The Only True Creationists....
Ray Martinez
real Creationist if they accept the concept of evolution to exist in
nature.
This fundamental fact renders the vast majority of so called
"Creationists" to be confused and/or ignorant. It is important to
note that acceptance of evolution leaves a person confused and/or
ignorant. The evidence supporting this observation is seen in the
number of "Creationists" who accept evolution or mutability.
Ray (species immutabilist)
Free Lunch
<pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote in talk.origins:
>....are persons who accept species immutability. A person cannot be a
>real Creationist if they accept the concept of evolution to exist in
>nature.
So, the only creationists who exist are the ones who are most out of
touch with reality?
>This fundamental fact renders the vast majority of so called
>"Creationists" to be confused and/or ignorant. It is important to
>note that acceptance of evolution leaves a person confused and/or
>ignorant. The evidence supporting this observation is seen in the
>number of "Creationists" who accept evolution or mutability.
>
>Ray (species immutabilist)
Ray, you are a lunatic.
Boikat
> ....are persons who accept species immutability. A person cannot be a
> real Creationist if they accept the concept of evolution to exist in
> nature.
It's good that you make the distinction between being a "real
Creationist" as opposed to telling people thay are not "real
Christians" id they accept evolution.
>
> This fundamental fact renders the vast majority of so called
> "Creationists" to be confused and/or ignorant.
That's because, by and large, *Creationists* are confused an ignorant.
> It is important to
> note that acceptance of evolution leaves a person confused and/or
> ignorant.
Or more informed.
> The evidence supporting this observation is seen in the
> number of "Creationists" who accept evolution or mutability.
By definition, no *Creationist" accepts evolution to begin with.
Boikat
>
> Ray (species immutabilist)
Frank J
So are there any "true creationists" besides yourself who are still
alive and have names familiar to TO regulars?
nando_r...@yahoo.com
creation. That is the fundamental fact. Evolutionists believe origins
is through descent, from modification of the material that is there by
the laws of nature. Creationists believe that origins is through an
act of creation by the spirit from nothing.
An evolutionist would describe the origins of a baby as being a
modified descendent from papa and mama. And a creationist may do
likewise sometimes, but a creationist would regard the truth of the
matter that the origin of the baby is from the spiritual creating out
of nothing, such as from love in marriage. That is the fundamental
difference between creationists and evolutionists.
regards,
Mohammad Nur Syamsu
Sapient Fridge
<3184ca79-f37b-44e2...@b25g2000prb.googlegroups.com>, Ray
Martinez <pyram...@yahoo.com> writes
Is it just me or is Ray starting to turn a bit weird?
--
sapient_...@spamsights.org ICQ #17887309 * Save the net *
Grok: http://spam.abuse.net http://www.cauce.org * nuke a spammer *
Find: http://www.samspade.org http://www.netdemon.net * today *
Kill: http://mail-abuse.com http://au.sorbs.net http://spamhaus.org
Caranx latus
> In message
> <3184ca79-f37b-44e2...@b25g2000prb.googlegroups.com>, Ray
> Martinez <pyram...@yahoo.com> writes
>> ....are persons who accept species immutability. A person cannot be a
>> real Creationist if they accept the concept of evolution to exist in
>> nature.
>>
>> This fundamental fact renders the vast majority of so called
>> "Creationists" to be confused and/or ignorant. It is important to
>> note that acceptance of evolution leaves a person confused and/or
>> ignorant. The evidence supporting this observation is seen in the
>> number of "Creationists" who accept evolution or mutability.
>
> Is it just me or is Ray starting to turn a bit weird?
Not sure why this post of his would cause you to make that observation.
There isn't anything there that he hasn't said previously.
Xavier Onnasis
892c-2d9...@b25g2000prb.googlegroups.com:
> ....are persons who accept species immutability. A person cannot be a
> real Creationist if they accept the concept of evolution to exist in
> nature.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-ijkYkJfg0s
>
> This fundamental fact renders the vast majority of so called
> "Creationists" to be confused and/or ignorant. It is important to
> note that acceptance of evolution leaves a person confused and/or
> ignorant. The evidence supporting this observation is seen in the
> number of "Creationists" who accept evolution or mutability.
>
> Ray (species immutabilist)
>
--
XO
Boikat
> I disagree, you can't be a creationist, if you do not believe in
> creation. That is the fundamental fact. Evolutionists believe origins
> is through descent, from modification of the material that is there by
> the laws of nature. Creationists believe that origins is through an
> act of creation by the spirit from nothing.
Whoa! Nando made sense! (Marks calender)
>
> An evolutionist would describe the origins of a baby as being a
> modified descendent from papa and mama. And a creationist may do
> likewise sometimes, but a creationist would regard the truth of the
> matter that the origin of the baby is from the spiritual creating out
> of nothing, such as from love in marriage. That is the fundamental
> difference between creationists and evolutionists.
(Erases mark on calender) So, babys conceived by accidental one-night
stands, where love was not involved, and outside of any marrage, do
not exist?
Boikat
nando_r...@yahoo.com
> (Erases mark on calender) So, babys conceived by accidental one-night
> stands, where love was not involved, and outside of any marrage, do
> not exist?
If a baby is not born from love in marriage at first, then the love
and faithfulness must be established retrospectively through remorse
and such, otherwise there is endless suffering untill love and faith
is established at the origin of the baby.
regards,
Mohammad Nur Syamsu
David Hare-Scott
You can define it however you like. There is no reason to allow the world
to interfere with your faith. If your faith is strong you don't need any
facts and evidence and you shouldn't need to spend any time on the issue.
Surely you can just declare the matter settled and get on with your life.
However you are driven to constantly assert this belief in public. Why is
that?
Does your faith need constant refurbishing or does it make you feel more
righteous when you do battle with the unbelievers almost daily?
David
John Harshman
> ....are persons who accept species immutability. A person cannot be a
> real Creationist if they accept the concept of evolution to exist in
> nature.
So you're saying that in order to be a real creationist you have to
ignore even more of the data than most creationists. You have to deny
that natural selection ever really happens, that new mutations are ever
fixed, and that any two population can ever become reproductively
isolated. Pretty much everything that's easy to reproduce in a laboratory.
> This fundamental fact renders the vast majority of so called
> "Creationists" to be confused and/or ignorant.
No, that's not what renders them confused and ignorant. Though we can at
least agree on their condition.
> It is important to
> note that acceptance of evolution leaves a person confused and/or
> ignorant. The evidence supporting this observation is seen in the
> number of "Creationists" who accept evolution or mutability.
That's even more circular than your usual reasoning. Acceptance of
evolution renders you confused/ignorant, and you show this by noting
that some people accept evolution, which is evidence that they're
confused/ignorant? Surely even you can see that this is swallowing its
own tail.
VoiceOfReason
Well, if you into denying reality anyway, there isn't much point in
being picky about it.
Boikat
Sorry, but time travel is not possible at this time.
Boikat
Desertphile
> ....are persons who accept species immutability.
So, a Creationist by your definition must reject observed fact.
--
http://desertphile.org
Desertphile's Desert Soliloquy. WARNING: view with plenty of water
"Why aren't resurrections from the dead noteworthy?" -- Jim Rutz
Dana Tweedy
> ....are persons who accept species immutability.
In which case, you are the only "true creationist" in existence. Species
immutablity was shown to be wrong before Darwin wrote his book.
>A person cannot be a
> real Creationist if they accept the concept of evolution to exist in
> nature.
That populations change over time due to variation and selection is an
established fact. Anyone denying that is denying objective reality.
>
> This fundamental fact renders the vast majority of so called
> "Creationists" to be confused and/or ignorant.
None of which are as confused, or ignorant as you are, however.
> It is important to
> note that acceptance of evolution leaves a person confused and/or
> ignorant.
Actually, acceptance of the facts normally means a person is not confused,
or ignorant.
>The evidence supporting this observation is seen in the
> number of "Creationists" who accept evolution or mutability.
Evolution is a fact. Denying facts is irrational.
DJT
Cory Albrecht
> In message
> <3184ca79-f37b-44e2...@b25g2000prb.googlegroups.com>, Ray
> Martinez <pyram...@yahoo.com> writes
>> ....are persons who accept species immutability. A person cannot be a
>> real Creationist if they accept the concept of evolution to exist in
>> nature.
>>
>> This fundamental fact renders the vast majority of so called
>> "Creationists" to be confused and/or ignorant. It is important to
>> note that acceptance of evolution leaves a person confused and/or
>> ignorant. The evidence supporting this observation is seen in the
>> number of "Creationists" who accept evolution or mutability.
>
> Is it just me or is Ray starting to turn a bit weird?
"Starting"?
Sapient Fridge
writes
Yep, but over the last few months he's changed to from implying to
declaring that he is the only true Christian. Messiah complex next?
Rolf
There you go again.
Allright, I'll try again You say mutations do occur, but that there ain't no
such thing as natural selection.
Now, to most of us that seems to indicate that you are unfamiliar and
ignorant about what science says about natural selection.
Can you, in your own words, tell us how you understand science's own
explanation of what natural selection is.
You know, science doesn't just appeal to some mythical concept 'natural
selection' in the same manner as you appeal to 'invisible designer'. If yoy
think about it for a second you will realize that that argument is like the
little boy blaming the empty cookie jar on some 'invisble cookie thief'.
Natural Selection IS explained in the scientific literature, it is even one
of the things about which lots and lots have been written, and is still a
hot subject within evolution. It is a complex subject.that requires some
time and effort to learn about.
I am not saying you should accept or believe any of it, but I believe it's
your duty to show that you know what you are talking about. 'NO' is NO
answer!
BTW, the replies to my 'stupid' posts that you were unable to post, maybe
you could try again? I can't remember ever having written anything stupid.
That, as we all know is however your regular mode of writing.
Rolf
Steven L.
> In message
> <3184ca79-f37b-44e2...@b25g2000prb.googlegroups.com>, Ray
> Martinez <pyram...@yahoo.com> writes
>> ....are persons who accept species immutability. A person cannot be a
>> real Creationist if they accept the concept of evolution to exist in
>> nature.
>>
>> This fundamental fact renders the vast majority of so called
>> "Creationists" to be confused and/or ignorant. It is important to
>> note that acceptance of evolution leaves a person confused and/or
>> ignorant. The evidence supporting this observation is seen in the
>> number of "Creationists" who accept evolution or mutability.
>
> Is it just me or is Ray starting to turn a bit weird?
I respect Ray, because he states his beliefs firmly and precisely,
without weasel words. In that sense, I respect Ray much more than I do
Dr. Behe.
Ray isn't "turning" weird. He has always believed in species
immutability, and he has always denounced other creationists for
accepting so-called microevolution.
--
Steven L.
Email: sdli...@earthlinkNOSPAM.net
Remove the NOSPAM before replying to me.
Mike Lyle
> [...] A person cannot be a
> real Creationist if they accept the concept of evolution to exist in
> nature.
>
> This fundamental fact renders the vast majority of so called
OT, as I warned in the subject line. Sorry, but the question intrigues
me.
One of the identifying characteristics of your, Ray's, English style is
this "they accept the concept of evolution to exist".
It isn't absolutely wrong (after all, "they believe him to exist" is a
perfectly ordinary accusative and infinitive structure) but it seems to
be extended to a wider range of verbs implying opinion and belief than
in my idiom, and to occur a great deal. IIRC, the RM style allows it
even with words like "reject", as in "I reject evolution to be true":
that wouldn't be possible in my English.
Moving well away from verbs of belief etc, I'm far from sure "render
them to be confused" is an acceptable alternative to "render them
confused".
Is this a recognized feature of some varieties of US English which I've
simply failed to notice before? Or is it just personal, like frequent
use of "the same" and "negative"?
--
Mike.
Bob Casanova
appeared in talk.origins, posted by Ray Martinez
<pyram...@yahoo.com>:
>....are persons who accept species immutability. A person cannot be a
>real Creationist if they accept the concept of evolution to exist in
>nature.
Yes, Ray, we're familiar with your refusal to admit that God
can do whatever He wants in whatever manner He wants. Now go
back to that golden calf, aka Gene Scott.
<snip Raydiocy>
--
Bob C.
"Evidence confirming an observation is
evidence that the observation is wrong."
- McNameless
nando_r...@yahoo.com
> Sorry, but time travel is not possible at this time.
First of all the spiritual is not subject to time much, there is no
reason to assume so.
Second, as you could have read it in the references to the Delawarr
camera, it is possible to photograph the past as well as the future of
a thing. Because time progresses per decision, it is possible by using
decisionmaking as a measuring instrument(through interference,meaning
to make alternatives come out equal, with the decisionprocess of the
thing itself), to see the organized information in the past, and
future of a thing.
regards,
Mohammad Nur Syamsu
Hamish Reid
"Mike Lyle" <mike_l...@REMOVETHISyahoo.co.uk> wrote:
I'm basically British, but I've lived in the US long enough now to be at
home with a large number of dialects here -- and Ray's rather unique way
of writing always stands out as something quite unlike any dialect I've
heard, but in mostly fairly subtle ways.
At first I just assumed he wasn't a native English speaker, but over
time I've come to believe that his slightly stilted way of writing is
from the same source as his weirdo pseudo-legal constructs (they sound
like a bar-room lawyer trying to impress people who wouldn't know one
type of bar from another...). I'm betting that his use of
slightly-strange constructs is a deliberate rhetorical strategy adopted
to impress the rubes rather than some sort of holdover from another
language or dialect, but I'm probably wrong. In any case, Ray's use of
rhetoric, language, logic, and epistemology are all an absolutely
fascinating part of talk.origins....
Hamish
Earle Jones
<110307e6-2b95-4ccf...@v20g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>,
nando_r...@yahoo.com wrote:
*
If I photograph a star, let's say Alpha Centauri, I am photographing a
distribution of light that existed about 4.4 years ago. In other words,
the distance from earth to Alpha Centauri is about 4.4 light-years.
In this sense, I am photographing the organized information of the past.
Now please explain how I get information about the future.
earle
*
John S. Wilkins
Look at the negative?
--
John S. Wilkins, Philosophy, University of Sydney
http://evolvingthoughts.net
But al be that he was a philosophre,
Yet hadde he but litel gold in cofre
Rusty Sites
> On Aug 24, 3:2l3 am, Boikat <boi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
>> Sorry, but time travel is not possible at this time.
>
> First of all the spiritual is not subject to time much, there is no
> reason to assume so.
Fascinating! Now can you tell us how you made this determination?
Perhaps it is because fantasies are not subject to time or any other
aspect of reality. BTW, I had a 30 win season in the majors.
Amazingly, I never suffered any soreness.
>
> Second, as you could have read it in the references to the Delawarr
> camera, it is possible to photograph the past as well as the future of
> a thing. Because time progresses per decision, it is possible by using
> decisionmaking as a measuring instrument(through interference,meaning
> to make alternatives come out equal, with the decisionprocess of the
> thing itself), to see the organized information in the past, and
> future of a thing.
>
Sounds great. Now can you show us a picture of the future?
Sapient Fridge
<110307e6-2b95-4ccf...@v20g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>,
nando_r...@yahoo.com writes
>On Aug 24, 3:2l3�am, Boikat <boi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
>> Sorry, but time travel is not possible at this time.
>
>First of all the spiritual is not subject to time much, there is no
>reason to assume so.
There is no evidence for the spiritual, therefore whether or not it is
subject to time is a moot point.
>Second, as you could have read it in the references to the Delawarr
>camera, it is possible to photograph the past as well as the future of
>a thing. Because time progresses per decision, it is possible by using
>decisionmaking as a measuring instrument(through interference,meaning
>to make alternatives come out equal, with the decisionprocess of the
>thing itself), to see the organized information in the past, and
>future of a thing.
By definition the future does not exist yet, it cannot be photographed.
Del La Warr was a scam artist who used his "camera" to separate fools
from their money.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_de_la_Warr
http://www.randi.org/encyclopedia/De%20la%20Warr,%20George.html
alextangent
> Earle Jones <earle.jo...@comcast.net> wrote:
> > In article
> > <110307e6-2b95-4ccf-8ad9-7b34112e0...@v20g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>,
> > nando_rontel...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
> > > On Aug 24, 3:2l3 am, Boikat <boi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> > > > Sorry, but time travel is not possible at this time.
>
> > > First of all the spiritual is not subject to time much, there is no
> > > reason to assume so.
>
> > > Second, as you could have read it in the references to the Delawarr
> > > camera, it is possible to photograph the past as well as the future of
> > > a thing. Because time progresses per decision, it is possible by using
> > > decisionmaking as a measuring instrument(through interference,meaning
> > > to make alternatives come out equal, with the decisionprocess of the
> > > thing itself), to see the organized information in the past, and
> > > future of a thing.
>
> > > regards,
> > > Mohammad Nur Syamsu
>
> > *
> > If I photograph a star, let's say Alpha Centauri, I am photographing a
> > distribution of light that existed about 4.4 years ago. In other words,
> > the distance from earth to Alpha Centauri is about 4.4 light-years.
>
> > In this sense, I am photographing the organized information of the past.
>
> > Now please explain how I get information about the future.
>
> Look at the negative?
>
> --
> But al be that he was a philosophre,
> Yet hadde he but litel gold in cofre
You've got to accentuate the positive, eliminate the negative.
nando_r...@yahoo.com
basically proves it's not a scam.
Obviously there are a lot of atheists in science who absolutely refuse
to include any knowledge about freedom, whether it is creation, or
radionics, or anything else that has freedom as a functional and
central part in the explanation.
How the device and free will of the operator works is described in the
page referenced previously several times. Google "delawarr"
holographic. The operation is similar to how MRI operates.
regards,
Mohammad Nur Syamsu
nando_r...@yahoo.com
a creationist. I think this is not a coincedence. Creationists aren't
so much opposed to thinking in terms of the logic of freedom, so
that's why Raymond could begin to think about such things what later
went on to become MRI. At some point you have to stop looking for
causes that force a result, and start noticing other things like the
rhythm at which results come in, and the variation in them etc,
decided freely.
regards,
Mohammad Nur Syamsu
VoiceOfReason
nando_rontel...@yahoo.com wrote:
> Note that one of the main inventors of MRI, Raymond Damadian, is also
> a creationist. I think this is not a coincedence.
No, it's not a coincidence... it's an argument from authority. "Some
guy who helped invent something is a creationist" is hardly a credible
argument.
Ray Martinez
> On Aug 23, 4:58 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > ....are persons who accept species immutability. A person cannot be a
> > real Creationist if they accept the concept of evolution to exist in
> > nature.
>
> Creationist" as opposed to telling people thay are not "real
> Christians" id they accept evolution.
>
>
>
> > This fundamental fact renders the vast majority of so called
> > "Creationists" to be confused and/or ignorant.
>
>
> > It is important to
> > note that acceptance of evolution leaves a person confused and/or
> > ignorant.
>
>
> > The evidence supporting this observation is seen in the
> > number of "Creationists" who accept evolution or mutability.
>
>
That's right.
If you do then you are not a Creationist.
This means that Sean Pitman is NOT a Creationist. Sean told me that he
accepts the concept of "low level evolution" to exist in nature.
Ray
Ray Martinez
> On Aug 23, 5:58 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > ....are persons who accept species immutability. A person cannot be a
> > real Creationist if they accept the concept of evolution to exist in
> > nature.
>
> > note that acceptance of evolution leaves a person confused and/or
> > number of "Creationists" who accept evolution or mutability.
>
>
> So are there any "true creationists" besides yourself who are still
> alive and have names familiar to TO regulars?
I am aware of none.
20th century "Creationism" is laughable nonsense, pseudoscience, anti-
science.
Ray (British Natural Theologian)
Ray Martinez
> I disagree, you can't be a creationist, if you do not believe in
> creation. That is the fundamental fact. Evolutionists believe origins
> is through descent, from modification of the material that is there by
> the laws of nature. Creationists believe that origins is through an
> act of creation by the spirit from nothing.
>
Correction: either by nothing OR creation ex materia.
> An evolutionist would describe the origins of a baby as being a
> modified descendent from papa and mama. And a creationist may do
> likewise sometimes, but a creationist would regard the truth of the
> matter that the origin of the baby is from the spiritual creating out
> of nothing, such as from love in marriage. That is the fundamental
> difference between creationists and evolutionists.
>
> regards,
> Mohammad Nur Syamsu
Your last paragraph contradicts. Creationists do NOT accept the
existence of evolutionary concepts in nature (e.g. "descent" or
"modification").
And a baby is not a product of creation ex nihilo, but creation ex
materia.
Ray
Dana Tweedy
>>
>>> The evidence supporting this observation is seen in the
>>> number of "Creationists" who accept evolution or mutability.
>>
>> By definition, no *Creationist" accepts evolution to begin with.
>>
>
> That's right.
>
> If you do then you are not a Creationist.
Since evolution has been directly observed, it's irrational to be a
creationist, by your own standard.
>
> This means that Sean Pitman is NOT a Creationist. Sean told me that he
> accepts the concept of "low level evolution" to exist in nature.
Must be lonely being the only one in the world who rejects reality.
DJT
Dana Tweedy
So is your own version, Ray.
>
> Ray (British Natural Theologian)
British Natural Theology is not rejection of reality, therefore you aren't
being honest referring to yourself that way.
DJT
Ray Martinez
> Ray Martinez wrote:
> > ....are persons who accept species immutability. A person cannot be a
> > real Creationist if they accept the concept of evolution to exist in
> > nature.
>
> > This fundamental fact renders the vast majority of so called
> > "Creationists" to be confused and/or ignorant. It is important to
> > note that acceptance of evolution leaves a person confused and/or
> > ignorant. The evidence supporting this observation is seen in the
> > number of "Creationists" who accept evolution or mutability.
>
> > Ray (species immutabilist)
>
False.
"Creationist" cannot be defined however one likes. This is the exact
point of this thread.
> There is no reason to allow the world
> to interfere with your faith.
It is a Constitutional right: the State cannot interfere with anyones
faith.
> If your faith is strong you don't need any
> facts and evidence and you shouldn't need to spend any time on the issue.
Faith is based on facts: like the Crucifixion, Resurrection, design,
special creation, stasis, IC systems, etc.etc.
> Surely you can just declare the matter settled and get on with your life.
We have and we are.
> However you are driven to constantly assert this belief in public. Why is
> that?
>
Ever heard of the 1st Amendment?
> Does your faith need constant refurbishing or does it make you feel more
> righteous when you do battle with the unbelievers almost daily?
>
> David
Turn the station (= log off or leave this site).
Ray
Dana Tweedy
> On Aug 23, 4:04 pm, nando_rontel...@yahoo.com wrote:
>> I disagree, you can't be a creationist, if you do not believe in
>> creation. That is the fundamental fact. Evolutionists believe origins
>> is through descent, from modification of the material that is there
>> by the laws of nature. Creationists believe that origins is through
>> an act of creation by the spirit from nothing.
>>
>
> Correction: either by nothing OR creation ex materia.
"Creation ex materia" requires a natural process to create. Why isn't
using evolution "creation ex materia"?
>
>> An evolutionist would describe the origins of a baby as being a
>> modified descendent from papa and mama. And a creationist may do
>> likewise sometimes, but a creationist would regard the truth of the
>> matter that the origin of the baby is from the spiritual creating out
>> of nothing, such as from love in marriage. That is the fundamental
>> difference between creationists and evolutionists.
>>
>> regards,
>> Mohammad Nur Syamsu
>
> Your last paragraph contradicts. Creationists do NOT accept the
> existence of evolutionary concepts in nature (e.g. "descent" or
> "modification").
Descent is the only way species have been observed to be produced.
Modification of previous species has been observed. No one has ever
observed an entirely new creature appearing out of nowhere.
>
> And a baby is not a product of creation ex nihilo, but creation ex
> materia.
A baby is the result of a natural process, that doesn't require the direct
invervention of a supernatural being.
Why would this be any different from accepting evolution?
DJT
>
> Ray
Dana Tweedy
> On Aug 23, 4:54 pm, "David Hare-Scott" <sec...@nospam.com> wrote:
>> Ray Martinez wrote:
>>> ....are persons who accept species immutability. A person cannot be
>>> a real Creationist if they accept the concept of evolution to exist
>>> in nature.
>>
>>> This fundamental fact renders the vast majority of so called
>>> "Creationists" to be confused and/or ignorant. It is important to
>>> note that acceptance of evolution leaves a person confused and/or
>>> ignorant. The evidence supporting this observation is seen in the
>>> number of "Creationists" who accept evolution or mutability.
>>
>>> Ray (species immutabilist)
>>
>> You can define it however you like.
>
> False.
Sure you can, Ray.
>
> "Creationist" cannot be defined however one likes. This is the exact
> point of this thread.
Then your 'point' is wrong.
>
>> There is no reason to allow the world
>> to interfere with your faith.
>
> It is a Constitutional right: the State cannot interfere with anyones
> faith.
Including those who have no faith, or faith different from yours.
>
>> If your faith is strong you don't need any
>> facts and evidence and you shouldn't need to spend any time on the
>> issue.
>
> Faith is based on facts: like the Crucifixion, Resurrection, design,
> special creation, stasis, IC systems, etc.etc.
Faith is defined as belief without facts. The Crucifixion, and
Resurrection of Jesus are accepted on faith, not "facts". The appearance
of "Design" is an assumption on your part. Special creation has never been
obseved. Stasis interspersed with change is commonly seen in the fossil
record, and you are ignoring the change. "IC systems" have not been found,
but if they were, they'd not be problem for evolution.
>
>> Surely you can just declare the matter settled and get on with your
>> life.
>
> We have and we are.
Who is the "we" Ray? And if you've gotten along with your life, why are
you still clinging to falsehoods?
>
>> However you are driven to constantly assert this belief in public.
>> Why is that?
>>
>
> Ever heard of the 1st Amendment?
The 1st amendment doesn't make your false claims correct. You have the
right to believe false things, but you don't have the right to make them
true.
>
>> Does your faith need constant refurbishing or does it make you feel
>> more righteous when you do battle with the unbelievers almost daily?
>>
>> David
>
> Turn the station (= log off or leave this site).
Or, do like Ray does, and ignore anything that's inconvienient, like
evidence, facts, and logic.
DJT
>
> Ray
Ray Martinez
wrote:
> Ray Martinez wrote:
> > ....are persons who accept species immutability. A person cannot be a
> > real Creationist if they accept the concept of evolution to exist in
> > nature.
>
> ignore even more of the data than most creationists. You have to deny
> that natural selection ever really happens, that new mutations are ever
> fixed, and that any two population can ever become reproductively
> isolated. Pretty much everything that's easy to reproduce in a laboratory.
>
Yes, in order to be a real Creationist you must reject the main claim
made in behalf of natural selection: naturally occurring unintelligent
creative force causing formation of new species. Creationists accept
new species to result from interventionism (= Intelligence). "And that
any two population can ever become reproductively isolated" is not
denied or rejected. We reject the fact to support or have anything to
do with speciation.
> > This fundamental fact renders the vast majority of so called
> > "Creationists" to be confused and/or ignorant.
>
> No, that's not what renders them confused and ignorant. Though we can at
> least agree on their condition.
>
Well, I am glad to see that you agree as to their condition, that is,
persons who accept the concepts of "evolution" and "creation" to exist
in nature.
> > It is important to
> > note that acceptance of evolution leaves a person confused and/or
> > ignorant. The evidence supporting this observation is seen in the
> > number of "Creationists" who accept evolution or mutability.
>
> That's even more circular than your usual reasoning. Acceptance of
> evolution renders you confused/ignorant, and you show this by noting
> that some people accept evolution, which is evidence that they're
> confused/ignorant? Surely even you can see that this is swallowing its
> own tail.
The point sailed right over your head, John.
Persons who accept antonymic concepts to exist in nature ("creation"
and "evolution")---simultaneously----are confused-ignorant. Do you
understand?
Ray
Sapient Fridge
<7287422e-77a6-45af...@32g2000yqj.googlegroups.com>,
nando_r...@yahoo.com writes
>It's whatever. There is 3D information on the photographs, so this
>basically proves it's not a scam.
Oops. You forgot the link to the peer reviewed journal that the data
analysis was published in.
If I write a web page saying that the flying spaghetti monster created
the world and all the meatballs on it then does that web page prove that
the FSM exists? It does in your world apparently.
Ray Martinez
> Ray Martinez wrote:
> > ....are persons who accept species immutability.
>
> immutablity was shown to be wrong before Darwin wrote his book.
>
Extreme ignorance.
Mutability was accepted after Darwin published. This is a basic fact
in the History of Science. Before Darwin published science accepted
immutability.
> >A person cannot be a
> > real Creationist if they accept the concept of evolution to exist in
> > nature.
>
> That populations change over time due to variation and selection is an
> established fact. Anyone denying that is denying objective reality.
>
Non-sequitur.
>
>
> > This fundamental fact renders the vast majority of so called
> > "Creationists" to be confused and/or ignorant.
>
> None of which are as confused, or ignorant as you are, however.
>
The Fundies are in Dawkins court.
> > It is important to
> > note that acceptance of evolution leaves a person confused and/or
> > ignorant.
>
> Actually, acceptance of the facts normally means a person is not confused,
> or ignorant.
>
> >The evidence supporting this observation is seen in the
> > number of "Creationists" who accept evolution or mutability.
>
> Evolution is a fact. Denying facts is irrational.
>
> DJT
Evolution is not a fact: it is a claim and an interpretation of
evidence----a false interpretation of evidence.
Ray
Ye Old One
<pyram...@yahoo.com> enriched this group when s/he wrote:
>On Aug 23, 4:54 pm, "David Hare-Scott" <sec...@nospam.com> wrote:
>> Ray Martinez wrote:
>> > ....are persons who accept species immutability. A person cannot be a
>> > real Creationist if they accept the concept of evolution to exist in
>> > nature.
>>
>> > This fundamental fact renders the vast majority of so called
>> > "Creationists" to be confused and/or ignorant. It is important to
>> > note that acceptance of evolution leaves a person confused and/or
>> > ignorant. The evidence supporting this observation is seen in the
>> > number of "Creationists" who accept evolution or mutability.
>>
>> > Ray (species immutabilist)
>>
>> You can define it however you like.
>
>False.
>
>"Creationist" cannot be defined however one likes. This is the exact
>point of this thread.
>
>> There is no reason to allow the world
>> to interfere with your faith.
>
>It is a Constitutional right: the State cannot interfere with anyones
>faith.
That only applies to one small part of the world.
>
>> If your faith is strong you don't need any
>> facts and evidence and you shouldn't need to spend any time on the issue.
>
>Faith is based on facts: like the Crucifixion,
no evidence for it exists.
>Resurrection,
Impossible.
>design,
None seen.
>special creation,
No evidence for such a thing.
> stasis,
None found.
> IC systems,
So far, none found - not even one.
> etc.etc.
>
>> Surely you can just declare the matter settled and get on with your life.
>
>We have and we are.
>
>> However you are driven to constantly assert this belief in public. Why is
>> that?
>>
>
>Ever heard of the 1st Amendment?
>
>> Does your faith need constant refurbishing or does it make you feel more
>> righteous when you do battle with the unbelievers almost daily?
>>
>> David
>
>Turn the station (= log off or leave this site).
We are not on a site so there is no site to leave.
>
>Ray
--
Bob.
Dana Tweedy
> On Aug 23, 7:03 pm, "Dana Tweedy" <reddfr...@bresnan.net> wrote:
>> Ray Martinez wrote:
>>> ....are persons who accept species immutability.
>>
>> In which case, you are the only "true creationist" in existence.
>> Species immutablity was shown to be wrong before Darwin wrote his
>> book.
>>
>
> Extreme ignorance.
Yes, that's what you are presenting, but you don't have to preface your
statements. Everyone knows you are full of extreme ignorance.
>
> Mutability was accepted after Darwin published.
"Mutablity" was already being accepted when Darwin published. That's why it
was accepted so quickly.
> This is a basic fact
> in the History of Science.
That's a claim you make, but can't support.
> Before Darwin published science accepted
> immutability.
Some scientist argued for fixity of species, but by the mid 1800s that view
was becoming untenable. Even Linnaeus, in the 1700s agreed that species
could change.
>
>>> A person cannot be a
>>> real Creationist if they accept the concept of evolution to exist in
>>> nature.
>>
>> That populations change over time due to variation and selection is
>> an established fact. Anyone denying that is denying objective
>> reality.
>>
>
> Non-sequitur.
How is your denying reality a non sequitur?
>
>>
>>
>>> This fundamental fact renders the vast majority of so called
>>> "Creationists" to be confused and/or ignorant.
>>
>> None of which are as confused, or ignorant as you are, however.
>>
>
> The Fundies are in Dawkins court.
No, Ray, the "fundies" are those who demand that the Bible be taken
literally. Your own ignorance and confusion doesn't allow you to
understand that.
>
>>> It is important to
>>> note that acceptance of evolution leaves a person confused and/or
>>> ignorant.
>>
>> Actually, acceptance of the facts normally means a person is not
>> confused, or ignorant.
>>
>>> The evidence supporting this observation is seen in the
>>> number of "Creationists" who accept evolution or mutability.
>>
>> Evolution is a fact. Denying facts is irrational.
>>
>> DJT
>
> Evolution is not a fact:
Sorry, Ray, but it is. It's a simple fact that in populations, genetic
change happens over generations. Deny this all you like, but it's still a
fact.
> it is a claim and an interpretation of
> evidence
Ray, it's the only interpretation that matches the evidence.
> ----a false interpretation of evidence.
If it were a false interpretation, it wouldn't fit the evidence so well.
Scientists wouldn't use it, as it would not produce testable predictions.
Despite your assertions, you've never shown why you feel it's a "false
interpretation".
DJT
Dana Tweedy
> On Aug 23, 5:52 pm, John Harshman <jharshman.diespam...@pacbell.net>
> wrote:
>> Ray Martinez wrote:
>>> ....are persons who accept species immutability. A person cannot be
>>> a real Creationist if they accept the concept of evolution to exist
>>> in nature.
>>
>> So you're saying that in order to be a real creationist you have to
>> ignore even more of the data than most creationists. You have to deny
>> that natural selection ever really happens, that new mutations are
>> ever fixed, and that any two population can ever become
>> reproductively isolated. Pretty much everything that's easy to
>> reproduce in a laboratory.
>>
>
> Yes, in order to be a real Creationist you must reject the main claim
> made in behalf of natural selection: naturally occurring unintelligent
> creative force causing formation of new species.
Since that's been directly observed to happen, being a creationist requires
one to ignore reality.
> Creationists accept
> new species to result from interventionism (= Intelligence).
What evidence do you have for that claim? Where has any new species
resulted from "interventionism"?
> "And that
> any two population can ever become reproductively isolated" is not
> denied or rejected.
You are contradicting yourself. A population becoming reproductively
isolated is evolution. You've just declared yourself not to be a
creationist.....
> We reject the fact to support or have anything to
> do with speciation.
Again, Ray, you contradict yourself. A population becoming reproducively
isolated IS speciation. How can speciation have nothing to do with
speciation?
>
>>> This fundamental fact renders the vast majority of so called
>>> "Creationists" to be confused and/or ignorant.
>>
>> No, that's not what renders them confused and ignorant. Though we
>> can at least agree on their condition.
>>
>
> Well, I am glad to see that you agree as to their condition, that is,
> persons who accept the concepts of "evolution" and "creation" to exist
> in nature.
Yes, because most creationists are not totally disconnected with reality.
They realize that denying the obviousness of evolutionary change would make
them look foolish.
>
>>> It is important to
>>> note that acceptance of evolution leaves a person confused and/or
>>> ignorant. The evidence supporting this observation is seen in the
>>> number of "Creationists" who accept evolution or mutability.
>>
>> That's even more circular than your usual reasoning. Acceptance of
>> evolution renders you confused/ignorant, and you show this by noting
>> that some people accept evolution, which is evidence that they're
>> confused/ignorant? Surely even you can see that this is swallowing
>> its own tail.
>
> The point sailed right over your head, John.
Actually, John got the point, you, on the other hand seem to have missed
your own 'point".
>
> Persons who accept antonymic concepts to exist in nature ("creation"
> and "evolution")---simultaneously----are confused-ignorant.
Ray, you keep forgetting that YOU might be wrong about this. Your own
confusion and ignorance leads you to a false assumption.
> Do you
> understand?
Do you understand that you are wrong?
DJT
Ray Martinez
A great number of Atheists accept that Jesus was crucified. It is a
historical fact.
> >Resurrection,
>
> Impossible.
>
Christians disagree.
> >design,
>
> None seen.
>
By Darwinists, yes, I agree.
> >special creation,
>
> No evidence for such a thing.
>
Stasis.
> > stasis,
>
> None found.
>
Gould 2002 calls stasis the "literal signal" of the fossil record.
> > IC systems,
>
> So far, none found - not even one.
>
Michael Behe, a scientist who accepts common ancestry and human
evolution, disagrees; as do many others.
>
>
>
>
> > etc.etc.
>
> >> Surely you can just declare the matter settled and get on with your life.
>
> >We have and we are.
>
> >> However you are driven to constantly assert this belief in public. Why is
> >> that?
>
> >Ever heard of the 1st Amendment?
>
> >> Does your faith need constant refurbishing or does it make you feel more
> >> righteous when you do battle with the unbelievers almost daily?
>
> >> David
>
> >Turn the station (= log off or leave this site).
>
> We are not on a site so there is no site to leave.
>
> >Ray
>
> --
> Bob.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Ray
Ray Martinez
> Sapient Fridge wrote:
> > In message
> > <3184ca79-f37b-44e2-892c-2d90092c7...@b25g2000prb.googlegroups.com>, Ray
> > Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> writes
> >> ....are persons who accept species immutability. A person cannot be a
> >> real Creationist if they accept the concept of evolution to exist in
> >> nature.
>
> >> This fundamental fact renders the vast majority of so called
> >> "Creationists" to be confused and/or ignorant. It is important to
> >> note that acceptance of evolution leaves a person confused and/or
> >> ignorant. The evidence supporting this observation is seen in the
> >> number of "Creationists" who accept evolution or mutability.
>
>
> I respect Ray, because he states his beliefs firmly and precisely,
> without weasel words. In that sense, I respect Ray much more than I do
> Dr. Behe.
>
> Ray isn't "turning" weird. He has always believed in species
> immutability, and he has always denounced other creationists for
> accepting so-called microevolution.
>
> --
> Steven L.
> Email: sdlit...@earthlinkNOSPAM.net
> Remove the NOSPAM before replying to me.
Thanks, Steven.
But I didn't always accept fixism. I converted to the position after
failing to find any evidence supporting mutability during a two year
search. Before this search I was a micro-evolutionist, more
accurately known as a confused "Creationist."
And my respect for Behe, Dembski (and the DI) has completely waned. I
am going to humiliate both men in my paper. They are now the enemy. To
say evolution exists in nature, being caused by Intelligence, is
delusion or fraud. They will be forced to ignore.
Ray
Ray Martinez
Two members of a population separating or becoming lost is not
speciation. But Dumbwinists interpret the event as leading to
speciation.
> You've just declared yourself not to be a
> creationist.....
>
> > We reject the fact to support or have anything to
> > do with speciation.
>
> Again, Ray, you contradict yourself. A population becoming reproducively
> isolated IS speciation.
You do not understand the claims of evolutionary theory. Reproductive
isolation is not in itself "speciation." The claim is that it is a
necessary condition that leads to speciation.
> How can speciation have nothing to do with
> speciation?
>
>
>
> >>> This fundamental fact renders the vast majority of so called
> >>> "Creationists" to be confused and/or ignorant.
>
> >> No, that's not what renders them confused and ignorant. Though we
> >> can at least agree on their condition.
>
> > Well, I am glad to see that you agree as to their condition, that is,
> > persons who accept the concepts of "evolution" and "creation" to exist
> > in nature.
>
> Yes, because most creationists are not totally disconnected with reality.
> They realize that denying the obviousness of evolutionary change would make
> them look foolish.
>
Comment simply acknowledges that which is not in dispute:
"Creationists" who accept their enemy: evolution.
The English language calls the hybrid seen above "a buffoon."
>
>
> >>> It is important to
> >>> note that acceptance of evolution leaves a person confused and/or
> >>> ignorant. The evidence supporting this observation is seen in the
> >>> number of "Creationists" who accept evolution or mutability.
>
> >> That's even more circular than your usual reasoning. Acceptance of
> >> evolution renders you confused/ignorant, and you show this by noting
> >> that some people accept evolution, which is evidence that they're
> >> confused/ignorant? Surely even you can see that this is swallowing
> >> its own tail.
>
> > The point sailed right over your head, John.
>
> Actually, John got the point, you, on the other hand seem to have missed
> your own 'point".
>
>
>
> > Persons who accept antonymic concepts to exist in nature ("creation"
> > and "evolution")---simultaneously----are confused-ignorant.
>
> Ray, you keep forgetting that YOU might be wrong about this. Your own
> confusion and ignorance leads you to a false assumption.
>
> > Do you
> > understand?
>
> Do you understand that you are wrong?
>
> DJT- Hide quoted text -
John Harshman
> On Aug 23, 5:52 pm, John Harshman <jharshman.diespam...@pacbell.net>
> wrote:
>> Ray Martinez wrote:
>>> ....are persons who accept species immutability. A person cannot be a
>>> real Creationist if they accept the concept of evolution to exist in
>>> nature.
>> So you're saying that in order to be a real creationist you have to
>> ignore even more of the data than most creationists. You have to deny
>> that natural selection ever really happens, that new mutations are ever
>> fixed, and that any two population can ever become reproductively
>> isolated. Pretty much everything that's easy to reproduce in a laboratory.
>>
>
> Yes, in order to be a real Creationist you must reject the main claim
> made in behalf of natural selection: naturally occurring unintelligent
> creative force causing formation of new species. Creationists accept
> new species to result from interventionism (= Intelligence). "And that
> any two population can ever become reproductively isolated" is not
> denied or rejected. We reject the fact to support or have anything to
> do with speciation.
I'm afraid your position is too intellectually confused to argue with.
But I'll try to clarify anyway. Does this intelligent intervention make
new species out of old ones? If so, is there a way to distinguish such
intervention from natural processes?
And do you also reject evolution that doesn't result in speciation?
>>> This fundamental fact renders the vast majority of so called
>>> "Creationists" to be confused and/or ignorant.
>> No, that's not what renders them confused and ignorant. Though we can at
>> least agree on their condition.
>
> Well, I am glad to see that you agree as to their condition, that is,
> persons who accept the concepts of "evolution" and "creation" to exist
> in nature.
That is not, of course, what we're agreeing on. I suspect that even you
knew that.
>>> It is important to
>>> note that acceptance of evolution leaves a person confused and/or
>>> ignorant. The evidence supporting this observation is seen in the
>>> number of "Creationists" who accept evolution or mutability.
>> That's even more circular than your usual reasoning. Acceptance of
>> evolution renders you confused/ignorant, and you show this by noting
>> that some people accept evolution, which is evidence that they're
>> confused/ignorant? Surely even you can see that this is swallowing its
>> own tail.
>
> The point sailed right over your head, John.
>
> Persons who accept antonymic concepts to exist in nature ("creation"
> and "evolution")---simultaneously----are confused-ignorant. Do you
> understand?
They would be if the concepts were indeed antonymic. Of course you
didn't respond to my argument.
Frank J
> I disagree, you can't be a creationist, if you do not believe in
> creation.
Please define "creation."
> That is the fundamental fact. Evolutionists believe origins
> is through descent, from modification of the material that is there by
> the laws of nature. Creationists believe that origins is through an
> act of creation by the spirit from nothing.
How many years ago did the first act of creation applicable to Earth's
species occur?
> An evolutionist would describe the origins of a baby as being a
> modified descendent from papa and mama. And a creationist may do
> likewise sometimes, but a creationist would regard the truth of the
> matter that the origin of the baby is from the spiritual creating out
> of nothing, such as from love in marriage. That is the fundamental
> difference between creationists and evolutionists.
Are you saying that the in-vivo process that continues to this day
constitutes "creation events"?
>
> regards,
> Mohammad Nur Syamsu
Frank J
> I disagree, you can't be a creationist, if you do not believe in
> creation.
(this time with the CC):
Define "creation".
> That is the fundamental fact. Evolutionists believe origins
> is through descent, from modification of the material that is there by
> the laws of nature. Creationists believe that origins is through an
> act of creation by the spirit from nothing.
How many years ago did the first "act of creation" applicable to Earth
species occur?
>
> An evolutionist would describe the origins of a baby as being a
> modified descendent from papa and mama. And a creationist may do
> likewise sometimes, but a creationist would regard the truth of the
> matter that the origin of the baby is from the spiritual creating out
> of nothing, such as from love in marriage. That is the fundamental
> difference between creationists and evolutionists.
Are you saying that the in-vivo process that continues to this day
constitites "acts of creation"?
Another obvious question comes to mind. Your example covers only H.
sapiens, but IDers seem more interested in bacteria and their flagella
in particular. So when a bacterium replicates, is that an act of
creation?
>
> regards,
> Mohammad Nur Syamsu
Frank J
wrote:
> In message
> <3184ca79-f37b-44e2-892c-2d90092c7...@b25g2000prb.googlegroups.com>, Ray
> Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> writes
>
> >real Creationist if they accept the concept of evolution to exist in
> >nature.
>
> >note that acceptance of evolution leaves a person confused and/or
> >ignorant. The evidence supporting this observation is seen in the
> >number of "Creationists" who accept evolution or mutability.
>
Steven L. hit the nail on the head. We're just not used to
creationists being so honest. Ray is "evolving" too. I never expected
him to answer my question of whether he's the only true creationist,
let alone in the affirmative.
> --
> sapient_usene...@spamsights.org ICQ #17887309 * Save the net *
> Grok:http://spam.abuse.net http://www.cauce.org* nuke a spammer *
> Find:http://www.samspade.orghttp://www.netdemon.net * today *
Burkhard
You are British? Shome mishtake, shurely? Did you mean "brutish"?
Frank J
Thanks for the prompt, and totally unexpected, answer.
BTW, can I assume that you include ID in 20th century "Creationism"?
>
> Ray (British Natural Theologian)- Hide quoted text -
Devils Advocaat
When is your forthcoming paper going to actually come?
Dana Tweedy
>>> "And that
>>> any two population can ever become reproductively isolated" is not
>>> denied or rejected.
>>
>> You are contradicting yourself. A population becoming reproductively
>> isolated is evolution.
>
> Two members of a population separating or becoming lost is not
> speciation.
Two populations separating into groups that can no longer interbreed is
speciation.
> But Dumbwinists interpret the event as leading to
> speciation.
It's usually more than just two individuals, but a portion of the original
population being separated from the parent group.
>
>> You've just declared yourself not to be a
>> creationist.....
>>
>>> We reject the fact to support or have anything to
>>> do with speciation.
>>
>> Again, Ray, you contradict yourself. A population becoming
>> reproducively isolated IS speciation.
>
> You do not understand the claims of evolutionary theory.
On the contrary, I understand evolutionary theory, it's you who is getting
it wrong.
> Reproductive
> isolation is not in itself "speciation."
Reproductive isolation is what's required for speciation to take place, and
if that population becomes unable to breed with it's parent population, it's
a new species.
>The claim is that it is a
> necessary condition that leads to speciation.
Then you must admit it has something to do with speciation.
>
>> How can speciation have nothing to do with
>> speciation?
>>
>>
>>
>>>>> This fundamental fact renders the vast majority of so called
>>>>> "Creationists" to be confused and/or ignorant.
>>
>>>> No, that's not what renders them confused and ignorant. Though we
>>>> can at least agree on their condition.
>>
>>> Well, I am glad to see that you agree as to their condition, that
>>> is, persons who accept the concepts of "evolution" and "creation"
>>> to exist in nature.
>>
>> Yes, because most creationists are not totally disconnected with
>> reality. They realize that denying the obviousness of evolutionary
>> change would make them look foolish.
>>
>
> Comment simply acknowledges that which is not in dispute:
> "Creationists" who accept their enemy: evolution.
Evolution is not an enemy of "creationists". It's a scientific theory, so
well supported that it's absurd to deny it.
>
> The English language calls the hybrid seen above "a buffoon."
No, you use that particular bit of name calling, because you aren't able to
dispute the point.
snipping more that Ray is avoiding
DJT
J.J. O'Shea
(in article
<be42de88-832e-4936...@b14g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>):
Well, he's nasty, but we don't know if he's short.
--
email to oshea dot j dot j at gmail dot com.
Ye Old One
Liar! There is absolutely ZERO evidence for it.
>
>> >Resurrection,
>>
>> Impossible.
>>
>
>Christians disagree.
Not those with any scientific understanding.
>
>> >design,
>>
>> None seen.
>>
>
>By Darwinists, yes, I agree.
None seen by science.
>
>> >special creation,
>>
>> No evidence for such a thing.
>>
>
>Stasis.
No evidence for that either.
>
>> > stasis,
>>
>> None found.
>>
>
>Gould 2002 calls stasis the "literal signal" of the fossil record.
Learn to read what he was saying.
>
>> > IC systems,
>>
>> So far, none found - not even one.
>>
>
>Michael Behe, a scientist who accepts common ancestry and human
>evolution, disagrees; as do many others.
And yet none of them can find a single example that holds up to
examination.
--
Bob.
Ray Martinez
No.
Not ID but DI ID, that is, their fraudulent campaign to assert the
concept of "evolution" to be caused by Intelligent causation.
Ray
Ray Martinez
wrote:
> Ray Martinez wrote:
> > On Aug 23, 5:52 pm, John Harshman <jharshman.diespam...@pacbell.net>
> > wrote:
> >> Ray Martinez wrote:
> >>> ....are persons who accept species immutability. A person cannot be a
> >>> real Creationist if they accept the concept of evolution to exist in
> >>> nature.
> >> So you're saying that in order to be a real creationist you have to
> >> ignore even more of the data than most creationists. You have to deny
> >> that natural selection ever really happens, that new mutations are ever
> >> fixed, and that any two population can ever become reproductively
> >> isolated. Pretty much everything that's easy to reproduce in a laboratory.
>
> > Yes, in order to be a real Creationist you must reject the main claim
> > made in behalf of natural selection: naturally occurring unintelligent
> > creative force causing formation of new species. Creationists accept
> > new species to result from interventionism (= Intelligence). "And that
> > any two population can ever become reproductively isolated" is not
> > denied or rejected. We reject the fact to support or have anything to
> > do with speciation.
>
> I'm afraid your position is too intellectually confused to argue with.
> But I'll try to clarify anyway. Does this intelligent intervention make
> new species out of old ones? If so, is there a way to distinguish such
> intervention from natural processes?
>
Comments tell us that John Harshman does not know the meaning of
"interventionism," that is, the main claim of Creationism.
Interventionism: Divine power intruding into reality causing *each*
species, past and present, to exist.
"Natural process" since Darwin 1859 means "absence of supernatural" or
"the closed systems of material nature causing biological production."
> And do you also reject evolution that doesn't result in speciation?
>
The concepts of "evolution" and "selection" and "speciation" do NOT
exist in nature.
> >>> This fundamental fact renders the vast majority of so called
> >>> "Creationists" to be confused and/or ignorant.
> >> No, that's not what renders them confused and ignorant. Though we can at
> >> least agree on their condition.
>
> > Well, I am glad to see that you agree as to their condition, that is,
> > persons who accept the concepts of "evolution" and "creation" to exist
> > in nature.
>
> That is not, of course, what we're agreeing on. I suspect that even you
> knew that.
>
John now informs us that his initial comment contained an invisible
asterisk.
> >>> It is important to
> >>> note that acceptance of evolution leaves a person confused and/or
> >>> ignorant. The evidence supporting this observation is seen in the
> >>> number of "Creationists" who accept evolution or mutability.
> >> That's even more circular than your usual reasoning. Acceptance of
> >> evolution renders you confused/ignorant, and you show this by noting
> >> that some people accept evolution, which is evidence that they're
> >> confused/ignorant? Surely even you can see that this is swallowing its
> >> own tail.
>
> > The point sailed right over your head, John.
>
> > Persons who accept antonymic concepts to exist in nature ("creation"
> > and "evolution")---simultaneously----are confused-ignorant. Do you
> > understand?
>
> They would be if the concepts were indeed antonymic. Of course you
> didn't respond to my argument.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Extreme ignorance.
The concepts of "Creation" and "Evolution" are as antonymic as they
get.
Darwinists reject the concept of "creation" to exist in nature. In
fact, they routinely say that no evidence supporting Creationism
exists in reality.
Imagine that; a guy with a doctorate who does not know the meaning of
"interventionism" or "natural process" or "creation" or "evolution"----
all basic 101 stuff?
This could explain why John Harshman accepts evolution.
Ray
Ray Martinez
>
> - Show quoted text -
I stopped setting dates a long time ago.
The answer is: ASAP.
Ray
Ray Martinez
> On Tue, 25 Aug 2009 11:43:28 -0700 (PDT), Ray Martinez
Unread dimwit.
Many Atheists admit that a crucifixion occurred. They even accept an
empty tomb.
>
>
> >> >Resurrection,
>
> >> Impossible.
>
> >Christians disagree.
>
> Not those with any scientific understanding.
>
Persons who reject the Resurrection cannot be Christians.
Science has always proven the Resurrection.
>
>
> >> >design,
>
> >> None seen.
>
> >By Darwinists, yes, I agree.
>
> None seen by science.
>
Science has always accepted design. Only Darwinism rejects.
>
>
> >> >special creation,
>
> >> No evidence for such a thing.
>
> >Stasis.
>
> No evidence for that either.
>
>
>
> >> > stasis,
>
> >> None found.
>
> >Gould 2002 calls stasis the "literal signal" of the fossil record.
>
> Learn to read what he was saying.
>
"Literal signal" means that stasis is seen in the fossil record. Gould
also calls it the "trade secret." Darwin plainly admitted, saying the
evolutionary pages were missing (too bad)!
Your answer proves the Creationist claim that Darwinists in general
are dishonest, contradicting their own scholars.
>
>
> >> > IC systems,
>
> >> So far, none found - not even one.
>
> >Michael Behe, a scientist who accepts common ancestry and human
> >evolution, disagrees; as do many others.
>
> And yet none of them can find a single example that holds up to
> examination.
>
> --
> Bob.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
How stupid of me to waste time arguing with a howler.
Ray
nando_r...@yahoo.com
"the wall is more white than my shirt", then I do not posit a theory
of whiteness that somehow exists in the universe and governs the color
in nature. Similarly when I say "this organism is more likely to
reproduce than another", then not for a moment do I believe that
natural selection is acting in nature. These are manufactured facts
produced by myself by comparison, for practical use, these are not
facts of nature. So really creationists can use evolutionary logic for
practical purposes, because sometimes it really is practical to note
that one organism is more likely to produce than another. Aristotle
also used the logic of natural selection, but at the same time he
discarded it as an untrue view of how organisms come to be. Instead he
held a creationist goalbased view of how organisms come to be, to be
the true view.
Aside from that, there is a theory which substantiates your sort of
phrasing of "evolutionary concepts not existing in nature". According
to socalled hyperincursive math, things compute their own state by
socalled selfrefferential equations. This means for instance, that
besides the variables, you also enter the theory of gravity itself as
data into the theory of gravity. So in this sort of math there is a
lot of truth to the statements of whether or not concepts exist in
nature or not. Some do exist, and some dont. Gravity does exist this
way, applied it describes the abberation in the perihellion of Mercury
accurately, but evolution... so far I haven't seen it can be done,
entering the theory of natural selection as data into the theory of
natural selection.
regards,
Mohammad Nur Syamsu
heekster
<bl...@rivadpm.com> wrote:
>On Aug 25, 6:34�am, j...@wilkins.id.au (John S. Wilkins) wrote:
>> Earle Jones <earle.jo...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> > In article
>> > <110307e6-2b95-4ccf-8ad9-7b34112e0...@v20g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>,
>> > �nando_rontel...@yahoo.com wrote:
>>
>> > > On Aug 24, 3:2l3 am, Boikat <boi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>>
>> > > > Sorry, but time travel is not possible at this time.
>>
>> > > First of all the spiritual is not subject to time much, there is no
>> > > reason to assume so.
>>
>> > > Second, as you could have read it in the references to the Delawarr
>> > > camera, it is possible to photograph the past as well as the future of
>> > > a thing. Because time progresses per decision, it is possible by using
>> > > decisionmaking as a measuring instrument(through interference,meaning
>> > > to make alternatives come out equal, with the decisionprocess of the
>> > > thing itself), to see the organized information in the past, and
>> > > future of a thing.
>>
>> > > regards,
>> > > Mohammad Nur Syamsu
>>
>> > *
>> > If I photograph a star, let's say Alpha Centauri, I am photographing a
>> > distribution of light that existed about 4.4 years ago. �In other words,
>> > the distance from earth to Alpha Centauri is about 4.4 light-years.
>>
>> > In this sense, I am photographing the organized information of the past.
>>
>> > Now please explain how I get information about the future.
>>
>> Look at the negative?
>>
>> --
>> John S. Wilkins, Philosophy, University of Sydneyhttp://evolvingthoughts.net
>> But al be that he was a philosophre,
>> Yet hadde he but litel gold in cofre
>
>You've got to accentuate the positive, eliminate the negative.
And latch on to the affirmative,
Don't mess with Mister In-Between.
Frank J
That's what I meant by "ID". Thanks for a more descriptive term, "DI
ID," which I plan use and credit you as the source.
>
> Ray- Hide quoted text -
John Harshman
Yes, that much was clear. The question is whether that means fiat
creation, ex nihilo, of all new species. And the question remains how we
would distinguish such intervention in the past, based on data we can
hope to have access to, from natural processes.
> "Natural process" since Darwin 1859 means "absence of supernatural" or
> "the closed systems of material nature causing biological production."
>
>> And do you also reject evolution that doesn't result in speciation?
>
> The concepts of "evolution" and "selection" and "speciation" do NOT
> exist in nature.
Obviously the concepts don't exist in nature. Concepts exist in human
minds. But they are concepts that apply to phenomena. The question is
whether you think any of those phenomena exist.
>>>>> This fundamental fact renders the vast majority of so called
>>>>> "Creationists" to be confused and/or ignorant.
>>>> No, that's not what renders them confused and ignorant. Though we can at
>>>> least agree on their condition.
>>> Well, I am glad to see that you agree as to their condition, that is,
>>> persons who accept the concepts of "evolution" and "creation" to exist
>>> in nature.
>> That is not, of course, what we're agreeing on. I suspect that even you
>> knew that.
>
> John now informs us that his initial comment contained an invisible
> asterisk.
John now informs you (the only one in need of being informed, because
everyone else can read) that he didn't mean what you claimed, as should
have been obvious without anyone having to tell you.
>>>>> It is important to
>>>>> note that acceptance of evolution leaves a person confused and/or
>>>>> ignorant. The evidence supporting this observation is seen in the
>>>>> number of "Creationists" who accept evolution or mutability.
>>>> That's even more circular than your usual reasoning. Acceptance of
>>>> evolution renders you confused/ignorant, and you show this by noting
>>>> that some people accept evolution, which is evidence that they're
>>>> confused/ignorant? Surely even you can see that this is swallowing its
>>>> own tail.
>>> The point sailed right over your head, John.
>>> Persons who accept antonymic concepts to exist in nature ("creation"
>>> and "evolution")---simultaneously----are confused-ignorant. Do you
>>> understand?
>> They would be if the concepts were indeed antonymic. Of course you
>> didn't respond to my argument.
> Extreme ignorance.
>
> The concepts of "Creation" and "Evolution" are as antonymic as they
> get.
No, they aren't. They can easily be mixed. And in fact you do so
yourself. You divide the world into things that are created and things
that aren't. And a single object can be partially created and partially
not, as, for example, a block of marble (presumably not even you think
that was created) sculpted into a bust of Aristotle. Now we can agree
that whatever aspects of anything were created by god are not due to
natural processes and vice versa, but there's plenty of room for various
aspects to differ in their causation, and so render it possible to
affirm both creation and evolution. One could suppose, for example, that
the first primate was created ex nihilo, and that all subsequent primate
species evolved from that first one. If you think that's
self-contradictory, you will have to explain why.
> Darwinists reject the concept of "creation" to exist in nature. In
> fact, they routinely say that no evidence supporting Creationism
> exists in reality.
Some do, some don't. Various flavors of theistic evolutionist would
disagree with you here. I know you don't like them because they don't
fit well into your two little categories. Then again, everybody but you
is apparently in the same category (evolutionist) and you're all alone
in yours (creationist). Or such is your story, at least.
> Imagine that; a guy with a doctorate who does not know the meaning of
> "interventionism" or "natural process" or "creation" or "evolution"----
> all basic 101 stuff?
>
> This could explain why John Harshman accepts evolution.
Or you could be seriously deluded. One of those.
Rich Mathers
Which is just as well, since you have nothing scientific to offer.
>
> The answer is: ASAP.
>
> Ray
fnord
Boikat
> On Aug 23, 3:10 pm, Boikat <boi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Aug 23, 4:58 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > ....are persons who accept species immutability. A person cannot be a
> > > real Creationist if they accept the concept of evolution to exist in
> > > nature.
>
> > Creationist" as opposed to telling people thay are not "real
> > Christians" id they accept evolution.
>
> > > This fundamental fact renders the vast majority of so called
> > > "Creationists" to be confused and/or ignorant.
>
>
> > > It is important to
> > > note that acceptance of evolution leaves a person confused and/or
> > > ignorant.
>
>
> > > The evidence supporting this observation is seen in the
> > > number of "Creationists" who accept evolution or mutability.
>
>
> That's right.
Wrong, since many creationists do accept micro-evolution.
>
> If you do then you are not a Creationist.
In the sane world, you do not get to determine that. You can make all
the pronouncements all you want, however, those who claim "Goddidit"
are creationists. It all depends on how involved the god thingy is
claimed to be involved.
>
> This means that Sean Pitman is NOT a Creationist. Sean told me that he
> accepts the concept of "low level evolution" to exist in nature.
So, Pitman is not as stupid as you. And?
Boikat
Boikat
> On Aug 24, 3:2l3 am, Boikat <boi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> > Sorry, but time travel is not possible at this time.
>
> First of all the spiritual is not subject to time much, there is no
> reason to assume so.
Evidence?
>
> Second, as you could have read it in the references to the Delawarr
> camera,
What does an account of a scam have to do with it?
> it is possible to photograph the past as well as the future of
> a thing.
You'll fall for any malarkey if you think it gives even the most
tenious hint of supporting your deluded world view, won't you?
> Because time progresses per decision,
No. Time passes, period.
> it is possible by using
> decisionmaking as a measuring instrument(through interference,meaning
> to make alternatives come out equal,
That sounded like the Martians in the movie, "Mars Attacks" :
"...Ack ack. ackackack. Ackack...."
> with the decisionprocess of the
> thing itself), to see the organized information in the past, and
> future of a thing.
>
Do you really think that your word salad means anything that has
anything to do with reality? Please, think again.
Boikat
David Hare-Scott
>>> ....are persons who accept species immutability. A person cannot be
>>> a real Creationist if they accept the concept of evolution to exist
>>> in nature.
>>
>>> note that acceptance of evolution leaves a person confused and/or
>>> number of "Creationists" who accept evolution or mutability.
>>
>>
>> You can define it however you like.
>
> False.
>
> "Creationist" cannot be defined however one likes. This is the exact
> point of this thread.
>
>> There is no reason to allow the world
>> to interfere with your faith.
>
> It is a Constitutional right: the State cannot interfere with anyones
> faith.
>
>> facts and evidence and you shouldn't need to spend any time on the
>> issue.
>
> special creation, stasis, IC systems, etc.etc.
>
The meaning of "Creationist" is frozen in stone (according to you) but you
feel free to define "fact" however you like.
>> Surely you can just declare the matter settled and get on with your
>> life.
>
> We have and we are.
>
If it is settled why do you keep going on about it? Are you proselytising
or reassuring yourself and coreligionists?
>> However you are driven to constantly assert this belief in public.
>> Why is that?
>>
>
> Ever heard of the 1st Amendment?
In your country this may say that you are permitted to do it but it doesn't
explain at all _why_ you do it, which was my question.
Once again, if you are so confident in your belief why must you constantly
assert it in public?
>
>> Does your faith need constant refurbishing or does it make you feel
>> more righteous when you do battle with the unbelievers almost daily?
>>
>> David
>
> Turn the station (= log off or leave this site).
>
Why? Are you saying that I don't have the right to ask such questions?
David
Ye Old One
No they do not since there is no evidence whatsoever for either.
>
>>
>>
>> >> >Resurrection,
>>
>> >> Impossible.
>>
>> >Christians disagree.
>>
>> Not those with any scientific understanding.
>>
>
>Persons who reject the Resurrection cannot be Christians.
Persons who understand science know that the mythical resurrection is
just that, a myth.
>
>Science has always proven the Resurrection.
Lying arsehole.
>
>>
>>
>> >> >design,
>>
>> >> None seen.
>>
>> >By Darwinists, yes, I agree.
>>
>> None seen by science.
>>
>
>Science has always accepted design. Only Darwinism rejects.
Science does not see design.
>
>>
>>
>> >> >special creation,
>>
>> >> No evidence for such a thing.
>>
>> >Stasis.
>>
>> No evidence for that either.
>>
>>
>>
>> >> > stasis,
>>
>> >> None found.
>>
>> >Gould 2002 calls stasis the "literal signal" of the fossil record.
>>
>> Learn to read what he was saying.
>>
>
>"Literal signal" means that stasis is seen in the fossil record.
For some species, not for life as a whole.
> Gould
>also calls it the "trade secret." Darwin plainly admitted, saying the
>evolutionary pages were missing (too bad)!
That was 150 years ago, most pages have now been found.
>
>Your answer proves the Creationist claim that Darwinists in general
>are dishonest, contradicting their own scholars.
The only dishonest one is you - Dishonest Ray, well known as one of
the biggest liars on usenet.
>
>>
>>
>> >> > IC systems,
>>
>> >> So far, none found - not even one.
>>
>> >Michael Behe, a scientist who accepts common ancestry and human
>> >evolution, disagrees; as do many others.
>>
>> And yet none of them can find a single example that holds up to
>> examination.
>>
>> --
>> Bob.- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
>How stupid of me to waste time arguing with a howler.
Your stupidity comes from that con-man Gene 'Expletive Deleted' Scott.
The guy that even had to lie about his education to make himself look
big and con more money out of thousands of people.
>
>Ray
--
Bob.
Ernest Major
<use...@mcsuk.net> writes
>>> >> >> If your faith is strong you don't need any
>>> >> >> facts and evidence and you shouldn't need to spend any time on the issue.
>>>
>>> >> >Faith is based on facts: like the Crucifixion,
>>>
>>> >> no evidence for it exists.
>>>
>>> >A great number of Atheists accept that Jesus was crucified. It is a
>>> >historical fact.
>>>
>>> Liar! There is absolutely ZERO evidence for it.
>>>
>>
>>Unread dimwit.
>>
>>Many Atheists admit that a crucifixion occurred. They even accept an
>>empty tomb.
>
>No they do not since there is no evidence whatsoever for either.
I think that you'll find that the truth lies somewhere between your
positions.
Firstly, your no evidence is like Ray's "all atheists". There are good
reasons for not accepting the evidence of the New Testament and New
Testament Apocrypha alone as sufficient to establish many of the claims
therein, but they do exist.
Turning to the specific claims, some atheists (I'd guess a majority)
believe that the balance of evidence supports the position that the
biblical Jesus was based on a historical character (with the proviso
that it is difficult to draw the line between a composite character and
a single character who has accreted tales properly belong to others).
I am agnostic as to whether the crucifixion occurred. Ray's claim that
it is a historical fact is not supportable, but we know that
crucifixions were a Roman method of execution, and we have hearsay
evidence that Jesus was executed in that fashion. (And it's not the sort
of thing that we would expect hagiographers to invent.) If even a small
proportion of atheists go a bit further and provisionally accept the
Crucifixion as having occurred that would justify Ray's "many atheists".
(On the other hand, by the same standards, many Christians don't believe
that the Resurrection happened.)
I expect that the number of atheists who accept the empty tomb is
smaller, but there are non-miraculous explanations for it, and I don't
share your confidence that the number is zero.
--
alias Ernest Major
Erwin Moller
> Ray (British Natural Theologian)
>
I wondered what Natural Thology excactly is.
Wikipedia says:
"Natural theology is a branch of theology based on reason and ordinary
experience."
Reason?
Well, at least you are British.
Regards,
Erwin Moller
--
"There are two ways of constructing a software design: One way is to
make it so simple that there are obviously no deficiencies, and the
other way is to make it so complicated that there are no obvious
deficiencies. The first method is far more difficult."
-- C.A.R. Hoare
Devils Advocaat
This little item may help you:
http://www.quantumenterprises.co.uk/roundtuitimages/Traditional_Tuit_Vivaldi_Wood1.jpg
Boikat
You left of the "F":
ASAPF (=As Soon As Pigs Fly)
Boikat
Dick C.
news:0d6ddd99-3883-48de...@p36g2000prn.googlegroups.com:
> On Aug 25, 11:11�am, Ye Old One <use...@mcsuk.net> wrote:
>> On Tue, 25 Aug 2009 10:40:47 -0700 (PDT), Ray Martinez
>> <pyramid...@yahoo.com> enriched this group when s/he wrote:
>>
>> >Faith is based on facts: like the Crucifixion,
>>
>> no evidence for it exists.
>>
>
> A great number of Atheists accept that Jesus was crucified. It is a
> historical fact.
No, Ray, it is not a historical fact. It is from your holy book that
we atheists do not believe in. However, since you have defined
atheists to include all Christians except you, then by your definition
the above statement is true. However, real atheists disagree.
>
>> >Resurrection,
>>
>> Impossible.
>>
>
> Christians disagree.
And they accept the bible on faith, which is the only source for the
claim. The fact that they think the bible is factual does not make it
so. Reality is not based on how many people believe in something.
--
Dick #1349
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary
safety
deserve neither liberty nor safety."
~Benjamin Franklin
Home Page: dickcr.iwarp.com
email: dic...@gmail.com
Devils Advocaat
<Since_humans_read_this_I_am_spammed_too_m...@spamyourself.com> wrote:
> Ray Martinez schreef:
>
> > Ray (British Natural Theologian)
>
> I wondered what Natural Thology excactly is.
>
> Wikipedia says:
> "Natural theology is a branch of theology based on reason and ordinary
> experience."
>
> Reason?
>
> Well, at least you are British.
Is he really?
John McKendry
> On 26 Aug, 13:23, Erwin Moller
> <Since_humans_read_this_I_am_spammed_too_m...@spamyourself.com> wrote:
>> Ray Martinez schreef:
>>
>> > Ray (British Natural Theologian)
>>
>> I wondered what Natural Thology excactly is.
>>
>> Wikipedia says:
>> "Natural theology is a branch of theology based on reason and ordinary
>> experience."
>>
>> Reason?
>>
>> Well, at least you are British.
>
> Is he really?
No, he's "British" in that he claims to be the intellectual and
spiritual heir to the British tradition of Natural Theology, because
he thinks that claiming this tradition will make his arguments
more substantial and respectable, and because he thinks that awarding
himself the name is all it takes to make it true. He is "British"
in the same way as he is "Christian".
John
Burkhard
Having a geographical prefix before a science or school of thought is
pretty much a declaration of bankruptcy, or maybe its death, isn't it?
If a theory is true (or well corroborated, sound, etc ) it is so
everywhere and not just within the territory of a country.
Mike Lyle
Well, that's a bit unfair. It's not unreasonable for schools of thought
to have identifying handles to their monikers, with some of them based
on proper names. Think of the Oxford Movement, etc.
I think Ray is in fact a Usan of at least partial Mexican origin. The
favoured form of Protestantism may come from a much-loved grandfather
(sorry, Ray: I know this is a bit impertinent, but it's slightly
pertinent).
--
Mike.
Burkhard
wrote:
Mhh, I think this typically happens with hindsight, when the movement
is history and not any longer a living and relevant force. On rare
occasions (Vienna circle, possibly) a group might use a geographical
term for themselves, but I'd say it is unusual for someone not "on
location" to adopt it as a self-description. And for proper science,
it almost always is a really bad sign. At the danger of calling in a
Godwin, once people started to talk about "German" or "Aryan" physics
to reject the theory of relativity it was high time to pack and
leave.
Ray Martinez
Okay....
> The question is whether that means fiat
> creation, ex nihilo, of all new species.
No: it means creation ex materia of all new species.
> And the question remains how we
> would distinguish such intervention in the past, based on data we can
> hope to have access to, from natural processes.
>
But "natural processes" means supernatural (includes the concepts of
creation and interventionism) to be absent from nature. With this said
what are you saying or driving at?
We can tell you how we recognize interventionism. But we cannot do the
same with so called "natural processes." I think you need to define or
explain "natural process" as it relates to supernaturalism.
> > "Natural process" since Darwin 1859 means "absence of supernatural" or
> > "the closed systems of material nature causing biological production."
>
> >> And do you also reject evolution that doesn't result in speciation?
>
> > The concepts of "evolution" and "selection" and "speciation" do NOT
> > exist in nature.
>
> Obviously the concepts don't exist in nature. Concepts exist in human
> minds. But they are concepts that apply to phenomena. The question is
> whether you think any of those phenomena exist.
>
False.
A fact is an idea or concept that has direct correspondence with
"thing" occupying reality. The concept of "evolution" has no such
correspondent therefore it is not a fact. "Evolution" only exists in
the minds of Darwinists. Evolution is refuted.
No, I don't.
> And a single object can be partially created and partially
> not, as, for example, a block of marble (presumably not even you think
> that was created) sculpted into a bust of Aristotle. Now we can agree
> that whatever aspects of anything were created by god are not due to
> natural processes and vice versa, but there's plenty of room for various
> aspects to differ in their causation, and so render it possible to
> affirm both creation and evolution. One could suppose, for example, that
> the first primate was created ex nihilo,...
Sourceless idea....
> ....and that all subsequent primate
> species evolved from that first one.
Deism.
> If you think that's
> self-contradictory, you will have to explain why.
>
You are advocating Deism like Darwin did to end "The Origin."
Where did Darwin obtain the idea that Intelligence or Guide initiated
unintelligent and unguided material process?
> > Darwinists reject the concept of "creation" to exist in nature. In
> > fact, they routinely say that no evidence supporting Creationism
> > exists in reality.
>
> Some do, some don't. Various flavors of theistic evolutionist would
> disagree with you here. I know you don't like them because they don't
> fit well into your two little categories. Then again, everybody but you
> is apparently in the same category (evolutionist) and you're all alone
> in yours (creationist). Or such is your story, at least.
>
> > Imagine that; a guy with a doctorate who does not know the meaning of
> > "interventionism" or "natural process" or "creation" or "evolution"----
> > all basic 101 stuff?
>
> > This could explain why John Harshman accepts evolution.
>
> Or you could be seriously deluded. One of those.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Ray
Ray Martinez
Yes, it is important to distinguish between ID and DI IDism.
Ray IDist
>
>
>
>
> > Ray- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
John Harshman
OK. Now, what kind of materia? From a pre-existing species? From the
dust of the ground? Please specify in detail how you think new species
arise.
>> And the question remains how we
>> would distinguish such intervention in the past, based on data we can
>> hope to have access to, from natural processes.
>
> But "natural processes" means supernatural (includes the concepts of
> creation and interventionism) to be absent from nature. With this said
> what are you saying or driving at?
I have to reject your premise. It's entirely conceivable for some
processes to be natural and others to be supernatural. My question here
is how you would distinguish one from the other based on evidence after
the fact.
> We can tell you how we recognize interventionism. But we cannot do the
> same with so called "natural processes." I think you need to define or
> explain "natural process" as it relates to supernaturalism.
Who are "we"? And how do you recognize interventionism? For our purposes
here, let me define "natural" as "not involving direct intervention by
god". Snowflakes, for example, form by natural processes. So do
hurricanes. Do you agree?
>>> "Natural process" since Darwin 1859 means "absence of supernatural" or
>>> "the closed systems of material nature causing biological production."
>>>> And do you also reject evolution that doesn't result in speciation?
>>> The concepts of "evolution" and "selection" and "speciation" do NOT
>>> exist in nature.
>> Obviously the concepts don't exist in nature. Concepts exist in human
>> minds. But they are concepts that apply to phenomena. The question is
>> whether you think any of those phenomena exist.
>
> False.
>
> A fact is an idea or concept that has direct correspondence with
> "thing" occupying reality. The concept of "evolution" has no such
> correspondent therefore it is not a fact. "Evolution" only exists in
> the minds of Darwinists. Evolution is refuted.
Not that easily. You can't refute evolution just by saying it's refuted.
But thanks for clarifying your idiosyncratic language. But I think you
need to clarify more. What are your definitions of "evolution",
"selection", and "speciation", such that they can be shown not to exist
in nature?
Really? So everything is created? Is a mud puddle created? In what sense
can you possibly mean this?
>> And a single object can be partially created and partially
>> not, as, for example, a block of marble (presumably not even you think
>> that was created) sculpted into a bust of Aristotle. Now we can agree
>> that whatever aspects of anything were created by god are not due to
>> natural processes and vice versa, but there's plenty of room for various
>> aspects to differ in their causation, and so render it possible to
>> affirm both creation and evolution. One could suppose, for example, that
>> the first primate was created ex nihilo,...
>
> Sourceless idea....
I don't understand the objection, if that was an objection.
>> ....and that all subsequent primate
>> species evolved from that first one.
>
> Deism.
No, deism as generally understood in this connection would have the
creator intervening only at the very beginning, to cause the Big Bang.
>> If you think that's
>> self-contradictory, you will have to explain why.
>
> You are advocating Deism like Darwin did to end "The Origin."
I'm not advocating any of this. I'm presenting an example to demonstrate
that it's possible to hypothesize a mixture of creation and evolution,
without internal contradiction.
> Where did Darwin obtain the idea that Intelligence or Guide initiated
> unintelligent and unguided material process?
Who says he ever had such an idea? Are you referring to a couple of
words in the very last sentence of the Origin? And how is this relevant?
Ray Martinez
That would indicate "evolution," so NO!
> From the
> dust of the ground? Please specify in detail how you think new species
> arise.
>
Creationists accept the scientific explanation: creation ex materia
(from a clay-like ground).
> >> And the question remains how we
> >> would distinguish such intervention in the past, based on data we can
> >> hope to have access to, from natural processes.
>
> > But "natural processes" means supernatural (includes the concepts of
> > creation and interventionism) [is] absent from nature. With this said
> > what are you saying or driving at?
>
> I have to reject your premise. It's entirely conceivable for some
> processes to be natural and others to be supernatural.
Subjective claim.
The objective choice is one OR the other and NOT both. By the way,
your view here is Sean Pitman's view: two mutually contradicting
agencies co-existing in nature. The History and Philosophy of Science
allows two choices. Both views presuppose the utter falsity and non-
existence of the other:
1. Creationism-ID says supernatural or Intelligent agency is operating
in reality; and it alone causes biological production.
2. Darwinism-Naturalism says Divine agency is absent from reality:
only unintelligent-unguided material exists; and it alone causes
biological production.
> My question here
> is how you would distinguish one from the other based on evidence after
> the fact.
>
Your question presupposes the existence of unintelligent-unguided
material agencies. No such agencies exist (except in the minds of
Darwinists).
Design and organized complexity correspond to Intelligent causation,
not unintelligent-unguided.
> > We can tell you how we recognize interventionism. But we cannot do the
> > same with so called "natural processes." I think you need to define or
> > explain "natural process" as it relates to supernaturalism.
>
> Who are "we"?
Pre-1859 Creationism or modern day anti-evolutionists.
> And how do you recognize interventionism?
My position is the position of Science before the rise of Darwinism.
> For our purposes
> here, let me define "natural" as "not involving direct intervention by
> god".
Good definition. I can say it in one word: absence.
> Snowflakes, for example, form by natural processes. So do
> hurricanes. Do you agree?
>
I really don't want to comment on snowflakes because snowflakes, in my
paper, are offered as spectacular evidence supporting the God
hypothesis. Using the definition of "natural" just agreed upon, both
phenomena cannot result from said agency. The processes by which they
form were created by the concept seen in "Divine power."
Absence of intervention ("natural") also presupposes undirected-
unintelligent and unguided process. Hurricanes and snowflakes have no
correspondence whatsoever to these attributes. They are orderly and
wonderful phenomena. Does the process by which a hurricane form look
undirected-unguided? The answer is no. The process produces the
concept of "hurricane" everytime and hurricanes have many recognizable
characteristics. The concepts of "undirected-unguided" do not produce
predictable outcomes.
> >>> "Natural process" since Darwin 1859 means "absence of supernatural" or
> >>> "the closed systems of material nature causing biological production."
> >>>> And do you also reject evolution that doesn't result in speciation?
> >>> The concepts of "evolution" and "selection" and "speciation" do NOT
> >>> exist in nature.
> >> Obviously the concepts don't exist in nature. Concepts exist in human
> >> minds. But they are concepts that apply to phenomena. The question is
> >> whether you think any of those phenomena exist.
>
> > False.
>
> > A fact is an idea or concept that has direct correspondence with
> > "thing" occupying reality. The concept of "evolution" has no such
> > correspondent therefore it is not a fact. "Evolution" only exists in
> > the minds of Darwinists. Evolution is refuted.
>
> Not that easily. You can't refute evolution just by saying it's refuted.
What "thing" in reality exhibits the concept of "evolution"?
> But thanks for clarifying your idiosyncratic language. But I think you
> need to clarify more. What are your definitions of "evolution",
> "selection", and "speciation", such that they can be shown not to exist
> in nature?
>
You want me to paste 50 pages of my paper? Not going to happen. Thanks
for your interest. But I can say that my definition of "evolution"
will be unique. This is a very risky move in view of the fact that I
seek to falsify and refute the scientific veracity of the concept.
Choosing an "unorthodox" definition *could* jeopardize my goal.
I will get back to this.
> >> And a single object can be partially created and partially
> >> not, as, for example, a block of marble (presumably not even you think
> >> that was created) sculpted into a bust of Aristotle. Now we can agree
> >> that whatever aspects of anything were created by god are not due to
> >> natural processes and vice versa, but there's plenty of room for various
> >> aspects to differ in their causation, and so render it possible to
> >> affirm both creation and evolution. One could suppose, for example, that
> >> the first primate was created ex nihilo,...
>
> > Sourceless idea....
>
> I don't understand the objection, if that was an objection.
>
Where did you obtain said idea?
> >> ....and that all subsequent primate
> >> species evolved from that first one.
>
> > Deism.
>
> No, deism as generally understood in this connection would have the
> creator intervening only at the very beginning, to cause the Big Bang.
>
No. Deism is these context refers to biological First Cause.
> >> If you think that's
> >> self-contradictory, you will have to explain why.
>
> > You are advocating Deism like Darwin did to end "The Origin."
>
> I'm not advocating any of this. I'm presenting an example to demonstrate
> that it's possible to hypothesize a mixture of creation and evolution,
> without internal contradiction.
>
So far you haven't.
> > Where did Darwin obtain the idea that Intelligence or Guide initiated
> > unintelligent and unguided material process?
>
> Who says he ever had such an idea? Are you referring to a couple of
> words in the very last sentence of the Origin? [SNIP....]
>
Yes.
>
>
> >>> Darwinists reject the concept of "creation" to exist in nature. In
> >>> fact, they routinely say that no evidence supporting Creationism
> >>> exists in reality.
> >> Some do, some don't. Various flavors of theistic evolutionist would
> >> disagree with you here. I know you don't like them because they don't
> >> fit well into your two little categories. Then again, everybody but you
> >> is apparently in the same category (evolutionist) and you're all alone
> >> in yours (creationist). Or such is your story, at least.
>
> >>> Imagine that; a guy with a doctorate who does not know the meaning of
> >>> "interventionism" or "natural process" or "creation" or "evolution"----
> >>> all basic 101 stuff?
> >>> This could explain why John Harshman accepts evolution.
Ye Old One
<{$to$}@meden.demon.co.uk> enriched this group when s/he wrote:
>In message <3bv995ljsoms0nvbi...@4ax.com>, Ye Old One
><use...@mcsuk.net> writes
>>>> >> >> If your faith is strong you don't need any
>>>> >> >> facts and evidence and you shouldn't need to spend any time on the issue.
>>>>
>>>> >> >Faith is based on facts: like the Crucifixion,
>>>>
>>>> >> no evidence for it exists.
>>>>
>>>> >A great number of Atheists accept that Jesus was crucified. It is a
>>>> >historical fact.
>>>>
>>>> Liar! There is absolutely ZERO evidence for it.
>>>>
>>>
>>>Unread dimwit.
>>>
>>>Many Atheists admit that a crucifixion occurred. They even accept an
>>>empty tomb.
>>
>>No they do not since there is no evidence whatsoever for either.
>
>I think that you'll find that the truth lies somewhere between your
>positions.
No, I don't think so.
>
>Firstly, your no evidence is like Ray's "all atheists".
Not at all. If there was evidence then I'm sure someone would give it.
> There are good
>reasons for not accepting the evidence of the New Testament and New
>Testament Apocrypha alone as sufficient to establish many of the claims
>therein, but they do exist.
But are not evidence.
>
>Turning to the specific claims, some atheists (I'd guess a majority)
>believe that the balance of evidence supports the position that the
>biblical Jesus was based on a historical character (with the proviso
>that it is difficult to draw the line between a composite character and
>a single character who has accreted tales properly belong to others).
Given the overwhelming lack of evidence for his existence, I disagree.
>
>I am agnostic as to whether the crucifixion occurred. Ray's claim that
>it is a historical fact is not supportable, but we know that
>crucifixions were a Roman method of execution, and we have hearsay
>evidence that Jesus was executed in that fashion. (And it's not the sort
>of thing that we would expect hagiographers to invent.)
Why not, most good fiction is based on reality. They would have had to
come up with a method of execution that was long and painful to fit
their idea of him "suffering for our sins".
>If even a small
>proportion of atheists go a bit further and provisionally accept the
>Crucifixion as having occurred that would justify Ray's "many atheists".
Would it?
>(On the other hand, by the same standards, many Christians don't believe
>that the Resurrection happened.)
>
>I expect that the number of atheists who accept the empty tomb is
>smaller, but there are non-miraculous explanations for it, and I don't
>share your confidence that the number is zero.
It is a cascading structure. They first have to give evidence that JC
existed, then that he was crucified, then that a tomb existed and then
that a resurrection occurred.
Since they fail, dismally, at the first hurdle....
--
Bob.
Burkhard
>
>>>> And the question remains how we
>>>> would distinguish such intervention in the past, based on data we can
>>>> hope to have access to, from natural processes.
>>> But "natural processes" means supernatural (includes the concepts of
>>> creation and interventionism) [is] absent from nature. With this said
>>> what are you saying or driving at?
>> I have to reject your premise. It's entirely conceivable for some
>> processes to be natural and others to be supernatural.
>
> Subjective claim.
>
Since the claim was "it is conceivable", this is indeed all that ins
needed - a subject who conceives the idea.
> The objective choice is one OR the other and NOT both.
Apart from the problem that you assert this without giving reasons, John
only argues so far that it is logically consistent to have them both.
This is rather trivial, and I'd say most religions past and present
would subscribe to the view. It might still be the case that as a matter
of fact, they are all wrong and you are right, but John's claim is only
about conceptual consistency, not empirical truth.
By the way,
> your view here is Sean Pitman's view: two mutually contradicting
> agencies co-existing in nature.
Again, John does not say this view is correct (and he most certainly
would not adopt it I guess), only that it is consistent. John probably
does not believe (unlike me, say) that everything that can consistently
be expressed exists (somewhere)
The History and Philosophy of Science
> allows two choices.
A claim you often make but fail to substantiate.
Both views presuppose the utter falsity and non-
> existence of the other:
>
> 1. Creationism-ID says supernatural or Intelligent agency is operating
> in reality; and it alone causes biological production.
>
> 2. Darwinism-Naturalism says Divine agency is absent from reality:
> only unintelligent-unguided material exists; and it alone causes
> biological production.
>
Most certainly not. No Darwinist would deny that humans create new
species through intentional breeding say, or in the near future through
genetic engineering. While not supernatural agency, this is clearly not
a case of unguided-unintelligent production.
>> My question here
>> is how you would distinguish one from the other based on evidence after
>> the fact.
>>
>
> Your question presupposes the existence of unintelligent-unguided
> material agencies. No such agencies exist (except in the minds of
> Darwinists).
>
So with other words, your supernatural agency is not an empirical fact,
but a definition? "To happen means to happen by supernatural agency",
and hence no _possible_ observation (which was all John asked for) can
show an event not to be caused by supernatural agency?
> Design and organized complexity correspond to Intelligent causation,
> not unintelligent-unguided.
>
Well, "Design and organised complexity" _would _ have been an answer to
john's question above, I presume, the one you say cannot be answered
because it assume material agency. The "test" woudl then be to look for
either design or organised complexity. With the problem remaining that
this simply begs the question, unless you have an independent criteria
for either.
<snip>
>
> Absence of intervention ("natural") also presupposes undirected-
> unintelligent and unguided process. Hurricanes and snowflakes have no
> correspondence whatsoever to these attributes. They are orderly and
> wonderful phenomena. Does the process by which a hurricane form look
> undirected-unguided? The answer is no. The process produces the
> concept of "hurricane" everytime and hurricanes have many recognizable
> characteristics. The concepts of "undirected-unguided" do not produce
> predictable outcomes.
>
Well, the "concepts" indeed don't. once again you confuse concepts
(abstract entities) with the content of the concepts. But even if we
ignore this for a moment, why not? You might _claim_ that gravity is a
supernatural process, somehow, but there is no conceptual need, and no
basic physics textbook would express it like this. Physicists,
regardless of their religious or non-religious convictions, are
perfectly capable to calculate the predicted course of a billiard ball.
>>>>> "Natural process" since Darwin 1859 means "absence of supernatural" or
>>>>> "the closed systems of material nature causing biological production."
>>>>>> And do you also reject evolution that doesn't result in speciation?
>>>>> The concepts of "evolution" and "selection" and "speciation" do NOT
>>>>> exist in nature.
>>>> Obviously the concepts don't exist in nature. Concepts exist in human
>>>> minds. But they are concepts that apply to phenomena. The question is
>>>> whether you think any of those phenomena exist.
>>> False.
>>> A fact is an idea or concept that has direct correspondence with
>>> "thing" occupying reality. The concept of "evolution" has no such
>>> correspondent therefore it is not a fact.
This is not even idiosyncratic use of terminology, it sis obviously
wrong. The sentence: "Many books about evolution have been written" is
obviously right, the same way in which "Many books about Zeus have been
written" is right. That alone means that both the concept of evolution
and the concept of Zeus exists - whether either corresponds to something
in reality is a different issue.
,snip>
>>
>
> You want me to paste 50 pages of my paper? Not going to happen. Thanks
> for your interest. But I can say that my definition of "evolution"
> will be unique. This is a very risky move in view of the fact that I
> seek to falsify and refute the scientific veracity of the concept.
> Choosing an "unorthodox" definition *could* jeopardize my goal.
No "could" about it. Try: "will", as in "will render the whole exercise
utterly futile from the beginning"
<snip>
Mike Lyle
>> Snowflakes, for example, form by natural processes. So do
>> hurricanes. Do you agree?
>>
>
> I really don't want to comment on snowflakes because snowflakes, in my
> paper, are offered as spectacular evidence supporting the God
> hypothesis. Using the definition of "natural" just agreed upon, both
> phenomena cannot result from said agency. The processes by which they
> form were created by the concept seen in "Divine power."
>
> Absence of intervention ("natural") also presupposes undirected-
> unintelligent and unguided process. Hurricanes and snowflakes have no
> correspondence whatsoever to these attributes. They are orderly and
> wonderful phenomena. Does the process by which a hurricane form look
> undirected-unguided? The answer is no. The process produces the
> concept of "hurricane" everytime and hurricanes have many recognizable
> characteristics. The concepts of "undirected-unguided" do not produce
> predictable outcomes.
On the contrary, given enough data, the outcome of a "mechanical"
phenomenon will always be predictable. It's phenomena consciously
produced by an "operator" which may vary unpredictably.
>
[...]
>
> You want me to paste 50 pages of my paper? Not going to happen. Thanks
> for your interest. But I can say that my definition of "evolution"
> will be unique. This is a very risky move in view of the fact that I
> seek to falsify and refute the scientific veracity of the concept.
> Choosing an "unorthodox" definition *could* jeopardize my goal.
Your goal is to refute a definition which nobody believes? I don't see
the point of that. You really _must_ take the risk of being scooped and
discuss your work with somebody. Saving work in progress in independent
off-site storage will keep the drafts dated, so you needn't really fear
theft.
Meanwhile, I have no idea of your age or state of physical health, but
mortality is even more certain than taxes. Have you made provision for
your paper's preservation and publication if, Heaven forbid, you die
before it comes out?
[...]
--
Mike.
Mike Lyle
Ah, you mean _self_-identification with the geographical tag. In that
case I'm less certain, and it looks as though you have a point. I cited
the Oxford Movement, which continued to flourish after the term was
invented; but I confess I don't know if the Puseyites coined it
themselves.
>
[...]
--
Mike.
wf3h
> Note that one of the main inventors of MRI, Raymond Damadian, is also
> a creationist. I think this is not a coincedence. Creationists aren't
> so much opposed to thinking in terms of the logic of freedom, so
> that's why Raymond could begin to think about such things what later
> went on to become MRI. At some point you have to stop looking for
> causes that force a result, and start noticing other things like the
> rhythm at which results come in, and the variation in them etc,
> decided freely.
>
of course, to nando, einstein was not a scientist. that's creationism
for you.
Devils Advocaat
[snipped for focus]
> You want me to paste 50 pages of my paper? Not going to happen. Thanks
> for your interest. But I can say that my definition of "evolution"
> will be unique. This is a very risky move in view of the fact that I
> seek to falsify and refute the scientific veracity of the concept.
> Choosing an "unorthodox" definition *could* jeopardize my goal.
>
[snipped for focus]
So in your forthcoming paper you wont even be using the conventional
definition of the term evolution.
I can't see you refuting evolutionary theory if you aren't using the
accepted definitions of the terms used.
So these last few years have been a complete waste of your time and
effort.
John Harshman
Excellent. That's quite clarified.
>>>> And the question remains how we
>>>> would distinguish such intervention in the past, based on data we can
>>>> hope to have access to, from natural processes.
>>> But "natural processes" means supernatural (includes the concepts of
>>> creation and interventionism) [is] absent from nature. With this said
>>> what are you saying or driving at?
>> I have to reject your premise. It's entirely conceivable for some
>> processes to be natural and others to be supernatural.
>
> Subjective claim.
>
> The objective choice is one OR the other and NOT both.
You have yet to explain why that's objective.
> By the way,
> your view here is Sean Pitman's view: two mutually contradicting
> agencies co-existing in nature. The History and Philosophy of Science
> allows two choices. Both views presuppose the utter falsity and non-
> existence of the other:
Nonsense. The history of science is full of theories of mixed causation.
Consider, for example, A. R. Wallace, who supposed that natural
selection was able to account for everything except human intelligence.
Are you saying that Wallace didn't exist?
> 1. Creationism-ID says supernatural or Intelligent agency is operating
> in reality; and it alone causes biological production.
>
> 2. Darwinism-Naturalism says Divine agency is absent from reality:
> only unintelligent-unguided material exists; and it alone causes
> biological production.
Yes, that's been your claim. Either of these viewpoints is possible to
adopt, but you haven't shown that intermediate viewpoints are
impossible, or are logically contradictory. All you do is claim loudly
and repeatedly that there can be no middle ground.
>> My question here
>> is how you would distinguish one from the other based on evidence after
>> the fact.
>
> Your question presupposes the existence of unintelligent-unguided
> material agencies. No such agencies exist (except in the minds of
> Darwinists).
No, my question presupposes only that there are empirical ways of
deciding what's true and what isn't. I'm asking how you distinguish
separate creation from common descent. How do you tell that two species
are separately created rather than descended from a common ancestor?
> Design and organized complexity correspond to Intelligent causation,
> not unintelligent-unguided.
So, you're saying that you don't have to provide any evidence because
yours is the only conceivable option. That's not likely to convince
anyone. Do you realize that?
>>> We can tell you how we recognize interventionism. But we cannot do the
>>> same with so called "natural processes." I think you need to define or
>>> explain "natural process" as it relates to supernaturalism.
>> Who are "we"?
>
> Pre-1859 Creationism or modern day anti-evolutionists.
In other words, you and you alone.
>> And how do you recognize interventionism?
>
> My position is the position of Science before the rise of Darwinism.
No it isn't. Lamarck, Buffon, even Linnaeus allowed for new species
arising (at least to a limited degree) by mechanisms other than special
creation from clay.
>> For our purposes
>> here, let me define "natural" as "not involving direct intervention by
>> god".
>
> Good definition. I can say it in one word: absence.
>
>> Snowflakes, for example, form by natural processes. So do
>> hurricanes. Do you agree?
>
> I really don't want to comment on snowflakes because snowflakes, in my
> paper, are offered as spectacular evidence supporting the God
> hypothesis. Using the definition of "natural" just agreed upon, both
> phenomena cannot result from said agency. The processes by which they
> form were created by the concept seen in "Divine power."
Wait. Are you really saying that if god created the universe, then by
definition everything in the universe was created? But that would apply
to common descent too. If god created the universe, then by your
argument, any amount of evolution would be the same as creation.
Whatever happened would happen by processes originated by divine power.
This makes creationism meaningless. It makes the distinction between
intelligent and unintelligent meaningless. It makes the distinction
between natural and supernatural meaningless.
> Absence of intervention ("natural") also presupposes undirected-
> unintelligent and unguided process. Hurricanes and snowflakes have no
> correspondence whatsoever to these attributes. They are orderly and
> wonderful phenomena. Does the process by which a hurricane form look
> undirected-unguided? The answer is no.
No, the answer is yes. We know how hurricanes form. It's all a matter of
simple, physical processes. Nobody, not even god, has to make them. You
can say that god designed the process by which hurricanes form, but that
just means that he designed the laws of physics and subsequently let
them operate without intervention. That's deism, which you don't like.
> The process produces the
> concept of "hurricane" everytime and hurricanes have many recognizable
> characteristics. The concepts of "undirected-unguided" do not produce
> predictable outcomes.
The process doesn't produce any concept of "hurricane". It produces a
hurricane, a physical system, not a concept. And of course unguided
processes can produce predictable outcomes. Forget snowflakes. Are
icecubes designed? Is the freezing of water a directed process?
>>>>> "Natural process" since Darwin 1859 means "absence of supernatural" or
>>>>> "the closed systems of material nature causing biological production."
>>>>>> And do you also reject evolution that doesn't result in speciation?
>>>>> The concepts of "evolution" and "selection" and "speciation" do NOT
>>>>> exist in nature.
>>>> Obviously the concepts don't exist in nature. Concepts exist in human
>>>> minds. But they are concepts that apply to phenomena. The question is
>>>> whether you think any of those phenomena exist.
>>> False.
>>> A fact is an idea or concept that has direct correspondence with
>>> "thing" occupying reality. The concept of "evolution" has no such
>>> correspondent therefore it is not a fact. "Evolution" only exists in
>>> the minds of Darwinists. Evolution is refuted.
>> Not that easily. You can't refute evolution just by saying it's refuted.
>
> What "thing" in reality exhibits the concept of "evolution"?
Your language is opaque. But populations exhibit evolution, defined as
changes in allele frequencies. Did you have a different definition?
>> But thanks for clarifying your idiosyncratic language. But I think you
>> need to clarify more. What are your definitions of "evolution",
>> "selection", and "speciation", such that they can be shown not to exist
>> in nature?
>
> You want me to paste 50 pages of my paper?
No, most decidedly no. Are you saying that the definition of a single
word is 50 pages long? If so, that's a really bad definition, and a
useless one. Are you sure?
> Not going to happen. Thanks
> for your interest. But I can say that my definition of "evolution"
> will be unique. This is a very risky move in view of the fact that I
> seek to falsify and refute the scientific veracity of the concept.
> Choosing an "unorthodox" definition *could* jeopardize my goal.
Choosing to speak gibberish might jeopardize your goal too. But nobody
thinks your goal is anything other than a delusion, so no biggie. If you
can't even define the most basic terms, you have no hope.
When?
>>>> And a single object can be partially created and partially
>>>> not, as, for example, a block of marble (presumably not even you think
>>>> that was created) sculpted into a bust of Aristotle. Now we can agree
>>>> that whatever aspects of anything were created by god are not due to
>>>> natural processes and vice versa, but there's plenty of room for various
>>>> aspects to differ in their causation, and so render it possible to
>>>> affirm both creation and evolution. One could suppose, for example, that
>>>> the first primate was created ex nihilo,...
>>> Sourceless idea....
>> I don't understand the objection, if that was an objection.
>
> Where did you obtain said idea?
I made it up as an example to demostrate my point. That's what "One
could suppose, for example" means.
>>>> ....and that all subsequent primate
>>>> species evolved from that first one.
>>> Deism.
>> No, deism as generally understood in this connection would have the
>> creator intervening only at the very beginning, to cause the Big Bang.
>
> No. Deism is these context refers to biological First Cause.
Even if that were true, it would involve creation of the first cell, a
very long way from creation of the first primate. But so what?
>>>> If you think that's
>>>> self-contradictory, you will have to explain why.
>>> You are advocating Deism like Darwin did to end "The Origin."
>> I'm not advocating any of this. I'm presenting an example to demonstrate
>> that it's possible to hypothesize a mixture of creation and evolution,
>> without internal contradiction.
>
> So far you haven't.
If that's correct, where was the internal contradiction in what I said?
>>> Where did Darwin obtain the idea that Intelligence or Guide initiated
>>> unintelligent and unguided material process?
>> Who says he ever had such an idea? Are you referring to a couple of
>> words in the very last sentence of the Origin? [SNIP....]
>
> Yes.
It was a rhetorical flourish that was not intended as a serious
hypothesis of the origin of life. And regardless, how is that relevant?
[snip]
Rolf
> On Aug 23, 4:04 pm, nando_rontel...@yahoo.com wrote:
>> I disagree, you can't be a creationist, if you do not believe in
>> creation. That is the fundamental fact. Evolutionists believe origins
>> is through descent, from modification of the material that is there
>> by the laws of nature. Creationists believe that origins is through
>> an act of creation by the spirit from nothing.
>>
>
> Correction: either by nothing OR creation ex materia.
>
>> An evolutionist would describe the origins of a baby as being a
>> modified descendent from papa and mama. And a creationist may do
>> likewise sometimes, but a creationist would regard the truth of the
>> matter that the origin of the baby is from the spiritual creating out
>> of nothing, such as from love in marriage. That is the fundamental
>> difference between creationists and evolutionists.
>>
>> regards,
>> Mohammad Nur Syamsu
>
> Your last paragraph contradicts. Creationists do NOT accept the
> existence of evolutionary concepts in nature (e.g. "descent" or
> "modification").
>
Descent does not exist in nature? Huh? Are you an idiot?
Rolf
> And a baby is not a product of creation ex nihilo, but creation ex
> materia.
>
> Ray
Rolf
> On Aug 23, 4:54 pm, "David Hare-Scott" <sec...@nospam.com> wrote:
>> Ray Martinez wrote:
>>> ....are persons who accept species immutability. A person cannot be
>>> a real Creationist if they accept the concept of evolution to exist
>>> in nature.
>>
>>> note that acceptance of evolution leaves a person confused and/or
>>> ignorant. The evidence supporting this observation is seen in the
>>> number of "Creationists" who accept evolution or mutability.
>>
>>
>> You can define it however you like.
>
> False.
>
> "Creationist" cannot be defined however one likes. This is the exact
> point of this thread.
>
>> There is no reason to allow the world
>> to interfere with your faith.
>
> It is a Constitutional right: the State cannot interfere with anyones
> faith.
>
>> facts and evidence and you shouldn't need to spend any time on the
>> issue.
>
> special creation, stasis, IC systems, etc.etc.
>
That are not facts. We read about them in a book, but the evidence is
suspciously missing, and there are lot of reasosn to believe that the events
described are just ancient mythology - but this time retold as if it were
histiry. Which it is not. You may believe it, but tha facts are missing, and
the dubious references from other sources are most likely not first hand
accounts, or, as in some cases, just fake.
Have you personally really studied the sources? Like a qualified, unbiased
scholar? Please tell us that you have...
Your qualifications?
Rolf
>> Surely you can just declare the matter settled and get on with your
>> life.
>
> We have and we are.
>
>> However you are driven to constantly assert this belief in public.
>> Why is that?
>>
>
> Ever heard of the 1st Amendment?
>
>> Does your faith need constant refurbishing or does it make you feel
>> more righteous when you do battle with the unbelievers almost daily?
>>
>> David
>
> Turn the station (= log off or leave this site).
>
> Ray
Rolf
>> Ray Martinez wrote:
>>> ....are persons who accept species immutability. A person cannot be
>>> a real Creationist if they accept the concept of evolution to exist
>>> in nature.
>>
>> ignore even more of the data than most creationists. You have to deny
>> that natural selection ever really happens, that new mutations are
>> ever fixed, and that any two population can ever become
>> reproductively isolated. Pretty much everything that's easy to
>> reproduce in a laboratory.
>>
>
> Yes, in order to be a real Creationist you must reject the main claim
> made in behalf of natural selection: naturally occurring unintelligent
> creative force causing formation of new species.
Right: "naturally occurring unintelligent
creative force causing formation of new species." do not exist. But the net,
compounded effect of the natural forces affecting biological life are a
causative force. But since you have not studed the subject, you are not
qwualified to judge. And even worse, you already KNOW that you are right,
making it impossible for you to see anythting else than what you want to
see..
Rolf
Creationists accept
> new species to result from interventionism (= Intelligence). "And that
> any two population can ever become reproductively isolated" is not
> denied or rejected. We reject the fact to support or have anything to
> do with speciation.
>
>>> This fundamental fact renders the vast majority of so called
>>> "Creationists" to be confused and/or ignorant.
>>
>> No, that's not what renders them confused and ignorant. Though we
>> can at least agree on their condition.
>>
>
> Well, I am glad to see that you agree as to their condition, that is,
> persons who accept the concepts of "evolution" and "creation" to exist
> in nature.
>
>>> It is important to
>>> note that acceptance of evolution leaves a person confused and/or
>>> ignorant. The evidence supporting this observation is seen in the
>>> number of "Creationists" who accept evolution or mutability.
>>
>> That's even more circular than your usual reasoning. Acceptance of
>> evolution renders you confused/ignorant, and you show this by noting
>> that some people accept evolution, which is evidence that they're
>> confused/ignorant? Surely even you can see that this is swallowing
>> its own tail.
>
> The point sailed right over your head, John.
>
> Persons who accept antonymic concepts to exist in nature ("creation"
> and "evolution")---simultaneously----are confused-ignorant. Do you
> understand?
>
> Ray
Steven L.
> On Aug 24, 7:55 am, "Steven L." <sdlit...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>> Sapient Fridge wrote:
>>> In message
>>> <3184ca79-f37b-44e2-892c-2d90092c7...@b25g2000prb.googlegroups.com>, Ray
>>> Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> writes
>>>> ....are persons who accept species immutability. A person cannot be a
>>>> real Creationist if they accept the concept of evolution to exist in
>>>> nature.
>>>> note that acceptance of evolution leaves a person confused and/or
>>>> ignorant. The evidence supporting this observation is seen in the
>>>> number of "Creationists" who accept evolution or mutability.
>> I respect Ray, because he states his beliefs firmly and precisely,
>> without weasel words. In that sense, I respect Ray much more than I do
>> Dr. Behe.
>>
>> Ray isn't "turning" weird. He has always believed in species
>> immutability, and he has always denounced other creationists for
>> accepting so-called microevolution.
>>
>> --
>> Steven L.
>> Email: sdlit...@earthlinkNOSPAM.net
>> Remove the NOSPAM before replying to me.
>
> Thanks, Steven.
>
> But I didn't always accept fixism. I converted to the position after
> failing to find any evidence supporting mutability during a two year
> search. Before this search I was a micro-evolutionist, more
> accurately known as a confused "Creationist."
>
> And my respect for Behe, Dembski (and the DI) has completely waned. I
> am going to humiliate both men in my paper. They are now the enemy. To
> say evolution exists in nature, being caused by Intelligence, is
> delusion or fraud. They will be forced to ignore.
They didn't used to say that. They used to dance around it. The only
came out and admitted that evolution exists in nature after they were
pinned in places like the Dover trial where they couldn't prevaricate
anymore.
I hope you will grant that staunch evolutionists like Dawkins, though
you totally disagree with their position, are at least more *honest*; in
that their position is logically self-consistent (even if you believe it
to be empirically false).
Dawkins, an atheist evolutionist, states his beliefs firmly and
precisely, without weasel words or equivocation or wink-wink/nudge-nudge
nonsense.
So did the creationist, Henry Morris.
Behe and Dembski do not.
That's why I respect Morris and Dawkins but not Behe.
--
Steven L.
Email: sdli...@earthlinkNOSPAM.net
Remove the NOSPAM before replying to me.
Steven L.
> On Aug 23, 4:54 pm, "David Hare-Scott" <sec...@nospam.com> wrote:
>> Ray Martinez wrote:
>>> real Creationist if they accept the concept of evolution to exist in
>>> nature.
>>> This fundamental fact renders the vast majority of so called
>>> "Creationists" to be confused and/or ignorant. It is important to
>>> note that acceptance of evolution leaves a person confused and/or
>>> ignorant. The evidence supporting this observation is seen in the
>>> number of "Creationists" who accept evolution or mutability.
>> You can define it however you like.
>
> False.
>
> "Creationist" cannot be defined however one likes. This is the exact
> point of this thread.
Well, at SOME point you're going to have to stop arguing with
evolutionists, and start arguing with creationists.
For myself, creationism was pretty much defined by Henry Morris. He was
the pioneer of modern YEC.
At SOME point, you're going to have to explain why his school of thought
is wrong.
Because let's face it, Henry Morris was famous.
And far fewer people outside this NG ever heard of you.
Steven L.
>> Ray Martinez wrote:
>>> ....are persons who accept species immutability. A person cannot be a
>>> real Creationist if they accept the concept of evolution to exist in
>>> nature.
>> ignore even more of the data than most creationists. You have to deny
>> that natural selection ever really happens, that new mutations are ever
>> fixed, and that any two population can ever become reproductively
>> isolated. Pretty much everything that's easy to reproduce in a laboratory.
>>
>
> Yes, in order to be a real Creationist you must reject the main claim
> made in behalf of natural selection: naturally occurring unintelligent
> new species to result from interventionism (= Intelligence). "And that
> any two population can ever become reproductively isolated" is not
> denied or rejected. We reject the fact to support or have anything to
> do with speciation.
Well, if there has been no speciation, then how the hell did Noah ever
get all those zillions of species onto his Ark? To have trilobites and
Dimetrodons and Brachiosauruses and all the zillions of other species
onto the Ark, the Ark must have been the size of a modern
nuclear-powered supercarrier, perhaps 100,000 tons displacement.
> Persons who accept antonymic concepts to exist in nature ("creation"
> and "evolution")---simultaneously----are confused-ignorant. Do you
> understand?
I do,
But you're rejecting Biblical literalism.
Did Adam actually name trilobites in the Garden of Eden?
Did Noah have them on his Ark?
Be honest in what you're doing. Even Answers in Genesis (a staunch YEC
organization) MUST accept some speciation, because they know that Adam
could not have named penguins or trilobites, and they know that zillions
of species couldn't fit on the Ark with the dimensions given in the Bible.
You may claim to represent "true creationism," but the entire ORIGINAL
point of creationism was to explain the *literal Biblical model* of
creation scientifically.
Your worldview may be new and interesting, but by calling it
"creationism" you're hijacking it away from those who invented it to
satisfy a specific purpose--to explain Biblical literalism scientifically.