Ray Martinez
LT
I'm sure many of you have already given much consideration to this,
but I cannot come to any conclusion about Ray than this:
Ray is an expert troll, particularly good at getting long-winded
conversations of people trying to educate him. I've read a great deal
of his posts, and there is simply no way that any human being could be
so utterly and completely impervious to reason and common sense as Ray
appears to be. It would indicate a mentality immune to toilet-
training, let alone understanding basic science.
I often find myself writing a reply to his posts, then half-way
through just cancelling it, shaking my head and saying to myself
"What's the point?". Then again, if everyone ignored him, troll or
not, he would immediately begin the tired and predictable rant of
"See, they ignore me because they are afraid of the truth" or other
such foolishness.
My question is, should the T.O. community as a whole just ignore him,
or is this continuous back and forth with Ray, entertaining at times
as it can be, perhaps doing more harm than good? Or is it still of
greater value to continue to be consistent in dismissing his long-dead
"arguments" (if one can justify honoring them as such) so that lurkers
and newcomers genuinely uncertain about evolution/creation always have
a source of real answers?
I'm split on this myself... such is the curse of trolls.
LT
coaster
Ray is no troll. There are other people just like Ray who produce the
same types of arguments but in different forms of media. There's
VenomFangX on YouTube for example. The Kurt Cameron and Ray Comfort
videos. And Kent Hovind's and Ken Ham's museums, and others. These
people genuinely view the world through "biblical glasses" (to quote
Ken Ham). Anything that might suggest that the Bible is not the "most
scientifically accurate book in the entire world" (to quote
VenomFangX) is viewed with suspicion. It is actually logical for them
to pursue alternative explanations in order to reconcile the real
world (God's creation) with Biblical testimony (God's explanation of
the creation). So we can't honestly criticize them for trying. What
we can criticize them for is lying about, distorting, or ignoring the
evidence which they do in abundance.
As to the question, "why not ignore them?" The answer is simple.
There IS a threat. The threat is not merely a perception. If you
need proof of this threat just Google the recent court cases of
creationists trying to push their beliefs on others through the US
state education programs.
Frank J
I could be wrong, but I don't think Ray is a troll, not even the kind
that's not out to make creationsts look ridiculous. I think he is a
good resource to bring new lurkers up to speed on the different kinds
of creationists and their different approaches to the irreconcilable
differences among the various anti-evolution strategies.
Wow, I wrote "kind" twice without quotes - must be a record.
Greg G.
Have you been watching Thunderf00t pwning VenomFangX?
Dan Luke
"LT" wrote:
> Ray is an expert troll,
Nah. Ray's just nuts.
And stupid.
--
Dan
"Don't make me nervous when I'm holdin' a baseball bat."
- Big Joe Turner
Ray Martinez
This post and its message, along with the other responses already
posted, are explained instantly when we remember that they were
written by Atheists and evolutionists.
Ray Martinez, Protestant Evangelical, Old Earth-Young Biosphere
Creationist, Paleyan-Designist, British Natural Theologian.
Free Lunch
Why don't you just sign "liar and fool". It would be more accurate.
LT
>
> - Show quoted text -
The post is explained, and readily evident, by anyone who looks up
your tripe.
LT
LT
>
> - Show quoted text -
Yes, actually I have watched those. They're fantastic videos, arguably
the best on YouTube. I'd like to see him get his own show.
I also agree with coaster. There is indeed a threat. I suppose my
question related directly to Ray, and people like him, who are
insignificant and unimportant. However, as I mentioned I'm split on
this, so perhaps it is still worth debunking him (even if it means
doing so repeatedly on the same arguments, and for the same reasons).
It just bugs me. He's such a twat.
LT
Frank J
Wait, I thought they were one and the same in your mind. So was the
person who said: “I for one have no knowledge concerning how God would
or would not have created, or concerning His specific artistic tastes,
and neither does any other scientist.” an atheist, and evolutionist or
both?
>
> Ray Martinez, Protestant Evangelical, Old Earth-Young Biosphere
> Creationist, Paleyan-Designist, British Natural Theologian.- Hide quoted text -
Ray Martinez
>
> - Show quoted text -
Since all evolutionists say this about all creationists, what is the
point?
Ray
Ray Martinez
>
> - Show quoted text -
Since all evolutionists say this about all creationists, what is the
point?
I also meant to say: Since the above fact is true I do not feel that I
am being singled out by your opinion.
Ray
Dana Tweedy
"Ray Martinez" <pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:fabb4b76-0f92-4e22...@u36g2000prf.googlegroups.com...snip
>> The post is explained, and readily evident, by anyone who looks up
>> your tripe.
>>
>> LT- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
> Since all evolutionists say this about all creationists, what is the
> point?
Since creationists specialize in "tripe", why shouldn't anyone say that
about creationists?
DJT
AC
I don't think you're a troll. I think you're sincere.
Now how do you reconcile all of this with your claim?
--
Aaron Clausen mightym...@gmail.com
LT
>
> - Show quoted text -
You're not making any sense, Ray. Why must the simplest things be
explained to you so repeatedly and frequently? You lie on a regular
basis, are exposed to those lies on a regular basis, and you
subsequently repeat those lies... yep, you guessed it... on a regular
fucking basis. You're not fooling anyone with your blanket statements
and grand generalizations of "evolutionists". I'm going to presume
you're not a troll for a moment. As such, there are very few people
dumb enough to fall for your bullshit. It's so transparent, and
comically funny, that anyone who agrees with you is already lost to
the side of reason. Most people are not as ignorant as you, and that
makes you an object of pity and ridicule.
Now, let's have another "... all evolutionist's..." statement, Ray.
LT
Greg G.
DonExodus2 is good, too. He just started a series on the basics of
evolution.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GpNeGuuuvTY
He praises talkorigins.org on this one.
>
> I also agree with coaster. There is indeed a threat. I suppose my
> question related directly to Ray, and people like him, who are
> insignificant and unimportant. However, as I mentioned I'm split on
> this, so perhaps it is still worth debunking him (even if it means
> doing so repeatedly on the same arguments, and for the same reasons).
> It just bugs me. He's such a twat.
I am also split on how to deal with the likes of him. I enjoy Steven
J.'s responses to him (or any of his posts) and Dana's persistence. An
hour or so ago, I couldn't stand to not respond to one of his posts
because what he said about things in the Bible was refuted by the
Bible. How can you pass up an opportunity like that?
I have been watching YouTube alot lately and am impressed with Sam
Harris' arguments. I'm going to break down and buy his books and read
them. Here is the first of a series on a talk he gave in Colorado last
year.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=baAg6k4c1Jg
He argues that religious fundamentalists are a danger to the world.
The rate of technological power is increasing and is available to Iron
Age philosophies. The religious moderates give cover to the extremists
because it is taboo to question someone's religion.
He thinks the religious should be treated as if they were speaking of
Zeus. If a politician professes a belief in creationism, there should
be the same penalty as if someone said they believed Elvis was still
alive in a job interview or on a first date.
He thinks that within a couple of decades, religion could go the way
of racial bigotry. He is not optimistic, however.
OTOH, he calls the war in Iraq a religious war. I am not quite
prepared to accept that right now, but I'm willing to consider his
reasoning in more depth than on YT snippets.
Yesterday, as I was preparing to leave work, a man butted into a
conversation on global warming. He began to tell me that it was a lie.
I pointed out that even the deniers admit that the earth is warming.
He tried a few other tactics which I rebuffed. Then he began to say
that he thought it was arrogant (at this point I knew where he was
going and began to think of Harris) for man to think he could destroy
the earth. I told him that we had weapons that could destroy all life
on the earth and there was no reason to think we couldn't
inconvenience ourselves by not addressing global warming. There were a
few things said about the one Truth and I told him that it was
worthless to discuss theology, a point I got from Harris. I left to
get to the time clock. Today, we had a few friendly words about a
picture in the newspaper of somebody who once worked with us, so he
wasn't as offended as I feared and I wasn't as disrespectful as I
feared that I may have come across due to time constraints.
>
> LT
--
Greg G.
There are only two classes of people in the world.
The righteous and the unrighteous.
The classification is done by the righteous.
Ye Old One
Where does he get this "British Natural Theologian" from? He is no
more British than G.W.Bush.
--
Bob.
Robert Carnegie
I think that more people reply to Ray at greater length than is really
necessary, and of course he's not shy about banging away himself.
If you want to make an argument to Ray, don't do so at any greater
length than is needed to express your point of view so that Ray or
third party readers understand what you are saying. And don't be
provocative so that he feels compelled to reply to a message that is
really nonsense. Really it doesn't do anyone any good.
Bob Casanova
talk.origins, posted by Ye Old One <use...@mcsuk.net>:
>On Fri, 23 May 2008 16:53:58 -0500, Free Lunch <lu...@nofreelunch.us>
>enriched this group when s/he wrote:
>>On Fri, 23 May 2008 14:40:52 -0700 (PDT), Ray Martinez
>><pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote:
<snip>
>>>Ray Martinez, Protestant Evangelical, Old Earth-Young Biosphere
>>>Creationist, Paleyan-Designist, British Natural Theologian.
>>Why don't you just sign "liar and fool". It would be more accurate.
>Where does he get this "British Natural Theologian" from? He is no
>more British than G.W.Bush.
He gets it from the same place he gets everything else,
which is why its coliform count is so high.
--
Bob C.
"Evidence confirming an observation is
evidence that the observation is wrong."
- McNameless
David Hare-Scott
"LT" <LTfl...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:3721b632-9d1e-4c38...@x35g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
> Hi everyone,
>
> I'm sure many of you have already given much consideration to this,
> but I cannot come to any conclusion about Ray than this:
>
> Ray is an expert troll, particularly good at getting long-winded
> conversations of people trying to educate him. I've read a great deal
> of his posts, and there is simply no way that any human being could be
> so utterly and completely impervious to reason and common sense as Ray
> appears to be. It would indicate a mentality immune to toilet-
> training, let alone understanding basic science.
>
It's all because he cannot wiggle his ears. If he could perform this feat he
would be faced with accepting either that there are vestigial structures (and
thus that we have descended from animals who actually made use of such) or
that God created such a useless neuromuscular system in humans out of whimsy.
David
Steven J.
not really mean that things that you say. The first response takes
the position that you really do mean these things. How does the
authors' alleged atheism or their acceptance of evolution account for
both of these opposite conclusions?
Please note, yet again, that pointing out your opponents' biases
(assuming you've done so, and I don't assume this) does not show that
they are wrong or that you are right.
>
> Ray Martinez, Protestant Evangelical, Old Earth-Young Biosphere
> Creationist, Paleyan-Designist, British Natural Theologian.
>
Your sig is threatening to become longer than your posts.
Furthermore, I thought you said you were Mexican, and I was under the
impression that you now live in the United States. How do you qualify
as a *British* natural theologian? When you say that the biosphere
is young, do you think that there were previous biospheres (e.g. one,
or several, in the Mesozoic, featuring nonavian dinosaurs)? What do
you think happened to these previous biospheres?
-- Steven J.
Frank J
Only an atheist would ask that question. Hey, I think I'm getting the
hang of these Rayisms!
>
> Please note, yet again, that pointing out your opponents' biases
> (assuming you've done so, and I don't assume this) does not show that
> they are wrong or that you are right.
>
> > Ray Martinez, Protestant Evangelical, Old Earth-Young Biosphere
> > Creationist, Paleyan-Designist, British Natural Theologian.
>
> Your sig is threatening to become longer than your posts.
> Furthermore, I thought you said you were Mexican, and I was under the
> impression that you now live in the United States. How do you qualify
> as a *British* natural theologian? When you say that the biosphere
> is young, do you think that there were previous biospheres (e.g. one,
> or several, in the Mesozoic, featuring nonavian dinosaurs)? What do
> you think happened to these previous biospheres?
Excellent questions about "previous bioshpheres." That they are rarely
if ever answered sheds light on why so few creationists commit to YEC,
OE(OB)C or OE(YB)C these days, and prefer the safer "don't ask, don't
tell."
If Ray is an "expert troll" (thanks to Poe's law, I can't completely
rule it out), who do we have left? Only Nashton and Glenn come to
mind, and their posts are far less substantive than before.
>
> -- Steven J.- Hide quoted text -
Frank J
As one of the guilty, I'll repent for my sins by offering the only
reply necessary. Everyone, please cut an paste as you like:
Ray, when will we see that paper?
Ye Old One
enriched this group when s/he wrote:
>On Sat, 24 May 2008 00:38:17 GMT, the following appeared in
>talk.origins, posted by Ye Old One <use...@mcsuk.net>:
>
>>On Fri, 23 May 2008 16:53:58 -0500, Free Lunch <lu...@nofreelunch.us>
>>enriched this group when s/he wrote:
>
>>>On Fri, 23 May 2008 14:40:52 -0700 (PDT), Ray Martinez
>>><pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
><snip>
>
>>>>Ray Martinez, Protestant Evangelical, Old Earth-Young Biosphere
>>>>Creationist, Paleyan-Designist, British Natural Theologian.
>
>>>Why don't you just sign "liar and fool". It would be more accurate.
>
>>Where does he get this "British Natural Theologian" from? He is no
>>more British than G.W.Bush.
>
>He gets it from the same place he gets everything else,
>which is why its coliform count is so high.
I've just gone off my food :(
--
Bob.
Ron O
Ray just represents a part of society that can't defend themselves
against people like Ken Ham, Hovind, Cameron et al. You don't see
those guys here trying to defend their hog slop, you only see the
ignorant or incompetent repeating the junk.
The perps that prey on the ignorant and incompetent know better, Ray
doesn't.
Ron Okimoto
KlausH
I do not think Ray is just a troll; I think he is really insane. To me,
it seems that he believes many of the untruths he posts, and half of his
lies are actually attempts to rationalize them to himself. Of course,
the other half of his lies are to gratify his ego. I was amazed when Ray
admitted being wrong on some minor points; perhaps there is some hope.
Klaus
'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank
I just poke him to make fun of him. (shrug)
Come on, Ray, howl for me again.
ANd bring your friend Glenn. I like hearing him howl, too.
================================================
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
Nobody cares what you think, Ray. (shrug)
How's that world-shattering scientific paper that will destroy
darwinism forever coming along, Ray? Found a publisher yet?
(snicker) (giggle)
Ray Martinez
>
> - Show quoted text -
Aaron, this discussion is for mature persons.
Ray
Ray Martinez
How does a self-evident observation, that is, the observation that
evolutionists say negative things about their enemies (= creationists)
not make sense? Again, in view of this fact I do not feel slighted.
> Why must the simplest things be
> explained to you so repeatedly and frequently?
Such as....
> You lie on a regular
> basis,
When has any evolutionist not said the same thing about any given
creationist? Again, I do not feel slighted.
And we know creationists say that evolutionists lie constantly.
Of course we know that you are special pleading. You want the fact
that evolutionists assert nearly all creationists to be dishonest to
be momentarily forgotten while you single me out. This exposes a
"crying wolf" syndrome. Evolutionists have lied about creationists
being liars for so long - now, when you really believe that you have a
real liar, no one believes you.
If you do not admit that the general picture painted by evolutionists
that depicts creationists as liars is false you lose your case against
me. The only thing I need to do is simply ask: "what is the point
since evolutionists say nearly all creationists are liars?"
Of course you will never make such an admission, which exposes your
slander of me to be quite predictable, a yawner, and leaves us
wondering as to what the point is since evolutionists always say these
things about creationists?
Of course you have singled me out because my straight forward logic
bothers you greatly. I learned it from the smartest and greatest
scholar that ever lived. This explains the endless attack that I
suffer at the hands of the general howler population here at Talk
Origins.
> are exposed to those lies on a regular basis, and you
> subsequently repeat those lies... yep, you guessed it... on a regular
> fucking basis.
A text book example of question begging.
> You're not fooling anyone with your blanket statements
> and grand generalizations of "evolutionists".
Special pleading.
You are saying: "we should be allowed to attack your character and not
have our bias exposed...it's not fair!"
You are a sorry-ass sniveling cry baby. Of course objective persons,
who are not naive, know that the character attack results from an
inability to refute.
> I'm going to presume
> you're not a troll for a moment. As such, there are very few people
> dumb enough to fall for your bullshit. It's so transparent, and
> comically funny, that anyone who agrees with you is already lost to
> the side of reason. Most people are not as ignorant as you, and that
> makes you an object of pity and ridicule.
>
> Now, let's have another "... all evolutionist's..." statement, Ray.
>
> LT- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
"Reason" is a quite subjectve concept. How reasonable is it to say
apes morphed into men based on bone scraps?
How reasonable is it to discount the observation of design to not
imply Designer?
How reasonable is it to say that nearly all creationists are liars for
accepting design to imply Designer?
How reasonable is it to deny the logic of design indicating Designer?
Of course every question is rhetorical.
In view of these reasonable propositions creationists know that
evolutionists are liars, not because they lie, but because
evolutionists lie because they are liars.
Ray
RAM
Then drop out.
'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank
Blah blah blah.
Talk is cheap, Ray.
Where's the scientific paper, Ray? What seems to be the problem?
Or is your big mouth just writing checks that your puny pen can't
cash?
Ray, I think you're just all mouth and no balls. (shrug)
'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank
Just wanted to make sure all the lurkers see this:
> You are a sorry-ass sniveling cry baby.
Followed in the very next sentence by:
Of course objective persons,
> who are not naive, know that the character attack results from an
> inability to refute.
Does anyone still wonder why everyone laughs at Ray?
Tiny Bulcher
Ray claims to follow something called British Natural Theology, which I
gather was a 19thC version of ID. He (or Scott before him) keeps getting
it mixed up with British Israelites, though, so it's kind of hard to
tell what he means by it.
Ye Old One
That lets you out then Dishonest Ray.
>
>Ray
>
--
Bob.
Ray Martinez
Your ignorance is appalling.
British Natural Theology is what Creationism was called before 1859.
British Israelism is a racial cult centered in England.
Ray
Robert Carnegie
> He thinks that within a couple of decades, religion could go the way
> of racial bigotry.
I.e., found in in the U.S. only in rural areas, and in inner cities,
and in the suburbs?
Do you see "go" here?
But I suppose you mean institutionalised bigotry - hiring policies,
places to live, service in shops.
Then by analogy you have in mind that religion will become a purely
personal matter, and no one will think of having it brought back into
school education?
Hmm...
Ray Martinez
The first response is true axiomatically.
The original post is accounted for by the fact that it was written by
an Atheist and/or evolutionist and that I am a Christian-creationist.
> Please note, yet again, that pointing out your opponents' biases
> (assuming you've done so, and I don't assume this) does not show that
> they are wrong or that you are right.
>
In this specific case it does. All we have is someone saying that I am
a liar - nothing else. When we remember this persons worldview and
mine the assertion is explained instantly.
> > Ray Martinez, Protestant Evangelical, Old Earth-Young Biosphere
> > Creationist, Paleyan-Designist, British Natural Theologian.
>
> Your sig is threatening to become longer than your posts.
> Furthermore, I thought you said you were Mexican, and I was under the
> impression that you now live in the United States. How do you qualify
> as a *British* natural theologian? When you say that the biosphere
> is young, do you think that there were previous biospheres (e.g. one,
> or several, in the Mesozoic, featuring nonavian dinosaurs)? What do
> you think happened to these previous biospheres?
>
> -- Steven J.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
A person does not have to be British to accept the view of British
Natural Theology. I identify myself with BNT because this is the view
that I subscribe to. Someday I am going TO PROVE that British Natural
Theology IS the correct scientific view that explains nature. Of
course before 1859 BNT was the overwhelming majority view of science
to explain nature. From Paley to 1859, that is, from 1802 to 1859 this
is when biology science was absolutely correct. THEIR view was and is
the view of the Bible.
Our present biosphere is quite young on account of the Flood. And
there were previous biospheres. Please note that this last usage of
'biosphere' does not necessarily mean biological life as we have known
it. According to the Bible previous biospheres were destroyed by
other floods. Of course all of the major geologic layers represent
floods. This is why God gave the sign of the rainbow to say that
destruction would not come by flood anymore.
Ray
LT
Another vacuous post by Ray. Thanks for proving my point so
succinctly. All "objective" readers need to do is check your track
record. You've not defended one single point of view with any evidence
or logical reasoning. Nothing changes.
LT
LT
One can only hope that all religion (not spiritualism), will one day
be relegated to the reams of mythology we already have and we would
hear no more of it in government and school. One can only hope...
LT
Jim Willemin
news:962a91f3-027f-407e...@c19g2000prf.googlegroups.com:
<snip>
>
> How reasonable is it to discount the observation of design to not
> imply Designer?
How do you tell if something is designed? For instance, is this chunk of
weathered basalt designed?
http://tinyurl.com/5datm9
If so, what is it designed for?
How about this natural arch?
http://www.nps.gov/archive/rabr/graphics/cowboy.jpg
Similarly, if it is designed, what is it designed for?
How about this quartz crystal? Is it designed?
If so, what for?
You have never told us how you decide something is designed, except by
claiming that it is 'obvious'. That is not satisfactory, becasue what is
obvious to you is not necessarily obvious to anyone else. How do you
decide if a specific object is designed?
> How reasonable is it to say that nearly all creationists are liars for
> accepting design to imply Designer?
That is not what makes creationists liars. What makes creationists liars
is the telling of known falsehoods - e.g. 'Science disproves evolution', or
'Evolution is a religion' or 'All evolutionists are atheists'. The claim
that objects with known natural causes are designed is not a lie per se, it
is just silly.
>
> How reasonable is it to deny the logic of design indicating Designer?
>
Well, first you need to demonstrate that something is designed. In order
to demonstrate design, you need to develop a criterion for deciding whether
something is designed or not. Then you need to at least address the
problem of fabrication - if it was designed, how was it made? .You have
not done either.
> Of course every question is rhetorical.
That's funny - every one of them has an answer, and not the answer you
want.
>
> In view of these reasonable propositions creationists know that
> evolutionists are liars, not because they lie, but because
> evolutionists lie because they are liars.
This is called a circular argument.
>
> Ray
>
>
>
'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank
Says you. (shrug)
Where's your scientific paper, Ray?
Hadn't you better be off to work on it?
(snicker) (giggle)
Ye Old One
<pyram...@yahoo.com> enriched this group when s/he wrote:
Cite?
>
>British Israelism is a racial cult centered in England.
What rubbish you read.
>
>Ray
--
Bob.
Steven J.
(although the Bible clearly teaches it) that the Mosaic Law permitted,
and many ancient Hebrews practiced, polygyny, but "British Natural
Theology" is what historians, writing *after* 1859, called the version
of natural theology prevalent in Great Britain in the late 18th and
early 19th century. Its main distinction was that the British version
lasted longer than the continental version. And, of course, "natural
theology" was not the same thing as "creationism;" natural theology
was the idea that God's goodness, mercy, and other qualities (not just
His capacity as an intelligent Designer) could be discerned from the
study of plants and animals and their relationships to one another.
The argument, central to modern creationism, that we are not entitled
to assumptions about how the Creator ought to have designed living
things (so that, e.g. we cannot say that the prostate gland is bad
design and an argument against a supernatural creator) is radically
opposed to the assumptions of natural theology. One can be a
creationist and still believe that God's nature cannot be discerned
from the (possibly warped and corrupted by the Fall) creation. One
might go further: I would argue that the theistic evolutionism of a
John Haught or a Francis Collins is closer in spirit to the natural
theology of Paley than is most of the "Paleyist-Designism" today that
sees nothing in nature except gaps to stuff a Designer into.
>
> British Israelism is a racial cult centered in England.
>
expression may have been the U.S.-based Worldwide Church of God
("Armstrongism"); this has changed after a new generation of leaders
revised its theology in a more mainstream evangelical direction. But
in any case, any British-Israelite would consider Anglo-Saxons in the
United States to be just as much descendants of Joseph as those in
England, and there are more of us here.
>
> Ray
-- Steven J.
Bob Casanova
talk.origins, posted by Ye Old One <use...@mcsuk.net>:
>On Fri, 23 May 2008 19:17:11 -0700, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off>
>enriched this group when s/he wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 24 May 2008 00:38:17 GMT, the following appeared in
>>talk.origins, posted by Ye Old One <use...@mcsuk.net>:
>>
>>>On Fri, 23 May 2008 16:53:58 -0500, Free Lunch <lu...@nofreelunch.us>
>>>enriched this group when s/he wrote:
>>
>>>>On Fri, 23 May 2008 14:40:52 -0700 (PDT), Ray Martinez
>>>><pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>><snip>
>>
>>>>>Ray Martinez, Protestant Evangelical, Old Earth-Young Biosphere
>>>>>Creationist, Paleyan-Designist, British Natural Theologian.
>>
>>>>Why don't you just sign "liar and fool". It would be more accurate.
>>
>>>Where does he get this "British Natural Theologian" from? He is no
>>>more British than G.W.Bush.
>>
>>He gets it from the same place he gets everything else,
>>which is why its coliform count is so high.
>
>I've just gone off my food :(
Hey, if you want to read Ray's posts with the same eyes you
use to look at your food that's hardly *my* fault!
--
Bob C.
"Evidence confirming an observation is
evidence that the observation is wrong."
- McNameless
Steven J.
to be true (i.e. that atheist-evolutionists *ALWAYS* insist that
Christian-creationists are liars and/or lunatics), but it does not
follow logically and directly from the definitions of "atheist,"
"evolutionist," "Christian," or "creationist," and does not seem to be
an axiomatic assumption of either creationism or evolutionary theory.
Furthermore, as I have pointed out, there are a few creationists (I
specifically mentioned Kurt Wise) who are NOT routinely called "liars"
or lunatics by many evolutionists.
>
> The original post is accounted for by the fact that it was written by
> an Atheist and/or evolutionist and that I am a Christian-creationist.
>
But back when they were posting, no one insisted that, e.g. Suzanne or
Zoe Althrop were lying about their beliefs, or were just trolling for
responses. There have been many creationist posters on this newsgroup
whose sincerity (if not their intellectual competence) was taken for
granted even by fervent "atheist-evolutionists." I think the original
post is better accounted for by the fact that you routinely take
demonstrably absurd positions (e.g. that the ancient Hebrews are not
depicted, in the Bible, as polygamists, or that the epistle of James
was included in the New Testament to show its heretical nature) that
one would not expect of a consistent biblical creationist.
>
> > Please note, yet again, that pointing out your opponents' biases
> > (assuming you've done so, and I don't assume this) does not show that
> > they are wrong or that you are right.
>
> In this specific case it does. All we have is someone saying that I am
> a liar - nothing else. When we remember this persons worldview and
> mine the assertion is explained instantly.
>
The position would be equally well explained by the poster having
evidence (e.g. self-contradictory positions, or your insistence that
you have some paper that will overturn evolutionary theory, but about
the arguments in which you will reveal no details) that you have been
lying to us.
>
> > > Ray Martinez, Protestant Evangelical, Old Earth-Young Biosphere
> > > Creationist, Paleyan-Designist, British Natural Theologian.
>
> > Your sig is threatening to become longer than your posts.
> > Furthermore, I thought you said you were Mexican, and I was under the
> > impression that you now live in the United States. How do you qualify
> > as a *British* natural theologian? When you say that the biosphere
> > is young, do you think that there were previous biospheres (e.g. one,
> > or several, in the Mesozoic, featuring nonavian dinosaurs)? What do
> > you think happened to these previous biospheres?
>
> > -- Steven J.
>
> A person does not have to be British to accept the view of British
> Natural Theology. I identify myself with BNT because this is the view
> that I subscribe to. Someday I am going TO PROVE that British Natural
> Theology IS the correct scientific view that explains nature. Of
> course before 1859 BNT was the overwhelming majority view of science
> to explain nature. From Paley to 1859, that is, from 1802 to 1859 this
> is when biology science was absolutely correct. THEIR view was and is
> the view of the Bible.
>
As I point out in another post, there is no need to add "British" to
"natural theology;" the only distinctive thing about "British" natural
theology is that natural theology was more popular and lasted longer
in that country. I have also pointed out that there is more to
natural theology than the design argument, and that you are not, in
fact, particularly close to the Paleyan tradition except in the single
regard of insisting on the argument from design.
>
> Our present biosphere is quite young on account of the Flood. And
> there were previous biospheres. Please note that this last usage of
> 'biosphere' does not necessarily mean biological life as we have known
> it. According to the Bible previous biospheres were destroyed by
> other floods. Of course all of the major geologic layers represent
> floods. This is why God gave the sign of the rainbow to say that
> destruction would not come by flood anymore.
>
I am not aware that the Bible mentions any past global cataclysms
other than Noah's Flood. And none of the major geological periods
show any sign that the entire Earth was under water. There are many
geological features that result from water-laid sediment (although
there are also regions of wind-blown sand, or evaporites: layers of
salt caused by the slow evaporation of shallow seas), but many of
these reflect long, slow sedimentation rather than sudden
catastrophes: there are, e.g. undisturbed layers of varves (seasonal
depositions of sediments) or fragile fossils such as the shed
exoskeletons of trilobites.
>
> Ray
-- Steven J.
DJT
> > The original post takes the position that you are a pure troll, and do
> > not really mean that things that you say. The first response takes
> > the position that you really do mean these things. How does the
> > authors' alleged atheism or their acceptance of evolution account for
> > both of these opposite conclusions?
>
> The first response is true axiomatically.
Ray, "axiomatically" appears to be another word you don't
understand. Because you make a claim it doesn't mean it's true, or
an axiom.
>
> The original post is accounted for by the fact that it was written by
> an Atheist and/or evolutionist and that I am a Christian-creationist.
Actually, Ray, it's "accounted for" by the fact that your posts are
generally those of a loony. The acceptance of science doesn't make
you right, or wrong.
>
> > Please note, yet again, that pointing out your opponents' biases
> > (assuming you've done so, and I don't assume this) does not show that
> > they are wrong or that you are right.
>
> In this specific case it does.
No, it does not.
> All we have is someone saying that I am
> a liar - nothing else.
However your reputation as a liar is well evidenced by your frequent
lies.
> When we remember this persons worldview and
> mine the assertion is explained instantly.
Ray, a person's "worldview" does not make the false statements you've
made correct. You are being criticized not for having a different
"worldview" but for putting forth statements you know to be false.
>
> > > Ray Martinez, Protestant Evangelical, Old Earth-Young Biosphere
> > > Creationist, Paleyan-Designist, British Natural Theologian.
>
> > Your sig is threatening to become longer than your posts.
> > Furthermore, I thought you said you were Mexican, and I was under the
> > impression that you now live in the United States. How do you qualify
> > as a *British* natural theologian? When you say that the biosphere
> > is young, do you think that there were previous biospheres (e.g. one,
> > or several, in the Mesozoic, featuring nonavian dinosaurs)? What do
> > you think happened to these previous biospheres?
>
> > -- Steven J.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> A person does not have to be British to accept the view of British
> Natural Theology.
It might help, though, if you actually understood British Natural
Theology.
> I identify myself with BNT because this is the view
> that I subscribe to.
Actually, British Natural Theology is not what you "subscribe to".
You subscribe to "whatever Gene Scott said must be right, no matter
what the evidence says".
> Someday I am going TO PROVE that British Natural
> Theology IS the correct scientific view that explains nature.
Again, in order to do that, you'd have actually understand the
concept, and why it was discarded by British Natural Theologians.
Theology is not a scientific view, and never can be.
>Of
> course before 1859 BNT was the overwhelming majority view of science
> to explain nature.
Which, of course is false. Theology was never a "view of science",
it was a view of theology. Theology is not science.
>From Paley to 1859, that is, from 1802 to 1859 this
> is when biology science was absolutely correct. THEIR view was and is
> the view of the Bible.
However their view of the Bible is not your view of the Bible.
"Biology science" has improved quite a bit since the early 19th
century, which shows the science of the time was not "absolutely
correct".
>
> Our present biosphere is quite young on account of the Flood.
Ray, there is no evidence of a global flood. The "biosphere" is at
least 3.8 billion years old.
>And
> there were previous biospheres.
There was life previous to modern life, but it's the same
"biosphere".
>Please note that this last usage of
> 'biosphere' does not necessarily mean biological life as we have known
> it.
What kind of life was it, Ray? And why are some of the earliest
life forms (blue green algae) still around?
> According to the Bible previous biospheres were destroyed by
> other floods.
Chapter and verse to support this assertion, please.
>Of course all of the major geologic layers represent
> floods.
Even the ones made by sand dunes, which were not under water? Even
the Evaporties? Ray, you are even more poorly informed about
geology than you are about biology.
>This is why God gave the sign of the rainbow to say that
> destruction would not come by flood anymore.
So, why are there still floods?
DJT
DJT
>
> Aaron, this discussion is for mature persons.
Aw, com'on, Ray, we let you in on the discussion....
DJT
Greg G.
> Greg G. wrote:
> > He thinks that within a couple of decades, religion could go the way
> > of racial bigotry.
>
> I.e., found in in the U.S. only in rural areas, and in inner cities,
> and in the suburbs?
>
> Do you see "go" here?
>
> But I suppose you mean institutionalised bigotry - hiring policies,
> places to live, service in shops.
When Kirk kissed Uhura, it is said that was the first time a white man
had kissed a black woman on television and he had to be forced to do
it by the humanoids on another planet. The real life struggles that
brought us to that point were tough. Today, there is a black man
running for President of the US and he will probably win. Most of this
happened within my lifetime. That's a significant change.
>
> Then by analogy you have in mind that religion will become a purely
> personal matter, and no one will think of having it brought back into
> school education?
AIUI, Jefferson's letter to the Danbury Baptists, where we get the
phrase "separation of church and state", was to ease their fears of
the establishment of a state church. Now, fundies want to tear down
that wall. There will be some. There are sporadic reports of flat-
earthers still around. Astrology and superstition exist but few take
them to the point of causing societal problems. We don't see
astrologers and alchemists demanding equal time in science classes.
Today, there are megachurches forming that barely touch on the Bible.
The people pay 10% of their pay for a seat license at a weekly musical
production with an inspiring pep talk. They could drop God and the
Bible entirely and nobody would notice but the IRS.
>
> Hmm...
--
Greg G.
According to a recent survey, men say the first thing they notice
about a woman is her eyes. The first thing women notice about men is
that they're a bunch of liars.
DJT
snip
>
> > You're not making any sense, Ray.
>
> How does a self-evident observation, that is, the observation that
> evolutionists say negative things about their enemies (= creationists)
> not make sense?
Like many of your claims of something being "self evident", it's
really only "evident" to you. Evolutionists don't normally consider
creationists to be "enemies" and the reason they say negative things
about creationists, is because creationists have earned any negative
comments. If creationists would argue honestly, and use logic,and
evidence, there would be no reason to say any negative comments.
Of course, if they argued honestly, and used logic, or evidence,
they wouldn't be creationists.
> Again, in view of this fact I do not feel slighted.
Obviously you do, or you wouldn't be whining about it.
>
> > Why must the simplest things be
> > explained to you so repeatedly and frequently?
>
> Such as....
Well, this case in particular. The case of me explaining to you that
natural selection doesn't cause variations in individuals is
another. Many more can be provided, if you really want them.
>
> > You lie on a regular
> > basis,
>
> When has any evolutionist not said the same thing about any given
> creationist?
Well, Kurt Wise comes to mind. The fact that you do lie on a regular
basis has something to do with this. Remember how you claimed to
speak Greek? Remember when you claimed not to have said that non
human apes raped human females? Remember when you claimed I was
racist, based on your misquoting me?
>Again, I do not feel slighted.
Well, if you'd stop lying, people wouldn't call you a liar.
>
> And we know creationists say that evolutionists lie constantly.
Which is another example of how creationists lie. Creationists know
that 'evolutionists' don't lie constantly, yet make that claim.
>
> Of course we know that you are special pleading. You want the fact
> that evolutionists assert nearly all creationists to be dishonest to
> be momentarily forgotten while you single me out.
Ray, you are mistaking the meaning of "special pleading" again.
Also, you are "singled out" because you DO lie, and you ARE
dishonest. If other creationists are also dishonest, and liars,
that's their problem, not a reason to doubt your own status as a
liar.
> This exposes a
> "crying wolf" syndrome.
When one sees a wolf, what else does one cry?
> Evolutionists have lied about creationists
> being liars for so long - now, when you really believe that you have a
> real liar, no one believes you.
"Evolutionists" have not lied about creationists being liars. Many
creationists are liars. Those few who aren't are not called
liars.
>
> If you do not admit that the general picture painted by evolutionists
> that depicts creationists as liars is false you lose your case against
> me.
Why? You HAVE lied, and the evidence of those lies is easily found
by a search of the newsgroup.
>The only thing I need to do is simply ask: "what is the point
> since evolutionists say nearly all creationists are liars?"
Ray, have you considered that is because most creationists ARE
liars?
>
> Of course you will never make such an admission, which exposes your
> slander of me to be quite predictable, a yawner, and leaves us
> wondering as to what the point is since evolutionists always say these
> things about creationists?
Again, Ray, "slander" is spoken, libel is written. Second, if the
statement is true, it's not either slander, or libel. The reason you
are being called a liar, is because you do lie, not because you are a
creationist.
>
> Of course you have singled me out because my straight forward logic
> bothers you greatly.
Ray, you don't use any kind of "straightforward logic", or any kind of
logic at all. You routinely fail basic logic, and are renowned for
your use of logical fallacies.
> I learned it from the smartest and greatest
> scholar that ever lived.
Was that before, or after you started following Gene Scott? If you
learned your logic from Mr. Scott, it's obvious that either he was a
bad teacher, you weren't paying attention, or he didn't understand
logic either.
>This explains the endless attack that I
> suffer at the hands of the general howler population here at Talk
> Origins.
Any "attacks" you get you bring on yourself, Ray. You are trying to
compete at a level way above your head.
>
> > are exposed to those lies on a regular basis, and you
> > subsequently repeat those lies... yep, you guessed it... on a regular
> > fucking basis.
>
> A text book example of question begging.
Again, a term you don't understand. Where has the above begged any
question?
>
> > You're not fooling anyone with your blanket statements
> > and grand generalizations of "evolutionists".
>
> Special pleading.
Ray, please, try to understand terms before you try to use them. The
above is not special pleading.
>
> You are saying: "we should be allowed to attack your character and not
> have our bias exposed...it's not fair!"
"Exposing bias" does not mean the charge made against your character
is false. You are trying to avoid the issue by employing the fallacy
of ad hominem.
>
> You are a sorry-ass sniveling cry baby. Of course objective persons,
> who are not naive, know that the character attack results from an
> inability to refute.
Is that why you just used an attack on his character? Remember,
that you aren't objective, and you are naive about a lot.
snip
>
> "Reason" is a quite subjectve concept. How reasonable is it to say
> apes morphed into men based on bone scraps?
Ray, as pointed out to you before, the evidence for human evolution is
much more than "bone scraps". KNM WT 15000 for example is a 90%
complete skeleton, and the fossil record, as strong as it is, is not
even the best evidence for human evolution. Genetic evidence is much
stronger. Human evolution is concluded from several independent
lines of evidence.
>
> How reasonable is it to discount the observation of design to not
> imply Designer?
Very reasonable, because the "observation of design" in regard to life
does not exist. No one has ever observed any supernatural being
designing any life form. What is present is the appearance of
design, which can be shown to be the result of natural processes, so
appeal to a supernatural being is not warranted.
>
> How reasonable is it to say that nearly all creationists are liars for
> accepting design to imply Designer?
Creationists are not called liars for claiming "design implies
designer". Anyone who claims that may be called illogical, or ill
informed, but not a liar. Creationists are called liars for lying
about things, such as saying that there isn't any evidence for
evolution, or for saying there aren't any transitional fossils, or for
saying that scientists cheat in dating fossils, etc..
>
> How reasonable is it to deny the logic of design indicating Designer?
Quite reasonable, as explained above. It's not logical to assume the
appearance of design implies a "Designer", when there isn't any
evidence of a "Designer", and the appearance of design can be produced
without appeal to a "Designer".
>
> Of course every question is rhetorical.
Ray, "rhetorical" does not mean "easily answered".
>
> In view of these reasonable propositions creationists know that
> evolutionists are liars, not because they lie, but because
> evolutionists lie because they are liars.
Which shows that it's the creationists who are lying.
"Evolutionists" generally aren't lying, and use evidence to support
their claims. If a creationist claims an "evolutionist" is lying,
without any actual lies on the evolutionist's part, that itself is a
lie, told by the creationist.
DJT
Joe Cummings
I think you'll have to explain why "BNT" was abandoned and
when.
To help you, try to find out how the Flood was treated in
discussions on geology in the 1830s.
Can you do this?
<snip>
Have fun,
Joe Cummings
Joe Cummings
<com...@rotting.com> wrote:
>
>"LT" <LTfl...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>news:3721b632-9d1e-4c38...@x35g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
>> Hi everyone,
>>
>> I'm sure many of you have already given much consideration to this,
>> but I cannot come to any conclusion about Ray than this:
>>
>> Ray is an expert troll, particularly good at getting long-winded
>> conversations of people trying to educate him. I've read a great deal
>> of his posts, and there is simply no way that any human being could be
>> so utterly and completely impervious to reason and common sense as Ray
>> appears to be. It would indicate a mentality immune to toilet-
>> training, let alone understanding basic science.
>>
>
>It's all because he cannot wiggle his ears. If he could perform this feat he
>would be faced with accepting either that there are vestigial structures (and
>thus that we have descended from animals who actually made use of such) or
>that God created such a useless neuromuscular system in humans out of whimsy.
>
>David
It's even wuss than that: if Ray runs his finger round the
rim of his ear, he'll feel a tiny bump about a third of the way round.
Two question arise:
1. How do I know?
2. Why is it there?
And Ray, please don't send me an ear, concentrate on your
paper.
Have vestigial fun,
Joe Cummings
>
Tiny Bulcher
> On May 24, 5:23 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> A person does not have to be British to accept the view of British
>> Natural Theology. I identify myself with BNT because this is the view
>> that I subscribe to. Someday I am going TO PROVE that British Natural
>> Theology IS the correct scientific view that explains nature.
Oh, no, you're not.
>>Of
>> course before 1859 BNT was the overwhelming majority view of science
>> to explain nature. From Paley to 1859, that is, from 1802 to 1859
>> this is when biology science was absolutely correct. THEIR view was
>> and is the view of the Bible.
>>
> As I point out in another post, there is no need to add "British" to
> "natural theology;" the only distinctive thing about "British" natural
> theology is that natural theology was more popular and lasted longer
> in that country. I have also pointed out that there is more to
> natural theology than the design argument, and that you are not, in
> fact, particularly close to the Paleyan tradition except in the single
> regard of insisting on the argument from design.
>>
>> Our present biosphere is quite young on account of the Flood. And
>> there were previous biospheres. Please note that this last usage of
>> 'biosphere' does not necessarily mean biological life as we have
>> known it. According to the Bible previous biospheres were destroyed
>> by other floods. Of course all of the major geologic layers represent
>> floods. This is why God gave the sign of the rainbow to say that
>> destruction would not come by flood anymore.
The Book of Genesis is a heretical interpolation into scripture, so as
to test the faithful.
> I am not aware that the Bible mentions any past global cataclysms
> other than Noah's Flood. And none of the major geological periods
> show any sign that the entire Earth was under water. There are many
> geological features that result from water-laid sediment (although
> there are also regions of wind-blown sand, or evaporites: layers of
> salt caused by the slow evaporation of shallow seas), but many of
> these reflect long, slow sedimentation rather than sudden
> catastrophes: there are, e.g. undisturbed layers of varves (seasonal
> depositions of sediments) or fragile fossils such as the shed
> exoskeletons of trilobites.
I think we should refrain from directly answering Ray. It only feeds his
ego. Perhaps we should just confine ourselves to pointing out his lunacy
for the benefit of any weak-minded imbeciles who might be passing and
tempted to take it seriously.
J.J. O'Shea
(in article
<3874ad97-b6b1-4fc5...@l17g2000pri.googlegroups.com>):
>>> This post and its message, along with the other responses already
>>> posted, are explained instantly when we remember that they were
>>> written by Atheists and evolutionists.
>>
>>> Ray Martinez, Protestant Evangelical, Old Earth-Young Biosphere
>>> Creationist, Paleyan-Designist, British Natural Theologian.
>>
>> I don't think you're a troll. I think you're sincere.
>>
>> Now how do you reconcile all of this with your claim?
>>
>> --
>> Aaron Clausen mightymartia...@gmail.com- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
> Aaron, this discussion is for mature persons.
Jeez, Ray-ray, I see Aaron _defending_ you. I see Aaron asking a perfectly
simple question. How _do_ you reconcile his defence of you with your
statement noted above? And why, when Aaron _defended_ you, do you attack him?
Is it not written that Christians should return good for evil, (Matt 5:43-48,
Luke 6:28,35,36, Rom 12:14,17,21, 1Pe 3:9) but here you are returning evil
for good. What's the matter, aren't you a Christian? For shame, Ray-ray! For
shame!
--
email to oshea dot j dot j at gmail dot com.
Robert Carnegie
1a: Like me, you read about it recently. (Or you wrote about it
recently and I read that.)
1b: As far as I recall, not everyone has it.
1c: Just how close are you and Ray? You did say run a finger round
the ear...
'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank
> On May 23, 1:19 pm, LT <LTfle...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > Hi everyone,
>
> > I'm sure many of you have already given much consideration to this,
> > but I cannot come to any conclusion about Ray than this:
>
> > Ray is an expert troll, particularly good at getting long-winded
> > conversations of people trying to educate him. I've read a great deal
> > of his posts, and there is simply no way that any human being could be
> > so utterly and completely impervious to reason and common sense as Ray
> > appears to be. It would indicate a mentality immune to toilet-
> > training, let alone understanding basic science.
>
> > through just cancelling it, shaking my head and saying to myself
> > "What's the point?". Then again, if everyone ignored him, troll or
> > not, he would immediately begin the tired and predictable rant of
> > "See, they ignore me because they are afraid of the truth" or other
> > such foolishness.
>
> > My question is, should the T.O. community as a whole just ignore him,
> > or is this continuous back and forth with Ray, entertaining at times
> > as it can be, perhaps doing more harm than good? Or is it still of
> > greater value to continue to be consistent in dismissing his long-dead
> > "arguments" (if one can justify honoring them as such) so that lurkers
> > and newcomers genuinely uncertain about evolution/creation always have
> > a source of real answers?
>
> > I'm split on this myself... such is the curse of trolls.
>
> > LT
>
> same types of arguments but in different forms of media. There's
> VenomFangX on YouTube for example. The Kurt Cameron and Ray Comfort
> videos. And Kent Hovind's and Ken Ham's museums, and others. These
> people genuinely view the world through "biblical glasses" (to quote
> Ken Ham). Anything that might suggest that the Bible is not the "most
> scientifically accurate book in the entire world" (to quote
> VenomFangX) is viewed with suspicion. It is actually logical for them
> to pursue alternative explanations in order to reconcile the real
> world (God's creation) with Biblical testimony (God's explanation of
> the creation). So we can't honestly criticize them for trying. What
> we can criticize them for is lying about, distorting, or ignoring the
> evidence which they do in abundance.
>
> As to the question, "why not ignore them?" The answer is simple.
> There IS a threat. The threat is not merely a perception. If you
> need proof of this threat just Google the recent court cases of
> creationists trying to push their beliefs on others through the US
> state education programs.
Alas, that threat is now over. The creationists LOST every one of
those court cases -- every single one without exception. The only
source of their power was the political support they got from the
Repug Party, and now that the Repugs won't give themt he time of day,
they are utterly powerless and no longer a threat. They didn't even
have enough strength to prevent Florida from STRENGTHENING its
treatment of evolution in its state standards.
The creationists are now no longer any more a realistic political
threat than the Nazi Party is.
All they have left are the die-hard nutters like Glenn and Ray. And
nobody listens to either of them anyway.
All that's left is to laugh at them.
hersheyh
But remember that laughter is good medicine. What better reason to
keep them around?
Ray Martinez
wrote:
> RayMartinez<pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote innews:962a91f3-027f-407e...@c19g2000prf.googlegroups.com:
>
> <snip>
>
>
>
> > How reasonable is it to discount the observation of design to not
> > imply Designer?
>
> How do you tell if something is designed? For instance, is this chunk of
> weathered basalt designed?
>
> http://tinyurl.com/5datm9
>
"IN crossing a heath, suppose I pitched my foot against a stone, and
were asked how the stone came to be there, I might possibly answer,
that … it had lain there forever … but suppose I had found a watch
upon the ground, and it should be inquired how the watch happened to
be in that place, I should hardly think of the answer which I had
before given, that, for any thing I knew, the watch might have always
been there. Yet why should not this answer serve for the watch as well
as for the stone? For this reason,
that, when we come to inspect the watch, we perceive (what we could
not discover in the stone) that its several parts are … put together
for a purpose. … we think that the watch must have had a maker: that
there must have existed, at some time, and at some place or other, an
artificer or artificers who formed it for the purpose which we find it
actually to answer; who comprehended its construction, and designed
its use. For every indication of contrivance, every manifestation of
design, which existed in the watch, there exists in the works of
Nature… there is precisely the same proof that the eye was [Created]
for vision …"
--William Paley (1802) "Argument from Design"
> If so, what is it designed for?
>
Stones are part of the crust of the Earth and the Earth is an
imperfect-sphere flattened at the poles with a protruding equator
caused by centrifugal force. The Earth is the epitome of a biosphere
designed to support life and all of its needs. The Bible says God
decided to create intelligent life on Earth, which then becomes a
stage (with God as the Director) to test and try human beings. If we
pass our tests then we get eternal life in heaven with Him, taking the
place and filling the void left by Lucifer and his fallen band of
angels.
> How about this natural arch?
>
> http://www.nps.gov/archive/rabr/graphics/cowboy.jpg
>
> Similarly, if it is designed, what is it designed for?
>
> How about this quartz crystal? Is it designed?
>
> http://tinyurl.com/6gyty3
>
> If so, what for?
>
> You have never told us how you decide something is designed, except by
> claiming that it is 'obvious'. That is not satisfactory, because what is
> obvious to you is not necessarily obvious to anyone else. How do you
> decide if a specific object is designed?
>
I admit that the observation of design seen in nature as a whole, and
in each living organism, requires a previously existing spiritual IQ
or "receiver" to connect the observation or appearance of design to
correspond to invisible Designer or "Transmitter."
Apparently evolutionists are lacking this hardware.
> > How reasonable is it to say that nearly all creationists are liars for
> > accepting design to imply Designer?
>
> That is not what makes creationists liars. What makes creationists liars
> is the telling of known falsehoods - e.g. 'Science disproves evolution', or
> 'Evolution is a religion' or 'All evolutionists are atheists'. The claim
> that objects with known natural causes are designed is not a lie per se, it
> is just silly.
>
>
>
> > How reasonable is it to deny the logic of design indicating Designer?
>
> Well, first you need to demonstrate that something is designed. In order
> to demonstrate design, you need to develop a criterion for deciding whether
> something is designed or not. Then you need to at least address the
> problem of fabrication - if it was designed, how was it made? .You have
> not done either.
>
> > Of course every question is rhetorical.
>
> That's funny - every one of them has an answer, and not the answer you
> want.
>
>
>
> > In view of these reasonable propositions creationists know that
> > evolutionists are liars, not because they lie, but because
> > evolutionists lie because they are liars.
>
> This is called a circular argument.
>
>
>
>
>
> >Ray- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Ray
Ray Martinez
> On Sat, 24 May 2008 15:23:25 -0700 (PDT), Ray Martinez
>
>
>
>
>
Of course.
The decline of BNT began around 1850. It was abandoned virtually
overnight in November 1859.
> To help you, try to find out how the Flood was treated in
> discussions on geology in the 1830s.
>
> Can you do this?
>
> <snip>
>
> Have fun,
>
> Joe Cummings- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
It doesn't matter since we now know that the Flood occurred. And most
British Natural Theologians were OECs, not YECs.
YECism is a 20th century thing.
Ray
Ray Martinez
In other words you cannot address or refute one thing that I say or
have said.
I have pitched a perfect game and hit a grand slam to account for all
of the scoring.
General Reader: I suggest that you read my comments above - the ones
that the evolutionist could not answer.
Ray Martinez, Protestant Evangelical, Old Earth-Young biosphere
Creationist.
Ernest Major
<16a2bde5-418d-48fe...@l17g2000pri.googlegroups.com>, Ray
Martinez <pyram...@yahoo.com> writes
>On May 24, 3:55 pm, LT <LTfle...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> On May 24, 3:43 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > On May 23, 4:22 pm, LT <LTfle...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > > On May 23, 7:46 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>> > > > On May 23, 3:11 pm, LT <LTfle...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > > > > On May 23, 6:40 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>> > > > > > On May 23, 11:19 am, LT <LTfle...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > > > > > > Hi everyone,
>>
>> > > > > > > I'm sure many of you have already given much
>> > > > > > >consideration to this,
>> > > > > > > but I cannot come to any conclusion about Ray than this:
>>
>> > > > > > > Ray is an expert troll, particularly good at getting long-winded
>> > > > > > > conversations of people trying to educate him. I've read
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > >being could be
>> > > > > > > so utterly and completely impervious to reason and common
>> > > > > > >sense as Ray
>> > > > > > > appears to be. It would indicate a mentality immune to toilet-
>> > > > > > > training, let alone understanding basic science.
>>
>> > > > > > > I often find myself writing a reply to his posts, then half-way
>> > > > > > > through just cancelling it, shaking my head and saying to myself
>> > > > > > > "What's the point?". Then again, if everyone ignored him,
>> > > > > > >troll or
>> > > > > > > not, he would immediately begin the tired and predictable rant of
>> > > > > > > "See, they ignore me because they are afraid of the
>> > > > > > >truth" or other
>> > > > > > > such foolishness.
>>
>> > > > > > > My question is, should the T.O. community as a whole just
>> > > > > > >ignore him,
>> > > > > > > or is this continuous back and forth with Ray,
>> > > > > > >entertaining at times
>> > > > > > > as it can be, perhaps doing more harm than good? Or is it
>> > > > > > >still of
>> > > > > > > greater value to continue to be consistent in dismissing
>> > > > > > >
* The use of the word morph as a verb is a neologism, and in common
usage refers to a transformation of an individual, not a population - in
fact common usage is yet narrower, and doesn't apply to for example to
insect metamorphosis. In that sense of the word, it is not clear that
anyone, even creationists, says that apes morphed into man. So we are
left uncertain whether you don't understand what you criticise, or have
a defective command of the language, or intend to confuse the issue.
However, the evidence for the common ancestry of man and anthropoid apes
to the exclusion of other living organisms is supported by much more
than the fossil evidence, not to mention that bone scraps is hardly an
even-handed description of that evidence.
>
>I have pitched a perfect game and hit a grand slam to account for all
>of the scoring.
>
>General Reader: I suggest that you read my comments above - the ones
>that the evolutionist could not answer.
>
>Ray Martinez, Protestant Evangelical, Old Earth-Young biosphere
>Creationist.
>
>
--
alias Ernest Major
Dana Tweedy
"Ray Martinez" <pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:44432580-478b-4da1...@d19g2000prm.googlegroups.com...
As Darwin, and others have shown, the mere appearance of design does not
mean an object is designed. The argument from design has not been found to
be very convincing, when there is an alternate explanation for the
appearance of design.
>
>
>> If so, what is it designed for?
>>
>
> Stones are part of the crust of the Earth and the Earth is an
> imperfect-sphere flattened at the poles with a protruding equator
> caused by centrifugal force.
Actually, Ray, there is no such thing as "centrifugal force", it's a
centrifugal effect, caused by inertia.
http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/102839/centrifugal-force
http://phun.physics.virginia.edu/topics/centrifugal.html
> The Earth is the epitome of a biosphere
> designed to support life and all of its needs.
This is an example of the fallacy of "begging the question". You are
assuming your conclusion, that since you think the Earth looks designed, it
must be designed.
> The Bible says God
> decided to create intelligent life on Earth, which then becomes a
> stage (with God as the Director) to test and try human beings. If we
> pass our tests then we get eternal life in heaven with Him, taking the
> place and filling the void left by Lucifer and his fallen band of
> angels.
That's a interpretation of the Bible, not really what the Bible says. The
Bible doesn't actually say that humans are meant to "fill the void" left by
any "fallen band of Angels". Also, one might wonder why God just didn't
create more Angels to fill that space, rather than "try" humans (as if God
didn't know the outcome)
>
>
>> How about this natural arch?
>>
>> http://www.nps.gov/archive/rabr/graphics/cowboy.jpg
>>
>> Similarly, if it is designed, what is it designed for?
>>
>> How about this quartz crystal? Is it designed?
>>
>> http://tinyurl.com/6gyty3
>>
>> If so, what for?
>>
>> You have never told us how you decide something is designed, except by
>> claiming that it is 'obvious'. That is not satisfactory, because what is
>> obvious to you is not necessarily obvious to anyone else. How do you
>> decide if a specific object is designed?
>>
>
> I admit that the observation of design seen in nature as a whole, and
> in each living organism, requires a previously existing spiritual IQ
> or "receiver" to connect the observation or appearance of design to
> correspond to invisible Designer or "Transmitter."
So, the "observation of design" can't be perceived unless one has a special
"decoder ring" only given to the members of the club? How many box tops
does one need to send in to get that "decoder ring"?
>
> Apparently evolutionists are lacking this hardware.
Or maybe this "hardware" doesn't exist, and God isn't trying to fool anyone.
Maybe the "observation of design" is your own unsupported assumption, which
no one but yourself has made. The appearance of design, which can be
observed without the special decoder ring, is known to be produced by
natural processes, operating under natural laws.
>
>
>> > How reasonable is it to say that nearly all creationists are liars for
>> > accepting design to imply Designer?
>>
>> That is not what makes creationists liars. What makes creationists liars
>> is the telling of known falsehoods - e.g. 'Science disproves evolution',
>> or
>> 'Evolution is a religion' or 'All evolutionists are atheists'. The claim
>> that objects with known natural causes are designed is not a lie per se,
>> it
>> is just silly.
No reply here, Ray? What secret decoder ring do you need to see
creationists are lying to you?
snip what Ray ignored
DJT
Dana Tweedy
>>
>> Another vacuous post by Ray. Thanks for proving my point so
>> succinctly. All "objective" readers need to do is check your track
>> record. You've not defended one single point of view with any evidence
>> or logical reasoning. Nothing changes.
>>
>> LT- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
> In other words you cannot address or refute one thing that I say or
> have said.
Ray, what you have said has been addressed and refuted many times over.
It's notiable that you didn't reply to other posts that did address your
points specifically.
>
> I have pitched a perfect game and hit a grand slam to account for all
> of the scoring.
Ray, you do have a vivid imagination, but your "perfect game" is only your
own fantasy.
>
> General Reader: I suggest that you read my comments above - the ones
> that the evolutionist could not answer.
Ray, your comments above have been answered. You simply have run away from
the actual responses.
DJT
Dana Tweedy
>>
>> I think you'll have to explain why "BNT" was abandoned and
>> when.
>>
>
> Of course.
>
> The decline of BNT began around 1850. It was abandoned virtually
> overnight in November 1859.
I doubt your claims, but do you know why it was abandoned?
>
>
>> To help you, try to find out how the Flood was treated in
>> discussions on geology in the 1830s.
>>
>> Can you do this?
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>> Have fun,
>>
>> Joe Cummings- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
> It doesn't matter since we now know that the Flood occurred.
There's no evidence of a global flood, Ray, so how do you know it existed?
>And most
> British Natural Theologians were OECs, not YECs.
The "British Natural Theologians" were attempting to be scientific, which is
why they rejected the Biblical literalism in the first place. The reason
they rejected young earth beliefs was the evidence showed the Earth to be
old. When the evidence showed that life evolved, they rejected the
religious belief in special creation as well.
>
> YECism is a 20th century thing.
So is Creationism, pretending to be science.
DJT
Ray Martinez
Your reply to the above exchange makes no sense.
> Furthermore, as I have pointed out, there are a few creationists (I
> specifically mentioned Kurt Wise) who are NOT routinely called "liars"
> or lunatics by many evolutionists.
>
And as I have pointed out: one or two exceptions does not harm the
point which is the thousands that are routinely slandered. Just like
one or two Atheist freaks do not harm the point that all Atheists are
evolutionists.
> > The original post is accounted for by the fact that it was written by
> > an Atheist and/or evolutionist and that I am a Christian-creationist.
>
> But back when they were posting, no one insisted that, e.g. Suzanne or
> Zoe Althrop were lying about their beliefs, or were just trolling for
> responses.
As far as I know Suzanne is a newbie and I never heard of Zoe Althrop.
All creationists are slandered by evolutionists - one way or another.
This means if they are not called liars then they are slandered as
stupid or any number of synonyms. Of course Sean Pitman and Tony
Pagano are routinely slandered as dishonest or lying (like myself).
Like I said: I do not feel slighted, is there a point?
Why hasn't one evolutionist been able to answer?
> There have been many creationist posters on this newsgroup
> whose sincerity (if not their intellectual competence) was taken for
> granted even by fervent "atheist-evolutionists." I think the original
> post is better accounted for by the fact that you routinely take
> demonstrably absurd positions (e.g. that the ancient Hebrews are not
> depicted, in the Bible, as polygamists, or that the epistle of James
> was included in the New Testament to show its heretical nature) that
> one would not expect of a consistent biblical creationist.
>
> > > Please note, yet again, that pointing out your opponents' biases
> > > (assuming you've done so, and I don't assume this) does not show that
> > > they are wrong or that you are right.
>
> > In this specific case it does. All we have is someone saying that I am
> > a liar - nothing else. When we remember this persons worldview and
> > mine the assertion is explained instantly.
>
> The position would be equally well explained by the poster having
> evidence (e.g. self-contradictory positions, or your insistence that
> you have some paper that will overturn evolutionary theory, but about
> the arguments in which you will reveal no details) that you have been
> lying to us.
>
These comments intentionally misrepresent the status of my paper - a
status that I have repeatedly made known. But I do realize that you
are attempting some shoddy psychology - based on a desire to see some
of my work. I am working as fast as I can. It will be worth the wait.
> -- Steven J.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Uniformitarianism is false; as it does not correspond to scientific
reality.
Ray
Steven J.
> On May 24, 5:06 pm, "Steven J." <steve...@altavista.com> wrote:
> > On May 24, 5:23 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > On May 23, 10:37 pm, "Steven J." <steve...@altavista.com> wrote:
>
>
> > > > The original post takes the position that you are a pure troll, and do
> > > > not really mean that things that you say. The first response takes
> > > > the position that you really do mean these things. How does the
> > > > authors' alleged atheism or their acceptance of evolution account for
> > > > both of these opposite conclusions?
>
> > > The first response is true axiomatically.
>
> > I think it is not. It might, conceivably, be demonstrated empirically
> > to be true (i.e. that atheist-evolutionists *ALWAYS* insist that
> > Christian-creationists are liars and/or lunatics), but it does not
> > follow logically and directly from the definitions of "atheist,"
> > "evolutionist," "Christian," or "creationist," and does not seem to be
> > an axiomatic assumption of either creationism or evolutionary theory.
>
> "The first response takes the position that you really do mean
> these things."
>
> > The first response is true axiomatically."
>
> Your reply to the above exchange makes no sense.
>
meant *your* first response (i.e. that "atheist-evolutionists" always
malign "Christian-creationists"), rather than someone else's first
response (i.e. that you really meant what you said).
However, it is hardly "axiomatic" that you mean everything you say.
Indeed, given that you often misuse terms ranging from
"microevolution" to "slander" to, well, "axiomatic," it can fairly be
said that very often you clearly cannot mean the things you actually
say.
>
> > Furthermore, as I have pointed out, there are a few creationists (I
> > specifically mentioned Kurt Wise) who are NOT routinely called "liars"
> > or lunatics by many evolutionists.
>
> And as I have pointed out: one or two exceptions does not harm the
> point which is the thousands that are routinely slandered. Just like
> one or two Atheist freaks do not harm the point that all Atheists are
> evolutionists.
>
One or two exceptions, though, harms the point when you offer only a
handful of specific examples of creationists being accused of
dishonesty or stupidity by "evolutionists." You are far too fond of
generalizing from a handful of dubious examples to the entire world,
whether asserting that "all evolutionists without exception" using the
word "evolutionist" the way you do or, as above, insisting that all
"evolutionists" vilify all creationists without significant
exceptions. You haven't examined enough creationists or evolutionists
to justify such a generalization.
>
> > > The original post is accounted for by the fact that it was written by
> > > an Atheist and/or evolutionist and that I am a Christian-creationist.
>
> > But back when they were posting, no one insisted that, e.g. Suzanne or
> > Zoe Althrop were lying about their beliefs, or were just trolling for
> > responses.
>
> As far as I know Suzanne is a newbie and I never heard of Zoe Althrop.
>
Does this not demonstrate that "as far as you know" and "who you've
heard of" do not constitute an adequate basis for the sort of
generalizations in which you indulge?
>
> All creationists are slandered by evolutionists - one way or another.
> This means if they are not called liars then they are slandered as
> stupid or any number of synonyms. Of course Sean Pitman and Tony
> Pagano are routinely slandered as dishonest or lying (like myself).
> Like I said: I do not feel slighted, is there a point?
>
It's not slander if they're really stupid (also, it's not slander if
it's written and widely publicized, but I fear you will not submit to
the mere actual meaning of words in English). A really depressing
number of creationist posters seem both resistant to learning, and
even more resistant to the most rudimentary instances of logical
reasoning about facts when they do learn them. Tony Pagano, for
example, spent years insisting that evolutionists thought that
mesonychids were the common ancestors of bats and whales; he must
have been corrected a score or more times that mesonychids were even-
toed hoofed carnivores that no one thought were ancestral to bats (and
since the discovery of basal artiodactyl cetaceans like _Pakicetus_,
they are not even thought to be the ancestors of whales) before he
dropped this claim. If he thought that we were mistaken, he might at
least have researched the matter himself and found out what experts in
the subject actually thought. If his ineducability is neither
stupidity nor dishonesty, what would you call it? Sean Pitman, in
somewhat similar fashion, refuses to consider that many of the
premises of his arguments are contradicted by actual evidence. And
you won't even bother to consult a dictionary and properly distinguish
between the words "libel" and "slander." Why is it defamatory to
infer that you are not particularly brilliant or honest?
>
> Why hasn't one evolutionist been able to answer?
>
Ray, if I asked why the moon is made of green cheese, and then
complained that not one astronomer or geologist could answer this
conundrum (they just insisted that the moon really isn't made of green
cheese, which isn't an answer to my question at all), would you think
that astronomers had a problem, or that I did? By the same token, if
you insist that pointing out your very real and very great factual and
logical errors is "slander," is it our problem or yours that we cannot
satisfy you on why we "slander" you?
>
> > There have been many creationist posters on this newsgroup
> > whose sincerity (if not their intellectual competence) was taken for
> > granted even by fervent "atheist-evolutionists." I think the original
> > post is better accounted for by the fact that you routinely take
> > demonstrably absurd positions (e.g. that the ancient Hebrews are not
> > depicted, in the Bible, as polygamists, or that the epistle of James
> > was included in the New Testament to show its heretical nature) that
> > one would not expect of a consistent biblical creationist.
>
> > > > Please note, yet again, that pointing out your opponents' biases
> > > > (assuming you've done so, and I don't assume this) does not show that
> > > > they are wrong or that you are right.
>
> > > In this specific case it does. All we have is someone saying that I am
> > > a liar - nothing else. When we remember this persons worldview and
> > > mine the assertion is explained instantly.
>
> > The position would be equally well explained by the poster having
> > evidence (e.g. self-contradictory positions, or your insistence that
> > you have some paper that will overturn evolutionary theory, but about
> > the arguments in which you will reveal no details) that you have been
> > lying to us.
>
> These comments intentionally misrepresent the status of my paper - a
> status that I have repeatedly made known. But I do realize that you
> are attempting some shoddy psychology - based on a desire to see some
> of my work. I am working as fast as I can. It will be worth the wait.
>
I believe nothing in the above paragraph, Ray. You say that you do
not reveal your basic ideas because you do not wish to be "scooped;" I
think you do not reveal them because you do not have them. Since I
don't think you actually have any such argument, it does me no good to
want to see these nonexistent arguments, so I have no such desire.
And I do not think you are really working on the paper in any
meaningful sense.
>
-- [snip]
>
> > > Our present biosphere is quite young on account of the Flood. And
> > > there were previous biospheres. Please note that this last usage of
> > > 'biosphere' does not necessarily mean biological life as we have known
> > > it. According to the Bible previous biospheres were destroyed by
> > > other floods. Of course all of the major geologic layers represent
> > > floods. This is why God gave the sign of the rainbow to say that
> > > destruction would not come by flood anymore.
>
> > I am not aware that the Bible mentions any past global cataclysms
> > other than Noah's Flood. And none of the major geological periods
> > show any sign that the entire Earth was under water. There are many
> > geological features that result from water-laid sediment (although
> > there are also regions of wind-blown sand, or evaporites: layers of
> > salt caused by the slow evaporation of shallow seas), but many of
> > these reflect long, slow sedimentation rather than sudden
> > catastrophes: there are, e.g. undisturbed layers of varves (seasonal
> > depositions of sediments) or fragile fossils such as the shed
> > exoskeletons of trilobites.
>
> Uniformitarianism is false; as it does not correspond to scientific
> reality.
>
What do you mean by "uniformitarianism," and how does it not
correspond to "scientific reality?" I think the above is one of the
terse assertions you toss out when you find yourself unable to refute.
>
> Ray
'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank
>
> I admit that the observation of design seen in nature as a whole, and
> in each living organism, requires a previously existing spiritual IQ
> or "receiver" to connect the observation or appearance of design to
> correspond to invisible Designer or "Transmitter."
>
> Apparently evolutionists are lacking this hardware.
Lying again, eh Ray? You know just as well as I do that well over two-
thirds of the people in the US who think creationism is a dishonest
crock of shit, are theists and NOT atheists.
BTW, Ray, how's that scientific paper coming along? I hope it's
better researched than THAT.
Found a publisher yet? (snicker) (giggle)
'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank
>
> YECism is a 20th century thing.
How old is the earth, Ray?
What century is this, Ray?
'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank
>
> And as I have pointed out: one or two exceptions does not harm the
> point which is the thousands that are routinely slandered.
>
(sniffle) (sob) Boo hoo fucking hoo, Ray.
Heat. Kitchen. Bye.
> These comments intentionally misrepresent the status of my paper
>
What paper, Ray -- you don't HAVE any fucking paper. All you have is
superhyped vaporware. (shrug)
'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank
>
> It doesn't matter since we now know that the Flood occurred.
Uh, Ray, why did CREATIONIST GEOLOGISTS who did NOT ACCEPT EVOLUTION
conclude that it didn't, decades before Darwin was born. . .?
Are you REALLY this pig-ignorant, Ray? Really and truly?
Wow.
Ray Martinez
> On May 27, 11:51 am, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > I admit that the observation of design seen in nature as a whole, and
> > in each living organism, requires a previously existing spiritual IQ
> > or "receiver" to connect the observation or appearance of design to
> > correspond to invisible Designer or "Transmitter."
>
> > Apparently evolutionists are lacking this hardware.
>
> Lying again, eh Ray? You know just as well as I do that well over two-
> thirds of the people in the US who think creationism is a dishonest
> crock of shit, are theists and NOT atheists.
>
According to all polling data at least half of all adults in the U.S.
are Creationists.
According to the same data the other 50 percent are as follows:
40 percent are Christian evolutionists.
10 percent are Atheist evolutionists (which includes the deistic
position of a Ken Miller who calls himself a Theist or Christian.
Tthis position is excellent evidence that Miller is confused or a liar
since there is no such thing as a Theist who hold a deistic position).
The 40 percent, according to these polls, accept a God guided
evolutionary process. This means they subscribe to Richard Owen
"providential evolutionism." According to Neal Gillespie "providential
evolutionism" is nothing but modified Creationism (1979:107 -
"Charles Darwin and the problem of creation"). Of course I agree with
Gillespie. Lenny: where do these Fundamentalists get the idea that God
guides evolution hands-on? Do they not know that if God is involved
then it is not evolution, but Creationism?
So with this said, Lenny, what two-thirds of Theism are you talking
about? The 40 percent above are obviously confused or ignorant this is
why I have rightfully called them Fundamentalists.
As for the 10 percent: we can be sure that these persons lack the
hardware spoken of. The 40 percent above require a special explanation
that will appear in my paper and I guarantee that you will not like
it. But that is the nature of truth that originates from God: those
who are rejected by God do not like how He explains reality.
> BTW, Ray, how's that scientific paper coming along?
It is coming along. Don't forget that I am in possession of scientific
evidence that will refute your moronic theory, Lenny.
> I hope it's
> better researched than THAT.
>
> Found a publisher yet? (snicker) (giggle)
>
I never intended to publish that way. It will appear on the Internet
for everyone to see immediately. The day this happens will be a
glorious day for Creationism and the worst day for evolution since
November 1859.
My work will force evolutionists to face cold hard reality. I am going
to ruin your life and love every second of it.
> ================================================
> Lenny Flank
> "There are no loose threads in the web of life"
>
> Editor, Red and Black Publishershttp://www.RedAndBlackPublishers.com
Ray
'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank
The 40 percent above who are not atheists, you idiotic twit.
When you say evolutionists are atheist, you are lying. Flat-out
lying. L-Y-I-N-G. Lying.
Lying.
The 40 percent above are obviously confused or ignorant this is
> why I have rightfully called them Fundamentalists.
>
Nobody cares what you call them, Ray. (shrug)
>
> > BTW, Ray, how's that scientific paper coming along?
>
> It is coming along. Don't forget that I am in possession of scientific
> evidence that will refute your moronic theory, Lenny.
>
So you, uh, keep saying, Ray.
Talk is cheap, Ray. Put up or shut up.
Like I said -- vaporware.
> > Found a publisher yet? (snicker) (giggle)
>
> I never intended to publish that way.
I don't blame you. It spares you the embarrassment of having every
editor you contact, write back pointing out what a loon you are.
'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank
> In other words you cannot address or refute one thing that I say or
> have said.
Ray, nobody CARES what you say. You are a nobody, Ray. A nothing. A
non-entity. As creationists go, you're not even worthy to wipe the
shit from "Dr" Kent Hovind's shoes. We're all here just to laugh at
you. You, of course, are too damn stooopid to see that -- which just
makes us laugh all the harder.
Dana Tweedy
> "> > "The first response takes the position that you really do mean
> these things."
>
>> The first response is true axiomatically."
>
> Your reply to the above exchange makes no sense.
May I point out that your ability to determine what actually makes sense is
severely limitied, due to your own strong nonsense field.
>
>> Furthermore, as I have pointed out, there are a few creationists (I
>> specifically mentioned Kurt Wise) who are NOT routinely called "liars"
>> or lunatics by many evolutionists.
>>
>
> And as I have pointed out: one or two exceptions does not harm the
> point which is the thousands that are routinely slandered.
"One or two exceptions" harms the point that creationists are always
"slandered". You haven't shown that any creationists are "slandered" at
all, much less libeled.
> Just like
> one or two Atheist freaks do not harm the point that all Atheists are
> evolutionists.
Not all atheists are "evolutionists", which is rather the point you keep
avoiding. In any case, those who accept evolution do so because the theory
explains the evidence, not because you make an assumption about others.
>
>
>> > The original post is accounted for by the fact that it was written by
>> > an Atheist and/or evolutionist and that I am a Christian-creationist.
>>
>> But back when they were posting, no one insisted that, e.g. Suzanne or
>> Zoe Althrop were lying about their beliefs, or were just trolling for
>> responses.
>
> As far as I know Suzanne is a newbie and I never heard of Zoe Althrop.
> All creationists are slandered by evolutionists - one way or another.
Which isn't true, as you've already admitted.
> This means if they are not called liars then they are slandered as
> stupid or any number of synonyms.
Can you show this to be true?
> Of course Sean Pitman and Tony
> Pagano are routinely slandered as dishonest or lying (like myself).
> Like I said: I do not feel slighted, is there a point?
Again, Ray have you considered the reason why people call creationists
liars, or dishonest is because they ARE liars or dishonest?
>
> Why hasn't one evolutionist been able to answer?
Ray, this question has been answered several times. You have simply
ignored the answers.
snipping what Ray ignored
>> The position would be equally well explained by the poster having
>> evidence (e.g. self-contradictory positions, or your insistence that
>> you have some paper that will overturn evolutionary theory, but about
>> the arguments in which you will reveal no details) that you have been
>> lying to us.
>>
>
> These comments intentionally misrepresent the status of my paper
How so? Your "paper" doesn't actually exist, except for a place for you
to hide behind.
> - a
> status that I have repeatedly made known.
Do you really think anyone has believed your claims?
>But I do realize that you
> are attempting some shoddy psychology - based on a desire to see some
> of my work. I am working as fast as I can. It will be worth the wait.
Both your last statements are most likely false. In any case, you won't
release this "paper" as long as you can hide behind it.
snip of Ray ignoring points.
>
> Uniformitarianism is false; as it does not correspond to scientific
> reality.
Can you show any example of how uniformitarianism has been falsified?
DJT
Steven J.
> On May 27, 3:16 pm, "'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank" <lfl...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > On May 27, 11:51 am, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > I admit that the observation of design seen in nature as a whole, and
> > > in each living organism, requires a previously existing spiritual IQ
> > > or "receiver" to connect the observation or appearance of design to
> > > correspond to invisible Designer or "Transmitter."
>
> > > Apparently evolutionists are lacking this hardware.
>
> > Lying again, eh Ray? You know just as well as I do that well over two-
> > thirds of the people in the US who think creationism is a dishonest
> > crock of shit, are theists and NOT atheists.
>
> According to all polling data at least half of all adults in the U.S.
> are Creationists.
>
> According to the same data the other 50 percent are as follows:
>
> 40 percent are Christian evolutionists.
>
CREATIONISM AND ACCEPT EVOLUTION are Christians. According to my
math, forty percent is eighty percent of fifty percent, and eighty
percent is more than two-thirds. If you reach different conclusions,
please show your calculations.
>
> 10 percent are Atheist evolutionists (which includes the deistic
> position of a Ken Miller who calls himself a Theist or Christian.
> Tthis position is excellent evidence that Miller is confused or a liar
> since there is no such thing as a Theist who hold a deistic position).
>
person who believes that God does not intervene supernaturally in His
creation after making it, and has not revealed Himself except in
nature. Deists are a subset of theists. Christians are a (largely
different) subset of theists. So far as I know, there is no reason to
suppose that Ken Miller rejects the view that Jesus Christ was,
Himself, a revelation of God in the flesh, which would make Miller a
better candidate for the category "Christian" than for the category
"deist." If you have any evidence, besides you own bigoted insistence
that there cannot be a Christian evolutionist who has thought both
positions through, please present it.
>
> The 40 percent, according to these polls, accept a God guided
> evolutionary process. This means they subscribe to Richard Owen
> "providential evolutionism." According to Neal Gillespie "providential
> evolutionism" is nothing but modified Creationism (1979:107 -
> "Charles Darwin and the problem of creation"). Of course I agree with
> Gillespie. Lenny: where do these Fundamentalists get the idea that God
> guides evolution hands-on? Do they not know that if God is involved
> then it is not evolution, but Creationism?
>
positions, from the view that, since God guides all natural processes,
evolution through natural causes must be "God-guided," to the view
suggested by Phillip Johnson that God from time to time causes a
population of one species miraculously to give birth to young of a
different species. From a Christian perspective, God is involved with
everything; this does not mean that every natural process is a miracle
or a suspension of the laws of nature. I bring up again the dual
perspective on embryonic development: the view that it occurs through
the sort of natural mechanisms that can be studied in the lab or
popularized in family medical guides, and that God personally shapes
each child in its mother's womb. There seems no logical reason why
such a dual perspective is any less reasonable for evolution than for
embryology.
Note that "evolution" is just "common descent with modification;" what
causes the modification (natural selection of mutations, some
Lamarckian internal mechanism of change, intelligent intervention in
heredity) is not relevant to the definition of "evolution" itself.
Certainly the idea that God causes species to give rise to different
species, and ultimately to different genera, families, orders, classes
and kingdoms, is not the sort of "creationism" that you are insisting
on, or the sort that any of the major creationist organizations are
pushing.
>
> So with this said, Lenny, what two-thirds of Theism are you talking
> about? The 40 percent above are obviously confused or ignorant this is
> why I have rightfully called them Fundamentalists.
>
"Fundamentalist" no more means "obviously confused or ignorant" than
"slander" means "written defamatory statements." "Fundamentalist"
means, generally, someone who insists that certain aspects of his
belief are "fundamental" and cannot be questioned, denied or revised
(for "fundamentalist" Christians, these are traditionally biblical
inerrancy, dispensational premillenialism, and refusal to join in
worship with those who compromise on biblical inerrancy). Being
confused (that is, not being clear in your own mind about what you
believe) is in fact hard to reconcile with fundamentalism; how can you
rigidly defend your beliefs when you can't even rigidly define them?
>
> As for the 10 percent: we can be sure that these persons lack the
> hardware spoken of. The 40 percent above require a special explanation
> that will appear in my paper and I guarantee that you will not like
> it. But that is the nature of truth that originates from God: those
> who are rejected by God do not like how He explains reality.
>
Ray, in case this fact had escaped your notice, you are not God. Your
opinions are not automatically or even probably "truth that originates
from God." The fact that people think you have no clue about what
you're pontificating on tells you very little about how they feel
about God. Whether anything at all, ever, will appear in your paper
is, of course, a matter about which reasonable people are very
skeptical.
>
> > BTW, Ray, how's that scientific paper coming along?
>
> It is coming along. Don't forget that I am in possession of scientific
> evidence that will refute your moronic theory, Lenny.
>
Oddly, you never seem to mention what this evidence is.
>
> > I hope it's
> > better researched than THAT.
>
> > Found a publisher yet? (snicker) (giggle)
>
> I never intended to publish that way. It will appear on the Internet
> for everyone to see immediately. The day this happens will be a
> glorious day for Creationism and the worst day for evolution since
> November 1859.
>
Ray, if you're planning to present your paper on the internet anyway,
you have no reason to fear being "scooped" if you reveal some of your
arguments here and now: either way, it will appear in a public forum
under your name, and will be credited to you, or plagiarized,
according to the conscience of the individual reader (and you can
claim copyright as easily for a usenet post as for a thousand-page PDF
article). So you have no reason to be so coy about the actual
contents of these arguments. Furthermore, if you share your arguments
and evidence with us now, we can help you refine your arguments in
actual debate, leading to a better paper ("as iron sharpens
iron ...").
Of course, this would depend on you actually having evidence, and an
argument, and at least the beginnings of an actual paper.
>
> My work will force evolutionists to face cold hard reality. I am going
> to ruin your life and love every second of it.
>
"Let he who puts on his armor not boast like he who takes it off." 1
Kings 20:11. Brag about what your paper accomplishes after we've
actually seen it, not before.
>
> > ================================================
> > Lenny Flank
> > "There are no loose threads in the web of life"
>
> > Editor, Red and Black Publishershttp://www.RedAndBlackPublishers.com
>
> Ray
-- Steven J.
Dana Tweedy
> On May 27, 3:16 pm, "'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank" <lfl...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> On May 27, 11:51 am, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> > I admit that the observation of design seen in nature as a whole, and
>> > in each living organism, requires a previously existing spiritual IQ
>> > or "receiver" to connect the observation or appearance of design to
>> > correspond to invisible Designer or "Transmitter."
>>
>> > Apparently evolutionists are lacking this hardware.
>>
>> Lying again, eh Ray? You know just as well as I do that well over two-
>> thirds of the people in the US who think creationism is a dishonest
>> crock of shit, are theists and NOT atheists.
>>
>
> According to all polling data at least half of all adults in the U.S.
> are Creationists.
Only if you define "creationist" to mean "anyone who is ignorant about the
meaning and science of evolution".
>
> According to the same data the other 50 percent are as follows:
>
> 40 percent are Christian evolutionists.
>
> 10 percent are Atheist evolutionists (which includes the deistic
> position of a Ken Miller who calls himself a Theist or Christian.
Dr. Miller is not an atheist, nor is theistic evolution "deistic". You
were wrong about before, and you are still wrong.
> Tthis position is excellent evidence that Miller is confused or a liar
> since there is no such thing as a Theist who hold a deistic position).
Actually, it only shows that you are wrong about Dr. Miller.
>
> The 40 percent, according to these polls, accept a God guided
> evolutionary process. This means they subscribe to Richard Owen
> "providential evolutionism." According to Neal Gillespie "providential
> evolutionism" is nothing but modified Creationism (1979:107 -
> "Charles Darwin and the problem of creation"). Of course I agree with
> Gillespie. Lenny: where do these Fundamentalists get the idea that God
> guides evolution hands-on?
Ray, once again, the term "Fundamentalist" is not an insult, like you seem
to think it is. As for the idea that God guides evolution "hands on", why
is their religious faith not a reason?
> Do they not know that if God is involved
> then it is not evolution, but Creationism?
No, it's evolution, no matter if God is involved or not.
>
> So with this said, Lenny, what two-thirds of Theism are you talking
> about?
The ones who reject your ideas about creationism.
>The 40 percent above are obviously confused or ignorant this is
> why I have rightfully called them Fundamentalists.
Which is not what the term "Fundamentalist" means. You are either
ignorantly using the term incorrectly, or you are just being insulting,
which, according to you, means you can't refute.
>
> As for the 10 percent: we can be sure that these persons lack the
> hardware spoken of.
There is no such "hardware". It's just your own excuse for why you can't
support your claims.
> The 40 percent above require a special explanation
> that will appear in my paper and I guarantee that you will not like
> it.
Your "paper" will never be finished as long as you can hide behind it. In
any case, your own ignorance of the subject tends to indicate that your
"paper" will be worthless, even if it's ever released.
> But that is the nature of truth that originates from God: those
> who are rejected by God do not like how He explains reality.
Your own idea of what is "reality" is severely flawed. Nor is there any
reason to think God rejects people for using their God given intellect.
Your own inability to accept evidence, and truth doesn't mean others do so.
>
>
>> BTW, Ray, how's that scientific paper coming along?
>
> It is coming along. Don't forget that I am in possession of scientific
> evidence that will refute your moronic theory, Lenny.
No, Ray, you really aren't. You have no knowledge of the scientific
evidence for evolution.
>
>> I hope it's
>> better researched than THAT.
>>
>> Found a publisher yet? (snicker) (giggle)
>>
>
> I never intended to publish that way.
Because no one would ever publish your claims anyway.
> It will appear on the Internet
> for everyone to see immediately.
And to laugh at.
>The day this happens will be a
> glorious day for Creationism and the worst day for evolution since
> November 1859.
Highly unlikely, as your claims will be either ignored, or laughted at.
>
> My work will force evolutionists to face cold hard reality. I am going
> to ruin your life and love every second of it.
So, what will you do, once your find your your "paper" has the impact of a
wet firecracker?
DJT
Rupert Morrish
[snip]
> I admit that the observation of design seen in nature as a whole, and
> in each living organism, requires a previously existing spiritual IQ
> or "receiver" to connect the observation or appearance of design to
> correspond to invisible Designer or "Transmitter."
>
> Apparently evolutionists are lacking this hardware.
Are we not create in god's image, then?
[snip]
-----------------
www.Newsgroup-Binaries.com - *Completion*Retention*Speed*
Access your favorite newsgroups from home or on the road
-----------------
Ray Martinez
Right, this 40 percent accepts a God guided evolution. We both know
there is no such thing as "God guided" or "God supervised" evolution.
Lenny: what are these 40 percent?
How do we explain them?
And Lenny: evolution has official and objective claims. We can be sure
that the 40 percent above do not hold the official and objective claim
of Darwinian evolution; rather, the official and objective claim of
Darwinian evolution is seen in the position of the 10 percent. This
position corresponds to Atheism or Materialism, both are synonyms.
Darwinian evolution says the God of the Bible is not seen or manifest
in reality; living things owe their existence to material-natural
causation - perpetually.
Perpetually ends at biological First Cause, where the official and
objective position of Darwinian evolution *is not* Deism, do you
agree?
The official and objective position of evolutionary theory is that
biological First Cause must be unknown material or natural origin -
God is still ruled out - Atheism is still the official position, that
is, the view of the 10 percent is the official and objective position
of evolutionary theory since Darwin despite 1859:490.
> When you say evolutionists are atheist, you are lying. Flat-out
> lying. L-Y-I-N-G. Lying.
>
> Lying.
>
Fact as explained above.
> The 40 percent above are obviously confused or ignorant this is
>
> > why I have rightfully called them Fundamentalists.
>
> Nobody cares what you call them, Ray. (shrug)
>
>
>
> > > BTW, Ray, how's that scientific paper coming along?
>
> > It is coming along. Don't forget that I am in possession of scientific
> > evidence that will refute your moronic theory, Lenny.
>
> So you, uh, keep saying, Ray.
>
> Talk is cheap, Ray. Put up or shut up.
>
> Like I said -- vaporware.
>
> > > Found a publisher yet? (snicker) (giggle)
>
> > I never intended to publish that way.
>
> I don't blame you. It spares you the embarrassment of having every
> editor you contact, write back pointing out what a loon you are.
>
> ================================================
> Lenny Flank
> "There are no loose threads in the web of life"
>
> Editor, Red and Black Publishershttp://www.RedAndBlackPublishers.com- Hide quoted text -
Rupert Morrish
How do we know this? I think if a god were guiding evolution it would
have gone a lot faster, but I can't say I know for a fact that it didn't
happen.
>
> Lenny: what are these 40 percent?
Actually, in your terminology they are also atheists. People like the
Pope and Dana Tweedy.
>
> How do we explain them?
>
> And Lenny: evolution has official and objective claims.
I hate to go all backspace on you, but who established these "official"
claims?
All scientific claims are objective, since subjective claims are not
scientific. Populations contain the same amount of variation no matter
who does the measurement. Some organisms will have more offspring, some
fewer, no matter who is observing them.
> We can be sure
> that the 40 percent above do not hold the official and objective claim
> of Darwinian evolution; rather, the official and objective claim of
> Darwinian evolution is seen in the position of the 10 percent. This
> position corresponds to Atheism or Materialism, both are synonyms.
No, they aren't. The library you post from probably has a dictionary.
Use it.
> Darwinian evolution says the God of the Bible is not seen or manifest
> in reality; living things owe their existence to material-natural
> causation - perpetually.
>
> Perpetually ends at biological First Cause, where the official and
> objective position of Darwinian evolution *is not* Deism, do you
> agree?
Correct. However, nor is it incompatible with Deism.
>
> The official and objective position of evolutionary theory is that
> biological First Cause must be unknown material or natural origin -
This is just wrong. Evolutionary theory does not address the origin of
life. You want abiogenesis, down the hall, in the broom closet.
> God is still ruled out
God is ignored. He chose to create a universe that could be understood
without assuming He was constantly tinkering with it. I don't know why
you blame atheists for that.
> - Atheism is still the official position, that
> is, the view of the 10 percent is the official and objective position
> of evolutionary theory since Darwin despite 1859:490.
Darwin devoted one line out of 490 pages to the origin of life. He
overstated its importance to the theory of evolution.
'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank
Blah blah blah. (yawn)
Nobody cares about your religious opinions, Ray. You're not God,
you're not a prophet, you're not God's Spokesman, you're no more holy
than anyone else is, and you don't know any more about God than anyone
else does.
You are just a pitiful little man who wastes everyone's time on the
Internet by yammering endlessly about "new scientific arguments" that
you're gonna present in a "world-shaking scientific paper" that will
**never actually appear** because you're too fucking stooopid to write
three coherent paragraphs unless some guy named Scott gives them to
you first.
You are a nobody, Ray. A nothing. A non-entity. Real creationists,
like AIG and ICR, don't even know that you exist. They pay no
attention to you or to your always-forthcoming "scientific paper" at
all whatsoever. The only audience that pays any attention to you at
all is this one, and all of it thinks you're just a stark raving
foaming-at-the-mouth idiot. Heck, most of them think you're a pride-
filled arrogant asshole who, for some utterly unfathomable reason, has
the silly delusion that he's holier than everyone else. Even your
fellow creationists don't support you, don't back you up, and think
you're just as nutty as I do. AiG doesn't care about your "scientific
paper" any more than the National Academy of Sciences does. You are a
zero, Ray. Just another Net Loon that everyone laughs at, like Ed
Conrad or Laurie Appleton. Your "scientific paper" matters to no one
-- even if you ever DO produce it, which you won't anyway. Even AiG or
ICR wouldn't publish it. Sad that you have to hide behind it.
What a pathetic loser.
I'd actually feel sorry for you, Ray -- if you weren't such an
insufferable prick.
So go away now and go work on your, uh, scientific paper, Ray. Run
along. Shoo.
Just remember, Ray -- we're not laughing WITH you -- we're laughing AT
you.
'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank
The day this happens will be a
> glorious day for Creationism and the worst day for evolution since
> November 1859.
>
> My work will force evolutionists to face cold hard reality. I am going
> to ruin your life and love every second of it.
My, my, my, you certainly have an awfully inflated sense of your own
self-importance, don't you. Isn't that a sign of mental illness, Ray?
Does anyone at ICR, or AiG, or Discovery Institute, even, uh, know
your name, Ray? Does ANYONE outside of this newsgroup even know your
name, Ray? Does anyone INSIDE this newgroup think you are anything
but a frothing-at-the-mouth nutjob, Ray (including all the
creationists here, who oddly enough never seem to speak up in your
defense)?
"Ruin my life"? Pffffffffft. Don't flatter yourself, Ray. You're
barely even a PART of my life. Or anyone else's here. (shrug)
You are a nobody, Ray. A nothing. A zero. A non-entity. Ten
seconds after anyone leaves their computer, they no longer even think
about you, Ray. And after everyone is done laughing at your "world-
shattering scientific paper" (assuming you ever actually write it,
which of course you won't, since you'd then no longer have it to hide
your pitiful ass behind), we will once again no longer think about
you, Ray. And neither will all your creationist heroes at ICR, AiG or
Discovery Institute. They still won't even know your name.
Dana Tweedy
>> > So with this said, Lenny, what two-thirds of Theism are you talking
>> > about?
>>
>> The 40 percent above who are not atheists, you idiotic twit.
>>
>
> Right, this 40 percent accepts a God guided evolution. We both know
> there is no such thing as "God guided" or "God supervised" evolution.
How do you 'know' this, Ray?
>
> Lenny: what are these 40 percent?
>
> How do we explain them?
They believe in God, and accept evolution. What other explanation do you
need?
>
> And Lenny: evolution has official and objective claims.
Where do you get this idea? Evolution doesn't have "official claims", and
claims are not objective, findings are.
>We can be sure
> that the 40 percent above do not hold the official and objective claim
> of Darwinian evolution;
Ray, you don't know what the 'official and objective' claims of evolution
are. Your assertion that there are such "offical and objective" claims are
in doubt.
>rather, the official and objective claim of
> Darwinian evolution is seen in the position of the 10 percent. This
> position corresponds to Atheism or Materialism, both are synonyms.
Again, Ray, your assumptions about the "offical and objective" claims of
evolution are doubtful at best.
> Darwinian evolution says the God of the Bible is not seen or manifest
> in reality; living things owe their existence to material-natural
> causation - perpetually.
As already pointed out, this is not an "official" or "objective" claim of
evolution. Evolution says nothing about the "God of the Bible", or whether
or not God is "seen or manifest in reality". The evidence demonstrates
that living things owe their existence to natural processes. That does not
mean that God can't use natural processes as his means of creation.
What you are ascribing to "evolution" is your own personal, and non
objective beliefs. You apparently believe that if you don't see God doing
magic tricks for you, God doesn't exist. This speaks more of your own
limitiations, and lack of faith than it says about God.
> Perpetually ends at biological First Cause, where the official and
> objective position of Darwinian evolution *is not* Deism, do you
> agree?
There is no such "official and objective" position of "Darwinian evolution".
Evolution is a scientific theory, not a religious dogma. There isn't any
priesthood who holds the "offical and objective" evolutionary dogma.
Evolutionary theory changes, as the evidence accures. Evolution isn't
Deism, it's science. Some Deist may hold evolutionary beliefs, but that
doesn't mean that evolutionary theory must be deist.
>
> The official and objective position of evolutionary theory is that
> biological First Cause must be unknown material or natural origin -
> God is still ruled out
You are mistaking Evolution for science in general. Science, as a process
cannot allow appeal to the supernatural. That does not mean that
individuals who accept evolution rule out God as a matter of course. As
far as science is concerned, the "first cause" is presently unknown, but it
doesn't have to be unknown. Any scientific concept must posit a natural
origin, because the supernatural is beyond the ability of science to
determine.
> - Atheism is still the official position, that
> is, the view of the 10 percent is the official and objective position
> of evolutionary theory since Darwin despite 1859:490.
Ray, atheism is not the "offical position" of science. You've been wrong
about that before, and you are wrong now.
>
>> When you say evolutionists are atheist, you are lying. Flat-out
>> lying. L-Y-I-N-G. Lying.
>>
>> Lying.
>>
>
> Fact as explained above.
The "facts" indicate that Lenny is right.
DJT
Steven J.
> On May 27, 4:27 pm, "'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank" <lfl...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
> > The 40 percent above who are not atheists, you idiotic twit.
>
> Right, this 40 percent accepts a God guided evolution. We both know
> there is no such thing as "God guided" or "God supervised" evolution.
>
the supervision of God, or not, as seems good to you. You may, of
course, deny that evolution occurs at all, but from a scientific and
intellectual standpoint that's on a par with insisting that the sun
orbits the earth, or that phlogiston, after all, exists as the basis
of combustion.
>
> Lenny: what are these 40 percent?
>
> How do we explain them?
>
contrive.
>
> And Lenny: evolution has official and objective claims. We can be sure
> that the 40 percent above do not hold the official and objective claim
> of Darwinian evolution; rather, the official and objective claim of
> Darwinian evolution is seen in the position of the 10 percent.
>
Who is authorized to make "official claims" on behalf of evolutionary
theory, and who issued the "official and objective claim" that "God is
not seen or manifest in reality?" Evolutionary biologists are
scientists, not prophets or popes; they cannot issue dogmatic
utterances which all are obliged to accept. It is not an "objective
and official claim" of evolutionary theory that birds are evolved
dinosaurs, or that whales are nested in the Artiodactyla; it's just
that the evidence strongly supports both these claims. Some
biologists would say that the evidence strongly supports, also, the
claim that "God is not seen or manifest in reality," but they do not
make special evolutionary arguments for that position, but make much
the same arguments as atheists in general. You may take these claims,
as you take other claims of biologists, in light of the evidence for
them particularly.
>
> This
> position corresponds to Atheism or Materialism, both are synonyms.
> Darwinian evolution says the God of the Bible is not seen or manifest
> in reality; living things owe their existence to material-natural
> causation - perpetually.
>
its existence to natural causes. The same natural causes give rise to
new adaptions, and to new species. Since you keep repeating yourself,
I shall resort to the same thing: the Bible (and Christian theology)
are just as insistent that God's providence is manifest in the origins
of each individual human being as in the origin of species; you have
no logical grounds for saying that God can be act through natural
causes in the origin of individual persons, or individual nations, but
not of individual species, genera, or higher taxa. You attempt to
erect, here, a distinction among classes of origins that the Bible
itself does not make and that science does not recognize either.
Note, by the way, that your argument above does not depend on any
supposed reliance of Christianity on the perpicuity of scripture; but
on whether God can be acting in circumstances where natural causes
explain a phenomenon. The Bible and Christian theology insist that
God can and routinely does act in such circumstances. As for the
clear statements of the Bible, you've already insisted (in earlier
threads) that the Bible does not mean it literally when it speaks of
the sun going around the immobile Earth, or of the Earth being a flat
disk surmounted by the solid (if window-riddled) dome of the sky.
These things, you say, must be interpreted (by spiritually-gifted
ministers). But if you can read the Bible as consistent with a
spherical Earth, a heliocentric solar system, and atoms, then there
should be no problem reading it as consistent with common descent with
modification through natural selection. Your sole ground for feeling
otherwise is that Gene Scott said so, and you feel, subjectively, that
Gene Scott is a genius (as opposed to, say, a crank on the far fringes
of Christian thought). You have made an idol of your own subjective
feelings and your own ignorant prejudices.
>
> Perpetually ends at biological First Cause, where the official and
> objective position of Darwinian evolution *is not* Deism, do you
> agree?
>
Again, historically, Christianity had no objections to the idea of
spontaneous generation; Christian scholars rejected the traditional
version of this idea for purely scientific, not theological, reasons.
They saw no objection to the idea that an omnipotent God could give
not only living things the power to bring forth new living things, but
could give inanimate matter the power to bring forth new living
things. Passages of Genesis 1 even hint at such a thing, saying God
told the earth, or the sea, to bring forth living things, rather than
saying that God made them directly.
Modern theories of abiogenesis differ vastly in detail from medieval
notions of spontaneous generation, but I see no reason why they are
less compatible with Christian doctrine. Again, if God can be said to
shape a child in its mother's womb, when embryonic development
proceeds from naturalistic causes, then there is no reason He cannot
bring forth life even if abiogenesis likewise has naturalistic causes.
And, to answer your actual question, of course the "official and
objective position" of evolutionary theory is not deism. Evolutionary
biology isn't the sort of institution to have "official positions,"
and science in general does not essay to study supernatural Entities
and phenomena, or take a position on whether there is a God.
Evolutionists have shown, to the satisfaction of informed and
objective persons, that God did not specially create myriad separate
"kinds" on Earth, simply because separate origins is incorrect.
Whether God oversaw the workings of evolution is a question on par
with whether God oversaw the Babylonian seige and sack of Jerusalem:
it is not a matter subject to scientific investigation.
>
> The official and objective position of evolutionary theory is that
> biological First Cause must be unknown material or natural origin -
> God is still ruled out - Atheism is still the official position, that
> is, the view of the 10 percent is the official and objective position
> of evolutionary theory since Darwin despite 1859:490.
>
Again, there is no person or institution capable of issuing such an
"official" position, and the objective fact of the matter is that
there are professing Christians who accept evolution, as there are
professing Christians who accept meteorology, embryology, and brain
science.
>
> > When you say evolutionists are atheist, you are lying. Flat-out
> > lying. L-Y-I-N-G. Lying.
>
> > Lying.
>
> Fact as explained above.
>
Ray, in case this has not been explained to you, repeating an error
does not cause it to become more correct.
>
-- [snip]
>
> > ================================================
> > Lenny Flank
> > "There are no loose threads in the web of life"
>
Earle Jones
<44432580-478b-4da1...@d19g2000prm.googlegroups.com>,
Ray Martinez <pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On May 24, 4:06 pm, Jim Willemin <jim***willemin@hot***mail.com>
> wrote:
> > RayMartinez<pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote
> > innews:962a91f3-027f-407e...@c19g2000prf.googlegroups.com:
> >
> > <snip>
> >
> >
> >
> > > How reasonable is it to discount the observation of design to not
> > > imply Designer?
> >
> > How do you tell if something is designed? For instance, is this chunk of
> > weathered basalt designed?
> >
> > http://tinyurl.com/5datm9
> >
>
> "IN crossing a heath, suppose I pitched my foot against a stone, and
> were asked how the stone came to be there, I might possibly answer,
> that Š it had lain there forever Š but suppose I had found a watch
> upon the ground, and it should be inquired how the watch happened to
> be in that place, I should hardly think of the answer which I had
> before given, that, for any thing I knew, the watch might have always
> been there. Yet why should not this answer serve for the watch as well
> as for the stone? For this reason,
> that, when we come to inspect the watch, we perceive (what we could
> not discover in the stone) that its several parts are Š put together
> for a purpose. Š we think that the watch must have had a maker: that
> there must have existed, at some time, and at some place or other, an
> artificer or artificers who formed it for the purpose which we find it
> actually to answer; who comprehended its construction, and designed
> its use. For every indication of contrivance, every manifestation of
> design, which existed in the watch, there exists in the works of
> NatureŠ there is precisely the same proof that the eye was [Created]
> for vision Š"
>
> --William Paley (1802) "Argument from Design"
>
>
> > If so, what is it designed for?
> >
>
> Stones are part of the crust of the Earth and the Earth is an
> imperfect-sphere flattened at the poles with a protruding equator
> caused by centrifugal force. The Earth is the epitome of a biosphere
> designed to support life and all of its needs. The Bible says God
> decided to create intelligent life on Earth, which then becomes a
> stage (with God as the Director) to test and try human beings. If we
> pass our tests then we get eternal life in heaven with Him, taking the
> place and filling the void left by Lucifer and his fallen band of
> angels.
*
Wow!
Thank you for your lucid explanation, Mister Science.
Wait till I tell all the kids at school about this!
Wow!
earle
*
"Belief without proof is a virtue for the religious. To the
scientist belief without evidence is gross professional misconduct."
--Martin Willets
Jim Willemin
> On May 24, 4:06 pm, Jim Willemin <jim***willemin@hot***mail.com>
> wrote:
>> RayMartinez<pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote
>> innews:962a91f3-027f-407e-aa02-
027b30...@c19g2000prf.googlegroups.c
>> om:
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>>
>>
>> > How reasonable is it to discount the observation of design to not
>> > imply Designer?
>>
>> How do you tell if something is designed? For instance, is this
>> chunk of weathered basalt designed?
>>
>> http://tinyurl.com/5datm9
>>
>
> "IN crossing a heath, suppose I pitched my foot against a stone, and
> were asked how the stone came to be there, I might possibly answer,
> that … it had lain there forever … but suppose I had found a watch
> upon the ground, and it should be inquired how the watch happened to
> be in that place, I should hardly think of the answer which I had
> before given, that, for any thing I knew, the watch might have always
> been there. Yet why should not this answer serve for the watch as well
> as for the stone? For this reason,
> that, when we come to inspect the watch, we perceive (what we could
> not discover in the stone) that its several parts are … put together
> for a purpose. … we think that the watch must have had a maker: that
> there must have existed, at some time, and at some place or other, an
> artificer or artificers who formed it for the purpose which we find it
> actually to answer; who comprehended its construction, and designed
> its use. For every indication of contrivance, every manifestation of
> design, which existed in the watch, there exists in the works of
> Nature… there is precisely the same proof that the eye was [Created]
> for vision …"
>
> --William Paley (1802) "Argument from Design"
>
From this, I can only infer that since Paley cannot see design in a
stone, you cannot see evidence of design in a chunk of weathered basalt.
If I am mistaken in this, please correct me. After all, considering the
number of ways basalt can fracture, and the number of coupled reactions
that occur during weathering, the odds of getting a chunk of basalt with
this exact form and composition and thickness of weathering rind are
truly astronomical, so one could well feel like it was the result of
design.
>> If so, what is it designed for?
>>
>
> Stones are part of the crust of the Earth and the Earth is an
> imperfect-sphere flattened at the poles with a protruding equator
> caused by centrifugal force. The Earth is the epitome of a biosphere
> designed to support life and all of its needs. The Bible says God
> decided to create intelligent life on Earth, which then becomes a
> stage (with God as the Director) to test and try human beings. If we
> pass our tests then we get eternal life in heaven with Him, taking the
> place and filling the void left by Lucifer and his fallen band of
> angels.
>
That doesn't answer my question - it doesn't even address it. I think
you are saying that since the earth supports life, it must have been
designed to do so, therefore everything having to do with the earth is
designed as well. Is that because you feel anything has the potential
to affect everything else? Or am I mistaken again? Further, this is in
direct contradiction to the answer you suggest for the question of
design of the stone - Paley did not see design in stones, so I take it
that you do not - which makes your paragraph above meaningless.
I'd also like to note that your last clause has no support whatsoever in
either the Bible or Christian tradition. I am confident that you cannot
provide any citation of chapter and verse to the contrary.
>
>> How about this natural arch?
>>
>> http://www.nps.gov/archive/rabr/graphics/cowboy.jpg
>>
>> Similarly, if it is designed, what is it designed for?
>>
>> How about this quartz crystal? Is it designed?
>>
>> http://tinyurl.com/6gyty3
>>
>> If so, what for?
I am disappointed that you chose not to address these questions. I have
offered you a range of examples, from a simple stone througn a natural
bridge to a highly ordered crystal, giving you a chance to assess the
'designedness' of each, and all I get is an irrelevant quotation from
Paley. Are you incapable of original thought? Since Paley saw stones
as examples of non-designed objects, I can only surmise that you too do
not see design in any of my three examples. Since, by your second
paragraph above, you seem to infer that the earth is designed for life,
at what point did God start designing things, rather than just making
stuff randomly? Where is the line between that which shows design to
you and that which does not?
>>
>> You have never told us how you decide something is designed, except
>> by claiming that it is 'obvious'. That is not satisfactory, because
>> what is obvious to you is not necessarily obvious to anyone else.
>> How do you decide if a specific object is designed?
>>
>
> I admit that the observation of design seen in nature as a whole, and
> in each living organism, requires a previously existing spiritual IQ
> or "receiver" to connect the observation or appearance of design to
> correspond to invisible Designer or "Transmitter."
>
> Apparently evolutionists are lacking this hardware.
>
This does not answer my question. You have answered the question 'How
do you know the appearance of design implies a Designer?'. The question
I asked was 'How do you tell if a specific object is designed?' I would
appreciate an answer to my original question. (Though you seem to imply
that perceiving design requires individual Divine revelation.)
>> > How reasonable is it to say that nearly all creationists are liars
>> > for accepting design to imply Designer?
>>
>> That is not what makes creationists liars. What makes creationists
>> liars is the telling of known falsehoods - e.g. 'Science disproves
>> evolution', or 'Evolution is a religion' or 'All evolutionists are
>> atheists'. The claim that objects with known natural causes are
>> designed is not a lie per se, it is just silly.
>>
No answer? Then I must assume that you agree with me, and admit that
you are wrong to claim that anyone says creationists are liars for
accepting that the appearance of design implies a designer.
>>
>> > How reasonable is it to deny the logic of design indicating
>> > Designer?
>>
>> Well, first you need to demonstrate that something is designed. In
>> order to demonstrate design, you need to develop a criterion for
>> deciding whether something is designed or not. Then you need to at
>> least address the problem of fabrication - if it was designed, how
>> was it made? .You have not done either.
>>
Again, no answer? If your entire argument rests on this logic, and you
cannot present a criterion for design beyond 'God told me so', then you
have stepped beyond the bounds of logic, indeed, beyond the bounds of
rationality, and set yourself up as the sole arbiter of what in Nature
is designed and what is not. In that case, you should be prepared for a
deluge of questions about things like natural bridges and crystals.
>> > Of course every question is rhetorical.
>>
>> That's funny - every one of them has an answer, and not the answer
>> you want.
>>
Oh, NOW I get it - by insisting that these are merely rhetorical
questions, you absolve yourself from having to actually address any
answers that inconvenience you. Clever. Cowardly, too. Certainly not
a technique that furthers the search for truth.
>> > In view of these reasonable propositions creationists know that
>> > evolutionists are liars, not because they lie, but because
>> > evolutionists lie because they are liars.
>>
>> This is called a circular argument.
>>
No response? For one so versed in logic, you certainly don't seem to be
logical.
Which of these is an ad hominem fallacy:
'I know X tells lies because X repeats demonstrable falsehoods'
'I know X tells lies because I insist X is a liar'
I am *really* glad I am not you, Ray - you are indeed pitiable, though
it is difficult for me to get beyond your bellicosity to actually act
compassionately, and I apologize for that.
MAB
> were asked how the stone came to be there, I might possibly answer,
> that … it had lain there forever … but suppose I had found a watch
> upon the ground, and it should be inquired how the watch happened to
> be in that place, I should hardly think of the answer which I had
> before given, that, for any thing I knew, the watch might have always
> been there. Yet why should not this answer serve for the watch as well
> as for the stone? For this reason,
> that, when we come to inspect the watch, we perceive (what we could
> not discover in the stone) that its several parts are … put together
> for a purpose. … we think that the watch must have had a maker: that
> there must have existed, at some time, and at some place or other, an
> artificer or artificers who formed it for the purpose which we find it
> actually to answer; who comprehended its construction, and designed
> its use. For every indication of contrivance, every manifestation of
> design, which existed in the watch, there exists in the works of
> Nature… there is precisely the same proof that the eye was [Created]
> for vision …"
>
> --William Paley (1802) "Argument from Design"
>
There is a basic flaw in the watch argument that makes it completely
useless: watches don't have sex with other watches to produce baby
watches. Evolution is modification in the replication process.
LT
So by your math, there are no muslims, hindus, wiccans, etc. in the
US? You also seem to equate the US with the entire world. What Lenny
said is not at all refuted by what you're saying here, and your
stupidity is showing. Again.
> So with this said, Lenny, what two-thirds of Theism are you talking
> about? The 40 percent above are obviously confused or ignorant this is
> why I have rightfully called them Fundamentalists.
Someone should make a comic strip out of your statements. This one
almost made me squirt my coffee out of my nose.
> As for the 10 percent: we can be sure that these persons lack the
> hardware spoken of. The 40 percent above require a special explanation
> that will appear in my paper and I guarantee that you will not like
> it. But that is the nature of truth that originates from God: those
> who are rejected by God do not like how He explains reality.
Funny, I thought fairy tales were not equivalent to reality. What
color is the sky in your world, Ray?
> > BTW, Ray, how's that scientific paper coming along?
>
> It is coming along. Don't forget that I am in possession of scientific
> evidence that will refute your moronic theory, Lenny.
If your "evidence" is to be scientific, then it must be empirical
evidence, and it must also be documented as required by the scientific
method, not Ray-Ray's Method. If such evidence for Creation/ID
actually existed, someone much, much smarter than your dumb ass would
have already found it.
> > I hope it's
> > better researched than THAT.
>
> > Found a publisher yet? (snicker) (giggle)
>
> I never intended to publish that way. It will appear on the Internet
> for everyone to see immediately. The day this happens will be a
> glorious day for Creationism and the worst day for evolution since
> November 1859.
Gee, toot your own horn much?
> My work will force evolutionists to face cold hard reality. I am going
> to ruin your life and love every second of it.
Ray's venomous anger is displayed rather nicely. See how vindictive
and evil this "Christian" behaves. Like I said, you're either an
incredibly skilled troll, or an enormously stupid and arrogant person,
completely immune to logic.
> > ================================================
> > Lenny Flank
> > "There are no loose threads in the web of life"
>
> > Editor, Red and Black Publishershttp://www.RedAndBlackPublishers.com
>
> Ray
LT
Ray Martinez
No answer, Lenny?
Objective persons know what this means.
> > And Lenny: evolution has official and objective claims. We can be sure
> > that the 40 percent above do not hold the official and objective claim
> > of Darwinian evolution; rather, the official and objective claim of
> > Darwinian evolution is seen in the position of the 10 percent. This
> > position corresponds to Atheism or Materialism, both are synonyms.
> > Darwinian evolution says the God of the Bible is not seen or manifest
> > in reality; living things owe their existence to material-natural
> > causation - perpetually.
>
> > Perpetually ends at biological First Cause, where the official and
> > objective position of Darwinian evolution *is not* Deism, do you
> > agree?
>
Same here, Lenny.
Ordinary Atheist rhetoric.
> You are just a pitiful little man who wastes everyone's time on the
> Internet by yammering endlessly about "new scientific arguments" that
> you're gonna present in a "world-shaking scientific paper" that will
> **never actually appear** because you're too fucking stooopid to write
> three coherent paragraphs unless some guy named Scott gives them to
> you first.
>
Hysteria, if not implacable rage.
> You are a nobody, Ray. A nothing. A non-entity. Real creationists,
> like AIG and ICR, don't even know that you exist. They pay no
> attention to you or to your always-forthcoming "scientific paper" at
> all whatsoever.
I am very happy to be rejected by YEC Fundamentalists, that is,
persons who accept microevolution like all Atheist-evolutionists.
Logically the rejection of both these groups is the best evidence of
my rightness. And by the same logic the agreement seen between these
groups testifies as to who are the secular Fundamentalists (conducting
the same business on the opposite side of the street).
> The only audience that pays any attention to you at
> all is this one, and all of it thinks you're just a stark raving
> foaming-at-the-mouth idiot. Heck, most of them think you're a pride-
> filled arrogant asshole who, for some utterly unfathomable reason, has
> the silly delusion that he's holier than everyone else.
Ordinary Atheist rage.
> Even your
> fellow creationists don't support you, don't back you up, and think
> you're just as nutty as I do. AiG doesn't care about your "scientific
> paper" any more than the National Academy of Sciences does. You are a
> zero, Ray. Just another Net Loon that everyone laughs at, like Ed
> Conrad or Laurie Appleton. Your "scientific paper" matters to no one
> -- even if you ever DO produce it, which you won't anyway. Even AiG or
> ICR wouldn't publish it. Sad that you have to hide behind it.
>
> What a pathetic loser.
>
> I'd actually feel sorry for you, Ray -- if you weren't such an
> insufferable prick.
>
> So go away now and go work on your, uh, scientific paper, Ray. Run
> along. Shoo.
>
> Just remember, Ray -- we're not laughing WITH you -- we're laughing AT
> you.
>
> ================================================
> Lenny Flank
> "There are no loose threads in the web of life"
>
> Editor, Red and Black Publishershttp://www.RedAndBlackPublishers.com- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Ray Martinez, Old Earth-Young Biosphere Creationist, Paleyan
Designist, British Natural Theologian.
PS: I owe replies to several other persons in this thread and other
topics - ASAP.
RM
'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> Ray Martinez, Old Earth-Young Biosphere Creationist, Paleyan
> Designist, British Natural Theologian.
>
> PS: I owe replies to several other persons in this thread and other
> topics - ASAP.
Here's a crying towel, Ray. Go sniffle and sob in the corner. While
you work on your, uh, "scientific paper". (snicker) (giggle) BWA HA
HA !!!!!!!
Note, Ray -- once again, I am not laughing WITH you; I am laughing AT
you.
PS -- I'm not an atheist. But you already knew that, didn't you.
Liar AND coward.
Dana Tweedy
"Ray Martinez" <pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:a94738f1-2597-442d...@w5g2000prd.googlegroups.com...snip
>> > Lenny: what are these 40 percent?
>>
>> > How do we explain them?
>>
>
> No answer, Lenny?
>
> Objective persons know what this means.
Is that the same reason you won't answer me, Ray?
snip
>> Nobody cares about your religious opinions, Ray. You're not God,
>> you're not a prophet, you're not God's Spokesman, you're no more holy
>> than anyone else is, and you don't know any more about God than anyone
>> else does.
>>
>
> Ordinary Atheist rhetoric.
Lenny isn't an atheist, nor does the above make a statement that there isn't
a God.
>
>
>> You are just a pitiful little man who wastes everyone's time on the
>> Internet by yammering endlessly about "new scientific arguments" that
>> you're gonna present in a "world-shaking scientific paper" that will
>> **never actually appear** because you're too fucking stooopid to write
>> three coherent paragraphs unless some guy named Scott gives them to
>> you first.
>>
>
> Hysteria, if not implacable rage.
How so? You always seem to be mistaken about the "rage" of others.
Perhaps your own inability to refute and your own rage tends to get in the
way of your perceptions.
>
>> You are a nobody, Ray. A nothing. A non-entity. Real creationists,
>> like AIG and ICR, don't even know that you exist. They pay no
>> attention to you or to your always-forthcoming "scientific paper" at
>> all whatsoever.
>
> I am very happy to be rejected by YEC Fundamentalists, that is,
> persons who accept microevolution like all Atheist-evolutionists.
Ray, your own ignorance about science is nothing to be "happy" about.
> Logically the rejection of both these groups is the best evidence of
> my rightness.
No, that's just a logical fallacy of yours. What would be the "best
evidence" of you being right, would your claims matching the evidence.
Your claims don't which makes you wrong, no matter who rejects your claims.
>And by the same logic the agreement seen between these
> groups testifies as to who are the secular Fundamentalists (conducting
> the same business on the opposite side of the street).
Ignoring valid criticism because you don't want to be associated with some
group is hardly logical.
>
>> The only audience that pays any attention to you at
>> all is this one, and all of it thinks you're just a stark raving
>> foaming-at-the-mouth idiot. Heck, most of them think you're a pride-
>> filled arrogant asshole who, for some utterly unfathomable reason, has
>> the silly delusion that he's holier than everyone else.
>
> Ordinary Atheist rage.
Lenny's not an atheist, and he's not the one showing rage.
DJT
Ray Martinez
> On May 27, 5:52 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On May 27, 3:16 pm, "'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank" <lfl...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > On May 27, 11:51 am, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > I admit that the observation of design seen in nature as a whole, and
> > > > in each living organism, requires a previously existing spiritual IQ
> > > > or "receiver" to connect the observation or appearance of design to
> > > > correspond to invisible Designer or "Transmitter."
>
> > > > Apparently evolutionists are lacking this hardware.
>
> > > Lying again, eh Ray? You know just as well as I do that well over two-
> > > thirds of the people in the US who think creationism is a dishonest
> > > crock of shit, are theists and NOT atheists.
>
> > According to all polling data at least half of all adults in the U.S.
> > are Creationists.
>
> > According to the same data the other 50 percent are as follows:
>
> > 40 percent are Christian evolutionists.
>
> Note that Lenny said that more than two-thirds of Americans WHO REJECT
> CREATIONISM AND ACCEPT EVOLUTION are Christians. According to my
> math, forty percent is eighty percent of fifty percent, and eighty
> percent is more than two-thirds. If you reach different conclusions,
> please show your calculations.
>
While the percentage is important it is not the issue here. The issue
here is what these CEists believe or accept.
First, Lenny offered CEists as evidence refuting my claim that
evolutionists lack the necessary brain hardware to see design as
corresponding to invisible Designer. The implication here ignited
Lenny to throw the tantrum that he has thrown.
Now, in response to Lenny: I didn't say anything about Christians, I
said "EVOLUTIONISTS" lack the brain hardware to connect design as
implicating invisible Designer. The quote marked word in caps means
ALL evolutionists, whether Christian or Atheist.
The polling data says CEists believe that God guides the evolutionary
process hands-on.
Questions:
1. Do CEists see design as corresponding to invisible Designer?
2. What is their source for a "God guided" evolution?
3. Does this massive group of educated persons not know that there is
no such thing as "God guided" evolution?
IF God is involved with evolution then it is modified Creationism.
Steven: could you straighten out this mess? There is a mess here - a
huge one.
I do not mean to ignore what you wrote but the only issue in the
exchange with Lenny is the one described above, and apparently Lenny
is too good to debate with me.
> > 10 percent are Atheist evolutionists (which includes the deistic
> > position of a Ken Miller who calls himself a Theist or Christian.
> > Tthis position is excellent evidence that Miller is confused or a liar
> > since there is no such thing as a Theist who hold a deistic position).
>
> A theist is a person who believes in a God or gods. A deist is a
> person who believes that God does not intervene supernaturally in His
> creation after making it, and has not revealed Himself except in
> nature. Deists are a subset of theists.
I just read this and choked on my hot chocolate.
What is the source of this idea?
Do you know any Deists who agree?
> Christians are a (largely
> different) subset of theists.
I basically agree.
But its more accurate to say that Christians are a large subset of
Theism.
> So far as I know, there is no reason to
> suppose that Ken Miller rejects the view that Jesus Christ was,
> Himself, a revelation of God in the flesh, which would make Miller a
> better candidate for the category "Christian" than for the category
> "deist." If you have any evidence, besides you own bigoted insistence
> that there cannot be a Christian evolutionist who has thought both
> positions through, please present it.
>
> > The 40 percent, according to these polls, accept a God guided
> > evolutionary process. This means they subscribe to Richard Owen
> > "providential evolutionism." According to Neal Gillespie "providential
> > evolutionism" is nothing but modified Creationism (1979:107 -
> > "Charles Darwin and the problem of creation"). Of course I agree with
> > Gillespie. Lenny: where do these Fundamentalists get the idea that God
> > guides evolution hands-on? Do they not know that if God is involved
> > then it is not evolution, but Creationism?
>
> A "God-guided evolutionary process" includes a wide range of
> positions, from the view that, since God guides all natural processes,
> evolution through natural causes must be "God-guided," to the view
> suggested by Phillip Johnson that God from time to time causes a
> population of one species miraculously to give birth to young of a
> different species.
If true, then this is nothing but modified special creation, do you
agree?
> From a Christian perspective, God is involved with
> everything; this does not mean that every natural process is a miracle
> or a suspension of the laws of nature. I bring up again the dual
> perspective on embryonic development: the view that it occurs through
> the sort of natural mechanisms that can be studied in the lab or
> popularized in family medical guides, and that God personally shapes
> each child in its mother's womb. There seems no logical reason why
> such a dual perspective is any less reasonable for evolution than for
> embryology.
>
> Note that "evolution" is just "common descent with modification;" what
> causes the modification (natural selection of mutations, some
> Lamarckian internal mechanism of change, intelligent intervention in
> heredity) is not relevant to the definition of "evolution" itself.
> Certainly the idea that God causes species to give rise to different
> species, and ultimately to different genera, families, orders, classes
> and kingdoms, is not the sort of "creationism" that you are insisting
> on, or the sort that any of the major creationist organizations are
> pushing.
>
How is "giving rise to" NOT special creation?
Keep your day job, you are not funny.
> > > BTW, Ray, how's that scientific paper coming along?
>
> > It is coming along. Don't forget that I am in possession of scientific
> > evidence that will refute your moronic theory, Lenny.
>
> Oddly, you never seem to mention what this evidence is.
>
> > > I hope it's
> > > better researched than THAT.
>
> > > Found a publisher yet? (snicker) (giggle)
>
> > I never intended to publish that way. It will appear on the Internet
> > for everyone to see immediately. The day this happens will be a
> > glorious day for Creationism and the worst day for evolution since
> > November 1859.
>
> Ray, if you're planning to present your paper on the internet anyway,
> you have no reason to fear being "scooped" if you reveal some of your
> arguments here and now: either way, it will appear in a public forum
> under your name, and will be credited to you, or plagiarized,
> according to the conscience of the individual reader (and you can
> claim copyright as easily for a usenet post as for a thousand-page PDF
> article). So you have no reason to be so coy about the actual
> contents of these arguments. Furthermore, if you share your arguments
> and evidence with us now, we can help you refine your arguments in
> actual debate, leading to a better paper ("as iron sharpens
> iron ...").
>
No comment.
> Of course, this would depend on you actually having evidence, and an
> argument, and at least the beginnings of an actual paper.
>
> > My work will force evolutionists to face cold hard reality. I am going
> > to ruin your life and love every second of it.
>
> "Let he who puts on his armor not boast like he who takes it off." 1
> Kings 20:11. Brag about what your paper accomplishes after we've
> actually seen it, not before.
>
>
>
> > > ================================================
> > > Lenny Flank
> > > "There are no loose threads in the web of life"
>
> > > Editor, Red and Black Publishershttp://www.RedAndBlackPublishers.com
>
> > Ray
>
> -- Steven J.- Hide quoted text -
'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank
Blah blah blah. Show us your "scientific paper", Ray.
Put up or shut up.
Coward.
(and send it to ICR and AIG so they can laugh at you too.)
'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank
apparently Lenny
> is too good to debate with me.
>
What's to "debate", Ray. When you say that evolution equals atheism,
you are lying to us. Lying. L-Y-I-N-G. Lying.
You know just as well as I do that most "evolutionists" are theists
and are NOT atheists.
And when you say otherwise, you are lying.
You area liar.
And a coward, too.
Now then, either produce your paper, or shut the fuck up. Fish, or
cut bait. Shit, or get off the goddamn toilet.
Coward.
'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank
>
> > Ray, in case this fact had escaped your notice, you are not God. Your
> > opinions are not automatically or even probably "truth that originates
> > from God." The fact that people think you have no clue about what
> > you're pontificating on tells you very little about how they feel
> > about God. Whether anything at all, ever, will appear in your paper
> > is, of course, a matter about which reasonable people are very
> > skeptical.
>
> Keep your day job, you are not funny.
>
Well of course, Ray, you are NOT God. You are not God's Spokesman.
You are not a Prophet. You are not any more holy or divine than
anyone else. You don't know any more about God than anyone else alive
does. Your religious opinions are no more authoritative than mine, my
next door neighbor's, or the kid who delivers my pizzas.
For some unfathomable reason, you of course THINK that you are, but
alas, you are not. You are just a man, Ray. You shit the same way
that the rest of us do, and it smells just the same.
You are just a man. Just a fallible, imperfect, man.
And your religious opinions are no better than any OTHER fallible,
imperfect, man's.
Sorry if you don't like that, Ray.
'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank
>
> > Ray, if you're planning to present your paper on the internet anyway,
> > you have no reason to fear being "scooped" if you reveal some of your
> > arguments here and now: either way, it will appear in a public forum
> > under your name, and will be credited to you, or plagiarized,
> > according to the conscience of the individual reader (and you can
> > claim copyright as easily for a usenet post as for a thousand-page PDF
> > article). So you have no reason to be so coy about the actual
> > contents of these arguments. Furthermore, if you share your arguments
> > and evidence with us now, we can help you refine your arguments in
> > actual debate, leading to a better paper ("as iron sharpens
> > iron ...").
>
> No comment.
I don't blame you, Ray. It'd be a terrible blow to your overblown
holier-than-thou (literally) ego, to rant and rave and bluster about
your "world-shattering scientific paper" for years and years and
years, only to at last, after so much time (and so much TALK) produce
it and find - - - - - - that no one gives a fuck about it.
Send it to ICR and AIG and Discovery Institute, Ray. Let's see if
they laugh at you too.
Want to "debate", Ray? Then show me your paper. I'll "debate"" it
right here, in front of the whole world.
But you WON'T, will you? Ever. You're all mouth and no balls, Ray.
Coward.
Ray Martinez
> On May 28, 10:04 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> apparently Lenny
>
> > is too good to debate with me.
>
> What's to "debate", Ray. When you say that evolution equals atheism,
> you are lying to us. Lying. L-Y-I-N-G. Lying.
>
Evolution uses Materialism for its starting presuppositions, also to
interpret evidence and data. Materialism is, of course, perfectly
synonymous with Atheism. Both presuppose the non-existence of God,
especially in reality. This is anything but complicated.
> You know just as well as I do that most "evolutionists" are theists
> and are NOT atheists.
>
Of course I know that - never have I denied. Lenny: why do these
Theists accept a theory that presupposes the "truth" of Materialism
and not Supernaturalism?
What I am asking is: why do Theists accept atheistic suppositions and
not theistic suppositions?
Logically the acceptance of atheistic suppositions indicates Atheism -
not Theism. Materialism is antithetic to the beliefs of Theism, yet
these Theists accept a theory that is built on Materialism. This fact
tells me that these Theists are Atheists. What is the evidence that
these Theists are Theists? Where is the beef/Theism?
> And when you say otherwise, you are lying.
>
> You area liar.
>
> And a coward, too.
>
> Now then, either produce your paper, or shut the fuck up. Fish, or
> cut bait. Shit, or get off the goddamn toilet.
>
> Coward.
>
> ================================================
> Lenny Flank
> "There are no loose threads in the web of life"
>
> Editor, Red and Black Publishershttp://www.RedAndBlackPublishers.com
Ray
Ray Martinez
> On May 28, 10:04 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > > Ray, in case this fact had escaped your notice, you are not God. Your
> > > opinions are not automatically or even probably "truth that originates
> > > from God." The fact that people think you have no clue about what
> > > you're pontificating on tells you very little about how they feel
> > > about God. Whether anything at all, ever, will appear in your paper
> > > is, of course, a matter about which reasonable people are very
> > > skeptical.
>
> > Keep your day job, you are not funny.
>
> Well of course, Ray, you are NOT God. You are not God's Spokesman.
> You are not a Prophet. You are not any more holy or divine than
> anyone else. You don't know any more about God than anyone else alive
> does. Your religious opinions are no more authoritative than mine, my
> next door neighbor's, or the kid who delivers my pizzas.
>
How Atheism perceives Theology.
> For some unfathomable reason, you of course THINK that you are, but
> alas, you are not. You are just a man, Ray. You shit the same way
> that the rest of us do, and it smells just the same.
>
> You are just a man. Just a fallible, imperfect, man.
>
> And your religious opinions are no better than any OTHER fallible,
> imperfect, man's.
>
> Sorry if you don't like that, Ray.
>
> ================================================
> Lenny Flank
> "There are no loose threads in the web of life"
>
> Editor, Red and Black Publishershttp://www.RedAndBlackPublishers.com
Good honest Atheist-Marxist hatred.
Sure beats a lying two faced "Christian" evolutionist.
Ray
Free Lunch
<pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>On May 28, 8:07 pm, "'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank" <lfl...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> On May 28, 10:04 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>> apparently Lenny
>>
>> > is too good to debate with me.
>>
>> What's to "debate", Ray. When you say that evolution equals atheism,
>> you are lying to us. Lying. L-Y-I-N-G. Lying.
>>
>
>Evolution uses Materialism for its starting presuppositions, also to
>interpret evidence and data. Materialism is, of course, perfectly
>synonymous with Atheism. Both presuppose the non-existence of God,
>especially in reality. This is anything but complicated.
Once again, you demonstrate your complete inability to comprehend
science or English. Science uses methodological naturalism. That is not
the materialism that you talk about when you object. Religion uses
nothing at all, so they can say any damned thing and they expect to be
taken seriously. When you start to use evidence, you won't be mocked the
way you are today.