Why is the process blind ?

Instead of whinning to Admin for new members to debate with, how about actually debating the main issues i brought up, eh?It seems an awful lot like crying to your mom because you lost the game, and are crying for a new game--which would be odd, considering that you yourself claimed to have won--the whole checkmate thing in your OP. And if you have already won, then why do you want more?Oh, and by no measure do I think you've won.

---

All a man's knowledge comes from his experiences

You need to return to message number #1 (the OP) and blue box each point and tender a reply.This is what you agreed to when requesting to debate here. The OP is the subject. After you address the OP THEN I will answer your points and questions.Ray

Post 18 deals with the OP specifically, and I made it. Posts 19-24 deal with other issues either in the OP or from your debate with EZ. They have what you want. Answer the questions I ask you--you asked none in the OP, but made a statement. I answered those statements with questions concerning the validity of your argument. Please reply to post 18, so I know that you've read it.

---

All a man's knowledge comes from his experiences

Yes, Dawkins represents ALL Darwinists. The context of that statement was his assertion and description of the evolutionary process: blind and mindless AND it produced the appearance of design and organized complexity in biological reality.And the Pope represents ALL Catholics - that is undisputeable and Bush represents all Republicans. You are showing breathtaking ignorance.You cannot ex post facto assert contrary to Dawkins since his beliefs are the OBJECTIVE claims of evolutionary theory. EZ Science was completely ignorant to what the most famous book on evolution said. Dawkins says the appearance of design in nature is an illusion produced by blind and mindless natural selection = all evolutionists believe this - it is the central claim of your theory. Creationists (represented by me in this case) and Evolutionists (represented by Dawkins in this case) that is, BOTH of us agree nature appears designed. Creationists say the appearances correspond with an invisible Designer, Evolutionists say they do not VIA the adjectives of "blind and mindless".My question to you: why is natural selection judged to be a blind and mindless process contra-resultant to the undisputed outcome of design ?We say the appearances of design and organized complexity correspond with an invisible Creator. Evolutionists say the same corresponds with antithesis to the results - I am wondering what is the scientific justification ?As it stands now, evolution is true by starting philosophical assumption and not scientific evidence or data. Why is the process scientifically blind and mindless ?RayEdited by Herepton, : format stuff

Thank you for finally responding to this post.I answered why the process was blind in (natural selection, that is) in post 19, take a look.It is wrong, and quite possibly fallacious to say that Bush represents all republicans and the pope represents all catholics. What you are doing is throwing a group of people with one of a few similarities together--the term is stereotyping, and most often it doesn't cover the entire group.I believe the most famous book on evolution is "On the Origin of Species: or The preservation of favored races in the struggle of life. NOT Dawkin's book.You seem to have some misconceptions as to what science rests on. It is a philosophy, rooted in methodological naturalism (which I may have already explained here, don't know though). It does not preclude the existence or non-existence of supernatural entities (including God). Whatever can be tested and verified is natural, not supernatural. This is why NO scientific theory at the moment includes God as an explanation--for as you all say, God works in mysterious ways. As such, he cannot be tested or verified, and saying God did it then means absolutely nothing. It could very well be that God is running the world, but until we can scientifically test him, he remains in the realm of the supernatural.The other misconception you have is that evolution is a "belief". Belief requires faith or blind trust (which can be the same thing). Nothing in science is believed in or held to dogmatically (of course, they are several times where certain ideas are held onto dogmatically, when new evidence shows that a theory is wrong). So far, evolution is the best NATURAL explanation for why we have all this diversity in life. So far, creationism uses a supernatural entitiy that cannot be tested nor verified to explain the natural world. Which is NOT science. This puts them into the category of psuedo-science (along with astrology and phrenology).Ok, so I've told you to check post 19 for your first question, and the following two paragraphs have somewhat touched on your question of how can leaving god out be scientifically justified. If you'd like a clearer explanation for your second answer, ask away.

---

All a man's knowledge comes from his experiences

You have completely evaded the OP and most recent condensed versions. We know this is caused by the inability to refute.I will now answer your questions and/or points. Its not a matter of opinion; the Pope surely does represent all Catholics and Bush represents all Republicans. You are an absolute moron. I have never disagreed with this. Maybe you can evidence your claim that I did not know that Darwinian science uses MN for its philosophy and starting assumptions ? Again, you are an absolute moron. The philosophy and methodology that all atheists use is neutral about God ? Where is God in MN ? This is rhetorical. God is excluded. Since when is exclusion neutrality ? This is rhetorical.Since you believe MN is neutral about God, Kuresu, I just obtained controlling interest in a bridge in Brooklyn, looks like a cash cow - email me if you want in ? Ordinary atheist dogma. All genuine scientific theories credit God as the Creator - only atheist theories do not for obvious reasons. Do you have a source cite for this opinioin ? Chapter and verse ? Atheist philosophy. To an atheist. Could one expect an atheist to believe anything else ?Darwinists mindlessly assert "Natural selection-did-it" replacing God and the genius we see in nature with their lunacy and needs. God is verifiable by what we see in nature. He ONLY requires Creator credit - nothing else. Naturalism says God does not exist - the dogma that all atheists abide by. You are confused and/or ignorant. We know you are ignorant in 2 + 2 issues so lets go with the latter.Science has always proven God, only atheists and atheists who happen to own a cross say otherwise. Could one expect a Darwinist to believe anything else ? Standard atheist belief, which I already knew. Now I know you know too.You can have the last word being the atheist lap dog that you are.You might say "I am a theist or Christian."If so, then why do you abide by atheist philosophy ?You are what you argue and not as you label yourself. You argue standard atheist rhetoric, therefore I conclude you are an atheist.Ray

Take a little care to avoid those insults.

---

Posting in the showcase is by invitation only. If you wish to debate ray as a member, please request permission from Percy.Edited by AdminJar, : Hide post from someone who did not request access

Please ignore; I didn't realize what forum I was in. So sorry.Edited by AdminTL, : reason provided above

From wikipedia on methodological naturalism: When you make this statement: This is ontological naturalism, which according to the same wikipedia article is: Science is NOT founded on ontological naturalism.Be careful who you call ignorant--it is you who are confusing what science is founded on by what atheism is founded on.I never said I was a christian or an atheist. I'm agnostic, thanks to music.Since you say I completely evade your OP, can you tell me what it is in plain english? After all, I'm fairly certain I answered your OP, and yet you claim I haven't--which means I either misunderstood your OP, or you are not able to refute what I wrote in regard to yor OP, and are thus using the "you are evading argument" to try and win the debate.

---

All a man's knowledge comes from his experiences

Unfuckingbelievable.Here we have a Darwinian Moderator placing common sense on the defensive.Darwinist (Kuresu) moronically repeats that the Pope does not represent all Catholics and Bush the same with Republicans. I make a self-evident identification that Kuresu is an absolute moron only to have a Darwinian Moderator defend the same.At least Kuresu has an excuse as he does not know any better, unlike you. This makes you the absolute moron.Here you are in my private cage, which is a state of banishment, implicitly threatening to ban me. Your moronic post and silent threat to further banish don't mean a fucking rats ass to me. Anyone who says what Kuresu said is a fucking moron and anyone who covertly defends this moron under the guise of "Moderation" in the Showcase Forum is more of a moron.I am serving lifetime bans at:InfidelGuy for one theological post about the love of Christ.TWEB for saying TEists are nothing but atheists who happen to own a cross.ChristianForums for pointing out that when atheists and theists agree on origins one aint as such.Now NWR wants to ban me for calling a moron a moron = the real reason is the points above that I have made here at EvC too.Ray Edited by Herepton, : spellingEdited by Herepton, : No reason given.

well, you know what . . .I got banned for calling you stupid. I But I'm back, because I wondered what had happened so that I couldn't post, and was told it was because of my derogatory comment. I apologized (not here, but on showcase thread for permission in the Suggestions forum) by saying I must remember to not insult people.It is not moronic to say that the Pope does not represent ALL catholics. The catholic church is conservative at the moment--or rather, that's the general movement. However, Virginia has a liberal catholic as governor. Same is true of Bush. He doesn't represent ALL republicans. Point in case--a friend of mine, who is conservative, thinks Bush is a total fool. Not only that, Bush isn't fiscally responsible, undermining one of the core issues of what used to be a business oriented party. Now it is a social issue oriented party, and there are still many conservatives who do not like this position--henceforth, the conservative, republican Bush does not represent these conservative, republican people.What you are doing is called stereotyping, something I try to avoid, because it is most often erroneos. Not moronic.But this thread isn't about who represents who, except for your Dawkins statement, which I feel has little to do with your OP.

---

All a man's knowledge comes from his experiences

There was no threat to ban you. It was made clear that participants are to moderate themselves. I was encouraging you to do so. I encourage you to set a positive example as an evangelical protestant.

An atheist-Darwinist thinks I am not a positive example of an Evangelical Protestant ?Thats the best evidence that I am.Ray Martinez, Protestant Evangelical PaulinistEDIT:Kurseu remains a moron by continually posting that the Pope and Bush do not represent all Catholics and Republicans. And you remain a moron for defending such ignorant hillbillyism under the false guise of Moderation.RMEdited by Herepton, : No reason given.

If you get to call me a moron, i get to call you stupid. They aren't that different, definition wise. But that's not going to get anywhere, nor is it all that important to your OP (except for the whole Dawkins bit, but's its minimally important).

---

All a man's knowledge comes from his experiences