Re: i want to join with this group

On Apr 14, 7:37 pm, "Steven J." <steve...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Apr 14, 1:30 pm, "Ray Martinez" <pyramid...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:> On Apr 13, 10:21 pm, "Steven J." <steve...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

-- [snip]

Are you blaming me for not mentioning your response before you made
it? I think you overestimate my abilities.

No, all I did was to point out that your comments about creationists
were not objective since you did not include evolutionists as well.
Persons of all persuasions have the capacity for error and
misunderstanding.

Part of my complaint was about people who insist that no possible
evidence could count against their views. That is not a position, so
far as I am aware, that any "evolutionists" have taken. And while
some "evolutionists" are mistaken on points of science, this is not so
consistent a phenomenon as the errors made by creationists. Nor do
the differences of opinion among evolutionists seem to me to approach
the magnitude of the differences of opinion among creationists: we
have old-earth/old life creationists, old earth/young life
creationists like yourself, and young-earth creationists (and let's
not even get into the old earth/"man as old as coal" creationists like
Ed Conrad). We have creationists who don't think speciation is
possible, and creationists who think that speciation can occur often
and very fast, as long as it remains within the boundaries of "created
kinds." Creationist opinions are constrained by how far they think
the Bible (or other scriptures) can be figuratively interpreted to
accomodate science, not by actual evidence.

Note that science deals, by necessity, in *natural* phenomena.
"Natural" means behaving according to some discoverable nature,
exhibiting regularities that can be expressed as scientific laws and
used to make and test predictions.

This is your (= evolutionists) definition of Science.

Pay attention. That is my definition of *natural*. Anything science
can study is "natural."

"Natural" - whatever it means - means supernatural is not directly or
indirectly involved. Persons holding to the Biblical worldview define
Science presupposing that God produced reality and the assertion is
testable by scientific means.

How can anything be testable by scientific means? It seems to me that
this is possible only if a cause behaves according to the constraints
of its own nature, tending to produce certain effects in certain
circumstances and unable to produce other effects, so that you can say
that "the evidence is consistent with this cause, but could not have
been produced by that cause." If the assertion that God produced
reality is testable by scientific means, that implies that God (like
human designers) is a sort of natural cause.

The entire Bible is situated in the context of Genesis 1:1 - a miracle
claim. Evolutionists practice a defective "science" that ignores the
evidence of God.

You have failed to demonstrate that there is any evidence of God.
"Something that current theory cannot explain" is not evidence of God,
or any other supernatural cause; it is merely evidence that there are
things we do not know, which is not something evolutionists ignore.
For that matter, what can it mean, really, to say that evolutionists
practice "defective science," except that they ignore, when trying to
explain biogeography, faunal succession in the fossil record, the
nested hierarchy of anatomical and biochemical traits, and
transitional fossils, the possibility that God has deliberately made
the living world to look like the product of evolution, that He has
woven over the living world "one enormous and superfluous lie." Those
who accept evolution arguably have a higher view of God's honesty and
rationality than you.

As for the entire Bible being situated in the context of Genesis 1:1;
I remind you that the Bible consistently claims that God is the
creator of individual humans (Psalm 139:13; "You made all the
delicate, inner parts of my body and knit them together in my mother's
womb." Job 31:15; They, no less than I (Job) were created in the womb
by the one same God who shaped us all within our mothers."). And it
rather consistently insists that God can not only intervene in the
normal operation of the weather, but causes the normal operations of
the weather (Matthew 5:44-45; "But I say unto you, Love your enemies,
bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for
them which despitefully use you, and persecute you; that ye may be the
children of your Father which is in heaven: for he maketh his sun to
rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on
the unjust."). I insist to you again that there is no reason to read
Genesis as insisting on supernatural interventions and yet read all
references to God's routine creation of human beings and the weather
as either metaphors or as somehow referring only to occasional (rather
than, as the text clearly implies, constant and regular) interventions
in nature.





Things which are not "natural" in
this sense are beyond the power of science to either describe or
test. In that sense, science can never confirm that a supernatural
cause has occurred; at most it can confirm that known natural causes
cannot account for some phenomenon, leaving the possibility that
currently-unknown natural causes are responsible, or, as an
alternative, that the causes may never be scientifically knowable. It
does not support your claim that creationists "represent science,"
when you assert that their only shared doctrine is that something
entirely outside science created matter and life.

Only Darwinists and Atheists believe what you just wrote. Before
Darwin science said God created Nature, after Darwin "science" said
natural processes unconnected to an absent from reality God created
Nature. Since the latter is explained by its presuppositions it is,
like I said, atheist ideology masquerading - attempting
objectification under a pretense of neutral science.

Before Darwin, most scientists accepted that God had created nature,
and after him, many (including many evolutionists) continued to
believe so. But no one claimed that "science said" God created
Nature. Science, before Darwin, accepted the matter as beyond the
purview of science, which is a different thing. What is beyond the
purview of science changes as the methods and background knowledge of
science change.

Or in short - we just simply disagree with your view of what science
is and what it can achieve. Presently, we are the minority and we
alone possess the right to represent Science. Disagree? We do not
expect Atheists and Darwinists to agree. And when I say "we" I am
talking about theist scholars - it is where I get my views.

Ray, Dr. Scott was not, and Pastor Scott is not, a "theist scholar."
They are cranks with just enough learning to be dangerous (though I
saw Pastor Scott on TV last night, and she is cute; the glasses make
her look almost intelligent). Your claim that you and those who agree
with you alone possess the right to represent science is a claim on a
par with saying that Richard Dawkins alone possesses the right to
represent Christianity (although perhaps I am wrong; I suspect that
Dawkins knows as much about Christianity as you do).


Since I have said Ken Miller and Harshman are not "scholars" I guess
it was time for you to get even.

We know that this is your target "point" (= insult) appearing well
into the post. Placing it here (in the middle) is an attempt to try
and not appear enraged by my previous answers, mainly the one about
who represents Science. The insults above tell me you do not want
discussion. Why would I give someone the time of day who has admitted
intellectual defeat by your rant seen above? Since you are an atheist-
Darwinist your thoughts about Dr. Scott & Pastor Scott are predictable
- glad that we do not have the approval of your kind, your approval,
that is, the approval of a person who believes apes morphed into men
is science would certainly make the Scott's like yourself - an angry
moron. Since Dr. Scott has refuted your theory your childish invective
is explained by this fact alone.

As for Dawkins: we could only wonder how a person like yourself could
possibly believe that an atheist would represent his enemy accurately?
Since you are an atheist all is explained. The real point is that you
have no point because you are an atheist; everything you say about me
and my sources is entirely predictable because we are theists. I am
skocked that you could not contain your anger and have given me the
satisfaction of seeing you enraged.

My facts remain: Creationists represent Science even though we are the
minority. The facts that the majority produces are better explained by
our theories and paradigms. Forty percent of the American population
agrees.

Ray



On the other hand, evolutionary theory does not deal with either the
origin of matter (the Big Bang theory is not part of "Darwinism") or
even with the origin of life

Only because ToE is falsified right here. You have no explanation
whatsoever as to how a DNA-protein replication engine came into
existence so that cumulative selection could proceed. The irony is
that Creationism STARTS where ToE ends and fails. A theory is only as
strong as its weakest link. This weak or non-existent link proves your
interpretation of Nature is false on its face.

Ray, how can a theory be falsified by not being able to explain
something that the theory does not even address? That is like saying
that Newton's laws of motion and gravity are falsified because they
don't explain how the moon came about. Of course, creationism has it
easy; it can "address" any problem by saying "God miracled it into
existence." Creationism doesn't explain how, or why, or even, on your
interpretation of the Bible, when God created life; saying that life
originated by supernatural means is as uninformative as saying that it
originated by naturalistic means, except that there actually are
testable theories about naturalistic abiogenesis. The links in
creationism aren't weak; they're purely imaginary. How strong is a
"theory" with no links at all?

(evolutionary theory works equally well
whether the original life on Earth had always existed somewhere and
just landed on Earth, or had originated through natural processes on
Earth, or was "supernaturally" created on Earth). So you seem to be
insisting that one can be a creationist (not your kind of creationist,
but then, so few creationists are your kind anyway), and still accept
the entirety of evolutionary theory (now, obviously, this is not your
position; obviously, either your position on the compatibility of
evolution and creationism is wrong, or your definition of
"creationism" is wrong).

Never have I said that a creationist is as such and can remain as such
if he accepts evolutionary theory.

Never have I said that you do say such a thing; I merely say that if
you were consistent you would say it. Far be it from me to accuse you
of consistency.

I said Creationists have two common denominator beliefs: design =
invisible Designer AND original causation of matter and life was by
special creation.

Why cannot God establish laws governing natural design as you say He
established laws governing meteorology? As I have noted, evolutionary
theory has no more to say about "original causation of matter," or
even about ...

read more »- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -



.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Science didnt correct itself.
    ... There were, of course, creationists who suspected ... but there were evolutionists who suspected the same. ... But science didn't correct itself in 1930. ... their very first tenet. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Re: i want to join with this group
    ... the minority but represent Science). ... Historically, Creationists are deeply divided ... Science presupposing that God produced reality and the assertion is ... If the majority is *always* wrong, ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: In the News: Darwin Only Had A Theology Degree
    ... science in attempts to attack evolution. ... of many evolutionists at Talk Origins who assert a higher degree ... When Einstein died he was in the ... God what was the purpose of these nine years of love at a distance to ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Ayalas New Book
    ... of evolutionists who are claiming, like Nic, that Ayala did not pick ... to science," rather than "Darwin's gift to both science and ... Evolutionists who say that science has nothing to do with religion ... Evolution says nothing about God or Religion? ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: i want to join with this group
    ... Steven did not suggest that only Creationists are capable of error. ... it's the definition of science by those who actually practice science. ... Science presupposing that God produced reality and the assertion is ... In any case, for evolution to operate, there isn't any need to know the ...
    (talk.origins)