Tony Pagano and Ray Martinez

[iaoua iaoua]

Hi Tony and Ray,

the atheists and creation deniers around here are convinced that the
three of us can agree on nothing and will soon be labeling each other
atheists if we engage each other in discussion. I pray we can show
them that this is not the case and that we can show them how open
dialog together with open hearts praying for understanding from the
Holy Spirit can lead to consensus on the meaning of God's word in the
Torah and the Gospels.

From what little I've read of your posts I see that one of you (Tony)
believes that the Earth is the centre of the universe and the other
(Ray) believes that the Sun is the centre of the universe. Please, do
correct me if I'm wrong but in any case I don't really want to discuss
these things. I don't see either of them as important to the salvation
of a Christian. Please do say if you disagree with any of the
following statements.

1) Jesus was a real person
2) He was the Son of God
3) He died for our sins
4) He was resurrected
5) He ascended to heaven to sit at God's right hand
6) At the pentecost after his ascension he sent the helper, the Holy
Spirit, to his followers
7) They received the Holy Spirit and with it they received gifts of
tongues with which to speak the truth of Jesus resurrection in many
different languages
8) A number of apostles and disciples of Jesus Christ wrote the
documents in the NT faithfully for us and the saying and deeds of
Jesus Christ recorded therein are faithful and true
9) From such documents we see a Jesus that believed the Torah was
written by Moses
10) From such documents we see a Jesus that believed that Adam and Eve
were real people that God yoked together
11) The Torah testifies that Adam and Eve were created by God
12) Paul in his letter to the Romans lays the foundations of what has
come to be known as the doctrine of original sin
13) In agreement with the notions presented in this letter it is true
that we need Jesus sacrifice because we have inherited a state of sin
14) We could never be declared righteous by own our deeds alone
because of this inherited state

Let's start showing these creation deniers just why a belief in Adam
and Eve's creation is so fundamental to the Christian faith.

JC

[Boikat]

Nobody cares what you *believe*, in the religious sense, however, the
problem you morons seem to share, and insist on inflicting on others,
is you willful ignorance about how science works. Perhaps the three
of you can agree on that, while you're having you little Olde Tyme
Religion Mutual Stroke Fest?

Boikat

[iaoua iaoua]

Projecting again.

JC

[Frank J]

> Boikat- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Right. Note the fuzzy wording in his 14 examples (e.g. none of it
rules out A&E being created from *biological parents*), and how none
of it addresses when life first appeared on Earth, or which "kinds"
originated separately from nonliving matter. *That* is what they need
to state *and support on its own merits* if they want to pretend to
have an alternate explanation. And they need to do it by observing
*all* the evidence - in context - and see where it converges without
any "help." Even then they have to contend with some evolution-
deniers, like Behe, conceding the key issues that divide evolution-
deniers, namely the age of life and common descent, to science. As
many faults as he has, Behe is smart enough to know that if the
evidence doesn't converge on evolution as we know it, it converges on
the same origin account that it explains. And not anywhere near what
any Genesis literalist - old earth, young earth, flat earth,
geocentrist types - believe.

BTW, when you say "nobody cares" what he believes, that includes most
of the evolution-deniers on this board, few of whom ever give him the
time of day.

[Boikat]

You should really understand the meaning and contexts of words before
you try to use them and end up making yourself look foolish. Oops!
too late for you.

Boikat

[T Pagano]

On Thu, 22 Dec 2011 09:56:29 -0800 (PST), iaoua iaoua
<iaoua...@gmail.com> wrote:

>Hi Tony and Ray,
>
>the atheists and creation deniers around here are convinced that the
>three of us can agree on nothing and will soon be labeling each other
>atheists if we engage each other in discussion.

While I have grown to see some of Ray's positions as untenable, he is
not in danger of being labeled an atheist by me. In fact, I doubt
anyone would ever accuse Ray of that. And while I suspect Ray and I
differ theologically to some degree it is not that which divides us.

> I pray we can show
>them that this is not the case and that we can show them how open
>dialog together with open hearts praying for understanding from the
>Holy Spirit can lead to consensus on the meaning of God's word in the
>Torah and the Gospels.

While my criticism is not gentle the dialog been Ray and I has been
eminently "open" in the sense that it is heart felt and honest. Little
has been held back.

And while your advice to pray for understanding is valuable your hope
that it leads to consensus is not. Decisions made by consensus have
been so often mistaken and reversed that consensus has no firm
footing.

As an aside, Jesus did not come to Earth to bring men to consensus but
to lead them to the One Truth. So if I were to pray, I would pray
that the Holy Spirit lead us to the Truth.

>
>From what little I've read of your posts I see that one of you (Tony)
>believes that the Earth is the centre of the universe and the other
>(Ray) believes that the Sun is the centre of the universe.

As near as I can tell Ray is a heliocentricist and a Big Banger. As
such he believes the Sun is the center of the solar system. In Big
Bang geometry there is no center.

> Please, do
>correct me if I'm wrong but in any case I don't really want to discuss
>these things.

Then I 'm not quite sure why you haunt this news group. The stated
goal of the group is to discuss the origin of (God's) Universe and the
life in it. There are plenty of groups where evangelization and
prozeltizing would be more appropriate and more productive.

> I don't see either of them as important to the salvation
>of a Christian.

Then I would suggest that you are very niaive. Significant numbers
have had their faith eroded and lost because secularists cloaked in
the trappings of science have misled them to believe that modern
secular creation stories are indubitable.

Since you express your disinterest in discussions of Origins how would
you connect this to the real world. The atheists here are largely
materialists and holders of the philosophy of Naturalism. If you have
no interest in the conjunction of Faith & Science then you waste your
time here.

I see that you are genuinely faithful. If so, perhaps devoting your
time at a soup kitchen or family crisis center might be way more
productive to the mission of salvation.

Regards,
T Pagano

[Frank J]

On Dec 22, 7:37 pm, T Pagano <not.va...@address.net> wrote:
> On Thu, 22 Dec 2011 09:56:29 -0800 (PST), iaoua iaoua
>

How do you know he's not faking that too?

> If so, perhaps devoting your
> time at a soup kitchen or family crisis center might be way more
> productive to the mission of salvation.
>
> Regards,

> T Pagano- Hide quoted text -

[AGWFacts]

On Thu, 22 Dec 2011 09:56:29 -0800 (PST), iaoua iaoua

<iaoua...@gmail.com> wrote:

> the atheists and creation deniers around here are convinced that the

One cannot deny that which is not in evidence. I assume you mean
"creationism dismissers." As soon as you come up with evidence the
gods exist, then and only then can the evidence be denied.


--
"I'd like the globe to warm another degree or two or three... and CO2 levels
to increase perhaps another 100ppm - 300ppm." -- cato...@sympatico.ca

[T Pagano]

On Thu, 22 Dec 2011 18:36:31 -0800 (PST), Frank J <fc...@verizon.net>
wrote:

Does it matter?

He admits to lacking an interest in Origins and his behavior thus far
is one of evangelization. All Christians are called to evangelize in
one form or another. His form simply isn't compatible with membership
here. And even if he's faking his ostensible behavior warrants him
taking his act on the road.

[Frank J]

On Dec 22, 10:04 pm, T Pagano <not.va...@address.net> wrote:
> On Thu, 22 Dec 2011 18:36:31 -0800 (PST), Frank J <f...@verizon.net>

Yes, but there's no way short of reading minds to ever be 100%
certain. Poe's Law, you know.

You might notice my constant complaint to fellow "Darwinists" who
assume what the evolution-denier believes instead of actually *asking*
them. If I have to describe a position that the evolution-denier
apparently holds I try to phrase it as them *promoting* X rather than
*believing* X.

>
> He admits to lacking an interest in Origins and his behavior thus far
> is one of evangelization.  All Christians are called to evangelize in
> one form or another.  His form simply isn't compatible with membership
> here.  And even if he's faking his ostensible behavior warrants him
> taking his act on the road.

No disagreement there.

But once Ray publishes his book the rest of you will voluntarily hit
the road too, ;-)

>
>
>
>
>
> >> If so, perhaps devoting your
> >> time at a soup kitchen or family crisis center might be way more
> >> productive to the mission of salvation.
>
> >> Regards,
> >> T Pagano- Hide quoted text -
>

> >> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

[iaoua iaoua]

On Dec 23, 12:37 am, T Pagano <not.va...@address.net> wrote:
> On Thu, 22 Dec 2011 09:56:29 -0800 (PST), iaoua iaoua
>

> <iaoua.ia...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >Hi Tony and Ray,
>
> >the atheists and creation deniers around here are convinced that the
> >three of us can agree on nothing and will soon be labeling each other
> >atheists if we engage each other in discussion.
>
> While I have grown to see some of Ray's positions as untenable, he is
> not in danger of being labeled an atheist by me.  In fact, I doubt
> anyone would ever accuse Ray of that.  And while I suspect Ray and I
> differ theologically to some degree it is not that which divides us.
>

OK

> > I pray we can show
> >them that this is not the case and that we can show them how open
> >dialog together with open hearts praying for understanding from the
> >Holy Spirit can lead to consensus on the meaning of God's word in the
> >Torah and the Gospels.
>
> While my criticism is not gentle the dialog been Ray and I has been
> eminently "open" in the sense that it is heart felt and honest. Little
> has been held back.
>
> And while your advice to pray for understanding is valuable your hope
> that it leads to consensus is not.  Decisions made by consensus have
> been so often mistaken and reversed that consensus has no firm
> footing.
>
> As an aside, Jesus did not come to Earth to bring men to consensus but
> to lead them to the One Truth.  So if I were to pray, I would pray
> that the Holy Spirit lead us to the Truth.
>

Agreed. Consensus is not necessarily truth. Just look at the consensus
between those who deny creation for instance. So, Yes. I agree with
you. Perhaps it is better to pray to be led to the truth.

>
>
> >From what little I've read of your posts I see that one of you (Tony)
> >believes that the Earth is the centre of the universe and the other
> >(Ray) believes that the Sun is the centre of the universe.
>
> As near as I can tell Ray is a heliocentricist and a Big Banger.  As
> such he believes the Sun is the center of the solar system.  In Big
> Bang geometry there is no center.
>

Thanks for the clarification.

> > Please, do
> >correct me if I'm wrong but in any case I don't really want to discuss
> >these things.
>
> Then I 'm not quite sure why you haunt this news group.  The stated
> goal of the group is to discuss the origin of (God's) Universe and the
> life in it.  There are plenty of groups where evangelization and
> prozeltizing would be more appropriate and more productive.
>

I think you may misunderstand. My many discussions on origins with the
creation deniers around here all seemed to fall into the same end. No
matter how hard I tried to keep the discussion about origins with
reference to science the more they seemed to want to turn things into
a theological debate. So I gave them what they kept asking for. Then
they complained and so I went back to the science. Then they turned it
back into a theological debate again. Anyway, to cut a long story
short the next challenge I came up against was this accusation that we
couldn't agree on anything and would soon be calling each other
atheists.

> > I don't see either of them as important to the salvation
> >of a Christian.
>
> Then I would suggest that you are very niaive.  Significant numbers
> have had their faith eroded and lost because secularists cloaked in
> the trappings of science have misled them to believe that modern
> secular creation stories are indubitable.
>

OK. But I'm not sure how you see debates about what is and is not the
'centre of the universe' is likely to cure this situation. Surely,
it's faith in Christ that saves and not faith in some point being the
centre of the universe?

Like I said before I think you may have misunderstood.

> I see that you are genuinely faithful.  If so, perhaps devoting your
> time at a soup kitchen or family crisis center might be way more
> productive to the mission of salvation.
>

Indeed. I don't really see much chance of making any converts around
here. They seem to be impervious to evidence and hold on quite tightly
to their state of denial. I have thought about throwing the towel in
around here a few times. Most times I leave a reply for the sake of
lurkers and future web surfers so that they can see the faults in the
logic presented around here. The odd off list thanks makes it seem
worthwhile. But. Yes! You are right. The face to face has always been
more effective in disciple making.

JC

> Regards,
> T Pagano

[T Pagano]

On Thu, 22 Dec 2011 20:00:06 -0700, AGWFacts <AGWF...@ipcc.org>
wrote:

>On Thu, 22 Dec 2011 09:56:29 -0800 (PST), iaoua iaoua
><iaoua...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> the atheists and creation deniers around here are convinced that the
>
>One cannot deny that which is not in evidence.

Yet in the history of science there were plenty of false theories for
which evidence was offered and atheists like AGWFacts followed the mob
in acceptance. All false theories of any content have some (or many)
true consequences and hence all false theories can produce evidence.

Irreducibly Complex systems are a falsifier of Darwin's universal
process of the origin of biological diversity. Darwin himself offered
it as a falsifier though not with that label. In 1996 Dr. Michael
Behe, Lehigh University, produced two examples in 1996: the bacterial
flagelllum and the clotting cascade. They are systems which cannot be
produced by any successive, naturalistic process. Direct evidence of
a supernatural creator.

So far not a single atheist can produce an empirically testable,
naturalistic, biologically probable process capable of creating IC
systems.

>I assume you mean
>"creationism dismissers." As soon as you come up with evidence the
>gods exist, then and only then can the evidence be denied.

What have we learned:

1. Plenty of false theories can produce plenty of evidence.

2. There is evidence that some biological systems, prohibited by
neoDarwinian theory exist which require an intelligent agent.

Let's let the arrogant AGWFacts gnaw on those facts.

Ho, ho, ho, . . . . .


Regards,
T Pagano

[Boikat]

On Dec 23, 6:20 pm, T Pagano <not.va...@address.net> wrote:
> On Thu, 22 Dec 2011 20:00:06 -0700, AGWFacts <AGWFa...@ipcc.org>

> wrote:
>
> >On Thu, 22 Dec 2011 09:56:29 -0800 (PST), iaoua iaoua
> ><iaoua.ia...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> the atheists and creation deniers around here are convinced that the
>
> >One cannot deny that which is not in evidence.
>
> Yet in the history of science there were plenty of false theories for
> which evidence was offered and atheists like AGWFacts followed the mob
> in acceptance.   All false theories of any content have some (or many)
> true consequences and hence all false theories can produce evidence.
>
> Irreducibly Complex systems are a falsifier of Darwin's universal
> process of the origin of biological diversity.  Darwin himself offered
> it as a falsifier though not with that label.  In 1996 Dr. Michael
> Behe, Lehigh University, produced two examples in 1996:  the bacterial
> flagelllum and the clotting cascade.  They are systems which cannot be
> produced by any successive, naturalistic process.  Direct evidence of
> a supernatural creator.
>

No, it's direct evidence that "irreducible complexity" is based upon
nothing but the "argument from ignornace and incredulity". That's
what it's been from day one, and nothing has changed.

> So far not a single atheist can produce an empirically testable,
> naturalistic, biologically probable process capable of creating IC
> systems.
>
> >I assume you mean
> >"creationism dismissers." As soon as you come up with evidence the
> >gods exist, then and only then can the evidence be denied.
>
> What have we learned:
>
> 1.  Plenty of false theories can produce plenty of evidence.

Since theories are based upon evidence, you have it ass backwards.

>
> 2.  There is evidence that some biological systems, prohibited by
> neoDarwinian theory exist which require an intelligent agent.
>

There's that argument from incredulity and ignorance again.

> Let's let the arrogant AGWFacts gnaw on those facts.

The only "facts" you have presented so far is the continuing pile of
evidence that you have virtually *zero* grasp of logic or science.

>
> Ho, ho, ho, . . . . .

Lah-dee-dah.

Boikat

[jillery]

On Thu, 22 Dec 2011 19:37:06 -0500, T Pagano <not....@address.net>
wrote:

>As near as I can tell Ray is a heliocentricist and a Big Banger. As
>such he believes the Sun is the center of the solar system. In Big
>Bang geometry there is no center.

Big Bang geometry has nothing to do with the Sun being the center of
the solar system.

I mention this just in case you thought you slipped that one by.

[TomS]

Is that "disinterest" (like what a judge should have) or "uninterested"?


--
---Tom S.
"Ah, yeah, well, whenever you notice something like that, a wizard did it"
Lucy Lawless, the Simpsons "Treehouse of Horror X: Desperately Xeeking Xena"
(1999)

[TomS]

[Frank J]

(temporary break from feeding ban)

Some do, and some (like me) don't. *You* seek out those who do to
"debate". If you had any intention of keeping the "debate" about the
science you would not evade the questions about your "theory."

(snip)

[Bob Casanova]

On Sat, 24 Dec 2011 02:51:06 -0500, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by jillery <69jp...@gmail.com>:

Tony thinks(?) he slips a lot by. In general he's incorrect,
but he doesn't seem to realize that and continues his
Conflation ad Nauseum. He's been most successful when he
misuses the term "proof" in discussions about science, since
most read it as "scientific proof"; i.e., "preponderance of
evidence" and argue on that basis.
--

Bob C.

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

[T Pagano]

On Fri, 23 Dec 2011 05:21:45 -0800 (PST), Frank J <fc...@verizon.net>
wrote:

Since Ray's cornerstone principle of immutability is plainly false,
his book is dead already.

[Dale]

On 12/22/2011 12:56 PM, iaoua iaoua wrote:
> the atheists

there is no God

--
Dale

[AGWFacts]

On Fri, 23 Dec 2011 19:20:03 -0500, T Pagano
<not....@address.net> wrote:

> On Thu, 22 Dec 2011 20:00:06 -0700, AGWFacts <AGWF...@ipcc.org>
> wrote:
> >On Thu, 22 Dec 2011 09:56:29 -0800 (PST), iaoua iaoua
> ><iaoua...@gmail.com> wrote:

> >> the atheists and creation deniers around here are convinced that the

>> One cannot deny that which is not in evidence.

> Yet in the history of science there were plenty of false theories for
> which evidence was offered and atheists like AGWFacts followed the mob
> in acceptance.

Got any real example?

In all of science, new evidence modifies previous conclusions.

> All false theories of any content have some (or many)
> true consequences and hence all false theories can produce evidence.

Okay, I give up: what is a "false theory?" Can you give an
example?

Meanwhile, it is impossible to "deny" that which is not evidenced.

> Irreducibly Complex systems are a falsifier of Darwin's universal
> process of the origin of biological diversity. Darwin himself offered
> it as a falsifier though not with that label. In 1996 Dr. Michael
> Behe, Lehigh University, produced two examples in 1996: the bacterial
> flagelllum and the clotting cascade. They are systems which cannot be
> produced by any successive, naturalistic process. Direct evidence of
> a supernatural creator.
>
> So far not a single atheist can produce an empirically testable,
> naturalistic, biologically probable process capable of creating IC
> systems.
>
>
> >I assume you mean
> >"creationism dismissers." As soon as you come up with evidence the
> >gods exist, then and only then can the evidence be denied.
>
> What have we learned:
>
> 1. Plenty of false theories can produce plenty of evidence.
>
> 2. There is evidence that some biological systems, prohibited by
> neoDarwinian theory exist which require an intelligent agent.
>
> Let's let the arrogant AGWFacts gnaw on those facts.
>
> Ho, ho, ho, . . . . .
>
>
> Regards,
> T Pagano

[Rolf]

Is there such a thing as 'the solar system'? (Althought we observe solar
systems elsewhere in the universe, with orbitng planets.)

What makes our so-called solar system special?

What is 'big bang geometry'?

It may be difficult to observe or define the center of a four-dimensional
space-time continuum?

[Ernest Major]

In message <jdchd3$kia$1...@news.albasani.net>, Rolf
<rolf.a...@tele2.no> writes

Yes. It's the sun and everything gravitationally bound to it.

>
>What makes our so-called solar system special?

It's ours.

>
>What is 'big bang geometry'?

The geometry used to modelling the universe in General Relativitistic
cosmology..

>
>It may be difficult to observe or define the center of a four-dimensional
>space-time continuum?

It may be impossible. Many mathematical objects don't have a centre
within themselves.
--
alias Ernest Major

[wiki trix]

I dread the day that iaoua iaoua metastasizes into an adult.

[Ray Martinez]

On Dec 24, 5:23 pm, T Pagano <not.va...@address.net> wrote:
> On Fri, 23 Dec 2011 05:21:45 -0800 (PST), Frank J <f...@verizon.net>

Yet Tony routinely points out that Naturalism is Atheism (which is
correct) but he accepts the two main scientific claims of Naturalism/
Darwinism (natural selection and mutability).

Before 1859 science held **species** immutable (Darwin 1859:6; I could
post 20 more references if I wanted).

How does one describe the egregiously contradictory position of Tony?

Ignorance and/or confusion and/or delusion.

Ray (anti-evolutionist)

[Mark Isaak]

On 12/27/11 1:05 PM, Ray Martinez wrote:
> > [...]

> Yet Tony routinely points out that Naturalism is Atheism (which is
> correct) but he accepts the two main scientific claims of Naturalism/
> Darwinism (natural selection and mutability).

You err. The two main scientific claims of Naturalism are (1) that
clouds, rain, and dew form reliably under certain atmospheric conditions
of temperature, humidity, and dust; and (2) that fire can be created
from sustained rapid friction, from flint striking on steel, or by a
variety of other physical means. Numbers 3, 4, and 5 concern,
respectively, seasons, tides, and earthquakes. Natural selection and
mutability are down at about 15 or 20 on the list.

Note that if you believe any of those claims of Naturalism above, that
makes you an Atheist.

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

[TomS]

"On Tue, 27 Dec 2011 20:48:12 -0800, in article
<jde727$aqo$1...@speranza.aioe.org>, Mark Isaak stated..."

>
>On 12/27/11 1:05 PM, Ray Martinez wrote:
>> > [...]
>> Yet Tony routinely points out that Naturalism is Atheism (which is
>> correct) but he accepts the two main scientific claims of Naturalism/
>> Darwinism (natural selection and mutability).
>
>You err. The two main scientific claims of Naturalism are (1) that
>clouds, rain, and dew form reliably under certain atmospheric conditions
>of temperature, humidity, and dust; and (2) that fire can be created
>from sustained rapid friction, from flint striking on steel, or by a
>variety of other physical means. Numbers 3, 4, and 5 concern,
>respectively, seasons, tides, and earthquakes. Natural selection and
>mutability are down at about 15 or 20 on the list.
>
>Note that if you believe any of those claims of Naturalism above, that
>makes you an Atheist.
>

I would have thought that high on the list were:

* The naturalistic accounts for the appearance of new living things,
including that humans reproduce the same way as other animals.

* The heavenly bodies were natural objects rather than divinities,
and their movements were predictable.

[T Pagano]

On Tue, 27 Dec 2011 20:48:12 -0800, Mark Isaak
<eci...@curioustaxonomyNOSPAM.net> wrote:

>On 12/27/11 1:05 PM, Ray Martinez wrote:
>> > [...]
>> Yet Tony routinely points out that Naturalism is Atheism (which is
>> correct) but he accepts the two main scientific claims of Naturalism/
>> Darwinism (natural selection and mutability).

>
>You err.

Isaak certainly gets this correcly. Ray misunderstands a great deal
which causes hime to make false, simplistic equivalences which in turn
make his arguments hopelessly lost.

1. Never did I draw an equivalence between the labels "Naturalism"
and "Atheism." They are two completely different but related
doctrines. Naturalism is a doctrine held by Atheists.

2. Natural selection, change within species (between generations) and
the mutation rate are so well documented that Ray's denials make him
look foolish. He has had these facts rubbed in his nose. His
response is to cover his eyes and ears like the iconic monkeys ("see
no evil, hear no evil).

3. Ray also fails to distinquish a difference between "common
descent" (that my extended family members share a common ancestor
within our species) with the "Theory of Common Descent" (that all
species are connected by an unbroken set of common ancestors all the
way back to the First Common Ancestor). Because Ray lacks the ability
to draw distinctions and limits he sees everything in "black and
white."

4. The conjoining of Common descent (not the theory), natural
selection, and mutation rate do not lead deductively to the Darwinian
hopes that
a. biological novelty can arise (where it never existed) or
b. that existing structures, systems and creatures can
transform into something different.

>The two main scientific claims of Naturalism are (1) that
>clouds, rain, and dew form reliably under certain atmospheric conditions
>of temperature, humidity, and dust; and (2) that fire can be created
>from sustained rapid friction, from flint striking on steel, or by a
>variety of other physical means. Numbers 3, 4, and 5 concern,
>respectively, seasons, tides, and earthquakes. Natural selection and
>mutability are down at about 15 or 20 on the list.

Naturalism is the claim that our material universe is a closed system
which cannot and is not effected by anything outside of itself or
independent of it. By extension it is the claim that ALL events are
reducible to (or otherwise explanable via) natural law and chance.
This is a core belief of Atheists and incompatible with Christian
Theology.

In Isaak's (1) thru (20) he offers a list of observables. He fails to
realize that his list, however long, fails to prove (even loosely)
Naturalism's strong claim of "All." Yet all I need do is point to a
single contradictory observation to show its falsity. One example
will suffice:

Irreducibly Complex systems are those which cannot be produced by any
purely naturalistic process. In 1996 Dr Michael Behe offered two such
systems. Since then not a single atheist has been able to produce an
empirically testable and biologically probable, purely naturalistic
method. This is the scientific standard. Instead the likes of PZ
Myers have down-graded the standard to any "conceivable" process,
however unobservable or improbable. This isn't science trumping
religion.

>Note that if you believe any of those claims of Naturalism above, that
>makes you an Atheist.

Isaak places the cart before the horse.

It isn't his list of observables that proves Naturalism but rather his
zealously held belief of Naturalism (a core belief of Atheists) which
misleads him into believing that his list of observables encompasses
ALL events.

Finally the atheist hope that all ignorance can be extinquished by
time is self delusion when one realizes that the number of truths is
likely infinite.

Regards,
T Pagano

[John Harshman]

T Pagano wrote:
> On Tue, 27 Dec 2011 20:48:12 -0800, Mark Isaak
> <eci...@curioustaxonomyNOSPAM.net> wrote:
>
>> On 12/27/11 1:05 PM, Ray Martinez wrote:
>>>> [...]
>>> Yet Tony routinely points out that Naturalism is Atheism (which is
>>> correct) but he accepts the two main scientific claims of Naturalism/
>>> Darwinism (natural selection and mutability).
>
>> You err.
>
> Isaak certainly gets this correcly. Ray misunderstands a great deal
> which causes hime to make false, simplistic equivalences which in turn
> make his arguments hopelessly lost.
>
> 1. Never did I draw an equivalence between the labels "Naturalism"
> and "Atheism." They are two completely different but related
> doctrines. Naturalism is a doctrine held by Atheists.
>
> 2. Natural selection, change within species (between generations) and
> the mutation rate are so well documented that Ray's denials make him
> look foolish. He has had these facts rubbed in his nose. His
> response is to cover his eyes and ears like the iconic monkeys ("see
> no evil, hear no evil).

It sure would e interesting to know at what point you think common
descent breaks down and lacks this good documentation. My decisive
defeat of your claims in our last encounter (I am triumphant!) shows
that you can't even address the question.

> 3. Ray also fails to distinquish a difference between "common
> descent" (that my extended family members share a common ancestor
> within our species) with the "Theory of Common Descent" (that all
> species are connected by an unbroken set of common ancestors all the
> way back to the First Common Ancestor). Because Ray lacks the ability
> to draw distinctions and limits he sees everything in "black and
> white."

So where do you part company with the theory of common descent, and why?
In particular, do you agree that there is good evidence for common
descent of all paleognath birds? If so, why? If not, why not?

> 4. The conjoining of Common descent (not the theory), natural
> selection, and mutation rate do not lead deductively to the Darwinian
> hopes that
> a. biological novelty can arise (where it never existed) or
> b. that existing structures, systems and creatures can
> transform into something different.

Yes they do. If there is indeed common descent of all life, then there
must have been such transformation. That doesn't mean it was by natural
selection, but the transformation itself is a deductive conclusion.

[Robert Camp]

On Dec 28, 7:57 am, T Pagano <not.va...@address.net> wrote:
> On Tue, 27 Dec 2011 20:48:12 -0800, Mark Isaak
>
> <eci...@curioustaxonomyNOSPAM.net> wrote:
> >On 12/27/11 1:05 PM, Ray Martinez wrote:
> >> > [...]
> >> Yet Tony routinely points out that Naturalism is Atheism (which is
> >> correct) but he accepts the two main scientific claims of Naturalism/
> >> Darwinism (natural selection and mutability).
>
> >You err.
>
> Isaak certainly gets this correcly.  Ray misunderstands a great deal
> which causes hime to make false, simplistic equivalences which in turn
> make his arguments hopelessly lost.
>
> 1.  Never did I draw an equivalence between the labels "Naturalism"
> and "Atheism."  They are two completely different but related
> doctrines.  Naturalism is a doctrine held by Atheists.

And by not acknowledging and accounting for the existence of religious
scientists you ignore the possibility of such things as operational or
methodological naturalism. This leaves your comments on naturalism
tainted with the implication that there is a necessary connection with
atheism.

> 2.  Natural selection, change within species (between generations) and
> the mutation rate are so well documented that Ray's denials make him
> look foolish.  He has had these facts rubbed in his nose.  His
> response is to cover his eyes and ears like the iconic monkeys ("see
> no evil, hear no evil).

Would that you could detect the aroma of having had your nose
similarly rubbed many times.

> 3.  Ray also fails to distinquish a difference between "common
> descent" (that my extended family members share a common ancestor
> within our species) with the "Theory of Common Descent" (that all
> species are connected by an unbroken set of common ancestors all the
> way back to the First Common Ancestor).  Because Ray lacks the ability
> to draw distinctions and limits he sees everything in "black and
> white."

Ray draws his line in the sand in a particularly ridiculous and
contradictory location. Your line is only marginally less ridiculous
as the number of those who agree with you can be counted on more than
one hand. That hardly entitles you to call Ray's kettle black.

> 4.  The conjoining of Common descent (not the theory), natural
> selection, and mutation rate do not lead deductively to the Darwinian
> hopes that
>         a.  biological novelty can arise (where it never existed) or
>             b.  that existing structures, systems and creatures can
> transform into something different.

This is a rational objection only if followed by your offer of a
better explanation. If you wish to be more than a shallow denialist
tell us where the chain of reasoning leads.

> >The two main scientific claims of Naturalism are (1) that
> >clouds, rain, and dew form reliably under certain atmospheric conditions
> >of temperature, humidity, and dust; and (2) that fire can be created
> >from sustained rapid friction, from flint striking on steel, or by a
> >variety of other physical means.  Numbers 3, 4, and 5 concern,
> >respectively, seasons, tides, and earthquakes.  Natural selection and
> >mutability are down at about 15 or 20 on the list.
>
> Naturalism is the claim that our material universe is a closed system
> which cannot and is not effected by anything outside of itself or
> independent of it.   By extension it is the claim that ALL events are
> reducible to (or otherwise explanable via) natural law and chance.
> This is a core belief of Atheists and incompatible with Christian
> Theology.
>
> In Isaak's (1) thru (20) he offers a list of observables.  He fails to
> realize that his list, however long, fails to prove (even loosely)
> Naturalism's strong claim of "All."  Yet all I need do is point to a
> single contradictory observation to show its falsity.  One example
> will suffice:

And it must be an example which conclusively proves the inability of
natural processes to produce the phenomenon. There is no example you
can provide which fills that bill (and that includes the ridiculous IC
business you keep trotting out), the reason for which is exactly the
same as your complaint about Mark's list - it cannot ever truly be
offered as a comprehensive claim.

The obvious problem is that every investigation of every phenomenon in
human history has had a beginning, a middle and an end. For everything
we know there was a time when we didn't know. Thus an assertion
supported by the observation of incomplete knowledge is impotent as
positive evidence of anything other than the time component of natural
inquiry (regardless of your silly and desperate attempts below to wave
it away).

> Irreducibly Complex systems are those which cannot be produced by any
> purely naturalistic process.  In 1996 Dr Michael Behe offered two such
> systems.  Since then not a single atheist has been able to produce an
> empirically testable and biologically probable, purely naturalistic
> method.  This is the scientific standard.  Instead the likes of PZ
> Myers have down-graded the standard to any "conceivable" process,
> however unobservable or improbable.  This isn't science trumping
> religion.

No, it's science trumping ignorant rhetoric.

> >Note that if you believe any of those claims of Naturalism above, that
> >makes you an Atheist.
>
> Isaak places the cart before the horse.
>
> It isn't his list of observables that proves Naturalism but rather his
> zealously held belief of Naturalism (a core belief of Atheists) which
> misleads him into believing that his list of observables encompasses
> ALL events.

As does your attempted rebuttal.

> Finally the atheist hope that all ignorance can be extinquished by
> time is self delusion when one realizes that the number of truths is
> likely infinite.

(See above.)

RLC

[T Pagano]

Surely Harshman doesn't mean his fine report on ratites? The report
which described Ratite populations which possessed wings and feet at
time t and ratite populations which possessed wings and feet (with
minor changes) at some lengthy point later? This fits Gould's
textbook definition of "stasis."

I don't want to imply that the changes were trivial just that they
hardly demonstrate that flightless ratites transformed from something
else or transformed into something else (which they did not). Or that
a therapod forearm can transform into an avian wing.

>
>> 3. Ray also fails to distinquish a difference between "common
>> descent" (that my extended family members share a common ancestor
>> within our species) with the "Theory of Common Descent" (that all
>> species are connected by an unbroken set of common ancestors all the
>> way back to the First Common Ancestor). Because Ray lacks the ability
>> to draw distinctions and limits he sees everything in "black and
>> white."
>
>So where do you part company with the theory of common descent, and why?
>In particular, do you agree that there is good evidence for common
>descent of all paleognath birds? If so, why? If not, why not?

Both the fossil world and the living world are one of stasis and
discontinuity. Darwin admitted in 1859 that the fossil record did not
confirm this theory of gradual, progressive, continuous,
transformational change. Concerning the fossil record Gould admited
the same in 1972. Gouldians have not changed their opinion today.
Long term experiments of extant species, like Lenski's, which can
artifically protect most changes also has not observed any
transformational change.

So it is readily apparent that the claim that all species trace their
lineage in a continuous path back to some First Common Ancestor is not
supported. Discontinuity is prohibited by purely naturalistic
processes and as such falsifies the neoDarwinian claim to be the
"universal" engine of biological diversity.

I don't know where the discontinuities exist between various species
or if "species" is the criteria that would illuminate this problem.
Nonetheless the discontinuities are unmistakeable in the fossil and
living world.

>
>> 4. The conjoining of Common descent (not the theory), natural
>> selection, and mutation rate do not lead deductively to the Darwinian
>> hopes that
>> a. biological novelty can arise (where it never existed) or
>> b. that existing structures, systems and creatures can
>> transform into something different.
>
>Yes they do.

Nonsense. If Harshman could produce the "deductive" argument it would
rightly be Nobel Prize nomination material. Harshman's opportunity
for greatness.

If the deductive argument was so obvious it could have been produced
before now. It has not been produced by anyone. The observable
facts of "common descent (not the theory of)," "differential
survival/differential reproduction," and "mutation rate" all lack any
true statements linking the theropod arm and the avian wing.

Darwin and the neoDarwinian synthesizers ***hypothesized**** that
observable change accumulates leading to progressive, coherent,
transformational change. This has NEVER been observed and atheists
identified a genetic mechanism that can progressively integrate
changes. This includes duplication.

> If there is indeed common descent of all life, then there
>must have been such transformation.

Not only is the "antecedent" clause of Harshman's conditional far from
certain (given the state of the fossil record and experiments like
Lenski's) there is no certainty that some "First Common Ancestor"
ever existed as the starting point. The geoChemical and biochemical
road blocks to abiogenesis (in all its variations) are formidable and
unsolved.

The conditional Harshman offered is not symetric. That is, "if"
darwin's mechanism were capable of leading to progressive
transformational change then it is NOT the case that common descent to
a First Common Ancestor must have occurred. Darwin admitted as much
in his 1859 work. His mechanism neither predicts nor requires life to
proceed such that it would look like a Linnaeus-like "tree."

>That doesn't mean it was by natural
>selection, but the transformation itself is a deductive conclusion.

Nonsense.

First, the unstated, but impled, premise is that the process must
necessarily be purely naturalistic. This is a metaphysical
requirement and not a scientific one.

Finally, since Abiogenesis has been stagnated since the pitfalls of
Miller's experiment were exposed in the late 1950s and the fossil and
living world are one of discontinuity I'd say that this argument is
about as deductive as is Ray's argument of immutability.

Regards,
T Pagano

[John Harshman]

Of course I do. If you recall, I claimed victory in that thread after
your continued failure to respond.

> The report
> which described Ratite populations which possessed wings and feet at
> time t and ratite populations which possessed wings and feet (with
> minor changes) at some lengthy point later? This fits Gould's
> textbook definition of "stasis."

It doesn't at all. That shows you have no idea about what Gould meant by
stasis, which is something that happens within a species, not among many
species.

> I don't want to imply that the changes were trivial

Really? Then why do they supposedly fit with stasis?

> just that they
> hardly demonstrate that flightless ratites transformed from something
> else or transformed into something else (which they did not). Or that
> a therapod forearm can transform into an avian wing.

Well of course it does demonstrate that flightless ratites transformed
from flying non-ratites (and possible that flightless ratites
transformed into flying non-ratites too, though that's dubious). It was
never intended to say anything about theropod forearms (except in so far
as bird wings are theropod forearms).

Three paragraphs and no attempt whatsoever to answer my question. Let's
try again: So where do you part company with the theory of common

descent, and why? In particular, do you agree that there is good
evidence for common descent of all paleognath birds? If so, why? If not,
why not?

>>> 4. The conjoining of Common descent (not the theory), natural
>>> selection, and mutation rate do not lead deductively to the Darwinian
>>> hopes that
>>> a. biological novelty can arise (where it never existed) or
>>> b. that existing structures, systems and creatures can
>>> transform into something different.
>> Yes they do.
>
> Nonsense. If Harshman could produce the "deductive" argument it would
> rightly be Nobel Prize nomination material. Harshman's opportunity
> for greatness.

This is nonsense. The deductive argument is simple; the premises imply
the conclusion. That's what a deductive argument is. If all species are
descended from a common ancestor, and if some species are different
enough that going from one to another would be accounted "transformative
change", then there must have been transformative change.

So the question relies entirely on the premise, i.e. common descent.
Sadly, you refuse to engage in any discussion of common descent.

> If the deductive argument was so obvious it could have been produced
> before now. It has not been produced by anyone.

Except of course for the vast body of phylogenetic literature.

> The observable
> facts of "common descent (not the theory of)," "differential
> survival/differential reproduction," and "mutation rate" all lack any
> true statements linking the theropod arm and the avian wing.

No idea what you mean by that. But can we start by agreeing that if
birds are related to other amniotes then some amniote forelimb must have
been transformed into a wing? If so, evidence that birds are related to
other amniotes is evidence for transformation. Do you agree?

> Darwin and the neoDarwinian synthesizers ***hypothesized**** that
> observable change accumulates leading to progressive, coherent,
> transformational change. This has NEVER been observed and atheists
> identified a genetic mechanism that can progressively integrate
> changes. This includes duplication.

My victory in the paleognath thread says you're afraid even to discuss
this question.

>> If there is indeed common descent of all life, then there
>> must have been such transformation.
>
> Not only is the "antecedent" clause of Harshman's conditional far from
> certain (given the state of the fossil record and experiments like
> Lenski's) there is no certainty that some "First Common Ancestor"
> ever existed as the starting point. The geoChemical and biochemical
> road blocks to abiogenesis (in all its variations) are formidable and
> unsolved.

Irrelevant to the question, of course. We don't even need a single
common ancestor, just at least one common ancestor whose descendants
encompass sufficient disparity. That's what I've been trying to discuss
with you, but you keep dodging. I win!

> The conditional Harshman offered is not symetric. That is, "if"
> darwin's mechanism were capable of leading to progressive
> transformational change then it is NOT the case that common descent to
> a First Common Ancestor must have occurred. Darwin admitted as much
> in his 1859 work. His mechanism neither predicts nor requires life to
> proceed such that it would look like a Linnaeus-like "tree."

Note: I didn't bring up natural selection at all. Another red herring
from Tony.

>> That doesn't mean it was by natural
>> selection, but the transformation itself is a deductive conclusion.
>
> Nonsense.
>
> First, the unstated, but impled, premise is that the process must
> necessarily be purely naturalistic. This is a metaphysical
> requirement and not a scientific one.

That is in fact not a premise at all. It isn't necessary.

> Finally, since Abiogenesis has been stagnated since the pitfalls of
> Miller's experiment were exposed in the late 1950s and the fossil and
> living world are one of discontinuity I'd say that this argument is
> about as deductive as is Ray's argument of immutability.

Two problems with that paragraph: first, whether an argument is
deductive does not depend on the premise being true, only on whether the
conclusion follows from the premise, which it does. Second, abiogenesis
is irrelevant to the premise, as are most points Tony brings up in his
attempts to avoid the real issues. I win again!

[Ray Martinez]

On Dec 27, 8:48 pm, Mark Isaak <eci...@curioustaxonomyNOSPAM.net>
wrote:

[Original reply deleted----R.M.]

Having read your message and Tony's response upthread (which mentions
my name several times) it is rather obvious that neither of you
understand that Naturalism is the interpretive philosophy of Atheist
"science" (Darwinism): it **assumes** the absence of God (supernatural
causation) and **assumes** material Nature itself (hence "natural")
causes biological production (specifically natural selection). The
existence of design in nature falsifies the validity of Naturalism
(natural causation, natural law, and natural selection).


Prior to Darwin 1859 natural causation or law (Naturalism) had ZERO
scientific acceptance.

Both you and Tony are inexcusably ignorant. But Tony is even more
ignorant because he does not understand the basic claim of natural
selection: material Nature itself causes biological production/species
to exist, not invisible Creator. Thus his acceptance of its existence
makes him Darwin's buffoon. He also thinks natural selection is
observed. It is a BASIC fact that natural selection is inferred (not
directly observed). And Tony actually thinks differential reproduction/
survival IS natural selection when in fact natural selection is a
claim made in behalf of differential reproduction/survival. A huge
difference that Tony shows no signs of understanding.

No one is obligated to discuss anything with anyone who does not
understand the basic and undisputed facts seen above.

Ray (species immutabilist)

[Mark Isaak]

On 12/28/11 2:10 AM, TomS wrote:
> "On Tue, 27 Dec 2011 20:48:12 -0800, in article
> <jde727$aqo$1...@speranza.aioe.org>, Mark Isaak stated..."
>>
>> On 12/27/11 1:05 PM, Ray Martinez wrote:
>>>> [...]
>>> Yet Tony routinely points out that Naturalism is Atheism (which is
>>> correct) but he accepts the two main scientific claims of Naturalism/
>>> Darwinism (natural selection and mutability).
>>
>> You err. The two main scientific claims of Naturalism are (1) that
>> clouds, rain, and dew form reliably under certain atmospheric conditions
>> of temperature, humidity, and dust; and (2) that fire can be created
>>from sustained rapid friction, from flint striking on steel, or by a
>> variety of other physical means. Numbers 3, 4, and 5 concern,
>> respectively, seasons, tides, and earthquakes. Natural selection and
>> mutability are down at about 15 or 20 on the list.
>>
>> Note that if you believe any of those claims of Naturalism above, that
>> makes you an Atheist.
>>
>
> I would have thought that high on the list were:
>
> * The naturalistic accounts for the appearance of new living things,
> including that humans reproduce the same way as other animals.
>
> * The heavenly bodies were natural objects rather than divinities,
> and their movements were predictable.

After more thought, I am inclined to make the list: 1) weather, 2) fire,
3) non-vitalism, 4) luck, 5) earthquakes, 6) seasons, 7) planets, 8)
dreams, 9) tides, 10) whatever obvious candidate I forgot. Reproduction
was not so hugely attributed to magic, so it does not make my top ten.
But 'tis the time of year for making Top Ten lists, and no two people
ever seem to quite agree, so go for it.

[Mark Isaak]

On 12/28/11 4:20 PM, Ray Martinez wrote:
> On Dec 27, 8:48 pm, Mark Isaak<eci...@curioustaxonomyNOSPAM.net>
> wrote:

>> On 12/27/11 1:05 PM, Ray Martinez wrote:
>>
>>>> [...]
>>> Yet Tony routinely points out that Naturalism is Atheism (which is
>>> correct) but he accepts the two main scientific claims of Naturalism/
>>> Darwinism (natural selection and mutability).
>>
>> You err. The two main scientific claims of Naturalism are (1) that
>> clouds, rain, and dew form reliably under certain atmospheric conditions
>> of temperature, humidity, and dust; and (2) that fire can be created
>> from sustained rapid friction, from flint striking on steel, or by a
>> variety of other physical means. Numbers 3, 4, and 5 concern,
>> respectively, seasons, tides, and earthquakes. Natural selection and
>> mutability are down at about 15 or 20 on the list.
>

> I have read Tony's reply to your message (upthread). He was really
> speaking to me since my name was mentioned several times. Tony
> essentially sided with you and was against me. Mark Isaak (an Atheist-
> Evolutionist) and Tony Pagano (a Christian/YE"Creationist" DI "IDist")
> are completely ignorant of the **basic claims** of Naturalism. And I
> have always said that when the chips are down the YE"C"& DI "IDist"
> are in bed with the Atheists. My claim is proven true again.
>
> "Naturalism" is very simple and uncomplicated: it says causation is
> non-supernatural, originating from material nature itself. Before
> Darwin 1859 Naturalism enjoyed ZERO scientific acceptance. Its two
> main claims: **natural** (causation) selection causing species
> mutability (note adjectival asterisk) dethroned Intelligent/
> supernatural agency before Darwin published the 6th edition of "On The
> Origin."

Apparently you read Pagano's reply but not my message. Natural
selection and mutability are not, by any stretch of the imagination,
*main* claims of naturalism. They are way down the list, below at least
a dozen natural phenomena that you take for granted as much as any
atheist would.

Furthermore, naturalism itself (with the extension to ALL events that
Pagano insists on) is not a claim of evolution, or of science in
general, or even of atheism. Some scientists, some atheists, and some
evolutionists may believe it, but there is no necessity that they do,
and many of all three groups do not accept that naturalism.

Science is about looking at evidence. Ray and his ilk point out that
supernatural happenstances might muck up the evidence to make it
unreliable. That is a fair complaint; it is possible, and nobody can
prove it wrong. However, supernatural happenstances or not, the
evidence STILL points to evolution, and it is simply wrong to say
otherwise. If I come to a signpost in Sacramento that says "Oregon: go
north", you could claim that God or space aliens or Bigfoot changed the
sign, and Oregon is really in the south, but you do not get to claim
that the sign points south when it is pointing north.

Furthermore, you do not get to claim that I am denying God when I head
north to get to Oregon. What I am denying is the likelihood that God is
cheating with the evidence. Maybe he is as malicious as Ray thinks he
is, but I have no reason to think so. Following the evidence means
ignoring individual acts of the supernatural, but not outright denial of it.

In summary, naturalism is a non-issue. Get over it already.

[Mark Isaak]

On 12/28/11 7:57 AM, T Pagano wrote:
> [...]
> Naturalism...

is irrelevant, since it matters only to creationists.

> In Isaak's (1) thru (20) he offers a list of observables. He fails to
> realize that his list, however long, fails to prove (even loosely)
> Naturalism's strong claim of "All."

Shrug. Nobody is claiming "all", at least not qua science. See my
reply to Ray.

> Yet all I need do is point to a
> single contradictory observation to show its falsity. One example
> will suffice:
>
> Irreducibly Complex systems are those which cannot be produced by any

> purely naturalistic process. [...]

Oh, good grief. Irreducible complexity is easily produced by at least
three commonly observed mechanisms. That means it is possible for *any*
IC system to evolve by natural processes. Maybe you have one that was
not addressed by name; for example, I don't think any papers have been
published on the evolution of the subcellular machinery that dismantles
actin filaments in the cartilage halfway up the left ear of Betty
White's first pet cat. But we know by logical necessity that, even if
that cat's ear actin disassembly were unevolvable, irreducible
complexity is not part of the problem.

Perhaps you could inform yourself from actual biological literature,
starting with Muller, and publish some articles arguing why IC should
not be *expected* to evolve.

[Mark Isaak]

On 12/28/11 7:30 PM, Ray Martinez wrote:
> On Dec 27, 8:48 pm, Mark Isaak<eci...@curioustaxonomyNOSPAM.net>
> wrote:
>> On 12/27/11 1:05 PM, Ray Martinez wrote:
>>
>>>> [...]
>>> Yet Tony routinely points out that Naturalism is Atheism (which is
>>> correct) but he accepts the two main scientific claims of Naturalism/
>>> Darwinism (natural selection and mutability).
>>
>> You err. The two main scientific claims of Naturalism are (1) that
>> clouds, rain, and dew form reliably under certain atmospheric conditions
>> of temperature, humidity, and dust; and (2) that fire can be created
>> from sustained rapid friction, from flint striking on steel, or by a
>> variety of other physical means. Numbers 3, 4, and 5 concern,
>> respectively, seasons, tides, and earthquakes. Natural selection and
>> mutability are down at about 15 or 20 on the list.
>>
>> Note that if you believe any of those claims of Naturalism above, that
>> makes you an Atheist.
>>
>

> [Original reply deleted----R.M.]
>
> Having read your message and Tony's response upthread (which mentions
> my name several times) it is rather obvious that neither of you
> understand that Naturalism is the interpretive philosophy of Atheist

> "science" (Darwinism):[...]

Blah, Naturalism, blah, blah. Ray, I do not give a fuck about
naturalism (at least not the philosophical naturalism that you and Tony
both mean by the word). Nor do any scientists, with perhaps a
vanishingly few exceptions. It has exactly zero significance in my
interpretation of anything. What I care about is evidence. Naturalism
or its lack does not alter the evidence, nor does it make the evidence
point a different way, so the subject of naturalism is a waste of time.
You are free to waste your time on it if you like, but please stop
pretending that your obsession has anything to do with me.

[Ray Martinez]

On Dec 28, 8:52 pm, Mark Isaak <eci...@curioustaxonomyNOSPAM.net>

Convoluted and subjective nonsense.

Mark confirms his astronomic ignorance: he does not know what
Naturalism is (an interpretive philosophy that **assumes** material
Nature itself causes biological production, never invisible Creator)
and he doesn't know that Darwin 1859 is a Naturalism account of nature
(the first by a mainstream scientist in history; even Lamarck 1809 had
a role for the Creator IN the production of species, unlike Darwin
1859.) Prior to Darwin 1859 "natural law" and "natural
selection" (Naturalism/natural causation) had ZERO scientific
acceptance. The two main claims of Darwinian Naturalism is (1) natural
selection causing (2) species mutability. Prior to 1859 science held
species immutable (Darwin 1859:6).

Nothing written above is in any way controversial among history of
science scholars. Like I said before: no one is obligated to discuss
anything with persons who do not possess fundamental knowledge in the
history of science.

Natural causation/law does not exist in Nature. Atheists/Darwinists/
TEists (like Tony Pagano) are completely deluded. New species owe
their existence in Nature to the exact same way original species came
to be in Nature (Genesis Special Creation). Hence species are
immutable. Prior to 1859 the scientific elite accepted Special
Creation (supernatural causation). Darwin, in "The Origin," argued
against Special Creation. Hence he set Naturalism (natural law)
against Supernaturalism (supernatural causation; note I didn't say
"law").

The Darwinians totally reject ID; yet Tony accepts the main claims of
Darwin. He is an ignorant buffoon

Ray

[Ray Martinez]

On Dec 29, 12:19 pm, Mark Isaak <eci...@curioustaxonomyNOSPAM.net>

Naturalism is the interpretive philosophy of what you claim to care
about (evidence). Starting assumption: "Nature itself did-it, not
God." (Tony: do you really think God approves of this assumption?)

Since Tony accepts the two main claims of Naturalism ((1) natural law/
natural selection causing (2) species mutability) you have no reason
to be angry at him. The YECs (pseudo-creationists) are in Darwin's
bed, like yourself.

Ray (anti-evolutionist; species immutabilist)

[Ray Martinez]

On Dec 29, 12:19 pm, Mark Isaak <eci...@curioustaxonomyNOSPAM.net>

Since Naturalism is used to interpret reality and evidence, and since
its starting assumption is material Nature itself did-it, never a God
that does not exist, objective people will beg to differ.

Naturalism is the interpreting philosophy of Darwinism/ToE (modern
science). It rules God out by starting assumption (= pro-Atheism).
Prior to Darwin 1859 science accepted Supernaturalism. AGAIN, the fact
is basic and not in dispute among historians.

In other words, there is no evidence that contradicts Genesis 1 and 2,
only an assumption and the far-fetched explanations of Nature that
follow (like natural selection; animals fucking "created" us (the
Atheist Creator).

Ray

[Dana Tweedy]

Thanks for the warning, but everyone expects your posts to be convoluted
and subjective nonsense. There's no need to call your shots.

>
> Mark confirms his astronomic ignorance: he does not know what
> Naturalism is (an interpretive philosophy that **assumes** material
> Nature itself causes biological production, never invisible Creator)

Philosophic naturalism is a belief that nothing beyond the material
exists. Methodological naturalism, on the other hand is a tool science
uses to exclude untestable hypotheses. Of course, if you have any
evidence of an "invisible creator" you are welcome to present it.

> and he doesn't know that Darwin 1859 is a Naturalism account of nature
> (the first by a mainstream scientist in history; even Lamarck 1809 had
> a role for the Creator IN the production of species, unlike Darwin
> 1859.)

He doesn't "know" things that you've just made up, and have no logical
support. There were many scientists before Darwin who proposed natural
explanations for natural events. That is, of course, what science does,
ie find natural explanations for natural events.

For example, Isaac Newton proposed natural explanations for the
motion of objects. Early geologists proposed natural explanations for
the geologic record. Antoine Lavoisier proposed naturalistic
explanations for chemical reactions, etc, etc, etc.

Darwin's book was not a "naturalism" account of nature, it was a
scientific theory, explaining a natural event.

Ray once again shows his ignorance of the history of science.

> Prior to Darwin 1859 "natural law" and "natural
> selection" (Naturalism/natural causation) had ZERO scientific
> acceptance.

False again. Prior to 1859, the term "natural law" was well known in
science. Again, prior to Darwin, Newton enumerated laws of motion,
Lavoisier outlined the law of conservation of mass. Steno stated the
law of superposition, and the law of faunal succession was named by
Geologist William Smith in the 18th century.

The idea that Darwin established the scientific recognition of natural
laws, and natural causes is absurd.

> The two main claims of Darwinian Naturalism is (1) natural
> selection causing (2) species mutability. Prior to 1859 science held
> species immutable (Darwin 1859:6).

Darwin's theory, like any scientific theory, makes use of
methodological naturalism, so calling evolution "Darwinian Naturalism"
is somewhat redundant. As Darwin was not the first scientist to
propose naturalistic explanations, ascribing "naturalism" to Darwin is a
bit silly.


Prior to 1859, many scientists believed species to be immutable, not
on scientific principles, but due to religiously held beliefs. The
idea that God had made everything, and everyone in his proper "place"
was a widely held belief without scientific support.

As more evidence was gathered, and the idea of an unchanging world
fell out of favor, the idea that species too changed was gaining ground
among scientists. By the time Darwin and Wallace both independently hit
on the idea of natural selection, the belief in "immutable species" was
already dying. Darwin and Wallace simply put it out of it's misery.

>
> Nothing written above is in any way controversial among history of
> science scholars.

Actually, nothing Ray wrote above would be recognizable by any scholar
of science. It's primarily Ray's paranoid fantasies, and a poorly
understood skimming of science.

> Like I said before: no one is obligated to discuss
> anything with persons who do not possess fundamental knowledge in the
> history of science.

Ray, if you did that, you'd have to remove yourself from this
discussion. You obviously have no idea about the history of science.

>
> Natural causation/law does not exist in Nature.

Yet natural causation, and natural laws are what allows every living
thing on Earth, including Ray, to exist. Apparently Ray is claiming
that existence is an illusion.

> Atheists/Darwinists/
> TEists (like Tony Pagano) are completely deluded.

Ray, have you considered that since, by your definition, every last
person on earth, except yourself, is an "atheist/darwinist/TEist" that
maybe it's you who is deluded?

Consider the odds that 7,000,000,000 people are all deluded, or you,
Ray all by your lonesome, might be the one deluded. Consider too that
the ones you call "deluded" all the evidence on their side.

On what basis are you claiming others to be deluded?

> New species owe
> their existence in Nature to the exact same way original species came
> to be in Nature (Genesis Special Creation).

The problem with that assertion is, of course, that no one has ever
observed a new species appearing out of thin air. No one has ever
observed a new species being molded out of clay, and being animated. No
one has every observed new species being dropped out of the sky into
some kind of "garden".


On the other hand, new species have been observed evolving from earlier
species. There are many examples of observed speciation in the
scientific literature. Not one example of "special creation".

Why would that be, if your claim above were correct?


> Hence species are
> immutable.

Even if we were to assume, for the sake of argument, that new species
appear suddenly, and without any parent species, why would they then be
immutable?


Ray, out of curiosity, what do you think DNA is? What role do you
imagine does DNA have in organisms?

> Prior to 1859 the scientific elite accepted Special
> Creation (supernatural causation).

That was a religious belief some of them held. It wasn't scientific in
any way.

> Darwin, in "The Origin," argued
> against Special Creation.

Actually, he only proposed a natural explanation for how species change.
"Special Creation" was a dead issue by the time Darwin published.

> Hence he set Naturalism (natural law)
> against Supernaturalism (supernatural causation; note I didn't say
> "law").

Like any scientist, Darwin proposed a natural explanation for a natural
event. "Supernatural causation" was not a scientific option.

>
> The Darwinians totally reject ID;

Because it's not supported by any evidence, and it's unnecessary to
explain the evidence.

> yet Tony accepts the main claims of
> Darwin. He is an ignorant buffoon

Tony is indeed an ignorant buffoon, but not for accepting the fact of
species change, or for understanding that natural selection operates.
He's an ignorant buffoon for the same reason Ray is, ie, he rejects and
denies the scientific fact of evolution


DJT

[Dana Tweedy]

On 12/29/11 2:48 PM, Ray Martinez wrote:
snip

>>
>> Blah, Naturalism, blah, blah. Ray, I do not give a fuck about
>> naturalism (at least not the philosophical naturalism that you and Tony
>> both mean by the word). Nor do any scientists, with perhaps a
>> vanishingly few exceptions. It has exactly zero significance in my
>> interpretation of anything. What I care about is evidence. Naturalism
>> or its lack does not alter the evidence, nor does it make the evidence
>> point a different way,
>
> Since Naturalism is used to interpret reality and evidence, and since
> its starting assumption is material Nature itself did-it, never a God
> that does not exist, objective people will beg to differ.

First of all, Ray, you don't know what an objective person would do.
Scientists don't use philosophic naturalism to "interpret reality".
Science, instead, makes use of philosophic naturalism, in the practice
of scientific investigation.

The "starting assumption" of science is not that God does not exist,
or that "material nature itself did it". The "starting assumption" is
that the evidence means something. Any proposed explanation must be
testable, and falsifiable. Appeals to the supernatural are not
permitted, not because the supernatural is assumed to not exist, but
because the supernatural isn't testable.

You may not like that supernatural explanations are not entertained, but
you can't argue the method itself doesn't work.

>
> Naturalism is the interpreting philosophy of Darwinism/ToE (modern
> science).

While evolution is a theory within modern science, it's not equatable
with modern science. Modern science began before Darwin, and it's use
of methodological naturalism goes far earlier than Darwin's time.

> It rules God out by starting assumption (= pro-Atheism).

this is one of your major mistakes, and one you refuse to acknowledge.
Evolution does not rule out God by "starting assumption". Evolution
as a scientific theory does not rule out God at all. It may contradict
with your personal religious belief about how God acted, but it does not
infer that no supernatural beings exist.

What keeps God from using natural processes as his means of creation?

> Prior to Darwin 1859 science accepted Supernaturalism. AGAIN, the fact
> is basic and not in dispute among historians.

Again, Ray, your personal paranoid fantasies are not basic, or fact.
Prior to Darwin, science did not accept supernatural explanations any
more than it did after Darwin. Individual scientists had religious
beliefs, and assumptions. Science, however doesn't operate that way.

It cannot appeal to supernatural beings to explain natural events and
still be science.

>
> In other words, there is no evidence that contradicts Genesis 1 and 2,
> only an assumption and the far-fetched explanations of Nature that
> follow (like natural selection; animals fucking "created" us (the
> Atheist Creator).

Actually, there is a large amount of evidence the contradicts a literal
reading of Genesis 1 and 2. This is irrelevant to the fact of
evolution itself.

Also, as has been pointed out to you before, and you refuse to admit
your mistake, no one claims that mere coitus is how species are
produced. Reproduction is only a part of the mechanism of evolution.
It's variations in populations, acted on by selection over generations
that produces adaptive changes in those populations.

One might wonder why, if God creates new species directly,
reproduction is even necessary? Why would God need to have creatures
go around willy nilly reproducing themselves, when God could just crank
out a few million replacements? Why would species go extinct, if God
could just make all the new individuals as needed?


One suspects that Ray hasn't really thought this through.


DJT

[Mark Isaak]

Right. And I do not make that assumption. So shut up about naturalism
already.

[*Hemidactylus*]

Please rework this sentence a little. I hope you've hired a really good
and very patient editor for your book.

> Naturalism is the interpreting philosophy of Darwinism/ToE (modern
> science). It rules God out by starting assumption (= pro-Atheism).
> Prior to Darwin 1859 science accepted Supernaturalism. AGAIN, the fact
> is basic and not in dispute among historians.
>
> In other words, there is no evidence that contradicts Genesis 1 and 2,
> only an assumption and the far-fetched explanations of Nature that
> follow (like natural selection; animals fucking "created" us (the
> Atheist Creator).

Genesis 1 and 2 contradict each other Ray!

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis+1&version=NIV

Genesis 1:

[quote]24 And God said, “Let the land produce living creatures according
to their kinds: the livestock, the creatures that move along the ground,
and the wild animals, each according to its kind.” And it was so. 25 God
made the wild animals according to their kinds, the livestock according
to their kinds, and all the creatures that move along the ground
according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good.
26 Then God said, “Let us make mankind in our image, in our
likeness, so that they may rule over the fish in the sea and the birds
in the sky, over the livestock and all the wild animals,[a] and over all
the creatures that move along the ground.” [/quote]

So Ray in Genesis 1 animals and livestock are created before humans.

Genesis 2:

[quote] 5 Now no shrub had yet appeared on the earth[a] and no plant had
yet sprung up, for the LORD God had not sent rain on the earth and there
was no one to work the ground, 6 but streams[b] came up from the earth
and watered the whole surface of the ground. 7 Then the LORD God formed
a man[c] from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the
breath of life, and the man became a living being.

8 Now the LORD God had planted a garden in the east, in Eden; and
there he put the man he had formed. 9 The LORD God made all kinds of
trees grow out of the ground—trees that were pleasing to the eye and
good for food. In the middle of the garden were the tree of life and the
tree of the knowledge of good and evil.

10 A river watering the garden flowed from Eden; from there it was
separated into four headwaters. 11 The name of the first is the Pishon;
it winds through the entire land of Havilah, where there is gold. 12
(The gold of that land is good; aromatic resin[d] and onyx are also
there.) 13 The name of the second river is the Gihon; it winds through
the entire land of Cush.[e] 14 The name of the third river is the
Tigris; it runs along the east side of Ashur. And the fourth river is
the Euphrates.

15 The LORD God took the man and put him in the Garden of Eden to work
it and take care of it. 16 And the LORD God commanded the man, “You are
free to eat from any tree in the garden; 17 but you must not eat from
the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat from it you
will certainly die.”

18 The LORD God said, “It is not good for the man to be alone. I will
make a helper suitable for him.”

19 Now the LORD God had formed out of the ground all the wild animals
and all the birds in the sky. He brought them to the man to see what he
would name them; and whatever the man called each living creature, that
was its name. 20 So the man gave names to all the livestock, the birds
in the sky and all the wild animals. [/quote]

So Ray in Genesis 2 man (Adam) comes first then animals and livestock.

Which Genesis (1 or 2) is correct in your view?


And now let's look closer at the special creation on humans shall we?

Genesis 1:

[quote] 26 Then God said, “Let us make mankind in our image, in our
likeness, so that they may rule over the fish in the sea and the birds
in the sky, over the livestock and all the wild animals,[a] and over all
the creatures that move along the ground.”

27 So God created mankind in his own image,
in the image of God he created them;
male and female he created them. [/quote]

This looks like males and females were created together in God's image
after the animals.

Genesis 2:

[quote] But for Adam[f] no suitable helper was found. 21 So the LORD
God caused the man to fall into a deep sleep; and while he was sleeping,
he took one of the man’s ribs[g] and then closed up the place with
flesh. 22 Then the LORD God made a woman from the rib[h] he had taken
out of the man, and he brought her to the man.

23 The man said,

“This is now bone of my bones
and flesh of my flesh;
she shall be called ‘woman,’
for she was taken out of man.”

Here Eve is created from a body part of Adam separately from Adam being
formed from dust and God-breath. Eve came after even the animals.

So Ray how do you account for the biblical contradictions above vis a
vis "creations"? If the bible is the inspired word of God, then God has
some serious inconsistencies in his account and the bible is errant.

And apparently God (in Genesis 1) created photosynthesizing plants
BEFORE he created the sun they would need to sustain themselves for
however long a creation day is.

[quote Genesis 1 again] 11 Then God said, “Let the land produce
vegetation: seed-bearing plants and trees on the land that bear fruit
with seed in it, according to their various kinds.” And it was so. 12
The land produced vegetation: plants bearing seed according to their
kinds and trees bearing fruit with seed in it according to their kinds.
And God saw that it was good. 13 And there was evening, and there was
morning—the third day.

14 And God said, “Let there be lights in the vault of the sky to
separate the day from the night, and let them serve as signs to mark
sacred times, and days and years, 15 and let them be lights in the vault
of the sky to give light on the earth.” And it was so. 16 God made two
great lights—the greater light to govern the day and the lesser light to
govern the night. He also made the stars. 17 God set them in the vault
of the sky to give light on the earth, 18 to govern the day and the
night, and to separate light from darkness. And God saw that it was
good. 19 And there was evening, and there was morning—the fourth day.
[/quote]

It makes more sense that photosynthesizing plants evolved long after the
sun came into being. The theory of evolution blasts your creation
account out of the water.

[Mark Isaak]

No, it isn't. (Well, it can be, but there is no reason why anybody
would want to use it, and I don't know of anybody who does.)

> and since its starting assumption is material Nature itself did-it,

Since nobody is assuming it, its starting assumption is moot.

> never a God that does not exist, objective people will beg to differ.

I make no assumption about gods. That's what you do. Even your
consistent reference to "God" in the singular is an assumption.

> Naturalism is the interpreting philosophy of Darwinism/ToE (modern
> science).

Naturalism is a philosophy that some people interpret *from* Darwinism
and, much more importantly, from Newtonism. The philosophy is derived
from the science, not vice versa.

> It rules God out by starting assumption (= pro-Atheism).
> Prior to Darwin 1859 science accepted Supernaturalism. AGAIN, the fact
> is basic and not in dispute among historians.

What do you mean by Supernaturalism? If you mean that there is a place
for belief in god by scientists, then it has never gone away. If you
mean that scientists are required to bow down to the One True God, then
don't blame Darwin for its passing, blame (or thank) the several
religious wars of the last few centuries and the fact that some people
learned from them.

> In other words, there is no evidence that contradicts Genesis 1 and 2,

Of course there is evidence that contradicts Genesis 1 and 2. It is
called the Rig Veda, or the Popol Vuh, or the Prose Edda, and the
evidence has nothing to do with naturalism.

> only an assumption and the far-fetched explanations of Nature that
> follow (like natural selection; animals fucking "created" us (the
> Atheist Creator).

You mean it is "far-fetched" to explain rain in terms of condensation of
water vapor? Then I can only conclude that you are quite ravingly insane.

[*Hemidactylus*]

Jesus wept as the crickets chirped...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vXGhvoekY44

[*Hemidactylus*]

On 12/29/2011 06:21 PM, *Hemidactylus* wrote:

Reposted for the crickets.

[Rolf]

Ray Martinez wrote:
> On Dec 27, 8:48 pm, Mark Isaak <eci...@curioustaxonomyNOSPAM.net>
> wrote:

>> On 12/27/11 1:05 PM, Ray Martinez wrote:
>>
>>>> [...]
>>> Yet Tony routinely points out that Naturalism is Atheism (which is
>>> correct) but he accepts the two main scientific claims of
>>> Naturalism/ Darwinism (natural selection and mutability).
>>
>> You err. The two main scientific claims of Naturalism are (1) that
>> clouds, rain, and dew form reliably under certain atmospheric
>> conditions of temperature, humidity, and dust; and (2) that fire can
>> be created from sustained rapid friction, from flint striking on
>> steel, or by a variety of other physical means. Numbers 3, 4, and 5
>> concern, respectively, seasons, tides, and earthquakes. Natural
>> selection and mutability are down at about 15 or 20 on the list.
>>
>

> I have read Tony's reply to your message (upthread). He was really
> speaking to me since my name was mentioned several times. Tony
> essentially sided with you and was against me. Mark Isaak (an Atheist-
> Evolutionist) and Tony Pagano (a Christian/YE"Creationist" DI "IDist")
> are completely ignorant of the **basic claims** of Naturalism. And I
> have always said that when the chips are down the YE"C" & DI "IDist"
> are in bed with the Atheists. My claim is proven true again.
>
> "Naturalism" is very simple and uncomplicated: it says causation is
> non-supernatural, originating from material nature itself. Before
> Darwin 1859 Naturalism enjoyed ZERO scientific acceptance.


Its two
> main claims: **natural** (causation) selection causing species
> mutability (note adjectival asterisk)

What are you talking about?

Nothing is 'causing species mutability'.

Populations of species may over time (generations) be subject to changes in
the frequency of certain alleles within the population. The source of the
changes in the genome are mutations, or simply changes to DNA for whatever
reasons - there are lots of reasons for changes to DNA to occur within a
population.

That was the source. The statistical changes in allele frequencies are
attributable to; are caused by the simple concept of differential
reproductive success. Said with straight words: Some individuals within a
population have more descendants. Simply bacause that's the way it is: Not
all individuals of a population are equal. There are differences (genetic)
and such differences have a natural tendency to result in differenet
reproductive success.

An example of that is seen in all kinds of crops and animals where man has
been the more active force in determining which alleles (which translates to
desired traits) are given preferance. The results over tiem are dramatic:
Cultivated plants, cattle - or just pets, they look and behave very
diferretnly than their original, natural counterparts of up to maybe 15
thousand years ago. That's mutability in action.

Species are mutable. They may change by natural causes, or man can play with
the same mechanism for his own, directed purpose.

Now you try to disprove that by referring to facts, not your own stupid and
unfounded claims.

dethroned Intelligent/
> supernatural agency before Darwin published the 6th edition of "On The
> Origin."
>

> Both Tony and Mark are completely ignorant of the basic claim and its
> basic history. No one is remotely obligated to respond to such amateur
> ignorance of the unread (except to repeat the basic and undisputed
> claims seen above).
>
> Ray (anti-evolutionist)

[*Hemidactylus*]

And again we go....

Waiting for Ray.

--
*Hemidactylus*
-Tebow doesn't need Patriots sideline video intel
*Atheists for Tebow over Belichick*