Its just a thought but ...
Devils Advocaat
processes wouldn't that mean that his preferred deity is pulling all
our strings, and that everything we do is done at this alleged deity's
prompting?
Ernest Major
<c895b511-243e-4ef5...@z13g2000yqg.googlegroups.com>,
Devils Advocaat <mank...@yahoo.co.uk> writes
dieties.
I have a vague recollection of Ray claiming that the human mind is
supernatural. If that is correct, then perhaps he doesn't deny human
free will.
--
alias Ernest Major
Burkhard
Not necessarily. For Ray, there are no causative _material_ processes
- they are all caused by what he calls "Mind", capital letters. But it
may well be that "mind", no capital letters, is excluded - and that is
something that we (in his dualist mind-matter view) have. So to the
extend that we are beings with a non-material mind, we are not
necessarily causally dependent on "Mind".
so he is probably (or ought to be, if he wanted consistency) fine
with speciation by artificial selection/breeding- because it is driven
by the human mind and intentional agency (again, assuming a dualist
mind-body framework) . That for the very same reason, he should also
be fine with any other form of speciation and indeed the entire ToE
(because all the individual steps are caused by "Mind") he refuses to
realise.
Steven L.
Not quite.
For Ray, it's *two* deities: God vs. Satan.
When I asked Ray where MRSA and other nasty modern antibiotic-resistant
infections came from, he replied that they are the work of Satan. Not God.
I guess Ray sees the world as a chessboard in which God is playing
against Satan, with us as the chess pieces whom Satan tries to manipulate.
That view would have been mainstream in past centuries.
-- Steven L.
Ernest Major
<sdli...@earthlinkNOSPAM.net> writes
the mainstream Christian view was (and is) that assigning creative
powers to Satan was (and remains) heretical.
--
alias Ernest Major
T Pagano
What do you think Ray. Are the atheistis getting dumber or terribly
desparate?
Regards,
T Pagano
Free Lunch
wrote in talk.origins:
Neither, but you and Ray refuse to recognize your own ignorance, so you
will never understand how foolish each of you are.
Boikat
> On Sat, 28 May 2011 00:41:30 -0700 (PDT), Devils Advocaat
>
> >If Ray is right in claiming that there are no unguided natural
> >processes wouldn't that mean that his preferred deity is pulling all
> >our strings, and that everything we do is done at this alleged deity's
> >prompting?
>
> What do you think Ray. Are the atheistis getting dumber or terribly
> desparate?
False bravado. How quaint.
Tik--taalik... Tik--taalik... Tik--taalik...
Boikat
Steven L.
It's admittedly difficult to keep one's mind sharp without intellectual
stimulation.
That's hard to come by from your posts.
-- Steven L.
Randy C
>
> >If Ray is right in claiming that there are no unguided natural
> >processes wouldn't that mean that his preferred deity is pulling all
> >our strings, and that everything we do is done at this alleged deity's
> >prompting?
>
> What do you think Ray. Are the atheistis getting dumber or terribly
> desparate?
>
> Regards,
> T Pagano
Hmm...
You changed the subject line to "Ray, are our detractors getting
dumbers or just desparate?"
"Desparate" is not a word. I presume you made a typographical error
and intended to say "disparate". That is a word meaning "distinct in
kind; essentially different; dissimilar". In other words you appear
to be asking Ray whether or not a wider variety of people are
criticizing both of you.
That's probably the case. It is quite likely that a continuously
larger group of people are finding your claims to be silly.
Note that "dumbers" isn't a word either.
chris thompson
Neither is "atheistis".
Chris
Dana Tweedy
> On Sat, 28 May 2011 00:41:30 -0700 (PDT), Devils Advocaat
>
> >If Ray is right in claiming that there are no unguided natural
> >processes wouldn't that mean that his preferred deity is pulling all
> >our strings, and that everything we do is done at this alleged deity's
> >prompting?
>
> What do you think Ray. Are the atheistis getting dumber or terribly
> desparate?
>
> Regards,
> T Pagano
Subject says it all.
DJT
Ernest Major
Pagano <not....@address.net> writes
Shouldn't you have first checked with Ray that the above is indeed not
his position? Ray has repeatedly stated that there are no unguided
natural processes.
>
>Regards,
>T Pagano
>
--
alias Ernest Major
Ray Martinez
> On Sat, 28 May 2011 00:41:30 -0700 (PDT), Devils Advocaat
>
> >If Ray is right in claiming that there are no unguided natural
> >processes wouldn't that mean that his preferred deity is pulling all
> >our strings, and that everything we do is done at this alleged deity's
> >prompting?
>
> What do you think Ray. Are the atheistis getting dumber or terribly
> desparate?
>
> Regards,
> T Pagano
They be both.
Any group (= Atheists) that is dumb and evil enough to give the finger
to God (= denial of ID to exist in nature) is capable of anything (=
like the hundreds of millions of persons murdered by Communist regimes
since the rise of Darwinism).
Ray
Bob Casanova
in talk.origins, posted by Ernest Major
<{$to$}@meden.demon.co.uk>:
IIRC, the Manichaean heresy.
--
Bob C.
"Evidence confirming an observation is
evidence that the observation is wrong."
- McNameless
Devils Advocaat
> On Sat, 28 May 2011 00:41:30 -0700 (PDT), Devils Advocaat
>
> >If Ray is right in claiming that there are no unguided natural
> >processes wouldn't that mean that his preferred deity is pulling all
> >our strings, and that everything we do is done at this alleged deity's
> >prompting?
>
> What do you think Ray. Are the atheistis getting dumber or terribly
> desparate?
Poor Tony, I find it curious that you and your tiny ilk always presume
that someone who disagrees with your point of view is automatically an
atheist.
You couldn't be further from the truth of things.
Its equally sad that you presume that anyone who disagrees with you is
either dumb or desperate.
Again you couldn't be further from the truth if you tried.
>
> Regards,
> T Pagano
Devils Advocaat
How sad that you cannot address a perfectly reasonable question.
But then that has always been your problem.
Any question that threatens to make you think.
Any question that threatens to make you doubt.
Is a question you would rather avoid.
The reason being it might make you see where you have gone wrong.
T Pagano
<pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>On May 28, 8:16 am, T Pagano <not.va...@address.net> wrote:
>> On Sat, 28 May 2011 00:41:30 -0700 (PDT), Devils Advocaat
>>
>> <mankyg...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>> >If Ray is right in claiming that there are no unguided natural
>> >processes wouldn't that mean that his preferred deity is pulling all
>> >our strings, and that everything we do is done at this alleged deity's
>> >prompting?
>>
>> What do you think Ray. Are the atheistis getting dumber or terribly
>> desparate?
>>
>> Regards,
>> T Pagano
>
>They be both.
You crack me up.
>
>Any group (= Atheists) that is dumb and evil enough to give the finger
>to God (= denial of ID to exist in nature) is capable of anything (=
>like the hundreds of millions of persons murdered by Communist regimes
>since the rise of Darwinism).
>
>Ray
True enough. I suggest that after giving them a regular drubbing in
the realm of ideas we say a pray for their salvation. It's their only
hope.
Ray Martinez
>
> - Show quoted text -
Yes, I do agree.
Ray
chris thompson
So Ray, please reconcile Tony's belief in a recent world-wide flood
with your Old Earth Creationism and species immutability. If you are
correct and all species were created long ago, then a world-wide flood
6000 years ago is not really possible (even if it did consist of
"calm, global-like flooding"). But if Tony is correct, then all the
species on the planet had to have evolved quite rapidly into their
present forms- which is surely not species immutability.
Chris
hersheyh
Without at all denying the atrocities and horrors of the policies of
the Soviet Union, China, and Cambodia, I rather doubt the figure of
"hundreds of millions of people murdered." Millions were murdered for
certain. Tens of millions, even up to 100 million, I would have
absolutely no problem agreeing to. The big death tolls in each of
those three seem to have come more from failed agricultural policies
leading to mass starvation rather than murder _per se_. If you have
have evidence of "hundreds (i.e., more than one) of millions of
murders, do present it.
But the second question is how that compares to the number of people
murdered by "non-atheists" who do so explicitly in the name of God or
in the belief that God sanctions it because their ruler has God on his/
her side throughout history? Should we include the Amerind population
which was largely killed by disease if we include famine victims?
Should we include famine victims because of warfare in Christian
countries? People dying during forced death marches? Does the
Inquisition count as murder? Remember the role of Christian churches
in the Rwandan genocide? Not to mention the role of Christians (and
non-Christians) in the German Holocaust (which certainly had religious
overtones to it).
http://faculty.vassar.edu/tilongma/Church&Genocide.html
The role of religion in the genocide against Armenians in Turkey
(perhaps the first modern genocide)? The role of religion in mass
killings in both Muslim and Hindu communities during India's
partition? The role of religion in killings presently occurring in
both Muslim and Christian communities in Nigeria?
I certainly am not claiming that atheists are incapable of committing
mass murder. Atheists are human. I just question your idea that they
always do so and that the religious believers in God never do so.
Many atheists are "secular humanists" which "espouses human reason,
ethics, justice, and the search for human fulfillment."
"According to the Council for Secular Humanism, within the United
States, the term "Secular Humanism" describes a world view with the
following elements and principles:[4]
Need to test beliefs – A conviction that dogmas, ideologies and
traditions, whether religious, political or social, must be weighed
and tested by each individual and not simply accepted by faith.
Reason, evidence, scientific method – A commitment to the use of
critical reason, factual evidence and scientific methods of inquiry in
seeking solutions to human problems and answers to important human
questions.
Fulfillment, growth, creativity – A primary concern with fulfillment,
growth and creativity for both the individual and humankind in
general.
Search for truth – A constant search for objective truth, with the
understanding that new knowledge and experience constantly alter our
imperfect perception of it.
This life – A concern for this life (as opposed to an afterlife) and a
commitment to making it meaningful through better understanding of
ourselves, our history, our intellectual and artistic achievements,
and the outlooks of those who differ from us.
Ethics – A search for viable individual, social and political
principles of ethical conduct, judging them on their ability to
enhance human well-being and individual responsibility.
Building a better world – A conviction that with reason, an open
exchange of ideas, good will, and tolerance, progress can be made in
building a better world for ourselves and our children."
Whatever you think, that philosophy has a lot in similar with "secular
science" and does not any more automatically lead to Stalin, Mao, or
Pol Pot than Islam leads to Osama Bin Laden or Catholicism to
pedophilia.
>
> Ray
Ray Martinez
wrote:
You do not understand independent creation (IC).
IC does not advocate a single one-off original creation event. It
advocates a God who continues to create each new species the exact
same way in which original creation was created. Darwin, in "The
Origin," was arguing against independent creation of each new species
(Darwin 1859:6). It is 20th century YECism that says IC was a single
one-off event. In Darwin's time absolutely no one held this view. Said
view amounts to an "extended Deism." I hold to the same view that
science held before the rise of evolution: independent creation of
each new species (Theism). The fact that **each** species is created
independently renders evolution superfluous.
I accept a global flood to have occurred about c.3100 BC. This means
our present biosphere is quite young. I also hold to a very long pre-
Adamic history of a very old Earth. Genesis 1:2 onward relates a RE-
creation account. This is why God told Adam to REplenish the Earth
(instead of plenish).
> ....then a world-wide flood
> 6000 years ago is not really possible (even if it did consist of
> "calm, global-like flooding"). But if Tony is correct, then all the
> species on the planet had to have evolved quite rapidly into their
> present forms- which is surely not species immutability.
>
> Chris- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
I am not sure that you understand Tony's position. I have attempted to
sway him against any form of evolution because evolution, since
Darwin, is accepted as being caused by unintelligent agency (which
doesn't exist). Anyone who accepts Young Earth and evolution is in a
bad position. Mutation rates would have to be so fast that whatever is
happening could not be called evolution as understood since the rise
of Darwinism. I mean there must be some rate that falsifies the notion
that evolution is occurring----**this** super-fast evolution would
have to be called something else. It certainly cannot be described as
Darwinian. But the main problem YECs have is their acceptance of a
concept (evolution) that was accepted as being caused by unintelligent
agency. They do not seem to understand that unintelligent agency/
evolution means God (= Intelligent agency) does not exist. If God is
causing biological production (and He is) then effects cannot be
called evolutionary, they must be called created or designed, that is,
terms that correspond to the correct agency. Scholars understand
these basic facts/irreconcilable differences, the masses do not.
Ray
Ray Martinez
One of the latest bios on Stalin says the number of ***murders*** that
he is directly responsible, a figure that does not include starvation
of ethnic groups under his jurisdiction, is a conservative 25 million.
So extrapolate from there (it would take me a few days to cough up the
reference).
One of the latest bios on Mao makes Stalin look like a saint. The
account, as one might imagine, is utterly sickening.
Ray
> But the second question is how that compares to the number of people
> murdered by "non-atheists" who do so explicitly in the name of God or
> in the belief that God sanctions it because their ruler has God on his/
> her side throughout history? Should we include the Amerind population
> which was largely killed by disease if we include famine victims?
> Should we include famine victims because of warfare in Christian
> countries? People dying during forced death marches? Does the
> Inquisition count as murder? Remember the role of Christian churches
> in the Rwandan genocide? Not to mention the role of Christians (and
> non-Christians) in the German Holocaust (which certainly had religious
> overtones to it).http://faculty.vassar.edu/tilongma/Church&Genocide.html
> > Ray- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
Dana Tweedy
> On May 28, 8:16 am, T Pagano <not.va...@address.net> wrote:
>
> > On Sat, 28 May 2011 00:41:30 -0700 (PDT), Devils Advocaat
>
> > <mankyg...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> > >If Ray is right in claiming that there are no unguided natural
> > >processes wouldn't that mean that his preferred deity is pulling all
> > >our strings, and that everything we do is done at this alleged deity's
> > >prompting?
>
> > What do you think Ray. Are the atheistis getting dumber or terribly
> > desparate?
>
> > Regards,
> > T Pagano
>
> They be both.
>
> Any group (= Atheists) that is dumb and evil enough to give the finger
> to God (= denial of ID to exist in nature) is capable of anything
Ray, do you know that your hero Ayn Rand was an atheist? Also, if
you wish to establish that "ID" exists in nature, you need to show
some evidence that it exists, not simply assume your conclusion.
> (=
> like the hundreds of millions of persons murdered by Communist regimes
> since the rise of Darwinism).
Of course, the number of persons who died under Communism has nothing
to do with the fact of evolution.
DJT
Dana Tweedy
When do you suppose the "drubbing" will begin? So far you and Tony
have been on the receiving end of many a "drubbing" but have performed
none yourself.
DJT
>
> Ray
Ray Martinez
> On May 28, 12:28 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On May 28, 8:16 am, T Pagano <not.va...@address.net> wrote:
>
> > > On Sat, 28 May 2011 00:41:30 -0700 (PDT), Devils Advocaat
>
> > > <mankyg...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> > > >If Ray is right in claiming that there are no unguided natural
> > > >processes wouldn't that mean that his preferred deity is pulling all
> > > >our strings, and that everything we do is done at this alleged deity's
> > > >prompting?
>
> > > What do you think Ray. Are the atheistis getting dumber or terribly
> > > desparate?
>
> > > Regards,
> > > T Pagano
>
> > They be both.
>
> > Any group (= Atheists) that is dumb and evil enough to give the finger
> > to God (= denial of ID to exist in nature) is capable of anything
>
> Ray, do you know that your hero Ayn Rand was an atheist?
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/140fa791e618e153
> Also, if
> you wish to establish that "ID" exists in nature, you need to show
> some evidence that it exists, not simply assume your conclusion.
>
Likewise in reverse.
Ray
> > (=
> > like the hundreds of millions of persons murdered by Communist regimes
> > since the rise of Darwinism).
>
> Of course, the number of persons who died under Communism has nothing
> to do with the fact of evolution.
>
> DJT- Hide quoted text -
Dana Tweedy
snip
> > Without at all denying the atrocities and horrors of the policies of
> > the Soviet Union, China, and Cambodia, I rather doubt the figure of
> > "hundreds of millions of people murdered." Millions were murdered for
> > certain. Tens of millions, even up to 100 million, I would have
> > absolutely no problem agreeing to. The big death tolls in each of
> > those three seem to have come more from failed agricultural policies
> > leading to mass starvation rather than murder _per se_. If you have
> > have evidence of "hundreds (i.e., more than one) of millions of
> > murders, do present it.
>
> One of the latest bios on Stalin says the number of ***murders*** that
> he is directly responsible, a figure that does not include starvation
> of ethnic groups under his jurisdiction, is a conservative 25 million.
> So extrapolate from there (it would take me a few days to cough up the
> reference).
>
> One of the latest bios on Mao makes Stalin look like a saint. The
> account, as one might imagine, is utterly sickening.
No doubt both Mao, and Stalin were unconcerned with the loss of human
life, however, it still doesn't support your contention that their
actions were influenced by, or the result of the fact that species
evolve over time.
As Howard has pointed out, more people died due to religious
persecution than died from Stalin, or Mao's insane political
policies.
DJT
Dana Tweedy
Neither do you, Ray. What mechanism causes "independent creation".
When has "independent creation" ever been observed?
>
> IC does not advocate a single one-off original creation event. It
> advocates a God who continues to create each new species the exact
> same way in which original creation was created.
Except that no evidence has been found that this happens. All known
new species are branched off from already existing species.
> Darwin, in "The
> Origin," was arguing against independent creation of each new species
> (Darwin 1859:6). It is 20th century YECism that says IC was a single
> one-off event.
It's also what the Bible says, if you are taking it as a literal
record.
> In Darwin's time absolutely no one held this view.
Actually, many people held this view, as it was a common religious
belief. It wasn't found among scientists, who had studied the matter,
and knew it didn't fit the evidence. That's why Cuvier and others
had to posit sequential creations; because the fossil record clearly
showed that life changed over the history of Earth.
> Said
> view amounts to an "extended Deism." I hold to the same view that
> science held before the rise of evolution: independent creation of
> each new species (Theism). The fact that **each** species is created
> independently renders evolution superfluous
Which is where you are wrong. Even though "independent creation" was
a belief that many scientists held, it is not a scientific belief.
It's religious, and was shown to be wrong. A belief in independent
creation isn't exclusive to "theism", or a definition of the term.
Whether or not the belief that each species is independently
created "renders evolution superfluous" is irrelevant. The evidence
renders "separate creation" as untenable. The evidence shows clearly
that species are not independently created, but evolve from common
ancestors. Holding onto a belief in separate independent creation in
light of the modern set of evidence is absurd.
>
> I accept a global flood to have occurred about c.3100 BC.
Why did this global flood leave no evidence of it's occurrence?
> This means
> our present biosphere is quite young.
The evidence contradicts that view.
> I also hold to a very long pre-
> Adamic history of a very old Earth. Genesis 1:2 onward relates a RE-
> creation account. This is why God told Adam to REplenish the Earth
> (instead of plenish).
Of course, the original text wasn't written in English, so claiming
support from an English term is silly.
>
> > ....then a world-wide flood
> > 6000 years ago is not really possible (even if it did consist of
> > "calm, global-like flooding"). But if Tony is correct, then all the
> > species on the planet had to have evolved quite rapidly into their
> > present forms- which is surely not species immutability.
>
> > Chris- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> I am not sure that you understand Tony's position.
While everyone else is sure that Tony himself doesn't understand his
position.
> I have attempted to
> sway him against any form of evolution because evolution, since
> Darwin, is accepted as being caused by unintelligent agency (which
> doesn't exist).
This is another one of your major mistakes. Evolution, before, or
after Darwin doesn't claim it's cause must be an "unintelligent
agency". Human influence in stock breeding is evolution, even though
it's intelligent beings affecting it. To science it doesn't matter
if the ultimate cause of evolution is intelligent "agency" or plain
unintelligent natural laws. If you feel an intelligent agent is
causing evolution, present evidence of such. Otherwise, it's
reasonable, in the lack of evidence, to presume that no such agent is
necessary.
> Anyone who accepts Young Earth and evolution is in a
> bad position.
Anyone who assumes immutable species is in an even worse position.
> Mutation rates would have to be so fast that whatever is
> happening could not be called evolution as understood since the rise
> of Darwinism.
This would make more sense if you actually understood anything about
mutation, and genetics.
> I mean there must be some rate that falsifies the notion
> that evolution is occurring----**this** super-fast evolution would
> have to be called something else.
Mutation rates themselves are not the problem, it's generational
times. Fast evolution is no different from slow evolution.
> It certainly cannot be described as
> Darwinian.
That wouldn't matter.Scientific study of Evolution is not dependent
on Darwin, or his mechanism. If Darwin were to be shown to be
totally incorrect in his mechanism of evolution, it would still be a
fact that species evolve.
> But the main problem YECs have is their acceptance of a
> concept (evolution) that was accepted as being caused by unintelligent
> agency.
Wrong again, Ray. It's your mistake that evolution must be "caused
by an unintelligent agency". If an intelligent agent were to be
shown to behind evolution, it would still be as well accepted by
science.
> They do not seem to understand that unintelligent agency/
> evolution means God (= Intelligent agency) does not exist.
that's because it's false. That evolution operates by an
"unintelligent agency" no more rules out God than the fact that rain
falls by an unintelligent, natural agency. Evolution is a natural
process, the same as rain, wind, earthquakes, evaporation,
reproduction, or any other process you care to name. They are all
equally "unintelligent".
Assuming that God must not exist if evolution is true is another of
your major mistakes. You can't admit you are wrong.
> If God is
> causing biological production (and He is) then effects cannot be
> called evolutionary, they must be called created or designed, that is,
> terms that correspond to the correct agency.
As pointed out many times, that is wrong. If God is using evolution
as his means of creation, it appears to science, exactly the same as
an automatic, unguided natural process.
If you want to call evolution "creation" or "designed", that's your
own choice, as there's no evidence for, or against such a belief.
> Scholars understand
> these basic facts/irreconcilable differences, the masses do not.
Actually, "scholars" understand that you are wrong. Your personal
unsupported assertions are not "facts". You refuse to listen to
those who show you are wrong, and keep making the same mistake, over
and over.
DJT
Randy C
> he is directly responsible, a figure that does not include starvation
> of ethnic groups under his jurisdiction, is a conservative 25 million.
> So extrapolate from there (it would take me a few days to cough up the
> reference).
And Stalin wasn't even a Darwinian evolutionist!
Have you ever heard of Trofim Denisovich Lysenko?
Lysenko was was a Soviet agronomist who was director of Soviet biology
under Joseph Stalin. Lysenko rejected Mendelian genetics - which is
consistent with Darwinism - in favor of the hybridization - which is
inconsistent with Darwinism. Crops failed as a result.
Stalin was surely evil. But if he had been a Darwinist, it is likely
that fewer people would have died which would have, presumably, made
him somewhat "less" evil.
Good example, Ray. It demonstrates the evil effects of rejecting
Darwinism!
Dana Tweedy
> On May 28, 5:23 pm, Dana Tweedy <reddfrog...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On May 28, 12:28 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > On May 28, 8:16 am, T Pagano <not.va...@address.net> wrote:
>
> > > > On Sat, 28 May 2011 00:41:30 -0700 (PDT), Devils Advocaat
>
> > > > <mankyg...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> > > > >If Ray is right in claiming that there are no unguided natural
> > > > >processes wouldn't that mean that his preferred deity is pulling all
> > > > >our strings, and that everything we do is done at this alleged deity's
> > > > >prompting?
>
> > > > What do you think Ray. Are the atheistis getting dumber or terribly
> > > > desparate?
>
> > > > Regards,
> > > > T Pagano
>
> > > They be both.
>
> > > Any group (= Atheists) that is dumb and evil enough to give the finger
> > > to God (= denial of ID to exist in nature) is capable of anything
>
> > Ray, do you know that your hero Ayn Rand was an atheist?
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/140fa791e618e153
>
> > Also, if
> > you wish to establish that "ID" exists in nature, you need to show
> > some evidence that it exists, not simply assume your conclusion.
>
> Likewise in reverse.
The reason science must make use of methodological naturalism, is
because of exactly this kind of objection.
I can provide a great deal of evidence that processes in nature
occur, and I can show that there's no requirement for "intelligence"
to make the process operate.
No one can either prove, or disprove a belief that a supernatural
being either created, or designed that process. That's why science
leaves questions of the supernatural to religion.
Ray, among your mistakes is that you assume that absence of
evidence is evidence of absence. You also assume that the default
position of science is that "God doesn't exist". In reality,
science's default position is "don't assume what you can't show
evidence for".
If you choose to believe that God is the ultimate cause behind all
natural processes, that's your choice. It's actually close to what I
believe. The difference is that science doesn't recognize personal
religious beliefs as persuasive evidence. The evidence that can be
objectively studied neither supports, or denies the existence of
God. It's a matter of faith.
DJT
DJT
hersheyh
Looking up genocides (it is often hard to distinguish genocide from
civil wars), the total for Stalin, Mao, and Pol Pot, *including* those
that died from hunger due to political decisions like "The Great Leap
Forward" or "the Ukranian famine", amounts to not much more than 100
million at the upper end, not hundreds of millions. Still a
horrendous, despicable, unconsciable number by some of the most foul
dictators who ever lived. I am in no way forgetting or forgiving
those deaths. But accuracy is required here. And the fact is that
the only common feature in most of these genocides is the same
ideology: those that don't "believe" the correct way or accept rule by
the "right" person are sub-human agents of all evil and they need to
be destroyed. [An exception might be the slave labor system
instituted by the Christian King Leopold I in the Congo. That, like
the slave labor justified in the Americas and Caribbean, was done
simply for greed.] But the ideology of dehumanization of the other is
much the way you regard atheists. I myself, for example, have been
called "worse than a murderer" by a Christian because I argue that
evolution happened. In contrast, I regard people like you to be
ignorant and foolish, but not evil incarnate (not even evil
incompetent). So don't worry, I have no interest in committing
genocide against the true faith's followers. What would I do for
amusement?
Earle Jones
T Pagano <not....@address.net> wrote:
> On Sat, 28 May 2011 00:41:30 -0700 (PDT), Devils Advocaat
> <mank...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>
> >If Ray is right in claiming that there are no unguided natural
> >processes wouldn't that mean that his preferred deity is pulling all
> >our strings, and that everything we do is done at this alleged deity's
> >prompting?
>
> What do you think Ray. Are the atheistis getting dumber or terribly
> desparate?
>
> Regards,
> T Pagano
*
Tony:
Don't look to Ray for help. He says you are an ignorant asshole when it
comes to geocentricism. Even Ray knows the earth rotates.
And, by the way, the spelling is "desperate."
earle
*
Devils Advocaat
> If Ray is right in claiming that there are no unguided natural
> processes wouldn't that mean that his preferred deity is pulling all
> our strings, and that everything we do is done at this alleged deity's
> prompting?
Care to answer my question Ray?
Rolf
> On May 28, 5:23 pm, Dana Tweedy <reddfrog...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On May 28, 12:28 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> On May 28, 8:16 am, T Pagano <not.va...@address.net> wrote:
>>
>>>> On Sat, 28 May 2011 00:41:30 -0700 (PDT), Devils Advocaat
>>
>>>> <mankyg...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>> If Ray is right in claiming that there are no unguided natural
>>>>> processes wouldn't that mean that his preferred deity is pulling
>>>>> all our strings, and that everything we do is done at this
>>>>> alleged deity's prompting?
>>
>>>> What do you think Ray. Are the atheistis getting dumber or terribly
>>>> desparate?
>>
>>>> Regards,
>>>> T Pagano
>>
>>> They be both.
>>
>>> Any group (= Atheists) that is dumb and evil enough to give the
>>> finger to God (= denial of ID to exist in nature) is capable of
>>> anything
>>
>> Ray, do you know that your hero Ayn Rand was an atheist?
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/140fa791e618e153
>
>> Also, if
>> you wish to establish that "ID" exists in nature, you need to show
>> some evidence that it exists, not simply assume your conclusion.
>>
>
> Likewise in reverse.
>
The classical evasion. Not unexpexted. He demands negative proof, proof of
the same kind we use to prove that bigfoot, fairies, the FSM and even God
doesn't exist. While in fact we keep repeating that we know nothing about
God, we don't have a clue whether he is real or not. Same for all the rest
of them; we are fairly confident that they do not exist but we cannot
present proof. We woudl believe they existed if any evidence could be
presented. But since Ray is unable to show any evidence for his claim, all
he can do is to turn it all around. But I presume Ray has concrete evidence
for God and his biological skills.
Ray doesn't want to know. He feel safe in his cocoon of beliefs and faith;
understanding would cost him dearly. He's demonstrated over many years that
he is not interested in understanding; he just want to remain an ignorant
believer.
Ray, do you really think we will be fooled by your evasive tactics? Hint: We
are not quite as stupid as you seem to think we are.
RAM
You gotta love as well as laugh at a Christian liars for their sinful
ways because of their false religious beliefs which declare they are
going to heaven. Religious myths allow and even encourage their
immoral plagiarizing, lying, distorting science, intentionally
dishonest debating tactics, egocentrism, celebrating willful ignorance
and false bravado.
These ethically challenged creationism supporters are an embarrassment
for their declared Christian beliefs.
And I would not be surprised to find out that the proverbial "lurkers"
find them morally useless as well.
RAM
Where is that "mythical" book that empirically documents the above
hokum? (I know, the question answers itself.)
You have nothing and never will. Give it up. Yours is a useless and
tired routine. Spending you life parading your ignorance is not a
pretty picture.
*Hemidactylus*
> On Sat, 28 May 2011 00:41:30 -0700 (PDT), Devils Advocaat
> <mank...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> If Ray is right in claiming that there are no unguided natural
>> processes wouldn't that mean that his preferred deity is pulling all
>> our strings, and that everything we do is done at this alleged deity's
>> prompting?
>
> What do you think Ray. Are the atheistis getting dumber or terribly
> desparate?
"We" are getting bored and lazy as it becomes more apparent there is no
there there. The earth spins and goes round the sun in an insignifant
solar system in just another galaxy, while you think yourself the center
of the Paganocentric universe as atheist detractors kepp entering your
orbit and then descend into crash and burn as they near your toxic
atmosphere.
Ray OTOH get further from his goal of the book as he goes on a Randroid
tangent, trying to syncretize Paley, God, Gene Scott and Rand. Who is
John Galt? The writer of *The Book* that will destroy our lives.
Excuse me while I yawn over the prospect of your geocentrism merging
with Ray's Objectivist Creation.
--
DJ *Hemidactylus* (see below)
Hemi's choice of the moment:
A Night At The Edit Block "Blade To The Rhythm"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6qEx9Jh-1rI
*Hemidactylus*
> On May 28, 11:50 am, Randy C<randyec...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On May 28, 10:16 am, T Pagano<not.va...@address.net> wrote:
>>
>>> On Sat, 28 May 2011 00:41:30 -0700 (PDT), Devils Advocaat
>>
>>>> If Ray is right in claiming that there are no unguided natural
>>>> processes wouldn't that mean that his preferred deity is pulling all
>>>> our strings, and that everything we do is done at this alleged deity's
>>>> prompting?
>>
>>> What do you think Ray. Are the atheistis getting dumber or terribly
>>> desparate?
>>
>>> T Pagano
>>
>> Hmm...
>>
>> You changed the subject line to "Ray, are our detractors getting
>> dumbers or just desparate?"
>>
>> "Desparate" is not a word. I presume you made a typographical error
>> and intended to say "disparate". That is a word meaning "distinct in
>> kind; essentially different; dissimilar". In other words you appear
>> to be asking Ray whether or not a wider variety of people are
>> criticizing both of you.
>>
>> That's probably the case. It is quite likely that a continuously
>> larger group of people are finding your claims to be silly.
>>
>> Note that "dumbers" isn't a word either.
>
> Neither is "atheistis".
As centre of the Paganoverse, he is free to make up spelling and words
as he goes. We can only crash and burn.
*Hemidactylus*
Yet can atheists go to Heaven to be with Jesus, even if they didn't
accept him in their heart? Isn't Ayn Rand in Heaven with Jesus? Can I
too, then, go to Heaven along with John Harshman and Dana Tweedy (= wolf
in sheep's clothing)? Or is Rand a special case, because God loved Atlas
Shrugged?
*Hemidactylus*
*Hemidactylus*
[snip]
>
> Yes, I do agree.
>
As an atheist, wouldn't you assume Rand might have put a Bible in a rape
room at least once in her life? Yet she made it past St. Peter.
hersheyh
> > One of the latest bios on Stalin says the number of ***murders*** that
> > he is directly responsible, a figure that does not include starvation
> > of ethnic groups under his jurisdiction, is a conservative 25 million.
> > So extrapolate from there (it would take me a few days to cough up the
> > reference).
>
> And Stalin wasn't even a Darwinian evolutionist!
>
> Have you ever heard of Trofim Denisovich Lysenko?
Actually, Soviet Marxism did accept (albeit a typically, for its time,
progressive and Lamarckian form of) evolution. It was Mendel that they
had ideological problems with. In part because Mendel was a priest,
but also because they disliked the idea of "fixed traits" that were
not changeable by the environment.
>
> Lysenko was was a Soviet agronomist who was director of Soviet biology
> under Joseph Stalin. Lysenko rejected Mendelian genetics - which is
> consistent with Darwinism - in favor of the hybridization - which is
> inconsistent with Darwinism. Crops failed as a result.
Although we now recognize that Mendelian genetics is consistent with
Darwin, that was not a given in the 1920s. And, as mentioned, it was
thought that a form of Lamarckian change was more consistent with the
progress of the masses in the Marxian "progressive" idea of history.
>
> Stalin was surely evil. But if he had been a Darwinist,
Stalin was surely evil, but I have no idea if he was or wasn't a
"Darwinist". It is most likely (especially given the fact that he
started out studying in an Orthodox seminary and graduated into a
revolutionary paramilitary leader and terrorist -- bank robber,
kidnapping, extortion) that he was as ignorant of and rather
uninterested in any scientific ideas, as most of the world's
autocratic rulers have been.
Ilas
d58151...@r27g2000prr.googlegroups.com:
> On May 28, 8:16 am, T Pagano <not.va...@address.net> wrote:
>> On Sat, 28 May 2011 00:41:30 -0700 (PDT), Devils Advocaat
>>
>> <mankyg...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>> >If Ray is right in claiming that there are no unguided natural
>> >processes wouldn't that mean that his preferred deity is pulling all
>> >our strings, and that everything we do is done at this alleged deity's
>> >prompting?
>>
>> What do you think Ray. Are the atheistis getting dumber or terribly
>> desparate?
>>
>> Regards,
>> T Pagano
>
> They be both.
>
> Any group (= Atheists) that is dumb and evil enough to give the finger
> to God (= denial of ID to exist in nature) is capable of anything (=
> like the hundreds of millions of persons murdered by Communist regimes
> since the rise of Darwinism).
What is about creationist loons (= Ray and Tony) that makes them use such
peculiar English (= Atheist language). Perhaps Martinez could tell us, IF
he dares?
Martinez's replies will be ignored and he will crash and burn unless he
starts 32 new threads over 6 days, all with the subject lines "Martinez
replies: Weird creationist English: part 1A.0000219 (subsection b) (=
Atheists are beaming filth to my radio)" through to "Martinez replies:
Weird creationist English: part 1B.0004657 (sub-subsection z) (= Atheist
are eating the food from my fridge)"
Frank J
I have heard that from you before. But once again you curiously leave
out anaything about those *previous* biospheres. How many were there?
How many years ago did they exist? What species did they include? Were
Adam & Eve part of the biosphere immediately before this one, or were
there some intermediate ones?
Lots more questions to follow.
>
> > ....then a world-wide flood
> > 6000 years ago is not really possible (even if it did consist of
> > "calm, global-like flooding"). But if Tony is correct, then all the
> > species on the planet had to have evolved quite rapidly into their
> > present forms- which is surely not species immutability.
>
> > Chris- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> I am not sure that you understand Tony's position. I have attempted to
> sway him against any form of evolution because evolution, since
> Darwin, is accepted as being caused by unintelligent agency (which
> doesn't exist). Anyone who accepts Young Earth and evolution is in a
> bad position.
I think you're out of luck with Tony and "microevolution," but I
vaguely recall him a few years back being an old-earther.
Unfortunately, like you he has refused to answer my "when" questions,
so if he reverted to YEC we just don't know.
Please feel free to ask him many questions about his "theory". He
might feel less threatened if they come from a fellow science-denier.
But please try to avoid the "God's time is different from our time"
angle. Even many *creationists* consider that a pathetic cop-out.
Besides, avoiding "when" questions is a game that DI-IDers play. You
don't want to be like them, do you?
> Mutation rates would have to be so fast that whatever is
> happening could not be called evolution as understood since the rise
> of Darwinism. I mean there must be some rate that falsifies the notion
> that evolution is occurring----**this** super-fast evolution would
> have to be called something else. It certainly cannot be described as
> Darwinian. But the main problem YECs have is their acceptance of a
> concept (evolution) that was accepted as being caused by unintelligent
> agency.
As do OECs and DI-IDers.
> They do not seem to understand that unintelligent agency/
> evolution means God (= Intelligent agency) does not exist. If God is
> causing biological production (and He is) then effects cannot be
> called evolutionary, they must be called created or designed, that is,
> terms that correspond to the correct agency. Scholars understand
> these basic facts/irreconcilable differences, the masses do not.
>
> Ray- Hide quoted text -
Frank J
Ray seems to think that it's being observed constantly. But that
undermines the game that DI-IDers play, which is to use examples only
from the remote past that can't be observed. Though AIUI, the DI
does't explicitly rule out that any design or creation events are
occurring as we speak. They are just confident that their target
audience won't think of asking.
But we can.
(snip)
TomS
<9ffdb1f8-01dd-4505...@t16g2000vbi.googlegroups.com>, Frank J
stated..."
This does remind me of the question about what sort of thing is
*not* intelligently designed/created.
We can ask not only *what* is not designed/created, but also *when*
did design stop (if it ever stopped).
--
---Tom S.
"... the heavy people know some magic that can make things move and even fly,
but they're not very bright, because they can't survive without their magic
contrivances"
Xixo, in "The Gods Must Be Crazy II"
Devils Advocaat
> If Ray is right in claiming that there are no unguided natural
> processes wouldn't that mean that his preferred deity is pulling all
> our strings, and that everything we do is done at this alleged deity's
> prompting?
What's stopping you from addressing this Ray?
Ray Martinez
> On May 28, 8:41 am, Devils Advocaat <mankyg...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > If Ray is right in claiming that there are no unguided natural
> > processes wouldn't that mean that his preferred deity is pulling all
> > our strings, and that everything we do is done at this alleged deity's
> > prompting?
>
Your question requires several major theological doctrines be
addressed. Presently I do not have the time to answer.
Ray
Devils Advocaat
No it doesn't.
You claim there are no unguided natural processes.
Ergo your preferred deity is allegedly controlling everything.
Which means all we do is controlled by said deity.
This requires you to address one single issue.
The issue of free will.
Unless of course your preferred deity told you to avoid answering this
issue.
Which would in and of itself confirm there is no such thing as free
will.
And that would blow the whole nonsense about Adam and Eve having free
will in the first place.
> Presently I do not have the time to answer.
>
> Ray
Evasion noted.
Ray Martinez
There is no such **thing** as "methodological naturalism." It is a
false construct invented to deceive stupid Christians (like yourself)
into accepting pro-Atheist claims about nature.
> I can provide a great deal of evidence that processes in nature
> occur, and I can show that there's no requirement for "intelligence"
> to make the process operate.
>
Comments say natural processes **are known** to be unintelligent. Yes,
that is the **claim** and its logic is absolutely sound. If processes
originate from material nature, and not from immaterial God then, by
definition, these alleged processes must be unintelligent. Darwinism
rejects God. It says we were and are produced by material nature
(Materialism-Naturalism). This is why all Atheists are rabid
Darwinists.
> No one can either prove, or disprove a belief that a supernatural
> being either created, or designed that process. That's why science
> leaves questions of the supernatural to religion.
>
Contradiction.
Our commentator, in previous comment, correctly stated the claim in
behalf of natural processes. Now he is contradicting the claim and its
logic. He is now saying it is not known that Intelligence is absent in
biological production. Again, if processes originate from material
nature, and not immaterial God, then they are unintelligent. Darwinism
says it has most assuredly discovered a natural process that shows no
signs of Intelligent involvement. If a process shows no signs of
guidance then it is known to be unintelligent. Modern science says
there is **no evidence** of invisible Guide in nature. This is a
negative statement. It is not neutral or positive.
The reason why "methodological naturalism" does not exist is because
it attempts to say natural processes could be two different **things**
at the same time (unintelligent/Intelligent)). Accepted logic does not
allow a proposition as such. Science and logic says natural processes
are unintelligent.
Our commentator is attempting to have it both ways at the same time. I
need only explain his motive. His motive is the need to justify
Atheist and Christian support of natural processes. The latter and its
support exists in a position of humiliation. Natural processes mean
God/Guide/Intelligence is absent (= pro-Atheism). MN seeks to
alleviate this humiliation.
> Ray, among your mistakes is that you assume that absence of
> evidence is evidence of absence. You also assume that the default
> position of science is that "God doesn't exist". In reality,
> science's default position is "don't assume what you can't show
> evidence for".
>
> If you choose to believe that God is the ultimate cause behind all
> natural processes, that's your choice. It's actually close to what I
> believe. The difference is that science doesn't recognize personal
> religious beliefs as persuasive evidence. The evidence that can be
> objectively studied neither supports, or denies the existence of
> God. It's a matter of faith.
>
> DJT
>
> DJT- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
In closing our commentator descends into a pit of gross illogic. This
is what happens when a logically false construct (MN) is accepted.
Deism is propagated: "If you choose to believe that God is the
ultimate cause behind all natural processes, that's your choice...."
But the verbiage and its message says "natural processes" provide no
evidence for God (= pro-Atheism). The next statement confirms: "The
difference is that science doesn't recognize personal religious
beliefs as persuasive evidence." Followed by a statement advocating
Agnosticism: "The evidence that can be objectively studied neither
supports, or denies the existence of God."
Like I said "a pit of gross illogic." But our commentator has no
awareness that what he wrote is logically invalid. This is what
happens when God is denied: you end up deluded without any awareness
of your condition.
By no means is our commentator alone. Read, for example, "The God
Delusion" by Richard Dawkins. You will find the same illogic argued
without any awareness of the fact. There is a delusion operating, no
doubt; but it is working on those who accept evolution, not God.
Ray (species immutabilist)
Randy C
Not surprisingly, totally incorrect. Darwinian evolution does reject,
in the form of being incompatible with, some theological views such as
a literal interpretation of the Bible. But it is very consistent with
other theological views. In fact some theologians say that Darwinism
is quite consistent with the existence of God.
See, for example, http://www.counterbalance.org/ctns-vo/haugh-body.html
titled “Darwin’s Gift to Theology”. The author, Dr. John F. Haught,
is a Professor of Theology at Georgetown. Based on credentials if
nothing else, surely his opinion would carry more weight than yours on
such matters.
Conan the bacterium
Isn't Ray supposed to be working on his Book That
Will Show You All, Just You Wait And See If It
Doesn't?
Why is he wasting time here?
conan
Ray Martinez
> On Jun 1, 7:24 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > On Jun 1, 8:22 am, Devils Advocaat <mankyg...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > > On May 28, 8:41 am, Devils Advocaat <mankyg...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > > > If Ray is right in claiming that there are no unguided natural
> > > > processes wouldn't that mean that his preferred deity is pulling all
> > > > our strings, and that everything we do is done at this alleged deity's
> > > > prompting?
>
> > Your question requires several major theological doctrines be
> > addressed.
>
> No it doesn't.
>
> You claim there are no unguided natural processes.
>
> Ergo your preferred deity is allegedly controlling everything.
>
True.
If a person rejects God it is because God has rejected that person.
> Which means all we do is controlled by said deity.
>
False.
We have free-will (the ability to change our mind/path continually).
If a person uses their free-will to resist the encroachments of God,
then God will eventually cease His encroachments.
> This requires you to address one single issue.
>
> The issue of free will.
>
> Unless of course your preferred deity told you to avoid answering this
> issue.
>
> Which would in and of itself confirm there is no such thing as free
> will.
>
> And that would blow the whole nonsense about Adam and Eve having free
> will in the first place.
>
They could have chosen to obey God and not eat the forbidden fruit.
Ray
Dana Tweedy
Wrong again, Ray. Methodological naturalism is a necessary part of
science, and has been used since science began.
> It is a
> false construct invented to deceive stupid Christians (like yourself)
> into accepting pro-Atheist claims about nature.
Science doesn't make "pro-atheist" claims about nature, so there's no
reason to "invent" some such "construct". Science also doesn't
require support by Christians, or any other religious groups.
Educated Christians like myself accept evolution because it's good
science. You reject evolution only because you were told to.
>
> > I can provide a great deal of evidence that processes in nature
> > occur, and I can show that there's no requirement for "intelligence"
> > to make the process operate.
>
> Comments say natural processes **are known** to be unintelligent.
Since there is no evidence of intelligent input, natural processes
*are* known to be "unintelligent". If you wish to show otherwise,
you need to produce some evidence.
> Yes,
> that is the **claim** and its logic is absolutely sound.
It's not a claim, Ray, it's a finding. Again, if you wish to provide
evidence that indicates an intelligent factor in natural processes,
you are welcome to do so.
> If processes
> originate from material nature, and not from immaterial God then, by
> definition, these alleged processes must be unintelligent.
That's not a definition anyone uses. It's irrelevant to science
where processes originate. All that matters is that the processes can
be observed. Without any evidence of intelligent input, the simplest
explanation is that no intelligence is needed. If there is a
supernatural intelligence behind natural processes, science can't tell
one way or the other.
> Darwinism
> rejects God.
Wrong again, Ray. Evolution doesn't reject God, it doesn't mention
God. If you want to believe that God makes use of evolutionary
processes as his means of creation, science can't say no.
> It says we were and are produced by material nature
> (Materialism-Naturalism).
Once again, Ray, you are making a mistake. The evidence is what
indicates that humans, and all other living things are produced by
"material nature". If God is the ultimate source of "material
nature", that's something science can't affirm, or deny.
> This is why all Atheists are rabid
> Darwinists.
As you already know, not all atheists are "rabid Darwinists". Even
if all atheists did accept the science of evolution, they accept it
for the same reason Christians accept evolution. It's because it's
the best scientific explanation for the evidence. It doesn't matter
if some atheists feel that evolution supports their lack of religious
belief. The fact remains that evolution is a valid scientific
theory, and is accepted by people of all religious backgrounds.
>
> > No one can either prove, or disprove a belief that a supernatural
> > being either created, or designed that process. That's why science
> > leaves questions of the supernatural to religion.
>
> Contradiction.
Sorry, Ray, but there's no contradiction here. Science can't
support, or deny the existence of the supernatural. It does not
make any comment on religion. If someone chooses to believe that
God made nature, science can't offer support for such a claim, but it
can't deny such a claim.
>
> Our commentator, in previous comment, correctly stated the claim in
> behalf of natural processes.
You don't know what the "claim" of natural processes might be. How
can you tell if it were correctly stated?
> Now he is contradicting the claim and its
> logic.
Again, Ray, you fail the most basic logic, so how can you comment on
what contradicts logic?
> He is now saying it is not known that Intelligence is absent in
> biological production.
What I'm saying is that there is no scientific way of telling if a
supernatural being produced the laws of nature. There doesn't
appear to be any evidence of "intelligence" in "biological
production", but the possibility cannot be ruled out. If you feel
there is evidence of "intelligence" in natural processes, you are
welcome to produce it. Merely pointing out that natural processes
produce order is not such evidence.
> Again, if processes originate from material
> nature, and not immaterial God, then they are unintelligent.
That doesn't follow, Ray. Even if processes originate from
"immaterial God", the processes themselves show no evidence of
intelligence themselves. A human may design a machine using
intelligence, but the machine itself is not intelligent. The
computer you are using to type on was designed by an intelligent
being, but it shows no evidence of intelligence itself.
> Darwinism
> says it has most assuredly discovered a natural process that shows no
> signs of Intelligent involvement.
Again, Ray, you need to understand something before you try to say
what it says. "Darwinism" only describes a natural process that as
far as can be told, doesn't require intelligent input. There's no
way to tell if the process itself was designed by an intelligent
supernatural being, or it developed without such a being. Once
more, if you feel there is such evidence, you are welcome to present
that evidence.
> If a process shows no signs of
> guidance then it is known to be unintelligent.
A process has no inherent intelligence of it's own. A process
simply operates by natural law.
> Modern science says
> there is **no evidence** of invisible Guide in nature.
Ray, what do you think "invisible" means? Why do you imagine a
scientist should assume the presence of an "invisible guide", when
there the evidence doesn't give any reason to suspect such a
guide? Have you ever heard of Occam's Razor?
> This is a
> negative statement. It is not neutral or positive.
Actually, what science is indicating is that there's no evidence of a
*visible* guide. If an invisible guide exists, science can't tell.
That's the neutral statement. You want there to be evidence of your
own favorite supernatural being, but there's no way science can detect
the existence of the supernatural. If you want to believe that your
favorite supernatural being is that guide, then it's up to you to show
some "visible" evidence.
>
> The reason why "methodological naturalism" does not exist is because
> it attempts to say natural processes could be two different **things**
> at the same time (unintelligent/Intelligent)).
Like I pointed out before, Ray, an unintelligent process may be
designed and manufactured by an intelligent being. Therefore a
natural process can be both intelligently produced, and unintelligent
itself. Your objection indicates your inability to apply basic
logic. You are caught in a false dichotomy.
> Accepted logic does not
> allow a proposition as such. Science and logic says natural processes
> are unintelligent.
Once more, you are demonstrating your own lack of ability to apply
logic. You don't know what "accepted logic" is, but you claim to
know what it allows, or doesn't allow. Natural processes themselves
have no intelligence, but that doesn't mean they can't have been
produced by an intelligent being.
>
> Our commentator is attempting to have it both ways at the same time.
I've explained why this is incorrect.
> I
> need only explain his motive.
Since Ray is wrong, his assumptions about "motive" are wrong as
well.
> His motive is the need to justify
> Atheist and Christian support of natural processes.
There's no need to "justify" this. Christians and atheists, as well
as other religious traditions have long accepted that natural
processes exist and operate.
> The latter and its
> support exists in a position of humiliation.
Say what now?
> Natural processes mean
> God/Guide/Intelligence is absent (= pro-Atheism). MN seeks to
> alleviate this humiliation.
Of course, the above is silly, as I've already shown. Natural
processes can be the product of God, so it doesn't indicate that God
is absent. Ray mistakenly assumes that if he can't see God, God
isn't there, and so agrees with some atheists. Methodological
naturalism is simply the way science works, and I have no
"humiliation" to alleviate. Perhaps Ray is projecting his own
humiliation at being beaten so often in discussions here. Ray's
imagination runs away with him.
>
> > Ray, among your mistakes is that you assume that absence of
> > evidence is evidence of absence. You also assume that the default
> > position of science is that "God doesn't exist". In reality,
> > science's default position is "don't assume what you can't show
> > evidence for".
>
> > If you choose to believe that God is the ultimate cause behind all
> > natural processes, that's your choice. It's actually close to what I
> > believe. The difference is that science doesn't recognize personal
> > religious beliefs as persuasive evidence. The evidence that can be
> > objectively studied neither supports, or denies the existence of
> > God. It's a matter of faith.
>
> > DJT
>
> > DJT- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> In closing our commentator descends into a pit of gross illogic.
Since Ray is entirely ignorant of logic, his assessment here is of
course absurd.
> This
> is what happens when a logically false construct (MN) is accepted.
Methodlogical naturalism is not logically false. Ray may be unable
to understand it, but that's his own inability to apply basic logic.
>
> Deism is propagated: "If you choose to believe that God is the
> ultimate cause behind all natural processes, that's your choice...."
Indeed it is, but that's not necessarily Deism.
> But the verbiage and its message says "natural processes" provide no
> evidence for God (= pro-Atheism).
Ray, belief in God is a matter of faith, not evidence. Not finding
evidence for God is not "pro atheism".
> The next statement confirms: "The
> difference is that science doesn't recognize personal religious
> beliefs as persuasive evidence."
This only confirms that I understand science, and you do not.
> Followed by a statement advocating
> Agnosticism: "The evidence that can be objectively studied neither
> supports, or denies the existence of God."
Again, this does not advocate Agnosticism, it advocates having
faith. If you think there is evidence for God, you are welcome to
present it. I don't believe that evidence is necessary. I believe
God exists.
>
> Like I said "a pit of gross illogic."
Which is wrong, because you don't have the ability to apply basic
logic.
> But our commentator has no
> awareness that what he wrote is logically invalid.
Because it's not logically invalid. Your own ignorance of logic is
what leads you astray.
> This is what
> happens when God is denied: you end up deluded without any awareness
> of your condition.
If I am the one deluded, why is the evidence on my side? Maybe you
need to check your own awareness.
>
> By no means is our commentator alone. Read, for example, "The God
> Delusion" by Richard Dawkins. You will find the same illogic argued
> without any awareness of the fact. There is a delusion operating, no
> doubt; but it is working on those who accept evolution, not God.
Once again, Ray, it's clear that the deluded one is the one denying
evolution, and running away from the evidence.
DJT
Dana Tweedy
You have plenty of time, Ray, but no ability to address a serious
question.
DJT
Dana Tweedy
> On Jun 1, 12:22 pm, Devils Advocaat <mankyg...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jun 1, 7:24 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Jun 1, 8:22 am, Devils Advocaat <mankyg...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > > > On May 28, 8:41 am, Devils Advocaat <mankyg...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > > > > If Ray is right in claiming that there are no unguided natural
> > > > > processes wouldn't that mean that his preferred deity is pulling all
> > > > > our strings, and that everything we do is done at this alleged deity's
> > > > > prompting?
>
> > > Your question requires several major theological doctrines be
> > > addressed.
>
> > No it doesn't.
>
> > You claim there are no unguided natural processes.
>
> > Ergo your preferred deity is allegedly controlling everything.
>
> True.
>
> If a person rejects God it is because God has rejected that person.
Seems a rather illogical thing for God to do. It also contradicts
Jesus' teaching about the lost sheep.
>
> > Which means all we do is controlled by said deity.
>
> False.
>
> We have free-will (the ability to change our mind/path continually).
Isn't changing one's mind a natural process?
> If a person uses their free-will to resist the encroachments of God,
> then God will eventually cease His encroachments.
How does a person know what the "encroachments" of God are?
>
> > This requires you to address one single issue.
>
> > The issue of free will.
>
> > Unless of course your preferred deity told you to avoid answering this
> > issue.
>
> > Which would in and of itself confirm there is no such thing as free
> > will.
>
> > And that would blow the whole nonsense about Adam and Eve having free
> > will in the first place.
>
> They could have chosen to obey God and not eat the forbidden fruit.
If everything they did was the result of natural processes, including
brain activity, they didn't have any choice. It was all God's doing,
according to you.
DJT
Ernest Major
<170f4164-ebe2-409f...@r27g2000prr.googlegroups.com>, Ray
Martinez <pyram...@yahoo.com> writes
>On Jun 1, 12:22 pm, Devils Advocaat <mankyg...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>> On Jun 1, 7:24 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>> > On Jun 1, 8:22 am, Devils Advocaat <mankyg...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>> > > On May 28, 8:41 am, Devils Advocaat <mankyg...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>> > > > If Ray is right in claiming that there are no unguided natural
>> > > > processes wouldn't that mean that his preferred deity is pulling all
>> > > > our strings, and that everything we do is done at this alleged deity's
>> > > > prompting?
>>
>> > Your question requires several major theological doctrines be
>> > addressed.
>>
>> No it doesn't.
>>
>> You claim there are no unguided natural processes.
>>
>> Ergo your preferred deity is allegedly controlling everything.
>>
>
>True.
>
>If a person rejects God it is because God has rejected that person.
Ray firstly claims that it is true that God controls everything (in
apparent contradiction to his previous claims that some events are the
work of Satan).
>
>> Which means all we do is controlled by said deity.
>>
>
>False.
>
>We have free-will (the ability to change our mind/path continually).
>If a person uses their free-will to resist the encroachments of God,
>then God will eventually cease His encroachments.
Ray secondly claims, in contradiction to his previous claim, that God is
not controlling everything.
>
>> This requires you to address one single issue.
>>
>> The issue of free will.
>>
>> Unless of course your preferred deity told you to avoid answering this
>> issue.
>>
>> Which would in and of itself confirm there is no such thing as free
>> will.
>>
>> And that would blow the whole nonsense about Adam and Eve having free
>> will in the first place.
>>
>
>They could have chosen to obey God and not eat the forbidden fruit.
>
>Ray
>
>> > Presently I do not have the time to answer.
>>
>> > Ray
>>
>> Evasion noted.
>
>
--
alias Ernest Major
Ernest Major
<b58b230b-aaeb-4e9f...@r33g2000prh.googlegroups.com>, Ray
Martinez <pyram...@yahoo.com> writes
>On May 28, 6:12 pm, Dana Tweedy <reddfrog...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On May 28, 6:29 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > On May 28, 5:23 pm, Dana Tweedy <reddfrog...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > > On May 28, 12:28 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>> > > > On May 28, 8:16 am, T Pagano <not.va...@address.net> wrote:
>>
>> > > > > On Sat, 28 May 2011 00:41:30 -0700 (PDT), Devils Advocaat
>>
>> > > > > <mankyg...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>> > > > > >If Ray is right in claiming that there are no unguided natural
>> > > > > >processes wouldn't that mean that his preferred deity is pulling all
>> > > > > >our strings, and that everything we do is done at this
>> > > > > >prompting?
>>
>> > > > > What do you think Ray. Are the atheistis getting dumber or terribly
>> > > > > desparate?
>>
>> > > > > Regards,
>> > > > > T Pagano
>>
>> > > > They be both.
>>
>> > > > Any group (= Atheists) that is dumb and evil enough to give the finger
>> > > > to God (= denial of ID to exist in nature) is capable of anything
>>
>> > > Ray, do you know that your hero Ayn Rand was an atheist?
>>
>> >http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/140fa791e618e153
>>
>> > > Also, if
>> > > you wish to establish that "ID" exists in nature, you need to show
>> > > some evidence that it exists, not simply assume your conclusion.
>>
>> > Likewise in reverse.
>>
>> The reason science must make use of methodological naturalism, is
>> because of exactly this kind of objection.
>>
>
>There is no such **thing** as "methodological naturalism." It is a
>false construct invented to deceive stupid Christians (like yourself)
>into accepting pro-Atheist claims about nature.
Methodological naturalism boils down to the position that evidence means
something. Do you reject that position? Do you deny that that position
exists?
Ray is actually a species mutabilist. He merely denies that the changes
occur by natural processes, instead ascribing them to the work of, for
example, Satan.
--
alias Ernest Major
raven1
<pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>On Jun 1, 12:22 pm, Devils Advocaat <mankyg...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>> On Jun 1, 7:24 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>> > On Jun 1, 8:22 am, Devils Advocaat <mankyg...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>> > > On May 28, 8:41 am, Devils Advocaat <mankyg...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>> > > > If Ray is right in claiming that there are no unguided natural
>> > > > processes wouldn't that mean that his preferred deity is pulling all
>> > > > our strings, and that everything we do is done at this alleged deity's
>> > > > prompting?
>>
>> > Your question requires several major theological doctrines be
>> > addressed.
>>
>> No it doesn't.
>>
>> You claim there are no unguided natural processes.
>>
>> Ergo your preferred deity is allegedly controlling everything.
>>
>
>True.
>
>If a person rejects God it is because God has rejected that person.
Ergo, no free will.
>> Which means all we do is controlled by said deity.
>>
>
>False.
>
>We have free-will (the ability to change our mind/path continually).
>If a person uses their free-will to resist the encroachments of God,
>then God will eventually cease His encroachments.
Ray, your position is as confused and self-contradictory as it is
possible to be: you just stated directly above that if a person
rejects God, it is because God has rejected them, which denies free
will. You're arguing against yourself here. No wonder you didn't want
to address the issue.
>
>> This requires you to address one single issue.
>>
>> The issue of free will.
>>
>> Unless of course your preferred deity told you to avoid answering this
>> issue.
>>
>> Which would in and of itself confirm there is no such thing as free
>> will.
>>
>> And that would blow the whole nonsense about Adam and Eve having free
>> will in the first place.
>>
>
>They could have chosen to obey God and not eat the forbidden fruit.
Not according to your first statement, Make up your mind.
*Hemidactylus*
[snip]
>
> Ray (species immutabilist)
>
And admitted atheist worshipper and apologist. He follows in the
footsteps of an infamous atheist cult leader. Integrate that into your
metaphysics.
--
DJ *Hemidactylus* (see below)
Hemi's choice of the moment:
Strafe-Set it Off
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C9XLB3fzJsM
*Hemidactylus*
[snip]
> Ray is actually a species mutabilist. He merely denies that the changes
> occur by natural processes, instead ascribing them to the work of, for
> example, Satan.
And he's an avid follower of noted atheist "philosopher" Ayn Rand. We
can't let that pass without long drawn out commentary.
Ray Martinez
Talk.Origins reader: Please take the time to read the following
exchange between Dana and I. Dana begins:
Unbelievable! Dana actually believes "A" can be "A" and not "A" at the
same time: he is genuinely deluded (as I had observed all along). It
has been accepted since Aristotle that the proposition is impossible
(absent supernatural activity).
I rest my case.
Ray
> > I
> > need only explain his motive.
>
> Since Ray is wrong, his assumptions about "motive" are wrong as
> well.
>
> > His motive is the need to justify
> > Atheist and Christian support of natural processes.
>
> There's no need to "justify" this. Christians and atheists, as well
> as other religious traditions have long accepted that natural
> processes exist and operate.
>
> > The latter and its
> > support exists in a position of humiliation.
>
> Say what now?
>
> > Natural processes mean
> > God/Guide/Intelligence is absent (= pro-Atheism). MN seeks to
> > alleviate this humiliation.
>
> Of course, the above is silly, as I've already shown. Natural
> processes can be the product of God, so it doesn't indicate that God
> is absent. Ray mistakenly assumes that if he can't see God, God
> isn't there, and so agrees with some atheists. Methodological
> naturalism is simply the way science works, and I have no
> "humiliation" to alleviate. Perhaps Ray is projecting his own
> humiliation at being beaten so ...
>
> read more »- Hide quoted text -
Ray Martinez
> On 06/01/2011 06:02 PM, Ernest Major wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
> > Ray is actually a species mutabilist. He merely denies that the changes
> > occur by natural processes, instead ascribing them to the work of, for
> > example, Satan.
>
> And he's an avid follower of noted atheist "philosopher" Ayn Rand. We
> can't let that pass without long drawn out commentary.
>
Not avid, but fanatical disciple.
I will use her Objectivism philosophy to refute Darwinism.
Rand was the greatest philosopher since Aquinas.
Ray
Ray Martinez
> On Wed, 1 Jun 2011 13:00:37 -0700 (PDT), Ray Martinez
>
>
>
>
>
> >On Jun 1, 12:22 pm, Devils Advocaat <mankyg...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> >> On Jun 1, 7:24 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >> > On Jun 1, 8:22 am, Devils Advocaat <mankyg...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>
> >> > > On May 28, 8:41 am, Devils Advocaat <mankyg...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>
> >> > > > If Ray is right in claiming that there are no unguided natural
> >> > > > processes wouldn't that mean that his preferred deity is pulling all
> >> > > > our strings, and that everything we do is done at this alleged deity's
> >> > > > prompting?
>
> >> > Your question requires several major theological doctrines be
> >> > addressed.
>
> >> No it doesn't.
>
> >> You claim there are no unguided natural processes.
>
> >> Ergo your preferred deity is allegedly controlling everything.
>
> >True.
>
> >If a person rejects God it is because God has rejected that person.
>
> Ergo, no free will.
>
Said person used their free-will to reject the encroachments of God.
In response God, at some point, ceased His encroaching.
> >> Which means all we do is controlled by said deity.
>
> >False.
>
> >We have free-will (the ability to change our mind/path continually).
> >If a person uses their free-will to resist the encroachments of God,
> >then God will eventually cease His encroachments.
>
> Ray, your position is as confused and self-contradictory as it is
> possible to be: you just stated directly above that if a person
> rejects God, it is because God has rejected them, which denies free
> will. You're arguing against yourself here. No wonder you didn't want
> to address the issue.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >> This requires you to address one single issue.
>
> >> The issue of free will.
>
> >> Unless of course your preferred deity told you to avoid answering this
> >> issue.
>
> >> Which would in and of itself confirm there is no such thing as free
> >> will.
>
> >> And that would blow the whole nonsense about Adam and Eve having free
> >> will in the first place.
>
> >They could have chosen to obey God and not eat the forbidden fruit.
>
> Not according to your first statement, Make up your mind.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
There are no contradictions. If you really believe otherwise then take
the time to show them.
Free-will:
1. The ability to change mind/path at anytime, for any reason.
2. Freedom to do otherwise.
We exercise free-will continually.
Ray
Burkhard
Not really. He observes that X can be A under one description, and B
under another. The famous catholic philosopher G E M Anscombe wrote
quite extensively about this, using amongst other things the
transubstantiation as an example
Devils Advocaat
> On Jun 1, 12:22 pm, Devils Advocaat <mankyg...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jun 1, 7:24 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Jun 1, 8:22 am, Devils Advocaat <mankyg...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > > > On May 28, 8:41 am, Devils Advocaat <mankyg...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > > > > If Ray is right in claiming that there are no unguided natural
> > > > > processes wouldn't that mean that his preferred deity is pulling all
> > > > > our strings, and that everything we do is done at this alleged deity's
> > > > > prompting?
>
> > > Your question requires several major theological doctrines be
> > > addressed.
>
> > No it doesn't.
>
> > You claim there are no unguided natural processes.
>
> > Ergo your preferred deity is allegedly controlling everything.
>
> True.
So you admit you believe your preferred deity controls everything.
>
> If a person rejects God it is because God has rejected that person.
Are you trying to anthropomorphise your preferred deity?
>
> > Which means all we do is controlled by said deity.
>
> False.
That contradicts your "True" admission earlier in your post.
>
> We have free-will (the ability to change our mind/path continually).
> If a person uses their free-will to resist the encroachments of God,
> then God will eventually cease His encroachments.
Again it seems you are anthropomorphizing your preferred deity.
>
> > This requires you to address one single issue.
>
> > The issue of free will.
>
> > Unless of course your preferred deity told you to avoid answering this
> > issue.
>
> > Which would in and of itself confirm there is no such thing as free
> > will.
>
> > And that would blow the whole nonsense about Adam and Eve having free
> > will in the first place.
>
> They could have chosen to obey God and not eat the forbidden fruit.
It seems you are making excuses for your preferred deity.
If you were a parent, would you put a loaded firearm where your very
young child could reach it, and go off out of the house with the words
"Don't touch daddy's gun"?
What do you think that very young child would do?
Boikat
So much for your attempt to "refute" the ToE on rational *scientific*
grounds.
>
> Rand was the greatest philosopher since Aquinas.
From the WIKI:
"Psychologist Albert Ellis has argued that adherence to Objectivism
can result in hazardous psychological effects. After he was expelled
from Rand's circle, her former lover and notable psychologist
Nathaniel Branden criticized Objectivism's "destructive moralism,"
something he reports having engaged in himself when he was associated
with Rand. He now argues that Rand's fiction, if not her explicit
ideas, "subtly encourages repression, self-alienation, and guilt."
However, Branden has retained his support for Objectivist ethics."
From your posts, it appears that Ellis is correct.
Boikat
richardal...@gmail.com
Rand was a second-rate intellect whose poisonous ideas go down well
with people with second-rate brains and delusions of importance.
RF
>
> Ray
Rolf
How do you explain the fact that ALL known processes on the earth, both
inorganic and organic, from landslides to the processing making the zillions
of cells of a human body, are NATURAL? Or are God's tentacles all around us,
even in every cell?
Rolf
You better do; it has been established that the double slit experiment
really shows that a single particle pass through both slits. Nobody can
explain it (AFAIK) bot that's what happens. The world is much more complex
than any creationist ever will understand. You are a prominent example of
that.
Rolf
And what makes you a qualified judge of that?
I haven't seen anything, any thing at all from you that even suggest you are
capable.
alextangent
And an atheist. Strange that Ray should worship her.
raven1
<pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>On Jun 1, 3:18 pm, raven1 <quoththera...@nevermore.com> wrote:
>> On Wed, 1 Jun 2011 13:00:37 -0700 (PDT), Ray Martinez
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> >On Jun 1, 12:22 pm, Devils Advocaat <mankyg...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>> >> On Jun 1, 7:24 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>> >> > On Jun 1, 8:22 am, Devils Advocaat <mankyg...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>> >> > > On May 28, 8:41 am, Devils Advocaat <mankyg...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>> >> > > > If Ray is right in claiming that there are no unguided natural
>> >> > > > processes wouldn't that mean that his preferred deity is pulling all
>> >> > > > our strings, and that everything we do is done at this alleged deity's
>> >> > > > prompting?
>>
>> >> > Your question requires several major theological doctrines be
>> >> > addressed.
>>
>> >> No it doesn't.
>>
>> >> You claim there are no unguided natural processes.
>>
>> >> Ergo your preferred deity is allegedly controlling everything.
>>
>> >True.
>>
>> >If a person rejects God it is because God has rejected that person.
>>
>> Ergo, no free will.
>>
>
>Said person used their free-will to reject the encroachments of God.
>In response God, at some point, ceased His encroaching.
That contradicts what you just stated above.
>> >> Which means all we do is controlled by said deity.
>>
>> >False.
>>
>> >We have free-will (the ability to change our mind/path continually).
>> >If a person uses their free-will to resist the encroachments of God,
>> >then God will eventually cease His encroachments.
>>
>> Ray, your position is as confused and self-contradictory as it is
>> possible to be: you just stated directly above that if a person
>> rejects God, it is because God has rejected them, which denies free
>> will. You're arguing against yourself here. No wonder you didn't want
>> to address the issue.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> >> This requires you to address one single issue.
>>
>> >> The issue of free will.
>>
>> >> Unless of course your preferred deity told you to avoid answering this
>> >> issue.
>>
>> >> Which would in and of itself confirm there is no such thing as free
>> >> will.
>>
>> >> And that would blow the whole nonsense about Adam and Eve having free
>> >> will in the first place.
>>
>> >They could have chosen to obey God and not eat the forbidden fruit.
>>
>> Not according to your first statement, Make up your mind.- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
>There are no contradictions. If you really believe otherwise then take
>the time to show them.
I already did.
raven1
<pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> Once more, you are demonstrating your own lack of ability to apply
>> logic. You don't know what "accepted logic" is, but you claim to
>> know what it allows, or doesn't allow. Natural processes themselves
>> have no intelligence, but that doesn't mean they can't have been
>> produced by an intelligent being.
>>
>>
>>
>> > Our commentator is attempting to have it both ways at the same time.
>>
>> I've explained why this is incorrect.
>>
>
>Unbelievable! Dana actually believes "A" can be "A" and not "A" at the
>same time: he is genuinely deluded (as I had observed all along). It
>has been accepted since Aristotle that the proposition is impossible
>(absent supernatural activity).
>
>I rest my case.
Congratulations: you've demonstrated that you're as badly confused as
ever. There is no contradiction in what Dana wrote. You're conflating
the process with the creator.
Dana Tweedy
Ray, you once again show you don't know what you are talking
about. What I "actually believe" is the fact that an
"unintelligent" thing can be produced by an intelligent being. How
does this translate to "A can be A and not A"? I gave several
examples of how a unintelligent process can be produced by an
intelligent being. Can you deny these examples?
> It
> has been accepted since Aristotle that the proposition is impossible
> (absent supernatural activity).
Once again, Ray, your own grasp of logic is non existent. The
position I stated is quite possible, and easily demonstrated.
>
> I rest my case.
Your case rests on your personal misunderstanding, and ignorance.
Any reasonable person can see this.
DJT
Dana Tweedy
> On Jun 1, 3:35 pm, *Hemidactylus* <ecpho...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On 06/01/2011 06:02 PM, Ernest Major wrote:
>
> > [snip]
>
> > > Ray is actually a species mutabilist. He merely denies that the changes
> > > occur by natural processes, instead ascribing them to the work of, for
> > > example, Satan.
>
> > And he's an avid follower of noted atheist "philosopher" Ayn Rand. We
> > can't let that pass without long drawn out commentary.
>
> Not avid, but fanatical disciple.
You are an "fanatical disciple" of a "rabid atheist"? So, you are
admitting to agreeing with an atheist? Doesn't that make you an
atheist yourself, according to your own claims?
>
> I will use her Objectivism philosophy to refute Darwinism.
One can't use a philosophy , especially one that you don't even
understand, to refute a scientific theory. The only thing that can
refute a scientific theory is evidence. What evidence do you have.
>
> Rand was the greatest philosopher since Aquinas.
Since you know nothing of philosophy, your fanboy assertion is
worthless.
DJT
Frank J
Have fun with this:
a = b
a^2 = a*b
a^2-b^2 = a*b-b^2
(a+b)(a-b) = b(a-b)
(a+b) = b
a+a = a
2a = a
2 = 1
>
>
> > > I
> > > need only explain his motive.
>
> > Since Ray is wrong, his assumptions about "motive" are wrong as
> > well.
>
> > > His motive is the need to justify
> > > Atheist and Christian support of natural processes.
>
> > There's no need to "justify" this. Christians and atheists, as well
> > as other religious traditions have long accepted that natural
> > processes exist and operate.
>
> > > The latter and its
> > > support exists in a position of humiliation.
>
> > Say what now?
>
> > > Natural processes mean
> > > God/Guide/Intelligence is absent (= pro-Atheism). MN seeks to
> > > alleviate this humiliation.
>
> > Of course, the above is silly, as I've already shown. Natural
> > processes can be the product of God, so it doesn't indicate that God
> > is absent. Ray mistakenly assumes that if he can't see God, God
> > isn't there, and so agrees with some atheists. Methodological
> > naturalism is simply the way science works, and I have no
> > "humiliation" to alleviate. Perhaps Ray is projecting his own
> > humiliation at being beaten so ...
>
> > read more »- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
johnetho...@yahoo.com
Dana said nothing of the sort, you are just lying as usual.
Bob Casanova
appeared in talk.origins, posted by Ray Martinez
<pyram...@yahoo.com>:
>On Jun 1, 2:33 pm, Dana Tweedy <reddfrog...@gmail.com> wrote:
>Talk.Origins reader: Please take the time to read the following
>exchange between Dana and I.
<snip to the chase; munged attribution restored>
(Incidentally, that should be "between Dana and me", or
"between Dana and myself".)
Ray:
>> > The reason why "methodological naturalism" does not exist is because
>> > it attempts to say natural processes could be two different **things**
>> > at the same time (unintelligent/Intelligent)).
>> Like I pointed out before, Ray, an unintelligent process may be
>> designed and manufactured by an intelligent being. Therefore a
>> natural process can be both intelligently produced, and unintelligent
>> itself. Your objection indicates your inability to apply basic
>> logic. You are caught in a false dichotomy.
>> > Accepted logic does not
>> > allow a proposition as such. Science and logic says natural processes
>> > are unintelligent.
>> Once more, you are demonstrating your own lack of ability to apply
>> logic. You don't know what "accepted logic" is, but you claim to
>> know what it allows, or doesn't allow. Natural processes themselves
>> have no intelligence, but that doesn't mean they can't have been
>> produced by an intelligent being.
>> > Our commentator is attempting to have it both ways at the same time.
>> I've explained why this is incorrect.
>Unbelievable! Dana actually believes "A" can be "A" and not "A" at the
>same time: he is genuinely deluded (as I had observed all along). It
>has been accepted since Aristotle that the proposition is impossible
>(absent supernatural activity).
>
>I rest my case.
You should, since Dana's point is quite clear, and is
correct. Intelligent designers can, and frequently do,
design processes which are not intelligent. In fact, *every*
such process designed by human designers qualifies;
selection algorithms are not "intelligence".
You should have quit while you were less far behind.
--
Bob C.
"Evidence confirming an observation is
evidence that the observation is wrong."
- McNameless
Ray Martinez
'You didn't say Dana said nothing of the sort, and you didn't say I
was lying as usual.'
Ray
>
>
>
>
> > > > I
> > > > need only explain his motive.
>
> > > Since Ray is wrong, his assumptions about "motive" are wrong as
> > > well.
>
> > > > His motive is the need to justify
> > > > Atheist and Christian support of natural processes.
>
> > > There's no need to "justify" this. Christians and atheists, as well
> > > as other religious traditions have long accepted that natural
> > > processes exist and operate.
>
> > > > The latter and its
> > > > support exists in a position of humiliation.
>
> > > Say what now?
>
> > > > Natural processes mean
> > > > God/Guide/Intelligence is absent (= pro-Atheism). MN seeks to
> > > > alleviate this humiliation.
>
> > > Of course, the above is silly, as I've already shown. Natural
> > > processes can be the product of God, so it doesn't indicate that God
> > > is absent. Ray mistakenly assumes that if he can't see God, God
> > > isn't there, and so agrees with some atheists. Methodological
> > > naturalism is simply the way science works, and I have no
> > > "humiliation" to alleviate. Perhaps Ray is projecting his own
> > > humiliation at being beaten so ...
>
> > > read more »- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
Ray Martinez
The only germ of truth in this opinion, concerning Rand, would apply
to her acceptance of Darwinism/evolution.
As for myself: I am relieved to see a person like Richard Forrest,
that is, a person who thinks apes morphed into men over the course of
millions of years, consider my intellectuality second-rate.
Ray (species immutabilist)
Ray Martinez
>
> - Show quoted text -
Who wrote the piece on Rand?
National Enquirer, Britney Spears, Charlie Sheen, Blowzo the Clown,
your uncle, perhaps yourself, etc.etc.???
Ray
Christopher Denney
> On Jun 1, 3:35 pm, *Hemidactylus* <ecpho...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On 06/01/2011 06:02 PM, Ernest Major wrote:
>
> > [snip]
>
> > > Ray is actually a species mutabilist. He merely denies that the changes
> > > occur by natural processes, instead ascribing them to the work of, for
> > > example, Satan.
>
> > And he's an avid follower of noted atheist "philosopher" Ayn Rand. We
> > can't let that pass without long drawn out commentary.
>
> Not avid, but fanatical disciple.
Fanaticism* is always wrong.
> I will use her Objectivism philosophy to refute Darwinism.
No, you won't.
> Rand was the greatest philosopher since Aquinas.
You wish.
> Ray
* as in: the character, spirit, or conduct of a person with an extreme
and _uncritical_ enthusiasm or zeal.
Ernest Major
<8acc8bf1-986d-4fb9...@h12g2000pro.googlegroups.com>, Ray
Martinez <pyram...@yahoo.com> writes
refute. If you, as a fanatical follower of Ayn Rand, are not in a
position to refute the claim that Objectivism has a destructive
moralism, then perhaps you should consider whether it's true.
--
alias Ernest Major
Boikat
The passage I quoted contained the following citations (Which you
could have found out yourself, given I provided the source of what I
quoted *from the Wiki*, if you were a fraction of the "researcher" you
imagine yourself to be):
172.^ Ellis, Albert (1968). Is Objectivism A Religion?. New York: Lyle
Stuart.
173.^ Branden, N., Honoring the Self, 1983, p. 205)
174.^ Branden, Nathaniel (1984). "The Benefits and Hazards of the
Philosophy of Ayn Rand". Journal of Humanistic Psychology 24 (4): 39–
64. doi:10.1177/0022167884244004.
http://rous.redbarn.org/objectivism/Writing/NathanielBranden/BenefitsAndHazards.html.
Retrieved 2008-04-08.
You *did* notice the phrase "From the Wiki", didn't you?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Objectivism_(Ayn_Rand)
>
> National Enquirer, Britney Spears, Charlie Sheen, Blowzo the Clown,
> your uncle, perhaps yourself, etc.etc.???
Well, your choices of authors appear to be on the same intellectual
plain as yours and Rand..
Boikat
Ray Martinez
> Retrieved 2008-04-08.
>
> You *did* notice the phrase "From the Wiki", didn't you?
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Objectivism_(Ayn_Rand)
>
>
>
> > National Enquirer, Britney Spears, Charlie Sheen, Blowzo the Clown,
> > your uncle, perhaps yourself, etc.etc.???
>
> Well, your choices of authors appear to be on the same intellectual
> plain as yours and Rand..
>
>
> - Show quoted text -
Your failure to comply with a simple request to name the author is
deliberate. This means you have accessed a "source" that is as
credible as the National Enquirer, Britney Spears, Charlie Sheen,
Blowzo the Clown, your uncle or yourself.
Ray
Ray Martinez
> In message
> <b58b230b-aaeb-4e9f-bd32-4576037f1...@r33g2000prh.googlegroups.com>, Ray
> Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> writes
>
>
>
>
>
> >On May 28, 6:12 pm, Dana Tweedy <reddfrog...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> On May 28, 6:29 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >> > On May 28, 5:23 pm, Dana Tweedy <reddfrog...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> > > On May 28, 12:28 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >> > > > On May 28, 8:16 am, T Pagano <not.va...@address.net> wrote:
>
>
> >> > > > > <mankyg...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> >> > > > > >If Ray is right in claiming that there are no unguided natural
> >> > > > > >processes wouldn't that mean that his preferred deity is pulling all
> >> > > > > >our strings, and that everything we do is done at this
> >> > > > > >prompting?
>
> >> > > > > What do you think Ray. Are the atheistis getting dumber or terribly
> >> > > > > desparate?
>
> >> > > > > Regards,
> >> > > > > T Pagano
>
> >> > > > They be both.
>
> >> > > > Any group (= Atheists) that is dumb and evil enough to give the finger
> >> > > > to God (= denial of ID to exist in nature) is capable of anything
>
> >> > > Ray, do you know that your hero Ayn Rand was an atheist?
>
> >> >http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/140fa791e618e153
>
> >> > > Also, if
> >> > > you wish to establish that "ID" exists in nature, you need to show
> >> > > some evidence that it exists, not simply assume your conclusion.
>
> >> > Likewise in reverse.
>
> >> because of exactly this kind of objection.
>
> >false construct invented to deceive stupid Christians (like yourself)
> >into accepting pro-Atheist claims about nature.
>
> something.
In other words "evolution is so true and undeniable we must invent an
exception to Aristotelian logic so Christian Evolutionists are not
seen as fools and buffoons for supporting the same biological
production theory that their enemies (Atheists) fanatically support."
Ray
[....]
Boikat
> deliberate.
I provided a link to the Wiki article, and to the citations I quoted.
Why are you afraid of looking at them yourself? Oh, that's right,
because you're afraid.
> This means you have accessed a "source" that is as
> credible as the National Enquirer, Britney Spears, Charlie Sheen,
> Blowzo the Clown, your uncle or yourself.
You can make all the excuses you want. The simple fact is that you
are afraid to look up the references provided. As far as "who wrote
the article", gee, you might want to read the article, first.. The
FULL article.. before whinging about who wrote it. That can be found
in the "View History" tab.
Boikat
Burkhard
Albert Ellis, is says so in the text, and a reference is provided in
case you want to check.
Ernest Major
<298ae68d-07eb-423d...@h12g2000pro.googlegroups.com>, Ray
Martinez <pyram...@yahoo.com> writes
>On Jun 1, 3:02 pm, Ernest Major <{$t...@meden.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>> In message
>> <b58b230b-aaeb-4e9f-bd32-4576037f1...@r33g2000prh.googlegroups.com>, Ray
>> Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> writes
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> >On May 28, 6:12 pm, Dana Tweedy <reddfrog...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> On May 28, 6:29 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>> >> > On May 28, 5:23 pm, Dana Tweedy <reddfrog...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >> > > On May 28, 12:28 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>> >> > > > On May 28, 8:16 am, T Pagano <not.va...@address.net> wrote:
>>
>> >> > > > > On Sat, 28 May 2011 00:41:30 -0700 (PDT), Devils Advocaat
>>
>> >> > > > > <mankyg...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>> >> > > > > >If Ray is right in claiming that there are no unguided natural
>> >> > > > > >processes wouldn't that mean that his preferred deity is
>> >> > > > > >
>> >> > > > > >deity's
>> >> > > > > >prompting?
>>
>> >> > > > > What do you think Ray. Are the atheistis getting dumber or
>> >> > > > >terribly
>> >> > > > > desparate?
>>
>> >> > > > > Regards,
>> >> > > > > T Pagano
>>
>> >> > > > They be both.
>>
>> >> > > > Any group (= Atheists) that is dumb and evil enough to give
>> >> > > >
>>
>> >> > > Ray, do you know that your hero Ayn Rand was an atheist?
>>
>> >> >http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/140fa791e618e153
>>
>> >> > > Also, if
>> >> > > you wish to establish that "ID" exists in nature, you need to show
>> >> > > some evidence that it exists, not simply assume your conclusion.
>>
>> >> > Likewise in reverse.
>>
>> >> The reason science must make use of methodological naturalism, is
>> >> because of exactly this kind of objection.
>>
>> >There is no such **thing** as "methodological naturalism." It is a
>> >false construct invented to deceive stupid Christians (like yourself)
>> >into accepting pro-Atheist claims about nature.
>>
>> Methodological naturalism boils down to the position that evidence means
>> something.
>
>In other words "evolution is so true and undeniable we must invent an
>exception to Aristotelian logic so Christian Evolutionists are not
>seen as fools and buffoons for supporting the same biological
>production theory that their enemies (Atheists) fanatically support."
I don't see how you get that from the statement that "Methodological
naturalism boils down to the position that evidence means something."
Anyone, to repeat the questions you snipped, do you reject that
position? Do you deny that that position exists?
And you would be a fool and buffoon for "fanatically" supporting (you
claim) the epistemology of an atheist (Ayn Rand)? In this context I
would have thought that epistemology was more important that a
"biological production theory".
--
alias Ernest Major
johnetho...@yahoo.com
The information was provided. You are lying as usual. It's also true
that any of the above "sources" would be infinitely more credible than
you on any subject at all.
johnetho...@yahoo.com
Does anyone see any connection between this post of Ray's and the
preceding material? It appears to me that Ray has outdone himself in
stupidity, irrelevance, and lying, which is saying quite a bit.
>
> Ray
>
> [....]
Ray Martinez
Then post the link to the Boikat post where he complies with the
request to name the author of the article.
If not, you are a brazen liar.
Here we have a group of Darwinists asserting Wikipedia to be a
credible source. Everyone knows, including most other Darwinists, that
Wikipedia is not a credible source since any person with a computer
can participate.
Ray
[....]
Ernest Major
<91a8d962-350c-47e3...@k3g2000prl.googlegroups.com>, Ray
Martinez <pyram...@yahoo.com> writes
>On Jun 2, 2:24 pm, "johnethompson2...@yahoo.com"
><johnethompson2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> On Jun 2, 1:11 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > On Jun 2, 12:00 pm, Boikat <boi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>>
>> > > On Jun 2, 12:57 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>> > > > On Jun 2, 12:08 am, Boikat <boi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>>
>> > > > > On Jun 1, 9:41 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>> > > > > > On Jun 1, 3:35 pm, *Hemidactylus* <ecpho...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > > > > > > On 06/01/2011 06:02 PM, Ernest Major wrote:
>>
>> > > > > > > [snip]
>>
>> > > > > > > > Ray is actually a species mutabilist. He merely denies
>> > > > > > > >that the changes
>> > > > > > > > occur by natural processes, instead ascribing them to
>> > > > > > > >the work of, for
>> > > > > > > > example, Satan.
>>
>> > > > > > > And he's an avid follower of noted atheist "philosopher"
>> > > > > > >
Poisoning the well is a fallacy.
A red-herring is also a fallacy. (Demanding the name of the author of
the Wikipedia article is a red-herring; the Wikipedia article gives
citations (which were provided to you) for the sources of the statements
made therein. All you had it do, if Wikipedia was not correct on this
point, was go to the citations, and demonstrate that they don't say what
Wikipedia says that they do.)
>
>Ray
>
>[....]
>
--
alias Ernest Major
Dana Tweedy
snip
> > > > I've explained why this is incorrect.
>
> > > Unbelievable! Dana actually believes "A" can be "A" and not "A" at the
> > > same time: he is genuinely deluded (as I had observed all along). It
> > > has been accepted since Aristotle that the proposition is impossible
> > > (absent supernatural activity).
>
> > > I rest my case.
>
> > > Ray
>
> > Dana said nothing of the sort, you are just lying as usual.
>
> 'You didn't say Dana said nothing of the sort, and you didn't say I
> was lying as usual.'
>
> Ray
Ray, if your point here was to demonstrate you have no problem with
openly lying, you succeeded.
DJT
Dana Tweedy
Ray, there is no way that the phrase you came up with is another way
of saying the first phrase. Therefore, "in other words" is totally
inappropriate.
If you had any ability to understand logic, Aristotle, or basic
English, you'd see how wrong you are. There is no exception to
"Aristotelian logic" sought, or granted, and methodological naturalism
is a vital part of scientific investigation.
Your assertions that Christians who accept evolution are "seen as
fools and buffoons" is false. Your assertion that atheists are the
enemies of Christians is false. Your assertion that all atheists
"fanatically support" evolution is false.
These mistakes are the ones you keep making, despite being shown
wrong time and time again. You refuse to admit your mistakes, and
you refuse to learn basic logic.
Why not just admit you are wrong?
DJT
Boikat
Because he's a Ayn Rand Objectivist Zombie..
Boikat
*Hemidactylus*
> On Jun 1, 9:41 pm, Ray Martinez<pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> On Jun 1, 3:35 pm, *Hemidactylus*<ecpho...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On 06/01/2011 06:02 PM, Ernest Major wrote:
>>
>>> [snip]
>>
>>>> Ray is actually a species mutabilist. He merely denies that the changes
>>>> occur by natural processes, instead ascribing them to the work of, for
>>>> example, Satan.
>>
>>> can't let that pass without long drawn out commentary.
>>
>> Not avid, but fanatical disciple.
>>
>> I will use her Objectivism philosophy to refute Darwinism.
>
> So much for your attempt to "refute" the ToE on rational *scientific*
> grounds.
>
>>
>> Rand was the greatest philosopher since Aquinas.
>
> From the WIKI:
>
> "Psychologist Albert Ellis has argued that adherence to Objectivism
> can result in hazardous psychological effects. After he was expelled
> from Rand's circle, her former lover and notable psychologist
> Nathaniel Branden criticized Objectivism's "destructive moralism,"
> something he reports having engaged in himself when he was associated
> with Rand. He now argues that Rand's fiction, if not her explicit
> ideas, "subtly encourages repression, self-alienation, and guilt."
> However, Branden has retained his support for Objectivist ethics."
>
> From your posts, it appears that Ellis is correct.
I had read Ellis' critique a while back and it was underwhelming.
Branden's is far more relevant, given his former stature in the
organization. He was branded an apostate and treated as such.
--
DJ *Hemidactylus* (see below)
Hemi's choice of the moment:
Strafe-Set it Off
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C9XLB3fzJsM
*Hemidactylus*
> On Jun 1, 3:35 pm, *Hemidactylus*<ecpho...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> On 06/01/2011 06:02 PM, Ernest Major wrote:
>>
>> [snip]
>>
>>> Ray is actually a species mutabilist. He merely denies that the changes
>>> occur by natural processes, instead ascribing them to the work of, for
>>> example, Satan.
>>
>> And he's an avid follower of noted atheist "philosopher" Ayn Rand. We
>> can't let that pass without long drawn out commentary.
>>
>
> Not avid, but fanatical disciple.
>
> I will use her Objectivism philosophy to refute Darwinism.
>
I love it! You never fail to amuse.
*Hemidactylus*
critical of Rand?