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


"Ray Martinez" <pyramidial@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1181411948.087190.190280@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
snip

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.

But why do they disagree? Does it make God any less able, if he used
natural processes to create?


Most of all, point is a deliberate corruption of God
attempting to make Him creator of your god-not-involved theory,

Ray, for someone who claims to be an expert in logic, you are missing the
obvious here. If you believe in God, and God is in charge of everything,
there is no such thing as a "god not involved theory".


and
since we know that you are an Atheist the corruption tactic is
confirmed.

Ray, you are just "confirming" your own assumption, based on your own
logical fallacies.




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's no verse that says it wasn't, either. Since the Bible is not a
science text, why would it talk about "naturalistic evolution" and common
ancestory?

There is not one
evolutionary authority or fact in existence that has ever implied or
said that any Deity or supernatural entity guides evolution.

Not as a scientific concept, but there are several "authorities" who have
held that very position. Kenneth Miller is one, for example.

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

Why is it not possible for God to have created that way?

- a process and theory that
all Atheists rabidly support and defend.

Whether or not atheists "support and defend" a scientific theory is
irrelevant to the veracity of that theory. Atheists also defend the
concept of the round Earth, germ theory, meterology, etc...

Since you are an infidel your
Bible destruction agenda is obvious and expected.

Yet Steven hasn't shown any signs of having an agenda to "destroy the
Bible". If anyone is destroying the meaning of the Bible, it's you.

Since you are an
Atheist you have no legitimate reason to want a God involved in
evolution.

Whether or not Steven wants God involved in evolution is also irrelevant.
If God exists, he is involved.


You have zero understanding of Christian doctrine,

Which makes him equal, if not ahead of you, who's understanding of Christian
doctrine is badly warped.

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.

Steven is not the one "butchering" the Bible. Your insistance that the
Bible be "right or wrong" is butchery itself. The Bible was not written to
be taken on a "black/white", "right/wrong" basis.



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.

Genesis chapters one and two do not say anything opposite of what evolution
presents. Genesis says that God created, it doesn't say how, by what
process. How can that be opposite of evolutionary theory?

snip

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?

The point is: Why is your interpetation better than theirs?


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

No, he's saying that one crazy Fundamentalist rendering (yours) is no
different than any other crazy fundamentalist rendering.


Are we to reject ToE because Nazi's endorse said theory?

Actually, the Nazis never endorsed evolution, but you have already made the
claim we should reject evolution for that very reason. That was wrong
then, it's wrong now.

Are we
obligated to answer every crazy rendering of the Bible?

You are obligated to show why your crazy rendering is better than theirs.

Or are you
backing every crazy rendering of the Bible based on your Atheism and
its need to have a source of Theism discredited?

Ray, the Bible is not the "source of Theism". It's a book. The source of
theism is belief.


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.

Chapter and verse, please.


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.

There are many false claims in the Bible, if you treat it like a science
text..



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?

The same way everyone uses 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?

Why would you need a "literary source"? It's a logical conclusion from
the premise. If God exists, and God is responsible for everything, he's
therefore responsible for evolution. The fact is that evolution happens,
and you can either assume that it happens without God, or you can believe
that it happens with God. It's your choice. Science offers no clues either
way.



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.

Where have they done this? Specific examples, please.

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.

A rather poor metric for accepting if a book is "Gods Word". There are
many claims in the Bible that are not shown to be true, if you are foolish
enough to expect scientific accuracy from a ancient religious text.



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.

Ray, you need to present the evidence, not simply assert that there is
evidence. What evidence do you have that 'proves the Bible"? Some of the
historical figures in the Bible have been verified, some of them have not,
and some have been refuted by the evidence.


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.

What errors are you talking about? Please be specific..




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.

There is a great deal of evidence for the latter, you just refuse to
acknowlege it.

snip of what's ignored

DJT


.

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: Virginia: Chesterfield School Board takes up debate on different theories of life.
    ... point is a deliberate corruption of God ... working through naturalistic evolution (which after all, ... There is no verse of scripture that even slightly indicates creation ... There is no evidence of the ...
    (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: So what do Catholics believe about Exogenesis?
    ... There are still people that put "God in the gaps" of our ... even without any evidence to support the ... that the stars were a "firmament", that evolution was false, that the ... (what that says about a religion supposedly inspired by God is your ...
    (talk.origins)