Ray Martinez and denial in the face of plain facts.

Rolf

unread,

Feb 7, 2012, 7:01:56 AM2/7/12

to

One of Ray's main arguments goes like "the concept of natural selection
doesn't exist in nature."

I have a clear image of how I view natural selection and I challenge Ray to
refute the facts.

To begin with, for the term 'natural selection' to have any meaning at all,
there has to be something to select from.

That is the genetic diversity within populations.

The simplest example of natural selection in action is the emergence of
antibiotic resistant bacteria. They have come into existence and are of
great concern both to the medical profession and the general public. Need I
say more? That is the easiest thing in the world to understand and yet Ray
denies the fact that the cause is natural. Right, Ray? It was the invisible
designer that did it?

What is obvious and nobody claims otherwise, is that the bacteria don't
become 'new species'.

"Species" is a controversial term, and it is at bottom just a man made
concept from our desire to classify and define everything under the sun.

It nevertheless serves a purpose as long as we understand and agree on what
we are talking about.

Now let us proceed to a more complex situation such as we know exist and
always have existed in nature.

The first fact is genetic diversity in populations. No two humans share
identical DNA. Variation is continuous between generations. A child's DNA
never is a straight blend of selected DNA, 50% from each of its parents.
There will always be something new there, variations not found in any of the
parents.

It happens in any and all populations, be they plant, animal or anything
else.

Any objections from Ray so far, or can we proceed with more of the things
Ray doesn't want to know?

Rolf

unread,

Feb 7, 2012, 7:24:41 AM2/7/12

to

Like this I just found, very juicy, about fucking and selection.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/02/120206154122.htm

jillery

unread,

Feb 7, 2012, 12:05:47 PM2/7/12

to

On Tue, 7 Feb 2012 13:24:41 +0100, "Rolf" <rolf.a...@tele2.no>
wrote:

I can see this process rapidly reproductively isolating separate
populations. Different groups of water beetles all sharing a common
arms race between sperm and oviduct, but each group develops different
solutions, and some of those solutions may be physically/chemically
incompatible with others. When that happen, the group it happens to
becomes a population derived from a parent population, and looks,
sounds, and acts just like the parent population, but it's genetically
isolated and so evolves separately from the parent group, with no
chance to share future random mutations, ie a new species.

Ray Martinez

unread,

Feb 7, 2012, 3:50:12 PM2/7/12

to

On Feb 7, 4:01 am, "Rolf" <rolf.aalb...@tele2.no> wrote:
> One of Ray's main arguments goes like "the concept of natural selection
> doesn't exist in nature."
>

That's not an argument, but a position statement.

> I have a clear image of how I view natural selection and I challenge Ray to
> refute the facts.
>

You see that's my "problem" I don't have a "clear image" of natural
selection because it doesn't exist in the wild.

> To begin with, for the term 'natural selection' to have any meaning at all,
> there has to be something to select from.
>

You haven't even scratched the surface. It would be better to start
with the word "natural." Why is it there, Rolf? I know the answer, I
doubt that you know.

Rolf: I don't have the time to address other than: Natural selection
is a claim of logic (Gould 2002) with this particular element
(component based on logic) exempt from the normal rules of
falsification (reference withheld). This is why I have no "clear
image" (your phrase) of natural selection because the logic is
screwball. So non-existence coupled with perverted logic equates to
why I have no insight or "clear image" of natural selection.

Why don't you seek dialog with Tony Pagano? He testifies to the
existence of natural selection. His juvenile understanding thinks mere
existence of differential reproduction and survival is the full claim;
therefore natural selection exists! If this were all natural
selection was about no one could dissent. The same with Kalkidas,
Rolf. Go have discussion with him. He too thinks the concept has
existence. (Imagine that; the enemies of Darwinism accept its main
claim!) You will get no where with me based on the fact that I
literally have no idea as to what you are talking about. From Darwin
to you: I literally have no idea as to what any of you are talking
about when it comes to natural selection. All I know is that the claim
in behalf of natural selection says it, not God, is doing the
"creating." Since the Genesis Creator is irreplaceable, perhaps this
is why I have no idea as to what you are talking about. And guess
what? There are a whole lot of other people just like me in the world
who have no understanding of natural selection whatsoever. In short
natural selection is to me as Biblical Theology is to Richard Dawkins
or Lenny Flank. Its simply incomprehensible.

Ray

Dana Tweedy

unread,

Feb 7, 2012, 4:29:44 PM2/7/12

to

On 2/7/12 1:50 PM, Ray Martinez wrote:
> On Feb 7, 4:01 am, "Rolf"<rolf.aalb...@tele2.no> wrote:
>> One of Ray's main arguments goes like "the concept of natural selection
>> doesn't exist in nature."
>>
>
> That's not an argument, but a position statement.

Either way, it's an example of willful ignorance.

>
>> I have a clear image of how I view natural selection and I challenge Ray to
>> refute the facts.
>>
>
> You see that's my "problem" I don't have a "clear image" of natural
> selection because it doesn't exist in the wild.

What about all the examples of it existing in "the wild"? Why do you
keep ignoring them?

>
>> To begin with, for the term 'natural selection' to have any meaning at all,
>> there has to be something to select from.
>>
>
> You haven't even scratched the surface. It would be better to start
> with the word "natural." Why is it there, Rolf? I know the answer, I
> doubt that you know.

Ray, before you tell someone the "answer" you should at least try to
learn what it is you are talking about.

>
> Rolf: I don't have the time to address other than: Natural selection
> is a claim of logic (Gould 2002) with this particular element
> (component based on logic) exempt from the normal rules of
> falsification (reference withheld). This is why I have no "clear
> image" (your phrase) of natural selection because the logic is
> screwball. So non-existence coupled with perverted logic equates to
> why I have no insight or "clear image" of natural selection.

Ray, the word "natural" in natural selection was intended to
differentiate it from human selection. Whatever miscarriage of logic
you use to imagine it doesn't exist is your own mistake.

>
> Why don't you seek dialog with Tony Pagano?

Why should he?

> He testifies to the
> existence of natural selection.

Which means he's not denying it, like you are. So why ask Tony?

> His juvenile understanding thinks mere
> existence of differential reproduction and survival is the full claim;

Again, Ray, it's differential reproductive success, not simply
differential reproduction. This is one of your mistakes you refuse to
acknowledge.

> therefore natural selection exists!

Natural selection exists because there is an observable difference in
reproductive success in any population. Since human influence isn't
causing this difference, it's the environment that's producing the
difference in reproductive success. Therefore, selection is natural,
not artificial.

> If this were all natural
> selection was about no one could dissent.

and indeed no sane person does "dissent". Only you make the error of
denying it.

>The same with Kalkidas,
> Rolf. Go have discussion with him. He too thinks the concept has
> existence.

Again, indicating that Kalkidas, and Tony are both not as far lost to
irrationality as you are.

> (Imagine that; the enemies of Darwinism accept its main
> claim!)

Imagine that, Ray has no idea what the 'main claim' of "Darwinism" might be.

> You will get no where with me based on the fact that I
> literally have no idea as to what you are talking about.

Likewise you have no idea what you, yourself, Ray, are talking about.

> From Darwin
> to you: I literally have no idea as to what any of you are talking
> about when it comes to natural selection.

So, why not try to learn something?

> All I know is that the claim
> in behalf of natural selection says it, not God, is doing the
> "creating."

Unless God is using natural selection as his means of creation. Why do
you refuse to even entertain that idea?

> Since the Genesis Creator is irreplaceable, perhaps this
> is why I have no idea as to what you are talking about.

What do you mean by "irreplaceable"? Couldn't any supernatural being do
the same thing? Also, couldn't God create via other means that the
stories related in Genesis?

> And guess
> what? There are a whole lot of other people just like me in the world
> who have no understanding of natural selection whatsoever.

Are there? Would you like to cite any of them?

> In short
> natural selection is to me as Biblical Theology is to Richard Dawkins
> or Lenny Flank. Its simply incomprehensible.

Both Richard Dawkins and Lenny Flank seem to know a great deal more
about Biblical Theology than you do, Ray. You are the one who gets
"Biblical Theology" all wrong. Dawkins simply rejects it. You, on the
other hand have it all twisted up with your own irrational and hate
filled beliefs, and your sad hero worship of a false prophet.

snipping where Ray avoids more questions.

DJT

Caranx latus

unread,

Feb 7, 2012, 4:49:49 PM2/7/12

to

On 07/02/2012 3:50 PM, Ray Martinez wrote:
> On Feb 7, 4:01 am, "Rolf"<rolf.aalb...@tele2.no> wrote:
>> One of Ray's main arguments goes like "the concept of natural selection
>> doesn't exist in nature."
>>
>
> That's not an argument, but a position statement.
>
>> I have a clear image of how I view natural selection and I challenge Ray to
>> refute the facts.
>>
>
> You see that's my "problem" I don't have a "clear image" of natural
> selection because it doesn't exist in the wild.

No, you don't have a clear image of natural selection because you don't
*want* it to exist.

Which of these animals is more likely to prosper in the ocean: a whale
or an ostrich? Explain your answer.

<snip>

Rolf

unread,

Feb 7, 2012, 6:00:08 PM2/7/12

to

Even leaving out the innocent word 'natural' that seems to be a blinding
thorn in your eye, what about addressing the meat of the issue: Selection?

pnyikos

unread,

Feb 8, 2012, 2:52:06 PM2/8/12

to nyi...@bellsouth.net

On Feb 7, 3:50 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Feb 7, 4:01 am, "Rolf" <rolf.aalb...@tele2.no> wrote:
>
> > One of Ray's main arguments goes like "the concept of natural selection
> > doesn't exist in nature."
>
> That's not an argument, but a position statement.

Point to Ray.

> > I have a clear image of how I view natural selection and I challenge Ray to
> > refute the facts.
>
> You see that's my "problem" I don't have a "clear image" of natural
> selection because it doesn't exist in the wild.

You flubbed that one, Ray. You can have a concept of nonexistent
things, such as flying elephants. But your other respondents are very
coy about answering your next question, so they don't get any points
against you on this one.

> > To begin with, for the term 'natural selection' to have any meaning at all,
> > there has to be something to select from.
>
> You haven't even scratched the surface. It would be better to start
> with the word "natural." Why is it there, Rolf? I know the answer, I
> doubt that you know.

It's to distinguish it from intelligently designed selections.

If the people who are arguing with you were trying to be helpful, I
suspect that they would have written, "designed by humans, the only
intelligent designers whose existence can be proven without a shadow
of a doubt."

But in fairness to them, Ray, you should try to pay more attention to
some of the things they say; that way, they would be more willing to
be helpful.

> Rolf: I don't have the time to address other than: Natural selection
> is a claim of logic (Gould 2002) with this particular element
> (component based on logic) exempt from the normal rules of
> falsification (reference withheld).

Nice try, Ray, but there are simple examples where natural selection
apparently occurs due to some very major factors, and it would be easy
to falsify such subsidiary claims as "the selection pressure was A,"
by showing that pressure B had a much stronger impact on the survival
of the population members.

To bring it down to a simple level, one might claim that a witch
doctor doing a dance around a patient decimated the pathogens in his
system, whereas one could do a "before and after" comparison and
decide tht it was eating something suffused with penicillin mold an
hour before the dance that did the trick.

> Why don't you seek dialog with Tony Pagano? He testifies to the
> existence of natural selection. His juvenile understanding thinks mere
> existence of differential reproduction and survival is the full claim;
> therefore natural selection exists!

In specific cases, causes can be seen pretty clearly. Fleming saw a
dramatic difference in the survival of bacteria in his (petri?) dish
and was able to deduce where the selection pressure came from.

>Since the Genesis Creator is irreplaceable, perhaps this
> is why I have no idea as to what you are talking about.

Irreplacable for some things, not for others. Evolution on a large
scale is compatible with Genesis, especially where it says "the earth
brought forth" plants. It did not say God created them, it says he
said "Let the earth bring forth..."

You ignored the rest of what Rolf wrote, but now that I've tried to
show you how the topics he mentioned are relevant, perhaps you and I
can have a two-way conversation.

Peter Nyikos

pnyikos

unread,

Feb 8, 2012, 3:05:39 PM2/8/12

to nyi...@math.sc.edu

On Feb 7, 4:29 pm, Dana Tweedy <reddfrog...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 2/7/12 1:50 PM, Ray Martinez wrote:
>
> > On Feb 7, 4:01 am, "Rolf"<rolf.aalb...@tele2.no> wrote:

> > You haven't even scratched the surface. It would be better to start
> > with the word "natural." Why is it there, Rolf? I know the answer, I
> > doubt that you know.

[...]

> Ray, the word "natural" in natural selection was intended to
> differentiate it from human selection.

Maybe that was the original intent, but this is talk.origins and Ray
is a creationist, so you are not coming to grips with the full role of
the word "natural". See my reply to Ray, a talk.origins exclusive
[I'm crossposting this to alt.agnosticism.] where I point out that the
true antonym of "natural" is "due to intelligent agents".

> > In short
> > natural selection is to me as Biblical Theology is to Richard Dawkins
> > or Lenny Flank. Its simply incomprehensible.
>
> Both Richard Dawkins and Lenny Flank seem to know a great deal more
> about Biblical Theology than you do, Ray.

Be that as it may, they are hardly experts on it.

> You are the one who gets
> "Biblical Theology" all wrong. Dawkins simply rejects it.

Based on a fundamentalist reading of the Bible, or the more loose
readings that e.g., the Roman Catholic Church employs?

The RCC does not take Genesis literally, and the Vatican is perfectly
happy with the evolution of our bodies from those of lower animals or
even unicellular organisms. It only insists that the human soul is of
divine creation.

A much more literal reading of Genesis is also compatible with natural
evolution on a grand scale, as in the phrase "the earth brought forth"
when referring to what fundies inconsistentlly call the creation of
plants by God.

>You, on the
> other hand have it all twisted up with your own irrational and hate
> filled beliefs, and your sad hero worship of a false prophet.

Is this a reference to Jesus? Are you one of those people who denies
that anyone named Yehoshua, son of a carpenter, became an itinerant
preacher and was crucified under Pontius Pilate due to public
pressure?

Never mind the miraculous details. Is he "false" in the sense of
never existing, or in the sense of not being what he is cracked up to
be, in your opinion?

Peter Nyikos
Professor, Dept. of Mathematics -- standard disclaimer--
University of South Carolina
http://www.math.sc.edu/~nyikos/
nyikos @ math.sc.edu

Dana Tweedy

unread,

Feb 8, 2012, 5:43:13 PM2/8/12

to

On Wednesday, February 8, 2012 1:05:39 PM UTC-7, pnyikos wrote:
> On Feb 7, 4:29 pm, Dana Tweedy <reddfrog...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On 2/7/12 1:50 PM, Ray Martinez wrote:
> >
> > > On Feb 7, 4:01 am, "Rolf"<rolf.aalb...@tele2.no> wrote:
>
> > > You haven't even scratched the surface. It would be better to start
> > > with the word "natural." Why is it there, Rolf? I know the answer, I
> > > doubt that you know.
> [...]
> > Ray, the word "natural" in natural selection was intended to
> > differentiate it from human selection.
>
> Maybe that was the original intent, but this is talk.origins and Ray
> is a creationist, so you are not coming to grips with the full role of
> the word "natural". See my reply to Ray, a talk.origins exclusive
> [I'm crossposting this to alt.agnosticism.] where I point out that the
> true antonym of "natural" is "due to intelligent agents".

The "full role" of the word "natural" as Darwin used it, however was opposed to human selection. He did not intend to make it opposite of supernatural beings.

>
> > > In short
> > > natural selection is to me as Biblical Theology is to Richard Dawkins
> > > or Lenny Flank. Its simply incomprehensible.
> >
> > Both Richard Dawkins and Lenny Flank seem to know a great deal more
> > about Biblical Theology than you do, Ray.
>
> Be that as it may, they are hardly experts on it.

Granted, however one doesn't have to be an expert, or even be particularly literate in the subject to be much better informed on the subject than Ray.

>
> > You are the one who gets
> > "Biblical Theology" all wrong. Dawkins simply rejects it.
>
> Based on a fundamentalist reading of the Bible, or the more loose
> readings that e.g., the Roman Catholic Church employs?

Ray, as far as I know, rejects Roman Catholic teachings. Even in terms of fundamentalist theology, Ray gets it wrong.

>
> The RCC does not take Genesis literally, and the Vatican is perfectly
> happy with the evolution of our bodies from those of lower animals or
> even unicellular organisms. It only insists that the human soul is of
> divine creation.
>
> A much more literal reading of Genesis is also compatible with natural
> evolution on a grand scale, as in the phrase "the earth brought forth"
> when referring to what fundies inconsistentlly call the creation of
> plants by God.

Irrelevant to my points.

>
> >You, on the
> > other hand have it all twisted up with your own irrational and hate
> > filled beliefs, and your sad hero worship of a false prophet.
>
> Is this a reference to Jesus? Are you one of those people who denies
> that anyone named Yehoshua, son of a carpenter, became an itinerant
> preacher and was crucified under Pontius Pilate due to public
> pressure?

No, my reference was to Ray's own personal false prophet. See:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gene_Scott

http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/Wolves/gene_scott.htm

http://hiscrivener.wordpress.com/2009/09/15/dr-gene-scott-and-his-most-famous-pony-girl/

>
> Never mind the miraculous details. Is he "false" in the sense of
> never existing, or in the sense of not being what he is cracked up to
> be, in your opinion?

Since your assumption was incorrect, this is irrelevant to my statements.

DJT

John Harshman

unread,

Feb 8, 2012, 7:56:19 PM2/8/12

to

pnyikos wrote:
> On Feb 7, 4:29 pm, Dana Tweedy <reddfrog...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 2/7/12 1:50 PM, Ray Martinez wrote:
>>
>>> On Feb 7, 4:01 am, "Rolf"<rolf.aalb...@tele2.no> wrote:
>
>>> You haven't even scratched the surface. It would be better to start
>>> with the word "natural." Why is it there, Rolf? I know the answer, I
>>> doubt that you know.
> [...]
>> Ray, the word "natural" in natural selection was intended to
>> differentiate it from human selection.
>
> Maybe that was the original intent, but this is talk.origins and Ray
> is a creationist, so you are not coming to grips with the full role of
> the word "natural". See my reply to Ray, a talk.origins exclusive
> [I'm crossposting this to alt.agnosticism.] where I point out that the
> true antonym of "natural" is "due to intelligent agents".

True in what context, to what people? Ray's idea of "natural", for
example, is of something he thinks doesn't exist: pure randomness.

>>> In short
>>> natural selection is to me as Biblical Theology is to Richard Dawkins
>>> or Lenny Flank. Its simply incomprehensible.
>> Both Richard Dawkins and Lenny Flank seem to know a great deal more
>> about Biblical Theology than you do, Ray.
>
> Be that as it may, they are hardly experts on it.

Good enough for most purposes. Would you care to critique their views?

>> You are the one who gets
>> "Biblical Theology" all wrong. Dawkins simply rejects it.
>
> Based on a fundamentalist reading of the Bible, or the more loose
> readings that e.g., the Roman Catholic Church employs?

Either.

> The RCC does not take Genesis literally, and the Vatican is perfectly
> happy with the evolution of our bodies from those of lower animals or
> even unicellular organisms. It only insists that the human soul is of
> divine creation.

It also appears to insist that Adam and Eve were real people and were
the progenitors of all living people. Further, while the church doesn't
require a literal Genesis, it doesn't forbid it either. You can be both
a biblical literalist and a Catholic.

> A much more literal reading of Genesis is also compatible with natural
> evolution on a grand scale, as in the phrase "the earth brought forth"
> when referring to what fundies inconsistentlly call the creation of
> plants by God.

It is not, however, compatible with human evolution.

>> You, on the
>> other hand have it all twisted up with your own irrational and hate
>> filled beliefs, and your sad hero worship of a false prophet.
>
> Is this a reference to Jesus?

No. Ray's prophet is much more recent. I have momentarily forgotten his
name.

[remainder snipped as irrelevant given the answer to the question.]

John Harshman

unread,

Feb 8, 2012, 7:59:44 PM2/8/12

to

pnyikos wrote:
> On Feb 7, 3:50 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:

>> You haven't even scratched the surface. It would be better to start
>> with the word "natural." Why is it there, Rolf? I know the answer, I
>> doubt that you know.
>
> It's to distinguish it from intelligently designed selections.
>
> If the people who are arguing with you were trying to be helpful, I
> suspect that they would have written, "designed by humans, the only
> intelligent designers whose existence can be proven without a shadow
> of a doubt."

Why that instead of "the only intelligent designers for whose existence
we have any evidence"?

Hemidactylus

unread,

Feb 8, 2012, 8:58:35 PM2/8/12

to

On 02/07/2012 03:50 PM, Ray Martinez wrote:

[snip]

> Rolf: I don't have the time to address other than: Natural selection
> is a claim of logic (Gould 2002) with this particular element
> (component based on logic) exempt from the normal rules of
> falsification (reference withheld).

Why would you withhold a reference, especially one to the normal rules
of falsification? That's gotta be one of the oddest things I've seen you
do, and that's quite a long list.

Hemidactylus

unread,

Feb 8, 2012, 9:07:34 PM2/8/12

to

Dana already provided it...Gene Scott.

Peter had been absent from t.o. for much of the time Ray was blossoming.
I myself was amazed by the "eels of Atlantis", since I wasn't paying
much attention to the various goings on here for a while either, when
Ray was carving out his niche on t.o.

Hemidactylus

unread,

Feb 8, 2012, 9:09:08 PM2/8/12

to

Good luck with that :-)

John Harshman

unread,

Feb 8, 2012, 9:11:47 PM2/8/12

to

*Hemidactylus* wrote:

>> No. Ray's prophet is much more recent. I have momentarily forgotten his
>> name.
>
> Dana already provided it...Gene Scott.

Yeah. I kept coming up with Gene Hunt. But he's a fictional character.
Come to think of it, wouldn't a fictional character be more appropriate
for Ray?

unread,

Feb 9, 2012, 10:23:19 PM2/9/12

to

On Feb 8, 11:52 am, pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> On Feb 7, 3:50 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>

2nd reply; first reply failed to post.

> > On Feb 7, 4:01 am, "Rolf" <rolf.aalb...@tele2.no> wrote:
>
> > > One of Ray's main arguments goes like "the concept of natural selection
> > > doesn't exist in nature."
>
> > That's not an argument, but a position statement.
>
> Point to Ray.
>
> > > I have a clear image of how I view natural selection and I challenge Ray to
> > > refute the facts.
>
> > You see that's my "problem" I don't have a "clear image" of natural
> > selection because it doesn't exist in the wild.
>
> You flubbed that one, Ray. You can have a concept of nonexistent
> things, such as flying elephants. But your other respondents are very
> coy about answering your next question, so they don't get any points
> against you on this one.
>

But if I am right, that is, if natural selection is nonsense and
illogic, then I do have a clear image of the non-existent concept.

> > > To begin with, for the term 'natural selection' to have any meaning at all,
> > > there has to be something to select from.
>
> > You haven't even scratched the surface. It would be better to start
> > with the word "natural." Why is it there, Rolf? I know the answer, I
> > doubt that you know.
>
> It's to distinguish it from intelligently designed selections.
>

That's right, Peter. The word "natural" as it precedes "selection"
tells the reader that the supernatural (God) is not involved.

> If the people who are arguing with you were trying to be helpful, I
> suspect that they would have written, "designed by humans, the only
> intelligent designers whose existence can be proven without a shadow
> of a doubt."
>
> But in fairness to them, Ray, you should try to pay more attention to
> some of the things they say; that way, they would be more willing to
> be helpful.
>

Such as....

Peter: I make valiant effort to acknowledge and address the points of
my opponents. I do so because I know truth is on my side (or I am on
its side). I ignore nonsense. I am very irritated by your accusation.

> > Rolf: I don't have the time to address other than: Natural selection
> > is a claim of logic (Gould 2002) with this particular element
> > (component based on logic) exempt from the normal rules of
> > falsification (reference withheld).
>
> Nice try, Ray, but there are simple examples where natural selection
> apparently occurs due to some very major factors, and it would be easy
> to falsify such subsidiary claims as "the selection pressure was A,"
> by showing that pressure B had a much stronger impact on the survival
> of the population members.
>

How is your answer not a non-sequitur?

The issue here is logic, Peter. Claims based on logic are exempt from
falsification. I can prove that natural selection is a claim of logic.
I can produce multiple big time scholars and sources affirming the
fact. This means, foundationally, that natural selection is a claim of
logic. The truisms that comprise the full claim are not the object;
rather, it is the logic used to interpret these truisms that is the
object. It is THIS logic that is exempt from falsification. This means
the interpretation or explanation of the truisms----that is, the
unalterable logic that binds them, is exempt from falsification. You
Darwinists need to understand that I am NOT implying that because
natural selection is not falsifiable it is therefore false and
unscientific; rather, I am stating a fact about natural selection:
that it is first and foremost a claim of logic. Looks like I do
understand natural selection after all.

> To bring it down to a simple level, one might claim that a witch
> doctor doing a dance around a patient decimated the pathogens in his
> system, whereas one could do a "before and after" comparison and

> decide th[a]t it was eating something suffused with penicillin mold an

> hour before the dance that did the trick.
>

Your analogy does not promote understanding.

> > Why don't you seek dialog with Tony Pagano? He testifies to the
> > existence of natural selection. His juvenile understanding thinks mere
> > existence of differential reproduction and survival is the full claim;
> > therefore natural selection exists!
>
> In specific cases, causes can be seen pretty clearly. Fleming saw a
> dramatic difference in the survival of bacteria in his (petri?) dish
> and was able to deduce where the selection pressure came from.
>

But the claim of natural selection is that it, not God, causes
evolution and eventually new **species** to exist. One cannot support
the claim using a dish of bacteria. In this context your example
evades the main claim, indicating an inability to support said claim.

> >Since the Genesis Creator is irreplaceable, perhaps this
> > is why I have no idea as to what you are talking about.
>
> Irreplacable for some things, not for others. Evolution on a large
> scale is compatible with Genesis, especially where it says "the earth
> brought forth" plants.

Genesis presupposes supernatural and/or Intelligent causation;
evolution, since the rise of Darwinism, explicitly rejects these
concepts and restricts itself to natural or material causation. In
other words, there is no compatibility whatsoever.

> It did not say God created them, it says he
> said "Let the earth bring forth..."
>

In the context of creation (supernatural causation; God is the cause,
the Speaker). Your attempt to imply Genesis scientifically correct
after all will be met with indignation by secular society.

> You ignored the rest of what Rolf wrote, but now that I've tried to
> show you how the topics he mentioned are relevant, perhaps you and I
> can have a two-way conversation.
>
> Peter Nyikos

Again, I understood very little of what you said. Please, when time
permits, create a reply.

Ray

pnyikos

unread,

Feb 9, 2012, 10:35:17 PM2/9/12

to nyi...@bellsouth.net

Not at present. Besides, I don't think you'd be interested in what I
have to say, judging from your wet-blanket reaction to my comments
about in-your-face atheistic <ahem> holiday season displays.

> >> You are the one who gets
> >> "Biblical Theology" all wrong. Dawkins simply rejects it.
>
> > Based on a fundamentalist reading of the Bible, or the more loose
> > readings that e.g., the Roman Catholic Church employs?
>
> Either.
>
> > The RCC does not take Genesis literally, and the Vatican is perfectly
> > happy with the evolution of our bodies from those of lower animals or
> > even unicellular organisms. It only insists that the human soul is of
> > divine creation.
>
> It also appears to insist that Adam and Eve were real people

No. It says that they represent an unknown group of people who were
given an unknown test, upon which hinged many benefits that they lost
through failing the test.

The RCC has some ideas on what those benefits may have been, but I
haven't made a detailed study of them.

>and were
> the progenitors of all living people.

Yes, but perhaps not the only progenitors. "And Cain knew his wife"
has had a great deal of lively discussion and debate among Christians
as to where she came from. Also the distinction between "the sons of
God" and "the daughters of men" is an impenetrable mystery to
Christians, AFAIK. Both are from early in the book of Genesis.

> Further, while the church doesn't
> require a literal Genesis, it doesn't forbid it either. You can be both
> a biblical literalist and a Catholic.
>

The RCC is amazingly liberal about what Catholics HAVE to believe.
But ever since JPII said evolution is "more than just a theory" there
is little doubt as to what views it favors.

pnyikos

unread,

Feb 9, 2012, 11:03:53 PM2/9/12

to nyi...@bellsouth.net

Among others, including humans, as in the selective breeding of dogs.

> > If the people who are arguing with you were trying to be helpful, I
> > suspect that they would have written, "designed by humans, the only
> > intelligent designers whose existence can be proven without a shadow
> > of a doubt."
>
> > But in fairness to them, Ray, you should try to pay more attention to
> > some of the things they say; that way, they would be more willing to
> > be helpful.
>
> Such as....

...the evidence for the evolution of *Equus* from *Hyracotherium*.
You ignore it because it's only a small part of what evolutionists
claim, then you turn around and say that speciation doesn't happen.

> Peter: I make valiant effort to acknowledge and address the points of
> my opponents. I do so because I know truth is on my side (or I am on
> its side). I ignore nonsense. I am very irritated by your accusation.

Then do something about it, starting with the addressing of the
example I gave you just now.

> > > Rolf: I don't have the time to address other than: Natural selection
> > > is a claim of logic (Gould 2002) with this particular element
> > > (component based on logic) exempt from the normal rules of
> > > falsification (reference withheld).
>
> > Nice try, Ray, but there are simple examples where natural selection
> > apparently occurs due to some very major factors, and it would be easy
> > to falsify such subsidiary claims as "the selection pressure was A,"
> > by showing that pressure B had a much stronger impact on the survival
> > of the population members.
>
> How is your answer not a non-sequitur?

Do you really think the following is an explanation that it IS a non

sequitur?

> The issue here is logic, Peter. Claims based on logic are exempt from
> falsification. I can prove that natural selection is a claim of logic.

The "theorem" that the fittest survive is a claim of logic. But by
labeling my statement a non sequitur, you seem to be saying, "every
single description of how natural selection works in this or that
context is a claim of logic."

In short, you are confusing a theorem ABOUT natural selection with
other uses of the concept of natural selection.

> I can produce multiple big time scholars and sources affirming the
> fact.

About the theorem I just stated, yes. But that is only the beginning
of what natural selection is about in the workaday biological world.

> This means, foundationally, that natural selection is a claim of
> logic. The truisms that comprise the full claim are not the object;
> rather, it is the logic used to interpret these truisms that is the
> object.

Which truisms did you have in mind besides the theorem I stated above?

> It is THIS logic that is exempt from falsification. This means
> the interpretation or explanation of the truisms----that is, the
> unalterable logic that binds them, is exempt from falsification.

> Darwinists need to understand that I am NOT implying that because
> natural selection is not falsifiable it is therefore false and
> unscientific; rather, I am stating a fact about natural selection:
> that it is first and foremost a claim of logic. Looks like I do
> understand natural selection after all.

Maybe, but you aren't making a case for it here except for your vague
appeal to some unspecified authority.

Continued in next reply.

Peter Nyikos

Hemidactylus

unread,

Feb 9, 2012, 11:06:57 PM2/9/12

to

On 02/09/2012 10:51 PM, Ray Martinez wrote:
> On Feb 8, 12:05 pm, pnyikos<nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>> On Feb 7, 4:29 pm, Dana Tweedy<reddfrog...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>> On 2/7/12 1:50 PM, Ray Martinez wrote:
>>
>>>> On Feb 7, 4:01 am, "Rolf"<rolf.aalb...@tele2.no> wrote:
>>>> You haven't even scratched the surface. It would be better to start
>>>> with the word "natural." Why is it there, Rolf? I know the answer, I
>>>> doubt that you know.
>> [...]
>>> Ray, the word "natural" in natural selection was intended to
>>> differentiate it from human selection.
>>
>> Maybe that was the original intent, but this is talk.origins and Ray
>> is a creationist, so you are not coming to grips with the full role of
>> the word "natural". See my reply to Ray, a talk.origins exclusive
>> [I'm crossposting this to alt.agnosticism.] where I point out that the
>> true antonym of "natural" is "due to intelligent agents".
>>
>>>> In short
>>>> natural selection is to me as Biblical Theology is to Richard Dawkins
>>>> or Lenny Flank. Its simply incomprehensible.
>>
>>> Both Richard Dawkins and Lenny Flank seem to know a great deal more
>>> about Biblical Theology than you do, Ray.
>>
>> Be that as it may, they are hardly experts on it.
>>
>
> I have yet to see ANY Darwinist here at Talk.Origins show even a
> Sunday school understanding of Biblical Theology, Peter.

What about atheists?

Here we go again:

http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/5f0b5cdda9533df0

Genesis 1 and 2 contradict each other Ray!

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis+1&version=NIV

Genesis 1:

[quote]24 And God said, “Let the land produce living creatures according
to their kinds: the livestock, the creatures that move along the ground,
and the wild animals, each according to its kind.” And it was so. 25 God
made the wild animals according to their kinds, the livestock according
to their kinds, and all the creatures that move along the ground
according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good.
26 Then God said, “Let us make mankind in our image, in our
likeness, so that they may rule over the fish in the sea and the birds
in the sky, over the livestock and all the wild animals,[a] and over all
the creatures that move along the ground.” [/quote]

So Ray in Genesis 1 animals and livestock are created before humans.

Genesis 2:

[quote] 5 Now no shrub had yet appeared on the earth[a] and no plant had
yet sprung up, for the LORD God had not sent rain on the earth and there
was no one to work the ground, 6 but streams[b] came up from the earth
and watered the whole surface of the ground. 7 Then the LORD God formed
a man[c] from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the
breath of life, and the man became a living being.

8 Now the LORD God had planted a garden in the east, in Eden; and
there he put the man he had formed. 9 The LORD God made all kinds of
trees grow out of the ground—trees that were pleasing to the eye and
good for food. In the middle of the garden were the tree of life and the
tree of the knowledge of good and evil.

10 A river watering the garden flowed from Eden; from there it was
separated into four headwaters. 11 The name of the first is the Pishon;
it winds through the entire land of Havilah, where there is gold. 12
(The gold of that land is good; aromatic resin[d] and onyx are also
there.) 13 The name of the second river is the Gihon; it winds through
the entire land of Cush.[e] 14 The name of the third river is the
Tigris; it runs along the east side of Ashur. And the fourth river is
the Euphrates.

15 The LORD God took the man and put him in the Garden of Eden to work
it and take care of it. 16 And the LORD God commanded the man, “You are
free to eat from any tree in the garden; 17 but you must not eat from
the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat from it you
will certainly die.”

18 The LORD God said, “It is not good for the man to be alone. I will
make a helper suitable for him.”

19 Now the LORD God had formed out of the ground all the wild animals
and all the birds in the sky. He brought them to the man to see what he
would name them; and whatever the man called each living creature, that
was its name. 20 So the man gave names to all the livestock, the birds
in the sky and all the wild animals. [/quote]

So Ray in Genesis 2 man (Adam) comes first then animals and livestock.

Which Genesis (1 or 2) is correct in your view?

And now let's look closer at the special creation on humans shall we?

Genesis 1:

[quote] 26 Then God said, “Let us make mankind in our image, in our
likeness, so that they may rule over the fish in the sea and the birds
in the sky, over the livestock and all the wild animals,[a] and over all
the creatures that move along the ground.”

27 So God created mankind in his own image,
in the image of God he created them;
male and female he created them. [/quote]

This looks like males and females were created together in God's image
after the animals.

Genesis 2:

[quote] But for Adam[f] no suitable helper was found. 21 So the LORD
God caused the man to fall into a deep sleep; and while he was sleeping,
he took one of the man’s ribs[g] and then closed up the place with
flesh. 22 Then the LORD God made a woman from the rib[h] he had taken
out of the man, and he brought her to the man.

23 The man said,

“This is now bone of my bones
and flesh of my flesh;
she shall be called ‘woman,’
for she was taken out of man.”

Here Eve is created from a body part of Adam separately from Adam being
formed from dust and God-breath. Eve came after even the animals.

So Ray how do you account for the biblical contradictions above vis a
vis "creations"? If the bible is the inspired word of God, then God has
some serious inconsistencies in his account and the bible is errant.

And apparently God (in Genesis 1) created photosynthesizing plants
BEFORE he created the sun they would need to sustain themselves for
however long a creation day is.

[quote Genesis 1 again] 11 Then God said, “Let the land produce
vegetation: seed-bearing plants and trees on the land that bear fruit
with seed in it, according to their various kinds.” And it was so. 12
The land produced vegetation: plants bearing seed according to their
kinds and trees bearing fruit with seed in it according to their kinds.
And God saw that it was good. 13 And there was evening, and there was
morning—the third day.

14 And God said, “Let there be lights in the vault of the sky to
separate the day from the night, and let them serve as signs to mark
sacred times, and days and years, 15 and let them be lights in the vault
of the sky to give light on the earth.” And it was so. 16 God made two
great lights—the greater light to govern the day and the lesser light to
govern the night. He also made the stars. 17 God set them in the vault
of the sky to give light on the earth, 18 to govern the day and the
night, and to separate light from darkness. And God saw that it was
good. 19 And there was evening, and there was morning—the fourth day.
[/quote]

It makes more sense that photosynthesizing plants evolved long after the
sun came into being. The theory of evolution blasts your creation
account out of the water.

[crickets and theme song]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HuABhumm6fY

pnyikos

unread,

Feb 9, 2012, 11:55:20 PM2/9/12

to nyi...@bellsouth.net

On Feb 9, 10:23 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Feb 8, 11:52 am, pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> > On Feb 7, 3:50 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> 2nd reply; first reply failed to post.

Usenet is behaving in a spotty way today. Anyway, to pick up where I
left off in my first reply...

> > To bring it down to a simple level, one might claim that a witch
> > doctor doing a dance around a patient decimated the pathogens in his
> > system, whereas one could do a "before and after" comparison and
> > decide th[a]t it was eating something suffused with penicillin mold an
> > hour before the dance that did the trick.
>
> Your analogy does not promote understanding.

Why not? penicillin is a great natural selector of bacteria.

> > > Why don't you seek dialog with Tony Pagano? He testifies to the
> > > existence of natural selection. His juvenile understanding thinks mere
> > > existence of differential reproduction and survival is the full claim;
> > > therefore natural selection exists!
>
> > In specific cases, causes can be seen pretty clearly. Fleming saw a
> > dramatic difference in the survival of bacteria in his (petri?) dish
> > and was able to deduce where the selection pressure came from.
>
> But the claim of natural selection is that it, not God, causes
> evolution and eventually new **species** to exist.

Natural selection isn't the only natural game in town, unless you
subsume genetic drift and mutation in natural selection. And that
would destroy much of the role of the word "selection".

Take my comment about *Equus* and *Hyracotherium*. In this case, a
lot of what happened was probably genetic drift rather than natural
selection. This is evidenced by the fact that *Hyracotherium* also
gave rise to other animals, including probably Palaeotheres, while its
progeny *Mesohippus* branched off into *Archaeohippus*,
*Anchitherium*, and the line leading to *Equus*.

The last named line adapted to grasses, the other two remained
browsers like *Hyracotherium* itself. Was there any natural selection
pressure involved? It's hard to say.

>One cannot support
> the claim using a dish of bacteria. In this context your example
> evades the main claim, indicating an inability to support said claim.

Now YOU are irritating ME. I am new to this "natural selection" theme
of yours and am still feeling my way around just what you mean by it.

> > >Since the Genesis Creator is irreplaceable, perhaps this
> > > is why I have no idea as to what you are talking about.
>
> > Irreplacable for some things, not for others. Evolution on a large
> > scale is compatible with Genesis, especially where it says "the earth
> > brought forth" plants.
>
> Genesis presupposes supernatural and/or Intelligent causation;
> evolution,

You are using this word in a strange way here, to denote atheistic
crap that goes beyond the scientific evidence. The meaning of
"evolution" that stays within science has to do with the physical
descent of one biological taxon from another, with no mention of
whether supernatual causation is or is not involved.

> since the rise of Darwinism, explicitly rejects these
> concepts and restricts itself to natural or material causation.

There is a third way, which allows some supernatural intervention but
gives a wide latitude towards natural evolution, not involving
supernatural guidance. Do you recall the quote from _The Immense
Journey_ suggesting this third way?

> In
> other words, there is no compatibility whatsoever.

There is none between theism and atheism, but you'd be hard pressed to
put any more meaning to your assertion than that.

> > It did not say God created them, it says he
> > said "Let the earth bring forth..."
>
> In the context of creation (supernatural causation; God is the cause,
> the Speaker).

The ultimate cause, not the day-to-day cause of each of the many kinds
of plants, is the meaning I get out of that phrase in Genesis.

> Your attempt to imply Genesis scientifically correct
> after all will be met with indignation by secular society.

No, I only claim compatibility where I see it. Genesis is at odds
with what we know of the fossil record; all evidence we have from it
shows flowering plants (which include all fruit trees with seeds
inside their fruit) appearing long after fishes did.

> > You ignored the rest of what Rolf wrote, but now that I've tried to
> > show you how the topics he mentioned are relevant, perhaps you and I
> > can have a two-way conversation.

> Again, I understood very little of what you said. Please, when time
> permits, create a reply.

I've done the best I can; the next step is up to you.

> Ray

Peter Nyikos

John Harshman

unread,

Feb 10, 2012, 12:09:25 AM2/10/12

to

This is at variance with what I've heard before. Can you cite something
authoritative?

> The RCC has some ideas on what those benefits may have been, but I
> haven't made a detailed study of them.
>
>> and were
>> the progenitors of all living people.
>
> Yes, but perhaps not the only progenitors.

I believe that much may be the case. But this seems to assume that Adam
and Eve were real people, which you previously claimed was not dogma.

> "And Cain knew his wife"
> has had a great deal of lively discussion and debate among Christians
> as to where she came from. Also the distinction between "the sons of
> God" and "the daughters of men" is an impenetrable mystery to
> Christians, AFAIK. Both are from early in the book of Genesis.
>
>> Further, while the church doesn't
>> require a literal Genesis, it doesn't forbid it either. You can be both
>> a biblical literalist and a Catholic.
>
> The RCC is amazingly liberal about what Catholics HAVE to believe.
> But ever since JPII said evolution is "more than just a theory" there
> is little doubt as to what views it favors.

Not at issue. Some of the Pope's opinions are not required for communicants.

>>> A much more literal reading of Genesis is also compatible with natural
>>> evolution on a grand scale, as in the phrase "the earth brought forth"
>>> when referring to what fundies inconsistentlly call the creation of
>>> plants by God.
>> It is not, however, compatible with human evolution.
>
> True. But the RCC goes all but the last of the whole nine yards; see
> above.

It *allows* individuals to go all bu the last.

>>>> You, on the
>>>> other hand have it all twisted up with your own irrational and hate
>>>> filled beliefs, and your sad hero worship of a false prophet.
>>> Is this a reference to Jesus?
>> No. Ray's prophet is much more recent. I have momentarily forgotten his
>> name.
>
> I hope he isn't as wacky as the false prophets [gods] of Wretch
> Fossil.

6 of one...

Burkhard

unread,

Feb 10, 2012, 8:02:24 AM2/10/12

to

In the category; -E(l)

John S. Wilkins

unread,

Feb 10, 2012, 9:35:17 AM2/10/12

to

Burkhard <b.sc...@ed.ac.uk> wrote:

> In the category; -E(l)
>
> > Logic is an inexact science.

It's a paraconsistency to say so.
--
John S. Wilkins, Associate, Philosophy, University of Sydney
http://evolvingthoughts.net
But al be that he was a philosophre,
Yet hadde he but litel gold in cofre

Feb 10, 2012, 1:59:56 PM2/10/12

to

The answer is self-evident.

Your point says I do understand natural selection. The point
contradicts everything I've been told by Darwinists. Only after I
"agreed" with their observation, that I do not understand natural
selection because the concept does not exist, has this about-face been
advanced. It seems that you Darwinists do not like the implications of
where I could go with this. So do I understand natural selection or
not? Or does the answer depend on my explanation of the alleged
misunderstanding fact?

Ray

Dana Tweedy

unread,

Feb 10, 2012, 2:09:36 PM2/10/12

to

On 2/9/12 8:23 PM, Ray Martinez wrote:
snip

>>

>> You flubbed that one, Ray. You can have a concept of nonexistent
>> things, such as flying elephants. But your other respondents are very
>> coy about answering your next question, so they don't get any points
>> against you on this one.
>>
>
> But if I am right, that is, if natural selection is nonsense and
> illogic, then I do have a clear image of the non-existent concept.

It's quite obvious that you are not right. You also don't have a "clear
image" of the concept.

>
>>>> To begin with, for the term 'natural selection' to have any meaning at all,
>>>> there has to be something to select from.
>>
>>> You haven't even scratched the surface. It would be better to start
>>> with the word "natural." Why is it there, Rolf? I know the answer, I
>>> doubt that you know.
>>
>> It's to distinguish it from intelligently designed selections.
>>
>
> That's right, Peter. The word "natural" as it precedes "selection"
> tells the reader that the supernatural (God) is not involved.

No, it tells the "reader" that the selection is by the environment, not
by human influence. Whether or not the supernatural is involved is
something science can't say.

>
>> If the people who are arguing with you were trying to be helpful, I
>> suspect that they would have written, "designed by humans, the only
>> intelligent designers whose existence can be proven without a shadow
>> of a doubt."
>>
>> But in fairness to them, Ray, you should try to pay more attention to
>> some of the things they say; that way, they would be more willing to
>> be helpful.
>>
>
> Such as....

Evidence showing you are wrong, like observed instances where
environmental factors do determine what phenotypes enjoy greater
reproductive success.

>
> Peter: I make valiant effort to acknowledge and address the points of
> my opponents.

If by "valiant effort" you mean "no effort at all".

> I do so because I know truth is on my side (or I am on
> its side).

Then why do you run away from the truth so often?

> I ignore nonsense. I am very irritated by your accusation.

Ray, you embrace nonsense like a sailor's family greeting him after a 12
month deployment at sea. Your "irritation" is probably because you
realize on some level he is right.

>
>>> Rolf: I don't have the time to address other than: Natural selection
>>> is a claim of logic (Gould 2002) with this particular element
>>> (component based on logic) exempt from the normal rules of
>>> falsification (reference withheld).
>>
>> Nice try, Ray, but there are simple examples where natural selection
>> apparently occurs due to some very major factors, and it would be easy
>> to falsify such subsidiary claims as "the selection pressure was A,"
>> by showing that pressure B had a much stronger impact on the survival
>> of the population members.
>>
>
> How is your answer not a non-sequitur?

Because it applies to the subject at hand...

>
> The issue here is logic, Peter.

Ray, remember, you fail even the most simple logic.

> Claims based on logic are exempt from
> falsification.

Scientific claims, however are based on evidence, and are always open to
falsification. Your personal misunderstanding of Gould doesn't change
this.

> I can prove that natural selection is a claim of logic.

No, you can't.

> I can produce multiple big time scholars and sources affirming the
> fact.

That isn't "proof", and you haven't been able to support any of your
bluffs about 'big time scholars'.

> This means, foundationally, that natural selection is a claim of
> logic.

Which is incorrect. Natural selection is an observation of a real world
process.

> The truisms that comprise the full claim are not the object;
> rather, it is the logic used to interpret these truisms that is the
> object. It is THIS logic that is exempt from falsification.

Again, you fail at the most basic logic, so your assertions about what
is the "logic" of something are worthless.

> This means
> the interpretation or explanation of the truisms----that is, the
> unalterable logic that binds them, is exempt from falsification.

The observation of natural selection in action, however is falsifiable.

> You
> Darwinists need to understand that I am NOT implying that because
> natural selection is not falsifiable it is therefore false and
> unscientific; rather, I am stating a fact about natural selection:
> that it is first and foremost a claim of logic. Looks like I do
> understand natural selection after all.

No, it looks like you not only misunderstand natural selection, you
misunderstand what is a "claim of logic" as well. Natural selection is
a process observed in nature. It could be falsified if one did not see
what one expects from natural selection. Your insistence that it's a
"claim of logic" is merely your own ignorance about logic.

>
>> To bring it down to a simple level, one might claim that a witch
>> doctor doing a dance around a patient decimated the pathogens in his
>> system, whereas one could do a "before and after" comparison and
>> decide th[a]t it was eating something suffused with penicillin mold an
>> hour before the dance that did the trick.
>>
>
> Your analogy does not promote understanding.

problem is that the person he is talking to is too thick headed to
understand.

>
>>> Why don't you seek dialog with Tony Pagano? He testifies to the
>>> existence of natural selection. His juvenile understanding thinks mere
>>> existence of differential reproduction and survival is the full claim;
>>> therefore natural selection exists!
>>
>> In specific cases, causes can be seen pretty clearly. Fleming saw a
>> dramatic difference in the survival of bacteria in his (petri?) dish
>> and was able to deduce where the selection pressure came from.
>>
>
> But the claim of natural selection is that it, not God, causes
> evolution and eventually new **species** to exist.

Wrong again, Ray. The "claim" of natural selection is that selection by
environmental factors explains why adaptive mutations become fixed.
What causes new species to exist is a combination of mutation,
selection, drift, and other factors. One can get a new species without
natural selection at all, through drift alone.

Science doesn't make claims about God, or what he does, it only
describes natural forces and processes, and what they accomplish. If
God chose to use natural selection as his means of creation, science
can't deny that. The fact of natural selection acting on random
mutations does not mean that God does not exist, or that God does not
create. That's your own mistaken idea.

> One cannot support
> the claim using a dish of bacteria.

Sure one can, because a dish of bacteria are living, reproducing
organisms. Since they reproduce rapidly, they are good candidates for
studying natural selection.

Why would one not be able to use bacteria to establish the fact of
natural selection?

> In this context your example
> evades the main claim, indicating an inability to support said claim.

You don't give any reason why one can't use bacterial cultures to
demonstrate natural selection. Why do you think they can't be used in
that way?

>
>>> Since the Genesis Creator is irreplaceable, perhaps this
>>> is why I have no idea as to what you are talking about.
>>
>> Irreplacable for some things, not for others. Evolution on a large
>> scale is compatible with Genesis, especially where it says "the earth
>> brought forth" plants.
>
> Genesis presupposes supernatural and/or Intelligent causation;

as a religious belief. Of course Genesis isn't a scientific theory.

> evolution, since the rise of Darwinism, explicitly rejects these
> concepts and restricts itself to natural or material causation.

Ray, ALL of science studies only natural phenomena, and proposes only
natural causes. That's because the supernatural is beyond the ability
to study by science. It does not "reject" the supernatural, but simply
doesn't make use of appeals to the supernatural, as they are
unfalsifiable, and untestable. That makes such appeals useless for
science.

> In
> other words, there is no compatibility whatsoever.

While one can't make use of science to decide a religious debate, the
two concepts are not incompatible within someone's mind.

>
>> It did not say God created them, it says he
>> said "Let the earth bring forth..."
>>
>
> In the context of creation (supernatural causation; God is the cause,
> the Speaker).

No, "God" is a placeholder for the unknown in such a context.

> Your attempt to imply Genesis scientifically correct
> after all will be met with indignation by secular society.

If he has the evidence, "secular society" would have no choice than to
agree. However the evidence doesn't support such an idea right now.

>
>> You ignored the rest of what Rolf wrote, but now that I've tried to
>> show you how the topics he mentioned are relevant, perhaps you and I
>> can have a two-way conversation.
>>
>> Peter Nyikos
>
> Again, I understood very little of what you said. Please, when time
> permits, create a reply.

Ray, have you considered the reason you understand so little is your own
ignorance?

DJT

Ray Martinez

unread,

Feb 10, 2012, 2:14:07 PM2/10/12

to

Don't forget Peter, you're leaning over and whispering to a man who
thinks your DPism is laughingstock lunacy, which renders your lofty
mathematician distinction between "proof" and "evidence" subsets of
speculation.

Ray

Ray Martinez

unread,

Feb 10, 2012, 2:43:40 PM2/10/12

to

That's the ultimate point here: You Darwinists (perhaps with the
exception of Peter Nyikos) do not understand natural selection or
Gould, unlike myself. You haven't the faintest inkling as to why Gould
refers to NS as logic----repeatedly. The referent and its scientific
truth or facticity is PRESUPPOSED; therefore the only issue is the
logic that binds the truisms. And I agree: no one can deny existence
of the short-list of truisms that comprise NS. You need to come up and
get on the same page. Your false assumption that "NS is a claim of
logic" to somehow demean the claim is the problem here.

Ray

John Harshman

unread,

Feb 10, 2012, 3:56:35 PM2/10/12

to

pnyikos wrote:
> On Feb 8, 7:59 pm, John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>> pnyikos wrote:
>>> On Feb 7, 3:50 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>> You haven't even scratched the surface. It would be better to start
>>>> with the word "natural." Why is it there, Rolf? I know the answer, I
>>>> doubt that you know.
>>> It's to distinguish it from intelligently designed selections.
>>> If the people who are arguing with you were trying to be helpful, I
>>> suspect that they would have written, "designed by humans, the only
>>> intelligent designers whose existence can be proven without a shadow
>>> of a doubt."
>> Why that instead of "the only intelligent designers for whose existence
>> we have any evidence"?
>
> Because, being a mathematician, I make a much bigger distinction
> between "proof" and "evidence" than most of the people posting here.

As a mathematician, do you think there is any statement about the real
world that is capable of proof in the mathematical sense?

> However, I was trying to meet Ray halfway. Humoring him, in other
> words. Put in "strong" for "any" and I'll agree with you. [For one
> thing, I wouldn't want to bet that dolphins or elephants are incapable
> of intelligent design.]

Why dolphins or elephants, neither of which has been shown to make
anything, rather than chimps or crows, both of which have? Are tools
intelligent design? And how would you "prove" that?

John Harshman

unread,

Feb 10, 2012, 3:57:27 PM2/10/12

to

None of that is true, nor would the first proposition imply the second.
But that's Ray.

Ray Martinez

unread,

Feb 10, 2012, 4:11:44 PM2/10/12

to

You care about Peter's feelings.

I can understand that.

Doesn't change any facts.

Ray

Ray Martinez

unread,

Feb 10, 2012, 4:14:58 PM2/10/12

to

A doctorate philosopher writing on the history and claims of
Empiricism.

Ray

Craig Franck

unread,

Feb 10, 2012, 4:21:47 PM2/10/12

to

Since natural selection is a statistical phenomena, it is based
on mathematics, which is derivable from logic.

IIUYC, you are claiming there are no processes available to
evolution (genetic mutation, genetic drift, natural selection,
etc.) that will produce the biodiversity we see around us.

The question is whether this necessitates a misunderstanding on
your part. Can a person "understand gravity" and think black
holes are nonsensical objects? Perhaps.

So (from an evolutionary POV) you are a bit like the engineers
for the phone company who claimed a packet-switched network was
unworkable in principle: it required a massive conceptual leap
they were unwilling or unable to make.

Craig

Ray Martinez

unread,

Feb 10, 2012, 3:44:32 PM2/10/12

to

I didn't ignore----you just didn't like my answers. All you are doing
is offering an effect based on assumption (evolution or speciation has
occurred). The effect is not real until cause is established (cause-
and-effect)..

Again, Peter: the alleged equine evolutionary gradation (seen in every
popular explication of ToE) has two main problems: (1) It is unique,
no other similar gradation sequences exist (out of how many millions
of species and alleged linegaes?, which tells objective persons that
speciation is false, it doesn't happen). (2) Until you can show
**how** (causation) said evolution occurred the evolutionary
interpretation of the gradation itself is an assumption, not evidence
supporting evolutionary relationship. Mere discovery of an effect
(gradation sequence), offered as evidence that evolution has ocurred,
begs the question (evolution has occurred). Evolution or speciation
has not occurred until you can show HOW it occurred. In essence you
are offering an alleged effect based on assumption while bypassing
agency.

Creationism explains the same sequence as evidence supporting the work
of **one** Divine Mastermind. God saw that it was good (Genesis 1) so
He made another, quite similar, so on and so forth. And prior to 1859,
science already held EACH species immutable, products of independent
creation (Darwin 1859:6 London: Murray). This scientific and
historical fact accounts for each specimen in the equine sequence.
This is why Darwin had, as the main focus of his book, causation: how
evolution allegedly occurs. He never offered the effect of similarity
or affinity as standing alone (like you are attempting to do).
Remember he titled his book: "On The Origin Of Species By Means Of
Natural Selection." Darwin understood the importance of causation.
Without it species remain immutable, the work of invisible Creator and
independent creation.

Ray

Rolf

unread,

Feb 10, 2012, 5:38:58 PM2/10/12

to

Ray Martinez wrote:
> On Feb 7, 1:49 pm, Caranx latus <aug.r...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 07/02/2012 3:50 PM, Ray Martinez wrote:
>>

>>> On Feb 7, 4:01 am, "Rolf"<rolf.aalb...@tele2.no> wrote:
>>>> One of Ray's main arguments goes like "the concept of natural
>>>> selection doesn't exist in nature."
>>
>>> That's not an argument, but a position statement.
>>

>>>> I have a clear image of how I view natural selection and I
>>>> challenge Ray to refute the facts.
>>
>>> You see that's my "problem" I don't have a "clear image" of natural
>>> selection because it doesn't exist in the wild.
>>

>> No, you don't have a clear image of natural selection because you
>> don't *want* it to exist.
>>
> I understand natural selection to be nonsense and illogic, so yes, it
> is true, I don't want nonsense and illogic to be true.
>

The problem is that your claim that "natural selection is nonsene and
illogic" stems from your anti-scientific attitude, in addition to being to a
large degree almost your entire argument agaisnt evolutionary theory.
Natural selection is very easy to understand; almost any idiot except you
could understand it if he wanted to.

It is of course an entirely different matter if one will believe that NS is
a possible mechanism for evolution. The ID camp claims it isn't, it takes a
designer to do it. But they do not deny that NS is a legitimate concept and
something that can be seen all over biology but it just isn't powerful enogh
to account fort evolution. That immutability business of yours is just
laughable, teh evidence for evoultion is overwhelming, and that's why Behe,
Dembski and a lot of other idiots are doing their best - not to claim or
prove that NS is nonsese, they have a little mor common sense than that.
They just are doing their best to replace the degree of natural processes in
evolution to a level where there is room for God, aka intelligent designer.
Also known as god of the gaps.

Behe does it mostly with examples from rattraps to microbiological chemistry
and improbability arguments, whiel Dembski doesn't make sense, he is a very
confused and disappointed man that could only be pitied were it not for the
harm that he and his crowd are doing to the world, do mankind, to science.

You otoh, are absolutely harmless, not even idiots care abotu what you say.

You see Ray it doesn't matter what anybody, anyone at all in this whole
world said or wrote about evolution or biology in the 19th and 20th
centuries! There is plenty enough being said, done and written in this very
21st century that alone shows the glory of evolution in a way that nobody
could have dreamed about just a few decades ago.

Ray, you are too late, too wrong, too ignorant, too uneducated, too silly to
be taken seriously!

It is so easy to argue agains t you because you are so wrong, it would
exceed 100% by several orders of magnitude if such a thing was possible.

Me, speaking on behalf of reality.

> Ray
>
>> Which of these animals is more likely to prosper in the ocean: a
>> whale or an ostrich? Explain your answer.
>>

>> <snip>

Rolf

unread,

Feb 10, 2012, 5:42:11 PM2/10/12

to

Exactly. All your arguments are like that, just hot air. You make claims
absent logic. That's all, that is your tragedy.

> Ray

Hemidactylus

unread,

Feb 10, 2012, 5:42:24 PM2/10/12

to

Don't start talking like Computer Nerd. Ray doesn't like that.

Rolf

unread,

Feb 10, 2012, 5:40:19 PM2/10/12

to

Ray Martinez wrote:
> On Feb 8, 11:52 am, pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>> On Feb 7, 3:50 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>
> 2nd reply; first reply failed to post.
>

>>> On Feb 7, 4:01 am, "Rolf" <rolf.aalb...@tele2.no> wrote:
>>
>>>> One of Ray's main arguments goes like "the concept of natural
>>>> selection doesn't exist in nature."
>>
>>> That's not an argument, but a position statement.
>>

>> Point to Ray.

>>
>>>> I have a clear image of how I view natural selection and I
>>>> challenge Ray to refute the facts.
>>
>>> You see that's my "problem" I don't have a "clear image" of natural
>>> selection because it doesn't exist in the wild.
>>

>> You flubbed that one, Ray. You can have a concept of nonexistent
>> things, such as flying elephants. But your other respondents are very
>> coy about answering your next question, so they don't get any points
>> against you on this one.
>>
>
> But if I am right, that is, if natural selection is nonsense and
> illogic, then I do have a clear image of the non-existent concept.
>
>>>> To begin with, for the term 'natural selection' to have any
>>>> meaning at all, there has to be something to select from.
>>
>>> You haven't even scratched the surface. It would be better to start
>>> with the word "natural." Why is it there, Rolf? I know the answer, I
>>> doubt that you know.
>>
>> It's to distinguish it from intelligently designed selections.
>>
>
> That's right, Peter. The word "natural" as it precedes "selection"
> tells the reader that the supernatural (God) is not involved.

That's right, Ray - When did you see God do anyting in nature, please tell!

>
>> If the people who are arguing with you were trying to be helpful, I
>> suspect that they would have written, "designed by humans, the only
>> intelligent designers whose existence can be proven without a shadow
>> of a doubt."
>>
>> But in fairness to them, Ray, you should try to pay more attention to
>> some of the things they say; that way, they would be more willing to
>> be helpful.
>>
>
> Such as....
>

> Peter: I make valiant effort to acknowledge and address the points of
> my opponents. I do so because I know truth is on my side (or I am on
> its side). I ignore nonsense. I am very irritated by your accusation.
>

>>> Rolf: I don't have the time to address other than: Natural selection
>>> is a claim of logic (Gould 2002) with this particular element
>>> (component based on logic) exempt from the normal rules of
>>> falsification (reference withheld).
>>

>> Nice try, Ray, but there are simple examples where natural selection
>> apparently occurs due to some very major factors, and it would be
>> easy to falsify such subsidiary claims as "the selection pressure
>> was A," by showing that pressure B had a much stronger impact on the
>> survival of the population members.
>>
>
> How is your answer not a non-sequitur?
>

> The issue here is logic, Peter. Claims based on logic are exempt from

> falsification. I can prove that natural selection is a claim of logic.

> I can produce multiple big time scholars and sources affirming the

> fact. This means, foundationally, that natural selection is a claim of

> logic. The truisms that comprise the full claim are not the object;
> rather, it is the logic used to interpret these truisms that is the

> object. It is THIS logic that is exempt from falsification. This means

> the interpretation or explanation of the truisms----that is, the

> unalterable logic that binds them, is exempt from falsification. You

> Darwinists need to understand that I am NOT implying that because
> natural selection is not falsifiable it is therefore false and
> unscientific; rather, I am stating a fact about natural selection:
> that it is first and foremost a claim of logic. Looks like I do
> understand natural selection after all.
>

>> To bring it down to a simple level, one might claim that a witch
>> doctor doing a dance around a patient decimated the pathogens in his
>> system, whereas one could do a "before and after" comparison and
>> decide th[a]t it was eating something suffused with penicillin mold
>> an hour before the dance that did the trick.
>>
>
> Your analogy does not promote understanding.
>

>>> Why don't you seek dialog with Tony Pagano? He testifies to the
>>> existence of natural selection. His juvenile understanding thinks
>>> mere existence of differential reproduction and survival is the
>>> full claim; therefore natural selection exists!
>>
>> In specific cases, causes can be seen pretty clearly. Fleming saw a
>> dramatic difference in the survival of bacteria in his (petri?) dish
>> and was able to deduce where the selection pressure came from.
>>
>
> But the claim of natural selection is that it, not God, causes

> evolution and eventually new **species** to exist. One cannot support
> the claim using a dish of bacteria. In this context your example

> evades the main claim, indicating an inability to support said claim.
>

>>> Since the Genesis Creator is irreplaceable, perhaps this
>>> is why I have no idea as to what you are talking about.
>>
>> Irreplacable for some things, not for others. Evolution on a large
>> scale is compatible with Genesis, especially where it says "the earth
>> brought forth" plants.
>
> Genesis presupposes supernatural and/or Intelligent causation;

> evolution, since the rise of Darwinism, explicitly rejects these

> concepts and restricts itself to natural or material causation. In

unread,

Feb 10, 2012, 5:58:01 PM2/10/12

to

On 2/10/12 11:59 AM, Ray Martinez wrote:
> On Feb 9, 7:51 pm, Caranx latus<aug.r...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 09/02/2012 9:40 PM, Ray Martinez wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Feb 7, 1:49 pm, Caranx latus<aug.r...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> On 07/02/2012 3:50 PM, Ray Martinez wrote:
>>
>>>>> On Feb 7, 4:01 am, "Rolf"<rolf.aalb...@tele2.no> wrote:
>>>>>> One of Ray's main arguments goes like "the concept of natural selection
>>>>>> doesn't exist in nature."
>>
>>>>> That's not an argument, but a position statement.
>>
>>>>>> I have a clear image of how I view natural selection and I challenge Ray to
>>>>>> refute the facts.
>>
>>>>> You see that's my "problem" I don't have a "clear image" of natural
>>>>> selection because it doesn't exist in the wild.
>>
>>>> No, you don't have a clear image of natural selection because you don't
>>>> *want* it to exist.
>>
>>> I understand natural selection to be nonsense and illogic, so yes, it
>>> is true, I don't want nonsense and illogic to be true.
>>
>>> Ray
>>
>>>> Which of these animals is more likely to prosper in the ocean: a whale
>>>> or an ostrich? Explain your answer.
>>
>> And yet you refused to answer this question. I suspect that you *know*
>> that natural selection exists.
>
> The answer is self-evident.

Ray, "self evident" does not mean "something I wish were true".

>
> Your point says I do understand natural selection.

and your posts confirm that statement, Ray.

> The point
> contradicts everything I've been told by Darwinists.

Actually, the point confirms what you've been told, ie, that you are
ignorant of the science of evolution, including natural selection.

> Only after I
> "agreed" with their observation, that I do not understand natural
> selection because the concept does not exist, has this about-face been
> advanced.

Your assertion that the "concept" of natural selection does not exist is
just silly. Not only does the concept exist, the real thing happens too.

> It seems that you Darwinists do not like the implications of
> where I could go with this.

Actually, the 'Darwinists" are showing you that you are wrong. You
don't like the implication that you are flawed.

> So do I understand natural selection or
> not?

You do not understand natural selection. Period. Full Stop. End of
sentence.

> Or does the answer depend on my explanation of the alleged
> misunderstanding fact?

You are the one who misunderstands what natural selection is, and how it
works.

DJT

Caranx latus

unread,

Feb 10, 2012, 6:07:36 PM2/10/12

to

On 10/02/2012 1:59 PM, Ray Martinez wrote:
> On Feb 9, 7:51 pm, Caranx latus<aug.r...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 09/02/2012 9:40 PM, Ray Martinez wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Feb 7, 1:49 pm, Caranx latus<aug.r...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> On 07/02/2012 3:50 PM, Ray Martinez wrote:
>>
>>>>> On Feb 7, 4:01 am, "Rolf"<rolf.aalb...@tele2.no> wrote:
>>>>>> One of Ray's main arguments goes like "the concept of natural selection
>>>>>> doesn't exist in nature."
>>
>>>>> That's not an argument, but a position statement.
>>
>>>>>> I have a clear image of how I view natural selection and I challenge Ray to
>>>>>> refute the facts.
>>
>>>>> You see that's my "problem" I don't have a "clear image" of natural
>>>>> selection because it doesn't exist in the wild.
>>
>>>> No, you don't have a clear image of natural selection because you don't
>>>> *want* it to exist.
>>
>>> I understand natural selection to be nonsense and illogic, so yes, it
>>> is true, I don't want nonsense and illogic to be true.
>>
>>> Ray
>>
>>>> Which of these animals is more likely to prosper in the ocean: a whale
>>>> or an ostrich? Explain your answer.
>>
>> And yet you refused to answer this question. I suspect that you *know*
>> that natural selection exists.
>
> The answer is self-evident.

Of course it is, but you still won't say it nor will you explain it.

Here, I'll do it for you. Whales are more likely to prosper in the ocean
than ostriches because they are far better adapted for that environment
than ostriches are. This is the essence of natural selection, Ray.

To say that natural selection does not exist is to suggest that any
organism can survive in any environment as well as any other organism
can. You would have to be crazy to say that.

> Your point says I do understand natural selection.

I said no such thing.

Dana Tweedy

unread,

Feb 10, 2012, 6:08:27 PM2/10/12

to

That doesn't appear to be true either.

>
> I can understand that.

Ray, you don't understand human kindness, even if it were in effect
here. You are too filled with hatred and bitterness.

>
> Doesn't change any facts.

Nor does your denial of reality change the fact that natural selection
is operating in populations everywhere.

DJT

Dana Tweedy

unread,

Feb 10, 2012, 6:26:19 PM2/10/12

to

Speciation has been observed to occur, unlike "special creation". Your
silly claim that effects are not real until a cause is established has
already been shown to be false.

>
> Again, Peter: the alleged equine evolutionary gradation (seen in every
> popular explication of ToE) has two main problems: (1) It is unique,
> no other similar gradation sequences exist (out of how many millions
> of species and alleged linegaes?,

This is incorrect. There are many other similar sequences seen in the
fossil record. Elephants, and whales, for example.

> which tells objective persons that
> speciation is false, it doesn't happen).

Ray, speciation has been observed in populations of living things, so
finding evidence of speciation in the fossil record is just icing on the
cake.

> (2) Until you can show
> **how** (causation) said evolution occurred the evolutionary
> interpretation of the gradation itself is an assumption, not evidence
> supporting evolutionary relationship.

Causation has been shown, ie the process is already been observed.

> Mere discovery of an effect
> (gradation sequence), offered as evidence that evolution has ocurred,
> begs the question (evolution has occurred).

Actually, evidence that evolution has occurred supports the fact of
causation as well. The "gradation sequence" is exactly what evolution
predicts.

> Evolution or speciation
> has not occurred until you can show HOW it occurred.

How it occurred HAS been shown, ie by random mutations and selection
occurring within a population.

> In essence you
> are offering an alleged effect based on assumption while bypassing
> agency.

Wrong again, Ray. The "agency" is already well known. Providing
evidence for that process is not begging the question.

>
> Creationism explains the same sequence as evidence supporting the work
> of **one** Divine Mastermind.

Except that there's no evidence of such a "mastermind", and no working
process by which this supposed "mastermind" is supposed to have produced
the effect.

> God saw that it was good (Genesis 1) so
> He made another, quite similar, so on and so forth.

Which does not explain why God made them in exactly the sequence that
evolution would produce, or why after making all these "good" species,
he made them go extinct.

> And prior to 1859,
> science already held EACH species immutable, products of independent
> creation (Darwin 1859:6 London: Murray).

Once again, Ray, that wasn't science, that was a religious belief. The
idea of fixity of species was already dead by the time Darwin published,
and the idea of "independent creation" was always religious, not
scientific.

> This scientific and
> historical fact accounts for each specimen in the equine sequence.

It does not "account" for anything in a scientific manner. It's merely
a religiously held belief, without foundation.

> This is why Darwin had, as the main focus of his book, causation: how
> evolution allegedly occurs. He never offered the effect of similarity
> or affinity as standing alone (like you are attempting to do).

Neither is Peter offering similarity alone.

> Remember he titled his book: "On The Origin Of Species By Means Of
> Natural Selection." Darwin understood the importance of causation.

Science since Darwin's time has found out a lot more about the
"causation". Why do you keep ignoring this?

> Without it species remain immutable, the work of invisible Creator and
> independent creation.

Ray, species were NEVER immutable. They ALWAYS were, and still remain
changeable populations of imperfectly reproducing organisms. That at
one time people mistakenly thought they were immutable, and products of
"independent creation" does not make them so. The cause of species
change is known, and the mechanism has been worked out fairly well.
Everything may not be known, but enough is known to state with
confidence that evolution is the cause. Your denial of this fact does
not change things, and the mistakes of the past don't need to be
resurrected.

DJT

John S. Wilkins

unread,

Feb 10, 2012, 6:32:18 PM2/10/12

to

Ray Martinez wrote:

> And Dana Tweedy is my
> > sworn enemy.

Wil Wheaton!

[Don't worry. It doesn't take up much of your time.]
--
John S. Wilkins, Associate, Philosophy, University of Sydney
http://evolvingthoughts.net
But al be that he was a philosophre,
Yet hadde he but litel gold in cofre

Dana Tweedy

unread,

Feb 10, 2012, 6:52:51 PM2/10/12

to

On 2/10/12 12:43 PM, Ray Martinez wrote:
snipping points Ray runs away from

>>> Claims based on logic are exempt from
>>> falsification.
>>
>> Scientific claims, however are based on evidence, and are always open to
>> falsification. Your personal misunderstanding of Gould doesn't change
>> this.
>>
>
> That's the ultimate point here: You Darwinists (perhaps with the
> exception of Peter Nyikos) do not understand natural selection or
> Gould, unlike myself.

Actually, Ray, it's you who misunderstands Gould, and his writings.
Anyone can see this.

> You haven't the faintest inkling as to why Gould
> refers to NS as logic----repeatedly.

Ray, you are just exposing your own ignorance here. Gould was quite
aware that natural selection was an observed process, not an abstraction
of logic.

> The referent and its scientific
> truth or facticity is PRESUPPOSED;

No, it's confirmed by direct observation. Many examples of observed
cases of natural selection in action have been presented to you.
Probably the best example is the Grant's Galapagos Finches study.

> therefore the only issue is the
> logic that binds the truisms.

Once again, Ray, you badly misunderstand what Gould was talking about.
Natural selection is not simply an abstract logical idea. It's a
physical process that can be observed in action, and can be falsilfied
in principle, if not in reality.

> And I agree: no one can deny existence
> of the short-list of truisms that comprise NS.

That "short list of trusims" ARE natural selection. You are the one who
keeps denying their existence.

> You need to come up and
> get on the same page.

Why? Your "page" isn't even in the same book. You are badly mistaken,
and getting farther and farther off course.

> Your false assumption that "NS is a claim of
> logic" to somehow demean the claim is the problem here.

Once again, Ray, you need to remember that you have not the slightest
idea of how logic works, and how to apply it. Your delusion that you
understand logic is part of your problem relating to reality.

Natural selection is a process, one that's observed in nature
constantly. I do not assume that calling it a "claim of logic" demeans
it. I am trying to get through to you that by a "claim of logic" Gould
was not meaning that it was an abstraction. Natural selection, as
Darwin used the term, is a physical process. It exists as much as
sunshine exists, or precipitation exists.

snipping more of what Ray runs away from.

DJT

Dana Tweedy

unread,

Feb 10, 2012, 6:56:06 PM2/10/12

to

On 2/9/12 8:36 PM, Ray Martinez wrote:
> On Feb 8, 5:58 pm, *Hemidactylus*<ecpho...@hotmail.com> wrote:

>> On 02/07/2012 03:50 PM, Ray Martinez wrote:
>>
>> [snip]

>>
>>> Rolf: I don't have the time to address other than: Natural selection
>>> is a claim of logic (Gould 2002) with this particular element
>>> (component based on logic) exempt from the normal rules of
>>> falsification (reference withheld).
>>

>> Why would you withhold a reference, especially one to the normal rules
>> of falsification? That's gotta be one of the oddest things I've seen you
>> do, and that's quite a long list.
>
> Hemi: You need to think about the claim concerning logic and
> falsification. It is logical for that which is **based on logic** to
> be exempt from falsification.

Actually, there's no logic there at all. In any case, natural selection
is not based on logic, it's based on observations.

> Logic is an inexact science.

Ray, logic is not a science at all.

> What I am
> struggling to say is that suppose one puts forth a claim; said claim
> can be true or false, but the logic used to explain the claim is
> exempt.

Exempt from what?

> The logic itself is either sound or unsound depending on your
> assumptions and perspective.

oy veh.....

DJT

>
> Ray
>

Dana Tweedy

unread,

Feb 10, 2012, 6:58:35 PM2/10/12

to

I suspect it rhymes with "Mene Shott"

DJT

Dana Tweedy

unread,

Feb 10, 2012, 7:07:19 PM2/10/12

to

OOPS I misread Ray's statement. I meant to say that Ray's posts
confirm that Ray doesn't understand natural selection.

DJT

Dana Tweedy

unread,

Feb 10, 2012, 7:18:18 PM2/10/12

to

On 2/10/12 4:32 PM, John S. Wilkins wrote:
> Ray Martinez wrote:
>
>> And Dana Tweedy is my
>>> sworn enemy.
>
> Wil Wheaton!
>
> [Don't worry. It doesn't take up much of your time.]

It's kinda sad that Ray considers me his "sworn enemy". I have nothing
but good wishes for Ray, and I hope he will someday be able to cast off
his bad influences that have warped his life.

DJT

Dana Tweedy

unread,

Feb 10, 2012, 7:15:52 PM2/10/12

to

On 2/9/12 8:51 PM, Ray Martinez wrote:
> On Feb 8, 12:05 pm, pnyikos<nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>> On Feb 7, 4:29 pm, Dana Tweedy<reddfrog...@gmail.com> wrote:

>>
>>
>>
>>> On 2/7/12 1:50 PM, Ray Martinez wrote:
>>
>>>> On Feb 7, 4:01 am, "Rolf"<rolf.aalb...@tele2.no> wrote:

>>>> You haven't even scratched the surface. It would be better to start
>>>> with the word "natural." Why is it there, Rolf? I know the answer, I
>>>> doubt that you know.

>> [...]
>>> Ray, the word "natural" in natural selection was intended to
>>> differentiate it from human selection.
>>
>> Maybe that was the original intent, but this is talk.origins and Ray
>> is a creationist, so you are not coming to grips with the full role of
>> the word "natural". See my reply to Ray, a talk.origins exclusive
>> [I'm crossposting this to alt.agnosticism.] where I point out that the
>> true antonym of "natural" is "due to intelligent agents".
>>
>>>> In short
>>>> natural selection is to me as Biblical Theology is to Richard Dawkins
>>>> or Lenny Flank. Its simply incomprehensible.
>>
>>> Both Richard Dawkins and Lenny Flank seem to know a great deal more
>>> about Biblical Theology than you do, Ray.
>>
>> Be that as it may, they are hardly experts on it.
>>
>
> I have yet to see ANY Darwinist here at Talk.Origins show even a
> Sunday school understanding of Biblical Theology, Peter.

Ray, please keep in mind that your own understanding of Biblical
Theology would be rejected in every Sunday School in the land.

>
> I have been studying Theology under the brightest Biblical scholars
> for most of my adult life.

He means Gene Scott. Take that for what it's worth.....

> Dawkins, in "The God Delusion" asks why did
> Christ die, who was he trying to impress? Even retarded persons know
> the answer to this question, Peter.

Theologians have been discussing this idea for centuries. You cite
yourself as knowing the answer, but you don't really have a clue.

> And Lenny Flank thinks his pizza
> delivery boy is qualified to explicate Theology.

Actually, Lenny's point was that he isn't required to consider anyone's
opinion on theological matters valid, any more than he's required to
consider his pizza boy's opinion. Not quite the same thing as Ray
claimed.

> And Dana Tweedy is my

> sworn enemy. His ultimate goal is slander.

As for me, I don't consider Ray to be my enemy at all. I've never sworn
any type of enmity toward Ray. He's badly confused, highly ignorant,
and in need of help.

If my "goal" was 'slander' as Ray claims, (Ray has a problem with
understanding the difference between slander and libel) I would be using
"slander", not just telling the truth about Ray. Of course, for Ray
someone telling the truth is probably more damaging than someone
engaging in defamation.

DJT

Ray Martinez

unread,

Feb 10, 2012, 7:26:03 PM2/10/12

to

This particular reply is meant answer 6 or 7 preceding messages that
you have posted upthread.

These replies are all naysaying evasions mixed with angry slanderous
comments. Nobody would waste a minute of their time answering.

Ray

Ray Martinez

unread,

Feb 10, 2012, 7:33:50 PM2/10/12

to

Absurd----that's not the essence of natural selection. The essence of
NS is a short list of truisms, combined with extrapolation, equates to
existence of a positive creating agency operating in nature.

Ray

Hemidactylus

unread,

Feb 10, 2012, 8:07:07 PM2/10/12

to

On 02/10/2012 06:32 PM, John S. Wilkins wrote:
> Ray Martinez wrote:
>
>> And Dana Tweedy is my
>>> sworn enemy.
>
> Wil Wheaton!

Bazinga!

> [Don't worry. It doesn't take up much of your time.]

At least Dr. Sheldon Cooper has no truck with religion and Wil Wheaton
did pull a fast one on Sheldon about his grandma to gain his sympathies.

Didn't realize Aussies were aware of The Big Bang Theory. Just started
watching it too myself.

John S. Wilkins

unread,

Feb 10, 2012, 9:09:28 PM2/10/12

to

Aware of it? I have memorised much of it, and quoted it in print.

Note that Wheaton made up with Sheldon by giving him an unopened Wesley
Crusher doll^H figurine, which Brent Spiner then opened, earning *him*
the "nemesis" tag, occasioning Wheaton's comment quoted above...

Hemidactylus

unread,

Feb 10, 2012, 9:44:38 PM2/10/12

to

On 02/10/2012 09:09 PM, John S. Wilkins wrote:
> *Hemidactylus*<ecph...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On 02/10/2012 06:32 PM, John S. Wilkins wrote:
>>> Ray Martinez wrote:
>>>
>>>> And Dana Tweedy is my
>>>>> sworn enemy.
>>>
>>> Wil Wheaton!
>>
>> Bazinga!
>>
>>> [Don't worry. It doesn't take up much of your time.]
>>
>> At least Dr. Sheldon Cooper has no truck with religion and Wil Wheaton
>> did pull a fast one on Sheldon about his grandma to gain his sympathies.
>>
>> Didn't realize Aussies were aware of The Big Bang Theory. Just started
>> watching it too myself.
>
> Aware of it? I have memorised much of it, and quoted it in print.
>
> Note that Wheaton made up with Sheldon by giving him an unopened Wesley
> Crusher doll^H figurine, which Brent Spiner then opened, earning *him*
> the "nemesis" tag, occasioning Wheaton's comment quoted above...

Ahh.. I'm still catching up on BBT. I find Howard Wolowitz amusing
especially when he has Sulu and Starbuck coaching him from the back seat
of his car. And Leonard starred in the cult classic "Suicide Kings" with
Walken and Leary.

Has "Person of Interest" made it to your shore yet? It stars Gibson's
Christ, but is really good. It also stars Ben Linus from "Lost". If not
yet, keep an eye out for it.

Mark Isaak

unread,

Feb 10, 2012, 9:50:22 PM2/10/12

to

Compare selling prices of elephant art and art by an average human. If
the elephant art sells for more, that means either the elephants are at
least as intelligent as the purchasers.

Dana Tweedy

unread,

Feb 10, 2012, 10:01:49 PM2/10/12

to

What do you imagine natural selection to be, Ray?

> The essence of
> NS is a short list of truisms, combined with extrapolation, equates to
> existence of a positive creating agency operating in nature.

It sounds like you've heard a few buzzwords, and like repeating them.
Natural selection is quite easy to understand. All it means is that
environmental factors determine which phenotypes will pass on their
genes to the next generation.

It has nothing to do with extrapolation. Natural selection is not
necessarily a "positive creating agency", as selection doesn't create
the phenotypes, it just selects among them.

DJT

Dana Tweedy

unread,

Feb 10, 2012, 10:13:19 PM2/10/12

to

So, why not offer any reply to the actual posts? What are you afraid
of?

>
> These replies are all naysaying evasions mixed with angry slanderous
> comments.

Actually, my replies were all cogent points which you keep avoiding. I
don't see where you get the idea I was "angry" or "slanderous". Would
you please indicate what replies s were "slanderous", and how you
determined they were not true.

> Nobody would waste a minute of their time answering.

which sounds exactly like you are running away from my points you are
too afraid to answer.

Do you really imagine you are fooling anyone?

DJT

Hemidactylus

unread,

Feb 10, 2012, 10:19:50 PM2/10/12

to

On 02/10/2012 02:14 PM, Ray Martinez wrote:

> On Feb 9, 7:42 pm, pnyikos<nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>> On Feb 8, 7:59 pm, John Harshman<jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>>
>>> pnyikos wrote:

>>>> On Feb 7, 3:50 pm, Ray Martinez<pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>> You haven't even scratched the surface. It would be better to start
>>>>> with the word "natural." Why is it there, Rolf? I know the answer, I
>>>>> doubt that you know.
>>

>>>> It's to distinguish it from intelligently designed selections.
>>
>>>> If the people who are arguing with you were trying to be helpful, I
>>>> suspect that they would have written, "designed by humans, the only
>>>> intelligent designers whose existence can be proven without a shadow
>>>> of a doubt."
>>
>>> Why that instead of "the only intelligent designers for whose existence
>>> we have any evidence"?
>>
>> Because, being a mathematician, I make a much bigger distinction
>> between "proof" and "evidence" than most of the people posting here.
>>

>> However, I was trying to meet Ray halfway. Humoring him, in other
>> words. Put in "strong" for "any" and I'll agree with you. [For one
>> thing, I wouldn't want to bet that dolphins or elephants are incapable
>> of intelligent design.]
>>

>> Peter Nyikos
>
> Don't forget Peter, you're leaning over and whispering to a man who
> thinks your DPism is laughingstock lunacy, which renders your lofty

> mathematician distinction between "proof" and "evidence" subsets of
> speculation.

Directed panspermy assumes mutability, which makes it far more
reasonable than your immutabilism. Not even Pags subscribes to that
unchangeable dogmatism of yours, But at least you're not a geocentrist.
But in your estimation (I'm guessing) Pagano and Nyikos would probably
be wolves in sheep's clothing that help atheists rape the bible. I'm not
making this up!

Peter is a mutabilist and heliocentrist. I doubt he will disagree with
me on this estimation. Thus he is pretty much in the mainstream (with a
few sci fi friendly quirks),

John Harshman

unread,

Feb 10, 2012, 11:07:28 PM2/10/12

to

Want to try that sentence again? There's either a word too many or
several too few. But I deny the expressed criterion.

jillery

unread,

Feb 11, 2012, 3:48:13 AM2/11/12

to

I interpret it as an invitation to offer my own alternative:

...or the elephants have a better agent.

Mark Isaak

unread,

Feb 11, 2012, 12:28:35 PM2/11/12

to

The word "either" should have been removed. But never mind; the joke is
stale now.

Ray Martinez

unread,

Feb 11, 2012, 1:46:21 PM2/11/12

to

And the lunacy of science-fiction brought into the real world.

> which makes it far more
> reasonable than your immutabilism. Not even Pags subscribes to that
> unchangeable dogmatism of yours,

Tony is a deistic Evolutionist and Atheist ass kisser (just like
Michael Behe & William Dembski). Everything they say and argue is
undermined by their acceptance of the main claims of their enemy
(Darwinism). Their inability to see the gravity of the fact supports
the fact that they are under horrible delusion.

> But at least you're not a geocentrist.
> But in your estimation (I'm guessing) Pagano and Nyikos would probably
> be wolves in sheep's clothing that help atheists rape the bible. I'm not
> making this up!
>

Yes, absolutely. The main claims of Darwinism are products of its pro-
Atheism starting assumptions concerning reality. These assumptions
presuppose non-existence of Intelligent causation (complete falsity of
Genesis). The fact that persons who ***think*** of themselves as
Christians support the scientific veracity of the main products of
Darwinism is, like I just said, evidence that they are horribly
deluded since these main products have been the foreign objects used
to rape the Bible in court (rape) rooms presided over by judges who
were educated in colleges and universities that long ago converted to
Darwinism.

The facts above leave only one unanswered question: why do these
"Christians" THINK of themselves as Christians? (See the account of
Judas in the Bible for the answer.)

But we need to remember that Peter, unlike Tony, never has claimed to
be a real Christian. Peter is an Atheist by his own admissions. He is
using God as an insurance policy, nothing more, nothing less.
Unfortunately God cannot be used this way. The same presupposes God
naive or even stupid.

> Peter is a mutabilist and heliocentrist. I doubt he will disagree with
> me on this estimation. Thus he is pretty much in the mainstream (with a

> few sci fi friendly quirks),- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Quirks?

You call belief in space aliens responsible for biological First Cause
a quirk? Objective and sane people call the same lunacy. This is what
happens when the God of the Scriptures is rejected: you end up kissing
the ass of your enemies (while having no awareness of the fact and its
gravity) and you end up believing in science-fiction fantasies (while
having no awareness of the fact and its gravity). In short: you end up
deluded----which, according to the Scriptures, is God's preferred
method of punishment for giving Him the finger.

Ray (anti-evolutionist)

Hemidactylus

unread,

Feb 11, 2012, 2:14:46 PM2/11/12

to

Speculation? Yes. Lunacy? Not unless it becomes monomanic obsession. Yet
clinging to the discarded static concept of species fixity is less
realistic than thinking that there could be stellar or galactic factors
at play in the origins and/or evolution of life. As Moby says "We are
all made of stars". Maybe someday you will open your mind and discard
your fixity monomania.

>> which makes it far more
>> reasonable than your immutabilism. Not even Pags subscribes to that
>> unchangeable dogmatism of yours,
>
> Tony is a deistic Evolutionist and Atheist ass kisser (just like

> Michael Behe& William Dembski). Everything they say and argue is

> undermined by their acceptance of the main claims of their enemy
> (Darwinism). Their inability to see the gravity of the fact supports
> the fact that they are under horrible delusion.

Or they must accommodate the cold facts of reality, unlike you with your
warm, fuzzy reliance on Paleyian immutabilism.

>> But at least you're not a geocentrist.
>> But in your estimation (I'm guessing) Pagano and Nyikos would probably
>> be wolves in sheep's clothing that help atheists rape the bible. I'm not
>> making this up!
>>
>
> Yes, absolutely. The main claims of Darwinism are products of its pro-
> Atheism starting assumptions concerning reality.

If a supposed God could have created the universe and set the conditions
for the beginnings of life, how would this view be atheistic? Darwinism
doesn't necessarily rule that possibility out. Evolution science makes
no presumptions on the existence of god(s).

Since you like Gould so much, or at least when you think he suits your
scholarly purposes, read his views on NOMA and get back to me on the
realms of science and religion, Gould-style.

Or would you kick Gould to the curb on that?

> These assumptions
> presuppose non-existence of Intelligent causation (complete falsity of
> Genesis). The fact that persons who ***think*** of themselves as
> Christians support the scientific veracity of the main products of
> Darwinism is, like I just said, evidence that they are horribly
> deluded since these main products have been the foreign objects used
> to rape the Bible in court (rape) rooms presided over by judges who
> were educated in colleges and universities that long ago converted to
> Darwinism.
>
> The facts above leave only one unanswered question: why do these
> "Christians" THINK of themselves as Christians? (See the account of
> Judas in the Bible for the answer.)

Well it's good to see the NT has furnished you with rhetorical
armaments, like the character of Judas or the Romans cloaking device. I
doubt Pags or Peter ever "made it" with God, which is probably a
blessing in disguise.

> But we need to remember that Peter, unlike Tony, never has claimed to
> be a real Christian. Peter is an Atheist by his own admissions. He is
> using God as an insurance policy, nothing more, nothing less.
> Unfortunately God cannot be used this way. The same presupposes God
> naive or even stupid.

Whatever Peter's relgious beliefs may or may not be they are his and you
cannot define him as being Christian or not. You have no authority,
beyond your solipsistic wonderworld amusement park where nothing changes
(=rollercoaster never starts or stops).

>> Peter is a mutabilist and heliocentrist. I doubt he will disagree with
>> me on this estimation. Thus he is pretty much in the mainstream (with a
>> few sci fi friendly quirks),
>

> Quirks?
>
> You call belief in space aliens responsible for biological First Cause
> a quirk? Objective and sane people call the same lunacy.

OK, quirk might have been too strong a word. Peter's directed panspermia
ideas are more like a pet hypothesis or armchair speculation. I look at
these ideas less dimly than I do dogmatic claims of immutability and
evasion of the contradictions of Genesis 1 and 2.

> This is what
> happens when the God of the Scriptures is rejected: you end up kissing
> the ass of your enemies (while having no awareness of the fact and its
> gravity) and you end up believing in science-fiction fantasies (while
> having no awareness of the fact and its gravity). In short: you end up
> deluded----which, according to the Scriptures, is God's preferred
> method of punishment for giving Him the finger.

I think you are mischaracterizing a lot of people, including Peter.

Dana Tweedy

unread,

Feb 11, 2012, 4:11:37 PM2/11/12

to

Why do you imagine that panspermia is any more "science fiction" than
your own belief in clay figures springing to life?

>
>> which makes it far more
>> reasonable than your immutabilism. Not even Pags subscribes to that
>> unchangeable dogmatism of yours,
>
> Tony is a deistic Evolutionist and Atheist ass kisser (just like
> Michael Behe& William Dembski).

All of the above are on your side, Ray.

> Everything they say and argue is
> undermined by their acceptance of the main claims of their enemy
> (Darwinism).

"Darwinism" isn't the enemy of anyone. You constantly mistake what the
"main claim" of the scientific theory of evolution makes.

> Their inability to see the gravity of the fact supports
> the fact that they are under horrible delusion.

Ray, your own delusions are not facts, so other persons' inability to
see your personal delusion is not a sign they are deluded.

>
>> But at least you're not a geocentrist.
>> But in your estimation (I'm guessing) Pagano and Nyikos would probably
>> be wolves in sheep's clothing that help atheists rape the bible. I'm not
>> making this up!
>>
>
> Yes, absolutely. The main claims of Darwinism are products of its pro-
> Atheism starting assumptions concerning reality.

there are no "pro atheism' assumptions in science. That's your own
delusional position.

> These assumptions
> presuppose non-existence of Intelligent causation (complete falsity of
> Genesis).

No, scientific method does not "presuppose" the non existence of
"intelligent causation". If you have any evidence that would support
such "intelligent causation" you are welcome to present it. What
science does not allow is appeal to forces and beings not in evidence.

> The fact that persons who ***think*** of themselves as
> Christians support the scientific veracity of the main products of
> Darwinism is, like I just said, evidence that they are horribly
> deluded since these main products have been the foreign objects used
> to rape the Bible in court (rape) rooms presided over by judges who
> were educated in colleges and universities that long ago converted to
> Darwinism.

Once again, Ray, other persons' failure to share your delusions doesn't
make them the ones deluded.

>
> The facts above leave only one unanswered question: why do these
> "Christians" THINK of themselves as Christians? (See the account of
> Judas in the Bible for the answer.)

Because they have no reason to think otherwise. The account of Judas
fits yourself, Ray, more than any Christian who accepts science.

>
> But we need to remember that Peter, unlike Tony, never has claimed to
> be a real Christian. Peter is an Atheist by his own admissions. He is
> using God as an insurance policy, nothing more, nothing less.
> Unfortunately God cannot be used this way. The same presupposes God
> naive or even stupid.

Your own opinion of God is not the issue here, Ray.

>
>> Peter is a mutabilist and heliocentrist. I doubt he will disagree with
>> me on this estimation. Thus he is pretty much in the mainstream (with a
>> few sci fi friendly quirks),- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
> Quirks?
>
> You call belief in space aliens responsible for biological First Cause
> a quirk?

Sure, why not?

> Objective and sane people call the same lunacy.

Since you have no idea what objective, or sane people think, Ray, why do
you make this assesrtion?

> This is what
> happens when the God of the Scriptures is rejected: you end up kissing
> the ass of your enemies (while having no awareness of the fact and its
> gravity) and you end up believing in science-fiction fantasies (while
> having no awareness of the fact and its gravity).

Once again, Ray, other persons failing to share your own delusions does
not make them deluded. Why is the idea of panspermia any more
"fantasy" than your own fantasy about clay figures being animated by a
supernatural being?

> In short: you end up
> deluded----which, according to the Scriptures, is God's preferred
> method of punishment for giving Him the finger.

The "Scriptures" do not not teach such heresy. That's your own folly.

DJT

John Harshman

unread,

Feb 11, 2012, 5:15:56 PM2/11/12

to

It's an interesting question, though. How do you tell whether a painting
is an example of intelligent design? Can the Explanatory Filter help
us here? How about CSI? Perhaps an ID fan could help with this.

Earle Jones

unread,

Feb 11, 2012, 5:18:30 PM2/11/12

to

In article
<54ae513f-8b57-4dcd...@q12g2000yqg.googlegroups.com>,

*
Because a Christian is one who believes in the divinity of Jesus Christ,
and not, as you seem to think, one who believes in Paley, Gene Scott,
and hates all atheists.

earle

Earle Jones

unread,

Feb 11, 2012, 5:21:50 PM2/11/12

to

In article <vrednYFrJeX9PqjS...@giganews.com>,
Dana Tweedy <reddf...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On 2/10/12 2:11 PM, Ray Martinez wrote:

> >> None of that is true, nor would the first proposition imply the second.
> >> But that's Ray.
> >
> > You care about Peter's feelings.
>
> That doesn't appear to be true either.
>
>
> >
> > I can understand that.
>
> Ray, you don't understand human kindness, even if it were in effect
> here. You are too filled with hatred and bitterness.
>
> >
> > Doesn't change any facts.
>
> Nor does your denial of reality change the fact that natural selection
> is operating in populations everywhere.

*
Peter Nyikos has a big advantage over Ray and, for that matter, Pagano.

He is educated.

earle
*

Ray Martinez

unread,

Feb 11, 2012, 5:27:15 PM2/11/12

to

On Feb 11, 2:21 pm, Earle Jones <earle.jo...@comcast.net> wrote:
> In article <vrednYFrJeX9PqjSnZ2dnUVZ5oydn...@giganews.com>,

Since Nyikos is a full-blooded Evolutionist, like Earle Jones, his
opinion is predetermined.

Ray (anti-evolutionist)

Frank J

unread,

Feb 11, 2012, 5:55:52 PM2/11/12

to

I guess you mean "non atheist kisser of atheist asses" and not "ass
kisser who is an atheist."

Or have you changed your mind and now consider Behe and Dembski
"atheists?" And Tony an athesit who acts "deistic?"

> Ray (anti-evolutionist)- Hide quoted text -

Dana Tweedy

unread,

Feb 11, 2012, 6:40:23 PM2/11/12

to

On 2/11/12 3:27 PM, Ray Martinez wrote:
snip
>>

>>> Nor does your denial of reality change the fact that natural selection
>>> is operating in populations everywhere.
>>
>> *
>> Peter Nyikos has a big advantage over Ray and, for that matter, Pagano.
>>
>> He is educated.
>>
>> earle
>> *
>
> Since Nyikos is a full-blooded Evolutionist, like Earle Jones, his
> opinion is predetermined.

Predetermined, or not, he's still correct.

DJT

Ray Martinez

unread,

Feb 11, 2012, 8:18:51 PM2/11/12

to

What do you do with anti-evolutionists who have advanced degrees?

At any rate the negative opinion is only held by Evolutionists.

Ray

Mark Isaak

unread,

Feb 11, 2012, 9:43:52 PM2/11/12

to

Well, the way we detect design is to see the designer at work producing
the product, or to infer said designer usually via analogy to designs
known by knowing the designer directly. Inference is not an issue with
the elephants; people have watched them painting. So we know the
paintings are designed. The question remains whether the designers were
intelligent. That question does not have a simple yes/no answer,
because intelligence is not a present/absent quality, but is relative.

jillery

unread,

Feb 11, 2012, 10:02:29 PM2/11/12

to

On Sat, 11 Feb 2012 17:18:51 -0800 (PST), Ray Martinez
<pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote:

>On Feb 11, 3:40 pm, Dana Tweedy <reddfrog...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 2/11/12 3:27 PM, Ray Martinez wrote:
>> snip
>>
>>
>>
>> >>> Nor does your denial of reality change the fact that natural selection
>> >>> is operating in populations everywhere.
>>
>> >> *
>> >> Peter Nyikos has a big advantage over Ray and, for that matter, Pagano.
>>
>> >> He is educated.
>>
>> >> earle
>> >> *
>>
>> > Since Nyikos is a full-blooded Evolutionist, like Earle Jones, his
>> > opinion is predetermined.
>>
>> Predetermined, or not, he's still correct.
>>
>> DJT
>
>What do you do with anti-evolutionists who have advanced degrees?

Eventually they die with their dementia.

Dana Tweedy

unread,

Feb 11, 2012, 11:42:21 PM2/11/12

to

On 2/11/12 6:18 PM, Ray Martinez wrote:
> On Feb 11, 3:40 pm, Dana Tweedy<reddfrog...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 2/11/12 3:27 PM, Ray Martinez wrote:
>> snip
>>
>>
>>
>>>>> Nor does your denial of reality change the fact that natural selection
>>>>> is operating in populations everywhere.
>>
>>>> *
>>>> Peter Nyikos has a big advantage over Ray and, for that matter, Pagano.
>>
>>>> He is educated.
>>
>>>> earle
>>>> *
>>
>>> Since Nyikos is a full-blooded Evolutionist, like Earle Jones, his
>>> opinion is predetermined.
>>
>> Predetermined, or not, he's still correct.
>>
>> DJT
>
> What do you do with anti-evolutionists who have advanced degrees?

Advanced degrees in what? They may be experts in their selected
fields, but no one educated in biology opposes evolution for any
scientific reason.

>
> At any rate the negative opinion is only held by Evolutionists.

Evolution is a fact of nature. Persons who oppose reality earn any
"negative opinion" they may receive.

DJT

John S. Wilkins

unread,

Feb 12, 2012, 2:36:21 AM2/12/12

to

I wacthed three episodes and found it uninteresting. De gustibus...

Hemidactylus

unread,

Feb 12, 2012, 8:10:32 AM2/12/12

to

>> Michael Behe& William Dembski). Everything they say and argue is

>> undermined by their acceptance of the main claims of their enemy
>> (Darwinism). Their inability to see the gravity of the fact supports
>> the fact that they are under horrible delusion.
>>
>>> But at least you're not a geocentrist.
>>> But in your estimation (I'm guessing) Pagano and Nyikos would probably
>>> be wolves in sheep's clothing that help atheists rape the bible. I'm not
>>> making this up!
>>>
>>
>> Yes, absolutely. The main claims of Darwinism are products of its pro-
>> Atheism starting assumptions concerning reality. These assumptions
>> presuppose non-existence of Intelligent causation (complete falsity of
>> Genesis). The fact that persons who ***think*** of themselves as
>> Christians support the scientific veracity of the main products of
>> Darwinism is, like I just said, evidence that they are horribly
>> deluded since these main products have been the foreign objects used
>> to rape the Bible in court (rape) rooms presided over by judges who
>> were educated in colleges and universities that long ago converted to
>> Darwinism.
>>
>> The facts above leave only one unanswered question: why do these
>> "Christians" THINK of themselves as Christians?
>
> *
> Because a Christian is one who believes in the divinity of Jesus Christ,
> and not, as you seem to think, one who believes in Paley, Gene Scott,
> and hates all atheists.

I'm not so sure Ray hates atheists so much as theistic evolutionists and
ID proponents who allow for a limited amount of evolution. I think
there's a little of what Freud called the narcissism of small
differences going on in the way Ray treats fellow creationists like Pags
and Behe especially.

Hemidactylus

unread,

Feb 12, 2012, 8:34:17 AM2/12/12

to

On 02/10/2012 03:56 PM, John Harshman wrote:
> pnyikos wrote:
>> On Feb 8, 7:59 pm, John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>>> pnyikos wrote:
>>>> On Feb 7, 3:50 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>> You haven't even scratched the surface. It would be better to start
>>>>> with the word "natural." Why is it there, Rolf? I know the answer, I
>>>>> doubt that you know.
>>>> It's to distinguish it from intelligently designed selections.
>>>> If the people who are arguing with you were trying to be helpful, I
>>>> suspect that they would have written, "designed by humans, the only
>>>> intelligent designers whose existence can be proven without a shadow
>>>> of a doubt."
>>> Why that instead of "the only intelligent designers for whose existence
>>> we have any evidence"?
>>
>> Because, being a mathematician, I make a much bigger distinction
>> between "proof" and "evidence" than most of the people posting here.
>

> As a mathematician, do you think there is any statement about the real
> world that is capable of proof in the mathematical sense?
>

>> However, I was trying to meet Ray halfway. Humoring him, in other
>> words. Put in "strong" for "any" and I'll agree with you. [For one
>> thing, I wouldn't want to bet that dolphins or elephants are incapable
>> of intelligent design.]
>

> Why dolphins or elephants, neither of which has been shown to make
> anything, rather than chimps or crows, both of which have? Are tools
> intelligent design? And how would you "prove" that?

I would hazard that elephants and maybe dolphins are extremely
intelligent. Neither has a dexterous hand with opposable thumb capable
of manipulating things with a high degree of precision. The elephant
does have a trunk, but could it saw wood or hammer nails with this
trunk? With the elephant its limits for intelligent design are imposed
by what it can do with its singular trunk. The dolphins are pretty much
incapable of manipulating anything.

Hemidactylus

unread,

Feb 12, 2012, 8:44:10 AM2/12/12

to

On 02/10/2012 05:55 PM, John Harshman wrote:
> Mark Isaak wrote:

>> Elephants have produced paintings, e.g.:
>> http://www.elephantartgallery.com/
>> http://paintings.novica.com/elephant-art/
>>
>
> So have chimps. Possibly other species. Is that intelligent design? How
> would we tell?

There was an episode of South Park where it was revealed to Eric Cartman
that the TV show "Family Guy" is actually written by a staff of manatees
who push "idea balls" from a pile on one side of their tank to a chute
on the other side of the tank where they are combined, like a lottery
drawing, into a idea string that forms a joke for that episode.

If animals could be trained to move idea balls around to write a TV
show, would that be intelligent design? Or would it be more like a mad
lib type of mutation/selection process?

Hemidactylus

unread,

Feb 12, 2012, 8:55:35 AM2/12/12

to

Elephants are arguably very intelligent animals. But is their art work a
product of their intelligence? I could dip my dog's paws in different
colors of dye and have her walk around a piece of canvas directed by my
commands and her attending to the position of a dog biscuit in my hand.
Would the result be any different in intent on her part than what the
elephants did? were the elephants actually expressing their aesthetics
as art or just moving their trunks for whatever reason floated their
boat at that particular time.

Then again we have Jackson Pollock who my dog could probably emulate
with her paws in response to someone knocking at the door causing her to
jump up and down and run in circles frantically.

Rolf

unread,

Feb 12, 2012, 9:48:33 AM2/12/12

to

Ray Martinez wrote:
> On Feb 10, 3:07 pm, Caranx latus <aug.r...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 10/02/2012 1:59 PM, Ray Martinez wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Feb 9, 7:51 pm, Caranx latus<aug.r...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> On 09/02/2012 9:40 PM, Ray Martinez wrote:
>>
>>>>> On Feb 7, 1:49 pm, Caranx latus<aug.r...@gmail.com> wrote:

>>>>>> On 07/02/2012 3:50 PM, Ray Martinez wrote:
>>
>>>>>>> On Feb 7, 4:01 am, "Rolf"<rolf.aalb...@tele2.no> wrote:

>>>>>>>> One of Ray's main arguments goes like "the concept of natural
>>>>>>>> selection doesn't exist in nature."
>>
>>>>>>> That's not an argument, but a position statement.
>>
>>>>>>>> I have a clear image of how I view natural selection and I
>>>>>>>> challenge Ray to refute the facts.
>>
>>>>>>> You see that's my "problem" I don't have a "clear image" of
>>>>>>> natural selection because it doesn't exist in the wild.
>>
>>>>>> No, you don't have a clear image of natural selection because
>>>>>> you don't *want* it to exist.
>>
>>>>> I understand natural selection to be nonsense and illogic, so
>>>>> yes, it is true, I don't want nonsense and illogic to be true.
>>
>>>>> Ray
>>
>>>>>> Which of these animals is more likely to prosper in the ocean: a
>>>>>> whale or an ostrich? Explain your answer.
>>
>>>> And yet you refused to answer this question. I suspect that you
>>>> *know* that natural selection exists.
>>
>>> The answer is self-evident.
>>
>> Of course it is, but you still won't say it nor will you explain it.
>>
>> Here, I'll do it for you. Whales are more likely to prosper in the
>> ocean than ostriches because they are far better adapted for that
>> environment than ostriches are. This is the essence of natural
>> selection, Ray.
>>
>

> Absurd----that's not the essence of natural selection. The essence of

> NS is a short list of truisms, combined with extrapolation, equates to
> existence of a positive creating agency operating in nature.
>

All right, I'll take your word for it - you know wery well what natural
selection is according to the scientific consesus of the 21st century. Now
be a good boy and tell us in your own words: What are the truisms you are
referring to?
What extrapolations are you referring to?

And how do they equate to a positive creating agency?

To make it clear to you : Your claim is incorrect! No scientist in his right
mind claims there is a positive creating agency operating in nature anymore
than any scientist in his right mind claims there is a postive creating
agency operating in anture creating snowflakes. Jus as all snowflakes are
created by entirely natural forces, "natural selection" is just a way of
expressing the result of entirely natural forces. All it takes is to
identify the causes. Biology is a little bit more complex that freezing
water....

Like '"War" is not just war, but the sum total of effect from all the
weaponry, armies, logistics, tactics and everything else going into the
effort. "War" itself doesn't exists, the word is a place holder for
everything that goes into the war effort.

The problem is that you do not listen, your mind is closed, you don't want
to hear what we say, you don't want to know.

You are stuck in the 19th century and make Darwin your target. You might as
well make Newton a target to reject gravity. Thet wouldn't work either,
because we know gravity well enough without reading Newton.

I knwo your project already has failed, crumpled, is bankrupt, down the
drain, gone and will soon be forgotten. By anyone else than you, of course.
You'll take the failure with you to your grave. You are welcome to it, and
it is well deseerved. Dont' say you haven't been warned.

Wasting a lifetime on theology may not have been so smart. Learning a
minimum of science might have saved you.

> Ray
>
>
>> To say that natural selection does not exist is to suggest that any
>> organism can survive in any environment as well as any other organism
>> can. You would have to be crazy to say that.
>>
>>> Your point says I do understand natural selection.
>>
>> I said no such thing.