Is Michael Siemon a real Christian?

[Ray Martinez]

On Jan 3, 11:10 pm, Michael Siemon <mlsie...@sonic.net> wrote:
> In article <kc5hb9$p2...@dont-email.me>,
> Mark Isaak <eci...@curioustax.onomy.net> wrote:
>
> > On 1/3/13 1:20 PM, Ray Martinez wrote:
> > > [...]
> > > How does the Atheist know said persons are devout Christians?
>
> > The same way anyone sane knows: he asks said person.
>
> But what if Ray Martinez disagrees with said person about
> said person's devotion? [inquiring minds don't actually, in
> this case, want to know..., as the answer is likely to be
> rather depressing.]

Michael Siemon is a long time occasional poster who professes
Christianity and evolution; he is a Christian-Evolutionist (CEist).
But how does anyone in Los Angeles, London, or Latvia know that
Michael is a real Christian?

Since evolution uses pro-Atheism assumptions to explain reality and
evidence, and since Michael professes acceptance of evolution, the
fact becomes quality evidence supporting a claim that says he is not a
real follower of Christ. One can be sure that Christ would not lead a
person to accept a theory built on pro-Atheism assumptions (Naturalism-
Materialism); rather, Christ would lead a person to accept Biblical
assumptions and the Biblical explanation of reality and evidence; more
precisely Christ would lead a person to accept the intelligence and
power of His Father, the Genesis Theos, as Creator and Designer of all
natural phenomena. Darwinism, or evolutionism, specifically denies the
concept of Intelligent design to exist in natural reality. This is
exactly why Atheists accept and promote evolution with rabid
fanaticism. Therefore, based on the evidence of evolution acceptance,
Michael Siemon is not a real follower of Christ.

I offer the fact seen above, and the way it was arrived at, to be a
infinitely more superior way of determining real Christianity than
asking a person whose answer amounts to restating the claim.

In closing, Michael Siemon represents any CEist; this would include
Tony Pagano, AAQ, Glenn, Dana Tweedy, Ron Okimoto, Ken Miller, Dinesh
D'Souza, William Dembski, Michael Behe, Ken Ham, Francis Collins,
etc.etc.

Ray

[Will in New Haven]

On Jan 4, 3:17 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Jan 3, 11:10 pm, Michael Siemon <mlsie...@sonic.net> wrote:

The idea that the evidence of the real world is "pro-atheist" is the
idea of a total asshole, you. The physical world is either a trick put
here by a hateful Loki-god to lure smart people to their doom or it is
massive evidence for evolution.

And where's your paper, you bizarre pile of snot?

--
Will in New Haven

[Dana Tweedy]

On 1/4/13 1:17 PM, Ray Martinez wrote:
> On Jan 3, 11:10 pm, Michael Siemon <mlsie...@sonic.net> wrote:
>> In article <kc5hb9$p2...@dont-email.me>,
>> Mark Isaak <eci...@curioustax.onomy.net> wrote:
>>
>>> On 1/3/13 1:20 PM, Ray Martinez wrote:
>>>> [...]
>>>> How does the Atheist know said persons are devout Christians?
>>
>>> The same way anyone sane knows: he asks said person.
>>
>> But what if Ray Martinez disagrees with said person about
>> said person's devotion? [inquiring minds don't actually, in
>> this case, want to know..., as the answer is likely to be
>> rather depressing.]
>
> Michael Siemon is a long time occasional poster who professes
> Christianity and evolution; he is a Christian-Evolutionist (CEist).
> But how does anyone in Los Angeles, London, or Latvia know that
> Michael is a real Christian?

By the way he acts towards others, obviously.

>
> Since evolution uses pro-Atheism assumptions to explain reality and
> evidence, and since Michael professes acceptance of evolution,

Evolution, and every other science, does not use "pro atheism"
assumptions. You keep making this same basic mistake.

> the
> fact becomes quality evidence supporting a claim that says he is not a
> real follower of Christ.

Accepting a scientific theory has nothing to do with whether or not
someone is a "real" follower of Christ.

> One can be sure that Christ would not lead a
> person to accept a theory built on pro-Atheism assumptions (Naturalism-
> Materialism);

It's your mistake in claiming that evolution, or any scientific theory
is based on "pro atheism" assumptions. Science makes use of
methodological naturalism not assumptions that nothing beyond the
material exists.

> rather, Christ would lead a person to accept Biblical
> assumptions and the Biblical explanation of reality and evidence;

Creationism is not an explanation of reality, it's an attempt to avoid
reality, and dismiss any evidence contrary to a particular religious
belief.

> more
> precisely Christ would lead a person to accept the intelligence and
> power of His Father, the Genesis Theos, as Creator and Designer of all
> natural phenomena.

Since there is no reason why one can't believe that evolution is one of
those natural phenomena, it's Ray who rejects the belief that God is the
creator of all natural phenomena. Apparently Ray can't allow himself
to accept that God is the designer of evolution.

> Darwinism, or evolutionism, specifically denies the
> concept of Intelligent design to exist in natural reality.

This is false, as has been explained to Ray over, and over. He keeps
making this same mistake.

> This is
> exactly why Atheists accept and promote evolution with rabid
> fanaticism. Therefore, based on the evidence of evolution acceptance,
> Michael Siemon is not a real follower of Christ.

Non sequitur, Ray. It does not follow. Your premises are false, and
your "conclusion" is just your own assumption. Furthermore, as you
already know, all atheists don't accept or promote evolution. Even if
they did, the evidence is why Christians and other religious persons
also accept evolution.

>
> I offer the fact seen above, and the way it was arrived at, to be a
> infinitely more superior way of determining real Christianity than
> asking a person whose answer amounts to restating the claim.

The way it was "arrived at" is just you declaring yourself to be
correct, rather than any logical methodology. You are wrong on several
of the points, and your "conclusion" doesn't follow.

>
> In closing, Michael Siemon represents any CEist; this would include
> Tony Pagano, AAQ, Glenn, Dana Tweedy, Ron Okimoto, Ken Miller, Dinesh
> D'Souza, William Dembski, Michael Behe, Ken Ham, Francis Collins,
> etc.etc.

In closing, Ray tries to insult those better educated, and more
intelligent than he is. He tries to include his own bedfellows, Ham,
Pagano, and Dembski in this mess.

DJT

[Michael Siemon]

In article
<204c66ba-64e0-4143...@v9g2000pbi.googlegroups.com>,

Ray Martinez <pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> On Jan 3, 11:10 pm, Michael Siemon <mlsie...@sonic.net> wrote:
> > In article <kc5hb9$p2...@dont-email.me>,
> > Mark Isaak <eci...@curioustax.onomy.net> wrote:
> >
> > > On 1/3/13 1:20 PM, Ray Martinez wrote:
> > > > [...]
> > > > How does the Atheist know said persons are devout Christians?
> >
> > > The same way anyone sane knows: he asks said person.
> >
> > But what if Ray Martinez disagrees with said person about
> > said person's devotion? [inquiring minds don't actually, in
> > this case, want to know..., as the answer is likely to be
> > rather depressing.]
>
> Michael Siemon is a long time occasional poster who professes
> Christianity and evolution; he is a Christian-Evolutionist (CEist).
> But how does anyone in Los Angeles, London, or Latvia know that
> Michael is a real Christian?
>
> Since evolution uses pro-Atheism assumptions to explain reality and
> evidence, and since Michael professes acceptance of evolution, the
> fact becomes quality evidence supporting a claim that says he is not a
> real follower of Christ. One can be sure that Christ would not lead a
> person to accept a theory built on pro-Atheism assumptions (Naturalism-
> Materialism); rather, Christ would lead a person to accept Biblical
> assumptions and the Biblical explanation of reality and evidence; more

Umm, you are involving yourself in a massive amount of rather dubious
reasoning, based on worse than dubious theology and textual exegesis.

> precisely Christ would lead a person to accept the intelligence and
> power of His Father, the Genesis Theos, as Creator and Designer of all
> natural phenomena. Darwinism, or evolutionism, specifically denies the
> concept of Intelligent design to exist in natural reality. This is
> exactly why Atheists accept and promote evolution with rabid
> fanaticism. Therefore, based on the evidence of evolution acceptance,
> Michael Siemon is not a real follower of Christ.
>
> I offer the fact seen above, and the way it was arrived at, to be a
> infinitely more superior way of determining real Christianity than
> asking a person whose answer amounts to restating the claim.
>
> In closing, Michael Siemon represents any CEist; this would include
> Tony Pagano, AAQ, Glenn, Dana Tweedy, Ron Okimoto, Ken Miller, Dinesh
> D'Souza, William Dembski, Michael Behe, Ken Ham, Francis Collins,
> etc.etc.

An odd list. Those amongst them _I_ might be inclined to regard as
Christian do not really include Tony, Glenn, D'Souza, Dembski, Behe
or Ham. Those are the sorts of people who pray in public to "show"
how good they are. For myself, I observe the flip side of the Great
Commandment ["and (equal to loving God with one's whole MIND and heart)
love your neighbor as yourself."] Or Jesus' restatement of that, with
emphasis, at the Last Supper: "Behold, I give you a new commandment:
love one another."

I suppose I should pull out that word "mind" from the more literal
statement for emphasis. What YOU, Ray, have done is to pervert your
mind from any honest [and humble] love of God to love of your own
flawed arrogance. You love, in fact, the very Enemy of God.

I am willing (with some considerable trepidation) to face a Last
Judgment, knowing well some of my failures, but knowing also the
mercy accorded those who treat their fellows as if they were --
as they are -- engaging with Christ.

My style, and my engagement with the world, were created in my
formative years (roughly, age 14 to 30) as an atheist. So, to that
degree your thinking me an atheist still is mostly a matter of your
responding to style more than to substance. But as to style, let me
quote W. H. Auden, as I did for my .sig for about my first decade
on talk.origins:

O stand, stand at the window
As the tears scald and start;
You shall love your crooked neighbour
With your crooked heart.

[Glenn]

"Michael Siemon" <mlsi...@sonic.net> wrote in message news:mlsiemon-4FAF53...@c-61-68-245-199.per.connect.net.au...

That is quite a serious charge, one that you will have to live with.

[David Hare-Scott]

Ah the One True Christian is back.

I have met some great people who by their actions towards their fellows and
their active efforts to model the best principles of their religion, despite
their acknowledged human failings, fill me with admiration.

Then there are those whose efforts run only to empty posturing and arrogant
bigotry who fill me revulsion.

Your attempts to build yourself up by tearing down others put you clearly in
the second category. <vomit>

David

[Bill]

Of course he's not a real Christian. As far as I know, Ray, you are
the only living individual who falls into that category.

[Paul J Gans]

Will in New Haven <bill....@taylorandfrancis.com> wrote:

Now THAT is a new comment!


--
--- Paul J. Gans

[Paul J Gans]

You are hard on yourself Michael. I may be disqualified from
judging, but for what it is worth, you are one of the really
good folks here (and elsewhere as well.)

[czebat...@gmail.com]

Written like a True Christian, truly ugly. ..

gregwrld

[Michael Siemon]

In article <glennsheldon-kc7vhi$d0p$1...@dont-email.me>,
"Glenn" <glenns...@invalid.invalid> wrote:

...

> > An odd list. Those amongst them _I_ might be inclined to regard as
> > Christian do not really include Tony, Glenn, D'Souza, Dembski, Behe
> > or Ham. Those are the sorts of people who pray in public to "show"
> > how good they are.
>
> That is quite a serious charge, one that you will have to live with.

I acknowledge that I am not necessarily a good judge. Surely, any
misjudgment I make of you should be of no concern unless you happen
to regard my judgments, in general, to be reasonably accurate...
In any case, I am _not_ your judge. Sorry if I gave the impression
of arrogating that role to myself.

[Glenn]

"Michael Siemon" <mlsi...@sonic.net> wrote in message news:mlsiemon-38C3FF...@c-61-68-245-199.per.connect.net.au...

Sorry to hear that.

[Michael Siemon]

In article <glennsheldon-kc88mj$lva$1...@dont-email.me>,

??? Is that supposed to mean something? You seem to delight in
making irritating noises that have little or no clear relation to
any of the posts you respond to. I'm sure you enjoy your little
games. I don't. It's one of the reasons you showed up in that bit
of a "list" of folks for whom I have a rather negative reaction.

[Glenn]

"Michael Siemon" <mlsi...@sonic.net> wrote in message news:mlsiemon-21586F...@c-61-68-245-199.per.connect.net.au...

Oh the horror.

[Michael Siemon]

In article <glennsheldon-kc8eo7$dok$1...@dont-email.me>,

hubba, hubba. I am _not_ expecting you to change...

[Glenn]

"Michael Siemon" <mlsi...@sonic.net> wrote in message news:mlsiemon-D1CF8B...@c-61-68-245-199.per.connect.net.au...

I just farted...

[Walter Bushell]

In article
<9d915c9b-6af4-4da9...@10g2000yqo.googlegroups.com>,

Bill <broger...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Of course he's not a real Christian. As far as I know, Ray, you are
> the only living individual who falls into that category.

"Falls" is a very appropriate word choice here.

--
This space unintentionally left blank.

[raven1]

John 11:35.

---
raven1
aa # 1096
EAC Vice President (President in charge of vice)
BAAWA Knight

[Frank J]

Ray Martinez is a long time regular poster who professes Christianity
(aka Scottism), rejects evolution including the "microevolution" that
most evolution-deniers concede, and rejects YEC but refuses to say how
old he thinks the earth and life are. But how does anyone in Los
Angeles, London, or Latvia know that Ray is a real Christian? Anyone
can call themselves a Christian, but can anyone name any other self-
described Christian who would lump Tony Pagano, AAQ (I'm drawing a
blank), Glenn, Dana Tweedy, Ron Okimoto, Ken Miller, Dinesh, D'Souza,
William Dembski, Michael Behe, Ken Ham, Francis Collins into the same
category of "Christian-Evolutionist"?

[Bob Casanova]

On Fri, 4 Jan 2013 12:17:32 -0800 (PST), the following
appeared in talk.origins, posted by Ray Martinez
<pyram...@yahoo.com>:

Why don't you just say what you mean, that anyone who
disagrees with you, or who accepts the evidence provided in
the physical world rather than the words written by men who
*claimed* to be inspired by God, cannot be a "real
Christian"? It would have required far fewer keystrokes, and
has the advantage of clarity. And honesty.
--

Bob C.

"Evidence confirming an observation is
evidence that the observation is wrong."

- McNameless

[raven1]

On Sat, 05 Jan 2013 12:31:33 -0700, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off>
wrote:

More to the point: not just the words of men who claimed to be
inspired by God, but Ray's own interpretation of those words.

[Paul J Gans]

You should have changed the subject line so everyone would know.

[Mark Isaak]

On 1/4/13 12:17 PM, Ray Martinez wrote:
> On Jan 3, 11:10 pm, Michael Siemon <mlsie...@sonic.net> wrote:
>> In article <kc5hb9$p2...@dont-email.me>,
>> Mark Isaak <eci...@curioustax.onomy.net> wrote:
>>
>>> On 1/3/13 1:20 PM, Ray Martinez wrote:
>>>> [...]
>>>> How does the Atheist know said persons are devout Christians?
>>
>>> The same way anyone sane knows: he asks said person.
>>
>> But what if Ray Martinez disagrees with said person about
>> said person's devotion? [inquiring minds don't actually, in
>> this case, want to know..., as the answer is likely to be
>> rather depressing.]
>
> Michael Siemon is a long time occasional poster who professes
> Christianity and evolution; he is a Christian-Evolutionist (CEist).
> But how does anyone in Los Angeles, London, or Latvia know that
> Michael is a real Christian?

And why would it matter what you call it? It is clear beyond disputing
that whatever religion he is, it is better than whatever religion you are.

[snip a lot of egregiously wrong premises and argument to get to one
particularly poignant point]

> One can be sure that Christ would not lead a
> person to accept a theory built on pro-Atheism assumptions (Naturalism-
> Materialism);

If you sew a piece of new (unshrunk) cloth onto an old garment to patch
a tear, then its stretch will pull from the garment, and the tear will
become worse. That is pure, unadulterated Naturalism-Materialism. One
can be sure that Christ *would* lead a person to accept a theory based
on (to Ray) pro-Atheism assumptions, because he did so (Matt. 9:16).

--
Mark Isaak eciton (at) curioustaxonomy (dot) net
"It is certain, from experience, that the smallest grain of natural
honesty and benevolence has more effect on men's conduct, than the most
pompous views suggested by theological theories and systems." - D. Hume

[jillery]

Or his underwear. One should never trust a fart, especially after a
certain age.

[Glenn]

"jillery" <69jp...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:qdahe8h8puu7ire0h...@4ax.com...

And you can't always move the way you want when you wear a pad.

[marc.t...@wanadoo.fr]

On 4 jan, 17:09, Michael Siemon <mlsie...@sonic.net> wrote:
> In article

> <204c66ba-64e0-4143-af2a-5a3e1510f...@v9g2000pbi.googlegroups.com>,

As a pure atheist (I mean an atheist who doesn't make the least
concession towards any metaphysical belief) I have no idea of course
of what may be "a real Christian" and "a real follower of Christ".
However I always wonder how the real believers in whatever
metaphysical belief (and particularly in a single god as the great
designer) can accept the crucial role that random plays in our
physical world, in particular in Darwinian evolution: perhaps, in
their deep subconsciousness, they are not indeed real believers?
What do you think about it, yourself, the defrocked atheist?

[AlwaysAskingQuestions]

Ray Martinez wrote:

[...]

> In closing, Michael Siemon represents any CEist; this would include
> Tony Pagano, AAQ, Glenn, Dana Tweedy, Ron Okimoto, Ken Miller, Dinesh
> D'Souza, William Dembski, Michael Behe, Ken Ham, Francis Collins,
> etc.etc.
>

Gosh, I'm really chuffed to be included in a list which includes some such
seriously distinguished names!

Also, seeing how diverse the beliefs are among the people on that list, I
think it somehow shows how truly *catholic* my own views are :)

[AlwaysAskingQuestions]

Frank J wrote:

[...]

> Ray Martinez is a long time regular poster who professes Christianity
> (aka Scottism), rejects evolution including the "microevolution" that
> most evolution-deniers concede, and rejects YEC but refuses to say how
> old he thinks the earth and life are. But how does anyone in Los
> Angeles, London, or Latvia know that Ray is a real Christian? Anyone
> can call themselves a Christian, but can anyone name any other self-
> described Christian who would lump Tony Pagano, AAQ

Hand up ;)

[Frank J]

On 6 Jan, 07:24, "AlwaysAskingQuestions"

<alwaysaskingquesti...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Frank J wrote:
>
> [...]
>
> > Ray Martinez is a long time regular poster who professes Christianity
> > (aka Scottism), rejects evolution including the "microevolution" that
> > most evolution-deniers concede, and rejects YEC but refuses to say how
> > old he thinks the earth and life are. But how does anyone in Los
> > Angeles, London, or Latvia know that Ray is a real Christian? Anyone
> > can call themselves a Christian, but can anyone name any other self-
> > described Christian who would lump Tony Pagano, AAQ
>
> Hand up ;)

D'Oh! Further evidence that acronyms are my nemesis. Nevertheless,
that makes Ray, and all anti-evolution activists for that matter,
"AEQ" (AlwaysEvadingQuestions)

>
>
>
> > (I'm drawing a
> > blank), Glenn, Dana Tweedy, Ron Okimoto, Ken Miller, Dinesh, D'Souza,
> > William Dembski, Michael Behe, Ken Ham, Francis Collins into the same

> > category of "Christian-Evolutionist"?- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

[Bob Casanova]

On Sat, 05 Jan 2013 14:40:20 -0500, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by raven1
<quotht...@nevermore.com>:

Point taken, and accepted.

[Ray Martinez]

Your Theology is *significantly beneath* that of a disheveled person
holding up a sign and ranting through a bullhorn on any given big city
street corner, Mark.

Ray

[Ray Martinez]

On Jan 5, 11:40�am, raven1 <quoththera...@nevermore.com> wrote:
> On Sat, 05 Jan 2013 12:31:33 -0700, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> >On Fri, 4 Jan 2013 12:17:32 -0800 (PST), the following
> >appeared in talk.origins, posted by Ray Martinez

> ><pyramid...@yahoo.com>:

The point seen in this comment says Theology is meaningless. In other
words our Atheist, like most Atheists, does not possess a registrable
theological IQ.

Ray

[Ray Martinez]

On Jan 5, 11:31�am, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
> On Fri, 4 Jan 2013 12:17:32 -0800 (PST), the following
> appeared in talk.origins, posted by Ray Martinez

> <pyramid...@yahoo.com>:

Why can't our Evolutionist (and closet Atheist) admit there is a
serious problem when Christians agree with Atheists about the origin
of living things, past and present? (Answer: He likes his ass kissed
by the traditional enemies of Atheism and evolution.)

Better yet why can't the same person address each point in my
argument?

Ray

[Ray Martinez]

All persons mentioned accept most, if not all of Darwin's main
scientific claims to exist in nature; and all persons mentioned claim
to be followers of Christ.

I reject all of Darwin's scientific claims because the Creation/
Evolution debate is mutually exclusive.

Ray (Christian)

[Ray Martinez]

I completely agree. He wept when these Christians rejected Genesis
(which includes the genealogy of Christ) and made room for Darwin (a
person who said the O.T. conveys the acts of a Tyrant and a false
history of the world).

Ray

[Ray Martinez]

On Jan 4, 5:46�pm, "David Hare-Scott" <sec...@nospam.com> wrote:
> Ah the One True Christian is back.
>
> I have met some great people who by their actions towards their fellows and
> their active efforts to model the best principles of their religion, despite
> their acknowledged human failings, fill me with admiration.
>
> Then there are those whose efforts run only to empty posturing and arrogant
> bigotry who fill me revulsion.
>
> Your attempts to build yourself up by tearing down others put you clearly in
> the second category. �<vomit>
>
> David

In other words, the truth hurts.

Ray

[Ray Martinez]

On Jan 4, 5:09�pm, Michael Siemon <mlsie...@sonic.net> wrote:
> In article

> <204c66ba-64e0-4143-af2a-5a3e1510f...@v9g2000pbi.googlegroups.com>,

> �Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jan 3, 11:10 pm, Michael Siemon <mlsie...@sonic.net> wrote:
> > > In article <kc5hb9$p2...@dont-email.me>,
> > > �Mark Isaak <eci...@curioustax.onomy.net> wrote:
>
> > > > On 1/3/13 1:20 PM, Ray Martinez wrote:
> > > > > [...]
> > > > > How does the Atheist know said persons are devout Christians?
>
> > > > The same way anyone sane knows: he asks said person.
>
> > > But what if Ray Martinez disagrees with said person about
> > > said person's devotion? [inquiring minds don't actually, in
> > > this case, want to know..., as the answer is likely to be
> > > rather depressing.]
>
> > Michael Siemon is a long time occasional poster who professes
> > Christianity and evolution; he is a Christian-Evolutionist (CEist).
> > But how does anyone in Los Angeles, London, or Latvia know that
> > Michael is a real Christian?
>
> > Since evolution uses pro-Atheism assumptions to explain reality and
> > evidence, and since Michael professes acceptance of evolution, the
> > fact becomes quality evidence supporting a claim that says he is not a
> > real follower of Christ. One can be sure that Christ would not lead a
> > person to accept a theory built on pro-Atheism assumptions (Naturalism-
> > Materialism); rather, Christ would lead a person to accept Biblical
> > assumptions and the Biblical explanation of reality and evidence; more
>

> Umm, you are involving yourself in a massive amount of rather dubious
> reasoning, based on worse than dubious theology and textual exegesis.

Empty, contentless, claims.

You can't address each point because to do so would require gross
illogic and/or denial of long known facts.

Ray

> > precisely Christ would lead a person to accept the intelligence and
> > power of His Father, the Genesis Theos, as Creator and Designer of all
> > natural phenomena. Darwinism, or evolutionism, specifically denies the
> > concept of Intelligent design to exist in natural reality. This is
> > exactly why Atheists accept and promote evolution with rabid
> > fanaticism. Therefore, based on the evidence of evolution acceptance,
> > Michael Siemon is not a real follower of Christ.
>
> > I offer the fact seen above, and the way it was arrived at, to be a
> > infinitely more superior way of determining real Christianity than
> > asking a person whose answer amounts to restating the claim.
>
> > In closing, Michael Siemon represents any CEist; this would include
> > Tony Pagano, AAQ, Glenn, Dana Tweedy, Ron Okimoto, Ken Miller, Dinesh
> > D'Souza, William Dembski, Michael Behe, Ken Ham, Francis Collins,
> > etc.etc.
>

[Ray Martinez]

On Jan 4, 4:55�pm, Dana Tweedy <reddfrog...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On 1/4/13 1:17 PM, Ray Martinez wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jan 3, 11:10 pm, Michael Siemon <mlsie...@sonic.net> wrote:
> >> In article <kc5hb9$p2...@dont-email.me>,
> >> � Mark Isaak <eci...@curioustax.onomy.net> wrote:
>
> >>> On 1/3/13 1:20 PM, Ray Martinez wrote:
> >>>> [...]
> >>>> How does the Atheist know said persons are devout Christians?
>
> >>> The same way anyone sane knows: he asks said person.
>
> >> But what if Ray Martinez disagrees with said person about
> >> said person's devotion? [inquiring minds don't actually, in
> >> this case, want to know..., as the answer is likely to be
> >> rather depressing.]
>
> > Michael Siemon is a long time occasional poster who professes
> > Christianity and evolution; he is a Christian-Evolutionist (CEist).
> > But how does anyone in Los Angeles, London, or Latvia know that
> > Michael is a real Christian?
>

> By the way he acts towards others, obviously.

>
>
>
> > Since evolution uses pro-Atheism assumptions to explain reality and
> > evidence, and since Michael professes acceptance of evolution,
>

> Evolution, and every other science, does not use "pro atheism"
> assumptions. �You keep making this same basic mistake.

>
> > the
> > fact becomes quality evidence supporting a claim that says he is not a
> > real follower of Christ.
>

> Accepting a scientific theory has nothing to do with whether or not
> someone is a "real" follower of Christ.

>
> > One can be sure that Christ would not lead a
> > person to accept a theory built on pro-Atheism assumptions (Naturalism-
> > Materialism);
>

> It's your mistake in claiming that evolution, or any scientific theory
> is based on "pro atheism" assumptions. � Science makes use of
> methodological naturalism not assumptions that nothing beyond the
> material exists.

>
> > rather, Christ would lead a person to accept Biblical
> > assumptions and the Biblical explanation of reality and evidence;
>

> Creationism is not an explanation of reality, it's an attempt to avoid
> reality, and dismiss any evidence contrary to a particular religious
> belief.
>
> > more

> > precisely Christ would lead a person to accept the intelligence and
> > power of His Father, the Genesis Theos, as Creator and Designer of all
> > natural phenomena.
>

> Since there is no reason why one can't believe that evolution is one of
> those natural phenomena, it's Ray who rejects the belief that God is the
> creator of all natural phenomena. � Apparently Ray can't allow himself
> to accept that God is the designer of evolution.

>
> > Darwinism, or evolutionism, specifically denies the
> > concept of Intelligent design to exist in natural reality.
>

> This is false, as has been explained to Ray over, and over. � He keeps
> making this same mistake.

>
> > This is
> > exactly why Atheists accept and promote evolution with rabid
> > fanaticism. Therefore, based on the evidence of evolution acceptance,
> > Michael Siemon is not a real follower of Christ.
>

> Non sequitur, Ray. �It does not follow. �Your premises are false, and
> your "conclusion" is just your own assumption. � �Furthermore, as you
> already know, all atheists don't accept or promote evolution. � Even if
> they did, the evidence is why Christians and other religious persons
> also accept evolution.

>
>
>
> > I offer the fact seen above, and the way it was arrived at, to be a
> > infinitely more superior way of determining real Christianity than
> > asking a person whose answer amounts to restating the claim.
>

> The way it was "arrived at" is just you declaring yourself to be
> correct, rather than any logical methodology. � You are wrong on several
> of the points, and your "conclusion" doesn't follow.

>
>
>
> > In closing, Michael Siemon represents any CEist; this would include
> > Tony Pagano, AAQ, Glenn, Dana Tweedy, Ron Okimoto, Ken Miller, Dinesh
> > D'Souza, William Dembski, Michael Behe, Ken Ham, Francis Collins,
> > etc.etc.
>

> In closing, Ray tries to insult those better educated, and more
> intelligent than he is. � He tries to include his own bedfellows, Ham,
> Pagano, and Dembski in this mess.
>
> DJT

Pagano, Ham, and Dembski accept most of Darwin's main scientific
claims to exist in nature, I do not. The deluded geocentrist and the
deluded "Creationist/IDist" are in YOUR bed, Dana. Just be thankful
that you're on top.

Ray (Old Earth, Paleyan IDist-species immutabilist)

[David Hare-Scott]

If by truth you mean your claim that various individuals who claim to be
Christians are not, I see no truth. I don't even see any attempt at
providing fact or argument, merely self-serving claims.

What I see the worst aspect of the religionist, to be "holier than thou", to
claim a privileged position (simply by assertion) that only they have true
knowledge and by implication others are inferior. This comes not from any
power or validity of your faith but merely your ego, there is a very clear
difference.

Does your Pastor/Preacher/Priest accept that you are the One True Christian
or are you a one man band who does without such?

D

[jillery]

PRATT.

[marc.t...@wanadoo.fr]

I agree.

[marc.t...@wanadoo.fr]

I must specify: I only agree that "the Creation/Evolution debate is
mutually exclusive".

[Bill]

And what street corner do you work?

[raven1]

>The point seen in this comment says Theology is meaningless. In other
>words our Atheist, like most Atheists, does not possess a registrable
>theological IQ.

Your inability to read a simple sentence for comprehension is truly
impressive. My point was that you seem to think you somehow have the
authority to declare ex cathedra how a given verse is to be
understood. Do you not see the hubris in such an approach?

[Mark Isaak]

On 1/6/13 3:48 PM, Ray Martinez wrote:
> [...]

> Why can't our Evolutionist (and closet Atheist) admit there is a
> serious problem when Christians agree with Atheists about the origin
> of living things, past and present? (Answer: He likes his ass kissed
> by the traditional enemies of Atheism and evolution.)

Please elaborate. What serious problem are you talking about? Note
that "Ray does not like it" is not a serious problem.

[Mark Isaak]

> Your Theology is *significantly beneath* that of a disheveled person
> holding up a sign and ranting through a bullhorn on any given big city
> street corner, Mark.

In other words, you could not find anything wrong with anything I wrote.

[Bob Casanova]

On Sun, 6 Jan 2013 15:48:47 -0800 (PST), the following

appeared in talk.origins, posted by Ray Martinez

<pyram...@yahoo.com>:

>Why can't our Evolutionist (and closet Atheist) admit there is a
>serious problem when Christians agree with Atheists about the origin
>of living things, past and present? (Answer: He likes his ass kissed
>by the traditional enemies of Atheism and evolution.)

I see no serious problem, or any real disagreement over
fact. Religion asserts (without any physical evidence in
support) that God initially created all things, while
science (which, lest you forget yet *again*, CANNOT test
anything it can't observe) observes and evaluates natural
processes based on existing physical evidence.

Religion is about belief; science is about observation and
evidence. And your refusal to accept those facts is your
problem, not the problem of either religion or science.

And the leader of the largest single Christian church agrees
both that science doesn't refute religion (or vice versa),
and that scientific evidence is a valid way to study the
physical world.

>Better yet why can't the same person address each point in my
>argument?

You have no actual points in your posts. Every opinion
you've ever offered has been refuted at one time or another.

[Ray Martinez]

That's right, you do indeed understand the most crucial aspect of the
debate, unlike the ultra-credentialed William Dembski, for example.

Ray (non-credentialed Theist)

[Ray Martinez]

On Jan 7, 9:14�am, Mark Isaak <eci...@curioustax.onomy.net> wrote:
> On 1/6/13 3:48 PM, Ray Martinez wrote:
>
> > [...]
> > Why can't our Evolutionist (and closet Atheist) admit there is a
> > serious problem when Christians agree with Atheists about the origin
> > of living things, past and present? (Answer: He likes his ass kissed
> > by the traditional enemies of Atheism and evolution.)
>
> Please elaborate. �What serious problem are you talking about? �Note
> that "Ray does not like it" is not a serious problem.

Here we have a very experienced Atheist (Mark Isaak) pretending that
he doesn't see a serious problem when Christians accept the Atheist
explanation of species (evolution).

Our Atheist understands that it's imperative to protect Christian
Evolutionists from being seen as traitors, fools and buffoons, lest
they wake up and smell the coffee, that is, understand what it means
when one stands shoulder-to-shoulder with Mark Isaak and Richard
Dawkins (God's enemies).

Ray

[Burkhard]

Takes one to know one I say. You both share indeed a confusion between
science and metaphysical/theological interpretation of science, and a
belief in word magic

[Ray Martinez]

Our Atheist reiterates that his point was tailor-made just for me; but
again, Atheists routinely make this "point" against all Christians who
stand on the truth of God's word. Their point is that Theology is
meaningless, nonsense. Likewise, we contend that evolutionary theory
is nonsense, gross illogic.

Ray

[Dana Tweedy]

Because those features Darwin outlined were derived from observation of
nature.

> and all persons mentioned claim
> to be followers of Christ.

and some of them seem to follow Christ's teachings better than others.

>
> I reject all of Darwin's scientific claims because the Creation/
> Evolution debate is mutually exclusive.

No, you reject Darwin's factual statements because you were told to do
so by a human being you worship. Creation by God and evolution are
not mutually exclusive ideas. You've never explained why you assume
that God can't use evolution as a means of creation.


DJT

[Dana Tweedy]

On 1/6/13 4:40 PM, Ray Martinez wrote:
snip

> The point seen in this comment says Theology is meaningless.

Ray seems to equivocate the idea of "open to debate" with "meaningless".
Theology has no objective means of determining answers, so any
position is necessarily subjective. But subjective and without meaning
are not the same thing.

> In other
> words our Atheist, like most Atheists, does not possess a registrable
> theological IQ.

Apparently a "theological IQ" is the same as "agreement with Ray".


DJT

[Dana Tweedy]

Ray, you agree with atheists all the time. Also, why would there be a
serious problem when atheists, and people of faith agree on scientific
matters? Are you saying only atheists are capable of using their minds?

>(Answer: He likes his ass kissed
> by the traditional enemies of Atheism and evolution.)

Apparently Ray is projecting another one of his bizarre sexual fantasies...

>
> Better yet why can't the same person address each point in my
> argument?

Because you've failed to make any points?


DJT

[Dana Tweedy]

On 1/6/13 4:36 PM, Ray Martinez wrote:
snip


>>

>> If you sew a piece of new (unshrunk) cloth onto an old garment to patch
>> a tear, then its stretch will pull from the garment, and the tear will
>> become worse. That is pure, unadulterated Naturalism-Materialism. One
>> can be sure that Christ *would* lead a person to accept a theory based
>> on (to Ray) pro-Atheism assumptions, because he did so (Matt. 9:16).
>>
>> --
>> Mark Isaak eciton (at) curioustaxonomy (dot) net
>> "It is certain, from experience, that the smallest grain of natural
>> honesty and benevolence has more effect on men's conduct, than the most
>> pompous views suggested by theological theories and systems." - D. Hume
>
> Your Theology is *significantly beneath* that of a disheveled person
> holding up a sign and ranting through a bullhorn on any given big city
> street corner, Mark.

So, you are saying that Mark's theology is miles above your own. Good
insight there, Ray.

DJT

[Dana Tweedy]

On 1/6/13 5:03 PM, Ray Martinez wrote:
> On Jan 4, 5:09 pm, Michael Siemon <mlsie...@sonic.net> wrote:
>> In article

snip

>>> Since evolution uses pro-Atheism assumptions to explain reality and
>>> evidence, and since Michael professes acceptance of evolution, the
>>> fact becomes quality evidence supporting a claim that says he is not a
>>> real follower of Christ. One can be sure that Christ would not lead a
>>> person to accept a theory built on pro-Atheism assumptions (Naturalism-
>>> Materialism); rather, Christ would lead a person to accept Biblical
>>> assumptions and the Biblical explanation of reality and evidence; more
>>
>> Umm, you are involving yourself in a massive amount of rather dubious
>> reasoning, based on worse than dubious theology and textual exegesis.
>
> Empty, contentless, claims.

Yes, Ray, that's a good summary of your statements. Did you have
anything to say about Michael's comments?

>
> You can't address each point because to do so would require gross
> illogic and/or denial of long known facts.

Ray, you abound in "gross illogic". What "long known facts" are you
talking about?



snipping what Ray is afraid to address.

DJT

[Ray Martinez]

On Jan 7, 9:18�am, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
> On Sun, 6 Jan 2013 15:48:47 -0800 (PST), the following
> appeared in talk.origins, posted by Ray Martinez

> <pyramid...@yahoo.com>:

The Bible does advocate Deism. Scripture advocates Theism. Everyone
agrees that the same *claims* massive evidence in support.

> while
> science (which, lest you forget yet *again*, CANNOT test
> anything it can't observe) observes and evaluates natural
> processes based on existing physical evidence.

Again, not true.

Evolution is not scientific; rather, evolution is an explanation of
neutral scientific evidence. The evidence itself is scientific, not
the false explanation. Creation/design is an explanation of neutral
scientific evidence. The evidence itself is scientific, as is the
explanation *because* it is true. You have shown no understanding of
these claims and simple facts.

> Religion is about belief; science is about observation and
> evidence. And your refusal to accept those facts is your
> problem, not the problem of either religion or science.

All major religions, like all major worldviews, *claim* that their
positions and views are based on evidence. Your belief that only your
view or position *claims* an evidentiary base, equates to good
evidence demonstrating how biassed and unobjective you actually are.

> And the leader of the largest single Christian church agrees
> both that science doesn't refute religion (or vice versa),
> and that scientific evidence is a valid way to study the
> physical world.

> >Better yet why can't the same person address each point in my
> >argument?
>
> You have no actual points in your posts. Every opinion
> you've ever offered has been refuted at one time or another.

Either that is true or you can't refute (that's why each point is
ignored). I stand on the latter, of course.

Ray

[Ray Martinez]

CORRECTION:

> The Bible does [NOT] advocate Deism. Scripture advocates Theism. Everyone

> agrees that the same *claims* massive evidence in support.

See bracket.

END CORRECTION.

[Bruce Stephens]

Dana Tweedy <reddf...@gmail.com> writes:

[...]

> Creation by God and evolution are not mutually exclusive ideas.
> You've never explained why you assume that God can't use evolution as
> a means of creation.

IIUC his position is that they are definitionally inconsistent:
evolution by natural selection *must* be without influence from God. As
far as I can tell that's his only objection.

(No idea why (presuming it's true) he doesn't just say that. Or why it
would take so long to put it into a paper. Possibly he's trying to make
it persuasive, or to explain why nobody agrees.)

[Dana Tweedy]

On 1/7/13 4:19 PM, Ray Martinez wrote:
> On Jan 7, 9:18 am, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:

snip

>> I see no serious problem, or any real disagreement over
>> fact. Religion asserts (without any physical evidence in
>> support) that God initially created all things,
>
> The Bible does advocate Deism. Scripture advocates Theism. Everyone
> agrees that the same *claims* massive evidence in support.

Deism is a form of theism, Ray, as pointed out time and again. The
Bible is just as supportive of deism as it is of more interventional
beliefs.

>
>> while
>> science (which, lest you forget yet *again*, CANNOT test
>> anything it can't observe) observes and evaluates natural
>> processes based on existing physical evidence.
>
> Again, not true.

So, how would you test your assertions of "special creation", Ray?

>
> Evolution is not scientific; rather, evolution is an explanation of
> neutral scientific evidence.

Evolution is a scientific theory, that explains evidence by means of the
scientific method. Evolution has been tested, and is falsifiable in
principle. It offers an explanation which can be confirmed.

> The evidence itself is scientific, not
> the false explanation.

What do you mean by "scientific" here, Ray? It does not seem to match
the standard definition of the term. Scientific denotes a form of
investigation, which makes use of methodological naturalism.

> Creation/design is an explanation of neutral
> scientific evidence.

No, "Creation/design" is an assumption. It does not explain anything,
as it's just a placeholder for an explanation. Who is the designer?
What is the designer's capabilities? Where can this be tested, or
falsified?

> The evidence itself is scientific, as is the
> explanation *because* it is true.

How do you determine your explanation is "true", without any way to
evaluate the idea?

> You have shown no understanding of
> these claims and simple facts.

What you've said are not facts, but your own unsupported assertions.
They are easily shown false.

>
>> Religion is about belief; science is about observation and
>> evidence. And your refusal to accept those facts is your
>> problem, not the problem of either religion or science.
>
> All major religions, like all major worldviews, *claim* that their
> positions and views are based on evidence.

This is another of Ray's major falsehoods. Most major religions do not
claim their positions are based on evidence. Most religious leaders
admit their beliefs are based on faith.

> Your belief that only your
> view or position *claims* an evidentiary base, equates to good
> evidence demonstrating how biassed and unobjective you actually are.

Scientific theories are based on observations, and must be able to be
tested. This is unlike any religious belief. Ray calling anyone else
"biassed"[sic] is the height of irony.

>
>> And the leader of the largest single Christian church agrees
>> both that science doesn't refute religion (or vice versa),
>> and that scientific evidence is a valid way to study the
>> physical world.
>
>>> Better yet why can't the same person address each point in my
>>> argument?
>>
>> You have no actual points in your posts. Every opinion
>> you've ever offered has been refuted at one time or another.
>
> Either that is true or you can't refute (that's why each point is
> ignored). I stand on the latter, of course.

Ray, you made no points, and everything you've claimed is easily
refuted. You really need to stop projecting your own moral failings
onto others.



DJT

[Dana Tweedy]

On what do you base your assertion that your personal opinions are the
truth of God's word?

> Their point is that Theology is
> meaningless, nonsense.

No, the point is your claims are nonsense. Whatever atheists think of
theology is irrelevant.

> Likewise, we contend that evolutionary theory
> is nonsense, gross illogic.

Who is the "we", Ray? You can "contend" all you want, but since you
fail logic, and have no sense, why should anyone accept your opinion?


DJT

[Dana Tweedy]

On 1/7/13 4:34 PM, Bruce Stephens wrote:
> Dana Tweedy <reddf...@gmail.com> writes:
>
> [...]
>
>> Creation by God and evolution are not mutually exclusive ideas.
>> You've never explained why you assume that God can't use evolution as
>> a means of creation.
>
> IIUC his position is that they are definitionally inconsistent:
> evolution by natural selection *must* be without influence from God. As
> far as I can tell that's his only objection.
>

It's not clear that Ray has a consistent position, but I agree he has
claimed that. What I'm asking is for him to explain why natural
selection cannot be influenced by God. Apparently Ray's idea of God is
too weak to do so.

> (No idea why (presuming it's true) he doesn't just say that. Or why it
> would take so long to put it into a paper. Possibly he's trying to make
> it persuasive, or to explain why nobody agrees.)

I think it's because once he finishes, he has nothing left to hide
behind.

DJT

[Dana Tweedy]

On 1/7/13 3:29 PM, Ray Martinez wrote:
> On Jan 7, 9:14 am, Mark Isaak <eci...@curioustax.onomy.net> wrote:
>> On 1/6/13 3:48 PM, Ray Martinez wrote:
>>
>>> [...]
>>> Why can't our Evolutionist (and closet Atheist) admit there is a
>>> serious problem when Christians agree with Atheists about the origin
>>> of living things, past and present? (Answer: He likes his ass kissed
>>> by the traditional enemies of Atheism and evolution.)
>>
>> Please elaborate. What serious problem are you talking about? Note
>> that "Ray does not like it" is not a serious problem.
>
> Here we have a very experienced Atheist (Mark Isaak) pretending that
> he doesn't see a serious problem when Christians accept the Atheist
> explanation of species (evolution).

Here we have Ray avoiding answering a simple question. What is the
"problem", Ray?

>
> Our Atheist understands that it's imperative to protect Christian
> Evolutionists from being seen as traitors, fools and buffoons, lest
> they wake up and smell the coffee, that is, understand what it means
> when one stands shoulder-to-shoulder with Mark Isaak and Richard
> Dawkins (God's enemies).

Christians who accept evolution are very much awake, and have sniffed
all the coffee required. No one but simpletons like Ray claim they are
"traitors", and such accusations from a loon are easy to dismiss.
There's no need to "protect" Christians from knowing they accept
scientific facts that any learned individual accepts. What atheists
believe, or don't believe is irrelevant to the facts.


DJT





>
> Ray
>

[Bruce Stephens]

Dana Tweedy <reddf...@gmail.com> writes:

> On 1/7/13 4:34 PM, Bruce Stephens wrote:

[...]

>> IIUC his position is that they are definitionally inconsistent:
>> evolution by natural selection *must* be without influence from God. As
>> far as I can tell that's his only objection.
>>
>
> It's not clear that Ray has a consistent position, but I agree he has
> claimed that. What I'm asking is for him to explain why natural
> selection cannot be influenced by God.

Because.

I think he's argued that evolutionists agree with him, really, and that
the whole point of Darwinism was to remove God from the world, etc. But
I'm not sure how much he really believes that. The argument feels more
like a definitional claim to me; that if natural selection is influenced
by God then it simply isn't "natural". So Christian evolutionists are
(to Ray) simply supporting a form of Creationism.

[...]

[raven1]

On Mon, 7 Jan 2013 14:46:13 -0800 (PST), Ray Martinez
<pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote:

<snip>

>> >> >Why don't you just say what you mean, that anyone who
>> >> >disagrees with you, or who accepts the evidence provided in
>> >> >the physical world rather than the words written by men who
>> >> >*claimed* to be inspired by God, cannot be a "real
>> >> >Christian"? It would have required far fewer keystrokes, and
>> >> >has the advantage of clarity. And honesty.
>>
>> >> More to the point: not just the words of men who claimed to be
>> >> inspired by God, but Ray's own interpretation of those words.
>> >The point seen in this comment says Theology is meaningless. In other
>> >words our Atheist, like most Atheists, does not possess a registrable
>> >theological IQ.
>>
>> Your inability to read a simple sentence for comprehension is truly
>> impressive. My point was that you seem to think you somehow have the
>> authority to declare ex cathedra how a given verse is to be
>> understood. Do you not see the hubris in such an approach?
>
>Our Atheist reiterates that his point was tailor-made just for me; but
>again, Atheists routinely make this "point" against all Christians who
>stand on the truth of God's word. Their point is that Theology is
>meaningless, nonsense.

No, that is not my point at all. My point is, to make it simple enough
that you hopefully won't miss it this time, who died and left *you* in
charge of interpreting scripture for everyone else?

>Likewise, we contend that evolutionary theory
>is nonsense, gross illogic.

You "contend" quite a few things, Ray, but we'll presumably have to
wait for your book to see you actually demonstrate them.

[marc.t...@wanadoo.fr]

On 8 jan, 11:41, Bruce Stephens <bruce+use...@cenderis.demon.co.uk>
wrote:

I agree with your interpretation.

[Dana Tweedy]

Of course, Christians who accept evolution tend to see evolution as the
mechanism by which God created, making it a form of "creationism" if you
really want to call it that. Ray vehemently refuses to accept any form
of evolution, even if it was instituted, and guided by God himself.

DJT

[Bruce Stephens]

Dana Tweedy <reddf...@gmail.com> writes:

> On 1/8/13 3:41 AM, Bruce Stephens wrote:

[...]

>> Because.
>>
>> I think he's argued that evolutionists agree with him, really, and that
>> the whole point of Darwinism was to remove God from the world, etc. But
>> I'm not sure how much he really believes that. The argument feels more
>> like a definitional claim to me; that if natural selection is influenced
>> by God then it simply isn't "natural". So Christian evolutionists are
>> (to Ray) simply supporting a form of Creationism.
>>
>> [...]
>>
>
> Of course, Christians who accept evolution tend to see evolution as
> the mechanism by which God created, making it a form of "creationism"
> if you really want to call it that.

Sure, nobody agrees with Ray.

> Ray vehemently refuses to accept any form of evolution, even if it was
> instituted, and guided by God himself.

He sometimes writes that, but sometimes he writes things which would be
consistent with my interpretation: that whatever evidence is offered for
natural selection (or evolution) is not evidence for natural selection
because natural selection must (by definition) not be influenced by God
(and nobody can offer evidence of that).

Never mind, I'm sure it'll all be cleared up when Ray's book is
published.

[Ray Martinez]

On Jan 8, 4:33�am, raven1 <quoththera...@nevermore.com> wrote:
> On Mon, 7 Jan 2013 14:46:13 -0800 (PST), Ray Martinez
>

> <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
>
>
>
>
> >> >> >Why don't you just say what you mean, that anyone who
> >> >> >disagrees with you, or who accepts the evidence provided in
> >> >> >the physical world rather than the words written by men who
> >> >> >*claimed* to be inspired by God, cannot be a "real
> >> >> >Christian"? It would have required far fewer keystrokes, and
> >> >> >has the advantage of clarity. And honesty.
>
> >> >> More to the point: not just the words of men who claimed to be
> >> >> inspired by God, but Ray's own interpretation of those words.
> >> >The point seen in this comment says Theology is meaningless. In other
> >> >words our Atheist, like most Atheists, does not possess a registrable
> >> >theological IQ.
>
> >> Your inability to read a simple sentence for comprehension is truly
> >> impressive. My point was that you seem to think you somehow have the
> >> authority to declare ex cathedra how a given verse is to be
> >> understood. Do you not see the hubris in such an approach?
>
> >Our Atheist reiterates that his point was tailor-made just for me; but
> >again, Atheists routinely make this "point" against all Christians who
> >stand on the truth of God's word. Their point is that Theology is
> >meaningless, nonsense.
>
> No, that is not my point at all. My point is, to make it simple enough
> that you hopefully won't miss it this time, who died and left *you* in
> charge of interpreting scripture for everyone else?

I will also simplify my response: Raven, our Atheist, is saying many
other interpretations of Scripture are equally valid: Theology is
meaningless.

> >Likewise, we contend that evolutionary theory
> >is nonsense, gross illogic.
>
> You "contend" quite a few things, Ray, but we'll presumably have to
> wait for your book to see you actually demonstrate them.

Since Atheists have no choice other than evolution, their view is not
subject to change.

Ray

[Bob Casanova]

On Mon, 7 Jan 2013 15:19:09 -0800 (PST), the following

appeared in talk.origins, posted by Ray Martinez

<pyram...@yahoo.com>:

Care to share that evidence? Remember that unsupported
testimony is not evidence.

>> while
>> science (which, lest you forget yet *again*, CANNOT test
>> anything it can't observe) observes and evaluates natural
>> processes based on existing physical evidence.
>
>Again, not true.

Yes, it is *exactly* true; science cannot test the
unobserved unless it leaves evidence. And that evidence must
be capable of being objectively evaluated.

>Evolution is not scientific; rather, evolution is an explanation of
>neutral scientific evidence. The evidence itself is scientific, not
>the false explanation. Creation/design is an explanation of neutral
>scientific evidence. The evidence itself is scientific, as is the
>explanation *because* it is true. You have shown no understanding of
>these claims and simple facts.

You left out the significant fact that multiple lines of
actual physical evidence from multiple disciplines support
evolution and were used to formulate the ToE. Care to say
what physical evidence supports Creationism?

>> Religion is about belief; science is about observation and
>> evidence. And your refusal to accept those facts is your
>> problem, not the problem of either religion or science.
>
>All major religions, like all major worldviews, *claim* that their
>positions and views are based on evidence. Your belief that only your
>view or position *claims* an evidentiary base, equates to good
>evidence demonstrating how biassed and unobjective you actually are.

Care to list the evidence supporting your belief? The
evidence supporting the ToE is public and available to all;
much of it has even been provided here.

>> And the leader of the largest single Christian church agrees
>> both that science doesn't refute religion (or vice versa),
>> and that scientific evidence is a valid way to study the
>> physical world.

And you disagree, of course, right?

>> >Better yet why can't the same person address each point in my
>> >argument?
>>
>> You have no actual points in your posts. Every opinion
>> you've ever offered has been refuted at one time or another.
>
>Either that is true or you can't refute (that's why each point is
>ignored). I stand on the latter, of course.

It's choice #1, Ray. You are, of course, at liberty to
provide an argument of yours, or reference to such an
argument, which has not been refuted. Enjoy!

Note that refusing to accept evidence does not void
refutation. It only confirms your basic dishonesty.

[Dana Tweedy]

On 1/8/13 2:37 PM, Ray Martinez wrote:
> On Jan 8, 4:33 am, raven1 <quoththera...@nevermore.com> wrote:

snip

>>
>>> Our Atheist reiterates that his point was tailor-made just for me; but
>>> again, Atheists routinely make this "point" against all Christians who
>>> stand on the truth of God's word. Their point is that Theology is
>>> meaningless, nonsense.
>>
>> No, that is not my point at all. My point is, to make it simple enough
>> that you hopefully won't miss it this time, who died and left *you* in
>> charge of interpreting scripture for everyone else?
>
> I will also simplify my response: Raven, our Atheist, is saying many
> other interpretations of Scripture are equally valid: Theology is
> meaningless.

Many interpretations of Scripture are equally valid, as there is no way
to objectively determine which is the right one. That of course does
not mean that theology is "meaningless".

>
>>> Likewise, we contend that evolutionary theory
>>> is nonsense, gross illogic.
>>
>> You "contend" quite a few things, Ray, but we'll presumably have to
>> wait for your book to see you actually demonstrate them.
>
> Since Atheists have no choice other than evolution, their view is not
> subject to change.

Atheists have many other choices than evolution, but only evolution has
scientific evidence that supports it. That's the reason why many
religious persons also accept evolution as the best scientific
explanation for the evidence.

I have to wonder why Ray is so obsessed with what atheists do. What an
atheist believes has nothing to do with the scientific validity of a
particular idea. Evolution is a fact, no matter if one, or a billion
atheists accept it.


DJT

[Dana Tweedy]

On 1/6/13 5:09 PM, Ray Martinez wrote:
> On Jan 4, 4:55 pm, Dana Tweedy <reddfrog...@gmail.com> wrote:
snip


>>
>> In closing, Ray tries to insult those better educated, and more
>> intelligent than he is. He tries to include his own bedfellows, Ham,
>> Pagano, and Dembski in this mess.
>>
>> DJT
>
> Pagano, Ham, and Dembski accept most of Darwin's main scientific
> claims to exist in nature, I do not.

Because they are either better educated, or at least more sane than you
are. Your rejection of scientific fact does not make you any better off
than the above creationists.


> The deluded geocentrist and the
> deluded "Creationist/IDist" are in YOUR bed, Dana.

No, they are deluded, just as you are. You don't like that their
delusion is not the same as your own.

> Just be thankful
> that you're on top.

Again, Ray displays an obsession with bizarre sexual images. Despite
your protests, Behe and the others are your own compatriots. Hope you
enjoy the company.

DJT

[Mark Isaak]

On 1/7/13 2:29 PM, Ray Martinez wrote:
> On Jan 7, 9:14 am, Mark Isaak <eci...@curioustax.onomy.net> wrote:
>> On 1/6/13 3:48 PM, Ray Martinez wrote:
>>
>>> [...]
>>> Why can't our Evolutionist (and closet Atheist) admit there is a
>>> serious problem when Christians agree with Atheists about the origin
>>> of living things, past and present? (Answer: He likes his ass kissed
>>> by the traditional enemies of Atheism and evolution.)
>>
>> Please elaborate. What serious problem are you talking about? Note
>> that "Ray does not like it" is not a serious problem.
>
> Here we have a very experienced Atheist (Mark Isaak) pretending that
> he doesn't see a serious problem when Christians accept the Atheist
> explanation of species (evolution).

Since evolution is equally a Christian explanation of species, no I do
not see the problem.

> Our Atheist understands that it's imperative to protect Christian
> Evolutionists from being seen as traitors, fools and buffoons, lest
> they wake up and smell the coffee, that is, understand what it means
> when one stands shoulder-to-shoulder with Mark Isaak and Richard
> Dawkins (God's enemies).

Gosh! That would probably be almost as bad as dining with tax
collectors or letting prostitutes wash your feet.

Ray shows once again that the only thing he likes about Christianity is
the brand name.

[Dana Tweedy]

Ray would undoubtedly prefer it if they re named it "Scottism".

DJT

[John S. Wilkins]

One should always name one's religion after one's preferred messiah,
yes.
--
John S. Wilkins, Associate, Philosophy, University of Sydney
Honorary Fellow, University of Melbourne
- http://evolvingthoughts.net

[raven1]

<facepalm>

No, again, that's not what I am saying. Let's try this once more, Ray.
Who appointed *you* the arbiter of which interpretation is valid?

>> >Likewise, we contend that evolutionary theory
>> >is nonsense, gross illogic.
>>
>> You "contend" quite a few things, Ray, but we'll presumably have to
>> wait for your book to see you actually demonstrate them.
>
>Since Atheists have no choice other than evolution, their view is not
>subject to change.

Sure it is. My position is based on evidence, not on a philosophy. A
fossilized rabbit in Cambrian strata, for example, would cause me to
massively re-think my position on evolution. As things stand, however,
it's the only explanation that makes sense in light of the available
data - data that are so plentiful, and so compelling, that even were a
deity to reveal itself to me personally, I would remain convinced that
evolution is *how* "goddidit".

[raven1]

On Sun, 6 Jan 2013 15:58:00 -0800 (PST), Ray Martinez
<pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote:

>> >In closing, Michael Siemon represents any CEist; this would include
>> >Tony Pagano, AAQ, Glenn, Dana Tweedy, Ron Okimoto, Ken Miller, Dinesh
>> >D'Souza, William Dembski, Michael Behe, Ken Ham, Francis Collins,
>> >etc.etc.
>>

>> John 11:35.
>
>I completely agree.

Albeit for the wrong reasons.

>He wept when these Christians rejected Genesis
>(which includes the genealogy of Christ)

Speaking of the genealogy of Christ, why do Matthew's and Luke's
versions in their respective Gospels diverge so sharply? But I
digress.

>and made room for Darwin (a
>person who said the O.T. conveys the acts of a Tyrant and a false
>history of the world).

Only if one takes the position that Genesis is intended to be a
literal history of the world can it be a false one. But there are
other ways to approach the text. You might want to check the works of
various theologians on the topic; I understand they write about that
sort of thing.

---
raven1
aa # 1096
EAC Vice President (President in charge of vice)
BAAWA Knight

[Ray Martinez]

On Jan 9, 2:04�pm, raven1 <quoththera...@nevermore.com> wrote:
> On Sun, 6 Jan 2013 15:58:00 -0800 (PST), Ray Martinez
>

> <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> >In closing, Michael Siemon represents any CEist; this would include
> >> >Tony Pagano, AAQ, Glenn, Dana Tweedy, Ron Okimoto, Ken Miller, Dinesh
> >> >D'Souza, William Dembski, Michael Behe, Ken Ham, Francis Collins,
> >> >etc.etc.
>
> >> John 11:35.
>
> >I completely agree.
>
> Albeit for the wrong reasons.
>
> >He wept when these Christians rejected Genesis
> >(which includes the genealogy of Christ)
>
> Speaking of the genealogy of Christ, why do Matthew's and Luke's
> versions in their respective Gospels diverge so sharply? But I
> digress.

Matthew preserves the paternal line through Joseph; Luke preserves the
maternal line through Mary.

http://ap.lanexdev.com/user_images/image/bibbul/2003/bb-03-31-lg.png

> >and made room for Darwin (a
> >person who said the O.T. conveys the acts of a Tyrant and a false
> >history of the world).
>
> Only if one takes the position that Genesis is intended to be a
> literal history of the world can it be a false one. But there are
> other ways to approach the text. You might want to check the works of
> various theologians on the topic; I understand they write about that
> sort of thing.

Since these Theologians are all Darwinists/Evolutionists, their
Biblical conclusions are entirely predictable and of course
predetermined.

Ray

[Ray Martinez]

This particular point is routinely made against any perceived
literalist. It seeks to undermine the universal truths and claims of
the Bible. Who would do such a thing? Answer: Atheists and Darwinists.

> >> >Likewise, we contend that evolutionary theory
> >> >is nonsense, gross illogic.
>
> >> You "contend" quite a few things, Ray, but we'll presumably have to
> >> wait for your book to see you actually demonstrate them.
>
> >Since Atheists have no choice other than evolution, their view is not
> >subject to change.
>
> Sure it is. My position is based on evidence, not on a philosophy. A
> fossilized rabbit in Cambrian strata, for example, would cause me to
> massively re-think my position on evolution. As things stand, however,
> it's the only explanation that makes sense in light of the available
> data - data that are so plentiful, and so compelling, that even were a
> deity to reveal itself to me personally, I would remain convinced that
> evolution is *how* "goddidit".

No one could expect an admission.

Ray

[Dana Tweedy]

Actually, Ray, this "point" is made against arrogant jerks who claim
authority they don't have. It does not require ani atheist, or a
"Darwinist" to see your position as untenable.


>
> �> >> >Likewise, we contend that evolutionary theory

>
> > >> >is nonsense, gross illogic.
>
> > >> You "contend" quite a few things, Ray, but we'll presumably have to
> > >> wait for your book to see you actually demonstrate them.
>
> > >Since Atheists have no choice other than evolution, their view is not
> > >subject to change.
>
> > Sure it is. My position is based on evidence, not on a philosophy. A
> > fossilized rabbit in Cambrian strata, for example, would cause me to
> > massively re-think my position on evolution. As things stand, however,
> > it's the only explanation that makes sense in light of the available
> > data - data that are so plentiful, and so compelling, that even were a
> > deity to reveal itself to me personally, I would remain convinced that
> > evolution is *how* "goddidit".
>
> No one could expect an admission.
>

When you lie about people you should not expect an "admission".


DJT

[Walter Bushell]

In article <1kwfvyp.usef89t5f87dN%jo...@wilkins.id.au>,

jo...@wilkins.id.au (John S. Wilkins) wrote:

> One should always name one's religion after one's preferred messiah,
> yes.
"

As far as I know, Judaism has no name reserved for its messiah. His
name shall be called Immanuel", but that is just what his name is
called and "Immanuel" would have to go through two steps of
dereferencing to reach his (or her?) name. ("**Immanuel" in C notation
would be his name.) (In classic Mac OS "Immanuel" would be a handle or
a pointer to a pointer.)

--
This space unintentionally left blank.

[walksalone]

Walter Bushell <pr...@panix.com> wrote in news:proto-
63A0A7.090...@news.panix.com:

> In article <1kwfvyp.usef89t5f87dN%jo...@wilkins.id.au>,
> jo...@wilkins.id.au (John S. Wilkins) wrote:
>
>> One should always name one's religion after one's preferred messiah,
>> yes.
> "
> As far as I know, Judaism has no name reserved for its messiah. His
> name shall be called Immanuel", but that is just what his name is

IIRC, the messiah is without name & currently is thought of as two
messiahs. A david, reincarnated[?] who will take Jerusalem, & die.
Being replaced by Solomon[re-incarnated?] who will actually rule.

> called and "Immanuel" would have to go through two steps of
> dereferencing to reach his (or her?) name. ("**Immanuel" in C notation
> would be his name.) (In classic Mac OS "Immanuel" would be a handle or
> a pointer to a pointer.)

Immanuel was the son of Hezikeah[sp], so it ain't him. That comes from
the xians trying to make a messianic prophesy out of a supposedly real
time prophesy. Something they are not very good at.


walksalone who when he first started studying mythology, had no idea how
convulted & tried organized mythology was & is.

"Men imagine that celestial bodies are divine yet ascribe to them
purposes inconsistent with divinity; and they anticipate eternal
suffering after death. Peace of mind follows freedom from such fears,
and will be gained if we trust to our immediate feelings and
sensations."
- Epicurus

[raven1]

No, it's being made against someone who clearly thinks he has the
authority to dictate how scripture must be interpreted.

> It seeks to undermine the universal truths and claims of
>the Bible. Who would do such a thing? Answer: Atheists and Darwinists.
>
> > >> >Likewise, we contend that evolutionary theory
>> >> >is nonsense, gross illogic.
>>
>> >> You "contend" quite a few things, Ray, but we'll presumably have to
>> >> wait for your book to see you actually demonstrate them.
>>
>> >Since Atheists have no choice other than evolution, their view is not
>> >subject to change.
>>
>> Sure it is. My position is based on evidence, not on a philosophy. A
>> fossilized rabbit in Cambrian strata, for example, would cause me to
>> massively re-think my position on evolution. As things stand, however,
>> it's the only explanation that makes sense in light of the available
>> data - data that are so plentiful, and so compelling, that even were a
>> deity to reveal itself to me personally, I would remain convinced that
>> evolution is *how* "goddidit".
>
>No one could expect an admission.

Of what?

[raven1]

On Wed, 9 Jan 2013 18:59:50 -0800 (PST), Ray Martinez
<pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote:

>On Jan 9, 2:04�pm, raven1 <quoththera...@nevermore.com> wrote:
>> On Sun, 6 Jan 2013 15:58:00 -0800 (PST), Ray Martinez
>>
>> <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> >> >In closing, Michael Siemon represents any CEist; this would include
>> >> >Tony Pagano, AAQ, Glenn, Dana Tweedy, Ron Okimoto, Ken Miller, Dinesh
>> >> >D'Souza, William Dembski, Michael Behe, Ken Ham, Francis Collins,
>> >> >etc.etc.
>>
>> >> John 11:35.
>>
>> >I completely agree.
>>
>> Albeit for the wrong reasons.
>>
>> >He wept when these Christians rejected Genesis
>> >(which includes the genealogy of Christ)
>>
>> Speaking of the genealogy of Christ, why do Matthew's and Luke's
>> versions in their respective Gospels diverge so sharply? But I
>> digress.
>
>Matthew preserves the paternal line through Joseph; Luke preserves the
>maternal line through Mary.
>
>http://ap.lanexdev.com/user_images/image/bibbul/2003/bb-03-31-lg.png

Even were that the case (which I do not see as a tenable reading of
the text), what's the point of giving Joseph's genealogy when it's
also made clear that he isn't actually the father?

>> >and made room for Darwin (a
>> >person who said the O.T. conveys the acts of a Tyrant and a false
>> >history of the world).
>>
>> Only if one takes the position that Genesis is intended to be a
>> literal history of the world can it be a false one. But there are
>> other ways to approach the text. You might want to check the works of
>> various theologians on the topic; I understand they write about that
>> sort of thing.
>
>Since these Theologians are all Darwinists/Evolutionists,

Really? I didn't list any names, so that's an interesting assertion on
your part.

[John S. Wilkins]

I mean Ray's messiah: Gene Scott.

[Ray Martinez]

On Jan 10, 5:30 pm, j...@wilkins.id.au (John S. Wilkins) wrote:
> Walter Bushell <pr...@panix.com> wrote:

> > In article <1kwfvyp.usef89t5f87dN%j...@wilkins.id.au>,

> >  j...@wilkins.id.au (John S. Wilkins) wrote:
>
> > > One should always name one's religion after one's preferred messiah,
> > > yes.
> > "
> > As far as I know, Judaism has no name reserved for its messiah. His
> > name shall be called Immanuel", but that is just what his name is
> > called and "Immanuel" would have to go through two steps of
> > dereferencing to reach his (or her?) name. ("**Immanuel" in C notation
> > would be his name.) (In classic Mac OS "Immanuel" would be a handle or
> > a pointer to a pointer.)
>
> I mean Ray's messiah: Gene Scott.
> --
> John S. Wilkins, Associate, Philosophy, University of Sydney
> Honorary Fellow, University of Melbourne
> -http://evolvingthoughts.net

It's quite understandable to feel hatred of scholarship that says
Naturalism and its conclusions are completely wrong and false. As a
purveyor of Naturalism, John Wilkins cannot stand anyone who opposes.
But his hatred crosses the line when he advocates censorship via the
use of killfiles. What have I or any anti-evolutionist ever done to
deserve the muzzle? Can John Wilkins produce one commentary or
argument that justifies usage? Of course my question is rhetorical.
The fact that he would like to silence me is clearly seen in his
"innocent" mentions of the fact that he has me killfiled. These
mentions serve to suggest strongly that others should follow suit.

But let's remember: The U.S. Federal Courts have ruled that evolution
cannot be criticized in public schools. We are free to criticize the
President, Congress, Supreme Court, Church, dead soldiers, and each
other, but not Darwin. It's truly unfathomable that a Document written
well before the rise of evolution is now being used in such a manner.
Anything and everything can be criticized except evolution. And we're
only talking about *criticism.* Since when is *criticism*
unconstitutional? Only in the 20th century after Darwinists came to
power. I think what's happened is quite obvious: The Federal
judiciary, educated in institutions that teach Darwinism true and
Creationism false, have imposed their bias (= hatred) into the
Document via intelligence insulting rhetoric.

So John Wilkins is hardly alone. Anti-evolutionism lives under the
muzzle in America. Criticism of evolution and its philosophies so
enrages the Darwinist that it drives them to practice unenlightened
principles (like censorship) in response. In the case of John Wilkins
he is especially enraged over the fact that I am capable of exposing
"Christian" Evolutionists to be traitors, fools and buffoons (as seen
in the Opening Post of this topic). His call for the killfile simply
means he can't refute anything that I have said.

Ray

[Mitchell Coffey]

I'm not a Christian but I don't hold the term a pejorative, as do some
people in these parts; neither would I wish it to become a pejorative,
as Martinez' continue association with it would work to turn it into.

Siemon is a Christian; if Martinez is, it's only due to Christianity's
extraordinary stress on forgiveness.

Mitchell Coffey

[Dana Tweedy]

On Jan 10, 8:26�pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Jan 10, 5:30�pm, j...@wilkins.id.au (John S. Wilkins) wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > Walter Bushell <pr...@panix.com> wrote:
> > > In article <1kwfvyp.usef89t5f87dN%j...@wilkins.id.au>,
> > > �j...@wilkins.id.au (John S. Wilkins) wrote:
>
> > > > One should always name one's religion after one's preferred messiah,
> > > > yes.
> > > "
> > > As far as I know, Judaism has no name reserved for its messiah. His
> > > name shall be called Immanuel", but that is just what his name is
> > > called and "Immanuel" would have to go through two steps of
> > > dereferencing to reach his (or her?) name. ("**Immanuel" in C notation
> > > would be his name.) (In classic Mac OS "Immanuel" would be a handle or
> > > a pointer to a pointer.)
>
> > I mean Ray's messiah: Gene Scott.
> > --
> > John S. Wilkins, Associate, Philosophy, University of Sydney
> > Honorary Fellow, University of Melbourne
> > -http://evolvingthoughts.net
>
> It's quite understandable to feel hatred of scholarship that says
> Naturalism and its conclusions are completely wrong and false.

If there were any such "scholarship", rather than a mistaken opinion,
it is hardly likely John would feelmhatred toward it. Pity, maybe ,
but not hatred.

> As a
> purveyor of Naturalism, John Wilkins cannot stand anyone who opposes.
> But his hatred crosses the line when he advocates censorship via the
> use of killfiles. What have I or any anti-evolutionist ever done to
> deserve the muzzle?

You mean besides the lies, the distain for education, and your basic
distaste for learning of any kind?

> Can John Wilkins produce one commentary or
> argument that justifies usage? Of course my question is rhetorical.
> The fact that he would like to silence me is clearly seen in his
> "innocent" mentions of the fact that he has me killfiled. These
> mentions serve to suggest strongly that others should follow suit.
>

John has not attempted to silence you, Ray. He has recommended people
ignore you, which is quite different. No one is required to,listen
to your ravings, even if they are entertaining.

> But let's remember: The U.S. Federal Courts have ruled that evolution
> cannot be criticized in public schools.

That is false, of course. would you like to offer any court case
where a judge stated that evolution cannot be questioned?

Anyone can offer scientific theories opposed to,evolution, and that
would be perfectly legal under any US court ruling. Ray is
apparently confused about the difference between religious beliefs,
and scientific theories.

> We are free to criticize the
> President, Congress, Supreme Court, Church, dead soldiers, and each
> other, but not Darwin. It's truly unfathomable that a Document written
> well before the rise of evolution is now being used in such a manner.

Of course, one can criticize Darwin all one wishes. You may legally
throw books written by Darwin in the trash, if you want, or hang him
in effigy. What courts have ruled, however, is you can't use your
religious dislike of Darwin, and by extension, all of science, to
prevent a valid scientific theory from being presented in classrooms
paid for by public funds. If you have any real, scientific
objections to Darwin, or his ideas, you are permitted, even encouraged
to take your best shot at him.

That's the difference, Ray. If you have any genuine scientific
objections to evolution, or evolutionary theory, no court in the land
will stand in your way. If all you have is your hurt feelings
because your religious belief is not allowed to be forced onto others,
then you are out of luck.

> Anything and everything can be criticized except evolution. And we're
> only talking about *criticism.* Since when is *criticism*
> unconstitutional?

When that "criticism" is nothing more than religious objections. You
may criticize Darwin's scientific ideas whenever, and wherever you
choose, including public schools. You can present competing
scientific theories all day long if you want. But if all you have is
your butthurt over your interpretation of the Bible not meeting the
standards of science, that is too bad.

> Only in the 20th century after Darwinists came to
> power. I think what's happened is quite obvious: The Federal
> judiciary, educated in institutions that teach Darwinism true and
> Creationism false, have imposed their bias (= hatred) into the
> Document via intelligence insulting rhetoric.

Considering you have no intelligence to insult, what are you upset
about? Law schools don't teach biology, Ray. Court judges don't
care about particular scientific theories, and if there were any
scientific objections to evolution, federal court judges would not
bother to intervene.

Creationism is not only wrong, it is not a scientific idea. It is
religion through and through.

>
> So John Wilkins is hardly alone. Anti-evolutionism lives under the
> muzzle in America.

What "muzzle"? if creationists had any science, there would be no
way to stop them from presenting it. why are creationists unable
to,present the smallest bit of scientific evidence?

> Criticism of evolution and its philosophies so
> enrages the Darwinist that it drives them to practice unenlightened
> principles (like censorship) in response. In the case of John Wilkins
> he is especially enraged over the fact that I am capable of exposing
> "Christian" Evolutionists to be traitors, fools and buffoons (as seen
> in the Opening Post of this topic). His call for the killfile simply
> means he can't refute anything that I have said.
>

Ray, you making false, and bitter accusations, which no one takes
seriously is not exposing anything. Pinot everyone is as filled
with hatred as you are. You are projecting your own loser hate onto
everyone you perceive as more intelligent than you. John, as well
as anyone with two functioning brain cells has no problem refuting
everything you spew out.

If John takes pity on you by ignoring you, he is doing you a favor.

DJT

[jillery]

It would take a miracle.

[marc.t...@wanadoo.fr]

On Jan 11, 6:47�am, Mitchell Coffey <mitchelldotcof...@gmail.com>
wrote:

I have asked Michael Siemon the following question:
"How the real believers in whatever metaphysical belief (and
particularly in a single god as the great designer) can accept the
crucial role that random plays in our physical world, in particular in
Darwinian evolution: perhaps, in
their deep subconsciousness, they are not indeed real believers?".
Unfortunately Michael Siemon didn't reply.
What do you think about it?

[raven1]

On Thu, 10 Jan 2013 19:26:04 -0800 (PST), Ray Martinez
<pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote:

>
>But let's remember: The U.S. Federal Courts have ruled that evolution
>cannot be criticized in public schools.

Cite, please.

[Burkhard]

Maybe he did not answer because he can't see the problem? and if with
"random" you mean stochastic phenomena in the macro world, I would
concur. There is simply no problem science "random" is an
epistemological notion that simply expresses our lack of full
information (if I knew _exactly_ how the lottery machine was build,
and the balls, and the initial setting of the mixer, I could predict
like Lapace's demon the numbers that come up. To omniscient, or even
very knowledgeable deities, this restriction doe snot apply.

More problematic, for some (versions of)_ religions could be
"ontological" randomness on the quantum level - but even that I think
is relevant only for an observer locked in a specific position in time
and space, and those deities that transcend it would not be
particularly affected.

[Walter Bushell]

In article
<a5d204b6-e161-41b0...@w3g2000yqj.googlegroups.com>,

Dana Tweedy <reddf...@gmail.com> wrote:

> John has not attempted to silence you, Ray. He has recommended people
> ignore you, which is quite different. No one is required to,listen
> to your ravings, even if they are entertaining.

Exactly you have a right to free speech and we have a right to ignore
or mock you. Mocking is free speech also.

[Walter Bushell]

In article <l6lte8p87023mlggp...@4ax.com>,

raven1 <quotht...@nevermore.com> wrote:

> No, it's being made against someone who clearly thinks he has the
> authority to dictate how scripture must be interpreted.

As much as Martin Luther did.

[Burkhard]

On 11 Jan, 03:26, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Jan 10, 5:30 pm, j...@wilkins.id.au (John S. Wilkins) wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > Walter Bushell <pr...@panix.com> wrote:
> > > In article <1kwfvyp.usef89t5f87dN%j...@wilkins.id.au>,
> > >  j...@wilkins.id.au (John S. Wilkins) wrote:
>
> > > > One should always name one's religion after one's preferred messiah,
> > > > yes.
> > > "
> > > As far as I know, Judaism has no name reserved for its messiah. His
> > > name shall be called Immanuel", but that is just what his name is
> > > called and "Immanuel" would have to go through two steps of
> > > dereferencing to reach his (or her?) name. ("**Immanuel" in C notation
> > > would be his name.) (In classic Mac OS "Immanuel" would be a handle or
> > > a pointer to a pointer.)
>
> > I mean Ray's messiah: Gene Scott.
> > --
> > John S. Wilkins, Associate, Philosophy, University of Sydney
> > Honorary Fellow, University of Melbourne
> > -http://evolvingthoughts.net
>
> It's quite understandable to feel hatred of scholarship that says
> Naturalism and its conclusions are completely wrong and false.

What "scholarship" and where is it published?

> As a
> purveyor of Naturalism, John Wilkins cannot stand anyone who opposes.
> But his hatred crosses the line when he advocates censorship via the
> use of killfiles. What have I or any anti-evolutionist ever done to
> deserve the muzzle?

How many articles on evolutionary biology have you _not_ read today?
Even for me, they woudl go in the hundreds. Newspapers and other
general news stories? Hundres of thousands
Does that mean you have "muzzled" and censored the authors - or does
it mean you have exercised your judgement which source of information
you think has a high chance to be relevant, high quality and
interesting?
JOhn has made the quite reasonable decision, based on your posting
behaviour, that the chances that anything you write is informative,
new or interesting is virtually 0.
That is not muzzling (you can still post, can't you?) it is making a
choice on te marketplace of ideas, the very notion that underpins
freedom of speech.

> Can John Wilkins produce one commentary or
> argument that justifies usage? Of course my question is rhetorical.
> The fact that he would like to silence me is clearly seen in his
> "innocent" mentions of the fact that he has me killfiled. These
> mentions serve to suggest strongly that others should follow suit.

Really? You may be used to simply follow where others lead, the rest
of us tend to make up their own minds. and as a result do not read
this implication into John's comment

>
> But let's remember: The U.S. Federal Courts have ruled that evolution
> cannot be criticized in public schools.

Nonsense. of course it can. It can be criticised in arts classes,
philosophy or even comparative religion classes. Andit can also be
criticised in science classes, as long as it is based on science, that
is theories that follow proper methodological protocols.

>We are free to criticize the
> President, Congress, Supreme Court, Church, dead soldiers, and each
> other, but not Darwin.

Darwin can (and in a matter of fact, frequently is) criticised, even
more so than the theory of evolution in general. No constitutional
bar against Lyn Margulis ideas e.g.

It's truly unfathomable that a Document written
> well before the rise of evolution is now being used in such a manner.

No, why would it be? The document was also written before telephones
were around, but nobody has any problem applying its provision to
telephone exchanges, e.g. the 1. amendment

> Anything and everything can be criticized except evolution. And we're
> only talking about *criticism.* Since when is *criticism*
> unconstitutional?

I isn't. But it belongs in science classes in public schools if and
only if it is based on science, and not on the worldview of one
specific religion. Because that could lead to something the framers
were only too familiar with, bloody religious war between the
different sects that feel not represented, and an inability for many
to form proper loyalty to a state that favours the other religion form
theirs . A situation we still have today ion parts of the UK, which
did not follow the US lead.

[TomS]

"On Fri, 11 Jan 2013 07:19:33 -0800 (PST), in article
<8ec2c933-c85b-4f0c...@d4g2000vbw.googlegroups.com>, Burkhard
stated..."

I don't see how "great designer" is compatible with any Christianity
other than Gnosticism or Deism (if one is sufficiently liberal as to
allow those as being Christian beliefs).


--
---Tom S.

[Mitchell Coffey]

Not much. Perhaps he didn't wish to embarrass you.

Mitchell Coffey

[Boikat]

On Jan 10, 9:26 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
<Snip>

> But let's remember: The U.S. Federal Courts have ruled that evolution
> cannot be criticized in public schools. We are free to criticize the
> President, Congress, Supreme Court, Church, dead soldiers, and each

> other, but not Darwin...

<snip>

You are a liar. The courts have ruled that the past attempts to
"criticize" evolution in the public schools were attempts to sneak
religious dogma into the public schools, either though giving the
pseudo-science of "Creationism" equal time, or attempting to pass off
the bull-crap of "Intelligent Design" as legitimate science.

Boikat

[marc.t...@wanadoo.fr]

Of course you are wrong.
Aren't you aware of the behavior of dynamical systems that are highly
sensitive to initial conditions (an effect which is popularly referred
to as the butterfly effect)?
Small differences in initial conditions (such as those due to rounding
errors in numerical computation) yield widely diverging outcomes for
such dynamical systems, rendering long-term prediction impossible
(except that a given system is in its strange attractor).

> More problematic, for some (versions of) religions could be

> "ontological" randomness on the quantum level - but even that I think
> is relevant only for an observer locked in a specific position in time
> and space, and those deities that transcend it would not be
> particularly affected.

Sure, you try to reassure yourself as you can!

[marc.t...@wanadoo.fr]

On 11 jan, 16:56, Mitchell Coffey <mitchelldotcof...@gmail.com> wrote:

Actually I wasn't asking for your opinion on Michael Siemon's attitude
but rather on the question I ask.