A Beauty by Steven J.
Ray Martinez
CONTEXT:
The obvious myriad number of definitions of Natural Selection.
Ray Martinez, previously:
There is no mechanism. The diversity and complexity of nature is
responsible for the inability to produce a cohesive description of one
of ToE's main claims, and we now know complexity is the prediction and
m.o. of the Divine = God has covertly confounded your own ranks which
supports the prediction.
Steven J, responds:
Take fewer drugs, take weaker drugs, and take them less often.
Ray Martinez:
IOW, Steven has no response = proof of validity of point.
Steven insulted = inability to refute.
Dana Tweedy
"Ray Martinez" <pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1114564148.1...@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
So, Ray. Did you take Steven's advice?
DJT
>
Steven J.
"Ray Martinez" <pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1114564148.1...@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
>
> Steven insulted = inability to refute.
>
>
-- Steven J.
Ian
By reading what he wrote, it's fair to say: "No."
-Ian
snex
pick the weakest (or in this case, a joke) response and harp on it
while ignoring the others. why dont you link us to the original thread
so we can see the other responses you ignored?
do you think lying will win people over to christ? if not, why do you
do it, and why are you here at all?
Pip R. Lagenta
Vinaigrette would cover it.
--
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.)
Eros
That's just illogical childish nonsense, Ray. What on earth makes you
think that no response, or derision, or even an outright insult makes
what you said any more valid? Any rational person can see that your
claim is just a baseless religious assertion, which you have never once
supported by any scientific evidence.
If you want people to respect you views, you have to come up with the
scientific evidence to back your claim up. Otherwise it's no more
authorative than the guy down the street, who believes that the
complexity in nature is due to a complicated brain fart by the great
Bugblatter Beast of Traal.
EROS.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
" 'Sir,' I said to the universe, 'I exist.' 'That,' said the universe,
'creates no sense of obligation in me whatsoever.' " -- Douglas Adams.
Ray Martinez
That's just illogical childish nonsense, Ray. What on earth makes you
think that no response, or derision, or even an outright insult makes
what you said any more valid? Any rational person can see that your
claim is just a baseless religious assertion, which you have never once
supported by any scientific evidence.
If you want people to respect you views, you have to come up with the
scientific evidence to back your claim up. Otherwise it's no more
authorative than the guy down the street, who believes that the
complexity in nature is due to a complicated brain fart by the great
Bugblatter Beast of Traal.
Ray Martinez:
Content above assumes evidence is invalid and insults = predictible
Darwinian treatment of evidence.
Evasion of evidence via asserting it not evidence.
The necessary universal tactic of Darwinists.
RM
snex
> SNEX:
>
> do you think lying will win people over to christ? if not, why do you
> do it, and why are you here at all?
>
>
> Atheist rant.
>
> Show a lie or rescind NOW.
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/talk.origins/messages/82ba6c212945ab35
"There is no objective definition of NS anywhere to be found."
"NS predicts nothing but claims it does."
"NS is 20/20 hindsight describing from individual perspective that
which
already is."
"IOW, Darwinists study nature, then relay what they see, and then claim
they predicted it and call it science."
four lies in the same post. wanna go for more?
>
> Your vain belief in your self-importance assumes I am here to win you
> to Christ.
>
> I am here to inform you that intellectuality is not the cause for the
> rejection of the Bible or its Deity.
yeah we can *obviously* see that from the example you set.
>
> The Bible says God disables your ability to see the obviousness of ID
> in response to deliberately not crediting Him AS the Creator.
circular logic.
>
> This means the "evidence" for hominid evolution is as it is: Scant
and
> highly subjective and philosophically presuppositional.
lets officially debate it then. im ready whenever you are.
>
> At any rate, here is the link:
>
> http://groups-beta.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/f94ae9705c45a7f0
Bobby D. Bryant
It sounded drug-free until he got to the "and we now know" part.
--
Bobby Bryant
Austin, Texas
Bobby D. Bryant
> The Bible says God disables your ability to see the obviousness of ID
> in response to deliberately not crediting Him AS the Creator.
Kind of like circular reasoning, except you go around it backwards.
catshark
>
>Ray Martinez wrote:
>> NATURAL SELECTION EXCHANGE:
>>
>> CONTEXT:
>>
>> The obvious myriad number of definitions of Natural Selection.
>>
>> Ray Martinez, previously:
>>
>> There is no mechanism. The diversity and complexity of nature is
>> responsible for the inability to produce a cohesive description of
>one
>> of ToE's main claims, and we now know complexity is the prediction
>and
>> m.o. of the Divine = God has covertly confounded your own ranks which
>> supports the prediction.
>>
>>
>>
>> Steven J, responds:
>>
>> Take fewer drugs, take weaker drugs, and take them less often.
>>
>> Ray Martinez:
>>
>> IOW, Steven has no response = proof of validity of point.
>>
>> Steven insulted = inability to refute.
>
>pick the weakest (or in this case, a joke) response and harp on it
<cough>
For those who would like to see the "weakest response", go here:
<http://groups-beta.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/f94ae9705c45a7f0?hl=en>
Ray is about as good at judging the nature of the responses he gets as he
is at understanding evolutionary theory.
>while ignoring the others. why dont you link us to the original thread
>so we can see the other responses you ignored?
>
>do you think lying will win people over to christ? if not, why do you
>do it, and why are you here at all?
--
---------------
J. Pieret
---------------
Those who reject biological evolution do so, usually,
not out of reason, but out of unjustified vanity.
- Isaac Asimov -
snex
yeah i noticed that after ray posted the link. ray isnt even above
taking a good response and snipping everything but its weakest parts.
Steve
<snipped>
> The Bible says God disables your ability to see the obviousness of ID
> in response to deliberately not crediting Him AS the Creator.
So do i understand that above means - if you accept god as creator then you
can see the evidence that he is the creator - but if you dont accept god as
the creator .. then you cant see the evidence that he is the creator..
Thats.....very..... ummm ..... interesting.... <stepping back slowly>
>
> This means the "evidence" for hominid evolution is as it is: Scant and
> highly subjective and philosophically presuppositional.
>
> At any rate, here is the link:
>
> http://groups-beta.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/f94ae9705c45a7f0
>
>
----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
Mark VandeWettering
> EROS:
>
> That's just illogical childish nonsense, Ray. What on earth makes you
> think that no response, or derision, or even an outright insult makes
> what you said any more valid? Any rational person can see that your
> claim is just a baseless religious assertion, which you have never once
>
> supported by any scientific evidence.
>
> If you want people to respect you views, you have to come up with the
> scientific evidence to back your claim up. Otherwise it's no more
> authorative than the guy down the street, who believes that the
> complexity in nature is due to a complicated brain fart by the great
> Bugblatter Beast of Traal.
>
> Ray Martinez:
>
> Content above assumes evidence is invalid and insults = predictible
> Darwinian treatment of evidence.
Whether it assumes or not, the "evidence" that you presented does happen
to be invalid.
> Evasion of evidence via asserting it not evidence.
Assertions are either true or false. The assertion that you've presented
no valid evidence is true, even if it is unsupported.
> The necessary universal tactic of Darwinists.
This would be a stronger argument if you didn't rely on even weaker tactics.
Mark
> RM
Eros
Ray Martinez wrote:
> EROS:
>
> That's just illogical childish nonsense, Ray. What on earth makes you
> think that no response, or derision, or even an outright insult makes
> what you said any more valid? Any rational person can see that your
> claim is just a baseless religious assertion, which you have never
once
>
> supported by any scientific evidence.
>
> If you want people to respect you views, you have to come up with the
> scientific evidence to back your claim up. Otherwise it's no more
> authorative than the guy down the street, who believes that the
> complexity in nature is due to a complicated brain fart by the great
> Bugblatter Beast of Traal.
>
> Ray Martinez:
>
> Content above assumes evidence is invalid and insults = predictible
> Darwinian treatment of evidence.
Could we have that again, in comprehensible English this time, please
Ray?
> Evasion of evidence via asserting it not evidence.
Yet that is EXACTLY what you and other Creationists do, Ray... go
figure!
AiG and the ICR freely admit that they are forced to 'explain away' the
scientific evidence. In fact, they've turned evasion and obfuscation
into a profession. They don't deal in evidence, they deal in
apologetics.
> The necessary universal tactic of Darwinists.
I take it by "Darwinists" you mean, "those who accept evolution as a
viable scientific theory". If so, then the tactic most commonly used by
such people is to use rational, logical assessment of the evidence to
come to the conclusion that evolution is the most likely scientific
explanation for the earth's biodiversity.
The only things "necessary" to do this are logic, rationality and an
open mind... three things that Creationists invariably lack.
EROS.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Religions vary in their degree of idiocy, but I reject them all. For
most people, religion is nothing more than a substitute for a
malfunctioning brain. We must question the story logic of having an
all-knowing all-powerful God, who creates faulty humans, and then
blames them for his own mistakes." -- Eugene Wesley Roddenberry
Pithecanthropus Erectus
So, that would make it counter-clockwise circular reasoning.
--
"The pope should lift the ban on condoms immediately in order to err on
the side of life."
Catholics for Free Choice
John Wilkins
[Sorry, I'm just out of three hours lecturing and tutoring... you guys
cop it.]
--
John S. Wilkins, Postdoctoral Research Fellow, Biohumanities Project
University of Queensland - Blog: evolvethought.blogspot.com
"Darwin's theory has no more to do with philosophy than any other
hypothesis in natural science." Tractatus 4.1122
Dan Luke
Question for the group:
Where would you place Ray on the McCoy Looniness Scale (McNameless
Himself being a 10 of 10)?
I give him about an 8.3; above Sean Pitman but below Ed Conrad. Anybody
think he can break 9?
--
Dan
"How can an idiot be a policeman? Answer me that!"
- Chief Inspector Dreyfus
AC
Dan Luke <c17...@pantsbellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> Question for the group:
>
> Where would you place Ray on the McCoy Looniness Scale (McNameless
> Himself being a 10 of 10)?
>
> I give him about an 8.3; above Sean Pitman but below Ed Conrad. Anybody
> think he can break 9?
I'm sure if he tries really hard, an Average Joe rating of 11.8 on the MLS
is within grasp.
unrestra...@hotmail.com
Pithecanthropus Erectus wrote:
> Bobby D. Bryant wrote:
> > On Wed, 27 Apr 2005, "Ray Martinez" <pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> >>The Bible says God disables your ability to see the obviousness of
ID
> >>in response to deliberately not crediting Him AS the Creator.
> >
> >
> > Kind of like circular reasoning, except you go around it backwards.
> >
>
> So, that would make it counter-clockwise circular reasoning.
>
The widdershins path to wisdom!
>
> --
> "The pope should lift the ban on condoms immediately in order to err
on
> the side of life."
>
Kermit
> Catholics for Free Choice
shane
> Question for the group:
>
> Where would you place Ray on the McCoy Looniness Scale (McNameless
> Himself being a 10 of 10)?
>
> I give him about an 8.3; above Sean Pitman but below Ed Conrad. Anybody
> think he can break 9?
>
there somewhere, so i suggest that the scale be logarithmic to give us
more room at the loony end.
--
shane
Ray Martinez
lets officially debate it then. im ready whenever you are.
RAY MARTINEZ:
Then address that which you and Steven and the rest of the gang are
desparately trying to avoid:
The inability for Darwinists to produce a universal and cohesive
definition of NS is caused by the awesome complexity of nature.
Complexity = prediction of IDer.
Loosely, this is evidence of God.
You can play ball, evade, hand-wave, or continue to insult, and we know
what the latter means.
Ray M.
AC
Why wouldn't simplicity also be evidence of God?
Ray Martinez
DAN LUKE:
Where would you place Ray on the McCoy Looniness Scale (McNameless
Himself being a 10 of 10)?
I give him about an 8.3; above Sean Pitman but below Ed Conrad.
Anybody
think he can break 9?
RAY MARTINEZ:
You forgot Jesus Christ.
His relatives thought He was crazy. The Pharisees said He had a demon.
Looks like I am in good company - you guys just proved the Bible and
didn't even know it.
Insults from persons who think man evolved from an ape ? = compliment -
your approval would of supported my wrongness.
Ray M.
snex
complexity is not evidence of a designer when its negation is equally
compatible with a designer.
i dont understand why you cant understand what "natural selection"
means. it is really rather simple. natural selection is the genetic
variance over time of a population, due to differences in reproductive
rates. this definition is objective, testable (and verified), cohesive,
and universal.
in fact, you creationists supposedly accept natural selection. your
only problem is that it only operates "within kinds," whatever that
means. when are creationists going to give us a universal, cohesive,
objective definition of "kind," and why do they rail against natural
selection when it suits them while agreeing with it elsewhere when it
suits them for different reasons?
snex
one would have to demonstrate that jesus actually existed before we
could assign him a mccoy index.
Steven J.
> SNEX:
>
> lets officially debate it then. im ready whenever you are.
>
> RAY MARTINEZ:
>
> Then address that which you and Steven and the rest of the gang are
> desparately trying to avoid:
>
> The inability for Darwinists to produce a universal and cohesive
> definition of NS is caused by the awesome complexity of nature.
>
differently-worded (yet interchangeable in meaning) definitions of "natural
selection"). You, in turn, have been so eager for debate that you have not
examined, challenged, or even acknowledged any of these definitions, nor
tried to show that any of them contradict any other of them, nor tried to
show that any of them is not "universal or cohesive."
>
> Complexity = prediction of IDer.
>
then complex?" That implies, of course, "if simple, not designed by God" --
that God cannot or will not design anything simple. Of course, I suppose
we'd have to argue over definitions of "simple" and "complex" before we
decide that, e.g. atoms could not be designed by God.
Human intelligent designers routinely try to make designs as simple as they
can be and still perform their functions. They resort to complex designs
only when they can't think of any simpler way to accomplish something.
Complexity is a way of achieving goals without being omnipotent or
omniscient.
I think what you mean is that complexity is *not* a prediction of
evolutionary theory, using the standard creationist ploy of pretending that
"anything inconsistent with 'evolution' must be a prediction of
creationism." But of course genetic algorithms, used in developing both
electronic circuits and computer programs, quite routinely generate
indecipherably complex systems. Behe's so-called "irreducible complexity"
is quite achieveable by modifying components (so that they specialize in
function) as new components are added, and/or eliminating redunant
components (rather than simply adding new ones), and/or gradually aquiring
abilities that are useful but less essential that they will be in
descendants.
>
> Loosely, this is evidence of God.
>
Aside from the fact that it is not even evidence for a designer, there is a
difference between an "intelligent designer" (something, or someone, to
stuff the gaps in testable explanations of phenomena, if you think that
helps), and "God" (Who really isn't supposed to be stuffed into gaps). Even
if you could establish the existence of an Intelligent Designer, this would
provide exactly zero evidence that that Designer has any interest in our
welfare or behavior, or has revealed Himself to us (much less that the Bible
is His revelation). Nor, conversely, does belief in the biblical God (Who
is capable of acting through the natural mechanisms He has created) imply
acceptance of ID or creationism.
>
> You can play ball, evade, hand-wave, or continue to insult, and we know
> what the latter means.
>
Alas, we insult you because that's the only thing we're sure that you
actually do know the meaning of.
>
> Ray M.
>
-- Steven J.
Tom McDonald
> Question for the group:
>
> DAN LUKE:
>
> Where would you place Ray on the McCoy Looniness Scale (McNameless
> Himself being a 10 of 10)?
>
>
> I give him about an 8.3; above Sean Pitman but below Ed Conrad.
> Anybody
> think he can break 9?
>
> RAY MARTINEZ:
>
> You forgot Jesus Christ.
>
> His relatives thought He was crazy. The Pharisees said He had a demon.
>
> Looks like I am in good company - you guys just proved the Bible and
> didn't even know it.
Pretty much everyone thought Dahmer was crazy. So that means you
are a homosexual cannibal and a murderer.
'They laughed at Galileo; they laughed at Copernicus; they
laughed at Einstein.'
'They also laughed at Bozo the Clown.'
>
> Insults from persons who think man evolved from an ape ? = compliment -
> your approval would of supported my wrongness.
Oh, dear. Ray, your wrongness is self-supporting.
--
Tom McDonald
http://ahwhatdoiknow.blogspot.com/
Bobby D. Bryant
> Complexity = prediction of IDer.
ID doesn't actually _predict_ anything at all, AFAIK. Rather, they
offer a post hoc pseudoscientific existence proof.
> Loosely, this is evidence of God.
Why so? Wouldn't simplicity be a better evidence for God? E.g., if
we were made of solid gold or ectoplasm or something, rather than a
big complicated and trouble-prone collection of small parts operating
under natural processes?
The problem with "evidence for God" as that there isn't any Theory of God
(ToG) that you can derive predictions from. Anything you observe is
compatible with the notion of an omni*ent being who acts on whims not
comprehensible to observers.
Bobby D. Bryant
> Question for the group:
>
> Where would you place Ray on the McCoy Looniness Scale (McNameless
> Himself being a 10 of 10)?
>
> I give him about an 8.3; above Sean Pitman but below Ed Conrad. Anybody
> think he can break 9?
Surely Ed is the benchmark for Looniness? Nameless should be the
benchmark for contrariness or arcual gullibility or the like.
Bobby D. Bryant
> You forgot Jesus Christ.
>
> His relatives thought He was crazy.
Which relatives were those?
> Looks like I am in good company - you guys just proved the Bible and
> didn't even know it.
Huh???
scooter
Ray Martinez wrote:
> SNEX:
>
> lets officially debate it then. im ready whenever you are.
>
> RAY MARTINEZ:
>
> Then address that which you and Steven and the rest of the gang are
> desparately trying to avoid:
>
> The inability for Darwinists to produce a universal and cohesive
> definition of NS is caused by the awesome complexity of nature.
The inability for you to accept the already verified science= you have
been brainwashed by the social dynamics of discipline.
>
> Complexity = prediction of IDer.
complexity = complexity. It is incapable of "predicting" anything.
>
> Loosely, this is evidence of God.
I would say "loosely" is a monumental understatement. I was thinking
more like completely unrelated.
catshark
<sjt195...@nts.link.net.INVALID> wrote:
[...]
>> You can play ball, evade, hand-wave, or continue to insult, and we know
>> what the latter means.
>>
>Alas, we insult you because that's the only thing we're sure that you
>actually do know the meaning of.
Chez . . .
--
---------------
J. Pieret
---------------
In the name of the bee
And of the butterfly
And of the breeze, amen
- Emily Dickinson -
Dan Luke
"Bobby D. Bryant" wrote:
>
> Surely Ed is the benchmark for Looniness? Nameless should be the
> benchmark for contrariness or arcual gullibility or the like.
Naw, best I can give Ed is a 9.8.
McCoy's utter vulnerability to the most prepostrerous modern biblical
hoaxes and hogwash, and the fact that he thinks of himself as a prophet
to the lost souls on usenet make him the king for me. And he actually
argues, where Ed merely asserts. We get see the workings--well,
malfunctionings--of his mind as he tries to commit actual thought, an
appalling spectacle. For me, Nameless is the standard.
--
Dan
"These are exciting times for the Iraqi people!"
- George W. Bush
Dan Luke
"Ray Martinez" wrote:
> Looks like I am in good company
If you call your fellow wackos good company, yes.
> - you guys just proved the Bible and
> didn't even know it.
Keep working, Ray. Lines like that may get you that "9" yet.
> Insults from persons who think man evolved from an ape ? =
> compliment -
> your approval would of supported my wrongness.
Ok, that's just plain goofy. What about it, folks; should we count that
one?
--
Dan
"Did you just have a stroke and not tell me?"
- Jiminy Glick
Dan Luke
"shane"wrote:
> As always these ratings are difficult. You have to fit George Hammond
> in
> there somewhere, so i suggest that the scale be logarithmic to give us
> more room at the loony end.
A great idea. Most of the ones I'm thinking of are jammed near the top.
But if we had a log. scale, that brings up the question of who would be
around the bottom. Who are the 1s and 2s?
Say, I might even try for a 1 myself, kinda like a Cub Scout merit
badge! Maybe I could convince myself Jimmy Hoffa's still alive or
something.
Stan Gosnell
news:1170kp5...@news.supernews.com:
>> Insults from persons who think man evolved from an ape ? =
>> compliment -
>> your approval would of supported my wrongness.
>
> Ok, that's just plain goofy. What about it, folks; should we count
> that one?
I don't know. It doesn't parse at all, so I have no idea what to do with
it.
--
Regards,
Stan
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary
safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." B. Franklin
catshark
>"Dan Luke" <c17...@pantsbellsouth.net> wrote in
>news:1170kp5...@news.supernews.com:
>
>>> Insults from persons who think man evolved from an ape ? =
>>> compliment -
>>> your approval would of supported my wrongness.
>>
>> Ok, that's just plain goofy. What about it, folks; should we count
>> that one?
>
>I don't know. It doesn't parse at all, so I have no idea what to do with
>it.
Attempting translation from Rayese:
"Being insulted by an evolutionist is a compliment; if you approved of what
I said, that would have been evidence I was wrong."
--
---------------
J. Pieret
---------------
Those who reject biological evolution do so, usually,
not out of reason, but out of unjustified vanity.
- Isaac Asimov -
Hiero5ant
"Pip R. Lagenta" <morbiu...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:7but61tl221biivki...@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 26 Apr 2005 21:18:13 -0500, "Steven J."
> <sjt195...@nts.link.net.INVALID> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Ray Martinez" <pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>> NATURAL SELECTION EXCHANGE:
>>>
>>> CONTEXT:
>>>
>>> The obvious myriad number of definitions of Natural Selection.
>>>
>>> Ray Martinez, previously:
>>>
>>> There is no mechanism. The diversity and complexity of nature is
>>> responsible for the inability to produce a cohesive description of one
>>> of ToE's main claims, and we now know complexity is the prediction and
>>> m.o. of the Divine = God has covertly confounded your own ranks which
>>> supports the prediction.
>>>
>>> Steven J, responds:
>>>
>>> Take fewer drugs, take weaker drugs, and take them less often.
>>>
>>> Ray Martinez:
>>>
>>> IOW, Steven has no response = proof of validity of point.
>>>
>>I had a response. I did not realize that you had a point.
>>>
>>> Steven insulted = inability to refute.
>>>
>>How does one refute word salad?
>
There's no point in dressing up an argument like that.
Dana Tweedy
"Hiero5ant" <vze4...@verizon.com> wrote in message
news:aS6ce.4676$jS6.3972@trndny06...
snipping
>>>How does one refute word salad?
>>
>> Vinaigrette would cover it.
>
> There's no point in dressing up an argument like that.
Might as well sell the Ranch for a Thousand Islands
DJT
>
Wakboth
Ray Martinez wrote:
> Question for the group:
>
> DAN LUKE:
>
> Where would you place Ray on the McCoy Looniness Scale (McNameless
> Himself being a 10 of 10)?
>
>
> I give him about an 8.3; above Sean Pitman but below Ed Conrad.
> Anybody
> think he can break 9?
>
> RAY MARTINEZ:
>
> You forgot Jesus Christ.
>
> His relatives thought He was crazy. The Pharisees said He had a
demon.
>
> Looks like I am in good company - you guys just proved the Bible and
> didn't even know it.
Do you _really_ have the sheer unmitigated gall to compare yourself to
Christ?
> Insults from persons who think man evolved from an ape = compliment -
>From ape-like precursor. We are apes; big-brained, naked apes, but apes
nevertheless.
> your approval would of supported my wrongness.
So... if we agree with you, it must mean that you're wrong?
Okay, Ray: the literal reading of Genesis obviously proves that the
world is six thousand years old, there was a Noachian deluge, and the
sun and the rest of the planets orbit Earth on perfect circular orbits.
-- Wakboth
Greg G.
Lettuce pray that it's not just the tip of the iceberg.
--
Greg G.
Give Dubya an inch and he thinks he's a ruler.
Stan Gosnell
news:m9f1711s83ki4dde4...@4ax.com:
> Attempting translation from Rayese:
>
> "Being insulted by an evolutionist is a compliment; if you approved of
> what I said, that would have been evidence I was wrong."
So, you're saying we should start approving of everything he posts?
Would that convince him, or is that just another example of mendacity?
Ray Martinez
Okay, Ray: the literal reading of Genesis obviously proves that the
world is six thousand years old, there was a Noachian deluge, and the
sun and the rest of the planets orbit Earth on perfect circular orbits.
RAY MARTINEZ:
Qualifying Genesis as "literal" is intended to mean that what it says
should not be interpreted to mean that.
"Literal" is derived from "literary" or "literature".
Darwinists are attempting to assert Genesis should not be interpreted
to mean what it says.
Evos have an ulterior motive: Corrupt Scripture so it can support their
theory = insult of qualifying Genesis as literal.
Literal is an attempt to place a negative emotive meaning to the word.
That anyone who takes the Bible at face value is somehow a freak and
ignorant.
This tactic is easily refuted when the worldview of persons is pointed
out who refer to "literal Genesis".
Practical advice: If you want accurate honest information about the
Bible do not consult a Darwinist or atheist for obvious reasons.
Literal reading or not: The Bible does not support a young Earth and
the Great Flood is a proven fact of history that only Darwinists and
atheists must reject lest their anti-Bible worldviews are decimated and
exposed as fraud.
Ray Martinez
Ray Martinez
The problem with "evidence for God" as that there isn't any Theory of
God
(ToG) that you can derive predictions from. Anything you observe is
compatible with the notion of an omni*ent being who acts on whims not
comprehensible to observers.
RAY MARTINEZ:
The above comment is a Darwinian atheist evading and insulting the
beyond massive evidence for God via asserting there is none.
This is a necessary stance to protect his worldview.
It reminds me of Medieval Bishops who did the same to protect their
dogma centuries ago.
The Darwinian establishment = the same business on the other side of
the street.
Ray Martinez
Ray Martinez
one would have to demonstrate that jesus actually existed before we
could assign him a mccoy index.
RAY MARTINEZ:
Necessary retreat of someone who understood the previous point and its
invulnerability.
Questioning the existence of Christ = admission of sound point or you
wouldn't of had to go here.
The atheist scholars of christianity's worst critics - the Jesus
Seminar admit Jesus lived.
You are showing your extreme ignorance.
Even Mark Isaak admits Jesus lived, or at least Isaak claims to be a
theist. If not, then just imagine a theist who doesn't believe Jesus
lived !
Ray Martinez
AC
Ray Martinez <pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> BOBBY BRYANT:
>
> Why so? Wouldn't simplicity be a better evidence for God?
>
>
> This was your comment to the existence of complexity supporting an
> IDer.
>
> Answer: Because complexity leaves no doubts, and of course complexity
> is always qualified as irreducible. Complexity indicates super
> intelligence - not a matter of opinion unless you are defending what
> you have based your life on.
I'm sorry. I simply cannot parse the above. Why should complexity always
qualify as irreducible? Is a pulsar or a salt crystal irreducible? Are the
current weather patterns over Europe irreducible? How about the shovel I
used to dig some holes last Sunday? Is the shovel irreducible? How about
the holes? How about the deer trail I followed to get the site I'm working
on? How about the bloody dirt I'm digging?
>
> This is pure common sense which you simply reply with deliberate
> evasive nonsense.
I asked a simple question and got word salad for an answer. Either I'm a
moron or you're confused. I tend to think I understand things that are
moderately well expressed, so...
>
> The Bible says God removes an inner faculty called "God sense" when He
> is not credited AS the Creator.
Ah, I see. So one can only see God's handiwork when one agrees with your
interpretation of things. I see why you more often choose to communicate
through excessively confusing verbiage. When you do make a point clear, it
doesn't exactly show you in a favorable light?
>
> The collective Darwinian responses of a total absence of sense proves
> the penalty claim.
I wasn't aware that we were debating before the NHL Board of Governors.
er...@swva.net
Ray Martinez wrote:
> BOBBY BRYANT:
>
> The problem with "evidence for God" as that there isn't any Theory of
> God
> (ToG) that you can derive predictions from. Anything you observe is
> compatible with the notion of an omni*ent being who acts on whims not
> comprehensible to observers.
>
> RAY MARTINEZ:
>
> The above comment is a Darwinian atheist evading and insulting the
> beyond massive evidence for God via asserting there is none.
The above comment is a dishonest and corrupt bozo named Ray Martinez
evading Bobby Bryant's cogent point because is is as dumb as a stump
and prefers lying to actually understanding anything about the real
world and can't refute his way out of a wet paper bag.
(snip cowardly blather).
Eric Root
snex
assertion that evidence exists without presenting any = admission of
sound point that there is none.
John Vreeland
(Bobby D. Bryant) wrote:
>On Wed, 27 Apr 2005, "Ray Martinez" <pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> You forgot Jesus Christ.
>>
>> His relatives thought He was crazy.
>
>Which relatives were those?
His mother and brothers and sisters. But Jesus wasn't interested in
families, which after all are simply temporary social constructs. He
was more interested in the hereafter in which we are all just children
of God. No spouses, no parents, no children.
The term "Christian family values" has always been an oxymoron to me.
>> Looks like I am in good company - you guys just proved the Bible and
>> didn't even know it.
>
>Huh???
I cannot improve on that response.
__
John Vreeland
If you cannot ever admit to being wrong, then you will never be right.
Bobby D. Bryant
> BOBBY BRYANT:
>
> The problem with "evidence for God" as that there isn't any Theory of
> God
> (ToG) that you can derive predictions from. Anything you observe is
> compatible with the notion of an omni*ent being who acts on whims not
> comprehensible to observers.
>
> RAY MARTINEZ:
>
> The above comment is a Darwinian atheist evading and insulting the
> beyond massive evidence for God via asserting there is none.
I'm not sure what a "Darwinian atheist" is (one that evolved, perhaps?),
but I can't insult or evade that which doesn't exist.
> This is a necessary stance to protect his worldview.
No, the rejection of wildcard explanations such as "goddidit" or
"lokididit" or "xenudidit" is a necessary stance for getting to the
bottom of things.
> It reminds me of Medieval Bishops who did the same to protect their
> dogma centuries ago.
Could you be more specific about your proposed analogy between what I
said and what medieval bishiops said?
> The Darwinian establishment = the same business on the other side of
> the street.
Is a "Darwinian establishment" an establishment that evolved?
p.s. - Please find a newsreader that indicates quoted material properly.
Mark VandeWettering
> BOBBY BRYANT:
>
> The problem with "evidence for God" as that there isn't any Theory of
> God
> (ToG) that you can derive predictions from. Anything you observe is
> compatible with the notion of an omni*ent being who acts on whims not
> comprehensible to observers.
>
> RAY MARTINEZ:
>
> The above comment is a Darwinian atheist evading and insulting the
> beyond massive evidence for God via asserting there is none.
He did not assert that there was none. Quite the opposite. All
possible evidence is compatible with the notion of an inscrutable,
all powerful God.
> This is a necessary stance to protect his worldview.
>
> It reminds me of Medieval Bishops who did the same to protect their
> dogma centuries ago.
>
> The Darwinian establishment = the same business on the other side of
> the street.
I wonder why describing evolution as religion is an insult, but when
claiming your own beliefs are a religion, it's a virtue.
Mark
>
> Ray Martinez
Bobby D. Bryant
> BOBBY BRYANT:
>
> Why so? Wouldn't simplicity be a better evidence for God?
>
> RAY MARTINEZ:
>
> This was your comment to the existence of complexity supporting an
> IDer.
>
> Answer: Because complexity leaves no doubts,
Why is it complexity rather than simplicity that leaves no doubts?
> and of course complexity is always qualified as irreducible.
Really?
> Complexity indicates super intelligence
What definition of 'complexity' are you using here, and how does it
'indicate' super intelligence? And for that matter, what is 'super'
intelligence?
> - not a matter of opinion unless you are defending what you have
> based your life on.
Your slip is showing...
> This is pure common sense which you simply reply with deliberate
> evasive nonsense.
So, asking people to support their outrageous claims is evasive
nonsense?
> The Bible says God removes an inner faculty called "God sense" when He
> is not credited AS the Creator.
I don't remember any mention of "God sense" in the bible, but maybe you'll
refresh me on the topic.
But all that to the side, why do you trust the purported testament of
a God who you think messes with people's minds like that? How do you
know he isn't putting fake perceptions in you, rather than taking real
perceptions out of others?
> The collective Darwinian responses of a total absence of sense proves
> the penalty claim.
OK, time to pass the pipe.
Bobby D. Bryant
> SNEX:
>
> one would have to demonstrate that jesus actually existed before we
> could assign him a mccoy index.
>
> RAY MARTINEZ:
>
> Necessary retreat of someone who understood the previous point and its
> invulnerability.
>
> Questioning the existence of Christ = admission of sound point or you
> wouldn't of had to go here.
Or maybe he just hasn't seen any evidence that such a person existed?
> The atheist scholars of christianity's worst critics - the Jesus
> Seminar admit Jesus lived.
Wouldn't people who didn't think he lived actually be the worst
critics?
> You are showing your extreme ignorance.
Of what? Do you have some evidence of Jesus' existence that he needs
to know about?
> Even Mark Isaak admits Jesus lived, or at least Isaak claims to be a
> theist. If not, then just imagine a theist who doesn't believe Jesus
> lived !
And we should all believe whatever Mark says?
What's the difference between Mark and Lenny's pizza boy, when it comes
to authority on supernatural matters?
Bobby D. Bryant
> On Thu, 28 Apr 2005 01:39:37 +0000 (UTC), bdbr...@mail.utexas.edu
> (Bobby D. Bryant) wrote:
>
>>On Wed, 27 Apr 2005, "Ray Martinez" <pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>> You forgot Jesus Christ.
>>>
>>> His relatives thought He was crazy.
>>
>>Which relatives were those?
>
> His mother and brothers and sisters.
Sorry, I meant which ones thought he was crazy.
Rich Mathers
Please, lettuce not complain. Besides, it looks like Greek to me!
Enough, I'm wilted already!
snex
present your evidence or retract the claims.
josephus
Ray Martinez wrote:
I remember, I called him a an idiot that was so often wrong the only
time he was ever right was when he made a mistake. By the way, he never
answered that message, he just snipped it out.
josephus
shane
> "Ray Martinez" wrote:
>
>>Looks like I am in good company
>
>
>
>
>>- you guys just proved the Bible and
>>didn't even know it.
>
>
>
>
>>Insults from persons who think man evolved from an ape ? =
>>compliment -
>>your approval would of supported my wrongness.
>
>
> one?
>
Insults = compliment - approval. I am no mathematician, but it doesn't
seem correct to me.
Mark VandeWettering
Olive these pun threads...
shane
> STEVEN J:
>
> We were so desperate to avoid it that we provided you with over a dozen
>
> differently-worded (yet interchangeable in meaning) definitions of
> "natural
> selection"). You, in turn, have been so eager for debate that you have
> not
> examined, challenged, or even acknowledged any of these definitions,
> nor
> tried to show that any of them contradict any other of them, nor tried
> to
> show that any of them is not "universal or cohesive."
>
> RAY M:
>
> No Steven.
>
> You are evading my point and changing the subject.
>
> A zillion different meanings and explanations are not saying the same
> thing.
>
> The diversity exists = the awesome complexity of nature.
>
> The most brilliant minds of the modern world cannot agree and produce
> one cohesive and universal definition of NS BECAUSE it is so complex.
>
<snip>
>
> Ray Martinez
>
In that case you appear to have consigned christianity to the same waste
basket, as the most brilliant minds of the modern world cannot agree and
produce one cohesive universal definitive standard of hristian behaviour.
--
shane
The truth will set you free.
shane
> BOBBY BRYANT:
>
> Why so? Wouldn't simplicity be a better evidence for God?
>
> RAY MARTINEZ:
>
> This was your comment to the existence of complexity supporting an
> IDer.
>
> Answer: Because complexity leaves no doubts,
Yeah, that is why everyone is so much in agreement on this subject,
there is just no room for doubt. Memo to Ray: Try thinking before
writing, if for not other reason than the change will be refreshing for
us all.
and of course complexity
> is always qualified as irreducible. Complexity indicates super
> intelligence - not a matter of opinion unless you are defending what
> you have based your life on.
>
> This is pure common sense which you simply reply with deliberate
> evasive nonsense.
>
> The Bible says God removes an inner faculty called "God sense" when He
> is not credited AS the Creator.
>
> The collective Darwinian responses of a total absence of sense proves
> the penalty claim.
>
> Ray Martinez
Dick C
> WAKBOTH:
>
> Okay, Ray: the literal reading of Genesis obviously proves that the
> world is six thousand years old, there was a Noachian deluge, and the
> sun and the rest of the planets orbit Earth on perfect circular orbits.
>
>
> RAY MARTINEZ:
>
> Qualifying Genesis as "literal" is intended to mean that what it says
> should not be interpreted to mean that.
>
> "Literal" is derived from "literary" or "literature".
>
> Darwinists are attempting to assert Genesis should not be interpreted
> to mean what it says.
Actually, Darwinists have no interest in the bible when it comes to
evolution. It is irrelevant to the field of science. It only comes
up becomes some idiot brings it up.
And then the people who do not believe in the idiot's interpretation
of the bible argue with the idiot.
And ultimately it is the idiot who drags his holy book into science
that discredits the bible.
--
Dick #1349
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary
safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
~Benjamin Franklin
Home Page: dickcr.iwarp.com
email: dic...@comcast.net
Ray Martinez
Actually, Darwinists have no interest in the bible when it comes to
evolution. It is irrelevant to the field of science. It only comes
up becomes some idiot brings it up.
And then the people who do not believe in the idiot's interpretation
of the bible argue with the idiot.
And ultimately it is the idiot who drags his holy book into science
that discredits the bible.
RAY M:
Predictible atheist rant evading the argument.
Ray Martinez
In that case you appear to have consigned christianity to the same
waste
basket, as the most brilliant minds of the modern world cannot agree
and
produce one cohesive universal definitive standard of christian
behaviour.
RAY M:
Shane, you too are massively evading everything I wrote with this
non-sequitur = my points remain unharmed.
Your reply here admits the validity of my point(s) about NS because you
are basically saying, "neither is thus and such".
Christianity is not about ability to conform to a code of conduct.
It is about the escape from the demands of that code via allegiance to
acts of faith directed towards Christ of which makes the code abrogate
TO YOU and makes you eligible to receive what you are acting in faith
for, of which Divine deliverance from our Adamic natures are slowly
displaced via this process called the gospel.
Ray Martinez
AC
You have no argument. Past single sentence replies you seem incapable of
even holding it together in anything more than a jumble.
VoiceOfReason
Ray Martinez wrote:
<...>
> Literal reading or not: The Bible does not support a young Earth and
> the Great Flood is a proven fact of history that only Darwinists and
> atheists must reject lest their anti-Bible worldviews are decimated
and
> exposed as fraud.
First, it's geologists who long ago proved that a global flood couldn't
have happened.
Second, what is a "Darwinist?" A biologist? Are geologists,
paleontologists, anthropologists, and physicists in the same group? Is
anyone with a good science education in the same group?
How about the vast majority of Christians who have no problem
reconciling their faith with the fact of evolution and a 4+ billion
year old Earth?
Steven J.
> WAKBOTH:
>
> Okay, Ray: the literal reading of Genesis obviously proves that the
> world is six thousand years old, there was a Noachian deluge, and the
> sun and the rest of the planets orbit Earth on perfect circular orbits.
>
>
> RAY MARTINEZ:
>
> Qualifying Genesis as "literal" is intended to mean that what it says
> should not be interpreted to mean that.
>
> "Literal" is derived from "literary" or "literature".
>
> Darwinists are attempting to assert Genesis should not be interpreted
> to mean what it says.
>
we be saying that Genesis means what it says, but is wrong?). Now you say
we are "attempting" to assert (what, we can't even state a wrong opinion
successfully?) that Genesis should be nonliterally interpreted. These
statements contradict each other.
>
> Evos have an ulterior motive: Corrupt Scripture so it can support their
> theory = insult of qualifying Genesis as literal.
>
superstition = insult of qualifying God as super-scam artist.
>
> Literal is an attempt to place a negative emotive meaning to the word.
> That anyone who takes the Bible at face value is somehow a freak and
> ignorant.
>
>
> This tactic is easily refuted when the worldview of persons is pointed
> out who refer to "literal Genesis".
>
You do not refute an argument by pointing to the bad character or ulterior
motives of the person making it. You refute it by showing that the argument
is illogical or contrary to facts.
>
> Practical advice: If you want accurate honest information about the
> Bible do not consult a Darwinist or atheist for obvious reasons.
>
pyramidologist, for obvious reasons.
>
> Literal reading or not: The Bible does not support a young Earth and
> the Great Flood is a proven fact of history that only Darwinists and
> atheists must reject lest their anti-Bible worldviews are decimated and
> exposed as fraud.
>
*does* support a young Earth?
>
> Ray Martinez
>
-- Steven J.
Gary Bohn
news:WrVbe.25$_96....@nnrp1.ozemail.com.au:
> Dan Luke wrote:
>> Question for the group:
>>
>> Where would you place Ray on the McCoy Looniness Scale (McNameless
>> Himself being a 10 of 10)?
>>
>> I give him about an 8.3; above Sean Pitman but below Ed Conrad.
>> Anybody think he can break 9?
>>
> As always these ratings are difficult. You have to fit George Hammond
> in there somewhere, so i suggest that the scale be logarithmic to give
> us more room at the loony end.
>
I suggest that rather than just one of us assigning a rating to a
particular loon that we put it to a vote.
--
Gary Bohn
Science rationally modifies a theory to fit evidence, creationism
emotionally modifies evidence to fit the bible.
shane
> SHANE:
>
> In that case you appear to have consigned christianity to the same
> waste
> basket, as the most brilliant minds of the modern world cannot agree
> and
> produce one cohesive universal definitive standard of christian
> behaviour.
>
> RAY M:
>
> Shane, you too are massively evading everything I wrote with this
> non-sequitur = my points remain unharmed.
You may freely draw what ever conclusions you like from my post. However
i snipped the parts of you post i was not responding to (and marked the
snippage, a piece of ethical behaviour that seems beyond you), left
enough behind to maintain context and pointed out in a devils advocate
manner a flaw in your reasoning. So i did not evade everything you
wrote, so is the above accusation a mistake on your part or just a lie?
And please take note that i even used your own words in my response.
>
> Your reply here admits the validity of my point(s) about NS because you
> are basically saying, "neither is thus and such".
Note that you are now saying that i have responded to your words, which
is just the opposite of what you wrote above where you said i evaded
everthing you wrote. And your conclusion is incorrect. My response
admits nothing, although, again, you may freely draw whatever
conclusions you like, it does not make them right or consistent. I do
not believe that the number of "brilliant minds" has any bearing on the
validity of a claim. My manner of showing that was to show you that your
own position was equally subject to this fallacious reasoning.
>
> Christianity is not about ability to conform to a code of conduct.
>
> It is about the escape from the demands of that code via allegiance to
> acts of faith directed towards Christ of which makes the code abrogate
> TO YOU and makes you eligible to receive what you are acting in faith
> for, of which Divine deliverance from our Adamic natures are slowly
> displaced via this process called the gospel.
>
> Ray Martinez
>
I had a great deal of trouble following this sentence so i will pull it
apart and try to get the gist of it. I am sure you will respond and tell
me if i get it wrong.
What code of conduct are you talking about here, Surely not 'love your
neighbour as yourself, and your god with all your heart?'
Is your allegience really to acts of faith?
"...of which makes the code abrogate TO YOU and makes you eligible to
receive what you are acting in faith for,..." I have honestly no idea
what you are trying to say here, but a couple of points. We are not
"elligible" to receive anything from god, except death for sin. Is that
what you are acting in faith for? "Acting in faith" is perhaps not a
great choice of words because our actions usually belie our faith.
"...of which Divine deliverance from our Adamic natures are slowly
displaced via this process called the gospel." The gospel is not a process.
er...@swva.net
> WAKBOTH:
>
> Okay, Ray: the literal reading of Genesis obviously proves that the
> world is six thousand years old, there was a Noachian deluge, and the
> sun and the rest of the planets orbit Earth on perfect circular
orbits.
>
>
> RAY MARTINEZ:
>
> Qualifying Genesis as "literal" is intended to mean that what it says
> should not be interpreted to mean that.
>
> "Literal" is derived from "literary" or "literature".
>
> Darwinists are attempting to assert Genesis should not be interpreted
> to mean what it says.
You forgot all the real Christians that also realize Biblical
literalists are wrong.
>
> Evos have an ulterior motive:
> Corrupt Scripture so it can support their
> theory
Now you are lying: "evos" (to use your own cutesy insult) have no
interest in corrupting scripture because it has no relevance to
science. You've had this explained to you, so you have no excuse.
= insult of qualifying Genesis as literal.
And this is just plain foaming-at-the-mouth babble.
>
> Literal is an attempt to place a negative emotive meaning to the
word.
Only because it really is negative.
> That anyone who takes the Bible at face value is somehow a freak and
> ignorant.
In all due respect, anyone who has read your newsgroup posting will get
that idea immediately. And I'm not insulting you; I am offering you
constuctive criticism. Change your life now and start doing the
opposite of everything before you hurt people besides yourself.
>
> This tactic is easily refuted when the worldview of persons is
pointed
> out who refer to "literal Genesis".
How does pointing out a worldview (which you did not do, anyway) refute
anything?
>
> Practical advice: If you want accurate honest information about the
> Bible do not consult a Darwinist or atheist for obvious reasons.
Also, cut your own throat with a nail file before you consult a
fundamentalist about the Bible.
>
> Literal reading or not: The Bible does not support a young Earth and
> the Great Flood is a proven fact of history
So, prove it, Mister Big Mouth.
> that only Darwinists and
> atheists must reject
Also, normal (e.g., non-mentally ill/fake/fundamentalist) Christians,
historians, scientists of almost every stripe, Hindus, Buddhists,
agnostics, and basically anybody who actually knows anything about how
the world works.
> lest their anti-Bible worldviews are decimated and
> exposed as fraud.
Ha-ha-ha, you actually think it's anti-Bible to respect it as a book,
instead of to make it out to be some sort of weird magical thing that
has the power to overturn reality?
>
> Ray Martinez
You never have explained how whining and crying about evolution can
make it not be true. Are you chicken?
Eric Root
David Fritzinger
"Ray Martinez" <pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> SNEX:
>
> one would have to demonstrate that jesus actually existed before we
> could assign him a mccoy index.
>
> RAY MARTINEZ:
>
> Necessary retreat of someone who understood the previous point and its
> invulnerability.
>
> Questioning the existence of Christ = admission of sound point or you
> wouldn't of had to go here.
>
> The atheist scholars of christianity's worst critics - the Jesus
> Seminar admit Jesus lived.
>
> You are showing your extreme ignorance.
>
> Even Mark Isaak admits Jesus lived, or at least Isaak claims to be a
> theist. If not, then just imagine a theist who doesn't believe Jesus
> lived !
>
> Ray Martinez
Would you call Hindus theists? I certainly would. They don't believe
(well, don't care, actually) that Jesus lived.
--
Dave Fritzinger
Honolulu, HI
Dick C
> DICK C:
There was no argument, only an idiot discrediting the Christian
religion.
Augray
wrote in news:<1114716736.8...@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>:
> BOBBY BRYANT:
>
> The problem with "evidence for God" as that there isn't any Theory of
> God
> (ToG) that you can derive predictions from. Anything you observe is
> compatible with the notion of an omni*ent being who acts on whims not
> comprehensible to observers.
>
> RAY MARTINEZ:
>
> The above comment is a Darwinian atheist evading and insulting the
> beyond massive evidence for God via asserting there is none.
Incorrect. What Bobby is stating is that there is no possible
observation that would disprove the claim that "God did it". If you feel
that there is, please state it.
> This is a necessary stance to protect his worldview.
That's an unsupported assertion.
> It reminds me of Medieval Bishops who did the same to protect their
> dogma centuries ago.
>
> The Darwinian establishment = the same business on the other side of
> the street.
>
> Ray Martinez
snex
Ray Martinez wrote:
> RAY M:
>
> Literal is an attempt to place a negative emotive meaning to the
word.
>
>
>
> Only because it really is negative.
>
>
> Then anyone who literally believes transitional fossils exist are
> Darwinian Fundamentalists.
>
> Objective persons know none exist. Only Darwinian literalists
interpret
> the words of Darwinian scientists who assert a fossil transitional.
>
> They literally don't mean that unless the validity of your worldview
is
> at stake.
pretend that humans and chimps share a common ancestor that looked more
like chimps than like us. if true, what would the transitions look
like?
>
> ERIC R:
>
> In all due respect, anyone who has read your newsgroup posting will
get
>
> that idea immediately. And I'm not insulting you; I am offering you
> constuctive criticism. Change your life now and start doing the
> opposite of everything before you hurt people besides yourself.
>
> RAY M:
>
> Enraged atheist rant caused by arguments and the inability to refute.
>
> Anyone who is enraged at God enough to assert man evolved from an ape
> and wasn't created by Him needs to obtain character and honesty and
> cease to care what his secular friends think of him.
>
> The Bible says Darwinism/atheism is a penalty from God for refusing
to
> credit Him AS the Creator.
>
> IOW, God has hurt you for flipping Him off.
disbelief in god comes from his failure to demonstrate his existence to
begin with. in other words, "he started it."
>
> ERIC R:
>
> How does pointing out a worldview (which you did not do, anyway)
refute
>
> anything?
>
> RAY M:
>
> Feigning ignorance = proof of dishonesty as observed above.
>
> Eric, only Darwinists/atheists insult via the use of literal.
from http://www.icr.org/abouticr/tenets.htm
"All things in the universe were created and made by God in the six
*literal* days of the creation week described in Genesis 1:1-2:3, and
confirmed in Exodus 20:8-11." [emphasis added]
is ICR a darwinist organization?
>
> IOW, text does not mean what it says when you do not like what it
says.
>
> RAY M, previously:
>
> Literal reading or not: The Bible does not support a young Earth and
> the Great Flood is a proven fact of history
show us where in the bible an old earth is supported or a young earth
denied, and show us where in science the great flood is proven.
>
> ERIC R:
>
> So, prove it, Mister Big Mouth.
>
> RAY M:
>
> Your kind made the assertion to begin with. Your kind wants the Bible
> to remain as being supportive of a young Earth because you know the
> Earth is old and you want the Bible to be seen as wrong as much as
> possible because you have an anti-Bible worldview - DUH !
>
> The Bible clearly supports an Earth of immense age.
>
> Only YEC idiots (who you want to represent Christianity) assert the
> nonsense that the Earth is young.
YEC idiots speak for themselves.
>
> Talk.Origins and AiG = Fundies from both side of the street who
control
> the Evo-Creo debate = the only ones dumb enough to refute the others
> dogma.
>
> Eric, what hole did you crawl out from ?
>
> I suggest you return and stop making AiG look intelligent.
AiG is quite a few levels above you.
>
> Ray Martinez
Ray Martinez
First, it's geologists who long ago proved that a global flood couldn't
have happened.
RAY M:
You mean Darwinian/atheist geologists assumed as fact then interpreted
observations to support the assumption.
What else could they do ?
How could an atheist or naturalist admit the Flood happened or report
evidence for it ?
What atheist or naturalist has ever reported evidence supporting the
Bible ? (excluding Velikovsky).
If the Flood happened then this proves the existence of the Biblical
Deity too much = obvious reason as to why atheists and naturalists
assert as facts their biased assumptions.
OPPONENT:
Second, what is a "Darwinist?"
RAY M:
You are a Darwinist.
I am amazed at the fact that so many evos are ashamed of their beloved
founder ?
Could it be his open racism ?
Darwinism: Rejection of God AS the Creator THEN from this departure
Darwin and his cohorts "saw" the similarity between apes and Africans =
the origin of DarwinISM from the racist minds of Darwin and Hux and the
rest of the gang.
http://4forums.com/political/showpost.php?p=112787&postcount=1
Darwinist: A person who believes that created things originated from
other created things instead of God.
Before you rant on about how Darwin was a theist/christian - he was not
- only lip service.
Darwin was a christian, then became a naturalist and atheist, IOW, he
was an apostate.
AFTER he rejected God as Creator did he invent his moronic theory.
The utter lack of any evidence only heightens the fact that Darwinism
is based on racism to begin with.
OPPONENT:
A biologist? Are geologists,
paleontologists, anthropologists, and physicists in the same group? Is
anyone with a good science education in the same group?
RAY M:
The above discilpines are awash in Darwinists - obviously.
OPPONENT:
How about the vast majority of Christians who have no problem
reconciling their faith with the fact of evolution and a 4+ billion
year old Earth?
RAY M:
Hitler CLAIMED to be a christian. Maybe they aint really a christian
because they have no source for their theist beliefs. Of course, Mark
Isaak simply ignores in the Bible what he disagrees with and it is no
surprise those disagreements harm his evolution theory.
In the Bible, the majority is always wrong. This typology is true in
the world today = proof the Bible contains the eternal word of God.
The Pharisees were the majority - the religious majority in Christ's
time.
Jesus said they were of their father the devil = religious majority
today.
Before you start mis-applying you have to find a majority IN THE BIBLE
then match it with one today.
Christianity which supports ToE are ignorant of the claims of ToE and
the Bible OR, are as the Bible depicts the religious majority: Ass
kissing lovers of Caesar and what he offers = by implication enemies of
God.
Ray M.
snex
Ray Martinez wrote:
> OPPONENT:
>
> First, it's geologists who long ago proved that a global flood
couldn't
>
> have happened.
>
> RAY M:
>
> You mean Darwinian/atheist geologists assumed as fact then
interpreted
> observations to support the assumption.
>
> What else could they do ?
>
> How could an atheist or naturalist admit the Flood happened or report
> evidence for it ?
actually they were creationists. check your history. evolution was not
even invented yet.
>
> What atheist or naturalist has ever reported evidence supporting the
> Bible ? (excluding Velikovsky).
it isnt hard to cite things like hezekiah's tunnel that support certain
parts of the bible. unfortunately you extrapolate such things to the
whole bible without justification.
>
> If the Flood happened then this proves the existence of the Biblical
> Deity too much = obvious reason as to why atheists and naturalists
> assert as facts their biased assumptions.
as creationists often say, most cultures have flood stories. if this is
true, then a great flood would support those other religions just as
much as it supports christianity. good thing there is no evidence for a
global flood, eh? or maybe youd care to cite some.
>
> OPPONENT:
>
> Second, what is a "Darwinist?"
>
> RAY M:
>
> You are a Darwinist.
>
> I am amazed at the fact that so many evos are ashamed of their
beloved
> founder ?
unlike religion, science does not depend on the individual, but rather
the evidence itself.
>
> Could it be his open racism ?
darwin was only a racist by today's liberal standards. for his own
time, he was quite radical in his anti-slavery views. on the other
hand, almost all creationists at darwin's time were pro-slavery and
much more racist. but dont let the facts stop you from making an ass
out of yourself.
>
> Darwinism: Rejection of God AS the Creator THEN from this departure
> Darwin and his cohorts "saw" the similarity between apes and Africans
=
> the origin of DarwinISM from the racist minds of Darwin and Hux and
the
> rest of the gang.
darwinism is the view that natural selection is the dominant mechanism
for evolution.
>
> http://4forums.com/political/showpost.php?p=112787&postcount=1
>
> Darwinist: A person who believes that created things originated from
> other created things instead of God.
do you believe that salt is specially created by god or that it
originates from other things (sodium and chlorine)?
>
> Before you rant on about how Darwin was a theist/christian - he was
not
> - only lip service.
>
> Darwin was a christian, then became a naturalist and atheist, IOW, he
> was an apostate.
>
> AFTER he rejected God as Creator did he invent his moronic theory.
>
> The utter lack of any evidence only heightens the fact that Darwinism
> is based on racism to begin with.
pick your favorite "icon of evolution" and explain why it isnt
evidence.
>
> OPPONENT:
>
> A biologist? Are geologists,
> paleontologists, anthropologists, and physicists in the same group?
Is
>
> anyone with a good science education in the same group?
>
> RAY M:
>
> The above discilpines are awash in Darwinists - obviously.
>
> OPPONENT:
>
> How about the vast majority of Christians who have no problem
> reconciling their faith with the fact of evolution and a 4+ billion
> year old Earth?
>
> RAY M:
>
> Hitler CLAIMED to be a christian. Maybe they aint really a christian
> because they have no source for their theist beliefs. Of course, Mark
> Isaak simply ignores in the Bible what he disagrees with and it is no
> surprise those disagreements harm his evolution theory.
>
> In the Bible, the majority is always wrong. This typology is true in
> the world today = proof the Bible contains the eternal word of God.
circular logic. invalid and ignored.
>
> The Pharisees were the majority - the religious majority in Christ's
> time.
>
> Jesus said they were of their father the devil = religious majority
> today.
>
> Before you start mis-applying you have to find a majority IN THE
BIBLE
> then match it with one today.
>
> Christianity which supports ToE are ignorant of the claims of ToE and
> the Bible OR, are as the Bible depicts the religious majority: Ass
> kissing lovers of Caesar and what he offers = by implication enemies
of
> God.
>
> Ray M.
why dont you show us that you arent ignorant of the claims of ToE and
present them to us?
er...@swva.net
> RAY M:
>
word.
>
>
>
> Only because it really is negative.
>
>
>
(snip bogus babble about Darwinist fundamentalists showing ignorant
inability to refute)
>
> ERIC R:
>
> In all due respect, anyone who has read your newsgroup posting will
get
>
> that idea immediately. And I'm not insulting you; I am offering you
> constuctive criticism. Change your life now and start doing the
> opposite of everything before you hurt people besides yourself.
>
>
> Enraged atheist rant caused by arguments and the inability to refute.
Ray thinks calling himself an enraged athiest lets him off the hook
from needing to change his corrupt, false-Christian lifestyle and
worldview, which equals inability to refute.
>
> Anyone who is enraged at God enough to assert man evolved from an ape
> and wasn't created by Him needs to obtain character and honesty and
> cease to care what his secular friends think of him.
anyone who is enraged at God enough to flip him off and become a
ludicrous fundamentalist needs to obtain the character and honesty that
God gave a monkey, and start obeying the Ten Commandments.
>
> The Bible says Darwinism/atheism is a penalty from God for refusing
to
> credit Him AS the Creator.
The Bible doesn't mention Darwinism/atheism at all, especially since
it's mainly liars that think there is some necessary connection between
the two.
>
> IOW, God has hurt you for flipping Him off.
So what? God hurts everyone for flipping him off. He did a Tower of
Babel on you, which is why your posts are a bunch of enraged moronic
word salad.
>
> ERIC R:
>
> How does pointing out a worldview (which you did not do, anyway)
refute
>
> anything?
>
> RAY M:
>
> Feigning ignorance = proof of dishonesty as observed above.
I'm not sure you're feigning ignorance, but I know you are totally
dishonest.
>
> Eric, only Darwinists/atheists insult via the use of literal.
I wasn't insulting you. I was giving you legitimate constructive
criticism, but so far you are so lost in your addiction to
Satanism/creationism that you no longer have the courage or strength of
character to overcome it and step out into the light.
>
> IOW, text does not mean what it says when you do not like what it
says.
>
> RAY M, previously:
>
> Literal reading or not: The Bible does not support a young Earth and
> the Great Flood is a proven fact of history
>
> ERIC R:
>
> So, prove it, Mister Big Mouth.
>
> RAY M:
>
> Your kind made the assertion to begin with.
Please refer to us by our proper designation of "the Good Guys." Now,
what assertion?
> Your kind wants the Bible
> to remain as being supportive of a young Earth
Sorry, it's the Satanist/creationists like yourself that want the Bible
to be supportive of a young earth.
> because you know the
> Earth is old and you want the Bible to be seen as wrong as much as
> possible because you have an anti-Bible worldview
Because your _real_ master wants to laugh at you and use you as a tool
to make the Bible look ridiculous.
- DUH !
>
> The Bible clearly supports an Earth of immense age.
Well, you aren't totally hopeless, then.
>
> Only YEC idiots (who you want to represent Christianity)
Me? I want Christians to be nuanced modernists who have no problem
with science and fight for the side of good.
> assert the
> nonsense that the Earth is young.
>
I'm glad that you don't think the Earth is young. Now work on your
weird, twisted prejudice against science, and your tendency to foam at
the mouth.
> Talk.Origins and AiG = Fundies from both side of the street who
control
> the Evo-Creo debate = the only ones dumb enough to refute the others
> dogma.
Interesting concept.
>
> Eric, what hole did you crawl out from ?
You first.
>
> I suggest you return and stop making AiG look intelligent.
Tower of Babel still in effect, I see.
>
> Ray Martinez
josephus
It is clear that Ray doesnt know any history in the 1790's some
fundamentalist ministers tried to find evidence of Noah's flood. But
because they were honest, not like modern IDiots, they proved the
existence of the geological column. They concluded that the flood never
happened. And they were Scottish Ministers. The difference was they
did valid science and it was accepted scientifically. To be accepted
scientifically requires honesty.
josephus
snex
Ray Martinez wrote:
> STEVEN J:
>
>
>
> Yes, essentially correct, because Darwinism is the assigning of
created
> things to be the product/origin of other created things and not God.
> TEists revert to the atheist camp just like Western culture
classifies
> a person by whatever percentage of minority blood they have to belong
> to that minority class.
>
> Atheists cannot suddenly use the Bible to defend their theory by
citing
> alleged "christian" support = obvious ulterior motive with only one
> intent.
>
> Darwinism is the atheist creation story. This is self-evident
axiomatic
> truth.
is the theory that the sun is the center of the solar system, with the
earth revolving around it atheistic?
>
> STEVEN J:
>
> (in which case, shouldn't we be saying that Genesis means what it
says,
> but is wrong?).
>
> RAY M:
>
> Yes, absolutely, and many atheists do and I applaud them for it.
>
> When an atheist qualifies the Bible with "literal" they are
attempting
> to humiliate anyone from believing what it says, that somehow the
Bible
> should not be understood as it reads.
>
> Pointing out the worldview of persons who qualify the Bible as
literal
> eviscerates the intended motive to strip the Scirptures of meaning.
> Once atheists have succeeded here their true motive is established
> because they will say, "I wonder what else the Bible is wrong about
?"
>
> Genesis 3: serpent: "hath God said ?"
>
> The first sin = where the first question mark is found. IOW, to
> question or imply that God doesn't mean what He says is a corruption
> tactic originating from Satan.
classic signs of brainwashing. question the revealed truth = evil. by
whose authority is it revealed? certainly not god, as he never picked
up a pen and wrote the books himself. you take it on man's authority
and man's authority alone.
>
> When God doesn't mean what He says THEN mankind does not take
seriously
> the reality of hell or the only way of escape called the gospel =
> Satan's true motive.
>
> God meant what He said: DON'T TOUCH THAT GOD DAMN MOTHER FUCKING
TREE
> OR YOU WILL FUCKING BURN IN HELL YOU STUPID FUCKING BITCH AND YOU
DON'T
> TOUCH IT BECAUSE I FUCKING SAID SO !
>
> Eve knew exactly what God said as she went on to cite verbatim what
God
> said.
>
> Every grave yard proves God right and the serpent a liar.
>
> TREE = type of Mosaic Law = all designed to drive us to the
gospel/way
> of faith.
what rational reason could god have for forbidding the fruit of a tree
to be eaten? you act as if god issued adam and eve the warning to
protect them from some inevitable fate that was inherently in the
apple. but you ignore the fact that it was god himself that set up the
situation and could have changed it at any time. warning against
punishment deliberately brought about by the warner = EVIL. your god is
evil ray, and you are evil for following him.
>
> STEVEN J:
>
> Now you say we are "attempting" to assert (what, we can't even state
a
> wrong opinion
> successfully?) that Genesis should be nonliterally interpreted.
These
> statements contradict each other.
>
> RAY M:
>
> By qualifying Genesis as "literal" you are saying sudden creation
does
> not mean what it says.
>
> You want people to abandon the face value obvious read because your
> theory has man evolving into his present state over millions of
years.
>
> The Bible has man STARTING intelligent made in His image. John 1 says
> IF you've seen Jesus you have seen the Father. Does Jesus look like
an
> ape or animal ?
>
> Only idolatrous images of animals are depicted as gods = origin of
> Satan/serpent/calf in the Wilderness etc.etc.
where in genesis is the word "satan" used?
>
> STEVEN J:
>
> Creos have an ulterior motive: corrupt science so it can support
their
> superstition = insult of qualifying God as super-scam artist.
>
> RAY M:
>
> Above comment assumes atheist philosophy is fact. The ONLY source we
> have about the universal God is the Bible and it declares sudden
> creation a fact. The fact that ToE does not have but scant
> presuppositional evidence means Genesis is not harmed.
>
> Of course, other major religions could argue their deity as the
> universal God but nobody in Western society is even slightly
concerned
> about their claims.
handwaving does not avoid the issue.
>
> Both Darwinism and Creationism are explanations of scientific facts.
creationism explains nothing, as there is no way to falsify it.
>
> If you understand the above comment it should reset the entire debate
> to reside in whose philosophy is most right (creationism). Philosophy
> is king - not science. The philosophy of secular science is
naturalism
> which is a euphemism for atheism.
the philosophy of science is that we can determine how the world works
by examining the world. the philosophy of supernaturalism is that the
world works as you say it for no other reason than because you hope so.
which one of these views has lead to the most progress?
>
> STEVEN J:
>
> Do you mean that the Bible does *not* support a young Earth, or that
it
>
> *does* support a young Earth?
>
> RAY M:
>
> The Bible supports a Earth of "immense age".
>
> Do you agree ?
>
> RM
i do not, nor have you provided a single verse of the bible that backs
you up.
VoiceOfReason
Ray Martinez wrote:
> OPPONENT:
There's your first issue. This *could* be an intelligent conversation,
but you decide everyone who disagrees with you is an opponent? How
sad.
> First, it's geologists who long ago proved that a global flood
couldn't
>
> have happened.
>
> RAY M:
>
> You mean Darwinian/atheist geologists assumed as fact then
interpreted
> observations to support the assumption.
Geologists made that determination long before Darwin. And they were
theists.
<...>
> OPPONENT:
>
> Second, what is a "Darwinist?"
>
> RAY M:
>
> You are a Darwinist.
And you dishonestly dodged the question and threw in a bunch of
irrelevant propaganda.
<...>
> OPPONENT:
>
> A biologist? Are geologists,
> paleontologists, anthropologists, and physicists in the same group?
Is
>
> anyone with a good science education in the same group?
>
> RAY M:
>
> The above discilpines are awash in Darwinists - obviously.
ROFL!!! awash in Darwinists!?!?!? Honestly, were you laughing when you
wrote that? It's a hoot. :-D
> OPPONENT:
>
> How about the vast majority of Christians who have no problem
> reconciling their faith with the fact of evolution and a 4+ billion
> year old Earth?
>
> RAY M:
>
> Hitler CLAIMED to be a christian.
(Why is it that every Tom, Dick and Dumbshit on the Cretin side
invariably brings out this Hitler bullshit?)
> In the Bible, the majority is always wrong. This typology is true in
> the world today = proof the Bible contains the eternal word of God.
I have never seen more perverse reasoning. But I'm open to the
possibility you have further jewels such as this.
<...>
> Christianity which supports ToE are ignorant of the claims of ToE and
> the Bible OR, are as the Bible depicts the religious majority: Ass
> kissing lovers of Caesar and what he offers = by implication enemies
of
> God.
You call yourself a Christian, yet belch such hatred and intolerance at
other Christian denominations? I can't wait to hear what you think of
Jews who tell you that Genesis was never meant to be taken seriously.
VoiceOfReason
> scientifically requires honesty.
For the Cretinists, I think this is one of those facts that twists
their shorts to no end; that is was Christians who discovered the
evidence for an old earth, evolution, common descent, etc.
The truth hurts. It hurts a lot more if you're clueless.
David Fritzinger
"Ray Martinez" <pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> OPPONENT:
>
> First, it's geologists who long ago proved that a global flood couldn't
>
> have happened.
>
> RAY M:
>
> You mean Darwinian/atheist geologists assumed as fact then interpreted
> observations to support the assumption.
>
> What else could they do ?
>
> How could an atheist or naturalist admit the Flood happened or report
> evidence for it ?
>
> What atheist or naturalist has ever reported evidence supporting the
> Bible ? (excluding Velikovsky).
>
> If the Flood happened then this proves the existence of the Biblical
> Deity too much = obvious reason as to why atheists and naturalists
> assert as facts their biased assumptions.
Ray, you really should try to actually read up on the things you are
blathering about. The fact the FLood didn't happen was discovered by
geologists who were, in many cases, Anglican ministers. They actually
went out looking for evidence to support the Flood, but couldn't find
any. Indeed, the evidence they found said no flood ever happened. They
were honest enough, and good enough scientists, to admit that no flood
ever happened.
BTW, this happened about 50 years before Darwin published OoS.
>
> OPPONENT:
>
> Second, what is a "Darwinist?"
>
> RAY M:
>
> You are a Darwinist.
>
> I am amazed at the fact that so many evos are ashamed of their beloved
> founder ?
Darwin was a great scientist. However, no one worships him.
>
> Could it be his open racism ?
You really should learn something about the man. He was far less racist
than most Englishmen of his time.
>
> Darwinism: Rejection of God AS the Creator THEN from this departure
> Darwin and his cohorts "saw" the similarity between apes and Africans =
> the origin of DarwinISM from the racist minds of Darwin and Hux and the
> rest of the gang.
>
> http://4forums.com/political/showpost.php?p=112787&postcount=1
That's pretty rich. Giving a post of yours in some forum as evidence.
Sorry, but your opinions are certainly not evidence.
> Darwinist: A person who believes that created things originated from
> other created things instead of God.
Actually, that would be a scientist...
>
> Before you rant on about how Darwin was a theist/christian - he was not
> - only lip service.
>
> Darwin was a christian, then became a naturalist and atheist, IOW, he
> was an apostate.
>
> AFTER he rejected God as Creator did he invent his moronic theory.
Do provide evidence for any of the above.
>
> The utter lack of any evidence only heightens the fact that Darwinism
> is based on racism to begin with.
Actually, it is not. If you would actually read some *science* rather
than the pap given you by creationist web sites you would realize this.
>
> OPPONENT:
>
> A biologist? Are geologists,
> paleontologists, anthropologists, and physicists in the same group? Is
>
> anyone with a good science education in the same group?
>
> RAY M:
>
> The above discilpines are awash in Darwinists - obviously.
Why is it obvious? And, yes, by your definition, anyone with a good
science education would be, by your strange definition, a "Dawrinist".
IOW, they would go where the evidence takes them. That is, apparently,
something you are unable to do.
>
> OPPONENT:
>
> How about the vast majority of Christians who have no problem
> reconciling their faith with the fact of evolution and a 4+ billion
> year old Earth?
>
> RAY M:
>
> Hitler CLAIMED to be a christian. Maybe they aint really a christian
> because they have no source for their theist beliefs. Of course, Mark
> Isaak simply ignores in the Bible what he disagrees with and it is no
> surprise those disagreements harm his evolution theory.
What has Hitler got to do with scientists who are also Christian? With
evolutionary biologists who are also Christian, such as Kenneth Miller?
Sorry, but you are changing the subject here.
>
> In the Bible, the majority is always wrong. This typology is true in
> the world today = proof the Bible contains the eternal word of God.
Oh, so you say the US was wrong to vote for Bush? That DeLay's district
was wrong to vote for for him? Tennessee was wrong to elect Frist? And,
you must obviously think that the apparent majority of Americans who are
creationists are wrong. Well, I'm glad we got that straight!
8^)
>
> The Pharisees were the majority - the religious majority in Christ's
> time.
And, the creationists are the present day Pharisees.
>
> Jesus said they were of their father the devil = religious majority
> today.
Yup, and the religious majority in the US appear to be creationists. So,
is the majority always wrong, Ray?
>
> Before you start mis-applying you have to find a majority IN THE BIBLE
> then match it with one today.
>
> Christianity which supports ToE are ignorant of the claims of ToE and
> the Bible OR, are as the Bible depicts the religious majority: Ass
> kissing lovers of Caesar and what he offers = by implication enemies of
> God.
Nice assertion, Ray. Care to back it up?
I didn't think so.
>
> Ray M.
shane
> Shane:
>
> The major content of your reply is off-topic.
>
> I am currently active here if you want to discuss the subject about
> Christianity:
>
> http://4forums.com/political/showpost.php?p=114028&postcount=1
>
> RM
>
Nice try Ray, why not respond to the parts that were on-topic? But that
aside, i note that you are currently participating in a discussion that
includes Noahs flood, which has nothing at all to do with origins, so
you have shown yourself to be a hypocrite yet again. Or could it be that
discussions are allowed to be free-ranging as long as the original post
is basically on-topic. Such a fine example you set.
Apparently you also read over the bit about unmarked snips. Do you not
understand the concept of your good works being an example that may draw
others? What am i saying, of course you do not understand it, after all
it is in the Bible, and you have demonstrated zero understanding of that
book and its principles in other posts.
--
shane
And the truth shall set you free.
er...@swva.net
> Question for the group:
>
> Where would you place Ray on the McCoy Looniness Scale (McNameless
> Himself being a 10 of 10)?
>
> I give him about an 8.3; above Sean Pitman but below Ed Conrad.
Anybody
> think he can break 9?
>
> Dan
>
> "How can an idiot be a policeman? Answer me that!"
> - Chief Inspector Dreyfus
Tough question: McCoy seems loonier, but Ray is more angry and
incoherent. Ray's less hateful and mean than COPT/skywise, though.
For some reason, I've never been tempted to read Ed Conrad, though, so
I have no opinion of him.
Eric Root
er...@swva.net
Ray Martinez wrote:
> OPPONENT:
>
> First, it's geologists who long ago proved that a global flood
couldn't
>
> have happened.
>
> RAY M:
>
> You mean Darwinian/atheist geologists assumed as fact then
interpreted
> observations to support the assumption.
>
No, Like he said, geologists came along first. Darwin came after. How
could the geologists be Darwinists. And where is your evidence that
geologists from 1800 were atheists?
> What else could they do ?
>
> How could an atheist or naturalist admit the Flood happened or report
> evidence for it ?
If it really happened, there should be real evidence for it, and and a
naturalist would report it, like he would report any other facts.
"Atheist" is a religious position (or lack of one) so it's not really
relevant here. An atheist would only report evidence of the flood if
he was involved in studying historical or geographic things. If he was
an atheist pizza delivery person, for instance, he would be more
interested in delivering pizzas (which, by the way, does not have an
apostrophe).
>
> What atheist or naturalist has ever reported evidence supporting the
> Bible ? (excluding Velikovsky).
Anyone would, if it really supported the Bible. He just wouldn't see
support that isn't relly there.
>
> If the Flood happened then this proves the existence of the Biblical
> Deity too much = obvious reason as to why atheists and naturalists
> assert as facts their biased assumptions.
No again. If the Flood happened, then there could (and i'll argue,
would) be a perfectly natural explanation.
>
> OPPONENT:
>
> Second, what is a "Darwinist?"
>
> RAY M:
>
> You are a Darwinist.
Crack brained creationist babble=inability to refute.
>
> I am amazed at the fact that so many evos are ashamed of their
beloved
> founder ?
>
> Could it be his open racism ?
Nope. Everybody was racist back then. Creationists know this, so when
they bring it up it is evidence that they are corrupt tools of Satan
(this means you, BTW).
>
> Darwinism: Rejection of God AS the Creator THEN from this departure
Predictable Satanist/creationist rant. Any honest person knows Darwin
saw the evidence for evolutiom from birds and formulated his theory
after that.
> Darwin and his cohorts "saw" the similarity between apes and Africans
=
> the origin of DarwinISM from the racist minds of Darwin and Hux and
the
> rest of the gang.
Predictable creationist/Bible-hater rant=inability to refute.
>
> http://4forums.com/political/showpost.php?p=112787&postcount=1
>
> Darwinist: A person who believes that created things originated from
> other created things instead of God.
>
Nope. You just made that up.
> Before you rant on about how Darwin was a theist/christian - he was
not
> - only lip service.
>
> Darwin was a christian, then became a naturalist and atheist, IOW, he
> was an apostate.
>
Nobody's perfect. At least he was honest and trying to advance
understanding of the natural world, instead of lying and tricking like
creationists.
> AFTER he rejected God as Creator did he invent his moronic theory.
Predictable Ray Martinez lie. Darwin saw the evidence first. Also, if
his theory was moronic, nobody would accept it accept morons, which
does _not_ include scientists, so you bear false witness yet again.
>
> The utter lack of any evidence only heightens the fact that Darwinism
> is based on racism to begin with.
God has removed your ability to see the evidence because you have given
yourself over to evil.
>
> OPPONENT:
>
> A biologist? Are geologists,
> paleontologists, anthropologists, and physicists in the same group?
Is
>
> anyone with a good science education in the same group?
>
> RAY M:
>
> The above discilpines are awash in Darwinists - obviously.
Predictable Satanist/creationist rant proves Ray Martinez is wrong yet
again.
>
> OPPONENT:
>
> How about the vast majority of Christians who have no problem
> reconciling their faith with the fact of evolution and a 4+ billion
> year old Earth?
>
> RAY M:
>
> Hitler CLAIMED to be a christian.
Creationists CLAIM to be Christian.
> Maybe they aint really a christian
> because they have no source for their theist beliefs.
Maybe they really are Christians because they _choose_ to believe it,
rather than thinking they _must_ believe because of proofs and evidence
that aren't really proofs and evidence.
> Of course, Mark
> Isaak simply ignores in the Bible what he disagrees with and it is no
> surprise those disagreements harm his evolution theory.
>
> In the Bible, the majority is always wrong. This typology is true in
> the world today = proof the Bible contains the eternal word of God.
But passed on through a lot of fallible humans.
>
> The Pharisees were the majority - the religious majority in Christ's
> time.
And they were the hyper-legalistic absolutists that the fundamentalists
and creationists are today.
>
> Jesus said they were of their father the devil =
fundamentalists today
(snip lie)
>
> Before you start mis-applying you have to find a majority IN THE
BIBLE
> then match it with one today.
Tower of Babel affliction noted.
>
> Christianity which supports ToE are ignorant of the claims of ToE and
> the Bible OR, are as the Bible depicts the religious majority: Ass
> kissing lovers of Caesar and what he offers = by implication enemies
of
> God.
Simply render to Caesar his proper due, and quit rendering to Satan
(fundamentalists/Biblical literalists/creationists).
>
> Ray M.
Eric Root
er...@swva.net
David Fritzinger wrote:
> In article <1114809281.0...@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>,
> "Ray Martinez" <pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > In the Bible, the majority is always wrong. This typology is true
in
> > the world today = proof the Bible contains the eternal word of God.
>
> Oh, so you say the US was wrong to vote for Bush? That DeLay's
district
> was wrong to vote for for him? Tennessee was wrong to elect Frist?
And,
> you must obviously think that the apparent majority of Americans who
are
> creationists are wrong. Well, I'm glad we got that straight!
They are all wrong. One of the evilest abilities of the far right is
their ability to plug into a lot of peoples worst character traits and
convince them to vote for them.
>
> 8^)
> >
> > The Pharisees were the majority - the religious majority in
Christ's
> > time.
>
> And, the creationists are the present day Pharisees.
Except the Pharisees were nicer but harder to spell.
> >
> > Jesus said they were of their father the devil = religious majority
> > today.
>
> Yup, and the religious majority in the US appear to be creationists.
So,
> is the majority always wrong, Ray?
Just the bad guys=creationists are always wrong, and would be no matter
how many there are.
> >
> > Before you start mis-applying you have to find a majority IN THE
BIBLE
> > then match it with one today.
> >
> > Christianity which supports ToE are ignorant of the claims of ToE
and
> > the Bible OR, are as the Bible depicts the religious majority: Ass
> > kissing lovers of Caesar and what he offers = by implication
enemies of
> > God.
>
> Nice assertion, Ray. Care to back it up?
>
> I didn't think so.
> >
> > Ray M.
>
> --
> Dave Fritzinger
> Honolulu, HI
Ray Martinez, good for the circulation, or bad for the digestion?
Enquiring minds want to know.
Eric Root
er...@swva.net
>
(snip cussing)
Cussing= admission that he is wrong and creationists are Satanists
underneath.
Eric Root
Richard Forrest
Ray Martinez wrote:
> OPPONENT:
>
> First, it's geologists who long ago proved that a global flood
couldn't
>
> have happened.
>
> RAY M:
>
> You mean Darwinian/atheist geologists assumed as fact then
interpreted
> observations to support the assumption.
Darwinian/atheists such as the Reverend William Buckland, who died in
the same year Darwin published the 'Origin of the Species'. The canon
of Christ Church, Oxford? Who died before the terms 'atheist' or
'Darwinisr' had been coined?
My word, you must value ignorance highly! You proclaim yours from the
rooftops as if it were a virtue.
RF
Steven J.
> STEVEN J:
>
-- [snip]
>
> STEVEN J:
>
> Do you mean that the Bible does *not* support a young Earth, or that it
> *does* support a young Earth?
>
>
> The Bible supports a Earth of "immense age".
>
> Do you agree ?
>
being. It's pretty impressive even for a tree. It isn't much to speak of
for a planet. Does the Bible support an Earth 4.55 billion years in age?
If so, how do you reconcile this to the "six day" chronology of Genesis 1?
If not, then you would be clearer if you just said the Bible supports a
young earth, since an Earth whose age is measured in thousands of years,
rather than millions of centuries, is "young" to geologists.
If your meaning of "immense" is the same as that of geologists, then when
was Noah's Flood? Was it a global flood, or local? Were there dinosaurs on
the Ark, or were they already all extinct?
>
> RM
>
-- Steven J.
AC
I don't think McNameless is looney. Ray, skywise, Conrad, those are
genuinely nutty individuals, but McNameless is just an honorless,
self-righteous liar. If there's anything particularly unbalanced about him,
it seems to be this notion he holds that he can behave in any fashion he
wants so long as he's trying to make Evolutionists look bad.