Directed panspermy, Nyikos style
pnyikos
down, but apparently Darwin dropped it permanently. Anyway, the
following reply to a post from the thread "The futility of intelligent
design" is a good start for it.
On Jan 14, 12:53 pm, "Steven L." <sdlit...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> "Dakota" <ma...@NOSPAMmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:GcudnSdlEYu...@giganews.com:
>
>
>
> > On Tue 1/11/11 2:19, *Hemidactylus* wrote:
> > > On 01/10/2011 10:11 PM, pnyikos wrote:
> > >> On Jan 8, 12:53 pm, Mark Isaak<eci...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> > >>> On Fri, 07 Jan 2011 20:02:49 -0800, pnyikos wrote:
> > >>>> On Jan 6, 4:03 am, Ernest Major<{$t...@meden.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> > >>>>> In message
> > >>>>> <11092cc9-3edd-40ef-9d92-a6ae56da0...@t35g2000yqj.googlegroups.com>,
> > >>>>> jillery<69jpi...@gmail.com> writes
>
> > >>>>> > From "Darwin's Black Box":
> > >>>>>> "Natural selection can only choose among systems that are already
> > >>>>>> working, so the existence in nature of irreducibly complex biological
> > >>>>>> systems poses a powerful challenge to Darwinian theory. "
>
> > >>>>> That probably is an insufficiently bald statement for Professor
> > >>>>> Nyikos.
>
> > >>>> In fact, you and Jillery need to learn more about Behe's writings.
>
> > >>> So do you.
>
> > >> Your two cents' worth, give or take a couple of cents, is duly noted.
>
> > >> You could greatly increase its value with documentation.
>
> > >> However, I do believe you are bankrupt and, what's more, no reader
> > >> will be able to make you solvent.
>
> > > Isaak has made a critical argument relevant to your panspermist
> > > hypothesis.
...having no connection with his unsupported taunt above.
[deletia to be addressed on another post to this thread]
> > Perhaps they were developing gardens to provide a food source for when
> > they come this way again.
>
> After billions of years of evolution, whatever life forms they seeded on
> Earth for food have evolved genetically to the point that they may no
> longer be edible to them--or perhaps even poisonous.
So they grow their own. The main idea would be to get the planet into
habitable form.
> Remember that the putative panspermia occurred when the atmosphere of
> Earth was net reducing.
Net neutral, by the generally accepted theory, AFAIK. With lots of
carbon dioxide and water, ideal for photosynthesis.
> An evolutionary fluke--cyanobacteria--came
> along later,
Where is your evidence that it came later? If it is really good, it
would falsify my theory, which states that the panspermists seeded the
earth with its first organisms, which included cyanobacteria.
I'd have to fall back to a different theory, which leaves out the
"cyanobacteria" but keeps the "bacteria with flagella" bit. In that
case, I would almost have to assume that the panspermists were not
oxygen breathers. And that in turn poses the problem of whether there
could be an intelligent species of hydrogen breathers, like the modern
methanogenic archae.
>changed the atmosphere to net oxidizing--and many species
> evolved to deal with that new reality.
>
> Creating an oxygen atmosphere wasn't the aliens' original plan.
Only if you go with the above assumptions of YOURS. What is the
grounds for them?
> If it
> were, then they would have started seeding cyanobacteria to begin with,
My hypothesis exactly.
> rather than some life forms that thrived in reducing environments.
Are you still under the impression that the Urey-Miller conditions
were the actual ones?
Peter Nyikos
Conan the bacterium
<>
I'd think the correct response to that would be
"where?" For example, conditions at the
cold seep on the Atlantis Massif (the so-named
"Lost City") are quite reducing.
conan
>
> Peter Nyikos
Ray Martinez
>
> - Show quoted text -
"Directed panspermy, Nyikos style"
Who (or what) is the "director," Peter?
(Remember: you claim allegiance to Christianity.)
How can Peter produce an answer that is compatible with his alleged
allegiance?
Ray
pnyikos
Granted, but we were talking about the atmosphere. Yes, I am aware of
the theory that life arose in these hydrothermal vents. If we find
such vents on Europa but no sign of life, that would be one way of
casting doubt on the theory, if not falsifying it in the usual
provisional sense of the word "falsify".
Peter Nyikos
pnyikos
I am supporting the hypothesis that the "director" is a technological
civilization that arose ca. 3.9 billion years ago. You obviously
support the alternative hypothesis that it was God (through the Word
which much later became flesh, no?) working directlly instead of
through such an intelligent species, which in turn would have been of
God's design.
But we've been through this on the "parent" thread already. I've been
trying to convince you that my hypothesis is fully compatible with
Christianity, and AFAIK the ball is in your court. You never really
addressed my more detailed statements about a possible Noah-analogue,
did you?
Peter Nyikos
Ray Martinez
Looks like the answer to my question is "No." Peter cannot produce an
answer that is compatible with his alleged allegiance to Christianity.
With this said, the real question is: why does Peter think of himself
as a real Christian?
Panspermia is a radical and insulting pro-Atheism denial of God's
existence. Like Judas, you are deluded, Peter. Judas thought that he
was following Christ when he kissed Him while betraying Him to His
enemies. The Bible says Judas did what he did while under the direct
control of Satan (invisible Deceiver). And Judas was an original
Apostle, he saw his Master raise the dead. Your belief that you are a
real Christian, is explained.
Ray
Dana Tweedy
Peter's answers are just as compatable with his "alleged Christianity"
as Ray's actions are compatible with his.
> With this said, the real question is: why does Peter think of himself
> as a real Christian?
Another question would be why Ray apparently thinks he's a "Real
Christian"? His actions certainly don't indicate any desire to follow
Christian teachings.
>
> Panspermia is a radical and insulting pro-Atheism denial of God's
> existence.
How, exactly? Please note that I don't agree with Dr. Nyikos, and I
don't feel panspermia is a likely explanation, but why would it be
"pro atheism" or "denial of God's existence"?
> Like Judas, you are deluded, Peter. Judas thought that he
> was following Christ when he kissed Him while betraying Him to His
> enemies.
Likewise Ray apparently thinks he's following Christ, yet his actions
betray Christ's teaching daily.
> The Bible says Judas did what he did while under the direct
> control of Satan (invisible Deceiver).
As apparently Ray doesn't know he being deceived as well......
> And Judas was an original
> Apostle, he saw his Master raise the dead. Your belief that you are a
> real Christian, is explained.
Does anyone have an explanation for why (other than organic brain
syndrome) Ray would imagine himself to be a "real Christian"?
DJT
John Harshman
By claiming that the aliens were doing the will of god? Just because god
is the creator, that doesn't mean he did everything personally. Oddly
enough, yours is not the only form of theism in the world. And there is
just as much evidence that all the other forms are true as there is for
your preferred version. What is the litmus test for a true Scotsman?
Conan the bacterium
<>
Interesting.
Actually, I wasn't thinking about hot hydrothermal
vents, which are...well, really really hot, and
acidic as well, which would make certain paths
to biological molecules problematic.
I was thinking instead of "cold seeps", which
derive their energy from the reaction of
seawater with olivine, creating a much
less hot environment, and more importantly,
one that is both reducing and alkaline.
Here (I hope you can see this) is Nick
Lane's take on this, his book "Life
Ascending" being what got me interested
in this in the first place:
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn17987-how-life-evolved-10-steps-to-the-first-cells.html
conan
>
> Peter Nyikos
Conan the bacterium
<>
Incorrect. The "real question" is when and where
God put you in charge of declaring who is a Real
Christian and who is not.
conan
*Hemidactylus*
If Peter thinks of himself as a Christian who are you to say he's not?
> With this said, the real question is: why does Peter think of himself
> as a real Christian?
Oh please Ray. You have worn this one out long ago. All who do not tow
your line and proclaim themselves Christian are thus deluded, given your
status as judge of such matters.
> Panspermia is a radical and insulting pro-Atheism denial of God's
> existence. Like Judas, you are deluded, Peter.
Oh nice. Just because Nyikos proposes a pet idea about life on Earth
having designed extraterrestial origins you start comparing him to a
negative character of the gospels. I don't see why Nyikos would need to
be an atheist to propose such ideas. He seems to look at Genesis as
allegory and symbolism not to be taken literally. Even if directed
panspermy were true, there could still have been an ultimate creator
previous to the panspermist who seeded Earth. I don't see anything
worthy in the notion of an ultimate creator and I see Peter's panspermy
idea as an interesting curioisity.
> Judas thought that he
> was following Christ when he kissed Him while betraying Him to His
> enemies. The Bible says Judas did what he did while under the direct
> control of Satan (invisible Deceiver). And Judas was an original
> Apostle, he saw his Master raise the dead. Your belief that you are a
> real Christian, is explained.
Please explain to Peter your idea of the Romans cloaking device where
God hides himself from people like Peter and myself who haven't made it
with him. I am not surprised that you would put Peter in the same
category as your pal Dana Tweedy. I suppose Peter's panspermy idea must
be a deception put into his head by...Satan!
--
*Hemidactylus*
Chief Pastor
United Church of Jesus Christ the Procrastinator
"He's suffering performance anxiety"
Will in New Haven
> Christian teachings.
>
>
>
> > Panspermia is a radical and insulting pro-Atheism denial of God's
> > existence.
>
> don't feel panspermia is a likely explanation, but why would it be
> "pro atheism" or "denial of God's existence"?
>
> > Like Judas, you are deluded, Peter. Judas thought that he
> > was following Christ when he kissed Him while betraying Him to His
> > enemies.
>
> Likewise Ray apparently thinks he's following Christ, yet his actions
> betray Christ's teaching daily.
>
> > The Bible says Judas did what he did while under the direct
> > control of Satan (invisible Deceiver).
>
> As apparently Ray doesn't know he being deceived as well......
>
> > And Judas was an original
> > Apostle, he saw his Master raise the dead. Your belief that you are a
> > real Christian, is explained.
>
> syndrome) Ray would imagine himself to be a "real Christian"?
Because it was part of the package that he bought from his life-guide
and mentor, the con-man Gene Scott. He has bought completely into
Christianity without mercy or forgiveness, a forumla for salvation and
hatred of the mind of man.
--
Will in New Haven
"Suckers got no business with their money" - Titanic Thompson
jillery
> I tried to start a new thread with this title just after Darwin went
> down, but apparently Darwin dropped it permanently. Anyway, the
> following reply to a post from the thread "The futility of intelligent
> design" is a good start for it.
I can use that as a precedent to apply to my own actions.
On Jan 19, 2:58 pm, pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
<snip to point>
> Yeah, you did the exact opposite thing "jillery" did when he refused
> to look at abiogenesis as an astronomically long sequence of steps.
I refused? I don't recall ever getting that opportunity, nevermind
responding to it. You're just trolling again.
Ray Martinez
Are we to believe that a man with a doctorate (John Harshman) actually
believes that belief in aliens as being responsible for biological
First Cause corresponds to "allegiance to Christianity"?
When I asked Peter the question (upthread) "who or what is the
director" he pointed to "a technological civilization that arose ca.
3.9 billion years ago" (Nyikos). He did not mention God. Since when do
Christians exclude God as a First Cause? Since when do Christians act
like Atheists? Do you not find it odd, John, that Peter Nyikos "the
Christian" is crusading for a pro-Atheism explanation of biogenesis?
When does his God effect reality? And why won't he say what you have
said? These facts can be used to support a claim that Peter is NOT a
real Christian, do you agree?
> Just because god
> is the creator, that doesn't mean he did everything personally.
What is the source for this idea?
> Oddly
> enough, yours is not the only form of theism in the world. And there is
> just as much evidence that all the other forms are true as there is for
> your preferred version. What is the litmus test for a true Scotsman?- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Suddenly Harshman is implying that evidence cannot exist contradicting
a claim of Christianity.
Litmus test for determining a real Christian:
1. Accepts, defends and promotes the Bible.
2. Disagrees with Atheists concerning the Bible.
3. Accepts theistic assumptions and presuppositions about reality.
Ray
John Harshman
No. We are to belief that such belief is compatible with allegiance to
Christianity. There are millions of Christians who aren't biblical
literalists. Now of course according to you they aren't True Scotsmen,
but they have remarkably little concern about your disapproval.
> When I asked Peter the question (upthread) "who or what is the
> director" he pointed to "a technological civilization that arose ca.
> 3.9 billion years ago" (Nyikos). He did not mention God. Since when do
> Christians exclude God as a First Cause?
Generally they don't, and neither did Peter. You will have to agree that
3.9 billion years ago is hardly the time we would expect a First Cause,
since it's a good 2/3 of the way since the beginning of the universe.
> Since when do Christians act
> like Atheists?
Christians often act like atheists. They eat, sleep, buy digital
watches, and vote for the Silly Party exactly like atheists.
> Do you not find it odd, John, that Peter Nyikos "the
> Christian" is crusading for a pro-Atheism explanation of biogenesis?
I would if indeed your premises were true, but they aren't. Your idea of
"pro-atheism" encompasses everything that doesn't match your extremely
peculiar views.
> When does his God effect reality?
The word is "affect". But I don't know the answer to that one.
> And why won't he say what you have
> said? These facts can be used to support a claim that Peter is NOT a
> real Christian, do you agree?
I don't, unless by "real Christian" you mean "True Scotsman according to
Ray", and of course he isn't a real Christian by that definition,
because he isn't you. You are the sole real Christian left in the world.
>> Just because god
>> is the creator, that doesn't mean he did everything personally.
>
> What is the source for this idea?
Historically, you mean? It predates Christianity, certainly. Not even
you propose that the creator does everything personally. He doesn't
individually design every snowflake, for example.
>> Oddly
>> enough, yours is not the only form of theism in the world. And there is
>> just as much evidence that all the other forms are true as there is for
>> your preferred version. What is the litmus test for a true Scotsman?
>
> Suddenly Harshman is implying that evidence cannot exist contradicting
> a claim of Christianity.
As usual, your reading comprehension skills are doing poorly. If I have
no apples and no oranges, do I not have just as many apples as oranges?
> Litmus test for determining a real Christian:
>
> 1. Accepts, defends and promotes the Bible.
>
> 2. Disagrees with Atheists concerning the Bible.
>
> 3. Accepts theistic assumptions and presuppositions about reality.
You are the only Christian left in the world. Is it lonely?
Ray Martinez
If a person was here claiming to be a Darwinist while "matter of
factly" admitting the racist nature of evolution you wouldn't remain
silent.
Peter Nyikos is here claiming to be a Christian while denying
biological First Cause as being caused by God. Shit, even Ken Miller
doesn't do that!
Christians always acknowledge God as the agent of First Cause; it's
not a matter of opinion. The inability of Darwinists to admit this
undisputed fact shows the degree of dishonesty that they are capable
of engaging. This is one reason why anti-evolutionism thrives. If you
guys cannot be honest concerning uncomplicated things that are not in
dispute, then you are perceived to be untrustworthy communicators
concerning complicated things, like evolution.
Short and simple: any Christian advocating panspermia (space aliens)
as the agent of First Cause, instead of God, the same becomes quality
evidence contradicting the claim of Christianity.
You are basically saying that Christians can believe ANYTHING and the
same says nothing about whether they are a Christian or not. Fucking
ridiculous. Suddenly, words are meaningless.
Ray
Ernest Major
<a05c9261-0d3d-47b3...@29g2000prb.googlegroups.com>, Ray
Martinez <pyram...@yahoo.com> writes
>On Jan 24, 5:39�pm, John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>> Ray Martinez wrote:
>> > On Jan 24, 3:22 pm, pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>> >> I tried to start a new thread with this title just after Darwin went
>> >> down, but apparently Darwin dropped it permanently. �Anyway, the
>> >> following reply to a post from the thread "The futility of intelligent
>> >> design" is a good start for it.
>>
>> >> On Jan 14, 12:53 pm, "Steven L." <sdlit...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>>
>> >>> "Dakota" <ma...@NOSPAMmail.com> wrote in message
>> >>>news:GcudnSdlEYu...@giganews.com:
>> >>>> On Tue 1/11/11 2:19, *Hemidactylus* wrote:
>> >>>>> On 01/10/2011 10:11 PM, pnyikos wrote:
>> >>>>>> On Jan 8, 12:53 pm, Mark Isaak<eci...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>> >>>>>>> On Fri, 07 Jan 2011 20:02:49 -0800, pnyikos wrote:
>> >>>>>>>> On Jan 6, 4:03 am, Ernest Major<{$t...@meden.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>> >>>>>>>>> In message
>> >>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>><11092cc9-3edd-40ef-9d92-a6ae56da0...@t35g2000yqj.googlegroups.com>,
>> >>>>>>>>> jillery<69jpi...@gmail.com> writes
>> >>>>>>>>>> From "Darwin's Black Box":
>> >>>>>>>>>> "Natural selection can only choose among systems that are already
>> >>>>>>>>>> working, so the existence in nature of irreducibly complex
>> >>>>>>>>>>
By that standard you're not a real Christian. (See your position on the
Epistle of James. I read that several of the Old Testament prophets are
also "pro-works".)
Also, your insistence that that Genesis has to be read literally is
hardly a pro-Bible position.
>
>2. Disagrees with Atheists concerning the Bible.
>
>3. Accepts theistic assumptions and presuppositions about reality.
>
>Ray
>
--
alias Ernest Major
Ray Martinez
> Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> writes
What verse(s) say that?
We then could only wonder why Darwinists reject the Bible?
Ray
> >2. Disagrees with Atheists concerning the Bible.
>
> >3. Accepts theistic assumptions and presuppositions about reality.
>
> >Ray
>
> --
> alias Ernest Major- Hide quoted text -
Ernest Major
<5ed23604-3bfc-48d4...@a28g2000prb.googlegroups.com>, Ray
Martinez <pyram...@yahoo.com> writes
>On Jan 25, 1:22 pm, Ernest Major <{$t...@meden.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>> In message
>> <a05c9261-0d3d-47b3-8222-1e45af596...@29g2000prb.googlegroups.com>, Ray
>> Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> writes
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> >On Jan 24, 5:39 pm, John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>> >> Ray Martinez wrote:
>> >> > On Jan 24, 3:22 pm, pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>> >> >> I tried to start a new thread with this title just after Darwin went
>> >> >> down, but apparently Darwin dropped it permanently. Anyway, the
>> >> >> following reply to a post from the thread "The futility of intelligent
>> >> >> design" is a good start for it.
>>
>> >> >> On Jan 14, 12:53 pm, "Steven L." <sdlit...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>>
>> >> >>> "Dakota" <ma...@NOSPAMmail.com> wrote in message
>> >> >>>news:GcudnSdlEYu...@giganews.com:
>> >> >>>> On Tue 1/11/11 2:19, *Hemidactylus* wrote:
>> >> >>>>> On 01/10/2011 10:11 PM, pnyikos wrote:
>> >> >>>>>> On Jan 8, 12:53 pm, Mark Isaak<eci...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>> >> >>>>>>> On Fri, 07 Jan 2011 20:02:49 -0800, pnyikos wrote:
>> >> >>>>>>>> On Jan 6, 4:03 am, Ernest Major<{$t...@meden.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>> >> >>>>>>>>> In message
>>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>><11092cc9-3edd-40ef-9d92-a6ae56da0...@t35g2000yqj.googlegroups.com>,
>> >> >>>>>>>>> jillery<69jpi...@gmail.com> writes
>> >> >>>>>>>>>> From "Darwin's Black Box":
>> >> >>>>>>>>>> "Natural selection can only choose among systems that
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>
>>
>> >> >>>>>>>>>> systems poses a powerful challenge to Darwinian theory. "
>> >> >>>>>>>>> That probably is an insufficiently bald statement for Professor
>> >> >>>>>>>>> Nyikos.
>> >> >>>>>>>> In fact, you and Jillery need to learn more about Behe's
>> >> >>>>>>>>
>> >> >>>>>> Your two cents' worth, give or take a couple of cents, is
>> >> >>>>>>
>> >> >>>>>> However, I do believe you are bankrupt and, what's more, no reader
>> >> >>>>>> will be able to make you solvent.
>> >> >>>>> Isaak has made a critical argument relevant to your panspermist
>> >> >>>>> hypothesis.
>> >> >> ...having no connection with his unsupported taunt above.
>>
>> >> >> [deletia to be addressed on another post to this thread]
>>
>> >> >>>> Perhaps they were developing gardens to provide a food source
>> >> >>>>
To the best of my knowledge no verses say that Genesis has to be read
literally.
>
>We then could only wonder why Darwinists reject the Bible?
>
>Ray
>
>
>> >2. Disagrees with Atheists concerning the Bible.
>>
>> >3. Accepts theistic assumptions and presuppositions about reality.
>>
>> >Ray
>>
>> --
>> alias Ernest Major- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
>
--
alias Ernest Major
Ray Martinez
Where does the "Origin" or any book say that?
Ray
haiku jones
I see. So it's only panspermists whom you have
ex-cathedra declared to be Not A Christian.
Odd, I have the strongest impression, from
reading more than a few posts, that you might
actually be the Last Real Christian standing.
(oh, who Who created these "space aliens"?
how about the Universe itself?)
Dana Tweedy
"Darwinists" largely don't care about the Bible in relation to
scientific concepts. The Bible is religious, not scientific. You
claim that they "reject" the Bible, when in fact they just reject your
own peculiar interpretation of it.
DJT
Dana Tweedy
> On Jan 24, 5:39�pm, John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>
> > > "Directed panspermy, Nyikos style"
>
> > > Who (or what) is the "director," Peter?
>
> > > (Remember: you claim allegiance to Christianity.)
>
> > > How can Peter produce an answer that is compatible with his alleged
> > > allegiance?
>
> > By claiming that the aliens were doing the will of god?
>
> Are we to believe that a man with a doctorate (John Harshman) actually
> believes that belief in aliens as being responsible for biological
> First Cause corresponds to "allegiance to Christianity"?
Why not, Ray? There are a lot of people claiming to be Christian who
believe things just as odd, including those who believe a silly thing
like the Great Pyramid being built by hyperintelligent Neanderthals
from Atlantis. Oh, and that about the eels....
>
> When I asked Peter the question (upthread) "who or what is the
> director" he pointed to "a technological civilization that arose ca.
> 3.9 billion years ago" (Nyikos).
Again, so? How is that any more silly than the idea that people in
Biblical times were "Hyper Intelligent", or that species pop into
existence without any physical mechanism?
> He did not mention God. Since when do
> Christians exclude God as a First Cause?
Apparently the aliens aren't the "first cause", but a later cause.
>Since when do Christians act
> like Atheists?
They always have. Of course, Ray, you don't know what atheists act
like, anyway. You simply assume anything you don't like is atheist.
>Do you not find it odd, John, that Peter Nyikos "the
> Christian" is crusading for a pro-Atheism explanation of biogenesis?
How is Dr. Nyikos' explanation 'pro atheism"? Just because it
doesn't fit your own peculiar beliefs doesn't make it "pro atheism".
> When does his God effect reality?
apparently whenever he wants to. Who are you, Ray to tell God when
he can and can't act?
>And why won't he say what you have
> said?
Because he's not John.
>These facts can be used to support a claim that Peter is NOT a
> real Christian, do you agree?
There's much more that indicates that Ray is not a "Real
Christian".
>
> > Just because god
> > is the creator, that doesn't mean he did everything personally.
>
> What is the source for this idea?
Why would it matter, Ray? Note that you have no "source" for your
own beliefs either.
>
> > Oddly
> > enough, yours is not the only form of theism in the world. And there is
> > just as much evidence that all the other forms are true as there is for
> > your preferred version. What is the litmus test for a true Scotsman?- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> Suddenly Harshman is implying that evidence cannot exist contradicting
> a claim of Christianity.
>
> Litmus test for determining a real Christian:
According to whom?
> 1. Accepts, defends and promotes the Bible.
ie, Ray's personal interpretation of the Bible... any other
interpretation apparently makes one an atheist...
>
> 2. Disagrees with Atheists concerning the Bible
Unless it's Ray, who agrees with some atheists about the Bible
requiring proof.
>
> 3. Accepts theistic assumptions and presuppositions about reality.
"Theistic assumptions and presuppositions" apparently means "Whatever
wacky thing Ray has crawling around in Ray's twisted psyche".
DJT
Dana Tweedy
Ray, Darwin's "Origin of Species" doesn't concern itself with the
Bible, or how one is to read the Bible. It only deals with scientific
evidence, and a theory which explains that evidence.
If you feel the Bible must be read literally, where is your own
"source" for this belief?
DJT
Dana Tweedy
> On Jan 24, 5:35 pm, Conan the bacterium
>
> > Incorrect. The "real question" is when and where
> > God put you in charge of declaring who is a Real
> > Christian and who is not.
>
> > conan
>
> If a person was here claiming to be a Darwinist while "matter of
> factly" admitting the racist nature of evolution you wouldn't remain
> silent.
There isn't any "racist nature" of evolution, Ray. You've been shown
why you are wrong over and over.
>
> Peter Nyikos is here claiming to be a Christian while denying
> biological First Cause as being caused by God. Shit, even Ken Miller
> doesn't do that!
I haven't seen Dr. Nyikos denying "biological first cause" was God.
He apparently thinks that "first cause" is much earlier than you seem
to think. You have misunderstood his position.
>
> Christians always acknowledge God as the agent of First Cause; it's
> not a matter of opinion.
Whenever Ray claims something is "not a matter of opinion", it's
always Ray's own, unsupported and bizarre opinion.
>The inability of Darwinists to admit this
> undisputed fact
Also, whenever Ray claims something is "undisputed fact" it's really a
highly disputed and frankly silly claim that Ray makes. Likewise
when he says something is "self evident", it means Ray can't support
it.
> shows the degree of dishonesty that they are capable
> of engaging.
Well, Ray is certainly engaging in either dishonesty, or just
incredible stupidity. (both is always an option) Nyikos isn't
claiming that God isn't the "first cause" but rather that there was an
intermediate "cause" in the form of an advanced civilization.
> This is one reason why anti-evolutionism thrives.
"Anti evolution" doesn't thrive when people are educated, and
reasonable. It only thrives on ignorance and religious fanaticism.
> If you
> guys cannot be honest concerning uncomplicated things that are not in
> dispute, then you are perceived to be untrustworthy communicators
> concerning complicated things, like evolution.
This is another one of Ray's stock phrases. Whenever Ray is really
wrong on something (as usual) he blames others as being dishonest,
rather than admitting he's made a silly mistake. Ray accuses
others of being "untrustworthy communicators" rather than admit to, or
even recognize the logical and factual mistakes he's made
>
> Short and simple: any Christian advocating panspermia (space aliens)
> as the agent of First Cause, instead of God, the same becomes quality
> evidence contradicting the claim of Christianity.
Ray, Nyikos isn't advocating "space aliens" as the first cause. He's
saying they are an intermediate cause. Your own shameful, and
hatefilled behavior indicates you are in no position to judge other's
Christianity.
>
> You are basically saying that Christians can believe ANYTHING and the
> same says nothing about whether they are a Christian or not.
Christians can believe a good number of things, and still be
Christians. One can't act the way you do, and still be considered a
follower of Christ.
> Fucking
> ridiculous. Suddenly, words are meaningless.
No, what's meaningless is your whining and jabbering. No one cares,
Ray if you don't approve of someone else's beliefs. You aren't
anyone's moral judge.
DJT
Ray Martinez
Answer is exemplary evidence supporting the fact that Dana Tweedy is
deluded.
Ray
> DJT- Hide quoted text -
Ray Martinez
>
> Ray, Darwin's "Origin of Species" doesn't concern itself with the
> Bible, or how one is to read the Bible. It only deals with scientific
> evidence, and a theory which explains that evidence.
>
> If you feel the Bible must be read literally, where is your own
> "source" for this belief?
>
>
> - Show quoted text -
You failed to answer the question.
Ray
Dana Tweedy
The question made no sense, and I pointed out why.
DJT
Dana Tweedy
Actually, Ray, it shows that you don't know anything about either
Christians, or atheists.
Christians and atheists act alike very often. They eat, sleep, pay
taxes, raise families. They have personal problems, argue, make up,
and forgive, and forget.
Christians and atheists have a great deal in common. It's only Ray's
delusion that tries to say they act differently
DJT
Ray Martinez
>
> - Show quoted text -
It is impossible for any person who is even mildly acquainted with the
issues in the Creation-ID v. Evolution debate to believe or be of the
opinion that a Christian could accept panspermia. The doctrine
explicitly presupposes the non-existence of God. It was popularized by
famed Atheist Francis Crick.
Peter Nyikos is horribly confused. For him come in here acting as if
the position is normal for Christians, and for certain Darwinists to
do the same, indicates delusion and/or dishonesty to be rampant.
Hemidactylus you are an unabashed Atheist. You very well understand,
whether you admit or not.
Ray
*Hemidactylus*
[snip]
> If a person was here claiming to be a Darwinist while "matter of
> factly" admitting the racist nature of evolution you wouldn't remain
> silent.
>
> Peter Nyikos is here claiming to be a Christian while denying
> biological First Cause as being caused by God. Shit, even Ken Miller
> doesn't do that!
Is it Christian to curse in public? I have been wondering. You drop an
f-bomb below.
> Christians always acknowledge God as the agent of First Cause; it's
> not a matter of opinion. The inability of Darwinists to admit this
> undisputed fact shows the degree of dishonesty that they are capable
> of engaging. This is one reason why anti-evolutionism thrives. If you
> guys cannot be honest concerning uncomplicated things that are not in
> dispute, then you are perceived to be untrustworthy communicators
> concerning complicated things, like evolution.
>
> Short and simple: any Christian advocating panspermia (space aliens)
> as the agent of First Cause, instead of God, the same becomes quality
> evidence contradicting the claim of Christianity.
Panspermia can be directed or undirected. Space aliens tends to conjure
the image of a sentient being not from Earth. Directed panspermy could
mean one or more of these sentient ET's seeded the Earth for some
reason. Yet it is possible an ingredient or two of life or life itself
arrived here on a space rock without intelligent agency involved.
> You are basically saying that Christians can believe ANYTHING and the
> same says nothing about whether they are a Christian or not. Fucking
> ridiculous. Suddenly, words are meaningless.
Unitarian Universalists are pretty goshdarn liberal, though they
probably don't drop f-bombs during services as a sign of adhering to a
commonly accepted social code. Are Unitarians true Christians in your
narrowly constrained worldview?
*Hemidactylus*
[snip]
> It is impossible for any person who is even mildly acquainted with the
> issues in the Creation-ID v. Evolution debate to believe or be of the
> opinion that a Christian could accept panspermia. The doctrine
> explicitly presupposes the non-existence of God. It was popularized by
> famed Atheist Francis Crick.
Christians can and have accepted evolution as a cause of life's
diversity. Why couldn't a Christian likewise accept panspermy if the
preponderance of scientific evidence tilted in that direction? Gould's
NOMA principle holds that the realms of science and religion can be held
separate. What Nyikos thinks he can argue for his pet hypothesis about
directed panseprmy could be held separate from his religious faith.
> Peter Nyikos is horribly confused. For him come in here acting as if
> the position is normal for Christians, and for certain Darwinists to
> do the same, indicates delusion and/or dishonesty to be rampant.
Nyikos has shown more empathy and compassion toward the memory of a
deceased t.o. regular than you by far. Maybe his faith leads him in this
direction, though faith is not necessary for one to have empathy and
compassion. Yet you lack these qualities. To me this shows you cannot be
a true Christian and definitely not humane. Your derision of Stephen
Hawking points to the same major shortfalling on your part.
> Hemidactylus you are an unabashed Atheist. You very well understand,
> whether you admit or not.
I understand that I have a much higher regard for Peter Nyikos than I do
for you. That means a lot coming from someone who posted here regularly
in the late 90's when you weren't here.
pnyikos
As opposed to the Romulans' cloaking device in Star Trek? :-)
> >where
> > God hides himself from people like Peter and myself who haven't made it
> > with him.
If Ray thinks God is NOT hiding himself from him, I'd sure like to see
his evidence.
> > I am not surprised that you would put Peter in the same
> > category as your pal Dana Tweedy. I suppose Peter's panspermy idea must
> > be a deception put into his head by...Satan!
> It is impossible for any person who is even mildly acquainted with the
> issues in the Creation-ID v. Evolution debate to believe or be of the
> opinion that a Christian could accept panspermia. The doctrine
> explicitly presupposes the non-existence of God.
Baloney. You are turning a blind eye to all that I have said to the
contrary.
>It was popularized by
> famed Atheist Francis Crick.
Is this the ONLY reason you think directed panspermy presupposes the
non-existence of God?????
I've seen *ad hominem* fallacies galore, but this one takes the cake,
if the answer is Yes.
> Peter Nyikos is horribly confused. For him come in here acting as if
> the position is normal for Christians,
Don't exaggerate. I say it is compatible with Christianity, and you
are in headlong flight from my reasoning for that, beginning with my
more detailed statements about a Noah-analogue. Shall I repeat them
for you here?
>and for certain Darwinists to
> do the same, indicates delusion and/or dishonesty to be rampant.
You and Ron O. are truly birds of a feather, even though you try to
prey on different life forms (all human, of course).
> Hemidactylus you are an unabashed Atheist. You very well understand,
> whether you admit or not.
He seems to have a pretty good understanding of what manner of man you
are. Do you?
Peter Nyikos
pnyikos
> On 01/25/2011 03:51 PM, Ray Martinez wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
> > If a person was here claiming to be a Darwinist while "matter of
> > factly" admitting the racist nature of evolution you wouldn't remain
> > silent.
>
> > Peter Nyikos is here claiming to be a Christian while denying
> > biological First Cause as being caused by God.
False. I maintain only that the biological first cause was on a
different planet, billions of years before it took place on Earth. I
take no official stand on what THAT first cause was.
>Shit, even Ken Miller
> > doesn't do that!
>
> Is it Christian to curse in public? I have been wondering. You drop an
> f-bomb below.
Strictly speaking, these words are merely obscene and vulgar, not real
cursing.
> > Christians always acknowledge God as the agent of First Cause; it's
> > not a matter of opinion. The inability of Darwinists to admit this
> > undisputed fact
It is disputed by many, though not by Christians *qua* Christians. I
don't actually dispute it, I merely keep an open mind about it.
> >shows the degree of dishonesty that they are capable
> > of engaging. This is one reason why anti-evolutionism thrives. If you
> > guys cannot be honest concerning uncomplicated things that are not in
> > dispute, then you are perceived to be untrustworthy communicators
> > concerning complicated things, like evolution.
>
> > Short and simple: any Christian advocating panspermia (space aliens)
> > as the agent of First Cause, instead of God, the same becomes quality
> > evidence contradicting the claim of Christianity.
>
> Panspermia can be directed or undirected. Space aliens tends to conjure
> the image of a sentient being not from Earth. Directed panspermy could
> mean one or more of these sentient ET's seeded the Earth for some
> reason. Yet it is possible an ingredient or two of life or life itself
> arrived here on a space rock without intelligent agency involved.
Those are indeed possibilities.
> > You are basically saying that Christians can believe ANYTHING and the
> > same says nothing about whether they are a Christian or not. Fucking
> > ridiculous. Suddenly, words are meaningless.
>
> Unitarian Universalists are pretty goshdarn liberal, though they
> probably don't drop f-bombs during services as a sign of adhering to a
> commonly accepted social code. Are Unitarians true Christians in your
> narrowly constrained worldview?
Actually, most of them aren't Christians in my worldview either,
because they have strayed way too far from their original roots. Even
back then, they denied the divinity of Christ, didn't they?
Peter Nyikos
Burkhard
Not necessarily. It is consistent with the idea that god created on a
another planet. Several creation myth do get very close to that notion
and have earth populated by beings created originally in outer space.
It is more debatable if you can reconcile it with the specific Christian
god - but then Genesis does not really say where creation took place, so
that would leave some wiggle room should we find that we were indeed
colonised form elsewhere.
Earle Jones
<a05c9261-0d3d-47b3...@29g2000prb.googlegroups.com>,
Ray Martinez <pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote:
*
Absurd!
The Litmus test for determining a Christian is this:
He believes in the divinity of Jesus Christ.
More elaborately, he believes in the Nicene Creed (Apostles' Creed):
1. I believe in God, the Father almighty, creator of heaven and earth.
2. I believe in Jesus Christ, his only Son, our Lord.
3. He was conceived by the power of the Holy Spirit and born of the
Virgin Mary.
4. He suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, died, and was buried.
5. He descended to the dead. On the third day he rose again.
6. He ascended into heaven and is seated at the right hand of the Father.
7. He will come again to judge the living and the dead.
8. I believe in the Holy Spirit,
9. the holy catholic Church, the communion of saints,
10. the forgiveness of sins,
11. the resurrection of the body,
12. and life everlasting.
(There are many versions of this, going back to the First Council of
Nicea (325), but the substance is the same.)
Your high-school approach "disagrees with atheists and promotes the
Bible" is juvenile and self-serving.
If a person claims to be a Christian, he is saying that he believes in
the divinity of Jesus Christ. How can one argue with him? By claiming,
"No you do not believe that!" ??
If he claims to be a Christian, he is a Christian.
It is clear, Ray, that you have no idea what a Christian is.
earle
*
Earle Jones
<a05c9261-0d3d-47b3...@29g2000prb.googlegroups.com>,
Ray Martinez <pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote:
*
Ray: Your "Christianity" is defined by your beliefs:
1. Accepts, defends and promotes the Bible.
2. Disagrees with Atheists concerning the Bible.
3. Accepts theistic assumptions and presuppositions about reality.
What about these beliefs:
Do you believe in the divinity of Jesus Christ?
Do you believe that he is the only son of God?
Do you believe that he suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified,
dead and buried and on the third day arose from the dead?
Do you believe that he will come back to judge the quick and the dead?
Do you believe:
....in the Holy Spirit, the holy catholic Church, the communion of
saints, the forgiveness of sins, the resurrection of the body, and life
everlasting??
Or are you a Christian because you "disagree with atheists?" and
"promote the bible?"
Ray, I don't think you are a Christian.
By the way, in your opinion, are there **ANY** other Christians that
post here?
earle
*
Dakota
Now I'm damned for sure. There are two litmus tests. If I accept the
wrong litmus test, I'll burn in hell for eternity. But, how can I know
which is the True® litmus test.
John S. Wilkins
> On Thu 1/27/11 0:26, Earle Jones wrote:
...
Well it's pretty basic. Just avoid an acid response. And get a PhD.
--
John S. Wilkins, Associate, Philosophy, University of Sydney
http://evolvingthoughts.net
But al be that he was a philosophre,
Yet hadde he but litel gold in cofre
Dakota
I find it odd that a person who claims to have a PhD. would not
recognize the dilemma I posed. Let me attempt to restate it more clearly
for you.
If given two strips of what is said to be litmus paper by two
untrustworthy sources, and, without a known True®) strip of litmus paper
to test those two against, how could a person determine which of the two
unknown paper strips are actual litmus paper if their test results don't
agree? How, indeed, could a person determine if either were actual
litmus paper whether they agreed or not? Both test results could be false.
Lacking a PhD., I earnestly await your learned response.
John S. Wilkins
So far as I can tell, you can't. But I'm only a philosopher. Perhaps
there is some other assay that you can use.
pnyikos
> On Thu 1/27/11 0:26, Earle Jones wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > In article
> > � Ray Martinez<pyramid...@yahoo.com> �wrote:
According to the dogma of the Roman Catholic Church, you do not have
to adhere to either version to be saved; it is far more important to
avoid doing evil. The last two Popes have emphasized that devotees of
other religions like Islam can sincerely seek the ultimate truth and
serve God in their own way.
You also see an allegorical treatment of this is C. S. Lewis's closing
book of the Narnia series, _The Last Battle_, when Aslan tells a
follower of the Ahriman-analogue Tash that since he was a good man,
all service by him to Tash was counted as service to him, Aslan.
[Ahriman is the evil God of Zoroastrianism, in eternal conflict with
the good God Ahura-Mazda.]
Peter Nyikos
deadrat
Could you provide evidence for this claim?
My understanding -- which as meager as it is, may well be wrong -- is
that the (required) faith in Christ that results in salvation cannot be
present without its bringing a change to the life of the faithful, a
life that will necessarily include good works. In other words, one
necessary result of the saving grace is good works. The absence of good
works is a sign at most of a deluded faith, self-professed and perhaps
deeply felt, but dead and inoperative.
<snip/>
>
> Peter Nyikos
>
>
Nick Keighley
> On Jan 24, 4:50 pm, pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > I am supporting the hypothesis that the "director" is a technological
> > civilization that arose ca. 3.9 billion years ago. You obviously
> > support the alternative hypothesis that it was God (through the Word
> > which much later became flesh, no?) working directlly instead of
> > through such an intelligent species, which in turn would have been of
> > God's design.
>
> > But we've been through this on the "parent" thread already. I've been
> > trying to convince you that my hypothesis is fully compatible with
> > Christianity, and AFAIK the ball is in your court. You never really
> > addressed my more detailed statements about a possible Noah-analogue,
> > did you?
>
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> answer that is compatible with his alleged allegiance to Christianity.
what I like about Ray is that he speeds upny reading of TO. Pretty
much by default I skip all subthreads that Ray heads. Once in a while
a sample toone to see if I'm missing anything.
This time obviously not.
> With this said, the real question is: why does Peter think of himself
> as a real Christian?
>
> Panspermia is a radical and insulting pro-Atheism denial of God's
> existence. Like Judas, you are deluded, Peter. Judas thought that he
> was following Christ when he kissed Him while betraying Him to His
> enemies. The Bible says Judas did what he did while under the direct
> control of Satan (invisible Deceiver). And Judas was an original
> Apostle, he saw his Master raise the dead. Your belief that you are a
> real Christian, is explained.
>
> Ray- Hide quoted text -
Nick Keighley
> In article
> <a05c9261-0d3d-47b3-8222-1e45af596...@29g2000prb.googlegroups.com>,
Wikipedia (that font of all knowledge). Has a shorter version that
they claimis version 325. It omits a few of the more controversila
bits. Eg. the virgin mary,bodily reserection and the holy catholic
church. Your version rules out quite a few people I'd call
christians.
> Your high-school approach "disagrees with atheists and promotes the
> Bible" is juvenile and self-serving.
>
> If a person claims to be a Christian, he is saying that he believes in
> the divinity of Jesus Christ. �How can one argue with him? �By claiming,
> "No you do not believe that!" �??
>
> If he claims to be a Christian, he is a Christian.
>
> It is clear, Ray, that you have no idea what a Christian is.
"I believe in being nice to people and all that, just not in that God
business"
Convent Girl
Earle Jones
<26b2fd18-c143-485a...@a8g2000pri.googlegroups.com>,
pnyikos <nyi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
[...]
>
> According to the dogma of the Roman Catholic Church, you do not have
> to adhere to either version to be saved; it is far more important to
> avoid doing evil. The last two Popes have emphasized that devotees of
> other religions like Islam can sincerely seek the ultimate truth and
> serve God in their own way.
>
> You also see an allegorical treatment of this is C. S. Lewis's closing
> book of the Narnia series, _The Last Battle_, when Aslan tells a
> follower of the Ahriman-analogue Tash that since he was a good man,
> all service by him to Tash was counted as service to him, Aslan.
>
> [Ahriman is the evil God of Zoroastrianism, in eternal conflict with
> the good God Ahura-Mazda.]
>
> Peter Nyikos
Peter:
The Christian God said it this way:
Matthew 25:40
And the King shall answer and say unto them, Verily I say unto you,
Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren,
ye have done it unto me.
This has been interpreted in different ways. I was taught (70 years
ago!) that it meant that giving to the poor was the same as giving to
God.
Falwell (and his ilk) took this approach: Giving to our church is the
same as giving to God.
earle
*
Earle Jones
<14a4b4c1-4ce2-4513...@p11g2000vbq.googlegroups.com>,
Nick Keighley <nick_keigh...@hotmail.com> wrote:
*
CG: I was just parroting back something I was forced to learn at the
age of about eight. I repeated it faithfully every Sunday for quite a
few years. (Before I was "saved".)
earle
*
Earle Jones
deadrat <a...@b.com> wrote:
*
Then what about people (like me) who do good works all of their lives
but have no faith whatsoever in any "God"?
earle
*
jillery
> In article <zMWdnQyc7tvWPd7QnZ2dnUVZ5uudn...@giganews.com>,
You are going to double-damned Hell. I'll meet you when you get
there :)
Earle Jones
<a51a8967-a05d-4397...@e21g2000yqe.googlegroups.com>,
jillery <69jp...@gmail.com> wrote:
*
Seeya there! I'll be the tall guy with the glasses and the Stanford
baseball hat.
earle
*
jillery
<snip to point>
> > > Then what about people (like me) who do good works all of their lives
> > > but have no faith whatsoever in any "God"?
>
> > > earle
>
> > You are going to double-damned Hell. �I'll meet you when you get
> > there :)
>
> *
> Seeya there! �I'll be the tall guy with the glasses and the Stanford
> baseball hat.
I look forward to it. My only concern is you will get there before me.