Another Question For Ray (Victorian Scientists)

[Martin Harran]

You place a lot of emphasis on Victorian scientists and what their
views were.

Your clearly use modern technology and I'd guess that when you go to
the doctor, you want him to use the most up to date knowledge, not to
treat you on the basis of what doctors thought 150+ years ago; so why
do you place such importance on what scientists thought then?

[Ray Martinez]

Because that was the science Darwin was attempting to refute in the Origin. On page 6 he says "most naturalists" accepted each species created independently thus species were held immutable. I contend Darwin's theory is COMPLETELY false; therefore immutability and creation remain true.

Ray

[jillery]

Alex, the question is, "Why does Ray Martinez post answers which have
nothing to do with the questions he's asked?

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

Evelyn Beatrice Hall
Attributed to Voltaire

[Martin Harran]

On Sun, 6 Aug 2017 10:12:51 -0700 (PDT), Ray Martinez
<pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote:

>Because that was the science Darwin was attempting to refute in the Origin.

I don't think Darwin was trying to *refute* anything, he was simply
expanding existing knowledge but even if he was trying to refute
something, that is irrelevant, what matters is whether or not what he
said was right - by attacking him and his motives, you are simply
attacking the messenger and ignoring the message.

> On page 6 he says "most naturalists" accepted each species created independently thus species were held immutable. I contend Darwin's theory is COMPLETELY false; therefore immutability and creation remain true.

Sorry, that doesn't explain why you think the clock should stop and
everything found over the last 150 years just be ignored in the
biological sciences when you don't apply that principle to other areas
of science. You can't simply dismiss it as wrong because it appears to
challenge your personal religious beliefs, that takes you straight
into the Augustinian territory I posted about elsewhere.

[Ray Martinez]

Darwin told his audience, plainly and clearly, on page 6 of the Origin as to what science accepted when he was writing, independent creation of each species and species immutability, and that these positions were his object of refutation.

Since Darwin's species theory is in fact completely false, not having any evidence in support, independent creation and immutability remain scientifically true.

Ray (species immutabilist)

[jillery]

Once again, bald assertions are just as baldly refuted. You're
entitled to your own opinions. You're not entitled to your own facts.

[Ray Martinez]

What I said most clearly included a valid scientific reference, which in turn most clearly shows how dishonest Jillery, our Evolutionist actually is. Unfortunately nothing new here, ALmost all Evolutionists are brazenly dishonest when the facts support creation.

Ray

[Bill Rogers]

Ray, you said "Darwin told his audience, plainly and clearly, on page 6 of the Origin as to what science accepted when he was writing, independent creation of each species and species immutability, and that these positions were his object of refutation. "

That is correct, Darwin said that he was going to refute species immutability and independent creation.

Nobody here is claiming that Darwin did not say that or that that was in fact what Darwin set out to do, nor that before Darwin the majority of naturalists accepted independent creation and species immutability. So you're right about what Darwin said in that paragraph, and we all agree with you.

But you then said

"Since Darwin's species theory is in fact completely false, not having any evidence in support, independent creation and immutability remain scientifically true."

That is the bare, unsupported assertion you are making. The "Origin of Species" itself is full of evidence in support of the theory of evolution, and reams of additional evidence has been developed since then. If you want a "cite" try "Evolution" by Bergstrom and Dugatkin, 2012 W.W. Norton and Company.

https://www.amazon.com/Evolution-Carl-T-Bergstrom/dp/0393913414

[jillery]

On Wed, 9 Aug 2017 09:21:04 -0700 (PDT), Ray Martinez

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

>On Wednesday, August 9, 2017 at 9:10:05 AM UTC-7, jillery wrote:
>> On Wed, 9 Aug 2017 00:39:38 -0700 (PDT), Ray Martinez
>> <pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>> >Darwin told his audience, plainly and clearly, on page 6 of the Origin as to what science accepted when he was writing, independent creation of each species and species immutability, and that these positions were his object of refutation.
>> >
>> >Since Darwin's species theory is in fact completely false, not having any evidence in support, independent creation and immutability remain scientifically true.
>> >
>> >Ray (species immutabilist)
>>
>>
>> Once again, bald assertions are just as baldly refuted. You're
>> entitled to your own opinions. You're not entitled to your own facts.
>>
>

>What I said most clearly included a valid scientific reference, which in turn most clearly shows how dishonest Jillery, our Evolutionist actually is. Unfortunately nothing new here, ALmost all Evolutionists are brazenly dishonest when the facts support creation.
>
>Ray

To refresh your conveniently selective memory:

"Since Darwin's species theory is in fact completely false, not having
any evidence in support,"

So where's your "valid scientific reference" for that?

[raven1]

On Wed, 9 Aug 2017 00:39:38 -0700 (PDT), Ray Martinez
<pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote:

>Darwin told his audience, plainly and clearly, on page 6 of the Origin as to
>what science accepted when he was writing, independent creation of
>each species and species immutability, and that these positions were his object of refutation.
>
>Since Darwin's species theory is in fact completely false,

Unsupported assertion.

>not having any evidence in support,

Flat-out wrong.

>independent creation and immutability remain scientifically true.

That's not how it works. You still have to demonstrate that
"independent creation" and "immutability" are correct even if Darwin
is shown to be wrong.

[Bob Casanova]

On Wed, 9 Aug 2017 09:21:04 -0700 (PDT), the following
appeared in talk.origins, posted by Ray Martinez
<pyram...@yahoo.com>:

>On Wednesday, August 9, 2017 at 9:10:05 AM UTC-7, jillery wrote:
>> On Wed, 9 Aug 2017 00:39:38 -0700 (PDT), Ray Martinez
>> <pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>> >Darwin told his audience, plainly and clearly, on page 6 of the Origin as to what science accepted when he was writing, independent creation of each species and species immutability, and that these positions were his object of refutation.
>> >
>> >Since Darwin's species theory is in fact completely false, not having any evidence in support, independent creation and immutability remain scientifically true.

>> Once again, bald assertions are just as baldly refuted. You're
>> entitled to your own opinions. You're not entitled to your own facts.

>What I said most clearly included a valid scientific reference, which in turn most clearly shows how dishonest Jillery, our Evolutionist actually is. Unfortunately nothing new here, ALmost all Evolutionists are brazenly dishonest when the facts support creation.

I suspect she was referring to your bald, unsupported and
completely refuted (by the evidence you baldly and
incorrectly assert doesn't exist) assertion that "Darwin's
species theory is in fact completely false"; also to your
bald, unsupported and completely refuted (by the evidence
you baldly and incorrectly assert doesn't exist) assertion
that "independent creation and immutability remain
scientifically true".

Other than those minor details, and the claim that jillery
is dishonest, your post had no errors.
--

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

[jillery]

On Wed, 09 Aug 2017 12:57:54 -0400, jillery <69jp...@gmail.com>

wrote:

>On Wed, 9 Aug 2017 09:21:04 -0700 (PDT), Ray Martinez
><pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>On Wednesday, August 9, 2017 at 9:10:05 AM UTC-7, jillery wrote:
>>> On Wed, 9 Aug 2017 00:39:38 -0700 (PDT), Ray Martinez
>>> <pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> >Darwin told his audience, plainly and clearly, on page 6 of the Origin as to what science accepted when he was writing, independent creation of each species and species immutability, and that these positions were his object of refutation.
>>> >
>>> >Since Darwin's species theory is in fact completely false, not having any evidence in support, independent creation and immutability remain scientifically true.
>>> >
>>> >Ray (species immutabilist)
>>>
>>>
>>> Once again, bald assertions are just as baldly refuted. You're
>>> entitled to your own opinions. You're not entitled to your own facts.
>>>
>>
>>What I said most clearly included a valid scientific reference, which in turn most clearly shows how dishonest Jillery, our Evolutionist actually is. Unfortunately nothing new here, ALmost all Evolutionists are brazenly dishonest when the facts support creation.
>>
>>Ray
>
>
>To refresh your conveniently selective memory:
>
>"Since Darwin's species theory is in fact completely false, not having
>any evidence in support,"
>
>So where's your "valid scientific reference" for that?

Apparently you have no valid scientific reference for your bald
assertion above.

The right thing for you to do right here would be to retract your
gratuitous insults above.

[Ray Martinez]

On Wednesday, August 9, 2017 at 9:55:05 AM UTC-7, Bill Rogers wrote:
> On Wednesday, August 9, 2017 at 12:25:04 PM UTC-4, Ray Martinez wrote:
> > On Wednesday, August 9, 2017 at 9:10:05 AM UTC-7, jillery wrote:
> > > On Wed, 9 Aug 2017 00:39:38 -0700 (PDT), Ray Martinez
> > > <pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > >Darwin told his audience, plainly and clearly, on page 6 of the Origin as to what science accepted when he was writing, independent creation of each species and species immutability, and that these positions were his object of refutation.
> > > >
> > > >Since Darwin's species theory is in fact completely false, not having any evidence in support, independent creation and immutability remain scientifically true.
> > > >
> > > >Ray (species immutabilist)
> > >
> > >
> > > Once again, bald assertions are just as baldly refuted. You're
> > > entitled to your own opinions. You're not entitled to your own facts.
> > >
> > > --
> > > I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.
> > >
> > > Evelyn Beatrice Hall
> > > Attributed to Voltaire
> >
> > What I said most clearly included a valid scientific reference, which in turn most clearly shows how dishonest Jillery, our Evolutionist actually is. Unfortunately nothing new here, ALmost all Evolutionists are brazenly dishonest when the facts support creation.
> >
> > Ray
>
> Ray, you said "Darwin told his audience, plainly and clearly, on page 6 of the Origin as to what science accepted when he was writing, independent creation of each species and species immutability, and that these positions were his object of refutation. "
>
> That is correct, Darwin said that he was going to refute species immutability and independent creation.
>
> Nobody here is claiming that Darwin did not say that or that that was in fact what Darwin set out to do, nor that before Darwin the majority of naturalists accepted independent creation and species immutability. So you're right about what Darwin said in that paragraph, and we all agree with you.
>

Fine; but Martin Harran denied, and I thought Jillery was too since her comment was posted directly beneath the reference quotation. And I've seen Peter Nyikos deny as well.

> But you then said
>
> "Since Darwin's species theory is in fact completely false, not having any evidence in support, independent creation and immutability remain scientifically true."
>
> That is the bare, unsupported assertion you are making.

In the context of the OP I'm saying since we reject Darwin's theory as completely false the former positions of science (creation and immutability) remain true. But I understand your point.

>
The "Origin of Species" itself is full of evidence in support of the theory of evolution, and reams of additional evidence has been developed since then. If you want a "cite" try "Evolution" by Bergstrom and Dugatkin, 2012 W.W. Norton and Company.
>
> https://www.amazon.com/Evolution-Carl-T-Bergstrom/dp/0393913414

The ToE is built on Darwin, Bill. IF Darwin falls everything on top falls with him.

I know for a fact that natural selection doesn't exist. I'm still writing my refutation.

Ray

[Robert Camp]

On 8/12/17 5:14 PM, Ray Martinez wrote:
> On Wednesday, August 9, 2017 at 9:55:05 AM UTC-7, Bill Rogers wrote:
>> On Wednesday, August 9, 2017 at 12:25:04 PM UTC-4, Ray Martinez wrote:
>>> On Wednesday, August 9, 2017 at 9:10:05 AM UTC-7, jillery wrote:
>>>> On Wed, 9 Aug 2017 00:39:38 -0700 (PDT), Ray Martinez
>>>> <pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote:

<snip>

> I know for a fact that natural selection doesn't exist.

I know for a fact that you don't know that for a fact.

> I'm still writing my refutation.

Will it be intelligible to sane people?

[Ray Martinez]

I now understand what you're saying. Before I thought you were referring to something else.

Many Creationists including myself hold to the position that Darwin's theory was never, at anytime, true; therefore the former positions of science, independent creation and immutability, remain true. We are thus burdened with explaining how science came to accept a false theory. Do you follow that?

Ray

[Ray Martinez]

Because science accepted creation/immutability, I do not, but will anyway to remind the world and rub it in your faces. In the meantime, just read the Origin, it's all there.

Ray

[Bill Rogers]

You've been writing your refutation for quite a while now. But take your time.

>
> Ray

[Ernest Major]

On 13/08/2017 03:49, Ray Martinez wrote:

> My delusion mantra, as you have called it, exists WITHIN the context of Dawkins book "The God Delusion." I doubt that you have any idea what the Professor for the Public understanding of Science is really talking about, Robert. He is saying theology is completely incoherent and not understandable, and because science has knowledge that an unguided material agent of causation exists, natural selection, all Theists and Deists are suffering the God delusion.
>
> I am on record as saying that I understand natural selection as complete nonsense, and anyone who doesn't understand natural selection as complete nonsense doesn't understand natural selection.
>
> The fact that you guys believe that an unguided agent has produced the extreme organized complexity found in nature, including, for example, bat sonar and the human brain, is by far the most ridiculous claim of fact ever proposed and accepted. To even think it possible is quasi-delusional. Both examples are IC. Neither could have been produced incrementally by a selection process. So I am burdened with explaining how intelligent people could believe in utter nonsense. It all started with Darwin. Oddly he wasn't an Atheist or a Skeptic before he "discovered" natural selection. Prior to becoming a transmutationist he was a biblical literalist. So in my refutation I will take you back in time and show you exactly where Darwin went wrong, and why natural selection doesn't exist. In the meantime traverse to YouTube and ask yourself why no videos of natural selection, in action, as it allegedly occurs, exist? Your god, Robert, is like all gods, it's invisible. You believe in something that cannot be seen but is wholly reliant on inference, unlike Paley's Watchmaker which begins with an observation of design seen by very many people from all walks of life and social status.


You memory is rather short. Last time you made a claim that videos of
natural selection in action didn't exist links to such a video were
provided.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=plVk4NVIUh8

And even if such videos didn't exist your appeal to their absence would
be a transparent dodge. Just because observations don't lend themselves
to being shown in a video doesn't make the observations go away.

Natural selection is differential reproductive success causally
correlated with hereditary traits. Your readers are incredulous that you
could really be claiming that either than there is no differential
reproductive success, or that differential reproductive success is
purely random.

It is this, combined to your claim that there are no natural processes,
that leads to the inference that you are an occasionalist-evolutionist.
(Even that doesn't make natural selection go away - it just turns it
into a label for what God does. If you were ever to publish that
hypothesis I suspect that it will be met with as much enthusiasm as
Gosse's Omphalos. Scientists would ignore it for the same reasons;
theologians would object to it making God a mechanism, just as they
objected to Gosse making God a liar.)

In all your time here I've never seen you attempt to articulate a reason
why natural selection - differential reproductive success causally
correlated with hereditary traits - doesn't exist.

>
> So I agree with Dawkins, a delusion is at work but its working on believers in evolution, not believers in God.
>
>
> Ray
>


--
alias Ernest Major

[Ernest Major]

Are you now claiming that you're not writing a refutation of Darwinism?

To refute Darwinism you have to show that it is false; assuming it to be
false and then offering an explanation for its emergence is not a
refutation.

[jillery]

On Sat, 12 Aug 2017 17:38:46 -0700 (PDT), Ray Martinez

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

>On Wednesday, August 9, 2017 at 10:00:04 AM UTC-7, jillery wrote:
>> On Wed, 9 Aug 2017 09:21:04 -0700 (PDT), Ray Martinez
>> <pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>> >On Wednesday, August 9, 2017 at 9:10:05 AM UTC-7, jillery wrote:
>> >> On Wed, 9 Aug 2017 00:39:38 -0700 (PDT), Ray Martinez
>> >> <pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >Darwin told his audience, plainly and clearly, on page 6 of the Origin as to what science accepted when he was writing, independent creation of each species and species immutability, and that these positions were his object of refutation.
>> >> >
>> >> >Since Darwin's species theory is in fact completely false, not having any evidence in support, independent creation and immutability remain scientifically true.
>> >> >
>> >> >Ray (species immutabilist)
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Once again, bald assertions are just as baldly refuted. You're
>> >> entitled to your own opinions. You're not entitled to your own facts.
>> >>
>> >
>> >What I said most clearly included a valid scientific reference, which in turn most clearly shows how dishonest Jillery, our Evolutionist actually is. Unfortunately nothing new here, ALmost all Evolutionists are brazenly dishonest when the facts support creation.
>> >
>> >Ray
>>
>>
>> To refresh your conveniently selective memory:
>>
>> "Since Darwin's species theory is in fact completely false, not having
>> any evidence in support,"
>>
>> So where's your "valid scientific reference" for that?
>>

>I now understand what you're saying. Before I thought you were referring to something else.

I referred to exactly what you wrote. So now that you understand, why
am I still waiting for your "valid scientific reference"?

>Many Creationists including myself hold to the position that Darwin's theory was never, at anytime, true; therefore the former positions of science, independent creation and immutability, remain true. We are thus burdened with explaining how science came to accept a false theory. Do you follow that?
>
>Ray

That you hold a position is *not* a "valid scientific reference".

That you accept older scientific positions but not more recent ones is
*not* a "valid scientific reference".

That you assert a theory to be false is *not* a "valid scientific
reference".

The right thing to do here would be for you to provide a "valid
scientific reference", or retract your claim that I posted
dishonestly, or admit you have no idea what you're talking about.

[jillery]

On Sat, 12 Aug 2017 19:49:08 -0700 (PDT), Ray Martinez
<pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote:

>On Saturday, August 12, 2017 at 5:25:02 PM UTC-7, Robert Camp wrote:

>My delusion mantra, as you have called it, exists WITHIN the context of Dawkins book "The God Delusion." I doubt that you have any idea what the Professor for the Public understanding of Science is really talking about, Robert. He is saying theology is completely incoherent and not understandable, and because science has knowledge that an unguided material agent of causation exists, natural selection, all Theists and Deists are suffering the God delusion.

"The God Delusion" is not about science. Instead, it is about
Dawkins' philosophy. Dawkins is a scientists, but he didn't write it
as a scientist. There's a difference.

>I am on record as saying that I understand natural selection as complete nonsense, and anyone who doesn't understand natural selection as complete nonsense doesn't understand natural selection.
>
>The fact that you guys believe that an unguided agent has produced the extreme organized complexity found in nature, including, for example, bat sonar and the human brain, is by far the most ridiculous claim of fact ever proposed and accepted. To even think it possible is quasi-delusional. Both examples are IC. Neither could have been produced incrementally by a selection process. So I am burdened with explaining how intelligent people could believe in utter nonsense. It all started with Darwin. Oddly he wasn't an Atheist or a Skeptic before he "discovered" natural selection. Prior to becoming a transmutationist he was a biblical literalist. So in my refutation I will take you back in time and show you exactly where Darwin went wrong, and why natural selection doesn't exist. In the meantime traverse to YouTube and ask yourself why no videos of natural selection, in action, as it allegedly occurs, exist? Your god, Robert, is like all gods, it's invisible. You believe in somet
hing
that
>cannot be seen but is wholly reliant on inference, unlike Paley's Watchmaker which begins with an observation of design seen by very many people from all walks of life and social status.
>

>So I agree with Dawkins, a delusion is at work but its working on believers in evolution, not believers in God.
>
>
>Ray

Once again, your bald assertions are as easily refuted.

[Martin Harran]

On Sat, 12 Aug 2017 17:14:47 -0700 (PDT), Ray Martinez

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

>On Wednesday, August 9, 2017 at 9:55:05 AM UTC-7, Bill Rogers wrote:
>> On Wednesday, August 9, 2017 at 12:25:04 PM UTC-4, Ray Martinez wrote:
>> > On Wednesday, August 9, 2017 at 9:10:05 AM UTC-7, jillery wrote:
>> > > On Wed, 9 Aug 2017 00:39:38 -0700 (PDT), Ray Martinez
>> > > <pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> > >
>> > > >Darwin told his audience, plainly and clearly, on page 6 of the Origin as to what science accepted when he was writing, independent creation of each species and species immutability, and that these positions were his object of refutation.
>> > > >
>> > > >Since Darwin's species theory is in fact completely false, not having any evidence in support, independent creation and immutability remain scientifically true.
>> > > >
>> > > >Ray (species immutabilist)
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > Once again, bald assertions are just as baldly refuted. You're
>> > > entitled to your own opinions. You're not entitled to your own facts.
>> > >
>> > > --
>> > > I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.
>> > >
>> > > Evelyn Beatrice Hall
>> > > Attributed to Voltaire
>> >
>> > What I said most clearly included a valid scientific reference, which in turn most clearly shows how dishonest Jillery, our Evolutionist actually is. Unfortunately nothing new here, ALmost all Evolutionists are brazenly dishonest when the facts support creation.
>> >
>> > Ray
>>
>> Ray, you said "Darwin told his audience, plainly and clearly, on page 6 of the Origin as to what science accepted when he was writing, independent creation of each species and species immutability, and that these positions were his object of refutation. "
>>
>> That is correct, Darwin said that he was going to refute species immutability and independent creation.
>>
>> Nobody here is claiming that Darwin did not say that or that that was in fact what Darwin set out to do, nor that before Darwin the majority of naturalists accepted independent creation and species immutability. So you're right about what Darwin said in that paragraph, and we all agree with you.
>>
>
>Fine; but Martin Harran denied,

No, I was talking about the fact that Darwin's *purpose* wasn't to
refute immutability, he simply set out to investigate and, like all
good scientists, he went where the evidence led him. You've also
ignored the follow-on that I posted - "even if he was trying to refute

something, that is irrelevant, what matters is whether or not what he
said was right - by attacking him and his motives, you are simply
attacking the messenger and ignoring the message."

> and I thought Jillery was too since her comment was posted directly beneath the reference quotation. And I've seen Peter Nyikos deny as well.
>
>> But you then said
>>
>> "Since Darwin's species theory is in fact completely false, not having any evidence in support, independent creation and immutability remain scientifically true."
>>
>> That is the bare, unsupported assertion you are making.
>
>In the context of the OP I'm saying since we reject Darwin's theory as completely false the former positions of science (creation and immutability) remain true. But I understand your point.
>
>>
>The "Origin of Species" itself is full of evidence in support of the theory of evolution, and reams of additional evidence has been developed since then. If you want a "cite" try "Evolution" by Bergstrom and Dugatkin, 2012 W.W. Norton and Company.
>>
>> https://www.amazon.com/Evolution-Carl-T-Bergstrom/dp/0393913414
>
>The ToE is built on Darwin, Bill. IF Darwin falls everything on top falls with him.

You fall down on two counts. First of all, you have not shown Darwin
to be wrong. Secondly, even if Darwin was wrong that does not mean
that the ToE falls. For example, whilst Darwin was right about natural
selection, he was wrong in his ideas about pangenesis but is being
wrong about that had no impact whatsoever on the theory of evolution.

>
>I know for a fact

How do you know it for a*fact*?

[Martin Harran]

On Sat, 12 Aug 2017 19:49:08 -0700 (PDT), Ray Martinez
<pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote:

>On Saturday, August 12, 2017 at 5:25:02 PM UTC-7, Robert Camp wrote:

>My delusion mantra, as you have called it, exists WITHIN the context of Dawkins book "The God Delusion." I doubt that you have any idea what the Professor for the Public understanding of Science is really talking about, Robert. He is saying theology is completely incoherent and not understandable, and because science has knowledge that an unguided material agent of causation exists, natural selection, all Theists and Deists are suffering the God delusion.
>

>I am on record as saying that I understand natural selection as complete nonsense, and anyone who doesn't understand natural selection as complete nonsense doesn't understand natural selection.
>
>The fact that you guys believe that an unguided agent has produced the extreme organized complexity found in nature, including, for example, bat sonar and the human brain, is by far the most ridiculous claim of fact ever proposed and accepted. To even think it possible is quasi-delusional. Both examples are IC. Neither could have been produced incrementally by a selection process. So I am burdened with explaining how intelligent people could believe in utter nonsense. It all started with Darwin. Oddly he wasn't an Atheist or a Skeptic before he "discovered" natural selection. Prior to becoming a transmutationist he was a biblical literalist.

So why do you think he changed?

> So in my refutation I will take you back in time and show you exactly where Darwin went wrong, and why natural selection doesn't exist.

Sorry Ray, we've been waiting for your refutation for a long, long
time and most people here don't think we ever going to see it. You can
prove us wrong by either publishing it or at least giving us some of
the key points here.


>In the meantime traverse to YouTube and ask yourself why no videos of natural selection, in action, as it allegedly occurs, exist? Your god, Robert, is like all gods, it's invisible. You believe in something that

[raven1]

On Sat, 12 Aug 2017 17:14:47 -0700 (PDT), Ray Martinez
<pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote:

>I know for a fact that natural selection doesn't exist.

No, you don't know that, you *believe* it. And you are trivially
wrong.

[raven1]

On Sat, 12 Aug 2017 17:42:52 -0700 (PDT), Ray Martinez

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

>On Wednesday, August 9, 2017 at 10:05:04 AM UTC-7, raven1 wrote:
>> On Wed, 9 Aug 2017 00:39:38 -0700 (PDT), Ray Martinez
>> <pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>> >Darwin told his audience, plainly and clearly, on page 6 of the Origin as to
>> >what science accepted when he was writing, independent creation of
>> >each species and species immutability, and that these positions were his object of refutation.
>> >
>> >Since Darwin's species theory is in fact completely false,
>>
>> Unsupported assertion.
>>
>> >not having any evidence in support,
>>
>> Flat-out wrong.
>>
>> >independent creation and immutability remain scientifically true.
>>
>> That's not how it works. You still have to demonstrate that
>> "independent creation" and "immutability" are correct even if Darwin
>> is shown to be wrong.
>
>Because science accepted creation/immutability, I do not, but will anyway to remind the world and rub it in your faces.

So go ahead.

> In the meantime, just read the Origin, it's all there.

What is?

[joecummin...@gmail.com]

On Sat, 12 Aug 2017 17:14:47 -0700 (PDT), Ray Martinez

Ray,

I find it very difficult to believe you're writing anything.

Your claim to be writing a refutation is as old as the hills, yet
there hasn't been even the suspicion of a clue that you've written
anything.

Now let's put it to the test:

When a person writes a refutation of a claim, in this case, natural
selection, it's usual for that person to seek out other writers who
may be regarded as it were as forerunners of the theory.

Would Ray be prepared to indicate any forerunners of Darwin? Have his
researches led him to study any other writers who might have
anticipated the mutability of species?

Ray has the irritating habit of not answering my queries, but because
of the no doubt voluminous work he's alleged to have done on
evolution, I'm sure he'll come up with a name or two.

Can he do this???


Have fun,


Joe Cummings

[Bob Casanova]

On Sat, 12 Aug 2017 17:38:46 -0700 (PDT), the following

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

I do, but you are mistaken. Your burden is not to explain
how science came to accept a false theory, but to show that
the theory is indeed false, something which you assert but
haven't shown to be correct. So far that has eluded you, and
repetition of your belief that it's correct doesn't count,
nor do screeds by Paley and other creationists, or personal
interpretations of Bible texts.

[Martin Harran]

Ray specifically stated in an earlier post to me that God created a
limited number of original "kinds" and then directly created
additional kinds at later times. I asked him several times for
examples of those additional kinds; guess what - I'm still waiting for
an answer.

[...]

[Ernest Major]

As far as I can tell, in Ray's model, to the extent that he has one,
every instance of speciation represents the creation one of those
additional kinds.

He said that God created them from "a clay-like ground" (rather than ex
nihilo). This lead me to recategorise him as a omphalistic progressive
creationist - wherever speciation occurs in the fossil record he
replaces it by God creating new individuals that look as if they evolved
from a related species. (That model has the disadvantage of not covering
speciation events occurring while we were watching.)

But he subsequently stated that creation from a clay-like ground was a
metaphor, so I reverted to thinking of occasionalist-evolutionism as the
position most consistent with what Ray asserts.

--
alias Ernest Major

[Ray Martinez]

On Saturday, August 12, 2017 at 5:25:02 PM UTC-7, Robert Camp wrote:

Yes, let's talk about sanity. How sane is it to say that an unguided agent of causation produced the wonders of adaptive complexity found in biodiversity including bat sonar and the human brain? Yet Darwinists act like nothing is amiss to say unguidedness produced every complex adaptation found in nature. We are asked to believe in this extremely illogical proposition. Nay, we will not, the proposition is insane. Mind produced the wondrous complexity found in nature. Human minds are known to produce ultra complex technology. At no time have we ever seen a dunce produce advanced technologies, yet Darwinists believe an unguided and unintelligent dunce known as natural selection produced the wondrous complexity found in nature. Like I've said before, the ToE was never true at anytime. I'm only burdened with the task of explaining why science accepted an insanely false theory known as natural selection.

Ray

[Bill Rogers]

If you do that, that is, show why scientists accepted the theory of evolution, you will not have refuted it. To refute it you would have to explain the multiple lines of evidence that scientists use to support the theory of evolution and then explain why those lines of evidence support some other theory better than they support the theory of evolution.

Which makes me think that your promised refutation will be something along the lines of "Scientists believed in supernatural creation until they were afflicted by God with the delusion that the theory of evolution was correct." That won't convince many people here that the ToE is false.

>
> Ray

[jillery]

On Sun, 13 Aug 2017 18:16:58 -0700 (PDT), Ray Martinez

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

>On Saturday, August 12, 2017 at 5:25:02 PM UTC-7, Robert Camp wrote:
>> On 8/12/17 5:14 PM, Ray Martinez wrote:
>> > On Wednesday, August 9, 2017 at 9:55:05 AM UTC-7, Bill Rogers wrote:
>> >> On Wednesday, August 9, 2017 at 12:25:04 PM UTC-4, Ray Martinez wrote:
>> >>> On Wednesday, August 9, 2017 at 9:10:05 AM UTC-7, jillery wrote:
>> >>>> On Wed, 9 Aug 2017 00:39:38 -0700 (PDT), Ray Martinez
>> >>>> <pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>> > I know for a fact that natural selection doesn't exist.
>>
>> I know for a fact that you don't know that for a fact.
>>
>> > I'm still writing my refutation.
>>
>> Will it be intelligible to sane people?
>
>Yes, let's talk about sanity. How sane is it to say that an unguided agent of causation produced the wonders of adaptive complexity found in biodiversity including bat sonar and the human brain?

Sound completely sane to me. Not sure why you even ask the question.

>Yet Darwinists act like nothing is amiss to say unguidedness produced every complex adaptation found in nature. We are asked to believe in this extremely illogical proposition.

You conflate illogical with insane. They are not the same. And the
emergence of adaptive complexity from unguided processes is neither
illogical nor insane. Once again, your bald assertions are as easily
refuted.

>Nay, we will not, the proposition is insane. Mind produced the wondrous complexity found in nature. Human minds are known to produce ultra complex technology. At no time have we ever seen a dunce produce advanced technologies, yet Darwinists believe an unguided and unintelligent dunce known as natural selection produced the wondrous complexity found in nature. Like I've said before, the ToE was never true at anytime. I'm only burdened with the task of explaining why science accepted an insanely false theory known as natural selection.
>
>Ray

[John Harshman]

Ray is also an old-earth creationist, but he doesn't think life is
anywhere near as old as we do. It's hard to get him to express any clear
opinion, both because he's incapable of clarity and because he doesn't
want to expose his views.

[Ernest Major]

He doesn't think that earth is near as old as we do either. He seems to
prefer to hold to Kelvin's timescale, even though Kelvin was a godless
Boltzmannist.

--
alias Ernest Major

[Ernest Major]

Your personal incredulity is not a convincing argument that. Asserting
that things are not sane and illogical doesn't make them insane and not
logical.

What is insane and illogical is doubting the very existence of

differential reproductive success causally correlated with hereditary

traits (i.e. natural selection). If you wanted to argue that it (and
other known processes) are incapable of accounting for the diversity and
disparity of life we could address that topic, but instead you seem to
prefer to one-up ("more pious than thou") your fellow Abrahamists by
claiming to believe that natural selection doesn't exist. You're not
arguing for creation, you're vice-signalling.

--
alias Ernest Major

[John Harshman]

Still unclear. I've asked him many times why, if he rejects radiometric
dating and pretty much all other sources of an estimate, why he thinks
the earth is "old". He never says.

[jillery]

My impression is Ray's argument is similar to Gap theory of Scripture,
which according to Wiki implies "that the earth already existed, but
had passed into decay during an earlier age of existence, and was now
being "shaped anew."

[Ray Martinez]

On Sunday, August 13, 2017 at 6:35:05 PM UTC-7, Bill Rogers wrote:
> On Sunday, August 13, 2017 at 9:20:05 PM UTC-4, Ray Martinez wrote:
> > On Saturday, August 12, 2017 at 5:25:02 PM UTC-7, Robert Camp wrote:
> > > On 8/12/17 5:14 PM, Ray Martinez wrote:
> > > > On Wednesday, August 9, 2017 at 9:55:05 AM UTC-7, Bill Rogers wrote:
> > > >> On Wednesday, August 9, 2017 at 12:25:04 PM UTC-4, Ray Martinez wrote:
> > > >>> On Wednesday, August 9, 2017 at 9:10:05 AM UTC-7, jillery wrote:
> > > >>>> On Wed, 9 Aug 2017 00:39:38 -0700 (PDT), Ray Martinez
> > > >>>> <pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > <snip>
> > >
> > > > I know for a fact that natural selection doesn't exist.
> > >
> > > I know for a fact that you don't know that for a fact.
> > >
> > > > I'm still writing my refutation.
> > >
> > > Will it be intelligible to sane people?
> >
> > Yes, let's talk about sanity. How sane is it to say that an unguided agent of causation produced the wonders of adaptive complexity found in biodiversity including bat sonar and the human brain? Yet Darwinists act like nothing is amiss to say unguidedness produced every complex adaptation found in nature. We are asked to believe in this extremely illogical proposition. Nay, we will not, the proposition is insane. Mind produced the wondrous complexity found in nature. Human minds are known to produce ultra complex technology. At no time have we ever seen a dunce produce advanced technologies, yet Darwinists believe an unguided and unintelligent dunce known as natural selection produced the wondrous complexity found in nature. Like I've said before, the ToE was never true at anytime. I'm only burdened with the task of explaining why science accepted an insanely false theory known as natural selection.
>
> If you do that, that is, show why scientists accepted the theory of evolution, you will not have refuted it.
>

I said I'm burdened with showing why science accepted a FALSE natural selection concept and theory. This means I'm also burdened with showing why natural selection is false scientifically.

>
To refute it you would have to explain the multiple lines of evidence that scientists use to support the theory of evolution and then explain why those lines of evidence support some other theory better than they support the theory of evolution.
>

Contrary to what Bill has said----that one must address several lines of alleged effects in order to refute natural selection----one must only address natural selection: show why the claim itself is scientifically false. Once natural selection is falsified and refuted the effect of micro-evolution suffers refutation and falsification as well. Without micro-evolution the ToE is dead, belly up; species remain immutable (Darwin 1859:6; London: John Murray).

> Which makes me think that your promised refutation will be something along the lines of "Scientists believed in supernatural creation until they were afflicted by God with the delusion that the theory of evolution was correct." That won't convince many people here that the ToE is false.
>

The Professor for the Public Understanding of Science, at Oxford, Richard Dawkins, as big and mainstream as a scholar can get, said God is a delusion. He makes that conclusion in the ultimate context of the existence of natural selection. Whether admitted or not, you and all other Atheists agree with him. You people actually believe that an unguided and unintelligent agent of causation produced, for example, bat sonar and the human body. Mankind has never seen a dunce produce anything useful that is simple, much less advanced. Yet we are told that something unintelligent and unguided did exactly that! A natural dunce produced bat sonar, human eyes, ears, brains, etc.etc. And Paley rightly observed that the organized complexity found in nature surpasses the organized complexity produced by mankind to a degree that exceeds all computation.

The logical invalidity of natural selection is obvious in the minds of sober and objective people. FACT: Natural selection is not observed, but is wholly reliant on multiple inferences. Your god is invisible too, Bill. You believe in something that cannot be seen.

Yet Bill will undoubtedly comfort himself with an invalid argument-from-authority: All scientists accept the existence of natural selection.

Ray (species immutabilist)

[Ernest Major]

On 14/08/2017 21:29, Ray Martinez wrote:
> FACT: Natural selection is not observed, but is wholly reliant on multiple inferences.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=plVk4NVIUh8

--
alias Ernest Major

[John Harshman]

Could be. But it still doesn't say why he thinks it's "old" or what
"old" means.

[jillery]

On Mon, 14 Aug 2017 13:29:24 -0700 (PDT), Ray Martinez
<pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote:

>The Professor for the Public Understanding of Science, at Oxford, Richard Dawkins, as big and mainstream as a scholar can get, said God is a delusion. He makes that conclusion in the ultimate context of the existence of natural selection. Whether admitted or not, you and all other Atheists agree with him. You people actually believe that an unguided and unintelligent agent of causation produced, for example, bat sonar and the human body. Mankind has never seen a dunce produce anything useful that is simple, much less advanced. Yet we are told that something unintelligent and unguided did exactly that! A natural dunce produced bat sonar, human eyes, ears, brains, etc.etc. And Paley rightly observed that the organized complexity found in nature surpasses the organized complexity produced by mankind to a degree that exceeds all computation.
>
>The logical invalidity of natural selection is obvious in the minds of sober and objective people. FACT: Natural selection is not observed, but is wholly reliant on multiple inferences. Your god is invisible too, Bill. You believe in something that cannot be seen.
>
>Yet Bill will undoubtedly comfort himself with an invalid argument-from-authority: All scientists accept the existence of natural selection.
>
>Ray (species immutabilist)

There are plenty of animals which produce useful items; a beaver's
dam, a bird's nest, a caterpillar's cocoon. A logical yet absurd
conclusion of your claims above is that the existence of these items
means that the animals which made them must be at least as intelligent
as humans. My guess is you don't really want to say that. Am I
wrong?

Unguided processes cause unlikely events all the time. The difference
with complexity is not necessarily intelligence, but repetition. As
long as the necessary steps are followed, it doesn't matter if an
intelligence purposely repeats a process or an unguided process
mindlessly follows the laws of physics, the results are the same.

And if organized complexity found in nature in fact surpasses that of
mankind's inventions, that necessarily destroys Paley's original
premise, that a purposeful designer in nature can be inferred from the
*similarity* of design from humans and from nature. I keep pointing
this out. Why do you ignore it?

[jillery]

On Mon, 14 Aug 2017 11:35:11 -0700, John Harshman

My impression is Ray's "old" in this context simply means older than
life on Earth, a distinction between OEC and YEC.

Please don't ask me to explain all of Ray's unexplainables. Even if I
could, I wouildn't have time for anything else.

[paul.i...@gmail.com]

On Tuesday, 15 August 2017 06:00:02 UTC+1, jillery wrote...

Ray likes pre-Darwin Victorian scientists, so he probably just
accepts Lyell's estimate of the age of the Earth. (That's
assuming Ray's various opinions can be consistent with each
other.)

[jillery]

On Tue, 15 Aug 2017 01:45:48 -0700 (PDT), paul.i...@gmail.com
wrote:

That makes as much sense as anything I can think of. OTOH Lyell is
the father of uniformitarianism, and at the very least Evolution's
midwife, having arranged to publish articles by both Darwin and
Wallace at the same time. It's hard to say which side of that coin
Ray would choose.

[Ray Martinez]

I have many times. Either you didn't see these messages or you don't remember? Whichever, no problem.

I hold to an old earth of immense age based on the fact that the Bible implies an old earth of immense age, and based on the fact that before 1859 science accepted an old earth. If science did not accept an old earth before Darwin published, as John Van Wyhe has observed, then his theory of evolution would have been dead-on-arrival. In circa 1859 science accepted an old earth based on observations of layers stacked upon layers. Other evidence was used as well to conclude for an old earth. I believe the highest estimate was around 100 million years. So I accept earth to be **at least** 100 million years in age. I reject almost all modern radiometric techniques as unreliable because these lack independent external accuracy checks. The reason I say almost is because sometimes an external accuracy check exists like, for example, when archaeologists or historians already know the age of an object. Sometimes, in these context, radio dating is shown to be accurate, but these ages are all very young, and we know radio dating doesn't work on ancient linens or shrouds.

Contrary to your beliefs, John, you literally have no idea how old the earth really is. The reason you have no idea, except that it's at least 100 millions years old, is because no deep time external accuracy checks exist. Biblical chronology has external star alignments, but again this has nothing to do with deep time. In the world of naturalistic uniformitarianism rocks date fossils and fossils date rocks, a "circular database" (Richard Milton) lacking independent external verification. Remember the KBS Tuff dating fiasco?

Ray

[Ray Martinez]

Note the fact that the link takes you to an alleged molecular example, and not the primary example of species in nature.

If natural selection can be seen as it allegedly occurs then it isn't natural selection because natural selection, as explicated in the Origin, is wholly dependent on multiple inferences.

Natural selection is invisible. Evolutionists believe in something that can't be observed as it allegedly occurs.

Ray

[Ray Martinez]

Like most others, I ignore material that is too off the mark (= too ignorant).

When Paley observed that the complexity found in nature far surpasses man-made complexity to a degree that exceeds all computation, the observation was accepted true in his day and remains true today. Scientists agree unanimously that living things exhibit outlandish complexity. Paley was concluding must have had a Maker, which implied could not have evolved, as he was preemptively answering Erasmus Darwin and others including, most likely, David Hume.

Paley was understood clearly as saying that pocket watch complexity, this degree, exists in living things. Since we know pocket watches were designed THEN that which exhibits far more complexity (living things) must be designed as well.

So the logic of your point is inexplicably inverse----so far off the mark that it didn't deserve a reply because it doesn't harm anything Paley has said, not even remotely. I replied anyway as a courtesy.

Ray

[jillery]

On Tue, 15 Aug 2017 14:13:04 -0700 (PDT), Ray Martinez
<pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote:

>On Monday, August 14, 2017 at 1:45:05 PM UTC-7, Ernest Major wrote:
>> On 14/08/2017 21:29, Ray Martinez wrote:
>> > FACT: Natural selection is not observed, but is wholly reliant on multiple inferences.
>>
>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=plVk4NVIUh8
>>
>> --
>> alias Ernest Major
>
>Note the fact that the link takes you to an alleged molecular example, and not the primary example of species in nature.

The example is utterly natural in all relevant respects to the
bacteria. The bacteria are as much species as any other. Your excuse
above is as inane as "it's still bacteria".

>If natural selection can be seen as it allegedly occurs then it isn't natural selection because natural selection, as explicated in the Origin, is wholly dependent on multiple inferences.

Identify your alleged multiple inferences.

>Natural selection is invisible. Evolutionists believe in something that can't be observed as it allegedly occurs.
>
>Ray

<http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/news/061201_quietcrickets>


Why did God create parasitic flies in the first place?

And if God created parastitic flies, why did God replace the normally
loud crickets with silent ones?

Apparently, God likes to create new species just so he can make His
old creations suffer. Apparently God is a sadist, no need to create
the Enemy.

Apparently you think "dishonesty" is whenever somebody posts something
you can't refute.

[jillery]

On Tue, 15 Aug 2017 14:57:29 -0700 (PDT), Ray Martinez

Apparently you refer to your ignorance.

>When Paley observed that the complexity found in nature far surpasses man-made complexity to a degree that exceeds all computation, the observation was accepted true in his day and remains true today. Scientists agree unanimously that living things exhibit outlandish complexity. Paley was concluding must have had a Maker, which implied could not have evolved, as he was preemptively answering Erasmus Darwin and others including, most likely, David Hume.
>
>Paley was understood clearly as saying that pocket watch complexity, this degree, exists in living things. Since we know pocket watches were designed THEN that which exhibits far more complexity (living things) must be designed as well.
>
>So the logic of your point is inexplicably inverse----so far off the mark that it didn't deserve a reply because it doesn't harm anything Paley has said, not even remotely. I replied anyway as a courtesy.
>
>Ray

As usual, you miscomprehension only shows your ignorance. My point
doesn't depend the veracity of natural complexity. Instead, I point
out the logical paradox of Paley's claim.

Since you missed it, I rephrase: if God's design can be inferred
because of *similarity* to human manufacture, then *superiority* of
God's design *destroys* said similarity and any inferences from it.

That which exhibits "far more complexity" isn't *similar* by
definition, and so logically can't be used to infer design from it.

So your objection is not only inane, but dishonest.

I'll trade your alleged "courtesy" for some intellectual honesty.

[John Harshman]

Neither of those is evidence. Even if the bible does imply such a thing
(and I'd like to see you support that), the bible is not evidence. The
fact that something was accepted before 1859 is not evidence. Your
opinions seem based on nothing.

> If science did not accept an old earth before Darwin published, as
> John Van Wyhe has observed, then his theory of evolution would have
> been dead-on-arrival. In circa 1859 science accepted an old earth
> based on observations of layers stacked upon layers. Other evidence
> was used as well to conclude for an old earth. I believe the highest
> estimate was around 100 million years.

You believe incorrectly. The highest estimate was considerably greater
than that. But so what? Why should you believe something because of the
year in which it was said?

> So I accept earth to be **at
> least** 100 million years in age. I reject almost all modern
> radiometric techniques as unreliable because these lack independent
> external accuracy checks. The reason I say almost is because
> sometimes an external accuracy check exists like, for example, when
> archaeologists or historians already know the age of an
> object. Sometimes, in these context, radio dating is shown to be
> accurate, but these ages are all very young, and we know radio dating
> doesn't work on ancient linens or shrouds.

We do? At any rate, there are multiple accuracy checks. One can, for
example, date the same stratum using different decay chains. Surprise!
They come out the same.

> Contrary to your beliefs, John, you literally have no idea how old
> the earth really is. The reason you have no idea, except that it's at
> least 100 millions years old, is because no deep time external
> accuracy checks exist.

Just to clarify, is that 100 million years, at least, for the entire
earth or for the Phanerozoic? That is, for the part that has the rock
layers those 19th Century guys were looking at. And is life also ancient?

Another question: did the flood leave any significant deposits? Because
if it did, then all those 19th Century estimates go out the window, and
your earth could be much younger.

> Biblical chronology has external star
> alignments, but again this has nothing to do with deep time.

What star alignments are you referring to here?

> In the
> world of naturalistic uniformitarianism rocks date fossils and
> fossils date rocks, a "circular database" (Richard Milton) lacking
> independent external verification. Remember the KBS Tuff dating
> fiasco?

I do, but it wasn't what you apparently think it was. And the circular
argument is just plain wrong. Index fossils *correlate* rocks, but the
dates are assigned by radiometric means. That is, you can tell from an
index fossil that a rock is of, say, Campanian age, but the way you know
how long ago the Campanian was radiometric.

[Bob Casanova]

On Sun, 13 Aug 2017 10:27:12 -0700, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off>:

Three posts from you in this thread today, still no reply to
this one. One would almost think you're running away from
the requirement to support your assertions with more than "I
believe it, so there!"...

[jillery]

On Wed, 16 Aug 2017 10:10:14 -0700, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off>
wrote:

You forgot to mention his "neener neener".

[Ray Martinez]

The fact that science accepted an old earth circa 1859 implies the position based on evidence. Surely you understand that 4.5 billion wasn't reached overnight----that the figure steadily increased?

In circa 1859 how old was earth according to science, John? I accept that figure as a bare minimum.

> > If science did not accept an old earth before Darwin published, as
> > John Van Wyhe has observed, then his theory of evolution would have
> > been dead-on-arrival. In circa 1859 science accepted an old earth
> > based on observations of layers stacked upon layers. Other evidence
> > was used as well to conclude for an old earth. I believe the highest
> > estimate was around 100 million years.
>
> You believe incorrectly. The highest estimate was considerably greater
> than that. But so what? Why should you believe something because of the
> year in which it was said?

You're deliberately misrepresenting what I said. I have no idea why you're picking an age of earth fight? I'm not a Young earther.

Ray

[John Harshman]

Sure. But why at some random point, which you call 1859, should we stop
believing that it was based on evidence?

> In circa 1859 how old was earth according to science, John? I accept that figure as a bare minimum.

There were a great many estimates. Conclusions were not nearly as
solidly based as what we now know. But of course you reject most of the
evidence.

>>> If science did not accept an old earth before Darwin published, as
>>> John Van Wyhe has observed, then his theory of evolution would have
>>> been dead-on-arrival. In circa 1859 science accepted an old earth
>>> based on observations of layers stacked upon layers. Other evidence
>>> was used as well to conclude for an old earth. I believe the highest
>>> estimate was around 100 million years.
>>
>> You believe incorrectly. The highest estimate was considerably greater
>> than that. But so what? Why should you believe something because of the
>> year in which it was said?
>
> You're deliberately misrepresenting what I said. I have no idea why you're picking an age of earth fight? I'm not a Young earther.

I'm trying to figure out why you aren't a young earther. Your position,
as expressed, was not based on evidence. If you have different reasons
than you have said, state them.

....and at this point Ray wandered off.

Hey, Ray: there's more below.

[Bob Casanova]

On Wed, 16 Aug 2017 16:43:04 -0400, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by jillery <69jp...@gmail.com>:

Yep. And he's *still* running away.

[Ray Martinez]

You're being ignored because what you said is what I said and you're too dumb or careless not to see it.

Ray

[Ray Martinez]

1859 is not random, you know that. I draw the line here, for me, because at the time the age of earth needed to be much older in order to accommodate Darwin's theory of evolution. Darwinists have constructed an age of earth based on the needs of evolutionary theory.

> > In circa 1859 how old was earth according to science, John? I accept that figure as a bare minimum.
>
> There were a great many estimates. Conclusions were not nearly as
> solidly based as what we now know. But of course you reject most of the
> evidence.
>
> >>> If science did not accept an old earth before Darwin published, as
> >>> John Van Wyhe has observed, then his theory of evolution would have
> >>> been dead-on-arrival. In circa 1859 science accepted an old earth
> >>> based on observations of layers stacked upon layers. Other evidence
> >>> was used as well to conclude for an old earth. I believe the highest
> >>> estimate was around 100 million years.
> >>
> >> You believe incorrectly. The highest estimate was considerably greater
> >> than that. But so what? Why should you believe something because of the
> >> year in which it was said?
> >
> > You're deliberately misrepresenting what I said. I have no idea why you're picking an age of earth fight? I'm not a Young earther.
>
> I'm trying to figure out why you aren't a young earther.

Because teleological science, before the Darwinian Revolution, accepted an old earth. And because the Bible implies earth to be very old. Science has confirmed the implication: earth is old (hundreds of millions), not young (under ten thousand).

Speaking of Bible and a young earth: show me any word, phrase, verse, or statement, in the Bible, that conveys a young earth? Waiting....

> Your position,
> as expressed, was not based on evidence. If you have different reasons
> than you have said, state them.
>

I accept earth to be whatever age science accepted before science came to accept Darwin's theory of evolution. I accept this figure as a bare minimum. I said I've seen a 100 million figure. You said you've seen a much higher figure. So be it.

I use 1859 as a cut off date because Darwin's theory actually needed earth to be much older. Darwinists saw to it. Age of earth today is based on the needs of evolutionary theory.

Don't have the time to go into this, these:

http://www.gizapyramid.com/map9.jpg

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-jQ8jqxy_xc0/Uj-ylktwcyI/AAAAAAAABjo/jq-y5OCTCG8/s640/PyramidPleiades.GIF

The star alignment creates a starting benchmark date (2141 BC) to verify Biblical chronology.

> >>
> >>> In the
> >>> world of naturalistic uniformitarianism rocks date fossils and
> >>> fossils date rocks, a "circular database" (Richard Milton) lacking
> >>> independent external verification. Remember the KBS Tuff dating
> >>> fiasco?
> >>
> >> I do, but it wasn't what you apparently think it was. And the circular
> >> argument is just plain wrong. Index fossils *correlate* rocks, but the
> >> dates are assigned by radiometric means. That is, you can tell from an
> >> index fossil that a rock is of, say, Campanian age, but the way you know
> >> how long ago the Campanian was radiometric.
> >

No **external** deep time accuracy checks exist. You don't possess knowledge how old earth actually is, sorry. The needs of evolutionary theory dictate the accepted figure today.

Ray

[John Harshman]

It isn't random but neither is it magic. Darwinists didn't construct the
age of the earth. Geologists did. Evolution didn't contaminate geology
with antiscientific cooties. Your fantasy that it did is just that.

>>> In circa 1859 how old was earth according to science, John? I accept that figure as a bare minimum.
>>
>> There were a great many estimates. Conclusions were not nearly as
>> solidly based as what we now know. But of course you reject most of the
>> evidence.
>>
>>>>> If science did not accept an old earth before Darwin published, as
>>>>> John Van Wyhe has observed, then his theory of evolution would have
>>>>> been dead-on-arrival. In circa 1859 science accepted an old earth
>>>>> based on observations of layers stacked upon layers. Other evidence
>>>>> was used as well to conclude for an old earth. I believe the highest
>>>>> estimate was around 100 million years.
>>>>
>>>> You believe incorrectly. The highest estimate was considerably greater
>>>> than that. But so what? Why should you believe something because of the
>>>> year in which it was said?
>>>
>>> You're deliberately misrepresenting what I said. I have no idea why you're picking an age of earth fight? I'm not a Young earther.
>>
>> I'm trying to figure out why you aren't a young earther.
>
> Because teleological science, before the Darwinian Revolution,
> accepted an old earth. And because the Bible implies earth to be very
> old. Science has confirmed the implication: earth is old (hundreds of
> millions), not young (under ten thousand).

That wasn't teleological science. It was just science.

> Speaking of Bible and a young earth: show me any word, phrase, verse,
> or statement, in the Bible, that conveys a young earth? Waiting....

I'm waiting for you to back up your claim that the bible implies an old
earth. Do I recall that you rely on the gap theory? But of course that
isn't actually supported by the text.

Where did Bishop Ussher go wrong?

>> Your position,
>> as expressed, was not based on evidence. If you have different reasons
>> than you have said, state them.
>
> I accept earth to be whatever age science accepted before science
> came to accept Darwin's theory of evolution. I accept this figure as
> a bare minimum. I said I've seen a 100 million figure. You said
> you've seen a much higher figure. So be it.
> I use 1859 as a cut off date because Darwin's theory actually needed
> earth to be much older. Darwinists saw to it. Age of earth today is
> based on the needs of evolutionary theory.

That's your unsupported claim. Do you have any evidence that radiometric
dates have been consistently been fabricated to make the earth old
enough for evolution?

But not any of the biblical chronology we're interested in here. It's
all post-flood, right? Why should I care?

>>>>> In the
>>>>> world of naturalistic uniformitarianism rocks date fossils and
>>>>> fossils date rocks, a "circular database" (Richard Milton) lacking
>>>>> independent external verification. Remember the KBS Tuff dating
>>>>> fiasco?
>>>>
>>>> I do, but it wasn't what you apparently think it was. And the circular
>>>> argument is just plain wrong. Index fossils *correlate* rocks, but the
>>>> dates are assigned by radiometric means. That is, you can tell from an
>>>> index fossil that a rock is of, say, Campanian age, but the way you know
>>>> how long ago the Campanian was radiometric.
>
> No **external** deep time accuracy checks exist. You don't possess
> knowledge how old earth actually is, sorry. The needs of evolutionary
> theory dictate the accepted figure today.

That's because you reject all external deep time accuracy checks.
Different methods, same age. Why? Consistency of radiometric dates in
different localities and fossil correlations in different localities.
Why? Consistency of radiometric dates and remananent magnetism
(especially including magnetic reversal intervals). Why? Consistency of
radiometric dates and the KT boundary clay. Why?

[Bob Casanova]

On Thu, 17 Aug 2017 13:32:20 -0700 (PDT), the following

>You're being ignored because what you said is what I said and you're too dumb or careless not to see it.

No, I'm being "ignored" (which in RayWorld apparently means
"answered with zero content") because you can't support your
assertions and you know it. HAND.

[Ray Martinez]

Geologists who were are are Darwinians, Evolutionists.

> Evolution didn't contaminate geology
> with antiscientific cooties. Your fantasy that it did is just that.

Yet I said nothing about evolution being anti-scientific. In my refutation I admit and argue that Darwinism is scientific, but offers egregiously inferior interpretations of scientific evidence.

Darwinism converted all of science to natural causation, evolution, and eventually natural selection. Read up on the "Darwinian Revolution."

Here, I will help you out with a good source from a respected scholar:

https://www.amazon.com/Darwinian-Revolution-Science-Tooth-Claw/dp/0226731693

The fact that your kind has latched onto Ussher, shows that your kind has only one goal: to misrepresent the Bible, that is, misrepresent the Book that says you're going to hell for deliberately rejecting the existence of God via the design of nature.

Your kind acts like they don't know that a specific year, day, and time of original creation is the territory of the insane. But we say you do in fact know and understand. By granting Ussher respectability, of which he deserves none, you're attempting to portray the Bible and all church scholars as loons.

In this context I think it's fair to point out that in the early 20th century Darwinists caged African men, with monkeys, in zoos, as evidence of human evolution.

Ussher was a complete ignoramus. The thinking Church is not obligated to do penance for him or apologize. The Church cannot control every person and what they say, simply ridiculous. Genealogies in Genesis have one main purpose: to record lineages of biblical personages. Genealogies were never intended to be used for answering any when questions regarding creation.

>
> >> Your position,
> >> as expressed, was not based on evidence. If you have different reasons
> >> than you have said, state them.
> >
> > I accept earth to be whatever age science accepted before science
> > came to accept Darwin's theory of evolution. I accept this figure as
> > a bare minimum. I said I've seen a 100 million figure. You said
> > you've seen a much higher figure. So be it.
> > I use 1859 as a cut off date because Darwin's theory actually needed
> > earth to be much older. Darwinists saw to it. Age of earth today is
> > based on the needs of evolutionary theory.
>
> That's your unsupported claim. Do you have any evidence that radiometric
> dates have been consistently been fabricated to make the earth old
> enough for evolution?

I never used or said "fabricated" or any synonym. I said radio dating is unreliable, which means it doesn't always work. The times it doesn't work undermines confidence in the times "it does work." This is why an external accuracy check is needed. That's my position.

Actually it's both, but I'm not qualified to address pre-flood chronology from the star alignment evidence.

From a historical perspective, we know Egyptian civilization came into existence after the flood, which occurred 3140 BC. It was Ham who tamed the post-flood, over-flowing Nile, so the lands of Nile-Delta quadrant could be settled.

>
> >>>>> In the
> >>>>> world of naturalistic uniformitarianism rocks date fossils and
> >>>>> fossils date rocks, a "circular database" (Richard Milton) lacking
> >>>>> independent external verification. Remember the KBS Tuff dating
> >>>>> fiasco?
> >>>>
> >>>> I do, but it wasn't what you apparently think it was. And the circular
> >>>> argument is just plain wrong. Index fossils *correlate* rocks, but the
> >>>> dates are assigned by radiometric means. That is, you can tell from an
> >>>> index fossil that a rock is of, say, Campanian age, but the way you know
> >>>> how long ago the Campanian was radiometric.
> >
> > No **external** deep time accuracy checks exist. You don't possess
> > knowledge how old earth actually is, sorry. The needs of evolutionary
> > theory dictate the accepted figure today.
>
> That's because you reject all external deep time accuracy checks.
> Different methods, same age. Why? Consistency of radiometric dates in
> different localities and fossil correlations in different localities.
> Why? Consistency of radiometric dates and remananent magnetism
> (especially including magnetic reversal intervals). Why? Consistency of

> radiometric dates....[snip]....Why?

All radiometric, which means no external accuracy check exists.

Ray

[John Harshman]

That doesn't enter into their calculations. And they're "evolutionists"
only because almost all educated people are.

>> Evolution didn't contaminate geology
>> with antiscientific cooties. Your fantasy that it did is just that.
>
> Yet I said nothing about evolution being anti-scientific. In my refutation I admit and argue that Darwinism is scientific, but offers egregiously inferior interpretations of scientific evidence.

Quibble. Bad science, if clung to for irrelevant reasons, is antiscientific.

> Darwinism converted all of science to natural causation, evolution, and eventually natural selection. Read up on the "Darwinian Revolution."

Science was always about natural causation, long before 1859. You can't
do science any other way. Everything else is irrelevant to geology.

> Here, I will help you out with a good source from a respected scholar:
>
> https://www.amazon.com/Darwinian-Revolution-Science-Tooth-Claw/dp/0226731693

That link tells me nothing. What in that book has anything to do with
geology?

You didn't answer the question.

> Your kind acts like they don't know that a specific year, day, and time of original creation is the territory of the insane. But we say you do in fact know and understand. By granting Ussher respectability, of which he deserves none, you're attempting to portray the Bible and all church scholars as loons.
>
> In this context I think it's fair to point out that in the early 20th century Darwinists caged African men, with monkeys, in zoos, as evidence of human evolution.
>
> Ussher was a complete ignoramus. The thinking Church is not obligated to do penance for him or apologize. The Church cannot control every person and what they say, simply ridiculous. Genealogies in Genesis have one main purpose: to record lineages of biblical personages. Genealogies were never intended to be used for answering any when questions regarding creation.

Still didn't answer the question. What's wrong with the genealogies? Do
they contain errors? How do you know?

>>>> Your position,
>>>> as expressed, was not based on evidence. If you have different reasons
>>>> than you have said, state them.
>>>
>>> I accept earth to be whatever age science accepted before science
>>> came to accept Darwin's theory of evolution. I accept this figure as
>>> a bare minimum. I said I've seen a 100 million figure. You said
>>> you've seen a much higher figure. So be it.
>>> I use 1859 as a cut off date because Darwin's theory actually needed
>>> earth to be much older. Darwinists saw to it. Age of earth today is
>>> based on the needs of evolutionary theory.
>>
>> That's your unsupported claim. Do you have any evidence that radiometric
>> dates have been consistently been fabricated to make the earth old
>> enough for evolution?
>
> I never used or said "fabricated" or any synonym. I said radio dating is unreliable, which means it doesn't always work. The times it doesn't work undermines confidence in the times "it does work." This is why an external accuracy check is needed. That's my position.

That's a silly position. Because of rare errors you reject all results?
And the errors are rare. Why are not checks using different isotopes valid?

How do you know the flood occurred in 3140 BC? How do you know what Ham
did? And why didn't the flood leave any geological evidence?

>>>>>>> In the
>>>>>>> world of naturalistic uniformitarianism rocks date fossils and
>>>>>>> fossils date rocks, a "circular database" (Richard Milton) lacking
>>>>>>> independent external verification. Remember the KBS Tuff dating
>>>>>>> fiasco?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I do, but it wasn't what you apparently think it was. And the circular
>>>>>> argument is just plain wrong. Index fossils *correlate* rocks, but the
>>>>>> dates are assigned by radiometric means. That is, you can tell from an
>>>>>> index fossil that a rock is of, say, Campanian age, but the way you know
>>>>>> how long ago the Campanian was radiometric.
>>>
>>> No **external** deep time accuracy checks exist. You don't possess
>>> knowledge how old earth actually is, sorry. The needs of evolutionary
>>> theory dictate the accepted figure today.
>>
>> That's because you reject all external deep time accuracy checks.
>> Different methods, same age. Why? Consistency of radiometric dates in
>> different localities and fossil correlations in different localities.
>> Why? Consistency of radiometric dates and remananent magnetism
>> (especially including magnetic reversal intervals). Why? Consistency of
>> radiometric dates....[snip]....Why?
>
> All radiometric, which means no external accuracy check exists.

Yep. That's because you reject all real dating methods. Why doesn't
dating using one isotope to be considered external to dating using a
different isotope?

[Ernest Major]

On 15/08/2017 22:13, Ray Martinez wrote:
> On Monday, August 14, 2017 at 1:45:05 PM UTC-7, Ernest Major wrote:
>> On 14/08/2017 21:29, Ray Martinez wrote:
>>> FACT: Natural selection is not observed, but is wholly reliant on multiple inferences.
>>
>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=plVk4NVIUh8
>>
>> --
>> alias Ernest Major
>
> Note the fact that the link takes you to an alleged molecular example, and not the primary example of species in nature.

By the normal understand of language Ray's allegation that the example
is molecular is incorrect (Ray may have a warped idea as to what
qualifies as an organism, but the great majority of people recognise
bacteria as organisms). It is an example of evolution in organisms, not
molecules, which would make the natural reading of Ray's second clause
incorrect as well.

>
> If natural selection can be seen as it allegedly occurs then it isn't natural selection because natural selection, as explicated in the Origin, is wholly dependent on multiple inferences.

Another example of Martinezesque illogic. Something can be only known by
inference at one moment in time, and be subsequently observed. The
existence of Nepture, for example, was inferred by discrepancies between
the predicted and observed orbits of other plants, and the Neptune was
subsequently seen. The existence of the moth Xanthopan morganii
praedicta, was inferred, and the moth was subsequently seen.

>
> Natural selection is invisible. Evolutionists believe in something that can't be observed as it allegedly occurs.

To repeat - the following video falsfies your assertions.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=plVk4NVIUh8
>
> Ray
>

--
alias Ernest Major

[jillery]

On Mon, 21 Aug 2017 15:19:51 +0200, Rado <ra...@fjernpost1.tele.dk>
wrote:

>On Tue, 15 Aug 2017 19:08:01 -0400, jillery <69jp...@gmail.com>
>wrote:

>
>>
>>As usual, you miscomprehension only shows your ignorance. My point
>>doesn't depend the veracity of natural complexity. Instead, I point
>>out the logical paradox of Paley's claim.
>>
>>Since you missed it, I rephrase: if God's design can be inferred
>>because of *similarity* to human manufacture, then *superiority* of
>>God's design *destroys* said similarity and any inferences from it.
>>
>>That which exhibits "far more complexity" isn't *similar* by
>>definition, and so logically can't be used to infer design from it.
>

>Yes it is, it's similar *by principle*, which is the point. The basic
>principles of design are very simple and always the same for any
>construction, but they can and do manifest on many different levels of
>complexity and types of functionality, e.g. a scissor, a CPU, a huge
>mainframe computer, or a human body. It's simply a matter of scale.


So what do you think are the basic principles of design? And how do
each of your examples above illustrate them? And how do you
distinguish design from non-design?


>The bigger the mind capacity, the more complex constructions it can
>embrace, comprehend, and create, but, as mentioned, the basic
>principles behind the design are always the same. Just like the basic
>principles behind the functions of a Commodore 16 and a gigantic
>mainframe computer are exactly the same. The computational capacity
>and memory size is just different, that is what makes the mainframe
>"superior" in common terms.
>
>It's the same with software design. You can create both very simple
>and extremely complex and sophisticated pieces of software using the
>exact same programming language and principles. It's just a matter of
>scale.


Your comments above conflate "superiority", which is the actual
feature in question, with "complexity". In fact, superior design is
typically less complex, to perform a given function, and so the two
features have little correlation.

[Mark Isaak]

On 8/21/17 6:19 AM, Rado wrote:
> On Tue, 15 Aug 2017 19:08:01 -0400, jillery <69jp...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>>

>> As usual, you miscomprehension only shows your ignorance. My point
>> doesn't depend the veracity of natural complexity. Instead, I point
>> out the logical paradox of Paley's claim.
>>
>> Since you missed it, I rephrase: if God's design can be inferred
>> because of *similarity* to human manufacture, then *superiority* of
>> God's design *destroys* said similarity and any inferences from it.
>>
>> That which exhibits "far more complexity" isn't *similar* by
>> definition, and so logically can't be used to infer design from it.
>

> Yes it is, it's similar *by principle*, which is the point. The basic
> principles of design are very simple and always the same for any
> construction, but they can and do manifest on many different levels of
> complexity and types of functionality, e.g. a scissor, a CPU, a huge
> mainframe computer, or a human body. It's simply a matter of scale.

Saying that life is similar to scissors because both show some
complexity is like saying the Sun is similar to a bacterium because both
show some mass. You make a mockery of the term "similarity".

> The bigger the mind capacity, the more complex constructions it can
> embrace, comprehend, and create, but, as mentioned, the basic
> principles behind the design are always the same. Just like the basic
> principles behind the functions of a Commodore 16 and a gigantic
> mainframe computer are exactly the same. The computational capacity
> and memory size is just different, that is what makes the mainframe
> "superior" in common terms.

And one of the basic principles of design is, "Keep it simple." That
principle exists not merely on account of the designer's mind capacity,
but also to help maintenance, interchangeability, and ease of modification.

> It's the same with software design. You can create both very simple
> and extremely complex and sophisticated pieces of software using the
> exact same programming language and principles. It's just a matter of
> scale.

And note that the sophisticated software is generally composed of simple
arrangements of simpler components. Life's complexity is very obviously
not from design.

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

[John Stockwell]

On Sunday, August 6, 2017 at 11:15:04 AM UTC-6, Ray Martinez wrote:
> Because that was the science Darwin was attempting to refute in the Origin. On page 6 he says "most naturalists" accepted each species created independently thus species were held immutable. I contend Darwin's theory is COMPLETELY false; therefore immutability and creation remain true.

Or, you are merely a denialist who cannot accept reality. Makes you no
different than a flat earther.

>
> Ray

-John