Re: Re: Creationism Debunked in Larger Context

On 19 Mar 2007 11:21:53 -0700, "Ray Martinez" <pyramidial@xxxxxxxxx>
enriched this group when s/he wrote:

On Mar 17, 8:13 pm, Richard Clayton <pockZIGetnZIG...@xxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
Ray Martinez wrote:
On Mar 15, 3:39 pm, Free Lunch <l...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On 15 Mar 2007 16:12:18 -0700, in talk.origins
"Ray Martinez" <pyramid...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in
<1174000338.385889.125...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>:

On Mar 14, 4:26 pm, "'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank" <lfl...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Mar 13, 6:53 pm, "Ray Martinez" <pyramid...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
I know that it is hard for you to swallow but your theory
is not misunderstood; it is rejected by 40 percent of Americans
Pffffffft. A higher proportion of Americans believes in flying
saucers, ESP, and the Loch Ness Monster than believes in creationism.
Heck, a higher percentage of Americans than that still thinks that
Saddam Hussein helped plan 9-11.
Americans are uninformed undereducated idiots. (shrug)
There is no evidence that Americans are undereducated; quite the
contrary. You cannot accept the fact that tens of millions of educated
persons in the U.S. reject youratheism-basedtheory.
http://www.religioustolerance.org/ev_publi.htm
The above link shows us that at least 40 percent of Americans are
Creationists and all you can say in response is make a fascistic
rationale.
Anti-science creationism is a lie. Everyone who teaches it is either
intentionally a liar or so profoundly ignorant that they are unable to
understand how dishonest this teaching is.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

The facts say evolution is a lie and none of its peddlers are
ignorant, which makes all of you wicked. Every fact that refutes is
hand-waved and/or distorted and/or ignored. Since human evolution is a
necessity for the atheist no amount of "it is science" can negate the
need driving the interpretations and conclusions.

Sample of Facts which falsify the Theory of Evolution:

1. Commensurate to the claim, no amount of artificial breeding
experiments exist to justify the "fact" of speciation or
macroevolution. In fact, evolutionists point to ONE failed experiment
(Drosophila) that produced sterile fruit flies. Evolutionists insist
species are mutable but have no experimentation to back the assertion
up; and they believe it happens behind our backs in the wild. Genetic
homeostasis is a fact. It is a natural barrier that "prevents
morphological change beyond a certain point" (Milton 1997). These
facts profile the reality of Genesis macro-kinds.

Speciation has been observed numerous times.


Are you saying evolution has been observed?

Of course, we have observation going back as far as 3.5 billion years.




http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html

This has been pointed out to you before. You are a liar and willfully
ignorant.

2. The geological crust of the Earth shows no signs of the ***reason
for being**** of the Theory of Evolution: transitionality; species
appear, change slightly over time, then disappear. Again, at face
value macroevolution is not seen; genetic homeostasis is
corroborated.

Once again you make the "no transitional fossils" claim. Does that mean
you're ready to discuss Turkana Boy and explain why the skeleton isn't
transitional? I'm sure Dana Tweedy will be thrilled; you've been running
from him on that topic for ages.


Dana knows why there is no discussion presently. But since ToE
presupposes the bias of Materialism the interpretation of homo erectus
is predetermined?

Evolution requires evidence, like all sciences.



3. Darwin to Dawkins admits nature exhibits the appearance of design
(Paley to Dembski knows it is actual design). Logically, the same
corresponds to the work of an invisible Designer and not to an
antithesis (anti-intelligence natural selection). Evolutionists must
assert the appearance means an antonym; IDists assert the appearance
indicates Designer. In other words, atheist needs and philosophy are
negating face value scientific observation.

"Design" in this context is a loaded word; you might as well marvel at
how a river's path seems "designed" to take it from mountaintops to the
ocean.


In other words you cannot honestly refute what I said so you type a
non-sequitur that suddenly casts doubt as to what Design means.

Dishonest Ray - YOU lied. We all know you lied. Even you know you
lied. Gene 'Expletive Deleted' Scott would be proud of you.

Regardless, creationism has no theory to explain this design. Modern
biology can explain it quite nicely. Come back to the table when you've
got something scientifically testable and falsifiable. (I seem to recall
asking you this before you fled from our debate...)


What design are you talking about?

And for the record, Richard, Creationism has no quarrel with any
scientific fact except those that conflict with the objective facts
produced by Science, History and Archaeology

Creationism is the opposite of science. It is built on lies like the
ones you keep pushing.

(design = Designer and
origin of nature was by special creation).

There is no evidence to support your claim.

4. Existence of Irreducible Complexity and cellular complexity.
[Stepping-stone] evolution (the only kind there is) is falsified.

Evolution *predicted* irreducibly complex structures, long before
Dembski and his buddies started crowing about it.


Completely false.

You are - why?

One buried comment decades old does not qualify.

By definition, if IC exists,

It doesn't.

then Darwinian evolution is falsified.

It isn't.

What does *irreducible* mean, Richard?

Ask the ID mob, they keep trying to come up with a definition.


5. Biological First Cause needs a "DNA/protein replication
engine" (Dawkins 1986). Such a structure and apparatus cannot
materialize into existence ex nihilo. Common ancestry is falsified.
Genesis special creation jump start looms large and repels
falsification.

The theory of evolution does not touch on the origin of the first life
form. You've been told this, too.


How did cumulative selection begin?

A theory is only as strong as its weakest link. Any answer involves ex
nihilo; the only source for ex nihilio is Genesis, and when Genesis is
seated, special creation comes with it.

A badly written bronze age fairy story is not very credible Dishonest
Ray.


Why does this theory made of straw still thrive?

Because it's well-supported by evidence.

The success of any theory which presupposes Naturalism and Materialism
God-excluding biases is a punishment from God for denying Him the
credit and status of Creator (#3 above) (Dr. Scott).

ALL scientific theories rely on methodological naturalism. EVERY SINGLE
ONE. But feel free to prove me wrong by citing just one counterexample.
--

Their success is explained by Dr. Scott, so is their falsity if the
theory excludes God, and we are talking about origins and not weather
forecasting or medicine or etc.etc.

Science only excludes that for which there is no evidence. As for Gene
'Expletive Deleted' Scott, at least he improved the world by leaving
it.



[The address listed is a spam trap. To reply, take off every zig.]
Richard Clayton
"Remember, always be yourself. Unless you suck." - Joss Whedon- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

America is Rome.

Rome is in Italy Ray. I would tell you to go there and check it out
but Rome has never done anything to hurt me.

Ray

--
Bob.

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Mischaracterization of ID?
    ... > mischaracterization of what constitutes Intelligent Design. ... > creationism as it is an attempt to, using scientific methodology alone, ... evolution, nor those offered against it, but are convinced that ID is based ... Johnson), or progressive separate creations, or recent ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Creationism Debunked in Larger Context
    ... A higher proportion of Americans believes in flying ... The facts say evolution is a lie and none of its peddlers are ... non-sequitur that suddenly casts doubt as to what Design means. ... There *are* a lot of religious scientists who see the entire universe as the handiwork of the Divine; when they examine the origins of man, or the mechanisms of stellar fusion, or the nature of human psychology, they feel they're exploring the nature of God and the universe She created. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: americans willing ignorance
    ... of Americans want creationism to be taught along with evolution. ... more about evolution and related science. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Re: Invulnerable logic [Was:Re: How Our Brains Ignore Unpleasant
    ... creationism, one where the piano player claims to be a concert level ... The basic idea of design deals with abiogenesis and life and ... understanding of evolution. ... mainstream scientific assessment of global warming. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: americans willing ignorance
    ... of Americans want creationism to be taught along with evolution. ... more about evolution and related science. ...
    (talk.origins)