Re: Question for Ray Martinez


"Ray Martinez" <pyramidial@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:7d2a84dd-b442-4fd2-87bd-1cbeaf4e8623@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
snip

Besides being a white
supremacist he wrote the widely acclaimed "The Genetical Theory of
Natural Selection" (1930).

Yes, which only goes to show that one doesn't need a degree to do good
scientific work. Even if Fisher were a "White Supremicist", (like
Agassiz, a noted creationist) it would be irrelevant to the work he
produced.


If Fisher was an antievolutionist you would not be defending him in
this manner----that's the point.

Which is wrong. You have made this claim but you have no reason to suppose
it to be true. It doesn't matter if Fisher were an "antievolutionist",
if he was right, and had the evidence to back up his claims.

snip

If you have a degree it is still

worthless unless you support evolution.

Again, Ray misunderstands. A degree by itself doesn't make one a
scientist, or knowledgeable about science. Someone can do good science
without a degree. Ignoring the evidence, and refusing to follow the
scientific method doesn't require a degree, and even if someone has a
degree, and they ignore evidence, and refuse to follow the scientific
method, they aren't a scientist.


This says as long as a person supports evolution they are doing good
science with or without a degree.

A person with, or without a degree is doing good science, if they are
following the scientific method. It just so happens that those who follow
the scientific method, support evolution. Those who reject evolution do so
for religious, not scientific reasons. The evidence for this, is that
creationists do not publish anything in legitimate scientific journals.
They avoid peer review like the plague, and they offer no scientific support
for their claims.

It doesn't matter if the individual has, or does not have a degree. If
they are following the evidence, and acting in accordance with the
scientific method, that person is doing science. If they are not, i.e.
letting their religious beliefs limit what evidence they will accept, and
refusing to accept evidence to the contrary, then that person is not doing
science.


Like I said above:

"Again, evolutionists are admitting their bias: no degree is necessary
as long as you support evolution."

Which, as I already showed, is wrong. No degree is necessary for doing
science. No degree is necessary to be wrong, as well. Someone who has a
degree can be wrong as well. The point is, that if you are doing science,
you are a scientist. If you are not doing science, you are not.




That seems to be what's confusing Ray. Creationists are not scientists,
not because of lack of relevant degrees, but because they ignore
evidence,
and refuse to follow the scientific method.

The approval of evolutionists would surely make Creationists
unscientific----glad we didn't get it.

"Approval" by "evolutionists" or anyone else doesn't make creationists
unscientific. It's creationists' refusal to follow the scientific method.
Creationists are unscientific because they aren't being scientific. It's
that simple.




When one does follow the
evidence, and makes use of the scientific method, the only rationale for
being a creationist disappears. Creationism is not science, but only
religious apologetics.


Creationism-Design was Science until 1859-1879.

As I've pointed out before, creationism was never science. It was always a
religious belief. A belief held by scientists does not make that belief
science.


Evolution and science since 1859-1879 is actually a schism called
Scientism.

This claim is also false. Evolution is a scientific theory, which follows
the same rules as any other scientific theory. There is no "schism" and no
"scientism" as you seem to imagine.

The "ism" denotes a religion----the religion of Atheism
which is attempting to ratify the validity of its worldview via
scientific evidence.

Actually, the suffix "ism" means belief, not necessarily religion. Atheism
is not a religion, but rather a lack of religion. Calling the scientific
theory of evolution with a word that ends in "ism" doesn't make it a belief,
or a religion. The scientific evidence neither "ratifies" or denies the
"worldview" of an atheist. It wouldn't make any difference if it did.
Evidence stands or falls on it's own.

Scientism or the schismatics worships itself and
attempts to force society into accepting its ideas to be the Designer
and Creator of reality in place of the God of the Bible.

Ray, if you choose to believe in God, or "The Designer and Creator" or any
other religious belief, that's your own business. Science can neither
confirm or deny a religious position. Science does not seek to
"worship" anything, as it's not a belief system, only a tool. All
science does is gives humans a means of investigating nature, and how it
works. If science doesn't support the belief system you want to hold,
it's not the fault of science, or those who don't accept your belief system.


There is no evidence that evolution, as understood since Darwin, has
ever occurred on this planet.

Again, your assertion here is baffling, as there is a great deal of
evolution, "as understood since Darwin". It's possible, nay probable, that
you simply don't understand what evolution "as understood since Darwin"
really is, or that you don't understand what evidence means.

There is, of course direct observation of evolution happening in
populations. There is the fossil record, which clearly shows a pattern of
branching descent. There is the genetic evidence, demonstrating common
descent. There is the biogeographical evidence, which closely follows the
genetic and fossil evidence. There's the molecular evidence, which also
directly confirms the genetic evidence. Denying all this evidence only
means you either don't know that it exists, or you choose to ignore the
mountain that stands before you.

Scientism interprets evidence in favor
of evolution because of an a priori commitment to philosophical
Materialism.

Again, as pointed out many times, science doesn't have a committemnt to
"philosophical materialism". Instead, science makes use of
methodological naturalism, as a matter of necessity. Scientists don't
presume that nothing beyond the material exists, as it's beyond the ability
of science to determine. However if one allows appeal to the
superantural, all possibilities become equally likely, and answers become
impossible.

This philosophy or ideology assumes that God does not
exist, which then makes an interpretation of evidence in favor of
evolution a necessity.

Once more, as I've pointed out to you, many, many times, this is not true.
Interpretation of the evidence for evolution is not required by science, or
by any prior committment to deny God. Evolution is a conclusion drawn from
an honest, and insightful examination of the evidence. No scientist has
offered a better explanation that is consistent with how science must
operate.

Many scientists hold the belief that God exists, and uses evolution as his
means of creating. There's no reason these scientists would accept
evolution based solely on a rejection of God.


Therefore, evolution is a predetermined conclusion.

But your assertion is based on false premises. Evolution is not a
"predetermined conclusion", as is your belief in creationism. You have
predetermined creationism, because otherwise, to you God ceases to exist.
Scientists, on the other hand have no such limitation. Scientists don't
base their belief, or non belief in God, based on the evidence. The rules
of science don't permit one to make such a conclusion.

Evoluion is not predetermined, but fairly concluded from an examination of
the evidence. If the evidence were to indicate that life did not evolve,
scientists wouldn't make that conclusion. You are just projecting your
own lack of objectivity, and your own limited imagination onto others.

It is not subject
or eligible to be falsified.

Of course, evolution is both subject to, and eligible to be falsified, but
only by physical evidence to the contrary. Do you have any such
evidence, Ray? Can you present it? You claim to have such evidence, but
I doubt there is any in your audience who believes you.

The only thing that is subject for
revision or modification is how evolution occurs----not if it occurs.

The theory of evolution has been established beyond a reasonable doubt.
While it's remotely possible that evidence could be found that would
overturn evolutionary theory, it's highly unlikely that such a finding will
ever be made. Just like it's not really a reasonable suggestion that the
shape of the Earth will be found to be flat. Yet, if evidence that showed
that the world was flat were to be discovered, scientists would have to
reconsider the shape of the Earth. Likewise, if evidence that overturned
evolution were found, scientists would have to reconsider. It's much more
likely that any new evidence found will require a revision of how evolution
works, not question that it works.

I hope you will be able to see this distinction, but I don't offer much a
chance. You are unable to objectively evaluate the situation.

Evolutionists, of course, will never tell you this.

Mostly because it's not true.

They will
deliberately distort, equivocate and obfuscate this plain fact.

Like many of the things you claim are "plain facts", your assertion is
false. Scientists would re-evaluate evolution, if the evidence indicated
such a re-evaluation were necessary. It's highly unlikely that such
evidence will ever be found.

They
do so because they have lied and told the world that evolution is
always on the table to be falsified.

That's not a lie, but the truth. Evolution can, in principle be falsified.

Anyone who looks into the
Creation-Evolution debate for them self will find that evolution is an
interpretation of evidence bound to the philosophy of Materialism-
Naturalism, and that these philosophical parameters predetermine how
evidence is interpreted.

Yet anyone who honestly looks, finds quite the opposite. Science, any
science, uses methodological naturalism, not the philosophy of materialism.
Evidence is interpreted by the operation of natural laws and processes,
because any appeal to the supernatural makes such interpretation useless.
Science has a track record of success in understanding processes, and
getting a better picture of the way nature works. Religious beliefs,
however widely, and fervrenty held, doesn't help one understand nature.

Of course Materialism-Naturalism is pro-Atheism worldview philosophy-
ideology. This is explains why nearly all Atheists are evolutionists.

It really doesn't matter what "materialism-naturalism" is, or is not.
Science doesn't use it. "Nearly all" atheists aren't "evolutionists", but
even if they were, it wouldn't matter to the veracity of the theory.
Atheists accept evolution for the same reason theists do, because it's the
best scientific explanation for the evidence.







....you'd
probably get asked to stay after class on the first day and the
professor would be telling you that you're a disruptive influence on
the
class because you question everything the professor says and that you
should behave more appropriately.

You seem to have missed this part, Ray.

You are still missing this, Ray.

DJT


.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Humans did not have gill slits
    ... any claim you want about god, but it's not science. ... because evolution is science. ... What evidence do you have that "they radiate from a source indicating ... funny we scientists dont think so. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: An Alternate View
    ... Darwin did not originate the theory of evolution. ... scientists would have worked on that. ... evolutionary science. ... Fossil evidence showing progression of whole ecosystems, ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Re: Evolution is not a fact
    ... Not when used in science. ... set yourself up as an authority on the subject, was evolution ... Evolution is the evidence, it is the fact. ... outlook toward the methodology utilized by scientists both ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Your Communication Problems
    ... and I will go back and look at the evidence (which may ... > "Intelligent Design is Not Science." ... > the Flood" written by out and out creationist scientists (young earth, ... for evolution? ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Challenge for Darwinists - Protein Synthesis
    ... explained by evolution in small incremental steps, ... Science does not claim to know all the answers. ... species or new species? ... The scientists involved seem quite happy with it. ...
    (talk.origins)
Quantcast