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]

I never advocated one correct interpretation of ANY scripture.

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

Not allowed by who? There's only one significant human authority in Christianity and he accepts evolution.

According to your schemes the
creation of man terminology and phraseology could mean natural
evolution, which is deliberate corruption, because *natural evolution*
means the supernatural was not involved; and 'creation' or 'created'
always means the supernatural was directly involved. No one could
possibly say being formed from the clay-like ground in God's likeness
is suggesting evolution,

I can say it. Or do you have some other mechanism for turning clay-like ground into humans?

but the same is plainly communicating
miraculous beginning. The claim is either spectacularly true or
spectacularly false.

It may be a miracle. It may not. My money is on the latter, but there's so little evidence there's room for lots of TEism in the gap.

[snip]

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?

You don't address the point that this claim is recent.

[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. 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.

Was this supposed to be an example of an absurd interpretation? The vapour canopy covered the Earth like a cataract covers the eye? So the vapor canopy only covered the Earth on one side, and did not actually prevent the movement of water, but blurred our vision, contradicting the claims of other creationists that the VC actually made vision clearer.



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

Cite, please.



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, 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."

Again, this is an absurd interpretation. If there was water in the ground, the plants would not need it to come up out of the ground and fall down again.



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; rather, he presented the evidence
made by others, including Isaac Vail. There is ample evidence for a
canopy.

Somehow I missed where you presented this evidence.

Do you think it was responsible of Dr. Scott to pass on to his viewers the contentious claims of others and present them as fact?

[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.

You did indeed, but that is not an answer to Steven's question.

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";

Scientism = science that Ray disagrees with.

the worship of anti-reality ideas that deny invisible
Designer)

Questioning the existence of an invisible, undetectable yet omnipotent designer who tinkers with his own creation in unnecessary ways to preserve consistency with an ancient book of legends is not anti-reality.

which is evil. Regular or normal science is good. Science
has always shown and proven that Creationism-Design is a scientific
fact. Darwinism is a schism that will eventually be seen as the great
Atheist conspiracy that succeeded for a century or two. 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.

Dawkins wants to be god? ROFL?

[snip]

For example, Dinesh D'Souza is truly ignorant.

At last, you and I agree on something.



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.

Science has always accepted God as Creator,

Scientists may have accepted, and many still do accept, god as creator, but science has never had enough evidence to say. If creation was a supernatural event, science will not be able to explain it.

only Darwinian Atheist-
based "science" denies.


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?

No, but he repeatedly describes himself as a christian, and there is no evidence that he does not believe in the teachings of Jesus, which is the objective minimum requirement for being a christian.


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

The claim, and the absence of contrary evidence, is sufficient to provisionally accept that Dr. Miller is a christian.

[snip]

Hypothetical biological First Cause is not part of ToE

Agreed.

and the same
does not qualify as including God in the equation.

So it is possible to believe that god created the universe and still be an atheist? You are very strange, Ray.

Evolution says
Intelligence is not manifest in biological reality.

This would be a very unusual thing to say. Biological reality does not (until the advent of humans) show any evidence of being influenced by intelligent beings.

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

Yes there can. Ray is wrong. Your failure to recognise this possibility removes any authority you may think you have to pronounce on what is science and what is not. Scientists not only have to assume that they may be wrong, they have to actively attempt to prove that they are.

[snip]

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

http://aclu.org/religion/frb/28163prs20070129.html

"The American Civil Liberties Union of Louisiana today [Jan 29, 2007] announced a federal court's decision in its free speech lawsuit on behalf of Christian protester Edwin Crayton, whose rights were violated by Natchitoches' unconstitutional permit requirements.

"In October of 2006, Crayton peacefully picketed for about 40 minutes on a public sidewalk in Natchitoches with a sign that said: 'Christians: Wal-Mart Supports Gay Lifestyles And Marriage. Don't Shop There.' He was then approached by a Natchitoches police officer who refused to allow him to continue protesting without obtaining a permit. Despite the passage of several weeks after application for a permit, the mayor failed to approve Crayton's request, which resulted in the ACLU of Louisiana lawsuit."

Doesn't sound anti-christian to me.

[snip]

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.

I assume that the implication that christians are sheep is unintentional? Do you have any evidence of Dr. Miller's atheism apart from his support of evolution?


Your slander of Creationists is unfortunate but expected.

It's not libel (or even slander) if it's true. Hovind, Ham and Gish have all been caught saying untrue things that they know to be untrue.


Dr. Jonathan Wells (two Ph.D.s). He was once a evolutionist, he has
said concerning evolution: "I didn't have the faith to believe in it
anymore."

Wells was never an evolutionist. He has admitted that he gained his biochemistry PhD in order to disprove evolution, under orders from his church (Moonies).

[snip]
-----------------
www.Newsgroup-Binaries.com - *Completion*Retention*Speed*
Access your favorite newsgroups from home or on the road
-----------------

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Comprehending Ray M
    ... Ray, I notice that you have carefully snipped my explanation of why I ... about three days of creation before God got around to creating the sun ... "literal sense" scripture and common sense and science. ... be factual by supposition and not by evidence. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Comprehending Steven J.
    ... to be the *factually* inerrant word of God. ... "literal sense" scripture and common sense and science. ... be factual by supposition and not by evidence. ... as is the case with Dr. Miller. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: AiG goes after Francis Collins
    ... principles is incompatible with what science tells us about the world. ... the idea that God speaks directly to any person, ... any "is" claims must be accompanied by evidence. ... was that the proper domain of religion is "ought" claims only. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Comprehending Steven J.
    ... about three days of creation before God got around to creating the sun ... "literal sense" scripture and common sense and science. ... be factual by supposition and not by evidence. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Evolutionism: a synonym for atheist-friendly presuppositions - why cant Dana understand?
    ... that they had no idea of modern science is irrelevant. ... somehow in touch with god. ... offered no evidence for it. ... You just don't grasp the concept of faith, ...
    (talk.origins)