By their Fruits, July 2009
Ron O
creationist posters. I put up the list because it is one of the best
arguments against the anti-evolution side of what is basically a bogus
religious-political issue. It is not a scientific issue. This list
does not represent the majority of Christians or other religions that
may or may not have a beef with biological evolution. This list is
comprised of, mostly, long term posters and is a selected group.
These are the guys that you have left after they have flailed
senselessly away for months or years. They all know that they do not
have any valid or honest anti-evolution arguments that mean much of
anything, but for one reason or another they just can’t give up. They
are pretty much the flat-earthers of this modern age, they just have a
new topic to be ridiculous about. If you can stomach it, you can go
back through their old posts and demonstrate that fact for yourself.
There are some simple reasons why I can make the statement above. You
will witness it if you just follow this thread. There will likely not
be any anti-evolution creationist posters that will claim to post an
honest and valid anti-evolution argument that they have verified.
Virtually none of the long time posters are willing to make this claim
because they have all had every single argument that they have tried
blow up in their faces. There is often a grain of truth in the bogus
anti-evolution arguments, but when you follow the grain instead of
lying about it, you end up with something that isn’t worth putting
forward. The only guy lame enough to make this claim recently was [M]
adman and his example of an honest and valid anti-evolution argument
wasn’t even an argument against biological evolution. His claim was
that since Osama might not like the idea of biological evolution that,
that dislike could be just another reason why he might do terrible
things to the US. What a probably psychopath might think or do has
nothing to do with whether a scientific theory is valid or not, but
that is about all these guys have.
You might say “Hey, there is this “new” intelligent design argument
that is claimed to be the next best thing to sliced bread,” but the
only guys that still support the ID scam are the ignorant, incompetent
and or dishonest. The guys that perpetrated the ID scam are currently
running the bait and switch on anyone stupid enough to have believed
them and the switch scam doesn’t even mention that ID ever existed.
You can check it out.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligent_design
Philip Johnson, the guy that the other ID perps called the godfather
of the intelligent design movement has admitted that there never was
any ID science worth teaching to school kids, but only after ID lost
in court. Not only that, but he didn’t apologize for running the scam
for over a decade, he just blamed the “science” guys involved in the
scam (Meyer, Behe, and Dembski, et al.) for never developing any
science worth teaching.
QUOTE:
I also don’t think that there is really a theory of intelligent design
at the present time to propose as a comparable alternative to the
Darwinian theory, which is, whatever errors it might contain, a fully
worked out scheme. There is no intelligent design theory that’s
comparable. Working out a positive theory is the job of the scientific
people that we have affiliated with the movement. Some of them are
quite convinced that it’s doable, but that’s for them to prove…No
product is ready for competition in the educational world.
END QUOTE:
http://sciencereview.berkeley.edu/articles.php?issue=10&article=evolution
There are still a couple of intelligent design supporters that post
here, but as you might expect one of them is basically as incompetent
as you can get and still breath (Pagano) and the other is likely as
much a bogus snake in the grass as the guys at the Discovery Institute
that perpetrated the teach ID scam (Pitman). These guys do not have
an alternative to biological evolution and the evidence supporting
that alternative that they are willing to put forward, and they refuse
to put up any of the great intelligent design science that they would
have taught to school kids. Intelligent design supporters are stuck
between a rock and a hard place. The main line ID perps that ran the
scam gave up on it years before ID lost in court and have only been
using it as bait to run in their bogus switch scams (teach the
controversy, academic freedom). Every single creationist rube school
board and legislator that was taken in by the ID scam has had the bait
and switch run on them. They even tried to run in the switch on the
Dover board, but Dover didn’t take the switch scam, and the rest is
history. You can check it out. Just try and find a single school
board or legislator that has claimed to want to teach the science of
intelligent design that has ever gotten any ID science to teach. The
most recent example in the news was the Florida State Senator earlier
this year. Zero should tell any thinking human being enough, but it
isn’t enough for Pagano and Pitman.
Anyone that is still ignorant of how bogus the teach intelligent
design scam is, just has to get their local school board to teach the
science of intelligent design and watch how fast the switch scam comes
in. Look up the switch scam and you will find that the ID perps have
been running the bait and switch since Ohio in 2003. Years before
they lost in court at the end of 2005. What should that tell any
thinking human being about the intelligent design creationist scam?
http://science2.marion.ohio-state.edu/ohioscience/lesson-plans.html
The links below are basically random messages that I find that have
been posted recently. You can use Google to view their profiles and
find more posts by these guys. If I’ve missed anyone someone will
post a link.
Pagano isn’t even someone that you can feel sorry for, and is probably
a warning for anyone that is ignorant, still can reason, but wants to
support the intelligent design creationist scam.
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/c79e061faf15ad7e?hl=en
Early Pagano?:
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/e7330d5a46a2ce78?hl=en
Sean Pitman hasn’t posted for a while, but He will likely be back:
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/5506c671e7437e38?hl=en
[M]adman, to get the full effect you have to try to track down the
various accounts that he uses. Adman claims that he only has a few
days left for posting, but my guess is that he will be back.
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/06308a06c5045c8d?hl=en
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/64e835c673c745de?hl=en
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.talk.creationism/msg/39e8f8375960aa8f?hl=en
adman-Uriel:
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/f55e1c438f320202?hl=en
Ray is the only true Christian that posts on TO, and is going to
publish his opus that will destroy evolution any day.
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/3a13c67f71d17e03?hl=en
NashTon started posting again:
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/1f64a4e47f03a947?hl=en
Nando is still nando:
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/aaabbfe57e5f02e1?hl=en
Old Nando:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.fan.jeremy-reimer/msg/9cc417d00988f9db?hl=en
Spintronic has been going even farther down hill lately:
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/abc71b57a49e2a85?hl=en
Glenn still posts once in a while:
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/b0171a289d1ff13e?hl=en
Old Glenn may go farther back than this account traces. He used to
try to put up actual arguments.
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/058665f029e844b7?hl=en
Backspace:
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/2673268d50ad4c54?hl=en
Older Backspace:
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/0582c47b8b649a44?hl=en
Gabriel:
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/2673268d50ad4c54?hl=en
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/9c1cfa99eaca32c2?hl=en
Suzanne, I don’t want to put her in this group, but just be nice.
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/c68b88cce6a96bdd?hl=en
Misc.
Someone2:
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/eb88f49aaa9c9ccb?hl=en
Ganesh, who knows?:
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/b7b569f3274fe88d?hl=en
Ron Okimoto
'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank
>
> The links below are basically random messages that I find that have
> been posted recently. You can use Google to view their profiles and
> find more posts by these guys. If I’ve missed anyone someone will
> post a link.
>
> Pagano isn’t even someone that you can feel sorry for, and is probably
> a warning for anyone that is ignorant, still can reason, but wants to
>
> Early Pagano?:http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/e7330d5a46a2ce78?hl=en
>
> Sean Pitman hasn’t posted for a while, but He will likely be back:http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/5506c671e7437e38?hl=en
>
> [M]adman, to get the full effect you have to try to track down the
> various accounts that he uses. Adman claims that he only has a few
>
> adman-Uriel:http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/f55e1c438f320202?hl=en
>
> Ray is the only true Christian that posts on TO, and is going to
>
> NashTon started posting again:http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/1f64a4e47f03a947?hl=en
>
> Nando is still nando:http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/aaabbfe57e5f02e1?hl=en
>
>
> Spintronic has been going even farther down hill lately:http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/abc71b57a49e2a85?hl=en
>
> Glenn still posts once in a while:http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/b0171a289d1ff13e?hl=en
>
> Old Glenn may go farther back than this account traces. He used to
>
> Backspace:http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/2673268d50ad4c54?hl=en
>
> Older Backspace:http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/0582c47b8b649a44?hl=en
>
>
> Suzanne, I don’t want to put her in this group, but just be nice.http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/c68b88cce6a96bdd?hl=en
>
> Misc.
> Someone2:http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/eb88f49aaa9c9ccb?hl=en
>
> Ganesh, who knows?:http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/b7b569f3274fe88d?hl=en
>
> Ron Okimoto
This whole fight is over. All the "serious" creationists left the
field long ago. The only ones remaining are, indeed, the fruits.
The culture wars are over. We won.
================================================
Lenny Flank
"There are no loose threads in the web of life"
Editor, Red and Black Publishers
http://www.RedandBlackPublishers.com
Nashton
Get over yourself.
Ron O
>
> > adman-Uriel:
> >http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/f55e1c438f320202?hl=en
>
> > Ray is the only true Christian that posts on TO, and is going to
> > publish his opus that will destroy evolution any day.
> >http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/3a13c67f71d17e03?hl=en
>
> > NashTon started posting again:
> >http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/1f64a4e47f03a947?hl=en
>
> > Nando is still nando:
> >http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/aaabbfe57e5f02e1?hl=en
>
> > Old Nando:
>
> > Spintronic has been going even farther down hill lately:
> >http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/abc71b57a49e2a85?hl=en
>
> > Glenn still posts once in a while:
> >http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/b0171a289d1ff13e?hl=en
>
> > Old Glenn may go farther back than this account traces. He used to
> > try to put up actual arguments.
> >http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/058665f029e844b7?hl=en
>
> > Backspace:
> >http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/2673268d50ad4c54?hl=en
>
> > Older Backspace:
> >http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/0582c47b8b649a44?hl=en
>
> > Gabriel:
> >http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/2673268d50ad4c54?hl=en
> >http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/9c1cfa99eaca32c2?hl=en
>
> > Suzanne, I don’t want to put her in this group, but just be nice.
> >http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/c68b88cce6a96bdd?hl=en
>
> > Misc.
> > Someone2:
> >http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/eb88f49aaa9c9ccb?hl=en
>
> > Ganesh, who knows?:
> >http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/b7b569f3274fe88d?hl=en
>
> > Ron Okimoto
>
As expected you missed the point of the post. It is you that should
learn something from your past mistakes. Just as those that haven't
made those mistakes, yet, might benefit from your experience.
Ron Okimoto
magicus
That is very good advice, please do so...
btw, <plonk> sorry, new reader, you were there already, heh.
Have a nice lifetime...
ciao,
f
--
Pray: To ask that the laws of the universe be annulled in behalf of a
single petitioner confessedly unworthy.
-- Ambrose Bierce
Nashton
I will, thank you.
[M]adman
to use the bible to make an argument again.
Else you will continue to display your stupidity.
Eric Root
>
> > adman-Uriel:
> >http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/f55e1c438f320202?hl=en
>
> > Ray is the only true Christian that posts on TO, and is going to
> > publish his opus that will destroy evolution any day.
> >http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/3a13c67f71d17e03?hl=en
>
> > NashTon started posting again:
> >http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/1f64a4e47f03a947?hl=en
>
> > Nando is still nando:
> >http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/aaabbfe57e5f02e1?hl=en
>
> > Old Nando:
>
> > Spintronic has been going even farther down hill lately:
> >http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/abc71b57a49e2a85?hl=en
>
> > Glenn still posts once in a while:
> >http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/b0171a289d1ff13e?hl=en
>
> > Old Glenn may go farther back than this account traces. He used to
> > try to put up actual arguments.
> >http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/058665f029e844b7?hl=en
>
> > Backspace:
> >http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/2673268d50ad4c54?hl=en
>
> > Older Backspace:
> >http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/0582c47b8b649a44?hl=en
>
> > Gabriel:
> >http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/2673268d50ad4c54?hl=en
> >http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/9c1cfa99eaca32c2?hl=en
>
> > Suzanne, I don’t want to put her in this group, but just be nice.
> >http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/c68b88cce6a96bdd?hl=en
>
> > Misc.
> > Someone2:
> >http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/eb88f49aaa9c9ccb?hl=en
>
> > Ganesh, who knows?:
> >http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/b7b569f3274fe88d?hl=en
>
> > Ron Okimoto
>
> Get over yourself.
"Get over yourself?" What does that have to do with anything? You
got any more non sequiturs up your sleeve?
Eric Root
'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank
Ignoring the trolling attention-whore, and recommending everyone else
do the same.
Ye Old One
No where near a contest for your stupidity.
Madman (aka Mudbrain) is on record as claiming:-
That 3.5% actually means 25%...
That the actor Paul Newman was a creationist...
That "Dr." Kent Hovind has made lots of *scientific* discoveries...
That wars have been fought because some scientific finding discredited
some facet of some religion...
To have a "higher education" than most posters to this news group...
To understand how geologists determine the age of any given sample of
rock...
That trilobites were Cambrian mammals... [that one still makes me
laugh]
And that he has "created genes" and not evolved ape genes...
That linguists have traced all the world's languages to the Middle
East region and back to around the same time as the bible claims Noah
and his sons rebuilt mankind.
Claimed that talk.origin's moderator was a troll.
Claimed cigarettes do not cause cancer.
Now, I ask you, is this the sort of guy you would give an credence to?
Certainly I don't.
--
Bob.
Rolf
[snip]
>
> Ray is the only true Christian that posts on TO, and is going to
> publish his opus that will destroy evolution any day.
> http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/3a13c67f71d17e03?hl=en
>
A self-declared Christian, but hardly a true Christian.
Frank J
>
> The links below are basically random messages that I find that have
> been posted recently. You can use Google to view their profiles and
> find more posts by these guys. If I’ve missed anyone someone will
> post a link.
>
> Pagano isn’t even someone that you can feel sorry for, and is probably
> a warning for anyone that is ignorant, still can reason, but wants to
>
> Early Pagano?:http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/e7330d5a46a2ce78?hl=en
>
> Sean Pitman hasn’t posted for a while, but He will likely be back:http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/5506c671e7437e38?hl=en
>
> [M]adman, to get the full effect you have to try to track down the
> various accounts that he uses. Adman claims that he only has a few
>
> adman-Uriel:http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/f55e1c438f320202?hl=en
>
> Ray is the only true Christian that posts on TO, and is going to
>
> NashTon started posting again:http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/1f64a4e47f03a947?hl=en
>
> Nando is still nando:http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/aaabbfe57e5f02e1?hl=en
>
>
> Spintronic has been going even farther down hill lately:http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/abc71b57a49e2a85?hl=en
>
> Glenn still posts once in a while:http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/b0171a289d1ff13e?hl=en
>
> Old Glenn may go farther back than this account traces. He used to
>
> Backspace:http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/2673268d50ad4c54?hl=en
>
> Older Backspace:http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/0582c47b8b649a44?hl=en
>
>
> Suzanne, I don’t want to put her in this group, but just be nice.http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/c68b88cce6a96bdd?hl=en
>
> Misc.
> Someone2:http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/eb88f49aaa9c9ccb?hl=en
>
> Ganesh, who knows?:http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/b7b569f3274fe88d?hl=en
>
> Ron Okimoto
Roadrunner, Zoe, Average Joe, Ed Conrad, Nowhere Man, John Mc Coy, Big
Discusser. Ah, the good old days. ;-)
Frank J
Hey Ray! He didn't capitalize "Bible." Oops, I mean "Holy Bible." Does
that make him an atheist?
Frank J
I always wondered where masochists fit in the Golden Rule.
Ron O
> On Jul 4, 11:09 am, Ron O <rokim...@cox.net> wrote:
SNIP:
>
> Roadrunner, Zoe, Average Joe, Ed Conrad, Nowhere Man, John Mc Coy, Big
> Discusser. Ah, the good old days. ;-)-
I try to stay current, but we could get a list going:
KSJJ (Karl Crawford)
Philosopher7 (how many guys that went by philosopher(something) or
some other type of agnostic sage and ended up to be creationist
cretins? Most only lasted long enough to be exposed. Usually damning
everyone to hell and spouting Bible verses before they left.)
MG (Mike Goodrich)
The Schlafly brothers
Red and Blue (I think this one eventually claimed to be a psych
experiment that was testing responses to his fortune cookie type
responses.)
Philip Johnson posted here a few times.
REMINE
Jabriol
Ted Holden
The mathematician list maker. (His name escapes me at the moment)
Charlie (What is his name? He degenerated into pretending to be a
little girl before he left, and wasn't such a bad sort. For some
reason I can't remember his name, and someone just reminded me of it.)
DrDach. Along with Jabs there was another true menace that was here
for a short time. He was some kind of doctor that got his jollies by
searching out information on people and just asking personal
questions, and then trying to use it against them. I was a victim
along with some others. It was creepy. Glenn tried to defend the
pathological miscreant, and I'm sure that Glenn does not count that
among his stellar moments on TO.
There was one person that I recall that posted on the anti-evolution
side, but was actually interested in getting to the bottom of the
questions and figuring out just what the creationist arguments were.
He posted around 2002 and also at ARN. I think that his name was
Elkington or something like that. He tried to follow the grain of
truth of the argument to the bitter end and found the end
distasteful. Before he left, he acknowledged that he did not have any
viable arguments, and that the creationist arguments were not up to
snuff. He didn't give up, he just admitted that he had to wait for
something worth putting forward.
There are probably a bunch of others. These are only the guys that
posted long enough for me to remember. Most anti-evolution posters do
not last more than a couple threads. Heck, the vast majority just
post and run.
Ron Okimoto
Ron O
I suggest that you reread Luke and see how it fits into your
situation. Who did you get all those bogus creationist arguments
from? Who sold you on the belief set that you are following as a
clueless cretin? Why do you have to be so dishonest or incompetent in
trying to support the effort? Whether you like it or not you are a
fruit in more ways than one. You have to look in the mirror and ask
yourself, are you a good fruit or a bad fruit, if you are still
competent enough to do that. Hundreds of bogus creationist arguments
blowing up in your face, with no "PAT" answers of your own, no honest
and valid arguments to put forward, and it is a pretty easy evaluation
to make.
It is just a fact that the anti-evolution religious-political movement
is basically only represented by bad fruit on this newsgroup. You
have to read the Bible and try to figure out why that is the case.
You can't claim that this is a misrepresentation of Biblical passages,
because whether you like it or not, you are a fruit along with the
others in the anti-evolution camp. You can't even claim that you are
the exception. What does it tell you, when nearly everyone on the
list is a bad fruit?
Not all religious people are like this.
http://www.butler.edu/clergyproject/rel_evol_sun.htm
Ron Okimoto
Frank J
Charlie Wagner. Pops up on the Panda's Thumb on occasion. He became
ill a few years ago, and IIRC partially disabled, so he doesn't post
much. Strictly old-earth, with an "environmental lawn" model that's
not much consolation to YECs or OECs. Quite to the left, politically
too, IIRC, but not in LaLa land like Average Joe.
Ron O
Yes, Wagner. I can't recall the by line that he went by most of the
time.
> > DrDach. Along with Jabs there was another true menace that was here
> > for a short time. He was some kind of doctor that got his jollies by
> > searching out information on people or just asking personal
> > questions, and then trying to use it against them. I was a victim
> > along with some others. It was creepy. Glenn tried to defend the
> > pathological miscreant, and I'm sure that Glenn does not count that
> > among his stellar moments on TO.
I looked up Dach and Logos popped out. I don't know how I forgot
about Logos. Someone similar to Philosopher7 that was never
interested in discussing the issues. Dach claimed to know what
happened to Logos, and may have been Logos. Logos just happened to
stop posting around the time when Dach started posting. In his
denials Dach claimed that Logos was an inmate at some mental
institution. I don't know where he got his information, but Dach
liked digging up information on people.
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/ada805bcf90e6668?hl=en
Ron Okimoto
>
> > There was one person that I recall that posted on the anti-evolution
> > side, but was actually interested in getting to the bottom of the
> > questions and figuring out just what the creationist arguments were.
> > He posted around 2002 and also at ARN. I think that his name was
> > Elkington or something like that. He tried to follow the grain of
> > truth of the argument to the bitter end and found the end
> > distasteful. Before he left, he acknowledged that he did not have any
> > viable arguments, and that the creationist arguments were not up to
> > snuff. He didn't give up, he just admitted that he had to wait for
> > something worth putting forward.
>
> > There are probably a bunch of others. These are only the guys that
> > posted long enough for me to remember. Most anti-evolution posters do
> > not last more than a couple threads. Heck, the vast majority just
> > post and run.
>
> > Ron Okimoto-
[M]adman
That Clergy Letter /is the fruit you will know them by/ Ron O. They are the
false teachers Jesus said would come along after he died. They are the "wolf
in sheep's clothing". They are the bad branch on the vine that will get
pruned. jesus spoke several times about this. Their letter *IS* the fruit
you will know them by.
The Scientists that push the evolution-as-god notion will get off easier
then the bad teachers on that list.
Ron O
By the Bible's own teaching, why are the Clergy that signed the Clergy
letter the false teachers, when it is your side that has to be so
incompetent and dishonest? You want to condem the clergy that signed
this letter, and you know for a fact that you can't trust the guys
that you get your information from. Put up a single honest and valid
anti-evolution creationist argument. Why can't you do that if the
false teachers are the other guys? Just for laughs try the moon dust
argument again. You know that, that one was bogus the day that
someone made it up because you know that space probes had already
measured the dust on the moon before the Astronauts went there. What
about Hovind's scientific discoveries? What about that Osama
argument? What about any of the hundreds of pieces of junk that you
have pulled out of creationist sources? You are the one that has
constantly had these things blow up in your face and you can still
claim it is the other guys that are the false teachers and not the
guys that feed you the junk that you know are bogus and dishonest?
You are their fruit, and what does that tell you about them? What
type of people would take advantage of the ignorant and mentally
incompetent like yourself?
Ron Okimoto
Kent Paul Dolan
> Ganesh, who knows?:
Isn't that the one balancing an elephant's severed
head on top of his own headless neck?
That's a tough act to pull off when all ones brains
are gone missing in a spat.
xanthian.
wf3h
actually it's the creatieonists who are the wolves in sheeps'
clothing. you are the liars. you are the bad branch
>
> The Scientists that push the evolution-as-god notion will get off easier
> then the bad teachers on that list.-
you're doomed.
Eric Root
That would be you.
> They are the "wolf
> in sheep's clothing".
"They" meaning creationists.
> They are the bad branch on the vine that will get
> pruned. jesus spoke several times about this. Their letter *IS* the fruit
> you will know them by.
Right. He will get rid of the creationists and the book-worshippers.
>
> The Scientists that push the evolution-as-god
All none of them.
> notion will get off easier
> then the bad teachers on that list.
None of which you can point to, not knowing their actual teaching.
Eric Root
John Smith
"Kent Paul Dolan" <xant...@well.com> wrote in message
news:h2qt0j$450$1...@news.albasani.net...
???????????????
But isn't that one of the basic demands, to qualify as a republican?
>
> xanthian.
>
Gary Bohn
<snip half a dozen additions to a rather long post>
Has everyone here forgotten how to snip?
I pine for the old days.
AlwaysAskingQuestions
> Ray is the only true Christian that posts on TO
That is not correct and I suspect you did not mean it the way you wrote it;
he is the only person who meets *his own particular self-definition* of a
true Christian.
Greg G.
...
> The mathematician list maker. (His name escapes me at the moment)
Peter Nyik*s. If you type his name, he will appear, so the legend
goes.
...
> There was one person that I recall that posted on the anti-evolution
> side, but was actually interested in getting to the bottom of the
> questions and figuring out just what the creationist arguments were.
> He posted around 2002 and also at ARN. I think that his name was
> Elkington or something like that. He tried to follow the grain of
> truth of the argument to the bitter end and found the end
> distasteful. Before he left, he acknowledged that he did not have any
> viable arguments, and that the creationist arguments were not up to
> snuff. He didn't give up, he just admitted that he had to wait for
> something worth putting forward.
Mark Elkington.
...
Ron O
Back then people had 128K or 256K machines, no hard drives, 300 BAUD
modems and downloading the days posts was a major pain in the neck if
people were not courteous enough to SNIP out the older material. Even
to this day some people SNIP for dishonest reasons. The good old days
had their drawbacks.
Just think what the posters back then would have done to you because
you posted something that didn't add to the thread and just mentioned
that you were SNIPping? Slow roasting to a char broil would have been
too good for you.;-)
Ron Okimoto
Ron O
Thanks, those are the ones.
Ron Okimoto
Ron O
"In his own mind," is what I will have to add the next time, but some
people will likely complain that he likely doesn't have one.
Ron Okimoto
John S. Wilkins
> On Jul 5, 10:56 am, Ron O <rokim...@cox.net> wrote:
> ...
> > The mathematician list maker. (His name escapes me at the moment)
>
> Peter Nyik*s. If you type his name, he will appear, so the legend
> goes.
Nyikos! Nyikos! Nyikos!
I miss Peter. He was fun.
>
> ...
> > There was one person that I recall that posted on the anti-evolution
> > side, but was actually interested in getting to the bottom of the
> > questions and figuring out just what the creationist arguments were.
> > He posted around 2002 and also at ARN. I think that his name was
> > Elkington or something like that. He tried to follow the grain of
> > truth of the argument to the bitter end and found the end
> > distasteful. Before he left, he acknowledged that he did not have any
> > viable arguments, and that the creationist arguments were not up to
> > snuff. He didn't give up, he just admitted that he had to wait for
> > something worth putting forward.
>
> Mark Elkington.
>
> ...
--
John S. Wilkins, Philosophy, University of Sydney
http://evolvingthoughts.net
But al be that he was a philosophre,
Yet hadde he but litel gold in cofre
John S. Wilkins
I don't mean to SNIPe, but editing down to the discussed material is
good manners. Nothing to do with bandwidth.
Ron O
> Greg G. <ggw...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Jul 5, 10:56 am, Ron O <rokim...@cox.net> wrote:
> > ...
> > > The mathematician list maker. (His name escapes me at the moment)
>
> > Peter Nyik*s. If you type his name, he will appear, so the legend
> > goes.
>
> Nyikos! Nyikos! Nyikos!
>
> I miss Peter. He was fun.
>
I don't think that I ever made his lists.
Ron Okimoto
>
> > ...
> > > There was one person that I recall that posted on the anti-evolution
> > > side, but was actually interested in getting to the bottom of the
> > > questions and figuring out just what the creationist arguments were.
> > > He posted around 2002 and also at ARN. I think that his name was
> > > Elkington or something like that. He tried to follow the grain of
> > > truth of the argument to the bitter end and found the end
> > > distasteful. Before he left, he acknowledged that he did not have any
> > > viable arguments, and that the creationist arguments were not up to
> > > snuff. He didn't give up, he just admitted that he had to wait for
> > > something worth putting forward.
>
> > Mark Elkington.
>
> > ...
>
> --
> John S. Wilkins, Philosophy, University of Sydneyhttp://evolvingthoughts.net
> But al be that he was a philosophre,
> Yet hadde he but litel gold in cofre- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
richardal...@googlemail.com
So where is the evidence that the signatories of the clergy letter
rely on deep and systematic dishonesty to promote their cause?
> They are the
> false teachers Jesus said would come along after he died. They are the "wolf
> in sheep's clothing". They are the bad branch on the vine that will get
> pruned. jesus spoke several times about this. Their letter *IS* the fruit
> you will know them by.
I have been reading creationist sources for over 30 years, and have
yet to come across any argument not based on misrepresentation,
distortion or outright falsehoods. I have documented the dishonesty of
a number of creationist web sites. You can find my analyses here:
http://www.plesiosaur.com/creationism/index.php
If you can demonstrate that I am wrong in my conclusion that
creationist sources are guilty of systematic dishonesty, please
provide a link to an honest creationist source. I've asked this
question many times of creationists, but none have provided such a
link.
I have also asked creationists to provide a link to any "evolutionist"
web site they think is dishonest. None has responded to that request
either.
I can see no other conclusion but that creationists are systematically
dishonest, accept that they are systematically dishonest, and don't
care that they are systematically dishonest.
What other conclusion can you draw from this evidence?
And given this conclusion, what do you think it tells us about
creationist claims to be the only true Christians?
>
> The Scientists that push the evolution-as-god notion will get off easier
> then the bad teachers on that list.
So how do you explain the fact that the evidence shows that it is the
creationists who are deeply and systematically dishonest, not the
signatories of the clergy letter?
Are creationists exempt from the commandment against bearing false
witness?
RF
Kent Paul Dolan
> Are creationists exempt from the commandment
> against bearing false witness?
Apparently so:
http://rationalwiki.com/wiki/Morton%27s_demon
HTH
xanthian.
Kermit
Please provide a cite that supports that. Scientists who are atheists
have never claimed that evolution is a god. Scientists who are theists
say that evolution is how God does things.
Do meteorologists claim that rain is a god? Do chemists claim that the
release of heat when certain molecules break up is a god? Scientists
merely (!) describe how the world works.
You can't even convince the theists who do science that you are right
based on your interpretation of the scriptures. How could you possibly
hope to convince those of us who have rejected (or are utterly
disinterested in) religious claims?
I do know arrogance when I see it, however: accusing other believers
of being heretics because they don't accept *your interpretations of a
set of books which have spawned thousands of mutually contradictory
sects!
Kermit
[M]adman
Well, they are "describing the world" from a very narrow perspective.
AlwaysAskingQuestions
:)
wf3h
> Kermit wrote:
>
> > I do know arrogance when I see it, however: accusing other believers
> > of being heretics because they don't accept *your interpretations of a
> > set of books which have spawned thousands of mutually contradictory
> > sects!
>
> > Kermit
>
> Well, they are "describing the world" from a very narrow perspective.-
astonishing. on what basis do you make this claim? are people just
supposed to sit back and let you determine truth for them as some
equally misguided person did to you?
Wombat
When you meet your creator, will you also have the arrogance to tell
him he had a narrow perspective?
Wombat
Kermit
Clearly scientists pay little attention to Madman's imagination (or
hallucinations).
Here's a bar graph of the All Knowable Things:
| ---- Madman's special powers of perception
-------------------------------------------------| everything else |
See?
The stuff that he "sees" is the bulk of it all. He really can't see
past himself to the world he lives in. He blocks his own vision, he is
blinded by his own light, hoist by his own petard.
Kermit
Ron O
If he is responsible for adman who do you complain to?
Ron Okimoto
Ron O
> But al be that he was a philosophre,
Google does it for you and forces you to open the older hidden
material to see it.
Ron Okimoto
JennyB
> magicus wrote:
> > On Sat, 04 Jul 2009 13:16:41 -0300, Nashton <n...@nana.ca> wrote:
> >> Get over yourself.
>
> > That is very good advice, please do so...
>
> > btw, <plonk> sorry, new reader, you were there already, heh.
>
> > Have a nice lifetime...
>
> > ciao,
> > f
>
> I will, thank you.
How do you propose to do so?
Wombat
> On Jul 5, 10:56 am, Ron O <rokim...@cox.net> wrote:
> ...
>
> > The mathematician list maker. (His name escapes me at the moment)
>
> Peter Nyik*s. If you type his name, he will appear, so the legend
> goes.
I spelt out his name a while ago because the old timers were being
irritatingly coy about someone returning. I fear the legend is wrong.
Wombat
Ron O
> On 6 July, 23:18, "Greg G." <ggw...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Jul 5, 10:56 am, Ron O <rokim...@cox.net> wrote:
> > ...
>
> > > The mathematician list maker. (His name escapes me at the moment)
>
> > Peter Nyik*s. If you type his name, he will appear, so the legend
> > goes.
>
> I spelt out his name a while ago because the old timers were being
> irritatingly coy about someone returning. I fear the legend is wrong.
>
> Wombat
>
Did you spell it correctly? Put Dr. or professor in front and
mathematician and scholar at the end? I wonder what Peter would have
done with intelligent design pretenders like Dembski. If you curse
the group with him again, we might find out.
Ron Okimoto
Suzanne
> I have the usual disclaimer, this is just a list of anti-evolution
> creationist posters. I put up the list because it is one of the best
> arguments against the anti-evolution side of what is basically a bogus
> religious-political issue. It is not a scientific issue. This list
> does not represent the majority of Christians or other religions that
> may or may not have a beef with biological evolution. This list is
> comprised of, mostly, long term posters and is a selected group.
> These are the guys that you have left after they have flailed
> senselessly away for months or years. They all know that they do not
> have any valid or honest anti-evolution arguments that mean much of
> anything, but for one reason or another they just can’t give up. They
> are pretty much the flat-earthers of this modern age, they just have a
> new topic to be ridiculous about. If you can stomach it, you can go
> back through their old posts and demonstrate that fact for yourself.
>
> There are some simple reasons why I can make the statement above. You
> will witness it if you just follow this thread. There will likely not
> be any anti-evolution creationist posters that will claim to post an
> honest and valid anti-evolution argument that they have verified.
> Virtually none of the long time posters are willing to make this claim
> because they have all had every single argument that they have tried
> blow up in their faces. There is often a grain of truth in the bogus
> anti-evolution arguments, but when you follow the grain instead of
> lying about it, you end up with something that isn’t worth putting
> forward. The only guy lame enough to make this claim recently was [M]
> adman and his example of an honest and valid anti-evolution argument
> wasn’t even an argument against biological evolution. His claim was
> that since Osama might not like the idea of biological evolution that,
> that dislike could be just another reason why he might do terrible
> things to the US. What a probably psychopath might think or do has
> nothing to do with whether a scientific theory is valid or not, but
> that is about all these guys have.
>
> You might say “Hey, there is this “new” intelligent design argument
> that is claimed to be the next best thing to sliced bread,” but the
> only guys that still support the ID scam are the ignorant, incompetent
> and or dishonest. The guys that perpetrated the ID scam are currently
> running the bait and switch on anyone stupid enough to have believed
> them and the switch scam doesn’t even mention that ID ever existed.
> You can check it out.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligent_design
>
> Philip Johnson, the guy that the other ID perps called the godfather
> of the intelligent design movement has admitted that there never was
> any ID science worth teaching to school kids, but only after ID lost
> in court. Not only that, but he didn’t apologize for running the scam
> for over a decade, he just blamed the “science” guys involved in the
> scam (Meyer, Behe, and Dembski, et al.) for never developing any
> science worth teaching.
>
> QUOTE:
> I also don’t think that there is really a theory of intelligent design
> at the present time to propose as a comparable alternative to the
> Darwinian theory, which is, whatever errors it might contain, a fully
> worked out scheme. There is no intelligent design theory that’s
> comparable. Working out a positive theory is the job of the scientific
> people that we have affiliated with the movement. Some of them are
> quite convinced that it’s doable, but that’s for them to prove…No
> product is ready for competition in the educational world.
> END QUOTE:http://sciencereview.berkeley.edu/articles.php?issue=10&article=evolu...
>
> There are still a couple of intelligent design supporters that post
> here, but as you might expect one of them is basically as incompetent
> as you can get and still breath (Pagano) and the other is likely as
> much a bogus snake in the grass as the guys at the Discovery Institute
> that perpetrated the teach ID scam (Pitman). These guys do not have
> an alternative to biological evolution and the evidence supporting
> that alternative that they are willing to put forward, and they refuse
> to put up any of the great intelligent design science that they would
> have taught to school kids. Intelligent design supporters are stuck
> between a rock and a hard place. The main line ID perps that ran the
> scam gave up on it years before ID lost in court and have only been
> using it as bait to run in their bogus switch scams (teach the
> controversy, academic freedom). Every single creationist rube school
> board and legislator that was taken in by the ID scam has had the bait
> and switch run on them. They even tried to run in the switch on the
> Dover board, but Dover didn’t take the switch scam, and the rest is
> history. You can check it out. Just try and find a single school
> board or legislator that has claimed to want to teach the science of
> intelligent design that has ever gotten any ID science to teach. The
> most recent example in the news was the Florida State Senator earlier
> this year. Zero should tell any thinking human being enough, but it
> isn’t enough for Pagano and Pitman.
>
> Anyone that is still ignorant of how bogus the teach intelligent
> design scam is, just has to get their local school board to teach the
> science of intelligent design and watch how fast the switch scam comes
> in. Look up the switch scam and you will find that the ID perps have
> been running the bait and switch since Ohio in 2003. Years before
> they lost in court at the end of 2005. What should that tell any
> thinking human being about the intelligent design creationist scam?http://science2.marion.ohio-state.edu/ohioscience/lesson-plans.html
>
> The links below are basically random messages that I find that have
> been posted recently. You can use Google to view their profiles and
> find more posts by these guys. If I’ve missed anyone someone will
> post a link.
>
> Pagano isn’t even someone that you can feel sorry for, and is probably
> a warning for anyone that is ignorant, still can reason, but wants to
> support the intelligent design creationist scam.http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/c79e061faf15ad7e?hl=en
>
> Early Pagano?:http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/e7330d5a46a2ce78?hl=en
>
> Sean Pitman hasn’t posted for a while, but He will likely be back:http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/5506c671e7437e38?hl=en
>
> [M]adman, to get the full effect you have to try to track down the
> various accounts that he uses. Adman claims that he only has a few
> days left for posting, but my guess is that he will be back.http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/06308a06c5045c8d?hl=enhttp://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/64e835c673c745de?hl=enhttp://groups.google.com/group/alt.talk.creationism/msg/39e8f8375960a...
>
> adman-Uriel:http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/f55e1c438f320202?hl=en
>
> Ray is the only true Christian that posts on TO, and is going to
> publish his opus that will destroy evolution any day.http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/3a13c67f71d17e03?hl=en
>
> NashTon started posting again:http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/1f64a4e47f03a947?hl=en
>
> Nando is still nando:http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/aaabbfe57e5f02e1?hl=en
>
> Old Nando:http://groups.google.com/group/alt.fan.jeremy-reimer/msg/9cc417d00988...
>
> Spintronic has been going even farther down hill lately:http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/abc71b57a49e2a85?hl=en
>
> Glenn still posts once in a while:http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/b0171a289d1ff13e?hl=en
>
> Old Glenn may go farther back than this account traces. He used to
> try to put up actual arguments.http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/058665f029e844b7?hl=en
>
> Backspace:http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/2673268d50ad4c54?hl=en
>
> Older Backspace:http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/0582c47b8b649a44?hl=en
>
> Gabriel:http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/2673268d50ad4c54?hl=enhttp://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/9c1cfa99eaca32c2?hl=en
>
> Suzanne, I don’t want to put her in this group, but just be nice.http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/c68b88cce6a96bdd?hl=en
>
> Misc.
> Someone2:http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/eb88f49aaa9c9ccb?hl=en
>
> Ganesh, who knows?:http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/b7b569f3274fe88d?hl=en
>
> Ron Okimoto
>
Ron, you include my name, and you say "I don't want to put her in this
group, but just be nice." Who do you consider you are being nice to,
in adding my name?" Just curious. It sounded ambiguous in one sense.
>
Also, you said that only one person in your list is a "true"
Christian. That's a strange statement. A "true" Christian is a person
who has put their trust in Jesus Christ, and him alone for salvation,
and who has decided to follow Jesus in his life. You can't really see
into someone's heart and know always who that could be. A person that
you see may be a babe in Christ. A Christian may not to you appear to
be perfection, in other words. By your fruits ye shall know them does
not mean that they will appear to be perfect people, it means that you
will see the fruit of the spirit in their lives, which are peace,
longsuffering, gentleness, joy, meekness, and such. A true Christian
knows that he is not the pillar of perfection, but that he is saved by
the grace of God. He is someone who acknowedges his lack, but who
desires to be completed by the covering of Christ's perfect
righteousness, rathar than his own. He is not someone earning his way
into Heaven, he is someone who already knows Christ paid for his sins,
and who follows Christ out of gratitude, and not for earning points.
>
Suzanne
Kermit
>
> > adman-Uriel:http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/f55e1c438f320202?hl=en
>
> > Ray is the only true Christian that posts on TO, and is going to
> > publish his opus that will destroy evolution any day.http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/3a13c67f71d17e03?hl=en
>
> > NashTon started posting again:http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/1f64a4e47f03a947?hl=en
>
> > Nando is still nando:http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/aaabbfe57e5f02e1?hl=en
>
> > Old Nando:http://groups.google.com/group/alt.fan.jeremy-reimer/msg/9cc417d00988...
>
> > Spintronic has been going even farther down hill lately:http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/abc71b57a49e2a85?hl=en
>
> > Glenn still posts once in a while:http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/b0171a289d1ff13e?hl=en
>
> > Old Glenn may go farther back than this account traces. He used to
> > try to put up actual arguments.http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/058665f029e844b7?hl=en
>
> > Backspace:http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/2673268d50ad4c54?hl=en
>
> > Older Backspace:http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/0582c47b8b649a44?hl=en
>
>
> > Suzanne, I don’t want to put her in this group, but just be nice.http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/c68b88cce6a96bdd?hl=en
>
> > Misc.
> > Someone2:http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/eb88f49aaa9c9ccb?hl=en
>
> > Ganesh, who knows?:http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/b7b569f3274fe88d?hl=en
>
> > Ron Okimoto
>
> Ron, you include my name, and you say "I don't want to put her in this
> group, but just be nice." Who do you consider you are being nice to,
> in adding my name?" Just curious. It sounded ambiguous in one sense.
You qualify for membership in this group by arguing against reality-
based science, using religion as justification saying things which are
demonstrably false. Yet you are invariably polite, and I suspect Ron
is reluctant to make you a target for any mean-spirited response by
those who get frustrated at determined ignorance.
>
> Also, you said that only one person in your list is a "true"
> Christian. That's a strange statement. A "true" Christian is a person
> who has put their trust in Jesus Christ, and him alone for salvation,
Ron knows this, I'm sure. He was being sarcastic. Ray typically denies
that any person who disagrees with him on evolution (or, as far as aI
can tell, on anything) can possibly be a Christian. He has said that
nearly all people who claim to be Christian are not, and he says this
with no hint of self-referencing irony.
> and who has decided to follow Jesus in his life. You can't really see
> into someone's heart and know always who that could be.
Several people on that list would say that if person's heart were
true, they would come to the right conclusion, that is, agree with
*them.
> A person that
> you see may be a babe in Christ. A Christian may not to you appear to
> be perfection, in other words. By your fruits ye shall know them does
> not mean that they will appear to be perfect people, it means that you
> will see the fruit of the spirit in their lives, which are peace,
> longsuffering, gentleness, joy, meekness, and such. A true Christian
> knows that he is not the pillar of perfection, but that he is saved by
> the grace of God. He is someone who acknowedges his lack, but who
> desires to be completed by the covering of Christ's perfect
> righteousness, rathar than his own. He is not someone earning his way
> into Heaven, he is someone who already knows Christ paid for his sins,
> and who follows Christ out of gratitude, and not for earning points.
My first teacher of evolutionary science was a Christian, and he would
largely agree with you on this. But he often wondered why so many
Christians seem compelled to make claims about the material world
which are, well, contradicted by the world itself.
>
> Suzanne
Kermit
Jack Frieze
>
> > On Jul 5, 10:56 am, Ron O <rokim...@cox.net> wrote:
> > ...
>
> > > The mathematician list maker. (His name escapes me at the moment)
>
> > Peter Nyik*s. If you type his name, he will appear, so the legend
> > goes.
>
> I spelt out his name a while ago because the old timers were being
> irritatingly coy about someone returning. I fear the legend is wrong.
>
> Wombat
Thanks a bunch, dear Wombat. I was browsing alt.atheism yesterday
looking for some old familiar names* when I found Herr Professor in
the thread "Two-Thirds of Iowans Want to Vote on Marriage" (in case
Dr. Wilkins still wishes to remake his acquaintance). He actually
used
his "I'm a professor of mathematics at a university" argument from
authority as if he knew I was in a nostalgic mood.
AUGH! GurrgleGoops flags "spelt". I remember its being given as
an alternative spelling in U.S. grammar school *mumblety-some* years
ago. I NOT HAS AN ARCHAIC!!111elebenty
*It seems I should have been looking in talk.atheism anyway. Did I
miss the memo where D_G blocked cross-posting from t.a? It seems
a bunch of people disappeared from tee-dot-oh a year or two ago
and I accepted it as a divine whim that a mortal can but endure.
--
Jack Frieze
Ron O
>
> > adman-Uriel:http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/f55e1c438f320202?hl=en
>
> > Ray is the only true Christian that posts on TO, and is going to
> > publish his opus that will destroy evolution any day.http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/3a13c67f71d17e03?hl=en
>
> > NashTon started posting again:http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/1f64a4e47f03a947?hl=en
>
> > Nando is still nando:http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/aaabbfe57e5f02e1?hl=en
>
> > Old Nando:http://groups.google.com/group/alt.fan.jeremy-reimer/msg/9cc417d00988...
>
> > Spintronic has been going even farther down hill lately:http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/abc71b57a49e2a85?hl=en
>
> > Glenn still posts once in a while:http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/b0171a289d1ff13e?hl=en
>
> > Old Glenn may go farther back than this account traces. He used to
> > try to put up actual arguments.http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/058665f029e844b7?hl=en
>
> > Backspace:http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/2673268d50ad4c54?hl=en
>
> > Older Backspace:http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/0582c47b8b649a44?hl=en
>
>
> > Suzanne, I don’t want to put her in this group, but just be nice.http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/c68b88cce6a96bdd?hl=en
>
> > Misc.
> > Someone2:http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/eb88f49aaa9c9ccb?hl=en
>
> > Ganesh, who knows?:http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/b7b569f3274fe88d?hl=en
>
> > Ron Okimoto
>
> Ron, you include my name, and you say "I don't want to put her in this
> group, but just be nice." Who do you consider you are being nice to,
> in adding my name?" Just curious. It sounded ambiguous in one sense.
I just make this list as complete and representative of a certain type
of poster as possible. It is just a list of the anti-evolution
posters. I make no claims that you can derive any conclusions about
the people on this list, and just make it easier for anyone to look up
these guys and check it out for themselves. I have to put the good
and the bad on the list or I'd have to make two lists, and there
aren't enough posters on one end of the scale to make that something
that is worth doing.
>
> Also, you said that only one person in your list is a "true"
> Christian. That's a strange statement. A "true" Christian is a person
> who has put their trust in Jesus Christ, and him alone for salvation,
> and who has decided to follow Jesus in his life. You can't really see
> into someone's heart and know always who that could be. A person that
> you see may be a babe in Christ. A Christian may not to you appear to
> be perfection, in other words. By your fruits ye shall know them does
> not mean that they will appear to be perfect people, it means that you
> will see the fruit of the spirit in their lives, which are peace,
> longsuffering, gentleness, joy, meekness, and such. A true Christian
> knows that he is not the pillar of perfection, but that he is saved by
> the grace of God. He is someone who acknowedges his lack, but who
> desires to be completed by the covering of Christ's perfect
> righteousness, rathar than his own. He is not someone earning his way
> into Heaven, he is someone who already knows Christ ...
>
I just repeat what you can conclude from Ray's claims that he is the
only true Christian posting on TO. I don't expect anyone to take the
statement at face value because like most of what Ray claims it does
not reflect reality. I've seen Ray claim that adman and spinny are
not real Christians, and about the only others that he accepts are
some dead people and himself.
Whether you like it or not, this is the group you share a basic belief
with. If I left you off and somebody read some of your posts they'd
have to wonder if there were more like you. This way they see
everyone and can't make that mistake. Sorry about that. My advice is
to keep your cool and let rude comments roll off. People just get
frustrated, but let them.
Ron Okimoto
Suzanne
> On Jul 17, 6:42 am,Suzanne<leila...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Jul 4, 10:09 am, Ron O <rokim...@cox.net> wrote:> I have the usual disclaimer, this is just a list of anti-evolution
>
>
> > Ron, you include my name, and you say "I don't want to put her in this
> > group, but just be nice." Who do you consider you are being nice to,
> > in adding my name?" Just curious. It sounded ambiguous in one sense.
>
> You qualify for membership in this group by arguing against reality-
> based science, using religion as justification saying things which are
> demonstrably false. Yet you are invariably polite, and I suspect Ron
> is reluctant to make you a target for any mean-spirited response by
> those who get frustrated at determined ignorance.
>
>
> > Also, you said that only one person in your list is a "true"
> > Christian. That's a strange statement. A "true" Christian is a person
> > who has put their trust in Jesus Christ, and him alone for salvation,
>
> Ron knows this, I'm sure. He was being sarcastic. Ray typically denies
> that any person who disagrees with him on evolution (or, as far as aI
> can tell, on anything) can possibly be a Christian. He has said that
> nearly all people who claim to be Christian are not, and he says this
> with no hint of self-referencing irony.
>
believes, or does he mean it in a little different way?
Christians are not born again, spiritually knowing
all things. They are led by the Holy Spirit and taught
by him before they obtain spiritual maturity. Paul
addressed memebers of church groups as "brethren,"
and then he corrected the sins that the "brethren" had
among them, in certain churches where he had heard
ahead of time of their errors.
>
> > and who has decided to follow Jesus in his life. You can't really see
> > into someone's heart and know always who that could be.
>
> Several people on that list would say that if person's heart were
> true, they would come to the right conclusion, that is, agree with
> *them.
>
similar conclusions, but it takes time to learn
things.
>
>
> > A person that
> > you see may be a babe in Christ. A Christian may not to you appear to
> > be perfection, in other words. By your fruits ye shall know them does
> > not mean that they will appear to be perfect people, it means that you
> > will see the fruit of the spirit in their lives, which are peace,
> > longsuffering, gentleness, joy, meekness, and such. A true Christian
> > knows that he is not the pillar of perfection, but that he is saved by
> > the grace of God. He is someone who acknowedges his lack, but who
> > desires to be completed by the covering of Christ's perfect
> > righteousness, rathar than his own. He is not someone earning his way
> > into Heaven, he is someone who already knows Christ paid for his sins,
> > and who follows Christ out of gratitude, and not for earning points.
>
> My first teacher of evolutionary science was a Christian, and he would
> largely agree with you on this. But he often wondered why so many
> Christians seem compelled to make claims about the material world
> which are, well, contradicted by the world itself.
>
the Lord wanted a Christian to be in that place teaching,
rather than someone that did not believe at all in God.
I suppose you are speaking of the complaints that there
is no evidence, so it is said, for the flood of Noah, and
that the Bible indicates the world is only so old, while
science insists it is extremely older. I think some of that
has to do with people's understanding of what the Bible
says.
>
Thank you for taking the time to communicate. : )
>
Suzanne
Ye Old One
<leil...@hotmail.com> enriched this group when s/he wrote:
>On Jul 17, 10:24 am, Kermit <unrestrained_h...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> On Jul 17, 6:42 am,Suzanne<leila...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > On Jul 4, 10:09 am, Ron O <rokim...@cox.net> wrote:> I have the usual disclaimer, this is just a list of anti-evolution
>>
>(snip for brevity only)
>>
>> > Ron, you include my name, and you say "I don't want to put her in this
>> > group, but just be nice." Who do you consider you are being nice to,
>> > in adding my name?" Just curious. It sounded ambiguous in one sense.
>>
>> You qualify for membership in this group by arguing against reality-
>> based science, using religion as justification saying things which are
>> demonstrably false. Yet you are invariably polite, and I suspect Ron
>> is reluctant to make you a target for any mean-spirited response by
>> those who get frustrated at determined ignorance.
>>
>Thank you for your reply and the kind words.
He confirmed your membership of a group that argue against reality
based science.
He confirmed that many get frustrated at such determined ignorance.
You have only yourself to blame.
>>
>> > Also, you said that only one person in your list is a "true"
>> > Christian. That's a strange statement. A "true" Christian is a person
>> > who has put their trust in Jesus Christ, and him alone for salvation,
>>
>> Ron knows this, I'm sure. He was being sarcastic. Ray typically denies
>> that any person who disagrees with him on evolution (or, as far as aI
>> can tell, on anything) can possibly be a Christian. He has said that
>> nearly all people who claim to be Christian are not, and he says this
>> with no hint of self-referencing irony.
>>
>I heard Ray say as much, but is that really what he
>believes,
Yes, it is really what Dishonest Ray believes.
> or does he mean it in a little different way?
>Christians are not born again, spiritually knowing
>all things. They are led by the Holy Spirit and taught
>by him before they obtain spiritual maturity. Paul
>addressed memebers of church groups as "brethren,"
>and then he corrected the sins that the "brethren" had
>among them, in certain churches where he had heard
>ahead of time of their errors.
So what?
Which, of course, only people like you can possible interpret.
>>
>Thank you for taking the time to communicate. : )
>>
>Suzanne
--
Bob.
Ron O
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/a01f009ef41f9647?hl=en
A few more characters showed up and deserve an "honorable mention"
along with some antics of the regulars that should be documented for
easy access for the interested. You can use Google to look up their
profiles and read more posts from these guys to get a better
appreciation of how sad the current situation is.
Lin, an Ed Conrad disciple has shown up again:
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/83d87fdb5ee9b6bf?hl=en
Someone basically trolling who likes to talk to themselves using
different handles:
Tapestry:
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/e52305f296b32f76?hl=en
Picasso:
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/a5ba6040f7afc858?hl=en
Spinny may be posting as HighQ:
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/a5ba6040f7afc858?hl=en
I may have missed Andrew:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.bible/msg/d1c98e514198deac?hl=en
There was a semi-interesting fall out from this thread when [M]adman
decided to demonstrate that he didn't understand the secondary message
of the this thread's title, and decided to demonstrate that he was
basically a bad fruit. He couldn't handle the implications of that
within his biblical interpretation and started several threads that
resulted in a delusional POTM nomination. Usually the anti-science
faction do not support each other, but they decided to collude in this
effort.
adman's sticking his foot in it:
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/ad1dbc813a68635a?hl=en
To fully appreciate adman's antics you probably have to read a few
more of his posts on how he dealt with his problem in this thread.
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/ad1de9ec3a867a0f?hl=en
adman's continued denial and supposed POTM:
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/da3c8cbb7f6664d6?hl=en
Ray's nomination:
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/c0bc61f040342929?hl=en
Pagano's second:
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/f6eefe3fd7eaa6f4?hl=en
You can't make this junk up because no one would believe you. The
anti-evolution faction is this badly off. To be fair to the losers
they may have been trying to denegrate the POTM in their own petty and
silly manner, and just used adman's incompetence to do it. This was
the second POTM by the anti-evolution faction within a week. It was
an unprecedented effort at openly displaying their stupidity.
Pagano's nominated and seconded post. You have to check out the guys
responsible for nominating and seconding this post.
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/fc0816e2e15c58e3?hl=en
Anyone can compare the anti-science efforts to POTM material:
http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/postmonth/
Ron Okimoto
Suzanne
so thoroughly. I certainly do believe
that God is the creator, but I don't share
what everyone says they see in the
creation account. Many people view it in
a sort of tunnel vision kind of way, void
of science. I think it is LOADED with
rich examples of science. For example,
since the sun, moon, stars, cosmos had not
yet been invented on Day One, when God said
"Let there be light," the only other kind of
light there is, is the full spectrum of
electro-magnetic radiations of light, (and
some would add energies) for all those
energies that travel at the speed of light.
>
Also, for what a kind is, science is getting
closer to what that is, since new finds have
caused some to rethink what the definition of
species is, since not all organisms fit into
the old definition of "species."
>
In addition, what we used to call simply
"variation," is not labeled as being
microevolution, and because of the word
"evolution" being attached to it, many
consider that if someone says they do not
accept evolution, that means that they
also don't accept microevolution, which
is not the case.
>
Then, when it comes to the age of the earth,
all time is relative. Since the creation
account makes it clear that the sun, moon,
stars, constellations were created later in
the creation "week," that does not explain
how long the actual length of the first few
days was. People who label the earth as being
only 6,000 to 10,000 years old are going by
the age of Adam, not by the length of what
constituted a day of creation, especially of
the first three days. The wording of the
words "evening" and "morning," indicate a
complete revolution, passing between light
and then through dark, and then returning
back to light, which means that a creation
day is the length of time it took for the
earth to revolve one complete revolution,
for however long that takes.
>
Suzanne
Ye Old One
<leil...@hotmail.com> enriched this group when s/he wrote:
>I certainly do believe
>that God is the creator, but I don't share
>what everyone says they see in the
>creation account. Many people view it in
>a sort of tunnel vision kind of way, void
>of science. I think it is LOADED with
>rich examples of science.
Then you really are nuts.
> For example,
>since the sun, moon, stars, cosmos had not
"The Cosmos is all that ever is, was or will be." [Carl Sagan]
>yet been invented on Day One, when God said
>"Let there be light," the only other kind of
>light there is,
There is only one kind of light.
>is the full spectrum of
>electro-magnetic radiations of light,
Again you get it wrong. Why?
> (and
>some would add energies) for all those
>energies that travel at the speed of light.
That is the Electro-magnetic Spectrum.
Now. The first stars formed when the universe was on a few million
years old. Our sun was formed 4.7 billion years ago, and included dust
from earlier generations of stars.
If, as you claim, there was light BEFORE our sun, and BEFORE all the
other stars, where did it come from?
>>
>Also, for what a kind is, science is getting
>closer to what that is, since new finds have
>caused some to rethink what the definition of
>species is, since not all organisms fit into
>the old definition of "species."
Wrong, as usual.
>>
>In addition, what we used to call simply
>"variation," is not labeled as being
>microevolution, and because of the word
>"evolution" being attached to it, many
>consider that if someone says they do not
>accept evolution, that means that they
>also don't accept microevolution, which
>is not the case.
There is only one form or evolution. So-called macroevolution is just
many steps of microevolution. This has been pointed out to you many
times. Why didn't you learn from it?
>>
>Then, when it comes to the age of the earth,
>all time is relative. Since the creation
>account makes it clear that the sun, moon,
>stars, constellations were created later in
>the creation "week,"
But the sun and nearly all the other stars were formed before the
Earth was - in fact many stars are billions of years older than the
Earth.
> that does not explain
>how long the actual length of the first few
>days was. People who label the earth as being
>only 6,000 to 10,000 years old are going by
>the age of Adam, not by the length of what
>constituted a day of creation, especially of
>the first three days. The wording of the
>words "evening" and "morning," indicate a
>complete revolution, passing between light
>and then through dark, and then returning
>back to light, which means that a creation
>day is the length of time it took for the
>earth to revolve one complete revolution,
>for however long that takes.
The Earth's speed of rotation was faster in the past. Further, without
a sun how can their be morning or evening?
>>
>Suzanne
--
Bob.
Kent Paul Dolan
> If, as you claim, there was light BEFORE our sun,
> and BEFORE all the other stars, where did it come
> from?
The big bang. It is a bit down-shifted now from its
original trillions(???) of degrees blackbody
spectrum, and we call it the cosmic microwave
background radiation, with a blackbody spectrum now
a few degrees above zero Kelvin.
Hint: energy _preceded_ matter. Matter couldn't form
until, for example, things were cool enough for
quarks to bind with one another to form stable
subatomic particles.
xanthian.
Ye Old One
Believe me, I do understand what happened back then. However, 4.7
billion years ago when the Earth formed the CMBR was only a few
degrees hotter than it is not - not bright enough by far.
Even if we go back to the point where the first stars formed the CMBR
was already well into the infrared.
No, she will have to come up with a explanation herself :)
--
Bob.
TomS
<fpqo65dtfuu7s5ma8...@4ax.com>, Ye Old One stated..."
Please, let's not get into stuff about light again.
As punishment for this, I nominate you to be the one to explain
how a black body can give off light.
--
---Tom S.
"...ID is not science ... because we simply do not know what it is saying."
Sahotra Sarkar, "The science question in intelligent design", Synthese,
DOI:10,1007/s11229-009-9540-x
Ye Old One
It doesn't :)
Well, at least, only over a certain range of temperatures.
--
Bob.
Suzanne
> On Sat, 25 Jul 2009 13:49:58 -0700 (PDT), Suzanne
> <leila...@hotmail.com> enriched this group when s/he wrote:
>
> >I certainly do believe
> >that God is the creator, but I don't share
> >what everyone says they see in the
> >creation account. Many people view it in
> >a sort of tunnel vision kind of way, void
> >of science. I think it is LOADED with
> >rich examples of science.
>
> Then you really are nuts.
>
>
> > For example,
> >since the sun, moon, stars, cosmos had not
>
> "The Cosmos is all that ever is, was or will be." [Carl Sagan]
>
>
> >yet been invented on Day One, when God said
> >"Let there be light," the only other kind of
> >light there is,
>
> There is only one kind of light.
>
that travel at the speed of light. The other
heavenly bodies give off light, but they are not
the source of the EMR Spectrum.
>
>
> >is the full spectrum of
> >electro-magnetic radiations of light,
>
> Again you get it wrong. Why?
>
the EMR Spectrum travel at the speed of light.
Even radio waves in space travel at that speed and Hertz proved that
Maxwell was right, that radio waves (which Maxwell predicted,
http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Radio
>
> > (and
> >some would add energies) for all those
> >energies that travel at the speed of light.
>
> That is the Electro-magnetic Spectrum.
>
Electro-Magnetic Radiation Spectrum.
>
> Now. The first stars formed when the universe was on a few million
> years old. Our sun was formed 4.7 billion years ago, and included dust
> from earlier generations of stars.
>
> If, as you claim, there was light BEFORE our sun, and BEFORE all the
> other stars, where did it come from?
>
what I believe is in the creation account, before
the creation of the constellations, or the sun,
moon and other stars.
>
>
> >Also, for what a kind is, science is getting
> >closer to what that is, since new finds have
> >caused some to rethink what the definition of
> >species is, since not all organisms fit into
> >the old definition of "species."
>
> Wrong, as usual.
>
All organisms no longer can be categorized under
one definition because of newer finds.
>
> >In addition, what we used to call simply
> >"variation," is not labeled as being
> >microevolution, and because of the word
> >"evolution" being attached to it, many
> >consider that if someone says they do not
> >accept evolution, that means that they
> >also don't accept microevolution, which
> >is not the case.
>
> There is only one form or evolution. So-called macroevolution is just
> many steps of microevolution. This has been pointed out to you many
> times. Why didn't you learn from it?
>
I was talking about two different viewpoints of
the same thing; two different descriptions of the
same things.
>
>
> >Then, when it comes to the age of the earth,
> >all time is relative. Since the creation
> >account makes it clear that the sun, moon,
> >stars, constellations were created later in
> >the creation "week,"
>
> But the sun and nearly all the other stars were formed before the
> Earth was - in fact many stars are billions of years older than the
> Earth.
>
>
> > that does not explain
> >how long the actual length of the first few
> >days was. People who label the earth as being
> >only 6,000 to 10,000 years old are going by
> >the age of Adam, not by the length of what
> >constituted a day of creation, especially of
> >the first three days. The wording of the
> >words "evening" and "morning," indicate a
> >complete revolution, passing between light
> >and then through dark, and then returning
> >back to light, which means that a creation
> >day is the length of time it took for the
> >earth to revolve one complete revolution,
> >for however long that takes.
>
> The Earth's speed of rotation was faster in the past. Further, without
> a sun how can their be morning or evening?
>
be the sun, moon, stars that were created later,
would refer to the only other thing that it could be
according to what things we know, and that would
be the EMR Spectrum.
>
Suzanne
Suzanne
the energies that travel at the speed of light.
They are formed of particles called photons,
which are matter. So, you see, it's a debate as
to which came first, energy or matter. What do
you think that the particles are if not matter? I
am not arguing, I'm asking what you think.
>
While you are at it, when do you think that
the elements (the Periodic Chart) came into
being...before or after matter?
>
Suzanne
el cid
I wonder if you would find the answer strange
or if you would think it was just my spin?
Just some reading would let us get to the bottom
of this but I would have though you had looked it up.
Mike Painter
<snip>
> All of the energies that are known that are listed in
> the EMR Spectrum travel at the speed of light.
> Even radio waves in space travel at that speed and Hertz proved that
> Maxwell was right, that radio waves (which Maxwell predicted,
> http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Radio
>>
Typical Suzanne. Clerly she has read something else about it.
Not to long ago her muddled mind gave us this jewel.
" Your ears "hear" the light when it is at a
certain level of speed in it's wave formed lengths.
Wehn it is faster, you see the light."
Kent Paul Dolan
>>> If, as you claim, there was light BEFORE our
>>> sun, and BEFORE all the other stars, where did
>>> it come from?
>> The big bang. It is a bit down-shifted now from
>> its original trillions(???) of degrees blackbody
>> spectrum, and we call it the cosmic microwave
>> background radiation, with a blackbody spectrum
>> now a few degrees above zero Kelvin.
>> Hint: energy _preceded_ matter. Matter couldn't
>> form until, for example, things were cool enough
>> for quarks to bind with one another to form
>> stable subatomic particles.
> The Electro-Magnetic Radiation Spectrum lists
> the energies that travel at the speed of light.
That is a non sequitur.
Before there was electromagnetism, there was no
speed of light.
Nor is your theistic tap-dance trying to convert the
clear, if impossible, words of the Bible that God
created light, before there were any bodies to be
sources of that light, into a claim that by "light",
the sheep herders who wrote the Bible meant "the
electromagnetic spectrum", a concept they could not
possibly have entertained in that era and with
their available knowledge base, anything more than
just pathetic, more attempts by you to excuse or
re-spell away the plethora of Biblical falsehoods,
an indication that nothing in your mind remains
operational with respect to accepting reality.
> They are formed of particles called photons, which
> are matter.
And yet they are equally easily described as waves,
which are not matter. Your argument fails because
the particle/wave duality of photons is an essential
part of the universe right down to the quantum
mechanics level. It cannot be argued away for the
convenience of trying to paste over a glaring error
in Genesis.
There is every indication that nothing like photons
existed at the instant of creation (the big bang),
because the various forces had first to be separated
one from another by phase changes in the structure
of the universe. And I really mean phase changes,
like water becoming ice, probably at least three
separate ones.
Nor, perhaps, did photons exist until hundreds of
thousands of years after the big bang, when the
universe first became non-opaque, allowing
electromagnetic energy to be transported at all.
It's really hard to convey electromagnetic energy
when there is as yet no electromagnetic force in the
universe, and almost as hard when energy's mean
travel distance is zero for really small values of
zero.
You would be well advised to learn some cosmological
science before you begin attempting to frame
arguments to defend the errors of the Bible in terms
of cosmological physics.
Right now you're just babbling words you don't
understand, and that is very, very obvious to any
person literate in science.
> So, you see, it's a debate as to which came first,
> energy or matter.
No, it is not. That question is not open to debate,
energy came first, full stop.
> What do you think that the particles are if not
> matter?
My opinion on that subject is of no use, since I
cannot do the math to express the answer. It makes
very little sense, though, to think of photons as
matter. Particles they may be. Waves they may be.
Matter? I don't think so.
> I am not arguing, I'm asking what you think.
I think you are a habitual liar who will not accept
that the book you worship blindly is a collection of
rubbish, and so perpetually engage in your habit of
lying for Jesus.
> While you are at it, when do you think that
> the elements (the Periodic Chart) came into
> being...before or after matter?
Ask Plato: seriously.
Your question is otherwise meaningless.
Sorry, your questions make even less sense than
your statements do. Both display a profound
ignorance by you of reality, and an unwillingness by
you to inform yourself about reality.
I realize you think you've passed the age where you
are competent to abandon your false beliefs and
learn reality.
I find that very sad, since I'm only a few years
younger than you are, and experience no such
disability.
I attribute your current condition to childhood
brainwashing about religion, so ingrained in your
mind that you are its life-long slave.
xanthian.
Ye Old One
<leil...@hotmail.com> enriched this group when s/he wrote:
>On Jul 26, 8:48 am, Kent Paul Dolan <xanth...@well.com> wrote:
>> Ye Old One wrote:
>>
>> > If, as you claim, there was light BEFORE our sun,
>> > and BEFORE all the other stars, where did it come
>> > from?
>>
>> The big bang. It is a bit down-shifted now from its
>> original trillions(???) of degrees blackbody
>> spectrum, and we call it the cosmic microwave
>> background radiation, with a blackbody spectrum now
>> a few degrees above zero Kelvin.
>>
>> Hint: energy _preceded_ matter. Matter couldn't form
>> until, for example, things were cool enough for
>> quarks to bind with one another to form stable
>> subatomic particles.
>>
>> xanthian.
>>
>The Electro-Magnetic Radiation Spectrum lists
Try "The Spectrum of Electro-Magnetic Radiation" it reads and sounds
much better.
>the energies that travel at the speed of light.
>They are formed of particles called photons,
>which are matter.
No they are not. Matter cannot travel at the speed of light. The
photon is the gauge boson for electromagnetism. While it is, in some
senses considered as a particle it does not have mass and is therefore
energy rather than matter.
> So, you see, it's a debate as
>to which came first, energy or matter.
No debate at all, we know it was energy.
>What do
>you think that the particles are if not matter?
A quantum of the electromagnetic field, the force carrier for the
electromagnetic force.
> I
>am not arguing, I'm asking what you think.
>>
>While you are at it, when do you think that
>the elements (the Periodic Chart) came into
>being...before or after matter?
After. Long after. The early universe was just hydrogen and helium.
>>
>Suzanne
--
Bob.
Ye Old One
<leil...@hotmail.com> enriched this group when s/he wrote:
>On Jul 25, 5:39 pm, Ye Old One <use...@mcsuk.net> wrote:
>> On Sat, 25 Jul 2009 13:49:58 -0700 (PDT), Suzanne
>> <leila...@hotmail.com> enriched this group when s/he wrote:
>>
>> >I certainly do believe
>> >that God is the creator, but I don't share
>> >what everyone says they see in the
>> >creation account. Many people view it in
>> >a sort of tunnel vision kind of way, void
>> >of science. I think it is LOADED with
>> >rich examples of science.
>>
>> Then you really are nuts.
>>
>The Bible is not nuts.
It is a collection of bronze age fairy tales, many of which are
totally nuts.
>>
>> > For example,
>> >since the sun, moon, stars, cosmos had not
>>
>> "The Cosmos is all that ever is, was or will be." [Carl Sagan]
>>
>I was not addressing what Carl Sagan said.
He told the truth. Try learning from him rather than trying to use
your bible to learn science.
>>
>> >yet been invented on Day One, when God said
>> >"Let there be light," the only other kind of
>> >light there is,
>>
>> There is only one kind of light.
>>
>Yes, and that's the EMR Spectrum,
no, light is just one part of the spectrum.
>the things
>that travel at the speed of light. The other
>heavenly bodies give off light, but they are not
>the source of the EMR Spectrum.
Of course they are the source. Our Sun converts hydrogen to helium by
nuclear fusion and produces energy as a result. Some of that energy,
after a long journey, exits the sun as light and 8.5 minutes later
hits the Earth.
>>
>>
>> >is the full spectrum of
>> >electro-magnetic radiations of light,
>>
>> Again you get it wrong. Why?
>>
>All of the energies that are known that are listed in
>the EMR Spectrum travel at the speed of light.
>Even radio waves in space travel at that speed and Hertz proved that
>Maxwell was right, that radio waves (which Maxwell predicted,
>http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Radio
Look moron, this has been raised far too often and you still have not
learned the lesson.
You have the "Electro-Magnetic Spectrum". Part of that is called light
(both visible and invisible). Do try to use the right words -
otherwise you look stupid.
>>
>> > (and
>> >some would add energies) for all those
>> >energies that travel at the speed of light.
>>
>> That is the Electro-magnetic Spectrum.
>>
>It's obvious that I was talking about the
>Electro-Magnetic Radiation Spectrum.
Nonononononono. You can use "Electro-magnetic Spectrum" or you can use
"The Spectrum of Electro-Magnetic Radiation". Both are good English.
>>
>> Now. The first stars formed when the universe was on a few million
>> years old. Our sun was formed 4.7 billion years ago, and included dust
>> from earlier generations of stars.
>>
>> If, as you claim, there was light BEFORE our sun, and BEFORE all the
>> other stars, where did it come from?
>>
>The EMR Spectrum was created, according to
>what I believe is in the creation account, before
>the creation of the constellations, or the sun,
>moon and other stars.
Then where did the firking light come from?
Your bible get things wrong, you cannot have light before you have the
light producers. 4.7 billion years ago, when the Sun and the Earth
were formed, the background radiation from the big bang had already
cooled way into the microwave region - therefore it contributed no
light.
So where did the light come from? How can you have an evening and
morning without a source of light that only points at one side of the
globe?
>>
>>
>> >Also, for what a kind is, science is getting
>> >closer to what that is, since new finds have
>> >caused some to rethink what the definition of
>> >species is, since not all organisms fit into
>> >the old definition of "species."
>>
>> Wrong, as usual.
>>
>It is not wrong. Go back and study some more.
I have studied. You are wrong - as always.
>All organisms no longer can be categorized under
>one definition because of newer finds.
Who ever said there was only one definition? This is a straw man
invented by cretinists.
>>
>> >In addition, what we used to call simply
>> >"variation," is not labeled as being
>> >microevolution, and because of the word
>> >"evolution" being attached to it, many
>> >consider that if someone says they do not
>> >accept evolution, that means that they
>> >also don't accept microevolution, which
>> >is not the case.
>>
>> There is only one form or evolution. So-called macroevolution is just
>> many steps of microevolution. This has been pointed out to you many
>> times. Why didn't you learn from it?
>>
>You are not listening very well to what I had said.
Try being correct once in a while.
>I was talking about two different viewpoints of
>the same thing; two different descriptions of the
>same things.
So you accept that evolution is evolution?
>>
>>
>> >Then, when it comes to the age of the earth,
>> >all time is relative. Since the creation
>> >account makes it clear that the sun, moon,
>> >stars, constellations were created later in
>> >the creation "week,"
>>
>> But the sun and nearly all the other stars were formed before the
>> Earth was - in fact many stars are billions of years older than the
>> Earth.
>>
>And this is a debate.
To which you constantly contribute lies, ignorance and stupidity.
>>
>> > that does not explain
>> >how long the actual length of the first few
>> >days was. People who label the earth as being
>> >only 6,000 to 10,000 years old are going by
>> >the age of Adam, not by the length of what
>> >constituted a day of creation, especially of
>> >the first three days. The wording of the
>> >words "evening" and "morning," indicate a
>> >complete revolution, passing between light
>> >and then through dark, and then returning
>> >back to light, which means that a creation
>> >day is the length of time it took for the
>> >earth to revolve one complete revolution,
>> >for however long that takes.
>>
>> The Earth's speed of rotation was faster in the past. Further, without
>> a sun how can their be morning or evening?
>>
>The light that was first produced,
What light?
>which could not
>be the sun, moon, stars that were created later,
So what was it?
>would refer to the only other thing that it could be
>according to what things we know, and that would
>be the EMR Spectrum.
What was the source of the light? Come on, if it was not the stars
(including the Sun) then where did it come from?
>>
>Suzanne
--
Bob.
Nashton
Woman abuser, will you ever substantiate the nonsense about all drugs
being derived from the ToE or will you retract the statement? Many are
waiting but not holding their breath, given the fact that you're a
slime-ball and a very dishonest individual.
And while you're at it, buy, steel or rent some class.
Ray Martinez
Concerning everything written above: Could we expect an Atheist to say
anything else about his enemies (= Creationists-IDists)?
[SNIP....]
>
> Ray is the only true Christian that posts on TO, and is going to
> publish his opus that will destroy evolution any
> day.http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/3a13c67f71d17e03?hl=en
>
Thanks for picking this particular message, Ronny. It is a good
example of my thinking.
Ron Okimoto has taken it upon himself to create these anti-Creationism-
ID topics every so often. I thoroughly enjoy them. Again: it is not an
insult to be rejected by persons who believe that apes evolved into
men over the course of millions of years, or by "Christians" who
accept the exact same biological production theory that all Atheists
fanatically accept and defend.
I am the only true **Creationist** that posts on Talk Origins due to
the fact that I reject the concept of evolution to exist in nature.
(Sean Pitman claims to be a species immutabilist, but this claim is
contradicted by his acceptance of the concept of evolution to exist in
nature.)
Ray (species fixist)
[SNIP....]
Wombat
Yawning and waiting for you to at least acknowledge that calling
someone a liar when you misread the post was wrong.
Slime-ball? Pot - kettle - black.
BTW, how DO you steel class? Is it like electro-plating?
Wombat
Kent Paul Dolan
> Nashton <n...@na.ca> wrote:
>> And while you're at it, buy, steel or rent some
>> class.
> Yawning and waiting for you to at least
> acknowledge that calling someone a liar when you
> misread the post was wrong.
This has been ongoing for what, months now?
This is why they call Nashton's kind of ignorance
"invincible'. Given the information that he has
misread the posting, his opinion of what it said
remains unaltered.
> Slime-ball? Pot - kettle - black.
> BTW, how DO you steel class? Is it like
> electro-plating?
Maybe it's some new way of classifying martial
artists?
By skull density, say?
xanthian.
Wombat
> Wombat wrote:
>
> > Nashton <n...@na.ca> wrote:
>
> >> And while you're at it, buy, steel or rent some
> >> class.
>
> > Yawning and waiting for you to at least
> > acknowledge that calling someone a liar when you
> > misread the post was wrong.
>
> This has been ongoing for what, months now?
>
> This is why they call Nashton's kind of ignorance
> "invincible'. Given the information that he has
> misread the posting, his opinion of what it said
> remains unaltered.
I just like pointing out his combination of hypocrisy and moral
turpitude.
However, if you wish, I shall desist.
Wombat
Rich Mathers
Your OCD and obnoxiousness is showing. Maybe you should make your
prescriptions for others your own.