R. Forrest: common rat
Ray Martinez
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/43c47f3198434e57
Forrest speaking about S. Pitman:
"So basically, he's just a typically dishonest creationist who
dogmatically refuses to learn anything and thinks that if he writes
stuff that looks scientific, he can fool other creationists into
thinking that he has valid arguments."
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/e3f18179ce30b4ac?
Forrest speaking about me:
"Ray, after the persistent dishonestly you demonstrate on this forum,
and no doubt elsewhere, perhaps you should consider if you should
show
your face here."
We also know that Forrest routinely claims that lies persist rampantly
on Creationist websites.
We know Richard Forrest is an Atheist-evolutionist, and we know that
he actually believes apes morphed into men over the course of millions
of years. He also believes that a magnificent nature shows no signs of
Intelligence but was produced by something that has no mind. Forrest
believes crude Stone Age tools and shelters are "evidence" of early
quasi-ape men but the arm and hand that supposedly crafted these tools
is not the product of design. Forrest thinks bat sonar and
echolocation was produced incrementally, leaving the flying creature
unable to conduct its business in its natural habitat of lightless
caves, until a blind and mindless natural selection got around to
completing the task. And the human eye, Forrest believes - the most
obvious irreducible complex organ of all - was also formed
incrementally with no Designer involved.
We know for a fact that the Stone Age never existed. Genesis says Cain
built a "city" and not some A frame mud hut with a rock tied to a
piece of wood. Man was created ultra-intelligent. The Great Pyramid -
the only true World Wonder - from top to bottom; inside and out;
proves this claim and falisfies the existence of a Stone Age. We know
it is impossible for a sonar apparatus to have been built
incrementally by something that has no mind or consciousness. And we
know the human eye is formed in the womb (and not over milions of
years) by wondrous mechanisms invented by God.
In view of these facts I feel no insult whatsoever in being called a
liar by Richard Forrest. His disapproval is the best endorsement of my
honesty. Anytime a person who believes what he believes, and denies
what he denies, thinks I am a liar, this is the very best evidence
that I am not. Common sense says persons who believe the things that
Forrest believes should not be going around calling anyone a liar.
Ray
snex
ancient books are not evidence of anything other than the fact that
people wrote books a long time ago.
Ray Martinez
>
> - Show quoted text -
I am well aware of the tenets of conventional Atheist ideology - what
is your point?
Ray
geo...@hotmail.com
He just made the point, Ray. You ad hommed him instead. It's only a
one line point, Ray, it's not that hard: do you think snex is correct,
or not, and why?
>
> Ray- Hide quoted text -
Chris Krolczyk
(snip)
Damnit!
Rich Forrest is a lot more personable than I am and he
*still* gets put on Ray's Enemies' List before I or anyone
else does.
I DEMAND A RECOUNT! >:)
-Chris Krolczyk
snex
my point is that your only source for your crazy beliefs is an ancient
book, and that - as i just stated - ancient books are not evidence for
anything other than the fact that ancient peoples were literate.
Shane
> Richard Forrest has a nasty habit of calling Creationists liars.
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/43c47f3198434e57
>
> Forrest speaking about S. Pitman:
>
> "So basically, he's just a typically dishonest creationist who
> dogmatically refuses to learn anything and thinks that if he writes
> stuff that looks scientific, he can fool other creationists into
> thinking that he has valid arguments."
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/e3f18179ce30b4ac?
>
> Forrest speaking about me:
>
> "Ray, after the persistent dishonestly you demonstrate on this forum,
> and no doubt elsewhere, perhaps you should consider if you should
> show
> your face here."
>
> We also know that Forrest routinely claims that lies persist rampantly
> on Creationist websites.
We further know that thus far very few, if any, creationists will
catually attempt to point out the error in Richards claims. Here is
another case in point. After making this claim that Richard is wrong,
Ray goes on a nice little rant, yet this was the perfect opportunity to
take even one of Richards specidfic claims and show him to be wrong..So
I wonder is Ray dishonest, as he has demonstrated himself to be--I will
not post till one week before--vapour canopy--I can speak Greek---or is
he just lazy, or perhaps both.
>
> We know Richard Forrest is an Atheist-evolutionist, and we know that
> he actually believes apes morphed into men over the course of millions
> of years.
See Ray lies yet again. Richard does not believe aped morphed into men.
Another lie Ray keeps on telling.
<Snip lengthy ad hominem---another creationist standard>
Dan Luke
"Ray Martinez" wrote:
> Richard Forrest has a nasty habit of calling Creationists liars.
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/43c47f3198434e57
>
> Forrest speaking about S. Pitman:
>
> "So basically, he's just a typically dishonest creationist who
> dogmatically refuses to learn anything and thinks that if he writes
> stuff that looks scientific, he can fool other creationists into
> thinking that he has valid arguments."
>
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/e3f18179ce30b4ac?
>
> Forrest speaking about me:
[snip]
I've never seen Richard call anyone a liar who hasn't been caught lying
repeatedly in this newsgroup.
That would include you and Pitman, Ray.
--
Dan
"Don't make me nervous when I'm carryin' a baseball bat."
- Big Joe Turner
Kermit
> Richard Forrest has a nasty habit of calling Creationists liars.
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/43c47f3198434e57
>
> Forrest speaking about S. Pitman:
>
> "So basically, he's just a typically dishonest creationist who
> dogmatically refuses to learn anything and thinks that if he writes
> stuff that looks scientific, he can fool other creationists into
> thinking that he has valid arguments."
What's your point?
Richard Frequently asks you and other Creationists to go to his
website and demonstrate where he is in error. Perhaps you could try
that. Or alternatively, show where any website by any evolutionary
scientist is in error.
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/e3f18179ce30b4ac?
>
> Forrest speaking about me:
>
> "Ray, after the persistent dishonestly you demonstrate on this forum,
> and no doubt elsewhere, perhaps you should consider if you should
> show your face here."
>
> We also know that Forrest routinely claims that lies persist rampantly
> on Creationist websites.
Yes, they do, and it's easily demonstrated. Do you have any particular
question in mind?
>
> We know Richard Forrest is an Atheist-evolutionist,
I seem to remember him declining to state his religious beliefs a
number of times. Of course he's an evolutionist - that's what an
evolutionist *is: a scinetist who does evolutionary science. To be
specific, he's a paleontologist, with a special fondness for
plesiosaurs and similar critters.
> and we know that
> he actually believes apes morphed into men over the course of millions
> of years.
Apparently, yes, and for the same reason I do. The evidence that this
happened is pretty overwhelming.
> He also believes that a magnificent nature shows no signs of
> Intelligence but was produced by something that has no mind.
Well, *I've seen no evidence for it. Do you have any?
> Forrest
> believes crude Stone Age tools and shelters are "evidence" of early
> quasi-ape men but the arm and hand that supposedly crafted these tools
> is not the product of design.
Correct. Some of those tools, BTW, are pretty sophisticated.
> Forrest thinks bat sonar and
> echolocation was produced incrementally, leaving the flying creature
> unable to conduct its business in its natural habitat of lightless
> caves, until a blind and mindless natural selection got around to
> completing the task.
I doubt it. What makes you think bats evolved in totally dark caves?
> And the human eye, Forrest believes - the most
> obvious irreducible complex organ of all - was also formed
> incrementally with no Designer involved.
Why do you say that it is obviously IC?
>
> We know for a fact that the Stone Age never existed. Genesis
Genesis is not evidence, anymore than the Bhagavad Gita or the annals
of the Norse Gods are.
Are you calling your creator god a liar?
Again?
If the universe was created by an intelligent deity, it obviously used
evolution to produce us, unless he covered his tracks with a greater
series of miracles. Either way, it wasn't at all like you imagine.
> says Cain
> built a "city" and not some A frame mud hut with a rock tied to a
> piece of wood. Man was created ultra-intelligent. The Great Pyramid -
> the only true World Wonder - from top to bottom; inside and out;
> proves this claim and falisfies the existence of a Stone Age.
No Ray. You've been corrected on your fantasies before. Your
pseudohistory is a mixed bag from various scam artists, and has little
to do with the Bible, which itself is neither history nor science.
> We know
> it is impossible for a sonar apparatus to have been built
> incrementally by something that has no mind or consciousness.
Really? Why?
> And we
> know the human eye is formed in the womb (and not over milions of
> years) by wondrous mechanisms invented by God.
You're confusing development of an organism with evolution of a
species.
>
> In view of these facts I feel no insult whatsoever in being called a
> liar by Richard Forrest.
Well, no, of course not. You clearly have no shame, only ego and an
inability to tell fact from fantasy.
> His disapproval is the best endorsement of my
> honesty. Anytime a person who believes what he believes, and denies
> what he denies, thinks I am a liar, this is the very best evidence
> that I am not. Common sense says persons who believe the things that
> Forrest believes should not be going around calling anyone a liar.
Common sense is an idiot.
>
> Ray
Kermit
Ray Martinez
We know Atheists believe the Bible is not evidence, this is common
sense, are you a teenager? Come on and tell us the truth?
Your posts show a naivete conducive with the mind of a teenager. What
grade are you in?
Ray
Ray Martinez
>
> - Show quoted text -
Ordinary atheism, again, what is the point, Snex?
The subject was evolutionist R. Forrest. Do you agree with his
slander?
Ray
Ray Martinez
>
> - Show quoted text -
We know Atheists agree with one another regardless of the truth, what
is your point?
Ray
Ray Martinez
>
> - Show quoted text -
Shane: there is no insult in being called a liar by Forrest as I have
pointed out. What makes you think that your lies are any different?
I am very happy to be slandered by your kind. It means you are enraged
with my facts and arguments. By the way I have been banned for life by
Conservapedia for having an anti-Christian liberal bias.
Ray
Lee Oswald Ving
@e16g2000pri.googlegroups.com:
> We know Richard Forrest is an Atheist-evolutionist,
Why did you bother to post the rest of this yack-yack, Martinez? This is
your excuse for packing up and running away - everything else just made you
look like the liar Forrest claims you are.
And he's right, of course, but how damned stupid do you have to be to post
a long litany of evidence to support this?
Dana Tweedy
"Ray Martinez" <pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1183155206.0...@e16g2000pri.googlegroups.com...
> Richard Forrest has a nasty habit of calling Creationists liars.
Because Creationists often are liars....
snipping Richard accurately assessing liars...
>
> We also know that Forrest routinely claims that lies persist rampantly
> on Creationist websites.
And he's shown that they do.
>
> We know Richard Forrest is an Atheist-evolutionist,
Richard hasn't claimed to be an atheist.
>and we know that
> he actually believes apes morphed into men over the course of millions
> of years.
Ray, humans are apes, and the evidence clearly shows that humans have
evolved over millions of years. Why are you so afraid of addressing the
evidence?
> He also believes that a magnificent nature shows no signs of
> Intelligence but was produced by something that has no mind.
This is what the evidence indicates. What "signs of intelligence" do you
feel are shown by nature, and why do you imagine that a mind is needed?
> Forrest
> believes crude Stone Age tools and shelters are "evidence" of early
> quasi-ape men but the arm and hand that supposedly crafted these tools
> is not the product of design.
Well, most "Stone Age" tools and shelters were made by anatomically modern
humans. More to the point, there still are modern human cultures that use
"crude Stone Age tools and shelters". Since all humans are apes, all
humans would be "quasi-ape men". The "arm and hand" that crafted those
tools is the same basic bone structure as every other tetrapod. Why would
you assume "design" to explain a structure that's shared by such a large
number of species?
>Forrest thinks bat sonar and
> echolocation was produced incrementally, leaving the flying creature
> unable to conduct its business in its natural habitat of lightless
> caves,
Why would you assume that the precoursers of the bat had a "natural habitat"
of "lightless caves" before the sonar system had evolved? Isn't it
possible that bats began living in "lightless caves" AFTER they developed
echolocation?
> until a blind and mindless natural selection got around to
> completing the task.
Again, why couldn't the early bats have lived in areas that had light before
they developed echolocation? Some bats today fly in the light, and don't
echolocate....
>And the human eye, Forrest believes - the most
> obvious irreducible complex organ of all - was also formed
> incrementally with no Designer involved.
What evidence do you have that would suggest that the human eye (which isn't
all that remarkable, compared to other eyes found in nature) and is not
"irreducibly complex", is the produce of a "Designer"?
>
> We know for a fact that the Stone Age never existed.
We do? That would come as a surprise to the cultures that are still living
with stone age technology.
>Genesis says Cain
> built a "city" and not some A frame mud hut with a rock tied to a
> piece of wood.
Why would Cain build a city, when he was the only one living there? And
what is wrong with a mud frame hut, with a "rock tied to a piece of wood"?
It takes much less resources to build, and suits a hunter gatherer life
style much better than a "city" would.
> Man was created ultra-intelligent.
What is the evidence for this assertion?
> The Great Pyramid -
> the only true World Wonder - from top to bottom; inside and out;
> proves this claim and falisfies the existence of a Stone Age.
How, exactly? The Great Pyramid (one of three) is one of 7 "world
wonders" and post dates the "stone age" by several thousand years. Why
would it falsifiy the existance of the stone age?
> We know
> it is impossible for a sonar apparatus to have been built
> incrementally by something that has no mind or consciousness.
Why would we "know" this? We do know that evolution can, and does produce
complex systems, and even humans, with their relatively poor hearing can
echolocate.
> And we
> know the human eye is formed in the womb (and not over milions of
> years) by wondrous mechanisms invented by God.
The human eye is the result of millions of years of evolution, and does form
in the womb, like any other human organ. The same eye forms in the egg of
a bird, or reptile.
>
> In view of these facts I feel no insult whatsoever in being called a
> liar by Richard Forrest.
Since Richard's assessment is true, why would you feel "insult" anyway?
All you have to do is stop lying, and it wouldn't apply to you.
> His disapproval is the best endorsement of my
> honesty.
Well, no, your honesty would be the 'best endorsement" of your honesty.
Unfortunately, you haven't shown much of that.
> Anytime a person who believes what he believes, and denies
> what he denies, thinks I am a liar, this is the very best evidence
> that I am not.
How does that work, Ray? When someone who sees reality clearly calls you a
liar, and points out your lies, how does that not make you a liar? Even if
Richard were wrong about everything else, the mere fact that you have lied
makes you a liar.
> Common sense says persons who believe the things that
> Forrest believes should not be going around calling anyone a liar.
Why, Ray? Do you mean "Common Sense" or "My personal delusions"?
DJT
Dana Tweedy
snip
>>
>> ancient books are not evidence of anything other than the fact that
>> people wrote books a long time ago.- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
> I am well aware of the tenets of conventional Atheist ideology
That's not "atheist ideology" Ray, it's simple fact.
- what
> is your point?
That ancient books aren't evidence of anything other than the fact that
people wrote books long ago.
It's good to see your recent absence hasn't improved your sanity...
DJT
Lee Jay
> The Great Pyramid -
> the only true World Wonder - from top to bottom; inside and out;
> proves this claim and falisfies the existence of a Stone Age.
Can someone explain to me how a stone building falsify the existence
of a Stone Age?
Lee Jay
Dana Tweedy
snip
>> He just made the point, Ray. You ad hommed him instead. It's only a
>> one line point, Ray, it's not that hard: do you think snex is correct,
>> or not, and why?
>>
>
> We know Atheists believe the Bible is not evidence,
Not just atheists, but anyone who undestands what standards of evidence are.
> this is common
> sense, are you a teenager? Come on and tell us the truth?
Why would it matter, Ray? And why are you avoiding the question?
>
> Your posts show a naivete conducive with the mind of a teenager. What
> grade are you in?
Again, Ray, why would it matter? Even if he were a 1st grader, he's making
more sense than you are.
DJT
Dana Tweedy
snip
>>
>> my point is that your only source for your crazy beliefs is an ancient
>> book, and that - as i just stated - ancient books are not evidence for
>> anything other than the fact that ancient peoples were literate.- Hide
>> quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
> Ordinary atheism, again, what is the point, Snex?
While Snex is indeed an atheist, his point still stands. Ancient books
don't meet the standard of evidence like physical evidence would.
>
> The subject was evolutionist R. Forrest. Do you agree with his
> slander?
Richard was not the one who was engaged in libel, Ray, that was you.
DJT
snex
it has nothing to do with atheism. it has to do with understanding the
way science works. you dont accept the quran or the book of mormon as
evidence, so why should anybody accept the bible?
>
> The subject was evolutionist R. Forrest. Do you agree with his
> slander?
he hasnt slandered anybody. i havent seen him point out an alleged lie
that wasnt actually a falsehood.
>
> Ray
Dana Tweedy
snip
>> <Snip lengthy ad hominem---another creationist standard>- Hide quoted
>> text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
> Shane: there is no insult in being called a liar by Forrest as I have
> pointed out.
All you would have to do to avoid an "insult" is to stop lying, Ray.
> What makes you think that your lies are any different?
Shane isn't the one who lied.
>
> I am very happy to be slandered by your kind.
Ray, you are the one engaged in libel (not slander).
> It means you are enraged
> with my facts and arguments.
Ray, do you mean the "facts and arguments", like when you ran away from Jim
Willemin's destruction of your pyramid claims?
> By the way I have been banned for life by
> Conservapedia for having an anti-Christian liberal bias.
Good grief, Ray, can't you get along with anyone, even your own kind of nut?
DJT
Dana Tweedy
snip
>> [snip]
>>
>> I've never seen Richard call anyone a liar who hasn't been caught lying
>> repeatedly in this newsgroup.
>>
>> That would include you and Pitman, Ray.
>>
>> --
>> Dan
>>
>> "Don't make me nervous when I'm carryin' a baseball bat."
>> - Big Joe Turner- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
> We know Atheists agree with one another regardless of the truth, what
> is your point?
Ray, I'm not an atheist, and I agree with Richard and Dan. Also, I've
seen plenty of disagreement among atheists. The truth is, you've lied
repeatedly about me, and about others.
DJT
Chris Krolczyk
> I am very happy to be slandered by your kind.
You mean "libelled", not that you were.
> It means you are enraged
> with my facts and arguments.
You can't be enraged by what you haven't posted, Ray.
> By the way I have been banned for life by
> Conservapedia for having an anti-Christian liberal bias.
And this proves what, precisely? That there are bigger
self-righteous asshats on the Internet than you?
Or that you started this thread to catch up, perhaps?
-Chris Krolczyk
Robert Weldon
> Richard Forrest has a nasty habit of calling Creationists liars.
No, he calls demonstrated liars, liars, the interesting fact is most
of them are creationists.
-whining snipped
> We also know that Forrest routinely claims that lies persist rampantly
> on Creationist websites.
Yes, because they do, and he has demonstrated why they are lies. See,
that is the difference, he provides facts and evidence, creationists
(such as you) only provide hand waving, assertions and ad homs.
>
> We know Richard Forrest is an Atheist-evolutionist,
Well, we know he has no problem with the fact of evolution, and
supports the current theory of evolution, however I have never seen
him say anything about his personal religious believes, which
shouldn't have any connection to his support of evolution in any
case. This is only a problem with fundamentalist, creationist
religious loons, as you so effectively demonstrate, over and over.
>and we know that
> he actually believes apes morphed into men over the course of millions
> of years.
Probably because the evidence shows that we did evolve from previous
ape-like creatures, we are apes, and are closely related to the other
apes. Provide evidence that we didn't, and he, and other honest
people will change their minds, that is how science works. You should
try it sometime.
>He also believes that a magnificent nature shows no signs of
> Intelligence but was produced by something that has no mind. Forrest
> believes crude Stone Age tools and shelters are "evidence" of early
> quasi-ape men but the arm and hand that supposedly crafted these tools
> is not the product of design. Forrest thinks bat sonar and
> echolocation was produced incrementally, leaving the flying creature
> unable to conduct its business in its natural habitat of lightless
> caves, until a blind and mindless natural selection got around to
> completing the task. And the human eye, Forrest believes - the most
> obvious irreducible complex organ of all - was also formed
> incrementally with no Designer involved.
Because the evidence indicates that evolution is precisely how these
traits came to be.
>
> We know for a fact that the Stone Age never existed.
That will come as a shock to the scientists who spend their time
digging stone age sites up, or study existing stone age societies.
> Genesis says Cain
> built a "city" and not some A frame mud hut with a rock tied to a
> piece of wood. Man was created ultra-intelligent.
Why would a single person build a city, bit of a waste of his time,
don't you think?
> The Great Pyramid - the only true World Wonder - from top to bottom; inside and out;
> proves this claim and falisfies the existence of a Stone Age.
You have been proven wrong about your personal delusions about the
great pyramid, repeatedly. The fact that you persist in your
delusions makes you a liar and a loon. We know when the pyramid was
built, we know who designed it, have records of pay statements of
people who built it, and have found where they lived and where they
got the rock from.
> We know
> it is impossible for a sonar apparatus to have been built
> incrementally by something that has no mind or consciousness. And we
> know the human eye is formed in the womb (and not over milions of
> years) by wondrous mechanisms invented by God.
No, you believe that, yet is has been built just like that. The human
eye is a rather poor design, better ones exist in other critters, if
we are supposed to have been created by God, why wouldn't we have the
best eyes, or other features, for that matter?
>
> In view of these facts
-correction, ad homs by Ray.
>I feel no insult whatsoever in being called a
> liar by Richard Forrest. His disapproval is the best endorsement of my
> honesty. Anytime a person who believes what he believes, and denies
> what he denies, thinks I am a liar, this is the very best evidence
> that I am not. Common sense says persons who believe the things that
> Forrest believes should not be going around calling anyone a liar.
>
> Ray
Actually, no, his diapproval is proof of your dishonesty. Your
demented idea that his disapproval somehow proves you correct only
demonstrates the depths of your insanity. Common sense says persons
who believe what reality demonstrates to be true, are perfectly
justified in calling people who persist in denying reality liars. You
are the poster child for this.
Robert Weldon
>
> - Show quoted text -
True statements are not slander, and learn the difference between
libel and slander, it will make you look (slightly) less like an
idiot.
Robert Weldon
>
> - Show quoted text -
Again, learn the difference betwen libel and slander. He is not
lying, and nobody is enraged, except, apparently, you. More likely
you have been banned for life for being a demented loon.
Robert Weldon
>
> - Show quoted text -
His point is you are a liar. Is there something wrong in the wiring
in your brain that makes it difficult for you to process that concept?
Rodjk #613
> Richard Forrest has a nasty habit of calling Creationists liars.
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/43c47f3198434e57
>
> Forrest speaking about S. Pitman:
>
> "So basically, he's just a typically dishonest creationist who
> dogmatically refuses to learn anything and thinks that if he writes
> stuff that looks scientific, he can fool other creationists into
> thinking that he has valid arguments."
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/e3f18179ce30b4ac?
>
> Forrest speaking about me:
>
> and no doubt elsewhere, perhaps you should consider if you should
> show
> your face here."
>
> We also know that Forrest routinely claims that lies persist rampantly
> on Creationist websites.
>
> he actually believes apes morphed into men over the course of millions
Just wanted to add my 2 cents: I see you as a liar also and I think
Richard Forrest is correct in his views on you and other creationist.
Rodjk #613
geo...@hotmail.com
Are you, Ray? You don't seem to be able to address the point. Snex
said the Bible doesn't count as evidence. Are you going to show him
why he's wrong, perhaps with your already-debunked nonsense about how
stars and passages lining up proves some poetic truth about God? At
the moment you're just ad homming. You know what that means? It means
you can't refute.
> Come on and tell us the truth?
About what, Ray? I didn't make any argument.
>
> Your posts show a naivete conducive with the mind of a teenager.
Well, you would know.
> What
> grade are you in?
I finished school a long time ago, Ray, but unlike some people, I
still have the ability to learn.
>
> Ray- Hide quoted text -
Tiktaalik
> Richard Forrest has a nasty habit of calling Creationists liars.
Only the ones who are.
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/43c47f3198434e57
>
> Forrest speaking about S. Pitman:
>
> "So basically, he's just a typically dishonest creationist who
> dogmatically refuses to learn anything and thinks that if he writes
> stuff that looks scientific, he can fool other creationists into
> thinking that he has valid arguments."
Pretty fair analysis I would say.
> http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/e3f18179ce30b4ac?
>
> Forrest speaking about me:
>
> "Ray, after the persistent dishonestly you demonstrate on this forum,
> and no doubt elsewhere, perhaps you should consider if you should
> show
> your face here."
Ditto.
> We also know that Forrest routinely claims that lies persist rampantly
> on Creationist websites.
And he is right.
> We know Richard Forrest is an Atheist-evolutionist,
Who is this "we" paleface?
> and we know that
> he actually believes apes morphed into men over the course of millions
> of years.
I guess that is how a layman would see it.
> He also believes that a magnificent nature shows no signs of
> Intelligence but was produced by something that has no mind.
He, like everyone else, is entitled to his opinion.
> Forrest
> believes crude Stone Age tools and shelters are "evidence" of early
> quasi-ape men
No, he believes they are evidence of early men.
> but the arm and hand that supposedly crafted these tools
> is not the product of design.
Obviously he has not found satisfactory evidence to demonstrate that
they are.
> Forrest thinks bat sonar and
> echolocation was produced incrementally, leaving the flying creature
> unable to conduct its business in its natural habitat of lightless
> caves, until a blind and mindless natural selection got around to
> completing the task.
Obviously he has not found satisfactory evidence to the contrary.
> And the human eye, Forrest believes - the most
> obvious irreducible complex organ of all - was also formed
> incrementally with no Designer involved.
Ditto.
> We know for a fact that the Stone Age never existed.
And you have the brass balls to wonder why you are considered a liar!
> Genesis says Cain
> built a "city" and not some A frame mud hut with a rock tied to a
> piece of wood.
So what? The Silmarilion says that flying dragons existed.
> Man was created ultra-intelligent.
You are living proof to the contrary. Oh, I forgot, Adam "fell" (hope
he didn't hurt himself) and his descendants, the rest of us poor
slobs, have been deteriorating ever since.
> The Great Pyramid -
> the only true World Wonder - from top to bottom; inside and out;
> proves this claim and falisfies the existence of a Stone Age.
About as much as the Sistine Chapel does.
> We know
> it is impossible for a sonar apparatus to have been built
> incrementally by something that has no mind or consciousness.
Again I ask. Who is this "we", paleface?
> And we
> know the human eye is formed in the womb (and not over milions of
> years) by wondrous mechanisms invented by God.
Ditto.
> In view of these facts I feel no insult whatsoever in being called a
> liar by Richard Forrest.
Nor should you. He is calling it as he sees it.
> His disapproval is the best endorsement of my
> honesty.
What a brilliant example of convoluted creationist "reasoning". One's
mind fairly boggles.
> Anytime a person who believes what he believes, and denies
> what he denies, thinks I am a liar, this is the very best evidence
> that I am not.
Even better.
> Common sense says persons who believe the things that
> Forrest believes should not be going around calling anyone a liar.
Better still.
> Ray
"I am in favour of animal rights as well as human rights. That is the
way of a whole human being". (Abraham Lincoln).
Will in New Haven
Lots of people who are not athiests deny the concept that the bible is
evidence for anything. You just don't like being called a liar when
you lie. You could stop lying, you know. I am sure that you are a
sincere believer but it is wrong to lie, even to promote what you
believe to be a higher truth.
There may well be something beyond the reach of scientific knowledge.
The joke is that thousands of different people claim that they know
what that is. And they have hundred and hundreds of different
answers.
It is a _mystery_, Ray, and that stupid book doesn't give you any real
answers. That's because the metaphysical, if it exists, is a mystery.
And you don't know anything more about it than I do. Except I know
that I don't know.
Will in New Haven
--
I believe in a higher power. Squared is a higher power. Cubed is a
higher power.
>
> Ray
Will in New Haven
Nah, "demented loon" is pretty much required over there.
Shane
> Shane: there is no insult in being called a liar by Forrest
Certainly not when you are a demonstrable liar, and in any case, the
truth is never an insult.
>as I have
> pointed out. What makes you think that your lies are any different?
What lies of mine? once again you accuse without offering any support.
> I am very happy to be slandered
Slander is telling untruths about someone. Calling you a liar is not an
untruth, your lies are on record and are demonstrable, thus no slander
is involved.
> by your kind. It means you are enraged
> with my facts and arguments.
What facts and arguments?
> By the way I have been banned for life by
> Conservapedia for having an anti-Christian liberal bias.
I'm actually sorray about that, part of your piece on Darwin was
correct, and far better than what is there now, so it seems that you are
not a completely lost cause, although your apology for adding the truth
was a disappointment.
VoiceOfReason
Ray Martinez wrote:
> Richard Forrest has a nasty habit of calling Creationists liars.
Next thing you know he'll call a spade a spade, the heathen.
<...>
> We also know that Forrest routinely claims that lies persist rampantly
> on Creationist websites.
No surprise there. Creationist Web sites are rife with falsehoods.
> We know Richard Forrest is an Atheist-evolutionist,
<snip> Okay, so he understands science. Whether he's an atheist or
not has no bearing on the science though.
<...>
> We know for a fact that the Stone Age never existed.
Whoever "we" refers to, you're wrong. Science knows quite a bit about
the Stone Age, and about what some humans did during that time frame.
> Genesis says Cain
> built a "city" and not some A frame mud hut with a rock tied to a
> piece of wood.
Genesis is neither a history book nor a science book.
> Man was created ultra-intelligent. The Great Pyramid -
> the only true World Wonder - from top to bottom; inside and out;
> proves this claim and falisfies the existence of a Stone Age.
That's pure fantasy.
> We know
> it is impossible for a sonar apparatus to have been built
> incrementally by something that has no mind or consciousness.
Observed any bats lately?
> And we
> know the human eye is formed in the womb (and not over milions of
> years) by wondrous mechanisms invented by God.
Yes, eyes are formed in the womb, but they also evolved.
> In view of these facts
Those aren't facts -- they're false statements.
> I feel no insult whatsoever in being called a
> liar by Richard Forrest. His disapproval is the best endorsement of my
> honesty. Anytime a person who believes what he believes, and denies
> what he denies, thinks I am a liar, this is the very best evidence
> that I am not. Common sense says persons who believe the things that
> Forrest believes should not be going around calling anyone a liar.
Based on your other statements in this post, I'm not inclined to take
your word for it.
VoiceOfReason
The Royal Committee for Placing One Thing On Top Of Another Thing had
not yet been specially created, so it must have happened after the
fall.
Or something like that. :-)
Stile4aly
Actually, that is a lie, Ray. Looking at Conservapedia, it's quite
easy to find your block, log.
http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=block&page=User:Ray_Martinez
This link indicates you've been blocked for 3 days for name calling.
Unless you have 3 days left to live, then this isn't "for life." Are
you going to admit that you lied here, Ray?
Dysdiadochokinesia
> On Jun 29, 3:49 pm, snex <s...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> On Jun 29, 5:30 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > On Jun 29, 3:23 pm, snex <s...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>
>> > > On Jun 29, 5:13 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>> > > > Richard Forrest has a nasty habit of calling Creationists liars.
>>
>> > > >http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/43c47f3198434e57
>>
>> > > > Forrest speaking about S. Pitman:
>>
>> > > > "So basically, he's just a typically dishonest creationist who
>> > > > dogmatically refuses to learn anything and thinks that if he writes
>> > > > stuff that looks scientific, he can fool other creationists into
>> > > > thinking that he has valid arguments."
>>
>> > > >http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/e3f18179ce30b4ac?
>>
>> > > > Forrest speaking about me:
>>
>> > > > "Ray, after the persistent dishonestly you demonstrate on this
>> > > > forum,
>> > > > and no doubt elsewhere, perhaps you should consider if you should
>> > > > show
>> > > > your face here."
>>
>> > > > We also know that Forrest routinely claims that lies persist
>> > > > rampantly
>> > > > on Creationist websites.
>>
>> > > > that
>> > > > he actually believes apes morphed into men over the course of
>> > > > millions
>> > > > of
>> > > > Intelligence but was produced by something that has no mind.
>> > > > Forrest
>> > > > believes crude Stone Age tools and shelters are "evidence" of early
>> > > > quasi-ape men but the arm and hand that supposedly crafted these
>> > > > tools
>> > > > is not the product of design. Forrest thinks bat sonar and
>> > > > echolocation was produced incrementally, leaving the flying
>> > > > creature
>> > > > unable to conduct its business in its natural habitat of lightless
>> > > > caves, until a blind and mindless natural selection got around to
>> > > > completing the task. And the human eye, Forrest believes - the most
>> > > > obvious irreducible complex organ of all - was also formed
>> > > > incrementally with no Designer involved.
>>
>> > > > built a "city" and not some A frame mud hut with a rock tied to a
>> > > > the only true World Wonder - from top to bottom; inside and out;
>> > > > it is impossible for a sonar apparatus to have been built
>> > > > know the human eye is formed in the womb (and not over milions of
>> > > > years) by wondrous mechanisms invented by God.
>>
>> > > > a
>> > > > liar by Richard Forrest. His disapproval is the best endorsement of
>> > > > my
>> > > > honesty. Anytime a person who believes what he believes, and denies
>> > > > what he denies, thinks I am a liar, this is the very best evidence
>> > > > that I am not. Common sense says persons who believe the things
>> > > > that
>> > > > Forrest believes should not be going around calling anyone a liar.
>>
>>
>> > > ancient books are not evidence of anything other than the fact that
>>
>> > > - Show quoted text -
>>
>> > is your point?
>>
>>
>> my point is that your only source for your crazy beliefs is an ancient
>> anything other than the fact that ancient peoples were literate.- Hide
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
>
You apparently have absolutely no idea of what atheism is, Ray.
What in what he said was atheism?
> The subject was evolutionist R. Forrest. Do you agree with his
> slander?
What slander would that be?
Steven J.
> Richard Forrest has a nasty habit of calling Creationists liars.
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/43c47f3198434e57
>
> Forrest speaking about S. Pitman:
>
> "So basically, he's just a typically dishonest creationist who
> dogmatically refuses to learn anything and thinks that if he writes
> stuff that looks scientific, he can fool other creationists into
> thinking that he has valid arguments."
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/e3f18179ce30b4ac?
>
> Forrest speaking about me:
>
> "Ray, after the persistent dishonestly you demonstrate on this forum,
> and no doubt elsewhere, perhaps you should consider if you should
> show your face here."
>
> We also know that Forrest routinely claims that lies persist rampantly
> on Creationist websites.
>
on reality, he can call you?
>
> We know Richard Forrest is an Atheist-evolutionist, and we know that
> he actually believes apes morphed into men over the course of millions
> of years. He also believes that a magnificent nature shows no signs of
> Intelligence but was produced by something that has no mind. Forrest
> believes crude Stone Age tools and shelters are "evidence" of early
> quasi-ape men but the arm and hand that supposedly crafted these tools
> is not the product of design. Forrest thinks bat sonar and
> echolocation was produced incrementally, leaving the flying creature
> unable to conduct its business in its natural habitat of lightless
> caves, until a blind and mindless natural selection got around to
> completing the task. And the human eye, Forrest believes - the most
> obvious irreducible complex organ of all - was also formed
> incrementally with no Designer involved.
>
"irreducible complexity," Michael Behe, has not dared to suggest that
the eye is irreducibly complex. Indeed, the eye is quite reducible:
eyes can work, to a limited but useful extent, without lenses, without
irises, without much of anything except light-sensitive nerve cells --
and light-sensitive compounds are not hard to come by. Note that the
rudiments of sonar -- the ability to make sounds and hear their echoes
-- are found in most mammals and birds. Note also that [a] bats spend
a lot of time outside of caves (finding food, etc.), and some don't
live in caves at all, while a lot of creatures manage to survive in
caves without sonar.
Note also that that Forrest does not claim to be able to identify
"design;" he argues from evidence of manufacturing techniques (methods
of chipping stones, etc.) known to be used by known classes of
designers. Paleontologists, archaeologists, and anthropologists don't
use "designer of the gaps" arguments to infer design where other
explanations do not yield specific explanations; they use the known
effects of known designers. Find Someone designing arms, wings, and
biological sonar today, and perhaps you can convince Forrest that the
human arm resembles His work.
>
> We know for a fact that the Stone Age never existed. Genesis says Cain
> built a "city" and not some A frame mud hut with a rock tied to a
> piece of wood. Man was created ultra-intelligent. The Great Pyramid -
> the only true World Wonder - from top to bottom; inside and out;
> proves this claim and falisfies the existence of a Stone Age. We know
> it is impossible for a sonar apparatus to have been built
> incrementally by something that has no mind or consciousness. And we
> know the human eye is formed in the womb (and not over milions of
> years) by wondrous mechanisms invented by God.
>
Ray, we do not know for a fact that Cain ever existed. We do know
that there is some ... tension ... between the judgment of God that
Cain would be a wanderer all his life, and the claim that Cain built a
city. The story of Cain and Abel reflects the ancient and persistent
conflict between sedentary agriculturalists and nomadic herders, from
the nomads' point of view (hence Cain is punished by being forced to
give up farming for nomadism, but still builds a city because, after
all, farmers did build cities).
The Great Pyramid was built ca. the mid-26th century BC, long after
the earliest stone-age settlements, long after the end of the
paleolithic in the Mediterranean area, and even after the neolithic.
The Pyramids no more falsify the Stone Age than the Empire State
Building falsifies the Bronze Age.
I can't quite figure out what to make of your "the human eye is formed
in the womb (and not over millions of years)" argument. Developmental
processes evolve (as has been noted, technically, developmental
processes are the only things that can evolve), and there is no
contradiction between "the eye forms in the womb" and "the eye was
modified in the course of descent by mutation and natural selection."
>
> In view of these facts I feel no insult whatsoever in being called a
> liar by Richard Forrest. His disapproval is the best endorsement of my
> honesty. Anytime a person who believes what he believes, and denies
> what he denies, thinks I am a liar, this is the very best evidence
> that I am not. Common sense says persons who believe the things that
> Forrest believes should not be going around calling anyone a liar.
>
Ray, I notice that you defend your honesty through _argumentum ad
hominem_, rather than, say, by showing that claims disputed by Forrest
are actually true. Of course, your post could be considered an
attempt to defend yourself against charges of dishonesty by pleading
insanity.
>
> Ray
-- Steven J.
raven1
>Richard Forrest has a nasty habit of calling Creationists liars.
Because Creationists have a nasty habit of lying, one might note.
--
"O Sybilli, si ergo
Fortibus es in ero
O Nobili! Themis trux
Sivat sinem? Causen Dux"
Rolf
> Richard Forrest has a nasty habit of calling Creationists liars.
>
stop calling all who disagree with you atheists, you have nothing to
complain about.
> http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/43c47f3198434e57
>
> Forrest speaking about S. Pitman:
>
> "So basically, he's just a typically dishonest creationist who
> dogmatically refuses to learn anything and thinks that if he writes
> stuff that looks scientific, he can fool other creationists into
> thinking that he has valid arguments."
>
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/e3f18179ce30b4ac?
>
> Forrest speaking about me:
>
> "Ray, after the persistent dishonestly you demonstrate on this forum,
> and no doubt elsewhere, perhaps you should consider if you should
> show
> your face here."
>
> We also know that Forrest routinely claims that lies persist rampantly
> on Creationist websites.
>
> We know Richard Forrest is an Atheist-evolutionist, and we know that
> he actually believes apes morphed into men over the course of millions
> of years. He also believes that a magnificent nature shows no signs of
> Intelligence but was produced by something that has no mind. Forrest
> believes crude Stone Age tools and shelters are "evidence" of early
> quasi-ape men but the arm and hand that supposedly crafted these tools
> is not the product of design. Forrest thinks bat sonar and
> echolocation was produced incrementally, leaving the flying creature
> unable to conduct its business in its natural habitat of lightless
> caves, until a blind and mindless natural selection got around to
> completing the task. And the human eye, Forrest believes - the most
> obvious irreducible complex organ of all - was also formed
> incrementally with no Designer involved.
>
> We know for a fact that the Stone Age never existed. Genesis says Cain
> built a "city" and not some A frame mud hut with a rock tied to a
> piece of wood. Man was created ultra-intelligent. The Great Pyramid -
> the only true World Wonder - from top to bottom; inside and out;
> proves this claim and falisfies the existence of a Stone Age. We know
> it is impossible for a sonar apparatus to have been built
> incrementally by something that has no mind or consciousness. And we
> know the human eye is formed in the womb (and not over milions of
> years) by wondrous mechanisms invented by God.
>
Rolf
"Ray Martinez" <pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1183155206.0...@e16g2000pri.googlegroups.com...
> Richard Forrest has a nasty habit of calling Creationists liars.
>
We know no such fact, it is just another absurd claim from your deluded
mind.
Genesis says Cain
> built a "city" and not some A frame mud hut with a rock tied to a
> piece of wood. Man was created ultra-intelligent. The Great Pyramid -
> the only true World Wonder - from top to bottom; inside and out;
> proves this claim and falisfies the existence of a Stone Age. We know
> it is impossible for a sonar apparatus to have been built
> incrementally by something that has no mind or consciousness. And we
> know the human eye is formed in the womb (and not over milions of
> years) by wondrous mechanisms invented by God.
>
Undiluted BS. A person making such stupid remarks ain't got nothing to
complain about being called names. But it is no use telling Ray the truth.
He can't see the truth, his mental eyes have cataracts.
> In view of these facts I feel no insult whatsoever in being called a
> liar by Richard Forrest. His disapproval is the best endorsement of my
> honesty.
Your statement is a testimony to your dishonesty. A honest person would
never make suh a stupid argument. His disapproval is just another
endorsement that you are unable to see the truth.
Even without knowing what the disagreement between the two of you are, a
normal person would conclude that your statement means either
1. RF is wrong.
2. RM is wrong.
The normal person would then declare that it is a stalemate, and that
careful analysis of the background by a normal person, (i.e. not a
creationist) is needed to settle the matter.
Anytime a person who believes what he believes, and denies
> what he denies, thinks I am a liar, this is the very best evidence
> that I am not. Common sense says persons who believe the things that
> Forrest believes should not be going around calling anyone a liar.
>
Common sense says persons who believe the things that Ray believes should
keep their delusions to themselves and stop polluting the public discourse
with BS.
> Ray
>
Rolf
> > > built a "city" and not some A frame mud hut with a rock tied to a
> > > piece of wood. Man was created ultra-intelligent. The Great Pyramid -
> > > the only true World Wonder - from top to bottom; inside and out;
> > > proves this claim and falisfies the existence of a Stone Age. We know
> > > it is impossible for a sonar apparatus to have been built
> > > incrementally by something that has no mind or consciousness. And we
> > > know the human eye is formed in the womb (and not over milions of
> > > years) by wondrous mechanisms invented by God.
> >
> > > liar by Richard Forrest. His disapproval is the best endorsement of my
> > > what he denies, thinks I am a liar, this is the very best evidence
> > > that I am not. Common sense says persons who believe the things that
> > > Forrest believes should not be going around calling anyone a liar.
> >
> >
> > ancient books are not evidence of anything other than the fact that
> > people wrote books a long time ago.- Hide quoted text -
> >
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> I am well aware of the tenets of conventional Atheist ideology - what
> is your point?
>
Are you too stupid to get event that point? A book is evidence that people
write or wrote books, period. When what the book says is bollocks, bollocks
is what it is. A book is not, repeat: IS NOT evidence. You are blind and
cannot see evidence. You only see the delusions roaming wild in your own
brain.
> Ray
>
>
The Enigmatic One
pyram...@yahoo.com says...
>In view of these facts I feel no insult whatsoever in being called a
>liar by Richard Forrest. His disapproval is the best endorsement of my
>honesty. Anytime a person who believes what he believes, and denies
>what he denies, thinks I am a liar, this is the very best evidence
>that I am not. Common sense says persons who believe the things that
>Forrest believes should not be going around calling anyone a liar.
Obviously he made a mistake.
You're not a liar.
You're major fucking moron.
-Tim
richardal...@googlemail.com
> Richard Forrest has a nasty habit of calling Creationists liars.
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/43c47f3198434e57
>
> Forrest speaking about S. Pitman:
>
> "So basically, he's just a typically dishonest creationist who
> dogmatically refuses to learn anything and thinks that if he writes
> stuff that looks scientific, he can fool other creationists into
> thinking that he has valid arguments."
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/e3f18179ce30b4ac?
>
Yes, and as it is clear that he is lying his head off, I have no
hesitation in calling him a liar.
He claims to have carried out a statistical methodology which can
distinguish between granite objects made by "deliberate" and "non-
deliberate" forces.
By his own admission, he has written nothing down. That alone shows
that his claim is false, unless he is the most prodigious
mathemetician in history and can not only memorise thousands of
numbers but carry out complex statistical calculations in his head.
He claims to have measured "thousands" of granite objects, yet cannot
tell us what parameters he measured.
He claims to be able to calculate statistical probabilities without
having any numbers.
I think he is lying.
What do you think?
> Forrest speaking about me:
>
> "Ray, after the persistent dishonestly you demonstrate on this forum,
> and no doubt elsewhere, perhaps you should consider if you should
> show
> your face here."
Please note that this was in response to this post from you:
Forrest: why have you shown your face here? All of your "replies" are
substanceless one liners. Nobody has denied the genetic definition of
evolution. The issue is that it is not the only valid definition.
Regardless of what any number of ignorant Talk Origin usenet users
say, scholarship does not abide by one definition of evolution.
Evolution says species are mutable productions.
This is what I am going to attack and disprove. Species are not
mutable productions."
It is worth noting that the last sentence of this post is flatly
false. Of course species are "mutable"! We see that mutability in the
numerous different breeds of dog, and the fact that speciation events
occur is well-recorded in the scientific literature.
>
> We also know that Forrest routinely claims that lies persist rampantly
> on Creationist websites.
And I back up that assertion with a detailed analysis of several
creationist web sites in which I identify misrepresentations,
distortions and outright falsehoods. You will note if you read my
posts that I am very cautious about calling these falsehoods lies, as
the writers of the sites may not have been aware that they are false.
>
> We know Richard Forrest is an Atheist-evolutionist,
No we don't. As a matter of principle I never make any statement about
my religious convictions as they are irrelevant to the creationist/
science dispute.
My opposition to creationism stems from the fact that creationist
arguments are systematically dishonest.
I despise dishonesty.
Don't you?
> and we know that
> he actually believes apes morphed into men over the course of millions
> of years.
No I don't. As I men are apes, we can hardly have morphed into apes.
> He also believes that a magnificent nature shows no signs of
> Intelligence but was produced by something that has no mind.
So? That's a conclusion which I have reached after decades of studying
nature.
> Forrest
> believes crude Stone Age tools and shelters are "evidence" of early
> quasi-ape men
I have never made any reference to "quasi-ape men", and it's a term I
would never use. It's scientifically illiterate.
> but the arm and hand that supposedly crafted these tools
> is not the product of design.
Quite so. The arm and hand have evolved from those of our ancestors.
That's what the evidence shows.
> Forrest thinks bat sonar and
> echolocation was produced incrementally, leaving the flying creature
> unable to conduct its business in its natural habitat of lightless
> caves, until a blind and mindless natural selection got around to
> completing the task. And the human eye, Forrest believes - the most
> obvious irreducible complex organ of all - was also formed
> incrementally with no Designer involved.
Your point? That's what the evidence shows.
>
> We know for a fact that the Stone Age never existed.
That's a flat lie, Ray.
Of course we know that the Stone Age existed. There a museums full of
stone age artefacts, some of which I have excavated.
> Genesis says Cain
> built a "city" and not some A frame mud hut with a rock tied to a
> piece of wood.
So what? Genesis is not a book about archaeology.
> Man was created ultra-intelligent.
An unfounded assertion not supported by so much as a shred of
evidence.
> The Great Pyramid -
> the only true World Wonder - from top to bottom; inside and out;
> proves this claim and falisfies the existence of a Stone Age.
Why? It was built with very limited use of anything other than stone
tools.
> We know
> it is impossible for a sonar apparatus to have been built
> incrementally by something that has no mind or consciousness.
We know nothing of the sort.
> And we
> know the human eye is formed in the womb (and not over milions of
> years) by wondrous mechanisms invented by God.
This is stupid even by your exalted standards of stupidity, Ray.
>
> In view of these facts I feel no insult whatsoever in being called a
> liar by Richard Forrest. His disapproval is the best endorsement of my
> honesty.
Why does the fact that others accuse you of lying make you honest?
> Anytime a person who believes what he believes, and denies
> what he denies, thinks I am a liar, this is the very best evidence
> that I am not. Common sense says persons who believe the things that
> Forrest believes should not be going around calling anyone a liar.
Common sense says that if someone makes a claim that they know to be
false in order to deceive others that they are lying. Someone who does
so persistently can be called a liar. I have never attacked anyone for
what they believe. I only attack people who are dishonest.
RF
>
> Ray
richardal...@googlemail.com
I should add to this that I don't think that merely repeating a
falsehood is necessarily lying. There are so many falsehoods floating
around in creationist sources that it is hard to know if someone is
repeating a falsehood knowing it to be false, or if they actually
believe it to be true.
There are some clear lies - i.e. assertions posted as fact with the
knowledge that they are false - on creationist web sites. The most
obvious example is that of the "Kamikazee ichthyosaur", in which the
authors deliberately misrepresented the scientific explanation for the
preservation of the specimen by redrawing the accompanying figure
incorrectly.
I have also called Sean a liar because he has repeatedly made
statements which are evidently false, and he knows to be false, such
as his claim to have measured "thousands" of granite objects. He has
admitted that he has written nothing down, and is unable to tell us
what he measured or how he measured it. I pressed him for a long time,
and gave plenty of opportunities to back down, but he persisted
dogmatically in making statement which are obviously false.
In Ray's case, I'm not so sure. He makes statements which are
obviously false, and persistently misrepresents what others have
posted, in particular his accusations of racism against Dana Tweedy.
However, although he is posting assertions which are patently false, I
suspect that Ray suffers from fairly serious mental illness and is
possibly incapable of realizing that he is posting falsehoods.
So perhaps I am wrong in saying that Ray is a liar, although his
posting history contains numerous statements which any reasonable
person can see are false. The "logic" by which he figures out that
accusations of lying make him honest is so bizarre that only someone
almost completely out of touch with reality could think that they have
any validity.
RF
>
>
>
> > Ray
Ye Old One
>Richard Forrest has a nasty habit of calling Creationists liars.
That is because, as in your case Dishonest Ray, creationists are
usually liars.
>
>http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/43c47f3198434e57
>
>Forrest speaking about S. Pitman:
>
>"So basically, he's just a typically dishonest creationist who
>dogmatically refuses to learn anything and thinks that if he writes
>stuff that looks scientific, he can fool other creationists into
>thinking that he has valid arguments."
>
>
>http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/e3f18179ce30b4ac?
>
>Forrest speaking about me:
>
>"Ray, after the persistent dishonestly you demonstrate on this forum,
>and no doubt elsewhere, perhaps you should consider if you should
>show
>your face here."
>
>We also know that Forrest routinely claims that lies persist rampantly
>on Creationist websites.
That is also true, creationist websites are among the most
disreputable on the web.
>
>We know Richard Forrest is an Atheist-evolutionist, and we know that
>he actually believes apes morphed into men over the course of millions
>of years.
You se Dishonest Ray, there you go again, lying through your teeth.
You know it is a case that earlier apes have, over a period of
millions of years, EVOLVED into mad and the other great apes.
>He also believes that a magnificent nature shows no signs of
>Intelligence but was produced by something that has no mind.
There is no evidence for a mind, nor for the need for a mind.
> Forrest
>believes crude Stone Age tools and shelters are "evidence" of early
>quasi-ape men but the arm and hand that supposedly crafted these tools
>is not the product of design.
No, it is the product of 3.8 billion years of evolution.
> Forrest thinks bat sonar and
>echolocation was produced incrementally, leaving the flying creature
>unable to conduct its business in its natural habitat of lightless
>caves,
Most bats do not live in caves.
> until a blind and mindless natural selection got around to
>completing the task. And the human eye, Forrest believes - the most
>obvious irreducible complex organ of all - was also formed
>incrementally with no Designer involved.
We see the evidence for that in other creatures.
>
>We know for a fact that the Stone Age never existed.
Rubbish.
>Genesis says Cain
>built a "city" and not some A frame mud hut with a rock tied to a
>piece of wood. Man was created ultra-intelligent.
There is no evidence for that.
> The Great Pyramid -
>the only true World Wonder - from top to bottom; inside and out;
>proves this claim and falisfies the existence of a Stone Age.
It shows that, by about 2560BC, man had evolved enough to build such a
structure.
> We know
>it is impossible for a sonar apparatus to have been built
>incrementally by something that has no mind or consciousness.
We know nothing of the sort Dishonest Ray. Why must you keep lying all
the time - and thereby proving RF correct?
> And we
>know the human eye is formed in the womb (and not over milions of
>years) by wondrous mechanisms invented by God.
There is no evidence for a god, nor is there evidence for the need for
a god.
>
>In view of these facts I feel no insult whatsoever in being called a
>liar by Richard Forrest.
But a liar you are Dishonest Ray. Nothing can change that except you.
> His disapproval is the best endorsement of my
>honesty.
You don't have any honesty Dishonest Ray. You are nearly as dishonest
as your persona god Gene 'Expletive Deleted' Scott.
> Anytime a person who believes what he believes, and denies
>what he denies, thinks I am a liar, this is the very best evidence
>that I am not.
You can suffer your delusions all you want Dishonest Ray, it does not
change the fact that you are a liar.
> Common sense
Something you never exhibit.
> says persons who believe the things that
>Forrest believes should not be going around calling anyone a liar.
And yet everyone sees you are a liar.
>
>Ray
--
Bob.
Dan Luke
"Ray Martinez" wrote:
> We know ...
You and the voices in your head do not qualify as an offical "we," eel boy.
Ernest Major
Stile4aly <stil...@yahoo.com> writes
edit summary calling him a "lunatic vandal".
OTOH, your're not quite accurate; the reason for blocking includes "and
false accusation", and Ray had accused "Kabane" of being a vandal, for
reverting Ray's claim that Darwin was an atheist back to the consensus
view that he was an agnostic. (The irony remains.)
--
alias Ernest Major
Rolf
> On Jun 29, 3:54 pm, Shane <remar...@Netscape.net> wrote:
> I am very happy to be slandered by your kind. It means you are enraged
> with my facts and arguments. By the way I have been banned for life by
> Conservapedia for having an anti-Christian liberal bias.
>
Congratulations, Ray, I see that makes you the happiest man in the universe.
what more could you ask for? But alas, it looks like t.o. is the only place
that care to keep your company. Bend your head in shame.
> Ray
>
>
Gerry Murphy
"Ray Martinez",the paranoid poster child for psychological projection,
prevaricated <pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1183158697.4...@j4g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
<snip>
> We know Atheists believe the Bible is not evidence, this is common
> sense, are you a teenager? Come on and tell us the truth?
>
> Your posts show a naivete conducive with the mind of a teenager. What
> grade are you in?
>
> Ray
>
>
>
Ad hom == Inability to Refute
So, Ray, how's your paper coming? Were you lying <gasp!> when you said you
wouldn't post here again until you'd finished it?
Ray Martinez
>
> This link indicates you've been blocked for 3 days for name calling.
> Unless you have 3 days left to live, then this isn't "for life." Are
>
> - Show quoted text -
I did not know about the information that you just provided. I based
my previous post on the content of the private email that I received.
The only thing left for explanation is your assumption of a lie, since
you are a Muslim, a Darwinist and a supporter of a rat named Richard
Forrest, and since I am a Christian and a Creationist your assumption
is explained.
Regardless, I will not ever participate at any Wiki ever again, in
fact I just obtained my own Wiki. It is contribution by invitation
only by persons who are not afraid to use their real name. This
eliminates the problem with all Wikis: corruption and subjectivism.
When I have finished learning how to administer I will be issuing
invitations to participate. My Wiki is only concerned with the
Creation-Evolution debate, history, archaeology, science and the Bible
- nothing else.
As for lying, I think Muslims should especially drop this particular
accusation, don't you agree?
Ray
Free Lunch
>On Jun 29, 9:17 pm, Stile4aly <stile4...@yahoo.com> wrote:
...
>> Actually, that is a lie, Ray. Looking at Conservapedia, it's quite
>> easy to find your block, log.
>>
>> http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=block&p...
>>
>> This link indicates you've been blocked for 3 days for name calling.
>> Unless you have 3 days left to live, then this isn't "for life." Are
>> you going to admit that you lied here, Ray?- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
>I did not know about the information that you just provided. I based
>my previous post on the content of the private email that I received.
>
>The only thing left for explanation is your assumption of a lie, since
>you are a Muslim, a Darwinist and a supporter of a rat named Richard
>Forrest, and since I am a Christian and a Creationist your assumption
>is explained.
Ray, I see that you continue to let yourself get distracted rather than
posting the evidence you have for creatioinism. Could that be because
you have finally discovered that there is not a shred of evidence for
creationism, but you are too stiff-necked to admit your error?
>Regardless, I will not ever participate at any Wiki ever again, in
>fact I just obtained my own Wiki. It is contribution by invitation
>only by persons who are not afraid to use their real name. This
>eliminates the problem with all Wikis: corruption and subjectivism.
>When I have finished learning how to administer I will be issuing
>invitations to participate. My Wiki is only concerned with the
>Creation-Evolution debate, history, archaeology, science and the Bible
>- nothing else.
>
>As for lying, I think Muslims should especially drop this particular
>accusation, don't you agree?
When Christians stop lying, I'm sure Moslems will to.
Ray Martinez
I will ask you to address my question since Snex basically repeated
his reply:
We know Atheist ideology and philosophy believes that the Bible is not
evidence, what is Snex's point?
And I have another question: why have you evaded this question two
times now?
> Are you going to show him
> why he's wrong,
You have misunderstood. I have not questioned his belief (and the
belief of Atheism) that the Bible is not evidence. I am attempting to
find out if there is some point that I am missing since we already
know what Atheists believe about the Bible. Why did Snex make said
comment? I know that he thinks the Bible is not evidence. Is there
some hidden point that has escaped my attention?
> perhaps with your already-debunked nonsense about how
> stars and passages lining up proves some poetic truth about God? At
> the moment you're just ad homming. You know what that means? It means
> you can't refute.
>
> > Come on and tell us the truth?
>
> About what, Ray? I didn't make any argument.
>
>
>
> > Your posts show a naivete conducive with the mind of a teenager.
>
> Well, you would know.
>
> > What
> > grade are you in?
>
> I finished school a long time ago, Ray, but unlike some people, I
> still have the ability to learn.
>
>
>
>
>
> > Ray- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Ray
Free Lunch
No, standards of evidnece show that the Bible is not evidence. Most
Christians belong to church bodies that do not claim that the Bible is
itself evidence.
>And I have another question: why have you evaded this question two
>times now?
>
>
>> Are you going to show him
>> why he's wrong,
>
>You have misunderstood. I have not questioned his belief (and the
>belief of Atheism) that the Bible is not evidence. I am attempting to
>find out if there is some point that I am missing since we already
>know what Atheists believe about the Bible. Why did Snex make said
>comment? I know that he thinks the Bible is not evidence. Is there
>some hidden point that has escaped my attention?
Standards of what constitutes evidence in the real world.
...
DJT
snip
> > Actually, that is a lie, Ray. Looking at Conservapedia, it's quite
> > easy to find your block, log.
>
> >http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=block&p...
>
> > This link indicates you've been blocked for 3 days for name calling.
> > Unless you have 3 days left to live, then this isn't "for life." Are
> > you going to admit that you lied here, Ray?- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> I did not know about the information that you just provided. I based
> my previous post on the content of the private email that I received.
So, Ray, wouldn't it be a good idea for you to check first, before
flying off the handle and libelling Richard Forrest?
>
> The only thing left for explanation is your assumption of a lie, since
> you are a Muslim, a Darwinist and a supporter of a rat named Richard
> Forrest, and since I am a Christian and a Creationist your assumption
> is explained.
Well, it's not an "assumption" but just another case of you speaking
falsely. You being a Creationist, and claiming to be Christian has
nothing to do with the veracity of what you claim.
>
> Regardless, I will not ever participate at any Wiki ever again, in
> fact I just obtained my own Wiki.
So, you will be participating in a Wiki again... you just want to be
the dictator and make up your own rules.
> It is contribution by invitation
> only by persons who are not afraid to use their real name.
What makes you think anyone would accept your "invitation"?
> This
> eliminates the problem with all Wikis: corruption and subjectivism.
Except that you are introducing your own corruption and subjectivism.
The whole idea of a Wiki is to allow the collective knowlege of many
people to be used. By making your own pet "Wiki" and only allow one
point of view, you are defeating the whole purpose of a Wiki.
> When I have finished learning how to administer I will be issuing
> invitations to participate.
And I am willing to bet you won't have many takers...
> My Wiki is only concerned with the
> Creation-Evolution debate, history, archaeology, science and the Bible
> - nothing else.
Why not have it about something you are actually competent to comment
on (if there is any such subject)?
>
> As for lying, I think Muslims should especially drop this particular
> accusation, don't you agree?
Why, Ray? Don't you think that Muslims can tell when you are lying
too?
DJT
Ray Martinez
> Richard Forrest is correct in his views on you and other creationist.
>
> Rodjk #613- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Since, like Richard, you are an Atheist-evolutionist, does this fact
have anything to do with your support of his lies?
Because you are an Atheist-evolutionist, your opinion is worthless,
with no objective value whatsoever.
Correction: I agree that it is worth the two cents mentioned in your
post.
Ray
DJT
snip
> > > > He just made the point, Ray. You ad hommed him instead. It's only a
> > > > one line point, Ray, it's not that hard: do you think snex is correct,
> > > > or not, and why?
>
> > > We know Atheists believe the Bible is not evidence, this is common
> > > sense, are you a teenager?
>
> > Are you, Ray? You don't seem to be able to address the point. Snex
> > said the Bible doesn't count as evidence.
>
> I will ask you to address my question since Snex basically repeated
> his reply:
>
> We know Atheist ideology and philosophy believes that the Bible is not
> evidence, what is Snex's point?
That the stories in the Bible are not evidence. That's not "atheist
ideology" but a simple fact. Evidence would be some physical
finding that would support your claim.
>
> And I have another question: why have you evaded this question two
> times now?
He hasn't. You are simply ignoring the answers.
>
> > Are you going to show him
> > why he's wrong,
>
> You have misunderstood. I have not questioned his belief (and the
> belief of Atheism) that the Bible is not evidence.
That's not a "belief of atheism", it's a simple fact accepted by many
people, including those who believe in God, or gods...
> I am attempting to
> find out if there is some point that I am missing since we already
> know what Atheists believe about the Bible.
The point is that the stories in the Bible are not evidence.
> Why did Snex make said
> comment?
To counter your claim that a story from the Bible was evidence.
>I know that he thinks the Bible is not evidence. Is there
> some hidden point that has escaped my attention?
Yes, that the Bible stories really aren't evidence.
Now, can you show any independent evidence to support your assertion
that the Stone Age didn't occur? Do you have any evidence to
support your claims about the "Great Pyramid" being built by Enoch?
Do you have any evidence to support your claim that the human eye
could not have evolved? Do you have any evidence that suggests that
bats lived only in caves before they evolved echolocation?
How about supporting some of your claims for once?
DJT
Free Lunch
Ray, you know that you cannot demonstrate that he lied. That, by itself
makes you a liar and a defamer. As Augustine warned you, you are
bringing mockery upon your religious beliefs with the lies you tell.
--
"Now, it is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for an infidel
to hear a Christian, presumably giving the meaning of Holy
Scripture, talking nonsense on these topics; and we should
take all means to prevent such an embarrassing situation, in
which people show up vast ignorance in a Christian and laugh
it to scorn." -- Augustine, The Literal Meaning of Genesis
Ray Martinez
<bill.re...@taylorandfrancis.com> wrote:
> On Jun 29, 7:11 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jun 29, 3:45 pm, geop...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
> > > On Jun 29, 11:30 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
> > > > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > > > is your point?
>
> > > one line point, Ray, it's not that hard: do you think snex is correct,
> > > or not, and why?
>
> > We know Atheists believe the Bible is not evidence, this is common
>
> > Your posts show a naivete conducive with the mind of a teenager. What
> > grade are you in?
>
> Lots of people who are not athiests deny the concept that the bible is
> evidence for anything.
Logically, they are Atheists then since Christians support the Bible
and are known to die for its propagation. It appears your "logic" is
perverted at best or non-existent altogether.
> You just don't like being called a liar when
> you lie. You could stop lying, you know.
Does your "opinion" have anything to do with the fact that you are an
Atheist and I am a Christian? Or the fact that you are an Evolutionist
and I am a Creationist?
Denying design is the only evidence that we need to know that you are
a liar and an Atheist. If any Christian denies design then they are
plainly declaring to the world they are a liar and a closet Atheist.
> I am sure that you are a
> sincere believer but it is wrong to lie, even to promote what you
> believe to be a higher truth.
>
> There may well be something beyond the reach of scientific knowledge.
> The joke is that thousands of different people claim that they know
> what that is. And they have hundred and hundreds of different
> answers.
>
> It is a _mystery_, Ray, and that stupid book doesn't give you any real
> answers. That's because the metaphysical, if it exists, is a mystery.
> And you don't know anything more about it than I do. Except I know
> that I don't know.
>
> Will in New Haven
>
> --
>
> I believe in a higher power. Squared is a higher power. Cubed is a
> higher power.
>
The Atheist mind: pure nonsense and unable to see it since he actually
wrote the previous comments under the assumption that they are
intelligent and sensible.
Ray
DJT
snip
> > Just wanted to add my 2 cents: I see you as a liar also and I think
> > Richard Forrest is correct in his views on you and other creationist.
>
> > Rodjk #613- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> Since, like Richard, you are an Atheist-evolutionist, does this fact
> have anything to do with your support of his lies?
Why would it, Ray? Also, do you have any evidence that Rodjk is an
atheist? One more thing: what "lies" are you accusing Richard of
saying? Richard has demonstrated how Creationists lie, but you have
not identified any lies that Richard has supposedly stated.
>
> Because you are an Atheist-evolutionist, your opinion is worthless,
> with no objective value whatsoever.
Why would his opinion be 'worthless', or any more worthless than your
own? You show no objectivity yourself, so you own claims are hardly
valuable.
>
> Correction: I agree that it is worth the two cents mentioned in your
> post.
So, it must be more worth than your own claims.
By the way, why are you running away from your, "Proof of God"
thread? Are you realizing that the "great pyramid" is just as much a
proof of Santa Claus?
DJT
Inez
This is wrong. Atheist ideology, if you can call atheistm an
ideology, believes the bible is false. Logic tells us that just
because something is written in a book that it is not necessarily
true. I imagine there are any number of ancient texts that make
religious claims that you don't consider evidence yourself, unless you
are a Hindu and Buddhist as well as a Christian,
Snex's point, I believe, is that your argument is not convincing to
anyone who is not already in agreement with you.
richardal...@googlemail.com
Ray, I have identified very clearly instances in which Sean has lied -
his own words betray him, as he has made mutually contradictory
statements. I have also identified numerous falsehoods in creationist
sources.
These are not falsehoods because of my beliefs (which I quite
specifically do not discuss here, incidentally), but falsehoods
because that is what the evidence shows. They are objectively false.
If you think that they are not false, you need to address the
evidence, not dismiss it on the basis of the views you think that I
have.
I should add that I may have been wrong in calling you a liar, and
appologise for doing so. Although you are in the habit of making
blatantly false statements, misrepresenting the words of others, and
indulging in a form of reasoning which has nothing to do with reality
or logic, I suspect that you do those things because you are mentally
ill.
I suggest that you seek professional help.
RF
Ray Martinez
> On Jun 30, 1:58 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> snip
>
> > > Just wanted to add my 2 cents: I see you as a liar also and I think
> > > Richard Forrest is correct in his views on you and other creationist.
>
> > > Rodjk #613- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > Since, like Richard, you are an Atheist-evolutionist, does this fact
> > have anything to do with your support of his lies?
>
> Why would it, Ray? Also, do you have any evidence that Rodjk is an
> atheist?
Support of Forrest's lies? You don't actually support Richard Forrest
do you, Dana? You are a Christian and he is an Atheist.
> One more thing: what "lies" are you accusing Richard of
> saying? Richard has demonstrated how Creationists lie, but you have
> not identified any lies that Richard has supposedly stated.
>
You have misunderstood. Since Richard is a militant Atheist-
evolutionist his accusations have no objective value. We know all
Atheist-evolutionists think all Christian-Creationists are liars (and
vice versa) does Richard have a point that we are missing? Please
answer the question!
>
>
> > Because you are an Atheist-evolutionist, your opinion is worthless,
> > with no objective value whatsoever.
>
> Why would his opinion be 'worthless', or any more worthless than your
> own? You show no objectivity yourself, so you own claims are hardly
> valuable.
>
Since you are an Evolutionist and I am a Creationist, does this fact
have anything to do with your "surprising" opinion?
>
>
> > Correction: I agree that it is worth the two cents mentioned in your
> > post.
>
> So, it must be more worth than your own claims.
>
> By the way, why are you running away from your, "Proof of God"
> thread? Are you realizing that the "great pyramid" is just as much a
> proof of Santa Claus?
>
> DJT
When somebody has anything to say or any evidence that contradicts my
evidence I will tender a reply. So far this has not happened.
Ray
Ray Martinez
Sure you have, Richard, we "believe" you. But then again all Atheist-
evolutionists suffer from this belief. Don't you find it ironic that
all Atheist-evolutionists think that all Christian-Creationists are
liars?
Now you are crying wolf.
Why would anyone doubt your claim?
Ray
Will in New Haven
There are many people in the world who are neither christians nor
atheists. There are a great many Muslims and Hundus in the world, for
example. Do you accept the Rig-Veda as evidence, the Bagghavad Gita,
al-Koran?
>
> > You just don't like being called a liar when
> > you lie. You could stop lying, you know.
>
> Does your "opinion" have anything to do with the fact that you are an
> Atheist and I am a Christian? Or the fact that you are an Evolutionist
> and I am a Creationist?
My opinion has to do with your numerous lies. I know many christians
and, for the most part, they are among the most honest people I know.
When one of them says something counter-factual it is because she or
he sincerely believes it to be true. They are wrong but they are not
lying. You lie all the fucking time Even if you said something that
happened to be correct, you would be lying. For practice.
> Denying design is the only evidence that we need to know that you are
> a liar and an Atheist. If any Christian denies design then they are
> plainly declaring to the world they are a liar and a closet Atheist.
>
I never claimed to be a christian. Denying that there is hard evidence
for design is not denying the possibility of design. If you believe in
design, for whatever reason, it doesn't make you a liar. When you
claim to have evidence for design you are either mistaken or lying. I
would normally take the charitable line of thinking you mistaken but
your constant cries of liar when you hear something you disagree with
have made me think you know lying from the inside all too well.
>
> > I am sure that you are a
> > sincere believer but it is wrong to lie, even to promote what you
> > believe to be a higher truth.
>
> > There may well be something beyond the reach of scientific knowledge.
> > The joke is that thousands of different people claim that they know
> > what that is. And they have hundred and hundreds of different
> > answers.
>
> > It is a _mystery_, Ray, and that stupid book doesn't give you any real
> > answers. That's because the metaphysical, if it exists, is a mystery.
> > And you don't know anything more about it than I do. Except I know
> > that I don't know.
>
> > Will in New Haven
>
> > --
>
> > I believe in a higher power. Squared is a higher power. Cubed is a
> > higher power.
>
> The Atheist mind: pure nonsense and unable to see it since he actually
> wrote the previous comments under the assumption that they are
> intelligent and sensible.
You're a fool. You believe in a god who would first create a world
where many intelligent, well-meaning people could miss the evidence
of god and then punish them with hell for missing it. Your god is a
vicious cartoon character whose only reason for existance is to verify
your shrill hatred of everyone who disagrees with you. Truly, you have
created god in your own image.
When are you finishing that paper?
Will in New Haven
--
"I have seen the David, seen the Mona Lisa too
And I have heard Doc Watson play Columbus Stockade Blues"
Guy Clark - "Dublin Blues"
Free Lunch
>On Jun 29, 6:17 pm, Will in New Haven
><bill.re...@taylorandfrancis.com> wrote:
>> On Jun 29, 7:11 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
...
>> > Your posts show a naivete conducive with the mind of a teenager. What
>> > grade are you in?
>>
>> Lots of people who are not athiests deny the concept that the bible is
>> evidence for anything.
>
>Logically, they are Atheists then since Christians support the Bible
>and are known to die for its propagation. It appears your "logic" is
>perverted at best or non-existent altogether.
Nonsense. You haven't described Christians, you've described
Bible-worshippers. That was condemned by God.
Klaus Hellnick
And, since WIKI is an acronym for "What I Know Is:", McCoy's will not be
overloaded with those pesky fact thingies.
Klaus
Klaus Hellnick
Nope, no irony at all, since science supporters are for truth. Richard
has taken the trouble to actually document the lies of many creationist
sites, and explain why they are lies in language even you should be able
to comprehend. However, you simply claim he is a liar and don't even
address the evidence. Then you continuously spout your own lies and
unfounded assertions and refuse to ever address evidence against you
views. You keep using the (il)logic of "reasoning" that anyone who
disagrees with you about anything is an atheist. Therefore, they are
wrong. Therefore you are right. Always.
Klaus
Free Lunch
>On Jun 30, 11:09 am, DJT <mousede...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>> On Jun 30, 1:58 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> snip
>>
>> > > Just wanted to add my 2 cents: I see you as a liar also and I think
>> > > Richard Forrest is correct in his views on you and other creationist.
>>
>> > > Rodjk #613- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> > > - Show quoted text -
>>
>> > Since, like Richard, you are an Atheist-evolutionist, does this fact
>> > have anything to do with your support of his lies?
>>
>> Why would it, Ray? Also, do you have any evidence that Rodjk is an
>> atheist?
>
>Support of Forrest's lies? You don't actually support Richard Forrest
>do you, Dana? You are a Christian and he is an Atheist.
>
>> One more thing: what "lies" are you accusing Richard of
>> saying? Richard has demonstrated how Creationists lie, but you have
>> not identified any lies that Richard has supposedly stated.
>>
>
>You have misunderstood. Since Richard is a militant Atheist-
>evolutionist his accusations have no objective value. We know all
>Atheist-evolutionists think all Christian-Creationists are liars (and
>vice versa) does Richard have a point that we are missing? Please
>answer the question!
Reality exists whether the people who accept it are religious or not.
You refuse to accept reality, so you bring shame and mockery to
yourself.
Ye Old One
That ancient books are not evidence of anything other than the fact
that people wrote books a long time ago.
It really is that simple Dishonest Ray. What part of his point are you
missing?
>
>And I have another question: why have you evaded this question two
>times now?
>
>
>> Are you going to show him
>> why he's wrong,
>
>You have misunderstood. I have not questioned his belief (and the
>belief of Atheism) that the Bible is not evidence. I am attempting to
>find out if there is some point that I am missing since we already
>know what Atheists believe about the Bible. Why did Snex make said
>comment? I know that he thinks the Bible is not evidence. Is there
>some hidden point that has escaped my attention?
His point was that ancient books are not evidence of anything other
than the fact that people wrote books a long time ago.
--
Bob.
Ye Old One
<pyram...@yahoo.com> enriched this group when s/he wrote:
>On Jun 30, 11:09 am, DJT <mousede...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>> On Jun 30, 1:58 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> snip
>>
>> > > Just wanted to add my 2 cents: I see you as a liar also and I think
>> > > Richard Forrest is correct in his views on you and other creationist.
>>
>> > > Rodjk #613- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> > > - Show quoted text -
>>
>> > Since, like Richard, you are an Atheist-evolutionist, does this fact
>> > have anything to do with your support of his lies?
>>
>> Why would it, Ray? Also, do you have any evidence that Rodjk is an
>> atheist?
>
>Support of Forrest's lies?
What lies? I've seen only you lying so far Dishonest Ray. Why is that?
>You don't actually support Richard Forrest
>do you, Dana? You are a Christian and he is an Atheist.
Richard is also an honest person, why would Dana not support him when
he is telling the truth.
>
>> One more thing: what "lies" are you accusing Richard of
>> saying? Richard has demonstrated how Creationists lie, but you have
>> not identified any lies that Richard has supposedly stated.
>>
>
>You have misunderstood. Since Richard is a militant Atheist-
>evolutionist his accusations have no objective value.
Since Richard is an honest person his objective value is a lot higher
than yours Dishonest Ray.
> We know all
>Atheist-evolutionists think all Christian-Creationists are liars (and
>vice versa) does Richard have a point that we are missing? Please
>answer the question!
>
>
>>
>>
>> > Because you are an Atheist-evolutionist, your opinion is worthless,
>> > with no objective value whatsoever.
>>
>> Why would his opinion be 'worthless', or any more worthless than your
>> own? You show no objectivity yourself, so you own claims are hardly
>> valuable.
>>
>
>Since you are an Evolutionist and I am a Creationist, does this fact
>have anything to do with your "surprising" opinion?
I think your dishonesty has a lot more to do with things.
>
>
>
>
>>
>>
>> > Correction: I agree that it is worth the two cents mentioned in your
>> > post.
>>
>> So, it must be more worth than your own claims.
>>
>> By the way, why are you running away from your, "Proof of God"
>> thread? Are you realizing that the "great pyramid" is just as much a
>> proof of Santa Claus?
>>
>> DJT
>
>When somebody has anything to say or any evidence that contradicts my
>evidence
What "evidence" Dishonest Ray - you never post any.
>I will tender a reply. So far this has not happened.
>
>Ray
>
--
Bob.
DJT
snip
> > Lots of people who are not athiests deny the concept that the bible is
> > evidence for anything.
>
> Logically, they are Atheists then since Christians support the Bible
> and are known to die for its propagation.
But they don't "die for" the mistaken idea that the stories in the
Bible are evidence for your claims. Atheists don't believe the
Bible is the word of God, but people who aren't atheist also accept
that the Bible is not "evidence".
>It appears your "logic" is
> perverted at best or non-existent altogether.
Considering the almost criminal illogic that you demonstrate, why
should anyone accept your assessment?
>
> > You just don't like being called a liar when
> > you lie. You could stop lying, you know.
>
> Does your "opinion" have anything to do with the fact that you are an
> Atheist and I am a Christian?
What evidence do you have that Will is an atheist? What's more, what
evidence do you have that you are a Christian?
> Or the fact that you are an Evolutionist
> and I am a Creationist?
No, it's more the fact that you lie, Ray.
>
> Denying design is the only evidence that we need to know that you are
> a liar and an Atheist.
Who is the "we" here, Ray? Since you haven't shown any reason why
one should accept your ideas about design, why would his denial of
your claims be any evidence at all?
> If any Christian denies design then they are
> plainly declaring to the world they are a liar and a closet Atheist.
Or, they might be declaring that Ray is wrong. You see, Ray, when
you claim to be able to detect "design" but are unable to demonstrate
that in any kind of way, it makes it appear that you are wrong.
Employing ad hominem against anyone who disputes your statements just
shows you are unable to defend those claims.
snip
> > I believe in a higher power. Squared is a higher power. Cubed is a
> > higher power.
>
> The Atheist mind: pure nonsense and unable to see it since he actually
> wrote the previous comments under the assumption that they are
> intelligent and sensible.
Apparently Ray doesn't know what the mathimatical term "powers" means,
hence he misses the joke.
DJT
DJT
snip
> > > Since, like Richard, you are an Atheist-evolutionist, does this fact
> > > have anything to do with your support of his lies?
>
> > Why would it, Ray? Also, do you have any evidence that Rodjk is an
> > atheist?
>
> Support of Forrest's lies?
What lies did Forrest supposedly state?
>You don't actually support Richard Forrest
> do you, Dana?
I support his right to make the statements, and I don't see where they
are wrong.
>You are a Christian and he is an Atheist.
Which means your claim that Christians and Atheists can't agree is
wrong. The fact remains that Forrest isn't the one lying here. Its
you, Ray.
>
> > One more thing: what "lies" are you accusing Richard of
> > saying? Richard has demonstrated how Creationists lie, but you have
> > not identified any lies that Richard has supposedly stated.
>
> You have misunderstood.
No, I have not. You simply are wrong.
> Since Richard is a militant Atheist-
> evolutionist his accusations have no objective value.
Even if Richard was a "militant Atheist-evolultionist", that doesn't
mean that his views have no objective value. But you haven't given
any evidence that Richard is an atheist, or that he is "millitant".
>We know all
> Atheist-evolutionists think all Christian-Creationists are liars
Actually, what we "know" is that many creationists do lie, as a matter
of course. Richard has not simply claimed this, but has demonstrated
the fact.
>(and
> vice versa)
Which is, of course nonsense. You have to take what one says and see
if it's true. If you are assuming that whatever an "atheist" says is
a lie, then you miss many truths.
> does Richard have a point that we are missing? Please
> answer the question!
Yes, he does have a point. That many creationists lie. I've
answered that question many times over. Why are you so intent on
missing the answer?
>
>
>
> > > Because you are an Atheist-evolutionist, your opinion is worthless,
> > > with no objective value whatsoever.
>
> > Why would his opinion be 'worthless', or any more worthless than your
> > own? You show no objectivity yourself, so you own claims are hardly
> > valuable.
>
> Since you are an Evolutionist and I am a Creationist, does this fact
> have anything to do with your "surprising" opinion?
No, the fact that your own statements are worthless have something to
do with that opinion.
Again, if you are claiming that Rodjk's statements are worthless
because he's not objective, then the same applies to you. You have
demonstrated quite clearly that you lack any kind of objectivity.
So, if Rodjk is not objective, and his statements are worthless
because of that, then your own should be as well.
>
>
>
> > > Correction: I agree that it is worth the two cents mentioned in your
> > > post.
>
> > So, it must be more worth than your own claims.
>
> > By the way, why are you running away from your, "Proof of God"
> > thread? Are you realizing that the "great pyramid" is just as much a
> > proof of Santa Claus?
>
> > DJT
>
> When somebody has anything to say or any evidence that contradicts my
> evidence I will tender a reply.
Your "evidence" was completely shredded, Ray. You ran away faster
than a scalded cat.
> So far this has not happened.
As long as you refuse to see it, it didn't happen. This is known as
the "ostrich" defense.
DJT
DJT
snip
> > Ray, I have identified very clearly instances in which Sean has lied -
> > his own words betray him, as he has made mutually contradictory
> > statements. I have also identified numerous falsehoods in creationist
> > sources.
>
> Sure you have, Richard, we "believe" you.
Who is the "we" here, Ray? Do you really imagine that anyone agrees
with you, or supports your position?
> But then again all Atheist-
> evolutionists suffer from this belief.
What evidence do you have that Richard is an atheist?
> Don't you find it ironic that
> all Atheist-evolutionists think that all Christian-Creationists are
> liars?
No, why would he? It's not true. Not all creationists are liars,
but many of them are.
>
> Now you are crying wolf.
How is he doing this? When someone sees a wild carnivore of the
species Canis lupis, isn't that person required to "cry wolf"?
>
> Why would anyone doubt your claim?
Indeed. Why would any sane person do so?
DJT
Gerry Murphy
"Ray Martinez" <pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1183224988.6...@k79g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
<snip>
So breathtakingly inane I'm at a loss for a category.
Free Lunch
"Gerry Murphy" <gerry...@comcast.net> wrote in
<K-KdndsRnL-fURvb...@comcast.com>:
Seconded, even though the rules have no such requirement.
Ray's relationship to the universe is stunning.
Stile4aly
> On Jun 29, 9:17 pm, Stile4aly <stile4...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > I am very happy to be slandered by your kind. It means you are enraged
> > > with my facts and arguments. By the way I have been banned for life by
> > > Conservapedia for having an anti-Christian liberal bias.
>
> > > Ray
>
> > Actually, that is a lie, Ray. Looking at Conservapedia, it's quite
>
> >http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=block&p...
>
> > This link indicates you've been blocked for 3 days for name calling.
> > Unless you have 3 days left to live, then this isn't "for life." Are
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> my previous post on the content of the private email that I received.
Is that the same private email where you claim that Andrew Schlafly
gave you complete control over the Charles Darwin article, and then
when asked to produce the proof you were unable? That would also be a
lie, Ray.
> The only thing left for explanation is your assumption of a lie, since
> you are a Muslim, a Darwinist and a supporter of a rat named Richard
> Forrest, and since I am a Christian and a Creationist your assumption
> is explained.
No, Ray. You claimed that you were permanently banned when a very
simple check shows that this is false. Moreover the reason you
claimed to be banned is also false. I'm left with two choices; that
you're lying, or incapable of simple fact checking thus rendering you
incompetent. Either could be true.
> Regardless, I will not ever participate at any Wiki ever again, in
> fact I just obtained my own Wiki. It is contribution by invitation
> only by persons who are not afraid to use their real name. This
> eliminates the problem with all Wikis: corruption and subjectivism.
> When I have finished learning how to administer I will be issuing
> invitations to participate. My Wiki is only concerned with the
> Creation-Evolution debate, history, archaeology, science and the Bible
> - nothing else.
No, Ray, the real problem with the wikis where you've participated is
that you're not allowed to control things as you see fit. Andy is
controlling his wiki as he pleases, and it's a train wreck. Wikipedia
allows for democratic control, which Andy likes to call "mobocracy."
Clearly in his mindset and yours, unless the "right" people are in
charge, then the wiki has no value.
>
> As for lying, I think Muslims should especially drop this particular
> accusation, don't you agree?
What evidence do you have that Muslims in general (and myself in
general) are liars? You've accused me of this in the past and failed
to substantiate it. Repetition of an unsupported accusation is
another form of lying, Ray.
Gerry Murphy
"Stile4aly" <stil...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1183244708.6...@j4g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
> On Jun 30, 10:36 am, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > On Jun 29, 9:17 pm, Stile4aly <stile4...@yahoo.com> wrote:
<snip>
> No, Ray. You claimed that you were permanently banned when a very
> simple check shows that this is false. Moreover the reason you
> claimed to be banned is also false. I'm left with two choices; that
> you're lying, or incapable of simple fact checking thus rendering you
> incompetent. Either could be true.
All available evidence suggests both are true simultaneously.
Pip R. Lagenta
wrote:
Ray will not ever participate in any Universe ever again. In fact, he
just obtained his own Universe.
>
--
內躬偕爻,虜,齯滌`偕爻,虜,齯滌`偕爻,虜,齯滌`偕爻,虜,齯滌`偕爻,
Pip R. Lagenta Pip R. Lagenta Pip R. Lagenta Pip R. Lagenta
�虜,齯滌`偕爻,虜,齯滌`偕爻,虜,齯滌`偕爻,虜,齯滌`偕爻,虜,齯滌
-- Pip R. Lagenta
President for Life
International Organization Of People Named Pip R. Lagenta
(If your name is Pip R. Lagenta, ask about our dues!)
<http://home.comcast.net/~galentripp/pip.html>
(For Email: I'm at home, not work.)
Seanpit
> Ray, I have identified very clearly instances in whichSeanhas lied -
> his own words betray him, as he has made mutually contradictory
> statements. I have also identified numerous falsehoods in creationist
> sources.
You accuse me of being a "liar" based on your own misinterpretations
of what I've said, which are not at all contradictory, your gross
misunderstanding of the evidence, and your outright strawman building
of seemingly deliberate misrepresentations.
Beyond this, this "falsehoods" you've identified on my website are
nothing more than amazing twists of logic on your part - more
gymnastics than I've seen from most anyone else.
Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com
Bob Casanova
in talk.origins, posted by "Pip R. Lagenta"
<morbiu...@comcast.net>:
>On Sat, 30 Jun 2007 17:19:30 -0500, Free Lunch <lu...@nofreelunch.us>
>wrote:
>>On Sat, 30 Jun 2007 17:36:38 -0400, in talk.origins
>>"Gerry Murphy" <gerry...@comcast.net> wrote in
>><K-KdndsRnL-fURvb...@comcast.com>:
>>>
>>>"Ray Martinez" <pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>>news:1183224988.6...@k79g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
>>>
>>><snip>
>>>
>>>So breathtakingly inane I'm at a loss for a category.
>>>
>>>> Regardless, I will not ever participate at any Wiki ever again, in
>>>> fact I just obtained my own Wiki.
>>
>>Seconded, even though the rules have no such requirement.
>>
>>Ray's relationship to the universe is stunning.
>
>Ray will not ever participate in any Universe ever again. In fact, he
>just obtained his own Universe.
"Just"?
--
Bob C.
"Evidence confirming an observation is
evidence that the observation is wrong."
- McNameless
snex
>
> > > > > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > > > > is your point?
>
> > > > He just made the point, Ray. You ad hommed him instead. It's only a
> > > > one line point, Ray, it's not that hard: do you think snex is correct,
> > > > or not, and why?
>
> > > We know Atheists believe the Bible is not evidence, this is common
> > > sense, are you a teenager?
>
> > Are you, Ray? You don't seem to be able to address the point. Snex
> > said the Bible doesn't count as evidence.
>
> I will ask you to address my question since Snex basically repeated
> his reply:
>
> We know Atheist ideology and philosophy believes that the Bible is not
> evidence, what is Snex's point?
>
> times now?
>
> > Are you going to show him
> > why he's wrong,
>
> You have misunderstood. I have not questioned his belief (and the
> belief of Atheism) that the Bible is not evidence. I am attempting to
> find out if there is some point that I am missing since we already
> know what Atheists believe about the Bible. Why did Snex make said
> comment? I know that he thinks the Bible is not evidence. Is there
> some hidden point that has escaped my attention?
>
>
>
> > stars and passages lining up proves some poetic truth about God? At
> > the moment you're just ad homming. You know what that means? It means
> > you can't refute.
>
> > > Come on and tell us the truth?
>
>
> > > Your posts show a naivete conducive with the mind of a teenager.
>
>
> > > What
> > > grade are you in?
>
> > still have the ability to learn.
>
> > > Ray- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
its not that i believe that the bible isnt evidence. its that the
bible isnt evidence. doesnt matter what i believe.
richardal...@googlemail.com
wrote:
> On Jun 30, 11:15 am, richardalanforr...@googlemail.com wrote:
>
> > Ray, I have identified very clearly instances in whichSeanhas lied -
> > his own words betray him, as he has made mutually contradictory
> > statements. I have also identified numerous falsehoods in creationist
> > sources.
>
> You accuse me of being a "liar" based on your own misinterpretations
> of what I've said, which are not at all contradictory, your gross
> misunderstanding of the evidence, and your outright strawman building
> of seemingly deliberate misrepresentations.
Sean:
You stated that you had carried through a statistical method of
determining if granite objects are the product of "deliberate" or "non-
deliberate" forces.
You stated that you have carried out "thousands" of measurements on
granite objects.
You also stated that you had written nothing down in doing this study.
So either you have the most prodigious memory and mathematical ability
of anyone in the history of mankind, or you are lying when you say
that you have carried out such a study.
The fact that you are not able to tell us which parameters you
measured suggests that you have not measured anything.
I see no other interpretation of these facts other than that you are
lying.
How do you interpret these fact?
> Beyond this, this "falsehoods" you've identified on my website are
> nothing more than amazing twists of logic on your part - more
> gymnastics than I've seen from most anyone else.
So why not address the statement on your web site I've identified as
false, and demonstrate from the evidence that they are true?
Let's start with these:
1) One of the very foundations of evolution and popular science today
is the "geologic column".
This is categorically false. Evolutionary theory is not built on the
fossil record, but on the evidence from living organisms we see around
us today.
What can you offer as evidence that it is founded on the "geologic
column"?
If you can't - and there are no reputable sources which will support
you on this - you are wrong.
2) This column is made up of layers of sedimentary rock that
supposedly formed over millions and even billions of years.
The geological column is a theoretical construct based on rock
formations from many different geographical locations. The geological
record is made up of rocks of many different types, including igneous
and metamorphic rocks deposited within sedimentary structures and
intruding through sedimentary structures.
3) Although not found in all locations and although it varies in
thickness as well as the numbers of layers present, this column can be
found generally over the entire globe.
The geological column is a theoretical construct, and rocks of all
ages *cannot* be found "all over the globe". In fact, most of the
surface rocks of the globe are those of ocean floors which are
generally much younger than sedimentary rocks on continental plates.
4) As one looks at the geologic column, it is obvious that the contact
zones, between the various layers, are generally very flat and smooth
relative to each other (though the layers may be tilted relative to
what is currently horizontal or even warped since their original
"flat" formation). Many of the layers extend over hundreds of
thousands of square miles and yet their contact zones remain as smooth
and parallel with each other as if sheets of glass were laid on top of
one another (before they were warped).
This is complete and utter nonsense, as anyone who is familiar with
field geology can tell you. Generally sedimentary layers are not
uniform in thickness over large areas, and many sedimentary structures
vary considerably in thickness even over short distances.
5) And yet, each layer is supposed to have formed over thousands if
not millions of years?
The rate at which layers form varies widely. In some sedimentary rock,
such as volcanic tuffs, several meters thickness can be formed in a
single catastrophic event. In other formations, deposition rates are
very slow and it may take thousands of years to form a few millimeters
of rock.
6) But this expected uneven weathering is generally lacking (see
illustration).1 Just about all the layers have un-weathered or at best
very rapidly weathered parallel and smooth contact zones. Long term
erosion always results in uneven surfaces and this unevenness is only
accentuated over time. How then are the layers found throughout the
geologic column so generally even and smooth relative to each other?
We frequently find erosion surfaces in sedimentary structures.
Here are some photographs of erosion surfaces:
http://www.uta.edu/paleomap/homepage/Schieberweb/Picture%20Pages/shph...
http://www.uga.edu/~strata/sequence/erosion.html
http://www.gly.uga.edu/speleoatlas/SAimage0605.html
http://www.severnichthys.co.uk/geology03.htm
http://www.geology.cwu.edu/facstaff/charlier/currentprojects/pics/tie...
Your statement is categorically false. Erosion surfaces, some of them
cutting across distorted sedimentary structures, are common.
Here's a photograph taken as Siccar Point, one of the classic
geological sections, and one which demonstrates that the earth is very
ancient:
http://www.winona.edu/geology/dynamicearth/Images/SiccarPointCloseup.jpg
If you look at the image, you will see that the strata in the lower
part are rotated so that they run vertically, not horizontally. Rock
can only distort in this way under conditions of high temperature and
pressure, and this process takes a long time. So these rocks were
formed, overlain by a large amount of additional sediment, and
distorted under pressure. They were then exposed by erosion. Then
there was a further deposition of sediments on top of the eroded
surface which in time became hard rock. Then there was more erosion of
this hard rock to form the coastal exposure we see today.
This is one of many geological structures which falsify a young
earth.
You will ignore it, of course, because you ignore anything which
demolishes your facile arguments. But I will simply take that as
another example of your moral and intellectual cowardice and
dishonesty, as will all the lurkers watching you squirm.
RF
> Sean Pitmanwww.DetectingDesign.com
Rolf
"Ray Martinez" <pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1183224988.6...@k79g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > > On Jun 29, 3:54 pm, Shane <remar...@Netscape.net> wrote:
> >
> > > > On Fri, 29 Jun 2007 15:13:26 -0700, Ray Martinez wrote:
> > > > > Richard Forrest has a nasty habit of calling Creationists liars.
> >
> > > > >http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/43c47f3198434e57
> >
> > > > > Forrest speaking about S. Pitman:
> >
> > > > > "So basically, he's just a typically dishonest creationist who
> > > > > dogmatically refuses to learn anything and thinks that if he
writes
> > > > > stuff that looks scientific, he can fool other creationists into
> > > > > thinking that he has valid arguments."
> >
> > > > >http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/e3f18179ce30b4ac?
> >
> > > > > Forrest speaking about me:
> >
> > > > > "Ray, after the persistent dishonestly you demonstrate on this
forum,
> > > > > and no doubt elsewhere, perhaps you should consider if you should
> > > > > show
> > > > > your face here."
> >
> > > > > We also know that Forrest routinely claims that lies persist
rampantly
> > > > > on Creationist websites.
> >
> > > > catually attempt to point out the error in Richards claims. Here is
> > > > another case in point. After making this claim that Richard is
wrong,
> > > > Ray goes on a nice little rant, yet this was the perfect opportunity
to
> > > > take even one of Richards specidfic claims and show him to be
wrong..So
> > > > I wonder is Ray dishonest, as he has demonstrated himself to be--I
will
> > > > not post till one week before--vapour canopy--I can speak Greek---or
is
> > > > he just lazy, or perhaps both.
> >
> > > > > We know Richard Forrest is an Atheist-evolutionist, and we know
that
> > > > > he actually believes apes morphed into men over the course of
millions
> > > > > of years.
> >
men.
> > > > Another lie Ray keeps on telling.
> >
> > > > <Snip lengthy ad hominem---another creationist standard>- Hide
quoted text -
> >
> > > > - Show quoted text -
> >
> > > pointed out. What makes you think that your lies are any different?
> >
> > > I am very happy to be slandered by your kind. It means you are enraged
> > > with my facts and arguments. By the way I have been banned for life by
> > > Conservapedia for having an anti-Christian liberal bias.
> >
> > > Ray
> >
> > Actually, that is a lie, Ray. Looking at Conservapedia, it's quite
> >
> > http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=block&p...
> >
> > This link indicates you've been blocked for 3 days for name calling.
> > Unless you have 3 days left to live, then this isn't "for life." Are
> >
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> my previous post on the content of the private email that I received.
>
> you are a Muslim, a Darwinist and a supporter of a rat named Richard
> Forrest, and since I am a Christian and a Creationist your assumption
> is explained.
>
> only by persons who are not afraid to use their real name. This
> eliminates the problem with all Wikis: corruption and subjectivism.
> When I have finished learning how to administer I will be issuing
> invitations to participate. My Wiki is only concerned with the
> Creation-Evolution debate, history, archaeology, science and the Bible
> - nothing else.
>
Why don't you finish your paper first? We are dying to read it!
If what you have said is true (you only speak the truth, don't you?), teh
debate will be over as soon as your paper is published, what with the
revelation offered by your Eurekea-experience, in addition to all the
wonderful scientific and religious arguments you will present.
> As for lying, I think Muslims should especially drop this particular
> accusation, don't you agree?
>
> Ray
>
>
>
richardal...@googlemail.com
No, I only think they are liars when they make statements they know to
be false with the intention to deceive.
Sean has done so - unless you think that he can carry out complex
statistical calculations on large data sets entirely in his head. Mind
you, you would still have to account for the fact that he can't even
tell us which parameters he has measured.
The fact that I have given you the benefit of the doubt shows that I
don't think all creationists are liars. I think most of them are
ignorant, and some of them - yourself included - suffer from mental
health problems.
>
> Now you are crying wolf.
>
> Why would anyone doubt your claim?
Quite so. I have presented evidence which you have not addressed.
RF
>
> Ray
Rolf
> with no objective value whatsoever.
>
opinion is worthless. A flat claim, no substantiation needed.
In your case, because you are a creationist, your opinion is worthless. It
goes without saying, no need to substantiate.
> Correction: I agree that it is worth the two cents mentioned in your
> post.
>
> Ray
>
>
Rolf
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > > On Jun 29, 3:45 pm, geop...@hotmail.com wrote:
> >
> > > > On Jun 29, 11:30 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
that
> >
> > > > > > - Show quoted text -
> >
what
> > > > > is your point?
> >
> > > > He just made the point, Ray. You ad hommed him instead. It's only a
> > > > one line point, Ray, it's not that hard: do you think snex is
correct,
> > > > or not, and why?
> >
> > > We know Atheists believe the Bible is not evidence, this is common
> >
> > > Your posts show a naivete conducive with the mind of a teenager. What
> > > grade are you in?
> >
> > Lots of people who are not athiests deny the concept that the bible is
> > evidence for anything.
>
> Logically, they are Atheists then since Christians support the Bible
> perverted at best or non-existent altogether.
>
> > You just don't like being called a liar when
> > you lie. You could stop lying, you know.
>
> Does your "opinion" have anything to do with the fact that you are an
> Atheist and I am a Christian? Or the fact that you are an Evolutionist
> and I am a Creationist?
>
> Denying design is the only evidence that we need to know that you are
> a liar and an Atheist. If any Christian denies design then they are
> plainly declaring to the world they are a liar and a closet Atheist.
>
Advocating creationism is the only evidence that we need to know that you
are a liar.
> > I am sure that you are a
> > sincere believer but it is wrong to lie, even to promote what you
> > believe to be a higher truth.
> >
> > There may well be something beyond the reach of scientific knowledge.
> > The joke is that thousands of different people claim that they know
> > what that is. And they have hundred and hundreds of different
> > answers.
> >
> > It is a _mystery_, Ray, and that stupid book doesn't give you any real
> > answers. That's because the metaphysical, if it exists, is a mystery.
> > And you don't know anything more about it than I do. Except I know
> > that I don't know.
> >
> > Will in New Haven
> >
> > --
> >
> > I believe in a higher power. Squared is a higher power. Cubed is a
> > higher power.
> >
>
> The Atheist mind: pure nonsense and unable to see it since he actually
> wrote the previous comments under the assumption that they are
> intelligent and sensible.
>
>
> Ray
>
richardal...@googlemail.com
> On Fri, 29 Jun 2007 15:13:26 -0700, Ray Martinez
>
> ....over a period of millions of years, EVOLVED into mad and the other great apes.
>
Typo perhaps, but how true, how true.
<snipped>
RF
Rolf
> > snip
> >
> > > > Just wanted to add my 2 cents: I see you as a liar also and I think
> > > > Richard Forrest is correct in his views on you and other
creationist.
> >
> >
> > > > - Show quoted text -
> >
> > > have anything to do with your support of his lies?
> >
> > atheist?
>
> do you, Dana? You are a Christian and he is an Atheist.
>
> > One more thing: what "lies" are you accusing Richard of
> > saying? Richard has demonstrated how Creationists lie, but you have
> > not identified any lies that Richard has supposedly stated.
> >
>
> evolutionist his accusations have no objective value. We know all
> Atheist-evolutionists think all Christian-Creationists are liars (and
> vice versa) does Richard have a point that we are missing? Please
> answer the question!
>
>
> >
> >
> > > Because you are an Atheist-evolutionist, your opinion is worthless,
> > > with no objective value whatsoever.
> >
> > own? You show no objectivity yourself, so you own claims are hardly
> > valuable.
> >
>
> have anything to do with your "surprising" opinion?
>
>
>
>
> >
> >
> > > Correction: I agree that it is worth the two cents mentioned in your
> > > post.
> >
> >
> > By the way, why are you running away from your, "Proof of God"
> > thread? Are you realizing that the "great pyramid" is just as much a
> > proof of Santa Claus?
> >
> > DJT
>
> When somebody has anything to say or any evidence that contradicts my
>
What evidence? Lieas are not evidence. You wouldn't know truth if it hit you
with a sledgehammer.
> Ray
>
>
VoiceOfReason
> >
> > > > > > - Show quoted text -
> >
> > > > > is your point?
> >
> > > > He just made the point, Ray. You ad hommed him instead. It's only a
> > > > one line point, Ray, it's not that hard: do you think snex is correct,
> > > > or not, and why?
> >
> > > We know Atheists believe the Bible is not evidence, this is common
> > > sense, are you a teenager? Come on and tell us the truth?
> >
> > > Your posts show a naivete conducive with the mind of a teenager. What
> > > grade are you in?
> >
> > Lots of people who are not athiests deny the concept that the bible is
> > evidence for anything.
>
> Logically, they are Atheists then since Christians support the Bible
> and are known to die for its propagation. It appears your "logic" is
> perverted at best or non-existent altogether.
Educated Christians know that the Bible is not a science book. Most
Christians don't need to manufacture "evidence" for their faith.
> > You just don't like being called a liar when
> > you lie. You could stop lying, you know.
>
> Does your "opinion" have anything to do with the fact that you are an
> Atheist and I am a Christian? Or the fact that you are an Evolutionist
> and I am a Creationist?
>
> Denying design is the only evidence that we need to know that you are
> a liar and an Atheist. If any Christian denies design then they are
> plainly declaring to the world they are a liar and a closet Atheist.
Horseshit. "Design" is just the latest buzzword for creationism. Not
all Christians are as gullible as you assume.
<...>
gregwrld
He won't, more likely can't supply these calculations either. He's
admitted
in the past he doesn't have sufficient data to submit for peer review
or else
he would have by now. He makes assertions and insists others must
prove
him wrong and supports those assertions with more assertions. It's his
own
personal merry-go-round of "logic".
In short, if he had enough to publish he would. He doesn't.
>
> The fact that I have given you the benefit of the doubt shows that I
> don't think all creationists are liars. I think most of them are
> ignorant, and some of them - yourself included - suffer from mental
> health problems.
>
>
>
> > Now you are crying wolf.
>
> > Why would anyone doubt your claim?
>
> Quite so. I have presented evidence which you have not addressed.
>
> RF
>
>
>
>
>
> > Ray- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
Desertphile
Good.... *GODS* that's funny!
--
http://desertphile.org
Desertphile's Desert Soliloquy. WARNING: view with plenty of water
"Why aren't resurrections from the dead noteworthy?" -- Jim Rutz
Tom McDonald
<snip>
> Logically, they are Atheists then since Christians support the Bible
> and are known to die for its propagation. It appears your "logic" is
> perverted at best or non-existent altogether.
If all the bibles in the world magically disappeared,
Christianity would continue. The book is important, but it is
only important for the message it brings. The book itself is not
an object to be venerated.
You will undoubtedly say some things about me for my taking this
position. However, the early Christians had no Bible, yet were no
less Christians for that.
<snip>
snex
if the bibles magically disappeared, the story of christianity would
disappear with them, and then there could be no christians because
thered be no knowledge of jesus.
>
> <snip>
Cory Albrecht
So, for Ray, Schroedinger's cat was stupid? :-)
richardal...@googlemail.com
The reason why I am convinced he is a liar is that I am engaged in a
statistical study with some points of similarity to what he claims
that he has done. In my case I am measuring the vertebral centra of
plesiosaurs, and I have spent hundreds of hours in museum stores with
box after box of dusty bones. I have a set of parameters I measure on
each centrum - 27 on each - and have measured so many centra that I
can pretty well do it in my sleep.
In the case of a bone, generating a set of parameters which can be
measured is relatively simple. A centrum has a front and a back, a top
and a bottom. It has features which can be measured - the width of the
neural canal, the position of the ribs, the spacing of foraminae, the
angle of the rib to the axis. I can set up a reference set of
vertebrae which are used as a scale of ontogenetic development based
on the degree of fusion of ribs, and ossification of surface bone. In
other words, I have a clearly definable set of parameters which I can
measure, and therefore collect a coherent data set which can be
analysed statistically and in other ways.
Sean claims to have measured the shape of granite objects. Unlike my
centra, a granite object has no reference points. It has no anatomical
features, and there is nothing which can be defined as a front and
back and no axis. Even measuring length, width and height is not
straightforward, as to be consistent this would have to be done on
three axes at right angles to each other, something hard to judge by
eye.
What's more, it can be of any size. The length of the centra I measure
varies between about 10 and 100mm. Sean would have to measure granite
objects ranging in size from that of a fingernail clipping to that of
the dome of St. Paul's, or even Dartmoor - which is after all a
naturally occurring granite object with a volume of a few hundred
cubic miles. There are ways of recording the shape of objects which
have no landmarks or other referents, but these require rather
specialized equipment, and generate very large data sets. Even if he
had a laser scanner able to record these objects at sufficient
resolution to reveal details of surface texture, and large enough to
hold the dome of St Paul's (I'll allow him to skip measuring
Dartmoor), he would then need to normalize his data. This means that
he would have to convert the data for each object into one with the
same number of parameters for all objects - something mathematically
possible, but one requiring substantial computer power. Unless he did
this he would not be able to perform statistical calculations. The
file sizes involved would be HUGE: a small object produces a file of
about a Gigabyte when scanned, and he is talking about many thousands
of such objects. So we are dealing with Terabyte sized datasets which
then need to be processed using a statistical programme capable of
handling such large files, and requiring a supercomputer to process it
in any reasonable time.
Mind you, as Sean says that he hasn't written anything down, perhaps
he can do all this in his head. Somehow, I doubt it, but then I doubt
his claim to be able to calculate probabilities without using
numbers.
Perhaps I'm just an old cynic, but I don't think he's telling the
truth.
RF
Martin Hutton
On 29-Jun-2007, Ray Martinez <pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote:
[snip]
>
> The subject was evolutionist R. Forrest. Do you agree with his
> slander?
This statement exemplifies your inability to learn.
Your have been informed many times (at least once by me) of
the difference between slander and libel, and you still can't
tell the difference.
That's really pathetic.
--
Martin Hutton
Martin Hutton
> Richard Forrest has a nasty habit of calling Creationists liars.
Why is that a "nasty habit"? Most creationists ARE liars. You,
McNumbnuts, and Sean are pretty egregious examples of this trait.
> http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/43c47f3198434e57
>
> Forrest speaking about S. Pitman:
>
> "So basically, he's just a typically dishonest creationist who
> dogmatically refuses to learn anything and thinks that if he writes
> stuff that looks scientific, he can fool other creationists into
> thinking that he has valid arguments."
That appears to be an accurate assessment.
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/e3f18179ce30b4ac?
>
> Forrest speaking about me:
>
> "Ray, after the persistent dishonestly you demonstrate on this forum,
> and no doubt elsewhere, perhaps you should consider if you should
> show your face here."
Again, commenting on a well recognised trait you have.
> We also know that Forrest routinely claims that lies persist rampantly
> on Creationist websites.
Lies that he has documented and that no one has addressed,
let alone refuted.
(come on creationists step up to the plate)
> We know Richard Forrest is an Atheist-evolutionist, and we know that
> he actually believes apes morphed into men over the course of millions
> of years. He also believes that a magnificent nature shows no signs of
> Intelligence but was produced by something that has no mind. Forrest
> believes crude Stone Age tools and shelters are "evidence" of early
> quasi-ape men but the arm and hand that supposedly crafted these tools
> is not the product of design. Forrest thinks bat sonar and
> echolocation was produced incrementally, leaving the flying creature
> unable to conduct its business in its natural habitat of lightless
> caves, until a blind and mindless natural selection got around to
> completing the task. And the human eye, Forrest believes - the most
> obvious irreducible complex organ of all - was also formed
> incrementally with no Designer involved.
I don't think RF is an atheist (note: lower case "a"). He
is certainly convinced by the evidence for common descent
and unconvinced by the the total lack of evidence for an
intelligent designer. I'm not sure about how he thinks this
common descent worked..."random" mutations for sure, but
ALL individual selection or some neutral drift with gene,
population, species, and eco-group selection thrown in?
Who knows (well RF for one)?
> We know for a fact that the Stone Age never existed.
That's a lie.
> Genesis says Cain
> built a "city" and not some A frame mud hut with a rock tied to a
> piece of wood.
Genesis says a lot of things that aren't so.
> Man was created ultra-intelligent.
This is two lies in one.
There exists no evidence to indicate man was created. There
is no evidence that exists that shows humans from 10,000 years
ago were any more or less intelligent that modern humans.
BTW Technological capabilities have to be built upon the
previous generation's abilities.
> The Great Pyramid -
> the only true World Wonder - from top to bottom; inside and out;
> proves this claim and falisfies the existence of a Stone Age.
This contains another lie.
It "proves" that the royals, priests, and "engineers" learned how
to build pyramid tombs starting with the first step pyramid and,
culminating with the 3 of the Giza Pyramid Complex.
The Great Pyramid is probably the most magnificent world wonder,
but it certainly sheds no light on the Stone Age which started
about 2.5 million years ago.
> We know
> it is impossible for a sonar apparatus to have been built
> incrementally by something that has no mind or consciousness. And we
> know the human eye is formed in the womb (and not over milions of
> years) by wondrous mechanisms invented by God.
Yet another two lies. You know of no such things.
> In view of these facts I feel no insult whatsoever in being called a
> liar by Richard Forrest. His disapproval is the best endorsement of my
> honesty. Anytime a person who believes what he believes, and denies
> what he denies, thinks I am a liar, this is the very best evidence
> that I am not. Common sense says persons who believe the things that
> Forrest believes should not be going around calling anyone a liar.
It's because you feel no shame that you lie so often.
Or perhaps it's because you lie so often that you feel
no shame.
--
Martin Hutton
Ray Martinez
wrote:
> Ray Martinez wrote:
> > On Jun 30, 11:15 am, richardalanforr...@googlemail.com wrote:
> >> On Jun 30, 6:58 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >>> On Jun 29, 5:32 pm, Rodjk #613 <rjka...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>> Richard Forrest has a nasty habit of calling Creationists liars.
> >>>>> Forrest speaking about S. Pitman:
> >>>>> "So basically, he's just a typically dishonest creationist who
> >>>>> dogmatically refuses to learn anything and thinks that if he writes
> >>>>> stuff that looks scientific, he can fool other creationists into
> >>>>> thinking that he has valid arguments."
> >>>>> Forrest speaking about me:
> >>>>> "Ray, after the persistent dishonestly you demonstrate on this forum,
> >>>>> and no doubt elsewhere, perhaps you should consider if you should
> >>>>> show
> >>>>> your face here."
> >>>>> on Creationist websites.
> >>>>> he actually believes apes morphed into men over the course of millions
> >>>>> of years. He also believes that a magnificent nature shows no signs of
> >>>>> Intelligence but was produced by something that has no mind. Forrest
> >>>>> believes crude Stone Age tools and shelters are "evidence" of early
> >>>>> quasi-ape men but the arm and hand that supposedly crafted these tools
> >>>>> is not the product of design. Forrest thinks bat sonar and
> >>>>> echolocation was produced incrementally, leaving the flying creature
> >>>>> unable to conduct its business in its natural habitat of lightless
> >>>>> caves, until a blind and mindless natural selection got around to
> >>>>> completing the task. And the human eye, Forrest believes - the most
> >>>>> obvious irreducible complex organ of all - was also formed
> >>>>> incrementally with no Designer involved.
> >>>>> built a "city" and not some A frame mud hut with a rock tied to a
> >>>>> the only true World Wonder - from top to bottom; inside and out;
> >>>>> it is impossible for a sonar apparatus to have been built
> >>>>> incrementally by something that has no mind or consciousness. And we
> >>>>> know the human eye is formed in the womb (and not over milions of
> >>>>> years) by wondrous mechanisms invented by God.
> >>>>> liar by Richard Forrest. His disapproval is the best endorsement of my
> >>>>> honesty. Anytime a person who believes what he believes, and denies
> >>>>> what he denies, thinks I am a liar, this is the very best evidence
> >>>>> that I am not. Common sense says persons who believe the things that
> >>>>> Forrest believes should not be going around calling anyone a liar.
> >>>> Just wanted to add my 2 cents: I see you as a liar also and I think
> >>>> Richard Forrest is correct in his views on you and other creationist.
> >>>> Rodjk #613- Hide quoted text -
> >>>> - Show quoted text -
> >>> have anything to do with your support of his lies?
> >> Ray, I have identified very clearly instances in which Sean has lied -
> >> his own words betray him, as he has made mutually contradictory
> >> statements. I have also identified numerous falsehoods in creationist
> >> sources.
>
> > Sure you have, Richard, we "believe" you. But then again all Atheist-
> > evolutionists suffer from this belief. Don't you find it ironic that
> > all Atheist-evolutionists think that all Christian-Creationists are
> > liars?
>
Allegedly, in theory, and ideally, they are. But this type of utopia
does not exist. Scholars are supposed to be guardians of truth, yet we
know that worldview bias controls what truth is. I suspect that you
are unable (or even worse) unwilling to admit the truth of what I just
said.
Science attempts to discover truth according to presuppositions; that
is explanation of data and evidence that justifies the suppositions to
be sensible corresponding to reality. There two and only two major
suppositions that control science: naturalism and supernaturalism. The
former does not explain reality but denies all reality that
contradicts its suppositions. Supernaturalism explains all of the data
existing in reality, including, of course, the existence of naturalism
to be what persons must believe who could not make it with God.
Christian naturalism is explained the way Judas is explained in the
Bible: close to Christ but a disciple of Satan.
> Richard
> has taken the trouble to actually document the lies of many creationist
> sites,
Sure he has - we "believe" you.
Ray
Ray Martinez
> has taken the trouble to actually document the lies of many creationist
> to comprehend. However, you simply claim he is a liar and don't even
> address the evidence. Then you continuously spout your own lies and
> unfounded assertions and refuse to ever address evidence against you
> views. You keep using the (il)logic of "reasoning" that anyone who
> disagrees with you about anything is an atheist. Therefore, they are
> wrong. Therefore you are right. Always.
>
The "logic" of Klaus says it is illogical to point out that Richard
Forrest is an Atheist-Evolutionist when the same person calls
Christian-Creationists liars.
Since Klaus is an evolutionist and supporter of Forrest his "logic" is
explained.
Ray