet Browne? What makes you
think she'd disagree with my religious beliefs?

>
> My article will demolish TEism and humiliate it.

Again, we see your ego writing checks your intellect can't cash.

> I will be the target
> of savage ad homs in order to poison the well. Looking forward to it.

Ray, just because you use ad hominem liberally, it doesn't mean that
everyone does. In any case, your article is sure to be another failure on
your part, even if it ever does see the light of day. You can't demolish
something you don't have the slightest understanding of. Your knowlege of
evolution is so poor, that nothing you say is going to affect what anyone
thinks of the theory. Also, unless you can provide some sort of physical
evidence to support your beliefs, you don't stand a chance in hell of
bringing down a scientific theory.

>
>> >You have the ability to understand Science but this self-evident
>> > fact eludes your understanding = exposes your Darwinian ulterior
>> > motive.
>>
>> Again, a "self evident fact" which is simply a falsehood. Lying about
>> Kenneth Miller is what got you into this mess. Lying about him now isn't
>> going to get you out..
>>
>
> Attempt to poison the well via an assertion by a Darwinist that his
> Creationist opponent is in a mess = inability to refute = thats why the
> poison the well tactic is attempted.

Ray, you made an unsupported assertion, which came back to bite you in the
***. Support it, or admit you were wrong. I'm not the one who is unable
to "refute", your claim. I provided the evidence that Miller made no such
claim in his book. You have yet to provide any positive evidence.



>
snipping

>> But it's you who is attempting to "butcher" the Constitution by
>> violating
>> the clear wording. " Congress shall make no law respecting an
>> establishment of religion"
>>
>> What do you not understand about that?
>>
>
> Your butchery evades the fact that the Founding Fathers intent was not
> what you are asserting = changing the Contract to have it say what you
> want it to say.

My assertion is that the Constitution reads plainly that establishment of a
religion is forbidden. I'm not changing anything about that. The
Founding Fathers were quite aware of the division in society that
establishing a state religion can cause, and chose to place language in the
Constitution to prevent that.

>
> Teaching the truth about Science and its proof of God is not
> establishing religion. It is Science.

The fact remains that science does not provide "proof" of God. God is a
supernatural being, and as such cannot be "proven" by scientific evidence.
If you choose to believe, you believe by faith.

>
> Your corruption is atheist-friendly = criminal changing of intent =
> explained by the Romans 1 darkening penalty.

Of course no such "darkening penalty" exists. You keep making that basic
error. The intent of the Constitution, as evidenced by the words of the
founders themselves, was to prevent the establishment of religion.
Upholding that intent is hardly "criminal" or even "changing".

>> >> >
>> >> > The ruling corresponds with the wrath of God as declared in Romans
>> >> > 1.
>> >>
>> >> There is no "wrath of God" declared in Romans 1, at least not any that
>> >> applies to people today.
>> >>
>> >
>> > All persons suffering the wrath penalty think this.
>>
>> So, there can be no evidence of this "penalty", we just take it on your
>> word, and your word alone.
>>
>
> As I said anyone who owns a Bible can read it for themself. You
> snipped/butchered my quote.

All those who read the Bible already know you are wrong. I did not snip
your quote, I inserted my statement between the sentences.
>
>
>> >The penalty would
>> > not be as such if they recognized it. Any objective person can verify
>> > for themself if they have a Bible.
>>
>> But the Bible doesn't say anything about a penalty for people using their
>> intellect. Anyone who reads the Bible can see your claim is wrong.
>> That's why only you, and the late Mr. Scott ever made that claim.
>>
>
> Comment ASSUMES Darwinism is honest use of intellect.

The theory of evolution is an honest use of one's intellect. If you don't
accept that, it's too bad. Your objections to evolution are not valid.

> If you truly had
> objective intellect you would have never said that Dana.

What makes you think you know anything about objectivity?

>
> Does your Darwinism have anything to do with your generous and
> ridiculous view ?

Does your ego have anything to do with your need to keep thowing ad hominem,
instead of dealing with the evidence?

>
> Nobody suffering the penalty thinks it exists.

Because no such penalty exists. God does not punish people for using their
intellect.

> Your quote above is
> perfect evidence of that.

How can my "quote above" be evidence of something that can't be shown to
exist? You keep asserting this penalty, without any evidence, and without
any theological support. You invoke this "penalty" to explain why you can't
sway people with your statements. It doesn't seem to occur to you that it
might be because you are mistaken.

>
> Everyone else just read Romans 1:18-25 and verse 18's wrath (in
> context) is revealed in verse 21 as a mind darkening penalty effected
> upon persons who deny the God of Genesis Creator credit. Verse 23
> macroevolutionary beliefs ensue = beliefs that life originated from
> animals and not God. Romans was written in 58 AD = corresponds with
> reality today/Darwinism [source: Dr. Gene Scott Ph.D. Stanford
> University, oral teaching, 2001].

Another example of why Gene Scott cannot be relied on as source of
information about evolution. No one claims that "life originated from
animals". Animals came much later than the first life. Nor is there any
reason why God can't be the ultimate origin of life. The "darkening
penalty" claim is based on nothing but pettiness and ignorance.

>
> ToE does not credit God as is well known

It's also false. The theory of evolution doesn't credit God, or deny God.
No scientific theory does.

= ToE Biblically explained as
> a penalty from God for denying Him Creator credit.

Yet it doesn't do that. Your claim is false on it's face. Everything that
derives from that premise is also false.

> Corroborated by the
> fact that there is no evidence for macroevolution except by predictable
> assumptions.

You are ignoring the vast amount of evidence for macroevolution, by calling
it "predictable assumptions". Let's try again, why is KNM -ER 15000 not a
transitional fossil?

> Assumptions are not evidence. Penalty is the mechanism of
> the assumption.

Fossils are evidence. Genetic comparisons are evidence. Biogeographical
studies are evidence. Biostratographical findings are evidence.
Molecular studies are evidence. None of these are "assumptions". There
is no "penalty" for individuals who use their intellect to find out about
nature, Ray. Your whole construct is based on the shifting sands of your
own false assertions.

>
> Now watch honest and objective Dana the TEist Darwinist confuse and
> deny this simple fact.

I am strictly honest, and I try to be objective in evaluating the evidence.
I make no secret that I support science, and science investigation.

There is no "simple fact" to deny, as your claims are not fact. All we
have is your assertions, which are based on nothing. The theory of
evolution is based on solid physical evidence.



DJT

.

Quantcast