I'll be on hiatus for the next few days while I read and attempt analyze Harshman's co-authored report

[T Pagano]

I'll be on hiatus for the next few days while I read and attempt to
analyze Harshman's co-authored report which Harshman asserted contains
evidence of biological transformational change.

The only exception will be a response to Harshman's post containing
his citation.

Regards,
T Pagano

[Ray Martinez]

Since Harshman firmly believes that no God exists his explanations,
interpretations and conclusions, in favor of evolution, are
predetermined and entirely predictable, so why bother?

Ray

[Frank Sullivan]

I haven't been here in a few years. Has Ray ever released his paper? I
felt a slight tremor the other day, and I couldn't tell if it was gas
or Biology being turned on its head.

[Glenn]

"Frank Sullivan" <frank.e.f...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:ed3e6f09-1ec8-42de...@x36g2000prb.googlegroups.com...

How could you tell the difference?

[Boikat]

Does that explain why you havent published your book that will destroy
the ToE?

Boikat

[John Harshman]

Are you sure that wasn't just a disturbance in the Force, as if millions
of voices suddenly cried out in terror and were suddenly silenced?

As for Ray's paper, it's now a book. I mean conceptually it's a book. So
far it in fact is nothing.

[John Harshman]

Wouldn't this apply also to my argument for an old universe, the one you
actually like? How do you resolve this apparent contradiction?

[Reentrant]

Since Martinez firmly believes that God exists his explanations,
interpretations and conclusions, against evolution, are

predetermined and entirely predictable, so why bother?

--
Reentrant

[Bob Casanova]

On Mon, 07 Nov 2011 16:36:03 -0500, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by T Pagano <not....@address.net>:

Post a response in this subject if you feel you need
additional time to provide the reference I requested; note
that you have 4 days left before I declare victory due to
forfeit. If no such request appears under this subject (or
the one containing the request, the one starting with my
name) it will be assumed that you need no extension and the
clock will continue to tick.
--

Bob C.

"Evidence confirming an observation is
evidence that the observation is wrong."
- McNameless

[Ray Martinez]

First of all Tony, in other threads, has accused me of supporting
Naturalism all because I am an OEC, and he has accused me of being on
your old Earth bandwagon. These charges are ballistic, all for the
sole "crime" of accepting an old Earth.

I was an OEC before I came to Talk.Origins; and I supported my claim
that Christian science, before the rise of Darwinism, already accepted
an old Earth; and he has yet to support his contrary claim denying the
fact. What he actually did was argue that an old Earth was accepted by
an unscientific presupposition. In response I said his argument
supports my scholarly supported claim that Christian science, before
the rise of Darwinism, already accepted an old Earth. These facts say
Atheists are on the Bible's cosmological bandwagon.

Now according to the OP Tony needs a few days to read and digest your
paper. Since your paper presupposes Naturalism/evolution what is there
to digest (see my first post in this thread preserved in text above)?
And he seems to forget that Atheists support his rendering of the
Bible----that Scripture supports a young Earth. Does he not know or
understand that Atheists like yourself support a Biblical young Earth
because it makes the Bible look stupid, non-credible? As it turns out
these facts, using his logic, have him on your Atheist bandwagon.

At any rate, stop hesitating, and state the alleged contradiction. I
see a bluff.

Ray

[Ray Martinez]

That is, of course, my ultimate point: Creationism and Darwinism,
because of their starting assumptions, have predetermined
explanations, interpretations and conclusions. We have no trouble
admitting, unlike the Atheists. The reason most Atheists cannot admit
is because of "Christian" Evolutionists. They don't want to humiliate
CEists because they believe their lies about evolution being neutral
concerning the existence of God.

Ray

[Ray Martinez]

On Nov 7, 4:31 pm, Frank Sullivan <frank.e.franker...@gmail.com>
wrote:

It's a book in progress. It will be published on-line (no paywall) on
my own website. And I have stopped setting deadlines, having admitted
and apologized that these were unrealistic.

As the days go by rest assured that my book is on the road to
completion. It will be worth the wait.

Ray

[Burkhard]

Which is of course the exact opposite of what objectivism teaches,
which you claim to embrace:

"Reality exists as an objective absolute—facts are facts, independent
of man's feelings, wishes, hopes or fears." (Ayn Rand, "Introducing
Objectivism," The Objectivist Newsletter Vol. 1 No. 8, August 1962, p.
35)

[John Harshman]

Ray Martinez wrote:
> On Nov 7, 6:29 pm, John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>> Ray Martinez wrote:
>>> On Nov 7, 1:36 pm, T Pagano <not.va...@address.net> wrote:
>>>> I'll be on hiatus for the next few days while I read and attempt to
>>>> analyze Harshman's co-authored report which Harshman asserted contains
>>>> evidence of biological transformational change.
>>>> The only exception will be a response to Harshman's post containing
>>>> his citation.
>>>> Regards,
>>>> T Pagano
>>> Since Harshman firmly believes that no God exists his explanations,
>>> interpretations and conclusions, in favor of evolution, are
>>> predetermined and entirely predictable, so why bother?
>> Wouldn't this apply also to my argument for an old universe, the one you
>> actually like? How do you resolve this apparent contradiction?
>
> First of all Tony, in other threads, has accused me of supporting
> Naturalism all because I am an OEC, and he has accused me of being on
> your old Earth bandwagon. These charges are ballistic, all for the
> sole "crime" of accepting an old Earth.
>
> I was an OEC before I came to Talk.Origins; and I supported my claim
> that Christian science, before the rise of Darwinism, already accepted
> an old Earth;

This seems a flimsy argument. First, there is no such thing as
"Christian science" unless you mean the religion founded by Mary Baker
Eddy. Science is science. Some scientists are Christians, and that's
about as far as it goes. Second, do you therefore reject all science
post-1859?

> and he has yet to support his contrary claim denying the
> fact. What he actually did was argue that an old Earth was accepted by
> an unscientific presupposition. In response I said his argument
> supports my scholarly supported claim that Christian science, before
> the rise of Darwinism, already accepted an old Earth. These facts say
> Atheists are on the Bible's cosmological bandwagon.

So, stripped of your bizarre language, you mean that even if evolution
equalled atheism, geology, at least pre-1859, wouldn't. And geology
pre-1859 had already hit upon the old earth. Too many false premises
there, but I suppose if we accept your false premises but reject Tony's
false premises, it's a reasonable argument.

> Now according to the OP Tony needs a few days to read and digest your
> paper. Since your paper presupposes Naturalism/evolution what is there
> to digest (see my first post in this thread preserved in text above)?

It's a little thing called evidence. The paper provides strong evidence
for evolution. No presupposition necessary. Besides, Tony could argue
that my claims about an old universe presuppose evolution with just as
much (as little) justice.

> And he seems to forget that Atheists support his rendering of the
> Bible----that Scripture supports a young Earth. Does he not know or
> understand that Atheists like yourself support a Biblical young Earth
> because it makes the Bible look stupid, non-credible? As it turns out
> these facts, using his logic, have him on your Atheist bandwagon.

Have fun arguing about which of you is on an atheist bandwagon. I'll
wait here. Now, I think that Genesis claims a young earth because that's
what it says. If it credibly claimed an old earth, I'd be happy, since
that would give the nuts one less thing to complain about.

> At any rate, stop hesitating, and state the alleged contradiction. I
> see a bluff.

The contradiction is that you reject an argument, sight unseen, just
because I made it. (The one about evolution.) But you accept some
arguments I make, even though I'm the same person both times.

[Boikat]

Then the ToE has nothing to fear from your book, and evolutionists can
now sleep at night knowing that your "book" will be just another
series of pages of religious quackery pretending to be "all
scientifical like", and nobody has to worry about their lives being
ruined.

Boikat

[Ray Martinez]

YOUR point says Rand is a special one-of-a-kind person with no bias.

Her quote presupposes reality (existence) to support her bias/starting
assumptions. I disagree; her quote supports my bias/starting
assumptions.

Atheism/Darwinism is a delusion; there is absolutely no evidence, in
existence/reality, supporting natural selection, microevolution/
macroevolution, common descent or the non-existence of God.

Dawkins disagrees; he thinks the delusion is working on believers (no
evidence supporting the existence of God). Rand also believed in a God
delusion.

The point is we (Rand, Dawkins and myself) agree: one party (Atheists
or Theists) is suffering insidious delusion.

Ray (anti-evolutionist)

[Ray Martinez]

> "Christian science"....

My claim has scholarly support. Your response is worse than Tony's.

Van Wyhe said, before the rise of Darwinism, naturalists "all of them
Christians, none of them Atheists or transmutationists" (paraphrase)
had already determined an old Earth.

See for yourself:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KvpQ5Lyah50\

relevant portion: 1:00 to 4:03

> ....unless you mean the religion founded by Mary Baker

> Eddy. Science is science. Some scientists are Christians, and that's
> about as far as it goes. Second, do you therefore reject all science
> post-1859?
>
> > and he has yet to support his contrary claim denying the
> > fact. What he actually did was argue that an old Earth was accepted by
> > an unscientific presupposition. In response I said his argument
> > supports my scholarly supported claim that Christian science, before
> > the rise of Darwinism, already accepted an old Earth. These facts say
> > Atheists are on the Bible's cosmological bandwagon.
>
> So, stripped of your bizarre language, you mean that even if evolution
> equalled atheism, geology, at least pre-1859, wouldn't. And geology
> pre-1859 had already hit upon the old earth. Too many false premises
> there, but I suppose if we accept your false premises but reject Tony's
> false premises, it's a reasonable argument.
>

Bizarre response not worthy of rebuttal.

> > Now according to the OP Tony needs a few days to read and digest your
> > paper. Since your paper presupposes Naturalism/evolution what is there
> > to digest (see my first post in this thread preserved in text above)?
>
> It's a little thing called evidence. The paper provides strong evidence
> for evolution. No presupposition necessary.

Here is what I said upthread:

"That is, of course, my ultimate point: Creationism and Darwinism,
because of their starting assumptions, have predetermined

explanations, interpretations and conclusions. We have no trouble
admitting, unlike the Atheists. The reason most Atheists cannot admit
is because of "Christian" Evolutionists. They don't want to humiliate
CEists because they believe their lies about evolution being neutral
concerning the existence of God."

Like I said, Atheists deny their presuppositions for the reasons
stated.

> Besides, Tony could argue
> that my claims about an old universe presuppose evolution with just as
> much (as little) justice.
>

He already did. In response I re-invoked my scholarly supported claim
and re-invoked the fact that his opinion remains unsupported.

> > And he seems to forget that Atheists support his rendering of the
> > Bible----that Scripture supports a young Earth. Does he not know or
> > understand that Atheists like yourself support a Biblical young Earth
> > because it makes the Bible look stupid, non-credible? As it turns out
> > these facts, using his logic, have him on your Atheist bandwagon.
>
> Have fun arguing about which of you is on an atheist bandwagon. I'll
> wait here. Now, I think that Genesis claims a young earth because that's
> what it says. If it credibly claimed an old earth, I'd be happy, since
> that would give the nuts one less thing to complain about.
>

Like I already said: Atheists support a Biblical young Earth----you
are on Tony's bandwagon.

If the Bible said any such thing you would have produced the quotes.

> > At any rate, stop hesitating, and state the alleged contradiction. I
> > see a bluff.
>
> The contradiction is that you reject an argument, sight unseen, just
> because I made it. (The one about evolution.) But you accept some
> arguments I make, even though I'm the same person both times.

Like I said, you were bluffing; no contradiction exists.

Your initial claim is falsified by your latter statements. Like most
persons; sometimes you are right, sometimes you are wrong.

Ray

[JohnN]

I should live so long.

JohnN

[Michael Siemon]

In article
<3d439d07-ea72-4a70...@p9g2000vbb.googlegroups.com>,

You probably wouldn't like living _that_ long... :-)

[John Harshman]

I suppose all the scientists were bipedal too, but we don't talk about
"bipedal science".

Do you have any evidence for your claim?

>> Besides, Tony could argue
>> that my claims about an old universe presuppose evolution with just as
>> much (as little) justice.
>>
>
> He already did. In response I re-invoked my scholarly supported claim
> and re-invoked the fact that his opinion remains unsupported.

Your opinion likewise remains unsupported, because your support isn't
support.

>>> And he seems to forget that Atheists support his rendering of the
>>> Bible----that Scripture supports a young Earth. Does he not know or
>>> understand that Atheists like yourself support a Biblical young Earth
>>> because it makes the Bible look stupid, non-credible? As it turns out
>>> these facts, using his logic, have him on your Atheist bandwagon.
>> Have fun arguing about which of you is on an atheist bandwagon. I'll
>> wait here. Now, I think that Genesis claims a young earth because that's
>> what it says. If it credibly claimed an old earth, I'd be happy, since
>> that would give the nuts one less thing to complain about.
>>
>
> Like I already said: Atheists support a Biblical young Earth----you
> are on Tony's bandwagon.

Just going by what it says.

> If the Bible said any such thing you would have produced the quotes.

You would just interpret the quotes differently. "Six days" isn't really
six days, and so on.

>>> At any rate, stop hesitating, and state the alleged contradiction. I
>>> see a bluff.
>> The contradiction is that you reject an argument, sight unseen, just
>> because I made it. (The one about evolution.) But you accept some
>> arguments I make, even though I'm the same person both times.
>
> Like I said, you were bluffing; no contradiction exists.
>
> Your initial claim is falsified by your latter statements. Like most
> persons; sometimes you are right, sometimes you are wrong.

Well, I'm glad that you are now willing to admit that an atheist can be
right about something. That's progress.

[Burkhard]

Nope. I have no idea where you get this from. My point is that her
philosophy rejects the type of relativism you have just exposed. She
says that our desires, wishes etc do not matter, there is just one
rality and reason allows all of us to get an objective account of it
(hence, objectivism) The only "argument" you have ever made is a
poisoning the well argument that denies the very possibility of
objective knowledge("everybody has biases")

>
> Her quote presupposes reality (existence) to support her bias/starting
> assumptions. I disagree; her quote supports my bias/starting
> assumptions.

I have no idea what you mean by this, i don;t think the sentence makes
any sense in most certainly has nothing to do with Rand's philosophy

[Rolf]

I am certain Harshman, like me, would believe evidence that God exists and
is capable of doing what you think he does.
Five people in a car crash, one survives, thanking his god. Evidence that
God is only a priciple of irrationality.

> Ray

[Rolf]

Negative evidence is hard to find, therefore we have to be noncommital wrt
the existence of God. No reason to believe, but no evidence of existence.
Your turn, show positive evidence. That's all it takes. You can do it, can't
you?



> Ray

[Rolf]

Ray Martinez wrote:
> On Nov 7, 4:31 pm, Frank Sullivan <frank.e.franker...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>> On Nov 7, 3:21 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Nov 7, 1:36 pm, T Pagano <not.va...@address.net> wrote:
>>
>>>> I'll be on hiatus for the next few days while I read and attempt to
>>>> analyze Harshman's co-authored report which Harshman asserted
>>>> contains evidence of biological transformational change.
>>
>>>> The only exception will be a response to Harshman's post containing
>>>> his citation.
>>
>>>> Regards,
>>>> T Pagano
>>
>>> Since Harshman firmly believes that no God exists his explanations,
>>> interpretations and conclusions, in favor of evolution, are
>>> predetermined and entirely predictable, so why bother?
>>
>>> Ray
>>
>> I haven't been here in a few years. Has Ray ever released his paper?
>> I felt a slight tremor the other day, and I couldn't tell if it was
>> gas or Biology being turned on its head.
>
> It's a book in progress.

And that's what it forever will be. Trust me.

It will be published on-line (no paywall) on
> my own website. And I have stopped setting deadlines, having admitted
> and apologized that these were unrealistic.
>
> As the days go by rest assured that my book is on the road to
> completion. It will be worth the wait.
>

Take it easy, we will determine it's value. Hopes ar not high...


> Ray

[Rolf]

>> "Reality exists as an objective absolute庸acts are facts, independent

>> of man's feelings, wishes, hopes or fears." (Ayn Rand, "Introducing
>> Objectivism," The Objectivist Newsletter Vol. 1 No. 8, August 1962,
>> p. 35)
>>
>
> YOUR point says Rand is a special one-of-a-kind person with no bias.
>
> Her quote presupposes reality (existence) to support her bias/starting
> assumptions. I disagree; her quote supports my bias/starting
> assumptions.
>
> Atheism/Darwinism is a delusion; there is absolutely no evidence, in
> existence/reality, supporting natural selection, microevolution/
> macroevolution, common descent or the non-existence of God.

That's a baseless claim but you are unable to understand that, you don't
wnat to know or understand either. Building a life on a lie is fatal, when
you realize that it wil be too late.

[Rolf]

But you are right 99.999999% of the time...

> Ray

[Bob Casanova]

On Tue, 08 Nov 2011 10:36:35 -0700, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off>:

>On Mon, 07 Nov 2011 16:36:03 -0500, the following appeared
>in talk.origins, posted by T Pagano <not....@address.net>:
>
>>I'll be on hiatus for the next few days while I read and attempt to
>>analyze Harshman's co-authored report which Harshman asserted contains
>>evidence of biological transformational change.
>>
>>The only exception will be a response to Harshman's post containing
>>his citation.
>
>Post a response in this subject if you feel you need
>additional time to provide the reference I requested; note
>that you have 4 days left before I declare victory due to
>forfeit. If no such request appears under this subject (or
>the one containing the request, the one starting with my
>name) it will be assumed that you need no extension and the
>clock will continue to tick.

OK; ticking away...

[T Pagano]

On Tue, 8 Nov 2011 12:29:25 -0800 (PST), Ray Martinez
<pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote:

>On Nov 7, 6:29 pm, John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>> Ray Martinez wrote:
>> > On Nov 7, 1:36 pm, T Pagano <not.va...@address.net> wrote:
>> >> I'll be on hiatus for the next few days while I read and attempt to
>> >> analyze Harshman's co-authored report which Harshman asserted contains
>> >> evidence of biological transformational change.
>>
>> >> The only exception will be a response to Harshman's post containing
>> >> his citation.
>>
>> >> Regards,
>> >> T Pagano
>>
>> > Since Harshman firmly believes that no God exists his explanations,
>> > interpretations and conclusions, in favor of evolution, are
>> > predetermined and entirely predictable, so why bother?
>>
>> Wouldn't this apply also to my argument for an old universe, the one you
>> actually like? How do you resolve this apparent contradiction?
>
>First of all Tony, in other threads, has accused me of supporting
>Naturalism all because I am an OEC, and he has accused me of being on
>your old Earth bandwagon. These charges are ballistic, all for the
>sole "crime" of accepting an old Earth.

Ray does more than merely accept an old earth. The apparent starlight
problem, which Ray embraced as a problem for YECists, is a problem
only if one accepts a particular genesis of stars in relation to the
Earth. Ray implied his acceptance of purely naturalistic Big Bang. So
if the shoe fit, wear it.

>
>I was an OEC before I came to Talk.Origins; and I supported my claim
>that Christian science, before the rise of Darwinism, already accepted
>an old Earth; and he has yet to support his contrary claim denying the
>fact.

Whether it is true or not is irrelevent to whether the Earth is old or
not unless any of them have special insight into the objective truth
unavailable to the rest of us.

> What he actually did was argue that an old Earth was accepted by
>an unscientific presupposition. In response I said his argument
>supports my scholarly supported claim that Christian science, before
>the rise of Darwinism, already accepted an old Earth. These facts say
>Atheists are on the Bible's cosmological bandwagon.

Here Ray is arguing about the historical time line of who jumped on to
which band wagon. Even if I assume for the sake of argument that his
history is correct it irrelevent to the truth of whether the Earth and
the universe is young or old. Consensus has been wrong so often that
it is a matter for the sociologist and the psychologist and not for
the investigator.

The objective truth is independent of our beliefs and the beliefs of
the mob.

>Now according to the OP Tony needs a few days to read and digest your
>paper. Since your paper presupposes Naturalism/evolution what is there
>to digest (see my first post in this thread preserved in text above)?

I still need to have an open mind. I asked for evidence and Harshman
took the time to provide it. That obligates me to read and evaluate.

>And he seems to forget that Atheists support his rendering of the
>Bible----that Scripture supports a young Earth.

I must admit confusion over this claim. Which atheists would Ray be
referring to?

> Does he not know or
>understand that Atheists like yourself support a Biblical young Earth
>because it makes the Bible look stupid, non-credible?

Atheists consider the entire Scripture as a fairy tale created by men
for the teaching of morals. So why exactly would I care what
atheist's think? On the other hand Ray picks and chooses what he
accepts as literal/historical and what he rejects. How does he know?
Does he judge from his historical bandwagonism? If so he is little
different from the theistic evolutionists.

> As it turns out
>these facts, using his logic, have him on your Atheist bandwagon.

Ray essentially argues that
1. some christians during the Enlightenment were Old Earth
Creationists,
2. secular atheists, followed their leadership and
3. therefore Old Earth Creationism is true.

This is a non sequitor unless Ray can show that these Old Earth
Creationists had special insight into the objective truth unavailable
to the rest of us. Otherwise it is simply an example of bandwagonism.

Next, Ray uses the "starlight problem" as an argument against YECists
without realizing that it is only a problem if he accepts the genesis
of the stars in relation to the Earth as explained by the purely
naturalistic theory of Big Bangism. In for a dime, in for a dollar

Then Ray offers the absurdity that atheists accept the young earth
interpretation of Scripture so that they may then ridicule Scripture.
Absurd because atheists need not accept Scripture in order to ridicule
it.

>
>At any rate, stop hesitating, and state the alleged contradiction. I
>see a bluff.

Ray accepts Special Creation but disposes of a young earth. He is
inconsistent in accepting one from Scripture but not the other. Such
inconsistencies are glaring unless explained. How did the Old Earth
Christians from the Enlightenment explain this away?

Regards,
T Pagano

[T Pagano]

Unfortunately I agree with Burkhard on this one. One cannot believe
in both
1. the existence of the objective truth and
2. that there is only an objective truth if we happen to hold the
correct metaphysical positions about the world.


Furthermore Ray goes too far when he asserts that "Creationism and

Darwinism, because of their starting assumptions, have predetermined

explanations, interpretations and conclusions." Our presuppositions
and metaphysical leanings certainly limit the class of possibilities
we are willing to contenance but they hardly determine what those
possibilities will be.

Finally there are many more classes of people than just Creationist
and Atheist. Ray is an Old Earth Creationist and I a YEC. Within the
YEC crowd there are those that accept the geologic column and those
that do not. There are neoDarwinian evolutionists and non
neoDarwinian evolutionists; there are gradualists and Punc Equers. The
variations in presupposition and metaphysical guide may be way larger
than Ray imagines. This is also true concerning non origin
investigations. Lastly Ray assumes that individuals can't change
their minds or recognize that their metaphysical guide might be
misleading them. It is the search for the objective truth that
ultimately guides us all---even Harshman.


Regards,
T Pagano

[RAM]

On Nov 11, 5:12 pm, T Pagano <not.va...@address.net> wrote:

> Here Ray is arguing about the historical time line of who jumped on to
> which band wagon.  Even if I assume for the sake of argument that his
> history is correct it irrelevent to the truth of whether the Earth and
> the universe is young or old.  Consensus has been wrong so often that
> it is a matter for the sociologist and the psychologist and not for
> the investigator.

Sociologists have also found "consensus to be wrong most often when
matters of faith conflict with science." They find it leads to
sectarian isolation and religious deviancy for the church and its
members.

>
> The objective truth is independent of our beliefs and the beliefs of
> the mob.

Yes and science and only science provides the best approximate
"objective truth."

Regards
RAM

snip
>
> Regards,
> T Pagano

[Bob Casanova]

On Fri, 11 Nov 2011 10:53:26 -0700, the following appeared

in talk.origins, posted by Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off>:

>On Tue, 08 Nov 2011 10:36:35 -0700, the following appeared
>in talk.origins, posted by Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off>:
>
>>On Mon, 07 Nov 2011 16:36:03 -0500, the following appeared
>>in talk.origins, posted by T Pagano <not....@address.net>:
>>
>>>I'll be on hiatus for the next few days while I read and attempt to
>>>analyze Harshman's co-authored report which Harshman asserted contains
>>>evidence of biological transformational change.
>>>
>>>The only exception will be a response to Harshman's post containing
>>>his citation.
>>
>>Post a response in this subject if you feel you need
>>additional time to provide the reference I requested; note
>>that you have 4 days left before I declare victory due to
>>forfeit. If no such request appears under this subject (or
>>the one containing the request, the one starting with my
>>name) it will be assumed that you need no extension and the
>>clock will continue to tick.
>
>OK; ticking away...

No request for an extension as of day 7, so the original
timetable holds.

[Mark Isaak]

That is true. The starlight problem [light from stars millions of
light-years away implies millions of years having passed] is a problem
only if one accepts that the light came from existing stars.

> Ray implied his acceptance of purely naturalistic Big Bang.

That, however, makes no sense at all. Ray might believe that the stars
were separately created by God, just as Pagano does, but were created
millions of years ago. Your jump to "purely naturalistic" is no
different from arguing, "I believe the cake existed before the icing was
put on it, therefore the cake could not have been made by an intelligence."

In fact, it looks to me like Pagano is the one denying God. He said in
another post (I'm pretty sure; please correct me if I'm wrong) that the
starlight was created a mere thousands of years ago to appear as though
it comes from stars millions of light-years distant. That means God is
deceptive. A deceptive god does not deserve worship, and a being that
does not deserve worship, all-powerful or not, does not deserved to be
called God.

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