Mark Isaak quotation

[Ray Martinez]

https://groups.google.com/d/msg/talk.origins/IjGHRwVchPA/OEeuHsM2BAAJ

"I have studied evolution ("Darwinism", as you call it), and I have seen firsthand that there is no mention of God in the theory. To be atheistic, it must mention God at least to deny God" (Mark Isaak).

Facts:

1. The word "natural" as it precedes "natural selection" means "non-supernatural."

2. Unintelligent, unguided, and undirected, each of which are adjectives used to describe natural selection, mean invisible Director, invisible Guide, and invisible Intelligence are not involved. This is exactly what Mayr said regarding Darwinian scientists. They sought to determine if evolution was controlled by God or not and concluded for the negative.

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

Note how the word "natural" is used: non-supernatural:

"Nothing was more essential for them than to decide whether evolution is a natural phenomenon or something controlled by God."

3. Darwin's Origin of Species----the book which contains the theory of natural selection, a theory that science still accepts----mentions the Creator, but does not assign any role IN the production of species. So God is accounted for in the specific context of not involved in biological production (= atheistic).

Harvard Professor, Darwin biographer, Janet Browne:

"As it happened, nothing could have been further from Darwin's intention. Natural selection was a phenomenon that could never be governed, or set in motion, by a Creator. [Reverend] Kingsley had misunderstood that the main point of Darwin's book was to remove the Creator from nature" ("Charles Darwin: The Power of Place" 2002:95; Vol.2).

"When he needed to, [Darwin] spoke cautiously of the Creator, aware that his book might otherwise be labelled atheistic. But he was careful not to allow the Creator any active role in biological proceedings" ("Charles Darwin: The Power of Place" 2002:60; Vol.2).

So Mark, contrary to his claim, hasn't read Darwin's Origins of Species----the "book that shook the world" and triggered the Darwinian Scientific Revolution.

Ray

[Mark Isaak]

On 8/18/16 1:32 PM, Ray Martinez wrote:
> https://groups.google.com/d/msg/talk.origins/IjGHRwVchPA/OEeuHsM2BAAJ
>
> "I have studied evolution ("Darwinism", as you call it), and I have seen firsthand that there is no mention of God in the theory. To be atheistic, it must mention God at least to deny God" (Mark Isaak).
>
> Facts:
>
> 1. The word "natural" as it precedes "natural selection" means "non-supernatural."

1. Natural selection is not evolution. It is part of evolution.

2. That is what it means to you. Prove, if you can, that that is what
it means to God.

> 2. Unintelligent, unguided, and undirected, each of which are
> adjectives used to describe natural selection, mean invisible
> Director, invisible Guide, and invisible Intelligence are not
> involved.

It looks to me like the ultimate object of your argument is to show that
God does not exist. You actually *define* God not to exist in nature,
which leaves room for God only in parts of the universe which you talk
about a lot, but which nobody ever experiences. To you, God
*effectively* does not exist.

What's more, when you do look at nature, you tear it into dysfunctional
pieces. No single neuron in your brain is intelligent. But when all
the neurons operate together, an intelligence results. It is similar
with evolution. An instance of natural selection by itself is trivial,
but when you combine it with everything else which is happening in the
biosphere, the result is something which really could be called
intelligent. I would think someone who truly had religious leanings
could see something divine in that. And I think you are going out of
your way *not* to see divinity anywhere.

--
Mark Isaak eciton (at) curioustaxonomy (dot) net
"The evil that is in the world always comes of ignorance, and good
intentions may do as much harm as malevolence, if they lack
understanding." - Albert Camus, _The Plague_

[*Hemidactylus*]

Google Groups Line Wrap Nightmare below!!! WTF!!!

On 08/18/2016 04:32 PM, Ray Martinez wrote:
> https://groups.google.com/d/msg/talk.origins/IjGHRwVchPA/OEeuHsM2BAAJ
>
> "I have studied evolution ("Darwinism", as you call it), and I have seen firsthand that there is no mention of God in the theory. To be atheistic, it must mention God at least to deny God" (Mark Isaak).

Firebrand atheist David Silverman in his _Fighting God_ says something
to the effect that taking "In God We Trust" away from money or motto is
NOT the same as saying "In No God We Trust". Or in the pledge, amended
in the 50s because godless Commies "one nation under no god" instead of
dropping "under god" as I proudly do when I stand for the pledge. That's
kinda like what Mark was getting at.

There's a difference between methodological and ontological naturism. I
tend toward the latter. But one could kinda believe in a goddish entity
AND evolution. If you don't squint too hard.

Well cosmology at least implicitly questions the accounts in Genesis in
that there were a early group of stars that produced the heavier
elements that gave rise to our subsequent solar system, planet of
residence and eventually, but not inevitably, us. As the pop techno
mogul Moby said we are all made of stars. How does that jibe with "Let
there be light" or other vague aspects of the creation account? How old
earth are you? How patient was you God to wait billions of years from
the big bang to eventually produce us? Or is modern cosmology wrong?

The above mentioned Silverman forcefits all sorts of people ("nones",
deists, agnostics) into the atheist category which is similar to what
you do. There's a category I'm not fond of called theistic evolutionists
who hope to have their cake and eat it too. God used evolution to create
the diversity of life we see (cancer, human yolk pseudogenes, notochord
remnants in our intervertebral discs...) and that's someone we should
revere...theodicy be damned.

Silverman unlike Dawkins ignores the importance of deism and pantheism
as potential positions. Pantheism could be an Einsteinian position. God
inheres in everything. We are parts of God. Maybe nothing transcends. It
just *is*.

Or, arguing deistically, if we can find faults in the metaphysics of
eternal inflation resulting in a froth of universes and cotton to the
fine tuning argument we can argue that there's something about the
cosmological constants that makes you go "Hmmm" (sensu Arsenio Hall). In
that best case scenario we still don't get the jealous Israelite
stalking God of the Tanakh, Eve as dupe for the serpent (not devil BTW),
or God putting himself in a virgin to be tortured and die just to get a
feel for that sort of thing and tell the Jews that sacrificing in the
Temple was no longer necessary since we sacrificed the Trinity for our
own good, because grace and salvation. Is any of this making sense? Well
it's not implied by fine tuning. Are we in a Goldilocks zone? Why do
asteroids want to kill us? Why are there natural disasters? Why will we
eventually go extinct and will it happen before the sun expands and
fries the Earth? Why did the US swim team get detained in Rio?

[Ray Martinez]

Mark creates a severely chopped "response." He deleted much text/argument without indicating.

So my full case stands, as seen in the Opening Post, his "response" is not a response; rather, it further confirms his utter ignorance, or deliberate attempt to obscure the objective truth: accepted evolution is pro-Atheism.

Ray

[Peter Nyikos]

On Thursday, August 18, 2016 at 8:16:42 PM UTC-4, *Hemidactylus* wrote:
> Google Groups Line Wrap Nightmare below!!! WTF!!!
>
> On 08/18/2016 04:32 PM, Ray Martinez wrote:
> > https://groups.google.com/d/msg/talk.origins/IjGHRwVchPA/OEeuHsM2BAAJ
> >
> > "I have studied evolution ("Darwinism", as you call it), and I have seen firsthand that there is no mention of God in the theory. To be atheistic, it must mention God at least to deny God" (Mark Isaak).
>
> Firebrand atheist David Silverman in his _Fighting God_ says something
> to the effect that taking "In God We Trust" away from money or motto is
> NOT the same as saying "In No God We Trust". Or in the pledge, amended
> in the 50s because godless Commies "one nation under no god" instead of
> dropping "under god" as I proudly do when I stand for the pledge.

Do you also proudly drop it from Lincoln's Gettysburg Address?

But don't get the wrong impression: I know the difference between
theism, atheism, and agnosticism, from years of personal experience, no less.

Martinez, on the other hand, acts consistently as though he didn't
know the difference.

> That's
> kinda like what Mark was getting at.
>
> There's a difference between methodological and ontological naturism. I
> tend toward the latter. But one could kinda believe in a goddish entity
> AND evolution. If you don't squint too hard.

I've squinted, hard, untold myriad times, and if you don't believe
anyone can believe in both, you are out of touch with a whole
dimension of human belief. Loren Eiseley was in touch with it, even
though he may not have shared it. I shared it for a while after reading
his quotation in _The Immense Journey_: "perhaps also... there also moved
the eternal mystery, the careful finger of God...the cerebral hemispheres
had appeared."

Behe has lived it most of his life; in his case, though, I don't know
how hard he has squinted.

> > Facts:
> >
> > 1. The word "natural" as it precedes "natural selection" means "non-supernatural."
> >
> > 2. Unintelligent, unguided, and undirected, each of which are adjectives used to describe natural selection, mean invisible Director, invisible Guide, and invisible Intelligence are not involved. This is exactly what Mayr said regarding Darwinian scientists.

What Martinez will never admit to understanding is that "the Darwinian
scientists" refers to a small clique, not the breadth and depth of
scientists convinced of the reality of common descent of animals:

> They sought to determine if evolution was controlled by God or not and concluded for the negative.

Of course, one could make hay of that "controlled by God" and remove
the ambiguity by saying "exclusively controlled by God, with not a
bit of speciation taking place without God's having produced it".

But one could remove it another way, by saying "some evolution was
controlled by God, perhaps including the appearance of the cerebral
hemispheres," and then the scientists who opt against even this much
may still be in the majority, but very far from a consensus.

> >
> > Mayr: "There is indeed one belief that all true original Darwinians
> > held in common, and that was their rejection of creationism,
> > their rejection of special creation. This was the flag around which
> > they assembled and under which they marched.

See, now Mayr is narrowing them down further by sticking in "original"
-- not that even wild horses could drag Ray into an acknowledgement of this.

<snip of more of the same, but only for the sake of brevity>

> > 3. Darwin's Origin of Species----the book which contains the theory of
> > natural selection, a theory that science still accepts----mentions the
> > Creator, but does not assign any role IN the production of species.

It does not deny it outright either, though, does it? Darwin freely
acknowledged that there were many phenomena that he could not
account for, like the Cambrian explosion.

> > So God is accounted for in the specific context of not involved
> > in biological production (= atheistic).

Riddle me this, if you can, Hemi: was Darwin himself one of those
"original true Darwinists" or did they just appropriate his name
for their movement?

> > Harvard Professor, Darwin biographer, Janet Browne:
> >
> > "As it happened, nothing could have been further from Darwin's intention. Natural selection was a phenomenon that could never be governed, or set in motion, by a Creator.

...by definition. But not all evolution is governed by natural selection.
Darwin knew nothing of mutation, for instance.

> [Reverend] Kingsley had misunderstood that the main point of Darwin's book was to remove the Creator from nature" ("Charles Darwin: The Power of Place" 2002:95; Vol.2).

...in Janet Browne's opinion.

> > "When he needed to, [Darwin] spoke cautiously of the Creator, aware that his book might otherwise be labelled atheistic. But he was careful not to allow the Creator any active role in biological proceedings" ("Charles Darwin: The Power of Place" 2002:60; Vol.2).

Well, he was expounding on a scientific theory, not a theological one,
but that is different from claiming that this theory accounts for
the entire history of life on earth.

> >
> > So Mark, contrary to his claim, hasn't read Darwin's Origins of Species----the "book that shook the world" and triggered the Darwinian Scientific Revolution.

Or maybe Mark just hasn't read Janet Browne's "Charles Darwin: The Power of
Place" or maybe he has read it and disagrees with it.


Where do you stand on Ms. Browne's take, Hemi?


Concluded in next post, where I stop talking about Martinez and devote
my attention to your thoughts, Hemi.

Peter Nyikos
Professor, Dept. of Mathematics
University of South Carolina
http://people.math.sc.edu/nyikos/

[Peter Nyikos]

On Thursday, August 18, 2016 at 8:16:42 PM UTC-4, *Hemidactylus* wrote:

> Google Groups Line Wrap Nightmare below!!! WTF!!!

Not any more, Hemi. We're in your territory now.

> Well cosmology at least implicitly questions the accounts in Genesis in
> that there were a early group of stars that produced the heavier
> elements that gave rise to our subsequent solar system, planet of
> residence and eventually, but not inevitably, us. As the pop techno
> mogul Moby said we are all made of stars. How does that jibe with "Let
> there be light" or other vague aspects of the creation account?

Light dates back to a few seconds (or more, but no more than a million
years--I'm not taking time to look it up now) after the Big Bang, when the
universe had cooled enough for photons to differentiate themselves from
the surrounding chaos.

Genesis has it coming after the earth came into being -- so much the
worse for the sequence of events in Genesis. It also has fruit trees
with seeds in their fruit coming something like a billion years before
it happened and before the creation of the sun and moon and stars.

So much for Biblical literalism, to which the Catholic Church hasn't
subscribed for half a century, especially not after JPII said that
evolution is "more than just a hypothesis."

> How old
> earth are you? How patient was you God to wait billions of years from
> the big bang to eventually produce us? Or is modern cosmology wrong?

Nah. If God did have a hand in our origins, he may have also had a
hand in the origins of intelligent species that predated us by
ten billion years, and millions of other intelligent species in between.

C. S. Lewis had that same idea, although on a much smaller scale,
in _Out of the Silent Planet_.

And even Ray Martinez has to respect C. S. Lewis's credentials
as a Christian.

[Sorry, I momentarily forgot that I said I would stop talking about Martinez.
It won't happen again in this post.]

> The above mentioned Silverman forcefits all sorts of people ("nones",
> deists, agnostics) into the atheist category which is similar to what
> you do. There's a category I'm not fond of called theistic evolutionists
> who hope to have their cake and eat it too. God used evolution to create
> the diversity of life we see (cancer, human yolk pseudogenes, notochord
> remnants in our intervertebral discs...) and that's someone we should
> revere...theodicy be damned.

God being immensely powerful does not have to correlate perfectly with
God wanting to stop all suffering.

> Silverman unlike Dawkins ignores the importance of deism and pantheism
> as potential positions. Pantheism could be an Einsteinian position. God
> inheres in everything. We are parts of God. Maybe nothing transcends. It
> just *is*.
>
> Or, arguing deistically, if we can find faults in the metaphysics of
> eternal inflation resulting in a froth of universes and cotton to the
> fine tuning argument we can argue that there's something about the
> cosmological constants that makes you go "Hmmm" (sensu Arsenio Hall). In
> that best case scenario we still don't get the jealous Israelite
> stalking God of the Tanakh, Eve as dupe for the serpent (not devil BTW),
> or God putting himself in a virgin to be tortured and die just to get a
> feel for that sort of thing and tell the Jews that sacrificing in the
> Temple was no longer necessary since we sacrificed the Trinity for our
> own good, because grace and salvation. Is any of this making sense?

Yes, Deism has its points. But also its drawbacks. Nobody to guarantee
that if there is a life after death, it won't be the dismal existence
portrayed in Homer's _Odyssey_, where the shade of Achilles says he
would rather be the most downtrodden servant on earth than king of
all the dead.

> Well
> it's not implied by fine tuning. Are we in a Goldilocks zone?

Absolutely. But life wasn't all hunky-dory for Goldilocks, remember?
Some people prettify the story by having the bears befriend her,
but even people don't usually befriend interlopers.

> Why do
> asteroids want to kill us? Why are there natural disasters? Why will we
> eventually go extinct and will it happen before the sun expands and
> fries the Earth?

All good questions.

> Why did the US swim team get detained in Rio?

Thanks for giving me another example illustrating the word "anticlimax"
to put alongside something I read in "Li'l Abner" about sixty years ago:
"To laugh at a million dollars is un-American, unnatural, and unusual."

Peter Nyikos
Professor, Dept. of Mathematics

U. of South Carolina
http://people.math.sc.edu/nyikos/

[*Hemidactylus*]

On 08/19/2016 09:08 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> On Thursday, August 18, 2016 at 8:16:42 PM UTC-4, *Hemidactylus* wrote:
>> Google Groups Line Wrap Nightmare below!!! WTF!!!
>>
>> On 08/18/2016 04:32 PM, Ray Martinez wrote:
>>> https://groups.google.com/d/msg/talk.origins/IjGHRwVchPA/OEeuHsM2BAAJ
>>>
>>> "I have studied evolution ("Darwinism", as you call it), and I have seen firsthand that there is no mention of God in the theory. To be atheistic, it must mention God at least to deny God" (Mark Isaak).
>>
>> Firebrand atheist David Silverman in his _Fighting God_ says something
>> to the effect that taking "In God We Trust" away from money or motto is
>> NOT the same as saying "In No God We Trust". Or in the pledge, amended
>> in the 50s because godless Commies "one nation under no god" instead of
>> dropping "under god" as I proudly do when I stand for the pledge.
>
> Do you also proudly drop it from Lincoln's Gettysburg Address?

Non sequitur. And I haven't recited that since elementary school.

> But don't get the wrong impression: I know the difference between
> theism, atheism, and agnosticism, from years of personal experience, no less.
>
> Martinez, on the other hand, acts consistently as though he didn't
> know the difference.

He's a lumper not splitter.

>> That's
>> kinda like what Mark was getting at.
>>
>> There's a difference between methodological and ontological naturism. I
>> tend toward the latter. But one could kinda believe in a goddish entity
>> AND evolution. If you don't squint too hard.
>
> I've squinted, hard, untold myriad times, and if you don't believe
> anyone can believe in both, you are out of touch with a whole
> dimension of human belief.

If you were really squinting you would have noticed the "naturism" part
I mischievously didn't correct. My god does nobody care for wordplay in
this snooze chamber anymore? Back in the days when Wilkins still posted
here and Harter was still alive that would have not been left
uncommented upon nor would we lack a trainwreck of punnery!!!

> Loren Eiseley was in touch with it, even
> though he may not have shared it. I shared it for a while after reading
> his quotation in _The Immense Journey_: "perhaps also... there also moved
> the eternal mystery, the careful finger of God...the cerebral hemispheres
> had appeared."

Are humans the only ones with symmetry? Does God love other cerebrated
vertebrates? Or were we ensouled magically. And you failed to
acknowledge my ode to fine tuning below somewhere. But perhaps conflated
me with Ray due to Ray's linewrap nightmare I warned of before I posted.
My newsreader does not render his posts well.

> Behe has lived it most of his life; in his case, though, I don't know
> how hard he has squinted.

Too hard?

>>> Facts:
>>>
>>> 1. The word "natural" as it precedes "natural selection" means "non-supernatural."
>>>
>>> 2. Unintelligent, unguided, and undirected, each of which are adjectives used to describe natural selection, mean invisible Director, invisible Guide, and invisible Intelligence are not involved. This is exactly what Mayr said regarding Darwinian scientists.
>
> What Martinez will never admit to understanding is that "the Darwinian
> scientists" refers to a small clique, not the breadth and depth of
> scientists convinced of the reality of common descent of animals:

OK so you are taling to me about Ray or talking to Ray? I'm confused and
it gets worse below.

I have my misgivings about Darwinism as proclaimed by some but are you
repkying to me or Ray in your segmented post?

>>> Harvard Professor, Darwin biographer, Janet Browne:
>>>
>>> "As it happened, nothing could have been further from Darwin's intention. Natural selection was a phenomenon that could never be governed, or set in motion, by a Creator.
>
> ...by definition. But not all evolution is governed by natural selection.
> Darwin knew nothing of mutation, for instance.

Or genetic drift or neutral alleles.

>> [Reverend] Kingsley had misunderstood that the main point of Darwin's book was to remove the Creator from nature" ("Charles Darwin: The Power of Place" 2002:95; Vol.2).
>
> ...in Janet Browne's opinion.
>
>>> "When he needed to, [Darwin] spoke cautiously of the Creator, aware that his book might otherwise be labelled atheistic. But he was careful not to allow the Creator any active role in biological proceedings" ("Charles Darwin: The Power of Place" 2002:60; Vol.2).
>
> Well, he was expounding on a scientific theory, not a theological one,
> but that is different from claiming that this theory accounts for
> the entire history of life on earth.
>
>>>
>>> So Mark, contrary to his claim, hasn't read Darwin's Origins of Species----the "book that shook the world" and triggered the Darwinian Scientific Revolution.
>
> Or maybe Mark just hasn't read Janet Browne's "Charles Darwin: The Power of
> Place" or maybe he has read it and disagrees with it.
>
>
> Where do you stand on Ms. Browne's take, Hemi?

Again a little confused as to whether you are confused my how my
newsreader rendered Ray's post so did you think *I* wrote the stuff you
are replying to now. I think you have been criticized for this stuff
before, replying to multiple people in the same post. It gets stuff all
mixed up. As for Browne I recall reading some of her stuff around 8
years ago, when you weren't posting here. I'd prefer to have fuller
context to opine.

> Concluded in next post, where I stop talking about Martinez and devote
> my attention to your thoughts, Hemi.

Why didn't you reply to Ray directly then? Did my reply confuse you? I
started with " If so I apologize. I started with "Google Groups Line
Wrap Nightmare below!!! WTF!!!" and "took a Norman" replying more
freestyle as to what I'd prefer to discuss than what Ray said because
well that's usually not very productive in my experience since he
ignores it anyway.

[Tim Anderson]

The way of all flesh: ontological maturism.

[*Hemidactylus*]

On 08/19/2016 09:35 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> On Thursday, August 18, 2016 at 8:16:42 PM UTC-4, *Hemidactylus* wrote:
>> Google Groups Line Wrap Nightmare below!!! WTF!!!
>
> Not any more, Hemi. We're in your territory now.
>
>> Well cosmology at least implicitly questions the accounts in Genesis in
>> that there were a early group of stars that produced the heavier
>> elements that gave rise to our subsequent solar system, planet of
>> residence and eventually, but not inevitably, us. As the pop techno
>> mogul Moby said we are all made of stars. How does that jibe with "Let
>> there be light" or other vague aspects of the creation account?
>
> Light dates back to a few seconds (or more, but no more than a million
> years--I'm not taking time to look it up now) after the Big Bang, when the
> universe had cooled enough for photons to differentiate themselves from
> the surrounding chaos.
>
> Genesis has it coming after the earth came into being -- so much the
> worse for the sequence of events in Genesis. It also has fruit trees
> with seeds in their fruit coming something like a billion years before
> it happened and before the creation of the sun and moon and stars.
>
> So much for Biblical literalism, to which the Catholic Church hasn't
> subscribed for half a century, especially not after JPII said that
> evolution is "more than just a hypothesis."

But don't they have a special time/place for ensoulment of the highly
evolved apes?

>> How old
>> earth are you? How patient was you God to wait billions of years from
>> the big bang to eventually produce us? Or is modern cosmology wrong?
>
> Nah. If God did have a hand in our origins, he may have also had a
> hand in the origins of intelligent species that predated us by
> ten billion years, and millions of other intelligent species in between.

But what if we are the first intelligent species or in a roughly
contemporary cohort that will never communicate with each other because
distance? Others have commented how the first set of stars lacked the
heavier elements that facilitate life as we know it and we came after
their demise, so we cannot go too far back for life in our bubble,
unless you presume some sort of simulation argument where we are some
geek's Computer Science PhD project on a cosmic server farm. That
explains nonlocality perhaps as all is equidistant in terms of the CPU.
Or maybe there's a Seth Lloyd in a previous instantiation who
facilitated his eternal return via quantum computational eternal recurrence.

> C. S. Lewis had that same idea, although on a much smaller scale,
> in _Out of the Silent Planet_.
>
> And even Ray Martinez has to respect C. S. Lewis's credentials
> as a Christian.

I doubt that.

> [Sorry, I momentarily forgot that I said I would stop talking about Martinez.
> It won't happen again in this post.]
>
>> The above mentioned Silverman forcefits all sorts of people ("nones",
>> deists, agnostics) into the atheist category which is similar to what
>> you do. There's a category I'm not fond of called theistic evolutionists
>> who hope to have their cake and eat it too. God used evolution to create
>> the diversity of life we see (cancer, human yolk pseudogenes, notochord
>> remnants in our intervertebral discs...) and that's someone we should
>> revere...theodicy be damned.
>
> God being immensely powerful does not have to correlate perfectly with
> God wanting to stop all suffering.

Are you backing away from omnipotence or omnibenelovence in any way or
otherwise putting limitations on god? Some use free will as an out, but
not sure that exists. Dennett gave free will worth having his best
effort which for me came down to communication in the neural trenches in
a very similar manner to what Mel Gibson's character dealt with in the
movie "Gallipoli" where he was an ANZAC runner in the trenches who
ironically could not outrun a suddenly operational faster but lower
ranking and no longer relevant decision communicated over a fixed
telephone line.

Have you ever watched the public television series "Closer to Truth"
where Robert Kuhn interviews all kinds of people on topics related to
theology, philosophy, and cosmology?

[*Hemidactylus*]

On 08/19/2016 10:54 PM, Tim Anderson wrote:
> The way of all flesh: ontological maturism.

Is that when dictionaries start decaying?

[jillery]

On Fri, 19 Aug 2016 18:35:42 -0700 (PDT), Peter Nyikos
<nyi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:

>On Thursday, August 18, 2016 at 8:16:42 PM UTC-4, *Hemidactylus* wrote:
>> Google Groups Line Wrap Nightmare below!!! WTF!!!
>
>Not any more, Hemi. We're in your territory now.
>
>> Well cosmology at least implicitly questions the accounts in Genesis in
>> that there were a early group of stars that produced the heavier
>> elements that gave rise to our subsequent solar system, planet of
>> residence and eventually, but not inevitably, us. As the pop techno
>> mogul Moby said we are all made of stars. How does that jibe with "Let
>> there be light" or other vague aspects of the creation account?
>
>Light dates back to a few seconds (or more, but no more than a million
>years--I'm not taking time to look it up now) after the Big Bang, when the
>universe had cooled enough for photons to differentiate themselves from
> the surrounding chaos.
>
>Genesis has it coming after the earth came into being -- so much the
>worse for the sequence of events in Genesis. It also has fruit trees
>with seeds in their fruit coming something like a billion years before
>it happened and before the creation of the sun and moon and stars.
>
>So much for Biblical literalism, to which the Catholic Church hasn't
>subscribed for half a century, especially not after JPII said that
>evolution is "more than just a hypothesis."

As if the Catholic Church is the only Bible-based organization,
nevermind representative of all the others. There are lots of people
who believe exactly what you wave away above. They don't go away just
because you disagree with their opinions.

>> How old
>> earth are you? How patient was you God to wait billions of years from
>> the big bang to eventually produce us? Or is modern cosmology wrong?
>
>Nah. If God did have a hand in our origins, he may have also had a
>hand in the origins of intelligent species that predated us by
>ten billion years, and millions of other intelligent species in between.

Even if God created other intelligent species elsewhere, that wouldn't
change the veracity of the point, that intelligent life on Earth took
that long to appear.

>C. S. Lewis had that same idea, although on a much smaller scale,
>in _Out of the Silent Planet_.
>
>And even Ray Martinez has to respect C. S. Lewis's credentials
>as a Christian.
>
>[Sorry, I momentarily forgot that I said I would stop talking about Martinez.
>It won't happen again in this post.]
>
>> The above mentioned Silverman forcefits all sorts of people ("nones",
>> deists, agnostics) into the atheist category which is similar to what
>> you do. There's a category I'm not fond of called theistic evolutionists
>> who hope to have their cake and eat it too. God used evolution to create
>> the diversity of life we see (cancer, human yolk pseudogenes, notochord
>> remnants in our intervertebral discs...) and that's someone we should
>> revere...theodicy be damned.
>
>God being immensely powerful does not have to correlate perfectly with
>God wanting to stop all suffering.

Again, what God might want doesn't change the veracity of the point,
that we're obliged to revere such a deity.

You elevate obfuscation to an art form. Give yourself a gold star.

>> Silverman unlike Dawkins ignores the importance of deism and pantheism
>> as potential positions. Pantheism could be an Einsteinian position. God
>> inheres in everything. We are parts of God. Maybe nothing transcends. It
>> just *is*.
>>
>> Or, arguing deistically, if we can find faults in the metaphysics of
>> eternal inflation resulting in a froth of universes and cotton to the
>> fine tuning argument we can argue that there's something about the
>> cosmological constants that makes you go "Hmmm" (sensu Arsenio Hall). In
>> that best case scenario we still don't get the jealous Israelite
>> stalking God of the Tanakh, Eve as dupe for the serpent (not devil BTW),
>> or God putting himself in a virgin to be tortured and die just to get a
>> feel for that sort of thing and tell the Jews that sacrificing in the
>> Temple was no longer necessary since we sacrificed the Trinity for our
>> own good, because grace and salvation. Is any of this making sense?
>
>Yes, Deism has its points. But also its drawbacks. Nobody to guarantee
>that if there is a life after death, it won't be the dismal existence
>portrayed in Homer's _Odyssey_, where the shade of Achilles says he
>would rather be the most downtrodden servant on earth than king of
>all the dead.

You hold Deism to a very low bar and then imply that shows Deism makes
sense. Deduct one gold star.

>> Well
>> it's not implied by fine tuning. Are we in a Goldilocks zone?
>
>Absolutely. But life wasn't all hunky-dory for Goldilocks, remember?
>Some people prettify the story by having the bears befriend her,
>but even people don't usually befriend interlopers.
>
>> Why do
>> asteroids want to kill us? Why are there natural disasters? Why will we
>> eventually go extinct and will it happen before the sun expands and
>> fries the Earth?
>
>All good questions.

AOTA are of the same category as the last one below.

>> Why did the US swim team get detained in Rio?
>
>Thanks for giving me another example illustrating the word "anticlimax"
>to put alongside something I read in "Li'l Abner" about sixty years ago:
>"To laugh at a million dollars is un-American, unnatural, and unusual."
>
>Peter Nyikos
>Professor, Dept. of Mathematics
>U. of South Carolina
>http://people.math.sc.edu/nyikos/

--
This space is intentionally not blank.

[Bob Casanova]

On Fri, 19 Aug 2016 15:37:18 -0700 (PDT), the following
appeared in talk.origins, posted by Ray Martinez
<pyram...@yahoo.com>:

>... objective truth: accepted evolution is pro-Atheism.

Make up your mind; in your response to me in another thread
you said that my claim that you believed exactly that had
"zero truth".
--

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

[Ray Martinez]

Bizarre reply directed at two different people. In other words, Peter likes his eggs scrambled. The OP remains unaddressed.

Ray

[Ray Martinez]

On Friday, August 19, 2016 at 6:11:40 PM UTC-7, Peter Nyikos wrote:

Peter chooses to evade the OP and derail the thread by answering nonsense posted by another person. This indicates much.

I've supported my claim that evolution is atheistic.

Ray

[raven1]

On Thu, 18 Aug 2016 13:32:34 -0700 (PDT), Ray Martinez
<pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote:

Ray, no scientific theory includes God. Why is the ToE the only one
you have a problem with?

[Ray Martinez]

Prior to the rise of Darwinism (1859-1872) all scientific disciplines accepted Supernaturalism, not Naturalism. Darwin admits the fact concerning biology:

"I can entertain no doubt, after the most deliberate study and dispassionate judgment of which I am capable, that the view which most naturalists entertain, and which I formerly entertained----namely, that each species has been independently created----is erroneous. I am fully convinced that species are not immutable" (1859:6; London: John Murray).

Ray

[Rolf]

"Ray Martinez" <pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:4136e34b-8705-4d8d...@googlegroups.com...

> https://groups.google.com/d/msg/talk.origins/IjGHRwVchPA/OEeuHsM2BAAJ
>
> "I have studied evolution ("Darwinism", as you call it), and I have seen
> firsthand that there is no mention of God in the theory. To be atheistic,
> it must mention God at least to deny God" (Mark Isaak).
>
> Facts:
>
> 1. The word "natural" as it precedes "natural selection" means
> "non-supernatural."
>
> 2. Unintelligent, unguided, and undirected, each of which are adjectives
> used to describe natural selection, mean invisible Director, invisible
> Guide, and invisible Intelligence are not involved. This is exactly what
> Mayr said regarding Darwinian scientists. They sought to determine if
> evolution was controlled by God or not and concluded for the negative.
>

We may expand that list infinitely: Invisible idiots, invisible morons,
invisible gremlins, invisible whatever .
So what? There is one thing science is absolutely clear on: it doesn't take
into account anything not evidently present of oany bearing on the subject
of evolution. Why should we?

Invisible and non-detectable agents and operators in the universe at large
or even in the biology of this planet default to irrelevant.

They belong to your fantasy world (the same as Dembski's), and it is your
business to put them on the table for us all to see. Can do? Until you do,
they are persona non grata in our world.

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

How else can/could it be used? The mind boggles that you even make that a
point worth mentioning. We live in a word without ghosts, demons, gods,
gremlins and whatever. That is implicit in all we say and do, nature is all
we have and that's just enough.

What you have is an empty hand, and brains to match.

Now be a good boy and show us where the super-natural world begins, making
the natural world obsolete. You don't even believe or understand the world
of physics or chemistry. Life is not a miracle, an anomaly, life is a
natural and unavoidable consequence of conditions on this planet. It is all
about protons.

We have moved on from the primitive concepts of creation invented by the
ancients. In lieu of knowledge and understanding. they created and lived on
myths.

From the most primitive stage, where gods was the cause of everything in the
world - wind, rains, thunder and lightning, earthquakes and everything else,
we have gained understanding and now we know how the world works. The gods
are dead.

The force within our soul is a different subject that we don't need discuss.

The religious myths can be understood but most people are unaware, and
really not interested in the subject.

What you write below is irrelevant, but it seems like an integral part of
your portfolio.

[Rolf]

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

news:b16cf9a8-2e89-446b...@googlegroups.com...

Such a claim is superfluous. Evolution is "atheisitic" only in the sense
that like any other scientific subject, science does pretty well without
references to gods and religions. Gods and religions belong to the sphere
of man's soul and conduct of life.

We don't view evolution as a subject different from other scientifis
subjects wrt its position vis-à-vis religions.



Why do you do that?



Rolf


> Ray
>

[Bob Casanova]

On Sat, 20 Aug 2016 12:05:15 -0700, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off>:

>On Fri, 19 Aug 2016 15:37:18 -0700 (PDT), the following
>appeared in talk.origins, posted by Ray Martinez
><pyram...@yahoo.com>:
>
>>... objective truth: accepted evolution is pro-Atheism.
>
>Make up your mind; in your response to me in another thread
>you said that my claim that you believed exactly that had
>"zero truth".

[Crickets...]

[Ray Martinez]

On Saturday, August 20, 2016 at 2:41:36 PM UTC-7, raven1 wrote:

Then why is Peter Nyikos, and "Christian" Evolutionists, denying?

Ray

[raven1]

On Sun, 21 Aug 2016 15:14:42 -0700 (PDT), Ray Martinez

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

>On Saturday, August 20, 2016 at 2:41:36 PM UTC-7, raven1 wrote:
>> On Thu, 18 Aug 2016 13:32:34 -0700 (PDT), Ray Martinez
>> <pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>> Ray, no scientific theory includes God. Why is the ToE the only one
>> you have a problem with?
>
>Then why is Peter Nyikos, and "Christian" Evolutionists, denying?

I have no idea what you're asking. Denying what?

[Peter Nyikos]

On Friday, August 19, 2016 at 10:11:39 PM UTC-4, *Hemidactylus* wrote:
> On 08/19/2016 09:08 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> > On Thursday, August 18, 2016 at 8:16:42 PM UTC-4, *Hemidactylus* wrote:
> >> Google Groups Line Wrap Nightmare below!!! WTF!!!
> >>
> >> On 08/18/2016 04:32 PM, Ray Martinez wrote:
> >>> https://groups.google.com/d/msg/talk.origins/IjGHRwVchPA/OEeuHsM2BAAJ
> >>>
> >>> "I have studied evolution ("Darwinism", as you call it), and I have seen firsthand that there is no mention of God in the theory. To be atheistic, it must mention God at least to deny God" (Mark Isaak).

<snip tangential comments by you and to you, Hemi>

> > But don't get the wrong impression: I know the difference between
> > theism, atheism, and agnosticism, from years of personal experience, no less.
> >
> > Martinez, on the other hand, acts consistently as though he didn't
> > know the difference.
>
> He's a lumper not splitter.
>
> >> That's
> >> kinda like what Mark was getting at.
> >>
> >> There's a difference between methodological and ontological naturism. I
> >> tend toward the latter. But one could kinda believe in a goddish entity
> >> AND evolution. If you don't squint too hard.
> >
> > I've squinted, hard, untold myriad times, and if you don't believe
> > anyone can believe in both, you are out of touch with a whole
> > dimension of human belief.
>
> If you were really squinting you would have noticed the "naturism" part
> I mischievously didn't correct.

Were you mischievously using a misspelling that someone else (Ray?)
was once guilty of? If not, why do you expect mention of what could
have just been a typo?

> My god does nobody care for wordplay in
> this snooze chamber anymore? Back in the days when Wilkins still posted
> here and Harter was still alive that would have not been left
> uncommented upon nor would we lack a trainwreck of punnery!!!

Wasn't it you who once were called out by Inez for criticizing
people for going off-topic?

Don't forget, there is such a thing as over-correcting things
you are called out for.

> > Loren Eiseley was in touch with it, even
> > though he may not have shared it. I shared it for a while after reading
> > his quotation in _The Immense Journey_: "perhaps also... there also moved
> > the eternal mystery, the careful finger of God...the cerebral hemispheres
> > had appeared."
>
> Are humans the only ones with symmetry? Does God love other cerebrated
> vertebrates?

My guess is that if there is a God, he loves them at least as
much as I do, which is a great deal. I am saddened every time
I read about cruelty to animals, and also about the many extinctions
humans are responsible for,

> Or were we ensouled magically. And you failed to
> acknowledge my ode to fine tuning below somewhere. But perhaps conflated
> me with Ray due to Ray's linewrap nightmare I warned of before I posted.
> My newsreader does not render his posts well.
>
> > Behe has lived it most of his life; in his case, though, I don't know
> > how hard he has squinted.
>
> Too hard?
>
> >>> Facts:
> >>>
> >>> 1. The word "natural" as it precedes "natural selection" means "non-supernatural."
> >>>
> >>> 2. Unintelligent, unguided, and undirected, each of which are adjectives used to describe natural selection, mean invisible Director, invisible Guide, and invisible Intelligence are not involved. This is exactly what Mayr said regarding Darwinian scientists.
> >
> > What Martinez will never admit to understanding is that "the Darwinian
> > scientists" refers to a small clique, not the breadth and depth of
> > scientists convinced of the reality of common descent of animals:
>
> OK so you are taling to me about Ray or talking to Ray? I'm confused and
> it gets worse below.

I talked exclusively to you, sometimes about Ray, as here. It's pointless
to say the above to Ray; he is incorrigible.

BTW, did you want me to comment on "taling" which you didn't correct
either? Consider it commented on.

> >>> They sought to determine if evolution was controlled by God or not and concluded for the negative.

That was still Ray talking, but I wrote the following to you
because I think it would have been way over Ray's head:

> > Of course, one could make hay of that "controlled by God" and remove
> > the ambiguity by saying "exclusively controlled by God, with not a
> > bit of speciation taking place without God's having produced it".
> >
> > But one could remove it another way, by saying "some evolution was
> > controlled by God, perhaps including the appearance of the cerebral
> > hemispheres," and then the scientists who opt against even this much
> > may still be in the majority, but very far from a consensus.
> >
> >>>
> >>> Mayr: "There is indeed one belief that all true original Darwinians
> >>> held in common, and that was their rejection of creationism,
> >>> their rejection of special creation. This was the flag around which
> >>> they assembled and under which they marched.
> >
> > See, now Mayr is narrowing them down further by sticking in "original"
> > -- not that even wild horses could drag Ray into an acknowledgement of this.
> >
> > <snip of more of the same, but only for the sake of brevity>
> >
> >>> 3. Darwin's Origin of Species----the book which contains the theory of
> >>> natural selection, a theory that science still accepts----mentions the
> >>> Creator, but does not assign any role IN the production of species.
> >
> > It does not deny it outright either, though, does it?

Even that was addressed to you, Hemi. But maybe you, like me, have
never read Darwin's book, only isolated excerpts from it.
The evidence amassed for common descent since 1859 dwarfs what
we knew before, and is much better understood.

> > Darwin freely
> > acknowledged that there were many phenomena that he could not
> > account for, like the Cambrian explosion.

I don't think this would make the least bit of difference to
Ray, even if he understood the significance of it.

> >>> So God is accounted for in the specific context of not involved
> >>> in biological production (= atheistic).
> >
> > Riddle me this, if you can, Hemi: was Darwin himself one of those
> > "original true Darwinists" or did they just appropriate his name
> > for their movement?

Here, I even addressed you ("Hemi"), so you needn't have had
any doubts as to whom I was talking to.

> I have my misgivings about Darwinism as proclaimed by some but are you
> repkying to me or Ray in your segmented post?

My words are meant for you, and for anyone else who sees fit to comment
on them. Ray seems to have read them, but
it's obvious he doesn't want to deal with them in his brief reply to me.

Had I addressed them to him, he might have launched into an orgy
of bearing false witness against me, like he so often does when
he is lost for a reasonable reply. Just like jillery did all last week.

> >>> Harvard Professor, Darwin biographer, Janet Browne:

< snip things she wrote since you had no comment about it below>

> As for Browne I recall reading some of her stuff around 8
> years ago, when you weren't posting here. I'd prefer to have fuller
> context to opine.
>
> > Concluded in next post, where I stop talking about Martinez and devote
> > my attention to your thoughts, Hemi.
>
> Why didn't you reply to Ray directly then?

See above.

> Did my reply confuse you? I
> started with " If so I apologize. I started with "Google Groups Line
> Wrap Nightmare below!!! WTF!!!" and "took a Norman" replying more
> freestyle as to what I'd prefer to discuss than what Ray said because
> well that's usually not very productive in my experience since he
> ignores it anyway.

Hence my not replying to him directly.

Peter Nyikos

[Ray Martinez]

On Monday, August 22, 2016 at 5:31:32 AM UTC-7, raven1 wrote:
> On Sun, 21 Aug 2016 15:14:42 -0700 (PDT), Ray Martinez
> <pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >On Saturday, August 20, 2016 at 2:41:36 PM UTC-7, raven1 wrote:
> >> On Thu, 18 Aug 2016 13:32:34 -0700 (PDT), Ray Martinez
> >> <pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> Ray, no scientific theory includes God. Why is the ToE the only one
> >> you have a problem with?
> >

> >Then why do Peter Nyikos, and "Christian" Evolutionists, deny?

>
> I have no idea what you're asking. Denying what?

You said "no scientific theory includes God." In this context: Then why do Peter
Nyikos (in this thread) and "Christian" Evolutionists deny the ToE as excluding God?

Will you agree that those views are subjective?

Ray

[jillery]

On Mon, 22 Aug 2016 18:17:35 -0700 (PDT), Ray Martinez

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

>On Monday, August 22, 2016 at 5:31:32 AM UTC-7, raven1 wrote:
>> On Sun, 21 Aug 2016 15:14:42 -0700 (PDT), Ray Martinez
>> <pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>> >On Saturday, August 20, 2016 at 2:41:36 PM UTC-7, raven1 wrote:
>> >> On Thu, 18 Aug 2016 13:32:34 -0700 (PDT), Ray Martinez
>> >> <pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> Ray, no scientific theory includes God. Why is the ToE the only one
>> >> you have a problem with?
>> >
>> >Then why do Peter Nyikos, and "Christian" Evolutionists, deny?
>>
>> I have no idea what you're asking. Denying what?
>
>You said "no scientific theory includes God." In this context: Then why do Peter
>Nyikos (in this thread) and "Christian" Evolutionists deny the ToE as excluding God?
>
>Will you agree that those views are subjective?

One can also say with equal veracity that no scientific theory
excludes God. The actual point is, no scientific theory mentions
anything about God, one way or the other. One can say the same with
equal veracity about auto mechanics.

[raven1]

On Mon, 22 Aug 2016 18:17:35 -0700 (PDT), Ray Martinez

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

>On Monday, August 22, 2016 at 5:31:32 AM UTC-7, raven1 wrote:
>> On Sun, 21 Aug 2016 15:14:42 -0700 (PDT), Ray Martinez
>> <pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>> >On Saturday, August 20, 2016 at 2:41:36 PM UTC-7, raven1 wrote:
>> >> On Thu, 18 Aug 2016 13:32:34 -0700 (PDT), Ray Martinez
>> >> <pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> Ray, no scientific theory includes God. Why is the ToE the only one
>> >> you have a problem with?
>> >
>> >Then why do Peter Nyikos, and "Christian" Evolutionists, deny?
>>
>> I have no idea what you're asking. Denying what?
>
>You said "no scientific theory includes God." In this context: Then why do Peter
>Nyikos (in this thread) and "Christian" Evolutionists deny the ToE as excluding God?

Scientific theories don't exclude God either. They are silent on the
topic one way or another.

[Peter Nyikos]

On Saturday, August 20, 2016 at 4:36:37 PM UTC-4, Ray Martinez wrote:
> On Friday, August 19, 2016 at 6:11:40 PM UTC-7, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> > On Thursday, August 18, 2016 at 8:16:42 PM UTC-4, *Hemidactylus* wrote:
> > > Google Groups Line Wrap Nightmare below!!! WTF!!!
> > >
> > > On 08/18/2016 04:32 PM, Ray Martinez wrote:
> > > > https://groups.google.com/d/msg/talk.origins/IjGHRwVchPA/OEeuHsM2BAAJ

It was directed at Scott "Hemidactylus" Chase [not to be
confused with Gene Scott :-) ], while you and your
incorrigibility were part of the subject matter. As you
would know if you had read my reply to him yesterday.

> In other words, Peter likes his eggs scrambled. The OP remains unaddressed.
>
> Ray

If you had bothered to READ what I wrote in the post to which you are
replying, you would know that I addressed several features of it; some
of this is left in above, some snipped for the sake of brevity-- but ONLY
for the sake of brevity.

Basically, I have no reason to doubt what Mayr had to say about a
tiny, unidentified batch of scientists to whom he refers to as
"the original Darwinists". I have great respect for Mayr as a
scientist, and he may be similarly good at expounding on the
history of science. Janet Browne, OTOH, is an unknown to me and
so I remain skeptical of her claims until I see her documentation
and reasoning for her claims.

As for leaving things unaddressed: way back in February you made
some highly derogatory comments about me which depend completely
on you making good on the following [still unfulfilled] promise:

_________________________excerpt_____________________

Remainder to be replied to as soon as possible.

Ray

> ....given the prevalent picture among the Jews of what the Messiah
> ("Christ" in pidgin Greek) would be like.
>
> The following is taken from one of the greatest Biblical commentaries,
> Adam Clarke's Commentary:
>
> Get thee behind me, Satan - Υπαγε οπισω μου σατανα. Get behind me, thou
> adversary. This is the proper translation of the Hebrew word שטן Satan,
> from which the Greek word is taken. Our blessed Lord certainly never
> designed that men should believe he called Peter, Devil, because he,
> through erring affection, had wished him to avoid that death which he
> predicted to himself. This translation, which is literal, takes away
> that harshness which before appeared in our Lord's words.
> http://biblehub.com/commentaries/clarke/matthew/16.htm
>
> In the century before Clarke wrote, Matthew Poole wrote something
> very similar:
>
> Peter, thou thinkest that by this discourse thou showest
> some kindness unto me, like a friend, but thou art in
> this an adversary to me; for so the word Satan doth signify,
> and is therefore ordinarily applied to the devil, who is
> the grand adversary of mankind.
> http://biblehub.com/commentaries/poole/matthew/16.htm
>
> Matthew Poole was threatened with assassination -- something
> which should arouse your respect for him:
>
> In his depositions relative to the alleged Popish plot (September 1678),
> Titus Oates had represented Poole as marked for assassination, because
> of his tract (1666) on the Nullity of the Romish Faith. Poole gave
> some credit to this, reportedly after a scare on returning home
> one evening near Clerkenwell with Josiah Chorley. Poole left England, and
> settled at Amsterdam.
> http://www.studylight.org/commentaries/mpc/
>
> Can you claim to have had to flee your home under threat of murder?
> I don't think you can.
>
> Do you think that the mere fact that you are Ray Martinez
> shows that you know the meaning of Jesus's rebuke better than
> either Clarke or Poole?
>
> Remainder deleted, to be replied to later.
>
> Peter Nyikos
========================= end of excerpt
from
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!original/talk.origins/hA6A-Z_NbqY/2ZHxElxTHQAJ
Message-ID: <ccbec097-90aa-49c0...@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: Chez whatt: Inquisitors, Christianity, and murder

I think it is a safe bet that "as soon as possible" really means
"never," since it is impossible for you to refute Clarke and Poole,
and impossible for you to admit that you were wildly wrong in
your exegesis of Jesus's rebuke.

Peter Nyikos

[Peter Nyikos]

I do not deny that the ToE does not INclude God. Similarly, your
exegesis of Genesis 1 has never INcluded the statement that the earth
brought forth plants, has it? But you have never denied that it was the
earth that brought them forth, as opposed to God creating each species
of plant life *de novo*, have you?

Note that I do not use your cunning equivocation "excludes," only
the clearly differing expressions "never included" and "never denied."

If you were to stick to the wording of your adversaries [in this case,
Rolf, who used "no ... includes"], you would be rendered speechless
in short order, just as you were rendered speechless by the thorough,
scholarly exegesis by Clarke and Poole of Jesus's rebuke to Peter,
whose meaning you mangled back in February.

Peter Nyikos

[Bob Casanova]

On Tue, 23 Aug 2016 07:40:39 -0400, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by raven1
<quotht...@nevermore.com>:

Ray has never "gotten" this, and never will. The above
exchange is typical RaySpeak.

>>Will you agree that those views are subjective?
>>
>>Ray

[Peter Nyikos]

On Friday, August 19, 2016 at 11:06:39 PM UTC-4, *Hemidactylus* wrote:
> On 08/19/2016 09:35 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> > On Thursday, August 18, 2016 at 8:16:42 PM UTC-4, *Hemidactylus* wrote:
> >> Google Groups Line Wrap Nightmare below!!! WTF!!!
> >
> > Not any more, Hemi. We're in your territory now.
> >
> >> Well cosmology at least implicitly questions the accounts in Genesis in
> >> that there were a early group of stars that produced the heavier
> >> elements that gave rise to our subsequent solar system, planet of
> >> residence and eventually, but not inevitably, us. As the pop techno
> >> mogul Moby said we are all made of stars. How does that jibe with "Let
> >> there be light" or other vague aspects of the creation account?
> >
> > Light dates back to a few seconds (or more, but no more than a million
> > years--I'm not taking time to look it up now) after the Big Bang, when the
> > universe had cooled enough for photons to differentiate themselves from
> > the surrounding chaos.
> >
> > Genesis has it coming after the earth came into being -- so much the
> > worse for the sequence of events in Genesis. It also has fruit trees
> > with seeds in their fruit coming something like a billion years before
> > it happened and before the creation of the sun and moon and stars.
> >
> > So much for Biblical literalism, to which the Catholic Church hasn't
> > subscribed for half a century, especially not after JPII said that
> > evolution is "more than just a hypothesis."
>
> But don't they have a special time/place for ensoulment of the highly
> evolved apes?

The Magisterium firmly states that it happened, but doesn't try to
guess at the time or place.

I'll attend to the rest of your post later this evening, if time permits.
Duty calls.

Peter Nyikos
Professor, Department of Math. -- standard disclaimer --
U. of S. Carolina

[Ray Martinez]

On Tuesday, August 23, 2016 at 11:06:28 AM UTC-7, Bob Casanova wrote:
> On Tue, 23 Aug 2016 07:40:39 -0400, the following appeared
> in talk.origins, posted by raven1
> <quotht...@nevermore.com>:
>
> >On Mon, 22 Aug 2016 18:17:35 -0700 (PDT), Ray Martinez
> ><pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> >>On Monday, August 22, 2016 at 5:31:32 AM UTC-7, raven1 wrote:
> >>> On Sun, 21 Aug 2016 15:14:42 -0700 (PDT), Ray Martinez
> >>> <pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> >On Saturday, August 20, 2016 at 2:41:36 PM UTC-7, raven1 wrote:
> >>> >> On Thu, 18 Aug 2016 13:32:34 -0700 (PDT), Ray Martinez
> >>> >> <pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >>> >>
> >>> >> Ray, no scientific theory includes God. Why is the ToE the only one
> >>> >> you have a problem with?
> >>> >
> >>> >Then why do Peter Nyikos, and "Christian" Evolutionists, deny?
> >>>
> >>> I have no idea what you're asking. Denying what?
> >>
> >>You said "no scientific theory includes God." In this context: Then why do Peter
> >>Nyikos (in this thread) and "Christian" Evolutionists deny the ToE as excluding God?
> >
> >Scientific theories don't exclude God either. They are silent on the
> >topic one way or another.
>
> Ray has never "gotten" this, and never will. The above
> exchange is typical RaySpeak.

"I can entertain no doubt, after the most deliberate study and dispassionate judgment of which I am capable, that the view which most naturalists entertain, and which I formerly entertained----namely, that each species has been independently created----is erroneous. I am fully convinced that species are not immutable" (Darwin 1859:6; London: John Murray).

Ray

[Ray Martinez]

Two points:

1. In the Origin, Darwin argued against independent creation of each species.

2. A theory cannot "include and exclude" God at the same time, so which is it?

Ray

[Ray Martinez]

On Tuesday, August 23, 2016 at 8:41:28 AM UTC-7, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> On Monday, August 22, 2016 at 9:21:30 PM UTC-4, Ray Martinez wrote:
> > On Monday, August 22, 2016 at 5:31:32 AM UTC-7, raven1 wrote:
> > > On Sun, 21 Aug 2016 15:14:42 -0700 (PDT), Ray Martinez
> > > <pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > >On Saturday, August 20, 2016 at 2:41:36 PM UTC-7, raven1 wrote:
> > > >> On Thu, 18 Aug 2016 13:32:34 -0700 (PDT), Ray Martinez
> > > >> <pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > >>
> > > >> Ray, no scientific theory includes God. Why is the ToE the only one
> > > >> you have a problem with?
> > > >
> > > >Then why do Peter Nyikos, and "Christian" Evolutionists, deny?
> > >
> > > I have no idea what you're asking. Denying what?
> >
> > You said "no scientific theory includes God." In this context: Then why do Peter
> > Nyikos (in this thread) and "Christian" Evolutionists deny the ToE as excluding God?
>
> I do not deny that the ToE does not INclude God.

Good. So the Theistic Evolution position is subjective?

> Similarly, your
> exegesis of Genesis 1 has never INcluded the statement that the earth
> brought forth plants, has it? But you have never denied that it was the
> earth that brought them forth, as opposed to God creating each species
> of plant life *de novo*, have you?

I'm struggling hard to understand whatever point you're attempting to make? I think all scholars agree that Genesis 1 says God created everything mentioned.

>
> Note that I do not use your cunning equivocation "excludes," only
> the clearly differing expressions "never included" and "never denied."

"never included" and "never denied" contradict.

>
> If you were to stick to the wording of your adversaries [in this case,
> Rolf, who used "no ... includes"], you would be rendered speechless
> in short order, just as you were rendered speechless by the thorough,
> scholarly exegesis by Clarke and Poole of Jesus's rebuke to Peter,
> whose meaning you mangled back in February.
>
> Peter Nyikos

Glad that you're back.

Ray

[Ray Martinez]

The point is that I produced scholarly support for my view, which complies with the rules of debate. You (or anyone for that matter) cannot dismiss as just another opinion. The same renders yours as such while assuming compliance with the rules of debate to somehow be illegitimate? Your only choice is to produce scholarly support that differs then we can proceed.

> Janet Browne, OTOH, is an unknown to me and
> so I remain skeptical of her claims until I see her documentation
> and reasoning for her claims.

She's a Harvard Professor and world famous Darwin biographer. Trained to become a scientist, but chose a career in the history of science. Her credentials are impeccable. Any ignorance on your part doesn't harm Browne as a scholarly source OR my use of her as such. I'm surprised you invoked your own personal ignorance instead of taking a few minutes to confirm her status.

>
> As for leaving things unaddressed: way back in February you made
> some highly derogatory comments about me which depend completely
> on you making good on the following [still unfulfilled] promise:

You play hard ball every opportunity. So whatever you're talking about is undoubtedly fair play.

I've read each quotation carefully. And while everything seems quite clear in your mind you failed to tell me what your point is?

If I've missed it then please re-emphasize? Your sources have said absolutely nothing that contradicts anything I've said about Jesus, Peter, and Satan.

Ray

[Ray Martinez]

Silence = exclusion as opposed to inclusion, you agree?

Ray

[Mark Isaak]

And thus you support what others have been saying, that neither Darwin
nor the _Origin of Species_ exclude God. Yes, they exclude independent
creation of species, but the Bible never says each species was created
independently, nor does the existence of a God imply it, much less
require it.

Your claim boils down to: "The theory of evolution is contrary to MY
particular and idiosyncratic religious belief about God." I don't think
anyone will disagree with you about that.

--
Mark Isaak eciton (at) curioustaxonomy (dot) net
"The evil that is in the world always comes of ignorance, and good
intentions may do as much harm as malevolence, if they lack
understanding." - Albert Camus, _The Plague_

[jillery]

On Wed, 24 Aug 2016 15:58:59 -0700 (PDT), Ray Martinez

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

>On Tuesday, August 23, 2016 at 4:41:29 AM UTC-7, raven1 wrote:
>> On Mon, 22 Aug 2016 18:17:35 -0700 (PDT), Ray Martinez
>> <pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>> >On Monday, August 22, 2016 at 5:31:32 AM UTC-7, raven1 wrote:
>> >> On Sun, 21 Aug 2016 15:14:42 -0700 (PDT), Ray Martinez
>> >> <pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >On Saturday, August 20, 2016 at 2:41:36 PM UTC-7, raven1 wrote:
>> >> >> On Thu, 18 Aug 2016 13:32:34 -0700 (PDT), Ray Martinez
>> >> >> <pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Ray, no scientific theory includes God. Why is the ToE the only one
>> >> >> you have a problem with?
>> >> >
>> >> >Then why do Peter Nyikos, and "Christian" Evolutionists, deny?
>> >>
>> >> I have no idea what you're asking. Denying what?
>> >
>> >You said "no scientific theory includes God." In this context: Then why do Peter
>> >Nyikos (in this thread) and "Christian" Evolutionists deny the ToE as excluding God?
>>
>> Scientific theories don't exclude God either. They are silent on the
>> topic one way or another.
>
>Two points:
>
>1. In the Origin, Darwin argued against independent creation of each species.

Unless you can prove that God had to independently create each
species, your statement above does *not* exclude God.

>2. A theory cannot "include and exclude" God at the same time, so which is it?

To include or exclude require affirmative statements. A theory can
say nothing at all about a subject and be neutral on the point.

[Peter Nyikos]

On Wednesday, August 24, 2016 at 7:41:24 PM UTC-4, Ray Martinez wrote:
> On Tuesday, August 23, 2016 at 8:21:28 AM UTC-7, Peter Nyikos wrote:

<snip of things involving Mayr and Browne, to be dealt with tomorrow>

> > As for leaving things unaddressed: way back in February you made
> > some highly derogatory comments about me which depend completely
> > on you making good on the following [still unfulfilled] promise:
>
> You play hard ball every opportunity. So whatever you're talking about is undoubtedly fair play.

Meant in sarcasm, I'm sure, but your sarcasm rings hollow in the light
of what I show below.

I told it plainly enough; you simply disagree with it by making the
following audacious denial:

>
> If I've missed it then please re-emphasize? Your sources have said absolutely nothing that contradicts anything I've said about Jesus, Peter, and Satan.

You didn't read the linked post by you, did you? Here is a better url
for it, where your wraparound style doesn't make it hard to read:

https://groups.google.com/d/msg/talk.origins/hA6A-Z_NbqY/2ZHxElxTHQAJ

You said something very different about Clarke and Poole in the
very same post:

Peter Nyikos, further below, is going to quote authors who say
Christ didn't mean what He said.

Here is the context for that remark:

____________________________excerpt____________________

The Apostle Peter was praised by Christ then rebuked sharply for doing the bidding of Satan.
> >
> This is a childish view of the incident which makes no note of morality,
> nor of Biblical scholarship down through the centuries.
>

Peter Nyikos's complaint is about the literal nature of my interpretation. Thus he indicates one must depart from what the text says (= his "view").

And of course morality is noted. As if the same is not addressed by the rebuke of Christ!

Peter Nyikos, further below, is going to quote authors who say Christ didn't mean what He said. If true, why did He say it? Of course my question is rhetorical.

> Peter did NOTHING MORALLY WRONG in what he said before Christ rebuked
> him. He was just expressing an honest opinion -- a very natural one....

Obviously Christ disagrees; that's why He rebuked the Apostle Peter! So Peter Nyikos says Christ was wrong in rebuking the Apostle!

The reason Christ rebuked the Apostle Peter was because He knew what the Apostle said originated from Satan.

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

Clarke and Poole both exonerated Peter of intentional wrongdoing
by their own interpretation of Jesus's "rebuke". [Documented above.]
If you can't see that, you don't know the first thing about morality.

So much for your "Obviously Christ disagrees."

There's more, much more, further back along the thread, where you
are even more at odds with Clarke and Poole, but it'll take time
to find it, and it's too close to my bedtime for me to do it now.

Peter Nyikos

[Peter Nyikos]

On Wednesday, August 24, 2016 at 7:16:24 PM UTC-4, Ray Martinez wrote:
> On Tuesday, August 23, 2016 at 8:41:28 AM UTC-7, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> > On Monday, August 22, 2016 at 9:21:30 PM UTC-4, Ray Martinez wrote:
> > > On Monday, August 22, 2016 at 5:31:32 AM UTC-7, raven1 wrote:
> > > > On Sun, 21 Aug 2016 15:14:42 -0700 (PDT), Ray Martinez
> > > > <pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > >On Saturday, August 20, 2016 at 2:41:36 PM UTC-7, raven1 wrote:
> > > > >> On Thu, 18 Aug 2016 13:32:34 -0700 (PDT), Ray Martinez
> > > > >> <pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > > >>
> > > > >> Ray, no scientific theory includes God. Why is the ToE the only one
> > > > >> you have a problem with?
> > > > >
> > > > >Then why do Peter Nyikos, and "Christian" Evolutionists, deny?
> > > >
> > > > I have no idea what you're asking. Denying what?
> > >
> > > You said "no scientific theory includes God."

Do you actually claim that simple hydrodynamics includes God? If so,
I would like to see a published example.

If not, what keeps you from claiming that people who believe
in simple hydrodynamics are Atheists because they exclude God
from their science?

In this context: Then why do Peter
> > > Nyikos (in this thread) and "Christian" Evolutionists deny the ToE as excluding God?
> >
> > I do not deny that the ToE does not INclude God.
>
> Good. So the Theistic Evolution position is subjective?

Not any more than creationism or atheism, both of which can be built
on rational foundations GIVEN what the creationist/atheist
has been exposed to -- which include falsehoods and cunning
sophistry about evolution on the one hand and about various
religions on the other. The creationist/atheist might simply have
believed them and built a rational foundation on that basis.

> > Similarly, your
> > exegesis of Genesis 1 has never INcluded the statement that the earth
> > brought forth plants, has it? But you have never denied that it was the
> > earth that brought them forth, as opposed to God creating each species
> > of plant life *de novo*, have you?
>
> I'm struggling hard to understand whatever point you're attempting to make?

It should be obvious: it illustrates how "never included" and "never
denied" can be compatible with each other, contrary to your
ignorant/insincere claim below.

> I think all scholars agree that Genesis 1 says God created everything mentioned.

I'd like to see a published claim that it includes plants. It would
be interesting if the author simply borrowed from the account about
animals and claimed that God caused each plant to reproduce after
its own "kind."

Someone seduced by PETA might even borrow from the account of the
creation of man, and claim that God created creeping things and
other animals in his image and likeness. Same "logic" in both cases.

> >
> > Note that I do not use your cunning equivocation "excludes," only
> > the clearly differing expressions "never included" and "never denied."
>
> "never included" and "never denied" contradict.

You ducked the two questions above, the one with "never INcluded"
and the one with "never denied," so this claim is illogical.

Care to give a Yes or No answer to either one of them, referring to
the time BEFORE I asked these questions? If your answer to either
one is "No, I did..." I will demand documentation.

> > If you were to stick to the wording of your adversaries [in this case,
> > Rolf, who used "no ... includes"], you would be rendered speechless
> > in short order, just as you were rendered speechless by the thorough,
> > scholarly exegesis by Clarke and Poole of Jesus's rebuke to Peter,
> > whose meaning you mangled back in February.

Your speechlessness lasted for half a year, but now you've figured out
an audacious reply that may work for the short run. It would be great
if you waited half a year with all your audacious replies. People wouldn't
have to spend so much time explaining things that should be obvious
to you, like the compatibility of "never included" and "never denied."

[And I suspect that they ARE obvious, and that you feign incomprehension
while secretly laughing at how much time we are wasting on you.]

Peter Nyikos

[Peter Nyikos]

On Saturday, August 20, 2016 at 6:16:37 PM UTC-4, Ray Martinez wrote:
> On Saturday, August 20, 2016 at 2:41:36 PM UTC-7, raven1 wrote:
> > On Thu, 18 Aug 2016 13:32:34 -0700 (PDT), Ray Martinez
> > <pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> > Ray, no scientific theory includes God. Why is the ToE the only one
> > you have a problem with?
>
> Prior to the rise of Darwinism (1859-1872) all scientific disciplines accepted Supernaturalism, not Naturalism.

Have you forgotten about Laplace's famous dictum, uttered well before
1859?

"I had no need of that [God] hypothesis."

> Darwin admits the fact concerning biology:

You are illogical (or insincere) here, as you are so often,
conflating your private claims of species immutabilism with
e.g. a belief in speciation but not in common descent.

Darwin denied the former, but not the latter, in the following quote:

> "I can entertain no doubt, after the most deliberate study and
> dispassionate judgment of which I am capable, that the view
> which most naturalists entertain, and which I formerly entertained
> ----namely, that each species has been independently created----
is erroneous. I am fully convinced that species are not immutable"
(1859:6; London: John Murray).

Contrast that with the following statement by an agnostic about
a rare, pivotal event in the course of evolution:

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

Are you illogical/insincere enough to claim that Eiseley excluded God,
on the grounds that he did not believe in species immutabilism?

Peter Nyikos
Professor, Dept. of Mathematics -- standard disclaimer --
University of South Carolina
http://www.math.sc.edu/~nyikos/

[Bob Casanova]

On Wed, 24 Aug 2016 15:53:38 -0700 (PDT), the following
appeared in talk.origins, posted by Ray Martinez
<pyram...@yahoo.com>:

Yes. So? Does your excuse for a brain somehow conclude from
that statement that Darwin disbelieved in God? Here's a
hint: Denial of something inferred from the Bible has
nothing to do with belief in God. And science is indeed mute
of the subject of deities.

Your conflation of belief in God with acceptance of the
Bible as read literally is still one of your basic problems
along with your idiotic assertion that failure to include
God in science is synonymous with denial that God exists, as
noted above.

[raven1]

On Wed, 24 Aug 2016 16:42:50 -0700 (PDT), Ray Martinez

No.

[raven1]

On Wed, 24 Aug 2016 15:58:59 -0700 (PDT), Ray Martinez

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

>On Tuesday, August 23, 2016 at 4:41:29 AM UTC-7, raven1 wrote:
>> On Mon, 22 Aug 2016 18:17:35 -0700 (PDT), Ray Martinez
>> <pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>> >On Monday, August 22, 2016 at 5:31:32 AM UTC-7, raven1 wrote:
>> >> On Sun, 21 Aug 2016 15:14:42 -0700 (PDT), Ray Martinez
>> >> <pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >On Saturday, August 20, 2016 at 2:41:36 PM UTC-7, raven1 wrote:
>> >> >> On Thu, 18 Aug 2016 13:32:34 -0700 (PDT), Ray Martinez
>> >> >> <pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Ray, no scientific theory includes God. Why is the ToE the only one
>> >> >> you have a problem with?
>> >> >
>> >> >Then why do Peter Nyikos, and "Christian" Evolutionists, deny?
>> >>
>> >> I have no idea what you're asking. Denying what?
>> >
>> >You said "no scientific theory includes God." In this context: Then why do Peter
>> >Nyikos (in this thread) and "Christian" Evolutionists deny the ToE as excluding God?
>>
>> Scientific theories don't exclude God either. They are silent on the
>> topic one way or another.
>
>Two points:
>
>1. In the Origin, Darwin argued against independent creation of each species.

So what?

>2. A theory cannot "include and exclude" God at the same time, so which is it?

Neither.

[Peter Nyikos]

On Wednesday, August 24, 2016 at 7:41:24 PM UTC-4, Ray Martinez wrote:
> On Tuesday, August 23, 2016 at 8:21:28 AM UTC-7, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> > On Saturday, August 20, 2016 at 4:36:37 PM UTC-4, Ray Martinez wrote:
> > > On Friday, August 19, 2016 at 6:11:40 PM UTC-7, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> > > > On Thursday, August 18, 2016 at 8:16:42 PM UTC-4, *Hemidactylus* wrote:
> > > > > Google Groups Line Wrap Nightmare below!!! WTF!!!
> > > > > > On 08/18/2016 04:32 PM, Ray Martinez wrote:
> > > > > > https://groups.google.com/d/msg/talk.origins/IjGHRwVchPA/OEeuHsM2BAAJ
> >
> > > > > > Mayr: "There is indeed one belief that all true original Darwinians
> > > > > > held in common, and that was their rejection of creationism,
> > > > > > their rejection of special creation. This was the flag around which
> > > > > > they assembled and under which they marched.
> > > >
> > > > See, now Mayr is narrowing them down further by sticking in "original"
> > > > -- not that even wild horses could drag Ray into an acknowledgement of this.

They still haven't dragged it out of Ray. Nor have I, or anyone else.

> > > > <snip of more of the same, but only for the sake of brevity>
> > > >
> > > > > > 3. Darwin's Origin of Species----the book which contains the theory of
> > > > > > natural selection, a theory that science still accepts----mentions the
> > > > > > Creator, but does not assign any role IN the production of species.
> > > >
> > > > It does not deny it outright either, though, does it? Darwin freely
> > > > acknowledged that there were many phenomena that he could not
> > > > account for, like the Cambrian explosion.

Of course, Ray did not acknowledge the existence of this
comment on what he had posted. In fact, he lied (see below)
that I had not addressed any of the points in his OP.

> > > > > > So God is accounted for in the specific context of not involved
> > > > > > in biological production (= atheistic).
> > > >
> > > > Riddle me this, if you can, Hemi: was Darwin himself one of those
> > > > "original true Darwinists" or did they just appropriate his name
> > > > for their movement?

Hemi doesn't know enough about Darwin to commit himself on this
question. I believe the same is true of Ray, but he cannot
even bring himself to say ANYTHING one way or the other about it.

> > > > > > Harvard Professor, Darwin biographer, Janet Browne:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > "As it happened, nothing could have been further from Darwin's intention.

An out of context sentence. To what does it refer? The following
sentence only sheds a partial ray of light:

> > > > Natural selection was a phenomenon that could never be governed, or set in motion, by a Creator.
> > > >
> > > > ...by definition. But not all evolution is governed by natural selection.
> > > > Darwin knew nothing of mutation, for instance.

The ONLY comment of Janet Browne's of which I am really skeptical
is the following sentence:

> > > > > [Reverend] Kingsley had misunderstood that the main point of Darwin's book was to remove the Creator from nature" ("Charles Darwin: The Power of Place" 2002:95; Vol.2).
> > > >
> > > > ...in Janet Browne's opinion.
> > > >
> > > > > > "When he needed to, [Darwin] spoke cautiously of the Creator, aware that his book might otherwise be labelled atheistic. But he was careful not to allow the Creator any active role in biological proceedings" ("Charles Darwin: The Power of Place" 2002:60; Vol.2).
> > > >
> > > > Well, he was expounding on a scientific theory, not a theological one,
> > > > but that is different from claiming that this theory accounts for
> > > > the entire history of life on earth.

Needless to say, Ray hasn't acknowledged this un-skeptical addressing of
something Janet Browne wrote.

<snip for focus>

> > > Bizarre reply directed at two different people.
> >
> > It was directed at Scott "Hemidactylus" Chase [not to be
> > confused with Gene Scott :-) ], while you and your
> > incorrigibility were part of the subject matter. As you
> > would know if you had read my reply to him yesterday.
> >
> >
> > > In other words, Peter likes his eggs scrambled. The OP remains unaddressed.

Unretracted, this statement now takes on the status of a lie, since
you have seen my correction, Ray:

> > If you had bothered to READ what I wrote in the post to which you are
> > replying, you would know that I addressed several features of it; some
> > of this is left in above, some snipped for the sake of brevity-- but ONLY
> > for the sake of brevity.
> >
> > Basically, I have no reason to doubt what Mayr had to say about a
> > tiny, unidentified batch of scientists to whom he refers to as
> > "the original Darwinists". I have great respect for Mayr as a
> > scientist, and he may be similarly good at expounding on the
> > history of science.
>
> The point is that I produced scholarly support for my view,

...which you don't spell out here. And you have nothing to
say one way or the other about who those "original Darwinists"
were, nor even whether Mayr considered Darwin himself to
be one of them. Nor about the way Janet Browne came to
come to her conclusions about Darwin's true aims.

In short, you keep patting yourself on the back below while
failing to come to grips with anything I wrote.

> which complies with the rules of debate. You (or anyone for that matter) cannot dismiss as just another opinion.

Until justification is found for the one comment I was skeptical about,
I can and do dismiss it. Note how it contrasts with the next sentence
you quoted from Browne.

> The same renders yours as such while assuming compliance with the rules of debate to somehow be illegitimate?

One can lie and rewrite history copiously and still be in compliance with the
artificial rules of debating societies. These have to do with "winning
debates" rather than getting at the real truth of things.

> Your only choice is to produce scholarly support that differs then we can proceed.

You'll just have to accept a stalemate, then, until you show that
Browne's one claim that I was skeptical about was based on true
scholarship. You could do this by quoting either her reasoning or
something from Darwin that supports that one claim.

> > Janet Browne, OTOH, is an unknown to me and
> > so I remain skeptical of her claims until I see her documentation
> > and reasoning for her claims.

I should have said "I remain skeptical about that one claim about which
I expressed skepticism, and am willing to accept the rest unless I
see someone bring evidence against it."

> She's a Harvard Professor and world famous Darwin biographer. Trained to become a scientist, but chose a career in the history of science. Her credentials are impeccable.

By your standards? Does she believe in species immutability? If not,
by what standards are her credentials "impeccable"?

> Any ignorance on your part doesn't harm Browne as a scholarly source OR my use of her as such. I'm surprised you invoked your own personal ignorance instead of taking a few minutes to confirm her status.

All this *ad hominem* digression of yours has accomplished is that
I have now clarified my stand wrt the few snippets you quoted
from Janet Browne.

Can you now retract your claim that I did not address your OP? If
so, I'll forgive you for this bearing of false witness against me,
and never mention it again.

Peter Nyikos
Professor, Dept. of Mathematics

U. of S. Carolina, Columbia -- standard disclaimer--
http://people.math.sc.edu/nyikos/

[Peter Nyikos]

On Sunday, August 21, 2016 at 12:01:34 PM UTC-4, Rolf wrote:

> Now be a good boy and show us where the super-natural world begins, making
> the natural world obsolete. You don't even believe or understand the world
> of physics or chemistry. Life is not a miracle, an anomaly, life is a
> natural and unavoidable consequence of conditions on this planet.

I beg to differ about the "unavoidable" part.

> It is all
> about protons.

Is this a typo? You meant proteins, didn't you?

And the enigma of "the protein takeover" is exactly why I am skeptical
about the inevitability of life as we know it. It exists, yes, but
it could very well not have existed, even given the conditions that
prevailed on earth at the time you have in mind.

If you don't know what "the protein takeover" means, or why it is an
enigma, I'll gladly explain.

> From the most primitive stage, where gods was the cause of everything in the
> world - wind, rains, thunder and lightning, earthquakes and everything else,
> we have gained understanding and now we know how the world works. The gods
> are dead.
>
> The force within our soul is a different subject that we don't need discuss.

Do you still believe in Gnosticism, like you did back in May of last year?
If so, you need to explain what you mean by it. The ancient Gnostics
believed the earth was created by an Archon.

> The religious myths can be understood but most people are unaware, and
> really not interested in the subject.

On the other hand, some Hindus are very much interested in "the force
within our soul." Have you ever heard of the Sadhu Sangha newsgroup?

Peter Nyikos
Professor, Dept. of Mathematics

U. of S. Carolina at Columbia -- standard disclaimer--
http://people.math.sc.edu/nyikos/

[Dana Tweedy]

Which is not saying God does, or does not exist. Independent creation of
each species is contradicted by the evidence of common descent.

>
> 2. A theory cannot "include and exclude" God at the same time, so which is it?

The answer is 'neither'. The theory of gravity neither includes, or
excludes God, at the same time. The theory of germs does not include, or
exclude God. So does every other scientific theory, which has already
been pointed out.

So your ignorance of science is again on display.


DJT

[Dana Tweedy]

No, why would, I or anyone else? The theory of evolution is silent on
the existence of the planet Jupiter. It does not include Jupiter.
It does not exclude Jupiter either. It's silent about it.

DJT

[Dana Tweedy]

On 8/24/16 5:13 PM, Ray Martinez wrote:
> On Tuesday, August 23, 2016 at 8:41:28 AM UTC-7, Peter Nyikos wrote:
>> On Monday, August 22, 2016 at 9:21:30 PM UTC-4, Ray Martinez wrote:
>>> On Monday, August 22, 2016 at 5:31:32 AM UTC-7, raven1 wrote:
>>>> On Sun, 21 Aug 2016 15:14:42 -0700 (PDT), Ray Martinez
>>>> <pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Saturday, August 20, 2016 at 2:41:36 PM UTC-7, raven1 wrote:
>>>>>> On Thu, 18 Aug 2016 13:32:34 -0700 (PDT), Ray Martinez
>>>>>> <pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Ray, no scientific theory includes God. Why is the ToE the only one
>>>>>> you have a problem with?
>>>>>
>>>>> Then why do Peter Nyikos, and "Christian" Evolutionists, deny?
>>>>
>>>> I have no idea what you're asking. Denying what?
>>>
>>> You said "no scientific theory includes God." In this context: Then why do Peter
>>> Nyikos (in this thread) and "Christian" Evolutionists deny the ToE as excluding God?
>>
>> I do not deny that the ToE does not INclude God.
>
> Good. So the Theistic Evolution position is subjective?

Ray, all religious positions are subjective. The theory of evolution
does not include, or exclude God. It simply deals with the evidence
without regards to the supernatural.

>
>> Similarly, your
>> exegesis of Genesis 1 has never INcluded the statement that the earth
>> brought forth plants, has it? But you have never denied that it was the
>> earth that brought them forth, as opposed to God creating each species
>> of plant life *de novo*, have you?
>
> I'm struggling hard to understand whatever point you're attempting to make?

Which only demonstrates your inability to read and comprehend.

> I think all scholars agree that Genesis 1 says God created everything mentioned.

But all scholars would not agree that Genesis 1 laid out any mechanism
for that creation. It's your assumption that God "spoke" and it
happened through some magic trick. What Christians who accept
evolution believe is that God used natural processes to create.

>
>>
>> Note that I do not use your cunning equivocation "excludes," only
>> the clearly differing expressions "never included" and "never denied."
>
> "never included" and "never denied" contradict.

Again, you show you don't comprehend how language, or logic works.
There's no contradiction between "never included" and "never denied".
If one is making a cake, and does not include Cayenne pepper, one is not
denying that Cayenne pepper exists. If one builds a house, but does not
include Composition 4 plastic explosives, one is not denying that C4
explosive exists.

>
>>
>> If you were to stick to the wording of your adversaries [in this case,
>> Rolf, who used "no ... includes"], you would be rendered speechless
>> in short order, just as you were rendered speechless by the thorough,
>> scholarly exegesis by Clarke and Poole of Jesus's rebuke to Peter,
>> whose meaning you mangled back in February.
>>
>> Peter Nyikos
>
> Glad that you're back.

Insincerity is not an substitute for a reply to the points.

DJT

[Tim Anderson]

The Magisterium firmly states that it happened, but doesn't try to
guess at the time or place."

What sort of authority should we grant to a body that states that a thing happens, but provides no explanation of who, when, where, how or why?

A Ministerium, perhaps.

[Peter Nyikos]

I assume that you are continuing your most un-Christian boycott
of Dana Tweedy, but his reply was so good that am letting you see it:

No, why would, I or anyone else? The theory of evolution is silent on
the existence of the planet Jupiter. It does not include Jupiter.
It does not exclude Jupiter either. It's silent about it.

I'm sure Dana had your cunning equivocations about "exclude" in mind,
according to which exclusion of God makes the ToE naturalistic
and therefore atheistic, and causing you to draw the false conclusion
that anyone who believes the ToE (or any other naturalistic theory or concept)
is going against Jesus.

But look at Dana's example again. Would you say that since astronomy
does not include God in the calculation of the orbit of Jupiter,
or any of its science-based calculations and observations and
conclusions, that anyone engaged in astronomy is going against Jesus?

If you say that, I shudder to think about how YOU would have
behaved if you had been in charge of the trial of Galileo.

Peter Nyikos
Professor of Mathematics
U. of S. Carolina, Columbia -- standard disclaimer--
http://people.math.sc.edu/nyikos/

PS Lest you think that I always take Dana's side against you, here
is a case where I took your side against him (but also criticized
your notion that belief in God and belief in evolution are incompatible):

https://groups.google.com/forum/#!original/talk.origins/vla7IjdPI7I/CYrCmIRdEQAJ
Message-ID: <5a2bbbe5-a52e-41d4...@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: Merry Christmas
Date: Thu, 14 Jan 2016 14:44:11 -0800 (PST)

I think it is significant that Dana never replied to this post, nor
to reminders about its existence.

[Peter Nyikos]

No one knows who the original settlers to Madagascar were [except that
they came from somewhere in SE Asia or vicinity] nor when they settled there,
nor how they traveled there, nor why. But we know it happened, because their
descendants are there.

You could say that about a lot of peoples. The case of the Tasmanians
is even more nebulous. They were "Negroid." [I hope no one thinks that's
a racist expression.] But which stock of Negroids they came from, no
one knows, nor what route they took, nor do we know any of the things
that we don't know about the original inhabitants of Madagascar.

But I'm sure you grant a lot of authority to the archaeologists,
historians, and anthropologists who have studied these mysteries.

[Ray Martinez]

The Darwin quotation says no such thing. Suddenly Mark can't understand plain English or uncomplicated prose? Darwin said independent creation is the object of his refutation; therefore the Creator is his opponent: evolution excludes God.

So SHOW us Mark exactly where Darwin said God isn't excluded?

Of course you're not this stupid. You're a lying Atheist attempting to change the plain meaning of an unambiguous quotation that flatly refutes EVERYTHING you've said.

Darwin said what he said about independent creation in the context of his theory. Thus his theory, unlike independent creation, excludes God. Darwin isn't working for God or Creationism, but for material nature itself and evolution. And suddenly you don't understand? Like I said you're a lying Atheist.

Throughout the Origin Darwin argues against the creation concepts thus he is arguing against the Creator causing species. In place of the Creator, Darwin argues for material nature as the true origin of new species. So the contrast is clear: independent creation vs. material nature; the latter excludes God, God is explicitly accounted for in the object of refutation, and specifically excluded in the opposing theory of evolution.

Yet you don't understand this crystal clear contrast because you're a stereotypical lying Atheist who has been caught red handed attempting to cover for evil "Christian" Evolutionists.

Dear Audience: We've always claimed Darwinists lie brazenly. Mark Isaak proves the claim in spectacular fashion. This is WHY we are anti-evolutionists.

Mark: Go to Hell.

Ray

[Ray Martinez]

On Thursday, August 25, 2016 at 12:16:22 PM UTC-7, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> On Wednesday, August 24, 2016 at 7:41:24 PM UTC-4, Ray Martinez wrote:
> > On Tuesday, August 23, 2016 at 8:21:28 AM UTC-7, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> > > On Saturday, August 20, 2016 at 4:36:37 PM UTC-4, Ray Martinez wrote:
> > > > On Friday, August 19, 2016 at 6:11:40 PM UTC-7, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> > > > > On Thursday, August 18, 2016 at 8:16:42 PM UTC-4, *Hemidactylus* wrote:
> > > > > > Google Groups Line Wrap Nightmare below!!! WTF!!!
> > > > > > > On 08/18/2016 04:32 PM, Ray Martinez wrote:
> > > > > > > https://groups.google.com/d/msg/talk.origins/IjGHRwVchPA/OEeuHsM2BAAJ
> > >
> > > > > > > Mayr: "There is indeed one belief that all true original Darwinians
> > > > > > > held in common, and that was their rejection of creationism,
> > > > > > > their rejection of special creation. This was the flag around which
> > > > > > > they assembled and under which they marched.
> > > > >
> > > > > See, now Mayr is narrowing them down further by sticking in "original"
> > > > > -- not that even wild horses could drag Ray into an acknowledgement of this.
>
> They still haven't dragged it out of Ray. Nor have I, or anyone else.

Dragged what out? I posted the quotation days ago. And suddenly the Evolutionists are unable to understand an uncomplicated statement by one of their own scholars?

Original Darwinists MEANS Darwin's first batch of scientific converts. Thus Mayr is talking about the core of scientists that FIRST came to accept Naturalism, species mutability, and common descent. Every Darwinian biologist today "descends" from this core. They hold to the EXACT same position: evolution is unguided, not controlled by God (Mayr). So Mayr establishes where science obtained its current position regarding unguided evolution: from DARWIN 1859 and his original converts.

What is it that you don't understand?

Since this original core accepted Darwin's view of evolution (unguided) said view represents the objective; any view found to disagree represents the subjective, which first and foremost includes the "view" of AAQ and Eddie and all other "Christian" Evolutionists, even William Dembski.

>
> > > > > <snip of more of the same, but only for the sake of brevity>
> > > > >
> > > > > > > 3. Darwin's Origin of Species----the book which contains the theory of
> > > > > > > natural selection, a theory that science still accepts----mentions the
> > > > > > > Creator, but does not assign any role IN the production of species.
> > > > >
> > > > > It does not deny it outright either, though, does it? Darwin freely
> > > > > acknowledged that there were many phenomena that he could not
> > > > > account for, like the Cambrian explosion.
>
> Of course, Ray did not acknowledge the existence of this
> comment on what he had posted. In fact, he lied (see below)
> that I had not addressed any of the points in his OP.

What does the point have to do with the OP? That's why I didn't address.

>
> > > > > > > So God is accounted for in the specific context of not involved
> > > > > > > in biological production (= atheistic).
> > > > >
> > > > > Riddle me this, if you can, Hemi: was Darwin himself one of those
> > > > > "original true Darwinists" or did they just appropriate his name
> > > > > for their movement?
>
> Hemi doesn't know enough about Darwin to commit himself on this
> question. I believe the same is true of Ray, but he cannot
> even bring himself to say ANYTHING one way or the other about it.

Freaking loony as it gets! As if Darwin isn't the founder of accepted evolution! As if there isn't literally 10,000 books written after 1950 saying exactly that!

"original true Darwinists" presupposes Darwin the founder! And you're able to understand complicated scientific arguments found in journals but suddenly said phrase doesn't imply Darwin the founder of the ToE?!!??!!

This degree of ignorance, or stupidity, is exactly why I don't answer every "point" made by a John Doe, but you're a university professor, Peter, you have no excuse.

>
> > > > > > > Harvard Professor, Darwin biographer, Janet Browne:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > "As it happened, nothing could have been further from Darwin's intention.
>
> An out of context sentence. To what does it refer? The following
> sentence only sheds a partial ray of light:

I posted way more than that. You shouldn't be making negative statements about a book that you haven't read----a book that is standard reading in Darwiniana.

Where did you obtain the idea that Mayr considered himself an original Darwinist? Original Darwinists were colleagues of Darwin while he lived. Mayr was born way after Darwin died!

Loony as it gets!

And Browne's statements are easily verified when you read the Origin AND Kingsley's letters to Darwin, which is her context. Good grief!

Reverend Kingsley wrote to Darwin, saying that he thought Darwin was attempting to convey how God really created. Browne, in this context, says what she says: Kingsley misunderstood Darwin's MAIN point----God didn't create any new species. The reason Browne said what she said is BECAUSE Darwin was arguing against the Creator (= independent creation of each new species). So she rightly humiliates the Reverend and "Christian" Evolutionists today. It was Darwin's MAIN POINT: Creatorism is false.

Again, Darwin argued AGAINST independent creation, so like Browne said, he "removed the Creator" from nature. So accepted evolution is NOT silent about God.

And how many Evolutionists in this thread alone have said evolutionary theory is silent about God?

Are we to believe they never read the Origin Of Species? And are we to believe that they don't know that the Origin is the founding document of accepted evolution----that the theory is STILL called "natural selection" (Darwin 1859: see book title)?

> In short, you keep patting yourself on the back below while
> failing to come to grips with anything I wrote.
>
> > which complies with the rules of debate. You (or anyone for that matter) cannot dismiss as just another opinion.
>
> Until justification is found for the one comment I was skeptical about,
> I can and do dismiss it. Note how it contrasts with the next sentence
> you quoted from Browne.
>
> > The same renders yours as such while assuming compliance with the rules of debate to somehow be illegitimate?
>
> One can lie and rewrite history copiously and still be in compliance with the
> artificial rules of debating societies. These have to do with "winning
> debates" rather than getting at the real truth of things.
>
> > Your only choice is to produce scholarly support that differs then we can proceed.
>
> You'll just have to accept a stalemate, then, until you show that
> Browne's one claim that I was skeptical about was based on true
> scholarship. You could do this by quoting either her reasoning or
> something from Darwin that supports that one claim.

ALL scholars say what Browne said. You're attacking the source as somehow illegitimate when in fact I have complied with the rules of debate and supported my view with a well respected historian of science, Harvard Professor Janet Browne.

You haven't produced any scholar to support your ignorant nay saying, not even one, and you've blessed yourself with a stalemate.

>
> > > Janet Browne, OTOH, is an unknown to me and
> > > so I remain skeptical of her claims until I see her documentation
> > > and reasoning for her claims.
>
> I should have said "I remain skeptical about that one claim about which
> I expressed skepticism, and am willing to accept the rest unless I
> see someone bring evidence against it."
>
> > She's a Harvard Professor and world famous Darwin biographer. Trained to become a scientist, but chose a career in the history of science. Her credentials are impeccable.
>
> By your standards? Does she believe in species immutability? If not,
> by what standards are her credentials "impeccable"?

Like almost all Darwin scholars today, she's an Atheist and of course a Darwinist! You're inexcusably ignorant. Is any Harvard Professor not an Atheist or Darwinist? Is there any professor in your university who isn't a Darwinist?

The ultimate point here is that "Christian" Evolutionists don't have even one historical or scientific fact to justify their acceptance of evolution. The objective facts show evolution an enterprise of Atheism from the get-go.

CEists: where are your quotations supporting your position? Still waiting....

Ray

[Peter Nyikos]

On Friday, August 26, 2016 at 7:10:03 PM UTC-4, Ray Martinez wrote:
> On Thursday, August 25, 2016 at 12:16:22 PM UTC-7, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> > On Wednesday, August 24, 2016 at 7:41:24 PM UTC-4, Ray Martinez wrote:
> > > On Tuesday, August 23, 2016 at 8:21:28 AM UTC-7, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> > > > On Saturday, August 20, 2016 at 4:36:37 PM UTC-4, Ray Martinez wrote:
> > > > > On Friday, August 19, 2016 at 6:11:40 PM UTC-7, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> > > > > > On Thursday, August 18, 2016 at 8:16:42 PM UTC-4, *Hemidactylus* wrote:
> > > > > > > Google Groups Line Wrap Nightmare below!!! WTF!!!
> > > > > > > > On 08/18/2016 04:32 PM, Ray Martinez wrote:
> > > > > > > > https://groups.google.com/d/msg/talk.origins/IjGHRwVchPA/OEeuHsM2BAAJ
> > > >
> > > > > > > > Mayr: "There is indeed one belief that all true original Darwinians
> > > > > > > > held in common, and that was their rejection of creationism,
> > > > > > > > their rejection of special creation. This was the flag around which
> > > > > > > > they assembled and under which they marched.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > See, now Mayr is narrowing them down further by sticking in "original"
> > > > > > -- not that even wild horses could drag Ray into an acknowledgement of this.
> >
> > They still haven't dragged it out of Ray. Nor have I, or anyone else.
>
> Dragged what out? I posted the quotation days ago.
> And suddenly the Evolutionists are unable to understand an uncomplicated
> statement by one of their own scholars?

I understood it, but given the grandiose conclusions you try to
draw from it, I wonder whether YOU understand it.

> Original Darwinists MEANS Darwin's first batch of scientific converts.

Hence, only a tiny batch of Darwinists, unlike later batches who had
a more nuanced view of things, believing in evolution without
necessarily thinking that there was no supernatural involvement with it.

And not all converts of Darwin were scientific. Some might have been
like Stalin, to whom Darwinism was just a weapon against Christianity.
You certainly agree with Stalin about that, don't you?

> Thus Mayr is talking about the core of scientists that FIRST came to accept Naturalism, species mutability, and common descent. Every Darwinian biologist today "descends" from this core. They hold to the EXACT same position: evolution is unguided, not controlled by God (Mayr).

Where did Mayr say that? not in anything you've quoted from him here.
He wasn't stupid enough to say something like "Every Darwinian

biologist today "descends" from this core."

> So Mayr establishes where science obtained its current position regarding unguided evolution: from DARWIN 1859 and his original converts.
>
> What is it that you don't understand?

I understand that you are putting words into Mayr's mouth.

>
> Since this original core accepted Darwin's view of evolution (unguided)
> said view represents the objective;

The objective of a tiny group, who like the first converts to just
about anything, might be expected to be far more extreme and zealous
than those who come later.

>any view found to disagree represents the subjective,

You are making a ridiculous wordplay on the word "objective." You
think conflating two totally different meanings of the word
is fiendishly clever, don't you?

"Hitting the target is the objective of the archer. Any view
found to disagree with that use of the arrow is subjective."

More importantly, you are now going way beyond what you
quoted from Mayr in your crusade against Christians who
sin a lot less against Jesus's commandment against bearing
false witness than you do:

> which first and foremost includes the "view" of AAQ and Eddie and all other "Christian" Evolutionists, even William Dembski.

In another post you acknowledged that anyone who believes in divinely
guided evolution does not conform to your idea of an evolutionist.

How much longer will you go on talking out of both sides of your
mouth like this?

> >
> > > > > > <snip of more of the same, but only for the sake of brevity>
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > > 3. Darwin's Origin of Species----the book which contains the theory of
> > > > > > > > natural selection, a theory that science still accepts----mentions the
> > > > > > > > Creator, but does not assign any role IN the production of species.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > It does not deny it outright either, though, does it? Darwin freely
> > > > > > acknowledged that there were many phenomena that he could not
> > > > > > account for, like the Cambrian explosion.
> >
> > Of course, Ray did not acknowledge the existence of this
> > comment on what he had posted. In fact, he lied (see below)
> > that I had not addressed any of the points in his OP.
>
> What does the point have to do with the OP?

It comes IMMEDIATELY AFTER something you wrote in the OP, and refers
directly to it. And you've given me one more reason for saying
it to Hemi instead of you: you are playing a Harshman-style
game of pretending not to see something that an average 8-year old
can see.

> That's why I didn't address

I see: you are playing dumb to avoid the clear fact that you
lied about me not addressing anything in the OP. And the part
you chose to play dumb about were YOUR own words.

> > > > > > > > So God is accounted for in the specific context of not involved
> > > > > > > > in biological production (= atheistic).
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Riddle me this, if you can, Hemi: was Darwin himself one of those
> > > > > > "original true Darwinists" or did they just appropriate his name
> > > > > > for their movement?
> >
> > Hemi doesn't know enough about Darwin to commit himself on this
> > question. I believe the same is true of Ray, but he cannot
> > even bring himself to say ANYTHING one way or the other about it.
>
> Freaking loony as it gets!

You are describing your own (deliberate?) misunderstanding of
the plain meaning of what I wrote.

YOU said up there that the "original true Darwinists" were
Darwin's first converts. Would you think it is freaky loony to
think that St. Peter wasn't one of St. Peter's first *converts*?

>As if Darwin isn't the founder of
> accepted evolution! As if there isn't literally 10,000 books written after 1950 saying exactly that!

So you think the founder of anything is one of the founder's first
converts?

Are you so convinced of this that anyone who doesn't
think that is "freaky loony"? If so, you have the emotional age
of an infant.

Will you claim not to understand why I am asking these questions?
Then you will, in effect, be admitting to having a very low IQ.

> "original true Darwinists" presupposes Darwin the founder!

Sorry, you will have to quote something from Mayr to that effect.
Unless you do that, I will assume that you are cherry-picking
from what he wrote.

> And you're able to understand complicated scientific arguments found in journals but suddenly said phrase doesn't imply Darwin the founder of the ToE?!!??!!

"Darwinist" is a word subject to many meanings.

>
> This degree of ignorance, or stupidity, is exactly why I don't answer every "point" made by a John Doe, but you're a university professor, Peter, you have no excuse.

As a university professor, I have come across more than one example
of how the converts of someone distorted the founder's ideas so much
that the historian writing about it said, "It's a real question whether
___________ was one of the ___________ists." If I think hard enough,
I might be able to remember one or two specific examples of this.

Anyway, I can give you an example of such an incident.
When St. Francis returned to the group of Franciscans
that he had founded, he was appalled to see how far they
and those who had joined them had strayed
from the simple rule of life he had originally founded.
At that moment, he might well have wanted people to stop calling him a
"Franciscan" until he had straightened things out.

IIRC he never really succeeded in straightening things out.

You've made me curious to delve deeply into that part of history.

In fact, I'll say goodnight here, and turn in early for the weekend,
and resume replying to your post on Monday.

Have a nice weekend.

Peter Nyikos

[Dana Tweedy]

Or, more correctly, Mark does not make the same mistake you do, due to
your own blindness.

> Darwin said independent creation is the object of his refutation; therefore the Creator is his opponent: evolution excludes God.

Unless God can create though other means than independent creation. You,
Ray seem very eager to limit God's creativity.

>
> So SHOW us Mark exactly where Darwin said God isn't excluded?

The quote from Darwin above says absolutely nothing about God, or
excluding God. At most it only excludes one means that God could have
used. You keep trying to limit God to this one and only method you
allow God to use.

>
> Of course you're not this stupid.

But alas, Ray, you are indeed this stupid.

> You're a lying Atheist attempting to change the plain meaning of an unambiguous quotation that flatly refutes EVERYTHING you've said.

Mark is not the one lying here, Ray. You know that.

>
> Darwin said what he said about independent creation in the context of his theory. Thus his theory, unlike independent creation, excludes God.

No, it simply explains the evidence without directly invoking God.
Since "independent creation" has never been observed, and it is
untestable, and unfalsifiable, it's not science. "Independent Creation"
does not simply "include" God, it requires God as a proximate cause.
However, there's no reason why God must be limited to only one means of
creation. God can create however he likes, including using natural
processes that don't openly require a supernatural touch.

> Darwin isn't working for God or Creationism, but for material nature itself and evolution.

No, Darwin was working *through* science. Science is a means of
investigation that does not concern itself with either proving, or
disproving religious beliefs. If God is involved in nature, then
evolution is God's way of creation. "Material nature" is what can be
seen, felt and tested. Non material supernatural beings may, or may not
be involved, but are not something science deals with.

> And suddenly you don't understand? Like I said you're a lying Atheist.

Like usual, Ray, when you find yourself bested, you resort to name
calling and petulant false accusations.

>
> Throughout the Origin Darwin argues against the creation concepts thus he is arguing against the Creator causing species.

Again, Ray, Darwin was arguing for a particular explanation, the one
that is supported by observation, and evidence. He's not arguing
against God causing species, he's arguing for a natural and observable
mechanism by which species diversify.

Because your personal wish is that God can only create through your
approved means, you are arrogantly telling God that he's only allowed to
create in the way you want him to.

> In place of the Creator, Darwin argues for material nature as the true origin of new species.

Material nature is part of God's creation. Darwin was showing that
physical laws and properties are sufficient, and one doesn't have to
require showy magic tricks from the demiurge you limit God to be.

> So the contrast is clear: independent creation vs. material nature; the latter excludes God, God is explicitly accounted for in the object of refutation, and specifically excluded in the opposing theory of evolution.
>

Unless you understand that "material nature" is God's creation.
"Independent creation", if it had happened that way, would have left
very different set of evidence. God could have created that way, but
the evidence shows that he did not. Your first impulse is to deny God's
existence if he acted more in more subtle ways. For you, Ray, God is
either a cheap stage magician, or he does not exist.

> Yet you don't understand this crystal clear contrast because you're a stereotypical lying Atheist who has been caught red handed attempting to cover for evil "Christian" Evolutionists.

and yet again, Ray demonstrates that without any intellectual ammo, he
takes the easy method of insults and false accusations.

>
> Dear Audience: We've always claimed Darwinists lie brazenly. Mark Isaak proves the claim in spectacular fashion. This is WHY we are anti-evolutionists.
>

Ray, the more you attempt to say that others are lying, you expose
yourself as the true liar here.


> Mark: Go to Hell.

And Ray also shows his utter lack of Christian love or empathy.


DJT

[Rolf]

"Ray Martinez" <pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:54b1df1b-c895-4ec7...@googlegroups.com...

?
Rolf

> Ray
>

[Rolf]

"jillery" <69jp...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:olfsrb5ojm3dmfs3t...@4ax.com...

But that is one of those things that seems to be beyond Ray's capability to
fathom.

[AlwaysAskingQuestions]

On Fri, 26 Aug 2016 16:04:49 -0700 (PDT), Ray Martinez
<pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote:

>On Thursday, August 25, 2016 at 12:16:22 PM UTC-7, Peter Nyikos wrote:
>> On Wednesday, August 24, 2016 at 7:41:24 PM UTC-4, Ray Martinez wrote:
>> > On Tuesday, August 23, 2016 at 8:21:28 AM UTC-7, Peter Nyikos wrote:
>> > > On Saturday, August 20, 2016 at 4:36:37 PM UTC-4, Ray Martinez wrote:
>> > > > On Friday, August 19, 2016 at 6:11:40 PM UTC-7, Peter Nyikos wrote:
>> > > > > On Thursday, August 18, 2016 at 8:16:42 PM UTC-4, *Hemidactylus* wrote:
>> > > > > > Google Groups Line Wrap Nightmare below!!! WTF!!!
>> > > > > > > On 08/18/2016 04:32 PM, Ray Martinez wrote:
>> > > > > > > https://groups.google.com/d/msg/talk.origins/IjGHRwVchPA/OEeuHsM2BAAJ
>> > >
>> > > > > > > Mayr: "There is indeed one belief that all true original Darwinians
>> > > > > > > held in common, and that was their rejection of creationism,
>> > > > > > > their rejection of special creation. This was the flag around which
>> > > > > > > they assembled and under which they marched.
>> > > > >
>> > > > > See, now Mayr is narrowing them down further by sticking in "original"
>> > > > > -- not that even wild horses could drag Ray into an acknowledgement of this.
>>
>> They still haven't dragged it out of Ray. Nor have I, or anyone else.
>
>Dragged what out? I posted the quotation days ago. And suddenly the Evolutionists are unable to understand an uncomplicated statement by one of their own scholars?
>
>Original Darwinists MEANS Darwin's first batch of scientific converts. Thus Mayr is talking about the core of scientists that FIRST came to accept Naturalism, species mutability, and common descent. Every Darwinian biologist today "descends" from this core. They hold to the EXACT same position: evolution is unguided, not controlled by God (Mayr). So Mayr establishes where science obtained its current position regarding unguided evolution: from DARWIN 1859 and his original converts.

And you still continue to ignore that Mayr, as originally quoted by
you, said all *true* original Darwinians.

I was prepared to give you the benefit of the doubt that it was a
genuine mistake the first time around but your continued persistence
with it means that you are trying to present a falsehood. How does
that square with your version of Christianity?

[...]

[Mark Isaak]

You did not even read my post beyond the first sentence. You're not one
who should complain about not understanding.

> So SHOW us Mark exactly where Darwin said God isn't excluded?

I did. In fact, you did. You are simply incapable of understanding
what you read.

> [...]
> Mark: Go to Hell.

It is plain to see that you have chosen to exclude God from your own
life. Perhaps, if you see excluding God as a problem, you should first
look there.

[Rolf]

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

news:17f8f522-dafd-4b28...@googlegroups.com...

Ray - plain Ray without the silly Paleyan immutabilist etcetera credentials
this time, reveal himself as a devout Christian. That is, his own, personal
kind of Christendom. Anybody want to join him there?

Rolf, Atheist, per Ray's definition: anybody accepting the scientific theory
of evolution.

[Ray Martinez]

On Saturday, August 27, 2016 at 12:55:03 AM UTC-7, AlwaysAskingQuestions wrote:
> On Fri, 26 Aug 2016 16:04:49 -0700 (PDT), Ray Martinez
> <pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >On Thursday, August 25, 2016 at 12:16:22 PM UTC-7, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> >> On Wednesday, August 24, 2016 at 7:41:24 PM UTC-4, Ray Martinez wrote:
> >> > On Tuesday, August 23, 2016 at 8:21:28 AM UTC-7, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> >> > > On Saturday, August 20, 2016 at 4:36:37 PM UTC-4, Ray Martinez wrote:
> >> > > > On Friday, August 19, 2016 at 6:11:40 PM UTC-7, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> >> > > > > On Thursday, August 18, 2016 at 8:16:42 PM UTC-4, *Hemidactylus* wrote:
> >> > > > > > Google Groups Line Wrap Nightmare below!!! WTF!!!
> >> > > > > > > On 08/18/2016 04:32 PM, Ray Martinez wrote:
> >> > > > > > > https://groups.google.com/d/msg/talk.origins/IjGHRwVchPA/OEeuHsM2BAAJ
> >> > >
> >> > > > > > > Mayr: "There is indeed one belief that all true original Darwinians
> >> > > > > > > held in common, and that was their rejection of creationism,
> >> > > > > > > their rejection of special creation. This was the flag around which
> >> > > > > > > they assembled and under which they marched.
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > > See, now Mayr is narrowing them down further by sticking in "original"
> >> > > > > -- not that even wild horses could drag Ray into an acknowledgement of this.
> >>
> >> They still haven't dragged it out of Ray. Nor have I, or anyone else.
> >
> >Dragged what out? I posted the quotation days ago. And suddenly the Evolutionists are unable to understand an uncomplicated statement by one of their own scholars?
> >
> >Original Darwinists MEANS Darwin's first batch of scientific converts. Thus Mayr is talking about the core of scientists that FIRST came to accept Naturalism, species mutability, and common descent. Every Darwinian biologist today "descends" from this core. They hold to the EXACT same position: evolution is unguided, not controlled by God (Mayr). So Mayr establishes where science obtained its current position regarding unguided evolution: from DARWIN 1859 and his original converts.
>
> And you still continue to ignore that Mayr, as originally quoted by
> you, said all *true* original Darwinians.

And you have continually failed to make a point about the fact. That's why I haven't answered.

No one disputes the fact that I posted the Mayr quotation or its content. So what's your point or issue about the word "true"?

Ray

[....]

[Ray Martinez]

Don't bother.

Peter's reply, in its entirety, as seen above, is self-evident deliberate misrepresentation, distortion, and/or twisting of what was quoted, said, and/or argued. Moreover, Peter Nyikos, despite his academic credentials in mathematics, reveals himself ignorant concerning basic history of evolution. Thus, the foregoing facts dictate that I am not the least bit obligated to create a reply, but only point out, or remind, that the reason Peter Nyikos willfully suppresses uncomplicated facts via deliberate twisting, distortion, and misrepresentation, is because he wants the objective fact of the matter obscured. That objective fact is the fact that accepted evolution, or Darwinian evolution, is a pro-Atheism enterprise from its inception, and Peter Nyikos will do anything necessary to suppress.

Ernst Mayr told us that all true original Darwinian scientists determined evolution was NOT controlled by God. Science today holds to this EXACT position. Seen best in the general description of natural selection and common descent: unguided, undirected, and unintelligent (invisible Intelligence, Director, and/or Guide are absent).

Janet Browne told us that the Reverend Charles Kingsley, a contemporary of Darwin, misunderstood his MAIN POINT: the Creator did not create any living thing, past or present. Independent creation is false.

Both scholarly facts, seen above, support my claim that accepted evolution, or Darwinian evolution----the thing itself----is pro-Atheism; and the fact that evolution is NOT silent about God, but against God. On page 6 of the Origin, Darwin said his object of refutation was independent creation of each species. God accounted for explicitly, and ruled out. God has no role in Darwin's theory, so evolution is pro-Atheism. This is WHY Atheists are fanatically pro-Darwin and evolution.

Therefore "Christian" Evolutionists are, like I've been saying, inexcusably ignorant, stupid, and evil (quote marks more than justified). No one can say Christ led them to accept a theory, or any part of it, that says His Father is absent from nature.

Ken Miller and William Dembski, for example, claim to be followers of Christ yet both men accept the MAIN cause-and-effect claim of Darwinian evolution: natural selection causing micro-evolution.

Ray (Protestant Evangelical; Old Earth-Young Biosphere; Paleyan Creationist-species immutabilist)

[Ray Martinez]

Credentials? How ridiculous! Those are stated biases, something Darwinists always try to conceal.

Ray

[Earle Jones27]

*
Not all. Some don't.

earle
(Atheist, engineer, research executive, grandfather, Docent, naturally
curly hair.)

[AlwaysAskingQuestions]

On Sun, 28 Aug 2016 14:18:58 -0700 (PDT), Ray Martinez

You were deliberately leaving out the *true* limiter in your following
arguments as if Mayr was talking about *all* Darwinists when he
wasn't.

[AlwaysAskingQuestions]

On Sun, 28 Aug 2016 15:03:12 -0700 (PDT), Ray Martinez
<pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote:

[...]

>Ernst Mayr told us that all true original Darwinian scientists determined evolution was NOT controlled by God.

Well, at least you've put the *true* limitation back in so now please
tell us, what proportion of Darwinists do you think that *all true
original* ones represent?

[jillery]

On Sat, 27 Aug 2016 08:25:23 +0200, "Rolf" <rolf.a...@gmail.com>
wrote:

For Ray, one could say some things are abyss-ally unfathomable.

[Peter Nyikos]

Yeah, wasn't it ridiculous of you to flame me for not knowing
about Janet Browne's credentials?

Oh, wait...you are admitting to stated biases about being a Paleyian
immutabilist, aren't you? IOW, you imply that it is ridiculous
to call these "credentials" of yours, right?

As for being a Christian -- don't you realize that telling Mark to
go to Hell is at least as bad as saying "raca" to him -- something
Jesus expressly condemned in the sermon on the Mount?

I think even Rolf knows this much, hence his sarcastic comment
about your particular brand of "Christendom" -- which no conscientious
follower of Christ should want to join.

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

PS Back in January, I told Rolf the following:

Ray's standard way of handling such debacles is to point out that Satan
is also shown in the Bible as quoting scripture. Small wonder he hardly
ever quotes from it himself.

[Rolf]

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

news:1e6eaeb1-d26d-426c...@googlegroups.com...

Yes, just a couple of stated biases. You need not post the whole list, just
tell us how long it is.


> Ray
>

[Bob Casanova]

On Thu, 25 Aug 2016 09:01:28 -0700, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off>:

>On Wed, 24 Aug 2016 15:53:38 -0700 (PDT), the following
>appeared in talk.origins, posted by Ray Martinez
><pyram...@yahoo.com>:

>
>>On Tuesday, August 23, 2016 at 11:06:28 AM UTC-7, Bob Casanova wrote:
>>> On Tue, 23 Aug 2016 07:40:39 -0400, the following appeared
>>> in talk.origins, posted by raven1
>>> <quotht...@nevermore.com>:
>>>
>>> >On Mon, 22 Aug 2016 18:17:35 -0700 (PDT), Ray Martinez
>>> ><pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>> >
>>> >>On Monday, August 22, 2016 at 5:31:32 AM UTC-7, raven1 wrote:
>>> >>> On Sun, 21 Aug 2016 15:14:42 -0700 (PDT), Ray Martinez
>>> >>> <pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>> >>>
>>> >>> >On Saturday, August 20, 2016 at 2:41:36 PM UTC-7, raven1 wrote:
>>> >>> >> On Thu, 18 Aug 2016 13:32:34 -0700 (PDT), Ray Martinez
>>> >>> >> <pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>> >>> >>
>>> >>> >> Ray, no scientific theory includes God. Why is the ToE the only one
>>> >>> >> you have a problem with?
>>> >>> >
>>> >>> >Then why do Peter Nyikos, and "Christian" Evolutionists, deny?
>>> >>>
>>> >>> I have no idea what you're asking. Denying what?
>>> >>
>>> >>You said "no scientific theory includes God." In this context: Then why do Peter
>>> >>Nyikos (in this thread) and "Christian" Evolutionists deny the ToE as excluding God?
>>> >
>>> >Scientific theories don't exclude God either. They are silent on the
>>> >topic one way or another.
>>>
>>> Ray has never "gotten" this, and never will. The above
>>> exchange is typical RaySpeak.
>
>>"I can entertain no doubt, after the most deliberate study and dispassionate judgment of which I am capable, that the view which most naturalists entertain, and which I formerly entertained----namely, that each species has been independently created----is erroneous. I am fully convinced that species are not immutable" (Darwin 1859:6; London: John Murray).
>

>Yes. So? Does your excuse for a brain somehow conclude from
>that statement that Darwin disbelieved in God? Here's a
>hint: Denial of something inferred from the Bible has
>nothing to do with belief in God. And science is indeed mute
>of the subject of deities.
>
>Your conflation of belief in God with acceptance of the
>Bible as read literally is still one of your basic problems
>along with your idiotic assertion that failure to include
>God in science is synonymous with denial that God exists, as
>noted above.

[Crickets...]

Again.
--

Bob C.

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

- Isaac Asimov

[Peter Nyikos]

This rant of yours reads like a prefabricated speech. It shows no awareness
of any details in the post to which you are replying. Did you
compose it before you saw my reply, and decide to post it no matter
what I wrote?

> Ernst Mayr told us that all true original Darwinian scientists determined
> evolution was NOT controlled by God. Science today holds to this EXACT position.

Mayr never wrote anything like the second sentence of the two immediately above.
And the first is a clumsy, amateurish spin on what you quoted from him.
Mayr wasn't stupid enough to claim that the original Darwinian scientists
DETERMINED that evolution was not controlled by God. They jumped to that
conclusion on the basis of laughably small evidence.

Or did they merely *argue* for that conclusion?

The rest is just a rehash of earlier jumping by you to conclusions
on the basis of some fragmentary comments that you posted.

> Seen best in the general description of natural selection and common descent: unguided, undirected, and unintelligent (invisible Intelligence, Director, and/or Guide are absent).
>
> Janet Browne told us that the Reverend Charles Kingsley, a contemporary of Darwin, misunderstood his MAIN POINT: the Creator did not create any living thing, past or present. Independent creation is false.
>
> Both scholarly facts, seen above, support my claim that accepted evolution, or Darwinian evolution----the thing itself----is pro-Atheism; and the fact that evolution is NOT silent about God, but against God. On page 6 of the Origin, Darwin said his object of refutation was independent creation of each species.

Note, "of each species," which allows for almost all species to have
been created. You keep ignoring this basic fact of English grammar.

> God accounted for explicitly, and ruled out. God has no role in Darwin's theory, so evolution is pro-Atheism. This is WHY Atheists are fanatically pro-Darwin and evolution.
>
> Therefore "Christian" Evolutionists are, like I've been saying, inexcusably ignorant, stupid, and evil (quote marks more than justified). No one can say Christ led them to accept a theory, or any part of it, that says His Father is absent from nature.
>
> Ken Miller and William Dembski, for example, claim to be followers of Christ yet both men accept the MAIN cause-and-effect claim of Darwinian evolution: natural selection causing micro-evolution.

You've just settled into a broken record routine in your last sentence,
continuing to speak out of the "undirected" side of your mouth.

> Ray (Protestant Evangelical; Old Earth-Young Biosphere; Paleyan Creationist-species immutabilist)

And member of a denomination of unknown-to-me relationship to other
denominations.

Are your crusades against Christians in this newsgroup due to a conviction
that your denomination is the only true Christian one?

Peter Nyikos

[Ray Martinez]

On Tuesday, August 30, 2016 at 4:25:03 PM UTC-7, Peter Nyikos wrote:

[big snip of Peter defending his deliberate misrepresentations....]

> >
> > Both scholarly facts, seen above, support my claim that accepted evolution, or Darwinian evolution----the thing itself----is pro-Atheism; and the fact that evolution is NOT silent about God, but against God. On page 6 of the Origin, Darwin said his object of refutation was independent creation of each species.
>
> Note, "of each species," which allows for almost all species to have
> been created. You keep ignoring this basic fact of English grammar.
>

Since "each species" referred to independent creation AND its falsity, just the opposite is true. Your loony reply is blatantly contradictory: has Darwin arguing against and advocating Creationism.

No one can be THIS stupid, which means Peter Nyikos is deliberately misrepresenting an unambiguous Darwin quotation. The same supports our claim that Atheist-Evolutionist, Professor Peter Nyikos, is a brazen liar. Any one can fact check and confirm: Darwin said independent creation of each species is false in the overall context of advocating unguided evolution, which means the latter (unguided evolution) is non-supernatural or completely natural.

Yet Atheist Peter Nyikos claims ability to understand complicated scientific arguments in journals, but he is suddenly unable to understand an uncomplicated statement made by Darwin. The fact of the matter is that Peter Nyikos does understand but he has chosen to deliberately misrepresent for the sake of inexcusably stupid and evil "Christian" Evolutionists like AAQ, Eddie, and William Dembski.

Here is the Darwin quotation:

"I can entertain no doubt, after the most deliberate study and dispassionate judgment of which I am capable, that the view which most naturalists entertain, and which I formerly entertained----namely, that each species has been independently created----is erroneous. I am fully convinced that species are not immutable" (On The Origin 1859:6; London: John Murray).

The quotation says the view of science, at the time----independent creation of each species----is false. It implies Darwin's case for evolution is not a doctrine of creation; hence exactly why said evolution is described as unguided, undirected, and/or unintelligent.

I have no doubt Peter Nyikos will, once again, deliberately misrepresent an unambiguous quotation and prove our claim that Atheist-Evolutionists are brazen liars.

This is EXACTLY WHY we are Creationists: Evolutionists are liars. If they would dare to lie about an uncomplicated Darwin statement then how much more would they lie about complicated scientific evidence?

Ray (Paleyan Creationist)

[snip....]