The point being?
wiki trix
jillery
> So has anything been resolved on this newsgroup yet?
Does it matter?
wiki trix
Not at all. Just wondering.
raven1
<wiki...@gmail.com> wrote:
>So has anything been resolved on this newsgroup yet?
1) There is a general consensus that penguins are the best birds,
although Harshman and others dissent.
2) Immanuel Kant was a real piss-ant, who was very rarely stable.
Jeffrey Turner
> On Fri, 3 Dec 2010 06:59:06 -0800 (PST), wiki trix
> <wiki...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> So has anything been resolved on this newsgroup yet?
>
> 1) There is a general consensus that penguins are the best birds,
> although Harshman and others dissent.
Do you think he'd dissent from the assertion that humans are the best
fish?
--Jeff
--
The comfort of the wealthy has always
depended upon an abundant supply of
the poor. --Voltaire
Burkhard
Do you mind?
el cid
> On 12/3/2010 10:45 AM, raven1 wrote:
>
> > On Fri, 3 Dec 2010 06:59:06 -0800 (PST), wiki trix
>
> >> So has anything been resolved on this newsgroup yet?
>
> > 1) There is a general consensus that penguins are the best birds,
> > although Harshman and others dissent.
>
> Do you think he'd dissent from the assertion that humans are the best
> fish?
I believe he would agree with the proposition that, if penguins
are the best fish, they are the best birds.
Ray Martinez
> On Fri, 3 Dec 2010 06:59:06 -0800 (PST), wiki trix
>
> >So has anything been resolved on this newsgroup yet?
>
> 1) There is a general consensus that penguins are the best birds,
Good example of Darwinian idiocy: the best birds are creatures that
cannot fly!
Ray
Ray Martinez
> So has anything been resolved on this newsgroup yet?
Yep, Darwinists are fucking liars. There isn't anything that they will
not misrepresent in order to protect their theory.
There is no evidence of evolution in the paleontological crust of the
earth, but Darwinists will, despite their own authorities who have
established the fact, say just the opposite.
This is why evolution is rejected by the masses: no evidence and
Darwinists, like Darwin, are mother-fucking liars.
Ray
John Harshman
narrow it down to four: woodpeckers, herons, ducks, and hummingbirds.
Penguins aren't in the running.
John Harshman
Let's face it, Ray. That was resolved before you ever posted a word, and
before this newsgroup existed. (I mean it was resolved in your own mind,
where you're a legend, though nowhere else.)
jillery
Should I?
deadrat
On how many levels have you missed the point?
It's ignorance all the way down.
Boikat
> So has anything been resolved on this newsgroup yet?
I've become convinced that most creationists who post here are
borderline certifiably insane.
Boikat
David Hare-Scott
And self-appointed True Christians (TM) are the most civil, eloquent and
erudite analysts. Take Ray, we ought hang upon his every word and carve his
aphorisms into tablets of gold for future generations to sigh over. How
else will the youngsters learn?
Above is one such immortal post. Consider that years of scholarship that
are so roundly refuted by that one potent phrase "Darwinists are fucking
liars". I get all misty over the power of those words and all that they
imply. And then I struggle back to the keyboard to wipe my streaming eyes,
hold in my aching sides and try to gather breath enough to carry on.
David
Frank J
> So has anything been resolved on this newsgroup yet?
In the 13 years I have been lurking (almost 10 posting) I have noticed
that the serious YECs, OECs and IDers have all disappeared. By
"serious" I mean that they had nicely detailed, if wrong, "scientific"
arguments. Even in the "good old days" those arguments were mostly
about what's "weak" about evolution, with far less than what Dembski
would consider a "pathetic level of detail" about any alternate
"theory." But now, all we have is that old-earth-maybe-young-life
"creatorist" Ray Martinez, who doesn't even try to have a "scientific"
argument against evolution, much less *for* his elusive "theory." His
objection is clearly against a philosophy he attributes to all
"Darwinists." The few others who object to "Darwinism," and get "fed"
more than they ought to, are not even worth mentioning.
Burkhard
They are the only bird that can dive for extended periods of time
though, which makes them better than all those who can't. Which
specific religious insight tells you flying is intrinsically better
than diving? I must have missed the bible passage in question.
deadrat
Only 13 years and already you're losing faith? Just wait until Ray posts
his paper.
el cid
> On Dec 3, 7:41 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > On Dec 3, 7:45 am, raven1 <quoththera...@nevermore.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Fri, 3 Dec 2010 06:59:06 -0800 (PST), wiki trix
>
> > > <wikit...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >So has anything been resolved on this newsgroup yet?
>
> > > 1) There is a general consensus that penguins are the best birds,
>
> > Good example of Darwinian idiocy: the best birds are creatures that
> > cannot fly!
Who are we to question the the designer who in her
beneficence gave us the majestic penguin? And
yet you seem to ridicule that which we find beautiful?
Though art a mystery.
chris thompson
I think penguins can run better than hummingbirds. And woodpeckers,
for that matter, unless you're limiting them to walking up tree
trunks. (Although flickers can hop better than penguins.) And I have
never seen a heron run at all. They're just creepy, stalking all the
time.
Chris
Erwin Moller
Ray,
A fair warning: The level of your argumentation has dropped to "fucking
liars", and lies like "This is why evolution is rejected by the masses",
which is demonstrable wrong.
I don't know about you religious people, but doesn't it bother you in
the least to spit lies like that? I would feel like shit.
Don't you have any decency? No pride?
Is anything allowed to spread your religion?
Erwin Moller
--
"There are two ways of constructing a software design: One way is to
make it so simple that there are obviously no deficiencies, and the
other way is to make it so complicated that there are no obvious
deficiencies. The first method is far more difficult."
-- C.A.R. Hoare
Dana Tweedy
It's a very telling point of Creationist general ignorance of biology
that Ray seem to think that ability to fly is what defines a bird.
DJT
chris thompson
Have you ever been to an aquarium, Ray? Penguins fly, all right. They
just do it underwater.
Chris
Dana Tweedy
> On Dec 3, 6:59 am, wiki trix <wikit...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > So has anything been resolved on this newsgroup yet?
>
> Yep, Darwinists are fucking liars. There isn't anything that they will
> not misrepresent in order to protect their theory.
Then why is it that the vast majority of misinterpretation comes from
the creationists?
>
> There is no evidence of evolution in the paleontological crust of the
> earth,
Actually, there is a great deal of evidence of evolution in the
fossils found in the Earth's crust. Ray simply ignores what evidence
he doesn't like.
.
> but Darwinists will, despite their own authorities who have
> established the fact, say just the opposite.
No one has "established" something that is your own bizarre fantasy,
Ray.
>
> This is why evolution is rejected by the masses: no evidence and
> Darwinists, like Darwin, are mother-fucking liars.
The "masses" who reject evolution do so because of ignorance, and
religious bias. All those who have actually studied the evidence with
an open mind freely accept the science of evolution.
Ray apparently is projecting his own behavior on those he hates.
Obviously that's anyone who is more intelligent, and better educated
than Ray is.
DJT
Mike Lyle
A penguin is a fish that lacketh scales, and is therefore unclean!
unclean! unclean! And, I dare say, something very like an abomination
before the Lord. As the kafir Eliot should have said, "Do throw away
that sausage...".
--
Mike.
Bob Casanova
appeared in talk.origins, posted by wiki trix
<wiki...@gmail.com>:
>So has anything been resolved on this newsgroup yet?
Sure, assuming that you consider "resolved" and
"demonstrated" to be sufficiently alike in meaning:
1) The ToE is the only explanation supported by the vast
majority of evidence.
2) Those who reject the evidence, such as Ray, do so on
religious grounds, and then lie and bluster.
--
Bob C.
"Evidence confirming an observation is
evidence that the observation is wrong."
- McNameless
Boikat
> On Dec 3, 6:59 am, wiki trix <wikit...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > So has anything been resolved on this newsgroup yet?
>
> Yep, Darwinists are fucking liars. There isn't anything that they will
> not misrepresent in order to protect their theory.
You'd be the expert in lying.
>
> There is no evidence of evolution in the paleontological crust of the
> earth, but Darwinists will, despite their own authorities who have
> established the fact, say just the opposite.
There's a perfect example of a Ray Martinez lie.
(Another is claiming to be working on a "paper" that will overturn the
ToE, and ruin the ives of darwinists everywhere.)
>
> This is why evolution is rejected by the masses: no evidence and
> Darwinists, like Darwin, are mother-fucking liars.
Projection is another one or your endearing qualities.
Boikat
John Harshman
> On Dec 3, 3:09 pm, John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>> el cid wrote:
>>> On Dec 3, 12:06 pm, Jeffrey Turner <jtur...@localnet.com> wrote:
>>>> On 12/3/2010 10:45 AM, raven1 wrote:
>>>>> On Fri, 3 Dec 2010 06:59:06 -0800 (PST), wiki trix
>>>>> <wikit...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>> So has anything been resolved on this newsgroup yet?
>>>>> 1) There is a general consensus that penguins are the best birds,
>>>>> although Harshman and others dissent.
>>>> Do you think he'd dissent from the assertion that humans are the best
>>>> fish?
>>> I believe he would agree with the proposition that, if penguins
>>> are the best fish, they are the best birds.
>> I have difficulty deciding what are the best fish, but I've been able to
>> narrow it down to four: woodpeckers, herons, ducks, and hummingbirds.
>> Penguins aren't in the running.
>
> I think penguins can run better than hummingbirds.
True in the same sense that a goldfish can run better than a rock.
> And woodpeckers,
> for that matter, unless you're limiting them to walking up tree
> trunks.
Ah, so now you're specifying the course too. Why not just tie the
woodpecker's feet together?
> (Although flickers can hop better than penguins.) And I have
> never seen a heron run at all.
You need to get out more. Many herons, reddish egrets for example, do a
crazy, staggering run in the water while feeding. Way cool to watch.
> They're just creepy, stalking all the
> time.
Penguin-chauvinism ill becomes you.
John Harshman
> Burkhard wrote:
>> On Dec 3, 7:41 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>> On Dec 3, 7:45 am, raven1 <quoththera...@nevermore.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Fri, 3 Dec 2010 06:59:06 -0800 (PST), wiki trix
>>>> <wikit...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> So has anything been resolved on this newsgroup yet?
>>>> 1) There is a general consensus that penguins are the best birds,
>>> Good example of Darwinian idiocy: the best birds are creatures that
>>> cannot fly!
>>>
>>> Ray
>> They are the only bird that can dive for extended periods of time
>> though, which makes them better than all those who can't. Which
>> specific religious insight tells you flying is intrinsically better
>> than diving? I must have missed the bible passage in question.
>
> A penguin is a fish that lacketh scales, and is therefore unclean!
> unclean! unclean!
Hmmm...so is a cow. I see evolution and kosher are incompatible. Must
tell Larry Moran and Jerry Coyne immediately.
John Bode
> On Dec 3, 9:59 am, wiki trix <wikit...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > So has anything been resolved on this newsgroup yet?
>
> In the 13 years I have been lurking (almost 10 posting) I have noticed
> that the serious YECs, OECs and IDers have all disappeared.
I attribute this to two main factors:
1. Usenet is ... well, not *dying*, but its use is certainly on the
wane; my ISP shut down its NNTP servers several years ago. There's
been a proliferation of blogs, forums, and other discussion groups in
Web space such that Creationists have an easier time finding a willing
audience;
2. You can only devote your life to arguing on the Internet for so
long; the reason the only people left are the cranks and crackpots is
that the relatively sane people realized they could be doing something
much better with their time (which doesn't say very good things about
me, I admit);
*Hemidactylus*
> So has anything been resolved on this newsgroup yet?
>
Ray will never finish his paper.
--
~it ends here~
*Hemidactylus*
*Hemidactylus*
> On Dec 3, 1:48 pm, Ray Martinez<pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>> There is no evidence of evolution in the paleontological crust of the
>> earth, but Darwinists will, despite their own authorities who have
>> established the fact, say just the opposite.
>
> There's a perfect example of a Ray Martinez lie.
>
> (Another is claiming to be working on a "paper" that will overturn the
> ToE, and ruin the ives of darwinists everywhere.)
I think we can rest assured that we have nothing to fear from Ray. He
struts like a rooster...with his head cut off.
raven1
One wonders if, say, ostriches belong to the bird "kind" under Ray's
classification system. Ray...?
raven1
wrote:
>On Dec 3, 1:48 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> On Dec 3, 6:59 am, wiki trix <wikit...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > So has anything been resolved on this newsgroup yet?
>>
>> Yep, Darwinists are fucking liars. There isn't anything that they will
>> not misrepresent in order to protect their theory.
>
>You'd be the expert in lying.
>
>>
>> There is no evidence of evolution in the paleontological crust of the
>> earth, but Darwinists will, despite their own authorities who have
>> established the fact, say just the opposite.
>
>There's a perfect example of a Ray Martinez lie.
>
>(Another is claiming to be working on a "paper" that will overturn the
>ToE, and ruin the ives of darwinists everywhere.)
This may be the abstract.
deadrat
> Mike Lyle wrote:
>> Burkhard wrote:
>>> On Dec 3, 7:41 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>> On Dec 3, 7:45 am, raven1 <quoththera...@nevermore.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Fri, 3 Dec 2010 06:59:06 -0800 (PST), wiki trix
>>>>> <wikit...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>> So has anything been resolved on this newsgroup yet?
>>>>> 1) There is a general consensus that penguins are the best birds,
>>>> Good example of Darwinian idiocy: the best birds are creatures that
>>>> cannot fly!
>>>>
>>>> Ray
>>> They are the only bird that can dive for extended periods of time
>>> though, which makes them better than all those who can't. Which
>>> specific religious insight tells you flying is intrinsically better
>>> than diving? I must have missed the bible passage in question.
>>
>> A penguin is a fish that lacketh scales, and is therefore unclean!
>> unclean! unclean!
>
> Hmmm...so is a cow.
No, no. A cow has a cloven hoof and chews its cud. Just like a giraffe.
But not like a sea cow.
<snip/>
John Harshman
Here we seem to have a contradiction in the law. You can't eat fish that
lack scales, but you can eat animals that cleave the hoof and chew the
cud. But since all ruminants fall into both categories (fish, check; no
scales, check; cloven hoof, check; chew cud, check) which rule do we
follow? Now if the law had said no scaleless fish *except*
cloven-hooved, cud-chewing ones, that would be better. But for some
reason the law doesn't seem to realize the evolutionary relationships
among vertebrates. Go figure.
Boikat
Pretty much everything from Raytard is.
Boikat
William Morse
> On Dec 3, 12:09 pm, Burkhard <b.scha...@ed.ac.uk> wrote:
>> On Dec 3, 3:10 pm, jillery <69jpi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On Dec 3, 9:59 am, wiki trix <wikit...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>> So has anything been resolved on this newsgroup yet?
>>
>>
>> Do you mind?
>
> Should I?
>
Is there a choice?
William Morse
> On 12/3/2010 10:45 AM, raven1 wrote:
>> On Fri, 3 Dec 2010 06:59:06 -0800 (PST), wiki trix
>
> Do you think he'd dissent from the assertion that humans are the best
> fish?
You're spelling that wrong. It's "ghoti"
John S. Wilkins
Is "roti" pronounced "rish"?
--
John S. Wilkins, Philosophy, Bond University
http://evolvingthoughts.net
But al be that he was a philosophre,
Yet hadde he but litel gold in cofre
Walter Bushell
>
> Here we seem to have a contradiction in the law. You can't eat fish that
> lack scales, but you can eat animals that cleave the hoof and chew the
> cud. But since all ruminants fall into both categories (fish, check; no
> scales, check; cloven hoof, check; chew cud, check) which rule do we
> follow? Now if the law had said no scaleless fish *except*
> cloven-hooved, cud-chewing ones, that would be better. But for some
> reason the law doesn't seem to realize the evolutionary relationships
> among vertebrates. Go figure.
--
The Chinese pretend their goods are good and we pretend our money
is good, or is it the reverse?
Kalkidas
"Burkhard" <b.sc...@ed.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:eccaf00d-2b2d-4d63...@c13g2000prc.googlegroups.com...
I thought flying was just diving in air. At least, that's what the
Hitchhiker's Guide says.
John S. Wilkins
Flying is flinging yourself at the ground and missing, I thought.
jillery
Depends on what I'm supposed to mind, doesn't it?
Kalkidas
"John S. Wilkins" <jo...@wilkins.id.au> wrote in message
news:1jszf0n.ispg541wlmpepN%jo...@wilkins.id.au...
> Kalkidas <e...@joes.pub> wrote:
>
>> "Burkhard" <b.sc...@ed.ac.uk> wrote in message
>> news:eccaf00d-2b2d-4d63...@c13g2000prc.googlegroups.com...
>> > On Dec 3, 7:41 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> >> On Dec 3, 7:45 am, raven1 <quoththera...@nevermore.com> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> > On Fri, 3 Dec 2010 06:59:06 -0800 (PST), wiki trix
>> >>
>> >> > <wikit...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> > >So has anything been resolved on this newsgroup yet?
>> >>
>> >> > 1) There is a general consensus that penguins are the best birds,
>> >>
>> >> Good example of Darwinian idiocy: the best birds are creatures that
>> >> cannot fly!
>> >>
>> >> Ray
>> >
>> > They are the only bird that can dive for extended periods of time
>> > though, which makes them better than all those who can't. Which
>> > specific religious insight tells you flying is intrinsically better
>> > than diving? I must have missed the bible passage in question.
>>
>> I thought flying was just diving in air. At least, that's what the
>> Hitchhiker's Guide says.
>
> Flying is flinging yourself at the ground and missing, I thought.
Right. I interpret that as diving through air toward the ground.
Frank J
> Frank J <f...@verizon.net> wrote:
> > On Dec 3, 9:59 am, wiki trix <wikit...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> So has anything been resolved on this newsgroup yet?
>
> > "serious" I mean that they had nicely detailed, if wrong, "scientific"
> > arguments. Even in the "good old days" those arguments were mostly
> > about what's "weak" about evolution, with far less than what Dembski
> > would consider a "pathetic level of detail" about any alternate
> > "theory." But now, all we have is that old-earth-maybe-young-life
> > "creatorist" Ray Martinez, who doesn't even try to have a "scientific"
> > argument against evolution, much less *for* his elusive "theory." His
> > objection is clearly against a philosophy he attributes to all
> > "Darwinists." The few others who object to "Darwinism," and get "fed"
> > more than they ought to, are not even worth mentioning.
>
> Only 13 years and already you're losing faith? Just wait until Ray posts
> his paper.
He said that we'd see it by the end of 2007. I'll keep the "faith"
until then.
Frank J
> On Dec 3, 3:08 pm, Frank J <f...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
> > On Dec 3, 9:59 am, wiki trix <wikit...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > So has anything been resolved on this newsgroup yet?
>
> > In the 13 years I have been lurking (almost 10 posting) I have noticed
> > that the serious YECs, OECs and IDers have all disappeared.
>
> I attribute this to two main factors:
>
> 1. Usenet is ... well, not *dying*, but its use is certainly on the
> wane; my ISP shut down its NNTP servers several years ago. There's
> been a proliferation of blogs, forums, and other discussion groups in
> Web space such that Creationists have an easier time finding a willing
> audience;
I too have been spending at least half of my Internet time (1-2 hr a
day, formerly wasted on TV) on The Panda's Thumb and the Sensuous
Curmudgeon (both blogs). SC does not allow "debates" (The anti-
evolution "UnCommon Descent" does not either so we're entitled to
one), but the PT more than makes up for it, with "creationist" trolls
hijacking most threads and, like here, almost never discussing
anything with each other, even if they disagree on the age of the
earth and common descent (e.g. FL and Steve P.). But there too, any
time any "evolutionist" asks a "creationist" for something substantive
about their theory (which is far to rare IMO) the "creationist"
ignores it and just trolls for someone more willing to "feed" them.
>
> 2. You can only devote your life to arguing on the Internet for so
> long; the reason the only people left are the cranks and crackpots is
> that the relatively sane people realized they could be doing something
> much better with their time (which doesn't say very good things about
> me, I admit);
The chance that I might turn some lurkers off to the antics of
evolution-deniers makes the time more worthwhile than watching TV. In
fact the only thing that keeps me interested is that I think other
"evolutionists" do not ask ask "creationists" enough hard questions
about their mutually contadictory, long falsified "theories." I think
that most don't bother because they expect mostly evasion. But I see
that evasion as "evidence of antics", and thus valuable to the target
audience of lurkers. If someone is truly confident about their
"theory" they would *want* to hold it up to scrutiny. Which
"evolutionists" do, contrary to the popular misconception peddled by
anti-evolution activists.
Frank J
> Ray Martinez wrote:
> > On Dec 3, 6:59 am, wiki trix <wikit...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> So has anything been resolved on this newsgroup yet?
>
> > not misrepresent in order to protect their theory.
>
> > earth, but Darwinists will, despite their own authorities who have
> > established the fact, say just the opposite.
>
> > Darwinists, like Darwin, are mother-fucking liars.
>
>
> And self-appointed True Christians (TM) are the most civil, eloquent and
> erudite analysts. Take Ray, we ought hang upon his every word and carve his
> aphorisms into tablets of gold for future generations to sigh over. How
> else will the youngsters learn?
>
> Above is one such immortal post. Consider that years of scholarship that
> are so roundly refuted by that one potent phrase "Darwinists are fucking
> liars". I get all misty over the power of those words and all that they
> imply. And then I struggle back to the keyboard to wipe my streaming eyes,
> hold in my aching sides and try to gather breath enough to carry on.
>
> David
What will help you get a grip is to listen to the audio version of
Ray's Bible. Please be tolerant of the many "expletive deleted"s and
the 18 minutes of silence.
Steven L.
"Ray Martinez" <pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:93bda937-30c7-47d7...@z17g2000prz.googlegroups.com:
> On Dec 3, 6:59 am, wiki trix <wikit...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > So has anything been resolved on this newsgroup yet?
>
> Yep, Darwinists are fucking liars. There isn't anything that they will
> not misrepresent in order to protect their theory.
>
> There is no evidence of evolution in the paleontological crust of the
> earth, but Darwinists will, despite their own authorities who have
> established the fact, say just the opposite.
>
> This is why evolution is rejected by the masses: no evidence and
> Darwinists, like Darwin, are mother-fucking liars.
You better hope your theory turns out to be right.
Otherwise you just violated the Commandment against bearing false
witness against thy neighbor.
-- Steven L.
John Harshman
Mike Lyle
> deadrat wrote:
>> John Harshman <jhar...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>>
>>> Mike Lyle wrote:
>>>> Burkhard wrote:
>>>>> Which
>>>>> specific religious insight tells you flying is intrinsically
>>>>> better than diving? I must have missed the bible passage in
>>>>> question.
>>>> A penguin is a fish that lacketh scales, and is therefore unclean!
>>>> unclean! unclean!
>>> Hmmm...so is a cow.
>>
>> No, no. A cow has a cloven hoof and chews its cud. Just like a
>> giraffe. But not like a sea cow.
>
> Here we seem to have a contradiction in the law. You can't eat fish
> that lack scales, but you can eat animals that cleave the hoof and
> chew the cud. But since all ruminants fall into both categories
> (fish, check; no scales, check; cloven hoof, check; chew cud, check)
> which rule do we follow? Now if the law had said no scaleless fish
> *except* cloven-hooved, cud-chewing ones, that would be better. But
> for some reason the law doesn't seem to realize the evolutionary
> relationships among vertebrates. Go figure.
The message could hardly be clearer: the only reliably kosher or halal
diet is a vegetarian one. So the fundies are only half wrong, and
Darwinism is not a Fascist/racist/Catholic/Damlibrul/egg-head/etc plot,
but a Hindu one. They even sent Ganesh Acharné and Kalkitis to take this
group's eyes off the ball.
--
Mike.
Mike Lyle
discourse be "Yea, yea" and "Nay, nay".
--
Mike.
Bob Casanova
in talk.origins, posted by raven1
<quotht...@nevermore.com>:
If he challenged the ostrich to its face he might get a kick
out of it...
--
Bob C.
"Evidence confirming an observation is
evidence that the observation is wrong."
- McNameless
Bob Casanova
appeared in talk.origins, posted by Boikat
<boi...@bellsouth.net>:
....except for the concrete between his ears.
Bob Casanova
talk.origins, posted by jo...@wilkins.id.au (John S.
Wilkins):
>William Morse <wdNOSP...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
>> On 12/03/2010 12:06 PM, Jeffrey Turner wrote:
>> > On 12/3/2010 10:45 AM, raven1 wrote:
>> >> On Fri, 3 Dec 2010 06:59:06 -0800 (PST), wiki trix
>> >> <wiki...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >>
>> >>> So has anything been resolved on this newsgroup yet?
>> >>
>> >> 1) There is a general consensus that penguins are the best birds,
>> >> although Harshman and others dissent.
>> >
>> > Do you think he'd dissent from the assertion that humans are the best
>> > fish?
>>
>> You're spelling that wrong. It's "ghoti"
>
>Is "roti" pronounced "rish"?
Of course, but only in Known Space...
Bob Casanova
talk.origins, posted by "Kalkidas" <e...@joes.pub>:
....and missing. The critical part is "and missing". Any damn
fool can hit.
Bob Casanova
in talk.origins, posted by Walter Bushell <pr...@panix.com>:
>In the I don't know what to say category
>>
>> Here we seem to have a contradiction in the law. You can't eat fish that
>> lack scales, but you can eat animals that cleave the hoof and chew the
>> cud. But since all ruminants fall into both categories (fish, check; no
>> scales, check; cloven hoof, check; chew cud, check) which rule do we
>> follow? Now if the law had said no scaleless fish *except*
>> cloven-hooved, cud-chewing ones, that would be better. But for some
>> reason the law doesn't seem to realize the evolutionary relationships
>> among vertebrates. Go figure.
Just say what Ray does: "There are no evolutionary
relationships because evolution doesn't happen." See how
easy that is?
Ray Martinez
> On Dec 3, 6:59 am, wiki trix <wikit...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > So has anything been resolved on this newsgroup yet?
>
> not misrepresent in order to protect their theory.
>
> earth, but Darwinists will, despite their own authorities who have
> established the fact, say just the opposite.
>
> Darwinists, like Darwin, are mother-fucking liars.
>
Further explanation: While Darwin admitted that evolution was not seen
in the geological fossil record, he was a fucking liar because he
ignored the fact and said species evolved anyway.
Ray
deadrat
> On Dec 3, 1:01 pm, "David Hare-Scott" <sec...@nospam.com> wrote:
>> Ray Martinez wrote:
>> > On Dec 3, 6:59 am, wiki trix <wikit...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> So has anything been resolved on this newsgroup yet?
>>
>> > Yep, Darwinists are fucking liars. There isn't anything that they will
>> > not misrepresent in order to protect their theory.
>>
>> > There is no evidence of evolution in the paleontological crust of the
>> > earth, but Darwinists will, despite their own authorities who have
>> > established the fact, say just the opposite.
>>
>> > This is why evolution is rejected by the masses: no evidence and
>> > Darwinists, like Darwin, are mother-fucking liars.
>>
>> > Ray
>>
>> erudite analysts. Take Ray, we ought hang upon his every word and carve his
>> aphorisms into tablets of gold for future generations to sigh over. How
>> else will the youngsters learn?
>>
>> Above is one such immortal post. Consider that years of scholarship that
>> are so roundly refuted by that one potent phrase "Darwinists are fucking
>> liars". I get all misty over the power of those words and all that they
>> imply. And then I struggle back to the keyboard to wipe my streaming eyes,
>> hold in my aching sides and try to gather breath enough to carry on.
>>
>> David
>
Thanks for finally seeing the light, Ray.
> Ray
Ray Martinez
> Ray Martinez wrote:
> > On Dec 3, 6:59 am, wiki trix <wikit...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> So has anything been resolved on this newsgroup yet?
>
> > Yep, Darwinists are fucking liars. There isn't anything that they will
> > not misrepresent in order to protect their theory.
>
> > There is no evidence of evolution in the paleontological crust of the
> > earth, but Darwinists will, despite their own authorities who have
> > established the fact, say just the opposite.
>
> > This is why evolution is rejected by the masses: no evidence and
> > Darwinists, like Darwin, are mother-fucking liars.
>
> before this newsgroup existed. (I mean it was resolved in your own mind,
> where you're a legend, though nowhere else.)
Harshman is more upset with the messenger than the message. That's
what happens when the message (truth) hurts.
Ray
Boikat
> On Dec 3, 1:01 pm, "David Hare-Scott" <sec...@nospam.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > Ray Martinez wrote:
> > > On Dec 3, 6:59 am, wiki trix <wikit...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >> So has anything been resolved on this newsgroup yet?
>
> > > Yep, Darwinists are fucking liars. There isn't anything that they will
> > > not misrepresent in order to protect their theory.
>
> > > There is no evidence of evolution in the paleontological crust of the
> > > earth, but Darwinists will, despite their own authorities who have
> > > established the fact, say just the opposite.
>
> > > This is why evolution is rejected by the masses: no evidence and
> > > Darwinists, like Darwin, are mother-fucking liars.
>
>
> > And self-appointed True Christians (TM) are the most civil, eloquent and
> > erudite analysts. Take Ray, we ought hang upon his every word and carve his
> > aphorisms into tablets of gold for future generations to sigh over. How
> > else will the youngsters learn?
>
> > Above is one such immortal post. Consider that years of scholarship that
> > are so roundly refuted by that one potent phrase "Darwinists are fucking
> > liars". I get all misty over the power of those words and all that they
> > imply. And then I struggle back to the keyboard to wipe my streaming eyes,
> > hold in my aching sides and try to gather breath enough to carry on.
>
> > David
>
> sleep, because strata contains no evidence of species evolving. Why?
> Because, according to David, scholarship has explained the fact away.
Why are there no Cambrian mammal fossils? Wgt do reptiles occur
earlier in the fossil record than mammal like reptiles? Why do mammal
like reptiles occur earlier in the fossil record than mammals? No
"darwinist" is loosing sleep over your assertion because your
assertion is wrong.
Boikat
Ray Martinez
>
> > Good example of Darwinian idiocy: the best birds are creatures that
> > cannot fly!
>
> > Ray
>
>
> It's ignorance all the way down.
A bluff.
If I did the miss the point(s), Deadrat would not be hesitating to
embarrass me.
Ray (Creatorist)
Boikat
You do that to yourself. How's your paper coming along? <tee-hee!>
Boikat
Ray Martinez
> On Dec 3, 9:59 am, wiki trix <wikit...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > So has anything been resolved on this newsgroup yet?
>
> "serious" I mean that they had nicely detailed, if wrong, "scientific"
> arguments. Even in the "good old days" those arguments were mostly
> about what's "weak" about evolution, with far less than what Dembski
> would consider a "pathetic level of detail" about any alternate
> "theory." But now, all we have is that old-earth-maybe-young-life
> "creatorist" Ray Martinez, who doesn't even try to have a "scientific"
> argument against evolution, much less *for* his elusive "theory." His
> objection is clearly against a philosophy he attributes to all
> "Darwinists." The few others who object to "Darwinism," and get "fed"
> more than they ought to, are not even worth mentioning.
Philosophy determines how evidence is going to be interpreted. If your
philosophy assumes that the Bible is false then your interpretation of
evidence will always support your philosophical assumptions----no
matter what. If your philosophy is defined as scientific, and all
other contrary philosophies are defined as unscientific, then no
evidence can exist that contradicts your philosophy.
Therefore when Frank charges that I lack a scientific argument against
evolution, he is correct since I reject the philosophy and assumptions
of the Theory of Evolution. The same in reverse is true concerning all
Darwinists. They lack a scientific argument against Creationism-ID
since the philosophy and assumptions are rejected.
Ray (Creatorist-Paleyan IDist)
deadrat
You don't need me to embarrass yourself.
Ray Martinez
> On Dec 3, 7:41 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > On Dec 3, 7:45 am, raven1 <quoththera...@nevermore.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Fri, 3 Dec 2010 06:59:06 -0800 (PST), wiki trix
>
> > > <wikit...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >So has anything been resolved on this newsgroup yet?
>
> > > 1) There is a general consensus that penguins are the best birds,
>
> > Good example of Darwinian idiocy: the best birds are creatures that
> > cannot fly!
>
> > Ray
>
> though, which makes them better than all those who can't. Which
> specific religious insight tells you flying is intrinsically better
> than diving? I must have missed the bible passage in question.
Imagine that; the most important characteristic that defines 'the best
bird' is an ability to behave like a fish, but not the ability to do
the most fundamental thing that defines the concept of bird (ability
to fly)?
The real point here is the illogical way in which Darwinists think.
Boikat is totally unaware of the fact that what he said makes no sense
whatsoever.
Ray (Creatorist)
Ray Martinez
<Since_humans_read_this_I_am_spammed_too_m...@spamyourself.com> wrote:
> On 12/3/2010 8:48 PM, Ray Martinez wrote:
>
> > On Dec 3, 6:59 am, wiki trix<wikit...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> So has anything been resolved on this newsgroup yet?
>
> > not misrepresent in order to protect their theory.
>
> > There is no evidence of evolution in the paleontological crust of the
> > earth, but Darwinists will, despite their own authorities who have
> > established the fact, say just the opposite.
>
> > This is why evolution is rejected by the masses: no evidence and
> > Darwinists, like Darwin, are mother-fucking liars.
>
> > Ray
>
>
> A fair warning: The level of your argumentation has dropped to "fucking
> liars", and lies like "This is why evolution is rejected by the masses",
> which is demonstrable wrong.
>
> I don't know about you religious people, but doesn't it bother you in
> the least to spit lies like that? I would feel like shit.
> Don't you have any decency? No pride?
> Is anything allowed to spread your religion?
>
> Erwin Moller
>
> --
> "There are two ways of constructing a software design: One way is to
> make it so simple that there are obviously no deficiencies, and the
> other way is to make it so complicated that there are no obvious
> deficiencies. The first method is far more difficult."
> -- C.A.R. Hoare
A dope who has drank the Kool-Aid of Darwin.
Charles Darwin was a mother-fucking liar. This is why over half of all
adults in the U.S. reject evolution: we recognize Darwin and his
disciples to be fucking liars or Atheists.
Apparently the Kool-Aid has made you think that anti-evolutionism has
some other reason for rejecting Darwinism. The fact that you guys are
fucking liars is the only reason.
Ray (Protestant Evangelical Creatorist)
deadrat
> On Dec 3, 1:08 pm, Frank J <f...@verizon.net> wrote:
>> On Dec 3, 9:59 am, wiki trix <wikit...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > So has anything been resolved on this newsgroup yet?
>>
>> In the 13 years I have been lurking (almost 10 posting) I have noticed
>> that the serious YECs, OECs and IDers have all disappeared. By
>> "serious" I mean that they had nicely detailed, if wrong, "scientific"
>> arguments. Even in the "good old days" those arguments were mostly
>> about what's "weak" about evolution, with far less than what Dembski
>> would consider a "pathetic level of detail" about any alternate
>> "theory." But now, all we have is that old-earth-maybe-young-life
>> "creatorist" Ray Martinez, who doesn't even try to have a "scientific"
>> argument against evolution, much less *for* his elusive "theory." His
>> objection is clearly against a philosophy he attributes to all
>> "Darwinists." The few others who object to "Darwinism," and get "fed"
>> more than they ought to, are not even worth mentioning.
>
> Philosophy determines how evidence is going to be interpreted.
Might we have some evidence for this claim?
> If your
> philosophy assumes that the Bible is false then your interpretation of
> evidence will always support your philosophical assumptions----no
> matter what.
But many geologists started out assuming that the Bible was literally
true, but they found that the evidence didn't support that belief.
> If your philosophy is defined as scientific, and all
> other contrary philosophies are defined as unscientific, then no
> evidence can exist that contradicts your philosophy.
It's not the philosophy that's defined as scientific; it's the method. No
evidence is admitted that isn't scientifically determinable as valid.
>
> Therefore when Frank charges that I lack a scientific argument against
> evolution, he is correct since I reject the philosophy and assumptions
> of the Theory of Evolution.
That's fine. It just means that you have to live with evidence that
contradicts your beliefs. Should be no hill for a climber like you.
> The same in reverse is true concerning all
> Darwinists. They lack a scientific argument against Creationism-ID
> since the philosophy and assumptions are rejected.
There's no need to reject the assumptions of IDiocy and Cretinism on
philosophical grounds. The evidence does that all on its lonesome.
> Ray (Creatorist-Paleyan IDist)
>
>
deadrat
How long have you had this um, obsession, with people having sex with their
mothers?
deadrat
> On Dec 3, 1:12 pm, Burkhard <b.scha...@ed.ac.uk> wrote:
>> On Dec 3, 7:41 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>> > On Dec 3, 7:45 am, raven1 <quoththera...@nevermore.com> wrote:
>>
>> > > On Fri, 3 Dec 2010 06:59:06 -0800 (PST), wiki trix
>>
>> > > <wikit...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > > >So has anything been resolved on this newsgroup yet?
>>
>> > > 1) There is a general consensus that penguins are the best birds,
>>
>> > Good example of Darwinian idiocy: the best birds are creatures that
>> > cannot fly!
>>
>> > Ray
>>
>> They are the only bird that can dive for extended periods of time
>> though, which makes them better than all those who can't. Which
>> specific religious insight tells you flying is intrinsically better
>> than diving? I must have missed the bible passage in question.
>
> Imagine that; the most important characteristic that defines 'the best
> bird' is an ability to behave like a fish, but not the ability to do
> the most fundamental thing that defines the concept of bird (ability
> to fly)?
The "concept of bird" is not a scientific description.
> The real point here is the illogical way in which Darwinists think.
> Boikat is totally unaware of the fact that what he said makes no sense
> whatsoever.
At least he knows that some birds can't fly.
And you've still missed the joke.
>
> Ray (Creatorist)
>
>
John Harshman
Please quote the bit where Darwin makes that admission. I guarantee you
are misinterpreting it.
Walter Bushell
jo...@wilkins.id.au (John S. Wilkins) wrote:
> William Morse <wdNOSP...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
> > On 12/03/2010 12:06 PM, Jeffrey Turner wrote:
> > > On 12/3/2010 10:45 AM, raven1 wrote:
> > >> On Fri, 3 Dec 2010 06:59:06 -0800 (PST), wiki trix
> > >> <wiki...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >>
> > >>> So has anything been resolved on this newsgroup yet?
> > >>
> > >> 1) There is a general consensus that penguins are the best birds,
> > >> although Harshman and others dissent.
> > >
> > > Do you think he'd dissent from the assertion that humans are the best
> > > fish?
> >
> > You're spelling that wrong. It's "ghoti"
>
> Is "roti" pronounced "rish"?
As in the sex act known from _Ringworld_ (Rishathra)?
--
The Chinese pretend their goods are good and we pretend our money
is good, or is it the reverse?
Walter Bushell
<b3df5494-1b49-4be8...@r40g2000prh.googlegroups.com>,
Dana Tweedy <reddf...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Ray apparently is projecting his own behavior on those he hates.
> Obviously that's anyone who is more intelligent, and better educated
> than Ray is.
>
> DJT
In other words, almost everyone.
Frank J
I have to admit, that's a clever rewording of the pathetic "plan B" of
"'Darwinism' is a religion too" that evolution deniers backpedal to
when the audience does not buy their "plan A" pretense of having a
better "'theory." As you know, most science-literate Christians don't
fall for Plan B either.
>
> Ray (Creatorist-Paleyan IDist)- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
AiG's philosophy is that the Bible is true, just like yours. But they
would "expel" you because, as an OEC you disagree with their statement
of faith:
1.Scripture teaches a recent origin for man and the whole creation,
spanning approximately 4,000 years from creation to Christ.
2.The days in Genesis do not correspond to geologic ages, but are six
[6] consecutive twenty-four [24] hour days of creation.
3.The Noachian Flood was a significant geological event and much (but
not all) fossiliferous sediment originated at that time.
4.The gap theory has no basis in Scripture.
5.The view, commonly used to evade the implications or the authority
of biblical teaching, that knowledge and/or truth may be divided into
secular and religious, is rejected.
6.By definition, no apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any
field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it
contradicts the scriptural record. Of primary importance is the fact
that evidence is always subject to interpretation by fallible people
who do not possess all information.
Mark Isaak
> William Morse <wdNOSP...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
>> On 12/03/2010 12:06 PM, Jeffrey Turner wrote:
>> > On 12/3/2010 10:45 AM, raven1 wrote:
>> >> On Fri, 3 Dec 2010 06:59:06 -0800 (PST), wiki trix
>> >> <wiki...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >>
>> >>> So has anything been resolved on this newsgroup yet?
>> >>
>> >> 1) There is a general consensus that penguins are the best birds,
>> >> although Harshman and others dissent.
>> >
>> > Do you think he'd dissent from the assertion that humans are the best
>> > fish?
>>
>> You're spelling that wrong. It's "ghoti"
>
> Is "roti" pronounced "rish"?
It is pronounced "wish" -- the r as in "forecastle", and the w sound
comes from nowhere as "virtuoso".
--
Mark Isaak eciton (at) earthlink (dot) net
"It is certain, from experience, that the smallest grain of natural
honesty and benevolence has more effect on men's conduct, than the most
pompous views suggested by theological theories and systems." - D. Hume
William Morse
> On Dec 3, 8:47 pm, William Morse<wdNOSPAMMo...@verizon.net> wrote:
>> On 12/03/2010 03:11 PM, jillery wrote:> On Dec 3, 12:09 pm, Burkhard<b.scha...@ed.ac.uk> wrote:
>>>> On Dec 3, 3:10 pm, jillery<69jpi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>>> On Dec 3, 9:59 am, wiki trix<wikit...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>>>> So has anything been resolved on this newsgroup yet?
>>
>>
>>>> Do you mind?
>>
>>> Should I?
>>
>> Is there a choice?
>
> Depends on what I'm supposed to mind, doesn't it?
>
Does what you mind vary widely?
William Morse
> On Sat, 04 Dec 2010 13:22:17 +1000, John S. Wilkins wrote:
>
>> William Morse<wdNOSP...@verizon.net> wrote:
>>
>>> On 12/03/2010 12:06 PM, Jeffrey Turner wrote:
>>>> On 12/3/2010 10:45 AM, raven1 wrote:
>>>>> On Fri, 3 Dec 2010 06:59:06 -0800 (PST), wiki trix
>>>>> <wiki...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> So has anything been resolved on this newsgroup yet?
>>>>>
>>>>> 1) There is a general consensus that penguins are the best birds,
>>>>> although Harshman and others dissent.
>>>>
>>>> Do you think he'd dissent from the assertion that humans are the best
>>>> fish?
>>>
>>> You're spelling that wrong. It's "ghoti"
>>
>> Is "roti" pronounced "rish"?
>
> It is pronounced "wish" -- the r as in "forecastle", and the w sound
> comes from nowhere as "virtuoso".
>
Boikat
Sorry? What did I say that you are too dull witted to understand?
>
> Ray (Cartoon)
Fixed your sig.
Boikat
David Hare-Scott
>>> On Dec 3, 6:59 am, wiki trix <wikit...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> So has anything been resolved on this newsgroup yet?
>>
>>> will not misrepresent in order to protect their theory.
>>
>>> There is no evidence of evolution in the paleontological crust of
>>> the earth, but Darwinists will, despite their own authorities who
>>> have established the fact, say just the opposite.
>>
>>> This is why evolution is rejected by the masses: no evidence and
>>> Darwinists, like Darwin, are mother-fucking liars.
>>
>>> Ray
>>
>> and erudite analysts. Take Ray, we ought hang upon his every word
>> and carve his aphorisms into tablets of gold for future generations
>> to sigh over. How else will the youngsters learn?
>>
>> Above is one such immortal post. Consider that years of scholarship
>> that are so roundly refuted by that one potent phrase "Darwinists
>> are fucking liars". I get all misty over the power of those words
>> and all that they imply. And then I struggle back to the keyboard to
>> wipe my streaming eyes, hold in my aching sides and try to gather
>> breath enough to carry on.
>>
>> David
>
> No Darwinist lies in bed at night, tossing and turning, unable to
> sleep, because strata contains no evidence of species evolving. Why?
> Because, according to David, scholarship has explained the fact away.
>
No, scholarship including supporting evidence, which has been reviewed and
cross-checked many times is worth something. Insults with no evidence are
worth nothing.
D
Ray Martinez
>
> - Show quoted text -
Darwin admitted plainly that species evolution is not seen in the
geological fossil record. He then explained the fact by comparing it
to a book that had pages ripped out of it. In other words he assumed
dishonestly that non-existence meant previous existence.
Now we have John Harshman playing the "misinterpretation" or
"misunderstanding" card in order to protect ToE and cast doubt on the
'roundness of the earth' (= Darwin's plain admission of absence).
Ray
Ray Martinez
> "Ray Martinez" <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> news:93bda937-30c7-47d7...@z17g2000prz.googlegroups.com:
>
> > On Dec 3, 6:59 am, wiki trix <wikit...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > So has anything been resolved on this newsgroup yet?
>
> > Yep, Darwinists are fucking liars. There isn't anything that they will
> > not misrepresent in order to protect their theory.
>
> > There is no evidence of evolution in the paleontological crust of the
> > earth, but Darwinists will, despite their own authorities who have
> > established the fact, say just the opposite.
>
> > This is why evolution is rejected by the masses: no evidence and
> > Darwinists, like Darwin, are mother-fucking liars.
>
>
> Otherwise you just violated the Commandment against bearing false
> witness against thy neighbor.
>
> -- Steven L.
Truth is not false witness (your mind is corrupt).
Ray
Boikat
> On Dec 4, 2:05 pm, John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > Ray Martinez wrote:
> > > On Dec 3, 11:48 am, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > >> On Dec 3, 6:59 am, wiki trix <wikit...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > >>> So has anything been resolved on this newsgroup yet?
> > >> Yep, Darwinists are fucking liars. There isn't anything that they will
> > >> not misrepresent in order to protect their theory.
>
> > >> There is no evidence of evolution in the paleontological crust of the
> > >> earth, but Darwinists will, despite their own authorities who have
> > >> established the fact, say just the opposite.
>
> > >> This is why evolution is rejected by the masses: no evidence and
> > >> Darwinists, like Darwin, are mother-fucking liars.
>
> > >> Ray
>
> > > Further explanation: While Darwin admitted that evolution was not seen
> > > in the geological fossil record, he was a fucking liar because he
> > > ignored the fact and said species evolved anyway.
>
> > Please quote the bit where Darwin makes that admission. I guarantee you
> > are misinterpreting it.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> Darwin admitted plainly that species evolution is not seen in the
> geological fossil record. He then explained the fact by comparing it
> to a book that had pages ripped out of it. In other words he assumed
> dishonestly that non-existence meant previous existence.
No. Unlike you, Darwin understood the reason for the gaps.
>
> Now we have John Harshman playing the "misinterpretation" or
> "misunderstanding" card in order to protect ToE and cast doubt on the
> 'roundness of the earth' (= Darwin's plain admission of absence).
And J. Harshman was right.
I wonder how many gaps your paper will have, aside from the gaps in
your understanding of science and logic.
Boikat
Walter Bushell
Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
> On Fri, 03 Dec 2010 22:18:05 -0500, the following appeared
> in talk.origins, posted by Walter Bushell <pr...@panix.com>:
>
> >In the I don't know what to say category
> >>
> >> Here we seem to have a contradiction in the law. You can't eat fish that
> >> lack scales, but you can eat animals that cleave the hoof and chew the
> >> cud. But since all ruminants fall into both categories (fish, check; no
> >> scales, check; cloven hoof, check; chew cud, check) which rule do we
> >> follow? Now if the law had said no scaleless fish *except*
> >> cloven-hooved, cud-chewing ones, that would be better. But for some
> >> reason the law doesn't seem to realize the evolutionary relationships
> >> among vertebrates. Go figure.
>
> Just say what Ray does: "There are no evolutionary
> relationships because evolution doesn't happen." See how
> easy that is?
To do so I would have to lie,
and lying I know is a sin.
Sing "Rickiti tikiti tin.
Boikat
> On Dec 3, 1:08 pm, Frank J <f...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Dec 3, 9:59 am, wiki trix <wikit...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > So has anything been resolved on this newsgroup yet?
>
> > In the 13 years I have been lurking (almost 10 posting) I have noticed
> > that the serious YECs, OECs and IDers have all disappeared. By
> > "serious" I mean that they had nicely detailed, if wrong, "scientific"
> > arguments. Even in the "good old days" those arguments were mostly
> > about what's "weak" about evolution, with far less than what Dembski
> > would consider a "pathetic level of detail" about any alternate
> > "theory." But now, all we have is that old-earth-maybe-young-life
> > "creatorist" Ray Martinez, who doesn't even try to have a "scientific"
> > argument against evolution, much less *for* his elusive "theory." His
> > objection is clearly against a philosophy he attributes to all
> > "Darwinists." The few others who object to "Darwinism," and get "fed"
> > more than they ought to, are not even worth mentioning.
>
> Philosophy determines how evidence is going to be interpreted. If your
Interesting point. Philosophically, why would you assume the Bible is
true, and not any other creation myth or account for that matter?
Care to answer that with a straight face?
Boikat
John Harshman
> On Dec 4, 2:05 pm, John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>> Ray Martinez wrote:
>>> On Dec 3, 11:48 am, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>> On Dec 3, 6:59 am, wiki trix <wikit...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> So has anything been resolved on this newsgroup yet?
>>>> Yep, Darwinists are fucking liars. There isn't anything that they will
>>>> not misrepresent in order to protect their theory.
>>>> There is no evidence of evolution in the paleontological crust of the
>>>> earth, but Darwinists will, despite their own authorities who have
>>>> established the fact, say just the opposite.
>>>> This is why evolution is rejected by the masses: no evidence and
>>>> Darwinists, like Darwin, are mother-fucking liars.
>>>> Ray
>>> Further explanation: While Darwin admitted that evolution was not seen
>>> in the geological fossil record, he was a fucking liar because he
>>> ignored the fact and said species evolved anyway.
>> Please quote the bit where Darwin makes that admission. I guarantee you
>> are misinterpreting it.
> Darwin admitted plainly that species evolution is not seen in the
> geological fossil record. He then explained the fact by comparing it
> to a book that had pages ripped out of it. In other words he assumed
> dishonestly that non-existence meant previous existence.
Poor summary of the passage in question. I asked for a quote.
But here's your main problem. Darwin was asking why we don't see
innumerable fine transitions. That's not at all the same as admitting
that evolution is not seen. He in fact points out some excellent
evidence from the fossil record in favor of evolution, for example his
observation that species most often appear to come into existence in the
same area as previous, similar ones. Why are sloths and armadillos found
in South America, the same place in which ground sloth and glyptodont
fossils are known? Evolution explains it. The inexplicable whims of a
creator could also "explain" it, but of course that would explain
anything whatsoever.
> Now we have John Harshman playing the "misinterpretation" or
> "misunderstanding" card in order to protect ToE and cast doubt on the
> 'roundness of the earth' (= Darwin's plain admission of absence).
Like I said, Darwin wasn't admitting what you claim. You are very bad at
reading for comprehension.
deadrat
Well, right now it's all gap, but you just gotta have faith.
deadrat
> On Dec 4, 2:05 pm, John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>> Ray Martinez wrote:
>> > On Dec 3, 11:48 am, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> >> On Dec 3, 6:59 am, wiki trix <wikit...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >>> So has anything been resolved on this newsgroup yet?
>> >> Yep, Darwinists are fucking liars. There isn't anything that they will
>> >> not misrepresent in order to protect their theory.
>>
>> >> There is no evidence of evolution in the paleontological crust of the
>> >> earth, but Darwinists will, despite their own authorities who have
>> >> established the fact, say just the opposite.
>>
>> >> This is why evolution is rejected by the masses: no evidence and
>> >> Darwinists, like Darwin, are mother-fucking liars.
>>
>> >> Ray
>>
>> > Further explanation: While Darwin admitted that evolution was not seen
>> > in the geological fossil record, he was a fucking liar because he
>> > ignored the fact and said species evolved anyway.
>>
>> Please quote the bit where Darwin makes that admission. I guarantee you
>> are misinterpreting it.- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
> Darwin admitted plainly that species evolution is not seen in the
> geological fossil record. He then explained the fact by comparing it
> to a book that had pages ripped out of it. In other words he assumed
> dishonestly that non-existence meant previous existence.
No, Ray. You have assumed that absence of evidence equates to evidence of
absence. Plenty of evidence exists that species evolve.
> Now we have John Harshman playing the "misinterpretation" or
> "misunderstanding" card in order to protect ToE and cast doubt on the
> 'roundness of the earth' (= Darwin's plain admission of absence).
But the earth *is* round, Ray.
> Ray
>
>
jillery
Should it?
Susan S
<jhar...@pacbell.net>:
>deadrat wrote:
>> John Harshman <jhar...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>>
>>> Mike Lyle wrote:
>>>> Burkhard wrote:
>>>>> On Dec 3, 7:41 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>>> On Dec 3, 7:45 am, raven1 <quoththera...@nevermore.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Fri, 3 Dec 2010 06:59:06 -0800 (PST), wiki trix
>>>>>>> <wikit...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>> So has anything been resolved on this newsgroup yet?
>>>>>>> 1) There is a general consensus that penguins are the best birds,
>>>>>> Good example of Darwinian idiocy: the best birds are creatures that
>>>>>> cannot fly!
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Ray
>>>>> They are the only bird that can dive for extended periods of time
>>>>> though, which makes them better than all those who can't. Which
>>>>> specific religious insight tells you flying is intrinsically better
>>>>> than diving? I must have missed the bible passage in question.
>>>> A penguin is a fish that lacketh scales, and is therefore unclean!
>>>> unclean! unclean!
>>> Hmmm...so is a cow.
>>
>> No, no. A cow has a cloven hoof and chews its cud. Just like a giraffe.
>> But not like a sea cow.
>
>Here we seem to have a contradiction in the law. You can't eat fish that
>lack scales, but you can eat animals that cleave the hoof and chew the
>cud. But since all ruminants fall into both categories (fish, check; no
>scales, check; cloven hoof, check; chew cud, check) which rule do we
>follow? Now if the law had said no scaleless fish *except*
>cloven-hooved, cud-chewing ones, that would be better. But for some
>reason the law doesn't seem to realize the evolutionary relationships
>among vertebrates. Go figure.
One wonders how they managed to determine that locusts had cloven hooves
and chewed cud, before the invention of good microscopes.
Susan Silberstein
Rolf
> On 12/03/2010 09:59 AM, wiki trix wrote:
>> So has anything been resolved on this newsgroup yet?
>>
>
> Ray will never finish his paper.
This thread was so wonderful until Ray had to pollute it.
My initial reaction to the opening post was that yes, one thing has been
resolved: That Ray is beyond salvation. From idiocy, that is.
But he saved me by showing up himself to prove it.
Rolf.
Frank J
How many times do I have to say this? The Bible's creation myth must
be at least partly false because it simply comes in mutually
contradictory versions. I don't just mean the Gen I / Gen II
discrepancy, for which some anti-evolution word-gamers have found ways
to convince themselves and some gullible followers does not exist, but
the simple fact that several forever-irreconcilable YEC and OEC
interpretations exist, and at best only one can be true. That would be
the case with or without the testable explanation that we have that
refutes all of them.
So anyone who makes excuses for, or just ignores, interpretations that
contradict theirs (if they even have one - they are getting more vague
than ever) is just playing games. Especially if they single out
mainstream science to "refute." Whether or not they realize what
they're doing (& I think Ray does), their philosophy condones bearing
false witness.
>
> Care to answer that with a straight face?
>
> Boikat- Hide quoted text -
Walter Bushell
"Mike Lyle" <mike_l...@REMOVETHISyahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> Steven L. wrote:
> > "Ray Martinez" <pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > news:93bda937-30c7-47d7...@z17g2000prz.googlegroups.com:
> >
> >> On Dec 3, 6:59 am, wiki trix <wikit...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>> So has anything been resolved on this newsgroup yet?
> >>
> >> Yep, Darwinists are fucking liars. There isn't anything that they
> >> will not misrepresent in order to protect their theory.
> >>
> >> There is no evidence of evolution in the paleontological crust of the
> >> earth, but Darwinists will, despite their own authorities who have
> >> established the fact, say just the opposite.
> >>
> >> This is why evolution is rejected by the masses: no evidence and
> >> Darwinists, like Darwin, are mother-fucking liars.
> >
> > You better hope your theory turns out to be right.
> >
> > Otherwise you just violated the Commandment against bearing false
> > witness against thy neighbor.
> >
> Even if he's right, he's still falling somewhat short of letting his
> discourse be "Yea, yea" and "Nay, nay".
Jesus invented the binary system? Computers these days follow that
paradigm explicitly.
Burkhard
1960s France, and epitomised by the deity of cuteness, France Gall.
el cid
Perhaps one more time.
You are not focused on discrepancy between Gen I and Gen II but
in different interpretations exist?
There are different interpretations of quantum mechanics by
professional physicists, mutually incompatible interpretations,
but this doesn't mean quantum mechanics is wrong. It means
at least one of the mutually incompatible interpretations is
wrong, unless we get all warm and fuzzy and see them as true
in the sense of the tale about the blind men describing the
elephant as a tree or a wall or a snake.
I'm afraid you must mean that some of the various popular
interpretations of Genesis must be wrong because they
are mutually contradictory, but that isn't what you wrote.
> So anyone who makes excuses for, or just ignores, interpretations that
> contradict theirs (if they even have one - they are getting more vague
> than ever) is just playing games. Especially if they single out
> mainstream science to "refute." Whether or not they realize what
> they're doing (& I think Ray does), their philosophy condones bearing
> false witness.
I agree that examining arguments on your own side is
also important. Your argument above looks flawed to me
for the reasons I presented. Incorrect interpretations of
the bible don't refute the bible, they refute those interpretations.
I'm afraid that leaves you with the claim that interpretation
of the bible apparently isn't straightforward and then you
have to deal with specific interpretations until you simply
grow tired it.
Eric Root
> So has anything been resolved on this newsgroup yet?
Chez Watts don't have to be seconded. POMs do.
Eric Root
Eric Root
> el cid wrote:
> > On Dec 3, 12:06 pm, Jeffrey Turner <jtur...@localnet.com> wrote:
> >> On 12/3/2010 10:45 AM, raven1 wrote:
>
> >>> On Fri, 3 Dec 2010 06:59:06 -0800 (PST), wiki trix
> >> Do you think he'd dissent from the assertion that humans are the best
> >> fish?
>
> > are the best fish, they are the best birds.
>
> I have difficulty deciding what are the best fish, but I've been able to
> narrow it down to four: woodpeckers, herons, ducks, and hummingbirds.
> Penguins aren't in the running.
Why not crows?
Eric Root
Steven L.
"Ray Martinez" <pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:d39d4059-25e8-473b...@j19g2000prh.googlegroups.com:
That's what I said: You had better hope your theory turns out to be
true.
What happens when the day comes when you pass from this earth, go to
meet your Maker--and the Lord says to you "You got it all wrong, Ray."
-- Steven L.