Is Elsberry on-the-run?
Ray Martinez
busy with real life?
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/16c9240dc1560bb7
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/058425c1aa051bda
Ray
geo...@hotmail.com
Maybe he doesn't have time to educate you in basic logic?
I do love the term 'arch-evolutionist'. It makes me picture a tall
chap in a really grand cloak, while the rest of us are huddled in dark
cowls. As we pray on our Origins of Species.
johnetho...@yahoo.com
Perhaps he sees no point in responding to an idiotic pathological liar.
Ray Martinez
It's called Brave Sir Robin Elsberry.
Ray
Friar Broccoli
Ray is not a liar of any form.
He just doesn't have the remotest understanding of logical
consistency.
RAM
No, it's a correct refusal to deal with CreRaytionist Crap!
RAM
Inez
I can understand a person wasting time on trivial and unimportant
things, but I don't see why you would waste time on something so
boring. You seem to be wanting to have some sort of showdown, but
over what? Unmarked post trimming, and whether he admits to it or
not? I suggest moving on with your life.
The Last Conformist
> Is Wesley on-the-run, or is he attempting to appear brave, or is he
> busy with real life?
Maybe he's writing a paper.
J.J. O'Shea
(in article
<a66ea671-3c7f-4df7...@y38g2000hsy.googlegroups.com>):
In the category of 'Yank that chain!'
--
email to oshea dot j dot j at gmail dot com.
Boikat
> On Wed, 6 Aug 2008 17:47:24 -0400, The Last Conformist wrote
> (in article
>
> In the category of 'Yank that chain!'
But it probably flew right over Raytards head.
Boikat
The only person aorund here that "on the run" is you. Instead of
delivering your "paper", you are wasting your time mucking around on
T.O, instead of producing your "paper". But then again, everyone
already knows you don't have anything, anyway.
Boikat
raven1
I seem to recall him replying in full in a different thread, but
you've got a lot of balls accusing him of running away, considering
your own track record:
What, in a sentence or two, is the theory of Creationism, Brave Sir
Robin Martinez?
What useful, testable predictions does it make?
What would falsify it?
Seventh request from me alone, Brave Sir Robin Martinez. I can hear
your coconuts retreating in the distance.
'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank
Are you on the run?
Put up or shut up.
================================================
Lenny Flank
"There are no loose threads in the web of life"
Editor, Red and Black Publishers
http://www.RedAndBlackPublishers.com
Augray
<pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote in
<2b16a512-8f82-44cb...@b30g2000prf.googlegroups.com> :
Here's what Ray's on the run from:
A debate on Archaeopteryx:
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/84351790e4e6cfef
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.messianic/msg/2a5cf4345095e61e
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/52d11433fe21753e
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/778397e3df2ae9
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/061aabc2893239e1
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/1fbbab8820ea409c
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/5344aa3741f209f0
The fact that "Harun Yahya" is a liar:
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/d89a2e1b9cd326bf
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/ff9f4d87b3b9cd26
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/a726e81ade0b0687
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/c563a99546f4d3e1
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/339c83e3762e68a4
A biblical error:
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/7e5ad6cae78ddaf0
The flaw in Cyr's canopy theory:
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/f228ecc26f7a17e0
Explaining how supernaturalists investigate science:
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/b47a870964ae380e
*Hemidactylus*
quoted (=made reference to) Scripture in _Natural Theology_? Is your
spat with Elsberry a convenient cover for the fact that you mistakenly
hid your dogmatic assertion behind the authority of a secondary source
on Paley? Does it bother you that an atheist like me called you on an
important detail of Paleyian Designism and its relation to Holy
Scripture? Are you hoping talk.origins regulars and lurkers will
forget that blunder of yours?
It's ironic that you go after Elsberry by accusing him of running
away? Are you projecting?
J.J. O'Shea
(in article
<2aa6ccb9-4167-4b40...@m44g2000hsc.googlegroups.com>):
> On Aug 6, 5:08 pm, "J.J. O'Shea" <try.not...@but.see.sig> wrote:
>> On Wed, 6 Aug 2008 17:47:24 -0400, The Last Conformist wrote
>> (in article
>> <a66ea671-3c7f-4df7-b8ab-2ed302d70...@y38g2000hsy.googlegroups.com>):
>>
>> In the category of 'Yank that chain!'
>
> But it probably flew right over Raytards head.
That only makes it better.
>
>>
>>> On Aug 6, 9:17 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>> Is Wesley on-the-run, or is he attempting to appear brave, or is he
>>>> busy with real life?
>>
>>> Maybe he's writing a paper.
>
--
J.J. O'Shea
(in article
<dc8e0b26-62af-4f8c...@34g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>):
Nah. Just born to run.
Ray Martinez
> On Aug 6, 3:17 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:> Is Wesley on-the-run, or is he attempting to appear brave, or is he
> > busy with real life?
>
> >http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/16c9240dc1560bb7
>
> >http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/058425c1aa051bda
>
> Ray, have you run away from our little discussion about whether Paley
> quoted (=made reference to) Scripture in _Natural Theology_? Is your
> spat with Elsberry a convenient cover for the fact that you mistakenly
> hid your dogmatic assertion behind the authority of a secondary source
> on Paley? Does it bother you that an atheist like me called you on an
> important detail of Paleyian Designism and its relation to Holy
> Scripture? Are you hoping talk.origins regulars and lurkers will
> forget that blunder of yours?
>
> It's ironic that you go after Elsberry by accusing him of running
> away? Are you projecting?
I answered your post. You have yet to create a rebuttal that addresses
my answer.
Ray
Ray Martinez
> On Wed, 6 Aug 2008 13:56:00 -0700 (PDT), Ray Martinez
>
>
>
>
>
> <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >On Aug 6, 1:25 pm, johnethompson2...@yahoo.com wrote:
> >> On Aug 6, 12:17 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >> > Is Wesley on-the-run, or is he attempting to appear brave, or is he
> >> > busy with real life?
>
> >> >http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/16c9240dc1560bb7
>
> >> >http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/058425c1aa051bda
>
> >> > Ray
>
> >> Perhaps he sees no point in responding to an idiotic pathological liar.
>
> >It's called Brave Sir Robin Elsberry.
>
> I seem to recall him replying in full in a different thread, but
> you've got a lot of balls accusing him of running away, considering
> your own track record:
>
> What, in a sentence or two, is the theory of Creationism, Brave Sir
> Robin Martinez?
>
Observation of design and organized complexity seen in each organism
and in nature as a whole corresponds----directly----to the work of
invisible Designer (= Divine causation operating in reality).
> What useful, testable predictions does it make?
>
> What would falsify it?
If evolution were true, that is, undirected and unguided material
forces operating in reality causing living things, past and present,
to exist.
>
> Seventh request from me alone, Brave Sir Robin Martinez. I can hear
> your coconuts retreating in the distance.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
That is the sound of howler monkeys on the march heading my way.
Ray
snex
> On Aug 6, 3:35 pm, raven1 <quoththera...@nevermore.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Wed, 6 Aug 2008 13:56:00 -0700 (PDT), Ray Martinez
>
> > <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > >On Aug 6, 1:25 pm, johnethompson2...@yahoo.com wrote:
> > >> On Aug 6, 12:17 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > >> > Is Wesley on-the-run, or is he attempting to appear brave, or is he
> > >> > busy with real life?
>
> > >> >http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/16c9240dc1560bb7
>
> > >> >http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/058425c1aa051bda
>
> > >> > Ray
>
> > >> Perhaps he sees no point in responding to an idiotic pathological liar.
>
> > >It's called Brave Sir Robin Elsberry.
>
> > I seem to recall him replying in full in a different thread, but
> > you've got a lot of balls accusing him of running away, considering
> > your own track record:
>
> > What, in a sentence or two, is the theory of Creationism, Brave Sir
> > Robin Martinez?
>
> Observation of design and organized complexity seen in each organism
> and in nature as a whole corresponds----directly----to the work of
> invisible Designer (= Divine causation operating in reality).
>
why? present the logic of this claim.
<snip>
raven1
<pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>On Aug 6, 3:35 pm, raven1 <quoththera...@nevermore.com> wrote:
>> On Wed, 6 Aug 2008 13:56:00 -0700 (PDT), Ray Martinez
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> >On Aug 6, 1:25 pm, johnethompson2...@yahoo.com wrote:
>> >> On Aug 6, 12:17 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>> >> > Is Wesley on-the-run, or is he attempting to appear brave, or is he
>> >> > busy with real life?
>>
>> >> >http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/16c9240dc1560bb7
>>
>> >> >http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/058425c1aa051bda
>>
>> >> > Ray
>>
>> >> Perhaps he sees no point in responding to an idiotic pathological liar.
>>
>> >It's called Brave Sir Robin Elsberry.
>>
>> I seem to recall him replying in full in a different thread, but
>> you've got a lot of balls accusing him of running away, considering
>> your own track record:
>>
>> What, in a sentence or two, is the theory of Creationism, Brave Sir
>> Robin Martinez?
>>
>
>Observation of design and organized complexity seen in each organism
How do you test for this?
>and in nature as a whole corresponds----directly----to the work of
>invisible Designer (= Divine causation operating in reality).
How do you infer this?
Seriously, the above might as well be word salad. What, exactly, is it
supposed to mean in a scientifically testable way?
>> What useful, testable predictions does it make?
Non-answer noted.
>> What would falsify it?
>
>If evolution were true,
Evolution would not falsify Creation. It would falsify your
interpretation of the book of Genesis.
>that is, undirected and unguided material
>forces operating in reality causing living things, past and present,
>to exist.
Evolution claims no such thing. It describes how things diversified
*after* life began to exist. Why do you insist on deliberately
mischaracterizing the position of your opponents?
>That is the sound of howler monkeys on the march heading my way.
Pointing out that you're lying again, most likely. How do you call
yourself a Christian when you constantly bear false witness?
Dana Tweedy
"Ray Martinez" <pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:df10f3fb-96d2-4a9d...@y19g2000prn.googlegroups.com...
Ray, you've claimed yourself that you won't respond when you feel the person
you are responding to is wasting your time. Can your readers assume then,
when you don't reply, you are afraid, or "on the run".
I am aware that you do have problems dealing with facts, and you've run away
more than a few times yourself. That doesn't mean that other people have
the same problem.
DJT
Dana Tweedy
>>
>> What, in a sentence or two, is the theory of Creationism, Brave Sir
>> Robin Martinez?
>>
>
> Observation of design and organized complexity seen in each organism
> and in nature as a whole corresponds----directly----to the work of
> invisible Designer (= Divine causation operating in reality).
The problem is, Ray, that the above isn't a theory, it's an assumption.
This assumption of yours is not testable.
>
>> What useful, testable predictions does it make?
>>
>> What would falsify it?
>
> If evolution were true, that is, undirected and unguided material
> forces operating in reality causing living things, past and present,
> to exist.
Then your assumption is falsified. Evolution is true, and undirected,
material forces cause living things, past and present. Note, please that
this does not falsifiy the idea that "divine causation is operating in
reality". It only falsifies the idea that "divine causation" can be
scientifically observed.
>
>>
>> Seventh request from me alone, Brave Sir Robin Martinez. I can hear
>> your coconuts retreating in the distance.- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
> That is the sound of howler monkeys on the march heading my way.
Then why are you running away?
DJT
Boikat
> On Aug 6, 3:35 pm, raven1 <quoththera...@nevermore.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Wed, 6 Aug 2008 13:56:00 -0700 (PDT), Ray Martinez
>
> > <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > >On Aug 6, 1:25 pm, johnethompson2...@yahoo.com wrote:
> > >> On Aug 6, 12:17 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > >> > Is Wesley on-the-run, or is he attempting to appear brave, or is he
> > >> > busy with real life?
>
> > >> >http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/16c9240dc1560bb7
>
> > >> >http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/058425c1aa051bda
>
> > >> > Ray
>
> > >> Perhaps he sees no point in responding to an idiotic pathological liar.
>
> > >It's called Brave Sir Robin Elsberry.
>
> > I seem to recall him replying in full in a different thread, but
> > you've got a lot of balls accusing him of running away, considering
> > your own track record:
>
> > What, in a sentence or two, is the theory of Creationism, Brave Sir
> > Robin Martinez?
>
> Observation of design and organized complexity seen in each organism
> and in nature as a whole corresponds----directly----to the work of
> invisible Designer (= Divine causation operating in reality).
How do you know the "design" is the work of an intelligent designer,
and how would you test your assertion? BTW, arguments from
incredulity is not a valid supporting statement (=no theory so far)
>
> > What useful, testable predictions does it make?
>
> > What would falsify it?
>
> If evolution were true, that is, undirected and unguided material
> forces operating in reality causing living things, past and present,
> to exist.
>
That sentence does not parse (= a bunch of words strung together
meaning nothing). How does that gibberish amount to a
"falsification"?
>
>
> > Seventh request from me alone, Brave Sir Robin Martinez. I can hear
> > your coconuts retreating in the distance.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> That is the sound of howler monkeys on the march heading my way.
That's because you are an easy target for displaying your stupidity
and lack of understanding of the basics of science (= you're an
idiot).
If the above is an example of your "logic" that you are going to use
in your "paper", you are in for a very sad surprise, if you ever post
it (= cold day in hell before that happens).
Boikat
*Hemidactylus*
part because you are incapable of honest discussion, but here it goes
anyway:
Exhibit A: http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/128459d6af54b707?hl=en
You assert: [begin Ray] Paley 1802, which all ID science is based on,
does not contain a single reference to scripture. Paley, of course,
was an ordained Minister accountable to a local congregation. [end
Ray]
You and especially your readers here can see plainly that you asserted
that Paley in _Natural Theology_ "does not contain a single reference
to scripture". Is this correct? Am I misreading your words? Given the
boldness of your assertion I merely need point to a single reference
to scripture to blow your assertion out of the water (=refute you
soundly). Are you ready now Ray? Follow closely. Put your thinking cap
on because we can't have you daydreaming about your paper right now.
Exhibit B: http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/7a14ba3fd2ffb8d5?hl=en
I refute your assertion: [begin Hemi] In William Paley's book _Natural
Theology_ look at Chapter XXIII called "Of the Personality of Deity".
Paley opens the second paragraph of this chapter as follows:
[begin Paley quote] "No man hath seen God at any time." [end Paley
quote]
Now Ray, I'm sure you have a Bible handy. Or you can ask the Big Guy
himself. Its the red phone on your desk. If you thumb to either John
1:18 or to 1 John 4:12 you will notice that Paley was making a
REFERENCE TO SCRIPTURE! You asserted above that Paley makes not a
single scriptural reference and I soundly refuted you with one
instance of Paley doing just that. [end Hemi quote]
So here we have me soundly refuting you. I did make a minor typo in
that Paley's chapter XXIII is "Of the Personality of the Deity". But
all can see your dogmatic assertion is soundly refuted. You said there
was not a single instance of Paley referencing scripture and I
supplied that single instance that makes your assertion wrong. So at
this point any decent person would admit their error and move on. But
you are incapable of this. Let's continue shall we?...(note ellipsis)
Exhibit C: http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/ef2ab01ff21014ed?hl=en
[begin Ray] Scholars, like History of Science scholar, Keith Thomson
(an evolutionist) do not consider the phrase you have quoted to be a
Bible reference. Paley employs quote marks but he does not provide any
reference to a verse of scripture. Said phrase is generic enough since
he is making a point concerning his thesis.
http://books.google.com/books?id=ndZrFZ_aNlkC&printsec=frontcover&dq=...
[Key words: "neither is the Bible"]
Professor Thomson, "Before Darwin" (2005:10):
"Miracles are not mentioned in Paley's book. Interestingly enough,
neither is the Bible."
What I said is based on Thomson. [end Ray]
In this post you hide behind the authority of Keith Thomson by
quoting a passage from his book that does not square with the Paley
quote I provide above. I provide TWO instances above where this quoted
passage apears in the New Testament John 1:18 and 1 John 4:12. If you
are honest you will look at your copy of Paley's _Natural Theology_
(assuming you have one) and then look up these passages in the New
Testament and realize that Paley directly quotes from scripture. Given
his theological background this is the only explanation for the
matching of these biblical passages with what appears in Paley's book.
If you are honest you will admit this and concede your error. Said
phrase is decidely not generic enough. It appears twice in the New
Testament. If you evade the facts of Scripture, how can you claim to
be a true Christian? If you deny Paley's quote is scriptural you are
bearing false witness. You made a mistake. You got called on it, but
you wish to pretend there is no mistake made. This evasion of yours is
shameful.
Anyway to rehash the recent history you are already rewriting:
Exhibit D: http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/6745667ab469f64f?hl=en
[begin Hemi] What I said is based on Paley. Google the quote "No man
hath seen God at any time." and see what you come up with. You were
making a dogmatic assertion based upon a second hand source. I do
admit my copy of Paley is based on an edition later than the 1802.
Maybe that edition lacks "No man hath seen God at any time." I dunno.
But my edition has the phrase. [end Hemi]
To which you replied:
Exhibit E: http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/203f60dffcb8e25c?hl=en
[begin Ray] I never denied. I agree Paley said it. [end Ray]
So you concede that Paley said it. The quote that appears twice in the
New Testament as I've shown does appear in Paley's book.
You go on with more in this post: [begin Ray] Now in this present
issue Paley uses Biblical terminology but he does not reference a
Bible verse. This single
occurrence does not constitute mentioning the Bible in Professor
Thomson's opinion (who is a evolutionist). I agree with Thomson. [end
quote]
Paley does more than use "Biblical terminology". He quotes a passage
that appears twice in the New Testament. That's a smoking gun. You are
refuted. He may not have "referenced" the source as I provide about
but if you were honest you would admit that it is a verbatim quote.
Please provide a quote of Thomsom where he specifically addresses this
Biblical verse quoted by Paley. Maybe he overlooked it. Regardless I
am not talking to Thomsom. I am talking to you. Both of us can see the
perfect matching between Paley's quote and the verses referenced
implicitly from the Bible. Your assertion is sunk (=bunk). Concede my
point.
And here's Exhibit F: http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/032ad6118a11b35f?hl=en
Which you failed to rebut or even follow up...
I will consider any further evasion as a concession that you were
wrong.
Ray Martinez
>
> - Show quoted text -
This message explains the absence of Elsberry (if he is not busy with
real life):
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/b0a192f19e941062?hl=en
The truth hurts.
Messages posted after the above message have Wesley losing his
composure and calling me a liar, Liar, LIAR (= substanceless non-
sequiturs). IIRC he did post one Biblical quote mine message implying
said passages spoke of me.
Ray
Ray Martinez
[Message is a corrected re-post; previous message was deleted because
of a major error.]
You have hit upon the fundamental difference between Creationists and
Evolutionists----their logic and way of thinking.
Evolutionist logic is demonstrably perverted: "design does not
indicate invisible Designer but the same is an illusion (at best) and
is produced by an undesigned and unguided material process (= natural
selection).
Ray
snex
> On Aug 6, 2:08 pm, Friar Broccoli <Elia...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Aug 6, 4:25 pm, johnethompson2...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
> > > On Aug 6, 12:17 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > Is Wesley on-the-run, or is he attempting to appear brave, or is he
> > > > busy with real life?
>
> > > >http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/16c9240dc1560bb7
>
> > > >http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/058425c1aa051bda
>
> > > > Ray
>
> > > Perhaps he sees no point in responding to an idiotic pathological liar.
>
> > Ray is not a liar of any form.
> > He just doesn't have the remotest understanding of logical
> > consistency.
>
> Evolutionists----their logic and way of thinking.
>
> Evolutionist logic is demonstrably perverted: "design does not
> produced by an undesigned and unguided material process (= natural
> selection).
>
> Ray
"evolutionist logic" is actually more like.. "the patterns displayed
by all living things is best explained by the common ancestry of those
living things"
how do YOU explain the nested hierarchy of living things? remember,
your answer must be testable by experimentation.
Dana Tweedy
>> No, it's a correct refusal to deal with CreRaytionist Crap!
>>
>> RAM- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
> This message explains the absence of Elsberry (if he is not busy with
> real life):
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/b0a192f19e941062?hl=en
>
> The truth hurts.
that seems to be why you tend to avoid the truth....
>
> Messages posted after the above message have Wesley losing his
> composure and calling me a liar, Liar, LIAR (= substanceless non-
> sequiturs).
Not if you are lying.
> IIRC he did post one Biblical quote mine message implying
> said passages spoke of me.
How about:
Psalms 92:6 A brutish man knoweth not; neither doth a fool understand
this.
Proverbs 10:8 The wise in heart will receive commandments: but a prating
fool shall fall.
or perhaps a very appropriate one:
Proverbs 11:29 He that troubleth his own house shall inherit the wind:
and the fool shall be servant to the wise of heart.
DJT
Ray Martinez
>
> - Show quoted text -
Nested hierarchy of living things is evolutionist jargon and concept;
it is an illusion; therefore it has no correspondence to scientific
reality----sorry.
Ray
Ray Martinez
I did not say "design"----you did. I said design----no quote marks.
It is a logical proposition: observation of design indicates the work
of invisble Designer.
>
>
> > > What useful, testable predictions does it make?
>
> > > What would falsify it?
>
> > If evolution were true, that is, undirected and unguided material
> > forces operating in reality causing living things, past and present,
> > to exist.
>
> That sentence does not parse (= a bunch of words strung together
> meaning nothing). How does that gibberish amount to a
> "falsification"?
>
What I said is what evolution claims so I agree it is gibberish.
>
>
> > > Seventh request from me alone, Brave Sir Robin Martinez. I can hear
> > > your coconuts retreating in the distance.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > That is the sound of howler monkeys on the march heading my way.
>
> That's because you are an easy target for displaying your stupidity
> and lack of understanding of the basics of science (= you're an
> idiot).
>
Since you believe apes morphed into men I feel no insult, but relief.
> If the above is an example of your "logic" that you are going to use
> in your "paper", you are in for a very sad surprise, if you ever post
> it (= cold day in hell before that happens).
>
> Boikat- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Ray
Dana Tweedy
>>
>> > On Aug 6, 12:17 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>> > > Is Wesley on-the-run, or is he attempting to appear brave, or is he
>> > > busy with real life?
>>
>> > >http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/16c9240dc1560bb7
>>
>> > >http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/058425c1aa051bda
>>
>> > > Ray
>>
>> > Perhaps he sees no point in responding to an idiotic pathological liar.
>>
>> He just doesn't have the remotest understanding of logical
>> consistency.
>
> You have hit upon the fundamental difference between Creationists and
> Evolutionists----their logic and way of thinking.
Yes, creationists tend not to understand logic, or a rational way of
thinking.
>
> Evolutionist logic is demonstrably perverted: "design does not
> indicate invisible Designer but the same is an illusion as best
> produced by an undesigned and unguided material process (= natural
> selection).
How is this "demonstratably perverted"? Where have you ever demonstrated
that accepting reality is "perverted"?
You've never been able to produce a scrap of evidence that design indicates
an invisible designer. You've made this assumption, and you've been shown
numerous times why it's not logical, or even rational. Then you accuse
others of being illogical because they don't agree with your own illogic.
It's a fact that natural processes, acting without any purposeful intent,
can, and do produce an appearance of design. You've been given many
examples of this. You have yet to produce a single example of any item
observed to be produced by an "invisible designer", much less an item that's
known to be designed.
Why, then do you feel it's logical to assume that an invisible designer must
be inferred from an appearance of design?
DJT
snex
it isnt an illusion at all. you can see it for yourself just by
examining living things and noting their characteristics. or do you
think linnean classification is wrong? if you think its wrong, point
out how.
snex
so then your argument is nothing but circular logic then? how do you
know that what you are seeing is actually design? what tests did you
perform to determine this?
<snip>
raven1
How does one test for design? Which is why Boikat put it in quotes.
Ray Martinez
> "Ray Martinez" <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> news:4c4a2d6e-14ca-4a20...@p31g2000prf.googlegroups.com...> On Aug 6, 3:35 pm, raven1 <quoththera...@nevermore.com> wrote:
>
> snip
>
>
>
> >> What, in a sentence or two, is the theory of Creationism, Brave Sir
> >> Robin Martinez?
>
> > Observation of design and organized complexity seen in each organism
> > and in nature as a whole corresponds----directly----to the work of
> > invisible Designer (= Divine causation operating in reality).
>
> The problem is, Ray, that the above isn't a theory, it's an assumption.
> This assumption of yours is not testable.
>
It is a logical assumption based on observation, which is the
cornerstone of the scientific method.
>
>
> >> What useful, testable predictions does it make?
>
> >> What would falsify it?
>
> > If evolution were true, that is, undirected and unguided material
> > forces operating in reality causing living things, past and present,
> > to exist.
>
> Then your assumption is falsified. Evolution is true, and undirected,
> material forces cause living things, past and present. Note, please that
> this does not falsifiy the idea that "divine causation is operating in
> reality". It only falsifies the idea that "divine causation" can be
> scientifically observed.
>
But that is exactly what we are talking about whether it was actually
stated or not: scientific reality-observation. Creationism says Divine
causation is operating in reality. The same causes species to exist.
>
>
> >> Seventh request from me alone, Brave Sir Robin Martinez. I can hear
> >> your coconuts retreating in the distance.- Hide quoted text -
>
> >> - Show quoted text -
>
> > That is the sound of howler monkeys on the march heading my way.
>
> Then why are you running away?
>
> DJT
You have headed my way and caught up with me. I suspect that your next
message will commence excrement flinging because you cannot refute.
Ray
raven1
<pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>On Aug 6, 2:08 pm, Friar Broccoli <Elia...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Aug 6, 4:25 pm, johnethompson2...@yahoo.com wrote:
>>
>> > On Aug 6, 12:17 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>> > > Is Wesley on-the-run, or is he attempting to appear brave, or is he
>> > > busy with real life?
>>
>> > >http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/16c9240dc1560bb7
>>
>> > >http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/058425c1aa051bda
>>
>> > > Ray
>>
>> > Perhaps he sees no point in responding to an idiotic pathological liar.
>>
>> Ray is not a liar of any form.
>> He just doesn't have the remotest understanding of logical
>> consistency.
>
>You have hit upon the fundamental difference between Creationists and
>Evolutionists----their logic and way of thinking.
Indeed, although not in the way that you think.
>Evolutionist logic is demonstrably perverted: "design does not
>indicate invisible Designer
Please explain how one detects design. A few sentences will suffice.
Appeals to personal incredulity will be ignored, as will suggestions
that complexity implies design.
>but the same is an illusion as best
>produced by an undesigned and unguided material process (= natural
>selection).
Again, how do you infer design and a designer from observed reality?
Bear in mind that "natural processes" is the default position of how
things got this way unless one has a reason to posit something else as
necessary.
So what reason do you have to postulate design, or a designer?
Dana Tweedy
> On Aug 6, 6:03 pm, "Dana Tweedy" <reddfr...@bresnan.net> wrote:
>> "Ray Martinez" <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>
>> news:4c4a2d6e-14ca-4a20...@p31g2000prf.googlegroups.com...>
>> On Aug 6, 3:35 pm, raven1 <quoththera...@nevermore.com> wrote:
>>
>> snip
>>
>>
>>
>> >> What, in a sentence or two, is the theory of Creationism, Brave Sir
>> >> Robin Martinez?
>>
>> > Observation of design and organized complexity seen in each organism
>> > and in nature as a whole corresponds----directly----to the work of
>> > invisible Designer (= Divine causation operating in reality).
>>
>> The problem is, Ray, that the above isn't a theory, it's an assumption.
>> This assumption of yours is not testable.
>>
>
> It is a logical assumption based on observation, which is the
> cornerstone of the scientific method.
As I've explained to you before, it's not logical. It's not based on
observation there has been no observation of any known design being produced
by an invisible designer.
>
>
>>
>>
>> >> What useful, testable predictions does it make?
>>
>> >> What would falsify it?
>>
>> > If evolution were true, that is, undirected and unguided material
>> > forces operating in reality causing living things, past and present,
>> > to exist.
>>
>> Then your assumption is falsified. Evolution is true, and undirected,
>> material forces cause living things, past and present. Note, please that
>> this does not falsifiy the idea that "divine causation is operating in
>> reality". It only falsifies the idea that "divine causation" can be
>> scientifically observed.
>>
>
> But that is exactly what we are talking about whether it was actually
> stated or not: scientific reality-observation.
The supernatural is not open to "scientific reality-observation".
> Creationism says Divine
> causation is operating in reality. The same causes species to exist.
That's why creationism is a religious belief. "Divine causation" acting
in reality cannot be observed. It must be accepted on faith.
>
>>
>>
>> >> Seventh request from me alone, Brave Sir Robin Martinez. I can hear
>> >> your coconuts retreating in the distance.- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> >> - Show quoted text -
>>
>> > That is the sound of howler monkeys on the march heading my way.
>>
>> Then why are you running away?
>>
>> DJT
>
> You have headed my way and caught up with me.
Which doesn't explain why you are running.
> I suspect that your next
> message will commence excrement flinging because you cannot refute.
Ray, I've refuted every claim you've made. I leave the excrement flinging
to you.
DJT
RAM
>Divine creation of living things is religious jargon and concept;
> it is an illusion; therefore it has no correspondence to scientific
> reality----sorry.[judicious editing by RAM]
>
> Ray
T Pagano
<pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>Is Wesley on-the-run, or is he attempting to appear brave, or is he
>busy with real life?
Before you came on the scene in the forum Elsberry ran a Transitional
Challenge. In it Elsberry provided a scientific report about the
minor modification of a foram shell over time and Creationists were
tasked to explain why the changes didn't constitute evidence of a
genuine transitional form.
In 2001 I got a copy of the scientific report and demonstrated that
Elsberry had misrepresented what the report portended to conclude and
that the data tended to show stasis (over the course of almost 15
million years) of the foram populations rather than evidence of
transitional forms.
Elsberry practically vanished from the forum claiming professional
duties.
In more recent times Elsberry has been equally embarassed in a public
way by Demski's three line crushing of a 50+ page diatribe of Elsberry
and Wilkins concerning Intelligent Design.
You won't be see much of him.
Regards,
T Pagano
Steven L.
> On Aug 6, 2:08 pm, Friar Broccoli <Elia...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Aug 6, 4:25 pm, johnethompson2...@yahoo.com wrote:
>>
>>>> Is Wesley on-the-run, or is he attempting to appear brave, or is he
>>>> busy with real life?
>>>> http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/058425c1aa051bda
>>>> Ray
>> Ray is not a liar of any form.
>> He just doesn't have the remotest understanding of logical
>> consistency.
>
> You have hit upon the fundamental difference between Creationists and
> Evolutionists----their logic and way of thinking.
>
> produced by an undesigned and unguided material process (= natural
> selection).
We're faced with that problem in many aspects of science, not just
evolution. And we've dealt with it--successfully.
When astronomers looked up into the sky, which they have done for
thousands of years, they saw all kinds of stars: Near ones and far
ones; giant stars and dwarf stars; red stars and yellow stars and blue
stars.
And they began to ask questions: Did the little stars ever turn into
big stars? Did the big stars ever turn into little stars? Did the
yellow stars ever turn into red stars? Always, often, sometimes, or never?
The answers to these questions turned out to involve time scales of
millions or even billions of years, before Man existed in this Universe.
Hence no human being has ever, or may ever, observe the entire life
cycle of any star. Yet we now have pretty good theories of those life
cycles. And those theories do *NOT* require repeated divine
intervention for each star to explain how stars are born, live, evolve,
and perish. (Except, perhaps, on the very grandest scale--God making
the natural laws at the very start of the Universe and then just letting
things run their course.)
If you're willing to accept astronomy and astrophysics as valid
reasoning about the evolution of stars according to natural law, then
why can't we also try to figure out how life on Earth could evolve
according to natural law. I don't see why repeated divine intervention
must necessarily be invoked to explain the latter but not the former.
--
Steven L.
Email: sdli...@earthlinkNOSPAM.net
Remove the NOSPAM before replying to me.
Dana Tweedy
>>
>> > Observation of design and organized complexity seen in each organism
>> > and in nature as a whole corresponds----directly----to the work of
>> > invisible Designer (= Divine causation operating in reality).
>>
>> How do you know the "design" is the work of an intelligent designer,
>> and how would you test your assertion? BTW, arguments from
>> incredulity is not a valid supporting statement (=no theory so far)
>>
>
> I did not say "design"----you did. I said design----no quote marks.
Which was Boikat's point. You are assuming design, when it's "design".
>
> It is a logical proposition: observation of design indicates the work
> of invisble Designer.
No, that's an illogical assumption. There has never been any observed
instance of known design corresponding with an invisible designer.
Therefore it's not logical to assume an "invisible designer" when it's not
known if the object is designed or not. Even when design is known, it's
highly illogical to assume a type of designer that has never been observed.
>
>
>>
>>
>> > > What useful, testable predictions does it make?
>>
>> > > What would falsify it?
>>
>> > If evolution were true, that is, undirected and unguided material
>> > forces operating in reality causing living things, past and present,
>> > to exist.
>>
>> That sentence does not parse (= a bunch of words strung together
>> meaning nothing). How does that gibberish amount to a
>> "falsification"?
>>
>
> What I said is what evolution claims so I agree it is gibberish.
Evolution itself makes a great deal of sense. It's your misunderstanding of
evolution which is gibberish.
>
>
>>
>>
>> > > Seventh request from me alone, Brave Sir Robin Martinez. I can hear
>> > > your coconuts retreating in the distance.- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> > > - Show quoted text -
>>
>> > That is the sound of howler monkeys on the march heading my way.
>>
>> That's because you are an easy target for displaying your stupidity
>> and lack of understanding of the basics of science (= you're an
>> idiot).
>>
>
> Since you believe apes morphed into men I feel no insult, but relief.
The evidence clearly shows that humans are a species of ape. The phrase
"apes morphed into men" makes as little sense as "birds morphed into
chickens". Also, why do you feel relief to be an idiot?
snip the rest, which Ray avoided
DJT
>
>
Boikat
Got anything to back up that claim?
Of course you don't. It's just more mindless cretinoid blathercrap.
Boikat
Rupert Morrish
[snip]
> It is a logical proposition: observation of design indicates the work
> of invisble Designer.
I observe that my chair was designed. I even have the name of the
designer. Please explain why you think he is invisible.
[snip]
Rupert Morrish
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>> On Aug 6, 1:25 pm, johnethompson2...@yahoo.com wrote:
>>>> On Aug 6, 12:17 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>> Is Wesley on-the-run, or is he attempting to appear brave, or is he
>>>>> busy with real life?
>>>>> http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/16c9240dc1560bb7
>>>>> http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/058425c1aa051bda
>>>>> Ray
>>>> Perhaps he sees no point in responding to an idiotic pathological liar.
>> I seem to recall him replying in full in a different thread, but
>> you've got a lot of balls accusing him of running away, considering
>> your own track record:
>>
>> Robin Martinez?
>>
>
> and in nature as a whole corresponds----directly----to the work of
> invisible Designer (= Divine causation operating in reality).
>
You missed the most important question. If it doesn't make useful or
testable predictions, why should we care if it's true or not?
>>
>> What would falsify it?
>
> If evolution were true, that is, undirected and unguided material
> forces operating in reality causing living things, past and present,
> to exist.
I think we were hoping for a hypothetical observation that would falsify
creationism. But we'll work with what you've given us.
Your statement, as I see it, implies that if EITHER undirected and
unguided material forces operating in reality caused living things to
exist in the past OR undirected and unguided material forces operating
in reality cause living things to exist in the present BUT NOT BOTH then
creationism is not falsified. It seems that you're open to Behe's
argument that the Designer may be dead, but also to the negation of that
- that the Designer came into existence quite recently (last Thursday,
perhaps?).
If that's not what you mean, perhaps you could tighten up your
statement. The phrase "operating in reality" is redundant. Reality is
the only place science is competent to discuss.
>
>> Seventh request from me alone, Brave Sir Robin Martinez. I can hear
>> your coconuts retreating in the distance.- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
> That is the sound of howler monkeys on the march heading my way.
>
> Ray
>
>
Boikat
You said "designer", fucktard. A "designer" "designs", fuctard.
>
> It is a logical proposition: observation of design indicates the work
> of invisble Designer.
See? Now you did say "design", which was implied in your earlier
comment. Now, if i's a "logical" proposition, you should be able to
logically support the claim without resorting to arguments of
incredulity (Ooooh! It's too complext. My brain hurts trying to
figger it out, GOODIDIT!!!) or arguments from ignorance ("Since
science can't figger it out GODDIDIT!!!!")
>
>
> > > > What useful, testable predictions does it make?
>
> > > > What would falsify it?
>
> > > If evolution were true, that is, undirected and unguided material
> > > forces operating in reality causing living things, past and present,
> > > to exist.
>
> > That sentence does not parse (= a bunch of words strung together
> > meaning nothing). How does that gibberish amount to a
> > "falsification"?
>
> What I said is what evolution claims so I agree it is gibberish.
That's hi-larious. You spout gibberish, therefore evolution is
false. Is that a preview of your fictitious paper?
>
>
>
> > > > Seventh request from me alone, Brave Sir Robin Martinez. I can hear
> > > > your coconuts retreating in the distance.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > > That is the sound of howler monkeys on the march heading my way.
>
> > That's because you are an easy target for displaying your stupidity
> > and lack of understanding of the basics of science (= you're an
> > idiot).
>
> Since you believe apes morphed into men I feel no insult, but relief.
If you think the evolutionary process involves "apes morphing into
men", then the ToE has nothing to fear from your fictitious paper,
since that is not how the process occurs, moron. Besides, along the
same lines of ignorant spittle that you cretiniods spout about a new
species of fruit fly (but it's still a fruit fly), humans are still
apes, whether you like it or not.
>
> > If the above is an example of your "logic" that you are going to use
> > in your "paper", you are in for a very sad surprise, if you ever post
> > it (= cold day in hell before that happens).
No rebutal (= I hit the nail on the head, and ratard knows it.)
Boikat
Rupert Morrish
>>
>>> On Aug 6, 12:17 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>> Is Wesley on-the-run, or is he attempting to appear brave, or is he
>>>> busy with real life?
>>>> http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/16c9240dc1560bb7
>>>> http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/058425c1aa051bda
>>>> Ray
>>> Perhaps he sees no point in responding to an idiotic pathological liar.
>> He just doesn't have the remotest understanding of logical
>> consistency.
>
> You have hit upon the fundamental difference between Creationists and
> Evolutionists----their logic and way of thinking.
>
> Evolutionist logic is demonstrably perverted: "design does not
> indicate invisible Designer but the same is an illusion as best
> produced by an undesigned and unguided material process (= natural
> selection).
This is not true. Those you refer to as evolutionists quite readily
admit that the appearance of design can be due to intelligent designers
(it would, as you say, be perverted to say otherwise). The same
appearance can also be due to unintelligent processes. That is why the
appearance of design is absolutely worthless in determining whether or
not something actually is designed.
>
> Ray
>
Rupert Morrish
Sorry, there are still major errors in your post. The appearance of
design is not necessarily an illusion. However, if one observes both
intelligent designers and unintelligent natural processes producing the
same appearance of design, it is ridiculous to assert that the
appearance of design tells us anything about which it was.
>
> Ray
>
>
Pata...@gmail.com
Evolution is, basically, a drive towards species solving problems; the
problems of surviving in one's environment and successfully
reproducing for the next generation. So, yes, it can result in design,
design that solves these problems by testing new prototypes and having
a tendency to favor those that are on the right track.
Also, why can't a Designer create a world who's lifeforms use the
process of evolution to refine and become more suited to their
environment and competitor?
What would design that cannot be made by evolution look like?
Rupert Morrish
Excuse me. I'm an ape, and I definitely wasn't always a man (as in adult
male), though I am one now. So at some point, this ape morphed into a man.
It really hurts agreeing with Ray, though I get some comfort from the
fact he won't thank me for it.
Anthony Williams
> On Aug 6, 6:07 pm, "*Hemidactylus*" <ecpho...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Aug 6, 7:26 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Aug 6, 3:42 pm, "*Hemidactylus*" <ecpho...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Aug 6, 3:17 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:> Is Wesley on-the-run, or is he attempting to appear brave, or is he
>>>>
>>>>> busy with real life?
>>>>>
>>>>> http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/16c9240dc1560bb7
>>>>>
>>>>> http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/058425c1aa051bda
>>>>>
>>>> quoted (=made reference to) Scripture in _Natural Theology_? Is your
>>>> spat with Elsberry a convenient cover for the fact that you mistakenly
>>>> hid your dogmatic assertion behind the authority of a secondary source
>>>> on Paley? Does it bother you that an atheist like me called you on an
>>>> important detail of Paleyian Designism and its relation to Holy
>>>> Scripture? Are you hoping talk.origins regulars and lurkers will
>>>> forget that blunder of yours?
>>>>
>>>> It's ironic that you go after Elsberry by accusing him of running
>>>> away? Are you projecting?
>>>>
>>> I answered your post. You have yet to create a rebuttal that addresses
>>> my answer.
>>>
>> You are an evading twit. I know this is a complete waste of time on my
>> part because you are incapable of honest discussion, but here it goes
>> anyway:
>>
>> Exhibit A:http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/128459d6af54b707?hl=en
>>
>> You assert: [begin Ray] Paley 1802, which all ID science is based on,
>> does not contain a single reference to scripture. Paley, of course,
>> was an ordained Minister accountable to a local congregation. [end
>> Ray]
>>
>>
>
> I have since provided a reference by a major scholar.
>
>
>> You and especially your readers here can see plainly that you asserted
>> that Paley in _Natural Theology_ "does not contain a single reference
>> to scripture". Is this correct? Am I misreading your words? Given the
>> boldness of your assertion I merely need point to a single reference
>> to scripture to blow your assertion out of the water (=refute you
>> soundly). Are you ready now Ray? Follow closely. Put your thinking cap
>> on because we can't have you daydreaming about your paper right now.
>>
>> Exhibit B:http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/7a14ba3fd2ffb8d5?hl=en
>>
>> I refute your assertion: [begin Hemi] In William Paley's book _Natural
>> Theology_ look at Chapter XXIII called "Of the Personality of Deity".
>> Paley opens the second paragraph of this chapter as follows:
>>
>> [begin Paley quote] "No man hath seen God at any time." [end Paley
>> quote]
>>
>>
>
> STOP.
>
> I agree that those words appear in Paley 1802. But no reference to a
> Bible verse is provided by Paley. But we know said phrase does appear
> in the Bible.
>
> Paley is simply using Biblical terminology to make a point. He cannot
> in good conscience utter such a phrase without somehow indicating that
> it is not an original thought----hence the quote marks, but no chapter
> and verse reference is provided.
>
>
>> Now Ray, I'm sure you have a Bible handy. Or you can ask the Big Guy
>> himself. Its the red phone on your desk. If you thumb to either John
>> 1:18 or to 1 John 4:12 you will notice that Paley was making a
>> REFERENCE TO SCRIPTURE!
>>
>
> Reference means book, chapter and verse. None of these appear. I have
> begun above to explain why.
>
>
>> You asserted above that Paley makes not a
>> single scriptural reference and I soundly refuted you with one
>> instance of Paley doing just that. [end Hemi quote]
>>
>> So here we have me soundly refuting you. I did make a minor typo in
>> that Paley's chapter XXIII is "Of the Personality of the Deity". But
>> all can see your dogmatic assertion is soundly refuted. You said there
>> was not a single instance of Paley referencing scripture and I
>> supplied that single instance that makes your assertion wrong. So at
>> this point any decent person would admit their error and move on. But
>> you are incapable of this. Let's continue shall we?...(note ellipsis)
>>
>> Exhibit C:http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/ef2ab01ff21014ed?hl=en
>>
>> [begin Ray] Scholars, like History of Science scholar, Keith Thomson
>> (an evolutionist) do not consider the phrase you have quoted to be a
>> Bible reference. Paley employs quote marks but he does not provide any
>> reference to a verse of scripture. Said phrase is generic enough since
>> he is making a point concerning his thesis.
>>
>> http://books.google.com/books?id=ndZrFZ_aNlkC&printsec=frontcover&dq=...
>>
>> [Key words: "neither is the Bible"]
>>
>> Professor Thomson, "Before Darwin" (2005:10):
>>
>> "Miracles are not mentioned in Paley's book. Interestingly enough,
>> neither is the Bible."
>>
>> What I said is based on Thomson. [end Ray]
>>
>> In this post you hide behind the authority of Keith Thomson by
>> quoting a passage from his book that does not square with the Paley
>> quote I provide above.
>>
>
> I agree with Keith Thomson that said phrase does not constitute a
> mention of the Bible (in view of the length of the entire paper).
>
> Please listen closely:
>
> I have admitted that said phrase does appear in the Bible but Paley is
> not arguing the Bible, that is why it is not a reference with proper
> attribution. Thomson, who is an evolutionist, recognizes this.
>
> In a previous topic, as you know, I have tangled with Wesley Elsberry.
> Initially I argued that since Phillip Johnson quoted one Bible verse
> in one book of his against evolutionary theory that this single
> REFERENCE does not harm his identification of Johnson to be a "non-
> scripturalist...."
>
> Both Wesley and I agree that Johnson made one scripture reference in
> one antievolution book of his and that this single occurence does
> nothing to harm the fact that Wesely correctly identifies him to not
> use scripture as a basis and reason to reject evolutionary theory.
>
> Concerning Paley you are missing the point: his actual *thesis* does
> not mention the Bible (Thomson); his use of one Biblical phrase,
> properly understood as termonology because it lacks proper
> attribution, does not harm Thomson's fact.
>
> John van Wyhe is Darwin scholar. He has published a fascinating paper
> advancing an original claim of fact: that Darwin DID NOT delay
> publishing his evolution theory----that he published his theory
> according to a plan worked out many years beforehand, hence no
> intentional delay. This argument contradicts ALL published
> scholarship, and, more importantly, it contradicts what Darwin himself
> has said:
>
> Charles Darwin:
>
> "I gained much by my delay in publishing from about 1839, when the
> theory was clearly conceived, to 1859; and I lost nothing by
> it...." (Autobio:124).
>
> The van Wyhe paper:
>
> http://darwin-online.org.uk/people/van_Wyhe_2007_Mind_the_gap_did_Darwin_avoid_publishing_his_theory.pdf
>
> "WHAT DELAY?
>
> In his autobiography (written from 1876) Darwin wrote, ‘I gained much
> by my delay in publishing from about 1839, when the theory was clearly
> conceived, to 1859; and I lost nothing by it’. Here, it might be
> argued, is a straightforward admission of intentional delay by Darwin
> himself. But not so. Only with avoidance already in mind can it be
> read in this way. Darwin’s family, friends and contemporaries such as
> Francis Darwin, Huxley, Wallace and scores of biographers also read
> this passage but left behind no trace that they thought Darwin dared
> not publish. Here is the rub. The phrase ‘my delay in publishing’ has
> two legitimate and straightforward interpretations.
>
> 1. ‘Delay’ means the time during which publication was avoided.
>
> 2. ‘Delay’ means the span of time that happened to transpire between
> conceiving and publishing (with no avoidance involved)."
>
> Ray: Of course van Wyhe also uses many other quotes by Darwin that
> support his interpretation of the passage. The point is that scholars
> determine facts. They do make errors but some things are not as they
> seem at first glance.
>
> Conclusion: The appearance of said phrase in Paley 1802 does not harm
> Thomson's fact for all the reasons stated and argued in this post.
>
>
>> I provide TWO instances above where this quoted
>> passage apears in the New Testament John 1:18 and 1 John 4:12. If you
>> are honest you will look at your copy of Paley's _Natural Theology_
>> (assuming you have one) and then look up these passages in the New
>> Testament and realize that Paley directly quotes from scripture. Given
>> his theological background this is the only explanation for the
>> matching of these biblical passages with what appears in Paley's book.
>> If you are honest you will admit this and concede your error. Said
>> phrase is decidely not generic enough. It appears twice in the New
>> Testament. If you evade the facts of Scripture, how can you claim to
>> be a true Christian? If you deny Paley's quote is scriptural you are
>> bearing false witness. You made a mistake. You got called on it, but
>> you wish to pretend there is no mistake made. This evasion of yours is
>> shameful.
>>
>> Anyway to rehash the recent history you are already rewriting:
>>
>> Exhibit D:http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/6745667ab469f64f?hl=en
>>
>> [begin Hemi] What I said is based on Paley. Google the quote "No man
>> hath seen God at any time." and see what you come up with. You were
>> making a dogmatic assertion based upon a second hand source. I do
>> admit my copy of Paley is based on an edition later than the 1802.
>> Maybe that edition lacks "No man hath seen God at any time." I dunno.
>> But my edition has the phrase. [end Hemi]
>>
>> To which you replied:
>>
>> Exhibit E:http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/203f60dffcb8e25c?hl=en
>>
>> [begin Ray] I never denied. I agree Paley said it. [end Ray]
>>
>> So you concede that Paley said it. The quote that appears twice in the
>> New Testament as I've shown does appear in Paley's book.
>>
>> You go on with more in this post: [begin Ray] Now in this present
>> issue Paley uses Biblical terminology but he does not reference a
>> Bible verse. This single
>> occurrence does not constitute mentioning the Bible in Professor
>> Thomson's opinion (who is a evolutionist). I agree with Thomson. [end
>> quote]
>>
>> Paley does more than use "Biblical terminology". He quotes a passage
>> that appears twice in the New Testament. That's a smoking gun. You are
>> refuted. He may not have "referenced" the source as I provide about
>> but if you were honest you would admit that it is a verbatim quote.
>> Please provide a quote of Thomsom where he specifically addresses this
>> Biblical verse quoted by Paley. Maybe he overlooked it. Regardless I
>> am not talking to Thomsom. I am talking to you. Both of us can see the
>> perfect matching between Paley's quote and the verses referenced
>> implicitly from the Bible. Your assertion is sunk (=bunk). Concede my
>> point.
>>
>> And here's Exhibit F:http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/032ad6118a11b35f?hl=en
>>
>> Which you failed to rebut or even follow up...
>>
>> I will consider any further evasion as a concession that you were
>> wrong.- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>>
>
>
>
>
Ray, you got you ass handed to you. Your attempted defense is akin to
saying "I know cause my daddy told me so."
Shane
> On Wed, 6 Aug 2008 12:17:00 -0700 (PDT), Ray Martinez
> <pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>Is Wesley on-the-run, or is he attempting to appear brave, or is he
>>busy with real life?
>
> Before you came on the scene in the forum Elsberry ran a Transitional
> Challenge. In it Elsberry provided a scientific report about the
> minor modification of a foram shell over time and Creationists were
> tasked to explain why the changes didn't constitute evidence of a
> genuine transitional form.
>
> In 2001 I got a copy of the scientific report and demonstrated that
> Elsberry had misrepresented what the report portended to conclude and
> that the data tended to show stasis (over the course of almost 15
> million years) of the foram populations rather than evidence of
> transitional forms.
>
> Elsberry practically vanished from the forum claiming professional
> duties.
>
> In more recent times Elsberry has been equally embarassed in a public
> way by Demski's three line crushing of a 50+ page diatribe of Elsberry
> and Wilkins concerning Intelligent Design.
>
> You won't be see much of him.
>
> Regards,
> T Pagano
"WE'RE going through!" Tony's voice was like thin ice
breaking. He wore his full-dress uniform, with the heavily
braided white cap pulled down rakishly over one cold gray
eye--the best possible eye, intelligently designed you know.
"We can't make it, sir. It's spoiling for a debate, if you
ask me." "I'm not asking you, Martinez," said Tony. "Throw
on the non-sequiturs! Rev up the strawman arguments! We're
going through!" The pounding of the whining increased:
goddidit-goddidit-goddidit-goddidit-goddidit. Tony stared at
the evidence forming on the pilot window. He walked over and
looked at a row of refuted arguments. "Try no beneficial
mutations!" he shouted. "No beneficial mutations!" repeated
Martinez. "2Lot makes evolution impossible!" shouted Tony.
"2Lot makes evolution impossible!" The deluded, bending to
their various rituals in the huge, hurtling Creationist Big
Tent, looked at each other and grinned. "Tony'll get us
through," they said to one another. "Tony aint afraid of
evidence!" . . .
Jim Willemin
> On Aug 6, 6:03 pm, "Dana Tweedy" <reddfr...@bresnan.net> wrote:
>> "Ray Martinez" <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>
>> news:4c4a2d6e-14ca-4a20-b06d-ddfa9e6233d8
@p31g2000prf.googlegroups.com
>> ...> On Aug 6, 3:35 pm, raven1 <quoththera...@nevermore.com> wrote:
>>
>> snip
>>
>>
>>
>> >> What, in a sentence or two, is the theory of Creationism, Brave
>> >> Sir Robin Martinez?
>>
>> > Observation of design and organized complexity seen in each
>> > organism and in nature as a whole corresponds----directly----to the
>> > work of invisible Designer (= Divine causation operating in
>> > reality).
>>
>> The problem is, Ray, that the above isn't a theory, it's an
>> assumption. This assumption of yours is not testable.
>>
>
> It is a logical assumption based on observation, which is the
> cornerstone of the scientific method.
>
But the next step is to test that assumption. If you reflect even for a
moment, you discover that every last damn scientific advance made in the
last several thousand years results from testing 'logical assumptions
based on observation' and finding those assumptions flawed. The true
cornerstone of the scientific method is testing - and the ability and
willingness to discard 'logical assumptions' when those conflict with
reality. Now, I'll grant that your reality differs in significant ways
from corroborative reality, but the fact remains, as Dana points out,
that your 'logical assumption' cannot be tested - which means that
everything based on that assumption is not science, Further, since some
of your conclusions (e.g. natural selection does not occur; speciation
does not occur) are shown by observed counterexample to be false, it
follows that either your logical assumption is false, or the chain of
reasoning leading to your conclusions is mistaken, or (as it seems to me
most likely) both.
>>
>>
>> >> What useful, testable predictions does it make?
>>
>> >> What would falsify it?
>>
>> > If evolution were true, that is, undirected and unguided material
>> > forces operating in reality causing living things, past and
>> > present, to exist.
Is every occurrence of reproduction in living things directed or guided?
How? What suspension of natural laws occurs during mitosis to direct
the outcome?
>>
>> Then your assumption is falsified. Evolution is true, and
>> undirected, material forces cause living things, past and present.
>> Note, please that this does not falsifiy the idea that "divine
>> causation is operating in reality". It only falsifies the idea
>> that "divine causation" can be scientifically observed.
>>
>
> But that is exactly what we are talking about whether it was actually
> stated or not: scientific reality-observation. Creationism says Divine
> causation is operating in reality. The same causes species to exist.
>
But how do you know this? As far as I can tell, 'Divine causation' is
indistinguishable from 'unguided material forces' in terms of observable
results. If you know Divine causation exists because you assume the
appearance of design in nature reflects Divine causation, it seems to me
that you might just as well forget science altogether and just claim you
know Divine casuation exists because you know Divine causation exists.
<snip.
Friar Broccoli
> On Aug 6, 2:08 pm, Friar Broccoli <Elia...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
> > > On Aug 6, 12:17 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > Is Wesley on-the-run, or is he attempting to appear brave, or is he
> > > > busy with real life?
>
>
> > > >http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/058425c1aa051bda
>
> > > > Ray
>
> > > Perhaps he sees no point in responding to an idiotic pathological liar.
>
> > He just doesn't have the remotest understanding of logical
> > consistency.
>
> [Message is a corrected re-post; previous message was deleted because
> of a major error.]
>
> You have hit upon the fundamental difference between Creationists and
> Evolutionists----their logic and way of thinking.
Ray, your personal logic insists that:
- every word of the bible is true but that James, which is in the
bible, is false.
- a hole in a pyramid (however lined-up) "trumps" direct evidence for
the evolution of humans.
I know you honestly believe the above ideas to be rational, which
is why I don't believe you are lying.
Seamus
> On Aug 6, 1:25 pm, johnethompson2...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
> > On Aug 6, 12:17 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > Is Wesley on-the-run, or is he attempting to appear brave, or is he
> > > busy with real life?
>
> > >http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/16c9240dc1560bb7
>
> > >http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/058425c1aa051bda
>
> > > Ray
>
> > Perhaps he sees no point in responding to an idiotic pathological liar.
>
>
Sez Ray "The Black Knight" Martinez.
(for y'all who are not Python savvy, the Black Knight loses his arms
and legs to a superior foe (Arthur) and though abolutely defeated,
refuses to admit it)
http://www.mwscomp.com/movies/grail/grail-04.htm
Seamus
> Is Wesley on-the-run, or is he attempting to appear brave, or is he
> busy with real life?
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/16c9240dc1560bb7
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/058425c1aa051bda
>
> Ray
Ray:
Ray always triumphs! Have at you! Come on, then.
[whop]
[ARTHUR chops the Ray's last leg off]
Ray:
Oh? All right, we'll call it a draw.
ARTHUR:
Come, Patsy.
Ray:
Oh. Oh, I see. Running away, eh? You yellow bastards! Come back here
and take what's coming to you. I'll bite your legs off!
half...@bfe.inc
>It is a logical proposition: observation of design indicates the work
>of invisble Designer.
Snip
I guess all the engineers in the world have gone "see through". I can
visualize the movie now "The March of the Invisible Designers." We
can't seem to tell who stars in it however.
Rolf
"Ray Martinez" <pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:2b16a512-8f82-44cb...@b30g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
> Is Wesley on-the-run, or is he attempting to appear brave, or is he
> busy with real life?
>
Why aren't you busy with Pandas Thumb, after all the whining about being
banned? We need you there, it is too sciency! We know that science= atheism
but we need you at PT to remind us.
Rolf
> On Aug 6, 6:04 pm, Boikat <boi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> > On Aug 6, 6:24 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > > On Aug 6, 3:35 pm, raven1 <quoththera...@nevermore.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> > > > <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > > >On Aug 6, 1:25 pm, johnethompson2...@yahoo.com wrote:
> >
> > > > >> > Is Wesley on-the-run, or is he attempting to appear brave, or
is he
> > > > >> > busy with real life?
> >
> >
> > > > >> >http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/058425c1aa051bda
> >
> > > > >> > Ray
> >
liar.
> >
> > > > >It's called Brave Sir Robin Elsberry.
> >
> > > > you've got a lot of balls accusing him of running away, considering
> > > > your own track record:
> >
> > > > Robin Martinez?
> >
> > > Observation of design and organized complexity seen in each organism
> > > and in nature as a whole corresponds----directly----to the work of
> > > invisible Designer (= Divine causation operating in reality).
> >
> > and how would you test your assertion? BTW, arguments from
> > incredulity is not a valid supporting statement (=no theory so far)
> >
>
> I did not say "design"----you did. I said design----no quote marks.
>
> of invisble Designer.
>
What is the logical connection between "design" and "invisible designer"?
How do you observe design? Do you have a biological substrate that bears the
signature of an "invisible designer"?
How do you determine whether the "designer" is invisible or not?
These are important questions. Please present your obervations. With all the
details. Where, when, how and so on. A comprehensive report; you know, maybe
like an academic would do?
A Nobel prize is guaranteed.
Or is it all your secret, to be published in the unlikely event that your
paper gets finished?
>
> >
> >
> > > > What useful, testable predictions does it make?
> >
> > > > What would falsify it?
> >
> > > If evolution were true, that is, undirected and unguided material
> > > forces operating in reality causing living things, past and present,
> > > to exist.
> >
> > That sentence does not parse (= a bunch of words strung together
> > meaning nothing). How does that gibberish amount to a
> > "falsification"?
> >
>
> What I said is what evolution claims so I agree it is gibberish.
>
>
> >
> >
> > > > Seventh request from me alone, Brave Sir Robin Martinez. I can hear
> > > > your coconuts retreating in the distance.- Hide quoted text -
> >
> > > > - Show quoted text -
> >
> > > That is the sound of howler monkeys on the march heading my way.
> >
> > That's because you are an easy target for displaying your stupidity
> > and lack of understanding of the basics of science (= you're an
> > idiot).
> >
>
> Since you believe apes morphed into men I feel no insult, but relief.
>
> > If the above is an example of your "logic" that you are going to use
> > in your "paper", you are in for a very sad surprise, if you ever post
> > it (= cold day in hell before that happens).
> >
> > Boikat- Hide quoted text -
Rolf
> >
> > > On Aug 6, 12:17 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> > > > Is Wesley on-the-run, or is he attempting to appear brave, or is he
> > > > busy with real life?
> >
> > > >http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/16c9240dc1560bb7
> >
> > > >http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/058425c1aa051bda
> >
> > > > Ray
> >
> > > Perhaps he sees no point in responding to an idiotic pathological
liar.
> >
> > He just doesn't have the remotest understanding of logical
> > consistency.
>
> Evolutionists----their logic and way of thinking.
>
> produced by an undesigned and unguided material process (= natural
> selection).
>
You keep demonstrating that you do not know what natural selection is. FYI:
It is not an "unguided material process." It is a concept embodying *all*
the mechanisms, reasons, contingencies, factors that determine the degree of
reproductive success by the individuals within a population.
We know, (but you don't) that individuals in a population are not
genetically identical. There are variations. Depending on its particular
variation, an individual may produce more or fewer offspring than average,
thus increasing the percentage of individuals sharing its genes.
This very mechanism also is the reason why the particular genetic variations
of individuals that are less effective with respect to reproductive success
eventually disappear, are lost from the population.
When you have been able to understand this, it may be time for you to learn
a few of the reasons why and how there are genetic variations present within
a population.
Interesting times ahead, dear Ray! I am sure that we will find plenty of
good stuff for incorporation in your paper. Even if it should mean up to
fifty years additional delay, I think it can only be good for your paper.
To put you in the right mood, here is a teaser: Can you think of any reasons
why some individuals produce more offspring than others? And vice-versa: Why
some have fewer children? I have some key words in mind, but I will not
spoil the fun of discovery for you!
Best of all, you will be doing something useful instead of the insane rally
you are engaging in here these days.
Or are you already round the bend like I prophezied years ago?
> Ray
>
RAM
Very Good. This really captures the "Sinking Ship of Creation" the
Fundamentalists Titanic hit by evidence that melts and reforms in a
well know scientific process. Their only hope is that science will
melt away like our ice.
RAM
Rolf
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > > On Aug 6, 2:08 pm, Friar Broccoli <Elia...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > > On Aug 6, 4:25 pm, johnethompson2...@yahoo.com wrote:
> >
> >
> > > > > > Is Wesley on-the-run, or is he attempting to appear brave, or is
he
> > > > > > busy with real life?
> >
> >
> > > > > >http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/058425c1aa051bda
> >
> > > > > > Ray
> >
> > > > > Perhaps he sees no point in responding to an idiotic pathological
liar.
> >
> > > > Ray is not a liar of any form.
> > > > He just doesn't have the remotest understanding of logical
> > > > consistency.
> >
> > > You have hit upon the fundamental difference between Creationists and
> > > Evolutionists----their logic and way of thinking.
> >
> > > Evolutionist logic is demonstrably perverted: "design does not
> > > indicate invisible Designer but the same is an illusion as best
> > > produced by an undesigned and unguided material process (= natural
> > > selection).
> >
> >
> > "evolutionist logic" is actually more like.. "the patterns displayed
> > by all living things is best explained by the common ancestry of those
> > living things"
> >
> > how do YOU explain the nested hierarchy of living things? remember,
> >
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> it is an illusion; therefore it has no correspondence to scientific
> reality----sorry.
>
Have you studied the subject? Do you know the premises? Can you even tell us
what you *think* a "nested hierarchy" is? You know, the words mean
something, and the meaning tells us something abut what they mean. so what
do those two words mean when connected like this? Take the words one by one
and when you think you understand, then put them together and see if you can
make sense of it.
> Ray
>
Rolf
reply at 1:26, = 4:09 hours.
Augray
<pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote in
<c0ff1a82-5b67-4abf...@a8g2000prf.googlegroups.com> :
>On Aug 6, 6:43 pm, snex <s...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> On Aug 6, 8:29 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
[snip]
>> how do YOU explain the nested hierarchy of living things? remember,
>> your answer must be testable by experimentation.- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
>Nested hierarchy of living things is evolutionist jargon and concept;
>it is an illusion; therefore it has no correspondence to scientific
>reality----sorry.
So, the nested hierarchy is an illusion, but design isn't? How do you
know that the designer didn't design the nested hierarchy?
TomS
<h58m94dmom9glq9j2...@4ax.com>, Augray stated..."
And the similarity between the bodies of humans and
chimps and other apes ...
Is that just an illusion?
An interesting test for reality is whether it makes
risky predictions.
The tree of life (and the similarities among primates)
makes risky predictions. Lots of them. Lots of predictions
which have resulted in significant discoveries. Lots of
predictions which are still being tested.
Lots more predictions than "the vertebrate eye is really
complex" has ever made.
--
---Tom S.
"As scarce as truth is, the supply has always been in excess of the demand."
attributed to Josh Billings
TomS
And the similarity between the bodies of humans and
Wesley R. Elsberry
Wednesday 06 August 2008 03:17 pm, Ray Martinez wrote:
RM> Is Wesley on-the-run, or is he attempting to appear brave, or is he
RM> busy with real life?
RM> http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/16c9240dc1560bb7
RM> http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/058425c1aa051bda
RM> Ray
Fourth choice: these issues have been adequately answered and nothing Ray
has said has indicated any change in that.
(1) Ray was going on about a supposed unmarked deletion. Once Ray was proven
wrong in his accusation (see "Appendix A" in Message-ID
<cYednanG3qHfTAXV...@cablespeedmi.com>), Ray started
complaining aobut a different topic, finding fault with me for not
somehow 'acknowledging' that Ray admitted that a previous false accusation
of his against me was without merit.
That accusation of Ray's:
[Quote]
RM> And Phillip Johnson is not a "non-scripturalist creationist anti-
RM> evolutionist." He accepts Scripture. Simply read his books. Elsberry
RM> should do the same before making these types of egregious errors.
[End quote]
Ray is not the injured party in this exchange; there is no obligation on my
part to soothe his ego.
[Quote]
Like I said, once Ray has recognized he was wrong on something, it's no
longer an issue of discussion. It's only the remaining things that Ray is
wrong on that I have any need to take up.
[End quote -- WRE]
If it will make Ray feel better, here's an acknowledgment: I acknowledge
that Ray Martinez was wrong about me making an eggregious error, and that
Ray himself acknowledged that he was wrong about that.
(2) Ray has been lying about my personal beliefs from the outset. Rather
than graciously retract his initial falsehoods when I corrected him, Ray
chose to repeat them. Ray's faulty internal rationalizations don't change
reality.
[Quote]
I can reiterate that I am confirmed in the United Methodist Church, that my
stance on evolutionary biology comports with that of my church, and further
that over 11,000 Christian clergy in the USA take a similar stance.
If Ray insists on re-telling his falsehood about my beliefs, I will have no
compunction about calling him a liar on that score.
[End quote -- WRE]
Ray is a demonstrated liar.
--
"You can't teach an old dogma new tricks." -- Dorothy Parker
'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank
Hey Tony, who's the Real Spokesman For God(tm)(c), you or Ray?
Settle that question for us.
================================================
Lenny Flank
"There are no loose threads in the web of life"
Editor, Red and Black Publishers
http://www.RedAndBlackPublishers.com
'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank
> Nested hierarchy of living things is evolutionist jargon and concept;
> it is an illusion; therefore it has no correspondence to scientific
> reality----sorry.
Says you. (shrug)
Will this be covered in your, uh, Invulnerable Scientific paper(tm)
(c)?
(snicker) (giggle)
Ray Martinez
>
NOTE: This is a corrected re-post; original post was deleted because
of four minor errors----R.M.
>
>
> > On Aug 6, 3:42 pm, "*Hemidactylus*" <ecpho...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Aug 6, 3:17 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:> Is Wesley on-the-run, or is he attempting to appear brave, or is he
> > > > busy with real life?
>
> > > >http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/16c9240dc1560bb7
>
> > > >http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/058425c1aa051bda
>
STOP.
Please listen closely:
in one book of his against evolutionary theory, that this single
REFERENCE does not harm his identification of Johnson to be a "non-
scripturalist...."
Both Wesley and I agree that Johnson made one scripture reference in
one antievolution book of his and that this single occurence does
nothing to harm the fact that Wesley correctly identifies him to not
use scripture as a basis and reason to reject evolutionary theory.
Concerning Paley you are missing the point: his actual *thesis* does
not mention the Bible (Thomson); his use of one Biblical phrase,
properly understood as terminology because it lacks proper
attribution, does not harm Thomson's fact.
John van Wyhe is a Darwin scholar. He has published a fascinating
paper advancing an original claim of fact: that Darwin DID NOT delay
publishing his evolution theory----that he published his theory
according to a plan worked out many years beforehand, hence no
intentional delay. This argument contradicts ALL published
scholarship, and, more importantly, it contradicts what Darwin
himself
has said:
Charles Darwin:
"I gained much by my delay in publishing from about 1839, when the
theory was clearly conceived, to 1859; and I lost nothing by
it...." (Autobio:124).
The van Wyhe paper:
http://darwin-online.org.uk/people/van_Wyhe_2007_Mind_the_gap_did_Dar...
"WHAT DELAY?
In his autobiography (written from 1876) Darwin wrote, ‘I gained much
by my delay in publishing from about 1839, when the theory was clearly
conceived, to 1859; and I lost nothing by it’. Here, it might be
argued, is a straightforward admission of intentional delay by Darwin
himself. But not so. Only with avoidance already in mind can it be
read in this way. Darwin’s family, friends and contemporaries such as
Francis Darwin, Huxley, Wallace and scores of biographers also read
this passage but left behind no trace that they thought Darwin dared
not publish. Here is the rub. The phrase ‘my delay in publishing’ has
two legitimate and straightforward interpretations.
1. ‘Delay’ means the time during which publication was avoided.
2. ‘Delay’ means the span of time that happened to transpire between
conceiving and publishing (with no avoidance involved)."
Ray: Of course van Wyhe also uses many other quotes by Darwin that
support his interpretation of the passage. The point is that scholars
determine facts. They do make errors but some things are not as they
seem at first glance.
Conclusion: The appearance of said phrase in Paley 1802 does not harm
Thomson's fact for all the reasons stated and argued in this post.
SNIP remaining text by opponent which was not snipped in original
post....
Ray
Wesley R. Elsberry
2008 06:16 pm, Wesley R. Elsberry wrote:
[...]
WRE> If it will make Ray feel better, here's an acknowledgment: I
WRE> acknowledge that Ray Martinez was wrong about me making an eggregious
WRE> error, and that Ray himself acknowledged that he was wrong about that.
[...]
I do seem to have egregiously misspelled "egregious" in the above, though.
Anybody know of a spelling plugin for Knode?
Ray Martinez
> On Aug 6, 8:53 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Aug 6, 6:43 pm, snex <s...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>
> > > > On Aug 6, 2:08 pm, Friar Broccoli <Elia...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > On Aug 6, 4:25 pm, johnethompson2...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
>
> > > > > > > Is Wesley on-the-run, or is he attempting to appear brave, or is he
> > > > > > > busy with real life?
>
> > > > > > >http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/16c9240dc1560bb7
>
> > > > > > >http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/058425c1aa051bda
>
>
> > > > > > Perhaps he sees no point in responding to an idiotic pathological liar.
>
> > > > > Ray is not a liar of any form.
> > > > > He just doesn't have the remotest understanding of logical
> > > > > consistency.
>
> > > > You have hit upon the fundamental difference between Creationists and
> > > > Evolutionists----their logic and way of thinking.
>
> > > > Evolutionist logic is demonstrably perverted: "design does not
> > > > indicate invisible Designer but the same is an illusion as best
> > > > produced by an undesigned and unguided material process (= natural
> > > > selection).
>
> > > > Ray
>
> > > "evolutionist logic" is actually more like.. "the patterns displayed
> > > by all living things is best explained by the common ancestry of those
> > > living things"
>
> > > your answer must be testable by experimentation.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > it is an illusion; therefore it has no correspondence to scientific
> > reality----sorry.
>
>
> it isnt an illusion at all. you can see it for yourself just by
> examining living things and noting their characteristics.
We don't see it----Snex. Since you apparently do it must be an
illusion based ultimately on your needs as an Atheist. We see real
biological objects (species) that occupy time and space having direct
correspondence to vertical causation----not horizontal. It appears
that you view nature in accordance to your worldview, like myself.
> or do you
> think linnean classification is wrong? if you think its wrong, point
> out how.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Linnaeus was a Creationist. His classification scheme was never
interpreted in favor of transmutation until Darwin (who was a closet
Atheist since 1837).
Ray
raven1
<pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>On Aug 6, 6:03 pm, "Dana Tweedy" <reddfr...@bresnan.net> wrote:
>> "Ray Martinez" <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>
>> news:4c4a2d6e-14ca-4a20...@p31g2000prf.googlegroups.com...> On Aug 6, 3:35 pm, raven1 <quoththera...@nevermore.com> wrote:
>>
>> snip
>>
>>
>>
>> >> What, in a sentence or two, is the theory of Creationism, Brave Sir
>> >> Robin Martinez?
>>
>> > Observation of design and organized complexity seen in each organism
>> > and in nature as a whole corresponds----directly----to the work of
>> > invisible Designer (= Divine causation operating in reality).
>>
>> The problem is, Ray, that the above isn't a theory, it's an assumption.
>> This assumption of yours is not testable.
>>
>
>It is a logical assumption based on observation, which is the
>cornerstone of the scientific method.
Really? When has an invisible designer ever been observed?
snex
do you know what a nested hierarchy is? why dont you describe it for
us, and explain why organisms dont fit?
>
> > or do you
> > think linnean classification is wrong? if you think its wrong, point
> > out how.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> Linnaeus was a Creationist. His classification scheme was never
> interpreted in favor of transmutation until Darwin (who was a closet
> Atheist since 1837).
>
> Ray
linnaeus may or may not have been a creationist - but his
classification system of organisms is in fact a nested hierarchy. if
you think this is incorrect, then point out how.
Ray Martinez
> In <bs6dndeRFape7AbVnZ2dnUVZ_i2dn...@cablespeedmi.com> on Thursday 07 August
> 2008 06:16 pm, Wesley R. Elsberry wrote:
>
> [...]
>
I agreed with Wesley here:
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/128459d6af54b707?hl=en
Wesley responds here but argues as if the above does not exist, which
gives the impression that it does not exist:
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/1ddef3881b059631?hl=en
Is this an honest mistake?
Ray
SNIP....
Bob Casanova
talk.origins, posted by "J.J. O'Shea"
<try.n...@but.see.sig>:
>On Wed, 6 Aug 2008 17:47:24 -0400, The Last Conformist wrote
>(in article
><a66ea671-3c7f-4df7...@y38g2000hsy.googlegroups.com>):
>
>In the category of 'Yank that chain!'
>
>> On Aug 6, 9:17 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>> Is Wesley on-the-run, or is he attempting to appear brave, or is he
>>> busy with real life?
>>
>> Maybe he's writing a paper.
ZING!
--
Bob C.
"Evidence confirming an observation is
evidence that the observation is wrong."
- McNameless
John Wilkins
> On Wed, 06 Aug 2008 23:02:00 -0400, T Pagano wrote:
>
> > On Wed, 6 Aug 2008 12:17:00 -0700 (PDT), Ray Martinez
> > <pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> >>Is Wesley on-the-run, or is he attempting to appear brave, or is he
> >>busy with real life?
> >
> > Before you came on the scene in the forum Elsberry ran a Transitional
> > Challenge. In it Elsberry provided a scientific report about the
> > minor modification of a foram shell over time and Creationists were
> > tasked to explain why the changes didn't constitute evidence of a
> > genuine transitional form.
> >
> > In 2001 I got a copy of the scientific report and demonstrated that
> > Elsberry had misrepresented what the report portended to conclude and
> > that the data tended to show stasis (over the course of almost 15
> > million years) of the foram populations rather than evidence of
> > transitional forms.
> >
> > Elsberry practically vanished from the forum claiming professional
> > duties.
> >
> > In more recent times Elsberry has been equally embarassed in a public
> > way by Demski's three line crushing of a 50+ page diatribe of Elsberry
> > and Wilkins concerning Intelligent Design.
You mean Dembski's mere mention in a sentence (no crushing there) of a
13 page destruction of the idea of ID? :-)
> >
> > You won't be see much of him.
> >
> > Regards,
> > T Pagano
>
> "WE'RE going through!" Tony's voice was like thin ice
> breaking. He wore his full-dress uniform, with the heavily
> braided white cap pulled down rakishly over one cold gray
> eye--the best possible eye, intelligently designed you know.
> "We can't make it, sir. It's spoiling for a debate, if you
> ask me." "I'm not asking you, Martinez," said Tony. "Throw
> on the non-sequiturs! Rev up the strawman arguments! We're
> going through!" The pounding of the whining increased:
> goddidit-goddidit-goddidit-goddidit-goddidit. Tony stared at
> the evidence forming on the pilot window. He walked over and
> looked at a row of refuted arguments. "Try no beneficial
> mutations!" he shouted. "No beneficial mutations!" repeated
> Martinez. "2Lot makes evolution impossible!" shouted Tony.
> "2Lot makes evolution impossible!" The deluded, bending to
> their various rituals in the huge, hurtling Creationist Big
> Tent, looked at each other and grinned. "Tony'll get us
> through," they said to one another. "Tony aint afraid of
> evidence!" . . .
--
John S. Wilkins, Postdoctoral Research Fellow, Philosophy
University of Queensland - Blog: scienceblogs.com/evolvingthoughts
"He used... sarcasm. He knew all the tricks, dramatic irony, metaphor,
bathos, puns, parody, litotes and... satire. He was vicious."
Dana Tweedy
"Ray Martinez" <pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:8760c202-db85-4a42...@1g2000pre.googlegroups.com...snip
>> > Nested hierarchy of living things is evolutionist jargon and concept;
>> > it is an illusion; therefore it has no correspondence to scientific
>> > reality----sorry.
>>
>> > Ray
>>
>> it isnt an illusion at all. you can see it for yourself just by
>> examining living things and noting their characteristics.
>
> We don't see it----Snex.
Who is the "we", here Ray? You are only speaking for yourself.
>Since you apparently do it must be an
> illusion based ultimately on your needs as an Atheist.
Ray, the nested heirarchy of life is noted by thousands of scientists, and
was codified by Linneaus, who was hardly an atheist.
> We see real
> biological objects (species) that occupy time and space having direct
> correspondence to vertical causation----not horizontal.
First of all, who is the "we" here? Second, what is "vertical causation",
and how would it be different from "horizontal" causation. Species fall
into a pattern of nested heirarchy. Cats, for examples are carnivores, and
are mammals, and are animals, and are eukaryotes. Groups within groups.
No one seems to think that this pattern is an illusion, except you.
> It appears
> that you view nature in accordance to your worldview, like myself.
Ray, you seem to "view nature" not in accordance with a "worldview" but
through a bizarre lens of your own prejudice.
>
>> or do you
>> think linnean classification is wrong? if you think its wrong, point
>> out how.- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
> Linnaeus was a Creationist.
Yet he recognized the nested heiarchy of life. Obviously Linnaeus' work
indicates you are wrong.
> His classification scheme was never
> interpreted in favor of transmutation until Darwin (who was a closet
> Atheist since 1837).
Even Linneaus himself, at the end of his life began to accept that species
changed. Darwin was never a "closet atheist", or an atheist at all.
http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/history/linnaeus.html
"In his early years, Linnaeus believed that the species was not only real,
but unchangeable -- as he wrote, Unitas in omni specie ordinem ducit (The
invariability of species is the condition for order [in nature]). But
Linnaeus observed how different species of plant might hybridize, to create
forms which looked like new species. He abandoned the concept that species
were fixed and invariable, and suggested that some -- perhaps most --
species in a genus might have arisen after the creation of the world,
through hybridization. In his attempts to grow foreign plants in Sweden,
Linnaeus also theorized that plant species might be altered through the
process of acclimitization. Towards the end of his life, Linnaeus
investigated what he thought were cases of crosses between genera, and
suggested that, perhaps, new genera might also arise through hybridization."
DJT
Ray Martinez
> On Wed, 6 Aug 2008 12:17:00 -0700 (PDT), Ray Martinez
>
> >Is Wesley on-the-run, or is he attempting to appear brave, or is he
> >busy with real life?
>
> Before you came on the scene in the forum Elsberry ran a Transitional
> Challenge. In it Elsberry provided a scientific report about the
> minor modification of a foram shell over time and Creationists were
> genuine transitional form.
>
> In 2001 I got a copy of the scientific report and demonstrated that
> Elsberry had misrepresented what the report portended to conclude and
> that the data tended to show stasis (over the course of almost 15
> million years) of the foram populations rather than evidence of
> transitional forms.
>
> Elsberry practically vanished from the forum claiming professional
> duties.
>
Has he said anything about the error?
Anything at all?
> In more recent times Elsberry has been equally embarassed in a public
> way by Demski's three line crushing of a 50+ page diatribe of Elsberry
> and Wilkins concerning Intelligent Design.
>
> You won't be see much of him.
>
> Regards,
> T Pagano
>
>
Thanks for the history lesson.
I have reviewed his posting history at Talk Origins and it reveals
scant activity at best: 80 posts since 1998.
I guess he prefers the confines of Pandas where the Moderators do his
bidding.
Ray
Cory Albrecht
> WRE> If it will make Ray feel better, here's an acknowledgment: I
> WRE> acknowledge that Ray Martinez was wrong about me making an eggregious
> WRE> error, and that Ray himself acknowledged that he was wrong about that.
Hey, Wes, are you still using Fidonet software? I haven't seen a quoting
style like your in aaaages.
Wesley R. Elsberry
August 2008 11:02 pm, T Pagano wrote:
> On Wed, 6 Aug 2008 12:17:00 -0700 (PDT), Ray Martinez
> <pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>Is Wesley on-the-run, or is he attempting to appear brave, or is he
>>busy with real life?
>
> Before you came on the scene in the forum Elsberry ran a Transitional
> Challenge. In it Elsberry provided a scientific report about the
> minor modification of a foram shell over time and Creationists were
> tasked to explain why the changes didn't constitute evidence of a
> genuine transitional form.
>
> In 2001 I got a copy of the scientific report and demonstrated that
> Elsberry had misrepresented what the report portended to conclude and
> that the data tended to show stasis (over the course of almost 15
> million years) of the foram populations rather than evidence of
> transitional forms.
>
> Elsberry practically vanished from the forum claiming professional
> duties.
>
> In more recent times Elsberry has been equally embarassed in a public
> way by Demski's three line crushing of a 50+ page diatribe of Elsberry
> and Wilkins concerning Intelligent Design.
>
> You won't be see much of him.
[...]
Pagano continues to spout falsehoods.
[Quote]
AP> 7. I stuck a fork in Elsberry in 2001 when I showed that his
AP> Transitional Challenge was a sham with his own source; he's never
AP> recovered.
I don't seem to have noticed a puncture; I made a perfectly adequate
response at the time that Tony "Black Knight" Pagano was never able to
rebut. Pagano was reduced to making a series of "Black Knight"
pronouncements that completely missed the points made, which is different
from rebuttal.
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/68977afccb858dcd?dmode=source
The group didn't seem to think Tony had it right then:
Nor later:
I didn't have time before, nor do I have time now, to endlessly repeat what
I've said to people who endlessly fail to take the point. We're done,
Pagano; you've used up your minutes already.
[End quote -- Message-ID
<r8ydnXSAnNW1QBLV...@cablespeedmi.com>]
As for Dembski, the Wilkins and Elsberry paper is in the peer-reviewed
literature and thus far there has been no response from Dembski in that
venue, not three lines, not one line, not even a farty noise.
http://www.talkdesign.org/cs/theft_over_toil
So far, I have one more peer-reviewed contribution on design inferences than
Dembski does. I completely fail to feel embarrassment that Dembski hasn't
managed to get a reply published in the peer-reviewed literature. Dembski's
airy dismissal in his book is only "crushing" in the eyes of IDC
cheerleaders.
Ray Martinez
> On Aug 6, 9:53 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > Nested hierarchy of living things is evolutionist jargon and concept;
> > it is an illusion; therefore it has no correspondence to scientific
> > reality----sorry.
>
> Says you. (shrug)
>
> Will this be covered in your, uh, Invulnerable Scientific paper(tm)
> (c)?
>
Of course.
You can count on it.
> (snicker) (giggle)
>
> ================================================
> Lenny Flank
> "There are no loose threads in the web of life"
>
> Editor, Red and Black Publishershttp://www.RedAndBlackPublishers.com
Ray
Dana Tweedy
> On Aug 7, 3:07 pm, "'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank" <lfl...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> On Aug 6, 9:53 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>> > Nested hierarchy of living things is evolutionist jargon and concept;
>> > it is an illusion; therefore it has no correspondence to scientific
>> > reality----sorry.
>>
>> Says you. (shrug)
>>
>> Will this be covered in your, uh, Invulnerable Scientific paper(tm)
>> (c)?
>>
>
> Of course.
>
> You can count on it.
Do you really feel it would be in your best interest to demonstrate so
plainly that you don't understand scientific concepts? Calling the nested
heirarchy of life an "illusion" only shows everyone you have no clue as to
the evidence involved.
DJT
*Hemidactylus*
> On Aug 6, 6:07 pm, "*Hemidactylus*" <ecpho...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Aug 6, 7:26 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> NOTE: This is a corrected re-post; original post was deleted because
> of four minor errors----R.M.
>
not sure Thomson book exactly does for your argument what you assume
it does.
>
>
>
> > You and especially your readers here can see plainly that you asserted
> > that Paley in _Natural Theology_ "does not contain a single reference
> > to scripture". Is this correct? Am I misreading your words? Given the
> > boldness of your assertion I merely need point to a single reference
> > to scripture to blow your assertion out of the water (=refute you
> > soundly). Are you ready now Ray? Follow closely. Put your thinking cap
> > on because we can't have you daydreaming about your paper right now.
>
> > Exhibit B:http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/7a14ba3fd2ffb8d5?hl=en
>
> > I refute your assertion: [begin Hemi] In William Paley's book _Natural
> > Theology_ look at Chapter XXIII called "Of the Personality of Deity".
> > Paley opens the second paragraph of this chapter as follows:
>
> > [begin Paley quote] "No man hath seen God at any time." [end Paley
> > quote]
>
> STOP.
>
> I agree that those words appear in Paley 1802. But no reference to a
> Bible verse is provided by Paley. But we know said phrase does appear
> in the Bible.
>
reference [deliberate sarcasm]. I just made it up off the top of my
head [deliberate sarcasm]. But we know said phrase does appear in the
_Origin_.
Have you ever heard of an arcane reference? Dennis Miller made use of
it in stand-up routines and the show Mystery Science Theater 3000 had
all sorts of sarcastic obscure references during the airing of bad
scifi movies and assorted shorts. Making a reference to something need
not always come replete with works cited pages or footnotes. The verse
is unsourced, but still an implicit scriptural reference.
>
> Paley is simply using Biblical terminology to make a point. He cannot
> in good conscience utter such a phrase without somehow indicating that
> it is not an original thought----hence the quote marks, but no chapter
> and verse reference is provided.
>
So the quote marks give it away as a biblical reference. Smoking gun!
>
> > Now Ray, I'm sure you have a Bible handy. Or you can ask the Big Guy
> > himself. Its the red phone on your desk. If you thumb to either John
> > 1:18 or to 1 John 4:12 you will notice that Paley was making a
> > REFERENCE TO SCRIPTURE!
>
> Reference means book, chapter and verse. None of these appear. I have
> begun above to explain why.
>
No. References can be informal. Maybe Paley expected the well versed
reader to know implicitly the source of said quoted reference
material.
Does Thomson explicitly say this? I don't have Thomson's book, but the
limited preview on google groups has Thomson himself quoting John 1:18
at the beginning of Chapter 11 on page 232. I can't see how he could
say that said phrase being quoted is not a scriptural reference even
if the book, chapter and verse or bible is not "mentioned" in a
temporally contiguous manner in Paley's book. It appears verbatim in
the KJV Bible and in Paley's book. End of discussion. A reference it
is.
>
> Please listen closely:
>
> I have admitted that said phrase does appear in the Bible but Paley is
> not arguing the Bible, that is why it is not a reference with proper
> attribution. Thomson, who is an evolutionist, recognizes this.
>
Aside from opening a chapter with John 1:18 does he explicitly deal
with the quote by Paley and why it is not a "reference to
scripture" (= using your terminology="quoting" and my making reference
to you)? You casually slide from your "reference to scripture" to
Thomson's "mentioned".
>
> In a previous topic, as you know, I have tangled with Wesley Elsberry.
> Initially I argued that since Phillip Johnson quoted one Bible verse
> in one book of his against evolutionary theory, that this single
> REFERENCE does not harm his identification of Johnson to be a "non-
> scripturalist...."
>
> Both Wesley and I agree that Johnson made one scripture reference in
> one antievolution book of his and that this single occurence does
> nothing to harm the fact that Wesley correctly identifies him to not
> use scripture as a basis and reason to reject evolutionary theory.
>
> Concerning Paley you are missing the point: his actual *thesis* does
> not mention the Bible (Thomson); his use of one Biblical phrase,
> properly understood as terminology because it lacks proper
> attribution, does not harm Thomson's fact.
>
I'm not talking to Thomson. I'm talking to you and addressing what you
said about Paley's lack of scriptural reference and I provided the
chapter and verse for Paley's reference to the Bible.
Irrelevant sidestep as was your rehash of the spat with Wesley.
>
> Conclusion: The appearance of said phrase in Paley 1802 does not harm
> Thomson's fact for all the reasons stated and argued in this post.
>
Does Thomson explicitly discuss Paley's obvious quote of scripture,
which he himself opens a chapter with and why it is not a mention of
the bible or a scriptural reference? You sure do seem to being going
to great length to avoid admitting your blunder.
>
> SNIP remaining text by opponent which was not snipped in original
> post....
>
Was this snipping issue why you felt you needed to delete the original
post? Odd.
Wesley R. Elsberry
Thursday 07 August 2008 06:50 pm, Ray Martinez wrote:
> On Aug 7, 3:41 pm, "Wesley R. Elsberry" <welsb...@inia.cls.org> wrote:
>> In <bs6dndeRFape7AbVnZ2dnUVZ_i2dn...@cablespeedmi.com> on Thursday 07
>> August 2008 06:16 pm, Wesley R. Elsberry wrote:
>>
>> [...]
>>
>> WRE> If it will make Ray feel better, here's an acknowledgment: [SNIP
>> "acknowledgement" of wrong issue....]
RM> I agreed with Wesley here:
RM> http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/128459d6af54b707?hl=en
RM> Wesley responds here but argues as if the above does not exist, which
RM> gives the impression that it does not exist:
RM> http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/1ddef3881b059631?hl=en
RM> Is this an honest mistake?
RM> Ray
RM> SNIP....
It's not a mistake. Demonstrated liar Ray Martinez is hardly a guy to be
trying to cast aspersions about honesty. Ray agrees with my classification
now, but is still falsely claiming that Johnson argues for rejection of
evolutionary science explicitly because of his interpretation of scripture,
as that first link Ray provides documents. Since Ray now agrees with the
classification (also documented in that first link), it is no longer of
interest in the discussion. The false claim about what Johnson's use of a
scriptural text means has not yet been retracted by Ray, so that was an
issue that I have been arguing.
Ray Martinez
> "Ray Martinez" <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> - Show quoted text -
Why don't you recruit a Creationist to argue against my position?
Ray
Ray Martinez
> In <2b16a512-8f82-44cb-9c28-d91834381...@b30g2000prf.googlegroups.com> on
> Wednesday 06 August 2008 03:17 pm, Ray Martinez wrote:
>
Big snip....
>
> (2) Ray has been lying about my personal beliefs from the outset. Rather
> than graciously retract his initial falsehoods when I corrected him, Ray
> chose to repeat them. Ray's faulty internal rationalizations don't change
> reality.
>
> [Quote]
>
> I can reiterate that I am confirmed in the United Methodist Church, that my
> stance on evolutionary biology comports with that of my church, and further
> that over 11,000 Christian clergy in the USA take a similar stance.
>
> If Ray insists on re-telling his falsehood about my beliefs, I will have no
> compunction about calling him a liar on that score.
>
> [End quote -- WRE]
>
> Ray is a demonstrated liar.
>
> --
> "You can't teach an old dogma new tricks." -- Dorothy Parker
I have exposed Elsberry's Christianity to be counterfeit here:
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/b0a192f19e941062?hl=en
This is why he is so upset.
Calling me a liar is simply an easy way to evade the agrument and an
admission that he cannot refute.
As for the Clergy Letter Project that Elsberry likes to invoke:
11,000 evolutionists saying they support evolution----what's the
point?
It doesn't matter how many clergy or denominations support evolution:
the Bible says evolution is false, that God creates by special
creation. Science has always confirmed.
How do we explain Christian leadership that says the Bible is false
concerning the origin of living things, and that the theory which all
Atheists accept is true?
Answer: the same way the Bible explains Judas, an Apostle (= Christian
leader) betraying his Master to His enemies: under the direct control
of Satan. Biblical typology corresponds to and explains reality.
Persons claiming to be Theists have always betrayed Theos.
This is the only explanation as to how educated Christian leadership
could accept the same biological origins theory that Richard Dawkins
accepts.
Ray
Ray Martinez
> In <cb9f350b-4f9e-466b-bca9-28bfabf83...@v13g2000pro.googlegroups.com> on
> Thursday 07 August 2008 06:50 pm, Ray Martinez wrote:
>
> > On Aug 7, 3:41 pm, "Wesley R. Elsberry" <welsb...@inia.cls.org> wrote:
> >> In <bs6dndeRFape7AbVnZ2dnUVZ_i2dn...@cablespeedmi.com> on Thursday 07
> >> August 2008 06:16 pm, Wesley R. Elsberry wrote:
>
> >> [...]
>
> >> WRE> If it will make Ray feel better, here's an acknowledgment: [SNIP
> >> "acknowledgement" of wrong issue....]
>
> RM> I agreed with Wesley here:
>
> RM>http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/128459d6af54b707?hl=en
>
> RM> Wesley responds here but argues as if the above does not exist, which
> RM> gives the impression that it does not exist:
>
> RM>http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/1ddef3881b059631?hl=en
>
> RM> Is this an honest mistake?
>
> RM> Ray
>
> RM> SNIP....
>
> It's not a mistake. Demonstrated liar Ray Martinez is hardly a guy to be
> trying to cast aspersions about honesty. Ray agrees with my classification
> now, but is still falsely claiming that Johnson argues for rejection of
> evolutionary science explicitly because of his interpretation of scripture,
> as that first link Ray provides documents.
You have misunderstood, it says no such thing.
> Since Ray now agrees with the
> classification (also documented in that first link), it is no longer of
> interest in the discussion. The false claim about what Johnson's use of a
> scriptural text means has not yet been retracted by Ray, so that was an
> issue that I have been arguing.
>
> --
> "You can't teach an old dogma new tricks." -- Dorothy Parker
Your new charge is ad hoc and reveals dishonesty.
You have lost your composure due to a different argument of mine
exposing your Christianity to be counterfeit. This new flagrant
dishonesty on your part further confirms that your Christianity is
counterfeit, like your scholarship.
Ray
Wesley R. Elsberry
Thursday 07 August 2008 07:47 pm, Ray Martinez wrote:
> On Aug 7, 3:16 pm, "Wesley R. Elsberry" <welsb...@inia.cls.org> wrote:
>> In <2b16a512-8f82-44cb-9c28-d91834381...@b30g2000prf.googlegroups.com> on
>> Wednesday 06 August 2008 03:17 pm, Ray Martinez wrote:
>>
RM> Big snip....
And another...
[...]
Since Ray is repeating his lies, it is easy to repeat the refutation of
them.
Ray Martinez
> "Ray Martinez" <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> "In his early years, Linnaeus believed that the species was not only real,
> but unchangeable -- as he wrote, Unitas in omni specie ordinem ducit (The
> invariability of species is the condition for order [in nature]). But
> Linnaeus observed how different species of plant might hybridize, to create
> forms which looked like new species. He abandoned the concept that species
> were fixed and invariable, and suggested that some -- perhaps most --
> species in a genus might have arisen after the creation of the world,
> through hybridization. In his attempts to grow foreign plants in Sweden,
> Linnaeus also theorized that plant species might be altered through the
> process of acclimitization. Towards the end of his life, Linnaeus
> investigated what he thought were cases of crosses between genera, and
> suggested that, perhaps, new genera might also arise through hybridization."
>
> DJT
Here is what Dana conveniently omitted from his source:
http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/history/linnaeus.html
"Was Linnaeus an evolutionist?....The concept of open-ended evolution,
not necessarily governed by a Divine Plan and with no predetermined
goal, never occurred to Linnaeus; the idea would have shocked him."
Ray
Rupert Morrish
> On Aug 6, 6:07 pm, "*Hemidactylus*" <ecpho...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> On Aug 6, 7:26 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
You have a fascinating preference for scholarship over evidence. You
should realize that if your paper follows this pattern, it is not going
to ruin the life of anyone who accepts the primary importance of
evidence in determining the nature of reality.
Not necessarily. It can mean that. I suppose that is an improvement on
your normal technique of using totally unsupported definitions of words.
But it is also quite correct to say that the phrase "No man hath seen
God at any time." is a reference to the bible.
The claim is not whether or not Paley is a scripturalist. It is your
claim (via Thomson) that Natural Theology contains no references to
scripture that is under discussion.
You now appear to say that Thomson is claiming that Natural Theology
contains no properly attributed references to scripture. I think we can
agree that Thomson's claim is true, but it is an absurdly weak claim,
and I wonder why anyone would bother to make it.
[snip van Whye irrelevancy]
> The point is that scholars
> determine facts. They do make errors but some things are not as they
> seem at first glance.
This is why evidence is better than scholarship. I have an uneasy
feeling that your paper is going to quote mine the quote miners, rather
than engage with reality on its own level.
Wesley R. Elsberry
Thursday 07 August 2008 07:59 pm, Ray Martinez wrote:
> On Aug 7, 4:30 pm, "Wesley R. Elsberry" <welsb...@inia.cls.org> wrote:
>> In <cb9f350b-4f9e-466b-bca9-28bfabf83...@v13g2000pro.googlegroups.com> on
[...]
WRE> It's not a mistake. Demonstrated liar Ray Martinez is hardly a guy to
WRE> be trying to cast aspersions about honesty. Ray agrees with my
WRE> classification now, but is still falsely claiming that Johnson argues
WRE> for rejection of evolutionary science explicitly because of his
WRE> interpretation of scripture, as that first link Ray provides
WRE> documents.
RM> You have misunderstood, it says no such thing.
Here's what it says:
[Quote]
> RM> In this particular instance #3 above (with #2 and #1 being context) is
> RM> offered against some aspect of Darwinism.
WRE> Actually, it is not offered in that fashion. Johnson is claiming it is
WRE > consistent with a statement by a scientist.
RM> FACT: Johnson quotes John 1:1 in a book he wrote titled "Defeating
RM> Darwinism by Opening Minds." Said quotation is not epigrammatic, but a
RM> claim of scientific fact accompanied with argument.
[End quote]
Was Ray really *agreeing* with me in that paragraph leading with "FACT"?
Ray, tell me that was agreement, that you really were just emphatically
declaring me to be absolutely correct in my original statement, and I will
apologize for taking it as being the opposite of agreement.
Snip Ray continuing his "big lie" technique.
[...]
Ray Martinez
> On Wed, 6 Aug 2008 18:53:30 -0700 (PDT), Ray Martinez
> <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote in
> <c0ff1a82-5b67-4abf-8701-8aa3dd705...@a8g2000prf.googlegroups.com> :
>
> >> - Show quoted text -
>
> >it is an illusion; therefore it has no correspondence to scientific
> >reality----sorry.
>
> know that the designer didn't design the nested hierarchy?
What nested hierarchy?
Design is not an illusion.
Ray
Dana Tweedy
Why should I? Your position is clearly, and glaringly wrong. You
wouldn't agree with a creationist any more than you'd agree with someone who
actually understands science.
All I have to do is show you are wrong, which I've done.
DJT
>
> Ray
>
Ray Martinez
> "Ray Martinez" <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Aug 6, 2:08 pm, Friar Broccoli <Elia...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On Aug 6, 4:25 pm, johnethompson2...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
>
> > > > > Is Wesley on-the-run, or is he attempting to appear brave, or is he
> > > > > busy with real life?
>
> > > > >http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/16c9240dc1560bb7
>
> > > > >http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/058425c1aa051bda
>
>
> > > > Perhaps he sees no point in responding to an idiotic pathological
> liar.
>
> > > Ray is not a liar of any form.
> > > He just doesn't have the remotest understanding of logical
> > > consistency.
>
> > You have hit upon the fundamental difference between Creationists and
> > Evolutionists----their logic and way of thinking.
>
> > Evolutionist logic is demonstrably perverted: "design does not
> > indicate invisible Designer but the same is an illusion as best
> > produced by an undesigned and unguided material process (= natural
> > selection).
>
> It is not an "unguided material process."
Yes it is.
"Material" by definition, in the context of the Creation-Evolution
debate since 1859, means "unguided."
You do not understand the basic claims of evolution since Darwin 1859.
> It is a concept embodying *all*
> the mechanisms, reasons, contingencies, factors that determine the degree of
> reproductive success by the individuals within a population.
>
An alleged material process, yes.
> We know, (but you don't) that individuals in a population are not
> genetically identical. There are variations.
I agree.
Even identical twins are not identical.
> Depending on its particular
> variation, an individual may produce more or fewer offspring than average,
> thus increasing the percentage of individuals sharing its genes.
>
A simple truism.
> This very mechanism also is the reason why the particular genetic variations
> of individuals that are less effective with respect to reproductive success
> eventually disappear, are lost from the population.
>
You have described an alleged material process.
> When you have been able to understand this, it may be time for you to learn
> a few of the reasons why and how there are genetic variations present within
> a population.
>
> Interesting times ahead, dear Ray! I am sure that we will find plenty of
> good stuff for incorporation in your paper. Even if it should mean up to
> fifty years additional delay, I think it can only be good for your paper.
>
> To put you in the right mood, here is a teaser: Can you think of any reasons
> why some individuals produce more offspring than others? And vice-versa: Why
> some have fewer children? I have some key words in mind, but I will not
> spoil the fun of discovery for you!
>
> Best of all, you will be doing something useful instead of the insane rally
> you are engaging in here these days.
>
> Or are you already round the bend like I prophezied years ago?
>
>
>
> > Ray- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Ray
Dana Tweedy
> I have exposed Elsberry's Christianity to be counterfeit here:
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/b0a192f19e941062?hl=en
>
> This is why he is so upset.
People often get upset when others lie about them.
>
> Calling me a liar is simply an easy way to evade the agrument and an
> admission that he cannot refute.
Ray, you are a liar, and you've been refuted at every turn.
>
> As for the Clergy Letter Project that Elsberry likes to invoke:
>
> 11,000 evolutionists saying they support evolution----what's the
> point?
That these "evolutionists" are devout Christians. It refutes your claim
that only atheists accept evolution.
>
> It doesn't matter how many clergy or denominations support evolution:
> the Bible says evolution is false, that God creates by special
> creation. Science has always confirmed.
Actually, Ray, you know this is not true. The Bible doesn't say that
evolution is false, and it doesn't say how God creates. Science has never
confirmed any case of "special creation", not could science possibly confirm
such a claim.
>
> How do we explain Christian leadership that says the Bible is false
> concerning the origin of living things, and that the theory which all
> Atheists accept is true?
First of all, you have to realize that the Christian leadership isn't saying
the Bible is false. The Bible isn't scientific, so it can't be "false"
regarding the scientific theories of the origin of living things. As for
what atheists accept, that's irrelevant to the facts.
>
> Answer: the same way the Bible explains Judas, an Apostle (= Christian
> leader) betraying his Master to His enemies: under the direct control
> of Satan.
Except that accepting scientific evidence isn't "betraying" Christ.
> Biblical typology corresponds to and explains reality.
> Persons claiming to be Theists have always betrayed Theos.
That might explain your own behavior, but not the actions of genuine
Christians who accept evolution.
>
> This is the only explanation as to how educated Christian leadership
> could accept the same biological origins theory that Richard Dawkins
> accepts.
Richard Dawkins accepts the biological origins theory that Christian
leadership accepts because they both are educated. Dawkins disagrees with
those Christians about the existence of God. Dawkins apparently believes
that since the evidence doesn't prove God's existence, God doesn't exist.
Ray himself agrees with Dawkins about this, while the Christian leadership
openly disagrees with Dawkins.
So, who really is the one siding with the atheists here? Obviously it's
Ray.
DJT
Rupert Morrish
> "Ray Martinez" <pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:8760c202-db85-4a42...@1g2000pre.googlegroups.com...
>> On Aug 6, 7:03 pm, snex <s...@comcast.net> wrote:
> snip
>
>>>> Nested hierarchy of living things is evolutionist jargon and concept;
>>>> it is an illusion; therefore it has no correspondence to scientific
>>>> reality----sorry.
>>>> Ray
>>> it isnt an illusion at all. you can see it for yourself just by
>>> examining living things and noting their characteristics.
>> We don't see it----Snex.
>
> Who is the "we", here Ray? You are only speaking for yourself.
>
> >Since you apparently do it must be an
>> illusion based ultimately on your needs as an Atheist.
>
> Ray, the nested heirarchy of life is noted by thousands of scientists, and
> was codified by Linneaus, who was hardly an atheist.
>
>> We see real
>> biological objects (species) that occupy time and space having direct
>> correspondence to vertical causation----not horizontal.
>
> First of all, who is the "we" here? Second, what is "vertical causation",
> and how would it be different from "horizontal" causation. Species fall
> into a pattern of nested heirarchy. Cats, for examples are carnivores,
Carnivora is a lousy name for a clade. Not only does it contain several
omnivores, and some near-total vegetarians (such as the giant panda),
but there are carnivorous mammals that are not contained within Carnivora.
> and
> are mammals, and are animals, and are eukaryotes. Groups within groups.
> No one seems to think that this pattern is an illusion, except you.
[snip]
Dana Tweedy
Ray, the above doesn't change the point I was making. Linneaus wasn't an
"evolutionist" and no one would make that claim. My point was that
Linneaus, later in life accepted that species could change. He also
recognized the nested heirarchy of life.
You were wrong, why can't you admit it?
DJT