Re: Natural Selection
shane
> Hi Evos:
>
> PLEASE define Natural Selection.
>
> Please do it yourself and do not defer to a link.
>
> Someone told me that if you put 10 Darwinists in a room and ask them to
> define NS you will get 13 different answers.
>
> Of course I have a point or two but after a few responses and 13
> different answers I will make my points.
>
> Waiting....
>
> Ray Martinez
>
Not the response you want, but you seem to think that disagreement about
aspects of evolution, somehow negates the whole premise. Have you ever
heard differing Christian denominations lambast each other over
theological points. In fact the gulf between YEC and OEC is far wider
than between any scientists over points of evolution. And my point
proves absolutely nothing about Christianity, YEC or OEC, just as your
implicit point proves nothing about evolution.
--
shane
The truth will set you free.
Ray Martinez
Jason Cortina
Your record shows you to be quite unqualified to judge whether 13 different
answers are given or the same answer phrased 13 different ways.
--
Jason A Cortina
"Reader, suppose you were an idiot... And suppose you were
a member of Congress, but I repeat myself.
-- Mark Twain
R. Dunno
Here's five, make do.
1. An organism may possess some inheritable trait or character which,
in a given environment, gives that organism a greater chance of passing
on all of its genes to the next generation (compared with those of its
fellows which don't have it). Over succeeding generations that trait
or character has a good chance of becoming more widespread in that
population.
2. Survival of the fittest.
3. Natural selection is simply the effect the natural world has
on living things, selecting out living forms that can survive
from those that can't handle their environment and therefore
perish.
4. Any mutations which enable an organism to leave more self-reproducing
offspring will be passed on through the generations. This 'differential
reproduction' is called natural selection.
5. Natural selection is the obvious fact that some varieties of
creatures are going to be more successful than others, and so
they will contribute more offspring to future generations.
Dana Tweedy
"Ray Martinez" <pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1111547418.0...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
> Hi Evos:
>
> PLEASE define Natural Selection.
Steven J has a good definition:
Natural selection is differential reproductive success within a population
based on inheritable variation among members of the population.
>
> Please do it yourself and do not defer to a link.
>
> Someone told me that if you put 10 Darwinists in a room and ask them to
> define NS you will get 13 different answers.
Ask your average Creationist to define "Kind" as in "created kind", or
"basic kind" of animals.
snip the rest.
DJT
Pip R. Lagenta
>
>PLEASE define Natural Selection.
>
>Please do it yourself and do not defer to a link.
You mean don't do this?
<http://evolution.mbdojo.com/evolution-for-beginners.html>
<http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/evo101/index.shtml>
<http://www.nap.edu/html/creationism/evidence.html>
<http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/faqs-qa.html>
<http://www.skeptictank.org/hs/factfaq.htm>
<http://www.ebonmusings.org/evolution/evoevidence.html>
<http://www.abarnett.demon.co.uk/atheism/evolution.html>
<http://www.evolutionhappens.net/>
<http://home.houston.rr.com/bybayouu/Tenets_of_evolution.html>
<http://www.gly.uga.edu/railsback/1122science2.html>
<http://www.gly.uga.edu/railsback/1122science3.html>
<http://www.gly.uga.edu/railsback/1122science7.html>
<http://www.gly.uga.edu/railsback/1122sciencedefns.html>
<http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/creation/evo_science.html>
<http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/>
<http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-research.html>
<http://groups.msn.com/EvolutionVCreation/elementaryfaq.msnw>
Why?
Whatcha 'fraid of?
--
內躬偕爻,虜,齯滌`偕爻,虜,齯滌`偕爻,虜,齯滌`偕爻,虜,齯滌`偕爻,
Pip R. Lagenta Pip R. Lagenta Pip R. Lagenta Pip R. Lagenta
�虜,齯滌`偕爻,虜,齯滌`偕爻,虜,齯滌`偕爻,虜,齯滌`偕爻,虜,齯滌
-- Pip R. Lagenta
President for Life
International Organization Of People Named Pip R. Lagenta
(If your name is Pip R. Lagenta, ask about our dues!)
<http://home.comcast.net/~galentripp/pip.html>
(For Email: I'm at home, not work.)
Steven J.
"Ray Martinez" <pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1111547418.0...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
>
> PLEASE define Natural Selection.
>
based on inheritable variation among members of the population.
>
>
>
> Someone told me that if you put 10 Darwinists in a room and ask them to
> define NS you will get 13 different answers.
>
least three definitions of "Darwinist" (which he won't bother to distinguish
from one another in conversation, although "someone who accepts common
descent," "someone who accepts natural selection as the principle mechanism
of adaption," and "someone who things natural phenomena should have natural
explanations" differ from one another more than any three definitions of
"natural selection" you're likely to get from someone who understands the
concept). Note that differences in phrasing a definition are not
necessarily differences about what "natural selection" means.
>
> Of course I have a point or two but after a few responses and 13
> different answers I will make my points.
>
their numbers in the next generation (think all those hundreds of eggs laid
by sea turtles, or even the handful laid every year by a pair of robins).
So they expand in numbers until their territory can support no more: there
isn't enough room, or food, or whatever, for more. At this point, not all
the offspring can possibly survive to produce offspring of their own; most
must die without reproducing. They may be eaten by predators, or starve, or
die young of disease or parasites, or fail to find a mate, and die old of
one of those causes.
Note that these individuals vary among themselves. Some of this variation
is caused by variation in the environment (e.g. parasites may make one
individual scrawnier and weaker than another, or an attentive parent may
cause one to be stronger and larger than average). But some is caused by
differences in genes, and can be passed on to the individuals' own offspring
(e.g. one's genes may make one more or less susceptible than average to a
particular parasite, or more or less likely to take good care of one's
offspring). A trait that makes one more likely to find food, avoid becoming
food, fight off disease, attract a mate, and so forth, will tend to make one
more likely to leave descendants. Genes that make these traits more likely
to appear, in turn, are likely to become more common in the next generation
(since the individuals with those genes are more likely to have offspring,
to whom they pass those genes on).
Where the environment has been stable for a long time, natural selection is
likely to favor traits that have worked in the past (that is, the population
is likely already well fitted to the environment, and almost all new
variations -- from mutations -- will be harmful if they matter at all), and
work against new traits. Where the environment is changing (or where the
population has colonized a new environment, or where some individuals are
trying a new way of getting resources), different traits will become
advantageous, and mutations that were once neutral or harmful may become
beneficial, and spread through the population. The population then evolves
due to natural selection.
>
> Waiting....
>
> Ray Martinez
>
-- Steven J.
Harlequin
Without looking at any other source, I will give the following:
Natural selection is the change in a population resulting from
differences between the members of a population which are
inherited and which the phenotypes have different probabilities
sucessful production of offspring capable of sucessful
reproduction themselves.
I am sure you will get many variants of this from knowledgable
people -- some more or less precise, some more or less technical,
some better worded, etc -- but they will all pretty much
come down to the same thing.
I sure hope that you would not conclude that chemistry is bunk if
you got a dozen different answers to the question of what an
element is.
--
Anti-spam: replace "usenet" with "harlequin2"
"Creationists don't want equal time. They want all the time there is."
- Isaac Asimov
Ken Shaw
Tell you what, you make what ever point you want to make and then
consider that natural selection is still better defined and understood
than gravity. Does that invalidate the Theory of Gravity?
Ken
Fencingsax
You do realize that tiny details change from person to person, and some
are more specific than others, right? And when I mean tiny details, I
mean tiny details. Also some of us are neither eloquent nor do they
ever remember to write down all that they believe evolution is. And
don't forget that many christians still ascribe to science, so they
might have a different version as to the ultimate why. Also, why do you
need to ask us? Can't you read papers on your own?
Bobby D. Bryant
> Hi Evos:
>
> PLEASE define Natural Selection.
It's the differential success rate of individuals in a specific environment.
The "natural" part presumably stipulates that the environment isn't
being manipulated in order to _deliberately_ favor one kind of individual
over another.
--
Bobby Bryant
Austin, Texas
Charles Petzold
Ray Martinez wrote:
> Hi Evos:
>
> PLEASE define Natural Selection.
>
> Please do it yourself and do not defer to a link.
It's kind of like "American Idol."
Except instead of singing, it's getting enough to eat, surviving to
puperty, selecting good mates, and procreating.
And instead of Simon, Randy, and Paula, it's famine, drought, and the
occasional asteroid.
May the best genes win.
Charles Petzold
www.charlespetzold.com
John Harshman
Sure, I'll play. Natural selection is differential reproduction of
individuals depending on differences in their genotypes.
Of course this could be stated in many different ways, all roughly
equivalent. So what?
VoiceOfReason
> On 22 Mar 2005 19:10:18 -0800, "Ray Martinez" <pyram...@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
> >Hi Evos:
> >
> >PLEASE define Natural Selection.
> >
> >Please do it yourself and do not defer to a link.
> [snip]
> You mean don't do this?
<snip links>
> Why?
> Whatcha 'fraid of?
Knowledge, it would seem. :-|
Chris Thompson
> Hi Evos:
Here's how I teach it:
1. There is natural variation in populations.
2. All populations produce more offspring than can survive. This leads
to competition for resources. 3. If certain individuals possess
heritable variations that allow their offspring to survive and reproduce
more efficiently, those heritable traits will increase in frequency in
that population.
Isn't that easy?
Note that although it's worded differently, it has exactly the same
meaning as Steven J.'s definition, along with several others already
posted.
--
Chris
aa#2186
Black helicopter mind-control-ray door-gunner
=====
"We are all capable of believing things which we know to be untrue, and
then, when we are finally proved wrong, impudently twisting the facts so
as to show that we were right. Intellectually, it is possible to carry
on this process for an indefinite time: the only check on it is that
sooner or later a false belief bumps up against solid reality, usually
on a battlefield." --George Orwell, 1946, "Under Your Nose"
Nivlem
<pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Natural selection, my version: Differing reproductive
success of individuals bearing various sets of traits,
within a given environment. Now, that would be at least 13
responses, all worded a bit differently. They all say
essentially the same thing, though. As for your points,
don't bother. I think we've all seen everything you could
possibly have to offer, and it's all just abysmally ignorant
or sleazy, dishonest nonsense.
island
R. Dunno wrote:
> On 22 Mar 2005 19:10:18 -0800, Ray Martinez <pyram...@yahoo.com>
wrote:
> > Hi Evos:
> >
> > PLEASE define Natural Selection.
> >
> > Please do it yourself and do not defer to a link.
> >
> > Someone told me that if you put 10 Darwinists in a room and ask
them to
> > define NS you will get 13 different answers.
> >
> > Of course I have a point or two but after a few responses and 13
> > different answers I will make my points.
> >
> > Waiting....
> >
> > Ray Martinez
> >
>
> Here's five, make do.
>
>
> 1. An organism may possess some inheritable trait or character which,
> in a given environment, gives that organism a greater chance of
passing
> on all of its genes to the next generation (compared with those of
its
> fellows which don't have it). Over succeeding generations that
trait
> or character has a good chance of becoming more widespread in that
> population.
>
.
Is that "given" environment expressing a natural preference to a
"given" trait for any good physical reason?... is the real question.
Maybe the environment is selecting "in" as well as "selecting out", but
what good physical reason could there be for natural environmental
preference?.
*ducking for cover*
John Harshman
Selecting "in" is the same thing as selecting "out"; the only difference
is what allele you happen to be looking at now. There are many good
physical reasons, so I'm confused at your confusion. In peppered moths,
for example, camouflaged moths are selected over uncamouflaged ones for
the simple physical reason that predators have an easier time finding
the uncamouflaged ones (which variant is camouflaged/uncamouflaged of
course depends on the color of the substrate). Moths that have been
eaten tend not to reproduce.
> *ducking for cover*
I'm going to assume you had a point to make with your questions. What
was it?
island
> was it?
I'm trying to isolate on why the environment prefers any one group over
another in terms of energy efficiency, that I know is the underlying
mechanism.
I ducked because the implication for a higher level preference toward
any one group isn't usually taken too well, even when you have good
evidence for it.
You did a good job of explaining it.
John Harshman
This may perhaps be true if you can find a way to express everything, no
matter what, in terms of energy efficiency. I'd be interested to see
your attempt. You could start with moth colors, and not being eaten, if
you like.
> I ducked because the implication for a higher level preference toward
> any one group isn't usually taken too well, even when you have good
> evidence for it.
You didn't mention anything about higher level preference toward any one
group until just now, unless I somehow missed it.
> You did a good job of explaining it.
>
Thanks.
Thomas Faller
You seem to have read something into the sentence that isn't there. The
environment does not prefer anything. It sets the parameters by which
organisms compete for resources. It is indifferent to which, if any succeed.
Given two ponds, with the same fauna but different environments (such as you
might find seasonally adjacent to major rivers), and in each you have a fish
that does not breathe well out of water and one that does. The one that doesn't
can use in-pond resources better than the one that can breathe out of water.
In a pond that stays well-watered all year, the one which doesn't breathe out
of water leaves more descendants than the other. In a pond that occasionally
dries up, the fish that can flop across the mud to another source of water will
leave progeny.
Whether a pond dries up or not could depend on local rainfall, local topography,
the drainage properties of the soil, the amount of sunlight, and whether beavers live
nearby. They all constitute part of the "environment" which exerts selection
pressure on fish. None of them have a preference, they simply are.
Did you have something else in mind?
Tom Faller
Thomas Faller
Organisms have more descendants than survive to have their own descendants. The
ones which survive are determined by qualities of the individuals as well as
how well they are suited to their immediate environment and whatever life can
throw at them. They will compete for resources with other organisms, and are
themselves competed for as resources. Methods for competition can include
intrinsic structures of the organism and behavioral patterns. Genes pass along
all methods for competition, and variations in genes will result in variation
in fitness for an environment. Neither genes nor environments are typically stable
over geologic time.
Are we up to 13 yet?
Tom Faller
island
.
My first instinct, (without researching the topic), is to say that the
camo-moth's wouldn't do so well in a different background so they are
performing some ecosystematic task within a specific environment for
which they are naturally enabled.
Figuring that out might be tough, because some bugs are so limited that
their highest contribution can only be fertilizer.
Mark Isaak
wrote:
>Hi Evos:
>
>PLEASE define Natural Selection.
There is variation within populations. Natural selection is the
observation that some of this variation affects individuals' chances
of surviving and/or procreating.
>Someone told me that if you put 10 Darwinists in a room and ask them to
>define NS you will get 13 different answers.
Recently, as part of a cultural anthropology class, I asked six people
what moral, religious, physical, and social factors are emphasized or
explained by the story of Noah. Here are the different answers I got.
Numbers in parentheses are the number of people who gave that answer,
if more than one.
The following answers came from three people from one conservative
Christian church:
Emphasizing family
Teaching obedience
Explaining the geologic record
Exemplifying religion
Exemplifying marriage
Teaching that immorality gets punished
Teaching faithfulness (2)
Teaching honesty
Teaching perseverence
Teaching patience
Teaching against violence
Teaching against breakdown of marriage
Expressing God's sovereignty (2)
Expressing God's omniscience
Expressing redemption
Expressing judgment
Expressing the existence of cursed races
The following answers came from three people from one liberal Jewish
synagogue:
Emphasizing family
Teaching obedience to God
Teaching morality in general (2)
Teaching that relationships have boundaries that shouldn't be crossed
Teaching care for animals
Teaching optimism
Teaching that actions have consequences
Expressing that good people will survive
Expressing that God communicates with good people
Expressing a 2-way covenant between people and God
Expressing that God can be trusted
Expressing that humans are not necessarily more important than animals
That's 27 different answers from 6 people, with only 5 answers given
by more than one person. I find it interesting, too, that the
diversity within a single congregation is as great as the diversity
between two quite different religions.
--
Mark Isaak eciton (at) earthlink (dot) net
"Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of
the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are
being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and
exposing the country to danger." -- Hermann Goering
island
.
An ecosystematic link that includes contributive affects to some
"layer" of the environment which in-turn enable the system to continue
to survive and evolve.
The specifics have to do with the system's capability for even energy
dissimination and affected layers can be quite broad ranged given
enough degrees of freedom, like humans have.
Please bear in mind that I'm flying by the seat of my pants, right now.
.
John Harshman
If that ecosystematic task is surviving to have offspring, you are
right. I doubt the ecosystem cares one way or another whether this task
is performed, though. Are you looking for teleology somewhere?
> Figuring that out might be tough, because some bugs are so limited that
> their highest contribution can only be fertilizer.
What makes you think that "contribution" is a useful concept in this case?
[snip]
Glenn
"Mark Isaak" <eci...@earthlinkNOSPAM.next> wrote in message
news:vgm341t9eud0hufv7...@4ax.com...
> On 22 Mar 2005 19:10:18 -0800, "Ray Martinez" <pyram...@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
> >Hi Evos:
> >
> >PLEASE define Natural Selection.
>
> There is variation within populations. Natural selection is the
> observation that some of this variation affects individuals' chances
> of surviving and/or procreating.
>
> >Someone told me that if you put 10 Darwinists in a room and ask them to
> >define NS you will get 13 different answers.
>
> Recently, as part of a cultural anthropology class, I asked six people
> what moral, religious, physical, and social factors are emphasized or
> explained by the story of Noah. Here are the different answers I got.
> Numbers in parentheses are the number of people who gave that answer,
> if more than one.
>
Comparing religions again, are we.
snip
island
No, I'm talking about a productive nitch in the ecosystem
>
> > Figuring that out might be tough, because some bugs are so limited
that
> > their highest contribution can only be fertilizer.
>
> What makes you think that "contribution" is a useful concept in this
case?
>
> [snip]
A dung beetle breaks down crap more efficiently than if it were left
stictly to the elements, which accomplsh the very same task, only to a
less efficient degree.
The dung beetle is enabled to survive and perpetuate by the very crap
that he breaks down.
Breaking down crap more efficiently than if left to the elements is
relative to the number of degrees of freedom that a system has in this
game for which there is no free will or choice, since every action in
the universe increases the entropy of the universe.
"The more complex the structure the more effective is the energy
dissemination. Populations are better in this respect than single
individuals; ecosystems even more so, and most effective of all -- so
far -- are human high-tech societies"
-James Kay and Dorian Sagan, as endorsed by Arne Jernelov and Eric
Schneider...
http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/edit/archives/2004/09/30/2003204990
John Harshman
How do you distinguish a productive niche from an unproductive one?
"Productive" in what sense?
>>>Figuring that out might be tough, because some bugs are so limited
>
> that
>
>>>their highest contribution can only be fertilizer.
>>
>>What makes you think that "contribution" is a useful concept in this
>
> case?
>
> A dung beetle breaks down crap more efficiently than if it were left
> stictly to the elements, which accomplsh the very same task, only to a
> less efficient degree.
>
> The dung beetle is enabled to survive and perpetuate by the very crap
> that he breaks down.
All fine so far. But you imply that efficiency is some goal of the
ecosystem, rather than just the goal of the dung beetle. Why should that
be the case? After all, there are many ecosystems in which things don't
break down as fast as they do in others. Dead trees in a tropical
rainforest may stick around for a matter of months. Dead trees in a
temperate rain forest may stick around for decades.
> Breaking down crap more efficiently than if left to the elements is
> relative to the number of degrees of freedom that a system has in this
> game for which there is no free will or choice, since every action in
> the universe increases the entropy of the universe.
This is the point at which your statement becomes meaningless to me.
Maybe it would mean something to someone else, but not to me. How you
can relate "degrees of freedom" to "free will" to "entropy" is quite
beyond me.
> "The more complex the structure the more effective is the energy
> dissemination. Populations are better in this respect than single
> individuals; ecosystems even more so, and most effective of all -- so
> far -- are human high-tech societies"
>
> -James Kay and Dorian Sagan, as endorsed by Arne Jernelov and Eric
> Schneider...
Why should more effective energy dissemination be a goal of nature? How
is that goal, if it exists, implemented?
> http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/edit/archives/2004/09/30/2003204990
>
Pip R. Lagenta
wrote:
>Hi Evos:
>
>PLEASE define Natural Selection.
>
>Please do it yourself and do not defer to a link.
>
>Someone told me that if you put 10 Darwinists in a room and ask them to
>define NS you will get 13 different answers.
>
>Of course I have a point or two but after a few responses and 13
>different answers I will make my points.
>
>Waiting....
>
>Ray Martinez
Having read the previous answers, I am ready to give it a shot as
well:
In the phrase
"Evolution is what happens when a population of imperfect replicators
interacts with their environment"
Natural Selection is the "interacts with their environment" part.
Bob Casanova
in talk.origins, posted by "Pip R. Lagenta"
<morbiu...@comcast.net>:
>On 22 Mar 2005 19:10:18 -0800, "Ray Martinez" <pyram...@yahoo.com>
>wrote:
>>Hi Evos:
>>
>>PLEASE define Natural Selection.
>>
>>Please do it yourself and do not defer to a link.
>You mean don't do this?
><http://evolution.mbdojo.com/evolution-for-beginners.html>
><http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/evo101/index.shtml>
><http://www.nap.edu/html/creationism/evidence.html>
><http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/faqs-qa.html>
><http://www.skeptictank.org/hs/factfaq.htm>
><http://www.ebonmusings.org/evolution/evoevidence.html>
><http://www.abarnett.demon.co.uk/atheism/evolution.html>
><http://www.evolutionhappens.net/>
><http://home.houston.rr.com/bybayouu/Tenets_of_evolution.html>
><http://www.gly.uga.edu/railsback/1122science2.html>
><http://www.gly.uga.edu/railsback/1122science3.html>
><http://www.gly.uga.edu/railsback/1122science7.html>
><http://www.gly.uga.edu/railsback/1122sciencedefns.html>
><http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/creation/evo_science.html>
><http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/>
><http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-research.html>
><http://groups.msn.com/EvolutionVCreation/elementaryfaq.msnw>
*Bad* Pip! No dessert for you!
>Why?
>Whatcha 'fraid of?
Being forced to actually think, perhaps?
--
Bob C.
"Evidence confirming an observation is
evidence that the observation is wrong."
- McNameless
Bob Casanova
in talk.origins, posted by "Glenn"
<glenns...@SPAMqwest.net>:
No.
Bob Casanova
talk.origins, posted by "island" <isl...@earthlink.net>:
<snip>
>An ecosystematic link that includes contributive affects to some
>"layer" of the environment which in-turn enable the system to continue
>to survive and evolve.
If I'm reading you correctly, you're heading for some
variant of a "Gaia" concept here. If so, be aware that
you'll *really* have to work, and provide *lots* of
evidence, to justify it.
>The specifics have to do with the system's capability for even energy
>dissimination and affected layers can be quite broad ranged given
>enough degrees of freedom, like humans have.
>
>Please bear in mind that I'm flying by the seat of my pants, right now.
<snip>
Ray Martinez
is the
observation that some of this variation affects individuals' chances
of surviving and/or procreating.
Ray Martinez: This was your answer to my request to define Natural
Selection.
Then you gave a rather interesting "pre-emptive" response to my
characterization anticpating various answers from Darwinists.
IOW, you agree with me that the definition of NS will vary between
Darwinists. This agreement came via your Noah's Ark analogy that has
many different interpretations to certain questions about the event.
The irony of an atheist Darwinist seeking relief in the Bible to a fair
inquiry about the revolving definition of NS. IOW, "you guys have the
same problem so don't act like we are the only ones."
But the issue is about an alleged scientific mechanism at the core of
evolutionary theory.
If NS is scientific then the myriad number of definitions supports the
claim that it is NOT scientific - but philosophy packaged as scientific
evidence.
Actually I was quite kind when I said if you put 10 Darwinists in a
room and they will produce 13 different definitions of NS.
There is no objective definition of NS anywhere to be found.
Every Darwinist will provide his own subjective take, meaning if there
are 10,000,000 Darwinists in the world they will produce 13,000, 000
different answers.
And you rational Darwinists call this science !
NS predicts nothing but claims it does.
NS is 20/20 hindsight describing from individual perspective that which
already is.
IOW, Darwinists study nature, then relay what they see, and then claim
they predicted it and call it science.
Many Darwinists refer to NS as a mechanism.
Where is the structure ?
How can a mechanism function without a structure ?
Atheist Richard Milton:
"As a theory, natural selection makes no unique predictions but instead
is used retrospectively to explain every outcome: and a theory that
explains everything in this way explains nothing. Natural Selection is
not a mechanism: it is a rationalization after the fact."
Ray Martinez
John Harshman
Well, as a matter of fact, yes. That's exactly what Mark was doing. Now
Glenn was probably trying to make some crack about evolution being a
religion, but the fact that Mark was indeed comparing religions
(different people's responses to the Noah story) gets in the way of that
little joke. (Glenn will probably deny something at this point. Ho hum).
island
Bob Casanova wrote:
> On 23 Mar 2005 13:35:05 -0800, the following appeared in
> talk.origins, posted by "island" <isl...@earthlink.net>:
>
> <snip>
>
> >An ecosystematic link that includes contributive affects to some
> >"layer" of the environment which in-turn enable the system to
continue
> >to survive and evolve.
>
> If I'm reading you correctly, you're heading for some
> variant of a "Gaia" concept here. If so, be aware that
> you'll *really* have to work, and provide *lots* of
> evidence, to justify it.
>
.
That's why I'm here, but it's more of a "Blue Collar" concept cuz
you'll get weeded out of this garden really quickly if you don't do
your job!!!... ;)
Thanks for recognizing the idea for whatever that's worth.
unrestra...@hotmail.com
Ray Martinez wrote:
> Mark Isaak: There is variation within populations. Natural
selection
> is the
> observation that some of this variation affects individuals' chances
> of surviving and/or procreating.
>
> Ray Martinez: This was your answer to my request to define Natural
> Selection.
>
> Then you gave a rather interesting "pre-emptive" response to my
> characterization anticpating various answers from Darwinists.
>
> IOW, you agree with me that the definition of NS will vary between
> Darwinists. This agreement came via your Noah's Ark analogy that has
> many different interpretations to certain questions about the event.
>
> The irony of an atheist Darwinist seeking relief in the Bible to a
fair
> inquiry about the revolving definition of NS.
Did he say he ws an atheist?
What makes you think he was seeking relief of any kind?
What do you mean by "revolving"?
You seem like a pretty confused fellow. But perhaps you're simply
dishonest. It's hard to tell at times.
> IOW, "you guys have the
> same problem so don't act like we are the only ones."
>
> But the issue is about an alleged scientific mechanism at the core of
> evolutionary theory.
The issue seems to be your understanding of it. You got a couple of
dozen good answers, all saying the same thing. Are you really so dense
that you don't understand that?
Please pick any two and explain how they are different.
>
> If NS is scientific then the myriad number of definitions supports
the
> claim that it is NOT scientific - but philosophy packaged as
scientific
> evidence.
>
They were all one answer, said by many individuals who understand it.
> Actually I was quite kind when I said if you put 10 Darwinists in a
> room and they will produce 13 different definitions of NS.
>
> There is no objective definition of NS anywhere to be found.
<snort>
Visit yout friendly neighborhood natural history museum. If you don't
have one, the next time you are on the campus of your closet
university, visit the geology or biology college.
>
> Every Darwinist will provide his own subjective take, meaning if
there
> are 10,000,000 Darwinists in the world they will produce 13,000, 000
> different answers.
>
Do you really think that these are different answers?
> And you rational Darwinists call this science !
I suppose you think "Science" would be the memorization of some
textbook definition. How sad. People who understand a process descrbe
it in their own words, of course. You could ask folks for their
definitions of "democracy", and you would not get any two the same.
Some of them would be wrong, some more subtle, some more eloquent than
others. But would this mean that "Democracy" doesn't exist?
>
> NS predicts nothing but claims it does.
It predicted, for example, that when the mechanisms for inheritable
traits was discovered, it would mark a nested hierarchy matching
morphology. Which it does, with some clarifications.
It predicts the behavior of mechnisms adapting to poisons in their
environment.
It predicted that more fossil transitions would be discovered linking
current species, families, etc. with their precursors - which has
happened.
It predicted specificall that whales would have left fossil trasitional
links from their land-dwelling tetrapod ancestors to the sea. These
have recently been found.
Darwin predicted that more complex animals, and more recent animals,
would only be found in more recent strata. This has been confirmed so
far.
>
> NS is 20/20 hindsight describing from individual perspective that
which
> already is.
>
> IOW, Darwinists study nature, then relay what they see, and then
claim
> they predicted it and call it science.
>
See above.
> Many Darwinists refer to NS as a mechanism.
>
> Where is the structure ?
>
> How can a mechanism function without a structure ?
You are a very concrete thinker, aren't you?
>
> Atheist Richard Milton:
>
> "As a theory, natural selection makes no unique predictions but
instead
> is used retrospectively to explain every outcome: and a theory that
> explains everything in this way explains nothing. Natural Selection
is
> not a mechanism: it is a rationalization after the fact."
>
> Ray Martinez
Richard Milton is a kook.
http://www.alternativescience.com/
There is no "alternative science". There is only good science and bad
science.
Kermit
John Harshman
> Mark Isaak: There is variation within populations. Natural selection
> is the
> observation that some of this variation affects individuals' chances
> of surviving and/or procreating.
>
> Ray Martinez: This was your answer to my request to define Natural
> Selection.
>
> Then you gave a rather interesting "pre-emptive" response to my
> characterization anticpating various answers from Darwinists.
>
> IOW, you agree with me that the definition of NS will vary between
> Darwinists. This agreement came via your Noah's Ark analogy that has
> many different interpretations to certain questions about the event.
>
> The irony of an atheist Darwinist seeking relief in the Bible to a fair
> inquiry about the revolving definition of NS. IOW, "you guys have the
> same problem so don't act like we are the only ones."
>
> But the issue is about an alleged scientific mechanism at the core of
> evolutionary theory.
>
> If NS is scientific then the myriad number of definitions supports the
> claim that it is NOT scientific - but philosophy packaged as scientific
> evidence.
Nonsense. As was pointed out by many posters, all the various
definitions mean the same thing. You think that in order for it to be
science we all have to repeat word for word? Now that's bizarre.
> Actually I was quite kind when I said if you put 10 Darwinists in a
> room and they will produce 13 different definitions of NS.
>
> There is no objective definition of NS anywhere to be found.
>
> Every Darwinist will provide his own subjective take, meaning if there
> are 10,000,000 Darwinists in the world they will produce 13,000, 000
> different answers.
>
> And you rational Darwinists call this science !
Indeed we do. The precise wordings of definitions don't matter a bit.
> NS predicts nothing but claims it does.
>
> NS is 20/20 hindsight describing from individual perspective that which
> already is.
>
> IOW, Darwinists study nature, then relay what they see, and then claim
> they predicted it and call it science.
>
> Many Darwinists refer to NS as a mechanism.
>
> Where is the structure ?
>
> How can a mechanism function without a structure ?
Tell me. Have you ever in your life read a scientific paper? If so, have
you ever read one on natural selection?
> Atheist Richard Milton:
>
> "As a theory, natural selection makes no unique predictions but instead
> is used retrospectively to explain every outcome: and a theory that
> explains everything in this way explains nothing. Natural Selection is
> not a mechanism: it is a rationalization after the fact."
Milton is wrong. Even being an atheist doesn't stop you from being
wrong, as I'm sure you would agree.
island
.
Well, according to Kay, et. al., the increase in complexity alone,
serves to create systems that enhance the process of energy
dissimination, and my understanding is the same as their for more
universal reasons. Please finish reading everything in this reply for
more clarification on that.
.
> After all, there are many ecosystems in which things don't
> break down as fast as they do in others. Dead trees in a tropical
> rainforest may stick around for a matter of months. Dead trees in a
> temperate rain forest may stick around for decades.
.
Speed isn't what the even distribution of energy is all about, although
it must increase constantly per the second law of thermodynamics.
.
>
> > Breaking down crap more efficiently than if left to the elements is
> > relative to the number of degrees of freedom that a system has in
this
> > game for which there is no free will or choice, since every action
in
> > the universe increases the entropy of the universe.
>
> This is the point at which your statement becomes meaningless to me.
> Maybe it would mean something to someone else, but not to me. How you
> can relate "degrees of freedom" to "free will" to "entropy" is quite
> beyond me.
.
In this context, "Degrees of Freedom" represent comparitive
capabilities for increasing the entropy of the universe as it relates
to survival enabling energy consumption.
Dung beetles can breakdown crap, which gives them a "value" to the
process that's greater than if they weren't there.
Humans can breakdown *ALL* forms of matter, including, but not strictly
limited to, crap, making them more preferred in this respect, since
they can persue more avenues of survival.
Humans have more, (universal), freedom in the effort, but our given
life-perpetuating paths of action are as obvious as the higher-level
effects that our use of them has on the entropy of the universe.
.
>
> > "The more complex the structure the more effective is the energy
> > dissemination. Populations are better in this respect than single
> > individuals; ecosystems even more so, and most effective of all --
so
> > far -- are human high-tech societies"
> >
> > -James Kay and Dorian Sagan, as endorsed by Arne Jernelov and Eric
> > Schneider...
>
> Why should more effective energy dissemination be a goal of nature?
.
Because it increases the entropy of the universe more evenly.
.
> How
> is that goal, if it exists, implemented?
.
That's directly related to how the entropy of the expanding universe
plays out with increasing earnest against stubborn imperfections in the
energy that require "activation energy" in order to break them down.
Increases in complexity and order enable emergent properties that
achieve this function at higher orders of efficiency, and I know that
there are still a million unanswered questions, but thanks for the
help.
>
> > http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/edit/archives/2004/09/30/2003204990
> >
John Harshman
> John Harshman wrote:
>
>>island wrote:
[snip unreadable crap. why does it do this?]
>>
>>All fine so far. But you imply that efficiency is some goal of the
>>ecosystem, rather than just the goal of the dung beetle. Why should
>>that be the case?
> .
> Well, according to Kay, et. al., the increase in complexity alone,
> serves to create systems that enhance the process of energy
> dissimination, and my understanding is the same as their for more
> universal reasons. Please finish reading everything in this reply for
> more clarification on that.
More clarification in the sense that you couldn't have less
clarification? Because so far that made no sense to me.
>>After all, there are many ecosystems in which things don't
>>break down as fast as they do in others. Dead trees in a tropical
>>rainforest may stick around for a matter of months. Dead trees in a
>>temperate rain forest may stick around for decades.
> .
> Speed isn't what the even distribution of energy is all about, although
> it must increase constantly per the second law of thermodynamics.
Then what are you talking about? Is all you're saying that entropy must
increase? Sure didn't sound like you were.
>
>>>Breaking down crap more efficiently than if left to the elements is
>>>relative to the number of degrees of freedom that a system has in
>
> this
>
>>>game for which there is no free will or choice, since every action
>
> in
>
>>>the universe increases the entropy of the universe.
>>
>>This is the point at which your statement becomes meaningless to me.
>>Maybe it would mean something to someone else, but not to me. How you
>>can relate "degrees of freedom" to "free will" to "entropy" is quite
>>beyond me.
> .
> In this context, "Degrees of Freedom" represent comparitive
> capabilities for increasing the entropy of the universe as it relates
> to survival enabling energy consumption.
I was confused because "degrees of freedom" has quite a specific meaning
in statistics, and this isn't it. Please don't use terms that have quite
different conventional meanings unless you want to be misunderstood.
And if I substitute your new meaning, the statement still means nothing
to me.
> Dung beetles can breakdown crap, which gives them a "value" to the
> process that's greater than if they weren't there.
Why should the process measure value at all? What is this process that's
measuring the value of dung beetles? It doesn't seem to be anything that
actually exists in nature.
> Humans can breakdown *ALL* forms of matter, including, but not strictly
> limited to, crap, making them more preferred in this respect, since
> they can persue more avenues of survival.
Preferred by whom or what? What practical consequences does this
preference have?
> Humans have more, (universal), freedom in the effort, but our given
> life-perpetuating paths of action are as obvious as the higher-level
> effects that our use of them has on the entropy of the universe.
Once again, these words don't seem to cohere so as to form a meaning to me.
>>>"The more complex the structure the more effective is the energy
>>>dissemination. Populations are better in this respect than single
>>>individuals; ecosystems even more so, and most effective of all --
>
> so
>
>>>far -- are human high-tech societies"
>>>
>>>-James Kay and Dorian Sagan, as endorsed by Arne Jernelov and Eric
>>>Schneider...
>>
>>Why should more effective energy dissemination be a goal of nature?
> .
> Because it increases the entropy of the universe more evenly.
Why should increasing the entropy of the universe more evenly be a goal
of nature?
>>How
>>is that goal, if it exists, implemented?
> .
> That's directly related to how the entropy of the expanding universe
> plays out with increasing earnest against stubborn imperfections in the
> energy that require "activation energy" in order to break them down.
> Increases in complexity and order enable emergent properties that
> achieve this function at higher orders of efficiency, and I know that
> there are still a million unanswered questions, but thanks for the
> help.
If only you could say something about this that I could derive meaning
from. It sounds like bureaucrats, politicians, or "educators" to me:
verbiage meant to disguise a lack of meaning. You use real terms, like
"activation energy", but in contexts that make no sense if you're using
their standard meanings. Try to be clear, and use words in their usual
meanings if you want to be understood.
>>>http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/edit/archives/2004/09/30/2003204990
>>>
>
>
island
John Harshman wrote:
> island wrote:
>
> > John Harshman wrote:
> >
> >>island wrote:
> [snip unreadable crap. why does it do this?]
>
>
> >>
> >>All fine so far. But you imply that efficiency is some goal of the
> >>ecosystem, rather than just the goal of the dung beetle. Why should
> >>that be the case?
> > .
> > Well, according to Kay, et. al., the increase in complexity alone,
> > serves to create systems that enhance the process of energy
> > dissimination, and my understanding is the same as their for more
> > universal reasons. Please finish reading everything in this reply
for
> > more clarification on that.
>
> More clarification in the sense that you couldn't have less
> clarification? Because so far that made no sense to me.
Hey John, the fact that increases in complexity serve to create systems
that enhance energy dissimination is valid enough reason WHY THAT
SHOULD BE THE CASE.
But it's no surprise again that you can't find the answer in the plain
words.
<SNIP>
John Harshman
Perhaps they are plain words only to you. There is no need to get huffy.
It only gets in the way of any communication, if communication is
indeed your goal. Why should what you say be the case? Are you saying
that increases in complexity are thermodynamically favored? Surely
that's not universally true. Sometimes decreases in complexity are favored.
island
.
I got "huffy" when you started telling me that you don't understand
stuff that most people don't have nearly as much trouble grasping,
because that's when I begin to suspect that you aren't making any form
of cooperative effort to understand a damned thing. Rather, this
conveys the impression that you strictly intend to play devil's
advocate in order to find no meaning in meaningful words for a long
enough period of time that the otherwise valid point is lost.
I'm sorry if that wasn't the case, I'm a little gun shy too.
.
> It only gets in the way of any communication, if communication is
> indeed your goal. Why should what you say be the case? Are you saying
> that increases in complexity are thermodynamically favored? Surely
> that's not universally true. Sometimes decreases in complexity are
favored.
.
Increases in complexity are only thermodynamically favored in a
predominantly expansive universe if they represent increases in the
potential for disorder that are compounded by the emergent properties
that serve to enhance the process.
You can't go backwards from the greater expansive impetus of the
universe without aquiring an entropic debt that's greater than the sum
of the entropy of the individual microscopic systems, since expansion
continues for as long as the complex system exists.
Ergo the emergent macroscopic properties that enable the system to keep
up with the ever increasing entropy cost that's required to maintain
this open system.
.
Eros
Does the fact that he's an atheist make him any more believable, or
even correct?
EROS.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Creationists do not need logic, we believe what God tells us to
believe." -- B_Sharp (Talk.Origins 2004-07-09)
R. Dunno
>
> Actually I was quite kind when I said if you put 10 Darwinists in a
> room and they will produce 13 different definitions of NS.
>
Actually, the five I presented are what I thought were some of
the more reasonable ones found on webpages at Answers In Genesis.
The URLs are embedded in the headers of my first post in this
thread.
Do you take issue with all the different wordings of Matthew 6:28-30
that follow? There are 19 different bibles in English at
www.biblegateway.com, they all have different verbage for this
passage.
NIV
And why do you worry about clothes? See how the lilies of the field
grow. They do not labor or spin. Yet I tell you that not even Solomon
in all his splendor was dressed like one of these. If that is how God
clothes the grass of the field, which is here today and tomorrow is
thrown into the fire, will he not much more clothe you, O you of little
faith?
The Message
All this time and money wasted on fashion--do you think it makes that
much difference? Instead of looking at the fashions, walk out into the
fields and look at the wildflowers. They never primp or shop, but have
you ever seen color and design quite like it? The ten best--dressed men
and women in the country look shabby alongside them. If God gives such
attention to the appearance of wildflowers--most of which are never
even seen--don't you think he'll attend to you, take pride in you, do
his best for you?
KJV
And why take ye thought for raiment? Consider the lilies of the
field, how they grow; they toil not, neither do they spin: And
yet I say unto you, That even Solomon in all his glory was not
arrayed like one of these. Wherefore, if God so clothe the grass
of the field, which to day is, and tomorrow is cast into the oven,
shall he not much more clothe you, O ye of little faith?
Steven J.
"Ray Martinez" <pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1111620666.9...@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
> Mark Isaak: There is variation within populations. Natural selection
> is the
> observation that some of this variation affects individuals' chances
> of surviving and/or procreating.
>
> Ray Martinez: This was your answer to my request to define Natural
> Selection.
>
request. *I* deserve first reply. On the other hand, I can't help but
notice that you don't actually address either Mark Isaak's actual
definition, or compare it to definitions offered by other posters. You
speak of "myriad" definitions, and don't bother to demonstrate that any two
people offered even two significantly different definitions.
>
> Then you gave a rather interesting "pre-emptive" response to my
> characterization anticpating various answers from Darwinists.
>
(even with themselves!) to what "Darwinist" means. It's rather astonishing
that so many people would set out to refute a theory, or ideology, or
whatever they think it is, without being clear on what it is they're trying
to refute.
>
> IOW, you agree with me that the definition of NS will vary between
> Darwinists. This agreement came via your Noah's Ark analogy that has
> many different interpretations to certain questions about the event.
>
as Scripture have different interpretations, but also that it is quite
conceivable that multiple interpretations are possible. As Mark Isaak
noted, some people came up with multiple answers, presumably holding that
all of them were correct. By the same token, there are many different
aspects to natural selection. Different "Darwinists" might emphasize
different aspects of natural selection, and all of them might be correct
that this aspect of the phenomenon exists and is important.
>
> The irony of an atheist Darwinist seeking relief in the Bible to a fair
> inquiry about the revolving definition of NS. IOW, "you guys have the
> same problem so don't act like we are the only ones."
>
interpretations of the Bible by Bible believers. And he didn't explicitly
say this was a problem. Not everything in life can be boiled down to a
one-liner; sometimes it takes a dozen or more one-liners. And have you
actually established that Mark Isaak is an atheist, or is this simply an
assumption you make about everyone who accepts evolution?
>
> But the issue is about an alleged scientific mechanism at the core of
> evolutionary theory.
>
> If NS is scientific then the myriad number of definitions supports the
> claim that it is NOT scientific - but philosophy packaged as scientific
> evidence.
>
You have not demonstrated that there is more than one definition. You have
asked for definitions, and then ignored them, and continued your rant as if
they had not been offered to you.
>
> Actually I was quite kind when I said if you put 10 Darwinists in a
> room and they will produce 13 different definitions of NS.
>
>
> There is no objective definition of NS anywhere to be found.
>
measurements for the degree of selective pressure on a gene.
>
> Every Darwinist will provide his own subjective take, meaning if there
> are 10,000,000 Darwinists in the world they will produce 13,000, 000
> different answers.
>
> And you rational Darwinists call this science !
>
arguing against a childish sketch of a strawman. Again (since you seem to
have problems with attention) you have been offered several definitions.
You have examined exactly *zero* of these, nor have you compared any of them
to any other definition to see if they agree or disagree, or what the nature
of the disagreements (if any) are.
>
> NS predicts nothing but claims it does.
>
>
> NS is 20/20 hindsight describing from individual perspective that which
> already is.
>
"just-so stories" about the selective pressures and intermediate stages for
the evolution of particular complex structures (e.g. the "from the trees
down" vs. "from the ground up" explanations of bird flight). Or possibly
you imagine that antibiotic-resistant bacteria are as likely to proliferate
and replace antibiotic-susceptible bacteria in an antibiotic-free
environment as in one laced with antibiotics.
>
> IOW, Darwinists study nature, then relay what they see, and then claim
> they predicted it and call it science.
>
> Many Darwinists refer to NS as a mechanism.
>
> Where is the structure ?
>
> How can a mechanism function without a structure ?
>
is called a "mechanism," that doesn't imply that it has rivets and gears; it
implies that it operates according to rules to produce results.
>
> Atheist Richard Milton:
>
> "As a theory, natural selection makes no unique predictions but instead
> is used retrospectively to explain every outcome: and a theory that
> explains everything in this way explains nothing. Natural Selection is
> not a mechanism: it is a rationalization after the fact."
>
> Ray Martinez
>
Greg G.
Ray Martinez wrote:
>
> NS is 20/20 hindsight describing from individual perspective that
which
> already is.
If this sentence is referring to the responses to your request for
individual descriptions of NS, then you are right. OTOH, you probably
don't understand the phrase "20/20 hindsight" anymore than anything
else.
--
Greg G.
Sign in a shoe shop:
FREE! One Shoe Shined Absolutely Free.
bro...@noguchi.mimcom.net
Ray Martinez wrote:
> Mark Isaak: There is variation within populations. Natural
selection
> is the
> observation that some of this variation affects individuals' chances
> of surviving and/or procreating.
>
> Ray Martinez: This was your answer to my request to define Natural
> Selection.
>
> Actually I was quite kind when I said if you put 10 Darwinists in a
> room and they will produce 13 different definitions of NS.
>
> There is no objective definition of NS anywhere to be found.
>
> Every Darwinist will provide his own subjective take, meaning if
there
> are 10,000,000 Darwinists in the world they will produce 13,000, 000
> different answers.
>
> And you rational Darwinists call this science !
Will you do us poor confused Darwinists a favor by showing how the
various posted definitions of natural selection are inconsistent with
one another, or even significantly different. That different people use
different words to describe the same thing is hardly a shock.
>
<snip>>
> Ray Martinez
Thomas Faller
Ray, speaking honestly here, I don't think your real problem is with
evolution. I think your real problem is with words. You don't seem
to have the concepts quite down yet, and I think that you're going to
have difficulties whether you're trying to figure out evolution or
peanut-butter sandwiches. You're not constructing logical arguments
because you keep getting distracted by alternate meanings for words
and acting as if they were all equivalent. I don't really have any
suggestions for help, as you're probably past the age where most
people internalize this stuff.
Tom Faller
Pithecanthropus Erectus
Are you trying to tell us that there isn't an EAC guidebook complete
with rote definitions? Are you trying to tell us that people shouldn't
actually incorporate, interpret and reiterate ideas using their own words?
Wait until my English Composition teacher hears about this!!!!
John Harshman
Perhaps the proper word here is "paranoid". Please try to control your
impulses. When I say I don't understand something you say, it's because
I don't understand something you say. Very simple. No hidden conspiracy.
>> It only gets in the way of any communication, if communication is
>>indeed your goal. Why should what you say be the case? Are you saying
>
>
>>that increases in complexity are thermodynamically favored? Surely
>>that's not universally true. Sometimes decreases in complexity are
>
> favored.
> .
> Increases in complexity are only thermodynamically favored in a
> predominantly expansive universe if they represent increases in the
> potential for disorder that are compounded by the emergent properties
> that serve to enhance the process.
>
> You can't go backwards from the greater expansive impetus of the
> universe without aquiring an entropic debt that's greater than the sum
> of the entropy of the individual microscopic systems, since expansion
> continues for as long as the complex system exists.
>
> Ergo the emergent macroscopic properties that enable the system to keep
> up with the ever increasing entropy cost that's required to maintain
> this open system.
No idea what you said there either. Perhaps I just don't know enough
physics. Let's go back to biology. What are the testable consequences of
this theory for biology? Are they in fact borne out by biology? Do they,
for example, predict continual increases in complexity of life and of
ecosystems? If so, then that's clearly falsified by history.
VoiceOfReason
impressive in a way.
Ray Martinez wrote:
> ... you gave a rather interesting "pre-emptive" response to my
> characterization anticpating various answers from Darwinists.
Pardon, what is your definition of "Darwinist?"
<...>
> If NS is scientific then the myriad number of definitions supports
the
> claim that it is NOT scientific - but philosophy packaged as
scientific
> evidence.
A Google on "Science definition" generated 15,300,000 hits. By the
above "reasoning," the plethora of definitions would indicate that
science is not scientific! :D
Man, I've been away from t.o for too long. I've forgotten how much fun
it is, shooting fish in a barrel. :D
VoiceOfReason
unrestra...@hotmail.com
Steven J. wrote:
> "Ray Martinez" <pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:1111620666.9...@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
> > Mark Isaak: There is variation within populations. Natural
selection
> > is the
> > observation that some of this variation affects individuals'
chances
> > of surviving and/or procreating.
> >
> > Ray Martinez: This was your answer to my request to define Natural
> > Selection.
> >
<snip>
> > Many Darwinists refer to NS as a mechanism.
> >
> > Where is the structure ?
> >
> > How can a mechanism function without a structure ?
> >
> Do all creationists have a problem with metaphors? When natural
selection
> is called a "mechanism," that doesn't imply that it has rivets and
gears; it
> implies that it operates according to rules to produce results.
> >
Yes. I was raised by fundamentalists, and one of their notable
characteristics is a pathological degree of concrete thinking. One of
their oft-repeated claims is that "liberal" Christians "interpret" the
bible, using metaphors and such.
They do not understand, and will not consider the possibility that,
*they interpret the bible. They also do not understand that metaphors
are often the truest way of saying things:
"That's a heavy burden."
"My heart burns for you!"
"Well, *that went over his head."
"It's a hard concept to grasp."
The alleged founder of their religion (it was really Paul, altho they
claim Jesus) said that he spoke in parables, and "those who have ears,
let them hear."
Of course, they can't understand that the bible isn't evidence for most
people, either, not even for Christians if they're doing science at the
time.
<snip>
> > Ray Martinez
> >
> -- Steven J.
Kermit
Thomas Faller
If the overall "purpose" that the universe is somehow "working towards"
for some reason is to disseminate energy, or to be plainer, hasten the
heat-death of the universe, then working towards life on planets is one
of the least efficient ways I can think of to do so.
The universe could just as easily, if it had some method and motive for
doing so, hold repeated expansion-contraction cycles, continually repeating
most of the Big Bang, but each time involving every particle of the
universe towards the goal of manufacturing irretrievable thermal energy.
That requires no "increase in complexity", yet seems to satisfy your
criteria so far, unless you're hiding yet another agenda from us?
Maybe you're trying to say that the universe designed life to use up
energy? That a universe which seems to use energy on the scale of
megatons per microsecond would find it expedient to populate the
skin of planets in order to waste more? Could you get a little more
specific about what you're trying to say, unless of course, it sounds
too ridiculous when stated plainly?
Tom Faller
Mark Isaak
<jharshman....@pacbell.net> wrote:
>island wrote:
>[snip past history]
>
>> "The more complex the structure the more effective is the energy
>> dissemination. Populations are better in this respect than single
>> individuals; ecosystems even more so, and most effective of all -- so
>> far -- are human high-tech societies"
>>
>> -James Kay and Dorian Sagan, as endorsed by Arne Jernelov and Eric
>> Schneider...
>
>Why should more effective energy dissemination be a goal of nature? How
>is that goal, if it exists, implemented?
I think island is confusing you (and perhaps himself) with malapropist
terminology. The point, I think, is that more complex structures are
thermodynamically favored. Just as nature tends towards increased
entropy, there may be a principle that nature also tends towards more
rapid increases in entropy.
--
Mark Isaak eciton (at) earthlink (dot) net
"Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of
the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are
being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and
exposing the country to danger." -- Hermann Goering
Mark Isaak
wrote:
>Mark Isaak: There is variation within populations. Natural selection
>is the
>observation that some of this variation affects individuals' chances
>of surviving and/or procreating.
>
>Ray Martinez: This was your answer to my request to define Natural
>Selection.
You're welcome.
>Then you gave a rather interesting "pre-emptive" response to my
>characterization anticpating various answers from Darwinists.
>
>IOW, you agree with me that the definition of NS will vary between
>Darwinists.
You are bearing false witness. I said no such thing. I simply wanted
to point out that, *contrary to your claimed example*, extreme
variation of meaning is the norm within religion.
>The irony of an atheist Darwinist seeking relief in the Bible to a fair
>inquiry about the revolving definition of NS.
You are bearing false witness. I am neither an atheist nor a
Darwinist, nor was I seeking releif in the Bible, nor was I reacting
to a "revolving definition of NS," having seen only one definition of
natural selection so far.
>But the issue is about an alleged scientific mechanism at the core of
>evolutionary theory.
Your religious beliefs are not at the core of evolutionary theory.
>Actually I was quite kind when I said if you put 10 Darwinists in a
>room and they will produce 13 different definitions of NS.
I have seen one. Where are the other twelve?
>There is no objective definition of NS anywhere to be found.
You have a very short memory. There is one at the beginning of the
post you are responding to.
>NS predicts nothing but claims it does.
You are bearing false witness. You can find counterexamples in
Weiner's _The Beak of the Finch_ and Nesse & Williams' _Why We Get
Sick_, among other literature.
John Harshman
> On Wed, 23 Mar 2005 22:38:02 GMT, John Harshman
> <jharshman....@pacbell.net> wrote:
>
>
>>island wrote:
>>[snip past history]
>>
>>
>>>"The more complex the structure the more effective is the energy
>>>dissemination. Populations are better in this respect than single
>>>individuals; ecosystems even more so, and most effective of all -- so
>>>far -- are human high-tech societies"
>>>
>>>-James Kay and Dorian Sagan, as endorsed by Arne Jernelov and Eric
>>>Schneider...
>>
>>Why should more effective energy dissemination be a goal of nature? How
>>is that goal, if it exists, implemented?
>
>
> I think island is confusing you (and perhaps himself) with malapropist
> terminology. The point, I think, is that more complex structures are
> thermodynamically favored. Just as nature tends towards increased
> entropy, there may be a principle that nature also tends towards more
> rapid increases in entropy.
Is there such a principle? If so, why should it exist? Or, if it's
merely empirical, what sort of observations support it? I would note
that increasing entropy has both theory and observation behind it.
Ray Martinez
that fit your
request. *I* deserve first reply.
Ray M.: I apologize.
My problem is I post a topic and come back the next day to find a
zillion replies. IOW, the evo tactic of attempted gang rape = perceived
"refutation" has occurrred = attempt to say majority holds the truth =
in the Bible the majority is always wrong.
Steven J.: On the other hand, I can't help but notice that you don't
actually address either Mark Isaak's actual definition
Ray M.: True, because it was just another brick in the wall = my
on-going point.
Steven J.: or compare it to definitions offered by other posters. You
speak of "myriad" definitions, and don't bother to demonstrate that any
two
people offered even two significantly different definitions.
Ray M.: You Darwinists did exactly what my OP piece predicted: You
spammed the debate with classic evo babble = no threat to effect any
change of belief or opinion in any ordinary or agnostically inclined
person. IOW, NS is nonsense as is witnessed by the "incompatible
compatible" opinions of definitions offered by believers/evos.
In this debate Darwinists have strangely relied on the fact that
religion has a zillion interpretations of the Bible (never in dispute).
What you all keep evading is the fact that Darwinism claims to be
science and not religion. The aforementioned tactic and fact of the
inability to produce a cohesive and practidemic universal definition of
core evolutionary "mechanism" supports the claim that this is not
science but a religion inventing evasions of what it perceives the
Bible to claim. IOW, religion disguised as science as an attempt to
objectify its clandestine goal of falsifying the claims of the God of
Genesis.
Steven J.: I was first, pointing out that antievolutionists can't even
agree
(even with themselves!) to what "Darwinist" means. It's rather
astonishing
that so many people would set out to refute a theory, or ideology, or
whatever they think it is, without being clear on what it is they're
trying
to refute.
Ray M.: Accurate information about your opponents cannot be expected
to come from their opponents.
We are not trying to refute - we have refuted.
The ONLY issue: Is the God of Genesis and Romans the Creator or not ?
Chronology of Refutation:
Sequence:
For thousands of years the God of Genesis was held as the Creator.
THEN, beginning in the 19th century certain apostates theorized that He
was not via what is known today as Darwinism/ToE.
The above theory asserted that it falsified the God of Genesis.
Then about a century later Dr. Behe's IC systems falsified ToE's step
by tiny step improvement claims (IC systems cannot evolve or it isn't
IC).
Then in 2001 Dr. Gene Scott (Ph.D. Stanford University) pointed out
that the book of Romans says that anyone who assigns created things to
be the product of other created things (instead of God) - that this
belief is caused by a penalty from God for refusing to recognize Him as
Creator.
The above claim is proven by the fact that so many people believe in
ToE when no evidence exists. These people think there is evidence and
it is as such because of the penalty.
Darwinism and ToE is refuted and falsified.
Genesis remains true all along.
We have scientific and invulnerable theological refutation AFTER ToE is
postulated and established.
As we know a theory only remains as it repels falsification.
IC systems demolished ToE. You evos simply spam the debate by asserting
IC systems are the product of Algorithmic theory of probability (=
wacko theory aserting IC systems evolved anyway).
IC systems are the antithesis of ultra slow mutative improvement, yet
this falsification is evaded and denied = proof of Romans penalty
claim.
Steven J.: By the same token, there are many different
aspects to natural selection. Different "Darwinists" might emphasize
different aspects of natural selection, and all of them might be
correct
that this aspect of the phenomenon exists and is important.
Ray M.: This was your explanation for the various definitions - fine.
But we religionists when we disagree call the other person a heretic.
Occaisonally, someone anoints themself umpire and tries to harmonize
and explain away differences = your input here.
But in fairness to you your point above does make sense but it cannot
erase the embarrassing fact that the core mechanism of your theory
suffers a form of "ineffable syndrome". NS is supposedly science - not
undisputed theological variety.
Steven J.: Not everything in life can be boiled down to a
one-liner
Ray M.: Agreed.
Steven J.: And have you actually established that Mark Isaak is an
atheist, or is this simply an assumption you make about everyone who
accepts evolution?
Ray M.: Your comment above contains a premise that predetermines the
conclusion: That evolution is not the atheist creation myth.
Your comment rightly assumes that ToE enjoys support and acceptance
from many persons claiming to be theists.
Theism is determined by beliefs and position.
This fact excludes any theist to actually be a theist who accepts human
evolution.
Why ?
Because they have no source for their alleged theism unless they
radically change, evade, ignore, or re-write what the Bible actually
says.
How do we really know they are a theist ?
http://homepages.paradise.net.nz/mischedj/ca_hitler.html
"My feelings as a Christian points me to my Lord and Savior as a
fighter. It points me to the man who once in loneliness, surrounded by
a few followers, recognized these Jews for what they were and summoned
men to fight against them and who, God's truth! was greatest not as a
sufferer but as a fighter."
--Adolf Hitler [1922]
Anyone can claim to be a theist.
IOW, you could be an atheist posing as a theist in order to corrupt the
Bible and assert Scriptural support for ToE.
Why ?
Because of the perceived weight of universal credibility the Bible has.
Is Mark Isaak an atheist ?
His positions/beliefs say he is.
Steven J.: Do all creationists have a problem with metaphors? When
natural selection
is called a "mechanism," that doesn't imply that it has rivets and
gears; it
implies that it operates according to rules to produce results.
Ray M.: Now you liken the mechanism of NS as a metaphor. Okay - fine.
IOW, you don't mean what you say and say what you mean and words do not
retain their understood definitions = lawyer rhetoric necessary to
understand your pseudo-science.
Straight thinkers cannot be fooled by this ever-evolving game of
subjective semantics.
There is no mechanism. The diversity and complexity of nature is
responsible for the inability to produce a cohesive description of one
of ToE's main claims, and we now know complexity is the prediction and
m.o. of the Divine = God has covertly confounded your own ranks which
supports the prediction.
Ray Martinez
Bob Casanova
talk.origins, posted by John Harshman
<jharshman....@pacbell.net>:
OK, I'll concede that, on the basis of the subject - the
beliefs of individuals about a religious myth. I think it's
a bit of a stretch to call it "comparing religions", but...
And your assumption about Glenn's motive was *exactly* what
I assumed (based on more than a small bit of his posting
history), and why I responded as I did.
Bob Casanova
talk.origins, posted by "island" <isl...@earthlink.net>:
>
>Bob Casanova wrote:
>> On 23 Mar 2005 13:35:05 -0800, the following appeared in
>> talk.origins, posted by "island" <isl...@earthlink.net>:
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>> >An ecosystematic link that includes contributive affects to some
>> >"layer" of the environment which in-turn enable the system to
>continue
>> >to survive and evolve.
>>
>> If I'm reading you correctly, you're heading for some
>> variant of a "Gaia" concept here. If so, be aware that
>> you'll *really* have to work, and provide *lots* of
>> evidence, to justify it.
>>
>
>.
>That's why I'm here, but it's more of a "Blue Collar" concept cuz
>you'll get weeded out of this garden really quickly if you don't do
>your job!!!... ;)
The problem is that, so long as a species does whatever is
best for *it* to survive, whether that "best" is harmful to
another species, or several species, isn't either judged or
condemned by any entity; there's no conscious "Mother
Nature" (or "Gaia") watching over the world or treating it
as an organism. Humans *may* turn out to be the sole
exception; if we continue to use our unique power to affect
the biosphere without considering the consequences we
actually *could* manage to commit species suicide through
our success.
>Thanks for recognizing the idea for whatever that's worth.
<snip>
Ray Martinez
definitions mean the same thing.
Ray M.: IOW, you will admit to inconsistency but deny it means
inconsistency (lawyer rhetoric). But you are a person who undoubtedly
thinks the Bible is contradictory instead of the real problem - your
ignorance and misunderstanding. What we have here is blatant hypocrisy
in favor of what you and others have already spoken up for.
John H.: Indeed we do. The precise wordings of definitions don't
matter a bit.
Ray M.: One of the most shocking things to ever come out of the mouth
of a Darwinist.
I have downloaded this quote for my files.
Now we know why Darwinists invoke "literal Genesis" because word
meanings and the intended facts they relay within context is to be
disregarded = evidence does not matter = the presuppositions of atheist
worldview is objective truth (with no source I might add).
IOW, you are a lawyer arguing the misuse of logic called rhetoric and
admitting that you are invulnerable to falsification.
When word meanings are eviscerated meaninglessness is being objectified
and subjectivity is objectified = the corrupt atheist Darwinst mind.
IOW, you are reserving the right to be held to nothing = needed
corruption to evade refutation = indigenous characteristic of dogma.
IOW, words do not carry their normal definitions in the context of
attempted refutation = great invulnerable defense.
The serpent/Satan told Eve God did not mean what He said about THAT
tree = your quote = the origin of your quote/belief evidenced to be
from Satan.
IOW, God/persons do not mean what they say = your defense.
Except paleontologists mean what they say when they assert transitional
anthropon status of a fossil.
I say they do not mean what they say just like you assert Genesis does
not mean what it says = you won't agree = hypocrisy supported.
Your quote above proves that you have no integrity and any honest and
intelligent person must conclude you are a sophisticated moron
self-deceived into thinking your intellectuality causes rejection of
God.
In reality, God has rejected you and made you think that you are
evidence-based.
You are the aged movie star convinced of her self-importance ready for
her close-up.
John H.: Tell me. Have you ever in your life read a scientific paper?
If so, have
you ever read one on natural selection?
Ray M.: Your question assumes NS is scientific. Only Darwinists
believe this.
Ray Martinez
Nivlem
<pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote:
snip all of it. Totally unenlightening. And not so much as a
simgle word of truth in anything you wrote, Martinez, nor
evidence that you have more than 3rd grade reading
comprehension. Whether you know it or not, you've satisfied
my prediction, and utterly disgraced yourself. What exactly
do you think you're doing here anyway? You are not going to
lower the IQs of PhDs by 50%, nor even of semi-educated
laymen such as myself, without a physical intervention such
as a lobotomy. That's a bit hard to pull off via usenet.
Ray Martinez
simgle word of truth in anything you wrote, Martinez, nor
evidence that you have more than 3rd grade reading
comprehension. Whether you know it or not, you've satisfied
my prediction, and utterly disgraced yourself. What exactly
do you think you're doing here anyway? You are not going to
lower the IQs of PhDs by 50%, nor even of semi-educated
laymen such as myself, without a physical intervention such
as a lobotomy. That's a bit hard to pull off via usenet.
Ray M.: Predictible atheist/Darwinian rant = attempting to defect away
from the inability to refute.
Ray Martinez
John Harshman
> John H.: Nonsense. As was pointed out by many posters, all the various
>
> definitions mean the same thing.
>
>
> Ray M.: IOW, you will admit to inconsistency but deny it means
> inconsistency (lawyer rhetoric). But you are a person who undoubtedly
> thinks the Bible is contradictory instead of the real problem - your
> ignorance and misunderstanding. What we have here is blatant hypocrisy
> in favor of what you and others have already spoken up for.
Chalk up another weird, paranoid creationist. Let's try something else.
Have a bunch of people describe an elephant. Do you think they will all
say exactly the same thing? If they don't, does that mean they aren't
all really talking about the same thing, i.e. an elephant? English is a
very flexible language, and you can say the same thing in many different
ways. You got a problem with that?
> John H.: Indeed we do. The precise wordings of definitions don't
> matter a bit.
>
>
> Ray M.: One of the most shocking things to ever come out of the mouth
> of a Darwinist.
>
> I have downloaded this quote for my files.
>
> Now we know why Darwinists invoke "literal Genesis" because word
> meanings and the intended facts they relay within context is to be
> disregarded = evidence does not matter = the presuppositions of atheist
> worldview is objective truth (with no source I might add).
>
> IOW, you are a lawyer arguing the misuse of logic called rhetoric and
> admitting that you are invulnerable to falsification.
>
> When word meanings are eviscerated meaninglessness is being objectified
> and subjectivity is objectified = the corrupt atheist Darwinst mind.
>
> IOW, you are reserving the right to be held to nothing = needed
> corruption to evade refutation = indigenous characteristic of dogma.
>
> IOW, words do not carry their normal definitions in the context of
> attempted refutation = great invulnerable defense.
>
> The serpent/Satan told Eve God did not mean what He said about THAT
> tree = your quote = the origin of your quote/belief evidenced to be
> from Satan.
Who says the serpent was Satan? What's your evidence?
> IOW, God/persons do not mean what they say = your defense.
>
> Except paleontologists mean what they say when they assert transitional
> anthropon status of a fossil.
>
> I say they do not mean what they say just like you assert Genesis does
> not mean what it says = you won't agree = hypocrisy supported.
>
> Your quote above proves that you have no integrity and any honest and
> intelligent person must conclude you are a sophisticated moron
> self-deceived into thinking your intellectuality causes rejection of
> God.
>
> In reality, God has rejected you and made you think that you are
> evidence-based.
>
> You are the aged movie star convinced of her self-importance ready for
> her close-up.
>
> John H.: Tell me. Have you ever in your life read a scientific paper?
> If so, have
> you ever read one on natural selection?
>
>
> Ray M.: Your question assumes NS is scientific. Only Darwinists
> believe this.
I'll take that as a "no". So what you're saying is that you are sure
it's nonsense even though you know absolutely nothing about it. Now
there's integrity and objectivity for you.
Ray Martinez
Several times you said I was "bearing false witness", IOW you are
"refuting" by calling me a liar = genius debate tactic.
It is an unspoken given that evos and creos believe the other is lying.
Breaking silence to this end without any evidence or argument equates
to the inability to refute, or rage because of arguments.
Everyone knows you are a featured Talk Origins poster boy, which
according to T.O. claims ToE is all about evidence and arguments = your
performance here does not live up to the reputation T.O. assigns
itself.
Anytime you want to debate an intelligent creo instead of the AiG YEC
morons I will promptly oblige you.
Talk Origins and AiG = the Fundamentalists of science and religion who
have dumbed down the Creation/Evolution debate by refusing to debate
anyone else.
Fundamentalism: The bad element in any given good.
Ray Martinez
Nivlem
<pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote:
No, just tired of retards. And have seen enough to realize
that none of them will ever learn anything. Otherwise they
wouldn't be here licking the windows, and going "Thuh Bahble
says evilutionism is a lie!" would they? Bring up one single
point of data that evolution does not explain, or that
clearly contradicts evolution. I'll even stop calling you a
blithering idiot for long enough to prove that you are.
Otherwise, sod off.
shane
<snip>
> in the Bible the majority is always wrong.
>
precedent. Please bear with me and let me see if i have the concept
straight. You are saying that because of the biblical presedent of the
majority always being wrong, then that principle is maintained today in
all events.
This, ISTM, leads to the following dichotimies,
If Christianity succeeded in converting more than half the world it
would automatically become wrong?
If more than 50% of Christians believe the biblical account of creation
is correct, then it becomes wrong?
If more than 50% of the world believe than Jesus existed then some how
he didn't, yet up until the majority believed, he did.
If a majority of people in a church congregation believe that they are
in a Christian church, for example, they are wrong.
This is a very dynamic concept of rewriting history, and even present
events, however it does lead to a certain amount of confusion. And who
does the bookkeeping. And don't say God, because all it takes to unseat
him is a majority of people to believe he exists and 'poof' he is gone
because they are wrong, so who then will do the bookkeeping. Fascinating
stuff indeed.
Fascinating stuff.
<snip>
--
shane
And the truth shall set you free.
Steven J.
> Steven J.: Hey! *I* was the first person to post an actual response
> that fit your request. *I* deserve first reply.
>
> Ray M.: I apologize.
>
>
> My problem is I post a topic and come back the next day to find a
> zillion replies. IOW, the evo tactic of attempted gang rape = perceived
> "refutation" has occurrred = attempt to say majority holds the truth =
> in the Bible the majority is always wrong.
>
your original post), by my count. You ask for a question. When you invite
replies and get them, you have no grounds to call the answers "attempted
gang rape." Note, by the way, that most posts did not attempt to refute
anything except your assertion (not essential to creationism or biblical
inerrantism, I would think) that "natural selection" has no accepted
definition. Nor can I see that anyone argued either that the majority
always holds the truth (most posters here are not that confident that the
majority accepts evolution).
>
> Steven J.: On the other hand, I can't help but notice that you don't
> actually address either Mark Isaak's actual definition
>
>
> Ray M.: True, because it was just another brick in the wall = my
> on-going point.
>
philophical belief with no scientific basis, and no clear meaning to its
basic ideas. You cannot use a definition of natural selection as a "brick"
in that wall unless you demonstrate, at a minimum, that the definition is
incoherent or flatly contradicts other definitions, and you don't even try
to do this.
>
> Steven J.: or compare it to definitions offered by other posters. You
> speak of "myriad" definitions, and don't bother to demonstrate that any
> two people offered even two significantly different definitions.
>
>
> Ray M.: You Darwinists did exactly what my OP piece predicted: You
> spammed the debate with classic evo babble = no threat to effect any
> change of belief or opinion in any ordinary or agnostically inclined
> person. IOW, NS is nonsense as is witnessed by the "incompatible
> compatible" opinions of definitions offered by believers/evos.
>
the topic being debated. Answers to a question are not "spam," especially
when you say (and you did say) that you were waiting for thirteen different
answers. You got them. Why, then, do you not deal with them honestly?
You, on the other hand, seem to define "spam" as anything short of immediate
capitulation to any random assertion you feel like making. You have not
shown that any definition of natural selection offered in response to your
request is incompatible with any other definition. You have not even
asserted that any specific definition is incompatible with another specific
definition; you simply assert that incompatible definitions have been
offered (by someone, somewhere, at some time).
>
> In this debate Darwinists have strangely relied on the fact that
> religion has a zillion interpretations of the Bible (never in dispute).
> What you all keep evading is the fact that Darwinism claims to be
> science and not religion. The aforementioned tactic and fact of the
> inability to produce a cohesive and practidemic universal definition of
> core evolutionary "mechanism" supports the claim that this is not
> science but a religion inventing evasions of what it perceives the
> Bible to claim. IOW, religion disguised as science as an attempt to
> objectify its clandestine goal of falsifying the claims of the God of
> Genesis.
>
"natural selection," before you proclaim that no cohesive or practical
definition exists for it? Or have you decided that the strongest form of
apologetics is the argument by unsupported assertion?
>
> Steven J.: I was first, pointing out that antievolutionists can't even
> agree
> (even with themselves!) to what "Darwinist" means. It's rather
> astonishing
> that so many people would set out to refute a theory, or ideology, or
> whatever they think it is, without being clear on what it is they're
> trying
> to refute.
>
> Ray M.: Accurate information about your opponents cannot be expected
> to come from their opponents.
>
anticreationist? It is in his _Darwin on Trial_ that I find "Darwinism"
used to mean, variously, natural selection, or common descent, or
methodological naturalism, apparently without any concern that these are
three very different ideas. You, of course, don't bother to define
"Darwinism" at all, but seem to use in indifferently to mean "natural
selection means something," or "people are related to monkeys," or "the
Bible is false." These are not the same thing.
>
> We are not trying to refute - we have refuted.
>
> The ONLY issue: Is the God of Genesis and Romans the Creator or not ?
>
that, long before Darwin, Augustine of Hippo (who was not arguing for either
an old Earth or evolution) argued that the "six days" of Genesis were not
literal history, but an expository scheme for God's creative act
(anticipating a YEC argument that an omnipotent God shouldn't take billions
of years to work out creation, Augustine held that God created the entire
shebang in one instant, not six days). Later in the Bible, God is often
presented as working through natural processes or through human decisions --
e.g. through the Babylonian invasion, which was neither supernatural nor
(one assumes, since the Babylonians were pagans) a result of Babylonians
consciously trying to implement God's work.
>
> Chronology of Refutation:
>
> Sequence:
>
> For thousands of years the God of Genesis was held as the Creator.
>
in God, but not the God of Genesis, and not as Creator (he thought the world
was eternal). One could adduce scores of examples of noted believers in
other gods, other creators, or in gods who were not creators. Now, it's
true that for thousands of years the God of Genesis was held by some people
to be the Creator -- but you speak as if these people (or people who
"apostasized" from this position) were the only ones with an opinion on the
subject.
>
> THEN, beginning in the 19th century certain apostates theorized that He
> was not via what is known today as Darwinism/ToE.
>
century, actually. In any case, it seems rather tendentious to suppose that
Darwin was trying to refute Genesis rather than, as he claims to have been
doing, trying to explain (in terms of observed and understandable processes)
explain the nested hierarchy of life, faunal succession in the fossil
record, the geographical distribution of different groups of species, the
phenomenon of extinction (when evolutionary theory was first being worked
out, most creationists assumed that God would not allow any created kind to
go extinct), and so forth.
>
> The above theory asserted that it falsified the God of Genesis.
>
argued that his theory was no threat to religion (perhaps he was mistaken,
or even disingenuous, but it's an odd approach to take if he was mounting an
offensive against the Christian faith).
>
> Then about a century later Dr. Behe's IC systems falsified ToE's step
> by tiny step improvement claims (IC systems cannot evolve or it isn't
> IC).
>
"Darwinism," Behe has not actually demonstrated that any of the systems he
has examined are really IC. But note that Behe's understanding of "tiny
step improvements" allows only adding components. It doesn't include
modifying components that are already present (so that they aquire new
functions, or lose one function and improve at another), or deleting old
components as new ones are added or modified. So his argument about
irreducible complexity is either mistaken or irrelevant.
>
> Then in 2001 Dr. Gene Scott (Ph.D. Stanford University) pointed out
> that the book of Romans says that anyone who assigns created things to
> be the product of other created things (instead of God) - that this
> belief is caused by a penalty from God for refusing to recognize Him as
> Creator.
>
Hewlett Packard factory rather than from an _ex nihilo_ creation miracle,
this belief is a delusion visited on me for believing in evolution? I mean,
that's what you *say*, above, but surely that isn't what you mean. Rather,
you are arguing that if you can't make a case for your own beliefs, the
fault is neither with you nor your beliefs, but is the result of God
deluding people who don't believe as you do, so that they hallucinate
evidence against your beliefs. Now, personally, I think that implies a
rather nasty, deceitful God. A lot of Christians feel that such a God -- an
Author of confusion, a weaver of lies into the very fabric of creation -- is
far, far more contrary to the Bible than is the theory of evolution.
>
> The above claim is proven by the fact that so many people believe in
> ToE when no evidence exists. These people think there is evidence and
> it is as such because of the penalty.
>
refuse to actually examine those definitions or try to figure out what they
mean. This does not build up confidence that, when you say that no evidence
exists for evolution, you've ever bothered to look for such evidence or
tried to figure out why it's considered evidence.
>
> Darwinism and ToE is refuted and falsified.
>
> Genesis remains true all along.
>
> We have scientific and invulnerable theological refutation AFTER ToE is
> postulated and established.
>
> As we know a theory only remains as it repels falsification.
>
> IC systems demolished ToE. You evos simply spam the debate by asserting
> IC systems are the product of Algorithmic theory of probability (=
> wacko theory aserting IC systems evolved anyway).
>
>
> IC systems are the antithesis of ultra slow mutative improvement, yet
> this falsification is evaded and denied = proof of Romans penalty
> claim.
>
hear you!" noted.
>
> Steven J.: By the same token, there are many different
> aspects to natural selection. Different "Darwinists" might emphasize
> different aspects of natural selection, and all of them might be
> correct
> that this aspect of the phenomenon exists and is important.
>
>
> Ray M.: This was your explanation for the various definitions - fine.
>
> But we religionists when we disagree call the other person a heretic.
> Occaisonally, someone anoints themself umpire and tries to harmonize
> and explain away differences = your input here.
>
> But in fairness to you your point above does make sense but it cannot
> erase the embarrassing fact that the core mechanism of your theory
> suffers a form of "ineffable syndrome". NS is supposedly science - not
> undisputed theological variety.
>
people have tried to eff it for you. Your response to our thoughtfulness
has been to regard our offerings as "spam" and go back to your ranting as
though we had not bothered. I think that something besides divine
punishment might be behind our attitude that your posts are arrogant drivel.
>
> Steven J.: Not everything in life can be boiled down to a
> one-liner
>
>
> Ray M.: Agreed.
>
>
> Steven J.: And have you actually established that Mark Isaak is an
> atheist, or is this simply an assumption you make about everyone who
> accepts evolution?
>
>
> Ray M.: Your comment above contains a premise that predetermines the
> conclusion: That evolution is not the atheist creation myth.
>
> Your comment rightly assumes that ToE enjoys support and acceptance
> from many persons claiming to be theists.
>
> Theism is determined by beliefs and position.
>
> This fact excludes any theist to actually be a theist who accepts human
> evolution.
>
> Why ?
>
> Because they have no source for their alleged theism unless they
> radically change, evade, ignore, or re-write what the Bible actually
> says.
>
reading of Genesis is not, historically, the only option even for Christians
who acknowledge God as the Creator.
>
> How do we really know they are a theist ?
>
> http://homepages.paradise.net.nz/mischedj/ca_hitler.html
>
> "My feelings as a Christian points me to my Lord and Savior as a
> fighter. It points me to the man who once in loneliness, surrounded by
> a few followers, recognized these Jews for what they were and summoned
> men to fight against them and who, God's truth! was greatest not as a
> sufferer but as a fighter."
>
> --Adolf Hitler [1922]
>
> Anyone can claim to be a theist.
>
interpretation of Genesis," and "evidence") with which you are unfamiliar,
"the No True Scotsman fallacy." You cannot define "theist" to mean "only
people who believe in God *and* agree with Ray Martinez" -- the latter
clause is not part of the definition, and adding it creates a uselessly
narrow category. You seem to be assuming that Hitler self-evidently did
*not* believe in any God. Perhaps he was lying about his beliefs (not
entirely inconceivable, given the source), but how can you be sure? Based
on comments in his _Table Talk_, Hitler seems *not* to have believed that
humans could evolve by purely natural means from lower life forms.
>
> IOW, you could be an atheist posing as a theist in order to corrupt the
> Bible and assert Scriptural support for ToE.
>
> Why ?
>
> Because of the perceived weight of universal credibility the Bible has.
>
that attach no particular credibility to the Bible? Have you never
considered that evolution could be utterly false, and that this would be, in
itself, no evidence for the truth of any Biblical claim?
>
> Is Mark Isaak an atheist ?
>
> His positions/beliefs say he is.
>
their tight little hamster wheel of circular logic.
>
> Steven J.: Do all creationists have a problem with metaphors? When
> natural selection
> is called a "mechanism," that doesn't imply that it has rivets and
> gears; it
> implies that it operates according to rules to produce results.
>
>
> Ray M.: Now you liken the mechanism of NS as a metaphor. Okay - fine.
>
*phrase* "natural selection" is itself a metaphor: nature itself is not a
conscious entity that can "select" the way a human plant or animal breeder
would select. The words we use to refer to the process of natural selection
are often metaphorical, but the process is quite real, and can be referred
to without metaphors (although the results tend to be wordy).
>
> IOW, you don't mean what you say and say what you mean and words do not
> retain their understood definitions = lawyer rhetoric necessary to
> understand your pseudo-science.
>
not merely different words, but a completely different idea. I gave you a
definition of "natural selection," which you have *still* not quoted or
discussed, and I meant what I said. And, for that matter, people other than
rabid creationists regard metaphors as an understood form of speech.
>
> Straight thinkers cannot be fooled by this ever-evolving game of
> subjective semantics.
>
thinkers;" perhaps someone has attempted (apparently unsuccessfully) to
explain their behavior to you?
>
> There is no mechanism. The diversity and complexity of nature is
> responsible for the inability to produce a cohesive description of one
> of ToE's main claims, and we now know complexity is the prediction and
> m.o. of the Divine = God has covertly confounded your own ranks which
> supports the prediction.
>
Mark VandeWettering
> Dear Mark Isaak:
>
> Several times you said I was "bearing false witness", IOW you are
> "refuting" by calling me a liar = genius debate tactic.
>
> It is an unspoken given that evos and creos believe the other is lying.
Don't be silly. I don't think (all) creationists are liars. Some
are merely ignorant or deluded.
> Breaking silence to this end without any evidence or argument equates
> to the inability to refute, or rage because of arguments.
Perhaps you should express your thoughts in the form of sentences.
> Everyone knows you are a featured Talk Origins poster boy, which
> according to T.O. claims ToE is all about evidence and arguments = your
> performance here does not live up to the reputation T.O. assigns
> itself.
And stop mixing pronouns.
> Anytime you want to debate an intelligent creo instead of the AiG YEC
> morons I will promptly oblige you.
But where are you going to find an "intelligent creo"?
> Talk Origins and AiG = the Fundamentalists of science and religion who
> have dumbed down the Creation/Evolution debate by refusing to debate
> anyone else.
We are still waiting for you to begin.
> Fundamentalism: The bad element in any given good.
Mark
>
> Ray Martinez
Jim Lovejoy
news:kct341tkafoitkmgs...@4ax.com:
> On Tue, 22 Mar 2005 20:26:54 -0800, the following appeared
> in talk.origins, posted by "Pip R. Lagenta"
> <morbiu...@comcast.net>:
>
>>On 22 Mar 2005 19:10:18 -0800, "Ray Martinez" <pyram...@yahoo.com>
>>wrote:
>
>>>Hi Evos:
>>>
>>>PLEASE define Natural Selection.
>>>
>>>Please do it yourself and do not defer to a link.
>
>>You mean don't do this?
>><http://evolution.mbdojo.com/evolution-for-beginners.html>
>><http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/evo101/index.shtml>
>><http://www.nap.edu/html/creationism/evidence.html>
>><http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/faqs-qa.html>
>><http://www.skeptictank.org/hs/factfaq.htm>
>><http://www.ebonmusings.org/evolution/evoevidence.html>
>><http://www.abarnett.demon.co.uk/atheism/evolution.html>
>><http://www.evolutionhappens.net/>
>><http://home.houston.rr.com/bybayouu/Tenets_of_evolution.html>
>><http://www.gly.uga.edu/railsback/1122science2.html>
>><http://www.gly.uga.edu/railsback/1122science3.html>
>><http://www.gly.uga.edu/railsback/1122science7.html>
>><http://www.gly.uga.edu/railsback/1122sciencedefns.html>
>><http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/creation/evo_science.html>
>><http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/>
>><http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-research.html>
>><http://groups.msn.com/EvolutionVCreation/elementaryfaq.msnw>
>
> *Bad* Pip! No dessert for you!
>
>>Why?
>>Whatcha 'fraid of?
>
> Being forced to actually think, perhaps?
>
Objection!
Assumes a capacity not shown to exist.
Thomas Faller
Ray, you're pretty much painting yourself into the tiny corner of paraniod
delusions: everyone who disagrees with you is either a liar or deluded,
nobody can be trusted when they tell you anything about themselves,
your definition of Christianity appears to exclude 99% of Christians, but
you merrily insist without providing evidence that you're a "true" Christian,
and your God punishes people for things they don't know about by changing
their thoughts without their knowledge.
This isn't reality, it's paranoia. You have an excuse for every contradiction
in your position. You refuse to use real facts in your arguments, relying on
badly constructed fantasies (like that proof of God by Pyramids site) that
any idiot could debunk, without caring that they actually undermine what
you're trying to show. You're moving farther away from reality and closer
to the point where the whole world is lying to you and out to get you.
Help yourself or get some help.
Tom Faller
Mark Isaak
<jharshman....@pacbell.net> wrote:
There is such a principle with at least some empirical support. For
example, when you heat the bottom of a pan, convection cells form;
they add a new orderly structure to the water, but they also allow the
heat to be transferred more quickly. The keyword to search on is
"dissipative structures". Ilya Pigogine's Nobel lecture on the topic
is moderately readable:
http://www.nobel.se/chemistry/laureates/1977/prigogine-lecture.pdf
David D.
As Island pointed out James Kay had a lot to say on this matter. His
ideas and papers can still be found at the following web site.
A good example is the formation of a whirlpool when the water goes down
the plug hole.
Mark Isaak
wrote:
>The serpent/Satan told Eve God did not mean what He said about THAT
>tree = your quote = the origin of your quote/belief evidenced to be
>from Satan.
The serpent in Eden was not Satan. If you are going to base your
beliefs on a literal reading of the Bible, you really should at least
read the Bible.
[rest of word salad thrown out]
John Harshman
Very helpful, thanks. So far I've only skimmed it, but it seems to be
saying that there is no universal rule here. Under some conditions,
higher rates of entropy production are favored, and under other
conditions, lower rates are favored. Similarly, more complex structures
may increase rates of entropy production in some cases, and decrease
them in other cases.
Mark Isaak
wrote:
>Dear Mark Isaak:
>
>Several times you said I was "bearing false witness", IOW you are
>"refuting" by calling me a liar = genius debate tactic.
No, I did not call you a liar. Lying implies that you deliberately
inteded your falsehoods. I called you a false witness, which does not
carry an implication for why you are telling falsehoods. If you wish,
I can speculate on your motives for posting obviously false
statements, but I thought it would be charitable not to.
>It is an unspoken given that evos and creos believe the other is lying.
Then I had better speak up and say that I do *not* believe that most
creos are lying. I believe most of them believe what they say most of
the time. I believe many of them sometimes lie and that a few of them
(Kent Hovind in particular) lie regularly, but those are exceptions.
But there's probably no point of my saying so, since by your own
admission, you believe I am lying.
>Breaking silence to this end without any evidence or argument equates
>to the inability to refute, or rage because of arguments.
Most of your falsehoods were about my motives and beliefs. I know
what you said is false because I am the world's foremost expert on
knowing what I think. The very fact that you are willing to make
assertions about another's thoughts on so little evidence shows that
you possess an arrogant recklessness that is certain to lead to false
witness more often than not.
On the other instance where I noted your false witness, I did provide
evidence.
And I note that you did not respond to any of my points. Where are
the 13 different meanings of "natural selection" that you talk about?
Were you bearing false witness there, too?
>Anytime you want to debate an intelligent creo instead of the AiG YEC
>morons I will promptly oblige you.
What intelligent creo did you have in mind?
Ray Martinez
about THAT
tree = your quote = the origin of your quote/belief evidenced to be
from Satan.
Mark Isaak:
The serpent in Eden was not Satan.
Ray Martinez: All theist scholarship says the serpent is Satan.
The fact that you are a Darwinist, a person who does not believe in the
existence of Satan, makes your assertion very predictible.
You, like all Darwinists, are deliberately massively ignorant about the
Bible. You can deduce obscure fossil scraps to be anthropon
transitional but the undisputed typology of the serpent representing
Satan suddenly escapes your ability.
Mark Isaak:
If you are going to base your
beliefs on a literal reading of the Bible, you really should at least
read the Bible.
Ray Martinez: It is of no surprise that a Darwinist asserts the Bible
does not mean what it says. How convenient. Does the desire to validate
your theory have anything to do with asserting what anyone can read
does not mean what it says ?
How would anyone expect to obtain accurate information about the Bible
from a Darwinist/atheist ?
I have a proposal:
We apply your "objective and unbiased" standard of asserting the main
source of contradiction to your theory does not mean what it says AND
say atheist anthropologists do not mean what they say when they assert
a fossil to be anthropon transitional ?
They literally mean the scrap is not transitional even though they said
it is.
IOW, people do not mean what they say even if they use one syllable
words - everything is meaningless when it contradicts your sacred cow
(ToE) = your obvious corruption tactic.
Darwinists and the Bible = Catholic priests and young boys.
Ray Martinez
Ray Martinez
wrong.
Shane:
Very interesting concept, that the majority is always wrong, by
biblical
precedent. Please bear with me and let me see if i have the concept
straight. You are saying that because of the biblical presedent of the
majority always being wrong, then that principle is maintained today in
all events.
Ray Martinez: Yes. Absolutely correct, because the CLAIM of the Canon
is that the Bible contains/is the eternal word of God. IOW, it must
always apply to be as such.
What verifies the claim ?
Answer: Claims within evidenced to be true.
In this context, the typology of the religious majority being wrong (or
any synonym thereof, Jesus used a much harsher description) is
fulfilled in the TEists of today.
TEists = in bed with atheist Darwinsim corrupting the claims of
Scripture to be compatible with a theory that was conceived and
developed to falsify the existence of the God of Genesis = message of
Satan.
Of the religious majority in His day (the Pharisees) - Christ said they
were of their father the devil.
The existence of TEists as majority and their claims proves the
Biblical typology to be perfectly correct. This is turn, that is a
claim within the Canon being evidenced as true, supports the larger
claim that the Canon is the eternal word of God. The Pharisees THOUGHT
they were right with God as do the TEists.
Shane:
If Christianity succeeded in converting more than half the world it
would automatically become wrong?
Ray Martinez: Here is where you are in error.
My CLAIM was: IN THE BIBLE the majority is always wrong.
I then isolated a majority and showed Christ's condemnation THEN
applied the intended typology to the same majority today.
You are creating a series of majority extrapolations that are not found
as a majority in the Bible.
You then made 5 more extrapolations that are not found as a majority IN
THE BIBLE.
This Biblical majority always being wrong supports the well known claim
in Scripture that the secular world is wrong.
Ray Martinez
TomS
<1111788964.7...@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>, Ray Martinez stated..."
>
>Ray Martinez: The serpent/Satan told Eve God did not mean what He said
>about THAT
>tree = your quote = the origin of your quote/belief evidenced to be
>from Satan.
>
>Mark Isaak:
>
>The serpent in Eden was not Satan.
>
>Ray Martinez: All theist scholarship says the serpent is Satan.
>
>The fact that you are a Darwinist, a person who does not believe in the
>existence of Satan, makes your assertion very predictible.
Your characterization of all Darwinists is wrong.
>
>You, like all Darwinists, are deliberately massively ignorant about the
>Bible. You can deduce obscure fossil scraps to be anthropon
>transitional but the undisputed typology of the serpent representing
>Satan suddenly escapes your ability.
Your further characterization of all Darwinists is also
wrong.
>
>Mark Isaak:
>
>If you are going to base your
>beliefs on a literal reading of the Bible, you really should at least
>read the Bible.
>
>Ray Martinez: It is of no surprise that a Darwinist asserts the Bible
>does not mean what it says. How convenient. Does the desire to validate
>your theory have anything to do with asserting what anyone can read
>does not mean what it says ?
>
>How would anyone expect to obtain accurate information about the Bible
>from a Darwinist/atheist ?
Your insinuation that all Darwinists are atheists is also
wrong.
>
>I have a proposal:
>
>We apply your "objective and unbiased" standard of asserting the main
>source of contradiction to your theory does not mean what it says AND
>say atheist anthropologists do not mean what they say when they assert
>a fossil to be anthropon transitional ?
>
>They literally mean the scrap is not transitional even though they said
>it is.
>
>IOW, people do not mean what they say even if they use one syllable
>words - everything is meaningless when it contradicts your sacred cow
>(ToE) = your obvious corruption tactic.
>
>Darwinists and the Bible = Catholic priests and young boys.
You are bearing false witness against people.
--
---Tom S. <http://talkreason.org/articles/chickegg.cfm>
"It being as impossible that the Organized Body of a Chicken should by the Power
of any Mechanical Motions be formed out of the unorganized Matter of an Egg; as
that the Sun, Moon and Stars, should by mere Mechanism arise out of a Chaos."
Samuel Clarke (1675-1729) Second Defense...Immortality of the Soul
Mark Isaak
wrote:
>Mark Isaak:
>
>The serpent in Eden was not Satan.
>
>Ray Martinez: All theist scholarship says the serpent is Satan.
>
>The fact that you are a Darwinist, a person who does not believe in the
>existence of Satan, makes your assertion very predictible.
>
>You, like all Darwinists, are deliberately massively ignorant about the
>Bible. You can deduce obscure fossil scraps to be anthropon
>transitional but the undisputed typology of the serpent representing
>Satan suddenly escapes your ability.
I see you have not read the Bible yet.
>Mark Isaak:
>
>If you are going to base your
>beliefs on a literal reading of the Bible, you really should at least
>read the Bible.
>
>Ray Martinez: It is of no surprise that a Darwinist asserts the Bible
>does not mean what it says.
You are the one asserting the Bible does not mean what it says.
Genesis 3:1: "Now the serpent was more crafty than any of the wild
animals the Lord God had made."
Was Satan created as a wild animal?
Genesis 3:14: "Cursed are you above all the livestock and all the wild
animals! You will crawl on your belly and you will eat dust all the
days of your life."
Does Satan crawl on his belly and eat dust every day?
Your credibility has dropped below zero. Come back when you learn how
to read.
Augray
> Ray Martinez: The serpent/Satan told Eve God did not mean what He
said
> about THAT
> tree = your quote = the origin of your quote/belief evidenced to be
> from Satan.
>
> Mark Isaak:
>
> The serpent in Eden was not Satan.
>
> Ray Martinez: All theist scholarship says the serpent is Satan.
Apparently, some early Christian sects believed the serpent was Christ.
> The fact that you are a Darwinist, a person who does not believe in
the
> existence of Satan, makes your assertion very predictible.
And the basis of that claim is?
[snip]
shane
Ray, I'm confused. Above, you agree, as 'absolutely correct', with my
understanding of this majority concept that it applies to to all events
today. Yet further down you maintain that it does not apply to all
events today, but only to groups that have some biblical parallel where
the majority was wrong; 'Here is where you are in error.'.... 'You are
creating a series of majority extrapolations that are not found
as a majority in the Bible.'
This is contradictory and I am at a loss as to how to apply this
majority concept. Perhaps it would help my understanding if you laid out
one of the biblical majority groups and their corresponding group
today and the reasons for the correspondence between the two.
Bob Casanova
in talk.origins, posted by Jim Lovejoy
<nos...@devnull.spam>:
Withdrawn. No further questions.
Deadrat
> Tom Faller: Ray, you're pretty much painting yourself into the tiny
> corner of paraniod
> delusions:
>
>
> Ray Martinez: Resorting to insults indicates you cannot refute. I
> actually believe you are the one who is delusional and paranoid but you
> don't see me using that as an argument in a debate forum.
>
> Tom, your inability to refute manifests via insult. This tactic casts
> your opponent to be crazy and thus gets you off the hook in regards to
> the evidence and arguments. IOW, you are blaming me for your
> intellectual shortcomings. It appears you are used to an idiot YEC to
> debate, but I am not one, therefore you are out of business.
>
>
> Tom Faller: everyone who disagrees with you is either a liar or
> deluded,
>
>
> Ray Martinez: Thats exactly what you just said of me. Again, great
> "refutation" Tom calling your opponent a delusional liar. You are
> enraged and have resorted to name calling/invents.
>
> Tom Faller: nobody can be trusted when they tell you anything about
> themselves,
>
>
> Ray Martinez: Your assertion above assumes that you trust the claims
> of your opponents - where Tom ?
>
> This is a debate arena where CLAIMS are determined and verified by
> evidence. You are sniveling over the fact that I will not allow closet
> atheists to call themselves christians in order to validate the atheist
> creation myth/ToE with Genesis.
>
> You are enraged that I challenge the alleged theism of any theist who
> asserts Biblical compatibility with the ToE. IOW, you are saying THIS
> claim of alleged theism is off limits to challenge.
>
> I only point out that the ONLY source for Biblical theism does not
> allow compatibility with ToE claims. I only wonder aloud how we
> actually know a person is a theist/christian ?
> How do we know they are not merely posing as one in order to stake out
> Biblical support (corruption) for their anti-Biblical theory ?
>
> According to you this is out of bounds LOL !
>
> Most debate boards on the Net do not allow a person to challenge the
> alleged christianity of another person. What do ALL of these boards
> have in common ? Pro-Darwinian TEist Mods.
>
> IOW, all claims are on the table EXCEPT the one claim which attempts to
> steal Biblical support for the atheist creation myth. Women can fuck
> animals on the Internet and these open minded free speech advocates
> have no problem with that. But an Evangelical who asks tough rhetorical
> questions about a claim of theism is censored = proof of Satan.
Ray, Ray. Have you been sneaking off to watch bestiality sites on the web?
Probably just for research purposes, right? Hey, it's OK with me, but
answer
me one thing, please. How are any evangelicals being censored? You know
what that means, right? That someone is prohibiting them from expressing
themselves.
Contradicting or ridiculing someone does not constitute censorship.
<snip>
> You atheist Darwinists are pretty smart. Rational Enquiry supposedly
> contains a Divine neutral clause (but in reality it is exclusionary).
> To get around this and the fact that you have no divinity credentials,
> you embrace and encourage TEists to covertly manifest your hatred for
> the God of Genesis. TEists care more about your approval than of God's.
>
Unless you mean the late transvestite actress Divine, I'd call it the
"divine
neutral clause." By which I suppose you mean that science precludes the
consideration of God in its explanations. But that's merely a limitation of
the scientific method. Science is simply not strong enough to investigate
the divine.
> IOW, you take the Bible/Genesis into your rape rooms and hold her down
> while TEists do the dirty work.
Rape rooms? Why are you sexualizing discussions of texts? It's a little,
hmmm, what's the word. Oh, yes. Creepy.
>
> The best evidence against TEists is the atheist approval they enjoy.
>
> Tom Faller: and your God punishes people for things they don't know
> about by changing
> their thoughts without their knowledge.
>
>
> Ray Martinez: I just relay what the Bible says. God REACTS to their
> hateful thoughts about Him and as a penalty for rejecting Him as
> Creator He makes them believe insane things like humans originating
> from an ape instead of Him.
>
<snip>
> The Great Pyramid proves that empirical evidence does not matter -
> atheist worldview won't allow themselves to be refuted = proof of
> Romans 1 claim that atheism is a penalty from God for resisting His
> perceived encroachments. Either way the Bible is proven true.
Here's Romans 1, starting after the salutations at verse 18:
18. For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness
and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness,
OK. I think I've got it. God will be pissed off at the unrighteous.
19 because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown
it to them. 20 For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes
are
clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal
power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse,
They have no excuse because God has made it clear what's unrighteous.
21 because, although they knew God, they did not glorify Him as God,
nor were thankful, but became futile in their thoughts, and their foolish
hearts
were darkened. 22 Professing to be wise, they became fools, 23 and changed
the glory of the incorruptible God into an image made like corruptible man--
and birds and four-footed animals and creeping things.
The unrighteous know God, but still denied him, becoming so foolish
as to consider God like themselves.
24 Therefore God also gave them up to uncleanness, in the lusts of their
hearts,
to dishonor their bodies among themselves, 25 who exchanged the truth of God
for the lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator,
who is
blessed forever. Amen.
So God let them wallow in their unrighteousness.
26 For this reason God gave them up to vile passions. For even their women
exchanged the natural use for what is against nature. 27 Likewise also the
men,
leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust for one another,
men
with men committing what is shameful, and receiving in themselves the
penalty
of their error which was due. 28 And even as they did not like to retain
God in
their knowledge, God gave them over to a debased mind, to do those things
which are not fitting; 29 being filled with all unrighteousness, *sexual
immorality,
wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, strife,
deceit,
evil-mindedness;
So God let them have their unrighteous fun.
(Ray, have you been reading the Bible for the dirty parts?)
they are whisperers, 30 backbiters, haters of God, violent, proud, boasters,
inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents, 31 undiscerning,
untrustworthy,
unloving, *unforgiving, unmerciful; 32 who, knowing the righteous judgment
of
God, that those who practice such things are deserving of death, not only do
the same but also approve of those who practice them
And here's a kind of top ten list, including the violent, the
overweening,
those who disobey their parents, etc. and anyone who approves of such
people. And they all deserve to die.
Guess what, Ray? Nothing in here about God's punishment being the
belief in "insane things" or atheism.
The punishment is clearly stated as death (v.32). In fact, the claim here
is *not* that the unrighteous are deluded, but that *although they knew
God* (v21) they went ahead and transgressed anyway.
Not to mention that your conflation of scientific investigation with burning
lusts is further creeping me out.
<snip>
>Ray Martinez
>
Deadrat
Earthlink
Numbers 21
4: And they journeyed from mount Hor by the way of the Red sea, to compass
the land of Edom: and the soul of the people was much discouraged because of
the way.
5: And the people spake against God, and against Moses, Wherefore have ye
brought us up out of Egypt to die in the wilderness? for there is no bread,
neither is there any water; and our soul loatheth this light bread.
6: And the LORD sent fiery serpents among the people, and they bit the
people; and much people of Israel died.
7: Therefore the people came to Moses, and said, We have sinned, for we have
spoken against the LORD, and against thee; pray unto the LORD, that he take
away the serpents from us. And Moses prayed for the people.
8: And the LORD said unto Moses, Make thee a fiery serpent, and set it upon
a pole: and it shall come to pass, that every one that is bitten, when he
looketh upon it, shall live.
9: And Moses made a serpent of brass, and put it upon a pole, and it came to
pass, that if a serpent had bitten any man, when he beheld the serpent of
brass, he lived.
"Augray" <aug...@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:1111796986....@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
Earthlink
is suffering from brain damage as a result of syphilus received through
constant anal sex.
"Deadrat" <no...@none.non> wrote in message
news:9P61e.25121$hU7....@newssvr33.news.prodigy.com...
Richard Forrest
Ray Martinez wrote:
> Steven J:
>
> Your ongoing point is (as I understand you) that evolution is a
> religious or
> philophical belief with no scientific basis, and no clear meaning to
> its
> basic ideas.
>
>
> Yes, evolution is a religion no question.
This is self-evidently false, as many people on this forum have
questioned that assertion.
> It is based on philosophical
> presuppositions
It is based on the same presuppositions as is all science, and
incidentally on the same presuppositions that a mechanic uses when he
(or she) tries to find out why your car won't start.
> and wild speculation
It is built on the evidence from the natural world.
> driven by obscene credulity
What is 'obscene credulity'? I'm fucked if I know.
> and
> the need for the Genesis worldview to be falsified.
Complete and utter rubbish. The recognition that evolution has occured,
and that the Genesis worldview cannot be interpreted literally is a
result of increasing knowledge of the natural world in the 18th and
19th centuries.
> The preceding is
> packaged as scientific in order to insulate it from the appearance of
> religion and "objectify" its dogma. Reduced down, evolution hijacks
the
> facts of micro-evolution, then from this platform, postulates and
> assumes (based on the need for Genesis to be wrong)
There is absolutely no "need for Genesis to be wrong". The evidence
tells us that a literal interpretation of Genesis is wrong, and most
Christian scholars and churchmen will agree with this. For Genesis to
be literally acurate, we need to disregard most of modern science, not
just evolutionary theory.
> that species have
> randomly mutated because (now here comes the religion) how else did
the
> diversity of species come into existence ?
By processes we can observe, measure and record in nature. Whether you
like it or not, those processes occur.
>(evolution-must-of-did-it) =
> anti-Genesis worldview disguised as science.
>
> Steven J:
>
> You cannot use a definition of natural selection as a "brick"
> in that wall unless you demonstrate, at a minimum, that the
definition
> is
> incoherent or flatly contradicts other definitions, and you don't
even
> try
> to do this.
Talking of incoherence, what the hell are you trying to say here? This
makes no sense to me.
>
> Ray M:
>
> This was your response to my characterization of Mark Isaak's basic
> definition of Natural Selection. When I said Mark's defintion was
just
> "another brick in the wall" I meant that it fit in with the fact that
> it was one of a kind among kinds = my on-going point the the alleged
> central mechanism of evolutionary theory has no clear universal
> definition or understanding.
What was demonstrated is that, although people may use different words
to describe the phenomenon if natural selection, they all come up with
essentially the same definition. Only you apparently fail to see this.
> And again, this is supposed to be science
> - not religion and the undisputed fact that you could encounter
12,000
> different interpretations to the shortest verse in the Bible: "Jesus
> wept".
>
> Your argument is saying all the said definitions are coherent and
> compatible within the precise context that they address. Okay, IOW,
you
> are rationalizing my point and synonymously describing it more
> courteously.
>
Could you point out where the different definitions contradict each
other? Or is this simply another unsupported assertion?
> Natural Selection attempts to explain the diversity and
> ultra-complexity of nature = the seemingly infinite amount of
> definitions.
>
There is not an 'infinite amount of definitions'. The defintions
provided were all more or less the same. None of them contradict each
other. The only variation is in the precise words used.
>
> Steven J:
>
> You have not shown that any definition of natural selection offered
in
> response to your
> request is incompatible with any other definition. You have not even
> asserted that any specific definition is incompatible with another
> specific
> definition; you simply assert that incompatible definitions have been
> offered (by someone, somewhere, at some time).
>
>
You have not identified where any of those definitions contradict each
other.
> Ray M:
>
> I have claimed and proven that the alleged central mechanism at the
> core of your theory has a myriad number of definitions.
You have claimed falsely. None of the definitions provided contract
each other, or describe a different process.
>
> In response, you say they are all coherent and compatible unless I
> show how they are not.
As your assertion is that they do contradict each other, it seems
reasonable that you should substantiatet that assertion.
> This is tantamount to "scientific" pantheism:
> all the supposed facts lead to the same universal God = my initial
> observation/claim that evolution is really a religion.
A claim you have failed to support with anything other than unfounded
assertion.
> Of course all
> the definitions make sense to you = Darwinian sabotage of
relentlessly
> asserting the Bible is contradictory.
Tha Bible is irrelevant to science. All science. Live with it.
>
> It doesn't matter what the definitions actually say per se, the point
> is, I ask rhetorically, when does this "science" cease to behave
like
> a religion ?
>
It can't 'cease to behave like a religion' until it has started to
behave like a religion, something you have failed to establish.
>
> The inability to pin down, lets say, just 10 definitions of Natural
> Selection is caused by the diversity and awesome complexity of
nature.
Your inability to recognise that the defintions supplied to you
describe the same phenomenon can only be ascribed to your willful
blindness. Merely asserting that they are different whilst refusing to
identify the differences is not honest.
I'll snip the rest - it's all no more that empty assertions and
avoidance. If you can identify any discrepancies in the definitions of
natural selection provided by other people, then do so. Unless you do,
you are simply dishonest.
RF
<snipped>
Steven J.
"Richard Forrest" <ric...@plesiosaur.com> wrote in message
news:1111916767.2...@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>
> Ray Martinez wrote:
>> Steven J:
>>
>> Your ongoing point is (as I understand you) that evolution is a
>> religious or
>> philophical belief with no scientific basis, and no clear meaning to
>> its
>> basic ideas.
>>
>> Ray M:
>>
>> Yes, evolution is a religion no question.
>
> This is self-evidently false, as many people on this forum have
> questioned that assertion.
>
capable of accumulating definitions of "natural selection" to show they
don't agree, and then declares that it doesn't matter what the definitions
actually say! Ray M. appears to be campaigning to become the classic case
in point for the aphorism that you cannot reason someone out of a position
he did not reach through reason. I think I will give on on trying to argue
with him; he makes Tony Pagano look reasonable.
>
-- [snip]
>
>> Steven J:
>>
>> You cannot use a definition of natural selection as a "brick"
>> in that wall unless you demonstrate, at a minimum, that the
> definition
>> is
>> incoherent or flatly contradicts other definitions, and you don't
>> even try to do this.
>
>
> Talking of incoherence, what the hell are you trying to say here? This
> makes no sense to me.
>
a bit confusing. Also, he omits parts of my post to which he is not
directly replying, which removes my remark from context that might make it
more intelligible. Basically, all I was saying was what you were saying: he
can't say multiple definitions contradict each other unless he shows that,
in fact, they contradict one another.
>
-- [snip]
>
> RF
>
> <snipped>
>
-- Steven J.
Augray
in news:<KH81e.4293$gI5...@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net>:
> When the Israelites wandered the desert after fleeing Egypt...
> Numbers 21
> 4: And they journeyed from mount Hor by the way of the Red sea, to compass
> the land of Edom: and the soul of the people was much discouraged because of
> the way.
> 5: And the people spake against God, and against Moses, Wherefore have ye
> brought us up out of Egypt to die in the wilderness? for there is no bread,
> neither is there any water; and our soul loatheth this light bread.
> 6: And the LORD sent fiery serpents among the people, and they bit the
> people; and much people of Israel died.
> 7: Therefore the people came to Moses, and said, We have sinned, for we have
> spoken against the LORD, and against thee; pray unto the LORD, that he take
> away the serpents from us. And Moses prayed for the people.
> 8: And the LORD said unto Moses, Make thee a fiery serpent, and set it upon
> a pole: and it shall come to pass, that every one that is bitten, when he
> looketh upon it, shall live.
> 9: And Moses made a serpent of brass, and put it upon a pole, and it came to
> pass, that if a serpent had bitten any man, when he beheld the serpent of
> brass, he lived.
I'm not sure what that has to do with the serpent in Eden.
Steven J.
Christian sects thought the serpent was Christ. I assume those would be
gnostics who identified the Creator of Genesis as the demiurge, ignorant of
and hostile to the purposes of the True God and Christ. Orthodox
Christians, of course, have regarded the gnostics as heretics for nineteen
centuries or so. But orthodox Christians *have* seen the brazen serpent in
Numbers as a type or foreshadowing of Christ -- raised up on a pole, so that
men could behold him and live.
>
-- [snip]
>
-- Steven J.
Thomas Faller
> Tom Faller: Ray, you're pretty much painting yourself into the tiny
> corner of paraniod
> delusions:
>
> Ray Martinez: Resorting to insults indicates you cannot refute. I
> actually believe you are the one who is delusional and paranoid but you
> don't see me using that as an argument in a debate forum.
>
> Tom, your inability to refute manifests via insult. This tactic casts
> your opponent to be crazy and thus gets you off the hook in regards to
> the evidence and arguments. IOW, you are blaming me for your
> intellectual shortcomings. It appears you are used to an idiot YEC to
> debate, but I am not one, therefore you are out of business.
>
> Tom Faller: everyone who disagrees with you is either a liar or
> deluded,
>
> Ray Martinez: Thats exactly what you just said of me. Again, great
> "refutation" Tom calling your opponent a delusional liar. You are
> enraged and have resorted to name calling/invents.
>
> Tom Faller: nobody can be trusted when they tell you anything about
> themselves,
>
> Ray Martinez: Your assertion above assumes that you trust the claims
> of your opponents - where Tom ?
>
> This is a debate arena where CLAIMS are determined and verified by
> evidence. You are sniveling over the fact that I will not allow closet
> atheists to call themselves christians in order to validate the atheist
> creation myth/ToE with Genesis.
>
> You are enraged that I challenge the alleged theism of any theist who
> asserts Biblical compatibility with the ToE. IOW, you are saying THIS
> claim of alleged theism is off limits to challenge.
>
> I only point out that the ONLY source for Biblical theism does not
> allow compatibility with ToE claims. I only wonder aloud how we
> actually know a person is a theist/christian ?
> How do we know they are not merely posing as one in order to stake out
> Biblical support (corruption) for their anti-Biblical theory ?
>
> According to you this is out of bounds LOL !
>
> Most debate boards on the Net do not allow a person to challenge the
> alleged christianity of another person. What do ALL of these boards
> have in common ? Pro-Darwinian TEist Mods.
>
> IOW, all claims are on the table EXCEPT the one claim which attempts to
> steal Biblical support for the atheist creation myth. Women can fuck
> animals on the Internet and these open minded free speech advocates
> have no problem with that. But an Evangelical who asks tough rhetorical
> questions about a claim of theism is censored = proof of Satan.
>
> Tom Faller: your definition of Christianity appears to exclude 99% of
> Christians,
>
> Ray Martinez: Deliberate simplification/error. I only question the
> alleged theism when the alleged theist attempts to falsify the alleged
> source of his alleged theism.
>
> Tom Faller: but
> you merrily insist without providing evidence that you're a "true"
> Christian,
>
> Ray Martinez: Nobody has challenged my alleged christianity. You are
> simply defending TEists for the sake of your theory. This is an
> ulterior motive and if your theory was not involved these alleged
> theists are "irrational delusional holy rollers".
>
> You atheist Darwinists are pretty smart. Rational Enquiry supposedly
> contains a Divine neutral clause (but in reality it is exclusionary).
> To get around this and the fact that you have no divinity credentials,
> you embrace and encourage TEists to covertly manifest your hatred for
> the God of Genesis. TEists care more about your approval than of God's.
>
> IOW, you take the Bible/Genesis into your rape rooms and hold her down
> while TEists do the dirty work.
>
> The best evidence against TEists is the atheist approval they enjoy.
>
> Tom Faller: and your God punishes people for things they don't know
> about by changing
> their thoughts without their knowledge.
>
> Ray Martinez: I just relay what the Bible says. God REACTS to their
> hateful thoughts about Him and as a penalty for rejecting Him as
> Creator He makes them believe insane things like humans originating
> from an ape instead of Him.
>
> Tom Faller: You have an excuse for every contradiction
> in your position.
>
> Ray Martinez: The fact that you are a Darwinist and I am a creationist
> explains your comment above and its motive.
>
> Tom Faller: relying on badly constructed fantasies (like that proof of
> God by Pyramids site) that
> any idiot could debunk
>
> Ray Martinez: Your comment above proves that your claim to be open for
> evidence proving God is a sham. You are really closing your mind and
> saying there is none.
>
> How could an atheist admit there is evidence for God ?
>
> Answer: Rhetorical question.
>
> The Great Pyramid proves that empirical evidence does not matter -
> atheist worldview won't allow themselves to be refuted = proof of
> Romans 1 claim that atheism is a penalty from God for resisting His
> perceived encroachments. Either way the Bible is proven true.
>
> Tom Faller: You're moving farther away from reality and closer
> to the point where the whole world is lying to you and out to get you.
>
> Ray Martinez: Standard atheist insult against a creationist = rage
> about arguments and the inability to refute.
>
> Ray Martinez
I just got back around to this post today. I think it demonstrates my point better
than anything I could possibly write.
Tom Faller
"standard atheist" by popular acclamation
Eros
Ray Martinez wrote:
> THE CASE AGAINST EVOLUTION IN THE BIBLE
Really... and where exactly might that be located in the Bible, Ray? If
I recall correctly, the Bible claims that God commanded the *earth* to
BRING FORTH the animals and plants after their own kind and the *sea*
to BRING FORTH the fish and creatures of the deep etc.
Sure sounds like guided evolution to me!
<SNIP>
EROS.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Man can always believe the impossible, but man can never believe the
improbable. -- Oscar Wilde.
AC
Ray Martinez <pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Kermit:
>
> It predicted, for example, that when the mechanisms for inheritable
> traits was discovered, it would mark a nested hierarchy matching
> morphology. Which it does, with some clarifications.
>
> It predicts the behavior of mechnisms adapting to poisons in their
> environment.
>
>
> It predicted that more fossil transitions would be discovered linking
> current species, families, etc. with their precursors - which has
> happened.
>
>
> It predicted specificall that whales would have left fossil trasitional
>
> links from their land-dwelling tetrapod ancestors to the sea. These
> have recently been found.
>
> Ray Martinez:
>
> You are attempting to stuff classic evo babbling down my throat.
He's attempting to educate you.
>
> Let me interpret what you are really saying:
>
> Unknown and unidentified Darwinists "prophesied"/"predicted" as you
> assert then discovered their prophecies were true.
I'd still love you to answer what you think a transitional fossil would like
like. Interestingly enough, you ran away from answering that. Wonder why.
>
> Now read what Richard Milton says about Natural Selection:
>
> Richard Milton:
>
> "As a theory, natural selection makes no unique predictions but
> instead is used retrospectively to explain every outcome: and a theory
> that
> explains everything in this way explains nothing. Natural Selection
> is not a mechanism: it is a rationalization after the fact."
Which is patently false. There are observations that would falsify
evolution. For instance, rabbits giving birth to roses would produce
enormous problems for evolution.
>
> Ray Martinez:
>
> IOW, Darwinists have found a way to print a lottery ticket after the
> numbers are drawn.
>
> And in sparse micro-examples of where a prediction was made and
> confirmed is hardly proof supporting an ineffable "mechanism".
Handwaving noted.
>
> IOW, someone does get lucky and wins the lottery.
>
> You are making a huge deal about logic and calling it science.
The predictive value has been demonstrated. The observations continue to
add up. What was that scientific theory of Creation again.
>
> Natural Selection is nonsense. Asserting 23,000 definitions say the
> same thing is the Darwinian equivalent to ridiculous Biblical
> inerrancy.
>
> Buy a mirror and learn the meaning of the word "objective".
Buy a book and learn what evolution is.
Thomas Faller
> THE CASE AGAINST EVOLUTION IN THE BIBLE
>
> Steven J:
>
> In any case, it seems rather tendentious to suppose that
> Darwin was trying to refute Genesis rather than, as he claims to have
> been
> doing, trying to explain......
>
> Ray M:
>
> It doesn't matter what Charlie CLAIMED the Bible/God has told us that
> he and his kind delberately decided He was not the Creator.
>
> Romans tells on Darwin and his crowd. God sees the heart and intent. It
>
> was willful rebellion. In response, God said have it your way and
> empowered their success by turning them over to the only other power
> (demonic) who then spoon fed them the racist idea: Africans and apes
> look similar = origin of Darwinism/ToE.
>
> The Bible says demons have the form of animals, hence they simply
> enacted that they were the origin instead of God. Like Dr. Scott says,
> in the context of why people believe humans originated from an
> ape/animal: "Nobody could be this dumb naturally" = proof of penalty
> claim.
>
> ROMANS 1:23
>
> "And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like
>
> to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping
> things."
>
> "changed the glory of God" INTO:
>
> "image" = in the Greek "icon" then the ICONS OF EVOLUTION ARE THEN
> LISTED:
>
> "corruptible man" = in the Greek "anthropon" or "dead man" = fossils
> claimed to be anthropon.
>
> "birds" = accurate translation.
>
> "fourfooted beasts" = in the Greek "quadrupeds".
>
> "creeping things" = in the Greek "reptiles".
>
> The CONTEXT of the verse is the wrath of the 18th verse; which is
> manifested towards anyone who rejects Him as Creator.
>
> How is the wrath manifested ?
>
> The 23rd verse above is saying when God is rejected as Creator the
> wrath of Him will make you believe what is created originated from the
> 4 icons listed.
>
> This verse and context fits like a glove on Darwinism.
>
> I could fully unfold these passages but this basic outline will suffice
>
> for now.
>
> IF the Bible is the eternal word of God then it must always apply to be
>
> as such. Romans was written in 58 AD.
>
> The application here provides no wiggle room.
>
> Steven J:
>
> The theory itself asserts nothing whatsoever about any God. Darwin
> himself
> argued that his theory was no threat to religion (perhaps he was
> mistaken,
> or even disingenuous, but it's an odd approach to take if he was
> mounting an
> offensive against the Christian faith).
>
> Ray M:
>
> God says Darwin is a liar:
>
> ROMANS 1:19
>
> "Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God
> hath shewed it unto them."
>
> What did God show them (Darwin and his crowd):
>
> ROMANS 1:20
>
> "For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are
> clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his
> eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse"
>
> This verse says God made the world in such a way that His invisible
> attributes can be deduced, IOW, He left His fingerprints all over
> creation (IC systems/cuckoo bird)
>
> Notice the last phrase "they are without excuse".
>
> Can't see God in creation ?
>
> Here's why:
>
> ROMANS 1:21
>
> "Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not AS God,
> neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their
>
> foolish heart was darkened."
>
> When you reject God AS Creator (and that is already defined as not
> crediting God as the Creator via asserting created things originated
> from other created things, verse 23) then He in response darkens your
> heart and mind and you end up believing the nonsense of the 23rd verse.
>
> "fool" = in the Greek the same word we get "moron" from = the arguments
>
> of all Darwinists evading ID.
>
> God turns you into a sophisticated moron.
>
> Where does it say sophisticated ?
>
> ROMANS 1:22
>
> "Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools"
>
> "wise" = in the Greek "sophistry" the root and origin of our word
> sophisticated.
>
> IOW, persons who assert our origins are from the icons listed in the
> 23rd verse are sophisticated morons = all Darwinists.
>
> Now that you are suffering the wrath of God the 23rd verse is what you
> end up believing.
>
> Are demons liars ?
>
> The Bible says that is gospel truth.
>
> Then if Darwinism has as its source demons controlling the content then
>
> Darwinists must be liars:
>
> ROMANS 1:25
>
> "Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the
>
> creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen. "
>
> God just exposed you Darwinists as liars who worship the creatures
> (verse 23) instead of Him.
>
> You changed the truth of God into a lie (of Darwinism) - what could be
>
> more clear ?
>
> The Bible has busted you = proof of God.
>
> source of theology: Dr Gene Scott Ph.D. Stanford University.
> www.drgenescott.com
>
> Ray Martinez
Let's _sttrrettcchhh_ that Bible just a little. It's got rubber pages - you can
make it fit any cockeyed idea you want.
And if you go out of the way to call up supernatural opponents and demonic
motivations for anyone disagreeing with you, get ready - the real paranioa
hasn't even started yet. You'll love it when us godless atheists start crawling
up out of your keyboard at night and moving things around your house.
Have fun in your supernatural playhouse. If the supernatural can do anything,
reality isn't any defense against it.
Tom Faller
Mark Isaak
wrote:
>The Bible says demons have the form of animals, hence they simply
>enacted that they were the origin instead of God. Like Dr. Scott says,
>in the context of why people believe humans originated from an
>ape/animal: "Nobody could be this dumb naturally" = proof of penalty
>claim.
Which Bible is that? Perhaps you have the Bible confused with a Piers
Anthony fantasy novel?
>ROMANS 1:23
Romans 1:18-23 says that some people make idols of God in the shape of
animals, and God doesn't like that. What does that have to do with
evolution?