Re: the meaning of the holocaust for scientists


Dana Tweedy wrote:
"Ray Martinez" <pyramidial@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1141185650.129286.153710@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Ken Rode wrote:
Ray Martinez wrote:

<>snip>

Evidence is a ploy and easily denied and
manipulated when the needs of hate are unquenchable.

Ray, is this what you are most guilty of, or am I reading your rants
regarding modern psychology incorrectly?

Ken:

You abandoned the psychology discussion - I answered your lengthy
reply.

Hey, Ray, you've run away from any number of "discussions", including the
one about fossil KNM WT 15000. Are you ever going to address that fossil?


By misrepresenting and ignoring what I wrote to be a "rant" you are
essentially admitting the inability to refute.

Ken did not misrepresent, or ignore what you wrote. He's pointing out one
of your more obvious logical lapses.


Stop being appalled with Holocaust denial and look in the mirror and
see what your kind does with the overwhelming evidence for God in
physical reality.

Perhaps you could present some of this "overwheming evidence for God in
physical reality". Historians can point to a great deal of physical
evidence of the Holocaust. What evidence do you offer for "God in
physical reality"?

We know the Holocaust is a fact

Because of the preponderance of evidence.

= we know God in
reality is a fact.

No, we don't "know" that. I and many others believe that God exists, but
that belief is based on faith, and willingness to trust in our feelings. We
don't have any physical evidence that God exists, and for a person of faith,
no evidence is required.

Holocaust denial = Darwinism does the same with God.

Actually, "Darwinism" does not deny the existance of God. God (or any
other supernatural being) is simply not relevant to the scientific study of
evolutionary processes. Ironically, denying evolution is much closer to
holocaust denial. Both involve ignoring a great deal of evidence.


DJT

Reply intended to only save post from being erased.

Ray

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Comprehending Steven J.
    ... My money is on the latter, but there's so little evidence there's room for lots of TEism in the gap. ... Factually inerrant, yes, how could words from God be otherwise? ... Ray, remember, you tried this claim before. ... "science" - and not science. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Comprehending Ray M
    ... Ray, I notice that you have carefully snipped my explanation of why I ... about three days of creation before God got around to creating the sun ... "literal sense" scripture and common sense and science. ... be factual by supposition and not by evidence. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Creationist Theory
    ... > RAT: ... > RAY: ... actually had some evidence, it would bolster you case that it cannot happen. ... God is not an option for scientific study. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: the meaning of the holocaust for scientists
    ... Ray, is this what you are most guilty of, or am I reading your rants ... Perhaps you could present some of this "overwheming evidence for God in ... Atheists and theists are mortal enemies. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: What is the purpose of Rayy Martinez posting?
    ... God is not subject to physical evidence, ... >>> therefore science cannot say that God was not involved. ... > Ray, I keep pointing out how mistaken you are in repeating this. ... whole hearted population of Naturalism by atheists. ...
    (talk.origins)