Anti-science creationist posters
Ron O
anyone that wants to back the current creationist arguments.
One of the best reasons for not taking these guys seriously is to look
at what type of person supports the junk.
We've had a spate of new and old posters that are pretty typical of
what can be expected to be about usual for this newsgroup, so I've
decided to list some that I can easily find. Anyone interested in
this subject can look up other posts from these guys to see just how
badly off the creationists are. If anyone doesn't think that this is
fair, just add other anti-science creationist posters to the list that
you think might come off as more reasonable and less pathetic.
Backspace
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/9ec2cf0a18302b6a?hl=en
Spintronic
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/27a3da6eaadef146?hl=en
Rick
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/27a3da6eaadef146?hl=en
Pagano
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/dc7bae5e91ed8ecb?hl=en
Nando
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/d8d9e596215a7c0e?hl=en
Ray
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/8edd775a11a042cd?hl=en
Nasht
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/1addb5087cc20ae3?hl=en
Pitman
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/bfdc9d3c86459bc2?hl=en
There are probably others, but these are the ones that I've found that
posted in threads active back to the 4th.
To get the full effect you have to read multiple threads in which
these guys participate. You can do this through Google groups, by
pulling up their profile and looking at threads that they have
participated in.
The sad fact is that these guys come off as so pathetic for one simple
reason. The scientific debate that they think that they are
participating in occurred over a hundred years ago, sometimes hundreds
of years ago. These things, by and large, are not current
controversies in science. The science side comes off as snide and
condescending for one simple reason (aside from a dark side of human
nature), the creationists are basket cases and the science side has
had to deal with these types for years. If you look some of these
guys up you will see long posting history, so some of the invectives
have built up over the years, and unfortunately we just become
accustomed to them.
There may be a grain of truth in some of their arguments, but it is
usually a small grain and it never means what they want it to mean.
One example would be Pitman. Pitman is currently on some 1000 aa
smoke screen ploy. He understands that he never had the science to
back up intelligent design, and that he doesn't have any viable
alternatives to put forward, so all he can do is blow smoke. Science
doesn't have all the answers, since Pitman can't deal with the answers
that we have he has to resort to blowing smoke about subjects on the
edge of our understanding. Things that even he doesn't have any good
answers for. This type of argument has about as much chance of
impacting evolutionary biology as we have of finding that the moon is
really made of green cheese. So even if Pitman's 1000 aa bull pucky
can be stated in some terms that can be accurately dealt with, it
still doesn't matter. So far, Pitman is having trouble telling us
what it is, so that it can be dealt with.
If you are a creationist and you think that you can do better than the
guys above, I would give you a word of advice. Pretty much all the
creationist arguments that you have ever heard that you think are
arguments against biological evolution are bogus. Just take a moment
and think about it. If any of the arguments were legitimate we would
already be teaching scientific creationism for nearly 30 years in the
public schools. If the last generation of intelligent design
arguments were legitimate, the ID creationist scam artists would be
teaching intelligent design instead of running a bait and switch scam
on their own creationist supporters. Just look into what the switch
scam is and determine that it doesn't even mention that intelligent
design ever existed, and you have to realize that something is wrong.
This may be hard to accept, so before you make a big mistake, test the
waters.
I would recommend that you post your favorite creationist argument in
your own words, and tell us what you think that it means, and then get
educated. It would help if you gave a source for the argument so that
we could check it out and see if you may have misunderstood it. Post
it to this thread so that others will have a better idea of what you
are trying to do so that they won't take you as just another ignorant
loser. Ignorance isn't so bad, no one knows everything, but allowing
yourself to be manipulated due to that ignorance can have bad
consequences.
Don't come in calling everyone liars and hypocrits and expect to be
treated nicely. You have such a short end of the stick to hold on to
that even if you are nice a lot of posters will not give you the
benefit of the doubt. You have to have a thick skin, but if you can
stick it out, you can learn something. Something that might keep you
from being fooled by the next creationist scam.
The worst thing that you can do is come in and pretend that you are
not a creationist, but just someone with a legitimate argument. This
has been tried a whole lot, and should tell you something about the
people that support your view. Why do they have to lie to look
legitimate? It becomes apparent that they were lying when they
usually start spouting Bible verses in their defence.
Things really are that bad for the creationist anti-science cause.
I have to mention that a lot of religious people find no problem with
the current science. These are not the type of creationists that I am
talking about.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clergy_Letter_Project
Ron Okimoto
Frank J
> Some may object to the anti-science tag, but it pretty much fits
> anyone that wants to back the current creationist arguments.
>
> One of the best reasons for not taking these guys seriously is to look
> at what type of person supports the junk.
>
> We've had a spate of new and old posters that are pretty typical of
> what can be expected to be about usual for this newsgroup, so I've
> decided to list some that I can easily find. Anyone interested in
> this subject can look up other posts from these guys to see just how
> badly off the creationists are. If anyone doesn't think that this is
> fair, just add other anti-science creationist posters to the list that
> you think might come off as more reasonable and less pathetic.
>
> Backspacehttp://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/9ec2cf0a18302b6a?hl=en
>
> Spintronichttp://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/27a3da6eaadef146?hl=en
>
> Rickhttp://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/27a3da6eaadef146?hl=en
>
> Paganohttp://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/dc7bae5e91ed8ecb?hl=en
>
> Nandohttp://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/d8d9e596215a7c0e?hl=en
>
> Rayhttp://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/8edd775a11a042cd?hl=en
>
> Nashthttp://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/1addb5087cc20ae3?hl=en
>
The first thing anyone should notice is that they almost never talk to
*each other*, even though their apparent origins models - if they even
have one in this age of "don't ask, don't tell" - differ from each
other's as much as they differ from that of mainstream science. That
would not be the case if they truly thought they had a better
scientific explanation.
Friar Broccoli
Ray has tried to talk to Pitman.
T Pagano
wrote:
>Some may object to the anti-science tag, but it pretty much fits
>anyone that wants to back the current creationist arguments.
1. In order to protect their atheist dogmas of neoDarwinism,
abiogenesis, big bangism, unifformitatianism, naturalism,
verificationism, inductionism, etc they first attempt to besmirch the
criticizer with personal attacks. This is an age old political trick;
once the opponent has been branded some miscreant it matters little
what the opponent has to say.
2. Next they attempt to assert that any attack on their theories or
their underlying philosophies is tandamount to attacking science. An
attack on the failed theory of neoDarwinism is an attack on Science.
Taken to its absurd conclusion ever attack on every scientific theory
is then an attack on science.
>One of the best reasons for not taking these guys seriously is to look
>at what type of person supports the junk.
>
>We've had a spate of new and old posters that are pretty typical of
>what can be expected to be about usual for this newsgroup, so I've
>decided to list some that I can easily find. Anyone interested in
>this subject can look up other posts from these guys to see just how
>badly off the creationists are. If anyone doesn't think that this is
>fair, just add other anti-science creationist posters to the list that
>you think might come off as more reasonable and less pathetic.
>
>Backspace
>http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/9ec2cf0a18302b6a?hl=en
>
>Spintronic
>http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/27a3da6eaadef146?hl=en
>
>Rick
>http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/27a3da6eaadef146?hl=en
>
>Pagano
>http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/dc7bae5e91ed8ecb?hl=en
In the link here Devil's Advocate begins some sarcastic ridicule which
I shove back up his arse. What's good for the goose is good for the
gander.
Where's the criticism of Devil's Advocate?
The one sided bias and blind faith of these atheists staggers the
imaginiation.
Regards.
T Pagano
r norman
wrote:
>On Sun, 6 Jul 2008 07:23:05 -0700 (PDT), Ron O <roki...@cox.net>
>wrote:
>
>>Some may object to the anti-science tag, but it pretty much fits
>>anyone that wants to back the current creationist arguments.
>
>1. In order to protect their atheist dogmas of neoDarwinism,
>abiogenesis, big bangism, unifformitatianism, naturalism,
>verificationism, inductionism, etc they first attempt to besmirch the
>criticizer with personal attacks. This is an age old political trick;
>once the opponent has been branded some miscreant it matters little
>what the opponent has to say.
>
>2. Next they attempt to assert that any attack on their theories or
>their underlying philosophies is tandamount to attacking science. An
>attack on the failed theory of neoDarwinism is an attack on Science.
>Taken to its absurd conclusion ever attack on every scientific theory
>is then an attack on science.
It seems patently obvious that someone who objects to evolution, the
big bang, geology, "naturalism", and the notions of verification and
induction is quite anti-science. I would think you might consider
that a badge of honor rather than a personal attack.
Frank J
More evidence that Ray is the most honest of the bunch. Not
necessarily "completely honest", and certainly deluded, of course.
As for who might be most dishonest, I think that the habit of changing
subject line to get a cheap dig at the person to whom one is replying
provides a clue.
raven1
wrote:
>On Sun, 6 Jul 2008 07:23:05 -0700 (PDT), Ron O <roki...@cox.net>
>wrote:
>
>>Some may object to the anti-science tag, but it pretty much fits
>>anyone that wants to back the current creationist arguments.
>
>1. In order to protect their atheist dogmas of neoDarwinism,
>abiogenesis, big bangism, unifformitatianism, naturalism,
>verificationism, inductionism, etc they first attempt to besmirch the
>criticizer with personal attacks. This is an age old political trick;
>once the opponent has been branded some miscreant it matters little
>what the opponent has to say.
>
>2. Next they attempt to assert that any attack on their theories or
>their underlying philosophies is tandamount to attacking science. An
>attack on the failed theory of neoDarwinism is an attack on Science.
>Taken to its absurd conclusion ever attack on every scientific theory
>is then an attack on science.
Criticizing evolution, abiogenesis, the BBT, or uniformitarianism
(none of which are atheistic, BTW) are legitimate, if quixotic,
scientific pursuits. Railing against (methodological) naturalism, or
the principles of verification or induction, are quite another thing,
and do constitute an attack on science, as they are as inseparable
from it as verbs are to language.
Ernest Major
Pagano <not....@address.net> writes
>On Sun, 6 Jul 2008 07:23:05 -0700 (PDT), Ron O <roki...@cox.net>
>wrote:
>
>>Some may object to the anti-science tag, but it pretty much fits
>>anyone that wants to back the current creationist arguments.
>
>1. In order to protect their atheist dogmas of neoDarwinism,
>abiogenesis, big bangism, unifformitatianism, naturalism,
>verificationism, inductionism, etc they first attempt to besmirch the
>criticizer with personal attacks. This is an age old political trick;
>once the opponent has been branded some miscreant it matters little
>what the opponent has to say.
Doesn't your hypocrisy prick your conscience in the slightest?
--
alias Ernest Major
Ron O
> On Sun, 6 Jul 2008 07:23:05 -0700 (PDT), Ron O <rokim...@cox.net>
> wrote:
>
> >Some may object to the anti-science tag, but it pretty much fits
> >anyone that wants to back the current creationist arguments.
>
> 1. In order to protect their atheist dogmas of neoDarwinism,
> abiogenesis, big bangism, unifformitatianism, naturalism,
> verificationism, inductionism, etc they first attempt to besmirch the
> criticizer with personal attacks. This is an age old political trick;
> once the opponent has been branded some miscreant it matters little
> what the opponent has to say.
>
> 2. Next they attempt to assert that any attack on their theories or
> their underlying philosophies is tandamount to attacking science. An
> attack on the failed theory of neoDarwinism is an attack on Science.
> Taken to its absurd conclusion ever attack on every scientific theory
> is then an attack on science.
Looks pretty inclusive to be called anti-science to me. Did Pagano
leave anything out that he objected to? What does big bangism have to
do with biological evolution, and the type of naturalism practiced in
science is the same for all fields of study. Pagano is just typical
of the creationists that try to support their non arguments. He
can't even tell when he is refuting his own arguments. The sad thing
is that Pagano is typical.
Delusion is rampant among the group of creationists listed. Pagano
has it in spades. I didn't pick these guys for this reason, it just
happens that these are the creationists that are currently posting.
Ron Okimoto
> >Ron Okimoto-
Woland
> On Sun, 6 Jul 2008 07:23:05 -0700 (PDT), Ron O <rokim...@cox.net>
Thank you for that perfect example!
Mark VandeWettering
> On Sun, 6 Jul 2008 07:23:05 -0700 (PDT), Ron O <roki...@cox.net>
> wrote:
>
>>Some may object to the anti-science tag, but it pretty much fits
>>anyone that wants to back the current creationist arguments.
>
> 1. In order to protect their atheist dogmas of neoDarwinism,
> abiogenesis, big bangism, unifformitatianism, naturalism,
> verificationism, inductionism, etc they first attempt to besmirch the
> criticizer with personal attacks. This is an age old political trick;
> once the opponent has been branded some miscreant it matters little
> what the opponent has to say.
Saying that someone is ignorant of science when they demonstrate that
yes, indeed, they are ignorant of science isn't a personal attack.
> 2. Next they attempt to assert that any attack on their theories or
> their underlying philosophies is tandamount to attacking science. An
> attack on the failed theory of neoDarwinism is an attack on Science.
> Taken to its absurd conclusion ever attack on every scientific theory
> is then an attack on science.
It's not "tandamount" do an attack on science: creationism _is_ an
attack on science. Creationism seeks to reject the conclusions of
science in preference for their own unscientific model. There is little
that could be viewed as more unscientific than that.
>>One of the best reasons for not taking these guys seriously is to look
>>at what type of person supports the junk.
>>
>>We've had a spate of new and old posters that are pretty typical of
>>what can be expected to be about usual for this newsgroup, so I've
>>decided to list some that I can easily find. Anyone interested in
>>this subject can look up other posts from these guys to see just how
>>badly off the creationists are. If anyone doesn't think that this is
>>fair, just add other anti-science creationist posters to the list that
>>you think might come off as more reasonable and less pathetic.
>>
>>Backspace
>>http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/9ec2cf0a18302b6a?hl=en
>>
>>Spintronic
>>http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/27a3da6eaadef146?hl=en
>>
>>Rick
>>http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/27a3da6eaadef146?hl=en
>>
>>Pagano
>>http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/dc7bae5e91ed8ecb?hl=en
>
> In the link here Devil's Advocate begins some sarcastic ridicule which
> I shove back up his arse. What's good for the goose is good for the
> gander.
But that's really all you have. And I must say, even your sarcastic
ridicule is amateurishly done.
> Where's the criticism of Devil's Advocate?
I didn't see you jumping to defend (or attack, for that matter)
backspace, spintronic, or rick. Does your dogmatic approach to your own
beliefs prevent you from helping them? Where's your criticism of their
ideas?
We each have the freedom to attack and defend what we will.
> The one sided bias and blind faith of these atheists staggers the
> imaginiation.
>
> Regards.
> T Pagano
If you are going to criticize other people's bias and blind faith, perhaps
it might be instructive to deal with your own first.
Mark
Steven L.
> On Sun, 6 Jul 2008 07:23:05 -0700 (PDT), Ron O <roki...@cox.net>
> wrote:
>
>> Some may object to the anti-science tag, but it pretty much fits
>> anyone that wants to back the current creationist arguments.
>
> 1. In order to protect their atheist dogmas of neoDarwinism,
> abiogenesis, big bangism, unifformitatianism, naturalism,
> verificationism, inductionism, etc they first attempt to besmirch the
> criticizer with personal attacks. This is an age old political trick;
> once the opponent has been branded some miscreant it matters little
> what the opponent has to say.
I grant you that you can try to critique abiogenesis in a scientific way.
But if you deny naturalism, verificationism, and inductionism, then what
of science remains? Ultimately science is based on the empirical method
of thought. What would science be like without naturalism,
verificationism, uniformitatianism and inductionism?
> 2. Next they attempt to assert that any attack on their theories or
> their underlying philosophies is tandamount to attacking science. An
> attack on the failed theory of neoDarwinism is an attack on Science.
I agree that you can attack "Darwinism" without necessarily attacking
science. But if you attack methodological naturalism and inductionism,
then you're conducting a metaphysical attack on the philosophical basis
of science. I've seen that done too, actually. But never in the name
of science.
--
Steven L.
Email: sdli...@earthlinkNOSPAM.net
Remove the NOSPAM before replying to me.
Ray Martinez
> Some may object to the anti-science tag, but it pretty much fits
> anyone that wants to back the current creationist arguments.
>
> One of the best reasons for not taking these guys seriously is to look
> at what type of person supports the junk.
>
> We've had a spate of new and old posters that are pretty typical of
> what can be expected to be about usual for this newsgroup, so I've
> decided to list some that I can easily find. Anyone interested in
> this subject can look up other posts from these guys to see just how
> badly off the creationists are. If anyone doesn't think that this is
> fair, just add other anti-science creationist posters to the list that
> you think might come off as more reasonable and less pathetic.
>
>
> Spintronichttp://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/27a3da6eaadef146?hl=en
>
> Rickhttp://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/27a3da6eaadef146?hl=en
>
> Paganohttp://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/dc7bae5e91ed8ecb?hl=en
>
> Nandohttp://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/d8d9e596215a7c0e?hl=en
>
> Rayhttp://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/8edd775a11a042cd?hl=en
> "I would like to present the following questions to Ray, Gabriel,
> Apobetics, Adman and others of that body who seem to oppose the theory
> of evolution on religious grounds.
We oppose evolution on scientific grounds only.
> What is a “kind” as described in Genesis?
I have already answered this question. Why have you ignored?
> Is this the same as the “kind” described in Exodus?
What verse or verses are you referring to?
> Can two of one “kind” mate and produce fertile offspring?
> I look forward to your answers and the debate that will ensue.
The fact that God made Noah collect two of every species (male and
female) tells us the answer."
Looks like something in this message upsets you? It is actually quite
generic. This means you have no point, you are a bored evolutionist
with hate in his heart----no problem----I hate you too. When my paper
is released you are going to hate me with demonic fury. My evidence
will ruin your life, Ron.
> Nashthttp://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/1addb5087cc20ae3?hl=en
>
> Pitmanhttp://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/bfdc9d3c86459bc2?hl=en
The CLP are evolutionists and traitors kissing Atheist asses for the
sake of being liked in this world. They represent the voice and
message of Satan.
You are on a witch hunt, Ron. Burning anyone who does not agree with
your Atheist bullshit. Let it be known that Backspace and Pitman are
evolutionists as far as I can tell. This means they are in YOUR camp.
I am a species immutabilist. Funny how Sean Pitman begins his website
with the Emperors New Clothes metaphor-story but he accepts
microevolution?
Evolution since Darwin PRESUPPOSES God to not be involved with
reality. Anyone who accepts evolution but claims to be a Creationist
is confused and/or ignorant. The observation of design and oraganized
complexity seen in nature tells us that causation is Divine, and not
material-natural. God controls nature hands-on. I hope to convert
Creationists who accept evolution to strict special creation when my
paper is released.
Ray
Desertphile
wrote:
> Some may object to the anti-science tag, but it pretty much fits
One common trait among the above people is that they also tend to
deny reality itself; when told a fact about a portion of the
observed world, and that fact contradicts their occult
superstitions, they often go to great lengths to deny the fact is
a fact: not just in biology, but also many other sciences.
Another common trait is, of course, dishonesty.
--
http://desertphile.org
Desertphile's Desert Soliloquy. WARNING: view with plenty of water
"Why aren't resurrections from the dead noteworthy?" -- Jim Rutz
Dana Tweedy
"Ray Martinez" <pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:91f1df49-ae5e-456d...@d45g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
snip
>> "I would like to present the following questions to Ray, Gabriel,
>> Apobetics, Adman and others of that body who seem to oppose the theory
>> of evolution on religious grounds.
>
> We oppose evolution on scientific grounds only.
But you've never provided any scientific grounds to oppose evolution.
You've made some bizarre claims, but never produced any actual science that
opposes evolution.
>
>> What is a “kind” as described in Genesis?
>
> I have already answered this question. Why have you ignored?
Because your "answer" was entirely lacking in substance.
>
>> Is this the same as the “kind” described in Exodus?
>
> What verse or verses are you referring to?
I assume he means Genesis, and made a "typo".
>
>> Can two of one “kind” mate and produce fertile offspring?
>
>> I look forward to your answers and the debate that will ensue.
>
> The fact that God made Noah collect two of every species (male and
> female) tells us the answer."
Are you now acknowledging that Noah did take "two of every species" on the
Boat? Why did he leave the dinosaurs and other megafauna off the Ark?
>
> Looks like something in this message upsets you? It is actually quite
> generic. This means you have no point, you are a bored evolutionist
> with hate in his heart
how do you deduce any "hate in his heart"?
> ----no problem----I hate you too.
Why do you hate someone for no apparent reason. Jesus commanded his
followers to love their enemies (and you do seem to regard anyone who
disagrees with you an enemy). Why are you rejecting Jesus' words?
> When my paper
> is released you are going to hate me with demonic fury. My evidence
> will ruin your life, Ron.
It's hardly likey that 1. your paper will ever be released, or 2. that it
will make anyone hate you. It might arouse some pity, but unlikey to
produce hate.
snip
>>
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clergy_Letter_Project
>>
>> Ron Okimoto
>
> The CLP are evolutionists and traitors kissing Atheist asses for the
> sake of being liked in this world. They represent the voice and
> message of Satan.
on what are you basing this libel? How would stating the truth be the
message of Satan?
>
> You are on a witch hunt, Ron. Burning anyone who does not agree with
> your Atheist bullshit.
Any evidence for this assertion? As I recall, Ron is not an atheist, but a
Christian.
> Let it be known that Backspace and Pitman are
> evolutionists as far as I can tell.
Then you are wrong again.
> This means they are in YOUR camp.
> I am a species immutabilist. Funny how Sean Pitman begins his website
> with the Emperors New Clothes metaphor-story but he accepts
> microevolution?
Because the evidence for microevolution is too strong to deny. If you are
claiming that anyone who doesn't agree with your "immutibilist" ideas is an
"evolutionist" ,the total number of creationists drops to exactly 1.
>
> Evolution since Darwin PRESUPPOSES God to not be involved with
> reality.
This statement of yours has been refuted many times. Why do you keep
repeating what you know to be false?
> Anyone who accepts evolution but claims to be a Creationist
> is confused and/or ignorant.
since you are both confused and ignorant youself, why would that matter to
you?
> The observation of design and oraganized
> complexity seen in nature tells us that causation is Divine,
There isn't any "observation of design", just the appearance of design.
Both the appearance of design, and the complexity seen in nature are known
to be produced by natural forces. Your claim of "Divine causation" is your
own, unsupported assumption.
> and not
> material-natural.
Yet "material-natural" is commonly observed, and "divine causation" (as in
God performing magic tricks) has never been observed.
> God controls nature hands-on. I hope to convert
> Creationists who accept evolution to strict special creation when my
> paper is released.
Well, you can "hope" but your hope is as forlorn as your skills as a
"researcher".
DJT
Shane
> On Jul 6, 11:44 am, Friar Broccoli <Elia...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Jul 6, 11:31 am, Frank J <f...@comcast.net> wrote:
[...]
>>> The first thing anyone should notice is that they almost never talk to
>>> *each other*, even though their apparent origins models - if they even
>>> have one in this age of "don't ask, don't tell" - differ from each
>>> other's as much as they differ from that of mainstream science. That
>>> would not be the case if they truly thought they had a better
>>> scientific explanation.
>>
>> Ray has tried to talk to Pitman.
>
> More evidence that Ray is the most honest of the bunch. Not
> necessarily "completely honest", and certainly deluded, of course.
>
> As for who might be most dishonest, I think that the habit of changing
> subject line to get a cheap dig at the person to whom one is replying
> provides a clue.
Ray has, on a number of occasions, maintained that
creationists are their own worst enemy and their disunity is
probalmatical, and further that he admires the way that the
science group sticks toghther. Apparently what Ray has
failed to do is think(tm) on why this may be.
Shane
> On Sun, 6 Jul 2008 07:23:05 -0700 (PDT), Ron O <roki...@cox.net>
> wrote:
>
>>Some may object to the anti-science tag, but it pretty much fits
>>anyone that wants to back the current creationist arguments.
>
> 1. In order to protect their atheist dogmas of neoDarwinism,
> abiogenesis, big bangism, unifformitatianism, naturalism,
> verificationism, inductionism, etc they first attempt to besmirch the
> criticizer with personal attacks. This is an age old political trick;
> once the opponent has been branded some miscreant it matters little
> what the opponent has to say.
So why do you precede that rant with "atheist"? Surely it
was not to attempt to poison the well?
Now there is a good sound religious principle, however, one
generally only found only amongst the zealots. Hang in there
Tony and you may yet gert your chance to fly a plane into a
building full of infidels.
> Where's the criticism of Devil's Advocate?
It's in the thread where you take Ray, Spin, Backspace, Rick
et al to task for their dishonesty, I'm sure you will be
able to provide the link(s).
> The one sided bias and blind faith of these atheists staggers the
> imaginiation.
So lead by example Tony, *show* us a better way, rather than
just perpetuating the goose/gander nonsense that puts you on
the same level as those you decry.
*Hemidactylus*
>
[snip]
>
> The fact that God made Noah collect two of every species (male and
> female) tells us the answer."
>
getting my doublets mixed up again. Was it 2 or 7? Will you clear this
up in your paper?
And when you say every species you are excluding sea life right? Why
did God's wrath not extend to them? Were whale sharks too difficult to
house on an ark or were they living right in the eyes of the Lord?
>
> Looks like something in this message upsets you? It is actually quite
> generic. This means you have no point, you are a bored evolutionist
> with hate in his heart----no problem----I hate you too.
>
What...no turning of the other cheek or praying for your enemies?
>
> When my paper
> is released you are going to hate me with demonic fury. My evidence
> will ruin your life, Ron.
>
>
I'm sure this will cause him many sleepless nights.
RAM
> In the link here Devil's Advocate begins some sarcastic ridicule which
> I shove back up his arse.
It's obvious your God means very little to you. It's your religious
bigotry that makes you the person you really are. You clearly hate
those who don't share you religious vision. But following your God's
commandments clearly isn't important to you or you would not have
written the above sentence.
Evolution is only the epiphenomena of your religious disorder.
Regards
RAM
Snip
> The one sided bias and blind faith of these atheists staggers the
> imaginiation.
>
> Regards.
> T Pagano
>
Snip
Ray Martinez
RAM: why are nearly all Atheists evolutionists?
If this question was posed on an IQ test the answer would be obvious:
because evolution presupposes Atheism to be true and it, of course,
supports the Atheism worldview. These facts, of course, render all
Christians who support evolution to be fools, traitors-deceived, just
like Judas who kissed Jesus with Satan inside of him while betraying
Him to His enemies. Looks like the Bible corresponds to reality
explaining Christians who support the same biological origins theory
that all Atheists, the enemies of Christ, support.
Ray
hersheyh
>
> We oppose evolution on scientific grounds only.
Damn. There goes another irony meter.
[snip]
raven1
<pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote:
<snip>
>The fact that God made Noah collect two of every species (male and
>female) tells us the answer."
Come again? In one verse, Genesis claims that Noah took two of each
animal aboard the Ark, in another, it claims that he took seven of
each clean animal, and two of each unclean. Which is it, Ray, and on
what basis do you choose which verse supercedes the other?
>
>Looks like something in this message upsets you? It is actually quite
>generic. This means you have no point, you are a bored evolutionist
>with hate in his heart----no problem----I hate you too.
Jesus commands his followers to love their enemies. Whoever you're
following, Ray, it sure isn't Jesus.
>When my paper
>is released you are going to hate me with demonic fury. My evidence
>will ruin your life, Ron.
Nice delusions of grandeur, Ray.
<snip>
>You are on a witch hunt, Ron. Burning anyone who does not agree with
>your Atheist bullshit. Let it be known that Backspace and Pitman are
>evolutionists as far as I can tell. This means they are in YOUR camp.
If Backspace and Pitman are "evolutionists", who, pray tell, qualifies
as a Creationist in your world besides yourself?
>I am a species immutabilist.
Which means what in context?
>Funny how Sean Pitman begins his website
>with the Emperors New Clothes metaphor-story but he accepts
>microevolution?
Microevolution occurs within a species, and is readily observable,
even to Sean.
>Evolution since Darwin PRESUPPOSES God to not be involved with
>reality.
Why do you insist on repeating this lie after you've been corrected on
it ad infinitum?
>Anyone who accepts evolution but claims to be a Creationist
>is confused and/or ignorant.
No, Ray, *you* are confused and/or ignorant.
>The observation of design
Or the tendency of humans to infer design from a pattern, whether it
was designed or not.
>and oraganized
>complexity
Which is not by itself an indication of design.
>seen in nature tells us that causation is Divine, and not
>material-natural.
Based on what?
>God controls nature hands-on.
We all await your evidence for this with bated breath.
>I hope to convert
>Creationists who accept evolution to strict special creation when my
>paper is released.
You'll have to explain away the daily observation of microevolution
first.
Vernon Balbert
produced this interesting bit of text:
> Some may object to the anti-science tag, but it pretty much fits
> anyone that wants to back the current creationist arguments.
Dang, I read the subject and I was hoping I'd get to see some funny
posters similar to those motivational posters you see. In other words,
"poster" meaning a large piece paper or cardboard on which a picture or
statement is printed rather than somebody who posts a message.
--
I think my favorite thing in the house has to be the cat...mainly
because she's just like a big piece of noisy Velcro when you toss her at
the sofa. - Michelle Argabrite
Free Lunch
<pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote in talk.origins:
>On Jul 6, 5:57 pm, RAM <RAMather...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Jul 6, 11:03 am, T Pagano <not.va...@address.net> wrote:
>>
>> > In the link here Devil's Advocate begins some sarcastic ridicule which
>> > I shove back up his arse.
>>
>> It's obvious your God means very little to you. It's your religious
>> bigotry that makes you the person you really are. You clearly hate
>> those who don't share you religious vision. But following your God's
>> commandments clearly isn't important to you or you would not have
>> written the above sentence.
>>
>> Evolution is only the epiphenomena of your religious disorder.
>>
>> Regards
>>
>> RAM
>>
>> Snip
>>
>> > The one sided bias and blind faith of these atheists staggers the
>> > imaginiation.
>>
>> > Regards.
>> > T Pagano
>>
>> Snip
>
>RAM: why are nearly all Atheists evolutionists?
>
>If this question was posed on an IQ test the answer would be obvious:
>because evolution presupposes Atheism to be true and it, of course,
>supports the Atheism worldview.
Congratulations, Ray, on getting the answer wrong again. How many
hundred times have you been corrected on your error? Why won't you
learn?
Rupert Morrish
> On Jul 6, 5:57 pm, RAM <RAMather...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Jul 6, 11:03 am, T Pagano <not.va...@address.net> wrote:
>>
>>> In the link here Devil's Advocate begins some sarcastic ridicule which
>>> I shove back up his arse.
>> It's obvious your God means very little to you. It's your religious
>> bigotry that makes you the person you really are. You clearly hate
>> those who don't share you religious vision. But following your God's
>> commandments clearly isn't important to you or you would not have
>> written the above sentence.
>>
>> Evolution is only the epiphenomena of your religious disorder.
>>
>> Regards
>>
>> RAM
>>
>> Snip
>>
>>> The one sided bias and blind faith of these atheists staggers the
>>> imaginiation.
>>> Regards.
>>> T Pagano
>> Snip
>
> RAM: why are nearly all Atheists evolutionists?
The same reason nearly all atheists think the Earth orbits the Sun.
The real question you should be asking is "why are there any atheists at
all"? God will not be mocked, so you tell us, but here I sit, mocking
both you and him, totally unaffected by plagues of boils or lightning
strikes. Does it seem to you that the old boy has lost his touch?
>
> If this question was posed on an IQ test the answer would be obvious:
> because evolution presupposes Atheism to be true and it, of course,
> supports the Atheism worldview. These facts, of course, render all
> Christians who support evolution to be fools, traitors-deceived, just
> like Judas who kissed Jesus with Satan inside of him while betraying
> Him to His enemies. Looks like the Bible corresponds to reality
> explaining Christians who support the same biological origins theory
> that all Atheists, the enemies of Christ, support.
I expect (though I don't know any) the enemies of Christ just love you.
You besmirch christianity by your association with it.
oh, and before you claim that my endorsement would prove you were wrong
- just remember that as an atheist I am totally in favor of besmirching
christianity.
>
> Ray
>
Jim Lovejoy
news:8neYRGZ$DQcI...@meden.invalid:
Objection! Assumes an object not in evidence.
RAM
Ray your ignorance of religious views world wide is very apparent.
Most religions have no trouble with evolution. There is an American
"exceptionalism" with respect to religion. It is that most American
Protestant Christians have a creationist view of humans and as a
result often become rabid anti-science dolts like you. Your equation
of atheism as equivalent of atheism and Christians accepting evolution
as inherently impossible is exceptional even within American Christian
exceptionalism. This makes you an outlier statistically. Logically
it makes you a religious extremist and sociologically it makes you a
proponent of sectarian religious views. Further, you assumes you get
to decide who is a Christian. You don't.
Most Christians throughout the rest of the world have no problem with
evolution - they see it as scientist see it. World-wide the other
"exception" is Islam. Not very good company.
As evidence of Christian conservative similarity to Islam read THE
ENEMY AT HOME: THE CULTURAL LEFT AND ITS RESPONSIBILITY FOR 9/11 by
Dinesh D'Souza. He tries to argue for an alliance between
conservative Islam (they are creationist too) and conservative
Christians (read creationists) in the Cultural war with the American
left; who he sees as obvious enemies of America. The book did not go
over well. Indeed in a local church lecture he pissed off some very
parochial conservative Christians in my small community of about
20,000 because he proposed an alliance with Islam and not because they
like lefties. The book nationally caught a lot of Christian
conservative flack. To save his proverbial conservative ass he wrote
again a book titled (similar to another of his books) WHAT'S SO GREAT
ABOUT CHRISTIANITY (the other was WHAT'S SO GREAT ABOUT AMERICA). It
is full of Christian praise for Christianity. This has saved his
career and it has even drawn the praise of Francis Collins. He now
has put his failed conservative multi-culturalism behind him and he
seems destined to be the next William Buckley albeit an Indian Brahman
not a Boston one. That will cost him some friends in the American
upper crust but the average conservative Christian American likes
nothing better than an immigrant becoming Christian then becoming more
patriotically American then they are. You should read him he shares
some of the same idiocies you do. Although I don't think he is
stupid enough to think an IQ test would have such a culturally biased
question as you propose.
RAM
Dana Tweedy
"Ray Martinez" <pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:03f4f2c4-ed25-4aaa...@w7g2000hsa.googlegroups.com...
snip
> RAM: why are nearly all Atheists evolutionists?
First of all, "nearly all" atheists are not "evolutionists". Even if they
were, it's for the same reason theists accept evolution. Because it's the
best scientific explanation for the evidence.
>
> If this question was posed on an IQ test the answer would be obvious:
> because evolution presupposes Atheism to be true and it, of course,
> supports the Atheism worldview.
Only if you are trying to measure negative IQ. Evolution does not presume
atheism is true, and it does not support an "atheist worldview". While
evolution is consistent with atheism, it's also consistent with most
religious beliefs as well. It's not a problem for a scientific theory if
some religious beliefs are not consistent with it.
> These facts, of course, render all
> Christians who support evolution to be fools, traitors-deceived,
Unless you are wrong, which is a very likely event. Accepting the truth
about God's world is not traitorous, or deceptive. Evolution is true, and
there is no reason why an honest and devout Christian can't accept the
truth.
> just
> like Judas who kissed Jesus with Satan inside of him while betraying
> Him to His enemies.
Ray, you accuse others of betraying Jesus, but you are the one who rejects
Jesus' own teachings, and following a false prophet. You are also spreading
a false doctrine, and rejecting the plain evidence of evolution. Why is
this not a betrayal of Jesus?
> Looks like the Bible corresponds to reality
> explaining Christians who support the same biological origins theory
> that all Atheists, the enemies of Christ, support.
Actually, this more explains your own behavior, not Christians who accept
the truth. Ray himself accepts many things that atheists also accept, yet
he doesn't seem to see this contradiction. As I recall, the "enemies of
Christ" are not atheists, but those who oppose Jesus' message, and place
false gods such as slick televangelists.
DJT
Christopher Denney
So you presuppose that your deity made such a hash of things when he
first created, that he has to micromanage everything just to keep it
running?
Shamans and ancient people once believed as you, that there was a need
for divine/magical intervention at every turn.
That in order to get crops to grow one had to pray, because they were
ignorant of the fact that all they really need was sufficient
nutrients and water.
You seem to fear that in explaining nature, your deity will be
destroyed.
Since you cannot comprehend nature, you seem to assume it cannot be
comprehended.
Since you cannot comprehend nature, you pretend that anyone who claims
to is a liar.
Science presupposes that everything is explicable, naturally.
Scientists throughout the ages have found plenty of things that were
once considered the province of the gods, to be quite natural.
My prediction is that they will continue to do so, unless religious
extremists get enough power to stop them, again.
Wombat
Only in your wet dreams, Ray.
Only in your wet dreams, Ray. Your paper will never be released.
Why? It doesn't exist.
Wombat
Christopher Denney
Well some funny de-motivators at: http://despair.com/viewall.html
Every time they want me to go to the "7 habits" training I get out my
demotivator posters.
Frank J
I assume that, by "science group sticks together" you mean how
scientists across almost the entire range of religious and political
views agree that ID/creationism is nonsense. Take ID/creationism and
other pseudoscience out of the equation, however, and scientists will
have heated disagreements in public that no anti-evolution group, not
even AIG which is most known for (gently) criticizing other anti-
evolution strategies, would dare engage in.
In a way, the big tent that is most associated with "don't ask, don't
tell" ID, and which Ray wants to be in or out at his convenience, has
been around ever since creationism first pretended to be science, if
not before.
Frank J
> On Jul 6, 5:57 pm, RAM <RAMather...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jul 6, 11:03 am, T Pagano <not.va...@address.net> wrote:
>
> > > In the link here Devil's Advocate begins some sarcastic ridicule which
> > > I shove back up his arse.
>
> > It's obvious your God means very little to you. It's your religious
> > bigotry that makes you the person you really are. You clearly hate
> > those who don't share you religious vision. But following your God's
> > commandments clearly isn't important to you or you would not have
> > written the above sentence.
>
> > Evolution is only the epiphenomena of your religious disorder.
>
> > Regards
>
> > RAM
>
> > Snip
>
> > > The one sided bias and blind faith of these atheists staggers the
> > > imaginiation.
>
> > > Regards.
> > > T Pagano
>
> > Snip
>
> RAM: why are nearly all Atheists evolutionists?
First, as you know, ~95% of atheists know almost nothing about
evolution. They accept a caricature that fits their worldview. I
should know, that's what I did 40 years ago when I was an atheist.
Second, that ~95%, just like the ~95% of theists that misunderstands
evolution, has been sold on a false dichotomy between "naturalistic"
evolution and the "non-naturalistic" fairy tale they learned as a
child. I freely admit that my side is as guilty as yours in neglecting
to dispel that misconception. If the names Schwabe and Senapathy were
as recognized as Darwin, a lot more atheist nonscientists would reject
evolution in favor of a naturalistic independent origin of "kinds."
>
> If this question was posed on an IQ test the answer would be obvious:
> because evolution presupposes Atheism to be true and it, of course,
> supports the Atheism worldview. These facts, of course, render all
> Christians who support evolution to be fools, traitors-deceived, just
> like Judas who kissed Jesus with Satan inside of him while betraying
> Him to His enemies. Looks like the Bible corresponds to reality
> explaining Christians who support the same biological origins theory
> that all Atheists, the enemies of Christ, support.
Where do Jews and Muslims fit into your neat little fantasy?
>
> Ray- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Rolf
[snip]
Got nothing better to do? (Like finishing sensational paper;-)
I count 62 posts from Ray 13th June - 7th July and still counting.
What is wrong (or maybe rather, what is not wrong?) with this guy?
Cj
Evolution presupposes nothing about atheism or your foolish rantings.
Haven't you got it yet? You're irrelevant.
Cj
Ron O
Something is also better than nothing and the science side is pretty
quick to take anyone to task for some foible. It isn't so noticable
because usually the science advocate doesn't waste 50 posts trying to
deny some mistake.
Ron Okimoto
Desertphile
<pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Jul 6, 7:23 am, Ron O <rokim...@cox.net> wrote:
> > "I would like to present the following questions to Ray, Gabriel,
> > Apobetics, Adman and others of that body who seem to oppose the theory
> > of evolution on religious grounds.
> We oppose evolution on scientific grounds only.
Yeah, the "science" in the Bible.
hersheyh
> On Jul 6, 8:13 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > RAM: why are nearly all Atheists evolutionists?
That would be "Why do nearly all atheists, and particularly atheists
who study the subject, accept the overwhelming evidence that evolution
has occurred and continues to occur?" The answer is simply: "Because
the evidence is overwhelming and they don't have any need to force
reality to agree with some sacred text or tradition, even when it
doesn't."
Now, a better question would be: "Why are nearly all anti-evolution
creationists (the qualifier is needed, because not all creationists
reject evolution) fundamentalist believers?"
My answer would be "Because they need to reject the evidence and
pretend that reality is in agreement with their sacred text or
tradition, even when it doesn't.
IOW, anti-evolution creationists need to reject reality and atheists
don't. I am not mentioning the larger group of non-fundamentalist
believers that are both religious and accept evolution. But
creationists, with their dichotomous minds, like to pretend that they
don't exist either.
Vernon Balbert
> On Jul 6, 6:26 pm, Vernon Balbert <vbalb...@gmail.nospam.com> wrote:
>> On 7/6/2008 7:23 AM, Ron O went clickity clack on the keyboard and
>> produced this interesting bit of text:
>>
>>> Some may object to the anti-science tag, but it pretty much fits
>>> anyone that wants to back the current creationist arguments.
>> Dang, I read the subject and I was hoping I'd get to see some funny
>> posters similar to those motivational posters you see. In other words,
>> "poster" meaning a large piece paper or cardboard on which a picture or
>> statement is printed rather than somebody who posts a message.
>>
>> --
>> I think my favorite thing in the house has to be the cat...mainly
>> because she's just like a big piece of noisy Velcro when you toss her at
>> the sofa. - Michelle Argabrite
>
> Well some funny de-motivators at: http://despair.com/viewall.html
> Every time they want me to go to the "7 habits" training I get out my
> demotivator posters.
That's exactly in line with what I was thinking. I've seen those and I
think they're right on the ball.
--
Your worst nightmare: Bottle fed by Dolly Parton.
Ray Martinez
This comment silently implies that evolution is opposed for religious
reasons (whatever that means). If true, then objectively reversed,
those who support evolution do so for anti-religious reasons. You
cannot have it one way but the forth coming responses by evolutionists
will insist to have it one way thus exposing their one way to be the
obvious misrepresentation that it is.
Opposition to evolution has always been purely scientific.
Ray
Max
> reality.
Only necessarily in the sense that a bowler is not involved with a
bowling ball already on its way down the lane. Evolution says nothing
about what got the ball rolling nor does it rule out involvement. It
simply cannot address the question of supernatural involvement.
Caranx latus
Only for values of 'always' approaching 'rarely'.
Ray Martinez
>
> - Show quoted text -
Don't ask or tell what?
What are you talking about when you say this phrase?
Ray
Ray Martinez
> On Jul 6, 9:13锟絧m, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jul 6, 5:57锟絧m, RAM <RAMather...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Jul 6, 11:03 am, T Pagano <not.va...@address.net> wrote:
>
> > > > In the link here Devil's Advocate begins some sarcastic ridicule which
> > > > I shove back up his arse.
>
> > > bigotry that makes you the person you really are. 锟結ou clearly hate
> > > those who don't share you religious vision. 锟紹ut following your God's
> > > commandments clearly isn't important to you or you would not have
> > > written the above sentence.
>
> > > Evolution is only the epiphenomena of your religious disorder.
>
> > > Regards
>
> > > RAM
>
> > > Snip
>
> > > > The one sided bias and blind faith of these atheists staggers the
> > > > imaginiation.
>
> > > > Regards.
> > > > T Pagano
>
> > > Snip
>
> > RAM: why are nearly all Atheists evolutionists?
>
> First, as you know, ~95% of atheists know almost nothing about
> evolution. They accept a caricature that fits their worldview. I
> should know, that's what I did 40 years ago when I was an atheist.
>
> Second, that ~95%, just like the ~95% of theists that misunderstands
> evolution, has been sold on a false dichotomy between "naturalistic"
> evolution and the "non-naturalistic" fairy tale they learned as a
> child. I freely admit that my side is as guilty as yours in neglecting
> to dispel that misconception. If the names Schwabe and Senapathy were
> as recognized as Darwin, a lot more atheist nonscientists would reject
> evolution in favor of a naturalistic independent origin of "kinds."
>
Evolution since Darwin 1859 says God is not INvolved with biological
production. This is a 101 History of Science fact that no scholar or
historian disputes. If God is INvolved then it is Creationism.
Creationists who accept microEVOLUTION are ignorant. This, of course,
included myself. I once accepted microevolution. Creationists cannot
accept the term "evolution" to explain scientific reality because said
term, like I just explained----since Darwin 1859----means that God is
not involved with biological production. If microchange occurs then
said phenomena reflects a mechanism created by Divine power.
Ray
>
>
> > If this question was posed on an IQ test the answer would be obvious:
> > because evolution presupposes Atheism to be true and it, of course,
> > supports the Atheism worldview. These facts, of course, render all
> > Christians who support evolution to be fools, traitors-deceived, just
> > like Judas who kissed Jesus with Satan inside of him while betraying
> > Him to His enemies. Looks like the Bible corresponds to reality
> > explaining Christians who support the same biological origins theory
> > that all Atheists, the enemies of Christ, support.
>
> Where do Jews and Muslims fit into your neat little fantasy?
>
>
>
>
>
> > Ray- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
Frank J
Another of those well-kept secrets is that (paraphrasing Sagan)
whenever fraud and error occur in science, it is science that
discovers and corrects it. Whenever fraud and error occur in
pseudoscience (e.g. ID/creationism), it is almost *never*
pseudoscience that discovers and corrects it.
And yes, I blame *our* side for keeping that a secret.
Frank J
> "Ray Martinez" <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
He'd post more, but he's busy finishing his paper. ;-)
Dana Tweedy
snip
>> In a way, the big tent that is most associated with "don't ask, don't
>> tell" ID, and which Ray wants to be in or out at his convenience, has
>> been around ever since creationism first pretended to be science, if
>> not before.- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
> Don't ask or tell what?
That ID means Creationism.
>
> What are you talking about when you say this phrase?
what do you think he's talking about?
DJT
Boikat
> On Jul 6, 6:16�pm, hersheyh <hershe...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > On Jul 6, 7:55�pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Jul 6, 7:23�am, Ron O <rokim...@cox.net> wrote:
>
> > [snip]
>
> > > We oppose evolution on scientific grounds only.
>
> > Damn. �There goes another irony meter.
>
> > [snip]
>
> This comment silently implies that evolution is opposed for religious
> reasons (whatever that means).
If you don't understand what that means, you are incredibly stupid.
> If true, then objectively reversed,
> those who support evolution do so for anti-religious reasons.
If you believe that is valid logic, then you are incredibly stupid.
> You
> cannot have it one way but the forth coming responses by evolutionists
> will insist to have it one way thus exposing their one way to be the
> obvious misrepresentation that it is.
Since you are incredibly stupid, and dishonest, it's no surprise that
you do not see how your assertion is a misrepresentation.
>
> Opposition to evolution has always been purely scientific.
That's what every liar for Geebus says, yet, those who make that claim
do not have the first clue as to what constitutes science. Like you.
>
> Ray
What? No bogus list of self bestowed titles?
Boikat
Mark Isaak
Ray, have you ever studied formal logic? You could benefit from such
study. Your lines of reasoning are not lines so much as scattered
inkblots which you interpret like a Rorschach test.
--
Mark Isaak eciton (at) earthlink (dot) net
"Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of
the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are
being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and
exposing the country to danger." -- Hermann Goering
hersheyh
The natural sciences are always a-theistic. Not anti-theistic, but a-
theistic. There is a difference which, because of your dichotomous
mind, you cannot grasp.
The opposition to evolution has not *always* been religious.
Initially, there was some scientific (aka, a-theistic) opposition to
various aspects of evolution (mostly before, but also after Darwin's
publication) focused on ideas of progress and genetic mechanisms
related to natural selection). But opposition to evolution is *now*
entirely religious in nature.
Those who support evolution do include, but is not limited to, those
who are anti-theistic. That is because they are not entrapped in an
ideology that ignores material reality. But evolution supporters also
includes all those who recognize a material reality beyond that in any
sacred book or tradition. And that that material reality is a-
theistic in the sense that magic and the supernatural are practically
worthless in describing it. Science *constrains* itself to
understanding material reality in material terms. It is, thus,
necessarily a-theistic. But not anti-theistic. Only anti-stupid
ignorant fundamentalists who cling to the hope that evidenced material
reality is unreal and unevidenced supernatural unreality is real.
IOW, anti-evolutionists are muddle-headed post-modernists who
arrogantly assume that reality must match what they think rather than
that their thoughts must match what material reality show us. And use
all sorts of lies, distortions, and self-deceptions to do so. Better
that they think that gravity is an atheist conspiracy (it is, like all
science, an a-theistic idea) and levitate themselves out the 23rd
story window.
Dana Tweedy
snip
>> First, as you know, ~95% of atheists know almost nothing about
>> evolution. They accept a caricature that fits their worldview. I
>> should know, that's what I did 40 years ago when I was an atheist.
>>
>> Second, that ~95%, just like the ~95% of theists that misunderstands
>> evolution, has been sold on a false dichotomy between "naturalistic"
>> evolution and the "non-naturalistic" fairy tale they learned as a
>> child. I freely admit that my side is as guilty as yours in neglecting
>> to dispel that misconception. If the names Schwabe and Senapathy were
>> as recognized as Darwin, a lot more atheist nonscientists would reject
>> evolution in favor of a naturalistic independent origin of "kinds."
>>
>
> Evolution since Darwin 1859 says God is not INvolved with biological
> production.
Ray, as pointed out to you before, many times, this is not true.
Evolution, and all science for that matter, makes no comment of whether or
not God is involved in biology. What's with the random capitalization in
your sentence?
> This is a 101 History of Science fact that no scholar or
> historian disputes.
Actually, Ray, no "scholar" claims that science says God is not involved in
biology. What you claim is "not disputed" usually is diputed, and most
often utterly wrong.
> If God is INvolved then it is Creationism.
Call it what you want, but change in allele frequency in a population over
generations is evolution. If God is invovled, or if he isn't involved,
it's still evolution. Creationism is usually considered to be a belief in
supernatural creation, not natural processes being guided by God.
> Creationists who accept microEVOLUTION are ignorant.
Well, yes, creationists tend to be ignorant, but those who refuse to accept
microevolution are even more ignorant. Microevolution is directly
observed, and it would take a monumental amount of stupidity to openly deny
it.
> This, of course,
> included myself. I once accepted microevolution.
And apparently you became even more ignorant, as you now deny this "101
fact".
> Creationists cannot
> accept the term "evolution" to explain scientific reality because said
> term, like I just explained----since Darwin 1859----means that God is
> not involved with biological production.
You can say it all you like, but it's still wrong. Evolution as a concept
can involve God. It's not scientific to make that claim, but there's no
reason why someone can't believe that God uses evolution as his means of
creation.
> If microchange occurs then
> said phenomena reflects a mechanism created by Divine power.
Can you provide any evidence to support your assertion? "Microchange" does
occur, and leads to larger levels of change, which is what evolution is all
about. If you choose to believe that "reflects a mechanism created by
Divine power" that's the same as what theistic evolutionists such as myself
believe.
snipping what Ray ignored
DJT
Dana Tweedy
> On Jul 6, 6:16 pm, hersheyh <hershe...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> On Jul 6, 7:55 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>> > On Jul 6, 7:23 am, Ron O <rokim...@cox.net> wrote:
>>
>> [snip]
>>
>> > We oppose evolution on scientific grounds only.
>>
>> Damn. There goes another irony meter.
>>
>> [snip]
>
> This comment silently implies that evolution is opposed for religious
> reasons (whatever that means).
Howard's comment isn't that silent, or an implication. It's a flat out
statement. Evolution is opposed for solely religious grounds, which is
hardly a secret. No creationists have ever offered any scientific
opposition to evolution.
> If true, then objectively reversed,
> those who support evolution do so for anti-religious reasons.
Which is why you can't "reverse" this claim. People who support evolution
do so for scientific reasons, not religious ones.
> You
> cannot have it one way but the forth coming responses by evolutionists
> will insist to have it one way thus exposing their one way to be the
> obvious misrepresentation that it is.
It's not a misrepresentation, and there is no reason why one can't oppose a
scientific theory for religious reasons, and others support that science for
scientific reasons. There simply isn't any scientific objections to
evolution being offered.
>
> Opposition to evolution has always been purely scientific.
Then why is there no scientific opposition to evolution being presented?
Even your own objections, Ray, are nothing but religious beliefs. You have
claimed before that Gene Scott refuted evolution, by offering a religious
opinion, and nothing else. All creationists organizations are religious
in nature, and none are scientific.
So, where is any scientific objections to evoluiton, Ray?
DJT
Rupert Morrish
He's referring to the dishonest practice of pretending that ID can
accommodate views as disparate as those of Michael Behe (old earth,
common descent, designer may be dead) and Ken Ham (young earth, Noachian
flood, hyper-micro-evolution). The only way to maintain this illusion is
to neither ask nor tell what one actually believes, other than
"evolution is wrong".
It is a point in your favor that you neither engage in nor endorse this
practice.
>
> Ray
>
Rupert Morrish
[snip]
> If microchange occurs then
> said phenomena reflects a mechanism created by Divine power.
Yes. It's called theistic evolution. You should ask Dana about it.
[snip]
Rupert Morrish
> On Jul 6, 6:16 pm, hersheyh <hershe...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> On Jul 6, 7:55 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On Jul 6, 7:23 am, Ron O <rokim...@cox.net> wrote:
>> [snip]
>>
>>> We oppose evolution on scientific grounds only.
>> Damn. There goes another irony meter.
>>
>> [snip]
>
> This comment silently implies that evolution is opposed for religious
> reasons (whatever that means). If true, then objectively reversed,
> those who support evolution do so for anti-religious reasons.
This is not the case. For example, many catholics accept evolution
because the pope tells them to.
Most anti-evolutionists do oppose evolution on religious grounds. There
are others, mostly post-modernists like Berlinski.
Ye Old One
<pyram...@yahoo.com> enriched this group when s/he wrote:
>Evolution since Darwin 1859 says God is not INvolved with biological
>production.
Science, since the dawn of time, is about evidence. There is no
evidence for gods.
> This is a 101 History of Science fact that no scholar or
>historian disputes. If God is INvolved then it is Creationism.
>Creationists who accept microEVOLUTION are ignorant.
Of course they are. Every creationist is.
> This, of course,
>included myself. I once accepted microevolution. Creationists cannot
>accept the term "evolution" to explain scientific reality because said
>term, like I just explained----since Darwin 1859----means that God is
>not involved with biological production.
It was not a new idea, scientists rejected the supernatural long
before Darwin.
> If microchange occurs then
>said phenomena reflects a mechanism created by Divine power.
What "divine power".
>
>Ray
--
Bob.
Lee Jay
> Opposition to evolution has always been purely scientific.
Then show me an atheist creationist.
Lee Jay
nando_r...@yahoo.com
evolutionists both. Once again...
First, I went looking for a theory that confirmed freedom is real, coz
I knew such a theory would support intelligent design, and throw out
natural selection
Second, I found a theory which does confirm freedom is real, Dubois
strong anticipation theory
Third, I found application of strong anticipation theory by Taborsky,
which supports intelligent design, and pushes natural selection aside.
I have never seen any creationist, or evolutionist either perform such
a feat as I did. To formulate an idea independently, and then to
search and find the cutting edge scientific papers to support the
idea. To predict it all in advance precisely, to find it in a
googlehaystack.
Anti-science, pro-science, what does it matter?
regards,
Mohammad Nur Syamsu
Cj
Craig Franck
> Ray Martinez wrote
>>RAM: why are nearly all Atheists evolutionists?
>>
>>If this question was posed on an IQ test the answer would be obvious:
>>because evolution presupposes Atheism to be true and it, of course,
>>supports the Atheism worldview.
>
> Congratulations, Ray, on getting the answer wrong again. How many
> hundred times have you been corrected on your error? Why won't you
> learn?
Ray makes so many statements the incorrectness of which is so
painfully obvious ("Opposition to evolution has always been purely
scientific.") that I believe a large part of his rational faculties have
simply shut down out of self-defense.
--
Craig Franck
craig....@verizon.net
Cortland, NY
noctiluca
> On Jul 6, 6:16�pm, hersheyh <hershe...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > On Jul 6, 7:55�pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Jul 6, 7:23�am, Ron O <rokim...@cox.net> wrote:
>
> > [snip]
>
> > > We oppose evolution on scientific grounds only.
>
> > Damn. �There goes another irony meter.
>
> > [snip]
>
> This comment silently implies that evolution is opposed for religious
> reasons (whatever that means). If true, then objectively reversed,
> those who support evolution do so for anti-religious reasons.
A stupendous non-sequitur. Well played.
> You
> cannot have it one way
> but the forth coming responses by evolutionists
> will insist to have it one way thus exposing their one way to be the
> obvious misrepresentation that it is.
The subtle dissonance of botched cliches and misspellings in
counterpoint to the plaintive tortured refrain are the marks of true
genius.
> Opposition to evolution has always been purely scientific.
Amazing. The man is a veritable virtuoso of anti-reason. And sometimes
it's simply brilliant in its incoherence.
We are watching a true artist of pseudo-logical improvisation at its
very worst at work here, and he's just crafted a solo that I feel
weirdly compelled to stand and applaud.
Bravo, Ray, encore!
RLC
> Ray
Shane
I wasn't being quite that broad, as you were referring to
the denizens of this group. Although I think that even with
the disagreements scientists do stick together on matters
that threaten science as a whole.
raven1
>Evolution since Darwin 1859 says God is not INvolved with biological
>production. This is a 101 History of Science fact that no scholar or
>historian disputes.
Actually it's quite the opposite: no reputable scholar or historian
*claims* such a thing.
raven1
Yet you offer no scientific reason to oppose evolution.
raven1
>I am the champion of all us quasi-intellectuals here
More than you know.
>, creationists and
>evolutionists both. Once again...
>
>First, I went looking for a theory that confirmed freedom is real,
Do you always work bass-ackwards?
> coz
>I knew such a theory would support intelligent design, and throw out
>natural selection
IOW, you assumed your conclusion. Bravo!
r norman
I find it very hard to see just how you can interpret Dubois as
providing support for your notion of freedom and Taborsky as providing
any support whatsoever for discarding natural selection in favor of
intelligent design.
Boikat
> On Jul 6, 6:16 pm, hersheyh <hershe...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > On Jul 6, 7:55 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Jul 6, 7:23 am, Ron O <rokim...@cox.net> wrote:
>
> > [snip]
>
> > > We oppose evolution on scientific grounds only.
>
> > Damn. There goes another irony meter.
>
> > [snip]
>
> This comment silently implies that evolution is opposed for religious
> reasons (whatever that means). If true, then objectively reversed,
> those who support evolution do so for anti-religious reasons. You
> cannot have it one way but the forth coming responses by evolutionists
> will insist to have it one way thus exposing their one way to be the
> obvious misrepresentation that it is.
>
If that's your idea of valid logic, you are an idiot.
> Opposition to evolution has always been purely scientific.
That single statement shows you are an ignorant clown, and your
"evidence that refutes evolution" is probably just as ignorant. But
since you don't have any evidence that refutes evolution....
Boikat
Earle Jones
raven1 <quotht...@nevermore.com> wrote:
> On Mon, 7 Jul 2008 14:59:35 -0700 (PDT), "nando_r...@yahoo.com"
> <nando_r...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >I am the champion of all us quasi-intellectuals here
>
> More than you know.
>
> >, creationists and
> >evolutionists both. Once again...
> >
> >First, I went looking for a theory that confirmed freedom is real,
>
> Do you always work bass-ackwards?
*
This is not the first time I have seen that ass-backwards thinking.
Some poster, a few years ago, said: "Look, we know that God exists and
created the universe. It is the job of science to go out and find the
evidence that proves it."
I suspect that Ray, Nashton, Pagano, and a few others would go along
with that.
earle
*
The ideas of a *real* conservative:
"The religious factions will go on imposing their will on others
unless the decent people connected to them recognize that religion
has no place in public policy. They must learn to make their views
known without trying to make their views the only alternatives...We
have succeeded for 205 years in keeping the affairs of state
separate from the uncompromising idealism of religious groups and
we mustn't stop now. To retreat from that separation would violate
the principles of conservatism and the values upon which the
framers built this democratic republic."
--Barry Goldwater (R-AZ)
Wombat
> On Jul 6, 6:16 pm, hersheyh <hershe...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > On Jul 6, 7:55 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Jul 6, 7:23 am, Ron O <rokim...@cox.net> wrote:
>
> > [snip]
>
> > > We oppose evolution on scientific grounds only.
>
> > Damn. There goes another irony meter.
>
> > [snip]
>
> This comment silently implies that evolution is opposed for religious
> reasons (whatever that means). If true, then objectively reversed,
> those who support evolution do so for anti-religious reasons. You
> cannot have it one way but the forth coming responses by evolutionists
> will insist to have it one way thus exposing their one way to be the
> obvious misrepresentation that it is.
Anyone like to name this logical fallacy.
>
> Opposition to evolution has always been purely scientific.
>
> Ray
Does that include AIG, ICR et al. or only people who are of your mind
- ie only you.
Wombat
Ye Old One
No quoted text. No attribution. No context. It really takes a fool
like you Nando to be so inconsiderate to others.
>I am the champion of all us quasi-intellectuals here, creationists and
>evolutionists both. Once again...
You are a champion - a champion fool.
>
>First, I went looking for a theory that confirmed freedom is real, coz
>I knew such a theory would support intelligent design, and throw out
>natural selection
And, as usual, you failed.
>
>Second, I found a theory which does confirm freedom is real, Dubois
>strong anticipation theory
You are an idiot.
>
>Third, I found application of strong anticipation theory by Taborsky,
>which supports intelligent design, and pushes natural selection aside.
A real idiot.
>
>I have never seen any creationist, or evolutionist either perform such
>a feat as I did.
True. Even the average creationist is not as stupid as you are.
> To formulate an idea independently, and then to
>search and find the cutting edge scientific papers to support the
>idea. To predict it all in advance precisely, to find it in a
>googlehaystack.
>
>Anti-science, pro-science, what does it matter?
Your grasp of reality lets you down.
>
>regards,
>Mohammad Nur Syamsu
--
Bob.
J.J. O'Shea
(in article
<9cc5b18f-0a5b-4b4e...@x41g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>):
> On Jul 6, 6:16 pm, hersheyh <hershe...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> On Jul 6, 7:55 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On Jul 6, 7:23 am, Ron O <rokim...@cox.net> wrote:
>>
>> [snip]
>>
>>> We oppose evolution on scientific grounds only.
>>
>> Damn. There goes another irony meter.
>>
>> [snip]
>
> This comment silently implies that evolution is opposed for religious
> reasons (whatever that means).
That's because virtually all current opposition to the ToE _is_
religion-based. This was not always the case. William Thompson, Lord Kelvin,
one of the premier scientists of all time, had serious problems with the
ToE... and could provide data to support his position. Notably, he could
_prove_ that there simply was insufficient time for anything like
evolutionary theory to have worked, as he could prove that the Earth was, at
most, several tens of millions of years old. However, that was before the
discovery of radioactivity. Once he was made aware of the work of certain
French and Polish scientists in _that_ field, and of its implications for his
calculations, he ran his figures again... and this time came up with a _much_
earlier date, easily satisfying the time requirements. In the light of
further data, he, like any other good scientist, revised his position and
dropped his opposition. No-one, but no-one, could have forced him to do so;
he had, after all, been granted the title 'Baron Kelvin' due to his work in
physics in general and thermodynamics in particular. (The River Kelvin flows
past the university where he taught) And yes, he was a devout Christian. The
classic example of this is his address to the Christian Evidence Society, on
23 May 1889. Note that date: 30 years _after_ the publication of _Origin_.
If you have actual data to support your position, please trot it out. Lord
Kelvin did so, over 100 years ago... and was man enough to admit his error
when further data became available. Please provide your data. Note that
Biblical quotes are not scientific data for or against the ToE.
> If true, then objectively reversed,
> those who support evolution do so for anti-religious reasons.
Hardly. Not unless you want to say that a very large number of priests
(including every one of those I have ever met, which includes teachers in
high school and lecturers in university) are anti-religious.
> You
> cannot have it one way but the forth coming responses by evolutionists
> will insist to have it one way thus exposing their one way to be the
> obvious misrepresentation that it is.
You are attempting to create, at the same time, a false dichotomy _and_ a
straw man. You are not succeeding.
>
> Opposition to evolution has always been purely scientific.
Fine. Please produce the evidence supporting your position.
>
> Ray
>
--
email to oshea dot j dot j at gmail dot com.
Augray
<9cc5b18f-0a5b-4b4e...@x41g2000hsb.googlegroups.com> :
>On Jul 6, 6:16 pm, hersheyh <hershe...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> On Jul 6, 7:55 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>> > On Jul 6, 7:23 am, Ron O <rokim...@cox.net> wrote:
>>
>> [snip]
>>
>> > We oppose evolution on scientific grounds only.
>>
>> Damn. There goes another irony meter.
>>
>> [snip]
>
>This comment silently implies that evolution is opposed for religious
>reasons (whatever that means). If true, then objectively reversed,
>those who support evolution do so for anti-religious reasons.
Similarly, if heliocentrism is opposed for religious reasons (for
example, Gerardus Bouw), then objectively reversed, those who support
heliocentrism do so for anti-religious reasons. Hence, Ray is
anti-religious if he believes that the sun is the center of the Solar
System.
>You
>cannot have it one way but the forth coming responses by evolutionists
>will insist to have it one way thus exposing their one way to be the
>obvious misrepresentation that it is.
Well, someone definitely *is* misrepresenting things.
>Opposition to evolution has always been purely scientific.
When are you going to get around to presenting some science?
TomS
J.J. O'Shea stated..."
I wasn't aware that Lord Kelvin ever publically withdrew his
objections to the age of the earth.
Incidentally, I thought that his title was granted for his
practical work, such as on the transatlantic cable.
--
---Tom S.
"As scarce as truth is, the supply has always been in excess of the demand."
attributed to Josh Billings
J.J. O'Shea
(in article <225523948.000...@drn.newsguy.com>):
He quite noticeably stopped insisting that it was only 40 million years old
after being advised of the work of the Curies. Allegedly he admitted error,
in private. Merely shutting up in public was a fairly substantial red flag.
>
> Incidentally, I thought that his title was granted for his
> practical work, such as on the transatlantic cable.
>
>
>
That too. But he got that practical work because of his work in physics.
TomS
Not that this is relevant to anything being discussed, but
I recall hearing that he didn't think that Marie Curie
deserved the Nobel Prize, because a woman couldn't be a
scientist.
>
>>
>> Incidentally, I thought that his title was granted for his
>> practical work, such as on the transatlantic cable.
>>
>>
>>
>
>That too. But he got that practical work because of his work in physics.
>
--
J.J. O'Shea
(in article <225526651.000...@drn.newsguy.com>):
Let's just say that the was definitely a member of Ye Olde Schoole.
>
>>
>>>
>>> Incidentally, I thought that his title was granted for his
>>> practical work, such as on the transatlantic cable.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>> That too. But he got that practical work because of his work in physics.
>>
>
>
>
--
RAM
You are of course right you would not know the difference?
>
> regards,
> Mohammad Nur Syamsu
RAM
> Cortland, NY
My hypothesis is that he reasons very much like a child who knows if
they misbehave they will get attention.
Thus the immature logic, not completing promised work, and vulgar
emotional outbursts.
RAM
Ray Martinez
> anyone that wants to back the current creationist arguments.
>
>
> Things really are that bad for the creationist anti-science cause.
>
Only evolutionists say Creationism is not science.
Ray
PS: This post was created on July 8, 9:15 AM California time: Google
Groups has been down for over 24 hours now and has not posted a lot of
messages.
RM
gregwrld
Ray is a Believer. His
beliefs need only make
sense (and render comfort)
to him.
They will never make
sense to us.
There is no "paper".
gregwrld
r norman
<pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>On Jul 6, 7:23 am, Ron O <rokim...@cox.net> wrote:
>> Some may object to the anti-science tag, but it pretty much fits
>> anyone that wants to back the current creationist arguments.
>>
>>
>> Things really are that bad for the creationist anti-science cause.
>>
>
>Only evolutionists say Creationism is not science.
Slight correction: Only people who understand what science is say
Creationism is not science. But then we also say that Christian
Science is not science, nor is Political Science, nor is renaming home
economics 'Domestic Science'.
hersheyh
Do the Raelians count? Or have they simply not thought past the last
iteration?
Ye Old One
>On Jul 6, 7:23 am, Ron O <rokim...@cox.net> wrote:
>> Some may object to the anti-science tag, but it pretty much fits
>> anyone that wants to back the current creationist arguments.
>>
>>
>> Things really are that bad for the creationist anti-science cause.
>>
>
>Only evolutionists say Creationism is not science.
No, all scientists would tell you creationism is not science. It is
bronze age religion - way past its sell-by date.
>
>Ray
>
>PS: This post was created on July 8, 9:15 AM California time: Google
>Groups has been down for over 24 hours now and has not posted a lot of
>messages.
Then use a proper news server you plonker.
>
>RM
>
>
>
>
>
--
Bob.
J. J. Lodder
Rutherford lectured on radioactivity,
whith Kelvin in the audience.
According the Rutherford's account
the old fossil merely glared at him malevolently,
and left without saying a word.
You have a better source for Kelvin 'admitting his error'?
Jan
J. J. Lodder
Corrrect of course.
She got it merely by proxy for her husband, didn't she?
(and Kelvin didn't live to see her getting a second one)
Jan
hersheyh
> On Mon, 7 Jul 2008 10:41:34 -0700 (PDT), Ray Martinez
>
>
>
> >On Jul 6, 6:16�pm, hersheyh <hershe...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> On Jul 6, 7:55�pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >> > On Jul 6, 7:23�am, Ron O <rokim...@cox.net> wrote:
>
> >> [snip]
>
> >> > We oppose evolution on scientific grounds only.
>
> >> Damn. �There goes another irony meter.
>
> >> [snip]
>
> >This comment silently implies that evolution is opposed for religious
> >reasons (whatever that means). If true, then objectively reversed,
> >those who support evolution do so for anti-religious reasons. You
> >cannot have it one way but the forth coming responses by evolutionists
> >will insist to have it one way thus exposing their one way to be the
> >obvious misrepresentation that it is.
>
> >Opposition to evolution has always been purely scientific.
>
> Yet you offer no scientific reason to oppose evolution.
I think his argument is that, *if* you squint just right, *if* you
torture the language enouh, and *if* you close your eyes and wish real
hard, *then* you can just maybe get away with pretending that natural
selection only conserves present form and mutation is always 'bad',
'bad', 'bad to the bone'. And cold showers and Bible reading whenever
you make the mistake of independent thinking helps too.
Dana Tweedy
"Ray Martinez" <pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:bc40e1d9-1842-41ac...@l64g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
> On Jul 6, 7:23 am, Ron O <rokim...@cox.net> wrote:
>> Some may object to the anti-science tag, but it pretty much fits
>> anyone that wants to back the current creationist arguments.
>>
>>
>> Things really are that bad for the creationist anti-science cause.
>>
>
> Only evolutionists say Creationism is not science.
Actually, there is no one who claims that creationism is science. Even
creationists, such as Gish, have admitted that creationism is not science.
"Now I want to make very clear, that I do not b'lieve that any theory on
origins, whether it be creation or evolution, can properly be called a
scientific theory." Duane Gish, quoted from:
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/frank_zindler/gish-zindler/gish-zindler.html
The above link also is a good example of a creationist losing a debate to a
scientist.
>
> Ray
>
> PS: This post was created on July 8, 9:15 AM California time: Google
> Groups has been down for over 24 hours now and has not posted a lot of
> messages.
So what, Ray? Get a real newsreader.
DJT
John Stockwell
> On Sun, 6 Jul 2008 07:23:05 -0700 (PDT), Ron O <rokim...@cox.net>
> wrote:
>
> >Some may object to the anti-science tag, but it pretty much fits
> >anyone that wants to back the current creationist arguments.
>
> abiogenesis, big bangism, unifformitatianism, naturalism,
> verificationism, inductionism, etc they first attempt to besmirch the
> criticizer with personal attacks. This is an age old political trick;
> once the opponent has been branded some miscreant it matters little
> what the opponent has to say.
Creationists are miscreants. They have never had anything of
value to say, nor do they have anything positive to deliver to
the world.
>
> 2. Next they attempt to assert that any attack on their theories or
> their underlying philosophies is tandamount to attacking science. An
> attack on the failed theory of neoDarwinism is an attack on Science.
> Taken to its absurd conclusion ever attack on every scientific theory
> is then an attack on science.
Lying about science *is* attacking science.
>
>
>
> >One of the best reasons for not taking these guys seriously is to look
> >at what type of person supports the junk.
>
> >We've had a spate of new and old posters that are pretty typical of
> >what can be expected to be about usual for this newsgroup, so I've
> >decided to list some that I can easily find. Anyone interested in
> >this subject can look up other posts from these guys to see just how
> >badly off the creationists are. If anyone doesn't think that this is
> >fair, just add other anti-science creationist posters to the list that
> >you think might come off as more reasonable and less pathetic.
>
> >Backspace
> >http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/9ec2cf0a18302b6a?hl=en
>
> >Spintronic
> >http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/27a3da6eaadef146?hl=en
>
> >Rick
> >http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/27a3da6eaadef146?hl=en
>
> >Pagano
> >http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/dc7bae5e91ed8ecb?hl=en
>
> In the link here Devil's Advocate begins some sarcastic ridicule which
> I shove back up his arse. What's good for the goose is good for the
> gander.
>
> Where's the criticism of Devil's Advocate?
>
> The one sided bias and blind faith of these atheists staggers the
> imaginiation.
>
> Regards.
> T Pagano
>
>
>
> >Nando
> >http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/d8d9e596215a7c0e?hl=en
>
> >Ray
> >http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/8edd775a11a042cd?hl=en
>
> >Nasht
> >http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/1addb5087cc20ae3?hl=en
>
> >Pitman
> >http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/bfdc9d3c86459bc2?hl=en
>
> >There are probably others, but these are the ones that I've found that
> >posted in threads active back to the 4th.
>
> >To get the full effect you have to read multiple threads in which
> >these guys participate. You can do this through Google groups, by
> >pulling up their profile and looking at threads that they have
> >participated in.
>
> >The sad fact is that these guys come off as so pathetic for one simple
> >reason. The scientific debate that they think that they are
> >participating in occurred over a hundred years ago, sometimes hundreds
> >of years ago. These things, by and large, are not current
> >controversies in science. The science side comes off as snide and
> >condescending for one simple reason (aside from a dark side of human
> >nature), the creationists are basket cases and the science side has
> >had to deal with these types for years. If you look some of these
> >guys up you will see long posting history, so some of the invectives
> >have built up over the years, and unfortunately we just become
> >accustomed to them.
>
> >There may be a grain of truth in some of their arguments, but it is
> >usually a small grain and it never means what they want it to mean.
> >One example would be Pitman. Pitman is currently on some 1000 aa
> >smoke screen ploy. He understands that he never had the science to
> >back up intelligent design, and that he doesn't have any viable
> >alternatives to put forward, so all he can do is blow smoke. Science
> >doesn't have all the answers, since Pitman can't deal with the answers
> >that we have he has to resort to blowing smoke about subjects on the
> >edge of our understanding. Things that even he doesn't have any good
> >answers for. This type of argument has about as much chance of
> >impacting evolutionary biology as we have of finding that the moon is
> >really made of green cheese. So even if Pitman's 1000 aa bull pucky
> >can be stated in some terms that can be accurately dealt with, it
> >still doesn't matter. So far, Pitman is having trouble telling us
> >what it is, so that it can be dealt with.
>
> >If you are a creationist and you think that you can do better than the
> >guys above, I would give you a word of advice. Pretty much all the
> >creationist arguments that you have ever heard that you think are
> >arguments against biological evolution are bogus. Just take a moment
> >and think about it. If any of the arguments were legitimate we would
> >already be teaching scientific creationism for nearly 30 years in the
> >public schools. If the last generation of intelligent design
> >arguments were legitimate, the ID creationist scam artists would be
> >teaching intelligent design instead of running a bait and switch scam
> >on their own creationist supporters. Just look into what the switch
> >scam is and determine that it doesn't even mention that intelligent
> >design ever existed, and you have to realize that something is wrong.
> >This may be hard to accept, so before you make a big mistake, test the
> >waters.
>
> >I would recommend that you post your favorite creationist argument in
> >your own words, and tell us what you think that it means, and then get
> >educated. It would help if you gave a source for the argument so that
> >we could check it out and see if you may have misunderstood it. Post
> >it to this thread so that others will have a better idea of what you
> >are trying to do so that they won't take you as just another ignorant
> >loser. Ignorance isn't so bad, no one knows everything, but allowing
> >yourself to be manipulated due to that ignorance can have bad
> >consequences.
>
> >Don't come in calling everyone liars and hypocrits and expect to be
> >treated nicely. You have such a short end of the stick to hold on to
> >that even if you are nice a lot of posters will not give you the
> >benefit of the doubt. You have to have a thick skin, but if you can
> >stick it out, you can learn something. Something that might keep you
> >from being fooled by the next creationist scam.
>
> >The worst thing that you can do is come in and pretend that you are
> >not a creationist, but just someone with a legitimate argument. This
> >has been tried a whole lot, and should tell you something about the
> >people that support your view. Why do they have to lie to look
> >legitimate? It becomes apparent that they were lying when they
> >usually start spouting Bible verses in their defence.
>
> >Things really are that bad for the creationist anti-science cause.
>
> >I have to mention that a lot of religious people find no problem with
> >the current science. These are not the type of creationists that I am
> >talking about.
>
> >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clergy_Letter_Project
>
> >Ron Okimoto
Boikat
<nando_rontel...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> I am the champion of all us quasi-intellectuals here, creationists and
> evolutionists both. Once again...
My, you are an arrogant ass!
>
> First, I went looking for a theory that confirmed freedom is real, coz
> I knew such a theory would support intelligent design, and throw out
> natural selection
No, it would not. Point of logic, if you intelligent desigern is an
all knowing god, that would forbid free will, and freedom in general,
since you would be following a predsttined course of action. To
violate that would mean your all knowing god is not all knowing.
>
> Second, I found a theory which does confirm freedom is real, Dubois
> strong anticipation theory
Which you misrepresent in order to support your delusional prior
conclusion. Either that, or you simply don't know what Dubois is
talking about. Of course, both are possible in your demented little
mind.
>
> Third, I found application of strong anticipation theory by Taborsky,
> which supports intelligent design, and pushes natural selection aside.
Doubtful. NS still seems a valid mechanism of evolution. Obviously,
you are deluding yourself. Again.
>
> I have never seen any creationist, or evolutionist either perform such
> a feat as I did.
That's because you are uniquely insane.
> To formulate an idea independently, and then to
> search and find the cutting edge scientific papers to support the
> idea. To predict it all in advance precisely, to find it in a
> googlehaystack.
Sorry, you need to see a shrink. You found nothing which supports
your conclusion.
>
> Anti-science, pro-science, what does it matter?
Since you wouldn't know the difference, anything you can twist around
works.
Boikat
Rupert Morrish
I don't think Raelians count as creationists.
There probably hasn't been an atheist creationist since the demise of
the Aristotlean view that swallows emerge fully formed from mud.
>
raven1
>On Jul 6, 7:23 am, Ron O <rokim...@cox.net> wrote:
>> Some may object to the anti-science tag, but it pretty much fits
>> anyone that wants to back the current creationist arguments.
>>
>>
>> Things really are that bad for the creationist anti-science cause.
>>
>
>Only evolutionists say Creationism is not science.
What is the theory of creationism? What evidence supports it? What
predictions does it make? What would falsify it?
Unless you can answer all four of the questions above, it ain't
science.
Woland
<nando_rontel...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> I am the champion of all us quasi-intellectuals here, creationists and
> evolutionists both. Once again...
>
> I knew such a theory would support intelligent design, and throw out
> natural selection
>
> strong anticipation theory
>
> which supports intelligent design, and pushes natural selection aside.
>
> search and find the cutting edge scientific papers to support the
> idea. To predict it all in advance precisely, to find it in a
> googlehaystack.
>
>
> Mohammad Nur Syamsu
You have never shown how your inane ideas refute evolution or natural
selection.
Frank J
> "Ray Martinez" <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> news:e774eef2-eb1a-4272...@m3g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
> snip
>
> >> In a way, the big tent that is most associated with "don't ask, don't
> >> tell" ID, and which Ray wants to be in or out at his convenience, has
> >> been around ever since creationism first pretended to be science, if
> >> not before.- Hide quoted text -
>
> >> - Show quoted text -
>
> > Don't ask or tell what?
>
> That ID means Creationism.
That's not at all what I mean. And I don't mean "Don't ask or tell the
designer's identity" either.
The main thing that separates ID from classic creationism (YEC, OEC)
is "Don't ask or tell *what* the designer did or *when*'.
That makes it a far slicker game, and keeps the focus on the long-
refuted "weaknesses" of evolution instead of on the *fatal* weaknesses
and *contradictions* in anti-evolution accounts of natural history.
Whenever critics take the bait and start defending evolution, accusing
ID of "sneaking in God" or saying that ID *is* creationism without
differentiating ID from classic creationism, they hand the point over
to the IDer in the eyes of most nonscientist audiences.
>
>
>
> > What are you talking about when you say this phrase?
>
> what do you think he's talking about?
>
> DJT
Frank J
> On Jul 7, 12:35�am, Frank J <f...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jul 6, 8:27�pm, Shane <remarcsdNOS...@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
>
> > > On Sun, 6 Jul 2008 09:35:14 -0700 (PDT), Frank J wrote:
> > > > On Jul 6, 11:44�am, Friar Broccoli <Elia...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >> On Jul 6, 11:31 am, Frank J <f...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> > > [...]
>
> > > >>> The first thing anyone should notice is that they almost never talk to
> > > >>> *each other*, even though their apparent origins models - if they even
> > > >>> have one in this age of "don't ask, don't tell" - differ from each
> > > >>> other's as much as they differ from that of mainstream science. That
> > > >>> would not be the case if they truly thought they had a better
> > > >>> scientific explanation.
>
> > > >> Ray has tried to talk to Pitman.
>
> > > > More evidence that Ray is the most honest of the bunch. �Not
> > > > necessarily "completely honest", and certainly deluded, of course.
>
> > > > As for who might be most dishonest, I think that the habit of changing
> > > > subject line to get a cheap dig at the person to whom one is replying
> > > > provides a clue.
>
> > > Ray has, on a number of occasions, maintained that
> > > creationists are their own worst enemy and their disunity is
> > > probalmatical, and further that he admires the way that the
> > > science group sticks toghther. Apparently what Ray has
> > > failed to do is think(tm) on why this may be.
>
> > I assume that, by "science group sticks together" you mean how
> > scientists across almost the entire range of religious and political
> > views agree that ID/creationism is nonsense. Take ID/creationism and
> > other pseudoscience out of the equation, however, and scientists will
> > have heated disagreements in public that no anti-evolution group, not
> > even AIG which is most known for (gently) criticizing other anti-
> > evolution strategies, would dare engage in.
>
> > In a way, the big tent that is most associated with "don't ask, don't
> > tell" ID, and which Ray wants to be in or out at his convenience, has
> > been around ever since creationism first pretended to be science, if
> > not before.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> Don't ask or tell what?
>
I have told you before, but in case you forgot, see my reply to Dana
Tweedy.
>
> Ray- Hide quoted text -
Frank J
> accommodate views as disparate as those of Michael Behe (old earth,
> common descent, designer may be dead) and Ken Ham (young earth, Noachian
> flood, hyper-micro-evolution). The only way to maintain this illusion is
> to neither ask nor tell what one actually believes, other than
> "evolution is wrong".
Yes! Finally someone gets it!
>
> It is a point in your favor that you neither engage in nor endorse this
> practice.
Ironically I agree. But the occasional criticism of contradictory
creationisms by classic creationists is still nowhere near enough to
convince me that any of them seriously think they have a better
scientific theory.
>
>
>
>
>
> > Ray- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
Frank J
> On Jul 7, 12:50�am, Frank J <f...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jul 6, 9:13�pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Jul 6, 5:57�pm, RAM <RAMather...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Jul 6, 11:03 am, T Pagano <not.va...@address.net> wrote:
>
> > > > > In the link here Devil's Advocate begins some sarcastic ridicule which
> > > > > I shove back up his arse.
>
> > > > bigotry that makes you the person you really are. �You clearly hate
> > > > those who don't share you religious vision. �But following your God's
> > > > commandments clearly isn't important to you or you would not have
> > > > written the above sentence.
>
> > > > Evolution is only the epiphenomena of your religious disorder.
>
> > > > Regards
>
> > > > RAM
>
> > > > Snip
>
> > > > > The one sided bias and blind faith of these atheists staggers the
> > > > > imaginiation.
>
> > > > > Regards.
> > > > > T Pagano
>
>
> > > RAM: why are nearly all Atheists evolutionists?
>
> > evolution. They accept a caricature that fits their worldview. I
> > should know, that's what I did 40 years ago when I was an atheist.
>
> > Second, that ~95%, just like the ~95% of theists that misunderstands
> > evolution, has been sold on a false dichotomy between "naturalistic"
> > evolution and the "non-naturalistic" fairy tale they learned as a
> > child. I freely admit that my side is as guilty as yours in neglecting
> > to dispel that misconception. If the names Schwabe and Senapathy were
> > as recognized as Darwin, a lot more atheist nonscientists would reject
> > evolution in favor of a naturalistic independent origin of "kinds."
>
> Evolution since Darwin 1859 says God is not INvolved with biological
> production.
I doesn't, but I'll humor you. Is God involved with conception?
> This is a 101 History of Science fact that no scholar or
> historian disputes. If God is INvolved then it is Creationism.
Then why don't you just rename evolution "creationism" and be done
with it?
> Creationists who accept microEVOLUTION are ignorant.
Well that's the great majority of them. Of course they increasingly
refuse to say (1) where exactly "micro" leaves off, and (2) what
exactly takes over. But I have to hand it to you. You found a semantic
loophole. Good luck debating the majority of creationists on it.
> This, of course,
> included myself. I once accepted microevolution. Creationists cannot
> accept the term "evolution" to explain scientific reality because said
> term, like I just explained----since Darwin 1859----means that God is
> not involved with biological production. If microchange occurs then
> said phenomena reflects a mechanism created by Divine power.
I *really* hope all that is in your paper.
>
> Ray
>
>
>
>
>
> > > If this question was posed on an IQ test the answer would be obvious:
> > > because evolution presupposes Atheism to be true and it, of course,
> > > supports the Atheism worldview. These facts, of course, render all
> > > Christians who support evolution to be fools, traitors-deceived, just
> > > like Judas who kissed Jesus with Satan inside of him while betraying
> > > Him to His enemies. Looks like the Bible corresponds to reality
> > > explaining Christians who support the same biological origins theory
> > > that all Atheists, the enemies of Christ, support.
>
> > Where do Jews and Muslims fit into your neat little fantasy?
Please answer that question.
>
> > > Ray
Dana Tweedy
"Frank J" <fn...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:887537ca-8c07-482d...@x41g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
> On Jul 7, 4:49 pm, "Dana Tweedy" <reddfr...@bresnan.net> wrote:
>> "Ray Martinez" <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>
>> news:e774eef2-eb1a-4272...@m3g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
>> snip
>>
>> >> In a way, the big tent that is most associated with "don't ask, don't
>> >> tell" ID, and which Ray wants to be in or out at his convenience, has
>> >> been around ever since creationism first pretended to be science, if
>> >> not before.- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> >> - Show quoted text -
>>
>> > Don't ask or tell what?
>>
>> That ID means Creationism.
>
> That's not at all what I mean. And I don't mean "Don't ask or tell the
> designer's identity" either.
My apologies for misunderstanding you.
snip the rest.
DJT
Boikat
> On Jul 6, 7:23 am, Ron O <rokim...@cox.net> wrote:
>
> > Some may object to the anti-science tag, but it pretty much fits
> > anyone that wants to back the current creationist arguments.
>
> > Things really are that bad for the creationist anti-science cause.
>
> Only evolutionists say Creationism is not science.
>
> Ray
I see the problem now: You don't know the first thing about what
science is. (But that was obvious from the very beginning) If you
believe otherwise, please answer the following:
How do you test the hypothesis that any given observed phenomena was
the result of a divine act? Let's take lightning as an example. How
do you support the claim that a bolt of lightning was cause by a god
(any god, it doesn't matter).
Please answer the question honestly, without evasion. OOps! That
probably rules out your version of "science".
Boikat
nando_r...@yahoo.com
that is the same thing that I've always said, that natural selection
only takes place in the minds of Darwinist scientists.
(Dubois, Review..... not available online)
"6.1 Free Will as Unpredictable Hyperincursive Anticipation
Karl Pribram asked me (by email, after the CASYS'99 conference):
"How can an anticipatory hyperincursive system be modeled without a
future defined goal?".
My answer was: an hyperincursive anticipatory system generates
multiple potential states at each time step and corresponds to one-
to-
many relations. A selection parameter must be defined to select a
particular state amongst these multiple potential states. These
multiple potential states collapse to one state (amongst these
states,) which becomes the actual state.
This reminds me the following comment an auditor made after a
conference on anticipatory hyperincursion I made:
"You have found the basic theory of free will".Indeed, the brain may
be considered as an anticipatory hyperincursive neural net which
generates multiple potential future states which collapse to actual
states by learning: the selection process of states to be actualized
amongst the multiple potential states is independent of
the fundamental dynamics of the brain, independent of initial
conditions and so completely unpredictable (and computable). The
selection by learning deals with inputs from the brain itself (via
the
genetic code and self-reflection) and from environment. These inputs
are final causes at each time step. This creates a memory and at the
same time a program, which give rise to the mind, what I called a
computing memory. Each mind is unique in the sense that this is the
subjective experience of each brain that actualized potential states.
The free will means that we can choose a state amongst the multiple
potential states emerging from the preceding already actualized
states. The free will depends strongly on the history of all the past
memorized events and is not identical for each mind. The free will
does not means that the mind can make what he wants but that he can
choose amongst multiple possible choices. For a human being, this is
not possible to fly by itself, like a bird, but man invented
airplanes
to actualize that."
(Taborsky)
https://s.p5.hostingprod.com/@www.biosemiotics.org/ssl/ISBS_OPR_Taborsky.pdf
"Weak anticipation is defined as Natural Selection and is described as
a post hoc model of strong
anticipation’s ‘selected solution’."
"The reality of two types of anticipation suggests that the two step
evolutionary
framework of neodarwinism (Fisher 1930, Mayr 1942) – a framework that
rejects
anticipation and is instead based around a primary random or
uninformed mutation of a
single model supported by a post hoc ‘natural selection’ of that model
– is an inadequate
analysis. The semiosic biological system is not a random or mechanical
process but an
informed, reasoned and self-controlled process. "
"A strong anticipatory system is one in
which the anticipated future state is ‘generated by the system
itself” (Dubois 2000a:4).
Any randomness is internal and reduced to zero by the time a ‘best
solution’ is chosen by
the system. The emergent model is immediately functional and there is
no testing by
struggle as required in the thesis of Natural Selection"
" Natural Selection operates as a model, as weak anticipation,
for its model emerges within an external “struggle for existence, "
"That is, natural selection operates as a statistical average of
already-actualized realities."
regards,
Mohammad Nur Syamsu