>On Nov 16, 10:12 am, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
>> On Thu, 15 Nov 2012 14:49:23 -0800 (PST), the following
>> appeared in talk.origins, posted by Ray Martinez
>> <pyramid...@yahoo.com>:
>> >On Nov 14, 9:27 am, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
>> >> On Tue, 13 Nov 2012 15:10:21 -0800 (PST), the following
>> >> appeared in talk.origins, posted by Ray Martinez
>> >> <pyramid...@yahoo.com>:
>> >> >On Nov 11, 11:27 am, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
>> >> >> On Sat, 10 Nov 2012 17:15:01 -0800 (PST), the following
>> >> >> appeared in talk.origins, posted by Ray Martinez
>> >> >> <pyramid...@yahoo.com>:
>> >> >> <snip>
>> >> >> >The best evidence (in my opinion) for a worldwide Flood is ancient
>> >> >> >texts from around the world and their common denominator information.
>> >> >> Agreed, that *is* the best evidence supporting a global
>> >> >> flood in historic times. Unfortunately for you, that "best
>> >> >> evidence" is very poor, and does not trump the physical
>> >> >> evidence which shows clearly that no such global flood
>> >> >> occurred.
>> >> >The textual corresponds with the physical.
>> >> There is no physical evidence of a global flood.
>> >A necessity for the ToE because diversity could not have evolved from
>> >aquatic life in a mere 5000 years.
>> There is no physical evidence of a global flood.
>Only Evolutionists believe that.
Evolution is about biology, not geology. It was geologists
(or their predecessors) who found that the global flood
didn't exist.
>> >> > The evo interpretation of
>> >> >the rocks is the problem. And how many comprehensive studies have been
>> >> >done showing how rocks behave and settle in churning water?
>> >> Many; that's what scientists "do".
>> >How were the conditions of the catastrophe duplicated? Did they rent
>> >Universal Studios? LOL!
>> The evidence of such an event would be quite plain, and
>> there is no such evidence. BTW, where did you come up with
>> the bizarre idea that only duplication of an event could
>> provide evidence regarding that event?
>The event at issue is undoubtedly unique. Science cannot duplicate the
>conditions to answer this crucial question.
Nor need it do so; the existing evidence is sufficient. Do
you imagine it's necessary to kill someone in order to test
the evidence in a murder trial?
Hmmm, bad example; you probably *do* believe that...
>> >> And when their
>> >> observations contradict a literal interpretation of an
>> >> allegorical document they're accused of "misinterpreting"
>> >> the data.
>> >No, it is observed that their observations are beholden to a necessary
>> >assumption. How could any Evolutionist even so much as entertain the
>> >idea of a global flood when the same falsifies the ToE instantly
>> >(diversity could not have evolved from aquatic life in a mere 5000
>> >years)? Everything these persons have said and published, along with
>> >their predecessors, would go down the drain. What, exactly, don't you
>> >understand, Bob?
>> Nothing, apparently, especially compared to you. You, on the
>> other hand, don't seem to understand that when we see zero
>> evidence of an event, it doesn't matter what our
>> preconceptions might be regarding that event.
>No one could expect you or any Evolutionist to admit rejection of
>occurrence is really determined by starting assumptions, interpretive
>philosophy (Naturalism), survival of the ToE, and not due to absence
>of physical evidence.
And yet there is no physical evidence which supports the
claim of a global flood...
>> And once again, at the time the religious scientists decided
>> the evidence was nonexistent for a global flood,
>> "evolutionism" was nonexistent.
>So much for the claim (made by certian evos) that evolution was always
>accepted by science.
Cite, please. Every single instance I've read here in which
this issue arose made the same point, that knowledge of the
non-existence of a global flood preceded any formal theory
of evolution.
> It was these naturalists and their successors who
>would become Darwinists. So what we have here is a gradual then rapid
>rejection of major Biblical claims by persons who thought of
>themselves as Christians. We reject their rejection as *illogical* and
>*nonsensical.* Their rejection of occurrence translates into evidence
>supporting their belief about themselves to be false. But again, my
>observation about the real reason why occurrence is rejected has 20th
>century evolutionism in mind. You can't say all the claims of 20th
>century flood geology received consideration by 19th century flood
>geology.
>> >> >> >And Egyptian civilization (3000 BC)
>> >> >> Wrong; 3100BCE...
>> >> >Quibbling over a mere hundred years?
>> >> Why not? You quibble over nearly everything which refutes
>> >> the literal accuracy of the Bible.
>> >Let's say 3100 BC is correct. I and my sources have always dated the
>> >Flood to have occurred in 3140 BC.
>> Cool! So in 40 years one family produced enough offspring to
>> form a nation which left extensive written records, and did
>> so while *also* forming nations in Mesopotamia and China,
>> not to mention settling Australia and the Americas, for both
>> of which there is voluminous evidence extending over the
>> period in question? That certainly gives new meaning to "be
>> fruitful and multiply".
>> Do you even think about the implications of your assertions?
>Your claims are too ambiguous.
What claims? I only pointed out the implications of *your*
claims, implications you failed to address. As usual.
> For example: what was the population of
>Egyptian civilization c.3000 BC?
Large enough that unification of Upper and Lower Egypt
started in 2950BCE, which sort of implies there were enough
people prior to that to form two distinct but related
cultures. Cultures, BTW, which existed right through the
period in question and never noticed drowning. Tough
folks...
>> Egypt wasn't the only place with written records from the
>> period in question.
>Evasion.
Yet another word you appear to think means something other
than its actual meaning...
I stated that Mesopotamia provided additional evidence
refuting your claim, including a cite.
You asked me to make a point.
I explained the point I'd already made, that Mesopotamia
provided additional evidence refuting your claim.
You call the explanation an "evasion".
You're an idiot.
>Stop wasting my time.
No. You post lies; I refute them. Deal with it, homeboy.
>> >> >> > did not come into existence until
>> >> >> >after the Flood (3140 BC).
>> >> >> No records exist which describe an actual global flood. And,
>> >> >> as has been noted for you,
>> >> >Bob repeats his false claim.
>> >> It's not a "false claim". It *has* been noted for you, many
>> >> times. And there are *no* records describing a global flood
>> >> from any source other than the Bible, which is not a history
>> >> or science text. Many records of local floods; none of
>> >> global ones.
>> >All this says is to repeat the standard evo misrepresentation of
>> >ancient flood texts. These records say nothing about local floods. The
>> >assumption against occurrence is clearly seen in the
>> >misrepresentation.
>> No, what they *do* say is that the floods described were
>> different, with different causes, and occurred at different
>> times.
>Now you've changed your claim. What happened to "local"?
What do you imagine is meant by "local" as contrasted with
"global"? Are you capable of thought *at all*?
--
Bob C.
"Evidence confirming an observation is
evidence that the observation is wrong."
>On 11/17/12 3:12 PM, Ray Martinez wrote:
>> On Nov 16, 3:47 pm, Boikat <boi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>>> On Nov 16, 6:02 am, Ernest Major <{$t...@meden.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>>> In message
>>>> <99ec20a8-78d1-4f5f-a88f-8f0b7ac61...@v6g2000pbb.googlegroups.com>, Ray
>>>> Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> writes
>>>>>>> The textual corresponds with the physical.
>>>>>> There is no physical evidence of a global flood.
>>>>> A necessity for the ToE because diversity could not have evolved from
>>>>> aquatic life in a mere 5000 years.
>>>> Yet again Ray rejects the plain words of the Bible. The
>>>> "fundamentalists" that he decries hold that as the Bible says Noah saved
>>>> each "kind" of terrestrial animal life, but Ray here rejects that.
>>> Ray-Ray also ignores the fact that "flood geology" was debunked before
>>> Darwin was even born. But, then again, Ray-Ray never lets little
>>> details like that get in the way of telling a good lie, or "false
>>> fact".
>>> Boikat
>> I have addressed in replies to Bob Casanova.
>No, you tried to avoid addressing the evidence, and ran away.
>How did the 8 survivors of the Ark produce between 1 to 2 million >descendants in just 40 years?
Unlimited access to porn flicks and lots of oysters
Rockefeller?
A bit hard on the women, of course; all those Octomom
events...
--
Bob C.
"Evidence confirming an observation is
evidence that the observation is wrong."
On Nov 17, 4:27 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> [snip material addressed previously....]>
Odd how, in Ray-speak, "utterly ignored" becomes "addressed
previoously"...
> > Follow:
> > According to you, in 3000 BCE, there were 8 humans on the planet, 4 of
> > which were women.
> > 140 years later, the pyramid at Giza was constructed.
> I've never said any such thing. The Giza pyramid was constructed
> 10,000 to 12,0000 BC,
...and so on. Charitably, you are making a serious mistake about the
date of the Great Pyramis of Giza...which, oddly shows no evidence of
having been inundated in water, ever.
> which puts it squarely in the non-existent Stone
> Age.
Evidence?
> Evolutionism is completely false.
You have made your unsupported opinion completely clear. What
evidence do you offer to supprot your egregious claims?
>The Giza pyramid contains
> knowledge unavailable to dim Stone Age men, and technology that
> surpasses our own today.
Evidence?
> It is physical evidence that falsifies the
> ToE in its tracks. This evidence confirms that Darwinists are deluded
> liars.
In what way, Ray-ray? Hoe does a pyramid built around 2550 BCE
"falsify" a single tenet of ToE?
> The Giza pyramid is mainly the major claims of the Bible, "written in
> unalterable stone," constructed at least 8500 years before any
> Biblical author was born. It is spectacular evidence supporting the
> existence of the God of Israel and the veracity of prophecy.
Evidence?
> We need to get something perfectly straight between us: I am not the
> least bit offended or intimidated by your incessant accusations of
> lying.
I am not at all concerned whether you are "insulted" by the truth,
Ray-ray. When you tell demonstrable lies, you are, by definition, a
liar. Since you need your lies to support your otherwise unsupportable
opinions, it does not surprise me in the least that you have become
inured to bearing false witness.
As long as you tell ldemonstrable lies, I will point out that you
are, in fact, a liar, and the truth is not in you.
Persons who say apes morphed into men over the course of
> millions of years should not accuse anyone of lying.
I challenge you to show a single poster here on TO who claims that
"apes morphed into men", whether over the course of millions of years,
or by fiat.
Your description of ToE is a lie, Ray-ray.
> Most of your accusations are based on your inability to understand
> what I have said. IOW, you need to listen way more closely. I have no
> desire to bring you up to speed.
No, Ray-ray, my demosntrations of the lies you tell are based on your
substitution of your unsupported contrary-to-fact demonstrably false
opinions for reality...like the lie you told, right above, that ToE
claims that "apes 'morphed' into men".
I ask you questions in order to get you to define terms in the way you
are pretending to use them, since, as evidenced by the lie you told,
right above, about ToE, you use words in ways that do not accord with
the way the words are actually used.
> Read any book by Dawkins, Mayr or Gould if you want to know what a
> Darwinist is. And a Darwinist is any person who accepts Darwin's view
> of evolution.
What about people who honor Darwin for his seminal work, but are aware
that the modern synthesis of ToE corrects many of Darwin's errors, and
provides information not available when Darwin formulated his ideas?
Are they "darwinists"? "Neo-darwinists"?
> "Evolutionist" is a more general term, conveying persons who believe
> the concept of evolution (species originate species) exists in nature.
So, there are "evos" who are not "darwinists"? Why do you use the
terms interchangeably? Is that carelessness, simple error, or a flat
lie?
> It is presumed that any person participating in these discussions to
> already know the meaning of this basic phrase.
"It is presumed"? Why the passive voice, Ray-ray? Who makes that
presumption? In a newsgroup full of evidences for natural selection
(in the world and in the lab), you deny that any such evidence exists--
to the point that you bragged that you would throw away your bible if
any such evidence were presented...yet when presented with such
evidence, you ignored it. Clearly, you are using the words in a way
different from the way most people use them--which makes it a fair
question--what would you consider "evidence"?
>The underlying
> assumption of natural selection is natural causation (all biological
> production originates in and from the closed system of nature).
Actually, the underlying assumption of science in general is that
conclusions will be based on evidence. Differential reproductive
success resulting from environmental pressures acting on hereditable
differences has been observed in the wild, in the lab, and in the
geological record (you know, the one that does NOT contain evidence of
a global catastrophic flood).
Supernatural creation-by-fiat has not ever been observed.
> > > > Ray: try this. Go to Galveston, or Kyoto, or Longyearbyen, or Sydney,
> > > > or any other chosen-at random coastal city. Look up. Focus on a point
> > > > 5 miles in the air, above your head...that's how much water is
> > > > missing, if the the world were to be completely covered "15 cubits
> > > > above the highest mountains". That is why your claim that "3/4 of the
> > > > Earth's surface is covered with water" is evidence of the flood
> > > > doesn't ...hold water. A five-mile thick layer of water is missing.
> > > > What physical evidence do you offer for where that much water came
> > > > from, and where it went?
> > > The points raised can easily be answered by remembering the full
> > > context in which the Genesis Flood occurred.
> > Be so kind as to explain yourself. The flood covered the "highest
> > mountains" with fifteen cubits of water---that's a layer 5 miles thick
> > at sea level. Where did that water come from, in your opinion? Where
> > did it go, in your opinion? Where is the evidence for either, in your
> > opinion?
> You're not listening.
Ray-ray: at what point have you addressed the missing five-mile-deep
layer of water?
At what point have you addressed the existence of thousands of layers
of annually-formed fine-grained varves?
At what point have you addressed the existence of features in buried
strata that could not have formed unless those strata were at the
surface, and that indicate generations of activity between formation?
>On 11/17/12 2:20 PM, Ray Martinez wrote:
>> On Nov 16, 10:12 am, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
>snip
>>>>> There is no physical evidence of a global flood.
>>>> A necessity for the ToE because diversity could not have evolved from
>>>> aquatic life in a mere 5000 years.
>>> There is no physical evidence of a global flood.
>> Only Evolutionists believe that.
>That's not what the evidence shows. The geologists who determined >there was no global flood were not "evolutionists", because evolution >would not be proposed for another 100 years.
>>>>>> The evo interpretation of
>>>>>> the rocks is the problem. And how many comprehensive studies have been
>>>>>> done showing how rocks behave and settle in churning water?
>>>>> Many; that's what scientists "do".
>>>> How were the conditions of the catastrophe duplicated? Did they rent
>>>> Universal Studios? LOL!
>>> The evidence of such an event would be quite plain, and
>>> there is no such evidence. BTW, where did you come up with
>>> the bizarre idea that only duplication of an event could
>>> provide evidence regarding that event?
>> The event at issue is undoubtedly unique. Science cannot duplicate the
>> conditions to answer this crucial question.
>The don't have to duplicate the conditions, just model them. Even >unique events, if they leave evidence, can be investigated. You are >trying to avoid the consequences of your claims.
>>>>> And when their
>>>>> observations contradict a literal interpretation of an
>>>>> allegorical document they're accused of "misinterpreting"
>>>>> the data.
>>>> No, it is observed that their observations are beholden to a necessary
>>>> assumption. How could any Evolutionist even so much as entertain the
>>>> idea of a global flood when the same falsifies the ToE instantly
>>>> (diversity could not have evolved from aquatic life in a mere 5000
>>>> years)? Everything these persons have said and published, along with
>>>> their predecessors, would go down the drain. What, exactly, don't you
>>>> understand, Bob?
>>> Nothing, apparently, especially compared to you. You, on the
>>> other hand, don't seem to understand that when we see zero
>>> evidence of an event, it doesn't matter what our
>>> preconceptions might be regarding that event.
>> No one could expect you or any Evolutionist to admit rejection of
>> occurrence is really determined by starting assumptions, interpretive
>> philosophy (Naturalism), survival of the ToE, and not due to absence
>> of physical evidence.
>There remains that absence of physical evidence of a flood, Ray. Even >if the above were true (and it's not), the lack of evidence of a global >flood requires an explanation from you.
>>> And once again, at the time the religious scientists decided
>>> the evidence was nonexistent for a global flood,
>>> "evolutionism" was nonexistent.
>> So much for the claim (made by certian evos) that evolution was always
>> accepted by science.
>No one has claimed that evolution was always accepted by science. The >correct statement is that creationism was not a science at all.
>> It was these naturalists and their successors who
>> would become Darwinists.
>Because evolution is good science.
>> So what we have here is a gradual then rapid
>> rejection of major Biblical claims by persons who thought of
>> themselves as Christians.
>Just as Ray thinks of himself as Christian....
>> We reject their rejection as *illogical* and
>> *nonsensical.*
>No, you, Ray, reject their rejection because you'd then have to admit >you were wrong.
>> Their rejection of occurrence translates into evidence
>> supporting their belief about themselves to be false.
>How does honest Christians not finding evidence of a global flood >somehow translate into evidence for a global flood? That make even >less sense than your usual inanity.
>> But again, my
>> observation about the real reason why occurrence is rejected has 20th
>> century evolutionism in mind.
>You don't know the real reason, because you refuse to accept it. You >have made up a "reason" out of thin air.
>> You can't say all the claims of 20th
>> century flood geology received consideration by 19th century flood
>> geology.
>Actually, it's the other way around. All claims of 19th century >geology, which had rejected a global flood, are what the 20th, and 21st >century geology is based on. Further findings in the 20, and 21 >century have confirmed that no global flood ever happened.
>By the late 18th century, the idea of a global flood as a real event >was dead and buried.
>>>>>>>> And Egyptian civilization (3000 BC)
>>>>>>> Wrong; 3100BCE...
>>>>>> Quibbling over a mere hundred years?
>>>>> Why not? You quibble over nearly everything which refutes
>>>>> the literal accuracy of the Bible.
>>>> Let's say 3100 BC is correct. I and my sources have always dated the
>>>> Flood to have occurred in 3140 BC.
>>> Cool! So in 40 years one family produced enough offspring to
>>> form a nation which left extensive written records, and did
>>> so while *also* forming nations in Mesopotamia and China,
>>> not to mention settling Australia and the Americas, for both
>>> of which there is voluminous evidence extending over the
>>> period in question? That certainly gives new meaning to "be
>>> fruitful and multiply".
>>> Do you even think about the implications of your assertions?
>> Your claims are too ambiguous.
>Are they? Why?
>> For example: what was the population of
>> Egyptian civilization c.3000 BC?
>This site estimates population to have been between 1 and 2 million people
>"The population of ancient Egypt varied greatly during its history. >Some scholars estimate that only a few hundred thousand people lived in >Egypt during the Predynastic period (about 5000-3000 bc). Others >believe, based on archaeological evidence and reevaluations of how many >people the floodplains could support at the time, that the area had a >much higher population. In any case, the population had probably risen >to close to 2 million during the Old Kingdom (about 2575-2134 bc)."
>>>>>> There is plently of good evidence confirming the appearance of
>>>>>> Egyptian civilization to have occurred post Flood.
>>>>> Cites, please. No evidence I've seen about Egypt even
>>>>> mentions floods other than the annual one on the Nile.
>>>> How could Egyptian records mention a Flood that occurred before they
>>>> existed?
>>> Egypt wasn't the only place with written records from the
>>> period in question.
>> Evasion.
>How is this an evasion, Ray? He's answering your question.
>> Stop wasting my time.
>How is providing information you requested wasting your time, Ray?
>>>>>>>> did not come into existence until
>>>>>>>> after the Flood (3140 BC).
>>>>>>> No records exist which describe an actual global flood. And,
>>>>>>> as has been noted for you,
>>>>>> Bob repeats his false claim.
>>>>> It's not a "false claim". It *has* been noted for you, many
>>>>> times. And there are *no* records describing a global flood
>>>>> from any source other than the Bible, which is not a history
>>>>> or science text. Many records of local floods; none of
>>>>> global ones.
>>>> All this says is to repeat the standard evo misrepresentation of
>>>> ancient flood texts. These records say nothing about local floods. The
>>>> assumption against occurrence is clearly seen in the
>>>> misrepresentation.
>>> No, what they *do* say is that the floods described were
>>> different, with different causes, and occurred at different
>>> times.
>> Now you've changed your claim. What happened to "local"?
>He did not change the claim, Ray. All the floods in those legends >were local, even if the storytellers claimed they were global.
The person who put the final stake into Flood Geology was a creationist ( Louis Agassiz)
> On Sat, 17 Nov 2012 13:44:21 -0800 (PST), the following
> appeared in talk.origins, posted by Ray Martinez
> <pyramid...@yahoo.com>:
> >On Nov 16, 9:52 am, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
> >> On Thu, 15 Nov 2012 13:43:58 -0800 (PST), the following
> >> appeared in talk.origins, posted by Ray Martinez
> >> <pyramid...@yahoo.com>:
> >> >On Nov 15, 9:47 am, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
> >> >> On Wed, 14 Nov 2012 18:18:11 -0800 (PST), the following
> >> >> appeared in talk.origins, posted by Ray Martinez
> >> >> <pyramid...@yahoo.com>:
> >> >> >On Nov 14, 8:17 am, John Stockwell <john.19071...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >> <snip>
> >> >> >> I don't understand why you cling to this absurd notion. The flood
> >> >> >> is an absurdity.
> >> >> >The attitude displayed supports my contention that Evolutionists
> >> >> >**assume** the Flood did not occur
> >> >> "Evolutionists" have nothing to do with it (other than
> >> >> noting that no massive extinctions happened in historical or
> >> >> late prehistoric times). The evidence that the Noachian
> >> >> flood is a myth predates Darwin's work by decades, and was
> >> >> accepted by believers who also happened to be scientists.
> >> >> It's also now accepted by all major Christian religions. Get
> >> >> over it.
> >> >Where did our Evolutionist obtain the idea that Christians accept the
> >> >falsity of a major Biblical claim?
> >> I don't know where "your evolutionist" obtained the idea,
> >> but I got it from pronouncements issued by Church leaders,
> >> up to and including the Pope, which acknowledge that the
> >> Bible isn't to be taken literally, but as allegory, and that
> >> evolution doesn't conflict with Biblical teachings. Which,
> >> of course, it doesn't, the Bible being allegory rather than
> >> science (at all) and history (other than in a limited
> >> sense).
> >These comments assume it is logical for Christians to reject major
> >Biblical claims. Again, my point says it is illogical and the fact of
> >rejection supports a claim that these Christians are not real
> >Christians. [Important: Note how my claim/argument is phrased.]
> Yes, you claim nearly all Christians are "not real
> Christians" because they disagree with you. No surprise,
> since that's been one of your main claims all along.
All I'm saying is when Christians reject a major Biblical claim the
same can be used as evidence supporting a claim that these persons are
not real Christians.
> >And Protestants rejected papal authority hundreds of years ago. Do
> >keep up.
> Irrelevant, since nearly all Protestant authorities and
> scholars agree with the Pope in this.
Protestants do not agree with the Pope. When they do the same becomes
quality evidence supporting a claim that these persons are not real
Protestants. It appears you have forgotten the meaning of
"Protestant."
> A small minority of
> literalists disagree, but they're basically irrelevant since
> they don't even agree with each other in detail.
All this says is few believers accept as true the claim in question----
which, by the way, is exactly what the Bible says from cover to cover:
the majority is always wrong. So the latter claim is well supported by
your comment.
> >> >Straight thinking says just the opposite: Christians accept the
> >> >veracity of major Biblical claims.
> >> Unfortunately, your version of "straight thinking" has led
> >> you astray.
> >All this says is that our Evolutionist thinks it is logical for
> >Christians to reject major Biblical claims.
> You keep using the word "logical". I think it may mean
> something different from what you think it means.
> Given the fact that what I stated about the beliefs and
> philosophical positions of religious authorities is correct,
> it's also irrelevant; fact always trumps logic.
Bob contends, in this instance, that logic is irrelevant. In other
words, he admits my point: it is illogical for Christians to reject
major Biblical claims.
Ernest Major <{$t...@meden.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> The person who put the final stake into Flood Geology was a creationist
> ( Louis Agassiz)
After a fashion. Agassiz would not have even been acceptable to the
Discovery Institute as a Fellow. He was a Platonist.
-- John S. Wilkins, Associate, Philosophy, University of Sydney
Honorary Fellow, University of Melbourne
- http://evolvingthoughts.net
In message <d554c6a0-7f91-4d49-bb9d-d2c44cbc7...@px4g2000pbc.googlegroups.com>, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> writes
>On Nov 18, 9:42 am, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
>> On Sat, 17 Nov 2012 13:44:21 -0800 (PST), the following
>> appeared in talk.origins, posted by Ray Martinez
>> <pyramid...@yahoo.com>:
>> >And Protestants rejected papal authority hundreds of years ago. Do
>> >keep up.
>> Irrelevant, since nearly all Protestant authorities and
>> scholars agree with the Pope in this.
>Protestants do not agree with the Pope. When they do the same becomes
>quality evidence supporting a claim that these persons are not real
>Protestants. It appears you have forgotten the meaning of
>"Protestant."
By the criterion you presented above, real Protestant are required to be atheist unitarians. That to disagree with the Pope that there is a God, and that God has 3 persons. They also have to be pro-death penalty. And so on.
This particular trope of yours is deeply silly. Group X is not required to disagree with Group Y on literally every matter of fact and doctrine, so to infer that people in Group X are not "real" members of Group X because they agree with Group Y in some points is fallacious.
>On Nov 18, 9:42 am, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
>> On Sat, 17 Nov 2012 13:44:21 -0800 (PST), the following
>> appeared in talk.origins, posted by Ray Martinez
>> <pyramid...@yahoo.com>:
>> >On Nov 16, 9:52 am, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
>> >> On Thu, 15 Nov 2012 13:43:58 -0800 (PST), the following
>> >> appeared in talk.origins, posted by Ray Martinez
>> >> <pyramid...@yahoo.com>:
>> >> >On Nov 15, 9:47 am, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
>> >> >> On Wed, 14 Nov 2012 18:18:11 -0800 (PST), the following
>> >> >> appeared in talk.origins, posted by Ray Martinez
>> >> >> <pyramid...@yahoo.com>:
>> >> >> >On Nov 14, 8:17 am, John Stockwell <john.19071...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> >> <snip>
>> >> >> >> I don't understand why you cling to this absurd notion. The flood
>> >> >> >> is an absurdity.
>> >> >> >The attitude displayed supports my contention that Evolutionists
>> >> >> >**assume** the Flood did not occur
>> >> >> "Evolutionists" have nothing to do with it (other than
>> >> >> noting that no massive extinctions happened in historical or
>> >> >> late prehistoric times). The evidence that the Noachian
>> >> >> flood is a myth predates Darwin's work by decades, and was
>> >> >> accepted by believers who also happened to be scientists.
>> >> >> It's also now accepted by all major Christian religions. Get
>> >> >> over it.
>> >> >Where did our Evolutionist obtain the idea that Christians accept the
>> >> >falsity of a major Biblical claim?
>> >> I don't know where "your evolutionist" obtained the idea,
>> >> but I got it from pronouncements issued by Church leaders,
>> >> up to and including the Pope, which acknowledge that the
>> >> Bible isn't to be taken literally, but as allegory, and that
>> >> evolution doesn't conflict with Biblical teachings. Which,
>> >> of course, it doesn't, the Bible being allegory rather than
>> >> science (at all) and history (other than in a limited
>> >> sense).
>> >These comments assume it is logical for Christians to reject major
>> >Biblical claims. Again, my point says it is illogical and the fact of
>> >rejection supports a claim that these Christians are not real
>> >Christians. [Important: Note how my claim/argument is phrased.]
>> Yes, you claim nearly all Christians are "not real
>> Christians" because they disagree with you. No surprise,
>> since that's been one of your main claims all along.
>All I'm saying is when Christians reject a major Biblical claim the
>same can be used as evidence supporting a claim that these persons are
>not real Christians.
...as I said was your claim, that most Christians "aren't
real Christians". Thanks for (unnecessarily) confirming
that.
>> >And Protestants rejected papal authority hundreds of years ago. Do
>> >keep up.
>> Irrelevant, since nearly all Protestant authorities and
>> scholars agree with the Pope in this.
>Protestants do not agree with the Pope.
Missed the qualifier, did you? See the words "in this"? What
do you suppose they might mean?
> When they do the same becomes
>quality evidence supporting a claim that these persons are not real
>Protestants. It appears you have forgotten the meaning of
>"Protestant."
Thanks for confirming (again, and again unnecessarily) that
most Protestants (and Catholics) aren't "real Christians".
>> A small minority of
>> literalists disagree, but they're basically irrelevant since
>> they don't even agree with each other in detail.
>All this says is few believers accept as true the claim in question----
>which, by the way, is exactly what the Bible says from cover to cover:
>the majority is always wrong. So the latter claim is well supported by
>your comment.
Thanks for confirming (again, and again unnecessarily) that
most Protestants (and Catholics) aren't "real Christians".
>> >> >Straight thinking says just the opposite: Christians accept the
>> >> >veracity of major Biblical claims.
>> >> Unfortunately, your version of "straight thinking" has led
>> >> you astray.
>> >All this says is that our Evolutionist thinks it is logical for
>> >Christians to reject major Biblical claims.
>> You keep using the word "logical". I think it may mean
>> something different from what you think it means.
>> Given the fact that what I stated about the beliefs and
>> philosophical positions of religious authorities is correct,
>> it's also irrelevant; fact always trumps logic.
>Bob contends, in this instance, that logic is irrelevant.
When logic and fact collide, fact wins. So yes, in this
instance logic is irrelevant.
> In other
>words, he admits my point: it is illogical for Christians to reject
>major Biblical claims.
No, Ray, and stop lying about what I stated, which is an
especially stupid thing to do when my statement is right
there for all to see.
--
Bob C.
"Evidence confirming an observation is
evidence that the observation is wrong."
>> The person who put the final stake into Flood Geology was a creationist
>> ( Louis Agassiz)
>After a fashion. Agassiz would not have even been acceptable to the
>Discovery Institute as a Fellow.
Of course not; he would have refused to accede to the
notions of "forbidden knowledge" and "unassailable doctrine"
on which the DI is based. He was an actual scientist.
> He was a Platonist.
"Shadows of eternal and unchanging Forms"? Not uncommon at
the time, I believe. And, I suspect, *very* difficult to
refute... ;-)
--
Bob C.
"Evidence confirming an observation is
evidence that the observation is wrong."
>In message ><d554c6a0-7f91-4d49-bb9d-d2c44cbc7...@px4g2000pbc.googlegroups.com>, Ray >Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> writes
>>On Nov 18, 9:42 am, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
>>> On Sat, 17 Nov 2012 13:44:21 -0800 (PST), the following
>>> appeared in talk.origins, posted by Ray Martinez
>>> <pyramid...@yahoo.com>:
>>> >And Protestants rejected papal authority hundreds of years ago. Do
>>> >keep up.
>>> Irrelevant, since nearly all Protestant authorities and
>>> scholars agree with the Pope in this.
>>Protestants do not agree with the Pope. When they do the same becomes
>>quality evidence supporting a claim that these persons are not real
>>Protestants. It appears you have forgotten the meaning of
>>"Protestant."
>By the criterion you presented above, real Protestant are required to be >atheist unitarians. That to disagree with the Pope that there is a God, >and that God has 3 persons. They also have to be pro-death penalty. And >so on.
>This particular trope of yours is deeply silly. Group X is not required >to disagree with Group Y on literally every matter of fact and doctrine, >so to infer that people in Group X are not "real" members of Group X >because they agree with Group Y in some points is fallacious.
Ray has always had a problem with qualifiers, and with
correct ideas from "incorrect" sources. And vice versa, as
shown. Black/white and right/wrong, that's Ray.
--
Bob C.
"Evidence confirming an observation is
evidence that the observation is wrong."
>On Sat, 17 Nov 2012 13:20:04 -0800 (PST), the following
>appeared in talk.origins, posted by Ray Martinez
><pyramid...@yahoo.com>:
>>On Nov 16, 10:12 am, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
>>> On Thu, 15 Nov 2012 14:49:23 -0800 (PST), the following
>>> appeared in talk.origins, posted by Ray Martinez
>>> <pyramid...@yahoo.com>:
>>> >On Nov 14, 9:27 am, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
>>> >> On Tue, 13 Nov 2012 15:10:21 -0800 (PST), the following
>>> >> appeared in talk.origins, posted by Ray Martinez
>>> >> <pyramid...@yahoo.com>:
>>> >> >On Nov 11, 11:27 am, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
>>> >> >> On Sat, 10 Nov 2012 17:15:01 -0800 (PST), the following
>>> >> >> appeared in talk.origins, posted by Ray Martinez
>>> >> >> <pyramid...@yahoo.com>:
>>> >> >> <snip>
>>> >> >> >The best evidence (in my opinion) for a worldwide Flood is ancient
>>> >> >> >texts from around the world and their common denominator information.
>>> >> >> Agreed, that *is* the best evidence supporting a global
>>> >> >> flood in historic times. Unfortunately for you, that "best
>>> >> >> evidence" is very poor, and does not trump the physical
>>> >> >> evidence which shows clearly that no such global flood
>>> >> >> occurred.
>>> >> >The textual corresponds with the physical.
>>> >> There is no physical evidence of a global flood.
>>> >A necessity for the ToE because diversity could not have evolved from
>>> >aquatic life in a mere 5000 years.
>>> There is no physical evidence of a global flood.
>>Only Evolutionists believe that.
>Evolution is about biology, not geology. It was geologists
>(or their predecessors) who found that the global flood
>didn't exist.
>>> >> > The evo interpretation of
>>> >> >the rocks is the problem. And how many comprehensive studies have been
>>> >> >done showing how rocks behave and settle in churning water?
>>> >> Many; that's what scientists "do".
>>> >How were the conditions of the catastrophe duplicated? Did they rent
>>> >Universal Studios? LOL!
>>> The evidence of such an event would be quite plain, and
>>> there is no such evidence. BTW, where did you come up with
>>> the bizarre idea that only duplication of an event could
>>> provide evidence regarding that event?
>>The event at issue is undoubtedly unique. Science cannot duplicate the
>>conditions to answer this crucial question.
>Nor need it do so; the existing evidence is sufficient. Do
>you imagine it's necessary to kill someone in order to test
>the evidence in a murder trial?
>Hmmm, bad example; you probably *do* believe that...
>>> >> And when their
>>> >> observations contradict a literal interpretation of an
>>> >> allegorical document they're accused of "misinterpreting"
>>> >> the data.
>>> >No, it is observed that their observations are beholden to a necessary
>>> >assumption. How could any Evolutionist even so much as entertain the
>>> >idea of a global flood when the same falsifies the ToE instantly
>>> >(diversity could not have evolved from aquatic life in a mere 5000
>>> >years)? Everything these persons have said and published, along with
>>> >their predecessors, would go down the drain. What, exactly, don't you
>>> >understand, Bob?
>>> Nothing, apparently, especially compared to you. You, on the
>>> other hand, don't seem to understand that when we see zero
>>> evidence of an event, it doesn't matter what our
>>> preconceptions might be regarding that event.
>>No one could expect you or any Evolutionist to admit rejection of
>>occurrence is really determined by starting assumptions, interpretive
>>philosophy (Naturalism), survival of the ToE, and not due to absence
>>of physical evidence.
>And yet there is no physical evidence which supports the
>claim of a global flood...
>>> And once again, at the time the religious scientists decided
>>> the evidence was nonexistent for a global flood,
>>> "evolutionism" was nonexistent.
>>So much for the claim (made by certian evos) that evolution was always
>>accepted by science.
>Cite, please. Every single instance I've read here in which
>this issue arose made the same point, that knowledge of the
>non-existence of a global flood preceded any formal theory
>of evolution.
>> It was these naturalists and their successors who
>>would become Darwinists. So what we have here is a gradual then rapid
>>rejection of major Biblical claims by persons who thought of
>>themselves as Christians. We reject their rejection as *illogical* and
>>*nonsensical.* Their rejection of occurrence translates into evidence
>>supporting their belief about themselves to be false. But again, my
>>observation about the real reason why occurrence is rejected has 20th
>>century evolutionism in mind. You can't say all the claims of 20th
>>century flood geology received consideration by 19th century flood
>>geology.
>>> >> >> >And Egyptian civilization (3000 BC)
>>> >> >> Wrong; 3100BCE...
>>> >> >Quibbling over a mere hundred years?
>>> >> Why not? You quibble over nearly everything which refutes
>>> >> the literal accuracy of the Bible.
>>> >Let's say 3100 BC is correct. I and my sources have always dated the
>>> >Flood to have occurred in 3140 BC.
>>> Cool! So in 40 years one family produced enough offspring to
>>> form a nation which left extensive written records, and did
>>> so while *also* forming nations in Mesopotamia and China,
>>> not to mention settling Australia and the Americas, for both
>>> of which there is voluminous evidence extending over the
>>> period in question? That certainly gives new meaning to "be
>>> fruitful and multiply".
>>> Do you even think about the implications of your assertions?
>>Your claims are too ambiguous.
>What claims? I only pointed out the implications of *your*
>claims, implications you failed to address. As usual.
>> For example: what was the population of
>>Egyptian civilization c.3000 BC?
>Large enough that unification of Upper and Lower Egypt
>started in 2950BCE, which sort of implies there were enough
>people prior to that to form two distinct but related
>cultures. Cultures, BTW, which existed right through the
>period in question and never noticed drowning. Tough
>folks...
>>> >> >There is plently of good evidence confirming the appearance of
>>> >> >Egyptian civilization to have occurred post Flood.
>>> >> Cites, please. No evidence I've seen about Egypt even
>>> >> mentions floods other than the annual one on the Nile.
>>> >How could Egyptian records mention a Flood that occurred before they
>>> >existed?
>>> Egypt wasn't the only place with written records from the
>>> period in question.
>>Evasion.
>Yet another word you appear to think means something other
>than its actual meaning...
>I stated that Mesopotamia provided additional evidence
>refuting your claim, including a cite.
>You asked me to make a point.
>I explained the point I'd already made, that Mesopotamia
>provided additional evidence refuting your claim.
>You call the explanation an "evasion".
>You're an idiot.
>>Stop wasting my time.
>No. You post lies; I refute them. Deal with it, homeboy.
>>> >> >> > did not come into existence until
>>> >> >> >after the Flood (3140 BC).
>>> >> >> No records exist which describe an actual global flood. And,
>>> >> >> as has been noted for you,
>>> >> >Bob repeats his false claim.
>>> >> It's not a "false claim". It *has* been noted for you, many
>>> >> times. And there are *no* records describing a global flood
>>> >> from any source other than the Bible, which is not a history
>>> >> or science text. Many records of local floods; none of
>>> >> global ones.
>>> >All this says is to repeat the standard evo misrepresentation of
>>> >ancient flood texts. These records say nothing about local floods. The
>>> >assumption against occurrence is clearly seen in the
>>> >misrepresentation.
>>> No, what they *do* say is that the floods described were
>>> different, with different causes, and occurred at different
>>> times.
>>Now you've changed your claim. What happened to "local"?
>What do you imagine is meant by "local" as contrasted with
>"global"? Are you capable of thought *at all*?
[Crickets...]
Yeah, if I were you I'd be ashamed to respond, too.
--
Bob C.
"Evidence confirming an observation is
evidence that the observation is wrong."
> On Mon, 19 Nov 2012 08:30:10 +0000, the following appeared
> in talk.origins, posted by Ernest Major
> <{$t...@meden.demon.co.uk>:
> >In message
> ><d554c6a0-7f91-4d49-bb9d-d2c44cbc7...@px4g2000pbc.googlegroups.com>, Ray
> >Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> writes
> >>On Nov 18, 9:42 am, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
> >>> On Sat, 17 Nov 2012 13:44:21 -0800 (PST), the following
> >>> appeared in talk.origins, posted by Ray Martinez
> >>> <pyramid...@yahoo.com>:
> >>> >And Protestants rejected papal authority hundreds of years ago. Do
> >>> >keep up.
> >>> Irrelevant, since nearly all Protestant authorities and
> >>> scholars agree with the Pope in this.
> >>Protestants do not agree with the Pope. When they do the same becomes
> >>quality evidence supporting a claim that these persons are not real
> >>Protestants. It appears you have forgotten the meaning of
> >>"Protestant."
> >By the criterion you presented above, real Protestant are required to be
> >atheist unitarians. That to disagree with the Pope that there is a God,
> >and that God has 3 persons. They also have to be pro-death penalty. And
> >so on.
> >This particular trope of yours is deeply silly. Group X is not required
> >to disagree with Group Y on literally every matter of fact and doctrine,
> >so to infer that people in Group X are not "real" members of Group X
> >because they agree with Group Y in some points is fallacious.
> Ray has always had a problem with qualifiers, and with
> correct ideas from "incorrect" sources. And vice versa, as
> shown. Black/white and right/wrong, that's Ray.
> In message
> <d554c6a0-7f91-4d49-bb9d-d2c44cbc7...@px4g2000pbc.googlegroups.com>, Ray
> Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> writes
> >On Nov 18, 9:42 am, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
> >> On Sat, 17 Nov 2012 13:44:21 -0800 (PST), the following
> >> appeared in talk.origins, posted by Ray Martinez
> >> <pyramid...@yahoo.com>:
> >> >And Protestants rejected papal authority hundreds of years ago. Do
> >> >keep up.
> >> Irrelevant, since nearly all Protestant authorities and
> >> scholars agree with the Pope in this.
> >Protestants do not agree with the Pope. When they do the same becomes
> >quality evidence supporting a claim that these persons are not real
> >Protestants. It appears you have forgotten the meaning of
> >"Protestant."
> By the criterion you presented above, real Protestant are required to be
> atheist unitarians. That to disagree with the Pope that there is a God,
> and that God has 3 persons. They also have to be pro-death penalty. And
> so on.
A wad of straw men.
> This particular trope of yours is deeply silly. Group X is not required
> to disagree with Group Y on literally every matter of fact and doctrine,
True.
All hope has not vanished.
> so to infer that people in Group X are not "real" members of Group X
> because they agree with Group Y in some points is fallacious.
> --
> alias Ernest Major
True.
But again, that's not my position. You've erected a straw man based on
misunderstanding of my position.
>On Nov 19, 9:17 am, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
>> On Mon, 19 Nov 2012 08:30:10 +0000, the following appeared
>> in talk.origins, posted by Ernest Major
>> <{$t...@meden.demon.co.uk>:
>> >In message
>> ><d554c6a0-7f91-4d49-bb9d-d2c44cbc7...@px4g2000pbc.googlegroups.com>, Ray
>> >Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> writes
>> >>On Nov 18, 9:42 am, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
>> >>> On Sat, 17 Nov 2012 13:44:21 -0800 (PST), the following
>> >>> appeared in talk.origins, posted by Ray Martinez
>> >>> <pyramid...@yahoo.com>:
>> >>> >And Protestants rejected papal authority hundreds of years ago. Do
>> >>> >keep up.
>> >>> Irrelevant, since nearly all Protestant authorities and
>> >>> scholars agree with the Pope in this.
>> >>Protestants do not agree with the Pope. When they do the same becomes
>> >>quality evidence supporting a claim that these persons are not real
>> >>Protestants. It appears you have forgotten the meaning of
>> >>"Protestant."
>> >By the criterion you presented above, real Protestant are required to be
>> >atheist unitarians. That to disagree with the Pope that there is a God,
>> >and that God has 3 persons. They also have to be pro-death penalty. And
>> >so on.
>> >This particular trope of yours is deeply silly. Group X is not required
>> >to disagree with Group Y on literally every matter of fact and doctrine,
>> >so to infer that people in Group X are not "real" members of Group X
>> >because they agree with Group Y in some points is fallacious.
>> Ray has always had a problem with qualifiers, and with
>> correct ideas from "incorrect" sources. And vice versa, as
>> shown. Black/white and right/wrong, that's Ray.
>Defense of subjective thought.
So, do you really think that "real" Protestants have to be pro-death penalty atheist unitarians, or do you accept that Protestants can agree with the Pope?
> On Sun, 18 Nov 2012 16:29:57 -0800 (PST), the following
> appeared in talk.origins, posted by Ray Martinez
> <pyramid...@yahoo.com>:
> >On Nov 18, 9:42 am, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
> >> On Sat, 17 Nov 2012 13:44:21 -0800 (PST), the following
> >> appeared in talk.origins, posted by Ray Martinez
> >> <pyramid...@yahoo.com>:
> >> >On Nov 16, 9:52 am, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
> >> >> On Thu, 15 Nov 2012 13:43:58 -0800 (PST), the following
> >> >> appeared in talk.origins, posted by Ray Martinez
> >> >> <pyramid...@yahoo.com>:
> >> >> >On Nov 15, 9:47 am, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
> >> >> >> On Wed, 14 Nov 2012 18:18:11 -0800 (PST), the following
> >> >> >> appeared in talk.origins, posted by Ray Martinez
> >> >> >> <pyramid...@yahoo.com>:
> >> >> >> >On Nov 14, 8:17 am, John Stockwell <john.19071...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >> >> <snip>
> >> >> >> >> I don't understand why you cling to this absurd notion. The flood
> >> >> >> >> is an absurdity.
> >> >> >> >The attitude displayed supports my contention that Evolutionists
> >> >> >> >**assume** the Flood did not occur
> >> >> >> "Evolutionists" have nothing to do with it (other than
> >> >> >> noting that no massive extinctions happened in historical or
> >> >> >> late prehistoric times). The evidence that the Noachian
> >> >> >> flood is a myth predates Darwin's work by decades, and was
> >> >> >> accepted by believers who also happened to be scientists.
> >> >> >> It's also now accepted by all major Christian religions. Get
> >> >> >> over it.
> >> >> >Where did our Evolutionist obtain the idea that Christians accept the
> >> >> >falsity of a major Biblical claim?
> >> >> I don't know where "your evolutionist" obtained the idea,
> >> >> but I got it from pronouncements issued by Church leaders,
> >> >> up to and including the Pope, which acknowledge that the
> >> >> Bible isn't to be taken literally, but as allegory, and that
> >> >> evolution doesn't conflict with Biblical teachings. Which,
> >> >> of course, it doesn't, the Bible being allegory rather than
> >> >> science (at all) and history (other than in a limited
> >> >> sense).
> >> >These comments assume it is logical for Christians to reject major
> >> >Biblical claims. Again, my point says it is illogical and the fact of
> >> >rejection supports a claim that these Christians are not real
> >> >Christians. [Important: Note how my claim/argument is phrased.]
> >> Yes, you claim nearly all Christians are "not real
> >> Christians" because they disagree with you. No surprise,
> >> since that's been one of your main claims all along.
> >All I'm saying is when Christians reject a major Biblical claim the
> >same can be used as evidence supporting a claim that these persons are
> >not real Christians.
> ...as I said was your claim, that most Christians "aren't
> real Christians". Thanks for (unnecessarily) confirming
> that.
In other words you have no answer for what I actually said.
> >> >And Protestants rejected papal authority hundreds of years ago. Do
> >> >keep up.
> >> Irrelevant, since nearly all Protestant authorities and
> >> scholars agree with the Pope in this.
> >Protestants do not agree with the Pope.
> Missed the qualifier, did you? See the words "in this"? What
> do you suppose they might mean?
No, I saw it. Your emphasis on the qualifier supports my point
concerning overall disagreement. And one could say the Pope agrees
with said Protestants.
> > When they do the same becomes
> >quality evidence supporting a claim that these persons are not real
> >Protestants. It appears you have forgotten the meaning of
> >"Protestant."
> Thanks for confirming (again, and again unnecessarily) that
> most Protestants (and Catholics) aren't "real Christians".
> >> A small minority of
> >> literalists disagree, but they're basically irrelevant since
> >> they don't even agree with each other in detail.
> >All this says is few believers accept as true the claim in question----
> >which, by the way, is exactly what the Bible says from cover to cover:
> >the majority is always wrong. So the latter claim is well supported by
> >your comment.
> Thanks for confirming (again, and again unnecessarily) that
> most Protestants (and Catholics) aren't "real Christians".
Again, you cannot refute what I actually said (that's why Bob repeats
himself).
> >> >> >Straight thinking says just the opposite: Christians accept the
> >> >> >veracity of major Biblical claims.
> >> >> Unfortunately, your version of "straight thinking" has led
> >> >> you astray.
> >> >All this says is that our Evolutionist thinks it is logical for
> >> >Christians to reject major Biblical claims.
> >> You keep using the word "logical". I think it may mean
> >> something different from what you think it means.
> >> Given the fact that what I stated about the beliefs and
> >> philosophical positions of religious authorities is correct,
> >> it's also irrelevant; fact always trumps logic.
> >Bob contends, in this instance, that logic is irrelevant.
> When logic and fact collide, fact wins. So yes, in this
> instance logic is irrelevant.
Very rare agreement from Bob.
> > In other
> >words, he admits my point: it is illogical for Christians to reject
> >major Biblical claims.
> No, Ray, and stop lying about what I stated, which is an
> especially stupid thing to do when my statement is right
> there for all to see.
>On Nov 19, 12:32 am, Ernest Major <{$t...@meden.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>> In message
>> <d554c6a0-7f91-4d49-bb9d-d2c44cbc7...@px4g2000pbc.googlegroups.com>, Ray
>> Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> writes
>> >On Nov 18, 9:42 am, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
>> >> On Sat, 17 Nov 2012 13:44:21 -0800 (PST), the following
>> >> appeared in talk.origins, posted by Ray Martinez
>> >> <pyramid...@yahoo.com>:
>> >> >And Protestants rejected papal authority hundreds of years ago. Do
>> >> >keep up.
>> >> Irrelevant, since nearly all Protestant authorities and
>> >> scholars agree with the Pope in this.
>> >Protestants do not agree with the Pope. When they do the same becomes
>> >quality evidence supporting a claim that these persons are not real
>> >Protestants. It appears you have forgotten the meaning of
>> >"Protestant."
>> By the criterion you presented above, real Protestant are required to be
>> atheist unitarians. That to disagree with the Pope that there is a God,
>> and that God has 3 persons. They also have to be pro-death penalty. And
>> so on.
>A wad of straw men.
>> This particular trope of yours is deeply silly. Group X is not required
>> to disagree with Group Y on literally every matter of fact and doctrine,
>True.
>All hope has not vanished.
>> so to infer that people in Group X are not "real" members of Group X
>> because they agree with Group Y in some points is fallacious.
>> --
>> alias Ernest Major
>True.
>But again, that's not my position. You've erected a straw man based on
>misunderstanding of my position.
Then perhaps you should amend your words to match your position. Even better, perhaps you should refrain from blasphemous proclamations on what "real" Christians believe. It's not as if your behaviour does anything positive for your credibility.
-- alias Ernest Major
> On Nov 18, 9:42 am, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
snip
>> Yes, you claim nearly all Christians are "not real
>> Christians" because they disagree with you. No surprise,
>> since that's been one of your main claims all along.
> All I'm saying is when Christians reject a major Biblical claim the
> same can be used as evidence supporting a claim that these persons are
> not real Christians.
But you reject several major Biblical "claims", including the entire book of James.
>>> And Protestants rejected papal authority hundreds of years ago. Do
>>> keep up.
>> Irrelevant, since nearly all Protestant authorities and
>> scholars agree with the Pope in this.
> Protestants do not agree with the Pope. When they do the same becomes
> quality evidence supporting a claim that these persons are not real
> Protestants. It appears you have forgotten the meaning of
> "Protestant."
Protestants agree with the Pope more than they disagree with the Pope. What the Protestant denominations disagree with is the Catholic church hierarchy.
>> A small minority of
>> literalists disagree, but they're basically irrelevant since
>> they don't even agree with each other in detail.
> All this says is few believers accept as true the claim in question----
> which, by the way, is exactly what the Bible says from cover to cover:
> the majority is always wrong. So the latter claim is well supported by
> your comment.
As has been shown many times before, your "all majorities are wrong" claim is false.
>>>>> Straight thinking says just the opposite: Christians accept the
>>>>> veracity of major Biblical claims.
>>>> Unfortunately, your version of "straight thinking" has led
>>>> you astray.
>>> All this says is that our Evolutionist thinks it is logical for
>>> Christians to reject major Biblical claims.
>> You keep using the word "logical". I think it may mean
>> something different from what you think it means.
>> Given the fact that what I stated about the beliefs and
>> philosophical positions of religious authorities is correct,
>> it's also irrelevant; fact always trumps logic.
> Bob contends, in this instance, that logic is irrelevant. In other
> words, he admits my point: it is illogical for Christians to reject
> major Biblical claims.
When dealing with matters of emotion and belief, logic is not usually relevant. Moreover, Ray is so bad at applying logic, that one should suspect anything he says regarding logic.
> On Nov 19, 12:32 am, Ernest Major <{$t...@meden.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>> In message
>> <d554c6a0-7f91-4d49-bb9d-d2c44cbc7...@px4g2000pbc.googlegroups.com>, Ray
>> Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> writes
>>> On Nov 18, 9:42 am, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
>>>> On Sat, 17 Nov 2012 13:44:21 -0800 (PST), the following
>>>> appeared in talk.origins, posted by Ray Martinez
>>>> <pyramid...@yahoo.com>:
>>>>> And Protestants rejected papal authority hundreds of years ago. Do
>>>>> keep up.
>>>> Irrelevant, since nearly all Protestant authorities and
>>>> scholars agree with the Pope in this.
>>> Protestants do not agree with the Pope. When they do the same becomes
>>> quality evidence supporting a claim that these persons are not real
>>> Protestants. It appears you have forgotten the meaning of
>>> "Protestant."
>> By the criterion you presented above, real Protestant are required to be
>> atheist unitarians. That to disagree with the Pope that there is a God,
>> and that God has 3 persons. They also have to be pro-death penalty. And
>> so on.
> A wad of straw men.
How is this "straw men"? It derives directly from what you've said.
>> This particular trope of yours is deeply silly. Group X is not required
>> to disagree with Group Y on literally every matter of fact and doctrine,
> True.
> All hope has not vanished.
What 'Hope' are you referring to here?
>> so to infer that people in Group X are not "real" members of Group X
>> because they agree with Group Y in some points is fallacious.
>> --
>> alias Ernest Major
> True.
> But again, that's not my position. You've erected a straw man based on
> misunderstanding of my position.
That's exactly the position you've claimed. How is this a strawman?
> On Nov 19, 9:02 am, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
snip
>>> All I'm saying is when Christians reject a major Biblical claim the
>>> same can be used as evidence supporting a claim that these persons are
>>> not real Christians.
>> ...as I said was your claim, that most Christians "aren't
>> real Christians". Thanks for (unnecessarily) confirming
>> that.
> In other words you have no answer for what I actually said.
That is the answer to what you said.
>>>>> And Protestants rejected papal authority hundreds of years ago. Do
>>>>> keep up.
>>>> Irrelevant, since nearly all Protestant authorities and
>>>> scholars agree with the Pope in this.
>>> Protestants do not agree with the Pope.
>> Missed the qualifier, did you? See the words "in this"? What
>> do you suppose they might mean?
> No, I saw it. Your emphasis on the qualifier supports my point
> concerning overall disagreement. And one could say the Pope agrees
> with said Protestants.
Yes, and both are Christians. They may disagree with you, but you don't determine who is, or is not a Christian.
>>> When they do the same becomes
>>> quality evidence supporting a claim that these persons are not real
>>> Protestants. It appears you have forgotten the meaning of
>>> "Protestant."
>> Thanks for confirming (again, and again unnecessarily) that
>> most Protestants (and Catholics) aren't "real Christians".
>>>> A small minority of
>>>> literalists disagree, but they're basically irrelevant since
>>>> they don't even agree with each other in detail.
>>> All this says is few believers accept as true the claim in question----
>>> which, by the way, is exactly what the Bible says from cover to cover:
>>> the majority is always wrong. So the latter claim is well supported by
>>> your comment.
>> Thanks for confirming (again, and again unnecessarily) that
>> most Protestants (and Catholics) aren't "real Christians".
> Again, you cannot refute what I actually said (that's why Bob repeats
> himself).
Your claim is self refuting.
snip
>> When logic and fact collide, fact wins. So yes, in this
>> instance logic is irrelevant.
> Very rare agreement from Bob.
And an admission from Ray that facts don't matter to him.
>>> In other
>>> words, he admits my point: it is illogical for Christians to reject
>>> major Biblical claims.
>> No, Ray, and stop lying about what I stated, which is an
>> especially stupid thing to do when my statement is right
>> there for all to see.
> On Nov 19, 9:17 am, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
> > On Mon, 19 Nov 2012 08:30:10 +0000, the following appeared
> > in talk.origins, posted by Ernest Major
> > <{$t...@meden.demon.co.uk>:
> > >In message
> > ><d554c6a0-7f91-4d49-bb9d-d2c44cbc7...@px4g2000pbc.googlegroups.com>, Ray
> > >Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> writes
> > >>On Nov 18, 9:42 am, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
> > >>> On Sat, 17 Nov 2012 13:44:21 -0800 (PST), the following
> > >>> appeared in talk.origins, posted by Ray Martinez
> > >>> <pyramid...@yahoo.com>:
> > >>> >And Protestants rejected papal authority hundreds of years ago. Do
> > >>> >keep up.
> > >>> Irrelevant, since nearly all Protestant authorities and
> > >>> scholars agree with the Pope in this.
> > >>Protestants do not agree with the Pope. When they do the same becomes
> > >>quality evidence supporting a claim that these persons are not real
> > >>Protestants. It appears you have forgotten the meaning of
> > >>"Protestant."
> > >By the criterion you presented above, real Protestant are required to be
> > >atheist unitarians. That to disagree with the Pope that there is a God,
> > >and that God has 3 persons. They also have to be pro-death penalty. And
> > >so on.
> > >This particular trope of yours is deeply silly. Group X is not required
> > >to disagree with Group Y on literally every matter of fact and doctrine,
> > >so to infer that people in Group X are not "real" members of Group X
> > >because they agree with Group Y in some points is fallacious.
> > Ray has always had a problem with qualifiers, and with
> > correct ideas from "incorrect" sources. And vice versa, as
> > shown. Black/white and right/wrong, that's Ray.
> Defense of subjective thought.
That's fine for art, music, and pizza toppings, but usless when it
comes to science. I do trust you understand that.
>On Nov 19, 9:17 am, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
>> On Mon, 19 Nov 2012 08:30:10 +0000, the following appeared
>> in talk.origins, posted by Ernest Major
>> <{$t...@meden.demon.co.uk>:
>> >In message
>> ><d554c6a0-7f91-4d49-bb9d-d2c44cbc7...@px4g2000pbc.googlegroups.com>, Ray
>> >Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> writes
>> >>On Nov 18, 9:42 am, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
>> >>> On Sat, 17 Nov 2012 13:44:21 -0800 (PST), the following
>> >>> appeared in talk.origins, posted by Ray Martinez
>> >>> <pyramid...@yahoo.com>:
>> >>> >And Protestants rejected papal authority hundreds of years ago. Do
>> >>> >keep up.
>> >>> Irrelevant, since nearly all Protestant authorities and
>> >>> scholars agree with the Pope in this.
>> >>Protestants do not agree with the Pope. When they do the same becomes
>> >>quality evidence supporting a claim that these persons are not real
>> >>Protestants. It appears you have forgotten the meaning of
>> >>"Protestant."
>> >By the criterion you presented above, real Protestant are required to be
>> >atheist unitarians. That to disagree with the Pope that there is a God,
>> >and that God has 3 persons. They also have to be pro-death penalty. And
>> >so on.
>> >This particular trope of yours is deeply silly. Group X is not required
>> >to disagree with Group Y on literally every matter of fact and doctrine,
>> >so to infer that people in Group X are not "real" members of Group X
>> >because they agree with Group Y in some points is fallacious.
>> Ray has always had a problem with qualifiers, and with
>> correct ideas from "incorrect" sources. And vice versa, as
>> shown. Black/white and right/wrong, that's Ray.
>Defense of subjective thought.
It's not "subjective thought", Ray. It's a comment that two
organizations (or people, for that matter) can agree on some
things while disagreeing on others. Most atheists, for
example, observe that the sun appears to rise in the east
and set in the west. You, based on your comments, must
disagree, right?
--
Bob C.
"Evidence confirming an observation is
evidence that the observation is wrong."
>On Nov 19, 12:32 am, Ernest Major <{$t...@meden.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>> In message
>> <d554c6a0-7f91-4d49-bb9d-d2c44cbc7...@px4g2000pbc.googlegroups.com>, Ray
>> Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> writes
>> >On Nov 18, 9:42 am, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
>> >> On Sat, 17 Nov 2012 13:44:21 -0800 (PST), the following
>> >> appeared in talk.origins, posted by Ray Martinez
>> >> <pyramid...@yahoo.com>:
>> >> >And Protestants rejected papal authority hundreds of years ago. Do
>> >> >keep up.
>> >> Irrelevant, since nearly all Protestant authorities and
>> >> scholars agree with the Pope in this.
>> >Protestants do not agree with the Pope. When they do the same becomes
>> >quality evidence supporting a claim that these persons are not real
>> >Protestants. It appears you have forgotten the meaning of
>> >"Protestant."
>> By the criterion you presented above, real Protestant are required to be
>> atheist unitarians. That to disagree with the Pope that there is a God,
>> and that God has 3 persons. They also have to be pro-death penalty. And
>> so on.
>A wad of straw men.
No, Ray, it's not. It's an example of exactly what you
asserted, that two organizations which disagree about some
things must *necessarily* disagree about all things. And the
example shows clearly why that assertion is an especially
vacuous one.
>> This particular trope of yours is deeply silly. Group X is not required
>> to disagree with Group Y on literally every matter of fact and doctrine,
>True.
"True"? You just finished claiming that this was a strawman!
Do you have the faintest idea *what* you think? Or any vague
notion of what "strawman" means?
>All hope has not vanished.
Mine, that you may actually learn to think, is taking one
helluva beating.
>> so to infer that people in Group X are not "real" members of Group X
>> because they agree with Group Y in some points is fallacious.
>True.
>But again, that's not my position.
That's your *exact, stated* position. If you try *really*
hard you might be able to find it at the top of this post.
But assuming that's beyond you, here it is, in your own
words:
"Protestants do not agree with the Pope. When they do the
same becomes quality evidence supporting a claim that these
persons are not real Protestants."
This was in response to a statement about the position of
each regarding the mythical nature of the story of Noah.
Protestants disagree with Catholics about many things (which
is what makes them Protestants), but this isn't one of them.
And according to you, that makes them "not real
Protestants". I suppose that the agreement between most
Protestants and Catholics regarding the nature of the
Trinity also makes them "not real Protestants"?
> You've erected a straw man based on
>misunderstanding of my position.
Nope. The problem is that you made a stupid and thoughtless
claim, and now you want to wiggle out of it because of the
implications. Tough.
--
Bob C.
"Evidence confirming an observation is
evidence that the observation is wrong."
>On Nov 19, 9:02 am, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
>> On Sun, 18 Nov 2012 16:29:57 -0800 (PST), the following
>> appeared in talk.origins, posted by Ray Martinez
>> <pyramid...@yahoo.com>:
>> >On Nov 18, 9:42 am, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
>> >> On Sat, 17 Nov 2012 13:44:21 -0800 (PST), the following
>> >> appeared in talk.origins, posted by Ray Martinez
>> >> <pyramid...@yahoo.com>:
>> >> >On Nov 16, 9:52 am, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
>> >> >> On Thu, 15 Nov 2012 13:43:58 -0800 (PST), the following
>> >> >> appeared in talk.origins, posted by Ray Martinez
>> >> >> <pyramid...@yahoo.com>:
>> >> >> >On Nov 15, 9:47 am, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
>> >> >> >> On Wed, 14 Nov 2012 18:18:11 -0800 (PST), the following
>> >> >> >> appeared in talk.origins, posted by Ray Martinez
>> >> >> >> <pyramid...@yahoo.com>:
>> >> >> >> >On Nov 14, 8:17 am, John Stockwell <john.19071...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> >> >> <snip>
>> >> >> >> >> I don't understand why you cling to this absurd notion. The flood
>> >> >> >> >> is an absurdity.
>> >> >> >> >The attitude displayed supports my contention that Evolutionists
>> >> >> >> >**assume** the Flood did not occur
>> >> >> >> "Evolutionists" have nothing to do with it (other than
>> >> >> >> noting that no massive extinctions happened in historical or
>> >> >> >> late prehistoric times). The evidence that the Noachian
>> >> >> >> flood is a myth predates Darwin's work by decades, and was
>> >> >> >> accepted by believers who also happened to be scientists.
>> >> >> >> It's also now accepted by all major Christian religions. Get
>> >> >> >> over it.
>> >> >> >Where did our Evolutionist obtain the idea that Christians accept the
>> >> >> >falsity of a major Biblical claim?
>> >> >> I don't know where "your evolutionist" obtained the idea,
>> >> >> but I got it from pronouncements issued by Church leaders,
>> >> >> up to and including the Pope, which acknowledge that the
>> >> >> Bible isn't to be taken literally, but as allegory, and that
>> >> >> evolution doesn't conflict with Biblical teachings. Which,
>> >> >> of course, it doesn't, the Bible being allegory rather than
>> >> >> science (at all) and history (other than in a limited
>> >> >> sense).
>> >> >These comments assume it is logical for Christians to reject major
>> >> >Biblical claims. Again, my point says it is illogical and the fact of
>> >> >rejection supports a claim that these Christians are not real
>> >> >Christians. [Important: Note how my claim/argument is phrased.]
>> >> Yes, you claim nearly all Christians are "not real
>> >> Christians" because they disagree with you. No surprise,
>> >> since that's been one of your main claims all along.
>> >All I'm saying is when Christians reject a major Biblical claim the
>> >same can be used as evidence supporting a claim that these persons are
>> >not real Christians.
>> ...as I said was your claim, that most Christians "aren't
>> real Christians". Thanks for (unnecessarily) confirming
>> that.
>In other words you have no answer for what I actually said.
That is a direct answer. You claimed that Protestants who
agreed with Catholics about whether the story is literal or
allegorical aren't "real Protestants", although the majority
of the protests leading to the Protestant schism had
essentially nothing to do with that.
>> >> >And Protestants rejected papal authority hundreds of years ago. Do
>> >> >keep up.
>> >> Irrelevant, since nearly all Protestant authorities and
>> >> scholars agree with the Pope in this.
>> >Protestants do not agree with the Pope.
>> Missed the qualifier, did you? See the words "in this"? What
>> do you suppose they might mean?
>No, I saw it. Your emphasis on the qualifier supports my point
>concerning overall disagreement.
No, it doesn't. There are many issues on which Catholics and
Protestants agree; the specific issues vary with the
particular denomination. Since I was only discussing this
single issue I qualified my statement appropriately. Unlike
you, I try to avoid making grand sweeping
overgeneralizations.
> And one could say the Pope agrees
>with said Protestants.
>> > When they do the same becomes
>> >quality evidence supporting a claim that these persons are not real
>> >Protestants. It appears you have forgotten the meaning of
>> >"Protestant."
>> Thanks for confirming (again, and again unnecessarily) that
>> most Protestants (and Catholics) aren't "real Christians".
>> >> A small minority of
>> >> literalists disagree, but they're basically irrelevant since
>> >> they don't even agree with each other in detail.
>> >All this says is few believers accept as true the claim in question----
>> >which, by the way, is exactly what the Bible says from cover to cover:
>> >the majority is always wrong. So the latter claim is well supported by
>> >your comment.
>> Thanks for confirming (again, and again unnecessarily) that
>> most Protestants (and Catholics) aren't "real Christians".
>Again, you cannot refute what I actually said (that's why Bob repeats
>himself).
I can't possibly refute something which agrees with my
claim, that most believers accept the doctrines of their
respective religions, established in almost all cases by
Biblical scholars who actually understand the Bible *in
context* (as you don't) that the Bible isn't to be taken
literally. *You* call those who accept the teachings of
their religions "not real"; I don't pretend to sit in
judgement of them.
(Hmmm... Which of us is therefore following the teachings of
Christ...?)
>> >> >> >Straight thinking says just the opposite: Christians accept the
>> >> >> >veracity of major Biblical claims.
>> >> >> Unfortunately, your version of "straight thinking" has led
>> >> >> you astray.
>> >> >All this says is that our Evolutionist thinks it is logical for
>> >> >Christians to reject major Biblical claims.
>> >> You keep using the word "logical". I think it may mean
>> >> something different from what you think it means.
>> >> Given the fact that what I stated about the beliefs and
>> >> philosophical positions of religious authorities is correct,
>> >> it's also irrelevant; fact always trumps logic.
>> >Bob contends, in this instance, that logic is irrelevant.
>> When logic and fact collide, fact wins. So yes, in this
>> instance logic is irrelevant.
>Very rare agreement from Bob.
Yes, I agreed with myself. What a surprise...
If you think, as you seem to, that logic trumps observed
fact, please say so clearly.
>> > In other
>> >words, he admits my point: it is illogical for Christians to reject
>> >major Biblical claims.
>> No, Ray, and stop lying about what I stated, which is an
>> especially stupid thing to do when my statement is right
>> there for all to see.
>Back to his old self just like that.
Yep, I'll call you a liar when you lie. This shocks you?
--
Bob C.
"Evidence confirming an observation is
evidence that the observation is wrong."
