Re: A Few Simple Questions


"Ray Martinez" <pyramidial@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:d07ed04b-d186-4428-a87c-5b7f4d39c385@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
On Jul 2, 3:42 pm, Rupert Morrish <rup...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Ray Martinez wrote:
On Jul 1, 3:02 pm, Mark Isaak <eci...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Tue, 01 Jul 2008 11:01:40 -0700, Ray Martinez wrote:
On Jul 1, 9:24 am, Mark Isaak <eci...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Mon, 30 Jun 2008 15:57:27 -0700, Ray Martinez wrote:
On Jun 30, 1:04 pm, Mark Isaak <eci...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Mon, 30 Jun 2008 10:39:58 -0700, Ray Martinez wrote:
On Jun 29, 4:51 pm, Mark Isaak <eci...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Sun, 29 Jun 2008 14:31:48 -0700, Ray Martinez wrote:
False assumption/comparison: facts about zoos falsifies claims
concerning the Ark.
Oh, the claims concerning the Ark are pleny falsified already.
The
comparison with zoos is just to show how absurd the ark is.
Your comments are built on a false assumption: that the Ark
carried
every animal species that exists on Earth today.
Either that, or the animal species evolved. Since Ray rejects
evolution, Ray Martinez is saying the Bible is false.
Mark: where does the Bible say that every animal species on Earth
was
on the Ark?
Every *land* animal species. Genesis 7:23.
Are you saying that this verse is talking about the whole Earth?
If so, could you show it to me - I don't see any words or phrases
referring to the whole Earth. But if it is referring to the Earth
does
that mean the whole Earth or the then known Earth?
Yes, the whole earth. Gen. 7:19: "... all the tall mountains that
were
under the whole heavens came to be covered." Or do you believe that
there were parts of the earth that were not under the whole heavens?
Mark: we were not talking about the extent of the Flood; rather we
were talking about if you interpret the Bible to be making a claim
that all of the animal species on Earth were on the Ark?
For myself, I am talking about what the Bible says in the Deluge
story.
(If you wish, I can also bring in the flood story according to the
Dead
Sea Scrolls, Apocrypha, Gnostic texts, and pre-Hebrew mythology.)

Evasion of question. I give up.

If so, could you show me the verses that say all animal species on
Earth were represented on the Ark?
I did that already. Go read Genesis 7.

It does not say all land animal species on Earth were represented on
the Ark. In fact the words "every" and "all" mean all that came/sent
by God----describing a large amount, of course.

For the record: I accept a worldwide Flood, but my view is undecided
if this flood was above the mountain tops worldwide.
I remind you: Gen. 7:19: "... all the tall mountains that were under
the
whole heavens came to be covered." My personal view is that there was
no
extraordinary flood at all, but the biblical account says there was
and
that it was above all the mountain tops worldwide.

My claim is that the Bible says that every land
animal alive today descended from those which were on the Ark.
Okay, but the Bible doesn't say this. It does not say every land
animal
today descended (= an evolutionary term?) from a species on the Ark.
True. However, it does say that every land animal died during the
flood
except for those on the Ark, and it says that the reason for their
being
on the ark was to preserve them. That reason would make no sense if
preserving them was unnecessary.

The Bible advocates special creation to explain the existence of
species.
No, it does not. Special creation of all life is an interpretation
added to scripture. The Bible says that the earth brought forth life
forms (except humans, for which the term "special creation" *does*
apply).

Mark: how does Creationism, in your opinion, explain the existence of
species and/or kinds?

You are a published author. Surely you know that your fellow
evolutionist authors freely use the term "special creation" the exact
same way I use it? They use said term to convey how Creationism, based
on the Bible, explains the existence of species and/or kinds.

Furthermore, the end of the first creation story (Gen. 2:1-3) strongly
implies that the creation was over and done with after six days. Of
course, others though the years have believed that the earth continues
to
bring forth life, explaining the apparent spontaneous generation of
flies
and such, but that is not special creation. I would not be surprised
if
I am forgetting something, but I cannot think of any biblical or
traditional support for special creation after creation week.

Mark: British Natural Theology, also known as Creationism, before
1859, controlled Science and accepted special creation-species
immutability to explain the existence of each species (not kind). This
is an easily proveable and uncontested History of Science fact.

This extricates anyone (who accepts the Biblical explanation)
from the burden of explaining the existence of any species: special
creation explains their existence. The Bible advocates species
immutability (please notice that I did not say 'kind' immutability).
Where does the Bible imply species immutability? I have never seen
such
a thing suggested, much less stated, in any of the Bibles I have read.

Genesis one and two. You don't seem to get it: species are immutable
BECAUSE they don't need to change----BECAUSE God creates each species.
Rhetorically speaking, how else could species appear? This is the main
claim of Creationism before 1859: each species owes its existence to
special creation in real time. You seem to think that Creationism says
the original species created in Genesis one and two to be the only and
exclusive products of special or independent creation----NO----FALSE.
This would render species to have somehow evolved to account for new
species. This view is the retarded hybrid view of Fundamentalist
Creationism in the 20th century. This is not the view of original
scientific Creationism of the 18th and 19th centuries.

The view of Creationism in the 19th century (whose adherents were
OECs), before 1859, said each species was a product of special
creation in real time, that God continues to create (= present tense)
the way shown in Genesis one and two.

Genesis is not a one-off claim, but a claim of how God continues to
operate in reality. Again, rhetorically speaking, how else do new
species appear? British Natural Theology says a fresh act of special
creation. Do you understand the claim?

I think I do now. It sounds like you accept the evidence of the fossil
record, but claim that each species is separately created. You seem to
believe that God spent tens of millions of years smiting various species
of trilobite, only to replace them with another species of trilobite.

I'm curious as to *why* god would do this (ineffability is a bitch),
since it's been quite conclusively demonstrated in the lab, under
cultivation and in the wild that it's quite possible to accomplish this
with random mutation and natural selection.

Of course THIS view is the view
that was held true by the scientific majority before 1859. I will
defend this view and show that Darwin was wrong.

Immutability begins at the species level.
If the Bible advocates species immutability, how do you reconcile it
with
the fact that species are not immutable?

Science before 1859 accepted species immutability. This is why Darwin
published----to refute this scientific view. I can and will prove that
Science, before 1859, was correct. Varieties are the product of a
mechanism that directly reflects Intelligent Design-Divine power.

Could you please tell me how this is different from snowflakes, which I
recall you also believe to be "the product of a mechanism that directly
reflects Intelligent Design-Divine power"?

SNIP


I
think you guys call it microevolution. Since God is directly INvolved
it is not evolution, but like I said: "the product of a mechanism that
directly reflects Intelligent Design-Divine power." I will probably
coin a fresh term to differentiate and avoid confusion.

How is this different from theistic evolution? If that's what it is, why
do you need a new name?


If God is INvolved with biological production it is not evolution, but
Creationism or ID.

As a theistic evolutionist, I believe that God is involved in the process.
Does that make me a creationist?


TEism does not exist, that is, there is no source that says God is
INvolved with or guiding, controlling or directing evolution.

There's no "source" that says God isn't involved, either. God's
involvement is a belief, just like your own belief that there is a mechanism
that "direclty reflects Intelligent Design-Divine power".

When
Professor Asa Gray (a Christian evolutionist) suggested that God was
INvolved with natural selection Darwin rebuked him publicly in 1868

Darwin did not 'publically rebuke' Gray. He merely disagreed.

saying if true, that is, if God is INvolved with natural selection
then there is no need to postulate natural selection----Creationism is
true.

That's not what Darwin said. You seem to be intent on re-writing Darwin's
statement.


The whole purpose of natural selection arises from the belief
that Creationism is false----God is not INvolved with biological
production.

No, the purpose of natural selection is to describe the way that nature
works. Creationism is false because there isn't any evidence for it.
Whether or not God is involved is beyond the ability of science to
determine.



Even Ken MIller is not a TEist or a CEist. He is a "deistic
evolutionist."

That's not what Miller says. You are misrepresenting Miller now.

He believes God initiated the evolutionary process, but
He is entirely absent from reality

In Miller's book "Finding Darwin's God", Miller specifically states that is
not his opinion.

----evolution is an automatic
phenomenon that shows no signs or evidence of Divine power or Mind.

Showing no sign or evidence is not the same as saying that God is not
involved.

But Miller parades around the country telling lies and deceiving
anyone who will listen to his televangelist nonsense.

Miller isn't lying, and you are the one who is listening to "televangelist
nonsense".

He will readily
equivocate by asserting evolution to be compatible with Christianity
but fail to explain what I just explained.

Miller fails to "explain" what you said, because what you stated is not what
Miller claims. You are misstating Dr. Miller's position.

In other words he will
allow the innuendo that God is involved with evolution even though he
knows that is not true.

Ray, once again, you are making things up. Dr. Miller has stated quite
clearly he does believe that God is involved in evolution.

Miller is a travelling televangelist----
liar----big smiles-

You are describing Gene Scott, not Kenneth Miller.

---assuring dumb Christian sheep that evolution is
not atheistic, ignoring the fact that nearly all Atheists are
evolutionists for this very reason.

Once more, Ray, evolution is not atheistic, it's neutral towards religion.
'Nearly all" atheists are not "evolutionists" and those who are accept the
concept for the same reason theists do, because it's the best scientific
explanation for the evidence.


The central message of evolution since 1859 is that God is not
involved in reality

That, of course is not the message of evolution, or any other science. If
God is involved in reality, science can't say one way or the other.

----He is absent----that is why evolution is
necessary.

Evolution is not "necessary", it's just a description of how life operates.

To secure Christian support Atheists simply lie and allow
them to believe God guides or initiated evolution.

First of all, "Christian support" is not required for a scientific theory.
Second, how would atheists stop people from believing anything they want to
believe? If I choose to believe that God guides, or initiates evolution,
no atheist can stop me from believing that. Why would I let an atheist
tell me what I can, and can't believe? Christians support evolution
because it's the best scientific theory to describe what is actually
happening in biology. It has nothing to do with whether or not an atheist
"allows" them to believe in God.

But there are
enough honest Atheist and Christian scholars who do not lie.

And they are the ones who support evolution. It's the liars who claim
that evolution and religion are not compatable.


These
scholars and their evidence will appear in my paper plainly showing
that the objective claim of Darwinian evolution explicitly says God is
absent from reality and does not exist----this is why evolution by
natural selection is needed.

Taking out of context quotes isn't going to support your claims.
Evolution by natural selection is not "needed" it's simply a testable, and
observable theory that explains what is actually seen in nature.

DJT


.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: 3 Notorious Evo Strawmen
    ... When evolutionists do discuss creationists, they often, in my ... God is never an option. ... >>> species), it is perfectly consistent with fixity of species. ... > although they mention evidence for evolution: ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Virginia: Chesterfield School Board takes up debate on different theories of life.
    ... point is a deliberate corruption of God ... working through naturalistic evolution (which after all, ... There is no verse of scripture that even slightly indicates creation ... There is no evidence of the ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: A Few Simple Questions
    ... could you show me the verses that say all animal species on ... fact of evolution, you are still descended from your ancestors. ... Why would God bother to have Noah save those ... And this is exactly why "special creation" is unscientific, ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: For Ray Martinez (and whomever else it may concern)
    ... led Ray to demand to know what "Darwin's gift to religion" was ... realistic way of reconciling theism with evolution. ... Bible, God opens the windows of heaven to let rain fall, or closes ... insist on special creation for all species. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Atheists support evolution because evolution supports their worldview
    ... something different by evolution than creationists ... not the evolving of a species. ... and creation, they need to understand the definitions ... all believing that God created things in a dayA ...
    (talk.origins)