What is the purpose of Rayy Martinez posting?
Rolf
postsings, nor do I detect any intellect or other factulties normally
associated with human brain activity in his postings.
I therefore wonder if he is able to state some kind of Credo; a purpose
behind his numerous postings that, as far as I can tell, have had anything
to offer, except our obvious conclusion that he is a psycho. Can he prove us
wrong in this?
Rolf
Walter Bushell
"Rolf" <rolf.a...@c2i.net> wrote:
the most evident purpose is to drive people away from Christianity. A
noble goal unfortunately ruined by the deceitful method.
--
Guns don't kill people; automobiles kill people.
Friar Broccoli
Walter Bushell wrote:
> In article <BfeZe.6032$qE.12...@juliett.dax.net>,
> "Rolf" <rolf.a...@c2i.net> wrote:
>
> > It suddenly struck me, I am unable to detect any purpose, any goal in RM's
> > postsings, nor do I detect any intellect
[ ... ]
>
> the most evident purpose is to drive people away from Christianity. A
> noble goal unfortunately ruined by the deceitful method.
>
> --
> Guns don't kill people; automobiles kill people.
Given the complete lack of logic/meaning in your tagline, I have
often wondered if you have the same purpose there. What would I
be my intent if I asserted:
War doesn't kill people; AIDs viruses kill people
Cordially;
Friar Broccoli
Robert Keith Elias, Quebec, Canada Email: EliasRK (of) gmail * com
Best programmer's & all purpose text editor: http://www.semware.com
--------- I consider ALL arguments in support of my views ---------
shane
Ray's purpose is probably to invite exactly what he gets, persecution,
which validates his beliefs, that, I suggest, sub-conscoiously, he doubts.
I think you will find that Ray is "for" a confused amalgam of
mainstream, fundamentalist and personal interpreatations of
christianity, with some Velikovskyism thrown in along with some way out
Egyptology. Its very hard not to have doubts under that load.
But more importantly Ray is "against" evolution, to the point of
paranoia, as evolution will bring his sub-conscious doubts to the
surface and force him to examine his beliefs.
Ray is like the little critter at the beginning of the film "Ica Age,"
trying to stave off the inevitable, while trying to maintain his grip on
an unstable load.
--
shane
dkomo
> Walter Bushell wrote:
>
>>In article <BfeZe.6032$qE.12...@juliett.dax.net>,
>> "Rolf" <rolf.a...@c2i.net> wrote:
>
>
>>>It suddenly struck me, I am unable to detect any purpose, any goal in RM's
>>>postsings, nor do I detect any intellect
>
>
> [ ... ]
>
>
>
>>the most evident purpose is to drive people away from Christianity. A
>>noble goal unfortunately ruined by the deceitful method.
>
>
>>--
>>Guns don't kill people; automobiles kill people.
>
>
> Given the complete lack of logic/meaning in your tagline, I have
> often wondered if you have the same purpose there. What would I
> be my intent if I asserted:
>
> War doesn't kill people; AIDs viruses kill people
>
It should be "Guns don't kill people; people kill people" and "War
doesn't kill people; people kill people."
dkomo
Friar Broccoli
Well, I see that I failed to convince you. Sorry about that.
Otherwise you seem like a nice person.
Walter Bushell
"Friar Broccoli" <Eli...@gmail.com> wrote:
Hmm, I was under the impression that in peacetime America, most people
are more at risk from automobiles than from guns. It did not seem to be
a recondite concept, maybe expressed in a hyperbolic fashion, but that
is a standard conceit.
Greg G.
Friar Broccoli wrote:
> Walter Bushell wrote:
> > In article <BfeZe.6032$qE.12...@juliett.dax.net>,
> > "Rolf" <rolf.a...@c2i.net> wrote:
>
> >
> > > It suddenly struck me, I am unable to detect any purpose, any goal in RM's
> > > postsings, nor do I detect any intellect
>
> [ ... ]
>
>
> >
> > the most evident purpose is to drive people away from Christianity. A
> > noble goal unfortunately ruined by the deceitful method.
>
> >
> > --
> > Guns don't kill people; automobiles kill people.
>
> Given the complete lack of logic/meaning in your tagline, I have
> often wondered if you have the same purpose there. What would I
> be my intent if I asserted:
>
> War doesn't kill people; AIDs viruses kill people
It has always been my contention that "bullets don't kill people,
bullet holes kill people". Others maintain that it is the blood loss
that kills.
>
> Cordially;
>
> Friar Broccoli
> Robert Keith Elias, Quebec, Canada Email: EliasRK (of) gmail * com
> Best programmer's & all purpose text editor: http://www.semware.com
>
> --------- I consider ALL arguments in support of my views ---------
--
Greg G.
To consider the Earth the only populated world in an infinite space is
as absurd as to assert that in an entire field sown with millet only
one grain will grow.
--Metrodorus circa 400 B.C.
johnetho...@yahoo.com
People don't respond to actual risk but to perceived risk. When they
don't have direct experience most Americans use media images rather
than actual facts to evaluate things. Thus the idea that guns and
terrorism are tremendous dangers and require drastic action, while
automobile accidents are considered unfortunate but certainly no
national crises. Actual information is available about these things,
but most people aren't interested.
John
Thore "Tocis" Schmechtig
> ...nor do I detect any intellect or other factulties normally
> associated with human brain activity in his postings.
> I therefore wonder if he is able to state some kind of Credo...
When Ray babbles, his mouth (or better, considering the medium used here,
his fingers) is controlled, not by his own brain but by the Jebus meme.
This is why you can't detect any underlying intelligence... there indeed is
none.
All we see is the desperate, unintelligent, instinct-driven meme trying all
means to find and infect new hosts.
--
Regards
Thore "Tocis" Schmechtig
Eric Rowley
WB> In article
WB> <1127599778.9...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>,
WB> "Friar Broccoli" <Eli...@gmail.com> wrote:
WB> > Walter Bushell wrote:
WB> > > In article <BfeZe.6032$qE.12...@juliett.dax.net>,
WB> > > "Rolf" <rolf.a...@c2i.net> wrote: >
WB> > > > It suddenly struck me, I am unable to detect any
WB> > > > purpose, any goal in RM's postsings, nor do I detect any
WB> > > > intellect
WB> >
WB> > [ ... ]
WB> >
WB> > >
WB> > > the most evident purpose is to drive people away from
WB> > > Christianity. A noble goal unfortunately ruined by the
WB> > > deceitful method.
WB> > > --
WB> > > Guns don't kill people; automobiles kill people.
WB> > Given the complete lack of logic/meaning in your tagline, I
WB> > have often wondered if you have the same purpose there. What
WB> > would I be my intent if I asserted:
WB> > War doesn't kill people; AIDs viruses kill people
WB> > Cordially;
WB> > Friar Broccoli
WB> Hmm, I was under the impression that in peacetime America,
Why the qualification?
This is the Internet, or Usenet or whatever, your posts get
sent all over the world.
WB> most people are more at risk from automobiles than from guns.
SFW?
Whether or not the number of people killed by firearms is
acceptable has exactly _what_ to do with the number of trafic
related deaths?
And your sig apears to say that there is no risk from guns, not
merely less risk than from cars.
WB> It did not seem to be a recondite concept, maybe expressed in
WB> a hyperbolic fashion, but that is a standard conceit.
Eric
--
Guns don't kill people, bullets do.
Walter Bushell
johnetho...@yahoo.com wrote:
I've know several people killed by automobiles, none killed by guns,
except for a boy down the street who reuped for Vietnam.
Eric Rowley
<snip>
WB> I've know several people killed by automobiles, none killed by
WB> guns, except for a boy down the street who reuped for Vietnam.
So all you have to do to make your sig truthful is replace "don't"
with "have almost never", "kill" with "killed" and "people" with
"people I know".
Eric
--
Guns dont kill people, bullets do.
Walter Bushell
po...@bredband.net (Eric Rowley) wrote:
That would remove the pithyness, and as I said before any adult of
normal intelligence should be able to figure out what I meant. You've
heard of hyperbola, it's a normal conceit.
Robert Weldon
"Eric Rowley" <po...@bredband.net> wrote in message
news:WinLMSG.43397...@news.abc.se...
travelling at high velocity.
Eric Rowley
RW> "Eric Rowley" <po...@bredband.net> wrote in message
RW> news:WinLMSG.43397...@news.abc.se... >
<snip>
RW> > --
RW> > Guns dont kill people, bullets do.
RW> >
RW> actually, it is not just bullets, but the projectile portion of
RW> bullets
I thought a bullet _was_ a projectile?
RW> travelling at high velocity.
Or getting stuck in your windpipe if you're stupid enough to
(try to) swallow one.
Eric
Friar Broccoli
Walter Bushell wrote:
> In article <WinLMSG.43397...@news.abc.se>,
> po...@bredband.net (Eric Rowley) wrote:
> > So all you have to do to make your sig truthful is replace "don't"
> > with "have almost never", "kill" with "killed" and "people" with
> > "people I know".
>
> That would remove the pithyness, and as I said before any adult of
> normal intelligence should be able to figure out what I meant.
Unfortunately there are not too many people of "normal intelligence"
in this group, complicating the interpretation.
Personally, I am very pleased to see you using this tag line to
express your opinion. I now feel I erred by bringing it to your
attention.
>
> Guns don't kill people; automobiles kill people.
Ray Martinez
Rolf:
You represent all Darwinians just fine: morons.
All means all, especiallly Mark Isaak and John Harshman.
ToE is ALL atheist philosophy packaged as science. Your points and
conclusions make no sense whatsoever.
What keeps ToE going ?
Perceived educational credentials....nobody dares say you are full of
shit because of them and your idiot philosophic friends in the Media
take your nonsense as fact without any questions = Talibanism is what
keeps ToE going.
But in reality the existence of ToE proves the Biblical penalty claim
that when you deny God Creator credit He will blind you: Naturalism
ensues.... a place where you will never find Him = the penalty for
plargiarizing His creation and asserting Chance was responsible. IOW,
God penalizes via expulsion - the traditional penalty for the offense,
only in this case it is eternal.
My up-coming article will DESTROY ToE from top to bottom. It will be
irrefutable and impenetrable.
In fact Rolf I will make you the first to know the link in about 6
weeks.
Ray Martinez
CreateThis
> My up-coming article will DESTROY ToE from top to bottom. It will be
> irrefutable and impenetrable.
LOL. Stop the presses. Ray's gonna get impenetrable on us.
CT
Ernest Major
<Creat...@yippee.com> writes
irrefutable. OTOH, it would also automatically fail to destroy the ToE.
--
alias Ernest Major
--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.344 / Virus Database: 267.11.6/111 - Release Date: 23/09/2005
shane
> Rolf wrote:
>
>>It suddenly struck me, I am unable to detect any purpose, any goal in RM's
>>postsings, nor do I detect any intellect or other factulties normally
>>associated with human brain activity in his postings.
>>
>>I therefore wonder if he is able to state some kind of Credo; a purpose
>>behind his numerous postings that, as far as I can tell, have had anything
>>to offer, except our obvious conclusion that he is a psycho. Can he prove us
>>wrong in this?
>>
>>Rolf
>
>
> Rolf:
>
> You represent all Darwinians just fine: morons.
Ray goes down the ad hominem road again.
> All means all, especiallly Mark Isaak and John Harshman.
>
> ToE is ALL atheist philosophy packaged as science.
Assertion without evidence. I wonder if Ray can point out one part of
evolutionary theory that is obviously atheist? My bet is that he cannot.
All he can point to is certian people who use evolution to support
atheis, in a similar manner that people used the bible to support
slavery etc. their mis-use of the bible in that manner does not reflect
poorly on the bible, nor does the misuse of evolutionary theory reflect
poorly on that theory.
> Your points and
> conclusions make no sense whatsoever.
Note how clearly Ray exposes this by his wide use of examples of
"nonsense" and questions he asks for clarifiation.
> What keeps ToE going ?
The truth.
> Perceived educational credentials....nobody dares say you are full of
> shit
I think Ray just called himself a nobody, well I dare sya he knows
himself best.
> because of them and your idiot philosophic friends in the Media
> take your nonsense as fact without any questions = Talibanism is what
> keeps ToE going.
Assertion without evidence.
> But in reality the existence of ToE proves the Biblical penalty claim
> that when you deny God Creator credit He will blind you:
So without the theory of evolutiuon the bible would be proved wrong?
Makes me wonder why Ray wants to see the theory oerturned?
> Naturalism
> ensues.... a place where you will never find Him = the penalty for
> plargiarizing His creation and asserting Chance was responsible.
I think Ray just put god in a box here, god, according to the bible,
allows satan, his adversary, into his presence, but won't allow
naturalism. ray must not have confidence in his god, nor the bible which
says, in Rays favorite passage in Romans, that god is seen in nature.
> IOW,
> God penalizes via expulsion - the traditional penalty for the offense,
> only in this case it is eternal.
Note the evidence Ray produces to support this assertion, his normal
amount, none.
>
> My up-coming article will DESTROY ToE from top to bottom. It will be
> irrefutable and impenetrable.
Just a touch of pride there methinks, not a good position to be in for a
bible believing christian. And note the lack of faith Ray displays in
his god. God can't deal with evolution, so Ray has to, and his article
is going to do something which the bible cannot. My prediction is that
there is a fall coming.
>
> In fact Rolf I will make you the first to know the link in about 6
> weeks.
If the past is anything to go by, this will not be the case. Ray
promised Bruce he would be the first to know of when he found his
"canopic theory from JPL" evidence. He wasn't.
> Ray Martinez
>
Shane
The truth will set you free.
boikat
news:4-2dncaozvl...@comcast.com...
I'll get the popcorn, you get the beer and sling shots.
Boikat
--
<42><
Dana Tweedy
"Ray Martinez" <pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1127952839.6...@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> Rolf wrote:
>> It suddenly struck me, I am unable to detect any purpose, any goal in
>> RM's
>> postsings, nor do I detect any intellect or other factulties normally
>> associated with human brain activity in his postings.
>>
>> I therefore wonder if he is able to state some kind of Credo; a purpose
>> behind his numerous postings that, as far as I can tell, have had
>> anything
>> to offer, except our obvious conclusion that he is a psycho. Can he prove
>> us
>> wrong in this?
>>
>> Rolf
>
> Rolf:
>
> You represent all Darwinians just fine: morons.
>
> All means all, especiallly Mark Isaak and John Harshman.
Ad hominem = inability to refute.
>
> ToE is ALL atheist philosophy packaged as science. Your points and
> conclusions make no sense whatsoever.
The theory of evolution is a scientific theory, it's no more atheist than
any other scientific theory.
>
> What keeps ToE going ?
It's close correlation with the evidence, of course.
>
> Perceived educational credentials..
Such as a Ph. D in "philosophies of education" from Stanford University?
>..nobody dares say you are full of
> shit because of them and your idiot philosophic friends in the Media
> take your nonsense as fact without any questions = Talibanism is what
> keeps ToE going.
Ad hominem = inability to refute.
>
> But in reality the existence of ToE proves the Biblical penalty claim
> that when you deny God Creator credit He will blind you:
There is no such "penalty claim". Ray continues to repeat his error,
despite many attempts to correct him.
> Naturalism
> ensues....
And the heartbreak of Psoraiasis, no doubt....
> a place where you will never find Him = the penalty for
> plargiarizing His creation and asserting Chance was responsible.
No one claims that "chance" is responsible for life. Therefore no
"penalty", right?
> IOW,
> God penalizes via expulsion - the traditional penalty for the offense,
> only in this case it is eternal.
So, Ray thinks God punishes people for using their intellect. Makes sense
for someone who thinks of God as an immoral mobster.
>
> My up-coming article will DESTROY ToE from top to bottom. It will be
> irrefutable and impenetrable.
and unreadable, no doubt. Your "upcoming article" has been "upcoming"
for some time now.... It keeps getting farther away from completion.
>
> In fact Rolf I will make you the first to know the link in about 6
> weeks.
You keep pushing back the completion date, Ray..... are you on a goverment
contract or something?
By the way, where is that paper about the "vapor canopy" by JPL scientists?
Are you still looking?
DJT
Dana Tweedy
"shane" <remarcs...@ozemail.com.au> wrote in message
news:nHH_e.26$Wo....@nnrp1.ozemail.com.au...
snip
> If the past is anything to go by, this will not be the case. Ray
> promised Bruce he would be the first to know of when he found his
> "canopic theory from JPL" evidence. He wasn't.
Well, to be fair to Ray, he still hasn't found a "canopic theory from JPL".
What he presented about Mr Cyr was amusing, but not anywhere close to his
claims.
DJT
shane
I agree, however all the crowing Ray did prior to posting the Cyr info
was an indication that Ray, however erroneously, felt he had the answer,
and as such he should have posted to Bruce first. It was not our opinion
that mattered, in that instance, it was Rays.
Shane
Dana Tweedy
As Ray is always trying to claim he refuses to "dignify" our posts with a
response, it's odd that he would specifically start crowing to those who he
says he disregards, rather than to those he claims to respect.
Of course I don't believe for a second that Ray actually disregards what
you and I say. He knows he's wrong, and that we have his number. His own
giant ego won't allow him to ignore what's being said about him.
DJT
>
> Shane
>
zawa...@yahoo.com
Ray Martinez wrote:
> You represent all Darwinians just fine: morons.
>
What *is* that that Ray's been saying about ad hominem attacks ? Was it
something about it proving the attacker wrong?
>
> Perceived educational credentials....nobody dares say you are full of
> shit because of them and your idiot philosophic friends in the Media
> take your nonsense as fact without any questions = Talibanism is what
> keeps ToE going.
>
Talibanism ????
> My up-coming article will DESTROY ToE from top to bottom. It will be
> irrefutable and impenetrable.
>
I'm sure that it won't be irrefutable, but I am sure it will be
impenetrable.
David Fritzinger
But, it will be irrefutable if it is so impenetrable that no one can
understand what the heck he is writing...
--
Dave Fritzinger
Honolulu, HI
boikat
<zawa...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1128012727.2...@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
I'll be surprised if it's even posted. But then he's just killfile anyone
that refutes it then claim nobody refuted it.
Boikat
--
<42><
>
Walter Bushell
"boikat" <boi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
If you people are going to wait for RM's crushing refutation of
evilutionism, I want the rest room concession.
--
Earle Jones
"Ray Martinez" <pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote:
*
Ray: If you have made some discovery that will "DESTROY ToE from
top to bottom", you should by all means send it to a respectable
journal. If "Science", "Nature", or "Phys. Rev. Letters" won't
accept it, try one of the religious journals.
Posting a link just doesn't cut it, when you've made the one of the
most fundamental biological discoveries in the past 150 years.
earle
*
"With religion, even the village idiot can feel like Einstein."
--Denis Loubet
"To assume the existence of an unperceivable being...does not
facilitate understanding the orderliness we find in the perceivable
world."
--Albert Einstein (in a letter to an Iowa
student who asked, What is God?)
July, 1953 Einstein Archive 59-085
Earle Jones
"Ray Martinez" <pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote:
[...]
> My up-coming article will DESTROY ToE from top to bottom. It will be
> irrefutable and impenetrable.
>
> In fact Rolf I will make you the first to know the link in about 6
> weeks.
>
> Ray Martinez
*
Ray: Six weeks from today will be Monday, Nov. 14. We will be
looking forward to your irrefutable and impenetrable (and of course,
falsifiable) claims.
Question: Will it contain Bible verses?
earle
*
"Religious illusion must bow to scientific truth."
--Sigmund Freud
Earle Jones
"Ray Martinez" <pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote:
[...]
>
> My up-coming article will DESTROY ToE from top to bottom. It will be
> irrefutable and impenetrable.
>
> In fact Rolf I will make you the first to know the link in about 6
> weeks.
>
> Ray Martinez
*
Ray: I ran across a Christian website that might offer some help
while you are preparing your paper:
Christians Should Avoid Crackpot Science
From: http://www.leaderu.com/science/crackpot.html
There are principles which can help protect us against falling for
crackpot science just as good hermeneutical principles protect us
from crackpot exegesis. These are rooted in Scriptural principles
for making decisions about matters of fact.
1. We should be fair. We should judge ideas we like by the same
standard we judge ideas we don't like (Matt 7:1-5).
2. We should know what can be said against our pet ideas as well as
what can be said for them (Prov 18:17).
3. We should seek out people (especially Christians) with special
training in areas particularly relevant to the idea we are examining
(Prov 12:15).
4. We should see what sort of cause is being proposed for the
phenomenon being advocated and what evidence we have that the cause
is adequate to produce the effect (Amos 3:3-6).
5. We should ask what sorts of evidence support this claim. Do we
have the testimony of multiple, independent, reliable witnesses?
(Deut 17:6; 19:15).
6. Does it seem that any data is being ignored or explained away?
(Rom 1:18-20).
7. We should use caution in adopting a new idea that is not widely
accepted (Prov 29:20).
8. We should be careful that our attitude is one of humility and a
sincere desire for truth, rather than seeking recognition, vengeance
or such (Prov 21:2-3; Mic 6:8; John 5:44).
I hope that this advice helps you in your deliberations.
earle
*
Earle Jones
CreateThis <Creat...@yippee.com> wrote:
*
Doesn't that mean: Impossible to penetrate? It is possibly a very
accurate description of Ray's forthcoming publication.
Did you hear about the guy who was having trouble getting his wife
pregnant? He went to his doctor to talk about it.
Doc: Is your wife unsociable?
Guy: No.
Doc: Is your wife unapproachable?
Guy: No.
Doc: Is your wife unbearable?
Guy: No.
Doc: Is your wife impregnable?
Guy: No.
Doc: Is your wife impenetrable?
Guy: No.
Doc: Is your wife ....
Guy: Wait!! Now I remember. She's insurmountable!
earle
*
Earle Jones
Ernest Major <{$to$}@meden.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> In message <4-2dncaozvl...@comcast.com>, CreateThis
> <Creat...@yippee.com> writes
> >Ray Martinez wrote:
> >
> >> My up-coming article will DESTROY ToE from top to bottom. It will be
> >> irrefutable and impenetrable.
> >
> >LOL. Stop the presses. Ray's gonna get impenetrable on us.
> >
> I suppose that if it's impenetrable it will automatically also be
> irrefutable. OTOH, it would also automatically fail to destroy the ToE.
> --
> alias Ernest Major
*
Will it be falsifiable?
earle
*
Ernest Major
Earle Jones <earle...@comcast.net> writes
>Doesn't that mean: Impossible to penetrate? It is possibly a very
>accurate description of Ray's forthcoming publication.
I presume the word he should be looking for is "unassailable". (But why
he bothers with the redundancy is another question?)
--
alias Ernest Major
--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.344 / Virus Database: 267.11.9/117 - Release Date: 03/10/2005
Ernest Major
Earle Jones <earle...@comcast.net> writes
prediction from it.
--
alias Ernest Major
--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Rolf
Ray Martinez <pyram...@yahoo.com> skrev i
meldingsnyheter:1127952839.6...@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
'irrefutable and impenetrable'? Especially impenetrable, they are impossible
to penetrate, to extract anything but shit from. Based on your track record,
probability of anything else this time is far below probability of
abiogenenesis.
But in the meantime: What do you expect to gain by DESTROYING the ToE?
What good will it do to destroy the ToE?
What will it mean for the world at large that you destroy the ToE?
Will the world be better when toy have destoryed the ToE?
Will more peol\pel turn to Christianity, and what good will that do to the
world, seeing what 'good' to the world real, true, born anew Christians like
G. W. Bush & Co. have been doing, and continue doing, to the world?
Will the Chinese, the Hindu, the Budhhist, the Taoist, the Shintoist, the
Bahaii, the Parsi, the Gnostics, will they care whether you DESTROY the ToE
or not? (The answer is no)
In short: All questions boil down to just this: What do you expect to
achieve? All you have posted so far has only resulted in just this: Zilch,
Zero, Nil, Nothing at all - except ridicule. Do you enjoy being the victim
of your own insanity? Is that what is driving you? Have you considered
lobotomy? You could not be worse off.
Rolf
shane
<snip>
>
> In short: All questions boil down to just this: What do you expect to
> achieve? All you have posted so far has only resulted in just this: Zilch,
> Zero, Nil, Nothing at all - except ridicule. Do you enjoy being the victim
> of your own insanity? Is that what is driving you? Have you considered
> lobotomy? You could not be worse off.
>
> Rolf
>
I think ridicule and persecution are exactly what Ray seeks. There is a
subset of christianity that expects persecution, and uses it to validate
their "superior" brand of religion. I grew up in a church that had a
mild dose of this thinking. Whenever our insufferable arrogance (not
that we thought of it that way, we were just the only church that had
all the truth) caused the natural reaction from others, we felt all the
more justified in that arrogance, as we were being persecuted for our
beliefs, just like jesus was, so we must be closer to jesus that all the
"so-called" christians who were not being persecuted. Very childish
thinking and almost impossible to break out of, without letting go of
some deeply entrenched beliefs. Our church did so, and lost most of its
members, those who just couldn't give up their privleged position as
special, which was largely defined as being persected.
Weird stuff indeed, but very real.
Shane
shane
> The title of the article will be:
>
> "DARWINISM REFUTED
>
> The stunning Biblical explanation and refutation of the modern
> scientific attempt to erase the Creator. Based upon the interpretation
> of Romans 1:17-25 by Dr. Gene Scott Ph.D. Stanford University.
>
> 'TAKING DARWIN TO TASK' by Ray Martinez"
>
> I will take the original contribution to knowledge made by Dr. Scott to
> show how the textual evidence of the Bible refutes Darwinism/ToE, and
> based on the scholarship of Dr. Scott and his original contribution I
> will make an original contribution to knowledge and take Charles Darwin
> to task (and the cleaners)
Apparently Ray is going to harangue, then sue, a dead man. That's one
strange fixation he has.
> and falsify your theory into oblivion. My
> work will be copyrighted.
I doubt even Ray knows why.
> My paper will of course contain Bible verses and I will prove how the
> verses trump and falsify Darwinism. I will leave no stone unturned.
Good, that means once published, it can never be added to, so we will
only have to deal with one incarnation of it.
> My
> friends have pointed out to me that ToE is already a house in ruin.
Ray apparently is smart enough to falsify evolution, but didn't know
this until his friends told him?
> In
> response, I point out this is true and untrue both at the same time.
> You will have to wait to see how this is true.
Give over, I'm not going to live forever, and even that won't be long
enough to see the demise of evolution.
> I will say the success
> of ToE proves the Bible correct but not in a way that will make
> Darwinists happy.
He can say it all he likes, doesn't make it true.
> My article will also cover the scientifc aspect and
> of course my "Conclusions" will make you lose sleep.
Pride cometh before a fall. This should be fun.
> God has let ToE have its day for well over 150 years and now He has
> enabled me to produce an invulnerable falsification of your theory
> based upon what the Bible says corroborated by science. Dr. Behe and
> Dr. Scott have falsified your theory and I will plunge the final dagger
> into your heart.
Now that doesn't sound very friendly, and is rather at odds with his
next comment.
> your friend,
Dana Tweedy
>
> "DARWINISM REFUTED
Yet I suspect it will contain no actual refutations of any scientific
theory.
>
> The stunning Biblical explanation and refutation of the modern
> scientific attempt to erase the Creator. Based upon the interpretation
> of Romans 1:17-25 by Dr. Gene Scott Ph.D. Stanford University.
Ah, so you are basing your 'refutation' on your flawed interpetation of Gene
Scott's flawed interpetation of a bible verse. How do you imagine that a
Bible verse can possibly refute a scientific theory?
>
> 'TAKING DARWIN TO TASK' by Ray Martinez"
>
> I will take the original contribution to knowledge made by Dr. Scott to
> show how the textual evidence of the Bible refutes Darwinism/ToE, and
> based on the scholarship of Dr. Scott and his original contribution I
> will make an original contribution to knowledge and take Charles Darwin
> to task (and the cleaners) and falsify your theory into oblivion. My
> work will be copyrighted.
Ray, you have been told this before. A religious belief cannot refute a
scientific theory. "Texual evidence" is not scientific evidence. The best
you can do is to assert your interpetation is better than anyone else's.
But far be it from me to stop you from wasting your time. Copyright all you
want, no one is going to pay the slightest bit of attention to your
assertions.
>
> My paper will of course contain Bible verses and I will prove how the
> verses trump and falsify Darwinism.
Bible verses cannot trump or falsify any scientific theory. Only evidence
can do that.
> I will leave no stone unturned.
But will you be able to find any objective evidence.
>My
> friends have pointed out to me that ToE is already a house in ruin.
If you have any friends that aren't imaginary, they have been misleading
you. The theory of evolution is not "a house in ruin".
> In
> response, I point out this is true and untrue both at the same time.
> You will have to wait to see how this is true. I will say the success
> of ToE proves the Bible correct but not in a way that will make
> Darwinists happy. My article will also cover the scientifc aspect and
> of course my "Conclusions" will make you lose sleep.
I rather doubt anyone will lose a wink of sleep over your assertions. The
success of the theory of evolution is due to it's success in explaining the
evidence. I suspect your conclusions will be as faulty as your premises.
>
> God has let ToE have its day for well over 150 years and now He has
> enabled me to produce an invulnerable falsification of your theory
> based upon what the Bible says corroborated by science.
Pride goeth before a fall. Remember that.
> Dr. Behe and
> Dr. Scott have falsified your theory and I will plunge the final dagger
> into your heart.
Dr Behe has not falsified evolution, and "Dr" Scott was never anywhere even
in the ballpark. Your "dagger" is indeed a dagger of the mind, and mind
alone.
DJT
Raymond Griffith
Martinez at pyram...@yahoo.com wrote on 10/11/05 8:03 PM:
> The title of the article will be:
>
> "DARWINISM REFUTED
>
> The stunning Biblical explanation and refutation of the modern
> scientific attempt to erase the Creator. Based upon the interpretation
> of Romans 1:17-25 by Dr. Gene Scott Ph.D. Stanford University.
>
> 'TAKING DARWIN TO TASK' by Ray Martinez"
>
> I will take the original contribution to knowledge made by Dr. Scott to
> show how the textual evidence of the Bible refutes Darwinism/ToE, and
> based on the scholarship of Dr. Scott and his original contribution I
> will make an original contribution to knowledge and take Charles Darwin
> to task (and the cleaners) and falsify your theory into oblivion. My
> work will be copyrighted.
>
> My paper will of course contain Bible verses and I will prove how the
> verses trump and falsify Darwinism. I will leave no stone unturned. My
> friends have pointed out to me that ToE is already a house in ruin. In
> response, I point out this is true and untrue both at the same time.
> You will have to wait to see how this is true. I will say the success
> of ToE proves the Bible correct but not in a way that will make
> Darwinists happy. My article will also cover the scientifc aspect and
> of course my "Conclusions" will make you lose sleep.
>
> God has let ToE have its day for well over 150 years and now He has
> enabled me to produce an invulnerable falsification of your theory
> based upon what the Bible says corroborated by science. Dr. Behe and
> Dr. Scott have falsified your theory and I will plunge the final dagger
> into your heart.
>
> your friend,
>
> Ray Martinez
>
"Boast not thyself of tomorrow, for thou knowest not what a day shall bring
forth."
Regards,
Raymond E. Griffith
Ken Rode
> Earle Jones wrote:
>
>
> "DARWINISM REFUTED
>
> The stunning Biblical explanation and refutation of the modern
> scientific attempt to erase the Creator. Based upon the interpretation
> of Romans 1:17-25 by Dr. Gene Scott Ph.D. Stanford University.
>
> 'TAKING DARWIN TO TASK' by Ray Martinez"
>
> I will take the original contribution to knowledge made by Dr. Scott to
> show how the textual evidence of the Bible refutes Darwinism/ToE, and
> based on the scholarship of Dr. Scott and his original contribution I
> will make an original contribution to knowledge and take Charles Darwin
> to task (and the cleaners) and falsify your theory into oblivion. My
> work will be copyrighted.
Words from a book are not evidence.
Of course your work will be copyrighted, you silly person -- all written
works are copyrighted.
> My paper will of course contain Bible verses and I will prove how the
> verses trump and falsify Darwinism. I will leave no stone unturned.
All you will succeed in "proving" is that no Christian who interprets
the Bible in precisely the same way that you do can accept that
evolution is true. So what? We already know this.
My
> friends have pointed out to me that ToE is already a house in ruin.
What an odd way of referring to the voices in your head!
In
> response, I point out this is true and untrue both at the same time.
> You will have to wait to see how this is true. I will say the success
> of ToE proves the Bible correct but not in a way that will make
> Darwinists happy. My article will also cover the scientifc aspect and
> of course my "Conclusions" will make you lose sleep.
"will cover the scientific aspect" -- badly, of course
"will make you lose sleep" = the silliest threat I've seen in quite some
time
> God has let ToE have its day for well over 150 years and now He has
> enabled me to produce an invulnerable falsification of your theory
> based upon what the Bible says corroborated by science.
Can't God take care of the situation Himself? Why must he rely on the
"talents" of a spiteful, hateful, prideful, closed-minded man like
yourself?
Dr. Behe and
> Dr. Scott have falsified your theory and I will plunge the final dagger
> into your heart.
>
> your friend,
"I will plunge the final dagger into your heart. your friend" -- Ray,
with this sort of attitude, it isn't surprising that the only friends
you have are nonphysical.
If the good doctors have already falsified evolution, then of what use
is your paper? Seems completely superfluous, doesn't it?
Ken Rode
> the chief source of texual evidence against their theory ?
Textual evidence only = not evidence = get back to us when you've got
something tangible
> IOW, this Darwinist is saying only physical evidence that needs
> interpretations that Darwinists can control (unfalsifiable) qualifies
> as evidence. Texual evidence is much harder to refute because it is
> hard to assert what is written does not mean what it says unless you do
> what Dana Tweedy does and assert contrary anyway.
Let's add reading comprehension to the list of your problems, shall we?
If you don't understand what I'm saying to you, why don't you ask for
clarification? Darwinists, like other scientists, are interested in
arriving at explanations for phenomena, explanations that account for
*all* of the evidence, explanations that work. That's really the main
problem with your "textual evidence" -- it doesn't address the evidence
that does exist. Because of that, your "evidence" is little better than
a nonsequitor.
> Darwinists rely on things that require a story to preexist. Then they
> grossly contort the thing into the story = their "evidence". Bottom
> line is Darwinian evidence is private and requires trust. Real evidence
> is available for everyone to see and confirm.
Indeed, real evidence is available for everyone. Personal
interpretations of written works, like your interpretation of the Bible,
are inherently private and are not accessible to everyone.
>>Of course your work will be copyrighted, you silly person -- all written
>>works are copyrighted.
>
>
> Not until it is - it aint.
Let's add copyright law to the list of your problems, shall we?
>>>My paper will of course contain Bible verses and I will prove how the
>>>verses trump and falsify Darwinism. I will leave no stone unturned.
>>
>>All you will succeed in "proving" is that no Christian who interprets
>>the Bible in precisely the same way that you do can accept that
>>evolution is true. So what? We already know this.
>
>
> You have no trouble deducing obscure decayed fossils to be as your
> worldview needs them to be, but the plain reading of Scripture matched
> with reality = chinese arithmetic = feigning ignorance.
Sorry, I don't understand what you're trying to say.
>>My
>>
>>>friends have pointed out to me that ToE is already a house in ruin.
>>
>>What an odd way of referring to the voices in your head!
>
>
> Naturalism/atheism = the greatest success of demons.
Actually, were I Satan, I would get enormous pleasure from writing or
inspring a "holy" book that would keep people arguing for thousands of
years. Could it be that the Bible is the greatest success of Satan?
You're irrational hatred of atheism is showing again, by the way.
>>In
>>
>>>response, I point out this is true and untrue both at the same time.
>>>You will have to wait to see how this is true. I will say the success
>>>of ToE proves the Bible correct but not in a way that will make
>>>Darwinists happy. My article will also cover the scientifc aspect and
>>>of course my "Conclusions" will make you lose sleep.
>>
>>"will cover the scientific aspect" -- badly, of course
>>"will make you lose sleep" = the silliest threat I've seen in quite some
>>time
>>
>>
>>>God has let ToE have its day for well over 150 years and now He has
>>>enabled me to produce an invulnerable falsification of your theory
>>>based upon what the Bible says corroborated by science.
>>
>>Can't God take care of the situation Himself? Why must he rely on the
>>"talents" of a spiteful, hateful, prideful, closed-minded man like
>>yourself?
Lack of response noted.
>>Dr. Behe and
>>
>>>Dr. Scott have falsified your theory and I will plunge the final dagger
>>>into your heart.
>>>
>>>your friend,
>>
>>"I will plunge the final dagger into your heart. your friend" -- Ray,
>>with this sort of attitude, it isn't surprising that the only friends
>>you have are nonphysical.
>>
>>If the good doctors have already falsified evolution, then of what use
>>is your paper? Seems completely superfluous, doesn't it?
>
>
> Dr. Behe falsified step by tiny step dogma (evolution). Dr. Scott
> proved WHY Darwinists cannot embrace that truth like any other
> scientific fact. I will go extreme foci into the Dr. Scott produced
> facts and show how Darwin lied his ass off, that all the evidence for
> evolution is atheist philosophy packaged as evidence driven by a
> penalty from God for denying Him Creator credit.
>
> Don't you think the Bible contains a Divine answer explaining ToE ?
>
> It does. Dr. Scott unveiled it to the world and it cannot be trumped.
>
> My contribution will show Darwin (who represents all Darwinists) to be
> a vicious con artist who wanted to be God/object that everyone flocks
> to for the answers = all Darwinists = the original reason Satan fell =
> proof who is running your ship.
>
> My article will irrefutably prove everything I said and UNVEIL the
> invulnerable Biblical argument that will show unless you agree with the
> Bible/God you are an object suffering His wrath.
>
> Most importantly, my article will show how TEists are not anything but
> common atheists attempting to destroy what they hate - the Bible.
Ray, you're seriously twisted. Everything you've said here simply
reinforces something I said earlier: all you will succeed in "proving"
is that no Christian who interprets the Bible in precisely the same way
that you do can accept that evolution is true. Your paper is going to be
laughable and laughed at. You are not the scholar who can successfully
tackle the Herculean task that you have set yourself. You froth at the
mouth far too much.
Until you deal with the existing evidence for evolution, and show why it
is not evidence for evolution, will you be taken seriously.
Dana Tweedy
snipping
>> > I will take the original contribution to knowledge made by Dr. Scott to
>> > show how the textual evidence of the Bible refutes Darwinism/ToE, and
>> > based on the scholarship of Dr. Scott and his original contribution I
>> > will make an original contribution to knowledge and take Charles Darwin
>> > to task (and the cleaners) and falsify your theory into oblivion. My
>> > work will be copyrighted.
>>
>> Words from a book are not evidence.
>
> Could one expect a Darwinist to insist on anything else in regards to
> the chief source of texual evidence against their theory ?
Well, one could point out that religious writings are not evidence.
"Texual" evidence without any collaborating physical evidence is largely
worthless.
>
> IOW, this Darwinist is saying only physical evidence that needs
> interpretations that Darwinists can control (unfalsifiable) qualifies
> as evidence.
No, Ray, he's saying that "Words from a book are not evidence", and he's
right.
>Texual evidence is much harder to refute because it is
> hard to assert what is written does not mean what it says unless you do
> what Dana Tweedy does and assert contrary anyway.
Ah, I know I'm irritating Ray, and that makes all my work worthwhile.
Also, Ray, I have never asserted that "what is written does not mean what it
says". You are misrepresenting me, because you can't refute anything I
say.
>
> Darwinists rely on things that require a story to preexist.
Actually, scientists rely on "things" that are consistent with reality.
> Then they
> grossly contort the thing into the story = their "evidence". Bottom
> line is Darwinian evidence is private and requires trust. Real evidence
> is available for everyone to see and confirm.
The only evidence that science can deal with is physical evidence.
Physical evidence is open and available to all to inspect and do their own
research. All Ray offers as "evidence" is his own flawed interpetations
of someone else's flawed interpetations.
>>
>> Of course your work will be copyrighted, you silly person -- all written
>> works are copyrighted.
>
> Not until it is - it aint.
Ok, so when it's written it's copyrighted. But no one is going to try to
steal your nonsense anyway.
>
>>
>> > My paper will of course contain Bible verses and I will prove how the
>> > verses trump and falsify Darwinism. I will leave no stone unturned.
>>
>> All you will succeed in "proving" is that no Christian who interprets
>> the Bible in precisely the same way that you do can accept that
>> evolution is true. So what? We already know this.
>
> You have no trouble deducing obscure decayed fossils to be as your
> worldview needs them to be, but the plain reading of Scripture matched
> with reality = chinese arithmetic = feigning ignorance.
The problem is, Ray, that your interpetation of the Bible is not "plain
reading" by your own flawed interpetations of Gene Scott's flawed
interpetations. Also, I've asked you this many times before, how is a 90%
complete skeleton of a Homo erectus specimen, that's widely published in
books, online, and available for study by any qualified researcher,
"obscure" or "decayed"?
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/15000.html
>
>>
>> My
>> > friends have pointed out to me that ToE is already a house in ruin.
>>
>> What an odd way of referring to the voices in your head!
>
> Naturalism/atheism = the greatest success of demons.
Naturalism does not equal atheism. It's your own demons who keep you from
seeing this.
>
snip
>> "I will plunge the final dagger into your heart. your friend" -- Ray,
>> with this sort of attitude, it isn't surprising that the only friends
>> you have are nonphysical.
>>
>> If the good doctors have already falsified evolution, then of what use
>> is your paper? Seems completely superfluous, doesn't it?
>
> Dr. Behe falsified step by tiny step dogma (evolution).
No, he did not. Behe was wrong when he claimed that irreducibly complex
systems could not form by evolution. Furthermore Behe was wrong in every
example he gave as "irreducibly complex".
> Dr. Scott
> proved WHY Darwinists cannot embrace that truth like any other
> scientific fact.
"Dr" Scott proved nothing of the sort. The truth is that Evolution has not
been falisfied.
> I will go extreme foci into the Dr. Scott produced
> facts and show how Darwin lied his ass off, that all the evidence for
> evolution is atheist philosophy packaged as evidence driven by a
> penalty from God for denying Him Creator credit.
There is no penalty from God for humans to use their intellect. Ad
hominem claims about Darwin do not refute anything, and it's already been
established that Evolution is a scientific theory, not an "atheist
philosophy". You cannot give one single example of Darwin "lying his ass
off".
>
> Don't you think the Bible contains a Divine answer explaining ToE ?
I don't think the Bible even addresses evolution, as the theory was advanced
thousands of years after the Bible was written down.
>
> It does. Dr. Scott unveiled it to the world and it cannot be trumped.
Sorry, but it's trumped as easily as pointing out that "Dr" Scott has no
evidence that refutes evolution.
>
> My contribution will show Darwin (who represents all Darwinists) to be
> a vicious con artist who wanted to be God/object that everyone flocks
> to for the answers = all Darwinists = the original reason Satan fell =
> proof who is running your ship.
Again, making ad hominem attacks on Darwin does not damage the science of
Darwin's work. As a side note, the thought that Darwin 'wanted to be God'
is laughable, considering how timid and pious he was in real life.
>
> My article will irrefutably prove everything I said and UNVEIL the
> invulnerable Biblical argument that will show unless you agree with the
> Bible/God you are an object suffering His wrath.
Sure it will, Ray, but unless you can produce some physical evidence to
support your assertions, you have no case. Many people agree with the
Bible, but don't agree with your personal misintepetations. Your claim is
unfalsifiable, and circular logic taken to the extreme.
>
> Most importantly, my article will show how TEists are not anything but
> common atheists attempting to destroy what they hate - the Bible.
Again, Ray, you can't "show" anything unless you provide some physical
evidence. Theistic evolutionists, myself among them, are not atheists, and
no amount of ad hominem against them will change that. I don't hate the
Bible, and I'm not interested in destroying it. You on the other hand are
showing your deep seated hatred of Christians who don't accept your own
flawed interpetation. All you are showing is your own hatred and bile.
These emotions do not come from God.
DJT
Ray Martinez
Texual evidence matched with reality = fact. This is the Biblical way
Ken. The Darwinian way is close your mind and conclude evolution-did-it
despite the massive evidence which contradicts.
> > IOW, this Darwinist is saying only physical evidence that needs
> > interpretations that Darwinists can control (unfalsifiable) qualifies
> > as evidence. Texual evidence is much harder to refute because it is
> > hard to assert what is written does not mean what it says unless you do
> > what Dana Tweedy does and assert contrary anyway.
>
> Let's add reading comprehension to the list of your problems, shall we?
> If you don't understand what I'm saying to you, why don't you ask for
> clarification? Darwinists, like other scientists, are interested in
> arriving at explanations for phenomena, explanations that account for
> *all* of the evidence, explanations that work. That's really the main
> problem with your "textual evidence" -- it doesn't address the evidence
> that does exist. Because of that, your "evidence" is little better than
> a nonsequitor.
>
Th texual evidence does account for ALL of the evidence. If it did not
I would agree with you. Your emotional unprovoked low key rant assumes
the Bible does not. IF the Bible and its content was produced by an
invisible all powerful Being as claimed then it should account for all
purported evidence. It does as I will SHOW. I would appreciate if you
would refrain from making ignorant assumptions.
> > Darwinists rely on things that require a story to preexist. Then they
> > grossly contort the thing into the story = their "evidence". Bottom
> > line is Darwinian evidence is private and requires trust. Real evidence
> > is available for everyone to see and confirm.
>
> Indeed, real evidence is available for everyone. Personal
> interpretations of written works, like your interpretation of the Bible,
> are inherently private and are not accessible to everyone.
>
The ability to read is the only requirement (besides intelligence and a
dose of honesty) to see the amazing texual evidence. Anyone can confirm
through this educated medium (reading). But Darwinian science is a
private knowledge inaccessible to the ordinary person. It requires
massive trust and with your known prejudices these obvious barriers
accounts for every poll that has ordinary persons voting against your
theory as representative of truth.
> >>Of course your work will be copyrighted, you silly person -- all written
> >>works are copyrighted.
> >
> >
> > Not until it is - it aint.
>
> Let's add copyright law to the list of your problems, shall we?
>
> >>>My paper will of course contain Bible verses and I will prove how the
> >>>verses trump and falsify Darwinism. I will leave no stone unturned.
> >>
> >>All you will succeed in "proving" is that no Christian who interprets
> >>the Bible in precisely the same way that you do can accept that
> >>evolution is true. So what? We already know this.
> >
> >
> > You have no trouble deducing obscure decayed fossils to be as your
> > worldview needs them to be, but the plain reading of Scripture matched
> > with reality = chinese arithmetic = feigning ignorance.
>
> Sorry, I don't understand what you're trying to say.
Only because you cannot refute.
> >>My
> >>
> >>>friends have pointed out to me that ToE is already a house in ruin.
> >>
> >>What an odd way of referring to the voices in your head!
> >
> >
> > Naturalism/atheism = the greatest success of demons.
>
> Actually, were I Satan, I would get enormous pleasure from writing or
> inspring a "holy" book that would keep people arguing for thousands of
> years. Could it be that the Bible is the greatest success of Satan?
>
Predictable atheist nonsense.
> You're irrational hatred of atheism is showing again, by the way.
>
The hate-card: employed when the inability to refute is ascertained,
also known as attempted poisoning the well for the same reason.
Insult = inability to refute.
> Until you deal with the existing evidence for evolution, and show why it
> is not evidence for evolution, will you be taken seriously.
I did in my debate with Richard Clayton.
If you don't want exchange with me just say so or ignore me. Resorting
to insults is declaring the intent to avoid falification at all costs.
Ray
shane
Note how Ray completely ignored the request for "something tangible".
And it's not like Ray hasn't got something tangible, he says right there
is his response that he has "massive evidence". It's a real pity for his
position that he never posts any of it.
>>>IOW, this Darwinist is saying only physical evidence that needs
>>>interpretations that Darwinists can control (unfalsifiable) qualifies
>>>as evidence. Texual evidence is much harder to refute because it is
>>>hard to assert what is written does not mean what it says unless you do
>>>what Dana Tweedy does and assert contrary anyway.
>>
>>Let's add reading comprehension to the list of your problems, shall we?
>>If you don't understand what I'm saying to you, why don't you ask for
>>clarification? Darwinists, like other scientists, are interested in
>>arriving at explanations for phenomena, explanations that account for
>>*all* of the evidence, explanations that work. That's really the main
>>problem with your "textual evidence" -- it doesn't address the evidence
>>that does exist. Because of that, your "evidence" is little better than
>>a nonsequitor.
>>
>
>
> Th texual evidence does account for ALL of the evidence.
Again note all the fine examples Ray submitted to support his claim,
perhaps he is one of those people that freezes when thay have to make a
decision, and he just couldn't decide which examples out of the "massive
evidence" to post.
> If it did not
> I would agree with you. Your emotional unprovoked low key rant assumes
> the Bible does not. IF the Bible and its content was produced by an
> invisible all powerful Being as claimed then it should account for all
> purported evidence. It does as I will SHOW. I would appreciate if you
> would refrain from making ignorant assumptions.
Note how Ray carefully avoided pointing out what assumption he thinks
Ken made.
>>>Darwinists rely on things that require a story to preexist. Then they
>>>grossly contort the thing into the story = their "evidence". Bottom
>>>line is Darwinian evidence is private and requires trust. Real evidence
>>>is available for everyone to see and confirm.
>>
>>Indeed, real evidence is available for everyone. Personal
>>interpretations of written works, like your interpretation of the Bible,
>>are inherently private and are not accessible to everyone.
>>
>
>
> The ability to read is the only requirement (besides intelligence and a
> dose of honesty)
I'll bet none of you saw that coming. I hope you remembered to turn your
irony meters to the 'Ray Martinez' setting before reading his post.
> to see the amazing texual evidence. Anyone can confirm
> through this educated medium (reading).
One of the few times when Ray is in sync. with science, nothing to
disagree with in that comment. Yes we can confirm much by comparing the
textual evidence of the bible with the actual evidence of science. I
rather suspect that Ray will arrive at a different conclusion than most
people who have an ability to read, intelligence and honesty.
> But Darwinian science is a
> private knowledge inaccessible to the ordinary person.
Yeah that is why there are no books, articles, websites, journals,
museums, high school, and university courses etc. that mention
evolution. Ray, apparently thinks the whole Dover court case, attracting
attention right now, is about something other than a group trying to
counteract the teaching of evolution is high school of all places.
> It requires
> massive trust and with your known prejudices these obvious barriers
Yeah teaching it in high school is a massive barrier to knowledge of the
subject. You would think Ray would be supporting the teaching of it, if
the only reason evolution is maintained is by hiding it away. Ahh ye
olde creato logic, aint it grand?
> accounts for every poll that has ordinary persons voting against your
> theory as representative of truth.
Ahh the old science by vote option. (And how Ray squares this with his
famous, "the majority are ALWAYS wrong" belief is beyond me). Ray had
better hope that he doesn't get what he wishes for here, as his brand of
- and I apologise in advance for the linkage here - christianity, is
very much in a minority.
>>>>Of course your work will be copyrighted, you silly person -- all written
>>>>works are copyrighted.
>>>
>>>
>>>Not until it is - it aint.
>>
>>Let's add copyright law to the list of your problems, shall we?
>>
>>
>>>>>My paper will of course contain Bible verses and I will prove how the
>>>>>verses trump and falsify Darwinism. I will leave no stone unturned.
>>>>
>>>>All you will succeed in "proving" is that no Christian who interprets
>>>>the Bible in precisely the same way that you do can accept that
>>>>evolution is true. So what? We already know this.
>>>
>>>
>>>You have no trouble deducing obscure decayed fossils to be as your
>>>worldview needs them to be, but the plain reading of Scripture matched
>>>with reality = chinese arithmetic = feigning ignorance.
>>
>>Sorry, I don't understand what you're trying to say.
>
>
> Only because you cannot refute.
Note how Ray the "christian" immediately leaps to the negative and
demeaning conclusion that ken is a liar. Isn't it strange that Ray would
think this after Ken posted this above;
"If you don't understand what I'm saying to you, why don't you ask for
clarification?"
So apparently Ray not only thinks Ken is a liar, but a hypocrite as
well. All because he refuses to read plain word as plain words,
something he claims you have to do to learn from the bible.
>>>>My
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>friends have pointed out to me that ToE is already a house in ruin.
>>>>
>>>>What an odd way of referring to the voices in your head!
>>>
>>>
>>>Naturalism/atheism = the greatest success of demons.
>>
>>Actually, were I Satan, I would get enormous pleasure from writing or
>>inspring a "holy" book that would keep people arguing for thousands of
>>years. Could it be that the Bible is the greatest success of Satan?
>>
>
>
> Predictable atheist nonsense.
Hands up all those who think that that sounds suspiciously like an
inability to refute?
>>You're irrational hatred of atheism is showing again, by the way.
>>
>
>
> The hate-card: employed when the inability to refute is ascertained,
> also known as attempted poisoning the well for the same reason.
Note Ray's does not deny his hatred of atheism. The logical conclusion
is that Ray is aware of his hatred of atheism; Ray is of course always
free to clarify his position. And poinson what well. Is pointing out an
obvious position about yourt opponent "poisoning the well"? I suspect not.
It's not an insult, but an observation, if the textual equivalent of
frothing at the mouth can be clearly demonstrated. Thus we have
established that there was no inability to refute.
>>Until you deal with the existing evidence for evolution, and show why it
>>is not evidence for evolution, will you be taken seriously.
>
>
> I did in my debate with Richard Clayton.
And the evidence for that assertion is where?
> If you don't want exchange with me just say so or ignore me. Resorting
> to insults is declaring the intent to avoid falification at all costs.
Classic Ray projection, as Ray resorts to insults frequently. Lets face
it he used them in this thread, himself accusing Ken of being an
atheist, which to Ray is an insult. You may also note that Ray mostly
does this when he has nothing else to say in response, evidence that Ray
insults when he cannot refute. Of course ray can argue that calling Ken
an atheist is merely making an observation of a fact, unfortunately for
Ray, that tactic will negate all the self righteous indignation he used
when he complained of the observations being made about him were
actually insults.
> Ray
Dana Tweedy
snipping
>> Well, one could point out that religious writings are not evidence.
>> "Texual" evidence without any collaborating physical evidence is largely
>> worthless.
>
> Evidence is evidence. If it is confimred and corroborated by separate
> unconnected evidence then the evidence is premium.
Not all evidence is equal, and not all evidence carries equal weight.
"Texual" evidence is only evidence of what someone once wrote down. Without
corrborating physical evidence, "texual" evidence is worthless. "Separate,
unconnected evidence" which is not physical evidence is of no more use than
the original "texual".
>
> Anyone who asserts textual/religious/Biblical evidence is not evidence
> - I would bet is a Darwinist and/or atheist.
Because you define anyone who points out that textual/religious/Biblical
evidence is not evidence as a "Darwinist and or atheist". It fits your
perfectly circular logical pattern. In any case it's not an assertion
it's a simple fact. Words written down in a book are not evidence that the
events described in the book actually occured. If it were, then I could
use "Hitchiker's Guide to the Galaxy to "prove" that the Earth was destroyed
by Vogons to make way for a inteplanetary bypass.
> The assertion is driven by
> an obvious ulterior motive.
The only motive is to point out where you have committed an error.
> The best thing anti-Biblical worldviews
> could do is say the textual evidence is contradicted (and/or falsified)
> by other evidence.
I don't have an "anti-Biblical" worldview. I am aware however that the
claims of the Bible, without corraborating physical evidence, are not
evidence of anything except that Bible makes claims.
>But to insist and/or assert evidence which is
> perceived to falsify your views is not evidence is rightfully labelled
> an illegitimate ***a priori*** dismissal philosophically driven, or as
> I often say "very predictable" opinion.
Even if the "Textual" evidence were to completely agree with evolutionary
theory, it still is not evidence on the par with physical evidence. The
"texual" evidence is dismissed not because it is in opposition to science,
but because science only deals with physical evidence. A written document
is not evidence, if there is no physical evidence to corraborate the
document.
>
> Physical evidence begins inferior BECAUSE it requires full-blown
> interpretation. Textual evidence is worlds apart in this respect from
> the get-go.
This is an interesting inversion of logic and experience. Everyday
experience tells us that physical evidence is far more reliable than textual
evidence in every case. If I were to pick up newspaper that states "Statue
of Liberty Destroyed", yet the physical evidence shows the statue is still
there, which should I believe? Ray seems to think that I should accept the
"textual" evidence. If I were enjoying a nice plate of spagehetti and
marinara sauce, and someone came in waiving a book that said that tomatoes
were poison, should I accept the physical evidence, or the textual evidence?
If a judge were to hear a case, where the physical evidence placed a suspect
at the murder scene, had his fingerprints on the murder weapon, and his DNA
on the murder victim's body, but the suspect had a hand written note saying
he was no where near the scene, which should the Judge believe?
>
>>
>> >
>> > IOW, this Darwinist is saying only physical evidence that needs
>> > interpretations that Darwinists can control (unfalsifiable) qualifies
>> > as evidence.
>>
>> No, Ray, he's saying that "Words from a book are not evidence", and he's
>> right.
>
> God's word is the ultimate evidence.
But you are assuming that your interpetation is "God's Word".
> Asserting contrary reveals atheism
> or related philosophy.
Perhaps that philosophy is that reality is reflected by the physical
evidence. I am not an atheist, but I don't accept that Ray Martinez is the
only person qualified to determine what is "God's Word".
>The predictable opinion is held because Ken and
> yourself do not like what it says.
I have no dislike of the words of the Bible, and I don't have any reason to
object to it. It simply doesn't match the physical evidence.
> Darwinists are in the business of
> justifying their atheistic worldviews by any means possible.
Science is not an "atheistic worldview". Many religious people, myself
included, accept the evidence that science provides. I have no interest
in promoting atheism, or supporting a "worldview".
> Believing
> the Bible is not evidence has always been your position
> yet it is not my position, and has not "always been". The Bible is a
> religious writing, it's not a scientific text. It cannot provide
> scientific answers, and as such is not scientific evidence. It's a misuse
> of the Bible to claim it trumps physical evidence.
> - a minority
> view of the God-senseless Fundamentalist wing of science.
Now Ray is implying that the majority is always right..... How odd when he
has gone to such lengths to claim that the majority is always wrong, or
evil.
>
>>
>>
>> >Texual evidence is much harder to refute because it is
>> > hard to assert what is written does not mean what it says unless you do
>> > what Dana Tweedy does and assert contrary anyway.
>>
>> Ah, I know I'm irritating Ray, and that makes all my work worthwhile.
>> Also, Ray, I have never asserted that "what is written does not mean what
>> it
>> says". You are misrepresenting me, because you can't refute anything
>> I
>> say.
>
> Your admission reveals a petty childish mind - unintellectual, and the
> fact that you follow me around faithfully shows how enraged you are
> with what I write.
Ray, you don't "enrage" me, you amuse me. I post here for my own
amusement, and your posts are a goldmine of false assertions, illogic and
bile.... Your own inflated opinion of yourself, and the lengths you go to
to show off your incompetence are priceless.
> I am in your head night and day and you show exactly
> how Darwinists operate: deny with a straight face no matter how plain
> the evidence.
Ah, Ray, despite what your ego may lead you believe, you are not my
obsession. I find you amusing, and it's entertaining to me see you fly
off the handle at the least provocation. You haven't provided any "plain
evidence" for me to deny, and you can't even begin to refute the evidence
I've provided to you.
>
> You learned the last phrase about misrepresentation from me.
Ray's ego again leads him into a laughable position. I'm quite aware of
when I'm being misrepresented, and I knew that long before you arrived, Ray.
> I am
> comforted that you never post any evidence or have a source, but have
> relegated yourself to a frustrated existence imitating/reversing what I
> say.
Ray, you are quite aware that I've posted a great deal of evidence (which
you've ignored). Also, there is a great difference between having a
"source" and committing the fallacy of argument from authority, which you
are often guilty of. When I "reverse" what you say, it's to point out
the illogic of your own position, and why it's hypocrisy for you to make
those claims.
>
>
>>
>> >
>> > Darwinists rely on things that require a story to preexist.
>>
>> Actually, scientists rely on "things" that are consistent with reality.
>>
>
> Then why do you guys believe apes morphed into men over millions of
> years ?
Because it's consistent with the evidence. Acutally, apes did not "morph"
into men over millions of years. Humans are still apes, and have descended
from other populations of apes by incremental changes over many generations.
The evidence that this has occured is very strong. All you can do is deny
it, and refuse to see the evidence.
> Scientists do not embrace science fiction.
Which is why scientists overwhemlingly reject Creationism.
> Your atheistic
> prejudices are incurable.
Since I'm not an atheist, I don't see where I'd have any "atheistc
prejudices" to cure.
>
>
>> > Then they
>> > grossly contort the thing into the story = their "evidence". Bottom
>> > line is Darwinian evidence is private and requires trust. Real evidence
>> > is available for everyone to see and confirm.
>>
>> The only evidence that science can deal with is physical evidence.
>> Physical evidence is open and available to all to inspect and do their
>> own
>> research. All Ray offers as "evidence" is his own flawed
>> interpetations
>> of someone else's flawed interpetations.
>>
>
> Science deals with all evidence.
Again, that's why science rejects Creationism.
> Darwinists exclude any evidence that
> contradicts their suppositions because your theory HAS to be true.
Actually, Ray, it's the creationists who exclude physical evidence that
contradicts their beliefs. Evolution does not "have" to be true, it's true
because the evidence supports it. If another theory were to explain the
evidence better, evolution would be discarded.
snipping
>> The problem is, Ray, that your interpetation of the Bible is not "plain
>> reading" by your own flawed interpetations of Gene Scott's flawed
>> interpetations. Also, I've asked you this many times before, how is a
>> 90%
>> complete skeleton of a Homo erectus specimen, that's widely published in
>> books, online, and available for study by any qualified researcher,
>> "obscure" or "decayed"?
>> http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/15000.html
>>
>
> Your Biblical views are predetermined by your fanatic devotion to
> atheistic Darwinism.
Considering that I'm not devoted, fanatically or otherwise to "Darwinism",
and that my Biblical views are those of my Christian beliefs, not to mention
that fact that science is not atheistic, your assertion doesn't hold much
water.
>
> I never said the skeleton you cite is "obscure or decayed".
You mean when you stated that scientists depend on "obscure decayed
fossils", you didn't mean KNM-WT 15000? Where did you leave out that
fossil?
> Show me
> where I said that, that is concerning the Erectus specimen and I will
> retract ?
So, you specifically meant to exclude KNM-WT 15000 when you wrote " You have
no trouble deducing obscure decayed fossils to be as your worldview needs
them to be, but the plain reading of Scripture matched with reality =
chinese arithmetic = feigning ignorance." ?
How odd, you refer to all the fossil evidence as "obscure decayed fossils"
yet you left out one H. erectus specimen? Why?
>
> You're not implying the H.E. transitional are you ?
No, I'm not implying, I'm stating unequiviocally that Homo erectus is a
transitional species between modern humans and other apes. I'm sure I'll
be amused to see what kind of gymnastics you intend to use to claim it's
not. Even if H. erectus is determined not to be a direct ancestor of
modern humans, it's still an excellent example of a transitional fossil,
exactly what one would expect to find in an evolutionary transitional form.
snipping
>> > Dr. Behe falsified step by tiny step dogma (evolution).
>>
>> No, he did not. Behe was wrong when he claimed that irreducibly complex
>> systems could not form by evolution. Furthermore Behe was wrong in
>> every
>> example he gave as "irreducibly complex".
>>
>
> An ordinary Darwinist of the Internet asserting Dr. Michael Behe is
> wrong, and you claim to be loyal to evidence ?
Absolutely. And I can show where Behe was wrong. It's not just my
opinion, but the considered conclusion of those who have studied biology for
years.
http://biomed.brown.edu/Faculty/M/Miller/Behe.html
http://www.simonyi.ox.ac.uk/dawkins/WorldOfDawkins-archive/Catalano/box/behe.shtml
http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/creation/behe.html
>Does the fact that you
> are a Darwinst and he is an IDist have anything to do with your
> subjective/predictable opinion ?
The fact that Behe is wrong has a great deal to do with my opinion.
Behe's claims are based on a false understanding of evolution.
Furthermore, Behe has not published any scientific papers supporting his
claims about ID. Why the silence, if he's "refuted" evolution?
http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/articles/2083_the_elusive_scientific_basis_o_3_16_2001.asp
>
> I suspect you are uneducated or wicked to borrow from the real Richard
> Dawkins.
You can suspect all you wish, but Behe's claims are still mistaken.
>
> Behe's book is crammed with scientific evidence.
Such as? Perhaps you can provide us with some of that "scientific
evidence"?
> If a major
> evolutionary claim was not refuted the data would have been accepted in
> a New York minute.
Conversely, if Behe had anything by hot air, he'd be publishing in
legitamate journals, not in the pop science press.
> Darwinists have been forced to accept the facts of
> IC and to eviscerate its meaning they deliberately assert IC evolved
> anyway.
Evolutionary scientists were aware of "irreducibly complex" systems decades
before Behe, and there are no reason such systems cannot have evolved. See:
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB200.html
> When the definition of IC is understood and its existence
> accepted = evolution falsified.
That assertion is not correct. IC systems can, and do evolve.
> My paper will prove why Darwinists
> cannot accept IC like any other scientific fact, mainly because
> financial livelyhood is at stake (not to mention the penalty from God).
There is no such penalty, Ray, and you have been shown many times why your
claim is not true. The suggestion that scientists reject IC because of
"financial livelyhood" is absurd. Your paper appears to be just another
collection of your own misunderstandings and personal grudges.
>
>
>
>
>> > Dr. Scott
>> > proved WHY Darwinists cannot embrace that truth like any other
>> > scientific fact.
>>
>> "Dr" Scott proved nothing of the sort. The truth is that Evolution has
>> not
>> been falisfied.
>>
>
> Evolution was never a fact - so I would agree.
Sorry, Ray, but evolution is a fact, despite your refusal to accept it.
Evolution has not been falsified by either Scott or Behe.
>
>> > I will go extreme foci into the Dr. Scott produced
>> > facts and show how Darwin lied his ass off, that all the evidence for
>> > evolution is atheist philosophy packaged as evidence driven by a
>> > penalty from God for denying Him Creator credit.
>>
>> There is no penalty from God for humans to use their intellect. Ad
>> hominem claims about Darwin do not refute anything, and it's already been
>> established that Evolution is a scientific theory, not an "atheist
>> philosophy". You cannot give one single example of Darwin "lying his
>> ass
>> off".
>>
>
> You use intellect to assert God is not the Creator.
I have never asserted that God is not the Creator. You again misrepresent
me so that you don't have to deal with the real issue. People can oppose
your personal beliefs, and still accept the existance of God. You are not
God, and you don't get to determine what someone must believe.
> Visible reality
> cannot be erased.
Again, another reason why science overwhelmingly rejects Creationism.
>Intellect is canceled if you do not possess honesty.
Yet it is the Creationists who are demonstratably dishonest. I've been
scrupulously honest in all my dealings with you, and other Creationists.
You have misrepresented me, lied about me, and made up strawman claims to
avoid having to deal with the fact that I contradict your claims. I'm a
Christian who accepts evolution, and that makes you livid with rage. You
can't refute, you can't make me angry, you can't make me go away. That
must just eat at you like a cancer.
>
> I will show Darwin a premeditated liar of the absolute worst kind,
I predict that you won't, and in the process you will only show yourself to
be untruthful. Darwin was not a liar.
> and
> in type convict all Darwinists. Darwin is staunchly defended by atheist
> mediavangelist Rev. R. Dawkins,
Whatever Dawkin's religious beliefs are, or lack of beliefs, his "defense"
of Darwin is on scientific grounds. Being supported by an atheist does not
make one an atheist, or a liar.
> little Kenny R.
What's this, an ordinary internet Creationist is trying to assert that Dr
Kenneth R. Miller is wrong?
(I sware I am a
> Catholic just like Michael Corleone was as he murdered his enemies
> while his baby was being baptised) Miller,
You are aware that Michael Corleone was a fictional character, are you not?
Your ad hominem attack on Miller is another example of your hypocrisy.
Miller is another devout Christian who also accepts evoluiton. That causes
your hatred to boil over, because it shows you are wrong.
>Mayr, Jerry "eyebrows"
> Coyne, and many other big name mafiosos/Darwinist.
Again, your attack on these respected scientists wouldn't have anything to
do with your personal religious beliefs, would it?
> I will get them all
> in my net after I get Darwin himself.
Ray, your ego is writing checks your intellect can't cash. All you will
do is to show your own dishonesty as you try to smear respected scientists
for the "crime" of showing your assertions to be false.
>
>> >
>> > Don't you think the Bible contains a Divine answer explaining ToE ?
>>
>> I don't think the Bible even addresses evolution, as the theory was
>> advanced
>> thousands of years after the Bible was written down.
>>
>> >
>> > It does. Dr. Scott unveiled it to the world and it cannot be trumped.
>>
>> Sorry, but it's trumped as easily as pointing out that "Dr" Scott has no
>> evidence that refutes evolution.
>>
>
> No Darwinist ever accepts evidence as such against their philosophy.
Ray, this is pure projection. Your refusal to accept evidence that
contradicts your beliefs does not mean that everyone does this.
> If
> Darwinists accepted the Dr. Scott evidence then he would be falsified
> in a New York minute.
Conversely if "Dr" Scott had any evidence to falsify evolution, he would
have presented it. The scientific literature is entirely missing any
refutation of evolution by one Gene Scott. Why?
>
>
>> >
>> > My contribution will show Darwin (who represents all Darwinists) to be
>> > a vicious con artist who wanted to be God/object that everyone flocks
>> > to for the answers = all Darwinists = the original reason Satan fell =
>> > proof who is running your ship.
>>
>> Again, making ad hominem attacks on Darwin does not damage the science of
>> Darwin's work. As a side note, the thought that Darwin 'wanted to be
>> God'
>> is laughable, considering how timid and pious he was in real life.
>>
>
> Sweetheart exemption. I am glad you are defending Darwin. Some ordinary
> evos give him up in a second.
What 'sweetheart exemption"? Ad homienm directed at Darwin does not
refute his scientific work. Darwin never wanted to "be God". He never
wanted to replace the Bible, and he certianly never wanted to be considered
to be in opposition to God. Darwin was a brilliant scientist, who
deserves his place in history.
>
>> >
>> > My article will irrefutably prove everything I said and UNVEIL the
>> > invulnerable Biblical argument that will show unless you agree with the
>> > Bible/God you are an object suffering His wrath.
>>
>> Sure it will, Ray, but unless you can produce some physical evidence to
>> support your assertions, you have no case. Many people agree with the
>> Bible, but don't agree with your personal misintepetations. Your claim
>> is
>> unfalsifiable, and circular logic taken to the extreme.
>>
>
> Science has proven the Bible - if God exists how could it not ?
You have asserted this, but when it comes to giving evidence, you run away.
Where has science "proven the Bible"? Let's see some actual scientific
papers that have "proven" the Bible.
> Only
> biased Darwinian interpretations and their known prejudices prevent
> this from being understood.
If your assertions were true, then no one not even some "Darwinian
interpetations" would be able to prevent this. The fact remains that the
Bible is not scientifically accurate. It has never been "proven" by any
science.
>
>> >
>> > Most importantly, my article will show how TEists are not anything but
>> > common atheists attempting to destroy what they hate - the Bible.
>>
>> Again, Ray, you can't "show" anything unless you provide some physical
>> evidence. Theistic evolutionists, myself among them, are not atheists,
>> and
>> no amount of ad hominem against them will change that. I don't hate
>> the
>> Bible, and I'm not interested in destroying it. You on the other hand
>> are
>> showing your deep seated hatred of Christians who don't accept your own
>> flawed interpetation. All you are showing is your own hatred and
>> bile.
>> These emotions do not come from God.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> DJT
>
> Being a hardcore Darwinist and insulting me
Pointing out your hatred is not an insult Ray. Also your hypocrisy is
glaring here, as you have constantly been insulting me, and others in this
very post.
> - a person who accepts the
> facts of science and the Bible at face value only shows how right I am.
The problem is Ray, you don't accept facts of science when they conflict
with your beliefs. Moreover you don't accept the Bible at face value. You
misinterpet the Bible to fit your personal hatred of other people.
> Your approval and compliments would have shown my utter wrongness.
Again, we see the circular nature of your "logic". The point is, you can
be wrong, even if I don't agree with you.
DJT
psych...@utanet.at
Ray Martinez schrieb:
> Dana Tweedy wrote:
> > "Ray Martinez" <pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > news:1129154944.8...@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> > snipping
> >
> > >> > I will take the original contribution to knowledge made by Dr. Scott to
> > >> > show how the textual evidence of the Bible refutes Darwinism/ToE, and
> > >> > based on the scholarship of Dr. Scott and his original contribution I
> > >> > will make an original contribution to knowledge and take Charles Darwin
> > >> > to task (and the cleaners) and falsify your theory into oblivion. My
> > >> > work will be copyrighted.
> > >>
> > >> Words from a book are not evidence.
> > >
> > > Could one expect a Darwinist to insist on anything else in regards to
> > > the chief source of texual evidence against their theory ?
> >
> > Well, one could point out that religious writings are not evidence.
> > "Texual" evidence without any collaborating physical evidence is largely
> > worthless.
>
> Evidence is evidence. If it is confimred and corroborated by separate
> unconnected evidence then the evidence is premium.
> Anyone who asserts textual/religious/Biblical evidence is not evidence
> - I would bet is a Darwinist and/or atheist.
It is evidence that someone has once written a text and claims
something. Period. Otherwise, the Elder Edda is evidence for the
creation of Midgard by Odin & Brothers, the Theogony is evidence for
Zeus' birth etc.1
The assertion is driven by
> an obvious ulterior motive. The best thing anti-Biblical worldviews
> could do is say the textual evidence is contradicted (and/or falsified)
> by other evidence.
False. The existence of a text is not evidence for the claims made in
it, unless corroborated by the ability of the author to observe it, his
honesty etc..
But to insist and/or assert evidence which is
> perceived to falsify your views is not evidence is rightfully labelled
> an illegitimate ***a priori*** dismissal philosophically driven, or as
> I often say "very predictable" opinion.
If someone writes that he was revealed in a dream that the Theory of
Evolution was 100% correct, I would disregard this "evidence", too.
Your ridiculous claim is falsified.
> Physical evidence begins inferior BECAUSE it requires full-blown
> interpretation. Textual evidence is worlds apart in this respect from
> the get-go.
False. Physical evidence quite often has only a single (or a narrow
range of) *rational* interpretations. Textual evidence can be
interpreted as the reader wants to.
> >
> > >
> > > IOW, this Darwinist is saying only physical evidence that needs
> > > interpretations that Darwinists can control (unfalsifiable) qualifies
> > > as evidence.
> >
> > No, Ray, he's saying that "Words from a book are not evidence", and he's
> > right.
>
> God's word is the ultimate evidence.
OK. Demonstrate 1) that "God" exists, 2) does not lie and 3) that the
Bible - and not the Qu'ran, Upanishads or Elder Edda - contain his
words. Then you may continue in your argument.
Asserting contrary reveals atheism
> or related philosophy. The predictable opinion is held because Ken and
> yourself do not like what it says. Darwinists are in the business of
> justifying their atheistic worldviews by any means possible. Believing
> the Bible is not evidence has always been your position - a minority
> view of the God-senseless Fundamentalist wing of science.
A majority of humanity does not believe the Bible is evidence. An
overwhelming majority does not share your personal interpretation of
it.
> >
> >
> > >Texual evidence is much harder to refute because it is
> > > hard to assert what is written does not mean what it says unless you do
> > > what Dana Tweedy does and assert contrary anyway.
> >
> > Ah, I know I'm irritating Ray, and that makes all my work worthwhile.
> > Also, Ray, I have never asserted that "what is written does not mean what it
> > says". You are misrepresenting me, because you can't refute anything I
> > say.
>
> Your admission reveals a petty childish mind - unintellectual, and the
> fact that you follow me around faithfully shows how enraged you are
> with what I write. I am in your head night and day and you show exactly
> how Darwinists operate: deny with a straight face no matter how plain
> the evidence.
What evidence ? *WHAT EVIDENCE* ?
> You learned the last phrase about misrepresentation from me. I am
> comforted that you never post any evidence or have a source, but have
> relegated yourself to a frustrated existence imitating/reversing what I
> say.
>
>
> >
> > >
> > > Darwinists rely on things that require a story to preexist.
> >
> > Actually, scientists rely on "things" that are consistent with reality.
> >
>
> Then why do you guys believe apes morphed into men over millions of
> years ?
Because of compelling evidence, which you ignore, deny and/or do not
understand.
Scientists do not embrace science fiction. Your atheistic
> prejudices are incurable.
>
>
> > > Then they
> > > grossly contort the thing into the story = their "evidence". Bottom
> > > line is Darwinian evidence is private and requires trust. Real evidence
> > > is available for everyone to see and confirm.
> >
> > The only evidence that science can deal with is physical evidence.
> > Physical evidence is open and available to all to inspect and do their own
> > research. All Ray offers as "evidence" is his own flawed interpetations
> > of someone else's flawed interpetations.
> >
>
> Science deals with all evidence.
True. Old religious manuscripts are evidence for the existence of a
religion, which no one disputes. They aren't evidence for the truth of
said religion.
Darwinists exclude any evidence that
> contradicts their suppositions because your theory HAS to be true.
>
>
> > >>
> > >> Of course your work will be copyrighted, you silly person -- all written
> > >> works are copyrighted.
> > >
> > > Not until it is - it aint.
> >
> > Ok, so when it's written it's copyrighted. But no one is going to try to
> > steal your nonsense anyway.
> >
> > >
> > >>
> > >> > My paper will of course contain Bible verses and I will prove how the
> > >> > verses trump and falsify Darwinism. I will leave no stone unturned.
> > >>
> > >> All you will succeed in "proving" is that no Christian who interprets
> > >> the Bible in precisely the same way that you do can accept that
> > >> evolution is true. So what? We already know this.
> > >
> > > You have no trouble deducing obscure decayed fossils to be as your
> > > worldview needs them to be, but the plain reading of Scripture matched
> > > with reality = chinese arithmetic = feigning ignorance.
> >
> > The problem is, Ray, that your interpetation of the Bible is not "plain
> > reading" by your own flawed interpetations of Gene Scott's flawed
> > interpetations. Also, I've asked you this many times before, how is a 90%
> > complete skeleton of a Homo erectus specimen, that's widely published in
> > books, online, and available for study by any qualified researcher,
> > "obscure" or "decayed"?
> > http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/15000.html
> >
>
> Your Biblical views are predetermined by your fanatic devotion to
> atheistic Darwinism.
>
> I never said the skeleton you cite is "obscure or decayed". Show me
> where I said that, that is concerning the Erectus specimen and I will
> retract ?
>
> You're not implying the H.E. transitional are you ?
Of course it is - between his ancestors and his descendants.
>
> >
> > >
> > >>
> > >> My
> > >> > friends have pointed out to me that ToE is already a house in ruin.
> > >>
> > >> What an odd way of referring to the voices in your head!
> > >
> > > Naturalism/atheism = the greatest success of demons.
> >
> > Naturalism does not equal atheism. It's your own demons who keep you from
> > seeing this.
> >
> >
> > >
> > snip
> >
> > >> "I will plunge the final dagger into your heart. your friend" -- Ray,
> > >> with this sort of attitude, it isn't surprising that the only friends
> > >> you have are nonphysical.
> > >>
> > >> If the good doctors have already falsified evolution, then of what use
> > >> is your paper? Seems completely superfluous, doesn't it?
> > >
> > > Dr. Behe falsified step by tiny step dogma (evolution).
> >
> > No, he did not. Behe was wrong when he claimed that irreducibly complex
> > systems could not form by evolution. Furthermore Behe was wrong in every
> > example he gave as "irreducibly complex".
> >
>
> An ordinary Darwinist of the Internet asserting Dr. Michael Behe is
> wrong, and you claim to be loyal to evidence ? Does the fact that you
> are a Darwinst and he is an IDist have anything to do with your
> subjective/predictable opinion ?
No. The fact that he is wrong determines the collective opinion of all
experts in this field.
> I suspect you are uneducated or wicked to borrow from the real Richard
> Dawkins.
>
> Behe's book is crammed with scientific evidence.
It is crammed with his own incredulity and ignorance.
If a major
> evolutionary claim was not refuted the data would have been accepted in
> a New York minute. Darwinists have been forced to accept the facts of
> IC and to eviscerate its meaning they deliberately assert IC evolved
> anyway. When the definition of IC is understood and its existence
> accepted = evolution falsified. My paper will prove why Darwinists
> cannot accept IC like any other scientific fact, mainly because
> financial livelyhood is at stake (not to mention the penalty from God).
I see your stubborn refusal to believe in the IPU has caused Her
Pinkiness to cloud your mind totally. Not that it was particularly
clear to begin with.
>
>
>
> > > Dr. Scott
> > > proved WHY Darwinists cannot embrace that truth like any other
> > > scientific fact.
> >
> > "Dr" Scott proved nothing of the sort. The truth is that Evolution has not
> > been falisfied.
> >
>
> Evolution was never a fact - so I would agree.
>
> > > I will go extreme foci into the Dr. Scott produced
> > > facts and show how Darwin lied his ass off, that all the evidence for
> > > evolution is atheist philosophy packaged as evidence driven by a
> > > penalty from God for denying Him Creator credit.
> >
> > There is no penalty from God for humans to use their intellect. Ad
> > hominem claims about Darwin do not refute anything, and it's already been
> > established that Evolution is a scientific theory, not an "atheist
> > philosophy". You cannot give one single example of Darwin "lying his ass
> > off".
> >
>
> You use intellect to assert God is not the Creator.
Which god are you talking about ? Existence and uniqueness proof,
please.
Visible reality
> cannot be erased. Intellect is canceled if you do not possess honesty.
>
> I will show Darwin a premeditated liar of the absolute worst kind, and
> in type convict all Darwinists. Darwin is staunchly defended by atheist
> mediavangelist Rev. R. Dawkins, little Kenny R. (I sware I am a
> Catholic just like Michael Corleone was as he murdered his enemies
> while his baby was being baptised) Miller, Mayr, Jerry "eyebrows"
> Coyne, and many other big name mafiosos/Darwinists. I will get them all
> in my net after I get Darwin himself.
See what happened to Martinez because he did not believe in the IPU ?
She condemned him to meaningless raving :P
<snip>
HRG.
bre...@aintitcoolmail.com
Ray Martinez emitted:
> Evidence is evidence. If it is confimred and corroborated by
separate
> unconnected evidence then the evidence is premium.
You, sir, are no Sean Pitman.
Ray Martinez
Dana Tweedy wrote:
> "Ray Martinez" <pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:1129314594.8...@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> snipping
>
> >> Well, one could point out that religious writings are not evidence.
> >> "Texual" evidence without any collaborating physical evidence is largely
> >> worthless.
> >
> > Evidence is evidence. If it is confimred and corroborated by separate
> > unconnected evidence then the evidence is premium.
>
> Not all evidence is equal, and not all evidence carries equal weight.
> "Texual" evidence is only evidence of what someone once wrote down. Without
> corrborating physical evidence, "texual" evidence is worthless. "Separate,
> unconnected evidence" which is not physical evidence is of no more use than
> the original "texual".
>
Very predictable (and mandatory) Darwinian opinion.
> >
> > Anyone who asserts textual/religious/Biblical evidence is not evidence
> > - I would bet is a Darwinist and/or atheist.
>
> Because you define anyone who points out that textual/religious/Biblical
> evidence is not evidence as a "Darwinist and or atheist". It fits your
> perfectly circular logical pattern.
Asserting circular without showing is attempted poisoning the well. I
am sure you believe it but I am not convinced.
> In any case it's not an assertion
> it's a simple fact. Words written down in a book are not evidence that the
> events described in the book actually occured. If it were, then I could
> use "Hitchiker's Guide to the Galaxy to "prove" that the Earth was destroyed
> by Vogons to make way for a inteplanetary bypass.
>
Another very predictable and mandatory Darwinian opinion.
>
> > The assertion is driven by
> > an obvious ulterior motive.
>
> The only motive is to point out where you have committed an error.
>
Dana's way of saying he disagrees with the Bible viewed as evidence.
Could one expect a Darwinist to believe anything else ?
> > The best thing anti-Biblical worldviews
> > could do is say the textual evidence is contradicted (and/or falsified)
> > by other evidence.
>
> I don't have an "anti-Biblical" worldview. I am aware however that the
> claims of the Bible, without corraborating physical evidence, are not
> evidence of anything except that Bible makes claims.
>
You are a Darwinist and an atheist by your own admissions. Today you
claim something else.
> >But to insist and/or assert evidence which is
> > perceived to falsify your views is not evidence is rightfully labelled
> > an illegitimate ***a priori*** dismissal philosophically driven, or as
> > I often say "very predictable" opinion.
>
> Even if the "Textual" evidence were to completely agree with evolutionary
> theory, it still is not evidence on the par with physical evidence. The
> "texual" evidence is dismissed not because it is in opposition to science,
> but because science only deals with physical evidence. A written document
> is not evidence, if there is no physical evidence to corraborate the
> document.
>
Science has always corroborated the texual evidence of the Bible, only
its Fundamentalist wing known as Darwinists close their minds to these
long established facts. Your mindset has been slowly brainwashed by
Darwinian philosophy - a casuality of this generation.
> >
> > Physical evidence begins inferior BECAUSE it requires full-blown
> > interpretation. Textual evidence is worlds apart in this respect from
> > the get-go.
>
> This is an interesting inversion of logic and experience. Everyday
> experience tells us that physical evidence is far more reliable than textual
> evidence in every case. If I were to pick up newspaper that states "Statue
> of Liberty Destroyed", yet the physical evidence shows the statue is still
> there, which should I believe? Ray seems to think that I should accept the
> "textual" evidence. If I were enjoying a nice plate of spagehetti and
> marinara sauce, and someone came in waiving a book that said that tomatoes
> were poison, should I accept the physical evidence, or the textual evidence?
> If a judge were to hear a case, where the physical evidence placed a suspect
> at the murder scene, had his fingerprints on the murder weapon, and his DNA
> on the murder victim's body, but the suspect had a hand written note saying
> he was no where near the scene, which should the Judge believe?
>
All physical evidence corresponds with Biblical declarations. Inability
to see this fact is explained in the Bible as willful at first, then
God reacts if one persists and helps you go your senseless way.
> >
> >>
> >> >
> >> > IOW, this Darwinist is saying only physical evidence that needs
> >> > interpretations that Darwinists can control (unfalsifiable) qualifies
> >> > as evidence.
> >>
> >> No, Ray, he's saying that "Words from a book are not evidence", and he's
> >> right.
> >
> > God's word is the ultimate evidence.
>
> But you are assuming that your interpetation is "God's Word".
>
> > Asserting contrary reveals atheism
> > or related philosophy.
>
> Perhaps that philosophy is that reality is reflected by the physical
> evidence. I am not an atheist, but I don't accept that Ray Martinez is the
> only person qualified to determine what is "God's Word".
>
Like I said above you admit to being an atheist and feign theism in
order to vent your rage against the Bible and Creationists.
> >The predictable opinion is held because Ken and
> > yourself do not like what it says.
>
> I have no dislike of the words of the Bible, and I don't have any reason to
> object to it. It simply doesn't match the physical evidence.
>
Blatantly contradictory comment.
> > Darwinists are in the business of
> > justifying their atheistic worldviews by any means possible.
>
> Science is not an "atheistic worldview". Many religious people, myself
> included, accept the evidence that science provides. I have no interest
> in promoting atheism, or supporting a "worldview".
>
Yes, Dana, Darwinism is synonymous with atheism whether you admit it or
not - its not a matter of opinion. Hitler claimed to be religious which
makes your flip flop even more meaningless. Your views promote atheism
and your rage feigns theism in order to vent your obvious hate. You are
the unfortunate product of brainwashing - a living proof of how
Darwinists have succeeded with ordinary persons.
> > Believing
> > the Bible is not evidence has always been your position
>
> > yet it is not my position, and has not "always been". The Bible is a
> > religious writing, it's not a scientific text. It cannot provide
> > scientific answers, and as such is not scientific evidence. It's a misuse
> > of the Bible to claim it trumps physical evidence.
>
Another predictable and mandatory Darwinian opinion.
> > - a minority
> > view of the God-senseless Fundamentalist wing of science.
>
> Now Ray is implying that the majority is always right..... How odd when he
> has gone to such lengths to claim that the majority is always wrong, or
> evil.
> >
> >>
> >>
> >> >Texual evidence is much harder to refute because it is
> >> > hard to assert what is written does not mean what it says unless you do
> >> > what Dana Tweedy does and assert contrary anyway.
> >>
> >> Ah, I know I'm irritating Ray, and that makes all my work worthwhile.
> >> Also, Ray, I have never asserted that "what is written does not mean what
> >> it
> >> says". You are misrepresenting me, because you can't refute anything
> >> I
> >> say.
> >
> > Your admission reveals a petty childish mind - unintellectual, and the
> > fact that you follow me around faithfully shows how enraged you are
> > with what I write.
>
> Ray, you don't "enrage" me, you amuse me. I post here for my own
> amusement, and your posts are a goldmine of false assertions, illogic and
> bile.... Your own inflated opinion of yourself, and the lengths you go to
> to show off your incompetence are priceless.
>
You being a Darwinist and your view of me supports my rightness. Your
approval would have supported my wrongness.
> > I am in your head night and day and you show exactly
> > how Darwinists operate: deny with a straight face no matter how plain
> > the evidence.
>
> Ah, Ray, despite what your ego may lead you believe, you are not my
> obsession. I find you amusing, and it's entertaining to me see you fly
> off the handle at the least provocation. You haven't provided any "plain
> evidence" for me to deny, and you can't even begin to refute the evidence
> I've provided to you.
>
We both know you never offer evidence (except the Erectus below). Your
insults reveal the inability to refute.
> >
> > You learned the last phrase about misrepresentation from me.
>
> Ray's ego again leads him into a laughable position. I'm quite aware of
> when I'm being misrepresented, and I knew that long before you arrived, Ray.
>
> > I am
> > comforted that you never post any evidence or have a source, but have
> > relegated yourself to a frustrated existence imitating/reversing what I
> > say.
>
> Ray, you are quite aware that I've posted a great deal of evidence (which
> you've ignored). Also, there is a great difference between having a
> "source" and committing the fallacy of argument from authority, which you
> are often guilty of. When I "reverse" what you say, it's to point out
> the illogic of your own position, and why it's hypocrisy for you to make
> those claims.
>
I know you follow me around faithfully because I enrage you. You are my
paparazzi = the price of being noticed.
>
> >
> >
> >>
> >> >
> >> > Darwinists rely on things that require a story to preexist.
> >>
> >> Actually, scientists rely on "things" that are consistent with reality.
> >>
> >
> > Then why do you guys believe apes morphed into men over millions of
> > years ?
>
> Because it's consistent with the evidence. Acutally, apes did not "morph"
> into men over millions of years. Humans are still apes, and have descended
> from other populations of apes by incremental changes over many generations.
> The evidence that this has occured is very strong. All you can do is deny
> it, and refuse to see the evidence.
>
No Dana, man was created by God suddenly and full grown. Science has
proven this and only you Darwinists for obvious reasons refuse to
accept the plain cold facts of reality, science, and the Bible.
> > Scientists do not embrace science fiction.
>
> Which is why scientists overwhemlingly reject Creationism.
>
Darwinian scientists that is.
> > Your atheistic
> > prejudices are incurable.
>
> Since I'm not an atheist, I don't see where I'd have any "atheistc
> prejudices" to cure.
>
Richard Nixon: "I'm not a crook."
> >
> >
> >> > Then they
> >> > grossly contort the thing into the story = their "evidence". Bottom
> >> > line is Darwinian evidence is private and requires trust. Real evidence
> >> > is available for everyone to see and confirm.
> >>
> >> The only evidence that science can deal with is physical evidence.
> >> Physical evidence is open and available to all to inspect and do their
> >> own
> >> research. All Ray offers as "evidence" is his own flawed
> >> interpetations
> >> of someone else's flawed interpetations.
> >>
> >
> > Science deals with all evidence.
>
> Again, that's why science rejects Creationism.
>
> > Darwinists exclude any evidence that
> > contradicts their suppositions because your theory HAS to be true.
>
> Actually, Ray, it's the creationists who exclude physical evidence that
> contradicts their beliefs. Evolution does not "have" to be true, it's true
> because the evidence supports it. If another theory were to explain the
> evidence better, evolution would be discarded.
>
We have volumes of quotes by Darwinists admitting truth supression =
Darwinism is atheist religion = penalty from God for denying Him
Creator credit just like the Bible teaches.
> snipping
>
> >> The problem is, Ray, that your interpetation of the Bible is not "plain
> >> reading" by your own flawed interpetations of Gene Scott's flawed
> >> interpetations. Also, I've asked you this many times before, how is a
> >> 90%
> >> complete skeleton of a Homo erectus specimen, that's widely published in
> >> books, online, and available for study by any qualified researcher,
> >> "obscure" or "decayed"?
> >> http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/15000.html
> >>
I never said the skeleton above is obscure or decayed. You have
repeated this mistake. Will you correct it ?
> >
> > Your Biblical views are predetermined by your fanatic devotion to
> > atheistic Darwinism.
>
> Considering that I'm not devoted, fanatically or otherwise to "Darwinism",
> and that my Biblical views are those of my Christian beliefs, not to mention
> that fact that science is not atheistic, your assertion doesn't hold much
> water.
>
You are fanatical as they come. You shouldn't be ashamed of your faith
in atheistic Darwinism Dana the "christian".
> >
> > I never said the skeleton you cite is "obscure or decayed".
>
> You mean when you stated that scientists depend on "obscure decayed
> fossils", you didn't mean KNM-WT 15000? Where did you leave out that
> fossil?
>
> > Show me
> > where I said that, that is concerning the Erectus specimen and I will
> > retract ?
>
> So, you specifically meant to exclude KNM-WT 15000 when you wrote " You have
> no trouble deducing obscure decayed fossils to be as your worldview needs
> them to be, but the plain reading of Scripture matched with reality =
> chinese arithmetic = feigning ignorance." ?
>
> How odd, you refer to all the fossil evidence as "obscure decayed fossils"
> yet you left out one H. erectus specimen? Why?
>
> >
> > You're not implying the H.E. transitional are you ?
>
> No, I'm not implying, I'm stating unequiviocally that Homo erectus is a
> transitional species between modern humans and other apes. I'm sure I'll
> be amused to see what kind of gymnastics you intend to use to claim it's
> not. Even if H. erectus is determined not to be a direct ancestor of
> modern humans, it's still an excellent example of a transitional fossil,
> exactly what one would expect to find in an evolutionary transitional form.
>
I have asked Richard Clayton repeatedly and have received no reply.
Maybe you can do what Richard chose not to.
What makes a person even think in the first place such a thing as a
transitional hominid fossil exists ?
My view is the evidence in question holds ZERO clear objective value
and meaning apart from the emotively known preexisting story that
fossils represent evolution. The evidence and its status as such
depends wholly on the assertions of biased persons. With the validity
of the worldview of these same persons at stake the conclusions are
predetermined. My paper forth-coming will address your alleged
transitional fossils.
No Dana, there are no mistakes. You just disagree because you are a
Darwinist.
Behe has falsified step by step evolutionary development and your
dishonest Darwinian nature cannot accept. To accept is to acknowledge
Genesis sudden creation a fact. IC proves sudden Genesis. Refusal to
accept this fact proves the Romans 1 penalty declaration. Either way
the Bible is proven true.
> >
> > Behe's book is crammed with scientific evidence.
>
> Such as? Perhaps you can provide us with some of that "scientific
> evidence"?
>
The Darwinian way of evading the evidence: keep asking for it. You know
the evidence is massive - not a matter of opinion.
>
> > If a major
> > evolutionary claim was not refuted the data would have been accepted in
> > a New York minute.
>
> Conversely, if Behe had anything by hot air, he'd be publishing in
> legitamate journals, not in the pop science press.
>
Darwinian journals never publish hostile evidence - you know this too,
Dana the honest "christian".
> > Darwinists have been forced to accept the facts of
> > IC and to eviscerate its meaning they deliberately assert IC evolved
> > anyway.
>
> Evolutionary scientists were aware of "irreducibly complex" systems decades
> before Behe, and there are no reason such systems cannot have evolved. See:
> http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB200.html
>
>
Can you evidence this claim ? Of course the Bible says unbelievers
suppress evidence so once again, the Bible corresponds with reality.
IC cannot evolve as you know. If it exists then your theory is
falisfied. We in science have proven it to exist. Clotting cascades
could not of evolved step by tiny step.
>
>
> > When the definition of IC is understood and its existence
> > accepted = evolution falsified.
>
> That assertion is not correct. IC systems can, and do evolve.
>
Evading falsification with a straight (dishonest) "christian" face =
your m.o.
> > My paper will prove why Darwinists
> > cannot accept IC like any other scientific fact, mainly because
> > financial livelyhood is at stake (not to mention the penalty from God).
>
> There is no such penalty, Ray, and you have been shown many times why your
> claim is not true. The suggestion that scientists reject IC because of
> "financial livelyhood" is absurd. Your paper appears to be just another
> collection of your own misunderstandings and personal grudges.
>
You and everyone who can read knows it exists. Denying corroborates the
penalty as no one suffering the penalty thinks it exists.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >> > Dr. Scott
> >> > proved WHY Darwinists cannot embrace that truth like any other
> >> > scientific fact.
> >>
> >> "Dr" Scott proved nothing of the sort. The truth is that Evolution has
> >> not
> >> been falisfied.
> >>
> >
> > Evolution was never a fact - so I would agree.
>
> Sorry, Ray, but evolution is a fact, despite your refusal to accept it.
> Evolution has not been falsified by either Scott or Behe.
>
Yes, it has. The success of Darwinism proves the penalty and the Bible.
Its a Divinely produced invulnerable truth you cannot refute.
Ray
Bob
wrote:
>
>>
>
>Science has always corroborated the texual evidence of the Bible, only
>its Fundamentalist wing known as Darwinists close their minds to these
>long established facts. Your mindset has been slowly brainwashed by
>Darwinian philosophy - a casuality of this generation.
this is very strange and i wonder what creationists mean here.
the number of scientists in the US who accept creationism is about 1%.
overseas it's even less. so why is he saying that science accepts
creationism?
>
>
>>
>
>All physical evidence corresponds with Biblical declarations.
no one knows what this means. there are 30,000 xtian denominations.
how can science demonstrate what xtians themselves can not agree on?
Inability
>to see this fact is explained in the Bible as willful at first, then
>God reacts if one persists and helps you go your senseless way.
OK you let me know when he culls the number of xtian denominations.
>>
>
>Like I said above you admit to being an atheist and feign theism in
>order to vent your rage against the Bible and Creationists.
of course one wonders what he makes of the scientists who are
christians and accept evolution.
>
>>
>
>Yes, Dana, Darwinism is synonymous with atheism whether you admit it or
>not - its not a matter of opinion.
really? then why are all scientists who are christians evolutionists?
>
>> Because it's consistent with the evidence. Acutally, apes did not "morph"
>> into men over millions of years. Humans are still apes, and have descended
>> from other populations of apes by incremental changes over many generations.
>> The evidence that this has occured is very strong. All you can do is deny
>> it, and refuse to see the evidence.
>>
>
>No Dana, man was created by God suddenly and full grown. Science has
>proven this and only you Darwinists for obvious reasons refuse to
>accept the plain cold facts of reality, science, and the Bible.
since all scientists are darwinists, which scientists have proven
this?
>
>
>
>> > Scientists do not embrace science fiction.
>>
>> Which is why scientists overwhemlingly reject Creationism.
>>
>
>Darwinian scientists that is.
as the recent gallup poll demonstrated almost all (>99%) of scientists
are darwinists.
>>
>> Actually, Ray, it's the creationists who exclude physical evidence that
>> contradicts their beliefs. Evolution does not "have" to be true, it's true
>> because the evidence supports it. If another theory were to explain the
>> evidence better, evolution would be discarded.
>>
>
>We have volumes of quotes by Darwinists admitting truth supression =
>Darwinism is atheist religion = penalty from God for denying Him
>Creator credit just like the Bible teaches.
again, scientists who are xtians disagree. so other than his
assertion, what proof does he have?
>
>
>Behe has falsified step by step evolutionary development and your
>dishonest Darwinian nature cannot accept.
which is a rather strange assessment to those of us who know and have
discussed evolution with behe. i graduated from lehigh's chemistry
dept and have had a chance to discuss evolution with him. he accepts
evolution as the origin of species. he's a creationist when it comes
to a limited set of characteristics. he's ignorant to be sure, but
that hardly makes him a creationist.
To accept is to acknowledge
>Genesis sudden creation a fact. IC proves sudden Genesis. Refusal to
>accept this fact proves the Romans 1 penalty declaration. Either way
>the Bible is proven true.
funny that most xtians and all scientists disagree with a literal
interpretation of genesis.
>>
>> Evolutionary scientists were aware of "irreducibly complex" systems decades
>> before Behe, and there are no reason such systems cannot have evolved. See:
>> http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB200.html
>>
>>
>Can you evidence this claim ? Of course the Bible says unbelievers
>suppress evidence so once again, the Bible corresponds with reality.
>
>IC cannot evolve as you know.
sure it can. in fact the term was invented, i believe, by theodosius
dobzhanksy, a leading evolutionary biologist.
If it exists then your theory is
>falisfied. We in science have proven it to exist. Clotting cascades
>could not of evolved step by tiny step.
unfortunately there are a number of mechanisms of clotting, showing
they could, and did, evolve.
---------------------------
to see who "wf3h" is, go to "qrz.com"
and enter 'wf3h' in the field
Ken Rode
> On 16 Oct 2005 15:17:08 -0700, "Ray Martinez" <pyram...@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>>Science has always corroborated the texual evidence of the Bible, only
>>its Fundamentalist wing known as Darwinists close their minds to these
>>long established facts. Your mindset has been slowly brainwashed by
>>Darwinian philosophy - a casuality of this generation.
>
>
> this is very strange and i wonder what creationists mean here.
>
> the number of scientists in the US who accept creationism is about 1%.
> overseas it's even less. so why is he saying that science accepts
> creationism?
Because he believes it, and nobody can tell him differently.
>>
>>All physical evidence corresponds with Biblical declarations.
>
>
> no one knows what this means. there are 30,000 xtian denominations.
> how can science demonstrate what xtians themselves can not agree on?
Ray believes that science confirms *his* interpretation of scripture,
and nobody can tell him differently.
> Inability
>
>>to see this fact is explained in the Bible as willful at first, then
>>God reacts if one persists and helps you go your senseless way.
>
>
>
> OK you let me know when he culls the number of xtian denominations.
>
>
>>Like I said above you admit to being an atheist and feign theism in
>>order to vent your rage against the Bible and Creationists.
>
>
> of course one wonders what he makes of the scientists who are
> christians and accept evolution.
Ray believes that such people are not Christians, and nobody can tell
him differently.
>>Yes, Dana, Darwinism is synonymous with atheism whether you admit it or
>>not - its not a matter of opinion.
>
>
> really? then why are all scientists who are christians evolutionists?
Ray believes that it is not possible to be both Christian and
"evolutionist", and that people who claim to be both are lying about
being Christian, and nobody can tell him differently.
>>>Because it's consistent with the evidence. Acutally, apes did not "morph"
>>>into men over millions of years. Humans are still apes, and have descended
>>>from other populations of apes by incremental changes over many generations.
>>>The evidence that this has occured is very strong. All you can do is deny
>>>it, and refuse to see the evidence.
>>>
>>
>>No Dana, man was created by God suddenly and full grown. Science has
>>proven this and only you Darwinists for obvious reasons refuse to
>>accept the plain cold facts of reality, science, and the Bible.
>
>
> since all scientists are darwinists, which scientists have proven
> this?
Ray believes that "Darwinist" scientists are self-deluded, God-smacked,
or both (it isn't clear which), so it is only non-Darwinist, creation
scientists who have anything useful to say, and nobody can tell him
differently.
>>>>Scientists do not embrace science fiction.
>>>
>>>Which is why scientists overwhemlingly reject Creationism.
>>>
>>
>>Darwinian scientists that is.
>
>
> as the recent gallup poll demonstrated almost all (>99%) of scientists
> are darwinists.
>
>
>>>Actually, Ray, it's the creationists who exclude physical evidence that
>>>contradicts their beliefs. Evolution does not "have" to be true, it's true
>>>because the evidence supports it. If another theory were to explain the
>>>evidence better, evolution would be discarded.
>>>
>>
>>We have volumes of quotes by Darwinists admitting truth supression =
>>Darwinism is atheist religion = penalty from God for denying Him
>>Creator credit just like the Bible teaches.
>
>
> again, scientists who are xtians disagree. so other than his
> assertion, what proof does he have?
Who needs proof when you are Ray Martinez? He believes it, so it must be
true, and nobody can tell him differently.
>>Behe has falsified step by step evolutionary development and your
>>dishonest Darwinian nature cannot accept.
>
>
> which is a rather strange assessment to those of us who know and have
> discussed evolution with behe. i graduated from lehigh's chemistry
> dept and have had a chance to discuss evolution with him. he accepts
> evolution as the origin of species. he's a creationist when it comes
> to a limited set of characteristics. he's ignorant to be sure, but
> that hardly makes him a creationist.
>
> To accept is to acknowledge
>
>>Genesis sudden creation a fact. IC proves sudden Genesis. Refusal to
>>accept this fact proves the Romans 1 penalty declaration. Either way
>>the Bible is proven true.
>
>
> funny that most xtians and all scientists disagree with a literal
> interpretation of genesis.
Ray believes that such people are not worth listening to as they have
been God-smacked, and nobody can tell him differently.
Richard Clayton
> I have asked Richard Clayton repeatedly and have received no reply.
> Maybe you can do what Richard chose not to.
>
> What makes a person even think in the first place such a thing as a
> transitional hominid fossil exists ?
Your lies do not glorify God; I have answered this more than once. The
theory of evolution predicts that we should see intermediates between
species.
What I have asked YOU, and you have always evaded, is this: What would
you expect to find in a transitional species? You flee from that
question every time...
--
[The address listed is a spam trap. To reply, take off every zig.]
Richard Clayton
"During wars laws are silent." -- Cicero
Jon Fleming
wrote:
>
>Dana Tweedy wrote:
>> "Ray Martinez" <pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> news:1129314594.8...@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>> snipping
>>
>> >> Well, one could point out that religious writings are not evidence.
>> >> "Texual" evidence without any collaborating physical evidence is largely
>> >> worthless.
>> >
>> > Evidence is evidence. If it is confimred and corroborated by separate
>> > unconnected evidence then the evidence is premium.
>>
>> Not all evidence is equal, and not all evidence carries equal weight.
>> "Texual" evidence is only evidence of what someone once wrote down. Without
>> corrborating physical evidence, "texual" evidence is worthless. "Separate,
>> unconnected evidence" which is not physical evidence is of no more use than
>> the original "texual".
>>
>
>Very predictable (and mandatory) Darwinian opinion.
Hey, Ray, where's that reference to a JPL scientist's paper on a vapor
canopy? You tried to pass off a paper that didn't even mention a
canopy, and you've been silent on the subject since then. Ready to
admit that it doesn't exist, and you and Scott were wrong?
<snip>
shane
> Dana Tweedy wrote:
>
>>"Ray Martinez" <pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>news:1129314594.8...@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>>snipping
>>
>>
>>>>Well, one could point out that religious writings are not evidence.
>>>>"Texual" evidence without any collaborating physical evidence is largely
>>>>worthless.
>>>
>>>Evidence is evidence. If it is confimred and corroborated by separate
>>>unconnected evidence then the evidence is premium.
>>
>>Not all evidence is equal, and not all evidence carries equal weight.
>>"Texual" evidence is only evidence of what someone once wrote down. Without
>>corrborating physical evidence, "texual" evidence is worthless. "Separate,
>>unconnected evidence" which is not physical evidence is of no more use than
>>the original "texual".
>>
>
>
> Very predictable (and mandatory) Darwinian opinion.
Rays inexperience with logic brings him unstuck yet again, as is also
evident by his further response to textual evidence validity further down.
>>>Anyone who asserts textual/religious/Biblical evidence is not evidence
>>>- I would bet is a Darwinist and/or atheist.
>>
>>Because you define anyone who points out that textual/religious/Biblical
>>evidence is not evidence as a "Darwinist and or atheist". It fits your
>>perfectly circular logical pattern.
>
>
> Asserting circular without showing is attempted poisoning the well. I
> am sure you believe it but I am not convinced.
Dana pointed out the circularity, Rays lack of perception is not Dana's
problem
>>In any case it's not an assertion
>>it's a simple fact. Words written down in a book are not evidence that the
>>events described in the book actually occured. If it were, then I could
>>use "Hitchiker's Guide to the Galaxy to "prove" that the Earth was destroyed
>>by Vogons to make way for a inteplanetary bypass.
>>
>
>
> Another very predictable and mandatory Darwinian opinion.
See above.
>>>The assertion is driven by
>>>an obvious ulterior motive.
>>
>>The only motive is to point out where you have committed an error.
>>
>
>
> Dana's way of saying he disagrees with the Bible viewed as evidence.
> Could one expect a Darwinist to believe anything else ?
Poor Ray, Dana points out Ray's error, Ray responds with a complete non
sequitir about the bible as evidence.
>>>The best thing anti-Biblical worldviews
>>>could do is say the textual evidence is contradicted (and/or falsified)
>>>by other evidence.
>>
>>I don't have an "anti-Biblical" worldview. I am aware however that the
>>claims of the Bible, without corraborating physical evidence, are not
>>evidence of anything except that Bible makes claims.
>>
>
>
> You are a Darwinist and an atheist by your own admissions. Today you
> claim something else.
Again poor logic trips Ray up. He apparently believes that to be an
atheist is to be anti-bible. Whereas atheism has no particular stand on
the issue, even though individuals may have their own views.
>>>But to insist and/or assert evidence which is
>>>perceived to falsify your views is not evidence is rightfully labelled
>>>an illegitimate ***a priori*** dismissal philosophically driven, or as
>>>I often say "very predictable" opinion.
>>
>>Even if the "Textual" evidence were to completely agree with evolutionary
>>theory, it still is not evidence on the par with physical evidence. The
>>"texual" evidence is dismissed not because it is in opposition to science,
>>but because science only deals with physical evidence. A written document
>>is not evidence, if there is no physical evidence to corraborate the
>>document.
>>
>
>
> Science has always corroborated the texual evidence of the Bible,
Note the numerous examples Ray posts to substantiate this claim. I doubt
if Ray can point to one thing that would do so
> only
> its Fundamentalist wing known as Darwinists close their minds to these
> long established facts.
Again, these long established, but never to be elucidated facts. I
wonder how Ray found out about them? And I wonder why he is so reluctant
to share them in contradiction of the clear biblical instruction to do so.
1 Peter 3:15 - But sanctify the Lord God in your hearts: and be ready
always to give an answer to every man that asketh you a reason of the
hope that is in you with meekness and fear:
> Your mindset has been slowly brainwashed by
> Darwinian philosophy - a casuality of this generation.
I wonder if Ray even knows what that means?
>>>Physical evidence begins inferior BECAUSE it requires full-blown
>>>interpretation. Textual evidence is worlds apart in this respect from
>>>the get-go.
>>
>>This is an interesting inversion of logic and experience. Everyday
>>experience tells us that physical evidence is far more reliable than textual
>>evidence in every case. If I were to pick up newspaper that states "Statue
>>of Liberty Destroyed", yet the physical evidence shows the statue is still
>>there, which should I believe? Ray seems to think that I should accept the
>>"textual" evidence. If I were enjoying a nice plate of spagehetti and
>>marinara sauce, and someone came in waiving a book that said that tomatoes
>>were poison, should I accept the physical evidence, or the textual evidence?
>>If a judge were to hear a case, where the physical evidence placed a suspect
>>at the murder scene, had his fingerprints on the murder weapon, and his DNA
>>on the murder victim's body, but the suspect had a hand written note saying
>>he was no where near the scene, which should the Judge believe?
>>
>
>
> All physical evidence corresponds with Biblical declarations.
Note the long list of examples.
> Inability
> to see this fact is explained in the Bible as willful at first, then
> God reacts if one persists and helps you go your senseless way.
Of course the bible says no such thing.
>>>>>IOW, this Darwinist is saying only physical evidence that needs
>>>>>interpretations that Darwinists can control (unfalsifiable) qualifies
>>>>>as evidence.
>>>>
>>>>No, Ray, he's saying that "Words from a book are not evidence", and he's
>>>>right.
>>>
>>>God's word is the ultimate evidence.
>>
>>But you are assuming that your interpetation is "God's Word".
>>
>>
>>>Asserting contrary reveals atheism
>>>or related philosophy.
>>
>>Perhaps that philosophy is that reality is reflected by the physical
>>evidence. I am not an atheist, but I don't accept that Ray Martinez is the
>>only person qualified to determine what is "God's Word".
>>
>
>
> Like I said above you admit to being an atheist and feign theism in
> order to vent your rage against the Bible and Creationists.
What rage?
>>>The predictable opinion is held because Ken and
>>>yourself do not like what it says.
>>
>>I have no dislike of the words of the Bible, and I don't have any reason to
>>object to it. It simply doesn't match the physical evidence.
>>
>
>
> Blatantly contradictory comment.
Poor Ray, again his logic fails. The bible contains the story of a world
wide flood, of which there is no physical evidence. That is no reason to
dislike the bible, it is merely a reason to do as another part of the
bible suggests, study to see if the things said in the scriptures are so.
Acts 17:11 These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that
they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the
scriptures daily, whether those things were so.
What a pity Ray does not follow that excelent advice.
>>>Darwinists are in the business of
>>>justifying their atheistic worldviews by any means possible.
>>
>>Science is not an "atheistic worldview". Many religious people, myself
>>included, accept the evidence that science provides. I have no interest
>>in promoting atheism, or supporting a "worldview".
>>
>
>
> Yes, Dana, Darwinism is synonymous with atheism whether you admit it or
> not - its not a matter of opinion.
Isn't it ironic that Rays "opinion" is somehow of more value than
Dana's. And note again all the evidence from reference sources that
support Rays opinion.
> Hitler claimed to be religious
Indeed with more evidence for it than Rays similar claim, for which
there has never been any evidence presented.
> which
> makes your flip flop even more meaningless. Your views promote atheism
> and your rage
What rage?
> feigns theism in order to vent your obvious hate.
What hate?
> You are
> the unfortunate product of brainwashing - a living proof of how
> Darwinists have succeeded with ordinary persons.
A piece of projection that is very interesting. It perhaps shows the
level to which Ray is subconsciously aware that his religion is taking
him for a ride. But having decided to ride the tiger, he cannot dismount
without appearing foolish in his own eyes for getting on in the first
place. The psychology of it all is fascinating.
>>>Believing
>>>the Bible is not evidence has always been your position
>>
>>>yet it is not my position, and has not "always been". The Bible is a
>>>religious writing, it's not a scientific text. It cannot provide
>>>scientific answers, and as such is not scientific evidence. It's a misuse
>>>of the Bible to claim it trumps physical evidence.
>>
>
> Another predictable and mandatory Darwinian opinion.
Another predictable Ray assertion with no visible evidence to support it.
>>>- a minority
>>>view of the God-senseless Fundamentalist wing of science.
>>
>>Now Ray is implying that the majority is always right..... How odd when he
>>has gone to such lengths to claim that the majority is always wrong, or
>>evil.
>>
>>>>
>>>>>Texual evidence is much harder to refute because it is
>>>>>hard to assert what is written does not mean what it says unless you do
>>>>>what Dana Tweedy does and assert contrary anyway.
>>>>
>>>>Ah, I know I'm irritating Ray, and that makes all my work worthwhile.
>>>>Also, Ray, I have never asserted that "what is written does not mean what
>>>>it
>>>>says". You are misrepresenting me, because you can't refute anything
>>>>I
>>>>say.
>>>
>>>Your admission reveals a petty childish mind - unintellectual, and the
>>>fact that you follow me around faithfully shows how enraged you are
>>>with what I write.
>>
>>Ray, you don't "enrage" me, you amuse me. I post here for my own
>>amusement, and your posts are a goldmine of false assertions, illogic and
>>bile.... Your own inflated opinion of yourself, and the lengths you go to
>>to show off your incompetence are priceless.
>>
>
>
> You being a Darwinist and your view of me supports my rightness. Your
> approval would have supported my wrongness.
Desperation is never pretty is it.
>>>I am in your head night and day and you show exactly
>>>how Darwinists operate: deny with a straight face no matter how plain
>>>the evidence.
>>
>>Ah, Ray, despite what your ego may lead you believe, you are not my
>>obsession. I find you amusing, and it's entertaining to me see you fly
>>off the handle at the least provocation. You haven't provided any "plain
>>evidence" for me to deny, and you can't even begin to refute the evidence
>>I've provided to you.
>>
>
>
> We both know you never offer evidence (except the Erectus below). Your
> insults reveal the inability to refute.
Whew, my irony meter was off thankfully. This from Ray, who never offers
evidence.
>>>You learned the last phrase about misrepresentation from me.
>>
>>Ray's ego again leads him into a laughable position. I'm quite aware of
>>when I'm being misrepresented, and I knew that long before you arrived, Ray.
>>
>>
>>>I am
>>>comforted that you never post any evidence or have a source, but have
>>>relegated yourself to a frustrated existence imitating/reversing what I
>>>say.
>>
>>Ray, you are quite aware that I've posted a great deal of evidence (which
>>you've ignored). Also, there is a great difference between having a
>>"source" and committing the fallacy of argument from authority, which you
>>are often guilty of. When I "reverse" what you say, it's to point out
>>the illogic of your own position, and why it's hypocrisy for you to make
>>those claims.
>>
>
>
> I know you follow me around faithfully because I enrage you. You are my
> paparazzi = the price of being noticed.
Not at all, its more like following a new puppy around and cleaning up
after it. Sadly even puppies eventually learn toilet habits, but Ray it
seems cannot.
>>>>>Darwinists rely on things that require a story to preexist.
>>>>
>>>>Actually, scientists rely on "things" that are consistent with reality.
>>>>
>>>
>>>Then why do you guys believe apes morphed into men over millions of
>>>years ?
>>
>>Because it's consistent with the evidence. Acutally, apes did not "morph"
>>into men over millions of years. Humans are still apes, and have descended
>>from other populations of apes by incremental changes over many generations.
>>The evidence that this has occured is very strong. All you can do is deny
>>it, and refuse to see the evidence.
>>
>
>
> No Dana, man was created by God suddenly and full grown. Science has
> proven this
No evidence, yet again, and just after his comment that Dana never
offered evidence.
> and only you Darwinists for obvious reasons refuse to
> accept the plain cold facts of reality, science, and the Bible.
Projection?
>>>Scientists do not embrace science fiction.
>>
>>Which is why scientists overwhemlingly reject Creationism.
>>
>
>
> Darwinian scientists that is.
Easily refuted. As someone has recently pointed out in this forum, more
clergy accept evolution than scientists reject it.
>>>Your atheistic
>>>prejudices are incurable.
>>
>>Since I'm not an atheist, I don't see where I'd have any "atheistc
>>prejudices" to cure.
>>
>
>
> Richard Nixon: "I'm not a crook."
Ray Martinez: "I am a Christian."
>>>>>Then they
>>>>>grossly contort the thing into the story = their "evidence". Bottom
>>>>>line is Darwinian evidence is private and requires trust. Real evidence
>>>>>is available for everyone to see and confirm.
>>>>
>>>>The only evidence that science can deal with is physical evidence.
>>>>Physical evidence is open and available to all to inspect and do their
>>>>own
>>>>research. All Ray offers as "evidence" is his own flawed
>>>>interpetations
>>>>of someone else's flawed interpetations.
>>>>
>>>
>>>Science deals with all evidence.
>>
>>Again, that's why science rejects Creationism.
>>
>>
>>>Darwinists exclude any evidence that
>>>contradicts their suppositions because your theory HAS to be true.
>>
>>Actually, Ray, it's the creationists who exclude physical evidence that
>>contradicts their beliefs. Evolution does not "have" to be true, it's true
>>because the evidence supports it. If another theory were to explain the
>>evidence better, evolution would be discarded.
>>
>
>
> We have volumes of quotes by Darwinists admitting truth supression =
> Darwinism is atheist religion = penalty from God for denying Him
> Creator credit just like the Bible teaches.
We???
List ten of them.
>>snipping
>>
>>
>>>>The problem is, Ray, that your interpetation of the Bible is not "plain
>>>>reading" by your own flawed interpetations of Gene Scott's flawed
>>>>interpetations. Also, I've asked you this many times before, how is a
>>>>90%
>>>>complete skeleton of a Homo erectus specimen, that's widely published in
>>>>books, online, and available for study by any qualified researcher,
>>>>"obscure" or "decayed"?
>>>>http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/15000.html
>>>>
>
>
> I never said the skeleton above is obscure or decayed. You have
> repeated this mistake. Will you correct it ?
>
>
>>>Your Biblical views are predetermined by your fanatic devotion to
>>>atheistic Darwinism.
>>
>>Considering that I'm not devoted, fanatically or otherwise to "Darwinism",
>>and that my Biblical views are those of my Christian beliefs, not to mention
>>that fact that science is not atheistic, your assertion doesn't hold much
>>water.
>>
>
>
> You are fanatical as they come. You shouldn't be ashamed of your faith
> in atheistic Darwinism Dana the "christian".
Ray, teling someone to reject truth, amazing isn't it?
>>>I never said the skeleton you cite is "obscure or decayed".
>>
>>You mean when you stated that scientists depend on "obscure decayed
>>fossils", you didn't mean KNM-WT 15000? Where did you leave out that
>>fossil?
>>
>>
>>>Show me
>>>where I said that, that is concerning the Erectus specimen and I will
>>>retract ?
>>
>>So, you specifically meant to exclude KNM-WT 15000 when you wrote " You have
>>no trouble deducing obscure decayed fossils to be as your worldview needs
>>them to be, but the plain reading of Scripture matched with reality =
>>chinese arithmetic = feigning ignorance." ?
>>
>>How odd, you refer to all the fossil evidence as "obscure decayed fossils"
>>yet you left out one H. erectus specimen? Why?
>>
>>
>>>You're not implying the H.E. transitional are you ?
>>
>>No, I'm not implying, I'm stating unequiviocally that Homo erectus is a
>>transitional species between modern humans and other apes. I'm sure I'll
>>be amused to see what kind of gymnastics you intend to use to claim it's
>>not. Even if H. erectus is determined not to be a direct ancestor of
>>modern humans, it's still an excellent example of a transitional fossil,
>>exactly what one would expect to find in an evolutionary transitional form.
>>
>
>
> I have asked Richard Clayton repeatedly and have received no reply.
> Maybe you can do what Richard chose not to.
>
> What makes a person even think in the first place such a thing as a
> transitional hominid fossil exists ?
Intelligence, evidence and using the first to expalin the second.
> My view is the evidence in question holds ZERO clear objective value
> and meaning apart from the emotively known preexisting story that
> fossils represent evolution. The evidence and its status as such
> depends wholly on the assertions of biased persons. With the validity
> of the worldview of these same persons at stake the conclusions are
> predetermined. My paper forth-coming will address your alleged
> transitional fossils.
That is all very well, but it is only Ray's opinion, which he
surprisingly admits, so its value is dubious.
Falsifying evolution does not make creation correct. But unfortunately
there is no means of getting that message through to Ray as he suffers
from what he accuses others of, a refusal to accept the truth.
> IC proves sudden Genesis.
Absolutely amazing isn't it?
> Refusal to
> accept this fact proves the Romans 1 penalty declaration. Either way
> the Bible is proven true.
>>>Behe's book is crammed with scientific evidence.
>>
>>Such as? Perhaps you can provide us with some of that "scientific
>>evidence"?
>>
>
>
> The Darwinian way of evading the evidence: keep asking for it. You know
> the evidence is massive - not a matter of opinion.
How would we know that? Ray has never posted any, and he appears to be
the only person on eath with this evidence.
>>> If a major
>>>evolutionary claim was not refuted the data would have been accepted in
>>>a New York minute.
>>
>>Conversely, if Behe had anything by hot air, he'd be publishing in
>>legitamate journals, not in the pop science press.
>>
>
>
> Darwinian journals never publish hostile evidence - you know this too,
> Dana the honest "christian".
So easily refuted, there are no Darwinian journals.
>>> Darwinists have been forced to accept the facts of
>>>IC and to eviscerate its meaning they deliberately assert IC evolved
>>>anyway.
>>
>>Evolutionary scientists were aware of "irreducibly complex" systems decades
>>before Behe, and there are no reason such systems cannot have evolved. See:
>>http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB200.html
>>
>>
>
> Can you evidence this claim ?
Why would Ray need it evidenced? Isn't it Rays position above that the
text itself is evidence?
> Of course the Bible says unbelievers
> suppress evidence so once again,
Note the reference. Ray won't even supply textual evidence for his own
position on this one.
> the Bible corresponds with reality.
Well maybe Rays version of reality.
> IC cannot evolve as you know. If it exists then your theory is
> falisfied. We
We???
> in science have proven it to exist.
Note Ray moves from uncertainty, "If it exists ..." to certainty, "We
have proven it to exist." in one sentence. He procalims himself within
the science establishment yet doesn't even know that science does not
"prove" it only establishes things by the supporting evidence.
> Clotting cascades
> could not of evolved step by tiny step.
Why not?
>>>When the definition of IC is understood and its existence
>>>accepted = evolution falsified.
>>
>>That assertion is not correct. IC systems can, and do evolve.
>>
>
>
> Evading falsification with a straight (dishonest) "christian" face =
> your m.o.
What falsification?
>>>My paper will prove why Darwinists
>>>cannot accept IC like any other scientific fact, mainly because
>>>financial livelyhood is at stake (not to mention the penalty from God).
>>
>>There is no such penalty, Ray, and you have been shown many times why your
>>claim is not true. The suggestion that scientists reject IC because of
>>"financial livelyhood" is absurd. Your paper appears to be just another
>>collection of your own misunderstandings and personal grudges.
>>
>
>
> You and everyone who can read knows it exists. Denying corroborates the
> penalty as no one suffering the penalty thinks it exists.
Of course there is an alternative explanation. but Ray does love his
circles, I suspect for a good reason, he's been running around in them
all his life.
>Dr. Scott
>>>>>proved WHY Darwinists cannot embrace that truth like any other
>>>>>scientific fact.
>>>>
>>>>"Dr" Scott proved nothing of the sort. The truth is that Evolution has
>>>>not
>>>>been falisfied.
>>>>
>>>
>>>Evolution was never a fact - so I would agree.
>>
>>Sorry, Ray, but evolution is a fact, despite your refusal to accept it.
>>Evolution has not been falsified by either Scott or Behe.
>>
>
>
> Yes, it has.
Note the evidence, not even some textual evoidence in the form of a
reference. It's all 'just believe me because I say I'm a christian, oh,
and don't look at my actions to substantiate the claim.'
> The success of Darwinism proves the penalty and the Bible.
Non to both.
> Its a Divinely produced invulnerable truth you cannot refute.
Refute it, it hasn't even been shown to exist.
SteveR
opinion (I work as a family physician and counselor). This is NOT ad
hominem. Based on my reading of numerous posts by you, it seems highly
likely to me that you suffer a significant personality disorder,
demonstrating histrionic and dramatic traits, with significant signs of
paranoia and grandiosity. I would suspect you have a number of vague
medical concerns, and that your doctors have suggested you have
emotional problems, which you refuse to accept. Neurophysiologically,
it is likely you have increased temporal lobe activity and are prone
to\ profound experiences you would describe as religious ecstacy,
perhaps acccompanied by a strong impression of light and of someone or
something powerful and profound being near or with you, just outside
your field of vision but seeming very real. Please let me know if my
impressions are correct. I believe your strong sense of right and wrong
will help you to be truthful in your response. It would help me
understand your perspective on the issues of Darwinism, the Bible, and
faith vs evidence.
Sincerely,
Steve R
Dana Tweedy
> Dana Tweedy wrote:
>> "Ray Martinez" <pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> news:1129314594.8...@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>> snipping
>>
>> >> Well, one could point out that religious writings are not evidence.
>> >> "Texual" evidence without any collaborating physical evidence is
>> >> largely
>> >> worthless.
>> >
>> > Evidence is evidence. If it is confimred and corroborated by separate
>> > unconnected evidence then the evidence is premium.
>>
>> Not all evidence is equal, and not all evidence carries equal weight.
>> "Texual" evidence is only evidence of what someone once wrote down.
>> Without
>> corrborating physical evidence, "texual" evidence is worthless.
>> "Separate,
>> unconnected evidence" which is not physical evidence is of no more use
>> than
>> the original "texual".
>>
>
> Very predictable (and mandatory) Darwinian opinion.
Ray resorts to ad hominem, when he's unable to demostrate why we should
accept uncorrborated "textual" evidence. . Very predictiable indeed.
>
>
>> >
>> > Anyone who asserts textual/religious/Biblical evidence is not evidence
>> > - I would bet is a Darwinist and/or atheist.
>>
>> Because you define anyone who points out that textual/religious/Biblical
>> evidence is not evidence as a "Darwinist and or atheist". It fits your
>> perfectly circular logical pattern.
>
> Asserting circular without showing is attempted poisoning the well. I
> am sure you believe it but I am not convinced.
Ray, I showed how it's circular. Your claim that anyone who states
(correctly I might add) that textual evidence is not scientific evidence is
an "Darwinist and/or atheist", because you define anyone who states that
textual evidence is not scientific evidence as an atheist. Your criteria
for saying someone is atheist is that they say something that you consider
atheist. It's perfectly circular "logic".
>
>
>> In any case it's not an assertion
>> it's a simple fact. Words written down in a book are not evidence that
>> the
>> events described in the book actually occured. If it were, then I
>> could
>> use "Hitchiker's Guide to the Galaxy to "prove" that the Earth was
>> destroyed
>> by Vogons to make way for a inteplanetary bypass.
>>
>
> Another very predictable and mandatory Darwinian opinion.
Instead of showing why we should accept uncorrborated textual evidence, Ray
goes for the ad hominem.
>
>>
>> > The assertion is driven by
>> > an obvious ulterior motive.
>>
>> The only motive is to point out where you have committed an error.
>>
>
> Dana's way of saying he disagrees with the Bible viewed as evidence.
No, it's Dana way of saying I have no ulterior motive to disprove the Bible.
Written material without physical corraboration is worthless as scientific
evidence. If Ray can show any reason why we should take such evidence in
preference to physical evidence, I ask him to do so.
> Could one expect a Darwinist to believe anything else ?
Again, with the ad hominem. Could it be because Ray has nothing else to
say?
>
>> > The best thing anti-Biblical worldviews
>> > could do is say the textual evidence is contradicted (and/or falsified)
>> > by other evidence.
>>
>> I don't have an "anti-Biblical" worldview. I am aware however that the
>> claims of the Bible, without corraborating physical evidence, are not
>> evidence of anything except that Bible makes claims.
>>
>
> You are a Darwinist and an atheist by your own admissions. Today you
> claim something else.
I support the science of evolutionary theory, if that's what you mean, but I
do not worship or devote myself to Charles Darwin, or any other Darwin. I
have never stated, admitted, or even implied that I am an atheist. I have
never claimed to be anything but a Christian. I think Ray needs to review
the commandment against bearing false witness. That being said, I again
note that Ray has, instead of dealing with the issue, gone for the ad
hominem response. Did someone say something about 'predictable"?
>
>
>> >But to insist and/or assert evidence which is
>> > perceived to falsify your views is not evidence is rightfully labelled
>> > an illegitimate ***a priori*** dismissal philosophically driven, or as
>> > I often say "very predictable" opinion.
>>
>> Even if the "Textual" evidence were to completely agree with evolutionary
>> theory, it still is not evidence on the par with physical evidence. The
>> "texual" evidence is dismissed not because it is in opposition to
>> science,
>> but because science only deals with physical evidence. A written
>> document
>> is not evidence, if there is no physical evidence to corraborate the
>> document.
>>
>
> Science has always corroborated the texual evidence of the Bible,
Then provide some evidence of this claim. Where has science corraborated
the story of Noah's flood?
> only
> its Fundamentalist wing known as Darwinists close their minds to these
> long established facts.
Here we have Ray stating that "Darwinists" are a minority in science, yet he
claims the majority is always wrong..... Any inconsistentcy here?
>Your mindset has been slowly brainwashed by
> Darwinian philosophy - a casuality of this generation.
I doubt that Ray has any idea what 'generation' I belong to. Furthermore,
my point was that written documents are not evidence in of themselves. They
require corraboration by the physical evidence. Instead of dealing with
that point, Ray claims I'm "brainwashed", while earlier claiming I was
"poisoning the well". The fallacy of Poisoning the Well is defined as "a
pre-emptive logical fallacy where adverse information about someone is
presented to an audience, with the intention of discrediting everything he
is about to say"
. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poisoning_the_well
That would include claiming your opponent is "brainwashed" but it would not
include pointing out where one is employing circular logic.
Then lets see some physical evidence corresponding with Noah's Flood.
> Inability
> to see this fact is explained in the Bible as willful at first, then
> God reacts if one persists and helps you go your senseless way.
Inablity to see what does not exist is explained by Ray's inability to
support his claim. I've already shown that Ray's "penalty claim" is a
misinterpetation of the Bible, so there is no need to go into that again.
>> >> >
>> >> > IOW, this Darwinist is saying only physical evidence that needs
>> >> > interpretations that Darwinists can control (unfalsifiable)
>> >> > qualifies
>> >> > as evidence.
>> >>
>> >> No, Ray, he's saying that "Words from a book are not evidence", and
>> >> he's
>> >> right.
>> >
>> > God's word is the ultimate evidence.
>>
>> But you are assuming that your interpetation is "God's Word".
Ignored by Ray.....
>>
>> > Asserting contrary reveals atheism
>> > or related philosophy.
>>
>> Perhaps that philosophy is that reality is reflected by the physical
>> evidence. I am not an atheist, but I don't accept that Ray Martinez is
>> the
>> only person qualified to determine what is "God's Word".
>>
>
> Like I said above you admit to being an atheist and feign theism in
> order to vent your rage against the Bible and Creationists.
What you said above is not true, and is a violation of the commandment
against false witness. I never claimed to be an atheist, and I have no
"rage" against the Bible, or Creationists. Ray on the other hand has
consistently shown hatred of Christians who have committed the "sin" of
opposing Ray's claims.
>
>> >The predictable opinion is held because Ken and
>> > yourself do not like what it says.
>>
>> I have no dislike of the words of the Bible, and I don't have any reason
>> to
>> object to it. It simply doesn't match the physical evidence.
>>
>
> Blatantly contradictory comment.
Please demonstrate the contradiction. I don't base my acceptance of the
Bible on it being scientifically accurate. Therefore I don't object to, or
dislike the words of the Bible, while acknowleging that it often does not
match the physical evidence. No contradiction at all.
>
>
>> > Darwinists are in the business of
>> > justifying their atheistic worldviews by any means possible.
>>
>> Science is not an "atheistic worldview". Many religious people, myself
>> included, accept the evidence that science provides. I have no
>> interest
>> in promoting atheism, or supporting a "worldview".
>>
>
> Yes, Dana, Darwinism is synonymous with atheism whether you admit it or
> not - its not a matter of opinion.
Once again Ray declares his opinion, while stating it's not a matter of
opinion. The fact is that many people accept the science of evolution and
are devoutly religious as well. That refutes your claim, and shows it to
be false on it's face.
> Hitler claimed to be religious which
> makes your flip flop even more meaningless.
Ray Martinez claims to be religious as well. I have no "flip flop". I've
maintained the same position all along. Christ said that you will know
true Christians by their fruits. Ray has demonstrated quite clearly he
does not speak for Chistians in general, or Christ in particular.
> Your views promote atheism
No, my views promote acceptance of Christ's words, as well as acceptance of
the physical evidence. Evolutionary theory does not equal atheism, and
never has.
> and your rage feigns theism in order to vent your obvious hate.
Again, Ray, who is demonstrating hate in this forum? It's not me.
>You are
> the unfortunate product of brainwashing - a living proof of how
> Darwinists have succeeded with ordinary persons.
Ad hominem yet again. Ray, can you possibly try another logical fallacy,
this one is getting old.
>
>
>> > Believing
>> > the Bible is not evidence has always been your position
>>
>> > yet it is not my position, and has not "always been". The Bible is a
>> > religious writing, it's not a scientific text. It cannot provide
>> > scientific answers, and as such is not scientific evidence. It's a
>> > misuse
>> > of the Bible to claim it trumps physical evidence.
>>
>
> Another predictable and mandatory Darwinian opinion.
Another case of Ray avoiding the point by ad hominem.
>
>
>> > - a minority
>> > view of the God-senseless Fundamentalist wing of science.
>>
>> Now Ray is implying that the majority is always right..... How odd when
>> he
>> has gone to such lengths to claim that the majority is always wrong, or
>> evil.
Ray, did you miss this bit of inconsistency on your part?
>> >
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> >Texual evidence is much harder to refute because it is
>> >> > hard to assert what is written does not mean what it says unless you
>> >> > do
>> >> > what Dana Tweedy does and assert contrary anyway.
>> >>
>> >> Ah, I know I'm irritating Ray, and that makes all my work worthwhile.
>> >> Also, Ray, I have never asserted that "what is written does not mean
>> >> what
>> >> it
>> >> says". You are misrepresenting me, because you can't refute
>> >> anything
>> >> I
>> >> say.
>> >
>> > Your admission reveals a petty childish mind - unintellectual, and the
>> > fact that you follow me around faithfully shows how enraged you are
>> > with what I write.
>>
>> Ray, you don't "enrage" me, you amuse me. I post here for my own
>> amusement, and your posts are a goldmine of false assertions, illogic and
>> bile.... Your own inflated opinion of yourself, and the lengths you go
>> to
>> to show off your incompetence are priceless.
>>
>
> You being a Darwinist and your view of me supports my rightness. Your
> approval would have supported my wrongness.
Retreat into circular logic when you can't address the issue.
>
>
>> > I am in your head night and day and you show exactly
>> > how Darwinists operate: deny with a straight face no matter how plain
>> > the evidence.
>>
>> Ah, Ray, despite what your ego may lead you believe, you are not my
>> obsession. I find you amusing, and it's entertaining to me see you
>> fly
>> off the handle at the least provocation. You haven't provided any
>> "plain
>> evidence" for me to deny, and you can't even begin to refute the evidence
>> I've provided to you.
>>
>
> We both know you never offer evidence (except the Erectus below). Your
> insults reveal the inability to refute.
Ray, you are bearing false witness again. I've offered evidence in the
form of web page links, citations to journal articles, and books. I've
produced scriptural references, and I've demonstrated your attempts to
misread Greek to be laughable. I've done everything short of dragging your
butt to museums to show you the fossil evidence. Don't try to claim that I
don't offer evidence. And if you bring up the subject of insults, why are
you constantly using ad hominem to avoid dealing with the issues?
>
>> >
>> > You learned the last phrase about misrepresentation from me.
>>
>> Ray's ego again leads him into a laughable position. I'm quite aware
>> of
>> when I'm being misrepresented, and I knew that long before you arrived,
>> Ray.
>>
>> > I am
>> > comforted that you never post any evidence or have a source, but have
>> > relegated yourself to a frustrated existence imitating/reversing what I
>> > say.
>>
>> Ray, you are quite aware that I've posted a great deal of evidence (which
>> you've ignored). Also, there is a great difference between having a
>> "source" and committing the fallacy of argument from authority, which you
>> are often guilty of. When I "reverse" what you say, it's to point
>> out
>> the illogic of your own position, and why it's hypocrisy for you to make
>> those claims.
>>
>
> I know you follow me around faithfully because I enrage you. You are my
> paparazzi = the price of being noticed.
It may feed your ego to see yourself as a movie star being followed by the
paparazzi, but in reality a closer analogy would be to a circus elephant and
the janitor. You appear in this newsgroup, make a great deal of
trumpeting, and leave a prodidgous amount of crap. I take it on myself to
be a member of the cleaning crew, clearing away the piles of excrement you
leave. If I "follow you" it's just to clean up the mess you have made.
>> >> >
>> >> > Darwinists rely on things that require a story to preexist.
>> >>
>> >> Actually, scientists rely on "things" that are consistent with
>> >> reality.
>> >>
>> >
>> > Then why do you guys believe apes morphed into men over millions of
>> > years ?
>>
>> Because it's consistent with the evidence. Acutally, apes did not
>> "morph"
>> into men over millions of years. Humans are still apes, and have
>> descended
>> from other populations of apes by incremental changes over many
>> generations.
>> The evidence that this has occured is very strong. All you can do is
>> deny
>> it, and refuse to see the evidence.
>>
>
> No Dana, man was created by God suddenly and full grown.
Bald assertion, that's not even supported by the "textual" evidence. Can
you show me where in the Bible it says that humans were created either
suddenly, or "full grown"?
> Science has
> proven this and only you Darwinists for obvious reasons refuse to
> accept the plain cold facts of reality, science, and the Bible.
If "science" had proven this, you could point to scientific journal articles
which support this assertion. Your mission to to provide those journal
articles.
>
>
>
>> > Scientists do not embrace science fiction.
>>
>> Which is why scientists overwhemlingly reject Creationism.
>>
>
> Darwinian scientists that is.
Your claim was that "Darwinians" are the minority, yet now they become the
vast majority?
>
>> > Your atheistic
>> > prejudices are incurable.
>>
>> Since I'm not an atheist, I don't see where I'd have any "atheistc
>> prejudices" to cure.
>>
>
> Richard Nixon: "I'm not a crook."
Ray Martinez: "I'm a Christian". Ray, bearing false witness does not
help your case.
>
>> >
>> >
>> >> > Then they
>> >> > grossly contort the thing into the story = their "evidence". Bottom
>> >> > line is Darwinian evidence is private and requires trust. Real
>> >> > evidence
>> >> > is available for everyone to see and confirm.
>> >>
>> >> The only evidence that science can deal with is physical evidence.
>> >> Physical evidence is open and available to all to inspect and do their
>> >> own
>> >> research. All Ray offers as "evidence" is his own flawed
>> >> interpetations
>> >> of someone else's flawed interpetations.
>> >>
>> >
>> > Science deals with all evidence.
>>
>> Again, that's why science rejects Creationism.
>>
>> > Darwinists exclude any evidence that
>> > contradicts their suppositions because your theory HAS to be true.
>>
>> Actually, Ray, it's the creationists who exclude physical evidence that
>> contradicts their beliefs. Evolution does not "have" to be true, it's
>> true
>> because the evidence supports it. If another theory were to explain
>> the
>> evidence better, evolution would be discarded.
>>
>
> We have volumes of quotes by Darwinists admitting truth supression =
You mean you have carefully selected out of context quotations which
misrepresent the scientists involved? How are these "Darwinians" supposed
to be able to "supress the truth" if they are only a small minority?
> Darwinism is atheist religion
Evolution is a scientific theory, not a religion. It's no more atheist than
any other scientific theory.
> = penalty from God for denying Him
> Creator credit just like the Bible teaches.
You mean your misinterpetation of Romans, which I've already shown to be in
error?
>
>
>> snipping
>>
>> >> The problem is, Ray, that your interpetation of the Bible is not
>> >> "plain
>> >> reading" by your own flawed interpetations of Gene Scott's flawed
>> >> interpetations. Also, I've asked you this many times before, how is
>> >> a
>> >> 90%
>> >> complete skeleton of a Homo erectus specimen, that's widely published
>> >> in
>> >> books, online, and available for study by any qualified researcher,
>> >> "obscure" or "decayed"?
>> >> http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/15000.html
>> >>
>
> I never said the skeleton above is obscure or decayed. You have
> repeated this mistake. Will you correct it ?
Ray, you are again bearing false witness. Read below where I point out
that you have indeed included this specimen in your assertions about
"obscure decayed" fossils.
>
>> >
>> > Your Biblical views are predetermined by your fanatic devotion to
>> > atheistic Darwinism.
>>
>> Considering that I'm not devoted, fanatically or otherwise to
>> "Darwinism",
>> and that my Biblical views are those of my Christian beliefs, not to
>> mention
>> that fact that science is not atheistic, your assertion doesn't hold much
>> water.
>>
>
> You are fanatical as they come.
Ad hominem yet again.
> You shouldn't be ashamed of your faith
> in atheistic Darwinism Dana the "christian".
I'm not ashamed of my faith in God, and in the teachings of Christ. I'm
embarassed that someone like yourself claims to be a Christian as well.
>
>> >
>> > I never said the skeleton you cite is "obscure or decayed".
>>
>> You mean when you stated that scientists depend on "obscure decayed
>> fossils", you didn't mean KNM-WT 15000? Where did you leave out that
>> fossil?
>>
>> > Show me
>> > where I said that, that is concerning the Erectus specimen and I will
>> > retract ?
>>
>> So, you specifically meant to exclude KNM-WT 15000 when you wrote " You
>> have
>> no trouble deducing obscure decayed fossils to be as your worldview needs
>> them to be, but the plain reading of Scripture matched with reality =
>> chinese arithmetic = feigning ignorance." ?
>>
>> How odd, you refer to all the fossil evidence as "obscure decayed
>> fossils"
>> yet you left out one H. erectus specimen? Why?
No answer Ray? This is the part where I showed that you did include KNM-WT
15000, unless you wish to go on record as admitting that scientists have
more than "obscure" and "decayed" fossil evidence.
I await your retraction.
>>
>> >
>> > You're not implying the H.E. transitional are you ?
>>
>> No, I'm not implying, I'm stating unequiviocally that Homo erectus is a
>> transitional species between modern humans and other apes. I'm sure
>> I'll
>> be amused to see what kind of gymnastics you intend to use to claim it's
>> not. Even if H. erectus is determined not to be a direct ancestor of
>> modern humans, it's still an excellent example of a transitional fossil,
>> exactly what one would expect to find in an evolutionary transitional
>> form.
>>
>
> I have asked Richard Clayton repeatedly and have received no reply.
It's irrelevant what you have asked Richard, and it's irrelevant that you
have indeed recieved a reply from Richard. You are trying to avoid my
point by a bit of clumsy misdirection.
> Maybe you can do what Richard chose not to.
Richard answered the question, several times. Did you miss that?
>
> What makes a person even think in the first place such a thing as a
> transitional hominid fossil exists ?
Again this is a clumsy diversion to avoid adressing the point. I will
answer your question, but you still need to address mine.
An understanding of the evidence is what makes someone thing that
transitional fossils exist. We have physical evidence that humans and
other apes are closely related genetically, anatomically, molecularly, and
biochemically. We also have fossils from the right age to have been
transitional human fossils. Therefore it follows from the evidence that
there should be fossils that show features that are in between modern humans
and other apes. We would expect those features to be, compared to modern
humans: smaller brain size, larger brow ridges, and larger teeth, yet with
obviously human features, such as an upright posture, opposible thumbs,
brain size larger than other apes, etc. With H. erectus we have exactly
what one would expect to find in a transitional fossil hominid. And
H.erectus is only one of many known species of fossil hominds. The fossil
evidence is not "obscure" and not "decayed".
>
> My view is the evidence in question holds ZERO clear objective value
> and meaning apart from the emotively known preexisting story that
> fossils represent evolution.
So now you are claiming that evidence that opposes your beliefs is not
evidence. Where is that 'evidence is evidence' stuff that you tried to
pull earlier? Fossils represent living things that once existed.
Evolutionary relationships are not imposed on the fossils, the fossils
themselves clearly indicate that life forms have changed over generations.
> The evidence and its status as such
> depends wholly on the assertions of biased persons.
This is why physical evidence is of immeasurably more value than "textual"
evidence. Physical evidence does not change. It does not support contrary
interpetations. It can't be changed, or altered easily, and is open to
inspection by everyone who cares to observe.
> With the validity
> of the worldview of these same persons at stake the conclusions are
> predetermined. My paper forth-coming will address your alleged
> transitional fossils.
Your "forthcoming" (and apparently ever will be) paper is not based on
anything but your own prejudices and misinterpetations. The only
"worldview" involved in understanding physical evidence is the view that
physical evidence represents reality. Evolution is not a "predetermined"
belief, but a conclusion drawn from an examination of the evidence. There
are myriad possible conclusions, but only a few that can be supported by the
evidence. Evolution is one of them. If the evidence supported a literal
reading of Genesis, then science would support such a reading. The
physical evidence simply does not lend that idea support.
Ray, you just ignored several web links by competent, degreed scientists
showing where Behe was wrong. Your assertion "there are no mistakes" is
looking rather thin......
>
> Behe has falsified step by step evolutionary development and your
> dishonest Darwinian nature cannot accept.
Ray, I've already explained why Behe's claims do not falsify evolutionary
processes. Your, and Behe's mistake is to assume that evolutionary
development is a goal oriented and progressive process. Behe does not
grasp that evolution is change, not improvement. Each step in the process
is not required to be an improvement, and not every step must add something.
Furthermore, there is no ultimate goal of evolution, and structures can be
co-opted to perform other structures than they first had. In that way "IC"
systems can, and do evolve.
> To accept is to acknowledge
> Genesis sudden creation a fact
Even Behe doesn't claim that "sudden creation" is a fact. The Bible does
not say that creation was a sudden event.
>. IC proves sudden Genesis. Refusal to
> accept this fact proves the Romans 1 penalty declaration. Either way
> the Bible is proven true.
Again, a retreat to circular reasoning. IC does not prove "sudden Genesis"
and even Genesis does not say creation was a sudden event. Since the
"penalty claim" you keep making is mistaken it does not prove the Bible
true, only that you can't deal with challenges to your beliefs without
resorting to circular declarations.
>> >
>> > Behe's book is crammed with scientific evidence.
>>
>> Such as? Perhaps you can provide us with some of that "scientific
>> evidence"?
>>
>
> The Darwinian way of evading the evidence: keep asking for it. You know
> the evidence is massive - not a matter of opinion.
Ray, declaring your opinion to be "not a matter of opinion" does not make it
any less of an opinion, and not even an informed one. If the evidence
were so "massive" you'd be providing it, not trying to avoid the answer.
So, where is some of that "scientific evidence" Behe's book is so "packed"
with? Come on, pony up.
>
>>
>> > If a major
>> > evolutionary claim was not refuted the data would have been accepted in
>> > a New York minute.
>>
>> Conversely, if Behe had anything by hot air, he'd be publishing in
>> legitamate journals, not in the pop science press.
>>
>
> Darwinian journals never publish hostile evidence - you know this too,
> Dana the honest "christian".
You claim that "Darwinians" are the minority (even though you also claim the
majority is always wrong). How can they be preventing the "hostile"
evidence from being published?
>
>> > Darwinists have been forced to accept the facts of
>> > IC and to eviscerate its meaning they deliberately assert IC evolved
>> > anyway.
>>
>> Evolutionary scientists were aware of "irreducibly complex" systems
>> decades
>> before Behe, and there are no reason such systems cannot have evolved.
>> See:
>> http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB200.html
>>
>>
> Can you evidence this claim ?
Ray, did you happen to notice that link, right above your reply? It
contains the evidence you asked for. Why not look at the evidence before
you claim it doesn't exist?
> Of course the Bible says unbelievers
> suppress evidence so once again, the Bible corresponds with reality.
Since many scientists are Christians, the "unbelievers" comment is
irrelevant. Since I've already provided you with the evidence, your claim
of "supressed" evidence is absurd. Behe's claims are old news, and not a
problem for scientific investigation.
>
> IC cannot evolve as you know.
Actually, I know that they can. You are mistaken to assert to the
contrary.
> If it exists then your theory is
> falisfied.
Not even close, Ray. Try again.
> We in science have proven it to exist. Clotting cascades
> could not of evolved step by tiny step.
Of course they can evolve by steps. See:
Trends Biochem Sci 2002 Feb;27(2):67-74
Evolution of enzyme cascades from embryonic development to blood
coagulation.
Krem MM, Cera ED.
Recent delineation of the serine protease cascade controlling dorsal-ventral
patterning during Drosophila embryogenesis allows this cascade to be
compared with those controlling clotting and complement in vertebrates and
invertebrates. The identification of discrete markers of serine protease
evolution has made it possible to reconstruct the probable chronology of
enzyme evolution and to gain new insights into functional linkages among the
cascades. Here, it is proposed that a single ancestral
developmental/immunity cascade gave rise to the protostome and deuterostome
developmental, clotting and complement cascades. Extensive similarities
suggest that these cascades were built by adding enzymes from the bottom of
the cascade up and from similar macromolecular building blocks.
>>
>> > When the definition of IC is understood and its existence
>> > accepted = evolution falsified.
>>
>> That assertion is not correct. IC systems can, and do evolve.
>>
>
> Evading falsification with a straight (dishonest) "christian" face =
> your m.o.
Bearing false witness and ad hominem seems to be yours. I've just
provided you with a journal article with refutes your claim. Care to
discuss it?
>
>
>> > My paper will prove why Darwinists
>> > cannot accept IC like any other scientific fact, mainly because
>> > financial livelyhood is at stake (not to mention the penalty from God).
>>
>> There is no such penalty, Ray, and you have been shown many times why
>> your
>> claim is not true. The suggestion that scientists reject IC because of
>> "financial livelyhood" is absurd. Your paper appears to be just
>> another
>> collection of your own misunderstandings and personal grudges.
>>
>
> You and everyone who can read knows it exists.
Ray, a plain reading of Romans shows your claim to be false. There is no
"penalty claim" in the Bible. Your assertions that there is, is simply
wrong.
> Denying corroborates the
> penalty as no one suffering the penalty thinks it exists.
Circular reasoning yet again. You assert the Penalty, claim it exists, and
say anyone who shows it's hogwash is suffering from the asserted penalty.
Round and round it goes.
>
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >> > Dr. Scott
>> >> > proved WHY Darwinists cannot embrace that truth like any other
>> >> > scientific fact.
>> >>
>> >> "Dr" Scott proved nothing of the sort. The truth is that Evolution
>> >> has
>> >> not
>> >> been falisfied.
>> >>
>> >
>> > Evolution was never a fact - so I would agree.
>>
>> Sorry, Ray, but evolution is a fact, despite your refusal to accept it.
>> Evolution has not been falsified by either Scott or Behe.
>>
>
> Yes, it has.
Ah yes, the "Is too!" response. That's very convincing.
> The success of Darwinism proves the penalty and the Bible.
And why can't the success of evolutionary theory show that the theory is
robustly supported by the evidence?
> Its a Divinely produced invulnerable truth you cannot refute.
It's a poor misinterpetation of a Bible verse, with only circular reasoning
for support. There is nothing to "refute" as it's based on fantasy alone.
DJT
Ray Martinez
Bob wrote:
> On 16 Oct 2005 15:17:08 -0700, "Ray Martinez" <pyram...@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
> >
>
> >>
> >
> >Science has always corroborated the texual evidence of the Bible, only
> >its Fundamentalist wing known as Darwinists close their minds to these
> >long established facts. Your mindset has been slowly brainwashed by
> >Darwinian philosophy - a casuality of this generation.
>
> this is very strange and i wonder what creationists mean here.
>
No Bob, there is nothing strange. I mean what I say and say what I
mean.
By the way, I AM BRAINWASHED by the Bible/word of God.
Unless everyone, to some degree, gets brainwashed by the Bible - you
are going to hell.
Everyone is brainwashed - the only issue is by what.
> the number of scientists in the US who accept creationism is about 1%.
> overseas it's even less. so why is he saying that science accepts
> creationism?
> >
Because "science" and "scientists" are two different words. Facts are
facts, the only facts which contradict the Bible are false
interpretations of those facts.
The double helix was designed. Any objective non-prejudicial
observation of reality demands that conclusion.
If we do not maintain our cars or any machine the designed mechanism
will break down. The universe is a designed machine running on fixed
laws - laws did not pop into existence by chance.
> >
> >>
> >
> >All physical evidence corresponds with Biblical declarations.
>
> no one knows what this means. there are 30,000 xtian denominations.
> how can science demonstrate what xtians themselves can not agree on?
>
Yes, denominations abound - we all believe in God/Jesus and the Bible
is His word, and faith gets His attention and touch into your life. We
disagree on peripheral matters just like you Darwinians do in
scientific matters. IOW, you really have no point.
In all scientific theories light is a central component. Light is
central to Genesis 1.
We can trace the origins of God's name to the sanskrit where it means
"light". In the Bible light is ALWAYS associated with God's presence. I
contend the creation source which accounts for the importance of light
is the correct one.
> Inability
> >to see this fact is explained in the Bible as willful at first, then
> >God reacts if one persists and helps you go your senseless way.
>
>
> OK you let me know when he culls the number of xtian denominations.
>
> >>
> >
> >Like I said above you admit to being an atheist and feign theism in
> >order to vent your rage against the Bible and Creationists.
>
> of course one wonders what he makes of the scientists who are
> christians and accept evolution.
>
Individual contrapositions do not affect the objective definitions or
claims of either christianity or evolution.
My forth coming article will straighten this whole matter out once and
for all.
> >
> >>
> >
> >Yes, Dana, Darwinism is synonymous with atheism whether you admit it or
> >not - its not a matter of opinion.
>
> really? then why are all scientists who are christians evolutionists?
>
> >
> >> Because it's consistent with the evidence. Acutally, apes did not "morph"
> >> into men over millions of years. Humans are still apes, and have descended
> >> from other populations of apes by incremental changes over many generations.
> >> The evidence that this has occured is very strong. All you can do is deny
> >> it, and refuse to see the evidence.
> >>
> >
> >No Dana, man was created by God suddenly and full grown. Science has
> >proven this and only you Darwinists for obvious reasons refuse to
> >accept the plain cold facts of reality, science, and the Bible.
>
> since all scientists are darwinists, which scientists have proven
> this?
In my debates with Darwinists on the Internet I argue the facts
produced by Darwinian scientists do not support their suppositions much
less prove their suppositions. This means the theory is not true, and
the reason they cannot support their suppositions is because there
isn't the evidence BECAUSE Genesis sudden creation is true. Darwinists
admit hominine evolution is assumed based on other alleged facts. IOW,
the most extarordinary (1 of 2) claim of all time is assumed and the
assumption is driven by the need of Genesis to not be true.
> >
> >
> >
> >> > Scientists do not embrace science fiction.
> >>
> >> Which is why scientists overwhemlingly reject Creationism.
> >>
> >
> >Darwinian scientists that is.
>
> as the recent gallup poll demonstrated almost all (>99%) of scientists
> are darwinists.
>
Yes, I know, but my point is not harmed nontheless.
> >>
> >> Actually, Ray, it's the creationists who exclude physical evidence that
> >> contradicts their beliefs. Evolution does not "have" to be true, it's true
> >> because the evidence supports it. If another theory were to explain the
> >> evidence better, evolution would be discarded.
> >>
> >
> >We have volumes of quotes by Darwinists admitting truth supression =
> >Darwinism is atheist religion = penalty from God for denying Him
> >Creator credit just like the Bible teaches.
>
> again, scientists who are xtians disagree. so other than his
> assertion, what proof does he have?
>
Maybe they are not really a christian ?
Hitler claimed to be a christian.
> >
> >
> >Behe has falsified step by step evolutionary development and your
> >dishonest Darwinian nature cannot accept.
>
> which is a rather strange assessment to those of us who know and have
> discussed evolution with behe. i graduated from lehigh's chemistry
> dept and have had a chance to discuss evolution with him. he accepts
> evolution as the origin of species. he's a creationist when it comes
> to a limited set of characteristics. he's ignorant to be sure, but
> that hardly makes him a creationist.
>
> To accept is to acknowledge
> >Genesis sudden creation a fact. IC proves sudden Genesis. Refusal to
> >accept this fact proves the Romans 1 penalty declaration. Either way
> >the Bible is proven true.
>
> funny that most xtians and all scientists disagree with a literal
> interpretation of genesis.
>
Then both are assuming a label. How can you be a christian and not
believe the central claim (Resurrection), and the supernatural ?
Answer: because these persons are not as claimed as is obvious. The
Bible says Satan transforms himself into an angel of light which
explains this perfectly.
Darwin CLAIMED to be a christian/theist/believer. My article will prove
that he was and how this fact HURTS Darwinism. In fact, after my
article is released there will eventually be a movement to re-define
theism and stipulate that Darwin was not the understood and traditional
view of theist, but it won't matter - Darwin was a theist. You
Darwinists are irreversibly locked into this fact.
Ray Martinez
The claim was: Dr. Scott said the canopy theory was "by JPL
scientist(s)"
I have yet to determine what he meant. Cyr could be construed as a JPL
scientist. I have just recently discovered Vail was from - guess where
?
Pasadena, California. BTW, Dr. Scott lived in Pasadena.
I have located the lectures on the canopy theory in Dr. Scott's
archives. I am watching for their scheduled airing on his network. When
this happens I will post the time and if anyone wants to hear it from
the horses mouth they can go to his website and watch and lsiten via
many several different options.
Ray
Dana Tweedy
>
> Bob wrote:
>> On 16 Oct 2005 15:17:08 -0700, "Ray Martinez" <pyram...@yahoo.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >
>>
>> >>
>> >
>> >Science has always corroborated the texual evidence of the Bible, only
>> >its Fundamentalist wing known as Darwinists close their minds to these
>> >long established facts. Your mindset has been slowly brainwashed by
>> >Darwinian philosophy - a casuality of this generation.
>>
>> this is very strange and i wonder what creationists mean here.
>>
>
> No Bob, there is nothing strange. I mean what I say and say what I
> mean.
You just don't know what you are talking about....
>
> By the way, I AM BRAINWASHED by the Bible/word of God.
Or what you think is the "word of God". The problem is that your version
doesn't seem to match up with what the Bible actually says.
>
> Unless everyone, to some degree, gets brainwashed by the Bible - you
> are going to hell.
How do we know that your version is the right kind of "brainwashing"?
How do we know it's not you who is going to hell for your heresy?
>
> Everyone is brainwashed - the only issue is by what.
See, Ray, that's where you are wrong. Not everyone is "brainwashed". You
are projecting your own problems on other people.
>
>> the number of scientists in the US who accept creationism is about 1%.
>> overseas it's even less. so why is he saying that science accepts
>> creationism?
>> >
>
> Because "science" and "scientists" are two different words. Facts are
> facts, the only facts which contradict the Bible are false
> interpretations of those facts.
Again, Ray employs his dizzying brand of circular "logic". The facts are
facts, unless they contradict his interpetation of the Bible, then they
aren't "facts" anymore..
>
> The double helix was designed. Any objective non-prejudicial
> observation of reality demands that conclusion.
That's a statement of opinion, and not even an informed opinion. It's not
a conclusion, but an apriori assertion.
>
> If we do not maintain our cars or any machine the designed mechanism
> will break down. The universe is a designed machine running on fixed
> laws - laws did not pop into existence by chance.
No one claims that "laws" pop into existence by chance. There's no
evidence that the universe is either designed, or a machine. Your
assertions are false on their face.
>
>> >
>> >>
>> >
>> >All physical evidence corresponds with Biblical declarations.
>>
>> no one knows what this means. there are 30,000 xtian denominations.
>> how can science demonstrate what xtians themselves can not agree on?
>>
>
> Yes, denominations abound - we all believe in God/Jesus and the Bible
> is His word, and faith gets His attention and touch into your life. We
> disagree on peripheral matters just like you Darwinians do in
> scientific matters. IOW, you really have no point.
Then why do you claim that people who don't interpet the Bible in the way
you do are not Christians?
>
> In all scientific theories light is a central component. Light is
> central to Genesis 1.
Ray, that wasn't true the first time you asserted it. It's still not true.
Light is not the central component in a large number of scientific theories.
>
> We can trace the origins of God's name to the sanskrit where it means
> "light".
Are you saying that Sanskrit is older than Hebrew?
> In the Bible light is ALWAYS associated with God's presence. I
> contend the creation source which accounts for the importance of light
> is the correct one.
>
Contend what you like, but unless you can provide evidence, you have
nothing.
>
>
>
>> Inability
>> >to see this fact is explained in the Bible as willful at first, then
>> >God reacts if one persists and helps you go your senseless way.
>>
>>
>> OK you let me know when he culls the number of xtian denominations.
>>
>> >>
>> >
>> >Like I said above you admit to being an atheist and feign theism in
>> >order to vent your rage against the Bible and Creationists.
>>
>> of course one wonders what he makes of the scientists who are
>> christians and accept evolution.
>>
>
> Individual contrapositions do not affect the objective definitions or
> claims of either christianity or evolution.
what "objective" definition are you using? On what is it based?
>
> My forth coming article will straighten this whole matter out once and
> for all.
Sure it will Ray. Right after pigs begin to fly.
>
snipping
>> since all scientists are darwinists, which scientists have proven
>> this?
>
> In my debates with Darwinists on the Internet I argue the facts
> produced by Darwinian scientists do not support their suppositions much
> less prove their suppositions.
You have asserted this, perhaps, but never shown any reason to accept your
claims. You provide no evidence to support your assertions, and buttress
your claims with only circular statements.
> This means the theory is not true, and
> the reason they cannot support their suppositions is because there
> isn't the evidence BECAUSE Genesis sudden creation is true.
Yet you ignore any evidence presented to you, and dismiss any attempt to
explain why you are wrong.
> Darwinists
> admit hominine evolution is assumed based on other alleged facts.
No, Ray, this is your claim. Real scientists have never "admitted" this.
Hominid evolution is based on physical evidence, including the KNM -WT 15000
fossil.
> IOW,
> the most extarordinary (1 of 2) claim of all time is assumed and the
> assumption is driven by the need of Genesis to not be true.
Wrong on all three counts. Evolution is not "the most extraordinary claim
of all time". It's not assumed, and it's not driven by a need to for
Genesis to be false. You have consistently failed to support these claims,
yet keep making them.
>> >
>> >> > Scientists do not embrace science fiction.
>> >>
>> >> Which is why scientists overwhemlingly reject Creationism.
>> >>
>> >
>> >Darwinian scientists that is.
>>
>> as the recent gallup poll demonstrated almost all (>99%) of scientists
>> are darwinists.
>>
>
> Yes, I know, but my point is not harmed nontheless.
Then why did you claim that "Darwinists" were a minority in science?
>
>> >>
>> >> Actually, Ray, it's the creationists who exclude physical evidence
>> >> that
>> >> contradicts their beliefs. Evolution does not "have" to be true,
>> >> it's true
>> >> because the evidence supports it. If another theory were to explain
>> >> the
>> >> evidence better, evolution would be discarded.
>> >>
>> >
>> >We have volumes of quotes by Darwinists admitting truth supression =
>> >Darwinism is atheist religion = penalty from God for denying Him
>> >Creator credit just like the Bible teaches.
>>
>> again, scientists who are xtians disagree. so other than his
>> assertion, what proof does he have?
>>
> Maybe they are not really a christian ?
Maybe they are, but you aren't.
>
> Hitler claimed to be a christian.
You do too, Ray, but your actions speak louder than your words.
snipp
>> funny that most xtians and all scientists disagree with a literal
>> interpretation of genesis.
>>
>
> Then both are assuming a label. How can you be a christian and not
> believe the central claim (Resurrection), and the supernatural ?
You are assuming that people who accept evolution don't believe the
resurrection, or the supernatural. You are wrong on both counts.
> Answer: because these persons are not as claimed as is obvious. The
> Bible says Satan transforms himself into an angel of light which
> explains this perfectly.
Or maybe he transforms himself into a late night TV preacher........ a
possibility, yes?
>
> Darwin CLAIMED to be a christian/theist/believer.
He was, until he lost his faith over the death of his daughter.
> My article will prove
> that he was and how this fact HURTS Darwinism.
If your article is ever finished that is, and ad hominems against Darwin do
not affect the quality of his work. Darwin himself becomes irrelevant to
the work he started. It's become much bigger than Darwin himself, and has
outlived Darwin. Therefore attacking Charles Darwin does nothing to
"hurt" the theory.
> In fact, after my
> article is released there will eventually be a movement to re-define
> theism and stipulate that Darwin was not the understood and traditional
> view of theist, but it won't matter - Darwin was a theist. You
> Darwinists are irreversibly locked into this fact.
It wouldn't matter if Darwin were a theist, an atheist, or a rotarian. What
matters is the evidence that supports the theory of evolution. Deal with
the evidence, or don't bother with your "article".
DJT
Ray Martinez
This is an attempt to camoflauge an opposing worldview rant under a
neutral objective disguise.
IOW, I am crazy.
The established religious community in Jesus day said He was insane
with a demon. Jesus said they were of their father the devil.
Steve, your piece perfectly exposes yourself to be aligned with the
establishment and their source and I am of course in good company with
Jesus.
Your whole argument proves the correspondence with reality that the
Bible has.
Ray
Dana Tweedy
snipping
>>
>> Hey, Ray, where's that reference to a JPL scientist's paper on a vapor
>> canopy? You tried to pass off a paper that didn't even mention a
>> canopy, and you've been silent on the subject since then. Ready to
>> admit that it doesn't exist, and you and Scott were wrong?
>>
>>
>> <snip>
>
> The claim was: Dr. Scott said the canopy theory was "by JPL
> scientist(s)"
Which has since been shown to have been wrong.
>
> I have yet to determine what he meant. Cyr could be construed as a JPL
> scientist.
Even if he was, Cyr didn't propose a theory that supported the "vapor
canopy".
> I have just recently discovered Vail was from - guess where
> ?
>
> Pasadena, California. BTW, Dr. Scott lived in Pasadena.
Does not mean that Vail was the Queen of the Rose Bowl Parade either.
>
> I have located the lectures on the canopy theory in Dr. Scott's
> archives. I am watching for their scheduled airing on his network. When
> this happens I will post the time and if anyone wants to hear it from
> the horses mouth they can go to his website and watch and lsiten via
> many several different options.
Why is it so hard for you to admit that Gene Scott was wrong?
DJT
Ray Martinez
Dana Tweedy wrote:
> "Ray Martinez" <pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:1129501028.7...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
>
> > Dana Tweedy wrote:
> >> "Ray Martinez" <pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> >> news:1129314594.8...@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> >> snipping
> >>
> >> >> Well, one could point out that religious writings are not evidence.
> >> >> "Texual" evidence without any collaborating physical evidence is
> >> >> largely
> >> >> worthless.
> >> >
> >> > Evidence is evidence. If it is confimred and corroborated by separate
> >> > unconnected evidence then the evidence is premium.
> >>
> >> Not all evidence is equal, and not all evidence carries equal weight.
> >> "Texual" evidence is only evidence of what someone once wrote down.
> >> Without
> >> corrborating physical evidence, "texual" evidence is worthless.
> >> "Separate,
> >> unconnected evidence" which is not physical evidence is of no more use
> >> than
> >> the original "texual".
> >>
> >
> > Very predictable (and mandatory) Darwinian opinion.
>
> Ray resorts to ad hominem, when he's unable to demostrate why we should
> accept uncorrborated "textual" evidence. . Very predictiable indeed.
>
No Dana, we CAN corroborate. If we couldn't then I would be a
Darwinist.
> >
> >
> >> >
> >> > Anyone who asserts textual/religious/Biblical evidence is not evidence
> >> > - I would bet is a Darwinist and/or atheist.
> >>
> >> Because you define anyone who points out that textual/religious/Biblical
> >> evidence is not evidence as a "Darwinist and or atheist". It fits your
> >> perfectly circular logical pattern.
> >
> > Asserting circular without showing is attempted poisoning the well. I
> > am sure you believe it but I am not convinced.
>
> Ray, I showed how it's circular. Your claim that anyone who states
> (correctly I might add) that textual evidence is not scientific evidence is
> an "Darwinist and/or atheist", because you define anyone who states that
> textual evidence is not scientific evidence as an atheist. Your criteria
> for saying someone is atheist is that they say something that you consider
> atheist. It's perfectly circular "logic".
>
This is the FIRST time you have explained the circular charge. The
above paragraph has mistakes.
I have NOT claimed textual is scientific. I have claimed textual is
corroborated by scientific.
I have logically pointed out that anyone who ASSERTS texual to not be
***evidence*** is probably thus and such. Notice I did not say
***scientific***. Originally, the claim WAS ***evidence*** and you have
mistakenly changed it to ***scientific***
> >
> >
> >> In any case it's not an assertion
> >> it's a simple fact. Words written down in a book are not evidence that
> >> the
> >> events described in the book actually occured. If it were, then I
> >> could
> >> use "Hitchiker's Guide to the Galaxy to "prove" that the Earth was
> >> destroyed
> >> by Vogons to make way for a inteplanetary bypass.
> >>
> >
> > Another very predictable and mandatory Darwinian opinion.
>
> Instead of showing why we should accept uncorrborated textual evidence, Ray
> goes for the ad hominem.
>
There is no ad hom.
You intentionally grouped the Bible with kooky works. I never said
anyone should accept Biblical texts without evidence to back it up. Dr.
Scott became agnostic in college. Only when he researched the texts to
find corroboration did he become a theist. We can prove the Bible, but
that means a person must listen to real theist scholars and they do not
want to do that.
> >
> >>
> >> > The assertion is driven by
> >> > an obvious ulterior motive.
> >>
> >> The only motive is to point out where you have committed an error.
> >>
> >
> > Dana's way of saying he disagrees with the Bible viewed as evidence.
>
> No, it's Dana way of saying I have no ulterior motive to disprove the Bible.
> Written material without physical corraboration is worthless as scientific
> evidence. If Ray can show any reason why we should take such evidence in
> preference to physical evidence, I ask him to do so.
>
Are you genuinely saying if the Bible could be shown corroborated with
reality then you would view it at least a little differently ?
My up-coming article will show this stunningly.
> > Could one expect a Darwinist to believe anything else ?
>
> Again, with the ad hominem. Could it be because Ray has nothing else to
> say?
>
> >
> >> > The best thing anti-Biblical worldviews
> >> > could do is say the textual evidence is contradicted (and/or falsified)
> >> > by other evidence.
> >>
> >> I don't have an "anti-Biblical" worldview. I am aware however that the
> >> claims of the Bible, without corraborating physical evidence, are not
> >> evidence of anything except that Bible makes claims.
> >>
Dana, my view is this:
If you argue FOR Darwinism then you possess an anti-Biblical worldview.
No amount of asserting the Bible to support ToE can change what
everyone well knows. Some issues are black and white.
We can corroborate the Bible with reality/physical. Thats why we are
believers.
> >
> > You are a Darwinist and an atheist by your own admissions. Today you
> > claim something else.
>
> I support the science of evolutionary theory, if that's what you mean, but I
> do not worship or devote myself to Charles Darwin, or any other Darwin. I
> have never stated, admitted, or even implied that I am an atheist. I have
> never claimed to be anything but a Christian. I think Ray needs to review
> the commandment against bearing false witness. That being said, I again
> note that Ray has, instead of dealing with the issue, gone for the ad
> hominem response. Did someone say something about 'predictable"?
>
You have indeed claimed to be a christian. I have NEVER claimed it
outright, yet I am perceived as such without having to say it - unlike
you.
Dana, your christianity does not affect what the Bible says, same for
me.
> >
> >
> >> >But to insist and/or assert evidence which is
> >> > perceived to falsify your views is not evidence is rightfully labelled
> >> > an illegitimate ***a priori*** dismissal philosophically driven, or as
> >> > I often say "very predictable" opinion.
> >>
> >> Even if the "Textual" evidence were to completely agree with evolutionary
> >> theory, it still is not evidence on the par with physical evidence. The
> >> "texual" evidence is dismissed not because it is in opposition to
> >> science,
> >> but because science only deals with physical evidence. A written
> >> document
> >> is not evidence, if there is no physical evidence to corraborate the
> >> document.
I disagree that science ***only*** deals with physical evidence. Your
reasons for the dismissal of textual are an opinion. A person would
have to be extremely naieve to believe Darwinian science rejects the
Bible AS evidence for your stated reasons.
The point and claim is this:
WE CAN MATCH THE BIBLICAL CLAIMS AND DECLARATIONS WITH OBSERVED
REALITY, IOW, literary corresponds with reality = fact. This is called
the Correspondence View and I am a fanatical disciple.
> >>
> >
> > Science has always corroborated the texual evidence of the Bible,
>
> Then provide some evidence of this claim. Where has science corraborated
> the story of Noah's flood?
>
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0932766544/102-0702199-1295342?v=glance&n=283155&v=glance
> > only
> > its Fundamentalist wing known as Darwinists close their minds to these
> > long established facts.
>
> Here we have Ray stating that "Darwinists" are a minority in science, yet he
> claims the majority is always wrong..... Any inconsistentcy here?
>
I did not say ***minority*** here. I said what I said which you have
plainly quoted out of context.
No Dana, asserting contrary to what anyone can read in the Bible only
shows your audacity. My article will prove it beyond a shadow of a
doubt. My expertise in theology is unmatched. I have no peer. "A truly
humble man does not have to look back to see if he was." {A.W.Tozer)
>
>
>
> >> >> >
> >> >> > IOW, this Darwinist is saying only physical evidence that needs
> >> >> > interpretations that Darwinists can control (unfalsifiable)
> >> >> > qualifies
> >> >> > as evidence.
> >> >>
> >> >> No, Ray, he's saying that "Words from a book are not evidence", and
> >> >> he's
> >> >> right.
> >> >
> >> > God's word is the ultimate evidence.
> >>
> >> But you are assuming that your interpetation is "God's Word".
>
> Ignored by Ray.....
>
Your comment assumes as fact that the Bible is ambiguous with an
uncertain message. Science is complicated - so is the Bible. Surely
this obstacle doesn't prevent Darwinists from tackling science, then
why should the Bible be any different ?
> >>
> >> > Asserting contrary reveals atheism
> >> > or related philosophy.
> >>
> >> Perhaps that philosophy is that reality is reflected by the physical
> >> evidence. I am not an atheist, but I don't accept that Ray Martinez is
> >> the
> >> only person qualified to determine what is "God's Word".
> >>
I never asked this status. You are not an atheist BUT you argue atheist
positions.
> >
> > Like I said above you admit to being an atheist and feign theism in
> > order to vent your rage against the Bible and Creationists.
>
> What you said above is not true, and is a violation of the commandment
> against false witness. I never claimed to be an atheist, and I have no
> "rage" against the Bible, or Creationists. Ray on the other hand has
> consistently shown hatred of Christians who have committed the "sin" of
> opposing Ray's claims.
>
> >
> >> >The predictable opinion is held because Ken and
> >> > yourself do not like what it says.
> >>
> >> I have no dislike of the words of the Bible, and I don't have any reason
> >> to
> >> object to it. It simply doesn't match the physical evidence.
> >>
> >
> > Blatantly contradictory comment.
>
> Please demonstrate the contradiction. I don't base my acceptance of the
> Bible on it being scientifically accurate. Therefore I don't object to, or
> dislike the words of the Bible, while acknowleging that it often does not
> match the physical evidence. No contradiction at all.
>
Here is the contradiction:
Bible okay BUT it aint true because it doesn't match physical evidence
= first comment is contradicted by second thought. How could you not
dislike the Bible if it is not true/does not match physical evidence ?
See what I mean ?
> >
> >
> >> > Darwinists are in the business of
> >> > justifying their atheistic worldviews by any means possible.
> >>
> >> Science is not an "atheistic worldview". Many religious people, myself
> >> included, accept the evidence that science provides. I have no
> >> interest
> >> in promoting atheism, or supporting a "worldview".
> >>
> >
> > Yes, Dana, Darwinism is synonymous with atheism whether you admit it or
> > not - its not a matter of opinion.
>
> Once again Ray declares his opinion, while stating it's not a matter of
> opinion. The fact is that many people accept the science of evolution and
> are devoutly religious as well. That refutes your claim, and shows it to
> be false on it's face.
>
Fine, but they have no source for their christianity unless they ignore
what it/Bible actually says.
> > Hitler claimed to be religious which
> > makes your flip flop even more meaningless.
>
> Ray Martinez claims to be religious as well. I have no "flip flop". I've
> maintained the same position all along. Christ said that you will know
> true Christians by their fruits. Ray has demonstrated quite clearly he
> does not speak for Chistians in general, or Christ in particular.
>
> > Your views promote atheism
>
> No, my views promote acceptance of Christ's words, as well as acceptance of
> the physical evidence. Evolutionary theory does not equal atheism, and
> never has.
>
Yes it does - this is undisputed fact. Why do atheists, that is 99
perecent maintain Darwinian evolution has disproven Genesis/Almighty
Creator ? Do you want quotes ?
> > and your rage feigns theism in order to vent your obvious hate.
>
> Again, Ray, who is demonstrating hate in this forum? It's not me.
>
> >You are
> > the unfortunate product of brainwashing - a living proof of how
> > Darwinists have succeeded with ordinary persons.
>
> Ad hominem yet again. Ray, can you possibly try another logical fallacy,
> this one is getting old.
>
I agree, then stop and I will too. It takes two to tango.
> >
> >
> >> > Believing
> >> > the Bible is not evidence has always been your position
> >>
> >> > yet it is not my position, and has not "always been". The Bible is a
> >> > religious writing, it's not a scientific text. It cannot provide
> >> > scientific answers, and as such is not scientific evidence. It's a
> >> > misuse
> >> > of the Bible to claim it trumps physical evidence.
> >>
If God exists and the Bible is His word then how could science
contradict ?
Answer: only when very predictable and senseless Darwinian
interpretations make it so.
I have to go.
Ray
Richard Clayton
A few months ago Ray insisted that Darwin was an atheist. Apparently
his views have changed...
Dana Tweedy
snipping for length.
>> >
>> > Very predictable (and mandatory) Darwinian opinion.
>>
>> Ray resorts to ad hominem, when he's unable to demostrate why we should
>> accept uncorrborated "textual" evidence. . Very predictiable indeed.
>>
>
> No Dana, we CAN corroborate. If we couldn't then I would be a
> Darwinist.
If you "can" corraborate, why haven't you? Present the physical evidence.
>
>> >
>> >
>> >> >
>> >> > Anyone who asserts textual/religious/Biblical evidence is not
>> >> > evidence
>> >> > - I would bet is a Darwinist and/or atheist.
>> >>
>> >> Because you define anyone who points out that
>> >> textual/religious/Biblical
>> >> evidence is not evidence as a "Darwinist and or atheist". It fits
>> >> your
>> >> perfectly circular logical pattern.
>> >
>> > Asserting circular without showing is attempted poisoning the well. I
>> > am sure you believe it but I am not convinced.
>>
>> Ray, I showed how it's circular. Your claim that anyone who states
>> (correctly I might add) that textual evidence is not scientific evidence
>> is
>> an "Darwinist and/or atheist", because you define anyone who states that
>> textual evidence is not scientific evidence as an atheist. Your
>> criteria
>> for saying someone is atheist is that they say something that you
>> consider
>> atheist. It's perfectly circular "logic".
>>
> This is the FIRST time you have explained the circular charge.
Ray, I explained the circularity in the paragraph directly above your first
reply. I've left it in the message, so you can see for yourself.
> The
> above paragraph has mistakes.
I.e. shows your circular reasoning.
>
> I have NOT claimed textual is scientific. I have claimed textual is
> corroborated by scientific.
You claimed that textual evidence is superior to scientific evidence. To
quote you directly, you stated:
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/9fa8593c2966b0ff?dmode=source&hl=en
"Physical evidence begins inferior BECAUSE it requires full-blown
interpretation. Textual evidence is worlds apart in this respect from
the get-go."
And later:
"God's word is the ultimate evidence"
You did not say that the texual evidence was supported by the physical
evidence.
>
> I have logically pointed out that anyone who ASSERTS texual to not be
> ***evidence*** is probably thus and such.
No, you exact words were:
"Anyone who asserts textual/religious/Biblical evidence is not evidence
- I would bet is a Darwinist and/or atheist. The assertion is driven by
an obvious ulterior motive. The best thing anti-Biblical worldviews
could do is say the textual evidence is contradicted (and/or falsified)
by other evidence. But to insist and/or assert evidence which is
perceived to falsify your views is not evidence is rightfully labelled
an illegitimate ***a priori*** dismissal philosophically driven, or as
I often say "very predictable" opinion."
>Notice I did not say
> ***scientific***. Originally, the claim WAS ***evidence*** and you have
> mistakenly changed it to ***scientific***
My position is that "textual" evidence is not evidence that science accepts.
I've explained that it's only evidence that the Bible makes claims. It's
not physical evidence, which is the only evidence that science can use.
>
>> >
>> >> In any case it's not an assertion
>> >> it's a simple fact. Words written down in a book are not evidence
>> >> that
>> >> the
>> >> events described in the book actually occured. If it were, then I
>> >> could
>> >> use "Hitchiker's Guide to the Galaxy to "prove" that the Earth was
>> >> destroyed
>> >> by Vogons to make way for a inteplanetary bypass.
>> >>
>> >
>> > Another very predictable and mandatory Darwinian opinion.
>>
>> Instead of showing why we should accept uncorrborated textual evidence,
>> Ray
>> goes for the ad hominem.
>>
>
> There is no ad hom.
Ray, stating that someone's statement may be disregarded because the person
is a "Darwinist" is an ad hominem. See:
http://www.intrepidsoftware.com/fallacy/attack.php
>
> You intentionally grouped the Bible with kooky works.
Ray, I was making a point, ie that simply because something is written down,
it does not make it evidence that is useful to science. "Hitchiker's
Guide" is a novel, not a "kooky" work.
> I never said
> anyone should accept Biblical texts without evidence to back it up.
Yes, you did. Do you recognize your own words:
"Physical evidence begins inferior BECAUSE it requires full-blown
interpretation. Textual evidence is worlds apart in this respect from
the get-go."
> Dr.
> Scott became agnostic in college. Only when he researched the texts to
> find corroboration did he become a theist.
An ancedote about Mr Scott is irrelevant.
> We can prove the Bible, but
> that means a person must listen to real theist scholars and they do not
> want to do that.
The way to "prove" the Bible to doubters would be to provide physical
evidence that corraborates the claims the Bible makes. But the Bible was
never meant to be "proven". It's not a scientific work, and it was never
intended to be subject to scientific scrutiny. It's a misuse of the text
to use it that way, and if you do so, you quickly find that the Bible cannot
be supported in that way. You are left with a choice of either rejecting
science, or rejecting the Bible. I choose to do neither, but to recognize
that the Bible was written for a different purpose. If you believe, you
must believe by faith.
>
>> >
>> >>
>> >> > The assertion is driven by
>> >> > an obvious ulterior motive.
>> >>
>> >> The only motive is to point out where you have committed an error.
>> >>
>> >
>> > Dana's way of saying he disagrees with the Bible viewed as evidence.
>>
>> No, it's Dana way of saying I have no ulterior motive to disprove the
>> Bible.
>> Written material without physical corraboration is worthless as
>> scientific
>> evidence. If Ray can show any reason why we should take such evidence
>> in
>> preference to physical evidence, I ask him to do so.
>>
>
> Are you genuinely saying if the Bible could be shown corroborated with
> reality then you would view it at least a little differently ?
I am saying that the Bible does not need to be corraborated with the
physical evidence. It was never meant to be treated that way.
>
> My up-coming article will show this stunningly.
So you say. I suspect that you will not be able to do so, and that you will
not accheive the results your ego pushes you toward. Remember Pride goeth
before a fall.
>
>> > Could one expect a Darwinist to believe anything else ?
>>
>> Again, with the ad hominem. Could it be because Ray has nothing else to
>> say?
>>
>> >
>> >> > The best thing anti-Biblical worldviews
>> >> > could do is say the textual evidence is contradicted (and/or
>> >> > falsified)
>> >> > by other evidence.
>> >>
>> >> I don't have an "anti-Biblical" worldview. I am aware however that
>> >> the
>> >> claims of the Bible, without corraborating physical evidence, are not
>> >> evidence of anything except that Bible makes claims.
>> >>
>
> Dana, my view is this:
>
> If you argue FOR Darwinism then you possess an anti-Biblical worldview.
This may be your view, but it's a mistake. Evolutionary theory does not
conflict with the Bible, if you understand that the Bible is not a
scientific work.
> No amount of asserting the Bible to support ToE can change what
> everyone well knows. Some issues are black and white.
Ray, I again have to point out that you are misrepresenting my position. I
do not assert, or claim, or otherwise state that the Bible supports the
theory of evolution. I've told you this many times now. The Bible is
irrelevant to the theory of evolution, which is a scientific theory, based
on physical evidence. The Bible, as I've maintained all along, is not
physical evidence. Therefore, claiming that I "assert" the Bible supports
evolution is simply wrong.
>
> We can corroborate the Bible with reality/physical. Thats why we are
> believers.
What's with the royal "we" here? If you can corraborate the Bible with
physical evidence, then do so. Don't assert it, provide the evidence.
>
>> >
>> > You are a Darwinist and an atheist by your own admissions. Today you
>> > claim something else.
>>
>> I support the science of evolutionary theory, if that's what you mean,
>> but I
>> do not worship or devote myself to Charles Darwin, or any other Darwin.
>> I
>> have never stated, admitted, or even implied that I am an atheist. I
>> have
>> never claimed to be anything but a Christian. I think Ray needs to
>> review
>> the commandment against bearing false witness. That being said, I again
>> note that Ray has, instead of dealing with the issue, gone for the ad
>> hominem response. Did someone say something about 'predictable"?
>>
>
> You have indeed claimed to be a christian. I have NEVER claimed it
> outright, yet I am perceived as such without having to say it - unlike
> you.
You are perceived as claiming to be Christian, but your manner and behavior
demonstrate quite clearly you are not. You claim to be a follower of Gene
Scott, who also claimed to be Christian.
>
> Dana, your christianity does not affect what the Bible says, same for
> me.
I did not claim that my Christian beliefs affect what the Bible says. I'ts
been my position all along that the Bible is not physical evidence, so it's
irrelevant to a scientific discussion. That does not mean I reject the
Bible.
>
>> >
>> >> >But to insist and/or assert evidence which is
>> >> > perceived to falsify your views is not evidence is rightfully
>> >> > labelled
>> >> > an illegitimate ***a priori*** dismissal philosophically driven, or
>> >> > as
>> >> > I often say "very predictable" opinion.
>> >>
>> >> Even if the "Textual" evidence were to completely agree with
>> >> evolutionary
>> >> theory, it still is not evidence on the par with physical evidence.
>> >> The
>> >> "texual" evidence is dismissed not because it is in opposition to
>> >> science,
>> >> but because science only deals with physical evidence. A written
>> >> document
>> >> is not evidence, if there is no physical evidence to corraborate the
>> >> document.
>
> I disagree that science ***only*** deals with physical evidence.
Then you are mistaken. Science can only deal with the physical, it cannot
study matters of the supernatural.
>Your
> reasons for the dismissal of textual are an opinion.
No, my reason for dismissal of textual evidence in a scientific
investigation is that the rules of science don't allow it.
> A person would
> have to be extremely naieve to believe Darwinian science rejects the
> Bible AS evidence for your stated reasons.
There is no difference between "Darwinian" science, and science. The
Bible is not scientific evidence because it's a religious writing, without
physical corraboration. There is no vendetta against the Bible, or any
other religious writing.
>
> The point and claim is this:
>
> WE CAN MATCH THE BIBLICAL CLAIMS AND DECLARATIONS WITH OBSERVED
> REALITY,
Then do it. Provide the evidence.
>IOW, literary corresponds with reality = fact. This is called
> the Correspondence View and I am a fanatical disciple.
Then why are you not presenting the evidence?
>> >
>> > Science has always corroborated the texual evidence of the Bible,
>>
>> Then provide some evidence of this claim. Where has science
>> corraborated
>> the story of Noah's flood?
>>
> http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0932766544/102-0702199-1295342?v=glance&n=283155&v=glance
When I'm talking about science, I'm not referring to unsupported claims by
Young Earth Creationists. Woodmorappe (a pseudonym, by the way) presents
claims which are not backed up by scientific evidence. For a rebuttal of
Woodmorappe, and other Creationist claims, see:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-noahs-ark.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/woodmorappe-review.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/geocolumn/
Glen Morton, who was a YEC, until he could not longer ignore the evidence,
is a professional geologist. He points out the scientific problems with a
global flood at:
http://www.asa3.org/archive/evolution/199706/0525.html
>
>
>> > only
>> > its Fundamentalist wing known as Darwinists close their minds to these
>> > long established facts.
>>
>> Here we have Ray stating that "Darwinists" are a minority in science, yet
>> he
>> claims the majority is always wrong..... Any inconsistentcy here?
>>
>
> I did not say ***minority*** here.
Earlier you stated:
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/9fa8593c2966b0ff?dmode=source&hl=en
" Believing
the Bible is not evidence has always been your position - a minority
view of the God-senseless Fundamentalist wing of science. "
> I said what I said which you have
> plainly quoted out of context.
Ray, I simply left the quotes as they were. I did not take anything out of
context.
snipping for length
>> > Inability
>> > to see this fact is explained in the Bible as willful at first, then
>> > God reacts if one persists and helps you go your senseless way.
>>
>> Inablity to see what does not exist is explained by Ray's inability to
>> support his claim. I've already shown that Ray's "penalty claim" is a
>> misinterpetation of the Bible, so there is no need to go into that again.
>>
>
> No Dana, asserting contrary to what anyone can read in the Bible only
> shows your audacity.
Ray, I'm one of those "anyone" and the Bible clearly does not support your
assertion.
> My article will prove it beyond a shadow of a
> doubt. My expertise in theology is unmatched. I have no peer.
Your expertise in theology is as poor as your expertise in biology,
geology, and all the other sciences. Your pride is leading you astray,
and you are in for a sore disappointment.
> "A truly
> humble man does not have to look back to see if he was." {A.W.Tozer)
"Pride comes before destruction,and an arrogant spirit before a fall."
(Proverbs, 16:18)
snipping
>> >> But you are assuming that your interpetation is "God's Word".
>>
>> Ignored by Ray.....
>>
>
> Your comment assumes as fact that the Bible is ambiguous with an
> uncertain message.
My comment states that the Bible is open to interpetation, and your version
of the "Truth" may not be everyone else's.
> Science is complicated - so is the Bible. Surely
> this obstacle doesn't prevent Darwinists from tackling science, then
> why should the Bible be any different ?
Because science is based on physical evidence. Bible interpetation is
based on personal belief.
>> >> > Asserting contrary reveals atheism
>> >> > or related philosophy.
>> >>
>> >> Perhaps that philosophy is that reality is reflected by the physical
>> >> evidence. I am not an atheist, but I don't accept that Ray Martinez
>> >> is
>> >> the
>> >> only person qualified to determine what is "God's Word".
>> >>
>
> I never asked this status. You are not an atheist BUT you argue atheist
> positions.
I argue positions whic YOU assume are atheist. I don't see them as
atheist, and most of the world does not see it that way either.
snipping
>> >> I have no dislike of the words of the Bible, and I don't have any
>> >> reason
>> >> to
>> >> object to it. It simply doesn't match the physical evidence.
>> >>
>> >
>> > Blatantly contradictory comment.
>>
>> Please demonstrate the contradiction. I don't base my acceptance of
>> the
>> Bible on it being scientifically accurate. Therefore I don't object to,
>> or
>> dislike the words of the Bible, while acknowleging that it often does not
>> match the physical evidence. No contradiction at all.
>>
>
> Here is the contradiction:
>
> Bible okay BUT it aint true because it doesn't match physical evidence
> = first comment is contradicted by second thought. How could you not
> dislike the Bible if it is not true/does not match physical evidence ?
> See what I mean ?
I see that your thought processes are quite deranged.
You totally misrepresent my position, and my statements. My like or
dislike of a passage of written material is not based on whether or not it
matches the physical evidence. The writings of the Bible were never meant
to be taken as physical evidence, therefore I don't dislike the Bible based
on it's failure to match physical evidence. It would be like hating a
toothbrush for not being a telephone.
>> >> > Darwinists are in the business of
>> >> > justifying their atheistic worldviews by any means possible.
>> >>
>> >> Science is not an "atheistic worldview". Many religious people,
>> >> myself
>> >> included, accept the evidence that science provides. I have no
>> >> interest
>> >> in promoting atheism, or supporting a "worldview".
>> >>
>> >
>> > Yes, Dana, Darwinism is synonymous with atheism whether you admit it or
>> > not - its not a matter of opinion.
>>
>> Once again Ray declares his opinion, while stating it's not a matter of
>> opinion. The fact is that many people accept the science of evolution
>> and
>> are devoutly religious as well. That refutes your claim, and shows it
>> to
>> be false on it's face.
>>
> Fine, but they have no source for their christianity unless they ignore
> what it/Bible actually says.
The source for my, and others Christanity is the word of God and example of
Jesus. One does not have to ignore the Bible to accept that it's not
scientifically accurate. It was never meant to be a science text.
snip
>>
>> No, my views promote acceptance of Christ's words, as well as acceptance
>> of
>> the physical evidence. Evolutionary theory does not equal atheism, and
>> never has.
>>
> Yes it does - this is undisputed fact. Why do atheists, that is 99
> perecent maintain Darwinian evolution has disproven Genesis/Almighty
> Creator ? Do you want quotes ?
I really don't care what atheists maintain. If anyone cliams that
evolution has disproven the existiance of God, then they are mistaken.
Science cannot disprove God, and does not attempt to do so. Mined out of
context quotes are not necessary.
>
>
>> > and your rage feigns theism in order to vent your obvious hate.
>>
>> Again, Ray, who is demonstrating hate in this forum? It's not me.
>>
>> >You are
>> > the unfortunate product of brainwashing - a living proof of how
>> > Darwinists have succeeded with ordinary persons.
>>
>> Ad hominem yet again. Ray, can you possibly try another logical
>> fallacy,
>> this one is getting old.
>>
>
> I agree, then stop and I will too. It takes two to tango.
Actually, it only takes one to sling ad hominem. I largely have refrained
from doing so. You, on the other hand continue to toss them with abandon.
>> >
>> >> > Believing
>> >> > the Bible is not evidence has always been your position
>> >>
>> >> > yet it is not my position, and has not "always been". The Bible is
>> >> > a
>> >> > religious writing, it's not a scientific text. It cannot provide
>> >> > scientific answers, and as such is not scientific evidence. It's a
>> >> > misuse
>> >> > of the Bible to claim it trumps physical evidence.
>> >>
>
> If God exists and the Bible is His word then how could science
> contradict ?
Simple. The Bible was never meant to be taken as a scientific textbook.
It was written in a time before there was such a thing as science, and was
written for people who would not have known anything about science, or the
scientific method. To expect the Bible to be scientifically accurate is to
misuse the text. Science does not contradict the Bible, when you realize
that the Bible is not open to contradiction by science.
>
> Answer: only when very predictable and senseless Darwinian
> interpretations make it so.
Again, ad hominem. Please try to find some other way to express your
logicall fallacies
>
> I have to go.
Then go. This is not a chatroom. Finish when you want.
DJT
Ray Martinez
>
> I really don't care what atheists maintain. If anyone cliams that
> evolution has disproven the existiance of God, then they are mistaken.
> Science cannot disprove God, and does not attempt to do so. Mined out of
> context quotes are not necessary.
>
The ***whole point*** of Darwinian evolution says God was not involved.
This is what the age-old debate is about and if you deny then it is no
suprise since TEists assert black is white (Genesis supports
evolution).
Its hard to believe none of the evolutionists have called you on this
nonsense, but it is indicative of the evo way: fraud, deception, and
other fine attributes. If a Creo advocated similar nonsense I wouldn't
hesitate to rack him up. The fact that no evo has racked you up shows
the lack of intergity and mechanism of brown nosing the T.O. machine
runs by.
> >
> >
> >> > and your rage feigns theism in order to vent your obvious hate.
> >>
> >> Again, Ray, who is demonstrating hate in this forum? It's not me.
> >>
> >> >You are
> >> > the unfortunate product of brainwashing - a living proof of how
> >> > Darwinists have succeeded with ordinary persons.
> >>
> >> Ad hominem yet again. Ray, can you possibly try another logical
> >> fallacy,
> >> this one is getting old.
> >>
> >
> > I agree, then stop and I will too. It takes two to tango.
>
> Actually, it only takes one to sling ad hominem. I largely have refrained
> from doing so. You, on the other hand continue to toss them with abandon.
>
> >> >
> >> >> > Believing
> >> >> > the Bible is not evidence has always been your position
> >> >>
> >> >> > yet it is not my position, and has not "always been". The Bible is
> >> >> > a
> >> >> > religious writing, it's not a scientific text. It cannot provide
> >> >> > scientific answers, and as such is not scientific evidence. It's a
> >> >> > misuse
> >> >> > of the Bible to claim it trumps physical evidence.
> >> >>
Predictable Darwinian opinion and assumed straw man that one has to
choose between the two.
> >
> > If God exists and the Bible is His word then how could science
> > contradict ?
>
> Simple. The Bible was never meant to be taken as a scientific textbook.
> It was written in a time before there was such a thing as science, and was
> written for people who would not have known anything about science, or the
> scientific method. To expect the Bible to be scientifically accurate is to
> misuse the text. Science does not contradict the Bible, when you realize
> that the Bible is not open to contradiction by science.
>
Lawyer rhetoric and double-speak elegantly written propagating a basic
confusion the Darwinian mind is plagued with: Bible and Science
conflict = atheist philosophy.
> >
> > Answer: only when very predictable and senseless Darwinian
> > interpretations make it so.
>
> Again, ad hominem. Please try to find some other way to express your
> logicall fallacies
>
> >
> > I have to go.
>
> Then go. This is not a chatroom. Finish when you want.
>
> DJT
BTW, Glenn Morton was the ringleader who got me banned at TWEB - the
TEist forum which happens to own a cross.
Deconversion reliance is a two-way street you know and I am not a YEC
and Morton is good at starting trouble between OEC's and YEC's.
Ray
Dana Tweedy
>
>>
>> I really don't care what atheists maintain. If anyone cliams that
>> evolution has disproven the existiance of God, then they are mistaken.
>> Science cannot disprove God, and does not attempt to do so. Mined out
>> of
>> context quotes are not necessary.
>>
>
> The ***whole point*** of Darwinian evolution says God was not involved.
That's where you are wrong. The whole point of "Darwinian evolution" is to
explain the physical evidence. God is not subject to physical evidence,
therefore science cannot say that God was not involved. All science can
tell is that there's no evidence of a supernatural being.
> This is what the age-old debate is about and if you deny then it is no
> suprise since TEists assert black is white (Genesis supports
> evolution).
Ray, please. I have told you several times now that I do not claim that
Genesis supports evolution. No one claims that Genesis supports
evolution. You are misrepresenting my beliefs, and beliefs of others.
Genesis is irrelevant to the scientific theory of evolution.
>
> Its hard to believe none of the evolutionists have called you on this
> nonsense,
Because the other posters in here know I'm right.
> but it is indicative of the evo way: fraud, deception, and
> other fine attributes.
What "fraud" or "deception" are you alledging?
> If a Creo advocated similar nonsense I wouldn't
> hesitate to rack him up. The fact that no evo has racked you up shows
> the lack of intergity and mechanism of brown nosing the T.O. machine
> runs by.
The fact that no one has "racked me up" indicates that the others don't have
a problem with what I said. Science cannot, and does not disprove the
existance of God.
>
>> >
>> >
>> >> > and your rage feigns theism in order to vent your obvious hate.
>> >>
>> >> Again, Ray, who is demonstrating hate in this forum? It's not me.
>> >>
>> >> >You are
>> >> > the unfortunate product of brainwashing - a living proof of how
>> >> > Darwinists have succeeded with ordinary persons.
>> >>
>> >> Ad hominem yet again. Ray, can you possibly try another logical
>> >> fallacy,
>> >> this one is getting old.
>> >>
>> >
>> > I agree, then stop and I will too. It takes two to tango.
>>
>> Actually, it only takes one to sling ad hominem. I largely have
>> refrained
>> from doing so. You, on the other hand continue to toss them with
>> abandon.
No answer to this Ray???
>>
>> >> >
>> >> >> > Believing
>> >> >> > the Bible is not evidence has always been your position
>> >> >>
>> >> >> > yet it is not my position, and has not "always been". The Bible
>> >> >> > is
>> >> >> > a
>> >> >> > religious writing, it's not a scientific text. It cannot
>> >> >> > provide
>> >> >> > scientific answers, and as such is not scientific evidence. It's
>> >> >> > a
>> >> >> > misuse
>> >> >> > of the Bible to claim it trumps physical evidence.
>> >> >>
>
> Predictable Darwinian opinion and assumed straw man that one has to
> choose between the two.
Again, the ad hominem response. Also, you are the one that's claiming that
one has to choose. If it's a "strawman" its one of your own making.
>
>> >
>> > If God exists and the Bible is His word then how could science
>> > contradict ?
>>
>> Simple. The Bible was never meant to be taken as a scientific textbook.
>> It was written in a time before there was such a thing as science, and
>> was
>> written for people who would not have known anything about science, or
>> the
>> scientific method. To expect the Bible to be scientifically accurate is
>> to
>> misuse the text. Science does not contradict the Bible, when you realize
>> that the Bible is not open to contradiction by science.
>>
> Lawyer rhetoric and double-speak elegantly written propagating a basic
> confusion the Darwinian mind is plagued with: Bible and Science
> conflict = atheist philosophy.
Ray, look. I just stated above that the bible and science are not in
conflict. Now you are trying to claim I'm using "lawyer talk" to say that
they are. Are you unable to read, or just so blinded by your own hatred
that you can't see simple logic?
>
>
>
>> >
>> > Answer: only when very predictable and senseless Darwinian
>> > interpretations make it so.
>>
>> Again, ad hominem. Please try to find some other way to express your
>> logicall fallacies
>>
>> >
>> > I have to go.
>>
>> Then go. This is not a chatroom. Finish when you want.
>>
>> DJT
>
> BTW, Glenn Morton was the ringleader who got me banned at TWEB - the
> TEist forum which happens to own a cross.
LOL, sure Ray. Your lack of civility, and uncouth behavior had nothing to
do with that, I'm sure. Got any evidence that it was Glen Morton who got
you banned?
>
> Deconversion reliance is a two-way street you know and I am not a YEC
> and Morton is good at starting trouble between OEC's and YEC's.
Then why do you depend on YEC sources? Woodmorappe is a YEC, and his
buddies at AiG are YEC's.
DJT
Ray Martinez
Dana Tweedy wrote:
> "Ray Martinez" <pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:1129771484....@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> >
> >>
> >> evolution has disproven the existiance of God, then they are mistaken.
> >> Science cannot disprove God, and does not attempt to do so. Mined out
> >> of
> >> context quotes are not necessary.
> >>
> >
> > The ***whole point*** of Darwinian evolution says God was not involved.
>
> That's where you are wrong. The whole point of "Darwinian evolution" is to
> explain the physical evidence. God is not subject to physical evidence,
> therefore science cannot say that God was not involved. All science can
> tell is that there's no evidence of a supernatural being.
>
No Dana, the ***whole point*** of Darwinian evolution says life
developed entirely by natural means - the God of Genesis had no hand in
it whatsoever. This is not a matter of opinion and insisting otherwise
only casts yourself as dishonest.
Naturalism CLAIMS neutrality towards the Divine, then it proceeds to
offer all of its data as proof that the God of Genesis was not involved
= deception = indigenous quality of Satan as revealed in the Bible.
Science minus the Naturalist axe has proven the Bible and its Creator.
This is why we are Creationists because of the evidence.
> > This is what the age-old debate is about and if you deny then it is no
> > suprise since TEists assert black is white (Genesis supports
> > evolution).
>
> Ray, please. I have told you several times now that I do not claim that
> Genesis supports evolution. No one claims that Genesis supports
> evolution. You are misrepresenting my beliefs, and beliefs of others.
> Genesis is irrelevant to the scientific theory of evolution.
>
You continually flip-flop. Genesis is the object of hate of the ToE not
a matter of opinion.
> >
> > Its hard to believe none of the evolutionists have called you on this
> > nonsense,
>
> Because the other posters in here know I'm right.
>
> > but it is indicative of the evo way: fraud, deception, and
> > other fine attributes.
>
> What "fraud" or "deception" are you alledging?
>
Feigning ingnorance = deliberate debate confusion. I will let it go and
be satisfied knowing you had to pull this act.
> > If a Creo advocated similar nonsense I wouldn't
> > hesitate to rack him up. The fact that no evo has racked you up shows
> > the lack of intergity and mechanism of brown nosing the T.O. machine
> > runs by.
>
> The fact that no one has "racked me up" indicates that the others don't have
> a problem with what I said. Science cannot, and does not disprove the
> existance of God.
>
Science has proven God - only Darwinists assert otherwise and my
article will show why they are ineligible to see it.
Evolution says man's origin was from an animal. The Bible says from
God. The former is obscene urination on the latter and you are here
acting like you have no idea what is being said.
Good, then we agree the Bible and Science are not in conflict (flop).
> >
> >
> >
> >> >
> >> > Answer: only when very predictable and senseless Darwinian
> >> > interpretations make it so.
> >>
> >> Again, ad hominem. Please try to find some other way to express your
> >> logicall fallacies
> >>
> >> >
> >> > I have to go.
> >>
> >> Then go. This is not a chatroom. Finish when you want.
> >>
> >> DJT
> >
> > BTW, Glenn Morton was the ringleader who got me banned at TWEB - the
> > TEist forum which happens to own a cross.
>
> LOL, sure Ray. Your lack of civility, and uncouth behavior had nothing to
> do with that, I'm sure. Got any evidence that it was Glen Morton who got
> you banned?
>
> >
> > Deconversion reliance is a two-way street you know and I am not a YEC
> > and Morton is good at starting trouble between OEC's and YEC's.
>
> Then why do you depend on YEC sources? Woodmorappe is a YEC, and his
> buddies at AiG are YEC's.
>
>
> DJT
Why do you depend on atheist sources ? Harshman and company are radical
atheists along with their buddies at T.O.
Ray
DJT
Ray Martinez wrote:
> Dana Tweedy wrote:
> > "Ray Martinez" <pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > news:1129771484....@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> > >
> > >>
> > >> I really don't care what atheists maintain. If anyone claims that
> > >> evolution has disproven the existiance of God, then they are mistaken.
> > >> Science cannot disprove God, and does not attempt to do so. Mined out
> > >> of
> > >> context quotes are not necessary.
> > >>
> > >
> > > The ***whole point*** of Darwinian evolution says God was not involved.
> >
> > That's where you are wrong. The whole point of "Darwinian evolution" is to
> > explain the physical evidence. God is not subject to physical evidence,
> > therefore science cannot say that God was not involved. All science can
> > tell is that there's no evidence of a supernatural being.
> >
>
> No Dana, the ***whole point*** of Darwinian evolution says life
> developed entirely by natural means - the God of Genesis had no hand in
> it whatsoever.
Ray, I keep pointing out how mistaken you are in repeating this.
"Darwinian" evolution does not say that God had no hand it whatsoever.
It doesn't say anything about God, or what he did or did not do.
> This is not a matter of opinion and insisting otherwise
> only casts yourself as dishonest.
Sigh. Ray, it does you no good to keep stating your opinion prefaced
by "it's not a matter of opinion". Your assertion that the purpose of
evolution is to deny God is a mistake on your part. No amount of
stamping your feet, and raising your voice will make it anything but.
>
> Naturalism CLAIMS neutrality towards the Divine, then it proceeds to
> offer all of its data as proof that the God of Genesis was not involved
> = deception = indigenous quality of Satan as revealed in the Bible.
Yet "naturalism" does not offer any "proof" that God was not involved.
How could it possibly offer "proof" of something that can't be proven
by physical evidence? The possibility that God was involved in the
process of Evolution can never be disproven. The only "deception" is
your own self delusion.
>
> Science minus the Naturalist axe has proven the Bible and its Creator.
You are describing something that does not exist. Science without
methological naturalism is completely worthless, and cannot provide any
answers. Therefore there is no "science minus the Naturalist axe".
But let's see what you have. What "proof" has "science minus
Naturalism" provided? Where in any legitamate scientific journal can
we find this "proof"?
> This is why we are Creationists because of the evidence.
Ray, the closest you get to the "evidence" is when you ignore it. You
try to define "textual" claims as better than physical evidence, and
you try to discount any physical evidence that contradicts your
beliefs. You don't accept creation because of the evidence, you cling
to it in spite of the evidence.
>
>
> > > This is what the age-old debate is about and if you deny then it is no
> > > suprise since TEists assert black is white (Genesis supports
> > > evolution).
> >
> > Ray, please. I have told you several times now that I do not claim that
> > Genesis supports evolution. No one claims that Genesis supports
> > evolution. You are misrepresenting my beliefs, and beliefs of others.
> > Genesis is irrelevant to the scientific theory of evolution.
> >
>
> You continually flip-flop.
Example please. I maintain I have *never* claimed that the Bible
supports evolution. Please cite a single time I have made that claim,
or even implied it.
> Genesis is the object of hate of the ToE not
> a matter of opinion.
Yes, Ray it is an opinion, and it's your un-educated opinion as well.
The object of Theistic Evolution is to reconcile one's religious faith
with the science of evolutionary theory. There is no hatred of
Genesis involved. One can recognize a religious writing as being
scientifically inaccurate, and still accept it as providing a deeper
truth. No conflict involved.
>
> > >
> > > Its hard to believe none of the evolutionists have called you on this
> > > nonsense,
> >
> > Because the other posters in here know I'm right.
> >
> > > but it is indicative of the evo way: fraud, deception, and
> > > other fine attributes.
> >
> > What "fraud" or "deception" are you alledging?
> >
>
> Feigning ingnorance = deliberate debate confusion. I will let it go and
> be satisfied knowing you had to pull this act.
Ray, this tells me you have nothing to offer. I called your bluff, and
you folded. You falsely accused me of fraud and deception. That's a
violation of the commandment against false witness.
>
> > > If a Creo advocated similar nonsense I wouldn't
> > > hesitate to rack him up. The fact that no evo has racked you up shows
> > > the lack of intergity and mechanism of brown nosing the T.O. machine
> > > runs by.
> >
> > The fact that no one has "racked me up" indicates that the others don't have
> > a problem with what I said. Science cannot, and does not disprove the
> > existance of God.
> >
>
> Science has proven God - only Darwinists assert otherwise and my
> article will show why they are ineligible to see it.
Ray, your "article" (if you ever finish the thing) will show only that
you are incapable of holding a coherent thought. You cannot provide
anything to support your claim of "Science has proven God". You are
truly an empty shell.
>
> Evolution says man's origin was from an animal.
Actually, Ray, it's the evidence that tells us that. Humans are still
animals, as far as that goes.
> The Bible says from
> God.
Actually, Ray, the Bible says we are from dirt. See Genesis 2:7
>The former is obscene urination on the latter and you are here
> acting like you have no idea what is being said.
Ray, why is humans being created by evolution an "obscene urination"?
Aren't animals creations of God as well? Do you think God made
animals unworthy of being our ancestors? I certianly don't see human
ancestory as being an insult to either humans or to God.
>
>
> > >
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> >> > and your rage feigns theism in order to vent your obvious hate.
> > >> >>
> > >> >> Again, Ray, who is demonstrating hate in this forum? It's not me.
> > >> >>
> > >> >> >You are
> > >> >> > the unfortunate product of brainwashing - a living proof of how
> > >> >> > Darwinists have succeeded with ordinary persons.
> > >> >>
> > >> >> Ad hominem yet again. Ray, can you possibly try another logical
> > >> >> fallacy,
> > >> >> this one is getting old.
> > >> >>
> > >> >
> > >> > I agree, then stop and I will too. It takes two to tango.
> > >>
> > >> Actually, it only takes one to sling ad hominem. I largely have
> > >> refrained
> > >> from doing so. You, on the other hand continue to toss them with
> > >> abandon.
> >
> > No answer to this Ray???
Still no answer???
snip
> >
> > Ray, look. I just stated above that the bible and science are not in
> > conflict. Now you are trying to claim I'm using "lawyer talk" to say that
> > they are. Are you unable to read, or just so blinded by your own hatred
> > that you can't see simple logic?
> >
> Good, then we agree the Bible and Science are not in conflict (flop).
Where did I ever "flop"? My position has always been that science and
the Bible are not in conflict.
>
>
snipp
> > Then why do you depend on YEC sources? Woodmorappe is a YEC, and his
> > buddies at AiG are YEC's.
> >
> >
> > DJT
>
> Why do you depend on atheist sources ?
I don't. I rely on scientific sources. Glen Morton, Kenneth Miller,
and many other scientists are not atheists.
> Harshman and company are radical
> atheists along with their buddies at T.O.
I don't agree with the religious statements of atheists, but I can't
fault their scientific information. Besides you define anyone who
disagrees with you as "atheist".
DJT
Ray Martinez
DJT wrote:
> Ray Martinez wrote:
> > Dana Tweedy wrote:
> > > "Ray Martinez" <pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > > news:1129771484....@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> > > >
> > > >>
> > > >> I really don't care what atheists maintain. If anyone claims that
> > > >> evolution has disproven the existiance of God, then they are mistaken.
> > > >> Science cannot disprove God, and does not attempt to do so. Mined out
> > > >> of
> > > >> context quotes are not necessary.
> > > >>
> > > >
> > > > The ***whole point*** of Darwinian evolution says God was not involved.
> > >
> > > That's where you are wrong. The whole point of "Darwinian evolution" is to
> > > explain the physical evidence. God is not subject to physical evidence,
> > > therefore science cannot say that God was not involved. All science can
> > > tell is that there's no evidence of a supernatural being.
> > >
> >
> > No Dana, the ***whole point*** of Darwinian evolution says life
> > developed entirely by natural means - the God of Genesis had no hand in
> > it whatsoever.
>
> Ray, I keep pointing out how mistaken you are in repeating this.
> "Darwinian" evolution does not say that God had no hand it whatsoever.
> It doesn't say anything about God, or what he did or did not do.
>
Its not a matter of opinion. At least the real Richard Dawkins (and all
atheists) are honest in this respect, they believe evolution disproves
Genesis and its Deity. Your TEist confusion only reflects your
wickedness.
> > This is not a matter of opinion and insisting otherwise
> > only casts yourself as dishonest.
>
> Sigh. Ray, it does you no good to keep stating your opinion prefaced
> by "it's not a matter of opinion". Your assertion that the purpose of
> evolution is to deny God is a mistake on your part. No amount of
> stamping your feet, and raising your voice will make it anything but.
>
Everyone knows what the debate is about, being a Darwinist makes you a
liar to start, so your lies about the main issue of the debate is of no
surpise. Denying it only shows the silent onlookers that their
suspicions are confirmed.
>
> >
> > Naturalism CLAIMS neutrality towards the Divine, then it proceeds to
> > offer all of its data as proof that the God of Genesis was not involved
> > = deception = indigenous quality of Satan as revealed in the Bible.
>
> Yet "naturalism" does not offer any "proof" that God was not involved.
> How could it possibly offer "proof" of something that can't be proven
> by physical evidence? The possibility that God was involved in the
> process of Evolution can never be disproven. The only "deception" is
> your own self delusion.
>
All you are doing is denying the nose on your face. I am comforted you
must resort to denying what is not in dispute.
> >
> > Science minus the Naturalist axe has proven the Bible and its Creator.
>
> You are describing something that does not exist. Science without
> methological naturalism is completely worthless, and cannot provide any
> answers. Therefore there is no "science minus the Naturalist axe".
> But let's see what you have. What "proof" has "science minus
> Naturalism" provided? Where in any legitamate scientific journal can
> we find this "proof"?
>
IOW, a legit journal must agree with your atheistic starting
assumptions or it is not legit - very objective standard. Naturalism,
under the pretext of Divine neutrality, operates with atheist
philosophy as its starting presuppositions to be FACT. This is Divine
exclusion and a foundation of lie. The only evidence we need is the
whole hearted population of Naturalism by atheists. Naturalism then
offers all their data as proof of the non-existence of the Divine. We
have zillions of quotes admitting this, but if we had none it is
obvious anyway if you have a brain are are not naieve.
> > This is why we are Creationists because of the evidence.
>
> Ray, the closest you get to the "evidence" is when you ignore it. You
> try to define "textual" claims as better than physical evidence, and
> you try to discount any physical evidence that contradicts your
> beliefs. You don't accept creation because of the evidence, you cling
> to it in spite of the evidence.
>
Predictable atheist philosophy.
> >
> >
> > > > This is what the age-old debate is about and if you deny then it is no
> > > > suprise since TEists assert black is white (Genesis supports
> > > > evolution).
> > >
> > > Ray, please. I have told you several times now that I do not claim that
> > > Genesis supports evolution. No one claims that Genesis supports
> > > evolution. You are misrepresenting my beliefs, and beliefs of others.
> > > Genesis is irrelevant to the scientific theory of evolution.
> > >
> >
> > You continually flip-flop.
>
No Dana, I only know what you argue. All TEists claim Genesis supports
evolution. Evolution claims Genesis is refuted - this is common
knowledge. Your brazen dishonesty is a testimony to your state of rant
by repeating this ***flat earth*** nonsense.
> Example please. I maintain I have *never* claimed that the Bible
> supports evolution. Please cite a single time I have made that claim,
> or even implied it.
>
I could show it in any of your posts, but then you will deny no matter
how clear. You are a dishonest person to the core. You rant against
anyone who disagrees with you and rely on lawyer rhetoric to weasel
out. There is nothing to gain from debating you. Clinton weaseled out
by suddenly re-defining "is" = you to a tee.
> > Genesis is the object of hate of the ToE not
> > a matter of opinion.
>
> Yes, Ray it is an opinion, and it's your un-educated opinion as well.
> The object of Theistic Evolution is to reconcile one's religious faith
> with the science of evolutionary theory. There is no hatred of
> Genesis involved. One can recognize a religious writing as being
> scientifically inaccurate, and still accept it as providing a deeper
> truth. No conflict involved.
>
Here is your flip flop/lie. You asked above where you claimed the Bible
supports evolution and here it is - now ***explain**** how your plain
intent is my imagination ? You are confused - brainwashed by atheism,
ever striving for their approval, enraged with the Bible. If you really
knew God you would not believe in evolution because the Bible strongly
and plainly condemns evolution. Asserting contrary proves the Biblical
reality of Satan.
Dana, you are as you argue - an atheist Darwinist attempting to destroy
the Bible by claiming contrapositions are not = false on its face.
You are suffering the penalty from God - perfect example. Darwin was
the first TEist and I will show how a plain literal reading of the
Bible corresponds with reality 2000 years after it was written =
supernatural miracle proving God's existence and the penalty of
Naturalism - the manifested wrath of God where He puts His enemies - a
place where they will never run into Him again.
>
> >
> > > >
> > > > Its hard to believe none of the evolutionists have called you on this
> > > > nonsense,
> > >
> > > Because the other posters in here know I'm right.
> > >
> > > > but it is indicative of the evo way: fraud, deception, and
> > > > other fine attributes.
> > >
> > > What "fraud" or "deception" are you alledging?
> > >
> >
> > Feigning ingnorance = deliberate debate confusion. I will let it go and
> > be satisfied knowing you had to pull this act.
>
> Ray, this tells me you have nothing to offer. I called your bluff, and
> you folded. You falsely accused me of fraud and deception. That's a
> violation of the commandment against false witness.
>
Acting like you don't know = inability to admit or counter the truth.
> >
> > > > If a Creo advocated similar nonsense I wouldn't
> > > > hesitate to rack him up. The fact that no evo has racked you up shows
> > > > the lack of intergity and mechanism of brown nosing the T.O. machine
> > > > runs by.
> > >
> > > The fact that no one has "racked me up" indicates that the others don't have
> > > a problem with what I said. Science cannot, and does not disprove the
> > > existance of God.
> > >
> >
> > Science has proven God - only Darwinists assert otherwise and my
> > article will show why they are ineligible to see it.
>
> Ray, your "article" (if you ever finish the thing) will show only that
> you are incapable of holding a coherent thought. You cannot provide
> anything to support your claim of "Science has proven God". You are
> truly an empty shell.
>
An alleged ***believer*** saying his God does not exist. Your words
through-out this post give mirror image to the Biblical attributes
assigned to Satan: confusion, deception, lies.
The evo way = imply crazyness = old as the N.T. and the tactic of the
Pharisees controlled by Satan. This card is relied upon when you cannot
refute the truth. If you a Darwinist think I am not coherent then this
is an endorsement of it. No coherent person is dumb enough to believe
man evolved from an ape ancestor unless of course atheistic hate and
philosophy is boiling underneath.
> >
> > Evolution says man's origin was from an animal.
>
> Actually, Ray, it's the evidence that tells us that. Humans are still
> animals, as far as that goes.
>
> > The Bible says from
> > God.
>
> Actually, Ray, the Bible says we are from dirt. See Genesis 2:7
>
Deliberate nonsense. You obviously do not care what anyone thinks of
you.
This is where you expose yourself as dishonest. Genesis says outright
God created Adam. Here is TEist way of changing/corrupting Genesis.
Genesis 3:1 says, the truth derived, anyone who quotes God while
changing what He said or denying that He said it (first question mark
in the Bible) = voice of serpent/Satan = all you do.
> >The former is obscene urination on the latter and you are here
> > acting like you have no idea what is being said.
>
> Ray, why is humans being created by evolution an "obscene urination"?
> Aren't animals creations of God as well? Do you think God made
> animals unworthy of being our ancestors? I certianly don't see human
> ancestory as being an insult to either humans or to God.
>
Extreme lawyer rhetoric = Satan.
Atheists Dana, atheists who happen to own collars/crosses. Please wake
up.
>
> > Harshman and company are radical
> > atheists along with their buddies at T.O.
>
> I don't agree with the religious statements of atheists, but I can't
> fault their scientific information. Besides you define anyone who
> disagrees with you as "atheist".
>
>
> DJT
No, I point out when atheist philosophy is used to dismiss evidence.
This fact infuriates you to no end. Maybe I will give you a break and
ignore you for a while and let your ***fatal attraction*** fester.
Ray
Ken Rode
> DJT wrote:
>
>>>No Dana, the ***whole point*** of Darwinian evolution says life
>>>developed entirely by natural means - the God of Genesis had no hand in
>>>it whatsoever.
>>
>>Ray, I keep pointing out how mistaken you are in repeating this.
>>"Darwinian" evolution does not say that God had no hand it whatsoever.
>>It doesn't say anything about God, or what he did or did not do.
>>
>
>
> Its not a matter of opinion. At least the real Richard Dawkins (and all
> atheists) are honest in this respect, they believe evolution disproves
> Genesis and its Deity. Your TEist confusion only reflects your
> wickedness.
I consider myself an atheist, and I don't believe that evolution
disproves Genesis. I believe that the lack of evidence for many (if not
most or even all) of the events and people described in Genesis fail to
support the accuracy of the Genesis account. In my understanding,
Genesis falls of its own accord: it doesn't require help from anything
else.
What you've done, Ray, is to set up a dichotomy in which, between
Genesis and evolution, precisely one must be true and precisely one must
be false. No such dichotomy exists in this case: there are other
possibilities. Disproving evolution isn't sufficient for proving Genesis
correct; you must support Genesis on its own merits.
It's basic science, Ray. If you say that Genesis is scientifically
accurate, you show that to be the case objectively.
<snip>
DJT
snipping deadwood.
> > Ray, I keep pointing out how mistaken you are in repeating this.
> > "Darwinian" evolution does not say that God had no hand it whatsoever.
> > It doesn't say anything about God, or what he did or did not do.
> >
>
> Its not a matter of opinion.
Which in Ray's vocabulary means it's entirely a matter of his opinion.
> At least the real Richard Dawkins (and all
> atheists) are honest in this respect, they believe evolution disproves
> Genesis and its Deity. Your TEist confusion only reflects your
> wickedness.
As I need to keep reminding you, I'm not an atheist. It doesn't
matter to me whatever Dawkins says about his religious position. The
simple fact is that science does not disprove God. It shows the book
of Genesis to be scientifically inaccurate, but that does not mean that
the deity does not exist. Your are simply restating your own mistaken
opinion as if it were fact.
>
>
> > > This is not a matter of opinion and insisting otherwise
> > > only casts yourself as dishonest.
> >
> > Sigh. Ray, it does you no good to keep stating your opinion prefaced
> > by "it's not a matter of opinion". Your assertion that the purpose of
> > evolution is to deny God is a mistake on your part. No amount of
> > stamping your feet, and raising your voice will make it anything but.
> >
>
> Everyone knows what the debate is about,
Now you speak for "everyone"? The debate is about keeping
unscientific beliefs out of public school science classes.
> being a Darwinist makes you a
> liar to start,
How does accepting the science of evolution make me a liar?
Remember, Ray, it's you who got caught fibbing about your knowlege of
Greek, not me.
> so your lies about the main issue of the debate is of no
> surpise. Denying it only shows the silent onlookers that their
> suspicions are confirmed.
Any of those "silent" onlookers are welcome to express their thoughts.
I suspect that you are coming off much worse than I in the eyes of the
lurkers. I'm sure they notice that you are employing ad hominem,
rather than addressing the issue.
>
>
> >
> > >
> > > Naturalism CLAIMS neutrality towards the Divine, then it proceeds to
> > > offer all of its data as proof that the God of Genesis was not involved
> > > = deception = indigenous quality of Satan as revealed in the Bible.
> >
> > Yet "naturalism" does not offer any "proof" that God was not involved.
> > How could it possibly offer "proof" of something that can't be proven
> > by physical evidence? The possibility that God was involved in the
> > process of Evolution can never be disproven. The only "deception" is
> > your own self delusion.
> >
>
> All you are doing is denying the nose on your face.
I am denying your false assertions. If you feel you can support your
claims, please do so.
>I am comforted you
> must resort to denying what is not in dispute.
Despite your words, you don't appear to be "comforted" at all.
Perhaps that's because you don't address the issues.
>
> > >
> > > Science minus the Naturalist axe has proven the Bible and its Creator.
> >
> > You are describing something that does not exist. Science without
> > methological naturalism is completely worthless, and cannot provide any
> > answers. Therefore there is no "science minus the Naturalist axe".
> > But let's see what you have. What "proof" has "science minus
> > Naturalism" provided? Where in any legitamate scientific journal can
> > we find this "proof"?
> >
>
> IOW, a legit journal must agree with your atheistic starting
> assumptions or it is not legit
Your assertion was that "Science minus the Naturalist axe" has proven
the existance of God. I'm asking you to provide support for your
assertion. Where can we find this kind of "science"? Real science
publishes it's debates in legitamate journals. Where can we find your
brand? Note please that "Naturalism" is not "atheism". Naturalism
is the practical method which ignores the possibility of the
supernatural. Atheism is a denial that the supernatural exists.
> - very objective standard. Naturalism,
> under the pretext of Divine neutrality, operates with atheist
> philosophy as its starting presuppositions to be FACT.
Obviously that's not true. Naturalism does not claim that there is no
God. It ignores any supernatual being, or beings as causal agents.
It does not say they don't exist.
> This is Divine
> exclusion and a foundation of lie.
What "lie"? Excluding the possible action of a supernatual being is
not denying that the being exists. Science is unable to study the
supernatural, so it ignores supernatural influences.
> The only evidence we need is the
> whole hearted population of Naturalism by atheists.
What about the whole hearted population of theists in science as well?
You seem to deny they exist.
> Naturalism then
> offers all their data as proof of the non-existence of the Divine.
Naturalism cannot offer proof of the non-existance of the Divine. You
can't prove something that cannot be seen, heard, or felt does not
exist. It's impossible to use naturalism to disprove God. Anyone
who thinks they can is fooling themselves. What's worse, is you seem
to be agreeing with these atheists. You seem to think that not only
can God be disproven, that God is in danger of BEING disproven. To me
there is nothing that can possibly disprove God's existance. I know
God exists. I don't need "proof".
> We
> have zillions of quotes admitting this, but if we had none it is
> obvious anyway if you have a brain are are not naieve.
You have several out of context quotations Creationists repeat without
ever consulting the original sources. If it were "obvious" you
woldn't need the mined quotations, and you wouldn't be working so hard
to insult me.
>
>
> > > This is why we are Creationists because of the evidence.
> >
> > Ray, the closest you get to the "evidence" is when you ignore it. You
> > try to define "textual" claims as better than physical evidence, and
> > you try to discount any physical evidence that contradicts your
> > beliefs. You don't accept creation because of the evidence, you cling
> > to it in spite of the evidence.
> >
>
> Predictable atheist philosophy.
Predictable ad hominem. But as I've pointed out many times, I'm not
atheist. You can't dispute my words, so you have to compartmentalize
them by callling me "atheist".
>
>
>
> > >
> > >
> > > > > This is what the age-old debate is about and if you deny then it is no
> > > > > suprise since TEists assert black is white (Genesis supports
> > > > > evolution).
> > > >
> > > > Ray, please. I have told you several times now that I do not claim that
> > > > Genesis supports evolution. No one claims that Genesis supports
> > > > evolution. You are misrepresenting my beliefs, and beliefs of others.
> > > > Genesis is irrelevant to the scientific theory of evolution.
> > > >
> > >
> > > You continually flip-flop.
> >
>
> No Dana, I only know what you argue.
Ray, what are you replying to here? I do not flip flop, and I've
maintained the same position all along.
> All TEists claim Genesis supports
> evolution.
No, Ray. As I've stated many times now, I do not claim Genesis
supports evolution. Evolution is supported by physical evidence. The
Bible is not physical evidence. It's irrelevant to the scientific
theory of evolution. My position is that the scientific theory of
evolution and the Bible are not in conflict.
> Evolution claims Genesis is refuted - this is common
> knowledge.
It's a common falsehood. Evolution does not say Genesis is refuted,
it says that a literal reading of Genesis is not scientifcally
accurate. Conflict only arises when you insist that the Bible be read
as a scientific text.
> Your brazen dishonesty is a testimony to your state of rant
> by repeating this ***flat earth*** nonsense.
<Boggle> Ray, you are supporting Creationism, and accusing *me* of
"flat earth nonsense"???
>
>
> > Example please. I maintain I have *never* claimed that the Bible
> > supports evolution. Please cite a single time I have made that claim,
> > or even implied it.
> >
>
> I could show it in any of your posts, but then you will deny no matter
> how clear.
Ray, this dodge is very disappointing, but not unexpected. You make a
claim but refuse to support it. How utterly typical.
> You are a dishonest person to the core.
Ray, remember, I'm not the one who was caught lying about the ability
to read Greek.
> You rant against
> anyone who disagrees with you and rely on lawyer rhetoric to weasel
> out.
There are quite a few people I disagree with, and I don't rant at
anyone. That you can't refute anything I write is no reason to call
it "lawyer rhetoric".
> There is nothing to gain from debating you. Clinton weaseled out
> by suddenly re-defining "is" = you to a tee.
Ray, you again seem to be accusing me of what you are yourself guilty
of. I'm not changing definitions, I'm not using fancy rhetoric, I'm
not lying to you. I'm telling you the truth, and you are acting as if
I'm hurting you.
>
>
> > > Genesis is the object of hate of the ToE not
> > > a matter of opinion.
> >
> > Yes, Ray it is an opinion, and it's your un-educated opinion as well.
> > The object of Theistic Evolution is to reconcile one's religious faith
> > with the science of evolutionary theory. There is no hatred of
> > Genesis involved. One can recognize a religious writing as being
> > scientifically inaccurate, and still accept it as providing a deeper
> > truth. No conflict involved.
> >
>
> Here is your flip flop/lie. You asked above where you claimed the Bible
> supports evolution and here it is - now ***explain**** how your plain
> intent is my imagination ?
Ray, look at what I wrote. Did I say *anywhere* that the Bible
supports evolution? Did I say that one must hate Genesis in order to
see it's not scientifically accurate? What "plain intent" do you see
here? My plain intent is to point out how I reconcile my religious
faith with scientific knowlege. Unless you can point out specific
examples, I have no idea what you are complaining about.
> You are confused - brainwashed by atheism,
If I'm the one confused and "brainwashed", why is it that you can't
point out where I'm "confused"?
> ever striving for their approval,
As I've stated many times now, I don't care for the approval of anyone.
I do this for myself.
> enraged with the Bible.
Yet, I'm not enraged at the Bible. I accept the Bible, and beleive in
it's teachings. I just don't treat it as a science text.
> If you really
> knew God you would not believe in evolution because the Bible strongly
> and plainly condemns evolution.
Chapter and verse, please. The Bible does not mention evolution, as
it was discovered thousands of years after the Bible was written down.
> Asserting contrary proves the Biblical
> reality of Satan.
Are you really claiming that if I point out that you are wrong, it
proves "Satan"? Amazing, Ray, your ego is working overtime here.
>
> Dana, you are as you argue - an atheist Darwinist attempting to destroy
> the Bible by claiming contrapositions are not = false on its face.
Interesting assertion, but the reality is that I'm a devout Christian
who accepts evolutionary science. You are driven to attack me
personally, because you can't refute anything that I have been telling
you. As you said, Ad hom =inablity to refute.
>
> You are suffering the penalty from God - perfect example.
Ray, there is no "penalty from God" for using one's intellect. Your
claims of such are based on a mis-translation and personal anger.
> Darwin was
> the first TEist
Actually, there were many people before Darwin who were both religious
and recognized that life changes. It was Darwin who found the
mechanism by which that change occurs.
> and I will show how a plain literal reading of the
> Bible corresponds with reality 2000 years after it was written
Are you meaning your mistaken translation of Romans, where you
mis-translate the Greek "corruptable man" as "Dead anthropon"? The
one where you mistakenly assert that birds are said to be human
ancestors?
=
> supernatural miracle proving God's existence and the penalty of
> Naturalism
This "supernatural miracle" is based on a mistranslation, and your
personal ignorance of evolutionary theory. That makes it rather less
of a "miracle" and more of a mirage.
> - the manifested wrath of God where He puts His enemies - a
> place where they will never run into Him again.
So your mistranslation is followed by bad theology. When is this
"article" supposed to be coming out again? It sounds like a real
howler.
>
>
> >
> > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Its hard to believe none of the evolutionists have called you on this
> > > > > nonsense,
> > > >
> > > > Because the other posters in here know I'm right.
> > > >
> > > > > but it is indicative of the evo way: fraud, deception, and
> > > > > other fine attributes.
> > > >
> > > > What "fraud" or "deception" are you alledging?
> > > >
> > >
> > > Feigning ingnorance = deliberate debate confusion. I will let it go and
> > > be satisfied knowing you had to pull this act.
> >
> > Ray, this tells me you have nothing to offer. I called your bluff, and
> > you folded. You falsely accused me of fraud and deception. That's a
> > violation of the commandment against false witness.
> >
>
> Acting like you don't know = inability to admit or counter the truth.
I can't "know" unless you tell me. I am not aware of any fraud or
deception that I'm party to. Either provide an example, or admit you
are just throwing insults. A violation of the 10 commandments is not
something to take lightly.
>
> > >
> > > > > If a Creo advocated similar nonsense I wouldn't
> > > > > hesitate to rack him up. The fact that no evo has racked you up shows
> > > > > the lack of intergity and mechanism of brown nosing the T.O. machine
> > > > > runs by.
> > > >
> > > > The fact that no one has "racked me up" indicates that the others don't have
> > > > a problem with what I said. Science cannot, and does not disprove the
> > > > existance of God.
> > > >
> > >
> > > Science has proven God - only Darwinists assert otherwise and my
> > > article will show why they are ineligible to see it.
> >
> > Ray, your "article" (if you ever finish the thing) will show only that
> > you are incapable of holding a coherent thought. You cannot provide
> > anything to support your claim of "Science has proven God". You are
> > truly an empty shell.
> >
>
> An alleged ***believer*** saying his God does not exist.
How do you get me saying "God does not exist" out of the above? God
does not require "proof" to exist, nor does anyone with faith require
proof.
> Your words
> through-out this post give mirror image to the Biblical attributes
> assigned to Satan: confusion, deception, lies.
Ray, the only one here with confusion, deception and lies is yourself.
You have falsely accused me of several crimes, with no evidence, and
no reason. When asked for examples, you refused to provide them. You
have, apparently delilberately, mis-stated my opinions and my beliefs.
Show some self respect.
>
> The evo way = imply crazyness = old as the N.T. and the tactic of the
> Pharisees controlled by Satan.
Ray, I stated that you have shown you can't complete a coherent
thought. You are the one who's calling names here.
> This card is relied upon when you cannot
> refute the truth.
What 'truth' are you referring to? When has the truth been important
to you?
> If you a Darwinist think I am not coherent then this
> is an endorsement of it. No coherent person is dumb enough to believe
> man evolved from an ape ancestor unless of course atheistic hate and
> philosophy is boiling underneath.
Ray, the physical evidence plainly indicates that human beings are
close relatives of other apes. To deny this is mere foolishness. One
does not require either atheism, or hatred to understand this evidence.
Many religious persons, myself included have no problem with
reconciling our religious faith with this scientific evidence. Your
claims are false, and repeating them just leads you deeper into
falsehood.
>
>
>
> > >
> > > Evolution says man's origin was from an animal.
> >
> > Actually, Ray, it's the evidence that tells us that. Humans are still
> > animals, as far as that goes.
> >
> > > The Bible says from
> > > God.
> >
> > Actually, Ray, the Bible says we are from dirt. See Genesis 2:7
> >
>
> Deliberate nonsense. You obviously do not care what anyone thinks of
> you.
Earlier you claimed I was "seeking approval". Also, why do you call
scripture "deliberate nonsense"? Look at the Verse Ray. What does it
say about what humans were formed from?
>
> This is where you expose yourself as dishonest.
Why? The verse supports exactly what I said.
> Genesis says outright
> God created Adam.
Read the verse, Ray. What does it say?
"Then the Lord God formed the man out of the dust from the ground and
breathed the breath of life into his nostrils, and the man became a
living being."
The Bible plainly states that humans were made from the "dust of the
ground".
> Here is TEist way of changing/corrupting Genesis.
Here is a devout Christian quoting scripture exactly as written. See
Ray call scripture "nonsense"
>
> Genesis 3:1 says, the truth derived, anyone who quotes God while
> changing what He said or denying that He said it (first question mark
> in the Bible) = voice of serpent/Satan = all you do.
Here is the text of Genesis 3:1
Now the serpent was the most cunning of all the wild animals that the
Lord God had made. He said to the woman, "Did God really say, 'You
can't eat from any tree in the garden '?"
A "plain reading" of the text does not support your claim. Also, as
I noted, I did not change anything in my reference, or deny that God
said it.
>
>
> > >The former is obscene urination on the latter and you are here
> > > acting like you have no idea what is being said.
> >
> > Ray, why is humans being created by evolution an "obscene urination"?
> > Aren't animals creations of God as well? Do you think God made
> > animals unworthy of being our ancestors? I certianly don't see human
> > ancestory as being an insult to either humans or to God.
> >
>
> Extreme lawyer rhetoric = Satan.
Ad hom = inablity to refute. Answer the questions, Ray.
>> >
> > > > >> >> > and your rage feigns theism in order to vent your obvious hate.
> > > > >> >>
> > > > >> >> Again, Ray, who is demonstrating hate in this forum? It's not me.
> > > > >> >>
> > > > >> >> >You are
> > > > >> >> > the unfortunate product of brainwashing - a living proof of how
> > > > >> >> > Darwinists have succeeded with ordinary persons.
> > > > >> >>
> > > > >> >> Ad hominem yet again. Ray, can you possibly try another logical
> > > > >> >> fallacy,
> > > > >> >> this one is getting old.
> > > > >> >>
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> > I agree, then stop and I will too. It takes two to tango.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> Actually, it only takes one to sling ad hominem. I largely have
> > > > >> refrained
> > > > >> from doing so. You, on the other hand continue to toss them with
> > > > >> abandon.
> > > >
> > > > No answer to this Ray???
> >
> > Still no answer???
And still no answer.
> >
> >
> > snip
> > > >
> > > > Ray, look. I just stated above that the bible and science are not in
> > > > conflict. Now you are trying to claim I'm using "lawyer talk" to say that
> > > > they are. Are you unable to read, or just so blinded by your own hatred
> > > > that you can't see simple logic?
> > > >
> > > Good, then we agree the Bible and Science are not in conflict (flop).
> >
> > Where did I ever "flop"? My position has always been that science and
> > the Bible are not in conflict.
> >
> >
> > >
> > >
> > snipp
> >
> > > > Then why do you depend on YEC sources? Woodmorappe is a YEC, and his
> > > > buddies at AiG are YEC's.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > DJT
> > >
> > > Why do you depend on atheist sources ?
> >
> > I don't. I rely on scientific sources. Glen Morton, Kenneth Miller,
> > and many other scientists are not atheists.
> >
>
> Atheists Dana, atheists who happen to own collars/crosses. Please wake
> up.
Ray, I don't accept your circular reasoning for why these Christians
above are "atheists". You are wrong about me being an atheist, and you
are wrong about them as well.
>
> >
> > > Harshman and company are radical
> > > atheists along with their buddies at T.O.
> >
> > I don't agree with the religious statements of atheists, but I can't
> > fault their scientific information. Besides you define anyone who
> > disagrees with you as "atheist".
> >
> >
> > DJT
>
> No, I point out when atheist philosophy is used to dismiss evidence.
Ray, you ignore evidence that doesn't fit your beliefs, then expect the
rest of us to take unsupported "textual" evidence without
corraboration. You define anyone who doesn't agree with your narrow,
and frankly flawed interpetations as "atheist".
>
> This fact infuriates you to no end.
Not really, it amuses me more than anything. It's like watching
toddler trying to lie his way out of trouble.
> Maybe I will give you a break and
> ignore you for a while and let your ***fatal attraction*** fester.
Do what you like, it doesn't matter to me. As long as you keep posting
scientific and scriptual errors, I'll keep responding. You can't stop
me from replying, and I know your ego won't let you "ignore" me for
very long.
DJT
ps. I'm not obsessed with you. Depsite your fantasies, I don't swing
that way.
Ray Martinez
DJT wrote:
> Ray Martinez wrote:
> snipping deadwood.
>
> > > Ray, I keep pointing out how mistaken you are in repeating this.
> > > "Darwinian" evolution does not say that God had no hand it whatsoever.
> > > It doesn't say anything about God, or what he did or did not do.
> > >
> >
> > Its not a matter of opinion.
>
> Which in Ray's vocabulary means it's entirely a matter of his opinion.
>
>
> > At least the real Richard Dawkins (and all
> > atheists) are honest in this respect, they believe evolution disproves
> > Genesis and its Deity. Your TEist confusion only reflects your
> > wickedness.
>
> As I need to keep reminding you, I'm not an atheist.
Your claim is negated by your Darwinism. Anyone can claim to be
anything as you do. You actually are as you argue. You Dana Tweedy
argue the atheist creation myth and hide behind a cross. If it is not
premeditated then you are schizophrenic. I call them as I see them as
they say in baseball.
> It doesn't
> matter to me whatever Dawkins says about his religious position. The
> simple fact is that science does not disprove God. It shows the book
> of Genesis to be scientifically inaccurate, but that does not mean that
> the deity does not exist. Your are simply restating your own mistaken
> opinion as if it were fact.
>
No true believer would say that about Genesis. All facts produced by
science, history, and archaeology confirm Genesis. This is why I
observe you to be an atheist. Denying it, unfortunately, makes you
dishonest and perfectly fulfills the stereotype that atheists suffer.
> >
> >
> > > > This is not a matter of opinion and insisting otherwise
> > > > only casts yourself as dishonest.
> > >
> > > Sigh. Ray, it does you no good to keep stating your opinion prefaced
> > > by "it's not a matter of opinion". Your assertion that the purpose of
> > > evolution is to deny God is a mistake on your part. No amount of
> > > stamping your feet, and raising your voice will make it anything but.
> > >
> >
> > Everyone knows what the debate is about,
>
> Now you speak for "everyone"? The debate is about keeping
> unscientific beliefs out of public school science classes.
>
Atheist agenda pushed under the pretext of science. Romans perfectly
explains the success of this agenda to be implemented by "christians"
like yourself who are suffering the wrath of God. The fact that you
think no such penalty exists is evidence of the penalty because
logically no one under its delusion could acknowledge its existence.
You will have to wait to read my article.
> > being a Darwinist makes you a
> > liar to start,
>
> How does accepting the science of evolution make me a liar?
> Remember, Ray, it's you who got caught fibbing about your knowlege of
> Greek, not me.
>
It first takes sense and Darwinism requires that be thrown away
immediately. Lewontin: "no matter how counter intuitive...." IOW, no
mattter how much nonsense it takes - we must lest Genesis is seen as
true = your "science" is atheist religion and green lighted for fraud
because the ends justifies the means. This you know very well Dana.
> > so your lies about the main issue of the debate is of no
> > surpise. Denying it only shows the silent onlookers that their
> > suspicions are confirmed.
>
>
> Any of those "silent" onlookers are welcome to express their thoughts.
> I suspect that you are coming off much worse than I in the eyes of the
> lurkers. I'm sure they notice that you are employing ad hominem,
> rather than addressing the issue.
>
> >
> >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > Naturalism CLAIMS neutrality towards the Divine, then it proceeds to
> > > > offer all of its data as proof that the God of Genesis was not involved
> > > > = deception = indigenous quality of Satan as revealed in the Bible.
> > >
> > > Yet "naturalism" does not offer any "proof" that God was not involved.
> > > How could it possibly offer "proof" of something that can't be proven
> > > by physical evidence? The possibility that God was involved in the
> > > process of Evolution can never be disproven. The only "deception" is
> > > your own self delusion.
> > >
If a Darwinist thinks I am deluded then I am confirmned just the
opposite. Believing man evolved from an ape and throwing delusion
stones around is breathtaking Dana.
Only atheists believe God cannot be proven with evidence, did you
forget that you are a "christian" ? Romans 1:20 says His invisible
Person is understood by visible reality. This is the basic way the
Creator is deduced. Having to explain these Sunday School concepts to a
"mature christian" like yourself betrays your atheism. You should come
out of the closet Dana, the atheists already accept you, but they will
lose what they need - a "theist" to rape Genesis for them.
> >
> > All you are doing is denying the nose on your face.
>
> I am denying your false assertions. If you feel you can support your
> claims, please do so.
>
>
> >I am comforted you
> > must resort to denying what is not in dispute.
>
> Despite your words, you don't appear to be "comforted" at all.
> Perhaps that's because you don't address the issues.
>
> >
> > > >
> > > > Science minus the Naturalist axe has proven the Bible and its Creator.
> > >
> > > You are describing something that does not exist. Science without
> > > methological naturalism is completely worthless, and cannot provide any
> > > answers. Therefore there is no "science minus the Naturalist axe".
> > > But let's see what you have. What "proof" has "science minus
> > > Naturalism" provided? Where in any legitamate scientific journal can
> > > we find this "proof"?
Looks like I hit a nerve. Dana, you certainly believe this. My only
observation is that it is atheist philosophy. Theists don't think we
are right - we KNOW we are right, that is the physical world reflects
the claims of Genesis face value. The Bible goes on to explain anyone
who cannot see this has been blinded by God for denying Him Creator
status. Produce any fact Dana - any and I can fit into our model with
no contortion unlike your prerequisite of having to circumcise your
intuition first.
> > >
> >
> > IOW, a legit journal must agree with your atheistic starting
> > assumptions or it is not legit
>
> Your assertion was that "Science minus the Naturalist axe" has proven
> the existance of God. I'm asking you to provide support for your
> assertion. Where can we find this kind of "science"? Real science
> publishes it's debates in legitamate journals. Where can we find your
> brand? Note please that "Naturalism" is not "atheism". Naturalism
> is the practical method which ignores the possibility of the
> supernatural. Atheism is a denial that the supernatural exists.
>
Atheism and Naturalism are synonyms Dana, would you like me to feign
ignorance and become like you ?
Individuals claiming theism in this scenario do not affect the truth.
They only prove, like Hitler, that anyone can claim to be a theist.
Real science Dana, does not restrict its possibilities via obvious
atheistic ulterior motives. Why do I have to explain this to a
"christian" like yourself ?
Ray
Dana Tweedy
snipping
>>
>> As I need to keep reminding you, I'm not an atheist.
>
>
> Your claim is negated by your Darwinism.
Accepting the science of evolution does not mean I'm atheist. This has been
pointed out to you many times now.
> Anyone can claim to be
> anything as you do. You actually are as you argue.
I "argue" that the science of evolution and the religion of the Bible are
not in conflict. How is that "atheist"? I have never claimed that there
is no God, and and I've never supported that concept.
> You Dana Tweedy
> argue the atheist creation myth and hide behind a cross.
No, I argue a scientific theory, and hide behind nothing. I'm not hiding,
Ray, I'm right here.
> If it is not
> premeditated then you are schizophrenic. I call them as I see them as
> they say in baseball.
Your ability to "call them as I see them" is warped by your inablity to see
beyond your hatred and fear.
>> It doesn't
>> matter to me whatever Dawkins says about his religious position. The
>> simple fact is that science does not disprove God. It shows the book
>> of Genesis to be scientifically inaccurate, but that does not mean that
>> the deity does not exist. Your are simply restating your own mistaken
>> opinion as if it were fact.
>>
>
> No true believer would say that about Genesis.
Ah, the "No True Scotsman" fallacy makes it's appearance. Why do you get
to determine who is a "true believer"?
> All facts produced by
> science, history, and archaeology confirm Genesis.
Yet you can't provide any physical evidence that science, history, or
archeology (which is a branch of science) that confirms your cliams. All
you can cite is "textual" evidence, and badly misinterpeted bible verses.
> This is why I
> observe you to be an atheist.
Then you are wrong. I'm not an atheist.
> Denying it, unfortunately, makes you
> dishonest and perfectly fulfills the stereotype that atheists suffer.
First you assert, in spite of the evidence, that I'm an atheist, then claim
I fit some made up "stereotype" when I point out that you are wrong.
Again, your penchant for circular reasoning is on display.
>> > > > This is not a matter of opinion and insisting otherwise
>> > > > only casts yourself as dishonest.
>> > >
>> > > Sigh. Ray, it does you no good to keep stating your opinion
>> > > prefaced
>> > > by "it's not a matter of opinion". Your assertion that the purpose
>> > > of
>> > > evolution is to deny God is a mistake on your part. No amount of
>> > > stamping your feet, and raising your voice will make it anything but.
>> > >
>> >
>> > Everyone knows what the debate is about,
>>
>> Now you speak for "everyone"? The debate is about keeping
>> unscientific beliefs out of public school science classes.
>>
>
> Atheist agenda pushed under the pretext of science.
Yet you can't show any science that supports your own cliams. The vast
majority of scientists support evolution, and those include many deeply
religious persons. Your assertion that evolution is an "atheist agenda" is
false on it's face.
> Romans perfectly
> explains the success of this agenda to be implemented by "christians"
> like yourself who are suffering the wrath of God.
Your misinterpetation of Romans is of no consequence here. There is no
penalty from God on those who use their intellect. No matter how many
times you repeat this error, it does not become any more true.
> The fact that you
> think no such penalty exists is evidence of the penalty because
> logically no one under its delusion could acknowledge its existence.
Another good example of how your circular logic works. I believe that no
penalty exists, because there is no evidence of a penalty, and the Bible
does not say there is a penalty for using one's intellect. You claim it
does, and the "proof" of it's effect, is that people don't accept your
claim. Instead of "proving" the penalty, a denial is just that, a denial
of your claim.
> You will have to wait to read my article.
I don't know that I can wait that long. I'm only expecting to live another
30 to 40 years. But if your quality of argument so far is any indication,
your "article" won't be worth wating for.
>
>> > being a Darwinist makes you a
>> > liar to start,
>>
>> How does accepting the science of evolution make me a liar?
>> Remember, Ray, it's you who got caught fibbing about your knowlege of
>> Greek, not me.
>>
>
> It first takes sense and Darwinism requires that be thrown away
> immediately.
Why? Evolutionary science is based on an examination of the physical
evidence. How can that require "sense" to be thrown away?
> Lewontin: "no matter how counter intuitive...."
I've already shown that you are taking Lewontin out of context, and
misrepresented what he was saying.
> IOW, no
> mattter how much nonsense it takes - we must lest Genesis is seen as
> true
Lewontin did not say that. Genesis is not scientific evidnence, so it's
irrelevant if it's "true".
>= your "science" is atheist religion and green lighted for fraud
> because the ends justifies the means. This you know very well Dana.
What I know is that you must misrepresent in order to make this "work".
You charge fraud, but cannot show any fraud. That's a violation of the
commandment against false witness.
>
>
>> > so your lies about the main issue of the debate is of no
>> > surpise. Denying it only shows the silent onlookers that their
>> > suspicions are confirmed.
>>
>>
>> Any of those "silent" onlookers are welcome to express their thoughts.
>> I suspect that you are coming off much worse than I in the eyes of the
>> lurkers. I'm sure they notice that you are employing ad hominem,
>> rather than addressing the issue.
>>
>> >
>> >
>> > >
>> > > >
>> > > > Naturalism CLAIMS neutrality towards the Divine, then it proceeds
>> > > > to
>> > > > offer all of its data as proof that the God of Genesis was not
>> > > > involved
>> > > > = deception = indigenous quality of Satan as revealed in the Bible.
>> > >
>> > > Yet "naturalism" does not offer any "proof" that God was not
>> > > involved.
>> > > How could it possibly offer "proof" of something that can't be
>> > > proven
>> > > by physical evidence? The possibility that God was involved in the
>> > > process of Evolution can never be disproven. The only "deception"
>> > > is
>> > > your own self delusion.
>> > >
>
> If a Darwinist thinks I am deluded then I am confirmned just the
> opposite. Believing man evolved from an ape and throwing delusion
> stones around is breathtaking Dana.
Ray, the science that shows human evolution is solidly grounded in a myriad
of factual evidence. There is no delusion in accepting these facts. My
point was that your claims that "Naturalism" aims to disprove God is a
delusion. You have no evidence for this, and it's actually in flat denial
of the evidence to the contrary.
>
> Only atheists believe God cannot be proven with evidence,
No, Ray, it's a common theological position. God cannot be proven, or
disproven by physical evidence. Even Christ himself stated in John 4:24
"God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and
in truth."
Science does not deal in proof or disproof of spirits.
> did you
> forget that you are a "christian" ?
No, I have not. In fact I'm following Christ's words, as above.
> Romans 1:20 says His invisible
> Person is understood by visible reality.
Which does not mean that the spiritual nature of God is open to scientific
investigation.
> This is the basic way the
> Creator is deduced. Having to explain these Sunday School concepts to a
> "mature christian" like yourself betrays your atheism.
Actually, it betrays your lack of understaning of both religion and science.
Science deals with physical evidence. God is not a physical being. There
can be no scientific evidence, for or against God.
> You should come
> out of the closet Dana, the atheists already accept you, but they will
> lose what they need - a "theist" to rape Genesis for them.
Ray, your obsession with violent sexual imagery is disturbing. I have no
need to "come out of the closet", as I'm confidently stating my beliefs. I
have no need for the approval of atheists, or "acceptance" by them.
Understanding that Genesis is not a scientific document is not a "rape".
>
>> >
>> > All you are doing is denying the nose on your face.
>>
>> I am denying your false assertions. If you feel you can support your
>> claims, please do so.
>>
>>
>> >I am comforted you
>> > must resort to denying what is not in dispute.
>>
>> Despite your words, you don't appear to be "comforted" at all.
>> Perhaps that's because you don't address the issues.
>>
>> >
>> > > >
>> > > > Science minus the Naturalist axe has proven the Bible and its
>> > > > Creator.
>> > >
>> > > You are describing something that does not exist. Science without
>> > > methological naturalism is completely worthless, and cannot provide
>> > > any
>> > > answers. Therefore there is no "science minus the Naturalist axe".
>> > > But let's see what you have. What "proof" has "science minus
>> > > Naturalism" provided? Where in any legitamate scientific journal
>> > > can
>> > > we find this "proof"?
>
> Looks like I hit a nerve
Where? I asked you to provide evidence, and you did not. How does this
indicate you hitting a "nerve"?
.> Dana, you certainly believe this. My only
> observation is that it is atheist philosophy.
Your "observation" is false. Science is not an atheist philosophy.
> Theists don't think we
> are right - we KNOW we are right, that is the physical world reflects
> the claims of Genesis face value.
Perhaps that's the problem. You "KNOW" what you want to believe, and refuse
to accept anything that contradicts your belief. Science does not claim to
"know" everything. The physical evidence certianly does not match the
Genesis narrative, and there's no reason why it should. It's not a
scientific work, and to use it as such is a misapplication of the text.
> The Bible goes on to explain anyone
> who cannot see this has been blinded by God for denying Him Creator
> status.
And as I've pointed out many times, that's a misinterpetation of the Bible.
God does not "blind" people who are only trying to use their God given
intellect. Nor does evolution pretend to deny God credit for creation.
Your assertions are simply wrong.
> Produce any fact Dana - any and I can fit into our model with
> no contortion unlike your prerequisite of having to circumcise your
> intuition first.
There's your problem. You "fit" facts to match your "model". Science on
the other hand changes it's model to fit the facts.
>> > >
>> >
>> > IOW, a legit journal must agree with your atheistic starting
>> > assumptions or it is not legit
>>
>> Your assertion was that "Science minus the Naturalist axe" has proven
>> the existance of God. I'm asking you to provide support for your
>> assertion. Where can we find this kind of "science"? Real science
>> publishes it's debates in legitamate journals. Where can we find your
>> brand? Note please that "Naturalism" is not "atheism". Naturalism
>> is the practical method which ignores the possibility of the
>> supernatural. Atheism is a denial that the supernatural exists.
>>
>
> Atheism and Naturalism are synonyms Dana,
No, Ray, they are not. I showed above why they are not.
> would you like me to feign
> ignorance and become like you ?
I take it you'd prefer to remain genuinely ignorant?
>
> Individuals claiming theism in this scenario do not affect the truth.
Individuals who are theists and accept evolution are speaking the truth.
You may not like that truth, but it's there nonetheless.
> They only prove, like Hitler, that anyone can claim to be a theist.
Ray, you claim to be a theist, yet your actions speak louder than your
words.
> Real science Dana, does not restrict its possibilities via obvious
> atheistic ulterior motives.
You don't know what "real science" is. You seem to imagine that science
evaluates ideas without any kind of standards. The supernatural is beyond
the ability of science to confirm of deny. Therefore it's excluded from
consideration. This is not atheism, but a practical method of
investigation.
> Why do I have to explain this to a
> "christian" like yourself ?
Because, unlike you, I know something about both science and religion.
DJT
Bob
wrote:
>
>Bob wrote:
>> On 16 Oct 2005 15:17:08 -0700, "Ray Martinez" <pyram...@yahoo.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >
>>
>> >>
>> >
>> >Science has always corroborated the texual evidence of the Bible, only
>> >its Fundamentalist wing known as Darwinists close their minds to these
>> >long established facts. Your mindset has been slowly brainwashed by
>> >Darwinian philosophy - a casuality of this generation.
>>
>> this is very strange and i wonder what creationists mean here.
>>
>
>No Bob, there is nothing strange. I mean what I say and say what I
>mean.
>
>By the way, I AM BRAINWASHED by the Bible/word of God.
>
>Unless everyone, to some degree, gets brainwashed by the Bible - you
>are going to hell.
well you know what dorothy parker said....heaven for climate, hell for
company....
>
>
>> the number of scientists in the US who accept creationism is about 1%.
>> overseas it's even less. so why is he saying that science accepts
>> creationism?
>> >
>
>Because "science" and "scientists" are two different words. Facts are
>facts, the only facts which contradict the Bible are false
>interpretations of those facts.
or at your interpretation of what the bible says. unfortunately there
is no 'bible meter' to help us gauge what is a biblical 'fact' so
science is gonna have to just keep plodding along...
>
>The double helix was designed. Any objective non-prejudicial
>observation of reality demands that conclusion.
no one knows what 'designed' means in that context. there is no design
meter.
>
>If we do not maintain our cars or any machine the designed mechanism
>will break down. The universe is a designed machine running on fixed
>laws - laws did not pop into existence by chance.
like the law of evolution?
>>
>> no one knows what this means. there are 30,000 xtian denominations.
>> how can science demonstrate what xtians themselves can not agree on?
>>
>
>Yes, denominations abound - we all believe in God/Jesus and the Bible
>is His word, and faith gets His attention and touch into your life. We
>disagree on peripheral matters just like you Darwinians do in
>scientific matters. IOW, you really have no point.
hardly. because the difference between xtians is quite a bit wider
than among scientists and evolution. all scientists accept evolution.
however, the fastest growing church in the US...the mormons...don't
accept the divinity of christ or the trinity.
>
>> >>
>> >
>> >Like I said above you admit to being an atheist and feign theism in
>> >order to vent your rage against the Bible and Creationists.
>>
>> of course one wonders what he makes of the scientists who are
>> christians and accept evolution.
>>
>
>Individual contrapositions do not affect the objective definitions or
>claims of either christianity or evolution.
agreed. so one can be an xtian and a scientist. thanks. i already knew
that.
>>
>> since all scientists are darwinists, which scientists have proven
>> this?
>
>In my debates with Darwinists on the Internet I argue the facts
>produced by Darwinian scientists do not support their suppositions much
>less prove their suppositions. This means the theory is not true, and
>the reason they cannot support their suppositions is because there
>isn't the evidence BECAUSE Genesis sudden creation is true.
who's version of genesis? why dont you get together with the 30,000
xtian denominations, work it out and get back to us. scientists accept
evolution. fundies don't. that's your problem, not ours
Darwinists
>admit hominine evolution is assumed based on other alleged facts. IOW,
>the most extarordinary (1 of 2) claim of all time is assumed and the
>assumption is driven by the need of Genesis to not be true.
hardly. scientists who've never heard of genesis accept evolution.
there is no conspiracy against your version of genesis
>> >We have volumes of quotes by Darwinists admitting truth supression =
>> >Darwinism is atheist religion = penalty from God for denying Him
>> >Creator credit just like the Bible teaches.
>>
>> again, scientists who are xtians disagree. so other than his
>> assertion, what proof does he have?
>>
>Maybe they are not really a christian ?
>
>Hitler claimed to be a christian.
scientists aren't nazis.
>
>
>
>> To accept is to acknowledge
>> >Genesis sudden creation a fact. IC proves sudden Genesis. Refusal to
>> >accept this fact proves the Romans 1 penalty declaration. Either way
>> >the Bible is proven true.
>>
>> funny that most xtians and all scientists disagree with a literal
>> interpretation of genesis.
>>
>
>Then both are assuming a label.
in your opinion. hardly a good basis for science.
How can you be a christian and not
>believe the central claim (Resurrection), and the supernatural ?
which has zip to do with evolution.
>
>Darwin CLAIMED to be a christian/theist/believer.
i'm not sure he did.
My article will prove
>that he was and how this fact HURTS Darwinism. In fact, after my
>article is released there will eventually be a movement to re-define
>theism and stipulate that Darwin was not the understood and traditional
>view of theist, but it won't matter - Darwin was a theist. You
>Darwinists are irreversibly locked into this fact.
irrelevant. xtians can accept evolution.