Matt Young practices censorship

[Ray Martinez]

Matt Young is a Moderator over at Pandas Thumb. He has censored every
single message I have posted in a certain topic. Click on the link
below and see for yourself. As I type I count 9 acts of censorship:

http://pandasthumb.org/archives/2012/08/creationism-is-1.html#comments

Matt, of course, does not see his actions as censorship. He "only"
moved my posts to a different venue ("The Bathroom Wall"). Equivalent
to being sent to Siberia.

I contend that my comments were completely legitimate. Anyone can fact
check and see for themself. That said, why the censorship?

The only logical answer is that Matt sees my points as damaging to
evolutionary theory in the eyes of honest and objective persons. I am
quite gratified to have gotten under his skin.

The whole purpose of this topic is to preserve the actions of
Darwinist Matt Young, to preserve a record of an "enlightened mind"
lapsing into the Third World.

Ray Martinez (Old Earth, Paleyan IDist-species immutabilist)

[chris thompson]

It would help if you would provide links to at least a few of your
posts that were moved. I doubt anyone is going to look through a few
thousand bathroom wall posts to find yours, just to see if they're on-
topic or not. I'm sure not going to.

Chris

[Tom]

On Aug 30, 7:23�pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Matt Young is a Moderator over at Pandas Thumb. He has censored every
> single message I have posted in a certain topic.

Don't be such a weenie, Ray. You can't have your way all the time.

[Slow Vehicle]

On Aug 30, 8:23�pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
<snip>

Post 'em here:
https://groups.google.com/group/talkorigins
...a poster of your rigor would be welcome...

[pol...@msx.dept-med.pitt.edu]

On Thursday, August 30, 2012 10:23:40 PM UTC-4, Ray Martinez wrote:
> Matt Young is a Moderator over at Pandas Thumb. He has censored every
>
> single message I have posted in a certain topic. Click on the link
>
> below and see for yourself. As I type I count 9 acts of censorship:
>
> http://pandasthumb.org/archives/2012/08/creationism-is-1.html#comments

Moving them to another EASILY LOCATED PLACE is not censorship, twit !

Censorship would be DELETING them.

Or not allowing you to post.

> Matt, of course, does not see his actions as censorship. He "only"
>
> moved my posts to a different venue ("The Bathroom Wall"). Equivalent
>
> to being sent to Siberia.

Only if you're an egocentric buffoon with delusions of adequacy who 'thinks' urinating all over the ToE and Darwin magically makes creotardism valid.

> I contend that my comments were completely legitimate. Anyone can fact
>
> check and see for themself. That said, why the censorship?

Nope - your comments were the blithering imbecilities of a deranged twit.

'Darwinology' ?!?!

Claiming that a new species of mosquito being discovered 'proves' special creation ? Now THAT is some weapon's grade idiocy !

What happened ? Your Magical Sky Pixie 'POOF !!!!!!' the brand new mosquitoes into existence when no one was looking ?

You were blubbering for people to post youtube videos of natural selection and evolution happening - yet are unable to provide the same evidence of your Magical Sky Pixie creating or designing anything.

If you can reject evolution because there is no youtube evidence then, by your 'logic', creotardism can be rejected if no one can present a video of your Mystical Sky Pixie creating or designing something.

So - you got any youtube videos of this 'God' character creating or designing something ?

Or is everyone just supposed to take your bellowing word that an unknowable being somehow did something sometime in the past for some reason, and you know its true because a charlatan says so ?

Initiating surreal delusion of grandeur in 3.. 2.. 1.. :

> The only logical answer is that Matt sees my points as damaging to
>
> evolutionary theory in the eyes of honest and objective persons. I am
>
> quite gratified to have gotten under his skin.

Now THAT was some deranged arrogance !!

Nothing you said damages evolutionary theory in any way. Blubbering 'BUT IT IS NOTHING BUT INFERENCE !!!!!!!!!!' won't help you, since the reality-based community knows that some inferences are far more supported than others.

In fact, by reading this message, you infer that your eyes and brain are functioning correctly.

Some of the few core 'inferences' in reality-based science is the idea that the outside world has knowable properties, and that we can actually learn about them; you seem to 'think' that the outside world is unknowable, and thus cling to your imaginary friend like a drunk clinging to a bottle of rotgut.

Sane and rational folk would notice that the creationists were urinating all over the board, bloating the thread with their usual idiotic drivel.

Your drivel is STILL there, Ray.

ALL YOU HAVE TO DO IS CLICK ON A LINK TO GET TO YOUR 'MESSAGES' !

Is that REALLY such a burden and a chore to you ?

> The whole purpose of this topic is to preserve the actions of
>
> Darwinist Matt Young, to preserve a record of an "enlightened mind"
>
> lapsing into the Third World.

That would be YOUR 'mind', Ray - but you'd have to ADVANCE your intellect to reach Third World status.

The whole purpose of this post of yours is to complain because your bloated ego was damaged. Nothing more.

BTW - when is that 'book' of yours that will 'utterly and completely destroy evolution !!!!!!!' coming out ?

If you have time to waste here and at Panda's Thumb, you MUST have made some progress on it. Right ?

> Ray Martinez (Old Earth, Paleyan IDist-species immutabilist)

Paley's ideas about ID were shown to be defunct on philosophical and logical grounds a few MONTHS after he proposed them (we recognize designed objects because they possess UNNATURAL qualities that distinguishes them from 'non-designed' objects.)

It has been known that species are mutable for quite a few decades - the various dog breeds all came from grey wolves.

If species were truly immutable, all dogs would look the same; I'm pretty sure most folk can tell the difference between a chihuahua and a Great Dane ...

From Richard Dawkins' book, "The Greatest Show on Earth" :

"Cabbages are a vegetable affront to essentialism and the immutability of species. The wild cabbage, Brassica oleracea, is an undistinguished plant, vaguely like a weedy version of the domestic cabbage. In just a few centuries, wielding the fine and coarse chisels furnished by the toolbox of selective breeding techniques, horticulturalists have sculpted this rather nondescript plant into vegetables as strikingly different from each other and from the wild ancestor as broccoli, cauliflower, kohlrabi, kale, Brussel sprouts, spring greens, romanescu and, of course, the various kinds of vegetables that are still commonly called cabbage."

Oh, right - you'll 'explain' this by asserting that intelligence can somehow magically override immutable nature somehow ...

[Ray Martinez]

On Aug 30, 8:48�pm, Tom <danto...@comcast.net> wrote:

> On Aug 30, 7:23�pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > Matt Young is a Moderator over at Pandas Thumb. He has censored every
> > single message I have posted in a certain topic.
>

> Don't be such a weenie, Ray. �You can't have your way all the time.

About as partisan as points get.

Imagine that; 9 acts of censorship does not constitute a legitimate
complaint?

At least Tom didn't deny, I'll give him that.

Ray (anti-evolutionist)

[Ray Martinez]

On Aug 30, 8:28�pm, chris thompson <chris.linthomp...@gmail.com>
wrote:

> It would help if you would provide links to at least a few of your
> posts that were moved. I doubt anyone is going to look through a few
> thousand bathroom wall posts to find yours, just to see if they're on-
> topic or not. I'm sure not going to.
>
> Chris

Your attention is appreciated.

The link I provided in the OP worked to take those who clicked to the
very page where one could scroll down and see the 9 acts of
censorship. BUT when I clicked on said link just a moment ago it
brought up a different page!

Simply click on the same link and then click on the 4th page and start
scrolling down and counting. Again, the point is that ALL my messages
suffered censorship action.

Thanks.

Ray

[Ray Martinez]

On Aug 30, 10:08嚙緘m, pol...@msx.dept-med.pitt.edu wrote:
> On Thursday, August 30, 2012 10:23:40 PM UTC-4, Ray Martinez wrote:

Be advised: The person whom I am answering was known formerly as "Prof
Weird." For some unknown reason he has changed his screen name while
deciding not to tell the audience.

> > Matt Young is a Moderator over at Pandas Thumb. He has censored every
>
> > single message I have posted in a certain topic. Click on the link
>
> > below and see for yourself. As I type I count 9 acts of censorship:
>
> >http://pandasthumb.org/archives/2012/08/creationism-is-1.html#comments
>

> Moving them to another EASILY LOCATED PLACE is not censorship, twit !
>
> Censorship would be DELETING them.
>
> Or not allowing you to post.
>

> > Matt, of course, does not see his actions as censorship. He "only"
>
> > moved my posts to a different venue ("The Bathroom Wall"). Equivalent
>
> > to being sent to Siberia.
>

> Only if you're an egocentric buffoon with delusions of adequacy who 'thinks' urinating all over the ToE and Darwin magically makes creotardism valid.
>

The messages were perfectly legitimate. Some were replies to questions
from Evolutionists. Anyone can fact check for themself. The acts of
censorship all appear on the 4th page of said thread (about Bill Nye)
over at Pandas Thumb.

You and Matt are unable to address or refute and are thus enraged.

> > I contend that my comments were completely legitimate. Anyone can fact
>
> > check and see for themself. That said, why the censorship?
>

> Nope - your comments were the blithering imbecilities of a deranged twit.
>
> 'Darwinology' ?!?!
>

> Claiming that a new species of mosquito being discovered 'proves' special creation ? 嚙瞇ow THAT is some weapon's grade idiocy !
>

I was asked by a Darwinist how I explain the existence of new
species.

> What happened ? 嚙磐our Magical Sky Pixie 'POOF !!!!!!' the brand new mosquitoes into existence when no one was looking ?

>
> You were blubbering for people to post youtube videos of natural selection and evolution happening - yet are unable to provide the same evidence of your Magical Sky Pixie creating or designing anything.

False.

The context was: how evolution is ascertained. I said "by inference"
in response to "by observation" by a Darwinist. I then asked the same
Darwinist if he really believed evolution could be seen, as it
allegedly occurs, then post YouTubes.

But Matt Young decided that my request was somehow worthy of Siberia

("The Bathroom Wall").

Neither of you have a leg to stand on here. Both of you are caught
practicing and/or defending censorship. Imagine that; two so called
"enlightened minds" relying on Talibanic tactics because the truth
hurts!

>
> If you can reject evolution because there is no youtube evidence then, by your 'logic', creotardism can be rejected if no one can present a video of your Mystical Sky Pixie creating or designing something.
>

Again, my only point was that evolution is inferred, not observed.
Your incessant misrepresentation of this simple and undisputed fact
indicates much.

> So - you got any youtube videos of this 'God' character creating or designing something ?
>
> Or is everyone just supposed to take your bellowing word that an unknowable being somehow did something sometime in the past for some reason, and you know its true because a charlatan says so ?
>
> Initiating surreal delusion of grandeur in 3.. 2.. 1.. :
>

> > The only logical answer is that Matt sees my points as damaging to
>
> > evolutionary theory in the eyes of honest and objective persons. I am
>
> > quite gratified to have gotten under his skin.
>

> Now THAT was some deranged arrogance !!
>

Your skin too.

> Nothing you said damages evolutionary theory in any way.

If that were true, then Matt would not have censored EVERY comment I
made on the 4th page of the Bill Nye "Creationism Is Not Appropriate
For Children" topic. I think he let my last comment, resigning from
the debate, stand.

> Blubbering 'BUT IT IS NOTHING BUT INFERENCE !!!!!!!!!!' won't help you, since the reality-based community knows that some inferences are far more supported than others.
>
> In fact, by reading this message, you infer that your eyes and brain are functioning correctly.
>
> Some of the few core 'inferences' in reality-based science is the idea that the outside world has knowable properties, and that we can actually learn about them; you seem to 'think' that the outside world is unknowable, and thus cling to your imaginary friend like a drunk clinging to a bottle of rotgut.
>
> Sane and rational folk would notice that the creationists were urinating all over the board, bloating the thread with their usual idiotic drivel.
>

A call for universal censorship.

> Your drivel is STILL there, Ray.
>
> ALL YOU HAVE TO DO IS CLICK ON A LINK TO GET TO YOUR 'MESSAGES' !
>
> Is that REALLY such a burden and a chore to you ?
>

> > The whole purpose of this topic is to preserve the actions of
>
> > Darwinist Matt Young, to preserve a record of an "enlightened mind"
>
> > lapsing into the Third World.
>

> That would be YOUR 'mind', Ray - but you'd have to ADVANCE your intellect to reach Third World status.
>

> The whole purpose of this post of yours is to complain because your bloated ego was damaged. 嚙瞇othing more.

>
> BTW - when is that 'book' of yours that will 'utterly and completely destroy evolution !!!!!!!' coming out ?
>

I am still writing and researching, it will be worth the wait, I
promise.

But in the meantime I will be publishing "The Case Against Tony
Pagano, and a general explanation of the dispute between Darwinism and
Victorian Creationism" soon.

The above paper will contain elements from my book re-written to suit
the objective.

> If you have time to waste here and at Panda's Thumb, you MUST have made some progress on it. 嚙磋ight ?
>

I don't view debating Darwinists as a waste of time----just the
opposite.

> > Ray Martinez (Old Earth, Paleyan IDist-species immutabilist)
>

> Paley's ideas about ID were shown to be defunct on philosophical and logical grounds a few MONTHS after he proposed them (we recognize designed objects because they possess UNNATURAL qualities that distinguishes them from 'non-designed' objects.)
>
> It has been known that species are mutable for quite a few decades - the various dog breeds all came from grey wolves.
>
> If species were truly immutable, all dogs would look the same; I'm pretty sure most folk can tell the difference between a chihuahua and a Great Dane ...
>
> From Richard Dawkins' book, "The Greatest Show on Earth" :
>

> "Cabbages are a vegetable affront to essentialism and the immutability of species. 嚙確he wild cabbage, Brassica oleracea, is an undistinguished plant, vaguely like a weedy version of the domestic cabbage. 嚙瘢n just a few centuries, wielding the fine and coarse chisels furnished by the toolbox of selective breeding techniques, horticulturalists have sculpted this rather nondescript plant into vegetables as strikingly different from each other and from the wild ancestor as broccoli, cauliflower, kohlrabi, kale, Brussel sprouts, spring greens, romanescu and, of course, the various kinds of vegetables that are still commonly called cabbage."

>
> Oh, right - you'll 'explain' this by asserting that intelligence can somehow magically override immutable nature somehow ...

I can and will prove that British Natural Theology remains correct
concerning the origin of species, and that Darwin is completely wrong.
I will provide a massive amount of scientific evidence.

Ray

[Bob Casanova]

On Thu, 30 Aug 2012 19:20:22 -0700 (PDT), the following
appeared in talk.origins, posted by Ray Martinez
<pyram...@yahoo.com>:

>Matt Young is a Moderator over at Pandas Thumb. He has censored every
>single message I have posted in a certain topic. Click on the link
>below and see for yourself. As I type I count 9 acts of censorship:
>
>http://pandasthumb.org/archives/2012/08/creationism-is-1.html#comments
>
>Matt, of course, does not see his actions as censorship. He "only"
>moved my posts to a different venue ("The Bathroom Wall"). Equivalent
>to being sent to Siberia.

If your posts weren't deleted you weren't censored. And it's
not up to you to determine their correct location.

Quit whining.

<snip whining>
--

Bob C.

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

- McNameless

[Earle Jones]

In article
<119f77b3-4102-4ba2...@io6g2000pbc.googlegroups.com>,

*
FYI:

There is a difference between 'rigor' and 'rigidity.'

earle
*

[John Vreeland]

Intellectual rigor. Some kind of rigor. A latin word comes to mind.
__
Will future ages believe that such stupid bigotry ever existed!---Sir Walter Scott, Ivanhoe

[John Vreeland]

On Thu, 30 Aug 2012 22:06:01 -0700 (PDT), pol...@msx.dept-med.pitt.edu
wrote:

>On Thursday, August 30, 2012 10:23:40 PM UTC-4, Ray Martinez wrote:
>> Matt Young is a Moderator over at Pandas Thumb. He has censored every
>>
>> single message I have posted in a certain topic. Click on the link
>>
>> below and see for yourself. As I type I count 9 acts of censorship:
>>
>> http://pandasthumb.org/archives/2012/08/creationism-is-1.html#comments
>
>Moving them to another EASILY LOCATED PLACE is not censorship, twit !
>
>Censorship would be DELETING them.
>
>Or not allowing you to post.

I will grant that this is a mild form of censorship. Transferring
posts to the Bathroom Wall is a way os suppressing some opinions. Of
course they can then be referred to in arguments, which Ray fails to
do. Hard to sympathize when he couldn't be bothered to make a serious
argument in his own defense.

>> Matt, of course, does not see his actions as censorship. He "only"
>>
>> moved my posts to a different venue ("The Bathroom Wall"). Equivalent
>>
>> to being sent to Siberia.
>
>Only if you're an egocentric buffoon with delusions of adequacy who 'thinks' urinating all over the ToE and Darwin magically makes creotardism valid.
>
>> I contend that my comments were completely legitimate. Anyone can fact
>>
>> check and see for themself. That said, why the censorship?
>
>Nope - your comments were the blithering imbecilities of a deranged twit.
>
>'Darwinology' ?!?!
>
>Claiming that a new species of mosquito being discovered 'proves' special creation ? Now THAT is some weapon's grade idiocy !
>
>What happened ? Your Magical Sky Pixie 'POOF !!!!!!' the brand new mosquitoes into existence when no one was looking ?

Because, you know, what the world really needs is a new strain of
mosquito. This just proves how much God loves us. I predict a new
mosquito-born illness to follow hard on its heels. Not
heels...whatever mosquitos have. Four feet according to the Bible.

[Syamsu]

my messages aren't getting through to talk.origins neither as quick as
I would like them to be

[pnyikos]

On Aug 30, 10:23�pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Matt Young is a Moderator over at Pandas Thumb. He has censored every
> single message I have posted in a certain topic. Click on the link
> below and see for yourself.

Funny, the link below takes me to someone who is appalled by the way
an anti-creationist video received so many negative comments. How are
we to find out how YOU are being treated?

> As I type I count 9 acts of censorship:
>
> http://pandasthumb.org/archives/2012/08/creationism-is-1.html#comments

Did you carelessly post the wrong link? It's been known to happen.
Right on the thread where I've been trying to get people to talk about
my expansion of the Drake equation, someone tried to post a link to
the Crick and Orgel article on directed panspermia, and instead posted
a link to a website talking about pregnancies due to rape.

Looks like he's got Senatorial candidate Akin on his mind.

By the way, Ray, are you planning to participate any more in that
thread?

> Matt, of course, does not see his actions as censorship. He "only"
> moved my posts to a different venue ("The Bathroom Wall"). Equivalent
> to being sent to Siberia.

I don't know which is worse-- having my posts shunted away from where
I want them to appear or have J. J. O'Shea slander me in just about
every post he does to that Drake equation thread--and he does scads of
posts there.

Is O'Shea that abusive to you too?

> I contend that my comments were completely legitimate. Anyone can fact
> check and see for themself. That said, why the censorship?

How can I, if you don't even provide a link? How do I even get to the
Bathroom Wall?

Peter Nyikos

[*Hemidactylus*]

On 08/31/2012 10:37 PM, pnyikos wrote:
> On Aug 30, 10:23 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> Matt Young is a Moderator over at Pandas Thumb. He has censored every
>> single message I have posted in a certain topic. Click on the link
>> below and see for yourself.
>
> Funny, the link below takes me to someone who is appalled by the way
> an anti-creationist video received so many negative comments. How are
> we to find out how YOU are being treated?
>
>> As I type I count 9 acts of censorship:
>>
>> http://pandasthumb.org/archives/2012/08/creationism-is-1.html#comments
>
> Did you carelessly post the wrong link? It's been known to happen.
> Right on the thread where I've been trying to get people to talk about
> my expansion of the Drake equation, someone tried to post a link to
> the Crick and Orgel article on directed panspermia, and instead posted
> a link to a website talking about pregnancies due to rape.

Probably had previously copied and pasted a link on the disturbing rape
thread(s) successfully and failed to do a copy command relevant to the
topic you were on, repasting the wrong link.

I've caught myself almost doing that.

[snip]

[Bob Casanova]

On Fri, 31 Aug 2012 11:15:31 -0700 (PDT), the following

appeared in talk.origins, posted by Ray Martinez
<pyram...@yahoo.com>:

>On Aug 30, 8:48�pm, Tom <danto...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> On Aug 30, 7:23�pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>> > Matt Young is a Moderator over at Pandas Thumb. He has censored every
>> > single message I have posted in a certain topic.
>>
>> Don't be such a weenie, Ray. �You can't have your way all the time.
>
>About as partisan as points get.
>
>Imagine that; 9 acts of censorship does not constitute a legitimate
>complaint?

Not when no actual censorship occurred. And since, by your
own admission, your posts are still available in the same
public forum for all to read, it didn't. In fact, I'd guess
that possibly more readers peruse this area than any other,
and I suspect that the implied ridicule is what makes you
scream about nonexistent "censorship". Here's a hint, Ray:
Pointing at what you post and laughing isn't censorship.

>At least Tom didn't deny, I'll give him that.

He didn't deny his actions in moving your posts to a more
appropriate venue. He, and everyone else here capable of
rational thought, denies that this constitutes censorship in
any reasonable interpretation of the term.

[Tom]

On Aug 31, 11:15�am, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Aug 30, 8:48�pm, Tom <danto...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> > On Aug 30, 7:23�pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>

> > > Matt Young is a Moderator over at Pandas Thumb. He has censored every
> > > single message I have posted in a certain topic.
>

> > Don't be such a weenie, Ray. �You can't have your way all the time.
>
> About as partisan as points get.

I don't see how what I said is partisan,. It's simply a fact that you
can't get your way all the time, Ray. So stop being a weenie about
it.

> Imagine that; 9 acts of censorship does not constitute a legitimate
> complaint?

Having your posts sent to the kiddie section may be insulting, but
it's not censorship. You can have your say, but you don't
automatically get center stage to do it. And, yes, when you complain
about not getting center stage everywhere you go, you're being a
weenie.

> At least Tom didn't deny, I'll give him that.

Now I have. Will you be a weenie about that, too?

[Earle Jones]

In article
<013272e0-b90f-495e...@wm7g2000pbc.googlegroups.com>,
Ray Martinez <pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> > creation ? �Now THAT is some weapon's grade idiocy !

> >
>
> I was asked by a Darwinist how I explain the existence of new
> species.
>

> > What happened ? �Your Magical Sky Pixie 'POOF !!!!!!' the brand new

> > ego was damaged. �Nothing more.

> >
> > BTW - when is that 'book' of yours that will 'utterly and completely
> > destroy evolution !!!!!!!' coming out ?
> >
>
> I am still writing and researching, it will be worth the wait, I
> promise.
>
> But in the meantime I will be publishing "The Case Against Tony
> Pagano, and a general explanation of the dispute between Darwinism and

> Victorian Creationism" soon...

*
Breaking in here...

Is "Victorian Creationism" different from ordinary creationism?

earle
*

[biblear...@hotmail.com]

On Aug 30, 7:23�pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:

Did you expect any better?

[pol...@msx.dept-med.pitt.edu]

On Friday, August 31, 2012 2:56:47 PM UTC-4, Ray Martinez wrote:
> On Aug 30, 10:08嚙緘m, pol...@msx.dept-med.pitt.edu wrote: > On Thursday, August 30, 2012 10:23:40 PM UTC-4, Ray Martinez wrote: Be advised: The person whom I am answering was known formerly as "Prof Weird." For some unknown reason he has changed his screen name while deciding not to tell the audience.

I haven't seen the need to sign into googlegroups to have a permanent username.

But since EVEN YOU could figure out who I was, what would be the point ?

> > Matt Young is a Moderator over at Pandas Thumb. He has censored every > > > single message I have posted in a certain topic. Click on the link > > > below and see for yourself. As I type I count 9 acts of censorship: > > >http://pandasthumb.org/archives/2012/08/creationism-is-1.html#comments > > Moving them to another EASILY LOCATED PLACE is not censorship, twit ! > > Censorship would be DELETING them. > > Or not allowing you to post. > > > Matt, of course, does not see his actions as censorship. He "only" > > > moved my posts to a different venue ("The Bathroom Wall"). Equivalent > > > to being sent to Siberia. > > Only if you're an egocentric buffoon with delusions of adequacy who 'thinks' urinating all over the ToE and Darwin magically makes creotardism valid. > The messages were perfectly legitimate. Some were replies to questions from Evolutionists. Anyone can fact check for themself. The acts of censorship all appear on the 4th page of said thread (about Bill Nye) over at Pandas Thumb. You and Mat

t are unable to address or refute and are thus enraged.

Ah yes - the standard Martinez delusion.

You had no points to address or refute - all you were doing was blubbering that 'evolution SHOULD be rejected because there are no youtube videos of natural selection or evolution happening' and 'IT IS ALL INFERENCE !!! THEREFORE, IT BE WRONG, AND ME BE RIGHT !!!!1!!!!!'

> > I contend that my comments were completely legitimate. Anyone can fact > > > check and see for themself. That said, why the censorship? > > Nope - your comments were the blithering imbecilities of a deranged twit. > > 'Darwinology' ?!?! > > Claiming that a new species of mosquito being discovered 'proves' special creation ? 嚙瞇ow THAT is some weapon's grade idiocy ! > I was asked by a Darwinist how I explain the existence of new species.

And you 'replied' with sheer idiocy - 'formation of a new species is PROOF of special creation !!'

> What happened ? 嚙磐our Magical Sky Pixie 'POOF !!!!!!' the brand new mosquitoes into existence when no one was looking ? > > You were blubbering for people to post youtube videos of natural selection and evolution happening - yet are unable to provide the same evidence of your Magical Sky Pixie creating or designing anything.

False. The context was: how evolution is ascertained. I said "by inference" in response to "by observation" by a Darwinist. I then asked the same Darwinist if he really believed evolution could be seen, as it allegedly occurs, then post YouTubes. But Matt Young decided that my request was somehow worthy of Siberia ("The Bathroom Wall"). Neither of you have a leg to stand on here. Both of you are caught practicing and/or defending censorship. Imagine that; two so called "enlightened minds" relying on Talibanic tactics because the truth hurts!

In other words, you used the standard gibberf*ckery you use every time someone fails to drop to their knees to believe you.

The real-world community OBSERVES patterns in nature, and can quite correctly and sanely INFER that evolution has happened - only a demented twit would DEMAND that every single mutation in every single organism along a single line of descent MUST BE DIRECTLY OBSERVED.

Evolution is a POPULATION effect, and populations change slowly. Too slowly to be captured by a youtube video.

Even bacteria that double every hour would be hard pressed to show much evolution in a video long enough to watch !

Which is why such idiocy is dumped to the Bathroom Wall - to keep it from clogging up more relevant and useful threads.

A SIMULATION of natural selection and evolution, on the other hand, CAN be done as a youtube video. Like the one I posted on Panda's Thumb with the evolving clocks.

You seem to have this delusion that you are being persecuted or 'censored'.

YOUR GIBBERING IDIOCIES ARE STILL THERE FOR ANYONE TO READ, RAY.

It's just that so few care to hear what you have to say.

> > If you can reject evolution because there is no youtube evidence then, by your 'logic', creotardism can be rejected if no one can present a video of your Mystical Sky Pixie creating or designing something.

> Again, my only point was that evolution is inferred, not observed. Your incessant misrepresentation of this simple and undisputed fact indicates much.

Yep - they indicate that you and reality parted ways long ago.

We OBSERVE that one population is different from its ancestors, then INFER (quite correctly) that evolution has occurred, since we KNOW of many different mechanisms for variations to be generated.

You seem to 'think' that evolutionists are as willfully stupid and arrogant as you are - that the whole of the ToE was yanked out of someone's backside.

> So - you got any youtube videos of this 'God' character creating or designing something ? > > Or is everyone just supposed to take your bellowing word that an unknowable being somehow did something sometime in the past for some reason, and you know its true because a charlatan says so ? > > Initiating surreal delusion of grandeur in 3.. 2.. 1.. : > > > The only logical answer is that Matt sees my points as damaging to > > > evolutionary theory in the eyes of honest and objective persons. I am > > > quite gratified to have gotten under his skin. > > Now THAT was some deranged arrogance !! > Your skin too.

High doses of arrogance and willful stupidity tend to annoy me.

> Nothing you said damages evolutionary theory in any way.

> If that were true, then Matt would not have censored EVERY comment I made on the 4th page of the Bill Nye "Creationism Is Not Appropriate For Children" topic. I think he let my last comment, resigning from the debate, stand.

He didn't censor them - he moved them to another location where the fetid stench of your howling self-righteous arrogance wouldn't stink up the place too much.

If you were TRULY censored, your posts would have been deleted.

> Blubbering 'BUT IT IS NOTHING BUT INFERENCE !!!!!!!!!!' won't help you, since the reality-based community knows that some inferences are far more supported than others. > > In fact, by reading this message, you infer that your eyes and brain are functioning correctly. > > Some of the few core 'inferences' in reality-based science is the idea that the outside world has knowable properties, and that we can actually learn about them; you seem to 'think' that the outside world is unknowable, and thus cling to your imaginary friend like a drunk clinging to a bottle of rotgut. > > Sane and rational folk would notice that the creationists were urinating all over the board, bloating the thread with their usual idiotic drivel.

> A call for universal censorship.

Nope - a call for relevance and standards.

If the BEST you can do is blubber 'either produce a youtube video of natural selection and evolution happening, or admit that evolution be wrong !!1!!!!', you are way out of your league in all but kindergarten level discussions of reality.

> Your drivel is STILL there, Ray. > > ALL YOU HAVE TO DO IS CLICK ON A LINK TO GET TO YOUR 'MESSAGES' ! > > Is that REALLY such a burden and a chore to you ? > > > The whole purpose of this topic is to preserve the actions of > > > Darwinist Matt Young, to preserve a record of an "enlightened mind" > > > lapsing into the Third World. > > That would be YOUR 'mind', Ray - but you'd have to ADVANCE your intellect to reach Third World status. > > The whole purpose of this post of yours is to complain because your bloated ego was damaged. 嚙瞇othing more. > > BTW - when is that 'book' of yours that will 'utterly and completely destroy evolution !!!!!!!' coming out ?

> I am still writing and researching, it will be worth the wait, I promise. But in the meantime I will be publishing "The Case Against Tony Pagano, and a general explanation of the dispute between Darwinism and Victorian Creationism" soon. The above paper will contain elements from my book re-written to suit the objective.

RiiIIiiIIiiight !

> If you have time to waste here and at Panda's Thumb, you MUST have made some progress on it. 嚙磋ight ?

> I don't view debating Darwinists as a waste of time----just the opposite.

You don't debate, Ray. You just bellow insults and idiocies at them and expect them to just believe you.

> > Ray Martinez (Old Earth, Paleyan IDist-species immutabilist) > > Paley's ideas about ID were shown to be defunct on philosophical and logical grounds a few MONTHS after he proposed them (we recognize designed objects because they possess UNNATURAL qualities that distinguishes them from 'non-designed' objects.) > > It has been known that species are mutable for quite a few decades - the various dog breeds all came from grey wolves. > > If species were truly immutable, all dogs would look the same; I'm pretty sure most folk can tell the difference between a chihuahua and a Great Dane ... > > From Richard Dawkins' book, "The Greatest Show on Earth" : > > "Cabbages are a vegetable affront to essentialism and the immutability of species. 嚙確he wild cabbage, Brassica oleracea, is an undistinguished plant, vaguely like a weedy version of the domestic cabbage. 嚙瘢n just a few centuries, wielding the fine and coarse chisels furnished by the toolbox of selective breeding techniques, horticulturalists have sculp

ted this rather nondescript plant into vegetables as strikingly different from each other and from the wild ancestor as broccoli, cauliflower, kohlrabi, kale, Brussel sprouts, spring greens, romanescu and, of course, the various kinds of vegetables that are still commonly called cabbage." > > Oh, right - you'll 'explain' this by asserting that intelligence can somehow magically override immutable nature somehow ...

> I can and will prove that British Natural Theology remains correct concerning the origin of species, and that Darwin is completely wrong. I will provide a massive amount of scientific evidence. Ray

RiiIIiiIIiiIIIIiiight !!

The reality-based community has 150+ years of real world data supporting evolution; from what festering orifice are you going to pull your data from ?

Oh, right - 'the formation of a new species PROVES special creation, for I am too willfully stupid to accept the fact that species are mutable and evolution happens !'

If species are IMMUTABLE, how come the wide diversity of dogs ? And cabbages ?

[Slow Vehicle]

On Aug 31, 6:39�pm, Syamsu <nando_rontel...@yahoo.com> wrote:

<snip>

> my messages aren't getting through to talk.origins neither as quick as
> I would like them to be

Have you tried the Klubhaus? Always a good time, at the arcade...

[Boikat]

1) No great loss.

2) What?! You mean reality isn't complying with your wishes?

3) "2" should tell you something about "reality" and "wishes".

Boikat

[Ernest Major]

In message
<013272e0-b90f-495e...@wm7g2000pbc.googlegroups.com>, Ray
Martinez <pyram...@yahoo.com> writes

>You and Matt are unable to address or refute and are thus enraged.

As has been pointed out to before omphalism, solipism, occasionalism,
and simulationism, for example, are not subject to evidential
refutation, and are thus scientifically worthless. That you find
evolution so well supported that you find it necessary to resort to
epistemological nihilism to argue against it explains your frustration..
--
alias Ernest Major

[Bob Casanova]

On Sat, 1 Sep 2012 13:27:56 -0700 (PDT), the following

appeared in talk.origins, posted by

biblear...@hotmail.com:

>Did you expect any better?

Better than what? Do you also imagine that pointing at
ridiculous assertions and laughing is "censorship"? It's
not, however much it may cause you and Ray to whine.

Here's a relevant question: How many pro-evolution posts are
allowed *anywhere* on creationism sites when the site owner
has any control over content? Based on comments I've read,
here and elsewhere, the number is very close to zero.

Mote. Beam. Eye.

[Ray Martinez]

On Aug 31, 7:37�pm, pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> On Aug 30, 10:23 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > Matt Young is a Moderator over at Pandas Thumb. He has censored every
> > single message I have posted in a certain topic. Click on the link
> > below and see for yourself.
>
> Funny, the link below takes me to someone who is appalled by the way
> an anti-creationist video received so many negative comments. �How are
> we to find out how YOU are being treated?
>
> > As I type I count 9 acts of censorship:
>
> >http://pandasthumb.org/archives/2012/08/creationism-is-1.html#comments
>
> Did you carelessly post the wrong link?

No; I tested it before I posted the OP. Why it takes one to a
different page I don't know.

To view said censorship simply traverse to Pandas, click on the
"Creationism inappropriate for children/Bill Nye" topic, then click on
the 4th page of said topic, then scroll down and see the 9 acts of
censorship. EVERY message I posted was censored. Peter: Where did your
fellow Evolutionists learn such behavior? I thought Western thought
was enlightened? Of course the experts in censorship, Castro, Mao and
Stalin, have shown that censorship works.

> It's been known to happen.
> Right on the thread where I've been trying to get people to talk about
> my expansion of the Drake equation, someone tried to post a link to
> the Crick and Orgel article on directed panspermia, and instead posted
> a link to a website talking about pregnancies due to rape.
>
> Looks like he's got Senatorial candidate Akin on his mind.
>
> By the way, Ray, are you planning to participate any more in that
> thread?
>

Yes, after the holiday here in the States.

I also plan on pursuing you in two other topics.

> > Matt, of course, does not see his actions as censorship. He "only"
> > moved my posts to a different venue ("The Bathroom Wall"). Equivalent
> > to being sent to Siberia.
>
> I don't know which is worse-- having my posts shunted away from where
> I want them to appear or have J. J. O'Shea slander me in just about
> every post he does to that Drake equation thread--and he does scads of
> posts there.
>
> Is O'Shea that abusive to you too?
>

No; my "problems" are with Dana Tweedy and Bob Casanova. The former
asserts "Intelligence created unintelligent process" is logical; and
the latter denies any of his posts reveal a worldview bias!

Ray

[Dana Tweedy]

On 9/2/12 6:19 PM, Ray Martinez wrote:
snip

>> I don't know which is worse-- having my posts shunted away from where
>> I want them to appear or have J. J. O'Shea slander me in just about
>> every post he does to that Drake equation thread--and he does scads of
>> posts there.
>>
>> Is O'Shea that abusive to you too?
>>
>
> No; my "problems" are with Dana Tweedy and Bob Casanova.

Neither of the two have been abusive either.

> The former
> asserts "Intelligence created unintelligent process" is logical;

More correctly, I am stating there is no logical reason an intelligent
being cannot make, and use an unintelligent process. There are many
real life examples of intelligent beings doing just that.

Ray has failed to provide any logical or even sane reasoning to
support his assertion to the contrary.

and
> the latter denies any of his posts reveal a worldview bias!

Again, more accurately, Bob has objected to Ray's false accusations of
being able to detect an "atheist" bias in his posts. Ray wouldn't be
able to accurately determine a "worldview bias" if it bit him.

DJT

[Bob Casanova]

On Mon, 03 Sep 2012 13:33:40 -0600, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by Dana Tweedy
<reddf...@gmail.com>:

>On 9/2/12 6:19 PM, Ray Martinez wrote:
>snip
>
> >> I don't know which is worse-- having my posts shunted away from where
> >> I want them to appear or have J. J. O'Shea slander me in just about
> >> every post he does to that Drake equation thread--and he does scads of
> >> posts there.
> >>
> >> Is O'Shea that abusive to you too?
> >>
> >
> > No; my "problems" are with Dana Tweedy and Bob Casanova.
>
>Neither of the two have been abusive either.

Well, I certainly haven't, and you seem to have the patience
of Job...

> > The former
> > asserts "Intelligence created unintelligent process" is logical;
>
>More correctly, I am stating there is no logical reason an intelligent
>being cannot make, and use an unintelligent process. There are many
>real life examples of intelligent beings doing just that.

....which Ray ignores.

> Ray has failed to provide any logical or even sane reasoning to
>support his assertion to the contrary.
>
>
> and
> > the latter denies any of his posts reveal a worldview bias!
>
>
>Again, more accurately, Bob has objected to Ray's false accusations of
>being able to detect an "atheist" bias in his posts. Ray wouldn't be
>able to accurately determine a "worldview bias" if it bit him.

No, but Ray *can* accurately determine when others disagree
with him. And since according to Ray (who has perfect
knowledge) such disagreement can only result from atheism
(or perhaps heresy, which to Ray is the same thing; by
observation, Ray doesn't really understand the meaning of
"atheism") the logic chain is valid. Of course, it's based
on a faulty premise and thus reaches an invalid
conclusion...

[Ray Martinez]

On Sep 1, 4:48�pm, pol...@msx.dept-med.pitt.edu wrote:

[snip massive amount of text defending and justifying the censorship
of fellow Darwinist Matt Young; and atrocious formatting that makes
reading and replying almost impossible....]

> If species are IMMUTABLE, how come the wide diversity of dogs ? �And cabbages ?

Variation is not evolution.

Ray

[Slow Vehicle]

"Walking" is not "Hiking the PCT"...

[Ernest Major]

In message
<f07d4059-8900-4539...@ql4g2000pbc.googlegroups.com>, Ray
Martinez <pyram...@yahoo.com> writes

Are you trying for the fallacy of equivocation? (You've succeeded in
being simultaneously wrong in two different readings of your four
words.)

Variation within a population at a particular time is not evolution.
Variation (change) in the genetic makeup of a population over time is
evolution. Stating that variation (first definition) is not evolution is
not a meaningful defence of your claim of species immutability in the
teeth of observed instances of species mutability. Nor, for that matter,
is stating that variation (second definition) is not evolution -
regardless of whether you call it evolution or not doesn't make the
observations of species mutability go away.

--
alias Ernest Major

[Ray Martinez]

You're right; stupid me.

Ray

[Prof Weird]

On Tuesday, September 4, 2012 3:18:25 PM UTC-4, Ray Martinez wrote:
> On Sep 1, 4:48�pm, pol...@msx.dept-med.pitt.edu wrote: [snip massive amount of text defending and justifying the censorship of fellow Darwinist Matt Young; and atrocious formatting that makes reading and replying almost impossible....]

Translation : "Prof Weird won't kneel before my howling arrogance !!!

MUST find minutiae to complain about to EVADE answering valid points !!!!!"

Moving posts to an EASILY ACCESSIBLE LOCATION is not censorship by any sane and rational stretch of the imagination Ray.

Since they are FULLY ACCESSIBLE, they were not 'shipped off to Siberia, never to be heard from again' (which is what the ANTI-Darwinian Lysenko had done to those that dared disagree with him); thus, your 'complaint' has more to do with damage to your bloated ego than the 'Darwinist crushing POWAHHHHH !!!!!!!' of anything you stated.

It is the atrocious formatting of this new system that makes me reluctant to try to post here - the messages get so scrambled with multiple '>>>' in run-on sentences that it is difficult to seperate who said what.

But it can be done.

> If species are IMMUTABLE, how come the wide diversity of dogs ? �And cabbages ?

> Variation is not evolution.

BUT IT IS THE 'FUEL' OF EVOLUTION.

If genomes were TRULY immutable, there would be no mutations.

NO NEW VARIATIONS.

NO BIRTH DEFECTS.

Given the OBSERVATION that mutations happen, that new varieties show up now and again, and that birth defects exist, sane and rational people could deduce that species are mutable.

WHERE do you 'think' the variations in dogs or cabbages CAME FROM ?

Oh, right : 'THEY WERE MAGICALLY INSTALLED BY A MAGICAL SKY PIXIE BY UNKNOWABLE MEANS WHEN NO ONE WAS LOOKING !!!' or 'ALL OF THE VARIATIONS SEEN TODAY WERE ALREADY IN THE POPULATION SINCE THE BEGINNING !!!!!!'

Odd that you EXPECT the reality-based crowd to provide a youtube video of natural selection or evolution happening, or you are free to reject 150+ years of hard won knowledge, yet your Magical Sky Pixie ONLY works when no one is watching, but you expect everyone to believe you.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mcAq9bmCeR0 - a youtube video of natural selection and evolution producing functional, accurate clocks.

Few organisms reproduce fast enough to produce much evolution in just an hour or two - but a computer simulation of evolution can show it working !

In fact, Schneider's ev program shows natural selection at work, and you don't even need a youtube of it - YOU CAN RUN THE PROGRAM YOURSELF !

[Ray Martinez]

On Sep 1, 10:09�am, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
> On Fri, 31 Aug 2012 11:15:31 -0700 (PDT), the following
> appeared in talk.origins, posted by Ray Martinez

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

Blatant partisanship (Darwinian Atheist defending Darwinian Atheist).

Stalin didn't kill anyone; he only deported the ones he did not
ordered killed to Siberia where they were free to live and write!

As if Bob our enlightened Atheist-Evolutionist does not understand
that when a Darwinian Moderator deletes messages and moves them
"elsewhere" that these actions do not constitute censorship.

I urge the general audience to read each message that was sent to
Siberia and see the truths that enraged these "enlightened"
Darwinists.

http://pandasthumb.org/archives/2012/08/creationism-is-1.html

Ckick on the above link, then click on the 4th page and see for
yourself.

Ray

[jillery]

And what practical distinction do you draw between the two?

[Ray Martinez]

On Sep 4, 1:38�pm, jillery <69jpi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 4 Sep 2012 12:17:25 -0700 (PDT), Ray Martinez
>

> <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >On Sep 1, 4:48�pm, pol...@msx.dept-med.pitt.edu wrote:
>
> >[snip massive amount of text defending and justifying the censorship
> >of fellow Darwinist Matt Young; and atrocious formatting that makes
> >reading and replying almost impossible....]
>
> >> If species are IMMUTABLE, how come the wide diversity of dogs ? �And cabbages ?
>
> >Variation is not evolution.
>
> And what practical distinction do you draw between the two?

Variation is a material thing observed to exist; evolution is a claim
and explanation about said thing.

Ray

[Ray Martinez]

On Sep 4, 12:48�pm, Prof Weird <pol...@msx.dept-med.pitt.edu> wrote:

[snip more text defending censorship by his Atheist brother....]

>
> �> If species are IMMUTABLE, how come the wide diversity of dogs ? �And cabbages ?

>
> > Variation is not evolution.
>
> BUT IT IS THE 'FUEL' OF EVOLUTION.
>

PW agrees with me: variation is not evolution.

> If genomes were TRULY immutable, there would be no mutations.
>

How often does a beneficial mutation occur?

> NO NEW VARIATIONS.
>

Now PW backslides and indicates that variation is evolution.

> NO BIRTH DEFECTS.
>

Bad mutations do not help your cause, did you forget?

> Given the OBSERVATION that mutations happen, that new varieties show up now and again, and that birth defects exist, sane and rational people could deduce that species are mutable.
>

Imagine that; species are mutable based on bad mutations!

I offer PW's example as supporting species immutability.

> WHERE do you 'think' the variations in dogs or cabbages CAME FROM ?
>
> Oh, right : 'THEY WERE MAGICALLY INSTALLED BY A MAGICAL SKY PIXIE BY UNKNOWABLE MEANS WHEN NO ONE WAS LOOKING !!!' or 'ALL OF THE VARIATIONS SEEN TODAY WERE ALREADY IN THE POPULATION SINCE THE BEGINNING !!!!!!'
>
> Odd that you EXPECT the reality-based crowd to provide a youtube video of natural selection or evolution happening, or you are free to reject 150+ years of hard won knowledge, yet your Magical Sky Pixie ONLY works when no one is watching, but you expect everyone to believe you.
>

> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mcAq9bmCeR0- a youtube video of natural selection and evolution producing functional, accurate clocks.

>
> Few organisms reproduce fast enough to produce much evolution in just an hour or two - but a computer simulation of evolution can show it working !
>
> In fact, Schneider's ev program shows natural selection at work, and you don't even need a youtube of it - YOU CAN RUN THE PROGRAM YOURSELF !

All this nonsense because I said (over at Pandas) that evolution is
inferred, not observed.

Matt Young cannot censor this 101 fact here at Talk.Origins.

Ray

[Ray Martinez]

CORRECTION: should have said "these actions DO INDEED constitute
censorship."

Ray

[Prof Weird]

On Tuesday, September 4, 2012 5:13:24 PM UTC-4, Ray Martinez wrote:
> On Sep 4, 12:48�pm, Prof Weird <pol...@msx.dept-med.pitt.edu> wrote: [snip more text defending censorship by his Atheist brother....] > > �> If species are IMMUTABLE, how come the wide diversity of dogs ? �And cabbages ? > > > Variation is not evolution. > > BUT IT IS THE 'FUEL' OF EVOLUTION. > PW agrees with me: variation is not evolution.

But it is a PART of evolution.

Variations arise. Some variants are better (or luckier) at living long enough to leave offspring than others. Those variants tend to become more common in the population as the generations go by. Simple, basic, easy to understand (unless you have your head shoved 3.26 feet up your own arse) evolution.

> > If genomes were TRULY immutable, there would be no mutations.
> How often does a beneficial mutation occur?

Often enough to show that the idea that 'species are immutable' is wrong.

> > NO NEW VARIATIONS.
> Now PW backslides and indicates that variation is evolution.

No I did not you mendacious chiromaniacal antinomian !

IF species were - as YOU assert - immutable, there will be BY DEFINITION no new variations, since variations are CHANGES (which CANNOT EXIST IN IMMUTABLE ORGANISMS).

Given the OBSERVED FACT that new variants have arisen in many organisms, the idea that 'species are immutable' is thus demonstrated to be erroneous.

> > NO BIRTH DEFECTS.
> Bad mutations do not help your cause, did you forget?

Nope.

IF species were immutable, THERE CAN BE NO CHANGES, FOR GOOD OR FOR ILL.

> > Given the OBSERVATION that mutations happen, that new varieties show up now and again, and that birth defects exist, sane and rational people could deduce that species are mutable.

> Imagine that; species are mutable based on bad mutations! I offer PW's example as supporting species immutability.

You'd have to be a deranged sack of mind-twisted festering dung to claim that EXAMPLES OF SPECIES CHANGING SUPPORT THE DELUSION OF SPECIES IMMUTABILITY.

Again, twit : IF species were IMMUTABLE, there can be (BY DEFINITION) no changes FOR GOOD OR FOR ILL.

You do know what the term 'immutable' means, right ?

> > WHERE do you 'think' the variations in dogs or cabbages CAME FROM ?
Oh, right : 'THEY WERE MAGICALLY INSTALLED BY A MAGICAL SKY PIXIE BY UNKNOWABLE MEANS WHEN NO ONE WAS LOOKING !!!' or 'ALL OF THE VARIATIONS SEEN TODAY WERE ALREADY IN THE POPULATION SINCE THE BEGINNING !!!!!!'

You did not answer this question Ray.
WHERE do you 'think' variations come from in real world organisms ?

> > Odd that you EXPECT the reality-based crowd to provide a youtube video of natural selection or evolution happening, or you are free to reject 150+ years of hard won knowledge, yet your Magical Sky Pixie ONLY works when no one is watching, but you expect everyone to believe you.

> > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mcAq9bmCeR0- a youtube video of natural selection and evolution producing functional, accurate clocks.

> > Few organisms reproduce fast enough to produce much evolution in just an hour or two - but a computer simulation of evolution can show it working !

> > In fact, Schneider's ev program shows natural selection at work, and you don't even need a youtube of it - YOU CAN RUN THE PROGRAM YOURSELF !

> All this nonsense because I said (over at Pandas) that evolution is inferred, not observed. Matt Young cannot censor this 101 fact here at Talk.Origins.

All this 'nonsense' is evidence that species are mutable, and that your request that someone provide a youtube video of natural selection or evolution happening (while everyone is expected to just believe you ) is just plain silly.

Schneider's ev program DEMONSTRATES natural selection, while the evolving clocks youtube shows evolution.

But you just closed your eyes, waved your hands and sneered 'this be nonsense'.

Again, buffoon : YOU HAVE NOT BEEN CENSORED. At Panda's Thumb or anywhere.

If you go to Panda's Thumb, you see posts with YOUR name, and the phrase 'These comments have been moved to the *Bathroom Wall* '.

THOSE ARE LINKS TO YOUR POSTS, RAY !

Anyone that cares to read your drivel can do so just by clicking the link.

It's just that few care to read your drivel.

And THAT is what truly bothers you, isn't it Ray ?

Some inferences are so strongly supported it would be peculiar to NOT informally state 'they were observed'.

Given the OBSERVED FACTS that variations arise, that some variants are better (or luckier) at living long enough to produce offspring, and that such variants tend to become more common in a population as the generations go by, we might as well state 'evolution has been observed' after a few hundred/thousand generations have gone by, since most people are smart enough to figure out what is meant.

If evolution must be rejected because it is 'inference', then ID/Magical Skymanism must rejected as well, because it is not even an inference.

[jillery]

Insufficient. Please describe what is it about variation that its
continuation prevents it from being considered evolution.

[Dana Tweedy]

If species were truly immutable, then variation would not be seen.
The wide diversity of dog breeds is due to evolution happening within
the population of dogs.

DJT

[Dana Tweedy]

On 9/4/12 3:09 PM, Ray Martinez wrote:
> On Sep 4, 12:48 pm, Prof Weird <pol...@msx.dept-med.pitt.edu> wrote:
>
> [snip more text defending censorship by his Atheist brother....]
>
>>
>> > If species are IMMUTABLE, how come the wide diversity of dogs ?
And cabbages ?
>>
>>> Variation is not evolution.
>>
>> BUT IT IS THE 'FUEL' OF EVOLUTION.
>>
>
> PW agrees with me: variation is not evolution.

Variation is, however a part of evolution. A truly immutable
population would be one that did not vary.

>
>> If genomes were TRULY immutable, there would be no mutations.
>>
>
> How often does a beneficial mutation occur?

Beneficial mutations are less common than neutral mutations, but they
are common enough for evolution to happen.

>
>> NO NEW VARIATIONS.
>>
>
> Now PW backslides and indicates that variation is evolution.

No, Ray, you aren't listening. Variations are part of evolution, the
part that provides new types for natural selection to work on.

>
>> NO BIRTH DEFECTS.
>>
>
> Bad mutations do not help your cause, did you forget?

"Bad" mutations are a matter of perspective. That mutations happen is
evidence that life evolves. If no mutations occurred, then populations
would be immutable.

>
>> Given the OBSERVATION that mutations happen, that new varieties show
up now and again, and that birth defects exist, sane and rational people
could deduce that species are mutable.
>>
>
> Imagine that; species are mutable based on bad mutations!

Imagine that, Ray misses the point. Mutations happen. Whether they are
"good" or "bad", or more likely, neutral, is a relative thing. What is
a bad mutation in one condition may be a beneficial one in another
condition.

>
> I offer PW's example as supporting species immutability.

How does the fact that populations vary support "species immutability"?

>
>> WHERE do you 'think' the variations in dogs or cabbages CAME FROM ?
>>
>> Oh, right : 'THEY WERE MAGICALLY INSTALLED BY A MAGICAL SKY PIXIE BY
UNKNOWABLE MEANS WHEN NO ONE WAS LOOKING !!!' or 'ALL OF THE VARIATIONS
SEEN TODAY WERE ALREADY IN THE POPULATION SINCE THE BEGINNING !!!!!!'
>>
>> Odd that you EXPECT the reality-based crowd to provide a youtube
video of natural selection or evolution happening, or you are free to
reject 150+ years of hard won knowledge, yet your Magical Sky Pixie ONLY
works when no one is watching, but you expect everyone to believe you.
>>
>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mcAq9bmCeR0- a youtube video of
natural selection and evolution producing functional, accurate clocks.
>>
>> Few organisms reproduce fast enough to produce much evolution in
just an hour or two - but a computer simulation of evolution can show it
working !
>>
>> In fact, Schneider's ev program shows natural selection at work, and
you don't even need a youtube of it - YOU CAN RUN THE PROGRAM YOURSELF !
>
> All this nonsense because I said (over at Pandas) that evolution is
> inferred, not observed.

Evolution is observed. Inference is part of any observation. You are
also evading the question of where do you think variation comes from?

>
> Matt Young cannot censor this 101 fact here at Talk.Origins.

Like so many of your claimed "101 facts" you are just wrong. Evolution
is directly observed. Creation by a supernatural being has never been
observed.

DJT

[pnyikos]

On Sep 2, 8:23�pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> On Aug 31, 7:37�pm, pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> > On Aug 30, 10:23 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > Matt Young is a Moderator over at Pandas Thumb. He has censored every
> > > single message I have posted in a certain topic. Click on the link
> > > below and see for yourself.
>
> > Funny, the link below takes me to someone who is appalled by the way
> > an anti-creationist video received so many negative comments.

That someone was Matt, and the video was by Bill Nye.

Actually the video, which deserves lots of negative comments, has an
overwhelming majority of thumbs up at this point, and the comments
(which are now well over 100,000) seem to be dominated by non-
creationists. There are quite a lot of obnoxious atheists involved,
but the sample I've seen is too small to tell whether they are in the
majority.

Was the ratio any worse for Matt Young when he did his article? if
not, he is behaving like a spoiled brat.

> >�How are

> > we to find out how YOU are being treated?
>
> > > As I type I count 9 acts of censorship:
>
> > >http://pandasthumb.org/archives/2012/08/creationism-is-1.html#comments
>
> > Did you carelessly post the wrong link?
>
> No; I tested it before I posted the OP. Why it takes one to a
> different page I don't know.
>
> To view said censorship simply traverse to Pandas, click on the
> "Creationism inappropriate for children/Bill Nye" topic, then click on
> the 4th page of said topic, then scroll down and see the 9 acts of
> censorship.

Thanks. I found them. It did take the Bathroom Wall a long time to
load your comments, though, so I guess that could be construed as a
form of censorship.

> EVERY message I posted was censored.

Matt *is* being quite heavy-handed. I see no reason to send the
following to the kiddie corner:

"I think it relevant to point out that Luskin accepts species
mutability�he is an Evolutionist too."

I think he should have left this one in; it might have clarified what
people mean by "evolutionist".

> Peter: Where did your
> fellow Evolutionists learn such behavior?

Probably the ones that behave this way learned it from their atheistic
parents. I can't see any other explanation for Matt Young's brain
being so scrambled that he thinks Bill Nye's video isn't a piece of
naive trash.

I also can't see any other explanation for the trash Nye posted. This
is NOT the way to make the case for evolution, nor is it the way to
change the minds and hearts of creationists. If Nye doesn't realize
he is just venting, he's a sorry excuse for a mature adult.

> I thought Western thought
> was enlightened? Of course the experts in censorship, Castro, Mao and
> Stalin, have shown that censorship works.

At least they had reason to fear the truth. Anyone who knows as much
about evolution as I do can only pity the pathetic attempts of
creationists to attack it. I suspect Young and Nye are different that
way because they do NOT know very much about evolution--or else they
are paranoid by nature.

> > By the way, Ray, are you planning to participate any more in that
> > thread?
>
> Yes, after the holiday here in the States.
>
> I also plan on pursuing you in two other topics.

We'll see who is pursuing whom after this week. :-)

But seriously, I do hope to see you again on that Drake equation
thread. I didn't post on it since Friday, but I do plan to post on it
tomorrow.

Peter Nyikos

[Rolf]

"Ray Martinez" <pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:5a1f34f0-b547-4ff6...@r1g2000pbq.googlegroups.com...

Censorship? All your ugly babble is scribbled on the Bathroom for all to
see.

Appalling.






>

[Rolf]

"Ray Martinez" <pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote in message

news:585c9329-3424-4ff9...@kn3g2000pbc.googlegroups.com...

Waht you say is worthless in view of overwhelimg evidence for evolution.

Where is creationism observed, outside of creationist brains? (What little
they may have.)

[Rolf]

"Ray Martinez" <pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote in message

news:fc61b30d-4283-4b07...@r1g2000pbq.googlegroups.com...

Is that all you got to say about 160 years of solid, and ongoing science?

Yes, because you don't know anything. Few idiots as science illiterate as
you.
> Ray
>

[Bob Casanova]

On Tue, 4 Sep 2012 12:55:25 -0700 (PDT), the following

appeared in talk.origins, posted by Ray Martinez

<pyram...@yahoo.com>:

>On Sep 1, 10:09�am, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
>> On Fri, 31 Aug 2012 11:15:31 -0700 (PDT), the following
>> appeared in talk.origins, posted by Ray Martinez
>> <pyramid...@yahoo.com>:
>>
>> >On Aug 30, 8:48 pm, Tom <danto...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> >> On Aug 30, 7:23 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>> >> > Matt Young is a Moderator over at Pandas Thumb. He has censored every
>> >> > single message I have posted in a certain topic.
>>
>> >> Don't be such a weenie, Ray. You can't have your way all the time.
>>
>> >About as partisan as points get.
>>
>> >Imagine that; 9 acts of censorship does not constitute a legitimate
>> >complaint?
>>
>> Not when no actual censorship occurred. And since, by your
>> own admission, your posts are still available in the same
>> public forum for all to read, it didn't. In fact, I'd guess
>> that possibly more readers peruse this area than any other,
>> and I suspect that the implied ridicule is what makes you
>> scream about nonexistent "censorship". Here's a hint, Ray:
>> Pointing at what you post and laughing isn't censorship.
>>
>> >At least Tom didn't deny, I'll give him that.
>>
>> He didn't deny his actions in moving your posts to a more
>> appropriate venue. He, and everyone else here capable of
>> rational thought, denies that this constitutes censorship in
>> any reasonable interpretation of the term.

>Blatant partisanship (Darwinian Atheist defending Darwinian Atheist).

How about if I defended you, Ray? Would that make you an
"atheist", or would it magically transform me into a smug,
know-nothing person like yourself? Regardless, your
characterization of my beliefs is an error, since you know
nothing of them. Nor will you; my posts here aren't based on
any religious belief or faith, but on evidence and/or
personal experience. And I try to be careful to denote
which.

>Stalin didn't kill anyone; he only deported the ones he did not
>ordered killed to Siberia where they were free to live and write!

This is so unrelated to anything posted that I really have
no idea where you dragged it up from, or for what purpose.
Perhaps a failed attempt to equate the moving of your posts
to a more suitable location (one as easy to access as any
other, completely unlike Siberia) with their actual removal?

>As if Bob our enlightened Atheist-Evolutionist does not understand
>that when a Darwinian Moderator deletes messages and moves them
>"elsewhere" that these actions do not constitute censorship.

As I said, you don't understand the meaning of "censorship".
But that's obvious to anyone following this thread, so I'll
simply note that a valid analogy is a librarian (or
bookseller) moving a book extolling creationism from the
science section to the one dedicated to religion; no
censorship, just a repositioning to a more suitable
location.

>I urge the general audience to read each message that was sent to
>Siberia and see the truths that enraged these "enlightened"
>Darwinists.
>
>http://pandasthumb.org/archives/2012/08/creationism-is-1.html
>
>Ckick on the above link, then click on the 4th page and see for
>yourself.

If the messages had been censored they would be unavailable
to be read by anyone, anywhere. The fact that you deny this
doesn't change the reality that no censorship was employed.

[Bob Casanova]

On Tue, 4 Sep 2012 14:14:45 -0700 (PDT), the following

appeared in talk.origins, posted by Ray Martinez

<pyram...@yahoo.com>:

>On Sep 4, 12:58�pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:

>>... when a Darwinian Moderator deletes messages and moves them

>> "elsewhere" that these actions do not constitute censorship.

>CORRECTION: should have said "these actions DO INDEED constitute
>censorship."

So your Freudian slip was showing?

[Ray Martinez]

On Sep 5, 10:33�am, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
> On Tue, 4 Sep 2012 12:55:25 -0700 (PDT), the following
> appeared in talk.origins, posted by Ray Martinez

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

Bob's blatant partisanship boils over....one Atheist-Evolutionist
attempting to justify and whitewash the censorship of his fellow
Atheist-Evolutionist.

Ray

[Ray Martinez]

On Sep 4, 6:58�pm, pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> On Sep 2, 8:23�pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > On Aug 31, 7:37�pm, pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> > > On Aug 30, 10:23 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > Matt Young is a Moderator over at Pandas Thumb. He has censored every
> > > > single message I have posted in a certain topic. Click on the link
> > > > below and see for yourself.
>
> > > Funny, the link below takes me to someone who is appalled by the way
> > > an anti-creationist video received so many negative comments.
>
> That someone was Matt, and the video was by Bill Nye.
>
> Actually the video, which deserves lots of negative comments, has an
> overwhelming majority of thumbs up at this point, and the comments
> (which are now well over 100,000) seem to be dominated by non-

> creationists. �There are quite a lot of obnoxious atheists involved,

> but the sample I've seen is too small to tell whether they are in the
> majority.
>

> Was the ratio any worse for Matt Young when he did his article? �if

> not, he is behaving like a spoiled brat.
>

He is one of your own Peter: a brain-dead and brainwashed Evolutionist
to the core. He learned censorship from the Federal Judiciary----all
of whom are Evolutionists. These "enlightened" jurists have ruled that
it is conducive with the core principles of the Document to say the
ToE cannot be criticized. In China one can criticize the ToE but not
the Government; the reverse is true in America.

Darwinists have defecated on the Constitution. The only sacred thing
in their minds is their pro-Atheism theory: it cannot be criticized.
Nothing could be more anti-constitutional than this particular ruling.
Darwinists (and I am talking about you too) are the biggest liars our
society has ever seen. Their lies are Hilteresque. Said ruling, in the
distant future, will be reversed and the Judges who are responsible
will have their names forever associated with treason. History will
see to it.

>
>
>
>
> > >�How are
> > > we to find out how YOU are being treated?
>
> > > > As I type I count 9 acts of censorship:
>
> > > >http://pandasthumb.org/archives/2012/08/creationism-is-1.html#comments
>
> > > Did you carelessly post the wrong link?
>
> > No; I tested it before I posted the OP. Why it takes one to a
> > different page I don't know.
>
> > To view said censorship simply traverse to Pandas, click on the
> > "Creationism inappropriate for children/Bill Nye" topic, then click on
> > the 4th page of said topic, then scroll down and see the 9 acts of
> > censorship.
>

> Thanks. �I found them. �It did take the Bathroom Wall a long time to

> load your comments, though, so I guess that could be construed as a
> form of censorship.
>
> > EVERY message I posted was censored.
>

> Matt *is* being quite heavy-handed. �I see no reason to send the

> following to the kiddie corner:
>

Not good enough.

He is your evo brother. ALL evos are equally guilty.

> "I think it relevant to point out that Luskin accepts species

> mutability�he is an Evolutionist too" [Ray Martinez].
>

The all-important context was a quote, by an Evolutionist, that said
Luskin was a liar. In this context I wrote the above quote.

> I think he should have left this one in; it might have clarified what
> people mean by "evolutionist".
>
> > Peter: Where did your
> > fellow Evolutionists learn such behavior?
>
> Probably the ones that behave this way learned it from their atheistic

> parents. �I can't see any other explanation for Matt Young's brain

> being so scrambled that he thinks Bill Nye's video isn't a piece of
> naive trash.
>

He learned it from the Federal Judiciary----"Christian" Judges who
hold the Bible down while the AtheistCLU does the dirty work.

> I also can't see any other explanation for the trash Nye posted. �This

> is NOT the way to make the case for evolution, nor is it the way to

> change the minds and hearts of creationists. �If Nye doesn't realize

> he is just venting, he's a sorry excuse for a mature adult.
>
> > I thought Western thought
> > was enlightened? Of course the experts in censorship, Castro, Mao and
> > Stalin, have shown that censorship works.
>

> At least they had reason to fear the truth. �Anyone who knows as much

> about evolution as I do can only pity the pathetic attempts of
> creationists to attack it.

Since Atheists have no choice but to accept the concept of evolution
to explain the existence of species, what more is there to know?

> I suspect Young and Nye are different that
> way because they do NOT know very much about evolution--or else they
> are paranoid by nature.
>

You're no different, Peter.

You give aid and comfort to liars and their lies.

There isn't one shred of evidence in existence supporting evolution----
not even one.

> > > By the way, Ray, are you planning to participate any more in that
> > > thread?
>
> > Yes, after the holiday here in the States.
>
> > I also plan on pursuing you in two other topics.
>

> We'll see who is pursuing whom after this week. � �:-)

>
> But seriously, I do hope to see you again on that Drake equation

> thread. �I didn't post on it since Friday, but I do plan to post on it
> tomorrow.
>
> Peter Nyikos

Not going to happen, I have explained why here:

http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/bcc36905289dd4c2

Ray

[Dana Tweedy]

On 9/5/12 12:16 PM, Ray Martinez wrote:
> On Sep 4, 6:58 pm, pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>> On Sep 2, 8:23 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:

>>
>>> On Aug 31, 7:37 pm, pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>>
>>>> On Aug 30, 10:23 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>>>> Matt Young is a Moderator over at Pandas Thumb. He has censored every
>>>>> single message I have posted in a certain topic. Click on the link
>>>>> below and see for yourself.
>>
>>>> Funny, the link below takes me to someone who is appalled by the way
>>>> an anti-creationist video received so many negative comments.
>>
>> That someone was Matt, and the video was by Bill Nye.
>>
>> Actually the video, which deserves lots of negative comments, has an
>> overwhelming majority of thumbs up at this point, and the comments
>> (which are now well over 100,000) seem to be dominated by non-

>> creationists. There are quite a lot of obnoxious atheists involved,

>> but the sample I've seen is too small to tell whether they are in the
>> majority.
>>

>> Was the ratio any worse for Matt Young when he did his article? if

>> not, he is behaving like a spoiled brat.
>>
>
> He is one of your own Peter: a brain-dead and brainwashed Evolutionist
> to the core. He learned censorship from the Federal Judiciary----all
> of whom are Evolutionists.

Do you have any evidence that members of the Federal Judiciary are
"evolutionists"?

> These "enlightened" jurists have ruled that
> it is conducive with the core principles of the Document to say the
> ToE cannot be criticized.

No federal judge has ever ruled that the theory of evolution cannot be
criticized. Where do you get the idea they have?

> In China one can criticize the ToE but not
> the Government; the reverse is true in America.

There are no rulings by the US judiciary saying that the theory of
evolution may not be criticized. Where do you get the idea there are?

>
> Darwinists have defecated on the Constitution.

How, exactly?

> The only sacred thing
> in their minds is their pro-Atheism theory:

The theory of evolution is neither "sacred", or "pro atheism". Any
scientist who wishes to criticize the theory of evolution is welcome to
do so. Nothing about the theory of evolution supports the belief that
God does not exist.



> it cannot be criticized.

On the contrary, criticism of the theory of evolution is permitted, even
encouraged. The catch is that any criticism of that theory must be done
by presenting evidence against it.

Do you have any such evidence? If so, why haven't you presented any?

> Nothing could be more anti-constitutional than this particular ruling.

Which particular ruling are you talking about? Please give the proper
court citation to any ruling by any US judge which states one may not
criticize any particular scientific theory.

> Darwinists (and I am talking about you too) are the biggest liars our
> society has ever seen.

Yet you are the one who has filled this post with lies. There are no
federal court rulings which make criticism of evolution illegal. There
are few, if any federal court judges who are experts in scientific
theories, much less the theory of evolution.


> Their lies are Hilteresque.

Yet, you, Ray are the one lying here. Why are you accusing others of
"Hitlereseque" lies, when it's you who's using the "Big Lie" tactic?

> Said ruling, in the
> distant future, will be reversed and the Judges who are responsible
> will have their names forever associated with treason.

Which ruling is that? Please be specific as to which ruling you are
referring to?

> History will
> see to it.

How so? Do you really imagine that history will look kindly on your
personal delusion and falsehoods?




>
>>
>>
>>
snip


>>
>> Thanks. I found them. It did take the Bathroom Wall a long time to

>> load your comments, though, so I guess that could be construed as a
>> form of censorship.
>>
>>> EVERY message I posted was censored.
>>

>> Matt *is* being quite heavy-handed. I see no reason to send the

>> following to the kiddie corner:
>>
>
> Not good enough.

So, your problem is not that you were "censored", which you were not,
but that your posts weren't taken seriously. Why should anyone take
your claims seriously?

>
> He is your evo brother. ALL evos are equally guilty.

Guilty of what, Ray? Having enough sense to tell excrement from shoe
polish?

>
>> "I think it relevant to point out that Luskin accepts species
>> mutability�he is an Evolutionist too" [Ray Martinez].
>>
>
> The all-important context was a quote, by an Evolutionist, that said
> Luskin was a liar. In this context I wrote the above quote.

Ray, remember you are a liar as well. That Luskin is a creationist as
well as you makes you birds of a feather.

>
>> I think he should have left this one in; it might have clarified what
>> people mean by "evolutionist".
>>
>>> Peter: Where did your
>>> fellow Evolutionists learn such behavior?
>>
>> Probably the ones that behave this way learned it from their atheistic

>> parents. I can't see any other explanation for Matt Young's brain

>> being so scrambled that he thinks Bill Nye's video isn't a piece of
>> naive trash.
>>
>
> He learned it from the Federal Judiciary----"Christian" Judges who
> hold the Bible down while the AtheistCLU does the dirty work.

The Federal Judiciary interprets the Constitution. That they find
differently than you like merely indicates they are doing their job
well. By the way, the ACLU is not atheist, and no one is "holding
down" the Bible. These are just part of your bizarre violent sexual
fantasies.





>
>> I also can't see any other explanation for the trash Nye posted. This

>> is NOT the way to make the case for evolution, nor is it the way to

>> change the minds and hearts of creationists. If Nye doesn't realize

>> he is just venting, he's a sorry excuse for a mature adult.
>>
>>> I thought Western thought
>>> was enlightened? Of course the experts in censorship, Castro, Mao and
>>> Stalin, have shown that censorship works.
>>

>> At least they had reason to fear the truth. Anyone who knows as much

>> about evolution as I do can only pity the pathetic attempts of
>> creationists to attack it.
>
> Since Atheists have no choice but to accept the concept of evolution
> to explain the existence of species, what more is there to know?
>
>> I suspect Young and Nye are different that
>> way because they do NOT know very much about evolution--or else they
>> are paranoid by nature.
>>
>
> You're no different, Peter.
>
> You give aid and comfort to liars and their lies.

You are the one lying here, Ray. You are lying about federal judges,
about the ACLU, and about Peter. You show no sense of shame at all.

>
> There isn't one shred of evidence in existence supporting evolution----
> not even one.

The fact that populations vary is good evidence of evolution. You
admit that populations vary, so the above is another lie on your part.

>
>>>> By the way, Ray, are you planning to participate any more in that
>>>> thread?
>>
>>> Yes, after the holiday here in the States.
>>
>>> I also plan on pursuing you in two other topics.
>>

>> We'll see who is pursuing whom after this week. :-)

>>
>> But seriously, I do hope to see you again on that Drake equation

>> thread. I didn't post on it since Friday, but I do plan to post on it

>> tomorrow.
>>
>> Peter Nyikos
>
> Not going to happen, I have explained why here:
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/bcc36905289dd4c2

When Ray runs away, he keeps running.


DJT

[Bob Casanova]

On Wed, 5 Sep 2012 10:50:57 -0700 (PDT), the following

appeared in talk.origins, posted by Ray Martinez

<pyram...@yahoo.com>:

>Bob's blatant partisanship boils over....one Atheist-Evolutionist
>attempting to justify and whitewash the censorship of his fellow
>Atheist-Evolutionist.

Nothing new there. Perhaps you'd care to address the points
I made above? No? I didn't think you would; apparently all
you can do is mindlessly repeat the same stale falsehoods,
even after those falsehoods were thoroughly refuted.

[pnyikos]

On Sep 5, 2:18�pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Sep 4, 6:58 pm, pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> > On Sep 2, 8:23 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>

> > > On Aug 31, 7:37 pm, pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> > > > On Aug 30, 10:23 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > Matt Young is a Moderator over at Pandas Thumb. He has censored every
> > > > > single message I have posted in a certain topic. Click on the link
> > > > > below and see for yourself.
>
> > > > Funny, the link below takes me to someone who is appalled by the way
> > > > an anti-creationist video received so many negative comments.
>
> > That someone was Matt, and the video was by BillNye.
>
> > Actually the video, which deserves lots of negative comments, has an
> > overwhelming majority of thumbs up at this point, and the comments
> > (which are now well over 100,000) seem to be dominated by non-

> > creationists. There are quite a lot of obnoxious atheists involved,

> > but the sample I've seen is too small to tell whether they are in the
> > majority.

On reflection, "deeply insecure man" seems like a better choice of
words than "spoiled brat" here:

> > Was the ratio any worse for Matt Young when he did his article? if

> > not, he is behaving like a spoiled brat.

Ray is not one for making distinctions below:

> He is one of your own Peter: a brain-dead and brainwashed Evolutionist
> to the core.

He is no more one of my own than he is one of yours.

> He learned censorship from the Federal Judiciary----all
> of whom are Evolutionists. These "enlightened" jurists have ruled that
> it is conducive with the core principles of the Document to say the
> ToE cannot be criticized.

Whom does this describe, except for that hack, Judge Jones, of Dover
fame? In the Opinion of the Court, he repeated all kinds of lies in
the ACLU brief, and the only question in my mind is whether he was
conned by it or in cahoots with the liars who wrote the brief.

Fortunately, his orders at the end were so muted, the actual concept
of ID came off unscathed by them.

> In China one can criticize the ToE but not
> the Government; the reverse is true in America.

In Dover, the creationists on the school board completely overplayed
their hand, by trying to force teachers to make a statement many of
them disagree with.

Given your track record with creationists Pagano and Kalkidas, and
what you said next, you should have no trouble agreeing with what I
said just now.

> Darwinists have defecated on the Constitution. The only sacred thing
> in their minds is their pro-Atheism theory: it cannot be criticized.
> Nothing could be more anti-constitutional than this particular ruling.

You are using a singular noun here. Ergo, you cannot be talking about
anyone else except the incompetent or dishonest Judge Jones. The
decision was never appealed, you know. There was no need to -- the
creationists on the Dover School Board completely overplayed their
hand, and they were the ones who got slapped down.

> Darwinists (and I am talking about you too) are the biggest liars our
> society has ever seen.

I defy you to identify even one alleged lie by me.

>Their lies are Hilteresque. Said ruling, in the
> distant future, will be reversed and the Judges who are responsible
> will have their names forever associated with treason. History will
> see to it.

The Opinion of the Court is not a ruling, except where the last two
pages [in the case of Dover] are concerned. The rest is a pile of pig
swill, and the word "reversed" is inapplicable to it.

> > > > > As I type I count 9 acts of censorship:
>
> > > > >http://pandasthumb.org/archives/2012/08/creationism-is-1.html#comments

[...]

> > > To view said censorship simply traverse to Pandas, click on the

> > > "Creationism inappropriate for children/BillNye" topic, then click on

> > > the 4th page of said topic, then scroll down and see the 9 acts of
> > > censorship.
>

> > Thanks. I found them. It did take the Bathroom Wall a long time to

> > load your comments, though, so I guess that could be construed as a
> > form of censorship.
>
> > > EVERY message I posted was censored.
>

> > Matt *is* being quite heavy-handed. I see no reason to send the

> > following to the kiddie corner:
>
> Not good enough.
>
> He is your evo brother. ALL evos are equally guilty.

Pagano and Kalkidas are your creationist brothers. By your standards,
you are equally guilty of everything you criticize in them.

> > "I think it relevant to point out that Luskin accepts species

> > mutability he is an Evolutionist too" [Ray Martinez].

>
> The all-important context was a quote, by an Evolutionist, that said
> Luskin was a liar. In this context I wrote the above quote.

Would anyone on Panda's Thumb OR in talk.origins besides you would
call Luskin an evolutionist?

Anyway, they view being called an evolutionist a compliment, not an
insult, and so your rejoinder must have gone completely over their
heads.

Still, I stand by what I wrote next:

> > I think he should have left this one in; it might have clarified what
> > people mean by "evolutionist".
>
> > > Peter: Where did your
> > > fellow Evolutionists learn such behavior?
>
> > Probably the ones that behave this way learned it from their atheistic

> > parents. I can't see any other explanation for Matt Young's brain
> > being so scrambled that he thinks Bill Nye'svideo isn't a piece of

> > naive trash.
>
> He learned it from the Federal Judiciary----"Christian" Judges who
> hold the Bible down while the AtheistCLU does the dirty work.

There you go again, calling Judge Jones "the Federal Judiciary". But
you are quite right about the ACLU connection.

However, I have one question: did Judge Jones ever claim to be a
Christian?

Concluded in my next reply.

Peter Nyikos

[pnyikos]

On Sep 5, 2:18�pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Sep 4, 6:58 pm, pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> > On Sep 2, 8:23 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:

Repeating just a tad from my first reply:

> > > Peter: Where did your
> > > fellow Evolutionists learn such behavior?
>
> > Probably the ones that behave this way learned it from their atheistic

> > parents. I can't see any other explanation for Matt Young's brain

> > being so scrambled that he thinks Bill Nye's video isn't a piece of
> > naive trash.

[...]
> > I also can't see any other explanation for the trash Nye posted. This

> > is NOT the way to make the case for evolution, nor is it the way to

> > change the minds and hearts of creationists. If Nyedoesn't realize

> > he is just venting, he's a sorry excuse for a mature adult.

Unfortunately, you reminded me again below of how bad you are at
judging what is likely to change people's minds and hearts.

> > > I thought Western thought
> > > was enlightened? Of course the experts in censorship, Castro, Mao and
> > > Stalin, have shown that censorship works.
>

> > At least they had reason to fear the truth. Anyone who knows as much

> > about evolution as I do can only pity the pathetic attempts of
> > creationists to attack it.
>
> Since Atheists have no choice but to accept the concept of evolution
> to explain the existence of species, what more is there to know?

Plenty. The crimes of mass murderers Stalin, Mao, Casto, and leftist
idol Che Guevara are what really set them apart from decent people.

> > I suspect Young and Nye are different that
> > way because they do NOT know very much about evolution--or else they
> > are paranoid by nature.
>
> You're no different, Peter.

By that standard, you're no different from Pagano and Kalkidas.

> You give aid and comfort to liars and their lies.

That just goes to show how abysmally ignorant you are about me. One
of the main reason I am so isolated in this newsgroup is that, from
the very day I started posting to talk.origins in 1995, I attacked
liars, hypocrites, and unjust people on "my" evolutionist side. I
treated the creationists differently--all the ones I encountered
seemed to be misguided, not deceitful like a bunch of people I could
name, some of whom are still posting.

It wasn't until a couple of months after getting to know you that you
became the one exception -- for one thing, you are too trigger-happy
with the hateful insults (like the one you uttered just above) to be
an honest person. [For another, keep reading.]

It is only because Okimoto, O'Shea, jillery, and Gans are far, far
worse than you where it really counts, that I'm still pulling my
punches against you.

[God, how I miss Joe Potter. He was the one honest, sincere,
sensible, mature person I encountered in talk.origins, and he paid for
it by being regularly accused of "sucking up to" me just because he
set the record straight time and again about what people were
attacking me about.]

[He was a creationist, but that one flaw pales alongside what really
counts, morally.]

> There isn't one shred of evidence in existence supporting evolution----
> not even one.

You've repeatedly run away from the evidence. Admit it-- you couldn't
say anything against the evidence in the horse family, so you
dishonestly blabbed about how that is supposed to be the ONLY evidence
for evolution.

But it was all a sham admission, to get you out of a tight spot. Now
that your performance has faded in people's memories (but not in
mine!) you have gone right back to L*Y*I*N*G that there isn't one
shred of evidence supporting evolution.

NOW do you see why I call you dishonest?

And don't try to get off the hook by saying the horse sequence is only
a tiny part of the common descent that evolutionists claim. You
burned that bridge behind you by calling Luskin and Kalkidas
evolutionists because they admit speciation.

I've snipped an exchange about the Drake equation thread. Thanks for
the link to your new thread; I replied to you there a minute or so
ago.

Peter Nyikos

[pnyikos]

> >> mutability�he is an Evolutionist too" [Ray Martinez].

>
> > The all-important context was a quote, by an Evolutionist, that said
> > Luskin was a liar. In this context I wrote the above quote.
>
> Ray, remember you are a liar as well. � That Luskin is a creationist as
> well as you makes you birds of a feather.
>
>
>
> >> I think he should have left this one in; it might have clarified what
> >> people mean by "evolutionist".
>
> >>> Peter: Where did your
> >>> fellow Evolutionists learn such behavior?
>
> >> Probably the ones that behave this way learned it from their atheistic
> >> parents. �I can't see any other explanation for Matt Young's brain

> >> being so scrambled that he thinks BillNye'svideo isn't a piece of

> >> naivetrash.
>
> > He learned it from the Federal Judiciary----"Christian" Judges who
> > hold the Bible down while the AtheistCLU does the dirty work.
>
> The Federal Judiciary interprets the Constitution. �That they find
> differently than you like merely indicates they are doing their job
> well. � �By the way, the ACLU is not atheist, and no one is "holding
> down" the Bible. � �These are just part of your bizarre violent sexual
> fantasies.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

> >> I also can't see any other explanation for thetrashNyeposted. �This

> >> is NOT the way to make the case for evolution, nor is it the way to

> >> change the minds and hearts of creationists. �IfNyedoesn't realize

> >> he is just venting, he's a sorry excuse for a mature adult.
>
> >>> I thought Western thought
> >>> was enlightened? Of course the experts in censorship, Castro, Mao and
> >>> Stalin, have shown that censorship works.
>
> >> At least they had reason to fear the truth. �Anyone who knows as much
> >> about evolution as I do can only pity the pathetic attempts of
> >> creationists to attack it.
>
> > Since Atheists have no choice but to accept the concept of evolution
> > to explain the existence of species, what more is there to know?
>

> >> I suspect Young andNyeare different that

> >> way because they do NOT know very much about evolution--or else they
> >> are paranoid by nature.
>
> > You're no different, Peter.
>
> > You give aid and comfort to liars and their lies.
>
> You are the one lying here, Ray. � You are lying about federal judges,
> about the ACLU, and about Peter. � You show no sense of shame at all.
>
>
>
> > There isn't one shred of evidence in existence supporting evolution----
> > not even one.
>
> The fact that populations vary is good evidence of evolution. � You
> admit that populations vary, so the above is another lie on your part.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >>>> By the way, Ray, are you planning to participate any more in that
> >>>> thread?
>
> >>> Yes, after the holiday here in the States.
>
> >>> I also plan on pursuing you in two other topics.
>
> >> We'll see who is pursuing whom after this week. � �:-)
>
> >> But seriously, I do hope to see you again on that Drake equation
> >> thread. �I didn't post on it since Friday, but I do plan to post on it
> >> tomorrow.
>
> >> Peter Nyikos
>
> > Not going to happen, I have explained why here:
>
> >http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/bcc36905289dd4c2
>
> When Ray runs away, he keeps running.
>
> DJT

You were doing fine until that last comment. Had you clicked on the
link, you would have seen that Ray, for once, isn't running away at
all.

He started a new thread with that post, and I've replied to it. He
may run away from that reply, but that's another story.

Peter Nyikos

[Desertphile]

On Thu, 30 Aug 2012 19:20:22 -0700 (PDT), Ray Martinez
<pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> Matt Young is a Moderator over at Pandas Thumb. He has censored every
> single message I have posted in a certain topic. Click on the link

> below and see for yourself. As I type I count 9 acts of censorship:
>
> http://pandasthumb.org/archives/2012/08/creationism-is-1.html#comments
>

> Matt, of course, does not see his actions as censorship. He "only"
> moved my posts to a different venue ("The Bathroom Wall"). Equivalent
> to being sent to Siberia.
>
> I contend that my comments were completely legitimate. Anyone can fact
> check and see for themself. That said, why the censorship?
>
> The only logical answer is that Matt sees my points as damaging to
> evolutionary theory in the eyes of honest and objective persons. I am
> quite gratified to have gotten under his skin.
>
> The whole purpose of this topic is to preserve the actions of
> Darwinist Matt Young, to preserve a record of an "enlightened mind"
> lapsing into the Third World.
>
> Ray Martinez (Old Earth, Paleyan IDist-species immutabilist)

Kent Hovind's cult refuses to let me post on their web sites front
page. Censorship! Pure and simple censorship!


--
"[Denialists] will immediately reject the facts when they glance at them." -- Desertphile
"We will always reject your facts." -- Tunderbar

[Rolf]

"Ray Martinez" <pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote in message

news:9def425c-b673-4d89...@rq1g2000pbb.googlegroups.com...

> On Sep 4, 6:58 pm, pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>> On Sep 2, 8:23 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>

>> > On Aug 31, 7:37 pm, pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>>
>> > > On Aug 30, 10:23 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>> > > > Matt Young is a Moderator over at Pandas Thumb. He has censored
>> > > > every
>> > > > single message I have posted in a certain topic. Click on the link
>> > > > below and see for yourself.
>>
>> > > Funny, the link below takes me to someone who is appalled by the way
>> > > an anti-creationist video received so many negative comments.
>>
>> That someone was Matt, and the video was by Bill Nye.
>>
>> Actually the video, which deserves lots of negative comments, has an
>> overwhelming majority of thumbs up at this point, and the comments
>> (which are now well over 100,000) seem to be dominated by non-

>> creationists. There are quite a lot of obnoxious atheists involved,

>> but the sample I've seen is too small to tell whether they are in the
>> majority.
>>

>> Was the ratio any worse for Matt Young when he did his article? if

>> not, he is behaving like a spoiled brat.
>>
>
> He is one of your own Peter: a brain-dead and brainwashed Evolutionist
> to the core. He learned censorship from the Federal Judiciary----all
> of whom are Evolutionists. These "enlightened" jurists have ruled that
> it is conducive with the core principles of the Document to say the
> ToE cannot be criticized. In China one can criticize the ToE but not
> the Government; the reverse is true in America.
>
> Darwinists have defecated on the Constitution. The only sacred thing
> in their minds is their pro-Atheism theory: it cannot be criticized.
> Nothing could be more anti-constitutional than this particular ruling.
> Darwinists (and I am talking about you too) are the biggest liars our
> society has ever seen. Their lies are Hilteresque. Said ruling, in the
> distant future, will be reversed and the Judges who are responsible
> will have their names forever associated with treason. History will
> see to it.
>
>>
>>
>>
>>

>> > > How are
>> > > we to find out how YOU are being treated?
>>
>> > > > As I type I count 9 acts of censorship:
>>
>> > > >http://pandasthumb.org/archives/2012/08/creationism-is-1.html#comments
>>
>> > > Did you carelessly post the wrong link?
>>
>> > No; I tested it before I posted the OP. Why it takes one to a
>> > different page I don't know.
>>
>> > To view said censorship simply traverse to Pandas, click on the
>> > "Creationism inappropriate for children/Bill Nye" topic, then click on
>> > the 4th page of said topic, then scroll down and see the 9 acts of
>> > censorship.
>>

>> Thanks. I found them. It did take the Bathroom Wall a long time to

>> load your comments, though, so I guess that could be construed as a
>> form of censorship.
>>
>> > EVERY message I posted was censored.
>>

>> Matt *is* being quite heavy-handed. I see no reason to send the

>> following to the kiddie corner:
>>
>
> Not good enough.
>
> He is your evo brother. ALL evos are equally guilty.
>
>> "I think it relevant to point out that Luskin accepts species

>> mutability�he is an Evolutionist too" [Ray Martinez].

>>
>
> The all-important context was a quote, by an Evolutionist, that said
> Luskin was a liar. In this context I wrote the above quote.
>
>> I think he should have left this one in; it might have clarified what
>> people mean by "evolutionist".
>>
>> > Peter: Where did your
>> > fellow Evolutionists learn such behavior?
>>
>> Probably the ones that behave this way learned it from their atheistic

>> parents. I can't see any other explanation for Matt Young's brain

>> being so scrambled that he thinks Bill Nye's video isn't a piece of
>> naive trash.
>>
>
> He learned it from the Federal Judiciary----"Christian" Judges who
> hold the Bible down while the AtheistCLU does the dirty work.
>

>> I also can't see any other explanation for the trash Nye posted. This

>> is NOT the way to make the case for evolution, nor is it the way to

>> change the minds and hearts of creationists. If Nye doesn't realize

>> he is just venting, he's a sorry excuse for a mature adult.
>>
>> > I thought Western thought
>> > was enlightened? Of course the experts in censorship, Castro, Mao and
>> > Stalin, have shown that censorship works.
>>

>> At least they had reason to fear the truth. Anyone who knows as much

>> about evolution as I do can only pity the pathetic attempts of
>> creationists to attack it.
>
> Since Atheists have no choice but to accept the concept of evolution
> to explain the existence of species, what more is there to know?
>
>> I suspect Young and Nye are different that
>> way because they do NOT know very much about evolution--or else they
>> are paranoid by nature.
>>
>
> You're no different, Peter.
>
> You give aid and comfort to liars and their lies.
>
> There isn't one shred of evidence in existence supporting evolution----
> not even one.
>

That was the denial, now please go on to the next step: Addressing the
evidence!

You don't know there is evidence?

What about doing some relevant reading?

Probably too late for your ossified mind.

>> > > By the way, Ray, are you planning to participate any more in that
>> > > thread?
>>
>> > Yes, after the holiday here in the States.
>>
>> > I also plan on pursuing you in two other topics.
>>

>> We'll see who is pursuing whom after this week. :-)

>>
>> But seriously, I do hope to see you again on that Drake equation

>> thread. I didn't post on it since Friday, but I do plan to post on it

[Ray Martinez]

On Sep 7, 5:18�pm, pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> On Sep 5, 2:18�pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Sep 4, 6:58 pm, pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> > > On Sep 2, 8:23 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Aug 31, 7:37 pm, pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> > > > > On Aug 30, 10:23 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > Matt Young is a Moderator over at Pandas Thumb. He has censored every
> > > > > > single message I have posted in a certain topic. Click on the link
> > > > > > below and see for yourself.
>
> > > > > Funny, the link below takes me to someone who is appalled by the way
> > > > > an anti-creationist video received so many negative comments.
>
> > > That someone was Matt, and the video was by BillNye.
>
> > > Actually the video, which deserves lots of negative comments, has an
> > > overwhelming majority of thumbs up at this point, and the comments
> > > (which are now well over 100,000) seem to be dominated by non-
> > > creationists. There are quite a lot of obnoxious atheists involved,
> > > but the sample I've seen is too small to tell whether they are in the
> > > majority.
>
> On reflection, "deeply insecure man" seems like a better choice of
> words than "spoiled brat" here:
>

I did not write the words that elicited your response.

> > > Was the ratio any worse for Matt Young when he did his article? �if
> > > not, he is behaving like a spoiled brat.
>
> Ray is not one for making distinctions below:
>
> > He is one of your own Peter: a brain-dead and brainwashed Evolutionist
> > to the core.
>
> He is no more one of my own than he is one of yours.
>

Matt Young is a die-hard Evolutionist like yourself.

> > He learned censorship from the Federal Judiciary----all
> > of whom are Evolutionists. These "enlightened" jurists have ruled that
> > it is conducive with the core principles of the Document to say the
> > ToE cannot be criticized.
>
> Whom does this describe, except for that hack, Judge Jones, of Dover
> fame? �In the Opinion of the Court, he repeated all kinds of lies in
> the ACLU brief, and the only question in my mind is whether he was
> conned by it or in cahoots with the liars who wrote the brief.
>
> Fortunately, his orders at the end were so muted, the actual concept
> of ID came off unscathed by them.
>
> > In China one can criticize the ToE but not
> > the Government; the reverse is true in America.
>
> In Dover, the creationists on the school board completely overplayed
> their hand, by trying to force teachers to make a statement many of
> them disagree with.
>
> Given your track record with creationists Pagano and Kalkidas, and
> what you said next, you should have no trouble agreeing with what I
> said just now.
>

What you said about Judge Jones makes no sense since you are like him:
an Evolutionist.

And we know Judge Jones is a deluded liar too. He thinks he got away
with his lies. History will not forget and neither will God.

> > Darwinists have defecated on the Constitution. The only sacred thing
> > in their minds is their pro-Atheism theory: it cannot be criticized.
> > Nothing could be more anti-constitutional than this particular ruling.
>
> You are using a singular noun here. �Ergo, you cannot be talking about
> anyone else except the incompetent or dishonest Judge Jones. �The
> decision was never appealed, you know. �There was no need to -- the
> creationists on the Dover School Board completely overplayed their
> hand, and they were the ones who got slapped down.
>
> > Darwinists (and I am talking about you too) are the biggest liars our
> > society has ever seen.
>
> I defy you to identify even one alleged lie by me.
>

You cannot be pro-IDism and pro-evolution at the same time; one of
your positions is a total lie. I judge the former to be the lie since
you argue for evolution like any other Evolutionist.

> >Their lies are Hilteresque. Said ruling, in the
> > distant future, will be reversed and the Judges who are responsible
> > will have their names forever associated with treason. History will
> > see to it.
>
> The Opinion of the Court is not a ruling,

Yes, it is.

> except where the last two
> pages [in the case of Dover] are concerned. The rest is a pile of pig
> swill, and the word "reversed" is inapplicable to it.
>
> > > > > > As I type I count 9 acts of censorship:
>
> > > > > >http://pandasthumb.org/archives/2012/08/creationism-is-1.html#comments
>
> [...]
>
>
>
>
>
> > > > To view said censorship simply traverse to Pandas, click on the
> > > > "Creationism inappropriate for children/BillNye" topic, then click on
> > > > the 4th page of said topic, then scroll down and see the 9 acts of
> > > > censorship.
>
> > > Thanks. I found them. It did take the Bathroom Wall a long time to
> > > load your comments, though, so I guess that could be construed as a
> > > form of censorship.
>
> > > > EVERY message I posted was censored.
>
> > > Matt *is* being quite heavy-handed. I see no reason to send the
> > > following to the kiddie corner:
>
> > Not good enough.
>
> > He is your evo brother. ALL evos are equally guilty.
>
> Pagano and Kalkidas are your creationist brothers. �By your standards,
> you are equally guilty of everything you criticize in them.
>

Both Tony and Kalkidas accept the main claim of Darwinism: natural
selection/evolution. I reject said claim. They are your brothers. Real
Creationists do not accept the MAIN CLAIM of their opponents, do they
Peter?

> > > "I think it relevant to point out that Luskin accepts species
> > > mutability he is an Evolutionist too" [Ray Martinez].
>
> > The all-important context was a quote, by an Evolutionist, that said
> > Luskin was a liar. In this context I wrote the above quote.
>
> Would anyone on Panda's Thumb OR in talk.origins besides you would
> call Luskin an evolutionist?
>

How is it inaccurate to call Luskin an Evolutionist since he accepts
natural agency, species mutability?

Do not forget to answer, and your logic will be thoroughly examined.

> Anyway, they view being called an evolutionist a compliment, not an
> insult, and so your rejoinder must have gone completely over their
> heads.
>

Excellent point (I completely agree).

So you agree Luskin is an Evolutionist?

In reality, Luskin is neither an Evolutionist or Creationist/IDist;
rather, he is demonstrably confused for accepting the main claim of
his alleged enemy (Darwinism). As if evolution is not directly
associated with Darwinism!

> Still, I stand by what I wrote next:
>
> > > I think he should have left this one in; it might have clarified what
> > > people mean by "evolutionist".
>
> > > > Peter: Where did your
> > > > fellow Evolutionists learn such behavior?
>
> > > Probably the ones that behave this way learned it from their atheistic
> > > parents. I can't see any other explanation for Matt Young's brain
> > > being so scrambled that he thinks Bill Nye'svideo isn't a piece of
> > > naive trash.
>
> > He learned it from the Federal Judiciary----"Christian" Judges who
> > hold the Bible down while the AtheistCLU does the dirty work.
>
> There you go again, calling Judge Jones "the Federal Judiciary". �But
> you are quite right about the ACLU connection.
>
> However, I have one question: did Judge Jones ever claim to be a
> Christian?
>

Sure, just do a little googling and find out.

Ray

[Slow Vehicle]

On Sep 8, 5:48�pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:

<snip>

Golly Ray-ray, I'm just waiting for you to identify _exactly_ which
"judicial decision" makes it :"unconstitutional" do "criticize
evolution".
.
Of course, I'm still waiting for you to explain what you would accept
as "evidence for" or an "example of" natural selection--you never di
answer that one, no matter how many times I asked it...just like you
never did respond to the multiple examples and evidences I and others
offered you.

I can understand that you are upset, but please: Identify,
specifically, which "judicial decision" makes it "unconstitutional" to
"criticize evolution". I would truly like to read that decision.

[Ray Martinez]

On Sep 7, 6:03�pm, pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> On Sep 5, 2:18�pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > On Sep 4, 6:58 pm, pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> > > On Sep 2, 8:23 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> Repeating just a tad from my first reply:
>
>
>
> > > > Peter: Where did your
> > > > fellow Evolutionists learn such behavior?
>
> > > Probably the ones that behave this way learned it from their atheistic
> > > parents. I can't see any other explanation for Matt Young's brain
> > > being so scrambled that he thinks Bill Nye's video isn't a piece of
> > > naive trash.
> [...]
> > > I also can't see any other explanation for the trash Nye posted. This
> > > is NOT the way to make the case for evolution, nor is it the way to
> > > change the minds and hearts of creationists. If Nyedoesn't realize
> > > he is just venting, he's a sorry excuse for a mature adult.
>
> Unfortunately, you reminded me again below of how bad you are at
> judging what is likely to change people's minds and hearts.
>

I did not write the comments that elicited your response.

> > > > I thought Western thought
> > > > was enlightened? Of course the experts in censorship, Castro, Mao and
> > > > Stalin, have shown that censorship works.
>
> > > At least they had reason to fear the truth. Anyone who knows as much
> > > about evolution as I do can only pity the pathetic attempts of
> > > creationists to attack it.
>
> > Since Atheists have no choice but to accept the concept of evolution
> > to explain the existence of species, what more is there to know?
>
> Plenty. �The crimes of mass murderers Stalin, Mao, Casto, and leftist
> idol Che Guevara are what really set them apart from decent people.
>

Non-sequitur noted.

> > > I suspect Young and Nye are different that
> > > way because they do NOT know very much about evolution--or else they
> > > are paranoid by nature.
>
> > You're no different, Peter.
>
> By that standard, you're no different from Pagano and Kalkidas.
>
> > You give aid and comfort to liars and their lies.
>
> That just goes to show how abysmally ignorant you are about me. �One
> of the main reason I am so isolated in this newsgroup is that, from
> the very day I started posting to talk.origins in 1995, I attacked
> liars, hypocrites, and unjust people on "my" evolutionist side. �I
> treated the creationists differently--all the ones I encountered
> seemed to be misguided, not deceitful like a bunch of people I could
> name, some of whom are still posting.
>
> It wasn't until a couple of months after getting to know you that you
> became the one exception -- for one thing, you are too trigger-happy
> with the hateful insults (like the one you uttered just above) to be
> an honest person. [For another, keep reading.]
>

I was talking about the ToE: your affinity with Bill Nye and Matt
Young cannot be denied. All three of you are Evolutionists. In this
context I observe you to be no different from them. Evolution is a
deluded lie from top to bottom. You guys assign magical powers to
nature and species. It is self-evident that evolution is nonsense----a
mandatory position for Atheists.

And your umpire complex is out of control. When the chips are down you
must (and you will) side with your evo brothers. This is why I don't
trust your "support." And your view of Creationists circa 1995 as
"misguided" is a total insult (even though you are correct but for
different reasons). Since you are an Evolutionist, very predictable.

> �It is only because Okimoto, O'Shea, jillery, and Gans are far, far

> worse than you where it really counts, that I'm still pulling my
> punches against you.
>

You're still the most honest and interesting Evolutionist out there,
I'll continue to give you that. You need to understand that
Evolutionists are rotten people (like censor Matt Young and his
supporters Bob Casanova and Dana Tweedy, and Judge Jones, as if anyone
is dumb enough to believe that he wasn't a convinced Evolutionist
before the trial). It's hard to make exceptions that matter and stick.
You've seen the way Forrest and Stockwell behave. You've admitted as
much. In our view EVERY Evolutionist behaves that way----and even
worse. Feel fortunate that I have taken the time to put an asterisk
next to your name every now and then.

> [God, how I miss Joe Potter. �He was the one honest, sincere,
> sensible, mature person I encountered in talk.origins, and he paid for
> it by being regularly accused of "sucking up to" me just because he
> set the record straight time and again about what people were
> attacking me about.]
>
> [He was a creationist, but that one flaw pales alongside what really
> counts, morally.]
>
> > There isn't one shred of evidence in existence supporting evolution----
> > not even one.
>
> You've repeatedly run away from the evidence. �Admit it-- you couldn't
> say anything against the evidence in the horse family, so you
> dishonestly blabbed about how that is supposed to be the ONLY evidence
> for evolution.
>

The equine sequence is unique. The fact, therefore, works to disprove
the main claim of the ToE. You've shown no understanding of my point.

> But it was all a sham admission, to get you out of a tight spot.

What tight spot?

> Now
> that your performance has faded in people's memories (but not in
> mine!) you have gone right back to L*Y*I*N*G that there isn't one
> shred of evidence supporting evolution.
>
> NOW do you see why I call you dishonest?
>

Since my conversion to immutability in 2007, I have always manintained
zero evidence existing in support of the ToE. This facts renders your
implication that I held some evidence existing in support of evolution
to be completely mistaken.

Show me any Darwinian modification in species, accomplished by an
unguided and unintelligent material process, and I will promptly
concede the debate?

> And don't try to get off the hook by saying the horse sequence is only
> a tiny part of the common descent that evolutionists claim. �You
> burned that bridge behind you by calling Luskin and Kalkidas
> evolutionists because they admit speciation.
>
> I've snipped an exchange about the Drake equation thread. �Thanks for
> the link to your new thread; I replied to you there a minute or so
> ago.
>
> Peter Nyikos

Ray

[Rolf]

"Ray Martinez" <pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote in message

news:f53f04c7-6739-4269...@wz4g2000pbc.googlegroups.com...

Creationists come in all flavors; yours is but one in the menagerie. Take
the fundamentalist YEC Robert Byers, he sees no contradiction in making
animals evolve or rather morph on the fly after the flood to suit his
particular delusion. Creationists regularly accept anything they have a
problem denying yet cling to the holy babble.

[Peter Nyikos]

The more things change, the more things remain the same. This Martinez
post to which I am replying might as well have been made just yesterday.

On Thursday, August 30, 2012 at 10:20:22 PM UTC-4, Ray Martinez wrote:
> Matt Young is a Moderator over at Pandas Thumb. He has censored every
> single message I have posted in a certain topic. Click on the link

> below and see for yourself. As I type I count 9 acts of censorship:
>
> http://pandasthumb.org/archives/2012/08/creationism-is-1.html#comments

Ray Martinez is a person who allegedly dislikes censorship and even
has set up his own private "forum" similar to talk.origins,
to attack much more recent ALLEGED actions of censorship by
people at Uncommon Descent:

https://groups.google.com/forum/#!forum/uncommon-descent

He ALLEGES that he has been banned from the real "Uncommon Descent",
in one of the three threads he has set up in his blog:

Subject: Censorship at Uncommon Descent
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/uncommon-descent/nukz9wtZ0f8

He rails against the alleged hypocrisy of the people there,
yet he displays hypocrisy himself, because Ray evidently loves
to ban people who criticize him, and to practice censorship
himself: just this past week, four (4) of my posts have been
deleted, the last one reading as follows:

Re: Censorship right here at Ray's

THREE posts by me have been deleted by you, the last one INSTANTANEOUSLY a couple of minutes ago.

Actions speak louder than words.

===================== end of included censored post

The above post was also deleted instantaneously.

Ray's actions indeed speak louder than words. He has NO problems
with hypocrisy if he is the one practicing it.

I've left in what Ray wrote below, because it drips with unintended
irony.

Peter Nyikos

[Ray Martinez]

Peter: I'm absolutely flabbergasted as to what has happened. I did not censor or hold up any of your messages. I did not delete any of your messages. When I saw this thread I immediately traversed over to UD and saw an administrative message that said four pending messages for me to review. Yet I never placed your messages in a review mode. I then clicked for each message to post. But as of a few minutes ago they have not posted. I have no idea how any of this has happened, and don't know what to do at the moment. The only thing I can think of is that I've somehow been hacked. I'm open to any suggestion you might have.

Sincerely,

Ray

[Peter Nyikos]

Since I have no idea how you acquired the blog in the first place,
I have no idea what could be done to remedy the situation, if it
is indeed as you say. In that case, all I can suggest is that you
turn to the people who made it possible for you to have the blog.

Peter Nyikos

[Rolf]

"Ray Martinez" <pyram...@yahoo.com> skrev i melding
news:a4fb6fac-8159-4bc2...@googlegroups.com...

Creationism along with any religious indoctrination is not appropropriate
for children.

Since that was the subject of he thread, It seems to me that Ray's post had
no business being there.

He said:

QUOTE
"And I say to the grownups, if you want to deny evolution and live in your
world, in your world that's completely inconsistent with everything we
observe in the universe..
Observed?

Go ahead and post YouTubes showing natural selection and evolution in
action?

Neither are observed, both are inferred.

Evolution is not denied; rather, it is rejected because it does not exist.
Darwinology is nonsense, the religion of Atheists who MUST accept because no
God exists to cause anything "
UNQUOTE

Unfettered denial.

Wait for the first showing of RM&NS in action on YouTube after the first
glimpse of the Invisible Designer at work.

The BW is made to avoid censoring, scientists are vary of censorship.
Censorship is for Uncommon Descent and other creationist sites, not least
Christian sites like evolutionfairytale, it is bizarre, ludicrous and
censorshippery.

Ray should be the last to complain about censorship. He's over manyh years
enjoyed the freedom at t.o. as an open outlet for all his rather, well, I
don't have to repeat what I've said so many times

And I don't see any reason why offtopic comments should not go to the BW.

Everything Ray's got to say is well know to most interested parties since
way back. He isn't even good at what he is doing. But I presume he's got
nothing better to do.

If he's got a comment, intelligent and releveant to the topic I'd be
surprised if it was moved to the BW. Just look at how even oddities by
people like Robert Byers or Floyd Lee to are tolerated within reasonable
limits.

[Ray Martinez]

I logged on a few minutes ago and found two more deleted messages. So I went and checked settings, found these were set on public instead of managerial only, which still doesn't explain the deleted posts and your messages being held up for review. And the same doesn't explain why all posts have not been deleted?

It's a Google Group, Peter, anyone can create one. It's virtually the same format as here. I surprised you didn't see that. Please make a test post. If not I'm inclined to create a topic acknowledging the problem OR shutting the group down and deleting all content.

I assure you I had no role in whatever is going on. Since you and I are the only members it makes the situation all the more baffling and frustrating.

Ray

[Ray Martinez]

IF you deleted your own posts then no problem, Peter. Do you want me to delete the remainder? Let me know.

I created the group to expose the Dembski crowd for censorship and egregious contradiction. You are not a target in any way.

Ray

[Peter Nyikos]

Grandfathered in, perhaps.

> It's a Google Group, Peter, anyone can create one. It's virtually the same format as here. I surprised you didn't see that.

I did see that it's the same format and also commented on it in my first
post to your newsgroup.

As to being able to create a newsgroup of my own, how the hell am I
supposed to know how to do that? It's a total mystery to me.

> Please make a test post.

Will do so later. Tomorrow at the latest. I'm rushed for time now.

Sorry for being so late with even this much. Harshman is an infinitely more
important person in talk.origins than you are, and he and his
buddies have taken up almost all my posting time in the last two
weeks.

Peter Nyikos

[Ray Martinez]

If you want all of your messages deleted no problem, just let me know.

And your latest anti-John Harshman topic is an embarrassment. You've all but admitted that he's under your skin and that you don't have the brains to put him in his place.

At any rate the kook fight between you two Atheists is quality entertainment. Perhaps me or someone else should create a Peanut Gallery. LOL!

Ray

[Peter Nyikos]

On Tuesday, December 1, 2015 at 8:08:29 PM UTC-5, Ray Martinez wrote:
> On Tuesday, December 1, 2015 at 3:33:30 PM UTC-8, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> > On Saturday, November 21, 2015 at 3:54:03 PM UTC-5, Ray Martinez wrote:

> > > I logged on a few minutes ago and found two more deleted messages. So I went and checked settings, found these were set on public instead of managerial only, which still doesn't explain the deleted posts and your messages being held up for review. And the same doesn't explain why all posts have not been deleted?
> >
> > Grandfathered in, perhaps.
> >
> > > It's a Google Group, Peter, anyone can create one. It's virtually the same format as here. I surprised you didn't see that.
> >
> > I did see that it's the same format and also commented on it in my first
> > post to your newsgroup.
> >
> > As to being able to create a newsgroup of my own, how the hell am I
> > supposed to know how to do that? It's a total mystery to me.

You ignored this below.

Does this mean that you are so paranoid that you earlier suspected *me*
of hacking into your site, and now you want to drop this line of thinking?

For sure, you suddenly changed your attitude about deleted posts
below.

> > > Please make a test post.
> >
> > Will do so later. Tomorrow at the latest. I'm rushed for time now.

I did it last night. Have you checked it since I did the post
to which you are replying?

> > Sorry for being so late with even this much. Harshman is an infinitely more
> > important person in talk.origins than you are, and he and his
> > buddies have taken up almost all my posting time in the last two
> > weeks.
> >
> > Peter Nyikos



> > >If not I'm inclined to create a topic acknowledging the problem OR shutting the group down and deleting all content.
> > >
> > > I assure you I had no role in whatever is going on. Since you and I are the only members it makes the situation all the more baffling and frustrating.

> If you want all of your messages deleted no problem, just let me know.

You seem to have overcome your bafflement and frustration.

Are you now hoping that I will give you the green light to censor
my posts which weren't automatically deleted?

> And your latest anti-John Harshman topic is an embarrassment.

To you, maybe, because Harshman has been impeccably civil to you
even while telling you that you are totally wrong about this and that.

And so, you want to believe that Harshman would never do things
to me that he would not do to you.

But if you were to stop and think about it, you come down far
harder on creationists and Christians and "honorary Atheists" like
me than you do on moderately militant REAL atheists like John.

So it stands to reason, from YOUR point of view, that John should
be abusive towards a person who is at least as opposed to creationism
as he is, while being civil to a loony creationist like yourself.

> You've all but admitted that he's under your skin

True.

> and that you don't have the brains to put him in his place.

That is a bare-faced lie. It takes a lot of effort to put
a cunning political animal like Harshman in his place, and the
thread I started yesterday is just the opening salvo.

I replied to you on that thread yesterday shortly after I did the
post to which you are replying, and I'm now reminding you
of the comment I made about your "Idiot's Delight" mind.

I'd love to see how you reply to that specific paragraph. But
I think you are too much of a coward to face it like a man.

> At any rate the kook fight between you two Atheists is quality
> entertainment. Perhaps me or someone else should create a Peanut Gallery. LOL!

A peanut gallery is all you are fit to occupy on that thread. It'll
be amusing to see whether you disinter your head from the sand
long enough to read what transpires there between Harshman and me.

Peter Nyikos

[Ray Martinez]

On Wednesday, December 2, 2015 at 10:53:26 AM UTC-8, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> On Tuesday, December 1, 2015 at 8:08:29 PM UTC-5, Ray Martinez wrote:
> > On Tuesday, December 1, 2015 at 3:33:30 PM UTC-8, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> > > On Saturday, November 21, 2015 at 3:54:03 PM UTC-5, Ray Martinez wrote:
>
> > > > I logged on a few minutes ago and found two more deleted messages. So I went and checked settings, found these were set on public instead of managerial only, which still doesn't explain the deleted posts and your messages being held up for review. And the same doesn't explain why all posts have not been deleted?
> > >
> > > Grandfathered in, perhaps.
> > >
> > > > It's a Google Group, Peter, anyone can create one. It's virtually the same format as here. I surprised you didn't see that.
> > >
> > > I did see that it's the same format and also commented on it in my first
> > > post to your newsgroup.
> > >
> > > As to being able to create a newsgroup of my own, how the hell am I
> > > supposed to know how to do that? It's a total mystery to me.
>

When a person traverses to the face page of Google Groups the opportunity exists for everyone via a box marked "create a group." All you have to do is click on that box, after you sign in, and away you go.

> You ignored this below.
>

It has now been attended to above.

> Does this mean that you are so paranoid that you earlier suspected *me*
> of hacking into your site, and now you want to drop this line of thinking?
>

No, initially I suspected someone else had hacked, now I believe you deleted your own posts BECAUSE I failed to turn the option off in settings. I assumed you changed your mind and didn't want to be associated with the group. This is why I offered to delete the remainder of your posts. Since you deny deleting I'm still baffled how the deletions occurred?

> For sure, you suddenly changed your attitude about deleted posts
> below.
>
> > > > Please make a test post.
> > >
> > > Will do so later. Tomorrow at the latest. I'm rushed for time now.
>
> I did it last night. Have you checked it since I did the post
> to which you are replying?
>

Have yet to check....saw this message of yours and wanted to answer right away. And I owe Burk some replies in another thread.

>
> > > Sorry for being so late with even this much. Harshman is an infinitely more
> > > important person in talk.origins than you are, and he and his
> > > buddies have taken up almost all my posting time in the last two
> > > weeks.
> > >
> > > Peter Nyikos
>
>
>
> > > >If not I'm inclined to create a topic acknowledging the problem OR shutting the group down and deleting all content.
> > > >
> > > > I assure you I had no role in whatever is going on. Since you and I are the only members it makes the situation all the more baffling and frustrating.
>
> > If you want all of your messages deleted no problem, just let me know.
>
>
> You seem to have overcome your bafflement and frustration.
>

Explained above.

> Are you now hoping that I will give you the green light to censor
> my posts which weren't automatically deleted?
>

Not at all....all I'm saying is that IF you want your posts deleted then just let me know....no problem....no one can help how they feel. I'm the same way, have created messages here that I regret.

> > And your latest anti-John Harshman topic is an embarrassment.
>
> To you, maybe, because Harshman has been impeccably civil to you
> even while telling you that you are totally wrong about this and that.
>

Not really. John is a typical Atheist wolf who is after the hen house of Christianity. The Bible teaches us how to deal with wolves.

> And so, you want to believe that Harshman would never do things
> to me that he would not do to you.
>

That's right Peter because there's nothing at stake between you and John. Both of you are ardent Evolutionists. You guys aren't arguing the validity of evolution, so I genuinely fail to see why you're so upset?

> But if you were to stop and think about it, you come down far
> harder on creationists and Christians and "honorary Atheists" like
> me than you do on moderately militant REAL atheists like John.
>

Yes, you do have a point here. The reason I come down harder on Creationists and Christians is because they are harder to refute than a declared Atheist.

> So it stands to reason, from YOUR point of view, that John should
> be abusive towards a person who is at least as opposed to creationism
> as he is, while being civil to a loony creationist like yourself.
>

No, don't see what you're talking about here. Why would John come down harder on you than me? You're not opposing evolutionary theory. And you're not supporting genuine Creationism. All you're doing is demanding that punches be pulled on "Creationists" that accept evolutionary concepts existing in nature.

Tell me Peter, why is John so uncivil towards you? What is his motive? What is at stake? You haven't made this clear. This should have been made clear in the OP of your latest topic about John. It wasn't. Your complaint against John centered on his tactics, not any particular issue or position.

> > You've all but admitted that he's under your skin
>
> True.
>

I appreciate your honesty. Darwinism is under my skin. I'm extremely angry. I disagree that explication should be impassionate because the same is phony. Make no mistake I am enraged with Darwinism, not afraid to admit. I admit because this was the first opportunity to do so.

> > and that you don't have the brains to put him in his place.
>
> That is a bare-faced lie. It takes a lot of effort to put
> a cunning political animal like Harshman in his place, and the
> thread I started yesterday is just the opening salvo.
>

I retract.

> I replied to you on that thread yesterday shortly after I did the
> post to which you are replying, and I'm now reminding you
> of the comment I made about your "Idiot's Delight" mind.
>
> I'd love to see how you reply to that specific paragraph.

I will.

> But
> I think you are too much of a coward to face it like a man.
>

I will reply. No reason to fear the mentality of a Darwinist.

> > At any rate the kook fight between you two Atheists is quality
> > entertainment. Perhaps me or someone else should create a Peanut Gallery. LOL!
>
> A peanut gallery is all you are fit to occupy on that thread. It'll
> be amusing to see whether you disinter your head from the sand
> long enough to read what transpires there between Harshman and me.
>
> Peter Nyikos

Don't worry, like I said, the kook fight is quality entertainment.

Ray (species immutabilist)

[Peter Nyikos]

On Wednesday, December 2, 2015 at 8:18:27 PM UTC-5, Ray Martinez wrote:
> On Wednesday, December 2, 2015 at 10:53:26 AM UTC-8, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> > On Tuesday, December 1, 2015 at 8:08:29 PM UTC-5, Ray Martinez wrote:
> > > On Tuesday, December 1, 2015 at 3:33:30 PM UTC-8, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> > > > On Saturday, November 21, 2015 at 3:54:03 PM UTC-5, Ray Martinez wrote:
> >
> > > > > I logged on a few minutes ago and found two more deleted messages. So I went and checked settings, found these were set on public instead of managerial only, which still doesn't explain the deleted posts and your messages being held up for review.

What's this about "held up for review"? I see no sign that your group,
UNLIKE the Uncommon Descent blog, is moderated.

This "held up for review" seems in retrospect to be a Freudian slip.

In Uncommon Descent, did you see something to the effect that your
posts on which you hang your claim of "banishment" were being held
up for review?

> And the same doesn't explain why all posts have not been deleted?

You asked me to do a test, which I did; why would you ask me to do
that if you had NOT made some adjustments?

> > > >
> > > > Grandfathered in, perhaps.
> > > >
> > > > > It's a Google Group, Peter, anyone can create one. It's virtually the same format as here. I surprised you didn't see that.
> > > >
> > > > I did see that it's the same format and also commented on it in my first
> > > > post to your newsgroup.
> > > >
> > > > As to being able to create a newsgroup of my own, how the hell am I
> > > > supposed to know how to do that? It's a total mystery to me.
> >
>
> When a person traverses to the face page of Google Groups the opportunity exists for everyone via a box marked "create a group." All you have to do is click on that box, after you sign in, and away you go.
>
> > You ignored this below.
> >
>
> It has now been attended to above.
>
> > Does this mean that you are so paranoid that you earlier suspected *me*
> > of hacking into your site, and now you want to drop this line of thinking?
> >
>
> No, initially I suspected someone else had hacked, now I believe you deleted your own posts BECAUSE I failed to turn the option off in settings.

I never deleted any posts in your beloved blog.

You are almost as paranoid as in the scenario I suggested. You have,
of course, anticipated being able to voice any suspicion you damn
well please, by repeatedly accusing me falsely of lying and slander,
and then thumbing your nose at my refutations and calling you to
account for these slanders.

You realize, of course, that you are implicitly suspecting me of
flagrantly and repeatedly lying when I revived this long-dormant
thread and told you how my posts were being canceled, the last
two instantaneously.

I have *never* lied on the Internet. What's more, I'd sooner quit
posting on the Internet than to tell a lie as fragrant, detailed
and copious

>I assumed you changed your mind and didn't want to be associated with the group.

How illogical can you get? How could you possibly have read that into
my post with which I revived this thread, when it almost screams out
that I wanted those posts to appear and *not* be deleted?

Using YOUR logic, you are secretly happy that UncommonDescent banned you
[actually, you have merely alleged, with laughably flimsy evidence, that
you were banned] because you had changed your mind about ever posting there
and didn't want to be associated with the blog.

And you are sufficiently insincere that you might well be happy. But if so,
I challenge you to confess that you have given up letting the
folks there (including everyone who joins the group from here on in)
know what *you* think to be the error of their ways.

Funny, you don't seem to have any such attitude here in talk.origins.

>This is why I offered to delete the remainder of your posts. Since you deny deleting I'm still baffled how the deletions occurred?

Now that you've told me how easy it is to set up a group [I still have
to figure out what you mean by "the face page" but that should not be
too hard] I can see you are faced with the unenviable task of hoping
someone in Google will deign to answer your e-mails.

Try jillery. She actually knows the name of someone over there who she
claims has been helpful.

<snip for focus>

> > Harshman has been impeccably civil to you
> > even while telling you that you are totally wrong about this and that.
> >
>
> Not really. John is a typical Atheist wolf who is after the hen house of Christianity. The Bible teaches us how to deal with wolves.

You are a more dangerous wolf than he. You tried to rend the flock
of Christians at Uncommon Descent, and you have shown a total
lack of Christian forgiveness towards the Christian Dana Tweedy.

The lack is so total that you have been boycotting him for over
half a year for something you oh-so-conveniently call "slander".
But you are so disinclined to actually demonstrate that what
he wrote is even FALSE that you slandered me for asking you to
demonstrate that it is false.

You say you belong to the congregation headed by the widow of Scott
Chase. Do you actually attend any services physically? if so, do
you rend members of that flock the way you rend Dana Tweedy?

> > And so, you want to believe that Harshman would never do things
> > to me that he would not do to you.
> >
>
> That's right Peter because there's nothing at stake between you and John.

Justice and truth and fair play are at stake between him and me.

You evidently have as little use for those three
things as you do for Christian forgiveness,
because all you care about is the theme you write next:

> Both of you are ardent Evolutionists.

Only in the sense of believing in common descent like Behe. Harshman
is firmly convinced that evolution proceeded by purely naturalistic means,
while I still hope that God had a hand in it, however subtle.

Also, Harshman is an *admitted * atheist, whose sympathies are totally
on the side of atheism.

My sympathies are with Christianity, and my difficulties with it are
purely intellectual having to do with explaining how there could be
a God in the first place, and I abide by Jesus's commandment,
"Don't bear false witness," while you have no use for it.

Harshman at least has the excuse that he is under no compulsion
to abide by Jesus's words. You have none -- unless you are a closet
atheist who pretends to be a Christian, the better to rend the
flock of those to whom Christianity means a great deal.

> You guys aren't arguing the validity of evolution, so I genuinely fail to see why you're so upset?

You are a cheerful liar, and you remain cheerful in the face of what
you, without foundation, claim to be lies against you, so this "fail to
see" might be genuine.

Would you also genuinely fail to see why a woman might be "so upset"
over being raped?

> > But if you were to stop and think about it, you come down far
> > harder on creationists and Christians and "honorary Atheists" like
> > me than you do on moderately militant REAL atheists like John.
> >
>
> Yes, you do have a point here. The reason I come down harder on Creationists and Christians is because they are harder to refute than a declared Atheist.

You've adamantly refused to show any of your alleged refutations in
talk.origins, so this comment of yours is pure unadulterated bluff.

Remainder deleted, to be replied to later.

Peter Nyikos

[raven1]

On Wed, 2 Dec 2015 17:14:47 -0800 (PST), Ray Martinez
<pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote:

>Yes, you do have a point here. The reason I come down harder on
>Creationists and Christians is because they are harder to refute
>than a declared Atheist.

Arguments stand or fall on their merits, not on who offers them. That
you still don't understand something so basic after having it
explained to you countless times over the years is baffling.

[jillery]

On Thu, 3 Dec 2015 06:29:02 -0800 (PST), Peter Nyikos
<nyi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:

>Try jillery. She actually knows the name of someone over there who she
>claims has been helpful.

Leave me out of this. You two deserve each other.
--
This space is intentionally not blank.

[jillery]

On Wed, 2 Dec 2015 17:14:47 -0800 (PST), Ray Martinez
<pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote:

>Don't worry, like I said, the kook fight is quality entertainment.
>
>Ray (species immutabilist)

Specifically, Ray is a species with variation immutabilist. Apparently
Ray has kook fights with himself.

[Ray Martinez]

On Thursday, December 3, 2015 at 8:33:25 AM UTC-8, raven1 wrote:
> On Wed, 2 Dec 2015 17:14:47 -0800 (PST), Ray Martinez
> <pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >Yes, you do have a point here. The reason I come down harder on
> >Creationists and Christians is because they are harder to refute
> >than a declared Atheist.
>
> Arguments stand or fall on their merits, not on who offers them.

False; bias of author matters greatly, especially when Biblical veracity is at stake.

> That
> you still don't understand something so basic after having it
> explained to you countless times over the years is baffling.

You've been gone a while, now you suddenly re-appear, making a point based entirely on your pro-Atheism/anti-Christianity bias.

Ray (Protestant Evangelical)

[raven1]

On Thu, 3 Dec 2015 13:47:13 -0800 (PST), Ray Martinez

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

>On Thursday, December 3, 2015 at 8:33:25 AM UTC-8, raven1 wrote:
>> On Wed, 2 Dec 2015 17:14:47 -0800 (PST), Ray Martinez
>> <pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>> >Yes, you do have a point here. The reason I come down harder on
>> >Creationists and Christians is because they are harder to refute
>> >than a declared Atheist.
>>
>> Arguments stand or fall on their merits, not on who offers them.
>
>False; bias of author matters greatly, especially when Biblical veracity is at stake.

The bias of the author matters not at all to whether their argument is
valid or not. That's Logic 101. You're advocating the fallacy of
argumentum ad hominem. Surely you recall hearing that dozens of times
or more.


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

[Peter Nyikos]

On Thursday, December 3, 2015 at 4:48:25 PM UTC-5, Ray Martinez wrote:
> On Thursday, December 3, 2015 at 8:33:25 AM UTC-8, raven1 wrote:
> > On Wed, 2 Dec 2015 17:14:47 -0800 (PST), Ray Martinez
> > <pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> > >Yes, you do have a point here. The reason I come down harder on
> > >Creationists and Christians is because they are harder to refute
> > >than a declared Atheist.
> >
> > Arguments stand or fall on their merits, not on who offers them.
>
> False; bias of author matters greatly, especially when Biblical veracity is at stake.

You have never revealed your own bias about what the Biblical word
"kind" means, probably because you have no clear idea about it.

You have repeatedly run away from the question of whether
horses and asses are the same Biblical "kind" (datum: they can easily
have offspring, mules by one mating and hinnies by the other)
or of different "kinds" [because these offspring are sterile].

And until you make an unambiguous answer and justify it, I
will assume that you are lying when you claim to have a
Biblical argument for species immutability.

> > That
> > you still don't understand something so basic after having it
> > explained to you countless times over the years is baffling.
>
> You've been gone a while, now you suddenly re-appear, making a point based entirely on your pro-Atheism/anti-Christianity bias.
>
> Ray (Protestant Evangelical)

(Or atheistic wolf in sheep's clothing, busy tearing and rending the flock.)

That hypothesis will remain viable until you reply to the following
excerpts from the post I did before raven1 and jillery appeared on the scene.

________________________first excerpt_______________________

> John is a typical Atheist wolf who is after the hen house of
> Christianity. The Bible teaches us how to deal with wolves.

You are a more dangerous wolf than he. You tried to rend the flock
of Christians at Uncommon Descent, and you have shown a total
lack of Christian forgiveness towards the Christian Dana Tweedy.

The lack is so total that you have been boycotting him for over
half a year for something you oh-so-conveniently call "slander".
But you are so disinclined to actually demonstrate that what
he wrote is even FALSE that you slandered me for asking you to
demonstrate that it is false.

You say you belong to the congregation headed by the widow of Scott
Chase. Do you actually attend any services physically? if so, do
you rend members of that flock the way you rend Dana Tweedy?

_____________________end of first excerpt, beginning of second___________

> Both of you are ardent Evolutionists.

Only in the sense of believing in common descent like Behe. Harshman
is firmly convinced that evolution proceeded by purely naturalistic means,
while I still hope that God had a hand in it, however subtle.

Also, Harshman is an *admitted * atheist, whose sympathies are totally
on the side of atheism.

My sympathies are with Christianity, and my difficulties with it are
purely intellectual having to do with explaining how there could be
a God in the first place, and I abide by Jesus's commandment,
"Don't bear false witness," while you have no use for it.

Harshman at least has the excuse that he is under no compulsion
to abide by Jesus's words. You have none -- unless you are a closet
atheist who pretends to be a Christian, the better to rend the
flock of those to whom Christianity means a great deal.

=================== end of excerpts ====================

I'm waiting...

Peter Nyikos

[Bill]

Ray Martinez wrote:

> On Thursday, December 3, 2015 at 8:33:25 AM UTC-8, raven1
> wrote:
>> On Wed, 2 Dec 2015 17:14:47 -0800 (PST), Ray Martinez
>> <pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>> >Yes, you do have a point here. The reason I come down
>> >harder on Creationists and Christians is because they
>> >are harder to refute than a declared Atheist.
>>
>> Arguments stand or fall on their merits, not on who
>> offers them.
>
> False; bias of author matters greatly, especially when
> Biblical veracity is at stake.
>

That coin has two sides: If those arguing for the veracity
of the Bible can't be trusted, neither can those arguing
against it. There is bias either way. The trick is to
determine if the bias influences the argument. Since no one
ever sees their own bias, we can never know who to trust.
Ideally this would lead to further thought.

Bill

[Ray Martinez]

You're still somewhat new around here. Evolutionists always deny bias as having any influence on their positions. Yet one can perfectly predict their positions based on their acceptance of evolution, their bias.

Bias predetermines positions, viewpoints. No one is exempt. There is no such thing as an objective worker. All workers are biased working for their bias. Evolutionists almost always deny and attempt to conceal their biases because they want unsuspecting people (in this case you) to believe they are objective----that their bias plays no role in their conclusions. Yet bias predetermines conclusions. The point: Christians have no trouble admitting their bias, Evolutionists are just the opposite.

Show me a person who argues against Biblical veracity and I will show you an Atheist and/or Evolutionist.

Objectivity enters the equation when a worker acknowledges facts that they prefer were not true, that is, facts that are perceived to harm their bias.

Ray

[Ray Martinez]

On Thursday, December 3, 2015 at 6:33:25 AM UTC-8, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> On Wednesday, December 2, 2015 at 8:18:27 PM UTC-5, Ray Martinez wrote:
> > On Wednesday, December 2, 2015 at 10:53:26 AM UTC-8, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> > > On Tuesday, December 1, 2015 at 8:08:29 PM UTC-5, Ray Martinez wrote:
> > > > On Tuesday, December 1, 2015 at 3:33:30 PM UTC-8, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> > > > > On Saturday, November 21, 2015 at 3:54:03 PM UTC-5, Ray Martinez wrote:
> > >
> > > > > > I logged on a few minutes ago and found two more deleted messages. So I went and checked settings, found these were set on public instead of managerial only, which still doesn't explain the deleted posts and your messages being held up for review.
>
> What's this about "held up for review"? I see no sign that your group,
> UNLIKE the Uncommon Descent blog, is moderated.

I don't know! It was turned on when I checked into things. I didn't do it. I was hacked, plain and simple.

>
> This "held up for review" seems in retrospect to be a Freudian slip.
>
> In Uncommon Descent, did you see something to the effect that your
> posts on which you hang your claim of "banishment" were being held
> up for review?
>

They used to do that, but not lately as far as I know. And I only know per my experiences there. A while back my posts were held up. Then one day I guess I was paroled.

> And the same doesn't explain why all posts have not been deleted?

True.

>
> You asked me to do a test, which I did; why would you ask me to do
> that if you had NOT made some adjustments?
>

I made adjustments, and I didn't really know what you wanted. So I was assuming you MIGHT want nothing to do with UD, until yesterday.

> > > > >
> > > > > Grandfathered in, perhaps.
> > > > >
> > > > > > It's a Google Group, Peter, anyone can create one. It's virtually the same format as here. I surprised you didn't see that.
> > > > >
> > > > > I did see that it's the same format and also commented on it in my first
> > > > > post to your newsgroup.
> > > > >
> > > > > As to being able to create a newsgroup of my own, how the hell am I
> > > > > supposed to know how to do that? It's a total mystery to me.
> > >
> >
> > When a person traverses to the face page of Google Groups the opportunity exists for everyone via a box marked "create a group." All you have to do is click on that box, after you sign in, and away you go.
> >
> > > You ignored this below.
> > >
> >
> > It has now been attended to above.
> >
> > > Does this mean that you are so paranoid that you earlier suspected *me*
> > > of hacking into your site, and now you want to drop this line of thinking?
> > >
> >
> > No, initially I suspected someone else had hacked, now I believe you deleted your own posts BECAUSE I failed to turn the option off in settings.
>
> I never deleted any posts in your beloved blog.

I believe you, I won't ever say otherwise again.

>
> You are almost as paranoid as in the scenario I suggested. You have,
> of course, anticipated being able to voice any suspicion you damn
> well please, by repeatedly accusing me falsely of lying and slander,
> and then thumbing your nose at my refutations and calling you to
> account for these slanders.
>
> You realize, of course, that you are implicitly suspecting me of
> flagrantly and repeatedly lying when I revived this long-dormant
> thread and told you how my posts were being canceled, the last
> two instantaneously.
>
> I have *never* lied on the Internet. What's more, I'd sooner quit
> posting on the Internet than to tell a lie as fragrant, detailed
> and copious

Again, I believe you didn't delete and I won't imply otherwise ever again.

>
>
> >I assumed you changed your mind and didn't want to be associated with the group.
> >
> How illogical can you get? How could you possibly have read that into
> my post with which I revived this thread, when it almost screams out
> that I wanted those posts to appear and *not* be deleted?

AT THE TIME I thought IF you did delete you couldn't admit therefore your denials were expected.

>
> Using YOUR logic, you are secretly happy that UncommonDescent banned you
> [actually, you have merely alleged, with laughably flimsy evidence, that
> you were banned] because you had changed your mind about ever posting there
> and didn't want to be associated with the blog.
>
> And you are sufficiently insincere that you might well be happy. But if so,
> I challenge you to confess that you have given up letting the
> folks there (including everyone who joins the group from here on in)
> know what *you* think to be the error of their ways.
>
> Funny, you don't seem to have any such attitude here in talk.origins.

Don't care what you're talking about.

>
> >This is why I offered to delete the remainder of your posts. Since you deny deleting I'm still baffled how the deletions occurred?
> >
> Now that you've told me how easy it is to set up a group [I still have
> to figure out what you mean by "the face page" but that should not be
> too hard] I can see you are faced with the unenviable task of hoping
> someone in Google will deign to answer your e-mails.

There are no emails. It's a publicly shared group, anyone can participate and participation by email is disallowed.

>
> Try jillery. She actually knows the name of someone over there who she
> claims has been helpful.
>

NOBODY is helpful at Google, unlike Yahoo.

> <snip for focus>
>
> > > Harshman has been impeccably civil to you
> > > even while telling you that you are totally wrong about this and that.
> > >
> >
> > Not really. John is a typical Atheist wolf who is after the hen house of Christianity. The Bible teaches us how to deal with wolves.
> >
> You are a more dangerous wolf than he. You tried to rend the flock
> of Christians at Uncommon Descent, and you have shown a total
> lack of Christian forgiveness towards the Christian Dana Tweedy.

So you finally admit Dana did wrong! And he isn't a Christian, but an Atheist like yourself.

>
> The lack is so total that you have been boycotting him for over
> half a year for something you oh-so-conveniently call "slander".
> But you are so disinclined to actually demonstrate that what
> he wrote is even FALSE that you slandered me for asking you to
> demonstrate that it is false.
>
> You say you belong to the congregation headed by the widow of Scott
> Chase. Do you actually attend any services physically? if so, do
> you rend members of that flock the way you rend Dana Tweedy?
>
> > > And so, you want to believe that Harshman would never do things
> > > to me that he would not do to you.
> > >
> >
> > That's right Peter because there's nothing at stake between you and John.
> >
> Justice and truth and fair play are at stake between him and me.

Fair play!!!! LOL!!!!

All is fair in war.

>
> You evidently have as little use for those three
> things as you do for Christian forgiveness,
> because all you care about is the theme you write next:
>
> > Both of you are ardent Evolutionists.
>
> Only in the sense of believing in common descent like Behe. Harshman
> is firmly convinced that evolution proceeded by purely naturalistic means,
> while I still hope that God had a hand in it, however subtle.

Everything after the first comma is throwaway.

>
> Also, Harshman is an *admitted * atheist, whose sympathies are totally
> on the side of atheism.
>

> My sympathies are with Christianity....

Sympathy indicates feelings for a defeated FOE. So you haven't made a positive or pro-Theism statement.

> ....and my difficulties with it are

> purely intellectual having to do with explaining how there could be

> a God in the first place....

A pro-Atheism statement, yet Peter denies Atheism.

> ....and I abide by Jesus's commandment,

> "Don't bear false witness," while you have no use for it.

All Atheists claim to be truth-tellers, lie-haters. So again, you've said nothing.

>
> Harshman at least has the excuse that he is under no compulsion
> to abide by Jesus's words. You have none -- unless you are a closet
> atheist who pretends to be a Christian, the better to rend the
> flock of those to whom Christianity means a great deal.

No punch even thrown.

>
> > You guys aren't arguing the validity of evolution, so I genuinely fail to see why you're so upset?
> >
> You are a cheerful liar, and you remain cheerful in the face of what
> you, without foundation, claim to be lies against you, so this "fail to
> see" might be genuine.

Peter, an Atheist-Evolutionist, calls a Ray, a Christian-Creationist, a liar. Suddenly I feel very sleepy.

>
> Would you also genuinely fail to see why a woman might be "so upset"
> over being raped?
>
>
> > > But if you were to stop and think about it, you come down far
> > > harder on creationists and Christians and "honorary Atheists" like
> > > me than you do on moderately militant REAL atheists like John.
> > >
> >
> > Yes, you do have a point here. The reason I come down harder on Creationists and Christians is because they are harder to refute than a declared Atheist.
>
> You've adamantly refused to show any of your alleged refutations in
> talk.origins, so this comment of yours is pure unadulterated bluff.
>

Here's one:

If a person argues Naturalism and defends Naturalism while claiming to be a Christian, then you are as you argue (an Atheist) and not as you claim if the two contradict.

Ray

[Peter Nyikos]

You are correct as far as you go, and it is also true that Ray keeps
ignoring these kinds of comments. Part of the reason is that he
is boycotting Dana Tweedy, for reasons that he has never dared to
justify (except with trumped-up charges of slander that he arrogantly
refuses to justify) and Dana is the one who corrects Ray by far the most
often in talk.origins.

However, I have a minor nitpick: Ray talked about refuting Christians
and atheists, not about refuting their *arguments*. And he is correct
in that, only not in the way he would like people to believe.

The real reason is that Christians see, and care about, the way
Ray cheerfully and massively rides roughshod over Jesus's teachings,
especially about the one against bearing false witness. He also
displays a monumental pride which is considered one of the seven
"deadly sins" by Christians, and indeed the worst of the bunch because
the others flow from it in one way or another.

And so he is under suspicion of being an apostate Christian, maintaining
membership in a congregation that is considered Evangelical Protestant,
so he can more convincingly pose as still being a Christian.

There are precedents for this sort of thing. For months on end,
back in the 1990's, a participant in talk.abortion named
Jamie Gregorian maintained that he was a duly ordained minister in the
Armenian Apostolic Church, having completed requirements
in a seminary in Yerevan.

About a year after he had quit talk.abortion, he told people in another
forum about the great time he had fooling people in talk.abortion,
and that his "ordination" was done by a mail order diploma mill
based in California.

But the fact is, he never succeeded in fooling the Christians in
talk.abortion. When he talked the talk, he did it ineptly, and he
never did walk the walk. The same is true of Ray Martinez.

By the way, atheists in talk.origins almost never attack Ray for his
decidedly un-Christian behavior, and so he has a much easier time
deluding himself into thinking he has refuted them.

Peter Nyikos

[Ray Martinez]

When an author concludes against Biblical veracity one could safely bet their house that he or she is an Atheist and/or Evolutionist.

Ray

[Dana Tweedy]

On 12/3/15 8:07 PM, Ray Martinez wrote:
> On Thursday, December 3, 2015 at 6:33:25 AM UTC-8, Peter Nyikos wrote:

snip

>>>
>>> Not really. John is a typical Atheist wolf who is after the hen house of Christianity. The Bible teaches us how to deal with wolves.
>>>
>> You are a more dangerous wolf than he. You tried to rend the flock
>> of Christians at Uncommon Descent, and you have shown a total
>> lack of Christian forgiveness towards the Christian Dana Tweedy.
>
> So you finally admit Dana did wrong! And he isn't a Christian, but an Atheist like yourself.

Ray, you are lying again. You know I did nothing wrong, and you know
that neither I, or Peter are atheists.

Has lying become so easy for you that you don't even feel the slightest
tremor of guilt for doing so? As Peter explains below, he's not
suggesting forgiveness for something I've done, but something you
falsely claim I've done.

I said nothing false. I said nothing that could be interpreted as
"slander" or libel. I made a truthful statement that you, Ray, are too
afraid to even acknowledge is true.

>
>>
>> The lack is so total that you have been boycotting him for over
>> half a year for something you oh-so-conveniently call "slander".
>> But you are so disinclined to actually demonstrate that what
>> he wrote is even FALSE that you slandered me for asking you to
>> demonstrate that it is false.
>>
>> You say you belong to the congregation headed by the widow of Scott
>> Chase. Do you actually attend any services physically? if so, do
>> you rend members of that flock the way you rend Dana Tweedy?
>>

DJT

[Ray Martinez]

On Thursday, December 3, 2015 at 4:03:22 PM UTC-8, raven1 wrote:

It's highly illogical to ignore bias or that which predetermines conclusions. That's Logic 101.

Ray

[Burkhard]

Or a Hindu, or Sikh, or Jewish (when it comes to part 2) or Shinto, or a
member of the african diaspora religions, or a pagan revivalist, or a
wiccan, or or or

[raven1]

On Thu, 3 Dec 2015 20:03:04 -0800 (PST), Ray Martinez

It's a Logic 101 fallacy.

[raven1]

On Thu, 3 Dec 2015 19:43:49 -0800 (PST), Ray Martinez

Again, that's not relevant to whether or not their argument is
correct.

[Sneaky O. Possum]

Dana Tweedy <reddf...@gmail.com> wrote in
news:YqednWmqepxBkPzL...@giganews.com:

> On 12/3/15 8:07 PM, Ray Martinez wrote:
>> On Thursday, December 3, 2015 at 6:33:25 AM UTC-8, Peter Nyikos
>> wrote:

[snip]

>>> You are a more dangerous wolf than he. You tried to rend the flock
>>> of Christians at Uncommon Descent, and you have shown a total
>>> lack of Christian forgiveness towards the Christian Dana Tweedy.
>>
>> So you finally admit Dana did wrong! And he isn't a Christian, but an
>> Atheist like yourself.
>
> Ray, you are lying again. You know I did nothing wrong, and you know
> that neither I, or Peter are atheists.

Ray does tell lies, but neither of the two comments you're addressing can
be properly characterized as such. Whether you did wrong is a matter of
judgment, and someone whose judgment is as evidently faulty as Ray's can
honestly, albeit unreasonably, believe that you did wrong, even though no
reasonable person would concur.

Ray's faulty judgment also prevents him from knowing that neither you nor
Peter is an atheist. Ray evidently thinks that anyone who disagrees with
him about any aspect of Christianity or evolutionary biology is necessarily
an atheist. That's a ridiculous thing to think, but I see no reason to
suppose that Ray realizes that, or is even capable of realizing that.

It's comically absurd to watch Peter and Ray dogging each other: it's like
watching two men who live in glass houses throwing stones at their own
reflections.

> Has lying become so easy for you that you don't even feel the
> slightest tremor of guilt for doing so? As Peter explains below,
> he's not suggesting forgiveness for something I've done, but something
> you falsely claim I've done.

Peter should have chosen his words more carefully.

> I said nothing false. I said nothing that could be interpreted as
> "slander" or libel. I made a truthful statement that you, Ray, are
> too afraid to even acknowledge is true.

I think you're underestimating Ray's skill at misinterpretation. You said
nothing that could reasonably be interpreted as defamatory, but Ray is not
reasonable.

You have the good fortune to be reasonable, but it puts you at a
disadvantage when you try to figure out what the hell is going on inside
Ray's beady little mind. Ray says things so absurd that a reasonable person
can't see how he could mean them. It's reasonable to assume that he knows
how absurd his claims are, and is thus being intentionally deceitful; but I
don't think that's the case.

As it happens, I have a mostly unreasonable mind: it's all too easy for me
to see how Ray could honestly believe some of the ridiculous shit he says.
As far as I can see, the main difference between me and Ray (and Peter
Nyikos, for that matter) is the fact that I have a modicum of self-
awareness. I had a 'Eureka!' moment in my early twenties: I was talking
about my fascination with cryptozoology, and someone asked me if I had any
personal knowledge of the existence of 'cryptids': I did not. Then why,
they asked me, did I give credence to accounts of such things? I thought
about it and realized that I had no idea why. A bit more thought, and I
realized that I could actually *stop* giving credence to things I had no
reason to accept.

I shudder to think what I would be like today if I hadn't had that moment
of insight and built on it by developing my previously-unused faculty for
critical thinking. To be sure, I haven't done that well for myself - but it
could have been so much worse!
--
S.O.P.

[Bob Casanova]

On Thu, 03 Dec 2015 19:34:44 -0600, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by Bill <fre...@gmail.com>:

....which, of course, could not be trusted.
--

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, 3 Dec 2015 13:47:13 -0800 (PST), the following
appeared in talk.origins, posted by Ray Martinez
<pyram...@yahoo.com>:

>On Thursday, December 3, 2015 at 8:33:25 AM UTC-8, raven1 wrote:
>> On Wed, 2 Dec 2015 17:14:47 -0800 (PST), Ray Martinez
>> <pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>> >Yes, you do have a point here. The reason I come down harder on
>> >Creationists and Christians is because they are harder to refute
>> >than a declared Atheist.
>>
>> Arguments stand or fall on their merits, not on who offers them.
>
>False; bias of author matters greatly

And that is the fallacy you propound with almost every post
you make in which the beliefs of the poster to whom you're
responding constitutes you sole argument against the post.
The classic "The sky is blue." "No it's not, because you're
an atheist!" idiocy.

>, especially when Biblical veracity is at stake.

Why does that hold greater significance? Surely Biblical
accuracy can stand on its own merits, right?

>> That
>> you still don't understand something so basic after having it
>> explained to you countless times over the years is baffling.
>
>You've been gone a while, now you suddenly re-appear, making a point based entirely on your pro-Atheism/anti-Christianity bias.

Yep, valid logic is a "pro-Atheism/anti-Christianity bias".

[Bob Casanova]

On Fri, 4 Dec 2015 09:47:38 +0000, the following appeared in
talk.origins, posted by Burkhard <b.sc...@ed.ac.uk>:

But according to Ray those are all "Atheists" and/or
"Evolutionists" (and don't forget the capitalization; that's
very important).

[Burkhard]

Not really, no. Possibly rhetoric 101. Logical inferences are valid or
invalid, and it is always possible to determine in a purely mechanical
way, so that a computer can do it, which one is the case in technical
parlance this is the decidability of the proof predicate - as opposed to
the provability predicate, which is a more difficult issue.

In rhetoric by contrast, attacking the author behind an opinion can be
an effective move - in informal logic we'd call this the poisoning the
well fallacy.

Now, there is also an epistemological use of the principle, relevant
especially for the historical sciences, when it comes to determine the
credibility of a witness. There, a known bias is a weak, ceteris paribus
reason to remain cautious before you accept a report - if e.g your
historical source is the official court historian, you may expect a
somewhat more flattering account of the king. But that is an empirical,
'inductive" inference - we know form experience that people with strong
motives are not the best impartial witnesses, and it is of course a
defeasible inference - once we can corroborate the fact independently
from another source, the chances that our original author was right
increases a lot, despite his bias.

[Ray Martinez]

As I told Bill slightly up thread, Atheists/Evolutionists attempt to conceal bias at all costs. Raven's reply perfectly supports.

Ray

[Ray Martinez]

It's entirely RELEVANT because arguments are based on bias, that is, the assumptions inherent within.

Ray

[Ray Martinez]

On Friday, December 4, 2015 at 10:48:21 AM UTC-8, Sneaky O. Possum wrote:
> Dana Tweedy <reddf...@gmail.com> wrote in
> news:YqednWmqepxBkPzL...@giganews.com:
>
> > On 12/3/15 8:07 PM, Ray Martinez wrote:
> >> On Thursday, December 3, 2015 at 6:33:25 AM UTC-8, Peter Nyikos
> >> wrote:
> [snip]
> >>> You are a more dangerous wolf than he. You tried to rend the flock
> >>> of Christians at Uncommon Descent, and you have shown a total
> >>> lack of Christian forgiveness towards the Christian Dana Tweedy.
> >>
> >> So you finally admit Dana did wrong! And he isn't a Christian, but an
> >> Atheist like yourself.
> >
> > Ray, you are lying again. You know I did nothing wrong, and you know
> > that neither I, or Peter are atheists.
>

> Ray does tell lies....

It's entirely relevant to point out that Soppy is an Atheist and I'm a Christian-Creationist.

> ....but neither of the two comments you're addressing can

> be properly characterized as such. Whether you did wrong is a matter of
> judgment, and someone whose judgment is as evidently faulty as Ray's can
> honestly, albeit unreasonably, believe that you did wrong, even though no
> reasonable person would concur.
>
> Ray's faulty judgment also prevents him from knowing that neither you nor
> Peter is an atheist. Ray evidently thinks that anyone who disagrees with
> him about any aspect of Christianity or evolutionary biology is necessarily
> an atheist.

The truth, also known as my real position, is acceptance of Naturalism equates to acceptance of Atheism; this relegates, for example, "Christian" Evolutionists to be Atheists (quote marks justified). Moreover I also point out that when a Creationist comes to accept the concept of evolution existing in nature then said acceptance logically renders that person not to be a Creationist, but an Evolutionist.

So, as one can see, Soppy's contention of "any disagreement" is completely inaccurate.

> That's a ridiculous thing to think, but I see no reason to
> suppose that Ray realizes that, or is even capable of realizing that.
>
> It's comically absurd to watch Peter and Ray dogging each other: it's like
> watching two men who live in glass houses throwing stones at their own
> reflections.
>
> > Has lying become so easy for you that you don't even feel the
> > slightest tremor of guilt for doing so? As Peter explains below,
> > he's not suggesting forgiveness for something I've done, but something
> > you falsely claim I've done.
>
> Peter should have chosen his words more carefully.
>

He did, he exposed himself as a liar; that's how truth works; when you can't remember your lies the truth comes out.

Ray

[Sneaky O. Possum]

Ray Martinez <pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote in
news:b6a150c0-2a71-4bfb...@googlegroups.com:

No one will ever accuse you of attempting to conceal your bias, Ray.
--
S.O.P.

[Sneaky O. Possum]

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

news:b0fe6c79-a543-4cee...@googlegroups.com:

> On Friday, December 4, 2015 at 10:48:21 AM UTC-8, Sneaky O. Possum
> wrote:
>> Dana Tweedy <reddf...@gmail.com> wrote in
>> news:YqednWmqepxBkPzL...@giganews.com:
>>
>> > On 12/3/15 8:07 PM, Ray Martinez wrote:
>> >> On Thursday, December 3, 2015 at 6:33:25 AM UTC-8, Peter Nyikos
>> >> wrote:
>> [snip]
>> >>> You are a more dangerous wolf than he. You tried to rend the
>> >>> flock of Christians at Uncommon Descent, and you have shown a
>> >>> total lack of Christian forgiveness towards the Christian Dana
>> >>> Tweedy.
>> >>
>> >> So you finally admit Dana did wrong! And he isn't a Christian, but
>> >> an Atheist like yourself.
>> >
>> > Ray, you are lying again. You know I did nothing wrong, and you
>> > know that neither I, or Peter are atheists.
>>
>> Ray does tell lies....
>
> It's entirely relevant to point out that Soppy is an Atheist and I'm a
> Christian-Creationist.

Only in your beady little mind, Ray.
--
S.O.P.

[Ray Martinez]

On Friday, December 4, 2015 at 11:03:19 AM UTC-8, Bob Casanova wrote:
> On Thu, 3 Dec 2015 13:47:13 -0800 (PST), the following
> appeared in talk.origins, posted by Ray Martinez
> <pyram...@yahoo.com>:
>
> >On Thursday, December 3, 2015 at 8:33:25 AM UTC-8, raven1 wrote:
> >> On Wed, 2 Dec 2015 17:14:47 -0800 (PST), Ray Martinez
> >> <pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> >Yes, you do have a point here. The reason I come down harder on
> >> >Creationists and Christians is because they are harder to refute
> >> >than a declared Atheist.
> >>
> >> Arguments stand or fall on their merits, not on who offers them.
> >
> >False; bias of author matters greatly
>
> And that is the fallacy you propound with almost every post
> you make in which the beliefs of the poster to whom you're
> responding constitutes you sole argument against the post.
> The classic "The sky is blue." "No it's not, because you're
> an atheist!" idiocy.
>

For Bill: See what our Evolutionist has written above? Like I said Evolutionists/Atheists deny bias, attempt to conceal bias.

> >, especially when Biblical veracity is at stake.
>
> Why does that hold greater significance? Surely Biblical
> accuracy can stand on its own merits, right?
>

That's why Christianity exists and thrives----even in Stalin's Russia----because the Bible is true.

> >> That
> >> you still don't understand something so basic after having it
> >> explained to you countless times over the years is baffling.
> >
> >You've been gone a while, now you suddenly re-appear, making a point based entirely on your pro-Atheism/anti-Christianity bias.
>
> Yep, valid logic is a "pro-Atheism/anti-Christianity bias".

Bob, a person who denies Atheism, accidentally admits the truth of Atheism via acknowledging the bias of Atheism as conveying "valid logic."

Ray