Re: Ray Martinez: there is no evidence of a material process.


"Ray Martinez" <pyramidial@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:2f6a28b5-e9e9-4a88-93be-8e1c6aec701d@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
On Jun 13, 5:17 pm, Jim Willemin <jim***willemin@hot***mail.com>
snip

The crazy card.

Why to you think this is a "card"? Jim is apparently quite concerned
about your mental health.


But let's look at what triggered it.

I said that only Creationists are qualified to "determine the correct
interpretation and explanation of scientific evidence."

Which is a glaring example of crazy talk.

This comment,
by his own admission, caused Jim to play the "I disagree strongly
therefore you are crazy" card.

Actually, what Jim was saying was not "I disagree strongly" but "that's a
blatently insane statement, therefore you are crazy".


Here we see the degree of hypocritical delusion that the evolutionist
is suffering.

Why is this "hypocritical" or a delusion. It appears to me that Jim is
correct in his assessment.

They have spent most of the recent posts in this topic
(and we know in general they argue like crazy) that only evolutionists
are conducting science and are qualified to interpret scientific
evidence.

Jim didn't say that. What he's saying is that **scientists** are
conducting science, and it's scientists who are qualified ot interpret
scientific evidence. Someone who refuses to use the scientific method, by
allowing a supernatural explanation, is NOT doing science. Evolution is a
scientific interpretation of the evidence. If the evidence were to
contradict evolution, then the theory would be abandoned.

If a creationist were willing to use the scientific method, to interpret
the evidence, that person would have to come to the conclusion that
creationism is wrong. That's why creationists avoid the scientific
method, and instead use their own religious beliefs.

By Jim's own standard he too is crazy.

This indicates you aren't even capable of understanding Jim's "own
standard". Jim is not saying that "only evolutionists can interpret
science". He's saying that only someone who *** uses the scientific method
**** can interpret in a scientific manner. Evolution is the conclusion
drawn from interpreting the evidence in a scientific manner. Creationism,
on the other hand, is a religious belief, independent of any physical
evidence.

Your totally absurd, and nonsensical statement that only creationists are
capable of interpreting scientific evidence is a crazy thing to say.
Don't blame Jim if he takes it as an indication that you are, indeed crazy.


DJT


.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: What is the Aquatic theory?
    ... How could that be, Jim? ... why are you still using as evidence features found ... >> moving through water is going to have some effect isn't it? ... > Here the assumption is that scientists didn't take a look at it; ...
    (sci.anthropology.paleo)
  • Re: Things Ive Noticed About Intelligent Design/Creationist Proponents
    ... ID is just creationism reinvented (not reinterpreted, ... comparing evidence found in palentology, anthropology, geology, ... Two different religious viewpoints will interpret the evidence ... those scientists who take it seriously, ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: I feel sorry for all you [in your face] atheists on SED
    ... Sometimes they let their emotions get the best of them and sometimes they are just plain wrong. ... Sometimes they interpret the evidence in a way that other scientists don't. ...
    (sci.electronics.design)
  • Re: Will Somebody PleaseTell bz What an Inertial Frame is.
    ... > There are a lot of scientists that would disagree with you. ... Red shift is NOT evidence of an expanding universe, ... > for photons of different speeds. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Stop It!!
    ... scientists and other humans are too selfish to exclude themselves from anywhere. ... Where does this evidence come from if the hypothesis hasn't been ... That, in the absence of humans, wildlife would ... ... > .differing levels of disturbance with equivalent natural habitats to ...
    (sci.bio.ecology)