Roasting Evolution1
Roy Jose Lorr
Prof. Michael Ruse - "I'm no less of an evolutionist now
than I ever was.... For many evolutionists, evolution has
functioned as something with elements which are, let us say,
akin to being a secular religion."
Louis Trenchard More - "The more one studies paleontology,
the more certain one becomes that evolution is based on
faith alone exactly the same sort of faith which it is
necessary to have when one encounters the great mysteries of
religion."
John T. Bonner - "We [evolutionists] have been telling our
students for years not to accept any statement on its face
value but to examine the evidence, and therefore it is
rather a shock to discover that we have failed to follow our
own sound advice."
Niles Eldredge, paleontologist - We paleontologists have
said that the history of life supports [gradual adaptive
change], all the while really knowing that it does not."
Mary Leakey, paleoanthropologist - "All these trees of
life with their branches of our ancestors, that's a lot of
nonsense."
H. Lipson, physicist - "In fact, evolution became in a
sense a scientific religion; almost all scientists have
accepted it and any are prepared to 'bend' their
observations to fit in withit.
T. Rosazak: "The irony is devastating. The main purpose of
Darwinism was to drive every last trace of an incredible God
from biology. But the theory replaces God with an even more
incredible deity: omnipotent chance."
Charles Darwin: "I am quite conscious that my speculations
run quite beyond the bounds of true science."
Pierre-Paul Grasse, past President of the French Academie
des Sciences, Editor of the 35-volume _Traite de Zoologie_ -
"Today [1977] our duty is to destroy the myth of
evolution, considered as a simple, understood and explained
phenomenon which keeps rapidly unfolding before us.
Biologists must be encouraged to think about the weaknesses
and extrapolations that theoreticians put forward or lay
down as established truths. The deceit is sometimes
unconscious, but not always, since somepeople, owing to
their sectarianism, purposely overlook reality and refuse to
acknowledge
the inadequacies and falsity of their beliefs."
Bounoure, past Director of Research at the National Center
of Scientific Research, France: "Evolutionism is a fairy
tale for grownups. This theory has helped nothing in the
progress of science. It is useless."
Art Battson, professor, University of CA - Berkley: "We
must bear in mind that just because neo-Darwinian evolution
is the most plausible naturalistic explanation of origins,
we should not assume that it is necessarily true.... In
retrospect, it seems as though Darwinists have been less
concerned with the scientific question of accurately
explaining the empirical data of natural history, and more
concerned with the religious or philosophical question of
explaining the design found in nature without a designer.
Darwin's general theory of evolution may, in the final
analysis, be little more than an unwarranted extrapolation
from microevolution based more upon philosophy than fact.
The problem is that Darwinism continues to distort natural
science."
G.A. Kerkut, biochemistry professor at the University of
Southampton: "The philosophy of evolution is based upon
assumptions that cannot be scientifically verified...
Whatever evidence can be assembled for evolution is both
limited and circumstantial in nature."
Roger Lewin: "It is in fact a common fantasy, promulgated
mostly by the scientific profession itself, that in the
search for objective truth, data dictate conclusions. Data
are just as often molded to fit preferred
conclusions."
David Pilbeam: "I have come to believe that many statements
we make about the how and whys of human evolution say as
much about us, the paleoanthropologists and the larger
society in which we live, as about anything that really
happened."
Arthur Keith: "Evolution is unproved and unprovable. We
believe it only because the only alternative is special
creation which is unthinkable."
W.R. Thompson, Introduction to _Origin of the Species_ by
Darwin: "This situation, where men rally to the defense of a
doctrine they are unable to define scientifically, much less
demonstrate with scientific rigor, attempting to maintain
its credit with the public by the suppression of criticism
and the elimination of difficulties, is abnormal and
undesirable in science.... I am not satisfied that Darwin
proved his point or that his influence in scientific and
public thinking has been beneficial."
Francis Crick, Nobel Prize recipient for discovery of DNA
structure: "Every time I write a paper on the origin of
life, I determine I will never write another one, because
there is too much speculation running after too few facts."
John Ambrose Fleming, President British Assoc. for
Advancement of Science: "Evolution is baseless and quite
incredible."
Michael Denton: "The hold of the evolutionary paradigm is so
powerful that an idea which is more like a principle of
medieval astrology than a serious 20th century scientific
theory has become a reality for evolutionary biologists....
The overriding supremacy of the myth has created a
widespread illusion that the theory of evolution was all but
proved 100 years ago and that all subsequent biological
research - paleontological, zoological and in the newer
branches of genetics and molecular biology - has provided
ever-increasing evidence of Darwinian ideas... There has
always existed a significant minority of first-rate
biologists who have never been able to bring themselves to
accept the validity of Darwinian claims. In fact, the number
of biologists who have expressed some degree of
disillusionment is practically endless... Ultimately the
Darwinian theory of evolution is no more nor less than the
great cosmogenic myth of the 20th century. Like the
Genesis-based cosmology which it replaced, and like the
creation myths of ancient man, it satisfies the same deep
psychological need for an all-embracing explanation for the
origin of the world which has motivated all the cosmogenic
myth makers of the past."
B. Leith: "The main thrust of the criticism [of Darwinism]
comes from within science itself. The doubts about Darwinism
represent a political revolt from within rather than a siege
from without."
Dr. Colin Patterson, paleontologist at the British Museum of
Natural History: "The explanatory value of the hypothesis of
common ancestry is nil... I feel that the effects of the
hypotheses of common ancestry in systematics has not been
merely boring, not just a lack of knowledge, I think it has
been positively anti-knowledge... Well, we're back to the
question I've been putting to people: 'Is there one thing
you can tell me about evolution?' The absence of answers
seems to suggest that it is true: evolution does not convey
any knowledge, or if so, I haven't yet heard it."
Louis Agassiz, Harvard professor, pioneer in glaciation:
"The theory of evolution is a scientific mistake."
S. Lovtrup, professor of zoophysiology at Universityof Umea,
Sweden: "I have already shown that the arguments advanced by
the early champions [of Darwinian theory of natural
selection] were not very compelling, and that there are now
[1987] considerable numbers of empirical facts which do not
fit with the theory. Hence, to all intents and purposes the
theory has been falsified, so why has it not been abandoned?"
Steven Jay Gould, paleontologist: "We are left with very
little time between the development of suitable conditions
for life on the Earth's surface and the origin of life...
Life apparently arose about as soon as the Earth became cool
enough to support it." ("An Early Start", _Natural
History_, Feb 1978)
"The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil
record persists is the trade secret of paleontology...
In any local area, a species does not arise gradually
by the steady transformation of its ansectors; it
appears all at once and fully formed." ("Evolution's
Erratic Pace", _Natural History_, May 1977)
"I regard the failure to find a clear 'vector of
progress' in life's history as the most puzzling fact
of the fossil record... We have sought to impose a
pattern that we hoped to find on a world that does not
really display it." ("The Ediacaran Experiment",
_Natural History_, Feb 1984)
"[Neo-Darwinism is] effectively dead, despite its
persistence as textbook orthodoxy." ("Is a New and
General Theory of Evolution Emerging?" _Paleobiology_
1980)
"Paleontologists have paid an exorbitant price for
Darwin's argument. We fancy ourselves as the only true
students of life's history, yet to preserve our favored
account of evolution by natural selection we view our
data as so bad that we almost never see the very
process we profess to study." (_The Panda's Thumb_,
p.181)
"We take the side of science in spite of the patent
absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure
to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and
life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community
for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior
commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the
methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to
accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but,
on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori
adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of
investigation and a set of concepts that produce material
explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how
mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is
an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the
door." - *Richard Lewontin, "Billions and billions of
demons", The New York Review, January 9, 1997, page 31.
Stile4aly
Roy Jose Lorr wrote:
<snip quote mining>
Oh look, there's no argument left. Thanks for playing.
John Harshman
[snip]
There are two terms describing what you have done here: quote-mining and
plagiarism. Neither is very flattering to you.
Quote-mining involves taking statements by scientists out of context and
assembling them in ways that seem to support your position, though in
context they do no such thing. Now, a few of your quotes are in conext.
But even if they all were in context, they would be nothing more than
opinions, not arguments. If you want to back up any of the claims you
(apparently) endorse here, that would take a bit more work than cutting
and pasting.
Plagiarism is appropriating the work of someone else as your own. I'm
sure you didn't assemble these quotes yourself -- again, that would take
a bit more work than you seem capable of. I doubt, in fact, that you
have read a single one of the cited works. Common decency demands that
you at least credit the person who did the actual work of mining the
quotes and assembling them out of context. A simple URL would have been
sufficient.
Turner
Roy Jose Lorr wrote:
<snippety snip>
www.talkorigins.org/faqs/quotes/mine/project.html
Read this, then read again what you have written, and see how many
misquotes you can match between your post and the article.
Well, never mind, it wasn't much of an argument you had in the first
place.
Dunc Harris
John Harshman wrote:
> Roy Jose Lorr wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
> There are two terms describing what you have done here: quote-mining and
> plagiarism. Neither is very flattering to you.
>
>
> Plagiarism is appropriating the work of someone else as your own. I'm
> sure you didn't assemble these quotes yourself -- again, that would take
> a bit more work than you seem capable of. I doubt, in fact, that you
> have read a single one of the cited works. Common decency demands that
> you at least credit the person who did the actual work of mining the
> quotes and assembling them out of context. A simple URL would have been
> sufficient.
Actually, most of it seems to come from
http://searchlight.iwarp.com/articles/evolution.html
albeit he deserves a little credit for editing it a little bit, but you
can see how his post evolved from Hannah Newman's collection. She
seems to be a Jewish creationist, convinced that science is
anti-semitism in disguise...
Augray
wrote in <8ZqdnZ6XtrZVZszY...@comcast.com> :
>Prof. Michael Ruse - "I'm no less of an evolutionist now
>than I ever was.... For many evolutionists, evolution has
>functioned as something with elements which are, let us say,
>akin to being a secular religion."
>
>Louis Trenchard More - "The more one studies paleontology,
>the more certain one becomes that evolution is based on
>faith alone exactly the same sort of faith which it is
>necessary to have when one encounters the great mysteries of
>religion."
>
>John T. Bonner - "We [evolutionists] have been telling our
>students for years not to accept any statement on its face
>value but to examine the evidence, and therefore it is
>rather a shock to discover that we have failed to follow our
>own sound advice."
>
>Niles Eldredge, paleontologist - We paleontologists have
>said that the history of life supports [gradual adaptive
>change], all the while really knowing that it does not."
A quote mine. See
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/quotes/mine/part1-4.html#quote71
>Mary Leakey, paleoanthropologist - "All these trees of
>life with their branches of our ancestors, that's a lot of
>nonsense."
>
>H. Lipson, physicist - "In fact, evolution became in a
>sense a scientific religion; almost all scientists have
>accepted it and any are prepared to 'bend' their
>observations to fit in withit.
Several people have given clear indications that they do not
understand Darwin's theory. The Theory does not merely say that
species have slowly evolved: that is obvious from the fossil
record.
- H. J. Lipson, "A physicist looks at evolution - a rejoinder",
Physics Bulletin, December 1980, pg 337.
Keith never wrote this. See
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/quotes/mine/part1-4.html#quote81
Another quote mine. See
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/quotes/mine/part3.html#quote3.2 and
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/quotes/mine/part1-2.html#quote14
>"I regard the failure to find a clear 'vector of
>progress' in life's history as the most puzzling fact
>of the fossil record... We have sought to impose a
>pattern that we hoped to find on a world that does not
>really display it." ("The Ediacaran Experiment",
>_Natural History_, Feb 1984)
>
>"[Neo-Darwinism is] effectively dead, despite its
>persistence as textbook orthodoxy." ("Is a New and
>General Theory of Evolution Emerging?" _Paleobiology_
>1980)
>
>"Paleontologists have paid an exorbitant price for
>Darwin's argument. We fancy ourselves as the only true
>students of life's history, yet to preserve our favored
>account of evolution by natural selection we view our
>data as so bad that we almost never see the very
>process we profess to study." (_The Panda's Thumb_,
>p.181)
Yet another quote mine. See
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/quotes/mine/part1-2.html#quote14
Ken Shaw
Roy Jose Lorr wrote:
<snip mined quotes>
I didn't see any new ones in there.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/quotes/mine/project.html
Didn't your deity have something to say about intentionally lieing
about other people?
Ken
CreateThis
>[snip everything but actual arguments]
Oops. Nothing left - RJL's usual score.
CT
Mike
Roy Jose Lorr wrote:
> Louis Trenchard More - "The more one studies paleontology,
> the more certain one becomes that evolution is based on
> faith alone exactly the same sort of faith which it is
> necessary to have when one encounters the great mysteries of
> religion."
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/quotes/mine/part1-4.html#quote61
> Niles Eldredge, paleontologist - We paleontologists have
> said that the history of life supports [gradual adaptive
> change], all the while really knowing that it does not."
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/quotes/mine/part1-4.html#quote71
> H. Lipson, physicist - "In fact, evolution became in a
> sense a scientific religion; almost all scientists have
> accepted it and any are prepared to 'bend' their
> observations to fit in withit.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/quotes/mine/part1-4.html#quote59
> Charles Darwin: "I am quite conscious that my speculations
> run quite beyond the bounds of true science."
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/quotes/mine/part2.html#quote2.1
> Bounoure, past Director of Research at the National Center
> of Scientific Research, France: "Evolutionism is a fairy
> tale for grownups. This theory has helped nothing in the
> progress of science. It is useless."
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/ce/3/part12.html
> David Pilbeam: "I have come to believe that many statements
> we make about the how and whys of human evolution say as
> much about us, the paleoanthropologists and the larger
> society in which we live, as about anything that really
> happened."
Not even against evolution.
> Arthur Keith: "Evolution is unproved and unprovable. We
> believe it only because the only alternative is special
> creation which is unthinkable."
Outright lie, that one.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/quotes/mine/part1-4.html#quote81
> John Ambrose Fleming, President British Assoc. for
> Advancement of Science: "Evolution is baseless and quite
> incredible."
Lived November 29, 1849 - April 18, 1945
> Dr. Colin Patterson, paleontologist at the British Museum of
> Natural History: "The explanatory value of the hypothesis of
> common ancestry is nil... I feel that the effects of the
> hypotheses of common ancestry in systematics has not been
> merely boring, not just a lack of knowledge, I think it has
> been positively anti-knowledge... Well, we're back to the
> question I've been putting to people: 'Is there one thing
> you can tell me about evolution?' The absence of answers
> seems to suggest that it is true: evolution does not convey
> any knowledge, or if so, I haven't yet heard it."
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/patterson.html
> Louis Agassiz, Harvard professor, pioneer in glaciation:
> "The theory of evolution is a scientific mistake."
Lived 1807-73. Enough said.
> Steven Jay Gould, paleontologist: "We are left with very
> little time between the development of suitable conditions
> for life on the Earth's surface and the origin of life...
> Life apparently arose about as soon as the Earth became cool
> enough to support it." ("An Early Start", _Natural
> History_, Feb 1978)
>
> "The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil
> record persists is the trade secret of paleontology...
> In any local area, a species does not arise gradually
> by the steady transformation of its ansectors; it
> appears all at once and fully formed." ("Evolution's
> Erratic Pace", _Natural History_, May 1977)
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/quotes/mine/part1-3.html#quote41
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/quotes/mine/part3.html#quote3.2
> "I regard the failure to find a clear 'vector of
> progress' in life's history as the most puzzling fact
> of the fossil record... We have sought to impose a
> pattern that we hoped to find on a world that does not
> really display it." ("The Ediacaran Experiment",
> _Natural History_, Feb 1984)
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/quotes/mine/part3.html#quote3.12
> "[Neo-Darwinism is] effectively dead, despite its
> persistence as textbook orthodoxy." ("Is a New and
> General Theory of Evolution Emerging?" _Paleobiology_
> 1980)
Look at the title of the book!
> "Paleontologists have paid an exorbitant price for
> Darwin's argument. We fancy ourselves as the only true
> students of life's history, yet to preserve our favored
> account of evolution by natural selection we view our
> data as so bad that we almost never see the very
> process we profess to study." (_The Panda's Thumb_,
> p.181)
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/quotes/mine/part1-2.html#quote14
So there were a few that were actual bona fide creationists, but most
were quote-mines or out of date.
Azaliah
"Stile4aly" <stil...@yahoo.com> shouted thusly:
>Roy Jose Lorr wrote:
><snip quote mining>
>
>Oh look, there's no argument left. Thanks for playing.
Yea, you really took him to task and proved evolution!
<chuckle>
Bye now.
--
Azaliah (ats-al-yaw'-hoo) "Jah has reserved"
<((>< <((>< <((><
"Sanctify them through thy truth: thy word is truth."
- John 17:17
.
Azaliah
Harris" <dunc_...@hotmail.com> shouted thusly:
>John Harshman wrote:
>
>> Roy Jose Lorr wrote:
>>
>> [snip]
>>
>> There are two terms describing what you have done here: quote-mining and
>> plagiarism. Neither is very flattering to you.
>>
>> (snip the bit about quote mining)
>>
>> Plagiarism is appropriating the work of someone else as your own. I'm
>> sure you didn't assemble these quotes yourself -- again, that would take
>> a bit more work than you seem capable of. I doubt, in fact, that you
>> have read a single one of the cited works. Common decency demands that
>> you at least credit the person who did the actual work of mining the
>> quotes and assembling them out of context. A simple URL would have been
>> sufficient.
>
>Actually, most of it seems to come from
>
>http://searchlight.iwarp.com/articles/evolution.html
It's pretty pathetic when the response is to try to
criticize him for plagiarism. <chuckle>
Azaliah
<ksha...@gmail.com> shouted thusly:
Ya just gotta love when the evolutionists have nothing
to respond with, except insults directed at the person
who posted the information. Gee, that was really
"scientific" of you. <chuckle>
Mike
Azaliah wrote:
> Ya just gotta love when the evolutionists have nothing
> to respond with, except insults directed at the person
> who posted the information. Gee, that was really
> "scientific" of you. <chuckle>
When you've been here for a while you begin to recognise the posters
which are worth arguing with and those that are a waste of time.
Stile4aly
Azaliah wrote:
> On 8 Nov 2006 09:32:24 -0800, while bungee jumping, "Ken Shaw"
> <ksha...@gmail.com> shouted thusly:
>
>
> >Roy Jose Lorr wrote:
> ><snip mined quotes>
> >I didn't see any new ones in there.
> >
> >http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/quotes/mine/project.html
> >
> >Didn't your deity have something to say about intentionally lieing
> >about other people?
> >
> >Ken
>
> Ya just gotta love when the evolutionists have nothing
> to respond with, except insults directed at the person
> who posted the information. Gee, that was really
> "scientific" of you. <chuckle>
Ya gotta love when creationists think that taking a quotation out of
context is somehow an argument against evolution. If you want to
actually argue something contrary to the ToE, post a positive argument
for something else, not an old rehashed list of quotes which have
already been addressed elsewhere.
Richard Forrest
Azaliah wrote:
> On 8 Nov 2006 08:18:19 -0800, while bungee jumping,
> "Stile4aly" <stil...@yahoo.com> shouted thusly:
>
>
> >Roy Jose Lorr wrote:
> ><snip quote mining>
> >
> >Oh look, there's no argument left. Thanks for playing.
>
> Yea, you really took him to task and proved evolution!
Why not look up the refutations of all these mined quotes which are
posted on talk.origins?
And why bother to post these mined quotes at all? They prove nothing
except the systematic dishonesty of creationists.
RF
Neil Kelsey
I believe it was George Bush Senior who said that "atheists
are...citizens."
Wakboth
Azaliah kirjoitti:
> On 8 Nov 2006 09:32:24 -0800, while bungee jumping, "Ken Shaw"
> <ksha...@gmail.com> shouted thusly:
>
>
> >Roy Jose Lorr wrote:
> ><snip mined quotes>
> >I didn't see any new ones in there.
> >
> >http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/quotes/mine/project.html
> >
> >Didn't your deity have something to say about intentionally lieing
> >about other people?
>
> Ya just gotta love when the evolutionists have nothing
> to respond with, except insults directed at the person
> who posted the information. Gee, that was really
> "scientific" of you. <chuckle>
Did you not see, or understand, the link Ken posted above? Or are you,
too, trying to lie and obfuscate your way to what you think is a
victory?
-- Wakboth
Ray Martinez
Let the below quote represent the others:
"S. Lovtrup, professor of zoophysiology at Universityof Umea,
Sweden: "I have already shown that the arguments advanced by
the early champions [of Darwinian theory of natural
selection] were not very compelling, and that there are now
[1987] considerable numbers of empirical facts which do not
fit with the theory. Hence, to all intents and purposes the
theory has been falsified, so why has it not been abandoned?""
Answer: Because "Darwinism is a penalty from God for denying Him the
credit and status of Creator" (Dr. Gene Scott, Ph.D. Stanford
University, 2001).
Ray
Turner
Azaliah wrote:
<snip>
> Ya just gotta love when the evolutionists have nothing
> to respond with, except insults directed at the person
> who posted the information. Gee, that was really
> "scientific" of you. <chuckle>
Ah, the hypocrisy! It burns!
In all of your posts to talk.origins, every single one has included a
personal attack on either an individual or "evolutionists" in general,
and your posts to alt.atheism seem to be even worse. You have never
once posted anything factual, instead offering only insults, pathetic
whining and idiotic chuckling.
> Bye now.
Yes, bye, for now at least. Please go and read a book on evolution, and
even if it doesn't convince you, at least you'll know what you're
arguing against instead of sounding like a bigoted moron.
Perplexed in Peoria
"Ray Martinez" <pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:1163015828....@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> Let the below quote represent the others:
>
> "S. Lovtrup, professor of zoophysiology at Universityof Umea,
> Sweden: "I have already shown that the arguments advanced by
> the early champions [of Darwinian theory of natural
> selection] were not very compelling, and that there are now
> [1987] considerable numbers of empirical facts which do not
> fit with the theory. Hence, to all intents and purposes the
> theory has been falsified, so why has it not been abandoned?""
>
> Answer: Because "Darwinism is a penalty from God for denying Him the
> credit and status of Creator" (Dr. Gene Scott, Ph.D. Stanford
> University, 2001).
I'm not sure I understand Scott's answer. I get it that God is
pissed, but whom or what is being penalized? And how does the
penalty work, exactly? Does God befuddle minds, making them
accept a false doctrine? Does he plant subtle clues to mislead
the unwary?
What exactly is going on here, and how is (poetic?) cosmic justice
being achieved?
Lee Oswald Ving
@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com:
> Let the below quote represent the others:
...if you can show that the people you are quoting agree with it.
Otherwise, you are simply lying about them.
Which I know you don't mind doing, being completely amoral.
<snip>
CreateThis
wrote:
>On 8 Nov 2006 09:32:24 -0800, while bungee jumping, "Ken Shaw"
><ksha...@gmail.com> shouted thusly:
>
>
>>Roy Jose Lorr wrote:
>><snip mined quotes>
>>I didn't see any new ones in there.
>>
>>http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/quotes/mine/project.html
>>
>>Didn't your deity have something to say about intentionally lieing
>>about other people?
>>
>>Ken
>
>Ya just gotta love when the evolutionists have nothing
>to respond with
Maybe you can point out something in the original post that requires a
response.
Go ahead. We'll wait.
[crickets chirping]
[grass growing]
[paint drying]
[creationists waiting for life to begin]
CT
Richard Smol
Obviously fundamentalist Christians aren't the only ones with a
persecution complex.
RS
er...@swva.net
>
(snip)
Now, exactly how is all that quoting supposed to make evolution not
have happened?
Eric Root
er...@swva.net
> On 8 Nov 2006 09:14:08 -0800, while bungee jumping, "Dunc
> Harris" <dunc_...@hotmail.com> shouted thusly:
>
>
> >John Harshman wrote:
> >
> >> Roy Jose Lorr wrote:
> >>
> >> [snip]
> >>
> >> There are two terms describing what you have done here: quote-mining and
> >> plagiarism. Neither is very flattering to you.
> >>
> >> (snip the bit about quote mining)
> >>
> >> Plagiarism is appropriating the work of someone else as your own. I'm
> >> sure you didn't assemble these quotes yourself -- again, that would take
> >> a bit more work than you seem capable of. I doubt, in fact, that you
> >> have read a single one of the cited works. Common decency demands that
> >> you at least credit the person who did the actual work of mining the
> >> quotes and assembling them out of context. A simple URL would have been
> >> sufficient.
> >
> >Actually, most of it seems to come from
> >
> >http://searchlight.iwarp.com/articles/evolution.html
>
> It's pretty pathetic when the response is to try to
> criticize him for plagiarism. <chuckle>
It's the only response a quote-miner deserves
>
> Bye now.
Watch out for the door.
>
> --
>
> Azaliah (ats-al-yaw'-hoo) "Jah has reserved"
(uh-ZAY-lee-uh) "fake internet name"
(snip)
Eric Root
Ghod
news:43a4l2trl835qkf11...@4ax.com...
Hey chucklehead, do yourself a favor, and try doing a little thinking.
> Bye now.
...and forever?
> Azaliah (ats-al-yaw'-hoo) "Jah has reserved"
Get that spliff outta your mouth when you talk, boy!
Ghod
> On 8 Nov 2006 09:32:24 -0800, while bungee jumping, "Ken Shaw"
> <ksha...@gmail.com> shouted thusly:
>
>
> >Roy Jose Lorr wrote:
> ><snip mined quotes>
> >I didn't see any new ones in there.
> >
> >http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/quotes/mine/project.html
> >
> >Didn't your deity have something to say about intentionally lieing
> >about other people?
> >
> >Ken
>
> Ya just gotta love when the evolutionists have nothing
> to respond with, except insults directed at the person
> who posted the information.
Information? Where? _Nobody_ saw any info in Royboy's post, not even
you.
John Harshman
> On 8 Nov 2006 09:14:08 -0800, while bungee jumping, "Dunc
> Harris" <dunc_...@hotmail.com> shouted thusly:
>
>
>
>>John Harshman wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Roy Jose Lorr wrote:
>>>
>>>[snip]
>>>
>>>There are two terms describing what you have done here: quote-mining and
>>>plagiarism. Neither is very flattering to you.
>>>
>>>(snip the bit about quote mining)
>>>
>>>Plagiarism is appropriating the work of someone else as your own. I'm
>>>sure you didn't assemble these quotes yourself -- again, that would take
>>>a bit more work than you seem capable of. I doubt, in fact, that you
>>>have read a single one of the cited works. Common decency demands that
>>>you at least credit the person who did the actual work of mining the
>>>quotes and assembling them out of context. A simple URL would have been
>>>sufficient.
>>
>>Actually, most of it seems to come from
>>
>>http://searchlight.iwarp.com/articles/evolution.html
>
>
> It's pretty pathetic when the response is to try to
> criticize him for plagiarism. <chuckle>
It's pretty pathetic when creationists don't see anything wrong with
quote mining and plagiarism. I always thought that lying was considered
wrong, even for Christians.
There's really nothing to respond to otherwise. There is no evidence or
argument in the post, just a list of people making (or appearing to
make) unsupported claims. Now if you would like to argue about the truth
or falsity of any of those claims, pick a few and we'll see. But I'm
suspecting now that your ability only extends to posting one-liners
followed by <chuckle>, and that we won't hear from you again.
> Bye now.
Don't let the news server hit you on the ass.
rupert....@gmail.com
Azaliah wrote:
> On 8 Nov 2006 09:32:24 -0800, while bungee jumping, "Ken Shaw"
> <ksha...@gmail.com> shouted thusly:
>
>
> >Roy Jose Lorr wrote:
> ><snip mined quotes>
> >I didn't see any new ones in there.
> >
> >http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/quotes/mine/project.html
> >
> >Didn't your deity have something to say about intentionally lieing
> >about other people?
> >
> >Ken
>
> Ya just gotta love when the evolutionists have nothing
> to respond with, except insults directed at the person
> who posted the information. Gee, that was really
> "scientific" of you. <chuckle>
No, an insult directed at the person looks like this:
Azaliah (ats-al-yaw'-hoo) "A sub-genus of flowering shrub making up
part of the genus Rhododendron"
Pointing out deliberate lies in a post, and reminding the poster that
he is not supposed to bear false witness is showing admirable
compassion for the state of his immortal soul.
>
> Bye now.
>
> --
>
> Azaliah (ats-al-yaw'-hoo) "Jah has reserved"
>
> <((>< <((>< <((><
>
> "Sanctify them through thy truth: thy word is truth."
> - John 17:17
> .
Your sig is too long,
rupert....@gmail.com
Ray Martinez wrote:
[snip]
> "Darwinism is a penalty from God for denying Him the
> credit and status of Creator" (Dr. Gene Scott, Ph.D. Stanford
> University, 2001).
This doesn't make any sense, Ray. If you already deny god the status &
credit stuff, why is Darwinism a penalty? What do you mean by
Darwinism, anyway? There haven't been any Darwinists for 50 years.
I suppose you could read this to mean that if you disallow supernatural
explanations of the diversity of life, you are punished by having to
accept the best available theory, which is the theory of evolution. But
the theory of evolution is so successful, I still don't see how you can
claim it's a penalty.
It's like expelling someone from school for truancy.
Augray
wrote in <1163015828....@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com> :
>
>Roy Jose Lorr wrote:
[snip]
>Let the below quote represent the others:
Isn't it ironic that it's a quote mine?
> "S. Lovtrup, professor of zoophysiology at Universityof Umea,
> Sweden: "I have already shown that the arguments advanced by
> the early champions [of Darwinian theory of natural
> selection] were not very compelling, and that there are now
> [1987] considerable numbers of empirical facts which do not
> fit with the theory. Hence, to all intents and purposes the
> theory has been falsified, so why has it not been abandoned?""
>
>Answer: Because "Darwinism is a penalty from God for denying Him the
>credit and status of Creator" (Dr. Gene Scott, Ph.D. Stanford
>University, 2001).
Yet in the same book, Løvtrup writes:
Indeed, the nature and the wealth of the corroborating evidence
are such that the theory on the reality of evolution turns out to
be one of the best substantiated theories in biology, perhaps in
the natural sciences. [Løvtrup 1987:7]
Ray, did it ever occur to you that there might be more than one theory
of evolution? For instance, at the end of his book, Løvtrup writes:
I propose that we adopt the two theories on the mechanism of
evolution advocated in this book because they resolve _all_ the
difficulties facing the micromutation theory in its several
disguises. [emphasis in original] [Løvtrup 1987:422]
Løvtrup, S. 1987. Darwinism: the refutation of a myth. London: Croom
Helm Ltd.
>Ray
Azaliah
"rupert....@gmail.com" <rupert....@gmail.com> shouted
thusly:
>Azaliah wrote:
>
>> On 8 Nov 2006 09:32:24 -0800, while bungee jumping, "Ken Shaw"
>> <ksha...@gmail.com> shouted thusly:
>>
>>
>> >Roy Jose Lorr wrote:
>> ><snip mined quotes>
>> >I didn't see any new ones in there.
>> >
>> >http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/quotes/mine/project.html
>> >
>> >Didn't your deity have something to say about intentionally lieing
>> >about other people?
>> >
>> >Ken
>>
>> Ya just gotta love when the evolutionists have nothing
>> to respond with, except insults directed at the person
>> who posted the information. Gee, that was really
>> "scientific" of you. <chuckle>
>
>No, an insult directed at the person looks like this:
>
>Azaliah (ats-al-yaw'-hoo) "A sub-genus of flowering shrub making up
>part of the genus Rhododendron"
I'm sure you think that was brilliant.
>Pointing out deliberate lies in a post, and reminding the poster that
>he is not supposed to bear false witness is showing admirable
>compassion for the state of his immortal soul.
Claiming they're lies, doesn't make them lies.
>Your sig is too long.
Four lines isn't too long, but thanks for showing
your immaturity. You further prove what we
already know about atheists. They aren't too
bright and they try to cover it up by accusing
believers of what they are and do.
Goodbye now.
Azaliah
"rupert....@gmail.com" <rupert....@gmail.com> shouted
thusly:
>Ray Martinez wrote:
>[snip]
>> "Darwinism is a penalty from God for denying Him the
>> credit and status of Creator" (Dr. Gene Scott, Ph.D. Stanford
>> University, 2001).
>
>This doesn't make any sense, Ray. If you already deny god the status &
>credit stuff, why is Darwinism a penalty?
It shows how low people must sink, to believe in it.
>What do you mean by
>Darwinism, anyway? There haven't been any Darwinists for 50 years.
You obviously haven't a clue.
>But the theory of evolution is so successful
Believing a lie isn't my idea of success.
Doc Smartass
news:8ZqdnZ6XtrZVZszY...@comcast.com:
> Subject: Roasting Evolution1
Monkeyboy, you can't roast evolution if you don't understand it.
You're not even qualified to have an opinion on it, you thumbless twit.
--
Doc Smartass
"Bullshit repeated to the limit of infinity asymptotically approaches
the odour of roses." -- Relf's Law
Dana Tweedy
"Ray Martinez" <pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1163015828....@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
snipping out of context quotations
>
> Let the below quote represent the others:
>
> "S. Lovtrup, professor of zoophysiology at Universityof Umea,
> Sweden: "I have already shown that the arguments advanced by
> the early champions [of Darwinian theory of natural
> selection] were not very compelling, and that there are now
> [1987] considerable numbers of empirical facts which do not
> fit with the theory. Hence, to all intents and purposes the
> theory has been falsified, so why has it not been abandoned?""
Ray, it's already been shown that this quote is out of context, which makes
it a lie of omission. Why are you supporting a fellow creationists lie,
rather than taking that person to task for being dishonest?
>
> Answer: Because "Darwinism is a penalty from God for denying Him the
> credit and status of Creator" (Dr. Gene Scott, Ph.D. Stanford
> University, 2001).
Ray, you already know this claim by Mr. Scott is false. You know that
people who do give God the "credit and status" of creator accept evolution,
based on the evidence. Therefore Mr. Scott's claim is refuted, and thus
is void.
Why do you continue to carry a dead man's dead idea?
DJT
>
> Ray
>
Augray
wrote in <8ZqdnZ6XtrZVZszY...@comcast.com> :
[snip]
>"[Neo-Darwinism is] effectively dead, despite its
>persistence as textbook orthodoxy." ("Is a New and
>General Theory of Evolution Emerging?" _Paleobiology_
>1980)
A closer reading reveals that Gould didn't necessarily think that
evolution was dead:
I well remember how the synthetic theory beguiled me with its
unifying power when I was a graduate student in the mid-1960's
Since then I have been watching it slowly unravel as a universal
description of evolution. The molecular assault came first,
followed quickly by renewed attention to unorthodox theories of
speciation and by challenges at the level of macroevolution
itself. I have been reluctant to admit it--since beguiling is
often forever--but if Mayr's characterization of the synthetic
theory is accurate, then that theory, as a general proposition,
is _effectively dead, despite its persistence as textbook
orthodoxy_. [my emphasis] [Gould 1980:120]
In other words, Gould only believes that neo-Darwinism is dead *if*
Mayr's characterization is an accurate description of it. And what was
Mayr's characterization? Gould quotes him earlier on the same page:
The proponents of the synthetic theory maintain that all
evolution is due to the accumulation of small genetic changes,
guided by natural selection, and that transspecific evolution is
nothing but an extrapolation and magnification of the events that
take place within populations and species. [Mayr 1963:586]
But neo-Darwinism, AKA the synthetic theory, is not evolution per se,
but rather a way to explain the *fact* of evolution. And as it turns
out, as is so often the case with quote mines of Gould, he was
questioning some of the theoretical details of evolution, but not its
reality. For instance, in the same paper he wrote that
...successful speciation is still a cumulative and sequential
process powered by selection through large numbers of
generations. It is, if you will, Darwinism a little faster.
I have no doubt that many species originate in this way; but it
now appears that many, perhaps most, do not.
[Gould 1980:122]
And he summarizes his ideas at the end by using a metaphor that he
names "Galton's polyhedron":
Under strict selectionism, the organism is a sphere. It exerts
little constraint upon the character of its potential change; it
can roll along all paths. Genetic variation is copious, small in
its increments, and available in all directions--the essence of
the term "random" as used to guarantee that variation serves as
raw material only and that selection controls the direction of
evolution.
By invoking Galton's polyhedron, I recommend no return to the
antiquated and anti-Darwinian view that mysterious "internal"
factors provide direction inherently, and that selection only
eliminates the unfit (orthogenesis, various forms of vitalism,
and finalism). Instead, the facets are constraints exerted by the
developmental integration of organisms themselves. Change cannot
occur in all directions, or with any increment; the organism is
not a metaphorical sphere. When the polyhedron tumbles, selection
may usually be the propelling force. [Gould 1980:129]
And lest there be any doubt, Gould wrote two years later that
At issue is not the general idea that natural selection can act
as a creative force; the basic argument, in principle, is a sound
one. [Gould 1982]
And
Darwin, at the centenary of his death, is more alive than ever.
[Gould 1982]
So while Gould may have believed that "[Neo-Darwinism is] effectively
dead", he had no doubts that evolution was alive and kicking.
REFERENCES
Gould, S. J. 1980. Is a new and general theory of evolution emerging?
Paleobiology 6(1):119-130.
Gould, S. J. 1982. Darwin and the Expansion of Evolutionary Theory.
Science 216:380-387.
Mayr, E. 1963. Animal Species and Evolution. Cambridge: Belknap Press
of Harvard University Press. [taken from Gould 1980]
[snip]
Tom McDonald
Ray is an idolitor. He puts Scott in God's place, and Scott's ideas and
words in the room of God's. I have yet to read anything coming from Ray
that resembles even the oddest view of the basics of Christianity.
However, I have yet to read anything coming from Ray that shows any
willingness, or even ability, to think critically about Scott.
It is not a matter of opinion. To the extent Ray claims to be a
Christian, he has put his soul in desperate peril. I pray for his
conversion.
Kermit
Correct. However, their *being lies does.
The first one, for instance, where Dr. Ruse was being interviewed by
Eugenie Scott, in 1993. The whole interview is long, but let's give the
minimal contents of the mined and heavily edited quote:
"Now I'm starting to feel -- I'm no more of a creationist now than I
ever was, and I'm no less of an evolutionist now that I ever was -- but
I'm inclined to think that we should move our debate now onto another
level, or move on. And instead of just sort of, just -- I mean I
realize that when one is dealing with people, say, at the school level,
or these sorts of things, certain sorts of arguments are appropriate.
But those of us who are academics, or for other reasons pulling back
and trying to think about these things, I think that we should
recognize, both historically and perhaps philosophically, certainly
that the science side has certain metaphysical assumptions built into
doing science, which -- it may not be a good thing to admit in a court
of law -- but I think that in honesty that we should recognize, and
that we should be thinking about some of these sorts of things.
Certainly, I think that philosophers like myself have been much more
sensitized to these things, over the last ten years, by trends and
winds and whatever the right metaphor is, in the philosophy of science.
That we've become aware, thanks to Marxists and to feminists,
criticisms -- the criticisms of historians and sociologists and others
-- that science is a much more idealistic, in the a priori sense,
enterprise, than one would have got from reading the logical
positivists, or even the great philosophers. The people like Popper and
Hempel and Nagel, of the 1950s and 1960s, which was when my generation
entered the field and started to grow up.
Certainly, historically, that if you look at, say, evolutionary theory,
and of course this was brought out I think rather nicely by the talk
just before me, it's certainly been the case that evolution has
functioned, if not as a religion as such, certainly with elements akin
to a secular religion. Those of us who teach philosophy of religion
always say there's no way of defining religion by a neat, necessary and
sufficient condition. The best that you can do is list a number of
characteristics, some of which all religions have, and none of which
any religion, whatever or however you sort of put it. And certainly,
there's no doubt about it, that in the past, and I think also in the
present, for many evolutionists, evolution has functioned as something
with elements which are, let us say, akin to being a secular religion."
>From http://www.arn.org/docs/orpages/or151/mr93tran.htm
Hmmm. Elements in common with some religions. Football has some
elements in common with religion, dontcha think? And music, for some
people. And gardening for others. Does that make all of these
activities religions, because they have elements in common with some
religions? If so, what is it that you are accusing ToE of, if the term
is so diluted in your mind as to be almost meaningless?
Here's what Roy posted:
"I'm no less of an evolutionist now than I ever was.... For many
evolutionists, evolution has
functioned as something with elements which are, let us say, akin to
being a secular religion."
Three paragraphs, compressed and edited to give a misleading impression
of a confession. This is dishonest. We know this is done, most of these
mined quotes are familiar to us. Your accusations that we insult Roy by
pointing out that dishonesty is not argumentation only reveals your own
cluelessness, or animosity toward honesty.
Let me quote you: "you really ...proved evolution"
>
>
> >Your sig is too long.
>
> Four lines isn't too long, but thanks for showing
> your immaturity. You further prove what we
> already know about atheists. They aren't too
> bright and they try to cover it up by accusing
> believers of what they are and do.
Why do you accuse us of being atheists? Do you know which of us are
atheist, and who isn't? This is typical of the poorly educated black
and white thinker, who cannot imagine anyone thinking differently than
he does.
Some of the regulars here are quite bright, of course. One feature of
mediocre intelligence, I've noticed, is that they can't recognize the
difference between average and truly bright people, unless they're
told. It's not a sin to not be especially bright. But it *is a sin to
lie, it *is a sin to hate others because they are smarter or work
harder than you, and it *is a sin to deny the handiwork of your creator
god because you prefer to think you're something special.
As for *explaining what "believers" do, we are only pegging certain
stereotypical creationists. You are not the first one to post multiple
insulting one-liners followed by LOL or some equivalent.
And Roy is not the first to offer unattributed quote mined cut and
paste jobs as his own work. It's quick work to spew multiple lies, and
easy, isn't it? But it's much harder to track the sources down, find
out the truth, and explain it to the deluded.
Do you still think the first quote Roy gave was a good one?
>
> Goodbye now.
>
> --
>
> Azaliah (ats-al-yaw'-hoo) "Jah has reserved"
>
> <((>< <((>< <((><
>
> "Sanctify them through thy truth: thy word is truth."
> - John 17:17
> .
Kermit of the Apes
I speak their language!
Kermit
Azaliah wrote:
> On 8 Nov 2006 15:58:29 -0800, while bungee jumping,
> "rupert....@gmail.com" <rupert....@gmail.com> shouted
> thusly:
>
>
> >Ray Martinez wrote:
> >[snip]
> >> "Darwinism is a penalty from God for denying Him the
> >> credit and status of Creator" (Dr. Gene Scott, Ph.D. Stanford
> >> University, 2001).
> >
> >This doesn't make any sense, Ray. If you already deny god the status &
> >credit stuff, why is Darwinism a penalty?
>
> It shows how low people must sink, to believe in it.
Unless, of course, it's correct. The evidence supports it, and there is
no other testable model that fits. So...
Are you wrong about what the bible means?
Is God a trickster god? (Fossils - God's little jokes.)
Does God not exist in anything like the form that you believe?
One of these must be true.
>
>
> >What do you mean by
> >Darwinism, anyway? There haven't been any Darwinists for 50 years.
>
> You obviously haven't a clue.
Ah! They must be the guys hanging out with the Galileoists and the
Newtonians at the coffeeshop.
>
>
> >But the theory of evolution is so successful
>
> Believing a lie isn't my idea of success.
Oops. Is this an admission that you don't believe things because of
their fit with reality? You have (pick one):
1. religious
2. political
3. emotional
reasons for claiming that evolutionary science is wrong. Even though it
fits the facts, is supported by multiple fields of science, and
continuously makes successful predictions.
>
> --
>
> Azaliah (ats-al-yaw'-hoo) "Jah has reserved"
>
> <((>< <((>< <((><
>
> "Sanctify them through thy truth: thy word is truth."
> - John 17:17
> .
Kermit
Nashton
Actually, no. What they prove is the fact that the ToE, as many have
been saying all along, has taken on religious proportions, with people
such as yourself, blinded by faith, try to discredit skeptics by
attempting to humiliate them.
--
Nicolas
Christopher A. Lee
A liar as well as an idiot.
Greg G.
Nashton wrote:
...
>
> Actually, no. What they prove is the fact that the ToE, as many have
> been saying all along, has taken on religious proportions, with people
> such as yourself, blinded by faith, try to discredit skeptics by
> attempting to humiliate them.
If quotemining proves anything, I can prove that the god of the Bible
doesn't exist:
... There is no god... Deuteronomy 32:39 NIV
... there is no God... 2 Samuel 7:22 NIV
... there is no God... 1 Kings 8:23 NIV
... there is no God... 2 Kings 1:3 NKJV
... there is no God... 2 Kings 1:6 NIV
... there is no God... 2 Kings 1:16 NIV
... there is no God... 2 Kings 5:15 NIV
... there is no God... 1 Chronicles 17:20 NIV
... there is no God... 2 Chronicles 6:14 NIV
... There is no God. Psalms 10:4 NASB
... There is no God... Psalms 14:1 NIV
... There is no God... Psalms 53:1 NIV
... there is no God. Isaiah 44:6 NIV
... there is no God... Isaiah 44:8 KJV
... there is no God.., Isaiah 45:5 NIV
... there is no God. Isaiah 45:14 KJV
... there is no God... Isaiah 45:21 KJV
... there is no God... 1 Corinthians 8:4 NIV
QED
--
Greg G.
Last month, I turned 50, and I guarantee y'all I can do just about
everything I did when I was 47.
Nashton
I have noticed the content-free nature of your posts.
You ought to consider reading your screeds before sending them off to
net-land.
Oh and, thanks for helping prove my point.
--
Nicola
Azaliah
Nashton <nan...@nb.ca> shouted thusly:
>> And why bother to post these mined quotes at all? They prove nothing
>> except the systematic dishonesty of creationists.
>
>Actually, no. What they prove is the fact that the ToE, as many have
>been saying all along, has taken on religious proportions, with people
>such as yourself, blinded by faith, try to discredit skeptics by
>attempting to humiliate them.
Amen!
Nashton
> Roy Jose Lorr wrote:
>
>
> There are two terms describing what you have done here: quote-mining and
> plagiarism. Neither is very flattering to you.
>
> assembling them in ways that seem to support your position, though in
> context they do no such thing. Now, a few of your quotes are in conext.
> But even if they all were in context, they would be nothing more than
> opinions, not arguments. If you want to back up any of the claims you
> (apparently) endorse here, that would take a bit more work than cutting
> and pasting.
>
> Plagiarism is appropriating the work of someone else as your own. I'm
> sure you didn't assemble these quotes yourself -- again, that would take
> a bit more work than you seem capable of. I doubt, in fact, that you
> have read a single one of the cited works. Common decency demands that
> you at least credit the person who did the actual work of mining the
> quotes and assembling them out of context. A simple URL would have been
> sufficient.
>
Could you please provide the context of the quotes mentioned in the OP's
post, how they were distorted via quote-mining, and what the respective
authors had in mind when they were put on record saying what they did.
Thanks for your attention on the matter.
--
Nicola
Nashton
You are a very dishonest individual, judging by this latest post.
The quotes provided by the OP were *whole*, not truncated, half
sentences, such as in your sorry excuse of a rebuttal.
But thanks for playing.
--
Nicola
Nashton
> On 8 Nov 2006 09:14:08 -0800, while bungee jumping, "Dunc
> Harris" <dunc_...@hotmail.com> shouted thusly:
>
>
>>
>>> Roy Jose Lorr wrote:
>>>
>>> [snip]
>>>
>>> There are two terms describing what you have done here: quote-mining and
>>> plagiarism. Neither is very flattering to you.
>>>
>>>
>>> sure you didn't assemble these quotes yourself -- again, that would take
>>> a bit more work than you seem capable of. I doubt, in fact, that you
>>> have read a single one of the cited works. Common decency demands that
>>> you at least credit the person who did the actual work of mining the
>>> quotes and assembling them out of context. A simple URL would have been
>>> sufficient.
>>
>> http://searchlight.iwarp.com/articles/evolution.html
>
> It's pretty pathetic when the response is to try to
> criticize him for plagiarism. <chuckle>
>
>
Actually, most of the responses in this ng from the evo-cheerleaders are
as pathetic as pathetic gets.
--
Nicola
bullpup
> On Thu, 09 Nov 2006 11:02:55 GMT, while bungee jumping,
> Nashton <nan...@nb.ca> shouted thusly:
>
>
> >> And why bother to post these mined quotes at all? They prove nothing
> >> except the systematic dishonesty of creationists.
> >
> >Actually, no. What they prove is the fact that the ToE, as many have
> >been saying all along, has taken on religious proportions, with people
> >such as yourself, blinded by faith, try to discredit skeptics by
> >attempting to humiliate them.
>
> Amen!
>
So, you advocate dishonesty and misrepresentation in the name of God?
That's pretty ironic, considering your sig.
> --
>
> Azaliah (ats-al-yaw'-hoo) "Jah has reserved"
>
> <((>< <((>< <((><
>
> "Sanctify them through thy truth: thy word is truth."
> - John 17:17
> .
"Truth? You can't handle the truth."
Boikat
--
<42><
DJT
Nashton wrote:
snip
>
> You are a very dishonest individual, judging by this latest post.
Actually, Nikky, he's parodying the dishonest individual who started
the thread.
> The quotes provided by the OP were *whole*, not truncated, half
> sentences, such as in your sorry excuse of a rebuttal.
The quotes provided were trunicated, and taken out of context. They,
in large part, (omitting the odd quote from a known Creationist) don't
represent the views of the individual quoted.
Quoting out of context is a lie of omission, and is inherently
dishonest.
>
> But thanks for playing.
Thanks for losing, Nikky.
DJT
Richard Forrest
Actually, it doesn't take much effort on my part to make creationists
humiliate themselves.
They do most of the work by such antics as resorting to empty invective
rather offering rational argument, lying, denying the existence of
evidence, dishonestly quoting evolutionary scientists out of context
and repeating arguments so facile that even some creationist
organisations try to distance themselves from them.
One common accusation is that "evolutionism" is some sort of religious
faith, an accusation which is laughable to anyone who has had any
experience of science and of the scientists working in the field. The
idea that by repeating a dishonest statement you either add weight to
your argument, or in some magical way make the statement true is rather
pathetic.
One of my reasons to post on this forum is to expose the intellectual
dishonesty of creationism. So keep up the good work.
RF
>
> --
>
> Nicolas
Friar Broccoli
Another idiot here is "Christopher A. Lee" who thinks he can
convince people to change their views by calling them
liars and idiots.
DJT
Nashton wrote:
snip
>
> Could you please provide the context of the quotes mentioned in the OP's
> post, how they were distorted via quote-mining, and what the respective
> authors had in mind when they were put on record saying what they did.
>
> Thanks for your attention on the matter.
>
The vast majority of the out of context quotations, and the full
context can be found here:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/quotes/mine/contents.html
DJT
bullpup
"Nashton" <nan...@nb.ca> wrote in message
news:q3F4h.16658$cz.2...@ursa-nb00s0.nbnet.nb.ca...
As opposed to your vacuous cretinous cheerleading?
Boikat
Christopher A. Lee
wrote:
No, liar - the brainwashed moron won't ever change his views, he is
too far gone for that.
However he is still a liar and an idiot: an idiot because he is an
in-your-face creationist who hasn't the sense to keep it to himself,
and a liar because he calls the understanding of reality religious and
those who do "blinded by faith".
But then you knew that anyway and were being deliberately nasty,
Richard Forrest
They were?
How about this one:
"Evolutionism is a fairy tale for grown-ups. This theory has helped
nothing in the progress of science. It is useless."
Attributed to "Bounoure past Director of Research at the National
Center
of Scientific Research, France"
Here is the text of a letter from the The National Center for
Scientific Research in France regarding this particular quotation:
"The new director general of the CNRS [i.e., the National Center for
Scientific Research in France], Mr. Guy Aubert, has given me your
letter of December 6, 1994, in which you requested several points of
information concerning the quotations by French scientists, concerning
the theory of evolution.
Here is the information I was able to gather:
The beginning of the quotation, "Evolution is a fairy tale for adults"
is not from Bounoure but from Jean Rostand, a much more famous French
biologist (he was a member of the Academy of Sciences of the French
Academy). The precise quotation is as follows: "Transformism is a fairy
tale for adults." (Age Nouveau, [a French periodical] February 1959, p.
12). But Rostand has also written that "Transformism may be considered
as accepted, and no scientist, no philosopher, no longer discusses
[questions - ED.] the fact of evolution." (L'Evolution des Especes
[i.e., The Evolution of the Species], Hachette, p. 190). Jean Rostand
was ... an atheist.
The [end] of the quotation of Professor Bounoure to which you allude is
taken from his book, Determinism and Finality, edited by Flammarion,
1957, p. 79. The precise quotation is the following: "That, by this,
evolutionism would appear as a theory without value, is confirmed also
pragmatically. A theory must not be required to be true, said Mr. H.
Poincare, more or less, it must be required to be useable. Indeed, none
of the progress made in biology depends even slightly on a theory, the
principles of which [i.e., of how evolution occurs -- ED.] are
nevertheless filling every year volumes of books, periodicals, and
congresses with their discussions and their disagreements."
So
1) The quotation is wrongly attributed.
2) The supposed quotation is actually the work of two different
authors.
Do you consider this to be honest?
Or do you think that dishonesty is acceptable if you are a creationist?
I'm sure that if you take the time to find the original sources of the
quotations - which is not easy, as none of them is given a good
reference - you will find that none of them actually support your case
other than the ones from creationists which have been included in the
pretence that they are from evolutionary scientists.
So they are disingenuous to say the least and where, as in the case I
refer to above, a deliberate falsehood. The only conclusion I can reach
is that the creationist who assembled this "quotation" in the first
place was a liar.
Tell you what:
Demonstrate to us by reference to the original material that *any* of
the quotations by evolutionary scientists presented in this post are an
honest representation of the views of those scientists and I will offer
you a sincere apology.
Until then, the evidence shows that creationists are, if not liars
themselves, informed by liars.
RF
Augray
<H0F4h.16656$cz.2...@ursa-nb00s0.nbnet.nb.ca> :
No, they weren't. For an example, see
news:1k54l2lm6gspo13ot...@4ax.com
Lee Oswald Ving
news:ge66l2p1gjo9649oi...@4ax.com:
> On Thu, 09 Nov 2006 11:02:55 GMT, while bungee jumping,
> Nashton <nan...@nb.ca> shouted thusly:
>
>
>>> And why bother to post these mined quotes at all? They prove nothing
>>> except the systematic dishonesty of creationists.
>>
>>Actually, no. What they prove is the fact that the ToE, as many have
>>been saying all along, has taken on religious proportions, with people
>>such as yourself, blinded by faith, try to discredit skeptics by
>>attempting to humiliate them.
>
> Amen!
So...Creationists lying about science proves that *science* has honesty
issues.
You two are very special. Drop a note when you have the registry set up,
will you?
chibiabos
<nan...@nb.ca> wrote:
And it's so very fucking easy.
-chib
--
Member of S.M.A.S.H.
Sarcastic Middle-aged Atheists with a Sense of Humor
er...@swva.net
Quote-mining is quote-mining, the feeble refuge of scalawags, however
you try to gussy it up.
>
> But thanks for playing.
You should consider playing sometime.
>
> --
>
> Nicola
Eric Root
Ghod
> Actually, most of the responses in this ng from the evo-cheerleaders
are
> as pathetic as pathetic gets.
I guess we'll have to take your word for it, you're so obviously
better versed on pathos.
Friar Broccoli
So people who don't agree with you are liars?
>
> But then you knew that anyway and were being deliberately nasty,
No, I am trying to prevent counterproductive / pointless nastiness
DJT
Ray Martinez wrote:
> Dana Tweedy wrote:
> > "Ray Martinez" <pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > news:1163015828....@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> > snipping out of context quotations
> >
> > >
> > > Let the below quote represent the others:
> > >
> > > "S. Lovtrup, professor of zoophysiology at Universityof Umea,
> > > Sweden: "I have already shown that the arguments advanced by
> > > the early champions [of Darwinian theory of natural
> > > selection] were not very compelling, and that there are now
> > > [1987] considerable numbers of empirical facts which do not
> > > fit with the theory. Hence, to all intents and purposes the
> > > theory has been falsified, so why has it not been abandoned?""
> >
> > Ray, it's already been shown that this quote is out of context, which makes
> > it a lie of omission. Why are you supporting a fellow creationists lie,
> > rather than taking that person to task for being dishonest?
> >
>
> Where did I agree, Dana ?
When you said:
"Let the below quote represent the others:"
This appears to be your approval. I don't see you saying "This is out
of context, and it's dishonest".
>
> Since you are a Darwinist misrepresenting,
No, I'm a Christian pointing out your hypocrisy.
>this tells us that you are
> angry and cannot refute - thats why you misrepesent.
Ray, I'm not "angry" or "misrepresenting". You accepted this list of
out of context quotations, and tried to add your own spin. I did not
misrepresent anything.
>
>
> > >
> > > Answer: Because "Darwinism is a penalty from God for denying Him the
> > > credit and status of Creator" (Dr. Gene Scott, Ph.D. Stanford
> > > University, 2001).
> >
> > Ray, you already know this claim by Mr. Scott is false. You know that
> > people who do give God the "credit and status" of creator accept evolution,
> > based on the evidence. Therefore Mr. Scott's claim is refuted, and thus
> > is void.
> >
>
> Show me Dana where I disageed with my Pastor ?
I don't recall saying that you disagreed with Mr. Scott. But by now
you obviously know that his statement is false. You are quite aware
that there are people who do give God credit for creation, and do
accept the evidence for evolution. Therefore you must know that Gene
Scott's claim is wrong.
>
> I am Dr. Scott's bulldog.
Lapdog, more like it....
>
> If you fail to show the Group where "I already know this claim is
> false" you are a proven liar - standard stuff for a Darwinist.
Ray, I have never lied about anyone here. No one has ever 'proven' me
to be a liar. You, on the other hand have been caught in several
fibs. You know the claim is false, because you have been exposed to
many people who openly refute your claim.
>
> You are very angry phrasing false assertions caused by the invulnerable
> fact produced by Dr. Scott.
Ray, again, you fail to understand your correspondent. I'm not
"angry", and my statements are not false. Mr. Scott's claim is not
"invulnerable" because, as I've already pointed out, its based on a
false presumption, ie that a person cannot give God credit as creator,
and accept the evidence that supports evolution. You know this, yet
you keep repeating what you know to be false.
>
> Disagreeing with Dr. Scott means you are under the penalty.
That's just a circular claim. I disagree with Mr. Scott because his
claim is objectively false.
> All you
> have to do is agree with Dr. Scott and he is refuted.
That does not make any sense, Ray. Why should I agree with something
false, to refute it, when the evidence refutes it much better?
>
> The penalty is supported by the fact that the fossil record shows no
> signs of intermediacy,
That too is a falsehood, and you know it. KNM WT 15000 is just one
such fossil that shows "intermediacy". H.erectus as a species refutes
that claim. So does H. habilis. You refuse to address the evidence,
because you obviously know that you can't refute the evidence.
> yet Darwinism is held true (penalty tells us
> why).
Whatever you mean by "Darwinism", the theory of evolution is held true,
due to the massive amount of evidence, including many transitional
fossils, (KNM WT 15000 for example). Either deal with that evidence,
or admit you are speaking falsely.
>
>
> > Why do you continue to carry a dead man's dead idea?
>
> Why do you continue to believe the assertions of dead atheists like
> Darwin, Mayr, Dobzhansky and others ?
Neither Darwin, or Dobzhansky were atheists. Mayr was, but I don't
accept the "assertions" of any of these men. I accept the evidence
that they presented.
>
> The point is that you are enraged and understand exactly what Dr. Scott
> is saying and have no idea how to refute except make knowingly false
> statements in behalf of your opponents.
Again, Ray, you are wrong about me. I'm not "enraged". My
statements are quite true, and it's you who is making knowingly false
statements. You claim Darwin was an atheist, and that there are "no
signs of transition" when the evidence refutes both those statements.
You assert that "Darwinism" is a penalty from God for rejecting God's
role as creator, yet you know that people who accept God as creator
also accept evolution.
>
> Why do Darwinists do this ?
Do you mean tell the truth? Because it's the right thing to do.
>
> It is a compliment caused by the inability to refute - thats why they
> do it.
Ray, it's you who have been totally unable to refute the physical
evidence of evolution, and you who is knowingly spreading falsehoods.
You are accusing me of doing exactly what you are doing yourself. The
term for this is "projection".
So, the question remains. Why are you holding onto a dead man's dead
claim?
DJT
Stile4aly
DJT wrote:
> Ray Martinez wrote:
<snip>
> > Disagreeing with Dr. Scott means you are under the penalty.
>
> That's just a circular claim. I disagree with Mr. Scott because his
> claim is objectively false.
Actually, Dana... I read this sentence from Ray and thought it was very
telling. Ray has previously said that accepting evolution makes one
eligible to receive the penalty, or that rejecting the Bible makes one
eligible to receive the penalty. Ray now seems to be saying that
disagreeing with Scott makes one eligible to receive the penalty.
Ray is always talking about Romans, but I don't think he's ever thought
about how it might apply to him.
Ray has traded the glory of an incorruptible God for a corruptable man
(Gene Scott), and as such he is worshipping the creature rather than
the creator.
JessHC
Azaliah wrote:
> On 8 Nov 2006 09:32:24 -0800, while bungee jumping, "Ken Shaw"
> <ksha...@gmail.com> shouted thusly:
>
>
> >Roy Jose Lorr wrote:
> ><snip mined quotes>
> >I didn't see any new ones in there.
> >
> >http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/quotes/mine/project.html
> >
> >Didn't your deity have something to say about intentionally lieing
> >about other people?
> >
> >Ken
>
> Ya just gotta love when the evolutionists have nothing
> to respond with, except insults directed at the person
> who posted the information. Gee, that was really
> "scientific" of you. <chuckle>
"Nothing to respond with"? How much more is required than to point out
Roy's lying, quote mining, and plagerizing, all tat the same time?
JessHC
Azaliah wrote:
> On 8 Nov 2006 09:14:08 -0800, while bungee jumping, "Dunc
> Harris" <dunc_...@hotmail.com> shouted thusly:
>
>
> >John Harshman wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> [snip]
> >>
> >> There are two terms describing what you have done here: quote-mining and
> >> plagiarism. Neither is very flattering to you.
> >>
> >> (snip the bit about quote mining)
> >>
> >> Plagiarism is appropriating the work of someone else as your own. I'm
> >> sure you didn't assemble these quotes yourself -- again, that would take
> >> a bit more work than you seem capable of. I doubt, in fact, that you
> >> have read a single one of the cited works. Common decency demands that
> >> you at least credit the person who did the actual work of mining the
> >> quotes and assembling them out of context. A simple URL would have been
> >> sufficient.
> >
> >Actually, most of it seems to come from
> >
> >http://searchlight.iwarp.com/articles/evolution.html
>
> It's pretty pathetic when the response is to try to
> criticize him for plagiarism. <chuckle>
Apparently you missed all the other criticisms regarding, say, his
lying. Chuckle.
JessHC
Azaliah wrote:
> On 8 Nov 2006 15:51:38 -0800, while bungee jumping,
> "rupert....@gmail.com" <rupert....@gmail.com> shouted
> thusly:
>
>
> >Azaliah wrote:
> >
> >> On 8 Nov 2006 09:32:24 -0800, while bungee jumping, "Ken Shaw"
> >> <ksha...@gmail.com> shouted thusly:
> >>
> >>
> >> ><snip mined quotes>
> >> >I didn't see any new ones in there.
> >> >
> >> >http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/quotes/mine/project.html
> >> >
> >> >Didn't your deity have something to say about intentionally lieing
> >> >about other people?
> >> >
> >> >Ken
> >>
> >> Ya just gotta love when the evolutionists have nothing
> >> to respond with, except insults directed at the person
> >> who posted the information. Gee, that was really
> >> "scientific" of you. <chuckle>
> >
> >
> >Azaliah (ats-al-yaw'-hoo) "A sub-genus of flowering shrub making up
> >part of the genus Rhododendron"
>
> I'm sure you think that was brilliant.
>
>
> >Pointing out deliberate lies in a post, and reminding the poster that
> >he is not supposed to bear false witness is showing admirable
> >compassion for the state of his immortal soul.
>
> Claiming they're lies, doesn't make them lies.
True, but it's handy that they happen to be lies.
> >Your sig is too long.
>
> Four lines isn't too long, but thanks for showing
> your immaturity. You further prove what we
> already know about atheists. They aren't too
> bright and they try to cover it up by accusing
> believers of what they are and do.
>
> Goodbye now.
So when you said that the first time, you were lying?
JessHC
Azaliah wrote:
> On 8 Nov 2006 15:58:29 -0800, while bungee jumping,
> "rupert....@gmail.com" <rupert....@gmail.com> shouted
> thusly:
>
>
> >Ray Martinez wrote:
> >[snip]
> >> "Darwinism is a penalty from God for denying Him the
> >> credit and status of Creator" (Dr. Gene Scott, Ph.D. Stanford
> >> University, 2001).
> >
> >credit stuff, why is Darwinism a penalty?
>
> It shows how low people must sink, to believe in it.
>
>
> >What do you mean by
> >Darwinism, anyway? There haven't been any Darwinists for 50 years.
>
> You obviously haven't a clue.
>
>
> >But the theory of evolution is so successful
>
> Believing a lie isn't my idea of success.
Present your objective, verifiable evidence that evolution is a "lie."
JessHC
Azaliah wrote:
> On Thu, 09 Nov 2006 11:02:55 GMT, while bungee jumping,
> Nashton <nan...@nb.ca> shouted thusly:
>
>
> >> except the systematic dishonesty of creationists.
> >
> >been saying all along, has taken on religious proportions, with people
> >such as yourself, blinded by faith, try to discredit skeptics by
> >attempting to humiliate them.
>
Still here? Huh.
Tiny Bulcher
Ray Martinez wrote:
> Dana, I am sorry you are mad. I apologize for attacking your faith in
> Darwinism. Your words and phrases tell me that you are unstable - I
> won't antagonize you anymore, but my paper will be released sooner than
> later and you will have to deal with Dr. Scott and myself.
I have to ask ... what do you expect to happen when your 'paper'
appears?
--
Tiny
DJT
Ray Martinez wrote:
snipping points Ray ignored
>
> Dana, I am sorry you are mad.
I'm not 'mad', Ray. I've already pointed this out to you. Is there
some kind of reason that you always assume that when someone
contradicts you, that they are 'mad'?
>I apologize for attacking your faith in
> Darwinism.
I don't have any "faith in Darwinism". I accept the evidence of
evolution. I have faith in God.
> Your words and phrases tell me that you are unstable
Ray, this is probably the most striking instance of projection I've
seen from you yet.
>- I
> won't antagonize you anymore,
You haven't "antagonized" me at all. On the contrary, I seem to
antagonize you, by pointing out what you can't deal with.
> but my paper will be released sooner than
> later and you will have to deal with Dr. Scott and myself.
Ray, I have no fear of you, or your "paper" should it ever be released.
The fact is that Mr. Scott was wrong, and you know this. A person
can accept the evidence of evolution, and still believe in God, and
give him credit for creation.
> I suggest in
> the meantime that you develop a way to deal with Dr. Scott.
I alreadly "deal with" Mr. Scott by recognizing that he was wrong.
> Calling his
> millionaire scholarly wife a porn star tells us that she is the exact
> opposite:
Ray, as I've already demonstrated, Ms. Scott's former carreer was a
porn star, whether you like it or not. There is no evidence she is
"scholarly", and if she's a millionare, then that's good for her. It
still doesn't mean she is right.
As I've stated before, I'm not hung up over Barbi Bridges former
carreer, and I only mentioned it to poke a hole in your inflated
opinion.
> a millionaire scholar, and that you cannot refute anything -
As I've pointed out as well, I've refuted anything and everything you
have claimed, so "cannot refute" is not an issue.
> thats why you and atheist Wikipedia slander her.
Telling the truth is not slander. It's amazing how many Creationists
seem to not understand that point. The fact is your "Pastor" used to
pose for nude photos. I've shown you the photos, and Wikipedia (which
is not "atheist") was only one of the sources I have cited. I notice
you have never produced a single bit of evidence that contradicts my
statement.
> It also shows that you
> are jealous and lashing out
What in the world would I have to be jealous about? Telling you the
truth is not "lashing out".
>- I am sorry you are frustrated - please
> accept my apology.
Ray, you don't need to offer a phony apology. You know as well as I
do that I'm not fustrated, and I don't need any kind of apology. You
have attempted this rhetorical device before, and it failed then. Why
do you think it will work now?
> Since you are a Darwinist this is expected.
Ray, I'm not a "Darwinist" in the sense of a religious belief. I
accept the theory of evolution based on the evidence. Employing ad
hominem in this case doesn't support your claims.
> You know
> that Dr. Scott was the brightest Bible scholar of all time and you know
> he has refuted your theory.
I know that you have made that claim, but have never supported it. I
also know that a religious opinion cannot refute a scientific theory.
Therefore I can't accept your assertions. By contrast, I've presented
evidence that refute your, and Mr. Scott's claims.
>This is why you invent slander -
Again, telling the truth is not slander. Nothing I've stated has been
an "invention". You know this, and persisit in repeating a known
falsehood.
> the
> greatest compliment to the scholarship and evidence of Dr. Scott.
Actually, the "greatest compliment" to the scholarship and 'evidence'
of Mr. Scott would be a collection of evidence that supports Mr.
Scott's claims. Your inability to support him, and your constant use
of falsehoods do Mr. Scott no credit at all.
>
> Dr. Scott: Darwinism is a penalty from God for denying Him the credit
> and status of Creator.
Again, that was his claim, but it's demonstratably false. "Darwinism"
is simply an attempt to equivocate a scientific theory with a religious
belief. Evolution is a conclusion based on the evidence. It's the
same should it be observed by a "Darwinist" or anyone else.
>
> The most basic claim of Darwinism denies God credit as Creator
As I've shown you before many times, The "most basic claim" of
evolutionary theory is that populations change over time. Evolution
does not deny God credit as Creator, as it doesn't even address the
issue of "creator". If one chooses to believe, one can easily accept
that God used evolution as his way of creation.
>- yet
> you deny
I point out that your claim is wrong. Denial of God is not, and has
never been a "basic claim" of "Darwinism".
> = admitted brazen liar,
Ray, when you say something that is obviously false, it's not a lie to
deny it.
> or uneducated ignoramus, or confused
> and unstable person.
You seem to have fogotten the most likely option. That you are wrong.
I'm not unstable, confused, or ignorant, and you are just throwing
names, rather than attempting to show where I am wrong. That,
according to you, means that you can't refute.
>
> Atheists do not embrace Darwin for any other reason.
As I've told you numerous times, I'm not an atheist. I believe in
God. I believe he used evolution as his means of creation. I
accept the theory of evolution based on the evidence, and the evidence
alone.
>
> This is the whole point of atheist-evolution: God does not exist:
> material forces are "God".
Again, Ray, what atheists believe, or don't believe is irrelevant to
me. I'm not an atheist. The whole point of evolution is to explain
the observations. Science does not claim that God does not exist. It
can't.
>
> I am very happy to make you lie on a daily basis about the central
> claim of Darwinism,
Yet I've never lied. You, on the other hand have lied about me quite
consistently. If you truly think I "lie on a daily basis" you are
either delusional, or projecting.
> it shows the world what Darwinism is all about, but
> I see how personally you take everything, the hate in your posts.
Ray, I don't take your posts personally, and I don't "hate". I feel
sorry for you, and I feel that you are missing the message of
Christianity. You are projecting your own hatred of me, because I
constantly prove you wrong.
> I am
> sorry you have bought the lies of atheist-Darwinism.
Again, please stop the phony "apology". You know I'm not atheist, and
you know that everything I say is the truth. Pretending that
evolution is "lies" is only fooling yourself.
> Please take the
> time between now and when my paper is released to post facts with
> source cites for your views,
Ray, I've always provided sources for my claims, when asked. If you
ever release your "paper" I'm sure it will be full of errors, just like
your regular posts.
> otherwise when my work is released the
> same frustration will re-surface.
Once more, you seem to be projecting your own fustration at being
unable to support any of your claims.
It must be very galling to you that you can't come up with a rational
reply, and must resort to this rather transparent posturing.
DJT
DJT
I'm afraid he really thinks it will have an impact on science, and on
people's perceptions. I'm concerned of what will happen to Ray when
it lands with a thud, should it ever actually appear. His ego is going
to take one heck of a hit....
DJT
rupert....@gmail.com
Azaliah wrote:
> On 8 Nov 2006 15:58:29 -0800, while bungee jumping,
> "rupert....@gmail.com" <rupert....@gmail.com> shouted
> thusly:
>
>
> >Ray Martinez wrote:
> >[snip]
> >> University, 2001).
> >
> >This doesn't make any sense, Ray. If you already deny god the status &
> >credit stuff, why is Darwinism a penalty?
>
> It shows how low people must sink, to believe in it.
Why is it a penalty? If you already don't think god is the creator, how
are you adversely impacted by not thinking he's directly responsible
for the diversity of life on Earth?
It also ignores the existence of people who accept evolution, but still
believe that god created the universe.
>
>
> >What do you mean by
> >Darwinism, anyway? There haven't been any Darwinists for 50 years.
>
> You obviously haven't a clue.
I haven't a clue what you mean by Darwinism. By any sensible
definition, Darwinism ended when the modern synthesis became
mainstream.
>
>
> >But the theory of evolution is so successful
>
> Believing a lie isn't my idea of success.
If it's a lie, why does it work? Why was Tiktaalik exactly where the
theory of evolution predicted it would be?
rupert....@gmail.com
Doc Smartass wrote:
> Roy Jose Lorr <Ken...@comcast.net> wrote in
> news:8ZqdnZ6XtrZVZszY...@comcast.com:
>
> > Subject: Roasting Evolution1
>
> Monkeyboy, you can't roast evolution if you don't understand it.
>
> You're not even qualified to have an opinion on it, you thumbless twit.
Monkeys have thumbs.
>
> --
> Doc Smartass
>
> "Bullshit repeated to the limit of infinity asymptotically approaches
> the odour of roses." -- Relf's Law
rupert....@gmail.com
Azaliah wrote:
> On 8 Nov 2006 15:51:38 -0800, while bungee jumping,
> "rupert....@gmail.com" <rupert....@gmail.com>
[snip]
> >Pointing out deliberate lies in a post, and reminding the poster that
> >he is not supposed to bear false witness is showing admirable
> >compassion for the state of his immortal soul.
>
> Claiming they're lies, doesn't make them lies.
Agreed. Not being true and told with intent to deceive makes them lies.
> >Your sig is too long.
>
> Four lines isn't too long, but thanks for showing
> your immaturity. You further prove what we
> already know about atheists. They aren't too
> bright and they try to cover it up by accusing
> believers of what they are and do.
>
> Goodbye now.
>
> --
>
> 1. Azaliah (ats-al-yaw'-hoo) "Jah has reserved"
> 2.
> 3. <((>< <((>< <((><
> 4.
> 5. "Sanctify them through thy truth: thy word is truth."
> 6. - John 17:17
This episode of talk.origins brought to you by the numbers 4 and 6.
> .
rupert....@gmail.com
Nashton wrote:
> Richard Forrest wrote:
> > Azaliah wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>> Roy Jose Lorr wrote:
> >>> <snip quote mining>
> >>>
> >>> Oh look, there's no argument left. Thanks for playing.
> >> Yea, you really took him to task and proved evolution!
> >
> > Why not look up the refutations of all these mined quotes which are
> > posted on talk.origins?
> >
> > except the systematic dishonesty of creationists.
> >
> >
> >> <chuckle>
> >>
> >> Bye now.
> >>
> >> --
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> "Sanctify them through thy truth: thy word is truth."
> >> .
> >
>
> been saying all along, has taken on religious proportions, with people
> such as yourself, blinded by faith, try to discredit skeptics by
> attempting to humiliate them.
You quote a scientist out of context to try and create an argument from
authority, and that proves the theory of evolution has taken on
religious proportions?
You discredit yourself with your incessant dishonesty. All we do is
point it out. And doesn't your faith require humility? Why would you
complain if we help you?
>
> --
>
> Nicolas
rupert....@gmail.com
Nashton wrote:
> John Harshman wrote:
> > Roy Jose Lorr wrote:
> >
> >
> > There are two terms describing what you have done here: quote-mining and
> > plagiarism. Neither is very flattering to you.
> >
> > assembling them in ways that seem to support your position, though in
> > context they do no such thing. Now, a few of your quotes are in conext.
> > But even if they all were in context, they would be nothing more than
> > opinions, not arguments. If you want to back up any of the claims you
> > (apparently) endorse here, that would take a bit more work than cutting
> > and pasting.
> >
> > Plagiarism is appropriating the work of someone else as your own. I'm
> > sure you didn't assemble these quotes yourself -- again, that would take
> > a bit more work than you seem capable of. I doubt, in fact, that you
> > have read a single one of the cited works. Common decency demands that
> > you at least credit the person who did the actual work of mining the
> > quotes and assembling them out of context. A simple URL would have been
> > sufficient.
> >
>
> post, how they were distorted via quote-mining, and what the respective
> authors had in mind when they were put on record saying what they did.
>
Already done upthread:
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/22144dd27b62e8c1
> Thanks for your attention on the matter.
>
> --
>
> Nicola
rupert....@gmail.com
Ray Martinez wrote:
> Darwinism. Your words and phrases tell me that you are unstable - I
> won't antagonize you anymore, but my paper will be released sooner than
> later and you will have to deal with Dr. Scott and myself.
Dr. Scott is dead. In which of the afterlife destinations you believe
in do you think that Dana will have to deal with him?
> I suggest in
> the meantime that you develop a way to deal with Dr. Scott. Calling his
> millionaire scholarly wife a porn star tells us that she is the exact
> opposite: a millionaire scholar, and that you cannot refute anything -
> thats why you and atheist Wikipedia slander her.
The exact opposite of a porn star is someone who never has sex in front
of a camera. The exact opposite of a millionaire scholar is a penniless
ignoramus. These three axes (money, scholarship and pornstardom) are
completely orthogonal - your position on one of them does not determine
your position on either of the others.
I have no doubt that Pastor Scott is extremely rich and well-read, but
she is also the person formerly known as Barbie Bridges. If you
understood logic at all you would know why no-one here claims that
Pastor Scott's former career invalidates her scholarship in any way -
that would be an argument ad hominem. What it does is wind you up in a
way that is most amusing to watch.
> It also shows that you
> are jealous and lashing out - I am sorry you are frustrated - please
> accept my apology. Since you are a Darwinist this is expected. You know
> that Dr. Scott was the brightest Bible scholar of all time and you know
> he has refuted your theory. This is why you invent slander - the
> greatest compliment to the scholarship and evidence of Dr. Scott.
>
> Dr. Scott: Darwinism is a penalty from God for denying Him the credit
> and status of Creator.
And no-one has yet explained to me why this is a penalty. If I already
deny that god is the creator, how am I penalized by also denying that
he's responsible for biodiversity?
>
> The most basic claim of Darwinism denies God credit as Creator - yet
> you deny = admitted brazen liar, or uneducated ignoramus, or confused
> and unstable person.
The most basic claim of Darwinism is that organisms vary, some of those
variations are inherited, and those inherited variations that provide a
reproductive advantage become fixed in a population.
Would you allow me to tell you what the most basic claim of
Christianity is?
>
> Atheists do not embrace Darwin for any other reason.
>
> This is the whole point of atheist-evolution: God does not exist:
> material forces are "God".
>
> I am very happy to make you lie on a daily basis about the central
> claim of Darwinism, it shows the world what Darwinism is all about, but
> I see how personally you take everything, the hate in your posts.
That must be the blinding penalty again, because I thought Dana was
being very reasonable.
> I am
> sorry you have bought the lies of atheist-Darwinism. Please take the
> time between now and when my paper is released to post facts with
> source cites for your views, otherwise when my work is released the
> same frustration will re-surface.
>
> Ray
Gerry Murphy
"Friar Broccoli" <Eli...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1163097911....@f16g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>
<snip>
> No, I am trying to prevent counterproductive / pointless nastiness
In T.O.?!!! Although I suppose that sort of thing has a lot of job
security.
Azaliah
Bulcher" <RSGD...@aol.com> shouted thusly:
He probably expects people like you to deny the facts.
Azaliah
<mouse...@earthlink.net> shouted thusly:
>>I apologize for attacking your faith in
>> Darwinism.
>
>I don't have any "faith in Darwinism". I accept the evidence of
>evolution.
Since that doesn't exist, you do have faith in it.
>I have faith in God.
No you don't. If you did, you would stop denying
His word.
Gary Bohn
news:1163076406....@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com:
> Nashton wrote:
>> Greg G. wrote:
>> > Nashton wrote:
>> > ...
>> >> Actually, no. What they prove is the fact that the ToE, as many
>> >> have been saying all along, has taken on religious proportions,
>> >> with people such as yourself, blinded by faith, try to discredit
>> >> skeptics by attempting to humiliate them.
>> >
> They were?
>
> How about this one:
> "Evolutionism is a fairy tale for grown-ups. This theory has helped
> nothing in the progress of science. It is useless."
>
> Attributed to "Bounoure past Director of Research at the National
> Center
> of Scientific Research, France"
>
> Here is the text of a letter from the The National Center for
> Scientific Research in France regarding this particular quotation:
>
> "The new director general of the CNRS [i.e., the National Center for
> Scientific Research in France], Mr. Guy Aubert, has given me your
> letter of December 6, 1994, in which you requested several points of
> information concerning the quotations by French scientists, concerning
> the theory of evolution.
>
> Here is the information I was able to gather:
>
> The beginning of the quotation, "Evolution is a fairy tale for adults"
> is not from Bounoure but from Jean Rostand, a much more famous French
> biologist (he was a member of the Academy of Sciences of the French
> Academy). The precise quotation is as follows: "Transformism is a
> fairy tale for adults." (Age Nouveau, [a French periodical] February
> 1959, p. 12). But Rostand has also written that "Transformism may be
> considered as accepted, and no scientist, no philosopher, no longer
> discusses [questions - ED.] the fact of evolution." (L'Evolution des
> Especes [i.e., The Evolution of the Species], Hachette, p. 190). Jean
> Rostand was ... an atheist.
>
> The [end] of the quotation of Professor Bounoure to which you allude
> is taken from his book, Determinism and Finality, edited by
> Flammarion, 1957, p. 79. The precise quotation is the following:
> "That, by this, evolutionism would appear as a theory without value,
> is confirmed also pragmatically. A theory must not be required to be
> true, said Mr. H. Poincare, more or less, it must be required to be
> useable. Indeed, none of the progress made in biology depends even
> slightly on a theory, the principles of which [i.e., of how evolution
> occurs -- ED.] are nevertheless filling every year volumes of books,
> periodicals, and congresses with their discussions and their
> disagreements."
>
>
> So
> 1) The quotation is wrongly attributed.
> 2) The supposed quotation is actually the work of two different
> authors.
>
> Do you consider this to be honest?
>
> Or do you think that dishonesty is acceptable if you are a
> creationist?
>
> I'm sure that if you take the time to find the original sources of the
> quotations - which is not easy, as none of them is given a good
> reference - you will find that none of them actually support your case
> other than the ones from creationists which have been included in the
> pretence that they are from evolutionary scientists.
>
> So they are disingenuous to say the least and where, as in the case I
> refer to above, a deliberate falsehood. The only conclusion I can
> reach is that the creationist who assembled this "quotation" in the
> first place was a liar.
>
> Tell you what:
> Demonstrate to us by reference to the original material that *any* of
> the quotations by evolutionary scientists presented in this post are
> an honest representation of the views of those scientists and I will
> offer you a sincere apology.
>
> Until then, the evidence shows that creationists are, if not liars
> themselves, informed by liars.
>
I may be going out on a limb here, but I'm going to make a prediction of
Nashton's actions regarding your post. I predict Nashton will either
ignore this post or make some nonsensical irrelevant retort simply
because of the difficulty he fears he would have in actually refuting
your work.
If he attempts to refute your words with anything more than his usual
standard I will be more than a little surprised. Given his normal
posting standards I don't feel I am setting the bar terribly high.
Come on Nashton, give it your best shot.
--
Gary Bohn
Science rationally modifies a theory to fit evidence, creationism
emotionally modifies evidence to fit a specific interpretation of the
bible.
Azaliah
<gary...@REMOVETHISaccesscomm.ca> shouted thusly:
>I may be going out on a limb here, but I'm going to make a prediction of
>Nashton's actions regarding your post. I predict Nashton will either
>ignore this post or make some nonsensical irrelevant retort simply
>because of the difficulty he fears he would have in actually refuting
>your work.
This from the people who refute nothing and only insult.
>If he attempts to refute your words with anything more than his usual
>standard I will be more than a little surprised. Given his normal
>posting standards I don't feel I am setting the bar terribly high.
And to you, "the usual" means facts you refuse to deal with
and insult him after he posts.
>Come on Nashton, give it your best shot.
Now why would you say that, when you will ignore anything
that shows you're wrong?
Goodbye.
Jon Fleming
Don't worry about Ray. He'll be convinced his paper is a smashing
success. That's probably easier to believe than a lot of the wack-job
stuff he already espouses.
--
jrf
replace nospam with group to email
Nashton
> On 9 Nov 2006 04:30:35 -0800, "Friar Broccoli" <Eli...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>>> On Thu, 09 Nov 2006 11:02:55 GMT, Nashton <nan...@nb.ca> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Richard Forrest wrote:
>>>>> Azaliah wrote:
>>>>>> On 8 Nov 2006 08:18:19 -0800, while bungee jumping,
>>>>>> "Stile4aly" <stil...@yahoo.com> shouted thusly:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> <snip quote mining>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Oh look, there's no argument left. Thanks for playing.
>>>>>> Yea, you really took him to task and proved evolution!
>>>>> Why not look up the refutations of all these mined quotes which are
>>>>> posted on talk.origins?
>>>>>
>>>>> And why bother to post these mined quotes at all? They prove nothing
>>>>> except the systematic dishonesty of creationists.
>>>>>
>>>>> RF
>>>>>
>>>>>> <chuckle>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Bye now.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Azaliah (ats-al-yaw'-hoo) "Jah has reserved"
>>>>>>
>>>>>> <((>< <((>< <((><
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "Sanctify them through thy truth: thy word is truth."
>>>>>> - John 17:17
>>>>>> .
>>>> been saying all along, has taken on religious proportions, with people
>>>> such as yourself, blinded by faith, try to discredit skeptics by
>>>> attempting to humiliate them.
>> Another idiot here is "Christopher A. Lee" who thinks he can
>> convince people to change their views by calling them
>> liars and idiots.
>
> No, liar - the brainwashed moron won't ever change his views, he is
> too far gone for that.
Grow up. The point isn't some egotistical goal of changing another
person's mind, it's about discussing origins in this ng.
>
> However he is still a liar and an idiot: an idiot because he is an
> in-your-face creationist who hasn't the sense to keep it to himself,
> and a liar because he calls the understanding of reality religious and
> those who do "blinded by faith".
>
> But then you knew that anyway and were being deliberately nasty,
>
Why not post to your own preferred ng, namely alt.atheism, and leave the
lofty subjects to the grown-up, hein?
--
Nicola
Ray Martinez
Since you replied this means you are guilty. An innocent person would
not give the time of day to falsehoods.
I am delighted you have slandered Pastor Scott. It means you are an
angry atheist and Darwinist, and slander is expected from your kind,
and demonstrates your jealousy and inability to refute, and her
scholarship and status as a millionaire.
You are enraged and my hook is in your jaw, you are obsessed with every
post I write and are only trying to hurt me by inventing lies about
Pastor Scott. Only cowards attack women. The degree of slander is
equal to the degree of hate and rage caused by this one invulnerable
fact:
Dr. Scott: Darwinism is a penalty from God for denying Him credit and
status as Creator.
You are so furious that your hate causes you act like Photo-Shop
editing, that places Pastor Scott's face on a nude body is real. I
happen to know your address and work address, and I have the ability to
obtain a photograph of yourself. I will paste your photo on a gay porn
star and jpg the link here on Talk Origins = a taste of your own
medicine. Tell me one reason why this is not fair? You won't mind will
you? Everyone will know in advance that it is only Photo-Shop. Pastor
Scott had it done to her so why not you too? If you do not object I
will proceed. You contend that if its on the Net then it must be true
and real. But we will know that it is not really you, Dana. I think my
proposal is fair because you do it to someone else, only in your case
you will have the advantage of knowing that it is a joke. Then you will
get to know how Pastor Scott feels.
Why don't you post a photo of yourself Dana and let me doctor it?
Pastor Scott was a millionaire before she met Dr. Scott, and she has a
180 IQ and fourteen mastered languages. Atheists and Darwinists have
invented the Photo-Shop slander which we know is equal to the hate in
their hearts based on the irrefutable scholarship of a Stanford Ph.D.
We know you are only argry about evidence you cannot refute, which
explains the gross and invented slander. The Bible says those who are
walking with God will get this type of treatment.
When Darwinists say porn star = an antonymic antithesis is true:
scholar and millionaire; and their implacable rage with Creationist
scholars and their evidence refuting your Godless theory.
The slander logically means that Dr. Scott's evidence is invulnerable
and that you agree - thats why you have to resort to slander, which
proves you are not interested in truth but the maintenance of the
atheist worldview.
You should admit your mistakes, Dana.
I won't hold my breath since Darwinists never do.
Ray
Augray
<zVD4h.16643$cz.2...@ursa-nb00s0.nbnet.nb.ca> :
>Richard Forrest wrote:
>> Azaliah wrote:
>>> On 8 Nov 2006 08:18:19 -0800, while bungee jumping,
>>> "Stile4aly" <stil...@yahoo.com> shouted thusly:
>>>
>>>> Roy Jose Lorr wrote:
>>>> <snip quote mining>
>>>>
>>>> Oh look, there's no argument left. Thanks for playing.
>>> Yea, you really took him to task and proved evolution!
>>
>> Why not look up the refutations of all these mined quotes which are
>> posted on talk.origins?
>>
>> And why bother to post these mined quotes at all? They prove nothing
>> except the systematic dishonesty of creationists.
>Actually, no. What they prove is the fact that the ToE, as many have
>been saying all along, has taken on religious proportions, with people
>such as yourself, blinded by faith, try to discredit skeptics by
>attempting to humiliate them.
If the skeptics don't want to be discredited, they shouldn't quote
mine. Or would you care to debate one of the quotes?
Augray
wrote in <i9h7l2to077g1neh3...@4ax.com> :
>On 9 Nov 2006 23:41:51 GMT, while bungee jumping, Gary Bohn
><gary...@REMOVETHISaccesscomm.ca> shouted thusly:
>
>
>>I may be going out on a limb here, but I'm going to make a prediction of
>>Nashton's actions regarding your post. I predict Nashton will either
>>ignore this post or make some nonsensical irrelevant retort simply
>>because of the difficulty he fears he would have in actually refuting
>>your work.
>
>This from the people who refute nothing and only insult.
Much has been refuted already. Or did you have a specific request?
>>If he attempts to refute your words with anything more than his usual
>>standard I will be more than a little surprised. Given his normal
>>posting standards I don't feel I am setting the bar terribly high.
>
>And to you, "the usual" means facts you refuse to deal with
>and insult him after he posts.
What facts would those be?
>>Come on Nashton, give it your best shot.
>
>Now why would you say that, when you will ignore anything
>that shows you're wrong?
Nashton's not known for posting things that are right.
>Goodbye.
Adios
Tom McDonald
My fear is otherwise. I am afraid that when his paper goes thud (always
leaving the door open for it to be a miraculous surprise), he will
claim victory and go deeper into his idolatry and denial.
The best that is likely to be hoped for is that the shock will drive
him into the arms of Jesus. I know that's what I'm praying for.
Doc Smartass
news:1163112061.0...@m7g2000cwm.googlegroups.com:
>
> Doc Smartass wrote:
>> Roy Jose Lorr <Ken...@comcast.net> wrote in
>> news:8ZqdnZ6XtrZVZszY...@comcast.com:
>>
>> > Subject: Roasting Evolution1
>>
>> Monkeyboy, you can't roast evolution if you don't understand it.
>>
>> You're not even qualified to have an opinion on it, you thumbless twit.
>
> Monkeys have thumbs.
Not him. He's pre-thumb.
Friar Broccoli
Azaliah wrote:
> On 9 Nov 2006 13:56:59 -0800, while bungee jumping, "DJT"
> <mouse...@earthlink.net> shouted thusly:
DJT> I don't have any "faith in Darwinism". I accept the
DJT> evidence of evolution.
> Since that doesn't exist, you do have faith in it.
Why aren't the fossils of billions of extinct trilobites
"evidence" of evolution?
DJT>I have faith in God.
> No you don't. If you did, you would stop denying
> His word.
How has Dana denied God's word?
Cordially;
Friar Broccoli
Robert Keith Elias, Quebec, Canada Email: EliasRK (of) gmail * com
Best programmer's & all purpose text editor: http://www.semware.com
--------- I consider ALL arguments in support of my views ---------
Azaliah
Fleming <jo...@fleming-nospam.com> shouted thusly:
>Don't worry about Ray. He'll be convinced his paper is a smashing
>success. That's probably easier to believe than a lot of the wack-job
>stuff he already espouses.
Atheist definition of "whack job":
"Anything that proves that I'm an idiot for believing
in my religion; 'it all created itself'".
Azaliah
Martinez" <pyram...@yahoo.com> shouted thusly:
>You are enraged and my hook is in your jaw, you are obsessed with every
>post I write and are only trying to hurt me by inventing lies about
>Pastor Scott. Only cowards attack women.
I appreciate you sticking up for God, but I don't consider
any woman to be a real pastor. I'm not trying to pick
a fight here, but how does what goes against Scripture
become Christian?
Again, this has nothing to do with your stance against
evolution, which I appreciate and is not an attack.
>The degree of slander is equal to the degree of hate
>and rage caused by this one invulnerable fact:
Just FYI, slander is spoken. It would be libel.
>Dr. Scott: Darwinism is a penalty from God for denying Him credit and
>status as Creator.
Amen!
>Pastor Scott was a millionaire before she met Dr. Scott, and she has a
>180 IQ and fourteen mastered languages. Atheists and Darwinists have
>invented the Photo-Shop slander which we know is equal to the hate in
>their hearts based on the irrefutable scholarship of a Stanford Ph.D.
I have no idea what photo you're talking about, but why even
dignify it with a response? If she has not done what they are
accusing her of, then allowing them to get you to focus on
that, only shows that you are allowing them to distract you
from the subject at hand. With all due respect, so you not
think that this was their goal? Do you not know that they
are doing this, because they know they can't argue the facts
about evolution? If you do know this, then again, with all
due respect, act like it. :)
>We know you are only argry about evidence you cannot refute, which
>explains the gross and invented slander. The Bible says those who are
>walking with God will get this type of treatment.
You see? You do know it. So again i say, act like it.
Don't even dignify their garbage with a response.
Snip it and only respond to the actual issue. And if
they have left nothing of the actual issue in place,
which is the norm for them, then point that out and
quote them a nice verse or two that fits. :)
Augray
<uPP4h.17007$cz.2...@ursa-nb00s0.nbnet.nb.ca> :
And if someone gets misrepresented, that's OK with you?
[snip]
wf3h
Roy Jose Lorr wrote:
>
> Niles Eldredge, paleontologist - We paleontologists have
> said that the history of life supports [gradual adaptive
> change], all the while really knowing that it does not."
>
having read some of eldredge, i know lorr's quoting this out of context
and is, basically, lying.
of course, that's what religious fanatics do...
Nashton
> Nashton wrote:
>> Greg G. wrote:
>>> Nashton wrote:
>>> ...
>>>> been saying all along, has taken on religious proportions, with people
>>>> such as yourself, blinded by faith, try to discredit skeptics by
>>>> attempting to humiliate them.
>
>> But thanks for playing.
>>
>> --
>>
>> Nicola
>
This is the kind of post that I am happy to respond to with a thank you.
Furthermore, I will admit that unless the OP comes up with specific
references, I will disregard it as being fictional.
--
Nicola
Augray
wrote in <1163119208.1...@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> :
>
>DJT wrote:
[snip]
>> Once more, you seem to be projecting your own fustration at being
>> unable to support any of your claims.
>>
>> It must be very galling to you that you can't come up with a rational
>> reply, and must resort to this rather transparent posturing.
>>
>> DJT
>
>Since you replied this means you are guilty. An innocent person would
>not give the time of day to falsehoods.
So, falsehoods should not be opposed?
>I am delighted you have slandered Pastor Scott. It means you are an
>angry atheist and Darwinist, and slander is expected from your kind,
>and demonstrates your jealousy and inability to refute, and her
>scholarship and status as a millionaire.
>
>You are enraged and my hook is in your jaw, you are obsessed with every
>post I write and are only trying to hurt me by inventing lies about
>Pastor Scott. Only cowards attack women.
You mean like this?:
http://groups.google.ca/group/talk.origins/msg/5e7a63e8ea7ded96
[snip]
wf3h
Nashton wrote:
> >
>
> Actually, no. What they prove is the fact that the ToE, as many have
> been saying all along, has taken on religious proportions,
actually that's true. religious fanatics like nashton, islamist
fanatics like bin laden, all hate evolution because it conflicts with
their religion
nasht is, for once, right.
Augray
wrote in <1163102388.2...@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> :
[snip]
>The penalty is supported by the fact that the fossil record shows no
>signs of intermediacy, yet Darwinism is held true (penalty tells us
>why).
In fact, it does: Archaeopteryx is a great example, one of many.
[snip]