The problem with science is naturalism

"[Scientists] refuse to accept that the scientific method is only one source of truth among others. What need serious reevaluation are the naturalistic materialist and the biological reductionist worldview that dominates the academia; it is a wholly misguided conceptual framework for the articulation and explanation of human origins, personal and interpersonal problems, and how it [sic] may be rectified."

Sorry, no, this is completely wrong. Why would the scientific literature have to address any other "ways of knowing"? Especially when the scientific method has proven to be so successful. You want to publish about other "ways", do it yourself. And since it has been so wildly successful, it really doesn't need any reevaluation. Of course the same is not true of creationism. The criticism should be directed more appropriately at that failed enterprise. And why must science "rectify interpersonal problems"? Sounds more like a failure of religion to me. This is just a bunch of projection and misplaced hostility.

Science is a human activity. It is not perfect.

Evolutionary biology offers an account for the variety of life on Earth. Does anyone have an alternative account? What happens, when and where, how or why, so that things happen in the world of life: an account without making reference to common descent with modification; so that such-and-such happens, rather than some other possibility?

Is there any prospect for some other method turning up an alternative account?

(I am not asking for a perfect method, or even a better method, just something which could offer an alternative.)

[Scientists] refuse to accept that the scientific method is only one source of truth among others.

What need serious reevaluation are the naturalistic materialist and the biological reductionist worldview that dominates the academia;

it is a wholly misguided conceptual framework for the articulation and explanation of human origins, personal and interpersonal problems, and how it [sic] may be rectified.

Actually, no, my comment was not successfully submitted :)

So "reductionism" is sort of the inverse of "emergent properties"? (Is that the right phrase?)

The problem: A lot of science is made up, with inadequate support from the evidence.

The solution: Quit demanding evidence for scientific conclusions.

Who could have predicted that from AIG?

Glen Davidson

To me, "naturalism" is just whatever works. Newton's Laws were considered unnatural at first (e.g. by Leibniz, according to Gleick's biography). They worked, so now they are natural. General Relativity and Quantum Field Theory didn't seem natural at first (or ever, to some), but they work, so they are included under naturalism.

Gods were considered natural for a long time. They don't work, so now they aren't part of naturalism. You can't beat naturalism, but you can join it: prove your god works (in the sense of having physical effects that weren't caused by something else). That seems fair to me.

JimV

What needs serious reevaluation are the naturalistic materialist and the biological reductionist worldview that dominates the academia;

So “reductionism” is sort of the inverse of “emergent properties”? (Is that the right phrase?)

ID/Creationists are notorious for resorting to pseudo philosophy when they are shown to be incompetent in science.

The problems in scientific research are well known and have been discussed for decades. Most of these problems lie within the cultural/institutional structures of research.

This AiG author is conflating the normal processes of publishing and vetting research results with the broader problems placed on research by the incentive/reward structures that are built into our research organizations by politicians and administrators demanding accountabity for the spending of public money. Added to that burden is the huge increase in the amount and diversity of research that is now taking place in our society compared with what was going on over a hundred years ago.

ID/creationists would have you believe that what appears in research journals must always be correct. However, that is not the entire purpose of research journals. One would like one's research to be correct, but an honest researcher also wants others to check results by doing similar experiments and uncovering systematic errors that may invalidate a given investigtion. Peer review is suppose to eliminate papers that are written by incomptetent researchers and clean up the poorly written papers by sloppy presenters.

Research journals have always contained articles that were contradicted by other research; that is what publishing research results is all about. You do research to answer a research question, you put your results out there for all to see, and then others can attempt to verify or refute your results. Research results that withstand repeated tests then become the grist for better theories.

There are literally thousands of reseach articles in scientific journals that have not been replicated. Most of these are simply forgotten or turn out to be wrong. The memorable papers are the ones that advance the field, and these are the ones that get cited most often. That is why there is a thing called a "citation index" that places a "value" on such papers; but a citation index may also make a really bad paper stand out. And, given the incentive/reward structures in our research institutions, citation indexes can be exploited for rewards.

Nowadays our research organizations are suffering from severe overload; and journal editors and reviewers are overwhelmed by too much stuff coming in too fast to be evaluated thoroughly. It is a matter of institutional overload; and these sleezy ID/Creationists are among the first to exploit this overload by trying to slip through the cracks to get their degrees and push their pseudoscience.

I find this AiG article disgustingly hypocritical. These people don't care about the science; they see evil everywhere, and they pretend that it is and issue of "worldview" and that their worldview is superior. And they are among the worst at perpetuating and exascerbating the problems of research.

Matt Young said:

So “reductionism” is sort of the inverse of “emergent properties”? (Is that the right phrase?)

Fascinating observation. I find it hard to define an emergent property, but I know one when I see one. The wetness of water is one: one water molecule is not wet, but 10²³ are definitely wet (as long as the temperature is within a certain range, anyway). I do not think we would or could have predicted wetness from first principles, but presumably we can explain it once we understand that water is made up of molecules. So our explanation of an emergent property is reductionist. I sincerely hope I am being circular, because that is the way I am feeling right now.

Wetness might not have been the best example -- viscosity might have better, because it is not as dependent on an external environment. But I think the point is that these properties emerge when we assemble a large collection of molecules. Our explanations, however, are reductive. Reductionism in science is not a dirty word.

These anti evolution people say, "scientific method is not the only source of knowledge", "naturalism is just one point of view". Then direct all that talk towards scientists and biologists. We should ask them first get some precedents set in other spheres. Like the courts.

Perhaps they should try something along the lines of, "Ladies and gentlemen of the Jury, the prosecution has presented scientific evidence about the guilt of the defendant, admittedly overwhelming evidence. But please remember scientific method is merely one point of view.

We should be open to supernatural explanations too. The defense contends that a invisible genie snatched the bullet fired by the defendant in mid air and disappeared. At the same time a sorcerer from the Malabar conjured up a magic bullet by sacrificing a cock and a bull on the new Moon day and it was that magic bullet that killed the victim. We all know the Malabar sorcerers are the best in the business. ..."

Defense lawyers are not restricted by tax payer funding or establishment clause. It should be much easier for them to rake up a whole string of precedents about the validity and acceptance of super natural explanations in court rooms and trials. Then they can come and ask for equal time for supernaturalism in school textbooks.

(Back after a long time. Hi to all who are still around from back then...)

Let us not forget that the advocates of ID make a point of not offering any alternative to scientific accounts. They only tell us that there might be another explanation, something other than natural causes. They don't even guess at what happens when "intelligent design" is involved. Harry Potter tells us that there is more to magic than saying a few words and waving a stick. ID does not come up to the standard of Harry Potter. There would be few readers if the resolution of the plot depended on "something, at some time, happens so that things turned out as they did".

None of these "other ways of knowing" rely on any knowledge of the issue to begin with, where knowledge is fact-based evidence resulting from experimentation. In reality, other ways of knowing is simply another term for intuition, as our ID friends are now touting, "I feel it, I sense it, I intuit it, therefore it must be true." The idea is to give credence to non-scientific ramblings, or as ID/creationists would have it, redefine science to include the supernatural on equal footing.

Matt Young said: Wetness might not have been the best example -- viscosity might have better, because it is not as dependent on an external environment. But I think the point is that these properties emerge when we assemble a large collection of molecules. Our explanations, however, are reductive. Reductionism in science is not a dirty word.

DS said: Sorry, no, this is completely wrong. Why would the scientific literature have to address any other "ways of knowing"? Especially when the scientific method has proven to be so successful. You want to publish about other "ways", do it yourself.

Matt Young said: I do not think we would or could have predicted wetness from first principles, but presumably we can explain it once we understand that water is made up of molecules. So our explanation of an emergent property is reductionist.

I’d say it’s reductionist, but not using the logic you used.

Let them tell us something about their methodology.

Advocacy of ID tells us that there has to be something other than "naturalism", but all they do is to attack evolutionary biology. That there is something missing about the Cambrian Explosion, for example; but they don't tell us how to account for it.

The more conventional Young Earth Creationists do a little better: What their leader tells them is in the Bible, that is what is true.

eric said: Nothing prevents venture capitalists or private organizations (such as the DI and AIG) from funding any way of knowing they want. And in fact the DI spends $millions per year on "research," though it almost entirely goes to PR - public talks and outreach.

Matt Young said:

I’d say it’s reductionist, but not using the logic you used.

I do not understand how what you said differs from what I said. The instant you describe a system in terms of atoms or molecules, you are being reductionist.

[Scientists] refuse to accept that the scientific method is only one source of truth among others.

Mr. Joubert, along with lots of other AIG-type folks, should go up to the board and write "I will not confuse Philosophical Naturalism with Methodological Naturalism" 100 times....

Does any serious theologian suggest that theology has a method for determining what is the case in the natural world?

TomS said: Does any serious theologian suggest that theology has a method for determining what is the case in the natural world?

eric said:

TomS said: Does any serious theologian suggest that theology has a method for determining what is the case in the natural world?

As far as I can tell, theologians treat 'other ways' the same way ID proponents treat designers: you aren't supposed to get specific around unbelievers, lest they point out the problems with it.

Michael Fugate said: It is telling that theologians can't even tell us what they do and how they investigate gods.

Science, they say, can't investigate the not natural, but there is no mention of what non-empirical evidence is, how conflicting evidence should be dealt with or how to investigate the not natural realm or even if it exists.

Yep. Forget natural vs. supernatural - the question is whether something is supported by the evidence.

My reading of theological methods is that one just assumes many things are true like - there is a god, god is good, god reveals things to humans, Christianity is true, etc. - then following where they lead. Alister McGrath says in Theology: The Basics "Traditionally, Christian theology has seen reason as operating in a subservient role to revelation. Thomas Aquinas argued that supernatural truths needed to be revealed to us." Yet nowhere in the 200 pages does he cover revelation. How does one start if one can distinguish revelation from not revelation?

Russell Blackford discussed the supernatural/natural divide some years back with very similar conclusions.

http://metamagician3000.blogspot.com/2009/05/natural-and-supernatural-again.html

But do the theologians ever talk about revelation concerning natural things? The composition of water, the cause of fermentation, the nature of stars, ....?

I think they ignore discussing revelation like the plague; you have deal with people like Oral Roberts saying a 900' tall Jesus told him to build a medical school. It is so fundamental and yet no one wants seems to tackle it. If someone has, I would be interested in reading what they say.

Yeah. I read Ezekiel, for example, and form the very strong impression that he would be one of the crazies you see in the street, shambling and muttering, glaring at the occasional passer-by. He's very specific about what he sees and hears in his visions, what exactly is said, by whom, when and where he had them, all that. How does he know they're not hallucinations?

How do I know that what I see and hear is not a hallucination? "Life, what is it but a dream?" asked Lewis Carroll. "We are such stuff as dreams are made on," said Shakespeare. I only know reality because it is shared with others. So is mere consensus all that stands between us and the riot of the supernatural? What, then, of the wide consensus among large numbers of people that they have had transcendent religious experiences? That they have, in fact, sensed the divine? Are they all hallucinating?

I don't know. Maybe. Probably. But I don't know.

“'We are such stuff as dreams are made on,' said Shakespeare."

Well, that wasn't exactly Shakespeare speaking for Shakespeare. It was Puck, a fairy, speaking with an apparent multi-level meaning. "We fairies are such stuff as dreams are made on," perhaps meaning that fairies aren't real, only creatures of dreams. Within the play, the fairies cause much magical sleeping and waking, and the mortal characters participate in fantastic things that they later attribute to dreams. The mortals don't credit fairies or their midsummer night's adventures as anything but wild dreams once they awaken in the morning.

But when Puck says that line, at the end of the play, he is speaking directly to the audience, and seems to mean that the actors themselves, maybe even the whole enterprise of theatre, is, in a sense, a dream.

Actually, Just Bob, the character speaking those words is Prospero the magician, and the play is "The Tempest". The speech comes about half-way through Act IV, with another act to come.

He is, of course, really speaking them to the audience. All lines in all plays are spoken to the audience. But this is not a soliloquy, where the actor addresses the audience alone. Here his supposed audience is the character's daughter and her bridegroom, and he is explaining why the magical revels at their nuptuals are ending: there's murder afoot. But is that Prospero speaking, or is it Shakespeare writing? Really?

This is Shakespeare, not Prospero. (Or, if you insist, it's Bacon or whoever you think really wrote those words.) The operative word here is the one in italics.

It comes back to this: what is this reality you speak of, grasshopper?

Michael Fugate said: I think they ignore discussing revelation like the plague; you have deal with people like Oral Roberts saying a 900' tall Jesus told him to build a medical school. It is so fundamental and yet no one wants seems to tackle it. If someone has, I would be interested in reading what they say.

Dave Luckett said: ... How do I know that what I see and hear is not a hallucination? "Life, what is it but a dream?" asked Lewis Carroll. "We are such stuff as dreams are made on," said Shakespeare. I only know reality because it is shared with others. So is mere consensus all that stands between us and the riot of the supernatural? What, then, of the wide consensus among large numbers of people that they have had transcendent religious experiences? That they have, in fact, sensed the divine? Are they all hallucinating? I don't know. Maybe. Probably. But I don't know.

Dave Luckett said: Actually, Just Bob, the character speaking those words is Prospero the magician, and the play is "The Tempest". The speech comes about half-way through Act IV, with another act to come. He is, of course, really speaking them to the audience. All lines in all plays are spoken to the audience. But this is not a soliloquy, where the actor addresses the audience alone. Here his supposed audience is the character's daughter and her bridegroom, and he is explaining why the magical revels at their nuptuals are ending: there's murder afoot. But is that Prospero speaking, or is it Shakespeare writing? Really? This is Shakespeare, not Prospero. (Or, if you insist, it's Bacon or whoever you think really wrote those words.) The operative word here is the one in italics. It comes back to this: what is this reality you speak of, grasshopper?

PUCK: If we shadows have offended, / Think but this, and all is mended, / That you have but slumber'd here / While these visions did appear. / And this weak and idle theme, / No more yielding but a dream,

For one take on Joubert, you might want to read this, but maybe not.

Rolf said: Sensing the divine? Why not? Maybe the divine is there, right there in our brain but normally out of reach by our consciousness?

I view the thing called God as the source of psychic energy in the brain. It is at the head of the hierarchy.

Rolf said: I view the thing called God as the source of psychic energy in the brain. It is at the head of the hierarchy.

Science IS naturalism. The whole point of science is to assumme natural causes for the things we see in nature.
It's like saying "The problem with science is science", which for a creationist is probably true.
Frankly, that's creationists problem, not science's.

cwj said: Science IS naturalism. The whole point of science is to assumme natural causes for the things we see in nature.

It's like saying "The problem with science is science"

cwj said: Science IS naturalism. The whole point of science is to assumme natural causes for the things we see in nature. It's like saying "The problem with science is science", which for a creationist is probably true. Frankly, that's creationists problem, not science's.

Tenncrain said: Perhaps a better way to put it is that science is limited to using natural explanations to explain natural phenomenon.

As JimboK touched on earlier in this thread, science relies not on Philosophical Naturalism but instead relies on Methodological Naturalism.....

It may be interesting to discuss how scientific explanations relate to "naturalism", but that has no bearing on the fact that the anti-evolutionists have no interest in offering any kind of explanation
for features of the world of life on Earth.

If science were fatally flawed by ruling out spiritual explanations, there would still be no example of a spiritual explanation for the complexity of the vertebrate eye.

Well of course naturalism is a problem; on account of all that pesky evidence! :p

Matt Young: The author, Callie Joubert, is identified only by name and has no bio.

Mike Elzinga said: ID/Creationists are notorious for resorting to pseudo philosophy when they are shown to be incompetent in science.

TomS said: Does any serious theologian suggest that theology has a method for determining what is the case in the natural world?

cwj said: Science IS naturalism. The whole point of science is to assumme natural causes for the things we see in nature. It's like saying "The problem with science is science", which for a creationist is probably true. Frankly, that's creationists problem, not science's.

So what we have is a competition: which interpretive philosophy explains the facts and evidence better, Supernaturalism or Naturalism?

Ray (Supernaturalist)

Ray Martinez said: In reality, Naturalism is an interpretive philosophy: it assumes the supernatural plays no role in the natural world---that the best explanation of facts and evidence is a naturalistic explanation and never a pro-supernatural explanation. Supernaturalism, on the other hand, is an interpretive philosophy as well: it assumes the natural world did not create or produce itself----that the best explanation of facts and evidence is a supernaturalistic explanation and never a pro-naturalism explanation.

Ray Martinez said: Would you like me to tell you the Biblical "method" (= your term) for establishing facts about reality?

Michael Fugate said:

Ray Martinez said: Would you like me to tell you the Biblical "method" (= your term) for establishing facts about reality?

Sure Ray, tell us the "Biblical method".

Michael Fugate said:

Ray Martinez said: Would you like me to tell you the Biblical "method" (= your term) for establishing facts about reality?

I was asking a question. Sure Ray, tell us the "Biblical method".

Michael Fugate said:

Ray Martinez said: Would you like me to tell you the Biblical "method" (= your term) for establishing facts about reality?

Sure Ray, tell us the "Biblical method".

Ray Martinez said: In reality, Naturalism is an interpretive philosophy: it assumes the supernatural plays no role in the natural world

Michael Fugate said:

Ray Martinez said: Would you like me to tell you the Biblical "method" (= your term) for establishing facts about reality?

Sure Ray, tell us the "Biblical method".

Ray Martinez said: ... that the best explanation of facts and evidence is a supernaturalistic explanation and never a pro-naturalism explanation. So what we have above is a competition: which interpretive philosophy explains the facts and evidence better. Ray (Supernaturalist)

In other words, Matt can’t shoot the messenger or make an invalid argument-from-authority unless a bio exists.

Mike Elzinga makes a telling point: Divergence; never convergence.

Just Bob said: Just look it up in the Bible!

Dave Luckett said:

Mike Elzinga makes a telling point: Divergence; never convergence.

Ray should know all about divergence. He's practically on his own. Nearly all of Christendom - even most young-earth creationists - diverge from him. Species immutability, yet. Even Ken Ham allows for speciation. But Ray has confided that the only True Christians are the ones who agree with him on every particular. The rest - pah! Atheists at heart, bound for the Lake of Fire. Ray's a rara avis, of the species loon. It's a proud and lonely thing to claim so baroque a cluster of overlapping delusions as his, but I suppose it keeps him out of mischief on any larger scale than writing demented and largely meaningless effluvia on the internet. Should his ambitions increase with his dementia, it might become necessary to exclude him, but as it is, he's worth keeping as a figure of fun.

Matt Young said:

In other words, Matt can’t shoot the messenger or make an invalid argument-from-authority unless a bio exists.

Please excuse me, I try not to engage with trolls, but I had to laugh when I read this comment. Could Mr. Martinez, a man who argues only by the appeal to authority, possibly be accusing me of using such an argument?

Dave Luckett said: I suppose it keeps him out of mischief on any larger scale than writing demented and largely meaningless effluvia on the internet.

TomS said:

Just Bob said: Just look it up in the Bible!

But suppose we "look it up in the Bible" about evolution, about the fixity of species, about heritable traits, about biogeographic variation, about fossils, about microbes (anything at all about the majority of life!) and what do we find: nothing

Technically, he’s accusing you of wanting to use such an argument to ignore the author’s points, but not being able to.

What makes this accusation really weird is that you clearly agreed with Ms. Joubert in several places.

Ray?

The Bible is the revealed word of God. On what basis is that a true statement?

I have had people use the "accuracy" of biblical prophecy as justification. Which is comical for a number of reasons. The Gospels blatantly state that Jesus did things just to fulfill prophecy. So if he knew what the prophets said, then did them - that's evidence he's the Messiah? If Jesus really were the Messiah, then why did the overwhelmingly majority of Jews not buy it? If Jesus were God, then why couldn't he accurately forecast his return?

I had one guy tell me that he distinguished between revelations from God and thoughts that popped into his head by deciding if it was something God would tell him. Really? Another guy claimed that he distinguished between them by if it was consistent with scripture. How was it done before scripture existed?

It all revolves around the first statement above.

Just Bob said: Well, duhh, then you Make Shit Up and call it "Interpreting God's Holy Word."

Matt Young said:

In other words, Matt can’t shoot the messenger or make an invalid argument-from-authority unless a bio exists.

Please excuse me, I try not to engage with trolls, but I had to laugh when I read this comment. Could Mr. Martinez, a man who argues only by the appeal to authority, possibly be accusing me of using such an argument? I am afraid so. Pity no "bio exists" for the author of the document that Mr. Martinez is so enamored of.

eric said:

Ray Martinez said: In reality, Naturalism is an interpretive philosophy: it assumes the supernatural plays no role in the natural world

Nope, its a provisional conclusion that things like Gods and miracles play no role....

Daniel said:

Ray Martinez said: ... that the best explanation of facts and evidence is a supernaturalistic explanation and never a pro-naturalism explanation. So what we have above is a competition: which interpretive philosophy explains the facts and evidence better. Ray (Supernaturalist)

I would seriously love, LOVE, to hear what are this facts better explained by the supernatural. Really, love to. I'll even grab some popcorn for this. Please Ray, out of the millions of scientific facts, which ones are better explained by supernatural causes? I'll give you some examples to get you started: - Lighting. Is that Zeus? - Earthquakes. Are they caused by the movements of the Earth, or by angry gods? - The spectral lines emitted by the elements. Did a god choose a different set for each element, or are they caused by the laws of quantum physics? - Radioactivity. Is it caused by ghosts, or by the weak nuclear force? - ERV's. Does a god go into the genome of every single human being and insert the same ERV's, and in the same locations, that chimps have? Or did we simply inherited them? - Rainbows. Are they the consequence of god shaking our hand? Or is it merely refracted light? BORING!! - The weird fauna of isolated places like Australia. Did god put them there, or did they evolved in place? - Why does the amoeba have the largest genome of all living things? Is it because god is an amoeba too? - Male nipples. What's up with those! - Acids. Are they really the blood of aliens, of are they simply, and naturally, voracious consumers of electrons? - Floating steel boats. Poseidon pushing ships up? Or do they float because they displace more water than their weight? How boring if it is not Poseidon! - Gravity. Angels pushing us down? Awesome! Matter distorting space? Boring! - Landing a spacecraft on Saturn's moon Titan. Orbital dynamics derived from Newton's laws, or was it guided by Archaengel Michael? - Most galaxies receding from us. Is god deflecting them, or is the universe expanding? - Eradication of diseases. Vaccines and modern medicine, or the blodd sacrifice of 2 birds? Really Ray, please, please, tell us which facts are better explained by the supernatural, and how did the supernatural do it. So if you tell me god causes rainbows, you also have to tell me how, and why is it better than the natural explanation that we can see and repeat over and over and over.

Ray Martinez said:

eric said:

Ray Martinez said: In reality, Naturalism is an interpretive philosophy: it assumes the supernatural plays no role in the natural world

Nope, its a provisional conclusion that things like Gods and miracles play no role....

The first word in the sentence above ("Nope") and the phrase "Gods and miracles play no role" contradict; obviously the latter phrase is exactly what I said. You've made a self-evident very bad error; doubt that you'll admit even in view of the fact that it is undeniable.

Ray Martinez said:

eric said:

Ray Martinez said: In reality, Naturalism is an interpretive philosophy: it assumes the supernatural plays no role in the natural world

Nope, its a provisional conclusion that things like Gods and miracles play no role....

The first word in the sentence above ("Nope") and the phrase "Gods and miracles play no role" contradict; obviously the latter phrase is exactly what I said.

You've made a self-evident very bad error; doubt that you'll admit even in view of the fact that it is undeniable.

Ray, you promised to outline the "Biblical method" - so what is it?

Dave Luckett said:

Mike Elzinga makes a telling point: Divergence; never convergence.

Ray should know all about divergence. He's practically on his own. Nearly all of Christendom - even most young-earth creationists - diverge from him. Species immutability, yet. Even Ken Ham allows for speciation....

Michael Fugate said: Ray, you promised to outline the "Biblical method" - so what is it?

Ray Martinez said:

Dave Luckett said:

Mike Elzinga makes a telling point: Divergence; never convergence.

Ray should know all about divergence. He's practically on his own. Nearly all of Christendom - even most young-earth creationists - diverge from him. Species immutability, yet. Even Ken Ham allows for speciation....

Imagine that; one of the most vocal Fundamentalists in the world does indeed accept the MAIN claim of Darwinian science (speciation), his alleged enemy! Yes, the Fundies are in bed with the Atheists! Just be glad, Atheists, that you're on top. We, on the other hand, are relieved to be completely rejected by Atheists and Fundamentalists, the latter being the dumbest people in Western society. By the way, Atheists, in case you miss my main point, the fact that the Fundies accept your main claim (concept of speciation) means they cannot be real Christians because real Christians would NEVER accept the main claim of Darwinian/secular/Atheist science. Real Christians accept the Biblical explanation of species. Ray (Old Earth, Young Biosphere, Paleyan Creationist-species immutabilist)

TomS said:

Just Bob said: Just look it up in the Bible!

But suppose we "look it up in the Bible" about evolution, about the fixity of species, about heritable traits, about biogeographic variation, about fossils, about microbes (anything at all about the majority of life!) and what do we find: nothing

Ray Martinez said: The Bible advocates supernatural causation (God-did-it) exclusively, known more commonly in relevant literature as "interventionism." Evolution, on the other hand, forbids appeals to supernatural or Intelligent causation. So the Bible says evolution is completely false (review first sentence). And Genesis 1 conveys how original AND new species appear in the wild. Disagree? Then tell me where did you obtain the idea that Genesis 1 only conveys a one-off original creation event? Ray

Why do you need Matt's permission?

Only if Matt Young gives me a green light.

Why do you need Matt’s permission?

He could outline the methodology on the BW just as easily as he can here. This is an important methodology breakthrough which will no doubt revolutionize science - how can he hold back?
Please, Ray I'm tingly with excitement.

Ray Martinez said:

TomS said:

Just Bob said: Just look it up in the Bible!

But suppose we "look it up in the Bible" about evolution, about the fixity of species, about heritable traits, about biogeographic variation, about fossils, about microbes (anything at all about the majority of life!) and what do we find: nothing

You could not be anymore wrong. The Bible advocates supernatural causation (God-did-it) exclusively, known more commonly in relevant literature as "interventionism." Evolution, on the other hand, forbids appeals to supernatural or Intelligent causation. So the Bible says evolution is completely false (review first sentence). And Genesis 1 conveys how original AND new species appear in the wild. Disagree? Then tell me where did you obtain the idea that Genesis 1 only conveys a one-off original creation event? Ray

Ray Martinez said: Crystal clear proof the author is completely ignorant of the claims of Biblical Supernaturalism, and Paley's Watchmaker. http://darwin-online.org.uk/content/frameset?itemID=F1497&viewtype=text&pageseq=59 "In order to pass the B.A. examination, it was, also, necessary to get up Paley's Evidences of Christianity, and his Moral Philosophy. This was done in a thorough manner, and I am convinced that I could have written out the whole of the Evidences with perfect correctness, but not of course in the clear language of Paley. The logic of this book and as I may add of his Natural Theology gave me as much delight as did Euclid. The careful study of these works, without attempting to learn any part by rote, was the only part of the Academical Course which, as I then felt and as I still believe, was of the least use to me in the education of my mind. I did not at that time trouble myself about Paley's premises; and taking these on trust I was charmed and convinced by the long line of argumentation" (Charles Darwin, Autobio:59).

He could outline the methodology on the BW just as easily as he can here. This is an important methodology breakthrough which will no doubt revolutionize science - how can he hold back?

Ray Martinez said: Evolution, on the other hand, forbids appeals to supernatural or Intelligent causation.

And Genesis 1 conveys how original AND new species appear in the wild. Disagree? Then tell me where did you obtain the idea that Genesis 1 only conveys a one-off original creation event?

So c'mon, Crazy Ray, explain why anyone should believe in the reality of the supernatural.

What's the problem, Ray, is that just too difficult for a mind like yours? Can't you come up with any plausible reason at all why a person should believe in divine creation?

Can't you even say why you believe in it?

No, of course you cannot. You are helpless when it comes to defending your delusional convictions.

So c’mon, Crazy Ray, explain why anyone should believe in the reality of the supernatural. What’s the problem, Ray, is that just too difficult for a mind like yours? Can’t you come up with any plausible reason at all why a person should believe in divine creation? Can’t you even say why you believe in it? No, of course you cannot. You are helpless when it comes to defending your delusional convictions.

Matt Young said:

So c’mon, Crazy Ray, explain why you should believe in the reality of the supernatural. What’s the problem, Ray, is that just too difficult for a mind like yours? Can’t you come up with any plausible reason at all why a person should believe in divine creation? Can’t you even say why you believe in it? No, of course you cannot. You are helpless when it comes to defending your delusional convictions.

This comment is completely devoid of content. Please stop baiting Mr. Martinez and calling names. He will have enough on his hands answering substantive criticisms.

Ray Martinez said: We, on the other hand...

If you refuse to let me challenge his unjustified claims, well, send us both to the bathroom wall. But your bias in favor of irrational, indefensible, crazy assertions will be evident.

Matt Young said: Saying... that he is nuts is not a refutation.

How else can I criticize an insane delusion?

Matt Young objects to my style, tone, and methods in opposing Crazy Ray here in this forum, and he is unwilling to put my posts in the bathroom wall, so from now on I will do it for him.

I have replied to Matt Young's post here.

I have replied to Matt Young's latest here.

Genesis 9:13 -16: I have set my rainbow in the clouds, and it will be the sign of the covenant between me and the earth. Whenever I bring clouds over the earth and the rainbow appears in the clouds, Whenever the rainbow appears in the clouds, I will see it and remember the everlasting covenant between God and all living creatures of every kind on the earth.”

Just to be clear: Mr. phhht is more than welcome to post his comments here or on any other thread of which I am the moderator. But moderating a thread takes time and effort, and I frankly doubt our readers want to read a constant stream of nearly identical insults such as those that Mr. phhht repeatedly (dare I say compulsively?) directs against Mr. Martinez. I have therefore decided not to allow his comments when they are merely insults. He is free, of course, to say whatever he wants on the BW, and he is free to post rational arguments, humor, sarcasm -- just about anything that anyone else posts -- except for the same or substantially the same invective over and over. I am busy and will have no further comment on this matter.

I have responded to Matt Young at the bathroom wall.

Ray Martinez said: We, on the other hand, are relieved to be completely rejected by Atheists and Fundamentalists, the latter being the dumbest people in Western society.

Scott F said:

Ray Martinez said: We, on the other hand, are relieved to be completely rejected by Atheists and Fundamentalists, the latter being the dumbest people in Western society.

Who's this "We" of which you speak? Is that the "Royal, majestic plural" kind of "We"", or the "Me, Myself, and I" kind of "We"? I wasn't aware that you had found a single other person who shared your unique beliefs.

Ray, you have the green light - let's go!

Ray (if you're still around):

Let us postulate that there could be some supernatural (divine, magical, whatever) component or contribution to some phenomenon. How does one determine that? How does one confidently identify that phenomenon X is a result of purely natural forces, while phenomenon Y must be the result of, or influenced by, the supernatural?

Even in a reaction or phenomenon that we assume to be completely natural, say the formation of crystals in an evaporating pan of salt water, how can we know a god isn't tinkering with which molecules go into which crystal, and exactly what pattern the collection of crystals forms on the bottom of the pan? Even if your god doesn't normally bother with crystal formation, how can we know he isn't doing it this time?

Is it only when there's some component of the phenomenon that we don't understand (yet) -- that's where a god must be acting? A few centuries ago (say during Bill Paley's lifetime) most folks thought lightning and earthquakes were caused directly by a god.

I suspect you'll decline to explain just how, or if, anyone can tell if a god is supernaturally causing earthly phenomena, just as you decline to explain how to determine if any given rock is "natural" or made specifically by your god to look exactly like a "natural" rock.

And if we can't tell the difference, then it doesn't make any difference. So why should we bother?

Michael Fugate said: Ray, you have the green light - let's go!

Matt Young said:

Only if Matt Young gives me a green light.

Yes, please, outline your methodology. And no Argument from Authority, please; we know you do not like that. Instead, we will be looking for methodology: hard, precise, testable Biblical science.

"If any Biblical miracle is shown to be true, then all Biblical miracles are true."

Thus is revealed all one needs to know about Ray's logic.

Premise #1: Facts and evidence are neutral; both become objects of bias when handled in any way, shape or form, by a Creationist or Darwinist.

Premise #2: Both philosophies ("Supernaturalism" and "Naturalism") are mutually exclusive; only one, in fact, is correct and true.

Premise #3: Up until the rise of Darwinism (1859-1872) Supernaturalism was the episteme of science. By 1872 almost all naturalists had abandoned design, converting to the “great principle of evolution” (1). By the turn of the century every biologist in Europe and North America, except for a small handful, had completely abandoned design and converted to Naturalism and evolution. These facts support Premise #2.

Biblical Supernaturalism begins with the assumption that the God of the Bible is the Creator and Designer, and the deity has chosen to reveal Himself in the form of a masculine Person. Moreover, the Scriptures are clear: this deity, and only this deity, exists. All other religions are false, man-made. The deity, or Theos, chose various oracles to speak through. For example: Moses and the Prophets. In the New Testament God speaks through Christ. In turn Christ chose oracles to speak for Him, like Paul (Acts 9). In this precise context the common denominator vehicle of revelation is words that have proceeded from the mouth of God and/or His oracles. The Bible demonstrates words, good or bad, which proceed from God, or His chosen oracles, to be forever binding, irreversible. God, as one could expect, says what He means and means what He says. (Satan exists to persuade mankind that God does not mean what He says.) There is no shortage of phrases in the Bible that say, for example, “And God said…,” or “The LORD said…,” or “Thus saith the LORD…” followed by what God said. This is why the Bible claims to be the word of God. ... blah blah blah.

If any Biblical miracle is shown to be true, then all Biblical miracles are true.

Surely it must be patently obvious even to Ray that his attempted redefinitions of words are ridiculous. The Hebrew "bara" is not the English "created", and neither mean "created supernaturally", nor do they imply ex nihil, although it is true that the Hebrew is one of a class of words always used of divine activity. The existence of that class is merely a quirk of Hebrew. It does not imply that the activity is supernatural.

A noun is not a word AND its referent, as Ray asserts. It is simply the name of a thing. The "thing" may be, and frequently is, an abstract or fantasy concept. But there is nothing within the structure of either language that distinguishes between a noun that has a material physical referent and one that doesn't, in actual usage. There exists a large class of nouns for which either or both may be the case. In a given instance, we distinguish nouns that have real physical referents from ones that haven't not by inspecting the language, but by common experience. Ray's attempt to impute an invariant real physical referent to some Hebrew nouns is merely silly. He can tell no such thing from the word itself. He also can't tell whether it proceeded from the mouth of God, except by assuming the consequent: that scripture is inerrant.

What Ray is saying is simply fatuous. He's only playing silly games with words. And as for his sublimely nonsensical "If any Biblical miracle is shown to be true, then all Biblical miracles are true", unless Ray means to mock himself, a more perfect demonstration of his confusion and debility could not possibly be provided.

Dave Luckett said: Surely it must be patently obvious even to Ray that his attempted redefinitions of words are ridiculous. The Hebrew "bara" is not the English "created", and neither mean "created supernaturally", nor do they imply ex nihil, although it is true that the Hebrew is one of a class of words always used of divine activity. The existence of that class is merely a quirk of Hebrew. It does not imply that the activity is supernatural.

A noun is not a word AND its referent, as Ray asserts. It is simply the name of a thing. The "thing" may be, and frequently is, an abstract or fantasy concept. But there is nothing within the structure of either language that distinguishes between a noun that has a material physical referent and one that doesn't, in actual usage. There exists a large class of nouns for which either or both may be the case. In a given instance, we distinguish nouns that have real physical referents from ones that haven't not by inspecting the language, but by common experience. Ray's attempt to impute an invariant real physical referent to some Hebrew nouns is merely silly. He can tell no such thing from the word itself. He also can't tell whether it proceeded from the mouth of God, except by assuming the consequent: that scripture is inerrant.

What Ray is saying is simply fatuous. He's only playing silly games with words. And as for his sublimely nonsensical "If any Biblical miracle is shown to be true, then all Biblical miracles are true", unless Ray means to mock himself, a more perfect demonstration of his confusion and debility could not possibly be provided.

Just asserting the Bible is true - that's novel.
Just asserting that intelligent design is a better explanation - that's novel, too.

Intelligent design is a human thing - on what basis do you know it is a god thing, Ray? Why would this god be restricted to using human methods? Isn't Genesis more likely idle speculation by a pre-scientific culture transformed into an allegory to explain humanity's place in the universe?

Creationists don't use the same evidence; they pick and choose evidence to support their conclusions - excluding everything that doesn't fit. Evidence is as much a hindrance as a help; it makes no difference to their conclusions.

Michael Fugate said: Evidence is as much a hindrance as a help; it makes no difference to their conclusions.

Just Bob said: "If any Biblical miracle is shown to be true, then all Biblical miracles are true." [....] all one needs to know about Ray's logic.

Ray Martinez said:

Just Bob said: "If any Biblical miracle is shown to be true, then all Biblical miracles are true." [....] all one needs to know about Ray's logic.

I completely agree.

Mike Elzinga said:

Premise #1: Facts and evidence are neutral; both become objects of bias when handled in any way, shape or form, by a Creationist or Darwinist.

So fire hurts only if one is biased in a certain way. Try that on any animal and they will tell you that they are biased in the direction of pain when coming into contact with fire. Is that how we determine that animals are not religious?

Premise #2: Both philosophies ("Supernaturalism" and "Naturalism") are mutually exclusive; only one, in fact, is correct and true.

[....] And how does one prove which one is true? More to the point, how do you prove that "Supernaturalism" is true?

Premise #3: Up until the rise of Darwinism (1859-1872) Supernaturalism was the episteme of science. By 1872 almost all naturalists had abandoned design, converting to the “great principle of evolution” (1). By the turn of the century every biologist in Europe and North America, except for a small handful, had completely abandoned design and converted to Naturalism and evolution. These facts support Premise #2.

This is an assertion that has been proven false by the Atomists of ancient Greece, Atomists didn't buy into deities and the supernatural. Your lack of knowledge of science history is making you look silly.

Furthermore, there were rational, experimental reasons for abandoning "Supernaturalism."

If any Biblical miracle is shown to be true, then all Biblical miracles are true.

If any cat can be shown to be black, then all cats are black. Explain in detail how you show a miracle is "true?"

Ray Martinez said:

Just Bob said: "If any Biblical miracle is shown to be true, then all Biblical miracles are true." [....] all one needs to know about Ray's logic.

I completely agree.

Ray Martinez said:

Ray Martinez said:

Just Bob said: "If any Biblical miracle is shown to be true, then all Biblical miracles are true." [....] all one needs to know about Ray's logic.

I completely agree.

Let us not forget that Naturalism says nature is a closed system: no miracle has ever occurred (my logic in reverse).

"A premise is, of course, a fact or facts that can be supported..."

No, it isn't.

PREMISE noun
1.Also, premiss. Logic. a proposition supporting or helping to support a conclusion.

SYNONYMS: 1. assumption, postulate.

Let's see now, what was it that Humpty Dumpty said about the meanings of words?

Just Bob said:

Michael Fugate said: Evidence is as much a hindrance as a help; it makes no difference to their conclusions.

Even bothering to find, or cite, or invent evidence shows a deep LACK of FAITH in REVEALED TRUTH.

Ray Martinez said: Element of fact: that Jesus lived and resurrected;

Mike Elzinga said:

Ray Martinez said:

Ray Martinez said:

Just Bob said: "If any Biblical miracle is shown to be true, then all Biblical miracles are true." [....] all one needs to know about Ray's logic.

I completely agree.

Let us not forget that Naturalism says nature is a closed system: no miracle has ever occurred (my logic in reverse).

No; it is YOU who says this. YOU haven't told us how one determines that miracles - and more precisely, your specifice assertion of "Biblical miracles" - are in fact true. What possible evidence can you provide under either category of "Supernaturalism" or "Naturalism?" I don't see any evidence that you have a clue about the meanings of "Naturalism" or "Supernaturalism." You have never written a research proposal; I have written many. You don't know how to probe the universe; I do. You have no clue how science works and how it developed historically; I have considerable expertise this area. Quit bluffing and start laying out a set of procedures on how to go about testing the validity of miraculous assertions.

Mike Elzinga said:

Ray Martinez said: Element of fact: that Jesus lived and resurrected;

Here is a nice starter exercise for you do demonstrate your knowledge of how to validate an assertion. Tell us how to go about verifying that Jesus was "resurrected." What do you mean by "resurrected" and how do we verify that this event actually happened? And don't just tell us how; tell us what actual evidence exists at this very moment that anyone can go to and verify that it validates what you claim.

Ray Martinez said:

Mike Elzinga said:

Ray Martinez said: Element of fact: that Jesus lived and resurrected;

Here is a nice starter exercise for you do demonstrate your knowledge of how to validate an assertion. Tell us how to go about verifying that Jesus was "resurrected." What do you mean by "resurrected" and how do we verify that this event actually happened? And don't just tell us how; tell us what actual evidence exists at this very moment that anyone can go to and verify that it validates what you claim.

It's not an assertion. My context ASSUMES any given Christian, like myself or Ken Miller. Christians have already settled the fact that Jesus lived and resurrected. So in this context I show faith is based on an element of fact. I don't wish to argue the evidence in support of the Resurrection. Right now I have an outline posted that explains how we know Supernaturalism is true. I think we should stay focused on this topic.

Ray Martinez said:

Mike Elzinga said:

Ray Martinez said: Element of fact: that Jesus lived and resurrected;

Here is a nice starter exercise for you do demonstrate your knowledge of how to validate an assertion. Tell us how to go about verifying that Jesus was "resurrected." What do you mean by "resurrected" and how do we verify that this event actually happened? And don't just tell us how; tell us what actual evidence exists at this very moment that anyone can go to and verify that it validates what you claim.

It's not an assertion. My context ASSUMES any given Christian, like myself or Ken Miller. Christians have already settled the fact that Jesus lived and resurrected. So in this context I show faith is based on an element of fact. I don't wish to argue the evidence in support of the Resurrection. Right now I have an outline posted that explains how we know Supernaturalism is true. I think we should stay focused on this topic.

Mike Elzinga said: So lay out a research proposal for us that will allow anyone anywhere to verify your assertions about miracles.

Mike Elzinga said:

Ray Martinez said:

Mike Elzinga said:

Ray Martinez said: Element of fact: that Jesus lived and resurrected;

Here is a nice starter exercise for you do demonstrate your knowledge of how to validate an assertion. Tell us how to go about verifying that Jesus was "resurrected." What do you mean by "resurrected" and how do we verify that this event actually happened? And don't just tell us how; tell us what actual evidence exists at this very moment that anyone can go to and verify that it validates what you claim.

It's not an assertion. My context ASSUMES any given Christian, like myself or Ken Miller. Christians have already settled the fact that Jesus lived and resurrected. So in this context I show faith is based on an element of fact. I don't wish to argue the evidence in support of the Resurrection. Right now I have an outline posted that explains how we know Supernaturalism is true. I think we should stay focused on this topic.

And, just in case you don't understand the words "verify" or "validate," here is some help. In science, "verify" means to determine the objective truth or existence of something. By "objective" we mean that anyone and everyone can replicate a set of procedures that produce observations and can agree among themselves that they produce the same results as what others observe. "Validate" means to test that your set of proceedures or assertions always does or means the same thing every time they are repeated. You test this by repetition and by making slight changes in procedures to check for systematic errors or inconsistencies in the procedures or assertions. So lay out a research proposal for us that will allow anyone anywhere to verify your assertions about miracles.

Ray Martinez said:

Mike Elzinga said:

Ray Martinez said:

Mike Elzinga said:

Ray Martinez said: Element of fact: that Jesus lived and resurrected;

Here is a nice starter exercise for you do demonstrate your knowledge of how to validate an assertion. Tell us how to go about verifying that Jesus was "resurrected." What do you mean by "resurrected" and how do we verify that this event actually happened? And don't just tell us how; tell us what actual evidence exists at this very moment that anyone can go to and verify that it validates what you claim.

It's not an assertion. My context ASSUMES any given Christian, like myself or Ken Miller. Christians have already settled the fact that Jesus lived and resurrected. So in this context I show faith is based on an element of fact. I don't wish to argue the evidence in support of the Resurrection. Right now I have an outline posted that explains how we know Supernaturalism is true. I think we should stay focused on this topic.

And, just in case you don't understand the words "verify" or "validate," here is some help. In science, "verify" means to determine the objective truth or existence of something. By "objective" we mean that anyone and everyone can replicate a set of procedures that produce observations and can agree among themselves that they produce the same results as what others observe. "Validate" means to test that your set of proceedures or assertions always does or means the same thing every time they are repeated. You test this by repetition and by making slight changes in procedures to check for systematic errors or inconsistencies in the procedures or assertions. So lay out a research proposal for us that will allow anyone anywhere to verify your assertions about miracles.

Your request is made in the context of submitting Supernaturalism to naturalistic methodology. So your request is rhetorical, it says Supernaturalism cannot meet naturalistic criteria, I agree. No surprises here. My outline explained how we know what we know. Said epistemology is based entirely in reality. Our methodology is admittedly quite different, but nonetheless testable. My MAIN POINT is that our methodology is superior to Naturalism. For example: Review comments about unicorns. The implication is that naturalistic concepts like evolution and speciation are the same: unable to identify a material referent. So Naturalism methodology fails the testing criteria of Supernaturalism methodology. No surprises here.

Pre-1859 Victorian naturalists held to the following universal observation (argued in my outline): Species appear, fully formed, suddenly or abruptly, in the paleontological crust of the earth, continue in a state of changelessness for quite some time, or they change slightly, then they disappear abruptly or suddenly, without leaving any signs of evolutionary descendants.

These naturalists interpreted the facts above as clearly supporting new species immutable, created specially. Moreover, slight change would account for variation. That's the pro-Supernatural interpretation.

What's the Naturalism interpretation of the same evidence? In other words, how did Darwin interpret said evidence?

I don't see how if Jesus lived, then Jesus is God or then evolution is false. How exactly do they follow from the premise? How does if one statement in the Bible is true, then all statements in the Bible are true actually follow? Does the converse work too?

Even if evolution is true, then how does God is false necessarily follow?

Well, Ray, how about if you just use all that "supernaturalism" to DO SOMETHING. Something tangible and useful to humanity would be nice, like preventing all cancer or creating cold fusion.

If all the effects and benefits of "supernaturalism" are intangible or "spiritual" (where Floyd retreats to), then have at it. But why should science care?

Michael Fugate said: I don't see how if Jesus lived, then Jesus is God or then evolution is false. How exactly do they follow from the premise?

How does if one statement in the Bible is true, then all statements in the Bible are true actually follow? Does the converse work too?

Even if evolution is true, then how does God is false necessarily follow?

People who have been brought up in many of these fundamentalist churches are unable to understand the meaning of evidence. To them the litergy of their denomination demands that they hold to certain beliefs as statements of fact, and reject as heresy anything that does not comport with those beliefs. Anything that impinges on them from the external world must be bent to fit those beliefs.

That appears to be the state that Ray Martinez is in. He uses words the way they are used in his religion.

Because if the first chapter in the Bible is totally false then the text is man-made, not Divinely inspired, the deity does not exist.

Ray Martinez said: Premise #1: Facts and evidence are neutral; both become objects of bias when handled in any way, shape or form, by a Creationist or Darwinist.

Premise #2: Both philosophies are mutually exclusive; only one, in fact, is correct and true.

Premise #3: Up until the rise of Darwinism (1859-1872) Supernaturalism was the episteme of science.

Note: Premises can easily be supported. Anyone not willing to accept these premises is inexcusably ignorant concerning logic and the history of science.

Our logic is: Our ability to provide corresponding material referents for many other claims means claims lacking a material referent must be true as well.

There is, of course, no shortage of secular scholars who say Darwin refuted Paley, which means Paley was held scientifically true... Therefore scientific acceptance of design, and said view of species by paleontological science, provides the necessary corresponding material referents establishing the facticity of creation miracles.

If any Biblical miracle is shown to be true, then all Biblical miracles are true.

Moreover, we contend pre-1859 Victorian science remains correct; their explanation and/or interpretation of species is far superior to the Darwinian interpretation of the same evidence.

Michael Fugate said: Wow Ray, lots of people believe something, so its true? Really that's your "evidence"?

Ray Martinez said: It's not an assertion. My context ASSUMES any given Christian, like myself or Ken Miller. Christians have already settled the fact that Jesus lived and resurrected. So in this context I show faith is based on an element of fact.

eric said:

Ray Martinez said:Premise #2: Both philosophies are mutually exclusive; only one, in fact, is correct and true.

This premise is wrong. It is logically and philosophically possible for a God to have intervened occasionally but for the overall history of life on Earth to have been a result of evolution.

Mike Elzinga said: The problem that everyone here is having is that you don't use words consistently; we can't even validate what your are claming because you say things differently every time you respond. This suggests very strongly that you don't know what you are talking about.

You claim that "Supernaturalism" and "Naturalism" are "mutually exclusive. How can you even make such an assertion when you can't even establish the existence of the supernatural?

You can only point to what people believed long before civilizations evolved and encountered a vastly greater number of experiences and knowledge. Science evolved out of those experiences and supernaturalism was abandoned. There was certainly a period in history when you could find people confused about all this. How do you test for the existence of the supernatural? Asserting or "believing" is not enough; especially if you are going to claim that the supernatural intersects with the natural world. And if the supernatural does indeed intersect with the natural world, then why is it called "supernatural?" Give us an experimental proposal for determining the existence of the supernatural; not just stories of what some people believed in a naive past or continue to believe even in the present. People believe in all sorts of things that don't exist.

Mike Elzinga said:

Ray Martinez said:

Ray Martinez said:

Just Bob said: "If any Biblical miracle is shown to be true, then all Biblical miracles are true." [....] all one needs to know about Ray's logic.

I completely agree.

Let us not forget that Naturalism says nature is a closed system: no miracle has ever occurred (my logic in reverse).

No; it is YOU who says this.

You have never written a research proposal; I have written many. You don't know how to probe the universe; I do. You have no clue how science works and how it developed historically; I have considerable expertise this area.

I am wondering, Ray, is reproduction natural or is it supernatural? If new species can only be created by a god and not by nature through speciation events, then doesn't it make more sense that individuals are created and not reproduced? God wouldn't leave something so important up to chance?

I've had very many debates with doctor of evolutionary biology John Harshman, and he never once invoked his credentials in any way, shape or form, not even once.

Michael Fugate said: I am wondering, Ray, is reproduction natural or is it supernatural?

If new species can only be created by a god and not by nature through speciation events, then doesn't it make more sense that individuals are created and not reproduced? God wouldn't leave something so important up to chance?

Ray Martinez is a perfect example of why scientists stopped debating creationists. These sectarians want only publicity and a free ride on the back of a scientist by pretending they know all about science and its history.

Now that Ray has engage in this hackneyed tactic, I will simply let Ray's comments speak for themselves. People who really know things will understand what is going on. From here on out, all we can expect to see are tu quoque comments from Ray.

Ray Martinez said:

Michael Fugate said: I am wondering, Ray, is reproduction natural or is it supernatural?

You're forgetting that the word "natural" has different meanings, depends on context. Sometimes "natural" refers to nature or what exists; other times it refers to unintelligent/unguided/undirected causation. Reproduction is designed, supernaturally caused.

If new species can only be created by a god and not by nature through speciation events, then doesn't it make more sense that individuals are created and not reproduced? God wouldn't leave something so important up to chance?

"Created" and "reproduction" are not antonyms; existence of the latter not in dispute. What's in dispute: Is reproduction designed/created or a product of cumulative selection? We, of course, contend reproduction is designed.

So individuals can reproduce without supernatural intervention - except Mary, of course - but populations/species can't. Why is that?

Ray Martinez said: I've had very many debates with doctor of evolutionary biology John Harshman, and he never once invoked his credentials in any way, shape or form, not even once.

Reproduction is designed, supernaturally caused.

Mike Elzinga said:

Reproduction is designed, supernaturally caused.

Since reproduction - as well as the sex of the offspring of some species - is temperature dependent, this tells us that the "supernatural" is affected by temperature. But we know in considerable detail what temperature is. This is getting quite "interesting."

Mike Elzinga said: Ray Martinez is a perfect example of why scientists stopped debating creationists. These sectarians want only publicity and a free ride on the back of a scientist by pretending they know all about science and its history.

Males and females have the same anatomy?

Even more interesting.

Mike Elzinga said: Ray Martinez is a perfect example of why scientists stopped debating creationists. These sectarians want only publicity and a free ride on the back of a scientist by pretending they know all about science and its history.

Mike Elzinga said: Males and females have the same anatomy? Even more interesting.

TomS said: And "created" and "evolved" are not antonyms.

And "created" and "designed" are not synonyms.

Our forefathers, all of whom were Creationists, and not the pseudo-20th century kind, invented science; Naturalism/evolution is a wayward branch, an off-shoot.

Michael Fugate said: So individuals can reproduce without supernatural intervention - except Mary, of course - but populations/species can't. Why is that?

Michael Fugate said:

Our forefathers, all of whom were Creationists, and not the pseudo-20th century kind, invented science; Naturalism/evolution is a wayward branch, an off-shoot.

And they were young earth creationists to boot - including Newton. So old earth creationism is an off-shoot too. And don't get us started about what they thought about physiology and medicine.

Ray Martinez said:

Michael Fugate said:

Our forefathers, all of whom were Creationists, and not the pseudo-20th century kind, invented science; Naturalism/evolution is a wayward branch, an off-shoot.

And they were young earth creationists to boot - including Newton. So old earth creationism is an off-shoot too. And don't get us started about what they thought about physiology and medicine.

They were NOT YECs; when Darwin published in 1859 science accepted an old earth; if science did not already accept an old earth in 1859 then Darwin's theory would have been dead-on-arrival.

FACT: Science, post 1800, has NEVER accepted a young earth.

FACT: No verse, statement, phrase, or word in the Bible says or indicates a young earth.

Ray Martinez said:

Ray Martinez said:

Michael Fugate said:

Our forefathers, all of whom were Creationists, and not the pseudo-20th century kind, invented science; Naturalism/evolution is a wayward branch, an off-shoot.

And they were young earth creationists to boot - including Newton. So old earth creationism is an off-shoot too. And don't get us started about what they thought about physiology and medicine.

They were NOT YECs; when Darwin published in 1859 science accepted an old earth; if science did not already accept an old earth in 1859 then Darwin's theory would have been dead-on-arrival.

What I just said is BASIC history of science 101.

FACT: Science, post 1900, has NEVER accepted special creation.
FACT: No verse, statement, phrase, for word in the Bible say or indicates new species cannot form through evolution.

Michael Fugate said: FACT: Science, post 1900, has NEVER accepted special creation.

FACT: No verse, statement, phrase, for word in the Bible say or indicates new species cannot form through evolution.

FACT: Nowhere in the bible does it say that God is intelligent.

The Bible doesn't say what happened to nature after creation week - you know that - I know you do.

And OEC is still an off-shoot of YEC - you admit that now - right?

Michael Fugate said:

Ray Martinez said:

Ray Martinez said:

Michael Fugate said:

Our forefathers, all of whom were Creationists, and not the pseudo-20th century kind, invented science; Naturalism/evolution is a wayward branch, an off-shoot.

And they were young earth creationists to boot - including Newton. So old earth creationism is an off-shoot too. And don't get us started about what they thought about physiology and medicine.

They were NOT YECs; when Darwin published in 1859 science accepted an old earth; if science did not already accept an old earth in 1859 then Darwin's theory would have been dead-on-arrival.

What I just said is BASIC history of science 101.

Oh but Ray, they were all YECs in 1700 and most even later. Why are you afraid to go back another 150 years? You see YEC transformed in OEC and then into evolution. Although many were speculating on an older earth in the 18th c., Buffon's Époques de la Nature 1778 put a minimum at 75,000 years - less than 100 years before Darwin.

phhht said: FACT: Nowhere in the bible does it say that God is intelligent.

Michael Fugate said: The Bible doesn't say what happened to nature after creation week - you know that - I know you do.

And OEC is still an off-shoot of YEC - you admit that now - right?

phhht said: FACT: Nowhere in the bible does it say that God is intelligent.

Ray Martinez said:

phhht said: FACT: Nowhere in the bible does it say that God is intelligent.

As I mentioned in my outline: The deity chose to reveal himself as a masculine Person who is almost completely omniscient. And there isn't a scholar alive who doesn't believe that IF God exists He is most intelligent.

Ray Martinez said:

phhht said: FACT: Nowhere in the bible does it say that God is intelligent.

Moreover, the Bible says we are made in His image and likeness.

phhht said:

Ray Martinez said:

phhht said: FACT: Nowhere in the bible does it say that God is intelligent.

Moreover, the Bible says we are made in His image and likeness.

Then you, Ray Martinez, stand as a counter-example to the assertion that god is intelligent.

phhht said:

Ray Martinez said:

phhht said: FACT: Nowhere in the bible does it say that God is intelligent.

As I mentioned in my outline: The deity chose to reveal himself as a masculine Person who is almost completely omniscient. And there isn't a scholar alive who doesn't believe that IF God exists He is most intelligent.

That is baseless superstition, Ray Martinez. You can 't back that claim up with any testable facts at all. And I stand by my assertion: It doesn't matter who believes what. The bible does not say that god is intelligent.

Ray Martinez said:

phhht said:

Ray Martinez said:

phhht said: FACT: Nowhere in the bible does it say that God is intelligent.

As I mentioned in my outline: The deity chose to reveal himself as a masculine Person who is almost completely omniscient. And there isn't a scholar alive who doesn't believe that IF God exists He is most intelligent.

That is baseless superstition, Ray Martinez. You can 't back that claim up with any testable facts at all. And I stand by my assertion: It doesn't matter who believes what. The bible does not say that god is intelligent.

The Bible portrays an omniscient God the same presupposes ultra-intelligence or super-intelligence; that's what supernatural means: more or extra natural.

phhht said:

Ray Martinez said:

phhht said:

Ray Martinez said:

phhht said: FACT: Nowhere in the bible does it say that God is intelligent.

As I mentioned in my outline: The deity chose to reveal himself as a masculine Person who is almost completely omniscient. And there isn't a scholar alive who doesn't believe that IF God exists He is most intelligent.

That is baseless superstition, Ray Martinez. You can 't back that claim up with any testable facts at all. And I stand by my assertion: It doesn't matter who believes what. The bible does not say that god is intelligent.

The Bible portrays an omniscient God the same presupposes ultra-intelligence or super-intelligence; that's what supernatural means: more or extra natural.

But the god of the bible is a fairy story, Ray Martinez. It's no more real than Dracula or Spiderman. Go ahead, Ray Martinez. Provide even a single scrap of testable evidence for the reality of your god. But of course you cannot do that, because your god is not real.

Ray Martinez said:

phhht said:

Ray Martinez said:

phhht said:

Ray Martinez said:

phhht said: FACT: Nowhere in the bible does it say that God is intelligent.

As I mentioned in my outline: The deity chose to reveal himself as a masculine Person who is almost completely omniscient. And there isn't a scholar alive who doesn't believe that IF God exists He is most intelligent.

That is baseless superstition, Ray Martinez. You can 't back that claim up with any testable facts at all. And I stand by my assertion: It doesn't matter who believes what. The bible does not say that god is intelligent.

The Bible portrays an omniscient God the same presupposes ultra-intelligence or super-intelligence; that's what supernatural means: more or extra natural.

But the god of the bible is a fairy story, Ray Martinez. It's no more real than Dracula or Spiderman. Go ahead, Ray Martinez. Provide even a single scrap of testable evidence for the reality of your god. But of course you cannot do that, because your god is not real.

Already did in this thread with Matt Young's green light: http://pandasthumb.org/archives/2016/07/the-problem-wit-1.html#comment-356214

Ray Martinez said: The deity chose to reveal himself as a masculine Person who is almost completely omniscient.

phhht said:

Ray Martinez said:

phhht said:

Ray Martinez said:

phhht said:

Ray Martinez said:

phhht said: FACT: Nowhere in the bible does it say that God is intelligent.

As I mentioned in my outline: The deity chose to reveal himself as a masculine Person who is almost completely omniscient. And there isn't a scholar alive who doesn't believe that IF God exists He is most intelligent.

That is baseless superstition, Ray Martinez. You can 't back that claim up with any testable facts at all. And I stand by my assertion: It doesn't matter who believes what. The bible does not say that god is intelligent.

The Bible portrays an omniscient God the same presupposes ultra-intelligence or super-intelligence; that's what supernatural means: more or extra natural.

But the god of the bible is a fairy story, Ray Martinez. It's no more real than Dracula or Spiderman. Go ahead, Ray Martinez. Provide even a single scrap of testable evidence for the reality of your god. But of course you cannot do that, because your god is not real.

Already did in this thread with Matt Young's green light: http://pandasthumb.org/archives/2016/07/the-problem-wit-1.html#comment-356214

That's a lie, Ray Martinez. You cannot say how to demonstrate the reality of your god.

Ray Martinez said:

phhht said:

Ray Martinez said:

phhht said:

Ray Martinez said:

phhht said:

Ray Martinez said:

phhht said: FACT: Nowhere in the bible does it say that God is intelligent.

As I mentioned in my outline: The deity chose to reveal himself as a masculine Person who is almost completely omniscient. And there isn't a scholar alive who doesn't believe that IF God exists He is most intelligent.

That is baseless superstition, Ray Martinez. You can 't back that claim up with any testable facts at all. And I stand by my assertion: It doesn't matter who believes what. The bible does not say that god is intelligent.

The Bible portrays an omniscient God the same presupposes ultra-intelligence or super-intelligence; that's what supernatural means: more or extra natural.

But the god of the bible is a fairy story, Ray Martinez. It's no more real than Dracula or Spiderman. Go ahead, Ray Martinez. Provide even a single scrap of testable evidence for the reality of your god. But of course you cannot do that, because your god is not real.

Already did in this thread with Matt Young's green light: http://pandasthumb.org/archives/2016/07/the-problem-wit-1.html#comment-356214

That's a lie, Ray Martinez. You cannot say how to demonstrate the reality of your god.

No Atheist or Darwinist denies that the main claim of Creationism is observation of design.

Ray Martinez said:

phhht said:

Ray Martinez said:

phhht said:

Ray Martinez said:

phhht said:

Ray Martinez said:

phhht said: FACT: Nowhere in the bible does it say that God is intelligent.

As I mentioned in my outline: The deity chose to reveal himself as a masculine Person who is almost completely omniscient. And there isn't a scholar alive who doesn't believe that IF God exists He is most intelligent.

That is baseless superstition, Ray Martinez. You can 't back that claim up with any testable facts at all. And I stand by my assertion: It doesn't matter who believes what. The bible does not say that god is intelligent.

The Bible portrays an omniscient God the same presupposes ultra-intelligence or super-intelligence; that's what supernatural means: more or extra natural.

But the god of the bible is a fairy story, Ray Martinez. It's no more real than Dracula or Spiderman. Go ahead, Ray Martinez. Provide even a single scrap of testable evidence for the reality of your god. But of course you cannot do that, because your god is not real.

Already did in this thread with Matt Young's green light: http://pandasthumb.org/archives/2016/07/the-problem-wit-1.html#comment-356214

That's a lie, Ray Martinez. You cannot say how to demonstrate the reality of your god.

No Atheist or Darwinist denies that the main claim of Creationism is observation of design.

Ray’s concept of argument: “All of my basic assumptions are simply true by definition. Since that’s a given, we can move on to demonstrating how ignorant you are.”

Just Bob said:

Ray Martinez said: The deity chose to reveal himself as a masculine Person who is almost completely omniscient.

Almost? Then surely you can quote us a passage or two showing proving that your deity is less than completely omniscient. (Actually, I can supply a number of them, every one of which a Christian will find some way to deny. Because they just have to say that god is too omniscient, and not "almost".) So in yet another way Ray is far outside mainstream Christian theology.

I've asked you before, Ray, with nary an answer: Can you cite for us a single *living* Christian writer, theologian, scholar, whatever, whose views you accept completely on all theological matters?

Ray Martinez said:

Just Bob said:

Ray Martinez said: The deity chose to reveal himself as a masculine Person who is almost completely omniscient.

Almost? Then surely you can quote us a passage or two showing proving that your deity is less than completely omniscient. (Actually, I can supply a number of them, every one of which a Christian will find some way to deny. Because they just have to say that god is too omniscient, and not "almost".) So in yet another way Ray is far outside mainstream Christian theology.

Genesis 22:12 (Angel of God speaking in the first person for God): "And he said, Lay not thine hand upon the lad, neither do thou any thing unto him: for now I know that thou fearest God, seeing thou hast not withheld thy son, thine only son from me" (KJV; boldfacing emphasis added). God was speaking to Abraham who was at least 120 years old in the passage. Up until this moment God admits that He did NOT know if Abraham feared Him or not? The point is, what God doesn't know, and the context indicates what that is, can be discovered by using His power. So God is omnipotent and almost omniscient. So when the Bible says God and Christ know everything, it means except as noted above. This is WHY the God of the Bible is SO beloved: most people hate know-it-alls.

I've asked you before, Ray, with nary an answer: Can you cite for us a single *living* Christian writer, theologian, scholar, whatever, whose views you accept completely on all theological matters?

No two persons agree on every theological matter.

Ray Martinez said:

Just Bob said:

Ray Martinez said: The deity chose to reveal himself as a masculine Person who is almost completely omniscient.

Almost? Then surely you can quote us a passage or two showing proving that your deity is less than completely omniscient. (Actually, I can supply a number of them, every one of which a Christian will find some way to deny. Because they just have to say that god is too omniscient, and not "almost".) So in yet another way Ray is far outside mainstream Christian theology.

Genesis 22:12 (Angel of God speaking in the first person for God): "And he said, Lay not thine hand upon the lad, neither do thou any thing unto him: for now I know that thou fearest God, seeing thou hast not withheld thy son, thine only son from me" (KJV; boldfacing emphasis added). God was speaking to Abraham who was at least 120 years old in the passage. Up until this moment God admits that He did NOT know if Abraham feared Him or not? The point is, what God doesn't know, and the context indicates what that is, can be discovered by using His power. So God is omnipotent and almost omniscient. So when the Bible says God and Christ knows everything, it means except as noted above. This is WHY the God of the Bible is SO beloved: most people hate know-it-alls.

I've asked you before, Ray, with nary an answer: Can you cite for us a single *living* Christian writer, theologian, scholar, whatever, whose views you accept completely on all theological matters?

No two persons agree on every theological matter.

phhht said:

Ray Martinez said:

phhht said:

Ray Martinez said:

phhht said:

Ray Martinez said:

phhht said:

Ray Martinez said:

phhht said: FACT: Nowhere in the bible does it say that God is intelligent.

As I mentioned in my outline: The deity chose to reveal himself as a masculine Person who is almost completely omniscient. And there isn't a scholar alive who doesn't believe that IF God exists He is most intelligent.

That is baseless superstition, Ray Martinez. You can 't back that claim up with any testable facts at all. And I stand by my assertion: It doesn't matter who believes what. The bible does not say that god is intelligent.

The Bible portrays an omniscient God the same presupposes ultra-intelligence or super-intelligence; that's what supernatural means: more or extra natural.

But the god of the bible is a fairy story, Ray Martinez. It's no more real than Dracula or Spiderman. Go ahead, Ray Martinez. Provide even a single scrap of testable evidence for the reality of your god. But of course you cannot do that, because your god is not real.

Already did in this thread with Matt Young's green light: http://pandasthumb.org/archives/2016/07/the-problem-wit-1.html#comment-356214

That's a lie, Ray Martinez. You cannot say how to demonstrate the reality of your god.

No Atheist or Darwinist denies that the main claim of Creationism is observation of design.

See, Ray Martinez, when faced with a head-on challenge, you try to change the subject. To demonstrate the reality of your gods, you must give a test that I can perform myself. Otherwise, I am only taking the word of a madman.

phhht said:

Ray Martinez said:

phhht said:

Ray Martinez said:

phhht said:

Ray Martinez said:

phhht said:

Ray Martinez said:

phhht said: FACT: Nowhere in the bible does it say that God is intelligent.

As I mentioned in my outline: The deity chose to reveal himself as a masculine Person who is almost completely omniscient. And there isn't a scholar alive who doesn't believe that IF God exists He is most intelligent.

That is baseless superstition, Ray Martinez. You can 't back that claim up with any testable facts at all. And I stand by my assertion: It doesn't matter who believes what. The bible does not say that god is intelligent.

The Bible portrays an omniscient God the same presupposes ultra-intelligence or super-intelligence; that's what supernatural means: more or extra natural.

But the god of the bible is a fairy story, Ray Martinez. It's no more real than Dracula or Spiderman. Go ahead, Ray Martinez. Provide even a single scrap of testable evidence for the reality of your god. But of course you cannot do that, because your god is not real.

Already did in this thread with Matt Young's green light: http://pandasthumb.org/archives/2016/07/the-problem-wit-1.html#comment-356214

That's a lie, Ray Martinez. You cannot say how to demonstrate the reality of your god.

No Atheist or Darwinist denies that the main claim of Creationism is observation of design.

See, Ray Martinez, when faced with a head-on challenge, you try to change the subject. To demonstrate the reality of your gods, you must give a test that I can perform myself. Otherwise, I am only taking the word of a madman.

Michael Fugate said:

Ray Martinez said:

Ray Martinez said:

Michael Fugate said:

Our forefathers, all of whom were Creationists, and not the pseudo-20th century kind, invented science; Naturalism/evolution is a wayward branch, an off-shoot.

And they were young earth creationists to boot - including Newton. So old earth creationism is an off-shoot too. And don't get us started about what they thought about physiology and medicine.

They were NOT YECs; when Darwin published in 1859 science accepted an old earth; if science did not already accept an old earth in 1859 then Darwin's theory would have been dead-on-arrival.

What I just said is BASIC history of science 101.

Oh but Ray, they were all YECs in 1700 and most even later. Why are you afraid to go back another 150 years? You see YEC transformed in OEC and then into evolution. Although many were speculating on an older earth in the 18th c., Buffon's Époques de la Nature 1778 put a minimum at 75,000 years - less than 100 years before Darwin.

Just Bob said:

Ray Martinez said:

phhht said:

Ray Martinez said:

phhht said:

Ray Martinez said:

phhht said:

Ray Martinez said:

phhht said: FACT: Nowhere in the bible does it say that God is intelligent.

As I mentioned in my outline: The deity chose to reveal himself as a masculine Person who is almost completely omniscient. And there isn't a scholar alive who doesn't believe that IF God exists He is most intelligent.

That is baseless superstition, Ray Martinez. You can 't back that claim up with any testable facts at all. And I stand by my assertion: It doesn't matter who believes what. The bible does not say that god is intelligent.

The Bible portrays an omniscient God the same presupposes ultra-intelligence or super-intelligence; that's what supernatural means: more or extra natural.

But the god of the bible is a fairy story, Ray Martinez. It's no more real than Dracula or Spiderman. Go ahead, Ray Martinez. Provide even a single scrap of testable evidence for the reality of your god. But of course you cannot do that, because your god is not real.

Already did in this thread with Matt Young's green light: http://pandasthumb.org/archives/2016/07/the-problem-wit-1.html#comment-356214

That's a lie, Ray Martinez. You cannot say how to demonstrate the reality of your god.

No Atheist or Darwinist denies that the main claim of Creationism is observation of design.

What an incredible non sequitur!. I'm an atheist and "Darwinist". I deny that. AIG denies that. ICR denies that. Now, if you ever say that again, you will be lying, because you now know that at least one atheist denies that.

Ray Martinez said:

phhht said:

Ray Martinez said:

phhht said:

Ray Martinez said:

phhht said:

Ray Martinez said:

phhht said:

Ray Martinez said:

phhht said: FACT: Nowhere in the bible does it say that God is intelligent.

As I mentioned in my outline: The deity chose to reveal himself as a masculine Person who is almost completely omniscient. And there isn't a scholar alive who doesn't believe that IF God exists He is most intelligent.

That is baseless superstition, Ray Martinez. You can 't back that claim up with any testable facts at all. And I stand by my assertion: It doesn't matter who believes what. The bible does not say that god is intelligent.

The Bible portrays an omniscient God the same presupposes ultra-intelligence or super-intelligence; that's what supernatural means: more or extra natural.

But the god of the bible is a fairy story, Ray Martinez. It's no more real than Dracula or Spiderman. Go ahead, Ray Martinez. Provide even a single scrap of testable evidence for the reality of your god. But of course you cannot do that, because your god is not real.

Already did in this thread with Matt Young's green light: http://pandasthumb.org/archives/2016/07/the-problem-wit-1.html#comment-356214

That's a lie, Ray Martinez. You cannot say how to demonstrate the reality of your god.

No Atheist or Darwinist denies that the main claim of Creationism is observation of design.

See, Ray Martinez, when faced with a head-on challenge, you try to change the subject. To demonstrate the reality of your gods, you must give a test that I can perform myself. Otherwise, I am only taking the word of a madman.

http://pandasthumb.org/archives/2016/07/the-problem-wit-1.html#comment-356214 "Testing Correspondence Theory Note the fact that Biblical epistemology, or the method God chose to establish factual knowledge, corresponds with the definition of a noun. What about the noun “God” as found in Scripture, does it have a corresponding material referent? Yes, the Doctrine of the Incarnation, which derives from Scripture. Jesus was all man AND all God, at the same time, every moment of His life. Christ forgave sins. The Pharisees protested, observing correctly that only God can forgive sins. Moreover, there is no shortage of secular scholars who admit that Jesus lived. His Divinity established by the historical fact of the Resurrection (which is not the subject here). Creation miracles: Genesis 1 conveys how original species came to exist AND how new species come to exist in the wild. The Seventh Day simply means God rested for that duration of time. Prior to the rise of Darwinism (1859-1872) science held “each species,” (3) past and present, designed and thus created independently. There is, of course, no shortage of secular scholars who say Darwin refuted Paley, which means Paley was held scientifically true. Moreover, in relevant historical literature pre-1859 Victorian naturalists held to the view that the sudden and abrupt appearance of species in the paleontological crust of the earth, continuing in a state of changelessness, or slight change, followed by abrupt or sudden disappearance, had direct correspondence with independent creation. Therefore scientific acceptance of design, and said view of species by paleontological science, provides the necessary corresponding material referents establishing the facticity of creation miracles."

Ray Martinez said:

Mike Elzinga said: Since reproduction - as well as the sex of the offspring of some species - is temperature dependent, this tells us that the "supernatural" is affected by temperature.

I understood "reproduction" as talking about anatomy, not coitus.

Mike Elzinga said:

Michael Fugate said:

Ray Martinez said:

Ray Martinez said:

Michael Fugate said:

Our forefathers, all of whom were Creationists, and not the pseudo-20th century kind, invented science; Naturalism/evolution is a wayward branch, an off-shoot.

And they were young earth creationists to boot - including Newton. So old earth creationism is an off-shoot too. And don't get us started about what they thought about physiology and medicine.

They were NOT YECs; when Darwin published in 1859 science accepted an old earth; if science did not already accept an old earth in 1859 then Darwin's theory would have been dead-on-arrival.

What I just said is BASIC history of science 101.

Oh but Ray, they were all YECs in 1700 and most even later. Why are you afraid to go back another 150 years? You see YEC transformed in OEC and then into evolution. Although many were speculating on an older earth in the 18th c., Buffon's Époques de la Nature 1778 put a minimum at 75,000 years - less than 100 years before Darwin.

One of the characteristics of evolution denialism in the United States is that it is almost always associated with the Christian religion. Evolution denialists don't acknowledge the existence of other religions and their "cosmologies" along with their impacts on the development of science; they brush them aside as wrong or heretical. Even at the time of the ancient Greeks, the Atomists rejected deities and attempted to explain all phenomena in terms of eternal atoms combining in various ways. So atoms were believed to have always existed. If one tries to couch every development in science in terms of the sectarian beliefs of a particular form of the Christian religion, one is projecting one's sectarian ideology onto everything that ever took place in history; and that process is a particularly pernicious version of a "Whig history" that seeks to bolster the idea that scientific progress was possible only under Christianity and culminated in a superior Christian religion. Ray doesn't really understand that the science that developed over a period of several hundreds of years has had the input of ideas from many different cultures and time periods. We owe much to the Greeks as well as to the Romans, the Hindus, and the Chinese. Ray appears to think that Christianity was the prime mover in the development of science when, in fact, Christianity was very often an impediment to understanding. But we can see in real time what Ray knows of science and its history; and it's not pretty.

Ray Martinez said:

Just Bob said:

Ray Martinez said:

phhht said:

Ray Martinez said:

phhht said:

Ray Martinez said:

phhht said:

Ray Martinez said:

phhht said: FACT: Nowhere in the bible does it say that God is intelligent.

As I mentioned in my outline: The deity chose to reveal himself as a masculine Person who is almost completely omniscient. And there isn't a scholar alive who doesn't believe that IF God exists He is most intelligent.

That is baseless superstition, Ray Martinez. You can 't back that claim up with any testable facts at all. And I stand by my assertion: It doesn't matter who believes what. The bible does not say that god is intelligent.

The Bible portrays an omniscient God the same presupposes ultra-intelligence or super-intelligence; that's what supernatural means: more or extra natural.

But the god of the bible is a fairy story, Ray Martinez. It's no more real than Dracula or Spiderman. Go ahead, Ray Martinez. Provide even a single scrap of testable evidence for the reality of your god. But of course you cannot do that, because your god is not real.

Already did in this thread with Matt Young's green light: http://pandasthumb.org/archives/2016/07/the-problem-wit-1.html#comment-356214

That's a lie, Ray Martinez. You cannot say how to demonstrate the reality of your god.

No Atheist or Darwinist denies that the main claim of Creationism is observation of design.

What an incredible non sequitur!. I'm an atheist and "Darwinist". I deny that. AIG denies that. ICR denies that. Now, if you ever say that again, you will be lying, because you now know that at least one atheist denies that.

Total nonsense.

Ray Martinez said: "Creation miracles: Genesis 1 conveys how original species came to exist AND how new species come to exist in the wild. The Seventh Day simply means God rested for that duration of time."

I know for a fact that you are completely wrong.

eric said:

Ray Martinez said: "Creation miracles: Genesis 1 conveys how original species came to exist AND how new species come to exist in the wild. The Seventh Day simply means God rested for that duration of time."

No, it very clearly says God finished his creative work. Gen 2:2, NIV: "By the seventh day God had finished the work he had been doing; so on the seventh day he rested from all his work." Gen 2:1-2, KJV: "Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the host of them. 2 And on the seventh day God ended his work which he had made; and he rested on the seventh day from all his work which he had made." Should I pull out a few other translations to see if they agree? They will. Your idea that the seventh day God took a temporary respite from creating and then started up the creation work again is directly contradicted by the text.

Ray Martinez said: The Bible portrays an omniscient God the same presupposes ultra-intelligence or super-intelligence; that's what supernatural means: more or extra natural.

eric said:

Ray Martinez said: "Creation miracles: Genesis 1 conveys how original species came to exist AND how new species come to exist in the wild. The Seventh Day simply means God rested for that duration of time."

No, it very clearly says God finished his creative work. Gen 2:2, NIV: "By the seventh day God had finished the work he had been doing; so on the seventh day he rested from all his work." Gen 2:1-2, KJV: "Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the host of them. 2 And on the seventh day God ended his work which he had made; and he rested on the seventh day from all his work which he had made." Should I pull out a few other translations to see if they agree? They will. Your idea that the seventh day God took a temporary respite from creating and then started up the creation work again is directly contradicted by the text.

eric said:

Ray Martinez said: "Creation miracles: Genesis 1 conveys how original species came to exist AND how new species come to exist in the wild. The Seventh Day simply means God rested for that duration of time."

No, it very clearly says God finished his creative work. Gen 2:2, NIV: "By the seventh day God had finished the work he had been doing; so on the seventh day he rested from all his work." Gen 2:1-2, KJV: "Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the host of them. 2 And on the seventh day God ended his work which he had made; and he rested on the seventh day from all his work which he had made." Should I pull out a few other translations to see if they agree? They will. Your idea that the seventh day God took a temporary respite from creating and then started up the creation work again is directly contradicted by the text.

eric said:

Ray Martinez said:

Mike Elzinga said: Since reproduction - as well as the sex of the offspring of some species - is temperature dependent, this tells us that the "supernatural" is affected by temperature.

I understood "reproduction" as talking about anatomy, not coitus.

Anatomy can be affected by temperature too, so that doesn't get you off the hook. As Mike says, this is getting interesting. Every time you lump something in the 'supernatural' category, and yet it follows regular rules that humans can predict and manipulate, you're making your God more like a circus bear. Dance, God, dance! I want to make God to miracle up some male lizards for me, I just raise the temperature of the egg cache and God has no choice but to do it. He obeys my command and does it. Muhahahaha!

eric said:

Ray Martinez said: The Bible portrays an omniscient God the same presupposes ultra-intelligence or super-intelligence; that's what supernatural means: more or extra natural.

Your redefinition of words is getting ridiculous. 'Supernatural' in no way presupposes ultra intelligence. For example, ghosts are counted amongst the supernatural, but when people do that they aren't attributing ultra intelligence to them. ESP and Telekinesis are considered supernatural, but claiming to have either of those powers is not equivalent to claiming ultra intelligence. While I think 'supernatural' is a somewhat vague term, its standard, vernacular definition is probably something more like "a phenomena that defies explanation and seemingly violates a law of physics etc. too." Supernatural does not require or imply ultra intelligence, Ray, no matter how much you assert otherwise.

eric said:

Ray Martinez said: "Creation miracles: Genesis 1 conveys how original species came to exist AND how new species come to exist in the wild. The Seventh Day simply means God rested for that duration of time."

No, it very clearly says God finished his creative work. Gen 2:2, NIV: "By the seventh day God had finished the work he had been doing; so on the seventh day he rested from all his work." Gen 2:1-2, KJV: "Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the host of them. 2 And on the seventh day God ended his work which he had made; and he rested on the seventh day from all his work which he had made." Should I pull out a few other translations to see if they agree? They will. Your idea that the seventh day God took a temporary respite from creating and then started up the creation work again is directly contradicted by the text.

Ray Martinez said: Eric argues standard Fundamentalist YEC theology.

phhht said:

eric said:

Ray Martinez said: The Bible portrays an omniscient God the same presupposes ultra-intelligence or super-intelligence; that's what supernatural means: more or extra natural.

Your redefinition of words is getting ridiculous. 'Supernatural' in no way presupposes ultra intelligence. For example, ghosts are counted amongst the supernatural, but when people do that they aren't attributing ultra intelligence to them. ESP and Telekinesis are considered supernatural, but claiming to have either of those powers is not equivalent to claiming ultra intelligence. While I think 'supernatural' is a somewhat vague term, its standard, vernacular definition is probably something more like "a phenomena that defies explanation and seemingly violates a law of physics etc. too." Supernatural does not require or imply ultra intelligence, Ray, no matter how much you assert otherwise.

If Ray Martinez is not free to assert whatever he wants, no matter how loony, why, he can't argue at all!

phhht said:

Ray Martinez said: Eric argues standard Fundamentalist YEC theology.

Right, apart from the fact that Fundamentalist YECs aren't atheists.

phhht said:

Ray Martinez said: Eric argues standard Fundamentalist YEC theology.

Right, apart from the fact that Fundamentalist YECs aren't atheists.

Ray Martinez said:

phhht said:

Ray Martinez said: Eric argues standard Fundamentalist YEC theology.

Right, apart from the fact that Fundamentalist YECs aren't atheists.

Then why do they accept natural selection, microevolution, and speciation like all Atheists?

Mike Elzinga said:

phhht said:

eric said:

Ray Martinez said: The Bible portrays an omniscient God the same presupposes ultra-intelligence or super-intelligence; that's what supernatural means: more or extra natural.

Your redefinition of words is getting ridiculous. 'Supernatural' in no way presupposes ultra intelligence. For example, ghosts are counted amongst the supernatural, but when people do that they aren't attributing ultra intelligence to them. ESP and Telekinesis are considered supernatural, but claiming to have either of those powers is not equivalent to claiming ultra intelligence. While I think 'supernatural' is a somewhat vague term, its standard, vernacular definition is probably something more like "a phenomena that defies explanation and seemingly violates a law of physics etc. too." Supernatural does not require or imply ultra intelligence, Ray, no matter how much you assert otherwise.

If Ray Martinez is not free to assert whatever he wants, no matter how loony, why, he can't argue at all!

What do you bet that he will eventually twist this into an "argument" about his holy book and how much he knows about "Christianity?"

Ray Martinez said:

Mike Elzinga said:

phhht said:

eric said:

Ray Martinez said: The Bible portrays an omniscient God the same presupposes ultra-intelligence or super-intelligence; that's what supernatural means: more or extra natural.

Your redefinition of words is getting ridiculous. 'Supernatural' in no way presupposes ultra intelligence. For example, ghosts are counted amongst the supernatural, but when people do that they aren't attributing ultra intelligence to them. ESP and Telekinesis are considered supernatural, but claiming to have either of those powers is not equivalent to claiming ultra intelligence. While I think 'supernatural' is a somewhat vague term, its standard, vernacular definition is probably something more like "a phenomena that defies explanation and seemingly violates a law of physics etc. too." Supernatural does not require or imply ultra intelligence, Ray, no matter how much you assert otherwise.

If Ray Martinez is not free to assert whatever he wants, no matter how loony, why, he can't argue at all!

What do you bet that he will eventually twist this into an "argument" about his holy book and how much he knows about "Christianity?"

Twist into? It's the main subject of my outline, our macro-context: http://pandasthumb.org/archives/2016/07/the-problem-wit-1.html#comment-356214

Ray Martinez said:

phhht said:

Ray Martinez said: Eric argues standard Fundamentalist YEC theology.

Right, apart from the fact that Fundamentalist YECs aren't atheists.

You don't know that the YEC Fundamentalist view of Genesis is based on acceptance of Darwinian evolution? Ever heard of an Atheist who doesn't accept Darwinian evolution? Atheists accept Darwinian evolution because Darwinian evolution supports their worldview. Where does that leave the Fundies? LOL! Ray (Old Earth; species immutabilist)

eric said:

Ray Martinez said: The Bible portrays an omniscient God the same presupposes ultra-intelligence or super-intelligence; that's what supernatural means: more or extra natural.

Your redefinition of words is getting ridiculous. 'Supernatural' in no way presupposes ultra intelligence. For example, ghosts are counted amongst the supernatural, but when people do that they aren't attributing ultra intelligence to them. ESP and Telekinesis are considered supernatural, but claiming to have either of those powers is not equivalent to claiming ultra intelligence. While I think 'supernatural' is a somewhat vague term, its standard, vernacular definition is probably something more like "a phenomena that defies explanation and seemingly violates a law of physics etc. too." Supernatural does not require or imply ultra intelligence, Ray, no matter how much you assert otherwise.

TomS said: "Supernatural" does not require any intelligence. It can be a thing, like Excalibur or the Grail; an substance, like Rhinegold or holy water; it can be a place, like a place of pigrimage; or a time, like midnight or Friday the 13th.

Re "But now we are apparently supposed to understand that the “Supernatural” is affected by temperature."

Ah, but only to a degree.

TomS said: "Supernatural" does not require any intelligence. It can be a thing, like Excalibur or the Grail; an substance, like Rhinegold or holy water; it can be a place, like a place of pilgrimage; or a time, like midnight or Friday the 13th.

Mike Elzinga said:

TomS said: "Supernatural" does not require any intelligence. It can be a thing, like Excalibur or the Grail; an substance, like Rhinegold or holy water; it can be a place, like a place of pigrimage; or a time, like midnight or Friday the 13th.

But now we are apparently supposed to understand that the "Supernatural" is affected by temperature. We haven't been shown yet how a particular holy book teaches this. I'm guessing we won't find out.

Also, "omniscient" is not synonymous with "super intelligent". An omniscient god could be an idiot savant who knows everything, but doesn't know what to do with it.

Of course, you've never defined what "intelligence" is. If "intelligence" is simply a matter of instantly recalling any fact (which is the ability that omniscience implies), then I would conclude that Google is more intelligent than any human being.

Henry J said: Re "But now we are apparently supposed to understand that the “Supernatural” is affected by temperature." Ah, but only to a degree.

Ray Martinez said:

Michael Fugate said: I don't see how if Jesus lived, then Jesus is God or then evolution is false. How exactly do they follow from the premise?

WHAT I SAID WAS that the noun "God" finds its material referent in Jesus. Then I said His Divinity established by the Resurrection, which is another subject. The implication is that Christ is held as God by millions of persons, so the noun "God," as found in the Bible, is a true claim about reality because it has a material referent.

So, IF all this is true, then count the number of miracles; yet Naturalism says miracles don't exist, so Naturalism, the interpretive philosophy of evolution, is falsified.

So, Ray, if you claim that "Natural" and "Supernatural" are mutually exclusive, if you are certain of this, then you must be able to draw a very clear line between the two. You must be able to identify the distinction between "Natural" things and "Supernatural" things in all cases.

How? How do you do this? Can you explain to one of us how to do this so that we can also reliably tell the difference?

How about lightning? Thunder? Are those natural, or supernatural? How about fire? How about the Moon orbiting the Earth? What keeps the Sun going around the Earth? Are those natural or supernatural?

Just asking.

Scott F said: Also, "omniscient" is not synonymous with "super intelligent". An omniscient god could be an idiot savant who knows everything, but doesn't know what to do with it. Of course, you've never defined what "intelligence" is. If "intelligence" is simply a matter of instantly recalling any fact (which is the ability that omniscience implies), then I would conclude that Google is more intelligent than any human being.

Ray Martinez said:

eric said: No, it very clearly says God finished his creative work. Gen 2:2, NIV: "By the seventh day God had finished the work he had been doing; so on the seventh day he rested from all his work." Gen 2:1-2, KJV: "Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the host of them. 2 And on the seventh day God ended his work which he had made; and he rested on the seventh day from all his work which he had made." Should I pull out a few other translations to see if they agree? They will. Your idea that the seventh day God took a temporary respite from creating and then started up the creation work again is directly contradicted by the text.

It says He finished in the context of the Seventh Day. So He rested for that duration of time. If not, you're saying the Bible advocates elongated Deism, when in fact everyone knows the Bible advocates Theism.

Ray Martinez said: Eric argues standard Fundamentalist YEC theology.

Scott F said: Also, "omniscient" is not synonymous with "super intelligent". An omniscient god could be an idiot savant who knows everything, but doesn't know what to do with it.

TomS said: Would "omniscient" entail "knowing all of the digits in the decimal expansion of pi"? How about "knowing all of the truths of arithmetic"? How about "knowing how to trisect an angle" or "how to solve an infinite degree polynomial"?

Ray Martinez said: You don't know that the YEC Fundamentalist view of Genesis is based on acceptance of Darwinian evolution? Ever heard of an Atheist who doesn't accept Darwinian evolution? Atheists accept Darwinian evolution because Darwinian evolution supports their worldview. Where does that leave the Fundies? LOL! Ray (Old Earth; species immutabilist)

Ever heard of an Atheist who doesn't accept Darwinian evolution?

I've even heard that there is an atheist who claims to believe in a Flat Earth! Or am I mistaken? How about an atheist who believes in geocentrism?

Ray Martinez said:

Michael Fugate said: The Bible doesn't say what happened to nature after creation week - you know that - I know you do.

From my outline: http://pandasthumb.org/archives/2016/07/the-problem-wit-1.html#comment-356214 "Creation miracles: Genesis 1 conveys how original species came to exist AND how new species come to exist in the wild. The Seventh Day simply means God rested for that duration of time."

And OEC is still an off-shoot of YEC - you admit that now - right?

Until you can support the claim that science accepted a young earth before 1800, of course not.

While deep time didn't make its appearance fairly recently, figurative readings of the days of Genesis 1 were used in ancient times. People, for example, took the trope that a day with the Lord was a thousand years as license to reinterpret Genesis 1 -- not to the extent of millions or billions od years, to be sure.

As for YECs accepting Darwinian evolution, this is nonsense. YECs don't believe the changes after the Flood were due to RM + NS. This was all directed by their god and has nothing to do with science-based evolution.

As for creation week, there is no mention of how creation was accomplished (could have been RM + NS). Only in the 2nd story centered on humans is a "mechanism" proposed. Anyone who would believe that dust of the earth/rib of man nonsense, is not too bright. It is clearly a human story with no understanding of human anatomy, physiology or genetics. A god would know better.

TomS said: While deep time didn't make its appearance fairly recently, figurative readings of the days of Genesis 1 were used in ancient times. People, for example, took the trope that a day with the Lord was a thousand years as license to reinterpret Genesis 1 -- not to the extent of millions or billions od years, to be sure.

Scott F said:

Ray Martinez said:

Michael Fugate said: I don't see how if Jesus lived, then Jesus is God or then evolution is false. How exactly do they follow from the premise?

WHAT I SAID WAS that the noun "God" finds its material referent in Jesus. Then I said His Divinity established by the Resurrection, which is another subject. The implication is that Christ is held as God by millions of persons, so the noun "God," as found in the Bible, is a true claim about reality because it has a material referent.

So this would seem to imply that the Bible is true because it refers to real things like Egypt, and Bethlehem, and Jerusalem. Those are "material referents". Right?

So, IF all this is true, then count the number of miracles; yet Naturalism says miracles don't exist, so Naturalism, the interpretive philosophy of evolution, is falsified. See, this is what I don't get. This appears to be classical religious double-speak babble. If "A" is true, then there would be lots of miracles. Naturalism says there are no miracles. Therefore Naturalism is false. Huh?? That makes absolutely no sense. First, you haven't proven that there are lots of miracles. You haven't demonstrated the truth value of the statement "if A then lots of miracles". You haven't even established that "Naturalism" says that there are no miracles. You simply assume all these things to be true, connect them with meaningless words that have the veneer of "logic", and viola! That which you have assumed to be true has now been proven to be true by definition of it being true because you want it to be true. Total nonsense. More symbolically, "IF A THEN M". "IF N THEN NOT(M)" Therefore, NOT(N). This is equivalent to: (NOT(A) OR M) AND (NOT(N) OR NOT(M)) Work out the truth table. No matter what "A", "M", and "N" are, the sum of the two conditions is simply not equivalent to NOT(N), or not Naturalism. The only way to make those two things equivalent is to assume that "A" is always true and that "M" is always true, which is simply assuming that which you are trying to prove. That is, it is circular "logic". If one can be generous enough to call it "logic" in the first place. Ray, you aren't going to argue that 1. IF A THEN B 2. IF B THEN C 3. C is obviously True 4. Therefore A is True Are you?? Is that what you want to claim? I mean, that is simply the classical apologetic argument.

Ray Martinez said: I don't know what you're really talking about, but I do know that Naturalism says miracles don't exist in nature. This is a basic 101 fact. You're looking inexcusably ignorant.

Scott F said: So, Ray, if you claim that "Natural" and "Supernatural" are mutually exclusive, if you are certain of this, then you must be able to draw a very clear line between the two. You must be able to identify the distinction between "Natural" things and "Supernatural" things in all cases. How? How do you do this? Can you explain to one of us how to do this so that we can also reliably tell the difference? How about lightning? Thunder? Are those natural, or supernatural? How about fire? How about the Moon orbiting the Earth? What keeps the Sun going around the Earth? Are those natural or supernatural? Just asking.

eric said:

Ray Martinez said:

eric said: No, it very clearly says God finished his creative work. Gen 2:2, NIV: "By the seventh day God had finished the work he had been doing; so on the seventh day he rested from all his work." Gen 2:1-2, KJV: "Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the host of them. 2 And on the seventh day God ended his work which he had made; and he rested on the seventh day from all his work which he had made." Should I pull out a few other translations to see if they agree? They will. Your idea that the seventh day God took a temporary respite from creating and then started up the creation work again is directly contradicted by the text.

It says He finished in the context of the Seventh Day. So He rested for that duration of time. If not, you're saying the Bible advocates elongated Deism, when in fact everyone knows the Bible advocates Theism.

No, it doesn't say "in the context of the Seventh Day," it says finished. Ended. The text is very clear.

Ray Martinez said: Supernaturalism assumes the existence of God...

Whenever one sees or hears this kind of woo woo, one has to wonder how the person making these statements can do it while typing on a computer.

If "Supernaturalism" is "TRUE" and "Naturalism" is "FALSE, why are there computers and all the technololgy that comes from our understanding of science? Ray's "Supernaturalism" has never produced anything. A biological neurological system doesn't work when it is taken outside a very narrow temperature range of a few thousandths of an electron volt; it either shuts down at low temperature or goes chaotic at high temperature. Ray doesn't appear to be aware of any of this.

Ray can't seem to get a single concept in science or its histroy correct. His "sources of knowledge" are verschlecht. Not one ID/creationist has ever gotten a concept in science correct. Furthermore, they all have to bend, mangle, and break scientific concepts to fit with their sectarian dogma; and in doing so, the resulting pseudoscience - and its "justifying" pseudo history - no longer pertains to the physical universe.

Ray's "Christian" Whig history is simply wrong; and, like all sectarians of this mindset, it is impossible to teach him anything about the physical universe.

Mike Elzinga said: Whenever one sees or hears this kind of woo woo...

Ray Martinez said:

eric said:

Ray Martinez said:

eric said: No, it very clearly says God finished his creative work. Gen 2:2, NIV: "By the seventh day God had finished the work he had been doing; so on the seventh day he rested from all his work." Gen 2:1-2, KJV: "Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the host of them. 2 And on the seventh day God ended his work which he had made; and he rested on the seventh day from all his work which he had made." Should I pull out a few other translations to see if they agree? They will. Your idea that the seventh day God took a temporary respite from creating and then started up the creation work again is directly contradicted by the text.

It says He finished in the context of the Seventh Day. So He rested for that duration of time. If not, you're saying the Bible advocates elongated Deism, when in fact everyone knows the Bible advocates Theism.

No, it doesn't say "in the context of the Seventh Day," it says finished. Ended. The text is very clear.

It says finished in the context of the Seventh Day. And I didn't say the Bible says "It says finished in the context of the Seventh Day." Huge difference. You're either intentionally misrepresenting or you're incredibly stupid. In either case I'm not wasting another second reading your nonsense.

Ray Martinez said: You're either intentionally misrepresenting or you're incredibly stupid. In either case I'm not wasting another second reading your nonsense.

Just Bob said:

Ray Martinez said: You're either intentionally misrepresenting or you're incredibly stupid. In either case I'm not wasting another second reading your nonsense.

I suspect that no one will object if I admit that all of us here are at least as "incredibly stupid" as eric. So you are obviously, as you say, wasting your time here on all of us. Perhaps it's time to take your vast erudition, profound logic, and rapier wit to some venue with people intelligent enough to realize the extent of your genius. (BTW, have you ever found a venue like that?)

Ray Martinez said:

eric said:

Ray Martinez said:

eric said: No, it very clearly says God finished his creative work. Gen 2:2, NIV: "By the seventh day God had finished the work he had been doing; so on the seventh day he rested from all his work." Gen 2:1-2, KJV: "Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the host of them. 2 And on the seventh day God ended his work which he had made; and he rested on the seventh day from all his work which he had made." Should I pull out a few other translations to see if they agree? They will. Your idea that the seventh day God took a temporary respite from creating and then started up the creation work again is directly contradicted by the text.

It says He finished in the context of the Seventh Day. So He rested for that duration of time. If not, you're saying the Bible advocates elongated Deism, when in fact everyone knows the Bible advocates Theism.

No, it doesn't say "in the context of the Seventh Day," it says finished. Ended. The text is very clear.

It says finished in the context of the Seventh Day. And I didn't say the Bible says "It says finished in the context of the Seventh Day." Huge difference. You're either intentionally misrepresenting or you're incredibly stupid. In either case I'm not wasting another second reading your nonsense.

And like so many of his fellow believers, Ray Martinez is utterly unable to cite even a shred of testable evidence for the reality of his god. He cannot say why he assumes the existence of a god, much less defend the assumption. He cannot distinguish his assumption from a delusional disorder.

Matt Young said:

And like so many of his fellow believers, Ray Martinez is utterly unable to cite even a shred of testable evidence for the reality of his god. He cannot say why he assumes the existence of a god, much less defend the assumption. He cannot distinguish his assumption from a delusional disorder.

1. Do you not get tired of posting the same objection ad nauseam? 2. What is your evidence that the assumption of naturalism or empiricism is correct?

Ray Martinez said:

Scott F said:

Ray Martinez said:

Michael Fugate said: I don't see how if Jesus lived, then Jesus is God or then evolution is false. How exactly do they follow from the premise?

WHAT I SAID WAS that the noun "God" finds its material referent in Jesus. Then I said His Divinity established by the Resurrection, which is another subject. The implication is that Christ is held as God by millions of persons, so the noun "God," as found in the Bible, is a true claim about reality because it has a material referent.

So this would seem to imply that the Bible is true because it refers to real things like Egypt, and Bethlehem, and Jerusalem. Those are "material referents". Right?

Right; but those are admittedly easy.

So, IF all this is true, then count the number of miracles; yet Naturalism says miracles don't exist, so Naturalism, the interpretive philosophy of evolution, is falsified. See, this is what I don't get. This appears to be classical religious double-speak babble. If "A" is true, then there would be lots of miracles. Naturalism says there are no miracles. Therefore Naturalism is false. Huh?? That makes absolutely no sense. First, you haven't proven that there are lots of miracles. You haven't demonstrated the truth value of the statement "if A then lots of miracles". You haven't even established that "Naturalism" says that there are no miracles. You simply assume all these things to be true, connect them with meaningless words that have the veneer of "logic", and viola! That which you have assumed to be true has now been proven to be true by definition of it being true because you want it to be true. Total nonsense. More symbolically, "IF A THEN M". "IF N THEN NOT(M)" Therefore, NOT(N). This is equivalent to: (NOT(A) OR M) AND (NOT(N) OR NOT(M)) Work out the truth table. No matter what "A", "M", and "N" are, the sum of the two conditions is simply not equivalent to NOT(N), or not Naturalism. The only way to make those two things equivalent is to assume that "A" is always true and that "M" is always true, which is simply assuming that which you are trying to prove. That is, it is circular "logic". If one can be generous enough to call it "logic" in the first place. Ray, you aren't going to argue that 1. IF A THEN B 2. IF B THEN C 3. C is obviously True 4. Therefore A is True Are you?? Is that what you want to claim? I mean, that is simply the classical apologetic argument.

I don't know what you're really talking about, but I do know that Naturalism says miracles don't exist in nature. This is a basic 101 fact. You're looking inexcusably ignorant.

phhht said:

Ray Martinez said: Supernaturalism assumes the existence of God...

Why can't you defend that assumption with testable evidence, Ray Martinez? Isn't because there is none?

Ray Martinez said: It says finished in the context of the Seventh Day.

You're either intentionally misrepresenting or you're incredibly stupid. In either case I'm not wasting another second reading your nonsense.

Ray Martinez said: AGAIN: Both Naturalism and Supernaturalism are evidence interpreting philosophies. One is completely correct, one is completely false; there is no middle ground; it's all or nothing.

Supernaturalism assumes the existence of God;

So from my perspective the concept of natural, which presupposes existence of unintelligent agencies, does not exist in nature;

Re "So when the tornado lands on a house and kills the residents, there’s a supernatural agency (God) at work?"

Oh, what would be just the wicked witch.

If you want to take Ray Martinez’s side in this debate, go to it. It’s pretty clear you are no fan of my arguments

I’ll get tired of posting my objections as soon as anyone (including you, Matt) can answer them.

Matt Young said: What is your answer to my question about empiricism?

It [empiricism] works.

What is your answer to my question about how to distinguish religious belief from delusion?

Matt Young said: ...that does not mean they [religious believers] are nuts...

Matt Young said:

What is your answer to my question about how to distinguish religious belief from delusion?

I cannot distinguish religious belief from delusion, but that does not prove that a religious belief is a delusion.

Why not? Do you dispute that people who believe in things which do not exist are nuts?

Dan Phelps just sent us a very silly letter to the editor by someone else who cannot distinguish between a fact and an assumption.

Mike Elzinga said: Whenever one sees or hears this kind of woo woo, one has to wonder how the person making these statements can do it while typing on a computer. If "Supernaturalism" is "TRUE" and "Naturalism" is "FALSE, why are there computers and all the technololgy that comes from our understanding of science?

Ray's "Supernaturalism" has never produced anything.

A biological neurological system doesn't work when it is taken outside a very narrow temperature range of a few thousandths of an electron volt; it either shuts down at low temperature or goes chaotic at high temperature. Ray doesn't appear to be aware of any of this. Ray can't seem to get a single concept in science or its histroy correct. His "sources of knowledge" are verschlecht. Not one ID/creationist has ever gotten a concept in science correct. Furthermore, they all have to bend, mangle, and break scientific concepts to fit with their sectarian dogma; and in doing so, the resulting pseudoscience - and its "justifying" pseudo history - no longer pertains to the physical universe. Ray's "Christian" Whig history is simply wrong; and, like all sectarians of this mindset, it is impossible to teach him anything about the physical universe.

Matt Young said:

And like so many of his fellow believers, Ray Martinez is utterly unable to cite even a shred of testable evidence for the reality of his god. He cannot say why he assumes the existence of a god, much less defend the assumption. He cannot distinguish his assumption from a delusional disorder.

1. Do you not get tired of posting the same objection ad nauseam? 2. What is your evidence that the assumption of naturalism or empiricism is correct?

Matt Young said: [....] What is your evidence that the assumption of naturalism....is correct?

Just Bob said:

Ray Martinez said: You're either intentionally misrepresenting or you're incredibly stupid. In either case I'm not wasting another second reading your nonsense.

I suspect that no one will object if I admit that all of us here are at least as "incredibly stupid" as eric. So you are obviously, as you say, wasting your time here on all of us. Perhaps it's time to take your vast erudition, profound logic, and rapier wit to some venue with people intelligent enough to realize the extent of your genius.

Matt Young said:

If you want to take Ray Martinez’s side in this debate, go to it. It’s pretty clear you are no fan of my arguments

Surely you are joking. Mr. Martinez does not know the difference between a verifiable fact and a supposition (see also comment by Mr. Malcolm, above). I do not see how anyone can take his side. I hate to talk about someone in front of his back, but I think he is as nutty as a fruitcake.

If Phhht was a Creationist you would have banished him to the Bathroom Wall YEARS ago. Egregious double standard. But I hope you don’t. I hope that you let this guy keep posting his uneducated nonsense. He is a good example of the Darwinian masses.

Matt Young said: Mr. Martinez is another matter. As I said above, he does not understand the difference between a fact and a supposition.

Thus, he "proves" the existence of God by appealing to the "fact" of the Resurrection.

The Resurrection is not a fact; it is a supposition.

Mr. Martinez's thinking is so muddled that I think he is probably incapable of logical thought.

... As I said in my outline both are evidence interpreting philosophies that claim to offer the best explanation of neutral scientific evidence, whether produced by a Creationist or Darwinist.

Matt Young said:

If Phhht was a Creationist you would have banished him to the Bathroom Wall YEARS ago. Egregious double standard. But I hope you don’t. I hope that you let this guy keep posting his uneducated nonsense. He is a good example of the Darwinian masses.

Cheer up! I have warned Mr. phhht about content-free and abusive comments, and I have sent his posts to the BW. Recently he got mad at me and went there voluntarily. On many occasions, I have not sent your comments there.

Daniel said:

... As I said in my outline both are evidence interpreting philosophies that claim to offer the best explanation of neutral scientific evidence, whether produced by a Creationist or Darwinist.

Some pages ago, I asked you to tell me what facts or phenomenom of nature is better explained by the supernatural, yet you ignored that request. Can you provide ONE example where the supernatural explanation turned out to be better than the natural one? For example, is a lightning bolt produced by static electricity in the atmosphere (the natural explanation), or by Zeus (the supernatural)?

"So up until 1859 naturalists who accepted Supernaturalism had produced “all our [scientific] knowledge” (Darwin). And I’ve said repeatedly that pre-1859 Victorian science remains correct."

Daniel said: For example, is a lightning bolt produced by static electricity in the atmosphere (the natural explanation), or by Zeus (the supernatural)?

Mike Elzinga said: As was mentioned earlier, the temperature dependence of reproduction and sex, as well as the temperature dependence of neural activity, has gone completely over Ray's head. There is no point in trying to get Ray to understand what this means. And his assertion,

"So up until 1859 naturalists who accepted Supernaturalism had produced “all our [scientific] knowledge” (Darwin). And I’ve said repeatedly that pre-1859 Victorian science remains correct."

is sectarian Whig history; and it is dead wrong. Repeating it is a typical sectarian anti-evolutionist tactic that was employed by Henry Morris and Duane Gish, inherited from them by the intelligent design "theorists" in their attempts to word-game around the courts, and continues to this day in the "arguments" by the followers of ID/creationism and by Ray. Science has multiple roots from many cultures with different religions and from people who did not adhere to any religion. Just because the history of European cultures was dominated by various versions of the "Christian" religion, forced upon all who lived in those cultures by a powerful priesthood, doesn't mean that "Supernaturalism" produced all our scientific knowledge. That assertion is meaningless. Religion was also a major inhibitor of progress in science; many people were killed as heretics for proposing ideas that went against religious assertions by the priesthood. Access to knowledge and positions in the institutions of learning were controlled by religion; people who didn't hold to these beliefs had to be careful not to expose themselves to judgements by that priesthood. This was especially true for those who made discoveries that contradicted church doctrine. Ray knows none of this; he is just making up crap as he goes.

Ray Martinez said:

Daniel said: For example, is a lightning bolt produced by static electricity in the atmosphere (the natural explanation), or by Zeus (the supernatural)?

Lightning is designed and thus created; the God of the Bible is the Creator; said this plainly in my outline. If species are designed and thus created, and the observed facts of organized complexity says they are, then lightning must be a created phenomenon as well.

Note Ray's tu quoque "arguments" are flowing just as predicted earlier.

As anyone who is familiar with the ID/creationists' tactic of quote-mining will recognize, Ray is quote-mining Darwin's The Origin of the Species and trying to make Darwin the "authority" for Ray's own assertions.

All one has to do is read Darwin's work - especially the last chapter, Chapter XV - to understand that Darwin's writings do not support what Ray is asserting.

Ray's tactics are directly descended from Henry Morris and Duane Gish; who, by the way, were YECs and always got the science wrong.

Ray Martinez said: I don't know what you're really talking about, but I do know that Naturalism says miracles don't exist in nature. This is a basic 101 fact. You're looking inexcusably ignorant.

phhht said: If you want to take Ray Martinez's side in this debate, go to it. It's pretty clear you are no fan of my arguments

Ray Martinez said:

Daniel said: For example, is a lightning bolt produced by static electricity in the atmosphere (the natural explanation), or by Zeus (the supernatural)?

Lightning is designed and thus created; the God of the Bible is the Creator; said this plainly in my outline. If species are designed and thus created, and the observed facts of organized complexity says they are, then lightning must be a created phenomenon as well.

Thus, he “proves” the existence of God by appealing to the “fact” of the Resurrection. I did no such thing.

His Divinity established by the historical fact of the Resurrection (which is not the subject here).

The Resurrection is not a demonstrable fact; it is a supposition.

I would hazard a guess that the problem is that you’re not actually making an argument.

Ray Martinez said: Lightning is designed and thus created; the God of the Bible is the Creator; said this plainly in my outline.

Incidentally; Darwin knew about Aristotle. Lots of scholars knew about Aristotle and many other ancient authors.

Darwin even makes a comment about Aristotle in his first footnote given in his "An Historical Sketch of the Progress of Opinion on the Origin of the Species, Previously to the Publication of the First Edition of this Work" which can be found at the beginning of his later editions of The Origin of Species.

In other words, Aristotle not only influenced the development of science, he was rediscovered by the Catholic Church by way of translations from Arabic in Spain, and he also influenced the thoughts and discussions in the emerging fields of physics, logic, and mathematics.

Aristotle's ideas also influenced Darwin.

As I keep repeating, Ray knows none of this and is trying to rewrite history to fit with his own brand of sectarian dogma.

There is a lot more information about the historical development of the ideas of evolution on the internet. Anyone who is familiar with the history of science will note that this link is merely a single example of the complex interplay of historical ideas in the development of a modern scientific concept.

The history of science is far more complex than ID/creationists like Ray would have us believe.

Mike Elzinga said: There is a lot more information about the historical development of the ideas of evolution on the internet. Anyone who is familiar with the history of science will note that this link is merely a single example of the complex interplay of historical ideas in the development of a modern scientific concept. The history of science is far more complex than ID/creationists like Ray would have us believe.

Mike Elzinga said: There is a lot more information about the historical development of the ideas of evolution on the internet. Anyone who is familiar with the history of science will note that this link is merely a single example of the complex interplay of historical ideas in the development of a modern scientific concept. The history of science is far more complex than ID/creationists like Ray would have us believe.

Sorry about the double post, but when hitting submit I received a warning claiming that I had posted too many posts in too short of a time period. Which is quite odd given I hadn't posted anything since Friday afternoon.....

Ray Martinez said:

Daniel said: For example, is a lightning bolt produced by static electricity in the atmosphere (the natural explanation), or by Zeus (the supernatural)?

Lightning is designed and thus created; the God of the Bible is the Creator; said this plainly in my outline. If species are designed and thus created, and the observed facts of organized complexity says they are, then lightning must be a created phenomenon as well.

DS said:

Ray Martinez said:

Daniel said: For example, is a lightning bolt produced by static electricity in the atmosphere (the natural explanation), or by Zeus (the supernatural)?

Lightning is designed and thus created; the God of the Bible is the Creator; said this plainly in my outline. If species are designed and thus created, and the observed facts of organized complexity says they are, then lightning must be a created phenomenon as well.

Lightning is a completely natural phenomena. It was not designed or created. The observed fact of organized complexity likewise is a completely natural phenomena. It requires no creator whatsoever. Now until Ray can comprehend the difference between his opinion and evidence, the matter is closed.

Re "Evolution is like lightning."

Shocking?

TomS said:

DS said:

Ray Martinez said:

Daniel said: For example, is a lightning bolt produced by static electricity in the atmosphere (the natural explanation), or by Zeus (the supernatural)?

Lightning is designed and thus created; the God of the Bible is the Creator; said this plainly in my outline. If species are designed and thus created, and the observed facts of organized complexity says they are, then lightning must be a created phenomenon as well.

Lightning is a completely natural phenomena. It was not designed or created. The observed fact of organized complexity likewise is a completely natural phenomena. It requires no creator whatsoever. Now until Ray can comprehend the difference between his opinion and evidence, the matter is closed.

Evolution is like lightning. Whether one calls it natural or designed or created.

Just Bob said:

TomS said:

DS said:

Ray Martinez said:

Daniel said: For example, is a lightning bolt produced by static electricity in the atmosphere (the natural explanation), or by Zeus (the supernatural)?

Lightning is designed and thus created; the God of the Bible is the Creator; said this plainly in my outline. If species are designed and thus created, and the observed facts of organized complexity says they are, then lightning must be a created phenomenon as well.

Lightning is a completely natural phenomena. It was not designed or created. The observed fact of organized complexity likewise is a completely natural phenomena. It requires no creator whatsoever. Now until Ray can comprehend the difference between his opinion and evidence, the matter is closed.

Evolution is like lightning. Whether one calls it natural or designed or created.

What Ray never gets is that if everything is designed, then it's a useless concept. What could we possibly use it for? And of course "God designed everything" completely negates his own favorite stone vs. watch analogy.

Michael Fugate said:

Just Bob said:

TomS said:

DS said:

Ray Martinez said:

Daniel said: For example, is a lightning bolt produced by static electricity in the atmosphere (the natural explanation), or by Zeus (the supernatural)?

Lightning is designed and thus created; the God of the Bible is the Creator; said this plainly in my outline. If species are designed and thus created, and the observed facts of organized complexity says they are, then lightning must be a created phenomenon as well.

Lightning is a completely natural phenomena. It was not designed or created. The observed fact of organized complexity likewise is a completely natural phenomena. It requires no creator whatsoever. Now until Ray can comprehend the difference between his opinion and evidence, the matter is closed.

Evolution is like lightning. Whether one calls it natural or designed or created.

What Ray never gets is that if everything is designed, then it's a useless concept. What could we possibly use it for? And of course "God designed everything" completely negates his own favorite stone vs. watch analogy.

What is Ray's god's purpose for lightning? Said being would not have designed/created it without a purpose. So for what? lighting forest fires? killing sinners on mountain tops? or does is it just supposed to look cool during a storm?

TomS said: Yes, one could say that the true design of The Eye is something that only God knows. But that tells us that the argument from design is worthless unless we know God's purposes.

DS said:

Ray Martinez said:

Daniel said: For example, is a lightning bolt produced by static electricity in the atmosphere (the natural explanation), or by Zeus (the supernatural)?

Lightning is designed and thus created; the God of the Bible is the Creator; said this plainly in my outline. If species are designed and thus created, and the observed facts of organized complexity says they are, then lightning must be a created phenomenon as well.

Lightning is a completely natural phenomena. It was not designed or created. The observed fact of organized complexity likewise is a completely natural phenomena. It requires no creator whatsoever. Now until Ray can comprehend the difference between his opinion and evidence, the matter is closed.

Just Bob said: What Ray never gets is that if everything is designed, then it's a useless concept.

What could we possibly use it for?....

Matt Young said:

Thus, he “proves” the existence of God by appealing to the “fact” of the Resurrection. I did no such thing.

Perhaps not, but you came mighty close:

His Divinity established by the historical fact of the Resurrection (which is not the subject here).

In addition, let me rephrase my earlier statement:

The Resurrection is not a demonstrable fact; it is a supposition.

That means that it may be a fact, but we do not know.

I will have no more to say on this topic. I have better things to do than argue with someone who does not understand the meaning of the word "fact" -- and is unwilling to learn.

Ray Martinez said: Design exists so mankind can know that an all powerful Designer or Creator exists.

phhht said:

Ray Martinez said: Lightning is designed and thus created; the God of the Bible is the Creator; said this plainly in my outline.

That's a lie, Ray Martinez. There are no gods.

Ray Martinez said:

phhht said:

Ray Martinez said: Lightning is designed and thus created; the God of the Bible is the Creator; said this plainly in my outline.

That's a lie, Ray Martinez. There are no gods.

Since everyone already knows what Atheists believe, what's the point?

W. H. Heydt said:

Ray Martinez said: I don't know what you're really talking about, but I do know that Naturalism says miracles don't exist in nature. This is a basic 101 fact. You're looking inexcusably ignorant.

There is a considerable difference between "miracles cannot occur in the natural world" and "we have never observed a miracle occurring in the natural world".

Ray Martinez said:

W. H. Heydt said:

Ray Martinez said: I don't know what you're really talking about, but I do know that Naturalism says miracles don't exist in nature. This is a basic 101 fact. You're looking inexcusably ignorant.

There is a considerable difference between "miracles cannot occur in the natural world" and "we have never observed a miracle occurring in the natural world".

Both are the position of Naturalism. This is basic 101 stuff. And most people, including Christians, have never observed a miracle as it occurs. Naturalism doesn't allow miracles. Like Dawkins said long ago: even if you think you saw one, you didn't. The minds of Atheists are closed, which is the EXACT position of Naturalism: nature is a closed system: miracles don't exist.

Please continue the bickering between Messrs. Martinez and phhht on the BW.

Final Message

Matt Young allowed me to create and post a basic outline of how Supernaturalism establishes facts. I did so here: http://pandasthumb.org/archives/2016/07/the-problem-wit-1.html#comment-356214

Said outline is skeletal, only touching some of the basics. As of this final post none of my opponents addressed any content, this indicates very much.

Before Darwin published in 1859, Supernaturalism was the episteme of science. Each species, past and present, was held to have been created independently: thus each species was held to be immutable. Therefore Supernaturalism was known to be scientifically true. But within 12 years after Darwin first published, science did an about-face and concluded the exact opposite: species were not designed or created, but evolved via natural selection and other natural processes.

Based on previous scientific acceptance of Supernaturalism, we contend Naturalism and its main scientific claim, unintelligent causation and evolution, is completely false. We see design; evolution, on the other hand, is wholly inferred. An inference cannot trump an observation. Said observation of design means the inference of evolution is completely false. This is WHY no evidence of unintelligent causation and microevolution exists.

Some Darwinists, on the other hand, will argue observation or appearance of design is an effect of natural selection. This is completely false because such a contention admits to the MAIN claim of Supernaturalism: appearance of design. Said appearance, as a matter of sound logic, acts to falsify an unintelligent cause. So when Darwinists make the argument that natural selection produces an appearance of design, they are not admitting to the existence of design; rather, they are attempting to persuade stupid Christians into accepting natural selection and evolution.

We contend it's manifestly impossible for species, or units of organized complexity, to have evolved. Organization corresponds to the work of Intelligence, not unintelligence. So evolutionary theory is built on illogical propositions: organized and complex effects produced by antonymic causes. When a proposition is identified to be illogical what is being said is that the claim is false, the things cannot exist. Since everyone agrees effects are complex and organized, the claim that these were produced by unintelligent causes is false. Accepted logic says it's impossible for unintelligence to produce its antonym.

Since the debate is mutually exclusive, Supernaturalism, based on observation, is completely true; and Naturalism, based on inference, is completely false.

So Ray has a "method" to establish "facts". He believes whatever he thinks it says in the bible. And that oi is supposed to trump every real scientist in thew world. Well history has proven him wrong, he just can't accept that fact.

Ray Martinez said: It requires no unintelligence whatsoever.

Ray Martinez said: Final Message Matt Young allowed me to create and post a basic outline of how Supernaturalism establishes facts. I did so here: http://pandasthumb.org/archives/2016/07/the-problem-wit-1.html#comment-356214 Said outline is skeletal, only touching some of the basics. As of this final post none of my opponents addressed any content, this indicates very much. Before Darwin published in 1859, Supernaturalism was the episteme of science. Each species, past and present, was held to have been created independently: thus each species was held to be immutable. Therefore Supernaturalism was known to be scientifically true. But within 12 years after Darwin first published, science did an about-face and concluded the exact opposite: species were not designed or created, but evolved via natural selection and other natural processes.

Based on previous scientific acceptance of Supernaturalism, we contend Naturalism and its main scientific claim, unintelligent causation and evolution, is completely false. We see design; evolution, on the other hand, is wholly inferred. An inference cannot trump an observation. Said observation of design means the inference of evolution is completely false. This is WHY no evidence of unintelligent causation and microevolution exists. Some Darwinists, on the other hand, will argue observation or appearance of design is an effect of natural selection. This is completely false because such a contention admits to the MAIN claim of Supernaturalism: appearance of design. Said appearance, as a matter of sound logic, acts to falsify an unintelligent cause. So when Darwinists make the argument that natural selection produces an appearance of design, they are not admitting to the existence of design; rather, they are attempting to persuade stupid Christians into accepting natural selection and evolution.

We contend it's manifestly impossible for species, or units of organized complexity, to have evolved. Organization corresponds to the work of Intelligence, not unintelligence. So evolutionary theory is built on illogical propositions: organized and complex effects produced by antonymic causes. When a proposition is identified to be illogical what is being said is that the claim is false, the things cannot exist. Since everyone agrees effects are complex and organized, the claim that these were produced by unintelligent causes is false. Accepted logic says it's impossible for unintelligence to produce its antonym. Since the debate is mutually exclusive, Supernaturalism, based on observation, is completely true; and Naturalism, based on inference, is completely false.

"For the inquisition of Final Causes is barren, and like a virgin consecrated to God produces nothing." Francis Bacon, The Advancement of Learning. iii. 5

Ray Martinez said:

Just Bob said: What Ray never gets is that if everything is designed, then it's a useless concept.

In other words everything evolved or originated from other matter, but evolution, unlike design, is not a useless concept.

Ray Martinez said:

W. H. Heydt said:

Ray Martinez said: I don't know what you're really talking about, but I do know that Naturalism says miracles don't exist in nature. This is a basic 101 fact. You're looking inexcusably ignorant.

There is a considerable difference between "miracles cannot occur in the natural world" and "we have never observed a miracle occurring in the natural world".

Both are the position of Naturalism. This is basic 101 stuff. And most people, including Christians, have never observed a miracle as it occurs. Naturalism doesn't allow miracles. Like Dawkins said long ago: even if you think you saw one, you didn't. The minds of Atheists are closed, which is the EXACT position of Naturalism: nature is a closed system: miracles don't exist.

Ray Martinez said: Said outline is skeletal, only touching some of the basics. As of this final post none of my opponents addressed any content, this indicates very much. Before Darwin published in 1859, Supernaturalism was the episteme of science. Each species, past and present, was held to have been created independently: thus each species was held to be immutable. Therefore Supernaturalism was known to be scientifically true.

Ray Martinez said: Final Message Matt Young allowed me to create and post a basic outline of how Supernaturalism establishes facts. I did so here: http://pandasthumb.org/archives/2016/07/the-problem-wit-1.html#comment-356214 Said outline is skeletal, only touching some of the basics. As of this final post none of my opponents addressed any content, this indicates very much. Before Darwin published in 1859, Supernaturalism was the episteme of science.

Each species, past and present, was held to have been created independently: thus each species was held to be immutable. Therefore Supernaturalism was known to be scientifically true.

Daniel said:

Ray Martinez said: Before Darwin published in 1859, Supernaturalism was the episteme of science. Each species, past and present, was held to have been created independently: thus each species was held to be immutable. Therefore Supernaturalism was known to be scientifically true.

As Michael pointed out, this is completely false. You are confusing the lack of knowledge of an adequate mechanism, with an assertion that god did it. The correct History is, by the end of the 18th century and the beginning of the 19th, each species was held, by the scientific establishment, to have been created by some unknown natural mechanism. Lamarck certainly thought they were created by a natural mechanism. Even Cuvier, while rejecting Transmutation, asserted that there had been several episodes of creation, but by an as-yet-unknown natural mechanism. And yes, even that great enemy of creationists, Charles Lyell, in his original Uniformitarianism held that species that went exinct would eventually come back by some natural mechanism.

The thing about science is that we think, based on current evidence both factual and conceptual, certain things are probably true. This doesn't mean that they are definitely true or will always be true. We could be overlooking something that when discovered will wipe out any idea. Science is littered with ideas once thought to be true. It is also erroneous to think that disproven ideas weren't supported by evidence or even weren't science.

Daniel said: You are confusing the lack of knowledge of an adequate mechanism, with an assertion that god did it.

the Biblical methodology of establishing facts

Lightning is designed and thus created; the God of the Bible is the Creator; said this plainly in my outline.

fnxtr said:

the Biblical methodology of establishing facts

As used by the Anarchists for Responsible Government, and members of the Hermit Club.

Rolf said: Besides, according to authority, i.e. Ray, appearance of design is evidence of design.

eric said: Reminds me a bit of the old teaching adage: if one person fails a test you designed, it's their problem. If everyone does, its yours.

Rolf said: The way I understand Ray, his opinion is that all phenomena in the world are created by God, not caused by natural forces at work. Even snowflakes are designed by God, every one of them.

W. H. Heydt said:

Rolf said: The way I understand Ray, his opinion is that all phenomena in the world are created by God, not caused by natural forces at work. Even snowflakes are designed by God, every one of them.

Maybe that's why God doesn't answer very many (or any) prayers...He's too busy making new snowflake designs.

TomS said:

W. H. Heydt said:

Rolf said: The way I understand Ray, his opinion is that all phenomena in the world are created by God, not caused by natural forces at work. Even snowflakes are designed by God, every one of them.

Maybe that's why God doesn't answer very many (or any) prayers...He's too busy making new snowflake designs.

A problem with saying that all phenomena are designed by God is that it doesn't distinguish between evolution and any other phenomenon. Evolution, lightning, flight, rust, they are all the same as far as design and as far as being natural. The sculptures on Mount Rushmore are the same as the weeds and bugs growing on it.

W. H. Heydt said:

TomS said:

W. H. Heydt said:

Rolf said: The way I understand Ray, his opinion is that all phenomena in the world are created by God, not caused by natural forces at work. Even snowflakes are designed by God, every one of them.

Maybe that's why God doesn't answer very many (or any) prayers...He's too busy making new snowflake designs.

A problem with saying that all phenomena are designed by God is that it doesn't distinguish between evolution and any other phenomenon. Evolution, lightning, flight, rust, they are all the same as far as design and as far as being natural. The sculptures on Mount Rushmore are the same as the weeds and bugs growing on it.

I really hope you didn't think I was being serious. It certainly wasn't a good Poe...words were spelled correctly and there was no random capitalization or excessive punctuation.

Possibly a little off task here, but Josh Rosenau of NCSE had a short article in the New Scientist a week or so ago. The article includes the best picture of the "Ark" I have yet seen, by John Minchillo of the AP.

Matt Young said: Possibly a little off task here, but Josh Rosenau of NCSE had a short article in the New Scientist a week or so ago. The article includes the best picture of the "Ark" I have yet seen, by John Minchillo of the AP.

W. H. Heydt said:

Matt Young said: Possibly a little off task here, but Josh Rosenau of NCSE had a short article in the New Scientist a week or so ago. The article includes the best picture of the "Ark" I have yet seen, by John Minchillo of the AP.

Oh, my...wooden "bars" for the cages. Now I know part of what Noah fed some of the herbivores...the ones that like to gnaw.

Wouldn't claiming it was a miracle have been easier - not to mention, smarter? Every scenario they come up with makes it less plausible. I can't believe after a century of claiming evolution is not possible because there wasn't enough time that now they want to compress 500 My of change into 5000 years or 100,000 times as fast? Why would anyone buy this?

Michael Fugate said: Why would anyone buy this?

Oh, and you'll literally buy it. With money.