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

On Jun 7, 9:48 pm, "Steven J." <steve...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Jun 7, 9:53 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:> On Jun 7, 3:18 pm, "Steven J." <steve...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

-- [snip of points addressed elsewhere or not at all]

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.

In which case, He could and must be responsible for the evolution of
the diversity and complexity of life.


Lazy-cheap "point" since you already know Creationists and IDists
disagree. Most of all, point is a deliberate corruption of God
attempting to make Him creator of your god-not-involved theory, and
since we know that you are an Atheist the corruption tactic is
confirmed.

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.

My point was not to blame God for anything, but to point out that
Christian doctrine has traditionally held that God can work through
causes that are ignorant of and unconcerned with, or even outright
hostile to, His will. On those assumptions, God must be capable of
working through naturalistic evolution (which after all, while not
seeking to do His will is, unlike the King of Babylon, not seeking
actively to thwart it). This follows from the principle, which you
called a "fact," that God is ultimately responsible for everything.


There is no verse of scripture that even slightly indicates creation
was by naturalistic evolution and common ancestry. There is not one
evolutionary authority or fact in existence that has ever implied or
said that any Deity or supernatural entity guides evolution. Again,
you are attempting to corrupt scripture by stealing principles and
applying them to your wholly invented "cause," which is asserting God
to have created the evolutionary process - a process and theory that
all Atheists rabidly support and defend. Since you are an infidel your
Bible destruction agenda is obvious and expected. Since you are an
Atheist you have no legitimate reason to want a God involved in
evolution.

You have zero understanding of Christian doctrine, if you did you
would not be butchering the Bible to suit your atheistic ulterior
motives. The Bible is either right or wrong with nothing in between
possible.


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.

Is your claim that God can work through beings with wills that oppose
His, but cannot work through processes that have no will at all? I am
not sure that makes any sense.


God can and has certainly done the former. There is no evidence of the
latter since Genesis chapters one and two say the exact opposite of
what evolutionary theory claims.

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.

I meant "Aramaean;" my spelling is occasionally wrong.

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.

And several psalms (e.g. Psalm 93:1) specifically state (and, as
noted, there are geocentrist creationists who claim they were in fact
written to say this) that the Earth is immobile in space,

And their are Nazi's who endorse evolutionary theory, what is your
point?

All you are doing is defending some crazy Fundamentalist rendering of
the Bible and saying that the Bible is saying that.

Are we to reject ToE because Nazi's endorse said theory? Are we
obligated to answer every crazy rendering of the Bible? Or are you
backing every crazy rendering of the Bible based on your Atheism and
its need to have a source of Theism discredited?

and that the
sun orbits the Earth.

The Bible reports that persons living in the 15th century BC believed
that the sun orbited the Earth.

For that matter, the creation account speaks of
a solid canopy over the Earth, with water above it and the sun below
it, although I know of no one who today holds that these passages were
written to teach flat-earth and solid-skyism.


You have conflated one true fact with one false claim.

As science progressed, Christians decided that the Bible needed to be
reinterpreted; passages such as Psalm 93:1 were no longer read
literally. There has been, at least since Augustine wrote _On the
Literal Meaning of Genesis_, a tradition of interpreting the creation
account as nonliterally as accounts of a solid sky with windows to let
the rain through.


What does "literal" mean in the context that you are using it?


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

The source is the multiple coinciding nested hierarchies of
homologies, biogeography, faunal succession in the fossil record,
shared pseudogenes and endogenous retroviruses between humans and
monkeys or between hippos and whales, fossils that straddle any
boundary line you wish to draw between humans and nonhuman apes, and
so forth: the evidence that Darwinian evolution in fact took place,
coupled with the faith-based assumption that God is, as you noted
above, "ultimately responsible for everything that happens."


No, I meant what is your literary source for any God creating by
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?

But how do we bring the instruments of science to bear on such a
claim?


History and archaeology has confirmed the claim. The claim resides in
a book claiming to be God's word. The more any claims in the book are
shown true the more the claim that the book contains God's word is
shown true.


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.

The official T.O. stock response to this claim is that many, many
details in Tom Clancy novels can be verified and shown to be factual. From this it does not follow >that, e.g. a terrorist nuke devastated

This means that the evolutionist claim to be open for the evidence
that proves the Bible was and is false, confirming what we already
knew and suspected.

Denver a few years back, even though it is claimed in books that make
claim after claim after claim that can be shown to be correct. Many,
many books contain a mixture of facts, untestable assertions, and
demonstrable errors, in various proportions.


Like scientific theories.


If the evidence in the British museum is sufficient evidence for the
purely historical claims of Isaiah, ought not the evidence in the
American Museum of Natural History count as reason to doubt the claims
of a literally-interpreted Genesis?


Yes, but there is no evidence for the latter.


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.

There are some rather huge gaps in Biblical evidence. Some are
perhaps not important; the sparsity of extrabiblical evidence for
David is, I think, insufficient reason to reject his historical
existence. But a global flood or separate creation of humans and
other primates requires rather more evidence than showing that, e.g.
Luke was correct about the titles of local rulers in the 1st century
AD. A great deal of the history of the Earth and life on it are
unrecovered and perhaps unrecoverable, but this does not diminish the
support given by the evidence to the parts that can be recovered.

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

If Ron asks me to stop trying to help, I'll apologize and back off. I
think you might not be the best judge of his interests, though.



Ray

-- Steven

Ray


.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Atheists support evolution because evolution supports their worldview
    ... Atomic theory somehow manages to omit any reference to God. ... Harshman would not support Darwinian evolution if it supported ... If the evidence supported theism, ... No one can go back and undo Darwin in order to find ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: What does the DI and Evolution have in common?
    ... the obvious lack of evidence for a global flood, ... absolutely necessary way to view reality. ... If by macroevolution you mean the creation of new species - we've seen ... Evolution is based on what is real. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Judge Jones: No Surpise
    ... >> Miller don't address the evidence he presents, ... By which he means that Darwin believed in a God who used natural processes ... > TEist attempting to evade the conflict of the Bible and Evolution. ... Of course no such "darkening penalty" exists. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Evolution = Atheism = objective fact.
    ... the evidence, it does not make statements about what the evidence can't ... The explanation of evidence in favor evolution exists within the ... People say they don't accept evolution largely because they are ignorant of the science involved, and they mistakenly believe that evolution denies God. ... The appearance of design in nature is not evidence that this appearance is genuine. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: All Evidence is Subjective...
    ... God does not exist. ... Scientists accept evolution because it is the ... best explanation for the evidence. ... presented to me and the rest of civilization for creation, ...
    (talk.origins)