"If" I find a flaw in Theobald's argument I might even get three-fer-the-price-of-one
T Pagano
through everything with a fine tooth comb. Looks like a "J Wilkins"
is credited by Theobald with providing critical commentary for the
article. Harshman left that part out. Perhaps an oversight?
So if I'm lucky enough to crash Theobald's argument then I might even
get a three-fer.
Things just keep on gettin' better and I've got nothing to lose one
way or the other.
Regards,
T Pagano
chris thompson
Absolutely correct, Tony. Once your credibility is at rock-bottom,
you've got absolutely nothing to lose.
Chris
Ron O
You just can't make this junk up. Pags is so out of it that Backspace
is likely trying to think of some way to define him out of existence,
just so Pags can't embarass the anti-evolution dweebs anymore than he
has.
Ron Okimoto
Bob Casanova
in talk.origins, posted by T Pagano <not....@address.net>:
>I normally don't read the acknowledgements
You don't normally read anything for comprehension, Tony.
> but in this case I'm going
>through everything with a fine tooth comb. Looks like a "J Wilkins"
>is credited by Theobald with providing critical commentary for the
>article. Harshman left that part out. Perhaps an oversight?
>
>So if I'm lucky enough to crash Theobald's argument then I might even
>get a three-fer.
>
>Things just keep on gettin' better and I've got nothing to lose one
>way or the other.
You haven't had anything to lose for quite a while, given
that you've never won any arguments.
And Tony, I'm still waiting for the answer to that pesky
question: If the Bible disagrees with scientific knowledge,
which is to be accepted as literally correct (i.e., should
the Bible be treated as a science and/or history text)? I
refer specifically to the Noachian Flood; did or did not it
occur *as described in the Bible*?
Eagerly awaiting your continued practice of ignoring this
question (or dancing around it without answering it)...
--
Bob C.
"Evidence confirming an observation is
evidence that the observation is wrong."
- McNameless
Frank J
> On Jul 5, 2:35 pm, chris thompson <chris.linthomp...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jul 5, 3:25 pm, T Pagano <not.va...@address.net> wrote:
>
> > > I normally don't read the acknowledgements but in this case I'm going
> > > through everything with a fine tooth comb. Looks like a "J Wilkins"
> > > is credited by Theobald with providing critical commentary for the
> > > article. Harshman left that part out. Perhaps an oversight?
>
> > > So if I'm lucky enough to crash Theobald's argument then I might even
> > > get a three-fer.
>
> > > Things just keep on gettin' better and I've got nothing to lose one
> > > way or the other.
>
> > > Regards,
> > > T Pagano
>
> > Absolutely correct, Tony. Once your credibility is at rock-bottom,
> > you've got absolutely nothing to lose.
>
> > Chris
>
> You just can't make this junk up.
You keep saying that, and I'm not certain that you're wrong, but but
it does violate Poe's Law.
> Pags is so out of it that Backspace
> is likely trying to think of some way to define him out of existence,
> just so Pags can't embarass the anti-evolution dweebs anymore than he
> has.
He's an excellent driver, though. ;-)
>
> Ron Okimoto- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
T Pagano
It's terribly easy to sling vague generalities but quite another to
demonstrate it. Has my credibility been tarnished? Point me to the
rebuttal where I have been conclusively found misteken. Otherwise
this is nothing more than a bad case of sour grapes. At least
Theobald has moved on to bigger and better things.
Regards,
T Pagano
raven1
wrote:
>I normally don't read the acknowledgements but in this case I'm going
>through everything with a fine tooth comb. Looks like a "J Wilkins"
>is credited by Theobald with providing critical commentary for the
>article. Harshman left that part out. Perhaps an oversight?
Perhaps irrelevant?
>So if I'm lucky enough to crash Theobald's argument then I might even
>get a three-fer.
My money's on you misrepresenting it, rather than "crashing" it.
>Things just keep on gettin' better and I've got nothing to lose one
>way or the other.
True, given that you've already hit bottom some time ago.
bpuharic
wrote:
>On Mon, 5 Jul 2010 12:35:52 -0700 (PDT), chris thompson
><chris.li...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>On Jul 5, 3:25 pm, T Pagano <not.va...@address.net> wrote:
>>> I normally don't read the acknowledgements but in this case I'm going
>>> through everything with a fine tooth comb. Looks like a "J Wilkins"
>>> is credited by Theobald with providing critical commentary for the
>>> article. Harshman left that part out. Perhaps an oversight?
>>>
>>> So if I'm lucky enough to crash Theobald's argument then I might even
>>> get a three-fer.
>>>
>>> Things just keep on gettin' better and I've got nothing to lose one
>>> way or the other.
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>> T Pagano
>>
>>Absolutely correct, Tony. Once your credibility is at rock-bottom,
>>you've got absolutely nothing to lose.
>>
>>Chris
>
>
>It's terribly easy to sling vague generalities but quite another to
>demonstrate it. Has my credibility been tarnished? Point me to the
>rebuttal where I have been conclusively found misteken.
i can. you said the cosmic background is isotropic
the work of smoot and mather proved it isnt
you stand refuted
Rusty Sites
> On Mon, 5 Jul 2010 12:35:52 -0700 (PDT), chris thompson
> <chris.li...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Jul 5, 3:25 pm, T Pagano<not.va...@address.net> wrote:
>>> I normally don't read the acknowledgements but in this case I'm going
>>> through everything with a fine tooth comb. Looks like a "J Wilkins"
>>> is credited by Theobald with providing critical commentary for the
>>> article. Harshman left that part out. Perhaps an oversight?
>>>
>>> So if I'm lucky enough to crash Theobald's argument then I might even
>>> get a three-fer.
>>>
>>> Things just keep on gettin' better and I've got nothing to lose one
>>> way or the other.
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>> T Pagano
>>
>> Absolutely correct, Tony. Once your credibility is at rock-bottom,
>> you've got absolutely nothing to lose.
>>
>> Chris
>
>
> It's terribly easy to sling vague generalities but quite another to
> demonstrate it.
Yes we have seen you demonstrate that time and time again. How about
demonstrating that you know how to compute the CSI of something. A
jelly donut was what was ordered but anything else that would
demonstrate that you can do more than just sling vague generalities
would suffice.
Bruce Stephens
[...]
> Point me to the rebuttal where I have been conclusively found
> misteken.
Here's a few:
<http://groups.google.co.uk/group/talk.origins/msg/00f38ec918ef8c16>
<http://groups.google.co.uk/group/talk.origins/msg/a6b6147359921aed>
<http://groups.google.co.uk/group/talk.origins/msg/facc7bc164817e8b>
<http://groups.google.co.uk/group/talk.origins/msg/a8c1da6fcd68ab98>
All (presuming I didn't make a mistake, obviously) the same person
directly replying to you, showing your errors (or so it seems to me).
For some reason you didn't reply to any of them.
[...]
Rusty Sites
I think maybe Tony was so badly traumatized by this repeated brutal
thrashing that he lost all memory of it.
chris thompson
You really are a hoot, Tony.
OK, the regulars will recall this thread, in which I brought up the
fact that Tony had run from a discussion of vestigial structures. My
contention was that the presence of certain teeth in vampire bats
(specifically, nonfuctional premolars and molars) were vestigial. Now,
I called those teeth, collectively, "cheek teeth". This is a perfectly
reasonable designation:
http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1O8-cheekteeth.html
My question was, why would an animal that feeds entirely on liquids
have teeth specialized for grinding solid food? Specifically, members
of the genus _Desmodus_ have premolars (2 in the upper jaw, 3 in the
lower). The premolars lack enamel and are thus nonfunctional. Tony
ultimately retreated into the position that since the scientific paper
I provided as a reference did not specifically call the premolars and
molars "cheek teeth", it didn't count :/
So, gentle lurkers and not-so-gentle readers, for your edification and
reading pleasure, I provide this link. You should especially read it
if you missed eeling season this year, and you miss attempting
grappling with something slimy, squishy, and squirmy.
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/a266104783f64afa?hl=en
Have fun,
Chris
PS: You might pay particular attention to Mike Dunford's post; it is
number 16 in Gurgle Groups.
Rusty Sites
That post contans:
Pagano needs to read for comprehension, or learn to ask for help when
he does not understand what he is reading.
I would add that, perhaps even more importantly, he needs to understand
what he is writing. In particular, he needs to understand what CSI is
and what it means before he boasts about thrashing people with it.
Robert Camp
> On Mon, 5 Jul 2010 12:35:52 -0700 (PDT), chris thompson
>
>
>
>
>
> <chris.linthomp...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >On Jul 5, 3:25 pm, T Pagano <not.va...@address.net> wrote:
> >> I normally don't read the acknowledgements but in this case I'm going
> >> through everything with a fine tooth comb. Looks like a "J Wilkins"
> >> is credited by Theobald with providing critical commentary for the
> >> article. Harshman left that part out. Perhaps an oversight?
>
> >> So if I'm lucky enough to crash Theobald's argument then I might even
> >> get a three-fer.
>
> >> Things just keep on gettin' better and I've got nothing to lose one
> >> way or the other.
>
> >> Regards,
> >> T Pagano
>
> >Absolutely correct, Tony. Once your credibility is at rock-bottom,
> >you've got absolutely nothing to lose.
>
> >Chris
>
> It's terribly easy to sling vague generalities but quite another to
> demonstrate it. Has my credibility been tarnished?
On the off chance that this is a serious question, let's make sure we
agree on terms: What is your definition of credibility (keep in mind
that we all have dictionaries) and what would you accept as evidence
for having it, or not?
RLC
chris thompson
Be careful what you ask for:
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/de4edfd606855b94?hl=en
Chris
John S. Wilkins
I don't think that offering a fairly brief commentary to Douglas on an
early draft counts as losing your cerdibility... :-)
--
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
T Pagano
Thompson had to reach pretty far back (2002) to attempt a proof that
my credibility as been tarnished. Let's see if Thompson proves
anthing-----least of all my tarnished credibility
The burden of proof to show vestigiality was on the atheist and not I.
As I pointed out over a 3-6 month period back then (late 2002 thru
2003): During the Scopes Trial (around 1925) an eminent secular
academian was allowed to enter a statement into the court record which
claimed (based upon the atheist orthodoxy of the time) that there
existed 180 vestigial organs and structures in the human body. By
2002 that number has twindled to around 6 and there have been
suggested functions for even those. My constant refrain both then
(2002) and now is that the claim of vestigiality has proved to be
little more than a place holder for atheist ignorance.
The web report Thompson refers to above did not assert anywhere in its
four corners that the vampire cheek teeth were vestigial or that they
lacked function.
The Dunford post to which Thompson refers wasn't terribly strong
either. I argued during that thread that if vestigial organs were
good evidence of neoDarwinian evolutionary change then we should see
historical evidence of some previous molar function at some distant
past. Sadly Dunford, Thompson (and Elsberry whose Transitional
Challenge had been collapsed in March 2001) knew that no such
transitionals existed and predictably Dunford denied that this
evidence was necessary. The issue remained that Dunford's and
Thompson's ignorance of function was hardly sufficient to carry the
day given the collapse of similar claims since the Scopes Trial.
Back in 2002 I never bothered to look for a possible function of the
vampire bat cheek teeth because the history of science was on my side.
I decided today to do a quick Google search and behold out popped a
wikipedia article concerning the vampire bat which claims that the
cheek teeth DO have a function and lack of enamel also has a distinct
function. See the "Feeding" section.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vampire_bat
As usual the atheist hasn't demonstrated anything but his desparation.
Regards,
T Pagano
chris thompson
> chris thompson <chris.linthomp...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Jul 5, 3:25 pm, T Pagano <not.va...@address.net> wrote:
> > > I normally don't read the acknowledgements but in this case I'm going
> > > through everything with a fine tooth comb. Looks like a "J Wilkins"
> > > is credited by Theobald with providing critical commentary for the
> > > article. Harshman left that part out. Perhaps an oversight?
>
> > > So if I'm lucky enough to crash Theobald's argument then I might even
> > > get a three-fer.
>
> > > Things just keep on gettin' better and I've got nothing to lose one
> > > way or the other.
>
> > > Regards,
> > > T Pagano
>
> > Absolutely correct, Tony. Once your credibility is at rock-bottom,
> > you've got absolutely nothing to lose.
>
> > Chris
>
> I don't think that offering a fairly brief commentary to Douglas on an
> early draft counts as losing your cerdibility... :-)
Absolutely not. He lost his credibility on this newsgroup through
years of sustained effort. He could regain it with some reasonable
critique of Theobold's paper but I given his previous posturing, I am
worried about anoxia should I hold my breath waiting for it.
Chris
> --
> John S. Wilkins, Philosophy, Bond Universityhttp://evolvingthoughts.net
bpuharic
wrote:
>
>Thompson had to reach pretty far back (2002) to attempt a proof that
>my credibility as been tarnished. Let's see if Thompson proves
>anthing-----least of all my tarnished credibility
i was able to wreck your credibility by citing a comment you made last
week.
you have selective forgetting, due to your religious fanaticism
chris thompson
> On Mon, 5 Jul 2010 15:12:12 -0700 (PDT), chris thompson
>
>
>
Did you put a time limit on this? No, looking back upthread, I see you
did not. In any case, others have provided ample, more recent examples
of you being wrong. I chose this example for a couple reasons- being
personally involved the search terms were familiar and easy, and new
lurkers should have an opportunity to see how long you have been
lying.
>
> The burden of proof to show vestigiality was on the atheist and not I.
No it is not. As pointed out in the original thread way back when, you
claimed that any vestigial structure did indeed have a function. Quit
lying.
> As I pointed out over a 3-6 month period back then (late 2002 thru
> 2003): During the Scopes Trial (around 1925) an eminent secular
> academian was allowed to enter a statement into the court record which
> claimed (based upon the atheist orthodoxy of the time) that there
> existed 180 vestigial organs and structures in the human body. By
> 2002 that number has twindled to around 6 and there have been
> suggested functions for even those. My constant refrain both then
> (2002) and now is that the claim of vestigiality has proved to be
> little more than a place holder for atheist ignorance.
And you never, ever, ever posted a list of structures mentioned in the
Scopes trial. Tony, you are lying shamelessly. There were no such
structures mentioned, and even had there been a list, that is NOT the
criterion for a structure to be 'vestigial'. A vestigial structure is
one that is a leftover from some earlier form. That is, after all,
what 'vestige' means. Unlike you, science likes to use words that mean
what they seem to mean.
>
> The web report Thompson refers to above did not assert anywhere in its
> four corners that the vampire cheek teeth were vestigial or that they
> lacked function.
No, that was not the gist of the paper. The paper described the
anatomy of the various genera of vampire bats. But please Tony, tell
me the function of premolars in an animal that subsists from birth to
death on a liquid diet. Your Wiki article notwithstanding, you are
pointing at the wrong genus.
>
> The Dunford post to which Thompson refers wasn't terribly strong
> either. I argued during that thread that if vestigial organs were
> good evidence of neoDarwinian evolutionary change then we should see
> historical evidence of some previous molar function at some distant
> past. Sadly Dunford, Thompson (and Elsberry whose Transitional
We do not need anything in the distant past. We see transitional forms
in the extant species of vampire bats. Those that are
opportunistically sanguivorous have the best developed premolars and
molars. Those that prefer blood meals but will sometimes eat insects
have less developed premolars and molars. Those that are obligatory
sanguivorous feeders have no molars and non-functional premolars.
> Challenge had been collapsed in March 2001) knew that no such
> transitionals existed and predictably Dunford denied that this
> evidence was necessary. The issue remained that Dunford's and
> Thompson's ignorance of function was hardly sufficient to carry the
> day given the collapse of similar claims since the Scopes Trial.
Still no mention of the structures mentioned in the Scopes trial?
You've had YEARS to produce such a list, but you have failed to do so.
>
> Back in 2002 I never bothered to look for a possible function of the
> vampire bat cheek teeth because the history of science was on my side.
> I decided today to do a quick Google search and behold out popped a
> wikipedia article concerning the vampire bat which claims that the
> cheek teeth DO have a function and lack of enamel also has a distinct
> function. See the "Feeding" section.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vampire_bat
Tony, Tony, Tony. Once again you attempt to misdirect.
What you describe is EXACTLY how evolution works.
The cheek teeth (THANK YOU for finally admitting that premolars and
molars are cheek teeth) in all other mammals are GRINDING teeth. They
have lost this function in some vampire bats. The structure has been
coopted for another purpose. These teeth are VESTIGES of structures
that are more fully developed in other, extant species.
>
> As usual the atheist hasn't demonstrated anything but his desparation.
As usual, Tony makes no sense at all. He attempts to misdirect and
obfuscate, but once you know the littlest bit of biology, the meaning
becomes clear. And atheism has nothing to do with anything at hand- it
is only Tony's attempt to misdirect the issue from science to
religion.
In short, I (and many others) have shown Tony's assertions to be
utterly baseless.
Chris
Dusty Blight
Does any more need to be said? They used to say there were 180
vestigial structures in humans and now there are six. How could anybody
still think vampire bat molars are vestigial? How few human vestiges do
there have to be before they see the light? Four? Two? One?
> My constant refrain both then
> (2002) and now is that the claim of vestigiality has proved to be
> little more than a place holder for atheist ignorance.
All you have to do is ask Jesus and he will tell you that vampire bat
molars are not vestigial but they can't do that because they are atheists.
>
> The web report Thompson refers to above did not assert anywhere in its
> four corners that the vampire cheek teeth were vestigial or that they
> lacked function.
>
> The Dunford post to which Thompson refers wasn't terribly strong
> either. I argued during that thread that if vestigial organs were
> good evidence of neoDarwinian evolutionary change then we should see
> historical evidence of some previous molar function at some distant
> past. Sadly Dunford, Thompson (and Elsberry whose Transitional
> Challenge had been collapsed in March 2001) knew that no such
> transitionals existed and predictably Dunford denied that this
> evidence was necessary. The issue remained that Dunford's and
> Thompson's ignorance of function was hardly sufficient to carry the
> day given the collapse of similar claims since the Scopes Trial.
>
> Back in 2002 I never bothered to look for a possible function of the
> vampire bat cheek teeth because the history of science was on my side.
> I decided today to do a quick Google search and behold out popped a
> wikipedia article concerning the vampire bat which claims that the
> cheek teeth DO have a function and lack of enamel also has a distinct
> function. See the "Feeding" section.
Of course they have a function just like ostrich wings do. They even
have an extra shaving function in addition to the normal one but their
atheist mothers probably never told them to chew their water twenty
times before swallowing along with a lot of other things. Blood is a
lot like ketchup and I always chew my ketchup, don't you?
raven1
wrote:
>Thompson had to reach pretty far back (2002) to attempt a proof that
>my credibility as been tarnished.
Others have pointed out your quite recent and quite incorrect
assertion that the cosmic background radiation is isotropic, which you
repeated multiple times after being shown that your claim was wrong.
John S. Wilkins
> On Jul 5, 7:37 pm, j...@wilkins.id.au (John S. Wilkins) wrote:
> > chris thompson <chris.linthomp...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On Jul 5, 3:25 pm, T Pagano <not.va...@address.net> wrote:
> > > > I normally don't read the acknowledgements but in this case I'm going
> > > > through everything with a fine tooth comb. Looks like a "J Wilkins"
> > > > is credited by Theobald with providing critical commentary for the
> > > > article. Harshman left that part out. Perhaps an oversight?
> >
> > > > So if I'm lucky enough to crash Theobald's argument then I might even
> > > > get a three-fer.
> >
> > > > Things just keep on gettin' better and I've got nothing to lose one
> > > > way or the other.
> >
> > > > Regards,
> > > > T Pagano
> >
> > > Absolutely correct, Tony. Once your credibility is at rock-bottom,
> > > you've got absolutely nothing to lose.
> >
> > > Chris
> >
> > I don't think that offering a fairly brief commentary to Douglas on an
> > early draft counts as losing your cerdibility... :-)
>
> Absolutely not. He lost his credibility on this newsgroup through
> years of sustained effort. He could regain it with some reasonable
> critique of Theobold's paper but I given his previous posturing, I am
> worried about anoxia should I hold my breath waiting for it.
>
I meant *my* having done so...
Gregory A Greenman
> I normally don't read the acknowledgements
What acknowledgements?
> but in this case I'm going
> through everything with a fine tooth comb. Looks like a "J Wilkins"
> is credited by Theobald with providing critical commentary for the
> article.
What article?
> Harshman left that part out. Perhaps an oversight?
You give no context for your comments, thus they make absolutely no
sense. Perhaps an oversight? Or, more likely just the effects of a
pompous idiot who can't follow conventions and therefore writes
incoherent posts that those conventions were put in place to
prevent.
--
Greg
http://www.spencerbooksellers.com
newsguy -at- spencersoft -dot- com
Walter Bushell
jo...@wilkins.id.au (John S. Wilkins) wrote:
> chris thompson <chris.li...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Jul 5, 3:25 pm, T Pagano <not.va...@address.net> wrote:
> > > I normally don't read the acknowledgements but in this case I'm going
> > > through everything with a fine tooth comb. Looks like a "J Wilkins"
> > > is credited by Theobald with providing critical commentary for the
> > > article. Harshman left that part out. Perhaps an oversight?
> > >
> > > So if I'm lucky enough to crash Theobald's argument then I might even
> > > get a three-fer.
> > >
> > > Things just keep on gettin' better and I've got nothing to lose one
> > > way or the other.
> > >
> > > Regards,
> > > T Pagano
> >
> > Absolutely correct, Tony. Once your credibility is at rock-bottom,
> > you've got absolutely nothing to lose.
> >
> > Chris
>
> I don't think that offering a fairly brief commentary to Douglas on an
> early draft counts as losing your cerdibility... :-)
IOW, once you've lost your mind, you don't got nothing to lose.
--
All BP's money, and all the President's men,
Cannot put the Gulf of Mexico together again.
Walter Bushell
Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
> You haven't had anything to lose for quite a while, given
> that you've never won any arguments.
>
> And Tony, I'm still waiting for the answer to that pesky
> question: If the Bible disagrees with scientific knowledge,
> which is to be accepted as literally correct (i.e., should
> the Bible be treated as a science and/or history text)? I
> refer specifically to the Noachian Flood; did or did not it
> occur *as described in the Bible*?
>
> Eagerly awaiting your continued practice of ignoring this
> question (or dancing around it without answering it)...
And which account is the correct one?
How many animals of the clean and unclean types did Moses take on the
Ark?
Greg G.
> In article <vke436t1v1dfo0h2kr1lj0ccg5i9u4h...@4ax.com>,
> Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
>
> > You haven't had anything to lose for quite a while, given
> > that you've never won any arguments.
>
> > And Tony, I'm still waiting for the answer to that pesky
> > question: If the Bible disagrees with scientific knowledge,
> > which is to be accepted as literally correct (i.e., should
> > the Bible be treated as a science and/or history text)? I
> > refer specifically to the Noachian Flood; did or did not it
> > occur *as described in the Bible*?
>
> > Eagerly awaiting your continued practice of ignoring this
> > question (or dancing around it without answering it)...
>
> And which account is the correct one?
>
> How many animals of the clean and unclean types did Moses take on the
> Ark?
Did he take the Ten Commandments on the Ark two by two?
Steven L.
"T Pagano" <not....@address.net> wrote in message
news:apagano-11c43690evc0t...@4ax.com:
> I normally don't read the acknowledgements but in this case I'm going
> through everything with a fine tooth comb. Looks like a "J Wilkins"
> is credited by Theobald with providing critical commentary for the
> article. Harshman left that part out. Perhaps an oversight?
>
> So if I'm lucky enough to crash Theobald's argument then I might even
> get a three-fer.
>
> Things just keep on gettin' better and I've got nothing to lose one
> way or the other.
That's true.
Hollywood has defeated you more than any scientists could.
All the fans of Star Trek and Star Wars are now well aware that there's
a big universe out there (maybe even filled with intelligent aliens)
that does NOT revolve around the Earth.
You ought to try spreading your geocentrist message at a Star Trek
convention sometime.
-- Steven L.
Greg G.
> On Mon, 05 Jul 2010 15:25:39 -0400, T Pagano wrote:
> > I normally don't read the acknowledgements
>
> What acknowledgements?
>
> > but in this case I'm going
> > through everything with a fine tooth comb. Looks like a "J Wilkins"
> > is credited by Theobald with providing critical commentary for the
> > article.
>
> What article?
>
> > Harshman left that part out. Perhaps an oversight?
>
> You give no context for your comments, thus they make absolutely no
> sense. Perhaps an oversight? Or, more likely just the effects of a
> pompous idiot who can't follow conventions and therefore writes
> incoherent posts that those conventions were put in place to
> prevent.
The context comes from another thread, Tony was asking that John
Harshman post the article so that people wouldn't ask questions like
these. It wasn't legal to post the article (copyright law), so
everyone is responsible for looking up the article on their own.
Greg G.
> On Mon, 5 Jul 2010 15:12:12 -0700 (PDT), chris thompson
>
>
>
>
>
Chris is showing that you haven't had credibility for a long time.
When YECs jumped on the Intelligent Design bandwagon, it was apparent
that they knew all along their arguments were not valid yet they had
trotted them out anyway.
My favorite Paganoism is from 2004. Dana Tweedy asked Tony to explain
the Sidling Hill geology exposed by the road cut in terms of "calm,
global-like flooding".
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/590a3ebf7de29160
The Noahic Flood is world wide, short term, catastrophic event.
Why
would an event of such power be inconsistent with a "cut?"
Rusty Sites
Thanks for a current example. You continue to insist that vestigial
means "has no function" when you have been told for years that it does not.
Stuart
> I normally don't read the acknowledgements but in this case I'm going
> through everything with a fine tooth comb. Looks like a "J Wilkins"
> is credited by Theobald with providing critical commentary for the
> article. Harshman left that part out. Perhaps an oversight?
>
> So if I'm lucky enough to crash Theobald's argument then I might even
> get a three-fer.
>
You'll need a lot more than luck, Tony.
Stuart
chris thompson
Ah. There I go again. Just assuming that no philosopher's credibility
is *ever* in question.
Chris
> --
> John S. Wilkins, Philosophy, Bond Universityhttp://evolvingthoughts.net
Geode
> "T Pagano" <not.va...@address.net> wrote in message
not only start trek. Hollywood also made a lot of films that displease
religious nuts. That means, that religious authorities are not really
the masters of the universe.
Geode
.
Puppet_Sock
> On Jul 5, 3:45 pm, Ron O <rokim...@cox.net> wrote:
>
>
> > On Jul 5, 2:35 pm, chris thompson <chris.linthomp...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Jul 5, 3:25 pm, T Pagano <not.va...@address.net> wrote:
>
> > > > through everything with a fine tooth comb. Looks like a "J Wilkins"
> > > > is credited by Theobald with providing critical commentary for the
> > > > article. Harshman left that part out. Perhaps an oversight?
>
> > > > So if I'm lucky enough to crash Theobald's argument then I might even
> > > > get a three-fer.
>
> > > > Things just keep on gettin' better and I've got nothing to lose one
> > > > way or the other.
>
> > > > T Pagano
>
> > > Absolutely correct, Tony. Once your credibility is at rock-bottom,
> > > you've got absolutely nothing to lose.
>
> > > Chris
>
>
> You keep saying that, and I'm not certain that you're wrong, but but
> it does violate Poe's Law.
[snip]
Both of them.
Socks
Ray Martinez
> On Jul 5, 2:35 pm, chris thompson <chris.linthomp...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jul 5, 3:25 pm, T Pagano <not.va...@address.net> wrote:
>
> > > I normally don't read the acknowledgements but in this case I'm going
> > > through everything with a fine tooth comb. Looks like a "J Wilkins"
> > > is credited by Theobald with providing critical commentary for the
> > > article. Harshman left that part out. Perhaps an oversight?
>
> > > So if I'm lucky enough to crash Theobald's argument then I might even
> > > get a three-fer.
>
> > > Things just keep on gettin' better and I've got nothing to lose one
> > > way or the other.
>
> > > Regards,
> > > T Pagano
>
> > Absolutely correct, Tony. Once your credibility is at rock-bottom,
> > you've got absolutely nothing to lose.
>
> > Chris
>
> is likely trying to think of some way to define him out of existence,
> just so Pags can't embarass the anti-evolution dweebs anymore than he
> has.
>
> Ron Okimoto- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Both sides define their opponent out of existence, Ron. At least we
Creationists can admit.
Ray
Ray Martinez
> I normally don't read the acknowledgements but in this case I'm going
> through everything with a fine tooth comb. Looks like a "J Wilkins"
> is credited by Theobald with providing critical commentary for the
> article. Harshman left that part out. Perhaps an oversight?
>
> So if I'm lucky enough to crash Theobald's argument then I might even
> get a three-fer.
>
> Things just keep on gettin' better and I've got nothing to lose one
> way or the other.
>
> Regards,
> T Pagano
Since Theobald is a well known Darwinist, the conclusions in his paper
were predetermined.
Once the explanation of evidence called "evolution" is accepted it is
not thereafter eligible to be falsified. ALL data is interpreted to
support the explanation. The only thing eligible for falsification is
**how** evolution occurs. Neo-Darwinists have exalted effect over
cause. The exaltation is illogical, becoming evidence against the
effect existing in nature.
Ray
Walter Bushell
<03b9c31c-ed28-4b2b...@j8g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>,
"Greg G." <ggw...@gmail.com> wrote:
Shhhhhhhhhhhh! I was trying to trap a creationist.
T Pagano
<chris.li...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Jul 5, 8:26 pm, T Pagano <not.va...@address.net> wrote:
>> On Mon, 5 Jul 2010 15:12:12 -0700 (PDT), chris thompson
>> <chris.linthomp...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >On Jul 5, 5:02 pm, T Pagano <not.va...@address.net> wrote:
>> >> On Mon, 5 Jul 2010 12:35:52 -0700 (PDT), chris thompson
>> >> <chris.linthomp...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> >On Jul 5, 3:25 pm, T Pagano <not.va...@address.net> wrote:
snip
>> Thompson had to reach pretty far back (2002) to attempt a proof that
>> my credibility as been tarnished. Let's see if Thompson proves
>> anthing-----least of all my tarnished credibility
>
>Did you put a time limit on this? No, looking back upthread, I see you
>did not.
> In any case, others have provided ample, more recent examples
>of you being wrong.
Care to produce the links for this claim. Cause your 2002 links
didn't save you in the least. And the wikipedia article falsifies your
biological law of molars.
>I chose this example for a couple reasons- being
>personally involved the search terms were familiar and easy,
>and new
>lurkers should have an opportunity to see how long you have been
>lying.
Ah yes the last resort of the vanquished---their opponent lies.
>
>>
>> The burden of proof to show vestigiality was on the atheist and not I.
>
>No it is not. As pointed out in the original thread way back when, you
>claimed that any vestigial structure did indeed have a function.
I agree and it turns out that the bat cheek teeth and the lack of
enamel have a very important function. The history of science has
shown that every time the atheist presumes "junk" (as in the case of
DNA) or vestigial time proves them wrong. Thompson's credibility is
shot to hell.
I proved with the wikipediat article that the vampire bat cheek teeth
have function and the lack of enamel is important. Does Thompson
prove vestigality with "his" genus of vampire bat below? Let's look.
>Quit lying.
The last resort of the vanquished.
>
>> As I pointed out over a 3-6 month period back then (late 2002 thru
>> 2003): During the Scopes Trial (around 1925) an eminent secular
>> academian was allowed to enter a statement into the court record which
>> claimed (based upon the atheist orthodoxy of the time) that there
>> existed 180 vestigial organs and structures in the human body. By
>> 2002 that number has twindled to around 6 and there have been
>> suggested functions for even those. My constant refrain both then
>> (2002) and now is that the claim of vestigiality has proved to be
>> little more than a place holder for atheist ignorance.
>And you never, ever, ever posted a list of structures mentioned in the
>Scopes trial. Tony, you are lying shamelessly.
Where did I write that I listed the 180 structures?
And I have a copy of the Scopes Trial transcipt [Second Reprint
Edition, 1990, Bryant College, "The World's Most Famous Trial," see
especially p268]:
At the Scopes Trial the judge would not allow evolutionist scientists
to testify at the trial but he did allow the defense to enter written
statements by several evolutionist scientists. Professor Horatio
Hackett Newman was a Zoologist, University of Chicago, Dean of the
Colleges of Science. Dr Horatio wrote:
[BEGIN DR HORTIO QUOTE FROM THE SCOPES TRIAL]
"There are according to Wiedersheim [a well respected secular text at
the time], no less than 180 vestigal structures in the human body,
sufficient to make of a man a veritable walking museum of antiquities.
Among these are the vermiform appendix. . . .gill slits in the embryo.
.. . . ."
[END QUOTE]
This bit of atheist hubris turned out to be bull shit born of atheist
ignorance. Similar ignorant claims of "junk" DNA have likewise turned
out to be bull shit. Thompson's credibility is gone.
>There were no such
>structures mentioned, and even had there been a list, that is NOT the
>criterion for a structure to be 'vestigial'. A vestigial structure is
>one that is a leftover from some earlier form. That is, after all,
>what 'vestige' means. Unlike you, science likes to use words that mean
>what they seem to mean.
It was Thompson who claimed that the cheek teeth had no function in
the extant vampire bat. He implied in this thread that even the
enamel has ceased to form around the cheek teeth as further proof of
disuse. Yet the wikipedia article demonstrates that the cheek teeth
do have function and the lack of enamel also has a distinct purpose.
In order to prove that the cheek teeth had a different function (with
enamel) in some evolutionary predecessor it is the responsibility of
Thompson to produce historical evidence of those predecessors and show
that the cheek teeth had a DIFFERENT function and enamel.
If you argue that a "vestige" is the result of change over
evolutionary time scales then you must produce historical evidence of
the change. Sadly the paleontological record shows nothing but
stasis. There is no historical evidence of these transformational
changes.
>>
>> The web report Thompson refers to above did not assert anywhere in its
>> four corners that the vampire cheek teeth were vestigial or that they
>> lacked function.
>
>No, that was not the gist of the paper. The paper described the
>anatomy of the various genera of vampire bats. But please Tony, tell
>me the function of premolars in an animal that subsists from birth to
>death on a liquid diet. Your Wiki article notwithstanding, you are
>pointing at the wrong genus.
I proved easily with the wikipedia artcile that the vampire bat cheek
teeth including the lack of enamel have function. All the historical
scientific evidence points to the fact that all structures have some
function. Thomspon insisted in 2002 that the vampire bat cheek teeth
were NON FUNCTIONAL.
>
>>
>> The Dunford post to which Thompson refers wasn't terribly strong
>> either. I argued during that thread that if vestigial organs were
>> good evidence of neoDarwinian evolutionary change then we should see
>> historical evidence of some previous molar function at some distant
>> past. Sadly Dunford, Thompson (and Elsberry whose Transitional
>
>We do not need anything in the distant past. We see transitional forms
>in the extant species of vampire bats. Those that are
>opportunistically sanguivorous have the best developed premolars and
>molars. Those that prefer blood meals but will sometimes eat insects
>have less developed premolars and molars. Those that are obligatory
>sanguivorous feeders have no molars and non-functional premolars.
This sounds exactly like the analysis of population genetics and not
evolutionary biology. That different EXTANT populations exhibit
different expressions of molar and function is hardly evidence that
the cheek teeth are vestiges of some evolutionary predecessor.
Thompson can no more show that the wikipedia vampire bat's cheek teeth
are vestiges than he can with his own purported genus of vampire bat.
The wikipedia vampire bat isn't using its cheek teeth for grinding.
That Thompson's expectation of homology are not observed is not proof
of vestigality; it only proves his lack of imagination and that there
are no laws in biology.
>
>> Challenge had been collapsed in March 2001) knew that no such
>> transitionals existed and predictably Dunford denied that this
>> evidence was necessary. The issue remained that Dunford's and
>> Thompson's ignorance of function was hardly sufficient to carry the
>> day given the collapse of similar claims since the Scopes Trial.
>
>Still no mention of the structures mentioned in the Scopes trial?
>You've had YEARS to produce such a list, but you have failed to do so.
I thoroughly embarrassed Thompson over this issue above; no point in
reliving it.
>
>>
>> Back in 2002 I never bothered to look for a possible function of the
>> vampire bat cheek teeth because the history of science was on my side.
>> I decided today to do a quick Google search and behold out popped a
>> wikipedia article concerning the vampire bat which claims that the
>> cheek teeth DO have a function and lack of enamel also has a distinct
>> function. See the "Feeding" section.
>>
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vampire_bat
>
>Tony, Tony, Tony. Once again you attempt to misdirect.
>
>What you describe is EXACTLY how evolution works.
>
>The cheek teeth (THANK YOU for finally admitting that premolars and
>molars are cheek teeth) in all other mammals are GRINDING teeth. They
>have lost this function in some vampire bats. The structure has been
>coopted for another purpose. These teeth are VESTIGES of structures
>that are more fully developed in other, extant species.
The issue of whether the teeth were molars or not is and was
irrelevent. The issue was that Thompson asserted that they had no
function. The wikipedia article proved that there is no necessity for
molars to be used for grinding. And since Thompson can't produce any
historical proof that the purported evolutionary predecessor used its
cheek teeth in any way different than extant forms all he's left with
is a refuted law of molar function.
>
>>
>> As usual the atheist hasn't demonstrated anything but his desparation.
>
>As usual, Tony makes no sense at all. He attempts to misdirect and
>obfuscate, but once you know the littlest bit of biology, the meaning
>becomes clear. And atheism has nothing to do with anything at hand- it
>is only Tony's attempt to misdirect the issue from science to
>religion.
>
>In short, I (and many others) have shown Tony's assertions to be
>utterly baseless.
Let's recap:
1. Thompson clearly implied that the lack of enamel was proof that
the cheek teeth were in disuse.
2. The wikipedia article showed that extant vampire bats use the
cheek teeth for cutting and that the lack of enamel makes/keeps the
cheek teeth sharp.
3. Thompson implies a law of molars being used solely for grinding.
4. The wikipedia article crashes that law.
5. Thompson asserted that "a vestigial structure is one that is a
leftover from some earlier form."
6. Nonetheless Thompson replies that historical evidence was not
required and sadly for Thompson no transitional evidence exists.
7. Thompson presents evidence of varying sizes and shapes of extant
molars in populations of vampire bat.
8. This is a simple matter of population genetics. The existence of
such variations in the genome of the population is not prima facie
evidence of disuse or changed function.
9. I demonstrated through the atheist claims of a purported 180
vestigal human structures at the Scopes Trial and with the discredited
claims of "junk" DNA that science history show "vestigal" claims to be
placeholders for Thompson's ignorance.
Have I been discredited? Not by a long shot. Thompson's credibility
is another story.
Regards,
T Pagano
>
>Chris
Michael Young
credibility whatsoever. You evade, you misrepresent, you flee from
arguments and questions, and you make outrageous claims like science
being on your side when it continuously proves you wrong.
And everyone on here *knows* you have no credibility. We don't have to
prove it to you. If you want to hoot and holler that you "still got
it" go ahead, we don't really care if you think that. Everyone else
knows otherwise, and given the context of the old vets' comments, lots
of people have known otherwise for years. It's incredible the sheer
amount of arrogance you have clashing with the sheer amount of total
incompetence.
raven1
wrote:
>Care to produce the links for this claim. Cause your 2002 links
>didn't save you in the least.
I and others have pointed out your repeated incorrect statements from
less than a month ago that the cosmic background radiation is
isotropic, which you refused to retract or correct when your error was
pointed out. Do I need to quote you on it, or are you going to man up
and admit it?
Nashton
Pagano, as so many others have done in the past, had you for breakfast,
chewed you to microscopic morsels and spit you out *again*.
Greasy little bugger, aren't you?
chris thompson
Poor Nashton. Still cannot get rid of all that vitriol? Why so much
bitterness? Lose your job? Partner left you? Took the dog? Well, the
dog's probably better off, but I can understand your bitterness.
Chris
Ray Martinez
It's important to point out that Michael Young is a Darwinist and Tony
Pagano an IDist.
Ray
T Pagano
Let's recap:
1. Thompson clearly implied that the lack of enamel was proof that
the cheek teeth were in disuse.
2. The wikipedia article showed that extant vampire bats use the
cheek teeth for cutting and that the lack of enamel makes/keeps the
cheek teeth sharp.
3. Thompson implies a law of molars being used solely for grinding.
4. The wikipedia article crashes that law.
5. Thompson asserted that "a vestigial structure is one that is a
leftover from some earlier form."
Rusty Sites
Ah, the Pagano cheerleader. Tony's having enough problems with his
credibility without your help. If you really want to help him out,
don't appear to be on his side.
T Pagano
I agree whole-heartedly, but Harshman argued that Theobald's
evolutionary conclusion applies to the creationist model where some
finite number of Specially Created prototypes during the week of
Creation proceeded by common descent along separate paths. Theobald
argued that his statistical analysis of several amino acids was best
explained by a single tree from a Universal Common Ancestor rather
than from two different trees. Harshman is not the only one who
presumes this applies to the creationist model.
So it is worth pursuing Theobald's article if for no other reason then
to crash the big boys---if I can.
Rusty Sites
Tony always manages not to see those posts.
chris thompson
Maybe Nashton is a closet geocentrist?
Chris
Tim DeLaney
> On Mon, 5 Jul 2010 12:35:52 -0700 (PDT), chris thompson
>
>
>
>
>
> <chris.linthomp...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> I normally don't read the acknowledgements but in this case I'm going
> >> through everything with a fine tooth comb. �Looks like a "J Wilkins"
> >> is credited by Theobald with providing critical commentary for the
> >> article. �Harshman left that part out. �Perhaps an oversight?
>
> >> So if I'm lucky enough to crash Theobald's argument then I might even
> >> get a three-fer.
>
> >> Things just keep on gettin' better and I've got nothing to lose one
> >> way or the other.
>
> >> Regards,
> >> T Pagano
>
> >you've got absolutely nothing to lose.
>
> >Chris
>
> demonstrate it. � Has my credibility been tarnished? �Point me to the
> rebuttal where I have been conclusively found misteken. �Otherwise
> this is nothing more than a bad case of sour grapes. �At least
> Theobald has moved on to bigger and better things.
>
> Regards,
>
> - Show quoted text -
Pagano ignores the devastating portrayal of his
past errors that Bruce Stephens documents in
his post of July 5.
For example, Tony has repeated this bit of
nonsense _ad_nauseam_:
"The CMB has been discovered to be completely
isotropic which contradicts the Big Bang model
which predicts the CMB but requires there to be
significant temperature differences related to the
clumpiness of the universe (that is, due to the
purported naturlistic formation of planets, stars,
and galaxies)."
Unless the entire community of Physics, and the
Nobel committee as well, are all bumbling fools,
Tony is not only flatly wrong, but willfully so. He
refuses to even consider the possibility that
others might know more about physics and
astronomy than he does. See:
http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/laureates/2006/info.pdf
I am reluctant to call others liars when a more
charitable explanation for their false statements
is possible. Sometimes people are just ignorant.
Sometimes they interpret evidence erroneously.
Sometimes they are careless in their writing.
But in the face of incontrovertible evidence to
the contrary, Tony continues to assert this
patently false statement. The only rational
conclusion is that Tony Pagano is a liar.
Please note that this in no way affects my
continuing opinion that Tony is a Loki. To
those who disagree, I admit that my opinion
could easily be in error.
Tim
raven1
It's futile to point out to Ray that Argumentum ad Hominem is
logically fallacious.
haiku jones
A bit like telling Bruce Lee that he will not be
allowed to use karate.
HJ
Greg G.
Both sides of creationism? There are more than two sides to
creationism because there are many ways to be wrong.
In case you miscomprehended, Backspace and Pagano are creationists
with different mental problems and neither has yours.
Ray Martinez
>
> - Show quoted text -
Harshman said that?
If he did, and have no reason to believe that he did not, then he is
parrotting 20th century YECism. I hold to the position of science
before the rise of Darwinism: each species, past and present, owes its
existence in nature to real-time special creation. The concept of
"branching tree" is Darwinian, not Paleyan. Creationists do not accept
the concept of "evolution" to exist in nature. Therefore Harshman is
also, along with his YEC buddies, confused.
Ray
Ray Martinez
No; "both sides" meant Creationism and Darwinism, Einstein.
Ray
[....]
bpuharic
>On Mon, 5 Jul 2010 20:04:59 -0700 (PDT), chris thompson
><chris.li...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>On Jul 5, 8:26�pm,
>
>> In any case, others have provided ample, more recent examples
>>of you being wrong.
>
>Care to produce the links for this claim. Cause your 2002 links
>didn't save you in the least. And the wikipedia article falsifies your
>biological law of molars
yeah. both steve carlip and i have done so regarding yoru views on
relativity.
>
>Have I been discredited? Not by a long shot. Thompson's credibility
>is another story.
you stand discredited
>
>Regards,
>T Pagano
>
>
>
>
>>
>>Chris
Bob Casanova
appeared in talk.origins, posted by Ray Martinez
<pyram...@yahoo.com>:
Why is that, Ray? Does fact change with the attitude of the
bearer?
--
Bob C.
"Evidence confirming an observation is
evidence that the observation is wrong."
- McNameless
bpuharic
wrote:
>>
>>Ray
>
>I agree whole-heartedly, but Harshman argued that Theobald's
>evolutionary conclusion applies to the creationist mode
i wait with bated breath for the definition of hte 'creation' model...
it's never been defined.
Bruce Stephens
One thing we know is that Ray's definition is different to that of
(almost) all other creationists, including (presumably) Tony's. Almost
all creationists accept some level of relatedness.
Bob Casanova
in talk.origins, posted by T Pagano <not....@address.net>:
>On Tue, 6 Jul 2010 12:04:40 -0700 (PDT), chris thompson
><chris.li...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>On Jul 6, 2:52 pm, Nashton <n...@na.ca> wrote:
>>> On 7/6/10 12:04 AM, chris thompson wrote:
>>>
>>> Pagano, as so many others have done in the past, had you for breakfast,
>>> chewed you to microscopic morsels and spit you out *again*.
>>>
>>> Greasy little bugger, aren't you?
>>
>>Poor Nashton. Still cannot get rid of all that vitriol? Why so much
>>bitterness? Lose your job? Partner left you? Took the dog? Well, the
>>dog's probably better off, but I can understand your bitterness.
>Let's recap:
Yes, let's do...
Is the Noachian Flood as described in the Bible an accurate
portrayal of actual historic events? You *do* intend to
answer this, don't you, Tony?
<snip whining>
>Have I been discredited?
Dunno yet; do you intend to ever respond to this question,
thereby demonstrating to the group whether you consider the
Bible to be a history and science text, one more accurate
than actual historical and scientific knowledge?
Bob Casanova
in talk.origins, posted by T Pagano <not....@address.net>:
>On Mon, 5 Jul 2010 12:35:52 -0700 (PDT), chris thompson
><chris.li...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>On Jul 5, 3:25�pm, T Pagano <not.va...@address.net> wrote:
>>> I normally don't read the acknowledgements but in this case I'm going
>>> through everything with a fine tooth comb. �Looks like a "J Wilkins"
>>> is credited by Theobald with providing critical commentary for the
>>> article. �Harshman left that part out. �Perhaps an oversight?
>>>
>>> So if I'm lucky enough to crash Theobald's argument then I might even
>>> get a three-fer.
>>>
>>> Things just keep on gettin' better and I've got nothing to lose one
>>> way or the other.
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>> T Pagano
>>
>>Absolutely correct, Tony. Once your credibility is at rock-bottom,
>>you've got absolutely nothing to lose.
>>
>>Chris
>
>
>It's terribly easy to sling vague generalities but quite another to
>demonstrate it.
When the only ones present are witnesses, establishment of
the action seems a bit redundant.
> Has my credibility been tarnished?
Has it ever *not*?
Greg G.
The comment was about Backspace defining Pagano out of existance is
one creationist defining another out of existance, Bozo.
Ray Martinez
wrote:
> bpuharic <w...@comcast.net> writes:
> > On Tue, 06 Jul 2010 16:00:18 -0400, T Pagano <not.va...@address.net>
> > wrote:
>
> >>>Ray
>
> >>I agree whole-heartedly, but Harshman argued that Theobald's
> >>evolutionary conclusion applies to the creationist mode
>
> > i wait with bated breath for the definition of hte 'creation' model...
>
> > it's never been defined.
>
> One thing we know is that Ray's definition is different to that of
> (almost) all other creationists, including (presumably) Tony's. Almost
> all creationists accept some level of relatedness.
Creationists do not accept evolution; Evolutionists do not accept
creation.
The Creation model is independent creation of species, which then
dictates the same to be immutable (Darwin 1859:6). Explanation: Divine
power, operating in reality, causes **each** species to exist. In
Darwin's time independent creation of each species meant new species,
or species that lived after original creation. In this model there is
no need or room for evolution.
It should be noted that Darwin represented Creationism correctly in
"The Origin."
Ray
Ray Martinez
> On Tue, 6 Jul 2010 12:03:41 -0700 (PDT), the following
> appeared in talk.origins, posted by Ray Martinez
>
>
>
>
>
> >On Jul 6, 11:35 am, Michael Young <youngms...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> Tony, I'm the newest person here and *I* can tell you have no
> >> credibility whatsoever. You evade, you misrepresent, you flee from
> >> arguments and questions, and you make outrageous claims like science
> >> being on your side when it continuously proves you wrong.
>
> >> And everyone on here *knows* you have no credibility. We don't have to
> >> prove it to you. If you want to hoot and holler that you "still got
> >> it" go ahead, we don't really care if you think that. Everyone else
> >> knows otherwise, and given the context of the old vets' comments, lots
> >> of people have known otherwise for years. It's incredible the sheer
> >> amount of arrogance you have clashing with the sheer amount of total
> >> incompetence.
>
> >It's important to point out that Michael Young is a Darwinist and Tony
> >Pagano an IDist.
>
> Why is that, Ray?
Pointing out bias explains much, Bob.
Ray
> Does fact change with the attitude of the
> bearer?
> --
>
> Bob C.
>
> "Evidence confirming an observation is
> evidence that the observation is wrong."
> - McNameless- Hide quoted text -
Ray Martinez
>
> - Show quoted text -
Yes, I misread.
Sorry for the sarcasm.
Ray
Bruce Stephens
> On Jul 6, 3:51 pm, Bruce Stephens <bruce+use...@cenderis.demon.co.uk>
> wrote:
[...]
>> One thing we know is that Ray's definition is different to that of
>> (almost) all other creationists, including (presumably) Tony's. Almost
>> all creationists accept some level of relatedness.
>
> Creationists do not accept evolution; Evolutionists do not accept
> creation.
Tony's not a creationist? Do you know of anybody else (since 1859) who
believes as you do?
[...]
bpuharic
<pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Explanation: Divine
>power, operating in reality, causes **each** species to exist.
what's the difference between this and magic?
>
John Vreeland
wrote:
Trying to get Pagano to contemplate his own hypocrisy? Good luck. You
will only wind up activating his repressed fears of what life is like
when you don't have a big God to do your thinking for you. Much more
comforting to simply pretend you understand what everyone else is
talking about so that your dogmatic mantras will silence those silly
evolutionists. It works best if you assume a posture of serene
reasonableness while ignoring everything they say that distracts you
from your goal. And what is your goal? To keep talking so that you
don't have to think.
--
My years on the mudpit that is Usnenet have taught me one important thing: three Creation Scientists can have a serious conversation, if two of them are sock puppets.
Ray Martinez
wrote:
> Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> writes:
> > On Jul 6, 3:51 pm, Bruce Stephens <bruce+use...@cenderis.demon.co.uk>
> > wrote:
>
> [...]
>
> >> One thing we know is that Ray's definition is different to that of
> >> (almost) all other creationists, including (presumably) Tony's. Almost
> >> all creationists accept some level of relatedness.
>
> > Creationists do not accept evolution; Evolutionists do not accept
> > creation.
>
> believes as you do?
>
> [...]
Outside of the Church I belong: Sean Pitman (and the Seventh Day
Adventist Church); Dr. Walter Lammerts (Ph.D. in genetics). Of course
there are others.
Remember: the majority, whether secular or religious, is always wrong
according to Biblical typology. God's witness resides in the few----
literally.
What does Darwinism have to show? Ken Ham and the Young Earth Fundies
are in YOUR bed, Bruce. Tell me: who is on top, Ham or Dawkins?
Believe me when I say: LOL!
Ray (OEC, species immutabilist)
Ray Martinez
> On Tue, 6 Jul 2010 16:16:22 -0700 (PDT), Ray Martinez
>
>
> Explanation: Divine
>
> >power, operating in reality, causes **each** species to exist.
>
> what's the difference between this and magic?
>
>
>
>
> - Show quoted text -
The concept of "magic" presupposes entertainment; usually conducted by
a person who is compensated.
Ray
bpuharic
<pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>On Jul 6, 4:34�pm, bpuharic <w...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> On Tue, 6 Jul 2010 16:16:22 -0700 (PDT), Ray Martinez
>>
>> <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>> Explanation: Divine
>>
>> >power, operating in reality, causes **each** species to exist.
>>
>> what's the difference between this and magic?
>>
>>
>>
>> - Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
>The concept of "magic" presupposes entertainment;
who sez? where the hell you get this crap?
usually conducted by
>a person who is compensated.
tell it to merlin. you're way off base here and are simply
wrong
>
>Ray
>
Ognjen
Wasn't Bruce Lee a kung fu expert?
haiku jones
Actually, I don't know -- and couldn't find
out quickly -- so I tried to sneak that one
by.
HJ
haiku jones
Do you also hold to chemistry as it was before the rise of
atomism? (a process not complete until Einstein)
HJ
haiku jones
> On Jul 6, 4:28�pm, Bruce Stephens <bruce+use...@cenderis.demon.co.uk>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> writes:
> > > On Jul 6, 3:51�pm, Bruce Stephens <bruce+use...@cenderis.demon.co.uk>
> > > wrote:
>
> > [...]
>
> > >> One thing we know is that Ray's definition is different to that of
> > >> (almost) all other creationists, including (presumably) Tony's. �Almost
> > >> all creationists accept some level of relatedness.
>
> > > Creationists do not accept evolution; Evolutionists do not accept
> > > creation.
>
> > [....] Do you know of anybody else (since [1900]) who
> > believes as you do?
>
> > [...]
>
> Outside of the Church I belong: Sean Pitman (and the Seventh Day
> Adventist Church); Dr. Walter Lammerts (Ph.D. in genetics). Of course
> there are others.
>
> Remember: the majority, whether secular or religious, is always wrong
> according to Biblical typology. God's witness resides in the few----
> literally.
The majority thinks that smallpox is caused by
a virus, that the earth approximates a sphere,
that chemical reactions involve various
combinations of "atoms" of a limited number
of "elements", that whales are mammals,
and that the stars are distant thermonuclear
reactors.
You're telling us that these people, being
as they are, in the majority, are ipso facto
incorrect?
HJ
HJ
Greg G.
No need to apologize for the sarcasm. It's pretty much expected in
this forum. Besides, I started it.
Greg G.
> On Jul 6, 4:28 pm, Bruce Stephens <bruce+use...@cenderis.demon.co.uk>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> writes:
> > > On Jul 6, 3:51 pm, Bruce Stephens <bruce+use...@cenderis.demon.co.uk>
> > > wrote:
>
> > [...]
>
> > >> One thing we know is that Ray's definition is different to that of
> > >> (almost) all other creationists, including (presumably) Tony's. Almost
> > >> all creationists accept some level of relatedness.
>
> > > Creationists do not accept evolution; Evolutionists do not accept
> > > creation.
>
> > [....] Do you know of anybody else (since [1900]) who
> > believes as you do?
>
> > [...]
>
> Outside of the Church I belong: Sean Pitman (and the Seventh Day
> Adventist Church); Dr. Walter Lammerts (Ph.D. in genetics). Of course
> there are others.
But you don't believe in a six day creation. Lammerts considered that
heresy.
Jim Lovejoy
4985-a6fe-a...@5g2000yqz.googlegroups.com:
> On Jul 5, 3:25 pm, T Pagano <not.va...@address.net> wrote:
>> I normally don't read the acknowledgements but in this case I'm going
>> through everything with a fine tooth comb. Looks like a "J Wilkins"
>> is credited by Theobald with providing critical commentary for the
>> article. Harshman left that part out. Perhaps an oversight?
>>
>> So if I'm lucky enough to crash Theobald's argument then I might even
>> get a three-fer.
>>
>> Things just keep on gettin' better and I've got nothing to lose one
>> way or the other.
>>
>> Regards,
>> T Pagano
>
> Absolutely correct, Tony. Once your credibility is at rock-bottom,
> you've got absolutely nothing to lose.
>
> Chris
>
You're misunderestimating Pags. Time and again I've thought that he'd hit
bottom, but he's always proven me wrong.
Jim Lovejoy
7gd43696qabr5c1lt...@4ax.com:
> On Mon, 5 Jul 2010 12:35:52 -0700 (PDT), chris thompson
> <chris.li...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>On Jul 5, 3:25�pm, T Pagano <not.va...@address.net> wrote:
>>> I normally don't read the acknowledgements but in this case I'm going
>>> through everything with a fine tooth comb. �Looks like a "J Wilkins"
>>> is credited by Theobald with providing critical commentary for the
>>> article. �Harshman left that part out. �Perhaps an oversight?
>>>
>>> So if I'm lucky enough to crash Theobald's argument then I might even
>>> get a three-fer.
>>>
>>> Things just keep on gettin' better and I've got nothing to lose one
>>> way or the other.
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>> T Pagano
>>
>>Absolutely correct, Tony. Once your credibility is at rock-bottom,
>>you've got absolutely nothing to lose.
>>
>>Chris
>
>
> It's terribly easy to sling vague generalities but quite another to
> demonstrate it. Has my credibility been tarnished?
Good point. To show that your crediblity has been tarnished, the
"atheists" on Talk.Origins will have to demonstrate that you ever had any
credibility.
Good luck with that!
Ernest Major
<ecf55be7-d2a2-48d7...@i9g2000prn.googlegroups.com>, Ray
Martinez <pyram...@yahoo.com> writes
>On Jul 6, 4:28 pm, Bruce Stephens <bruce+use...@cenderis.demon.co.uk>
>wrote:
>> Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> writes:
>> > On Jul 6, 3:51 pm, Bruce Stephens <bruce+use...@cenderis.demon.co.uk>
>> > wrote:
>>
>> [...]
>>
>> >> One thing we know is that Ray's definition is different to that of
>> >> (almost) all other creationists, including (presumably) Tony's. Almost
>> >> all creationists accept some level of relatedness.
>>
>> > Creationists do not accept evolution; Evolutionists do not accept
>> > creation.
>>
>> [....] Do you know of anybody else (since [1900]) who
>> believes as you do?
>>
>> [...]
>
>Outside of the Church I belong: Sean Pitman (and the Seventh Day
>Adventist Church); Dr. Walter Lammerts (Ph.D. in genetics). Of course
>there are others.
Sean Pitman accepts microevolution.
>
>Remember: the majority, whether secular or religious, is always wrong
>according to Biblical typology. God's witness resides in the few----
>literally.
You keep telling us that the majority of Americans reject evolution. Are
we misinterpreting you when you we think that you proffer this claim as
a (fallacious) argument against the factuality of common descent with
modification through the agency of natural selection and other
processes, when you really intend it as a (fallacious) argument for its
truth?
>
>What does Darwinism have to show? Ken Ham and the Young Earth Fundies
>are in YOUR bed, Bruce. Tell me: who is on top, Ham or Dawkins?
>
>Believe me when I say: LOL!
>
>Ray (OEC, species immutabilist)
>
--
alias Ernest Major
Ernest Major
<87f11396-049c-42ac...@h40g2000pro.googlegroups.com>, Ray
Martinez <pyram...@yahoo.com> writes
You've just committed the fallacy of equivocation. Prestidigitation is
only one meaning of magic, and it's not the first that comes to mind in
the absence of context. Were you having a Backspace moment?
>
>Ray
>
>
--
alias Ernest Major
Ray Martinez
>
> - Show quoted text -
No fixist accepts a single one-off creation event, this includes
myself, of course.
Natural theology accepts the Genesis record as conveying how each
species, original and new, come to be in nature.
Ray
Ray Martinez
> In message
> <ecf55be7-d2a2-48d7-a80f-616400483...@i9g2000prn.googlegroups.com>, Ray
> Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> writes
>
>
>
>
>
> >On Jul 6, 4:28�pm, Bruce Stephens <bruce+use...@cenderis.demon.co.uk>
> >wrote:
> >> Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> writes:
> >> > On Jul 6, 3:51�pm, Bruce Stephens <bruce+use...@cenderis.demon.co.uk>
> >> > wrote:
>
> >> [...]
>
> >> >> One thing we know is that Ray's definition is different to that of
> >> >> (almost) all other creationists, including (presumably) Tony's. �Almost
> >> >> all creationists accept some level of relatedness.
>
> >> > Creationists do not accept evolution; Evolutionists do not accept
> >> > creation.
>
> >> [....] Do you know of anybody else (since [1900]) who
> >> believes as you do?
>
> >> [...]
>
> >Outside of the Church I belong: Sean Pitman (and the Seventh Day
> >Adventist Church); Dr. Walter Lammerts (Ph.D. in genetics). Of course
> >there are others.
>
> Sean Pitman accepts microevolution.
>
When queried one finds that he does not.
>
>
> >Remember: the majority, whether secular or religious, is always wrong
> >according to Biblical typology. God's witness resides in the few----
> >literally.
>
> You keep telling us that the majority of Americans reject evolution.
Polls and surveys establish the fact.
> Are
> we misinterpreting you when you we think that you proffer this claim as
> a (fallacious) argument against the factuality of common descent with
> modification through the agency of natural selection and other
> processes, when you really intend it as a (fallacious) argument for its
> truth?
>
It means they reject: macroevolution, common descent and natural-
material causation. What's left except microevolution (and that is
actually variation, which they accept)?
Ray
>
>
> >What does Darwinism have to show? Ken Ham and the Young Earth Fundies
> >are in YOUR bed, Bruce. Tell me: who is on top, Ham or Dawkins?
>
> >Believe me when I say: LOL!
>
> >Ray (OEC, species immutabilist)
>
> --
> alias Ernest Major- Hide quoted text -
Ernest Major
<4a035419-83c5-46bf...@k1g2000prl.googlegroups.com>, Ray
Martinez <pyram...@yahoo.com> writes
>On Jul 6, 5:49�pm, "Greg G." <ggw...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Jul 6, 7:46�pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > On Jul 6, 4:28�pm, Bruce Stephens <bruce+use...@cenderis.demon.co.uk>
>> > wrote:
>>
>> > > Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> writes:
>> > > > On Jul 6, 3:51�pm, Bruce Stephens <bruce+use...@cenderis.demon.co.uk>
>> > > > wrote:
>>
>> > > [...]
>>
>> > > >> One thing we know is that Ray's definition is different to that of
>> > > >> (almost) all other creationists, including (presumably)
>> > > >> all creationists accept some level of relatedness.
>>
>> > > > Creationists do not accept evolution; Evolutionists do not accept
>> > > > creation.
>>
>> > > [....] Do you know of anybody else (since [1900]) who
>> > > believes as you do?
>>
>> > > [...]
>>
>> > Outside of the Church I belong: Sean Pitman (and the Seventh Day
>> > Adventist Church); Dr. Walter Lammerts (Ph.D. in genetics). Of course
>> > there are others.
>>
>> But you don't believe in a six day creation. Lammerts considered that
>> heresy.- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
>No fixist accepts a single one-off creation event, this includes
>myself, of course.
We already suspect that by your definition you're the only creationist
in the world. Are you also the only fixist? You appear to have decided
that Lammerts isn't a true fixist.
>
>Natural theology accepts the Genesis record as conveying how each
>species, original and new, come to be in nature.
Do you intend to imply that fixists reject natural theology? I am
unaware of anything in Genesis supporting your particular brand of
omphalistic occasionalist creationism.
Ernest Major
<a49c42fb-e3ee-47d2...@p22g2000pre.googlegroups.com>, Ray
Martinez <pyram...@yahoo.com> writes
>On Jul 7, 12:34 am, Ernest Major <{$t...@meden.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>> In message
>> <ecf55be7-d2a2-48d7-a80f-616400483...@i9g2000prn.googlegroups.com>, Ray
>> Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> writes
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> >On Jul 6, 4:28 pm, Bruce Stephens <bruce+use...@cenderis.demon.co.uk>
>> >wrote:
>> >> Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> writes:
>> >> > On Jul 6, 3:51 pm, Bruce Stephens <bruce+use...@cenderis.demon.co.uk>
>> >> > wrote:
>>
>> >> [...]
>>
>> >> >> One thing we know is that Ray's definition is different to that of
>> >> >> (almost) all other creationists, including (presumably) Tony's. Almost
>> >> >> all creationists accept some level of relatedness.
>>
>> >> > Creationists do not accept evolution; Evolutionists do not accept
>> >> > creation.
>>
>> >> [....] Do you know of anybody else (since [1900]) who
>> >> believes as you do?
>>
>> >> [...]
>>
>> >Outside of the Church I belong: Sean Pitman (and the Seventh Day
>> >Adventist Church); Dr. Walter Lammerts (Ph.D. in genetics). Of course
>> >there are others.
>>
>> Sean Pitman accepts microevolution.
>>
>
>When queried one finds that he does not.
I recall Sean being a bit of a hyperevolutionist. He argued that simple
changes evolve quickly (I had the impression that he exaggerated how
fast), but that the time required for complex changes increases rapidly.
>
>>
>>
>> >Remember: the majority, whether secular or religious, is always wrong
>> >according to Biblical typology. God's witness resides in the few----
>> >literally.
>>
>> You keep telling us that the majority of Americans reject evolution.
>
>Polls and surveys establish the fact.
So you confirm that by "Bible typology" evolution is factual, and that
we are we misinterpreting you when you we think that you proffer this
claim as a (fallacious) argument against the factuality of common
descent with modification through the agency of natural selection and
other processes, when you really intend it as a (fallacious) argument
for its truth?
>
>> Are
>> we misinterpreting you when you we think that you proffer this claim as
>> a (fallacious) argument against the factuality of common descent with
>> modification through the agency of natural selection and other
>> processes, when you really intend it as a (fallacious) argument for its
>> truth?
>>
>
>It means they reject: macroevolution, common descent and natural-
>material causation. What's left except microevolution (and that is
>actually variation, which they accept)?
>
>Ray
So by "Biblical typology" macroevolution, common descent and natural
material causation are all true, but microevolution is false. Well,
saltationism is indeed supported by very few people, so this is
consistent with you determination of truth by "Biblical typology"?
--
alias Ernest Major
Bob Casanova
appeared in talk.origins, posted by Ray Martinez
>On Jul 6, 3:38 pm, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
>> On Tue, 6 Jul 2010 12:03:41 -0700 (PDT), the following
>> appeared in talk.origins, posted by Ray Martinez
>> <pyramid...@yahoo.com>:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> >On Jul 6, 11:35 am, Michael Young <youngms...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> Tony, I'm the newest person here and *I* can tell you have no
>> >> credibility whatsoever. You evade, you misrepresent, you flee from
>> >> arguments and questions, and you make outrageous claims like science
>> >> being on your side when it continuously proves you wrong.
>>
>> >> And everyone on here *knows* you have no credibility. We don't have to
>> >> prove it to you. If you want to hoot and holler that you "still got
>> >> it" go ahead, we don't really care if you think that. Everyone else
>> >> knows otherwise, and given the context of the old vets' comments, lots
>> >> of people have known otherwise for years. It's incredible the sheer
>> >> amount of arrogance you have clashing with the sheer amount of total
>> >> incompetence.
>>
>> >It's important to point out that Michael Young is a Darwinist and Tony
>> >Pagano an IDist.
>>
>> Why is that, Ray?
>
>Pointing out bias explains much, Bob.
>> Does fact change with the attitude of the
>> bearer?
You seem to have missed this part (actually, the germane
part) of the question. Why is that, Ray? Tony has
essentially zero credibility here; this is a fact, not an
opinion. (And Tony has only his own actions to blame for
this fact.) So how is the "bias" of anyone, Tony, Michael
*or* you, relevant?
Bob Casanova
<snip>
>Remember: the majority, whether secular or religious, is always wrong
>according to Biblical typology. God's witness resides in the few----
>literally.
So when you cite the percentage of US residents who accept
Special Creation this means...what?
Bob Casanova
talk.origins, posted by Ernest Major
<{$to$}@meden.demon.co.uk>:
>In message
><87f11396-049c-42ac...@h40g2000pro.googlegroups.com>, Ray
>Martinez <pyram...@yahoo.com> writes
>>On Jul 6, 4:34 pm, bpuharic <w...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>> On Tue, 6 Jul 2010 16:16:22 -0700 (PDT), Ray Martinez
>>> > Explanation: Divine
>>> >
>>> >power, operating in reality, causes **each** species to exist.
>>> what's the difference between this and magic?
>>The concept of "magic" presupposes entertainment; usually conducted by
>>a person who is compensated.
>You've just committed the fallacy of equivocation. Prestidigitation is
>only one meaning of magic, and it's not the first that comes to mind in
>the absence of context. Were you having a Backspace moment?
....and was that a backspace moment in the design sense or
the pattern sense?
Bob Casanova
in talk.origins, posted by John Vreeland
<john.v...@ieee.org>:
Not really; I don't expect an actual answer (he already
posted a waffling softshoe about "overgeneralized questions"
before I provided the specific example of the Flood), but I
just like to poke Tony occasionally in public in order to
keep current everyone's perceptions of his "character".
Probably unnecessary, but mildly amusing, especially given
that he *can't* answer without contradicting at least some
of his previous posts.
> Good luck. You
>will only wind up activating his repressed fears of what life is like
>when you don't have a big God to do your thinking for you. Much more
>comforting to simply pretend you understand what everyone else is
>talking about so that your dogmatic mantras will silence those silly
>evolutionists. It works best if you assume a posture of serene
>reasonableness while ignoring everything they say that distracts you
>from your goal. And what is your goal? To keep talking so that you
>don't have to think.
--
Bob C.
Rusty Sites
Don't you get it? Ray is actually working *for* evolution by trying to
get people to disbelieve it.
Michael Young
> Remember: the majority, whether secular or religious, is always wrong
> according to Biblical typology. God's witness resides in the few----
> literally.
Priceless. So can I go ahead and say that because the majority of
people in this country believe in creation over accepting evolution,
that creationism is wrong and evolution is correct? Just a
hypothetical, of course, the real answer to this question doesn't have
bearing on anything.
Eric Root
> On Mon, 5 Jul 2010 15:12:12 -0700 (PDT), chris thompson
>
>
>
>
>
> <chris.linthomp...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >On Jul 5, 5:02 pm, T Pagano <not.va...@address.net> wrote:
> >> On Mon, 5 Jul 2010 12:35:52 -0700 (PDT), chris thompson
>
> >> >On Jul 5, 3:25 pm, T Pagano <not.va...@address.net> wrote:
> >> >> I normally don't read the acknowledgements but in this case I'm going
> >> >> through everything with a fine tooth comb. Looks like a "J Wilkins"
> >> >> is credited by Theobald with providing critical commentary for the
> >> >> article. Harshman left that part out. Perhaps an oversight?
>
> >> >> So if I'm lucky enough to crash Theobald's argument then I might even
> >> >> get a three-fer.
>
> >> >> Things just keep on gettin' better and I've got nothing to lose one
> >> >> way or the other.
>
> >> >> Regards,
> >> >> T Pagano
>
> >> >Absolutely correct, Tony. Once your credibility is at rock-bottom,
> >> >you've got absolutely nothing to lose.
>
> >> >Chris
>
> >> It's terribly easy to sling vague generalities but quite another to
> >> rebuttal where I have been conclusively found misteken. Otherwise
> >> this is nothing more than a bad case of sour grapes. At least
> >> Theobald has moved on to bigger and better things.
>
> >> Regards,
> >> T Pagano
>
> >You really are a hoot, Tony.
>
> >OK, the regulars will recall this thread, in which I brought up the
> >fact that Tony had run from a discussion of vestigial structures. My
> >contention was that the presence of certain teeth in vampire bats
> >(specifically, nonfuctional premolars and molars) were vestigial. Now,
> >I called those teeth, collectively, "cheek teeth". This is a perfectly
> >reasonable designation:
>
> >http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1O8-cheekteeth.html
>
> >My question was, why would an animal that feeds entirely on liquids
> >have teeth specialized for grinding solid food? Specifically, members
> >of the genus _Desmodus_ have premolars (2 in the upper jaw, 3 in the
> >lower). The premolars lack enamel and are thus nonfunctional. Tony
> >ultimately retreated into the position that since the scientific paper
> >I provided as a reference did not specifically call the premolars and
> >molars "cheek teeth", it didn't count :/
>
> >So, gentle lurkers and not-so-gentle readers, for your edification and
> >reading pleasure, I provide this link. You should especially read it
> >if you missed eeling season this year, and you miss attempting
> >grappling with something slimy, squishy, and squirmy.
>
> >http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/a266104783f64afa?hl=en
>
> >Have fun,
>
> >Chris
>
> >PS: You might pay particular attention to Mike Dunford's post; it is
> >number 16 in Gurgle Groups.
>
> Thompson had to reach pretty far back (2002) to attempt a proof that
> my credibility as been tarnished. Let's see if Thompson proves
> anthing-----least of all my tarnished credibility
>
> The burden of proof to show vestigiality was on the atheist and not I.
This has nothing to do with atheists, Tony, so that's lie #1
> As I pointed out over a 3-6 month period back then (late 2002 thru
> 2003): During the Scopes Trial (around 1925) an eminent secular
> academian was allowed to enter a statement into the court record which
> claimed (based upon the atheist
Scientific, not atheist, so that's lie #2.
> orthodoxy of the time) that there
> existed 180 vestigial organs and structures in the human body. By
> 2002 that number has twindled to around 6 and there have been
> suggested functions for even those. My constant refrain both then
> (2002) and now is that the claim of vestigiality has proved to be
> little more than a place holder for atheist ignorance.
>
Human, not atheist, so that's lie #3
> The web report Thompson refers to above did not assert anywhere in its
> four corners that the vampire cheek teeth were vestigial or that they
> lacked function.
>
> The Dunford post to which Thompson refers wasn't terribly strong
> either. I argued during that thread that if vestigial organs were
> good evidence of neoDarwinian evolutionary change then we should see
> historical evidence of some previous molar function at some distant
> past.
And thus Tony was defeated, so that's lie #4
(snip)
And thus Tony, a gibbering creationist to the bitter end, goes
swirling down into the pit. Too bad, he had dozens of chances.
Eric Root
Greg G.
Lammerts rejected people for not believing in the 6 day creation
interpretation. He would not consider you in his in-group.
Mike Lyle
> In message
> <a49c42fb-e3ee-47d2...@p22g2000pre.googlegroups.com>,
> Ray Martinez <pyram...@yahoo.com> writes
>> On Jul 7, 12:34 am, Ernest Major <{$t...@meden.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>> In message
>>> <ecf55be7-d2a2-48d7-a80f-616400483...@i9g2000prn.googlegroups.com>,
>>> Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> writes
There are several ways to confuse this kind of Creationist, but that
one's too sophisticated to to offer any certainty of success. My
favourite is putting him in a barrel and telling him to piss in the
corner.
--
Mike.
Bob Casanova
in talk.origins, posted by Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off>:
>On Tue, 6 Jul 2010 16:46:59 -0700 (PDT), the following
>appeared in talk.origins, posted by Ray Martinez
><pyram...@yahoo.com>:
>
><snip>
>
>>Remember: the majority, whether secular or religious, is always wrong
>>according to Biblical typology. God's witness resides in the few----
>>literally.
>
>So when you cite the percentage of US residents who accept
>Special Creation this means...what?
[Crickets...]
"Hoist...petard" seems appropriate here...
Bob Casanova
in talk.origins, posted by Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off>:
[Crickets...]
Yeah, if I were you (God forbid) I'd ignore that, too.
Bob Casanova
appeared in talk.origins, posted by Michael Young
<young...@gmail.com>:
This has been pointed out to Ray on previous occasions when
he made this assertion, always with the same result -
silence.
You'd think after the first couple of times he'd learn...
Walter Bushell
Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
> On Wed, 7 Jul 2010 12:44:29 -0700 (PDT), the following
> appeared in talk.origins, posted by Michael Young
> <young...@gmail.com>:
>
> >On Jul 6, 7:46 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> >> Remember: the majority, whether secular or religious, is always wrong
> >> according to Biblical typology. God's witness resides in the few----
> >> literally.
> >
> >Priceless. So can I go ahead and say that because the majority of
> >people in this country believe in creation over accepting evolution,
> >that creationism is wrong and evolution is correct? Just a
> >hypothetical, of course, the real answer to this question doesn't have
> >bearing on anything.
>
> This has been pointed out to Ray on previous occasions when
> he made this assertion, always with the same result -
> silence.
>
> You'd think after the first couple of times he'd learn...
What Ray learn? That would be sacrilegious!
--
All BP's money, and all the President's men,
Cannot put the Gulf of Mexico together again.
Bob Casanova
in talk.origins, posted by Walter Bushell <pr...@panix.com>:
Seems so...
Fanatics seem universally able to apply blinders to any
"inconvenient" consequences of their beliefs.
josephus
josephus
--
яюI