Re: Re: Why does creationism persist in the USA?

On 28 Mar 2007 10:47:06 -0700, "Ray Martinez" <pyramidial@xxxxxxxxx>
enriched this group when s/he wrote:

On Mar 28, 9:05 am, "Richard Clayton" <rich.e.clay...@xxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
On Mar 27, 10:22 pm, "Ray Martinez" <pyramid...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Mar 27, 1:36 pm, Richard Clayton <pockZIGetnZIG...@xxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:

I agree; "science" as we know it today (since 1874) presupposes
invisible Deity to not be manifest or involved in reality.

You lie. That's not what methodological naturalism means.


Your harsh comment is actually a non-sequitur, Richard.

Here is what you responded to (again):

"I agree; 'science' as we know it today (since 1874) presupposes
invisible Deity to not be manifest or involved in reality."

You lie, again. Science presupposes nothing of the sort Dishonest Ray.

That is not a lie, Richard - it is a fact.

No it is not - it is, as pointed out to you, a lie.

God has no place in
"Science" since 1874.

God has never had a place in science.

Methodoloical Naturalism excludes God (the
reason why does not harm the fact of exclusion). ANY philosophy or
methdology that is based on Naturalism or Materialism presupposes God
as not having any involvement in reality and does not allow
interpretations or conclusions that support the supernatural.

Wrong again. Why do you always repeat things that you know to be lies.

Science includes everything for which there is evidence. It
presupposes nothing - apart from the requirement of education.

Again,
when Dana Tweedy answers this message he will undoubtedly supply the
reason why which does not harm the fact: God is excluded = pro-atheism
supposition.

If your gods existed there would be evidence, if evidence existed then
science would look at it.

Now, what "lie" are you talking about?

Your lie. See the top of this page.

Any methodolgy or philosophy which has the word "natural" or
"material" in it means God is dismissed a priori,

No it does not. It only means that evidence is required.

again the reason why
is irrelevant to the fact, and I might add a lie.

You always add lies Dishonest Ray - that is how you got your name.

It is impossible to
be neutral about God since the claim exists in a exclusionary context.

Liar!

Therefore, it does matter *what you may say* about being neutral or
untestable (only atheists believe God is untestable) if God is
excluded by presupposition.

He isn't. Provide evidence for the existence of any god and science
will look at it.

The exclusion, for any reason,
disqualifies a claim of neutrality for obvious reasons. Show me any
source which defines "exclusion" and "neutrality" as synonyms?

Doesn't matter how you word it Dishonest Ray - a lie is still a lie.

The
only lie being told is by persons who think anyone is naieve enough to
believe that their pro-atheist God excluding bias is really neutrality
"because they said so." Negative, when God is excluded for *any*
reason this is a clear bias and no amount of attempted damage control
"means neutrality" can erase the bias as being seen as atheism.

So you think that science should entertain your gods even though there
is no evidence for you.

It is
also a insult to ones intelligence

You have shown you have none.

that atheists are using Naturalism-
based methodologies and philosophies (which all of them do) "but are
neutral towards God."

No Dishonest Ray, all science does is require evidence.

Atheists are not neutral towards God, Richard.
They abide by MN and Naturalism and Materialism and Ontological
Naturalism BECAUSE of the common denominator of anti-theist
presupposition.

Why do you continue with the lie Dishonest Ray. You know it is a lie
having been told so many times that you are wrong.

After the fact "but it means neutrality" does not mean
that if God is excluded NO MATTER WHAT YOU SAY. By making these silly
excuses you are showing what brazen liars secularists are. When God
is not eligible as an explanation

S/he would be, if any evidence was offered. So far nobody have been
able to find any evidence for your gods.

= exclusion = bias = atheist
friendly and any definition of the exclusion that asserts neutrality
or anything else is a self-evident lie. Atheists abide by MN because
its presuppositions agree with their worldview. Asserting the
presupposition is neutral is refuted by what atheism means. Atheists
are not neutral about the supernatural and all atheists are MNers.

Provide evidence for the supernatural and it will become natural.

I have
never disputed this fact. Again, Darwinian suppositions rule "science"
today; and these persons (making up any discipline in "science") are
evolutionists.

So even astronomers, physicists, and chemists are "evolutionists"?

Are you saying these persons do not accept ToE? Of course they do!

Any real scientist will accept the ToE. After all, it is the best
explanation for the evidence.

Egyptologists are evolutionists (except a small handful). What are you
talking about? Most Federal Judges are evolutionists - what are you
talking about, Richard. Forty percent of the population is
evolutionist, again, what are you talking about, Richard?

What are YOU talking about Dishonest Ray?


You
usually claim that evolutionists are atheists; does that mean that all
all modern theories of astronomy, physics, and chemistry are atheist?


Of course. Their discipline abides by MN (like ToE) or some other
variation; God is not an option for explanation. What don't you
understand?

What don't you understand Dishonest Ray? Science requires evidence. If
there was evidence for gods then science would include them.


I wouldn't be surprised if that were the case, actually. Creationists
usually use "evolution" to describe any bit of science that makes them
uncomfortable-- even if it has absolutely nothing to do with biology.

Prior to 1859, theist suppositions ruled science. Fifteen years later
the Darwinian paradigm conquerered or deconverted science. Except for
a handful, every biologist was a converted evolutionist. This base
converted all the other disciplines.

Liar. Science is no more "atheistic" now than it was in 1858.


What are you talking about? God has no place in Science since 1874,

God had no place in science before that.

and today Science is presuppositionally atheistic.

Liar!

Where is God in
physics or chemistry?

Where is the evidence for gods? Provide it and whichever scientific
discipline the evidence fit would be more than happy to look at it.

These persons are evolutionists too, again, what
are you talking about?

What are YOU talking about Dishonest Ray? You seem to be trying to
change tack every time you post.

I am baffled. "Science" today uses atheist suppositions;

No it does not.

prior to 1874
theist suppositions ruled Science.

No it did not.

Funny how Wilkins is not around to
confirm when he is needed only because I am a Creationist. Richard,
nothing I have said is disputed by atheist scholars - I learned it
from them, except my argument exposing the obvious illogic of claiming
neutrality about God in the context of stringent exclusion.

Another repeat of the same old lie.


Darwinism is a schism. The schismatics worship their own intellect
while stealing the credit for creation from God. Your view has no
correspondence to reality except in this context.

Once again you speak lies. Newton proposed the mechanics of gravity
long before 1859;

You have made an obvious mistake. You admit the uncontested (Newton
preceded Darwinism). My comment started with and only was talking
about Darwinism and onward.

Liar! You said "Prior to 1859, theist suppositions ruled science.
Fifteen years later the Darwinian paradigm conquered or deconverted
science."

You see Dishonest Ray, you need to remember what you said before
trying to lie.

please explain how gravity as described by general
relativity is any more "atheist" than Newton's gravitational
mechanics. Or maybe you can describe why Dalton's conceptualization of
atoms was more theistic than modern atomic theory.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Any facts that post-1859 "science" retains does not change the fact
that post 1859 "science" uses MN or Naturalism for its assumptions.

So did pre-1859 science. All science does - it would not be science if
it didn't.

Newton's theist worldview

Newton did not have a theist world view. He had a scientific world
view.

produced facts that did not change except
God was not the creator of gravity after 1874 or whenever physics
actually changed presuppositions.

God was never the creator of gravity as far as science was concerned
as there was no evidence for gods.

Any objective view of atomic energy data must conclude that a Creator
is behind the scene baffling scientists with the behavior of invisible
particles.

Rubbish!

But these scientists believe "Nature" apart from any Deity
is responsible. What don't you undertstand, Richard?

What don't you understand Dishonest Ray? Science requires evidence. If
there was evidence for gods then science would include them.

All we are talking about is a change in supposition and how scientific
facts are interpreted.

There was no change.

Before 1874, God was credited as Creator,

Nope.

after
and since natural processes are credited as creator. Again, what don't
you undertstand, Richard?

What don't you understand Dishonest Ray? Science requires evidence. If
there was evidence for gods then science would include them.

Ray

--
Bob.

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Comprehending Steven J.
    ... to be the *factually* inerrant word of God. ... "literal sense" scripture and common sense and science. ... be factual by supposition and not by evidence. ... as is the case with Dr. Miller. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: AiG goes after Francis Collins
    ... principles is incompatible with what science tells us about the world. ... the idea that God speaks directly to any person, ... any "is" claims must be accompanied by evidence. ... was that the proper domain of religion is "ought" claims only. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Comprehending Steven J.
    ... 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: 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: Evolutionism: a synonym for atheist-friendly presuppositions - why cant Dana understand?
    ... that they had no idea of modern science is irrelevant. ... somehow in touch with god. ... offered no evidence for it. ... You just don't grasp the concept of faith, ...
    (talk.origins)
Loading