Re: Re: Why is it that mainline Christians, Catholics in particular ( I am one) support God & Evolution

On 19 Apr 2006 14:34:00 -0700, "Ray Martinez" <pyramidial@xxxxxxxxx>
enriched this group when s/he wrote:


Dana Tweedy wrote:
"Ray Martinez" <pyramidial@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1145469410.957784.148700@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
snipping

As a practicing Roman Catholic and an amateur astronomer,I have no
problem in understanding that if God created the entire Universe and
that science & evolution are part of his Creation.

Why is it that some "Other Christians" can't understand that?

What I'm looking for here are real reasons,not just the usual baloney!

Isn't God big enough to do this, if not, why not?

You have no source for your beliefs about God the Creator since any
objective reading of Genesis knows it was written to say origins was
NOT by common ancestry.

The creation stories in Genesis are not scientific, and say nothing about
common ancestory.


Everyone knows Darwinists believe Genesis creation is contradicted by
their interpretation of scientific evidence.

The evidence of science will always win over the fairy stories of your
bible.

And Iike I said: Genesis does not say origins was by common ancestry.
Looks like we agree, for once, Dana.


Genesis is either true or false concerning
origins.

Or, it's a legendary account, not a scientific one. Legends have a
different expected level of veracity than a scientific theory. Legends can
be scientifically inaccurate without losing their meaning, and worth.


Everyone knows Darwinists believe Genesis is scientifically inaccurate.

It is a fairy story - nothing more.

Referring to Genesis creation as inaccurate or any synonym
(legend/myth) does not change the foundational point.

Creationists know Genesis is scientifically accurate.

Then they really are stupid.

Notice I said
*know* and not "think".

Well it is hard to credit a creationist with thinking.

Of course my paper will prove it once and for
all.

WHEN?

Dr. Scott has produced an invulnerable refutation of Darwinism and
my contribution on top of his foundation will then SETTLE THE CREATION
- EVOLUTION DEBATE FOREVER: Creationism wins.

Only in your dream world Ray. Creationism lost years ago.

Please do not ever forget what I just wrote.

TEists know these two options will falsify their theory since
the theist masses will choose Genesis,

As far as science is concerned, the "theist masses" are irrelevant.
Evolution, like all science is dependent on the evidence, not public
opinion.


Without the Judge Jones style TEist masses, evolution is atheist
philosophy packaged as evidence. The TEist masses: I will refute all of
you into oblivion. You will want to return to being an atheist after my
paper is released.

WHEN? I can't wait for a good laugh Ray - why don't you STOP posting
here and go and finish your paper?

"The honest atheist, faithful to his worldview and sense of "oughtness"
(Freud) has a better chance at the judgement seat of Christ" (Dr.
Scott) than Judge Jones/TEist masses/traitors. Dr. Scott finished his
quote with "than works based Fundamentalists."

therefore, they deliberately
confuse the issue and retreat into brazen uncommon sense (no conflict
as long as you leave your brain at the foyer of the Church)

Here Ray places words in his opponent's mouth, and like usual, gets it
wrong. There is no conflict between the Bible and Science, as long as you
realize that the Bible was not written as a scientific document. Ray, on
the other hand is expecting one to not only leave one's "brain" at the foyer
of the church, but leave it before entering the labratory as well.


This belief is explained by simply pointing out that it was written by
a Darwinist.

And your delusion is simply explained by you accepting creation as a
concept.


=
compliment of Genesis tactic.

What "Genesis tactic"?


The tactic of attempting to have it both ways with Genesis: false
scientifically, but true if one makes excuses for it; AND: engaging the
tactic in the first place because it is a recognition that ToE has no
chance of being accepted IF it is seen as falsifying Genesis.
Therefore, the existence of the "both ways" tactic/misrepresentation
and the straight out "Earth is flat" corruption that Darwinism does not
CLAIM to falsify the Genesis Creator.

What falsifies Genesis is people like you and your mad ideas.

Everyone knows Darwin claimed to falsify the Genesis Creator - the
reason for being of his theory.

Why would anyone deny this "flat Earth" fact ? Explained above.

If TEists/Darwinists would brazenly lie about what everyone knows as to
what Darwinism CLAIMS then how much more would they lie about
complicated scientific matters ?

Ken Miller is a brazen liar: He believes "in Darwin's God." Darwin was
an atheist. Kenny is not a Catholic, he is just attempting to do what I
just explained. Richard Lewontin is a Darwinist and a Marxist (as is
Dennett). Marxism believes it is okay to lie if the end justifies the
means. These Darwinists believe it is not a lie if it furthers
Darwinism, even if they have to actually lie. Miller, like all TEists
is a Darwinist attempting to destroy his rival/Bible. Motive explained
and exposed.

The only lies seem to come from creationists Ray - creationists like
you.




We know Genesis is true:

If by "true" you mean "scientifically accurate", then, we don't "know" this.


Yes, we, do.

Liar!

Thats why we are Creationists; because of all of the evidence.

There isn't ant evidence Ray - NONE.

Origins was by sudden special creation = ToE
is false.

Even Genesis does not say that creation was sudden. In any case, a
scientific theory cannot be refuted by a religious belief. I can only be
refuted by physical evidence that contradicts the theory.


Atheist philosophy.

Why is a person who claims to be a Christian (Dana Tweedy) using
atheist philosophy ?

He isn't. Evolution is not, in itself, atheist. It is just science.


As for your "my title says it all" - I agree.

IN the Bible the majority is always wrong.

That's not even true "in the Bible". Also, Ray seems to easily forget his
own claim, whenever he wishes to appeal to the majority.

This is a typological claim
of truth.

But it's not even true within the Bible itself.

I stand corrected. 99% of the time.

Try almost zero.


If true, the majorities that inhabit reality SHOULD also be
wrong.

Which, of course is nonsense. The majority may be wrong, or it may be
correct. It depends on the situation. Even Ray claims that "Darwinists"
want to please the "theist masses", which assumes that the majority is
correct.

The Pharisees were the religious majority and Jesus said they
were actually of their father the devil.

Actually, the Pharasees were not the religious majority. They were a
small, elite religious sect.


Basic historical and Biblical ignorance.

You have problems with the truth Ray? Just like most creationists.


The Pharisees were the established religious community in Jesus's time

No, they were a rather elite group.

AND in the New Testament during Christ's life in Palestine. They (the
majority) rejected Christ and delivered Him up to the Romans (secular)
for crucifixion. Jesus represents the minority walking with God and the
Pharisees represent the majority, deceived of Satan, WHO THINK they are
right with God (TEists).

Your JC was the trouble-maker, country bumpkin upstart with a handful
of drop-out followers.

Dr. Scott (in this context): "The essence of being deceived: you
***think*** you are alright with God....BUT YOU ARE NOT."

This Scott guy is almost as nuts as you.

Darwinism begins with an atheistic assumption as fact: Genesis Creator
not responsible for reality. When God is dismissed a priori a person
could believe any gross absurdity like apes morphing into men. That
would be a miracle. The Bible reports many miracles; this apemen thing
is not one of them.

Good, because if it was reported in the bible then we would know it
wasn't true.



Mainline Christianity IS TEists/Darwinists = wrong = of their father
the devil.

Then why do you think that support of the "theist masses" is required?


TEist attempt to downplay the fact that evolution claims Genesis and
its Creator is falsified.

Evolution does no such thing. People comparing evolution with
creationism will draw that conclusion because evolution has the
evidence to back it up - while creationism has nothing.


Catholic Church was shown to be completely wrong = whole purpose of the
Reformation.

The cause of the Reformation was a perceived abuse of temporal power and
greed by the Church heirachy. It had nothing to do with the Catholic
Church being "completely wrong". Otherwise protestant churches would not
continue to use the basic structure of the Catholic Mass, and the communion
service.

IF they do indeed support ToE then they too are wrong.

The Catholic Church apparently prefers to accept the evidence of science,
rather than the contradictory words of Ray Martinez. Go figure.


Bible typology is proven absolutely correct corresponding with reality
= claim of the Bible.

Yet the "typology" claim itself is false, and so is the claim that it
"corresponds with reality".


This claim, now being supported as fact, also supports sudden special
creation to be true/fact.

Even the Bible does not claim that creation was a sudden event. The
Genesis stories do not say how long God took to create, or what method he
used. Also, the two stories have a different order of creation. Which
one do you accept?

DJT

The length of the creation days is either 24 hours or a thousand years.
Peter tells us a day with God is as a thousand years and a thousand
years is as a day. The point is that both (24 hour period or 1000
years) is very young next to Darwinian lengths of time to account for
origins.

You can ignore the evidence for a 4.5 billion year old earth - but if
you do you look like a fool.


Both accounts are true.

Genesis 1 = how God created in order.

Wrong. Nothing like the right order.

Genesis 2 = detailed close up of the most important aspects of chapter
1. Chp. 2 is not a chronological claim. Its foci is details and
importance derived from the facts of Chp. 1.

Nope - even the second creation story gets it wrong.

IOW, big picture (chp. 1) THEN a zoom in close up (chp. 2) = the
Biblical way.

And both times it gets it wrong.

Ray

Not much cop your bible.

--
Bob.

.

Relevant Pages