Re: Talk Origins Photo Album

On May 4, 12:23 am, "Steven J." <steve...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On May 3, 10:00 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:



On May 3, 2:10 pm, "Dana Tweedy" <reddfr...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

"Ray Martinez" <pyramid...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message

news:1178221380.336523.166010@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
snip

One more thing, Ray. Since the Dover school board clearly broke the
laws of the land with regards to trying to establish a religious
perspective as science, and board members perjured themselves on the
stand to try to obscure this fact, and the prosecution clearly showed
how ID makes no scientific argument and produces no research, why
should he have ruled in favor of the defense?- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Commentary contains many false presuppositions.

Let's see if Ray can identify any "false presuppositions"?

Jones should have ruled that the Constitution does not say a damn word
about government excluding God

But the Constitution does say that the Goverment is not allowed to show
favoritism to any religion. Have you forgotten the 1st amendment?

Where does the word exclusion of separation appear in the First
Amendment?

The First Amendment explicitly declares that the government shall make
no establishment of religion. It may not give government support to
any particular sect, and this would include, surely, using government-
established schools to spread creationist dogma.


No comment since my up-coming paper also deals with the interpretation
of First Amendment. I can go no further without revealing my
arguments.


Now, it was the claim of ID proponents (shredded by evidence at the
trial) that "teaching evidence against evolution" did not amount to
"indoctrinate children in fundamentalist Christian creationism," but
that does not even seem to be your claim. You object, directly, to
the idea that schoolchildren can't be taught Christian creationism in
government schools, no matter what the First Amendment says.


Negative.

I object to the Con. being interpreted to make it say what atheists
and Darwinists think it should have said.

The worldview of its writers is not reflected in Constitutional
reality today. The atheist worldview is reflected today = total
reverse corruption of original intent.

How many writers of the Con. were atheist?

And we know (those who follow legal history) that original intent is
smugly dismissed - Christopher Hitchens all but admits. "The FFs could
not have forseen the issues we face today." Bull***. The Con. is a
CONTRACT that was intended to always mean original intent. No where
does the Con. give license to depart from original intent - its
presupposed.

Atheists and Darwinists have corrupted the Document.


F.F.s presupposed deism and it was exempted.

You keep seeing things in texts that are not there. There is no
mention of an exclusion for deism.

I said exempted - not excluded or "exclusion."


In any case, deism no more assumes
that the Bible speaks for God than it assumes that the Qur'an, or the
Bhagavad-Gita, or the _Urantia Book_ speak for God. For that matter,
deism is perfectly compatible with the idea that God invented
evolution and used it to create the diversity and complexity of
life.


We were not talking about what some modern deists believe but what
deists and theists in the 18th century believed. Evolution, back then,
was a heretical belief by a tiny minority.


- just the opposite.

Can you cite the portion of the Constitution that says that goverment is
required to include God?

Questions presupposes the reverse of what is true. Constitution was
not written to curtail religious expression, but to guarantee that the
State will not tread into these God-given rights.

Of course, in one sense, religious expression was not curtailed in the
least by the Dover decision.

Science was reinforced to be the exclusive domain of atheist-
Darwinism.

People are free to pray and study any
religious text they please, at home or in churches (or synagogues,
mosques, temples, ashrams or caves). They are free to write and
publish books advocating any religious idea they like, including
creationism. They are even free, if they ever decide to do so, to
come up with a testable theory of creation and find some evidence for
it (and if they do that, they are even free to argue that this time,
it really is science and ought to be taught in school). But did God,
or the framers of the constitution ever give any Christian (or other
citizen) the right to seize a public building and use it to teach his
own theological dogmas in place of whatever business was supposed to
be conducted there?

Atheism presupposed as the intent of the FF.

We know what you believe Steven, what is your point?

Can a Hindu teacher take time from algebra class
to teach the supposed evidence for reincarnation? Can a Muslim
teacher put away _Moby Dick_ and spend English class explaining why
the Qur'an is the Word of Allah?

Better not. This is a Christian nation. The papers of FF are riddled
with Christianity validation. Disagree? We know atheists disagree and
ignore these round earth facts of history.


If yes, what chaos would you unleash
on our already-troubled educational system? If not, then why should
some Christians (not all Christians, of course) be allowed to teach
errors and logical fallacies that supposedly constitute "evidence
against evolution?"


Thanks for admitting what I have been saying: "Con. says atheist-
Darwinism is lawful and nothing else."


Instead, he based
his decision presupposing said legal precedent correct.

The 'said legal precedent' was the Lemon test, as established by the US
Supreme Court. It is an application of the 1st amendment's non
establishment clause.

Jones presupposed the truth of previous rulings that exclude God as
uncon. Those rulings are illegal - total corruption of original intent
- TOTAL.

So you say. And anti-evolutionism is not God; it is a particular
sectarian view of God and what He has done.

The Con. does not say Darwinism is to be solely protected, said theory
did not exist when Con. was written. Con. says nothing about science.
Darwinists have invented all of these things. Its okay - proof of
penalty.

By your argument, if a religious group wanted to teach the "evidence
against atomism" in chemistry class, because their interpretation of
their holy book said that Aristotle's four elements were the real
basis of matter, they should be allowed to do so, since Dalton hadn't
established modern atomic theory when the U.S. Constitution was
written and ratified. Judge Jones was not protecting "Darwinism;" he
was ruling against a particular, religiously-motivated set of false
teachings that were supposed to be placed in biology classes (as
opposed to, e.g. in Sunday schools).


Darwinian judge ruled as expected.

The only real issue is why did the DI even think that a judge in the
pocket of the ACLU would ever give them anything?


Jones THINKS he is a Christian. His actions say he is an atheist =
deceived.

Or, more likely Ray is wrong about both. Jone's actions show he is a
Christian, who is well aware of his position and his duty.

Nuremburg argument ("It was my job to gas the Jews").

Pay attention to Stile4aly's response to this. Judge Jones, of
course, did not gas anyone, or deny anyone's right to believe or teach
(outside of public schools) creationism.


Misrepresentation.

Judge Jones used a Nuremburg rationale for his decision: "I am a
Christian BUT I must follow the Law...." ("It was my job....").

No it is not the Law, the law he was referring to is a total
corruption of the Con. Jones is a classic example of a Christian
walking to the beat of the world and he thinks God has patted him on
the back (= deceived).


True Christians do not protect atheist rulings that ban the Bible -
just the opposite. True Christians are known to die for their beliefs.
Jones is a modern day twinkie who thinks Jesus hung on a cross for his
sins with no payout or reciprocation?

Ray, didn't you say upthread that true Christians are saved by faith,
not by works? Are you recanting that view, and declaring that faith
without attempts ("works") to establish a theocracy are dead?


This is why you got a Jerry Falwell picture.


Of course, it seems to me that one could be a very pious and
courageous Christian, and still believe that one does not have the
right to use other people's money to drag their children into a
classroom and teach them your personal religious dogma.


An Atheist speaking for Christianity, imagine that?

Jones is deceived.

Are you claiming that he does not think that Dr. and Pastor Scott are
infallible on questions of faith and morals, or that he does believe
this?

We already know if you exclude God FOR ANY REASON it is because He has
already excluded you. That is why you exclude God.

Strictly speaking, we do not know this. Some of us know that you have
said it, and presumably Dr. Scott said it first, but those of us who
are not you draw a distinction between Dr. Scott's opinions and the
laws of nature (or, for that matter, the laws of God).

Jones is deceived. He cared more about his job than his Maker. Tyndale
burned at the stake for the grave sin of translating the Bible into
English. Jones makes me sick. But I am comforted that he did what he
did because God has already turned him over.

Tyndale was condemned for the explanatory notes that he interpolated
into the text (i.e. for putting his own ideas into the Bible). And
Jones was in no danger of losing his job if he ruled otherwise, so you
seem to be agreeing that he would not be doing his job if he ruled for
creationism. Are you saying that Christians should seek jobs that
their faith prohibits them from doing, or, after swearing oaths to
uphold the law, should break it?


Corruption of Con. presupposed as not.









We will revert the corruption wholesale someday in the near future

Who is the "we" here, Ray? How do you intend to "revert" this
"corruption"?

and
there is nothing you evil fucking atheist-Darwinists can do about it.

Are you planning a violent overthrow of the goverment? If not, why aren't
those who understand science allowed to express their legal rights?

DJT

What?

Ray

-- Steven J.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Ray


.

Loading