A Question for Mr. Pagano
BeckyLynn
(Dr.?) MacRae's article on radioactive dating. I read this with keen
interest and couldn't help but notice that MacRae provided a number of
specifics for Pagano to deal with and Pagano responded with the same sort of
vague assertions and non-answers for which he is rather notorious in this
newsgroup.
My question has to do with the numerous other articles entered into this
newsgroup that were entered in direct response to Pagano's articles,
including mine, which was quite lengthy and took a considerable amount of
time to compose. I am aware of Pagano's frequent excuse-making with respect
to this and his statements that "no one has the time to answer all the posts
directed to them" or that "no one else is expected to answer" them all.
Only the latter statement is true. No one is expected to answer them all.
But Pagano hasn't answered *any* of them.
First, I direct him to mine, posted September 2nd. It may be found at:
http://x26.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=520257767
Within that article were a number of errors I noted and questions I asked,
none of which Pagano seems to have mustered the courage to answer. Some of
the more pressing issues follow:
[Reposted material]
>> Pagano replies:
>>If the creation model is not false then it is irrelevent
>>whether it is arbitrary.
>
>If it is not false, then where is the evidence to even
>hint that it's true?
Well, Pagano? Do you have an answer for this?
---
>>Grossman continues:
>>There is no rational justification for even considering it.
>>
>> Pagano replies:
>>There are over 1 billion christians who believe as a
>>matter of faith that God is the Creator of the world and
>>the life in it based upon the recorded testimony of
>>witnesses.
>
>Bull shit!
You will find that there is considerable variation among these alleged "1
billion" people with respect to just how reliable that "recorded testimony"
can be. We also know that Pagano is trying a smoke screen here. There is
*no* "recorded testimony of witnesses" with respect to the creation event.
Pagano is confusing his own arguments. Scripture does address the Creation,
certainly, but any talk of "witnesses" in Christian theology has always been
with respect to the death and resurrection of Jesus - *not* with the divine
creation of the universe. Pagano's talk of "witnesses" is irrelevant.
Should he muster the courage to respond to this point, I can predict that he
will say something about God, himself, being the witness. Let me just go
ahead and deal with that now. There is no objective evidence of such a
thing because there is no objective evidence for *God*. It is a leap of
faith every bit as nonsensical as "the Bible is inerrant because the Bible
says so."
---
>>This recorded witness testimony is rational
>>justification for proposing a model of life's
>>origin which places this into practice.
To underscore my point - there is *no* "recorded witness testimony" of the
Creation event, consequently there is nothing "rational" about representing
it as reasonable impetus for the proposal of a "model of life's origins."
It is a statement of belief - nothing more. It lacks evidence and requires
blind faith to ignore evidence that refutes it. It is not "objective
truth."
---
>>Also the Anthropic Principle which is an integral part
>>of modern cosmological theory is completely arbitrary
>>and unjustified.
I suspect from my readings that Pagano has no idea what the "anthropic
principle" actually is suppose to be. To keep it simple, this "principle"
states that we tend to view reality in terms of human experience. Pagano
makes an assertion that using this with respect to whatever he thinks
"cosmological theory" is "is completely arbitrary and unjustified." This is
simply another in a long line of Pagano assertions that he certainly has no
intention of supporting intelligently. The obvious question to Pagano, of
course, is to ask how else are we supposed to view the natural universe
aside from our own observational abilities? Can Pagano show us that this is
"completely arbitrary and unjustified?" Can he give us a workable
alternative? I would say "no," and it's likely that Pagano will not even
respond to this point.
---
>>Neither the biblical authors, the Apostles, the Church
>>Fathers, any of the Popes, or any of the Congregations
>>speaking in the name of the Pope has ever made any
>>statement that could be construed as giving permission
>>to anyone to treat those parts of Scripture touching matters
>>of the physical or historical order as incidental and having
>>no connection whatever with faith.
Pagano seems to think we need "permission" from ecclesiastical authorities
in order to *think* and evaluate evidence for ourselves...and perhaps even
separate ourselves from that authority when we find that what they are
telling us is wrong.
---
>>The rules that apply to conjectural scientific theories
>>do not apply to Scripture since Scripture was revealed
>>to be the Word of God who has authority over the truth.
And just how - *objectively* (since this is a Pagano claim) was this
revelation conducted? What evidence do we have for it?
>>Man has no such authority.
Actually, the only "authority" we have is what "Man" has claimed for
himself. Even Biblical literalism and the "objective truth" about God was
determined by Man. Pagano is a prime example. I'm certain from my readings
that Pagano believes what he is saying, just as I believe that he lies a
very great deal about what others are saying and believing. I also agree
that he lies surreptitiously with his posting style - making vague claims
and statements that he probably knows he cannot support. But he does rely
on his own "authority" a very great deal and *he* *has* *decided* what is
"objectively true" and what is not - at least for himself. God did not do
this for him...though he may presume that this occurred. Pagano is the only
authority Pagano has...at least with respect to philosophical or religious
issues. This is true for all of us.
In order to refute that, Pagano must provide evidence for an authority
greater than ourselves. If Pagano could do that, he would have done so long
before now.
---
>> Pagano replies:
>>This is laughable. Big Bang proposes to explain
>>15 billion years of the universe's prehistory from the
>>beginning based upon what evidence?...the
>>background microwave radiation and the red shift....oh
>>pleeeze.
[Snip]
In 1964, Penzias and Wilson discovered a that a peculiar sort of radiation
was falling to the Earth from every direction and in the same intensity at
all points and at every time of the day that it was measured. This radiation
was determined to be the same as low-frequency radio waves and so it was not
dangerous, but it was interesting to say the least. Penzias and Wilson,
being scientists, sought to explain this radiation. 15 years prior to this
discovery, George Gamow had predicted that if the universe began with a "Big
Bang," the "glow" of the explosion should be demonstrated in the form of
"blackbody radiation" that would fall to Earth from all directions in space.
Penzias and Wilson were able to confirm this observation and support the
"Big Bang" hypothesis.
Pagano, you are free to show us just how this *fails* to demonstrate the
"Big Bang" and you are challenged to provide for us an alternative
scientific explanation.
As for "redshifting," well, as I understand it, this is evidence for an
expanding universe. The longest wavelengths of the visible spectrum are on
the red end of the spectrum and so light from objects moving away from the
Earth are said to be "redshifted." This standard is used to evaluate
galaxies as they move away from one another in the universe. This doesn't
mean that these all look "red" to the unaided eye. Other colors are visible
as well, but scientific instrumentation is able to determine the "redshift"
based on the colors of the visible spectrum that are emitted when certain
chemicals are heated. Redshifting exhibits movement of the various elements
of the universe away from each other and, presumably, a point of origin.
Hopefully, as simplistic summaries go, this will do for now. The point here
is that Pagano made no attempt to explain *why* redshifting or background
radiation do not serve to support a "Big Bang" origin of the universe. He
simply (and unjustifiably) dismisses them without offering us any
alternative other than, presumably, "God did it." Pagano would substitute
unevidenced faith in the place of evidence. This is *not* the hallmark of
an intellectual.
---
>>What evidence is there that abiogenesis is even
>>close to the truth?...Miller's experiments...pleeeze.
It's been a while, but if I remember right, the Miller-Urey experiments
showed that organic compounds (including amino acids) can spontaneously
form in an environment that emulates the conditions of the theoretical early
Earth. I am unaware of any evidence that refutes these experiments and, not
surprisingly, Pagano simply dismisses it and doesn't make any attempt to
enlighten us. I also noticed that Pagano has a particular challenge with
respect to abiogenesis in that he has frequently claimed that it was refuted
(using various adverbs, as well, to underscore the point). I have noticed
that Pagano has been asked how this was done and he has failed to answer
except for once, when he vaguely referred to "chirality" (which relates to
the structural characteristic of a molecule and the "polymerization problem"
(polymerization, for those readers that don't know, refers to the bonding of
two or more monomers - molecules that can combine - to form a polymer - a
"large" molecule). I am also unaware as to how these things prevent or
"refute" abiogenesis and Pagano was challenged many times to explain this.
He hasn't done so that I have seen.
---
>>...the fossil record...oh pleeeze.
The fossil record is a compelling story of biological change. I recall a
particularly well-done explanation of one transitional fossil -
_Archaeopteryx_ - some months back. Bear with me while I find it at
Deja.com.
Ah, yes, here it is...the original message:
http://x46.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=470307170
And the reply:
http://x46.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=470667009
In checking, I noticed that Pagano did not reply to any part of Dr. Horn's
response to Kristin's questions, just as I have noticed that Pagano has
never addressed any specifics from the fossil record. I will add that *no*
creationist posting in the newsgroup responded to Dr. Horn's examination of
Hitching as provided in the second reference above - at least, none seemed
to be recorded by Deja.com. It would seem that there is a tendency among
creationists to make a lot of vague claims about fossils but they seem to
have little stomach for detailed analysis of those claims.
---
>> Pagano replies:
>>This is a trivial claim. Every falsified theory in the history
>>of science had corroborations.
Pagano repeats this as if it were a mantra. Theories in science aren't
theories unless there is evidence that supports them. Evolutionary theories
exist because there is evidence to support them. I have heard many times
that there have been theories in science that have been overthrown in light
of new evidence and this makes sense; but many examples used by creationists
were never truly theories. Phlogiston is an example. As far as I know,
there was never any evidence for phlogiston and so it was never more than an
hypothesis. Pagano is invited to provide as many examples of falsified
scientific *theories* as he thinks he can provide.
---
>>And Darwin claimed that his theory was sparked by
>>his reading of Malthus not by the evidence he collected
>>on the Voyage of the Beagle.
Darwin mentions this influence in his autobiography this way:
"In October, 1838, that is, fifteen months after I had begun my systematic
inquiry, I happened to read for amusement Malthus on _Population_, and being
well-prepared to appreciate the struggle for existence which everywhere goes
on from long-continued observation of the habits of animals and plants, it
at once struck me that under these circumstances favourable variations would
tend to be preserved, and unfavorable ones to be destroyed. The result of
this would be the formation of a new species."
Pagano, did you catch that part about "long-continued observation?" Did you
see what was said about "being well-prepared to appreciate the struggle for
existence?"
I will grant that you said Malthus "sparked" Darwin, but you seem to want to
imply that Darwin didn't really have a paradigm figured out after just under
five years on the _Beagle_ and the collection of a massive array of
observation and evidence. I think from his actual writings and letters we
can determine that a paradigm shift was occurring in his mind during this
collection of evidence (Darwin, as I recall, believed in the "fixity of
species" when he boarded the _Beagle_ in December, 1831). Malthus
influenced Darwin, and so did many others. That's how ideas work, Pagano.
Feel free to show us that such an influence detracted from the scientific
validity of natural selection.
---
>> Pagano replies:
>>This is nonsense because the evidence never
>>speaks for itself.
Evidence can certainly "speak for itself" when viewed objectively. It may
even cause a paradigm shift in human thinking as well as specific
individuals. Pagano has been challenged and shown to be wrong on this point
many times, by my reading. He has failed to answer those corrections and
continues to make the same claim. In cases such as this, it is up to the
reader to determine Pagano's motives, but I would echo the curiosity of
others and wonder if anyone is convinced by Pagano's endless repetition of
falsified claims.
>>The evidence is always interpreted in the light
>>of one or many theories. So the evidence is
>>never rejected by anyone only certain theories
>>are rejected.
Evidence caused Darwin (and most of the civilized world with him) to reject
the idea of "fixity of species" and accept evolution by natural selection.
This was because Darwin (and most of the civilized world with him) rejected
their already-believed "theory" of the "fixity of species" and the "God did
it" philosophy. Obviously, the evidence in this particular instance *did*
speak for itself - and it was apparently quite loud.
---
>>...transformism described by neoDarwinism has
>>never been observed; neoDarwinism doesn't
>>predict the transformation from fish-to-reptile, for
>>example, it only vaguely describes it assuming that
>>it possibly did occur...
It does? Where? If there has been a fish-reptile transition claimed (while
ignoring all of the amphibia?), I have never seen it.
[End reposted material - My point is made, I think]
Pagano made several statements according to what I read in Deja.com about
his attempts to convince the lurkers in this newsgroup. The number he has
allegedly convinced has varied from "a few" to one.
This is one lurker who is not convinced. If Pagano won't answer the direct
questions from someone as scientifically deficient as I am, then it's no
wonder those whose scientific knowledge, abilities, and education far exceed
mine are not impressed and tend to look on Pagano articles with disdain. It
seems to be fully justified.
I could, of course, cite several other unanswered questions and articles put
to Pagano, but that's been done in the past by other readers far more astute
than I. I will simply ask Pagano if he truly believes he is convincing
anyone with evasion, obfuscation, dishonesty and hypocrisy.
Why not just answer the questions?
A Pagano
BeckyLynn wrote:
I noticed another lengthy message today from Mr. Pagano in response to
Mr. (Dr.?) MacRae's article on radioactive dating. I read this with
keen interest and couldn't help but notice that MacRae provided a number
of specifics for Pagano to deal with and Pagano responded with the same
sort of vague assertions and non-answers for which he is rather
notorious in this newsgroup.
Pagano replies:
BeckyLynn is entitled to believe anything she likes, but I have found
that unless the general, the underlying assumptions, the underlying
initial conditions, and the philosophy are sound that it doesn't make
much sense to worry too much about the minutia. For example, MacRae
doesn't necessarily find anything wrong with eliminating falsifying
dates by hypothesizing that they all are the result of contamination
while at the same time generally assuming that all the corroborating
samples were preserved in closed systems.
If MacRae's specifics were so compelling then why waste time with your
own "lengthy" response to me? Or better yet why not echo the compelling
details? Generally speaking MacRae does offer a confident case for
secular theories and he does so without childish name calling and the
usual ad hominem nonsense.
******************************************
BeckyLynn wrote:
My question has to do with the numerous other articles entered into this
newsgroup that were entered in direct response to Pagano's articles,
including mine, which was quite lengthy and took a considerable amount
of time to compose. I am aware of Pagano's frequent excuse-making with
respect to this and his statements that "no one has the time to answer
all the posts directed to them" or that "no one else is expected to
answer" them all. Only the latter statement is true. No one is
expected to answer them all. But Pagano hasn't answered *any* of them.
Pagano replies:
The vast majority of my posts are rebuttals to others, I rarely initiate
new discussions myself. I never claimed or implied that I would respond
to anyone and there is no implied commitment to do so. I don't place
myself in a position of offering my pet theories from the top of the
hill and attempt to keep all others from pushing me off by answering
everyone. My time is limited and I also must compete for time on my one
home system. Excuse or not, its a fact of life for me. When I'm
active in the group I make between 20 and 40 posts a month so I'm
obviously providing rebuttal to many opponents. I've only noticed your
name recently and hadn't had a chance to read any of your work.
******************************************
BeckyLynn wrote:
First, I direct him to mine, posted September 2nd. It may be found at:
http://x26.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=520257767 Within that article were a
number of errors I noted and questions I asked, none of which Pagano
seems to have mustered the courage to answer. Some of the more pressing
issues follow:
Pagano replies:
I have only just recently seen you as an author in this forum. Never
read a single thing you've written until now. The assumption that one
doesn't answer your post because one is afraid is almost always a bad
one. Never claimed that I was capable of answering everything, never
claimed that I'm always correct, and never claimed I am infallible. I
have repeatedly admitted since I started haunting this forum in 1996
that I am ignorant of a great many things.
*****************************************
Pagano previously wrote to Grossman:
If the creation model is not false then it is irrelevent whether it is
arbitrary.
BeckyLynn replied to Pagano:
If it is not false, then where is the evidence to even hint that it's
true? Well, Pagano? Do you have an answer for this?
Pagano responds:
I didn't argue that it was true nor have I ever argued that it was
true. I simply responded to Grossman's claim that, "Creationism, based
in the faith-based Bible, is arbitrary, not false." It was Grossman who
asserted that the creation model was "not false," not I.
***************************************
Grossman previously wrote:
There is no rational justification for even considering it.
Pagano replied to Grossman:
There are over 1 billion christians who believe as a matter of faith
that God is the Creator of the world and the life in it based upon the
recorded testimony of witnesses.
BeckyLynn responded:
Bull shit! You will find that there is considerable variation among
these alleged "1 billion" people with respect to just how reliable that
"recorded testimony" can be.
Pagano rebuts:
Foul language never really adds any strength to the argument, it simply
tells the opponent that your passions are getting the better of you.
Grossman didn't make the reliability of the recorded testimony in the
bible an issue, but questioned the rationality of even considering the
creation model. The 1 billion who consider themselves christians are
called to believe without equivocation that God is the Creator of
everything. This was taught by every biblical author, by the Apostles,
by the church fathers, and accepted by the majority consensus of
scientists until the 1800s. The recorded witness testimony in the bible
provided its believers with ample evidence that God directly acted in
this world. This alone is enough to establish that proposing and
considering a model where God directly acted in the process of creation
is rational. Whether it is true or whether the witness testimony is
reliable are different issues.
*************************************
BeckyLynn continues:
We also know that Pagano is trying a smoke screen here. There is *no*
"recorded testimony of witnesses" with respect to the creation event.
Pagano is confusing his own arguments. Scripture does address the
Creation,
certainly, but any talk of "witnesses" in Christian theology has always
been with respect to the death and resurrection of Jesus - *not* with
the divine creation of the universe. Pagano's talk of "witnesses" is
irrelevant.
Pagano replies:
Again Grossman's issue was the rationality of even considering the
creation model. The witness testimony in the bible chronicles, in part,
direct supernatural action in this world. Genesis and the Nicene Creed
teach unequivocally that God is the lone Creator of the material world
and the life in it. Combined it becomes entirely rational to propose
and consider the creation model. Grossman's issue was rationality.
**********************************
BeckyLynn continues:
Should he muster the courage to respond to this point, I can predict
that he will say something about God, himself, being the witness. Let
me just go ahead and deal with that now. There is no objective evidence
of such a thing because there is no objective evidence for *God*. It is
a leap of faith every bit as nonsensical as "the Bible is inerrant
because the Bible says so."
Pagano replies:
BeckyLynn was so busy trying to prove me wrong that she got the issue
wrong. The issue was rationality. In practical contexts, rationality
is the adaptation of means to ends. That BeckyLynn dislikes my "means"
is not an argument against the rationality for even considering the
creation model.
I should remind BeckyLynn that Jesus was both man and God. He was seen,
heard, and touched. Jesus said that those who knew Him also knew the
Father. Witnesses observed Him change water into wine, heal the sick,
raise the dead, walk on water, feed thousands with a few loaves and
fish, raised some from the dead, etc.. You can't get any more empirical
than that.
********************************
Becky continues:
To underscore my point - there is *no* "recorded witness testimony" of
the Creation event, consequently there is nothing "rational" about
representing it as reasonable impetus for the proposal of a "model of
life's origins." It is a statement of belief - nothing more. It lacks
evidence and requires blind faith to ignore evidence that refutes it.
It is not "objective truth."
Pagano replies:
I used witness testimony to establish rationality for considering the
creation model not for establishing its truth.
********************************
Pagano previously wrote:
Also the Anthropic Principle which is an integral part of modern
cosmological theory is completely arbitrary
and unjustified.
BeckyLynn replied:
I suspect from my readings that Pagano has no idea what the "anthropic
principle" actually is suppose to be. To keep it simple, this
"principle" states that we tend to view reality in terms of human
experience. Pagano
makes an assertion that using this with respect to whatever he thinks
"cosmological theory" is "is completely arbitrary and unjustified."
This is simply another in a long line of Pagano assertions that he
certainly has no intention of supporting intelligently. The obvious
question to Pagano, of course, is to ask how else are we supposed to
view the natural universe aside from our own observational abilities?
Can Pagano show us that this is "completely arbitrary and unjustified?"
Can he give us a workable alternative? I would say "no," and it's
likely that Pagano will not even respond to this point.
Pagano responds:
I should have said the Copernican Principle or the Anthropic
Cosmological Principle was arbitrary. The Copernican Principle
arbitrarily asserts that we are not in a privileged place in the
universe. It's not irrational but it is arbitrary. And this arbitrary
assumption has a significant effect on cosmology. This arbitrary
Copernican dogma is often limited by the anthropic principle which in
effect says that our location in the universe is necessarily privileged
to the extent of being compatible with our existence as observers. If
BeckyLynn can find a reference wherein this arbitrary
principle---Copernican Principle---is converted to a testable theory and
in fact tested please advise.
How else can we proceed? By letting other theories compete which
assume that we are in "special" place in the universe and have been from
the beginning.
***************************************
Pagano previously wrote to Grossman:
Neither the biblical authors, the Apostles, the Church Fathers, any of
the Popes, or any of the Congregations speaking in the name of the Pope
has ever made any statement that could be construed as giving permission
to anyone to treat those parts of Scripture touching matters of the
physical or historical order as incidental and having no connection
whatever with faith.
BeckyLynn replied:
Pagano seems to think we need "permission" from ecclesiastical
authorities in order to *think* and evaluate evidence for
ourselves...and perhaps even separate ourselves from that authority when
we find that what they are telling us is wrong.
Pagano responds:
My quote above was not a restriction on scientists in general, but was a
response to a theological claim made by Grossman. Grossman claimed:
"Excepting certain concrete facts, eg, historical people, cities, the
Bible is an expression of faith, ie, claims w/o evidence, not even
invalid evidence."
As a matter of christian theology "neither the biblical authors, the
Apostles, the Church Fathers, any of the Popes, or any of the
Congregations speaking in the name of the Pope has ever made any
statement that could be construed as giving permission to anyone to
treat those parts of Scripture touching matters of the physical or
historical order as incidental and having no connection whatever with
faith." I said this in the context of Grossman's theological claim that
the bible is strictly an "expression of faith."
****************************************
Pagano previously wrote Grossman:
The rules that apply to conjectural scientific theories do not apply to
Scripture since Scripture was revealed
to be the Word of God who has authority over the truth.
BeckyLynn replied:
And just how - *objectively* (since this is a Pagano claim) was this
revelation conducted? What evidence do we have for it?
Pagano responds:
How revelation occurred in each instance is unknown to me. In some
cases it was direct. For example, God revealed Himself and some truths
directly to Moses and Paul. Jesus who was both God and man revealed
some truths directly to his Apostles and to those he taught. The bible
offers recorded witness testimony of this revelation. Recorded
eyewitness testimony stands as evidence. Whether you accept this
testimony or consider it reliable is another issue.
Because these truths are revealed by a supernatural God with authority
over the truth they are (1) independent of personal awareness, (2)
independent of personal opinion, and (3) independent of personal bias.
This is what makes revelation objective rather than subjective.
***********************************
Pagano previously wrote to Grossman:
Man has no such authority.
BeckyLynn replied:
Actually, the only "authority" we have is what "Man" has claimed for
himself. Even Biblical literalism and the "objective truth" about God
was determined by Man.
Pagano responds:
Whatever "authority" particular men/women have claimed has been shown by
the history of science to be short-lived and their theories to be
false. Biblical literalism is a method of interpretation not the truth
itself. The claim that man creates the "truths" about God is not new
and entirely presumptous by someone who believes herself to be in non
special place in a 15 billion year old universe where observer records
only exist back for the last 4000 years and our grasp hasn't extended
beyond the moon.
************************************
BeckyLynn wrote:
Pagano is a prime example. I'm certain from my readings that Pagano
believes what he is saying, just as I believe that he lies...
Pagano replies:
And when I get to the childish claims like this I terminate the
converstaion. Good day.
Regards,
T Pagano
Boikat
>
> BeckyLynn wrote:
> I noticed another lengthy message today from Mr. Pagano in response to
> Mr. (Dr.?) MacRae's article on radioactive dating. I read this with
> keen interest and couldn't help but notice that MacRae provided a number
> of specifics for Pagano to deal with and Pagano responded with the same
> sort of vague assertions and non-answers for which he is rather
> notorious in this newsgroup.
>
> Pagano replies:
> BeckyLynn is entitled to believe anything she likes, but I have found
> that unless the general, the underlying assumptions, the underlying
> initial conditions, and the philosophy are sound that it doesn't make
> much sense to worry too much about the minutia. For example, MacRae
> doesn't necessarily find anything wrong with eliminating falsifying
> dates by hypothesizing that they all are the result of contamination
> while at the same time generally assuming that all the corroborating
> samples were preserved in closed systems.
>
[mega snip]
Okay. Straight question(s) for you Pagano:
What are objections you have with; (1a) The
underlying assumptions of decay rates and (1b)
initial conditions, used in current radiometric
dating techniques and (2) why do you doubt (if you
doubt) their soundness, (3) what, in your opinion,
is unsound about the underlying philosophy that
mainstream science employs in this context, and
(4) what would it take to clearly demonstrate that
the mainstream assumptions and philosophies
involved were valid to your satisfaction?
Please keep your response below 20,000 words. :}
Boikat
ZenIsWhen
>
>
>BeckyLynn wrote:
>I noticed another lengthy message today from Mr. Pagano in response to
>Mr. (Dr.?) MacRae's article on radioactive dating. I read this with
>keen interest and couldn't help but notice that MacRae provided a number
>of specifics for Pagano to deal with and Pagano responded with the same
>sort of vague assertions and non-answers for which he is rather
>notorious in this newsgroup.
>
>
> Pagano replies:
>BeckyLynn is entitled to believe anything she likes, but I have found
>that unless the general, the underlying assumptions, the underlying
>initial conditions, and the philosophy are sound that it doesn't make
>much sense to worry too much about the minutia. For example, MacRae
>doesn't necessarily find anything wrong with eliminating falsifying
>dates by hypothesizing that they all are the result of contamination
>while at the same time generally assuming that all the corroborating
>samples were preserved in closed systems.
>
>If MacRae's specifics were so compelling then why waste time with your
>own "lengthy" response to me? Or better yet why not echo the compelling
>details? Generally speaking MacRae does offer a confident case for
>secular theories and he does so without childish name calling and the
>usual ad hominem nonsense.
IOW ... BeckyLynn recognized pagano as a bullshitter, and he came back with
the same bull shit.
Through pagano's own arrogance and ignorance, he's earned any and all derisive
remarks.
>BeckyLynn wrote:
>My question has to do with the numerous other articles entered into this
>newsgroup that were entered in direct response to Pagano's articles,
>including mine, which was quite lengthy and took a considerable amount
>of time to compose. I am aware of Pagano's frequent excuse-making with
>respect to this and his statements that "no one has the time to answer
>all the posts directed to them" or that "no one else is expected to
>answer" them all. Only the latter statement is true. No one is
>expected to answer them all. But Pagano hasn't answered *any* of them.
>
>
> Pagano replies:
>The vast majority of my posts are rebuttals to others, I rarely initiate
>new discussions myself.
The vast majority of your posts are unsubstantiated crap ( I have yet to see
one that wasn't). The reason you don't respond to rebuttals is because your
insane assertions will not stand up to even the simplest questioning.
More distinctly, you dump your crap and then run like a coward.
I never claimed or implied that I would respond
>to anyone and there is no implied commitment to do so.
Interesting, since a major part of your posts are lies about how scientists
fail to act responsibly. I guess they're not, but you are allowed to get away
with such cowardice.
BTW ... Your statement is a perfect description of an ignorant troll.
Glad you admitted it.
I don't place
>myself in a position of offering my pet theories from the top of the
>hill and attempt to keep all others from pushing me off by answering
>everyone.
Cough ... cough ..... well, you're 1/2 right ... you don't stick around, after
bellowing your pompous garbage, to support your own invented fantasies.
My time is limited and I also must compete for time on my one
>home system. Excuse or not, its a fact of life for me.
What is a fact is that you would rather shovel new crap than answer
responsible rebuttals to the last batch ... or any before that.
When I'm
>active in the group I make between 20 and 40 posts a month so I'm
>obviously providing rebuttal to many opponents. I've only noticed your
>name recently and hadn't had a chance to read any of your work.
But you never answer for the foolishness or stupidity of your own rebuttals.
>BeckyLynn wrote:
>First, I direct him to mine, posted September 2nd. It may be found at:
>http://x26.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=520257767 Within that article were a
>number of errors I noted and questions I asked, none of which Pagano
>seems to have mustered the courage to answer. Some of the more pressing
>issues follow:
>
>
> Pagano replies:
>I have only just recently seen you as an author in this forum. Never
>read a single thing you've written until now. The assumption that one
>doesn't answer your post because one is afraid is almost always a bad
>one.
But after watching you evade or ignore hundreds of posts, cowardice and
ignorance are the only logical conclusions.
Never claimed that I was capable of answering everything, never
>claimed that I'm always correct, and never claimed I am infallible.
I think we've all seen this same old bull shit before.
I
>have repeatedly admitted since I started haunting this forum in 1996
>that I am ignorant of a great many things.
And at the very top of the list is ignorant, irresponsible debate/discussion
behavior; with the understanding that this is a conscious choice.
>Pagano previously wrote to Grossman:
>If the creation model is not false then it is irrelevent whether it is
>arbitrary.
>
>
>BeckyLynn replied to Pagano:
>If it is not false, then where is the evidence to even hint that it's
>true? Well, Pagano? Do you have an answer for this?
>
>
> Pagano responds:
>I didn't argue that it was true nor have I ever argued that it was
>true. I simply responded to Grossman's claim that, "Creationism, based
>in the faith-based Bible, is arbitrary, not false." It was Grossman who
>asserted that the creation model was "not false," not I.
>***************************************
>
>
>
>
>Grossman previously wrote:
>There is no rational justification for even considering it.
>
>
>Pagano replied to Grossman:
>There are over 1 billion christians who believe as a matter of faith
>that God is the Creator of the world and the life in it based upon the
>recorded testimony of witnesses.
You just wiped your butt, and smeared it on the screen .. didn't you.
First of all, just because many specific religious believers believe in
something is, in itself, not justification for taking anything seriously.
Secondly ... name one person who asserts that there are witnesses to biblical
creation.
(Gee .... that last line looks sooooo familiar. I seem to recall others asking
the same question before. As usual, you ignored, and ran away from that
spotlight on your ignorance.)
>
>BeckyLynn responded:
>Bull shit! You will find that there is considerable variation among
>these alleged "1 billion" people with respect to just how reliable that
>"recorded testimony" can be.
>
>
> Pagano rebuts:
>Foul language never really adds any strength to the argument, it simply
>tells the opponent that your passions are getting the better of you.
Why is it that you, so easily, pick out the foul language and insults .. and
completely ignore the point that show your ignorance?
>
>Grossman didn't make the reliability of the recorded testimony in the
>bible an issue, but questioned the rationality of even considering the
>creation model. The 1 billion who consider themselves christians are
>called to believe without equivocation that God is the Creator of
>everything.
Only a small minority assume that to mean literal creation.
Many more accept evolution guided by a god.
This was taught by every biblical author, by the Apostles,
>by the church fathers, and accepted by the majority consensus of
>scientists until the 1800s.
Yes, when the church ruled science and thought stronger than it does today.
Luckily we broke those bonds of ignorance.
The recorded witness testimony in the bible
>provided its believers with ample evidence that God directly acted in
>this world. This alone is enough to establish that proposing and
>considering a model where God directly acted in the process of creation
>is rational. Whether it is true or whether the witness testimony is
>reliable are different issues.
No. It is not.
Most people, and particularly scientists, are very capable of distinguishing
between reality and a fantasy religious belief. Also, there are other
religions whose beliefs are, at least, just as strong as fundamentalists.
Should we scientifically investigate any and all religious fables - no matter
how outrageous?
Creationist fundamentalists have been trying for a long time to get specific
religious beliefs accepted as science. The cannot, because the have no facts
or evidence. Why should science spend the time, effort and money on what
obviously is a fools errand (yes ... that was a shot at the ICR).
>BeckyLynn continues:
>We also know that Pagano is trying a smoke screen here. There is *no*
>"recorded testimony of witnesses" with respect to the creation event.
>Pagano is confusing his own arguments. Scripture does address the
>Creation,
>certainly, but any talk of "witnesses" in Christian theology has always
>been with respect to the death and resurrection of Jesus - *not* with
>the divine creation of the universe. Pagano's talk of "witnesses" is
>irrelevant.
>
>
> Pagano replies:
>Again Grossman's issue was the rationality of even considering the
>creation model. The witness testimony in the bible chronicles, in part,
>direct supernatural action in this world. Genesis and the Nicene Creed
>teach unequivocally that God is the lone Creator of the material world
>and the life in it. Combined it becomes entirely rational to propose
>and consider the creation model. Grossman's issue was rationality.
And her issue was "Witnesses" - which, like all other pointers to your
absurdities, was completely ignored. ... ... oh ... she sort of said that
already.
IOW pagano answers one accusation of using a smokescreen ... by using another
smokescreen.
>BeckyLynn continues:
>Should he muster the courage to respond to this point, I can predict
>that he will say something about God, himself, being the witness. Let
>me just go ahead and deal with that now. There is no objective evidence
>of such a thing because there is no objective evidence for *God*. It is
>a leap of faith every bit as nonsensical as "the Bible is inerrant
>because the Bible says so."
>
>
> Pagano replies:
>BeckyLynn was so busy trying to prove me wrong that she got the issue
>wrong. The issue was rationality. In practical contexts, rationality
>is the adaptation of means to ends. That BeckyLynn dislikes my "means"
>is not an argument against the rationality for even considering the
>creation model.
And, once again, you go off on a smokescreen rather than answer her point.
Read My Lips!
Where the hell did these alleged "witness of creation" come from?
>I should remind BeckyLynn that Jesus was both man and God. He was seen,
>heard, and touched. Jesus said that those who knew Him also knew the
>Father. Witnesses observed Him change water into wine, heal the sick,
>raise the dead, walk on water, feed thousands with a few loaves and
>fish, raised some from the dead, etc.. You can't get any more empirical
>than that.
You can't spread more crap than that.
Religious fables are about as empirical as Saturday morning cartoons.
And it still doesn't answer the points about genesis.
Just another smokescreen.
>Becky continues:
>To underscore my point - there is *no* "recorded witness testimony" of
>the Creation event, consequently there is nothing "rational" about
>representing it as reasonable impetus for the proposal of a "model of
>life's origins." It is a statement of belief - nothing more. It lacks
>evidence and requires blind faith to ignore evidence that refutes it.
>It is not "objective truth."
>
>
> Pagano replies:
>I used witness testimony to establish rationality for considering the
>creation model not for establishing its truth.
What next, then, a scientific search for Santa?
The usual, and tired, smokescreen of equating philosophy with science.
And since the world crawled out from under the thumb of religions, the rule
has come to be that religious fables do not supersede scientific realities.
>Pagano previously wrote Grossman:
>The rules that apply to conjectural scientific theories do not apply to
>Scripture since Scripture was revealed
>to be the Word of God who has authority over the truth.
Did I just see a triple twist thought process?
The rules that apply to science do not apply to scripture.
The rules that apply to scripture do not apply to science.
When, then, should anyone change the rules of one (science - evidence - facts
experimentation etc. ) to study the fantasies of scripture?
>BeckyLynn replied:
>And just how - *objectively* (since this is a Pagano claim) was this
>revelation conducted? What evidence do we have for it?
>
>
> Pagano responds:
>How revelation occurred in each instance is unknown to me. In some
>cases it was direct. For example, God revealed Himself and some truths
>directly to Moses and Paul. Jesus who was both God and man revealed
>some truths directly to his Apostles and to those he taught. The bible
>offers recorded witness testimony of this revelation. Recorded
>eyewitness testimony stands as evidence. Whether you accept this
>testimony or consider it reliable is another issue.
Again!
Who are these witnesses of creation?
That is the point ... not unreliable witness testimony of jesus.
And, back to another old point pagano ignored; the reality is that witness are
the least reliable form of evidence. Particularly when those witnesses are
biased with a self serving agenda.
>
>Because these truths are revealed by a supernatural God with authority
>over the truth they are (1) independent of personal awareness, (2)
>independent of personal opinion, and (3) independent of personal bias.
>This is what makes revelation objective rather than subjective.
They are not objective, since they are still based on personal experience.
There is no difference between a person hallucinating, and seeing pink
elephants, and claims of religious revelations. They only reason some are
accepted is because believers need and want to accept them. People get conned
every day because they believe in what they are told, without question.
>Pagano previously wrote to Grossman:
>Man has no such authority.
>
>BeckyLynn replied:
>Actually, the only "authority" we have is what "Man" has claimed for
>himself. Even Biblical literalism and the "objective truth" about God
>was determined by Man.
>
>
> Pagano responds:
>Whatever "authority" particular men/women have claimed has been shown by
>the history of science to be short-lived and their theories to be
>false.
Science never assumes authority.
Religious believers and fanatics always do ... and, if given that blind
obedience, has always led to harm to humanity.
Biblical literalism is a method of interpretation not the truth
>itself. The claim that man creates the "truths" about God is not new
>and entirely presumptous by someone who believes herself to be in non
>special place in a 15 billion year old universe where observer records
>only exist back for the last 4000 years and our grasp hasn't extended
>beyond the moon.
Assuming a god is presumptuous.
Assuming to know "the truth" about god (more than others) is presumptuous and
arrogant.
The rest of that babble is totally pagano meaningless bellowing.
>BeckyLynn wrote:
>Pagano is a prime example. I'm certain from my readings that Pagano
>believes what he is saying, just as I believe that he lies...
>
>
> Pagano replies:
>And when I get to the childish claims like this I terminate the
>converstaion. Good day.
A person who honestly believes in what they are asserting, will stand and
defend or explain those assertions.
As just shown, pagano runs away like a ball-less coward, because arrogance and
ignorance are his only game.
Andrew Dalton
ZenIsWhen <ZenI...@NOSPAMyahoo.com> wrote in message
news:7r2kqc$983$0...@208.231.48.82...
[snip]
> Through pagano's own arrogance and ignorance, he's earned any and all
derisive
> remarks.
I have a feeling that Pagano is actually a character created by a
pro-evolution prankster. Besides the empty verbosity of his messages, there
seems to be a clue in the name itself.
Looking in my Latin & English Dictionary, I find the following:
"paganus -a -um adj of a village, rustic; ignorant || m villager, peasant;
(pej) yokel."
In modern Spanish or Italian, the Latin -us masculine ending would have
changed to -o.
Adding further irony, it turns out that this Latin word is the origin of the
English "pagan," because rural dwellers in ancient Europe were generally the
last to convert to Christianity.
This has to be an elaborate string of trolls.
Andrew Dalton
BeckyLynn
As we shall see, he did not. He simply avoided the uncomfortable and
obfuscated the obvious.
A Pagano wrote in message <37D4807B...@fast.net>...
>
>BeckyLynn wrote:
>I noticed another lengthy message today from Mr. Pagano
>in response to Mr. (Dr.?) MacRae's article on radioactive
>dating.
[Snip]
> Pagano replies:
>BeckyLynn is entitled to believe anything she likes...
And certainly doesn't need Pagano's permission to do so.
>...but I have found that unless the general, the
>underlying assumptions, the underlying initial conditions,
>and the philosophy are sound that it doesn't make
>much sense to worry too much about the minutia.
The problem is that these things *are* sound, but Pagano's vagueness goes
beyond that to the point where it is clear that he doesn't understand these
underlying concepts and so confuses them - or mispresents what they mean.
>For example, MacRae doesn't necessarily find
>anything wrong with eliminating falsifying dates by
>hypothesizing that they all are the result of contamination
>while at the same time generally assuming that all the
>corroborating samples were preserved in closed systems.
Fortunately, I read Dr. MacRae's commentary - very lengthy and detailed -
and can decide for myself if this is the case in the manner in which Pagano
represents. It is not.
>If MacRae's specifics were so compelling then why
>waste time with your own "lengthy" response to me?
Like Pagano, I am not an expert in this subject. I voiced an opinion
finding Dr. MacRae's explanation excellent, informative and education. I
added that I found Pagano's response obfuscatory, evasive and dishonest.
That's why.
>Or better yet why not echo the compelling
>details?
See above.
>Generally speaking MacRae does offer a confident
>case for secular theories and he does so without
>childish name calling and the usual ad hominem
>nonsense.
The newsgroup history as I have been shown and also found for myself
provides evidence of Pagano hypocrisy when it comes to these kinds of
complaints.
>BeckyLynn wrote:
>My question has to do with the numerous other articles
>entered into this newsgroup that were entered in direct
>response to Pagano's articles, including mine, which
>was quite lengthy and took a considerable amount of
>time to compose. [...] But Pagano hasn't answered
>*any* of them.
>
> Pagano replies:
>The vast majority of my posts are rebuttals to others, I
>rarely initiate new discussions myself.
My point was that responses *to* Pagano are almost never answered. Even
those that receive responses get back little more than evasion and
excuse-making, as we are seeing here.
>I never claimed or implied that I would respond
>to anyone and there is no implied commitment to
>do so.
No one requires this, but a consistent failure to answer when Pagano's
claims are directly challenged and most often refuted shows the cowardly
nature of Pagano's activity in this group.
>I don't place myself in a position of offering my pet
>theories from the top of the hill and attempt to keep
>all others from pushing me off by answering everyone.
I already answered this in the comment to which Pagano is responding, so
he's just rambling now with his knee-jerk, broken-record rhetoric. I never
said Pagano needed to answer *everyone*.
>My time is limited and I also must compete for
>time on my one home system. Excuse or not, its a
>fact of life for me.
The question, then, is why Pagano would waste even that "little" time when
the result is that he is revealed to be ignorant about many of the concepts
on which he presumes to speechify.
>When I'm active in the group I make between 20
>and 40 posts a month so I'm obviously providing
>rebuttal to many opponents.
Wrong. This may even be a lie.
Pagano posts generally in response to conversations or articles in which he
is not involved. He does so by repeating frequently refuted (not just
rebutted) statements that have been made before. Other participants will
then reply *to* Pagano and that is when he most frequently drops the thread
because those followup articles frequently demonstrate the Pagano's failure
to actually deal with the issues he presumes to address. He is then asked
frequent questions that directly deal with those issues and the evidence
that is involved.
The whole point of my challenge to Pagano was to discover *why* this
happens. So far I'm not getting an answer.
>I've only noticed your name recently and hadn't had
>a chance to read any of your work.
I actually don't find this hard to believe. You see, Pagano has been on
record as saying he doesn't read the rebuttals *to* him that are placed in
the newsgroup. Still we can look below at a reference I provided and as we
progress, we will see that Pagano didn't even bother to read *it*.
>BeckyLynn wrote:
>First, I direct him to mine, posted September 2nd.
>It may be found at:
>http://x26.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=520257767 Within
>that article were a number of errors I noted and questions
>I asked, none of which Pagano seems to have mustered
>the courage to answer. Some of the more pressing
>issues follow:
>
> Pagano replies:
>I have only just recently seen you as an author in this
>forum. Never read a single thing you've written until now.
>The assumption that one doesn't answer your post
>because one is afraid is almost always a bad one.
In most cases, I'd agree. In Pagano's case, we have 30 months of this sort
of evasion.
[Snip more excuse-making]
>...I am ignorant of a great many things.
And this is another challenged assertion. Pagano loads considerable
verbiage into the newsgroup on vast array of subjects. Others have
attempted to pin him down and he has occasionally replied as above.
Pagano has claimed that those who point out his ignorance are guilty of _ad
hominem_ argumentation for doing so. Yet here (and on previous occasions)
we see Pagano admit to some unspecified ignorance. In an attempt to clarify
these things, previous authors have asked Pagano to identify the subjects
(pertinent to the discussions here) about which he feels he is ignorant.
Pagano has not replied.
So we can point out specific areas of Pagano's ignorance and that's _ad
hominem_. But Pagano can attempt a little false humility and claims
unspecific ignorance and that's okay. Interesting.
>Pagano previously wrote to Grossman:
>If the creation model is not false then it is irrelevent
>whether it is arbitrary.
>
>BeckyLynn replied to Pagano:
>If it is not false, then where is the evidence to even hint
>that it's true? Well, Pagano? Do you have an answer
>for this?
This will not be the only time we will see that Pagano cannot keep his
attributes straight - largely because of his own unconventional quoting
style. I did not write "If it is not false..." The question was posed to
Pagano and I was piggybacking. He did not answer that question and I
followed up with "Do you have an answer...?"
And Pagano backpedals:
> Pagano responds:
>I didn't argue that it was true nor have I ever argued
>that it was true.
This is a lie. Previous conversations have shown that Pagano views much of
the "Christian faith" as he sees it as "objectively true." He has been
challenged on that vague claim as well as specifics. Creationism holds that
God created the universe. Pagano has referred to this as "objective truth."
>I simply responded to Grossman's claim that, "Creationism,
>based in the faith-based Bible, is arbitrary, not false." It
>was Grossman who asserted that the creation model was
>"not false," not I.
Pagano is avoiding the fact that he is being challenged based on *his*
claims, not Grossman's.
>Grossman previously wrote:
>There is no rational justification for even considering it.
>
>Pagano replied to Grossman:
>There are over 1 billion christians who believe as a
>matter of faith that God is the Creator of the world and
>the life in it based upon the recorded testimony of
>witnesses.
>
>BeckyLynn responded:
>Bull shit! You will find that there is considerable variation
>among these alleged "1 billion" people with respect to just
>how reliable that "recorded testimony" can be.
>
> Pagano rebuts:
>Foul language never really adds any strength to the argument,
>it simply tells the opponent that your passions are getting the
>better of you.
Pagano once again shows that he doesn't read with particular care nor did he
ever check the original citation as I provided above. As I was piggybacking
on the reply of another, the phrase, "bull shit" was not written by me. My
comments begin with "you will find..." Pagano once again attempts to dodge
by either messing up the attributes or falsely and intentionally attributing
to me a statement I did not make. Pagano has a record of this in the
newsgroup, so I am not surprised he quickly tried it with me.
>Grossman didn't make the reliability of the recorded
>testimony in the bible an issue...
No...*Pagano* did...by responding that the Bible contains the record of
"witnesses."
Pagano then indulges in repetition of points I have already considered and
challenged:
[Snip]
>The recorded witness testimony in the bible provided
>its believers with ample evidence that God directly acted
>in this world. This alone is enough to establish that proposing
>and considering a model where God directly acted in the
>process of creation is rational. Whether it is true or whether
>the witness testimony is reliable are different issues.
So Pagano seems to feel that the reliability of the "testimony" with respect
to what he is saying here (since he's not really answering my challenge
along these lines at all - see the original message using the URL provided
above) has no basis on whether or not the proposed creation model is
rational. Fascinating.
>BeckyLynn continues:
>We also know that Pagano is trying a smoke screen
>here. There is *no* "recorded testimony of witnesses"
>with respect to the creation event. Pagano is confusing
>his own arguments. Scripture does address the Creation,
>certainly, but any talk of "witnesses" in Christian theology
>has always been with respect to the death and resurrection
>of Jesus - *not* with the divine creation of the universe.
>Pagano's talk of "witnesses" is irrelevant.
>
> Pagano replies:
>Again Grossman's issue...
I was not challenging Grossman's issue. I was challenging Pagano's replies
to Grossman. Pagano continues to dodge. My point stands and his comments
about eyewitnesses are irrelevant.
>BeckyLynn continues:
>Should he muster the courage to respond to this point,
>I can predict that he will say something about God, himself,
>being the witness. Let me just go ahead and deal with
>that now. There is no objective evidence of such a thing
>because there is no objective evidence for *God*. It is
>a leap of faith every bit as nonsensical as "the Bible is
>inerrant because the Bible says so."
>
> Pagano replies:
>BeckyLynn was so busy trying to prove me wrong
>that she got the issue wrong.
I'm certainly willing to entertain that possibility, but Pagano is doing a
very poor job of showing that I have missed any point. What Pagano
continues to miss is that it's *his* comments and claims that are being
challenged - not Grossman's.
>The issue was rationality. In practical contexts, rationality
>is the adaptation of means to ends. That BeckyLynn
>dislikes my "means" is not an argument against the rationality
>for even considering the creation model.
In other words, Pagano "answers" my points by waving them off.
>I should remind BeckyLynn that Jesus was both man
>and God.
Jesus - if he existed at all - was a man. Pagano has no empirical evidence
for anything else. Of that much we can be certain. That's *truly*
rational.
>He was seen, heard, and touched.
And we can empirically verify this through...?
>Jesus said that those who knew Him also knew the
>Father.
I'm sure David Koresh and a host of others before and since felt the same
way.
>Witnesses observed Him change water into wine,
>heal the sick, raise the dead, walk on water, feed
>thousands with a few loaves and fish, raised some
>from the dead, etc.. You can't get any more empirical
>than that.
Apparently, Pagano has no understanding of what constitutes empirical
evidence and once again waves me off. It won't work. There is no empirical
evidence that Jesus did any of these things and the evidence that he even
existed at all as anything close to the personage represented in the Gospels
is far from compelling. Pagano is left to believe these things based
entirely on his desire to believe them. He can't support them empirically.
>Becky continues:
>To underscore my point - there is *no* "recorded
>witness testimony" of the Creation event, consequently
>there is nothing "rational" about representing it as
>reasonable impetus for the proposal of a "model of
>life's origins." It is a statement of belief - nothing more.
>It lacks evidence and requires blind faith to ignore
>evidence that refutes it. It is not "objective truth."
>
> Pagano replies:
>I used witness testimony to establish rationality for
>considering the creation model not for establishing
>its truth.
As was seen, Pagano referred to witness testimony as a valid means of
determining reliability for the "creation model" and was caught in error.
What we see now is backpedaling.
>Pagano previously wrote:
>Also the Anthropic Principle which is an integral part of
>modern cosmological theory is completely arbitrary
>and unjustified.
>
>BeckyLynn replied:
>I suspect from my readings that Pagano has no idea what
>the "anthropic principle" actually is suppose to be. To keep
>it simple, this "principle" states that we tend to view reality
>in terms of human experience. Pagano makes an assertion
>that using this with respect to whatever he thinks "cosmo-
>logical theory" is "is completely arbitrary and unjustified."
>This is simply another in a long line of Pagano assertions
>that he certainly has no intention of supporting intelligently.
>The obvious question to Pagano, of course, is to ask how
>else are we supposed to view the natural universe aside
>from our own observational abilities? Can Pagano show
>us that this is "completely arbitrary and unjustified?" Can
>he give us a workable alternative? I would say "no," and it's
>likely that Pagano will not even respond to this point.
>
> Pagano responds:
>I should have said the Copernican Principle or the Anthropic
>Cosmological Principle was arbitrary. The Copernican
>Principle arbitrarily asserts that we are not in a privileged
>place in the universe. It's not irrational but it is arbitrary.
I'm fairly certain that I challenged Pagano to explain *why* this is so.
Instead, he just repeats himself. In fact, the Copernican Principle really
doesn't deal so much with us having a "privileged place in the universe" and
more deals with the fact that we are simply a part of the natural universe.
That's the "Copernican" part, if you will. The "anthropic" part is what I
have already said - we view ourselves and the natural world within the
limits of our abilities based on human experience.
I've already asked Pagano just how this is so "arbitrary" and he refuses to
answer. I've asked Pagano for an alternative viewpoint that would work and
he refuses to answer.
>And this arbitrary assumption has a significant effect on
>cosmology.
And that makes sense. I'm still waiting for a reasonable alternative
viewpoint that would work better in an empirical or scientific context.
>This arbitrary Copernican dogma is often limited by
>the anthropic principle which in effect says that our
>location in the universe is necessarily privileged
>to the extent of being compatible with our existence as
>observers.
See above for a better view of the "Copernican dogma." Pagano repeats
"arbitrary" as if his repetition makes it necessarily true.
>If BeckyLynn can find a reference wherein this
>arbitrary principle---Copernican Principle---is
>converted to a testable theory and in fact tested
>please advise.
Start by reading Tony Snow's "The Dynamic Universe." But then, Pagano has
been given references before and has refused to check them or read them. As
others have shown, Pagano has declared himself "unteachable."
>How else can we proceed? By letting other theories
>compete which assume that we are in "special" place
>in the universe and have been from the beginning.
We had those "theories" and worked with them for centuries. They were
determined to be false. Pagano would have us return to a time of great
ignorance about the universe and our place in it. Scientifically and
empirically speaking, I would challenge Pagano to provide us with any of
these other "theories" to which he vaguely refers. Which of these are
scientifically tenable and "assume that we are in [a] 'special' place in the
universe and have been from the beginning?"
>Pagano previously wrote to Grossman:
>Neither the biblical authors, the Apostles, the Church
>Fathers, any of the Popes, or any of the Congregations
>speaking in the name of the Pope has ever made any
>statement that could be construed as giving permission
>to anyone to treat those parts of Scripture touching
>matters of the physical or historical order as incidental
>and having no connection whatever with faith.
>
>BeckyLynn replied:
>Pagano seems to think we need "permission" from
>ecclesiastical authorities in order to *think* and evaluate
>evidence for ourselves...and perhaps even separate
>ourselves from that authority when we find that what they
>are telling us is wrong.
>
> Pagano responds:
>My quote above was not a restriction on scientists in
>general, but was a response to a theological claim made
>by Grossman. Grossman claimed: "Excepting certain
>concrete facts, eg, historical people, cities, the Bible is
>an expression of faith, ie, claims w/o evidence, not even
>invalid evidence."
Pagano continues to forget that it's *his* statements that are being
challenged - not Grossman's. Pagano has made frequent claims about what
ecclesiastical authorities allow or must be permitted to interpret for us
and did so again as I quoted above. Pagano did not answer what *I* wrote
challenging *him*. He avoided the point.
[Snip Pagano repeating himself]
>Pagano previously wrote Grossman:
>The rules that apply to conjectural scientific theories
>do not apply to Scripture since Scripture was revealed
>to be the Word of God who has authority over the truth.
>
>BeckyLynn replied:
>And just how - *objectively* (since this is a Pagano claim)
>was this revelation conducted? What evidence do we
>have for it?
>
> Pagano responds:
>How revelation occurred in each instance is unknown to
>me.
I would then ask Pagano how his claims can be determined to be "objective
truth," or "truth, at all?
>In some cases it was direct. For example, God
>revealed Himself and some truths directly to Moses
>and Paul.
And the objective, empirical evidence for this would be...?
>Jesus who was both God and man revealed
>some truths directly to his Apostles and to those
>he taught.
Same question.
>The bible offers recorded witness testimony of this
>revelation. Recorded eyewitness testimony stands
>as evidence. Whether you accept this testimony or
>consider it reliable is another issue.
Pagano seems to miss the point that whether or now we should accept this
"testimony" as evidence is *the* issue. It is, after all, all he has
offered as evidence for his "objective truth."
>Because these truths are revealed by a supernatural
>God with authority over the truth they are (1) independent
>of personal awareness, (2) independent of personal
>opinion, and (3) independent of personal bias. This is
>what makes revelation objective rather than subjective.
Wrong. In fact, I can imagine few more *subjective* claims than what we
have seen above. Since there is no evidence for a "supernatural God with
authority over truth," there is no reason for us to accept Pagano's three
conditions as "objective." The fact is that Pagano has cited these three
reasons in previous articles and they have already been shown to be
irrelevant to objectivity in this case. Since he has said that he usually
doesn't read the rebuttals to him, it may be that he didn't see it. (I
think it's more likely that he did see them and ignored them.) However,
with reference to each one, I will say that *all* are based on a subjective
view of this "supernatural God with authority" and consequently are all
rendered invalid as "objective" or as a means of determining "objective
truth."
>Pagano previously wrote to Grossman:
>Man has no such authority.
>
>BeckyLynn replied:
>Actually, the only "authority" we have is what "Man" has
>claimed for himself. Even Biblical literalism and the
>"objective truth" about God was determined by Man.
Pagano uses this as another opportunity to repeat himself:
> Pagano responds:
>Whatever "authority" particular men/women have claimed
>has been shown by the history of science to be short-lived
>and their theories to be false.
I have already asked Pagano for specific examples. I will not hold my
breath waiting.
>Biblical literalism is a method of interpretation not
>the truth itself.
_Non sequiter_. I never said that it was.
>The claim that man creates the "truths" about God is
>not new and entirely presumptous by someone who
>believes herself to be in non special place in a 15 billion
>year old universe where observer records only exist back
>for the last 4000 years and our grasp hasn't extended
>beyond the moon.
The difference is that I am certain I can do a better job defending this
view in my short time here than Pagano has been able to do in 30 months
apparently representing some vague alternative viewpoint. There are several
possible responses to this bit of Pagano falderal. I'll summarize them
since this is already too long.
First, Pagano has created his own "truth" about God and that, too, is
nothing new. That he views it as "objective truth" shows that he knows very
little to nothing about "objectivity" or "truth."
Second, I am not in a special place in the universe other than I exist on an
apparent rarity - a world that can support life. However, I am in a special
place in that I am a unique individual. This is true for all of us - even
Pagano. In that sense, we are all special.
As to the age of the universe and how far our intellectual grasp can take
us, well, I have already asked Pagano for evidence for anything else and he
has not responded except with this apparent attempt at belittlement. It's
water off a duck's back. I am never belittled by the belittlement of the
ignorant.
>BeckyLynn wrote:
>Pagano is a prime example. I'm certain from my
>readings that Pagano believes what he is saying,
>just as I believe that he lies...
>
> Pagano replies:
>And when I get to the childish claims like this...
Where was the evidence that a previous participant (Karl?) was ever censored
in this newsgroup. What was that if not a lie? There have been frequent
other examples, as have been shown by other participants going back two
years or more. It is not a childish claim, but an observation that has been
shown repeatedly to be true.
Of course, we should not be fooled by this. Pagano was getting whupped...by
a girl, no less! He knows it. He's using this as an excuse.
>I terminate the converstaion. Good day.
If Pagano fears his reputation, he should consider that it's deserved. I
believe he lies. That is what I said. Pagano made no attempt to explain
any of these perceived lies in any attempt to show me (or anyone else) that
they were not lies. Instead, he runs away.
This is more evidence that they *are* lies. Pagano is running true to
form...by running.
I will have more to say later this week.
wf...@ptd.net
>
>
> Pagano replies:
>BeckyLynn is entitled to believe anything she likes, but I have found
>that unless the general, the underlying assumptions, the underlying
>initial conditions, and the philosophy are sound that it doesn't make
>much sense to worry too much about the minutia.
for pagano, science itself is minutia. he thinks the only science is
that which is unpublished. he says this because creationists dont
publish their works in science journals anywhere in the world.
For example, MacRae
>doesn't necessarily find anything wrong with eliminating falsifying
>dates by hypothesizing that they all are the result of contamination
>while at the same time generally assuming that all the corroborating
>samples were preserved in closed systems.
pagano has never worked in a science lab and has never done a
measurement. he's never had to make such a choice.
>
> Pagano replies:
>The vast majority of my posts are rebuttals to others, I rarely initiate
>new discussions myself.
actually they're not. you always start a thread, rarely complete it.
> Pagano rebuts:
>
> Pagano replies:
>Again Grossman's issue was the rationality of even considering the
>creation model. The witness testimony in the bible chronicles, in part,
>direct supernatural action in this world. Genesis and the Nicene Creed
>teach unequivocally that God is the lone Creator of the material world
>and the life in it. Combined it becomes entirely rational to propose
>and consider the creation model. Grossman's issue was rationality.
actually it doesnt because most christians accept evolution as the
pope stated. there is no scientific validity to creationism. since
science didnt exist at the time of christ its up to christianity to
confront its view of science, not the other way around.
>
> Pagano replies:
>I used witness testimony to establish rationality for considering the
>creation model not for establishing its truth.
except that no one who wrote in the bible was present at the creation.
no one who wrote the bible ever saw christ. no one who wrote say him
crucified, nor did they see him resurrected.
its strange witness testimony with no witnesses at all, relying on
pure hearsay.
> Pagano responds:
>I should have said the Copernican Principle or the Anthropic
>Cosmological Principle was arbitrary. The Copernican Principle
>arbitrarily asserts that we are not in a privileged place in the
>universe. It's not irrational but it is arbitrary.
wrong, of course. because it depends for its truth on the statement
that we DO live in a privileged position. those who assert this have
not proven their case. pagano forgets a cardinal rule of logic: its up
to the affirmative to prove its case.
but pagano, despite all his blowhole musings about science and
philosophy, doesnt know the first thing about either.
.. If
>BeckyLynn can find a reference wherein this arbitrary
>principle---Copernican Principle---is converted to a testable theory and
>in fact tested please advise.
pagano, again, the burden of proof is on the affirmative;
where is the proof that we are privileged?
> Pagano responds:
>
>As a matter of christian theology "neither the biblical authors, the
>Apostles, the Church Fathers, any of the Popes, or any of the
>Congregations speaking in the name of the Pope has ever made any
>statement that could be construed as giving permission to anyone to
>treat those parts of Scripture touching matters of the physical or
>historical order as incidental and having no connection whatever with
>faith." I said this in the context of Grossman's theological claim that
>the bible is strictly an "expression of faith."
and in both the catholic catechism, and in chapter 2 of the pope's own
book 'crossing the threshold of hope' there are specific warnings
against trying to use science to prove the existence of god.
pagano doesnt know that either.
>
> Pagano responds:
>How revelation occurred in each instance is unknown to me. In some
>cases it was direct. For example, God revealed Himself and some truths
>directly to Moses and Paul.
how do you know this? no one who wrote this in the bible witnessed
this. there were no eyewitnesses to this event.
Jesus who was both God and man revealed
>some truths directly to his Apostles and to those he taught.
like who? paul? paul never met jesus. neither did mathew or mark or
luke or john. or titus. or james. in fact no one who wrote the bible
ever met jesus.
The bible
>offers recorded witness testimony of this revelation. Recorded
>eyewitness testimony stands as evidence. Whether you accept this
>testimony or consider it reliable is another issue.
you just blew your argument. since no one who wrote the bible ever met
jesus. if arguments are invalid unless substantiated by eyewitnesses,
your own argument is false and the bible is wrong.
>
>Because these truths are revealed by a supernatural God with authority
>over the truth they are (1) independent of personal awareness, (2)
>independent of personal opinion, and (3) independent of personal bias.
>This is what makes revelation objective rather than subjective.
supernatural objectiveness...unprovable provableness. what is
supernatural, by definition, cannot be tested. it is therefore not
objective
oxymoron.
> Pagano responds:
>Whatever "authority" particular men/women have claimed has been shown by
>the history of science to be short-lived and their theories to be
>false. Biblical literalism is a method of interpretation not the truth
>itself. The claim that man creates the "truths" about God is not new
>and entirely presumptous by someone who believes herself to be in non
>special place in a 15 billion year old universe where observer records
>only exist back for the last 4000 years and our grasp hasn't extended
>beyond the moon.
except that pagano himself has stated only eyewitness testimony is
reliable. there were no biblical authors who were eyewitnesses of
jesus. by pagano's own statements the bible is false
we have evidence the universe is 15B yrs old. even creationists admit
the evidence exists, and it was discovered by scientists, not
creationists.
>
>BeckyLynn wrote:
>Pagano is a prime example. I'm certain from my readings that Pagano
>believes what he is saying, just as I believe that he lies...
>
>
> Pagano replies:
>And when I get to the childish claims like this I terminate the
>converstaion. Good day.
>
you are a liar. not a good one. not gifted. rather verbose
but certainly a liar.