Re: A Warning fro Those Who Think John Harshman Has Any Modern Knowledge

[John Harshman]

On 12/4/17 7:51 PM, J.LyonLayden wrote:
> Here is a picture of John Harshaman. It is interesting that from
> this picture you can discern both that he is an unhappy person, and
> WHY he is an unhappy person. If this were a full body shot, we'd
> likely see crocs and socks below the milk-white emaciated calves.
> Nice hat and jacket John!

Now you're just being an asshole for the sake of being an asshole.

> This post has not been made to defame John Harshman, but to inform readers.

Now you're just lying. You really should be ashamed.

[J.LyonLayden]

You keep insulting me on the basis of your job alone. What did you expect?

[*Hemidactylus*]

J.LyonLayden <joseph...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Here is a picture of John Harshaman. It is interesting that from this
> picture you can discern both that he is an unhappy person, and WHY he is
> an unhappy person. If this were a full body shot, we'd likely see crocs
> and socks below the milk-white emaciated calves. Nice hat and jacket John!
>

> https://media.licdn.com/mpr/mpr/shrinknp_200_200/p/1/000/0c6/242/1326a3a.jpg
>
> https://www.linkedin.com/in/john-harshman-22a47335/
>
> According to his profile (12/14/17) he completed his biology education in
> 1996, when college textbooks still said neanderthals had never bred with
> homo sapiens. At the time, scientists argued over whether pangolins were
> part of Xenartha or Cimolesta, a group that includes non-placental
> mammals (as preposterous as this may sound). No one had any idea
> pangolins were closely related to carnivores back then because DNA
> research was so primitive. This may explain why Mr. Harshman thinks
> "assimilation" is something from Star Trek.
>
> His outdated education may or may not have anything to do with his
> current unemployed state as a biologist. According to Academia.edu he
> currently works as a tutor and is "looking for a position in research
> and/or teaching." He did find employment from 1998 to 2012 as a youth
> instructor at the Youth Science Institute.
>
> Only two members of Academia.edu endorse him for Phylogenetics and
> Molecular Biology, and they are both former fellow workmates at the Youth
> Science Institute.
>
> There is no evidence that he has ever had an original thought, instead
> choosing to exclusively defend theories previously brought to consensus.
> Non-consensus theories about any given amniote lineages enrage John
> exponentially, even theories in science fiction stories. Posting a theory
> about virtually anything that has not already been proposed in a
> scientific paper is likely to invoke his wrath and encourage ongoing
> trolling and mild harrassment.

>
> This post has not been made to defame John Harshman, but to inform

> readers. He often presents himself as an authority in evolutionary
> subjects on various forums and blogs despite the advances in evolutionary
> biology over the past 21 years. It may be unwise to accept his knowledge
> of a topic without sufficient citation and explanation, both of which he
> rarely offers when attacking those he doesn't agree with. Often he is
> found to be highly erroneous in his assertions and assurances, seemingly
> in an attempt to mislead readers and to squander his adversaries' time.
>
> He is an avid member of a group of Skeptic bloggers, signifying that one
> of his main interests in life is making fun of people he doesn't think are very smart.
>
> However, there is no indication that he himself has much intelligence.
> his few papers on birds are rarely cited.
>
> He may be sitting on the dock of the bay at this moment, keeping
> prospective sexual partners at bay with the size of his binoculars.
>
If that’s our Harsh he looks OK to me. University if Chicago is pretty
prestigious no? That’s Coyne’s school. I thought Harsh would be at least 10
years older than me or retired. Don’t know why. Based on his BA if your
reference us true he might be about my age.

[J.LyonLayden]

I don't actually judge people by their education or employment status, UNLESS they try to use it to push people around and discredit people without any explanation.

[Andre G. Isaak]

In article <916c6df1-3684-440f...@googlegroups.com>,

"J.LyonLayden" <joseph...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Here is a picture of John Harshaman. It is interesting that from this
> picture you can discern both that he is an unhappy person, and WHY he is an
> unhappy person. If this were a full body shot, we'd likely see crocs and
> socks below the milk-white emaciated calves. Nice hat and jacket John!
>
> https://media.licdn.com/mpr/mpr/shrinknp_200_200/p/1/000/0c6/242/1326a3a.jpg
>
> https://www.linkedin.com/in/john-harshman-22a47335/
>
> According to his profile (12/14/17) he completed his biology education in
> 1996, when college textbooks still said neanderthals had never bred with
> homo sapiens. At the time, scientists argued over whether pangolins were part
> of Xenartha or Cimolesta, a group that includes non-placental mammals (as
> preposterous as this may sound). No one had any idea pangolins were closely
> related to carnivores back then because DNA research was so primitive. This
> may explain why Mr. Harshman thinks "assimilation" is something from Star
> Trek.

Everyone who has completed an education completed it at a time when some
things currently believed to be false were then believed to be true or
vice versa.

A decent education doesn't consist of memorizing the textbooks of the
day and then stopping. It consists of leaning how to evaluate evidence,
and I think it's safe to assume that Harshman continues to read up on
more recent findings in his field.

Andre

--
To email remove 'invalid' & replace 'gm' with well known Google mail service.

[J.LyonLayden]

On Monday, December 4, 2017 at 11:10:02 PM UTC-5, John Harshman wrote:

I had almost deleted that when you did it again. I really didn't want to post it. But I am sick of you discrediting me on the basis of the mysteries things you say you know and won't explain.

[J.LyonLayden]

I don't doubt it. He's shared some things with me that I didn't know about evolution, and I've shared some things with him that he didn't know about evolution.

[Burkhard]

J.LyonLayden wrote:
> Here is a picture of John Harshaman. It is interesting that from this picture you can discern both that he is an unhappy person, and WHY he is an unhappy person. If this were a full body shot, we'd likely see crocs and socks below the milk-white emaciated calves. Nice hat and jacket John!
>
> https://media.licdn.com/mpr/mpr/shrinknp_200_200/p/1/000/0c6/242/1326a3a.jpg
>
> https://www.linkedin.com/in/john-harshman-22a47335/
>
> According to his profile (12/14/17) he completed his biology education in 1996, when college textbooks still said neanderthals had never bred with homo sapiens. At the time, scientists argued over whether pangolins were part of Xenartha or Cimolesta, a group that includes non-placental mammals (as preposterous as this may sound). No one had any idea pangolins were closely related to carnivores back then because DNA research was so primitive. This may explain why Mr. Harshman thinks "assimilation" is something from Star Trek.
>

> His outdated education may or may not have anything to do with his current unemployed state as a biologist. According to Academia.edu he currently works as a tutor and is "looking for a position in research and/or teaching." He did find employment from 1998 to 2012 as a youth instructor at the Youth Science Institute.
>
> Only two members of Academia.edu endorse him for Phylogenetics and Molecular Biology, and they are both former fellow workmates at the Youth Science Institute.
>
> There is no evidence that he has ever had an original thought, instead choosing to exclusively defend theories previously brought to consensus. Non-consensus theories about any given amniote lineages enrage John exponentially, even theories in science fiction stories. Posting a theory about virtually anything that has not already been proposed in a scientific paper is likely to invoke his wrath and encourage ongoing trolling and mild harrassment.
>
> This post has not been made to defame John Harshman, but to inform readers. He often presents himself as an authority in evolutionary subjects on various forums and blogs despite the advances in evolutionary biology over the past 21 years. It may be unwise to accept his knowledge of a topic without sufficient citation and explanation, both of which he rarely offers when attacking those he doesn't agree with. Often he is found to be highly erroneous in his assertions and assurances, seemingly in an attempt to mislead readers and to squander his adversaries' time.
>
> He is an avid member of a group of Skeptic bloggers, signifying that one of his main interests in life is making fun of people he doesn't think are very smart.
>
> However, there is no indication that he himself has much intelligence. his few papers on birds are rarely cited.
>
> He may be sitting on the dock of the bay at this moment, keeping prospective sexual partners at bay with the size of his binoculars.
>

ach well, another one for the kill file.

[J.LyonLayden]

On Monday, December 4, 2017 at 11:10:02 PM UTC-5, John Harshman wrote:

I hope you'll not bash me on the basis of your authority or my "lack of ability to comprehend" anymore. I am now deleting this post so it won't be on google searches.

[John Harshman]

Do you seriously think that makes up for posting that? Of course it only
reflects discredit on you, not me. And you can only delete it from
Google. It's on Usenet permanently.

[J.LyonLayden]

Make up for it? You talked shit about me on multiple threads, sometimes without my knowledge, because I'm a sci-fi writer with a story premise you didn't like. You insulted me based on your own authority alone multiple times. Why don't you expect like treatment in return?

[Martin Harran]

On Mon, 4 Dec 2017 20:08:11 -0800, John Harshman
<jhar...@pacbell.net> wrote:

>On 12/4/17 7:51 PM, J.LyonLayden wrote:
>> Here is a picture of John Harshaman. It is interesting that from
>> this picture you can discern both that he is an unhappy person, and
>> WHY he is an unhappy person. If this were a full body shot, we'd
>> likely see crocs and socks below the milk-white emaciated calves.
>> Nice hat and jacket John!
>
>Now you're just being an asshole for the sake of being an asshole.

Once again, John, I find myself in slight disagreement with you. I do
agree with you on the key point that he certainly is an asshole but I
don't think he's consciously being one - I reckon he's too much of an
asshole to even realise he is an asshole!

>
>> This post has not been made to defame John Harshman, but to inform readers.
>
>Now you're just lying. You really should be ashamed.

Unfortunately there is a strong negative correlation between needing
to be ashamed and knowing that you should be ashamed.

[jillery]

Pot v kettle. Having another proven liar and self-righteous asshole
come to his aid doesn't help Harshman.

--
I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.

Evelyn Beatrice Hall
Attributed to Voltaire

[erik simpson]

That was despicable. Your mouth outruns your brain by a mile.

[J.LyonLayden]

No I am definitely being an asshole. If you repeatedly insult someone on multiple threads and repeatedly make fun of their intelligence on the basis of your 21 year old degree alone, expect them to get angry and treat you in the same reprehensible manner.

[Mark Isaak]

Certainly you cannot reasonably deny that you deserve every insult that
has been given to you, and then some.

--
Mark Isaak eciton (at) curioustaxonomy (dot) net
"Ignorance, allied with power, is the most ferocious enemy justice can
have." - James Baldwin

[Ray Martinez]

What's said above equates to an admission that you're driven to misrepresent anyone you can't best intellectually. In a different thread you admitted that you looked for negative information about me on the internet. You're out for revenge that your intellect cannot obtain on your opponents.

Ray (Paleyan Creationist)

[J.LyonLayden]

If you submit your degree as proof that you are right repeatedly, the logical next step in deduction is to have a look at your degree and see what was taught in colleges when you obtained the degree.

You are not an authority on whether someone understands basic anatomy, John. If you claim that someone is a dumb-ass because they see morphological similarities between two taxa AND NAME THE SPECIFIC SIMILARITIES OF BONE STRUCTURE, explain exactly what mistakes you think they are making. Explain exactly what attributes you believe they have not noticed.

"I'm more educated then you" is not a citation or explanation of anything.

I don't think you should be given special treatment in a debate because you're a biologist. You need to provide proof of your assertions just like everyone else.

[J.LyonLayden]

I didn't look for negative info about you. i am curious about you and I googled your name. I don't remember ever saying anything mean to you Ray. I never made fun of you, I only asked you to explain your position on certain topics. I'm curious. Why is that so bad?

[J.LyonLayden]

No I don't. This post came weeks and weeks after Harshman began his campaigne against me, even bringing it here to talk.origins from sci.paleontology

I hadn't been on this forum for several years before I found my name being slandered by Harshman here. He is the whole reason I am back to talk.origins

If you think I should just shut up and take it and agree that Harshman is always right in every debate because of his omniscient degree alone, I don't know what to tell you.

[Ray Martinez]

You shouldn't have to google a persons name in order to reply to one of their messages. You're looking for any ad hominem angle to make up for what your intellect and knowledge cannot obtain. IF a person invokes their credentials or reputation in response to a debate point or claim the same is known as the invalid-argument-from-authority. All one has to do to counter is point that out. The ball is back in their court. WHEN claims of fact are under challenge no one can invoke their credentials as an answer neither can one invoke lack of credentials as an answer.

Ray

[J.LyonLayden]

What do you think of The Skeptical Zone, Ray? Did you know that John uses ideas from this forum to mine fringe theories for "Creationist defamation," just like you said about RationalWiki?

http://theskepticalzone.com/wp/author/john-harshman/


I have skeptical articles on my blog, mostly about the Ancient Aliens show. But it's less than 1% of my content. I think people who are dedicated to being skeptics about everything fringe in general are nearly as bad as Ancient Alien theorists themselves.

Sites like these repeatedly exaggerate other people's claims in an attempt to discredit them. They are often riddled with logical errors and untruths.

John employs dishonest tactics ubiquitous on sites like these. They will criticize your opinion in one field to discredit your ideas in another. They will push their degrees around and make fun of yours without explanation.

I asked you about eel migration and Atlantis as it was attributed to you on one of these sites. You claimed the skeptic site is only for defamation. I assume you feel they misrepresented you. I don't doubt it. That's what they do.


Why has John taken it upon himself to destroy Creationist arguments? what makes him so passionate about attacking Creationim?

I don't care about Creationist arguments myself. I have no anger against you, and I don't care if you keep believing what you believe. I am curious, and that is all.


I do not feel any need to try and tell the world that you are wrong, Ray. But obviously, John is on a mission to discredit people like you by any means possible.

[Bob Casanova]

On Mon, 4 Dec 2017 19:51:58 -0800 (PST), the following
appeared in talk.origins, posted by "J.LyonLayden"
<joseph...@gmail.com>:

>Here is a picture of John Harshaman. It is interesting that from this picture you can discern both that he is an unhappy person, and WHY he is an unhappy person.

Please take your self-serving, personal-attack psychobabble
elsewhere; we have enough proponents (1) here already.

Thanks.
--

Bob C.

"The most exciting phrase to hear in science,
the one that heralds new discoveries, is not
'Eureka!' but 'That's funny...'"

- Isaac Asimov

[Peter Nyikos]

On Monday, December 4, 2017 at 11:10:02 PM UTC-5, John Harshman wrote:

> On 12/4/17 7:51 PM, J.LyonLayden wrote:
> > Here is a picture of John Harshaman. It is interesting that from
> > this picture you can discern both that he is an unhappy person, and
> > WHY he is an unhappy person. If this were a full body shot, we'd
> > likely see crocs and socks below the milk-white emaciated calves.
> > Nice hat and jacket John!
>
> Now you're just being an asshole for the sake of being an asshole.

As are you from time to time. I'll be replying to an example by you
on the thread, Subject: Re: Prof. Christine Janis on Horse Evolution
later this week.

> > This post has not been made to defame John Harshman, but to inform readers.
>
> Now you're just lying.

Look up the word "defame". It does not mean what you seem to think it does.

> You really should be ashamed.

Unfortunately for you, Burkhard left the url in. I clicked on the public
LinkedIn one and it was nice to see a picture of you that wasn't the
size of a postage stamp on the webpage, the way your LinkedIn picture was
when I looked you up there about four years ago.

I see you have NOT changed the following information:

I'm a PhD evolutionary biologist looking for a position in research
and/or teaching.

I told you back then that I keep asking people who want to link with me
whether they ever got a position [or even any tangible benefit other than
having someone to converse with] from being on LinkedIn. And that I had
never gotten any positive replies from them. [That still holds true.]

I suggested gently that you try other ways of landing a job. You took that
with ill humor, to say the least.

By the way, why would you be looking for a research position? Isn't
"Research Associate" at the highly respected Field Museum a research
position.

Oh, and I also read this:

Specialties: Deep avian molecular phylogenetics

That makes you just as much an amateur at the things we discuss
(besides phylogeny of extant birds, which is very rare)
as I am. That applies to both talk.origins and sci.bio.paleontology.

And you quietly let sci.bio.systematics go to ruin because Giganews
didn't carry it, and you hate New Google Groups too much to utilize it
to keep that newsgroup afloat.

Peter Nyikos

[Peter Nyikos]

On Tuesday, December 5, 2017 at 12:30:04 PM UTC-5, Ray Martinez wrote:
> On Tuesday, December 5, 2017 at 8:45:03 AM UTC-8, J.LyonLayden wrote:
> > On Tuesday, December 5, 2017 at 11:40:02 AM UTC-5, Ray Martinez wrote:
> > > On Tuesday, December 5, 2017 at 8:20:03 AM UTC-8, J.LyonLayden wrote:
> > > > On Tuesday, December 5, 2017 at 2:25:04 AM UTC-5, Martin Harran wrote:
> > > > > On Mon, 4 Dec 2017 20:08:11 -0800, John Harshman
> > > > > <jhar...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > >On 12/4/17 7:51 PM, J.LyonLayden wrote:
> > > > > >> Here is a picture of John Harshaman. It is interesting that from
> > > > > >> this picture you can discern both that he is an unhappy person, and
> > > > > >> WHY he is an unhappy person. If this were a full body shot, we'd
> > > > > >> likely see crocs and socks below the milk-white emaciated calves.
> > > > > >> Nice hat and jacket John!
> > > > > >
> > > > > >Now you're just being an asshole for the sake of being an asshole.
> > > > >
> > > > > Once again, John, I find myself in slight disagreement with you. I do
> > > > > agree with you on the key point that he certainly is an asshole but I
> > > > > don't think he's consciously being one - I reckon he's too much of an
> > > > > asshole to even realise he is an asshole!
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >> This post has not been made to defame John Harshman, but to inform readers.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >Now you're just lying. You really should be ashamed.

That's the control freak side of Harshman in evidence. I took some
of the wind out of his sails in my own reply to him.

> > > > > Unfortunately there is a strong negative correlation between needing
> > > > > to be ashamed and knowing that you should be ashamed.

That's Martin Harran, whom you accused of being a traitor to Christianity
because he is not a creationist but believes in a creator of our universe.

You slandered him by implying he had embraced Naturalism, and proceeded
to treat him as though he had actually done that.

You routinely slander me in the same way. And when I point this out
to you, you just pile more slanders to "justify" it, then pile more
slanders on to justify these... it's all "turtles -- I mean, slanders --
all the way down for you, with no specific examples that hold water.

> > > > No I am definitely being an asshole. If you repeatedly insult someone on multiple threads and repeatedly make fun of their intelligence on the basis of your 21 year old degree alone, expect them to get angry and treat you in the same reprehensible manner.

> > >
> > > What's said above equates to an admission that you're driven to misrepresent anyone you can't best intellectually.

That's a completely illogical statement. You are, in effect,
saying that anyone who is the victim of insults and lets others know
about it is IPSO FACTO misrepresenting his attackers and is thereby
admitting that he cannot refute his attackers.

So where does that leave Dana Tweedy, whom you accused of slander
simply because he said insulting things about Rev. Gene Scott
which you never even tried to refute?

> In a different thread you admitted that you looked for negative information about me on the internet.

This is a bare faced lie, as Joe revealed below.

> > > You're out for revenge that your intellect cannot obtain on your opponents.
> > >

> > > Ray ([shill for militant atheists like Harshman])

There, I fixed up your never-proven description of yourself for Joe's
benefit.

> > I didn't look for negative info about you. i am curious about you and I googled your name. I don't remember ever saying anything mean to you Ray. I never made fun of you, I only asked you to explain your position on certain topics. I'm curious. Why is that so bad?

Admit it, Ray: the only reason you are mad at him because he was far nastier
to Harshman than you have ever been.

It matters not to you that he is not nearly as
nasty as you are to Christians like Dana Tweedy and Martin Harran,
and creationists like Steady Eddie, Kalkidas, ... you even provided
us with a list of such "traitors" including the last three named.
Care to repost that list for us?

>
> You shouldn't have to google a persons name in order to reply to one of their messages. You're looking for any ad hominem angle to make up for what your intellect and knowledge cannot obtain.

Too bad a googling is not likely to reveal what a pathological liar
you are, and how palsy-walsy you were to Harshman on at least one
thread where I was your common critic. It took all the chutzpah
Mark Isaak could muster to deflect people's attention from that
very revealing post.

He's paid the price, too: he is revealed as someone who thinks
that the most heinous form of female genital mutilation is not
as much cause for concern as the absence of the word "marriage"
from a license that grants all the other rights and privileges
of marriage to same sex couples.

> IF a person invokes their credentials or reputation in response to a debate point or claim the same is known as the invalid-argument-from-authority.

"invalid" is part of your warped outlook on life. The next time a
physician prescribes some medicine for you, and gives an argument
for why it is good for you, I expect you to show the same degree
of skepticism that you routinely show for innumerable arguments
against you. And if he resorts to saying that he is a physician
and was trained to know these things, I expect you to
accuse him/her of an invalid appeal to authority as grounds for
refusing to fill the prescription.

> All one has to do to counter is point that out.

You are so full of yourself, you actually think this is good advice
because you keep doing it yourself.

> The ball is back in their court. WHEN claims of fact are under challenge
> no one can invoke their credentials as an answer

Hypocrite. You keep doing it all the time.

You do it every time when, instead of trying to refuting this or that
statement, you label it false and then claim that one need look no
further than the "fact" [1] that the person in question has embraced
Naturalism.

You thereby (and often explicitly) invoke your credentials
as a non-Naturalist to clinch the case in your warped mind.

[1] This "fact" is an outright lie whenever you use this dodge on me.

> neither can one invoke lack of credentials as an answer.

"Do as I say, not as I do." Joe deserves to know what a
shameless hypocrite you are.

But Harshman will never tell him that. Neither will any of the REAL
naturalists on this thread. Even if you weren't on much better
terms with them than you are with me or the other Christians or other
creationists, they would love to keep you here because your irrational
behavior is a far better argument for the stupidity and
perversity of creationists than any they could come up with themselves.

Peter Nyikos

[Ray Martinez]

Let's assume what you're saying is more or less true. So what? Atheist-Evolutionists have always attempted to defame Creationists and Creationism----it's their job, their reason-for-being, their goal in life: to rid the world of their mortal enemy anyway they can. ALL IS FAIR in warfare. YOU just don't know HOW to handle these types when they go after you, I do.

WHEN a person insults your person or thought as a response to a legitimate argument then all you have to do to defeat their tactic is remind the debate that your opponent has not answered your points legitimately, but descended into personal attacks, which indicates inability to refute.

> http://theskepticalzone.com/wp/author/john-harshman/
>
>
> I have skeptical articles on my blog, mostly about the Ancient Aliens show. But it's less than 1% of my content. I think people who are dedicated to being skeptics about everything fringe in general are nearly as bad as Ancient Alien theorists themselves.
>
> Sites like these repeatedly exaggerate other people's claims in an attempt to discredit them. They are often riddled with logical errors and untruths.
>

Then take the time to make these points in response. When that occurs a record exists that can be found if one wants to find it. That's all you can do. But don't do as your opponents do especially if truth is on your side. When you're a victim of exaggeration, point it out WHILE reiterating your real position. Simply use each occasion to contrast your true position and the inability of your opponents to address and refute your true position.

> John employs dishonest tactics ubiquitous on sites like these. They will criticize your opinion in one field to discredit your ideas in another.
>

Then point that out as a response! And what you describe is not a dishonest tactic per se.

>
They will push their degrees around and make fun of yours without explanation.
>

I've had very many exchanges with John Harshman: He has never invoked his credentials as determining the validity of a claim, not even once. IF, and I say IF, he has done that to you elsewhere on the internet then it's probably a careless mistake. Then again, credentialed persons have the right to invoke their credentials as long as the invocation does not constitute the **sole criteria** for establishing the validity of their claim or claims.

> I asked you about eel migration and Atlantis as it was attributed to you on one of these sites. You claimed the skeptic site is only for defamation. I assume you feel they misrepresented you. I don't doubt it. That's what they do.
>

A lot of times yes.

>
> Why has John taken it upon himself to destroy Creationist arguments? what makes him so passionate about attacking Creationim?
>

Because he is an Atheist-Evolutionist. I'm out to destroy Atheism and evolution as well.

> I don't care about Creationist arguments myself. I have no anger against you, and I don't care if you keep believing what you believe. I am curious, and that is all.
>
>
> I do not feel any need to try and tell the world that you are wrong, Ray. But obviously, John is on a mission to discredit people like you by any means possible.
>

Yep, all is fair in worldview warfare.

Ray

[Bill]

J.LyonLayden wrote:

> Here is a picture of John Harshaman. It is interesting
> that from this picture you can discern both that he is an
> unhappy person, and WHY he is an unhappy person. If this
> were a full body shot, we'd likely see crocs and socks
> below the milk-white emaciated calves. Nice hat and jacket
> John!
>
>

> This post has not been made to defame John Harshman, but

> to inform readers. He often presents himself as an
> authority in evolutionary subjects on various forums and
> blogs despite the advances in evolutionary biology over
> the past 21 years. It may be unwise to accept his
> knowledge of a topic without sufficient citation and
> explanation, both of which he rarely offers when attacking
> those he doesn't agree with. Often he is found to be
> highly erroneous in his assertions and assurances,
> seemingly in an attempt to mislead readers and to squander
> his adversaries' time.
>
> He is an avid member of a group of Skeptic bloggers,
> signifying that one of his main interests in life is
> making fun of people he doesn't think are very smart.
>
> However, there is no indication that he himself has much
> intelligence. his few papers on birds are rarely cited.
>
> He may be sitting on the dock of the bay at this moment,
> keeping prospective sexual partners at bay with the size
> of his binoculars.

This is inappropriate even for this newsgroup. Not only are
you an idiot but you're a nasty idiot.

Bill

[J.LyonLayden]

If he continues to fuck with me in the same dishonest manner, I'll likely write a song about him and promote in on youtube.

[Ray Martinez]

Atheists and all Evolutionists attack their enemy, Creationism. They attack Creationism because Creationism says they are COMPLETELY DELUDED, unable to ascertain the predominant characteristic of the natural world: design. Don't forget: Science prior to 1859 accepted design. Darwin's Origin of Species is, for the most part, a re-explanation theory. Darwin re-explained evidence that had already been uncovered by Creationists. Because the Darwinian explanation of evidence is false, the Creationism explanation remains true. The concept of evolution does not exist in nature. Said concept presupposes a nature in constant slow motion. One must possess special eyes to see it. But not so with Creationism: design seen in each species, the same infers the work of an invisible Maker (Paley 1802).

> I don't care about Creationist arguments myself. I have no anger against you, and I don't care if you keep believing what you believe. I am curious, and that is all.
>

Fine.

>
> I do not feel any need to try and tell the world that you are wrong, Ray. But obviously, John is on a mission to discredit people like you by any means possible.
>

The Bible says the world is controlled by two beings, God and Satan. The latter has no conscience and uses slander as his chief means. Thus we are not surprised when this occurs.

Very many people from all walks of life see design in nature, not just Christians. Thomas Jefferson saw a designed nature ("Nature's God"). It's manifestly impossible for organized complexity to have evolved via an unintelligent material process while retaining the ability to function. Precisely why Atheists attempt to discredit their opponents: They seek to draw attention away from what they actually believe, which is illogical and thus impossible.

Ray

[J.LyonLayden]

Yes and this is amazing to me. It's as if they'd never seen a mud puppy.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_mudpuppy

I saw one when I was five. It didn't make me doubt God. It just made me doubt my Sunday school teacher and her inability to answer my questions with something that made sense.

The fact they didn't know about evolution until 1859 is my prime argument with Harshman. He believes religiously that current science is always 100% correct.

[Ray Martinez]

How many views do you think you'll get?

Ray

[J.LyonLayden]

I usually get around 5000, a lot more if it goes viral or if I send it to Relix magazine and they like it. But I was just kidding. I might start replying to him in video though, and just make fun of his close-minded opinions in song.

[Ray Martinez]

Contradiction: "not a creationist" followed by "but believes in a creator."

>
> You slandered him by implying he had embraced Naturalism, and proceeded
> to treat him as though he had actually done that.

Martin accepts evolution, which means the underlying philosophy-slash-epistemology of Naturalism comes with it. If not, then he accepts "evolution." But Martin maintains that he accepts real evolution. In this context I simply point out that no one can say Christ has led any person to accept an explanation of evidence (evolution) based on assumptions that say the Father of Christ did not design or create any living thing in the entire history of life on earth (= Naturalism).

>
> You routinely slander me in the same way. And when I point this out
> to you, you just pile more slanders to "justify" it, then pile more
> slanders on to justify these... it's all "turtles -- I mean, slanders --
> all the way down for you, with no specific examples that hold water.

It's not slander to say acceptance of evolution equates to acceptance of Naturalism because evolution does in fact assume Naturalism true: All biological production originates and proceeds from material nature itself, not immaterial Creator.

>
> > > > > No I am definitely being an asshole. If you repeatedly insult someone on multiple threads and repeatedly make fun of their intelligence on the basis of your 21 year old degree alone, expect them to get angry and treat you in the same reprehensible manner.
>
> > > >
> > > > What's said above equates to an admission that you're driven to misrepresent anyone you can't best intellectually.
>
> That's a completely illogical statement. You are, in effect,
> saying that anyone who is the victim of insults and lets others know
> about it is IPSO FACTO misrepresenting his attackers and is thereby
> admitting that he cannot refute his attackers.

I was saying or trying to say that Lyon should not do the same in response.

>
> So where does that leave Dana Tweedy, whom you accused of slander
> simply because he said insulting things about Rev. Gene Scott
> which you never even tried to refute?

Your comments say these insults do not constitute slander, which is illogical and ridiculous.

Why would any intelligent person address slander? That's what the slander artist wants----attention. To address is to legitimize and create the impression that the slander MIGHT be true, or COULD be true. You've never understood why slander should not be addressed.

>
>
> > In a different thread you admitted that you looked for negative information about me on the internet.
> >
> This is a bare faced lie, as Joe revealed below.

Here is the link where Lyon admitted that he was googling my name:

https://groups.google.com/d/msg/talk.origins/gtEO2WisdDg/o2s9fntHBwAJ

You owe me an apology.

>
>
> > > > You're out for revenge that your intellect cannot obtain on your opponents.
> > > >
> > > > Ray ([shill for militant atheists like Harshman])
>
> There, I fixed up your never-proven description of yourself for Joe's
> benefit.

Note the conspicuous fact that Peter was unable to produce a link and quote in support of his ludicrous claim.

Ray

[will finish replying ASAP.]

[J.LyonLayden]

No he doesn't. You claimed I looked for NEGATIVE information. I did not. I googled your name. There is a difference. Now you owe ME an apology by the same criteria.

[Ray Martinez]

Because you're an opponent I assumed you were looking for negative information. You alluded to such information found on a pro-evolution site. But the real and only reason I won't issue you an apology is because you're attempting to coerce or even extort one. This entire topic announces that if anyone crosses certain lines that you've drawn then you're going to get revenge on them any way possible including creating YouTube's.

You don't deserve any apologies. You haven't been wronged. This is Usenet. We wouldn't know one another if we bumped on the street. I cannot be intimidated into treating you a certain way. Because I sense an implied threat I won't be apologizing for anything.

Ray (Paleyan Creationist)

[J.LyonLayden]

On Tuesday, December 5, 2017 at 8:30:02 PM UTC-5, Ray Martinez wrote:
> Because you're an opponent I assumed you were looking for negative information. You alluded to such information found on a pro-evolution site. But the real and only reason I won't issue you an apology is because you're attempting to coerce or even extort one. This entire topic announces that if anyone crosses certain lines that you've drawn then you're going to get revenge on them any way possible including creating YouTube's.
>

> You don't deserve any apologies. You havent been wronged. This is Usenet. We wouldnt know one another if we bumped on the street. I cannot be intimidated into treating you a certain way. Because I sense an implied threat I won't be apologizing for anything.
>
> Ray (Paleyan Creationist)

Ok no problem. Continue defending the atheist skeptic if you'd like.

[Ray Martinez]

You're not an Atheist?

Ray

[J.LyonLayden]

No.

[J.LyonLayden]

No I am not an atheist. And if I were I wouldn't admit it because there would be no consequence for lying and I'd be better off. Statistics have shown atheists do worse in their careers and marriages. The majority of scientists are non-atheists. Only about 3% of the US admit to being atheists. They are very rare.

We negatively selected against them long ago during the agricultural revolution but a few keep cropping back up every generation. They are extremely vocal on the internet, creating a false illusion that a majority of scholars feel as they do.

Skeptic sites like Harshman's are their main form of spreading propaganda.

[RonO]

On 12/4/2017 9:51 PM, J.LyonLayden wrote:
> Here is a picture of John Harshaman. It is interesting that from this picture you can discern both that he is an unhappy person, and WHY he is an unhappy person. If this were a full body shot, we'd likely see crocs and socks below the milk-white emaciated calves. Nice hat and jacket John!
>

> https://media.licdn.com/mpr/mpr/shrinknp_200_200/p/1/000/0c6/242/1326a3a.jpg
>
> https://www.linkedin.com/in/john-harshman-22a47335/
>
> According to his profile (12/14/17) he completed his biology education in 1996, when college textbooks still said neanderthals had never bred with homo sapiens. At the time, scientists argued over whether pangolins were part of Xenartha or Cimolesta, a group that includes non-placental mammals (as preposterous as this may sound). No one had any idea pangolins were closely related to carnivores back then because DNA research was so primitive. This may explain why Mr. Harshman thinks "assimilation" is something from Star Trek.
>
> His outdated education may or may not have anything to do with his current unemployed state as a biologist. According to Academia.edu he currently works as a tutor and is "looking for a position in research and/or teaching." He did find employment from 1998 to 2012 as a youth instructor at the Youth Science Institute.
>
> Only two members of Academia.edu endorse him for Phylogenetics and Molecular Biology, and they are both former fellow workmates at the Youth Science Institute.
>
> There is no evidence that he has ever had an original thought, instead choosing to exclusively defend theories previously brought to consensus. Non-consensus theories about any given amniote lineages enrage John exponentially, even theories in science fiction stories. Posting a theory about virtually anything that has not already been proposed in a scientific paper is likely to invoke his wrath and encourage ongoing trolling and mild harrassment.
>
> This post has not been made to defame John Harshman, but to inform readers. He often presents himself as an authority in evolutionary subjects on various forums and blogs despite the advances in evolutionary biology over the past 21 years. It may be unwise to accept his knowledge of a topic without sufficient citation and explanation, both of which he rarely offers when attacking those he doesn't agree with. Often he is found to be highly erroneous in his assertions and assurances, seemingly in an attempt to mislead readers and to squander his adversaries' time.
>
> He is an avid member of a group of Skeptic bloggers, signifying that one of his main interests in life is making fun of people he doesn't think are very smart.
>
> However, there is no indication that he himself has much intelligence. his few papers on birds are rarely cited.
>
> He may be sitting on the dock of the bay at this moment, keeping prospective sexual partners at bay with the size of his binoculars.
>

Did Nyikos change his account?

Ron Okimoto

[J.LyonLayden]

You didn't want to answer my question about proteins did you Ron—guess I won't bother asking again.

[Ray Martinez]

I argue Paley 1802 all the time. Note the word all and what it means?

>
> > > I didn't look for negative info about you. i am curious about you and I googled your name. I don't remember ever saying anything mean to you Ray. I never made fun of you, I only asked you to explain your position on certain topics. I'm curious. Why is that so bad?
>
> Admit it, Ray: the only reason you are mad at him because he was far nastier
> to Harshman than you have ever been.
>

I don't engage in nasty replies. I'm only interested in topic, promoting and defending my views.

> It matters not to you that he is not nearly as
> nasty as you are to Christians like Dana Tweedy and Martin Harran,
> and creationists like Steady Eddie, Kalkidas, ... you even provided
> us with a list of such "traitors" including the last three named.
> Care to repost that list for us?

How would you describe a person who claims to be a follower of Christ, and accepts the main claim of Naturalism (natural selection)? Are you saying or suggesting that Christ approves and led a person to accept an explanatory philosophy that assumes the non-existence of His Father in the natural world? Stop hiding in the horse evolution thread and deal with these festering issues squarely for once.

How many times have you seen Kalkidas rail against the falsity of evolution and the evil of Naturalism while accepting natural selection and microevolution! The contradiction seen here is earth shattering! Yet Kalky refuses to address. I own him. Kalkidas of course represents very many people including Dembski, and Ham, and their collective followers. All claim Christianity and all accept the main cause-and-effect claim of Naturalism. What better evidence could one want for the existence of an invisible Deceiver?!?!

>
> >
> > You shouldn't have to google a persons name in order to reply to one of their messages. You're looking for any ad hominem angle to make up for what your intellect and knowledge cannot obtain.
>
> Too bad a googling is not likely to reveal what a pathological liar
> you are, and how palsy-walsy you were to Harshman on at least one
> thread where I was your common critic. It took all the chutzpah
> Mark Isaak could muster to deflect people's attention from that
> very revealing post.

JH and I are mortal worldview enemies. Several times if not many times I've said JH doesn't know what a noun is. He once told me the word cat is not a cat. He has evaded every reply where I crucified him without mercy.
You're in John's boat here, Peter. Your thinking is non-reality based too.

>
> He's paid the price, too: he is revealed as someone who thinks
> that the most heinous form of female genital mutilation is not
> as much cause for concern as the absence of the word "marriage"
> from a license that grants all the other rights and privileges
> of marriage to same sex couples.

Mark is a hateful Atheist. I'm against homo-marriage. I say let them have the word marriage and let normal people adopt union, anything to separate us from them.

>
>
> > IF a person invokes their credentials or reputation in response to a debate point or claim the same is known as the invalid-argument-from-authority.
>
> "invalid" is part of your warped outlook on life.

Nope, it's a valid fallacy, look it up.

> The next time a
> physician prescribes some medicine for you, and gives an argument
> for why it is good for you, I expect you to show the same degree
> of skepticism that you routinely show for innumerable arguments
> against you. And if he resorts to saying that he is a physician
> and was trained to know these things, I expect you to
> accuse him/her of an invalid appeal to authority as grounds for
> refusing to fill the prescription.
>
> > All one has to do to counter is point that out.
>
> You are so full of yourself, you actually think this is good advice
> because you keep doing it yourself.

What's wrong with pointing out that one's opponent didn't engage argument but ad hominem?

>
>
> > The ball is back in their court. WHEN claims of fact are under challenge
> > no one can invoke their credentials as an answer
>
> Hypocrite. You keep doing it all the time.
>
> You do it every time when, instead of trying to refuting this or that
> statement, you label it false and then claim that one need look no
> further than the "fact" [1] that the person in question has embraced
> Naturalism.

Pointing out bias isn't invoking credentials. Naturalism isn't a credential, but a bias. SHEESH!

>
> You thereby (and often explicitly) invoke your credentials
> as a non-Naturalist to clinch the case in your warped mind.

That's my bias, not a credential.

>
> [1] This "fact" is an outright lie whenever you use this dodge on me.
>
>
> > neither can one invoke lack of credentials as an answer.
>
> "Do as I say, not as I do." Joe deserves to know what a
> shameless hypocrite you are.

You've made a bad mistake, misconstruing bias as a credential.

>
> But Harshman will never tell him that. Neither will any of the REAL
> naturalists on this thread. Even if you weren't on much better
> terms with them than you are with me or the other Christians or other
> creationists, they would love to keep you here because your irrational
> behavior is a far better argument for the stupidity and
> perversity of creationists than any they could come up with themselves.
>
> Peter Nyikos

A parting shot intended to make the author feel good about himself.

Ray (Paleyan Creationist)

[Mark Isaak]

I don't read sci.paleo, so I don't know what transpired there. But from
a week of reading your posts here, I can tell that you know far less
about what you talk about than you think you do, and that you don't
react well when someone corrects you. I don't suggest you "shut up and
take it", but you would be well advised to look long and hard at how you
have contributed to the problem.

[J.LyonLayden]

Thank you strange person who I don't know from Adam. I always follow the advice of strangers and hold their opinions in high esteem, because people who walk up out of the blue are always geniuses. I better change my evil ways for sure, your vagueries leave me abashed.

[J.LyonLayden]

On Tuesday, December 5, 2017 at 11:15:02 PM UTC-5, Ray Martinez wrote:

> How would you describe a person who claims to be a follower of Christ, and >accepts the main claim of Naturalism (natural selection)?

A normal Christian, like C.S Lewis and the majority of people who are members of Christian churches.

I know one or two preachers who still believe as you do, Ray. Most of their congregations accept the theory of evolution, however. And the preachers don't condemn them for it.

I used to have an uncle who believed like you as well. He didn't condemn me for my own beleifs though, and he didn't call other Christians "atheists" like you do.

You have never explained to us why you think God cannot have Created life through the process of evolution. We don't understand why you think he has to have created each species by hand. The few explanations I've seen you offer don't make a whole lot of sense to me.

Why would God have to come down and interfere with material hands after he'd already said "Let there be light?"

Is He not all-powerful?

[Peter Nyikos]

On Wednesday, December 6, 2017 at 12:20:03 AM UTC-5, J.LyonLayden wrote:
> On Tuesday, December 5, 2017 at 11:15:02 PM UTC-5, Ray Martinez wrote:
>
> > How would you describe a person who claims to be a follower of Christ, and >accepts the main claim of Naturalism (natural selection)?
>
> A normal Christian, like C.S Lewis and the majority of people who are members of Christian churches.

There are many things you should know about Martinez. He is a much more
complicated person than Alan Kleinman, whose behavior I was able to outline
reasonably well in one post. One thing I left our was that Kleinman is
as slippery as an eel; but Ray Martinez far outdoes him in slipperyness.

This is manifested in the way he uses a private vocabulary. There have been
whole webpages devoted just to his nonstandard use of words and
phrases. This usage is private and is only revealed when he makes
ridiculous-sounding statements or is trying to eat his cake and have
it too.

He would never tell you in advance that by "natural selection" he means
"selection of biological organisms on earth proceeding with zero divine input."

But that's nothing compared to "The main claim of Naturalism." Here
he is trying to eat his cake and have it too. If you tell him,

Wait! the main claim of Naturalism is that our universe and
everything in it exists without any divine input whatsoever.

...he will blandly inform you that the context makes it clear that
he is only talking about biological creation vs. evolution.

But if you do not correct him, he will go on to label everyone who
has accepted natural selection as having abandoned God by embracing
"the main claim of Naturalism." And, hey, once you've embraced THAT,
understood in the USUAL meaning of naturalism,
you have certainly abandoned the God of Christianity, Judaism,
Islam, and innumerable tribal religions [1] as well as the gods
of Hinduism [especially Brahma, Vishnu, and Shiva] and of some
versions of Mahayana Buddhism.

[1] Think of the Manitou, a.k.a. "The Great Spirit" of native Americans,
for instance).

> I know one or two preachers who still believe as you do, Ray. Most of their congregations accept the theory of evolution, however. And the preachers don't condemn them for it.
>
> I used to have an uncle who believed like you as well. He didn't condemn me for my own beleifs though, and he didn't call other Christians "atheists" like you do.
>
> You have never explained to us why you think God cannot have Created life through the process of evolution. We don't understand why you think he has to have created each species by hand. The few explanations I've seen you offer don't make a whole lot of sense to me.

He repeatedly ducks the question of whether horses and donkeys are
supposed to be the same Biblical kind (Hebrew: *min*). Yet his extreme
form of species immutabilism is SUPPOSEDLY Biblically based.

Since he cannot argue rationally for this belief of his, he compensates
by making ad hominem attacks. Yet you saw how hypocritical he is: since
you complained about HARSHMAN having made ad hominem attacks on you,
he has taken this to be an implicit admission that you are misrepresenting
Harshman -- and then he even put frosting on the cake by including the
"fact" that you can't defeat him in argument in your "admission."

I have, from time to time, suspected that Ray is a closet atheist.
With this flagrant violation of the rules of logic, in order to
denigrate you and implicitly praise the militant atheist Harshman,
he's revived these old suspicions.

> Why would God have to come down and interfere with material hands after he'd already said "Let there be light?"
>
> Is He not all-powerful?

So the medieval Christians would argue. But there is surprisingly
little Biblical warrant for God being omnipotent. At best, it
shows God to be in control of what goes on in the universe. But
the God of the Bible DID intervene in human history, several
times, changing the course of human events drastically.

Why assume God did not intervene, from time to time, in biological
evolution? It took an agnostic, Loren Eiseley, to make me see
the beauty of rejecting this assumption:

``Perhaps there also, among rotting fish heads and blue,
night-burning bog lights, moved the eternal mystery,
the careful finger of God. The increase was not much.
It was two bubbles, two thin-walled little balloons at the
end of the Snout's small brain. The cerebral hemispheres
had appeared.''
--Loren Eiseley_The Immense Journey_

Peter Nyikos
Professor, Dept. of Mathematics -- standard disclaimer--
University of South Carolina

[Peter Nyikos]

On Tuesday, December 5, 2017 at 7:10:04 PM UTC-5, Ray Martinez wrote:
> On Tuesday, December 5, 2017 at 1:00:02 PM UTC-8, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> > On Tuesday, December 5, 2017 at 12:30:04 PM UTC-5, Ray Martinez wrote:
> > > On Tuesday, December 5, 2017 at 8:45:03 AM UTC-8, J.LyonLayden wrote:
> > > > On Tuesday, December 5, 2017 at 11:40:02 AM UTC-5, Ray Martinez wrote:
> > > > > On Tuesday, December 5, 2017 at 8:20:03 AM UTC-8, J.LyonLayden wrote:
> > > > > > On Tuesday, December 5, 2017 at 2:25:04 AM UTC-5, Martin Harran wrote:
> > > > > > > On Mon, 4 Dec 2017 20:08:11 -0800, John Harshman
> > > > > > > <jhar...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >On 12/4/17 7:51 PM, J.LyonLayden wrote:

> > > > > > > >> This post has not been made to defame John Harshman, but to inform readers.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >Now you're just lying. You really should be ashamed.
> >
> > That's the control freak side of Harshman in evidence. I took some
> > of the wind out of his sails in my own reply to him.
> >
> > > > > > > Unfortunately there is a strong negative correlation between needing
> > > > > > > to be ashamed and knowing that you should be ashamed.
> >
> > That's Martin Harran, whom you accused of being a traitor to Christianity
> > because he is not a creationist but believes in a creator of our universe.
>
> Contradiction: "not a creationist" followed by "but believes in a creator."

There is no contradiction. The context is what you call The Main Claim
of Naturalism, natural selection. It's a strictly biological concept
confined to earth, which is only about one third as old as the universe.
One can thus embrace natural selection and still maintain that God created
the universe.

You may have been exposed to intense derision of the deistic idea that
"God would up the universe like a clock and threw it into space."
You may have been so impressed by the derision that you
threw the whole idea which Martin Harran embraces into the ash
heap, never to be thought actively again even when it is spoon-fed you.

After all, you are someone who thinks in terms of winning or losing debates
according to arcane rules rather than in terms of reasoning. If you
can make your opponent a laughingstock {Martin being a case in
point] you have won the debate EVEN if you claim contradictions
where none exist.

> >
> > You slandered him by implying he had embraced Naturalism, and proceeded
> > to treat him as though he had actually done that.
>
> Martin accepts evolution, which means

...the common descent of large groups of animals, e.g. all mammals.

With the following claim, you are confusing this theory, which says NOTHING
about how it happened, with Darwinism, which makes claims about HOW
it happened:

> the underlying philosophy-slash-epistemology of Naturalism comes with it.

Liar.

Even if one claims that God never intervened on earth until
the advent of humankind, one can explicitly REJECT Naturalism
by embracing a belief in the Incarnation. And a Jew or Muslim
can explicitly reject it by saying that Hashem [1], respectively
Allah, created the universe.

[1] The name of God spoken of in everyday Jewish conversation.
Other names are confined to special events like prayer, where
Hashem is called Adonai. When reading aloud from the Bible they will say
"Adonai" where the printed text hss YHWH which they are forbidden
to pronounce the way it is written.

> If not, then he accepts "evolution."

Yeah, I know your sneaky habit of only rarely using scare quotes [2]
while saying all kinds of bombastic things without them.

But they won't save you from being a liar, because "evolution"
[in scare quotes] implies SOME intervention by God in evolution
[note the lack of scare quotes] and I took care of that where
Martin Harran is concerned.

[2] You once made the laughably ignorant claim that no one knows
what scare quotes are. The self-assuredness with which you made this
claim makes me wonder whether you had momentarily become a solipsist
when you wrote that.

> But Martin maintains that he accepts real evolution.

Like I said, this fact does not save you from having lied up there
about people like Martin having embraced "the underlying
philosophy-slash-epistemology of Naturalism."

By the way, those were NOT scare quotes that I used just now. They
were my indicating that I was quoting you directly.

> In this context I simply point out that no one can say Christ has led any person to accept an explanation of evidence (evolution) based on assumptions that say the Father of Christ did not design or create any living thing in the entire history of life on earth (= Naturalism).

That is NOT Naturalism, liar. That is what your private vocabulary
labels Naturalism so you can eat your cake and have it too: say
without lying that Martin has embraced Naturalism and then falsely
claim that it is a contradiction to say that Martin has done this
and still believes that God created the universe.


I warned Joe LyonLayden that you were even more slippery than an eel,
and this was one of the examples I warned him about, without naming
Martin.


The rest of our clash had to do with me rather than Martin, so
I'll reply to it separately when I have more time to spare.

You've already taken up too much of my time. If Joe weren't involved
in this thread, I would have postponed this reply until next week.
But Joe deserves to know what a habitual perpetrator of injustice you
are, in a timely fashion.

Peter Nyikos
Professor, Dept. of Mathematics -- standard disclaimer--
University of South Carolina

http://www.math.sc.edu/~nyikos/

[Peter Nyikos]

On Tuesday, December 5, 2017 at 6:45:05 AM UTC-5, jillery wrote:

> On Tue, 05 Dec 2017 07:21:57 +0000, Martin Harran
> <martin...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >On Mon, 4 Dec 2017 20:08:11 -0800, John Harshman
> ><jhar...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> >
> >>On 12/4/17 7:51 PM, J.LyonLayden wrote:

> >>> Here is a picture of John Harshaman. It is interesting that from
> >>> this picture you can discern both that he is an unhappy person, and
> >>> WHY he is an unhappy person. If this were a full body shot, we'd
> >>> likely see crocs and socks below the milk-white emaciated calves.
> >>> Nice hat and jacket John!
> >>
> >>Now you're just being an asshole for the sake of being an asshole.
> >

> >Once again, John, I find myself in slight disagreement with you. I do
> >agree with you on the key point that he certainly is an asshole but I
> >don't think he's consciously being one - I reckon he's too much of an
> >asshole to even realise he is an asshole!
> >
> >>

> >>> This post has not been made to defame John Harshman, but to inform readers.
> >>
> >>Now you're just lying. You really should be ashamed.
> >

> >Unfortunately there is a strong negative correlation between needing
> >to be ashamed and knowing that you should be ashamed.
>
>

> Pot v kettle. Having another proven liar and self-righteous asshole
> come to his aid doesn't help Harshman.

There is quite a lot packed into that one sentence. One seems to be
the claim that Joe is a proven liar. But Harshman has not been able
to prove his claim that Joe was lying, and has even run away from the
post where I told him,

Look up the word "defame". It does not mean
what you seem to think it does.

In fact, no one has replied to the post where I wrote this. So can YOU
give us a proof that Joe is a proven liar?


Another claim that you seem to be making (with "another") is that
Martin Harran is a proven liar. But there is only one thing I've seen
Martin utter that could be construed as a lie. Whether it is one,
depends on how broadly one interprets the word "lie".

This thing has to do with you having rearranged the text in a reply
by you to a post of Martin's to make him look like he was responding
to something utterly different than what he was responding to.
You made it look like he was admitting to being in a different
universe than the highly honorable one that you had described to him.


The "lie" might have consisted in him having claimed that you
had made the rearrangement in a SPECIFIC way. He actually
told me about it, and I remember how he was quite specific about
WHICH text had been cut out and repasted elsewhere.

And since he had no way of knowing whether you HAD made
the rearrangement in the way he described, this could
have been a lie according to some definitions.

Namely, Martin was claiming something had happened which could easily
have happened differently, without having the foggiest idea which of
the alternative possibilities actually happened.

Is this your proof that Martin is a proven liar?

Peter Nyikos

[J.LyonLayden]

There was a moment I suspected the same. His surprise at the fact that I am not an atheist makes me think otherwise. I think Ray has been fightinghis fight so long on these forums he feels beset on all sides and obligated to continue defending his original position.


From what you've said he may no longer believe the things he defends himself. Thank you for the warning; I will no longer ponder his reasons for condemning other Christians.

My fear is that he will lead people away from religion with his combativeness and unwillingness to consider scientific findings.

>
> > Why would God have to come down and interfere with material hands after he'd already said "Let there be light?"
> >
> > Is He not all-powerful?
>
> So the medieval Christians would argue. But there is surprisingly
> little Biblical warrant for God being omnipotent. At best, it
> shows God to be in control of what goes on in the universe. But

I was assuming an original denomination like Baptist or Methodist for Ray, but it was only an assumption.

> the God of the Bible DID intervene in human history, several
> times, changing the course of human events drastically.

Interestingly, I feel the mainstream model of evolution as it stands today somewhat implies this, with it's magically sprouting horns and multiple cases of convergent evolution, inconsistencies in trees, or even its need to explain the sudden diversity of mammals with the extinction of the dinosaurs.

Unfortunately, I don't think the unexplained parts of their model will ultimately reveal the hand of God, as your quote below agrees. The universe should only be a part of God. The explanations for most or all "mysteries" and "missing links" can eventually be explained by natural laws.

This is not to say God did not spiritually intervene in the lives of shepherds and shouldn't have anything to do with the concept of "creation."

[Peter Nyikos]

On Tuesday, December 5, 2017 at 10:35:02 PM UTC-5, Ron O wrote:

You'd love it if I were as careless in what I write as Joe is,
wouln't you?

Unfortunately for you, I know John Harshman's strengths and weaknesses
far more than Joe does, perhaps even more that John himself knows.
So I can exploit them with laser-like accuracy. Here is a recent
example that refers to John's cowardly behavior on the thread
where you made a fool out of yourself right in the Subject line itself:

Feathered dino for Kleinman

Instead of providing us with an example, you gave us *Sinosauropteryx*
and ignorantly and VERY aggressively claimed that the hair-like structures
on its body were "feathers".

I informed people that Harshman "optimistically" calls them "protofeathers"
but that is as far as he was willing to go.

I repeatedly showed Harshman where I had said this, and he was between
a rock and a hard place and he never dared comment on whether HE would
call them feathers. I then took advantage of that on another thread:

____________________excerpt, names in brackets_________________________

[myself, addressing Harshman:]
In what you wrote next, I can't tell whether "turned into" refers to
the second quesion, or to structures in ancestors that evolved into horns.
I'll assume the latter in my response.

[Harshman, in post to which I am replying:]
> Whether osteoderms turned into horns in
> ruminants? It's a silly theory, and nobody is an expert on it.

[myself, in reply:]
Huh? one could easily check whether any ruminants HAVE osteoderms,
just as there is a burgeoning cottage industry in checking whether this or
that dinosaur has precursors of feathers -- protofeathers in the strict
sense of the word.

[myself, two posts back, referring to Christine Janis:]
> > Do you have the guts to ask her in e-mail whether there REALLY
> > is no evidence that osteoderms are primordia of horns? Better yet,
> > whether there is evidence that they are NOT the primordia?

[beginning of Harshman's reply:]
> Why would that take guts?

Your rebuff below suggests cowardice on your part. You already are in
the dog house for your cowardice in the face of the issue of
whether those hairlike structures were protofeathers on
Sinosauropteryx.

And that only involved the danger of a volatile pipsqueak
like Ron Okimoto being miffed at you if you gave the "wrong"
answer -- even a "well, I believe feathers evolved directly from
structures anatomically like those on Sinosauropteryx, but
I cannot be sure."

After all, he aggressively came flat out and called them feathers.


You wouldn't be afraid of ruffling the feathers [figure of speech]
of the redoubtable paleontologist Christine Janis, would you?
The following might create suspicions in an independent thinker:

> Christine is free to post here if she feels
> the need, with no prodding from me.

This farcical reply is reminiscent of the attitude
of "nanny state" liberals, who by and large treat people as though
they were immovable objects, impervious to persuasion,
let alone friendly nonassertive suggestions.

==================== end of excerpt=============

This was on the thread Subject: Prof. Christine Janis on Horse Evolution

Last I looked, Harshman was in the state of what you derisively
call "running away" from the post where I wrote the above. But it
did have the desired effect, one way or the other: Christine
returned to the thread almost immediately (after a three-day absence)
and posted some things that answered my question, more or less.

Peter Nyikos
Professor, Dept. of Mathematics -- standard disclaimer--
University of South Carolina

http://people.math.sc.edu/nyikos/

[Ray Martinez]

On Wednesday, December 6, 2017 at 2:10:03 PM UTC-8, Ray Martinez wrote:

By omitting creation of earth and specifying universe created, Peter thinks he has alleviated the contradiction, not so. If the universe is created, and that's what Peter said, and the same has been the undisputed claim of Creationism, then it follows that the earth must be created as well or at the very least designed. Top-down metaphysics requires teleology all the way down. If a non-teleological concept exists somewhere in the vertical chain, regardless of a gap, then the contradiction has not been alleviated. Rather, created causes that were thought to exist above in the vertical chain, suffer falsification. The non-designed cannot be used to infer a created cause. There's no shortage of scholars that say Darwin answered and refuted Paley's argument from design. Exactly why science ever since has completely rejected a teleological First Cause, accepting abiogenesis.

Therefore the non-teleological, natural selection, and a higher up teleological cause, contradict, and are thus mutually exclusive.

Ray

[J.LyonLayden]

Most Christians who accept the theory of evolution don't even know what abiogenesis means because they aren't scientists. If you explained abiogenesis to them they'd likely think "Yeah just what I thought—Creation!"

To most people, "evolution" means that extant animals descended from a one-celled organism.

[jillery]

IMO John Harshman identified just fine where J.LyonLayden lied.
Posting irrelevant personal information about Harshman can't
reasonably be considered "to inform readers". Apparently your mileage
varies.

>Another claim that you seem to be making (with "another") is that
>Martin Harran is a proven liar. But there is only one thing I've seen
>Martin utter that could be construed as a lie. Whether it is one,
>depends on how broadly one interprets the word "lie".
>
>This thing has to do with you having rearranged the text in a reply
>by you to a post of Martin's to make him look like he was responding
>to something utterly different than what he was responding to.
>You made it look like he was admitting to being in a different
>universe than the highly honorable one that you had described to him.
>
>
>The "lie" might have consisted in him having claimed that you
>had made the rearrangement in a SPECIFIC way. He actually
>told me about it, and I remember how he was quite specific about
>WHICH text had been cut out and repasted elsewhere.
>
>And since he had no way of knowing whether you HAD made
>the rearrangement in the way he described, this could
>have been a lie according to some definitions.
>
>Namely, Martin was claiming something had happened which could easily
>have happened differently, without having the foggiest idea which of
>the alternative possibilities actually happened.
>
>Is this your proof that Martin is a proven liar?

Since you asked, no. But thanks for pointing out yet another
instance. Instead I refer to something more recent:

<ob39rc9gifhp94qn7...@4ax.com>

This was posted only last August, and you even replied to the thread,
so not sure how you conveniently forgot about it.

And don't bother to whine about you not being able to search on Usenet
Message-IDs. If you don't know how, that's your problem. If you use
crap software, that's your problem. If you're too lazy/stupid to
solve your problem, that's your problem. If you spent less time
posting your repetitive irrelevant spew from your puckered sphincter,
you would have more time solving your problem. So don't blame me for
your problem.

--
I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.

Evelyn Beatrice Hall
Attributed to Voltaire

[J.LyonLayden]

Making fun of someone's clothing or legs doesn't defame them, nor does pointing out that binoculars do not attract mates. You cannot defame someone's attractiveness. Especially when John has not attempted to establish his reputation for sexual prowess in present company, to the best of my knowledge.

My insults themselves will not harm his reputation with the ladies in any way, nor any other kind of reputation he may have. Neither will they harm his reputation on this forum, and doing so was not my intent. I just felt like being mean to him, as far as the insults go.

Pointing out someone's work history when they use it as an argument in of itself is relevant to discussions on this forum.

I would never want to hurt John's job or job-search, however. Nor his professional reputation. But the same information is on his social media profiles.

[Peter Nyikos]

Your head-in-the-sand "opinion" is duly noted.

The scare quotes are there because it is difficult to believe
that you, too, are as ignorant of the meaning of "defame" as
John seemed to be, and that you actually hold the opinion in the teeth of
Harsman's utter failure to prove libel on J.LyonLayden's part.

Just WHICH statement of Jonathan's do you consider to be deliberate
libel, as opposed to "informal" language that Casanova continues
to claim is typical of talk.origins?


> Posting irrelevant personal information

How typical of you to label my highly relevant witticism as
"irrelevant personal information."

I now make a similar "personal" comment about you: you either
are ignorant of what "defame" means or you are completely
ignoring just how relevant it is to the issue of whether
Joe lied.

> about Harshman can't
> reasonably be considered "to inform readers". Apparently your mileage
> varies.

My mileage obviously varies from that of the dummy-analogue that goes
under the byline "jillery". The mileage of the ventriloquist-analogue
who types the words that appear under the "jillery" byline is a
riddle wrapped in a mystery wrapped in an enigma.

>
> >Another claim that you seem to be making (with "another") is that
> >Martin Harran is a proven liar. But there is only one thing I've seen
> >Martin utter that could be construed as a lie. Whether it is one,
> >depends on how broadly one interprets the word "lie".
> >
> >This thing has to do with you having rearranged the text in a reply
> >by you to a post of Martin's to make him look like he was responding
> >to something utterly different than what he was responding to.
> >You made it look like he was admitting to being in a different
> >universe than the highly honorable one that you had described to him.
> >
> >
> >The "lie" might have consisted in him having claimed that you
> >had made the rearrangement in a SPECIFIC way. He actually
> >told me about it, and I remember how he was quite specific about
> >WHICH text had been cut out and repasted elsewhere.
> >
> >And since he had no way of knowing whether you HAD made
> >the rearrangement in the way he described, this could
> >have been a lie according to some definitions.
> >
> >Namely, Martin was claiming something had happened which could easily
> >have happened differently, without having the foggiest idea which of
> >the alternative possibilities actually happened.
> >
> >Is this your proof that Martin is a proven liar?
>
>
> Since you asked, no. But thanks for pointing out yet another
> instance.

That last admission -- that you construe the word "lie" this
broadly -- is very valuable information.

You see, Harshman has expressly denied such behavior as constituting
a lie. And so, I must ask you just HOW you think he identified a lie,
and what YOU believe to be the lie that he identified.

Instead I refer to something more recent:
>
> <ob39rc9gifhp94qn7...@4ax.com>

Your spiel below, and utter failure to even hint at what the
lie was all about, suggests that you are playing with a Nothing
hand as far as Harran being a proven liar is concerned.

> This was posted only last August, and you even replied to the thread,
> so not sure how you conveniently forgot about it.

You may have made one of your hundreds of "documentations" of someone
lying, in the form of labeling something a lie while making no attempt
to prove that it WAS a lie. If you did that to Martin on that alleged
occasion, it's small wonder I forgot it.

> And don't bother to whine about you not being able to search on Usenet
> Message-IDs. If you don't know how, that's your problem. If you use
> crap software, that's your problem. If you're too lazy/stupid to
> solve your problem, that's your problem. If you spent less time
> posting your repetitive irrelevant spew from your puckered sphincter,
> you would have more time solving your problem. So don't blame me for
> your problem.

Not my problem, yours: your spiel is as lacking in credibility
as the well-known "Do you want to see it again?" line that was
popular among comedians a while back. [If you don't know what I am
talking about, I'll gladly explain.]

In the time it took you to type that spiel, you could easily
have cut out and pasted the Subject: line and the exact date
and time the post was made.

But you evidently don't want ANY of the readers who use NGG
to know whether or not you are simply bluffing. And if you don't think
that constitutes a majority of talk.origins participants, you
never bothered to take note of the tremendous drop in posts during
a week when NGG went down.

Peter Nyikos

[Öö Tiib]

Yes but was it about clothing? I read above that it was about weight.
Doesn't that what is written mean that he is unhappy and also that he
is unhappy because of being undernourished? Might be my bad English.
Sure he may be weights 200 pounds less than you ... but that is not
because of he being too skinny or something.

[Ray Martinez]

On Wednesday, December 6, 2017 at 12:55:03 PM UTC-8, Peter Nyikos wrote:

[snip material addressed previously....]

>
> You may have been exposed to intense derision of the deistic idea that
> "God would up the universe like a clock and threw it into space."
> You may have been so impressed by the derision that you
> threw the whole idea which Martin Harran embraces into the ash
> heap, never to be thought actively again even when it is spoon-fed you.

Where did Martin or you obtain the idea that God is deistic as opposed to theistic? IF obtained from another person where did that person obtain the idea?

>
> After all, you are someone who thinks in terms of winning or losing debates
> according to arcane rules rather than in terms of reasoning.

Not true at all.

> If you
> can make your opponent a laughingstock {Martin being a case in
> point] you have won the debate EVEN if you claim contradictions
> where none exist.

There's nothing wrong with attempting to destroy opposing views. It's the reason-for-being of this newsgroup. If no contradictions exists then explain or argue why? This is where Martin disappears, like he did here:

https://groups.google.com/d/msg/talk.origins/gYD3gF2rRZA/wEoIZveICAAJ

>
> > >
> > > You slandered him by implying he had embraced Naturalism, and proceeded
> > > to treat him as though he had actually done that.
> >
> > Martin accepts evolution, which means
>
> ...the common descent of large groups of animals, e.g. all mammals.

Accepted common descent was produced by the assumptions and episteme of Naturalism. What is it that you don't understand? WHERE did ANYONE obtain the idea of common descent? Answer: Darwin. It was Darwin's case for common descent that science came to accept rapidly in the early 1860s. His case for common descent, natural selection, and evolution uses Naturalism evidence interpreting philosophy. Again, what is it that you don't understand? Naturalism defined as "material nature itself originates and causes all biological production." In Darwin's book (Origin of Species) new species originate from material nature itself, and never from immaterial Creator.

>
> With the following claim, you are confusing this theory, which says NOTHING
> about how it happened, with Darwinism, which makes claims about HOW
> it happened:

"this theory"----what theory?

>
> > the underlying philosophy-slash-epistemology of Naturalism comes with it.
>
> Liar.

How is what I said a lie? Darwin's Origin of Species uses Naturalism defined as "material nature itself causes all biological production." Gazillions of scholars can be found saying it as well. If false, then show me a supernatural agency in the Origin causing a new species to exist?

>
> Even if one claims that God never intervened on earth until
> the advent of humankind, one can explicitly REJECT Naturalism
> by embracing a belief in the Incarnation. And a Jew or Muslim
> can explicitly reject it by saying that Hashem [1], respectively
> Allah, created the universe.

I agree; acceptance of the Incarnation equates to an explicit rejection of Naturalism. If God intervened in reality, via the Incarnation, then the same supports periodic special creation to occur as well: evolution rendered superfluous.

>
> [1] The name of God spoken of in everyday Jewish conversation.
> Other names are confined to special events like prayer, where
> Hashem is called Adonai. When reading aloud from the Bible they will say
> "Adonai" where the printed text hss YHWH which they are forbidden
> to pronounce the way it is written.
>
>
> > If not, then he accepts "evolution."
>
> Yeah, I know your sneaky habit of only rarely using scare quotes [2]
> while saying all kinds of bombastic things without them.

If God is involved with evolution then its "evolution" or Creationism, not the evolution science came to accept during the rise of Darwinism in 1859-1872. The reason this is true is because accepted Darwinian evolution says the process is unguided, undirected, and unintelligent, which means invisible Intelligence, invisible Director, and invisible Guide are KNOWN not to be present. If you disagree then please tell me what unguided, undirected, and unintelligent mean when describing the process of natural selection?

I hope duty doesn't call and cause you to not answer my question.

>
> But they won't save you from being a liar, because "evolution"
> [in scare quotes] implies SOME intervention by God in evolution
> [note the lack of scare quotes] and I took care of that where
> Martin Harran is concerned.

Yes, that's what these quote marks denote. IF God is involved with evolution then it isn't evolution but Creationism or teleology. Absent some indicator that God is involved with evolution a contradiction exists because evolution was accepted, and remains accepted, as a fully natural or non-supernatural process.

The history and philosophy of science have both determined that if God is involved with biological production then the same is known as Creationism. Conversely, if God is not involved with biological production then the same is known commonly as Darwinism, common descent, natural selection or evolution.

There is no such thing as theistic evolution. Any participation by Theos or God in biological production renders the entire proposal to be Creationism. Absence of God renders the entire proposal to be Darwinian evolution: common descent, natural selection.

Ray

[will finish replying as time allows....]

[*Hemidactylus*]

This thread is a data point that has nose-dived your reputation here if you
had one to begin with. You are really starting to get on my nerves.

[Jonathan]

On 12/7/2017 4:13 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:



I'll bet money not a person contributing
to this thread has gotten laid in a good
ten years.

I've seen more adult conversations from
teenage girls.

[J.LyonLayden]

I was not surprised to find an unhappy looking photo on John's profile because most atheistic skeptics I have met are unhappy. They often also seem to wish the world were unhappy with them, and devote time into making it so. This is relevant to our discussion. I suspected that John was an atheist skeptic, and Ray has since told me the same. However, I don't know this for certain. Therefore I did not mention it in my jokes.

I don't think he's really unhappy because of his clothes and their ability to attract girls, that was just a joke. I am pretty sure he's married.


The size of John's legs doesn't have so much to do with his weight, in my opinion, but with their musculature. I explained this above already as making fun of his attractiveness, not his reputation.

[J.LyonLayden]

On Thursday, December 7, 2017 at 5:20:06 PM UTC-5, Ray Martinez wrote:
> On Wednesday, December 6, 2017 at 12:55:03 PM UTC-8, Peter Nyikos wrote:
>
> [snip material addressed previously....]
>
> >
> > You may have been exposed to intense derision of the deistic idea that
> > "God would up the universe like a clock and threw it into space."
> > You may have been so impressed by the derision that you
> > threw the whole idea which Martin Harran embraces into the ash
> > heap, never to be thought actively again even when it is spoon-fed you.
>
> Where did Martin or you obtain the idea that God is deistic as opposed to theistic? IF obtained from another person where did that person obtain the idea?
>
> >
> > After all, you are someone who thinks in terms of winning or losing debates
> > according to arcane rules rather than in terms of reasoning.
>
> Not true at all.
>
> > If you
> > can make your opponent a laughingstock {Martin being a case in
> > point] you have won the debate EVEN if you claim contradictions
> > where none exist.
>
> There's nothing wrong with attempting to destroy opposing views. It's the reason-for-being of this newsgroup.

I do not agree. It may have become such, but it is supposed to be about origins, hence the name. I'm here to discuss the origins of life.

When Creationists misrepresent Christianity as you do, I feel the need to correct them.


When what you call "Naturalists" distort the truth in order to bash those same Creationists, it also pisses me off....and I correct them as well.

[*Hemidactylus*]

You are a sick fuck. Why do you think you can make determinations about
someone from a picture?

Have you heard of secular humanism, which is about making life meaningful
and living the happy eudaemonic life without some judgmental asshole
creeping your every though and action?

Many Christians are unhappy because they cannot measure up and are guilt
ridden and fearful of hellfire. That is mental illness curable.

That you take information from the toxic Ray seriously demonstrates you are
a toxic piece of shit as is he. And you already know Nyikos.

>
> I don't think he's really unhappy because of his clothes and their
> ability to attract girls, that was just a joke. I am pretty sure he's married.
>

Harshman’s personal life is relevant how? Did he wipe you out with
erudition so you resort to personal attack?

>
> The size of John's legs doesn't have so much to do with his weight, in my
> opinion, but with their musculature. I explained this above already as
> making fun of his attractiveness, not his reputation.
>

Which would have shitall to do with what?

[erik simpson]

Maybe it would improve the tone here if you were to dial back on your seemingly
endless spamstorm.

[*Hemidactylus*]

After attacking Nyikos’s family you have the reputation of a tapeworm.
Apologize to him before you slither back to your cesspool.

[J.LyonLayden]

Did I say it was relevant? I thought it was funny. Sorry you didn't like it.

I also thought it was funny that you got so angry at my repost from the reddit archaeology forum that you entered the thread with three consecutive rapid posts filled with insults and terrible grammar.

It makes me think you are unhappy as well, if a recovered manuscript would enrage you so.

[*Hemidactylus*]

You are unhappy if you feel motivated to attempt personal annihilation of
Harshman via the OP. I am not a Harshman fanboi, but your characterization
of him makes you look the biggest abusive asshole who showed up here since
the prawnster. Believe me, you don’t want to be compared to that monster.

[Ray Martinez]

On Wednesday, December 6, 2017 at 12:55:03 PM UTC-8, Peter Nyikos wrote:
>

[snip material addressed previously....]

> [2] You once made the laughably ignorant claim that no one knows
> what scare quotes are. The self-assuredness with which you made this
> claim makes me wonder whether you had momentarily become a solipsist
> when you wrote that.

Until shown otherwise, I stand by my claim.

>
>
> > But Martin maintains that he accepts real evolution.
>
> Like I said, this fact does not save you from having lied up there
> about people like Martin having embraced "the underlying
> philosophy-slash-epistemology of Naturalism."

Since accepted evolution is fully natural, originating and proceeding from material nature itself, it's not a lie to say if one accepts evolution one also must accept the underlying philosophy-slash-epistemology of Naturalism. Darwin's book, The Origin of Species, advocates Naturalism: the supernatural does not have a role in biological production. One cannot extricate or separate evolution from Naturalism because Naturalism means "material nature itself causes all biological production." In the Origin of Species material nature itself causes all biological production, not immaterial Creator, which Darwin duly accounted for throughout his book.

If Martin Harran does indeed accept evolution then one must be talking about Darwinian evolution because science has never accepted any other evolution. Darwin's evolution is fully material, fully natural; the supernatural and the immaterial have no role. God accounted for as NOT involved.

>
> By the way, those were NOT scare quotes that I used just now. They
> were my indicating that I was quoting you directly.
>

Understood; but I have no idea what is meant by "scare quotes" anyway, and I think no one else does either.

>
> > In this context I simply point out that no one can say Christ has led any person to accept an explanation of evidence (evolution) based on assumptions that say the Father of Christ did not design or create any living thing in the entire history of life on earth (= Naturalism).
>
> That is NOT Naturalism, liar.

By calling me a liar you're saying that I know some thing to be true but I'm deliberately misrepresenting and saying what I know to be true is not true, but false. Tell me, Peter, what do I know to be true but am misrepresenting to be false?

I'm now ready to officially identify you as a liar: You possess knowledge that accepted evolution, Darwinian evolution, has no role for God in the process, but you're deliberately refusing to admit that the same is known as Naturalism, and you're deliberately attempting to cover it up or obscure for the single purpose of sparing Christian Evolutionists the humiliation of being seen as deluded fools for accepting claims about reality that say their God does not exist. You think you have the right to lie here and protect these traitors from being seen as traitors because they accept evolution, which is really "evolution" in many cases.

> That is what your private vocabulary
> labels Naturalism so you can eat your cake and have it too: say
> without lying that Martin has embraced Naturalism and then falsely
> claim that it is a contradiction to say that Martin has done this
> and still believes that God created the universe.

You're the one who is using a private vocabulary for the sake "Christian" Evolutionists like Martin Harran, not me. You're the one attempting to deny or obscure the fact that accepted evolution was and is a product of Naturalism as found in Darwin's Origin of Species, not me.

If Martin Harran believes God created universe and/or earth then the fact requires that effects must be described logically in teleological terms, not Darwinian naturalistic terms because these terms contradict the supernatural First Cause. Absent the use of teleological terms one cannot infer a supernatural First Cause----which, according to you, Martin accepts.

The term evolution isn't teleological, but naturalistic or materialistic. Evolution as a process is fully material, fully natural, the supernatural or immaterial are not involved. Thus Martin Harran, not me, attempts to have his cake and eat it too. In response I point out that evolution entails absence of the supernatural (unguided, undirected, unintelligent).

Your only goal and concern: protect "Christian" Evolutionists from the objective fact that evolution and a supernatural First Cause contradict.

Ray (anti-evolutionary)

[Ray Martinez]

> You're the one who is using a private vocabulary for the sake [of] "Christian" Evolutionists like Martin Harran, not me. You're the one attempting to deny or obscure the fact that accepted evolution was and is a product of Naturalism as found in Darwin's Origin of Species, not me.
>

Correction bracket added, that's all.

Ray

[J.LyonLayden]

John Harshman repeatedly brings up my job as a reason to dismiss me, and tells people that my science fiction stories are my true beliefs. He has answered my requests for proof of his assertions with statements that he is a biologist, and has claimed that I "don't know basic anatomy" with no supporting explanation or even an example, implying authority due to his degree. In each case, the "basic anatomy" of each species in question is nearly identical, showing that he relies primarily on classifications to discredit my stance. His arguments have nothing to do with basic anatomy, and yet he uses such to undermine the discussion.

Since this post, he has been caught doing it again. This time he put it much more politely, insinuating that my ideas were sci-fi nonetheless. I replied with an actual list of characters universal to archosaurs, analyzing each to show that his objections are unwarranted.

Why is it you think my writing job is relevant to discussion, but not his biology job? What makes you think making fun of someone's clothes is equal to calling them a "nut-job" or quack?

I do not dislike John Harshman and wish the best for him. I simply wanted him to stop using his degree as an excuse for not providing explanations for his objections, insults, and arguments.

He should have to use facts, explanations, and citations just like the rest of us, no matter his degree.

[J.LyonLayden]

Most Christians could care less about evolution, Ray. However, your life-long campaign against science may have turned some people away from God. According to Christian teachings, that is a far worse sin than believing in "Naturalism."

Endanger yourself to hell-fire at your own risk, though. Everyone has their own temptations to deal with.

[jillery]

On Thu, 7 Dec 2017 13:13:54 -0800 (PST), Peter Nyikos
<nyi...@bellsouth.net> continued to ejaculate his repetitive
irrelevant spew from his puckered sphincter:

Is anybody surprised.

Your head-in-the-sand opinions disqualify you from complaining about
the alleged same from me. Tu quoque back atcha, asshole.

>The scare quotes are there because it is difficult to believe
>that you, too, are as ignorant of the meaning of "defame" as
>John seemed to be, and that you actually hold the opinion in the teeth of
>Harsman's utter failure to prove libel on J.LyonLayden's part.

Of course, I don't base my opinion above on the meaning of irrelevant
words like "defame", which you would have known if you bothered to
read my reply. So this is just another case of you having no idea
what you're talking about.

>Just WHICH statement of Jonathan's do you consider to be deliberate
>libel, as opposed to "informal" language that Casanova continues
>to claim is typical of talk.origins?

Since you asked, the issue of libel is irrelevant. You're welcome.


>> Posting irrelevant personal information


The above is on what I based my head-in-the-sand opinion, which you
would have known if you bothered to read my reply. So this is just
another case of you having no idea what you're talking about.

>How typical of you to label my highly relevant witticism as
>"irrelevant personal information."

I didn't notice any witticism from you, relevant or otherwise. My
comment above to which you take such umbrage doesn't refer to anything
you posted, which you would have known if you bothered to read my
reply. So this is just another case of you having no idea what you're
talking about.

>I now make a similar "personal" comment about you: you either
>are ignorant of what "defame" means or you are completely
>ignoring just how relevant it is to the issue of whether
>Joe lied.

Your failure to recognize relevance disqualifies you from complaining
about the alleged same from me. Tu quoque back atcha, asshole.

>> about Harshman can't
>> reasonably be considered "to inform readers". Apparently your mileage
>> varies.
>
>My mileage obviously varies from that of the dummy-analogue that goes
>under the byline "jillery". The mileage of the ventriloquist-analogue
>who types the words that appear under the "jillery" byline is a
>riddle wrapped in a mystery wrapped in an enigma.

The dummy-analogue that goes under the byline "Peter Nyikos"
disqualifies you from complaining about my alleged dummy-analogue. Tu
quoque back atcha, asshole.

>> >Another claim that you seem to be making (with "another") is that
>> >Martin Harran is a proven liar. But there is only one thing I've seen
>> >Martin utter that could be construed as a lie. Whether it is one,
>> >depends on how broadly one interprets the word "lie".
>> >
>> >This thing has to do with you having rearranged the text in a reply
>> >by you to a post of Martin's to make him look like he was responding
>> >to something utterly different than what he was responding to.
>> >You made it look like he was admitting to being in a different
>> >universe than the highly honorable one that you had described to him.
>> >
>> >
>> >The "lie" might have consisted in him having claimed that you
>> >had made the rearrangement in a SPECIFIC way. He actually
>> >told me about it, and I remember how he was quite specific about
>> >WHICH text had been cut out and repasted elsewhere.
>> >
>> >And since he had no way of knowing whether you HAD made
>> >the rearrangement in the way he described, this could
>> >have been a lie according to some definitions.
>> >
>> >Namely, Martin was claiming something had happened which could easily
>> >have happened differently, without having the foggiest idea which of
>> >the alternative possibilities actually happened.
>> >
>> >Is this your proof that Martin is a proven liar?
>>
>>
>> Since you asked, no. But thanks for pointing out yet another
>> instance.
>
>That last admission -- that you construe the word "lie" this
>broadly -- is very valuable information.

Of course, your self-serving characterization of said instance moots
any conclusions you claim comes from it.

>You see, Harshman has expressly denied such behavior as constituting
>a lie. And so, I must ask you just HOW you think he identified a lie,
>and what YOU believe to be the lie that he identified.

Since you asked, I answered you before you asked, which you would have
known if you bothered to read my reply. So this is just another case
of you having no idea what you're talking about.

>> Instead I refer to something more recent:
>>
>> <ob39rc9gifhp94qn7...@4ax.com>
>
>Your spiel below, and utter failure to even hint at what the
>lie was all about, suggests that you are playing with a Nothing
>hand as far as Harran being a proven liar is concerned.

Once again, not my problem. More to the point, it's your problem.
Grow up.

>> This was posted only last August, and you even replied to the thread,
>> so not sure how you conveniently forgot about it.

Correction. I posted it last September, which means you have even
less reason to not remember.

>You may have made one of your hundreds of "documentations" of someone
>lying, in the form of labeling something a lie while making no attempt
>to prove that it WAS a lie. If you did that to Martin on that alleged
>occasion, it's small wonder I forgot it.

That's not it.

>> And don't bother to whine about you not being able to search on Usenet
>> Message-IDs. If you don't know how, that's your problem. If you use
>> crap software, that's your problem. If you're too lazy/stupid to
>> solve your problem, that's your problem. If you spent less time
>> posting your repetitive irrelevant spew from your puckered sphincter,
>> you would have more time solving your problem. So don't blame me for
>> your problem.
>
>Not my problem, yours: your spiel is as lacking in credibility
>as the well-known "Do you want to see it again?" line that was
>popular among comedians a while back. [If you don't know what I am
>talking about, I'll gladly explain.]
>
>In the time it took you to type that spiel, you could easily
>have cut out and pasted the Subject: line and the exact date
>and time the post was made.

In the time it took you to post your repetitive irrelevant spew from
your puckered sphincter, you could have figured out how to use Usenet.

>But you evidently don't want ANY of the readers who use NGG
>to know whether or not you are simply bluffing.

Unlike you, I don't believe that everybody who uses GG is as stupid
and dishonest and infantile as you.

More to the point, there is no good reason for anybody to ask your
question in the first place. It's just another one of your excuses to
post more irrelevant spew from your puckered sphincter.

>And if you don't think
>that constitutes a majority of talk.origins participants, you
>never bothered to take note of the tremendous drop in posts during
>a week when NGG went down.

Only you asked that question. Only you expressed an interest in an
answer. I have zero interest in doing anything just for you.

And no matter what delusions bounce around between your ears, you
don't speak for others.

I realize this is hard for you to believe, but it's not always about
you. Get over yourself.

>Peter Nyikos
>Professor, Dept. of Mathematics -- standard disclaimer--
>University of South Carolina

>http://people.math.sc.edu/nyikos/


Do you employers know what an asinine character you associate with
their institution?

[jillery]

On Thu, 7 Dec 2017 18:40:19 -0500, Jonathan <WriteI...@gmail.com>

wrote:


>I'll bet money not a person contributing
>to this thread has gotten laid in a good
>ten years.

Apparently you don't understand that your comment above necessarily
includes you.

>I've seen more adult conversations from
>teenage girls.

Considering your likely preferred porn sites, that's no surprise. Be
sure to smile at Chris Hansen when you meet him.

[jillery]

On Thu, 7 Dec 2017 16:16:05 -0800 (PST), "J.LyonLayden"
<joseph...@gmail.com> wrote:

As a reader of this froup, I go on record as saying I am not informed
by your posting of personal information.

[Mark Isaak]

You yourself told him that your job is relevant to the ideas you present.

> and tells people that my science fiction stories are my true beliefs.

Again, you are blaming him for misunderstandings that you caused.

> He has answered my requests for proof of his assertions with statements that he is a biologist, and has claimed that I "don't know basic anatomy" with no supporting explanation or even an example, implying authority due to his degree. In each case, the "basic anatomy" of each species in question is nearly identical, showing that he relies primarily on classifications to discredit my stance. His arguments have nothing to do with basic anatomy, and yet he uses such to undermine the discussion.

When someone knows you are wrong, they are under no obligation to
provide supporting documentation when they say, "You're wrong." You may
ask, but unless you are paying them, they have no obligation to answer.
When did you hire Harshman to be your tutor?

And the "implying authority due to his degree" comes from your mind, not
his. His authority comes from dealing for years with phyogenetics, not
from having a degree.

--
Mark Isaak eciton (at) curioustaxonomy (dot) net
"Ignorance, allied with power, is the most ferocious enemy justice can
have." - James Baldwin

[Mark Isaak]

On 12/7/17 5:30 PM, Ray Martinez wrote:
> [...]

> Since accepted evolution is fully natural, originating and proceeding from material nature itself, it's not a lie to say if one accepts evolution one also must accept the underlying philosophy-slash-epistemology of Naturalism. Darwin's book, The Origin of Species, advocates Naturalism: the supernatural does not have a role in biological production. One cannot extricate or separate evolution from Naturalism because Naturalism means "material nature itself causes all biological production." In the Origin of Species material nature itself causes all biological production, not immaterial Creator, which Darwin duly accounted for throughout his book.

Ray,

I do not understand your main claim that _Origin of Species_ advocates
naturalism. Perhaps you could help me by explaining which of these
other books also advocate naturalism:

_Mastering the Art of French Cooking_ by Julia Child and Louisette
Bertholle.

_Reader's Digest Fix It Yourself Manual_.

_Essentials of Meteorology_ by C. Donald Ahrens.

_1984_ by George Orwell.


Which, if any, of the above books advocate naturalism? Where you deem a
book does not advocate naturalism, please explain the relevant
differences between it and _Origin of Species_.

[J.LyonLayden]

But I wasn't wrong. So your last two paragraphs have no meaning. Did you read all 9 threads on the sci.paleontology forum? Do you know when and why he indicated his career to me?

[Ray Martinez]

Secular scholars agree unanimously that Darwin 1859 was a reply to Paley 1802, and that the former falsified the latter. The latter advocates Supernaturalism: invisible Creator causes living species to exist, which implies every species in the past as well. The former advocates Naturalism: material nature itself causes new species to exist.

Ray

[Tim Anderson]

'_Mastering the Art of French Cooking_ by Julia Child and Louisette
Bertholle."

You forgot Simon Beck. May your souffles sag forevermore.

[Tim Anderson]

Simone, obviously.

[Bob Casanova]

On Thu, 7 Dec 2017 18:40:19 -0500, the following appeared in
talk.origins, posted by Jonathan <WriteI...@gmail.com>:

>On 12/7/2017 4:13 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:

[...nothing at all; bad attribution]

>I'll bet money not a person contributing
>to this thread has gotten laid in a good
>ten years.

You lose.

>I've seen more adult conversations from
>teenage girls.

You should probably stop hanging around teenage girls.
Unless, of course, you're underage yourself, a possibility
none of your posts would cast doubt upon.
--

Bob C.

"The most exciting phrase to hear in science,
the one that heralds new discoveries, is not
'Eureka!' but 'That's funny...'"

- Isaac Asimov

[Bob Casanova]

On Thu, 7 Dec 2017 20:31:56 -0800 (PST), the following
appeared in talk.origins, posted by Ray Martinez
<r3p...@gmail.com>:

>On Thursday, December 7, 2017 at 8:10:02 PM UTC-8, Mark Isaak wrote:
>> On 12/7/17 5:30 PM, Ray Martinez wrote:
>> > [...]
>> > Since accepted evolution is fully natural, originating and proceeding from material nature itself, it's not a lie to say if one accepts evolution one also must accept the underlying philosophy-slash-epistemology of Naturalism. Darwin's book, The Origin of Species, advocates Naturalism: the supernatural does not have a role in biological production. One cannot extricate or separate evolution from Naturalism because Naturalism means "material nature itself causes all biological production." In the Origin of Species material nature itself causes all biological production, not immaterial Creator, which Darwin duly accounted for throughout his book.
>>
>> Ray,
>>
>> I do not understand your main claim that _Origin of Species_ advocates
>> naturalism. Perhaps you could help me by explaining which of these
>> other books also advocate naturalism:
>>
>> _Mastering the Art of French Cooking_ by Julia Child and Louisette
>> Bertholle.
>>
>> _Reader's Digest Fix It Yourself Manual_.
>>
>> _Essentials of Meteorology_ by C. Donald Ahrens.
>>
>> _1984_ by George Orwell.
>>
>>
>> Which, if any, of the above books advocate naturalism? Where you deem a
>> book does not advocate naturalism, please explain the relevant
>> differences between it and _Origin of Species_.

>Secular scholars agree unanimously that Darwin 1859 was a reply to Paley 1802, and that the former falsified the latter. The latter advocates Supernaturalism: invisible Creator causes living species to exist, which implies every species in the past as well. The former advocates Naturalism: material nature itself causes new species to exist.

So, no answer to the question? OK.

[Mark Isaak]

The second-to-last still applies. As I have already said, I have not
read sci.paleonotolgy, so I grant that I may be wrong about the last
paragraph. But I have seen you attribute views to other people that
they never made, so I am not convinced that I am wrong there, either.

But you still miss the bottom line: Your personal attack post that
started this thread shows, *at best*, an abysmal lack of understanding
or caring about social mores, and your later refusal to apologize for it
and saying you thought it funny shows that that appraisal is far
over-generous. When others call you an asshole, they are being kind.

[Mark Isaak]

On 12/7/17 8:31 PM, Ray Martinez wrote:
> On Thursday, December 7, 2017 at 8:10:02 PM UTC-8, Mark Isaak wrote:
>> On 12/7/17 5:30 PM, Ray Martinez wrote:
>>> [...]
>>> Since accepted evolution is fully natural, originating and proceeding from material nature itself, it's not a lie to say if one accepts evolution one also must accept the underlying philosophy-slash-epistemology of Naturalism. Darwin's book, The Origin of Species, advocates Naturalism: the supernatural does not have a role in biological production. One cannot extricate or separate evolution from Naturalism because Naturalism means "material nature itself causes all biological production." In the Origin of Species material nature itself causes all biological production, not immaterial Creator, which Darwin duly accounted for throughout his book.
>>
>> Ray,
>>
>> I do not understand your main claim that _Origin of Species_ advocates
>> naturalism. Perhaps you could help me by explaining which of these
>> other books also advocate naturalism:
>>
>> _Mastering the Art of French Cooking_ by Julia Child and Louisette
>> Bertholle.
>>
>> _Reader's Digest Fix It Yourself Manual_.
>>
>> _Essentials of Meteorology_ by C. Donald Ahrens.
>>
>> _1984_ by George Orwell.
>>
>>
>> Which, if any, of the above books advocate naturalism? Where you deem a
>> book does not advocate naturalism, please explain the relevant
>> differences between it and _Origin of Species_.
>>

> Secular scholars agree unanimously that Darwin 1859 was a reply to Paley 1802, and that the former falsified the latter. The latter advocates Supernaturalism: invisible Creator causes living species to exist, which implies every species in the past as well. The former advocates Naturalism: material nature itself causes new species to exist.

You did not answer my question.

Some folktales tell of magic items which produce scrumptious meals
magically. Julia Child is a reply to these tales, detailing an
alternative method of preparing meals.

The Harry Potter books include mention of spells for mending. The
Fix-It Manual is a reply to such ideas.

_Essentials of Meteorology_ is a reply to the Greek myths in which gods
create weather phenomena.

So would you agree that those three books advocate naturalism?

[Peter Nyikos]

On Thursday, December 7, 2017 at 7:40:02 PM UTC-5, *Hemidactylus* wrote:

Funny, there seems to be a disconnect between what you write in the above line
and what you write next:

> Have you heard of secular humanism, which is about making life meaningful
> and living the happy eudaemonic life without some judgmental asshole
> creeping your every though and action?

"You are a sick fuck." isn't supposed to be judgmental??

Are you of the sort who thinks the only thing that a secular
humanist can legitimately be judgmental about is the judgmentalness of
non-secular humanists?

If so, does that mean Wolffan is NOT a secular humanist? After
all, he called jonathan a "scumbag" for doing something that
didn't seem at all judgmental. And you backed him up, saying
that what jonathan had written was "despicable".

Don't get me wrong -- I fully agree with those judgments. But then,
I am NOT a secular humanist, so it's no surprise I got equally
judgmental about him.

What's your excuse?

>
> Many Christians are unhappy because they cannot measure up and are guilt
> ridden and fearful of hellfire. That is mental illness curable.

Many more Christians have gotten over that because they don't
take hellfire literally. Instead they go with the depiction of
heaven and hell as places to which people freely go to. Because
they are shown, AFTER DEATH, what each is like.

C.S. Lewis fleshed out that image in _The Great Divorce_. He even
gave people in hell unlimited opportunities to change their minds
and enter heaven, but almost none of the dwellers of hell took
advantage of them.

> That you take information from the toxic Ray

Ray is toxic? I've said many judgmental things about him,
but he seems to be the cheerful type who enjoys misrepresenting people.
Is that "toxic" in your vocabulary?

My idea of "toxic" is Ron Okimoto, who seems to go around with
a huge chip on his shoulder and seems to misrepresent people
out of a seething anger rather than out of pleasure.

He's boycotted Martinez for seven years now at least, but not
because Martinez enjoys misrepresenting people, but because
he claims Martinez is "insane." A classic case of the pot callling
the kettle black.

Ron O is one of the few people Martinez can be judgmental about
without being dishonest about it. He has come down hard on Ron O
for claiming to believe in a creator yet bending all his efforts
against people trying to give rational arguments for a creator
on biological grounds -- the ID theorists.

Ron O has a maniacal hatred of the Discovery Institute (DI) because
it is a collecting grounds for such arguments. Since he can't
get at them directly, he's gotten the crazy idea into his head that I am
the talk.origins representative for the DI and has transferred all his
hatred of the DI to me.

> seriously demonstrates you are
> a toxic piece of shit as is he. And you already know Nyikos.

Can't you see what a judgmental hypocrite you are being here?

You don't even have the minimal backbone to say what it is about
me that is toxic. I've said LOTS about how toxic YOU are,
on the thread "Prof. Christine Janis on Horse Evolution"
and you keep laughing everything off.

You seem like a person without a conscience -- a sociopath
in the clinical sense of the term rather than in the popular
sense. And you laughed this one off by playing the popular
sense to the hilt.

People without consciences can be rather engaging in everyday life.
M. Scott Peck described one, "Charlene", in a long chapter in
his book, _People of the Lie_. Your special technique for laughing
off the damning information about you is probably mighty endearing
to like-minded people like Wolffan and Jillery. For a while
it even looked endearing to jonathan, as I documented today on
that other thread.

I know it is endearing to Ron Okimoto. Details on request.

> >
> > I don't think he's really unhappy because of his clothes and their
> > ability to attract girls, that was just a joke. I am pretty sure he's married.

Fact: he is married and has one daughter. I don't know whether
he has any sons.

> Harshman's personal life is relevant how? Did he wipe you out with
> erudition so you resort to personal attack?

No, he did not. John is too laconic to wipe out someone as voluble
as Joe, who keeps coming back at John. Joe isn't deterred by
setbacks. He reminds me of how Frazier kept after Muhammad Ali
in the "Thrilla in Manila".

We seem to be in the middle rounds right about now, in the clash
between Joe and John.

> > The size of John's legs doesn't have so much to do with his weight, in my
> > opinion, but with their musculature. I explained this above already as
> > making fun of his attractiveness, not his reputation.
> >
> Which would have shitall to do with what?

Having fun, just like you must be having loads of fun laughing
off the damning things I relate about you.

Peter Nyikos

[*Hemidactylus*]

I was talking about believers having a panopticon judging god watching
their every move. Atheists and secular humanists are free from that menace.
You as usual totally distort what others say in some make believe game of
shadow boxing.

>
> Are you of the sort who thinks the only thing that a secular
> humanist can legitimately be judgmental about is the judgmentalness of
> non-secular humanists?
>

As a matter of virtue ethics I feel free to pass judgment on vicious
behaviors exhibited by Joe in the OP here and against me on another thread
where he made non sequitur and ad hom speculation about my sex life. That’s
the sort of salacious vice I will call out. YMMV.

>
> If so, does that mean Wolffan is NOT a secular humanist? After
> all, he called jonathan a "scumbag" for doing something that
> didn't seem at all judgmental. And you backed him up, saying
> that what jonathan had written was "despicable".
>

I don’t see you coming to my defense against Joe on that thread “ UT Austin
professors discover copy of Jesus' secret revelations to his brother” yet
Wolffan and I called out jonathan in the case you mention. And you oddly
try to make that a point of contention against me. No good deed goes
unpunished.

>
> Don't get me wrong -- I fully agree with those judgments. But then,
> I am NOT a secular humanist, so it's no surprise I got equally
> judgmental about him.
>
> What's your excuse?
>

I am free to evaluate as I please.

>
>>
>> Many Christians are unhappy because they cannot measure up and are guilt
>> ridden and fearful of hellfire. That is mental illness curable.
>
> Many more Christians have gotten over that because they don't
> take hellfire literally. Instead they go with the depiction of
> heaven and hell as places to which people freely go to. Because
> they are shown, AFTER DEATH, what each is like.
>
> C.S. Lewis fleshed out that image in _The Great Divorce_. He even
> gave people in hell unlimited opportunities to change their minds
> and enter heaven, but almost none of the dwellers of hell took
> advantage of them.
>

Yep let’s march out CS Lewis trope.

>
>> That you take information from the toxic Ray
>
> Ray is toxic? I've said many judgmental things about him,
> but he seems to be the cheerful type who enjoys misrepresenting people.
> Is that "toxic" in your vocabulary?
>

He is very toxic, especially after Trump won.

>
> My idea of "toxic" is Ron Okimoto, who seems to go around with
> a huge chip on his shoulder and seems to misrepresent people
> out of a seething anger rather than out of pleasure.
>
> He's boycotted Martinez for seven years now at least, but not
> because Martinez enjoys misrepresenting people, but because
> he claims Martinez is "insane." A classic case of the pot callling
> the kettle black.
>
> Ron O is one of the few people Martinez can be judgmental about
> without being dishonest about it. He has come down hard on Ron O
> for claiming to believe in a creator yet bending all his efforts
> against people trying to give rational arguments for a creator
> on biological grounds -- the ID theorists.
>
> Ron O has a maniacal hatred of the Discovery Institute (DI) because
> it is a collecting grounds for such arguments. Since he can't
> get at them directly, he's gotten the crazy idea into his head that I am
> the talk.origins representative for the DI and has transferred all his
> hatred of the DI to me.
>
>
>> seriously demonstrates you are
>> a toxic piece of shit as is he. And you already know Nyikos.
>
> Can't you see what a judgmental hypocrite you are being here?
>

I am not God. Read for comprehension next time.

>
> You don't even have the minimal backbone to say what it is about
> me that is toxic. I've said LOTS about how toxic YOU are,
> on the thread "Prof. Christine Janis on Horse Evolution"
> and you keep laughing everything off.
>
> You seem like a person without a conscience -- a sociopath
> in the clinical sense of the term rather than in the popular
> sense. And you laughed this one off by playing the popular
> sense to the hilt.
>

You are giving yourself away right there, diagnosing someone unaccepting of
your perennial bullshit as a sociopath.

>
> People without consciences can be rather engaging in everyday life.
> M. Scott Peck described one, "Charlene", in a long chapter in
> his book, _People of the Lie_. Your special technique for laughing
> off the damning information about you is probably mighty endearing
> to like-minded people like Wolffan and Jillery. For a while
> it even looked endearing to jonathan, as I documented today on
> that other thread.
>

What do you base such speculation upon aside from fitting your polemic
narrative misrepresentation of others?

>
> I know it is endearing to Ron Okimoto. Details on request.
>
>
>>>
>>> I don't think he's really unhappy because of his clothes and their
>>> ability to attract girls, that was just a joke. I am pretty sure he's married.
>
> Fact: he is married and has one daughter. I don't know whether
> he has any sons.
>
>
>> Harshman's personal life is relevant how? Did he wipe you out with
>> erudition so you resort to personal attack?
>
> No, he did not. John is too laconic to wipe out someone as voluble
> as Joe, who keeps coming back at John. Joe isn't deterred by
> setbacks. He reminds me of how Frazier kept after Muhammad Ali
> in the "Thrilla in Manila".
>

Did Frazier pull Ali’s shorts down and kick him in the nads? That would
make your comparison appropriate. Joe did something comparable to Tyson
biting Holyfield’s ear.

>
> We seem to be in the middle rounds right about now, in the clash
> between Joe and John.
>

The ref would have warned Joe after this thread if not disqualified him.

>
>>> The size of John's legs doesn't have so much to do with his weight, in my
>>> opinion, but with their musculature. I explained this above already as
>>> making fun of his attractiveness, not his reputation.
>>>
>> Which would have shitall to do with what?
>
> Having fun, just like you must be having loads of fun laughing
> off the damning things I relate about you.
>

Look in the mirror much Bubba? Mote vs. beam?

[J.LyonLayden]

On Friday, December 8, 2017 at 7:15:04 PM UTC-5, *Hemidactylus* wrote:

Where I come from, comments like "Have you ever been laid in your life?" are an observation of social awkwardness and nobody gets upset. Some people here seem to have extremely thin skin.

I don't care whether Jesus had a brother and I didn't repost the article from reddit as ammunition against you or your beliefs. I just reposted the articles from the Archaeology subreddit that might be appropriate here.

I reread the post this morning and found that you had not actually been talking to me when you began your tirade against "Christian" manuscripts, and yet you told me you were speaking to me when I asked "Who are you talking to?"

After explaining the facts about the role monotheism played in ridding the world of cannibalism, headhunting, and human sacrifice you called me a bigot.

Despite this, I apologized for the misunderstanding earlier today. If you'll check the time you'll find it was well before your above interchange with Peter.

[Ray Martinez]

An on-going major success of the Atheist agenda: Bible should not be understood literally.

> Instead they go with the depiction of
> heaven and hell as places to which people freely go to. Because
> they are shown, AFTER DEATH, what each is like.
>
> C.S. Lewis fleshed out that image in _The Great Divorce_. He even
> gave people in hell unlimited opportunities to change their minds
> and enter heaven, but almost none of the dwellers of hell took
> advantage of them.

Lewis accepted the biblical view: a literal hell where those who rejected the grace of God dwell forever after death. In the above comments Peter IS in fact ALSO relating his personal view, which contradicts his denial of Atheism.

>
>
> > That you take information from the toxic Ray
>
> Ray is toxic? I've said many judgmental things about him,
> but he seems to be the cheerful type who enjoys misrepresenting people.

Peter actually referring to the fact that I reject his self identity claim that oscillates between Agnosticism-Deism and very weak, diluted Christianity. Instead, based on his acceptance of Darwinian evolution and common descent, which were produced by the assumptions of Naturalism, I identify Peter to be a practicing Atheist. The conclusion receives quality support by the fact that Peter rejects the concept of design existing in nature.

> Is that "toxic" in your vocabulary?
>
> My idea of "toxic" is Ron Okimoto, who seems to go around with
> a huge chip on his shoulder and seems to misrepresent people
> out of a seething anger rather than out of pleasure.
>
> He's boycotted Martinez for seven years now at least, but not
> because Martinez enjoys misrepresenting people, but because
> he claims Martinez is "insane." A classic case of the pot callling
> the kettle black.

I'm relieved to be considered insane by a person who actually believes material nature itself, without any aid from a Mind, produced the extreme complexity found in living things. I don't want the approval of these people. They are inexcusably stupid.

Ray (Paleyan Creationist)

[Ray Martinez]

I answered your question relevant to topic; you're evading. Only the meteor book silently assumes Naturalism.

Ray

[Bob Casanova]

On Fri, 8 Dec 2017 19:16:47 -0800 (PST), the following
appeared in talk.origins, posted by "J.LyonLayden"
<joseph...@gmail.com>:

>On Friday, December 8, 2017 at 7:15:04 PM UTC-5, *Hemidactylus* wrote:
>
>Where I come from, comments like "Have you ever been laid in your life?" are an observation of social awkwardness and nobody gets upset. Some people here seem to have extremely thin skin.

Where/when I come from, such a question indicates extreme
emotional immaturity on the part of the questioner.

[Mark Isaak]

> I answered your question relevant to topic; you're evading. Only the meteor book silently assumes Naturalism.

Thank you.

You are wrong, of course. The cooking and fix-it books also assume
naturalism. In fact, they rely on it. It works to fix a loose joint in
a wooden chair with glue. It does not work to fix it with voodoo,
prayer, or sacrifices to occult powers, and so the book does not
advocate the latter methods. The book is permeated with naturalism and
nothing but naturalism.

I find it amazing that Ray cannot see this. Nor can he see the many
other ways in which naturalism fills his life.

[J.LyonLayden]

On Saturday, December 9, 2017 at 12:10:03 PM UTC-5, Bob Casanova wrote:
> On Fri, 8 Dec 2017 19:16:47 -0800 (PST), the following
> appeared in talk.origins, posted by "J.LyonLayden"
> <joseph...@gmail.com>:
>
> >On Friday, December 8, 2017 at 7:15:04 PM UTC-5, *Hemidactylus* wrote:
> >
> >Where I come from, comments like "Have you ever been laid in your life?" are an observation of social awkwardness and nobody gets upset. Some people here seem to have extremely thin skin.
>
> Where/when I come from, such a question indicates extreme
> emotional immaturity on the part of the questioner.

Well nanny-nanny boo-boo stick your head in doo-doo to you.

[Jonathan]

On 12/7/2017 7:54 PM, *Hemidactylus* wrote:

> Jonathan <WriteI...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 12/7/2017 4:13 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> I'll bet money not a person contributing
>> to this thread has gotten laid in a good
>> ten years.
>>

>> I've seen more adult conversations from
>> teenage girls.
>>

> After attacking Nyikos’s family you have the reputation of a tapeworm.
> Apologize to him before you slither back to your cesspool.
>



He has a family?

It was a spoof you fool, does anyone really think it's
even conceivable he's posting pics of his family
to alt.binaries.erotica.pornstar-trading?

If you don't know the meaning of the word absurd
that's not my fault.

Let me give you an example of how it works
since your mind is obviously gone.

I'm accusing you of blowing the Pope while
he was giving Mass at the Vatican.

Now, are you going to sue me? Or explode
in rage? Or realize no one with half a mind
would take it seriously?





--

"To paraphrase the Buddha — Three things cannot be long hidden:
the sun; the moon; and the truth. ‬

“But let justice roll down like waters and righteousness
like an ever-flowing stream” Amos 5:24

~ Former FBI Director James Comey (12-1-17)


s

[Jonathan]

On 12/8/2017 11:58 AM, Bob Casanova wrote:
> On Thu, 7 Dec 2017 18:40:19 -0500, the following appeared in
> talk.origins, posted by Jonathan <WriteI...@gmail.com>:
>
>> On 12/7/2017 4:13 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
>
> [...nothing at all; bad attribution]
>
>> I'll bet money not a person contributing
>> to this thread has gotten laid in a good
>> ten years.
>
> You lose.
>
>> I've seen more adult conversations from
>> teenage girls.
>
> You should probably stop hanging around teenage girls.

Why?

> Unless, of course, you're underage yourself, a possibility
> none of your posts would cast doubt upon.
>


--

[Ray Martinez]

Your comments equate to rock solid evidence that you don't know what Naturalism is or entails. By implication your comments say you have a completely subjective and thus erroneous understanding of Supernaturalism.

Ray

[J.LyonLayden]

On Saturday, December 9, 2017 at 7:00:03 PM UTC-5, Ray Martinez wrote:
> On Saturday, December 9, 2017 at 3:15:03 PM UTC-8, Mark Isaak wrote:

Can I change the name of this thread to "Ray Speaks on Naturalism" via google groups? I'm sure John and I would appreciate it.

[J.LyonLayden]

On Tuesday, December 5, 2017 at 5:10:03 PM UTC-5, Ray Martinez wrote:
> On Tuesday, December 5, 2017 at 9:35:03 AM UTC-8, J.LyonLayden wrote:
> > On Tuesday, December 5, 2017 at 11:40:02 AM UTC-5, Ray Martinez wrote:
> > > On Tuesday, December 5, 2017 at 8:20:03 AM UTC-8, J.LyonLayden wrote:

> > > > On Tuesday, December 5, 2017 at 2:25:04 AM UTC-5, Martin Harran wrote:
> > > > > On Mon, 4 Dec 2017 20:08:11 -0800, John Harshman
> > > > > <jhar...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > >On 12/4/17 7:51 PM, J.LyonLayden wrote:
> > > > > >> Here is a picture of John Harshaman. It is interesting that from
> > > > > >> this picture you can discern both that he is an unhappy person, and
> > > > > >> WHY he is an unhappy person. If this were a full body shot, we'd
> > > > > >> likely see crocs and socks below the milk-white emaciated calves.
> > > > > >> Nice hat and jacket John!
> > > > > >
> > > > > >Now you're just being an asshole for the sake of being an asshole.
> > > > >
> > > > > Once again, John, I find myself in slight disagreement with you. I do
> > > > > agree with you on the key point that he certainly is an asshole but I
> > > > > don't think he's consciously being one - I reckon he's too much of an
> > > > > asshole to even realise he is an asshole!
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >> This post has not been made to defame John Harshman, but to inform readers.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >Now you're just lying. You really should be ashamed.
> > > > >
> > > > > Unfortunately there is a strong negative correlation between needing
> > > > > to be ashamed and knowing that you should be ashamed.
> > > >

> > > > No I am definitely being an asshole. If you repeatedly insult someone on multiple threads and repeatedly make fun of their intelligence on the basis of your 21 year old degree alone, expect them to get angry and treat you in the same reprehensible manner.
> > > >
> > >
> > > What's said above equates to an admission that you're driven to misrepresent anyone you can't best intellectually. In a different thread you admitted that you looked for negative information about me on the internet. You're out for revenge that your intellect cannot obtain on your opponents.
> > >
> > > Ray (Paleyan Creationist)
> >
> > What do you think of The Skeptical Zone, Ray? Did you know that John uses ideas from this forum to mine fringe theories for "Creationist defamation," just like you said about RationalWiki?
> >
>
> Let's assume what you're saying is more or less true. So what? Atheist-Evolutionists have always attempted to defame Creationists and Creationism----it's their job, their reason-for-being, their goal in life: to rid the world of their mortal enemy anyway they can. ALL IS FAIR in warfare. YOU just don't know HOW to handle these types when they go after you, I do.
>
> WHEN a person insults your person or thought as a response to a legitimate argument then all you have to do to defeat their tactic is remind the debate that your opponent has not answered your points legitimately, but descended into personal attacks, which indicates inability to refute.
>
> > http://theskepticalzone.com/wp/author/john-harshman/
> >
> >
> > I have skeptical articles on my blog, mostly about the Ancient Aliens show. But it's less than 1% of my content. I think people who are dedicated to being skeptics about everything fringe in general are nearly as bad as Ancient Alien theorists themselves.
> >
> > Sites like these repeatedly exaggerate other people's claims in an attempt to discredit them. They are often riddled with logical errors and untruths.
> >
>
> Then take the time to make these points in response. When that occurs a record exists that can be found if one wants to find it. That's all you can do. But don't do as your opponents do especially if truth is on your side. When you're a victim of exaggeration, point it out WHILE reiterating your real position. Simply use each occasion to contrast your true position and the inability of your opponents to address and refute your true position.
>
> > John employs dishonest tactics ubiquitous on sites like these. They will criticize your opinion in one field to discredit your ideas in another.
> >
>
> Then point that out as a response! And what you describe is not a dishonest tactic per se.
>
> >
> They will push their degrees around and make fun of yours without explanation.
> >
>
> I've had very many exchanges with John Harshman: He has never invoked his credentials as determining the validity of a claim, not even once. IF, and I say IF, he has done that to you elsewhere on the internet then it's probably a careless mistake. Then again, credentialed persons have the right to invoke their credentials as long as the invocation does not constitute the **sole criteria** for establishing the validity of their claim or claims.
>
> > I asked you about eel migration and Atlantis as it was attributed to you on one of these sites. You claimed the skeptic site is only for defamation. I assume you feel they misrepresented you. I don't doubt it. That's what they do.
> >
>
> A lot of times yes.
>
> >
> > Why has John taken it upon himself to destroy Creationist arguments? what makes him so passionate about attacking Creationim?
> >
>
> Because he is an Atheist-Evolutionist. I'm out to destroy Atheism and evolution as well.
>
> > I don't care about Creationist arguments myself. I have no anger against you, and I don't care if you keep believing what you believe. I am curious, and that is all.
> >
> >
> > I do not feel any need to try and tell the world that you are wrong, Ray. But obviously, John is on a mission to discredit people like you by any means possible.
> >
>
> Yep, all is fair in worldview warfare.
>
> Ray

Ray Speaks on Naturalism.
Speak Away.