Huge Creationist Paper
trinig...@yahoo.com
Martinez's up-coming paper destroying your lunatic theory. What I read
was beyond description. Darwinism is false and Ray has dealt the final
blow to the greatest fraud ever forced on mankind.
--TG
Richard Clayton
I smell sock puppet.
The CDesign Proponentist
Any chance that *we* will be able to read this soon?
Kermit
Shush, don't be rude. Especially when it's this fella's first post
ever...
Kermit
Inez
I wait breathlessly, ready to dump my belief in evolution the second I
read this tour-de-farce, er...force. I'm sure it will be full of data
and not just wild conjecture, previously debunked nonsense, and appeals
to emotion.
Dana Tweedy
<trinig...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1156876198....@i3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
Hi Ray. Cute sock puppet you got there.
Oh, and don't forget about the eels!
DJT
Ken Shackleton
Is the paper on the historical truth of Christ?
Ken
>
> --TG
9fingers
Wow! Imagine, after 150 years, Darwin has finally met his match in Ray
Martinez. I am tingling with excitement to see how he did it.
jrs...@sbcglobal.net
What's it say Ray? Uh, I mean TD?
> --TG
>
dysfunction
Better men than you have tried.
Tom McDonald
Is this the one-week warning you said you'd give us? Or are you
breaking your word not to post here until that auspicious moment?
Mark VandeWettering
One thing's for sure:
You'll never be short of toilet paper at Ray's house.
Mark
> --TG
Inez
Me too. In fact I tingled so much that I forgot to shake in my boots,
or even wear boots.
Perplexed in Peoria
"9fingers" <gd9fi...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:1156879325.5...@74g2000cwt.googlegroups.com...
Most anticipated event since "Snakes on a Plane".
Phil Sunde
Ye Old One
I think his feet need a wash.
--
Bob.
Tiny Bulcher
I am agog for the eels!
--
Tiny
Ken Shaw
So is it a Loki or a sockpuppet?
Ken
Stile4aly
Accusation of sock-puppet = inability to refute.
CreateThis
>I have had the opportunity to read an excerpt from Creationist Ray
>Martinez's up-coming paper destroying your lunatic theory.
You've proved that you're not a lunatic, Ray? That *would be news,
especially coming from you posing as your own admirer.
CT
VoiceOfReason
I tingle with anticipation. :-)
bullpup
> Martinez's up-coming paper destroying your lunatic theory.
Really?
> What I read
> was beyond description.
"Huge stinking pile of crap" won't cover it?
> Darwinism is false and Ray has dealt the final
> blow to the greatest fraud ever forced on mankind.
Riiiiight.
Nice try, sock-puppy.
Boikat
--
"I reject your reality, and substitute my own"
-Adam Savage, Mythbusters-
Harlequin
news:1156886923.4...@i3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com:
A loki is certainly possible, but it would have to
be someone who lives rather close to Ray. I looked at the
IP number from a real Ray Martinez post and the IP number in the
used by trinigabriel. I then looked them up via
<http://www.ip2location.com/>. I then entered the cities
that site gave me into Google maps. The results:
Distance: 20.8 mi (about 24 mins)
While that certainly does not prove a sock puppet (especially
given that it is in a very high population area), but it
certainly is very suggestive. It is also consistent with
Ray's past behavior.
If someone wants to check multiple posts looking for the
possiblity that Ray has used a the IP or ISP used by
trinigabriel, be my guest. I don't think it is worth
the effort though.
--
Anti-spam: replace "usenet" with "harlequin2"
Ron O
I smell a troll. When Ray ever does come forward with whatever he has
it may be a different story, but more likely someone claiming that Ray
has actually written something is making fun of the fact that nothing
has appeared.
Ron Okimoto
Richard Clayton
> "Ken Shaw" <ksha...@gmail.com> wrote in
> news:1156886923.4...@i3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com:
>
> > trinig...@yahoo.com wrote:
> >> I have had the opportunity to read an excerpt from
> >> Creationist Ray Martinez's up-coming paper destroying your
> >> lunatic theory. What I read was beyond description.
> >> Darwinism is false and Ray has dealt the final blow to the
> >> greatest fraud ever forced on mankind.
> >>
> >> --TG
> >
> > So is it a Loki or a sockpuppet?
>
> A loki is certainly possible, but it would have to
> be someone who lives rather close to Ray. I looked at the
> IP number from a real Ray Martinez post and the IP number in the
> used by trinigabriel. I then looked them up via
> <http://www.ip2location.com/>. I then entered the cities
> that site gave me into Google maps. The results:
>
>
> Distance: 20.8 mi (about 24 mins)
>
>
> While that certainly does not prove a sock puppet (especially
> given that it is in a very high population area), but it
> certainly is very suggestive. It is also consistent with
> Ray's past behavior.
Ray has also mentioned that he posts from libraries and other
public-access terminals, not from his own home.
> If someone wants to check multiple posts looking for the
> possiblity that Ray has used a the IP or ISP used by
> trinigabriel, be my guest. I don't think it is worth
> the effort though.
Nor do I.
Richard Clayton
It's a variation on "the Emperor's New Clothes." It's a long and
masterful rebuttal of Darwin, and it completely vindicates the modern
creationist movement. (It also conclusively proves that any practicing
creationist is legally a citizen of Heaven and therefore immune to
taxation by the United States, though they are still entitled to all
the rights and privileges of US citizens.)
Unfortunately, to unenlightened atheists ("atheist" in this context
meaning "anybody who disagrees with Ray, no matter how trivially) the
post appears only as several thousand blank lines. This is due to the
famous "blinding penalty."
Richard Clayton
I disagree. The first time Ray triumphantly fled from talk.origins, I
predicted that his ego and pride would drag him back.
Dan Luke
"Dana Tweedy" wrote:
> Hi Ray. Cute sock puppet you got there.
>
> Oh, and don't forget about the eels!
Ooh, ooh! I can't wait!
The evolution-conquering eels are coming!
Yaaayyyyy Ray!
guscubed
trinig...@yahoo.com wrote:
> I have had the opportunity to read an excerpt from Creationist Ray
> Martinez's up-coming paper destroying your lunatic theory. What I read
> was beyond description. Darwinism is false and Ray has dealt the final
> blow to the greatest fraud ever forced on mankind.
>
> --TG
Hi Ray. Are we going to be able to read your "magnum hopeless" soon?
Desertphile
trinig...@yahoo.com wrote:
> I have had the opportunity to read an excerpt from Creationist Ray
> Martinez's up-coming paper destroying your lunatic theory. What I read
> was beyond description. Darwinism is false and Ray has dealt the final
> blow to the greatest fraud ever forced on mankind.
X-NNTP-Posting-Host: 24.130.227.18
User-Agent: G2/0.2
I give this a score of 8 on a troll scale of from 0 to 100.
Thurisaz the Einherjer
> I have had the opportunity to read an excerpt from Creationist Ray
> Martinez's up-coming paper destroying your lunatic theory. What I read
> was beyond description. Darwinism is false and Ray has dealt the final
> blow to the greatest fraud ever forced on mankind.
Riiiiiight.
And the earth is a flat disk resting on ehephants' backs, carried through
space by Great A'Tuin.
*hysterical laughter*
--
Romans 2:24 revised:
"For the name of God is blasphemed among the Gentiles through you
cretinists, as it is written on aig."
My personal judgment of monotheism: http://www.carcosa.de/nojebus
Ken Shaw
That is consistent with sockpuppetry or, and I'm shocked to even
suggest it, someone who knows Ray and who has actually read the paper.
Now I think the latter possibility is slightly less likely than
nameless dropping his inane attempts to make a geolgical formation into
the Ark.
Ken
Dean Chesterman
trinig...@yahoo.com wrote:
> I have had the opportunity to read an excerpt from Creationist Ray
> Martinez's up-coming paper destroying your lunatic theory. What I read
> was beyond description. Darwinism is false and Ray has dealt the final
> blow to the greatest fraud ever forced on mankind.
>
> --TG
>
How about a real scientific paper on the Physical Evidence for Christ
and the Christian Rituals?
Note! The Bible is not physical evidence. It just a standard operating
and maintenance manual and has nothing to do with Christianity per say.
Dean Chesterman
Josh Hayes
@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com:
Hah!
This is obviously a forgery. Come on: an entire Ron O post without the word
"scam" in it?
-JAH
Can't be.
Andrew Arensburger
> I tingle with anticipation. :-)
I see you shiver with antici...
--
Andrew Arensburger, Systems guy University of Maryland
arensb.no-...@umd.edu Office of Information Technology
Seeya at the Newbie Death Flaming Competition!
John Bode
trinig...@yahoo.com wrote:
> I have had the opportunity to read an excerpt from Creationist Ray
> Martinez's up-coming paper destroying your lunatic theory. What I read
> was beyond description. Darwinism is false and Ray has dealt the final
> blow to the greatest fraud ever forced on mankind.
>
> --TG
Does it have a spreadsheet as well? Can't destroy the theory evolution
without a good spreadsheet, you know.
Augray
<arensb.no-...@umd.edu> wrote in
<ed4r9r$lhj$1...@grapevine.wam.umd.edu> :
>VoiceOfReason <papa...@cybertown.com> wrote:
>> I tingle with anticipation. :-)
>
> I see you shiver with antici...
But maybe Ray's brain... isn't really to blame.
Glenn Shaw
> trinig...@yahoo.com wrote:
>> I have had the opportunity to read an excerpt from Creationist Ray
>> Martinez's up-coming paper destroying your lunatic theory. What I read
>> was beyond description. Darwinism is false and Ray has dealt the final
>> blow to the greatest fraud ever forced on mankind.
>
> I smell sock puppet.
Hang on, lemme get my can of Tinactin....
--
Glenn Shaw • Indianapolis, IN USA
To reply by e-mail, remove "nospam" and swap "cast" and "net"
Glenn Shaw
Desertphile
Andrew Arensburger wrote:
> VoiceOfReason <papa...@cybertown.com> wrote:
> > I tingle with anticipation. :-)
>
> I see you shiver with antici...
Touch me touch me touch me touch me touch me!
Dave
"Augray" <aug...@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:jusbf2d8nqs6v5sle...@4ax.com...
So you'll remove the cause . . . but not the symptoms?
bullpup
"Andrew Arensburger" <arensb.no-...@umd.edu> wrote in message
news:ed4r9r$lhj$1...@grapevine.wam.umd.edu...
> VoiceOfReason <papa...@cybertown.com> wrote:
> > I tingle with anticipation. :-)
>
> I see you shiver with antici...
>
bullpup
"Desertphile" <deser...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1156970400....@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
Creatures of the night.
Creatures of the night
Creatures of the niiiiight!
Frank J
trinig...@yahoo.com wrote:
> I have had the opportunity to read an excerpt from Creationist Ray
> Martinez's up-coming paper destroying your lunatic theory. What I read
> was beyond description. Darwinism is false and Ray has dealt the final
> blow to the greatest fraud ever forced on mankind.
>
So "Darwinism" is false, and Ray destroyed someone's "lunatic theory."
We'll at least we still have evolution.
I hope Ray's paper has none of the horrendous quote mining of Jonathan
Wells' latest train wreck. Funny, even Wells obssesses over this
"Darwinism" thing, and does not take the first step at falsifying
evolution, let alone proposing a better theory. Also funny is that you
too make no mention that Ray came up with his own theory.
Richard Clayton
> "Desertphile" <deser...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1156970400....@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
> >
> > Andrew Arensburger wrote:
> > > VoiceOfReason <papa...@cybertown.com> wrote:
> > > > I tingle with anticipation. :-)
> > >
> > > I see you shiver with antici...
> >
> > .... PAtion!
> >
> > Touch me touch me touch me touch me touch me!
>
>
> Creatures of the night.
>
> Creatures of the night
>
> Creatures of the niiiiight!
You've arrived on a rather special night. It's one of the Master's
affairs.
Ron O
I'd call ID something else if it were something else. If not scam what
would you call it? I didn't start calling it the ID scam and the perps
scam artists until after Ohio when they turned out to be scam artists.
They ran a classic bait and switch scam on the Ohio State board
creationist rubes. They had been claiming that they had something to
teach about ID, but when the Ohio State board wanted to teach the
scientific theory of ID what happened? The ID scam artists couldn't
give them one to teach. Did the Ohio board ask for a raincheck? No,
they ended up taking a replacement scam from the same guys that had
lied to them about the ID scam. When they found out how dishonest the
replacement scam was did they drop it and try and start over? No.
They just decided to cut the most dishonest junk out of the model
lesson plan and keep pushing the scam.
WalMart would be in big trouble if they advertized something for sale
and they didn't have that product to sell. They have to offer
rainchecks in most states. Would a raincheck have done the Ohio board
any good? No. It turns out that there never was a scientific theory
of ID and there still isn't one today. Look what happened to Dover.
Not only that, but what did Meyer say to the Ohio State board about
teaching ID? He said that he didn't support making the decision to
teach ID at the state level, but it was something that should be done
at the local level. You couldn't have gotten any more local than
Dover, but what happened? Not only that, but when you check things out
the ID scam artists had come to the conclusion that there wasn't
anything worth teaching about ID back in the 1990s, but they just
forgot to tell their supporters the bad news. They just quietly began
pushing a replacement scam that took pains not to mention that ID had
ever existed. Just try and find any mention of ID in the Ohio model
lesson plan. It turned out that they were only using ID as smoke to
make their teach the controversy replacement scam look legit. If ID
isn't part of the controversy, what controversy are they supposed to
want to teach? Why don't the ID scam artists have their version of a
teach the controversy lesson plan up for evaluation? Why did they
never put up an ID lesson plan for evaluation? The main problem with
the replacement scam is that it is being perpetrated by the same guys
that perpetrated the ID scam. The ID scam artists are even claiming
that the new scam is not ID, as if that meant anything. The same guys
responsible for the Wedge document. You have to have a pretty weird
definition of scam for ID not to be a scam.
So if you have something else to call what ID became, just present it.
Scam is as plain and simple as anyone can make it.
Ron Okimoto
VoiceOfReason
Don't get strung out
By the way I look
Don't judge a book by its cover...
CreateThis
I think your message is clear, correct and valuable and you raise
staying on-message to new heights.
CT
Ron O
My take is that it does more good to keep repeating a message that
creationist rubes should not be able to ignore and that they can verify
very easily if they put any effort into it. I don't pile on the
incompetent and or dishonest like Ray and Mc Nameless. Other people
want to do that. It is something that needs to be done on this forum,
but I gave up on it years ago. Guys like Pitman and Goodrich know for
a fact that they were scammed, but it doesn't keep them from going on
about their business as usual. For some reason creationists want to be
lied to. Meyer and Wells were not run out of Ohio on a rail when the
board found out what a scam ID was. The creationists on the board just
rolled over and took the next scam from the same guys that had
perpetrated the ID scam on them. Not only that, but when they were
confronted by how dishonest the replacement scam was by the initial
drafts of the model lesson plan, they didn't balk at continuing. The
only thing that made some of them drop the scam was Dover and the
realization that they would be publically humilated in court if they
tried to defend what they had participated in.
Anyone that still wants to claim that scientific creationism,
intelligent design or teach the controversy is a viable option to teach
in public schools has to face the reality that they can't trust the
guys that are perpetrating these scams. Not only that, but what are
the scams? What is there to teach? They should write down what they
expect to get taught and compare it to things like the final draft of
the Ohio Model lesson plan. They should go to the scam artist outfits
like the Discovery Institute and demand to see exactly what the scam
artists are selling. The Discovery Institute has a history of selling
junk, but letting the rubes take the fall for creating the bogus
product. They never give the rubes the product, but just insinuate
that it exists. Get them to put up their version of the teach the
controversy creationist scam and let the rubes decide if they really
want to teach it honestly. Sure a lot of the supporters probably do
not want the lesson taught honestly, and expect dishonest or
incompetent teachers to slip up and teach what they know that they
can't teach, but those people know that they support a scam. I don't
repeat the message for the deluded and dishonest.
Ron Okimoto
Desertphile
It's just a jump to the left.
And then a step to the right.
With you're hands on you hips.
You bring your knees in tight.
But it's the pelvic thrust
That really drives you insane.
Andrew Arensburger
> Don't get strung out
> By the way I look
> Don't judge a book by its cover...
Asshole!!
Slut!!
So's your neck!
--
Andrew Arensburger, Systems guy University of Maryland
arensb.no-...@umd.edu Office of Information Technology
...pation!
Mike Painter
> Kermit wrote:
>> Richard Clayton wrote:
>>> trinig...@yahoo.com wrote:
>>>> I have had the opportunity to read an excerpt from Creationist Ray
>>>> Martinez's up-coming paper destroying your lunatic theory. What I
>>>> read was beyond description. Darwinism is false and Ray has dealt
>>>> the final blow to the greatest fraud ever forced on mankind.
>>>>
>>>> --TG
>>>
>>> I smell sock puppet.
>>
>> ever...
>
> Accusation of sock-puppet = inability to refute.
Refute what?
Another fundie claiming "Darwinism" false?
That some guy named Ray wrote it?
That neither the poster, nor Ray knows what a theory is?
That falsifying it would bring millions if not billions of dollars into
science and all female grad students in several science would sleep with
the man?
That it is huge?
I have no doubt it is huge. It would have to be. It's hard writing with
crayons on 8.5 x 11 inch paper.
Stile4aly
I find it hard to believe that you have over 800 messages in the
newsgroup and you don't know that the "= inability to refute" is a Ray
Martinez-ism. Look up Ray (particuarly his debate with Richard
Clayton) and then come back and have a laugh.
WuzYoungOnceToo2
>
> Hi Ray. Cute sock puppet you got there.
>
> Oh, and don't forget about the eels!
My hovercraft is full of eels.
Stile4aly
Ray Martinez wrote:
> Frank J wrote:
> > trinig...@yahoo.com wrote:
> > > I have had the opportunity to read an excerpt from Creationist Ray
> > > Martinez's up-coming paper destroying your lunatic theory. What I read
> > > was beyond description. Darwinism is false and Ray has dealt the final
> > > blow to the greatest fraud ever forced on mankind.
> > >
> > > --TG
> >
>
>
> > Funny, even Wells obssesses over this
> > "Darwinism" thing, and does not take the first step at falsifying
> > evolution, let alone proposing a better theory. Also funny is that you
> > too make no mention that Ray came up with his own theory.
>
> Scott. We discussed his post in advance. Trini is one of three persons
> who have access to my work, the other two are proofreaders. With my
> work being long over due I saw no harm in Trini's initiative.
Then why didn't he respond as to who he is? Why are you explaining his
identity instead of him doing it himself?
>
> I said that I would not post until my paper was finished. The real
> reason for this self-imposed ban is because there really isn't anything
> to say other than the spectacular evidence of Dr. Scott, which I will
> not distribute piecemeal in message snippets. The reason I have
> violated the ban is to demonstrate to persons like Tom McDonald (and
> other members in the Group for which his view represents) that I will
> not be intimidated into NOT posting.
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/abc5e25f2ec1b89d?hl=en&
Nobody has intimidated you into not posting. Your ban, as you've
stated has been self-imposed. Nothing has prevented you from returning
at any time except your own pride.
>
> Tom McDonald:
>
> "Is this the one-week warning you said you'd give us? Or are you
> breaking your word not to post here until that auspicious moment?"
>
> This comment is consistent with what Tom has always said. This comment,
> between the lines, says: "please don't post, I am tired of being
> exposed to evidence and arguments that shake and disturb my
> anti-Biblical worldview to its very foundation".
Noone has asked you not to post. You stated yourself that you would
not post again until one week prior to your publication. Why have you
broken your word?
>
> It is THIS EXACT mindset and clandestine view that has obtained me
> lifetime bans at IIDB and InfidelGuy. They don't want to give a
> microphone to the very evidence that decimates their dogma, while
> pretending that they are free-speech havens. Reggie Finley at IG, and
> IIDB Administration, and Tom McDonald and the persons here who he
> represents, are really begging that I be merciful and cease from
> broadcasting the invulnerable evidence of Biblical veracity. It is
> directly comparable to the rite of exorcism, when the name of Christ
> and His blood are invoked, the demoniac screams obscenities in order to
> drown out from hearing those sacred authoritative words.
Ray, noone is preventing you from posting. You can speak all you want
here. Other boards may ban you as they please, but TO is open to all.
>
> Tom's underlying "message" is threatening blackmail, that I will be
> branded as having broken my word, and thus a liar. I want Darwinists to
> say this while ignoring the facts of the situation. I want to see them
> froth and howl. I want to see liars who believe apes morphed into men
> cast the first stone, and blow everything out of proportion for the
> real reasons stated above, and prove that they are covertly guilty of
> that which they overtly condemn the most. There is no sting in being
> called a liar by Darwinists. I do acknowledge that not everyone in the
> Group is like Tom, or is represented by him.
I'm not saying that you're a liar, but you did state that you would not
post until 1 week before your paper would be posted. Why have you
chosen to break your word? Why did your brother not explain his
identity instead of you breaking your self-imposed exile?
>
> It took evolutionists (Darwin 57 and Dawkins 184 years) to answer
> Paley. It also took Darwin 13 months and ten days to actually write the
> "Origin". As of August 2006 I am one year in and over the hump. The
> complexity of the Bible and the Mind that oversaw its content, and the
> profound scholarship and 29 year career of Dr. Scott, and the 8 months
> that he spent explaining his refutation of Darwinism in 2001, and the
> enormity of the available literature on the 19th century, are the
> reasons for my delay. I reserve the right to do as I please and take
> whatever "hits"; rather than give into blackmail and allow Darwinists
> to pervert what I said in order to promote their agenda of denying the
> microphone to opponents (western style Talibanism).
Noone has denied you a microphone except yourself. Neither Darwin nor
Dawkins were writing in direct response to Paley's argument. Paley is
a philosopher, not a scientist. And you've been promising that the
paper was forthcoming on TO since at least May of last year. Is any
section of it complete? Why not post just the introduction?
>
> Dana Tweedy: We know the eels in question migrate long distances to a
> land mass that doesn't exist anymore. How do you explain this migratory
> behavior ?
The European eels' mating ground is in the Sargasso Sea. Evidence
shows that the smallest known eel larvae are found in the Sargasso Sea.
>
> Frank James wrote:
> > Funny, even Wells obssesses over this
> > "Darwinism" thing, and does not take the first step at falsifying
> > evolution, let alone proposing a better theory. Also funny is that you
> > too make no mention that Ray came up with his own theory.
>
> "Darwinism" was a term accepted by the mouthpiece of Darwin's camp, T.
> H. Huxley.
>
> My brother knows what my thesis is. He is a very successful
> businessman. He self-admittedly has not the time or patience to deal
> with "lunatics".
Then why did he post in the first place? Why not remain happy in his
belief that Darwinism is refuted? Why post and then not show up again?
>
> Frank, I have a Hypothesis clearly stated after the Title and title
> description. I have invulnerably explained, refuted and falsified
> natural selection, time for you guys to find a new livelyhood. This
> very important section is already written. I have missed so many
> deadlines that I am afraid to set anymore. God has now enabled me to
> spend full time on the project that He has given me. My goal is no
> later than November, but obviously I cannot make any promises.
Ray, at the rate you're going there will be peace in the Middle East
the day before your paper is published. I've known people to complete
PhDs in less time than its taken you to complete this paper.
> Without giving anything away (because I am thoroughly looking forward
> to the shock value) my theory, based on the totality of available
> evidence, says the general ToE is a valid explanation of biological
> reality, but wholly and demonstrably incorrect.
How can something be both a "valid explanation" and "wholly and
demonstrably incorrect?"
>
> Ray
DJT
Ray Martinez wrote:
snipping to the part addressing me.
> Dana Tweedy: We know the eels in question migrate long distances to a
> land mass that doesn't exist anymore. How do you explain this migratory
> behavior ?
We don't "know" that the eels migrate to a "land mass that doesn't
exist anymore". They migrate to the middle of the Sargasso sea, which
is not any land mass. As for migratory behavior, it's evolved.
snip
>
> My brother knows what my thesis is. He is a very successful
> businessman. He self-admittedly has not the time or patience to deal
> with "lunatics".
Then why does he hang around you?
snip the rest.
DJT
Kermit
Ray Martinez wrote:
> Frank J wrote:
> > > I have had the opportunity to read an excerpt from Creationist Ray
> > > Martinez's up-coming paper destroying your lunatic theory. What I read
> > > was beyond description. Darwinism is false and Ray has dealt the final
> > > blow to the greatest fraud ever forced on mankind.
> > >
> > > --TG
> >
>
>
> > Funny, even Wells obssesses over this
> > "Darwinism" thing, and does not take the first step at falsifying
> > evolution, let alone proposing a better theory. Also funny is that you
> > too make no mention that Ray came up with his own theory.
>
> Scott. We discussed his post in advance. Trini is one of three persons
> who have access to my work, the other two are proofreaders. With my
> work being long over due I saw no harm in Trini's initiative.
Wait, he's not a sock puppet? Well then, welcome aboard, Trini!
>
> I said that I would not post until my paper was finished. The real
> reason for this self-imposed ban is because there really isn't anything
> to say other than the spectacular evidence of Dr. Scott, which I will
> not distribute piecemeal in message snippets. The reason I have
> violated the ban is to demonstrate to persons like Tom McDonald (and
> other members in the Group for which his view represents) that I will
> not be intimidated into NOT posting.
Heaven forfend!
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/abc5e25f2ec1b89d?hl=en&
>
> Tom McDonald:
>
> "Is this the one-week warning you said you'd give us? Or are you
> breaking your word not to post here until that auspicious moment?"
>
> This comment is consistent with what Tom has always said. This comment,
> between the lines, says: "please don't post, I am tired of being
> exposed to evidence and arguments that shake and disturb my
> anti-Biblical worldview to its very foundation".
>
Yeah, you have Tom pegged :)
> It is THIS EXACT mindset and clandestine view that has obtained me
> lifetime bans at IIDB and InfidelGuy. They don't want to give a
> microphone to the very evidence that decimates their dogma, while
> pretending that they are free-speech havens.
Wait! You've been giving them evidence? You're holding out on us, Ray.
> Reggie Finley at IG, and
> IIDB Administration, and Tom McDonald and the persons here who he
> represents, are really begging that I be merciful and cease from
> broadcasting the invulnerable evidence of Biblical veracity. It is
> directly comparable to the rite of exorcism, when the name of Christ
> and His blood are invoked, the demoniac screams obscenities in order to
> drown out from hearing those sacred authoritative words.
I feel... I feel... a gathering of forces. The wind is picking up...
It's getting dark...
>
> Tom's underlying "message" is threatening blackmail, that I will be
> branded as having broken my word, and thus a liar.
Shrug it off, Ray. You've never let it stop you before.
> I want Darwinists to
> say this while ignoring the facts of the situation. I want to see them
> froth and howl. I want to see liars who believe apes morphed into men
> cast the first stone, and blow everything out of proportion for the
> real reasons stated above, and prove that they are covertly guilty of
> that which they overtly condemn the most. There is no sting in being
> called a liar by Darwinists. I do acknowledge that not everyone in the
> Group is like Tom, or is represented by him.
>
> It took evolutionists (Darwin 57 and Dawkins 184 years) to answer
> Paley. It also took Darwin 13 months and ten days to actually write the
> "Origin". As of August 2006 I am one year in and over the hump. The
> complexity of the Bible and the Mind that oversaw its content, and the
> profound scholarship and 29 year career of Dr. Scott, and the 8 months
> that he spent explaining his refutation of Darwinism in 2001, and the
> enormity of the available literature on the 19th century, are the
> reasons for my delay. I reserve the right to do as I please and take
> whatever "hits"; rather than give into blackmail and allow Darwinists
> to pervert what I said in order to promote their agenda of denying the
> microphone to opponents (western style Talibanism).
Indeed. Seriously. Do it right.
>
> Dana Tweedy: We know the eels in question migrate long distances to a
> land mass that doesn't exist anymore. How do you explain this migratory
> behavior ?
>
> Frank James wrote:
> > Funny, even Wells obssesses over this
> > "Darwinism" thing, and does not take the first step at falsifying
> > evolution, let alone proposing a better theory. Also funny is that you
> > too make no mention that Ray came up with his own theory.
>
> "Darwinism" was a term accepted by the mouthpiece of Darwin's camp, T.
> H. Huxley.
>
> My brother knows what my thesis is. He is a very successful
> businessman. He self-admittedly has not the time or patience to deal
> with "lunatics".
And yet he's a big fan of Dr. Scott. Curious, that.
>
> Frank, I have a Hypothesis clearly stated after the Title and title
> description. I have invulnerably explained, refuted and falsified
> natural selection, time for you guys to find a new livelyhood.
I'm glad to hear that you have finally understood the difference
between refuting and simply asserting. I was begining to despair that
you ever would. I am looking forward to it.
> This
> very important section is already written. I have missed so many
> deadlines that I am afraid to set anymore. God has now enabled me to
> spend full time on the project that He has given me. My goal is no
> later than November, but obviously I cannot make any promises.
I, who have started my own projects, and not always finished them,
understand. We'll set a place at the table for ya.
>
> Without giving anything away (because I am thoroughly looking forward
> to the shock value) my theory, based on the totality of available
> evidence, says the general ToE is a valid explanation of biological
> reality, but wholly and demonstrably incorrect.
>
I will indeed be shocked when I see you accomplish this.
> Ray
Kermit
WuzYoungOnceToo2
>
> Trini is my younger adult brother, he too is a lifelong student of Dr.
> Scott. We discussed his post in advance. Trini is one of three persons
> who have access to my work, the other two are proofreaders. With my
> work being long over due I saw no harm in Trini's initiative.
Even without know this "Ray" I can easily call bullshit simply by
comparing his posting header with that of his "brother":
Ray....
Path:
g2news2.google.com!news4.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!darwin.ediacara.org!there.is.no.cabal
From: "Ray Martinez" <pyramid...@yahoo.com>
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Huge Creationist Paper
Date: 31 Aug 2006 14:17:39 -0700
Organization: http://groups.google.com
Lines: 107
Sender: n...@darwin.ediacara.org
Approved: robo...@ediacara.org
Message-ID: <1157059059....@p79g2000cwp.googlegroups.com>
References: <1156876198....@i3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>
<1156980312....@74g2000cwt.googlegroups.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: darwin
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
X-Trace: darwin.ediacara.org 1157059108 32109 128.100.83.246 (31 Aug
2006 21:18:28 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: use...@darwin.ediacara.org
NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 31 Aug 2006 21:18:28 +0000 (UTC)
X-NNTP-Posting-Host: 65.116.143.83
In-Reply-To: <1156980312....@74g2000cwt.googlegroups.com>
User-Agent: G2/0.2
X-HTTP-UserAgent: Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Windows NT 5.0;
.NET CLR 1.1.4322),gzip(gfe),gzip(gfe)
Complaints-To: groups...@google.com
Injection-Info: p79g2000cwp.googlegroups.com;
posting-host=65.116.143.83;
"trini"...
Path:
g2news2.google.com!news3.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!darwin.ediacara.org!there.is.no.cabal
From: trinigabr...@yahoo.com
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Huge Creationist Paper
Date: 29 Aug 2006 11:29:58 -0700
Organization: http://groups.google.com
Lines: 7
Sender: n...@darwin.ediacara.org
Approved: robo...@ediacara.org
Message-ID: <1156876198....@i3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: darwin
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
X-Trace: darwin.ediacara.org 1156876237 45690 128.100.83.246 (29 Aug
2006 18:30:37 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: use...@darwin.ediacara.org
NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 29 Aug 2006 18:30:37 +0000 (UTC)
X-NNTP-Posting-Host: 24.130.227.18
User-Agent: G2/0.2
X-HTTP-UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US;
rv:1.8.0.6) Gecko/20060728 Firefox/1.5.0.6,gzip(gfe),gzip(gfe)
Complaints-To: groups...@google.com
Injection-Info: i3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com; posting-host=24.130.227.18;
VoiceOfReason
Ray Martinez wrote:
> Frank J wrote:
> > > I have had the opportunity to read an excerpt from Creationist Ray
> > > Martinez's up-coming paper destroying your lunatic theory. What I read
> > > was beyond description. Darwinism is false and Ray has dealt the final
> > > blow to the greatest fraud ever forced on mankind.
> > >
> > > --TG
> >
>
>
> > Funny, even Wells obssesses over this
> > "Darwinism" thing, and does not take the first step at falsifying
> > evolution, let alone proposing a better theory. Also funny is that you
> > too make no mention that Ray came up with his own theory.
>
:-D
> he too is a lifelong student of Dr.
> Scott. We discussed his post in advance. Trini is one of three persons
> who have access to my work, the other two are proofreaders. With my
> work being long over due I saw no harm in Trini's initiative.
>
> I said that I would not post until my paper was finished. The real
> reason for this self-imposed ban is because there really isn't anything
> to say other than the spectacular evidence of Dr. Scott, which I will
> not distribute piecemeal in message snippets. The reason I have
> violated the ban is to demonstrate to persons like Tom McDonald (and
> other members in the Group for which his view represents) that I will
> not be intimidated into NOT posting.
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/abc5e25f2ec1b89d?hl=en&
>
> Tom McDonald:
>
> "Is this the one-week warning you said you'd give us? Or are you
> breaking your word not to post here until that auspicious moment?"
>
> This comment is consistent with what Tom has always said. This comment,
> between the lines, says: "please don't post, I am tired of being
> exposed to evidence and arguments that shake and disturb my
> anti-Biblical worldview to its very foundation".
That's all fine and good, except 1) you have never (in my knowledge)
posted any evidence or arguments that held water, and 2) biological
evolution is not an "anti-Biblical worldview," especially since most
Christians accept the fact of evolution.
> It is THIS EXACT mindset and clandestine view that has obtained me
> lifetime bans at IIDB and InfidelGuy. They don't want to give a
> microphone to the very evidence that decimates their dogma, while
> pretending that they are free-speech havens. Reggie Finley at IG, and
> IIDB Administration, and Tom McDonald and the persons here who he
> represents, are really begging that I be merciful and cease from
> broadcasting the invulnerable evidence of Biblical veracity. It is
> directly comparable to the rite of exorcism, when the name of Christ
> and His blood are invoked, the demoniac screams obscenities in order to
> drown out from hearing those sacred authoritative words.
Well, since this isn't IIDB or InfidelGuy, I really don't care what
problems you had there.
> Tom's underlying "message" is threatening blackmail, that I will be
> branded as having broken my word, and thus a liar. I want Darwinists to
> say this while ignoring the facts of the situation. I want to see them
> froth and howl. I want to see liars who believe apes morphed into men
Who ever said apes morphed into men? Surely nobody who knows a thing
about evolution would say that.
> cast the first stone, and blow everything out of proportion for the
> real reasons stated above, and prove that they are covertly guilty of
> that which they overtly condemn the most. There is no sting in being
> called a liar by Darwinists. I do acknowledge that not everyone in the
> Group is like Tom, or is represented by him.
>
> It took evolutionists (Darwin 57 and Dawkins 184 years) to answer
> Paley. It also took Darwin 13 months and ten days to actually write the
> "Origin". As of August 2006 I am one year in and over the hump. The
> complexity of the Bible and the Mind that oversaw its content, and the
> profound scholarship and 29 year career of Dr. Scott, and the 8 months
> that he spent explaining his refutation of Darwinism in 2001,
Um, if Scott wrote a "refutation of Darwinism" in 2001, why do you need
to write another one?
> and the
> enormity of the available literature on the 19th century,
Why go back to the 19th century??? That's old news.
> are the
> reasons for my delay. I reserve the right to do as I please and take
> whatever "hits"; rather than give into blackmail and allow Darwinists
> to pervert what I said in order to promote their agenda of denying the
> microphone to opponents (western style Talibanism).
I can read your post just fine. Nobody is "denying the microphone" to
anyone.
> Dana Tweedy: We know the eels in question migrate long distances to a
> land mass that doesn't exist anymore. How do you explain this migratory
> behavior ?
>
> Frank James wrote:
> > Funny, even Wells obssesses over this
> > "Darwinism" thing, and does not take the first step at falsifying
> > evolution, let alone proposing a better theory. Also funny is that you
> > too make no mention that Ray came up with his own theory.
>
> "Darwinism" was a term accepted by the mouthpiece of Darwin's camp, T.
> H. Huxley.
>
> My brother knows what my thesis is. He is a very successful
> businessman. He self-admittedly has not the time or patience to deal
> with "lunatics".
*Bites tongue*
> Frank, I have a Hypothesis clearly stated after the Title and title
> description. I have invulnerably explained, refuted and falsified
> natural selection, time for you guys to find a new livelyhood.
Given your posts prior to now, I think that's rather unlikely.
> This
> very important section is already written. I have missed so many
> deadlines that I am afraid to set anymore. God has now enabled me to
> spend full time on the project that He has given me. My goal is no
> later than November, but obviously I cannot make any promises.
>
> Without giving anything away (because I am thoroughly looking forward
> to the shock value) my theory, based on the totality of available
> evidence, says the general ToE is a valid explanation of biological
> reality, but wholly and demonstrably incorrect.
I'll believe it when I see it. Or not.
Tom McDonald
Ray Martinez wrote:
> Frank J wrote:
> > > I have had the opportunity to read an excerpt from Creationist Ray
> > > Martinez's up-coming paper destroying your lunatic theory. What I read
> > > was beyond description. Darwinism is false and Ray has dealt the final
> > > blow to the greatest fraud ever forced on mankind.
> > >
> > > --TG
> >
>
>
> > Funny, even Wells obssesses over this
> > "Darwinism" thing, and does not take the first step at falsifying
> > evolution, let alone proposing a better theory. Also funny is that you
> > too make no mention that Ray came up with his own theory.
>
> Scott. We discussed his post in advance. Trini is one of three persons
> who have access to my work, the other two are proofreaders. With my
> work being long over due I saw no harm in Trini's initiative.
>
> I said that I would not post until my paper was finished. The real
> reason for this self-imposed ban is because there really isn't anything
> to say other than the spectacular evidence of Dr. Scott, which I will
> not distribute piecemeal in message snippets. The reason I have
> violated the ban is to demonstrate to persons like Tom McDonald (and
> other members in the Group for which his view represents) that I will
> not be intimidated into NOT posting.
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/abc5e25f2ec1b89d?hl=en&
>
> Tom McDonald:
>
> "Is this the one-week warning you said you'd give us? Or are you
> breaking your word not to post here until that auspicious moment?"
>
> This comment is consistent with what Tom has always said. This comment,
> between the lines, says: "please don't post, I am tired of being
> exposed to evidence and arguments that shake and disturb my
> anti-Biblical worldview to its very foundation".
Got me wrong, Ray. I am honestly looking forward to your paper. My
first question was written in hopes that the time of unveiling was
actually nigh. My second question was in fear that you might have had
second thoughts, and only came here to tease us.
You think you can read me, and others, in spite of my clear statements
and in spite of the fact that I am and always have been a Christian.
You think that disagreement with you equals the utmost depravity,
dishonesty and ignorance. Or that's what I have gathered; I could be
wrong.
I have no fear of your great paper. If there is truth in it, well truth
is welcome. If, however, it shows the sort of slipshod scholarship and
egregious arrogance you, and through you Scott, have presented here in
the past, then it will be welcome for its entertainment value.
Put it in front of us, and let us see what you got. If it is worthy
(and not just because you assert that it is worthy), I will treat it
with honor. But let me see it before you tell me what I will do with
it.
<snip more in the same vein>
Stile4aly
Ray Martinez wrote:
> Stile4aly wrote:
> > Ray Martinez wrote:
> > > Frank J wrote:
> > > > trinig...@yahoo.com wrote:
> > > > > I have had the opportunity to read an excerpt from Creationist Ray
> > > > > Martinez's up-coming paper destroying your lunatic theory. What I read
> > > > > was beyond description. Darwinism is false and Ray has dealt the final
> > > > > blow to the greatest fraud ever forced on mankind.
> > > > >
> > > > > --TG
> > > >
> > >
> > > MAJOR SNIP....
> > >
> > > > Funny, even Wells obssesses over this
> > > > "Darwinism" thing, and does not take the first step at falsifying
> > > > evolution, let alone proposing a better theory. Also funny is that you
> > > > too make no mention that Ray came up with his own theory.
> > >
> > > Trini is my younger adult brother, he too is a lifelong student of Dr.
> > > Scott. We discussed his post in advance. Trini is one of three persons
> > > who have access to my work, the other two are proofreaders. With my
> > > work being long over due I saw no harm in Trini's initiative.
> >
> > Then why didn't he respond as to who he is? Why are you explaining his
> > identity instead of him doing it himself?
> >
>
> explained this ?
Because "trini's" post was more consistent with sockpuppetry than with
your explanation. His posting style is remarkably similar to yours.
Also now that WuzYoungOnce has shown us the two traces side by side,
it's pretty clear that's exactly what it was.
> Why are you acting like I did not already address this ?
>
> Answer: Because, like I said, in different words, misrepresentation is
> the Darwinian way.
Explain to me how I have misrepresented you. Tom stated you were in a
self imposed exile, you said you were breaking that exile to state that
you would not be intimidated into not posting, and I stated that noone
was intimidating you.
>
>
> > >
> > > It took evolutionists (Darwin 57 and Dawkins 184 years) to answer
> > > Paley. It also took Darwin 13 months and ten days to actually write the
> > > "Origin". As of August 2006 I am one year in and over the hump. The
> > > complexity of the Bible and the Mind that oversaw its content, and the
> > > profound scholarship and 29 year career of Dr. Scott, and the 8 months
> > > that he spent explaining his refutation of Darwinism in 2001, and the
> > > enormity of the available literature on the 19th century, are the
> > > reasons for my delay. I reserve the right to do as I please and take
> > > whatever "hits"; rather than give into blackmail and allow Darwinists
> > > to pervert what I said in order to promote their agenda of denying the
> > > microphone to opponents (western style Talibanism).
> >
> > Noone has denied you a microphone except yourself. Neither Darwin nor
> > Dawkins were writing in direct response to Paley's argument. Paley is
> > a philosopher, not a scientist. And you've been promising that the
> > paper was forthcoming on TO since at least May of last year. Is any
> > section of it complete? Why not post just the introduction?
>
> You are woefully ignorant of basic historical facts (recent and afar).
> "Origin" was a direct reply to Paley. I could name 17,000 scholars in
> support. IOW, nobody has the burden of evidencing that the Earth is
> round. Thats how much of a fact that "Origin" = direct reply to Paley
> is. "Blind Watchmaker" (1986) was also a direct reply to Paley's
> watchmaker = "Argument from Design" (1802). You obviously have never
> read Dawkins' book. In fairness to you, your misrepresentations already
> mentioned above (errors) are consistently flowing, I now do not feel
> slighted.
Admittedly, I haven't read Dawkins, but my impression has been that
he's arguing more against modern creationism than he is Paley's
watchmaker argument. For Darwin's part, the word Design only appears
in one place in OotS:
Although I am fully convinced of the truth of the views given in this
volume under the form of an abstract, I by no means expect to convince
experienced naturalists whose minds are stocked with a multitude of
facts all viewed, during a long course of years, from a point of view
directly opposite to mine. It is so easy to hide our ignorance under
such expressions as the "plan of creation," "unity of design," &c., and
to think that we give an explanation when we only restate a fact. Any
one whose disposition leads him to attach more weight to unexplained
difficulties than to the explanation of a certain number of facts will
certainly reject my theory. (pages 481-482)
"Paley" only appears once also, "No organ will be formed, as Paley has
remarked, for the purpose of causing pain or for doing an injury to its
possessor." (page 201)
Watchmaker doesn't appear at all. I don't think 2 appearances of key
terms in a 500 page book suggests that the book is a direct response.
>
>
> >
> > http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/browse_frm/thread/a98592ef82e52b78/4e79c16d2363c491?lnk=st&q=%22ray+martinez%22+paper&rnum=58&hl=en#4e79c16d2363c4911
> >
> > >
> > > Dana Tweedy: We know the eels in question migrate long distances to a
> > > land mass that doesn't exist anymore. How do you explain this migratory
> > > behavior ?
> >
> > The European eels' mating ground is in the Sargasso Sea. Evidence
> > shows that the smallest known eel larvae are found in the Sargasso Sea.
No comment here?
> >
> >
> > >
> > > Frank James wrote:
> > > > Funny, even Wells obssesses over this
> > > > "Darwinism" thing, and does not take the first step at falsifying
> > > > evolution, let alone proposing a better theory. Also funny is that you
> > > > too make no mention that Ray came up with his own theory.
> > >
> > > "Darwinism" was a term accepted by the mouthpiece of Darwin's camp, T.
> > > H. Huxley.
> > >
> > > My brother knows what my thesis is. He is a very successful
> > > businessman. He self-admittedly has not the time or patience to deal
> > > with "lunatics".
> >
> > Then why did he post in the first place? Why not remain happy in his
> > belief that Darwinism is refuted? Why post and then not show up again?
> >
>
> Why are you evading the answer already posted ?
>
> Answer: Because you are, like I said, evading the answer already
> posted.
I'm evading the answer because I'm evading the answer? My head is
spinning.
>
> Why are you doing this ?
>
> Answer: The Darwinian way.
>
> Your reply above contains the Tom McDonald syndrome bewteen the lines.
Did you hear that, Tom? You have your own syndrome, congratulations.
>
> > >
> > > Frank, I have a Hypothesis clearly stated after the Title and title
> > > description. I have invulnerably explained, refuted and falsified
> > > natural selection, time for you guys to find a new livelyhood. This
> > > very important section is already written. I have missed so many
> > > deadlines that I am afraid to set anymore. God has now enabled me to
> > > spend full time on the project that He has given me. My goal is no
> > > later than November, but obviously I cannot make any promises.
> >
> > Ray, at the rate you're going there will be peace in the Middle East
> > the day before your paper is published. I've known people to complete
> > PhDs in less time than its taken you to complete this paper.
>
> Yeah, fruit loops like Jerry Coyne, Ken Miller and Steve Pinker. Real
> minds have degrees in theology and science (Wells, Dembski, etc.etc.).
You mean like George Coyne, recently departed director of the Vatican
Observatory?
>
> >
> > > Without giving anything away (because I am thoroughly looking forward
> > > to the shock value) my theory, based on the totality of available
> > > evidence, says the general ToE is a valid explanation of biological
> > > reality, but wholly and demonstrably incorrect.
> >
> > How can something be both a "valid explanation" and "wholly and
> > demonstrably incorrect?"
> >
> > >
> > > Ray
>
> Thats the exact question I hoped to elicit - good job.
You hoped that someone would point out that your view is a logical
contradiction?
> You will have to wait for the answer.
You'll forgive me if I don't hold my breath.
Stile4aly
Ray Martinez wrote:
> Stile4aly wrote:
> > > Frank J wrote:
> > > > trinig...@yahoo.com wrote:
> > > > > I have had the opportunity to read an excerpt from Creationist Ray
> > > > > Martinez's up-coming paper destroying your lunatic theory. What I read
> > > > > was beyond description. Darwinism is false and Ray has dealt the final
> > > > > blow to the greatest fraud ever forced on mankind.
> > > > >
> > > > > --TG
> > > >
> > >
> > > MAJOR SNIP....
> > >
> > > > Funny, even Wells obssesses over this
> > > > "Darwinism" thing, and does not take the first step at falsifying
> > > > evolution, let alone proposing a better theory. Also funny is that you
> > > > too make no mention that Ray came up with his own theory.
> > >
> > > Trini is my younger adult brother, he too is a lifelong student of Dr.
> > > Scott. We discussed his post in advance. Trini is one of three persons
> > > who have access to my work, the other two are proofreaders. With my
> > > work being long over due I saw no harm in Trini's initiative.
> >
> > Then why didn't he respond as to who he is? Why are you explaining his
> > identity instead of him doing it himself?
> >
>
> explained this ?
Because "trini's" post was more consistent with sockpuppetry than with
your explanation. His posting style is remarkably similar to yours.
Also now that WuzYoungOnce has shown us the two traces side by side,
it's pretty clear that's exactly what it was.
>
> > >
> Why are you acting like I did not already address this ?
>
> Answer: Because, like I said, in different words, misrepresentation is
> the Darwinian way.
Explain to me how I have misrepresented you. Tom stated you were in a
self imposed exile, you said you were breaking that exile to state that
you would not be intimidated into not posting, and I stated that noone
was intimidating you.
>
>
> > >
> > > It took evolutionists (Darwin 57 and Dawkins 184 years) to answer
> > > Paley. It also took Darwin 13 months and ten days to actually write the
> > > "Origin". As of August 2006 I am one year in and over the hump. The
> > > complexity of the Bible and the Mind that oversaw its content, and the
> > > profound scholarship and 29 year career of Dr. Scott, and the 8 months
> > > that he spent explaining his refutation of Darwinism in 2001, and the
> > > enormity of the available literature on the 19th century, are the
> > > reasons for my delay. I reserve the right to do as I please and take
> > > whatever "hits"; rather than give into blackmail and allow Darwinists
> > > to pervert what I said in order to promote their agenda of denying the
> > > microphone to opponents (western style Talibanism).
> >
> > Noone has denied you a microphone except yourself. Neither Darwin nor
> > Dawkins were writing in direct response to Paley's argument. Paley is
> > a philosopher, not a scientist. And you've been promising that the
> > paper was forthcoming on TO since at least May of last year. Is any
> > section of it complete? Why not post just the introduction?
>
>
>
> >
> > http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/browse_frm/thread/a98592ef82e52b78/4e79c16d2363c491?lnk=st&q=%22ray+martinez%22+paper&rnum=58&hl=en#4e79c16d2363c4911
> >
> > >
> > > Dana Tweedy: We know the eels in question migrate long distances to a
> > > land mass that doesn't exist anymore. How do you explain this migratory
> > > behavior ?
> >
> > The European eels' mating ground is in the Sargasso Sea. Evidence
> > shows that the smallest known eel larvae are found in the Sargasso Sea.
No comment here?
> >
> >
> > >
> > > Frank James wrote:
> > > > Funny, even Wells obssesses over this
> > > > "Darwinism" thing, and does not take the first step at falsifying
> > > > evolution, let alone proposing a better theory. Also funny is that you
> > > > too make no mention that Ray came up with his own theory.
> > >
> > > "Darwinism" was a term accepted by the mouthpiece of Darwin's camp, T.
> > > H. Huxley.
> > >
> > > My brother knows what my thesis is. He is a very successful
> > > businessman. He self-admittedly has not the time or patience to deal
> > > with "lunatics".
> >
> > Then why did he post in the first place? Why not remain happy in his
> > belief that Darwinism is refuted? Why post and then not show up again?
> >
>
> Why are you evading the answer already posted ?
>
> Answer: Because you are, like I said, evading the answer already
> posted.
I'm evading the answer because I'm evading the answer? My head is
spinning.
>
> Why are you doing this ?
>
> Answer: The Darwinian way.
>
> Your reply above contains the Tom McDonald syndrome bewteen the lines.
Did you hear that, Tom? You have your own syndrome, congratulations.
>
> > >
> > > Frank, I have a Hypothesis clearly stated after the Title and title
> > > description. I have invulnerably explained, refuted and falsified
> > > natural selection, time for you guys to find a new livelyhood. This
> > > very important section is already written. I have missed so many
> > > deadlines that I am afraid to set anymore. God has now enabled me to
> > > spend full time on the project that He has given me. My goal is no
> > > later than November, but obviously I cannot make any promises.
> >
> > Ray, at the rate you're going there will be peace in the Middle East
> > the day before your paper is published. I've known people to complete
> > PhDs in less time than its taken you to complete this paper.
>
> Yeah, fruit loops like Jerry Coyne, Ken Miller and Steve Pinker. Real
> minds have degrees in theology and science (Wells, Dembski, etc.etc.).
You mean like George Coyne, recently departed director of the Vatican
Observatory?
By the way, Ray... What are your degrees in?
>
> >
> > > Without giving anything away (because I am thoroughly looking forward
> > > to the shock value) my theory, based on the totality of available
> > > evidence, says the general ToE is a valid explanation of biological
> > > reality, but wholly and demonstrably incorrect.
> >
> > How can something be both a "valid explanation" and "wholly and
> > demonstrably incorrect?"
> >
> > >
> > > Ray
>
Ray Martinez
Here we have classic innuendo "supported" by a mass of mumbo jumbo that
makes no point; hoping others will see that he winked and go along with
this ruse.
Ray
Ye Old One
enriched this group when s/he wrote:
>Trini is my younger adult brother, he too is a lifelong student of Dr.
>Scott.
You can both get treatment for it.
--
Bob.
Shane
> Frank J wrote:
>> trinig...@yahoo.com wrote:
>>> I have had the opportunity to read an excerpt from Creationist Ray
>>> Martinez's up-coming paper destroying your lunatic theory. What I read
>>> was beyond description. Darwinism is false and Ray has dealt the final
>>> blow to the greatest fraud ever forced on mankind.
>>>
>>> --TG
>>
>
> MAJOR SNIP....
>
>> Funny, even Wells obssesses over this
>> "Darwinism" thing, and does not take the first step at falsifying
>> evolution, let alone proposing a better theory. Also funny is that you
>> too make no mention that Ray came up with his own theory.
>
> Trini is my younger adult brother,
His reticence in identifying himself as such, speaks volumes doesn't
it?
> he too is a lifelong student of Dr.
> Scott. We discussed his post in advance. Trini is one of three persons
> who have access to my work, the other two are proofreaders. With my
> work being long over due I saw no harm in Trini's initiative.
>
> I said that I would not post until my paper was finished.
So, since he has posted, and his paper is not finished what other
conclusion is there to draw than that he lied?
> The real
> reason for this self-imposed ban is because there really isn't anything
> to say other than the spectacular evidence of Dr. Scott, which I will
> not distribute piecemeal in message snippets.
If only Ray had held that thought, that he really hasn't anything to
say.
> The reason I have
> violated the ban is to demonstrate to persons like Tom McDonald (and
> other members in the Group for which his view represents) that I will
> not be intimidated into NOT posting.
Why not get Trini to post the explanation then? That would have
resulted in Ray keeping his word, the sock-puppetry claim refuted, and
everyone happy.
> http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/abc5e25f2ec1b89d?hl=en&
>
> Tom McDonald:
>
> "Is this the one-week warning you said you'd give us? Or are you
> breaking your word not to post here until that auspicious moment?"
>
> This comment is consistent with what Tom has always said. This comment,
> between the lines, says: "please don't post, I am tired of being
> exposed to evidence and arguments that shake and disturb my
> anti-Biblical worldview to its very foundation".
Nope. Remember the exile was Ray's own idea, albeit a surprisingly
good one.
> It is THIS EXACT mindset and clandestine view that has obtained me
> lifetime bans at IIDB and InfidelGuy. They don't want to give a
> microphone to the very evidence that decimates their dogma,
So Ray's evidence only refutes 10% of evolution; interesting.
> while
> pretending that they are free-speech havens. Reggie Finley at IG, and
> IIDB Administration, and Tom McDonald and the persons here who he
> represents, are really begging that I be merciful and cease from
> broadcasting the invulnerable
But Ray ceased broadcasting monthhs ago, so why would Tom's post of
this week beg Ray to do so? Poor Ray, his logic skills are not really
up to this are they?
> evidence of Biblical veracity. It is
> directly comparable to the rite of exorcism, when the name of Christ
> and His blood are invoked, the demoniac screams obscenities in order to
> drown out from hearing those sacred authoritative words.
>
> Tom's underlying "message" is threatening blackmail, that I will be
> branded as having broken my word, and thus a liar.
Ray still has a problem with the truth. It was his own idea to go into
a posting hiatus, and his own idea to come out of it before the terms
he himself named were fulfilled. What other brands are appropriate in
this case? He certainly didn't keep his word.
> I want Darwinists to
> say this while ignoring the facts of the situation.
Funny, but it is Ray ignoring the facts, his idea, his words and his
going back on his words of his own accord.
> I want to see them
> froth and howl. I want to see liars who believe apes morphed into men
> cast the first stone,
That is very unlikely to occur, as there are very, very few people
(maybe as few as none) who believe this to have happened.
> and blow everything out of proportion for the
> real reasons stated above, and prove that they are covertly guilty of
> that which they overtly condemn the most. There is no sting in being
> called a liar by Darwinists.
Especially when it is true. There is not even any brownie points from
god in it, for Ray is not being persecuted for "righteuousness" sake,
but because he is a demonstrable liar.
> I do acknowledge that not everyone in the
> Group is like Tom, or is represented by him.
>
> It took evolutionists (Darwin 57 and Dawkins 184 years) to answer
> Paley. It also took Darwin 13 months and ten days to actually write the
> "Origin". As of August 2006 I am one year in and over the hump.
So we are looking at some 3,000 to 5,000 pages. Ray claims to be much
smarter than Darwin, so in the same time should produce that much more
work.
> The
> complexity of the Bible and the Mind that oversaw its content, and the
> profound scholarship and 29 year career of Dr. Scott, and the 8 months
> that he spent explaining his refutation of Darwinism in 2001,
Apparently Dr. Scott didn't explain very well, as now Ray has to do
it. Sounds like Ray is setting himself up to elbow Dr. Scott aside
when the Nobels are handed out.
> and the
> enormity of the available literature on the 19th century, are the
> reasons for my delay. I reserve the right to do as I please and take
> whatever "hits"; rather than give into blackmail and allow Darwinists
> to pervert what I said in order to promote their agenda of denying the
> microphone to opponents (western style Talibanism).
Another Raylogic(tm) classic. His exile was self imposed, and now he
claims he is being denied the opportunity to speak. He should give
himself a good slapping for that one. But let us not fail to give Ray
credit where it is due. He correctly identified the mindset that
stopped him from posting--talibanism--but sadly for Ray, that mindset
is his own.
> Dana Tweedy: We know the eels in question migrate long distances to a
> land mass that doesn't exist anymore. How do you explain this migratory
> behavior ?
Extreme stupidity, if what Ray says is correct. Typically, Ray is
wrong. Not even eels are foolish enough to return to something that
does not exist. Funnily enough, Ray persists in returning to something
that does not exist, a refutation of evolution; QED, eels are smarter
than Ray.
> Frank James wrote:
>> Funny, even Wells obssesses over this
>> "Darwinism" thing, and does not take the first step at falsifying
>> evolution, let alone proposing a better theory. Also funny is that you
>> too make no mention that Ray came up with his own theory.
>
> "Darwinism" was a term accepted by the mouthpiece of Darwin's camp, T.
> H. Huxley.
>
> My brother knows what my thesis is. He is a very successful
> businessman. He self-admittedly has not the time or patience to deal
> with "lunatics".
The evidence, as usual, is against Ray here.
> Frank, I have a Hypothesis clearly stated after the Title and title
> description. I have invulnerably explained, refuted and falsified
> natural selection, time for you guys to find a new livelyhood. This
> very important section is already written. I have missed so many
> deadlines that I am afraid to set anymore. God has now enabled me to
> spend full time on the project that He has given me. My goal is no
> later than November, but obviously I cannot make any promises.
Well the evidence suggests that Ray has no problem making them, it is
keeping them that he apparently finds impossible.
> Without giving anything away (because I am thoroughly looking forward
> to the shock value)
As are we to the comedy value. I wonder who is going to be
disappointed?
> my theory, based on the totality of available
> evidence, says the general ToE is a valid explanation of biological
> reality, but wholly and demonstrably incorrect.
As per Raylogic(tm) this makes no sense outside of Ray's mind(tm).
Ye Old One
enriched this group when s/he wrote:
>Answer: Because, like I said, in different words, misrepresentation is
>the Darwinian way.
I just remembered, there is a bigger tosser than McClueless :(
--
Bob.
Tom McDonald
I don't know what Wuz's motivation, er, was for his/her post. Whatever
it, er, was, s/he was wrong. The two posts are not from the same
computer, nor from the same IP address.
How is it, Ray, to be able to know everyone's deepest intention? It
must be a curse. For those without your gift, Wuz was just wrong.
Mike Painter
I never noticed him before. Easy enough to do with well over 1000 posts
coming through on a slow day.
But if the Dr Scott he mentions is the one that had a radio show on 24x7 for
years, along with demands for tithes and double tithes, I should follow him.
Barnum was right.
CreateThis
wrote:
>Frank J wrote:
>> trinig...@yahoo.com wrote:
>> > I have had the opportunity to read an excerpt from Creationist Ray
>> > Martinez's up-coming paper destroying your lunatic theory. What I read
>> > was beyond description. Darwinism is false and Ray has dealt the final
>> > blow to the greatest fraud ever forced on mankind.
>> >
>> > --TG
>>
>
>MAJOR SNIP....
>
>> Funny, even Wells obssesses over this
>> "Darwinism" thing, and does not take the first step at falsifying
>> evolution, let alone proposing a better theory. Also funny is that you
>> too make no mention that Ray came up with his own theory.
>
>Trini is my younger adult brother, he too is a lifelong student of Dr.
>Scott. We discussed his post in advance. Trini is one of three persons
>who have access to my work, the other two are proofreaders. With my
>work being long over due I saw no harm in Trini's initiative.
>
>I said that I would not post until my paper was finished. The real
>reason for this self-imposed ban is because there really isn't anything
>to say other than the spectacular evidence of Dr. Scott, which I will
>not distribute piecemeal in message snippets. The reason I have
>violated the ban is to demonstrate to persons like Tom McDonald (and
>other members in the Group for which his view represents) that I will
>not be intimidated into NOT posting.
Attaboy, Ray, stand up to yourself! This is America and nobody can
stop you from posting, not even you!
CT
Robin Levett
<snippage>
>
> Attaboy, Ray, stand up to yourself! This is America and nobody can
> stop you from posting, not even you!
No it isn't.
--
Robin Levett
rle...@rlevett.ibmuklunix.net (unmunge by removing big blue - don't yahoo)
John Wilkins
> CreateThis wrote:
>
> <snippage>
>
> >
> > Attaboy, Ray, stand up to yourself! This is America and nobody can
> > stop you from posting, not even you!
>
> No it isn't.
That's right. We're America's *deputies*...
--
John S. Wilkins, Postdoctoral Research Fellow, Biohumanities Project
University of Queensland - Blog: scienceblogs.com/evolvingthoughts
"He used... sarcasm. He knew all the tricks, dramatic irony, metaphor,
bathos, puns, parody, litotes and... satire. He was vicious."
Kermit
That's the one. Ray is his Biggest Fan(tm).
kermit
Tom McDonald
John Wilkins wrote:
> Robin Levett <rnle...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > CreateThis wrote:
> >
> > <snippage>
> >
> > >
> > > Attaboy, Ray, stand up to yourself! This is America and nobody can
> > > stop you from posting, not even you!
> >
> > No it isn't.
>
> That's right. We're America's *deputies*...
But we did not shoot the deputies.
Ray Martinez
My answer to your initial post, Tom, is "fair enough".
Here is what I don't understand about Wuzzie.
What if it was the same IP ? What does that say or prove ?
Wuz is wrong also in the fact that I posted via Explorer and not
Mozilla.
I could easily go to my brothers house and post from there, like I said
Wuzzie has no point but a cowardly innuendo.
>
> How is it, Ray, to be able to know everyone's deepest intention? It
> must be a curse. For those without your gift, Wuz was just wrong.
Fair enough.
Ray
Mark VandeWettering
> Nobody said Dr. Scott ***wrote*** anything. His teaching was all crap,
> on public airwaves for 29 years.
I corrected your misspelling for you.
No need to thank me.
Mark
> Ray
>
> SNIP MAJOR CONTENT....
Ye Old One
enriched this group when s/he wrote:
>Attaboy, Ray, stand up to yourself! This is America and nobody can
>stop you from posting, not even you!
Actually, that is not true. Two years ago as part of the sentence
following a court case I took against an American woman she was banned
from even having internet access for 5 years.
--
Bob.
Robin Levett
No - but you got Sheriff John Brown. Admittedly he always hated you.
--
Robin "Trenchtown" Levett
VoiceOfReason
Roses are red,
Violets are blue,
I'm schizophrenic,
... and so am I.
VoiceOfReason
Ray Martinez wrote:
> SNIP MAJOR CONTENT....
>
> >
> > Um, if Scott wrote a "refutation of Darwinism" in 2001, why do you need
> > to write another one?
> >
>
> on public airwaves for 29 years.
>
>
> SNIP MAJOR CONTENT....
Snipping major content = inability to refute!
Replacing some of my original content in case you care to comment:
"That's all fine and good, except 1) you have never (in my knowledge)
posted any evidence or arguments that held water, and 2) biological
evolution is not an "anti-Biblical worldview," especially since most
Christians accept the fact of evolution."
"Who ever said apes morphed into men? Surely nobody who knows a thing
about evolution would say that."
"Why go back to the 19th century??? That's old news."
Shane
> Tom McDonald wrote:
>
>>
>> John Wilkins wrote:
>>> Robin Levett <rnle...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>>>
>>> > CreateThis wrote:
>>> >
>>> > <snippage>
>>> >
>>> > >
>>> > > Attaboy, Ray, stand up to yourself! This is America and nobody can
>>> > > stop you from posting, not even you!
>>> >
>>> > No it isn't.
>>>
>>> That's right. We're America's *deputies*...
>>
>> But we did not shoot the deputies.
>
> No - but you got Sheriff John Brown. Admittedly he always hated you.
Why?
WuzYoungOnceToo
>
> I don't know what Wuz's motivation, er, was for his/her post. Whatever
> it, er, was, s/he was wrong. The two posts are not from the same
> computer, nor from the same IP address.
Your redundant conclusions aside...I didn't claim that they come from
the same computer/IP address. You need to look at other parts of the
header. Start with the "Path" and note that both were posted to the
same news server. Also note that both came from anonymous Yahoo!
e-mail accounts. They also have identical "NNTP-Posting-Host:" values
(darwin). Both were posted via GoogleGroups.
Individually, explainable....but add them up and you have too many
coincidences in the fields that would give you a clue to the posting
methods used (especially the server to which they were posted.) This
is exactly what you'd expect to see if the same person posted from two
different PCs on different networks (say, one from home and one from a
place of employment).
> How is it, Ray, to be able to know everyone's deepest intention? It
> must be a curse. For those without your gift, Wuz was just wrong.
No, I don't think I am.
WuzYoungOnceToo
>
> Here we have classic innuendo "supported" by a mass of mumbo jumbo that
> makes no point; hoping others will see that he winked and go along with
> this ruse.
That "mass of mumbo jumbo" is the signature of your posting methods
that is readily available to anyone here. Nice try.
Robin Levett
I don't know; but every time I plant a seed, he said kill it before it grow.
--
Robin Levett
WuzYoungOnceToo
>
> I don't know; but every time I plant a seed, he said kill it before it grow.
But you did not shoot the deputy...right?
WuzYoungOnceToo
>
> What if it was the same IP ? What does that say or prove ?
>
> Wuz is wrong also in the fact that I posted via Explorer and not
> Mozilla.
*I* am not wrong about anything. That information comes from the
UseNet header, not me.
> I could easily go to my brothers house and post from there, like I said
> Wuzzie has no point but a cowardly innuendo.
There was no "innuendo". I explicitely called bullshit on your claim
that you didn't issue both postings. How that is "cowardly" I haven't
a clue. Should I have challenged you to pistols at sunrise?
Tom McDonald
WuzYoungOnceToo wrote:
> Tom McDonald wrote:
> >
> > I don't know what Wuz's motivation, er, was for his/her post. Whatever
> > it, er, was, s/he was wrong. The two posts are not from the same
> > computer, nor from the same IP address.
>
> Your redundant conclusions aside...I didn't claim that they come from
> the same computer/IP address. You need to look at other parts of the
> header. Start with the "Path" and note that both were posted to the
> same news server.
You mean like this:
Path:
g2news2.google.com!news3.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!darwin.ediacara.org!there.is.no.cabal
Oddly, this Path: is from a post by Dana Tweedy, and is identical to:
Path:
g2news2.google.com!news3.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!darwin.ediacara.org!there.is.no.cabal
From: trinigabr...@yahoo.com
And perhaps you can tell us whose post this is from:
Path:
g2news2.google.com!news4.google.com!news3.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!darwin.ediacara.org!there.is.no.cabal
From: "WuzYoungOnceToo2" <WuzYoungOnceT...@yahoo.com>
> Also note that both came from anonymous Yahoo!
> e-mail accounts.
1. This is not at all unusual for posters on Usenet. As shown by your
own addy.
2. It would not be unusual for two separate posters who were close
brothers to use the same free email addresses.
> They also have identical "NNTP-Posting-Host:" values
> (darwin).
They would have to, wouldn't they? This is a moderated group, and *all*
posts have an NNTP-Posting-Host: of darwin. (Ask DIG why.)
However, in both cases, there is also an X header:
X-NNTP-Posting-Host:. Trini's is:
X-NNTP-Posting-Host: 24.130.227.18
Ray's is:
X-NNTP-Posting-Host: 65.116.143.83
> Both were posted via GoogleGroups.
You mean like this:
Organization: http://groups.google.com
Which, interestingly, is from a post of *yours*.
> Individually, explainable....but add them up and you have too many
> coincidences in the fields that would give you a clue to the posting
> methods used (especially the server to which they were posted.) This
> is exactly what you'd expect to see if the same person posted from two
> different PCs on different networks (say, one from home and one from a
> place of employment).
It is also, strangely, what one would suspect if all of the posts to a
moderated group were posted through the same server.
> > How is it, Ray, to be able to know everyone's deepest intention? It
> > must be a curse. For those without your gift, Wuz was just wrong.
>
> No, I don't think I am.
I think you are.
Personally, I think there is enough in Ray's posts to work with without
trying to find fault where none exists.
Frank J
Ray Martinez wrote:
(snip)
>
> Frank, I have a Hypothesis clearly stated after the Title and title
> description. I have invulnerably explained, refuted and falsified
> natural selection, time for you guys to find a new livelyhood.
You falsified NS?? I hope your paper explicitly tells the creationists
that their work has been all for naught. As you know they keep saying
NS is unfalsifiable.
Dis you also falsify "macroevolution" too, IOW did you address any of
Douglas Theobald's potential falsiers?
>This
> very important section is already written. I have missed so many
> deadlines that I am afraid to set anymore. God has now enabled me to
> spend full time on the project that He has given me. My goal is no
> later than November, but obviously I cannot make any promises.
>
> Without giving anything away (because I am thoroughly looking forward
> to the shock value) my theory, based on the totality of available
> evidence, says the general ToE is a valid explanation of biological
> reality, but wholly and demonstrably incorrect.
>
> Ray
Well I hope that you are not giving anything away, because all I can
detect from your comments is the same old argument from incredulity
wrapped in a bait-and-switch with the argument from design. I sincerely
hope that that's just a temporary diversion, and that you will surprise
us with something that no anti-evolutionist has given us to date - a
hypothesis that stands on its own merits, and not on a precieved (or
fabricated) weakness in any other one.
Robin Levett
> Robin Levett wrote:
>>
>> I don't know; but every time I plant a seed, he said kill it before it
>> grow.
Oops - read "you" for "I"
>
> But you did not shoot the deputy...right?
Indeed.
Ray Martinez
Frank J wrote:
> Ray Martinez wrote:
> (snip)
>
> >
> > Frank, I have a Hypothesis clearly stated after the Title and title
> > description. I have invulnerably explained, refuted and falsified
> > natural selection, time for you guys to find a new livelyhood.
>
> You falsified NS?? I hope your paper explicitly tells the creationists
> that their work has been all for naught. As you know they keep saying
> NS is unfalsifiable.
>
When Creos say NS is unfalsifiable they are talking about Evos who
explain everything by saying "NS-did-it". But forget Creos, your own
geneticists admit the obvious:
http://bevets.com/equotesl3.htm#rlewontin
Harvard Professor Richard Lewontin:
"....Such a theory can never be falsified, for it asserts that some
environmental difference created the conditions for natural selection
of a new character. It is existentially quantified so that the failure
to find the environmental factor proves nothing, except that one has
not looked hard enough. Can one really imagine observations about
nature that would disprove natural selection as a cause of the
difference in bill size? The theory of natural selection is then
revealed as metaphysical rather than scientific. Natural selection
explains nothing because it explains everything." "Testing the
Theory of Natural Selection" Nature, March 24, 1972 p.181
> Did you also falsify "macroevolution" too, IOW did you address any of
> Douglas Theobald's potential falsifiers?
>
Yes, I have falsified macroevolution, and I never heard of Douglas
Theobald.
I have clearly and invulnerably falsified:
1. NS
2. Macroevolution
3. Human evolution
4. Gradualality
5. Theistic evolutionism (my personal favorite). I am going to
humiliate Ken Miller and the Clergy Letter Project and enjoy every
moment.
6. Common ancestry
7. Charles Darwin will be taken to task like no one has ever seen
before.
There are horribly ignorant Darwinists who do not understand how the
19th century effects things today. When I destroy the foundation
everything built on it goes with it.
In addition, I will PROVE that:
1. Special Creation is true.
2. design = Designer. Paley remains true.
> >This
> > very important section is already written. I have missed so many
> > deadlines that I am afraid to set anymore. God has now enabled me to
> > spend full time on the project that He has given me. My goal is no
> > later than November, but obviously I cannot make any promises.
> >
> > Without giving anything away (because I am thoroughly looking forward
> > to the shock value) my theory, based on the totality of available
> > evidence, says the general ToE is a valid explanation of biological
> > reality, but wholly and demonstrably incorrect.
> >
> > Ray
>
> Well I hope that you are not giving anything away, because all I can
> detect from your comments is the same old argument from incredulity
> wrapped in a bait-and-switch with the argument from design.
If this claim had any merit then you would have taken the time to
actually explain and apply it to something I said.
SNIP....
> and that you will surprise
> us with something that no anti-evolutionist has given us to date - a
> hypothesis that stands on its own merits, and not on a precieved (or
> fabricated) weakness in any other one.
I promise that I will deliver exactly what you state above: an
absolutely original and unique thesis and the extraordinary evidence to
back it up. After Huxley read the "Origin" he remarked: "How stupid of
me not to have thought of that." I believe Creationists will say the
same after reading my work, and evos will be enraged.
Ray
WuzYoungOnceToo
seem to go through immediately (is the moderation automated?) That
would explain the headers though.
Inez
> I promise that I will deliver exactly what you state above: an
> absolutely original and unique thesis and the extraordinary evidence to
> back it up. After Huxley read the "Origin" he remarked: "How stupid of
> me not to have thought of that." I believe Creationists will say the
> same after reading my work, and evos will be enraged.
You're the guy who believe eels swim to the old site of Atlantis,
right? I hope you have a lot of amusing things like that in your
paper.
CreateThis
wrote:
You misspelled "laughing their asses off".
CT
Iain
<snip>
> You misspelled "laughing their asses off".
You misspelt Arses and Misspelt.
~Iain
Iain
Ray Martinez wrote:
<snip>
> I promise that I will deliver exactly what you state above: an
> absolutely original and unique thesis and the extraordinary evidence to
> back it up. After Huxley read the "Origin" he remarked: "How stupid of
> me not to have thought of that." I believe Creationists will say the
> same after reading my work, and evos will be enraged.
Are you the one with the "trips to see Noah's ark", or are you the
archaeopterix guy?
~Iain
David Fritzinger
Ray is the "Gene Scott is God, plus he has a Ph.D. in everything from
Stanford" guy.
--
Dave Fritzinger
Honolulu, HI
Desertphile
He also believes dowsing rods can find "Noah's ark." That one still
brings tears to my eyes.