Re: Have we become alt.atheism?

On Jan 28, 6:47 pm, Dana Tweedy <reddfr...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Ray Martinez wrote:
On Jan 27, 9:16 pm, Gregory A Greenman <s...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
In article <13pkm89sukpk...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, VBM
<v.mcalis...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> declared...

No, he is the one who said that creationism was one of the factors that
destroyed his Christian faith.  The most common cause of creationism
destroying faith is the existing of the perceived dichotomy between
scientific facts and Scripture.   I was merely pointing out that a dramatic
number have lost their faith for that same reason, that same false
dichotomy.
I don't understand why this is a false dichotomy. If an all
knowing god really exists, you'd think he'd know what the facts
are and how to present them in a clear, unambiguous manner. The
bible makes many claims that are simply untrue. Therefore, this
god must not exist. Sure, there are other gods you can believe
in, but the god of the bible looks like a myth to me.

--
Greg
----http://www.spencerbooksellers.com
greg00 -at- spencersoft -dot- com

It's not a false dichotomy, but the same is a ridiculous deliberate
misrepresentation attempting to cast doubt on the straightforward
logic that says if the texts are so spectacularly wrong then the Deity
must not exist.

Ray, again you mistake your own irrational beliefs for "straightforward
logic".   The texts are not "wrong" as they aren't science.


All this says is that Genesis is not supported by your definition of
science.

Genesis creation claims to be historically and scientifically
accurate. Said claims are either true or false. Creationism-Design
says they are scientifically correct corresponding to physical
evidence. Of course we acknowledge that evolutionists disagree.

Evolutionists have decided, quite some time ago, to
engage in an intelligence insulting campaign that says Genesis is not
false if we portray it as "thus and such".

Ray, you have no intelligence to insult.  

If you really believed this Dana then you would not respond to my
messages.

Whether you like it or not Dana, I am going to refute evolution with
scientific evidence.

Genesis is a legendary account
of creation.  It's not science, and to expect it to be science is a
basic misunderstanding.


This particular comment feigns to save the face of Moses. Since you
are an axe grinding evolutionist it is hardly believable. In fact, all
you have done is to repeat yourself: Genesis is not supported by your
understanding of science.


They do not want their
theory seen as "refuting God" because most evolutionists claim to be
Christians.

That would be irrelevant.  

Evolution must be extricated from its pro-Atheism claims or your
theory will die. Cause of death will be inability to reproduce enough
supporters from the Christian masses. TEism has every motive to
misrepresent evolution and its pro-Atheism foundation.


A scientific theory stands on it's own, not
whether or not the people who accept it are of any particular religion.

Nonsense.

Evolution desperately needs Christian support.


  Scientists aren't really concerned whether or not evolution refutes
your particular view of God.  Most intelligent Christians have decided
for themselves to accept the findings of science, and realize that a
literal reading of Genesis is not correct.


Since over half of all adults in the U.S. are Creationists-Designists,
I agree that intelligent Christians accept the findings of science
confirming the accuracy of Genesis.

Most Atheists, like John Harshman and John Wilkins, go
along with the ploy because the Bible is corrupted in favor of
evolution.

John Wilkins is not an atheist, and accepting science is not a
corruption of the Bible.  Treating the Bible as a science text is a
corruption.


Well excuse me!

He argues Atheist-evolutionism so what else was I to believe? In fact,
you also argue Atheist-evolutionism.

And you have repeated yourself again, Dana.




Nothing refutes the logic that if the major claims of the first two
chapters are false then the alleged Deity that allegedly inspired the
text does not exist:

There is no "logic" there, just your own assumption.  If the first two
chapters are "false" it's because you are misinterpreting the text.  You
are basing your beliefs on your own ego, rather than faith.

the same is then proven to be man-made.

Why?   Why can't God use fallible humans to write his book?  Why can't
God reveal the truth of nature a little at at time, through science?


So you reject the claim of the canon to be the inspired word of God?

As to your second question: what is the source of this belief?


The NEED
to accomodate "Christian" evolutionists and the desire to corrupt the
Bible causes dishonest evolutionist masses to argue against said logic
via many intelligence insulting assertions.

There is no "need" to accommodate Christians who accept evolution.
Evolution is a scientific theory.  Either accept it, or don't.  If you
do accept the science, there is no reason you can't modify your beliefs
to fit those facts.   If you choose not to accept the science, then you
can just ignore whatever science teaches.  Science goes on whether or
not any religious beliefs are affected.


All this says is that religion is not supported by scientific
evidence, which is ordinary Atheist ideology.


   Incidentally, there is nothing "intelligence insulting" about the
science of evolution.  What's insulting to one's intelligence is the
gyrations necessary to make "creationism" work.



Gregory Greenman wrote:
"I don't understand why this is a false dichotomy. If an all knowing
god really exists, you'd think he'd know what the facts are and how to
present them in a clear, unambiguous manner. The bible makes many
claims that are simply untrue. Therefore, this god must not exist.
Sure, there are other gods you can believe in, but the god of the
bible looks like a myth to me."

That's Gregory's opinion, of course.   Remember that the Bible was not
written as a science text, and it wasn't written to be a biological
examination of life.  It was written at a different time, and for a
different audience.   It's not fair to read it as if it were a modern
text.


repeating again!



Greenman is absolutely correct.

So, Ray is agreeing with atheists!

If the claim is true that the Genesis
Creator is omniscient and omnipotent then He has the ability to record
accurate origin facts.

No one doubts that God has the ability to record "accurate origin facts"
but remember he wasn't speaking to a modern audience.   I believe that
God is giving us the "accurate origin facts" as we are able to
understand them.   The culture that existed at the time the Bible was
written would not of understood concepts such as DNA, genes, adaptive
radiation, etc.   The creation stories in Genesis were never intended to
be "accurate origin facts".  They were legends which gave an answer the
people of the time would be able to understand.

The same attributes rule out a motive to lie.
Evolutionists do not want this plain logic propagated because it ruins
their agenda of misrepresenting the Bible and deceiving the Christian
masses into thinking that evolution is friendly to their faith.

Ray, evolution is neither "friendly", or "unfriendly" to Christianity.
It just is what it is, a description of how nature produces diversity.
Christians can either accept it, as a fact, or reject it and ignore
science.  Some Christians choose to accept it, and modify their beliefs.
  Others choose to reject it, and hold their original beliefs, in spite
of the evidence.  Creationists dishonestly try to claim that the
evidence supports their claims, which is basically false.



Honest and intelligent and objective persons know that Genesis is
either true or false and any third option is an attempt to trick a
fool into believing that he needs another person to tell him what the
simple prose of Genesis is claiming.

Since Ray is not honest, or intelligent, or objective, so his opinion
about those people is irrelevant.  Moreover, Ray himself claims that one
needs a special "third person" (Mr. Scott) to tell him what the Bible
means.

   The fact is, Genesis is not a scientific text.  Treating it as a
"true or false" basis is a basic and serious misunderstanding.



Of course my forth coming scientific paper is going to prove that
evolution is false and that Genesis special creation is true.

Of course, Ray's claim that his paper is "scientific" is just as false
as his claim that it will "prove" anything but Ray's own delusions.

DJT- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I will finish your reply ASAP where I left off. Dana get some rest.
Your ideas are goofy.

Ray


.

Relevant Pages
Loading