Re: Comprehending Steven J.

Ray Martinez wrote:
On Jan 16, 10:30 pm, Dana Tweedy <reddfr...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Ray Martinez wrote:
On Jan 15, 10:23 pm, "Steven J." <steve...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
snip

Who is "he" in your point above?
Ancient Hebrew is an ambiguous language that originally contained no
vowels. Words, like very many English words, could have a plethora of
legitimate meanings. We know that the word "day" in Genesis one has
two perfectly legitimate meanings: it can mean twenty four hour period
or thousand year period.
Who is the "we" in your claim above? And if you can ascribe that much
difference in ancient Hebrew, why are you assuming there can only be one
correct interpretation?


Persons who accept the scholarship of Hebrew scholars (= "we").

Which Hebrew scholars agree with you?


I never advocated one correct interpretation of ANY scripture.

except that you have. Your claim that Romans talks about modern evolution is one.




I have simply pointed out an axiomatic truth: some "interpretations"
are deliberate nonsense and not allowed.

Ray, your own assumptions and assertions are not "Axiomatic truth". Why are some interpretations not allowed? Not allowed by whom?

According to your schemes the
creation of man terminology and phraseology could mean natural
evolution,

Actually, according to the evidence natural evolution happened. The writers of the Bible had no idea about that evidence, and I don't expect them to have anticipated it.

which is deliberate corruption, because *natural evolution*
means the supernatural was not involved;

Ray, I've explained many times why natural evolution means nothing of the sort. Science cannot determine if the supernatural was involved or not. Therefore you constant repetition of your misconception borders on deliberate deception.

and 'creation' or 'created'
always means the supernatural was directly involved.

There is no reason to assume that created always, or even sometimes, means that the supernatural was directly involved. If someone creates a masterpiece, no supernatural means were involved. If God creates, there is no reason why God can't used natural processes.


No one could
possibly say being formed from the clay-like ground in God's likeness
is suggesting evolution,

Why not, Ray? Since the Bible states that God is a spirit, he has no physical likeness. Also, the Bible does not say "clay like ground" in Genesis, but the "dust of the ground". Why can't the evolution of all life from the same material as the Earth be stated metaphorically as "formed from the dust of the ground"?

but the same is plainly communicating
miraculous beginning.

The same is communicating a legendary beginning. The writers of the Bible knew nothing about science, the scientific method, or how life works. To expect them to present a scientifically accurate account of how life began is absurd.

The claim is either spectacularly true or
spectacularly false.

The "claim" is a legend, intended to tell a story. It was never meant to be considered science, in the modern sense. To require a legend to be "spectacularly true" or "spectacularly false" ignores the purpose of a legend. Legends give answers to questions that are unknown, and beyond the ability of the audience to know. At the time the Bible was written down, there was no means of investigation into how life began. The creation stories in the Bible fill this need.

sniip


First off: the Bible contains thousands of translation, grammatical,
punctuation and spelling errors due to mistakes made by copyists and
translators. Human beings make errors. But when scholarship corrects
these errors (that is why they take the time to learn dead languages)
and the original text is restored the best it can be: THIS TEXT claims
to be the *factually* inerrant word of God. That is the ancient claim
of the Church made in behalf of the pre-Reformation Canon.
You seem to be assuming here that "scholarship" doesn't make errors.
Perhaps your "scholar" made an error in the claim that the "text claims"
to be the "factually inerrant word of God".


Scholars make errors.

Yes, they do, so why are you acting as if they don't? Your own idol, Mr. Scott made many, very glaring errors, but you treat his claims as if they were inviolate. Can you admit that Mr. Scott was in error in his interpretations of the Bible?





Why is this so hard to understand?
Because there is no "ancient claim" that the Bible is inerrant. That
claim is very recent.


Factually inerrant, yes, how could words from God be otherwise?


Because, as you yourself stated, humans make mistakes. What someone may think are "words from God" are actually words filtered through humans. Humans make mistakes, and misinterpret what God's words may be. That's why it's wrong to assume that the "factual claims" of the Bible have to be correct, in order for it to be God's word.

snip


And the word in the Hebrew is the same word in which we get our
English word "cataract".
According to etymologists, the English word "Cataract"(meaning
waterfall) comes ultimately from the Greek "katarakte-s", not the Hebrew.
See:http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/cataract


Yes, I have made an error and I accept your correction.

Note that many of your errors are of the same type.

I should have
alluded to the Greek of the LXX and not Hebrew. And it does not mean
'waterfall' but 'covering' like a cataract that develops on the human
eye.

Again, you are wrong. The Greek term means "waterfall, floodgate, or portcullis", or "something rushing down". It does not mean "covering".

See:cataract
"1430, from L. cataracta "waterfall," from Gk. katarhaktes "swooping, rushing down," from kata "down" + arhattein "to strike hard." Its alternate sense in L. of "portcullis" was probably passed through M.Fr. to form the Eng. meaning "eye disease" (1547), on the notion of "obstruction.""

Online Etymology Dictionary, © 2001 Douglas Harper
http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?search=cataract&searchmode=none



>There was a canopy covering the atmosphere of

the Earth before the Flood.
Ray, remember, you tried this claim before. There is no evidence of a
vapor canopy, and such a canopy would have made life as we know it on
Earth untenable.


There was a covering.

Then why is there no evidence of such a "covering"? You were shown to be wrong about this before. Why keep clinging to something that's already been disproved?

Other planets in our solar system show evidence
of once having canopies also.

Such as? There is no evidence of Earth ever having a "vapor canopy" of water.




This canopy contained water. When it burst
it flooded the Earth. Before the Flood it never had rained and the
canopy apparently had holes in it that allowed a constant mist to go
forth and water the ground. These texts are scientifically accurate.
Actually, those claims are scientifically nonsense. There is no
evidence of a vapor canopy, and no way such a canopy could have existed.

There is no way such a canopy could have "holes" in it, and there is no
way it could have permitted a "mist".


I have made an error,

Ray, that's an understatement. The whole "water canopy" idea is dead and buried.


I did not mean to say the canopy had holes that
emitted a mist; rather the mist came from the ground:

Genesis 2:5,6

"And every plant of the field before it was in the earth, and every
herb of the field before it grew: for the LORD God had not caused it
to rain upon the earth, and there was not a man to till the ground.

But there went up a mist from the earth, and watered the whole face of
the ground."


There is no evidence of this, either. In fact, there is a great deal of evidence that rain has fallen as long as the atmosphere was cool enough to permit condensation.


There is also no evidence of a global flood. This has been covered
before, remember how you were shown that Mr. Scott's claim about the
vapor canopy was wrong, and how there was no JPL scientists who ever
proposed, or supported this claim? For information on why the vapor
canopy idea is nonsense, see:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/canopy.htmlhttp://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CH/CH310.htmlhttp://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/hovind/howgood-add.html#A2http://www.sentex.net/~tcc/fcanopy.html


Dr. Scott did not make the claim;

Then why did you say he did?

rather, he presented the evidence
made by others, including Isaac Vail.

Isaac Vail's claims were refuted long ago.

There is ample evidence for a
canopy.

So, where is there any such evidence? Please present any published scientific paper which supports such a belief.




The "literal sense" is the sense in which "God
made Adam from the dust of the Earth" is held to describe a man being
shaped out of mud and being transformed into living tissue.
You mean clay. Scriptural exegesis says mankind is clay in the hands
of the Potter (Jeremiah 18).
I believe that Steven is referring to Genesis 2:7



This is the Biblical explanation for the origin of mankind.
The Jeremiah passage is obviously a metaphor.


Yes, of the way God works in the lives of those who have accepted His
authority.

Again that's a metaphor. God does not actually produce human beings on a potters wheel, out of actual clay.

The metaphor says God is in control like a Potter is in
control of the clay on his wheel.

Which is in no way incompatible with the idea that life evolved.


It too is
scientifically accurate unless you are a Materialist with no capacity
to discern Designer or Creator.
Or just someone who is scientifically literate. A "materialist" has
just as much capacity to discern a "Designer or Creator" as anyone,
however the evidence simply doesn't support the idea of a supernatural
creation event.


You obviously have no idea or concept of what Materialism means.

Ray, since you often re-define words and use those private definitions, perhaps you could share what you mean by the term. For me, a "Materialist" is someone who believes there is nothing beyond the material. Such a person is capable of seeing evidence of design, or creation (in the normally accepted meaning of the term) as anyone else. The difficulty is that what appears to be designed can be the result of natural processes. Assuming deliberate manufacture of something that gives the outward appearance of design is premature, and often leads to mis-identification of the process.


snip

If tens of millions of people hold that a book they

haven't read is in perfect agreement with a field of research they've
never studied, how is that evidence that this Book actually agrees
with science?
I already told you that the Bible is in gross conflict with Darwinian
"science" - and not science.
There is no such distinction. All science operates on the same
principles that Darwin, and other scientists used. Science, does not
support your beliefs.


The science you are referring to is Scientism (= evolutionary
"science";

No, the science I'm referring to is the same one used by every working scientist in the world. There is no a separate science for evolution, and one for Chemistry, or Physics. There is only one science.

the worship of anti-reality ideas that deny invisible
Designer) which is evil.

Ray, science is not "worship of anti-reality". There is also no evidence of an "invisible designer", and denial of such is not evil. Your own beliefs and irrational assertions are not reality. Your own illogical assumption of an "invisible designer" is not reality.

Regular or normal science is good.

Regular and normal science is what rejected Creationism over 150 years ago. It's what accepted the fact of evolution. It's what scientists are still using today.

Science
has always shown and proven that Creationism-Design is a scientific
fact.

Ray, you know this assertion is false. Why do you keep repeating what you know to be a falsehood? Science has never supported Creationism, and never demonstrated "intelligent design" in the sense it's being used today.


Darwinism is a schism that will eventually be seen as the great
Atheist conspiracy that succeeded for a century or two.

This claim has no support whatsoever. "Darwinism" as used by scientist is part of the mechanism of the science of evolution. It's not a "schism" of any kind. Evolution is no more atheist than any other scientific theory.

Persons like
Richard Dawkins and Daniel Dennett are the epitome of confused minds
unable to recognize the true nature of reality based on hatred of God
and the desire to take His place like so many other persons of
history, like Antiochus Epiphanes, for example.

This assumption also is not supported. Your own prejudices, false assumptions, and illogical assertions are not reality, nor do you have the ability to read minds. There is no evidence that either Dawkins or Dennett "hate" God. They don't believe in God, which is not the same thing.




Persons who accept neo-Darwinism propose ridiculous interpretations
and explanations of scientific evidence.
How are these interpretations "ridiculous"? Just because they don't
match your irrational beliefs?

Other times they produce
evidence and data that corresponds perfectly to the Bible,
Such as?

but because
they are Materialists they are unaware of this agreement.
All scientists operate on the principle of methodological naturalism.
There is no other kind of science.


Darwinian "science" uses Naturalism-Materialism.

All science makes use of methodological naturalism. There is no other way science can operate.

Real science starts
with the premise that God is seen through reality and is the Creator-
Designer.

Ray, where do you get that idea? No scientist working today would accept that as true. "Real science" does not start with assumption of a supernatural being, and does not assume that your own view of God is correct.


Your inability to see that Atheist ideology has hijacked
science is self-apparent.

That's because there has been no such "hijacking". Science always has used methodological naturalism. Science is not atheist ideology, it's a method of investigation.




As for your other questions above you will have to wait for my paper.

I'm sorry, but I don't have an infinite life span. You keep using your "paper" to hide behind, so it will never be finished.





Other times
neo-Darwinists deliberately suppress evidence that confirms the Bible
in spectacular fashion.
Such as? Where has any scientist "suppressed" evidence that "confirms"
the Bible's claims?


It will be in my paper. The evidence is overwhelming.

There is no such evidence, otherwise you'd provide some. You can't keep hiding behind this non existant "paper".






Answer: persons who advocate Atheist-evolutionism.
I cannot imagine that Kenneth Miller, for example, is an advocate of
"atheist-evolutionism," nor does it seem at all likely that Francis
Collins is such.
Miller is an Atheist based on the fact that he advocates a theory that
presupposes Atheist ideology for its starting presuppositions.
Ray, that is classical circular reasoning. You are claiming that
evolution is "atheist ideology" and then claiming that anyone who
supports the science of evolution is an atheist, even when it's obvious
he is no, as is the case with Dr. Miller.


Yes, that is what I am saying. In the case of Miller he is, like I
said, deceived (like yourself). The only exception is true ignorance.

You keep missing the "exception" that you are utterly wrong. Dr. Miller is not an atheist, nor is he "deceived" or ignorant. Your claims are wrong.



For example, Dinesh D'Souza is truly ignorant.

Just because he doesn't share your own ignorance?




Evolution excludes God as an explanation (= corresponds to Atheism).
Ray, every science excludes appeal to the supernatural, as it's
unscientific. It does not exclude, however the possibility that God
exists, and uses natural processes as his means of creation. What
"corresponds to atheism" is a claim that God doesn't exist, something
that evolution, and every other science, does not make.


Completely false.

Wrong again, Ray.


Science has always accepted God as Creator, only Darwinian Atheist-
based "science" denies.

Ray, this claim is false. You must know by now that it's false, yet you keep repeating it, as if anyone is expected to believe it. Science has never accepted "God as Creator" as there is no evidence to support that claim. Evolution operates under the same rules of science as any other scientific theory. There is no distinction between science and "Darwinian" science. Nor is science based on atheism. You've been shown to be wrong on this hundreds of times.




Based on these facts, Miller is an Atheist.
No, Ray, you don't get to tell other people what they believe, or don't
believe. Dr. Miller is a Christian, and a devout one at that.


How do you know that Miller is a Christian? Do you know Miller?

I know from his writings, and from his statements. The same way you make your false assertions.



Is there any evidence corroborating his claim? Or is the claim
evidence in this case?

What evidence is required to "corroborate" one's faith? Dr. Miller acts like a Christian, and he follows the teachings of Christ.

What "evidence" do you have that you are a Christian? Giving lip service to the Bible, but ignoring it's message?



If Miller claims to be a
Christian the evidence just explained refutes his claim.
Your irrational and illogical claims are not evidence, Ray.


My claims are rational and logical, it is self-evident.

Maybe to someone who has no acquaintance with either logic, or rationality. How is circular reasoning logical? How is making false assertions rational?



No real
Christian would ever even consider leaving God out of the equation.
Ray, you don't get to judge who is a "real Christian". And Dr. Miller
has stated quite clearly, he does not "leave God out of the equation".
Dr. Miller, like many others, believes that God exists, and that he
creates by means of natural processes.


Hypothetical biological First Cause is not part of ToE and the same
does not qualify as including God in the equation.

Why not? If someone believes that God is involved in evolution, that is including God in the equation. Science itself cannot do so, as God is beyond the ability of science to detect. Also, if I understand Dr. Miller's claims correctly, he's not simply using God as a distant "first cause". He believes that God is directly, and currently involved in all of nature.



Evolution says
Intelligence is not manifest in biological reality.

Ray, you really need to understand the difference between the theory of evolution, and the evidence it explains. The evidence shows that natural processes produced the diversity of life we see today, and that appeals to a supernatural intelligence to explain the appearance of design is unnecessary. Evolution is the natural process that explains the diversity. Evolution does not say that "intelligence is not manifest in biological reality". It says that "biological reality" can be explained by natural processes, without recourse to an assumption of an "intelligence". There is no reason why one cannot believe that an intelligence is behind the natural process, or that a supernatural being used natural processes as his means of creation.


Miller is confused
or a liar. There can be no other conclusion.

You keep forgetting there is another conclusion, that you are wrong. Dr. Miller believes in God, and is a Christian, who believes that God uses natural processes as his means of creation. Your own assumption, that God can't use natural means, or that God only acts as you command him to, is wrong.




Christians in history (recent and ancient) die for God and the Bible,
they don't cooperate with the Atheist-ACLU agenda.
Which is false. The ACLU is not atheist, and many Christians do
cooperate with the ACLU's goal of protecting religious freedom for
everyone.


Everyone knows that AtheistCLU is the most hateful anti-Christian
organization in America.

If "everyone knows" that, everyone is wrong. The ACLU is not anti-Christian, and is not "hateful". Appeal to popularity doesn't make your false assertion correct. The ACLU supports religious and personal freedoms. Religious zealots often hate the ACLU because it works to prevent them from imposing their beliefs on others. Ironically, the ACLU will support those same zealots if their religious rights are threatened by government action.




Miller is widely
loved by the secular world.
Because he's an honest and respected scientist.

The Bible, without exception, shows
persons who are in God's will to be rejected and hated by the secular
world.
That, of course is simply false. There are many examples of people who
do God's will and are not hated for it.


The Bible proves that Miller is a liar or completely deceived.

Or that you are wrong.

If the
secular world loves you then this is the irrefutable proof that said
person is not walking with God. The Bible shows no exceptions.

Ray, repeating a falsehood doesn't make it right. The Bible has several examples of Godly men who were accepted by the "secular world".

Mordecai, in the Book of Esther was honored by the King. David and Solomon were respected rulers. Joseph became the chief adviser to the Pharaoh.



Miller is deceived.
No, Dr. Miller is an honest and devoted scientist. It's obvious that
Ray is the one decieved.


Miller is a vicious and admitted liar, or he is completely deceived.

Where did Dr. Miller ever admit to lying? Where is there any evidence he's "vicious"? And why do you assume he's deceived, when all the evidence supports his scientific work?




He cares more about the praise of men than
of God. He is, in practice, an Atheist, even if he attends Mass.
Ray, since Dr. Miller believes in God, he's not an atheist. There is no
evidence that Dr. Miller cares more about the "praise of men" than for
God. By being honest, and standing up for God's truth, Miller is
serving God much better than charlatans such as Hovind, Ham, Gish, and
other Creationist liars.


There is no objective evidence that Miller is a Christian, but much
evidence that he is an Atheist in sheeps clothing.

Where does anyone need "evidence" of one's faith? Dr. Miller's honesty, and his devotion to his beliefs supports his claims to be Christian.



Your slander of Creationists is unfortunate but expected.

Ray, I've slandered no one. I've not even libeled anyone.



Dr. Jonathan Wells (two Ph.D.s). He was once a evolutionist,

No, he was not. He was a follower of Sun Young Moon, and admitted that he got his degree in order to oppose evolution.

he has
said concerning evolution: "I didn't have the faith to believe in it
anymore."

Yes, but he was not being honest. Wells never had any "faith" in evolution and evolution doesn't require faith.

Scholars have always known that evolution is false.

This claim is itself false.

They
have had to break the news gently, but since 1996 they have decided to
abandon this Christian approach.

Ray, you've been shown several times that this statement is utterly false. "Scholars" have never been able to produce any evidence that evolution is false. No Creationist has ever been able to demonstrate any real objection to the science of evolution. There has never been any attempt to "break it gently", and the approach of Creationists has never been Christian in nature. Lies and deception are not Christian values.





But even putting aside the number of people you call
"atheist-evolutionists" despite their own insistence that they believe
in God, you are arguing that people's presuppositions can make them
embrace patently false propositions, even on subjects on which they
are well-aquainted with the evidence. Yet you insist that half the
U.S. population, speaking on subjects (biology, paleontology,
cosmology, etc.) on which they know next to nothing, are immune to
having their conclusions warped by their presuppositions, simply
because you agree with those presuppositions.
False. You misrepresent me and Creationists in general.
In what way? Creationists, in general are not well versed in science,
...

read more »- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

You misunderstand.

No, I understand quite clearly.


For an evolutionist to think that creationists are not well versed in
science is a compliment, the approval of your kind would make it so.

Ray, twisted "logic" doesn't make your claim any more true.

DJT

.

Relevant Pages