Re: Question for Ray Martinez


"Ray Martinez" <pyramidial@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1180573468.430576.101300@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
snip

Ray, I think it very unlikely that you have actually surveyed the
usage of "all" scholars, unless you are limiting the term "scholar" to
the Dr. and Pastor Scott and a handful of their sycophants (in which
case, who besides a Gene Scott idolator would care what "all scholars"
think?). But even if *all* scholars used the term "Darwinist," that
would not establish that they use it to mean what you use it to mean.
It is not enough to show that a word exists and is used by scholars;
you have to show that it means what you say it means.


I am pleased that an Atheist like yourself and a person who believes
apes morphed into men reject Dr. and Pastor Scott.

Why would you be pleased with that? There's nothing that indicates that
either atheists, or those who accept basic scientific facts are poor judges
of character, or lack thereof...

The approval of
your kind would surely prove them to be deluded persons.

Well, no, the "approval" of Steven would only show that he was deluded.
Mr. Scott, and Ms Barbi Bridges may, or may not be deluded, but they
certianly do not count as scholars, or persons of note.

Please notice, that you don't deal with Steven's points in the above
paragraph. What are you afraid of?

snip

Darwin became famous for arguing that humans are related to apes.
Excluding the supernatural to explain reality is characteristic of
many branches of science:

Then we agree that Darwin became famous for excluding the supernatural
to explain reality, which left him with a mandatory origin from
animals.

Steven does not seem to be agreeing with that. In fact he pointed out that
it's science that excludes supernatural explanations, not Darwin himself.
There is no "manditory origin from animals", but the facts indicate that
humans are animals, mammals, and specifically apes.



The Darwinian Revolution eventually succeeded in deconverting
other disciplines to also exclude the supernatural = basic history -
you get an A+

And as usual, Ray fails basic history, as well as biology. Science
excluded supernatural influences long before Darwin was even born.
Medicine was one of the last to reject supernatural claims..


no chemistry: e.g. meteorology, as has been
noted before, explains rain without reference to the "windows of
heaven" or the wrath or benevolence of God. The goal of any
scientific theory is to find a way to account for phenomena without
miracles, since miracles don't actually "explain" things in a
scientific sense: that is, they don't tell us why things are one way
rather than some other possible way.


Negative.

Yet Ray is unable to support this emphatic "Negative".


The goal of science is to unfold the awesome wonder of God's power
seen in reality.

Where has that ever been a goal of Science? Science is an attempt to
explain the universe without regard to supernatural explanations.

The goal of Darwinian scientism is to pretend that
God does not exist and steal the credit from Him and claim your silly
theories created reality.

There is no "Darwinian scientism", only science. There is no desire of
scientists to claim God doesn't exist, or to "steal credit" from God.
That's just your own delusion. Theories don't create reality, Ray, they
explain it. Also, what do you find "silly" about scientific theories"?
Please be specific.


If any person thinks that Darwin was intending to show how God
created, then stay tuned for my paper as I will prove beyond any
shadow of a doubt that Darwin was doing no such thing, he was, in
fact, doing the exact opposite. Since all Atheists rabidly support
evolution Person A is a subjective enterprise.

First, Ray, I strongly suspect that you have not actually polled "all
atheists." Ayn Rand, before she died, was noted for ardent atheism
but refused to either accept or reject the idea of evolution. Surely
there might still be a few atheists of that sort.


Intelligent persons know that *all* in this context means vast
majority;

Why do you assume you'd know what "intelligent persons" do? The term "all"
does not mean "the vast majority", it means "entirely".

a handful of freaks do not jeopardize said truth nor should
they prevent the word from being used how I used it.

Ray, you are the "freak" who is using the term incorrectly.



Second, you are engaged in a rather egregious logical fallacy, known
as "affirming the consequent." Just as "all dogs are mammals, my pet
is a mammal, therefore, my pet is a dog" is invalid (my pet might be a
cat, hamster, rabbit, or other non-canine mammal), so "all atheists
rabidly support evolution, Person A supports evolution, thefore
Person A is, or to be consistent ought to be, an atheist" is
wretchedly bad logic.

Wrong. I did not say "Person A supports evolution therefore the same
is an Atheist."

That is, however what you have been claiming all along.

I said that all Atheists support evolution therefore
evolution proves (or claims to prove) the atheist worldview

That's where the false logic comes in. Evolution makes no such claim.
Those atheists who do support evolution do so for the same reason theists
support evolution, because it's the best explanation for the evidence.
=
invulnerable logic.

False logic is not 'invulnerable".

Why else would ALL Atheists rabidly support
evolution (rhetorical question)?

Not all atheists "rabidly support" evolution. Even if they did, they
support it for the same reason theists do. Because it's the best
explanation for the evidence. Steven already explained your bad logic.




One might as well argue "all atheists rabidly
support heliocentrism, Ray Martinez believes the Earth orbits the sun,
therefore Ray Martinez is a subjective enterprise."


The difference is that heliocentrism or feeding baby buzzards has
nothing to do with origins and who's worldview corresponds to the
truth of reality.

Evolution has nothing to do with "who's worldview corresponds to the truth
of realty" either It explains the evidence, and nothing more.
Heliocentrism has to do with the origin of the solar system, and does
contradict a literal reading of the Bible.


Atheists support evolution in droves for obvious
reasons.

For the same reason theists do, because it explains the evidence better than
any other scientific theory.


Third, it's not like we don't believe that we're going to someday be
able to read this fabulous paper of yours ... no, wait, it's exactly
like that. Sorry.


Oh did I tell you that I have made an original scientific discovery?

Do you imagine that anyone believes this?

That I stumbled upon it and had the classic Eureka! moment and that I
have been exposing it to falisification scenarios for months now and
it repels all of them and that this discovery falsifies the Theory of
Evolution?

Considering your poor grasp of logic, and inability to accept your own
falibility, it's not likely you have the ability to accurately falsifiy
anything.... But do tell, what is this "discovery"?


Yes, my work will be worth the wait.

You've said this before, with little reason to believe you.

What I wouldn't give to see your
face the moment you ascertain that your theory is false.

You've claimed this before too, and failed to follow up with anything. I
suspect your 'discovery' is more of the same.

God forgives;
there is plenty of room on the Ark of Jesus.

Jesus has an Ark too? Did he get it used from Noah?





Person B cannot be an Agnostic because the scholarly definition of
that word does not encompass the description offered. The description
by itself is not one of a Darwinist because "Darwin [allegedly]
demonstrated that the difference between humans and other animals is
one of degree not kind" (van Wyhe, darwin online uk, Biography); and
more importantly, a person cannot be a Darwinist unless they accept
natural selection.

It is nowhere said that Person B does not accept natural selection; it
says that Person B holds that natural selection cannot produce "new
kinds." Darwin himself held that natural selection was not the sole
mechanism of evolution, and never suggested that it could account for
the origin of life.

Darwin and all neo-Darwinists say that NS is not the sole means of
modification

Where did anyone say that natural selection was the sole means of
"modification"? Genetic drift, sexual selection, mutations, etc, are all
parts of genetic changes in populations.

but the main and that IT (= NS) is the main cause of
common ancestry.

No, the main cause of common ancestory is reproduction. Natural selection
is only part of the picture.

Are you saying that NS had no part in producing
original phyla?

No, that's not what Steven said. It's not even close to what he said.

Where on the tree of life do you begin NS?

Natural selection most likely began with the first self replicating
organism.

Gould says
that NS is represented in the central trunk area on the tree of life
(2002).

I suspect you are misunderstanding what Gould wrote. What is the proper
citition for this claim?

DJT


.