The true colors of Peter Nyikos

[Ray Martinez]

On Monday, December 18, 2017 at 11:50:04 AM UTC-8, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> Note to readers:
>
> Ray Martinez has been charged with having been dishonest about
> the use of the word "paranoid" by Harshman BECAUSE he is
> so fond of Harshman, that he can't bear to see
> any of the justifiable contempt that so many people have for him (Ray)
> rubbing off onto Harshman.

JH, as far as I am aware, has not accused me of dishonesty in the matter mentioned above. And I'm not fond, or fond, of JH----a person who I've never met. He being an Atheist-Evolutionist and I being a Christian-Creationist: JH is merely a formidable opponent in on-topic debate; nothing more, nothing less.

> Details can be found here:
>
> https://groups.google.com/d/msg/talk.origins/wp4yuKbm-LQ/rkCcbdqDCwAJ
> Subject: Re: John Harshman Shows His True Colors
> Date: Fri, 15 Dec 2017 08:28:27 -0800 (PST)
> Message-ID: <8233e834-48ca-45ba...@googlegroups.com>

Details purporting what? The link takes one no where relevant.

>
>
> Too cowardly to plead e.g. "not guilty" to this charge, Ray has
> fled from the linked post, and is taking revenge for it
> by following up to the most friendly and heartfelt post
> that I've done on this thread; and by posting a highly
> concentrated pack of lies and distortions, ending with a diabolically
> cunning equivocation.

I replied to Peter's heartfelt message on purpose because in this post he portrays himself as some sort of Theist or even a Christian, which he most certainly is not. He does not believe Christ resurrected from the dead. My reply message conveyed the fact that Peter does not accept any evidence of God existing in nature therefore he cannot be a Deist, Theist, or Christian. Peter is, in fact, an Atheist or Materialist (same thing). I want this known because Peter wants it obscured, distorted, or unknown. Peter wants to argue the fact of evolution as an Agnostic, quasi Deist, quasi Theist, or quasi Christian in order to promote evolution before the unsuspecting Christian masses while suppressing the objective fact that evolution---the "thing itself"----assumes Naturalism true. Precisely why all Atheists are Evolutionists.

>
>
>
> On Saturday, December 16, 2017 at 12:30:03 AM UTC-5, Ray Martinez wrote:
> > On Friday, December 15, 2017 at 7:25:02 PM UTC-8, Peter Nyikos wrote:
>
> > > I appreciate your concern, Bill, but I actually did go cold turkey
> > > from ALL of Usenet for seven years, Aug 2001 to late October 2008, to
> > > be exact. But, to make a long story short, I saw that my help was
> > > urgently needed, first in talk.abortion to keep a clique of highly
> > > dishonest abortion rights fanatics from driving every person with
> > > a different point of view off it.
> > >
> > > And then I caught sci.bio.paleontology when it was on the verge
> > > of extinction, and played a key role in gradually bringing it off
> > > the "critically endangered" list.
> > >
> > > As for talk.origins, it is now perhaps the only robust forum of its kind
> > > in the world where people of strongly differing viewpoints can still
> > > have sincere interaction AND express themselves freely AND which has
> > > an amazing continuity from year to year. And I see behaviors
> > > which threaten that status in many ways. I think if you carefully read
> > > the post to which you are replying, you will sense those kinds of
> > > threats. Also try to look at some of the replies I do to others;
> > > I think you will sense a lot more threats of various sorts.
> > >
> > >
> > > In short, for all its dysfunctional aspects, I think talk.origins
> > > is a very precious thing, and I aim to do the best I can for it.
> > >
> > >
> > > You may be glad to know that I am planning to quit "cold turkey"
> > > for about a month. I was hoping to start tonight, but some posts
> > > have stubbornly failed to post, and so I will have to return on
> > > Monday -- I never post on weekends except in the most extraordinary
> > > circumstances -- to tie up a few loose ends before our ten-day
> > > family reunion for Christmas goes into high gear.
> > >
> > > I wish you and your loved ones a happy holiday season. If you
> > > are one of those old-fashioned enough to celebrate Christmas,
> > > in however secular or religious a fashion, I wish y'all a merry
> > > Christmas too; in any case, a happy new year.
> > >
> > > Here's to more frequent pleasant (for me at least -- I hope for you too)
> > > encounters like this between us in the coming year.
> > >
> > > Peter Nyikos
> >
> > Dear Audience:
>
> Ray, I'll have plenty to say about the following un-Christian paragraph
> by you after making a comment on how I expect you to behave in
> reaction to this post of mine.
>
> > Some basic facts about Peter Nyikos. He is an Atheist and of course an Evolutionist. Peter completely rejects design existing in nature. He also is a known advocate of space aliens seeding life on earth. And he has been known to label himself as an Agnostic, Deist, and even a Christian from time to time. But make no mistake, like all Atheists, Peter Nyikos believes no evidence of God exists in the natural world. He has also been known to defend the claims of Theism but his defense does not equate to acceptance that evidence of God exists in reality.
> >
> > Ray (Christian; anti-evolutionary)
>
> I expect you to either run away from this post like you've run
> away from the post I've linked above; or to post another pack of
> lies and distortions, then sign off with "Will reply to the rest ASAP."

I've ran from nothing. I MIGHT have honestly forgot, but Christians have no reason to run from Atheists in any debate.

>
> As I've found out, "ASAP" can mean "half a year from now, in reply
> to a challenge to behave responsibly about it, and to instead
> post another irresponsible claim."
>
> OK, let's take your paragraph slowly, from the top:
>
> > Some basic facts about Peter Nyikos. He is an Atheist and of course an Evolutionist.
>
> "Atheist" is a lie that I have refuted at great length many times, while
> in your jargon, "Evolutionist" means someone who is convinced that the
> common descent of all animals from a single eukaryote took place with no
> supernatural input at all.

In order to show that you're not an Atheist all you have to do is write out some sort of statement that says evidence of God exists in nature? You've never complied with this legitimate request in a straightforward manner, never.

Then Peter makes a straightforward dishonest statement that assumes and/or implies that common descent does not specifically exclude Intelligent aid or participation----it most assuredly does. Natural evolution, which is the only evolution that science has ever accepted, specifically excludes the supernatural. The following adjectives appear abundantly in relevant literature: unguided, undirected, unintelligent; meaning invisible Intelligence, invisible Director, and invisible Guide not seen in the evolutionary process.

>
> And I am far from convinced of that.
>
>
> > Peter completely rejects design existing in nature.
>
> A lie to "support" the lie of "Atheist."

If a lie then why not respond by saying "I accept design to exist in nature"?

Tell me, Peter, where did you obtain the idea that I have knowledge that you accept design existing in nature?

> And when I attack your
> latest "support" for a previous lie, you simply "support" it with
> another lie, in what would be an infinite regress if it didn't
> become eventually obvious that you are arguing in a circle,
> using previously refuted lies to "support" other previously
> refuted lies.
>
> But to make that eventually obvious, I have to leave all
> the previous lies in place. And in our last long running
> artument, you employed what might be called "The Nuclear
> Option for All liars Who Have Been Cornered."
>
> This was your claim that the post was too long for anyone
> to follow, and hence not worth replying to. On that
> last occasion you exited the thread, and started a new thread
> in which you shed crocodile tears over how I accuse you
> of lying and how I never support my claims of you lying.

Still no support. Why waste any words repeating the claim? Why not support your claim? Answer: Because you can't, you're lying.

>
> And you never quoted a single thing out of the post from
> which you were fleeing.
>
>
> > He also is a known advocate of space aliens seeding life on earth.
>
> Not an advocate; only someone who takes the Crick-Orgel hypothesis
> of directed panspermia seriously.

Contradiction. You're plainly/clearly defending and advocating.

> And I do it without making any
> commitments about whether the technological civilization that
> seeded earth with probes carrying only microorganisms [1] evolved
> with or without supernatural intervention.

DPism is a First Cause, not a secondary cause, or a claim of Theism. Absurd as it gets. Crick & Orgel were staunch Atheists. Christians cannot, and do not, support DPism.

>
> [1] Thereby disqualifying the misleading label "space aliens".
>
> Your lies and distortions are reminiscent of the old
> saying, "a lie can travel halfway around the world while the truth is
> putting on its shoes" -- and those shoes have to be very carefully
> designed and put on, thus leading to the inordinate difference in
> length between dishonest allegation and correction.

The unsupported CLAIM or ACCUSATION of lies seen again. When will Peter support his accusations instead of repeating them over and over?

He repeats them over and over because he can't support them. Simply repeating his false claim makes Peter feel better since he will never admit that he is wrong.

Ray

[Bill]

This is somewhat interesting. Why is it important that
evolution be unguided, undirected, unintelligent? In what
way does it matter? Do we reject intelligence and design in
nature because of evidence or the lack of evidence? Is all
this simply a consequence of philosophical naturalism or is
there some philosophically neutral basis? Can we even tell?

Bill

[Sean Dillon]

Here's a crazy idea:

What if posters on this site stopped smearing other posters and other group, and actually focused on arguments about the topic at hand. It seems like there is a lot of grandstanding for nobody around here.

[*Hemidactylus*]

I’m a sociopath put on time-out by a certain someone still referenced in
posts by him. What more do you want from me?

[Sean Dillon]

Ha!

Only what I ask of everyone at this time of year... celebrate the warm and bright, respect the cold and dark and:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BS0T8Cd4UhA

[Burkhard]

Sean Dillon wrote:
> Here's a crazy idea:
>
> What if posters on this site stopped smearing other posters and other group, and actually focused on arguments about the topic at hand. It seems like there is a lot of grandstanding for nobody around here.
>

burn, heretic burn!!!

[Sean Dillon]

Yeah... don't get me started on the out-of-date interface.

[Ray Martinez]

It matters greatly because IF true the same becomes positive evidence that says God does not exist (Theists suffering a God delusion). Precisely why Atheists endorse, defend, and promote evolution with unbending fanatical zeal.

> Do we reject intelligence and design in
> nature because of evidence or the lack of evidence?

Darwinism rejects design in nature because they believe an unintelligent agent of causation exists and operates in nature. If said causation agent does indeed exist then no effect can be identified as designed. Without design the existence of invisible Intelligence cannot be inferred.

> Is all
> this simply a consequence of philosophical naturalism or is
> there some philosophically neutral basis? Can we even tell?
>
> Bill

A neutral evidence interpreting philosophy does not exist.

Normal people can tell, yes. Either design exists in nature or it does not.

Bill's thinking in these matters is quite abnormal. He basically believes and argues that nothing important can be known except the fact that nothing important can be known. Much to his chagrin, Bill's exception saves the day for knowledge attainability.

Ray

[Wolffan]

On 2017 Dec 18, Sean Dillon wrote
(in article<2553efd5-2523-4894...@googlegroups.com>):

where’s the fun in _that_?

[Bill]

>> >> <8233e834-48ca-45ba-
b919-9d9...@googlegroups.com>

There's no way to know or we would know. Since there's no
agreement, all knowledge is provisional. We have to use
unprovable assumptions to determine what to include in what
we believe is knowledge. These assumptions are entirely
philosophical.

Bill

[Bob Casanova]

On Mon, 18 Dec 2017 21:01:40 -0800 (PST), the following
appeared in talk.origins, posted by Ray Martinez
<r3p...@gmail.com>:

>On Monday, December 18, 2017 at 4:00:03 PM UTC-8, Bill wrote:

<snip>

>>...Why is it important that

>> evolution be unguided, undirected, unintelligent? In what
>> way does it matter?

>It matters greatly because IF true the same becomes positive evidence that says God does not exist

No, it does not. It *may* say that *your* belief, that God
intervenes in His Creation continually, is incorrect, but
that's all; science doesn't address religious beliefs, only
evidence, and is mute on the subject of unevidenced deities.
*Any* deities. All it can, or does, do is to show whether
particular religious beliefs (global floods, hollow Earth,
mountains in Greece housing multiple deities, etc.) are
correct. It *cannot* address the existence of deities in
general, especially those who might wish to remain hidden.
--

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 18, 2017 at 4:30:02 PM UTC-5, Ray Martinez wrote:
> On Monday, December 18, 2017 at 11:50:04 AM UTC-8, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> > Note to readers:
> >
> > Ray Martinez has been charged with having been dishonest about
> > the use of the word "paranoid" by Harshman BECAUSE he is
> > so fond of Harshman, that he can't bear to see
> > any of the justifiable contempt that so many people have for him (Ray)
> > rubbing off onto Harshman.

And now you say something totally irrelevant to the charge.

> JH, as far as I am aware, has not accused me of dishonesty in the matter mentioned above.

Of course not. Are you so completely out of touch with Christian
morality as to think that this makes him a better man than someone
who shows how dishonestly you spoke about his use of "paranoid"?

> And I'm not fond, or fond, of JH----a person who I've never met.

Actions speak louder than words. You ran away from the post
where the charge was formally made:

++++++++++++++++++++++++ excerpt+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

> How does a generic, critical observation of paranoid rise to despicable
> behavior? Don't answer.

I will answer anyway. There was no such "observation" at all.
What happened was way too specific for you to be able to face it.

But I think the REAL reason you cannot face it, and are forced
to ask your blatantly misleading and disgenuous question is that
I COMPARED YOU FAVORABLY TO HARSHMAN:

_____________________excerpt from OP______________________

> >>> I think I see the reason now: you and Mark have adopted a meaning
> >>> of the word "classification" which takes it out of the realm of
> >>> science into the realm of the humanities, where Mark is
> >>> FAR more at home.
> >>> >>
> >> Paranoia: it's the only word that makes sense here.
> >
> > Gratuitous insult is the only term that this last sentence of yours
> > deserves.
>
> You are assuming nefarious motivations not in evidence.

Nonsense. "Paranoia" is totally inappropriate for pointing out word games,
of which Ray Martinez makes use of incessantly and is criticized for these games
by many people in many threads.

But I've never seen Martinez sink so low as to accuse his critics of paranoia
just for criticizing these word games.

> What other word
> should be used?

Disingenuous question noted.

> > You need to look up the word "paranoia." It does not mean what
> > you seem > > you seem to think it means.
>
> No, you're just unable to see it. You have delusions of persecution.

I defy you to come up with even ONE time you used "paranoia" or
"paranoid" in a way that did justice to that definition.
I can come up with many that PATENTLY do not.

If you think this latest one of yours DOES satisfy it, you
are more deluded than you claim me to be, and illogical
to an extent that is rare even for Ray Martinez.
==================END OF EXCERPT===========================

You are so fond of Harshman, that you can't bear to see
ANY of the contempt in which people hold you to rub off onto him.

That is a formal accusation. How do you plead?

************************ end of excerpt from

https://groups.google.com/d/msg/talk.origins/wp4yuKbm-LQ/rkCcbdqDCwAJ
Subject: Re: John Harshman Shows His True Colors
Date: Fri, 15 Dec 2017 08:28:27 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <8233e834-48ca-45ba...@googlegroups.com>

> He being an Atheist-Evolutionist and I being a Christian-Creationist: JH is merely a formidable opponent in on-topic debate; nothing more, nothing less.

He is also someone whom you lied about by misrepresenting his use
of the word "paranoia" as documented above.

> > Details can be found here:
> >
> > https://groups.google.com/d/msg/talk.origins/wp4yuKbm-LQ/rkCcbdqDCwAJ
> > Subject: Re: John Harshman Shows His True Colors
> > Date: Fri, 15 Dec 2017 08:28:27 -0800 (PST)
> > Message-ID: <8233e834-48ca-45ba...@googlegroups.com>
>
> Details purporting what? The link takes one no where relevant.

You are lying through your teeth, again in service of Harshman.

Readers can compare: the excerpt above is from the very post
about which you are lying.

> >
> >
> > Too cowardly to plead e.g. "not guilty" to this charge, Ray has
> > fled from the linked post, and is taking revenge for it
> > by following up to the most friendly and heartfelt post
> > that I've done on this thread; and by posting a highly
> > concentrated pack of lies and distortions, ending with a diabolically
> > cunning equivocation.
>
> I replied to Peter's heartfelt message on purpose because in this post he portrays himself as some sort of Theist or even a Christian, which he most certainly is not.
> He does not believe Christ resurrected from the dead.

I have identified myself as
a Christian by YOUR definition as someone who follows [the exhortations
and example of] Christ. That has NOTHING to do with the fact that I
am also an agnostic in the sense of not claiming to know that God exists,
but ALSO not (perish the thought!) of claiming God does not exist --
and of not claiming to know that Jesus rose from the dead --
but ALSO not (perish the thought!) of claiming he did NOT
rise from the dead.


And I strive far more to follow Christ than you do. For you,
Christianity is like a shirt you put on and take off many times
a day as you post on talk.origins. You cease to follow Christ
every time you violate his commandment, "Do not bear false witness,"
while I scrupulously try to avoid bearing false witness even
by accident.

You on the other hand bore false witness against me repeatedly
in reply to the very post to which you are replying here,
back on the original thread.

> My reply message conveyed the fact that Peter does not accept any evidence of God existing in nature therefore he cannot be a Deist, Theist, or Christian. Peter is, in fact, an Atheist or Materialist (same thing). I want this known

...because it is a willful slander against me, to which I replied
as follows when you originally posted it:

_________________________ excerpt _________________________

> But make no mistake, like all Atheists, Peter Nyikos believes no evidence of God exists in the natural world.

That is a bare faced lie. I know of more evidence for the existence
of God than your cosmology-challenged brain can ever understand.
But I ALSO know of various arguments for interpreting that evidence
in naturalistic ways. This is the hypothesis of the existence of
a multiverse with an incomprehensibly large number of universes
like the one we know about.

And your mind is utterly incapable of grasping this hypothesis,
and so with profound ignorance, you claim there is enough evidence
pro and con to come down on one side or the other.

> He has also been known to defend the claims of Theism but his defense does not equate to acceptance that evidence of God exists in reality.

This is a diabolically cunning equivocation. It can be read either
in the lying way you said it up there, or it can be interpreted
to mean "decisive evidence" in line with your profoundly ignorant
"up or down" claim.

>
> Ray (Christian; anti-evolutionary)

This sign-off is PROFOUNDLY revealing of your on-again, off-again
Christianity. You didn't even wait until after you hit the button to
post your false witness against me to put your "shirt of Christianity"
back on by YOUR standards. Instead you put it on IMMEDIATELY after
your diabolically deceitful paragraph was finished.

Had you just signed off with "Ray," as you sometimes do, I would
have used the analogy "suit of clothes" instead of "shirt".

=================== end of excerpt from
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/talk.origins/wp4yuKbm-LQ/ioPf0CwhAQAJ

Remainder deleted, to be replied to in January, because of
the very things I told Bill Rogers. You have cravenly
begun a new thread rather than reply on the old thread, so
that people may not know the EVIDENCE for the formal charge
from which you are a fugitive here.

When you told the lie that there is nothing in the post which
provided the evidence, you were "shirtless" and you are
shirtless in the remainder of the post, to which I will reply
"ASAP" -- a month from now is the first time this becomes
really possible, given you habit of incessantly using
lies to "justify" new lies.

I celebrate the birth of Jesus at Christmas, and I don't
want you to be THEN in the position of making a mockery of much of
what Jesus stood for with your heretical on again, off again
"Christianity."

Peter Nyikos

[Bill]

Bob Casanova wrote:

> On Mon, 18 Dec 2017 21:01:40 -0800 (PST), the following
> appeared in talk.origins, posted by Ray Martinez
> <r3p...@gmail.com>:
>
>>On Monday, December 18, 2017 at 4:00:03 PM UTC-8, Bill
>>wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
>>>...Why is it important that
>>> evolution be unguided, undirected, unintelligent? In
>>> what way does it matter?
>
>>It matters greatly because IF true the same becomes
>>positive evidence that says God does not exist
>
> No, it does not. It *may* say that *your* belief, that God
> intervenes in His Creation continually, is incorrect, but
> that's all; science doesn't address religious beliefs,
> only evidence, and is mute on the subject of unevidenced
> deities. *Any* deities. All it can, or does, do is to show
> whether particular religious beliefs (global floods,
> hollow Earth, mountains in Greece housing multiple
> deities, etc.) are correct. It *cannot* address the
> existence of deities in general, especially those who
> might wish to remain hidden.

To reiterate: what does it matter to science if God(s)
exist? The investigation of nature isn't affected so the
question of a God(s) existence is immaterial in this
context. Theists and atheists have nothing to contribute
beyond their own biased beliefs.

How the existence of God(s) affects us apart from the
mechanistic application of the sciences or the biases of the
theist/atheist is unknown by any direct means. We have to
think a different way than we're used to.

Bill

[Ray Martinez]

On Tuesday, December 19, 2017 at 10:20:03 AM UTC-8, Bob Casanova wrote:
> On Mon, 18 Dec 2017 21:01:40 -0800 (PST), the following
> appeared in talk.origins, posted by Ray Martinez
> <r3p...@gmail.com>:
>
> >On Monday, December 18, 2017 at 4:00:03 PM UTC-8, Bill wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> >>...Why is it important that
> >> evolution be unguided, undirected, unintelligent? In what
> >> way does it matter?
>
> >It matters greatly because IF true the same becomes positive evidence that says God does not exist
>
> No, it does not.

Bob writes a complete sentence that says, in context, that unintelligent, undirected, or unguided evolution does not equate to evidence supporting the non-existence of invisible Guide, invisible Director, or invisible Intelligence.

> It *may* say that *your* belief, that God
> intervenes in His Creation continually, is incorrect, but
> that's all

By claiming "may" Bob is saying that's what the prefix "un" means, which is manifestly ridiculous. The prefix "un" as it appears before the words intelligent, directed, and guided does not mean "may not be guided, may not be directed, or may not be intelligent," but definitively means these are NOT intelligent, directed, or guided.

> ....science doesn't address religious beliefs, only

> evidence, and is mute on the subject of unevidenced deities.

False.

The description of natural selection as unintelligent, undirected, and/or unguided, found abundantly in relevant literature, plainly means science has determined that God: invisible Guide, invisible Director, and/or invisible Intelligence are KNOWN not to be involved with the evolutionary process.

> *Any* deities. All it can, or does, do is to show whether
> particular religious beliefs (global floods, hollow Earth,
> mountains in Greece housing multiple deities, etc.) are
> correct. It *cannot* address the existence of deities in
> general, especially those who might wish to remain hidden.

"There is indeed one belief that all true original Darwinians held in common, and that was their rejection of creationism, their rejection of special creation. This was the flag around which they assembled and under which they marched. When Hull claimed that 'the Darwinians did not totally agree with each other, even over essentials', he overlooked one essential on which all these Darwinians agreed. Nothing was more essential for them than to decide whether evolution is a natural phenomenon or something controlled by God. The conviction that the diversity of the natural world was the result of natural processes and not the work of God was the idea that brought all the so-called Darwinians together in spite of their disagreements on other of Darwin’s theories" (Ernst Mayr "One Long Argument" 1991:99).

Your turn, Bob. Produce a quote from mainstream scholarship that says evolution does not address God specifically.

Ray

[Ray Martinez]

On Tuesday, December 19, 2017 at 2:05:03 PM UTC-8, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> On Monday, December 18, 2017 at 4:30:02 PM UTC-5, Ray Martinez wrote:
> > On Monday, December 18, 2017 at 11:50:04 AM UTC-8, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> > > Note to readers:
> > >
> > > Ray Martinez has been charged with having been dishonest about
> > > the use of the word "paranoid" by Harshman BECAUSE he is
> > > so fond of Harshman, that he can't bear to see
> > > any of the justifiable contempt that so many people have for him (Ray)
> > > rubbing off onto Harshman.
>
> And now you say something totally irrelevant to the charge.
>
>
> > JH, as far as I am aware, has not accused me of dishonesty in the matter mentioned above.
>
> Of course not. Are you so completely out of touch with Christian
> morality as to think that this makes him a better man than someone
> who shows how dishonestly you spoke about his use of "paranoid"?

Atheist John Harshman and myself remain ardent worldview enemies in every respect. Peter concocts an egregious falsehood----that John and I are nonetheless friendly. Yet nothing epitomizes total opposition to one another more than JH and RM. I argue vehemently that species are designed and thus created immutable. John argues vehemently for the exact opposite. At no time has either of us ever been anything other than scientific enemies.

As a matter of fact, John and Peter hold to the exact same position: Darwinian common descent. From the present back in deep time to biological First Cause no divine intervention has ever occurred causing any species to exist ( = Atheism, Materialism).

By saying contradictory things, Peter has sacrificed his reputation as a scholar. He cannot be trusted to speak truthfully. The fact that John and I are total and complete worldview enemies is an easily verifiable fact that anyone with a computer can confirm.

>
>
> > And I'm not fond, or fond, of JH----a person who I've never met.
>
> Actions speak louder than words. You ran away from the post
> where the charge was formally made:
>
> ++++++++++++++++++++++++ excerpt+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>
> > How does a generic, critical observation of paranoid rise to despicable
> > behavior? Don't answer.
>
> I will answer anyway. There was no such "observation" at all.
> What happened was way too specific for you to be able to face it.
>
> But I think the REAL reason you cannot face it, and are forced
> to ask your blatantly misleading and disgenuous question is that
> I COMPARED YOU FAVORABLY TO HARSHMAN:
>
> _____________________excerpt from OP______________________
>
> > >>> I think I see the reason now: you and Mark have adopted a meaning
> > >>> of the word "classification" which takes it out of the realm of
> > >>> science into the realm of the humanities, where Mark is
> > >>> FAR more at home.
> > >>> >>
> > >> Paranoia: it's the only word that makes sense here.
> > >
> > > Gratuitous insult is the only term that this last sentence of yours
> > > deserves.
> >
> > You are assuming nefarious motivations not in evidence.
>
> Nonsense. "Paranoia" is totally inappropriate for pointing out word games,
> of which Ray Martinez makes use of incessantly and is criticized for these games
> by many people in many threads.

The accusation of word games, leveled at me, is fairly common, yes, I agree, but as I've pointed out the accusation never comes with explanatory support, which means the accusation is completely false. Note the fact that you have leveled the accusation without supporting or showing a word game. All the accusation really means is that my opponents suspect something is wrong with my argument but can't actually show or explain what is wrong? In other words my opponents are frustrated and unwilling to admit that their claims are false.

Ray

(will finish replying ASAP)

[jillery]

On Tue, 19 Dec 2017 22:13:57 -0800 (PST), Ray Martinez
<r3p...@gmail.com> wrote:

>The accusation of word games, leveled at me, is fairly common, yes, I agree, but as I've pointed out the accusation never comes with explanatory support, which means the accusation is completely false

Incorrect. To the best of my recollection, I have always identified
the specifics of your word games as I noted them.

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

Evelyn Beatrice Hall
Attributed to Voltaire

[Ray Martinez]

Jillery, in the preceding message seen directly above and in the context of my complaint that says opponents accuse me of playing word games without ever actually supporting or showing what they mean, does exactly that: she asserts that she has supported the accusation of word games on my part without actually supporting or showing the truth of her accusation. What irony!

Ray

[jillery]

On Wed, 20 Dec 2017 01:14:27 -0800 (PST), Ray Martinez
<r3p...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Wed, 20 Dec 2017 02:07:34 -0500, jillery <69jp...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 19 Dec 2017 22:13:57 -0800 (PST), Ray Martinez
>><r3p...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>The accusation of word games, leveled at me, is fairly common, yes, I agree, but as I've pointed out the accusation never comes with explanatory support, which means the accusation is completely false
>>
>>
>>Incorrect. To the best of my recollection, I have always identified
>>the specifics of your word games as I noted them.
>
>

>Jillery, in the preceding message seen directly above and in the context of my complaint that says opponents accuse me of playing word games without ever actually supporting or showing what they mean, does exactly that: she asserts that she has supported the accusation of word games on my part without actually supporting or showing the truth of her accusation. What irony!
>
>Ray

The only irony here is that you seem to think your lies are clever.

[Bob Casanova]

On Tue, 19 Dec 2017 16:58:35 -0600, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by Bill <fre...@gmail.com>:

>Bob Casanova wrote:

>> On Mon, 18 Dec 2017 21:01:40 -0800 (PST), the following
>> appeared in talk.origins, posted by Ray Martinez
>> <r3p...@gmail.com>:

>>>On Monday, December 18, 2017 at 4:00:03 PM UTC-8, Bill
>>>wrote:

>>>>...Why is it important that
>>>> evolution be unguided, undirected, unintelligent? In
>>>> what way does it matter?
>>
>>>It matters greatly because IF true the same becomes
>>>positive evidence that says God does not exist
>>
>> No, it does not. It *may* say that *your* belief, that God
>> intervenes in His Creation continually, is incorrect, but
>> that's all; science doesn't address religious beliefs,
>> only evidence, and is mute on the subject of unevidenced
>> deities. *Any* deities. All it can, or does, do is to show
>> whether particular religious beliefs (global floods,
>> hollow Earth, mountains in Greece housing multiple
>> deities, etc.) are correct. It *cannot* address the
>> existence of deities in general, especially those who
>> might wish to remain hidden.

>To reiterate: what does it matter to science if God(s)
>exist? The investigation of nature isn't affected so the
>question of a God(s) existence is immaterial in this
>context. Theists and atheists have nothing to contribute
>beyond their own biased beliefs.

It only matters if the deity in question is capable of, and
does, use supernatural abilities to affect what we perceive.
So far, that hasn't happened. So to re-address your original
question, it isn't "important" in any grand philosophical
sense; it's simply what we observe to be true, that
evolution is an unguided natural process.

>How the existence of God(s) affects us apart from the
>mechanistic application of the sciences or the biases of the
>theist/atheist is unknown by any direct means. We have to
>think a different way than we're used to.

I have no idea what that is supposed to mean, in this
context.

[Bob Casanova]

On Tue, 19 Dec 2017 18:43:16 -0800 (PST), the following

appeared in talk.origins, posted by Ray Martinez
<r3p...@gmail.com>:

>On Tuesday, December 19, 2017 at 10:20:03 AM UTC-8, Bob Casanova wrote:
>> On Mon, 18 Dec 2017 21:01:40 -0800 (PST), the following
>> appeared in talk.origins, posted by Ray Martinez
>> <r3p...@gmail.com>:
>>
>> >On Monday, December 18, 2017 at 4:00:03 PM UTC-8, Bill wrote:
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>> >>...Why is it important that
>> >> evolution be unguided, undirected, unintelligent? In what
>> >> way does it matter?
>>
>> >It matters greatly because IF true the same becomes positive evidence that says God does not exist
>>
>> No, it does not.
>
>Bob writes a complete sentence that says, in context, that unintelligent, undirected, or unguided evolution does not equate to evidence supporting the non-existence of invisible Guide, invisible Director, or invisible Intelligence.

Bob wrote a sentence which addressed Ray's statement that
the fact that evolution is not observed to be guided is
evidence of the non-existence of God, which it is not.

>> It *may* say that *your* belief, that God
>> intervenes in His Creation continually, is incorrect, but
>> that's all
>
>By claiming "may" Bob is saying that's what the prefix "un" means, which is manifestly ridiculous. The prefix "un" as it appears before the words intelligent, directed, and guided does not mean "may not be guided, may not be directed, or may not be intelligent," but definitively means these are NOT intelligent, directed, or guided.

Try reading what I actually wrote, and what it was in
response to. You *may* actually be able to understand it.

>> ....science doesn't address religious beliefs, only
>> evidence, and is mute on the subject of unevidenced deities.
>
>False.
>
>The description of natural selection as unintelligent, undirected, and/or unguided, found abundantly in relevant literature, plainly means science has determined that God: invisible Guide, invisible Director, and/or invisible Intelligence are KNOWN not to be involved with the evolutionary process.

No, Ray, it says nothing of the sort, any more than a
statement that "I see no evidence that Ray can think" means
"I KNOW Ray cannot think". Indicative, yes; conclusive, no.

God may be involved in every mutation and selection process
we observe, but if He is the process is indistinguishable
from an unguided and undirected one, so is ignored as a
possibility: "A difference which makes no difference *is* no
difference".

>> *Any* deities. All it can, or does, do is to show whether
>> particular religious beliefs (global floods, hollow Earth,
>> mountains in Greece housing multiple deities, etc.) are
>> correct. It *cannot* address the existence of deities in
>> general, especially those who might wish to remain hidden.
>
>"There is indeed one belief that all true original Darwinians held in common, and that was their rejection of creationism, their rejection of special creation. This was the flag around which they assembled and under which they marched. When Hull claimed that 'the Darwinians did not totally agree with each other, even over essentials', he overlooked one essential on which all these Darwinians agreed. Nothing was more essential for them than to decide whether evolution is a natural phenomenon or something controlled by God. The conviction that the diversity of the natural world was the result of natural processes and not the work of God was the idea that brought all the so-called Darwinians together in spite of their disagreements on other of Darwin’s theories" (Ernst Mayr "One Long Argument" 1991:99).
>
>Your turn, Bob. Produce a quote from mainstream scholarship that says evolution does not address God specifically.

No need; your quote serves quite well to show that the
*existence* of deities is not addressed by science (which
was what I wrote); only what such a deity appears to not be
*doing* (Special Creation, constant meddling, etc.).

Your problem, again, is that you think only your beliefs
matter, and that God cannot act in a manner you reject. You
are wrong; God can do whatever He wants, and doesn't have to
follow your beliefs.

[Bob Casanova]

On Wed, 20 Dec 2017 01:14:27 -0800 (PST), the following

appeared in talk.origins, posted by Ray Martinez
<r3p...@gmail.com>:

>Jillery, in the preceding message seen directly above and in the context of my complaint that says opponents accuse me of playing word games without ever actually supporting or showing what they mean, does exactly that: she asserts that she has supported the accusation of word games on my part without actually supporting or showing the truth of her accusation. What irony!

Just a note, Ray: "the preceding message shown directly
above" is a meaningless noise; attributions and context
inclusion, or message ID, is the only way to adequately
identify a message.

[Wolffan]

On 2017 Dec 20, Bob Casanova wrote
(in article<0i6l3dhlbhbdi14a8...@4ax.com>):

> On Wed, 20 Dec 2017 01:14:27 -0800 (PST), the following
> appeared in talk.origins, posted by Ray Martinez
> <r3p...@gmail.com>:
>
> > Jillery, in the preceding message seen directly above and in the context of
> > my complaint that says opponents accuse me of playing word games without
> > ever actually supporting or showing what they mean, does exactly that: she
> > asserts that she has supported the accusation of word games on my part
> > without actually supporting or showing the truth of her accusation. What
> > irony!
>
> Just a note, Ray: "the preceding message shown directly
> above" is a meaningless noise; attributions and context
> inclusion, or message ID, is the only way to adequately
> identify a message.

He uses Google. He means the post directly above the post he’s replying to,
in Google’s feed. He’s sufficiently idiotic that he doesn’t care that
that post will be ‘directly above’ only for people who use Google.

[jillery]

On Wed, 20 Dec 2017 18:11:16 -0500, Wolffan <aklwo...@gmail.com>
wrote:

After all, according to Ray, Google is the universe; all else is
simulation.

[Ray Martinez]

On Wednesday, December 20, 2017 at 9:15:05 AM UTC-8, Bob Casanova wrote:
> On Tue, 19 Dec 2017 18:43:16 -0800 (PST), the following
> appeared in talk.origins, posted by Ray Martinez
> <r3p...@gmail.com>:
>
> >On Tuesday, December 19, 2017 at 10:20:03 AM UTC-8, Bob Casanova wrote:
> >> On Mon, 18 Dec 2017 21:01:40 -0800 (PST), the following
> >> appeared in talk.origins, posted by Ray Martinez
> >> <r3p...@gmail.com>:
> >>
> >> >On Monday, December 18, 2017 at 4:00:03 PM UTC-8, Bill wrote:
> >>
> >> <snip>
> >>
> >> >>...Why is it important that
> >> >> evolution be unguided, undirected, unintelligent? In what
> >> >> way does it matter?
> >>
> >> >It matters greatly because IF true the same becomes positive evidence that says God does not exist
> >>
> >> No, it does not.
> >
> >Bob writes a complete sentence that says, in context, that unintelligent, undirected, or unguided evolution does not equate to evidence supporting the non-existence of invisible Guide, invisible Director, or invisible Intelligence.
>
> Bob wrote a sentence which addressed Ray's statement that
> the fact that evolution is not observed to be guided is
> evidence of the non-existence of God, which it is not.
>

Bob, an Evolutionist, acknowledges the claim of unguided evolution but is unable to make the correct and logical inference that says invisible Guide/God is known not to be involved. We have always said that Evolutionists think illogically with no awareness of the deficiency. The present issue clearly supports our claim. Unguided plainly means invisible Guide (God) non-existent in the production of living things, which Bob denies.

>
> >> It *may* say that *your* belief, that God
> >> intervenes in His Creation continually, is incorrect, but
> >> that's all
> >
> >By claiming "may" Bob is saying that's what the prefix "un" means, which is manifestly ridiculous. The prefix "un" as it appears before the words intelligent, directed, and guided does not mean "may not be guided, may not be directed, or may not be intelligent," but definitively means these are NOT intelligent, directed, or guided.
>
> Try reading what I actually wrote, and what it was in
> response to. You *may* actually be able to understand it.
>
> >> ....science doesn't address religious beliefs, only
> >> evidence, and is mute on the subject of unevidenced deities.
> >
> >False.
> >
> >The description of natural selection as unintelligent, undirected, and/or unguided, found abundantly in relevant literature, plainly means science has determined that God: invisible Guide, invisible Director, and/or invisible Intelligence are KNOWN not to be involved with the evolutionary process.
>
> No, Ray, it says nothing of the sort, any more than a
> statement that "I see no evidence that Ray can think" means
> "I KNOW Ray cannot think". Indicative, yes; conclusive, no.

Now Bob admits that unguided indicates absence of invisible Guide/God but seems to think the indication or inference isn't conclusive. Yet conclusion and inference are synonyms.

>
> God may be involved in every mutation and selection process
> we observe

Unguided and undirected, which are the adjectives that evolutionary scientists use to describe evolution, explicitly disallow the possibility that invisible Director and invisible Guide are involved. That said where did Bob obtain the idea that the prefix un means might or may be involved? Again, Bob is shown to think illogically----unable to understand the meaning of a simple prefix.

Ray (will finish replying ASAP)

[Bob Casanova]

On Wed, 20 Dec 2017 18:11:16 -0500, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by Wolffan <aklwo...@gmail.com>:

I feel his pain.

[John Stockwell]

On Tuesday, December 19, 2017 at 11:15:03 PM UTC-7, Ray Martinez wrote:
> On Tuesday, December 19, 2017 at 2:05:03 PM UTC-8, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> > On Monday, December 18, 2017 at 4:30:02 PM UTC-5, Ray Martinez wrote:
> > > On Monday, December 18, 2017 at 11:50:04 AM UTC-8, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> > > > Note to readers:
> > > >
> > > > Ray Martinez has been charged with having been dishonest about
> > > > the use of the word "paranoid" by Harshman BECAUSE he is
> > > > so fond of Harshman, that he can't bear to see
> > > > any of the justifiable contempt that so many people have for him (Ray)
> > > > rubbing off onto Harshman.
> >
> > And now you say something totally irrelevant to the charge.
> >
> >
> > > JH, as far as I am aware, has not accused me of dishonesty in the matter mentioned above.
> >
> > Of course not. Are you so completely out of touch with Christian
> > morality as to think that this makes him a better man than someone
> > who shows how dishonestly you spoke about his use of "paranoid"?
>
> Atheist John Harshman and myself remain ardent worldview enemies in every respect. Peter concocts an egregious falsehood----that John and I are nonetheless friendly. Yet nothing epitomizes total opposition to one another more than JH and RM. I argue vehemently that species are designed and thus created immutable. John argues vehemently for the exact opposite. At no time has either of us ever been anything other than scientific enemies.
>
> As a matter of fact, John and Peter hold to the exact same position: Darwinian common descent. From the present back in deep time to biological First Cause no divine intervention has ever occurred causing any species to exist ( = Atheism, Materialism).

The appearance of biology is that of evolution without any forethought, only
the response of the populations to changes.

So, the God believers could take the position that the Creator intervenes but
makes it look like there is only random variation.

I would think that the doctrine of faith would require that God not be detectably by any means. Doesn't a seeable God violate the doctrine of Faith?

>
> By saying contradictory things, Peter has sacrificed his reputation as a scholar. He cannot be trusted to speak truthfully. The fact that John and I are total and complete worldview enemies is an easily verifiable fact that anyone with a computer can confirm.

Oh, Peter isn't a scholar, he is a mathematician. A scholar is a person who
learns and regurgitates, possibly with footnotes, the thoughts and writings of
others. A mathematician is a creature plying the seas of mathematics to make
discoveries of his/her own.

>
> >
> >
> > > And I'm not fond, or fond, of JH----a person who I've never met.
> >
> > Actions speak louder than words. You ran away from the post
> > where the charge was formally made:
> >
> > ++++++++++++++++++++++++ excerpt+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> >
> > > How does a generic, critical observation of paranoid rise to despicable
> > > behavior? Don't answer.
> >
> > I will answer anyway. There was no such "observation" at all.
> > What happened was way too specific for you to be able to face it.
> >
> > But I think the REAL reason you cannot face it, and are forced
> > to ask your blatantly misleading and disgenuous question is that
> > I COMPARED YOU FAVORABLY TO HARSHMAN:
> >
> > _____________________excerpt from OP______________________
> >
> > > >>> I think I see the reason now: you and Mark have adopted a meaning
> > > >>> of the word "classification" which takes it out of the realm of
> > > >>> science into the realm of the humanities, where Mark is
> > > >>> FAR more at home.
> > > >>> >>
> > > >> Paranoia: it's the only word that makes sense here.
> > > >
> > > > Gratuitous insult is the only term that this last sentence of yours
> > > > deserves.
> > >
> > > You are assuming nefarious motivations not in evidence.
> >
> > Nonsense. "Paranoia" is totally inappropriate for pointing out word games,
> > of which Ray Martinez makes use of incessantly and is criticized for these games
> > by many people in many threads.
>
> The accusation of word games, leveled at me, is fairly common, yes, I agree, but as I've pointed out the accusation never comes with explanatory support, which means the accusation is completely false. Note the fact that you have leveled the accusation without supporting or showing a word game. All the accusation really means is that my opponents suspect something is wrong with my argument but can't actually show or explain what is wrong? In other words my opponents are frustrated and unwilling to admit that their claims are false.

I think that you are being hyper-religious to keep a skeleton in your personal
religious closet from rattling too loudly.

[Bob Casanova]

On Wed, 20 Dec 2017 19:39:31 -0800 (PST), the following

appeared in talk.origins, posted by Ray Martinez
<r3p...@gmail.com>:

>On Wednesday, December 20, 2017 at 9:15:05 AM UTC-8, Bob Casanova wrote:
>> On Tue, 19 Dec 2017 18:43:16 -0800 (PST), the following
>> appeared in talk.origins, posted by Ray Martinez
>> <r3p...@gmail.com>:
>>
>> >On Tuesday, December 19, 2017 at 10:20:03 AM UTC-8, Bob Casanova wrote:
>> >> On Mon, 18 Dec 2017 21:01:40 -0800 (PST), the following
>> >> appeared in talk.origins, posted by Ray Martinez
>> >> <r3p...@gmail.com>:
>> >>
>> >> >On Monday, December 18, 2017 at 4:00:03 PM UTC-8, Bill wrote:
>> >>
>> >> <snip>
>> >>
>> >> >>...Why is it important that
>> >> >> evolution be unguided, undirected, unintelligent? In what
>> >> >> way does it matter?
>> >>
>> >> >It matters greatly because IF true the same becomes positive evidence that says God does not exist
>> >>
>> >> No, it does not.
>> >
>> >Bob writes a complete sentence that says, in context, that unintelligent, undirected, or unguided evolution does not equate to evidence supporting the non-existence of invisible Guide, invisible Director, or invisible Intelligence.
>>
>> Bob wrote a sentence which addressed Ray's statement that
>> the fact that evolution is not observed to be guided is
>> evidence of the non-existence of God, which it is not.
>>
>
>Bob, an Evolutionist, acknowledges the claim of unguided evolution but is unable to make the correct and logical inference that says invisible Guide/God is known not to be involved.

Ray, a scientific illiterate, acknowledges that science
ignores the possibility of the existence of deities just as
it ignores the possibility of the existence of fairies, but
is unable to process the concept of "known".

> We have always said that Evolutionists think illogically with no awareness of the deficiency. The present issue clearly supports our claim. Unguided plainly means invisible Guide (God) non-existent in the production of living things, which Bob denies.

No, Ray, science *assumes*, based on the complete lack of
evidence that deities exist *combined with* the fact that
evolution is a natural process which doesn't *require* any
deity to work as observed, that no deity is involved in the
process. It doesn't "know" that is true, it only *assumes*
it is true.

>> >> It *may* say that *your* belief, that God
>> >> intervenes in His Creation continually, is incorrect, but
>> >> that's all
>> >
>> >By claiming "may" Bob is saying that's what the prefix "un" means, which is manifestly ridiculous. The prefix "un" as it appears before the words intelligent, directed, and guided does not mean "may not be guided, may not be directed, or may not be intelligent," but definitively means these are NOT intelligent, directed, or guided.
>>
>> Try reading what I actually wrote, and what it was in
>> response to. You *may* actually be able to understand it.
>>
>> >> ....science doesn't address religious beliefs, only
>> >> evidence, and is mute on the subject of unevidenced deities.
>> >
>> >False.
>> >
>> >The description of natural selection as unintelligent, undirected, and/or unguided, found abundantly in relevant literature, plainly means science has determined that God: invisible Guide, invisible Director, and/or invisible Intelligence are KNOWN not to be involved with the evolutionary process.
>>
>> No, Ray, it says nothing of the sort, any more than a
>> statement that "I see no evidence that Ray can think" means
>> "I KNOW Ray cannot think". Indicative, yes; conclusive, no.
>
>Now Bob admits that unguided indicates absence of invisible Guide/God but seems to think the indication or inference isn't conclusive. Yet conclusion and inference are synonyms.

You really *don't* know how English works, do you? Here's a
hint: "I conclude X" and "X is known conclusively" are *not*
identical.

>> God may be involved in every mutation and selection process
>> we observe
>
>Unguided and undirected, which are the adjectives that evolutionary scientists use to describe evolution, explicitly disallow the possibility that invisible Director and invisible Guide are involved.

And Ray thinks that "disallowed" and "not assumed" are
synonymous. Color me unsurprised after watching you mangle
the meanings of words repeatedly for years.

> That said where did Bob obtain the idea that the prefix un means might or may be involved? Again, Bob is shown to think illogically----unable to understand the meaning of a simple prefix.

Ok, so you *don't* understand relatively simple English;
again, color me unsurprised.

>Ray (will finish replying ASAP)

Maybe you should have continued to reply, including to the
context below...

>> but if He is the process is indistinguishable
>> from an unguided and undirected one, so is ignored as a
>> possibility: "A difference which makes no difference *is* no
>> difference".

....which makes clear what I meant by the above, which you
took out of context (as usual).

[Ray Martinez]

On Thursday, December 21, 2017 at 10:50:04 AM UTC-8, John Stockwell wrote:
> On Tuesday, December 19, 2017 at 11:15:03 PM UTC-7, Ray Martinez wrote:
> > On Tuesday, December 19, 2017 at 2:05:03 PM UTC-8, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> > > On Monday, December 18, 2017 at 4:30:02 PM UTC-5, Ray Martinez wrote:
> > > > On Monday, December 18, 2017 at 11:50:04 AM UTC-8, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> > > > > Note to readers:
> > > > >
> > > > > Ray Martinez has been charged with having been dishonest about
> > > > > the use of the word "paranoid" by Harshman BECAUSE he is
> > > > > so fond of Harshman, that he can't bear to see
> > > > > any of the justifiable contempt that so many people have for him (Ray)
> > > > > rubbing off onto Harshman.
> > >
> > > And now you say something totally irrelevant to the charge.
> > >
> > >
> > > > JH, as far as I am aware, has not accused me of dishonesty in the matter mentioned above.
> > >
> > > Of course not. Are you so completely out of touch with Christian
> > > morality as to think that this makes him a better man than someone
> > > who shows how dishonestly you spoke about his use of "paranoid"?
> >
> > Atheist John Harshman and myself remain ardent worldview enemies in every respect. Peter concocts an egregious falsehood----that John and I are nonetheless friendly. Yet nothing epitomizes total opposition to one another more than JH and RM. I argue vehemently that species are designed and thus created immutable. John argues vehemently for the exact opposite. At no time has either of us ever been anything other than scientific enemies.
> >
> > As a matter of fact, John and Peter hold to the exact same position: Darwinian common descent. From the present back in deep time to biological First Cause no divine intervention has ever occurred causing any species to exist ( = Atheism, Materialism).
>
> The appearance of biology is that of evolution without any forethought, only
> the response of the populations to changes.

Don't have any idea as to what you're talking about?

>
> So, the God believers could take the position that the Creator intervenes but
> makes it look like there is only random variation.

Why would any believer want to do that?

How does the outcome support a supernatural or Intelligent cause?

>
> I would think that the doctrine of faith would require that God not be detectably by any means.
>

Obviously the Bible does not use the pro-Atheism definition of faith.

You do realize that very many highly educated people have faith in the American Stock Market, don't you?

>
Doesn't a seeable God violate the doctrine of Faith?
>

Who said God was directly visible? Please answer.

The claim is: design observed, work of invisible Maker inferred. Faith is based, in part, on the preceding logic, which is based on observation (visibility of design).

I read your comment.

Ray

[Ray Martinez]

I did not say or imply "ignores" (Bob's term). So contrary to what Bob says I did not acknowledge his claim, which is false. I'm arguing against his claim that science ignores the possibility of deities. Is this an honest mistake on Bob's part or deliberate misrepresentation? Since I did not use the term "ignores" or any synonym it must be a deliberate misrepresentation. If truth is on Bob's side why does he do this?

Evolutionary causation described in the literature as unguided because scientists want the public to know that the power of an invisible Guide (= God) has been considered and ruled out. God has not been ignored; evolution is not Agnostic, but decisively pro-Atheism, pro-Naturalism----that's why Atheists support evolution unanimously and fanatically.

> >
> > > We have always said that Evolutionists think illogically with no awareness of the deficiency. The present issue clearly supports our claim. Unguided plainly means invisible Guide (God) non-existent in the production of living things, which Bob denies.
> >
> > No, Ray, science *assumes*, based on the complete lack of
> > evidence that deities exist *combined with* the fact that
> > evolution is a natural process which doesn't *require* any
> > deity to work as observed, that no deity is involved in the
> > process. It doesn't "know" that is true, it only *assumes*
> > it is true.
>

Unguided or undirected are not assumptions, but the observed action of the alleged evolutionary process. Commonly used phrases "natural process" or "natural evolution" mean "non-supernatural." That's the reason-for-being of the word "natural" in these context: to let the reader know that God or the supernatural has been considered and ruled out.

Ray

[John Stockwell]

If ID is made scientific, then God becomes an object, just like any other
object of study in science. This is the same as if God were a bug under
a handlens. Is that the God you worship?

>
> The claim is: design observed, work of invisible Maker inferred. Faith is based, in part, on the preceding logic, which is based on observation (visibility of design).

No. That isn't faith, that is the traditional "argument from design," which
has fallen on hard times, since science came on the scene. The claim made
by ID proponents (or more properly cdesign proponentists) is that you can
turn it around and claim that assuming a designer is scientific, which it is
not.

[Bob Casanova]

On Thu, 21 Dec 2017 16:25:11 -0800 (PST), the following

appeared in talk.origins, posted by Ray Martinez
<r3p...@gmail.com>:

>I did not say or imply "ignores" (Bob's term). So contrary to what Bob says I did not acknowledge his claim, which is false. I'm arguing against his claim that science ignores the possibility of deities. Is this an honest mistake on Bob's part or deliberate misrepresentation? Since I did not use the term "ignores" or any synonym it must be a deliberate misrepresentation. If truth is on Bob's side why does he do this?

Because, despite all evidence to the contrary, Bob has
continued to believe that Ray can be brought to understand
simple English words, both denotation and connotation,
formal logic, and how science actually works as contrasted
with the strawman version you repeatedly post.

But I've grown tired of trying to educate you, at least for
now, so Have A Nice Day.

>Evolutionary causation described in the literature as unguided because scientists want the public to know that the power of an invisible Guide (= God) has been considered and ruled out. God has not been ignored; evolution is not Agnostic, but decisively pro-Atheism, pro-Naturalism----that's why Atheists support evolution unanimously and fanatically.
>
>>

>> > We have always said that Evolutionists think illogically with no awareness of the deficiency. The present issue clearly supports our claim. Unguided plainly means invisible Guide (God) non-existent in the production of living things, which Bob denies.
>>
>> No, Ray, science *assumes*, based on the complete lack of
>> evidence that deities exist *combined with* the fact that
>> evolution is a natural process which doesn't *require* any
>> deity to work as observed, that no deity is involved in the
>> process. It doesn't "know" that is true, it only *assumes*
>> it is true.
>

>Unguided or undirected are not assumptions, but the observed action of the alleged evolutionary process. Commonly used phrases "natural process" or "natural evolution" mean "non-supernatural." That's the reason-for-being for the word "natural" in these context: to let the reader know that the supernatural has been considered and ruled out.
>
>Ray
>
>>