>> I don't know which is worse-- having my posts shunted away from where
>> I want them to appear or have J. J. O'Shea slander me in just about
>> every post he does to that Drake equation thread--and he does scads of
>> posts there.
>>
>> Is O'Shea that abusive to you too?
>>
>
> No; my "problems" are with Dana Tweedy and Bob Casanova.
Neither of the two have been abusive either.
> The former
> asserts "Intelligence created unintelligent process" is logical;
More correctly, I am stating there is no logical reason an intelligent being cannot make, and use an unintelligent process. There are many real life examples of intelligent beings doing just that.
Ray has failed to provide any logical or even sane reasoning to support his assertion to the contrary.
and
> the latter denies any of his posts reveal a worldview bias!
Again, more accurately, Bob has objected to Ray's false accusations of being able to detect an "atheist" bias in his posts. Ray wouldn't be able to accurately determine a "worldview bias" if it bit him.
On Mon, 03 Sep 2012 13:33:40 -0600, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by Dana Tweedy
<reddfrog...@gmail.com>:
>On 9/2/12 6:19 PM, Ray Martinez wrote:
>snip
> >> I don't know which is worse-- having my posts shunted away from where
> >> I want them to appear or have J. J. O'Shea slander me in just about
> >> every post he does to that Drake equation thread--and he does scads of
> >> posts there.
> >> Is O'Shea that abusive to you too?
> > No; my "problems" are with Dana Tweedy and Bob Casanova.
>Neither of the two have been abusive either.
Well, I certainly haven't, and you seem to have the patience
of Job...
> > The former
> > asserts "Intelligence created unintelligent process" is logical;
>More correctly, I am stating there is no logical reason an intelligent >being cannot make, and use an unintelligent process. There are many >real life examples of intelligent beings doing just that.
....which Ray ignores.
> Ray has failed to provide any logical or even sane reasoning to >support his assertion to the contrary.
> and
> > the latter denies any of his posts reveal a worldview bias!
>Again, more accurately, Bob has objected to Ray's false accusations of >being able to detect an "atheist" bias in his posts. Ray wouldn't be >able to accurately determine a "worldview bias" if it bit him.
No, but Ray *can* accurately determine when others disagree
with him. And since according to Ray (who has perfect
knowledge) such disagreement can only result from atheism
(or perhaps heresy, which to Ray is the same thing; by
observation, Ray doesn't really understand the meaning of
"atheism") the logic chain is valid. Of course, it's based
on a faulty premise and thus reaches an invalid
conclusion...
--
Bob C.
"Evidence confirming an observation is
evidence that the observation is wrong."
On Sep 1, 4:48 pm, pol...@msx.dept-med.pitt.edu wrote:
[snip massive amount of text defending and justifying the censorship
of fellow Darwinist Matt Young; and atrocious formatting that makes
reading and replying almost impossible....]
> If species are IMMUTABLE, how come the wide diversity of dogs ? And cabbages ?
On Sep 4, 1:18 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Sep 1, 4:48 pm, pol...@msx.dept-med.pitt.edu wrote:
> [snip massive amount of text defending and justifying the censorship
> of fellow Darwinist Matt Young; and atrocious formatting that makes
> reading and replying almost impossible....]
> > If species are IMMUTABLE, how come the wide diversity of dogs ? And cabbages ?
>[snip massive amount of text defending and justifying the censorship
>of fellow Darwinist Matt Young; and atrocious formatting that makes
>reading and replying almost impossible....]
>> If species are IMMUTABLE, how come the wide diversity of dogs ? And >>cabbages ?
>Variation is not evolution.
Are you trying for the fallacy of equivocation? (You've succeeded in being simultaneously wrong in two different readings of your four words.)
Variation within a population at a particular time is not evolution. Variation (change) in the genetic makeup of a population over time is evolution. Stating that variation (first definition) is not evolution is not a meaningful defence of your claim of species immutability in the teeth of observed instances of species mutability. Nor, for that matter, is stating that variation (second definition) is not evolution - regardless of whether you call it evolution or not doesn't make the observations of species mutability go away.
> On Aug 30, 7:23 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > Matt Young is a Moderator over at Pandas Thumb. He has censored every
> > single message I have posted in a certain topic. Click on the link
> > below and see for yourself. As I type I count 9 acts of censorship:
> > Matt, of course, does not see his actions as censorship. He "only"
> > moved my posts to a different venue ("The Bathroom Wall"). Equivalent
> > to being sent to Siberia.
> > I contend that my comments were completely legitimate. Anyone can fact
> > check and see for themself. That said, why the censorship?
> > The only logical answer is that Matt sees my points as damaging to
> > evolutionary theory in the eyes of honest and objective persons. I am
> > quite gratified to have gotten under his skin.
> > The whole purpose of this topic is to preserve the actions of
> > Darwinist Matt Young, to preserve a record of an "enlightened mind"
> > lapsing into the Third World.
> > Ray Martinez (Old Earth, Paleyan IDist-species immutabilist)
On Tuesday, September 4, 2012 3:18:25 PM UTC-4, Ray Martinez wrote:
> On Sep 1, 4:48 pm, pol...@msx.dept-med.pitt.edu wrote: [snip massive amount of text defending and justifying the censorship of fellow Darwinist Matt Young; and atrocious formatting that makes reading and replying almost impossible....]
Translation : "Prof Weird won't kneel before my howling arrogance !!!
MUST find minutiae to complain about to EVADE answering valid points !!!!!"
Moving posts to an EASILY ACCESSIBLE LOCATION is not censorship by any sane and rational stretch of the imagination Ray.
Since they are FULLY ACCESSIBLE, they were not 'shipped off to Siberia, never to be heard from again' (which is what the ANTI-Darwinian Lysenko had done to those that dared disagree with him); thus, your 'complaint' has more to do with damage to your bloated ego than the 'Darwinist crushing POWAHHHHH !!!!!!!' of anything you stated.
It is the atrocious formatting of this new system that makes me reluctant to try to post here - the messages get so scrambled with multiple '>>>' in run-on sentences that it is difficult to seperate who said what.
But it can be done.
> If species are IMMUTABLE, how come the wide diversity of dogs ? And cabbages ?
> Variation is not evolution.
BUT IT IS THE 'FUEL' OF EVOLUTION.
If genomes were TRULY immutable, there would be no mutations.
NO NEW VARIATIONS.
NO BIRTH DEFECTS.
Given the OBSERVATION that mutations happen, that new varieties show up now and again, and that birth defects exist, sane and rational people could deduce that species are mutable.
WHERE do you 'think' the variations in dogs or cabbages CAME FROM ?
Oh, right : 'THEY WERE MAGICALLY INSTALLED BY A MAGICAL SKY PIXIE BY UNKNOWABLE MEANS WHEN NO ONE WAS LOOKING !!!' or 'ALL OF THE VARIATIONS SEEN TODAY WERE ALREADY IN THE POPULATION SINCE THE BEGINNING !!!!!!'
Odd that you EXPECT the reality-based crowd to provide a youtube video of natural selection or evolution happening, or you are free to reject 150+ years of hard won knowledge, yet your Magical Sky Pixie ONLY works when no one is watching, but you expect everyone to believe you.
> On Fri, 31 Aug 2012 11:15:31 -0700 (PDT), the following
> appeared in talk.origins, posted by Ray Martinez
> <pyramid...@yahoo.com>:
> >On Aug 30, 8:48 pm, Tom <danto...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >> On Aug 30, 7:23 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> > Matt Young is a Moderator over at Pandas Thumb. He has censored every
> >> > single message I have posted in a certain topic.
> >> Don't be such a weenie, Ray. You can't have your way all the time.
> >About as partisan as points get.
> >Imagine that; 9 acts of censorship does not constitute a legitimate
> >complaint?
> Not when no actual censorship occurred. And since, by your
> own admission, your posts are still available in the same
> public forum for all to read, it didn't. In fact, I'd guess
> that possibly more readers peruse this area than any other,
> and I suspect that the implied ridicule is what makes you
> scream about nonexistent "censorship". Here's a hint, Ray:
> Pointing at what you post and laughing isn't censorship.
> >At least Tom didn't deny, I'll give him that.
> He didn't deny his actions in moving your posts to a more
> appropriate venue. He, and everyone else here capable of
> rational thought, denies that this constitutes censorship in
> any reasonable interpretation of the term.
> --
> Bob C.
> "Evidence confirming an observation is
> evidence that the observation is wrong."
Stalin didn't kill anyone; he only deported the ones he did not
ordered killed to Siberia where they were free to live and write!
As if Bob our enlightened Atheist-Evolutionist does not understand
that when a Darwinian Moderator deletes messages and moves them
"elsewhere" that these actions do not constitute censorship.
I urge the general audience to read each message that was sent to
Siberia and see the truths that enraged these "enlightened"
Darwinists.
>[snip massive amount of text defending and justifying the censorship
>of fellow Darwinist Matt Young; and atrocious formatting that makes
>reading and replying almost impossible....]
>> If species are IMMUTABLE, how come the wide diversity of dogs ? And cabbages ?
>Variation is not evolution.
And what practical distinction do you draw between the two?
> >[snip massive amount of text defending and justifying the censorship
> >of fellow Darwinist Matt Young; and atrocious formatting that makes
> >reading and replying almost impossible....]
> >> If species are IMMUTABLE, how come the wide diversity of dogs ? And cabbages ?
> >Variation is not evolution.
> And what practical distinction do you draw between the two?
Variation is a material thing observed to exist; evolution is a claim
and explanation about said thing.
On Sep 4, 12:48 pm, Prof Weird <pol...@msx.dept-med.pitt.edu> wrote:
[snip more text defending censorship by his Atheist brother....]
> > If species are IMMUTABLE, how come the wide diversity of dogs ? And cabbages ?
> > Variation is not evolution.
> BUT IT IS THE 'FUEL' OF EVOLUTION.
PW agrees with me: variation is not evolution.
> If genomes were TRULY immutable, there would be no mutations.
How often does a beneficial mutation occur?
> NO NEW VARIATIONS.
Now PW backslides and indicates that variation is evolution.
> NO BIRTH DEFECTS.
Bad mutations do not help your cause, did you forget?
> Given the OBSERVATION that mutations happen, that new varieties show up now and again, and that birth defects exist, sane and rational people could deduce that species are mutable.
Imagine that; species are mutable based on bad mutations!
I offer PW's example as supporting species immutability.
> WHERE do you 'think' the variations in dogs or cabbages CAME FROM ?
> Oh, right : 'THEY WERE MAGICALLY INSTALLED BY A MAGICAL SKY PIXIE BY UNKNOWABLE MEANS WHEN NO ONE WAS LOOKING !!!' or 'ALL OF THE VARIATIONS SEEN TODAY WERE ALREADY IN THE POPULATION SINCE THE BEGINNING !!!!!!'
> Odd that you EXPECT the reality-based crowd to provide a youtube video of natural selection or evolution happening, or you are free to reject 150+ years of hard won knowledge, yet your Magical Sky Pixie ONLY works when no one is watching, but you expect everyone to believe you.
> On Sep 1, 10:09 am, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
> > On Fri, 31 Aug 2012 11:15:31 -0700 (PDT), the following
> > appeared in talk.origins, posted by Ray Martinez
> > <pyramid...@yahoo.com>:
> > >On Aug 30, 8:48 pm, Tom <danto...@comcast.net> wrote:
> > >> On Aug 30, 7:23 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > >> > Matt Young is a Moderator over at Pandas Thumb. He has censored every
> > >> > single message I have posted in a certain topic.
> > >> Don't be such a weenie, Ray. You can't have your way all the time.
> > >About as partisan as points get.
> > >Imagine that; 9 acts of censorship does not constitute a legitimate
> > >complaint?
> > Not when no actual censorship occurred. And since, by your
> > own admission, your posts are still available in the same
> > public forum for all to read, it didn't. In fact, I'd guess
> > that possibly more readers peruse this area than any other,
> > and I suspect that the implied ridicule is what makes you
> > scream about nonexistent "censorship". Here's a hint, Ray:
> > Pointing at what you post and laughing isn't censorship.
> > >At least Tom didn't deny, I'll give him that.
> > He didn't deny his actions in moving your posts to a more
> > appropriate venue. He, and everyone else here capable of
> > rational thought, denies that this constitutes censorship in
> > any reasonable interpretation of the term.
> > --
> > Bob C.
> > "Evidence confirming an observation is
> > evidence that the observation is wrong."
> Stalin didn't kill anyone; he only deported the ones he did not
> ordered killed to Siberia where they were free to live and write!
> As if Bob our enlightened Atheist-Evolutionist does not understand
> that when a Darwinian Moderator deletes messages and moves them
> "elsewhere" that these actions do not constitute censorship.
CORRECTION: should have said "these actions DO INDEED constitute
censorship."
On Tuesday, September 4, 2012 5:13:24 PM UTC-4, Ray Martinez wrote:
> On Sep 4, 12:48 pm, Prof Weird <pol...@msx.dept-med.pitt.edu> wrote: [snip more text defending censorship by his Atheist brother....] > > > If species are IMMUTABLE, how come the wide diversity of dogs ? And cabbages ? > > > Variation is not evolution. > > BUT IT IS THE 'FUEL' OF EVOLUTION. > PW agrees with me: variation is not evolution.
But it is a PART of evolution.
Variations arise. Some variants are better (or luckier) at living long enough to leave offspring than others. Those variants tend to become more common in the population as the generations go by. Simple, basic, easy to understand (unless you have your head shoved 3.26 feet up your own arse) evolution.
> > If genomes were TRULY immutable, there would be no mutations. > How often does a beneficial mutation occur?
Often enough to show that the idea that 'species are immutable' is wrong.
> > NO NEW VARIATIONS. > Now PW backslides and indicates that variation is evolution.
No I did not you mendacious chiromaniacal antinomian !
IF species were - as YOU assert - immutable, there will be BY DEFINITION no new variations, since variations are CHANGES (which CANNOT EXIST IN IMMUTABLE ORGANISMS).
Given the OBSERVED FACT that new variants have arisen in many organisms, the idea that 'species are immutable' is thus demonstrated to be erroneous.
> > NO BIRTH DEFECTS. > Bad mutations do not help your cause, did you forget?
Nope.
IF species were immutable, THERE CAN BE NO CHANGES, FOR GOOD OR FOR ILL.
> > Given the OBSERVATION that mutations happen, that new varieties show up now and again, and that birth defects exist, sane and rational people could deduce that species are mutable. > Imagine that; species are mutable based on bad mutations! I offer PW's example as supporting species immutability.
You'd have to be a deranged sack of mind-twisted festering dung to claim that EXAMPLES OF SPECIES CHANGING SUPPORT THE DELUSION OF SPECIES IMMUTABILITY.
Again, twit : IF species were IMMUTABLE, there can be (BY DEFINITION) no changes FOR GOOD OR FOR ILL.
You do know what the term 'immutable' means, right ?
> > WHERE do you 'think' the variations in dogs or cabbages CAME FROM ?
Oh, right : 'THEY WERE MAGICALLY INSTALLED BY A MAGICAL SKY PIXIE BY UNKNOWABLE MEANS WHEN NO ONE WAS LOOKING !!!' or 'ALL OF THE VARIATIONS SEEN TODAY WERE ALREADY IN THE POPULATION SINCE THE BEGINNING !!!!!!'
You did not answer this question Ray.
WHERE do you 'think' variations come from in real world organisms ?
> > Odd that you EXPECT the reality-based crowd to provide a youtube video of natural selection or evolution happening, or you are free to reject 150+ years of hard won knowledge, yet your Magical Sky Pixie ONLY works when no one is watching, but you expect everyone to believe you.
> > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mcAq9bmCeR0- a youtube video of natural selection and evolution producing functional, accurate clocks.
> > Few organisms reproduce fast enough to produce much evolution in just an hour or two - but a computer simulation of evolution can show it working !
> > In fact, Schneider's ev program shows natural selection at work, and you don't even need a youtube of it - YOU CAN RUN THE PROGRAM YOURSELF !
> All this nonsense because I said (over at Pandas) that evolution is inferred, not observed. Matt Young cannot censor this 101 fact here at Talk.Origins.
All this 'nonsense' is evidence that species are mutable, and that your request that someone provide a youtube video of natural selection or evolution happening (while everyone is expected to just believe you ) is just plain silly.
Schneider's ev program DEMONSTRATES natural selection, while the evolving clocks youtube shows evolution.
But you just closed your eyes, waved your hands and sneered 'this be nonsense'.
Again, buffoon : YOU HAVE NOT BEEN CENSORED. At Panda's Thumb or anywhere.
If you go to Panda's Thumb, you see posts with YOUR name, and the phrase 'These comments have been moved to the *Bathroom Wall* '.
THOSE ARE LINKS TO YOUR POSTS, RAY !
Anyone that cares to read your drivel can do so just by clicking the link.
It's just that few care to read your drivel.
And THAT is what truly bothers you, isn't it Ray ?
Some inferences are so strongly supported it would be peculiar to NOT informally state 'they were observed'.
Given the OBSERVED FACTS that variations arise, that some variants are better (or luckier) at living long enough to produce offspring, and that such variants tend to become more common in a population as the generations go by, we might as well state 'evolution has been observed' after a few hundred/thousand generations have gone by, since most people are smart enough to figure out what is meant.
If evolution must be rejected because it is 'inference', then ID/Magical Skymanism must rejected as well, because it is not even an inference.
>> >[snip massive amount of text defending and justifying the censorship
>> >of fellow Darwinist Matt Young; and atrocious formatting that makes
>> >reading and replying almost impossible....]
>> >> If species are IMMUTABLE, how come the wide diversity of dogs ? And cabbages ?
>> >Variation is not evolution.
>> And what practical distinction do you draw between the two?
>Variation is a material thing observed to exist; evolution is a claim
>and explanation about said thing.
Insufficient. Please describe what is it about variation that its
continuation prevents it from being considered evolution.
On 9/4/12 1:17 PM, Ray Martinez wrote:
> On Sep 1, 4:48 pm, pol...@msx.dept-med.pitt.edu wrote:
>
> [snip massive amount of text defending and justifying the censorship
> of fellow Darwinist Matt Young; and atrocious formatting that makes
> reading and replying almost impossible....]
>
>> If species are IMMUTABLE, how come the wide diversity of dogs ? And cabbages ?
>
> Variation is not evolution.
>
> Ray
>
If species were truly immutable, then variation would not be seen. The wide diversity of dog breeds is due to evolution happening within the population of dogs.
On 9/4/12 3:09 PM, Ray Martinez wrote:
> On Sep 4, 12:48 pm, Prof Weird <pol...@msx.dept-med.pitt.edu> wrote:
>
> [snip more text defending censorship by his Atheist brother....]
>
>>
>> > If species are IMMUTABLE, how come the wide diversity of dogs ? And cabbages ?
>>
>>> Variation is not evolution.
>>
>> BUT IT IS THE 'FUEL' OF EVOLUTION.
>>
>
> PW agrees with me: variation is not evolution.
Variation is, however a part of evolution. A truly immutable population would be one that did not vary.
>
>> If genomes were TRULY immutable, there would be no mutations.
>>
>
> How often does a beneficial mutation occur?
Beneficial mutations are less common than neutral mutations, but they are common enough for evolution to happen.
>
>> NO NEW VARIATIONS.
>>
>
> Now PW backslides and indicates that variation is evolution.
No, Ray, you aren't listening. Variations are part of evolution, the part that provides new types for natural selection to work on.
>
>> NO BIRTH DEFECTS.
>>
>
> Bad mutations do not help your cause, did you forget?
"Bad" mutations are a matter of perspective. That mutations happen is evidence that life evolves. If no mutations occurred, then populations would be immutable.
>
>> Given the OBSERVATION that mutations happen, that new varieties show up now and again, and that birth defects exist, sane and rational people could deduce that species are mutable.
>>
>
> Imagine that; species are mutable based on bad mutations!
Imagine that, Ray misses the point. Mutations happen. Whether they are "good" or "bad", or more likely, neutral, is a relative thing. What is a bad mutation in one condition may be a beneficial one in another condition.
>
> I offer PW's example as supporting species immutability.
How does the fact that populations vary support "species immutability"?
>
>> WHERE do you 'think' the variations in dogs or cabbages CAME FROM ?
>>
>> Oh, right : 'THEY WERE MAGICALLY INSTALLED BY A MAGICAL SKY PIXIE BY UNKNOWABLE MEANS WHEN NO ONE WAS LOOKING !!!' or 'ALL OF THE VARIATIONS SEEN TODAY WERE ALREADY IN THE POPULATION SINCE THE BEGINNING !!!!!!'
>>
>> Odd that you EXPECT the reality-based crowd to provide a youtube video of natural selection or evolution happening, or you are free to reject 150+ years of hard won knowledge, yet your Magical Sky Pixie ONLY works when no one is watching, but you expect everyone to believe you.
>>
>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mcAq9bmCeR0- a youtube video of natural selection and evolution producing functional, accurate clocks.
>>
>> Few organisms reproduce fast enough to produce much evolution in just an hour or two - but a computer simulation of evolution can show it working !
>>
>> In fact, Schneider's ev program shows natural selection at work, and you don't even need a youtube of it - YOU CAN RUN THE PROGRAM YOURSELF !
>
> All this nonsense because I said (over at Pandas) that evolution is
> inferred, not observed.
Evolution is observed. Inference is part of any observation. You are also evading the question of where do you think variation comes from?
>
> Matt Young cannot censor this 101 fact here at Talk.Origins.
Like so many of your claimed "101 facts" you are just wrong. Evolution is directly observed. Creation by a supernatural being has never been observed.
On Sep 2, 8:23 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Aug 31, 7:37 pm, pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> > On Aug 30, 10:23 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > Matt Young is a Moderator over at Pandas Thumb. He has censored every
> > > single message I have posted in a certain topic. Click on the link
> > > below and see for yourself.
> > Funny, the link below takes me to someone who is appalled by the way
> > an anti-creationist video received so many negative comments.
That someone was Matt, and the video was by Bill Nye.
Actually the video, which deserves lots of negative comments, has an
overwhelming majority of thumbs up at this point, and the comments
(which are now well over 100,000) seem to be dominated by non-
creationists. There are quite a lot of obnoxious atheists involved,
but the sample I've seen is too small to tell whether they are in the
majority.
Was the ratio any worse for Matt Young when he did his article? if
not, he is behaving like a spoiled brat.
> No; I tested it before I posted the OP. Why it takes one to a
> different page I don't know.
> To view said censorship simply traverse to Pandas, click on the
> "Creationism inappropriate for children/Bill Nye" topic, then click on
> the 4th page of said topic, then scroll down and see the 9 acts of
> censorship.
Thanks. I found them. It did take the Bathroom Wall a long time to
load your comments, though, so I guess that could be construed as a
form of censorship.
> EVERY message I posted was censored.
Matt *is* being quite heavy-handed. I see no reason to send the
following to the kiddie corner:
"I think it relevant to point out that Luskin accepts species
mutability he is an Evolutionist too."
I think he should have left this one in; it might have clarified what
people mean by "evolutionist".
> Peter: Where did your
> fellow Evolutionists learn such behavior?
Probably the ones that behave this way learned it from their atheistic
parents. I can't see any other explanation for Matt Young's brain
being so scrambled that he thinks Bill Nye's video isn't a piece of
naive trash.
I also can't see any other explanation for the trash Nye posted. This
is NOT the way to make the case for evolution, nor is it the way to
change the minds and hearts of creationists. If Nye doesn't realize
he is just venting, he's a sorry excuse for a mature adult.
> I thought Western thought
> was enlightened? Of course the experts in censorship, Castro, Mao and
> Stalin, have shown that censorship works.
At least they had reason to fear the truth. Anyone who knows as much
about evolution as I do can only pity the pathetic attempts of
creationists to attack it. I suspect Young and Nye are different that
way because they do NOT know very much about evolution--or else they
are paranoid by nature.
> > By the way, Ray, are you planning to participate any more in that
> > thread?
> Yes, after the holiday here in the States.
> I also plan on pursuing you in two other topics.
We'll see who is pursuing whom after this week. :-)
But seriously, I do hope to see you again on that Drake equation
thread. I didn't post on it since Friday, but I do plan to post on it
tomorrow.
> On Sep 4, 12:58 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> On Sep 1, 10:09 am, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
>> > On Fri, 31 Aug 2012 11:15:31 -0700 (PDT), the following
>> > appeared in talk.origins, posted by Ray Martinez
>> > <pyramid...@yahoo.com>:
>> > >On Aug 30, 8:48 pm, Tom <danto...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> > >> On Aug 30, 7:23 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> > >> > Matt Young is a Moderator over at Pandas Thumb. He has censored >> > >> > every
>> > >> > single message I have posted in a certain topic.
>> > >> Don't be such a weenie, Ray. You can't have your way all the time.
>> > >About as partisan as points get.
>> > >Imagine that; 9 acts of censorship does not constitute a legitimate
>> > >complaint?
>> > Not when no actual censorship occurred. And since, by your
>> > own admission, your posts are still available in the same
>> > public forum for all to read, it didn't. In fact, I'd guess
>> > that possibly more readers peruse this area than any other,
>> > and I suspect that the implied ridicule is what makes you
>> > scream about nonexistent "censorship". Here's a hint, Ray:
>> > Pointing at what you post and laughing isn't censorship.
>> > >At least Tom didn't deny, I'll give him that.
>> > He didn't deny his actions in moving your posts to a more
>> > appropriate venue. He, and everyone else here capable of
>> > rational thought, denies that this constitutes censorship in
>> > any reasonable interpretation of the term.
>> > --
>> > Bob C.
>> > "Evidence confirming an observation is
>> > evidence that the observation is wrong."
>> Stalin didn't kill anyone; he only deported the ones he did not
>> ordered killed to Siberia where they were free to live and write!
>> As if Bob our enlightened Atheist-Evolutionist does not understand
>> that when a Darwinian Moderator deletes messages and moves them
>> "elsewhere" that these actions do not constitute censorship.
> CORRECTION: should have said "these actions DO INDEED constitute
> censorship."
> Ray
>> I urge the general audience to read each message that was sent to
>> Siberia and see the truths that enraged these "enlightened"
>> Darwinists.
> On Sep 4, 12:48 pm, Prof Weird <pol...@msx.dept-med.pitt.edu> wrote:
> [snip more text defending censorship by his Atheist brother....]
>> > If species are IMMUTABLE, how come the wide diversity of dogs ? And >> > cabbages ?
>> > Variation is not evolution.
>> BUT IT IS THE 'FUEL' OF EVOLUTION.
> PW agrees with me: variation is not evolution.
>> If genomes were TRULY immutable, there would be no mutations.
> How often does a beneficial mutation occur?
>> NO NEW VARIATIONS.
> Now PW backslides and indicates that variation is evolution.
>> NO BIRTH DEFECTS.
> Bad mutations do not help your cause, did you forget?
>> Given the OBSERVATION that mutations happen, that new varieties show up >> now and again, and that birth defects exist, sane and rational people >> could deduce that species are mutable.
> Imagine that; species are mutable based on bad mutations!
> I offer PW's example as supporting species immutability.
>> WHERE do you 'think' the variations in dogs or cabbages CAME FROM ?
>> Oh, right : 'THEY WERE MAGICALLY INSTALLED BY A MAGICAL SKY PIXIE BY >> UNKNOWABLE MEANS WHEN NO ONE WAS LOOKING !!!' or 'ALL OF THE VARIATIONS >> SEEN TODAY WERE ALREADY IN THE POPULATION SINCE THE BEGINNING !!!!!!'
>> Odd that you EXPECT the reality-based crowd to provide a youtube video of >> natural selection or evolution happening, or you are free to reject 150+ >> years of hard won knowledge, yet your Magical Sky Pixie ONLY works when >> no one is watching, but you expect everyone to believe you.
>> Few organisms reproduce fast enough to produce much evolution in just an >> hour or two - but a computer simulation of evolution can show it working >> !
>> In fact, Schneider's ev program shows natural selection at work, and you >> don't even need a youtube of it - YOU CAN RUN THE PROGRAM YOURSELF !
> All this nonsense because I said (over at Pandas) that evolution is
> inferred, not observed.
Waht you say is worthless in view of overwhelimg evidence for evolution.
Where is creationism observed, outside of creationist brains? (What little they may have.)
>> >[snip massive amount of text defending and justifying the censorship
>> >of fellow Darwinist Matt Young; and atrocious formatting that makes
>> >reading and replying almost impossible....]
>> >> If species are IMMUTABLE, how come the wide diversity of dogs ? And >> >> cabbages ?
>> >Variation is not evolution.
>> And what practical distinction do you draw between the two?
> Variation is a material thing observed to exist; evolution is a claim
> and explanation about said thing.
Is that all you got to say about 160 years of solid, and ongoing science?
Yes, because you don't know anything. Few idiots as science illiterate as you.
>On Sep 1, 10:09 am, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
>> On Fri, 31 Aug 2012 11:15:31 -0700 (PDT), the following
>> appeared in talk.origins, posted by Ray Martinez
>> <pyramid...@yahoo.com>:
>> >On Aug 30, 8:48 pm, Tom <danto...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> >> On Aug 30, 7:23 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> >> > Matt Young is a Moderator over at Pandas Thumb. He has censored every
>> >> > single message I have posted in a certain topic.
>> >> Don't be such a weenie, Ray. You can't have your way all the time.
>> >About as partisan as points get.
>> >Imagine that; 9 acts of censorship does not constitute a legitimate
>> >complaint?
>> Not when no actual censorship occurred. And since, by your
>> own admission, your posts are still available in the same
>> public forum for all to read, it didn't. In fact, I'd guess
>> that possibly more readers peruse this area than any other,
>> and I suspect that the implied ridicule is what makes you
>> scream about nonexistent "censorship". Here's a hint, Ray:
>> Pointing at what you post and laughing isn't censorship.
>> >At least Tom didn't deny, I'll give him that.
>> He didn't deny his actions in moving your posts to a more
>> appropriate venue. He, and everyone else here capable of
>> rational thought, denies that this constitutes censorship in
>> any reasonable interpretation of the term.
>Blatant partisanship (Darwinian Atheist defending Darwinian Atheist).
How about if I defended you, Ray? Would that make you an
"atheist", or would it magically transform me into a smug,
know-nothing person like yourself? Regardless, your
characterization of my beliefs is an error, since you know
nothing of them. Nor will you; my posts here aren't based on
any religious belief or faith, but on evidence and/or
personal experience. And I try to be careful to denote
which.
>Stalin didn't kill anyone; he only deported the ones he did not
>ordered killed to Siberia where they were free to live and write!
This is so unrelated to anything posted that I really have
no idea where you dragged it up from, or for what purpose.
Perhaps a failed attempt to equate the moving of your posts
to a more suitable location (one as easy to access as any
other, completely unlike Siberia) with their actual removal?
>As if Bob our enlightened Atheist-Evolutionist does not understand
>that when a Darwinian Moderator deletes messages and moves them
>"elsewhere" that these actions do not constitute censorship.
As I said, you don't understand the meaning of "censorship".
But that's obvious to anyone following this thread, so I'll
simply note that a valid analogy is a librarian (or
bookseller) moving a book extolling creationism from the
science section to the one dedicated to religion; no
censorship, just a repositioning to a more suitable
location.
>I urge the general audience to read each message that was sent to
>Siberia and see the truths that enraged these "enlightened"
>Darwinists.
>Ckick on the above link, then click on the 4th page and see for
>yourself.
If the messages had been censored they would be unavailable
to be read by anyone, anywhere. The fact that you deny this
doesn't change the reality that no censorship was employed.
--
Bob C.
"Evidence confirming an observation is
evidence that the observation is wrong."
On Tue, 4 Sep 2012 14:14:45 -0700 (PDT), the following
appeared in talk.origins, posted by Ray Martinez
<pyramid...@yahoo.com>:
>On Sep 4, 12:58 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>... when a Darwinian Moderator deletes messages and moves them
>> "elsewhere" that these actions do not constitute censorship.
>CORRECTION: should have said "these actions DO INDEED constitute
>censorship."
So your Freudian slip was showing?
--
Bob C.
"Evidence confirming an observation is
evidence that the observation is wrong."
> On Tue, 4 Sep 2012 12:55:25 -0700 (PDT), the following
> appeared in talk.origins, posted by Ray Martinez
> <pyramid...@yahoo.com>:
> >On Sep 1, 10:09 am, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
> >> On Fri, 31 Aug 2012 11:15:31 -0700 (PDT), the following
> >> appeared in talk.origins, posted by Ray Martinez
> >> <pyramid...@yahoo.com>:
> >> >On Aug 30, 8:48 pm, Tom <danto...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >> >> On Aug 30, 7:23 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> >> > Matt Young is a Moderator over at Pandas Thumb. He has censored every
> >> >> > single message I have posted in a certain topic.
> >> >> Don't be such a weenie, Ray. You can't have your way all the time.
> >> >About as partisan as points get.
> >> >Imagine that; 9 acts of censorship does not constitute a legitimate
> >> >complaint?
> >> Not when no actual censorship occurred. And since, by your
> >> own admission, your posts are still available in the same
> >> public forum for all to read, it didn't. In fact, I'd guess
> >> that possibly more readers peruse this area than any other,
> >> and I suspect that the implied ridicule is what makes you
> >> scream about nonexistent "censorship". Here's a hint, Ray:
> >> Pointing at what you post and laughing isn't censorship.
> >> >At least Tom didn't deny, I'll give him that.
> >> He didn't deny his actions in moving your posts to a more
> >> appropriate venue. He, and everyone else here capable of
> >> rational thought, denies that this constitutes censorship in
> >> any reasonable interpretation of the term.
> >Blatant partisanship (Darwinian Atheist defending Darwinian Atheist).
> How about if I defended you, Ray? Would that make you an
> "atheist", or would it magically transform me into a smug,
> know-nothing person like yourself? Regardless, your
> characterization of my beliefs is an error, since you know
> nothing of them. Nor will you; my posts here aren't based on
> any religious belief or faith, but on evidence and/or
> personal experience. And I try to be careful to denote
> which.
> >Stalin didn't kill anyone; he only deported the ones he did not
> >ordered killed to Siberia where they were free to live and write!
> This is so unrelated to anything posted that I really have
> no idea where you dragged it up from, or for what purpose.
> Perhaps a failed attempt to equate the moving of your posts
> to a more suitable location (one as easy to access as any
> other, completely unlike Siberia) with their actual removal?
> >As if Bob our enlightened Atheist-Evolutionist does not understand
> >that when a Darwinian Moderator deletes messages and moves them
> >"elsewhere" that these actions do not constitute censorship.
> As I said, you don't understand the meaning of "censorship".
> But that's obvious to anyone following this thread, so I'll
> simply note that a valid analogy is a librarian (or
> bookseller) moving a book extolling creationism from the
> science section to the one dedicated to religion; no
> censorship, just a repositioning to a more suitable
> location.
> >I urge the general audience to read each message that was sent to
> >Siberia and see the truths that enraged these "enlightened"
> >Darwinists.
> >Ckick on the above link, then click on the 4th page and see for
> >yourself.
> If the messages had been censored they would be unavailable
> to be read by anyone, anywhere. The fact that you deny this
> doesn't change the reality that no censorship was employed.
> --
> Bob C.
> "Evidence confirming an observation is
> evidence that the observation is wrong."
> - McNameless
Bob's blatant partisanship boils over....one Atheist-Evolutionist
attempting to justify and whitewash the censorship of his fellow
Atheist-Evolutionist.
> On Sep 2, 8:23 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > On Aug 31, 7:37 pm, pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> > > On Aug 30, 10:23 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > > Matt Young is a Moderator over at Pandas Thumb. He has censored every
> > > > single message I have posted in a certain topic. Click on the link
> > > > below and see for yourself.
> > > Funny, the link below takes me to someone who is appalled by the way
> > > an anti-creationist video received so many negative comments.
> That someone was Matt, and the video was by Bill Nye.
> Actually the video, which deserves lots of negative comments, has an
> overwhelming majority of thumbs up at this point, and the comments
> (which are now well over 100,000) seem to be dominated by non-
> creationists. There are quite a lot of obnoxious atheists involved,
> but the sample I've seen is too small to tell whether they are in the
> majority.
> Was the ratio any worse for Matt Young when he did his article? if
> not, he is behaving like a spoiled brat.
He is one of your own Peter: a brain-dead and brainwashed Evolutionist
to the core. He learned censorship from the Federal Judiciary----all
of whom are Evolutionists. These "enlightened" jurists have ruled that
it is conducive with the core principles of the Document to say the
ToE cannot be criticized. In China one can criticize the ToE but not
the Government; the reverse is true in America.
Darwinists have defecated on the Constitution. The only sacred thing
in their minds is their pro-Atheism theory: it cannot be criticized.
Nothing could be more anti-constitutional than this particular ruling.
Darwinists (and I am talking about you too) are the biggest liars our
society has ever seen. Their lies are Hilteresque. Said ruling, in the
distant future, will be reversed and the Judges who are responsible
will have their names forever associated with treason. History will
see to it.
> > No; I tested it before I posted the OP. Why it takes one to a
> > different page I don't know.
> > To view said censorship simply traverse to Pandas, click on the
> > "Creationism inappropriate for children/Bill Nye" topic, then click on
> > the 4th page of said topic, then scroll down and see the 9 acts of
> > censorship.
> Thanks. I found them. It did take the Bathroom Wall a long time to
> load your comments, though, so I guess that could be construed as a
> form of censorship.
> > EVERY message I posted was censored.
> Matt *is* being quite heavy-handed. I see no reason to send the
> following to the kiddie corner:
Not good enough.
He is your evo brother. ALL evos are equally guilty.
> "I think it relevant to point out that Luskin accepts species
> mutability he is an Evolutionist too" [Ray Martinez].
The all-important context was a quote, by an Evolutionist, that said
Luskin was a liar. In this context I wrote the above quote.
> I think he should have left this one in; it might have clarified what
> people mean by "evolutionist".
> > Peter: Where did your
> > fellow Evolutionists learn such behavior?
> Probably the ones that behave this way learned it from their atheistic
> parents. I can't see any other explanation for Matt Young's brain
> being so scrambled that he thinks Bill Nye's video isn't a piece of
> naive trash.
He learned it from the Federal Judiciary----"Christian" Judges who
hold the Bible down while the AtheistCLU does the dirty work.
> I also can't see any other explanation for the trash Nye posted. This
> is NOT the way to make the case for evolution, nor is it the way to
> change the minds and hearts of creationists. If Nye doesn't realize
> he is just venting, he's a sorry excuse for a mature adult.
> > I thought Western thought
> > was enlightened? Of course the experts in censorship, Castro, Mao and
> > Stalin, have shown that censorship works.
> At least they had reason to fear the truth. Anyone who knows as much
> about evolution as I do can only pity the pathetic attempts of
> creationists to attack it.
Since Atheists have no choice but to accept the concept of evolution
to explain the existence of species, what more is there to know?
> I suspect Young and Nye are different that
> way because they do NOT know very much about evolution--or else they
> are paranoid by nature.
You're no different, Peter.
You give aid and comfort to liars and their lies.
There isn't one shred of evidence in existence supporting evolution----
not even one.
> > > By the way, Ray, are you planning to participate any more in that
> > > thread?
> > Yes, after the holiday here in the States.
> > I also plan on pursuing you in two other topics.
> We'll see who is pursuing whom after this week. :-)
> But seriously, I do hope to see you again on that Drake equation
> thread. I didn't post on it since Friday, but I do plan to post on it
> tomorrow.
> On Sep 4, 6:58 pm, pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>> On Sep 2, 8:23 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>> On Aug 31, 7:37 pm, pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>>>> On Aug 30, 10:23 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>> Matt Young is a Moderator over at Pandas Thumb. He has censored every
>>>>> single message I have posted in a certain topic. Click on the link
>>>>> below and see for yourself.
>>>> Funny, the link below takes me to someone who is appalled by the way
>>>> an anti-creationist video received so many negative comments.
>> That someone was Matt, and the video was by Bill Nye.
>> Actually the video, which deserves lots of negative comments, has an
>> overwhelming majority of thumbs up at this point, and the comments
>> (which are now well over 100,000) seem to be dominated by non-
>> creationists. There are quite a lot of obnoxious atheists involved,
>> but the sample I've seen is too small to tell whether they are in the
>> majority.
>> Was the ratio any worse for Matt Young when he did his article? if
>> not, he is behaving like a spoiled brat.
> He is one of your own Peter: a brain-dead and brainwashed Evolutionist
> to the core. He learned censorship from the Federal Judiciary----all
> of whom are Evolutionists.
Do you have any evidence that members of the Federal Judiciary are "evolutionists"?
> These "enlightened" jurists have ruled that
> it is conducive with the core principles of the Document to say the
> ToE cannot be criticized.
No federal judge has ever ruled that the theory of evolution cannot be criticized. Where do you get the idea they have?
> In China one can criticize the ToE but not
> the Government; the reverse is true in America.
There are no rulings by the US judiciary saying that the theory of evolution may not be criticized. Where do you get the idea there are?
> Darwinists have defecated on the Constitution.
How, exactly?
> The only sacred thing
> in their minds is their pro-Atheism theory:
The theory of evolution is neither "sacred", or "pro atheism". Any scientist who wishes to criticize the theory of evolution is welcome to do so. Nothing about the theory of evolution supports the belief that God does not exist.
> it cannot be criticized.
On the contrary, criticism of the theory of evolution is permitted, even encouraged. The catch is that any criticism of that theory must be done by presenting evidence against it.
Do you have any such evidence? If so, why haven't you presented any?
> Nothing could be more anti-constitutional than this particular ruling.
Which particular ruling are you talking about? Please give the proper court citation to any ruling by any US judge which states one may not criticize any particular scientific theory.
> Darwinists (and I am talking about you too) are the biggest liars our
> society has ever seen.
Yet you are the one who has filled this post with lies. There are no federal court rulings which make criticism of evolution illegal. There are few, if any federal court judges who are experts in scientific theories, much less the theory of evolution.
> Their lies are Hilteresque.
Yet, you, Ray are the one lying here. Why are you accusing others of "Hitlereseque" lies, when it's you who's using the "Big Lie" tactic?
> Said ruling, in the
> distant future, will be reversed and the Judges who are responsible
> will have their names forever associated with treason.
Which ruling is that? Please be specific as to which ruling you are referring to?
> History will
> see to it.
How so? Do you really imagine that history will look kindly on your personal delusion and falsehoods?
snip
>> Thanks. I found them. It did take the Bathroom Wall a long time to
>> load your comments, though, so I guess that could be construed as a
>> form of censorship.
>>> EVERY message I posted was censored.
>> Matt *is* being quite heavy-handed. I see no reason to send the
>> following to the kiddie corner:
> Not good enough.
So, your problem is not that you were "censored", which you were not, but that your posts weren't taken seriously. Why should anyone take your claims seriously?
> He is your evo brother. ALL evos are equally guilty.
Guilty of what, Ray? Having enough sense to tell excrement from shoe polish?
>> "I think it relevant to point out that Luskin accepts species
>> mutability�he is an Evolutionist too" [Ray Martinez].
> The all-important context was a quote, by an Evolutionist, that said
> Luskin was a liar. In this context I wrote the above quote.
Ray, remember you are a liar as well. That Luskin is a creationist as well as you makes you birds of a feather.
>> I think he should have left this one in; it might have clarified what
>> people mean by "evolutionist".
>>> Peter: Where did your
>>> fellow Evolutionists learn such behavior?
>> Probably the ones that behave this way learned it from their atheistic
>> parents. I can't see any other explanation for Matt Young's brain
>> being so scrambled that he thinks Bill Nye's video isn't a piece of
>> naive trash.
> He learned it from the Federal Judiciary----"Christian" Judges who
> hold the Bible down while the AtheistCLU does the dirty work.
The Federal Judiciary interprets the Constitution. That they find differently than you like merely indicates they are doing their job well. By the way, the ACLU is not atheist, and no one is "holding down" the Bible. These are just part of your bizarre violent sexual fantasies.
>> I also can't see any other explanation for the trash Nye posted. This
>> is NOT the way to make the case for evolution, nor is it the way to
>> change the minds and hearts of creationists. If Nye doesn't realize
>> he is just venting, he's a sorry excuse for a mature adult.
>>> I thought Western thought
>>> was enlightened? Of course the experts in censorship, Castro, Mao and
>>> Stalin, have shown that censorship works.
>> At least they had reason to fear the truth. Anyone who knows as much
>> about evolution as I do can only pity the pathetic attempts of
>> creationists to attack it.
> Since Atheists have no choice but to accept the concept of evolution
> to explain the existence of species, what more is there to know?
>> I suspect Young and Nye are different that
>> way because they do NOT know very much about evolution--or else they
>> are paranoid by nature.
> You're no different, Peter.
> You give aid and comfort to liars and their lies.
You are the one lying here, Ray. You are lying about federal judges, about the ACLU, and about Peter. You show no sense of shame at all.
> There isn't one shred of evidence in existence supporting evolution----
> not even one.
The fact that populations vary is good evidence of evolution. You admit that populations vary, so the above is another lie on your part.
>>>> By the way, Ray, are you planning to participate any more in that
>>>> thread?
>>> Yes, after the holiday here in the States.
>>> I also plan on pursuing you in two other topics.
>> We'll see who is pursuing whom after this week. :-)
>> But seriously, I do hope to see you again on that Drake equation
>> thread. I didn't post on it since Friday, but I do plan to post on it
>> tomorrow.
