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

On Jun 9, 3:35 pm, "Steven J." <steve...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Jun 9, 11:59 am, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:> On Jun 7, 9:48 pm, "Steven J." <steve...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Jun 7, 9:53 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

-- [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. 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.

Ray, there seems to be a distressing Calvinist strain in your
thinking: if one is not part of the elect, he cannot understand the
Bible or those who truly explicate it. But then, why do you bother
posting? One must suppose that those who are part of the elect don't
need your help, and others can't benefit from it. From my own point
of view, I can understand a viewpoint, partially but correctly,
without accepting it, and even explain it to others correctly.

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.

Ray, you seem very resistant to this point, but I'm going to try to
make it again. There is not one verse of the Bible that supports the
idea that the Earth orbits the sun.

Phraseology presupposes that the Bible says the sun orbits the Earth.
Since no such verse exists I must point out that you are an Atheist
and the presupposition is explained.

You have resisted the explanation: JOSHUA (not the Bible or God)
believed that the sun revolved around the Earth, since he grew up in
Egypt where Ra was worshipped as God this is expected. The Bible
reports what a person in the 15th century BC believed.

Your evasion of this fact and its explanation shows us that your only
motive is corruption by endless posts containing many words and
senseless ideas that have no correspondence to what is actually
written in the Bible.

But your comment above actually is a straw man: because no verse says
what you have set up.

When we remember that you are an Atheist this nonsense then "makes
sense."

There is not one verse that, in
context, supports the idea that the Earth is older than, say, ten
thousand years.

Only if you evade what I have said and argued and evidenced in
previous posts.

Where does the Bible say the Earth is young?

I have shown the Bible saying the Earth is old and you have ignored,
evaded and corrupted because you want the source which is an enemy to
your worldview saying silly things that contradict science.

You have ignored, evaded and corrupted because you cannot refute.


There is not one verse to contradict the view, held
(as shown in the apocryphal book of Enoch, or by the writings of the
Christian rhetorician Lactantius) by many ancient readers of the
Bible, that the sky is a solid dome over a flat Earth. *All* of these
understandings of the Bible were once held by Christians (or Jews) as
devout and knowledgable of the scriptures as Gene Scott was or you
are, and all were defended with the same fervor (and similar
arguments) as is displayed in your defense of creationism. And yet
you reject all of them, and so do many Christian creationists today,
despite the lack of any biblical verse justifying your rejection.


Here we have an Atheist-evolutionist insisting Medieval beliefs are
what the Bible really says.

These beliefs are falisified by your support alone. Since you have
shown zero inclination to modify your Biblical views, but have clung
to citing every crazy rendering that makes the Bible look silly
contrary to what it says, we can only conclude that you are an infidel
doing what all infidels have always done: misrepresent the Bible.

There is no verse that tells how God implemented His commands for the
sea to bring forth life, or the dry land to bring forth plants.

Of course there is. Since you have shown no desire to learn they
cannot ever exist in your mind.


There
is no verse that denounces common descent or modification by natural
selection as false.

Genesis 1 and 2 at face value, if not the Creation-Evolution debate
does not exist and we are not having this discussion.

Here we have an Atheist-evolutionist defending corruption of the Bible
by fellow evolutionists. My corruption charge proven and supported.

Atheists do not believe in the existence of God; Steven's only
interest is corrupting the Bible and making it say God created his
theory. Why else would an Atheist fight to have the Bible "say" that
it supports evolution?


Theistic evolutionists have all the authority for
accepting evolution as part of God's plan for creation as you have for
accepting heliocentrism as part of God's plan for creation.


Incoherent.


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.

Would not my atheistic ulterior motives impel me to agree with you:
find a list of errors in the Bible, and demand that it be rejected
entirely for any of them?

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.

In some respects, actually, they agree with evolutionary theory
against the more extreme creationists. Creationists deny that we are
animals, but the Bible is quite specific that we originated by the
same processes as any other beast, and they and we are alike "living
organisms" or "living souls" depending on how one wishes to translate
the Hebrew _chay nephesh_, which is used to describe us and other
mammals indifferently in Genesis 2. But I have already pointed out
that there is a tradition in Christian exegesis, long predating the
introduction of evolutionary theories, that the creation accounts in
Genesis are best interpreted metaphorically or symbolically.


You just got done in a previous post saying that natural selection was
a metaphor. Now Genesis is a metaphor.

"Everything is a metaphor - Steven J." - what are you talking about?


Ray

SNIP... meaningless closed minded atheist drivel about the Bible.






.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Dana Tweedy is a Clown
    ... but one that anyone who studies the evidence must adopt. ... Evolution says Genesis one and two is false and that design does not ... you were never raised to believe that God had to cause these ... atheists and evolutionists against Christian creationists and scholars ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: What is the purpose of Rayy Martinez posting?
    ... >> Ray, I keep pointing out how mistaken you are in repeating this. ... >> It doesn't say anything about God, or what he did or did not do. ... >> evolution is to deny God is a mistake on your part. ... > whole hearted population of Naturalism by atheists. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Francis Collins complains about creos, new atheists
    ... deeply troubling to watch the escalating culture wars between science ... A spate of angry books by atheists, ... evolution as a rhetorical club over the heads of believers, ... It seems unlikely that God, ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Atheists support evolution because evolution supports their
    ... Atomic theory somehow manages to omit any reference to God. ... Harshman would not support Darwinian evolution if it supported ... atheists I know are atheists simply because they feel that the claims ... Israelites may have mostly emerged within the highlands and gradually ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Evolution = Atheism = objective fact
    ... Bible was inspired by God, but written by men - if I am correctly ... I am not denying that Atheists make this absurd claim; ... We know ALL Atheists that accept evolution believe the same falsifies ... one's intelligence and trick, dumb and gullible, Christians like VBM ...
    (talk.origins)
Loading