Question for Tony
chris thompson
quote:
> "Regularity" does NOT refer to "regular" processes but to natural
> LAWS OF NATURE.
Please tell us the LAWS OF NATURE (emphasis yours).
Thanks
Chris
T Pagano
Any college level physics text book should provide this answer for
you.
Regards,
T Pagano
Friar Broccoli
> On Wed, 16 Feb 2011 19:26:26 -0800 (PST), chris thompson
>
> >In another thread, you made reference to laws of nature. Here is the
> >quote:
>
> >> "Regularity" does NOT refer to "regular" processes but to natural
> >> LAWS OF NATURE.
>
> >Please tell us the LAWS OF NATURE (emphasis yours).
.
> Any college level physics text book should provide this answer for
> you.
I am pretty sure most "college level physics text book"s include a
reference to something like the LAW of gravity, wherein objects are
attracted to each other in proportion to their mass. Why then does a
much more massive sun orbit the earth? What LAW OF NATURE drives
that regularity?
Bill
> On Wed, 16 Feb 2011 19:26:26 -0800 (PST), chris thompson
>
> >In another thread, you made reference to laws of nature. Here is the
> >quote:
>
> >> "Regularity" does NOT refer to "regular" processes but to natural
> >> LAWS OF NATURE.
>
> >Please tell us the LAWS OF NATURE (emphasis yours).
>
> >Thanks
>
> >Chris
.
>
> Any college level physics text book should provide this answer for
> you.
>
> Regards,
> T Pagano
Does this mean you are recanting any of the non-mainstream physical
ideas you espoused in your debates on geocentrism? Most people who
read a college level physics text will find geocentrism incompatible
with the physics explained therein. So either, (1) you've changed your
views and you now consider it safe to get one's knowledge of physical
laws from a physics text which would contradict geocentrism (2) you
think geocentrism entirely compatible with the laws of physics.
If (2) is correct, then you cannot simply send someone off to a
textbook to find the laws of nature. They would need to read the
textbook and then consult you to learn how to interpret the textbook
correctly. Many, many people who have learned their physics from
college textbooks believe that geocentrism is silly. But then if
geocentrism is true, it is the height of irresponsibility for you to
tell an innocent questioner to go read a college physics text.
T Pagano
Does Friar Broccoli "really" want to relive his embarassment over
Newton's Law of Gravity again? Carlip didn't save Broccoli either.
Say the word. . .and I shall merely requote the answer from May of
last year.
Regards,
T Pagano
Friar Broccoli
> On Thu, 17 Feb 2011 17:12:09 -0800 (PST), Friar Broccoli
>
>
>
> <elia...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >On Feb 17, 7:13�pm, T Pagano <not.va...@address.net> wrote:
> >> On Wed, 16 Feb 2011 19:26:26 -0800 (PST), chris thompson
>
> >> <chris.linthomp...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >In another thread, you made reference to laws of nature. Here is the
> >> >quote:
>
> >> >> "Regularity" does NOT refer to "regular" processes but �to natural
> >> >> LAWS OF NATURE.
>
> >> >Please tell us the LAWS OF NATURE (emphasis yours).
>
> > .
>
> >> Any college level physics text book should provide this answer for
> >> you.
>
> >I am pretty sure most "college level physics text book"s include a
> >reference to something like the LAW of gravity, wherein objects are
> >attracted to each other in proportion to their mass. �Why then does a
> >much more massive sun orbit the earth? � What LAW OF NATURE drives
> >that regularity?
.
> Does Friar Broccoli "really" want to relive his embarassment over
> Newton's Law of Gravity again? �Carlip didn't save Broccoli either.
> Say the word. . .and I shall merely requote the answer from May of
> last year.
Come on Tony, all I want is an explanation of how one squares the
universal LAW of gravity with the sun orbiting the earth. Why do you
continue to avoid explaining that to me? I really really want an
explanation of that apparent contradiction.
Walter Bushell
<391ad5af-cd13-4406...@w9g2000prg.googlegroups.com>,
Bill <broger...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Many, many people who have learned their physics from
> college textbooks believe that geocentrism is silly.
Myself, I am sure it is screaming yellow bonkers.
--
The Chinese pretend their goods are good and we pretend our money
is good, or is it the reverse?
chris thompson
>
> >In another thread, you made reference to laws of nature. Here is the
> >quote:
>
> >> "Regularity" does NOT refer to "regular" processes but to natural
> >> LAWS OF NATURE.
>
> >Please tell us the LAWS OF NATURE (emphasis yours).
>
> >Thanks
>
> >Chris
>
> Any college level physics text book should provide this answer for
> you.
>
> Regards,
> T Pagano
Ah, thank you. But perusing through a physics text, I cannot seem to
determine which laws of nature are relevant to Dembski's explanatory
filter (that was, after all, the topic of discussion). Perhaps you
could be a little more specific, especially with regards to biological
applications of the filter?
Thanks
Chris
Bob Casanova
in talk.origins, posted by T Pagano <not....@address.net>:
Sure, Tony, please quote yourself. Slapstick humor is always
welcome; the Three Stooges are perennial favorites, too.
And while you're at it, please try to provide an actual
answer to that pesky question, the one you continually
dodge:
If scientific evidence contradicts a literal reading of the
Bible, which is to be accepted as more probably correct?
IOW, is the Bible to be viewed as a science and history
text? As a specific example, did a global flood a la Noah
ever actually occur?
It's not going to go away, Tony...
--
Bob C.
"Evidence confirming an observation is
evidence that the observation is wrong."
- McNameless
Bob Casanova
in talk.origins, posted by T Pagano <not....@address.net>:
>On Wed, 16 Feb 2011 19:26:26 -0800 (PST), chris thompson
><chris.li...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>In another thread, you made reference to laws of nature. Here is the
>>quote:
>>
>>> "Regularity" does NOT refer to "regular" processes but to natural
>>> LAWS OF NATURE.
>>
>>
>>Please tell us the LAWS OF NATURE (emphasis yours).
>>
>>Thanks
>Any college level physics text book should provide this answer for
>you.
But only you can tell us which laws you have in mind, and
how you intended your somewhat vague statement to apply to
them. Waiting...
Bob Casanova
appeared in talk.origins, posted by chris thompson
<chris.li...@gmail.com>:
>On Feb 17, 7:13 pm, T Pagano <not.va...@address.net> wrote:
>> On Wed, 16 Feb 2011 19:26:26 -0800 (PST), chris thompson
>>
>> <chris.linthomp...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >In another thread, you made reference to laws of nature. Here is the
>> >quote:
>>
>> >> "Regularity" does NOT refer to "regular" processes but to natural
>> >> LAWS OF NATURE.
>>
>> >Please tell us the LAWS OF NATURE (emphasis yours).
>>
>> >Thanks
>> Any college level physics text book should provide this answer for
>> you.
>Ah, thank you. But perusing through a physics text, I cannot seem to
>determine which laws of nature are relevant to Dembski's explanatory
>filter (that was, after all, the topic of discussion). Perhaps you
>could be a little more specific, especially with regards to biological
>applications of the filter?
No, he can't. Actually "won't", since he knows as well as
anyone that smoke, mirrors and arguments from incredulity
don't lend themselves especially well to specificity. Tony
*never* argues actual facts or evidence; he merely makes
pronouncements and argues semantics. And he ignores the
corners into which he gets repeatedly backed; he just stops
posting for a while ("I'm done here") and returns after a
few days, weeks or months claiming victory.
>Thanks
T Pagano
<eli...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Feb 17, 8:33 pm, T Pagano <not.va...@address.net> wrote:
>> On Thu, 17 Feb 2011 17:12:09 -0800 (PST), Friar Broccoli
>>
>>
>>
>> <elia...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >On Feb 17, 7:13 pm, T Pagano <not.va...@address.net> wrote:
>> >> On Wed, 16 Feb 2011 19:26:26 -0800 (PST), chris thompson
>>
>> >> <chris.linthomp...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> >In another thread, you made reference to laws of nature. Here is the
>> >> >quote:
>>
>> >> >> "Regularity" does NOT refer to "regular" processes but to natural
>> >> >> LAWS OF NATURE.
>>
>> >> >Please tell us the LAWS OF NATURE (emphasis yours).
>>
>> > .
>>
>> >> Any college level physics text book should provide this answer for
>> >> you.
>>
>> >I am pretty sure most "college level physics text book"s include a
>> >reference to something like the LAW of gravity, wherein objects are
>> >attracted to each other in proportion to their mass. Why then does a
>> >much more massive sun orbit the earth? What LAW OF NATURE drives
>> >that regularity?
Sadly for poor Broccoli the law of gravity explains why bodies remain
in orbit not how (or why) the orbits exist as they do. For that
situation one needs to explain their initial angular momentum. Even
Newton explained this by virtue of Divine causation. And Newton
believed that the Earth was the center of the universe.
Newton's laws require that of two or more bodies in a rotating system
all bodies will revolve around the center of mass and not necessarily
around the larger of the bodies. Granted in a closed system where the
only two bodies existing are the Sun and our earth the center of mass
will be closer to the center of the sun. In a closed system only
including the Sun and Jupiter the center of mass is significantly
distant from the center of the sun. Even in a closed system including
all nine planets the center of mass is never at the center of the sun
and does not always even exist below the surface of the sun. The
center of mass depends entirely on the closed system considered.
Furthermore athests believe that our solar system revolves around the
center of mass of the Milky Way galaxy. Apparently its gravitational
effect (and the masses which cause it) is significant enough to hold
all the planets of our solar system. How then can we exclude those
masses from our solar system or for that matter any of the other
galaxies from the calculation. Each time new masses are added the
center of mass could exist somewhere else.
.
>
>> Does Friar Broccoli "really" want to relive his embarassment over
>> Newton's Law of Gravity again?
Apparently the answer is yes.
> Carlip didn't save Broccoli either.
>> Say the word. . .and I shall merely requote the answer from May of
>> last year.
>
>Come on Tony, all I want is an explanation of how one squares the
>universal LAW of gravity with the sun orbiting the earth. Why do you
>continue to avoid explaining that to me? I really really want an
>explanation of that apparent contradiction.
Newton's laws require that of two or more bodies in a rotating system
all bodies will revolve around the center of mass. Since in the
modified Tychoian Geocentric model the Earth is the immovable center
of mass of the universe there is neither an actual nor an apparent
contradiction with Newton's Laws. It certainly contradicts the
atheist heliocentric model, but since it's false who cares.
So unless Broccoli can prove that the earth is moving at approximately
30 km/sec around the Sun and approx 400 km/sec around the Milky Way
he's just pissing into the wind. I suspect Broccoli's going to get
mighty wet before he proves either.
Regards,
T Pagano
When will the atheists learn that their whole edifice is built on
sand?
raven1
wrote:
Newton believed no such thing. In Book 3 of Principia Mathematica, he
states "the common centre of gravity of the Earth, the Sun and all the
Planets is to be esteem'd the Centre of the World".
Bruce Stephens
[...]
> Furthermore athests believe that our solar system revolves around the
> center of mass of the Milky Way galaxy. Apparently its gravitational
> effect (and the masses which cause it) is significant enough to hold
> all the planets of our solar system. How then can we exclude those
> masses from our solar system or for that matter any of the other
> galaxies from the calculation. Each time new masses are added the
> center of mass could exist somewhere else.
Does the phrase "inverse square law" ring any bells?
[...]
jillery
> On Thu, 17 Feb 2011 17:51:45 -0800 (PST), Friar Broccoli
>
IIUC your argument above rests on your objects "revolving around a
center of mass". If that is so, which object is that center of mass
closest to in the case of the Earth and the Moon? In the case of the
Earth and the Sun? In the case of the Earth and the Galaxy?
Bruce Stephens
[...]
> IIUC your argument above rests on your objects "revolving around a
> center of mass". If that is so, which object is that center of mass
> closest to in the case of the Earth and the Moon? In the case of the
> Earth and the Sun? In the case of the Earth and the Galaxy?
Also Mars, Phobos, and Deimos.
T Pagano
wrote:
Actually in May 2010 there wasn't much laughing; at least not from
your buddy Broccoli.
>And while you're at it, please try to provide an actual
>answer to that pesky question, the one you continually
>dodge:
The answer is the same as in May 2010.
Newton's laws require that of two or more bodies in a rotating system
all bodies will revolve around the center of mass of the system.
Asserting that the Sun and Earth (or even the our solar system) is a
"closed" system is nonsense.
Since in the modified Tychoian Geocentric model the Earth is the
immovable center of mass of the universe there is no conflict with
Newton's laws. It only contradicts the atheist model which is
storying telling at its finest.
>
>If scientific evidence contradicts a literal reading of the
>Bible, which is to be accepted as more probably correct?
What scientific evidence might that be? Atheists have been
attempting to prove that the Earth moves 30 km/sec around the Sun and
400 km/sec around the Milky Way for over a century with no more
incontrovertible evidence than is found in the fossil record of
gradualistic biological change.
Let's not forget that all the cosmological evidence which atheists
hold dear shows a beginning to the universe. A fact which is
prominent in Genesis and nowhere else.
And Casanova demonstrates that he has drunk the deadly coolaid of
Induction. Sadly Hume let us know in 1739 that there is no method
which can tell us which theory has a greater probability of truth.
There are only methods which justify our level of belief. And who
gives a hoot in hell what Casanova and his buddy Broccoli believe?
>IOW, is the Bible to be viewed as a science and history
>text? As a specific example, did a global flood a la Noah
>ever actually occur?
The atheists repeat this idiocy without even thinking. Newspapers
provide accurate reports on historical natural events all the time
(like the eruption of a volcanoe). Often the reporters are on scene
long before any scientists. No one accuses the newspaper report of
being a science report or accuses the reporter of attempting to pawn
off his historical account as a work of science.
Scripture is, in part, a work of history. Nonetheless as with any
newspaper or eyewitness account the facts reported are relevent to any
explanation of the event.
Modern stratigraphy explains that many of the stratigraphic layers
were laid as the result of sedimentation under water. And that many
of the layers can be correlated on a vast regional or global extent.
That comes dangerously close to meaning that modern stratigraphers
propose a number of global-like floods occuring over time. In this
light a single global flood is hardly been proven out of the realm of
possibility.
>
>It's not going to go away, Tony...
This is the only thing that Casanova gets right.
Regards,
T Pagano
Friar Broccoli
> On Thu, 17 Feb 2011 17:51:45 -0800 (PST), Friar Broccoli
>
>
>
>
>
.
This is the part that confuses me Tony: You say that "in a rotating
system **all** bodies will revolve around the center of mass". Our
solar system is such a "rotating system". Yet two planets closer to
the sun (Mercury and Venus) have "decided" that the sun is the center
of mass of the system, and 5 or 6 others (including Mars and Jupiter)
have also "decided" the sun is the center of mass.
Why then does the earth disagree, if as you say "**all** bodies will
revolve around the center of mass"?
Kermit
> On Thu, 17 Feb 2011 17:51:45 -0800 (PST), Friar Broccoli
>
>
>
Their initial angular momentum is an ongoing process. The planets
weren't made whole and tossed into the solar system like a tennis ball
thrown into the court.
>
> Newton's laws require that of two or more bodies in a rotating system
> all bodies will revolve around the center of mass and not necessarily
> around the larger of the bodies.
Always around the center of gravity. Sometimes the CoG is near the
center of the larger object, if the mass disparity is great. As, for
example, the Earth and sun. The other planets affect this also, but
since the sun outweighs them all by a considerable margin, the CoG for
the solar system is near the center of the sun. Occasionally outside
the sun's surface, yes, but never more than a few hundred thousand km.
> Granted in a closed system where the
> only two bodies existing are the Sun and our earth the center of mass
> will be closer to the center of the sun. In a closed system only
> including the Sun and Jupiter the center of mass is significantly
> distant from the center of the sun. Even in a closed system including
> all nine planets the center of mass is never at the center of the sun
> and does not always even exist below the surface of the sun. The
> center of mass depends entirely on the closed system considered.
Of course...
>
> Furthermore athests believe that our solar system revolves around the
> center of mass of the Milky Way galaxy.
Affected by the mass of the rest of the universe, especially galaxies
in our immediate neighborhood. But scientists do, yes. Not all
atheists are educated or interested.
> Apparently its gravitational
> effect (and the masses which cause it) is significant enough to hold
> all the planets of our solar system.
Curiously, the combined mass of two hundred million stars and their
planets out mass our solar system, yes.
> How then can we exclude those
> masses from our solar system or for that matter any of the other
> galaxies from the calculation.
Inverse square law. Every particle of dust in our universe (at least,
in the still-visible part of our universe) affects us. But most of it
can be ignored for most calculations because of the distances
involved.
> Each time new masses are added the
> center of mass could exist somewhere else.
> .
Yes. But new masses are not added except as the result of various
relativistic or quantum activities, yes? Small amounts, all over, at
great distances (mostly). If another star were to enter our system,
there would be significant gravitational effects. If another subatomic
particle appears because of a quantum fluctuation, you're not really
going to notice it.
>
>
>
> >> Does Friar Broccoli "really" want to relive his embarassment over
> >> Newton's Law of Gravity again?
>
> Apparently the answer is yes.
>
> > Carlip didn't save Broccoli either.
> >> Say the word. . .and I shall merely requote the answer from May of
> >> last year.
>
> >Come on Tony, all I want is an explanation of how one squares the
> >universal LAW of gravity with the sun orbiting the earth. Why do you
> >continue to avoid explaining that to me? I really really want an
> >explanation of that apparent contradiction.
>
> Newton's laws require that of two or more bodies in a rotating system
> all bodies will revolve around the center of mass. Since in the
> modified Tychoian Geocentric model the Earth is the immovable center
> of mass of the universe there is neither an actual nor an apparent
> contradiction with Newton's Laws. It certainly contradicts the
> atheist heliocentric model, but since it's false who cares.
Tony, you can't make something true by a simple pronouncement.
>
> So unless Broccoli can prove that the earth is moving at approximately
> 30 km/sec around the Sun and approx 400 km/sec around the Milky Way
> he's just pissing into the wind. I suspect Broccoli's going to get
> mighty wet before he proves either.
Being consistent with all the available data is pretty good evidence.
"Proof" is for math and other closed systems of logic.
In fact, the evidence all indicates that believing the rest of the
universe rotates around the Earth is a pretty silly idea. Not only can
matter not move that fast, but the gravity of the rest of the universe
isn't that strong.
You want the respectability of science, but then make these bizarre
claims, which are understood to be impossible.
>
> Regards,
> T Pagano
>
> When will the atheists learn that their whole edifice is built on
> sand?
Curious use of the metaphor "sand". Verifiable evidence and testable
models. A willingness to give up cherished ideas if the evidence
indicates. Results - Hubble Space telescope, GPS devices, the
internet, refrigerators, reattaching severed limbs, MRI imagery. Sorry
Tony - science works.
Kermit
Ernest Major
<996b5e19-c5a6-40f6...@w6g2000vbo.googlegroups.com>,
Friar Broccoli <eli...@gmail.com> writes
>> Newton's laws require that of two or more bodies in a rotating system
>> all bodies will revolve around the center of mass.
>
>This is the part that confuses me Tony: You say that "in a rotating
>system **all** bodies will revolve around the center of mass". Our
>solar system is such a "rotating system". Yet two planets closer to
>the sun (Mercury and Venus) have "decided" that the sun is the center
>of mass of the system, and 5 or 6 others (including Mars and Jupiter)
>have also "decided" the sun is the center of mass.
>
>Why then does the earth disagree, if as you say "**all** bodies will
>revolve around the center of mass"?
>
earth lies as the centre of mass of the universe as a whole, not of the
solar system. (I'm not even sure that the centre of mass of the universe
is a meaningful concept.)
However Tony doesn't understand what Newton's Laws require.
In a two body system the two bodies revolve around their centre of mass.
But Newton's Laws do not require that in a system of three or more
bodies all bodies revolve round the centre of mass. Bodies do not follow
independent orbits around the centre of mass. For example Galileo's
discovery that Io, Ganymede, Europa and Callisto revolve around Jupiter.
Or, that one of the standard possibilities of the evolution of a three
body system is ejection of one of the members.
It is a well known result of Newton's Laws that the gravitational force
of a uniform shell of matter, on matter lying within that shell, is
zero. Thus any subsystem lying within that shell revolves about its own
centre of mass, and not about the centre of mass of the whole system.
--
alias Ernest Major
Ray Martinez
[....]
> It certainly contradicts the
> atheist heliocentric model, but since it's false who cares.
>
[....]
> When will the atheists learn that their whole edifice is built on
> sand?- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Shortly after Darwin published, Marx wrote to Engels and said,
concerning "The Origin," that it contains "....the basis in natural
history for our view" (reference available upon request). We know that
Darwin's theory is Materialism, that is, the immaterial has no role in
the production of species (Gould 1977: see chapter titled "Darwin's
Delay"). Yet prior to 1859, science accepted independent creation and
species immutability (Darwin 1859:6, 310). ALL Atheists support
evolution rabidly and fanatically, as if the validity of their
worldview depends on it. Natural selection is self-evident nonsense----
it doesn't exist. Evolution (species mutability) therefore epitomizes
Atheist "science."
It is logically impossible for both the concept of evolution and the
concept of ID to exist in nature.
What exactly is keeping you from becoming a species immutabilist?
Mutability is a pro-Atheist assumption based on mere discovery of
similarity and patterns of similarity. The observation of ID is seen
in every aspect of nature----and it tells us that the assumption and
inference used by Darwin and his converts is false. This is why ToE
denies the existence of ID in nature. To admit is to admit the
assumption and inference is invalid.
I don't see how you can maintain heliocentrism Atheist "science," but
remain a supporter of microevolution. Review what Marx told Engels.
Our view is Paley's. According to Michael Behe, Paley 1802 has never
been refuted (1996:213). Paley was, of course, like nearly all
scientific men of his time, a species immutabilist.
I urge you to renounce microevolution. Atheists have no choice but to
believe in mutability since, in their minds, no God exists to cause
anything to exist.
Ray (Old Earth Paleyan IDist-species immutabilist)
Friar Broccoli
> In message
> <996b5e19-c5a6-40f6-ad60-ef86110e5...@w6g2000vbo.googlegroups.com>,
> Friar Broccoli <elia...@gmail.com> writes>> Newton's laws require that of two or more bodies in a rotating system
I actually do understand all this, but I want to work with Tony's own
words/concepts to the extent possible.
I wrote my previous post expecting Tony to go after orbiting planetary
(sub)systems.
Even a badly distorted understanding of the gravitational laws should
demolish Tony's model.
Dana Tweedy
> On Feb 18, 11:13 am, T Pagano<not.va...@address.net> wrote:
>
> [....]
>
>> It certainly contradicts the
>> atheist heliocentric model, but since it's false who cares.
>>
>
> [....]
>
>> When will the atheists learn that their whole edifice is built on
>> sand?- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
> Shortly after Darwin published, Marx wrote to Engels and said,
> concerning "The Origin," that it contains "....the basis in natural
> history for our view" (reference available upon request).
Provide the reference, please. What is missing in the elipsis? Also,
just because Marx held a particular view, doesn't mean that view is
correct.
> We know that
> Darwin's theory is Materialism, that is, the immaterial has no role in
> the production of species (Gould 1977: see chapter titled "Darwin's
> Delay").
Who is the 'we', Ray? Also, Darwin's theory was science, which makes
use of methodological naturalism, not strong Materialism. If the
"immaterial" is involved, it's not evident to science. Science has no
way of telling yes or no.
Yet prior to 1859, science accepted independent creation and
> species immutability (Darwin 1859:6, 310).
Ray, "independent creation" was always a religious belief, not science.
Species immutability was shown to be false, long before Darwin
himself published.
> ALL Atheists support
> evolution rabidly and fanatically, as if the validity of their
> worldview depends on it.
As you already know, Ray, not all atheists support evolution, rabidly,
or otherwise. The validity of their "worldview" does not depend on
evolution, and even if it did, that wouldn't affect the veracity of
evolution.
Again, Ray, it's the evidence that matters, not who might support the
theory.
> Natural selection is self-evident nonsense----
> it doesn't exist.
"Self evident" is Ray's way of evading having to support his worthless
claims. Natural selection is quite easily demonstrated.
> Evolution (species mutability) therefore epitomizes
> Atheist "science."
Evolution is a scientific theory, Ray. It has nothing to do with
"atheism".
>
> It is logically impossible for both the concept of evolution and the
> concept of ID to exist in nature.
Ray, whenever you start talking about logic, you embarrass yourself
terribly. Concepts exist only within minds, as they are abstractions.
That populations undergo change over generations has been directly
observed for millennia. The "concept of ID" is just your own false
assumptions, based on false premises. Order and complexity, rather
than indicating "ID" are the result of natural processes. It's quite
possible for both change in populations the appearance of order to exist
in nature at the same time.
>
> What exactly is keeping you from becoming a species immutabilist?
Most likely, the vast amount of evidence that indicates species do
change. With Tony it's hard to tell.
> Mutability is a pro-Atheist assumption based on mere discovery of
> similarity and patterns of similarity.
No, "mutability" is a direct observation based on a mountain of facts
collected over hundreds of years. Similarity, and the patterns of
similarity that indicate common descent is part of the evidence, but not
the only evidence.
> The observation of ID is seen
> in every aspect of nature----and it tells us that the assumption and
> inference used by Darwin and his converts is false.
There has never been an observation of "ID" in nature. Assuming your
idiosyncratic definition of ID meaning "supernatural design", no one has
ever seen ANY object designed, or manufactured by a supernatural being.
While design by human intelligence and manufacture has been observed,
it's not seen in every aspect of nature.
There has been an observation of order, and complexity in some parts
of nature, which don't necessarily mean "Intelligent Design". Natural
processes produce the appearance of design. Therefore it's unwarranted
to use the appearance of design as evidence of "intelligent design".
> This is why ToE
> denies the existence of ID in nature. To admit is to admit the
> assumption and inference is invalid.
As pointed out already, the theory of evolution does not deny the
existence of "ID" in nature. The theory explains the evidence without
having to invoke supernatural beings. The appearance of design is
known to produced by natural processes. Appeals to the supernatural
are inherently unscientific.
If Ray wishes to produce any evidence of any supernatural being,
producing anything, ever, he's welcome to do so. For some reason,
however, Ray runs very quickly away from any discussion of evidence.
>
> I don't see how you can maintain heliocentrism Atheist "science," but
> remain a supporter of microevolution.
Tony is a strange duck. Neither are "atheist science", as there is no
such thing. Science is open to everyone.
> Review what Marx told Engels.
Why would that matter, Ray? Marx was wrong.
> Our view is Paley's.
Except that Paley believed that God made use of natural processes,and
Paley made use of methodological naturalism in his scientific work.
Paley at least understood how science works. Ray has no clue.
> According to Michael Behe, Paley 1802 has never
> been refuted (1996:213).
If Behe said that, he was wrong.
> Paley was, of course, like nearly all
> scientific men of his time, a species immutabilist.
But his religious beliefs about creationism were still religious.
>
> I urge you to renounce microevolution.
Why? The evidence of microevolution is too strong to deny without
looking foolish.
> Atheists have no choice but to
> believe in mutability since, in their minds, no God exists to cause
> anything to exist.
What atheists believe is of no consequence to the fact of species
change. God's existence doesn't matter to the fact of species change.
It's all about the evidence, Ray. You need to address the evidence
that clearly shows that populations do change over time. If you fail to
do this, you are never going to convince anyone, even fellow creationists.
DJT
T Pagano
<pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>On Feb 18, 11:13 am, T Pagano <not.va...@address.net> wrote:
>
>[....]
>
>> It certainly contradicts the
>> atheist heliocentric model, but since it's false who cares.
>>
>
>[....]
>
>> When will the atheists learn that their whole edifice is built on
>> sand?- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
>Shortly after Darwin published, Marx wrote to Engels and said,
>concerning "The Origin," that it contains "....the basis in natural
>history for our view" (reference available upon request). We know that
>Darwin's theory is Materialism, that is, the immaterial has no role in
>the production of species (Gould 1977: see chapter titled "Darwin's
>Delay"). Yet prior to 1859, science accepted independent creation and
>species immutability (Darwin 1859:6, 310). ALL Atheists support
>evolution rabidly and fanatically, as if the validity of their
>worldview depends on it. Natural selection is self-evident nonsense----
>it doesn't exist. Evolution (species mutability) therefore epitomizes
>Atheist "science."
>
>It is logically impossible for both the concept of evolution and the
>concept of ID to exist in nature.
I don't disagree.
>
>What exactly is keeping you from becoming a species immutabilist?
>Mutability is a pro-Atheist assumption based on mere discovery of
>similarity and patterns of similarity. The observation of ID is seen
>in every aspect of nature----and it tells us that the assumption and
>inference used by Darwin and his converts is false. This is why ToE
>denies the existence of ID in nature. To admit is to admit the
>assumption and inference is invalid.
The label "immutable" is used to mean "not susceptible to any change"
which is refuted by the facts. Combine that with the fuzzy label
"species" which required a full length work by Wilkins to explicate
and I would have trouble signing on to "species immutability."
The evidence (consistent with Scripture) is clear that natural
processes do not create new biological systems, structures, organs or
creatures that did not exist in predecessors. In this sense I am
anti-neoDarwinian and anti biological-transformism
>
>I don't see how you can maintain heliocentrism Atheist "science," but
>remain a supporter of microevolution.
The heliocentric model of the universe is false as far as I can see; I
think the modified Tychoian geocentric model of the universe is true.
Microevolution simple means that some change occurs. The vast
majority of these minor OBSERVABLE changes is explanable by the vast
amount of variability already contained within the genome of the
population. None of these changes leads to new structures, systems,
organs or creatures. Microevolution is merely an expression of
information that always existed from the beginning and is non
transformational.
The issue with atheists is not that some change occurs (which it
obviously does) but whether transformational change occurs (which it
pretty obviously does not).
>Review what Marx told Engels.
>Our view is Paley's. According to Michael Behe, Paley 1802 has never
>been refuted (1996:213). Paley was, of course, like nearly all
>scientific men of his time, a species immutabilist.
As Behe points out (Behe 1996, p213) Paley was (most closely)
referring to the ORIGIN of IC systems. Paley argued that such systems
could not arise via purely naturalistic processes
>I urge you to renounce microevolution. Atheists have no choice but to
>believe in mutability since, in their minds, no God exists to cause
>anything to exist.
Mere mutability is not the issue; it is transformational mutability
that is untenable. So I don't have maintain complete immutability
only that transformational change has never been observed.
>
>Ray (Old Earth Paleyan IDist-species immutabilist)
Pagano (Young Earth Paleyan, Tycho-GeoCentrist, IDer, nonexistence of
biological transformational change)
Regards,
T Pagano
Bill
> On Thu, 17 Feb 2011 17:51:45 -0800 (PST), Friar Broccoli
>
>
>
>
>
>
> - Perlihatkan teks kutipan -
Tony, somebody asked you, with regarding to Dembski's filter, if you
could tell him the laws of nature. And you sent him to, of all places,
a physics text. How on earth could you do that? Physics texts
positively encourage the belief that the earth is not the center of
the universe. You are encouraging the spread of atheistical-
evolutionary-heliocentric badness. How irresponsible!
The least you can do, if you want to teach the use of Dembski's filter
to the confused masses, is provide a correct, unambiguous explanation
of the laws of nature. Sending people to read a college physics text,
at least without your help to interpret it clearly, is hopeless.
Bill
> Modern stratigraphy explains that many of the stratigraphic layers
> were laid as the result of sedimentation under water. And that many
> of the layers can be correlated on a vast regional or global extent.
.
> That comes dangerously close to meaning that modern stratigraphers
> propose a number of global-like floods occuring over time. In this
> light a single global flood is hardly been proven out of the realm of
> possibility.
O O O Ohhh - I love it. It's back. Global-like flooding, not your
traditional Noachic global flooding, but the new and more subtle
global-like flooding. As in when rain fails out of the sky and runs
downhill for miles and miles into a big global-like flood covering
about 75% of the earth's surface (75% is enough to make it "global-
like", isn't it?). That is pretty much what "modern stratigraphers"
propose - repeated global-like flooding over time.
Now I need to get out of town (Phnom Penh) and go down to the beach at
Sihanoukville and watch some more calm, global like flooding. What a
nice weekend.
>
>
>
> >It's not going to go away, Tony...
>
> This is the only thing that Casanova gets right.
>
> Regards,
> T Pagano- Sembunyikan teks kutipan -
John Harshman
Really? Can you a) explain what Ray meant by that and b) explain why
it's logically impossible?
>> What exactly is keeping you from becoming a species immutabilist?
>> Mutability is a pro-Atheist assumption based on mere discovery of
>> similarity and patterns of similarity. The observation of ID is seen
>> in every aspect of nature----and it tells us that the assumption and
>> I don't see how you can maintain heliocentrism Atheist "science," but
>> remain a supporter of microevolution.
>
> The heliocentric model of the universe is false as far as I can see; I
> think the modified Tychoian geocentric model of the universe is true.
What is your evidence that the heliocentric model (which is about the
solar system, not the universe) is false?
T Pagano
<broger...@gmail.com> wrote:
Sorry Bill; your boys are goin' down and I can't stop it now.
T Pagano
Ray often has a unique but fuzzy way of expressing things (I'm quite
sure I'm guilty of the same). I find myself reading between the lines
with Ray's unique style. I read Ray's statement to be a short hand
for something like this:
NeoDarwinian evolution purports to explain that every biological
structure, system, organ and creature was "created" via gradual,
linear-like, continuous, successive steps. Irreducibly Complex
systems are falsifiers to this claim (according to Darwin); that is,
they logically conflict. IC systems require, according to Dembski's
ID theory, an intelligent agent.
It is logically impossible for two conflicting positions (evolutionism
and ID) to both be true.
I'll let Ray be the judge.
>
>>> What exactly is keeping you from becoming a species immutabilist?
>>> Mutability is a pro-Atheist assumption based on mere discovery of
>>> similarity and patterns of similarity. The observation of ID is seen
>>> in every aspect of nature----and it tells us that the assumption and
>
>>> I don't see how you can maintain heliocentrism Atheist "science," but
>>> remain a supporter of microevolution.
>>
>> The heliocentric model of the universe is false as far as I can see; I
>> think the modified Tychoian geocentric model of the universe is true.
>
>What is your evidence that the heliocentric model (which is about the
>solar system, not the universe) is false?
We covered this in detail during May/June 2010. Early on you ran to
Carlip (your ringer) indicating that you lacked any background
understanding or interest in the matter.
So if you're genuinely interested why don't you offer evidence in
favor of the heliocentric model. I'll bet I can show that not only
is your evidence inconclusive but that it is also consistent with the
modified Tychoian geocentric model.
In any event this may come up in this thread if I decide to plow your
buddy Friar Broccoli six feet under.
Regards,
T Pagano
John Harshman
That isn't reading between the lines. That's making up a story that has
some of the same words in it.
> It is logically impossible for two conflicting positions (evolutionism
> and ID) to both be true.
>
> I'll let Ray be the judge.
Bad idea to let Ray be the judge of anything.
>>>> What exactly is keeping you from becoming a species immutabilist?
>>>> Mutability is a pro-Atheist assumption based on mere discovery of
>>>> similarity and patterns of similarity. The observation of ID is seen
>>>> in every aspect of nature----and it tells us that the assumption and
>>>> I don't see how you can maintain heliocentrism Atheist "science," but
>>>> remain a supporter of microevolution.
>>> The heliocentric model of the universe is false as far as I can see; I
>>> think the modified Tychoian geocentric model of the universe is true.
>> What is your evidence that the heliocentric model (which is about the
>> solar system, not the universe) is false?
>
> We covered this in detail during May/June 2010. Early on you ran to
> Carlip (your ringer) indicating that you lacked any background
> understanding or interest in the matter.
>
> So if you're genuinely interested why don't you offer evidence in
> favor of the heliocentric model. I'll bet I can show that not only
> is your evidence inconclusive but that it is also consistent with the
> modified Tychoian geocentric model.
Do you understand the difference between the inability to distinguish
between two models and the ability to reject one in favor of the other?
You made claims about the latter ("heliocentric model false, Tychonian
model true") and then defend it (sort of) with the former ("consistent
with").
> In any event this may come up in this thread if I decide to plow your
> buddy Friar Broccoli six feet under.
How can anyone so incompetent be so arrogant? Ah, yes. Dunning-Kruger
Syndrome.
Bill
> On Fri, 18 Feb 2011 17:24:13 -0800 (PST), Bill
>
.
>
> Sorry Bill; your boys are goin' down and I can't stop it now.
Says Tony "There are no American tanks in Baghdad" Pagano.
luke...@gmail.com
> On Fri, 18 Feb 2011 19:32:38 -0800, John Harshman
<jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> >What is your evidence that the heliocentric model (which is about the
> >solar system, not the universe) is false?
>
> We covered this in detail during May/June 2010. Early on you ran to
> Carlip (your ringer) indicating that you lacked any background
> understanding or interest in the matter.
Do you have a problem with some inviting a subject matter expert to
provide their input?
Tony, you have provided me with a great deal of amusement in the few
short years that I have been reading talk.origins.
I think you have also have provided irrefutable evidence that there
are
indeed alternate universes. You don't seem to live in the same one as
the rest of us.
jillery
wrote:
Shh! You might confuse him :)
Bill
> Induction. Sadly Hume let us know in 1739 that there is no method
> which can tell us which theory has a greater probability of truth.
> There are only methods which justify our level of belief. And who
> gives a hoot in hell what Casanova and his buddy Broccoli believe?
>
See, Tony, sometimes I think it's a waste of time to read your stuff,
but then you come up with a phrase like "drunk the deadly CoolAid of
Induction," and it's all worth it.
"The Deadly CoolAid of Induction;" that's better than "calm, global-
like flooding," or "individual fossils in stasis." You are a master of
language.
Bruce Stephens
> On Fri, 18 Feb 2011 19:32:38 -0800, John Harshman
> <jhar...@pacbell.net> wrote:
[...]
>>What is your evidence that the heliocentric model (which is about the
>>solar system, not the universe) is false?
>
> We covered this in detail during May/June 2010. Early on you ran to
> Carlip (your ringer) indicating that you lacked any background
> understanding or interest in the matter.
I think somebody reading those threads might notice that you didn't
reply to Steve Carlip very often. Any reason for that?
> So if you're genuinely interested why don't you offer evidence in
> favor of the heliocentric model. I'll bet I can show that not only is
> your evidence inconclusive but that it is also consistent with the
> modified Tychoian geocentric model.
Why not reply to one or two of Steve Carlip's responses instead? You've
had a few months to think about them now. It's almost like you have no
response.
[...]
Frank J
So you have gone back to young-Earth I see. I'm fairly sure that you
claimed to be an OEC a few years ago, and a YEC in the '90s. It's OK
to change one's mind, and also OK to find us some posts that prove me
right or wrong on that issue.
So exactly how old do you think the Earth is now?
I'm aware that Ray has refused many requests to state how old he
thinks the Earth is, but if we use the mainstream definitions of old
and young, respectively, of ~4.6 BY and ~6-10 KY, your disagreements
with Ray on that issue, not to mention the heliocentrism/geocentrism
one, make your agreements rather moot.
Then again, maybe what you call young is the same age that Ray calls
old. Some numbers from both of you might help.
>
> Regards,
> T Pagano- Hide quoted text -
T Pagano
<chris.li...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Feb 17, 7:13 pm, T Pagano <not.va...@address.net> wrote:
>> On Wed, 16 Feb 2011 19:26:26 -0800 (PST), chris thompson
>>
>> <chris.linthomp...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >In another thread, you made reference to laws of nature. Here is the
>> >quote:
>>
>> >> "Regularity" does NOT refer to "regular" processes but to natural
>> >> LAWS OF NATURE.
>>
>> >Please tell us the LAWS OF NATURE (emphasis yours).
>>
>> >Thanks
>>
>> >Chris
>>
>> Any college level physics text book should provide this answer for
>> you.
>>
>> Regards,
>> T Pagano
>
>Ah, thank you. But perusing through a physics text, I cannot seem to
>determine which laws of nature are relevant to Dembski's explanatory
>filter (that was, after all, the topic of discussion). Perhaps you
>could be a little more specific, especially with regards to biological
>applications of the filter?
The laws of nature are few and far between and they contain very
little information. They are wholly inadequate to explain any of the
complexity we see in the universe; this is why even the heavy weight
atheists like Dawkins must presume that chance-contingency plays an
extremely large role. As usual Thompson never reads quite far enough.
You're going to have to do way better than this Chris against lil 'ol
amateur me.
>Thanks
Welcome.
>
>Chris
"Some days you eat the bear and some days he eats you."
-atheists just don't get this immutable law.
To Bill: Your boys are droppin' like flies. What to do. . .what to
do.
Steven L.
"John Harshman" <jhar...@pacbell.net> wrote in message
news:cI6dnWEx6Zu...@giganews.com:
Pagano is beyond Dunning-Kruger Syndrome. He reached megalomania some
time ago.
-- Steven L.
Friar Broccoli
> On Fri, 18 Feb 2011 19:32:38 -0800, John Harshman
[snipping]
> So if you're genuinely interested why don't you offer evidence in
> favor of the heliocentric model. I'll bet I can show that not only
> is your evidence inconclusive but that it is also consistent with the
> modified Tychoian geocentric model.
>
> In any event this may come up in this thread if I decide to plow your
> buddy Friar Broccoli six feet under.
Tony, I am always asking myself, how do I know what I "know".
So although I believe God does not exist, and I believe that
evolution is driven by random mutation (together with selection
and drift etc), I also know that I do not *know* these things,
largely because I don't have enough direct and simple evidence.
But planetary orbits are different. Once Newton pointed out
(what should have been obvious) that they are governed by
gravity there remained no possibility that the sun orbited the
earth, given that the sun's mass is more than 300,000 times
greater. There cannot even be any doubt about the sun's mass
since the ocean tides, our moon and all the other planets
testify to it.
So Tony, ask yourself how you *know* the sun orbits the earth.
Couldn't, for example, Joshua have been using a simplified
description, especially since BOTH the sun and the moon were
stopped?
RAM
s/amateur/ignorant/
T Pagano
Gettin' mighty desparate when you have to put words into my mouth. I
rarely, if ever, discuss politics with anyone and if I did, it
certainly wouldn't be in an inappropriate forum like t.o . So Rogers
was left to pull this quote out of his arse.
The only real solution Bill is to turn from the dark side of the
Force, renounce the dark knights, turn towards the light and join the
Truth.
Harshman has made abundantly clear that modern secularists and the
modern secular academy care nothing for the Truth. You are either for
the Truth or against it; there is no other option.
Regards,
T Pagano
John Harshman
> Harshman has made abundantly clear that modern secularists and the
> modern secular academy care nothing for the Truth.
When did I make that clear, and how?
> You are either for
> the Truth or against it; there is no other option.
Is Truth different from truth?
Ray Martinez
As deluded as John Harshman has shown himself to be in any given topc,
even he, upthread, recognized that I said no such thing.
How can you possibly say that I am advocating anything Darwinian since
I plainly declare myself an immutabilist and anti-selectionist?
And why must you read between the lines (your thought)?----why don't
you simply assume that I say what I mean and mean what I say?
Moving on: Again, I simply see an egregious contradiction in your
position. First, I completey agree that Atheist "science" exists (as
you do too). Next, I made a quick and strong case that mutability
itself epitomizes Atheist "science." You completey ignored this
paragraph and its facts:
[BEGIN] Shortly after Darwin published, Marx wrote to Engels and said,
concerning "The Origin," that it contains "....the basis in natural
history for our view" (reference available upon request). We know that
Darwin's theory is Materialism, that is, the immaterial has no role in
the production of species (Gould 1977: see chapter titled "Darwin's
Delay"). Yet prior to 1859, science accepted independent creation and
species immutability (Darwin 1859:6, 310). ALL Atheists support
evolution rabidly and fanatically, as if the validity of their
worldview depends on it. Natural selection is self-evident
nonsense---- it doesn't exist. Evolution (species mutability)
therefore epitomizes Atheist "science." [END]
Species mutability (microevolution) was only accepted **beginning** in
1859. What happened in 1859, Tony? And it was accepted based on mere
discovery of variation, similarity and patterns thereof----and, most
importantly, it was proposed and accepted based on the ASSUMPTIONS of
Materialism (= Atheist "science.").
> It is logically impossible for two conflicting positions (evolutionism
> and ID) to both be true.
>
I think you assented, here.
If so, then your acceptance of microevolution and ID conflict and
contradict. Mutability was accepted as being caused by an (at the
time) unknown unintelligent agent; therefore if you must accept a
change in species you must, based on the fact that you are an IDist,
call such change 'designed.' The same cannot be called
microevolutionary change because mutability was accepted as being
caused, like I said, by unintelligent causation (which doesn't exist).
Even Michael Behe accepts Intelligent agency; he does not accept
unintelligent agency to exist in nature.
If none of this interests you then just ignore and I'll drop it. But
your entire case against Atheist "science" is undermined unless you
renounce closet Atheist Charles Darwin and his pro-Atheist explanation
of evidence (species mutability/microevoluton).
Ray
> I'll let Ray be the judge.
>
>
>
> >>> What exactly is keeping you from becoming a species immutabilist?
> >>> Mutability is a pro-Atheist assumption based on mere discovery of
> >>> similarity and patterns of similarity. The observation of ID is seen
> >>> in every aspect of nature----and it tells us that the assumption and
>
> >>> I don't see how you can maintain heliocentrism Atheist "science," but
> >>> remain a supporter of microevolution.
>
> >> The heliocentric model of the universe is false as far as I can see; I
> >> think the modified Tychoian geocentric model of the universe is true.
>
> >What is your evidence that the heliocentric model (which is about the
> >solar system, not the universe) is false?
>
> We covered this in detail during May/June 2010. Early on you ran to
> Carlip (your ringer) indicating that you lacked any background
> understanding or interest in the matter.
>
> So if you're genuinely interested why don't you offer evidence in
> favor of the heliocentric model. I'll bet I can show that not only
> is your evidence inconclusive but that it is also consistent with the
> modified Tychoian geocentric model.
>
> In any event this may come up in this thread if I decide to plow your
> buddy Friar Broccoli six feet under.
>
> Regards,
> T Pagano- Hide quoted text -
Bob Casanova
in talk.origins, posted by T Pagano <not....@address.net>:
>On Fri, 18 Feb 2011 10:48:10 -0700, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off>
>wrote:
<snip usual Tonyiocy>
>>IOW, is the Bible to be viewed as a science and history
>>text? As a specific example, did a global flood a la Noah
>>ever actually occur?
>The atheists repeat this idiocy without even thinking.
Hmmm...
How about those of us who are *not* atheists, but who know
both what the evidence shows and further, the limits of our
knowledge?
Is it "idiocy" to refer to Scripture? Interesting...
> Newspapers
>provide accurate reports on historical natural events all the time
>(like the eruption of a volcanoe).
Irrelevant; reporters aren't claimed to be 100% accurate, at
least by other than Fox and MSNBC.
> Often the reporters are on scene
>long before any scientists. No one accuses the newspaper report of
>being a science report or accuses the reporter of attempting to pawn
>off his historical account as a work of science.
Nice waffling. And I didn't equate history with science;
they're two different areas of knowledge.
So to sum up, the Bible *isn't* to be read literally? OK.
>Scripture is, in part, a work of history. Nonetheless as with any
>newspaper or eyewitness account the facts reported are relevent to any
>explanation of the event.
So the global flood was a "fact"? That doesn't sound as if
you're reading the Bible other than literally... Or does
"fact" have a meaning I haven't encountered?
And the people who wrote the Bible are to be viewed as
newspaper reporters?
But a global flood actually occurred, despite the
contradictory historical and scientific facts that no one
noticed it except a small tribe in the Middle East and that
it left no evidence? Sure sounds to me as if you insist on
treating the Bible as a literal record of history (and by
extension, as a science text; the missing geological
evidence for a global flood, y'know), despite your statement
above.
>Modern stratigraphy explains that many of the stratigraphic layers
>were laid as the result of sedimentation under water.
Yes. Now let's see what you make of that...
> And that many
>of the layers can be correlated on a vast regional or global extent.
Oops; no. Unless you mean "over a significant part of a
continent, during the melting following a glaciation". But
that hardly constitutes "global".
>That comes dangerously close to meaning that modern stratigraphers
>propose a number of global-like floods occuring over time.
Nope; sorry. No geologist makes any such claim. And what
does "global-like" mean? The Bible says the water covered
all the Earth; is that the minimum for "global-like"? Or is
the Bible factually incorrect?
> In this
>light a single global flood is hardly been proven out of the realm of
>possibility.
Actually, it has, at least in the time frame of interest.
Those non-Middle East cultures who didn't notice they'd all
drowned are a good start, and geological evidence shows no
indication of a global flood in the past few hundred million
years, at least.
You are, of course, welcome to provide cites to evidence
proving me wrong.
--
Bob C.
"Evidence confirming an observation is
evidence that the observation is wrong."
- McNameless
Bob Casanova
in talk.origins, posted by T Pagano <not....@address.net>:
>On Fri, 18 Feb 2011 17:24:13 -0800 (PST), Bill
><broger...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>Sorry Bill; your boys are goin' down and I can't stop it now.
Then isn't it about time for one of your famous declarations
of victory (victory seen only by you; why is that, I
wonder?) and "I'm done here" retreats from the field?
Bob Casanova
in talk.origins, posted by T Pagano <not....@address.net>:
>On Fri, 18 Feb 2011 21:36:34 -0800 (PST), Bill
><broger...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>On 19 Feb, 10:35, T Pagano <not.va...@address.net> wrote:
>>> On Fri, 18 Feb 2011 17:24:13 -0800 (PST), Bill
>>>
>>> <brogers31...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>.
>>>
>>> Sorry Bill; your boys are goin' down and I can't stop it now.
>>
>>Says Tony "There are no American tanks in Baghdad" Pagano.
>
>
>Gettin' mighty desparate when you have to put words into my mouth.
WHOOOSSSHHHH!
And did you mean "desperate" or "disparate"? They're not the
same, and neither seems to apply to Bill's post.
RAM
> On Sat, 19 Feb 2011 12:29:19 -0500, the following appeared
>
>
>
>
>
> >On Fri, 18 Feb 2011 21:36:34 -0800 (PST), Bill
> ><brogers31...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >>On 19 Feb, 10:35, T Pagano <not.va...@address.net> wrote:
> >>> On Fri, 18 Feb 2011 17:24:13 -0800 (PST), Bill
>
> >>> <brogers31...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >>.
>
> >>> Sorry Bill; your boys are goin' down and I can't stop it now.
>
> >>Says Tony "There are no American tanks in Baghdad" Pagano.
>
> >Gettin' mighty desparate when you have to put words into my mouth.
>
> WHOOOSSSHHHH!
>
> And did you mean "desperate" or "disparate"? They're not the
> same, and neither seems to apply to Bill's post.
> --
>
> Bob C.
>
> "Evidence confirming an observation is
> evidence that the observation is wrong."
> - McNameless
But desperate does apply to Pagano. It is his pattern to start
demeaning the TO posters who disagree with him and declare his humble
self victorious over the atheist TO rabble. However this pattern is
most notable when he posts a very dunderheaded, kookie and empirically
obvious set of incorrect assertions that he knows can't be backed-
up.
Like this; Pagano: "I said that technology does not rely on induction
which is a foundation of sand."
It is remarkably stupid statement and shows he will distort anything
or he really doesn't understand technology or induction (or both).
The latter probably is true. But what is almost incomprehensible is
how someone can make such an ignorant assertion. Then again it is
Pagano who has to deal with his religious demons eating his brain.
Ray Martinez
You are not guilty of the same (except as noted below).
Perhaps you could paste an excerpt/example of this alleged fuzziness?
Based on the fact that your "read between the lines" admission/
paragraph (below) has no correspondence to what I actually said or
argued (as confirmed by John Harshman), I think the problem is
probably on your end (comprehension/understanding)?
"In the end I agree with Ray but differ how I get to the end" (T.
Pagano; topic title change).
Until you renounce microevolution, and at least call the same
'designed,' which is consistent with your IDism, we don't agree.
Change must be described to accord with agency; in our case,
Intelligent or Divine (= designed, not evolutionary). In other words
there is no such thing as "Intelligent evolution" or "unintelligent
design." If any person advocates such things, they are demonstrably
confused; that is, they have fused (together) contrary and/or
contradictory concepts.
Ray
> T Pagano- Hide quoted text -
Ray Martinez
[....]
>
>
>
> >What exactly is keeping you from becoming a species immutabilist?
> >Mutability is a pro-Atheist assumption based on mere discovery of
> >similarity and patterns of similarity. The observation of ID is seen
> >in every aspect of nature----and it tells us that the assumption and
> >inference used by Darwin and his converts is false. This is why ToE
> >denies the existence of ID in nature. To admit is to admit the
> >assumption and inference is invalid.
>
> The label "immutable" is used to mean "not susceptible to any change"
> which is refuted by the facts.
Since basic mutability was accepted as being caused by unknown
unintelligent/natural agency, what facts are you alluding to?
Natural selection did not attain acceptance until the 1930s and 40s.
Both Lyell and Huxley, for example, rejected NS (references available
upon request).
Are you ASSUMING that mere discovery of variation and similarity/
patterns of similarity, means microevolution HAS occurred? Funny, that
was Darwin's pro-Atheist assumption, which he did not accept as real
until he "discovered" of natural selection.
> Combine that with the fuzzy label
> "species" which required a full length work by Wilkins to explicate
> and I would have trouble signing on to "species immutability."
>
"Species," in these context, indicates Paley's watches (sexually
reproducing animal species); explicated by Mayr as the "Biological
Species Concept" (BSC). This concept is the main object of explanation
in the Creationism-ID v. Darwinism debate. When Darwin wrote "On The
Origin Of Species...." he was talking about Paley's
"watches" (references available upon request).
So again, I think it is your understanding and/or knowledge that is
fuzzy, here.
> The evidence (consistent with Scripture) is clear that natural
> processes do not create new biological systems, structures, organs or
> creatures that did not exist in predecessors. In this sense I am
> anti-neoDarwinian and anti biological-transformism
>
>
>
> >I don't see how you can maintain heliocentrism Atheist "science," but
> >remain a supporter of microevolution.
>
> The heliocentric model of the universe is false as far as I can see; I
> think the modified Tychoian geocentric model of the universe is true.
>
> Microevolution simple means that some change occurs. The vast
> majority of these minor OBSERVABLE changes is explanable by the vast
> amount of variability already contained within the genome of the
> population.
Produce a YouTube and support "OBSERVABLE."
Evolution (any increment) is ascertained by inference, not
observation.
> None of these changes leads to new structures, systems,
> organs or creatures. Microevolution is merely an expression of
> information that always existed from the beginning and is non
> transformational.
>
> The issue with atheists is not that some change occurs (which it
> obviously does) but whether transformational change occurs (which it
> pretty obviously does not).
>
> >Review what Marx told Engels.
> >Our view is Paley's. According to Michael Behe, Paley 1802 has never
> >been refuted (1996:213). Paley was, of course, like nearly all
> >scientific men of his time, a species immutabilist.
>
> As Behe points out (Behe 1996, p213) Paley was (most closely)
> referring to the ORIGIN of IC systems. Paley argued that such systems
> could not arise via purely naturalistic processes
>
> >I urge you to renounce microevolution. Atheists have no choice but to
> >believe in mutability since, in their minds, no God exists to cause
> >anything to exist.
>
> Mere mutability is not the issue; it is transformational mutability
> that is untenable. So I don't have maintain complete immutability
> only that transformational change has never been observed.
>
>
>
> >Ray (Old Earth Paleyan IDist-species immutabilist)
>
> Pagano (Young Earth Paleyan, Tycho-GeoCentrist, IDer, nonexistence of
> biological transformational change)
>
> Regards,
> T Pagano- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
In all the years that I have been reading your posts I never knew or
saw any indication that you accepted a young Earth. (I was shocked to
see that you accept geocentrism.)
I accept an old Earth based on one main fact: the Bible says the Earth
is old. Science corroborates.
Ray
Ray Martinez
[....]
>
> Microevolution simple means that some change occurs.
No, it does not.
Since Biology accepted immutability before Darwin published in 1859
(Darwin 1859:310), mutability was accepted as being caused by unknown
natural/unintelligent agency; therefore "microevolution" means "change
accomplished by natural/unintelligent agency." Of course "natural" is
an adjective, it means "non-supernatural or non-Intelligent."
The concept of evolution (micro or macro) does not exist in nature.
Ray (IDist)
[....]
Dana Tweedy
> On Feb 18, 8:21 pm, T Pagano<not.va...@address.net> wrote:
>
>> I find myself reading between the lines
>> with Ray's unique style. I read Ray's statement to be a short hand
>> for something like this:
>>
>> NeoDarwinian evolution purports to explain that every biological
>> structure, system, organ and creature was "created" via gradual,
>> linear-like, continuous, successive steps. Irreducibly Complex
>> systems are falsifiers to this claim (according to Darwin); that is,
>> they logically conflict. IC systems require, according to Dembski's
>> ID theory, an intelligent agent.
>>
>
> As deluded as John Harshman has shown himself to be in any given topc,
> even he, upthread, recognized that I said no such thing.
>
> How can you possibly say that I am advocating anything Darwinian since
> I plainly declare myself an immutabilist and anti-selectionist?
Well, Ray, you have to admit your positions are in conflict with the
vast amount of evidence showing you are wrong. Even for Tony it must be
difficult to accept that you'd be that delusional.
>
> And why must you read between the lines (your thought)?----why don't
> you simply assume that I say what I mean and mean what I say?
Because there is so many instances where you haven't said what you mean,
or meant what you said.
>
> Moving on: Again, I simply see an egregious contradiction in your
> position. First, I completey agree that Atheist "science" exists (as
> you do too). Next, I made a quick and strong case that mutability
> itself epitomizes Atheist "science."
There is no such thing as "atheist science". All science is open to
anyone to use. "mutability" has nothing to do with atheism, and
everything to do with direct observation.
> You completey ignored this
> paragraph and its facts:
Please note, Ray, that your bizarre fantasies are not "facts".
>
> [BEGIN] Shortly after Darwin published, Marx wrote to Engels and said,
> concerning "The Origin," that it contains "....the basis in natural
> history for our view" (reference available upon request). We know that
> Darwin's theory is Materialism, that is, the immaterial has no role in
> the production of species (Gould 1977: see chapter titled "Darwin's
> Delay"). Yet prior to 1859, science accepted independent creation and
> species immutability (Darwin 1859:6, 310). ALL Atheists support
> evolution rabidly and fanatically, as if the validity of their
> worldview depends on it. Natural selection is self-evident
> nonsense---- it doesn't exist. Evolution (species mutability)
> therefore epitomizes Atheist "science." [END]
I've already shown where and how you've made mistakes in the above
paragraph. You should also be aware that Natural Selection is separate
from "mutability", which means everything after your "therefore" is a
non sequitur.
>
> Species mutability (microevolution) was only accepted **beginning** in
> 1859.
As has been pointed out many times, species mutability was recognized
and accepted by many scientists before Darwin.
> What happened in 1859, Tony?
Lots of things, Ray, but your assertion is not correct. Science didn't
change in 1859. Darwin used the exact same science that Newton, Cuvier,
and Paley used.
> And it was accepted based on mere
> discovery of variation, similarity and patterns thereof
Plus a great deal more evidence. Variation itself is good evidence
that species change. Similarities and the twin nested hierarchy of life
also give good evidence of "mutability". Darwin also had more evidence
of change in species, from selective breeding, to anatomical studies.
> ----and, most
> importantly, it was proposed and accepted based on the ASSUMPTIONS of
> Materialism (= Atheist "science.").
No, it was proposed and accepted based on the operation of all science.
Darwin's science wasn't any different from those used by those who
came before him. Darwin didn't "assume materialism", he made use of
methodological naturalism, like any scientist would.
>
>
>> It is logically impossible for two conflicting positions (evolutionism
>> and ID) to both be true.
>>
>
> I think you assented, here.
>
> If so, then your acceptance of microevolution and ID conflict and
> contradict.
That wouldn't be the first contradiction Tony has pushed.
> Mutability was accepted as being caused by an (at the
> time) unknown unintelligent agent;
Actually, Darwin knew the "agent", it was variation and natural
selection. He didn't know about genes. He also knew that intelligent
beings (humans) could affect how populations changed.
> therefore if you must accept a
> change in species you must, based on the fact that you are an IDist,
> call such change 'designed.'
It doesn't matter what you call it, Ray, it's still evolution.
> The same cannot be called
> microevolutionary change because mutability was accepted as being
> caused, like I said, by unintelligent causation (which doesn't exist).
This is another error you keep making. "Mutability" was accepted
because it was observed to happen. The causation doesn't matter to the
fact that change below the level of species happens. Such change is
defined as microevolution. Tony denies macroevolution, for no more
rational causes than you deny microevolution.
> Even Michael Behe accepts Intelligent agency; he does not accept
> unintelligent agency to exist in nature.
I would think that Michael Behe would strongly object to being
misrepresented that way.
>
> If none of this interests you then just ignore and I'll drop it. But
> your entire case against Atheist "science" is undermined unless you
> renounce closet Atheist Charles Darwin and his pro-Atheist explanation
> of evidence (species mutability/microevoluton).
Darwin wasn't an atheist, closet or otherwise, and his explanation of
the evidence was not "pro atheist". His explanation was scientific, as
opposed to religious ones that you and Tony favor. There's nothing
wrong with favoring religious explanations, but don't try to claim they
are as useful as scientific ones.
DJT
Frank J
Like you I am hoping for, but not expecting, clarification from Pagano
as to the "evolution" of his "theory". I have been aware of his
geocentrism for a few months. AFAIK all geocentrists are YECs too, but
there's no reason they need be. Same for flat-earthers.
>
> I accept an old Earth based on one main fact: the Bible says the Earth
> is old. Science corroborates.
Science says that the Earth is 4.5 to 4.6 billion years old and that
the first life 3.5 to 4.0 BY old. Do you and the Bible agree?
>
> Ray- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
Dana Tweedy
snip
>> Ray often has a unique but fuzzy way of expressing things (I'm quite
>> sure I'm guilty of the same).
>
> You are not guilty of the same (except as noted below).
Aw, Ray be honest. Tony is quite "fuzzy" in his way of expressing things.
>
> Perhaps you could paste an excerpt/example of this alleged fuzziness?
> Based on the fact that your "read between the lines" admission/
> paragraph (below) has no correspondence to what I actually said or
> argued (as confirmed by John Harshman), I think the problem is
> probably on your end (comprehension/understanding)?
You should also be aware, Ray that you often misrepresent your opponents
as well.
>
> "In the end I agree with Ray but differ how I get to the end" (T.
> Pagano; topic title change).
>
> Until you renounce microevolution, and at least call the same
> 'designed,' which is consistent with your IDism, we don't agree.
It wouldn't matter of microevolution were "designed" (even though there
is no evidence the process requires a purposeful designer), it's still
microevolution, which inevitably leads to macroevolution.
> Change must be described to accord with agency; in our case,
> Intelligent or Divine (= designed, not evolutionary).
It doesn't matter what the "agency" might be, Ray, it's still evolution.
> In other words
> there is no such thing as "Intelligent evolution" or "unintelligent
> design."
Why not? One can easily show many examples of both. "Intelligent
evolution" would be stock breeding, or horticulture. "Unintelligent
design" is what natural selection produces.
> If any person advocates such things, they are demonstrably
> confused;
Or, more likely, you are wrong about the whole thing.
> that is, they have fused (together) contrary and/or
> contradictory concepts.
Except that the concepts are not contradictory. They exist together
quite well. Many examples can be provided from nature.
DJT
Dana Tweedy
> On Feb 18, 5:08 pm, T Pagano<not.va...@address.net> wrote:
>
> [....]
>
>>
>>
>>
>>> What exactly is keeping you from becoming a species immutabilist?
>>> Mutability is a pro-Atheist assumption based on mere discovery of
>>> similarity and patterns of similarity. The observation of ID is seen
>>> in every aspect of nature----and it tells us that the assumption and
>>> inference used by Darwin and his converts is false. This is why ToE
>>> denies the existence of ID in nature. To admit is to admit the
>>> assumption and inference is invalid.
>>
>> The label "immutable" is used to mean "not susceptible to any change"
>> which is refuted by the facts.
>
> Since basic mutability was accepted as being caused by unknown
> unintelligent/natural agency, what facts are you alluding to?
Ray, "mutability" was accepted because it was observed, even before a
mechanism was known. The facts are the many observations of change in
populations over time. Farmers and stock breeders knew about these
changes long before Darwin was born.
>
> Natural selection did not attain acceptance until the 1930s and 40s.
Natural selection was accepted by many scientists about the same time as
Darwin, and Darwin wasn't the only one to come up with the idea.
Natural selection was recognized as being a major part of the mechanism
of evolution from Darwin's time on. Before the re-discovery of
genetics, it was still considered part of the mechanism, but not as
important.
Also, the fact that species change was recognized long before natural
selection was considered to be part of the mechanism.
> Both Lyell and Huxley, for example, rejected NS (references available
> upon request).
Provide the reference. Lyell and Huxley may have thought there was
other mechanisms, but they didn't reject natural selection as part of
the mechanism.
>
> Are you ASSUMING that mere discovery of variation and similarity/
> patterns of similarity, means microevolution HAS occurred?
Most likely, no, because there is plenty of other evidence of
microevolution, including direct observation. "Variation" is of course
a necessary condition for microevolution, and the patterns of similarity
is good evidence for common descent.
> Funny, that
> was Darwin's pro-Atheist assumption, which he did not accept as real
> until he "discovered" of natural selection.
Darwin didn't have any "pro atheist" assumptions. He used
methodological naturalism, like any other scientist. Darwin, of
course didn't use the term "microevolution".
>
>> Combine that with the fuzzy label
>> "species" which required a full length work by Wilkins to explicate
>> and I would have trouble signing on to "species immutability."
>>
>
> "Species," in these context, indicates Paley's watches (sexually
> reproducing animal species);
Sexually reproducing animals species are only a small part of life on
Earth, Ray. Paley didn't limit his metaphor of a "watch" to just animal
life, or to sexually reproducing animals.
> explicated by Mayr as the "Biological
> Species Concept" (BSC).
Of course, Mayr was quite aware that his BSC was incomplete.
> This concept is the main object of explanation
> in the Creationism-ID v. Darwinism debate.
Wrong again, Ray. Among scientists, there is no such debate.
Evolution explains all living things, not just "sexually reproducing
animals", and creationism explains nothing.
> When Darwin wrote "On The
> Origin Of Species...." he was talking about Paley's
> "watches" (references available upon request).
Provide the reference, and indicate where Darwin claimed that evolution
only applied to animals, or sexually reproducing animals.
>
> So again, I think it is your understanding and/or knowledge that is
> fuzzy, here.
It's clear, Ray that your own understanding is not "fuzzy" but
completely blind.
>
>> The evidence (consistent with Scripture) is clear that natural
>> processes do not create new biological systems, structures, organs or
>> creatures that did not exist in predecessors. In this sense I am
>> anti-neoDarwinian and anti biological-transformism
>>
>>
>>
>>> I don't see how you can maintain heliocentrism Atheist "science," but
>>> remain a supporter of microevolution.
>>
>> The heliocentric model of the universe is false as far as I can see; I
>> think the modified Tychoian geocentric model of the universe is true.
>>
>> Microevolution simple means that some change occurs. The vast
>> majority of these minor OBSERVABLE changes is explanable by the vast
>> amount of variability already contained within the genome of the
>> population.
>
> Produce a YouTube and support "OBSERVABLE."
There are other ways of observing than using you tube, Ray. There are
thousands of scientific studies where microevolution was directly
observed. Is reading scientific papers too much a challenge to you?
>
> Evolution (any increment) is ascertained by inference, not
> observation.
All observations require inference, Ray. Even direct eyewitness events
are inferred. What problem do you have with inference? When you say
you "see" ID, you are inferring it, and from false premises.
snipping
>
> In all the years that I have been reading your posts I never knew or
> saw any indication that you accepted a young Earth. (I was shocked to
> see that you accept geocentrism.)
See, Ray, even your "allies" don't agree with you.
>
> I accept an old Earth based on one main fact: the Bible says the Earth
> is old. Science corroborates.
The Bible doesn't say the Earth is old, Ray. More to the point, why do
accept what science says about the age of the Earth, but deny it when it
shows your own claims to be wrong?
DJT
Dana Tweedy
> On Feb 18, 5:08 pm, T Pagano<not.va...@address.net> wrote:
>
> [....]
>
>>
>> Microevolution simple means that some change occurs.
>
> No, it does not.
Technically, what it means is evolution below the level of speciation.
>
> Since Biology accepted immutability before Darwin published in 1859
> (Darwin 1859:310),
While many biologists assumed fixed species before Darwin, it wasn't
universal. Their belief in fixity was based largely on Linnaeus's
classifications, and their religious beliefs about God being unchanging.
Long before Darwin, the idea of species change had been gaining
ground, and it was Wallace and Darwin, as well as many others, who
eventually showed fixity to be untenable.
> mutability was accepted as being caused by unknown
> natural/unintelligent agency;
"mutability" was accepted because the evidence for it was too strong to
deny. The "agency" that caused change was laid out by Darwin and
Wallace (again with support from many others). It was later that the
discovery of genetics allowed the mechanism of evolution to be well
understood.
> therefore "microevolution" means "change
> accomplished by natural/unintelligent agency."
any scientific explanation requires a natural, and testable "agency".
Appeals to supernatural agency are inherently unscientific. However,
it doesn't matter to the definition of microevoluiton that the cause be
"unintelligent". Human selection acting on random mutations produces
microevolution just as well as natural selection.
> Of course "natural" is
> an adjective, it means "non-supernatural or non-Intelligent."
In science, "natural" usually means "not influenced by humans". The
"non supernatural" is a given, as no science invokes the supernatural as
an explanation. "Non intelligent", is also a given, unless there's
some evidence of human intervention.
>
> The concept of evolution (micro or macro) does not exist in nature.
First of all, concepts only exist in minds. Second, the fact of
evolution, both macro and micro does exist, and can easily be observed.
Rejecting evolution because you can't accept that your assertions may
be wrong is just silly.
DJT
Bill
> On Fri, 18 Feb 2011 21:36:34 -0800 (PST), Bill
>
> >On 19 Feb, 10:35, T Pagano <not.va...@address.net> wrote:
> >> On Fri, 18 Feb 2011 17:24:13 -0800 (PST), Bill
>
> >> <brogers31...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >.
>
> >> Sorry Bill; your boys are goin' down and I can't stop it now.
.
>
> >Says Tony "There are no American tanks in Baghdad" Pagano.
>
> Gettin' mighty desparate when you have to put words into my mouth. I
> rarely, if ever, discuss politics with anyone and if I did, it
> certainly wouldn't be in an inappropriate forum like t.o . So Rogers
> was left to pull this quote out of his arse.
Tony, I know you've been posting since at least 2003, so it can't be
that you're too young to have gotten the reference. Too something
else, perhaps...
Bob Casanova
in talk.origins, posted by John Harshman
<jhar...@pacbell.net>:
>T Pagano wrote:
>
>> Harshman has made abundantly clear that modern secularists and the
>> modern secular academy care nothing for the Truth.
>
>When did I make that clear, and how?
You refuted Tony's claims, which by Tony's definition are
Truth.
>> You are either for
>> the Truth or against it; there is no other option.
>
>Is Truth different from truth?
Yes. The first refers to unsubstantiated claims, while the
second has a link to reality. Tony's only interested in the
first.
Bob Casanova
appeared in talk.origins, posted by RAM
<ramat...@gmail.com>:
>On Feb 19, 1:08 pm, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
>> On Sat, 19 Feb 2011 12:29:19 -0500, the following appeared
>> in talk.origins, posted by T Pagano <not.va...@address.net>:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> >On Fri, 18 Feb 2011 21:36:34 -0800 (PST), Bill
>> ><brogers31...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >>On 19 Feb, 10:35, T Pagano <not.va...@address.net> wrote:
>> >>> On Fri, 18 Feb 2011 17:24:13 -0800 (PST), Bill
>>
>> >>> <brogers31...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >>.
>>
>> >>> Sorry Bill; your boys are goin' down and I can't stop it now.
>>
>> >>Says Tony "There are no American tanks in Baghdad" Pagano.
>>
>> >Gettin' mighty desparate when you have to put words into my mouth.
>>
>> WHOOOSSSHHHH!
>>
>> And did you mean "desperate" or "disparate"? They're not the
>> same, and neither seems to apply to Bill's post.
>But desperate does apply to Pagano.
Well, yeah. But we all knew that.
> It is his pattern to start
>demeaning the TO posters who disagree with him and declare his humble
>self victorious over the atheist TO rabble. However this pattern is
>most notable when he posts a very dunderheaded, kookie and empirically
>obvious set of incorrect assertions that he knows can't be backed-
>up.
>
>Like this; Pagano: "I said that technology does not rely on induction
>which is a foundation of sand."
>
>It is remarkably stupid statement and shows he will distort anything
>or he really doesn't understand technology or induction (or both).
>The latter probably is true. But what is almost incomprehensible is
>how someone can make such an ignorant assertion. Then again it is
>Pagano who has to deal with his religious demons eating his brain.
Actually, I think Tony would act the same even if he weren't
religious (or at least, his version of "religious"). Think
of the Raelians, and remember that fanaticism isn't
restricted to religion, at least not the sort of religion
involving deities.
Bill
Sure, Truth is even more truthlike than truth is.
John Harshman
Bob Casanova
in talk.origins, posted by Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off>:
And Brave Sir Tony runs away again...
Steven L.
"Ray Martinez" <pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:89ef1c44-75dd-44ee...@u23g2000pro.googlegroups.com:
I keep asking you how MRSA appeared for the first time in 1961.
I keep asking you how HIV appeared for the first time in the early 20th
century.
If species are immutable, where did MRSA come from? Where did HIV come
from? (Remember that in all the medical literature prior to the 20th
century, there is no syndrome like AIDS ever reported. It's a brand new
disease caused by a brand new virus.)
Are you ever going to respond?
-- Steven L.
Frank J
> "Ray Martinez" <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
Sure. As soon as he answers my "when" questions and publishes his
book. Gene Scott's resurrection will come first of course.
>
> -- Steven L.- Hide quoted text -
Ray Martinez
> On Fri, 18 Feb 2011 15:24:29 -0500, the following appeared
>
> >On Fri, 18 Feb 2011 10:48:10 -0700, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off>
> >wrote:
>
> <snip usual Tonyiocy>
>
> >>IOW, is the Bible to be viewed as a science and history
> >>text? As a specific example, did a global flood a la Noah
> >>ever actually occur?
> >The atheists repeat this idiocy without even thinking.
>
> Hmmm...
>
> How about those of us who are *not* atheists, but who know
> both what the evidence shows and further, the limits of our
> knowledge?
>
> Is it "idiocy" to refer to Scripture? Interesting...
>
> > Newspapers
> >provide accurate reports on historical natural events all the time
> >(like the eruption of a volcanoe).
>
> Irrelevant; reporters aren't claimed to be 100% accurate, at
> least by other than Fox and MSNBC.
>
> > Often the reporters are on scene
> >long before any scientists. No one accuses the newspaper report of
> >being a science report or accuses the reporter of attempting to pawn
> >off his historical account as a work of science.
>
> Nice waffling. And I didn't equate history with science;
> they're two different areas of knowledge.
>
> So to sum up, the Bible *isn't* to be read literally? OK.
>
Is your belief about the Bible intended to be taken literally?
Ray
Dana Tweedy
That depends. Are Bob's writings a collection of pre-scientific
legends, poetry, metaphor, and religious instruction? Were they
translated many times, across different cultures? Do Bob's writings
contradict factual findings, and scientific theories?
DJT
Bob Casanova
appeared in talk.origins, posted by Ray Martinez
<pyram...@yahoo.com>:
>On Feb 19, 11:01 am, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
<snip>
>> So to sum up, the Bible *isn't* to be read literally? OK.
>Is your belief about the Bible intended to be taken literally?
What has that to do with the question? Do you *ever* post
anything relevant?
<snip>
Bob Casanova
in talk.origins, posted by Dana Tweedy
<redd...@bresnan.net>:
>On 2/23/11 3:06 PM, Ray Martinez wrote:
>> On Feb 19, 11:01 am, Bob Casanova<nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
<snip>
>>> So to sum up, the Bible *isn't* to be read literally? OK.
>> Is your belief about the Bible intended to be taken literally?
>That depends. Are Bob's writings a collection of pre-scientific
>legends, poetry, metaphor, and religious instruction? Were they
>translated many times, across different cultures? Do Bob's writings
>contradict factual findings, and scientific theories?
Sometimes, but I'm always open to correction by those more
knowledgeable. Of course, neither Tony nor Ray (The Waffler
and his demented sidekick, Attack Dog) qualifies.
Ray Martinez
> On Wed, 23 Feb 2011 14:06:08 -0800 (PST), the following
> appeared in talk.origins, posted by Ray Martinez
>
> >On Feb 19, 11:01 am, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> >> So to sum up, the Bible *isn't* to be read literally? OK.
> >Is your belief about the Bible intended to be taken literally?
>
> What has that to do with the question? Do you *ever* post
> anything relevant?
>
Since you are arguing that text should not be understood literally,
you have undermined your own comments and posts, Einstein.
Ray
Ray Martinez
Should we understand your comments and beliefs in a literal sense?
Ray
Dana Tweedy
> On Feb 24, 3:13 pm, Bob Casanova<nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
>> On Wed, 23 Feb 2011 14:06:08 -0800 (PST), the following
>> appeared in talk.origins, posted by Ray Martinez
>> <pyramid...@yahoo.com>:
>>
>>> On Feb 19, 11:01 am, Bob Casanova<nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>>>> So to sum up, the Bible *isn't* to be read literally? OK.
>>> Is your belief about the Bible intended to be taken literally?
>>
>> What has that to do with the question? Do you *ever* post
>> anything relevant?
>>
>
> Since you are arguing that text should not be understood literally,
> you have undermined your own comments and posts, Einstein.
No, he hasn't undermined his post, Ray. He's asking you what does your
question have to do with the question Bob asked.
I already pointed out the difference between Bob's writing, and the
Bible. Do you agree that a statement by an individual might be
somewhat different from writings in the Bible?
DJT
Dana Tweedy
Same comments regarding Bob's writings.
DJT
Ray Martinez
>
> - Show quoted text -
Since Bob advocated certain text as not to be understood literally,
how do we, or you, or anyone for that matter, know that his advocacy
should be taken or understood literally?
Note that Bob has decided to play dumb and not address or answer the
question.
Thus far your input agrees with Bob----that certain text is not to be
understood literally. Is your input to be understood literally? If so,
how does anyone know or find out? Based on said advocacy, a legitimate
doubt exists.
Ray
Bob Casanova
appeared in talk.origins, posted by Ray Martinez
>On Feb 24, 3:13 pm, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
>> On Wed, 23 Feb 2011 14:06:08 -0800 (PST), the following
>> appeared in talk.origins, posted by Ray Martinez
>> <pyramid...@yahoo.com>:
>>
>> >On Feb 19, 11:01 am, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>> >> So to sum up, the Bible *isn't* to be read literally? OK.
>> >Is your belief about the Bible intended to be taken literally?
>>
>> What has that to do with the question? Do you *ever* post
>> anything relevant?
>>
>
>Since you are arguing that text should not be understood literally,
>you have undermined your own comments and posts, Einstein.
No, Ray, I said that the *Bible* isn't a literal science or
history text; it's a moral guide, using mostly allegory.
*Real* Biblical scholars agree on this point.
Obviously that guidance was wasted on you.
Dana Tweedy
Did you read what I asked you about Bob's statements?
>
> Note that Bob has decided to play dumb and not address or answer the
> question.
No, playing dumb is what you've been doing... of course, you may not be
playing.
>
> Thus far your input agrees with Bob----that certain text is not to be
> understood literally. Is your input to be understood literally? If so,
> how does anyone know or find out? Based on said advocacy, a legitimate
> doubt exists.
Again, see my comments regarding Bob's writings.
DJT
Ray Martinez
> On Thu, 24 Feb 2011 16:12:36 -0800 (PST), the following
> appeared in talk.origins, posted by Ray Martinez
>
>
>
>
>
> >On Feb 24, 3:13 pm, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
> >> On Wed, 23 Feb 2011 14:06:08 -0800 (PST), the following
> >> appeared in talk.origins, posted by Ray Martinez
> >> <pyramid...@yahoo.com>:
>
> >> >On Feb 19, 11:01 am, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
>
> >> <snip>
>
> >> >> So to sum up, the Bible *isn't* to be read literally? OK.
> >> >Is your belief about the Bible intended to be taken literally?
>
> >> What has that to do with the question? Do you *ever* post
> >> anything relevant?
>
> >Since you are arguing that text should not be understood literally,
> >you have undermined your own comments and posts, Einstein.
>
> No, Ray, I said that the *Bible* isn't a literal science or
> history text; it's a moral guide, using mostly allegory.
> *Real* Biblical scholars agree on this point.
>
> Obviously that guidance was wasted on you.
> --
>
> Bob C.
>
> "Evidence confirming an observation is
> evidence that the observation is wrong."
>
> - Show quoted text -
Since you argue and advocate that some texts should not be taken or
understood literally, how does anyone know or find out that said
argument and advocacy should be taken and understood literally?
I am genuinely uncertain based on said argument and advocacy. Is it
not a good idea to state in your argument/advocacy that your argument/
advocacy is to be taken and understood literally? Absent idea
implementation your argument/advocacy is saying, literally, that your
argument/advocacy should not be taken or understood literally.
Ray
Ray Martinez
> On Thu, 24 Feb 2011 16:12:36 -0800 (PST), the following
> appeared in talk.origins, posted by Ray Martinez
>
>
>
>
>
> >On Feb 24, 3:13 pm, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
> >> On Wed, 23 Feb 2011 14:06:08 -0800 (PST), the following
> >> appeared in talk.origins, posted by Ray Martinez
> >> <pyramid...@yahoo.com>:
>
> >> >On Feb 19, 11:01 am, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
>
> >> <snip>
>
> >> >> So to sum up, the Bible *isn't* to be read literally? OK.
> >> >Is your belief about the Bible intended to be taken literally?
>
> >> What has that to do with the question? Do you *ever* post
> >> anything relevant?
>
> >Since you are arguing that text should not be understood literally,
> >you have undermined your own comments and posts, Einstein.
>
> No, Ray, I said that the *Bible* isn't a literal science or
All this says is that the Bible is scientifically and historically
false. The same is predictable Atheist/secular ideology. Christians,
of course, disagree.
> ....it's a moral guide, using mostly allegory.
All this says is that a particular dimension of the Bible is valid or
could be valid. If true, that is, if the Bible relates a good moral
code of behavior, then the same becomes evidence supporting the
foundational claim of the Canon: Divine inspiration. Imagine that; God
is an expert in establishing morality, but lied about science and
history!
> *Real* Biblical scholars agree on this point.
>
All this says is that a person cannot be a real Bible scholar unless
they advocate a certain position (the Bible more or less correct
concerning morality, but incorrect concerning science and history). In
other words Bob is saying only Darwinists (enemies of the Bible) can
be real Bible scholars.
Since Genesis says natural causation, evolution and common descent are
false, the opinions of Darwinists who are Bible "scholars" become
entirely predictable and of course predetermined.
Ray
[....]
Randy C
> All this says is that the Bible is scientifically and historically
> false. The same is predictable Atheist/secular ideology. Christians,
> of course, disagree.
Actually, the majority of Christians agree that the Bible should NOT
be read literally.
You worship the Bible rather than Jesus, or even God. So YOU are
hardly one to judge what Christians believe.
Randy C
> All this says is that the Bible is scientifically and historically
> false.
A claim that is demonstrably true.
Of course some small part of the Bible is consistent with historical
records.
To be generous, shall we say 5%?
The rest of the Bible is undeniably nothing but myths, contradictions,
inconsistencies and failed prophecies.
Right?
Bob Casanova
appeared in talk.origins, posted by Ray Martinez
>On Feb 25, 1:58 pm, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
>> On Thu, 24 Feb 2011 16:12:36 -0800 (PST), the following
>> appeared in talk.origins, posted by Ray Martinez
>> <pyramid...@yahoo.com>:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> >On Feb 24, 3:13 pm, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
>> >> On Wed, 23 Feb 2011 14:06:08 -0800 (PST), the following
>> >> appeared in talk.origins, posted by Ray Martinez
>> >> <pyramid...@yahoo.com>:
>>
>> >> >On Feb 19, 11:01 am, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
>>
>> >> <snip>
>>
>> >> >> So to sum up, the Bible *isn't* to be read literally? OK.
>> >> >Is your belief about the Bible intended to be taken literally?
>>
>> >> What has that to do with the question? Do you *ever* post
>> >> anything relevant?
>>
>> >Since you are arguing that text should not be understood literally,
>> >you have undermined your own comments and posts, Einstein.
>>
>> No, Ray, I said that the *Bible* isn't a literal science or
>> history text; it's a moral guide, using mostly allegory.
>> *Real* Biblical scholars agree on this point.
>>
>> Obviously that guidance was wasted on you.
>Since you argue and advocate that some texts should not be taken or
>understood literally, how does anyone know or find out that said
>argument and advocacy should be taken and understood literally?
Let's restrict this to the text that actually is of concern
to you; the Bible. There are people who are not only very
religious but also very well-educated, especially on matters
dealing with religion; these are the ones I usually refer to
as Biblical scholars (and if you wish to find out more,
Google is Your Friend). The position of these scholars is
nearly universal, that the Bible is (generally) a group of
stories using allegory and metaphor to teach morality. There
*are* historical facts woven into the stories, but neither
history nor physical reality is the actual subject of the
text, which subject is a compendium of acceptable behavior
for a particular group of people.
>I am genuinely uncertain based on said argument and advocacy. Is it
>not a good idea to state in your argument/advocacy that your argument/
>advocacy is to be taken and understood literally?
If the Bible had been intended as advocacy argument that
might indeed be the case. But according to those who've
devoted their lives to studying the Bible it wasn't so
intended.
> Absent idea
>implementation your argument/advocacy is saying, literally, that your
>argument/advocacy should not be taken or understood literally.
You keep harping on this. Google "reductio ad absurdum" for
an explanation regarding the nature of this question.
Bob Casanova
appeared in talk.origins, posted by Ray Martinez
>On Feb 25, 1:58 pm, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
>> On Thu, 24 Feb 2011 16:12:36 -0800 (PST), the following
>> appeared in talk.origins, posted by Ray Martinez
>> <pyramid...@yahoo.com>:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> >On Feb 24, 3:13 pm, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
>> >> On Wed, 23 Feb 2011 14:06:08 -0800 (PST), the following
>> >> appeared in talk.origins, posted by Ray Martinez
>> >> <pyramid...@yahoo.com>:
>>
>> >> >On Feb 19, 11:01 am, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
>>
>> >> <snip>
>>
>> >> >> So to sum up, the Bible *isn't* to be read literally? OK.
>> >> >Is your belief about the Bible intended to be taken literally?
>>
>> >> What has that to do with the question? Do you *ever* post
>> >> anything relevant?
>>
>> >Since you are arguing that text should not be understood literally,
>> >you have undermined your own comments and posts, Einstein.
>>
>> No, Ray, I said that the *Bible* isn't a literal science or
>> history text;....
>All this says is that the Bible is scientifically and historically
>false.
Demonstrably true, since much of its content contradicts
what both science and history show. But since it was never
intended to be a history or science text that's not a
problem for either religion or science.
> The same is predictable Atheist/secular ideology.
No, Ray, it's not "ideology"; it's knowledge supported by
evidence. As an example, both history and science refute the
idea of a global flood in the timeframe cited in the Bible.
This is not surprising, since the Flood wasn't an historic
fact, but an allegory.
> Christians,
>of course, disagree.
Many, including Biblical scholars, do not.
>
>> ....it's a moral guide, using mostly allegory.
>
>All this says is that a particular dimension of the Bible is valid or
>could be valid. If true, that is, if the Bible relates a good moral
>code of behavior, then the same becomes evidence supporting the
>foundational claim of the Canon: Divine inspiration. Imagine that; God
>is an expert in establishing morality, but lied about science and
>history!
An allegory isn't a lie, Ray. And only the fanatical think
it is.
>> *Real* Biblical scholars agree on this point.
>All this says is that a person cannot be a real Bible scholar unless
>they advocate a certain position (the Bible more or less correct
>concerning morality, but incorrect concerning science and history). In
>other words Bob is saying only Darwinists (enemies of the Bible) can
>be real Bible scholars.
No, Ray, it means exactly what it says. Your interpretation
says a great deal more about you than about them, since your
position essentially reduces to "If they disagree with me
they're not real Biblical scholars at all"; a classic "No
true Scotsman" fallacy. Which, considering the name of your
idol, is more than a bit ironic.
>Since Genesis says natural causation, evolution and common descent are
>false, the opinions of Darwinists who are Bible "scholars" become
>entirely predictable and of course predetermined.
Genesis (which version, BTW?) says no such thing, and your
argument is circular ("Since the Bible can only be read
literally, a literal reading is the only valid one.")
Ray Martinez
> \> Ray:
>
> > All this says is that the Bible is scientifically and historically
> > false. The same is predictable Atheist/secular ideology. Christians,
> > of course, disagree.
>
> Actually, the majority of Christians agree that the Bible should NOT
> be read literally.
>
Then the same becomes irrefutable evidence that these persons are not
real Christians.
When Christians agree with Atheists concerning the Bible, the former
cannot be genuine.
> You worship the Bible rather than Jesus, or even God. So YOU are
> hardly one to judge what Christians believe.
I am glad to be disapproved by a person who thinks there is nothing
wrong when Christians accept atheistic beliefs about the Bible.
Ray
Ray Martinez
Christians disagree. We are Christians because the Bible is true. Your
inability to see the fact is explained by your Atheism.
Ray
Ray Martinez
> On Sat, 26 Feb 2011 10:24:49 -0800 (PST), the following
> appeared in talk.origins, posted by Ray Martinez
Again, all these comments say is that the Bible is scientifically and
historically false. Your source is persons who accept ToE.
Round and round you go. Since we already know that Darwinists reject
Biblical claims concerning origin of life and species, your definition
of "honest scholar" equates to anyone who has an advanced degree and
accepts evolution.
And the claim that these persons are "very religious" or devout
believers is contradicted by their opinion that the Bible is so wrong
concerning history and science that it must be viewed only as a code
communicating good morality. Nobody accepts anything devoutly that is
considered egregiously false. The claim of "very religious" or devout
believers is asserted because without the claim their views about the
Bible become the predetermined and meaningless opinions of non-
believers/Atheists.
> >I am genuinely uncertain based on said argument and advocacy. Is it
> >not a good idea to state in your argument/advocacy that your argument/
> >advocacy is to be taken and understood literally?
>
> If the Bible had been intended as advocacy argument that
> might indeed be the case. But according to those who've
> devoted their lives to studying the Bible it wasn't so
> intended.
>
Evasion noted. Your advocacy that text should not be understood
literally undermines said advocacy. We cannot be sure in either case
what you really mean unless you state that what you advocate should be
taken and understood literally.
> > Absent idea
> >implementation your argument/advocacy is saying, literally, that your
> >argument/advocacy should not be taken or understood literally.
>
> You keep harping on this. Google "reductio ad absurdum" for
> an explanation regarding the nature of this question.
> --
>
> Bob C.
>
> "Evidence confirming an observation is
> evidence that the observation is wrong."
> - McNameless- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Since Bob is advocating text to not be understood literally, he needs
to state that his advocacy is intended to be understood literally.
Based on his advocacy, I interpret his advocacy as not to be taken or
understood literally. And no one can refute this argument without
refuting Bob and themself too.
Ray
Dana Tweedy
Not false, but non applicable. What does it matter if the "source"
accepts a valid scientific theory, or not? St. Augustine didn't
even know about the theory of evolution, and he still rejected a
literal reading of Genesis.
>
> Round and round you go. Since we already know that Darwinists reject
> Biblical claims concerning origin of life and species,
Ray, "biblical claims" about origin of life and species are beside the
point. Unless the evidence supports them, they aren't applicable to
science.
> your definition
> of "honest scholar" equates to anyone who has an advanced degree and
> accepts evolution.
No, that doesn't seem to be Bob's definition, although any honest
scholar would have to accept the scientific evidence.
>
> And the claim that these persons are "very religious" or devout
> believers is contradicted by their opinion that the Bible is so wrong
> concerning history and science that it must be viewed only as a code
> communicating good morality.
Doesn't follow, Ray. Many religious persons don't claim the Bible is
scientific, or historically accurate. They don't think the bible is
"Wrong", as they don't assume. like you do, that the Bible should be
judged that way.
>Nobody accepts anything devoutly that is
> considered egregiously false.
Again, Ray, you are making a false assumption here. You are assuming
that "not historically, or scientifically accurate" is the same thing
as "egregiously false".
>The claim of "very religious" or devout
> believers is asserted because without the claim their views about the
> Bible become the predetermined and meaningless opinions of non-
> believers/Atheists.
Again, Ray, you are committing the ad hominem fallacy. The opinions
and findings of people are not "predetermined" or "meaningless" just
because they do, or don't believe in God. Address the issue, not the
persons holding the opinions.
>
> > >I am genuinely uncertain based on said argument and advocacy. Is it
> > >not a good idea to state in your argument/advocacy that your argument/
> > >advocacy is to be taken and understood literally?
>
> > If the Bible had been intended as advocacy argument that
> > might indeed be the case. But according to those who've
> > devoted their lives to studying the Bible it wasn't so
> > intended.
>
> Evasion noted.
What "evasion"?
> Your advocacy that text should not be understood
> literally undermines said advocacy.
Why? Because you don't grasp the concept?
> We cannot be sure in either case
> what you really mean unless you state that what you advocate should be
> taken and understood literally.
Who is the "we"? Again, Ray, Bob isn't writing in ancient parables,
metaphors, and legends. The Bible does use those forms.
>
> > > Absent idea
> > >implementation your argument/advocacy is saying, literally, that your
> > >argument/advocacy should not be taken or understood literally.
>
> > You keep harping on this. Google "reductio ad absurdum" for
> > an explanation regarding the nature of this question.
> > --
>
> > Bob C.
>
> > "Evidence confirming an observation is
> > evidence that the observation is wrong."
> > - McNameless- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> Since Bob is advocating text to not be understood literally, he needs
> to state that his advocacy is intended to be understood literally.
No, he does not. His statements aren't judged by the standards one
uses to read ancient literature.
> Based on his advocacy, I interpret his advocacy as not to be taken or
> understood literally. And no one can refute this argument without
> refuting Bob and themself too
Sorry, Ray, it was a silly claim to begin with, and it's silly now.
Why not just admit you were wrong?
DJT
>
> Ray
raven1
<pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>On Feb 26, 4:32 pm, Randy C <randyec...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> \> Ray:
>>
>> > All this says is that the Bible is scientifically and historically
>> > false. The same is predictable Atheist/secular ideology. Christians,
>> > of course, disagree.
>>
>> Actually, the majority of Christians agree that the Bible should NOT
>> be read literally.
>>
>
>Then the same becomes irrefutable evidence that these persons are not
>real Christians.
>
>When Christians agree with Atheists concerning the Bible, the former
>cannot be genuine.
I'm having trouble hearing you over the bagpipes, but are you saying
that, for example, if a Christian agrees with me that the OT was
originally in Hebrew, and the NT in Koine Greek, he isn't a genuine
Christian? How absurd. If I said that 2+2 = 4, would you insist it's
5, so as not to agree with an atheist?
>> You worship the Bible rather than Jesus, or even God. So YOU are
>> hardly one to judge what Christians believe.
>
>I am glad to be disapproved by a person who thinks there is nothing
>wrong when Christians accept atheistic beliefs about the Bible.
Ray, as has been pointed out to you innumerable times, this is the
fallacy of Argumentum ad Hominem. Claims are judged on their merits,
not on whether the claimant is a Christian or an atheist. If I state
that the Pentateuch consists of Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers,
and Deuteronomy, will you insist that I'm wrong because I'm an
atheist, or will you accept it because it's true?
Bob Casanova
appeared in talk.origins, posted by Ray Martinez
No, Ray, they say that the historical and scientific
accuracy of the Bible is *irrelevant to its intent*, which
is to teach morality.
> Your source is persons who accept ToE.
No, Ray, the ToE has nothing to do with the study of the
Bible.
>Round and round you go.
I'm an optimist; I believe that eventually you'll learn to
think rather than parrot fundamentalist dogma.
> Since we already know that Darwinists reject
>Biblical claims concerning origin of life and species
There is nothing in the ToE which contradicts a non-literal
reading of the Bible; the Bible is irrelevant to science.
And there is nothing in the Bible regarding the origin of
species. And the ToE has nothing to say regarding the origin
of life.
>, your definition
>of "honest scholar" equates to anyone who has an advanced degree and
>accepts evolution.
>
>And the claim that these persons are "very religious" or devout
>believers is contradicted by their opinion that the Bible is so wrong
>concerning history and science that it must be viewed only as a code
>communicating good morality.
That's what it is, Ray. Only literalists (a small minority
of fanatics among Christians, which they aren't as shown by
their actions contravening the Bible's teaching) believe
otherwise.
<snip>
>> >I am genuinely uncertain based on said argument and advocacy. Is it
>> >not a good idea to state in your argument/advocacy that your argument/
>> >advocacy is to be taken and understood literally?
>>
>> If the Bible had been intended as advocacy argument that
>> might indeed be the case. But according to those who've
>> devoted their lives to studying the Bible it wasn't so
>> intended.
>>
>
>Evasion noted.
It's not an evasion, Ray; it's a statement of fact.
> Your advocacy that text should not be understood
>literally undermines said advocacy. We cannot be sure in either case
>what you really mean unless you state that what you advocate should be
>taken and understood literally.
The fallacy of this has been shown previously (once again,
Google "reductio ad absurdum"); I can only assume that you
refuse to accept that fallacy because you have no rebuttal.
<snip further Raydiocy>
Ray Martinez
> On Tue, 1 Mar 2011 13:58:52 -0800 (PST), Ray Martinez
>
>
>
>
>
> <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >On Feb 26, 4:32 pm, Randy C <randyec...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> \> Ray:
>
> >> > All this says is that the Bible is scientifically and historically
> >> > false. The same is predictable Atheist/secular ideology. Christians,
> >> > of course, disagree.
>
> >> Actually, the majority of Christians agree that the Bible should NOT
> >> be read literally.
>
> >Then the same becomes irrefutable evidence that these persons are not
> >real Christians.
>
> >When Christians agree with Atheists concerning the Bible, the former
> >cannot be genuine.
>
> I'm having trouble hearing you over the bagpipes, but are you saying
> that, for example, if a Christian agrees with me that the OT was
> originally in Hebrew, and the NT in Koine Greek, he isn't a genuine
> Christian? How absurd. If I said that 2+2 = 4, would you insist it's
> 5, so as not to agree with an atheist?
>
You need to do the most basic thing: pay attention to context.
When Christians agree with Atheists that the Bible does not make
historical and scientific claims, then these "Christians" cannot be
genuine Christians.
> >> You worship the Bible rather than Jesus, or even God. So YOU are
> >> hardly one to judge what Christians believe.
>
> >I am glad to be disapproved by a person who thinks there is nothing
> >wrong when Christians accept atheistic beliefs about the Bible.
>
> Ray, as has been pointed out to you innumerable times, this is the
> fallacy of Argumentum ad Hominem. Claims are judged on their merits,
> not on whether the claimant is a Christian or an atheist. If I state
> that the Pentateuch consists of Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers,
> and Deuteronomy, will you insist that I'm wrong because I'm an
> atheist, or will you accept it because it's true?- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Again, your comments are irrelevant based on context.
Maybe you should take a nap before posting.
Ray
Ray Martinez
You have grossly misunderstood the early Church Father. He said
nothing to indicate that his position was non-literal.
>
>
> > Round and round you go. Since we already know that Darwinists reject
> > Biblical claims concerning origin of life and species,
>
> Ray, "biblical claims" about origin of life and species are beside the
> point.
I disagree.
> Unless the evidence supports them, they aren't applicable to
> science.
>
I agree.
> > your definition
> > of "honest scholar" equates to anyone who has an advanced degree and
> > accepts evolution.
>
> No, that doesn't seem to be Bob's definition, although any honest
> scholar would have to accept the scientific evidence.
>
>
>
> > And the claim that these persons are "very religious" or devout
> > believers is contradicted by their opinion that the Bible is so wrong
> > concerning history and science that it must be viewed only as a code
> > communicating good morality.
>
> Doesn't follow, Ray. Many religious persons don't claim the Bible is
> scientific, or historically accurate. They don't think the bible is
> "Wrong", as they don't assume. like you do, that the Bible should be
> judged that way.
>
> >Nobody accepts anything devoutly that is
>
> > considered egregiously false.
>
> Again, Ray, you are making a false assumption here. You are assuming
> that "not historically, or scientifically accurate" is the same thing
> as "egregiously false".
>
Evasion.
Everyone knows what this means.
> >The claim of "very religious" or devout
> > believers is asserted because without the claim their views about the
> > Bible become the predetermined and meaningless opinions of non-
> > believers/Atheists.
>
> Again, Ray, you are committing the ad hominem fallacy. The opinions
> and findings of people are not "predetermined" or "meaningless" just
> because they do, or don't believe in God. Address the issue, not the
> persons holding the opinions.
>
More evasion.
If you can't even address, why not just accept the point as fact?
>
>
> > > >I am genuinely uncertain based on said argument and advocacy. Is it
> > > >not a good idea to state in your argument/advocacy that your argument/
> > > >advocacy is to be taken and understood literally?
>
> > > If the Bible had been intended as advocacy argument that
> > > might indeed be the case. But according to those who've
> > > devoted their lives to studying the Bible it wasn't so
> > > intended.
>
> > Evasion noted.
>
> What "evasion"?
>
Bob's reply did not address my comments/points. He refuses to say
anything about my idea to state, in his argument, that his argument is
intended to be taken and understood literally. Instead, he rambled on
about how objective Bible haters are.
> > Your advocacy that text should not be understood
> > literally undermines said advocacy.
>
> Why? Because you don't grasp the concept?
>
No, because when someone advocates that text should not be understood
literally, should the advocacy be understood literally? How do you
know that he wants to be understood literally?
Ray
> > Ray- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
Dana Tweedy
Except that he said his position was "non literal".
>
>
>
> > > Round and round you go. Since we already know that Darwinists reject
> > > Biblical claims concerning origin of life and species,
>
> > Ray, "biblical claims" about origin of life and species are beside the
> > point.
>
> I disagree.
Then you are wrong.
>
> > Unless the evidence supports them, they aren't applicable to
> > science.
>
> I agree.
The evidence doesn't support them. Still agree?
>
>
>
> > > your definition
> > > of "honest scholar" equates to anyone who has an advanced degree and
> > > accepts evolution.
>
> > No, that doesn't seem to be Bob's definition, although any honest
> > scholar would have to accept the scientific evidence.
>
> > > And the claim that these persons are "very religious" or devout
> > > believers is contradicted by their opinion that the Bible is so wrong
> > > concerning history and science that it must be viewed only as a code
> > > communicating good morality.
>
> > Doesn't follow, Ray. Many religious persons don't claim the Bible is
> > scientific, or historically accurate. They don't think the bible is
> > "Wrong", as they don't assume. like you do, that the Bible should be
> > judged that way.
>
> > >Nobody accepts anything devoutly that is
>
> > > considered egregiously false.
>
> > Again, Ray, you are making a false assumption here. You are assuming
> > that "not historically, or scientifically accurate" is the same thing
> > as "egregiously false".
>
> Evasion.
There is no evasion here, Ray. I'm pointing out that your assumption
is wrong.
>
> Everyone knows what this means.
Yes, everyone knows when you say 'evasion' it's just your way of
dismissing the point without addressing it.
>
> > >The claim of "very religious" or devout
> > > believers is asserted because without the claim their views about the
> > > Bible become the predetermined and meaningless opinions of non-
> > > believers/Atheists.
>
> > Again, Ray, you are committing the ad hominem fallacy. The opinions
> > and findings of people are not "predetermined" or "meaningless" just
> > because they do, or don't believe in God. Address the issue, not the
> > persons holding the opinions.
>
> More evasion.
Again, no evasion. Do you even know what the word means?
>
> If you can't even address, why not just accept the point as fact?
Why do you imagine I cannot ,or have not addressed the issue? I
don't accept your point as "fact" because it's false. The opinions
of "non believers" are just as valid as those of believers.
Moreover, your assertion is that the position of "believers" becomes
invalid just because you don't agree with them. Their views about the
Bible are based on years of scholarship, and your own were just given
to you by someone you admired.
>
>
>
> > > > >I am genuinely uncertain based on said argument and advocacy. Is it
> > > > >not a good idea to state in your argument/advocacy that your argument/
> > > > >advocacy is to be taken and understood literally?
>
> > > > If the Bible had been intended as advocacy argument that
> > > > might indeed be the case. But according to those who've
> > > > devoted their lives to studying the Bible it wasn't so
> > > > intended.
>
> > > Evasion noted.
>
> > What "evasion"?
>
> Bob's reply did not address my comments/points.
Actually, they did. You apparently didn't understand the
connection.
> He refuses to say
> anything about my idea to state, in his argument, that his argument is
> intended to be taken and understood literally. Instead, he rambled on
> about how objective Bible haters are.
You haven't shown that people who disagree with you are 'Bible
Haters'. You are just asserting that they are. The "objectivity"
isn't the issue, but how they arrived at their position. You are
assuming they simply reject Biblical Literalism due to their "hatred"
of the Bible. You don't seem to grasp that maybe they reject it
because it's not supported by anything in the Bible.
>
> > > Your advocacy that text should not be understood
> > > literally undermines said advocacy.
>
> > Why? Because you don't grasp the concept?
>
> No, because when someone advocates that text should not be understood
> literally, should the advocacy be understood literally?
yes.
> How do you
> know that he wants to be understood literally
Because he didn't write in the style of ancient legends, metaphor, and
poetry. The Bible is written in that style. Bob's newsgroup posts
are not.
DJT
snip points Ray runs away from
raven1
You seem to be badly confused. I don't think there are many atheists
who would say that the Bible doesn't make historical claims. Whether
those claims are accurate or not is another story. As far as making
scientific claims, it doesn't; the notion of science didn't even exist
at the time among the authors.
>> >> You worship the Bible rather than Jesus, or even God. So YOU are
>> >> hardly one to judge what Christians believe.
>>
>> >I am glad to be disapproved by a person who thinks there is nothing
>> >wrong when Christians accept atheistic beliefs about the Bible.
>>
>> Ray, as has been pointed out to you innumerable times, this is the
>> fallacy of Argumentum ad Hominem. Claims are judged on their merits,
>> not on whether the claimant is a Christian or an atheist. If I state
>> that the Pentateuch consists of Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers,
>> and Deuteronomy, will you insist that I'm wrong because I'm an
>> atheist, or will you accept it because it's true?
>
>Again, your comments are irrelevant based on context.
>
>Maybe you should take a nap before posting.
Maybe you should read what you write.
Ernest Major
<157bc9da-ad77-434d...@s18g2000prg.googlegroups.com>,
Dana Tweedy <reddf...@gmail.com> writes
>> > Not false, but non applicable. What does it matter if the "source"
>> > accepts a valid scientific theory, or not? St. Augustine didn't
>> > even know about the theory of evolution, and he still rejected a
>> > literal reading of Genesis.
>>
>> You have grossly misunderstood the early Church Father. He said
>> nothing to indicate that his position was non-literal.
>
>Except that he said his position was "non literal".
Am I correct in understanding that Augustine thought that creation did
not take 6 days?
--
alias Ernest Major
Burkhard
" Now, as to follow the letter, and to take signs for the things that
are signified by them, is a mark of weakness and bondage; so to
interpret signs wrongly is the result of being misled by error. He,
however, who does not understand what a sign signifies, but yet knows
that it is a sign, is not in bondage. And it is better even to be in
bondage to unknown but useful signs than, by interpreting them
wrongly, to draw the neck from under the yoke of bondage only to
insert it in the coils of error. But in addition to the foregoing
rule, which guards us against taking a metaphorical form of speech as
if it were literal, we must also pay heed to that which tells us not
to take a literal form of speech as if it were figurative. In the
first place, then, we must show the way to find out whether a phrase
is literal or figurative. And the way is certainly as follows:
Whatever there is in the word of God that cannot, when taken
literally, be referred either to purity of life or soundness of
doctrine, you may set down as figurative."
Augustine, on Christian doctrine, book III chap. 10. (How we are to
discern whether a phrase is figurative)
St Augustine would have considered you in bondage to the sign.
Ray Martinez
>
> - Show quoted text -
You still didn't answer the question: where does the text say that
Augustine was conveying his view of Genesis?----and where does it say
that his views should be taken literally?
Ray
Ray Martinez
So you are saying any text not written in a modern style is how the
text itself informs the reader that it is not intended to be taken or
understood literally? If true, then your answer admits that the text
itself does not say that it should not to be taken or understood
literally.
> The Bible is written in that style. Bob's newsgroup posts
> are not.
>
Your criteria of antiquity is arbitrary. What is the cut-off date,
1859?
LOL!
Since Bob is an Atheist he is a wolf after his enemy (the Bible). No
wonder he says the word of God is not to be understood literally. In
fact, according to the Bible, that is Satan's exact agenda: make
people believe that they should not take God's word seriously.
Ray
Burkhard
Augustine in the quote answers that question for me. He emphasises
the conventional nature of signs, the role of allegory and metaphor in
scripture, and gives rules how to discern them - rules that also apply
to his own texts where he uses metaphor and allegory widely. In fact,
he developed a whole theory of teaching based on this idea (in De
catechizandis rudibus) )
Ray Martinez
That's Bob's main point: the Bible was not intended as literal
history. I have countered with the position of the Church and that
these claims are either true or false
> As far as making
> scientific claims, it doesn't; the notion of science didn't even exist
> at the time among the authors.
>
>
Nonsense. The builders of the Great Pyramid were more scientifically
literate than we are today. Adam was created ultra-intelligent.
The Bible makes endless scientific claims, like how species appear.
Even Darwin accepted the claim as true early on.
The point is: anyone who says the Bible does not make scientific
claims is a brazen liar (like yourself). The entire Creationism v.
Evolution debate is framed around said claims and their alleged
falsity (from the evolution perspective).
Anyone who denies these claims is simply saying the claims are false
in a very dishonest way.
Anyone who asserts the claims should not be taken or understood
literally, their advocacy should not be taken or understood literally
unless they say it should. Absent a statement, said advocacy defeats
said advocacy.
Ray
Earle Jones
<e4bc486f-f3a3-4b1f...@b13g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,
Ray Martinez <pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Mar 2, 7:40 am, raven1 <quoththera...@nevermore.com> wrote:
> > On Tue, 1 Mar 2011 13:58:52 -0800 (PST), Ray Martinez
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > >On Feb 26, 4:32 pm, Randy C <randyec...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >> \> Ray:
> >
> > >> > All this says is that the Bible is scientifically and historically
> > >> > false. The same is predictable Atheist/secular ideology. Christians,
> > >> > of course, disagree.
> >
> > >> Actually, the majority of Christians agree that the Bible should NOT
> > >> be read literally.
> >
> > >Then the same becomes irrefutable evidence that these persons are not
> > >real Christians.
> >
> > >When Christians agree with Atheists concerning the Bible, the former
> > >cannot be genuine.
> >
> > I'm having trouble hearing you over the bagpipes, but are you saying
> > that, for example, if a Christian agrees with me that the OT was
> > originally in Hebrew, and the NT in Koine Greek, he isn't a genuine
> > Christian? How absurd. If I said that 2+2 = 4, would you insist it's
> > 5, so as not to agree with an atheist?
> >
>
> You need to do the most basic thing: pay attention to context.
>
> When Christians agree with Atheists that the Bible does not make
> historical and scientific claims, then these "Christians" cannot be
> genuine Christians.
*
A Christian is one who believes that Jesus Christ is the divine son of
God, who created the heavens and the earth. Period.
Don't you believe that? Have you ever heard of the Apostles' Creed?
earle
*
Caranx latus
Wow. Are you *still* making these claims?
The builders of the pyramids had some basic mathematics and a very
basic idea of some physics. That they were more scientifically
literate than *you* is perhaps true, but in general, no.
There is no evidence that Adam ever existed.
> The Bible makes endless scientific claims, like how species appear.
The Bible doesn't mention species.
<snip>
John S. Wilkins
Actually, that is Apostolic Christianity. There were and are varieties
of Christianity that that creed was formulated to exclude, such as
Ebionism, Arianism (a much nicer form of Christian thought IMO),
Adoptionism, and several other nontrinitarianisms. For example, that
would exclude Unitarian Christians, Christadelphians, and Jehovah's
Witnesses, all of whom I reckon are Christian denominations/sects.
--
John S. Wilkins, Associate, Philosophy, University of Sydney
http://evolvingthoughts.net
But al be that he was a philosophre,
Yet hadde he but litel gold in cofre
Earle Jones
<ef50e4ca-ffca-42c1...@o14g2000prb.googlegroups.com>,
Ray Martinez <pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> The Bible makes endless scientific claims, like how species appear....
*
You are right that the Bible makes endless scientific claims.
Unfortunately, many of them are wrong. The earth is not immobile, in
spite of what Pagano thinks.
And that crap about Adam being "ultra-intelligent" -- where did you get
that bit of "knowledge"? Then tell us why in hell did Adam eat that
apple and get himself thrown out of Eden? He listened to a talking
snake -- that's how "ultra-intelligent" Adam was.
Christianity teaches us to be ignorant. To be happy with those myths
written 2,000 years ago by ignorant peasants. That's not good enough
for me. I want to know more about our universe. And I won't find out
anything about our universe reading those ancient parables and
mysteries, written by and for the ignorant.
earle (perennial student)
*