Re: The Sands of Time Do Not Lie...

On Jan 19, 1:10 pm, Free Lunch <lu...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Sat, 19 Jan 2008 12:51:54 -0800 (PST), in talk.origins
Ray Martinez <pyramid...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in
<a197dc51-9781-467a-a1e2-ac873fc4e...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>:





On Jan 19, 12:08 pm, Free Lunch <lu...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Sat, 19 Jan 2008 12:01:37 -0800 (PST), in talk.origins
Ray Martinez <pyramid...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in
<d8b43f3f-cd2e-4824-ae90-d6bcd0768...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>:

SNIP....

We don't.  Evolution is true, and I believe that Christianity is true.
We can test the theory of evolution, we can't test the beliefs of
Christianity.

This is irrefutable evidence that the person who wrote this comment is
deluded or deceived.

Clearly you do not know the meaning of 'irrefutable', 'evidence',
'deluded' or 'deceived'.

This Christian thinks that what he wrote makes
sense, why else did he write it? The only other option is that this
person is lying, that he is an Atheist attempting to make Christianity
look bad. How else do we explain a "Christian" who places Christ and
Christianity beneath evolution?

No, you ignore the option the the scientific discoveries about evolution
are true and that you have falsely put them into competition with the
doctrines that you teach.

Here is what this evolutionist is not telling you or does not know:

Evolution is an explanation of scientific evidence based on the
presuppositions of Materialism.

That may or may not be right, depending on what you mean.

Materialism ***assumes*** that God does not exist, and that Genesis is
wrong.

This clearly is wrong. Science relies on methodological naturalism,
presumably what you mean by Materialism. It makes no assumptions about
about God or about Genesis. The first time you made that statement, it
was an error on your part, but you have been corrected many times on
this, so now you are just telling a flat-out lie.

It is ordinary Atheist ideology. No wonder evolution is "true"
since the opposing viewpoint is disallowed by philosophical
presupposition.

Again, you have repeated this error often enough and been corrected
often enough that you are now not merely mistaken but intentionally
lying. Your decision to bear false witness reflects on you and your
claims about your morality and your religion. You have chosen to become
known as a liar.

It appears to me that you have invented a
particularly narrow religion that you call Christianity and that you
think that you can say that anyone who does not fit your definition of
Christianity is not Christian. You refuse to acknowledge that your
version of Christianity is rejected by the denominations that have the
overwhelming majority of Christians in the world.

This comment, in context of the previous exchanges, defends the
placement of Christianity beneath Evolution.

No, it rejects your particular doctrines because they are not consistent
with actual evidence. It says nothing about Christianity. That is your
claim, not mine.

Since we already know that the author of the comment is an Atheist-
evolutionist we could only wonder what his point is?

Augustine also tells us that you are wrong to interpret the Bible in
such a way as to make a mockery of it. Do you call Augustine an
Atheist-evolutionist? Will it ever occur to you that you are the one
teaching false doctrines? Can you possibly consider that?





The OP was spot-on:  "Many evolutions have realized the errors of
logic....They made false science THEIR religion...." (Of course Dana
Tweedy cannot see the error of his "logic" addressed above).

Theist scholars identify evolution as Scientism: the worship of ideas
that have no correspondence to reality that are offered to insist that
the God of Genesis is not the Creator.

No, that claim is not supported by the evidence on the whole, but by
your selective idea of what a 'theist scholar' is. All in all, you are
doing an excellent job of proving that you have learned nothing here,
that you are as ignorant about science and Christianity as you were the
day you first posted.

This comment says that a Theist scholar is not a scholar unless he
accepts Atheist ideology to explain scientific evidence. Logically,
just the opposite indicates Theism, that is, rejection of Atheist
ideology (Materialism).

No, it does not. Once again, you show that you understand nothing, but
are quite willing to bear false witness. That is your choice and your
responsibility.

Again, the indictment of the OP pointing out that evolutionist "logic"
deserves quote marks is spot-on.

You are demonstrating again that you do not understand logic.

As for being "ignorant about science and Christianity" - this is a
compliment. Anytime an Atheist-evolutionist thinks a person is
ignorant about science and Christianity the same is irrefutable
evidence that said person is just the opposite. The endorsement by
persons who think apes morphed into men, and that design does not
indicate invisible Designer, would prove the endorsee ignorant.

The evidence shows that you are in error. It does not help you to lie
about it.

Again, the absence of logic by an evolutionist is self-evident.

Again, you bear false witness.
--

"Now, it is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for an infidel
to hear a Christian, presumably giving the meaning of Holy
Scripture, talking nonsense on these topics; and we should
take all means to prevent such an embarrassing situation, in
which people show up vast ignorance in a Christian and laugh
it to scorn." -- Augustine, The Literal Meaning of Genesis- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -


What I wrote is axiomatic truth: evolution is an explanation of
scientific evidence based on the presuppositions of Materialism. These
presuppositions rule out any other interpretation other than
evolution. God is assumed not to exist - that is why evolution is
*assumed* to be a fact.

Evolution and evolutionists intentionally allow a false appearance to
exist: that transmutation has disproven Creationism based on
evidence. But the truth of the matter is that Creationism is ASSUMED
to be false based on the presuppositions of Materialism, which, like I
said, does not allow any interpretation of scientific evidence other
than evolution.

Apparently, our evolutionist here - Free Lunch - is ignorant of these
basic philosophical facts.

Materialism ***assumes*** that God does not exist, and that Genesis is
wrong.

This clearly is wrong. Science relies on methodological naturalism,
presumably what you mean by Materialism. It makes no assumptions about
about God or about Genesis.

False.

Science presupposes that the Genesis Creator is directly responsible
for the appearance of design seen in reality, and that species owe
their existence to special creation.

Darwinism is ScientISM and it uses the philosophy of Materialism to
interpret scientific evidence; the same assumes that the appearance of
design does not indicate invisible Designer. Scientism is Atheist
religion. It worships itself and says the appearance of design was
produced by their lunatic ideas thus stealing the credit from God.

When evolutionists say that their philosophy (Materialism) "makes no
assumptions about God or Genesis" (= Free Lunch) this is a brazen lie
since Materialism is Atheist ideology. It does not alllow any
interpretation of evidence to support invisible Designer, but only
anti-Genesis evolution.

Anyone who says their biological origins theory is neutral and says
nothing about God or the Bible is simply a self-evident liar. If they
would lie about this self-evident point (biological origin theories
are either for or against Genesis, neutrality is impossible,
especially since God is excluded as an explanation of scientific
evidence) then just think what evolutionists do with complicated
scientific evidence.

We also know that evolution rejects ID: this is another self-evident
proof that their theory does say something about God or Genesis. But
then again, by saying their theory has nothing to say about God or
Genesis is admitting, in this context, that evolution does not falsify
creationism. But all evolution literature says it does. The claim by
Free Lunch is a deliberate lie when we consider these things.

Again, evolutionists think nothing of lying to one's face, the same
reflects the denial of design to indicate invisible Designer. Other
than denial of design not indicating invisible Designer, the assertion
that EVOLUTION says nothing about God or Genesis is probably the most
flagrant lie that evolutionists tell.

Ray

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: What Is Evolution? What is Creationism?
    ... species - perpetually - via material-natural causation. ... evolution has been going on forever. ... that denies much evidence and explains evidence in a way that makes no ... evidence being the "appearance of design". ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Speculative Design Hypothesis (with predictions)
    ... intelligent design has produced these types of functions ... is just evidence that intelligence *can* produce such things. ... there's no proof that evolution did produce it, ... So how is the assertion that specific functions in biological systems ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Distinguishing Intelligent Design from Natural Evolution
    ... evidence of the evolution of artifacts over time as any archaelogist ... design but this does not exclude the possibility of designed evolution ... If the fossil record shows the sudden ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Math In D.I. Land
    ... It is a *fact* that evolution occurs, ... More to the point, it has been challenged by science for 150 years, ... A proposition has been made to infer design by Bill Dembski. ... He is not offering evidence for design. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Bush Remarks On Intelligent Design Theory Fuel Debate
    ... design is NOT possible, is unscientific, and therefore this opinion is not a subject for discussion in schools. ... I believe that in the absence of proof to the contrary and in the presence of mainstream arguments in support, it is our responsibility to make our children aware that this controversy exists and that the evidence is what it is. ... These explanations faded out as science advanced to explain more and more of our world. ... Perhaps you care to explain how subscribing to evolution as a process immediately invalidates the concept of ID? ...
    (soc.retirement)