Dembski on his "Disillusion with Fundamentalism"

...for merely running the logic of how a retroactive view of the Fall would look from the vantage of Darwinian theory (which I don’t accept), I received email after email calling me a compromiser and someone who has sold out the faith

Life in the big tent.

If only we had them in charge of bringing us open-minded search for truth, and academic freedom.

Glen Davidson

So the earth is billions of years old and the magic flood was a local event. but evolution still didn't happen! Right Bill.

For something like two millennia (500 BC to AD 1500) everyone thought that the Bible was telling us that the Sun makes a daily trip around a fixed Earth.

Meanwhile, no one thought that the Bible taught that life was divided up into discrete, hereditary classes and that there was no evolutionary relationship between them.

On what basis can one claim superior knowlege about what the Bible really means?

TomS said: On what basis can one claim superior knowledge about what the Bible really means?

It seems to me that Dembski's fundamentalist sectarian world is a world full of nasty political intrigue - stilettos and all - dating from the political atrocities of the Nicean Councils through to the Spanish Inquisition.

None of his "philosophical knowledge" appears to extend past The Enlightenment; and it certainly isn't influenced by modern science. His "psychology" of human beings is taken right out of his bronze age holy book and hasn't benefited from anything that has been learned about humans since.

These ID/creationists believe themselves to be educated if they can quote something from Plato, yet they still haven't emerged from Plato's cave.

Every time I see ID/creationists engaged in arguments, I see freshman dorm room "philosopher" bull sessions mucking up Philosophy 101.

I guess that shouldn't be surprising; they routinely muck up high school level science and math as well.

DS said: So the earth is billions of years old and the magic flood was a local event. but evolution still didn't happen! Right Bill.

Can we add to Dembski's "disillusionment" a statement to the effect: "...and I just wanted to make a buck..."???

So humans evolved and share common ancestry with apes, mammals, vertebrates, etc., but, when Adam and Eve ate the apple, history was rewritten such that they were created by god on day 6?

Michael Fugate said: So humans evolved and share common ancestry with apes, mammals, vertebrates, etc., but, when Adam and Eve ate the apple, history was rewritten such that they were created by god on day 6?

I'll give Dembski some credit, because he seems to be capable of learning (though at this rate it'll be a long road ahead). The last time I gave any serious consideration to anything being explained by retroactive application of divine will was when I was a religious, though skeptical, teenager (which was not recently). I have never been a creationist or literalist, so I think I was wondering about free will. There was nothing new or interesting, just sophomoric musing, best left in adolescence. I am also pretty sure that whatever Dembski is working towards, Leibniz and his contemporaries got there first, did a much more thorough job, and still got everything entirely wrong.

I think the relevant point is "A theory that explains everything, explains nothing." When animals kill and exploit each other it is not "evil" because evil requires a more developed level of intent. So you don't need to explain this at all, let alone pull in irrelevant time travel gimmicks, and you only need to reconcile with whatever Genesis says about life in the Garden of Eden if you take Genesis to be more than it obviously is: the work of fallible human beings trying to understand the nature of evil.

I find Dembski more interesting than most creationists (certainly YECs) because I can picture myself in his place and even feel a kind of sympathy, that he probably thought he could detect "design" mathematically and was eventually smart enough to figure out that he can't (but not honest enough to admit it).

Before the Fall every genome was equally separated from every other, but the Fall caused all vertebrates to share more elements with each other than with non-vertebrates, all mammals to share more with other mammals, and so on forming a branching phylogeny? So much for disorder, decay and death.

TomS said:

Michael Fugate said: So humans evolved and share common ancestry with apes, mammals, vertebrates, etc., but, when Adam and Eve ate the apple, history was rewritten such that they were created by god on day 6?

Or was it that Adam was created on day 6 (and Eve, too?) but after the Fall, the false history of evolution over billions of years was a result? That would relieve God of the blame for creating a deceptive world - the deception was one of the consequences of the sin?

PaulBC said: I'll give Dembski some credit, because he seems to be capable of learning (though at this rate it'll be a long road ahead).

I think the relevant point is "A theory that explains everything, explains nothing." When animals kill and exploit each other it is not "evil" because evil requires a more developed level of intent. So you don't need to explain this at all,

eric said:

TomS said:

Michael Fugate said: So humans evolved and share common ancestry with apes, mammals, vertebrates, etc., but, when Adam and Eve ate the apple, history was rewritten such that they were created by god on day 6?

Or was it that Adam was created on day 6 (and Eve, too?) but after the Fall, the false history of evolution over billions of years was a result? That would relieve God of the blame for creating a deceptive world - the deception was one of the consequences of the sin?

That's the way I read his comments on the matter.

For the record, the difference between a literalist and an inerrantist is that both hold that the Bible (with a bunch of caveats that vary slightly between tribes) is authoritative and without error in all matters of which it treats, but the former group insists that it must be read literally wherever metaphor is not explicitly stated or at least strongly implied. In practice, this means "it must be read literally wherever we say". This invariably includes the first eleven chapters of Genesis. Literalists insist that these recount literal history.

The typical defence of this absurd position is the authoritarian compulsion to absolutes: it's all or nothing, black and white, true or false, absolutely one or the other. So either all the Bible is true, or all of it is false. No other position is possible. If Genesis is not literally true, then the Gospels are not literally true; the resurrection and redemption is not true; Christianity itself is not true.

And so on.

You know, I really, really don't like absolutes. That's possibly why I'm so lousy at math.

Re "You know, I really, really don’t like absolutes. That’s possibly why I’m so lousy at math."

Then try fuzzy logic! ;)

eric said: Sure, an animal being eaten alive by another isn’t morally evil, but its painful to the victim animal; its suffering.

TomS said:

Michael Fugate said: So humans evolved and share common ancestry with apes, mammals, vertebrates, etc., but, when Adam and Eve ate the apple, history was rewritten such that they were created by god on day 6?

Or was it that Adam was created on day 6 (and Eve, too?) but after the Fall, the false history of evolution over billions of years was a result? That would relieve God of the blame for creating a deceptive world - the deception was one of the consequences of the sin?

PaulBC said: What would it mean to have a large-scale predator with all the same adaptations but consuming hay or whatever.

Dembski okay. no problem. Does this mean that your side admits He matters? His ideas matter more because he is a siccessful scientist in dealing with origin issues? how does credibility work here?
I think it shows a begrudging admittance that he is one of the insightful, actually thinking, scientists in our times.
His ideas are worthy and important and scientific. He matters in modern science.
Most ID thinkers are not YEC. maybe Pandas thumb will start advertising Demb's books!!!

Robert Byers said: Dembski okay. no problem. Does this mean that your side admits He matters? His ideas matter more because he is a siccessful scientist in dealing with origin issues? how does credibility work here? I think it shows a begrudging admittance that he is one of the insightful, actually thinking, scientists in our times. His ideas are worthy and important and scientific. He matters in modern science. Most ID thinkers are not YEC. maybe Pandas thumb will start advertising Demb's books!!!

So Dembski is nearly caught up with the late 18th century geology.

That is progress.

Bill Dembski, "Without the threat of losing my job, I see Noah’s flood as a story with a theological purpose based on the historical occurrence of a local flood in the ancient Near East."

Duh, f*cking Duh!

The tag end of the theological thread is the Epic of Atrahasis.

Now Dembski has advanced to late 19th Century theology. There is a clear link between the creation myth of Atrahasis from circa 1800 BCE, and Genesis 1-8. In the Akkadian Atrahasis Tablet I circa 1650 BCE, humans were created by the gods to tend to their fields. In Genesis 2, humans were created by El to tend to His garden. The "garden" was adopted from the Babylonian Enûma Eliš which describes a "holy mountain" where the gods lived with a sacred grove/garden surrounding its base.

The "flood" was introduced in in the Atrahasis Tablet III. The real topic was the relationship between the secular military and the temple priesthood. In the later Epic of Gilgamesh, the same issue was resolved (for that time) in Tablets 3-4. It was Gilgamesh Tablet 11 that returned to the flood. Then the issue was the relationship between gods and humanity over the "promotion" of humans to the pantheon by immortality.

These ideas are amalgamated in the Ugaritic texts ~1400 BCE and emerge in the Hebrew ~200 years later. A final polish rewrite following the Late Babylonian exile and we get Genesis.

I was a frequent critic of Dembski in the past. Now I think he is irrelevant.

A partial reading list:

Dalley, Stephanie
2000 “Myths from Mesopotamia: Creation, The Flood, Gilgamesh, and Others, Revised” Oxford University Press

Black, Jeremy, Anthony Green, Tessa Rickards (illustrator)
2003 "Gods, Demons and Symbols of Ancient Mesopotamia" Austin: University of Texas Press.

Hamilton, Victor P.
1990 “The Book of Genesis: Chapters 1-17” Grand Rapids: Eerdmans Publishing Co.

Jewish Publication Society
2004 “The Jewish Study Bible: TANAKA translation” Oxford University Press.

Pardee, Dennis
2002 "Writings from the Ancient World Vol. 10: Ritual and Cult at Ugarit" Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature

Sparks, Kenton L.
2005 “Ancient Texts for the Study of the Hebrew Bible” Peabody PA: Hendrickson Publishers

Speiser, E. A.
1962 "Genesis: Introduction, Translation and Notes" New York: Anchor Bible- Doubleday

As I understand the standard position is that the Fall was a result of Adam's sin. Only a male is that important. Eve was cast in the role of the temptress. Man must always beware of the influence of the weaker sex (they are emotional, not rational like men).

I defer to others to explain how the Fall had the effects on the totality of the natural world (including, so it seems, retroactively).

Robert Byers said: Dembski okay. no problem. Does this mean that your side admits He matters? His ideas matter more because he is a siccessful scientist in dealing with origin issues? how does credibility work here? I think it shows a begrudging admittance that he is one of the insightful, actually thinking, scientists in our times. His ideas are worthy and important and scientific. He matters in modern science. Most ID thinkers are not YEC. maybe Pandas thumb will start advertising Demb's books!!!

https://me.yahoo.com/a/JxVN0eQFqtmgoY7wC1cZM44ET_iAanxHQmLgYgX_Zhn8#57cad said: And quit saying "I think." We aren't that gullible, not by a long shot. Glen Davidson

Dembski and Byers alive and kicking is like icing on the cake of PT.

Over at some conservative rag called the "Stream" - John Zmirak has written a silly piece on Christianity and science.
He claims that science was a direct result of Christianity because Christians believe that a god created a good, orderly world with a beginning. Of course, this directly contradicts what Dembski believes - that the Fall somehow retroactively changed the order in a perfectly created world. One claims we can understand the world, the other that we can't. In one science works and in the other science doesn't. Both are very Christian, but they appear incompatible.

At the meeting with president, provost, dean, and senior professor, the president made it clear to me from the start that my job was on the line. “Job on the line” in this context does not mean finishing out the academic year and giving me a chance to find another academic job. My questioning the universality of Noah’s flood meant I was a heretic, or at least not suitable for teaching at Southern Baptist seminaries, and thus I’d need to be clearing my desk immediately—unless my theological soundness could be quickly reestablished.

Sometimes I marvel at my own naivete. I wrote The End of Christianity thinking that it might be a way to move young-earth creationists from their position that the earth and universe are only a few thousand years old by addressing the first objection that they invariably throw at an old-earth position, namely, the problem of natural evil before the Fall.

I quickly found out that the young-earth theologians I was dealing with were far less concerned about how the Fall could be squared with an old earth than with simply preserving the most obvious interpretation of Genesis 1–3, namely, that the earth and universe are just a few thousand years old.

PaulBC said: Dembski:

Sometimes I marvel at my own naivete. I wrote The End of Christianity thinking that it might be a way to move young-earth creationists from their position that the earth and universe are only a few thousand years old by addressing the first objection that they invariably throw at an old-earth position, namely, the problem of natural evil before the Fall.

I have to marvel too if he's being honest here. If I understand this, he wrote for an audience of YECs who would prefer to believe in an old universe but cannot get around the theological problem it presents. That's got to be a tiny audience if it exists at all. The idea of an earth that is thousands of years old is so ridiculous that you can only believe it with the effort of willful ignorance. These are people that want to believe in a young earth more than anything and will go to extreme effort to explain away contrary evidence. Could Dembski really be so "naive" to misread young earth creationism to this degree?

What I find incredible is that anyone would find the Bible a reliable guide to truths about the natural world. Genesis 1 presents difficulties which the earliest commentators had to struggle with.

There are no shades of grey in a black and white world. If you don't learn history then you are doomed to repeat it.

Re "If you don’t learn history then you are doomed to repeat it. "

In summer school?

Summer starts in about 2 1/2 weeks.

Dembski going back for a 3rd PhD?

Piled Higher and maybe even Deeper?

Well that's what happens when you start letting the evidence cloud your judgement, there's no telling who you might offend. Of course, if you had been true to the evidence from the start, you wouldn't find yourself in the position of having to deny the evidence in order to keep your job lying about the evidence.

What will happen when Bill realizes that evolution is true? Will he ever realize it? Will he ever admit it?

DS said: Well that's what happens when you start letting the evidence cloud your judgement, there's no telling who you might offend. Of course, if you had been true to the evidence from the start, you wouldn't find yourself in the position of having to deny the evidence in order to keep your job lying about the evidence. What will happen when Bill realizes that evolution is true? Will he ever realize it? Will he ever admit it?

DS said: Well that's what happens when you start letting the evidence cloud your judgement, there's no telling who you might offend. Of course, if you had been true to the evidence from the start, you wouldn't find yourself in the position of having to deny the evidence in order to keep your job lying about the evidence. What will happen when Bill realizes that evolution is true? Will he ever realize it? Will he ever admit it?

I don't know the story however if Dembski worked in a place where certain important conclusions were to be taught and be the framework then he must obey that. Its sad if a prestigious and famous thinker like him is let go. However the school exists for a education on the faith as they see it.
He should go to the public schools. Just kidding. He would never be allowed to talk about design and evidence or anything the modern tyrants allow.
Dembski doesn't need to reject anything in genesis. He knows his stuff but not geology.
i hope he gets the jobs and books to write he wants.
He is one of the most important scientists in origin subjects on earth.

Robert Byers said: Its sad if a prestigious and famous thinker like [Dembski] is let go

phhht said:

Robert Byers said: Its sad if a prestigious and famous thinker like [Dembski] is let go

Gods you're dumb, Byers.

Or maybe the fig newton of maths should just publish something in an actual science journal. Then he could get a job anywhere he wants, not just in places where you have to spout the party line or get fired. Real science is like that, you honor the evidence, not your own beliefs.

Robert Byers said: However the school exists for a education on the faith as they see it.

The shorter Billy D:

"I have wasted my entire fucking* life on this bullshit*.

*Which brings me to a more important point than the spectacle of Billy D's navel gazing. And that is the fate of our cherished emphatic expletive (fuck) and the word that simply loses it's "odeur de la merde" when piled into a huge mountain.

To the latter I won't dwell much as that topic has been covered adequately by Harry Frankfurt in his delightful book, and by Christopher Hitchens as that which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

But, bugger "the end of Christianity" and consider "the end of the F-Bomb." Truly, Billy D's "revelation" deserves a loud W.T.F!!! but I feel we need a Lewis Black strength "F," perhaps a new word entirely to fully express frustration, scathing sarcasm and derision.

Perhaps, rather than going all JJ Abrams "timeline manipulation" on us by (again) hammering the square peg of Christianity into the round hole of reality, Dr. Dr. could delve into a more nuanced collection of emphatic expletives. Having been the target of a veritable Bullshit Mountain of WTF's and a proven expert at making stuff up, the Dembster should be able to do us a great service. If so, I for one would be willing to forgive his single malt default and bake him a tray of oatmeal cookies.

eric said:

Robert Byers said: However the school exists for a education on the faith as they see it.

Which is fine for a private school, so long as they advertise honestly about their dogmatism. It appears that Dembski thinks they didn't. His complaint seems to be that they knew and accepted that he was OEC when they hired him. They said nothing about belief in a worldwide flood being required. Their statement of theology each professor must sign also says nothing about the flood. Then they fired him for an OEC view on the flood. Which is unfair if it happened that way; if they changed their mind about a belief in a universal flood being an absolute requirement, then at the very least what they should've done is revised their required statement of belief and then given each professor an opportunity to sign the new one or leave. I'm not sure I completely believe Dembski's side of the story. But I do believe that the university is/was trying to portray itself as supportive of open, objective academic inquiry in regards to OECism, while having no intention to actually deliver that.

https://me.yahoo.com/a/JxVN0eQFqtmgoY7wC1cZM44ET_iAanxHQmLgYgX_Zhn8#57cad said: Who knows, maybe Dembski has a legitimate complaint.

"They have come up with something genuinely interesting in the information-theory arguments," Dr. Edis said of intelligent design theorists. "At least they make an effort to get rid of some of the blatantly fundamentalist elements of creationism."

Perhaps I was. I was to meet in the president’s office, and those present would include the president, the provost, the dean of theology, and one of the senior professors. I knew that I was not up for the Nobel Prize or any honor that might warrant a meeting with such an august assembly. And so, with a keen sense for the obvious, I concluded that I was in a heap of trouble. Indeed, I was.

eric said:

Robert Byers said: However the school exists for a education on the faith as they see it.

Which is fine for a private school, so long as they advertise honestly about their dogmatism. It appears that Dembski thinks they didn't. His complaint seems to be that they knew and accepted that he was OEC when they hired him. They said nothing about belief in a worldwide flood being required. Their statement of theology each professor must sign also says nothing about the flood. Then they fired him for an OEC view on the flood. Which is unfair if it happened that way; if they changed their mind about a belief in a universal flood being an absolute requirement, then at the very least what they should've done is revised their required statement of belief and then given each professor an opportunity to sign the new one or leave. I'm not sure I completely believe Dembski's side of the story. But I do believe that the university is/was trying to portray itself as supportive of open, objective academic inquiry in regards to OECism, while having no intention to actually deliver that.

Robert Byers said: I don't know the story however if Dembski worked in a place where certain important conclusions were to be taught and be the framework then he must obey that.

Its sad if a prestigious and famous thinker like him is let go. However the school exists for a education on the faith as they see it. He should go to the public schools. Just kidding. He would never be allowed to talk about design and evidence or anything the modern tyrants allow.

Dembski doesn't need to reject anything in genesis.

He knows his stuff but not geology. i hope he gets the jobs and books to write he wants. He is one of the most important scientists in origin subjects on earth.

I don't know much about the situation. But I wonder what would be the reaction if professors were called on the carpet about their beliefs, and they said:

"I put a lot of work into producing what I write. It is not easy to give answers to deep questions. It would be unfair to you to treat your questions superficially by giving answers without the work that they deserve."

eric said:

TomS said:

Michael Fugate said: So humans evolved and share common ancestry with apes, mammals, vertebrates, etc., but, when Adam and Eve ate the apple, history was rewritten such that they were created by god on day 6?

Or was it that Adam was created on day 6 (and Eve, too?) but after the Fall, the false history of evolution over billions of years was a result? That would relieve God of the blame for creating a deceptive world - the deception was one of the consequences of the sin?

That's the way I read his comments on the matter.

Not to mention a belly button...

One noteworthy point about Dembski is that he seems to identify problems precisely when they affect him personally and then fails to generalize. I was thinking about his experience with faith healing. Dembski obviously thought enough of the possibility of faith healing enough to give it a try, but he could determine up close that the one particular faith healer he visited was a fraud. He was justifiably outraged, but as far as I know, he limited it to his direct experience. He has now suddenly observed that his religious compatriots aren't always the champions of free inquiry that he imagined them to be. He suggests that he is just too naive, and for all I know, maybe he is. You'd think at some point he'd experience a full-blown crisis of confidence, but I don't see one forthcoming. I have trouble understanding how a mature adult can go on like this.

William Dembski: As much as I hate to admit it, Bottaro got it exactly right. I would still regard myself as an inerrantist, but an inerrancy in what the Bible actually teaches, not an inerrancy in what a reflexive literalism would demand of the Bible. Have I, as Bottaro suggests, left myself open to recanting the recantation? I have. Without the threat of losing my job, I see Noah’s flood as a story with a theological purpose based on the historical occurrence of a local flood in the ancient Near East.

Ray Martinez said:

William Dembski: As much as I hate to admit it, Bottaro got it exactly right. I would still regard myself as an inerrantist, but an inerrancy in what the Bible actually teaches, not an inerrancy in what a reflexive literalism would demand of the Bible. Have I, as Bottaro suggests, left myself open to recanting the recantation? I have. Without the threat of losing my job, I see Noah’s flood as a story with a theological purpose based on the historical occurrence of a local flood in the ancient Near East.

https://groups.google.com/d/msg/talk.origins/rZiEketP_xU/ty7Xzkt_AwAJ Just want to remind that Dembski does in fact accept the concepts of "natural selection," "evolution," and "common descent" existing in nature. Because of said acceptance his thought and claims are completely immersed in contradiction and subjectivism. He rarely, if ever, answers any real criticism, but uses such occasions to reiterate his claims (immersed completely in subjectivism and contradiction). History will not be kind to Dembski. Like all persons of his ilk he isn't the least bit concerned with his future legacy. He actually thinks nothing the least bit amiss in his thought, and he thinks his credentials automatically render his thought and claims immune from subjectivism and contradiction. In reality his thought and claims are egregiously illogical: this best seen in the fact that he believes mutually exclusive concepts (design and evolution) are not mutually exclusive. Yet said mutual exclusivity is the most fundamental and objective fact of the Creation/Evolution debate. So we have a man with at least three advanced degrees who has written many books on the subject and [yet] he doesn't understand the most BASIC fact of the Creation/Evolution debate. Ray (Old Earth, Paleyan Creationist)

Before anyone invokes the Reverend Adam Sedgwick and his recantation, we need to remember that Sedgwick remained a convinced special creationist; that is, he accepted each species, past and present, created in real time periodically.

William Dembski, in marked contrast, as mentioned, does in fact accept conceptual existence of natural selection, evolution, and common descent.

Ray

William Dembski brown noses a Materialist (Andrea Bottaro) at the expense of the Bible. Dembski has once again bowed his knee to Baal. He cares more what the secularists think of him than the Truth.

The only evidence one needs to see that the Genesis worldwide flood occurred is the fact that the present surface of earth looks exactly like it should if a worldwide flood occurred recently in 3140 BC.

Ray Martinez said: William Dembski brown noses a Materialist (Andrea Bottaro) at the expense of the Bible. Dembski has once again bowed his knee to Baal. He cares more what the secularists think of him than the Truth. The only evidence one needs to see that the Genesis worldwide flood occurred is the fact that the present surface of earth looks exactly like it should if a worldwide flood occurred recently in 3140 BC.

If the Resurrection of Christ occurred then all Biblical claims and miracles, including a worldwide flood, are true as well.

This is our logic.

Ray

Ray Martinez said: If the Resurrection of Christ occurred then all Biblical claims and miracles, including a worldwide flood, are true as well. This is our logic. Ray

Ray Martinez said: William Dembski brown noses a Materialist (Andrea Bottaro) at the expense of the Bible. Dembski has once again bowed his knee to Baal. He cares more what the secularists think of him than the Truth. The only evidence one needs to see that the Genesis worldwide flood occurred is the fact that the present surface of earth looks exactly like it should if a worldwide flood occurred recently in 3140 BC.

William Dembski earned "a master of divinity degree from Princeton Theological Seminary in 1996."

What's the worth of this degree awarded and affirmed by persons who believe apes morphed into men over the course of millions of years?

Ray (Old Earth, Paleyan Creationist, species immutabilist)

Michael Fugate said:

Ray Martinez said: William Dembski brown noses a Materialist (Andrea Bottaro) at the expense of the Bible. Dembski has once again bowed his knee to Baal. He cares more what the secularists think of him than the Truth. The only evidence one needs to see that the Genesis worldwide flood occurred is the fact that the present surface of earth looks exactly like it should if a worldwide flood occurred recently in 3140 BC.

Comedy, pure comedy. Thanks for the laughs Ray.

Ray Martinez said: The only evidence one needs to see that the Genesis worldwide flood occurred is the fact that the present surface of earth looks exactly like it should if a worldwide flood occurred recently in 3140 BC.

TomS said:

Ray Martinez said: The only evidence one needs to see that the Genesis worldwide flood occurred is the fact that the present surface of earth looks exactly like it should if a worldwide flood occurred recently in 3140 BC.

If the world was created in 4004 BC, how can one say that 3140 BC is "recent"? 3140 BC is back about 78.5% of the age of the Earth. That is like saying that the War of 1812 is in the recent history of the USA.

DS said:

Ray Martinez said: If the Resurrection of Christ occurred then all Biblical claims and miracles, including a worldwide flood, are true as well. This is our logic. Ray

Yes, it certainly is. I notice that nowhere in there do you have room for anything like actual evidence. How telling.

Ray Martinez said:

Michael Fugate said:

Ray Martinez said: William Dembski brown noses a Materialist (Andrea Bottaro) at the expense of the Bible. Dembski has once again bowed his knee to Baal. He cares more what the secularists think of him than the Truth. The only evidence one needs to see that the Genesis worldwide flood occurred is the fact that the present surface of earth looks exactly like it should if a worldwide flood occurred recently in 3140 BC.

Comedy, pure comedy. Thanks for the laughs Ray.

Inability to refute duly noted.

Ray Martinez said: The only evidence one needs to see that the Genesis worldwide flood occurred is the fact that the present surface of earth looks exactly like it should if a worldwide flood occurred recently in 3140 BC.

Nothing disturbs YECs more than a former YEC who has grown up enough to see through even a little of the bullshit.

An atheist is not nearly as dangerous as an apostate.

Concerning Dembski's statements conceding the fallaciousness of a Genesis worldwide flood:

In "Intelligent Design" (1999) he observed:

"Throughout Scripture the fundamental divide separating humans is between those who can discern God's action in the world and those who are blind to it" (page 99).

So very true.

Dembski now belongs to the blind camp concerning God's action in the worldwide flood.

Just Bob said: Nothing disturbs YECs more than a former YEC who has grown up enough to see through even a little of the bullshit. An atheist is not nearly as dangerous as an apostate.

Michael Fugate said:

Ray Martinez said:

Michael Fugate said:

Ray Martinez said: William Dembski brown noses a Materialist (Andrea Bottaro) at the expense of the Bible. Dembski has once again bowed his knee to Baal. He cares more what the secularists think of him than the Truth. The only evidence one needs to see that the Genesis worldwide flood occurred is the fact that the present surface of earth looks exactly like it should if a worldwide flood occurred recently in 3140 BC.

Comedy, pure comedy. Thanks for the laughs Ray.

Inability to refute duly noted.

Inability to prove a worldwide flood duly noted.

Ray Martinez said:

Michael Fugate said:

Ray Martinez said: William Dembski brown noses a Materialist (Andrea Bottaro) at the expense of the Bible. Dembski has once again bowed his knee to Baal. He cares more what the secularists think of him than the Truth. The only evidence one needs to see that the Genesis worldwide flood occurred is the fact that the present surface of earth looks exactly like it should if a worldwide flood occurred recently in 3140 BC.

Comedy, pure comedy. Thanks for the laughs Ray.

Inability to refute duly noted.

Ray Martinez said:

DS said:

Ray Martinez said: If the Resurrection of Christ occurred then all Biblical claims and miracles, including a worldwide flood, are true as well. This is our logic. Ray

Yes, it certainly is. I notice that nowhere in there do you have room for anything like actual evidence. How telling.

Faith is based on fact. Are you saying you never heard master of divinity William Dembski say as much?

Just Bob said:

Ray Martinez said: The only evidence one needs to see that the Genesis worldwide flood occurred is the fact that the present surface of earth looks exactly like it should if a worldwide flood occurred recently in 3140 BC.

What is there about Barringer Crater that says to you, "I was covered by a huge flood a few thousand years ago"?

Just Bob said:

Ray Martinez said: The only evidence one needs to see that the Genesis worldwide flood occurred is the fact that the present surface of earth looks exactly like it should if a worldwide flood occurred recently in 3140 BC.

What is there about Barringer Crater that says to you, "I was covered by a huge flood a few thousand years ago"?

Ray Martinez said:

Michael Fugate said:

Ray Martinez said:

Michael Fugate said:

Ray Martinez said: William Dembski brown noses a Materialist (Andrea Bottaro) at the expense of the Bible. Dembski has once again bowed his knee to Baal. He cares more what the secularists think of him than the Truth. The only evidence one needs to see that the Genesis worldwide flood occurred is the fact that the present surface of earth looks exactly like it should if a worldwide flood occurred recently in 3140 BC.

Comedy, pure comedy. Thanks for the laughs Ray.

Inability to refute duly noted.

Inability to prove a worldwide flood duly noted.

"The only evidence one needs to see that the Genesis worldwide flood occurred is the fact that the present surface of earth looks exactly like it should if a worldwide flood occurred recently in 3140 BC." Posted upthread at least twice.

DS said:

Ray Martinez said:

DS said:

Ray Martinez said: If the Resurrection of Christ occurred then all Biblical claims and miracles, including a worldwide flood, are true as well. This is our logic. Ray

Yes, it certainly is. I notice that nowhere in there do you have room for anything like actual evidence. How telling.

Faith is based on fact. Are you saying you never heard master of divinity William Dembski say as much?

Faith is not based on fact. Now that's a fact.

Ray Martinez said:

DS said:

Ray Martinez said:

DS said:

Ray Martinez said: If the Resurrection of Christ occurred then all Biblical claims and miracles, including a worldwide flood, are true as well. This is our logic. Ray

Yes, it certainly is. I notice that nowhere in there do you have room for anything like actual evidence. How telling.

Faith is based on fact. Are you saying you never heard master of divinity William Dembski say as much?

Faith is not based on fact. Now that's a fact.

Since we already know Atheists believe faith is not based on fact, what's the point? Ray (Old Earth, Paleyan Creationist, species immutabilist)

Michael Fugate said:

Ray Martinez said:

Michael Fugate said:

Ray Martinez said:

Michael Fugate said:

Ray Martinez said: William Dembski brown noses a Materialist (Andrea Bottaro) at the expense of the Bible. Dembski has once again bowed his knee to Baal. He cares more what the secularists think of him than the Truth. The only evidence one needs to see that the Genesis worldwide flood occurred is the fact that the present surface of earth looks exactly like it should if a worldwide flood occurred recently in 3140 BC.

Comedy, pure comedy. Thanks for the laughs Ray.

Inability to refute duly noted.

Inability to prove a worldwide flood duly noted.

"The only evidence one needs to see that the Genesis worldwide flood occurred is the fact that the present surface of earth looks exactly like it should if a worldwide flood occurred recently in 3140 BC." Posted upthread at least twice.

An assertion is not evidence, Ray. If I say "the present surface of the earth looks exactly like it should if a worldwide flood did NOT occur in 3140 BC", then my assertion has as much evidence behind it as yours. Which is none.

Ray Martinez said:

Michael Fugate said:

Ray Martinez said:

Michael Fugate said:

Ray Martinez said:

Michael Fugate said:

Ray Martinez said: William Dembski brown noses a Materialist (Andrea Bottaro) at the expense of the Bible. Dembski has once again bowed his knee to Baal. He cares more what the secularists think of him than the Truth. The only evidence one needs to see that the Genesis worldwide flood occurred is the fact that the present surface of earth looks exactly like it should if a worldwide flood occurred recently in 3140 BC.

Comedy, pure comedy. Thanks for the laughs Ray.

Inability to refute duly noted.

Inability to prove a worldwide flood duly noted.

"The only evidence one needs to see that the Genesis worldwide flood occurred is the fact that the present surface of earth looks exactly like it should if a worldwide flood occurred recently in 3140 BC." Posted upthread at least twice.

An assertion is not evidence, Ray. If I say "the present surface of the earth looks exactly like it should if a worldwide flood did NOT occur in 3140 BC", then my assertion has as much evidence behind it as yours. Which is none.

Our Evolutionists carries on as if he doesn't understand the surface of earth is three-quarters covered in water. Said material fact has perfect correspondence to a textual claim that says a worldwide flood occurred recently in 3140 BC. Ray (Old Earth, Paleyan Creationist, species immutabilist)

Ray Martinez said: Ray (Old Earth, Paleyan Creationist, species immutabilist)

Ray Martinez said:

Just Bob said:

Ray Martinez said: The only evidence one needs to see that the Genesis worldwide flood occurred is the fact that the present surface of earth looks exactly like it should if a worldwide flood occurred recently in 3140 BC.

What is there about Barringer Crater that says to you, "I was covered by a huge flood a few thousand years ago"?

And what is there about Johnstown PA today that says a catastrophic flood occurred very recently? And I'm talking about geological evidence? Ray (Old Earth, Paleyan Creationist)

Just Bob said:

Ray Martinez said:

Just Bob said:

Ray Martinez said: The only evidence one needs to see that the Genesis worldwide flood occurred is the fact that the present surface of earth looks exactly like it should if a worldwide flood occurred recently in 3140 BC.

What is there about Barringer Crater that says to you, "I was covered by a huge flood a few thousand years ago"?

And what is there about Johnstown PA today that says a catastrophic flood occurred very recently? And I'm talking about geological evidence? Ray (Old Earth, Paleyan Creationist)

Do you think maybe people have done a bit to erase obvious traces of the Johnstown Flood? Not really intentionally to hide the evidence, but just normal rebuilding, farming the land, etc. Do you think geologists can't find evidence of that flood, and even date it accurately, by finding things like silt layers? Now, what are geologists going to find in Barringer Crater that indicates a recent massive inundation? And why haven't they found it already? [Conspiracy theory to follow]

Michael Fugate said:

Ray Martinez said: Our Evolutionists carries on as if he doesn't understand the surface of earth is three-quarters covered in water. Said material fact has perfect correspondence to a textual claim that says a worldwide flood occurred recently in 3140 BC. Ray (Old Earth, Paleyan Creationist, species immutabilist)

Non sequitur.

Mike Elzinga said:

Just Bob said:

Ray Martinez said:

Just Bob said:

Ray Martinez said: The only evidence one needs to see that the Genesis worldwide flood occurred is the fact that the present surface of earth looks exactly like it should if a worldwide flood occurred recently in 3140 BC.

What is there about Barringer Crater that says to you, "I was covered by a huge flood a few thousand years ago"?

And what is there about Johnstown PA today that says a catastrophic flood occurred very recently? And I'm talking about geological evidence? Ray (Old Earth, Paleyan Creationist)

Do you think maybe people have done a bit to erase obvious traces of the Johnstown Flood? Not really intentionally to hide the evidence, but just normal rebuilding, farming the land, etc. Do you think geologists can't find evidence of that flood, and even date it accurately, by finding things like silt layers? Now, what are geologists going to find in Barringer Crater that indicates a recent massive inundation? And why haven't they found it already? [Conspiracy theory to follow]

Ray has no clue. There is not one believer in the worldwide flood that has any comprehension of the amount of energy deposited on the Earth's surface in just the minimum-energy "canopy" scenario alone. Nothing would have survived an atmospheric temperature of about 12,000 degrees Fahrenheit and an atmospheric pressure of about 900 atmospheres with an energy equilivant of 40 kilograms of TNT going off every second over every square meter of the Earth's surface for 40 days and nights. The "fountains of the deep" scenario is much more energetic; but believers in the flood don't know enough science to make those high school level physics calculations.

They can’t just go with “It was miraculous all the way” because they suffer from Science Envy©.

gnome de net said: They can’t just go with “It was miraculous all the way” because they suffer from Science Envy©.

Just Bob said: And for some reason they can't just go with "It was miraculous all the way."

eric said:

gnome de net said: They can’t just go with “It was miraculous all the way” because they suffer from Science Envy©.

In some cases this may be so. But I think the more significant reason they don't go with "it was miraculous all the way" is because that position has a zero chance of getting the book of Genesis back in public high schools as an explanation of the origin of species (vice as comparative religion, which is still perfectly legal). I bet most creationists would be perfectly happy to ditch all the trappings of science, if the courts would let them teach the miracle version in public HS's.

https://me.yahoo.com/a/JxVN0eQFqtmgoY7wC1cZM44ET_iAanxHQmLgYgX_Zhn8#57cad said:

eric said:

gnome de net said: They can’t just go with “It was miraculous all the way” because they suffer from Science Envy©.

In some cases this may be so. But I think the more significant reason they don't go with "it was miraculous all the way" is because that position has a zero chance of getting the book of Genesis back in public high schools as an explanation of the origin of species (vice as comparative religion, which is still perfectly legal). I bet most creationists would be perfectly happy to ditch all the trappings of science, if the courts would let them teach the miracle version in public HS's.

There is another reason, though, which is that creationism is religious in nature, so they have to demonize the evilutionists for being stupid/evil/worthy of the fires of hell. There's that passage from Paul, wherein everyone supposedly should at least know that there's a God based on seeing God's work in nature, so anyone who doesn't is without excuse. How are they going to make "Darwinists" responsible for "rejecting God" otherwise? They can't say, well, there were all of these miracles in Jesus' time, or during the flood, because that just brings us back to the question of why anyone would believe that. And miracles are rather scarce today, to say the least. So they have to claim that there's "proof of God" in the "obvious design" of life and the universe. It bolsters their belief in their superior open-mindedness and allows them to (closed-mindedly) ignore what is said by those idiots who can't see design when looking straight at it. Since they rarely get past the level of "it looks designed" or "there's so much evidence of water in geology you'd be stupid to think that there was no flood," it works for them. Naively, it can appear "obvious" that life was designed and that the flood occurred, it's just that it's so much folk "science" without any sort of rigor or proper analysis. But above all, it fits their religious view that evolutionists are without excuse, and that they, by contrast, are just good ingenuous folk pointing out that the emperor has no clothes. "Anyone can see that," and any science that states the contrary just has to be motivated by Satan and/or hatred of God. Glen Davidson

And they keep telling us that what the Bible proposes is not magic...

Mike Elzinga said:

Just Bob said:

Ray Martinez said:

Just Bob said:

Ray Martinez said: The only evidence one needs to see that the Genesis worldwide flood occurred is the fact that the present surface of earth looks exactly like it should if a worldwide flood occurred recently in 3140 BC.

What is there about Barringer Crater that says to you, "I was covered by a huge flood a few thousand years ago"?

And what is there about Johnstown PA today that says a catastrophic flood occurred very recently? And I'm talking about geological evidence? Ray (Old Earth, Paleyan Creationist)

Do you think maybe people have done a bit to erase obvious traces of the Johnstown Flood? Not really intentionally to hide the evidence, but just normal rebuilding, farming the land, etc. Do you think geologists can't find evidence of that flood, and even date it accurately, by finding things like silt layers? Now, what are geologists going to find in Barringer Crater that indicates a recent massive inundation? And why haven't they found it already? [Conspiracy theory to follow]

Ray has no clue. There is not one believer in the worldwide flood that has any comprehension of the amount of energy deposited on the Earth's surface in just the minimum-energy "canopy" scenario alone. Nothing would have survived an atmospheric temperature of about 12,000 degrees Fahrenheit and an atmospheric pressure of about 900 atmospheres with an energy equilivant of 40 kilograms of TNT going off every second over every square meter of the Earth's surface for 40 days and nights. The "fountains of the deep" scenario is much more energetic; but believers in the flood don't know enough science to make those high school level physics calculations.

gnome de net said:

Michael Fugate said:

Ray Martinez said: Our Evolutionist carries on as if he doesn't understand the surface of earth is three-quarters covered in water. Said material fact has perfect correspondence to a textual claim that says a worldwide flood occurred recently in 3140 BC. Ray (Old Earth, Paleyan Creationist, species immutabilist)

Non sequitur.

Ray's fingers seem to have lost their way to his keyboard. C'mon, Ray, help me out. I understand the Earth's surface is mostly water.

And I understand the depth of the water during The Flood was supposed to have been much more than 5½ miles above current sea level. (That's how much water would be needed to cover Mt. Everest at its current elevation; if the receding waters were able to gouge the Grand Canyon, they must have had a similar dramatic erosive effect on the pre-flood height of our tallest mountain.)

So help me find a way to connect the dots, Ray, between “Wow! Earth sure does have a lot of water now!”, and “Therefore, obviously, there must have been orders-of-magnitude more water a few thousand years ago!”

Ray Martinez said: Prediction: If a worldwide catastrophic flood occurred recently in 3140 BC then the current surface of earth should appear overrun with water? Indeed; the current surface of earth is three-quarters water.

Ray Martinez said:

Mike Elzinga said:

Just Bob said:

Ray Martinez said:

Just Bob said:

Ray Martinez said: The only evidence one needs to see that the Genesis worldwide flood occurred is the fact that the present surface of earth looks exactly like it should if a worldwide flood occurred recently in 3140 BC.

What is there about Barringer Crater that says to you, "I was covered by a huge flood a few thousand years ago"?

And what is there about Johnstown PA today that says a catastrophic flood occurred very recently? And I'm talking about geological evidence? Ray (Old Earth, Paleyan Creationist)

Do you think maybe people have done a bit to erase obvious traces of the Johnstown Flood? Not really intentionally to hide the evidence, but just normal rebuilding, farming the land, etc. Do you think geologists can't find evidence of that flood, and even date it accurately, by finding things like silt layers? Now, what are geologists going to find in Barringer Crater that indicates a recent massive inundation? And why haven't they found it already? [Conspiracy theory to follow]

Ray has no clue. There is not one believer in the worldwide flood that has any comprehension of the amount of energy deposited on the Earth's surface in just the minimum-energy "canopy" scenario alone. Nothing would have survived an atmospheric temperature of about 12,000 degrees Fahrenheit and an atmospheric pressure of about 900 atmospheres with an energy equilivant of 40 kilograms of TNT going off every second over every square meter of the Earth's surface for 40 days and nights. The "fountains of the deep" scenario is much more energetic; but believers in the flood don't know enough science to make those high school level physics calculations.

Mike hides himself behind his brand of "esoteric science." It makes him feel intellectually superior; one must take his word for the veracity of his crucial claims. Yet real science is supposed to be for everyone. Unless you can convey your claims for a general audience you're not practicing science.

Yet real science is supposed to be for everyone.

Unless you can convey your claims for a general audience you’re not practicing science.

There is another reason, though, which is that creationism is religious in nature, so they have to demonize the evolutionists [sic] for being stupid/evil/worthy of the fires of hell. There's that passage from Paul, wherein everyone supposedly should at least know that there's a God based on seeing God's work in nature, so anyone who doesn't is without excuse. How are they going to make "Darwinists" responsible for "rejecting God" otherwise? They can't say, well, there were all of these miracles in Jesus' time, or during the flood, because that just brings us back to the question of why anyone would believe that. And miracles are rather scarce today, to say the least. So they have to claim that there's "proof of God" in the "obvious design" of life and the universe. It bolsters their belief in their superior open-mindedness and allows them to (closed-mindedly) ignore what is said by those idiots who can't see design when looking straight at it. Since they rarely get past the level of "it looks designed"....

....or "there's so much evidence of water in geology you'd be stupid to think that there was no flood," it works for them. Naively, it can appear "obvious" that life was designed and that the flood occurred, it's just that it's so much folk "science" without any sort of rigor or proper analysis. But above all, it fits their religious view that evolutionists are without excuse, and that they, by contrast, are just good ingenuous folk pointing out that the emperor has no clothes. "Anyone can see that," and any science that states the contrary just has to be motivated by Satan and/or hatred of God.

Just Bob said:

Ray Martinez said: Prediction: If a worldwide catastrophic flood occurred recently in 3140 BC then the current surface of earth should appear overrun with water? Indeed; the current surface of earth is three-quarters water.

Wait, are you saying that our current oceans are a result of the "Flood"? That there weren't any oceans before the "Flood"?

William Dembski: "As much as I hate to admit it, Bottaro got it exactly right. I would still regard myself as an inerrantist, but an inerrancy in what the Bible actually teaches, not an inerrancy in what a reflexive literalism would demand of the Bible. Have I, as Bottaro suggests, left myself open to recanting the recantation? I have. Without the threat of losing my job, I see Noah’s flood as a story with a theological purpose based on the historical occurrence of a local flood in the ancient Near East."

William Dembski writing in "Intelligent Design" (1999): “Throughout Scripture the fundamental divide separating humans is between those who can discern God’s action in the world and those who are blind to it” (page 99).

Ray claims evolution is impossible, but believes in a god - a god who is quoted as saying all things are possible. Go figure.

Just Bob said:

Ray Martinez said: Prediction: If a worldwide catastrophic flood occurred recently in 3140 BC then the current surface of earth should appear overrun with water? Indeed; the current surface of earth is three-quarters water.

Wait, are you saying that our current oceans are a result of the "Flood"? That there weren't any oceans before the "Flood"?

Michael Fugate said: Ray claims evolution is impossible, but believes in a god - a god who is quoted as saying all things are possible. Go figure.

Ray Martinez said:

Michael Fugate said: Ray claims evolution is impossible, but believes in a god - a god who is quoted as saying all things are possible. Go figure.

The verse says "All things are possible with God." Evolution specifically says invisible Intelligence, Director, and/or Guide is NOT involved in the production of biodiversity. This is precisely why Atheists accept, defend, and promote evolution with fanatical zeal.

Ray Martinez said:

Michael Fugate said: Ray claims evolution is impossible, but believes in a god - a god who is quoted as saying all things are possible. Go figure.

The verse says "All things are possible with God." Evolution specifically says invisible Intelligence, Director, and/or Guide is NOT involved in the production of biodiversity. This is precisely why Atheists accept, defend, and promote evolution with fanatical zeal.

Ray still can't account for the tree ring data or the ice core data. His ignorant musings can be safely ignored.

Ray Martinez said:

William Dembski writing in "Intelligent Design" (1999): “Throughout Scripture the fundamental divide separating humans is between those who can discern God’s action in the world and those who are blind to it” (page 99).

Apparently Dembski has joined his Atheist-Materialist foes and become blind to the actions of God causing a worldwide flood a few thousand years ago.

Ray Martinez said:

Just Bob said:

Ray Martinez said: Prediction: If a worldwide catastrophic flood occurred recently in 3140 BC then the current surface of earth should appear overrun with water? Indeed; the current surface of earth is three-quarters water.

Wait, are you saying that our current oceans are a result of the "Flood"? That there weren't any oceans before the "Flood"?

I said "current surface of earth is three-quarters water."

Ray Martinez said: Mike hides himself behind his brand of "esoteric science." It makes him feel intellectually superior; one must take his word for the veracity of his crucial claims. Yet real science is supposed to be for everyone. Unless you can convey your claims for a general audience you're not practicing science.

Just Bob said: What is there about Barringer Crater that says to you, "I was covered by a huge flood a few thousand years ago"? Do you think maybe people have done a bit to erase obvious traces of the Johnstown Flood? Not really intentionally to hide the evidence, but just normal rebuilding, farming the land, etc. Do you think geologists can't find evidence of that flood, and even date it accurately, by finding things like silt layers? Now, what are geologists going to find in Barringer Crater that indicates a recent massive inundation? And why haven't they found it already? [Conspiracy theory to follow]

atmospheric pressure of about 900 atmospheres with an energy equilivant of 40 kilograms of TNT going off every second over every square meter of the Earth’s surface for 40 days and nights.

Ray Martinez said:

gnome de net said:

Michael Fugate said:

Ray Martinez said: Our Evolutionist carries on as if he doesn't understand the surface of earth is three-quarters covered in water. Said material fact has perfect correspondence to a textual claim that says a worldwide flood occurred recently in 3140 BC. Ray (Old Earth, Paleyan Creationist, species immutabilist)

Non sequitur.

Ray's fingers seem to have lost their way to his keyboard. C'mon, Ray, help me out. I understand the Earth's surface is mostly water.

So far so good.

And I understand the depth of the water during The Flood was supposed to have been much more than 5½ miles above current sea level. (That's how much water would be needed to cover Mt. Everest at its current elevation; if the receding waters were able to gouge the Grand Canyon, they must have had a similar dramatic erosive effect on the pre-flood height of our tallest mountain.)

The formation of a giant sink hole doesn't necessarily mean the same effect predominant across the globe impacting mountain ranges adversely.

So help me find a way to connect the dots, Ray, between “Wow! Earth sure does have a lot of water now!”, and “Therefore, obviously, there must have been orders-of-magnitude more water a few thousand years ago!”

Prediction: If a worldwide catastrophic flood occurred recently in 3140 BC then the current surface of earth should appear overrun with water? Indeed; the current surface of earth is three-quarters water. I simply don't understand what you don't understand? Or does fulfillment of said prediction render currently seen biodiversity without enough time to have been filtered through a selection process? Yes, we have our explanation as to why you "don't understand." Ray (OEC)

I think by "sinkhole" he means the Grand Canyon.

Ray, the Grand Canyon is not a "giant sinkhole". Do you know what a sinkhole is? I'm guessing not.

The Grand Canyon is a, umm, canyon, a rather extreme type of water-carved river valley. All the water that flows into the canyon, flows out of it, downhill. None of that applies to a sinkhole.

Maybe you were just trying to use a hyperbole, but if you're trying to show knowledge of geomorphology (superior to that of geomorphologists), then at the very least you ought not to confuse a sinkhole with a canyon.

And, again, what is your point of gleefully pointing out that the Earth is 3/4 covered by oceans if you were not meaning that was evidence of the "Flood"? And if you think that that IS evidence of the "Flood", then you're implying that there were no oceans BEFORE the "Flood", else why would today's oceans indicate there was one?

Seems pretty simple to me, but you don't seem to want to touch it. Maybe it's a symptom of the FL Disease: say something clearly wrong, even through simple misspeaking, then never, ever, admit that you made a mistake.

Ray Martinez said: FACT: The surface of earth looks exactly like it should (overrun with water) if a catastrophic worldwide flood occurred recently in 3140 BC. Ray (OEC)

Ray lost me at his mention of Johnstown. His argument seems to be something like this:

There is (allegedly) clear evidence of a global flood about 3000 years ago, proving my point. There is (by implication) no obvious geological evidence of recent flooding in Johnstown (where news archives record three major floods since 1889), also proving my point.

Is the point that actual floods leave no trace, while fictitious ones leave incontrovertible evidence? That is certainly an interesting take, but unlikely. I am struggling to come up with what would not prove Ray's point given the above.

Ray lost me at his mention of Johnstown. His argument seems to be something like this:

There is (allegedly) clear evidence of a global flood about 3000 years ago, proving my point. There is (by implication) no obvious geological evidence of recent flooding in Johnstown (where news archives record three major floods since 1889), also proving my point.

Is the point that actual floods leave no trace, while fictitious ones leave incontrovertible evidence? That is certainly an interesting take, but unlikely. I am struggling to come up with what would not prove Ray’s point given the above.

PaulBC said: Ray lost me at his mention of Johnstown. His argument seems to be something like this: There is (allegedly) clear evidence of a global flood about 3000 years ago, proving my point. There is (by implication) no obvious geological evidence of recent flooding in Johnstown (where news archives record three major floods since 1889), also proving my point. Is the point that actual floods leave no trace, while fictitious ones leave incontrovertible evidence? That is certainly an interesting take, but unlikely. I am struggling to come up with what would not prove Ray’s point given the above.

Scott F said:

Ray Martinez said: FACT: The surface of earth looks exactly like it should (overrun with water) if a catastrophic worldwide flood occurred recently in 3140 BC. Ray (OEC)

That's not a fact at all. It's a lie.

PaulBC said: Ray lost me at his mention of Johnstown. His argument seems to be something like this: There is (allegedly) clear evidence of a global flood about 3000 years ago, proving my point. There is (by implication) no obvious geological evidence of recent flooding in Johnstown (where news archives record three major floods since 1889), also proving my point. Is the point that actual floods leave no trace, while fictitious ones leave incontrovertible evidence? That is certainly an interesting take, but unlikely. I am struggling to come up with what would not prove Ray's point given the above.

And how does Naturalism science explain the Grand Canyon?

It's the product of a river running through it for a very long time.

PREPOSTEROUS! In other words Naturalism science has no explanation.

And how does Naturalism science explain the current surface of earth, three-quarters water?

It's the product of water carrying objects hitting earth from outer space.

BEYOND PREPOSTEROUS! Naturalism science has no credible explanation.

Supernaturalism science:

Prediction: IF a catastrophic worldwide flood occurred recently THEN we should find evidence of the world overrun with water?

FACT: Surface of earth is three-quarters water including VERY MANY rivers and lakes.

So compare explanations; that's all we ask.

Ray (OEC)

Just Bob said: I think by "sinkhole" he means the Grand Canyon. Ray, the Grand Canyon is not a "giant sinkhole". Do you know what a sinkhole is? I'm guessing not. The Grand Canyon is a, umm, canyon, a rather extreme type of water-carved river valley. All the water that flows into the canyon, flows out of it, downhill. None of that applies to a sinkhole. Maybe you were just trying to use a hyperbole, but if you're trying to show knowledge of geomorphology (superior to that of geomorphologists), then at the very least you ought not to confuse a sinkhole with a canyon. And, again, what is your point of gleefully pointing out that the Earth is 3/4 covered by oceans if you were not meaning that was evidence of the "Flood"? And if you think that that IS evidence of the "Flood", then you're implying that there were no oceans BEFORE the "Flood", else why would today's oceans indicate there was one? Seems pretty simple to me, but you don't seem to want to touch it. Maybe it's a symptom of the FL Disease: say something clearly wrong, even through simple misspeaking, then never, ever, admit that you made a mistake.

Ray Martinez said:

Just Bob said: I think by "sinkhole" he means the Grand Canyon. Ray, the Grand Canyon is not a "giant sinkhole". Do you know what a sinkhole is? I'm guessing not. The Grand Canyon is a, umm, canyon, a rather extreme type of water-carved river valley. All the water that flows into the canyon, flows out of it, downhill. None of that applies to a sinkhole. Maybe you were just trying to use a hyperbole, but if you're trying to show knowledge of geomorphology (superior to that of geomorphologists), then at the very least you ought not to confuse a sinkhole with a canyon. And, again, what is your point of gleefully pointing out that the Earth is 3/4 covered by oceans if you were not meaning that was evidence of the "Flood"? And if you think that that IS evidence of the "Flood", then you're implying that there were no oceans BEFORE the "Flood", else why would today's oceans indicate there was one? Seems pretty simple to me, but you don't seem to want to touch it. Maybe it's a symptom of the FL Disease: say something clearly wrong, even through simple misspeaking, then never, ever, admit that you made a mistake.

The Grand Canyon was created by the Genesis Flood. So we both agree water created the Grand Canyon. And I made no such implication that oceans did not exist prior to the Flood. I simply pointed out that the current surface of earth appears flooded out----three-quarters water including very many rivers and lakes. Ray (OEC)

Mike Elzinga said:

Ray Martinez said: Mike hides himself behind his brand of "esoteric science." It makes him feel intellectually superior; one must take his word for the veracity of his crucial claims. Yet real science is supposed to be for everyone. Unless you can convey your claims for a general audience you're not practicing science.

It's not just a "feeling;" it's a cold, hard fact that makes sectarian IDiots jealous and angry that they can't pass the standards of intellectual rigor and also get a free pass to push their pseudoscience into the public school curriculum. In fact real science really is for everyone; except ID/creationists. ID/creationists will have none of it; not even high school level biology, chemistry, and physics. It's not our fault that ID/creationists can't even get the high school level stuff right. You characters get it wrong on purpose - right from the very beginning - and you do it in order to construct a pseudoscience that fits with your sectarian dogma. Your misconcepts and your misrepresentations of science are the characteristic shibboleths that identify your permanent state of profound ignorance of the most basic concepts going back into middle school. As one of you once complained to me after he learned that he had flunked out of a university despite his own certainty of his "intellectual superiority;" "There isn't one professor on this campus that can teach me anything." My entirely appropriate response was simply, "Yup!" Nobody in the real world of science is surprised that none of you has the slightest inkling of how to even get started doing real science. You think you are being persecuted because of your religion when in fact you are being weeded out because of your stubborn, self-serving ignorance. You can't pass minimum levels of competence. Most instructors quickly learn that it is not an effective use of time to neglect students who want to learn in order to haggle with creationists whose only intention is to fritter away time with endless, ignorant word-games. But that's your shtick, isn't it? Blame everyone else for your own ignorance.

Ray Martinez said:

Scott F said:

Ray Martinez said: FACT: The surface of earth looks exactly like it should (overrun with water) if a catastrophic worldwide flood occurred recently in 3140 BC. Ray (OEC)

That's not a fact at all. It's a lie.

Where is the lie? What are you talking about? ONCE AGAIN: I was asked to provide evidence of a recent, catastrophic, worldwide flood. In response I offered the current surface of earth. ONCE AGAIN: Prediction: IF a catastrophic worldwide flood occurred recently THEN we should find evidence of the world overrun with water? FACT: Surface of earth is three-quarters water including VERY MANY rivers and lakes. Ray (OEC)

Ray Martinez said: What geological evidence exists that says a catastrophic local flood occurred there recently?

William Dembski earned a master of divinity degree from Princeton Theological Seminary. Said school, run by Darwinists, does not teach, as one could expect, the Bible scientifically and historically true. So Dembski's repudiation of the Genesis worldwide flood indicates that what he was taught finally sunk in.

And I ask again: What's the worth of a theological degree awarded and affirmed by persons who believe design does not exist in nature and who believe apes morphed into men over the course of millions of years?

Ray (OEC)

Ray, will you for once just state it plainly? Were there oceans BEFORE the "Flood" or not? What could be simpler?

[Pssst... We all know why you don't want to answer that.]

Ray Martinez said:

Scott F said:

Ray Martinez said: FACT: The surface of earth looks exactly like it should (overrun with water) if a catastrophic worldwide flood occurred recently in 3140 BC. Ray (OEC)

That's not a fact at all. It's a lie.

Where is the lie? What are you talking about? ONCE AGAIN: I was asked to provide evidence of a recent, catastrophic, worldwide flood. In response I offered the current surface of earth. ONCE AGAIN: Prediction: IF a catastrophic worldwide flood occurred recently THEN we should find evidence of the world overrun with water? FACT: Surface of earth is three-quarters water including VERY MANY rivers and lakes. Ray (OEC)

Ray Martinez said:

Scott F said:

Ray Martinez said: FACT: The surface of earth looks exactly like it should (overrun with water) if a catastrophic worldwide flood occurred recently in 3140 BC. Ray (OEC)

That's not a fact at all. It's a lie.

Where is the lie? What are you talking about? ONCE AGAIN: I was asked to provide evidence of a recent, catastrophic, worldwide flood. In response I offered the current surface of earth. ONCE AGAIN: Prediction: IF a catastrophic worldwide flood occurred recently THEN we should find evidence of the world overrun with water? FACT: Surface of earth is three-quarters water including VERY MANY rivers and lakes. Ray (OEC)

Man, this blog is becoming as buggy as Ray.

Ray Martinez said: And how does Naturalism science explain the Grand Canyon? It's the product of a river running through it for a very long time. PREPOSTEROUS! In other words Naturalism science has no explanation. And how does Naturalism science explain the current surface of earth, three-quarters water? It's the product of water carrying objects hitting earth from outer space. BEYOND PREPOSTEROUS! Naturalism science has no credible explanation. Supernaturalism science: Prediction: IF a catastrophic worldwide flood occurred recently THEN we should find evidence of the world overrun with water? FACT: Surface of earth is three-quarters water including VERY MANY rivers and lakes. So compare explanations; that's all we ask. Ray (OEC)

And of course Ray still has no answer for the tree ring data or the ice core data. Both data sets conclusively falsify a recent world wide flood. No wonder he doesn't want to deal with the evidence.

Here you go Ray, this is how the Grand Canyon formed:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YBYvCJLb7tE

So you see Ray, geologists disagree with you. You are wrong. THe GRand Canyon is not evidence of a world wide flood. IN fact, it is yet another feature of the earth that falsifies that hypothesis.

DS said: Here you go Ray, this is how the Grand Canyon formed: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YBYvCJLb7tE So you see Ray, geologists disagree with you. You are wrong. THe GRand Canyon is not evidence of a world wide flood. IN fact, it is yet another feature of the earth that falsifies that hypothesis.

DS said: And of course Ray still has no answer for the tree ring data or the ice core data. Both data sets conclusively falsify a recent world wide flood. No wonder he doesn't want to deal with the evidence.

Just Bob said: Ray, will you for once just state it plainly? Were there oceans BEFORE the "Flood" or not? What could be simpler? [Pssst... We all know why you don't want to answer that.]

gnome de net said: Also, rivers and lakes do not confirm a world-wide flood of salt water.

Ray Martinez said:

DS said: And of course Ray still has no answer for the tree ring data or the ice core data. Both data sets conclusively falsify a recent world wide flood. No wonder he doesn't want to deal with the evidence.

Assuming your facts correct, what should one do with conflicting data? One assigns weight to evidence. Certain evidence carries more weight than other evidence. In my mind the evidence of the current surface of earth overrun with water, and the fact that many ancient civilizations reported facts that confirm the Biblical version of a worldwide flood, carries more weight than tree rings and ice core data. The writings of ancient civilizations act to confirm many elements of the Genesis record. And since quick distribution of knowledge in ancient times did not exist, these reports and their common denominator facts become irrefutable evidence confirming Genesis. Where did William Dembski obtain the idea of a "LOCAL flood"? The textual data does not support existence of a local flood, but a worldwide flood. That said, where did Dembski or anyone for that matter obtain the idea of a local flood? Ray (OEC)

As for a local flood, there is ample evidence for catastrophic flooding of the Black Sea in response to changes in sea level around five thousand years ago. THis is undoubtedly the origin of many of the flood myths, including the Epic of Gilgamesh on which the biblical account is based. It probably flooded the then known earth, at least that known to the local population.

So now Ray, if you can reject a young age of the earth based on evidence, you can now reject the world wide flood as well.

DS said: Here you go Ray, this is how the Grand Canyon formed: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YBYvCJLb7tE So you see Ray, geologists disagree with you. You are wrong. THe GRand Canyon is not evidence of a world wide flood. IN fact, it is yet another feature of the earth that falsifies that hypothesis.

Ray Martinez said:

DS said: Here you go Ray, this is how the Grand Canyon formed: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YBYvCJLb7tE So you see Ray, geologists disagree with you. You are wrong. THe GRand Canyon is not evidence of a world wide flood. IN fact, it is yet another feature of the earth that falsifies that hypothesis.

These geologists accept the assumptions of Naturalism, so a Genesis flood explanation is ineligible. And I didn't say the Grand Canyon evidence of a worldwide flood. Rather, I said the Grand Canyon was formed by the Genesis Flood, and I said we both agree that water formed the Grand Canyon. Ray (OEC)

Ray Martinez said: These geologists accept the assumptions of Naturalism, so a Genesis flood explanation is ineligible.

If the scientists are all deluded Ray, perhaps you can explain exactly how the Grand Canyon was formed. You know, how the magic flood laid down thousands of ,=layers of rock, then how the magic flood magically cut through all those layers. And how, during this supposedly rapid process, there was time for may land slides and volcanic eruptions. Perhaps you can explain why all of these process are still being observed today. Perhaps you can explain the fossils embedded in the rock layers. Perhaps you can explain how the tectonic uplift actually responsible for the formation of the canyon happened so quickly. And perhaps you can explain how every real scientist in the world is so blinded by their preconceptions that they couldn't possibly get it right, even though those same scientists are in fact responsible for providing you with the modern technological life style that you enjoy.

gnome de net said:

Ray Martinez said:

Scott F said:

Ray Martinez said: FACT: The surface of earth looks exactly like it should (overrun with water) if a catastrophic worldwide flood occurred recently in 3140 BC. Ray (OEC)

That's not a fact at all. It's a lie.

Where is the lie? What are you talking about? ONCE AGAIN: I was asked to provide evidence of a recent, catastrophic, worldwide flood. In response I offered the current surface of earth. ONCE AGAIN: Prediction: IF a catastrophic worldwide flood occurred recently THEN we should find evidence of the world overrun with water? FACT: Surface of earth is three-quarters water including VERY MANY rivers and lakes. Ray (OEC)

As was pointed out above, Arizona's 50,000-year-old (ca. 48,000 BCE) Barringer Crater contains no sediments from your proposed "catastrophic worldwide flood [which] occurred recently in 3140 BC". According to your prediction, the crater should be filled with fossil-rich silt to the rim because there is no outlet for the receding waters. Also, rivers and lakes do not confirm a world-wide flood of salt water.

Ray Martinez said: What geological evidence exists that says a catastrophic local flood occurred there recently?

The same amount of evidence that exists for a world-wide flood in 3140 BCE: None.

phhht said:

Ray Martinez said: These geologists accept the assumptions of Naturalism, so a Genesis flood explanation is ineligible.

But Ray, you're a victim of religious delusional disorder. You believe in things that do not exist.

Ray Martinez said:

gnome de net said:

Ray Martinez said:

Scott F said:

Ray Martinez said: FACT: The surface of earth looks exactly like it should (overrun with water) if a catastrophic worldwide flood occurred recently in 3140 BC. Ray (OEC)

That's not a fact at all. It's a lie.

Where is the lie? What are you talking about? ONCE AGAIN: I was asked to provide evidence of a recent, catastrophic, worldwide flood. In response I offered the current surface of earth. ONCE AGAIN: Prediction: IF a catastrophic worldwide flood occurred recently THEN we should find evidence of the world overrun with water? FACT: Surface of earth is three-quarters water including VERY MANY rivers and lakes. Ray (OEC)

As was pointed out above, Arizona's 50,000-year-old (ca. 48,000 BCE) Barringer Crater contains no sediments from your proposed "catastrophic worldwide flood [which] occurred recently in 3140 BC". According to your prediction, the crater should be filled with fossil-rich silt to the rim because there is no outlet for the receding waters. Also, rivers and lakes do not confirm a world-wide flood of salt water.

Ray Martinez said: What geological evidence exists that says a catastrophic local flood occurred there recently?

The same amount of evidence that exists for a world-wide flood in 3140 BCE: None.

No, not according to my prediction. I made no such prediction about "fossil-rich silt" and there are many scenarios by which said crater could be emptied quickly or gradually of flood waters. The problem with your thinking is an on-going assumption, passed off as evidentiary, that you KNOW how phenomena should or should not appear if a unique catastrophic worldwide flood occurred recently. You have no such knowledge, or you haven't shown any thus far. As for rivers and lakes, the claim does not necessarily entail salt water exclusively, but water. The Genesis flood does not specify salt water, only flood waters; surface of earth seen today supports said claim face value---spectacularly. As for Johnstown: Yes, that's the point! I was waiting for someone to make this point. If no geological evidence exists of this catastrophic local flood [THEN] what justifies an assumption that certain geological evidence should exist for a worldwide flood? Again, newspaper reports and eyewitness accounts exist; the same is true for the Genesis flood. Many ancient civilizations report facts confirming specific claims made by Genesis. But the point here is geological. Darwinists claim no geological evidence exists supporting a Genesis type flood. Doesn't Johnstown help explain said claim? Ray (OEC)

"...there are many scenarios by which said crater could be emptied quickly or gradually of flood waters. "

Tell us some. Doesn't even have to be "many". 3 or 4 will do.

Oh, and be sure your "scenarios" account for the erasure of all the silt, deposition, and skeletons of drowned dinosaurs, sinners, and little babies.

The Grand Canyon is 1,857 meters deep and a standard erosion rate is 50m/My. Not impossible.

The Grand Canyon is 1,857 meters deep and a standard erosion rate is 50m/My. Not impossible.

As for Johnstown, soil cores would find evidence for a recent flood, but it is not very big and the sediment layer would not be very deep.

Ray Martinez said:

DS said: And of course Ray still has no answer for the tree ring data or the ice core data. Both data sets conclusively falsify a recent world wide flood. No wonder he doesn't want to deal with the evidence.

Assuming your facts correct, what should one do with conflicting data?

In my mind the evidence of the current surface of earth overrun with water, and the fact that many ancient civilizations reported facts that confirm the Biblical version of a worldwide flood, carries more weight than tree rings and ice core data.

The writings of ancient civilizations act to confirm many elements of the Genesis record. And since quick distribution of knowledge in ancient times did not exist, these reports and their common denominator facts become irrefutable evidence confirming Genesis.

Where did William Dembski obtain the idea of a "LOCAL flood"?

I don't get it, Ray: if you accept an OLD Earth, then why do you have to insist that the Grand Canyon is the result of a single flood a few thousand years ago? Even if there was a "Noah's Flood", why couldn't the canyon have been there before, got flooded like everything else, then was revealed again when the water disappeared?

Geological evidence of an OLD Earth could only help you make your case against those sadly deluded YECs.

Ray Martinez said:

phhht said:

Ray Martinez said: These geologists accept the assumptions of Naturalism, so a Genesis flood explanation is ineligible.

But Ray, you're a victim of religious delusional disorder. You believe in things that do not exist.

Yes, that's the claim made against Theism by Atheism. In reverse Theism makes the same claim against Atheism.

Where did William Dembski obtain the idea of a “LOCAL flood”?

DS said: If the scientists are all deluded Ray, perhaps you can explain exactly how the Grand Canyon was formed. You know, how the magic flood laid down thousands of ,=layers of rock, then how the magic flood magically cut through all those layers. And how, during this supposedly rapid process, there was time for may land slides and volcanic eruptions. Perhaps you can explain why all of these process are still being observed today. Perhaps you can explain the fossils embedded in the rock layers. Perhaps you can explain how the tectonic uplift actually responsible for the formation of the canyon happened so quickly. And perhaps you can explain how every real scientist in the world is so blinded by their preconceptions that they couldn't possibly get it right, even though those same scientists are in fact responsible for providing you with the modern technological life style that you enjoy.

Ray Martinez said:

DS said: If the scientists are all deluded Ray, perhaps you can explain exactly how the Grand Canyon was formed. You know, how the magic flood laid down thousands of ,=layers of rock, then how the magic flood magically cut through all those layers. And how, during this supposedly rapid process, there was time for may land slides and volcanic eruptions. Perhaps you can explain why all of these process are still being observed today. Perhaps you can explain the fossils embedded in the rock layers. Perhaps you can explain how the tectonic uplift actually responsible for the formation of the canyon happened so quickly. And perhaps you can explain how every real scientist in the world is so blinded by their preconceptions that they couldn't possibly get it right, even though those same scientists are in fact responsible for providing you with the modern technological life style that you enjoy.

All this says is that Atheists and their explanatory assumptions are solely responsible for current society. This would include the rampant creation and distribution of pornography, unparalleled level of crime and violence committed by persons who don't know the 10 Commandments exist, and the murder of hundreds of millions of persons by dictators and communist regimes. Yes, you guys have done a fine job since the rise of Darwinism in 1859. Ray (OEC)

Ray Martinez said: This would include the rampant creation and distribution of pornography...

Michael Fugate said:

Where did William Dembski obtain the idea of a “LOCAL flood”?

From anyone who has ever lived near a river. Local floods and erosion of rocks are observable events - going on as we speak. Just like we can observe natural selection and speciation. Gods not so much.

phhht said:

Ray Martinez said: This would include the rampant creation and distribution of pornography...

Oh yeah, and just what exactly is undesirable about allowing people to watch other people have sex if they want to?

Ray Martinez said:

phhht said:

Ray Martinez said: This would include the rampant creation and distribution of pornography...

Oh yeah, and just what exactly is undesirable about allowing people to watch other people have sex if they want to?

Prior to 1859, pornographic images and evolutionary tracts were produced by seedy London print shops raided frequently by the police. This isn't a fact that Darwinists like to preserve.

"Wonderful World" Sam Cooke Don't know much about history Don't know much biology Don't know much about a science book ....

Just Bob said: I don't get it, Ray: if you accept an OLD Earth, then why do you have to insist that the Grand Canyon is the result of a single flood a few thousand years ago? Even if there was a "Noah's Flood", why couldn't the canyon have been there before, got flooded like everything else, then was revealed again when the water disappeared? Geological evidence of an OLD Earth could only help you make your case against those sadly deluded YECs.

Michael Fugate said: Ray's theme song:

"Wonderful World" Sam Cooke Don't know much about history Don't know much biology Don't know much about a science book ....

The world is a better place for more people than at any time in history. Descent with modification is a better explanation for organismal diversity than any other.

Had there been a real worldwide flood, of the proportions Biblical literalists insist, there would be no Grand Canyon.

All the surrounding country would have been eroded away - completely - by all that flood water - no canyon walls, no canyon.

All the oceans of the world would be FILLED with sediments. There would be no deep water in any ocean. There would be no mountains - anywhere. Any land mass would look like the Canadian Shield - flat with very little relief.

The Grand Canyon is hard rock evidence that there has not been a worldwide "Noah's Flood".

It never happened. The Book of the Earth tells me so.

William Dembski, who claims to be a Christian, joins Materialist forces against a major Biblical claim (worldwide flood).

His constant call to take up arms against Materialism rings hollow, hypocritical, especially in view of the fact that he believes the concept of evolution exists in nature.

Question to Mr. Dembski: If Materialism is so bad and fallacious why do you accept it MAIN scientific claim (existence of evolution)?

One more: Do you agree that Christ had no role of positive influence in your acceptance of the main scientific claim of Materialism?

Ray (Protestant Evangelical; OEC; Paleyan Creationist-species immutabilist)

Ray Martinez said: William Dembski, who claims to be a Christian, joins Materialist forces against a major Biblical claim (worldwide flood).

One last question for William Dembski:

Since Materialism by starting assumption rules out the Father of your Savior as having any role in the production of reality past or reality present, and since these assumptions produced the so called "fact of evolution," which you believe does exist to some degree in nature, is it fair to say Christ disapproves of your acceptance of a fact produced by the assumptions of Materialism?

Ray (Protestant Evangelical; Old Earth-Paleyan Creationist-species immutabilist)

Ray Martinez said: One last question for William Dembski: Since Materialism by starting assumption rules out the Father of your Savior as having any role in the production of reality past or reality present, and since these assumptions produced the so called "fact of evolution," which you believe does exist to some degree in nature, is it fair to say Christ disapproves of your acceptance of a fact produced by the assumptions of Materialism? Ray (Protestant Evangelical; Old Earth-Paleyan Creationist-species immutabilist)

phhht said: Indeed it appears that Dembski is getting somewhat better. His lunacy is softening and receding as he gets older and wiser.

Ray Martinez said: William Dembski, who claims to be a Christian, joins Materialist forces against a major Biblical claim (worldwide flood). His constant call to take up arms against Materialism rings hollow, hypocritical, especially in view of the fact that he believes the concept of evolution exists in nature. Question to Mr. Dembski: If Materialism is so bad and fallacious why do you accept it MAIN scientific claim (existence of evolution)? One more: Do you agree that Christ had no role of positive influence in your acceptance of the main scientific claim of Materialism? Ray (Protestant Evangelical; OEC; Paleyan Creationist-species immutabilist)

Ray Martinez said: William Dembski, who claims to be a Christian, joins Materialist forces against a major Biblical claim (worldwide flood). His constant call to take up arms against Materialism rings hollow, hypocritical, especially in view of the fact that he believes the concept of evolution exists in nature. Question to Mr. Dembski: If Materialism is so bad and fallacious why do you accept it MAIN scientific claim (existence of evolution)? One more: Do you agree that Christ had no role of positive influence in your acceptance of the main scientific claim of Materialism? Ray (Protestant Evangelical; OEC; Paleyan Creationist-species immutabilist)

Ray Martinez said: The only evidence one needs to see that the Genesis worldwide flood occurred is the fact that the present surface of earth looks exactly like it should if a worldwide flood occurred recently in 3140 BC.

Ray Martinez said:

Just Bob said:

Ray Martinez said: The only evidence one needs to see that the Genesis worldwide flood occurred is the fact that the present surface of earth looks exactly like it should if a worldwide flood occurred recently in 3140 BC.

What is there about Barringer Crater that says to you, "I was covered by a huge flood a few thousand years ago"?

And what is there about Johnstown PA today that says a catastrophic flood occurred very recently? And I'm talking about geological evidence? Ray (Old Earth, Paleyan Creationist)

Ray Martinez said:

Mike Elzinga said: Ray has no clue. There is not one believer in the worldwide flood that has any comprehension of the amount of energy deposited on the Earth's surface in just the minimum-energy "canopy" scenario alone. Nothing would have survived an atmospheric temperature of about 12,000 degrees Fahrenheit and an atmospheric pressure of about 900 atmospheres with an energy equilivant of 40 kilograms of TNT going off every second over every square meter of the Earth's surface for 40 days and nights. The "fountains of the deep" scenario is much more energetic; but believers in the flood don't know enough science to make those high school level physics calculations.

Mike hides himself behind his brand of "esoteric science." It makes him feel intellectually superior; one must take his word for the veracity of his crucial claims. Yet real science is supposed to be for everyone. Unless you can convey your claims for a general audience you're not practicing science.

Ray Martinez said: Mike hides himself behind his brand of "esoteric science." It makes him feel intellectually superior; one must take his word for the veracity of his crucial claims.

Scott F said:

Ray Martinez said: Mike hides himself behind his brand of "esoteric science." It makes him feel intellectually superior; one must take his word for the veracity of his crucial claims.

Total nonsense. You only have to do the math for yourself. That's why math is completely egalitarian. Any one can learn it, and do it. Math doesn't take divine revelation, or belief in a holy book. It's really quite simple. Calculate the mass of water. Take two spheres: one with the average radius of the Earth, and another 5 miles wider (to cover the highest mountain). Multiply by the specific gravity of water. Now, calculate the energy released when that mass of water is dropped on the Earth from beyond the "vapor canopy." How much energy is that? Divide by the amount of energy in one kiloton of TNT. Divide by the number of seconds in 40 days and 40 nights. Viola. Enough energy to incinerate all life on earth, and to melt all of the surface of the earth.

I think that you guys don't recognize the prevalence of math-hatred.

Scott F:

Ray will say that your calculation neglects the unknown proportion of the water that came from the 'springs of the great deep'. Thus, the energy transfer numbers derived from so great a mass of water falling from the sky are wrong. Only some of the water came from that source.

Ray will say these 'springs of the great deep' are waters from within the earth. They must have come from under the land as well as from under the sea bed. If only the latter, the eventual result would merely be deeper oceans. Essentially, the sea floors would simply collapse and sink into the mass of water beneath them. But this would cause the release of large amounts of energy from friction - we are talking about the movements of trillions of tons, after all. I suspect that this, too, would involve substantial heating - perhaps someone more knowledgeable than I on matters like coefficient of friction could calculate it.

So these 'springs' must have been under the land as well. That is, a huge amount of water would "burst forth" from under the earth at God's word. Supposing that this mass of water existed at all and that it did that, the spaces it had filled beneath the earth would now not be filled with incompressible water. They would be empty spaces. But empty spaces the size to accommodate enough water to cover all the land are not now found in the crust. This is to be explained by the obvious - that the spaces have fallen in.

Another very large release of energy. I suggest that the result would be mega-earthquakes, and enormous turbulence in the water that now covers the earth. Hundreds of feet of swell. And a very much more energetic atmosphere, with differential heating. That means enormous storms.

One substantial objection to the Flood story being within the bounds of reality is the impossibility of building a wooden hull that size capable of coping with quite ordinary seas. The best shipwrights on earth couldn't do it in the early twentieth century. But these would not be ordinary seas. They would be seas that no ship could survive, save perhaps a deep-diving titanium submarine.

That is, there is no scenario that will enable this story, except the assumption of whatever miracles, abrogations of physical law, manifestations of the Divine Will, whatever you wish to call it, whenever and wherever required. The whole story is an account of a series of miracles.

Well, why not? God is God, isn't He? He's omnipotent, not so? And wouldn't that be a more powerful statement of faith than a chase after natural causes and effects?

I cannot honestly understand why the Biblical literalist doesn't go that route. Could it be that the dogged avocation of miracles piled on miracles, piled on miracles, gets a little incredible, even for the faithful? Wouldn't that imply that they aren't as faithful as all that?

Whatever cause there is for this insistence on the physical reality of a global flood, what has always struck me is the consequences of such a belief. God was so enraged at human crime and folly that He drowned everybody. Men, women, children, toddlers, infants, babes at breast. Everybody. He saw that the world was full of violence, says the text, and His solution was to kill everyone.

Ray really believes that this happened, and he worships this God. Think about that.

What gets me is that these people feel free to imagine all sorts of things without the least bit of Biblical warrant. Forget about the scientific impossibility.

As far as God feeling free to drown almost everybody - and don't forget that includes puppies and kittens and chicks. Is it so much out of the question that if God is capable of doing that, that he might also not be up to telling us things - doing this for our own good - not that we are entitled to any better treatment, for we all deserve eternal punishment in Hell - telling us things that we might be led to misinterpret. He might engage in a bit of hyperbole in saying "all" of the world, is that so much out of the question, when one considers how he is apt to treat us?

Scott F said:

Ray Martinez said: Mike hides himself behind his brand of "esoteric science." It makes him feel intellectually superior; one must take his word for the veracity of his crucial claims.

Total nonsense. You only have to do the math for yourself. That's why math is completely egalitarian. Any one can learn it, and do it. Math doesn't take divine revelation, or belief in a holy book. It's really quite simple. Calculate the mass of water. Take two spheres: one with the average radius of the Earth, and another 5 miles wider (to cover the highest mountain). Multiply by the specific gravity of water. Now, calculate the energy released when that mass of water is dropped on the Earth from beyond the "vapor canopy." How much energy is that? Divide by the amount of energy in one kiloton of TNT. Divide by the number of seconds in 40 days and 40 nights. Viola. Enough energy to incinerate all life on earth, and to melt all of the surface of the earth.

... But in reality the ONLY fact needed to know a worldwide flood occurred, exactly how Genesis says it occurred, is the miracle of the Resurrection of Christ. If this miracle is true then all Biblical miracles are true. Dembski should know this as well. Ray (OEC)

Ray Martinez said: And how does Naturalism science explain the Grand Canyon? It's the product of a river running through it for a very long time. PREPOSTEROUS! In other words Naturalism science has no explanation. And how does Naturalism science explain the current surface of earth, three-quarters water? It's the product of water carrying objects hitting earth from outer space. BEYOND PREPOSTEROUS! Naturalism science has no credible explanation. Supernaturalism science: Prediction: IF a catastrophic worldwide flood occurred recently THEN we should find evidence of the world overrun with water? FACT: Surface of earth is three-quarters water including VERY MANY rivers and lakes. So compare explanations; that's all we ask. Ray (OEC)

Ray Martinez said: And how does Naturalism science explain the Grand Canyon? It's the product of a river running through it for a very long time. PREPOSTEROUS! In other words Naturalism science has no explanation. And how does Naturalism science explain the current surface of earth, three-quarters water? It's the product of water carrying objects hitting earth from outer space. BEYOND PREPOSTEROUS! Naturalism science has no credible explanation. Supernaturalism science: Prediction: IF a catastrophic worldwide flood occurred recently THEN we should find evidence of the world overrun with water? FACT: Surface of earth is three-quarters water including VERY MANY rivers and lakes. So compare explanations; that's all we ask. Ray (OEC)

Scott F said:

Ray Martinez said: And how does Naturalism science explain the Grand Canyon? It's the product of a river running through it for a very long time. PREPOSTEROUS! In other words Naturalism science has no explanation. And how does Naturalism science explain the current surface of earth, three-quarters water? It's the product of water carrying objects hitting earth from outer space. BEYOND PREPOSTEROUS! Naturalism science has no credible explanation. Supernaturalism science: Prediction: IF a catastrophic worldwide flood occurred recently THEN we should find evidence of the world overrun with water? FACT: Surface of earth is three-quarters water including VERY MANY rivers and lakes. So compare explanations; that's all we ask. Ray (OEC)

So, let me get this straight. Science has an explanation for the water on the Earth. It fell to Earth from outer space 4 billion years ago in the form of comets and icy asteroids, of which there are still millions in the solar system today. You reject that as "PREPOSTEROUS". Instead, to explain why there is water on the Earth today, you claim that there was water on the Earth 3,000 years ago. You have no explanation for where the water came from, or where it went to. In other words, your explanation is, "Magic". Is that about right?

BTW, I notice that a few people are having their posts here being duplicated. It has happened to me, but I assumed that it was my mistake - often it takes a long time after I press "Submit" before it is recognized, and I might have been impatient and press "Submit" again. But I have been careful, recently, not to do that, no matter how long it takes, but that does not always prevent duplication.
Anyway, it seems to be happening to others, too, so it isn't just me.

Can somebody explain the functional purpose of this "canopy"? It seems like we don't have it now and can do without it. Am I to assume that the creator put it there with the expectation of having to carry out a future genocide to punish crimes that had not yet been committed? It reminds me a little of the 16 ton weight in Monty Python.

Genesis 1:6-8 (KJV) And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters. And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so. And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day.

To be clear, in scientific terms, I don't expect any part of nature to serve a functional purpose, but anyone who accepts the flood narrative is going to have a more teleological view. So it is reasonable to ask what is the canopy for other than creating a global flood, and if that's what it's for, then didn't the creator simply set us up for failure?

Ray Martinez said: The writings of ancient civilizations act to confirm many elements of the Genesis record. And since quick distribution of knowledge in ancient times did not exist, these reports and their common denominator facts become irrefutable evidence confirming Genesis. Ray (OEC)

It is pretty telling when the atheists/agnostics understand theology better than the theists on this site. Both Ray and FL claim that if their god exists, then evolution is impossible and yet, their god has no limits - it can do anything and everything. FL also claims (not sure about Ray) that design or creation is evidence for his god, but if his god is a creator god, then everything is created and creation is useless as evidence. Hume, another unbeliever, pointed this out long ago. Back to the books boys and this time learn something before typing.

Scott F said: "Esoteric science"? Come on, Ray. I was doing these calculations in 9th grade, with no more than algebra. True, if you want do get precise numbers you might need some pre-calculus, since the force of gravity actually varies over height from the Earth, but really.

Hey Ray, ever heard of Lake Baikal in Russia. It has an unbroken sediment record gong back 250,000 years. And Guess what, no evidence of any magic flood anywhere to be found. Just like the Grand Canyon. Just like the Antarctic ice sheet. Just like the tree ring data. Just like every single piece of evidence everywhere.

And this is important Ray, because these records provide a history of the climate of the earth. We can use that information to construct and test climate models. That's one way that we know that what is happening now is not natural and definitely not good for the planet. But you probably don't believe in climate change either do you Ray? You know,. all those godless scientists, (even the ones that believe in god), who are just out to fool you. Man, what did you do to piss them all off so bad that they are all willing to abandon everything they hold dear just to fool you?

Keep it up Ray. You can safely ignore all of the inconvenient findings of science and still enjoy the technological life style it provides you. There is a word for people like that, but you already know what that word is don't you Ray?

Michael Fugate said: It is pretty telling when the atheists/agnostics understand theology better than the theists on this site. Both Ray and FL claim that if their god exists, then evolution is impossible and yet, their god has no limits - it can do anything and everything. FL also claims (not sure about Ray) that design or creation is evidence for his god, but if his god is a creator god, then everything is created and creation is useless as evidence. Hume, another unbeliever, pointed this out long ago. Back to the books boys and this time learn something before typing.

TomS said:

Michael Fugate said: It is pretty telling when the atheists/agnostics understand theology better than the theists on this site. Both Ray and FL claim that if their god exists, then evolution is impossible and yet, their god has no limits - it can do anything and everything. FL also claims (not sure about Ray) that design or creation is evidence for his god, but if his god is a creator god, then everything is created and creation is useless as evidence. Hume, another unbeliever, pointed this out long ago. Back to the books boys and this time learn something before typing.

One surprise to me when I was first learning about creationism was how little the creationists knew about their religion. They may have memorized quite a few proof texts from the Bible. That is a poor substitute from understanding. (Of course, it makes the task of the teacher easier, too. The teacher doesn't have to understand anything, let alone make that understanding clear to the students, or motivate curiosity in the students. And it makes the task of the supervisor easier in evaluating the classes and the teachers.)

Of course if there were any "Ancient Civilisations" that existed in both 3141 B.C and 3139 B.C. but yet failed to notice they had been wiped out by a flood...

YaFen Shen said: Dave Lovell said:

Of course if there were any "Ancient Civilisations" that existed in both 3141 B.C and 3139 B.C. but yet failed to notice they had been wiped out by a flood...

Hollleee shit, I've met people myself that were quite phlegmatic, but damn!

Just Bob said:

YaFen Shen said: Hollleee shit, I've met people myself that were quite phlegmatic, but damn!

I've always wondered why the near descendants on Noah went back to the same old totally destroyed centers of civilization, and recreated the same wicked, pagan societies that got them all drowned in the first place. I mean, why would Noah's grandkids go to Egypt, when their ancestors had never lived there, and pick up Egyptian society, pagan gods and all, when their universal tribal memory, according to folks like Ray, was of a genocidal flood by the only true god, just a few generations back? Or to China, or India?

Dave Lovell said: "I establish my covenant with you: Never again will all life be destroyed by the waters of a flood; never again will there be a flood to destroy the earth."

Dave Lovell said:

Just Bob said:

YaFen Shen said: Hollleee shit, I've met people myself that were quite phlegmatic, but damn!

I've always wondered why the near descendants on Noah went back to the same old totally destroyed centers of civilization, and recreated the same wicked, pagan societies that got them all drowned in the first place. I mean, why would Noah's grandkids go to Egypt, when their ancestors had never lived there, and pick up Egyptian society, pagan gods and all, when their universal tribal memory, according to folks like Ray, was of a genocidal flood by the only true god, just a few generations back? Or to China, or India?

That sir is because you have not read your Bible. "I establish my covenant with you: Never again will all life be destroyed by the waters of a flood; never again will there be a flood to destroy the earth." There is a copper bottomed guarantee if ever there was one. (And in looking that qoute up I was amused to see it is Genesis 9:11!)

On my commute today, it hit me that the God of fundamentalists obsessed with the Flood is a lot like a mean kid tormenting an ant colony. As my thoughts wandered to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Ant_Bully I realized the story has eery parallels to the Bible: specifically the ant bully floods the ant colony and is made to live among the ants in atonement. OK, in this case it's for his atonement, not the ants which would be a closer parallel to the Bible. Arguably, the plot of the Ant Bully is easier to comprehend at first blush.

Michael Fugate said:

Dave Lovell said:

Just Bob said:

YaFen Shen said: Hollleee shit, I've met people myself that were quite phlegmatic, but damn!

I've always wondered why the near descendants on Noah went back to the same old totally destroyed centers of civilization, and recreated the same wicked, pagan societies that got them all drowned in the first place. I mean, why would Noah's grandkids go to Egypt, when their ancestors had never lived there, and pick up Egyptian society, pagan gods and all, when their universal tribal memory, according to folks like Ray, was of a genocidal flood by the only true god, just a few generations back? Or to China, or India?

That sir is because you have not read your Bible. "I establish my covenant with you: Never again will all life be destroyed by the waters of a flood; never again will there be a flood to destroy the earth." There is a copper bottomed guarantee if ever there was one. (And in looking that qoute up I was amused to see it is Genesis 9:11!)

After God said that, I am sure the big guy was wishing he/she/it hadn't. God sure has trouble with humans and nothing he/she/it tries works. Killing most of them off, making them speak different languages, sending endless numbers of prophets, sending his own son, inventing Hell and still humans flip the proverbial bird at God. No wonder we have climate change!

The Sand Kings. That is all.

Oh. Also Robert Sheckley's None Before Me

Ray Martinez said: And how does Naturalism science explain the Grand Canyon? It's the product of a river running through it for a very long time. PREPOSTEROUS! In other words Naturalism science has no explanation. And how does Naturalism science explain the current surface of earth, three-quarters water? It's the product of water carrying objects hitting earth from outer space. BEYOND PREPOSTEROUS! Naturalism science has no credible explanation. Supernaturalism science: Prediction: IF a catastrophic worldwide flood occurred recently THEN we should find evidence of the world overrun with water? FACT: Surface of earth is three-quarters water including VERY MANY rivers and lakes. So compare explanations; that's all we ask. Ray (OEC)

My first "real" book "The City Under the Back Steps"; received for my 5th b-day.
http://blog.wildaboutants.com/2011/07/22/the-city-under-the-back-steps-a-childrens-book-about-ants/

Ray Martinez said:

Scott F said:

Ray Martinez said: FACT: The surface of earth looks exactly like it should (overrun with water) if a catastrophic worldwide flood occurred recently in 3140 BC. Ray (OEC)

That's not a fact at all. It's a lie.

Where is the lie? What are you talking about? ONCE AGAIN: I was asked to provide evidence of a recent, catastrophic, worldwide flood. In response I offered the current surface of earth. ONCE AGAIN: Prediction: IF a catastrophic worldwide flood occurred recently THEN we should find evidence of the world overrun with water? FACT: Surface of earth is three-quarters water including VERY MANY rivers and lakes. Ray (OEC)

DS said: As for a local flood, there is ample evidence for catastrophic flooding of the Black Sea in response to changes in sea level around five thousand years ago. THis is undoubtedly the origin of many of the flood myths, including the Epic of Gilgamesh on which the biblical account is based. It probably flooded the then known earth, at least that known to the local population. So now Ray, if you can reject a young age of the earth based on evidence, you can now reject the world wide flood as well.

Scott F said: Let's deconstruct your "fact". Prediction: IF (A) THEN (B) Fact: (CHOCOLATE PUDDING) Conclusion: (A) Do I have that about right? The point here is that your "fact" (or "Chocolate Pudding") has diddly-squat to do with the "consequent" of your "conditional". What you really intended to argue is: Prediction: IF (FLOOD) THEN (WATER) Fact: (WATER) Logical Conclusion: Either there was a FLOOD or there wasn't a FLOOD. I know you don't understand logic of any kind, but try to pay attention here. A logical "conditional" is one of the hardest pieces of logic to get right, and you (as 99% of Creationists) get it wrong. If you demonstrate that the "consequent" of a "conditional" is "true" (which you have failed to do), you can conclude nothing about the "antecedent". If you look at the Truth Table here, it's pretty trivial. Assume that the "conditional" is true. Then, if the "consequent" is "true", the "antecedent" can be either "true" or "false", and the whole "conditional" is still true. Your "logic" does not prove the point you wanted to make. Look. I understand your "logic" (such as it is) better than you do, and it's still wrong.

It seems that Ray's personal brand of logic won't fare too well at PT. He isn't even an amateur philosopher. To be an amateur means to be "a lover" but he's abusing logic.

Now, instead of the cesspool of talk.origins, the real world at PT is more than it can handle.

It has at times been contested at talk.origins but most criticism has been rejected, even when coming from people with a solid and sound insight into the subject. For a while, a certain "Roger Shrubber" did a good job of it but regretfully he's disappeared, never to be heard from again.

It seems that Ray's personal brand of logic won't fare too well at PT. He isn't even an amateur philosopher. To be an amateur means to be "a lover" but he's abusing logic.

Now, instead of the cesspool of talk.origins, the real world at PT is more than it can handle.

It has at times been contested at talk.origins but most criticism has been rejected, even when coming from people with a solid and sound insight into the subject. For a while, a certain "Roger Shrubber" did a good job of it but regretfully he's disappeared, never to be heard from again.

TomS said: I believe that he said that there were oceans on the Earth before the Flood. I don't know that there is anything in the Bible which says that there were oceans on the Earth before the Flood. As far as where the water on the Earth came from, before the Flood, I don't believe that there is anything in the Bible which says where the water came from. Genesis 1 begins its account of creation with water already being there. Genesis then tells us that that one of the acts of creation is to separate water from the land, and water is held back by the firmament and beneath the earth. Genesis 2 tells us that there were rivers, and there was a mist, but no rain. I don't know where oceans were first mentioned, but my guess is it is only after the Flood. Anyway, where the water in the rivers and the mist came from, is that mentioned anywhere? We are told that the water for the Flood came from the water which was being held back by the firmament and from the water under the earth.

Scott F said: Let's deconstruct your "fact". Prediction: IF (A) THEN (B) Do I have that about right?

...alternating layers with evidence of marine environments and dry land terrestrial environments. Any reasonable understanding of how long it would take for these layers to form requires tens or hundreds of millions of years, even without dating, and one can only estimate that the formation of these sediments was finished long before anything like modern life forms existed.

Dave Thomas said:

Scott F said: Let's deconstruct your "fact". Prediction: IF (A) THEN (B) Fact: (CHOCOLATE PUDDING) Conclusion: (A) Do I have that about right? The point here is that your "fact" (or "Chocolate Pudding") has diddly-squat to do with the "consequent" of your "conditional". What you really intended to argue is: Prediction: IF (FLOOD) THEN (WATER) Fact: (WATER) Logical Conclusion: Either there was a FLOOD or there wasn't a FLOOD. I know you don't understand logic of any kind, but try to pay attention here. A logical "conditional" is one of the hardest pieces of logic to get right, and you (as 99% of Creationists) get it wrong. If you demonstrate that the "consequent" of a "conditional" is "true" (which you have failed to do), you can conclude nothing about the "antecedent". If you look at the Truth Table here, it's pretty trivial. Assume that the "conditional" is true. Then, if the "consequent" is "true", the "antecedent" can be either "true" or "false", and the whole "conditional" is still true. Your "logic" does not prove the point you wanted to make. Look. I understand your "logic" (such as it is) better than you do, and it's still wrong.

Yup, that's a well known logical fallacy, "Affirming the Consequent". Ray has provided another great example for us! #affirmingtheconsequent

Scott F said:

Ray Martinez said: And how does Naturalism science explain the Grand Canyon? It's the product of a river running through it for a very long time. PREPOSTEROUS! In other words Naturalism science has no explanation. And how does Naturalism science explain the current surface of earth, three-quarters water? It's the product of water carrying objects hitting earth from outer space. BEYOND PREPOSTEROUS! Naturalism science has no credible explanation. Supernaturalism science: Prediction: IF a catastrophic worldwide flood occurred recently THEN we should find evidence of the world overrun with water? FACT: Surface of earth is three-quarters water including VERY MANY rivers and lakes. So compare explanations; that's all we ask. Ray (OEC)

So, let me get this straight. Science has an explanation for the water on the Earth. It fell to Earth from outer space 4 billion years ago in the form of comets and icy asteroids, of which there are still millions in the solar system today. You reject that as "PREPOSTEROUS". Instead, to explain why there is water on the Earth today, you claim that there was water on the Earth 3,000 years ago.

Ray Martinez said: Neither you nor Scott ...

Scott F said:

Ray Martinez said:

Scott F said:

Ray Martinez said: FACT: The surface of earth looks exactly like it should (overrun with water) if a catastrophic worldwide flood occurred recently in 3140 BC. Ray (OEC)

That's not a fact at all. It's a lie.

Where is the lie? What are you talking about? ONCE AGAIN: I was asked to provide evidence of a recent, catastrophic, worldwide flood. In response I offered the current surface of earth. ONCE AGAIN: Prediction: IF a catastrophic worldwide flood occurred recently THEN we should find evidence of the world overrun with water? FACT: Surface of earth is three-quarters water including VERY MANY rivers and lakes. Ray (OEC)

Let's deconstruct your "fact". Prediction: IF (A) THEN (B) Fact: (CHOCOLATE PUDDING) Conclusion: (A) Do I have that about right? The point here is that your "fact" (or "Chocolate Pudding") has diddly-squat to do with the "consequent" of your "conditional". What you really intended to argue is: Prediction: IF (FLOOD) THEN (WATER) Fact: (WATER) Logical Conclusion: Either there was a FLOOD or there wasn't a FLOOD. I know you don't understand logic of any kind, but try to pay attention here. A logical "conditional" is one of the hardest pieces of logic to get right, and you (as 99% of Creationists) get it wrong. If you demonstrate that the "consequent" of a "conditional" is "true" (which you have failed to do), you can conclude nothing about the "antecedent". If you look at the Truth Table here, it's pretty trivial. Assume that the "conditional" is true. Then, if the "consequent" is "true", the "antecedent" can be either "true" or "false", and the whole "conditional" is still true. Your "logic" does not prove the point you wanted to make. Look. I understand your "logic" (such as it is) better than you do, and it's still wrong.

Here is a classic example of false "evolutionary logic."

"Unintelligent process (natural selection) produces an intelligent appearance of design."

Cause (unintelligence) and effect (design) contradict and are antonymic. Said effect falsifies said cause. Yet Darwinists teach this "logic" in higher education to the Christian masses.

Ray (Old Earth; species immutabilist)

phhht said:

Ray Martinez said: Neither you nor Scott ...

I know I'm wasting bits, but Ray, why don't you just cite some empirical evidence for the reality of your gods. You know, something that would distinguish them from delusions. Then you wouldn't have to try to reason.

Ray Martinez said:

phhht said:

Ray Martinez said: Neither you nor Scott ...

I know I'm wasting bits, but Ray, why don't you just cite some empirical evidence for the reality of your gods. You know, something that would distinguish them from delusions. Then you wouldn't have to try to reason.

The usual rhetorical "request" for evidence that contradicts the Atheist worldview. When evidence is offered our Atheist simply repeats his request. Ray (OEC; species immutabilist)

FACT #1: The Textual evidence says a mega catastrophic worldwide flood occurred recently (3140 BC).

FACT #2: The current surface of earth is overrun with water: three-quarters acquatic including very many rivers and lakes.

In fact when we observe images of earth taken from outer space the primary feature seen is a beautiful blue watery planet. So the current surface of earth appears exactly like it should if a mega-catastrophic flood occurred recently.

In Supernatural epistemological terms we say the Textual evidence, or word, has direct correspondence to reality---the thing known as the material world, in this case surface of earth. WHEN word corresponds to thing, past and/or present, then a fact has been established.

Ray (OEC; species immutabilist)

Ray Martinez said: FACT #1: ...

Ray Martinez said:

Dave Thomas said:

Scott F said: Let's deconstruct your "fact". Prediction: IF (A) THEN (B) Fact: (CHOCOLATE PUDDING) Conclusion: (A) Do I have that about right? The point here is that your "fact" (or "Chocolate Pudding") has diddly-squat to do with the "consequent" of your "conditional". What you really intended to argue is: Prediction: IF (FLOOD) THEN (WATER) Fact: (WATER) Logical Conclusion: Either there was a FLOOD or there wasn't a FLOOD. I know you don't understand logic of any kind, but try to pay attention here. A logical "conditional" is one of the hardest pieces of logic to get right, and you (as 99% of Creationists) get it wrong. If you demonstrate that the "consequent" of a "conditional" is "true" (which you have failed to do), you can conclude nothing about the "antecedent". If you look at the Truth Table here, it's pretty trivial. Assume that the "conditional" is true. Then, if the "consequent" is "true", the "antecedent" can be either "true" or "false", and the whole "conditional" is still true. Your "logic" does not prove the point you wanted to make. Look. I understand your "logic" (such as it is) better than you do, and it's still wrong.

Yup, that's a well known logical fallacy, "Affirming the Consequent". Ray has provided another great example for us! #affirmingtheconsequent

Neither you nor Scott has shown ANY understanding of your own criticism. All you've done is to assert that a fallacious argument has been put forth minus satisfactory explanation and direct application. In fact, when one peruses your own link that allegedly explains said fallacy one gets the distinct impression that the author doesn't even know what they are talking about. The author acknowledges an error here: "Acknowledgment: Thanks to Antoine Leonard Van Gelder for pointing out a mix-up between 'antecedent' and 'consequent' in the Exposition section that has now been fixed." Yes, these are confusing terms within the argument. No clear definitions exist. And if one thinks clear definitions exist then these lack a point? Until you or Scott (or anyone) takes the time to show that you understand said alleged fallacy, then apply your understanding to something I have said, you're exposed as not understanding what you claim to understand. If you did in fact produce genuine undermining criticism of my prediction then you would have already done this without being asked. As it sits right now you're guilty of literature bluffing. As a veteran participant in the Creation/Evolution debate I have seen Evolutionists cry "Affirming the Consequent" fairly often. But at no time has any Evolutionist taken the time to show that they understand what is being said much less apply their fallacy to a relevant argument. The reason this is so is because the alleged fallacy is too complicated/subjective to have any real meaning. In other words its largely unaccepted or rejected by scholars? Ray (OEC; species immutabilist)

Ray Martinez said: FACT #1: The Textual evidence says a mega catastrophic worldwide flood occurred recently (3140 BC). FACT #2: The current surface of earth is overrun with water: three-quarters acquatic including very many rivers and lakes. In fact when we observe images of earth taken from outer space the primary feature seen is a beautiful blue watery planet. So the current surface of earth appears exactly like it should if a mega-catastrophic flood occurred recently. In Supernatural epistemological terms we say the Textual evidence, or word, has direct correspondence to reality---the thing known as the material world, in this case surface of earth. WHEN word corresponds to thing, past and/or present, then a fact has been established. Ray (OEC; species immutabilist)

Ray is mentally impaired.

He cannot reason. He depends on fallacies such as the one you point out, as well as the god-of-the-gaps fallacy. Such cognitive failures are symptomatic of religious delusion.

Right, at talk.origins he's stated that appearance of design in biology is evidence of design. I've responded to that but got no response. That's typical of him.

Ray Martinez said: FACT #1: The Textual evidence says a mega catastrophic worldwide flood occurred recently (3140 BC).

FACT #2: The current surface of earth is overrun with water: three-quarters acquatic including very many rivers and lakes.

Of course poor old loony Ray means "textual," not "textural." The former refers to text; the latter to texture.

Dave Thomas: So, you are clearly saying "IF" there was a global flood covering the earth in recent history, "THEN" The current surface of earth will appear mostly covered with water.

The "THEN" part is the consequent (your "FACT #2"), but the "IF" part is the claim you are trying to prove (your "FACT #1").

You are "assuming the consequent" when you observe that, yes indeedy, the earth is mostly covered with water. But this says nothing about your Flood claim. That's because there are plenty of other hypotheses BESIDES a "flood" that could end up with today's Earth being mostly covered in water. These alternate hypotheses include water from comets being brought to earth long ago. Because multiple hypotheses end up with the same ending state - a mostly wet earth - then simply noting the earth is wet does not help one to determine which hypothesis was correct. Duly noted for use in my science/pseudoscience class. #affirmingtheconsequent

You are “assuming the consequent” when you observe that, yes indeedy, the earth is mostly covered with water. But this says nothing about your Flood claim.

Gods you're a loony, Ray.

There was no global flood. That's nothing but religious delusion.

Just as there are no gods.

phhht said: Of course poor old loony Ray means "textual," not "textural." The former refers to text; the latter to texture.

Ray Martinez said: My formal claim about the Genesis flood ... is made using supernatural starting assumptions.

Ray Martinez said: Existence of other hypothesis or explanations is not in dispute; said fact has no bearing on the validity or invalidity of your claim that a fallacy exists in my argument. Moreover, pro-supernatural hypotheses or explanations are not eligible for consideration by Naturalism science. The same is true in reverse concerning pro-natural hypotheses or explanations and Supernatural science

Ray Martinez said: How does a surface overrun with water not say anything about a recent mega-catastrophic worldwide flood claim? It appears that you're using "Affirming the Consequent" as "begging the question." How is the question begged? A few messages back I made this post: http://pandasthumb.org/archives/2016/06/dembski-on-his.html#comment-354321 My formal claim about the Genesis flood is seen above and it is made using supernatural starting assumptions. Ray (OEC)

Ray Martinez said: My formal claim about the Genesis flood is seen above and it is made using supernatural starting assumptions.

Ray Martinez said:

Ray Martinez said:

Scott F said:

Ray Martinez said: FACT: The surface of earth looks exactly like it should (overrun with water) if a catastrophic worldwide flood occurred recently in 3140 BC. Ray (OEC)

That's not a fact at all. It's a lie.

Where is the lie? What are you talking about? ONCE AGAIN: I was asked to provide evidence of a recent, catastrophic, worldwide flood. In response I offered the current surface of earth. ONCE AGAIN: Prediction: IF a catastrophic worldwide flood occurred recently THEN we should find evidence of the world overrun with water? FACT: Surface of earth is three-quarters water including VERY MANY rivers and lakes. Ray (OEC)

Scott F said: Let's deconstruct your "fact". Prediction: IF (A) THEN (B) Fact: (CHOCOLATE PUDDING) Conclusion: (A) Do I have that about right? The point here is that your "fact" (or "Chocolate Pudding") has diddly-squat to do with the "consequent" of your "conditional". What you really intended to argue is: Prediction: IF (FLOOD) THEN (WATER) Fact: (WATER) Logical Conclusion: Either there was a FLOOD or there wasn't a FLOOD. I know you don't understand logic of any kind, but try to pay attention here. A logical "conditional" is one of the hardest pieces of logic to get right, and you (as 99% of Creationists) get it wrong. If you demonstrate that the "consequent" of a "conditional" is "true" (which you have failed to do), you can conclude nothing about the "antecedent". If you look at the Truth Table here, it's pretty trivial. Assume that the "conditional" is true. Then, if the "consequent" is "true", the "antecedent" can be either "true" or "false", and the whole "conditional" is still true. Your "logic" does not prove the point you wanted to make. Look. I understand your "logic" (such as it is) better than you do, and it's still wrong.

Note the fact that Scott failed to quote me directly. If Scott had a point he would have quoted me directly then he would have applied his criticism directly and clearly. Ray (OEC)

Prediction: IF a catastrophic worldwide flood occurred recently THEN we should find evidence of the world overrun with water? FACT: Surface of earth is three-quarters water including VERY MANY rivers and lakes.

IF "p" THEN "q". "q" is true. Therefore, "p" is true.

Ray Martinez said: FACT #1: The Textual evidence says a mega catastrophic worldwide flood occurred recently (3140 BC).

Ray is too impaired to understand what is wrong with his logic.

After all, he's a loony. He believes in the reality of gods and the supernatural.

BTW, Ray. If a world wide flood occurred in 3140 BC, how many different species existed on Noah's Ark?

You are a species immutable-ist, right? You can give your answer plus or minus 25%. I'm good with an approximate number.

Or, are you a bariminologist instead?

Good grief; how hard can this be?

Dogs have four legs.

This creature has four legs.

Therefore this creature is a dog.

This chair has four legs.

Therefore this chair is a dog.

So is my table.

If it rains, the ground will be wet.

The ground is wet.

Therefore it rained. (Don't look at that overturned bucket on the ground; or that leaking garden hose.)

If there is a worldwide flood, there will be oceans.

There are oceans.

Therefore there was a worldwide flood. (Don't look at all those icy comets out there in our solar system; and especially don't look at all the damage they do when they land on a planet.)

I appears that these examples are just too far over the head of a believer in the worldwide flood. There is a minimal level of intelligence that is required to understand the rules of deductive logic; to say nothing of all the objective evidence from science and the laws of physics that rule out such an event.

Ray Martinez said: Here is a classic example of false "evolutionary logic." "Unintelligent process (natural selection) produces an intelligent appearance of design." Cause (unintelligence) and effect (design) contradict and are antonymic. Said effect falsifies said cause. Yet Darwinists teach this "logic" in higher education to the Christian masses. Ray (Old Earth; species immutabilist)

Ray Martinez said: Are not predictions conveyed as "If/then"? For example: If macroevolution is true then we should not find a rabbit or land dwelling quadruped in Precambrian strata.

Ray Martinez said: My formal claim about the Genesis flood is seen above and it is made using supernatural starting assumptions.

we should find evidence of the world overrun with water

Shorter Ray: "I did not say that! And anyway, you do it too."

phhht said: Of course poor old loony Ray means "textual," not "textural." The former refers to text; the latter to texture.

Ray Martinez said: In fact, when one peruses your own link that allegedly explains said fallacy one gets the distinct impression that the author doesn't even know what they are talking about. The author acknowledges an error here: "Acknowledgment: Thanks to Antoine Leonard Van Gelder for pointing out a mix-up between 'antecedent' and 'consequent' in the Exposition section that has now been fixed."

Yes, these are confusing terms within the argument. No clear definitions exist.

Until you or Scott (or anyone) takes the time to show that you understand said alleged fallacy, then apply your understanding to something I have said, you're exposed as not understanding what you claim to understand. If you did in fact produce genuine undermining criticism of my prediction then you would have already done this without being asked. As it sits right now you're guilty of literature bluffing.

As a veteran participant in the Creation/Evolution debate I have seen Evolutionists cry "Affirming the Consequent" fairly often.

But at no time has any Evolutionist taken the time to show that they understand what is being said much less apply their fallacy to a relevant argument.

The reason this is so is because the alleged fallacy is too complicated/subjective to have any real meaning. In other words its largely unaccepted or rejected by scholars?

Scott F said: Ray, this isn't rocket science. I know. I'm a rocket scientist. I learned that this was a logical fallacy in grade school, for Christ's sake. I'm sorry that you skipped that class, and have no interest in learning. But just because you don't know that it is a logical fallacy, your abysmal ignorance doesn't make it magically true.

W. H. Heydt said:

Scott F said: Ray, this isn't rocket science. I know. I'm a rocket scientist. I learned that this was a logical fallacy in grade school, for Christ's sake. I'm sorry that you skipped that class, and have no interest in learning. But just because you don't know that it is a logical fallacy, your abysmal ignorance doesn't make it magically true.

I seem to recall this exact same point being made previously. If memory serves, Ray will proceed to run away and not attempt to address the problems in his "logic".

Basically, Ray has a magic book that says that there was a flood. Therefore, there was a flood.

Ray Martinez said: If the Resurrection of Christ occurred then all Biblical claims and miracles, including a worldwide flood, are true as well. This is our logic. Ray

Ray Martinez said: in a comment here The only evidence one needs to see that the Genesis worldwide flood occurred is the fact that the present surface of earth looks exactly like it should if a worldwide flood occurred recently in 3140 BC.

Ray Martinez said: in a comment here FACT #1: The Textual evidence says a mega catastrophic worldwide flood occurred recently (3140 BC).

Ray Martinez said: in a comment here My formal claim about the Genesis flood is seen above and it is made using supernatural starting assumptions.

Ray Martinez said:

TomS said:

Ray Martinez said: The only evidence one needs to see that the Genesis worldwide flood occurred is the fact that the present surface of earth looks exactly like it should if a worldwide flood occurred recently in 3140 BC.

If the world was created in 4004 BC, how can one say that 3140 BC is "recent"? 3140 BC is back about 78.5% of the age of the Earth. That is like saying that the War of 1812 is in the recent history of the USA.

What is your source for 4004 BC creation? A Medieval Bishop perhaps? LOL!

If the Resurrection of Christ occurred then all Biblical claims and miracles, including a worldwide flood, are true as well.

Scott F said:

Ray Martinez said:

TomS said:

Ray Martinez said: The only evidence one needs to see that the Genesis worldwide flood occurred is the fact that the present surface of earth looks exactly like it should if a worldwide flood occurred recently in 3140 BC.

If the world was created in 4004 BC, how can one say that 3140 BC is "recent"? 3140 BC is back about 78.5% of the age of the Earth. That is like saying that the War of 1812 is in the recent history of the USA.

What is your source for 4004 BC creation? A Medieval Bishop perhaps? LOL!

And,

If the Resurrection of Christ occurred then all Biblical claims and miracles, including a worldwide flood, are true as well.

So, you appear to claim that all Biblical claims and miracles are literally true, including a world wide flood. You also appear to reject the year 4004 BC as the time of creation. You do claim to be an "Old Earth Creationist", though you refuse to say how old the Earth is. Yet, you accept the Biblical time of 3140 BC for the time of Noah's flood. How do you reconcile these two contradictory claims, yet come up with the value of 3140 BC? The same ancestral lineage is used to date both the Flood, and the time of Creation. The lineage from that Medieval Bishop is, in actual fact the *only* source of the "claim" for either date. (I refuse the sully the word "Evidence" in this case.)

Scott F said: You're playing with checkers on a chess board...

Even more déclassé, I used to have to bring a crappy old checkerboard to student chess tourneys. Man, talk about the snickers.

Checkers on a chess board? Er, aren't the boards essentially the same, aside perhaps from some aesthetic differences?

Henry J said: Checkers on a chess board? Er, aren't the boards essentially the same, aside perhaps from some aesthetic differences?

Here's the beyond-idiocy bit: Ray has admitted that THERE WERE OCEANS BEFORE THE FLOOD!

Ray "logic":
A)There were oceans before the flood.

B)There was a flood.

C)There are oceans now.

D)That proves there was a flood.

I have alleles on chromosomes and I share half of them with my mother and half with my father. This is easy to check and has been confirmed over and over. My parents share alleles and chromosomes with their parents and so do I. Such are the rules of descent. Given that humans share alleles and chromosomes with chimpanzees, gorillas, and other mammals the only logical conclusion is shared descent.

Ray's claim to be an immutabilist is a modern anti-evolution stance. There is little evidence immutability was a pre-evolutionary concept. Individuals who lived with and observed animals and plants knew that there were more similarities than differences. Early agriculturalists exploited the natural variation to produce domesticated plants and animals. Morphology was not fixed and could and could be changed.

Scott F said:

Ray Martinez said: Here is a classic example of false "evolutionary logic." "Unintelligent process (natural selection) produces an intelligent appearance of design." Cause (unintelligence) and effect (design) contradict and are antonymic. Said effect falsifies said cause. Yet Darwinists teach this "logic" in higher education to the Christian masses. Ray (Old Earth; species immutabilist)

Damn. See, Ray? You got your own argument wrong again. What you meant to say was: "Unintelligent processes (natural selection) produces an appearance of intelligent design." See the difference? You aren't arguing for an "intelligent appearance". That doesn't even make sense. What you wanted to argue for is "an appearance of intelligent design". Your adjective is in the wrong place, modifying the wrong word. Jeeze. You can't even play your own word games right.

Ray Martinez said:

Scott F said:

Ray Martinez said: Here is a classic example of false "evolutionary logic." "Unintelligent process (natural selection) produces an intelligent appearance of design." Cause (unintelligence) and effect (design) contradict and are antonymic. Said effect falsifies said cause. Yet Darwinists teach this "logic" in higher education to the Christian masses. Ray (Old Earth; species immutabilist)

Damn. See, Ray? You got your own argument wrong again. What you meant to say was: "Unintelligent processes (natural selection) produces an appearance of intelligent design." See the difference? You aren't arguing for an "intelligent appearance". That doesn't even make sense. What you wanted to argue for is "an appearance of intelligent design". Your adjective is in the wrong place, modifying the wrong word. Jeeze. You can't even play your own word games right.

I said what I meant and meant what I said. Your inability to understand uncomplicated prose is the only problem here. In fact you're completely unaware of the fact that your mind is unable to think logically. In other words your mind has been brainwashed by evolutionary "thinking." Ray (species immutabilist)

Michael Fugate said: I have alleles on chromosomes and I share half of them with my mother and half with my father. This is easy to check and has been confirmed over and over.

My parents share alleles and chromosomes with their parents and so do I. Such are the rules of descent. Given that humans share alleles and chromosomes with chimpanzees, gorillas, and other mammals the only logical conclusion is shared descent.

Ray's claim to be an immutabilist is a modern anti-evolution stance.

There is little evidence immutability was a pre-evolutionary concept.

Individuals who lived with and observed animals and plants knew that there were more similarities than differences. Early agriculturalists exploited the natural variation to produce domesticated plants and animals. Morphology was not fixed and could and could be changed.

Ray Martinez said: I'm answering the message seen below to show the degree of ignorance ordinary Evolutionists suffer from.

Michael Fugate said: I have alleles on chromosomes and I share half of them with my mother and half with my father. This is easy to check and has been confirmed over and over.

Therefore evolution must have occurred---which is an assumption. In reality, evolution hasn't occurred until one can show HOW it occurred.

My parents share alleles and chromosomes with their parents and so do I. Such are the rules of descent. Given that humans share alleles and chromosomes with chimpanzees, gorillas, and other mammals the only logical conclusion is shared descent.

The above comments ASSUME mere discovery of similarity means evolution has occurred. Again, assumption is not evidence. A Divine Matermind could have created this way (similarity, affinity). In fact that is exactly what Genesis says: living things are observed good, the same implies creation of another similar good thing. And again, the importance of showing causation/how evolution occurs looms large.

Ray's claim to be an immutabilist is a modern anti-evolution stance.

Except for "modern" of course. Immutability was the position of science when Darwin published in 1859; see evidence from a primary source below.

There is little evidence immutability was a pre-evolutionary concept.

"I can entertain no doubt, after the most deliberate study and dispassionate judgment of which I am capable, that the view which most naturalists entertain, and which I formerly entertained---namely, that each species has been independently created---is erroneous. I am fully convinced that species are not immutable." --Charles Darwin "On the Origin of Species" 1859:6; London: John Murray; boldfacing added).

Individuals who lived with and observed animals and plants knew that there were more similarities than differences. Early agriculturalists exploited the natural variation to produce domesticated plants and animals. Morphology was not fixed and could and could be changed.

Which proves the point I made above. Evolutionists ASSUME discovery of similarity means evolution has occurred (= past tense). In reality evolution hasn't occurred until you can show HOW it occurred. The logic offered by our Evolutionist is as follows: effect-and-cause (inverted): Evolutionists believe in the so called "fact of evolution." But how evolution occurs is open for debate. In other words their fact is based primarily on assumption and inverted logic. Accepted scientific logic is as follows: cause-and-effect Until Evolutionists can prove unintelligent causation exists, micro-evolution has never occurred. Ray (species immutabilist)

The current appearance of the surface of the earth is completely compatible with the theory that it was produced by repeated cycles of uplift and erosion, just as explained by Hutton, long ago. It is completely incompatible with the hypothesis of a world wide flood in recent geological history, as is all of the available evidence from many independent sources. Therefore, if Roy or anyone else tries to claim any different, they are lying, period. That is all.

Ray Martinez said: In reality, evolution hasn't occurred until one can show HOW it occurred.

DS said: The current appearance of the surface of the earth is completely compatible with the theory that it was produced by repeated cycles of uplift and erosion, just as explained by Hutton, long ago.

It is completely incompatible with the hypothesis of a world wide flood in recent geological history, as is all of the available evidence from many independent sources. Therefore, if [Ray] or anyone else tries to claim any different, they are lying, period. That is all.

Ray Martinez said: This is WHY we are Christians: faith is based on fact.

Ray, your chromosomes and alleles didn't come from your parents? You were individually created by your God and your sharing alleles and chromosomes with your parents is mere coincidence? Good to know that reproduction doesn't occur.

You might be interested in John S. Wilkins' Species: The History of the Idea. Then again, I doubt you would.

TomS said:

Ray Martinez said: In reality, evolution hasn't occurred until one can show HOW it occurred.

First of all, evolution occurs. One can see it occurring.

[....] And then, about creation. When did creation occur? When did it stop? and ... how did creation occur?

Ray Martinez said:

TomS said:

Ray Martinez said: In reality, evolution hasn't occurred until one can show HOW it occurred.

First of all, evolution occurs. One can see it occurring.

If true then you should have no trouble posting YouTubes showing evolution occurring in real time....LOL! In reality, scientists and scholars know that evolution is wholly dependent on inference because it is too slow to see as it allegedly occurs.

Ray Martinez said:

Ray Martinez said:

TomS said:

Ray Martinez said: In reality, evolution hasn't occurred until one can show HOW it occurred.

First of all, evolution occurs. One can see it occurring.

If true then you should have no trouble posting YouTubes showing evolution occurring in real time....LOL! In reality, scientists and scholars know that evolution is wholly dependent on inference because it is too slow to see as it allegedly occurs.

That said, Evolutionists believe in something that cannot be seen---their God: Evolution. Ray (Christian)

Ray Martinez said:

TomS said:

Ray Martinez said: In reality, evolution hasn't occurred until one can show HOW it occurred.

First of all, evolution occurs. One can see it occurring.

If true then you should have no trouble posting YouTubes showing evolution occurring in real time....LOL! In reality, scientists and scholars know that evolution is wholly dependent on inference because it is too slow to see as it allegedly occurs.

[....] And then, about creation. When did creation occur? When did it stop? and ... how did creation occur?

Most everyone knows creation occurs by Divine intervention---more commonly known as special, independent, or separate creation. Nobody knows when original creation occurred. And creation never stops. New species owe their existence in nature to Divine intervention. Observation of design, seen in each species, is the main evidence of on-going interventionism. Ray (OEC; species immutabilist)

So you admit that no one can see creation happening and no one understands how it happens. So, by your own logic, it never happened. Good to know.

Ray Martinez said:

DS said: The current appearance of the surface of the earth is completely compatible with the theory that it was produced by repeated cycles of uplift and erosion, just as explained by Hutton, long ago.

Imagine that; a worker who lived in the 18th century remains correct in the 21st century, simply miraculous!

It is completely incompatible with the hypothesis of a world wide flood in recent geological history, as is all of the available evidence from many independent sources. Therefore, if [Ray] or anyone else tries to claim any different, they are lying, period. That is all.

The current surface of earth appears overrun with water. In fact the surface is three-quarters aquatic including very many rivers and lakes. The word-based claim seen in the Book of Genesis has direct correspondence. Surface of earth appears exactly like it should if a mega-catastrophic worldwide flood occurred recently in 3140 BC. God said a worldwide flood occurred---surface of earth confirms. This is WHY we are Christians: faith is based on fact. Note the fact that William Dembski remains conspicuously silent, absent. Ray (OEC)

Hey Ray, ever heard of Newton?

Ray Martinez said: FACT: Surface of earth is three-quarters water including VERY MANY rivers and lakes. Ray (OEC)

Hey Ray, ever heard of Galileo? Oh, I bet you think he was wrong too. Sorry.

James said:

Ray Martinez said: FACT: Surface of earth is three-quarters water including VERY MANY rivers and lakes. Ray (OEC)

FACT: I need to get out my fishing pole right now...because, obviously, god is telling me to go fish...not in the way that Ray is floundering either.

Ray Martinez said:

TomS said:

Ray Martinez said: In reality, evolution hasn't occurred until one can show HOW it occurred.

First of all, evolution occurs. One can see it occurring.

If true then you should have no trouble posting YouTubes showing evolution occurring in real time....LOL!

Ray Martinez said: Surface of earth appears exactly like it should if a mega-catastrophic worldwide flood occurred recently in 3140 BC.

Ray Martinez said:

DS said: The current appearance of the surface of the earth is completely compatible with the theory that it was produced by repeated cycles of uplift and erosion, just as explained by Hutton, long ago.

Imagine that; a worker who lived in the 18th century remains correct in the 21st century, simply miraculous!

Ray Martinez said:

Ray Martinez said: Here is a classic example of false "evolutionary logic." "Unintelligent process (natural selection) produces an intelligent appearance of design." Cause (unintelligence) and effect (design) contradict and are antonymic. Said effect falsifies said cause. Yet Darwinists teach this "logic" in higher education to the Christian masses. Ray (Old Earth; species immutabilist)

Scott F said: Damn. See, Ray? You got your own argument wrong again. What you meant to say was: "Unintelligent processes (natural selection) produces an appearance of intelligent design." See the difference? You aren't arguing for an "intelligent appearance". That doesn't even make sense. What you wanted to argue for is "an appearance of intelligent design". Your adjective is in the wrong place, modifying the wrong word. Jeeze. You can't even play your own word games right.

I said what I meant and meant what I said. Your inability to understand uncomplicated prose is the only problem here. In fact you're completely unaware of the fact that your mind is unable to think logically. In other words your mind has been brainwashed by evolutionary "thinking." Ray (species immutabilist)

Ray Martinez said: The current surface of earth appears overrun with water. In fact the surface is three-quarters aquatic including very many rivers and lakes. The word-based claim seen in the Book of Genesis has direct correspondence. Surface of earth appears exactly like it should if a mega-catastrophic worldwide flood occurred recently in 3140 BC.

gnome de net said: How would you expect the surface of the earth to appear if there hadn't been a flood of any size at any time?

Ray Martinez said: That said, Evolutionists believe in something that cannot be seen---their God: Evolution. Ray (Christian)

Observe always that everything is the result of a change, and get used to thinking that there is nothing Nature loves so well as to change existing forms and to make new ones like them. -Emperor Marcus Aurelius Antoninus.

gnome de net said: How would you expect the surface of the earth to appear if there hadn't been a flood of any size at any time?

stevaroni said:

gnome de net said: How would you expect the surface of the earth to appear if there hadn't been a flood of any size at any time?

Well, I know one thing I'd expect to find if there had been a worldwide flood. In the story of Noah, every living thing that is not on the Ark dies in the same week. Every dinosaur, donkey, and Douglas fir expires in one geological moment, and all that stuff would be expected to float around and get trapped in the poorly-drained mountain basins of the world as the waters receded. As far as I know, Christian creationist "experts" disagree with each other about the Earth's terrain before the flood, but they all agree that there has been no serious geological change since drainage started and Ararat poked out of the waters, or someone would probably have noted it. So it's safe to assume that deep, poorly drained, mountain valleys existed, and these should now have a nice, flat meadow floor with 300 feet of fine clay, in which there is a tumultuous jumble of bones and branches from animals and plants of all the geological ages, because in the creationist model, there is only one age, and it was the day before the doors swung shut on the Big Boat(tm).

stevaroni said:

gnome de net said: How would you expect the surface of the earth to appear if there hadn't been a flood of any size at any time?

Well, I know one thing I'd expect to find if there had been a worldwide flood. In the story of Noah, every living thing that is not on the Ark dies in the same week. Every dinosaur, donkey, and Douglas fir expires in one geological moment, and all that stuff would be expected to float around and get trapped in the poorly-drained mountain basins of the world as the waters receded. As far as I know, Christian creationist "experts" disagree with each other about the Earth's terrain before the flood, but they all agree that there has been no serious geological change since drainage started and Ararat poked out of the waters, or someone would probably have noted it. So it's safe to assume that deep, poorly drained, mountain valleys existed, and these should now have a nice, flat meadow floor with 300 feet of fine clay, in which there is a tumultuous jumble of bones and branches from animals and plants of all the geological ages, because in the creationist model, there is only one age, and it was the day before the doors swung shut on the Big Boat(tm).

Creationist excuses for this and that about the world share the same feature: they are all ad hoc. They don't even have to relate to the literal text of the Bible. (For example, the Bible doesn't mention Mount Ararat - that mountain didn't get that name until after the Bible was written.) Don't expect consistency, let alone plausibility.

Ray Martinez said: In reality, evolution hasn't occurred until one can show HOW it occurred.

My parents share alleles and chromosomes with their parents and so do I. Such are the rules of descent. Given that humans share alleles and chromosomes with chimpanzees, gorillas, and other mammals the only logical conclusion is shared descent.

The above comments ASSUME mere discovery of similarity means evolution has occurred. Again, assumption is not evidence. A Divine Matermind could have created this way (similarity, affinity). In fact that is exactly what Genesis says: living things are observed good, the same implies creation of another similar good thing. And again, the importance of showing causation/how evolution occurs looms large. Ray (species immutabilist)

stevaroni said:

gnome de net said: How would you expect the surface of the earth to appear if there hadn't been a flood of any size at any time?

Well, I know one thing I'd expect to find if there had been a worldwide flood. In the story of Noah, every living thing that is not on the Ark dies in the same week. Every dinosaur, donkey, and Douglas fir expires in one geological moment, and all that stuff would be expected to float around and get trapped in the poorly-drained mountain basins of the world as the waters receded. As far as I know, Christian creationist "experts" disagree with each other about the Earth's terrain before the flood, but they all agree that there has been no serious geological change since drainage started and Ararat poked out of the waters, or someone would probably have noted it. So it's safe to assume that deep, poorly drained, mountain valleys existed, and these should now have a nice, flat meadow floor with 300 feet of fine clay, in which there is a tumultuous jumble of bones and branches from animals and plants of all the geological ages, because in the creationist model, there is only one age, and it was the day before the doors swung shut on the Big Boat(tm).

A big world of ideas exists out there and Ray just ignores it. Perhaps some reading on the Enlightenment in Scotland would be in order - most of which took place in church circles and was not antithetical to Christianity. Ray sets up a silly dichotomy - if God, no evolution and if evolution, no God - that need not be true.

Yeah, what if there's a God but she doesn't share their distaste for evolution?

Henry J said: Yeah, what if there's a God but she doesn't share their distaste for evolution?

TomS said:

Henry J said: Yeah, what if there's a God but she doesn't share their distaste for evolution?

Among the lists of things we aren't supposed to do, there is no mention of "Don't think about evolution."

Michael Fugate said: Ray's claim to be an immutabilist is a modern anti-evolution stance. There is little evidence immutability was a pre-evolutionary concept. Individuals who lived with and observed animals and plants knew that there were more similarities than differences. Early agriculturalists exploited the natural variation to produce domesticated plants and animals. Morphology was not fixed and could and could be changed.

Ray Martinez said: In reality, evolution hasn't occurred until one can show HOW it occurred.

TomS said: Creationist excuses for this and that about the world share the same feature: they are all ad hoc. They don't even have to relate to the literal text of the Bible. (For example, the Bible doesn't mention Mount Ararat - that mountain didn't get that name until after the Bible was written.) Don't expect consistency, let alone plausibility.

Scott F said:

Ray Martinez said:

TomS said:

Ray Martinez said: In reality, evolution hasn't occurred until one can show HOW it occurred.

First of all, evolution occurs. One can see it occurring.

If true then you should have no trouble posting YouTubes showing evolution occurring in real time....LOL!

Ray has the same problem that Robert has, as do all Creationists. If he can't see it happen in real time, if it doesn't happen in front of his eyes before he gets bored and turns away, it doesn't happen. He relies on personal witness, or the "witness" of an accepted Authority. Period. That, to Ray, is what is called "evidence" (little "e"), and nothing else. The problem, Ray, is that you don't understand the concept of Deep Time. Let me put it to you this way. Using your logic, if you can't provide a YouTube video of you being born, and growing from an infant to an adult, you simply have no proof that you existed before last Thursday.

Ray Martinez said:

TomS said: Creationist excuses for this and that about the world share the same feature: they are all ad hoc. They don't even have to relate to the literal text of the Bible. (For example, the Bible doesn't mention Mount Ararat - that mountain didn't get that name until after the Bible was written.) Don't expect consistency, let alone plausibility.

Concerning Mount Ararat: Yes, this is true. The original Hebrew says "highest mountain," which could only mean Mount Everest. The search for Noah's Ark should be relocated to Mount Everest. Ray

Ray Martinez said:

Scott F said:

Ray Martinez said:

TomS said:

Ray Martinez said: In reality, evolution hasn't occurred until one can show HOW it occurred.

First of all, evolution occurs. One can see it occurring.

If true then you should have no trouble posting YouTubes showing evolution occurring in real time....LOL!

Ray has the same problem that Robert has, as do all Creationists. If he can't see it happen in real time, if it doesn't happen in front of his eyes before he gets bored and turns away, it doesn't happen. He relies on personal witness, or the "witness" of an accepted Authority. Period. That, to Ray, is what is called "evidence" (little "e"), and nothing else. The problem, Ray, is that you don't understand the concept of Deep Time. Let me put it to you this way. Using your logic, if you can't provide a YouTube video of you being born, and growing from an infant to an adult, you simply have no proof that you existed before last Thursday.

Another Darwinian Black Box: "deep time." Darwinists invoke this concept to explain just about everything: "It all happened long ago when no one was around to see. Species change into different species; when deep time is involved anything can and did happen---it's just so." Ray

DS said: Sorry. The world is not "overrun" with water. In fact, I'm standing on dry land right now. You sure are crazy Ray.

Ray Martinez said:

DS said: Sorry. The world is not "overrun" with water. In fact, I'm standing on dry land right now. You sure are crazy Ray.

When viewing earth from the sky or outer space one sees a predominantly blue watery planet. And the surface is, in fact, three-quarters water. And the remaining one-quarter of dry land contains very many rivers and lakes. So the current surface of earth looks exactly like it should if a worldwide flood occurred recently. Herein is all the evidence we need to see that the Book of Genesis is historically and scientifically correct regarding a catastrophic flood. In antediluvian times, if one stood on a bridge and looked up one would see what we see today when we stand on a bridge and look down: water. So when the Bible says it rained the same means the water canopy broke hence the Deluge. As for my dating of 3140 BC it is derived from Biblical chronology, ANE archaeology, and history. Ray (OEC)

Ray Martinez said:

Scott F said:

Ray Martinez said:

TomS said:

Ray Martinez said: In reality, evolution hasn't occurred until one can show HOW it occurred.

First of all, evolution occurs. One can see it occurring.

If true then you should have no trouble posting YouTubes showing evolution occurring in real time....LOL!

Ray has the same problem that Robert has, as do all Creationists. If he can't see it happen in real time, if it doesn't happen in front of his eyes before he gets bored and turns away, it doesn't happen. He relies on personal witness, or the "witness" of an accepted Authority. Period. That, to Ray, is what is called "evidence" (little "e"), and nothing else. The problem, Ray, is that you don't understand the concept of Deep Time. Let me put it to you this way. Using your logic, if you can't provide a YouTube video of you being born, and growing from an infant to an adult, you simply have no proof that you existed before last Thursday.

Another Darwinian Black Box: "deep time." Darwinists invoke this concept to explain just about everything: "It all happened long ago when no one was around to see. Species change into different species; when deep time is involved anything can and did happen---it's just so." Ray

DS said:

Ray Martinez said:

DS said: Sorry. The world is not "overrun" with water. In fact, I'm standing on dry land right now. You sure are crazy Ray.

When viewing earth from the sky or outer space one sees a predominantly blue watery planet. And the surface is, in fact, three-quarters water. And the remaining one-quarter of dry land contains very many rivers and lakes. So the current surface of earth looks exactly like it should if a worldwide flood occurred recently. Herein is all the evidence we need to see that the Book of Genesis is historically and scientifically correct regarding a catastrophic flood. In antediluvian times, if one stood on a bridge and looked up one would see what we see today when we stand on a bridge and look down: water. So when the Bible says it rained the same means the water canopy broke hence the Deluge. As for my dating of 3140 BC it is derived from Biblical chronology, ANE archaeology, and history. Ray (OEC)

Really Ray? Really? The fact that the earth is not currently completely covered in water is evidence that it once was! Really? So exactly what would the earth look like if it were not once completely covered in water? EXACTLY THE WAY IT LOOKS TODAY. You can lie about it and make up all sorts of crazy stuff, but all real geologists agree. You are just plain wrong.

Ray Martinez said: May I remind that Naturalism guarantees anti-supernatural conclusions.

DS said: Sorry Ray. Wrong again. Do you know what people found when they first started sequencing DNA? They found that the evolutionary relationships revealed through the DNA sequences were exactly the same as those derived from comparative morphology and from the fossil record. Imagine that! Dramatic confirmation not only of deep time, but of the fact of descent with modification. Now no creationist has any explanation whatsoever for this nested hierarchy of genetic relationships, nor can they even begin to explain why it extends to all sorts of molecular characters that are not subject to selection and still show the same pattern....[snip]....

First DS said [again]: Sorry. The world is not "overrun" with water. In fact, I'm standing on dry land right now. You sure are crazy Ray.

Then Ray Martinez said [again]: When viewing earth from the sky or outer space one sees a predominantly blue watery planet. And the surface is, in fact, three-quarters water. And the remaining one-quarter of dry land contains very many rivers and lakes. So the current surface of earth looks exactly like it should if a worldwide flood occurred recently. Herein is all the evidence we need to see that the Book of Genesis is historically and scientifically correct regarding a catastrophic flood. [emphasis added]

Ray Martinez said:

DS said: Sorry Ray. Wrong again. Do you know what people found when they first started sequencing DNA? They found that the evolutionary relationships revealed through the DNA sequences were exactly the same as those derived from comparative morphology and from the fossil record. Imagine that! Dramatic confirmation not only of deep time, but of the fact of descent with modification. Now no creationist has any explanation whatsoever for this nested hierarchy of genetic relationships, nor can they even begin to explain why it extends to all sorts of molecular characters that are not subject to selection and still show the same pattern....[snip]....

The collective claim seen above ASSUMES mere discovery of similarity MEANS evolution and common descent HAS occurred. Assumption, as we all know, is not evidence. Common descent and evolution has only occurred IF one can show HOW it occurred. Absent causation discovery of similarity is evidence supporting the work of one Divine [Mastermind] because when Darwin published independent creation was the accepted scientific explanation of each species, past and present (Darwin "On The Origin" 1859:6; London: John Murray).

gnome de net said: 'Round and 'round and 'round we go:

First DS said [again]: Sorry. The world is not "overrun" with water. In fact, I'm standing on dry land right now. You sure are crazy Ray.

Then Ray Martinez said [again]: When viewing earth from the sky or outer space one sees a predominantly blue watery planet. And the surface is, in fact, three-quarters water. And the remaining one-quarter of dry land contains very many rivers and lakes. So the current surface of earth looks exactly like it should if a worldwide flood occurred recently. Herein is all the evidence we need to see that the Book of Genesis is historically and scientifically correct regarding a catastrophic flood. [emphasis added]

Now I say (again): What would you, Ray, expect the surface of the earth to look like if there hadn’t been any catastrophic flood?

Ray Martinez said:

DS said: Sorry Ray. Wrong again. Do you know what people found when they first started sequencing DNA? They found that the evolutionary relationships revealed through the DNA sequences were exactly the same as those derived from comparative morphology and from the fossil record. Imagine that! Dramatic confirmation not only of deep time, but of the fact of descent with modification. Now no creationist has any explanation whatsoever for this nested hierarchy of genetic relationships, nor can they even begin to explain why it extends to all sorts of molecular characters that are not subject to selection and still show the same pattern....[snip]....

The collective claim seen above ASSUMES mere discovery of similarity MEANS evolution and common descent HAS occurred. Assumption, as we all know, is not evidence. Common descent and evolution has only occurred IF one can show HOW it occurred. Absent causation discovery of similarity is evidence supporting the work of one Divine Matermind because when Darwin published independent creation was the accepted scientific explanation of each species, past and present (Darwin "On The Origin" 1859:6; London: John Murray). Ray (OEC; species immutabilist)

Ray Martinez said:

gnome de net said: 'Round and 'round and 'round we go:

First DS said [again]: Sorry. The world is not "overrun" with water. In fact, I'm standing on dry land right now. You sure are crazy Ray.

Then Ray Martinez said [again]: When viewing earth from the sky or outer space one sees a predominantly blue watery planet. And the surface is, in fact, three-quarters water. And the remaining one-quarter of dry land contains very many rivers and lakes. So the current surface of earth looks exactly like it should if a worldwide flood occurred recently. Herein is all the evidence we need to see that the Book of Genesis is historically and scientifically correct regarding a catastrophic flood. [emphasis added]

Now I say (again): What would you, Ray, expect the surface of the earth to look like if there hadn’t been any catastrophic flood?

Way less than three-quarters aquatic. Ray (OEC)

DS said:

Ray Martinez said:

DS said: Sorry Ray. Wrong again. Do you know what people found when they first started sequencing DNA? They found that the evolutionary relationships revealed through the DNA sequences were exactly the same as those derived from comparative morphology and from the fossil record. Imagine that! Dramatic confirmation not only of deep time, but of the fact of descent with modification. Now no creationist has any explanation whatsoever for this nested hierarchy of genetic relationships, nor can they even begin to explain why it extends to all sorts of molecular characters that are not subject to selection and still show the same pattern....[snip]....

The collective claim seen above ASSUMES mere discovery of similarity MEANS evolution and common descent HAS occurred. Assumption, as we all know, is not evidence. Common descent and evolution has only occurred IF one can show HOW it occurred. Absent causation discovery of similarity is evidence supporting the work of one Divine Matermind because when Darwin published independent creation was the accepted scientific explanation of each species, past and present (Darwin "On The Origin" 1859:6; London: John Murray). Ray (OEC; species immutabilist)

No Ray. It means that ALL of the evidence collected since the theory of evolution was proposed is completely consistent with the predictions of evolution and is completely inconsistent with any creationist scenario. Do try to learn some basic logic at some point in your life.

DS said:

Ray Martinez said:

DS said: Sorry Ray. Wrong again. Do you know what people found when they first started sequencing DNA? They found that the evolutionary relationships revealed through the DNA sequences were exactly the same as those derived from comparative morphology and from the fossil record. Imagine that! Dramatic confirmation not only of deep time, but of the fact of descent with modification. Now no creationist has any explanation whatsoever for this nested hierarchy of genetic relationships, nor can they even begin to explain why it extends to all sorts of molecular characters that are not subject to selection and still show the same pattern....[snip]....

The collective claim seen above ASSUMES mere discovery of similarity MEANS evolution and common descent HAS occurred. Assumption, as we all know, is not evidence. Common descent and evolution has only occurred IF one can show HOW it occurred. Absent causation discovery of similarity is evidence supporting the work of one Divine Mastermind because when Darwin published independent creation was the accepted scientific explanation of each species, past and present (Darwin "On The Origin" 1859:6; London: John Murray). Ray (OEC; species immutabilist)

No Ray. It means that ALL of the evidence collected since the theory of evolution was proposed is completely consistent with the predictions of evolution and is completely inconsistent with any creationist scenario. Do try to learn some basic logic at some point in your life.

DS said: Do try to learn some basic logic at some point in your life.

Ray Martinez said: The collective claim seen above ASSUMES mere discovery of similarity MEANS evolution and common descent HAS occurred. Assumption, as we all know, is not evidence. Common descent and evolution has only occurred IF one can show HOW it occurred.

Absent causation discovery of similarity is evidence supporting the work of one Divine Matermind

DS said:

Ray Martinez said:

gnome de net said: 'Round and 'round and 'round we go:

First DS said [again]: Sorry. The world is not "overrun" with water. In fact, I'm standing on dry land right now. You sure are crazy Ray.

Then Ray Martinez said [again]: When viewing earth from the sky or outer space one sees a predominantly blue watery planet. And the surface is, in fact, three-quarters water. And the remaining one-quarter of dry land contains very many rivers and lakes. So the current surface of earth looks exactly like it should if a worldwide flood occurred recently. Herein is all the evidence we need to see that the Book of Genesis is historically and scientifically correct regarding a catastrophic flood. [emphasis added]

Now I say (again): What would you, Ray, expect the surface of the earth to look like if there hadn’t been any catastrophic flood?

Way less than three-quarters aquatic. Ray (OEC)

Really? Exactly why is that Ray? Did you just make shit up?

Ray Martinez said:

DS said:

Ray Martinez said:

DS said: Sorry Ray. Wrong again. Do you know what people found when they first started sequencing DNA? They found that the evolutionary relationships revealed through the DNA sequences were exactly the same as those derived from comparative morphology and from the fossil record. Imagine that! Dramatic confirmation not only of deep time, but of the fact of descent with modification. Now no creationist has any explanation whatsoever for this nested hierarchy of genetic relationships, nor can they even begin to explain why it extends to all sorts of molecular characters that are not subject to selection and still show the same pattern....[snip]....

The collective claim seen above ASSUMES mere discovery of similarity MEANS evolution and common descent HAS occurred. Assumption, as we all know, is not evidence. Common descent and evolution has only occurred IF one can show HOW it occurred. Absent causation discovery of similarity is evidence supporting the work of one Divine Mastermind because when Darwin published independent creation was the accepted scientific explanation of each species, past and present (Darwin "On The Origin" 1859:6; London: John Murray). Ray (OEC; species immutabilist)

No Ray. It means that ALL of the evidence collected since the theory of evolution was proposed is completely consistent with the predictions of evolution and is completely inconsistent with any creationist scenario. Do try to learn some basic logic at some point in your life.

Evasion of reply content noted (and we all know what that means). Ray (OEC)

DS said:

Ray Martinez said:

DS said:

Ray Martinez said:

DS said: Sorry Ray. Wrong again. Do you know what people found when they first started sequencing DNA? They found that the evolutionary relationships revealed through the DNA sequences were exactly the same as those derived from comparative morphology and from the fossil record. Imagine that! Dramatic confirmation not only of deep time, but of the fact of descent with modification. Now no creationist has any explanation whatsoever for this nested hierarchy of genetic relationships, nor can they even begin to explain why it extends to all sorts of molecular characters that are not subject to selection and still show the same pattern....[snip]....

The collective claim seen above ASSUMES mere discovery of similarity MEANS evolution and common descent HAS occurred. Assumption, as we all know, is not evidence. Common descent and evolution has only occurred IF one can show HOW it occurred. Absent causation discovery of similarity is evidence supporting the work of one Divine Mastermind because when Darwin published independent creation was the accepted scientific explanation of each species, past and present (Darwin "On The Origin" 1859:6; London: John Murray). Ray (OEC; species immutabilist)

No Ray. It means that ALL of the evidence collected since the theory of evolution was proposed is completely consistent with the predictions of evolution and is completely inconsistent with any creationist scenario. Do try to learn some basic logic at some point in your life.

Evasion of reply content noted (and we all know what that means). Ray (OEC)

Inability to use basic logic noted. (and we all know what that means).

Ray Martinez said:

DS said:

Ray Martinez said:

gnome de net said: 'Round and 'round and 'round we go:

First DS said [again]: Sorry. The world is not "overrun" with water. In fact, I'm standing on dry land right now. You sure are crazy Ray.

Then Ray Martinez said [again]: When viewing earth from the sky or outer space one sees a predominantly blue watery planet. And the surface is, in fact, three-quarters water. And the remaining one-quarter of dry land contains very many rivers and lakes. So the current surface of earth looks exactly like it should if a worldwide flood occurred recently. Herein is all the evidence we need to see that the Book of Genesis is historically and scientifically correct regarding a catastrophic flood. [emphasis added]

Now I say (again): What would you, Ray, expect the surface of the earth to look like if there hadn’t been any catastrophic flood?

Way less than three-quarters aquatic. Ray (OEC)

Really? Exactly why is that Ray? Did you just make shit up?

Since I'm arguing "overrun with water"---less than 50 percent. So now its your turn: How should surface of earth appear if a worldwide flood occurred recently?

Absent causation discovery of similarity is evidence supporting the work of one Divine Mastermind

Ray Martinez said:

DS said:

Ray Martinez said:

gnome de net said: 'Round and 'round and 'round we go:

First DS said [again]: Sorry. The world is not "overrun" with water. In fact, I'm standing on dry land right now. You sure are crazy Ray.

Then Ray Martinez said [again]: When viewing earth from the sky or outer space one sees a predominantly blue watery planet. And the surface is, in fact, three-quarters water. And the remaining one-quarter of dry land contains very many rivers and lakes. So the current surface of earth looks exactly like it should if a worldwide flood occurred recently. Herein is all the evidence we need to see that the Book of Genesis is historically and scientifically correct regarding a catastrophic flood. [emphasis added]

Now I say (again): What would you, Ray, expect the surface of the earth to look like if there hadn’t been any catastrophic flood?

Way less than three-quarters aquatic. Ray (OEC)

Really? Exactly why is that Ray? Did you just make shit up?

Since I'm arguing "overrun with water"---less than 50 percent. So now its your turn: How should surface of earth appear if a worldwide flood occurred recently?

DS said: Sorry Ray. Wrong again. Do you know what people found when they first started sequencing DNA? They found that the evolutionary relationships revealed through the DNA sequences were exactly the same as those derived from comparative morphology and from the fossil record. Imagine that! Dramatic confirmation not only of deep time, but of the fact of descent with modification. Now no creationist has any explanation whatsoever for this nested hierarchy of genetic relationships, nor can they even begin to explain why it extends to all sorts of molecular characters that are not subject to selection and still show the same pattern. But evolution explains all of the evidence and makes testable predictions about what should be found in the future. But you don't know anything about that do you Ray? You sure are crazy.

DS said: Until then we will pray for you. Well maybe some of us will anyway.

Oh, almost forgot. There would be no Grand Canyon, there would be no ANtarctic ice cores, there would be not trees and no tree rings, there would be no sediments in :Lake Biakal. In short, none of the evidence that there was world wide flood would exist. But it does. And Ray has absolutely no explanation for any of it. Go FIgure

Ray Martinez said: Note the fact that DS evaded/misrepresented what I said. And could one expect post-1859 geology, that is, geologists completely loyal to Naturalism, to ever conclude for a supernatural claim (worldwide flood)? May I remind that Naturalism guarantees anti-supernatural conclusions. Ray (OEC)

DS said: Oh, almost forgot. There would be no Grand Canyon, there would be no ANtarctic ice cores, there would be not trees and no tree rings, there would be no sediments in :Lake Biakal. In short, none of the evidence that there was world wide flood would exist. But it does. And Ray has absolutely no explanation for any of it. Go FIgure

And of course, if the earth were completely covered in water higher that the highest mountain only a few thousand years ago, there would be no aquatic creatures left alive either. If the water were fresh water, all the marine organisms would have died. If the water were salt water, all of the marine organisms would have died. Probably all aquatic organisms woulds have died regardless. Unless of course they were rescued by the magic boat. I could have had large aquaria, couldn't it? And all this to teach a few pesky humans to behave. How did that work out?

DS said:

Ray Martinez said:

DS said:

Ray Martinez said:

gnome de net said: 'Round and 'round and 'round we go:

First DS said [again]: Sorry. The world is not "overrun" with water. In fact, I'm standing on dry land right now. You sure are crazy Ray.

Then Ray Martinez said [again]: When viewing earth from the sky or outer space one sees a predominantly blue watery planet. And the surface is, in fact, three-quarters water. And the remaining one-quarter of dry land contains very many rivers and lakes. So the current surface of earth looks exactly like it should if a worldwide flood occurred recently. Herein is all the evidence we need to see that the Book of Genesis is historically and scientifically correct regarding a catastrophic flood. [emphasis added]

Now I say (again): What would you, Ray, expect the surface of the earth to look like if there hadn’t been any catastrophic flood?

Way less than three-quarters aquatic. Ray (OEC)

Really? Exactly why is that Ray? Did you just make shit up?

Since I'm arguing "overrun with water"---less than 50 percent. So now its your turn: How should surface of earth appear if a worldwide flood occurred recently?

Well that's easy. If the earth had been completely covered in water miles deep only a few thousand years ago, IT WOULD STILL BE COVERED IN WATER. Probably at least hundreds of meters deep. There would be no terrestrial plants left alive, so there would probably be no terrestrial animals either, even if there were some small piece of dry land for them to live on. Everything that was terrestrial would have died out, even the few animals that might have survived on a boat. And there would be layer of sediment, probably thousands of meters thick, chock full of the dead bodies of every different kind of creature both terrestrial and aquatic all mixed together. There would NOT be the kind of stratified layers we actually find around the world today. And the earth would probably be very flat, the mountains would have all been worn down. I could keep on going, but you get the idea, it would be a completely different world for both biology and geology. Now Ray, if you were not blinded by supernatural preconceptions, you would be able to see this clearly. When you are able to do so, just let us know. Until then we will pray for you. Well maybe some of us will anyway.

Hey Ray, when did I say I was an atheist? You are just assuming that. Now that you can't address the evidence, you have to attack the presenter of the evidence. Noted. But it doesn't matter Ray. Not all geologists are atheists. Not all scientists are atheists. Your preconceptions are showing.

By the way, your good buddy Floyd has been trashing up the bathroom wall saying the earth is young. Why don't you go set him straight Ray? You know, show the evidence that convinced you the earth is old. I guarantee he isn't blinded by atheism.

Mutual exclusivity is a BASIC fact of logic.

Ray Martinez said: Dembski, of course, is confused. He actually believes design and evolution are not mutually exclusive.

Yet every Darwinian scientist completely rejects the concept of design existing in nature.

Natural selection is a perfectly good non-intelligent designer. So design and evolution are perfectly compatible.
Read Dennett's "Darwin's strange inversion of reasoning" to find out more.

Mike Elzinga said:

Ray Martinez said: Note the fact that DS evaded/misrepresented what I said. And could one expect post-1859 geology, that is, geologists completely loyal to Naturalism, to ever conclude for a supernatural claim (worldwide flood)? May I remind that Naturalism guarantees anti-supernatural conclusions. Ray (OEC)

Note the pseudo philosophical rationalization going on here. All ID/creationists do it. If they can't understand the science (none of them can)....

....or answer the scientific evidence, then they jump immediately into pseudo "metaphysics" in order to concoct and "argument" that justifies their complete ignorance of and rejection of all science. "Naturalism" is a code word for evil knowledge just as atheist is a code word for an evil person with no moral compass. Naturalism BAD. Atheism BAD. Hate, hate, hate; avoid, avoid, avoid.

Such are the shibboleths of the fundamentalists behind this demonizing of everything secular and anyone who doesn't hold to their sectarian dogma. They get this from their church pulpits and Sunday schools. The bottom line here is that Ray, just like his cohorts in the fundamentalist world, is very poorly educated; he mucks up philosophy just as badly as he mucks up science, and anyone who points that out is a condescending snob. In his subculture, anybody who is educated is a snob. This is Ray's fundamentalist subculture and his upbringing. We've seen all this many times before. Fundamentalists are among the first to swoop in and attempt to sabotage the educations of other people's kids.

ANd I bet he's the only true Scotsman as well.

DS said: Hey Ray, when did I say I was an atheist? You are just assuming that. Now that you can't address the evidence, you have to attack the presenter of the evidence. Noted. But it doesn't matter Ray. Not all geologists are atheists. Not all scientists are atheists. Your preconceptions are showing. By the way, your good buddy Floyd has been trashing up the bathroom wall saying the earth is young. Why don't you go set him straight Ray? You know, show the evidence that convinced you the earth is old. I guarantee he isn't blinded by atheism.

Go ahead, Ray, prove to us that your gods are real, and not products of your apparent delusional illness.

In order to do that, you must provide testable evidence for the reality of your gods.

But neither you nor any of your coreligionists can do that.

Despite the fact that all we know to be real - everything from apples to zebras, from cosmic background radiation to the Higgs boson - we know because of such evidence, you and your fellow sufferers of religious delusional disorder cannot provide a single, solitary bit of such evidence that your gods are real, and not religious delusions.

BTW design is not the same as creation. One can believe in one and not the other.
And one can accept one and not see that as being evidence for the other.

Ray Martinez said: YECs are too stupid to argue with.

Ray Martinez said:

DS said: Hey Ray, when did I say I was an atheist? You are just assuming that. Now that you can't address the evidence, you have to attack the presenter of the evidence. Noted. But it doesn't matter Ray. Not all geologists are atheists. Not all scientists are atheists. Your preconceptions are showing. By the way, your good buddy Floyd has been trashing up the bathroom wall saying the earth is young. Why don't you go set him straight Ray? You know, show the evidence that convinced you the earth is old. I guarantee he isn't blinded by atheism.

YECs are too stupid to argue with. That's the hallmark of Fundamentalism: inexcusable stupidity. In short: Can ANYONE produce (listen closely) any verse, statement, or word IN the Bible that says or indicates a young earth? Waiting..... Ray (Christian OEC)

W. H. Heydt said:

Ray Martinez said: Another Darwinian Black Box: "deep time." Darwinists invoke this concept to explain just about everything: "It all happened long ago when no one was around to see. Species change into different species; when deep time is involved anything can and did happen---it's just so." Ray

You've said you're an OEC....*how* old an Earth do you assume? And how old do you hold life on Earth to be?

DS said: And of course, if the earth were completely covered in water higher that the highest mountain only a few thousand years ago, there would be no aquatic creatures left alive either. If the water were fresh water, all the marine organisms would have died. If the water were salt water, all of the marine organisms would have died. Probably all aquatic organisms woulds have died regardless. Unless of course they were rescued by the magic boat. I could have had large aquaria, couldn't it? And all this to teach a few pesky humans to behave. How did that work out?

DS said: ANd I bet he's the only true Scotsman as well.

Dave Thomas said:

W. H. Heydt said:

Ray Martinez said: Another Darwinian Black Box: "deep time." Darwinists invoke this concept to explain just about everything: "It all happened long ago when no one was around to see. Species change into different species; when deep time is involved anything can and did happen---it's just so." Ray

You've said you're an OEC....*how* old an Earth do you assume? And how old do you hold life on Earth to be?

Hey, Ray! HOW OLD DO YOU THINK THE EARTH IS? While you're at it, go way back to page 8. Last we saw, we had pretty well thrashed your feeble attempt to wiggle your way out of the "Assuming the Consequent" logical fallacy. Got any more poster child fallacies to post? My summer semester lecture on fallacies is tomorrow, time's a wastin'!

Ray Martinez said:

Dave Thomas said:

W. H. Heydt said:

Ray Martinez said: Another Darwinian Black Box: "deep time." Darwinists invoke this concept to explain just about everything: "It all happened long ago when no one was around to see. Species change into different species; when deep time is involved anything can and did happen---it's just so." Ray

You've said you're an OEC....*how* old an Earth do you assume? And how old do you hold life on Earth to be?

Hey, Ray! HOW OLD DO YOU THINK THE EARTH IS? While you're at it, go way back to page 8. Last we saw, we had pretty well thrashed your feeble attempt to wiggle your way out of the "Assuming the Consequent" logical fallacy. Got any more poster child fallacies to post? My summer semester lecture on fallacies is tomorrow, time's a wastin'!

At least 100 million years old. Because all radio dating techniques are horribly unreliable, all we can say is the figure accepted by science before the advent of these techniques. And anyone can scroll back and fact check that your Affirming the Consequent claim was handily shot down. I'm sorry but the existence of other explanations cannot be included in a fallacy identification counter-claim. Ray (OEC)

Ray Martinez said:

Dave Thomas said:

W. H. Heydt said:

Ray Martinez said: Another Darwinian Black Box: "deep time." Darwinists invoke this concept to explain just about everything: "It all happened long ago when no one was around to see. Species change into different species; when deep time is involved anything can and did happen---it's just so." Ray

You've said you're an OEC....*how* old an Earth do you assume? And how old do you hold life on Earth to be?

Hey, Ray! HOW OLD DO YOU THINK THE EARTH IS? While you're at it, go way back to page 8. Last we saw, we had pretty well thrashed your feeble attempt to wiggle your way out of the "Assuming the Consequent" logical fallacy. Got any more poster child fallacies to post? My summer semester lecture on fallacies is tomorrow, time's a wastin'!

At least 100 million years old. Because all radio dating techniques are horribly unreliable, all we can say is the figure accepted by science before the advent of these techniques. And anyone can scroll back and fact check that your Affirming the Consequent claim was handily shot down. I'm sorry but the existence of other explanations cannot be included in a fallacy identification counter-claim. Ray (OEC)

Ray Martinez said:

Dave Thomas said:

W. H. Heydt said:

Ray Martinez said: Another Darwinian Black Box: "deep time." Darwinists invoke this concept to explain just about everything: "It all happened long ago when no one was around to see. Species change into different species; when deep time is involved anything can and did happen---it's just so." Ray

You've said you're an OEC....*how* old an Earth do you assume? And how old do you hold life on Earth to be?

Hey, Ray! HOW OLD DO YOU THINK THE EARTH IS? While you're at it, go way back to page 8. Last we saw, we had pretty well thrashed your feeble attempt to wiggle your way out of the "Assuming the Consequent" logical fallacy. Got any more poster child fallacies to post? My summer semester lecture on fallacies is tomorrow, time's a wastin'!

At least 100 million years old. Because all radio dating techniques are horribly unreliable, all we can say is the figure accepted by science before the advent of these techniques. And anyone can scroll back and fact check that your Affirming the Consequent claim was handily shot down. I'm sorry but the existence of other explanations cannot be included in a fallacy identification counter-claim. Ray (OEC)

Dave Thomas said:

Ray Martinez said:

Dave Thomas said:

W. H. Heydt said:

Ray Martinez said: Another Darwinian Black Box: "deep time." Darwinists invoke this concept to explain just about everything: "It all happened long ago when no one was around to see. Species change into different species; when deep time is involved anything can and did happen---it's just so." Ray

You've said you're an OEC....*how* old an Earth do you assume? And how old do you hold life on Earth to be?

Hey, Ray! HOW OLD DO YOU THINK THE EARTH IS? While you're at it, go way back to page 8. Last we saw, we had pretty well thrashed your feeble attempt to wiggle your way out of the "Assuming the Consequent" logical fallacy. Got any more poster child fallacies to post? My summer semester lecture on fallacies is tomorrow, time's a wastin'!

At least 100 million years old. Because all radio dating techniques are horribly unreliable, all we can say is the figure accepted by science before the advent of these techniques. And anyone can scroll back and fact check that your Affirming the Consequent claim was handily shot down. I'm sorry but the existence of other explanations cannot be included in a fallacy identification counter-claim. Ray (OEC)

Thanks for the age estimate. I must disagree with your assertion that "your Affirming the Consequent claim was handily shot down." It wasn't shot down at all. You have yet to respond to my discussion with anything resembling logical thought or reasoned discourse. Are you confusing ignoring things with shooting them down?

Like all followers of ID/creationism, Ray can't recognize his own "intellectual" history. Henry Morris and Duane Gish gave him and the ID/creationist movement nearly all of their scientific misconceptions and misrepresentations. The ID crowd simply inherited those misconceptions and misrepresentations when attempting to court-proof their sectarian dogma for the public schools while also trying to appear "more scholarly."

Ray recites all these misconceptions and misrepresentations by rote; but he tries to distance himself from the YECs who gave him his "intellectual" heritage in the first place.

It is fairly easy to figure out his general educational background and where he goes off the rails. Like all ID/creationists, he derailed himself back in middle school and failed to learn any science ever since.

The ID/creationist leaders from whom he got his "education" have letters after their names; but they all have extremely poor educations. The letters are for establishing their "authority" in Ray's sectarian subculture; they couldn't care less about any science. Ray seems to be disappointed in Dembski who is showing some apparent glimmer of abandoning his prior "intellectual efforts."

Ray is apparently attempting to establish himself as a "guru" of the ID/creationist movement, unaware of the fact that, at his core, he thinks just like they do. It's just another example of kooky-cutter "individualism" in the ID/creationist movement in which the members all have exactly the same wrong concepts on which to build their "science."

DS said:

Ray Martinez said:

Dave Thomas said:

W. H. Heydt said:

Ray Martinez said: Another Darwinian Black Box: "deep time." Darwinists invoke this concept to explain just about everything: "It all happened long ago when no one was around to see. Species change into different species; when deep time is involved anything can and did happen---it's just so." Ray

You've said you're an OEC....*how* old an Earth do you assume? And how old do you hold life on Earth to be?

Hey, Ray! HOW OLD DO YOU THINK THE EARTH IS? While you're at it, go way back to page 8. Last we saw, we had pretty well thrashed your feeble attempt to wiggle your way out of the "Assuming the Consequent" logical fallacy. Got any more poster child fallacies to post? My summer semester lecture on fallacies is tomorrow, time's a wastin'!

At least 100 million years old. Because all radio dating techniques are horribly unreliable, all we can say is the figure accepted by science before the advent of these techniques. And anyone can scroll back and fact check that your Affirming the Consequent claim was handily shot down. I'm sorry but the existence of other explanations cannot be included in a fallacy identification counter-claim. Ray (OEC)

Sorry, wrong again. IN fact, several independent methods yield completely congruent results. So you are just ignoring reality again. I guess you think that everyone a few hundred years ago got it right and everybody since then got it wrong. Really? What did they all get the naturalistic disease? All of them? Really? You do know that radio isotope dating is not the only evidence that the earth is billions of years old don;t you? If you are willing to accept millions of years,m why not accept billions? It won't affect your faith, or lack thereof.

fnxtr said: I have yet to hear/read a creationist reality denier explain why radioisotope dating is unreliable. Is it the material used? If so, how, exactly? The equipment? If so ditto. The methods? Likewise. Or is it just that atomic theory is just wrong?

Mike Elzinga said: Ray seems to be disappointed in Dembski who is showing some apparent glimmer of abandoning his prior "intellectual efforts."

PaulBC said: He (Dembski) has such a perfect “probing intellect” pose they’d (creationists) be crazy to drop him.

Mike Elzinga said:

fnxtr said: I have yet to hear/read a creationist reality denier explain why radioisotope dating is unreliable. Is it the material used? If so, how, exactly? The equipment? If so ditto. The methods? Likewise. Or is it just that atomic theory is just wrong?

Go over to the website of the Institute for Creation Research and browse through the writings of its founders, Henry Morris and Duane Gish.

Ray Martinez said:

Dave Thomas said:

W. H. Heydt said:

Ray Martinez said: Another Darwinian Black Box: "deep time." Darwinists invoke this concept to explain just about everything: "It all happened long ago when no one was around to see. Species change into different species; when deep time is involved anything can and did happen---it's just so." Ray

You've said you're an OEC....*how* old an Earth do you assume? And how old do you hold life on Earth to be?

Hey, Ray! HOW OLD DO YOU THINK THE EARTH IS? While you're at it, go way back to page 8. Last we saw, we had pretty well thrashed your feeble attempt to wiggle your way out of the "Assuming the Consequent" logical fallacy. Got any more poster child fallacies to post? My summer semester lecture on fallacies is tomorrow, time's a wastin'!

At least 100 million years old. Because all radio dating techniques are horribly unreliable, all we can say is the figure accepted by science before the advent of these techniques. Ray (OEC)

W. H. Heydt said:

Ray Martinez said:

Dave Thomas said:

W. H. Heydt said:

Ray Martinez said: Another Darwinian Black Box: "deep time." Darwinists invoke this concept to explain just about everything: "It all happened long ago when no one was around to see. Species change into different species; when deep time is involved anything can and did happen---it's just so." Ray

You've said you're an OEC....*how* old an Earth do you assume? And how old do you hold life on Earth to be?

Hey, Ray! HOW OLD DO YOU THINK THE EARTH IS? While you're at it, go way back to page 8. Last we saw, we had pretty well thrashed your feeble attempt to wiggle your way out of the "Assuming the Consequent" logical fallacy. Got any more poster child fallacies to post? My summer semester lecture on fallacies is tomorrow, time's a wastin'!

At least 100 million years old. Because all radio dating techniques are horribly unreliable, all we can say is the figure accepted by science before the advent of these techniques. Ray (OEC)

Need I point out that "at lest 100 million years" is NOT inconsistent with 4.55 billion years? As for your assertion of the unreliability of radiometric dating...you can state what the error bars are and *precisely* why the error bars are what you say, with experimental evidence to back up you figures...right?

Ray said: The Fundies, like all Atheists, accept the concepts of natural selection, microevolution, and macroevolution existing in nature.

Mike Elzinga said:

Ray Martinez said: Note the fact that DS evaded/misrepresented what I said. And could one expect post-1859 geology, that is, geologists completely loyal to Naturalism, to ever conclude for a supernatural claim (worldwide flood)? May I remind that Naturalism guarantees anti-supernatural conclusions. Ray (OEC)

Note the pseudo philosophical rationalization going on here. All ID/creationists do it. If they can't understand the science (none of them can) or answer the scientific evidence, then they jump immediately into pseudo "metaphysics" in order to concoct and "argument" that justifies their complete ignorance of and rejection of all science. "Naturalism" is a code word for evil knowledge just as atheist is a code word for an evil person with no moral compass. Naturalism BAD. Atheism BAD. Hate, hate, hate; avoid, avoid, avoid. Such are the shibboleths of the fundamentalists behind this demonizing of everything secular and anyone who doesn't hold to their sectarian dogma. They get this from their church pulpits and Sunday schools. The bottom line here is that Ray, just like his cohorts in the fundamentalist world, is very poorly educated; he mucks up philosophy just as badly as he mucks up science, and anyone who points that out is a condescending snob. In his subculture, anybody who is educated is a snob. This is Ray's fundamentalist subculture and his upbringing. We've seen all this many times before. Fundamentalists are among the first to swoop in and attempt to sabotage the educations of other people's kids.

Malcolm said: Don't forget that Ray has a magic book that says that Ray is right. Everything else is completely irrelevant. Magic book says so.

TomS said:

W. H. Heydt said:

Ray Martinez said:

Dave Thomas said:

W. H. Heydt said:

Ray Martinez said: Another Darwinian Black Box: "deep time." Darwinists invoke this concept to explain just about everything: "It all happened long ago when no one was around to see. Species change into different species; when deep time is involved anything can and did happen---it's just so." Ray

You've said you're an OEC....*how* old an Earth do you assume? And how old do you hold life on Earth to be?

Hey, Ray! HOW OLD DO YOU THINK THE EARTH IS? While you're at it, go way back to page 8. Last we saw, we had pretty well thrashed your feeble attempt to wiggle your way out of the "Assuming the Consequent" logical fallacy. Got any more poster child fallacies to post? My summer semester lecture on fallacies is tomorrow, time's a wastin'!

At least 100 million years old. Because all radio dating techniques are horribly unreliable, all we can say is the figure accepted by science before the advent of these techniques. Ray (OEC)

Need I point out that "at lest 100 million years" is NOT inconsistent with 4.55 billion years? As for your assertion of the unreliability of radiometric dating...you can state what the error bars are and *precisely* why the error bars are what you say, with experimental evidence to back up you figures...right?

The most famous of the late 19th century scientists who presented an age of the Earth, Lord Kelvin, ended up with something like 20 t0 40 million years.

Ray Martinez said:

Dave Thomas said:

W. H. Heydt said:

Ray Martinez said: Another Darwinian Black Box: "deep time." Darwinists invoke this concept to explain just about everything: "It all happened long ago when no one was around to see. Species change into different species; when deep time is involved anything can and did happen---it's just so." Ray

You've said you're an OEC....*how* old an Earth do you assume? And how old do you hold life on Earth to be?

Hey, Ray! HOW OLD DO YOU THINK THE EARTH IS? While you're at it, go way back to page 8. Last we saw, we had pretty well thrashed your feeble attempt to wiggle your way out of the "Assuming the Consequent" logical fallacy. Got any more poster child fallacies to post? My summer semester lecture on fallacies is tomorrow, time's a wastin'!

At least 100 million years old. Because all radio dating techniques are horribly unreliable, all we can say is the figure accepted by science before the advent of these techniques. And anyone can scroll back and fact check that your Affirming the Consequent claim was handily shot down. I'm sorry but the existence of other explanations cannot be included in a fallacy identification counter-claim. Ray (OEC)

Malcolm said: Ray may see himself as very different to Floyd, but they seem to have the same way of arguing; State something stunningly stupid. Have someone show exactly why what he just said was stupid. Ignore response. Claim victory.

Malcolm said:

Mike Elzinga said:

Ray Martinez said: Note the fact that DS evaded/misrepresented what I said. And could one expect post-1859 geology, that is, geologists completely loyal to Naturalism, to ever conclude for a supernatural claim (worldwide flood)? May I remind that Naturalism guarantees anti-supernatural conclusions. Ray (OEC)

Note the pseudo philosophical rationalization going on here. All ID/creationists do it. If they can't understand the science (none of them can) or answer the scientific evidence, then they jump immediately into pseudo "metaphysics" in order to concoct and "argument" that justifies their complete ignorance of and rejection of all science. "Naturalism" is a code word for evil knowledge just as atheist is a code word for an evil person with no moral compass. Naturalism BAD. Atheism BAD. Hate, hate, hate; avoid, avoid, avoid. Such are the shibboleths of the fundamentalists behind this demonizing of everything secular and anyone who doesn't hold to their sectarian dogma. They get this from their church pulpits and Sunday schools. The bottom line here is that Ray, just like his cohorts in the fundamentalist world, is very poorly educated; he mucks up philosophy just as badly as he mucks up science, and anyone who points that out is a condescending snob. In his subculture, anybody who is educated is a snob. This is Ray's fundamentalist subculture and his upbringing. We've seen all this many times before. Fundamentalists are among the first to swoop in and attempt to sabotage the educations of other people's kids.

Don't forget that Ray has a magic book that says that Ray is right. Everything else is completely irrelevant. Magic book says so.

Ray Martinez said: When viewing earth from the sky or outer space one sees a predominantly blue watery planet. And the surface is, in fact, three-quarters water. And the remaining one-quarter of dry land contains very many rivers and lakes. So the current surface of earth looks exactly like it should if a worldwide flood occurred recently. Herein is all the evidence we need to see that the Book of Genesis is historically and scientifically correct regarding a catastrophic flood.

gnome de net then asked: What would you, Ray, expect the surface of the earth to look like if there hadn’t been any catastrophic flood?

And Ray Martinez replied: Way less than three-quarters aquatic. Ray (OEC)

Sure. But if you don't allow for unlimited magic it all falls apart.

Where did the all that water come from? Where did it all go? What did the animals eat on the ark? What did the animals eat after they got off the ark? How did anything else survive, that wasn't on the ark? And if so much could survive without being on the ark, why was the ark needed at all? Why is there absolutely no evidence that this ever happened? Why is there so much evidence that it never did happen? Why is there ample evidence for many local floods, but no evidence whatsoever for a supposedly global flood? Why are there written records from before the supposed flood? Why are there structures that still exist that are older than the so called "world wide" flood?

And then there are the genetic issues. Why is there genetic evidence that humans never faced a bottleneck this severe in their entire history? Why didn't humans die out due to inbreeding after they got off the ark? Why didn't all the animals die out due to inbreeding after they got off the ark? Why are there so many species of animals alive today if they all fit on the ark a few thousand years ago?

And even if you do allow for magic, it still doesn't make any sense. Why did god do it this way? Why kill everything just to punish humans? Why was every human worth saving in one family? Why not save some of the other people who helped build the boat? Why didn't it have the supposedly intended consequences? Why did god hide all the evidence? Was she ashamed of what she had done? If it didn't work, why did god promise not to do it again?

Dave Lovell said: What do you think has changed Ray since the end of the flood?

DS said: Sure. But if you don't allow for unlimited magic it all falls apart. Where did the all that water come from? Where did it all go? What did the animals eat on the ark? What did the animals eat after they got off the ark? How did anything else survive, that wasn't on the ark? And if so much could survive without being on the ark, why was the ark needed at all? Why is there absolutely no evidence that this ever happened? Why is there so much evidence that it never did happen? Why is there ample evidence for many local floods, but no evidence whatsoever for a supposedly global flood? Why are there written records from before the supposed flood? Why are there structures that still exist that are older than the so called "world wide" flood? And then there are the genetic issues. Why is there genetic evidence that humans never faced a bottleneck this severe in their entire history? Why didn't humans die out due to inbreeding after they got off the ark? Why didn't all the animals die out due to inbreeding after they got off the ark? Why are there so many species of animals alive today if they all fit on the ark a few thousand years ago? And even if you do allow for magic, it still doesn't make any sense. Why did god do it this way? Why kill everything just to punish humans? Why was every human worth saving in one family? Why not save some of the other people who helped build the boat? Why didn't it have the supposedly intended consequences? Why did god hide all the evidence? Was she ashamed of what she had done? If it didn't work, why did god promise not to do it again?

If one of Noah's pet birds went off and came back with a fresh leaf, how and where did the tree manage to grow? How did a tree grow in that short a time?

TomS said:

W. H. Heydt said:

Ray Martinez said:

Dave Thomas said:

W. H. Heydt said:

Ray Martinez said: Another Darwinian Black Box: "deep time." Darwinists invoke this concept to explain just about everything: "It all happened long ago when no one was around to see. Species change into different species; when deep time is involved anything can and did happen---it's just so." Ray

You've said you're an OEC....*how* old an Earth do you assume? And how old do you hold life on Earth to be?

Hey, Ray! HOW OLD DO YOU THINK THE EARTH IS? While you're at it, go way back to page 8. Last we saw, we had pretty well thrashed your feeble attempt to wiggle your way out of the "Assuming the Consequent" logical fallacy. Got any more poster child fallacies to post? My summer semester lecture on fallacies is tomorrow, time's a wastin'!

At least 100 million years old. Because all radio dating techniques are horribly unreliable, all we can say is the figure accepted by science before the advent of these techniques. Ray (OEC)

Need I point out that "at lest 100 million years" is NOT inconsistent with 4.55 billion years? As for your assertion of the unreliability of radiometric dating...you can state what the error bars are and *precisely* why the error bars are what you say, with experimental evidence to back up you figures...right?

The most famous of the late 19th century scientists who presented an age of the Earth, Lord Kelvin, ended up with something like 20 t0 40 million years.

TomS said: And, whatever answers one gives to such questions, what Scriptural backing is there? We know that there is no scientific or historical indications about what happened in the Flood, but there are no religious reasons. For example, what does it matter whether there was rapid micro-evolution in the few centuries after the Flood, or whether the Grand Canyon was carved out by the Flood?

Henry J said: If one of Noah's pet birds went off and came back with a fresh leaf, how and where did the tree manage to grow? How did a tree grow in that short a time?

eric said:

Henry J said: If one of Noah's pet birds went off and came back with a fresh leaf, how and where did the tree manage to grow? How did a tree grow in that short a time?

Well FL has the answer to this: plants aren't alive. Thus when God used the flood to wipe out 'all living things,' its perfectly hunky dory if that didn't include olive trees. Hey look, I didn't say it was a sensible answer...

TomS said: In the Gospel of John 12:24, Jesus tells the parable of the seed ("corn of wheat") which falls into the ground and dies

Dave Thomas said: Said fact has EVERY bearing on the fallacy which exists in your argument. The Fallacy you are committing, "Assuming the Consequent", is one in which the conclusion, or "consequent", is obviously, undeniably true ("Earth is mostly covered with water"). The Fallacy is that the conclusion is then used to "prove" the stated premise (in your case, a recent global flood enveloped the earth). The Fallacy IS that the very Existence of other hypotheses or explanations is DENIED, and thus that the stated premise, the only one on the table, must be True. So, for you to say that in the "Affirming the Consequent" fallacy, the existence of other hypotheses or explanations has no relevance, well - that's just plain Wrong. And pure Comedy Gold, thanks!

You're mentally handicapped, Martinez. You can no more understand valid logic than you can fart yourself into orbit.

Ray Martinez said:

DS said: Hey Ray, when did I say I was an atheist? You are just assuming that. Now that you can't address the evidence, you have to attack the presenter of the evidence. Noted. But it doesn't matter Ray. Not all geologists are atheists. Not all scientists are atheists. Your preconceptions are showing. By the way, your good buddy Floyd has been trashing up the bathroom wall saying the earth is young. Why don't you go set him straight Ray? You know, show the evidence that convinced you the earth is old. I guarantee he isn't blinded by atheism.

YECs are too stupid to argue with. That's the hallmark of Fundamentalism: inexcusable stupidity. In short: Can ANYONE produce (listen closely) any verse, statement, or word IN the Bible that says or indicates a young earth? Waiting.....

Ray Martinez said: Dave believes what he wrote below has not been addressed.

Dave Thomas said: Said fact has EVERY bearing on the fallacy which exists in your argument. The Fallacy you are committing, "Assuming the Consequent", is one in which the conclusion, or "consequent", is obviously, undeniably true ("Earth is mostly covered with water"). The Fallacy is that the conclusion is then used to "prove" the stated premise (in your case, a recent global flood enveloped the earth). The Fallacy IS that the very Existence of other hypotheses or explanations is DENIED, and thus that the stated premise, the only one on the table, must be True. So, for you to say that in the "Affirming the Consequent" fallacy, the existence of other hypotheses or explanations has no relevance, well - that's just plain Wrong. And pure Comedy Gold, thanks!

Dave is saying Affirming the Consequent is a legitimate fallacy that can be identified in arguments where... (1)....the consequent or conclusion does not prove (or support?) the stated premise. Dave admits the conclusion or consequent in this case is "obviously, undeniably true 'Earth is mostly covered in water'" (Dave Thomas). Response: The consequent or conclusion does in fact prove or support the premise: word-based claim that a worldwide flood occurred recently. If an earth mostly covered in water, or overrun with water, does not at least support said premise then what does? In fact: the premise finds direct correspondence (word---thing) with the current surface of earth. Logic: If worldwide flood occurred recently then current surface should appear mostly aquatic. Moreover, Dave is also saying Affirming the Consequent is a fallacy that can be identified in arguments where.... (2)...."the very Existence of other hypotheses or explanations is DENIED, and thus that the stated premise, the only one on the table, must be True" (Dave Thomas). Response: If true the same would render almost all arguments fallacious because all major phenomena can be said to have, at a minimum, at least two prominent differing explanations. And I don't see how an argument can be identified as fallacious just because it denies other hypothesis or explanations? If true this would render the evolutionary explanation fallacious as well just because it denies the Biblical explanation? Or perhaps I've misunderstood what Dave is saying? Ray (OEC)

Ray Martinez said:

Ray Martinez said:

DS said: Hey Ray, when did I say I was an atheist? You are just assuming that. Now that you can't address the evidence, you have to attack the presenter of the evidence. Noted. But it doesn't matter Ray. Not all geologists are atheists. Not all scientists are atheists. Your preconceptions are showing. By the way, your good buddy Floyd has been trashing up the bathroom wall saying the earth is young. Why don't you go set him straight Ray? You know, show the evidence that convinced you the earth is old. I guarantee he isn't blinded by atheism.

YECs are too stupid to argue with. That's the hallmark of Fundamentalism: inexcusable stupidity. In short: Can ANYONE produce (listen closely) any verse, statement, or word IN the Bible that says or indicates a young earth? Waiting.....

Well, Mike Elzinga? I'm still waiting... Ray (OEC)

Ray Martinez said:

Ray Martinez said:

DS said: Hey Ray, when did I say I was an atheist? You are just assuming that. Now that you can't address the evidence, you have to attack the presenter of the evidence. Noted. But it doesn't matter Ray. Not all geologists are atheists. Not all scientists are atheists. Your preconceptions are showing. By the way, your good buddy Floyd has been trashing up the bathroom wall saying the earth is young. Why don't you go set him straight Ray? You know, show the evidence that convinced you the earth is old. I guarantee he isn't blinded by atheism.

YECs are too stupid to argue with. That's the hallmark of Fundamentalism: inexcusable stupidity. In short: Can ANYONE produce (listen closely) any verse, statement, or word IN the Bible that says or indicates a young earth? Waiting.....

Well, Mike Elzinga? I'm still waiting... Ray (OEC)

Michael Fugate said:

Ray Martinez said: Dave believes what he wrote below has not been addressed.

Dave Thomas said: Said fact has EVERY bearing on the fallacy which exists in your argument. The Fallacy you are committing, "Assuming the Consequent", is one in which the conclusion, or "consequent", is obviously, undeniably true ("Earth is mostly covered with water"). The Fallacy is that the conclusion is then used to "prove" the stated premise (in your case, a recent global flood enveloped the earth). The Fallacy IS that the very Existence of other hypotheses or explanations is DENIED, and thus that the stated premise, the only one on the table, must be True. So, for you to say that in the "Affirming the Consequent" fallacy, the existence of other hypotheses or explanations has no relevance, well - that's just plain Wrong. And pure Comedy Gold, thanks!

Dave is saying Affirming the Consequent is a legitimate fallacy that can be identified in arguments where... (1)....the consequent or conclusion does not prove (or support?) the stated premise. Dave admits the conclusion or consequent in this case is "obviously, undeniably true 'Earth is mostly covered in water'" (Dave Thomas). Response: The consequent or conclusion does in fact prove or support the premise: word-based claim that a worldwide flood occurred recently. If an earth mostly covered in water, or overrun with water, does not at least support said premise then what does? In fact: the premise finds direct correspondence (word---thing) with the current surface of earth. Logic: If worldwide flood occurred recently then current surface should appear mostly aquatic. Moreover, Dave is also saying Affirming the Consequent is a fallacy that can be identified in arguments where.... (2)...."the very Existence of other hypotheses or explanations is DENIED, and thus that the stated premise, the only one on the table, must be True" (Dave Thomas). Response: If true the same would render almost all arguments fallacious because all major phenomena can be said to have, at a minimum, at least two prominent differing explanations. And I don't see how an argument can be identified as fallacious just because it denies other hypothesis or explanations? If true this would render the evolutionary explanation fallacious as well just because it denies the Biblical explanation? Or perhaps I've misunderstood what Dave is saying? Ray (OEC)

Did you even bother to look the fallacy up? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affirming_the_consequent That alone shows that you are wrong. The thing about evolution is that there are many, many pieces of evidence that are used, not just one. Instead of if A, then B. B. Therefore A. It is if A, then B, C, D...Z. B, C, D...Z. Therefore A. Do you see the difference?

Mike Elzinga said:

Ray Martinez said:

Ray Martinez said:

DS said: Hey Ray, when did I say I was an atheist? You are just assuming that. Now that you can't address the evidence, you have to attack the presenter of the evidence. Noted. But it doesn't matter Ray. Not all geologists are atheists. Not all scientists are atheists. Your preconceptions are showing. By the way, your good buddy Floyd has been trashing up the bathroom wall saying the earth is young. Why don't you go set him straight Ray? You know, show the evidence that convinced you the earth is old. I guarantee he isn't blinded by atheism.

YECs are too stupid to argue with. That's the hallmark of Fundamentalism: inexcusable stupidity. In short: Can ANYONE produce (listen closely) any verse, statement, or word IN the Bible that says or indicates a young earth? Waiting.....

Well, Mike Elzinga? I'm still waiting... Ray (OEC)

You are the one whose "intellectual" heritage comes from the YECs and who uses their "reasoning" to deny the scientific evidence. That's why you think like a YEC and accept their "arguments" against radiometric dating. You aren't distinguishing yourself as an "original, independent thinker" as much as you think you are. You fit a profile that has been around since the Institute for Creation Research was formed by Henry Morris and Duane Gish. I've been watching this shtick for something like fifty years now. Just like the rest of the ID/creationists, your "intellectual genes" and YEC shibboleths clearly identify where you got your "education." You don't even understand your own intellectual history. I know your intellectual roots better than you do.

Mike Elzinga: You are the one whose "intellectual" heritage comes from the YECs and who uses their "reasoning" to deny the scientific evidence. That's why you think like a YEC and accept their "arguments" against radiometric dating. You aren't distinguishing yourself as an "original, independent thinker" as much as you think you are. You fit a profile that has been around since the Institute for Creation Research was formed by Henry Morris and Duane Gish. I've been watching this shtick for something like fifty years now. Just like the rest of the ID/creationists, your "intellectual genes" and YEC shibboleths clearly identify where you got your "education." You don't even understand your own intellectual history. I know your intellectual roots better than you do.

Ray Martinez said: Ray (Protestant Evangelical, Old Earth, Paleyan Creationist-species immutabilist, Bible-thumping ignoramus)

Ray Martinez said: I'm still waiting...

Ray Martinez said: Both Henry Morris and Duane Gish were confused morons.

Sure Ray, sure. And I'm still waiting for you to respond to my answer to your question. I described in detail exactly what the earth should look like if it had been completely covered in water miles deep in the recent past. Do you disagree? Why? What evidence do you have that it should look the way it actually does? Wishful thinking? Bible verses?

Here is the thing Ray, scientists agree with me. All of the evidence agrees with me. Why should anyone care what you think?

Ray Martinez said:

Mike Elzinga: You are the one whose "intellectual" heritage comes from the YECs and who uses their "reasoning" to deny the scientific evidence. That's why you think like a YEC and accept their "arguments" against radiometric dating. You aren't distinguishing yourself as an "original, independent thinker" as much as you think you are. You fit a profile that has been around since the Institute for Creation Research was formed by Henry Morris and Duane Gish. I've been watching this shtick for something like fifty years now. Just like the rest of the ID/creationists, your "intellectual genes" and YEC shibboleths clearly identify where you got your "education." You don't even understand your own intellectual history. I know your intellectual roots better than you do.

Both Henry Morris and Duane Gish were confused morons. Both accepted the concept of evolution existing in nature. In other words both accepted, just like William Dembski, the MAIN claim of their alleged enemy (Darwinian Materialism). Tell me Mike: How does it feel standing shoulder-to-shoulder with Dembski, Gish, and Morris? Rational persons can plainly see that something is HORRIBLY amiss. Ray (Protestant Evangelical, Old Earth, Paleyan Creationist-species immutabilist)

The very terms themselves express contradictory concepts. The word "evolution" is of course derived from a Latin word meaning "out-rolling". The picture is of an outward-progressing spiral, an unrolling from an infinitesimal beginning through ever broadening circles, until finally all reality is embraced within. "Entropy," on the other hand, means literally "in-turning." It is derived from the two Greek words en (meaning "in") and trope (meaning "turning"). The concept is of something spiraling inward upon itself, exactly the opposite concept to "evolution." Evolution is change outward and upward, entropy is change inward and downward.

Dembski has converted to the Atheist-Materialist explanation (local flood).

Rolf said: It is not possible to get anywhere with Ray, he is brainwashed. He says:

Dembski has converted to the Atheist-Materialist explanation (local flood).

He isn't even willing to accept the existence of scienific evidence fo a local flood and no evidebce for a global flood - the latter is just how the anicents viewed thoe flooding of th Black Sea. The region where they lived was to them "All the world."

Ray Martinez said:

Scott F said:

Ray Martinez said:

TomS said:

Ray Martinez said: In reality, evolution hasn't occurred until one can show HOW it occurred.

First of all, evolution occurs. One can see it occurring.

If true then you should have no trouble posting YouTubes showing evolution occurring in real time....LOL!

Ray has the same problem that Robert has, as do all Creationists. If he can't see it happen in real time, if it doesn't happen in front of his eyes before he gets bored and turns away, it doesn't happen. He relies on personal witness, or the "witness" of an accepted Authority. Period. That, to Ray, is what is called "evidence" (little "e"), and nothing else. The problem, Ray, is that you don't understand the concept of Deep Time. Let me put it to you this way. Using your logic, if you can't provide a YouTube video of you being born, and growing from an infant to an adult, you simply have no proof that you existed before last Thursday.

Another Darwinian Black Box: "deep time." Darwinists invoke this concept to explain just about everything: "It all happened long ago when no one was around to see. Species change into different species; when deep time is involved anything can and did happen---it's just so." Ray

Ray Martinez said:

DS said: Sorry. The world is not "overrun" with water. In fact, I'm standing on dry land right now. You sure are crazy Ray.

When viewing earth from the sky or outer space one sees a predominantly blue watery planet. And the surface is, in fact, three-quarters water. And the remaining one-quarter of dry land contains very many rivers and lakes. So the current surface of earth looks exactly like it should if a worldwide flood occurred recently. Herein is all the evidence we need to see that the Book of Genesis is historically and scientifically correct regarding a catastrophic flood. In antediluvian times, if one stood on a bridge and looked up one would see what we see today when we stand on a bridge and look down: water. So when the Bible says it rained the same means the water canopy broke hence the Deluge. As for my dating of 3140 BC it is derived from Biblical chronology, ANE archaeology, and history. Ray (OEC)

Ray Martinez said: As for my dating of 3140 BC it is derived from Biblical chronology, ANE archaeology, and history.

Ray Martinez said: Another Darwinian Black Box: "deep time." Darwinists invoke this concept to explain just about everything: "It all happened long ago when no one was around to see. Species change into different species; when deep time is involved anything can and did happen---it's just so."

Ray Martinez said:

DS said:

Ray Martinez said:

gnome de net said: 'Round and 'round and 'round we go:

First DS said [again]: Sorry. The world is not "overrun" with water. In fact, I'm standing on dry land right now. You sure are crazy Ray.

Then Ray Martinez said [again]: When viewing earth from the sky or outer space one sees a predominantly blue watery planet. And the surface is, in fact, three-quarters water. And the remaining one-quarter of dry land contains very many rivers and lakes. So the current surface of earth looks exactly like it should if a worldwide flood occurred recently. Herein is all the evidence we need to see that the Book of Genesis is historically and scientifically correct regarding a catastrophic flood. [emphasis added]

Now I say (again): What would you, Ray, expect the surface of the earth to look like if there hadn’t been any catastrophic flood?

Way less than three-quarters aquatic. Ray (OEC)

Really? Exactly why is that Ray? Did you just make shit up?

Since I'm arguing "overrun with water"---less than 50 percent. So now its your turn: How should surface of earth appear if a worldwide flood occurred recently?

eric said:

DS said: Oh, almost forgot. There would be no Grand Canyon, there would be no ANtarctic ice cores, there would be not trees and no tree rings, there would be no sediments in :Lake Biakal. In short, none of the evidence that there was world wide flood would exist. But it does. And Ray has absolutely no explanation for any of it. Go FIgure

Maybe the GC and Antarctic snowpack formed after, in a few hundred years BC. If Ray can believe there was hyper-within-kind speciation after the flood, I guess hyper-geology after the flood isn't much of a stretch.

Ray Martinez said:

DS said:

Ray Martinez said:

DS said:

Ray Martinez said:

gnome de net said: 'Round and 'round and 'round we go:

First DS said [again]: Sorry. The world is not "overrun" with water. In fact, I'm standing on dry land right now. You sure are crazy Ray.

Then Ray Martinez said [again]: When viewing earth from the sky or outer space one sees a predominantly blue watery planet. And the surface is, in fact, three-quarters water. And the remaining one-quarter of dry land contains very many rivers and lakes. So the current surface of earth looks exactly like it should if a worldwide flood occurred recently. Herein is all the evidence we need to see that the Book of Genesis is historically and scientifically correct regarding a catastrophic flood. [emphasis added]

Now I say (again): What would you, Ray, expect the surface of the earth to look like if there hadn’t been any catastrophic flood?

Way less than three-quarters aquatic. Ray (OEC)

Really? Exactly why is that Ray? Did you just make shit up?

Since I'm arguing "overrun with water"---less than 50 percent. So now its your turn: How should surface of earth appear if a worldwide flood occurred recently?

Well that's easy. If the earth had been completely covered in water miles deep only a few thousand years ago, IT WOULD STILL BE COVERED IN WATER. Probably at least hundreds of meters deep. There would be no terrestrial plants left alive, so there would probably be no terrestrial animals either, even if there were some small piece of dry land for them to live on. Everything that was terrestrial would have died out, even the few animals that might have survived on a boat. And there would be layer of sediment, probably thousands of meters thick, chock full of the dead bodies of every different kind of creature both terrestrial and aquatic all mixed together. There would NOT be the kind of stratified layers we actually find around the world today. And the earth would probably be very flat, the mountains would have all been worn down. I could keep on going, but you get the idea, it would be a completely different world for both biology and geology. Now Ray, if you were not blinded by supernatural preconceptions, you would be able to see this clearly. When you are able to do so, just let us know. Until then we will pray for you. Well maybe some of us will anyway.

So DS concludes for his worldview (Atheism). Said conclusion, of course, was never in doubt. And what does such a conclusion say about William Dembski? Dembski has converted to the Atheist-Materialist explanation (local flood). I wonder what his alleged Savior thinks of that? Imagine that; a person who is on record as demonizing Materialism has now accepted the material explanation: local flood. If the assumptions of Materialism are good enough in this matter why are the same not good in all matters? Dembski, of course, is confused. He actually believes design and evolution are not mutually exclusive. Yet every Darwinian scientist completely rejects the concept of design existing in nature. Mutual exclusivity is a BASIC fact of logic. So much for credentials and their perceived guarantee of ensuring basic correctness. Ray (species immutabilist)

Ray Martinez said: Here Mike foolishly connects me with Christian Fundamentalists---I am not. The Fundamentalists accept a Young Earth---I accept an Old Earth.

Ray Martinez said: I'm replying to Mike Elzinga because he views himself as knowledgeable, but as we shall see he is the exact opposite. Mike is ignorant in basic matters concerning topic. … We understand evolution as COMPLETE nonsense. Anyone who disagrees doesn't understand evolution. … Laughably false—Naturalism is the current episteme of science and the current evidence interpreting philosophy of science. Said fact is seen in ALL relevant literature which renders Mike Elzinga inexcusably ignorant.

Ray Martinez said: And anyone can scroll back and fact check that your Affirming the Consequent claim was handily shot down. I'm sorry but the existence of other explanations cannot be included in a fallacy identification counter-claim.

Ray Martinez said: Dave didn't use a public toilet as his source or reference.

Dave Lovell said: What do you think has changed Ray since the end of the flood?

Ray Martinez said: And anyone can scroll back and fact check that your Affirming the Consequent claim was handily shot down. I'm sorry but the existence of other explanations cannot be included in a fallacy identification counter-claim.

Ray Martinez said: [The Earth is] At least 100 million years old. Because all radio dating techniques are horribly unreliable, all we can say is the figure accepted by science before the advent of these techniques.

You have to wonder what the Australian aborigines thought of their year of unexpected underwater living. Or the various Chinese cultures that were around at the time.

Did they just not notice?

Scott F said:

Ray Martinez said: Another Darwinian Black Box: "deep time." Darwinists invoke this concept to explain just about everything: "It all happened long ago when no one was around to see. Species change into different species; when deep time is involved anything can and did happen---it's just so."

Ah, yes. Science is a "just so" story. The same old shibboleth. In fact, it is the Bible that is a "just-so story" story, also called an "ad hoc fallacy". You Creationists always set a double standard. You complain that Science is always changing its story, that scientists keep changing their minds. Instead, you laud the Bible as being the perfect, unchanging truth. Yet, at the same time, you complain that Science is a "just so" story. At least Science has an actual, you know, explanation. Instead, all you have, Ray, is "Magic". Now, mind you, "Magic" worked reasonably well, 2,500 years ago. Well, that is, it worked well in keeping the peasants in line and subjugated. It never did work very well in actually explaining stuff. So, Ray. Tell us. Did rainbows exist before the flood? Because the Bible tells us that God first created the Rainbow for Noah and his family. Am I right?

Ray Martinez is a rare animal. He has his own religion, a version of the Christian uniquely his own.

He has a number of titles composed of an assortment of words he strings together when ‘signing off’ one of his screeds. “Paleyan immutabilist” is often used.

He has proudly admitted to being brainwashed. The most prominent brainwasher seems to have been a certain Dr. Scott. There are so many Dr. Scott past and present so I am not able to identify Ray’s Dr. Scott but I presume he was one of the many TV-pastors in the history of American television.

He full deserves the title of ignoramus, especially wrt science, so I often refer to him as a science illiterate, and that’s not an exaggeration.

He has made it clear that from his point of view, appearance of design in nature is evidence of design.

Another of his many peculiarities is that he declares everyone that accepts the theory of evolution as Atheists. That’s an insult to the many people, either laypeople or scientists that are devout Christians, as well as to me, declaring myself as a Gnostic. If my interpretation of available sources is right, the first Christians were Gnostics. Gnostics were the main enemy of fundamentalist Christianity.

His discussion with a “Roger Shrubber” at talk.origins a few years ago were fun to watch. R.S. made the impression of being a retired scientist and he did his best, to no avail to teach Ray some basic logic.

Ray seems to be under the impression that it is possible to use language in a way that makes you able to reject everything scientific that doesn’t fit in with your personal opinion on how thing are and should be to rhyme with your own version of creationism.

I find his frequent use of ad hominem and other attempts at denigrating his opponents unbecoming for someone posing as a Christian.

Rolf said: Ray Martinez is a rare animal. He has his own religion, a version of the Christian uniquely his own. He has a number of titles composed of an assortment of words he strings together when ‘signing off’ one of his screeds. “Paleyan immutabilist” is often used. He has proudly admitted to being brainwashed. The most prominent brainwasher seems to have been a certain Dr. Scott. There are so many Dr. Scott past and present so I am not able to identify Ray’s Dr. Scott but I presume he was one of the many TV-pastors in the history of American television.

Looks like this

Malcolm said: You have to wonder what the Australian aborigines thought of their year of unexpected underwater living. Or the various Chinese cultures that were around at the time. Did they just not notice?

While over in Mesopotamia, It was Sumer time and the living was easy. Fish were jumping, and the water was high...

Rolf said: Ray Martinez is a rare animal. He has his own religion, a version of the Christian uniquely his own. He has a number of titles composed of an assortment of words he strings together when ‘signing off’ one of his screeds. “Paleyan immutabilist” is often used.

Scott F said:

DS: Well that's easy. If the earth had been completely covered in water miles deep only a few thousand years ago, IT WOULD STILL BE COVERED IN WATER. Probably at least hundreds of meters deep. There would be no terrestrial plants left alive, so there would probably be no terrestrial animals either, even if there were some small piece of dry land for them to live on. Everything that was terrestrial would have died out, even the few animals that might have survived on a boat. And there would be layer of sediment, probably thousands of meters thick, chock full of the dead bodies of every different kind of creature both terrestrial and aquatic all mixed together. There would NOT be the kind of stratified layers we actually find around the world today. And the earth would probably be very flat, the mountains would have all been worn down. I could keep on going, but you get the idea, it would be a completely different world for both biology and geology. Now Ray, if you were not blinded by supernatural preconceptions, you would be able to see this clearly. When you are able to do so, just let us know. Until then we will pray for you. Well maybe some of us will anyway.

So, DS gives you a direct and straight forward answer. You sneeringly dismiss it in a single sentence, with an ad hominem attack, and immediately change the subject, without addressing a single point that he made. Way to go, Mr. Goalposts-on-Rollerskates.

Mike Elzinga said:

Rolf said: Ray Martinez is a rare animal. He has his own religion, a version of the Christian uniquely his own. He has a number of titles composed of an assortment of words he strings together when ‘signing off’ one of his screeds. “Paleyan immutabilist” is often used.

This is quite common in sectarian communities; it is one of the primary reasons for the long. sordid history of sectarian warfare and fragmentation into so many denominations. Obsessive/compulsive indulgences in religion lead these obsessive/compulsive types to believe that it is they and only they who see "The Truth." Having reached this stage, it is but a short step to believing that they are gurus and leaders who can impose their beliefs on others and be the head of a new movement. All they need are a number of weak, compliant followers who bow to every word they say. Then they can start applying pretentious titles to themselves in order to make themselves appear as feared and revered authority figures that are sought out by trembling, fearful followers who become tongue-tied and lose the ability to even speak in their presence. Ray appears to be at that stage where he is applying pretentious titles to himself. Unfortunately his thinking is so muddled that people can only laugh in his presence.

Ray Martinez said:

Mike Elzinga said:

Rolf said: Ray Martinez is a rare animal. He has his own religion, a version of the Christian uniquely his own. He has a number of titles composed of an assortment of words he strings together when ‘signing off’ one of his screeds. “Paleyan immutabilist” is often used.

This is quite common in sectarian communities; it is one of the primary reasons for the long. sordid history of sectarian warfare and fragmentation into so many denominations. Obsessive/compulsive indulgences in religion lead these obsessive/compulsive types to believe that it is they and only they who see "The Truth." Having reached this stage, it is but a short step to believing that they are gurus and leaders who can impose their beliefs on others and be the head of a new movement. All they need are a number of weak, compliant followers who bow to every word they say. Then they can start applying pretentious titles to themselves in order to make themselves appear as feared and revered authority figures that are sought out by trembling, fearful followers who become tongue-tied and lose the ability to even speak in their presence. Ray appears to be at that stage where he is applying pretentious titles to himself. Unfortunately his thinking is so muddled that people can only laugh in his presence.

Mike Elzinga, as already observed, is SO dumb he can't even figure out that those aren't titles after my name; rather, I state my biases. Something he and his fellow Atheists refuse to do. Ray (Protestant Evangelical; Old Earth, Young Biosphere, Paleyan Creationist-species immutabilist)

Mike Elzinga said:

Ray Martinez said:

Mike Elzinga: You are the one whose "intellectual" heritage comes from the YECs and who uses their "reasoning" to deny the scientific evidence. That's why you think like a YEC and accept their "arguments" against radiometric dating. You aren't distinguishing yourself as an "original, independent thinker" as much as you think you are. You fit a profile that has been around since the Institute for Creation Research was formed by Henry Morris and Duane Gish. I've been watching this shtick for something like fifty years now. Just like the rest of the ID/creationists, your "intellectual genes" and YEC shibboleths clearly identify where you got your "education." You don't even understand your own intellectual history. I know your intellectual roots better than you do.

Both Henry Morris and Duane Gish were confused morons. Both accepted the concept of evolution existing in nature. In other words both accepted, just like William Dembski, the MAIN claim of their alleged enemy (Darwinian Materialism). Tell me Mike: How does it feel standing shoulder-to-shoulder with Dembski, Gish, and Morris? Rational persons can plainly see that something is HORRIBLY amiss. Ray (Protestant Evangelical, Old Earth, Paleyan Creationist-species immutabilist)

This is just too funny for words. Ray thinks he has a beef with "Darwinist, Atheistic, Materialistic" evolution when in fact he is having the usual eternal sectarian blood feuds with his fellow creationists. But those wars were going on even before Morris and Gish. Ray doesn't recognize that they share exactly the same misconceptions about all of science and that he got his notions of science from Morris and Gish, just as the ID crowd did. Apparently he isn't aware of the Wedge Document. I could be wrong (unlikely), but I suspect that Ray can't articulate one concept in science - from biology, chemistry, physics, or geology - and get the concept right. He learned his "science" from Morris and Gish who bent and broke scientific concepts to fit with their sectarian dogma. Wars over sectarian dogma in the ID/creationist community have not changed those misconceptions in the fifty years they have been trying to sneek this pseudoscientific Trojan horse into public education. Ray is not as subtle as he thinks he is.

Ray Martinez said:

Scott F said:

DS: Well that's easy. If the earth had been completely covered in water miles deep only a few thousand years ago, IT WOULD STILL BE COVERED IN WATER. Probably at least hundreds of meters deep. There would be no terrestrial plants left alive, so there would probably be no terrestrial animals either, even if there were some small piece of dry land for them to live on. Everything that was terrestrial would have died out, even the few animals that might have survived on a boat. And there would be layer of sediment, probably thousands of meters thick, chock full of the dead bodies of every different kind of creature both terrestrial and aquatic all mixed together. There would NOT be the kind of stratified layers we actually find around the world today. And the earth would probably be very flat, the mountains would have all been worn down. I could keep on going, but you get the idea, it would be a completely different world for both biology and geology. Now Ray, if you were not blinded by supernatural preconceptions, you would be able to see this clearly. When you are able to do so, just let us know. Until then we will pray for you. Well maybe some of us will anyway.

So, DS gives you a direct and straight forward answer. You sneeringly dismiss it in a single sentence, with an ad hominem attack, and immediately change the subject, without addressing a single point that he made. Way to go, Mr. Goalposts-on-Rollerskates.

The reason I didn't answer is because my question (snipped) was rhetorical: No one KNOWS how surface of earth should look if a worldwide flood occurred recently! All one can say is that it should appear covered or overrun with water. Your inability to think logically exposed once again. Ray (OEC)

Ray Martinez said: Ray (Protestant Evangelical; Old Earth, Young Biosphere, Paleyan Creationist-species immutabilist)

Ray Martinez said:

Mike Elzinga said:

Ray Martinez said:

Mike Elzinga: You are the one whose "intellectual" heritage comes from the YECs and who uses their "reasoning" to deny the scientific evidence. That's why you think like a YEC and accept their "arguments" against radiometric dating. You aren't distinguishing yourself as an "original, independent thinker" as much as you think you are. You fit a profile that has been around since the Institute for Creation Research was formed by Henry Morris and Duane Gish. I've been watching this shtick for something like fifty years now. Just like the rest of the ID/creationists, your "intellectual genes" and YEC shibboleths clearly identify where you got your "education." You don't even understand your own intellectual history. I know your intellectual roots better than you do.

Both Henry Morris and Duane Gish were confused morons. Both accepted the concept of evolution existing in nature. In other words both accepted, just like William Dembski, the MAIN claim of their alleged enemy (Darwinian Materialism). Tell me Mike: How does it feel standing shoulder-to-shoulder with Dembski, Gish, and Morris? Rational persons can plainly see that something is HORRIBLY amiss. Ray (Protestant Evangelical, Old Earth, Paleyan Creationist-species immutabilist)

This is just too funny for words. Ray thinks he has a beef with "Darwinist, Atheistic, Materialistic" evolution when in fact he is having the usual eternal sectarian blood feuds with his fellow creationists. But those wars were going on even before Morris and Gish. Ray doesn't recognize that they share exactly the same misconceptions about all of science and that he got his notions of science from Morris and Gish, just as the ID crowd did. Apparently he isn't aware of the Wedge Document. I could be wrong (unlikely), but I suspect that Ray can't articulate one concept in science - from biology, chemistry, physics, or geology - and get the concept right. He learned his "science" from Morris and Gish who bent and broke scientific concepts to fit with their sectarian dogma. Wars over sectarian dogma in the ID/creationist community have not changed those misconceptions in the fifty years they have been trying to sneek this pseudoscientific Trojan horse into public education. Ray is not as subtle as he thinks he is.

Atheist Mike Elzinga, once again, repeats his "claims" without offering ANY evidence in support. We KNOW Morris, Gish, and William Dembski not species immutabilists. All three accept the MAIN claim of Atheist science (unlike myself): natural selection causing microevolution. I learned the science I espouse from Paley and the persons Darwin is talking about in the quotation below: "I can entertain no doubt, after the most deliberate study and dispassionate judgment of which I am capable, that the view which most naturalists entertain, and which I formerly entertained---namely, that each species has been independently created---is erroneous" ("On the Origin of Species" 1859:6; London: John Murray). Ray (Old Earth; species immutabilist

Ray Martinez said:

Mike Elzinga said:

Rolf said: Ray Martinez is a rare animal. He has his own religion, a version of the Christian uniquely his own. He has a number of titles composed of an assortment of words he strings together when ‘signing off’ one of his screeds. “Paleyan immutabilist” is often used.

This is quite common in sectarian communities; it is one of the primary reasons for the long. sordid history of sectarian warfare and fragmentation into so many denominations. Obsessive/compulsive indulgences in religion lead these obsessive/compulsive types to believe that it is they and only they who see "The Truth." Having reached this stage, it is but a short step to believing that they are gurus and leaders who can impose their beliefs on others and be the head of a new movement. All they need are a number of weak, compliant followers who bow to every word they say. Then they can start applying pretentious titles to themselves in order to make themselves appear as feared and revered authority figures that are sought out by trembling, fearful followers who become tongue-tied and lose the ability to even speak in their presence. Ray appears to be at that stage where he is applying pretentious titles to himself. Unfortunately his thinking is so muddled that people can only laugh in his presence.

Mike Elzinga, as already observed, is SO dumb he can't even figure out that those aren't titles after my name; rather, I state my biases. Something he and his fellow Atheists refuse to do. Ray (Protestant Evangelical; Old Earth, Young Biosphere, Paleyan Creationist-species immutabilist)

Ray Martinez said: No one KNOWS how surface of earth should look if a worldwide flood occurred recently!

All one can say is that it should appear covered or overrun with water. Your inability to think logically exposed once again.

Ray Martinez said: Your inability to think logically exposed once again. Ray (OEC)

Ray Martinez said: In antediluvian times, if one stood on a bridge and looked up one would see what we see today when we stand on a bridge and look down: water. So when the Bible says it rained the same means the water canopy broke hence the Deluge. As for my dating of 3140 BC it is derived from Biblical chronology, ANE archaeology, and history.

Ray Martinez said: And anyone can scroll back and fact check that your Affirming the Consequent claim was handily shot down. I'm sorry but the existence of other explanations cannot be included in a fallacy identification counter-claim. Ray (OEC)

Pssst, Scott, mammals are much more ancient than that. Which doesn't help Ray any, of course.

Just Bob said: Pssst, Scott, mammals are much more ancient than that. Which doesn't help Ray any, of course.

Dave Lovell said:

Ray Martinez said: Ray (Protestant Evangelical; Old Earth, Young Biosphere, Paleyan Creationist-species immutabilist)

Care to date the boundary where Young life appeared on the Old Earth Ray? I know you doubt the accuracy of radiometric dating, but life has left evidence as fossils in rocks for two thirds of geological history. The errors in radiometric dating would have to be massively larger for long lived isotopes to explain that if life had only existed for thousands of years on a millions-to-billions-of-years old Earth. And early nineteenth century geologists concluded the Earth was very old based almost entirely on fossil bearing rocks necessaarily much younger than the origin of life. How do those facts fit your hypothesis?

It seems that Ray accept the fact of mutations and variations in genomes. It isn't within even his capabilities to deny that obvious fact. But he is quite adamant about the emergence of new species. That is impossible - without divine intervention.

His only reference to how speciation comes about is Goddidit, period. End of debate.

Whereas the fact is that there is an abundance of evidence that unequivocally shows that speciation is the name of the game. Species speciate

in new man-made surroundings

And what does the Bible have to say about species being unchanged or not, about the relationship between species, about the appearance of new species? There are those YECs who say that "kind" does not mean "species". Is there anything in the Bible which can determine whether that is so?

Seems to me that "kind" ought to mean "clade". That way "from each according to its kind" would mean simply that offspring are in all the same clades as the parents.

Henry J said: Seems to me that "kind" ought to mean "clade". That way "from each according to its kind" would mean simply that offspring are in all the same clades as the parents.

Scott F said:

Ray Martinez said: And anyone can scroll back and fact check that your Affirming the Consequent claim was handily shot down. I'm sorry but the existence of other explanations cannot be included in a fallacy identification counter-claim. Ray (OEC)

Says who? And, so what?

Ray Martinez said:

Scott F said:

Ray Martinez said: And anyone can scroll back and fact check that your Affirming the Consequent claim was handily shot down. I'm sorry but the existence of other explanations cannot be included in a fallacy identification counter-claim. Ray (OEC)

Says who? And, so what?

You're not following the exchanges between Dave Thomas and myself. If you were you wouldn't ask what you asked. Ray

Scott F said:

Just Bob said: Pssst, Scott, mammals are much more ancient than that. Which doesn't help Ray any, of course.

Well, yeah, of course. But the diversity of mammalian species exploded after the fall of the dinosaurs. It's the speciation that Ray is complaining about. Your more typical YEC is stuck with less than 10,000 years, which isn't much time to work with. Ray says that Darwinian Evolution requires "Deep Time" for speciation to occur (which is true), yet the millions of years that Ray is allowing is plenty of time for Natural Selection to produce all kinds of new species.

Dave Thomas said:

Ray Martinez said:

Scott F said:

Ray Martinez said: And anyone can scroll back and fact check that your Affirming the Consequent claim was handily shot down. I'm sorry but the existence of other explanations cannot be included in a fallacy identification counter-claim. Ray (OEC)

Says who? And, so what?

You're not following the exchanges between Dave Thomas and myself. If you were you wouldn't ask what you asked. Ray

Ray, you simply didn't understand everyone's valid criticisms of your wacky claims, and why they do indeed establish that you are guilty of committing the "Assuming the Consequent" logical fallacy. If you had understood these criticisms, you would have withdrawn your illogical assertions. The fact that you're still crowing that the "Affirming the Consequent claim was handily shot down" proves you do not understand this basic and well-documented Fallacy, AND why you are guilty of its commission. Ray, simply declaring that you are Right does not make you Right. Do try to keep up now, hear?

Ray Martinez said:

Scott F said:

Just Bob said: Pssst, Scott, mammals are much more ancient than that. Which doesn't help Ray any, of course.

Well, yeah, of course. But the diversity of mammalian species exploded after the fall of the dinosaurs. It's the speciation that Ray is complaining about. Your more typical YEC is stuck with less than 10,000 years, which isn't much time to work with. Ray says that Darwinian Evolution requires "Deep Time" for speciation to occur (which is true), yet the millions of years that Ray is allowing is plenty of time for Natural Selection to produce all kinds of new species.

Again, you've haven't understood what I said, this is why I don't respond to everything you produce. It's much worse for evolutionary theory. I know for a fact that natural selection doesn't exist---that's my position. Re-acquaint yourself with the biases I place after my name. Now I think we should stay on topic. The importance of a Genesis flood is obvious: If it occurred about 5000 years ago then there isn't enough time for biodiversity seen today to have evolved by a selection process. This is WHY Darwinists MUST deny a Genesis flood. Ray (Old Earth-Young Biosphere-species immutabilist) (Note: Young Biosphere indicates that I accept the Genesis flood to have occurred 5000 years ago, precisely 3140 BC; species immutabilist means I accept the view of science before Darwin published in 1859.)

Dave Thomas said:

Ray Martinez said:

Scott F said:

Ray Martinez said: And anyone can scroll back and fact check that your Affirming the Consequent claim was handily shot down. I'm sorry but the existence of other explanations cannot be included in a fallacy identification counter-claim. Ray (OEC)

Says who? And, so what?

You're not following the exchanges between Dave Thomas and myself. If you were you wouldn't ask what you asked. Ray

Ray, you simply didn't understand everyone's valid criticisms of your wacky claims....

Ray Martinez said:

Scott F said:

Just Bob said: Pssst, Scott, mammals are much more ancient than that. Which doesn't help Ray any, of course.

Well, yeah, of course. But the diversity of mammalian species exploded after the fall of the dinosaurs. It's the speciation that Ray is complaining about. Your more typical YEC is stuck with less than 10,000 years, which isn't much time to work with. Ray says that Darwinian Evolution requires "Deep Time" for speciation to occur (which is true), yet the millions of years that Ray is allowing is plenty of time for Natural Selection to produce all kinds of new species.

Again, you've haven't understood what I said, this is why I don't respond to everything you produce. It's much worse for evolutionary theory. I know for a fact that natural selection doesn't exist---that's my position. Re-acquaint yourself with the biases I place after my name. Now I think we should stay on topic. The importance of a Genesis flood is obvious: If it occurred about 5000 years ago then there isn't enough time for biodiversity seen today to have evolved by a selection process. This is WHY Darwinists MUST deny a Genesis flood. Ray (Old Earth-Young Biosphere-species immutabilist) (Note: Young Biosphere indicates that I accept the Genesis flood to have occurred 5000 years ago, precisely 3140 BC; species immutabilist means I accept the view of science before Darwin published in 1859.)

Ray Martinez said:

Dave Thomas said:

Ray Martinez said:

Scott F said:

Ray Martinez said: And anyone can scroll back and fact check that your Affirming the Consequent claim was handily shot down. I'm sorry but the existence of other explanations cannot be included in a fallacy identification counter-claim. Ray (OEC)

Says who? And, so what?

You're not following the exchanges between Dave Thomas and myself. If you were you wouldn't ask what you asked. Ray

Ray, you simply didn't understand everyone's valid criticisms of your wacky claims, and why they do indeed establish that you are guilty of committing the "Assuming the Consequent" logical fallacy. If you had understood these criticisms, you would have withdrawn your illogical assertions. The fact that you're still crowing that the "Affirming the Consequent claim was handily shot down" proves you do not understand this basic and well-documented Fallacy, AND why you are guilty of its commission. Ray, simply declaring that you are Right does not make you Right. Do try to keep up now, hear?

Still waiting for your reply: http://pandasthumb.org/archives/2016/06/dembski-on-his.html#comment-354598 Ray

I know for a fact that natural selection doesn’t exist—that’s my position.

The most that Ray can conclude is that the appearance of the earth is consistent with a world wide flood 5000 years ago. As long as there are other alternatives, he can go no farther, even if he is too stubborn to admit it. But of course he is wrong, it isn't consistent at all. The earth doesn't look anything like it would look if it had been covered miles deep in water recently. And of course every real scientist agrees, regardless of their religion.

But Ray has decided that that that is what he believes and so no evidence will convince him otherwise. Oh well, what can you expect from someone who can't understand basic logic, even when it is shoved in his face?

Ray Martinez said:

Dave Thomas said:

Ray Martinez said:

Scott F said:

Ray Martinez said: And anyone can scroll back and fact check that your Affirming the Consequent claim was handily shot down. I'm sorry but the existence of other explanations cannot be included in a fallacy identification counter-claim. Ray (OEC)

Says who? And, so what?

You're not following the exchanges between Dave Thomas and myself. If you were you wouldn't ask what you asked. Ray

Ray, you simply didn't understand everyone's valid criticisms of your wacky claims....

So Dave plays the "misunderstanding card." I'm now obligated to say: I, of course, disagree: If you understood you wouldn't be saying what you're saying. And there is nothing wacky about pointing out that the Book of Genesis and the current surface of earth have direct correspondence (mostly covered with water). Our explanation is most logical. Moreover, we recognize a Genesis flood MUST be denied because 5000 years isn't nearly enough time for an alleged selection process to produce the degree of biodiversity seen today. Ray (OEC)

phhht said:

Ray Martinez said:

Dave Thomas said:

Ray Martinez said:

Scott F said:

Ray Martinez said: And anyone can scroll back and fact check that your Affirming the Consequent claim was handily shot down. I'm sorry but the existence of other explanations cannot be included in a fallacy identification counter-claim. Ray (OEC)

Says who? And, so what?

You're not following the exchanges between Dave Thomas and myself. If you were you wouldn't ask what you asked. Ray

Ray, you simply didn't understand everyone's valid criticisms of your wacky claims....

So Dave plays the "misunderstanding card." I'm now obligated to say: I, of course, disagree: If you understood you wouldn't be saying what you're saying. And there is nothing wacky about pointing out that the Book of Genesis and the current surface of earth have direct correspondence (mostly covered with water). Our explanation is most logical. Moreover, we recognize a Genesis flood MUST be denied because 5000 years isn't nearly enough time for an alleged selection process to produce the degree of biodiversity seen today. Ray (OEC)

What's wacky is believing that the Book of Genesis is anything more that myth. That explanation - that Genesis is fiction - is the most logical.

TomS said:

phhht said:

Ray Martinez said:

Dave Thomas said:

Ray Martinez said:

Scott F said:

Ray Martinez said: And anyone can scroll back and fact check that your Affirming the Consequent claim was handily shot down. I'm sorry but the existence of other explanations cannot be included in a fallacy identification counter-claim. Ray (OEC)

Says who? And, so what?

You're not following the exchanges between Dave Thomas and myself. If you were you wouldn't ask what you asked. Ray

Ray, you simply didn't understand everyone's valid criticisms of your wacky claims....

So Dave plays the "misunderstanding card." I'm now obligated to say: I, of course, disagree: If you understood you wouldn't be saying what you're saying. And there is nothing wacky about pointing out that the Book of Genesis and the current surface of earth have direct correspondence (mostly covered with water). Our explanation is most logical. Moreover, we recognize a Genesis flood MUST be denied because 5000 years isn't nearly enough time for an alleged selection process to produce the degree of biodiversity seen today. Ray (OEC)

What's wacky is believing that the Book of Genesis is anything more that myth. That explanation - that Genesis is fiction - is the most logical.

And there is another - not necessarily contrary to that - explanation. That Genesis does not say anything about what the surface of Earth is like today as a result of the Flood. It doesn't say how much of the surface is under water, it doesn't mention fresh water lakes and salt water seas and oceans, it doesn't mention glaciers, it doesn't mention canyons, geysers, scrablands and morainss, it doesn't mention atolls and seamounts. Tectonic plates and faults.

We indeed, who are beings of finite powers, are forced to make use of instruments. And the use of an instrument sheweth the agent to be limited by rules of another’s prescription, and that he cannot obtain his end but in such a way, and by such conditions. Whence it seems a clear consequence, that the supreme unlimited Agent useth no tool or instrument at all. The will of an Omnipotent Spirit is no sooner exerted than executed, without the application of means;

In the 2nd dialogue, he observes that God has no need for matter as an instrument of his power:

It is to be expected that he will demonize “materialism” because materialism doesn’t allow for supernatural explanations;

Dave Thomas said:

Ray Martinez said:

Dave Thomas said:

Ray Martinez said:

Scott F said:

Ray Martinez said: And anyone can scroll back and fact check that your Affirming the Consequent claim was handily shot down. I'm sorry but the existence of other explanations cannot be included in a fallacy identification counter-claim. Ray (OEC)

Says who? And, so what?

You're not following the exchanges between Dave Thomas and myself. If you were you wouldn't ask what you asked. Ray

Ray, you simply didn't understand everyone's valid criticisms of your wacky claims, and why they do indeed establish that you are guilty of committing the "Assuming the Consequent" logical fallacy. If you had understood these criticisms, you would have withdrawn your illogical assertions. The fact that you're still crowing that the "Affirming the Consequent claim was handily shot down" proves you do not understand this basic and well-documented Fallacy, AND why you are guilty of its commission. Ray, simply declaring that you are Right does not make you Right. Do try to keep up now, hear?

Still waiting for your reply: http://pandasthumb.org/archives/2016/06/dembski-on-his.html#comment-354598 Ray

I guess I didn't reply, what is the point of explaining things again when you clearly are not understanding my points? Let's try one more time. Here's a claim, a hypothesis if you will: • Evil aliens from Zeta Reticuli dropped a Texas-sized water balloon on planet earth some five millennia ago. IF that claim is true, THEN it's obvious that the Earth will be mostly covered with water in the form of oceans, rivers and streams. NOW, we make the observation that the Earth is indeed mostly covered with water in the form of oceans, rivers and streams. Does this support the hypothesis that aliens from Zeta Reticuli water-bombed the Earth? No, it does not. The only way you can try to make it appear that the Zeta Reticuli hypothesis is supported by the observation of abundant water in the here and now, is if you posture that the alien water bomb is the ONLY hypothesis on the table, and therefore is "supported" by the observation of abundant water. But to do that, you must ignore other, perhaps better hypotheses. Thing is, Ray, if there is more than one possible cause for a phenomenon, it is a FALLACY to claim that seeing that phenomenon in nature provides evidentiary support for any one particular cause. Water from comets in earth's primordial past, Noah's flood, aliens and water balloons, they all result in a wet Earth in 2016. There's no way to establish any one hypothesis as more "supported" than any other. Everything you've said to justify your claim of a global flood 3000 years BC can also be used to justify the claim of crazy water-ballooning aliens from Zeta Reticuli. Ray, you're silly to believe that Evil aliens from Zeta Reticuli dropped a Texas-sized water balloon on planet earth some five millennia ago!

Henry J said:

It is to be expected that he will demonize “materialism” because materialism doesn’t allow for supernatural explanations;

Except that if there were objectively verifiable patterns of evidence that supported something traditionally regarded as "supernatural", scientists would investigate it like anything else there's evidence for. IMNSHO, the labels "natural" and "supernatural" aren't particularly useful; the question in science is whether or not a concept is testable from the evidence, not whether or not somebody has labelled it as "supernatural".

Ray Martinez said:

Scott F said:

Ray Martinez said: And anyone can scroll back and fact check that your Affirming the Consequent claim was handily shot down. I'm sorry but the existence of other explanations cannot be included in a fallacy identification counter-claim. Ray (OEC)

Says who? And, so what?

You're not following the exchanges between Dave Thomas and myself. If you were you wouldn't ask what you asked. Ray

You: I'm sorry but the existence of other explanations cannot be included in a fallacy identification counter-claim.

Me: Says who?

You: I'm sorry but the existence of other explanations cannot be included in a fallacy identification counter-claim.

Me: So what?

Scott F said: It's worse than that. Even assuming that the statement, "IF p THEN q" is true, it makes absolutely no difference at all to the logic whether there are alternatives to the statement "p". Even if you can prove that "q" is true 100% of the time, even if there is no alternative to "p", the statement "IF p THEN q" simply offers no "proof" whatsoever to the truth or falsity of "p".

Ray Martinez said: In antediluvian times, if one stood on a bridge and looked up one would see what we see today when we stand on a bridge and look down: water. So when the Bible says it rained the same means the water canopy broke hence the Deluge. As for my dating of 3140 BC it is derived from Biblical chronology, ANE archaeology, and history.

Mike Elzinga said: Since this is a common misconception for beginning students of logic, self-educated Ray may have arrived at this misconception all by himself without anyone correcting him.

Ray Martinez said: In antediluvian times, if one stood on a bridge and looked up one would see what we see today when we stand on a bridge and look down: water. So when the Bible says it rained the same means the water canopy broke hence the Deluge.

Ray Martinez said: The importance of a Genesis flood is obvious: If it occurred about 5000 years ago then there isn't enough time for biodiversity seen today to have evolved by a selection process. This is WHY Darwinists MUST deny a Genesis flood.

phhht said:

Mike Elzinga said: Since this is a common misconception for beginning students of logic, self-educated Ray may have arrived at this misconception all by himself without anyone correcting him.

But he has been corrected, four or five times, right here at this blog.

Daniel said:

Ray Martinez said: The importance of a Genesis flood is obvious: If it occurred about 5000 years ago then there isn't enough time for biodiversity seen today to have evolved by a selection process. This is WHY Darwinists MUST deny a Genesis flood.

Except of course, that the Genesis flood was already recognized as a myth by Geologists at the beginning of the 19th century... around the time Darwin was born and 50 years before the publication of The Origin of Species. So mainstream science already denied the global flood before "Darwinists". Even William Buckland, the geologist closest in opinion to Ray (Old-Earth Creationist, Flood believer, species-immutabilist) had to eventually admit, begrudgingly, in The Bridgewater Treatises, that the flood described in Genesis was most likely a local flood. Of course, Buckland changed his mind because of the evidence he saw with his own eyes in the field, while Ray believes so in spite of the evidence.

Ray Martinez said: The importance of a Genesis flood is obvious: If it occurred about 5000 years ago then there isn't enough time for biodiversity seen today to have evolved by a selection process. This is WHY Darwinists MUST deny a Genesis flood.

stevaroni said: Damn, trying to figure out what Ray is saying always hurts my brain.

Just Bob said:

stevaroni said: Damn, trying to figure out what Ray is saying always hurts my brain.

You mean like when he claims that there were oceans before the flood; there was a flood; now there are oceans; and that proves there was a flood? Like that?

In antediluvian times, if one stood on a bridge and looked up one would see what we see today when we stand on a bridge and look down: water.

phhht said: This is the guy who thinks

In antediluvian times, if one stood on a bridge and looked up one would see what we see today when we stand on a bridge and look down: water.

stevaroni said:

phhht said: This is the guy who thinks

In antediluvian times, if one stood on a bridge and looked up one would see what we see today when we stand on a bridge and look down: water.

Well, when I was a young man I spent quite a bit of time scuba diving, so I have looked up through a great thickness of water. And I'll tell you what I saw, blue. Water (and water vapor) absorbs the red end of the spectrum quite strongly, so much so that the only color that gets to any depth is blue. This makes for a weird palate, so much so that it took science some time to figure out how color works for fish, till they realized that fish saw a colorful world because they had eyes that were color balanced with much more sensitivity in red and yellow and dramatically less in blue*. In fact, if you ever see a colorful photograph of, say, clown fish at home on a reef, you can be fairly certain that it was either taken in quite shallow water or the photographer used artificial light, like strobes. That's practically the only way to photograph vivid reds or yellows underwater. Now, if, back in creation times, all that water was above us, you would have expected Adam and Eve, - and indeed Noah before the flood - to have eyes balanced for a world with enormous amounts of blue relative to red, sort of a perpetual James Cameron twilight scene. Once all that all that water which was once up there decided to come down here, our world would turn dramatically redder. In fact, pretty much all we should see is red, which probably came as a hell of a shock to Noah, seeing that not only was he now floating on an ocean that hadn't been there yesterday, but the rain fell for 40 days from a sky that increasingly assumed all the colors of hell. In fact, he would have had trouble even seeing God's rainbow, his eyes would have been spectrally swamped all the time. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- *_{Don't even ask about mantis shrimp. Mantis shrimp see, like, 11 spectral bands. Mantis shrimp eyes are magic.}

stevaroni said:

phhht said: This is the guy who thinks

In antediluvian times, if one stood on a bridge and looked up one would see what we see today when we stand on a bridge and look down: water.

Well, when I was a young man I spent quite a bit of time scuba diving, so I have looked up through a great thickness of water. And I'll tell you what I saw, blue. Water (and water vapor) absorbs the red end of the spectrum quite strongly, so much so that the only color that gets to any depth is blue. This makes for a weird palate, so much so that it took science some time to figure out how color works for fish, till they realized that fish saw a colorful world because they had eyes that were color balanced with much more sensitivity in red and yellow and dramatically less in blue*. In fact, if you ever see a colorful photograph of, say, clown fish at home on a reef, you can be fairly certain that it was either taken in quite shallow water or the photographer used artificial light, like strobes. That's practically the only way to photograph vivid reds or yellows underwater. Now, if, back in creation times, all that water was above us, you would have expected Adam and Eve, - and indeed Noah before the flood - to have eyes balanced for a world with enormous amounts of blue relative to red, sort of a perpetual James Cameron twilight scene. Once all that all that water which was once up there decided to come down here, our world would turn dramatically redder. In fact, pretty much all we should see is red, which probably came as a hell of a shock to Noah, seeing that not only was he now floating on an ocean that hadn't been there yesterday, but the rain fell for 40 days from a sky that increasingly assumed all the colors of hell. In fact, he would have had trouble even seeing God's rainbow, his eyes would have been spectrally swamped all the time. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- *_{Don't even ask about mantis shrimp. Mantis shrimp see, like, 11 spectral bands. Mantis shrimp eyes are magic.}

[all-caps in the original] WE MUST REMEMBER THAT THE CONTEXT ALWAYS DETERMINES THE MEANING OF A WORD.

...when Genesis speaks of ‘waters’ above the raqiya‘, we are hardly to suppose that it was a substance universally composed of two parts hydrogen, one part oxygen.

It is not my place here to offer any speculations on the mechanisms of the Flood

Scott F said: Answers in Genitals goes on at length about the nature of "the firmament", arguing that, despite the inerrant nature of the Bible, you really have to bring the "right" translation and the "right" interpretation to the words.

[all-caps in the original] WE MUST REMEMBER THAT THE CONTEXT ALWAYS DETERMINES THE MEANING OF A WORD.

Scott F said: Oh, but it's worse than all that. It seems that the firmament (i.e., the dome holding back the canopy of water), is also the hard, solid dome in which the Sun, Moon, planets, and stars are all embedded. This would mean that the water canopy (on the other side of the firmament) was on the other side of the Sun. So, with the Sun on this side of all that extra water, you wouldn't have the lack of red light that you saw while diving.

Oh, but it’s worse than all that. It seems that the firmament (i.e., the dome holding back the canopy of water), is also the hard, solid dome in which the Sun, Moon, planets, and stars are all embedded. This would mean that the water canopy (on the other side of the firmament) was on the other side of the Sun. So, with the Sun on this side of all that extra water, you wouldn’t have the lack of red light that you saw while diving. OTOH, with the water canopy somewhere beyond the Sun and the stars (held back from falling to Earth by the hard firmament, of course), you’d still have the problem Mike keeps pointing out, of all that water falling to Earth from interstellar distances, bringing all that kinetic and gravitational energy with it, enough to melt the surface of the Earth to many miles deep. Of course Ray has no idea that his theology implies all this. Ray knows for a fact that there was a water canopy. He just has no idea where it was, or what happened to it. He has no idea where “the firmament” was, or what it was supposed to do.

TomS said:

Scott F said: Oh, but it's worse than all that. It seems that the firmament (i.e., the dome holding back the canopy of water), is also the hard, solid dome in which the Sun, Moon, planets, and stars are all embedded. This would mean that the water canopy (on the other side of the firmament) was on the other side of the Sun. So, with the Sun on this side of all that extra water, you wouldn't have the lack of red light that you saw while diving.

"In the six hundredth year of Noah's life, in the second month, the seventeenth day of the month, the same day were all the fountains of the great deep broken up, and the windows of heaven were opened." Genesis 7:11 Other translations say something like the "floodgates of heaven were opened". Whatever, that was a solid dome which was keeping the waters back and holding the Sun, Moon and stars.

It really does come down to cosmology. The people who wrote - or perhaps only the people who originated the stories that the later scribes wrote - thought of the earth as a solid disk. Water was underneath it, as anyone who dug a deep enough well would discover. Blue water surrounded it, and though there were other lands in the sea, eventually you came to a great ocean that went on forever. The sky, being blue, was also water arching overhead. After all, did not water fall from it? The sun, moon, planets and stars swam in this water, or perhaps floated above it. The world was thus a flat-floored bubble in an infinite ocean. All was sustained by the powers of gods or, later, God.

The Flood legend is consonant with this construction of the Universe. It is not consonant with anything else. By arguing for Noah's Flood, Ray and the others are arguing for this model of the Universe. It really is that simple.

stevaroni said: Once all that all that water which was once up there decided to come down here, our world would turn dramatically redder. In fact, pretty much all we should see is red, which probably came as a hell of a shock to Noah, seeing that not only was he now floating on an ocean that hadn't been there yesterday, but the rain fell for 40 days from a sky that increasingly assumed all the colors of hell. In fact, he would have had trouble even seeing God's rainbow, his eyes would have been spectrally swamped all the time. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- *_{Don't even ask about mantis shrimp. Mantis shrimp see, like, 11 spectral bands. Mantis shrimp eyes are magic.}

Dave Luckett said: It really does come down to cosmology. The people who wrote - or perhaps only the people who originated the stories that the later scribes wrote - thought of the earth as a solid disk. Water was underneath it, as anyone who dug a deep enough well would discover. Blue water surrounded it, and though there were other lands in the sea, eventually you came to a great ocean that went on forever. The sky, being blue, was also water arching overhead. After all, did not water fall from it? The sun, moon, planets and stars swam in this water, or perhaps floated above it. The world was thus a flat-floored bubble in an infinite ocean. All was sustained by the powers of gods or, later, God. The Flood legend is consonant with this construction of the Universe. It is not consonant with anything else. By arguing for Noah's Flood, Ray and the others are arguing for this model of the Universe. It really is that simple.

Greg Laden reviews a new book on the Grand Canyon here:
Grand Canyon

Dave Luckett said: It really does come down to cosmology. The people who wrote - or perhaps only the people who originated the stories that the later scribes wrote - thought of the earth as a solid disk. Water was underneath it, as anyone who dug a deep enough well would discover. Blue water surrounded it, and though there were other lands in the sea, eventually you came to a great ocean that went on forever. The sky, being blue, was also water arching overhead. After all, did not water fall from it? The sun, moon, planets and stars swam in this water, or perhaps floated above it. The world was thus a flat-floored bubble in an infinite ocean. All was sustained by the powers of gods or, later, God. The Flood legend is consonant with this construction of the Universe. It is not consonant with anything else. By arguing for Noah's Flood, Ray and the others are arguing for this model of the Universe. It really is that simple.

stevaroni said:

Scott F said: And on top of that I have to find a technical-sounding explanation that matches the story I've been telling all along.

In my experience no YEC cares if what he says no contradicts what he said five minutes ago.

Mike Elzinga said: When one gets a glimpse into the "thinking" of sectarians like Ray or Ken Ham, one can only shake one's head at the profound ignorance that these people have of some of the most basic knowledge that kids learn very early on. There are lots of hints from various fundamentalist sects in various religions of how these people get into this state and remain there for their entire lives; and those hints aren't pretty. Whether it is a fundamentalist full of self-loathing and rage - which then cascades into hatred of all the people he thinks are making him this way and, hence, must be killed because they are gay or infidels - or it is a fundamentalist seeking to be a feared and revered authority at the top of his sectarian subculture, these are people who live entirely inside their own heads and in the echo chamber that is their fundamentalist sect. They simply cannot take in the realities that surround them. Fundamentalist religions demand that people who have these "forbidden" feelings and thoughts must simply double down and become even more radical. Nothing that people like Ray or Ken Ham say or believe makes any sense in any real world. They get into the state they are in because their religion demands it and will punish them severely if they deviate in the slightest. Someone in that state doesn't dare to hold a skeptical thought about his religion.

phhht said:

Mike Elzinga said: Since this is a common misconception for beginning students of logic, self-educated Ray may have arrived at this misconception all by himself without anyone correcting him.

But he has been corrected, four or five times, right here at this blog.

But Ray, you missed the part about natural selection being perfectly capable of producing "design". So the mere "appearance of design" doesn't not rule out descent with modification.

Dave Thomas said:

Ray Martinez said:

Dave Thomas said:

Ray Martinez said:

Scott F said:

Ray Martinez said: And anyone can scroll back and fact check that your Affirming the Consequent claim was handily shot down. I'm sorry but the existence of other explanations cannot be included in a fallacy identification counter-claim. Ray (OEC)

Says who? And, so what?

You're not following the exchanges between Dave Thomas and myself. If you were you wouldn't ask what you asked. Ray

Ray, you simply didn't understand everyone's valid criticisms of your wacky claims, and why they do indeed establish that you are guilty of committing the "Assuming the Consequent" logical fallacy. If you had understood these criticisms, you would have withdrawn your illogical assertions. The fact that you're still crowing that the "Affirming the Consequent claim was handily shot down" proves you do not understand this basic and well-documented Fallacy, AND why you are guilty of its commission. Ray, simply declaring that you are Right does not make you Right. Do try to keep up now, hear?

Still waiting for your reply: http://pandasthumb.org/archives/2016/06/dembski-on-his.html#comment-354598 Ray

I guess I didn't reply, what is the point of explaining things again when you clearly are not understanding my points?

Let's try one more time. Here's a claim, a hypothesis if you will: • Evil aliens from Zeta Reticuli dropped a Texas-sized water balloon on planet earth some five millennia ago. IF that claim is true, THEN it's obvious that the Earth will be mostly covered with water in the form of oceans, rivers and streams. NOW, we make the observation that the Earth is indeed mostly covered with water in the form of oceans, rivers and streams. Does this support the hypothesis that aliens from Zeta Reticuli water-bombed the Earth? No, it does not.

The only way you can try to make it appear that the Zeta Reticuli hypothesis is supported by the observation of abundant water in the here and now, is if you posture that the alien water bomb is the ONLY hypothesis on the table, and therefore is “supported” by the observation of abundant water. But to do that, you must ignore other, perhaps better hypotheses.

Thing is, Ray, if there is more than one possible cause for a phenomenon, it is a FALLACY to claim that seeing that phenomenon in nature provides evidentiary support for any one particular cause.

Water from comets in earth’s primordial past, Noah’s flood, aliens and water balloons, they all result in a wet Earth in 2016. There’s no way to establish any one hypothesis as more “supported” than any other.

Everything you’ve said to justify your claim of a global flood 3000 years BC can also be used to justify the claim of crazy water-ballooning aliens from Zeta Reticuli. Ray, you’re silly to believe that Evil aliens from Zeta Reticuli dropped a Texas-sized water balloon on planet earth some five millennia ago!

Michael Fugate said: But Ray, you missed the part about natural selection being perfectly capable of producing "design". So the mere "appearance of design" doesn't not rule out descent with modification.

Can't respond - so you retreat into pedantry. Nice. I expect no less from someone without an knowledge of the natural world.

One last question for William Dembski:

Since Materialism, by starting assumption, rules out the Father of your alleged Savior as having any role in the production of reality past or reality present, and since these assumptions produced the so called "fact of evolution," which you believe does exist to some degree in nature, is it fair to say Christ disapproves of your acceptance of a fact produced by the assumptions of Materialism?

Ray (Protestant Evangelical; Old Earth-Paleyan Creationist-species immutabilist)

So, as it sits right now, the Darwinists simply invoke fallacies that were created to assert Biblical claims false. Invariably that's all these alleged fallacies consist: a generic restatement of what was said or argued followed by an assertion or declaration of falsity.

In reality these "fallacies" compliment the Supernatural worldview in that they presuppose inability to refute---that's why a fallacy must be created subjectively in order to "refute."

Ray (OEC-Young Biosphere; species immutabilist)

Mike Elzinga said: Or maybe the Flood changed the cosmology from flat Earth with arching dome of the heavens overhead into a sphere in space. ;-)

Ray Martinez said: One last question for William Dembski: Since Materialism, by starting assumption, rules out the Father of your alleged Savior as having any role in the production of reality past or reality present, and since these assumptions produced the so called "fact of evolution," which you believe does exist to some degree in nature, is it fair to say Christ disapproves of your acceptance of a fact produced by the assumptions of Materialism? Ray (Protestant Evangelical; Old Earth-Paleyan Creationist-species immutabilist)

Ray Martinez said: In reality these "fallacies" compliment the Supernatural worldview in that they presuppose inability to refute...

Ray Martinez said:

Ray Martinez said: One last question for William Dembski: Since Materialism, by starting assumption, rules out the Father of your alleged Savior as having any role in the production of reality past or reality present, and since these assumptions produced the so called "fact of evolution," which you believe does exist to some degree in nature, is it fair to say Christ disapproves of your acceptance of a fact produced by the assumptions of Materialism? Ray (Protestant Evangelical; Old Earth-Paleyan Creationist-species immutabilist)

Of course smart people understand that I'm asking this question to any and all "Christian" Evolutionists. RM

In your opinion Ray, there is no natural causation - only supernatural causation? If one were to opine that say HC2H3O2 + NaHCO3 spontaneously changing to NaC2H3O2 + H2O + CO2 is material and natural, they would be wrong because God exists?

There is a philosophical opinion which says that the only real cause is divine action.

See the Wikipedia article on "Occasionalism".

Ray, Greg Laden reviews a new book on the Grand Canyon here: Grand Canyon

Who's right, you or science?

What's wrong with the scientific view? How do your opinion fit the facts?

eric said:

Mike Elzinga said: Or maybe the Flood changed the cosmology from flat Earth with arching dome of the heavens overhead into a sphere in space. ;-)

IIRC Tolkein did that in the Silmarillion (well, his notes did, since it was written posthumously). Back to biblical flat-Earthism: I'm curious to know what holds all that water up on a dome. Wouldn't it just roll off down the sides of the dome? Does the fact that it didn't mean there were giant walls around the whole edifice? Or was the Earth more like a reverse snow-globe, a hemisphere with air in it floating in an infinite volume of water? If so, Mike, you may have to redo your calculations, as you only calculated the force of gravity on the kinetic energy of the water, not any 'push' it might receive from the surrounding water pressure.

Rolf said: Ray, Greg Laden reviews a new book on the Grand Canyon here: Grand Canyon Who's right, you or science? What's wrong with the scientific view? How do your opinion fit the facts?

TomS said: There is a philosophical opinion which says that the only real cause is divine action. See the Wikipedia article on "Occasionalism".

eric said:

Ray Martinez said:

Ray Martinez said: One last question for William Dembski: Since Materialism, by starting assumption, rules out the Father of your alleged Savior as having any role in the production of reality past or reality present, and since these assumptions produced the so called "fact of evolution," which you believe does exist to some degree in nature, is it fair to say Christ disapproves of your acceptance of a fact produced by the assumptions of Materialism? Ray (Protestant Evangelical; Old Earth-Paleyan Creationist-species immutabilist)

Of course smart people understand that I'm asking this question to any and all "Christian" Evolutionists. RM

Oh, well in that case: I would guess that an itinerant apocalyptic preacher from circa 0 AD would indeed think materialism was incorrect. I would expect that Dembski, since he's a self-professed OEC, would not classify himself as a materialist, and see your implication that he is one as a form of the loaded question fallacy. Its an open question on whether either of them would disapprove of some assertion merely because materialism supported that assertion. That's the poisoning the well fallacy. Materialism also supports the claim that the sky looks blue; do you think Christ or Dembski must disapprove of "the sky looks blue" merely because materialism supports it?

Ray Martinez said:

TomS said: There is a philosophical opinion which says that the only real cause is divine action. See the Wikipedia article on "Occasionalism".

Real Creationism, not pseudo 20th century Young Earth Creationism, holds to the position that nature is designed and thus created. Thus the material, or what is seen, is designed. Science, for example, says Schrodinger's cat is both dead and alive. Real Creationism agrees. Schrodinger's cat fully supports the existence of supernatural phenomena, in this case, paradoxical. Ray (OEC)

Ray Martinez said:

TomS said: There is a philosophical opinion which says that the only real cause is divine action. See the Wikipedia article on "Occasionalism".

Real Creationism, not pseudo 20th century Young Earth Creationism, holds to the position that nature is designed and thus created. Thus the material, or what is seen, is designed. Science, for example, says Schrodinger's cat is both dead and alive. Real Creationism agrees. Schrodinger's cat fully supports the existence of supernatural phenomena, in this case, paradoxical. Ray (OEC)

Ray Martinez said: A Materialist defending William Dembski?

Said defense equates to more evidence that Dembski isn't a real Christian because Materialists would never defend a real Christian.

Dembski is a professed Christian, like Ray. He's a scriptural inerrantist, like Ray. He's a creationist, like Ray. He's an old Earth creationist, like Ray. But he's not exactly the same sort of old Earth creationist scriptural inerrantist Christian as Ray. Therefore he's not a real Christian. He has bowed his knee to Baal. The lake of fire for him.

It's no use attempting to deploy reason or evidence before a mind capable of that. Nor before one capable of an utterance like "If Christ rose from the dead then all Biblical miracles must be true."

I suppose I should comfort myself with the certainty that Ray is a party of one. He's crazy, and everyone who encounters him soon realises it. Still, contemplating the awesome disconnect that constitutes Ray's mind makes one uneasy. If Ray is so certain of his strictly personal reality as to make such a gibbering idiot of himself in public over it, of what value is my own take on it? It certainly produces reticence; God forbid I should emulate Ray Martinez.

So you could say that to encounter Ray is a humbling experience. My sister says that everything serves a purpose. Perhaps so.

Ray Martinez said: Real Creationism, not pseudo 20th century Young Earth Creationism, holds to the position that nature is designed and thus created. Thus the material, or what is seen, is designed.

Bob, your words are wasted on Ray, just as they would be utterly wasted on Robert Byers. Ray can no more understand you than Robert. But nevermind. The rest of us appreciate what you're saying.

You are casting pearls to a pig, but even St Francis preached to birds. Bless you, and all other rational minds.

prongs said: Bob, your words are wasted on Ray, just as they would be utterly wasted on Robert Byers. Ray can no more understand you than Robert. But nevermind. The rest of us appreciate what you're saying. You are casting pearls to a pig, but even St Francis preached to birds. Bless you, and all other rational minds.

Rolf said: But Ray is lost in a maze in his brain.

Yeah, we went through that whole the watch was designed/created by humans, the stone was designed/created by god business some time ago. Ray conveniently left the building rather than explain how things appearing designed and things appearing undesigned are both in reality designed helps us understand anything. It is merely an assertion without evidence and predictive power.

It's really Paley's Undesigned Stone, but I like the story of how we tell that the images on Mount Rushmore are designed. And how that leads to tell us that living things are designed, too. Like the bushes and flies on Mount Rushmore are designed. So the Design Analogy tells us that the images on Mount Rushmore are just as much designed as the things that grow there. Those images just might have grown there, as far as "design" is concerned.

Re Mount Rushmore

Yeah, would beings not familiar with humans even notice anything about that mountain? Well, maybe the symmetries might catch their attention.

TomS said: It's really Paley's Undesigned Stone, but I like the story of how we tell that the images on Mount Rushmore are designed.

"...mimicry has never been observed in rocks."

Nuhh-uhh! Fool's gold! So there, Satan-worshiping materialists!

Re ”…mimicry has never been observed in rocks.”

Not even by rock scientists!

Ray Martinez said: Ray (Old Earth, Paleyan Creationist,Protestant Evangelical, inerrantist,species immutabilist, pathological liar, bigot, hypocrite, idiot and fraud)

Dale said: Why do you waste your time making a fool of yourself here? You cannot even establish via evidence that your god exists, let alone that he is the creator of the universe, this world or even of humanity. You have NOTHING to give us in terms of productive discussion.

With the unlimited powers their God are endowed with, why wouldn't he just leave nature alone to do his work for him? Remember how exhausted he was after only six days of work, he had to go to bed a whole day after that.

Who looked after the world in the meantime?

Remember, we're talking about unlimited power. Unlimited power mean that whatever is wanted simply happens. Planning is what we limited agents have to do.

Think of what we have to do when we take a trip. We have to pack our bags - just one little thing among a long list. If I were a billionaire (just merely a billionaire, not mention an infinity-aire) I wouldn't have to pack my bags. I wouldn't have to plan, I'd just go and I'd have some of my servants do the planning.

Necessity is the mother of invention.

And, as there is no necessity facing an unlimited agency, there is no need, no point to, design.

Who looked after the world in the meantime?

Henry J said: Re ”…mimicry has never been observed in rocks.” Not even by rock scientists!

Daniel said:

Ray Martinez said: The importance of a Genesis flood is obvious: If it occurred about 5000 years ago then there isn't enough time for biodiversity seen today to have evolved by a selection process. This is WHY Darwinists MUST deny a Genesis flood.

Except of course, that the Genesis flood was already recognized as a myth by Geologists at the beginning of the 19th century... around the time Darwin was born and 50 years before the publication of The Origin of Species. So mainstream science already denied the global flood before "Darwinists". Even William Buckland, the geologist closest in opinion to Ray (Old-Earth Creationist, Flood believer, species-immutabilist) had to eventually admit, begrudgingly, in The Bridgewater Treatises, that the flood described in Genesis was most likely a local flood. Of course, Buckland changed his mind because of the evidence he saw with his own eyes in the field, while Ray believes so in spite of the evidence.

stevaroni said:

Ray Martinez said: The importance of a Genesis flood is obvious: If it occurred about 5000 years ago then there isn't enough time for biodiversity seen today to have evolved by a selection process. This is WHY Darwinists MUST deny a Genesis flood.

I had that same thought, DS. When I first saw Ray's quote I had to stop and carefully re-read it about 5 times to make sure I hadn't missed anything. His argument seemingly boils down to: Classical science must deny a catastrophic event 5000 years ago because their model of evolution doesn't work fast enough to give us the diversity of life we see today from the animals on the Ark. I suspect that most proponents of evolution are totally fine with this idea. But his argument about why science must deny a flood does highlight his apparent counterpoint that scientific orthodoxy is wrong, that the flood is perfectly logical because there is some mechanism that looks just like evolution - but isn't evolution - but it works much faster than evolution ever could. And this is why evolution is wrong, Because superevolution is a thing. And therefore because there is superevolution, there is no plain vanilla evolution. Damn, trying to figure out what Ray is saying always hurts my brain.

Just Bob said:

Ray Martinez said: Real Creationism, not pseudo 20th century Young Earth Creationism, holds to the position that nature is designed and thus created. Thus the material, or what is seen, is designed.

Hey, wait! You're the guy who, just a few months ago, when asked to name something that wasn't designed, trotted out "Paley's stone."

And you had trouble grasping the concept that "Paley's stone" was undisputed as an UNdesigned object, because it was merely a hypothetical, thought-experiment object, so of course it had whatever hypothetical properties old Billy P. wanted it to have. He could have said it was pure neutronium, and no one would dispute him, since it was his imaginary rock.

My original challenge was to get you to explain how you could KNOW that a natural-appearing rock was not, in fact, designed atom-by-atom to look just as that rock looks. How could you tell?

Ray Martinez said: Current surface of earth acts to buttress our logic and fact. The ball is back in your court. Ray (OEC)

Ray Martinez said: That was me.

Let me ask some questions.
Was the Flood the only global natural disaster leading to large-scale extinction of species? What about the ends of the Permian, Triassic and Cretaceous periods? Was your God mad about something else then?
Did your God repopulate the earth after each one of these events? If so why?
Noah could only have taken a very limited number of animals on the Ark - obviously not all the species alive today - did said God create new species 5000 years ago that were not present before the Flood?
How do you read Genesis and the days? It doesn't bear any resemblance to the fossil record, so is said God creating new species all the time - a few here and there and many after mass die-offs?
Who were the geologists that held to your views in the 19th century? Sedgwick and Agassiz dismissed the Flood, but were opposed to evolution. I am sure there were some who still held to a young earth. Who conceded an old earth, a worldwide flood, and no descent with modification?

Still waiting for ANYONE to reply:

http://pandasthumb.org/archives/2016/06/dembski-on-his.html#comment-354869\

Ray (OEC)

Ray Martinez said: Still waiting for ANYONE to reply: http://pandasthumb.org/archives/2016/06/dembski-on-his.html#comment-354869\ Ray (OEC)

Ray Martinez said: Still waiting for ANYONE to reply: http://pandasthumb.org/archives/2016/06/dembski-on-his.html#comment-354869\ Ray (OEC)

Again, HOW could ANY Christian be as such and accept the miracle of the Resurrection but not accept all other Biblical miracles, including a worldwide flood? Does not the Textual evidence exist to preserve the works of God so future generations will know what God did? Which is harder for God: worldwide flood or Resurrection?

We have, for example, current surface of earth overrun with water; seashells found on mountain tops, erratic boulders, ancient writings external to Bible preserving common denominator facts found in Genesis, and the Resurrection. Yet so called Christians like William Dembski, who is on record as condemning Materialism, but now has come to accept the local flood explanation of Materialism. Why not accept a pro-Bible explanation of data?

Ray

Ray Martinez said: HOW could ANY Christian be as such and accept the miracle of the Resurrection but not accept all other Biblical miracles, including a worldwide flood? Does not the Textual evidence exist to preserve the works of God so future generations will know what God did? Which is harder for God: worldwide flood or Resurrection?

Ray Martinez said: Again, HOW could ANY Christian be as such and accept the miracle of the Resurrection but not accept all other Biblical miracles, including a worldwide flood?

http://www.uncommondescent.com/about-2/ Uncommon Descent holds that… Materialistic ideology has subverted the study of biological and cosmological origins so that the actual content of these sciences has become corrupted. The problem, therefore, is not merely that science is being used illegitimately to promote a materialistic worldview, but that this worldview is actively undermining scientific inquiry, leading to incorrect and unsupported conclusions about biological and cosmological origins. At the same time, intelligent design (ID) offers a promising scientific alternative to materialistic theories of biological and cosmological evolution — an alternative that is finding increasing theoretical and empirical support. Hence, ID needs to be vigorously developed as a scientific, intellectual, and cultural project.

Ray Martinez said: I wonder what Christ thinks of Dembski, or any Christian, accepting facts produced by the assumptions of Materialism?

phhht said:

Ray Martinez said: I wonder what Christ thinks of Dembski, or any Christian, accepting facts produced by the assumptions of Materialism?

I wonder what Dracula thinks of Dembski, Ray. Why don't you tell us? You apparently claim insight into the thoughts of imaginary characters.

Ray Martinez said: Again, HOW could ANY Christian be as such and accept the miracle of the Resurrection but not accept all other Biblical miracles, including a worldwide flood? Does not the Textual evidence exist to preserve the works of God so future generations will know what God did? Which is harder for God: worldwide flood or Resurrection? We have, for example, current surface of earth overrun with water; seashells found on mountain tops, erratic boulders, ancient writings external to Bible preserving common denominator facts found in Genesis, and the Resurrection. Yet so called Christians like William Dembski, who is on record as condemning Materialism, but now has come to accept the local flood explanation of Materialism. Why not accept a pro-Bible explanation of data? Ray

Ray Martinez said:

phhht said:

Ray Martinez said: I wonder what Christ thinks of Dembski, or any Christian, accepting facts produced by the assumptions of Materialism?

I wonder what Dracula thinks of Dembski, Ray. Why don't you tell us? You apparently claim insight into the thoughts of imaginary characters.

I know that Christ is alive; we have relationship with Him; He is the Chief Shepherd, guiding our lives.

Ray Martinez said: As Christians both Dembski and I know that Christ is alive...

Fact: William Dembski does accept the concepts of unintelligent-natural selection, micro-evolution, and macro-evolution/common descent existing in nature. As does, for example, Wesley R. Elsberry and Kenneth Miller.

All three persons claim to be Christians (walking with Christ). Yet the evolutionary concepts, listed above, were produced by the assumptions of Materialism. These assumptions say the intelligence and power of Christ's Father not seen in material reality past or material reality present.

How does anyone in Africa or Iceland, for example, know that these persons are walking with Christ? Since each of these persons accept the assumptions of Materialism to have validity I contend said acceptance equates to evidence that falsifies any claim that says these persons are walking or following Christ. The Son of God, of course, cannot be said to have led persons to accept the assumptions of Materialism and "facts" produced by these assumptions.

Ray (Protestant Evangelical; Old Earth-Young Biosphere; Paleyan Creationist-species immutabilist)

eric said:

Ray Martinez said: Again, HOW could ANY Christian be as such and accept the miracle of the Resurrection but not accept all other Biblical miracles, including a worldwide flood?

Do you seriously not understand how someone could read a book compiled from many authors over the course of centuries and say "I think this part is accurate, I think that part isn't"?

DS said:

Ray Martinez said: Again, HOW could ANY Christian be as such and accept the miracle of the Resurrection but not accept all other Biblical miracles, including a worldwide flood? Does not the Textual evidence exist to preserve the works of God so future generations will know what God did? Which is harder for God: worldwide flood or Resurrection? We have, for example, current surface of earth overrun with water; seashells found on mountain tops, erratic boulders, ancient writings external to Bible preserving common denominator facts found in Genesis, and the Resurrection. Yet so called Christians like William Dembski, who is on record as condemning Materialism, but now has come to accept the local flood explanation of Materialism. Why not accept a pro-Bible explanation of data? Ray

How could any christian not accept the evidence of his own eyes, The world is not covered in water [....snip....]

DS said:

Ray Martinez said: Again, HOW could ANY Christian be as such and accept the miracle of the Resurrection but not accept all other Biblical miracles, including a worldwide flood? Does not the Textual evidence exist to preserve the works of God so future generations will know what God did? Which is harder for God: worldwide flood or Resurrection? We have, for example, current surface of earth overrun with water; seashells found on mountain tops, erratic boulders, ancient writings external to Bible preserving common denominator facts found in Genesis, and the Resurrection. Yet so called Christians like William Dembski, who is on record as condemning Materialism, but now has come to accept the local flood explanation of Materialism. Why not accept a pro-Bible explanation of data? Ray

How could any christian not accept the evidence of his own eyes, The world is not covered in water [....snip....]

eric said:

Ray Martinez said: Again, HOW could ANY Christian be as such and accept the miracle of the Resurrection but not accept all other Biblical miracles, including a worldwide flood?

Do you seriously not understand how someone could read a book compiled from many authors over the course of centuries and say "I think this part is accurate, I think that part isn't"?

phhht said:

Ray Martinez said:

phhht said:

Ray Martinez said: I wonder what Christ thinks of Dembski, or any Christian, accepting facts produced by the assumptions of Materialism?

I wonder what Dracula thinks of Dembski, Ray. Why don't you tell us? You apparently claim insight into the thoughts of imaginary characters.

I know that Christ is alive; we have relationship with Him; He is the Chief Shepherd, guiding our lives.

I notice that you cannot offer a scintilla of testable evidence for those claims, Ray. I say you're a loony, a victim of religious delusional illness. Why not tell us that you know that Dracula is alive, and that you have a relationship with him? After all, he's the Chief Vampire, guiding your life. Why should anyone believe you, Ray?

Ray Martinez said:

DS said:

Ray Martinez said: Again, HOW could ANY Christian be as such and accept the miracle of the Resurrection but not accept all other Biblical miracles, including a worldwide flood? Does not the Textual evidence exist to preserve the works of God so future generations will know what God did? Which is harder for God: worldwide flood or Resurrection? We have, for example, current surface of earth overrun with water; seashells found on mountain tops, erratic boulders, ancient writings external to Bible preserving common denominator facts found in Genesis, and the Resurrection. Yet so called Christians like William Dembski, who is on record as condemning Materialism, but now has come to accept the local flood explanation of Materialism. Why not accept a pro-Bible explanation of data? Ray

How could any christian not accept the evidence of his own eyes, The world is not covered in water [....snip....]

Surface of earth is three-quarters water including very many rivers and lakes. In other words our surface is flooded. Your refusal to represent the facts correctly indicates much. Ray

Ray Martinez said:

DS said:

Ray Martinez said: Again, HOW could ANY Christian be as such and accept the miracle of the Resurrection but not accept all other Biblical miracles, including a worldwide flood? Does not the Textual evidence exist to preserve the works of God so future generations will know what God did? Which is harder for God: worldwide flood or Resurrection? We have, for example, current surface of earth overrun with water; seashells found on mountain tops, erratic boulders, ancient writings external to Bible preserving common denominator facts found in Genesis, and the Resurrection. Yet so called Christians like William Dembski, who is on record as condemning Materialism, but now has come to accept the local flood explanation of Materialism. Why not accept a pro-Bible explanation of data? Ray

How could any christian not accept the evidence of his own eyes, The world is not covered in water [....snip....]

Surface of earth is three-quarters water including very many rivers and lakes. In other words our surface is flooded. Your refusal to represent the facts correctly indicates much. Ray

Ray Martinez said: Imagine that; some parts are Divinely inspired, some are not---specifically, the first Book of the Bible suffers from this corruption. Of course Dembski, I believe, isn't saying this. He is saying it NEVER said worldwide flood. Flood waters covering "all the earth" probably means "then known earth" in his mind. This is how he gets around the skeptical contradiction of "pick-and-choose" what is true.

Ray Martinez said:

DS said:

Ray Martinez said: Again, HOW could ANY Christian be as such and accept the miracle of the Resurrection but not accept all other Biblical miracles, including a worldwide flood? Does not the Textual evidence exist to preserve the works of God so future generations will know what God did? Which is harder for God: worldwide flood or Resurrection? We have, for example, current surface of earth overrun with water; seashells found on mountain tops, erratic boulders, ancient writings external to Bible preserving common denominator facts found in Genesis, and the Resurrection. Yet so called Christians like William Dembski, who is on record as condemning Materialism, but now has come to accept the local flood explanation of Materialism. Why not accept a pro-Bible explanation of data? Ray

How could any christian not accept the evidence of his own eyes, The world is not covered in water [....snip....]

Surface of earth is three-quarters water including very many rivers and lakes. In other words our surface is flooded. Your refusal to represent the facts correctly indicates much. Ray

PaulBC said:

eric said:

Ray Martinez said: Again, HOW could ANY Christian be as such and accept the miracle of the Resurrection but not accept all other Biblical miracles, including a worldwide flood?

Do you seriously not understand how someone could read a book compiled from many authors over the course of centuries and say "I think this part is accurate, I think that part isn't"?

Agreed. And more specifically, the resurrection is a key plank of Christian belief, stated explicitly in the Nicene Creed. Without it, large parts of Christian theology fail to make sense, since a primary goal of Christian belief is to be reborn in Christ and live eternally (that does not make it any more believable to a non-Christian than Noah's ark, but that's not my point). The story of Noah on the other hand, makes identical theological points whether you see it as an actual event or as allegory. But if you try to see it as an actual event, you soon realize it is completely impossible. Christ can be resurrected if you assume he is God, but Noah, a man, can't really build a boat of that size, it can't really hold all the animals, you can't really repopulate the earth from that starting point, a flood of that scale is inconsistent with current evidence, and so forth. It is less believable precisely because it is presented as something less than miraculous, but which falls apart immediately on an examination of details. It strikes me more as a tall tale than anything else, except that it would be easier to convince me that the giant lumberjack named Paul Bunyan could fell a tree in a single stroke than to convince me that Noah's exploits have any factual basis at all. And ultimately, it just doesn't matter whether it describes real events any more than it matters whether Paul Bunyan existed. Both are expressions of cultural values and need to be seen in that light. The resurrection, on the other hand, is seen as an actual miracle by most Christians to the point that it is nearly a defining belief. That is the difference.

Ray Martinez said: Imagine that; some parts are Divinely inspired, some are not---specifically, the first Book of the Bible suffers from this corruption. Of course Dembski, I believe, isn't saying this.

Mike Elzinga said:

PaulBC said:

eric said:

Ray Martinez said: Again, HOW could ANY Christian be as such and accept the miracle of the Resurrection but not accept all other Biblical miracles, including a worldwide flood?

Do you seriously not understand how someone could read a book compiled from many authors over the course of centuries and say "I think this part is accurate, I think that part isn't"?

Agreed. And more specifically, the resurrection is a key plank of Christian belief, stated explicitly in the Nicene Creed. Without it, large parts of Christian theology fail to make sense, since a primary goal of Christian belief is to be reborn in Christ and live eternally (that does not make it any more believable to a non-Christian than Noah's ark, but that's not my point). The story of Noah on the other hand, makes identical theological points whether you see it as an actual event or as allegory. But if you try to see it as an actual event, you soon realize it is completely impossible. Christ can be resurrected if you assume he is God, but Noah, a man, can't really build a boat of that size, it can't really hold all the animals, you can't really repopulate the earth from that starting point, a flood of that scale is inconsistent with current evidence, and so forth. It is less believable precisely because it is presented as something less than miraculous, but which falls apart immediately on an examination of details. It strikes me more as a tall tale than anything else, except that it would be easier to convince me that the giant lumberjack named Paul Bunyan could fell a tree in a single stroke than to convince me that Noah's exploits have any factual basis at all. And ultimately, it just doesn't matter whether it describes real events any more than it matters whether Paul Bunyan existed. Both are expressions of cultural values and need to be seen in that light. The resurrection, on the other hand, is seen as an actual miracle by most Christians to the point that it is nearly a defining belief. That is the difference.

And "species immutability", whatever it means, has no relevance to anything in the Bible, or in Christianity, of any sort, before (to be generous) modernity. On the other hand, the Bible does give one reasons to believe that the Earth is motionless and circled daily by the Sun; or that the world is less than 10,000 years old. I think it is pretty clear that Ray doesn't have a clue about the implications of what he is asserting with such bravado. Nothing he claims to believe is consistent with any well-established chemistry, physics, biology, or geology. He knows absolutely nothing about any of these subjects; and he apparently thinks that scientific concepts and evidence are merely matters of opinion. His putting such accusations in "philosophical" terms reveals that he knows absolutely nothing about philosophy either; he got his "philosophy" from sources like Uncommon Descent. He claims "species immutability" without having a clue that "immutability" is inconsistent with the possibility of any kind of living organism. If it is a living organism, it has to change; the binding energies that allow a living organism to exist also have as their consequence that living organisms very definitely will evolve over time. "Immutable species" would be like the tightly bound systems that are rocks and other rigid solids. And not even diamonds are forever. Ray doesn't have a clue about what any of that means. Ray's belief in a worldwide flood is also inconsistent with the laws of physics. He has to reject the laws of physics; and that means that Ray's ideas of cosmology are those of the ancient world's Flat Earth Cosmology. If Ray denies the he is a Flat Earther, then he is accepting implicitly the "materialistic science" he claims he dispises and rejects. His worldwide flood is inconsistent with our modern understanding of cosmology and our solar system. It is also inconsistent with the fact that, even as he is making these claims, he is typing on a computer; but I doubt that he will ever figure that one out in his lifetime. I would estimate that Ray's "formal education" consists, at best, of elementary school and a bit of middle school with poor grades. The rest is a sort of "self-education" cobbled together to be consistent with a sectarian dogma he decided is to be the correct and "superior" dogma over all others. Ray's repeated name-calling is pretty consitent with the hackneyed sectarian warfare type that sneers at people who have made the effort to get a proper education.

And “species immutability”, whatever it means, has no relevance to anything in the Bible, or in Christianity, of any sort, before (to be generous) modernity. On the other hand, the Bible does give one reasons to believe that the Earth is motionless and circled daily by the Sun; or that the world is less than 10,000 years old.

And “species immutability”, whatever it means, has no relevance to anything in the Bible, or in Christianity, of any sort, before (to be generous) modernity. On the other hand, the Bible does give one reasons to believe that the Earth is motionless and circled daily by the Sun; or that the world is less than 10,000 years old.

And “species immutability”, whatever it means, has no relevance to anything in the Bible, or in Christianity, of any sort, before (to be generous) modernity. On the other hand, the Bible does give one reasons to believe that the Earth is motionless and circled daily by the Sun; or that the world is less than 10,000 years old.

Sheesh! Why is this multiple posting happening? After hitting "Submit" the site just hangs up and then I try to refresh. After several attempts, I see multiple posts.

Ray Martinez said: a watch (= sexually reproducing animal or species)

Ray Martinez said: Thus you're unable to understand anything that falsifies evolutionary theory. You missed the entire point, which is wholly uncomplicated. Good example of how dumb any given Evolutionist actually is. Ray (OEC)

what I’m saying will surely escape your understanding, let me spell it out: The fact that Sedgwick and science held to independent creation of new species until the rise of Darwinism supports a supernaturally caused worldwide flood about 5000 years ago. Current surface of earth acts to buttress our logic and fact.

stevaroni said: Which is not even verifiable as actual English, much less as verifiable fact.

Just Bob said:

Ray Martinez said: a watch (= sexually reproducing animal or species)

You're a real hoot, Ray! In RayWorld, do watches have sexual congress, then give birth to little baby watches, which are never exactly like either parent?

Henry J said:

Just Bob said:

Ray Martinez said: a watch (= sexually reproducing animal or species)

You're a real hoot, Ray! In RayWorld, do watches have sexual congress, then give birth to little baby watches, which are never exactly like either parent?

Yeah, where would they find the time to do such things?

Ray Martinez said: Not exactly true. It's more accurate to use eminent geologist Adam Sedgwick than William Buckland----which moves global flood rejection dating up. Yet Sedgwick vehemently maintained new species created independently. Since what I'm saying will surely escape your understanding, let me spell it out: The fact that Sedgwick and science held to independent creation of new species until the rise of Darwinism supports a supernaturally caused worldwide flood about 5000 years ago. Current surface of earth acts to buttress our logic and fact. The ball is back in your court. Ray (OEC)

It's more accurate to use eminent geologist Adam Sedgwick than William Buckland----which moves global flood rejection dating up

The fact that Sedgwick and science held to independent creation of new species until the rise of Darwinism supports a supernaturally caused worldwide flood about 5000 years ago.

Ray tells us that Paley's watch is analogous (he actually used the = sign, but I don't think even Ray means that) to "a sexually reproducing animal or species". That is, they share the same elements of complexity and an arrangement of parts that appear to be purposeful, arranged by design to fulfill a function.

Let us neglect the obvious fact that it would appear that Ray is conceding by limitation that the watch is not analogous to a plant or a fungus or an asexually reproducing animal. Let us also not make fun of his foolish conflation of "animal" and "species". That would be to take advantage of Ray's catastrophic ignorance of biology to land only a rhetorical blow. It might do for a Presidential debate, but this is a rational forum.

No, let us go to the heart of the matter. The Paleyan argument from analogy requires two bounds over impassible logical canyons. One, it requires that complexity and arrangement are necessarily the marks of extrinsic design. Two, it requires that this design is purposeful, that is, that there is a purpose to life installed in it from an external source, rather than the intrinsic end of surviving to reproduce. Otherwise it is impossible to assert that life is designed because it shares the characteristics of a watch, which is designed for a purpose.

Neither of these assertions can be made out. The Paleyan argument simply evaporates on inspection.

Mike Elzinga said: Sheesh! Why is this multiple posting happening? After hitting "Submit" the site just hangs up and then I try to refresh. After several attempts, I see multiple posts.

stevaroni said: Then go ahead, Ray, offer me something that falsifies evolutionary theory.

Ray Martinez said:

DS said:

Ray Martinez said: Again, HOW could ANY Christian be as such and accept the miracle of the Resurrection but not accept all other Biblical miracles, including a worldwide flood? Does not the Textual evidence exist to preserve the works of God so future generations will know what God did? Which is harder for God: worldwide flood or Resurrection? We have, for example, current surface of earth overrun with water; seashells found on mountain tops, erratic boulders, ancient writings external to Bible preserving common denominator facts found in Genesis, and the Resurrection. Yet so called Christians like William Dembski, who is on record as condemning Materialism, but now has come to accept the local flood explanation of Materialism. Why not accept a pro-Bible explanation of data? Ray

How could any christian not accept the evidence of his own eyes, The world is not covered in water [....snip....]

Surface of earth is three-quarters water including very many rivers and lakes. In other words our surface is flooded. Your refusal to represent the facts correctly indicates much. Ray

Scott F said: So, you have refused to simply look at this picture, which completely refutes your claim. It doesn't even take any reading comprehension. Sure, there's a lot of water on a human scale. But on a human scale, the Earth is even bigger. By volume, the Earth is only about 0.12% water. The deepest part of the Earth's ocean is 7 miles, or 0.08% the diameter of the Earth. Contrast that with an ocean 65 miles deep covering the entire surface of Europa. Now *that's* flooded.

Michael Fugate said:

Ray Martinez said:

DS said:

Ray Martinez said: Again, HOW could ANY Christian be as such and accept the miracle of the Resurrection but not accept all other Biblical miracles, including a worldwide flood? Does not the Textual evidence exist to preserve the works of God so future generations will know what God did? Which is harder for God: worldwide flood or Resurrection? We have, for example, current surface of earth overrun with water; seashells found on mountain tops, erratic boulders, ancient writings external to Bible preserving common denominator facts found in Genesis, and the Resurrection. Yet so called Christians like William Dembski, who is on record as condemning Materialism, but now has come to accept the local flood explanation of Materialism. Why not accept a pro-Bible explanation of data? Ray

How could any christian not accept the evidence of his own eyes, The world is not covered in water [....snip....]

Surface of earth is three-quarters water including very many rivers and lakes. In other words our surface is flooded. Your refusal to represent the facts correctly indicates much. Ray

Ray, if the earth were covered with 50% water, 25% water, 10% water, or 0% water, would any of these values change your belief in a worldwide flood?

Henry J said:

Just Bob said:

Ray Martinez said: a watch (= sexually reproducing animal or species)

You're a real hoot, Ray! In RayWorld, do watches have sexual congress, then give birth to little baby watches, which are never exactly like either parent?

Yeah, where would they find the time to do such things?

Scott F said:

Ray Martinez said:

DS said:

Ray Martinez said: Again, HOW could ANY Christian be as such and accept the miracle of the Resurrection but not accept all other Biblical miracles, including a worldwide flood? Does not the Textual evidence exist to preserve the works of God so future generations will know what God did? Which is harder for God: worldwide flood or Resurrection? We have, for example, current surface of earth overrun with water; seashells found on mountain tops, erratic boulders, ancient writings external to Bible preserving common denominator facts found in Genesis, and the Resurrection. Yet so called Christians like William Dembski, who is on record as condemning Materialism, but now has come to accept the local flood explanation of Materialism. Why not accept a pro-Bible explanation of data? Ray

How could any christian not accept the evidence of his own eyes, The world is not covered in water [....snip....]

Surface of earth is three-quarters water including very many rivers and lakes. In other words our surface is flooded. Your refusal to represent the facts correctly indicates much. Ray

So, you have refused to simply look at this picture, which completely refutes your claim. It doesn't even take any reading comprehension. Sure, there's a lot of water on a human scale. But on a human scale, the Earth is even bigger. By volume, the Earth is only about 0.12% water. The deepest part of the Earth's ocean is 7 miles, or 0.08% the diameter of the Earth. Contrast that with an ocean 65 miles deep covering the entire surface of Europa. Now *that's* flooded. The Earth is simply *not* flooded, on a geologic scale.

Actually, historical sea level changes represent a very important part of earth history. And they are vitally important to understanding the current changes in sea level that are occurring due to global climate change. In fact, we know that sea levels have not been significantly higher than present day levels for the last 150,000 years. I could provide a reference, but Ray doesn't seem to like that kind of thing.

So no, there was no world wide flood in recent history. In fact, if you go back over 500 million years, you still can't find a time when sea levels were significantly higher than they are today. And this knowledge is critical for our understanding of both the past and future of out planet.

Now what are the odds that Ray will be convinced by this evidence? Then again, what are the odds that he will admit that global climate change is real?

It all starts with believing in a God for Ray and FL. From there, they believe the Bible is God's word and from there, they believe in a worldwide flood and species fixity. Then and only then do they start looking for evidence in nature to corroborate their belief. They pick and choose to find anything that will fit their preconceptions or mostly they parrot someone else who has picked and chosen.
This is completely backward to how a scientist would work and is why scientists dismiss a worldwide flood and species fixity; the evidence from nature is consistent with neither.

DS said: Now what are the odds that Ray will be convinced by this evidence? Then again, what are the odds that he will admit that global climate change is real?

Michael Fugate said: It all starts with believing in a God for Ray and FL. From there, they believe the Bible is God's word and from there, they believe in a worldwide flood and species fixity. Then and only then do they start looking for evidence in nature to corroborate their belief. They pick and choose to find anything that will fit their preconceptions or mostly they parrot someone else who has picked and chosen. This is completely backward to how a scientist would work and is why scientists dismiss a worldwide flood and species fixity; the evidence from nature is consistent with neither.

TomS said:

stevaroni said: Then go ahead, Ray, offer me something that falsifies evolutionary theory.

I'd like to see an alternative. Some account for anything about the variety of life which does not involve evolution. If we were to concede, for the sake of argument, that there is something fatally flawed in evolution as a component of explaining something: Is there something waiting to fill in for it. Even something supernatural, even if we don't have any evidence for it, even if it isn't fully worked out. Just something which tells us what happens so that "such-and-such rather than so-and-so".

PaulBC said:

DS said: Now what are the odds that Ray will be convinced by this evidence? Then again, what are the odds that he will admit that global climate change is real?

This isn't even the right question to ask. Obviously, he won't be swayed by evidence or reason. I do sometimes wonder how much creationists are split between lying consciously and suffering from a severe cognitive deficit. I don't even think Elzinga's grade school dropout theory has sufficient explanatory power. You really have to go far out of your way to take something like a global flood seriously enough not to reject it after a very short amount of examination.

From what I've seen of Ray over the years at talk.origins I have come to regard him as a case of pathology. That makes the number of angels that can dance on the head of a pin a more appropriate theme for debate.

Rolf said: From what I've seen of Ray over the years at talk.origins I have come to regard him as a case of pathology. That makes the number of angels that can dance on the head of a pin a more appropriate theme for debate.

Mike Elzinga said: I

And “species immutability”, whatever it means, has no relevance to anything in the Bible, or in Christianity, of any sort, before (to be generous) modernity. On the other hand, the Bible does give one reasons to believe that the Earth is motionless and circled daily bbuyy the Sun; or that the world is less than 10,000 years old.

This is an important observation that gets to the motives behind these sectarian attacks on secular society. These sectarians really do want their sectarian dogma to have the imprimatur of science; and any "science" will do just as long as it isn't that evil "materialistic science" of the "atheists," "Darwinists," and "evolutionists." Sectarian bigotry clearly has its dog whistles and demonizing language so that the followers of this crap can know who wears the "white hats" and who wears the "black hats." The bigots who suck the intellectual life out of their followers explain away the resulting ignorance, suffering, and poverty by blaming it all on "secularism."

Ray Martinez said:

Mike Elzinga said: I

And “species immutability”, whatever it means, has no relevance to anything in the Bible, or in Christianity, of any sort, before (to be generous) modernity. On the other hand, the Bible does give one reasons to believe that the Earth is motionless and circled daily bbuyy the Sun; or that the world is less than 10,000 years old.

This is an important observation that gets to the motives behind these sectarian attacks on secular society. These sectarians really do want their sectarian dogma to have the imprimatur of science; and any "science" will do just as long as it isn't that evil "materialistic science" of the "atheists," "Darwinists," and "evolutionists." Sectarian bigotry clearly has its dog whistles and demonizing language so that the followers of this crap can know who wears the "white hats" and who wears the "black hats." The bigots who suck the intellectual life out of their followers explain away the resulting ignorance, suffering, and poverty by blaming it all on "secularism."

Hey Mike, could you please tell us what other choices the Atheist has besides evolution? Since the answer is none do you still maintain evolution falsifiable? Ray

Still waiting for someone to produce any verse, statement, phrase, or word in the Bible that indicates a young earth?

Ray (OEC)

Ray Martinez said: Hey Mike, could you please tell us what other choices the Atheist has besides evolution? Since the answer is none do you still maintain evolution falsifiable? Ray

Ray Martinez said: [C]ould you please tell us what other choices the Atheist has besides evolution?

Ray Martinez said: Hey Mike, could you please tell us what other choices the Atheist has besides evolution?

Ray Martinez said: Hey Mike, could you please tell us what other choices the Atheist has besides evolution? Since the answer is none do you still maintain evolution falsifiable? Ray

Mike Elzinga said:

Henry J said:

Just Bob said:

Ray Martinez said: a watch (= sexually reproducing animal or species)

You're a real hoot, Ray! In RayWorld, do watches have sexual congress, then give birth to little baby watches, which are never exactly like either parent?

Yeah, where would they find the time to do such things?

They have to go to great lengths?

Why are Creationists like Ray always in such a huff: "You haven't come up with an alternative to Evolution. Therefore, Evolution is unfalsifiable."

Nonsense. Why must Science come up with an "alternative" to Evolution that satisfies Creationists? Why is it the responsibility of Scientists to make Creationists happy?

Scientific theories change when new Evidence is presented. Before that, there is simply no reason for Science to keep coming up with new Theories. That's not how Science works.

Take Cosmology. The Scientific consensus was perfectly happy with either a steady-state universe, or one that was slowly slowing down. Yet, all of a sudden Astronomers discovered surprising new data. The Universe wasn't slowing down or contracting. It was actually speeding up and expanding faster.

Did Contractionists start questioning the morals of Expansionists? Did the Contractionists insist that the new data was a hoax and try to suppress it? Were the Expansionists banned from Scientific conferences? Excluded from publishing in Scientific journals? Were their ideas banned from High School Science classes Did the hide-bound rear-guard Contractionists call the Expansionists heretics to Contractionism who were going to rot in Hell?

Nonsense. None of that happened. The new data was tested and re-tested. It was confirmed. New measurements were made that supported the new idea.

And guess what? In way less than a generation, the entire Scientific consensus was thrown out the window. And the Scientists were happy about it !!! "Hey, look? We don't don't know squat about 96% of the Universe. Isn't that great? That's just really cool! Oh, and we simply must tell everyone that we were wrong. We especially need to tell the high school kids that we'd made a mistake!"

That's how Science works.

So, Ray. Just show us the Evidence.

Then, explain that Evidence better than Evolution does. That's all you have to do. And you, too, can start a revolution in Science.

All you need is Evidence; Evidence that can't be explained by Evolution.

If Ray and Bozo Joe were locked in a room together, who would come out alive?

Just Bob said: If Ray and Bozo Joe were locked in a room together, who would come out alive?

Scott F said: And guess what? In way less than a generation, the entire Scientific consensus was thrown out the window. And the Scientists were happy about it !!! "Hey, look? We don't don't know squat about 96% of the Universe. Isn't that great! That's just really cool! Oh, and we simply must tell everyone that we were wrong. We especially need to tell the high school kids that we'd made a mistake!"

TomS said:

Mike Elzinga said: Sheesh! Why is this multiple posting happening? After hitting "Submit" the site just hangs up and then I try to refresh. After several attempts, I see multiple posts.

ISTM that sometimes the site takes a long time - several minutes - to respond to the "Submit" and one must be patient - and eventually it will do its thing. I don't know how to bring it to anyone's attention, like other things that need fixing.

Just Bob said: If Ray and Bozo Joe were locked in a room together, who would come out alive?

stevaroni said: I'm reminded of the old saying "The most exciting phrase in science isn't "Eureka!", it's "Hmmm... now that's odd."" Of course, in religion it's "Burn the heretic!" One of these approaches is better at figuring things out about the world*. *_{The other one is, to give it credit, is almost optimal system for figuring out that it's bad to be a heretic.}

Just Bob said: If Ray and Bozo Joe were locked in a room together, who would come out alive?

Just Bob said: If Ray and Bozo Joe were locked in a room together, who would come out alive?

Henry J said:

Mike Elzinga said:

Henry J said:

Just Bob said:

Ray Martinez said: a watch (= sexually reproducing animal or species)

You're a real hoot, Ray! In RayWorld, do watches have sexual congress, then give birth to little baby watches, which are never exactly like either parent?

Yeah, where would they find the time to do such things?

They have to go to great lengths?

Light years?

Dave Thomas said:

Ray Martinez said: Hey Mike, could you please tell us what other choices the Atheist has besides evolution? Since the answer is none do you still maintain evolution falsifiable? Ray

Intelligent aliens from Zeta Reticuli genetically engineered all life on earth, in the year 5529 BC. They carefully designed the genomes and features of life forms to appear as if they had evolved, but the jig is up when the signature of the systems programmer is discovered, buried way down inside the DNA of every living thing on Earth. (Chromosome 13, BTW). There, no evolution. If the signature of the alien programmer could be confirmed, even atheists would agree that evolution had been falsified. [snip....]

Ray Martinez said: Surface of earth is three-quarters water including very many rivers and lakes. In other words our surface is flooded. Your refusal to represent the facts correctly indicates much. Ray

W. H. Heydt said:

If you want to cause people to revert to "I don't know", you will have to actually show that the evidence does not support evolution, and that the theories that explain and make sense of the evidence are wrong. You haven't done any of that. So....an honest person with an open mind, on examining the facts and theory, will agree that modern evolutionary theory is well supported and is correct as the best explanation we have.

This approach by creationist, ID, or whomever has always bothered me. Rather than proposing evidence for their "side", they only try to argue: Since evolution is "impossible", obviously God did it. For once I would like to see the ID folks at Uncommon Decent present evidence FOR ID rather than the constant evolution-is-impossible babble.

Sure Ray, someone who died when Darwin was 15, didn't except evolution. That's convincing. Not to mention that Jefferson rejected the miracles of the Bible solely on observation in nature.
Ever read Hume, Ray? Didn't think so. Paley was refuted before he ever wrote his "Natural Theology". With Hume, it was the genetic rally writ large, few in the late 18th/early 19th could get their tiny minds around atheism.

Ray argue s - " I believe in God, therefore the Bible is historically accurate and there was a worldwide flood and there is species immutability."
Ray presumes that those who don't believe in God argue - "I don't believe in God, therefore the Bible isn't true and there was no worldwide flood and no species immutability."

Those who rejected a worldwide flood did so based on geological evidence - evidence in nature - not because they didn't believe in God. Many of them didn't reject species immutability at the time because the evidence was not compelling. When the evidence became available, people began rejecting species immutability. Both rejections were based on evidence in nature - not on belief in God. The rejection of the historical accuracy of the Bible occurred in spite of a belief in God, not because of non-belief. The belief or non-belief in God is irrelevant as to whether or not there was a flood and whether or not species are immutable.

Michael Fugate said: Sure Ray, someone who died when Darwin was 15, didn't [accept] evolution. That's convincing. Not to mention that Jefferson rejected the miracles of the Bible solely on observation in nature. Ever read Hume, Ray? Didn't think so. Paley was refuted before he ever wrote his "Natural Theology". With Hume, it was the genetic rally writ large, few in the late 18th/early 19th could get their tiny minds around atheism.

Ray Martinez said:

Michael Fugate said: Sure Ray, someone who died when Darwin was 15, didn't [accept] evolution. That's convincing. Not to mention that Jefferson rejected the miracles of the Bible solely on observation in nature. Ever read Hume, Ray? Didn't think so. Paley was refuted before he ever wrote his "Natural Theology". With Hume, it was the genetic rally writ large, few in the late 18th/early 19th could get their tiny minds around atheism.

I have never seen any mainstream scholar say the claims of Hume were ever accepted prior to the 20th century. And [IT] was Darwin, not Hume, that scholars accept as refuting Paley. So you have no point.

Ray Martinez said: I have never seen any mainstream scholar say the claims of Hume were ever accepted prior to the 20th century.

Hume has proved extremely influential on subsequent Western thought, especially on utilitarianism, logical positivism, William James, Immanuel Kant, the philosophy of science, early analytic philosophy, cognitive science, theology and other movements and thinkers. -- Wikipedia

PaulBC said:

stevaroni said: I'm reminded of the old saying "The most exciting phrase in science isn't "Eureka!", it's "Hmmm... now that's odd."" Of course, in religion it's "Burn the heretic!" One of these approaches is better at figuring things out about the world*. *_{The other one is, to give it credit, is almost optimal system for figuring out that it's bad to be a heretic.}

The second one is also a better if you're trying to maintain a fixed understanding of the world. Figuring out new things is a threat to existing power structures, which are often more important to those who benefit than actually having a clear view of reality.

Ray Martinez said: Yet because no such signature has been discovered, even after 80 plus years of access and research at the genetic level, the long held fact of evolution always resided in a state of genuine falsification eligibility.

Fifteen years elapsed between the discovery of the double helix (1953) and the first DNA sequencing (1968). Modern DNA sequencing began in 1977, with development of the chemical method of Maxam and Gilbert and the dideoxy method of Sanger, Nicklen and Coulson, and with the first complete DNA sequence (phage X174), which demonstrated that sequence could give profound insights into genetic organization.

Ray Martinez said: [snip]... Humming birds, electric fish, and bat sonar, for example, appear designed. Ray (OEC)

Ray, Darwin showed that natural selection was capable of design. Design does not require an intelligent designer. When someone says he or she sees design in nature, it says nothing about the cause of said design. Hume showed that the design analogy was empty; we have no idea how a god would design/create anything. Without any idea what god design would be like, we cannot say whether something looks designed by a god or not. Is a rock more or less designed than a bacteria? Is an atom more or less than a human? We can distinguish human design because we see humans design/create; we know what they can and can't do.

phhht said:

Ray Martinez said: I have never seen any mainstream scholar say the claims of Hume were ever accepted prior to the 20th century.

Hume has proved extremely influential on subsequent Western thought, especially on utilitarianism, logical positivism, William James, Immanuel Kant, the philosophy of science, early analytic philosophy, cognitive science, theology and other movements and thinkers. -- Wikipedia

Hume was extremely influential from the get-go. You're simply wrong to maintain that his views "were ever accepted prior to the 20th century." You only maintain that because he was an atheist, and an articulate and very influential one, and because you're an ignorant victim of religious delusional disorder.

Ray Martinez said:

phhht said:

Ray Martinez said: I have never seen any mainstream scholar say the claims of Hume were ever accepted prior to the 20th century.

Hume has proved extremely influential on subsequent Western thought, especially on utilitarianism, logical positivism, William James, Immanuel Kant, the philosophy of science, early analytic philosophy, cognitive science, theology and other movements and thinkers. -- Wikipedia

Hume was extremely influential from the get-go. You're simply wrong to maintain that his views "were ever accepted prior to the 20th century." You only maintain that because he was an atheist, and an articulate and very influential one, and because you're an ignorant victim of religious delusional disorder.

Note the fact that I specifically said "mainstream scholars" and our Evolutionist, in response, cited Wikipedia (a "source" where anyone with a computer creates the information). Would you like to hear from Richard Dawkins on this matter? Do let me know? Better yet, how come you don't know what Dawkins has said about Hume? LOL! The evo-crowd here at Pandas is, like I've observed, inexcusably ignorant. Ray

Ray Martinez said:

phhht said:

Ray Martinez said: I have never seen any mainstream scholar say the claims of Hume were ever accepted prior to the 20th century.

Hume has proved extremely influential on subsequent Western thought, especially on utilitarianism, logical positivism, William James, Immanuel Kant, the philosophy of science, early analytic philosophy, cognitive science, theology and other movements and thinkers. -- Wikipedia

Hume was extremely influential from the get-go. You're simply wrong to maintain that his views "were ever accepted prior to the 20th century." You only maintain that because he was an atheist, and an articulate and very influential one, and because you're an ignorant victim of religious delusional disorder.

Note the fact that I specifically said "mainstream scholars" and our Evolutionist, in response, cited Wikipedia (a "source" where anyone with a computer creates the information). Would you like to hear from Richard Dawkins on this matter? Do let me know? Better yet, how come you don't know what Dawkins has said about Hume? LOL! The evo-crowd here at Pandas is, like I've observed, inexcusably ignorant. Ray

Ray Martinez said: Note the fact that I specifically said "mainstream scholars" and our Evolutionist, in response, cited Wikipedia (a "source" where anyone with a computer creates the information).

Ray Martinez said: It seems you're unable to understand any argument that seeks to falsify evolution. Ray (OEC)

Ray Martinez said: Note the fact that I specifically said "mainstream scholars" and our Evolutionist, in response, cited Wikipedia (a "source" where anyone with a computer creates the information). Ray

Ray Martinez said: We, of course, have always maintained that this identifying signature exists via observation of appearance of design. Humming birds, electric fish, and bat sonar, for example, appear designed. The strength of said identifying signature, in case it is missed, is found in observation which has always been the main tool of the scientific method. In short: all one needs to confirm said signature is the sense of sight. Ray (OEC)

Actually, I have a question for Ray Martinez, because he seems to think belief in Noah's flood is on par with belief in the Resurrection of Christ.

The question is: do you put any stock at all in the Apostles Creed or Nicene Creed, neither of which are scriptural, but which do predate the corruption of the medieval church? These are slightly different, but cover the core set of beliefs of Christianity. They are widely accepted, not just by Catholic and Orthodox churches, but by Protestant denominations as well. The reason I ask is that if you read these (or--I dunno--ever had to recite them on a regular basis), you'll see that the Resurrection figures in pretty heavily, but other than God as "creator" there is no particular requirement of belief as to how God went about creation. If you prefer scriptural backing, you also won't see a lot of scriptural emphasis on belief in the creation account as an important foundation of faith. But you'll see many references to the Resurrection in the Epistles.

So we have it pretty clearly. Belief in the Resurrection: important and defining foundation of Christian faith. Belief in the Global Flood: unimportant and never even discussed in those terms until modern time.

If you had the slightest knowledge of the history of Christianity (and aren't being disingenuous here) you wouldn't even make such a ridiculous comparison. Belief in the literal truth of Genesis has never been a litmus test for faith. In past times, such belief may have been widespread (though honestly I doubt an actual boatmaker in the ancient near east would have take Noah's Ark at face value). As someone who may not believe, but actually grew up in a Christian faith, I do have a pretty solid understanding of which beliefs are shared in common. Don't try to BS me on it.

Scott F said:

Ray Martinez said: We, of course, have always maintained that this identifying signature exists via observation of appearance of design. Humming birds, electric fish, and bat sonar, for example, appear designed. The strength of said identifying signature, in case it is missed, is found in observation which has always been the main tool of the scientific method. In short: all one needs to confirm said signature is the sense of sight. Ray (OEC)

Ah, Ray, once again you miss the point entirely. People see faces in the leaves of trees. People see animals in clouds. People see faces carved in mountains on Mars. I see goblins and dragons in the patterns buried in acoustical ceiling tiles all the time. People are really, really good at seeing "Design" where there is none. The problem with mere "Sight" is that the sense of sight can be deceiving. The problem isn't the "sight", the problem is the sense of "Perception", which is far more than mere "Sight". Your sense of Perception is playing tricks on you, Ray. More to the point, what you are arguing (without understanding it) is not mere "Design". What you are arguing is that by mere "Sight" you can detect "Intention". You can detect the "Intention" of God. You can look at the world, and you "See" the "Will" of God. Good grief. A person can't even reliably discern the intention of another human being, yet you know the Mind of God without a doubt, without flinching. You're pretty amazing, Ray. Is God's Will so much easier for you to figure out than mere Humans?

Ray Martinez said: Note the fact that I specifically said "mainstream scholars" and our Evolutionist, in response, cited Wikipedia (a "source" where anyone with a computer creates the information).

PaulBC said:

Ray Martinez said: Note the fact that I specifically said "mainstream scholars" and our Evolutionist, in response, cited Wikipedia (a "source" where anyone with a computer creates the information).

Note the fact that Ray continues to use the argument that using Wikipedia as a reference point for further information is worhless because

anyone with a computer creates the information

Ray, that is a very stupid thing to say. That tells a lot about how unserious, uninformed and ignorant you are. You are bound to lose every fight by default using such tactics. If you'd bother to read Wikipedia you'd find that there are huge loads of information about Hume in the Wiki - more than you'd ever be capable of absorbing. I don't even think you acre about Hume at all, all you got is your hatred of science and scientists. A sane person wouldn't resort to such silly retorts that is characteristic of all your responses. They don't impress anyone; they just reveal how primitive, ignorant and uneducated you are. I have managed to teach myself about everything I know by myself, simply by using my inquiring mind since age four to learn as much as possible about the world. From reading about the first find of a live Coelecanth in 1938. I was 8 at that time and used to read the newspapers from the window display at their offices. I couldn't understand how 'they' could have thought it had been extinct for 50 million years and yet it was alive today? It didn't occur to me to ask anyone to explain and most likely nobody in my vicinity would have been able to answer. But when I began buying science books at 13 it opened the world of science to me. I continued my solitary studies to learn both electronics and English at the same time at 16, by reading the Radio Amateurs Handbook until I knew it almost like a Moslem knows his Koran. You obviously have chosen to remain ignorant. I'd be sorry for you if you weren't so mean and close-minded as you are.

Ray Martinez said: Again, HOW could ANY Christian be as such and accept the miracle of the Resurrection but not accept all other Biblical miracles, including a worldwide flood?

Ray, that is a very stupid thing to say.

Ray Martinez said:

Dave Thomas said:

Ray Martinez said: Hey Mike, could you please tell us what other choices the Atheist has besides evolution? Since the answer is none do you still maintain evolution falsifiable? Ray

Intelligent aliens from Zeta Reticuli genetically engineered all life on earth, in the year 5529 BC. They carefully designed the genomes and features of life forms to appear as if they had evolved, but the jig is up when the signature of the systems programmer is discovered, buried way down inside the DNA of every living thing on Earth. (Chromosome 13, BTW). There, no evolution. If the signature of the alien programmer could be confirmed, even atheists would agree that evolution had been falsified. [snip....]

Dave is saying IF biodiversity was created/designed then the same should possess a commensurate degree of evidence, in the form of an identifying signature, that a behind-the-scenes theistic designer was responsible. Yet because no such signature has been discovered, even after 80 plus years of access and research at the genetic level, the long held fact of evolution always resided in a state of genuine falsification eligibility. Response: We agree that IF biodiversity was created/designed or designed/created by a theistic Mastermind then a commensurate degree or amount of evidence should exist whereby ANY reasonable person can conclude "Made by invisible Designer." We, of course, have always maintained that this identifying signature exists via observation of appearance of design. Humming birds, electric fish, and bat sonar, for example, appear designed. The strength of said identifying signature, in case it is missed, is found in observation which has always been the main tool of the scientific method. In short: all one needs to confirm said signature is the sense of sight. Non-Christian intellectual, Thomas Jefferson, was a Creationist based solely on observation of design in nature. Ray (OEC)

If we take the question literally, what it would take to falsify evolution, it would be very difficult to show that all of the observations of evolution - things like the evolution of resistance in bacteria and pests, the careful measurements of the Grants over years on the Galapagos, the student laboratory experiments - were all wrong. That's why so many creationists have taken to insisting that they accept "micro-evolution".

If one is speaking of the relationship of all life on Earth by common descent with modification, all it would take would be to discover a form of life (from some isolated place where we have never gone before - allow me to speculate that somewhere deep in the Earth) that is so different from all the familiar forms of life that it isn't clear that it is related. Let's say that it would have a radically different genetic code for DNA.

The fact that "evolution" has not been falsified is not equivalent to it not being falsifiable.

TomS said: The fact that "evolution" has not been falsified is not equivalent to it not being falsifiable.

Ray Martinez said: Again, HOW could ANY Christian be as such and accept the miracle of the Resurrection but not accept all other Biblical miracles, including a worldwide flood?

Although it's 10 years old, A Ray Martinez Dictionary may still help translate/interpret some of Ray's comments. Or not.

Ray Martinez said: Hey Mike, could you please tell us what other choices the Atheist has besides evolution? Since the answer is none do you still maintain evolution falsifiable? Ray

Dave Thomas said:

Ray Martinez said: Hey Mike, could you please tell us what other choices the Atheist has besides evolution? Since the answer is none do you still maintain evolution falsifiable? Ray

I think this statement actually helps explain the murky swamp of thoughts emanating from Ray's cranium. It seems like Ray is claiming that "IF one believes in something, THEN one must believe that something cannot be falsified." Applying this to Ray himself, it helps explain why he's such an insistent Paley old earth immutablist: Ray can't even recognize that his claims for a Great Flood, or Immutabilism, HAVE been falsified; hell, he can't even grok that they CAN be falsified.

The glasses through which the creationists view the world are not "Bible-colored". Rather, the Bible is one of the parts of the world which are viewed through though those distorting lenses.

The Bible has nothing to say about the category of species, and in particular nothing about their relationships, their fixity or changibility. The only way to see that in the Bible is through those glasses which the creationists choose to use.

TomS said: The glasses through which the creationists view the world are not "Bible-colored". Rather, the Bible is one of the parts of the world which are viewed through though those distorting lenses.

Dave Thomas said:

Ray Martinez said:

Dave Thomas said:

Ray Martinez said: Hey Mike, could you please tell us what other choices the Atheist has besides evolution? Since the answer is none do you still maintain evolution falsifiable? Ray

Intelligent aliens from Zeta Reticuli genetically engineered all life on earth, in the year 5529 BC. They carefully designed the genomes and features of life forms to appear as if they had evolved, but the jig is up when the signature of the systems programmer is discovered, buried way down inside the DNA of every living thing on Earth. (Chromosome 13, BTW). There, no evolution. If the signature of the alien programmer could be confirmed, even atheists would agree that evolution had been falsified. [snip....]

Dave is saying IF biodiversity was created/designed then the same should possess a commensurate degree of evidence, in the form of an identifying signature, that a behind-the-scenes theistic designer was responsible. Yet because no such signature has been discovered, even after 80 plus years of access and research at the genetic level, the long held fact of evolution always resided in a state of genuine falsification eligibility. Response: We agree that IF biodiversity was created/designed or designed/created by a theistic Mastermind then a commensurate degree or amount of evidence should exist whereby ANY reasonable person can conclude "Made by invisible Designer." We, of course, have always maintained that this identifying signature exists via observation of appearance of design. Humming birds, electric fish, and bat sonar, for example, appear designed. The strength of said identifying signature, in case it is missed, is found in observation which has always been the main tool of the scientific method. In short: all one needs to confirm said signature is the sense of sight. Non-Christian intellectual, Thomas Jefferson, was a Creationist based solely on observation of design in nature. Ray (OEC)

You certainly are Goalposts on Steroids, Ray! You started off saying that "EVOLUTION IS UNFALSIFIABLE" because atheists supposedly "HAVE NO OTHER CHOICES BESIDES EVOLUTION."

I pointed out how false this obviously is with a simple thought experiment: what if we found a signature of an alien "Intelligent Designer" (an extraterrestrial species, not a "God") in our DNA?

Would not that falsify evolution, even for atheists? Of course, it would. There are lots of ways to falsify evolution - all you need is, say, a cambrian rabbit fossil, a living, breathing Pegasus or Ganesh or Chimera, or perhaps Onyate Man.

Ray, you have failed to grasp this simple concept of falsification.

You tried to turn this around to say appearance of design disproves evolution, but that Darwin chap rather handily explained how evolution itself can produce the appearance of design. I'm not falling for your fallacy, Ray. Evolution IS falsifiable. The more you try to disprove that obvious fact, the more people can see through you.

Ray Martinez said: Question...

All it takes for Ray is to explain who, when and how, performed acts of creationism without resorting to premium grade magic.

Dave Thomas said:

Ray Martinez said: Hey Mike, could you please tell us what other choices the Atheist has besides evolution? Since the answer is none do you still maintain evolution falsifiable? Ray

[...snip...] Ray can't even recognize that his claims for a Great Flood, or Immutabilism, HAVE been falsified; hell, he can't even grok that they CAN be falsified.

Ray Martinez said: So...

Scott F said:

Ray Martinez said: Hey Mike, could you please tell us what other choices the Atheist has besides evolution? Since the answer is none do you still maintain evolution falsifiable? Ray

The fact that Humans have 23 chromosomes, while all other primates have 24 would be a killer for Evolution. Except, it turns out that it wasn't.

The problem, Ray, is that there are all sorts of alternatives to Evolution. Panspermia is one of them.

Science is flexible, and agnostic about the "meaning" of data.

If some new data comes along that tosses Evolution onto the trash heap, then that's where it goes. Science has come up with lots of "wrong" ideas. The geocentric model of the universe was wrong.

[...snip...] You simply can't compete with Science. You simply fail at the game, because you can't comprehend the rules. Instead, you insist on changing the rules so that you can "win". You have to change the definitions of "Science", of "Evidence", of "Theory", of "Logic", of "Reason", of "Skeptic", of "Fallacy". You even change the definitions of your own words that you make up.

Ray Martinez said: LOGIC...

According to the Opening Post, William Dembski has suddenly displayed integrity, admitted Materialist foe Andrea Bottaro correct after all concerning a local flood thus the Bible is incorrect regarding a major claim.

FACT: Contrary to his anti-Materialism claims and reputation, Dembski has always accepted, since college, the MAIN scientific claims of Materialism: concepts of natural selection, micro-evolution, and macro-evolution existing in nature.

Whether intended or not, Dembski has always played the role of a double agent.

Ray (Old Earth, Young Biosphere, Paleyan Creationist-species immutabilist)

Ray Martinez said: According ...

Just Bob said:

TomS said: The glasses through which the creationists view the world are not "Bible-colored". Rather, the Bible is one of the parts of the world which are viewed through though those distorting lenses.

Excellent observation! Nobody is a better (or maybe worse) example of that than Floyd, although Ray is no piker.

Mike Elzinga said: I can imagine that such a deity would very likely think these sectarians are IDiots. On the other hand, why should such a deity care about any particular patterns that emerge in the universe it created? What is the significance of an IDiot in the grand scheme of things in the universe?

Mike Elzinga said:

Mike Elzinga said: I can imagine that such a deity would very likely think these sectarians are IDiots. On the other hand, why should such a deity care about any particular patterns that emerge in the universe it created? What is the significance of an IDiot in the grand scheme of things in the universe?

I might add that, with regard to any pattern that emerged in the universe that was a sentient being whose thoughts reflected the very laws by which it emerged, such a pattern would be more interesting than a similar pattern that emerged whose thoughts about the universe were always wrong. So I can image that any deity would find the former interesting and the latter defective.

TomS said:

Mike Elzinga said:

Mike Elzinga said: I can imagine that such a deity would very likely think these sectarians are IDiots. On the other hand, why should such a deity care about any particular patterns that emerge in the universe it created? What is the significance of an IDiot in the grand scheme of things in the universe?

I might add that, with regard to any pattern that emerged in the universe that was a sentient being whose thoughts reflected the very laws by which it emerged, such a pattern would be more interesting than a similar pattern that emerged whose thoughts about the universe were always wrong. So I can image that any deity would find the former interesting and the latter defective.

ISTM that there is a distinction that one needs to keep in mind when talking about God's relation to evolution. The difference between the individual and the species. Does God care about the species, or the individual? Am I a creature of God, or am I just another product by the process of reproduction, and Homo sapiens is what God spent his creative energy on? There is considered a heresy by most Christians: universalism, the idea that salvation is about the totality of humanity, rather than about individuals.

I'll let Ray share some of Dembski's disillusion by presenting evidence that the Flood was a local event. It is well known that the earliest documets about the flood are much older than the sources used in the scriptural sources of the Bible.

The epic of Gilgamesh, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gilgamesh,
I use Wikipedia as a rerence to irritate Ray. If he can stop cting like an idiot jhe might find references and links that would keep him busy for a long time if he should make an attempt at being serious for a change.

Below I present a couple of pages from "Before the Flood" by Ian Wilson. They speak for themselves.

Will Ray admit he was wrong?

CHAPTER 4
THE BLACK SEA 'BURST-THROUGH'

“The great deep burst through ...”
(Genesis 7: 11 New Jerusalem Bible translation)

The date was October 1961, little more than a year after
Turkish army captain Ilhan Durupinar had first noticed the
bogus 'ark' on the aerial survey photographs of the Ararat
district. Over on the other, far western side of Turkey, the
United States survey vessel Chain, flagship of the Woods
Hole Oceanographic Institution of Cape Cod, Massachusetts,
chugged north-westwards. Since having set out from
Falmouth, Massachusetts two months before it had crossed
the Atlantic and Mediterranean, negotiated the Dardanelles
strait and Sea of Marmara, and was now steadily making its
way through the narrow Bosporus Strait leading into the
Black Sea.
The Chain bristled with state-of-the-art echo-sounding
equipment. One of the youngest of the technicians on board
evaluating the new underwater topographical data being
obtained from this was then newly-graduated American
oceanographer Bill Ryan, today a Columbia University
senior scientist specialising in sea-level and sediments.
Eclectic by nature, Ryan was deeply conscious of the his-
toricity of the waterway through which he was passing,
with Europe to port and Asia to starboard. Just before

45
entering the Dardanelles strait the Chain had passed the site
of Homer's Troy. In the strait itself the vessel crossed over
the spot where in 480 BC the Persian emperor Xerxes lashed
together more than 600 boats to form two bridges via which
his army could cross dry-shod into Europe. At the Bosporus
there hove into view the domed mosques and soaring
minarets of historic Istanbul, formerly Constantinople.
Assyrians, Phoenicians, Hittites, Greeks, Romans,
Byzantines, Vikings, Crusaders, Arabs, Mongols and not
least the now incumbent Turks were just some of the
peoples whose ghosts haunted these shores.
But as was explained to Ryan and his companions by the
Turkish Navy officers invited on board as observers, the sub-
marine hydrography of the narrow, cliff-lined Bosporus
waterway through which they were passing was every bit as
intriguing as its above-ground history. The strong surface
current that was pushing fiercely south-westwards against
the Chain on its journey northwards was cool run-off gener-
ated by the great Black Sea rivers Kuban, Don, Dnieper,
Dniester and above all Danube. The combined outputs from
these rivers pump a far greater volume of water into the
Black Sea than their three equivalents, the Rhone, Po and
Nile, pour into the much bigger Mediterranean.
Although this Black Sea-driven run-off down the
Bosporus channel was Mediterranean-bound, beneath it lay
a significantly warmer counter-current that was pushing
equally strongly northwards from the Mediterranean
towards the Black Sea. Bosporus fishermen have long known
of these two opposing currents, delighting in the trick of
lowering rocks in a net to the depth of the deeper of the two.
Once reached, the underlying current will propel their boat
northwards as if by magic, and against the force of the
surface current, without any use of oar, sailor motor. Back
in 1680 a 2I-year-old Italian Luigi Ferdinanda Marsigli, by
lowering into the Bosporus a sounding line with white
painted corks attached to it, became the first known
European to demonstrate the phenomenon scientifically, the
sounding line first of all streaming aft of his boat, then after it had reached the appropriate depth, forming an arc to
stream in exactly the opposite direction. By taking water
samples at varying depths Marsigli also determined that the
lower, northward-bound current is significantly more saline
than its upper, southbound counterpart.'
For oceanographer Ryan the Bosporus' opposing current
phenomenon was a new and fascinating one, as was the very
marked underwater gorge appearance of the channel's sides
at its lower depths, continually recorded by the Chain's echo-
sounders. Deep below the surface this gorge was sharply
sculpted as if at one time the force of the Bosporus' underly-
ing, northward-pushing current had been far stronger than
at present. Indeed, it would have to have been a torrent of
quite exceptional violence, though back in 1961 neither
Ryan nor anyone else saw any special significance to this.
Before the Chain's assignment was complete the under-
water surveying work also took Ryan to the very end of the
narrow Bosporus channel and out into the green expanse of
the Black Sea itself. On world maps this has the appearance of
a kidney-shaped pond, completely land-locked save for the
narrow channel of Bosporus. From west to east, however, it is
1,000 kilometres (630 miles) wide, and 560 kilometres (350
miles) from north to south except where Russia's Crimea juts
out into it to reduce the crossing to Turkey's northern coast
to 230 kilometres (144 miles). Predictably, therefore, the
American Chain was able to proceed only a little further with
its underwater surveying before a tall and highly inquisitive
Russian destroyer hove into view. Ryan and his fellow tech-
nicians were duly reminded that this was 1961, that the Cold
War was a reality, and that except for the Turkish coast the
surrounding sides of these Black Sea waters were all under
very touchy Soviet control.

Yet despite such Russian shows of deterrence, in the
summer of 1969 a United States expedition aboard the vessel
Atlantis II, also from the Woods Hole Oceanographic
Institution, but this time carrying a team of geologists and
chemists, managed to do some important further survey
work in the Black Sea, almost by accident. Baulked from car-
rying out their intended programme in the Red Sea due to
renewed hostilities between Egypt and Israel, expedition
leaders Drs David Ross and Egon Degens decided to try their
luck and head for the Black Sea instead. Almost immediately
upon their entering the Sea a Soviet four-engined bomber
roared over Atlantis II at masthead height and 'buzzed' it a
dozen times. The Black Sea then threw one of the fierce
storms for which it is notorious.
Undaunted Ross and Degens spent two months mapping
the entire basin of the Black Sea, carefully surveying all its
sediment, structure and biology, including taking a series of
core samples from its seabed. On examining these cores they
found the top 100 centimetres (40 inches) of each consistently
to comprise a dark black jelly-like mud called sapropel,
richly gorged with plant and animal remains. Below this
there was a light grey clay, the water content of which
turned out to be surprisingly fresh.
As the two scientists set out in a subsequent scientific
paper," the full significance of which went unnoticed for a
long time, sometime since the last Ice Age the Black Sea must
have been a freshwater lake. Apart from rainwater, this
lake's only replenishment came from the rivers that flow
into the Black Sea, which carried with them the light grey
clay in milky suspension. Then at some point the
Mediterranean Sea broke through the Bosporus land-bridge,
which we earlier noted to have formed part of the immedi-
ately post-Ice Age world landscape when the sea-levels were
lower. As Ross and Degens showed in a graph accompany-
ing their paper this breakthrough of the Bosporus was

P 150

Fig 17 (Figure removed here to create a text only file.)
A conflation of WilIiam Ryan's maps showing where he
hypothesised refugee populations having fled to in the wake of the Black Sea Flood might have had its origins in the environs of the Black Sea.

And partly it was because, in the case for instance of the
European-looking Tocharians, he insufficiently accounted
for where these people might have been between their
hypothesised flight from the Black Sea c.5600 BC and their
appearance in the Tarim Basin on China's borders C.2000 BC.
One culture that Ryan was bound to look to for some link
to the Black Sea Flood was that of the Sumerians, since as we
saw earlier, it was from them that the earliest versions of the 'Epic of Gilgamesh' with its Flood story had emanated. The
Sumerians' Flood hero Ziusudra, the equivalent of the
Babylonian and Assyrian Flood stories' Atrahasis and Uta-
napishti, effectively represented the oldest-recorded coun-
terpart to the biblical Noah, even though their Flood story
was obviously untraceable in written form earlier than
when narrative writing itself was invented in around
3000 BC.
P151
Furthermore Ryan was particularly intrigued by how the
Gilgamesh Epic's tablet immediately preceding the Flood
story, despite its hailing a long way from the Black Sea,
exhibits evidence of someone, at some point in the story's
origination, having some impressive local knowledge of the
Bosporus strait as this had been created by the Black Sea
Flood 'burst-through'. Earlier in this book we mentioned
how the Epic described Gilgamesh, on his route to visit Uta-
napishti, having to traverse the 'Waters of Death', which we
suggested to have been one and the same as the Black Sea.
According to the Epic, Gilgamesh so distrusted these waters'
fearsome reputation that on his arrival at the difficult
passage where he was to be ferried across, he became imme-
diately suspicious of 'things of stone' that were apparently
the boat's means of propulsion. Greatly angered, he
destroyed these, whereupon he was told by the ferryman:
The stones, 0 Gilgamesh, enabled my crossing ...
In your fury you have smashed them
The stones were with me to take me across.'
Lacking the stones, Gilgamesh was apparently obliged to
rely on a number of much less effective punt poles in order
to propel himself across.
This episode is utterly meaningless except in the context
of just one place in the world - the Bosporus strait leading
into the Black Sea - where as we learned earlier in this book
(P.45), stones lowered by rope to the underlying counter-
current can indeed help to propel a boat across it. The inclu-
sion of this passage in a story, the earliest known form of
which was Sumerian, and which goes on to a Flood narra-
tive, therefore strongly indicates some close link between
the Sumerians and the Black Sea Flood event.
Except, as Ryan rightly recognised, since the Sumerians
arrived in Mesopotamia only in the 4th millennium BC, very
likely the story did not come directly even from them. It was
...

Notes to chapter 11.

In Andrew George’s translation as used here (from p.126 of the Penguin edition, op.cit.) the term ’Stone Ones’ is used for the stones. In N. K. Sandar’s earlier (1960) edition the translation was ’things of stone’. Clearly neither translator had much of a clue as to what kind of objects the Epic writer could have been referring to. Although all versions refer to these mysterious stones, the particular passage here quoted in fact derives from a tablet that is thought to have come from Sippar, north of Babylon. It has been reliably dated to the 18th or 17th century BC, a millenium earlier than the Gilgamesh tablets found at Niniveh.

The ball is in your court.

phhht said:

Ray Martinez said: According ...

Still ducking and dodging, right coward? Why is it that you cannot defend the reality of your gods? Why can't you say how I can test your silly claims about gods to see if they are true? It's because they are not true, Ray, and you know it.

The best Ray can do to counter Hume isphhht's link to Wikipedia? That's it Ray, that's your entire argument? Paley's argument was dead before he even wrote it, you know this and that is why you won't engage with the argument. If you read Hume, then you would know Paley's stone is useless. Hume was much, much smarter than you and Paley. Even without Darwin, geology as an emerging science demonstrated that design had material causes. The Giant's Causeway is one prime example unless you believe Fionn mac Cumhaill built it? Do you?

‘things of stone’ that were apparently the boat’s means of propulsion. Greatly angered, he destroyed these, whereupon he was told by the ferryman: The stones, 0 Gilgamesh, enabled my crossing … In your fury you have smashed them. The stones were with me to take me across.’ … This episode is utterly meaningless except in the context of just one place in the world - the Bosporus strait leading into the Black Sea - where as we learned earlier in this book (P.45), stones lowered by rope to the underlying counter- current can indeed help to propel a boat across it.

“The great deep burst through …” (Genesis 7: 11 New Jerusalem Bible translation)

Ray Martinez said: So it now has been established that Creationism, as defined above, is falsifiable. Ray

Ray Martinez said: Other than "supposedly" that's exactly what I said. And what I said was rhetorical; Atheists MUST believe previous reality "created" present reality (= Materialism) because in their minds no God exists to cause any thing to exist.

Atheists, of course, have no other choices---that's the on-going point here. That said, evolution is not falsifiable. Since you obviously "disagree," why didn't you mention any other choices?

Haven't seen any line by line replies to anything I've said. Rather, the Evolutionists have created mostly one-liner replies that misrepresent what I said. Why is this done? Because when the chips are down Evolutionists can't refute truth. I urge all impartial seekers of truth to scroll back through the exchanges and confirm. Moreover, to those in the know, one will find the Evolutionists saying things that expose them to be inexcusably ignorant in basic matters of philosophy, history, and science.

Ray (Old Earth; species immutabilist)

Ray Martinez said: [W'hen the chips are down Evolutionists can't refute truth.

Ray, you failed logic multiple times, it was pointed out to you multiple times, and you still can't understand why. You failed history, you failed science. I pointed out all these things to you - even gave you sources to look up. You just ignore what you can't answer or dismiss it using more logical fallacies.

Here's a little test for your metacognition, summarize in your own words Hume's argument against the argument from design.

Too hard? How about a summary of species concepts from Aristotle to the present?

Did we suddenly get put in a Mel Brooks movie? Ray's response coming right after mine seems to be a "what hump?" response.

Ray Martinez said: Haven't seen any line by line replies to anything I've said. Rather, the Evolutionists have created mostly one-liner replies that misrepresent what I said. Why is this done? Because when the chips are down Evolutionists can't refute truth. I urge all impartial seekers of truth to scroll back through the exchanges and confirm. Moreover, to those in the know, one will find the Evolutionists saying things that expose them to be inexcusably ignorant in basic matters of philosophy, history, and science. Ray (Old Earth; species immutabilist)

eric said: Did we suddenly get put in a Mel Brooks movie? Ray's response coming right after mine seems to be a "what hump?" response.

The Opening Post quotes famed Intelligent design advocate William Dembski: "As much as I hate to admit it, [Andrea] Bottaro got it exactly right. I would still regard myself as an inerrantist, but an inerrancy in what the Bible actually teaches, not an inerrancy in what a reflexive literalism would demand of the Bible. Have I, as Bottaro suggests, left myself open to recanting the recantation? I have. Without the threat of losing my job, I see Noah’s flood as a story with a theological purpose based on the historical occurrence of a local flood in the ancient Near East."

Ray Martinez said: Haven't seen any line by line replies to anything I've said. ... Ray (Old Earth; species immutabilist)

Ray Martinez said: Final Post

Ray Martinez wrote: The episteme of Victorian Creationism (teleological): Intelligent cause(Supernaturalism) creates the designed effects of organized complexity and order seen in diversity. Ray, you keep using "diversity" in this absurd way. "Diversity" is not a recognized short-hand for the _the diversity of life seen in the biosphere_. You've been corrected on this point by multiple people. You will not find any glossary entry in any biology or ecology book that defines "diversity" in the way you seem to want to use it. Your stubborn use of common words with these special meanings that are unique to you really hurts your cause. It is especially absurd when you toss it in to a claim that something was common understanding. It's hard to have a common understanding based on a word usage that is essentially unique to Ray Martinez.

Ray Martinez said: Final Post

I can't resist pointing out that Ray describes the present state of the surface of the globe as being "flooded".

What does that tell us about what the state was under Noah's Flood?

we should remember that almost no one, if anyone, understands the Bible as advocating a non-worldwide flood

Actually, Ray, millions of people understand exactly that. You won't agree that they're reading the Bible right, but millions of people do, in fact, read it just that way. Since, however, no sane person cares how you read the Bible, there is no point arguing over your reading against that of millions of others.

If anyone thought about the Bible story - rather than being brainwashed by their upbringing - he or she would advocate for the Flood story being a tall tale, a fable, a myth, a legend. It has a moral purpose and could never be meant to be literally true. If the same story originated in any other source than the Bible, Christians would scoff.

The simplest conservative take on the Bible's description of the Flood is to understand the whole world as hyperbole, as everyone understands it in other places.

In the book of Genesis there is the story of Joseph in Egypt when there was a world-wide famine, and people came from all the realms of the world to get grain stored by Egypt. No one thinks that there were people traveling from Australia and the Americas, or that however much grain Egypt had saved would be enough to feed all of Africa, Asia and Europe.

Elsewhere in the Bible we are told about how people from all the world came to see Solomon, and how people from all of the world heard the preaching of the disciples on Pentecost in Jerusalem. It is not disrespecting the Bible to understand those as hyperbole.

TomS said: I can't resist pointing out that Ray describes the present state of the surface of the globe as being "flooded". What does that tell us about what the state was under Noah's Flood?

BTW, there is nothing in the Bible which supports "species immutablism".

Ray Martinez said: That said, what exactly is stopping an alleged inerrantist like Dembski from accepting a pro-Supernatural explanation of facts (worldwide flood) rather than a pro-Materialism explanation of facts (local flood)?

Nice to see that you don’t suffer from this limitation.

Ray Martinez said: My question was rhetorical.

Ray Martinez said:

Scott F said:

Ray Martinez said: Hey Mike, could you please tell us what other choices the Atheist has besides evolution? Since the answer is none do you still maintain evolution falsifiable? Ray

The fact that Humans have 23 chromosomes, while all other primates have 24 would be a killer for Evolution. Except, it turns out that it wasn't.

I asked what other choices do Atheists have beside the concept of evolution (old species causing new species)?

The problem, Ray, is that there are all sorts of alternatives to Evolution. Panspermia is one of them.

My question was rhetorical. Atheists MUST believe in Materialism: reality produces reality somehow.

Ray Martinez said:

Scott F said: Science is flexible, and agnostic about the "meaning" of data.

Then why do Atheists exist? Why aren't Atheists, Agnostics? Answer: Because no evidence of X equates to the negative, not the neutral (whoosh).

Ray Martinez said: Then why do Atheists exist? Why aren't Atheists, Agnostics? Answer: Because no evidence of X equates to the negative, not the neutral (whoosh).

Ray Martinez said:

Scott F said: If some new data comes along that tosses Evolution onto the trash heap, then that's where it goes. Science has come up with lots of "wrong" ideas. The geocentric model of the universe was wrong.

But it was an accepted scientific model for quite some time. Falsification doesn't render said model to never have been scientific.

Ray Martinez said: Question: Can you identify a natural object that did not evolve? Ray (Old Earth, Paleyan Creationist)

Verb evolve ‎(third-person singular simple present evolves, present participle evolving, simple past and past participle evolved) 4. (biology) Of a population, to change genetic composition over successive generations through the process of evolution.

Scott F said:

Ray Martinez said: Question: Can you identify a natural object that did not evolve? Ray (Old Earth, Paleyan Creationist)

Since the meaning of "evolve" is a rather fluid concept, especially since Ray gets to define what it means from one sentence to another, I will clarify. Based on these alternative definitions, I will choose alternative #4:

Verb evolve ‎(third-person singular simple present evolves, present participle evolving, simple past and past participle evolved) 4. (biology) Of a population, to change genetic composition over successive generations through the process of evolution.

Answer: Yes, I can identify lots of natural objects that did not evolve. A rock. The sun. The Pacific Ocean. Fire. Creationism. If you want me to use a different definition of "evolve", please be more specific.

Verb evolve ‎(third-person singular simple present evolves, present participle evolving, simple past and past participle evolved) 2. To change; transform.

Ray Martinez said: That's EXACTLY what Naturalism science has done: change the definitions of terms and the rules of the game. For example: As you already noted, geocentrism was an accepted scientific model, as was Victorian Creationism also known as British Natural Theology. Just because, in your minds, falsification has occurred, the same doesn't mean these former positions of science weren't scientific. If they weren't scientific then why did they suffer falsification?

Ray Martinez said: LOGIC: Darwinists have ADMITTEDLY changed the definition of logic. This best seen in their acceptance of the critical phrase "Darwin's strange inversion of reasoning" (references available upon request). And Darwinists label any Creationist argument that they can't refute as violating some rule of logic. These fallacies are made up and totally ad hoc. Ray (OEC)

Darwin's theory of evolution by natural selection unifies the world of physics with the world of meaning and purpose by proposing a deeply counterintuitive “inversion of reasoning” (according to a 19th century critic): “to make a perfect and beautiful machine, it is not requisite to know how to make it” [MacKenzie RB (1868) (Nisbet & Co., London)]. Turing proposed a similar inversion: to be a perfect and beautiful computing machine, it is not requisite to know what arithmetic is. Together, these ideas help to explain how we human intelligences came to be able to discern the reasons for all of the adaptations of life, including our own.

Oops! Sorry, I missed my point, and stand in error. *I* did not make my son. He made himself, both physically and mentally. He had lots of help, but none of us actually knew "how" to make him. Yet we did.

And the very fact of growth, from fertilized egg to an adult is an amazing testament to the power of completely natural self-assembly and self-design, with absolutely no super-natural designer involved.

You see? We didn't have to make "him". All we had to do was to make some version of him. The specific "target" of that growth was never known a-priori. There was no "target" adult, no blue print to which he was designed and constructed. Only a rough pattern, that he filled in himself as he grew.

All, completely "naturally".

CJColucci said: we should remember that almost no one, if anyone, understands the Bible as advocating a non-worldwide flood Actually, Ray, millions of people understand exactly that. You won't agree that they're reading the Bible right, but millions of people do, in fact, read it just that way. Since, however, no sane person cares how you read the Bible, there is no point arguing over your reading against that of millions of others.

PaulBC said:

Ray Martinez said: That said, what exactly is stopping an alleged inerrantist like Dembski from accepting a pro-Supernatural explanation of facts (worldwide flood) rather than a pro-Materialism explanation of facts (local flood)?

Maybe the fact that a worldwide flood is so ridiculous that he can't persuade himself to believe it even to save his own job. Nice to see that you don't suffer from this limitation.

This is comment #666, and I get it!

How about it, Ray? Is there anything magical or demoniac or frightening about 666? Would you avoid posting comment 666 if you realized that would be its number?

Scott F said:

Ray Martinez said:

Scott F said: If some new data comes along that tosses Evolution onto the trash heap, then that's where it goes. Science has come up with lots of "wrong" ideas. The geocentric model of the universe was wrong.

But it was an accepted scientific model for quite some time. Falsification doesn't render said model to never have been scientific.

Again, Ray, you fail at reading comprehension, and fail to understand what Science actually is Yes, the Geocentric Model of the universe was, in its day (prior to the advent of modern Science as we know it today), "scientific". It made specific, eventually testable predictions about the world (or "universe", in this case). Over time, we found those predictions to be wrong. I never, ever said that being "falsified" means that a particular "theory" was not Scientific.

Michael Fugate said: The best Ray can do to counter Hume isphhht's link to Wikipedia? That's it Ray, that's your entire argument? Paley's argument was dead before he even wrote it, you know this and that is why you won't engage with the argument. If you read Hume, then you would know Paley's stone is useless. Hume was much, much smarter than you and Paley. Even without Darwin, geology as an emerging science demonstrated that design had material causes. The Giant's Causeway is one prime example unless you believe Fionn mac Cumhaill built it? Do you?

Ray Martinez said: Final Post

Ray Martinez said: Hume was never widely accepted until the 20th century

Say Ray, I infer that you still cannot defend your delusional religious convictions.

That's because they are false, Ray. There are no creator gods. There are no gods at all.

And you're too incompetent to argue the issue.

You're mentally impaired, Ray.

Richard Dawkins: "The watchmaker of my title is borrowed from a famous treatise by
the eighteenth-century theologian William Paley. His Natural
Theology - or Evidences of the Existence and Attributes of the Deity
Collected from the Appearances of Nature, published in 1802, is the
best-known exposition of the 'Argument from Design', always the
most influential of the arguments for the existence of a God. It is a
book that I greatly admire, for in his own time its author succeeded in
doing what I am struggling to do now. He had a point to make, he
passionately believed in it, and he spared no effort to ram it home
clearly. He had a proper reverence for the complexity of the living
world, and he saw that it demands a very special kind of explanation.
The only thing he got wrong - admittedly quite a big thing! - was the
explanation itself. He gave the traditional religious answer to the
riddle, but he articulated it more clearly and convincingly than
anybody had before. The true explanation is utterly different, and it
had to wait for one of the most revolutionary thinkers of all time,
Charles Darwin."

[skip....]

"I shall explain all this, and much else besides. But one thing I shall
not do is belittle the wonder of the living 'watches' that so inspired
Paley. On the contrary, I shall try to illustrate my feeling that here
Paley could have gone even further. When it comes to feeling awe over
living 'watches' I yield to nobody. I feel more in common with the
Reverend William Paley than I do with the distinguished modern
philosopher, a well-known atheist, with whom I once discussed the
matter at dinner. I said that I could not imagine being an atheist at any
time before 1859, when Darwin's Origin of Species was published.
'What about Hume?', replied the philosopher. 'How did Hume explain
the organized complexity of the living world?', I asked. 'He didn't', said
the philosopher. 'Why does it need any special explanation?'. Paley knew that it needed a special explanation; Darwin knew it,
and I suspect that in his heart of hearts my philosopher companion
knew it too. In any case it will be my business to show it here. As for
David Hume himself, it is sometimes said that that great Scottish
philosopher disposed of the Argument from Design a century before
Darwin. But what Hume did was criticize the logic of using apparent
design in nature as positive evidence for the existence of a God. He did
not offer any alternative explanation for apparent design, but left the
question open. An atheist before Darwin could have said, following
Hume: 'I have no explanation for complex biological design. All I know
is that Cod isn't a good explanation, so we must wait and hope that
somebody comes up with a better one.' I can't help feeling that such a
position, though logically sound, would have left one feeling pretty
unsatisfied, and that although atheism might have been logically
tenable before Darwin, Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually
fulfilled atheist. I like to think that Hume would agree, but some of his
writings suggest that he underestimated the complexity and beauty of
biological design. The boy naturalist Charles Darwin could have
shown him a thing or two about that, but Hume had been dead 40 years
when Darwin enrolled in Hume's university of Edinburgh."

From "The Blind Watchmaker" (1986).

http://terebess.hu/keletkultinfo/The_Blind_Watchmaker.pdf

Ray

Ray Martinez said: Richard Dawkins: "The watchmaker of my title is borrowed from a famous treatise by the eighteenth-century theologian William Paley. His Natural Theology - or Evidences of the Existence and Attributes of the Deity Collected from the Appearances of Nature, published in 1802, is the best-known exposition of the 'Argument from Design', always the most influential of the arguments for the existence of a God. It is a book that I greatly admire, for in his own time its author succeeded in doing what I am struggling to do now. He had a point to make, he passionately believed in it, and he spared no effort to ram it home clearly. He had a proper reverence for the complexity of the living world, and he saw that it demands a very special kind of explanation. The only thing he got wrong - admittedly quite a big thing! - was the explanation itself. He gave the traditional religious answer to the riddle, but he articulated it more clearly and convincingly than anybody had before. The true explanation is utterly different, and it had to wait for one of the most revolutionary thinkers of all time, Charles Darwin." [skip....] "I shall explain all this, and much else besides. But one thing I shall not do is belittle the wonder of the living 'watches' that so inspired Paley. On the contrary, I shall try to illustrate my feeling that here Paley could have gone even further. When it comes to feeling awe over living 'watches' I yield to nobody. I feel more in common with the Reverend William Paley than I do with the distinguished modern philosopher, a well-known atheist, with whom I once discussed the matter at dinner. I said that I could not imagine being an atheist at any time before 1859, when Darwin's Origin of Species was published. 'What about Hume?', replied the philosopher. 'How did Hume explain the organized complexity of the living world?', I asked. 'He didn't', said the philosopher. 'Why does it need any special explanation?'. Paley knew that it needed a special explanation; Darwin knew it, and I suspect that in his heart of hearts my philosopher companion knew it too. In any case it will be my business to show it here. As for David Hume himself, it is sometimes said that that great Scottish philosopher disposed of the Argument from Design a century before Darwin. But what Hume did was criticize the logic of using apparent design in nature as positive evidence for the existence of a God. He did not offer any alternative explanation for apparent design, but left the question open. An atheist before Darwin could have said, following Hume: 'I have no explanation for complex biological design. All I know is that Cod isn't a good explanation, so we must wait and hope that somebody comes up with a better one.' I can't help feeling that such a position, though logically sound, would have left one feeling pretty unsatisfied, and that although atheism might have been logically tenable before Darwin, Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist. I like to think that Hume would agree, but some of his writings suggest that he underestimated the complexity and beauty of biological design. The boy naturalist Charles Darwin could have shown him a thing or two about that, but Hume had been dead 40 years when Darwin enrolled in Hume's university of Edinburgh." From "The Blind Watchmaker" (1986). http://terebess.hu/keletkultinfo/The_Blind_Watchmaker.pdf

Ray Martinez said: Hell, none of you guys even knew that Paley's stone/watch contrast argument remains accepted by virtually all scholars. Darwin accepted it. You guys probably don't even know that? Instead, as anyone can see, in ALL your messages, you miss the point, or twist the point then answer the caricature. Why? Answer: Because you can't address much less refute what was actually said. Ray (OEC)

Schema 1: 1. Entity e within nature (or the cosmos, or nature itself) is like specified human artifact a (e.g., a machine) in relevant respects R. 2. a has R precisely because it is a product of deliberate design by intelligent human agency. 3. Like effects typically have like causes (or like explanations, like existence requirements, etc.) Therefore 4. It is (highly) probable that e has R precisely because it too is a product of deliberate design by intelligent, relevantly human-like agency. Schema 2: 5. Some things in nature (or nature itself, the cosmos) are design-like (exhibit a cognition-resonating, intention-shaped character R) 6. Design-like properties (R) are not producible by (unguided) natural means—i.e., any phenomenon exhibiting such Rs must be a product of intentional design. Therefore 7. Some things in nature (or nature itself, the cosmos) are products of intentional design. And of course, the capacity for intentional design requires agency of some type.

The old argument of design in nature, as given by Paley, which formerly seemed to me so conclusive, fails, now that the law of natural selection had been discovered. We can no longer argue that, for instance, the beautiful hinge of a bivalve shell must have been made by an intelligent being, like the hinge of a door by man. There seems to be no more design in the variability of organic beings and in the action of natural selection, than in the course which the wind blows. Everything in nature is the result of fixed laws.

phhht said:

Ray Martinez said: Richard Dawkins: "The watchmaker of my title is borrowed from a famous treatise by the eighteenth-century theologian William Paley. His Natural Theology - or Evidences of the Existence and Attributes of the Deity Collected from the Appearances of Nature, published in 1802, is the best-known exposition of the 'Argument from Design', always the most influential of the arguments for the existence of a God. It is a book that I greatly admire, for in his own time its author succeeded in doing what I am struggling to do now. He had a point to make, he passionately believed in it, and he spared no effort to ram it home clearly. He had a proper reverence for the complexity of the living world, and he saw that it demands a very special kind of explanation. The only thing he got wrong - admittedly quite a big thing! - was the explanation itself. He gave the traditional religious answer to the riddle, but he articulated it more clearly and convincingly than anybody had before. The true explanation is utterly different, and it had to wait for one of the most revolutionary thinkers of all time, Charles Darwin." [skip....] "I shall explain all this, and much else besides. But one thing I shall not do is belittle the wonder of the living 'watches' that so inspired Paley. On the contrary, I shall try to illustrate my feeling that here Paley could have gone even further. When it comes to feeling awe over living 'watches' I yield to nobody. I feel more in common with the Reverend William Paley than I do with the distinguished modern philosopher, a well-known atheist, with whom I once discussed the matter at dinner. I said that I could not imagine being an atheist at any time before 1859, when Darwin's Origin of Species was published. 'What about Hume?', replied the philosopher. 'How did Hume explain the organized complexity of the living world?', I asked. 'He didn't', said the philosopher. 'Why does it need any special explanation?'. Paley knew that it needed a special explanation; Darwin knew it, and I suspect that in his heart of hearts my philosopher companion knew it too. In any case it will be my business to show it here. As for David Hume himself, it is sometimes said that that great Scottish philosopher disposed of the Argument from Design a century before Darwin. But what Hume did was criticize the logic of using apparent design in nature as positive evidence for the existence of a God. He did not offer any alternative explanation for apparent design, but left the question open. An atheist before Darwin could have said, following Hume: 'I have no explanation for complex biological design. All I know is that Cod isn't a good explanation, so we must wait and hope that somebody comes up with a better one.' I can't help feeling that such a position, though logically sound, would have left one feeling pretty unsatisfied, and that although atheism might have been logically tenable before Darwin, Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist. I like to think that Hume would agree, but some of his writings suggest that he underestimated the complexity and beauty of biological design. The boy naturalist Charles Darwin could have shown him a thing or two about that, but Hume had been dead 40 years when Darwin enrolled in Hume's university of Edinburgh." From "The Blind Watchmaker" (1986). http://terebess.hu/keletkultinfo/The_Blind_Watchmaker.pdf

So what? Nothing there supports your loony lie that Hume was not accepted before the twentieth century. Nothing there supports your delusional beliefs about designer gods. You're just stupid, Ray.

Ray Martinez said:

Michael Fugate said: The best Ray can do to counter Hume isphhht's link to Wikipedia? That's it Ray, that's your entire argument? Paley's argument was dead before he even wrote it, you know this and that is why you won't engage with the argument. If you read Hume, then you would know Paley's stone is useless. Hume was much, much smarter than you and Paley. Even without Darwin, geology as an emerging science demonstrated that design had material causes. The Giant's Causeway is one prime example unless you believe Fionn mac Cumhaill built it? Do you?

Excellent example of how ignorant any given ordinary Evolutionist actually is. Hume was never widely accepted until the 20th century and beyond; and Darwin, not Hume, is credited with refuting Paley. And it would be impossible for Hume to have refuted Paley since Hume died way before Paley published. Moreover, Paley's stone/watch contrast argument remains accepted by scholars today (I didn't say his inference). And a link to a public toilet, Wikipedia, like I observed, isn't scholarly in the least. Absolutely nothing written above is the least bit controversial among scholars. Yet almost all Evolutionists participating in this topic have zero knowledge of these BASIC facts. Ray (OEC)

Ray Martinez said: Couldn't have asked for a better example of brazen dishonesty by an ordinary Evolutionist. If an ordinary Evolutionist would lie this brazenly concerning something uncontroversial and uncomplicated then just think what these people do with complicated scientific evidence?

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/hume/

It is not Wikipedia Ray and you are wrong.

"Hume had received the respect accorded an equal from Montesquieu and Diderot, Robertson and Gibbon, Burke and Franklin."

p. 472

James A. Harris

Hume: An Intellectual Biography

Cambridge U. Press, 2015

RM's fixation on Paley apparently rises to the level of delusion. He is convinced that no one past or present has refuted Paley's argument, and no one ever can. This is the best example of phhht's claim of delusion. Even FL and IBIG don't rise to this height.

Nevermind that Paley knew the watch was 'designed' because he understood, a priori, that humans design watches. Nevermind that an outer space alien, with no corporeal body, would consider the watch just another 'rock'. RM is fixated on Paley's logic as the pinacle of human intelligence, never surpassed.

As phhht and Buggs Bunny say, "What a Looney."

phhht said:

Ray Martinez said: Couldn't have asked for a better example of brazen dishonesty by an ordinary Evolutionist. If an ordinary Evolutionist would lie this brazenly concerning something uncontroversial and uncomplicated then just think what these people do with complicated scientific evidence?

How am I dishonest, Crazy Ray? What have I lied about? I say that you are mistaken about the influence of Hume before the twentieth century. I say that your religious convictions are delusions. Go ahead, Crazy Ray, say where I have lied. Defend your loony ideas with something more than ad hominem insults. If you can.

Ray Martinez said:

Scott F said:

Ray Martinez said:

Scott F said: If some new data comes along that tosses Evolution onto the trash heap, then that's where it goes. Science has come up with lots of "wrong" ideas. The geocentric model of the universe was wrong.

But it was an accepted scientific model for quite some time. Falsification doesn't render said model to never have been scientific.

Again, Ray, you fail at reading comprehension, and fail to understand what Science actually is Yes, the Geocentric Model of the universe was, in its day (prior to the advent of modern Science as we know it today), "scientific". It made specific, eventually testable predictions about the world (or "universe", in this case). Over time, we found those predictions to be wrong. I never, ever said that being "falsified" means that a particular "theory" was not Scientific.

Yes you did when placed the word scientific in quotation marks like this "scientific." Moreover, your comments say only the current positions of science are scientific. By this logic Newton wasn't practicing science, which is ridiculous. This is a good example of how Evolutionists "think."

By the way, Ray. You complain that no one has addressed every one of your points, line by line. Yet, when we do in fact address your points line by line, you simply ignore the refutations. You never did respond to the critique of your claim that the Earth is 75% water, when I clearly pointed out that the Earth is only 0.12% water. You are only off by two and a half orders of magnitude. I've only posted a link to this picture 4 times now, and you've simply ignored it.

You ignore our responses and claim victory. Since you simply have not responded at all, what else can I do but use your own "reasoning", and declare victory? But I don't do that. I assume that you have a life outside of Pandas Thumb, and that you can't respond to everything. I give you the benefit of the doubt, even when you don't deserve it.

Take a look at that picture, and tell me with a straight face that being only 0.12% water makes the Earth "flooded" with water.

Ray Martinez said: Hell, none of you guys even knew that Paley’s stone/watch contrast argument remains accepted by virtually all scholars. Darwin accepted it.

TomS said: "Hume had received the respect accorded an equal from Montesquieu and Diderot, Robertson and Gibbon, Burke and Franklin." p. 472 James A. Harris Hume: An Intellectual Biography Cambridge U. Press, 2015

Ray Martinez said:

TomS said: "Hume had received the respect accorded an equal from Montesquieu and Diderot, Robertson and Gibbon, Burke and Franklin." p. 472 James A. Harris Hume: An Intellectual Biography Cambridge U. Press, 2015

I've already posted a Dawkins excerpt just a few posts upthread that specifically says Darwin, not Hume, refuted Paley.

I am slightly reminded of the story of an early nineteenth century expedition to Arnhem Land which encountered a band of Aboriginals. To impress them, one of the Englishmen pulled a gold pocket watch out. The Aborigines, of course, promptly speared him, since he had obviously captured the sun and might take it away with him.

That is, people who had never seen or heard of Paley's watch actually did take it for a natural object. Why not? Far more complex things exist in nature.

The only reason why Paley thought the watch was designed was because he knew of the processes that had produced it. But Paley knew nothing of the processes that had produced living things. He was arguing that these unknown processes were the same. That is, he was arguing that what he didn't know was the same as what he did know. There is no basis for this argument at all, and even Paley was aware of that.

The rest of Paley is an attempt to attribute extrinsic purpose (ie purpose imposed from without) to complexity. That attempt fails. The only purpose for nearly all living things is intrinsic - to survive to reproduce. So far as we know, only human beings have other purposes - and those purposes are again intrinsic, because we decide and define them for ourselves.

Paley's argument fails.

Michael Fugate said:

Ray Martinez said: Hell, none of you guys even knew that Paley's stone/watch contrast argument remains accepted by virtually all scholars. Darwin accepted it. You guys probably don't even know that? Instead, as anyone can see, in ALL your messages, you miss the point, or twist the point then answer the caricature. Why? Answer: Because you can't address much less refute what was actually said. Ray (OEC)

Here is source easily refuting Ray's comment. http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/teleological-arguments/

Schema 1: 1. Entity e within nature (or the cosmos, or nature itself) is like specified human artifact a (e.g., a machine) in relevant respects R. 2. a has R precisely because it is a product of deliberate design by intelligent human agency. 3. Like effects typically have like causes (or like explanations, like existence requirements, etc.) Therefore 4. It is (highly) probable that e has R precisely because it too is a product of deliberate design by intelligent, relevantly human-like agency. Schema 2: 5. Some things in nature (or nature itself, the cosmos) are design-like (exhibit a cognition-resonating, intention-shaped character R) 6. Design-like properties (R) are not producible by (unguided) natural means—i.e., any phenomenon exhibiting such Rs must be a product of intentional design. Therefore 7. Some things in nature (or nature itself, the cosmos) are products of intentional design. And of course, the capacity for intentional design requires agency of some type.

The first is analogical and was refuted by Hume before Paley. The second is deductive, hinges on 6, and 6 has not been shown for any natural object. ID proponents have no idea what the purpose of any natural object is - complexity is not enough, intuition is not enough. From Darwin's autobiography:

The old argument of design in nature, as given by Paley, which formerly seemed to me so conclusive, fails, now that the law of natural selection had been discovered. We can no longer argue that, for instance, the beautiful hinge of a bivalve shell must have been made by an intelligent being, like the hinge of a door by man. There seems to be no more design in the variability of organic beings and in the action of natural selection, than in the course which the wind blows. Everything in nature is the result of fixed laws.

Ray?

I notice that you cannot face the charges of religious delusion, Crazy Ray. Evolutionist phhht says you're mentally deranged, and you haven't got the slightest defense for your madness. Talk about inexcusably stupid!

Ray Martinez said: And a link to a public toilet, Wikipedia, like I observed, isn't scholarly in the least.

Scott: Your messages are literally loaded with moronic nonsense and ignorance in basic matters. Anyone can fact check. I only answer you from time to time to make the point about how ignorant ordinary Evolutionists, like yourself, actually are, and without any awareness of the fact.

Reminds me of my Bio 101 instructor, lo these many moons ago, who said (in response to a dumb-ass creationist question) that you can't get an article "proving evolution" published in a scientific journal: the journal-reading audience has not needed "proof of evolution" for the last century or so.

It would be like trying to sell Car & Driver an article in 2016 proving that a practical all-electric car could be built and marketed.

Ray Martinez said: Note the fact that the link source AND quote doesn't mention Hume, and note the fact that the Darwin quotation says Darwin once accepted Paley, and that natural salection refutes Paley. So the Darwin quote says everything I've been saying. Why did Evolutionist Michael Fugate post this quotation? It refutes what Michael has been saying! Like I've been observing, ordinary Evolutionist Michael Fugate is inexcusably stupid.

Just Bob said: It would be like trying to sell Car & Driver an article in 2016 proving that a practical all-electric car could be built and marketed.

Ray Martinez said: Hell, none of you guys even knew that Paley’s stone/watch contrast argument remains accepted by virtually all scholars. Darwin accepted it.

Ray Martinez said: Absolutely nothing written above is the least bit controversial among scholars. Ray (OEC)

Ray Martinez said: ... Moreover, your comments say only the current positions of science are scientific. By this logic Newton wasn't practicing science, which is ridiculous. This is a good example of how Evolutionists "think."

All the components were known to be man-made.

Henry Skinner said: stevaroni said:

All the components were known to be man-made.

And of course watches were known to be man-made.

Rolf said: That's what he's been doing for a long time, and that was his rationale for his "Eureka" that he could falsify the theory of evolution by proving Darwin wrong. His making "Darwin fall" would, in Ray's mind, automatically erase the theory of evolution from the annals of science.

Scott F said:

Ray Martinez said: And a link to a public toilet, Wikipedia, like I observed, isn't scholarly in the least.

Ray, Wikipedia *is* basic 101-level stuff. In fact, when they start getting into equations, it's bumping up into 201-level stuff. Yet you can't even refute a single thing on Wikipedia. Ray, in Science, the source doesn't matter. Truth is truth, even if spoken by a 5-year-old.

Scott: Your messages are literally loaded with moronic nonsense and ignorance in basic matters. Anyone can fact check. I only answer you from time to time to make the point about how ignorant ordinary Evolutionists, like yourself, actually are, and without any awareness of the fact.

Well, I know for a fact that you don't even know what a "truth table" is. You don't know that the truth table for a logical conditional proves for a fact that you are wrong. I've pointed to this truth table on Wikipedia several time, which simply and elegantly proves your BS to be wrong. And that is a fact. A fact which you continue to ignore, and have failed to refute or even acknowledge the existence of. Don't like Wikipedia? How about YouTube? How about the University of Hawaii? How about UC Berkeley? Washington State University? University of North Carolina? How about the Proceedings of the Nineteenth Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science at Stanford University? This one should be right up your alley. From the Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. This article not only explains why you are wrong, it explains exactly the cognitive failure in how you get it wrong. And you will never, ever read it. You will simply ignore it. And, even if you do read it, you won't understand it and will therefore reject it as irrelevant, even though it explains exactly the problem that you have in understanding formal logic. Ray, the reason you don't find this basic, basic stuff in "scholarly journals" (which you famously fail to cite), is that this stuff is so basic that scholarly journals expect you to have learned this in grade school. That's why it's on Wikipedia. Because everyone knows that it's a fact. Except you. You simply reject facts as irrelevant to your interpretation of the Bible. It's much easier that way. So, I've provided links to Wikipedia, YouTube, two "scholarly journals", and four university-level explanations of the logical conditional, all explaining why you are wrong and how you are wrong. I predict that you will ignore all of these facts, facts that I personally know and facts which you are completely unaware of and have no interest in learning. And after you ignore them, you will then claim victory yet again.

TomS said:

Henry Skinner said: stevaroni said:

All the components were known to be man-made.

And of course watches were known to be man-made.

And they were known to be man-designed, too. (BTW, in speaking of that era, the humans involved were most likely male.) And produced for man-use in expectation of profit for the seller.

MaskedPanda(7cad) said: What about when Paley was on the moor, saw a beetle, and said "Now there's a strange machine. I wonder who made it, and what its purpose is." No, wait, he never said that, because one doesn't sensibly confuse living organisms with machines (Dawkins being nearly as wrong as Paley on that score). Organisms aren't made for anything, they reproduce, and they aren't rationally designed (only a superficial, and biased, look could suggest that they are). Somehow, in his hypothetical situation, he readily picked out the watch as designed, from all of the complex functional organisms surrounding it, then tried to argue that an organism is as obviously designed as the watch is. Yet a watch and an organism are massively different, for while organisms can be much more complex than a watch, never could they evolve metal gears meshing in a complex arrangement such as we find in a watch. The latter takes intelligence realizing what an "all-at-once" design can do, something that evolution could never pull off. Glen Davidson

Malcolm said:

Ray Martinez said: Absolutely nothing written above is the least bit controversial among scholars. Ray (OEC)

Given Ray's definition of Christian as someone who holds exactly the same religious beliefs as Ray Martinez, I'm curious to know how he defines a scholar.

Dave Thomas said:

MaskedPanda(7cad) said: What about when Paley was on the moor, saw a beetle, and said "Now there's a strange machine. I wonder who made it, and what its purpose is." No, wait, he never said that, because one doesn't sensibly confuse living organisms with machines (Dawkins being nearly as wrong as Paley on that score). Organisms aren't made for anything, they reproduce, and they aren't rationally designed (only a superficial, and biased, look could suggest that they are). Somehow, in his hypothetical situation, he readily picked out the watch as designed, from all of the complex functional organisms surrounding it, then tried to argue that an organism is as obviously designed as the watch is. Yet a watch and an organism are massively different, for while organisms can be much more complex than a watch, never could they evolve metal gears meshing in a complex arrangement such as we find in a watch. The latter takes intelligence realizing what an "all-at-once" design can do, something that evolution could never pull off. Glen Davidson

Whoops! Glen, don't forget Orgel's 2nd Rule, "Evolution is cleverer than you are." Mechanical gears in jumping insects

eric said: Off topic, but real scientists use phrases other than 'Eureka'.

https://me.yahoo.com/a/JxVN0eQFqtmgoY7wC1cZM44ET_iAanxHQmLgYgX_Zhn8#57cad said: One thing is not like the other. And yes, I'm well aware of the meshed teeth of the leafhopper. Not metal, not complex gear arrangment, not like a watch. Glen Davidson

Dave Thomas said:

https://me.yahoo.com/a/JxVN0eQFqtmgoY7wC1cZM44ET_iAanxHQmLgYgX_Zhn8#57cad said: One thing is not like the other. And yes, I'm well aware of the meshed teeth of the leafhopper. Not metal, not complex gear arrangment, not like a watch. Glen Davidson

Agreed. But still pretty cool.

Hume is our Politics, Hume is our Trade, Hume is our Philosophy, Hume is our Religion. James Hutchison Stirling (1820—1909) in the Secret of Hegel 1865.

Hume's Essay on Human understanding Hume's Essay Life of David Hume — (new Edit) by Bell recommended by Erasmus Hume's life of himself with corres: with Rousseau Humes dialogues; Nat. Hist of Religion Hume Hist. Engl. Vol 5; 6. 7th & 8th Vol of Hume's England — Admirable Hume's Essays. 2 Vol. 2. vols of Hume's History Hume's Hist of England. to end of the beginning of Elizabeth.

Although Hume's more conservative contemporaries denounced his writings as works of scepticism and atheism, his influence is evident in the moral philosophy and economic writings of his close friend Adam Smith (1723-1790). Kant (1724-1804) reported that Hume's work woke him from his “dogmatic slumbers” and Jeremy Bentham (1748-1832) remarked that reading Hume “caused the scales to fall” from his eyes. Charles Darwin regarded his work as a central influence on the theory of evolution.