In the News: Darwin Only Had A Theology Degree
Elf M. Sternberg
----------------------------------------------------------------
It would surprise many to know that Charles Darwin, the founder of
modern evolutionary theory, was not a scientist but a
theologian. Darwin only had a divinity degree and no formal training
in the sciences. Yet, the staunch evolutionists who make fun of
theologians using science to defend creation would never criticize the
great Darwin on the grounds that he was a mere theologian.
....
Darwin's and Mendel's works contradict each other. Darwin taught that
there were no limits to biological variation and that, if given enough
time, a fish could evolve into a human being. Mendel, on the other
hand, showed that there are natural limits to biological
variations. Variations within biological kinds (such as varieties of
dogs, cats, horses, cows, etc.) are possible but not variations across
biological kinds, especially from simpler kinds to more complex
ones. Mendel showed that evolution is limited to within the "kinds".
....
If humans must use intelligence to perform genetic engineering, to
meaningfully manipulate the genetic code, then what does that say
about the origin of the genetic code itself!
----------------------------------------------------------------
Read a familiar collection of strawmen at
http://www.bestsyndication.com/?q=041907_charles-darwin-biography-evolution-versus-creationism.htm
Elf M. Sternberg
jessica....@gmail.com
that someone is a bird-watching. He was hired as a companion to the
ship's captain who was worried about loneliness. The captain thought
a naturalist would be the best companion, and a friend suggested
Darwin. Most science of that age was performed in the Church, they
were the ones with the money, and they were genuinely interested in
the investigation of the natural world.
> Read a familiar collection of strawmen athttp://www.bestsyndication.com/?q=041907_charles-darwin-biography-evo...
>
> Elf M. Sternberg
John Harshman
> From the article:
> ----------------------------------------------------------------
> It would surprise many to know that Charles Darwin, the founder of
> modern evolutionary theory, was not a scientist but a
> theologian.
It would surprise many more to know that whether or not one is a
scientist depends solely on what degrees one has.
> Darwin only had a divinity degree and no formal training
> in the sciences. Yet, the staunch evolutionists who make fun of
> theologians using science to defend creation
Do you think he could name even one such theologian? What I generally
see are fundamentalists (seldom if ever theologians) making a hash of
science in attempts to attack evolution.
> would never criticize the
> great Darwin on the grounds that he was a mere theologian.
Yes, because that would be a very stupid argument. A divinity degree
doesn't make you a theologian, nor does lack of a science degree prevent
you from being a scientist. Deeds, not degrees, are the relevant
criteria, and by those criteria Darwin was a scientist, and creationists
are not.
> ....
>
> Darwin's and Mendel's works contradict each other.
Some people used to think so. But this misapprehension was corrected
nearly a hundred years ago, in the birth of the "modern synthesis".
Trust creationists to be a century or more behind the times.
> Darwin taught that
> there were no limits to biological variation and that, if given enough
> time, a fish could evolve into a human being. Mendel, on the other
> hand, showed that there are natural limits to biological
> variations.
No he didn't. It requires a gross misunderstanding of Mendel's work to
come to any such conclusion. And Mendel understood his own work pretty well.
> Variations within biological kinds (such as varieties of
> dogs, cats, horses, cows, etc.) are possible but not variations across
> biological kinds, especially from simpler kinds to more complex
> ones. Mendel showed that evolution is limited to within the "kinds".
He showed no such thing. He didn't study evolution at all. What's a
"kind", exactly?
> If humans must use intelligence to perform genetic engineering, to
> meaningfully manipulate the genetic code, then what does that say
> about the origin of the genetic code itself!
Nothing? Was that the answer?
> ----------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Read a familiar collection of strawmen at
> http://www.bestsyndication.com/?q=041907_charles-darwin-biography-evolution-versus-creationism.htm
>
> Elf M. Sternberg
"The author, Babu G. Ranganathan, is an experienced Christian writer.
Mr. Ranganathan has his B.A. with academic concentrations in Bible and
Biology from Bob Jones University. As a religion and science writer he
has been recognized in the 24th edition of Marquis Who's Who In The
East. The author's articles have been published in various publications
including Russia's Pravda and South Korea's The Seoul Times. The
author's website may be accessed at: http://www.religionscience.com."
Bob Jones University. No further comment needed.
jessica....@gmail.com
changed in the understanding of evolution since then. Molecular
evidence for evolution is an entirely new field since Darwin's time.
Darwin simply provided the first evidence and the first hypothesis
that eventually became the full-fledged theory of evolution. Mendel,
was also a theologian, a monk from Austria. And while, that is what
Mendel believed at the time, he was speaking from the evidence
available at that time. There is a lot of debate between evolution-
denyers on what is meant by "kinds". Species? Genus?
On Apr 19, 1:46 pm, "Elf M. Sternberg" <e...@drizzle.com> wrote:
Kermit
wrote:
> Elf M. Sternberg wrote:
<snip>
> > Read a familiar collection of strawmen at
> >http://www.bestsyndication.com/?q=041907_charles-darwin-biography-evo...
>
> > Elf M. Sternberg
>
> "The author, Babu G. Ranganathan, is an experienced Christian writer.
> Mr. Ranganathan has his B.A. with academic concentrations in Bible and
> Biology from Bob Jones University. As a religion and science writer he
> has been recognized in the 24th edition of Marquis Who's Who In The
> East. The author's articles have been published in various publications
> including Russia's Pravda and South Korea's The Seoul Times. The
> author's website may be accessed at:http://www.religionscience.com."
>
> Bob Jones University. No further comment needed.
Oh, I don't know. Using "published ...in Pravda" in his resume adds to
the ambiance, I think.
Kermit
eerok
> "Elf M. Sternberg" <e...@drizzle.com> wrote in message
news:87bqhki...@drizzle.com...
>> From the article:
>> -------------------------------------------------------------
>> It would surprise many to know that Charles Darwin, the
>> founder of modern evolutionary theory, was not a scientist
>> but a theologian. Darwin only had a divinity degree and no
>> formal training in the sciences.
> Bill Gates is a college dropout. He dropped out of Harvard.
> Darwin has a divinity degree, but it is from Cambridge. The
> 'no formal training in the sciences' is just wrong. Darwin
> studied medicine at Edinburgh before Cambridge, and took
> intensive training in geology in his last half year at
> Cambridge.
I'm not sure Gates is the best example, considering that
Microsoft FUD is to IT what creationist FUD is to science.
Same kind of situation, too: panic due to diminishing
mindshare.
--
"The happiness of credulity is a cheap and dangerous quality."
- George Bernard Shaw
Kermit
<jessica.lover...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Both Darwin and Mendel taught what they knew at the time. Much has
> changed in the understanding of evolution since then. Molecular
> evidence for evolution is an entirely new field since Darwin's time.
> Darwin simply provided the first evidence and the first hypothesis
> that eventually became the full-fledged theory of evolution. Mendel,
> was also a theologian, a monk from Austria. And while, that is what
> Mendel believed at the time, he was speaking from the evidence
> available at that time. There is a lot of debate between evolution-
> denyers on what is meant by "kinds". Species? Genus?
>
Oh, no you don't. That's a trick question! You'll never get a
Creationist to actually *define any word they use in an argument.
That's the sort of cheap rhetorical device the Devil uses. Might as
well ask them to define "religion", or "science", or "transitional
fossil"; they know better.
> On Apr 19, 1:46 pm, "Elf M. Sternberg" <e...@drizzle.com> wrote:
<snip>
Kermit
Ray Martinez
> > From the article:
> > ----------------------------------------------------------------
> > It would surprise many to know that Charles Darwin, the founder of
> > modern evolutionary theory, was not a scientist but a
> > theologian.
>
> It would surprise many more to know that whether or not one is a
> scientist depends solely on what degrees one has.
>
> > Darwin only had a divinity degree and no formal training
> > in the sciences. Yet, the staunch evolutionists who make fun of
> > theologians using science to defend creation
>
> Do you think he could name even one such theologian? What I generally
> see are fundamentalists (seldom if ever theologians) making a hash of
> science in attempts to attack evolution.
>
> > would never criticize the
> > great Darwin on the grounds that he was a mere theologian.
>
> Yes, because that would be a very stupid argument. A divinity degree
> doesn't make you a theologian, nor does lack of a science degree prevent
> you from being a scientist. Deeds, not degrees, are the relevant
> criteria, and by those criteria Darwin was a scientist, and creationists
> are not.
>
If this is your view then how come you never jump in and correct one
of many evolutionists at Talk Origins who assert a higher degree
holder is not qualified to render any opinion outside of his major?
This "standard" eliminates Daniel Dennett (philosophy) from having any
scholarly status in evolution. Dennett, in my opinion, is the
brightest all-around evolutionary scholar alive.
Of course the "brights" here at T.O. who take said position do so ad
hoc when confronting Creationist sources, so I guess I really have no
point.
In reality, we know anyone who holds a graduate degree is qualified to
render an opinion and be used as a source. Said degree simply means
the person has the intellect to obtain a doctorate and that the
intellect is then qualified to master and speak on any discipline if
they so choose. Velikovsky had a Ph.D. in psychology and was a genius
ancient history researcher of whom Einstein used as a source for
information in that discipline. When Einstein died he was in the
process of re-reading "Worlds in Collision."
Ray
WuzYoungOnceToo
wrote:
>
> > Darwin's and Mendel's works contradict each other.
>
> Some people used to think so. But this misapprehension was corrected
> nearly a hundred years ago, in the birth of the "modern synthesis".
> Trust creationists to be a century or more behind the times.
Well, he did refer to the knowledge that Darwin had a theology degree
as something that was "In the News". Apparently they're working off a
really nasty backlog of news items somewhere.
Dana Tweedy
"Ray Martinez" <pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1177018279.9...@l77g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
snip
>> > would never criticize the
>> > great Darwin on the grounds that he was a mere theologian.
>>
>> Yes, because that would be a very stupid argument. A divinity degree
>> doesn't make you a theologian, nor does lack of a science degree prevent
>> you from being a scientist. Deeds, not degrees, are the relevant
>> criteria, and by those criteria Darwin was a scientist, and creationists
>> are not.
>>
>
> If this is your view then how come you never jump in and correct one
> of many evolutionists at Talk Origins who assert a higher degree
> holder is not qualified to render any opinion outside of his major?
Because no "evolutionists" here do that. The point is not that a "higher
degree holder" isn't qualified to offer an opinion, but that that opinion is
of no more worth than any other person's.
>
> This "standard" eliminates Daniel Dennett (philosophy) from having any
> scholarly status in evolution. Dennett, in my opinion, is the
> brightest all-around evolutionary scholar alive.
Again, your opinion is of no more worth than anyone else's. Dennet is a
philosopher, and has studied evolutionary theory. However I'd take the
opinion of a qualified biologist over Dennet's on a question of biology.
>
> Of course the "brights" here at T.O. who take said position do so ad
> hoc when confronting Creationist sources, so I guess I really have no
> point.
You had no point to begin with. Appeal to authority is a logical fallacy,
no matter who does it.
>
> In reality, we know anyone who holds a graduate degree is qualified to
> render an opinion and be used as a source.
Who is the "we"? Anyone who holds a graduate degree may offer an opinion,
but when that person's degree is in an unrelated field, that opinion is of
no more worth than any other layman's. The authority of someone with a
doctorate doesn't mean that person is right. The opinion still needs to be
backed up by evidence.
> Said degree simply means
> the person has the intellect to obtain a doctorate and that the
> intellect is then qualified to master and speak on any discipline if
> they so choose.
Well, no it doesn't. What a degree means is that person was able to pass
requirements for one particular field of study. A Ph.D in geololgy is not
a master in biology. A Ph.D. in education does not mean one has mastered
medicine, or physics, or lingusitics, etc. What you are stating here is
the classical fallacy of appeal to authority.
> Velikovsky had a Ph.D. in psychology and was a genius
> ancient history researcher of whom Einstein used as a source for
> information in that discipline.
Even if that were true, it doesn't mean that Velikovsky was correct about
everything, and it doesn't mean that he's a reasonable authority on history,
astronomy, or physics, or anything else. Also, I'm not aware that
Einstein was an authority on "ancient history" either.
> When Einstein died he was in the
> process of re-reading "Worlds in Collision."
Even if this were true, it's no support for Velikovsky's claims in that
book.
DJT
AC
Next Week
"Sun Center Of Solar System, Vatican Investigates Leading Proponent"
--
Aaron Clausen
mightym...@gmail.com
Robert Weldon
>
> - Show quoted text -
Ray, Ray, Ray, are you totally incapable of learning from your
betters? Velikovsky was a nut, accept it, admit to it, stop
worshipping him. A degree is generally only of relevance in a
particular field. Velikovsky's degree was in psychology, not ancient
history, so anything he said about said history would have to be
backed up with facts. You know, facts, those annoying things you
ignore as much as you possibly can. The same would go for Gene Scott,
his degree was in education.
John Harshman
I don't recall any such claims. What people do tend to claim is that a
person who knows nothing about a subject is unqualified to render an
opinion. Now one moderately good clue as to whether a person knows
anything can be his degree, since one supposedly has to know something
about a field to get a degree in it. But whether or not the person
spouts ignorant nonsense is a better guide.
> This "standard" eliminates Daniel Dennett (philosophy) from having any
> scholarly status in evolution. Dennett, in my opinion, is the
> brightest all-around evolutionary scholar alive.
This standard wouldn't eliminate Dennett, even if you applied it. (Which
you shouldn't, and nobody does.) Dennett is a philosopher of science,
and is well qualified by formal degrees to speak on philosophy of
science, including biology. He has also been known to say the odd
sensible thing too.
> Of course the "brights" here at T.O. who take said position do so ad
> hoc when confronting Creationist sources, so I guess I really have no
> point.
The last part of your sentence is clearly true.
> In reality, we know anyone who holds a graduate degree is qualified to
> render an opinion and be used as a source. Said degree simply means
> the person has the intellect to obtain a doctorate and that the
> intellect is then qualified to master and speak on any discipline if
> they so choose. Velikovsky had a Ph.D. in psychology and was a genius
> ancient history researcher of whom Einstein used as a source for
> information in that discipline. When Einstein died he was in the
> process of re-reading "Worlds in Collision."
Velikovsky was a wacko who was ignorant of most subjects, including all
the sciences and, according to people who should know, archaeology and
comparative mythology. Dropping Einstein's name doesn't change that
fact. Nor does his possession of a doctorate. So yes, you have provided
an example in which a degree tells you nothing about a person's
qualifications. Like I said, deeds are what counts, not degrees.
Mind you, I throw my degree around whenever I find it useful, as a
shorthand clue that I may know something about evolutionary biology. But
if I subsequently spout nonsense, you have grounds to question my
competence.
'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank
Gee, why doesn't it surprise me that Ray thinks Velikovsky is a
hero . . . .
Hey Ray, check out these guys, too -- add them to your hero list.
After all, they are, like you, out there bravely fighting the
atheistic god-hating scientific establishment and defending the
revealed holy word of God (snicker) (giggle):
By the way, Ray, how's your Weighty Antievolution Paper coming
along . . . ?
(snicker) (giggle) BWA HA HA
HA !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
================================================
Lenny Flank
"There are no loose threads in the web of life"
Author:
"Deception by Design: The Intelligent Design Movement in America"
http://www.redandblackpublishers.com/deceptionbydesign.html
Creation "Science" Debunked:
http://www.geocities.com/lflank
Ray Martinez
>
> - Show quoted text -
Velikovsky was an atheist who singlehandedly showed major Biblical
claims true corresponding to historical reality. Because he was an
atheist this means his conclusions are supremely objective and immune
from a pro-supernatural bias dismissal. This is why he was tarred and
feathered by the Sagan establishment; "one of our own refused to
participate in the Bible-must-be-myth conspiracy." Velikovsky was a
truest of scholar; personal worldview not the least bit threatened by
proving that the Earth stood still. You do not have an objective bone
in your body, John, much less in your defective torch-carrying
Saganistic mind. The greatest scholar of the 20th century (Dr. Scott)
said Velikovsky was the greatest scholar of the 20th century "because
he proved them all wrong - that's why he is so hated." Your reply,
like a few others, proves Dr. Scott absolutely correct.
Ray
chris.li...@gmail.com
> From the article:
> ----------------------------------------------------------------
> It would surprise many to know that Charles Darwin, the founder of
> modern evolutionary theory, was not a scientist but a
> theologian. Darwin only had a divinity degree and no formal training
> in the sciences. Yet, the staunch evolutionists who make fun of
> theologians using science to defend creation would never criticize the
> great Darwin on the grounds that he was a mere theologian.
It comes as quite a surprise to hear that Darwin had no formal
training in the sciences, since it isn't true. Although Darwin had a
divinity degree, he studied under several of the best natural
historians alive at the time, including John Stevens Henslow and Adam
Sedgewick.
Chris
>
> ....
>
> Darwin's and Mendel's works contradict each other. Darwin taught that
> there were no limits to biological variation and that, if given enough
> time, a fish could evolve into a human being. Mendel, on the other
> hand, showed that there are natural limits to biological
> variations. Variations within biological kinds (such as varieties of
> dogs, cats, horses, cows, etc.) are possible but not variations across
> biological kinds, especially from simpler kinds to more complex
> ones. Mendel showed that evolution is limited to within the "kinds".
>
> ....
>
> If humans must use intelligence to perform genetic engineering, to
> meaningfully manipulate the genetic code, then what does that say
> about the origin of the genetic code itself!
> ----------------------------------------------------------------
>
Lexington Victoria-Rice
> "Ray Martinez" <pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:1177018279.9...@l77g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
> snip
>
>>>> would never criticize the
>>>> great Darwin on the grounds that he was a mere theologian.
>>> Yes, because that would be a very stupid argument. A divinity degree
>>> doesn't make you a theologian, nor does lack of a science degree prevent
>>> you from being a scientist. Deeds, not degrees, are the relevant
>>> criteria, and by those criteria Darwin was a scientist, and creationists
>>> are not.
>>>
>> If this is your view then how come you never jump in and correct one
>> of many evolutionists at Talk Origins who assert a higher degree
>> holder is not qualified to render any opinion outside of his major?
>
> Because no "evolutionists" here do that. The point is not that a "higher
> degree holder" isn't qualified to offer an opinion, but that that opinion is
> of no more worth than any other person's.
>
>> This "standard" eliminates Daniel Dennett (philosophy) from having any
>> scholarly status in evolution. Dennett, in my opinion, is the
>> brightest all-around evolutionary scholar alive.
>
> Again, your opinion is of no more worth than anyone else's. Dennet is a
> philosopher, and has studied evolutionary theory. However I'd take the
> opinion of a qualified biologist over Dennet's on a question of biology.
>
I am curious as to whether you think he was qualified then to say all
those nasty things about the late S.J. Gould. Was he parroting Dawkins?
Just curious, Dana. It seems Dennett was prone to ad homs in regards to
P.E.
--
"Fundamentalists can kiss my left behind."
Some bumper sticker or t-shirt.
Lexington Victoria-Rice
> From the article:
> ----------------------------------------------------------------
> It would surprise many to know that Charles Darwin, the founder of
> modern evolutionary theory, was not a scientist but a
> theologian. Darwin only had a divinity degree and no formal training
> in the sciences. Yet, the staunch evolutionists who make fun of
> theologians using science to defend creation would never criticize the
> great Darwin on the grounds that he was a mere theologian.
>
> ....
>
> Darwin's and Mendel's works contradict each other. Darwin taught that
> there were no limits to biological variation and that, if given enough
> time, a fish could evolve into a human being. Mendel, on the other
> hand, showed that there are natural limits to biological
> variations. Variations within biological kinds (such as varieties of
> dogs, cats, horses, cows, etc.) are possible but not variations across
> biological kinds, especially from simpler kinds to more complex
> ones. Mendel showed that evolution is limited to within the "kinds".
>
Would it KILL some of these guys to study the fields in which they
write? Mendel studied variations withing "kinds" because that was where
his interests were. He never "proved" that variations across kinds was
impossible. No one has ever come up with any "stop codon" that blocks
speciation; I wish these creationists would someday try to demonstrate
what they hell they mean by this limitation. I mean scientifically, of
course, not biblically.
Tom McDonald
> Velikovsky was an atheist who singlehandedly showed major Biblical
> claims true corresponding to historical reality. Because he was an
> atheist this means his conclusions are supremely objective and immune
> from a pro-supernatural bias dismissal.
Negative. Velikovky's status as an atheist means, by invulnerable
logic, that he could never do, think or say anything that supported
religionists. Not a matter of opinion.
That you cite an atheist with approval means that you are the opposite
of what you claim to be--a creationist Christian. Invulnerable logic,
not a matter of opinion.
So you have outed yourself as a wolf in sheep's clothing, a ravening
wolf sent by Satan to mislead and destroy the Sheep of the Lord's
fold.
It also explains your racism.
> This is why he was tarred and
> feathered by the Sagan establishment; "one of our own refused to
> participate in the Bible-must-be-myth conspiracy." Velikovsky was a
> truest of scholar; personal worldview not the least bit threatened by
> proving that the Earth stood still. You do not have an objective bone
> in your body, John, much less in your defective torch-carrying
> Saganistic mind.
Ad hom = inability to refute.
> The greatest scholar of the 20th century (Dr. Scott)
> said Velikovsky was the greatest scholar of the 20th century "because
> he proved them all wrong - that's why he is so hated." Your reply,
> like a few others, proves Dr. Scott absolutely correct.
Your defense of Scott (including the admission that you believe that
he was a liar and a con-man) makes sense when we understand that you
are an atheist who is doing all he can to destroy Christianity, which
was Scott's purpose also. Invulnerable logic, not a matter of choice.
John Harshman
> Velikovsky was an atheist who singlehandedly showed major Biblical
> claims true corresponding to historical reality.
As I recall, you had previously claimed that atheists are entirely
incapable of believing or demonstrating anything that's true.
> Because he was an
> atheist this means his conclusions are supremely objective and immune
> from a pro-supernatural bias dismissal.
Not according to you. Your claim is that atheists are always wrong.
> This is why he was tarred and
> feathered by the Sagan establishment; "one of our own refused to
> participate in the Bible-must-be-myth conspiracy." Velikovsky was a
> truest of scholar; personal worldview not the least bit threatened by
> proving that the Earth stood still.
E pur si muove.
> You do not have an objective bone
> in your body, John, much less in your defective torch-carrying
> Saganistic mind. The greatest scholar of the 20th century (Dr. Scott)
> said Velikovsky was the greatest scholar of the 20th century "because
> he proved them all wrong - that's why he is so hated." Your reply,
> like a few others, proves Dr. Scott absolutely correct.
Dr. Scott was a loon too. I suppose that proves he was right about
Velikovsky. But arguing about Velikovsky is both off-topic for TO and a
digression from the immediate point, which is that a degree is no
guarantee either of being right or of being able to think. And it's
certainly no insurance against loonitude; consider Velikovsky and Scott.
Dana Tweedy
snip
>> Velikovsky was a wacko who was ignorant of most subjects, including all
>> the sciences and, according to people who should know, archaeology and
>> comparative mythology. Dropping Einstein's name doesn't change that
>> fact. Nor does his possession of a doctorate. So yes, you have provided
>> an example in which a degree tells you nothing about a person's
>> qualifications. Like I said, deeds are what counts, not degrees.
>>
>> Mind you, I throw my degree around whenever I find it useful, as a
>> shorthand clue that I may know something about evolutionary biology. But
>> if I subsequently spout nonsense, you have grounds to question my
>> competence.- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
> Velikovsky was an atheist who singlehandedly showed major Biblical
> claims true corresponding to historical reality.
Actually, Ray, Velikovsky did not 'singlehandedly' do anything. Nothing in
science can be done "singlehandedly". Science works by consensus, not by
one person's assertions, or his authority.
> Because he was an
> atheist this means his conclusions are supremely objective and immune
> from a pro-supernatural bias dismissal.
You haven't produced any evidence that he was an atheist, nor does that mean
his statemens are "supremely objective". No statement in science is immune
from critique. The problem with Velikovsky is not a "pro supernatural
bias" but a lack of evidence to support his claims.
> This is why he was tarred and
> feathered by the Sagan establishment; "one of our own refused to
> participate in the Bible-must-be-myth conspiracy."
Why is there quotes around the last phrase? Are you suggesting that it's a
quotation from Sagan, or any other scientist? Is so, please produce the
citation for this.
> Velikovsky was a
> truest of scholar; personal worldview not the least bit threatened by
> proving that the Earth stood still.
Be that as it may, what evidence do you have that the Earth did stand still?
> You do not have an objective bone
> in your body, John, much less in your defective torch-carrying
> Saganistic mind.
What is the point of this rant. Ray? You are hardly the one to be
accusing others of not being objective.
> The greatest scholar of the 20th century (Dr. Scott)
> said Velikovsky was the greatest scholar of the 20th century "because
> he proved them all wrong - that's why he is so hated."
Neither Velikovsky or Scott were the "greatest scholar" of the 20th century.
The assertion of Mr. Scott does not make Mr. Velikovsky's claims correct,
nor did he "prove" that standard science was wrong.
> Your reply,
> like a few others, proves Dr. Scott absolutely correct.
How could that be? Nothing that you, or John have claimed, or stated makes
Mr. Scott's assertions correct. The only thing that can make it correct is
the evidence. What evidence do you have that Velikovsky was correct? What
evidence do you have that Mr. Scott was a recognized scholar, much less the
"greatest" of the 20th century?
DJT
Dana Tweedy
"Lexington Victoria-Rice" <notphalennotwe...@oohay.com> wrote in
message news:E86dnfIB1-iRh7Xb...@comcast.com...
snipping
>> Again, your opinion is of no more worth than anyone else's. Dennet is
>> a philosopher, and has studied evolutionary theory. However I'd take the
>> opinion of a qualified biologist over Dennet's on a question of biology.
>>
>
> I am curious as to whether you think he was qualified then to say all
> those nasty things about the late S.J. Gould. Was he parroting Dawkins?
I've not really read much of Dennet's work, so I don't really know what he
said about Gould. I suspect that Gould knew more about biology than Dennet
does, however.
>
> Just curious, Dana. It seems Dennett was prone to ad homs in regards to
> P.E.
Well, ad hominem is a logical fallacy, no matter who employs it. I'm
certianly not trying to defend Dennet, or his claims.
DJT
Ray Martinez
>
> Elf M. Sternberg
Darwin's degree was in the classics AND theology, having graduated
tenth in his class at Christ's College in Cambridge in April of 1831.
Darwin quickly lost interest in becoming a Clergyman and was taught
science by a host of educated men, like Lyell and Sedgwick
(Creationists). But it is apparent from the abundant historical
literature that Darwin read everything that he could get his hands on,
and asked anyone who had expertise in any field many questions.
Basically, Darwin was self-taught about science, a natural genius who
excelled and eventually surpassed his mentors. When Wallace was asked
who was the greatest thinker of the age he said Spencer, followed by
Huxley, and if I recall correctly, then Bates, then Darwin.
Ray
Rodjk #613
Well, Velikovsky was Jewish. He was not an atheist.
http://www.varchive.org/obs/index.htm for some of his writings on the
subject.
Also, from Wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immanuel_Velikovsky it discusses his
religious views.
As usual, your facts are wrong..
Rodjk #613
<SNIP>
Rodjk #613
> On Apr 19, 7:58 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > Velikovsky was an atheist who singlehandedly showed major Biblical
> > claims true corresponding to historical reality. Because he was an
> > atheist this means his conclusions are supremely objective and immune
> > from a pro-supernatural bias dismissal.
>
> Negative. Velikovky's status as an atheist means, by invulnerable
> logic, that he could never do, think or say anything that supported
> religionists. Not a matter of opinion.
>
> That you cite an atheist with approval means that you are the opposite
> of what you claim to be--a creationist Christian. Invulnerable logic,
> not a matter of opinion.
Tom, you have forgotten the first law of debating a creationist.
There is no detail too small for them to get wrong.
Velikovsky was not an atheist.
>From his writings, preserved at:
http://www.varchive.org/dy/student.htm
"So I could again turn my thoughts to problems not concerned
specifically with myself and, walking in the streets of the Caucasian
village, I wrote page after page of The Third Exodus, a pamphlet of
religious fervor and Zionist zeal."
From:
http://www.varchive.org/dy/berlin.htm
"In Jerusalem I found the girl I had loved, Esther Bashist. She
assured me that she loved me, but it was hardly sincere, and I asked
God what was the purpose of these nine years of love at a distance to
be ended at the first meeting."
"On April 15 we were married in Berlin by the well-known Rabbi Munk in
the courtyard of his synagogue; the dinner thereafter we had, at the
insistence of my landlady, only recently widowed, in her apartment."
From:
http://www.varchive.org/dy/america.htm
"Warm and loving she met me and I had to be grateful to God that he
spared her and she was before me not broken in spirit or body."
Also:
"Actually God let me know of the past of the world and possibly of its
architectonics, more that it was disclosed to any other person, if I
am right in what I found."
Does not sound like an atheist to me.
Rodjk #613
richardal...@googlemail.com
This is simply false. I can think of no instance of any "evolutionist"
questioning the opinions of anyone based on their qualifications.
More to the point, *I* have no qualification in evolutionary biology -
my degrees are in architecture and business management - but I have
never had the validity of my arguments questioned either here, or by
any evolutionary biologist on the basis of my qualifications. In
science, qualifications are of less relevance than the quality of
evidence and argument you produce. When submitting a paper to a
scientific journal the editors do not ask for your qualifications.
I should add that this is deeply hypocritical of you, Ray. You
constantly refer to your beloved "Stamford PhD" Dr Scott and insist
that what he says is true because of his qualifications.
Do you honestly think that anyone is fooled by such nonsense, Ray?
RF
Ye Old One
He was not.
> who singlehandedly showed major Biblical
>claims true corresponding to historical reality.
He did not.
> Because he was an
>atheist
He was not.
> this means his conclusions are supremely objective and immune
>from a pro-supernatural bias dismissal. This is why he was tarred and
>feathered by the Sagan establishment; "one of our own refused to
>participate in the Bible-must-be-myth conspiracy." Velikovsky was a
>truest of scholar; personal worldview not the least bit threatened by
>proving that the Earth stood still.
He did not.
>You do not have an objective bone
>in your body, John, much less in your defective torch-carrying
>Saganistic mind. The greatest scholar of the 20th century (Dr. Scott)
Hw was not.
>said Velikovsky was the greatest scholar of the 20th century "because
>he proved them all wrong
He did not.
> - that's why he is so hated." Your reply,
>like a few others, proves Dr. Scott absolutely correct.
Only in your dreams Dishonest Ray.
>
>Ray
>
--
Bob.
J.J. O'Shea
(in article <1177018325.3...@n59g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>):
I expect that the same people who have a problem with Darwin having a
theology degree would have a problem with, oh, Clyde Tombaugh. For a rather
long time he was _Professor_ Tombaugh but not yet _Doctor_ Tombaugh. And when
he did what is arguably his most famous work he had no degrees at all.
<http://starchild.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/StarChild/whos_who_level2/tombaugh.html>
--
email to oshea dot j dot j at gmail dot com.
DJT
snip
>
> Darwin's degree was in the classics AND theology, having graduated
> tenth in his class at Christ's College in Cambridge in April of 1831.
> Darwin quickly lost interest in becoming a Clergyman
Darwin never really had interest in being a Clergyman, that was his
father's idea.
> and was taught
> science by a host of educated men, like Lyell and Sedgwick
> (Creationists).
Lyell and Sedgwick were both scientists, who although they did believe
in creation, they were not Biblical literalists. You would
undoubtedly call them "atheists".
> But it is apparent from the abundant historical
> literature that Darwin read everything that he could get his hands on,
> and asked anyone who had expertise in any field many questions.
> Basically, Darwin was self-taught about science, a natural genius who
> excelled and eventually surpassed his mentors. When Wallace was asked
> who was the greatest thinker of the age he said Spencer, followed by
> Huxley, and if I recall correctly, then Bates, then Darwin.
Then why all the ad hominem attacks on Darwin by you?
DJT
Robert Grumbine
Ray Martinez <pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Category: Universal Eptitude conferred by degree
[snip]
>In reality, we know anyone who holds a graduate degree is qualified to
>render an opinion and be used as a source. Said degree simply means
>the person has the intellect to obtain a doctorate and that the
>intellect is then qualified to master and speak on any discipline if
>they so choose.
[trim]
Wow. Just, wow.
To leave the chez and back to reality ...
Of course, Ray, your own actions show that you don't believe what
you're saying. You spend quite a lot of time telling folks with
graduate degrees that they're wrong, and have displayed no ownership
of such degrees yourself to even give you entry to be one of the
folks qualified to render an opinion. Your own, undegreed, parroting
of someone else doesn't qualify.
--
Robert Grumbine http://www.radix.net/~bobg/ Science faqs and amateur activities notes and links.
Sagredo (Galileo Galilei) "You present these recondite matters with too much
evidence and ease; this great facility makes them less appreciated than they
would be had they been presented in a more abstruse manner." Two New Sciences
Ray Martinez
I said he was Jewish and an atheist. You are not paying attention or
doing what Darwinists always do: misrepresent.
Jews can be atheists - ding dong. Maybe you could explain to us how
being Jewish automatically makes said person know that God exists?
> subject.
> Also, from Wikipedia:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immanuel_Velikovskyit discusses his
> religious views.
> As usual, your facts are wrong..
>
Wikipedia is not a source since Britney Spears could contribute - ding
dong.
As usual, just another Darwinist without any sense and who thinks the
convenience of Wikipedia = facts. How any person could even think of
using Wikipedia and be taken seriously shows that the average
Darwinist is an unread yuppie who thinks evidence is found and
established by googling. Anyone can contribute at Wikipedia. "If it is
on the Net it must be true" = Darwinian "intelligence."
Velikovsky is famous for positing outrageous natural explanations to
explain suupernatural phenomena, like his best friend Einstein, both
were strict atheists who bait and switched the meaning of God to avoid
controversy and the stigma. Read Jammer for a detailed account of
Einstein's crafty ways of evading the atheist label - ding dong.
Ray
Ray Martinez
Routine business for the Darwinists here at T.O. is to dismiss
evidence if said person has no degree in said discipline. But I
already admitted that it is only done TO Creationists when their
source is either an evolutionist or creationist; AND more importanty,
when the fact hurts ToE.
Eugenie Scott has no degree in biology; but she is a leader in the
confront Creationists movement and speaks authoritatively about
evolution. I have no problem using her as a source; but when facts she
produces is perceived to hurt ToE by persons here "Scott has no
biology degree" - ad hoc argument comes faster than a speeding bullet
= totally invalid argument. Scott is a scholar and most qualified to
speak on all issues concerning evolution, whether scientific or
philosophical.
The point is that everything is illegitimate when it hurts ToE. This
is why I told Harshman (and now I am telling you) that he does not
have an objective bone in his body. Jonathan Wells has two Ph.D.s. He
is most qualified to speak about biology and religion whether any
evolutionist admits or not.
T.O. is a subjective slice of Darwinism; completely ignorant to
evolutionary scholarship; and thinks their preconceptions are facts
even when evolutionary authorities are shown to contradict. That's the
objective fact about this Usenet.
I never tire of pointing out that the average person here is actually
uneducated and unread. Darwin's camp (Lyell, Hooker, Huxley, Wallace)
invented the term "Darwinism" yet there are at least 15 persons here
at T.O. who think the word is a Creationist plot. ALL books on
evolution use the term and it has one meaning: persons who accept ToE.
ALL evolutionary scholars use said term in ALL their publications (all
means all). This is how we know the average T.O.ite here is an unread
moron.
> More to the point, *I* have no qualification in evolutionary biology -
> my degrees are in architecture and business management - but I have
> never had the validity of my arguments questioned either here, or by
> any evolutionary biologist on the basis of my qualifications. In
> science, qualifications are of less relevance than the quality of
> evidence and argument you produce. When submitting a paper to a
> scientific journal the editors do not ask for your qualifications.
>
> I should add that this is deeply hypocritical of you, Ray. You
> constantly refer to your beloved "Stamford PhD" Dr Scott and insist
> that what he says is true because of his qualifications.
>
I have never said that, Richard.
> Do you honestly think that anyone is fooled by such nonsense, Ray?
>
> RF
You are misrepresenting. Dr. Scott is correct because the evidence
says so. Dr. Scott has said at least ten thousand times: "go and check
me out and see if such and such is not true." I have and not even one
time have I ever found him to be wrong about anything. Not even one
time.
Ray
Ray Martinez
> On Apr 19, 11:54 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> snip
>
>
>
> > Darwin's degree was in the classics AND theology, having graduated
> > tenth in his class at Christ's College in Cambridge in April of 1831.
> > Darwin quickly lost interest in becoming a Clergyman
>
> Darwin never really had interest in being a Clergyman, that was his
> father's idea.
>
> > and was taught
> > science by a host of educated men, like Lyell and Sedgwick
> > (Creationists).
>
> Lyell and Sedgwick were both scientists, who although they did believe
> in creation, they were not Biblical literalists. You would
> undoubtedly call them "atheists".
>
Sedgwick died a Christian-Creationist. Lyell was the last inner circle
confidant of Darwin to finally convert to evolution because he
believed God supervised nature prior.
> > But it is apparent from the abundant historical
> > literature that Darwin read everything that he could get his hands on,
> > and asked anyone who had expertise in any field many questions.
> > Basically, Darwin was self-taught about science, a natural genius who
> > excelled and eventually surpassed his mentors. When Wallace was asked
> > who was the greatest thinker of the age he said Spencer, followed by
> > Huxley, and if I recall correctly, then Bates, then Darwin.
>
> Then why all the ad hominem attacks on Darwin by you?
>
> DJT
Do not mistake my objectivity as saying that Darwin was correct. You
can be a genius and wrong at the same time. Darwin was a genius who
used his intellect in behalf of his "clandestine" worldview: atheism.
Dennett is a genius, but he is completely wrong. Dawkins, in so many
words said Paley was a genius but he was "wrong, gloriously
wrong" (1986).
Ray
Rolf
"Ray Martinez" <pyram...@yahoo.com> skrev i melding
news:1177030705.4...@b58g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
WTF doeas that mean? Am I reading what I think I am reading?
"The conclusions of an atheist are supremely objective and immune from a
pro-superantural bias dismissal"
That is what Ray wrote, isn't it? And doesnt that simply mean that the words
of an atheist are 'supremely objective'?
Well then, so what?
Can Ray really, as I must conclude from what he writes, be so stupid that he
claims an atheist is supremeley objective - but only as long as he supports
a creationist argument, is that it? From all else that I have seen of Ray's
writings, his opinion is that 'evolutionists=atheists=liars'.
Velikovsky definitely was a crank and AFAIK, Worlds in Collision have long
since been properly debunked. Velikovsky belongs in the particular hall of
fame together with Adamski, Däniken, Dembski, Behe, Michael Egnor, Dr. Scott
and then some.
snex
slight difference between paley and modern creationists: modern
creationists lie.
gregwrld
You are such a nut...but thanks for the laugh...
gregwrld
Elf M. Sternberg
> Routine business for the Darwinists here at T.O. is to dismiss
> evidence if said person has no degree in said discipline.
If you believe so, then your lens on reality is more distorted
than we had imagined.
Elf
Ray Martinez
> "Ray Martinez" <pyramid...@yahoo.com> skrev i meldingnews:1177030705.4...@b58g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
The context was conclusions which prove certain Biblical claims
correct. Since Velikovsky was an atheist nobody can accuse him of a
supernatural bias. Velikovsky would explain the miracle to really be
natural phenomena, but the point was (and is) the Bible is correct:
what Joshua said really happened; confirmed incontrovertibly by other
civilizations recording said event too, but obviously not knowing why
or causation.
> Can Ray really, as I must conclude from what he writes, be so stupid that he
> claims an atheist is supremeley objective - but only as long as he supports
> a creationist argument, is that it? From all else that I have seen of Ray's
> writings, his opinion is that 'evolutionists=atheists=liars'.
>
Explained above, which you seem unable to understand. This is WHY
Velikovsky was so hated. Here we have an atheist producing irrefutable
evidence showing Biblical history absolutely correct. This is why it
is "supremely objective." Velikovsky simply re-explained the miracle
to be natural phenomena but the "damage" was done. Since he proved
said claim correct we dismiss his explanations (being an atheist)
which leaves said miracle event true and proven. What don't you
understand? Carl Sagan understood that's why he led the charge to have
Velikovsky blacklisted. Imagine that; rational men like Sagan behaving
like a third-world moron; advocating censorship of a scholar? If
Velikovsky was a real nut he would go unnoticed, but he was a genius,
an atheist, and he proved certain Biblical claims absolutely true. His
attempted censorship and blacklisting is also excellent evidence
supporting the existence of Satan.
> Velikovsky definitely was a crank and AFAIK, Worlds in Collision have long
> since been properly debunked. Velikovsky belongs in the particular hall of
> fame together with Adamski, Däniken, Dembski, Behe, Michael Egnor, Dr. Scott
> and then some.
>
His scholarship has stood the test of time. Velikovsky proves that
atheists are not loyal to wherever the evidence leads, but will never
embrace or acknowledge the evidence which proves the Bible correct -
that's what Velikovsky proves. He was a brutally honest scholar who
operated under one premise: lets test the Bible and see if the claims
are confirmed in other civilizations? Other atheists, like Sagan,
assume the Bible incorrect and refuse to acknowledge the evidence
showing their biased assumptions false. Velikovsky is undoubtedly the
only atheist to make it to heaven based on his intergrity to
acknowledge the evidence even if it harmed his own worldview. This is
why Dr. Scott called him "the greatest scholar of the 20th
century....he proved them all wrong that's why he is SO HATED" (caps
mine).
Ray
SNIP....
Ray Martinez
>
> - Show quoted text -
About what?
Ray
snex
well, you, for example, lie about what tweedy said about african
pygmies. although it was an unnecessary diversion and irrelevant to
the debate, tweedy's statement was not racism. he was not claiming
that pygmies are more closely related to apes or any other animals
than they are to any other group of humans. evolution places pygmies
closer to all other humans than it does to any other group, and tweedy
agrees. what he was saying was that pygmies might be transitional *to
some future species* if everybody else dies off. you still refuse to
admit you are wrong on this matter and apologize to him for calling
him a racist.
>
> Ray
wf3h
Ray Martinez wrote:
> >
> Do not mistake my objectivity as saying that Darwin was correct. You
> can be a genius and wrong at the same time. Darwin was a genius who
> used his intellect in behalf of his "clandestine" worldview: atheism.
> Dennett is a genius, but he is completely wrong. Dawkins, in so many
> words said Paley was a genius but he was "wrong, gloriously
> wrong" (1986).
>
ray believes all scientists are atheists because they don't believe as
he does. this includes japanese scientists who've never heard of
american fundamentalism. english scientists who have no bias against
america at all...every scientist in the world hates ray's religion...
this is a new form of geocentrism
ray also believes that all christians who are scientists are, in spite
of themselves, atheists...because they don't believe as he does. ray
believes all jews who are scientists hate his religion and are
atheists because they don't believe as he does.
in fact, ray thinks the entire human race is composed of
atheists...all scientists...all jews....all muslims...all
hindus....everyone who doesn't believe as he does is an atheist.
paranoia...paranoia...
wf3h
Ray Martinez wrote:
>>
> I never tire of pointing out that the average person here is actually
> uneducated and unread.
including, of course, ray.
one need only see the list of people ray calls atheists to know that
he's paranoid. his list includes:
scientists who are jewish, hindu, muslims, buddhists
scientists who are christians
anyone who disagrees with his religious beliefs
ray's views remind me of the christian identity movement. if jews
don't accept evolution ONLY because they hate ray's religion, what
does that say about his view of jews? Is this any different than
martin luther who hated jews and recommended they be killed because
they didn't accept the 'christian truth'...just like ray? is
creationism another variation on christianity's license to kill those
who disagree with it?
ray thinks his religious beliefs are scientific (he keeps saying
science points to religion then says science is always wrong).
such is the paranoid logic of creationism
snex
i would identify myself as a raytheist.
Ray Martinez
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Dana, without any hesitation or forethought, thought nothing of
placing Africans and quas-transitional in the same sentence. I rightly
identified that this is gutter racism, completely unacceptable in
modernity, and I also offered to drop the entire issue if Dana would
simply acknowledge and say something to the effect of "I agree that
Africans and quasi-transtional should not be placed in the same
sentence." But no, Dana refuses. Then I posted the evidence showing
how racism is institutionalized in ToE providing the reason why Dana
does not think it was wrong.
Human evolution is gutter racism born in Darwin's racist mind AFTER he
rejected God to have created Adam. This is what happens when God is
rejected: said persons are inclined to believe anything (certain human
beings resembling apes). In the early part of the last century
Darwinists were caging Africans attempting to show "human evolution."
The claim ORIGINATED in racism and progressed in racism and is racism.
That's why the total volume of said fossil evidence is scant because
the claim is not true. Oh the depths the atheist will go to evade the
reality of God.
Ray Martinez, Christian-Creationist
snex
you see, you just lied again, demonstrating how modern creationists
lie. if everybody but pygmies die off, then pygmies will be
transitional to whatever species of humans exist 100,000 years from
now (if any do). that is the very meaning of transitional. when
creationists ask where the transitional fossils are, they are asking
for the fossils that connect one species to the next. a group of
humans that connects modern humans with whatever comes next is
transitional, by definition.
Ray Martinez
>
> - Show quoted text -
We have Africans and transitional = gutter racism attempting
justification; packaged as "science." Could we expect anything else
from the atheist?
Ray
Bob T.
If Dana had been saying that pygmies were transitional to past
hominids, you might have a point. However, everyone here knows that
Dana was positing a future situation in which pygmies might be
transitional to future humans. This has been pointed out to you many
times before, and yet you persist in lying about it. Could we expect
anything else from Ray the Liar? We could not.
- Bob T.
Harvest Dancer
> justification; packaged as "science." Could we expect anything else
> from the atheist?
>
> Ray
There you go lying again. Could we expect anything else from someone
who rejected Christianity in order to embrace Creationism?
Jason Harvestdancer
Codebreaker
<jessica.lover...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Everybody know that about Darwin. He was a naturalist, in the sense
LIAR, YOU DID NOT KNOW THAT. STOP LYING
> that someone is a bird-watching. He was hired as a companion to the
> ship's captain who was worried about loneliness. The captain thought
> a naturalist would be the best companion, and a friend suggested
> Darwin. Most science of that age was performed in the Church, they
> were the ones with the money, and they were genuinely interested in
> the investigation of the natural world.
>
> On Apr 19, 1:46 pm, "Elf M. Sternberg" <e...@drizzle.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > From the article:
> > ----------------------------------------------------------------
> > It would surprise many to know that Charles Darwin, the founder of
> > modern evolutionary theory, was not a scientist but a
> > theologian. Darwin only had a divinity degree and no formal training
> > in the sciences. Yet, the staunch evolutionists who make fun of
> > theologians using science to defend creation would never criticize the
> > great Darwin on the grounds that he was a mere theologian.
>
> > ....
>
> > Darwin's and Mendel's works contradict each other. Darwin taught that
> > there were no limits to biological variation and that, if given enough
> > time, a fish could evolve into a human being. Mendel, on the other
> > hand, showed that there are natural limits to biological
> > variations. Variations within biological kinds (such as varieties of
> > dogs, cats, horses, cows, etc.) are possible but not variations across
> > biological kinds, especially from simpler kinds to more complex
> > ones. Mendel showed that evolution is limited to within the "kinds".
>
> > ....
>
> > If humans must use intelligence to perform genetic engineering, to
> > meaningfully manipulate the genetic code, then what does that say
> > about the origin of the genetic code itself!
> > ----------------------------------------------------------------
>
> > Read a familiar collection of strawmen athttp://www.bestsyndication.com/?q=041907_charles-darwin-biography-evo...
>
> > Elf M. Sternberg- Hide quoted text -
Ye Old One
enriched this group when s/he wrote:
>Do not mistake my objectivity
Don't worry Dishonest Ray - we know you have none.
--
Bob.
Ye Old One
enriched this group when s/he wrote:
He was not.
> You are not paying attention or
>doing what Darwinists always do: misrepresent.
>
>Jews can be atheists
They can, of course.
>- ding dong. Maybe you could explain to us how
>being Jewish automatically makes said person know that God exists?
Did he say that?
>
>
>> subject.
>> Also, from Wikipedia:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immanuel_Velikovskyit discusses his
>> religious views.
>> As usual, your facts are wrong..
>>
>
>Wikipedia is not a source since Britney Spears could contribute - ding
>dong.
True, but we know your views are to extreme to be accepted by them or
even a conservative version.
>
>As usual, just another Darwinist without any sense and who thinks the
>convenience of Wikipedia = facts. How any person could even think of
>using Wikipedia and be taken seriously
So we can bet your past writings were rejected by them as well.
> shows that the average
>Darwinist is an unread yuppie who thinks evidence is found and
>established by googling. Anyone can contribute at Wikipedia. "If it is
>on the Net it must be true" = Darwinian "intelligence."
>
>Velikovsky is famous for positing outrageous natural explanations to
>explain suupernatural phenomena, like his best friend Einstein,
Cite?
--
Bob.
snex
more lies from ray. every time he starts to get lucid, somebody
challenges his beliefs with rationality and he slips back into
incoherence.
>
> Ray
CreateThis
wrote:
>On Apr 19, 4:11 pm, "jessica.lover...@gmail.com"
><jessica.lover...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Everybody know that about Darwin. He was a naturalist, in the sense
>
>
>LIAR, YOU DID NOT KNOW THAT. STOP LYING
EVERYBODY knows that. You're just too stupid to know how ignorant you
are.
CT
Ray Martinez
I know that is what Dana said. I said in response that to place
Africans in the same sentence with transitional is racist. This has
been pointed out to you many times, yet you persist in
misrepresenting.
Ray
CreateThis
wrote:
Of course he refuses. Why would any intelligent person take you
seriously? You're a dishonest insane ignoramus.
CT
Woland
It isn't racist when the same could be said for any population,
whether they be pygmies, Europeans, Asians etc. That is the point you
are missing. Any population can be seen as transitional if they
develop a trait for positive selection. In some sense all populations
are transitional, unless they go extinct of course. Stop being silly.
Harvest Dancer
Why is it racist "to place Africans in the same sentence with
transitional"? Do you think they are less than human?
Jason Harvestdancer
richardal...@googlemail.com
> On Apr 20, 12:16 am, richardalanforr...@googlemail.com wrote:
> > This is simply false. I can think of no instance of any "evolutionist"
> > questioning the opinions of anyone based on their qualifications.
>
> Routine business for the Darwinists here at T.O. is to dismiss
> evidence if said person has no degree in said discipline.
Repeating a falsehood does not make it true.
> But I
> already admitted that it is only done TO Creationists when their
> source is either an evolutionist or creationist; AND more importanty,
> when the fact hurts ToE.
So give a few examples of this.
Or do you think that merely repeating a false assertion enough times
makes it true?
>
> Eugenie Scott has no degree in biology; but she is a leader in the
> confront Creationists movement and speaks authoritatively about
> evolution. I have no problem using her as a source; but when facts she
> produces is perceived to hurt ToE by persons here "Scott has no
> biology degree" - ad hoc argument comes faster than a speeding bullet
> = totally invalid argument.
It is an invalid argument, and I have never come across any
"evolutionist" using such an argument.
> Scott is a scholar and most qualified to
> speak on all issues concerning evolution, whether scientific or
> philosophical.
No she isn't. Evolution is a huge field., and no one person can speak
authritatively on every aspect of the theory. I'm sure that if you
asked Eugenie Scott she'd tell you the same thing.
>
> The point is that everything is illegitimate when it hurts ToE.
The point is that empty assertions not backed up by evidence are
illegitimate whether they hurt "ToE" or not.
Your points are illegitimate because they are not backed up by
evidence.
> This
> is why I told Harshman (and now I am telling you) that he does not
> have an objective bone in his body.
And why on earth should anyone take seriously the words of someone who
is dogmatically ignorant, bigotted and downright illogical in most of
his postings?
> Jonathan Wells has two Ph.D.s. He
> is most qualified to speak about biology and religion whether any
> evolutionist admits or not.
So now you are telling us that we must accept his authority because of
his qualifications.
Does it not strike you making a statement which contradicts your own
assertion is rather stupid, not to say hypocritical?
>
> T.O. is a subjective slice of Darwinism; completely ignorant to
> evolutionary scholarship; and thinks their preconceptions are facts
> even when evolutionary authorities are shown to contradict. That's the
> objective fact about this Usenet.
>
No, it's the unfounded assertion of someone who has repeatedly been
shown to be bigotted, hypocritical, ignorant, illogical and stupid.
By the way, I can identify evidence for each of those labels from
almost any of your posts so it's not slander.
> I never tire of pointing out that the average person here is actually
> uneducated and unread.
Oh, the irony!
> Darwin's camp (Lyell, Hooker, Huxley, Wallace)
> invented the term "Darwinism" yet there are at least 15 persons here
> at T.O. who think the word is a Creationist plot.
The way creationists use the term has little to do with the way
scientists use it.
> ALL books on
> evolution use the term
Nope. I have a copy of 'Morphology, Shape and Phylogeny' (eds Norman
McLeod and Peter Forey) on my desk as I type and it does not use the
term. Neither does Romer's "Vertebrate Palaeontology", or Alec
Panchen's "Classification, Evolution and the Nature of Biology", which
I have on the shelf behind me.
> and it has one meaning: persons who accept ToE.
Nope. In creationist useage it implies all sorts of other things,
including evolution as a religious belief rather than science.
> ALL evolutionary scholars use said term
I've just identified three books by "evolutionary scholars" which
don't.
So you are factually incorrect.
> in ALL their publications (all
> means all). This is how we know the average T.O.ite here is an unread
> moron.
As I've just identified three books which do not use the term without
getting up from my chair, I wonder who is the "unread moron".
>
> > More to the point, *I* have no qualification in evolutionary biology -
> > my degrees are in architecture and business management - but I have
> > never had the validity of my arguments questioned either here, or by
> > any evolutionary biologist on the basis of my qualifications. In
> > science, qualifications are of less relevance than the quality of
> > evidence and argument you produce. When submitting a paper to a
> > scientific journal the editors do not ask for your qualifications.
>
> > I should add that this is deeply hypocritical of you, Ray. You
> > constantly refer to your beloved "Stamford PhD" Dr Scott and insist
> > that what he says is true because of his qualifications.
>
> I have never said that, Richard.
>
"Look at Darwinian reaction to facts. Even a highly credentialed
Stanford Ph.D. is not when Darwinian needs are present. This post
proves that Darwinists are not loyal to any evidence whatsoever that
threatens their philosophy packaged as science.
You being a dishonest atheist and Darwinist makes Stanford and Dr.
Scott correct. Your approval would have proven them wrong. "
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/f1693d2845c26cd6
"Dr. Scott was the brightest scholar to ever live. You are unworthy to
even lick up his spit. He possessed four graduate degrees and he
falsified your theory."
"ToE = modern idol worship/obscene rebellion against the Creator of
Genesis.
Literary perfectly corresponds with reality today = fact = proof of
eternal word of God.
source: Dr. Gene Scott Ph. D. Stanford University."
> > Do you honestly think that anyone is fooled by such nonsense, Ray?
>
> > RF
>
> You are misrepresenting. Dr. Scott is correct because the evidence
> says so.
Dr. Scott has not presented any evidence.
Neither have you.
> Dr. Scott has said at least ten thousand times: "go and check
> me out and see if such and such is not true." I have and not even one
> time have I ever found him to be wrong about anything. Not even one
> time.
That is only because you idolise him and ignore the copious evidence
which shows that he was an unprincipled fraud and a con-man.
RF
>
> Ray
J.J. O'Shea
(in article <1177095255....@b75g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>):
>> Everybody know that about Darwin. He was a naturalist, in the sense
>
>
> LIAR, YOU DID NOT KNOW THAT. STOP LYING
You are frightfully silly, aren't you? Everyone who has read a biography of
Darwin, and many who learned actual real biology, know that he had a degree
in theology. _I_ certainly knew this from my biology classes back when I was
about 15.
You really must remember that not everyone is like creationists and lie like
they breathe: all the time and in all possible circumstances.
--
email to oshea dot j dot j at gmail dot com.
Stuart
> On Apr 19, 4:11 pm, "jessica.lover...@gmail.com"
>
> <jessica.lover...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Everybody know that about Darwin. He was a naturalist, in the sense
>
> LIAR, YOU DID NOT KNOW THAT. STOP LYING
>
Darwin studied geology under Lyell and Sedgewick, the pre-eminent
geologists of
that time.
Studied biology under Robert Grant, an eminent zoologist of that time.
Darwin published papers on subjects as divers as coral reefs,
barnacles and
worms.
His accolades:
1838 Electred fellow of the Royal Geographic Society
1839 Elected Fellow of the Royal Society
1844 Made Vice President of the Royal Geological Society
1853 Awarded Royal Society Medal for geological and barnacle research.
These were all well before OOS was even published.
1859 Awarded Wallaston medal of the Geological Society
1861 Elected fellow of the Ethnological Society
1864 Awarded the Copely medal of the Royal Society
1879 Awarded the Baly Medal of the Royal College of Physicians.
Any questions?
Stuart
Von R. Smith
About being able to read Greek. About having claimed to be able to
read Greek. About when a certain paper is to be completed. About
whether Dana Tweedy said anything racist.
You get the idea.
Ye Old One
enriched this group when s/he wrote:
>On Apr 20, 9:34 am, "Rolf" <r...@tele2.no> wrote:
>> "Ray Martinez" <pyramid...@yahoo.com> skrev i meldingnews:1177030705.4...@b58g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > On Apr 19, 3:41 pm, John Harshman <jharshman.diespam...@pacbell.net>
>> > wrote:
>>
>> That is what Ray wrote, isn't it? And doesnt that simply mean that the words
>> of an atheist are 'supremely objective'?
>>
>> Well then, so what?
>>
>
>The context was conclusions which prove certain Biblical claims
>correct.
But he didn't.
> Since Velikovsky was an atheist
He wasn't.
> nobody can accuse him of a
>supernatural bias.
He was a scientist, as such he would have rejected the supernatural
unless there was evidence.
> Velikovsky would explain the miracle to really be
>natural phenomena, but the point was (and is) the Bible is correct:
No it isn't.
>what Joshua said really happened;
No it didn't.
> confirmed incontrovertibly by other
>civilizations recording said event too,
Liar!
> but obviously not knowing why
>or causation.
You are demented.
>
>
>> Can Ray really, as I must conclude from what he writes, be so stupid that he
>> claims an atheist is supremeley objective - but only as long as he supports
>> a creationist argument, is that it? From all else that I have seen of Ray's
>> writings, his opinion is that 'evolutionists=atheists=liars'.
>>
>
>Explained above,
Failed.
> which you seem unable to understand. This is WHY
>Velikovsky was so hated. Here we have an atheist
He wasn't.
>producing irrefutable
It wasn't.
>evidence showing Biblical history absolutely correct.
It isn't.
> This is why it
>is "supremely objective." Velikovsky simply re-explained the miracle
Miracles do not exist.
>to be natural phenomena but the "damage" was done. Since he proved
He did not.
>said claim correct we dismiss his explanations (being an atheist)
>which leaves said miracle event true and proven. What don't you
>understand?
Because you are an idiot.
>Carl Sagan understood that's why he led the charge to have
>Velikovsky blacklisted.
Cite?
> Imagine that; rational men like Sagan behaving
>like a third-world moron;
You mean like you? Never in a month of sundays.
> advocating censorship of a scholar? If
>Velikovsky was a real nut he would go unnoticed, but he was a genius,
Nope.
>an atheist,
Nope.
>and he proved certain Biblical claims absolutely true.
Nope.
> His
>attempted censorship and blacklisting is also excellent evidence
>supporting the existence of Satan.
Idiot.
>
>
>> Velikovsky definitely was a crank and AFAIK, Worlds in Collision have long
>> since been properly debunked. Velikovsky belongs in the particular hall of
>> fame together with Adamski, Däniken, Dembski, Behe, Michael Egnor, Dr. Scott
>> and then some.
>>
>
>His scholarship has stood the test of time.
Has it?
>Velikovsky proves that
>atheists
He was not.
>are not loyal to wherever the evidence leads, but will never
>embrace or acknowledge the evidence which proves the Bible correct -
Because none exists.
>that's what Velikovsky proves.
He proved nothing.
> He was a brutally honest scholar who
>operated under one premise: lets test the Bible and see if the claims
>are confirmed in other civilizations?
They are not.
>Other atheists, like Sagan,
>assume the Bible incorrect
it is.
> and refuse to acknowledge the evidence
>showing their biased assumptions false. Velikovsky is undoubtedly the
>only atheist to make it to heaven
No such place.
> based on his intergrity to
>acknowledge the evidence even if it harmed his own worldview. This is
>why Dr. Scott called him "the greatest scholar of the 20th
>century....
If scumbag Scott said that then that marks an end to his credibility.
Oh wait! He had none anyway.
>he proved them all wrong that's why he is SO HATED" (caps
>mine).
Stupidity yours as well.
>
--
Bob.
Ye Old One
enriched this group when s/he wrote:
Everything. You should know, you are a master.
>
>Ray
>
--
Bob.
Ye Old One
enriched this group when s/he wrote:
Very true. Nor would anyone who understands the subject. But then
everyone could be a transitional.
> I rightly
>identified that this is gutter racism,
You mean your wrongly labeled it racist.
>completely unacceptable in
>modernity, and I also offered to drop the entire issue if Dana would
>simply acknowledge and say something to the effect of "I agree that
>Africans and quasi-transtional should not be placed in the same
>sentence."
Why not? They have just as much right to be quasi-transtional. In
fact, given that all other waves of humans have come out of africa it
would not be unreasonable to look to africa for our future.
> But no, Dana refuses.
Not suprised. After all, it is you that makes the recist comments.
> Then I posted the evidence showing
>how racism is institutionalized in ToE providing the reason why Dana
>does not think it was wrong.
You provide no such evidence.
>Human evolution is gutter racism born in Darwin's racist mind AFTER he
>rejected God to have created Adam.
There was no Adam, no god either.
> This is what happens when God is
>rejected: said persons are inclined to believe anything (certain human
>beings resembling apes)
We are all apes Dishonest Ray.
> In the early part of the last century
>Darwinists were caging Africans attempting to show "human evolution."
I would do the same today.
>The claim ORIGINATED in racism and progressed in racism and is racism.
Wrong again.
>
>That's why the total volume of said fossil evidence is scant because
>the claim is not true. Oh the depths the atheist will go to evade the
>reality of God.
The only reality is that god is the invention of primative man.
>
>
>
>Ray Martinez, Christian-Creationist
and worshiper of evil.
--
Bob.
Gerry Murphy
"Ray Martinez" <pyram...@yahoo.com>,the poster child for psychological
projection, lied, as usual, when he/she/it/they wrote in message
news:1177085933.8...@e65g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
> I never tire of pointing out that the average person here is actually
> uneducated and unread.
Just out of curiosity, Ray, since I don't recall you ever saying this,
could you point us to a few of your posts where you did?
It's obvious, and has been pointed out by several others, that you
have a serious psychological projection problem. This is merely the
latest instance.
You've accused several of us of rage, Ray, e.g.
(Hint: it's not rage, it's exasperation at your repeated lies and idiocy)
It's clear the rage is all on your side, rage at your lack of an education,
at your limited intellect, at your ignorance of science and, I believe,
rage at the knowledge, even if it's only subconscious, that you've been
metaphorically buttfucked by Dr. Scott for so many years.
I'd almost feel pity for you if you weren't such a loathsome slimeball.
BTW, how's the paper coming?
Ye Old One
Could we expect anything but lies from you Dishonest Ray.
--
Bob.
Baron Bodissey
> On Apr 19, 10:09 pm, Rodjk #613 <rjka...@gmail.com> wrote:
<snip>
> I said he was Jewish and an atheist. You are not paying attention or
> doing what Darwinists always do: misrepresent.
<snip>
Excuse me, Ray, but would you please point out where exactly in the
following post you used the word "Jewish." I'll be darned if I can
find it.
"Velikovsky was an atheist who singlehandedly showed major Biblical
claims true corresponding to historical reality. Because he was an
atheist this means his conclusions are supremely objective and immune
from a pro-supernatural bias dismissal. This is why he was tarred and
feathered by the Sagan establishment; "one of our own refused to
participate in the Bible-must-be-myth conspiracy." Velikovsky was a
truest of scholar; personal worldview not the least bit threatened by
proving that the Earth stood still. You do not have an objective bone
in your body, John, much less in your defective torch-carrying
Saganistic mind. The greatest scholar of the 20th century (Dr. Scott)
said Velikovsky was the greatest scholar of the 20th century "because
he proved them all wrong - that's why he is so hated." Your reply,
like a few others, proves Dr. Scott absolutely correct.
Ray"
Ding dong.
Baron Bodissey
When science is on the march, nothing stands in its way.
- Amazon Women on the Moon
Ye Old One
NO IT IS NOT. Get it Dishonest Ray? There was no racism involved.
> This has
>been pointed out to you many times, yet you persist in
>misrepresenting.
You racist lying is understandable - you are a disciple of Gene
'Expletive Deleted' Scott.
>
>Ray
--
Bob.
Dana Tweedy
"Ray Martinez" <pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1177083995.6...@n59g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
snip
-
>>
>> > Velikovsky was an atheist who singlehandedly showed major Biblical
>> > claims true corresponding to historical reality.
>>
>> Well, Velikovsky was Jewish. He was not an
>> atheist.http://www.varchive.org/obs/index.htmfor some of his writings on
>> the
>
> I said he was Jewish and an atheist. You are not paying attention or
> doing what Darwinists always do: misrepresent.
Ray, you didn't say that Velikovsky was Jewish, you just claimed he was an
atheist. It appears that you were not paying attention.
>
> Jews can be atheists - ding dong. Maybe you could explain to us how
> being Jewish automatically makes said person know that God exists?
While it's clearly possible for a person of Jewish descent to be atheist,
you have not shown any reason why we should accept your assertion that
Velikovsky was one of them.
>
>
>> subject.
>> Also, from Wikipedia:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immanuel_Velikovskyit
>> discusses his
>> religious views.
>> As usual, your facts are wrong..
>>
>
> Wikipedia is not a source since Britney Spears could contribute - ding
> dong.
Wikipedia is a source, it's just not the most reliable one. Even if Ms.
Spears were to contribute, that doesn't mean that the information she
presents would be wrong. You are employing the classic fallacy of
attacking the source, and ignoring the evidence.
>
> As usual, just another Darwinist without any sense and who thinks the
> convenience of Wikipedia = facts. How any person could even think of
> using Wikipedia and be taken seriously shows that the average
> Darwinist is an unread yuppie who thinks evidence is found and
> established by googling. Anyone can contribute at Wikipedia. "If it is
> on the Net it must be true" = Darwinian "intelligence."
All this whining to avoid the point. Velikovsky was not an atheist. If
you claim that the Wiki article is wrong, please present your own evidence
that contradicts the references provided in the Wiki article.
>
> Velikovsky is famous for positing outrageous natural explanations to
> explain suupernatural phenomena, like his best friend Einstein,
Velikovsky certianly did propose outrageous explanations, but he didn't
support those explanations with any evidence. Einstein., by the way did
not offer any "natural explanations for supernatural phenomena".
> both
> were strict atheists who bait and switched the meaning of God to avoid
> controversy and the stigma.
Why would either try to avoid either controversy or stigma?
Interestingly, this is what Einstein wrote to Velikovsky, on first reading
his book:
http://www.varchive.org/cor/einstein/460708ev.htm
"I have read the whole book about the planet Venus. There is much of
interest in the book which proves that in fact catastrophes have taken place
which must be attributed to extraterrestrial causes. However it is evident
to every sensible physicist that these catastrophes can have nothing to do
with the planet Venus and that also the direction of the inclination of the
terrestrial axis towards the eliptic could not have undergone a considerable
change without the total destruction of the entire earth's crust. Your
arguments in this regard are so weak as opposed to the
mechanical-astronomical ones, that no expert will be able to take them
seriously. It were best in my opinion if you would in this way revise your
books, which contain truly valuable material. If you cannot decide on this,
then what is valuable in your deliberations will become ineffective, and it
may be difficult finding a sensible publisher who would take the risk of
such a heavy fiasco upon himself."
> Read Jammer for a detailed account of
> Einstein's crafty ways of evading the atheist label - ding dong.
Einstein never attempted to avoid the "atheist label". Einstein openly
admitted to being an atheist.
DJT
Dana Tweedy
snip
>> That is what Ray wrote, isn't it? And doesnt that simply mean that the
>> words
>> of an atheist are 'supremely objective'?
>>
>> Well then, so what?
>>
>
> The context was conclusions which prove certain Biblical claims
> correct. Since Velikovsky was an atheist nobody can accuse him of a
> supernatural bias.
You haven't shown that Velikovsky was an atheist.
> Velikovsky would explain the miracle to really be
> natural phenomena, but the point was (and is) the Bible is correct:
> what Joshua said really happened; confirmed incontrovertibly by other
> civilizations recording said event too, but obviously not knowing why
> or causation.
But Velikovsky did not support his assertions. There is no evidence that
the claims made in the Bible, regarding the sun stopping, etc are correct.
>
>
>> Can Ray really, as I must conclude from what he writes, be so stupid that
>> he
>> claims an atheist is supremeley objective - but only as long as he
>> supports
>> a creationist argument, is that it? From all else that I have seen of
>> Ray's
>> writings, his opinion is that 'evolutionists=atheists=liars'.
>>
>
> Explained above, which you seem unable to understand. This is WHY
> Velikovsky was so hated.
Velikovsky was not "hated", he was opposed vigourously for his unsupported
claims. There isn't any evidence that anyone hated him.
> Here we have an atheist producing irrefutable
> evidence showing Biblical history absolutely correct.
If the evidence were irrefutable, why has it been thuroughly refuted?
> This is why it
> is "supremely objective." Velikovsky simply re-explained the miracle
> to be natural phenomena but the "damage" was done. Since he proved
> said claim correct we dismiss his explanations (being an atheist)
> which leaves said miracle event true and proven.
He didn't "prove" any claims were correct, and certianly not the stories
from the Bible.
> What don't you
> understand? Carl Sagan understood that's why he led the charge to have
> Velikovsky blacklisted.
Where was Velikovsky ever blacklisted?
> Imagine that; rational men like Sagan behaving
> like a third-world moron; advocating censorship of a scholar? If
> Velikovsky was a real nut he would go unnoticed, but he was a genius,
> an atheist, and he proved certain Biblical claims absolutely true.
Velikovsky is largely unnoticed. He did not "prove" Biblical claims.
> His
> attempted censorship and blacklisting is also excellent evidence
> supporting the existence of Satan.
Velikovsky was neither censored, or blacklisted. Even if he was, how would
this be "suppoprting the existance of Satan"?
>
>
>> Velikovsky definitely was a crank and AFAIK, Worlds in Collision have
>> long
>> since been properly debunked. Velikovsky belongs in the particular hall
>> of
>> fame together with Adamski, Däniken, Dembski, Behe, Michael Egnor, Dr.
>> Scott
>> and then some.
>>
>
> His scholarship has stood the test of time.
Which is why he's considered a crank. His "scholarship" was found to be
nonsense.
>Velikovsky proves that
> atheists are not loyal to wherever the evidence leads, but will never
> embrace or acknowledge the evidence which proves the Bible correct -
> that's what Velikovsky proves.
Except that Velikovsky didn't provide any evidnce that proved the Bible
correct.
> He was a brutally honest scholar who
> operated under one premise: lets test the Bible and see if the claims
> are confirmed in other civilizations?
They aren't.
> Other atheists, like Sagan,
> assume the Bible incorrect and refuse to acknowledge the evidence
> showing their biased assumptions false.
What evidence is that?
>Velikovsky is undoubtedly the
> only atheist to make it to heaven based on his intergrity to
> acknowledge the evidence even if it harmed his own worldview. This is
> why Dr. Scott called him "the greatest scholar of the 20th
> century....he proved them all wrong that's why he is SO HATED" (caps
> mine).
Mr. Scott was wrong about a great many things, including this.
DJT
Dana Tweedy
snip
>> This is simply false. I can think of no instance of any "evolutionist"
>> questioning the opinions of anyone based on their qualifications.
>>
>
> Routine business for the Darwinists here at T.O. is to dismiss
> evidence if said person has no degree in said discipline.
No, that's not "routine" at all. What is "dismissed" is bald assertions
from someone with no knowlege of the subject. You have been reminded over
and over that one does not require a degree to be a scientist.
> But I
> already admitted that it is only done TO Creationists when their
> source is either an evolutionist or creationist; AND more importanty,
> when the fact hurts ToE.
You haven't presented anything that hurts the Theory of evolution. Your
assertions have been that only those with doctorates can "establish facts".
This is wrong.
>
> Eugenie Scott has no degree in biology;
She has a degree in Anthropology, which is relevant to evolution.
> but she is a leader in the
> confront Creationists movement and speaks authoritatively about
> evolution.
Because she has studied the subject. Her opinion would carry more weight
than someone who has not studied the subject. But more importantly
> I have no problem using her as a source; but when facts she
> produces is perceived to hurt ToE by persons here "Scott has no
> biology degree" - ad hoc argument comes faster than a speeding bullet
> = totally invalid argument.
Where has Euginie Scott ever produced any "facts" that hurt the theory of
evolution? Ms. Scott is an anthropologist, and her professional opinion
on matters of athropology carry more weight than someone not trained in
anthropology. That, however doesn't mean she would be an expert on
cytology, or on genetics.
> Scott is a scholar and most qualified to
> speak on all issues concerning evolution, whether scientific or
> philosophical.
She's "qualified" to speak, but her opinion would not be any more useful
than any other person in a field she is not trained in. You wouldn't ask a
plumber to fix a television set, or a dentist to perform brain surgery.
The point is that degrees don't matter as much as the evidence does.
Ultimately, a concept either stands or falls on it's own merits, not the
authority of the indivdual supporting it.
>
> The point is that everything is illegitimate when it hurts ToE.
Find something that hurts the Theory of Evolution, and we'll see. So far
all you have is assertions and opinions. No evidence.
> This
> is why I told Harshman (and now I am telling you) that he does not
> have an objective bone in his body.
You are wrong about John, and worse, have no room to accuse anyone else of
not being objective.
> Jonathan Wells has two Ph.D.s. He
> is most qualified to speak about biology and religion whether any
> evolutionist admits or not.
Wells may be "qualified" to speak, but unless he can provide evidence to
support his claims, he's still wrong. Wells opposes evolution due to his
prior religious committments. He's not a reliable judge of the evidence, no
matter how many degrees he may gather.
>
> T.O. is a subjective slice of Darwinism; completely ignorant to
> evolutionary scholarship;
This is just wrong. You demostrate your own ignorance of evolution on a
daily basis.
> and thinks their preconceptions are facts
> even when evolutionary authorities are shown to contradict. That's the
> objective fact about this Usenet.
Again, the ultimate test of a theory is the evidence, not the "authorities".
Quoting "authorites" out of context does not mean that those scientists
oppose evolution.
>
> I never tire of pointing out that the average person here is actually
> uneducated and unread.
Yet your own ignorance and inabilty to accept the evidence passes you by.
> Darwin's camp (Lyell, Hooker, Huxley, Wallace)
> invented the term "Darwinism" yet there are at least 15 persons here
> at T.O. who think the word is a Creationist plot.
It's the way the term is used by Creationists that people here object to.
> ALL books on
> evolution use the term and it has one meaning: persons who accept ToE.
No, it does not. There is more than one concept of evolution, and the term
"Darwinist" refers to those who support the darwinian mechanism of
variation/selection Creationists tend to use the term as a religious label,
not a scientific distinction.
> ALL evolutionary scholars use said term in ALL their publications (all
> means all).
Which Richard has already shown to be false.
> This is how we know the average T.O.ite here is an unread
> moron.
This is how we know that Ray hasn't got any substance. All he can do is
throw insults.
>
>
>> More to the point, *I* have no qualification in evolutionary biology -
>> my degrees are in architecture and business management - but I have
>> never had the validity of my arguments questioned either here, or by
>> any evolutionary biologist on the basis of my qualifications. In
>> science, qualifications are of less relevance than the quality of
>> evidence and argument you produce. When submitting a paper to a
>> scientific journal the editors do not ask for your qualifications.
>>
>> I should add that this is deeply hypocritical of you, Ray. You
>> constantly refer to your beloved "Stamford PhD" Dr Scott and insist
>> that what he says is true because of his qualifications.
>>
>
> I have never said that, Richard.
You have said that many times, Ray, in many different ways.
>
>> Do you honestly think that anyone is fooled by such nonsense, Ray?
>>
>> RF
>
> You are misrepresenting. Dr. Scott is correct because the evidence
> says so.
Then why is Mr. Scott incapable of showing any evidence that supports him?
> Dr. Scott has said at least ten thousand times: "go and check
> me out and see if such and such is not true."
And those who have checked have found that he's wrong quite often.
> I have and not even one
> time have I ever found him to be wrong about anything. Not even one
> time.
Are you forgetting his claim about the JPL scientists and the vapor canopy?
How about when he claimed that "corruptable man" meant "homind fossils".
I've pointed out several times where he was mistaken about etymologies, and
about Greek translations. Mr. Scott was wrong quite often, and that is
easily demonstrated.
DJT
Richard Clayton
> You are misrepresenting. Dr. Scott is correct because the evidence
> says so. Dr. Scott has said at least ten thousand times: "go and check
> me out and see if such and such is not true." I have and not even one
> time have I ever found him to be wrong about anything. Not even one
> time.
Here's one, Ray: You said he claimed to have a degree that was
specifically from the university itself, rather than from any particular
department, and it was therefore the last handed out at graduation and
marked with special honor.
Did he really say that? Because the Stanford registrar's office says
it's bullshit.
--
[The address listed is a spam trap. To reply, take off every zig.]
Richard Clayton
"Remember, always be yourself. Unless you suck." — Joss Whedon
Richard Clayton
And Ray just placed Africans and quasi-transitional in the same
sentence, which makes him a racist as well!
Oh, damn. I just did it too...
I notice you keep refusing to cite the message in question, or even
provide a full quote, because Dana was quite explicit in stating that
the pygmy tribes were modern humans in every respect, and though they
could be transitional to a future species, the same could be true of
*any* group of humans.
Give it up, Ray. You simply aren't fooling anybody. Not one single
person. You just look sillier and more dishonest each time you repeat
this transparent lie.
> I rightly
> identified that this is gutter racism, completely unacceptable in
> modernity, and I also offered to drop the entire issue if Dana would
> simply acknowledge and say something to the effect of "I agree that
> Africans and quasi-transtional should not be placed in the same
> sentence." But no, Dana refuses. Then I posted the evidence showing
> how racism is institutionalized in ToE providing the reason why Dana
> does not think it was wrong.
If the theory of evolution is racist, why were the last polygenists in
science *creationists*? Why do so most racist organizations in the
United States reject evolution and embrace creationism?
> Human evolution is gutter racism born in Darwin's racist mind AFTER he
> rejected God to have created Adam. This is what happens when God is
> rejected: said persons are inclined to believe anything (certain human
> beings resembling apes).
ALL human beings resemble apes, Ray, because we ARE apes. Every last
one of us. Maybe you meant "resembling non-human apes." But that doesn't
work either, Ray; modern biology does not suggest that any specific
human population today is more like non-human apes than others. For what
it's worth, an African, a European, an Asian, and a native American are
all equally "ape-like."
> In the early part of the last century
> Darwinists were caging Africans attempting to show "human evolution."
> The claim ORIGINATED in racism and progressed in racism and is racism.
> That's why the total volume of said fossil evidence is scant because
> the claim is not true.
Yet you still keep running away from a discussion of the evidence...
> Oh the depths the atheist will go to evade the
> reality of God.
But there are atheists who don't accept evolution, and there are
Christians who do. There are probably more Christian "evolutionists"
than atheist evolutionists.
Dana Tweedy
snipping
>> > We have Africans and transitional = gutter racism attempting
>> > justification; packaged as "science." Could we expect anything else
>> > from the atheist?
>>
>> If Dana had been saying that pygmies were transitional to past
>> hominids, you might have a point. However, everyone here knows that
>> Dana was positing a future situation in which pygmies might be
>> transitional to future humans. This has been pointed out to you many
>> times before, and yet you persist in lying about it. Could we expect
>> anything else from Ray the Liar? We could not.
>>
>
> I know that is what Dana said.
No, you don't. You misrepresented my words, and took me out of context.
> I said in response that to place
> Africans in the same sentence with transitional is racist.
That depends on the context, which you removed. Also, you were the one who
"placed" the African population in the same sentence with "transitional" in
the first place. We were talking about a fossil species, represented by
the fossil KNM WT 15000. I was explaining why it was transitional, and why
the population of Africans were not.
> This has
> been pointed out to you many times, yet you persist in
> misrepresenting.
No, Ray, you are the one misrepresenting me. You were unable to discuss
the evidence of human evolution, so you made up a charge of racism to avoid
having to admit you were wrong.
DJT
Dana Tweedy
snip
>
> Dana, without any hesitation or forethought, thought nothing of
> placing Africans and quas-transitional in the same sentence.
This is plainly false. You were the one who "placed" the African
population and "transitional" in the same sentence. I pointed out that the
"pygmies of Ziare" were modern humans, well within the range of human
variation, as opposed to the fossil species we were discussing. My point
was that this population could be transitional, if, and only if, their
descendants survive and all other human populations don't. I specifically
stated this is true for ANY population.
Your assertion that I said this "without hesitation or foresight" is just
plain wrong, and is badly misunderstanding my statments.
> I rightly
> identified that this is gutter racism, completely unacceptable in
> modernity,
You were wrong. You didn't "identify" racism, you made a false accusation.
My statement was correct, and not offensive in any way.
>and I also offered to drop the entire issue if Dana would
> simply acknowledge and say something to the effect of "I agree that
> Africans and quasi-transtional should not be placed in the same
> sentence." But no, Dana refuses.
Of course I refused. Such a statement is irrational. African populations
are no different from any other population of modern humans. There is no
reason to single out them for special treatment. As I stated earlier, you
are taking "politically correct" to an insane extent.
> Then I posted the evidence showing
> how racism is institutionalized in ToE providing the reason why Dana
> does not think it was wrong.
You did not post any "evidence" showing that. You merely asserted it. I
don't think it's wrong to consider all human populations as potentially
transitional, because it's not wrong. You are wrong to claim that it's
"racism" to treat African populations the same as any other population.
>
> Human evolution is gutter racism born in Darwin's racist mind AFTER he
> rejected God to have created Adam.
This assertion has been refuted many times over. Darwin was no more racist
than others of his time, and racism had nothing to do with the concept of
human evolution.
> This is what happens when God is
> rejected: said persons are inclined to believe anything (certain human
> beings resembling apes).
Ray, ALL humans resemble apes, because all humans ARE apes. You are the
only one who seems to see the resemblence in only African populations.
> In the early part of the last century
> Darwinists were caging Africans attempting to show "human evolution."
As has been explained to you before, that's distorting the situation. The
incident with Ota Benga was indeed unfortunate, but was not a case of
someone being "caged" to show human evolution. In any case, it's a
reflection of the racism of the time, not the theory of evolution.
> The claim ORIGINATED in racism and progressed in racism and is racism.
No, Ray. The fact of human evolution originated with the evidence, and is
supported by the evidence. Racism has nothing to do with it.
> That's why the total volume of said fossil evidence is scant because
> the claim is not true.
The 'total volume' of fossil evidence for human evolution is fairly
extensive. It includes thousands of fossils, and at least 14 different
homind species. Moreover, the genetic, molecular, and anatomical evidence
is even more extensive.
> Oh the depths the atheist will go to evade the
> reality of God.
I'm not an atheist, Ray, and I accept the reality of God. I also accept the
reality of human evolution. You have shown you are afraid to discuss the
evidence.
DJT
Tom McDonald
> placing Africans and quas-transitional in the same sentence.
And you have, without any hesitation or forethought, thought nothing
of placing Dr. Scot and atheism in the same sentence. Therefore, by
invulnerable logic, you accuse the late (and so unable to defend
himself) Scott of being an atheist.
Not a matter of opinion. You slandered your supposed guru.
It becomes clearer and clearer that you are, in fact, an evolutionist
troll out to make creationists look silly and stupid and
reprehensible. Coals to Newcastle, there Ray.
<snip>
CreateThis
<redd...@comcast.net> wrote:
>Your assertion that I said this "without hesitation or foresight" is just
>plain wrong, and is badly misunderstanding my statments.
Ray's a congenital liar with a serious chip on his shoulder for you
(because you get his goat so effectively). He hasn't misunderstood
anything except how dumb and obvious he is.
CT
CreateThis
<try.n...@but.see.sig> wrote:
>On Fri, 20 Apr 2007 14:54:15 -0400, Codebreaker wrote
>(in article <1177095255....@b75g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>):
>
>>> Everybody know that about Darwin. He was a naturalist, in the sense
>>
>>
>> LIAR, YOU DID NOT KNOW THAT. STOP LYING
>
>You are frightfully silly, aren't you? Everyone who has read a biography of
>Darwin, and many who learned actual real biology, know that he had a degree
>in theology. _I_ certainly knew this from my biology classes back when I was
>about 15.
Not to mention anybody who has read more than their own words on
talk.origins (and understood some of them).
CT
Steven J.
mentioned in the same sentence with "transitional form" is, itself,
racist. You are implying that Africans cannot evolve, which in turn
implies that they are not proper biological organisms. You, Ray, are
asserting that Africans are inhuman zombies! You ought to be ashamed
of yourself, and apologize abjectly, and grovel for forgiveness.
Also, your paper is late.
>
> Ray
-- Steven J.
Greg Guarino
> I said in response that to place
>Africans in the same sentence with transitional is racist.
Please note that the previous sentence contains both "Africans" and
"transitional".
Does that make you a racist? If not, why not? Would you be about to
argue that it's not just a matter of the words, but what you mean by
them? How might we apply that concept to Dana's use of those terms?
Greg Guarino
Mark VandeWettering
> On Apr 19, 4:11 pm, "jessica.lover...@gmail.com"
><jessica.lover...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> LIAR, YOU DID NOT KNOW THAT. STOP LYING
Perhaps that is not well known among creationists (who are, lets face
it, incredibly ignorant about nearly everything), but it's rather common
knowledge to anyone who knows the least thing about Darwin.
Mark
Rodjk #613
> On Apr 19, 10:09 pm, Rodjk #613 <rjka...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Apr 20, 4:58 am, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Apr 19, 3:41 pm, John Harshman <jharshman.diespam...@pacbell.net>
> > > wrote:
>
> > > > > On Apr 19, 1:16 pm, John Harshman <jharshman.diespam...@pacbell.net>
> > > > person who knows nothing about a subject is unqualified to render an
> > > > opinion. Now one moderately good clue as to whether a person knows
> > > > anything can be his degree, since one supposedly has to know something
> > > > about a field to get a degree in it. But whether or not the person
> > > > spouts ignorant nonsense is a better guide.
>
> > > > > This "standard" eliminates Daniel Dennett (philosophy) from having any
> > > > > scholarly status in evolution. Dennett, in my opinion, is the
> > > > > brightest all-around evolutionary scholar alive.
>
> > > > This standard wouldn't eliminate Dennett, even if you applied it. (Which
> > > > you shouldn't, and nobody does.) Dennett is a philosopher of science,
> > > > and is well qualified by formal degrees to speak on philosophy of
> > > > science, including biology. He has also been known to say the odd
> > > > sensible thing too.
>
> > > > > Of course the "brights" here at T.O. who take said position do so ad
> > > > > hoc when confronting Creationist sources, so I guess I really have no
> > > > > point.
>
> > > > The last part of your sentence is clearly true.
>
> > > > > In reality, we know anyone who holds a graduate degree is qualified to
> > > > > render an opinion and be used as a source. Said degree simply means
> > > > > the person has the intellect to obtain a doctorate and that the
> > > > > intellect is then qualified to master and speak on any discipline if
> > > > > they so choose. Velikovsky had a Ph.D. in psychology and was a genius
> > > > > ancient history researcher of whom Einstein used as a source for
> > > > > information in that discipline. When Einstein died he was in the
> > > > > process of re-reading "Worlds in Collision."
>
> > > > Velikovsky was a wacko who was ignorant of most subjects, including all
> > > > the sciences and, according to people who should know, archaeology and
> > > > comparative mythology. Dropping Einstein's name doesn't change that
> > > > fact. Nor does his possession of a doctorate. So yes, you have provided
> > > > an example in which a degree tells you nothing about a person's
> > > > qualifications. Like I said, deeds are what counts, not degrees.
>
> > > > Mind you, I throw my degree around whenever I find it useful, as a
> > > > shorthand clue that I may know something about evolutionary biology. But
> > > > if I subsequently spout nonsense, you have grounds to question my
> > > > competence.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > > claims true corresponding to historical reality.
>
>
> I said he was Jewish and an atheist. You are not paying attention or
> doing what Darwinists always do: misrepresent.
Oh really? Kindly point out where you said he was "Jewish and an
atheist".
While it is possible to be both, as Einstein was, you did not make
that claim.
Anyway, what you seem to miss is that while he was Jewish, he
certainly was not an atheist. The writings here:
http://www.varchive.org/obs/index.htm
are by Velikovski himself, and they clearly show that he was not an
atheist.
Here are some of the quotes which I took from the archive:
http://www.varchive.org/dy/student.htm
"So I could again turn my thoughts to problems not concerned
specifically with myself and, walking in the streets of the Caucasian
village, I wrote page after page of The Third Exodus, a pamphlet of
religious fervor and Zionist zeal."
From:
http://www.varchive.org/dy/berlin.htm
"In Jerusalem I found the girl I had loved, Esther Bashist. She
assured me that she loved me, but it was hardly sincere, and I asked
God what was the purpose of these nine years of love at a distance to
be ended at the first meeting."
"On April 15 we were married in Berlin by the well-known Rabbi Munk in
the courtyard of his synagogue; the dinner thereafter we had, at the
insistence of my landlady, only recently widowed, in her apartment."
From:
http://www.varchive.org/dy/america.htm
"Warm and loving she met me and I had to be grateful to God that he
spared her and she was before me not broken in spirit or body."
Also:
"Actually God let me know of the past of the world and possibly of its
architectonics, more that it was disclosed to any other person, if I
am right in what I found."
>
> Jews can be atheists - ding dong. Maybe you could explain to us how
> being Jewish automatically makes said person know that God exists?
Well, the quotes from Velikovski's own writings would be a hint,
wouldn't they?
I quoted them again above.
> > subject.
> > Also, from Wikipedia:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immanuel_Velikovskyitdiscusses his
> > religious views.
> > As usual, your facts are wrong..
>
> Wikipedia is not a source since Britney Spears could contribute - ding
> dong.
How about the writings of Velikovski himself?
> As usual, just another Darwinist without any sense and who thinks the
> convenience of Wikipedia = facts. How any person could even think of
> using Wikipedia and be taken seriously shows that the average
> Darwinist is an unread yuppie who thinks evidence is found and
> established by googling. Anyone can contribute at Wikipedia. "If it is
> on the Net it must be true" = Darwinian "intelligence."
Funny how you ignore the other reference, the one to Velikovsky's own
writings.
>
> Velikovsky is famous for positing outrageous natural explanations to
> explain suupernatural phenomena, like his best friend Einstein, both
> were strict atheists who bait and switched the meaning of God to avoid
> controversy and the stigma. Read Jammer for a detailed account of
> Einstein's crafty ways of evading the atheist label - ding dong.
Einstein did not deny he was an atheist.
He openly stated it.
http://www.spaceandmotion.com/Theology-Albert-Einstein.htm
"I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but
have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called
religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the
world so far as our science can reveal it." (Albert Einstein, 1954)
"I believe in Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the orderly harmony
of what exists, not in a God who concerns himself with the fates and
actions of human beings." (Albert Einstein)
From:
http://www.spaceandmotion.com/Theology-Albert-Einstein.htm
"It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious
convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not
believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have
expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called
religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the
world so far as our science can reveal it." (Albert Einstein, 1954)
>From Albert Einstein: The Human Side, edited by Helen Dukas and Banesh
Hoffman, Princeton University Press
I cannot conceive of a God who rewards and punishes his creatures, or
has a will of the kind that we experience in ourselves. Neither can I
nor would I want to conceive of an individual that survives his
physical death; let feeble souls, from fear or absurd egoism, cherish
such thoughts. I am satisfied with the mystery of the eternity of life
and with the awareness and a glimpse of the marvelous structure of the
existing world, together with the devoted striving to comprehend a
portion, be it ever so tiny, of the Reason that manifests itself in
nature. (Albert Einstein, The World as I See It)
Rodjk #613
>
> Ray
Alexander
> On Apr 20, 9:34 am, "Rolf" <r...@tele2.no> wrote:
>
>
>
> > "Ray Martinez" <pyramid...@yahoo.com> skrev i meldingnews:1177030705.4...@b58g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
>
> > > atheist this means his conclusions are supremely objective and immune
> > > from a pro-supernatural bias dismissal.
>
>
> > "The conclusions of an atheist are supremely objective and immune from a
> > pro-superantural bias dismissal"
>
> > That is what Ray wrote, isn't it? And doesnt that simply mean that the words
> > of an atheist are 'supremely objective'?
>
> > Well then, so what?
>
> The context was conclusions which prove certain Biblical claims
> correct. Since Velikovsky was an atheist nobody can accuse him of a
> natural phenomena, but the point was (and is) the Bible is correct:
> what Joshua said really happened; confirmed incontrovertibly by other
> civilizations recording said event too, but obviously not knowing why
> or causation.
Was Velikovsky an atheist? Can you provide a realiable reference for
that Ray? I was under the impression he was a fairly keen Zionist,
but of course this doesn't necessarily imply religiosity one way or
the other.
As for the Bible being correct ... well - even if a historical event
correlates to the record in the Bible this doesn't mean that the event
was either recorded accurately or happened in the way it was
eventually related. The most we can say, if at all, is that certain
Egyptian dynasties could be tied to the Exodus over a certain period -
but the chances are we'll never know for sure. As no record of Moses
trials and tribulations exist categorically outside of the Old
Testament itself the Bible becomes self-referential again.
In any event the only 'miracles' Velikovsky was trying to explain were
the catastrophic events of a global scale, such as the deluge. The
rest was an attempt at comparative archaeology which rests on so many
dubious or false assumptions it's hard to know where to start.
>
> > Can Ray really, as I must conclude from what he writes, be so stupid that he
> > claims an atheist is supremeley objective - but only as long as he supports
> > a creationist argument, is that it? From all else that I have seen of Ray's
> > writings, his opinion is that 'evolutionists=atheists=liars'.
>
> Explained above, which you seem unable to understand. This is WHY
> Velikovsky was so hated. Here we have an atheist producing irrefutable
> evidence showing Biblical history absolutely correct. This is why it
> is "supremely objective." Velikovsky simply re-explained the miracle
> to be natural phenomena but the "damage" was done. Since he proved
> said claim correct we dismiss his explanations (being an atheist)
> which leaves said miracle event true and proven. What don't you
> understand? Carl Sagan understood that's why he led the charge to have
> Velikovsky blacklisted. Imagine that; rational men like Sagan behaving
> like a third-world moron; advocating censorship of a scholar? If
> Velikovsky was a real nut he would go unnoticed, but he was a genius,
> an atheist, and he proved certain Biblical claims absolutely true. His
> attempted censorship and blacklisting is also excellent evidence
> supporting the existence of Satan.
>
Er .... Ray.... he never proved anything, even in his own lifetime.
If you measure his 'success' on the number of books sold and the
rejection of his theories by the mainstream scientific establishment
then he joins such luminaries as Von Daniken. His arguments are just
as convincing to scientists and arcaeologists.
Carl Sagan didn't lead a charge to have him blacklisted - I'm happy to
be demonstrated wrong on this point if you can provide any evidence.
The AAAS asked Sagan to refute the 'science' behind Velikovsky's
assumptions, which Sagan did on a number of occasions. That's about
it.
Lastly Dr. V never demonstrated that Biblical claims were true. At
best, even assuming his crazy notions of colliding worlds were true,
would demonstrate that the Bible had recorded _events_ accurately.
This doesn't mean that the stories attributed to those events were
true. For example, the deluge, under Velikovsky's cosmology, might
have happened, but this still doesn't mean any evidence for Noah and
the many impossible things attributed to his journey ever actually
occured. We could say that _something_ like Noah's Ark was built and
a few animals rescued, but this still requires divine fiat if we move
to saving _all_ the animals. Which makes the 'evidence' provided by
Velikovsky redundant. Why introduce 'scientific' evidence when God
could have done it anyway?
Kind of moot considering Velikovsky was wrong in any event.
> > Velikovsky definitely was a crank and AFAIK, Worlds in Collision have long
> > since been properly debunked. Velikovsky belongs in the particular hall of
> > fame together with Adamski, Däniken, Dembski, Behe, Michael Egnor, Dr. Scott
> > and then some.
>
> His scholarship has stood the test of time.
Er ... no Ray. It didn't even stand the test at the time of the
publishing.
Velikovsky proves that
> atheists are not loyal to wherever the evidence leads, but will never
> embrace or acknowledge the evidence which proves the Bible correct -
> that's what Velikovsky proves.
He never presented evidence that the Bible was correct. He made a
series of very bad assumptions and premises and worked backwards from
there. A bit like creationists really.
He was a brutally honest scholar who
> operated under one premise: lets test the Bible and see if the claims
> are confirmed in other civilizations?
Er ... no Ray. He was repeatedly shown where and how he was wrong and
refused to surrender his claims. That is not the work of a 'brutally
honest scholar' but that of a mistaken ideologue who desperately wants
his idea to be true in spite of the evidence. A bit like creationists
really.
Other atheists, like Sagan,
> assume the Bible incorrect and refuse to acknowledge the evidence
> showing their biased assumptions false.
If there was evidence to show that the Bible is true in the way you
assume it to be true then the scientific evidence would be accepted by
the scientific community. The evidence for a young earth and sudden
creation simply isn't there Ray and if you were in any way able to
face up to this simple fact you'd admit that your own assumptions are
faulty.
Velikovsky is undoubtedly the
> only atheist to make it to heaven based on his intergrity to
> acknowledge the evidence even if it harmed his own worldview.
Er ... Ray ... even with my poor knowledge of theology I don't believe
anyone can get into heaven unless they acknowledge Christ as their
saviour. This is a fairly big sticking point about the whole
Christian faith thing I'm led to believe. Your Velikovsky is burning
in hell along with all the other non-believers if he didn't accept
Christ.
This is
> why Dr. Scott called him "the greatest scholar of the 20th
> century....he proved them all wrong that's why he is SO HATED" (caps
> mine).
Nah - I think what was annoying was that an otherwise intelligent and
respected person could cling so hard to a concept so obviously
erroneous. Here's a quote from Gould:
"Velikovsky is neither crank nor charlatan - although to state my
opinion and to quote one of my colleagues, he is at least gloriously
wrong.... Velikovsky would rebuild the science of celestial mechanics
to save the literal accuracy of ancient legends"
Hardly hated it seems. Just very very very wrong.
>
> Ray
>
> SNIP....
Desertphile
> ----------------------------------------------------------------
> It would surprise many to know that Charles Darwin, the founder of
> modern evolutionary theory, was not a scientist but a
> theologian.
not have a degree in biology, nor geology, nor any other science,
current scientists with degrees should criticize evolutionary
theory, and reject evolution. The fact that Darwin was correct in
most of what he discovered and wrote seems to be insufficient for
the article's author--- as if one must have a Ph.D. in order to
state facts of nature.
--
http://desertphile.org
Desertphile's Desert Soliloquy. WARNING: view with plenty of water
"I've hired myself out as a tourist attraction." -- Spike
Ray Martinez
>
> - Show quoted text -
"Punctuated" attempt asserting that human evolution and its necessary
African component is not racism, or, in other words, special pleading:
"we deserve an exemption" because "this is science" card. In any other
political or social context it is gutter racism to place Africans and
transitional in the same context. Why do Darwinists get a free pass?
There is only one possible answer: existence of Satan.
And yes, my paper is very late, but I promise it will be worth the
wait.
And by the way: I will allude to the racism institutionalized in
Darwinism very briefly in my work, it is, in essence, a secondary
effect of Materialism and the camoflauge of Science that the former
hides behind.
Ray
Ray Martinez
Velikovsky was an ardent naturalist (believer in Naturalism) the same
is a synonymous with atheism. Also, you need to define Zionist or
Zionism before using it.
> As for the Bible being correct ... well - even if a historical event
> correlates to the record in the Bible this doesn't mean that the event
> was either recorded accurately or happened in the way it was
> eventually related. The most we can say, if at all, is that certain
> Egyptian dynasties could be tied to the Exodus over a certain period -
> but the chances are we'll never know for sure. As no record of Moses
> trials and tribulations exist categorically outside of the Old
> Testament itself the Bible becomes self-referential again.
>
A mish mash of jumbled and contradictory points.
> In any event the only 'miracles' Velikovsky was trying to explain were
> the catastrophic events of a global scale, such as the deluge. The
> rest was an attempt at comparative archaeology which rests on so many
> dubious or false assumptions it's hard to know where to start.
>
You are obviously totally ignorant to Velikovsky's thesis and claims.
In case you did not know, Velikovsky was the target of an infamous
plot to have him censored and blacklisted by the Sagan scientific
establishment. This is very recent history. You should read up on the
travesty before opening your ignorant mouth. Richard Milton, in his
1997 book "Shattering the Myths of Darwinism" rightly pointed out that
if Velikovsky was in [Russia] his personal safety would have been in
jeopardy.
Ray
SNIP..
Woland
Lies + willful ignorance= unable to refute
DJT
snip
.
>
> > And I maintain that to insist, as you do, that Africans cannot be
> > mentioned in the same sentence with "transitional form" is, itself,
> > racist. You are implying that Africans cannot evolve, which in turn
> > implies that they are not proper biological organisms. You, Ray, are
> > asserting that Africans are inhuman zombies! You ought to be ashamed
> > of yourself, and apologize abjectly, and grovel for forgiveness.
>
> > Also, your paper is late.
>
> "Punctuated" attempt asserting that human evolution and its necessary
> African component is not racism,
Ray, what does "punctuated" have to do with the above? Also, human
evolution is not racist, and there is no "necessary African
component". Humans evolved in Africa, but that does not mean that
African populations of modern humans are not equally human. Humans
could just have easily evolved anywhere else, but the evidence shows
that hominds originated in Africa.
> or, in other words, special pleading:
> "we deserve an exemption" because "this is science" card.
Ray, there is no "special pleading" here. African populations are not
being singled out, except by you. What Steven and many others are
pointing out is that you are the one making exceptions for African
populations, which is itself racist.
> In any other
> political or social context it is gutter racism to place Africans and
> transitional in the same context.
It's not "gutter racism" to place the word "African" and
"transitional" in the same sentence. If you look, no one but
yourself claimed that African populations were any different from
other human populations. I, for example did not say that Africans
were transitional. I said that this one population could be
transitional in the future, if all other populations leave no
descendants. I specifically stated this was true for all human
populations.
> Why do Darwinists get a free pass?
No one is asking for a "free pass". You made a irrational assertion,
that it's racist to use the term "transitional" in relation to an
African population, regardless of the context that term was used. By
taking my words out of context, you manufactured a statement that I
did not make.
> There is only one possible answer: existence of Satan.
What about the "possible answer" that you were deliberately
misrepresenting me, and that you were engaging in deliberate
deception? Perhaps that does represent Satan influencing your
actions.
>
> And yes, my paper is very late, but I promise it will be worth the
> wait.
Another empty promise.
>
> And by the way: I will allude to the racism institutionalized in
> Darwinism very briefly in my work, it is, in essence, a secondary
> effect of Materialism and the camoflauge of Science that the former
> hides behind.
If so, you will continue to be wrong. All of science uses
methodlogical naturalism. You can't have science without it. There
is no "institutionalized racism" in evolutionary theory. It's just
your own inability to deal with the evidence.
DJT
DJT
snip
>
> > Was Velikovsky an atheist? Can you provide a realiable reference for
> > that Ray? I was under the impression he was a fairly keen Zionist,
> > but of course this doesn't necessarily imply religiosity one way or
> > the other.
>
> Velikovsky was an ardent naturalist (believer in Naturalism) the same
> is a synonymous with atheism.
"Naturalism" is not the same thing as atheism, Ray. Do you have any
evidence that Velikovsky was an athesit?
>Also, you need to define Zionist or
> Zionism before using it.
Why? You use plenty of terms without defining them.
>
> > As for the Bible being correct ... well - even if a historical event
> > correlates to the record in the Bible this doesn't mean that the event
> > was either recorded accurately or happened in the way it was
> > eventually related. The most we can say, if at all, is that certain
> > Egyptian dynasties could be tied to the Exodus over a certain period -
> > but the chances are we'll never know for sure. As no record of Moses
> > trials and tribulations exist categorically outside of the Old
> > Testament itself the Bible becomes self-referential again.
>
> A mish mash of jumbled and contradictory points.
Which is to say, you can't answer any of them.
>
> > In any event the only 'miracles' Velikovsky was trying to explain were
> > the catastrophic events of a global scale, such as the deluge. The
> > rest was an attempt at comparative archaeology which rests on so many
> > dubious or false assumptions it's hard to know where to start.
>
> You are obviously totally ignorant to Velikovsky's thesis and claims.
Again, this demonstrates you aren't able to answer the points.
snip
> > Carl Sagan didn't lead a charge to have him blacklisted - I'm happy to
> > be demonstrated wrong on this point if you can provide any evidence.
> > The AAAS asked Sagan to refute the 'science' behind Velikovsky's
> > assumptions, which Sagan did on a number of occasions. That's about
> > it.
>
> In case you did not know, Velikovsky was the target of an infamous
> plot to have him censored and blacklisted by the Sagan scientific
> establishment.
What evidence do you have of this "plot"?
> This is very recent history. You should read up on the
> travesty before opening your ignorant mouth.
But Ray, you "open your ignorant mouth" quite often. Why should only
you get to do this?
> Richard Milton, in his
> 1997 book "Shattering the Myths of Darwinism" rightly pointed out that
> if Velikovsky was in [Russia] his personal safety would have been in
> jeopardy.
Ah, you are relying on the word of Richard Milton, who already is
known to report false claims. What evidence does Milton cite for this
claim?
DJT
Ray Martinez
I suppose you are going to deny the Holocaust next, Dana?
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9D0CE1D7153BF93BA25751C0A965948260
> > This is very recent history. You should read up on the
> > travesty before opening your ignorant mouth.
>
> But Ray, you "open your ignorant mouth" quite often. Why should only
> you get to do this?
>
> > Richard Milton, in his
> > 1997 book "Shattering the Myths of Darwinism" rightly pointed out that
> > if Velikovsky was in [Russia] his personal safety would have been in
> > jeopardy.
>
> Ah, you are relying on the word of Richard Milton, who already is
> known to report false claims. What evidence does Milton cite for this
> claim?
>
> DJT
It is a recent historical fact: Velikovsky was the target of
censorship. The N.Y. Times article is tame because its writers are
atheists and Darwinists, but they admit.
Many books have been written on the subject. Your "ignorance" is
"shocking."
And you prove my observation that all is illegitimate if it is
perceived to harm ToE.
If something harms ToE or atheism the source is wrong or contains
unsupported assertions, in other words, no evidence or arguments exist
against ToE or atheism = Dana Tweedy's belief, which is really
"tactic": phrase everything to be just the opposite if it harms my
view = the concept behind Holocaust denial.
Example (in reverse): "Darwin did not produce any evidence to back up
his assertions." Dana replaces "Darwin" with anyone who produces
evidence against ToE = Dana's tactic.
Why does Dana do this? He cannot refute the evidence therefore he must
call it other than what it is (or even deny that it exists). That's
why he relies on "tactic."
All you are doing is denying reality because the culprits are pro-
evolution. Since you are an unrepentant racist, atheist, Darwinist and
liar all is conducive.
Ray
snex
you are using quite a non-standard version of the word "censorship."
nobody was forcing velikovsky to be quiet, they were threatening to
boycott publishing houses that published his work. he could still self-
publish, or find a publishing house that wouldnt suffer from a boycott
by scientists.
i suspect you wouldnt call this type of tactic censorship if it were
used to remove howard stern from the air.
Richard Clayton
Not true. All scientists-- including the religious ones-- practice
methodological naturalism while doing science. That doesn't make one an
atheist, it's simply the implicit limitations of what science can study.
I'm still waiting for you to give some examples of supernaturalistic
science.
> Also, you need to define Zionist or
> Zionism before using it.
... unlike Ray, who is allowed to make up and change definitions as he
goes.
>> As for the Bible being correct ... well - even if a historical event
>> correlates to the record in the Bible this doesn't mean that the event
>> was either recorded accurately or happened in the way it was
>> eventually related. The most we can say, if at all, is that certain
>> Egyptian dynasties could be tied to the Exodus over a certain period -
>> but the chances are we'll never know for sure. As no record of Moses
>> trials and tribulations exist categorically outside of the Old
>> Testament itself the Bible becomes self-referential again.
>
> A mish mash of jumbled and contradictory points.
Yet you didn't answer a single one of them. Odd.
>> In any event the only 'miracles' Velikovsky was trying to explain were
>> the catastrophic events of a global scale, such as the deluge. The
>> rest was an attempt at comparative archaeology which rests on so many
>> dubious or false assumptions it's hard to know where to start.
>
> You are obviously totally ignorant to Velikovsky's thesis and claims.
Actually, that is the most succinct summary of Velikovsky I've ever seen.
Milton the demonstrated liar, you mean? Milton the fringe kook who
believes in half a dozen different brands of pseudoscientific hokum? I
suggest you find a better reference.
Richard Clayton
> Ray Martinez wrote:
>
>> You are misrepresenting. Dr. Scott is correct because the evidence
>> says so. Dr. Scott has said at least ten thousand times: "go and check
>> me out and see if such and such is not true." I have and not even one
>> time have I ever found him to be wrong about anything. Not even one
>> time.
>
> Here's one, Ray: You said he claimed to have a degree that was
> specifically from the university itself, rather than from any particular
> department, and it was therefore the last handed out at graduation and
> marked with special honor.
>
> Did he really say that? Because the Stanford registrar's office says
> it's bullshit.
No response, Ray?
DJT
snip
> > > In case you did not know, Velikovsky was the target of an infamous
> > > plot to have him censored and blacklisted by the Sagan scientific
> > > establishment.
>
> > What evidence do you have of this "plot"?
>
> I suppose you are going to deny the Holocaust next, Dana?
Why would I? I'm not a Creationist....
>
> http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9D0CE1D7153BF93BA25751...
So, a book that "soared to the top of the best seller list" is
censored?
>
>
>
>
>
> > > This is very recent history. You should read up on the
> > > travesty before opening your ignorant mouth.
>
> > But Ray, you "open your ignorant mouth" quite often. Why should only
> > you get to do this?
>
> > > Richard Milton, in his
> > > 1997 book "Shattering the Myths of Darwinism" rightly pointed out that
> > > if Velikovsky was in [Russia] his personal safety would have been in
> > > jeopardy.
>
> > Ah, you are relying on the word of Richard Milton, who already is
> > known to report false claims. What evidence does Milton cite for this
> > claim?
>
> > DJT
>
> It is a recent historical fact: Velikovsky was the target of
> censorship. The N.Y. Times article is tame because its writers are
> atheists and Darwinists, but they admit.
They admit that the publishing house was embarassed, and that
scientists thought the author was a crackpot. The book was not
pulled from circulation, and no on prevented other publishers from
printing it.
>
> Many books have been written on the subject. Your "ignorance" is
> "shocking."
Actually, asking you to support your claims is not ignorance.
>
> And you prove my observation that all is illegitimate if it is
> perceived to harm ToE.
How does any of Velikovsky's claims harm the theory of evolution?
>
> If something harms ToE or atheism the source is wrong or contains
> unsupported assertions,
Nothing here harms the theory of evolution, or atheism, but many of
your claims are wrong, and contain unsupported assertions.
> in other words, no evidence or arguments exist
> against ToE or atheism = Dana Tweedy's belief,
While I accept the evidence for evolution, atheism is not my belief,
as Ray already knows. Ray has not produced any evidence or
arguments against the theory of evolution, and Velikovsky's claims
certianly don't harm genuine science.
>which is really
> "tactic": phrase everything to be just the opposite if it harms my
> view = the concept behind Holocaust denial.
Ray, if you'd calm down for a moment, perhaps you could untangle this
bit of warped syntax. Nothing you've stated "harms" my "view", even
if you were correct about what my "view" really is.
Now, you complained that David Grieg compared creationists to
holocaust deniers, now you are doing the same thing, with much less
justification.
>
> Example (in reverse): "Darwin did not produce any evidence to back up
> his assertions."
This is false, of course. Darwin did produce plenty of evidence to
back up his statements. Velikovsky, in contrast did not.
> Dana replaces "Darwin" with anyone who produces
> evidence against ToE = Dana's tactic.
No, I say that people who have not backed up their claims, have not
backed up their claims. I don't use "tactics", I just speak what I
know to be true. In any case, Velikovsky's claims do not amount to
evidence against the theory of evolution.
>
> Why does Dana do this?
Begging the question. Since I don't "do this" there is no reason to
ask why.
> He cannot refute the evidence therefore he must
> call it other than what it is (or even deny that it exists).
Ray, I've refuted any claim you have so far made. You have not
produced any "evidence" for me to refute, so I can't lack that
ability.
> That's
> why he relies on "tactic."
Again, I don't use "tactics", I just speak the truth. Ray may
practice deception, but it's not my style.
>
> All you are doing is denying reality because the culprits are pro-
> evolution.
What 'culprits' are you talking about?
> Since you are an unrepentant racist, atheist, Darwinist and
> liar all is conducive.
Ray, I'm not a racist, and I nothing to repent. You already know I'm
not an atheist, and I don't worship Darwin. I also do not lie,
something you do on a regular basis. Now, why don't you simmer down,
and try to act rationally.
What evidence do you have that Velikovsky was an atheist? What
"evidence" did Velikovsky ever present to support his beliefs. What
evidence do you have that anyone "plotted" against Velikovsky?
Do you have any abilty to support your assertions, is it just more hot
air?
DJT
Ray Martinez
wrote:
>
> - Show quoted text -
Where did Stanford say that?
The real issue is why haven't you included your evidence to support
your assertion?
In other words, you are caught red-handed in a lie.
Ray
snex
DJT
> On Apr 21, 2:24 pm, Richard Clayton <pockZIGetnZIG...@verizon.net>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > Richard Clayton wrote:
> > > Ray Martinez wrote:
>
> > >> You are misrepresenting. Dr. Scott is correct because the evidence
> > >> says so. Dr. Scott has said at least ten thousand times: "go and check
> > >> me out and see if such and such is not true." I have and not even one
> > >> time have I ever found him to be wrong about anything. Not even one
> > >> time.
>
> > > Here's one, Ray: You said he claimed to have a degree that was
> > > specifically from the university itself, rather than from any particular
> > > department, and it was therefore the last handed out at graduation and
> > > marked with special honor.
>
> > > Did he really say that? Because the Stanford registrar's office says
> > > it's bullshit.
>
> > No response, Ray?
> > --
> > [The address listed is a spam trap. To reply, take off every zig.]
> > Richard Clayton
> > "Remember, always be yourself. Unless you suck." - Joss Whedon- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> Where did Stanford say that?
Apparently Richard has spoken to the Registrar's office.
>
> The real issue is why haven't you included your evidence to support
> your assertion?
Why haven't you included a statement from the Standford Registrars
office that says Gene Scott's claim is true?
>
> In other words, you are caught red-handed in a lie.
No, you are the one who has been caught in another lie. You should be
used to it by now.
DJT
Ray Martinez
>
> - Show quoted text -
Why?
Ray
snex
well, you said that gene scott said "go and check it out for
yourself." you also said that every single time you have gone and
checked it out for yourself, he was right. so what could it hurt to go
and check it out for yourself one more time?
Ye Old One
No it is not.
> Also, you need to define Zionist or
>Zionism before using it.
Look it up.
>
>> As for the Bible being correct ... well - even if a historical event
>> correlates to the record in the Bible this doesn't mean that the event
>> was either recorded accurately or happened in the way it was
>> eventually related. The most we can say, if at all, is that certain
>> Egyptian dynasties could be tied to the Exodus over a certain period -
>> but the chances are we'll never know for sure. As no record of Moses
>> trials and tribulations exist categorically outside of the Old
>> Testament itself the Bible becomes self-referential again.
>>
>
>A mish mash of jumbled and contradictory points.
No, that would be one of your posts if it was.
>
>
>> In any event the only 'miracles' Velikovsky was trying to explain were
>> the catastrophic events of a global scale, such as the deluge. The
>> rest was an attempt at comparative archaeology which rests on so many
>> dubious or false assumptions it's hard to know where to start.
>>
>
>You are obviously totally ignorant to Velikovsky's thesis and claims.
Bet you are as well, just more so.
Cite?
>This is very recent history. You should read up on the
>travesty before opening your ignorant mouth. Richard Milton, in his
>1997 book "Shattering the Myths of Darwinism" rightly pointed out that
>if Velikovsky was in [Russia] his personal safety would have been in
>jeopardy.
Evidence?
>
>Ray
>
>
>SNIP..
--
Bob.