Evolution v Creationism

[kenmur]

To ray Martinez: Ray you are quite right to say that Creationism is an explanation for the variety of life on earth. If I were looking for evidence to support it I could not rely on assertions which you so often use, without substantiation. In the same way, assertions by others do not substantiate anything. So how do you substantiate creationism and what is your evidence? I understand that creationism is undergoing change because many adherents now accept that the world is several thousand times older than 6000 years. The evidence is simply indisputable whatever religious beliefs one may hold.

If I were to review evolution as an alternative explanation, I would look for concrete evidence. My first piece of evidence would be that the science used to theorise about evolution uses the exact same methods which have discovered the reality of of solid state physics, and many others. This would give me some confidence that scientific evidence is valid. I could then review the host of evidence which exists in support of the theory. One strong piece of evidence is that many animals exist today which did not exist in the past. In your theory, creationism must be a continual process for this to happen. Further evidence is that changes from ancient animals to new are apparent from fossils. Even if there are some gaps in the transition from humanoid ancestors to homo sapien you cannot deny the remarkable progression in their fossil skulls. can you doubt the fossil record without resorting to conspiracy?

Science never accepts a theory without question. Any theory is subjected to the most intense and rigorous review. Wrong assertions are discarded, as they arise. Einsteins theories of relativity were tested many times until proven correct.

As a creationist Ray how do you explain the progressive changes in the infuenza virus which are occurring continually, if this is not evolution.

[Panthera Tigris Altaica]

It does not appear likely that Ray will reply to your post.

This is, of course, a data point indicating that he cannot reply. It would be trivial for him to disprove this. He would merely need to make a coherent reply, addressing your points.

I doubt that this will happen.

[Ray Martinez]

On Monday, December 4, 2017 at 7:00:02 PM UTC-8, kenmur wrote:
> To ray Martinez: Ray you are quite right to say that Creationism is an explanation for the variety of life on earth.
>

What I actually have said is that both Creationism and Darwinism are completely different explanations of the same evidence. There's one giant set of evidence, and two major explanations of that evidence.

>
If I were looking for evidence to support it I could not rely on assertions which you so often use, without substantiation.
>

Not true. All your comment could mean is that you don't possess 101 knowledge of the claims and evidence.

>
In the same way, assertions by others do not substantiate anything. So how do you substantiate creationism and what is your evidence?
>

I've said it a million times at least. I'm a Paleyan. I stand BEHIND Natural Theology. Darwin's attempt to falsify failed. Based on observed appearance of design in nature, natural causation-slash-selection does not exist in the wild.

>
I understand that creationism is undergoing change because many adherents now accept that the world is several thousand times older than 6000 years. The evidence is simply indisputable whatever religious beliefs one may hold.
>

No chapter, verse, statement, phrase, or word in the Bible says or implies anything about a young earth.

> If I were to review evolution as an alternative explanation, I would look for concrete evidence.
>

Good idea, but there is none. Not a single shred of evidence supporting any notion of Darwinian evolution exists in nature, not a shred. If the period at the end of this sentence were hollow one could fit the entire body of evidence supporting evolution inside with plenty of room left over. Darwin and his converts in science are COMPLETELY DELUDED. The God of the Bible remains in charge. Evolusion-is-a-delusion. Design remains as the dominant concept seen in all of nature. Atheists can't be expected to acknowledge.

>
My first piece of evidence would be that the science used to theorise about evolution uses the exact same methods which have discovered the reality of of solid state physics, and many others. This would give me some confidence that scientific evidence is valid. I could then review the host of evidence which exists in support of the theory. One strong piece of evidence is that many animals exist today which did not exist in the past.
>

Your point assumes a false conception of Creationism----that the same only claims to explain original creation. Where did you obtain the idea that the Bible says there was only one original on-off creation event? Archdeacon Paley and his successors accepted nature designed and created (note the present tenses). Early in his career, Darwin was a Paleyan.

>
In your theory, creationism must be a continual process for this to happen.
>

Nope; creationism isn't a process, but an observation. We observe that living things (present tense) appear designed, which infers the work of an invisible Maker.

>
Further evidence is that changes from ancient animals to new are apparent from fossils.
>

All this says is that these fossils appear similar. From this observed fact you then ASSUME evolutionary change has occurred. Assumption isn't evidence; observed similarity is not a component of natural selection thus your conclusion is affirmed assumed because causation hasn't been addressed or supported.

>
Even if there are some gaps in the transition from humanoid ancestors to homo sapien you cannot deny the remarkable progression in their fossil skulls. can you doubt the fossil record without resorting to conspiracy?
>

These conclusions ASSUME evolution has occurred based on similarity. But similarity plays no role in the evolutionary explanation of causation. Thus the effect of evolution is assumed.

> Science never accepts a theory without question.

Science accepted Darwin's theory with no evidence in support in the 1860s.

>
Any theory is subjected to the most intense and rigorous review. Wrong assertions are discarded, as they arise. Einsteins theories of relativity were tested many times until proven correct.
>

Darwin's theory was accepted within 12 years of publication, and with no evidence supporting natural selection. I'm a student in the history of science. I've done my homework. Would you like some embarrassing quotations?

Today, Darwinists spend every waking moment evading falsification. Yet Einstein spent every waking moment entertaining falsification. You have no right whatsoever to invoke the name of Einstein.

> As a creationist Ray how do you explain the progressive changes in the infuenza virus which are occurring continually, if this is not evolution.
>

How does an unintelligent process stump our most brilliant medical minds and their computers? Answer: The process isn't unintelligent, stupid, but Intelligent.

Ray (species immutabilist)

[Alpha Beta]

"For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities — his eternal power and divine nature — have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse." Romans 1:20

[Ray Martinez]

On Saturday, December 9, 2017 at 1:30:05 PM UTC-8, Alpha Beta wrote:
> "For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities — his eternal power and divine nature — have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse." Romans 1:20
>

Indeed.

Paley showed the scientific truth of that statement.

Ray

[Alpha Beta]

To me it's not hard to believe in creation. Where there is a plan, there is intelligence. However I find evolution hard to believe, especially (first) life assembling all by itself. Evolution will forever remain a theory when it cannot overcome it's first big obstacle which is the origin of life itself.

[Alpha Beta]

I am a young earth creationist. People are just brainwashed into buying millions of years and hence believe evolution is true and creation isn't. If you believe in Jesus Christ then you must believe in Adam and Eve too. Because Adam sinned and Christ is the last Adam, he payed his life for us sinners.
The more you go back in history the more creation and deluge stories you find, so striking parallels to Genesis. But also the world is young according to the calculations of many cultures and scientists: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hYVNnJhik44
And lots of proof for young earth too: https://creation.com/age-of-the-earth

[jillery]

Bald assertion as easily refuted.

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

Evelyn Beatrice Hall
Attributed to Voltaire

[Ray Martinez]

Almost all secular scholars agree that Darwin 1859 answered and refuted Paley 1802.

Ray

[jillery]

On Sat, 9 Dec 2017 18:38:05 -0800 (PST), Ray Martinez

<r3p...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Saturday, December 9, 2017 at 6:30:02 PM UTC-8, jillery wrote:
>> On Sat, 9 Dec 2017 13:35:54 -0800 (PST), Ray Martinez
>> <r3p...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >On Saturday, December 9, 2017 at 1:30:05 PM UTC-8, Alpha Beta wrote:
>> >> "For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities — his eternal power and divine nature — have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse." Romans 1:20
>> >>
>> >
>> >Indeed.
>> >
>> >Paley showed the scientific truth of that statement.
>> >
>> >Ray
>>
>>
>> Bald assertion as easily refuted.
>
>

>Almost all secular scholars agree that Darwin 1859 answered and refuted Paley 1802.
>
>Ray

Non-sequiturs "R" Ray. Even if your second statement immediately
above were correct, it would still have nothing to do with your your
staement to which I replied.

[Bob Casanova]

On Sat, 9 Dec 2017 13:51:48 -0800 (PST), the following
appeared in talk.origins, posted by Alpha Beta
<dark...@gmail.com>:

>I am a young earth creationist.

You have my sympathy; rejection of objective evidence is
always worth sympathy.
--

Bob C.

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

- Isaac Asimov

[Bob Casanova]

On Sat, 9 Dec 2017 13:35:54 -0800 (PST), the following
appeared in talk.origins, posted by Ray Martinez
<r3p...@gmail.com>:

>On Saturday, December 9, 2017 at 1:30:05 PM UTC-8, Alpha Beta wrote:
>> "For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities — his eternal power and divine nature — have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse." Romans 1:20
>>
>
>Indeed.

Yep, for knowledge of God's power look at the universe He
created, not at a book written by humans who *claimed* to be
divinely inspired.

>Paley showed the scientific truth of that statement.

Paley showed no proof of anything; that's why he's one of
your heroes.

[Wolffan]

On 2017 Dec 09, Ray Martinez wrote
(in article<aa94ca73-9dcd-431b...@googlegroups.com>):

> Science accepted Darwin's theory with no evidence in support in the 1860s.

and there’s another lie...

[Wolffan]

On 2017 Dec 09, Alpha Beta wrote
(in article<73820ff5-042c-4e97...@googlegroups.com>):

> I am a young earth creationist.

we already knew that you were an idiot.

> People are just brainwashed into buying
> millions of years

people who aren’t idiots look at the evidence. This would include things
such as the speed of light and the size of the galaxy which have nothing to
do with evolution but plenty to do with the minimum age of the universe. And
the Earth.

> and hence believe evolution is true and creation isn't.

there is no evidence to support Biblical creationism.

> If
> you believe in Jesus Christ then you must believe in Adam and Eve too.

that does not follow.

>
> Because Adam sinned and Christ is the last Adam, he payed his life for us
> sinners.
>
> The more you go back in history the more creation and deluge stories you
> find,

false.

> so striking parallels to Genesis.

flood stories are common among people who lived near major river systems, but
are vanishingly rare elsewhere. There is a connection between those two
facts.

> But also the world is young according
> to the calculations of many cultures and scientists:
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hYVNnJhik44
> And lots of proof for young earth too: https://creation.com/age-of-the-earth

sorry, but none of that is accurate.

[Alpha Beta]

The evidence for a young biblical creation is overwhelming.

[Wolffan]

On 2017 Dec 10, Alpha Beta wrote
(in article<9791f40f-07b7-422a...@googlegroups.com>):

> The evidence for a young biblical creation is overwhelming.

the evidence for a young biblical creation is non-existent.

[Ray Martinez]

On Sunday, December 10, 2017 at 11:50:02 AM UTC-8, Alpha Beta wrote:
> The evidence for a young biblical creation is overwhelming.

Show me any chapter, verse, statement, phrase, or word in the Bible that says earth is young?

I'm waiting. I bet you can't comply with this simple straightforward request. The reason you cannot is because the intellectual leaders of Young Earth Creationism are dopey minded, having no ability to understand what is written in the Bible.

Ray

[jillery]

On Sun, 10 Dec 2017 11:46:28 -0800 (PST), Alpha Beta
<dark...@gmail.com> wrote:

>The evidence for a young biblical creation is overwhelming.

Only to you and your choir.

[jillery]

On Sun, 10 Dec 2017 14:37:52 -0500, Wolffan <aklwo...@gmail.com>
wrote:

Whenever I hear people talk about the universality of Flood myths as
evidence for the Biblical Flood, I am reminded of this:

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Flood_of_1993>

I imagine there were a few people caught in that who thought maybe God
broke his promise not to flood the Earth again.

[Bob Casanova]

On Sun, 10 Dec 2017 11:46:28 -0800 (PST), the following
appeared in talk.origins, posted by Alpha Beta
<dark...@gmail.com>:

>The evidence for a young biblical creation is overwhelming.

There is no such evidence, and you know it. Stop lying.

[Bob Casanova]

On Sun, 10 Dec 2017 13:29:07 -0800 (PST), the following
appeared in talk.origins, posted by Ray Martinez
<r3p...@gmail.com>:

>On Sunday, December 10, 2017 at 11:50:02 AM UTC-8, Alpha Beta wrote:
>> The evidence for a young biblical creation is overwhelming.
>
>Show me any chapter, verse, statement, phrase, or word in the Bible that says earth is young?

Show me one which says that God doesn't use evolution to
create new species; IOW, which says *how* He does it, rather
that *that* He does it..

>I'm waiting. I bet you can't comply with this simple straightforward request. The reason you cannot is because the intellectual leaders of Young Earth Creationism are dopey minded, having no ability to understand what is written in the Bible.

IronyMeter test concluded: Passed again.

[Bob Casanova]

On Sun, 10 Dec 2017 17:09:28 -0500, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by jillery <69jp...@gmail.com>:

[At the Pearly Gates]

"Lord, I prayed and prayed, and ye didna save me!"

"Lass, I sent you a bus, and later a boat and a helicopter!"

[Ray Martinez]

On Monday, December 11, 2017 at 10:50:04 AM UTC-8, Bob Casanova wrote:
> On Sun, 10 Dec 2017 13:29:07 -0800 (PST), the following
> appeared in talk.origins, posted by Ray Martinez
> <r3p...@gmail.com>:
>
> >On Sunday, December 10, 2017 at 11:50:02 AM UTC-8, Alpha Beta wrote:
> >> The evidence for a young biblical creation is overwhelming.
> >
> >Show me any chapter, verse, statement, phrase, or word in the Bible that says earth is young?
>
> Show me one which says that God doesn't use evolution to
> create new species; IOW, which says *how* He does it, rather
> that *that* He does it..

What's written above conveys a very common and egregious misunderstanding and/or ignorance. When the Bible says "God created" the same means two things: by supernatural power, which in turn means, by miracle. The entire Bible exists within the context of Genesis 1:1----a declaration of miracle, that the world came into existence by the supernatural power of God. Ensuing verses are recognized by scholars to advocate what is known in relevant literature as the creation concepts: special creation, independent creation, separate creation. Living things in Genesis 1 come to exist in reality by intervention/miracle.

Darwin wrote the Origin as falsifying the above understanding of created. But according to Bob's comments above, the Bible very well could remain scientifically correct. If we would only understand created to not entail the supernatural or sudden creation from the ground.

Ray

[Bob Casanova]

On Tue, 12 Dec 2017 09:24:25 -0800 (PST), the following

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

>On Monday, December 11, 2017 at 10:50:04 AM UTC-8, Bob Casanova wrote:
>> On Sun, 10 Dec 2017 13:29:07 -0800 (PST), the following
>> appeared in talk.origins, posted by Ray Martinez
>> <r3p...@gmail.com>:
>>
>> >On Sunday, December 10, 2017 at 11:50:02 AM UTC-8, Alpha Beta wrote:
>> >> The evidence for a young biblical creation is overwhelming.
>> >
>> >Show me any chapter, verse, statement, phrase, or word in the Bible that says earth is young?
>>
>> Show me one which says that God doesn't use evolution to
>> create new species; IOW, which says *how* He does it, rather
>> that *that* He does it..

>What's written above conveys a very common and egregious misunderstanding and/or ignorance. When the Bible says "God created" the same means two things: by supernatural power, which in turn means, by miracle. The entire Bible exists within the context of Genesis 1:1----a declaration of miracle, that the world came into existence by the supernatural power of God. Ensuing verses are recognized by scholars to advocate what is known in relevant literature as the creation concepts: special creation, independent creation, separate creation. Living things in Genesis 1 come to exist in reality by intervention/miracle.

So there is no such written in the Bible, what you post is
your personal interpretation, and you pick and choose where
to demand written evidence and where to interpret as you
prefer.

OK, but I think we all realized that long ago.

>Darwin wrote the Origin as falsifying the above understanding of created.

And yet he wrote of the Creator, and made it obvious he was
a believer, just not what *you* demand of a believer based
on *your* interpretation of the Bible.

I suspect Darwin was more religious, and a better Christian,
than you are. At least, he didn't lie about others or call
them atheists because they disagreed with his personal
beliefs.

> But according to Bob's comments above, the Bible very well could remain scientifically correct.

Nope, Bob does not think either science or history has
anything to do with the Bible other than incidentally, as
window dressing on the actual intent and meaning of the
Bible, which is as a code for moral living.

> If we would only understand created to not entail the supernatural or sudden creation from the ground.

[Ray Martinez]

On Tuesday, December 12, 2017 at 11:50:03 AM UTC-8, Bob Casanova wrote:
> > On Tue, 12 Dec 2017 09:24:25 -0800 (PST), the following
> > appeared in talk.origins, posted by Ray Martinez
> > <r3p...@gmail.com>:
> >
> > >On Monday, December 11, 2017 at 10:50:04 AM UTC-8, Bob Casanova wrote:
> > >> On Sun, 10 Dec 2017 13:29:07 -0800 (PST), the following
> > >> appeared in talk.origins, posted by Ray Martinez
> > >> <r3p...@gmail.com>:
> > >>
> > >> >On Sunday, December 10, 2017 at 11:50:02 AM UTC-8, Alpha Beta wrote:
> > >> >> The evidence for a young biblical creation is overwhelming.
> > >> >
> > >> >Show me any chapter, verse, statement, phrase, or word in the Bible that says earth is young?
> > >>
> > >> Show me one which says that God doesn't use evolution to
> > >> create new species; IOW, which says *how* He does it, rather
> > >> that *that* He does it..
> >
> > >What's written above conveys a very common and egregious misunderstanding and/or ignorance. When the Bible says "God created" the same means two things: by supernatural power, which in turn means, by miracle. The entire Bible exists within the context of Genesis 1:1----a declaration of miracle, that the world came into existence by the supernatural power of God. Ensuing verses are recognized by scholars to advocate what is known in relevant literature as the creation concepts: special creation, independent creation, separate creation. Living things in Genesis 1 come to exist in reality by intervention/miracle.
> > >
> So there is no such written in the Bible, what you post is your personal
> interpretation, and you pick and choose where to demand written evidence and where to interpret as you prefer.
>

Total evasion/misrepresentation.

What I wrote conveys the biblical view that almost all scholars and very many other persons accept including myself. It is not, as Bob asserts, a personal interpretation, but the interpretation that very many scholars accept to have been falsified by Darwin 1859. Created or creation always speaks of the supernatural power of God; Bob evades this rudimentary 101 fact.

> >
> > OK, but I think we all realized that long ago.
> >
> > >Darwin wrote the Origin as falsifying the above understanding of created.
> >
> And yet he wrote of the Creator, and made it obvious he was
> a believer, just not what *you* demand of a believer based
> on *your* interpretation of the Bible.
>

"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" (C. Darwin, "On The Origin Of Species" 1859:6).

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

Two scholarly quotations say that Darwin was arguing against the Creator causing new species to exist. Where, then, did Bob obtain the idea that Darwin was a Christian? If arguing against the Creator as causing species to exist supports Christianity then what doesn't? The fact that ALL Atheists accept the Origin the same means the Origin does not support Christianity.

> I suspect Darwin was more religious, and a better Christian,
> than you are. At least, he didn't lie about others or call
> them atheists because they disagreed with his personal
> beliefs.
>

Imagine that! A person who argued against the Creator and special creation (Charles Darwin) was, and is, a better Christian than someone like myself who argues for special creation!

I've ALWAYS said Evolutionists think illogically with no awareness of the fact. The above claim, or thinking, by Evolutionist Bob Casanova, supports my claim spectacularly.

"It is apparent that Darwin lost his faith in the years 1836-39, much of it clearly prior to the reading of Malthus. In order not to hurt the feelings of his friends and of his wife, Darwin often used deistic language in his publications, but much in his Notebooks indicates that by this time he had become a ‘materialist’ (more or less = atheist)" (Ernst Mayr, "American Scientist" May 1977:323).

> >
> > > But according to Bob's comments above, the Bible very well could remain scientifically correct.
> > >
> Nope, Bob does not think either science or history has
> anything to do with the Bible other than incidentally, as
> window dressing on the actual intent and meaning of the
> Bible, which is as a code for moral living.
>

Bob suddenly backs away from his original claim:

"Show me one [verse] which says that God doesn't use evolution to create new species; IOW, which says *how* He does it, rather that *that* He does it."

Bob WAS arguing that the Bible COULD be scientifically correct as long as one interprets created to not have any meaning as to how.

>
> >
> > > If we would only understand created to not entail the supernatural or sudden creation from the ground.
> >
> > >> >I'm waiting. I bet you can't comply with this simple straightforward request. The reason you cannot is because the intellectual leaders of Young Earth Creationism are dopey minded, having no ability to understand what is written in the Bible.
> > >>
> > >> IronyMeter test concluded: Passed 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
> > >
> > --
> >
> > 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

[J.LyonLayden]

Yep I believe "created" can in fact apply to things you've set into motion. Aint nobody created this garden in my back yard but me.

[jillery]

On Tue, 12 Dec 2017 14:09:28 -0800 (PST), Ray Martinez
<r3p...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Tuesday, December 12, 2017 at 11:50:03 AM UTC-8, Bob Casanova wrote:
>> On Tue, 12 Dec 2017 09:24:25 -0800 (PST), the following
>> appeared in talk.origins, posted by Ray Martinez
>> <r3p...@gmail.com>:
>>
>> >On Monday, December 11, 2017 at 10:50:04 AM UTC-8, Bob Casanova wrote:
>> >> On Sun, 10 Dec 2017 13:29:07 -0800 (PST), the following
>> >> appeared in talk.origins, posted by Ray Martinez
>> >> <r3p...@gmail.com>:
>> >>
>> >> >On Sunday, December 10, 2017 at 11:50:02 AM UTC-8, Alpha Beta wrote:
>> >> >> The evidence for a young biblical creation is overwhelming.
>> >> >
>> >> >Show me any chapter, verse, statement, phrase, or word in the Bible that says earth is young?
>> >>
>> >> Show me one which says that God doesn't use evolution to
>> >> create new species; IOW, which says *how* He does it, rather
>> >> that *that* He does it..
>>
>> >What's written above conveys a very common and egregious misunderstanding and/or ignorance. When the Bible says "God created" the same means two things: by supernatural power, which in turn means, by miracle. The entire Bible exists within the context of Genesis 1:1----a declaration of miracle, that the world came into existence by the supernatural power of God. Ensuing verses are recognized by scholars to advocate what is known in relevant literature as the creation concepts: special creation, independent creation, separate creation. Living things in Genesis 1 come to exist in reality by intervention/miracle.
>> >
>> So there is no such written in the Bible, what you post is
>> your personal interpretation, and you pick and choose where
>> to demand written evidence and where to interpret as you
>> prefer.
>

>Total evasion/misrepresentation.
>
>What I wrote conveys the biblical view that almost all scholars and very many other persons accept including myself. It is not, as Bob asserts, a personal interpretation, but the interpretation that very many scholars accept to have been falsified by Darwin 1859. Created or creation always speaks of the supernatural power of God; Bob evades this rudimentary 101 fact.
>
>>

>> OK, but I think we all realized that long ago.
>>
>> >Darwin wrote the Origin as falsifying the above understanding of created.
>>
>> And yet he wrote of the Creator, and made it obvious he was
>> a believer, just not what *you* demand of a believer based
>> on *your* interpretation of the Bible.
>

>"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" (C. Darwin, "On The Origin Of Species" 1859:6).
>
>"When he needed to, he spoke cautiously of the Creator, aware that his book [On The Origin Of Species] might otherwise be labelled atheistic. But he was careful not to allow the Creator any active role in biological proceedings" (Harvard Professor Janet Browne, "Charles Darwin: The Power of Place" 2002:60).
>
>Two scholarly quotations say that Darwin was arguing against the Creator causing new species to exist. Where, then, did Bob obtain the idea that Darwin was a Christian? If arguing against the Creator as causing species to exist supports Christianity then what doesn't? The fact that ALL Atheists accept the Origin the same means the Origin does not support Christianity.
>

>> I suspect Darwin was more religious, and a better Christian,
>> than you are. At least, he didn't lie about others or call
>> them atheists because they disagreed with his personal
>> beliefs.
>

>Imagine that! A person who argued against the Creator and special creation (Charles Darwin) was, and is, a better Christian than someone like myself who argues for special creation!

Only someone like yourself would be surprised by that, since very few
people qualify who is Christian by whether they believe in special
creation.

>I've ALWAYS said Evolutionists think illogically with no awareness of the fact. The above claim, or thinking, by Evolutionist Bob Casanova, supports my claim spectacularly.
>
>"It is apparent that Darwin lost his faith in the years 1836-39, much of it clearly prior to the reading of Malthus. In order not to hurt the feelings of his friends and of his wife, Darwin often used deistic language in his publications, but much in his Notebooks indicates that by this time he had become a ‘materialist’ (more or less = atheist)" (Ernst Mayr, "American Scientist" May 1977:323).
>
>>

>> > But according to Bob's comments above, the Bible very well could remain scientifically correct.
>> >
>> Nope, Bob does not think either science or history has
>> anything to do with the Bible other than incidentally, as
>> window dressing on the actual intent and meaning of the
>> Bible, which is as a code for moral living.
>

>Bob suddenly backs away from his original claim:

To the contrary, you haven't refuted his original claim.

>"Show me one [verse] which says that God doesn't use evolution to create new species; IOW, which says *how* He does it, rather that *that* He does it."
>

>Bob WAS arguing that the Bible COULD be scientifically correct as long as one interprets created to not having any meaning as to how.


Once again you conflate "is consistent with" and "evidence of".

>> > If we would only understand created to not entail the supernatural or sudden creation from the ground.
>>
>> >> >I'm waiting. I bet you can't comply with this simple straightforward request. The reason you cannot is because the intellectual leaders of Young Earth Creationism are dopey minded, having no ability to understand what is written in the Bible.
>> >>
>> >> IronyMeter test concluded: Passed 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
>> >
>> --
>>
>> 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

[Tim Anderson]

From Ray:

"Where did you obtain the idea that the Bible says there was only one original on-off creation event? Archdeacon Paley and his successors accepted nature designed and created (note the present tenses)."

The presence of the "-ed" ending in "designed and created" is a dead giveaway that you are using the past tense. But then, your idiosyncratic English usage may not distinguish between the two states.

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

If Ray is serious about writing a book, he'll need to learn
some basic English first.

[jillery]

On Wed, 13 Dec 2017 05:34:19 -0800 (PST), paul.i...@gmail.com
wrote:

Any book authored by Ray would have to be accompanied by a Rayspeak
dictionary.

[Bob Casanova]

On Tue, 12 Dec 2017 14:09:28 -0800 (PST), the following

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

>On Tuesday, December 12, 2017 at 11:50:03 AM UTC-8, Bob Casanova wrote:
>> On Tue, 12 Dec 2017 09:24:25 -0800 (PST), the following
>> appeared in talk.origins, posted by Ray Martinez
>> <r3p...@gmail.com>:
>>
>> >On Monday, December 11, 2017 at 10:50:04 AM UTC-8, Bob Casanova wrote:
>> >> On Sun, 10 Dec 2017 13:29:07 -0800 (PST), the following
>> >> appeared in talk.origins, posted by Ray Martinez
>> >> <r3p...@gmail.com>:
>> >>
>> >> >On Sunday, December 10, 2017 at 11:50:02 AM UTC-8, Alpha Beta wrote:
>> >> >> The evidence for a young biblical creation is overwhelming.
>> >> >
>> >> >Show me any chapter, verse, statement, phrase, or word in the Bible that says earth is young?
>> >>
>> >> Show me one which says that God doesn't use evolution to
>> >> create new species; IOW, which says *how* He does it, rather
>> >> that *that* He does it..
>>
>> >What's written above conveys a very common and egregious misunderstanding and/or ignorance. When the Bible says "God created" the same means two things: by supernatural power, which in turn means, by miracle. The entire Bible exists within the context of Genesis 1:1----a declaration of miracle, that the world came into existence by the supernatural power of God. Ensuing verses are recognized by scholars to advocate what is known in relevant literature as the creation concepts: special creation, independent creation, separate creation. Living things in Genesis 1 come to exist in reality by intervention/miracle.
>> >
>> So there is no such written in the Bible, what you post is
>> your personal interpretation, and you pick and choose where
>> to demand written evidence and where to interpret as you
>> prefer.
>

>Total evasion/misrepresentation.

Nope. You do *exactly* that whenever you accuse someone of
being an "atheist" because they disagree with your
interpretation of the content and meaning of the Bible.

>What I wrote conveys the biblical view that almost all scholars and very many other persons accept including myself. It is not, as Bob asserts, a personal interpretation, but the interpretation that very many scholars accept to have been falsified by Darwin 1859. Created or creation always speaks of the supernatural power of God; Bob evades this rudimentary 101 fact.

No, Ray, it conveys *your interpretation* of the Bible,and
just as most biblical scholars disagree with you regarding
whether the Bible is to be taken literally (it's not), they
disagree with your interpretations of almost everything else
in it.

>> OK, but I think we all realized that long ago.
>>
>> >Darwin wrote the Origin as falsifying the above understanding of created.
>>
>> And yet he wrote of the Creator, and made it obvious he was
>> a believer, just not what *you* demand of a believer based
>> on *your* interpretation of the Bible.
>

>"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" (C. Darwin, "On The Origin Of Species" 1859:6).

Yep. And the fact that *your interpretation* of the Bible
means that by this statement he didn't believe in God, that
interpretation is flawed.

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

Yep again. And only *your interpretation* says that God
takes an active *ongoing* role in life. Nothing in the Bible
says that.

>Two scholarly quotations say that Darwin was arguing against the Creator causing new species to exist. Where, then, did Bob

If you're addressing me, do so; stop with the third person
bullshit.

>obtain the idea that Darwin was a Christian? If arguing against the Creator as causing species to exist supports Christianity then what doesn't? The fact that ALL Atheists accept the Origin the same means the Origin does not support Christianity.

Wrong *again*. Your repeated error is generally referred to
as "guilt by association".

>> I suspect Darwin was more religious, and a better Christian,
>> than you are. At least, he didn't lie about others or call
>> them atheists because they disagreed with his personal
>> beliefs.
>

>Imagine that! A person who argued against the Creator and special creation (Charles Darwin) was, and is, a better Christian than someone like myself who argues for special creation!

Yep. "Christian" is about both belief and actions, and your
actions here say that you're a poor Christian at best.

>I've ALWAYS said Evolutionists think illogically with no awareness of the fact. The above claim, or thinking, by Evolutionist Bob Casanova, supports my claim spectacularly.

Only in your own mind. You wouldn't know "logic" if it
barked in your face.

>"It is apparent that Darwin lost his faith in the years 1836-39, much of it clearly prior to the reading of Malthus. In order not to hurt the feelings of his friends and of his wife, Darwin often used deistic language in his publications, but much in his Notebooks indicates that by this time he had become a ‘materialist’ (more or less = atheist)" (Ernst Mayr, "American Scientist" May 1977:323).

Oh, so now you use Mayr as a reference? Does that extend to
his other writing, about evolutionary biology? If not, why
not? Is this yet another of your well-known "cherry-picking"
escapades?

>> > But according to Bob's comments above, the Bible very well could remain scientifically correct.
>> >
>> Nope, Bob does not think either science or history has
>> anything to do with the Bible other than incidentally, as
>> window dressing on the actual intent and meaning of the
>> Bible, which is as a code for moral living.
>

>Bob suddenly backs away from his original claim:
>

>"Show me one [verse] which says that God doesn't use evolution to create new species; IOW, which says *how* He does it, rather that *that* He does it."

Correct. And I'm still waiting.

>Bob WAS arguing that the Bible COULD be scientifically correct as long as one interprets created to not having any meaning as to how.

Nope; learn to read for comprehension. And learn to think.
"Created" says *what* happened, not *how* it happened. That
means that God could have used *any* process He wished. The
fact that you dislike some of the possible processes (such
as unguided, but planned, evolution) is irrelevant; God
doesn't answer to you.

And I said the Bible is not a science or history text, not
that it contains nothing accurate.

[Bob Casanova]

On Tue, 12 Dec 2017 21:58:02 -0800 (PST), the following
appeared in talk.origins, posted by Tim Anderson
<timoth...@gmail.com>:

>From Ray:
>
>"Where did you obtain the idea that the Bible says there was only one original on-off creation event? Archdeacon Paley and his successors accepted nature designed and created (note the present tenses)."
>
>The presence of the "-ed" ending in "designed and created" is a dead giveaway that you are using the past tense. But then, your idiosyncratic English usage may not distinguish between the two states.

Also, he conflates the actual content of the Bible with what
Paley et al say about it.

[Bob Casanova]

On Wed, 13 Dec 2017 08:45:03 -0500, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by jillery <69jp...@gmail.com>:

>On Wed, 13 Dec 2017 05:34:19 -0800 (PST), paul.i...@gmail.com
>wrote:
>
>>On Wednesday, 13 December 2017 06:00:03 UTC, Tim Anderson wrote:
>>
>>> From Ray:
>>>
>>> "Where did you obtain the idea that the Bible says there was only one original on-off creation event? Archdeacon Paley and his successors accepted nature designed and created (note the present tenses)."
>>>
>>> The presence of the "-ed" ending in "designed and created" is a dead giveaway that you are using the past tense. But then, your idiosyncratic English usage may not distinguish between the two states.
>>
>>If Ray is serious about writing a book, he'll need to learn
>>some basic English first.
>
>
>Any book authored by Ray would have to be accompanied by a Rayspeak
>dictionary.

Seems pretty basic:

[Any word or term]

Nounverb

"Whatever Ray says today"

[Burkhard]

Bob Casanova wrote:
> On Tue, 12 Dec 2017 21:58:02 -0800 (PST), the following
> appeared in talk.origins, posted by Tim Anderson
> <timoth...@gmail.com>:
>
>>From Ray:
>>
>> "Where did you obtain the idea that the Bible says there was only one original on-off creation event? Archdeacon Paley and his successors accepted nature designed and created (note the present tenses)."
>>
>> The presence of the "-ed" ending in "designed and created" is a dead giveaway that you are using the past tense. But then, your idiosyncratic English usage may not distinguish between the two states.
>
> Also, he conflates the actual content of the Bible with what
> Paley et al say about it.
>

With what the thinks Paley says about it.... His Paley interpretation is
almost as idiosyncratic as his take on the bible.

[Ray Martinez]

The verb tenses are correct when Paley wrote. Said things must have existed in order to observe them designed and created.

Evolutionists think illogically. That's the ONLY problem here. Their thought not based in reality; meaning, in their minds, words and things exist detached. But in reality-based thinking just the opposite is true: a noun, for example, is a person, place, or thing. Words are but labels that represent things. If Evolutionists would experiment with thinking logically then they would discover that the concept of evolution, unlike the concept of design, has no material referent, thus it's a false claim about reality.

"In order to pass the B.A. examination, it was, also, necessary to get up Paley's Evidences of Christianity, and his Moral Philosophy. This was done in a thorough manner, and I am convinced that I could have written out the whole of the Evidences with perfect correctness, but not of course in the clear language of Paley. ***The logic of this book and as I may add of his Natural Theology*** gave me as much delight as did Euclid. The careful study of these works, without attempting to learn any part by rote, was the only part of the Academical Course which, as I then felt and as I still believe, was of the least use to me in the education of my mind. I did not at that time trouble myself about Paley's premises; and taking these on trust I was charmed and convinced by the long line of argumentation" (Charles Darwin, Autobio:59; asterisk emphasis added).

Ray

[Tim Anderson]

From Ray:

"The verb tenses are correct when Paley wrote. Said things must have existed in order to observe them designed and created."

You just mangled your tenses again. If your supposition were true, you should be able to provide examples from Paley's book that read "So-and-so is being designed", "Such-and-such is being created". Somehow I doubt you can do so.

[Burkhard]

Ray Martinez wrote:
> On Tuesday, December 12, 2017 at 10:00:03 PM UTC-8, Tim Anderson wrote:
>> From Ray:
>>
>> "Where did you obtain the idea that the Bible says there was only one original on-off creation event? Archdeacon Paley and his successors accepted nature designed and created (note the present tenses)."
>>
>> The presence of the "-ed" ending in "designed and created" is a dead giveaway that you are using the past tense. But then, your idiosyncratic English usage may not distinguish between the two states.
>>
>
> The verb tenses are correct when Paley wrote. Said things must have existed in order to observe them designed and created.
>
> Evolutionists think illogically. That's the ONLY problem here. Their thought not based in reality; meaning, in their minds, words and things exist detached. But in reality-based thinking just the opposite is true: a noun, for example, is a person, place, or thing. Words are but labels that represent things.

Yes, and here we have the problem straight away. Everybody agrees with
the last sentence, and because of that, everybody (apart from you, and
people who do certain types of word magic) disagree with the sentence
directly before this.

Words are indeed but labels that represent things. Because of that, they
can't also "be" a person, place or thing. They are labels for persons,
places and things, but not the things themselves.

And that's of course why words and things are detached, just as labels
and the things they label are detached.

Now, you possibly don't mean what you write when you say words ARE
persons, places or things, and it is more a result of your odd prose
than your inability to think things through, but that is the (only)
thing people object against when you use this odd expression.

[Bob Casanova]

On Wed, 13 Dec 2017 18:33:47 +0000, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by Burkhard <b.sc...@ed.ac.uk>:

Point.

[Ray Martinez]

On Thursday, December 14, 2017 at 1:45:05 AM UTC-8, Burkhard wrote:
> Ray Martinez wrote:
> > On Tuesday, December 12, 2017 at 10:00:03 PM UTC-8, Tim Anderson wrote:
> >> From Ray:
> >>
> >> "Where did you obtain the idea that the Bible says there was only one original on-off creation event? Archdeacon Paley and his successors accepted nature designed and created (note the present tenses)."
> >>
> >> The presence of the "-ed" ending in "designed and created" is a dead giveaway that you are using the past tense. But then, your idiosyncratic English usage may not distinguish between the two states.
> >>
> >
> > The verb tenses are correct when Paley wrote. Said things must have existed in order to observe them designed and created.
> >
> > Evolutionists think illogically. That's the ONLY problem here. Their thought not based in reality; meaning, in their minds, words and things exist detached. But in reality-based thinking just the opposite is true: a noun, for example, is a person, place, or thing. Words are but labels that represent things.
>
>
> Yes, and here we have the problem straight away. Everybody agrees with
> the last sentence, and because of that, everybody (apart from you, and
> people who do certain types of word magic) disagree with the sentence
> directly before this.
>
> Words are indeed but labels that represent things. Because of that, they
> can't also "be" a person, place or thing.

Contradiction: the second sentence contradicts the first sentence. The first sentence says the label or word represents the thing. The next sentence says the exact opposite or takes away the fact established in the first sentence.

> They are labels for persons, places and things, but not the things themselves.
>

Contradiction: The label or the identifier represents the thing itself. How do we know? We know this is true because the thing existed first, not the label or identifier.

A noun is a person, place, or thing; rephrase: a noun (word) is a thing. Absent existence of the thing, the word would not exist. What existed first, the thing known as a zebra, or the word zebra? Answer: the thing known as a zebra existed first.

>
> And that's of course why words and things are detached, just as labels
> and the things they label are detached.

See, when Burk our Atheist-Evolutionist said above: "Words are indeed but labels that represent things," he didn't mean what he said. He freely admits to detached thinking, that a label can exist absent its material referent.

>
> Now, you possibly don't mean what you write when you say words ARE
> persons, places or things, and it is more a result of your odd prose
> than your inability to think things through, but that is the (only)
> thing people object against when you use this odd expression.

Re-phrasing detached from reality thinking. Nouns/words ARE indeed persons, places, things.

Ray

[Burkhard]

Ray Martinez wrote:
> On Thursday, December 14, 2017 at 1:45:05 AM UTC-8, Burkhard wrote:
>> Ray Martinez wrote:
>>> On Tuesday, December 12, 2017 at 10:00:03 PM UTC-8, Tim Anderson wrote:
>>>> From Ray:
>>>>
>>>> "Where did you obtain the idea that the Bible says there was only one original on-off creation event? Archdeacon Paley and his successors accepted nature designed and created (note the present tenses)."
>>>>
>>>> The presence of the "-ed" ending in "designed and created" is a dead giveaway that you are using the past tense. But then, your idiosyncratic English usage may not distinguish between the two states.
>>>>
>>>
>>> The verb tenses are correct when Paley wrote. Said things must have existed in order to observe them designed and created.
>>>
>>> Evolutionists think illogically. That's the ONLY problem here. Their thought not based in reality; meaning, in their minds, words and things exist detached. But in reality-based thinking just the opposite is true: a noun, for example, is a person, place, or thing. Words are but labels that represent things.
>>
>>
>> Yes, and here we have the problem straight away. Everybody agrees with
>> the last sentence, and because of that, everybody (apart from you, and
>> people who do certain types of word magic) disagree with the sentence
>> directly before this.
>>
>> Words are indeed but labels that represent things. Because of that, they
>> can't also "be" a person, place or thing.
>
> Contradiction: the second sentence contradicts the first sentence. The first sentence says the label or word represents the thing. The next sentence says the exact opposite or takes away the fact established in the first sentence.

Nope. "represents" is different from "is identical with"

>
>> They are labels for persons, places and things, but not the things themselves.
>>
>
> Contradiction: The label or the identifier represents the thing itself.

sure, nobody disagreed

>How do we know? We know this is true because the thing existed first, not the label or identifier.

Well, I would agree with that. You shouldn't. If the label is the same
thing as the thing that is identified, then they also have to come into
existence at the same time. One more reason why it is absurd to identify
the word with the thing the way you do.

>
> A noun is a person, place, or thing; rephrase: a noun (word) is a thing.

Well, yes, just not the thing it names. Words are things too, especially
word tokens.

> Absent existence of the thing, the word would not exist.

Rather obviously false, as there are words for things that don't exist.

> What existed first, the thing known as a zebra, or the word zebra? Answer: the thing known as a zebra existed first.

In which case it is not the thing. Really simply substitution of
identity should tell you this.

So when you say the word zebra (the noun) is a zebra (the thing) as you
do above,
and you also say that zebras (the thing) existed before the noun "zebra",
then substitution of identity would yield the conclusion:

The noun zebra existed before the noun zebra

which is obviously a self-contradiction.

>
>>
>> And that's of course why words and things are detached, just as labels
>> and the things they label are detached.
>
> See, when Burk our Atheist-Evolutionist said above: "Words are indeed but labels that represent things," he didn't mean what he said.

Of course I did

> He freely admits to detached thinking, that a label can exist absent its material referent.

Of course they can. We have words for things that once existed but don;t
any longer - the word "dodo" did not suddenly disappear when the last
dodo died. And we have words for things that d not exist yet. That's how
we can plan building them. The word does not suddenly come into
existence once and only when the material object is finished. And we
have of course words for things that never existed, such as
"luminiferous aether", and not only that, we understand perfectly ell
what is meant by it

>
>>
>> Now, you possibly don't mean what you write when you say words ARE
>> persons, places or things, and it is more a result of your odd prose
>> than your inability to think things through, but that is the (only)
>> thing people object against when you use this odd expression.
>
> Re-phrasing detached from reality thinking. Nouns/words ARE indeed persons, places, things.

Yes, for folks who believe in word magic. Not for sane people. Apart
form the above inconsistency, you immediately run into problems when you
realise that there is more than one language.

If the noun "cat" were really cats, and the noun "Katze" were cats too,
then by the transitivity of the identity relation, you would get that
the noun "cat" is the noun "katze", and different languages would be
impossible

[*Hemidactylus*]

“Words” and “referents” both in flux. No self. No river. All melts away.
Radical nominalism baby.

Yet using words kinda defeats the argument no? Still better than syncretic
Randroid Paleyism.

Yet when the sun cooks away the Earth none of this will matter ever again
unless Nietzsche is right on eternal return. Then it only matters as a
cyclic function. And will we return or merely our clones? Swampman
problem.

[*Hemidactylus*]

I when younger used to have a periodic state of anxiety where words became
detached in my head from referents and I couldn’t feel the automatic
connection between the two. I thought this very strange, but I was merely
shifting from essentialism to nominalism and back again, only I lacked
these concepts and freaked out a little.

Words are jelly. Referents are wet tissue paper. The attempt to link the
two can be problematic. There are so many Sorites gray areas and
Heraclitian flux trumps all.

Where were your precious living immutables before the Earth came forth as
“object” that shows fkux vua plate tectonics. Where will they be when Earth
gets cooked by the sun or engulfed by a black hole?

Your precious living immutables (Gollum voice) are undergirded by
omnipresent allelic flux as indicated by mutation, drift, selection, and
gene flow (hi Alan). We call this flux evolution. And contingency holds you
can never step into the same allelic stream twice. Convergence is
superficial window dressing. Replay tape here and no humans. Sci-fi with
humanoid aliens is anthropocentric bullshit.

[*Hemidactylus*]

Or since psychiatric diagnosis is trending here (a doctor of set point
topology called me a sociopath), I could self-diagnose anomic aphasia (not
to be confused with anomie or anemone) stemming from insult to Broca’s
region. I do have occasional tip of tongue moments but isn’t that normal?
My vocabulary may have been impoverished. But I wasn’t having trouble with
recall, but in realizing why this word connects to that object. And it was
an oddly troubling feeling. Maybe Ray is fighting that fear by doubling
down.

[Bob Casanova]

On Wed, 13 Dec 2017 10:49:52 -0700, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off>:

[Crickets...]

As usual.

[Bob Casanova]

On Thu, 14 Dec 2017 15:20:06 -0800 (PST), the following

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

>On Thursday, December 14, 2017 at 1:45:05 AM UTC-8, Burkhard wrote:

<snip to the point>

>> Words are indeed but labels that represent things. Because of that, they
>> can't also "be" a person, place or thing.

>Contradiction: the second sentence contradicts the first sentence. The first sentence says the label or word represents the thing. The next sentence says the exact opposite or takes away the fact established in the first sentence.

It's not a contradiction, Ray. Words are not the things they
represent; they are *words*, not *things*.

>> They are labels for persons, places and things, but not the things themselves.

>Contradiction: The label or the identifier represents the thing itself. How do we know? We know this is true because the thing existed first, not the label or identifier.
>
>A noun is a person, place, or thing; rephrase: a noun (word) is a thing. Absent existence of the thing, the word would not exist.

So that means Sasquatches, Vogons, unicorns and fairies
actually exist, since if they didn't there would be no such
words as "Sasquatch", "Vogon", "unicorn" or "fairy"?

Are you *really* that stupid, or do you just continue to
post without *any* consideration of what you write? I'm
really curious about that...

> What existed first, the thing known as a zebra, or the word zebra? Answer: the thing known as a zebra existed first.

*Real* answer: You have no idea which came first, but you
love to make unsupported assertions.

[Panthera Tigris Altaica]

On Sunday, December 10, 2017 at 2:50:02 PM UTC-5, Alpha Beta wrote:
> The evidence for a young biblical creation is overwhelming.

The evidence for a biblical anything is solely from one source: the Bible. The evidence against a biblical creation is from many sources. This evidence includes the actual works of God.

I find it unsurprising, but sad, that a YEC refuses to listen to God and the many sources of the evidence of His work that abound, all of which point to an Earth many billions of years old which is a part of a universe many billions of years older.

I also find it unsurprising but sad that a YEC has the sheer gaul to state, with a straight face, that there is a lot of evidence for biblical creation, when there is no such evidence, while also saying, with an equally straight face, that there is no evidence for a manned landing on the Moon. YECs as a group deny the achievements of humanity. They must, as so many of those achievements are based on knowledge which shows that there cannot possibly have been anything even close to biblical creation. The Moon landings left laser reflectors on the Moon's surface; pointing lasers at them gives an accurate reading of the distance from the Earth to the Moon, but only if it is correct that the speed of light is on the order of 300,000 kilometers per second. Which it is. That same speed of light says that this galaxy is over 100,000 light years across, and that, for example, the Great Galaxy in Andromeda is over 2.5 _million_ light years away, utterly demolishing the notion that the universe was created a few thousand years ago. YECs must deny most of modern science as it completely invalidates their worldview.

[Bob Casanova]

On Fri, 15 Dec 2017 09:58:20 -0700, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off>:

>On Thu, 14 Dec 2017 15:20:06 -0800 (PST), the following
>appeared in talk.origins, posted by Ray Martinez
><r3p...@gmail.com>:
>
>>On Thursday, December 14, 2017 at 1:45:05 AM UTC-8, Burkhard wrote:
>
><snip to the point>
>
>>> Words are indeed but labels that represent things. Because of that, they
>>> can't also "be" a person, place or thing.
>
>>Contradiction: the second sentence contradicts the first sentence. The first sentence says the label or word represents the thing. The next sentence says the exact opposite or takes away the fact established in the first sentence.
>
>It's not a contradiction, Ray. Words are not the things they
>represent; they are *words*, not *things*.

[Crickets...]

>>> They are labels for persons, places and things, but not the things themselves.
>
>>Contradiction: The label or the identifier represents the thing itself. How do we know? We know this is true because the thing existed first, not the label or identifier.
>>
>>A noun is a person, place, or thing; rephrase: a noun (word) is a thing. Absent existence of the thing, the word would not exist.
>
>So that means Sasquatches, Vogons, unicorns and fairies
>actually exist, since if they didn't there would be no such
>words as "Sasquatch", "Vogon", "unicorn" or "fairy"?

[Crickets...]

[Ray Martinez]

On Friday, December 15, 2017 at 9:00:03 AM UTC-8, Bob Casanova wrote:
> > On Thu, 14 Dec 2017 15:20:06 -0800 (PST), the following
> > appeared in talk.origins, posted by Ray Martinez
> > <r3p...@gmail.com>:
> >
> > >On Thursday, December 14, 2017 at 1:45:05 AM UTC-8, Burkhard wrote:
> >
> > <snip to the point>
> >
> > >> Words are indeed but labels that represent things. Because of that, they
> > >> can't also "be" a person, place or thing.
> >
> > >Contradiction: the second sentence contradicts the first sentence. The first sentence says the label or word represents the thing. The next sentence says the exact opposite or takes away the fact established in the first sentence.
> >
> It's not a contradiction, Ray. Words are not the things they
> represent; they are *words*, not *things*.

The comment above says a noun is not a person, place, or thing, which contradicts common knowledge, also known as reality-based thinking: a noun is a person, place, or thing. The object or thing is in focus.

>
> >
> > >> They are labels for persons, places and things, but not the things themselves.
> >
> > >Contradiction: The label or the identifier represents the thing itself. How do we know? We know this is true because the thing existed first, not the label or identifier.
> > >
> > >A noun is a person, place, or thing; rephrase: a noun (word) is a thing. Absent existence of the thing, the word would not exist.
> >

> > So that means Sasquatches....
>

Some people believe the noun exists----yes, most do not. Some people believe evolution exists; an equal or greater amount of people believe evolution does not exist, but evolution remains a noun.

>
> > Vogons, unicorns and fairies
> > actually exist....
>
>
....in works of science-fiction, yes.

>
> >
> since if they didn't there would be no such
> > words as "Sasquatch", "Vogon", "unicorn" or "fairy"?
>

Bob reveals that he doesn't understand the fact that all nouns do not actually exist; some belong to science-fiction, some are contested, etc. etc.

>
> >
> > Are you *really* that stupid, or do you just continue to
> > post without *any* consideration of what you write? I'm
> > really curious about that...
>

Without any awareness of his laughable ignorance, Bob reveals that he actually thought the concept of noun conveyed automatic, uncontested, existence.

>
> >
> > > What existed first, the thing known as a zebra, or the word zebra? Answer: the thing known as a zebra existed first.
> > >
> > *Real* answer: You have no idea which came first, but you
> > love to make unsupported assertions.
> > --
> >
> > 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
>

Natural selection existed first, then the phrase natural selection was coined long after by Darwin. Replace natural selection with zebra and the same remains true: the thing existed first, then the name, label, or word.

What's obvious is that Bob doesn't understand basic epistemology.

Ray

[Ray Martinez]

Natural selection existed first, then the phrase natural selection was coined long after by Darwin. Replace natural selection with zebra and the same remains true: the thing existed first, then the name, label, or word came into existence afterwards (1).

Don't think for a second that I'm picking on poor Bob. It just so happens that Bob represents almost all Evolutionists. They are completely unaware of their astronomic ignorance/non-reality based thinking.

In reality based thinking (Realism) the thing exists first, not the word, label, or name by which the thing is known.

Ray

(1): existence of natural selection not accepted universally, unlike zebras.

[JWS]

Submarine.

[*Hemidactylus*]

I’m thinking of something revolutionary to invent. I name it then build it.
Plus it represents design in nature. Have you ever opened your opaque
windows and taken a look outside your four walled mental prison?

Or newlyweds agree on child names before conception.

[Bob Casanova]

On Sat, 16 Dec 2017 14:20:11 -0800 (PST), the following

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

>On Friday, December 15, 2017 at 9:00:03 AM UTC-8, Bob Casanova wrote:

>> On Thu, 14 Dec 2017 15:20:06 -0800 (PST), the following
>> appeared in talk.origins, posted by Ray Martinez
>> <r3p...@gmail.com>:
>>
>> >On Thursday, December 14, 2017 at 1:45:05 AM UTC-8, Burkhard wrote:
>>
>> <snip to the point>
>>
>> >> Words are indeed but labels that represent things. Because of that, they
>> >> can't also "be" a person, place or thing.
>>
>> >Contradiction: the second sentence contradicts the first sentence. The first sentence says the label or word represents the thing. The next sentence says the exact opposite or takes away the fact established in the first sentence.
>>
>> It's not a contradiction, Ray. Words are not the things they
>> represent; they are *words*, not *things*.
>

>The comment above says a noun is not a person, place, or thing, which contradicts common knowledge, also known as reality-based thinking: a noun is a person, place, or thing. The object or thing is in focus.

Correct; parts of speech are not "things" in the material
sense, any more than idle thoughts are.

>> >> They are labels for persons, places and things, but not the things themselves.
>>
>> >Contradiction: The label or the identifier represents the thing itself. How do we know? We know this is true because the thing existed first, not the label or identifier.
>> >
>> >A noun is a person, place, or thing; rephrase: a noun (word) is a thing. Absent existence of the thing, the word would not exist.
>>

>> So that means Sasquatches....
>
>Some people believe the noun exists----yes, most do not.

Nope, the noun *definitely* exists. It's the physical
creature whose existence is in doubt. *Great* doubt.

> Some people believe evolution exists; an equal or greater amount of people believe evolution does not exist, but evolution remains a noun.

Really? So then evolution is real, according to you: "We

know this is true because the thing existed first, not the
label or identifier".
>

>> Vogons, unicorns and fairies

>> actually exist....
>
>....in works of science-fiction, yes.

So what happened to "We know this is true because the thing
existed first, not the label or identifier"? Are you now
back-pedaling *again*?

>>since if they didn't there would be no such
>> words as "Sasquatch", "Vogon", "unicorn" or "fairy"?

>Bob reveals that he doesn't understand that all nouns don't actually exist; some belong to science-fiction, some are contested, etc. etc.

Ray attempts to evade again, and fails again.

Ray:"We know this is true because the thing existed first,

not the label or identifier".

>> Are you *really* that stupid, or do you just continue to
>> post without *any* consideration of what you write? I'm
>> really curious about that...
>

>Without any awareness of his laughable ignorance, Bob reveals that he actually thought the concept of noun conveyed automatic uncontested existence.

No, Ray, that's what *you* said: "We know this is true

because the thing existed first, not the label or
identifier".

>> > What existed first, the thing known as a zebra, or the word zebra? Answer: the thing known as a zebra existed first.
>> >
>> *Real* answer: You have no idea which came first, but you
>> love to make unsupported assertions.

>Natural selection existed first, then the phrase natural selection was coined long after by Darwin. Replace natural selection with zebra and the same is true: the thing existed first, then the name, label, or word.

And now Ray reverses himself yet *again*, and claims that
the object did indeed exist before it was possible to have a
name (noun) for it.

I'm surprised you can stand up, with all the spinning you're
doing.

>What's obvious is that Bob doesn't understand basic epistemology.

No, Ray, that's not what's obvious here.

Spin, magic Ray...

[Ray Martinez]

Each of Bob's replies seen in the above message convey deliberate misrepresentations. Precisely why Atheist-Evolutionists like Bob Casanova are known as brazen liars. They do not attempt to conceal the fact as anyone can plainly confirm if they take the time to read the exchanges. If the Atheist would dare to lie so brazenly about uncomplicated things, as seen above, then they wouldn't hesitate to lie about complicated scientific issues and evidence.

Ray (Christian)

[jillery]

How ironic then that not only do you delete said alleged brazen lies,
but you make no effort to show them to be lies, brazen or otherwise.
Instead, you just baldly repeat your bald assertion, which suggests
that it's you who posts brazen lies.

[Wolffan]

On 2017 Dec 17, Ray Martinez wrote
(in article<489d09c2-fa33-4358...@googlegroups.com>):

> Each of Bob's replies seen in the above message convey deliberate
> misrepresentations

excellent. point out a few.

[Öö Tiib]

On Sunday, 17 December 2017 20:30:03 UTC+2, Ray Martinez wrote:
> Each of Bob's replies seen in the above message convey deliberate misrepresentations. Precisely why Atheist-Evolutionists like Bob Casanova are known as brazen liars. They do not attempt to conceal the fact as anyone can plainly confirm if they take the time to read the exchanges. If the Atheist would dare to lie so brazenly about uncomplicated things, as seen above, then they wouldn't hesitate to lie about complicated scientific issues and evidence.
>
> Ray (Christian)

Schoolbook demo of every detail of argumentum ad hominem without slightest
slip made to write anything about actual argument. Bonus points for the
"as seen above" about erased stuff. :D

[Bob Casanova]

On Sun, 17 Dec 2017 10:28:18 -0800 (PST), the following

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

>Each of Bob's replies seen in the above message convey deliberate misrepresentations.

No, they do not. If you think they do, please post what I
wrote and explain exactly *how* it misrepresents what you
wrote. That's what you *wrote*, not what you *thought*. If
anything.

And BTW, there is no "above message"; you snipped everything
previous.

[Bob Casanova]

On Sun, 17 Dec 2017 10:21:03 -0700, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off>:

Here's the exchange to which you responded while snipping
every bit of it, of which you claimed I "misrepresented"
you. Take each of my statements and show how it's a
"misrepresentation; I've marked them for your convenience.

>On Sat, 16 Dec 2017 14:20:11 -0800 (PST), the following
>appeared in talk.origins, posted by Ray Martinez
><r3p...@gmail.com>:
>
>>On Friday, December 15, 2017 at 9:00:03 AM UTC-8, Bob Casanova wrote:
>>> On Thu, 14 Dec 2017 15:20:06 -0800 (PST), the following
>>> appeared in talk.origins, posted by Ray Martinez
>>> <r3p...@gmail.com>:
>>>
>>> >On Thursday, December 14, 2017 at 1:45:05 AM UTC-8, Burkhard wrote:
>>>
>>> <snip to the point>
>>>
>>> >> Words are indeed but labels that represent things. Because of that, they
>>> >> can't also "be" a person, place or thing.
>>>
>>> >Contradiction: the second sentence contradicts the first sentence. The first sentence says the label or word represents the thing. The next sentence says the exact opposite or takes away the fact established in the first sentence.
>>>
>>> It's not a contradiction, Ray. Words are not the things they
>>> represent; they are *words*, not *things*.
>>
>>The comment above says a noun is not a person, place, or thing, which contradicts common knowledge, also known as reality-based thinking: a noun is a person, place, or thing. The object or thing is in focus.

#1:

>Correct; parts of speech are not "things" in the material
>sense, any more than idle thoughts are.
>
>>> >> They are labels for persons, places and things, but not the things themselves.
>>>
>>> >Contradiction: The label or the identifier represents the thing itself. How do we know? We know this is true because the thing existed first, not the label or identifier.
>>> >
>>> >A noun is a person, place, or thing; rephrase: a noun (word) is a thing. Absent existence of the thing, the word would not exist.
>>>
>>> So that means Sasquatches....
>>
>>Some people believe the noun exists----yes, most do not.

#2:

>Nope, the noun *definitely* exists. It's the physical
>creature whose existence is in doubt. *Great* doubt.
>
>> Some people believe evolution exists; an equal or greater amount of people believe evolution does not exist, but evolution remains a noun.

#3:

>Really? So then evolution is real, according to you: "We
>know this is true because the thing existed first, not the
>label or identifier".
>>
>>> Vogons, unicorns and fairies
>>> actually exist....
>>
>>....in works of science-fiction, yes.

#4:

>So what happened to "We know this is true because the thing
>existed first, not the label or identifier"? Are you now
>back-pedaling *again*?
>
>>>since if they didn't there would be no such
>>> words as "Sasquatch", "Vogon", "unicorn" or "fairy"?
>
>>Bob reveals that he doesn't understand that all nouns don't actually exist; some belong to science-fiction, some are contested, etc. etc.

#5:

>Ray attempts to evade again, and fails again.
>
>Ray:"We know this is true because the thing existed first,
>not the label or identifier".
>
>>> Are you *really* that stupid, or do you just continue to
>>> post without *any* consideration of what you write? I'm
>>> really curious about that...
>>
>>Without any awareness of his laughable ignorance, Bob reveals that he actually thought the concept of noun conveyed automatic uncontested existence.

#6:

>No, Ray, that's what *you* said: "We know this is true
>because the thing existed first, not the label or
>identifier".
>
>>> > What existed first, the thing known as a zebra, or the word zebra? Answer: the thing known as a zebra existed first.
>>> >
>>> *Real* answer: You have no idea which came first, but you
>>> love to make unsupported assertions.
>
>>Natural selection existed first, then the phrase natural selection was coined long after by Darwin. Replace natural selection with zebra and the same is true: the thing existed first, then the name, label, or word.

#7:

>And now Ray reverses himself yet *again*, and claims that
>the object did indeed exist before it was possible to have a
>name (noun) for it.
>
>I'm surprised you can stand up, with all the spinning you're
>doing.
>
>>What's obvious is that Bob doesn't understand basic epistemology.
>
>No, Ray, that's not what's obvious here.
>
>Spin, magic Ray...

Seven comments. Show how they "misrepresent" what you've
posted.

[Panthera Tigris Altaica]

On Sunday, December 17, 2017 at 1:30:03 PM UTC-5, Ray Martinez wrote:
> Each of Bob's replies seen in the above message convey deliberate misrepresentations. Precisely why Atheist-Evolutionists like Bob Casanova are known as brazen liars. They do not attempt to conceal the fact as anyone can plainly confirm if they take the time to read the exchanges. If the Atheist would dare to lie so brazenly about uncomplicated things, as seen above, then they wouldn't hesitate to lie about complicated scientific issues and evidence.
>
> Ray (Christian)

This kind of post is exactly why I say that you, Ray, cannot win converts. You make a categorical statement, that Bob Cassanova's post contains deliberate misrepresentations. Multiple posters challenge you to point out these misrepresentations. You do not, because you cannot: there were no misrepresentation, save only for your own. You do this kind of thing repeatedly. After the first two or three times, neutral on-lookers are hardly likely to take your word on anything, as they will have observed your being caught in deliberate misrepresentations too often. Anything you state is presumed to be false unless and until proven otherwise, because so much of what you state _has_ been proven false. You are struggling against a tide of your own creation.

[Ray Martinez]

On Monday, December 18, 2017 at 9:35:03 AM UTC-8, Bob Casanova wrote:
> On Sun, 17 Dec 2017 10:21:03 -0700, the following appeared
> in talk.origins, posted by Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off>:
>
> Here's the exchange to which you responded while snipping
> every bit of it, of which you claimed I "misrepresented"
> you. Take each of my statements and show how it's a
> "misrepresentation; I've marked them for your convenience.

So time is not wasted, I will address one at a time.

>
> >On Sat, 16 Dec 2017 14:20:11 -0800 (PST), the following
> >appeared in talk.origins, posted by Ray Martinez
> ><r3p...@gmail.com>:
> >
> >>On Friday, December 15, 2017 at 9:00:03 AM UTC-8, Bob Casanova wrote:
> >>> On Thu, 14 Dec 2017 15:20:06 -0800 (PST), the following
> >>> appeared in talk.origins, posted by Ray Martinez
> >>> <r3p...@gmail.com>:
> >>>
> >>> >On Thursday, December 14, 2017 at 1:45:05 AM UTC-8, Burkhard wrote:
> >>>
> >>> <snip to the point>
> >>>
> >>> >> Words are indeed but labels that represent things. Because of that, they
> >>> >> can't also "be" a person, place or thing.
> >>>
> >>> >Contradiction: the second sentence contradicts the first sentence. The first sentence says the label or word represents the thing. The next sentence says the exact opposite or takes away the fact established in the first sentence.
> >>>
> >>> It's not a contradiction, Ray. Words are not the things they
> >>> represent; they are *words*, not *things*.
> >>
> >>The comment above says a noun is not a person, place, or thing, which contradicts common knowledge, also known as reality-based thinking: a noun is a person, place, or thing. The object or thing is in focus.
>
> #1:
>
> >Correct; parts of speech are not "things" in the material
> >sense, any more than idle thoughts are.

I stated a common knowledge fact correctly----that a noun is a person, place, or thing [word = thing].

Bob, in response: "Correct; parts of speech are not 'things' in the material

sense, any more than idle thoughts are."

Bob's response said "Correct" to my statement THEN he immediately and deliberately contradicts his agreement by saying "parts of speech are NOT 'things' in the material sense, any more than idle thoughts are" (emphasis added)----as if what he just said agrees with what I said----which, as a matter of fact, does not. In my statement a thing is a material thing. In Bob's reply it is not----that's why he placed quote marks around the word "'things.'"

That's a deliberate misrepresentation: to express agreement ("Correct") followed by a statement that does not agree with what I said. I DID NOT SAY what he said after he typed "Correct."

Again, we are NOT talking about anything complicated or disputed (what a noun is). Bob can disagree nonetheless, but he didn't do that. He expressed immediate agreement with what I said ("Correct") then, what he writes next, does NOT agree with what I said.

Ray said: "a noun is a person, place, or thing."

Bob, in response says: "Correct," which means what follows should express agreement with what I said in his own words. But he doesn't do that. He does the exact opposite and denies that a noun is a thing:

"....parts of speech are not 'things' in the material sense, any more than idle thoughts are."

What Bob should have done is say: "Correct, but...." But he didn't do that. He went on to express his view which does not agree with my view. Because the issue is NOT complicated, Bob misrepresented deliberately. One cannot express immediate agreement ("Correct") followed by a statement that does not agree with what I said.

Ray: "a noun is a person, place, or thing."

Bob: "Correct; parts of speech are not 'things' in the material sense, any more than idle thoughts are."

What Bob writes after "Correct" contradicts what I said. He places quote marks around "'things.'" By doing so Bob indicates that we are not talking about the same thing, which means when he said "Correct" he did not mean what he said, but was deliberately misrepresenting. How does one know? By what he writes next. What he wrote next contradicts what I said. Because the issue is not complicated what Bob wrote conveys a clear and deliberate misrepresentation. We do not agree. But Bob felt compelled to begin his response by saying "Correct," which is false, he did not agree with what I said. I said thing he went on to say "'things'" (the plural form not at issue here).

Concerning the issue itself apart from my claim of deliberate misrepresentation on the part of Bob:

By placing quote marks around the word things like this 'things' Bob is saying 'things' does not mean or represent material things (which is what I meant). Where did Bob obtain this idea? Where did Bob obtain the idea that the word thing in the sentence below means 'thing' or 'things' as opposed to things or thing?

A noun is a person, place, or thing.

Where did Bob obtain the idea that 'thing' in the above definition sentence does not mean thing but 'thing'? If thing does not mean thing but means 'thing' how does one convey thing to mean thing?

I contend: When it is said that a noun is a person, place, or thing the same means the noun or word represents an alleged material thing and not a word because that would create the following piece of nonsense:

Bob: A word or noun is a noun or word ("....parts of speech are not 'things' in the material sense, any more than idle thoughts are").

As opposed to:

Ray: A word or noun is a thing ("a noun is a person, place, or thing").

In Bob's mind, thing does not convey a material thing but a part of speech----that's why he places quote marks around "'things'" and says "....parts of speech are not 'things' in the material sense, any more than idle thoughts are."

Again, if thing means 'thing' how does one convey thing to mean material thing?

Ray

[jillery]

Of course, Ray isn't the only one who posts alternate facts and then
refuses to support them or retract. Perhaps there's something in the
water.

[Burkhard]

No it doesn't. It repeats something you may have picked up in a not-so
good pre-school or primary school (or maybe Sesame Street), where it
just about does the job of introducing very young children to grammar,
but even there you will normally find the more accurate "names" or
"refers to". rather than "is".

Apart from the plain wrong "is" in the statement, it also stretches the
concept of "thing" to breaking point.

"difference", "advantage", "moment", "symmetry", "roundness", "sound",
"behalf", "joyfulness", "six", "art", "(the) poor", "flying", "length",
"impossibility", "sleep", "sake" (not the wine, but as in "for the sake
of",) are "things" only if you stretch the meaning of the term so much
that it becomes more or less empty. Conversely, there is no reason to
single out persons and places - they are "things" at least as much as
something like "sleep" or "interest" is. So most definitions include in
addition to places, things and persons also "ideas", "actions",
"qualities" and quite a couple more.

But generally, modern linguistics will avoid defining the category noun
through semantic roles, and use syntactic distribution instead, that is
by reference to their occurrence relative to other syntactic
categories. So in English, that would be "can follow the determiner
"the"" for instance. (for a full discussion I'd recommend Elly van
Gelderen's An Introduction to the Grammar of English, 2000 p. 13ff)

>
> Bob, in response: "Correct; parts of speech are not 'things' in the material
> sense, any more than idle thoughts are."
>
> Bob's response said "Correct" to my statement THEN he immediately and deliberately contradicts his agreement by saying "parts of speech are NOT 'things' in the material sense, any more than idle thoughts are" (emphasis added)----as if what he just said agrees with what I said----which, as a matter of fact, does not. In my statement a thing is a material thing. In Bob's reply it is not----that's why he placed quote marks around the word "'things.'"
>
> That's a deliberate misrepresentation: to express agreement ("Correct") followed by a statement that does not agree with what I said. I DID NOT SAY what he said after he typed "Correct."
>
> Again, we are NOT talking about anything complicated or disputed (what a noun is).

It is indeed not disputed by 99.9% of the population, you are still the
odd one out

[Panthera Tigris Altaica]

It appears from this that you are very confused about a great many things. It also appears from this that Mr. Cassanova did not "misrepresent" anything. You are merely in error.

[Bob Casanova]

On Tue, 19 Dec 2017 17:44:39 -0800 (PST), the following

Here's the exchange to which you refer; it's still visible
above:

[Bob]:

"Words are not the things they represent; they are *words*,
not *things*."

[Ray]:

"The comment above says a noun is not a person, place, or

thing..."

To which I responded "Correct", to indicate that you
correctly grasped what I wrote.

Try to keep up.

> (emphasis added)----as if what he just said agrees with what I said----which, as a matter of fact, does not. In my statement a thing is a material thing. In Bob's reply it is not----that's why he placed quote marks around the word "'things.'"
>
>That's a deliberate misrepresentation: to express agreement ("Correct") followed by a statement that does not agree with what I said. I DID NOT SAY what he said after he typed "Correct."

Addressed above.

>Again, we are NOT talking about anything complicated or disputed (what a noun is). Bob can disagree nonetheless, but he didn't do that. He expressed immediate agreement with what I said ("Correct") then, what he writes next, does NOT agree with what I said.
>
>Ray said: "a noun is a person, place, or thing."
>
>Bob, in response says: "Correct," which means what follows should express agreement with what I said in his own words.

Yep, I said you were correct in saying I made the statement
you attributed to me. Again, try to keep up.

> But he doesn't do that. He does the exact opposite and denies that a noun is a thing:
>
>"....parts of speech are not 'things' in the material sense, any more than idle thoughts are."
>
>What Bob should have done is say: "Correct, but...." But he didn't do that. He went on to express his view which does not agree with my view. Because the issue is NOT complicated, Bob misrepresented deliberately. One cannot express immediate agreement ("Correct") followed by a statement that does not agree with what I said.

Since you've made a fundamental error in interpreting the
target of what I wrote, it's not surprising that you've
continued to make the same error repeatedly, and continue to
harp on it below.

>Ray: "a noun is a person, place, or thing."

Not quite, Ray; your actual comment was "The comment above
[i.e., my comment that 'Words are not the things they
represent; they are *words*, not *things*'] says a noun is
not a person, place, or thing". See above.

>Bob: "Correct; parts of speech are not 'things' in the material sense, any more than idle thoughts are."

Yep, I noted that you correctly attributed that statement to
me.

>What Bob writes after "Correct" contradicts what I said. He places quote marks around "'things.'" By doing so Bob indicates that we are not talking about the same thing, which means when he said "Correct" he did not mean what he said, but was deliberately misrepresenting. How does one know? By what he writes next. What he wrote next contradicts what I said. Because the issue is not complicated what Bob wrote conveys a clear and deliberate misrepresentation. We do not agree. But Bob felt compelled to begin his response by saying "Correct," which is false, he did not agree with what I said. I said thing he went on to say "'things'" (the plural form not at issue here).
>
>Concerning the issue itself apart from my claim of deliberate misrepresentation on the part of Bob:
>
>By placing quote marks around the word things like this 'things' Bob is saying 'things' does not mean or represent material things (which is what I meant). Where did Bob obtain this idea? Where did Bob obtain the idea that the word thing in the sentence below means 'thing' or 'things' as opposed to things or thing?
>
>A noun is a person, place, or thing.
>
>Where did Bob obtain the idea that 'thing' in the above definition sentence does not mean thing but 'thing'? If thing does not mean thing but means 'thing' how does one convey thing to mean thing?
>
>I contend: When it is said that a noun is a person, place, or thing the same means the noun or word represents an alleged material thing and not a word because that would create the following piece of nonsense:
>
>Bob: A word or noun is a noun or word ("....parts of speech are not 'things' in the material sense, any more than idle thoughts are").
>
>As opposed to:
>
>Ray: A word or noun is a thing ("a noun is a person, place, or thing").
>
>In Bob's mind, thing does not convey a material thing but a part of speech----that's why he places quote marks around "'things'" and says "....parts of speech are not 'things' in the material sense, any more than idle thoughts are."
>
>Again, if thing means 'thing' how does one convey thing to mean material thing?

"Thing", like "person" or "place", is a *designator* for a
*physical object*; it is *not* the object itself.

I don't know how I can make that any more clear.

[Ray Martinez]

Deliberate false conclusion.

Anyone can confirm by reading the exchanges.

Ray

[Ray Martinez]

You placed "Correct" directly below my entire statement, which means you placed "Correct" directly below the last thought giving the impression of agreement. That last thought said: "a noun is a person, place, or thing. The object or thing is in focus."

Then you wrote: "Correct." You should have placed your "Correct" directly beneath the portion of the statement that you agree with, not the part you don't agree with. But you already know that. And you continue to act like you've done nothing wrong.

This is what one gets with Evolutionists: brazen dishonesty with no attempt to conceal. If the Evolutionist would attempt such a brazen misrepresentation----one that can easily be confirmed by scrolling up just a little to the actual exchange, then just think what these people will do and have done with complicated scientific issues and evidence?

Ray (Creationist)

[snip....]

[Ray Martinez]

The word or noun is the designating tool, not the person, place, or thing. In the statement above, everything written after the semi-colon contradicts everything written before the semi-colon.

Definition: A noun is a person, place, or thing.

What's written before the word "is" refers to the noun or word; what's written after refers to material objects. In your thinking there's no material referent; words or nouns refer to other nouns or words. But in the definition this is not so. Both word and material object are accounted for.

>
> I don't know how I can make that any more clear.

You've clearly misunderstood the common definition of a noun.

Once again:

A noun is a person, place, or thing.

"A noun...." refers to a particular word.

"....a person, place, or thing" refers to material things or objects.

"word/noun----thing"

In your thinking: words/nouns refers to other nouns/words. Where are the material things (persons places, things)?

How do young children learn about reality? Does the teacher write "beach ball" on the blackboard and that's it? Nope, the teacher holds up a picture of a beach ball. Later on the children will learn how to spell the label "beach ball." The material object is in focus.

Ray

[Burkhard]

Yes indeed, so why do you keep saying otherwise? Just remove "the
designating tool" to see that this contradicts your statement.

>In the statement above, everything written after the semi-colon contradicts everything written before the semi-colon.

Of course not. It distinguishes "being a designation for" from "being
identical with".

>
> Definition: A noun is a person, place, or thing.

Kindergardendefintition

>
> What's written before the word "is" refers to the noun or word; what's written after refers to material objects. In your thinking there's no material referent; words or nouns refer to other nouns or words.

In Bob's definition? Certainly not. It says quite explicitly that nouns
refer to external objects

>But in the definition this is not so. Both word and material object are accounted for.

They are accounted for, but in the wrong way, identifying the two rather
than standing in the reference relation.

>
>>
>> I don't know how I can make that any more clear.
>
> You've clearly misunderstood the common definition of a noun.

No, he gets the definition just right, the problem is you don't
understand what you are saying means and entails. As I said before, it
might well be that your thinking on this is not wrong, just how you
express is makes no sense at all.

>
> Once again:
>
> A noun is a person, place, or thing.
>
> "A noun...." refers to a particular word.
>
> "....a person, place, or thing" refers to material things or objects.
>
> "word/noun----thing"

Yup, and here lies the rub. On the left hand side, we have "a particular
word". On the right hand side, as you say, "a materials things or objects".

And that alone means that they can't stand in the identity relation
("is") but in a different relation ("refers to")

If they were identical, then the left hand side would have all the
properties of the right hand side (that, in fact, is one way to state
Aristotelian identity, A=A)

which immediately leads to absurd consequences. Nouns are e.g. created
and enter a language at a specific point in time. The noun "Penguin" is
documented from the 1570s and is possibly of Welsh origin.

If nouns "are" persons, places or things, that would mean that also
Penguins, the animals, only started to exist in the 16th century, and
their origin would be in Wales.

>
> In your thinking: words/nouns refers to other nouns/words.

Nothing that Bob (or I, or anyone else has said leads to this
conclusion. Ironically though, your definition does. That again is the
result of the symmetry of the identity relation.

If a noun "is" a thing, a person or place, then a person, a thing or a
place is also a noun. The identity relation is symmetrical and can
always be read also right to left.

So in your definition, everything is nouns or words, and they always
refer to other nouns/words.

> Where are the material things (persons places, things)?

On the left side of the designation or reference relation of course.

>
> How do young children learn about reality? Does the teacher write "beach ball" on the blackboard and that's it? Nope, the teacher holds up a picture of a beach ball. Later on the children will learn how to spell the label "beach ball." The material object is in focus.

Nothing that Bob says is inconsistent with this. The teacher holds the
ball, which should tell even the most stupid of her students that the
noun, on the blackboard, is not the ball she is holding up, but merely a
name for it.

>
> Ray
>

[Panthera Tigris Altaica]

No. I examined the evidence. I found your reply to be wanting.

>
> Anyone can confirm by reading the exchanges.

I have read the exchanges. You are in error. You refuse to acknowledge the error. This means that you will continue to make the same error.

>
> Ray

[Rolf]

"Panthera Tigris Altaica" <northe...@outlook.com> wrote in message
news:9f5efb9b-9c91-41ac...@googlegroups.com...

Instead of all the debate about words, why no show some evidence of divine
intervention in evolution (not OOL, that's a different subject!)

The question have always been and still is: Is the appearance of evolution
imagined, or is it a fact? Further, is it evidence of natural forces at
work, or evidence of God at work? In case of the latter, God must be a very
busy thing. He can't even have time to spare for celebrating Christmas!
IMHO, we can't see God, and we can't identify evidence of his work.

[Bob Casanova]

On Thu, 21 Dec 2017 18:43:53 -0800 (PST), the following

Sorry you're unable to parse a relatively simple English
sentence, and to take the entire context into account.

>Then you wrote: "Correct." You should have placed your "Correct" directly beneath the portion of the statement that you agree with, not the part you don't agree with. But you already know that. And you continue to act like you've done nothing wrong.
>
>This is what one gets with Evolutionists: brazen dishonesty with no attempt to conceal. If the Evolutionist would attempt such a brazen misrepresentation----one that can easily be confirmed by scrolling up just a little to the actual exchange, then just think what these people will do and have done with complicated scientific issues and evidence?

I'm still waiting for your explanation regarding your
assertion that...

"The label or the identifier represents the thing itself.
How do we know? We know this is true because the thing
existed first, not the label or identifier."

....and exactly what effect that has on the existence of
Sasquatches, fairies and Vogons.

[Bob Casanova]

On Thu, 21 Dec 2017 19:26:09 -0800 (PST), the following

Wrong; that is *your* *personal* definition, The *real*
definition, from
https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/noun :

"noun
Grammar

A word (other than a pronoun) used to identify any of a
class of people, places, or things (common noun), or to name
a particular one of these (proper noun)."

See "used to identify"? How do you imagine that relates to
my chosen term of "designator"?

>What's written before the word "is" refers to the noun or word; what's written after refers to material objects. In your thinking there's no material referent; words or nouns refer to other nouns or words. But in the definition this is not so. Both word and material object are accounted for.
>
>>
>> I don't know how I can make that any more clear.
>
>You've clearly misunderstood the common definition of a noun.
>
>Once again:
>
>A noun is a person, place, or thing.
>
>"A noun...." refers to a particular word.
>
>"....a person, place, or thing" refers to material things or objects.
>
>"word/noun----thing"
>
>In your thinking: words/nouns refers to other nouns/words. Where are the material things (persons places, things)?
>
>How do young children learn about reality? Does the teacher write "beach ball" on the blackboard and that's it? Nope, the teacher holds up a picture of a beach ball. Later on the children will learn how to spell the label "beach ball." The material object is in focus.
>
>Ray

[Mark Isaak]

On 12/22/17 10:36 AM, Bob Casanova wrote:
> On Thu, 21 Dec 2017 18:43:53 -0800 (PST), the following
> appeared in talk.origins, posted by Ray Martinez
> <r3p...@gmail.com>:

> [...]

> I'm still waiting for your explanation regarding your
> assertion that...
>
> "The label or the identifier represents the thing itself.
> How do we know? We know this is true because the thing
> existed first, not the label or identifier."
>
> ....and exactly what effect that has on the existence of
> Sasquatches, fairies and Vogons.

Not to mention identifiers such as "Erie Canal" and "Empire State
Building", which preceded the thing existing.

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

[Bob Casanova]

On Sat, 23 Dec 2017 08:34:53 -0800, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by Mark Isaak
<eciton@curiousta/xyz/xonomy.net>:

>On 12/22/17 10:36 AM, Bob Casanova wrote:
>> On Thu, 21 Dec 2017 18:43:53 -0800 (PST), the following
>> appeared in talk.origins, posted by Ray Martinez
>> <r3p...@gmail.com>:
>> [...]
>> I'm still waiting for your explanation regarding your
>> assertion that...
>>
>> "The label or the identifier represents the thing itself.
>> How do we know? We know this is true because the thing
>> existed first, not the label or identifier."
>>
>> ....and exactly what effect that has on the existence of
>> Sasquatches, fairies and Vogons.
>
>Not to mention identifiers such as "Erie Canal" and "Empire State
>Building", which preceded the thing existing.

Yep. But let's not confuse Ray with examples of things which
actually exist; he has enough in his plate as it is.

[Ray Martinez]

What error or errors?

Ray

[Ray Martinez]

Show me a picture of natural selection?

Ray

[Ray Martinez]

On Saturday, December 23, 2017 at 8:35:04 AM UTC-8, Mark Isaak wrote:
> On 12/22/17 10:36 AM, Bob Casanova wrote:
> > On Thu, 21 Dec 2017 18:43:53 -0800 (PST), the following
> > appeared in talk.origins, posted by Ray Martinez
> > <r3p...@gmail.com>:
> > [...]
> > I'm still waiting for your explanation regarding your
> > assertion that...
> >
> > "The label or the identifier represents the thing itself.
> > How do we know? We know this is true because the thing
> > existed first, not the label or identifier."
> >
> > ....and exactly what effect that has on the existence of
> > Sasquatches, fairies and Vogons.
>
> Not to mention identifiers such as "Erie Canal" and "Empire State
> Building", which preceded the thing existing.

A proposal, draft, plan, label, identifier, or noun, in and of themselves, does not constitute existence. Only ensuing materialization constitutes existence.

Ray

[jillery]

On Sat, 23 Dec 2017 14:08:20 -0800 (PST), Ray Martinez
<r3p...@gmail.com> wrote:

>Show me a picture of natural selection?

Describe what you think such a picture should look like.

[jillery]

Come on, Ray, even you can't believe the Empire State Building and the
Erie Canal don't materially exist.

[Ray Martinez]

On Saturday, December 23, 2017 at 4:05:03 PM UTC-8, jillery wrote:
> On Sat, 23 Dec 2017 14:06:53 -0800 (PST), Ray Martinez
> <r3p...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >On Saturday, December 23, 2017 at 8:35:04 AM UTC-8, Mark Isaak wrote:
> >> On 12/22/17 10:36 AM, Bob Casanova wrote:
> >> > On Thu, 21 Dec 2017 18:43:53 -0800 (PST), the following
> >> > appeared in talk.origins, posted by Ray Martinez
> >> > <r3p...@gmail.com>:
> >> > [...]
> >> > I'm still waiting for your explanation regarding your
> >> > assertion that...
> >> >
> >> > "The label or the identifier represents the thing itself.
> >> > How do we know? We know this is true because the thing
> >> > existed first, not the label or identifier."
> >> >
> >> > ....and exactly what effect that has on the existence of
> >> > Sasquatches, fairies and Vogons.
> >>
> >> Not to mention identifiers such as "Erie Canal" and "Empire State
> >> Building", which preceded the thing existing.
> >
> >A proposal, draft, plan, label, identifier, or noun, in and of themselves, does not constitute existence. Only ensuing materialization constitutes existence.
> >
> >Ray
>
>
> Come on, Ray, even you can't believe the Empire State Building and the
> Erie Canal don't materially exist.

You've misread what I wrote.

Ray

[jillery]

On Sat, 23 Dec 2017 16:50:36 -0800 (PST), Ray Martinez

<r3p...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Saturday, December 23, 2017 at 4:05:03 PM UTC-8, jillery wrote:
>> On Sat, 23 Dec 2017 14:06:53 -0800 (PST), Ray Martinez
>> <r3p...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >On Saturday, December 23, 2017 at 8:35:04 AM UTC-8, Mark Isaak wrote:
>> >> On 12/22/17 10:36 AM, Bob Casanova wrote:
>> >> > On Thu, 21 Dec 2017 18:43:53 -0800 (PST), the following
>> >> > appeared in talk.origins, posted by Ray Martinez
>> >> > <r3p...@gmail.com>:
>> >> > [...]
>> >> > I'm still waiting for your explanation regarding your
>> >> > assertion that...
>> >> >
>> >> > "The label or the identifier represents the thing itself.
>> >> > How do we know? We know this is true because the thing
>> >> > existed first, not the label or identifier."
>> >> >
>> >> > ....and exactly what effect that has on the existence of
>> >> > Sasquatches, fairies and Vogons.
>> >>
>> >> Not to mention identifiers such as "Erie Canal" and "Empire State
>> >> Building", which preceded the thing existing.
>> >
>> >A proposal, draft, plan, label, identifier, or noun, in and of themselves, does not constitute existence. Only ensuing materialization constitutes existence.
>> >
>> >Ray
>>
>>
>> Come on, Ray, even you can't believe the Empire State Building and the
>> Erie Canal don't materially exist.
>
>You've misread what I wrote.

Nope. If anything, you miswrote what you meant.

[Panthera Tigris Altaica]

Mr. Cassanova, Mr. Isaac, and Mr. Brukhard, all of them "important" posters on this newsgroup according to your friend Mr. Nyikos, have already pointed several errors out. You have ignored them. The errors are still there for all to see. You are in error. You refuse to acknowledge your error. This means that you will continue to make the same error.

Among your other, repeated, errors is your insistence that all who disagree with you are "Atheists". Some of those who disagree with you really are atheists, but I have seen multiple Christians of multiple denominations plus at least one, possibly two, Jews disagree with you and be labeled "Atheists". When you repeatedly make the same error, even after being corrected, you utterly destroy your credibility.

Another error you repeatedly commit is your attempts to make it seem as though the ToE in general and those who consider it to be good science in particular is/are racist(s). I point to your repeated line that "Evolutionists believe that apes morphed into Africans". Humans, all humans, are apes. Including you. Africans, whether you are talking about Nelson Mandela or Piet Botha, are no more and no less apes than any other humans. Your repeated attempts at smearing good science would utterly destroy your credibility if it hadn't already been utterly destroyed by your previous errors.

You need to try to repair your credibility. You need to stop, cease, desist, making the errors you love so much. You need to stop deliberately attempting (and failing) to spread falsehoods. You need to repent and come to Jesus. If you don't, you will never, ever, succeed.

[Panthera Tigris Altaica]

One of your many failings is your inability to write proper English sentences in coherent paragraphs.

[Panthera Tigris Altaica]

I believe that he is capable of embracing any falsehood in pursuit of his grand crusade. He does not seem to understand that others see his falsehoods for what they are, and that he therefore will not succeed.

[Bob Casanova]

On Sat, 23 Dec 2017 16:50:36 -0800 (PST), the following

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

>On Saturday, December 23, 2017 at 4:05:03 PM UTC-8, jillery wrote:
>> On Sat, 23 Dec 2017 14:06:53 -0800 (PST), Ray Martinez
>> <r3p...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >On Saturday, December 23, 2017 at 8:35:04 AM UTC-8, Mark Isaak wrote:
>> >> On 12/22/17 10:36 AM, Bob Casanova wrote:
>> >> > On Thu, 21 Dec 2017 18:43:53 -0800 (PST), the following
>> >> > appeared in talk.origins, posted by Ray Martinez
>> >> > <r3p...@gmail.com>:
>> >> > [...]
>> >> > I'm still waiting for your explanation regarding your
>> >> > assertion that...
>> >> >
>> >> > "The label or the identifier represents the thing itself.
>> >> > How do we know? We know this is true because the thing
>> >> > existed first, not the label or identifier."
>> >> >
>> >> > ....and exactly what effect that has on the existence of
>> >> > Sasquatches, fairies and Vogons.
>> >>
>> >> Not to mention identifiers such as "Erie Canal" and "Empire State
>> >> Building", which preceded the thing existing.

>> >A proposal, draft, plan, label, identifier, or noun, in and of themselves, does not constitute existence.

Here's what you wrote previously:

"The label or the identifier represents the thing itself.
How do we know? We know this is true because the thing
existed first, not the label or identifier."

That directly contradicts what you wrote above.

So tell the group, Ray; does the physical object
*necessarily* exist before the noun which designates it (as
you first asserted in the material I've just quoted), or can
the noun exist first, with the physical object either
following later (or not at all, as is the case with
Sasquatches, fairies and Vogons)?

>> Come on, Ray, even you can't believe the Empire State Building and the
>> Erie Canal don't materially exist.

>You've misread what I wrote.

No, she didn't. Neither did I, and I didn't take it out of
context, either.

[Bob Casanova]

On Sun, 24 Dec 2017 10:45:16 -0700, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off>:

[Crickets...]

As usual.

[Ray Martinez]

On Sunday, December 24, 2017 at 9:50:03 AM UTC-8, Bob Casanova wrote:

[snip....]

> >> >>
> >> >> Not to mention identifiers such as "Erie Canal" and "Empire State
> >> >> Building", which preceded the thing existing.
>
> >> >A proposal, draft, plan, label, identifier, or noun, in and of themselves, does not constitute existence.
>
> Here's what you wrote previously:
>
> "The label or the identifier represents the thing itself.
> How do we know? We know this is true because the thing
> existed first, not the label or identifier."
>
> That directly contradicts what you wrote above.

Bob contends the two statements at issue contradict:

Ray's first statement: "A proposal, draft, plan, label, identifier, or noun, in and of themselves, does not constitute existence."

Ray's second statement: "The label or the identifier represents the thing itself. How do we know? We know this is true because the thing existed first, not the label or identifier."

Bob seems to have missed or perhaps does not understand what "in and of themselves" means in the first statement. This phrase indicates that I am only talking about the words themselves, not the corresponding material things.

Moreover, I don't think Bob has grasped the meaning of a noun which consists of a particular kind of word AND its material referent. The foregoing is commonly expressed as follows:

A noun is a person, place, or thing. Re-phrase: A word represents a material object.

Nouns are bipartite: word/noun----thing.

But in Bob's understanding the second part is thought to be another word----the word representing the thing, which creates a redundancy. In fact, the second part represents a material thing; hence:

word/noun (first part)----thing (second part).

word/noun: zebra----picture of the zebra itself right here.

>
> So tell the group, Ray; does the physical object
> *necessarily* exist before the noun which designates it (as

> you first asserted in the material I've just quoted),....

Yes, of course. The thing known as a zebra existed first THEN the label or word zebra came into existence.

The material phenomenon of natural selection existed first THEN Darwin came along and identified the phenomenon as "natural selection."

In each example the material thing existed first followed by the label or name. (Note: some people do not accept the existence of natural selection.)

> ....or can

> the noun exist first, with the physical object either
> following later (or not at all, as is the case with
> Sasquatches, fairies and Vogons)?

Let's assume before the Empire State Building was actually erected that the builders had already decided to name the building "Empire State Building."
If true the corresponding material thing did not exist before the name or label. Thus the label or name merely conveyed an unsupported claim. If financing had fallen through and the object was not built then the claim or label would convey a false claim about reality. But that is not the case. We know the material object was built and was given the name Empire State Building.

When a scientist makes a prediction the words that comprise the prediction convey an unsupported claim until the material reality is positively identified to exist. When this occurs the prediction (= words) has been shown to be true (have correspondence to a material thing). But the material thing existed first, not the words that comprise the prediction, that's the point.

>
> >> Come on, Ray, even you can't believe the Empire State Building and the
> >> Erie Canal don't materially exist.
>
> >You've misread what I wrote.
>
> No, she didn't. Neither did I, and I didn't take it out of
> context, either.
> --
>
> 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

[Bob Casanova]

On Fri, 29 Dec 2017 15:52:12 -0800 (PST), the following

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

>On Sunday, December 24, 2017 at 9:50:03 AM UTC-8, Bob Casanova wrote:
>
>[snip....]
>
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Not to mention identifiers such as "Erie Canal" and "Empire State
>> >> >> Building", which preceded the thing existing.
>>
>> >> >A proposal, draft, plan, label, identifier, or noun, in and of themselves, does not constitute existence.
>>
>> Here's what you wrote previously:
>>
>> "The label or the identifier represents the thing itself.
>> How do we know? We know this is true because the thing
>> existed first, not the label or identifier."
>>
>> That directly contradicts what you wrote above.
>
>Bob contends the two statements at issue contradict:
>
>Ray's first statement: "A proposal, draft, plan, label, identifier, or noun, in and of themselves, does not constitute existence."
>
>Ray's second statement: "The label or the identifier represents the thing itself. How do we know? We know this is true because the thing existed first, not the label or identifier."
>
>Bob seems to have missed or perhaps does not understand what "in and of themselves" means in the first statement. This phrase indicates that I am only talking about the words themselves, not the corresponding material things.

Correct. And in the statement previously, you stated that
the physical thing *must* exist before the word describing
it; that *is* what "...the thing existed first, not the
label or identifier" means. *That* is the contradiction,
that label doesn't "constitute existence" (of the thing
labeled) followed by "the thing existed first".

You really *don't* see the contradiction, do you?

>Moreover, I don't think Bob has grasped the meaning of a noun which consists of a particular kind of word AND its material referent. The foregoing is commonly expressed as follows:
>
>A noun is a person, place, or thing. Re-phrase: A word represents a material object.
>
>Nouns are bipartite: word/noun----thing.
>
>But in Bob's understanding the second part is thought to be another word----the word representing the thing, which creates a redundancy. In fact, the second part represents a material thing; hence:
>
>word/noun (first part)----thing (second part).
>
>word/noun: zebra----picture of the zebra itself right here.

None of that addresses the contradictory nature of your
statements.

>> So tell the group, Ray; does the physical object
>> *necessarily* exist before the noun which designates it (as
>> you first asserted in the material I've just quoted),....
>
>Yes, of course. The thing known as a zebra existed first THEN the label or word zebra came into existence.

So the thing known as evolution also existed, THEN the label
or word "evolution" came into existence?

>The material phenomenon of natural selection existed first THEN Darwin came along and identified the phenomenon as "natural selection."

Who are you, and what have you done with Ray Martinez?

>In each example the material thing existed first followed by the label or name. (Note: some people do not accept the existence of natural selection.)
>
>> ....or can
>> the noun exist first, with the physical object either
>> following later (or not at all, as is the case with
>> Sasquatches, fairies and Vogons)?
>
>Let's assume before the Empire State Building was actually erected that the builders had already decided to name the building "Empire State Building."
>If true the corresponding material thing did not exist before the name or label. Thus the label or name merely conveyed an unsupported claim. If financing had fallen through and the object was not built then the claim or label would convey a false claim about reality. But that is not the case. We know the material object was built and was given the name Empire State Building.

And from your conjecture regarding its financing and
construction, we know that the label existed before the
actual building was even started, making your assertion that
the thing always exists first incorrect.

>When a scientist makes a prediction the words that comprise the prediction convey an unsupported claim until the material reality is positively identified to exist. When this occurs the prediction (= words) has been shown to be true (have correspondence to a material thing). But the material thing existed first, not the words that comprise the prediction, that's the point.

....which again contradicts what you wrote in the previous
paragraph, that the name of the building existed prior to
the existence of the building.

OK, that about does it; you can't even decide what you think
and be consistent about it in a single post.

HAND.

[*Hemidactylus*]

I am thinking of a noun that seeks a material referent for its appropriate
application:

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/dimwit

[Ray Martinez]

Based on your convoluted writing, I don't.

>
> >Moreover, I don't think Bob has grasped the meaning of a noun which consists of a particular kind of word AND its material referent. The foregoing is commonly expressed as follows:
> >
> >A noun is a person, place, or thing. Re-phrase: A word represents a material object.
> >
> >Nouns are bipartite: word/noun----thing.
> >
> >But in Bob's understanding the second part is thought to be another word----the word representing the thing, which creates a redundancy. In fact, the second part represents a material thing; hence:
> >
> >word/noun (first part)----thing (second part).
> >
> >word/noun: zebra----picture of the zebra itself right here.
>
> None of that addresses the contradictory nature of your
> statements.

If true you would have surely explained or pointed these contradictions out, and not asserted them to exist.

>
> >> So tell the group, Ray; does the physical object
> >> *necessarily* exist before the noun which designates it (as
> >> you first asserted in the material I've just quoted),....
> >
> >Yes, of course. The thing known as a zebra existed first THEN the label or word zebra came into existence.
>
> So the thing known as evolution also existed, THEN the label
> or word "evolution" came into existence?

Since the claim is that the alleged evolutionary process has been going on for billions of years, yes, of course.

>
> >The material phenomenon of natural selection existed first THEN Darwin came along and identified the phenomenon as "natural selection."
> >
> Who are you, and what have you done with Ray Martinez?

I didn't say I accept existence of evolution. I chose an example that I knew you would understand.

>
> >In each example the material thing existed first followed by the label or name. (Note: some people do not accept the existence of natural selection.)
> >
> >> ....or can
> >> the noun exist first, with the physical object either
> >> following later (or not at all, as is the case with
> >> Sasquatches, fairies and Vogons)?
> >
> >Let's assume before the Empire State Building was actually erected that the builders had already decided to name the building "Empire State Building."
> >If true the corresponding material thing did not exist before the name or label. Thus the label or name merely conveyed an unsupported claim. If financing had fallen through and the object was not built then the claim or label would convey a false claim about reality. But that is not the case. We know the material object was built and was given the name Empire State Building.
> >
> And from your conjecture regarding its financing and
> construction, we know that the label existed before the
> actual building was even started, making your assertion that
> the thing always exists first incorrect.

Again, when the name or label "Empire State Building" was conceived the material object did not yet exist. When construction was completed only then did the label or name have a material referent.

>
> >When a scientist makes a prediction the words that comprise the prediction convey an unsupported claim until the material reality is positively identified to exist. When this occurs the prediction (= words) has been shown to be true (have correspondence to a material thing). But the material thing existed first, not the words that comprise the prediction, that's the point.
> >
> ....which again contradicts what you wrote in the previous
> paragraph, that the name of the building existed prior to
> the existence of the building.

I'm not disputing that sometimes the name or label exists first. When this occurs I simply point out the fact that the label or name equates to an unsupported claim. The claim becomes true or factual only when the material object comes into existence.

Ray

[Wolffan]

On 2017 Dec 30, Ray Martinez wrote
(in article<780663e6-9f46-4a06...@googlegroups.com>):

Ray, m’man, you’re posting stuff twice. Are you really so stupid that you
manage to fuck up using Google Groups? Come on, Ray, get it together!

[Bob Casanova]

On Sat, 30 Dec 2017 16:34:49 -0800 (PST), the following

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

>I admit that I don't understand what you just wrote because it doesn't, as written, make sense. Please take another stab at it? If not, you can console yourself with my admission.

It makes sense, but let's give it another (simplified) try:

1) You stated that the physical thing described by the noun
*necessarily* exists before the noun which describes it:
"...the thing existed first, not the label or identifier".

2) You later stated that "A proposal, draft, plan, label,

identifier, or noun, in and of themselves, does not

constitute existence", which says that the object does *not*
have to exist in order for the noun describing it to exist,
as in the case of fairies and Vogons (and any other
fictional object or character).

Those two statements are contradictory, and only the second
is correct.

<snip irrelevancies>

[Bill Rogers]

Ray, a label or name is not a claim, supported or unsupported. If I say "unicorn" I am not making a claim that unicorns exist. If I say "border wall" I am not making a claim that a wall across the southern borer of the US will be built.

If I want to make a claim, I need to make it explicitly. "There will be a human base on Mars." That's a claim. The noun phrase "human base on Mars," is not a claim one way or the other.

>If financing had fallen through and the object was not built then the claim or label would convey a false claim about reality. But that is not the case. We know the material object was built and was given the name Empire State Building.
>
> When a scientist makes a prediction the words that comprise the prediction convey an unsupported claim until the material reality is positively identified to exist. When this occurs the prediction (= words) has been shown to be true (have correspondence to a material thing). But the material thing existed first, not the words that comprise the prediction, that's the point.

A prediction is not a noun. "The International Space Station will be built" is a prediction. The noun phrase, "The International Space Station," is not a prediction.

The noun,"Evolution," is not a claim. The sentence, "The Theory of Evolution correctly describes the origin of species," is a claim.

None of this is difficult to understand. And the weird thing is, your whole argument about the material referents of nouns is completely unnecessary for an argument that the theory of evolution is false.

[Ray Martinez]

> Ray, a label or name is not a claim....

In the specific example, at issue, it is, in fact, a claim. Before the Empire State Building was actually built the name existed. I'm assuming the fact, introduced by another, is true. I can easily imagine a name for a project existing before construction begins.

> ....supported or unsupported. If I say "unicorn" I am not making a claim that unicorns exist. If I say "border wall" I am not making a claim that a wall across the southern borer of the US will be built.

>
> If I want to make a claim, I need to make it explicitly. "There will be a human base on Mars." That's a claim. The noun phrase "human base on Mars," is not a claim one way or the other.
>
>
> >If financing had fallen through and the object was not built then the claim or label would convey a false claim about reality. But that is not the case. We know the material object was built and was given the name Empire State Building.
> >
> > When a scientist makes a prediction the words that comprise the prediction convey an unsupported claim until the material reality is positively identified to exist. When this occurs the prediction (= words) has been shown to be true (have correspondence to a material thing). But the material thing existed first, not the words that comprise the prediction, that's the point.
>
> A prediction is not a noun.

I'm going to be nice and say you've completely misread or misunderstood what I wrote. Upon re-reading what I said please quote me where I said "A prediction is a noun." Since you are well known not to admit to any errors I will consider this matter closed.

Ray

[Ray Martinez]

I went on to say that sometimes the name or label exists first as in the case of the Empire State Building. WHEN this occurs the label or name conveys a claim about reality until the material thing comes into existence.

>
> 2) You later stated that "A proposal, draft, plan, label,
> identifier, or noun, in and of themselves, does not
> constitute existence", which says that the object does *not*
> have to exist in order for the noun describing it to exist,
> as in the case of fairies and Vogons (and any other
> fictional object or character).

Everything written after my quote does not convey what I was saying. I was pointing out that the noun, absent a material referent, does not constitute a noun.

Ray

[Burkhard]

And you can't see that the last sentence is a self-contradiction? A noun
that does not constitute a noun?

[Bob Casanova]

On Mon, 1 Jan 2018 17:57:07 -0800 (PST), the following

Yes, in a later post. And which, as I noted, directly
contradicts your claim in the *first* post, that the
"material referent *always* exists prior to the word which
designates it. Stop trying to wiggle out of your error, and
just admit you misspoke.

> WHEN this occurs the label or name conveys a claim about reality until the material thing comes into existence.

Yo were fine until the last sentence, which says that *any*
noun is a "claim about reality", which it is not. If it
were, the noun "vampire" would be a claim that vampires
exist in reality.

>> 2) You later stated that "A proposal, draft, plan, label,
>> identifier, or noun, in and of themselves, does not
>> constitute existence", which says that the object does *not*
>> have to exist in order for the noun describing it to exist,
>> as in the case of fairies and Vogons (and any other
>> fictional object or character).
>
>Everything written after my quote does not convey what I was saying. I was pointing out that the noun, absent a material referent, does not constitute a noun.

"the noun...does not constitute a noun", with or without a
"material referent"? Exactly what is that supposed to mean,
if anything? A noun is always a noun, regardless of the
existence of whatever the noun designates.