On topic: Pollock joke

[Ray Martinez]

How many pollocks does it take to create a species?

Since no intelligence is involved, none.

Ray

[Ray Martinez]

No wonder the ToE is rejected by tens of millions of Americans.

Ray

[solar penguin]

On Mon, 29 Apr 2013 19:53:26 -0700, Ray Martinez wrote:

> How many pollocks does it take to create a species?
>
> Since no intelligence is involved, none.
>

Not a big fan of Jackson's paintings then?

[osugeography]

On Apr 30, 2:55�am, solar penguin <solar.peng...@googlemail.com>
wrote:

That's amusing, solar penguin, my first thought also. Drip, drip.

But then I thought of the fish. So maybe it's just Ray Mullet's
thoughts on pollock.

Marvin Sebourn
osugeo...@aol.com

[Mark Isaak]

On 4/29/13 7:57 PM, Ray Martinez wrote:
> On Apr 29, 7:53 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> How many pollocks does it take to create a species?
>>
>> Since no intelligence is involved, none.

No wonder the talk.origins newsgroup is rejected by tens of millions of
Americans.

--
Mark Isaak eciton (at) curioustaxonomy (dot) net
"It is certain, from experience, that the smallest grain of natural
honesty and benevolence has more effect on men's conduct, than the most
pompous views suggested by theological theories and systems." - D. Hume

[Richard Clayton]

On 29-Apr-13 22:53, Ray Martinez wrote:
> How many pollocks does it take to create a species?
>
> Since no intelligence is involved, none.

Ray, I think you accidentally posted this in talk.origins instead of
alt.humor.racist. HTH!

--
[The address listed is a spam trap. To reply, take off every zig.]
Richard Clayton
"I keep six honest serving men (they taught me all I knew); their names
are What and Why and When and How and Where and Who." � Rudyard Kipling

[Bob Casanova]

On Tue, 30 Apr 2013 07:44:25 -0700 (PDT), the following
appeared in talk.origins, posted by osugeography
<osugeo...@aol.com>:

You just haddock say that, didn't you?

>Marvin Sebourn
>osugeo...@aol.com
--

Bob C.

"The most exciting phrase to hear in science,
the one that heralds new discoveries, is not
'Eureka!' but 'That's funny...'"

- Isaac Asimov

[Bob Casanova]

On Mon, 29 Apr 2013 19:57:15 -0700 (PDT), the following
appeared in talk.origins, posted by Ray Martinez
<pyram...@yahoo.com>:

>On Apr 29, 7:53�pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> How many pollocks does it take to create a species?
>>
>> Since no intelligence is involved, none.

>No wonder the ToE is rejected by tens of millions of Americans.

....none of whom understand it, or know the evidence
supporting it.

Invoking your "Reality Determined by Popular Vote" assertion
again?

[Desertphile]

Wow! That was actually *FUNNY!* Is Ray no longer a stick-up-the-
anus theist?

> Ray


--
Nemo me impune lacessit.
"A patriot must always be ready to defend his country against his government."

[wiki trix]

On Apr 30, 1:28�pm, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
> On Tue, 30 Apr 2013 07:44:25 -0700 (PDT), the following
> appeared in talk.origins, posted by osugeography

> <osugeogra...@aol.com>:

>
> >On Apr 30, 2:55�am, solar penguin <solar.peng...@googlemail.com>
> >wrote:
> >> On Mon, 29 Apr 2013 19:53:26 -0700, Ray Martinez wrote:
> >> > How many pollocks does it take to create a species?
>
> >> > Since no intelligence is involved, none.
>
> >> Not a big fan of Jackson's paintings then?
>
> >That's amusing, solar penguin, my first thought also. Drip, drip.
>
> >But then I thought of the fish. So maybe it's just Ray Mullet's
> >thoughts on pollock.
>
> You just haddock say that, didn't you?

No need to carp on about it.

[Ray Martinez]

On Apr 30, 10:31�am, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
> On Mon, 29 Apr 2013 19:57:15 -0700 (PDT), the following
> appeared in talk.origins, posted by Ray Martinez

> <pyramid...@yahoo.com>:

>
> >On Apr 29, 7:53�pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> How many pollocks does it take to create a species?
>
> >> Since no intelligence is involved, none.
> >No wonder the ToE is rejected by tens of millions of Americans.
>

> ....none of whom understand it....

The "agree-with-us-or-you-don't-understand" card. I'll play: If you
really understood evolutionary theory then you would reject it too.

> or know the evidence
> supporting it.

These Americans understand that evolution has expelled Intelligence:
none is required to create a species; this is why the pollock joke is
really on you guys. Only Evolutionists are dumb enough to believe a
species can be made without Intelligence.

> Invoking your "Reality Determined by Popular Vote" assertion
> again?

The inability of Darwinists to convince tens of millions of Americans
is because said Americans understand that species reflect
Intelligence, not unintelligence or stupidity.

Ray

[chris thompson]

He's floundering.

Chris

[Burkhard]

Gillty as charged

[Dana Tweedy]

On Apr 30, 1:26�pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Apr 30, 10:31�am, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
>
> > On Mon, 29 Apr 2013 19:57:15 -0700 (PDT), the following
> > appeared in talk.origins, posted by Ray Martinez
> > <pyramid...@yahoo.com>:
>
> > >On Apr 29, 7:53�pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > >> How many pollocks does it take to create a species?
>
> > >> Since no intelligence is involved, none.
> > >No wonder the ToE is rejected by tens of millions of Americans.
>
> > ....none of whom understand it....
>
> The "agree-with-us-or-you-don't-understand" card. I'll play: If you
> really understood evolutionary theory then you would reject it too.

But your claim is objectively wrong.

>
> > or know the evidence
> > supporting it.
>
> These Americans understand that evolution has expelled Intelligence:
> none is required to create a species;

"Intelligence" is not required to create a rain drop, or a flower, or
a baby too. Why would you expect "intelligence" is required to make
a species?

> this is why the pollock joke is
> really on you guys.

Why? You are an individual who lacks intelligence, not people of
Polish descent, and not those who accept the scientific theory of
evolution.

> Only Evolutionists are dumb enough to believe a
> species can be made without Intelligence.

Why would one think that producing a species requires intelligence?
What about a species requires there to be any deliber, conscious
input?

>
> > Invoking your "Reality Determined by Popular Vote" assertion
> > again?
>
> The inability of Darwinists to convince tens of millions of Americans
> is because said Americans understand that species reflect
> Intelligence, not unintelligence or stupidity.

For a natural process to lack consciousness does not mean it may be
described as "stupid". Stupidity is not using the intelligence one
has, not lacking the capacity for consciousness.

People who continue to reject the fact of evolution out of religious
bias more correctly fit the idea of stupidity than describing a
natural process that lacks any form of neural system as "stupid".

Also, Ray, what about a species do you imagine "reflects
intelligence". Please be specific.


DJT

[Dana Tweedy]

So, besides Biology, Law, Linguistics, Theology, Etymology,Logic, and
Grammar, Humor is something you don't understand either.

DJT

[Dana Tweedy]

Tens of millions of Americans also reject the link between smoking and
lung cancer. Why would the foolishness of a segment of the population
matter to the validity of a correct scientific finding?

DJT

[deadrat]

I think he's talking about the fish, not people of Polish descent.

But that doesn't mean I get the joke. Why is it funny?

<snip/>

[deadrat]

Hmmm. Maybe not the fish but the painter. Or is that "painter." After
JP died, his friends pried up the slatted walkway that he stood on when
he "painted" his canvases. Paint had dripped through the slats onto the
floor below. The friends cut out the flooring, and voila! another
Jackson Pollock.

So no intelligence was necessary to create a Jackson Pollock painting.

I still don't get the joke, though.

[jillery]

I'll just go tuna fish.

[wiki trix]

On Apr 30, 3:26�pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Apr 30, 10:31�am, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
>
> > On Mon, 29 Apr 2013 19:57:15 -0700 (PDT), the following
> > appeared in talk.origins, posted by Ray Martinez
> > <pyramid...@yahoo.com>:
>
> > >On Apr 29, 7:53�pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > >> How many pollocks does it take to create a species?
>
> > >> Since no intelligence is involved, none.
> > >No wonder the ToE is rejected by tens of millions of Americans.
>
> > ....none of whom understand it....
>
> The "agree-with-us-or-you-don't-understand" card. I'll play: If you
> really understood evolutionary theory then you would reject it too.

I think that you do not understand Jackson Pollock...
http://www.mth.msu.edu/~ywang/Reprints/pollock.pdf

[jillery]

And depending on the interpretation, spelling.

[Dana Tweedy]

I didn't think it was funny. If it was about the fish, maybe it was
meant to be finny.


DJT


>
> <snip/>

[Burkhard]

Beats me too. The reference to intelligence and creation made me think
of John L Pollock and his OSCAR ideas, but I somehow doubt that that
was really want Ray was thinking about.

[Richard Clayton]

On 30-Apr-13 13:31, Bob Casanova wrote:
> On Mon, 29 Apr 2013 19:57:15 -0700 (PDT), the following
> appeared in talk.origins, posted by Ray Martinez
> <pyram...@yahoo.com>:
>
>> On Apr 29, 7:53 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>> How many pollocks does it take to create a species?
>>>
>>> Since no intelligence is involved, none.
>
>> No wonder the ToE is rejected by tens of millions of Americans.
>
> ....none of whom understand it, or know the evidence
> supporting it.
>
> Invoking your "Reality Determined by Popular Vote" assertion
> again?

Funny how "the majority is always wrong" applies only how and when Ray
dictates.

[Paul J Gans]

osugeography <osugeo...@aol.com> wrote:
>On Apr 30, 2:55?am, solar penguin <solar.peng...@googlemail.com>

>wrote:
>> On Mon, 29 Apr 2013 19:53:26 -0700, Ray Martinez wrote:
>> > How many pollocks does it take to create a species?
>>
>> > Since no intelligence is involved, none.
>>
>> Not a big fan of Jackson's paintings then?


>That's amusing, solar penguin, my first thought also. Drip, drip.

>But then I thought of the fish. So maybe it's just Ray Mullet's
>thoughts on pollock.

Yeah, but since my paternal grandmother's maiden name was Pollack,
for some reason I took a small bit of exception to Ray's comment.

--
--- Paul J. Gans

[Paul J Gans]

Burkhard <b.sc...@ed.ac.uk> wrote:
>On Apr 30, 8:03?pm, wiki trix <wikit...@gmail.com> wrote:

>> On Apr 30, 1:28?pm, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > On Tue, 30 Apr 2013 07:44:25 -0700 (PDT), the following
>> > appeared in talk.origins, posted by osugeography
>> > <osugeogra...@aol.com>:
>>

>> > >On Apr 30, 2:55?am, solar penguin <solar.peng...@googlemail.com>

>> > >wrote:
>> > >> On Mon, 29 Apr 2013 19:53:26 -0700, Ray Martinez wrote:
>> > >> > How many pollocks does it take to create a species?
>>
>> > >> > Since no intelligence is involved, none.
>>
>> > >> Not a big fan of Jackson's paintings then?
>>
>> > >That's amusing, solar penguin, my first thought also. Drip, drip.
>>
>> > >But then I thought of the fish. So maybe it's just Ray Mullet's
>> > >thoughts on pollock.
>>
>> > You just haddock say that, didn't you?
>>
>> No need to carp on about it.

>Gillty as charged

Which I hope writes fin to this thread.

[Paul J Gans]

wiki trix <wiki...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Apr 30, 3:26?pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:

>> On Apr 30, 10:31?am, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
>>
>> > On Mon, 29 Apr 2013 19:57:15 -0700 (PDT), the following
>> > appeared in talk.origins, posted by Ray Martinez
>> > <pyramid...@yahoo.com>:
>>

>> > >On Apr 29, 7:53?pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> > >> How many pollocks does it take to create a species?
>>
>> > >> Since no intelligence is involved, none.
>> > >No wonder the ToE is rejected by tens of millions of Americans.
>>
>> > ....none of whom understand it....
>>
>> The "agree-with-us-or-you-don't-understand" card. I'll play: If you
>> really understood evolutionary theory then you would reject it too.

>I think that you do not understand Jackson Pollock...
>http://www.mth.msu.edu/~ywang/Reprints/pollock.pdf

I happen to think that Ray's use of the term "Pollock" had
nothing to do with Jackson Pollock and everything to do with
the racist perception that people of Polishs descent are
stupid.

The term "pollock" is a derogatory term for such individuals.

[osugeography]

On Apr 30, 7:09�pm, Paul J Gans <gan...@panix.com> wrote:

I agree with you, Paul, reagarding the racial reference. It would not
be the first time that an offensive statement has been made here with
a bit of ambiguity, so that if the writer is called as to the exact
meaning, he or she can carve out wriggle-room, and deny racist
intent.

Regrds, Marvin

Marvin Sebourn
osugeo...@aol.com

[Ray Martinez]

Since Americans over 40 understand pollock jokes, are you suggesting
Intelligence is involved in the creation of species?

Do you remember the documentary "Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed"?
How it infuriated evos? Yet none of the fury was based on an
inaccurate title.

To suggest even one pollock was involved in the creation of species is
to misunderstand the main claim of Darwinian evolution.

Ray

[Ray Martinez]

The inability of science to convince a majority of the American
population of the truth of evolution, unlike many other scientific
claims, is because the majority understands that Intelligence must be
involved, and is involved, in the creation of species. The Darwinists
are thus isolated and shown to be deluded.

Ray

[deadrat]

I'm not a big fan of mind reading, although I realize I'm the minority
on this newsgroup. The derogatory term for an American of Polish
ethnicity is Polack, from the Polish work for a Polish man, Polak.
Pollack and Pollock are surnames. Pollock is also a fish. (I'm given
to understand that the ethnic slur is confined to the US, as nobody in
Europe can understand why Poles should be regarded as particularly stupid.)

But the joke makes no sense, piscean or Polish. Ray says that no
intelligence is involved in making a species. That's true. One of the
things that's required for making a species is procreation, which
doesn't take intelligence. For either fish or humans of any ethnicity.

I still don't get the humor.

[Ray Martinez]

On Apr 30, 4:42�pm, Richard Clayton <richZIG.e.clayZIG...@gmail.com>
wrote:

> On 30-Apr-13 13:31, Bob Casanova wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Mon, 29 Apr 2013 19:57:15 -0700 (PDT), the following
> > appeared in talk.origins, posted by Ray Martinez

> > <pyramid...@yahoo.com>:

>
> >> On Apr 29, 7:53 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >>> How many pollocks does it take to create a species?
>
> >>> Since no intelligence is involved, none.
>
> >> No wonder the ToE is rejected by tens of millions of Americans.
>
> > ....none of whom understand it, or know the evidence
> > supporting it.
>
> > Invoking your "Reality Determined by Popular Vote" assertion
> > again?
>
> Funny how "the majority is always wrong" applies only how and when Ray
> dictates.

Said claim has always said majorities found in the Bible are always
wrong.* We can identify their descendants in every generation since,
which of course supports Divine Revelation.

* I've only seen one exception.

Ray

[Dana Tweedy]

On Apr 30, 7:09�pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Apr 30, 2:02�pm, Dana Tweedy <reddfrog...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Apr 29, 8:57�pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Apr 29, 7:53�pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > How many pollocks does it take to create a species?
>
> > > > Since no intelligence is involved, none.
>
> > > > Ray
>
> > > No wonder the ToE is rejected by tens of millions of Americans.
>
> > > Ray
>
> > Tens of millions of Americans also reject the link between smoking and
> > lung cancer. �Why would the foolishness of a segment of the population
> > matter to the validity of a correct scientific finding?
>
> > DJT
>
> The inability of science to convince a majority of the American
> population of the truth of evolution, unlike many other scientific
> claims,

Those who reject evolution also reject other scientific facts, as I
pointed out above.

> is because the majority understands that Intelligence must be

> involve d, and is involved, in the creation of species.

Actually, Ray, no one but you claims that "intelligence" must be
involved in the development of species. I asked you to provide a
reason why species must require intelligence, when the production of
raindrops, storms, and children does not. no surprise you avoided the
question.

> The Darwinists
> are thus isolated and shown to be deluded.

So, even though the majority is always wrong, as you have claimed,
this "majority", who can't even name a dozen chemical elements is
suddenly correct about science?

As I asked, and you avoided, why should the foolishness of a segment
of the population determine the veracity of a scientific theory.

DJT

[Ray Martinez]

On Apr 30, 5:09�pm, Paul J Gans <gan...@panix.com> wrote:

You're way too sensitive, parroting politically correct ideology and
its implicit threat to smear anyone who dares not to bow down.

Ray

[wiki trix]

The fish-related puns generated within in this thread appear to be
following a Poisson Distribution.

[Ray Martinez]

> > osugeogra...@aol.com

>
> I'm not a big fan of mind reading, although I realize I'm the minority
> on this newsgroup. �The derogatory term for an American of Polish
> ethnicity is Polack, from the Polish work for a Polish man, Polak.
> Pollack and Pollock are surnames. �Pollock is also a fish. �(I'm given
> to understand that the ethnic slur is confined to the US, as nobody in
> Europe can understand why Poles should be regarded as particularly stupid.)
>
> But the joke makes no sense, piscean or Polish. �Ray says that no
> intelligence is involved in making a species. �That's true. �One of the
> things that's required for making a species is procreation, which
> doesn't take intelligence. �For either fish or humans of any ethnicity.
>
> I still don't get the humor.

I'll accept your admission at face value.

Pollock jokes mock the incredible stupidity of the pollock. Here are
some classic pollock jokes:

Q: How many pollocks does it take to screw in a light bulb?

A: Four; one to hold the bulb and three to turn the ladder.

Q: Did you hear about the pollock that locked his keys in his car?

A: He had to use a coat hanger to get his family out.

In this context I point out that evolutionary theory says the
intelligence of just one pollock isn't seen or required to create a
species, thus evos are infinitely more dumber than pollocks.

Ray

[deadrat]

On 4/30/13 8:03 PM, Ray Martinez wrote:
> On Apr 30, 1:59 pm, Dana Tweedy <reddfrog...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Apr 29, 8:53 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>> How many pollocks does it take to create a species?
>>
>>> Since no intelligence is involved, none.
>>
>>> Ray
>>
>> So, besides Biology, Law, Linguistics, Theology, Etymology,Logic, and
>> Grammar, Humor is something you don't understand either.
>>
>> DJT
>
> Since Americans over 40 understand pollock jokes,

So you were being both offensive and ignorant? (Why should I be surprised?)

> are you suggesting
> Intelligence is involved in the creation of species?
>
> Do you remember the documentary "Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed"?
> How it infuriated evos? Yet none of the fury was based on an
> inaccurate title.

Is that Ben Stein? I remember a lot of ridicule.

>
> To suggest even one pollock was involved in the creation of species is
> to misunderstand the main claim of Darwinian evolution.

I still don't get it.
>
> Ray
>

[Dana Tweedy]

On Apr 30, 7:03�pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Apr 30, 1:59�pm, Dana Tweedy <reddfrog...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Apr 29, 8:53�pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > How many pollocks does it take to create a species?
>
> > > Since no intelligence is involved, none.
>
> > > Ray
>
> > So, besides Biology, Law, Linguistics, Theology, Etymology,Logic, and
> > Grammar, Humor is something you don't understand either.
>
> > DJT
>
> Since Americans over 40 understand pollock jokes, are you suggesting
> Intelligence is involved in the creation of species?

As an American over 40, I do understand offensive ethnic jokes, but I
find them to be silly, and calling other people by Ethnic slurs to be
lacking in intelligence. I fail to see how anything I wrote above
would indicate that I, or anyone else would think that any natural
process requires cognition.

>
> Do you remember the documentary "Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed"?

Yes, that was silly, and lacking in intelligence as well. It was also
selling a blatant lie. Creationists were never expelled. They
removed themselves from science by their own choice.

> How it infuriated evos? Yet none of the fury was based on an
> inaccurate title.
>

I didn't see that it "infuriated" anyone, except for its backers when
it bombed in the theaters. The title was inaccurate, as I just
pointed out.

> To suggest even one pollock was involved in the creation of species is
> to misunderstand the main claim of Darwinian evolution.
>

Ray, as you are so fond of demonstrating, you have no idea what the
"main claim" of evolutionary science is. The main claim of evolution
is that allele changes in populations over generations occur.
"Intelligence" is an abstract idea, not something that produces allele
change. Human beings, who have intelligence (at least some of them
do....) can affect which alleles are selected in a population.

If those humans who are selecting particular alleles in a
population, happen to be of Polish ancestry, then Poles could well be
involved in the formation of a new species. That would of course be
quite compatible with the main claim of evolution.


DJT

[Bob Berger]

In article <cdff8420-d045-43e8...@ys5g2000pbc.googlegroups.com>,
Ray Martinez says...

>
>On Apr 30, 2:02�pm, Dana Tweedy <reddfrog...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Apr 29, 8:57�pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>> > On Apr 29, 7:53�pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>> > > How many pollocks does it take to create a species?
>>
>> > > Since no intelligence is involved, none.
>>
>> > > Ray
>>
>> > No wonder the ToE is rejected by tens of millions of Americans.
>>
>> > Ray
>>
>> Tens of millions of Americans also reject the link between smoking and
>> lung cancer. �Why would the foolishness of a segment of the population
>> matter to the validity of a correct scientific finding?
>>
>> DJT
>
>The inability of science to convince a majority of the American
>population of the truth of evolution,

Ray: You said above, "No wonder the ToE is rejected by tens of millions of
Americans". Now you say, "The inability of science to convince a majority of the
American population of the truth of evolution...". I remind you that tens of
millions of Americans is a small fraction of the American population, which is
roughly 313 million.

[Dana Tweedy]

On Apr 30, 7:21�pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Apr 30, 4:42�pm, Richard Clayton <richZIG.e.clayZIG...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 30-Apr-13 13:31, Bob Casanova wrote:
>
> > > On Mon, 29 Apr 2013 19:57:15 -0700 (PDT), the following
> > > appeared in talk.origins, posted by Ray Martinez
> > > <pyramid...@yahoo.com>:
>
> > >> On Apr 29, 7:53 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > >>> How many pollocks does it take to create a species?
>
> > >>> Since no intelligence is involved, none.
>
> > >> No wonder the ToE is rejected by tens of millions of Americans.
>
> > > ....none of whom understand it, or know the evidence
> > > supporting it.
>
> > > Invoking your "Reality Determined by Popular Vote" assertion
> > > again?
>
> > Funny how "the majority is always wrong" applies only how and when Ray
> > dictates.
>
> Said claim has always said majorities found in the Bible are always
> wrong.*

Yet you keep applying this to majorities not in the Bible. Of
course, there are many examples of majorities in the Bible who were
presumed To be correct.

> We can identify their descendants in every generation since,
> which of course supports Divine Revelation.

If you get to make up your own definition, of "descendants" of course
it supports your circular claims.

>


> * I've only seen one exception.

By ignoring all the other exceptions....

DJT

[Dana Tweedy]

Actually, he's just pointing out that ethnic slurs are offensive to
intelligent people. That's probably why you don't see the potential
for offense.

May I presume that if someone were to make an offensive slur
against those of Mexican descent, you would not take offense? Shall
we add simple human decency to the growing list of subjects you don't
understand?


DJT

[chris thompson]

Some people expect them to be taken littorally.

Chris

[Ray Martinez]

No, he's advocating politically correct ideology also known as an
implied threat to smear one into submission.

> � �May I �presume that if someone were to make an offensive slur

> against those of Mexican descent, you would not take offense?

Wouldn't bother me at all.

> Shall
> we add simple human decency to the growing list of subjects you don't
> understand?
>
> DJT

If you understood you wouldn't say that. See how the "misunderstanding
card" works?

Ray

[jillery]

More dumber <snigger>

[Dana Tweedy]

This 'politically correct ideology' is merely human empathy. I realize
it's not something you can grasp.

>
>> May I presume that if someone were to make an offensive slur
>> against those of Mexican descent, you would not take offense?
>
> Wouldn't bother me at all.

So it's not that you don't get that ethnic slurs are hurtful to others,
it's you just don't care that you are speaking intentionally harming
others.

>
>> Shall
>> we add simple human decency to the growing list of subjects you don't
>> understand?
>>
>> DJT
>
> If you understood you wouldn't say that.

Actually, my understanding is why I say that.

> See how the "misunderstanding
> card" works?

Except that showing yourself to be ignorant of a subject is a prima
facie indication that you do not understand something. It's not a
"card" to be played, but an observation. Blindly repeating the
statement at the person who made it doesn't make it applicable.

DJT

[Dana Tweedy]

And then you go to show you don't have any idea of what is humorous.

>
> Pollock jokes mock the incredible stupidity of the pollock.

Except that there's no reason to say that Polish people are "incredibly
stupid". That kind of assumption is harmful, and beneath anyone with a
room temperature IQ. Of course, it's right up Ray's alley.

> Here are
> some classic pollock jokes:
>
> Q: How many pollocks does it take to screw in a light bulb?
>
> A: Four; one to hold the bulb and three to turn the ladder.
>
> Q: Did you hear about the pollock that locked his keys in his car?
>
> A: He had to use a coat hanger to get his family out.
>
> In this context I point out that evolutionary theory says the
> intelligence of just one pollock isn't seen or required to create a
> species,

Evolutionary theory doesn't say anything about the intelligence of any
particular human population. The intelligence of an individual human
is indeed not required to produce a species, but there's no reason to
suspect it should be required.

Most, if not all, natural processes operate without any cognition at
all. They operate automatically, through the principles of chemistry
and physics. "Intelligence" is not required to produce mountains,
valleys, river systems, ocean currents, storms, or indeed to produce a
new member of a species.

Why, Ray, would anyone expect that "intelligence" is required to produce
a species?

> thus evos are infinitely more dumber than pollocks.

This "conclusion" is a good example of what the website TV tropes refers
to as "Insane Troll Logic".
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/InsaneTrollLogic

"Evos" accept the fact that natural processes operate without
cognition, and without overt intelligent input all the time. There's no
reason why anyone would expect that a species of living thing requires
there to be intelligent input to produce.


DJT

[Dana Tweedy]

On 4/30/13 7:47 PM, Bob Berger wrote:
> In article <cdff8420-d045-43e8...@ys5g2000pbc.googlegroups.com>,
> Ray Martinez says...
>>
>> On Apr 30, 2:02 pm, Dana Tweedy <reddfrog...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Apr 29, 8:57 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Apr 29, 7:53 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>> How many pollocks does it take to create a species?
>>>
>>>>> Since no intelligence is involved, none.
>>>
>>>>> Ray
>>>
>>>> No wonder the ToE is rejected by tens of millions of Americans.
>>>
>>>> Ray
>>>
>>> Tens of millions of Americans also reject the link between smoking and
>>> lung cancer. Why would the foolishness of a segment of the population
>>> matter to the validity of a correct scientific finding?
>>>
>>> DJT
>>
>> The inability of science to convince a majority of the American
>> population of the truth of evolution,
>
> Ray: You said above, "No wonder the ToE is rejected by tens of millions of
> Americans". Now you say, "The inability of science to convince a majority of the
> American population of the truth of evolution...". I remind you that tens of
> millions of Americans is a small fraction of the American population, which is
> roughly 313 million.

Ray also ignores that there are "tens of millions" of Americans who
think that vaccines cause autism, or that the relative position of the
stars at the time of one's birth influences one's life.

Just because a segment of the population is immune to being educated
does not mean that facts suddenly become false.

DJT

[deadrat]

<snip/>

I'll admit to being confused about the term "pollock." I thought you
were talking about a species of fish. What you evidently mean is polack
"jokes." That mistake is sort of funny, I guess, in that you meant to
tell a derogatory joke about how stupid certain people are, but in doing
so you end up showing how stupid you are.

I do get the humor behind polack jokes. They're a quite common type.
Jews had jokes about the fools from Chelm. The English had the town of
Gotham. And even the Danes liked to ridicule people from the small
peninsula of Mols in Jutland.

> In this context I point out that evolutionary theory says the
> intelligence of just one pollock isn't seen or required to create a
> species,

Sorry, this escapes me. Evolutionary theory doesn't say anything about
people of Polish descent.

> thus evos are infinitely more dumber than pollocks.

OK, let's say that "intelligence" is required to create a species.
That's not true, but I'll assume it is to find the humor in the joke.
Under this assumption, "evos" are saying something wrong. Which would
make them "more dumber [sic]." But presumably "polacks" aren't smart
enough to comment on evolutionary theory at all, one way or another. So
why, again, are "evos" compared to them?

I know explaining a joke drains it of humor, but I just don't see how
your comment had any in the first place.

Maybe it's just me.


> Ray
>

[Harry K]

On Apr 30, 2:06�pm, deadrat <a...@b.com> wrote:
> On 4/30/13 3:43 PM, Dana Tweedy wrote:
>
>
>
>
>

> > On Apr 30, 1:26 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> >> On Apr 30, 10:31 am, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
>
> >>> On Mon, 29 Apr 2013 19:57:15 -0700 (PDT), the following
> >>> appeared in talk.origins, posted by Ray Martinez
> >>> <pyramid...@yahoo.com>:
>

> >>>> On Apr 29, 7:53 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >>>>> How many pollocks does it take to create a species?
>
> >>>>> Since no intelligence is involved, none.
> >>>> No wonder the ToE is rejected by tens of millions of Americans.
>
> >>> ....none of whom understand it....
>
> >> The "agree-with-us-or-you-don't-understand" card. I'll play: If you
> >> really understood evolutionary theory then you would reject it too.
>

> > But your claim is objectively wrong.
>
> >>> or know the evidence
> >>> supporting it.
>
> >> These Americans understand that evolution has expelled Intelligence:
> >> none is required to create a species;
>
> > "Intelligence" is not required to create a rain drop, or a flower, or
> > a baby too. � Why would you expect "intelligence" is required to make
> > a species?
>
> >> this is why the pollock joke is
> >> really on you guys.
>
> > Why? � You are an individual who lacks intelligence, not people of
> > Polish descent, and not those who accept the scientific theory of
> > evolution.
>
> I think he's talking about the fish, not people of Polish descent.
>
> But that doesn't mean I get the joke. �Why is it funny?
>

> <snip/>

The only funny thing is that he seems to think "pollock" referes to
people of polish descent. Gpuess he doesnt' know how to use a
dictionary.

Harry K

[Harry K]

If you're going to use a derogatory term, at least spell it right. It
is POLACK you stupid jerk.

Harry K

[Harry K]

On Apr 30, 5:09�pm, Paul J Gans <gan...@panix.com> wrote:

Not that I have ever seen/heard. The term is "polack".

Harry K

[Harry K]

Too bad that your misspelling of a common term shows how stupid _you_
are.

Harry K

[Mitchell Coffey]

Sure, that was some edgy humor, but don't think from now on you can just hang on the beach and coast.

Mitchell

[Mitchell Coffey]

On Tuesday, April 30, 2013 8:09:34 PM UTC-4, Paul J Gans wrote:
> wiki trix <> wrote:
>
> >On Apr 30, 3:26?pm, Ray Martinez <> wrote:

>
> >> On Apr 30, 10:31?am, Bob Casanova <> wrote:
>
> >>
>
> >> > On Mon, 29 Apr 2013 19:57:15 -0700 (PDT), the following
>
> >> > appeared in talk.origins, posted by Ray Martinez
>

> >> > >On Apr 29, 7:53?pm, Ray Martinez <> wrote:
>
> >> > >> How many pollocks does it take to create a species?
>
> >>
>
> >> > >> Since no intelligence is involved, none.
>
> >> > >No wonder the ToE is rejected by tens of millions of Americans.
>
> >>
>
> >> > ....none of whom understand it....
>
> >>
>
> >> The "agree-with-us-or-you-don't-understand" card. I'll play: If you
>
> >> really understood evolutionary theory then you would reject it too.
>
>
>

> >I think that you do not understand Jackson Pollock...
>
> >http://www.mth.msu.edu/~ywang/Reprints/pollock.pdf
>
>
>
> I happen to think that Ray's use of the term "Pollock" had
>
> nothing to do with Jackson Pollock and everything to do with
>
> the racist perception that people of Polishs descent are
>
> stupid.
>
>
>
> The term "pollock" is a derogatory term for such individuals.

(Shhhh! Wiki knows that: he's belittling Ray in a manner that will leave Ray not understanding he's being belittled.)

Mitchell

[Mitchell Coffey]

On Tuesday, April 30, 2013 8:05:27 PM UTC-4, Paul J Gans wrote:
> Burkhard <b.sc...@ed.ac.uk> wrote:
>
> >On Apr 30, 8:03?pm, wiki trix <wikit...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> On Apr 30, 1:28?pm, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> > On Tue, 30 Apr 2013 07:44:25 -0700 (PDT), the following
>
> >> > appeared in talk.origins, posted by osugeography
>
> >> > <osugeogra...@aol.com>:
>
> >>
>
> >> > >On Apr 30, 2:55?am, solar penguin <solar.peng...@googlemail.com>
>
> >> > >wrote:

>
> >> > >> On Mon, 29 Apr 2013 19:53:26 -0700, Ray Martinez wrote:
>
> >> > >> > How many pollocks does it take to create a species?
>
> >>
>
> >> > >> > Since no intelligence is involved, none.
>
> >>
>

> >> > >> Not a big fan of Jackson's paintings then?
>
> >>
>
> >> > >That's amusing, solar penguin, my first thought also. Drip, drip.
>
> >>
>
> >> > >But then I thought of the fish. So maybe it's just Ray Mullet's
>
> >> > >thoughts on pollock.
>
> >>
>
> >> > You just haddock say that, didn't you?
>
> >>
>
> >> No need to carp on about it.
>
>
>
> >Gillty as charged
>
>
>
> Which I hope writes fin to this thread.

It no longer serves a porpoise.

Mitchell

[alias Ernest Major]

On 30/04/2013 22:06, deadrat wrote:
> On 4/30/13 3:43 PM, Dana Tweedy wrote:
>> On Apr 30, 1:26 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>> On Apr 30, 10:31 am, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Mon, 29 Apr 2013 19:57:15 -0700 (PDT), the following
>>>> appeared in talk.origins, posted by Ray Martinez
>>>> <pyramid...@yahoo.com>:
>>>

>>>>> On Apr 29, 7:53 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>>> How many pollocks does it take to create a species?
>>>
>>>>>> Since no intelligence is involved, none.

>>>>> No wonder the ToE is rejected by tens of millions of Americans.
>>>
>>>> ....none of whom understand it....
>>>
>>> The "agree-with-us-or-you-don't-understand" card. I'll play: If you
>>> really understood evolutionary theory then you would reject it too.
>>
>>

>> But your claim is objectively wrong.
>>
>>
>>>
>>>> or know the evidence
>>>> supporting it.
>>>
>>> These Americans understand that evolution has expelled Intelligence:
>>> none is required to create a species;
>>
>> "Intelligence" is not required to create a rain drop, or a flower, or
>> a baby too. Why would you expect "intelligence" is required to make
>> a species?
>>
>>
>>> this is why the pollock joke is
>>> really on you guys.
>>
>> Why? You are an individual who lacks intelligence, not people of
>> Polish descent, and not those who accept the scientific theory of
>> evolution.
>
> I think he's talking about the fish, not people of Polish descent.

I think that he's talking about neither, but about the artist Jackson
Pollock (a Pollock (sic) being a work a said artist).

>
> But that doesn't mean I get the joke. Why is it funny?

It's a joke-like object. (It appears to lack the necessary element of
humour.)
>
> <snip/>
>
>


--
alias Ernest Major

[alias Ernest Major]

How long have you been a gutter racist?


--
alias Ernest Major

[deadrat]

That one's fishy, 'cause a porpoise isn't.

>
> Mitchell
>

[eridanus]

El martes, 30 de abril de 2013 21:43:29 UTC+1, Dana Tweedy escribi�:
> On Apr 30, 1:26�pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:

>
> > On Apr 30, 10:31�am, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
>
> >
>
> > > On Mon, 29 Apr 2013 19:57:15 -0700 (PDT), the following
>
> > > appeared in talk.origins, posted by Ray Martinez
>
> > > <pyramid...@yahoo.com>:
>
> >
>

> > > >On Apr 29, 7:53�pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > >> How many pollocks does it take to create a species?
>
> >
>
> > > >> Since no intelligence is involved, none.
>

> > > >No wonder the ToE is rejected by tens of millions of Americans.
>
> >
>
> > > ....none of whom understand it....
>
> >
>
> > The "agree-with-us-or-you-don't-understand" card. I'll play: If you
>
> > really understood evolutionary theory then you would reject it too.
>
>
>
>
>

> But your claim is objectively wrong.
>
>
>
>
>
> >
>
> > > or know the evidence
>
> > > supporting it.
>
> >
>
> > These Americans understand that evolution has expelled Intelligence:
>
> > none is required to create a species;
>
>
>
> "Intelligence" is not required to create a rain drop, or a flower, or
>
> a baby too. Why would you expect "intelligence" is required to make
>
> a species?
>
>
>
>
>
> > this is why the pollock joke is
>
> > really on you guys.
>
>
>
> Why? You are an individual who lacks intelligence, not people of
>
> Polish descent, and not those who accept the scientific theory of
>
> evolution.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

> > Only Evolutionists are dumb enough to believe a
>
> > species can be made without Intelligence.
>
>
>
> Why would one think that producing a species requires intelligence?
>
> What about a species requires there to be any deliber, conscious
>
> input?

>
>
>
>
>
> >
>
> > > Invoking your "Reality Determined by Popular Vote" assertion
>
> > > again?
>
> >
>

> > The inability of Darwinists to convince tens of millions of Americans
>
> > is because said Americans understand that species reflect
>
> > Intelligence, not unintelligence or stupidity.
>
>
>
> For a natural process to lack consciousness does not mean it may be
>
> described as "stupid". Stupidity is not using the intelligence one
>
> has, not lacking the capacity for consciousness.
>
>
>
> People who continue to reject the fact of evolution out of religious
>
> bias more correctly fit the idea of stupidity than describing a
>
> natural process that lacks any form of neural system as "stupid".
>
>
>
> Also, Ray, what about a species do you imagine "reflects
>
> intelligence". Please be specific.
>
>
>
>
>
> DJT

he is hanging himself by a burning nail.
He had believed that a god (an intelligence) made the world, but he
never had any experience of god. He is not aware on how little
intelligence is required to become programmed and believe in any fake
god. It had existed thousands of them, and people had believed in
them, like sheep controlled by the shepherd's dogs.

He had not questioned himself how it is that exist so many different
gods at present. Not about the number of wars and prosecution of
people had occurred to establish a religion or other. He had been
unable to observe the cues that show the origins of a forgery. He has
been unable to see how the troupes of an empire enforce a religion,
over other people. First the troupes conquer the land by defeating
native armies, and later some specialists began "to teach" the
conquered people the new religion.

I remember that one day, in this group reply to one my corrosive posts
and he argue that Christian doctrine triumphed, not by the power of a
Roman emperor, that won a number of battles, but because Christian
doctrine gave people some "spiritual comfort" they very much needed.

I replied to him, that this could applied also to Islam. Islam won
converts not because they were conquering lands and defeating Christian
armies, but because the Christian populations were unhappy with a "wrong
religion" they lacked some spiritual comfort that the Arabian Mohammedan
troupes gave them by defeating the armies of their Christian rulers
that were a short of exploitative and cruel bastards.

He had not an intelligence to analyze a little our own history. He is
simply programmed to believe some fake doctrine.

Eridanus

[solar penguin]

Looks like he posted it in the wrong plaice.

[Burkhard]

"Dumber" is already the comparative form, "more dumber" hence not
grammatically correct. Maybe you should ask a nice Polish immigrant to
instruct you in correct English, to help you speak it "more better".

[Mark Isaak]

On 5/1/13 2:38 AM, Burkhard wrote:
> On May 1, 2:39 am, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:

>> [snip ethnic jokes]

>> In this context I point out that evolutionary theory says the
>> intelligence of just one pollock isn't seen or required to create a
>> species, thus evos are infinitely more dumber than pollocks.
>

> "Dumber" is already the comparative form, "more dumber" hence not
> grammatically correct.

But "more dumber" a great device for showing that the narrator is dumber
than the people he is talking about.

--
Mark Isaak eciton (at) curioustaxonomy (dot) net
"It is certain, from experience, that the smallest grain of natural
honesty and benevolence has more effect on men's conduct, than the most
pompous views suggested by theological theories and systems." - D. Hume

[Paul J Gans]

osugeography <osugeo...@aol.com> wrote:

>On Apr 30, 7:09?pm, Paul J Gans <gan...@panix.com> wrote:
>> wiki trix <wikit...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >On Apr 30, 3:26?pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> >> On Apr 30, 10:31?am, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
>>
>> >> > On Mon, 29 Apr 2013 19:57:15 -0700 (PDT), the following
>> >> > appeared in talk.origins, posted by Ray Martinez
>> >> > <pyramid...@yahoo.com>:
>>
>> >> > >On Apr 29, 7:53?pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> >> > >> How many pollocks does it take to create a species?
>>
>> >> > >> Since no intelligence is involved, none.
>> >> > >No wonder the ToE is rejected by tens of millions of Americans.
>>
>> >> > ....none of whom understand it....
>>
>> >> The "agree-with-us-or-you-don't-understand" card. I'll play: If you
>> >> really understood evolutionary theory then you would reject it too.
>> >I think that you do not understand Jackson Pollock...
>> >http://www.mth.msu.edu/~ywang/Reprints/pollock.pdf
>>
>> I happen to think that Ray's use of the term "Pollock" had
>> nothing to do with Jackson Pollock and everything to do with
>> the racist perception that people of Polishs descent are
>> stupid.
>>
>> The term "pollock" is a derogatory term for such individuals.
>>
>> --

>> ? ?--- Paul J. Gans

>I agree with you, Paul, reagarding the racial reference. It would not
>be the first time that an offensive statement has been made here with
>a bit of ambiguity, so that if the writer is called as to the exact
>meaning, he or she can carve out wriggle-room, and deny racist
>intent.

Of course. I was not criticizing anyone.

[Paul J Gans]

Ray Martinez <pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote:

>On Apr 30, 5:09?pm, Paul J Gans <gan...@panix.com> wrote:
>> wiki trix <wikit...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >On Apr 30, 3:26?pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> >> On Apr 30, 10:31?am, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
>>
>> >> > On Mon, 29 Apr 2013 19:57:15 -0700 (PDT), the following
>> >> > appeared in talk.origins, posted by Ray Martinez
>> >> > <pyramid...@yahoo.com>:
>>
>> >> > >On Apr 29, 7:53?pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> >> > >> How many pollocks does it take to create a species?
>>
>> >> > >> Since no intelligence is involved, none.
>> >> > >No wonder the ToE is rejected by tens of millions of Americans.
>>
>> >> > ....none of whom understand it....
>>
>> >> The "agree-with-us-or-you-don't-understand" card. I'll play: If you
>> >> really understood evolutionary theory then you would reject it too.
>> >I think that you do not understand Jackson Pollock...
>> >http://www.mth.msu.edu/~ywang/Reprints/pollock.pdf
>>
>> I happen to think that Ray's use of the term "Pollock" had
>> nothing to do with Jackson Pollock and everything to do with
>> the racist perception that people of Polishs descent are
>> stupid.
>>
>> The term "pollock" is a derogatory term for such individuals.
>>
>> --
>> ? ?--- Paul J. Gans

>You're way too sensitive, parroting politically correct ideology and
>its implicit threat to smear anyone who dares not to bow down.

So you admit it, eh?

[Paul J Gans]

I could raise the Nyikos question here. I almost never ever
respond to Ray. This thread has been an exception. What I
don't understand is why folks keep on him?

[Burkhard]

On 1 May, 16:03, Paul J Gans <gan...@panix.com> wrote:

Because he keeps finding new and (moderately) interesting ways of
getting things wrong, which can then serve as a pedagogical tool to
explain to a wider readership what biology, history, linguistics, etc
actually says. At least for me that's enough.

[jillery]

On Wed, 01 May 2013 07:00:13 -0700, Mark Isaak
<eci...@curioustax.onomy.net> wrote:

>On 5/1/13 2:38 AM, Burkhard wrote:
>> On May 1, 2:39 am, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>> [snip ethnic jokes]
>>> In this context I point out that evolutionary theory says the
>>> intelligence of just one pollock isn't seen or required to create a
>>> species, thus evos are infinitely more dumber than pollocks.
>>
>> "Dumber" is already the comparative form, "more dumber" hence not
>> grammatically correct.
>
>But "more dumber" a great device for showing that the narrator is dumber
>than the people he is talking about.

It is truly snigger worthy.

[jillery]

On Wed, 1 May 2013 08:12:37 -0700 (PDT), Burkhard <b.sc...@ed.ac.uk>
wrote:

Yeppers. Ray provides classic examples of how not to think.

The above sentence can be interpreted two ways, and both are correct.

[wiki trix]

Is that a racist term for a black superpartner?

[osugeography]

On Apr 29, 9:53�pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> How many pollocks does it take to create a species?
>
> Since no intelligence is involved, none.
>

> Ray


File Ray's post under:


"Pillock posts pollock poppycock".


Marvin Sebourn
osugeo...@aol.com

[Bob Casanova]

On Tue, 30 Apr 2013 12:26:08 -0700 (PDT), the following

appeared in talk.origins, posted by Ray Martinez

<pyram...@yahoo.com>:

>On Apr 30, 10:31�am, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
>> On Mon, 29 Apr 2013 19:57:15 -0700 (PDT), the following
>> appeared in talk.origins, posted by Ray Martinez

>> <pyramid...@yahoo.com>:

>>
>> >On Apr 29, 7:53�pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> >> How many pollocks does it take to create a species?
>>
>> >> Since no intelligence is involved, none.

>> >No wonder the ToE is rejected by tens of millions of Americans.
>>
>> ....none of whom understand it....
>
>The "agree-with-us-or-you-don't-understand" card.

Not a "card", just fact. Not one person in 100 who isn't a
biologist understands the ToE; I only understand it as an
interested layman.

> I'll play: If you
>really understood evolutionary theory then you would reject it too.

Then why don't biologists, who *do* understand it better
than I, and *far* better than you, reject it?

(Now play the "atheists" card...)

>> or know the evidence
>> supporting it.
>
>These Americans understand that evolution has expelled Intelligence:

>none is required to create a species; this is why the pollock joke is
>really on you guys. Only Evolutionists are dumb enough to believe a

>species can be made without Intelligence.

See? I told you you didn't understand it.

>> Invoking your "Reality Determined by Popular Vote" assertion
>> again?

>The inability of Darwinists to convince tens of millions of Americans
>is because said Americans understand that species reflect
>Intelligence, not unintelligence or stupidity.

Species "reflect" their environment, and when that
environment changes so do they, through differential
reproductive success. If the change is significant and
lasting the original species is replaced, in that
environment, by a successor species.

(Now play the "cat gives birth to a dog" card...)
--

Bob C.

"The most exciting phrase to hear in science,
the one that heralds new discoveries, is not
'Eureka!' but 'That's funny...'"

- Isaac Asimov

[Bob Casanova]

On Tue, 30 Apr 2013 12:53:12 -0700 (PDT), the following
appeared in talk.origins, posted by chris thompson
<chris.li...@gmail.com>:

>On Tuesday, April 30, 2013 3:03:44 PM UTC-4, wiki trix wrote:

>> On Apr 30, 1:28�pm, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
>>
>> > On Tue, 30 Apr 2013 07:44:25 -0700 (PDT), the following
>>
>> > appeared in talk.origins, posted by osugeography
>>
>> > <osugeogra...@aol.com>:
>>
>> >
>>

>> > >On Apr 30, 2:55�am, solar penguin <solar.peng...@googlemail.com>
>>
>> > >wrote:

>>
>> > >> On Mon, 29 Apr 2013 19:53:26 -0700, Ray Martinez wrote:
>>
>> > >> > How many pollocks does it take to create a species?
>>
>> >
>>
>> > >> > Since no intelligence is involved, none.
>>
>> >
>>

>> > >> Not a big fan of Jackson's paintings then?
>>
>> >
>>
>> > >That's amusing, solar penguin, my first thought also. Drip, drip.
>>
>> >
>>
>> > >But then I thought of the fish. So maybe it's just Ray Mullet's
>>
>> > >thoughts on pollock.
>>
>> >
>>
>> > You just haddock say that, didn't you?
>>
>>
>>
>> No need to carp on about it.
>

>He's floundering.

Hey! Kiss my bass, sucker!

(A twofer!)

[Bob Casanova]

On Tue, 30 Apr 2013 16:06:51 -0500, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by deadrat <a...@b.com>:

>On 4/30/13 3:43 PM, Dana Tweedy wrote:
>> On Apr 30, 1:26 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:

>>> On Apr 30, 10:31 am, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Mon, 29 Apr 2013 19:57:15 -0700 (PDT), the following
>>>> appeared in talk.origins, posted by Ray Martinez
>>>> <pyramid...@yahoo.com>:
>>>

>>>>> On Apr 29, 7:53 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>>> How many pollocks does it take to create a species?
>>>
>>>>>> Since no intelligence is involved, none.

>>>>> No wonder the ToE is rejected by tens of millions of Americans.
>>>
>>>> ....none of whom understand it....
>>>

>>> The "agree-with-us-or-you-don't-understand" card. I'll play: If you

>>> really understood evolutionary theory then you would reject it too.
>>
>>

>> But your claim is objectively wrong.
>>
>>
>>>

>>>> or know the evidence
>>>> supporting it.
>>>
>>> These Americans understand that evolution has expelled Intelligence:
>>> none is required to create a species;
>>

>> "Intelligence" is not required to create a rain drop, or a flower, or
>> a baby too. Why would you expect "intelligence" is required to make
>> a species?
>>
>>

>>> this is why the pollock joke is
>>> really on you guys.
>>

>> Why? You are an individual who lacks intelligence, not people of
>> Polish descent, and not those who accept the scientific theory of
>> evolution.
>

>I think he's talking about the fish, not people of Polish descent.

Doubtful; Ray simply doesn't know how to spell "Polack".

>But that doesn't mean I get the joke. Why is it funny?

It's not really, except to a few bigots who buy into the
"Polacks are stupid" canard.

[Bob Casanova]

On Wed, 1 May 2013 00:09:34 +0000 (UTC), the following
appeared in talk.origins, posted by Paul J Gans
<gan...@panix.com>:

>wiki trix <wiki...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>On Apr 30, 3:26?pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:

>>> On Apr 30, 10:31?am, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
>>>
>>> > On Mon, 29 Apr 2013 19:57:15 -0700 (PDT), the following
>>> > appeared in talk.origins, posted by Ray Martinez
>>> > <pyramid...@yahoo.com>:
>>>
>>> > >On Apr 29, 7:53?pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>> > >> How many pollocks does it take to create a species?
>>>
>>> > >> Since no intelligence is involved, none.
>>> > >No wonder the ToE is rejected by tens of millions of Americans.
>>>
>>> > ....none of whom understand it....
>>>
>>> The "agree-with-us-or-you-don't-understand" card. I'll play: If you
>>> really understood evolutionary theory then you would reject it too.
>

>>I think that you do not understand Jackson Pollock...
>>http://www.mth.msu.edu/~ywang/Reprints/pollock.pdf
>
>I happen to think that Ray's use of the term "Pollock" had
>nothing to do with Jackson Pollock and everything to do with
>the racist perception that people of Polishs descent are
>stupid.
>
>The term "pollock" is a derogatory term for such individuals.

But it's generally spelled "Polack".

[Bob Casanova]

On Tue, 30 Apr 2013 18:28:30 -0700 (PDT), the following

appeared in talk.origins, posted by Ray Martinez

<pyram...@yahoo.com>:

>On Apr 30, 5:09�pm, Paul J Gans <gan...@panix.com> wrote:

>> wiki trix <wikit...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >On Apr 30, 3:26?pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> >> On Apr 30, 10:31?am, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
>>
>> >> > On Mon, 29 Apr 2013 19:57:15 -0700 (PDT), the following
>> >> > appeared in talk.origins, posted by Ray Martinez
>> >> > <pyramid...@yahoo.com>:
>>
>> >> > >On Apr 29, 7:53?pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> >> > >> How many pollocks does it take to create a species?
>>
>> >> > >> Since no intelligence is involved, none.
>> >> > >No wonder the ToE is rejected by tens of millions of Americans.
>>
>> >> > ....none of whom understand it....
>>
>> >> The "agree-with-us-or-you-don't-understand" card. I'll play: If you
>> >> really understood evolutionary theory then you would reject it too.
>> >I think that you do not understand Jackson Pollock...
>> >http://www.mth.msu.edu/~ywang/Reprints/pollock.pdf
>>
>> I happen to think that Ray's use of the term "Pollock" had
>> nothing to do with Jackson Pollock and everything to do with
>> the racist perception that people of Polishs descent are
>> stupid.
>>
>> The term "pollock" is a derogatory term for such individuals.

>You're way too sensitive, parroting politically correct ideology and
>its implicit threat to smear anyone who dares not to bow down.

So, based on your surname, you wouldn't mind being referred
to as a "greaser"?

Or would that change the identity of the ox?

[Bob Casanova]

On Tue, 30 Apr 2013 18:39:15 -0700 (PDT), the following

appeared in talk.origins, posted by Ray Martinez

<pyram...@yahoo.com>:

<snip>

>Pollock jokes mock the incredible stupidity of the pollock.

So they mock a nonexistent trait? That's typical of bigoted
jokes; you'd surely like some of the stupid ones I've heard
about the stupidity and laziness of Hispanics (AKA, in the
"jokes", "greasers" or "wetbacks"). Are those also "true"
and "funny"?

[Bob Casanova]

On 30 Apr 2013 18:47:59 -0700, the following appeared in
talk.origins, posted by Bob Berger <Bob_m...@newsguy.com>:

>In article <cdff8420-d045-43e8...@ys5g2000pbc.googlegroups.com>,
>Ray Martinez says...
>>
>>On Apr 30, 2:02�pm, Dana Tweedy <reddfrog...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Apr 29, 8:57�pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:

>>>
>>> > On Apr 29, 7:53�pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> > > How many pollocks does it take to create a species?
>>>
>>> > > Since no intelligence is involved, none.
>>>

>>> > > Ray

>>>
>>> > No wonder the ToE is rejected by tens of millions of Americans.
>>>

>>> > Ray
>>>
>>> Tens of millions of Americans also reject the link between smoking and
>>> lung cancer. �Why would the foolishness of a segment of the population
>>> matter to the validity of a correct scientific finding?
>>>
>>> DJT
>>
>>The inability of science to convince a majority of the American
>>population of the truth of evolution,
>
>Ray: You said above, "No wonder the ToE is rejected by tens of millions of
>Americans". Now you say, "The inability of science to convince a majority of the
>American population of the truth of evolution...". I remind you that tens of
>millions of Americans is a small fraction of the American population, which is
>roughly 313 million.

But more important, as you and I know and as Ray rejects,
reality isn't subject to vote; it matters not whether 1
person or 1 trillion people accept it.

>>unlike many other scientific
>>claims, is because the majority understands that Intelligence must be
>>involved, and is involved, in the creation of species. The Darwinists
>>are thus isolated and shown to be deluded.
>>
>>Ray

[deadrat]

Turns out you're right. I thought it was a joke about species using a
species of fish

>
>> But that doesn't mean I get the joke. Why is it funny?
>
> It's not really, except to a few bigots who buy into the
> "Polacks are stupid" canard.

I understand the humor of Polack jokes. I just don't understand how
this is one of those. If it takes "no intelligence" to create a
species, and Polacks supposedly have exactly that, no intelligence, they
why is the punchline to the joke "none"?

So Ray is so dumb that ...

.... he thinks it takes intelligence to create a species.

.... he thinks Polack jokes are funny.

.... he can't even spell "Polack."

.... his own Polack joke doesn't even make sense on the level of Polack
jokes.

This is an awesome kind of dumb. Dumb all the way down.

[Ray Martinez]

On Apr 30, 8:36�pm, Dana Tweedy <reddfrog...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On 4/30/13 7:39 PM, Ray Martinez wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Apr 30, 6:11 pm, deadrat <a...@b.com> wrote:

> >> On 4/30/13 7:35 PM, osugeography wrote:

>
> >>> On Apr 30, 7:09 pm, Paul J Gans <gan...@panix.com> wrote:
> >>>> wiki trix <wikit...@gmail.com> wrote:

> >>>>> On Apr 30, 3:26?pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> >>>>>> On Apr 30, 10:31?am, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
>
> >>>>>>> On Mon, 29 Apr 2013 19:57:15 -0700 (PDT), the following
> >>>>>>> appeared in talk.origins, posted by Ray Martinez
> >>>>>>> <pyramid...@yahoo.com>:
>

> >>>>>>>> On Apr 29, 7:53?pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> How many pollocks does it take to create a species?
>
> >>>>>>>>> Since no intelligence is involved, none.
> >>>>>>>> No wonder the ToE is rejected by tens of millions of Americans.
>
> >>>>>>> ....none of whom understand it....
>
> >>>>>> The "agree-with-us-or-you-don't-understand" card. I'll play: If you
> >>>>>> really understood evolutionary theory then you would reject it too.

> >>>>> I think that you do not understand Jackson Pollock...
> >>>>>http://www.mth.msu.edu/~ywang/Reprints/pollock.pdf
>
> >>>> I happen to think that Ray's use of the term "Pollock" had
> >>>> nothing to do with Jackson Pollock and everything to do with
> >>>> the racist perception that people of Polishs descent are
> >>>> stupid.
>
> >>>> The term "pollock" is a derogatory term for such individuals.
>

> >>>> --
> >>>> � � �--- Paul J. Gans
>

> >>> I agree with you, Paul, reagarding the racial reference. It would not
> >>> be the first time that an offensive statement has been made here with
> >>> a bit of ambiguity, so that if the writer is called as to the exact
> >>> meaning, he or she can carve out wriggle-room, and deny racist
> >>> intent.
>

> >>> Regrds, Marvin
>
> >>> Marvin Sebourn
> >>> osugeogra...@aol.com
>
> >> I'm not a big fan of mind reading, although I realize I'm the minority
> >> on this newsgroup. �The derogatory term for an American of Polish
> >> ethnicity is Polack, from the Polish work for a Polish man, Polak.
> >> Pollack and Pollock are surnames. �Pollock is also a fish. �(I'm given
> >> to understand that the ethnic slur is confined to the US, as nobody in
> >> Europe can understand why Poles should be regarded as particularly stupid.)
>
> >> But the joke makes no sense, piscean or Polish. �Ray says that no
> >> intelligence is involved in making a species. �That's true. �One of the
> >> things that's required for making a species is procreation, which
> >> doesn't take intelligence. �For either fish or humans of any ethnicity.
>
> >> I still don't get the humor.
>
> > I'll accept your admission at face value.
>

> And then you go to show you don't have any idea of what is humorous.

>
>
>
> > Pollock jokes mock the incredible stupidity of the pollock.
>

> Except that there's no reason to say that Polish people are "incredibly
> stupid". � That kind of assumption is harmful, and beneath anyone with a
> room temperature IQ. � Of course, it's right up Ray's alley.

>
> > Here are
> > some classic pollock jokes:
>
> > Q: How many pollocks does it take to screw in a light bulb?
>
> > A: Four; one to hold the bulb and three to turn the ladder.
>
> > Q: Did you hear about the pollock that locked his keys in his car?
>
> > A: He had to use a coat hanger to get his family out.
>

> > In this context I point out that evolutionary theory says the
> > intelligence of just one pollock isn't seen or required to create a
> > species,
>

> Evolutionary theory doesn't say anything about the intelligence of any
> particular human population. � The intelligence of an individual human
> is indeed not required to produce a species, but there's no reason to
> suspect it should be required.
>
> � �Most, if not all, natural processes operate without any cognition at
> all. �They operate automatically, through the principles of chemistry
> and physics. �"Intelligence" is not required to produce mountains,
> valleys, river systems, ocean currents, storms, or indeed to produce a
> new member of a species.
>
> Why, Ray, would anyone expect that "intelligence" is required to produce
> a species?

>
> > thus evos are infinitely more dumber than pollocks.
>

> This "conclusion" is a good example of what the website TV tropes refers
> to as "Insane Troll Logic".http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/InsaneTrollLogic
>
> � "Evos" accept the fact that natural processes operate without
> cognition, and without overt intelligent input all the time. �There's no
> reason why anyone would expect that a species of living thing requires
> there to be intelligent input to produce.
>
> DJT

Thus our Evo admits the main point of this thread: the "intelligence"
of even one pollock is not required to create a species; hence Evos
are dumber than the pollocks seen in pollock jokes.

You know when I and my Creo friends sit around talking there's one
consistent and on-going joke in our conversations: how incredibly
stupid Evos are; from the scientists down to the ordinary lap dogs on
the internet. The laughs never get old and they never stop. But then
again after the laughs subside it dawns on us how sad and pathetic
Evos are, wasting their lives on nonsense, blaspheming God's
intelligence. And that's nothing to laugh about.

General Audience:

Evolutionists believe species do not reflect Intelligence, but
unintelligence; yet the pollocks seen in pollock jokes have some
intelligence but THAT "intelligence" is not required to make a
species, but less intelligence or no intelligence, according to
evolutionary theorists. Think about that. Yes, think about that as you
look at your lovely dog or cat, or an electric fish, or a bat, or a
humming bird and yourself (mankind); according to evolutionary theory
NO intelligence of any kind required.

Evolutionists actually believe that all living things, past and
present, were produced because of very rare errors in DNA replication,
and that these very rare events were selected by some (imaginary)
phenomenon that happens to be standing by waiting for these events to
happen. Imagine that; the wonders seen in species and mankind were
created by accident, according to evolutionary theory. Like I said
above: how sad and pathetic Evos are, wasting their lives on nonsense,
blaspheming God's intelligence. And that's nothing to laugh about.

Ray

[jillery]

It's a niggardly attitude.

[deadrat]

Sorry. Still don't get the force of this "joke." In your benighted
opinion, biologists are wrong to conclude that intelligence isn't
required for speciation. That would make biologists mistaken. Let's
even suppose that being mistaken -- the human condition, by the way --
means being stupid. Let's further assume, strictly to try to get to the
alleged humor in your post, that Polish-Americans are also stupid. What
do Polish-Americans have to do with biologists?

> You know when I and my Creo friends sit around talking there's one
> consistent and on-going joke in our conversations: how incredibly
> stupid Evos are; from the scientists down to the ordinary lap dogs on
> the internet. The laughs never get old and they never stop. But then
> again after the laughs subside it dawns on us how sad and pathetic
> Evos are, wasting their lives on nonsense, blaspheming God's
> intelligence. And that's nothing to laugh about.

I find this to be entirely unbelievable. You have friends?

> General Audience:
>
> Evolutionists believe species do not reflect Intelligence, but
> unintelligence;

Evolution reflects non-intelligent action; you reflect, unintelligent.
See the difference?

> yet the pollocks seen in pollock jokes have some
> intelligence but THAT "intelligence" is not required to make a
> species,

Is any human "intelligence" required to make a species?

> but less intelligence or no intelligence, according to
> evolutionary theorists.

Not less. Non.

> Think about that. Yes, think about that as you
> look at your lovely dog or cat, or an electric fish, or a bat, or a
> humming bird and yourself (mankind); according to evolutionary theory
> NO intelligence of any kind required.

OK, I've thought about it. Now what?

> Evolutionists actually believe that all living things, past and
> present, were produced because of very rare errors in DNA replication,
> and that these very rare events were selected by some (imaginary)
> phenomenon that happens to be standing by waiting for these events to
> happen. Imagine that; the wonders seen in species and mankind were
> created by accident, according to evolutionary theory.

Imperfect replication and the selective pressure of the environment,
yes. These aren't "(imaginary)"; they can be measured. Remember that
it's easy to be seduced into error by the metaphorical use of the words
"selected," "created," "accident," and so on.

> Like I said
> above: how sad and pathetic Evos are, wasting their lives on nonsense,
> blaspheming God's intelligence. And that's nothing to laugh about.

It's always about the projection, isn't it?


> Ray
>

[jillery]

On Wed, 01 May 2013 15:15:01 -0700, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off>

While you're at it, you could include "wetback" and "beaner".

[Dana Tweedy]

Once again, Ray, you employ insane troll logic. Many things are
produced without intelligence. Why would species be any different?
Moreover, why would the fact that scientists, and scientific minded
persons can observe the fact that natural processes produce things
without making use of cognition, mean that those scientist are "dumber"
than anyone?

>
> You know when I and my Creo friends sit around talking there's one
> consistent and on-going joke in our conversations: how incredibly
> stupid Evos are; from the scientists down to the ordinary lap dogs on
> the internet.

Assuming for a moment you have any "Creo friends", You seem to be trying
to make yourselves feel better about your own lack of intelligence by
defaming others who are more intelligent than you are. That's not
really a productive use of your time.

> The laughs never get old and they never stop.

So, you are saying you laugh at your own inability to understand
science. How sad.

> But then
> again after the laughs subside it dawns on us how sad and pathetic
> Evos are, wasting their lives on nonsense, blaspheming God's
> intelligence. And that's nothing to laugh about.

Yet it's you, Ray who is displaying your own lack of intelligence. The
fact of evolution does not bring into question God's intelligence, but
your denial of the fact of evolution displays your own lack of
intelligence.

>
> General Audience:
>
> Evolutionists believe species do not reflect Intelligence, but
> unintelligence;

When asked how species "reflect intelligence", Ray is unable to answer.
Species of living things don't require any cognition to exist, and
there's no reason to assume that cognition was involved in their
formation.

> yet the pollocks seen in pollock jokes have some
> intelligence but THAT "intelligence" is not required to make a
> species, but less intelligence or no intelligence, according to
> evolutionary theorists.

The formation of a species only requires differential reproductive
success. The mental power of any group of people is irrelevant to that.
Why would anyone assume that "intelligence" is required to make a
species. Ray also has failed to answer.

> Think about that. Yes, think about that as you
> look at your lovely dog or cat, or an electric fish, or a bat, or a
> humming bird and yourself (mankind); according to evolutionary theory
> NO intelligence of any kind required.

Yes, and no intelligence is required for a river system to form, or a
mountain range to rise, or for a hurricane to swirl up. Why would
anyone assume that the process that produced species was any different?

Ray won't answer that.

>
> Evolutionists actually believe that all living things, past and
> present, were produced because of very rare errors in DNA replication,
> and that these very rare events were selected by some (imaginary)
> phenomenon that happens to be standing by waiting for these events to
> happen.

Moreover, they produce actual evidence showing that "imaginary
phenomena" exists, and produce evidence showing that both mutations and
natural selection have the ability to produce new species.

Ray has never shown any evidence that "intelligence" can produce
species, or has produced species.

> Imagine that; the wonders seen in species and mankind were
> created by accident, according to evolutionary theory.

This is equivocation, and outright lying on Ray's part. Evolution is
not an accident, it's a process.

> Like I said
> above: how sad and pathetic Evos are, wasting their lives on nonsense,
> blaspheming God's intelligence. And that's nothing to laugh about.

Yet Ray is the one sitting around alone with his imaginary friends,
trying to make his own sad little life less pathetic by attempting to
bring down others more intelligent.


DJT

[Harry K]

I pointed that out a couple days ago at least twice but everybody just
ignored it and went on as if "pollock" is correct. I was beginning to
wonder if only I and the dictionary knew it.

Harry K

[Harry K]

Ray, pay attention: There are NO POLLOCK jokes, the term is POLACK
you stupid shit.'

Harry K

[Harry K]

On May 1, 3:19�pm, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
> On Tue, 30 Apr 2013 18:39:15 -0700 (PDT), the following
> appeared in talk.origins, posted by Ray Martinez

> <pyramid...@yahoo.com>:

>
> <snip>
>
> >Pollock jokes mock the incredible stupidity of the pollock.
>
> So they mock a nonexistent trait? That's typical of bigoted
> jokes; you'd surely like some of the stupid ones I've heard
> about the stupidity and laziness of Hispanics (AKA, in the
> "jokes", "greasers" or "wetbacks"). Are those also "true"
> and "funny"?
> --
>
> Bob C.
>
> "The most exciting phrase to hear in science,
> �the one that heralds new discoveries, is not
> �'Eureka!' but 'That's funny...'"
>
> - Isaac Asimov

And then he has a total ignorance of what the right term is. It is
not "pollock" but "polack". Check any dictionary.

Harry K

[alias Ernest Major]

There were two reasons to interpret Ray as referring to Pollock (sics)
rather than Polacks. Firstly the "joke" is nearer to making sense if
read as referring to the work of Jackson Pollock. Secondly Ray usually
avoids being publically racist; it's out of character for him to be
openly and intentionally racist. But Ray has subsequently demonstrated
that you were correct.

--
alias Ernest Major

[Roger Shrubber]

Have you no sense of appreciation for dramatic irony in performance
art?
A truly witty malapropism, or perhaps a malapriapism, onanistically
saluting for your voyeuristic pleasure.

[Rolf Aalberg]

On 30.04.2013 21:26, Ray Martinez wrote:

> On Apr 30, 10:31 am, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
>> On Mon, 29 Apr 2013 19:57:15 -0700 (PDT), the following
>> appeared in talk.origins, posted by Ray Martinez
>> <pyramid...@yahoo.com>:
>>

>>> On Apr 29, 7:53 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>> How many pollocks does it take to create a species?
>>
>>>> Since no intelligence is involved, none.
>>> No wonder the ToE is rejected by tens of millions of Americans.
>>
>> ....none of whom understand it....
>
> The "agree-with-us-or-you-don't-understand" card. I'll play: If you
> really understood evolutionary theory then you would reject it too.
>

>> or know the evidence
>> supporting it.
>
> These Americans understand that evolution has expelled Intelligence:

> none is required to create a species; this is why the pollock joke is
> really on you guys. Only Evolutionists are dumb enough to believe a
> species can be made without Intelligence.
>

>> Invoking your "Reality Determined by Popular Vote" assertion
>> again?
>
> The inability of Darwinists to convince tens of millions of Americans
> is because said Americans understand that species reflect
> Intelligence, not unintelligence or stupidity.
>

That's what you say, but the truth is they don't understand, are
ignorant, brainwashed or otherwise not in a position to know either way.
You are one of them.


> Ray
>

[Rolf Aalberg]

On 30.04.2013 23:06, deadrat wrote:
> On 4/30/13 3:43 PM, Dana Tweedy wrote:

>> On Apr 30, 1:26 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>> On Apr 30, 10:31 am, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Mon, 29 Apr 2013 19:57:15 -0700 (PDT), the following
>>>> appeared in talk.origins, posted by Ray Martinez
>>>> <pyramid...@yahoo.com>:
>>>
>>>>> On Apr 29, 7:53 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>>> How many pollocks does it take to create a species?
>>>
>>>>>> Since no intelligence is involved, none.
>>>>> No wonder the ToE is rejected by tens of millions of Americans.
>>>
>>>> ....none of whom understand it....
>>>
>>> The "agree-with-us-or-you-don't-understand" card. I'll play: If you
>>> really understood evolutionary theory then you would reject it too.
>>
>>

>> But your claim is objectively wrong.
>>
>>
>>>

>>>> or know the evidence
>>>> supporting it.
>>>
>>> These Americans understand that evolution has expelled Intelligence:
>>> none is required to create a species;
>>

>> "Intelligence" is not required to create a rain drop, or a flower, or
>> a baby too. Why would you expect "intelligence" is required to make
>> a species?
>>
>>

>>> this is why the pollock joke is
>>> really on you guys.
>>

>> Why? You are an individual who lacks intelligence, not people of
>> Polish descent, and not those who accept the scientific theory of
>> evolution.
>
> I think he's talking about the fish, not people of Polish descent.
>

> But that doesn't mean I get the joke. Why is it funny?
>

If Ray really think it is funny, he's more of an idiot than I'd ever
have thought.

One may wonder why he waste bandwidth on such nonsense when he's writing
the most important book ever written in the history of mankind.

I believe God is very annoyed with him for wasting time in saving all
our souls, he is withholding the knowledge that would set us free and
make us repent, abandon our sinful atheism and learn to pray every day.

We want the book now, we don't want to burn in hell, we want to go to
heaven with Ray!

Pollock joke, what an a$$hole!

Salvation, are you coming soon???

> <s


nip/>
>
>

[Rolf Aalberg]

LOL LOL. Lots of LOL's.

If ther is any "general audience" here, please speak up and let us hear
what you think.

> Ray
>

[Rolf Aalberg]

On 01.05.2013 04:47, Ray Martinez wrote:
> On Apr 30, 7:00 pm, Dana Tweedy <reddfrog...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Apr 30, 7:28 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:

>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Apr 30, 5:09 pm, Paul J Gans <gan...@panix.com> wrote:
>>
>>>> wiki trix <wikit...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> On Apr 30, 3:26?pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>>> On Apr 30, 10:31?am, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
>>
>>>>>>> On Mon, 29 Apr 2013 19:57:15 -0700 (PDT), the following
>>>>>>> appeared in talk.origins, posted by Ray Martinez
>>>>>>> <pyramid...@yahoo.com>:
>>
>>>>>>>> On Apr 29, 7:53?pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> How many pollocks does it take to create a species?
>>
>>>>>>>>> Since no intelligence is involved, none.
>>>>>>>> No wonder the ToE is rejected by tens of millions of Americans.
>>
>>>>>>> ....none of whom understand it....
>>
>>>>>> The "agree-with-us-or-you-don't-understand" card. I'll play: If you
>>>>>> really understood evolutionary theory then you would reject it too.
>>>>> I think that you do not understand Jackson Pollock...
>>>>> http://www.mth.msu.edu/~ywang/Reprints/pollock.pdf
>>
>>>> I happen to think that Ray's use of the term "Pollock" had
>>>> nothing to do with Jackson Pollock and everything to do with
>>>> the racist perception that people of Polishs descent are
>>>> stupid.
>>
>>>> The term "pollock" is a derogatory term for such individuals.
>>
>>>> --
>>>> --- Paul J. Gans
>>

>>> You're way too sensitive, parroting politically correct ideology and
>>> its implicit threat to smear anyone who dares not to bow down.
>>

>> Actually, he's just pointing out that ethnic slurs are offensive to
>> intelligent people. That's probably why you don't see the potential
>> for offense.
>
> No, he's advocating politically correct ideology also known as an
> implied threat to smear one into submission.
>
>> May I presume that if someone were to make an offensive slur
>> against those of Mexican descent, you would not take offense?
>
> Wouldn't bother me at all.
>
>> Shall
>> we add simple human decency to the growing list of subjects you don't
>> understand?
>>
>> DJT
>
> If you understood you wouldn't say that. See how the "misunderstanding
> card" works?
>

I see you are even more stupid than ever before, it is hard to believe
anyone can be as stupid as you have grown over the years. Why don't you
finish your book and put an end to our misery? If you've read the OT
you'd know the Lord YHWH doesn't show any mercy on idiots that doesn't
do as instructed. Your mission is to save mankind, to root out atheism
by tearing down atheism.

God is impatient, can't you hear him yelling at you in your sleep? Don't
he haunt you in your dreams like he haunted Job in his dreams?


> Ray
>

[Rolf Aalberg]

On 01.05.2013 03:47, Bob Berger wrote:
> In article <cdff8420-d045-43e8...@ys5g2000pbc.googlegroups.com>,
> Ray Martinez says...
>>

>> On Apr 30, 2:02 pm, Dana Tweedy <reddfrog...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Apr 29, 8:57 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:

>>>
>>>> On Apr 29, 7:53 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>> How many pollocks does it take to create a species?
>>>
>>>>> Since no intelligence is involved, none.
>>>

>>>>> Ray

>>>
>>>> No wonder the ToE is rejected by tens of millions of Americans.
>>>

>>>> Ray
>>>
>>> Tens of millions of Americans also reject the link between smoking and
>>> lung cancer. Why would the foolishness of a segment of the population
>>> matter to the validity of a correct scientific finding?
>>>
>>> DJT
>>
>> The inability of science to convince a majority of the American
>> population of the truth of evolution,
>
> Ray: You said above, "No wonder the ToE is rejected by tens of millions of
> Americans". Now you say, "The inability of science to convince a majority of the
> American population of the truth of evolution...". I remind you that tens of
> millions of Americans is a small fraction of the American population, which is
> roughly 313 million.
>

It is interesting to see USA at the bottom of the list of nations
acceptance of evolution. I am glad my country is near the top.

[Rolf Aalberg]

On 01.05.2013 03:03, Ray Martinez wrote:
> On Apr 30, 1:59 pm, Dana Tweedy <reddfrog...@gmail.com> wrote:

>> On Apr 29, 8:53 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>> How many pollocks does it take to create a species?
>>
>>> Since no intelligence is involved, none.
>>
>>> Ray
>>

>> So, besides Biology, Law, Linguistics, Theology, Etymology,Logic, and
>> Grammar, Humor is something you don't understand either.
>>
>> DJT
>
> Since Americans over 40 understand pollock jokes, are you suggesting
> Intelligence is involved in the creation of species?
>
> Do you remember the documentary "Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed"?
> How it infuriated evos? Yet none of the fury was based on an
> inaccurate title.
>
> To suggest even one pollock was involved in the creation of species is
> to misunderstand the main claim of Darwinian evolution.
>

You are doing your best not to understand Darwin, evolution, and all of
science in general. Where there's a will there's a way, and you
certainly have found it!

That explains all you are saying.


> Ray
>

[Rolf Aalberg]

On 01.05.2013 03:03, Ray Martinez wrote:
> On Apr 30, 1:59 pm, Dana Tweedy <reddfrog...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Apr 29, 8:53 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>> How many pollocks does it take to create a species?
>>
>>> Since no intelligence is involved, none.
>>
>>> Ray
>>
>> So, besides Biology, Law, Linguistics, Theology, Etymology,Logic, and
>> Grammar, Humor is something you don't understand either.
>>
>> DJT
>
> Since Americans over 40 understand pollock jokes, are you suggesting
> Intelligence is involved in the creation of species?
>
> Do you remember the documentary "Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed"?
> How it infuriated evos? Yet none of the fury was based on an
> inaccurate title.
>
> To suggest even one pollock was involved in the creation of species is
> to misunderstand the main claim of Darwinian evolution.
>

You have misunderstood. It wasn't a Pollock, it was a red Herring. That
makes sense. a Pollock is no match for a red Herring.

> Ray
>

[Burkhard]

On 2 May, 01:12, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Apr 30, 8:36 pm, Dana Tweedy <reddfrog...@gmail.com> wrote:
>

<snip repeats of racists jokes and bad grammar>

>
> Evolutionists actually believe that all living things, past and
> present, were produced because of very rare errors in DNA replication,

On average, 60 per individual human person. (Variation in genome-wide
mutation rates within and between human families.
Conrad DF, Keebler et all Nature genetics 2011;43;7;712-4) In 2005,
130 million babies were born, so that gives you 780000000 mutations
in a single year.
That's of course humans only, and just one year
So much for "very rare"

> and that these very rare events were selected by some (imaginary)
> phenomenon that happens to be standing by waiting for these events to
> happen.

"Finding a mate and/or procreating" might be an imaginary event for
you personally, it isn't for the majority of living beings Being eaten
by a predator, stariving for not finding prey ect are also far from
imaginary events for a considerable number of living things.

[jillery]

On Wed, 1 May 2013 22:21:39 -0700 (PDT), Harry K <tur...@q.com>
wrote:

Not everybody.

[Bob Casanova]

On Wed, 01 May 2013 22:34:10 -0400, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by jillery <69jp...@gmail.com>:

....and the ever-popular "spic", another (if somewhat dated)
favorite of the mouth-breather set.

[Bob Casanova]

On Thu, 02 May 2013 07:28:57 +0100, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by alias Ernest Major
<{$to$}@meden.demon.co.ukl>:

>> I pointed that out a couple days ago at least twice but everybody just
>> ignored it and went on as if "pollock" is correct. I was beginning to
>> wonder if only I and the dictionary knew it.

>There were two reasons to interpret Ray as referring to Pollock (sics)
>rather than Polacks. Firstly the "joke" is nearer to making sense if
>read as referring to the work of Jackson Pollock. Secondly Ray usually
>avoids being publically racist; it's out of character for him to be
>openly and intentionally racist. But Ray has subsequently demonstrated
>that you were correct.

We need to come up with an more-accurate term to describe
this sort of thing, since Poles and Hispanics are of the
same (traditionally Caucasian) "race", along with most of
Europe, southwest Asia, northern Africa and the Americas.
"Culturist", maybe?

[Bob Casanova]

On Wed, 01 May 2013 15:04:12 -0700, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off>:

>On Tue, 30 Apr 2013 12:26:08 -0700 (PDT), the following

>appeared in talk.origins, posted by Ray Martinez

><pyram...@yahoo.com>:

>
>>On Apr 30, 10:31�am, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
>>> On Mon, 29 Apr 2013 19:57:15 -0700 (PDT), the following
>>> appeared in talk.origins, posted by Ray Martinez
>>> <pyramid...@yahoo.com>:
>>>
>>> >On Apr 29, 7:53�pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>> >> How many pollocks does it take to create a species?
>>>
>>> >> Since no intelligence is involved, none.
>>> >No wonder the ToE is rejected by tens of millions of Americans.
>>>
>>> ....none of whom understand it....
>>
>>The "agree-with-us-or-you-don't-understand" card.
>

>Not a "card", just fact. Not one person in 100 who isn't a
>biologist understands the ToE; I only understand it as an
>interested layman.

>
>> I'll play: If you
>>really understood evolutionary theory then you would reject it too.
>

>Then why don't biologists, who *do* understand it better
>than I, and *far* better than you, reject it?
>
>(Now play the "atheists" card...)

>
>>> or know the evidence
>>> supporting it.
>>
>>These Americans understand that evolution has expelled Intelligence:

>>none is required to create a species; this is why the pollock joke is
>>really on you guys. Only Evolutionists are dumb enough to believe a
>>species can be made without Intelligence.
>

>See? I told you you didn't understand it.

>
>>> Invoking your "Reality Determined by Popular Vote" assertion
>>> again?
>
>>The inability of Darwinists to convince tens of millions of Americans
>>is because said Americans understand that species reflect
>>Intelligence, not unintelligence or stupidity.
>

>Species "reflect" their environment, and when that
>environment changes so do they, through differential
>reproductive success. If the change is significant and
>lasting the original species is replaced, in that
>environment, by a successor species.
>
>(Now play the "cat gives birth to a dog" card...)

[Crickets...]