Re: Virginia: Chesterfield School Board takes up debate on different theories of life.

On Jun 7, 3:18 pm, "Steven J." <steve...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Jun 7, 10:08 am, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:> On Jun 5, 8:47 pm, "Steven J." <steve...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Jun 5, 7:58 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

17 times Ron writes the word "scam" or a derivative in the above
broken record rant describing theories which say God created reality.

How can one describe a theory that does not exist?

Are we to believe that the above comment was written by a person
inhabiting reality during the last 20 years? Has this person been
living in a cave or outer space unconnected to reality and does not
know about the current ID movement and their science agenda?

The current ID movement has an apologetics agenda. It has a political
agenda. The former aims to tell creationists that science supports
their beliefs; the second aims to prevent the schools from informing
their children otherwise. What it does not have is a science agenda.
It shows no interest in explaining how the Designer designs, or what
the purposes or design philosophy of the Designer might be, or (most
interesting and seemingly doable) how design is actually implemented.
It does not even commit itself to the question of when design events
took place, or how many. ID does not even seem interested in studying
nature for itself and discovering new, supposedly "irreducibly
complex" or "specifically complex" biological structures; it relies on
quote-mining papers by non-creationists.

Or maybe the comment was written by an angry Atheist-evolutionist
insulting the main rival to his theory?

To the extent that ID has a theory, it isn't a rival to evolutionary
theory; it's a rival to current information theories. ID holds that
design can be recognized without any idea of the nature, goals, or
methods of the designer(s). I'm not sure how one would go about
rigorously testing that theory, and ID proponents don't seem
interested in developing the theory to the extent that it can be
rigorously tested, but in any case that proposition does not, by
itself, imply that humans do not share ancestors with monkeys (indeed,
Michael Behe, a leading ID proponent, argues in his new book that we
do). It does not even imply, by itself, that we are not products of
unguided natural processes; it takes a lot of handwaving and
misrepresentation of the data to argue that point. ID proponents do
argue that natural processes could not have shaped us, but they have
not shown this; all they have shown is that there is no detailed
reconstruction of how such processes have shaped various aspects of
living things.

If the latter is true then the comment also plainly exposes a
willingness to brazenly lie since ID enjoys the support of tens of
millions of persons in this nation. Since the comment was written by
an Atheist all is explained. I am sorry that the preceding observation
smears all Atheists but I herein exempt the honest ones.

Ray, are you asserting that millions of people cannot be wrong? How
many millions of people have to think a vague, untestable assertion is
a theory before it becomes one? How many millions of people have to
believe a bad argument before it becomes a sound argument? Please
recall that millions of people can't tell you who their senators are,
much less correctly state a single ID argument; how much value should
one put on the support these people offer to ID?

That is Ron's
point, and one reason he describes ID as a "scam;" there is no
teachable theory of ID,

Ron is one of ours, that is, a Christian, he is presently confused as
I have gently pointed out and we decry your pernicious attempt to
further confuse him by justifying his confusion. Since you are an
Atheist all is explained but not forgotten or forgiven.

Ray, again, why should I, or Ron, or any random Christian lurker, or
any random atheist or agnostic, assume that you are right? After all,
Gerardus Bouw not only holds that only a confused Christian could
adhere to the pernicious atheist teachings that the Earth orbits the
sun. Ken Ham holds that only a confused Christian could adhere to the
pernicious uniformitarian belief that the Earth is much more than
6000 years old. Therefore, either would insist that you are as
confused as Ron is, a blind man trying to lead the blind. Conversely,
a great many Christians would insist that, since his acceptance of
evolution is justified by the evidence, that you in your creationist
refusal to accept facts are confused, and attempting to instill that
confusion in others -- a blind leader of the seeing.

a point which ID proponents admit in some
circles but don't point out to the creationists who make up the bulk
of their support. Of course, ID is a scam in other ways: it's just a
bunch of creationist arguments with a new paint job and a new name
(or, as Ron O points out, a series of new names), invented to get
creationism into the science curriculum after courts ruled that
"scientific creationism" was not really scientific.

We know Atheists believe and/or misrepresent all opposition to atheist-
evolution this way - what is your point?

My point is that ID is [a] not a theoretical alternative to
evolutionary theory, and [b] wrong, no matter what my own religious
beliefs. I have not misrepresented it.





We know that Ronny is a Christian who professes a miracle, that the
Risen Christ is his Savior, yet he is absolutely convinced that
Intelligent Design and Creationism (theories which say the Father of
his Savior is responsible for reality) are "scams" and the theory that
says Divine power is not responsible for reality (Evolution) is
literal truth. How do we explain such contradiction? How do we explain
a Christian who believes what rabid Atheist Richard Dawkins believes
concering the production of nature and mankind?

Intelligent design says that we can tell that supernatural causes
produced some aspects of biology. Creationism says that science can't
determine the facts about origins, and that all statements about
origins are based on faith (of course, either statement may be found
from proponents of either position, but if you want to distinguish
them, that will do). Neither position necessarily follows from the
belief that "the Father of his Savior is responsible for reality."



The Bible, after all, holds that God is responsible for all aspects of
history, even those like meteorology or embryonic development that
happen according to known naturalistic processes,

If God exists then He has to be ultimately responsible for eveything.
From this fact you launch into a very old straw man argument of
listing absurdity after absurdity. Absent from all these age old straw
man misrepresentations is the recognition of the Angelic and Adamic
fall, and Free Will, which accounts for your blame God absurdities.
Any introduction of the Hebrew and Christian Deity into any argument
must acknowledge both reductions and their consequences because the
only source for said Deity includes these claims. Therefore, your
statement above contains a false fact, and like I said in previous
post eveything built on this error will perpetuate said error.

or those, like the
Aramean incursions into Israel after the death of Ahab, or the
Babylonian conquest of Judah, that proceeded from human decisions.

"Aramean?" These particular events are God's hand, stubbing ones toe
is not.

If
God can use the Babylonians to chastise human beings, it seems to me
that He can certainly use evolution to create them.

The source of Babylonian instrumentation equal to the punishing hand
of God is from the O.T. and is valid.

The same source does not say a word about creating through
***Darwinian*** evolution. In fact, the creation chapters were written
to say creation did NOT happen that way.

With this said, what is your source for God creating by Darwinian
evolution?

You have made a counterfactual leap, TEist corruption notwithstanding.

But from this it
does not follow that we must be able to scientifically discern divine
intervention in the case of either the fall of Jerusalem in 586 BC or
in the origin of species.


You did not explain how your conclusion about the fall of Jerusalem is
justified since the source you are using says it was caused by God?

Real quickly I can tell you that ONE of the best ways to know the
origin claims is true is via the many historical claims being
evidenced true. We an open minded and objective person sees claim
after claim after claim in the O.T. be evidenced true, then the hard
ones are assumed true based on the previous performance. The physical
evidence existing in the British Museum alone supporting O.T.
historical claims is utterly staggering. You "evidence-based-and-
driven" evolutionists should spend some time looking at that. But the
prima facie evidence for special creation and the origin of species is
in my paper. Evolutionists are major hypocrites for hammering the
Bible for small evidential gaps, yet the deep time gaps of
evolutionary theory is almost undescribeable. All I have argued is
that the virtually groundless extrapolation that evolutionists employ
as compared to the tiny gaps in Biblical evidence between events and
the subsequent blind eye turned toward your own evidential problems is
a double standard of epic proportions.

As for Ron, since you are an Atheist, your defense can only hurt him.
You should let a TEist take up his cause.

Ray








.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Ben Stein: Win His Career
    ... about evolution *& atheism in the first part of the post. ... of creationism which include some of the points the OP brought ... that diseases are a judgment sent by God on those who have displeased ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: did man walk on the moon...and creationism.
    ... never walked on the moon. ... the parallels with creationism are remarkable. ... a place for intelligent design in the evolution of life. ... Francis Collins on "BioLogos" seems to be claiming that God cleverly ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Views on evolution
    ... > the word of God. ... > the theory of evolution. ... sensible way to harmonise the Genesis account with science. ... What priors do creationism and evolution share? ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: In the News: Home-schoolers learn to critique evolution
    ... critiquing the evidence for evolution. ... Creationism is a religious position, ... God referred to Himself by different names, in different situations, ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: The Evolutionists are Right
    ... Reality doesn't exist, only relationships ... If you told him to grab the jacket from the top he would ... not an absolute truth of God. ... Evolution says reality is all there is: ...
    (talk.origins)
Loading